Talk:Double-slit experiment/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Double-slit experiment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Please discuss changes

Dparlevliet, I disagree with your latest change. The way you have phrased it is correct only for a monochromatic source. Your previous change, while not incorrect, just deleted some careful phrasing. I recognize that English is not your primary language, but if you need help with grammar, then let's work on it here.

OK? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The first change is correct too, I think, but shorter so more clear. Too much detailed, formal text is confusing for the average reader, for which Wikipedia is intended. What do you miss in the first change?. The second change: the double slit always uses a monochromatic source, also the former text. Edits of my English are always appreciated. DParlevliet (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "the average reader, for which Wikipedia is intended": I don't think that's entirely correct—see WP:TECHNICAL. In a nutshell: "Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." Arguably the average reader is not interested in this subject. See also WP:EXPLAINLEAD, from the same guideline, explaining that in the lead—i.e. before the first section—broad readership can indeed benefit from less technical jargon.

Also note that making back/forth changes to the article before consensus is reached on the talk page might be a bad idea. It's better to discuss possibly problematic changes before making them, specially if someone proposed to "work on it here." - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I just changed it to be more clear for "the widest audience of readers" and did not made any problematic change. My text explains the same as the former (my first change). Please be more specific what could be wrong. DParlevliet (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I was talking in general, reacting to that average reader comment. I'll leave the specifics for Ancheta Wis. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

" So this experiment shows that photons has wave-particle duality." This sentence could be a summary, but does not follow from the preceding text, and the verb is ungrammatical. It would be better to simply strike the sentence as gratuitous commentary. But that's not the end of it. I call the cooperative nature of the wiki the wiki-action, where the sum of the changes produces an amazing result. It helps wiki-action to 'go along with the flow'. Instead, I see semi-combative responses, which slows down the wiki-action, as it elicits defensive behavior all the way around, rather than encouragement.

~~The term 'photon' ...~~ I could go on, but this is a lot of work for one sentence that needs to go. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will look to it. But the second part I don't understand. What is the striped text? Which sentence needs to go? DParlevliet (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The striped text is due to markup. Perhaps you might simply ignore it.

I fixed the omission of 'monochromatic light' already. How about sitting back a bit (i.e., take a rest). There are many editors who might contribute as well. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I had not yet seen you changes. They are fine for me. The wave-particle is also mentioned later on. I just wanted to make clear that not only the double slit, but also the single slit shows the wave properties. The double slit is just another, more visible interference.DParlevliet (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I must reiterate the above request that DParlevliet discuss his changes here before making changes in the article. I just had a look at the latest change, and the syntax is not correct. The level of DParlevliet's English writing has been a constant problem since he began his editing here. Even knowing how Feynman set his explanation up, I can't really follow the English. When I correct it to what should have been written to make proper English out of it, I see that it makes some statements that are only dogmatic in form, and that stand as isolated utterances. The reader has to guess how one get to sentence n+1 from sentence n. There must be some connection, one would expect, but what is it?

Spirit of collegiality issues aside, the way the article stands now it has a block of incomprehensible text to stymie the progress of any reader. That result, regardless of whether DParlevliet has yet been led to understand what his syntax problems are, is not one that serves the interests of Wikipedia or its readership.

A more colleague-friendly way to take up a change you think is needed would be to state on the discussion page first what you think is wrong with the present text and see whether other people can understand and accept your critique.

