The Vindication of Quantum Non-Locality: A Comprehensive Analysis of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
1. Introduction: The Quantum Revolution Realized
On October 4, 2022, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced a decision that marked the culmination of nearly a century of physical and philosophical debate. The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".1 This citation encapsulates a profound transformation in our understanding of the universe: the transition of quantum entanglement from an uncomfortable theoretical anomaly to the foundational resource of a new technological era.
The work of these three laureates spans five decades and represents a systematic dismantling of "local realism"—the intuitive worldview held by Albert Einstein and many others that objects possess definite properties independent of observation and that influences cannot travel faster than light.1 Through a series of increasingly sophisticated experiments, Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger demonstrated that nature is inherently non-local. They proved that particles separated by vast distances can function as a single, unified entity, sharing information instantaneously in a manner that defies classical description.
This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the scientific principles, historical context, and experimental methodologies underpinning this award. It explores the journey from the theoretical paradoxes of the 1930s to the loophole-free confirmations of the 21st century. Furthermore, it examines how the experimental verification of these "spooky" phenomena laid the groundwork for the burgeoning field of quantum information science, including quantum cryptography, teleportation, and the future quantum internet.
2. The Foundations of the Quantum Crisis (1900–1964)
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the 2022 Nobel Prize, one must first navigate the deep theoretical waters that necessitated the laureates' experiments. The prize is firmly rooted in the "Golden Age" of physics and the intellectual clash between two giants: Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.
2.1 The Incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics
By the mid-1930s, the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics was well-established. It successfully described the behavior of atoms and light with unprecedented accuracy. However, its interpretation remained deeply controversial. The prevailing "Copenhagen Interpretation," championed by Bohr, posited that physical properties (such as position, momentum, or spin) do not exist in a definite state until they are measured. Before measurement, a particle exists in a superposition of all possible states, described by a wave function.
Albert Einstein found this probabilistic view of reality unacceptable. He famously asserted that "God does not play dice," reflecting his belief in a deterministic universe where objects possess independent reality.1
2.2 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox
In 1935, Einstein, along with his postdoctoral researchers Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published a paper titled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?".3 This paper, which became known as the EPR paradox, was a formal logical attack on the completeness of quantum theory.
The EPR argument rested on two fundamental premises regarding the nature of the universe:
Realism: If, without disturbing a system, one can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity. In other words, the moon exists and has a specific mass even if no one is looking at it.3
Locality: Physical processes occurring at one location cannot have an immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. No influence can travel faster than the speed of light (Special Relativity).4
EPR proposed a thought experiment involving two particles that interact and then separate to a great distance. In quantum mechanics, these particles can be described by a single, shared wave function. Conservation laws (such as conservation of momentum or spin) dictate that the properties of the two particles are perfectly correlated. If Particle A is measured to have "spin up," Particle B must be "spin down," regardless of the distance between them.3
Einstein argued that if one measures Particle A, the state of Particle B is instantly known. Since Particle B was not disturbed by the measurement of A (due to Locality), it must have already possessed a definite spin value (Realism). However, quantum mechanics states that Particle B had no definite spin until the measurement occurred. Therefore, Einstein concluded, quantum mechanics fails to account for the "true" state of the particle. He posited the existence of Local Hidden Variables—unobserved, internal parameters that determine the outcome of measurements, restoring determinism to physics.1
2.3 Schrödinger and "Entanglement"
Erwin Schrödinger, upon reading the EPR paper, identified this correlation as the defining characteristic of the new physics. In a 1935 letter to Einstein and a subsequent paper, he coined the term entanglement (Verschränkung).1
Schrödinger wrote:
"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before... I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought." 3
For Schrödinger, the "spooky" connection was not a paradox but a fundamental feature. However, for the next three decades, the debate between Hidden Variables (EPR) and Quantum Mechanics (Bohr/Schrödinger) remained purely philosophical. There was no experimental way to distinguish between a particle that has a secret value (hidden variable) and a particle that decides its value upon measurement.
