Talk:Quantum Zeno effect

First sentence grammatically incorrect?

Maybe it's just me who's not able to parse it, but I'm pretty sure it's grammatically or syntactically incorrect. At the very least it's way too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.200.213 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hoax?

I think several of the articles cited may be hoaxes, but this article is so badly written I can't tell what it's supposed to describe. Turing's quote is about a property of statistics, and has nothing to do with observation frequency. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Which of the citing articles do you think are hoaxes? I'll take a closer look at them. Porphyro (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe "Anti-Zeno effect" is even well-defined, it's unclear to me how the overall situation it is described in is different from "nothing quantum happening at all". [1] is the article I think is possibly a hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in the coming week and at least try to clean up the section if not remove it. Porphyro (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Detecting progress through transitions

These people: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-leaps-long-assumed-to-be-instantaneous-take-time-20190605/ based on a paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1287-z ought to have to take the quantum zeno effect into account, but we haven't been shown (without paying) how they do.

222.153.251.42 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"The stronger the coupling is, and the shorter the decoherence time, the faster it will collapse"

I think it should be "slower", not "faster".--Reciprocist (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)