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

Epilogue

Jim Baggott, John L. Heilbron

Published Apr 25, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Our drama lies not only in the clash of ideas, but also in the human passions and social contexts in which the ideas were conceived, debated, refined, accepted, or rejected. Like artists and musicians, the creators of quantum mechanics approached their work with the full range of human emotions. In 2022, Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger were at last recognized by the Nobel institution, ‘for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science’. Their prize came exactly 100 years after those of Einstein and Bohr. Experiment moved the debate to a new level, but it has by no means removed or resolved the fundamental question. There will be no Nobel prize for an answer. That will not shut off discussion. Our drama will continue beyond our telling of it and is unlikely to reach its final scene before science ceases or the world ends.

DOI
10.1093/oso/9780192846105.003.0019

Related papers

Prologue

Jim Baggott, John L. Heilbron

Abstract Our drama deals with the distinctly human compulsion to divide the world into domains of experience, like religion and physics, defined by rules and expectations. Fundamentalists pursue the illusory goal of a final theory of everything belonging to a domain. Their aim is closure – to declare that no plausible alternatives are possible. Neils Bohr sought to close the domain of quantum mechanics within a few years of its discovery. Albert Einstein objected to this hasty surrender of the possibility of alternatives more in keeping with classical intuition. Bohr’s efforts to achieve closure in the face of Einstein’s attempts to prise it open framed one of the most dramatic debates of twentieth-century science, and led to experimental discoveries that deepened the mystery and may yet profoundly impact our lives.

•Apr 25, 2024•0 citations

2022 Nobel Prize in Physics and the End of Mechanistic Materialism. Part 1: Historical Overview

Igor Salom

The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fi elds of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel’s committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text). We fi rst look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox – the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell’s theorem – the theorem that relocated the Einstein-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifi able by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem’s proof). Then we overview the experimental work of 2022 year’s Nobel laureates, which had the fi nal say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe.

Ideas and Ideals•Sep 26, 2024•0 citations

Toward a global quantum network

Jian-Wei Pan

About 90 years ago, Albert Einstein complained about the “spooky action at a distance” of quantum entanglement and questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics [1]. This year, the Nobel Prize is awarded to three pioneers that put Einstein’s curiosity under experimental tests based on Bell’s inequality [2]. The fundamentals of quantum mechanics are not of just theoretical or philosophical interest. Rather, worldwide efforts are harnessing these quantum weirdness to develop emerging technologies.

Europhysics news•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Quantum explores different avenues regarding ensnared photons win the 2022 Nobel Prize in physical science

