14 ms·
Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger
- maxnoe 4y agoThe guy presenting the topic called Erwin Schrödinger "Edwin", both in writing on his slides and verbally. I was bewildered to see a blunder of that magnitude in the official nobel presentation...
- bowsamic 4y agoWhy is that a blunder of any important magnitude? As a physicist I do not think so. It's actually pretty common to make mistakes like that in physics. And physicists are not particularly careful about their presentations, even very important ones. We don't have the sense to care much about this things. "Official Nobel presentation" is still seen as "just a talk"
- maxnoe 4y agoNot the reaction I got from my colleagues, they were all just like "WTF, how can this happen?"
- alephu5 4y agoDid you add a typo as a joke?
- SiempreViernes 4y agoWere they all German Physicists? Leave Hans alone, he's chill.
- hwestiii 4y agoSomeone’s job in PR is to get the facts right in the press releases. Like referring to first American President as “Gerald Washington”
- bowsamic 4y agoWas there a PR person to vet this presentation?
- Nokinside 4y agoThere is even bigger mistake: >The Nobel Committee makes a common mistake in the press release, implying that Bell rules out hidden variables. It's only local hidden variables that are ruled out (absent superdeterminism). Bell was a big supporter of Bohmian non-local hidden variables! from Sean Carroll https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1577254806208798722 https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1577254806208798722
- lioeters 4y agoFrom another tweet of his: Bell on Bohm - Sheldon Goldstein - https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bb.pdf https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bb.pdf
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Nokinside 4y agoHuh. I thought Zeilinger already had Nobel. He certainly deserves it. He is incredible experimentalist: - Macroscopic quantum inference with molecules like C70. - two photon orbital angular momentum entanglement with 600 difference in quantum number. - multi-particle entangement. - quantum teleportation
- luc4sdreyer 4y agoZeilinger got the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2010, which is often considered the second most prestigious award after the Nobel prize.
- kgwgk 4y agoThe three of them did. (I was unaware about that prize until now - or maybe I had forgotten.)
- sigmoid10 4y agoThey probably also got scared that he would die before he could ever get it. Same as with Penrose two years ago, if Zeilinger had gone without a Nobel, that would almost be a disgrace for the price.
- layer8 4y agoAlso Bell (of Bell's theorem) was apparently on the short list for the Nobel prize the year he died.
- ibic 4y agoWhat a pity. Bell's theorem impressed me so much that I consider it one of the most ingenious (thought) experiment/proof ever, and it has a very huge significance in interpretation of quantum physics (to me it resonates Richard Feynman's saying "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics")
- Nokinside 4y ago
- sidcool 4y agoELI5 anyone on their achievements?
- solarist 4y agoThe press-release has a fair summary: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release... Also here for a bit of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
- shmageggy 4y agoNote there are two pdfs with more detail linked at the bottom under "Read more about this year’s prize" Popular science background: How entanglement has become a powerful tool (pdf) Scientific Background: “For experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” (pdf)
- hackandthink 4y agoPopular Science Background: "Quantum mechanics’ most important resource" (Entangled quantum states) From a Quantum Computing perspective entanglement ist kind of overrated. Scott Aaronson: How Much Structure Is Needed for Huge Quantum Speedups? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.06930.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.06930.pdf Actually entanglement is not mentioned at all.
- krastanov 4y agoExcept for error correction, sensing beyond the classical limit, teleportation, key distribution, most forms of fault tolerance, cluster state computation, blind computation, one way computation, and more.
- hackandthink 4y agoSure you are right. This is just a computational Perspective. Gottesman-Knill Theorem: "The theorem proves that, for all quantum algorithms with a speed up that relies on entanglement which can be achieved with a CNOT and a Hadamard gate to produce entangled states, this kind of entanglement alone does not give any computing advantage." Entanglement alone is not sufficient for algorithmic speedup. Again Wikipedia: "The reason for the speed up of quantum computers is not yet fully understood"
- solarist 4y agoEven in THE press conference of the Nobel Physics prize, one cannot expect to get the facts fully communicated clearly. Superdeterminism is a local hidden-variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics. Edit: Sabine Hossenfelder has explained this much better than I ever can: See for example http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdetermini...
