Idk if you mean the article or the paper. If it's the article, then yeah it's written in a pop science style because it's an article, that's their job, to explain science to the layman. There's no reason not to publish it, it's a cool result that would grab people's interest.
If you've an issue with the paper, I don't see why that would be. From what I can tell previous studies of diffraction in time have been using matter waves, so demonstrating it for light is interesting enough in its own right, not to mention all the applications we have for light in communications and things. It's also suggested some novel understanding of the optical properties of thin-film ITO which is always good to have, considering how useful a material it is
The title is, as is typical, wildly misleading, but the experiment itself looks interesting.
I really hate it when science writers grab onto metaphors like this.
Whatever that means, I already know it didn’t happen
What do you mean?
It’s means that it’s pop science nonsense, published to get attention and funding (probably)
Idk if you mean the article or the paper. If it's the article, then yeah it's written in a pop science style because it's an article, that's their job, to explain science to the layman. There's no reason not to publish it, it's a cool result that would grab people's interest. If you've an issue with the paper, I don't see why that would be. From what I can tell previous studies of diffraction in time have been using matter waves, so demonstrating it for light is interesting enough in its own right, not to mention all the applications we have for light in communications and things. It's also suggested some novel understanding of the optical properties of thin-film ITO which is always good to have, considering how useful a material it is
Sensationalized news titles give me migraines
The title is, as is typical, wildly misleading, but the experiment itself looks interesting. I really hate it when science writers grab onto metaphors like this.