I think it must also be kept in mind that this spinning arrow "clock" that Feynman used in his presentation to non-physicists is a huge simplification. On top of that, if I remember correctly, he posits a detector in or near one of the slits that could detect a photon but let it pass on through. Unless I've missed something, there is no such detector. The fact is that how a photon is judged to have passed through the double-slit apparatus always involves a human construction, placed on observables, that pretends to tell us about unobservables. Also we need to remember that the whole discussion is a huge simplification of [quantum electrodynamics]. So if we use the Feynman model to discuss the double-slit experiment, we must be careful not to claim too much for it. P0M (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to source your work also, DParlevliet. You have been warned about this on this page before. You replaced a version which had 5 sources with your own completely unsourced version, and then you reverted when I removed it for lack of sources. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." You can be blocked for edit-warring. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, only part of the text is mine. All essential was there before. I only added how Feynman started with the idea of placing detectors at the slits which would remove the interference, with the explanation from his well known lectures. If language is not right, then improve. If something is wrong, then improve or explain here. If there is lack of references, then place "citations needed" where needed. That is wiki-principle, in stead of deleting all.DParlevliet (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted again ([1]) and gave an edit warring warning on your talk page ([2]). - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DParlevliet, besides your English, which is bad enough to make your argument incomprehensible to many readers, your discussion of Feynman's path integral formulation is not really relevant to the issue. The argument you are trying to make is that to create an interference pattern, you need a contribution from both slits; the particle (or wavefunction) needs to be able to reach the screen from both slits. And any detector capable of giving "which path" information will prevent the particle from reaching the screen from that slit. The last statement is not necessarily true. Neither the DParlevliet version nor the old version really addresses the issue of "which path" information. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DParlevliet, it's time to propose your changes on the talk page first, and not in the article. It's more respectful to the other editors. If the formal English that is needed for the article is getting in your way, then please put your version on the talk page or in a draft. But please work it out by yourself, or with others, before posting it to the article page, using the consensus of the community of editors of this article. Coöperation is no small thing. The small things add up to a larger impression that gets in the way of a better article. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits must be discussed first when they are controversial, but what I wrote was just the standard explanation of Feynman's detectors, which was already mentioned in the article. See above, there is no explanation in detail about what is wrong, anyway nothing which according Wiki-rules justify deleting. I have written a lot in Wikipedia and only get small adjustments of language, so that cannot be that bad. DParlevliet (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Note - blocked for a week. Meanwhile DParlevliet reverted again to the faulty version. I guess that this edit can safely be undone. - DVdm (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Single photon experiments

An article on Single photon experiments^[1] gives a critique of a proposed experiment, to revisit whether a linearly polarized photon state must be a superposition of a pair of circularly polarized photons or not. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

^ Chris Lee (July 26, 2014) Ars Technica

New image in lead

I'm not crazy about the image that has been added to the lead, and its caption. Over the years the lead has been crafted to avoid stating that particles go through the slits. But the image clearly shows particles at the slits, which is probably only a minority interpretation. For anyone trying to understand wave–particle duality and the significance of the experiment, I feel that the image adds more confusion than clarification. -Jordgette [talk] 03:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure the editor who added it meant well, but because there is so much confusion about this experiment, it is important to avoid showing a diagram that might give readers the wrong idea. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Still it is a very common image which you can find everywhere on the internet, I think also on university sites. An image below shows electons, which is based on the same. Therefore it is better to explain then to remove. Even if it would be a minority, then it is a large one.DParlevliet (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is common does not change the fact that it is bad. There are lots of other double-slit diagrams on Commons. For example [3] shows only a single electron as both a particle and a wave. Or one that just shows waves [4]. If the diagram shows an interference pattern, it shouldn't show particles between the emitter and screen, to avoid giving readers the erroneous notion that the electron follows a "trajectory". --Chetvorno^TALK 09:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jordgette: I'm the one who added the image. Yes, maybe you are right. Feel free to modify it, or wait until I find a better one myself. I just think that there must be some kind of illustration in the lead. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 15:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to step away from the keyboard

@Kpvats: It's time to stop, please. The encyclopedia has well-known rules, such as the three-revert rule, which you should defer to, or risk being reverted and blocked. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 'rm' is the Unix command for 'remove'. In the early days (2001), every editor on the encyclopedia was Unix-literate, typically knowing HTML, etc., and the customary edit summary messages stem from this history of tech-speak. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kpvats:, Ancheta Wis is right. Your addition doesn't make any sense to me either, and has no sources. See WP:Verfiability:"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS; if material you add is controversial you should discuss it first here on the Talk page, rather than just reverting. The electrons do not distinguish between the screen and any other method of observation. Your unsourced addition looks to me like WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH i.e. your own private opinions. Where are you getting this from? Please read WP:EDIT WARRING. If you don't stop edit warring, I will report you and you could be blocked. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the user's edits on Dark matter, I think they're trying to make a WP:POINT of some sort. I already explained on their talk page that unsourced additions are unsuitable for Wikipedia so it's concerning that they continued to do it on another article. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