- Strilanc 4y agoHave people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? The requirement that you can encode Turing machines might sound silly but I really think it's the core of the issue. The ability to make computers implies a certain level of hard-to-control due to the existence of things like the halting problem and pseudo random number generators and cryptographic hash functions. My understanding is that super determinism is one of those loopholes where it's easy to say its a problem, but actually providung a plausible concrete model where it's a problem is very hard.
- q-big 4y ago> Have people actually constructed a concrete example of a theory that's super deterministic in a way that violates the bell inequalities but is complex enough to contain Turing machines driving the tests? I am not aware that such a theory exists, but the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft made some possible first baby steps into this direction: Gerard 't Hooft; The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics > https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6
- abdullahkhalids 4y agoTuring machines will exist in even very simple universes, because they are very simple. Instead physicists usually use complexity theory to analyze any proposed new universe or a theory for our universe. If for example, the new theory ensures P=NP, then is suspect. There is a lot of work done on this, but I don't know a good reference off the top of my head. However, sometimes, people do think about Turing Machines. Here is one paper by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/ctchalt.pdf
- benrapscallion 4y agoThe Nobel citation reads as if John S. Bell should’ve gotten the prize
- n4r9 4y agoAccording to Wikipedia, Bell may well have done if he'd lived a little longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell#Death
- LatteLazy 4y agoThat's a pretty huge experimental success: quantum mechanics is truly probabilistic, not just deterministic but based on some hidden variable we haven't (or cannot) found. Have I understood it correctly?
- GolDDranks 4y agoYou understood correctly that quantum mechanics cannot be based on some hidden variable we haven't or cannot find. (Edit: oops, I re-read your comment and it seems you say the exact opposite thing? The point is that Bell's theorem rules hidden variables OUT. Here's an easily digestible video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c ) About probability: no one knows. It might be that there is a "wave function collapse" that has a probabilistic outcome. But it might be that there is no such a thing. Quantum mechanics that remain in the "quantum" realm are not probabilistic, it's only when you cross over to the classical world. So it might be equally well, that the Everett interpretation (so-called "many worlds interpretation") is true, and the probability is something physicist Sean Carroll calls "self-locating uncertainty": https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-is-given-by-the-wave-function-squared/comment-page-3/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-pro... That is, there are multiple "yous" that experience different outcomes, and you don't know which branch of the wavefunction you find "yourself" in, which "you" you are.
- twawaaay 4y ago> You understood correctly that quantum mechanics cannot be based on some hidden variable we haven't or cannot find. That's not true. The only thing we know is that the above appears to be true, but since we do not actually know the mechanism behind quantum mechanics we will be in this limbo until (if ever) we find the actual rules.
- n4r9 4y agoActually, the power of Bell's theorem is that it applies to any physical theory which attempts to explain observed correlations in experiments on entangled particles. It really does say "No matter what's behind quantum theory, we know it isn't like this". I do have a small gripe with the above comment, in that Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. Some take the view that Bohmian mechanics is an formulation of quantum theory which employs hidden variables, just explicitly non-local ones.
- himinlomax 4y agoAspect's experiment dates from the early 1980s, that's a long time coming!
- lokimedes 4y agoThat is a strongly deserving selection.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rerx 4y agoClauser and Aspect did their experiments in the early 1970s and 1980s. That's a crazy long wait!
- fabatka 4y agoIn uni I remember one of my professors telling us that the time gap between the awarding of the Nobel prize and the discovery for which it is awarded keeps getting longer (he was talking specifically about physics). I remember he also lamented George Gamow never getting a Nobel prize. (edit: grammar)
- efsavage 4y agoThis is sad, IIRC the goal (and reason it only goes to living people) is to throw good money after good, in the hopes of more to come, not simply reward past advances and fund retirements.
