2 ms·
Explain to me how that refutes what I am saying.
by ThomPete 4y ago
Explain to me how that refutes what I am saying.
- kgwgk 4y agoWhat you're saying is irrefutable in the sense that you can define things as you please! I was pointing out that at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences they are not aware that physics doesn't deal with probability and have given the Nobel Prize in Physics this year to some people who write the kind of books and papers that apparently you consider wrong - full of probabilities of transition, detection and whatnot.
- ThomPete 4y agoAgain, give me an example of what we are talking about so we can see what kind of probability we are talking about. And the Nobel price giving credit to something that turns out to be wrong isn't really something novel.
- kgwgk 4y agoI thought that would be one of the QM textbooks that are mostly wrong according to your vision of physics and probability: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-quantum-optics/F45DCE785DC8226D4156EC15CAD5FA9A https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-quantum... Or maybe you could give an example of what textbooks are we talking about...
- ThomPete 4y agoWell given I am a proponent of the Everett interpretation I would say any textbook that talks about quantum wave collapse.