Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Experiment and Paradox in Quantum Physics

Published Mar 25, 2004• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract anton zeilinger: Your Holiness, the skepticism that you remarked on is exactly what drives us in science. Only if you are skeptical of what somebody tells you—no matter how famous or important he is—only then can you learn something new. It is the only road to new knowledge
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780195159943.003.0002

Related papers

The Message of the Quantum?

Martin Däumer

We criticize speculations to the effect that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about information. We do this by pointing out how unfounded such speculations in fact are. Our analysis focuses on the dubious claims of this kind recently made by Anton Zeilinger.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604173•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•13 citations

The Bell inequalities: Commentary on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Hong-Yi Su, Jing‐Ling Chen

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to three experiment physicists: Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger, for their contributions to “experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”. In this paper, the history, basics, and applications related with the Bell inequalities are reviewed. The discussion of fundamental issues on quantum mechanics dated back to the year 1927 when the fifth Solvay conference was held, highlighting intense arguments between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. At the time, Einstein expressed, publicly for the first time, his critical attitude towards quantum mechanics. While the arguments did not reach a decisive conclusion, Bohr’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation, had since been well circulated among the community. Einstein’s arguments with Bohr lasted many years after the conference. The arguably most famous one was the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, proposed in a 1935 paper written by the three authors. They stated, by flawless reasoning, that quantum mechanics is ‘incomplete’. Bohr replied immediately. So did Erwin Schrödinger, who, in particular, coined the term ‘entangled’ for the first time to describe the bizarre quantum mechanical property. Nevertheless, the EPR paper received few citations at its publication, until 1990’s when quantum information science started blossoming. From today’s perspective, the paper resembles the ‘sleeping beauty’ who slumbered for decades before fully awakening. It has been widely accepted that it was John S. Bell who eventually resolved the EPR paradox. But many important figures before him should not go unnoticed, including John A. Wheeler, Chien-Shiung Wu, David Bohm, to name a few. In 1964, Bell wrote down a mathematical inequality which satisfies local hidden variable theory but which can be violated in quantum mechanics. The significance is that Bell’s inequality brings the rather philosophic debates on the EPR paradox down to be experimentally testable. Hence, an experiment is here appealing, as is the case in all fields of physics. To the end, John F. Clauser, alongside Stuart J. Freedman, conducted an experiment in 1972 to test a Bell inequality, the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, proposed by him and his collaborators in 1969. The results, however, leaves loopholes open. One of the loopholes was closed in a later experiment led by Alain Aspect in 1982. The Bell-CHSH inequality was later tested under a much stricter condition by Anton Zeilinger’s team. Two most important loopholes were both closed by three teams in 2015 independently. Zeilinger’s team was among them. Almost all experiments to date have confirmed quantum mechanical predictions. Zeilinger’s team also performed the first teleportation of unknown quantum states, the first entanglement swapping, along with other contributions pioneering the quantum information science. In retrospect, the foundational study of quantum theory has been developed over a century. It once drew much of quantum physics founders’ attention, went virtually unnoticed while other physical fields advanced, had for quite a while been considered to have very weak relationship with major physics, and finally revived in recent decades leading to rapid progress in quantum information science and quantum technology. We believe that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year is not only an award and recognition to past achievements, but also heralds a new era of science in future.

Chinese Science Bulletin (Chinese Version)•Oct 26, 2022•2 citations

Liberation and Enlightenment

Seonaigh MacPherson

In 1997, I attended a Mind and Life dialogue between H. H. the Dalai Lama and prominent American and European physicists in Dharamsala, India. Among them was Professor Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna, an expert in quantum mechanics who, the following year, oversaw the fi rst successful quantum teleportation experiment. After describing the sequence of experiments that established quantum mechanics as a fi eld, research in which light was found to be paradoxically both a particle and a wave, Professor Zeilinger asked the Dalai Lama if he had any questions. The Dalai Lama, attentive and absorbed in the narrative explanation, nodded and began an intriguing exchange, which went something like this: “This history and these fi ndings confi rm the Buddhist view that if you analyse any phenomenon in search of its essence, as you scientists have done with light, you will arrive at the realization of its ultimate lack of inherent existence: its emptiness. Yet, I am left wondering how this knowledge, these insights about the nature of light, affected you.”