- tokai 4y agoThe goal was to rub Nobels reputation clean with the reputations of great living scientists.
- leoc 4y agoThat's definitely the main cause, but in the case of Clauser at least there's the added wrinkle that for the first few years his work wasn't very popular with other physicists. His PhD advisor was writing recommendation letters specifically telling people not to hire Clauser for work on QM experiments: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf .
- c7b 4y agoThere's a quote, I believe by an economics Nobel (memorial) prize winner, that goes like "It's a strange feeling to be honored in your 80's for work that you've done in your 20's" - couldn't find who said it after a bit of searching
- eternalban 4y agoCongratulations to Alain Aspect. Long time coming, well deserved.
- frontman1988 4y agoNever heard of any of them until now, looks phenomenonal work that I don't even understand lol. I just had a morbid though related to this. It's interesting how even the best of the scientists of our times will just be forgotten names in the long term history. Even among the greatest scientists only a few names like Einstein, Tesla or Newton remain in public memory, rest are never even known. If you want history to remember you, being even the best scientist in the world isn't enough. Shows how inconsequential the average man is in the big picture.
- sixQuarks 4y agoIf you want to be remembered in history, it’s much easier to be a mediocre sports athlete than to be the best scientist who actually helps humanity. We are a ridiculously stupid species
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago>We are a ridiculously stupid species Can you explain what you mean by this?
- zethus 4y agoNot the OP of the comment, but seemingly a common point of view that the most noble (and in some cases only valid?) pursuit of the human species is science/technology. I do find it interesting of the comparison between "mediocre sports athlete" and "best scientist" from the lens of aid to humanity. One could make an equally valid argument that a mediocre sports athlete brings more immediate utility to people in terms of entertainment, inspired hope, economic spend. In short, value is relative. Being a mediocre professional athlete is still a tremendous achievement. If your goal is to be remembered, you must appeal to the masses. Doesn't mean our species is stupid, it just means we are social.
- sixQuarks 4y agoNo, the point of my comment was that most humans appreciate and remember the guy who doesn’t give two shits about them, would rather spend their money on bling and mansions, while the scientist who actually helps humanity tremendously is not even noticed.
- GistNoesis 4y agoI'm not convinced. (But also I'm not a physicist). Don't get me wrong, they are all great experimentalists and their experimental work helped move the science forward in the understanding and control of the atomic scale. But their "Bell's experiment" variations have been used to "disprove" and cast aside wide branches of theoretical research, and this will probably remain as one of the biggest failure of modern science. If you model the experimental settings in your theory, it's indeed quite simple to reproduce the QM probabilities (and therefore violations of CHSH inegalities), with a local hidden variable theory. In fact here is 60 lines of numpy code to set-up virtual experiments to convince yourself (try various settings for the polarisers angles alpha and beta) https://gist.github.com/unrealwill/2a48ea0926deac4011d26842627b69c9 https://gist.github.com/unrealwill/2a48ea0926deac4011d268426... (Straight implementation of Marian Kupczynski "Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality" https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/877 https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/11/877 (around eq.7-8) if you need more explanation).
- enviclash 4y agoI am also not an expert on the topic, but citing a MDPI paper to argue against a Nobel prize seems also unconvincing.