2.4 Bell’s Theorem: The Mathematical Pivot
The stalemate was broken in 1964 by John Stewart Bell, a theorist working at CERN. Bell took the concept of local hidden variables seriously and asked a simple question: Can a theory based on local hidden variables reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics?
Bell derived a mathematical inequality—now known as Bell’s Inequality—that quantified the maximum amount of correlation possible between remote measurements in any universe governed by local realism.3
Imagine two observers, Alice and Bob, measuring entangled particles at different angles.
If the particles carry hidden instructions (like pre-written notes inside two capsules), the correlation between Alice's and Bob's results must abide by a strict statistical limit.
Bell calculated the quantum mechanical prediction for the same scenario and found that for certain measurement angles, quantum mechanics predicts correlations that exceed this limit.2
This was a thunderbolt in the world of physics. Bell’s Theorem proved that Local Realism and Quantum Mechanics are mathematically incompatible.5 They cannot both be true. This transformed the EPR paradox from a matter of interpretation into a matter of experimental fact. The question was no longer "Which theory do you prefer?" but "Does nature violate the inequality?"
3. John F. Clauser: The Experimental Pioneer
In the late 1960s, the physics community was largely indifferent to the foundational questions of quantum mechanics. The "Shut up and calculate" ethos prevailed; as long as the equations worked, the interpretation was considered irrelevant. It was in this environment that John F. Clauser, a young physicist at Columbia University, stumbled upon Bell’s paper and decided to test it.6
3.1 The "Impertinence" of Testing Quantum Mechanics
Clauser’s interest in testing Bell’s theorem was met with skepticism and even hostility. When Clauser was performing his seminal experiment at UC Berkeley, the legendary physicist Richard Feynman reportedly told him that the effort was "tantamount to professing a disbelief in quantum physics" and arrogantly insisted that quantum mechanics was obviously correct and needed no further testing.7 Despite this, Clauser found support from figures like Charles Townes and Howard Shugart, who allowed him to proceed.7
3.2 The CHSH Inequality
Before Clauser could run an experiment, he had to adapt Bell’s original theoretical inequality to the messy reality of the laboratory. Real detectors are not 100% efficient, and real polarizers are not perfect. Working with Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt, Clauser generalized Bell’s work into the CHSH Inequality (Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt).8
The CHSH inequality defines a correlation parameter, $S$.
For any Local Hidden Variable theory: $|S| \leq 2$.
For Quantum Mechanics: $|S|$ can reach a maximum of $2\sqrt{2} \approx 2.82$.10
This provided a clear numerical target. If an experiment yielded an $S$ value significantly greater than 2, local realism would be ruled out.
3.3 The 1972 Berkeley Experiment
In 1972, John Clauser and his graduate student Stuart Freedman conducted the first successful test of the CHSH inequality at the University of California, Berkeley.8
Experimental Apparatus:
The experiment utilized calcium atoms as the source of entangled photons.11
The Cascade: A beam of calcium atoms was illuminated by a laser, exciting them to a higher energy state. As the atoms decayed back to the ground state, they emitted two photons in quick succession (a cascade).
Entanglement: Conservation of angular momentum ensured that the polarizations of these two photons were correlated. If they were emitted back-to-back, their polarizations had to be orthogonal or parallel depending on the decay channel.
Detection: The photons traveled in opposite directions to two detectors. Each detector was equipped with a polarizer. In 1972, high-quality optical polarizers were not available for the relevant wavelengths, so Clauser used "pile-of-plates" polarizers—stacks of glass plates tilted at Brewster's angle.12
The Results:
After hundreds of hours of data collection, Clauser and Freedman calculated the $S$ parameter. The result was a clear violation of the CHSH inequality ($S > 2$) and agreed with the quantum mechanical prediction.8 This was the first experimental evidence that the EPR paradox was resolved in favor of quantum mechanics: nature does not contain local hidden variables.
3.4 The 1976 Mercury Experiment
Clauser did not stop with calcium. In 1976, he performed a second, more precise experiment using photon pairs produced by mercury atoms.9 This experiment confirmed the earlier results with higher statistical significance.