Daniel R Terry

Trial of quantum abnormality and its potential genuine applications have been perceived with the 2022 Nobel Prize in physical science.\n\nAt a few level we are dependent upon quantum decides that even Albert Einstein battled to find a sense of peace with. Generally, these guidelines work out in the background in semiconductors that make up micro processors, lasers and, surprisingly, in the science of particles and atoms in materials surrounding us. Applications that originate from the current year's Nobel Prize exploit quantum highlights at bigger scopes. They incorporate totally secure correspondences and quantum PCs that may ultimately tackle issues that no possible ordinary PC could finish in the lifetime of the universe.\n\nThe current year's award is divided between three physicists. Alain Perspective and John Clauser affirmed that the guidelines of quantum mechanics, as peculiar and hard to accept as they are, truly rule the world, while Anton Zeilinger enjoys taken benefit of bizarre quantum conduct to foster simple applications that no customary innovation can coordinate. Every laureate will bring back home 33% of the award cash, which aggregates 10 million Swedish kronor, worth generally $915,000 as of October 4.\n\n"Today, we honor three physicists whose spearheading tests showed us that the peculiar universe of trap … isn't simply the miniature universe of iotas, and surely not the virtual universe of sci-fi or magic, yet it's this present reality that we as a whole live in," said Thors Hans Hansson, an individual from the Nobel Board for Physical science, at a question and answer session reporting the honor on October 4 at the Imperial Swedish Foundation of Sciences (SN: 11/5/10).\n\n"It was absolutely extremely energizing to find out about the three laureates," says physicist Jerry Chow of IBM Quantum in Yorktown Levels, N.Y. "Viewpoint, Zeilinger and Clauser — they're all extremely, notable in our quantum local area, and their work is something that is truly been a major piece of many individuals' exploration endeavors over numerous years."\n\nPerspective, of the Université Paris-Saclay and École Polytechnique in France, and Clauser, who presently runs an organization in California, showed that there are no confidential back channels of correspondence that make sense of how two particles can exist as a solitary element, despite the fact that they are far separated (SN: 12/29/14).\n\nThe analyses of Zeilinger, of the College of Vienna, that depend on that quantum conduct incorporate exhibitions of interchanges, totally secure encryption and parts urgent for quantum PCs. He spearheaded another, broadly misconstrued, application — quantum instant transportation. Not at all like the instant transportation of individuals and items in sci-fi, the impact includes the ideal transmission of data about a quantum object starting with one spot then onto the next.\n\n"I was constantly keen on quantum mechanics from the absolute first minutes when I read about it," Zeilinger said through telephone at the news meeting reporting the honor. "I was really struck by a portion of the hypothetical expectations, since they didn't fit the typical instincts which one could have."\n\nThe revelation of quantum conduct that controls the world at little scopes, similar to the movement of an electron around an iota, upset physical science toward the start of the twentieth 100 years. Many driving researchers, most broadly including Einstein, recognized that quantum speculations worked, yet contended that they couldn't be the genuine depiction of the world since they required, best case scenario, ascertaining the probabilities that something would occur (SN: 1/12/22). To Einstein, this really intended that there was some secret data that investigations were too rough to even consider revealing.\n\nOthers trusted that quantum conduct, derogatively called oddness, however hard to comprehend, had no mysterious approaches to sending data. It was generally a question of assessment and discussion until physicist John Ringer proposed a test during the 1960s to demonstrate that there were no secret channels of correspondence among quantum objects (SN: 12/29/14). At the time obviously an examination to play out the test was conceivable.\n\nClauser was quick to foster a down to earth trial to affirm Ringer's test, despite the fact that there remained provisos his investigation couldn't really take a look at that left space for uncertainty. (His advantage in science grew early. In 1959 and 1960, Clauser contended in the Public Science Fair, presently known as the Global Science and Designing Fair (SN: 5/23/59). The fair is controlled by the General public for Science, which distributes Science News.)\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421594\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421608\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421634\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421642\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421652\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421671\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421680\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422291\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422303\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422363\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422370\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422712\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422718\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422735\n\nViewpoint took the thought further to dispose of any opportunity that quantum mechanics had some secret underpinnings of traditional material science (SN: 1/11/86). The investigations of Clauser and Viewpoint included making sets of photons that were ensnared, implying that they were basically a solitary item. As the photons moved every which way, they stayed ensnared. That is, they keep on existing as a solitary, expanded object. Estimating the attributes of one immediately uncovers qualities of the other, regardless of how far separated they might be.\n\nEntrapment is a fragile situation and is hard to keep up with, however the consequences of the trials of Clauser and Viewpoint show that quantum impacts can't be made sense of with any secret factors that would be indications of non-quantum underpinnings.\n\nTo Chow, the meaning of this examination is twofold. "There's actually a component of appearing, from a philosophical point, that quantum mechanics is genuine," he says. "However at that point, from the more down to earth outlook … this equivalent lovely hypothesis of quantum mechanics gives an alternate arrangement of rules by which data is handled." That, thusly, opens up new roads for cutting edge innovations like quantum PCs and correspondences (SN: 12/3/20).\n\nZeilinger's tests exploit entrapment to accomplish accomplishments that wouldn't be imaginable without the impacts that Clauser and Perspective affirmed. He has expanded the investigations from the lab to intercontinental distances, opening up the likelihood that entrapment can be put to commonsense use (SN: 5/31/12). Since collaborating with one of a couple of ensnared particles influences different, they can become key parts in secure correspondences and encryption. An untouchable attempting to tune in on a quantum dispatch would be uncovered on the grounds that they would break the entrapment as they sneaked around.

