Question

1. which statement from the passage best shows that the author did not believe in the \pauli effect\? wolfgang pauli was a brilliant physicist who correctly predicted the discovery of the neutrino particle, although his colleagues initially doubted its existence. however, pauli also held a completely unscientific belief. he believed his presence alone caused objects to break. there are several questionable stories that were used to prove the so - called \pauli effect\. for example, the explosion of a laboratory machine was blamed on pauli, but he wasnt even in the same room, just in the same city. should pauli be responsible for every accident that happens in the city hes in? absurdly, a failed prank was also used as evidence for the pauli effect. paulis colleagues tried to make a chandelier fall, but they were unable to make it happen—so pauli was blamed! wolfgang pauli was a brilliant physicist who correctly predicted the discovery of the neutrino particle. he believed his presence alone caused objects to break. there are several questionable stories that were used to prove the so - called \pauli effect\. for example, the explosion of a laboratory machine was blamed on pauli, but he wasnt even in the same room, just in the same city. should pauli be responsible for every accident that happens in the city hes in? absurdly, a failed prank was also used as evidence for the pauli effect.

Explanation:

The passage mentions that there are questionable stories used to prove the "Pauli effect", like blaming Pauli for accidents. The author seems skeptical as these stories are unscientific. The idea that Pauli's presence alone caused objects to break and that he was blamed for accidents in the city based on such flimsy evidence shows the author's disbelief in the "Pauli effect".

Answer:

He believed his presence alone caused objects to break.