- quixoticaxolotl 4y ago> it is indeed quite simple to reproduce ... with a local hidden variable theory This is not the whole truth. Bell's inequality assumes a few reasonable assumptions for hidden variable theories besides locality (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/) and it is true that sacrificing these assumptions can yield a local hidden theory consistent with Bell's inequality / CHSH inequality violations. But the whole point of these assumptions is that we want them. Bell's inequality is the definitive experimental test that a standard classical theory is not waiting in the wings for us, and those assumptions are central to classical mechanics. The issue with a theory that sacrifices things like parameter independence or similar is that they will remain mathematical curiosities, much like interpretations of quantum mechanics, because there is no way to test them. And they'd be stranger than quantum mechanics, so you don't get any relief either. So, yes, you can do this. But it has no practical value. This is not the experiment's fault in any way. However, if you are arguing that you can have a local hidden variable theory that satisfies all of Bell's assumptions and violates the inequality, then you have some severe issues in your argument somewhere, because it is categorically impossible. > 60 lines of numpy code In the event you are arguing for a local hidden variable theory that satisfies all of Bell's other criteria: firstly, there is no guarantee the simulation has any fidelity to the real world at all. Thankfully, you don't have to settle for simulation. I was fortunate to take 180Q at UCLA, an undergraduate class where we were required to derive the CHSH inequality and perform simple experimental violations by ourselves. The tools needed to run a simple test are commercially available and affordable - you can do it yourself at home. I was able to achieve experimental violation when I did so back in 2015/2016, and documented the results here: https://github.com/AkshatM/Physics180Q/blob/master/Final%20Paper/Akshat%20Mahajan%20-%20Physics%20180Q%20Final%20Report.pdf https://github.com/AkshatM/Physics180Q/blob/master/Final%20P... Of course, if you are arguing we can sacrifice an assumption of Bell's besides locality, then the above is moot. But it would still be rather pointless.
- walnutclosefarm 4y agoIts about time they recognized Zeilinger's work - he's been doing astonishing work clarifying and articulating the foundations of Quantum Mechanics for decades.
- solarist 4y agoSabine Hossenfelder had predicted the winners just last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNT9Hn-96rM&t=619s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNT9Hn-96rM&t=619s
- leoc 4y agoSome fun background on the history and politics involved: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508180.pdf . Clauser is apparently the guy who took most of the arrows in the back for advocating experimental tests of quantum mechanics. It seems that he and Feynman weren't big mutual admirers: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/25096 https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral... .
- _yb2s 4y agoJohn Clauser is a raging asshole, and isn't much an admirer of anybody, let alone "a ******* moron like Feynman." I say this as a friend of his, and I'm nearly certain those are the exact words he'd choose to describe both himself, and Feynman. Interestingly, I feel there's a certain good natured lightheartedness to Clauser's 'arrogant asshole genius' persona, as if he is consciously acting that way as a comedic performance. This Nobel Prize will feed perfectly into this, he's going to love it. Edit: I'm normally not one to complain about well deserved downvotes, but I think people may be missing my joking tone, and context here. Once a few people that also know Clauser give thoughtful replies in this discussion, it will make more sense.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- keepquestioning 4y agoHave I seen any of the fruits of this labour in my daily life, or is this for stuff like string theory?
- kergonath 4y agoTheir work is based on experimental verification of some very counter-intuitive aspects (!) of quantum theory. Just this put them in a completely different world than string theorists, who still don’t know how to test their theory. As mentioned elsewhere, their work is the foundation of quantum computing and quantum cryptography, which probably hasn’t directly affected your life yet but could very well do so in a not-too-far future. Again, entirely unlike string theory.
- keepquestioning 4y agoIsn't Quantum Computing bullshit?
- kergonath 4y agoNo, it isn’t. Whilst a lot of work remains to be done for really commercially successful quantum computers (and probably a couple of decades), we’ve had experimental devices that can be used for research and development since the late 1990s. We are currently where computing was in the 1900s: critical innovations like transistors and ICs have not happened yet, but the concept of computers is much older than that, with examples such as Babbage’s analytical engine or Pascal’s calculator.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- stared 4y agoI created an interactive simulation of the Bell inequality violation (Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt form): https://lab.quantumflytrap.com/lab/bell-inequality https://lab.quantumflytrap.com/lab/bell-inequality Enjoy!
- pkrumins 4y agoThe best way to understand what they did is to watch the so called award lecture. Each laureate gives an hour long lecture which is video taped where they explain what they did. Google for Nobel Prize Award Lecture.