•Dec 10, 2022•0 citations

Quantum Drama

Jim Baggott, John L. Heilbron

Abstract It was not a question of whether light should be pictured as waves or particles, or atoms as solar systems, but of whether the microworld could be pictured at all. The famous debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr reached beyond quantum physics to the deepest foundations of science. Faced with the ever more perplexing ‘irrationalities’, Bohr, Einstein, and their followers fell into two broadly opposed camps. Bohr’s approach of ‘complementarity’ accommodated the apparent absurdities of the microworld, declared quantum concepts to be purely ‘symbolic’, and insisted that the manifestation of quantum phenomena in experiment be discussed only in the language of classical physics. He asserted that quantum theory was mathematically coherent and complete. Einstein could not accept Bohr’s ‘tranquilizing philosophy’, which dealt in probabilities rather than certainties. He insisted that physicists look more deeply for the causes of entanglement and rejected the spooky actions at a distance that this implies. Their discussion, respectful and profound, reached stasis in the mid-1930s with the apparent victory of Bohr, while attention shifted to nuclear and particle physics. But their arguments continued to reverberate, and later physicists identified testable consequences of the theory. Ingenious experiments have now confirmed its radical strangeness. Vividly capturing the personalities and interactions of a remarkable cast of characters, the prevailing socio-political circumstances, and threaded through with explanations of theory and experiment, this erudite and carefully crafted telling by Jim Baggott and John Heilbron may prove to be the definitive account of the Bohr–Einstein debate and its legacy.

•Apr 25, 2024•36 citations

A propósito del premio nobel de física 2022: ¿comprender la naturaleza es asunto de la razón, de la intuición o de la tecnología?

Román Castañeda

El 4 de octubre, la Real Academia Sueca de Ciencias anunció el otorgamiento del premio Nobel 2022 a Alain Aspect (1947), profesor de la Universidad de París – Saclay y de la Escuela Politécnica de Palaiseau (Francia), John Clauser (1942), de la firma J.F. Clauser and Assoc. (Estados Unidos) y Anton Zeilinger (1945), profesor de la Universidad de Viena (Austria) “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” (Press release of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 4 October 2022). Una distinción que muchos, en la comunidad científica de los físicos, esperaban desde hace algún tiempo, porque el entrelazamiento (Ing. entanglement) es un fenómeno peculiar, difícil de aceptar pero que, más rápido de lo esperado, se ha instalado definitivamente en nuestro paisaje tecnológico.

Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales•Oct 15, 2022•0 citations
Abstract Our drama lies not only in the clash of ideas, but also in the human passions and social contexts in which the ideas were conceived, debated, refined, accepted, or rejected. Like artists and musicians, the creators of quantum mechanics approached their work with the full range of human emotions. In 2022, Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger were at last recognized by the Nobel institution, ‘for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science’. Their prize came exactly 100 years after those of Einstein and Bohr. Experiment moved the debate to a new level, but it has by no means removed or resolved the fundamental question. There will be no Nobel prize for an answer. That will not shut off discussion. Our drama will continue beyond our telling of it and is unlikely to reach its final scene before science ceases or the world ends.
Abstract Our drama deals with the distinctly human compulsion to divide the world into domains of experience, like religion and physics, defined by rules and expectations. Fundamentalists pursue the illusory goal of a final theory of everything belonging to a domain. Their aim is closure – to declare that no plausible alternatives are possible. Neils Bohr sought to close the domain of quantum mechanics within a few years of its discovery. Albert Einstein objected to this hasty surrender of the possibility of alternatives more in keeping with classical intuition. Bohr’s efforts to achieve closure in the face of Einstein’s attempts to prise it open framed one of the most dramatic debates of twentieth-century science, and led to experimental discoveries that deepened the mystery and may yet profoundly impact our lives.
The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fi elds of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel’s committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text). We fi rst look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox – the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell’s theorem – the theorem that relocated the Einstein-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifi able by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem’s proof). Then we overview the experimental work of 2022 year’s Nobel laureates, which had the fi nal say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe.
About 90 years ago, Albert Einstein complained about the “spooky action at a distance” of quantum entanglement and questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics [1]. This year, the Nobel Prize is awarded to three pioneers that put Einstein’s curiosity under experimental tests based on Bell’s inequality [2]. The fundamentals of quantum mechanics are not of just theoretical or philosophical interest. Rather, worldwide efforts are harnessing these quantum weirdness to develop emerging technologies.
Trial of quantum abnormality and its potential genuine applications have been perceived with the 2022 Nobel Prize in physical science.\n\nAt a few level we are dependent upon quantum decides that even Albert Einstein battled to find a sense of peace with. Generally, these guidelines work out in the background in semiconductors that make up micro processors, lasers and, surprisingly, in the science of particles and atoms in materials surrounding us. Applications that originate from the current year's Nobel Prize exploit quantum highlights at bigger scopes. They incorporate totally secure correspondences and quantum PCs that may ultimately tackle issues that no possible ordinary PC could finish in the lifetime of the universe.\n\nThe current year's award is divided between three physicists. Alain Perspective and John Clauser affirmed that the guidelines of quantum mechanics, as peculiar and hard to accept as they are, truly rule the world, while Anton Zeilinger enjoys taken benefit of bizarre quantum conduct to foster simple applications that no customary innovation can coordinate. Every laureate will bring back home 33% of the award cash, which aggregates 10 million Swedish kronor, worth generally $915,000 as of October 4.\n\n"Today, we honor three physicists whose spearheading tests showed us that the peculiar universe of trap … isn't simply the miniature universe of iotas, and surely not the virtual universe of sci-fi or magic, yet it's this present reality that we as a whole live in," said Thors Hans Hansson, an individual from the Nobel Board for Physical science, at a question and answer session reporting the honor on October 4 at the Imperial Swedish Foundation of Sciences (SN: 11/5/10).\n\n"It was absolutely extremely energizing to find out about the three laureates," says physicist Jerry Chow of IBM Quantum in Yorktown Levels, N.Y. "Viewpoint, Zeilinger and Clauser — they're all extremely, notable in our quantum local area, and their work is something that is truly been a major piece of many individuals' exploration endeavors over numerous years."\n\nPerspective, of the Université Paris-Saclay and École Polytechnique in France, and Clauser, who presently runs an organization in California, showed that there are no confidential back channels of correspondence that make sense of how two particles can exist as a solitary element, despite the fact that they are far separated (SN: 12/29/14).\n\nThe analyses of Zeilinger, of the College of Vienna, that depend on that quantum conduct incorporate exhibitions of interchanges, totally secure encryption and parts urgent for quantum PCs. He spearheaded another, broadly misconstrued, application — quantum instant transportation. Not at all like the instant transportation of individuals and items in sci-fi, the impact includes the ideal transmission of data about a quantum object starting with one spot then onto the next.\n\n"I was constantly keen on quantum mechanics from the absolute first minutes when I read about it," Zeilinger said through telephone at the news meeting reporting the honor. "I was really struck by a portion of the hypothetical expectations, since they didn't fit the typical instincts which one could have."\n\nThe revelation of quantum conduct that controls the world at little scopes, similar to the movement of an electron around an iota, upset physical science toward the start of the twentieth 100 years. Many driving researchers, most broadly including Einstein, recognized that quantum speculations worked, yet contended that they couldn't be the genuine depiction of the world since they required, best case scenario, ascertaining the probabilities that something would occur (SN: 1/12/22). To Einstein, this really intended that there was some secret data that investigations were too rough to even consider revealing.