Any denouncement of the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)
and its variants of Quantum Theory as they relate to the double-slit
experiments must begin with a discussion of the relationship between
ordinary language and mathematical equations. The question of whether
every mathematical equation can be expressed in ordinary language
with equal accuracy is central. Is every mathematical equation a
shorthand description of concepts rooted in language and based on the
evidence of the senses, reason and logic? If an equation is not
so based, then it must reflect some level of imprecise definition
or emotional basis on the part of the author. It might reflect
Plato's noumenonal world viz. the primacy of conciousness.
Aristotle's metaphysical world of one's senses can correctly
identify reality. The observer conundrum needs to be exposed
as nothing more than an example of the primacy of consciousness
(mind creating existence) for the fallacy that it is.
The observer causing a wave collapse is based, solely,
on the problem of macroscopic instrumentation measurement distorting
the states of sub-atomic objects and energy which must be addressed.
Is it possible to more extensively study the "what-is-going-on"
with wave interactions, beyond observation of the results,
without creating a completely different experiment?