3 ms·

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.)