As someone who studied the Double-slit experiment as an undergrad who now works with the invisible sort of electromagnetic radiation a daily basis as an Engineer, I'm now very seriously questioning the results of this experiment. It seems the detector equipment was simply operating near its signal-to-noise ratio detection limit, and thus sometimes detecting a "photon" on one side and not the other. In this explanation the wave is present in both slits and not registering with the detection equipment on both sides at the same time due to lack of signal strength. Can someone please provide a reference that would put my mind at ease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einslaten (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At very low intensity, firing one photon at a time, detectors at both slits never both fire. It's always one or the other. Or, take the slits away -- any time you have particles and detectors, only one detector ever fires per particle; that's uncontroversial in quantum mechanics. Does that help? Perhaps you can be more specific about what claim in the article you're questioning. -Jordgette [talk] 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you believe you are able to fire a single photon as sensed by your detectors, then you should be able to setup an experiment such that detectors are setup at varying distances from the source of the single photon. The amplitude of electromagnetic radiation decreases according to the inverse square law, so you should be able to show that more than one "photon" arrives at detectors closer to the signal source, and prove the "photon" theory is false. Einslaten (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The double slit experiment is extremely well studied and the statements in this article are fairly well sourced. Which specific statements in the article do you question, Einslaten? BTW, it helps readers if you sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I question the circular link between the signal source and signal detector, and would like to see a reference to an article that proves a single photon can be emitted by a signal source. Einslaten (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Emission of photons is of course a random process, but basically all you have to do is turn down the intensity of your light source until it is emitting on average one photon a second, or one photon a minute, or whatever rate you want, at which rate only one photon is present in the experimental apparatus at a time. As you mentioned it's not all that easy an experiment because noise due to black body radiation has to be carefully excluded. Here are some sources confirming that the single-photon double slit experiment has been done: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] I'll add them to the article since that section may not be well-enough sourced. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

None of these references address the explanation that the detection is simply a result of momentarily exceeding the signal-to-noise ratio requirement of the receiver. All electromagnetic wave receivers exhibit a signal to noise ratio requirement. Go buy one and look at the specs, but I guess it's asking to much to look at the Engineering details. 73.166.33.223 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it really is. This Talk page is for discussion of the article, not for discussion of the experiment. The article seems to be based on WP:reliable sources which represent the present understanding of the physics profession, traceable to articles in peer-reviewed journals. If you feel we are using bogus sources, or misrepresenting what the sources say, that would be something to discuss here. If you disagree with the sources themselves, that would be something to take up with the authors. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Double-slit experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

David Deutsch

David Deutsch says in his book The Fabric of Reality that the Double-slit experiment is a proof for those who argue that Multiverse is real.

The article says nothing regarding the Many-worlds interpretation. May I inquiry why not?

Kartasto (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please give a page number and a quote to back this up. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Fabric of the reality, whole chapter 2. Here:[10] is more I suppose...

Kartasto (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The one-line writeup for MWI is making it look fringe, and giving Copenhagen first place and starting its writeup with the word "consensus" is making it look favored. 186.204.155.83 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel we should also show what his logic is, TIME FOR RESEARCH! If I don't come back, find me a wife I tell her I love her, then finish my research. Nector deorum et virorum 00:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Broken link fixed

While reading this article, I noticed a broken link. Some earlier edit re-arranged what had been a section into a subsection of a different section. Looking in the MOS, it suggested using the Anchor template to link directly to a subsection. So this was how I fixed the broken link (anchor name in the article was called “Which way” as this was the first part of the subsection name). I have verified the link from the article’s main body now works as expected. As this is the first time I have seen such a problem, is this an acceptable method of fixing it? Is there a better way of achieving the same effect? Prime Lemur (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Info on the detectors used

This article says nothing about the mechanism of action of the detectors used to verify the particles passing through a slit and influencing the resulting condition.

How does that detector work? There is an action reaction that takes place through the process of detection that is obvious but not explained. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Title Formatting

Is file 'File:Double slit experiment.webm' over-riding the title of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyME5 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Variable-slit quantum calculator

Some mathematical problems can be expressed as variant slit shapes and number of slits. Then the interference pattern can be decoded to provide the answer of the calculations.

Issues

it doesn't work for all problems
it's hard to design
not enough slit encoding and interference decoding programs exist

note: The shape and the number of slits varie. Slits aren't the only acceptable shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8476:6000:f1fd:189d:eb5a:3444 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Young

In the references there is a para (#3 currently) casting doubt on Young ever having performed the experiment. Surely this info belongs in the body?(!) What is the source for asserting he did perform it? And who can be credited if Young is not (perhaps only with qualification)?

