Talk:Young's double-slit experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Serious lack of quality[change source]

Why is the Copenhagen Interpretation being presented with this entry with its own subgheading?

It seems to be thrown in with no discernible connection to the double slit experiment. Please clarify its connection and relevance to the article.

Also, this is the WORST definition of the Copenhagen Interpretation that I've ever laid eyes on:

The Copenhagen interpretation is a consensus among some of the pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics that it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at the atomic scale.

Also, this is supposed to be a SIMPLE ENGLISH article.

Once again, the scientifically-minded, in their zeal to look smart, throw up some crap that's utterly incomprehensible to the lay reader -- especially someone of limited English, etc. This article is supposed to educate those with a limited -- perhaps even *no* -- understanding of quantum mechanics or science in general.

Also, "apparatus" is a singular noun but is presented in the context of a plural noun.

The thing goes on to have all sorts of meaningless scattered quotation marks, weird formatting, a ridiculous bolded sentence, as well as more (to the lay reader) practically nonsensical language.

Also, the Many Worlds Interpretation is currently at least as accepted as Copenhagen, and increasingly more so, for a lot of reasons too complex to go into here.

Furthermore, what do "particles", "waves", "location", "movement from one place to another" and "observation" have to do with **philosophers**?

Jeez, get on your game or stay home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello there, this is an encyclopedia anyone can change. I am not a particle physicist, so I don't know about this particular experiment; I do however invite you to change the things you feel are not right in the article, so that it is improved. If you plan on contributing regularly in this wikipedia, you might also consider creating an account, if you do not have one already. A bad-quality article is no reason to look down on a project; we do have very few editors, and I doubt any of our editors is into particle physics. So if you criticise, please do so constructively. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)