So you are sabotaging wikipedia entries now? That's despicable.
So you are sabotaging wikipedia entries now? That's despicable.
Who are you to make such a claim?It's the correct interpretation.
Who are you to make such a claim?
Answer: you are not in a position to make such a claim. Or, even: no one person is entitled to such a claim.
This behavior by you is despicable.
You're not getting it: this has nothing to do with whether your interpretation of QM is right. This is about you sabotaging the wikipedia entry. In other contexts, this would be illegal. In this case, it is just in ethical/immoral and despicable.Even if you incorrectly believe it is not the correct interpretation it is still a valid interpretation.
You're not getting it: this has nothing to do with whether your interpretation of QM is right. This is about you sabotaging the wikipedia entry. In other contexts, this would be illegal. In this case, it is just in ethical/immoral and despicable.
Right. If you went to a library and started maliciously editing books or went to an art museum and started painting-over the works, or ran out on the field to disrupt a ball game you would be arrested. Wikipedia's lax security and standards make such attacks possible, with little consequence, but ease of commission does not make the attack any less unethical/immoral and despicable.I added the de Brolgie Wave Mechanics/Double Solution interpretation to the "Interpretations of the experiment" section.
Right. If you went to a library and started maliciously editing books or went to an art museum and started painting-over the works, or ran out on the field to disrupt a ball game you would be arrested. Wikipedia's lax security and standards make such attacks possible, with little consequence, but ease of commission does not make the attack any less unethical/immoral and despicable.
Again, holding that opinion is not what is at issue here: this is about vandalism. It is despicable.If a book describing the interpretations of the double slit experiment was missing the de Broglie wave mechanics interpretation then the book would not be complete.
Again, holding that opinion is not what is at issue here: this is about vandalism. It is despicable.
Under "Interpretations of the experiment" I added the de Broglie wave mechanics interpretation.
No you added your interpretation of de Broglie wave mechanics!
If I knew how I would lodge a complaint with Wiki. When many people go to Wiki they are not looking to find what you think. They expect that what they read has some measure of consensus, among those who know the subject.
Seems cav755 was already running into some conflict with the Wikipedia content moderators almost immediately. I added to the talk discussion to make sure everyone there knows what's up with cav's crap, hopefully they'll get rid of him for good. Lame and pathetic, the guy doesn't deserve to ever have his first kiss let alone use the internet.
Are you being honest here? You honestly don't see why what you did is unethical?And I responded with:
"...I'm not sure why it causes people who consider themselves knowledgeable about physics to go nuts."
Are you being honest here? You honestly don't see why what you did is unethical?
Seems cav755 was already running into some conflict with the Wikipedia content moderators almost immediately. I added to the talk discussion to make sure everyone there knows what's up with cav's crap, hopefully they'll get rid of him for good. Lame and pathetic, the guy doesn't deserve to ever have his first kiss let alone use the internet.