4 ms·

You're perfectly free to believe in ghosts, the flat earth or DMT elves as well. People who know what they're talking about are still going to laugh at you. Do

You're perfectly free to believe in ghosts, the flat earth or DMT elves as well. People who know what they're talking about are still going to laugh at you. Do you think clowns who publish physics papers (and yes, those guys are grade-A quacks for writing that paper with such claims) are immune to the temptations of PR balognia? Do you really think "Ultramicroscopy" is a reputable physics journal? Had someone actually done something as innovative as his claims: it would be in Science, Nature and PRL. But I guess you don't actually know anything about physics and think google substitutes for knowledge and "muh links" substitute for argument.

kgwgk 7y ago
For what it’s worth, one of the clowns who coauthored that Ultramicroscopy paper is credited with the first observation of the build-up of the interference pattern from individual electron detections in 1974 (using an electron biprism, not slits in a plate).
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  I'm sure their motion picture tells us all about it. PR != reality.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    What’s the reality then? Let’s accept for the sake of the argument that it’s a clownish thing to do in the 21st century to report that you’re sending electrons one by one (at intensities low enough so the interaction is necessarily that of independent particles, not that of a beam) towards a metal plate with two slits (which can be opened and closed at will) and detecting the arrival of individual electrons at the other side as independent events. Because that’s a trivial thing to perform and thousands of students were doing it already in the eighties. You say that if it was innovative it would be in the cover of Nature or something. When would you say it was done for the first time then? Was it published in a top-tier journal when it was innovative? If not, why not?
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      I'd say you either don't understand the english language or are a bored grad student with nothing better to do than attempt to defy objective reality on the internet.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Maybe there is a misunderstanding. What I originally said is that “Doing it with actual slits and standalone particles is not so easy”. Are you claiming that it is absolutely trivial to do it with a double slit and single electron detections, and you were doing it in 1989, or not? Probably not, but then I don’t know why did you choose to reply to my comments in the way you did. (I don’t know either what do you imagine that I think that the paper I cited means, or what do you believe that the paper claims that is so innovative that it would belong in a much more reputable journal.)

kgwgk 7y ago

For what it’s worth, one of the clowns who coauthored that Ultramicroscopy paper is credited with the first observation of the build-up of the interference pattern from individual electron detections in 1974 (using an electron biprism, not slits in a plate).

scottlocklin 7y ago
I'm sure their motion picture tells us all about it. PR != reality.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  What’s the reality then? Let’s accept for the sake of the argument that it’s a clownish thing to do in the 21st century to report that you’re sending electrons one by one (at intensities low enough so the interaction is necessarily that of independent particles, not that of a beam) towards a metal plate with two slits (which can be opened and closed at will) and detecting the arrival of individual electrons at the other side as independent events. Because that’s a trivial thing to perform and thousands of students were doing it already in the eighties. You say that if it was innovative it would be in the cover of Nature or something. When would you say it was done for the first time then? Was it published in a top-tier journal when it was innovative? If not, why not?
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    I'd say you either don't understand the english language or are a bored grad student with nothing better to do than attempt to defy objective reality on the internet.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Maybe there is a misunderstanding. What I originally said is that “Doing it with actual slits and standalone particles is not so easy”. Are you claiming that it is absolutely trivial to do it with a double slit and single electron detections, and you were doing it in 1989, or not? Probably not, but then I don’t know why did you choose to reply to my comments in the way you did. (I don’t know either what do you imagine that I think that the paper I cited means, or what do you believe that the paper claims that is so innovative that it would belong in a much more reputable journal.)