3.5 The Persistent Loopholes
While Clauser’s experiments were groundbreaking, they were not definitive. They suffered from specific experimental gaps known as loopholes, which meant a determined skeptic could still argue for local realism.
The Locality Loophole: In Clauser’s experiment, the polarizers were fixed in position for long periods. It was theoretically possible that the source "knew" the orientation of the polarizers at the moment of emission, or that the detectors communicated with each other at sub-light speeds to coordinate their results.12
The Detection Loophole: The photomultiplier tubes used were not perfectly efficient. It was possible that the subset of photons detected was biased in a way that mimicked quantum correlations (Fair Sampling assumption).10
Clauser acknowledged these limitations, but his work was the crucial first step. He proved that the experiment was possible, paving the way for the next generation of physicists.6
4. Alain Aspect: Closing the Door on Locality
A decade after Clauser’s breakthrough, French physicist Alain Aspect spearheaded a series of experiments at the Institut d'Optique designed to address the most critical flaw in the earlier tests: the Locality Loophole.1
4.1 The Requirement for Rapid Switching
To close the locality loophole, the setting of the measurement apparatus (the angle of the polarizer) must be chosen randomly and rapidly. Specifically, the choice must be made in the time interval after the entangled particles have left the source but before they reach the detectors. Furthermore, the two detectors must be separated by a distance large enough that a signal traveling at the speed of light could not transmit the choice from one side to the other before the measurement is completed.14
This condition is known in relativity as Einstein separability or space-like separation. If the measurement events are space-like separated, there is no causal influence (traveling at $c$ or less) that can connect them.
4.2 The 1982 Experiment: Acousto-Optical Modulators
Between 1980 and 1982, Aspect, working with collaborators Philippe Grangier, Jean Dalibard, and Gérard Roger, constructed a highly sophisticated version of the Bell test.15
Technological Innovation:
Aspect replaced the static polarizers of Clauser’s era with acousto-optical switches.12
These devices used ultrasonic standing waves in water to diffract light.
By toggling the acoustic wave on and off, the switch could direct the incoming photon to one of two different polarizers oriented at different angles.
Crucially, this switching could occur in 10 nanoseconds.12
The distance between the source and the detectors was 12 meters (6 meters on each side). Light takes 20 nanoseconds to travel 6 meters.
The Implications of Timing:
Because the switch (10 ns) was faster than the photon flight time (20 ns), the decision of which angle to measure was effectively made while the photon was "in mid-air." Information about the polarizer setting on Alice's side could not reach Bob's side (even at the speed of light) before Bob's measurement was finished.12
4.3 Results and Impact
Aspect’s experiment was the first to demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequalities with space-like separation. The results violated the inequality by 5 standard deviations.15
This experiment firmly established that the "communication" between entangled particles—if one wishes to think of it that way—must be instantaneous. It cannot be explained by any mechanism that propagates through space at the speed of light. Aspect’s work effectively killed the "locality" part of local realism. While some critics noted that the switching in Aspect's experiment was "quasi-periodic" rather than truly random (leaving a tiny theoretical window for super-fast conspiracies), the physics community largely accepted that non-locality was a reality.12
5. Anton Zeilinger: The Master of Entanglement
While Clauser and Aspect established the reality of entanglement, Anton Zeilinger dedicated his career to exploring its complexity and utility. Zeilinger, an Austrian physicist often referred to as the "Pope of Quantum," moved beyond simply testing whether entanglement exists to asking: "What can we do with it?".2
5.1 Early Foundations: Neutron Interferometry
Before his famous work with photons, Zeilinger made significant contributions using neutrons. In the 1970s, at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL) and the Atominstitut in Vienna, Zeilinger and his mentor Helmut Rauch performed pioneering neutron interferometry experiments.16
They successfully observed fermion spin superposition directly.