Routledge eBooks•Apr 29, 2011•80 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics Paradoxical?

Philip R. Wallace

Physics Essays•Dec 1, 1991•1 citation

Against “Paradoxes”: A New Quantum Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics

Claudio Garola

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1999•9 citations

An alternate Resolution of the Famous Grandmother Paradox which might be also validated via a classic experiment

Moshe Segal

The nowadays Science of Physics still embeds unresolved paradoxes, and incompatibilities between various Physics branches. One significant unresolved paradox is the famous Grandmother Paradox, in which someone returns to the past, kills his grandmother and thus, inhibits his birth, which obviously, also inhibits his ability to travel to the past. In addition to paradoxes, as presented just above, the nowadays Science of Physics still also embeds incompatibilities between various Physics branches. One of these branches is the branch denoted as the Classic Physics, which focuses on understanding and explaining what is denoted as the Macroscopic Environment. Another such branch is the branch denoted as the Quantum Physics, which focuses on understanding and explaining what is denoted as the Microscopic Environment. And, as presented above, these two branches of Physics are not fully compatible, and Humans are still struggling, to expand the knowledge that might bridge the gap that still exists between these two branches of Physics. Moreover, even the branch of the Classic Physics itself, still embeds branches which are also not fully compatible, as for example, the Gravity and the Electromagnetism, and more must be done to bridge the gap that exists also between these two branches, which both belong, as stated above, to the branch of the Classic Physics. Additional papers, by the author of this paper, present significant and reasonable arguments, which argue that the nowadays branch of the Classic Physics might be misleading in how it presents the concept of the Space-Time. By presenting an alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, possible bridging between incompatible branches of the nowadays Science of Physics might be achieved, and also, a resolution to the famous Grandmother Paradox, might be presented. The above-mentioned additional papers, also propose experiments, which if implemented successfully, might provide validity, to the proposed alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, which is presented in these additional papers. Thus, since a resolution of the famous Grandmother Paradox might be a significant step forward, and also the above-mentioned possible bridging between incompatible branches of the nowadays Science of Physics might also be a significant step forward, then, an implementation of the above-mentioned experiments, or any other experiments that might provide validity to the alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, presented in the above-mentioned papers, should be an important and a significant endeavor.

