Opinion This year’s Nobel winners in Physics provided evidence to suggest that entanglement was not just real, but could also be harnessed for solving problems

Few phenomena have bewildered human beings more than the behaviour of tiny sub-atomic particles, and the “entanglement” property exhibited by them. Albert Einstein’s description of it being “spooky” remains the most popular characterisation of quantum entanglement to this day. While a commonsensical explanation for the phenomenon continues to elude, scientists have gone ahead and shown that “entangled” particles behaved in a predictable manner that could be calculated using the laws of Quantum Theory. Not just that, scientists have already begun utilising this fascinating property to make technological progress in areas like quantum computing and secure electronic communications.

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physics has gone to three scientists — Alain Aspect of France, John Clauser of the United States, and Anton Zeilinger of Austria — who designed experiments that were once considered impossible to do, and provided compelling evidence to suggest that entanglement was not just real, but could also be harnessed for solving complex modern-day scientific problems. They were helped immensely by the prior work of the brilliant Irish physicist John Bell, who created the mathematical framework that made it possible to test entanglement. Most scientists believe that Bell deserved this Nobel more than anyone else, but, unfortunately, died too early, in 1990.

Advertisement

The story of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics is a wonderful testament to the remarkable tenacity of scientists. Their success is a vindication of the argument that reputations or past achievements count for little in matters of science. No scientist has always been right, and therefore, science does not defer to authority. What must remain sacrosanct, instead, is observed data, in so far as it is collected accurately, and the scientific methodology in all its rigour. Facts, even if they appear to run contrary to intuition, must be respected. This is how science has made progress over the centuries, and continues to do so.