This is such a fundamental and familiar experiment that I am surprised to see the history dismissed in half a paragraph. Young or Xxx or anon, how was the experiment performed--long before lasers (inappropriately IMO included in the same para)? How was he beam collimated, etc.? If white light was used, was the diffraction pattern coloured? I believe (iirc) I learned about this some years before lasers; and Feynman's comments were also presumably pre-laser, but the whole article is in terms of lasers.

I will put this on my watchlist, and hope to expand it a bit soon, but I'm no historian, so I'd be happy if someone with better knowledge and resources jumped in first. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Experiment solved showing markers for momentum and space

This experiment has been solved showing the effect is due to different locators for momentum and space within time (which is 3 dimensional) leading to focus variations. This is evidence based information found in 2 separate experiments Akira Tonomura/ 1989 and Roger Bach et al Nebraska Lincoln University 2013. I have tried to add this information but someone misunderstands this is Science as it has the evidence and is not theoretical postulation so the information keeps being removed. Be scientific people please and look at the evidence it is on doubleslitsolution.weebly.com . It is CC licensed and not being put through snail paced, monetized, protectionist, copyright peer review. Markers for position and momentum locating hits in 3 dimensional time also solves the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and we have a new simple experiment setup which will show particles acting in 3 dimensional time as never before expected by physicists. Wiki is coming under a lot of criticism for misinformation, vested interests and people not qualified to fully understand information censoring/removing what should be in pages. This is science. If anyone can't understand the paper let someone who does read it and amend the wiki page accordingly. Let's keep the standard and reputation of this fantastic resource wikipedia at the highest level please. Lucy Einstein (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Graham Beards (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTube Video "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica"

My YouTube video, "Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica", offers a unique, new, simple, field theory explanation for many of the surprising results of the double-slit experiments in which individual particles moving toward a plate, unmonitored or monitored when 1 or 2 slits in the plate are unblocked, then collide with, and are recorded as spots on, a screen beyond the plate.

My video describes my own original theorizing in trying to more logically explain the results of these double-slit experiments, so I understand it is not appropriate for me to offer to edit the Wikipedia Double-slit experiment article.

I am hoping that all who read this post will view my video, and if some 1 understands my theorizing and thinks it deserves mention and explanation in the Wikipedia Double-slit experiment article, that they edit the article accordingly. Paul Marostica (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

See our policy on wp:verifiability and wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgrunberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Details

Why are there no details of this experiment, slit widths, slit spacing, distance to recorder or place where the pattern shows, wavelengths being used, etc., and how the pattern differs when these parameters are varied? I think that would give a greater depth of understanding of just what is happening. Thank you. 70.52.148.159 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See the section Double-slit experiment#Classical wave-optics formulation for the relevant formulas. Maybe you can come up with an illustration that puts it in the form you're looking for. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It says "For example, if two slits are separated by 0.5 mm (d), and are illuminated with a 0.6 μm wavelength laser (λ), then at a distance of 1 m (z), the spacing of the fringes will be 1.2 mm. / If the width of the slits b is greater than the wavelength, the Fraunhofer diffraction equation gives the intensity of the diffracted light...". I believe that last condition is wrong; the formula should also work for narrow slits; maybe I'll work on that... Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epzcaw: Yes, this 2011 edit is where it went from being correct to not quite right. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Epzcaw seems to have last edited Sept 2021. I'll work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to know what year the "collapse" of a particle-wave was first observed in the double-slit experiment using an electronic sensor.

The answer to that question should be near the top of the article. A historical timeline would be helpful. ... near the top of the article for quick reference. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:C0EC:2EB3:6C69:E730 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ananthaswamy 2018 Through Two Doors at Once, Ch. 3 covers this in detail. Apparently the first double-slit experiment with single electrons was either the one done by Missiroli, Merli, and Pozzi in 1974 or the one done by Tonomura in 1989, there is some controversy. The first experiment with single photons was done by Alain Aspect in 1986 after Feynman suggested it to him. You could add this to the article.

