4 ms·
Huh. I thought Zeilinger already had Nobel. He certainly deserves it. He is incredible experimentalist: - Macroscopic quantum inference with molecules like C
by Nokinside 4y ago
Huh. 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.. and his work of testing of quantum mechanics goes on from far to weird: Cosmic Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars (2018) https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... > .. This experiment pushes back to at least ∼7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. Challenging local realism with human choices https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3 >Bell himself noted this weakness in using physical setting choices and argued that human ‘free will’ could be used rigorously to ensure unpredictability in Bell tests8. Here we report a set of local-realism tests using human choices, which avoids assumptions about predictability in physics. We recruited about 100,000 human participants to play an online video game that incentivizes fast, sustained input of unpredictable selections and illustrates Bell-test methodology >... Project outcomes include closing the ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’ (the possibility that the setting choices are influenced by ‘hidden variables’ to correlate with the particle properties
- bumby 4y ago>Bell himself noted this weakness in using physical setting choices and argued that human ‘free will’ could be used rigorously to ensure unpredictability in Bell tests Please don't flame me if this is an outrageous question, because I readily admit I know nothing on the topic of quantum physics, but isn't it a quite large limitation to assume human free will as a given? Or is "free-will" meant as a proxy for "pseudo-random" and that's enough for this experiment?
- mdorazio 4y agoSee here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002780107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002780107 It has to do with true randomness in the measurement aspect, not with human free will.
- seydor 4y agoI thought all three of them had!