This has to be one of the worst dumbed-down explanations of quantum mechanics I've ever seen and I barely grasp the basics of quantum mechanics.
I think they are saying the experiment can test whether a whole atom can be in a super-positional quantum state (until observed) which would be the equivalent of the double-slit experiment but with a much larger entity composed of multiple particles.
I'm not sure if thinking of particles as discrete packets of excitations of fields in space-time is a valid way to conceptualize QM but I know particles aren't the little round balls we tend to think of. I wish we had a model that more accurately described QM but in simple terms like the traditional view of the atom composed of little balls orbiting.
As to simple terms, I assume you are talking about a conceptual model.
The problem with a conceptual model really is that we have only a few conceptual native schema to work with. I.E. As we grow up and observe the world, we don't seem to need more than about twenty five. (See George Lakoff's work) We deal with the world of macro-effects, so none of them have the desired qualities of having a super-positional state that resolves when we observe it.
If you are talking about a mathematical model, I think they tend to be even more abstract, and definitely not intuitive until you spend a lot of time with them.
I think they are saying the experiment can test whether a whole atom can be in a super-positional quantum state (until observed) which would be the equivalent of the double-slit experiment but with a much larger entity composed of multiple particles.
I'm not sure if thinking of particles as discrete packets of excitations of fields in space-time is a valid way to conceptualize QM but I know particles aren't the little round balls we tend to think of. I wish we had a model that more accurately described QM but in simple terms like the traditional view of the atom composed of little balls orbiting.