[lagudragu]

From the New Scientist article:

"This device splits each electron into two, sends them along both paths simultaneously, then brings them together again."

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html

The experiment reveals that, when a single electron fractionalizes into two pulses, the final state cannot be described as a single-particle state, but rather as a collective state composed of several excitations. For this reason, the fractionalization process destroys the original electron particle. Electron destruction can be measured by the decoherence of the electron's wave packet.

[acqq]

Which "source text"?

For all I know, the electron as such can't be split and remain the electron, especially not produce "two" electrons. And especially whatever is produced by splitting the electron we won't be able to recombine it in an electron.

Some journalists and some news sources simply like to distort the science. "It's OK for their target population or their business model."

This article in Nature (Apr 2015) was the source for that phys.org thing:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150421/ncomms7854/full/nco...

What I understand they do is they demonstrate some quantum effect not actually splitting the electron.

And where did you find that phys.org link? And what's your "source text" from which you gave the quote? Daily Mail links to the 2014 New Scientist article I've already linked and doesn't have these sentences?

[lagudragu]

I got the "source text" from the New Scientist article (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329802-300-pigeon-p...), I have corrected this statement.

I did get the phys.org link through a google search on splitting electrons with interferometers.

The experiment that they produced did "split up" the electron, as they stated, into two fractionalized packets carrying half of the original electron charge.

[acqq]

Good, so now it's clear that Daily Mail really just retells the article from July 2014.

Regarding experiment from 2015, they never "split" the electron as such, they just claim to observe some "temporal" "partial" excitations in their setup. Which surely can be something interesting, but there's also a lot of work done before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionalization

"Laughlin proposed a fluid of fractional charges in 1983" etc

"Fractional charges continue to be active topic in condensed matter physics."

It's not that the single particle is actually being split, even if it appears so. That's why there's talk about "quasiparticles" and "fractional charges."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect