Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Many-worlds interpretation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Many-worlds interpretation

Interesting quantum physics theory hinting at the possibility of many possible worlds.

Quantum bird 01:36, 30, July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. Something needs to be done about the dense block of mathematics in section 6. I got lost about a quarter of the way into it.
  2. Section 8 needs an explanation of exactly what is misleading about many-worlds in science fiction, in addition to the why.
  3. Section 9 needs expansion.

  --Carnildo 03:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object I couldn't understand what the intro was saying, so stopped there. Needs to be crafted so that a layman can gain an appreciation of what it being discussed, jguk 07:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to agree with jguk - even through I read about this theory earlier, and I am a fan of hard sf, this is worse then star trek technobabble. It may make sense for somebody familiar with quantum physics, but it needs explanation for laymen like most of us are, I am afraid. The lead is quite short, it can be expanded 3-4 times, hopefully with explanation of most of the terms like 'Copenhagen interpretation', Schrödinger's equation, state function, quantum superposition and such. The article seems comprehensive, but it is not easy to read. I don't suggest dumbing down - keep the math and such - but plese add some explanations that would allow most of this to be understood without the need to get a PhD in quantum physics first :) Section 'Speculative implications of many worlds' should be expanded or merged with sf section above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object Like the others before me, I can't consider this article well-written, primarily for the fact that it isn't well-written for a reader who doesn't understand the vast amount of detail that the article relies on. Perhaps if it had been written with us amateurs in mind. ConnorShlatz 2:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Same as most of the other people above. The article is very vague and tends to go in circles, and even after disscusing the content with one of the main writers in the main talk page, I still have a vague idea of what MWI is about.