They demonstrated the sign change of a fermion's wave function upon a 360-degree rotation (a fundamental quantum property where a particle must be rotated 720 degrees to return to its original state).16
This early work honed Zeilinger’s expertise in fundamental quantum tests and the manipulation of matter waves, laying the groundwork for his later optical experiments.
5.2 Beyond Two Particles: The GHZ State
In the late 1980s, Zeilinger, along with Daniel Greenberger and Michael Horne, expanded Bell’s theorem to systems of more than two particles. They theoretically described the GHZ State (Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger), a specific type of entanglement involving three or more particles.17
The GHZ theorem is powerful because it provides a non-statistical conflict with local realism. In a standard Bell test (two particles), one needs to accumulate statistics over many runs to show a violation. In a GHZ state, a single set of measurements can result in a contradiction: local realism predicts "Outcome A," while quantum mechanics predicts "Outcome B" with certainty (perfect correlation).
In 1998, Zeilinger’s group experimentally observed polarization entanglement of three spatially separated photons, confirming the GHZ predictions.17 This proved that entanglement becomes richer and more complex as the system size scales up, a critical realization for quantum computing.
5.3 Quantum Teleportation (1997)
One of Zeilinger’s most celebrated achievements is the first experimental demonstration of Quantum Teleportation in 1997.2
The Concept:
Quantum teleportation does not involve moving matter; it involves moving information. In quantum mechanics, one cannot measure a system to determine its state completely without destroying it (wave function collapse). Therefore, one cannot simply "scan and fax" a quantum particle. Teleportation bypasses this limit using entanglement.
The 1997 Experiment:
Zeilinger’s team used Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC) to create entangled photon pairs.19 The protocol worked as follows:
Alice possesses a photon (Particle 1) in an unknown quantum state $|\psi\rangle$.
Alice shares an entangled pair of photons (Particles 2 and 3) with Bob. Alice holds Particle 2; Bob holds Particle 3.
Alice performs a specific joint measurement, called a Bell State Measurement (BSM), on Particle 1 and Particle 2.19
This measurement entangles Particle 1 and 2, and instantaneously projects Bob's Particle 3 into a state that is a rotation of the original state $|\psi\rangle$.
Alice sends the result of her measurement (two classical bits of information) to Bob via a classical channel.
Bob uses this information to apply a unitary transformation to Particle 3, transforming it exactly into the state $|\psi\rangle$.20
This experiment demonstrated that quantum information could be disembodied from its physical carrier and reconstructed elsewhere, a prerequisite for quantum networks.
5.4 Entanglement Swapping (1998)
Following teleportation, Zeilinger’s group demonstrated Entanglement Swapping in 1998.20
This phenomenon is even more counterintuitive. Imagine two separate pairs of entangled photons: Pair A-B and Pair C-D. Particles B and C are sent to a central station, while A and D are sent to distant locations. If a Bell State Measurement is performed on B and C, they become entangled. Remarkably, this operation causes Particles A and D to become entangled, even though they were created by different sources, never interacted, and share no common past.21
Significance:
Entanglement swapping is the fundamental operating principle of the Quantum Repeater. In fiber optic networks, signals degrade over distance. Classical amplifiers cannot be used for quantum signals because amplifying a quantum state destroys it (No-Cloning Theorem). Entanglement swapping allows a network to link short segments of entanglement into a long chain, enabling a global Quantum Internet.20
5.5 The Cosmic Bell Test (2017)
Zeilinger also returned to the foundations to address the "Freedom of Choice" loophole (or Measurement Independence). This loophole suggests that the "random" settings of the polarizers in Bell tests might be determined by some hidden variable in the past that also influenced the creation of the entangled particles (Superdeterminism).22
To close this, Zeilinger’s team turned to the cosmos. In experiments conducted in the Canary Islands and later with international collaborators, they used the light from distant stars and Quasars to control the random number generators setting the polarizers.23
In the 2018 experiment, they used light from quasars whose photons were emitted 7.8 billion and 12.2 billion years ago.12
For the loophole to be valid, a conspiracy of hidden variables would have had to be set in motion shortly after the Big Bang to coordinate the color of the quasar light with the photon source on Earth billions of years later.