\n\nOthers trusted that quantum conduct, derogatively called oddness, however hard to comprehend, had no mysterious approaches to sending data. It was generally a question of assessment and discussion until physicist John Ringer proposed a test during the 1960s to demonstrate that there were no secret channels of correspondence among quantum objects (SN: 12/29/14). At the time obviously an examination to play out the test was conceivable.\n\nClauser was quick to foster a down to earth trial to affirm Ringer's test, despite the fact that there remained provisos his investigation couldn't really take a look at that left space for uncertainty. (His advantage in science grew early. In 1959 and 1960, Clauser contended in the Public Science Fair, presently known as the Global Science and Designing Fair (SN: 5/23/59). The fair is controlled by the General public for Science, which distributes Science News.)\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421594\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421608\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421634\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421642\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421652\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421671\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7421680\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422291\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422303\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422363\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422370\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422712\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422718\n\nhttps://zenodo.org/record/7422735\n\nViewpoint took the thought further to dispose of any opportunity that quantum mechanics had some secret underpinnings of traditional material science (SN: 1/11/86). The investigations of Clauser and Viewpoint included making sets of photons that were ensnared, implying that they were basically a solitary item. As the photons moved every which way, they stayed ensnared. That is, they keep on existing as a solitary, expanded object. Estimating the attributes of one immediately uncovers qualities of the other, regardless of how far separated they might be.\n\nEntrapment is a fragile situation and is hard to keep up with, however the consequences of the trials of Clauser and Viewpoint show that quantum impacts can't be made sense of with any secret factors that would be indications of non-quantum underpinnings.\n\nTo Chow, the meaning of this examination is twofold. "There's actually a component of appearing, from a philosophical point, that quantum mechanics is genuine," he says. "However at that point, from the more down to earth outlook … this equivalent lovely hypothesis of quantum mechanics gives an alternate arrangement of rules by which data is handled." That, thusly, opens up new roads for cutting edge innovations like quantum PCs and correspondences (SN: 12/3/20).\n\nZeilinger's tests exploit entrapment to accomplish accomplishments that wouldn't be imaginable without the impacts that Clauser and Perspective affirmed. He has expanded the investigations from the lab to intercontinental distances, opening up the likelihood that entrapment can be put to commonsense use (SN: 5/31/12). Since collaborating with one of a couple of ensnared particles influences different, they can become key parts in secure correspondences and encryption. An untouchable attempting to tune in on a quantum dispatch would be uncovered on the grounds that they would break the entrapment as they sneaked around.
Abstract It was not a question of whether light should be pictured as waves or particles, or atoms as solar systems, but of whether the microworld could be pictured at all. The famous debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr reached beyond quantum physics to the deepest foundations of science. Faced with the ever more perplexing ‘irrationalities’, Bohr, Einstein, and their followers fell into two broadly opposed camps. Bohr’s approach of ‘complementarity’ accommodated the apparent absurdities of the microworld, declared quantum concepts to be purely ‘symbolic’, and insisted that the manifestation of quantum phenomena in experiment be discussed only in the language of classical physics. He asserted that quantum theory was mathematically coherent and complete. Einstein could not accept Bohr’s ‘tranquilizing philosophy’, which dealt in probabilities rather than certainties. He insisted that physicists look more deeply for the causes of entanglement and rejected the spooky actions at a distance that this implies. Their discussion, respectful and profound, reached stasis in the mid-1930s with the apparent victory of Bohr, while attention shifted to nuclear and particle physics. But their arguments continued to reverberate, and later physicists identified testable consequences of the theory. Ingenious experiments have now confirmed its radical strangeness. Vividly capturing the personalities and interactions of a remarkable cast of characters, the prevailing socio-political circumstances, and threaded through with explanations of theory and experiment, this erudite and carefully crafted telling by Jim Baggott and John Heilbron may prove to be the definitive account of the Bohr–Einstein debate and its legacy.
El 4 de octubre, la Real Academia Sueca de Ciencias anunció el otorgamiento del premio Nobel 2022 a Alain Aspect (1947), profesor de la Universidad de París – Saclay y de la Escuela Politécnica de Palaiseau (Francia), John Clauser (1942), de la firma J.F. Clauser and Assoc. (Estados Unidos) y Anton Zeilinger (1945), profesor de la Universidad de Viena (Austria) “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” (Press release of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 4 October 2022). Una distinción que muchos, en la comunidad científica de los físicos, esperaban desde hace algún tiempo, porque el entrelazamiento (Ing. entanglement) es un fenómeno peculiar, difícil de aceptar pero que, más rápido de lo esperado, se ha instalado definitivamente en nuestro paisaje tecnológico.