[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