Not to just jump in with a +1. I think the 'starting point' of the double slit experiment in explaining quantum physics to be a bit of a problem for me. It is

Not to just jump in with a +1. I think the 'starting point' of the double slit experiment in explaining quantum physics to be a bit of a problem for me. It is grounded in real-world analogies and it seems more an example only used to break people from trying to ground quantum physics in macro analogies. Since it is grounded that way, I've found the discussion is always around the mechanics of it. Feynman's lecture on it is an example of just the kind of rabbit hole this discussion goes down trying to explain this. "If you put a microscope at the junction, it does...". "If you do .... it does this". I'd start any discussion with, "Ok, the model you were told in HS is wrong. Forget particles, there are no little 'bowling balls' with a skin and an interior. Those were useful for a time, but they are no longer. To be clear, an electron is only something we have found through experiment to have these properties " Then bring up the dual slit. Spin, the exclusion principle, etc. The goal is to not enter into a debate about the 'dual slit' and just give the facts of what we see, then start coming up with explanations. I found this quora answer helpful in modeling the type of answer that I see to always have wanted myself, https://qr.ae/TUfBFN https://qr.ae/TUfBFN