![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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)
" 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)