•Jun 4, 2026•0 citations
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to three experiment physicists: Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger, for their contributions to “experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”. In this paper, the history, basics, and applications related with the Bell inequalities are reviewed. The discussion of fundamental issues on quantum mechanics dated back to the year 1927 when the fifth Solvay conference was held, highlighting intense arguments between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. At the time, Einstein expressed, publicly for the first time, his critical attitude towards quantum mechanics. While the arguments did not reach a decisive conclusion, Bohr’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation, had since been well circulated among the community. Einstein’s arguments with Bohr lasted many years after the conference. The arguably most famous one was the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, proposed in a 1935 paper written by the three authors. They stated, by flawless reasoning, that quantum mechanics is ‘incomplete’. Bohr replied immediately. So did Erwin Schrödinger, who, in particular, coined the term ‘entangled’ for the first time to describe the bizarre quantum mechanical property. Nevertheless, the EPR paper received few citations at its publication, until 1990’s when quantum information science started blossoming. From today’s perspective, the paper resembles the ‘sleeping beauty’ who slumbered for decades before fully awakening. It has been widely accepted that it was John S. Bell who eventually resolved the EPR paradox. But many important figures before him should not go unnoticed, including John A. Wheeler, Chien-Shiung Wu, David Bohm, to name a few. In 1964, Bell wrote down a mathematical inequality which satisfies local hidden variable theory but which can be violated in quantum mechanics. The significance is that Bell’s inequality brings the rather philosophic debates on the EPR paradox down to be experimentally testable. Hence, an experiment is here appealing, as is the case in all fields of physics. To the end, John F. Clauser, alongside Stuart J. Freedman, conducted an experiment in 1972 to test a Bell inequality, the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, proposed by him and his collaborators in 1969. The results, however, leaves loopholes open. One of the loopholes was closed in a later experiment led by Alain Aspect in 1982. The Bell-CHSH inequality was later tested under a much stricter condition by Anton Zeilinger’s team. Two most important loopholes were both closed by three teams in 2015 independently. Zeilinger’s team was among them. Almost all experiments to date have confirmed quantum mechanical predictions. Zeilinger’s team also performed the first teleportation of unknown quantum states, the first entanglement swapping, along with other contributions pioneering the quantum information science. In retrospect, the foundational study of quantum theory has been developed over a century. It once drew much of quantum physics founders’ attention, went virtually unnoticed while other physical fields advanced, had for quite a while been considered to have very weak relationship with major physics, and finally revived in recent decades leading to rapid progress in quantum information science and quantum technology. We believe that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year is not only an award and recognition to past achievements, but also heralds a new era of science in future.
In 1997, I attended a Mind and Life dialogue between H. H. the Dalai Lama and prominent American and European physicists in Dharamsala, India. Among them was Professor Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna, an expert in quantum mechanics who, the following year, oversaw the fi rst successful quantum teleportation experiment. After describing the sequence of experiments that established quantum mechanics as a fi eld, research in which light was found to be paradoxically both a particle and a wave, Professor Zeilinger asked the Dalai Lama if he had any questions. The Dalai Lama, attentive and absorbed in the narrative explanation, nodded and began an intriguing exchange, which went something like this: “This history and these fi ndings confi rm the Buddhist view that if you analyse any phenomenon in search of its essence, as you scientists have done with light, you will arrive at the realization of its ultimate lack of inherent existence: its emptiness. Yet, I am left wondering how this knowledge, these insights about the nature of light, affected you.”
The nowadays Science of Physics still embeds unresolved paradoxes, and incompatibilities between various Physics branches. One significant unresolved paradox is the famous Grandmother Paradox, in which someone returns to the past, kills his grandmother and thus, inhibits his birth, which obviously, also inhibits his ability to travel to the past. In addition to paradoxes, as presented just above, the nowadays Science of Physics still also embeds incompatibilities between various Physics branches. One of these branches is the branch denoted as the Classic Physics, which focuses on understanding and explaining what is denoted as the Macroscopic Environment. Another such branch is the branch denoted as the Quantum Physics, which focuses on understanding and explaining what is denoted as the Microscopic Environment. And, as presented above, these two branches of Physics are not fully compatible, and Humans are still struggling, to expand the knowledge that might bridge the gap that still exists between these two branches of Physics. Moreover, even the branch of the Classic Physics itself, still embeds branches which are also not fully compatible, as for example, the Gravity and the Electromagnetism, and more must be done to bridge the gap that exists also between these two branches, which both belong, as stated above, to the branch of the Classic Physics. Additional papers, by the author of this paper, present significant and reasonable arguments, which argue that the nowadays branch of the Classic Physics might be misleading in how it presents the concept of the Space-Time. By presenting an alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, possible bridging between incompatible branches of the nowadays Science of Physics might be achieved, and also, a resolution to the famous Grandmother Paradox, might be presented. The above-mentioned additional papers, also propose experiments, which if implemented successfully, might provide validity, to the proposed alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, which is presented in these additional papers. Thus, since a resolution of the famous Grandmother Paradox might be a significant step forward, and also the above-mentioned possible bridging between incompatible branches of the nowadays Science of Physics might also be a significant step forward, then, an implementation of the above-mentioned experiments, or any other experiments that might provide validity to the alternative view of how the Science of Physics should refer to the concept of the Space-Time, presented in the above-mentioned papers, should be an important and a significant endeavor.