These were apparently the first experiments which were deliberately designed with a low enough source brightness so only one photon or electron was in the apparatus at a time, with the wavefunction passing through both slits and "collapsing" to a single particle at the detector. However, to physicists, previous double slit experiments with many photons in the detector must have offered evidence of wavefunction collapse, since by then it was known that light was always absorbed as individual photons. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Electron experiment never actually done

The article says that the experiment works with electrons, and a reference is given to Feynman's book to back this up. However, the book makes clear that such an experiment cannot actually be performed, and Feynman is just using a thought experiment to explain the concept. [11] BruceThomson (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Feynman is saying that an experiment with the equipment he is describing can't be done, not that an experiment with electrons can't be done. You are correct that a better source for the actual experiment is needed, or just left out since the lead doesn't need a source for material that has sources in the body of the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposed experiment was completed and published in 2019:

Tavabi, A.H., Boothroyd, C.B., Yücelen, E. et al. The Young-Feynman controlled double-slit electron interference experiment. Sci Rep 9, 10458 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43323-2

Many conceptually similar experiments have been done. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Add AB double slit in text?

A nice addition by Jähmefyysikko of an AB effect double-slit. I would consider including it here in more detail, carefully. I could ask the authors for images if needed as I know them. It is tricky, but it does include some deep QM results for non-contact interference etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I also think a two-paragraph summary would naturally fit into the main text under Variations of the experiment. Having experimental figures (if that's what you had in mind) might be too much for this page. For main AB article they would be great. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation

The "Many-worlds interpretation" section has a single sentence. Ok I deleted the second one, an unsourced claim about many scientists.

This sentence provides no value in my opinion. It does not give enough information to inform.

I don't see anyway that many-worlds can differ from conventional interpretations for double slit. The differences in many-worlds does not show up until after the measurement, so all of the bit about probability distributions and which way analysis is identical.

Does anyone have a copy of the book cited in the sentence to clarify? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the sentence is wrong, Deutsch is not claiming that double-slit is evidence for MWI, but is just using it as a device to introduce his interpretation. Here's the book: [12]. On p.45 he starts discussing parallel worlds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If you remove the section, you are forcing your interpretation onto the article. While I don't believe in the many worlds model, some do. It should be in for completeness and encyclopedic form. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of simple removal, this misleading sentence should be replaced by many worlds description of the experiment. And we can use Deutsch for that. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I made an attempt at this, but as a source, I found Deutsch's book quite vague. A better source would be useful to make justice for this interpretation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ may be useful. Unfortunately it is all squeezing QM into words and philosophy, which is never going to be great. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Something feels wrong with basing what we say on a pop-science book, like we're sifting through debris at the bottom of a cliff. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford work seemed strong to me, both unbiased and quoting numerous sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia article is good, as they typically are, but it doesn't address the double-slit experiment specifically. It covers some speculations about interference experiments on macroscopic bodies, which is probably too esoteric for our purposes here. We ought to explain what an MWI says about electrons and photons before we go haring off to Wigner's Friend. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

In terms of WP:NPOV we need to include these interpretations unless it is unconditional that they are fake science. We state them, then if relevant point out their problems. For instance, for the Pilot wave I added, with citations, the issue that it does not work right when relativity is included. The Stanford article does mention some issues for many worlds; I am stuck waiting for a delayed international flight so I can't do more at the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 the book is fluff. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

David Wallace devotes multiple pages to discussing Deutsch's book in The Emergent Multiverse. Here's what he has to say about the double-slit part: Deutsch (1997) used the two-slit experiment—erroneously, I think—to argue for the existence of parallel worlds; however, in subsequent lectures he has shifted to something more like the Michelson setup I give here, and has noted (in conversation) that his point is better made in that context. And here's pretty much all Wallace has to say about double-slit experiment: [In] the two-slit experiment, there is no parallel-Universe description to offer of the interference process: there is just a quantum system in a very nonclassical state. I can't understand this: is there no measurement problem in the double-slit experiment? Then again, I do lack the background knowledge of the Everettian theory. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe useful, Google search on "many worlds double slit". There is at least one criticism. Use that to explain the rationale, then point out the problem. Inclusiveness. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding background for Everett's theory, Wheeler's two page summary of Everett's thesis paper is silliness free, light on math, and very clear.

Wheeler, John A. "Assessment of Everett's" relative state" formulation of quantum theory." Reviews of modern physics 29.3 (1957): 463. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Everett's PhD thesis (available here) clearly says on pg 115 that his theory is wave-only. So the sentence "In each universe the particle travels through a specific slit, but its motion is affected by the interference with particles in other universes." is completely inconsistent with Everett's theory because it has no particles. Therefore the paragraph we have represents Deutsch's view as presented in a pop-sci book. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to wrangle the subsection a bit so that it is no longer reliant upon a single source. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

[1] Chris Lee (July 26, 2014) Ars Technica

[1]