{
  "annotation_id": "31a97403-9a85-4364-8ab1-f480f5517901",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:24.529000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:24.529000Z",
  "file_hash": "5504ab2c5ecfda1ef5834c3423bd0c065999fd830e13616f161063013158fbc8",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "In the particle in the box problem, the particle is not in both boxes at the\nsame time as some would have you believe. It is a set definition situation with\nthe two boxes being part of a set that also contains a particle. Set and subset\ndifferences are explored.\n  Atomic electron orbitals can be mimicked by roulette wheel probability; thus\nELECTRONIC ROULETTE. 0 and 00 serve as boundary limits and are on opposite\nsides of the central core - a point that quantum physics ignores. Considering a\nstray marble on the floor as part of the roulette wheel menage is taking\nassumptions a bit too far. Likewise, the attraction between a positive and\nnegative charge at distance does not make the negative charge part of the\npositive charge\u0027s orbital system. This, of course, is contrary to the stance of\ncurrent quantum physics methodology that carries this orbital association a bit\ntoo far.",
    "arxiv_id": "physics/9904031",
    "authors": [
      "Joel M. Williams"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "physics.gen-ph"
    ],
    "title": "A Bit too Far",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9904031"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "74d152dd-fdc1-4757-a3a8-a1d9ccaab2bb",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}