>>715328176
>The interference pattern is easily visible with cheap materials and a laser pointer,
And it doesn't explain anything or differentiates it from water since water does the same shit.

>even a strand of hair is enough.
So now we don't even need a "slit".

>You need to get fancier if you want to measure individual particles while avoiding atmospheric interference but the principles are the same.
No you need to find empirical evidence of a fucking particle and know how it works before you go looking at the shadows and calling them "particles".