You were the first one to mention "entanglement" - don't go beating him up for an assumption you made.

Try saying why it is incorrect.

Again, "Why?"

No, it isn't

Finally, we're almost getting somewhere. WIth that "hint" can you now explain why the experiment is irrelevant.

No, you didn't because you started wittering on about light ("power output of the light source which is merely a means to make the interference pattern more visible under classroom conditions.").

The significance of the experiment is that it works with single particles! Which is completely at odds with your statement about power.

You are simply making a statement, and it is true. However, you are using "proof by repeated assertion". I am asking you to explain how you came to the conclusion (what "facts" or "science" are you using).

Actually, he didn't. You assumed that that is what he was alluding to.

You are the one thinking of the "O-level" experiment. I'm refering to an experiment that opens the door to the whole of quantum mechanics.

Go read the section "The beauty of the double-slit experiment" within the link I posted.

That someone is willing to pay you £25 per hour and that you have a piece of paper (your doctorate) doesn't automatically mean you are a scientist (let alone a good one).