This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Johnjbarton ( talk · contribs) on 16 March 2024. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems like a list of things someone does not understand. The idea that some but not other aspects of QM are "not intuitive" or that QM vs say relativity or electromagnetism is "not intuitive" have no basis in other than personal opinion.
Rather than deleting some on could convert this to an article about the book with the same title. However the book does not seem notable. Only 11 citations on Google Scholar, 3 reviews on Amazon, and a professional review paned it ( https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/00107514.2017.1344313) Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I deleted this sentence but it was [1]reverted by @ Lambiam
All interpretations of QM are, by definition, consistent with QM and thus include all of the "quantum weirdness" claimed by the article. No interpretation has been proposed consistent with macroscopic experience, otherwise we would not have quantum weirdness. The acceptance of interpretations is not relevant to the article. The claim is unsourced. For these reasons I deleted the content a second time and ask for consensus to be agreed before it is re-added. Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Although quite a few physicists seem to sympathize, though often with reservations, with the principles of the many-worlds interpretation, it can certainly not claim to have gained wide acceptance." While this refers to the EWG interpretation, the same statement can be found in general in our article Interpretations of quantum mechanics: "Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best 'represents' reality." I did not write this, and it is sourced. The measurement problem is also obviously not only relevant for the EWG interpretation. A purported explanation cannot be satisfactory if we cannot define what it is it is explaining. -- Lambiam 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Johnjbarton ( talk · contribs) on 16 March 2024. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems like a list of things someone does not understand. The idea that some but not other aspects of QM are "not intuitive" or that QM vs say relativity or electromagnetism is "not intuitive" have no basis in other than personal opinion.
Rather than deleting some on could convert this to an article about the book with the same title. However the book does not seem notable. Only 11 citations on Google Scholar, 3 reviews on Amazon, and a professional review paned it ( https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/00107514.2017.1344313) Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I deleted this sentence but it was [1]reverted by @ Lambiam
All interpretations of QM are, by definition, consistent with QM and thus include all of the "quantum weirdness" claimed by the article. No interpretation has been proposed consistent with macroscopic experience, otherwise we would not have quantum weirdness. The acceptance of interpretations is not relevant to the article. The claim is unsourced. For these reasons I deleted the content a second time and ask for consensus to be agreed before it is re-added. Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Although quite a few physicists seem to sympathize, though often with reservations, with the principles of the many-worlds interpretation, it can certainly not claim to have gained wide acceptance." While this refers to the EWG interpretation, the same statement can be found in general in our article Interpretations of quantum mechanics: "Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best 'represents' reality." I did not write this, and it is sourced. The measurement problem is also obviously not only relevant for the EWG interpretation. A purported explanation cannot be satisfactory if we cannot define what it is it is explaining. -- Lambiam 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)