While Superdeterminism cannot be strictly disproven (as it is a metaphysical argument), this experiment renders it scientifically absurd.26
6. The Final Proof: Loophole-Free Bell Tests (2015)
By the 2010s, all individual loopholes (locality, detection, freedom of choice) had been closed in separate experiments. However, no single experiment had closed all of them simultaneously. Closing the detection loophole requires highly efficient detectors (capturing >70-80% of photons), while closing the locality loophole requires large distances and fast switching. Combining these was a formidable engineering challenge.
In 2015, three independent groups achieved the "Holy Grail" of quantum foundations: the Loophole-Free Bell Test.10
6.1 The Delft Experiment (Hanson)
The first result came from Ronald Hanson’s group at TU Delft in the Netherlands.28
System: Instead of photons, they used electron spins trapped in diamond defects (NV centers).
Distance: The diamonds were located 1.3 kilometers apart on the university campus.28
Mechanism: They used a technique called "entanglement swapping" to entangle the distant electrons. Because electron measurement is highly efficient, they closed the detection loophole. The distance closed the locality loophole.
Result: They observed a Bell inequality violation with a p-value of 0.039 ($S = 2.42$).30 This was a statistically significant rejection of local realism.
6.2 The Vienna and NIST Experiments
Shortly after, Anton Zeilinger’s group (Vienna) and Lynden Shalm’s group (NIST, USA) performed loophole-free tests using photons.27
Innovation: These experiments utilized cutting-edge Superconducting Nanowire Single-Photon Detectors (SNSPDs). These detectors operate at near absolute zero and have efficiencies exceeding 90%, essentially eliminating the detection loophole.27
Result: Both groups observed massive violations of Bell’s inequalities with statistical significance far exceeding the Delft experiment (over 11 standard deviations in later runs).32
These 2015 experiments are widely considered the definitive experimental proof of quantum non-locality. As Hanson stated, "The circle for Bell's theorem is complete".33
7. Quantum Information Science: The Legacy
The Nobel Committee explicitly awarded the prize not just for the past (proving Bell's inequality) but for the future ("pioneering quantum information science").2 The techniques developed by the laureates are the building blocks of the Second Quantum Revolution.
7.1 Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)
The most mature application is Quantum Cryptography. In 1991, Artur Ekert (a collaborator of Zeilinger) proposed the E91 Protocol, which uses Bell inequalities for security.34
Alice and Bob share entangled pairs and perform a Bell test.
If an eavesdropper (Eve) intercepts the particles, the act of measurement collapses the wave function and disturbs the entanglement.
This disturbance reduces the Bell correlation ($S$ value).
By monitoring the $S$ value, Alice and Bob can detect the presence of an eavesdropper with certainty. If the inequality is violated to the quantum limit, the key is secure.35
This allows for Device-Independent Security: the security is guaranteed by the laws of physics, not by trust in the hardware manufacturer.34
7.2 The Quantum Internet
Zeilinger’s work on entanglement swapping and long-distance transmission (such as the 144 km link between La Palma and Tenerife in the Canary Islands) has proven that a global quantum network is feasible.26 Such a network would enable:
Secure global communication via QKD.
Distributed Quantum Computing: Linking small quantum computers to form a powerful cluster.
Blind Quantum Computing: Allowing a user to run a computation on a quantum server without the server knowing the input, the algorithm, or the output.
Table 1: Comparative Overview of Laureates' Key Experiments
Laureate
Year(s)
Key Innovation
Scientific Impact
Reference
John Clauser
1972
First experimental test of CHSH; Calcium cascade source.
First observation of Bell violation; challenged local realism.
8
Alain Aspect
1982
Acousto-optical switches; 10ns switching time.
Closed the "Locality Loophole"; established non-locality.
14
Anton Zeilinger
1997-2018
Teleportation; Entanglement Swapping; Cosmic Bell Test.
Demonstrated quantum protocols; closed "Freedom of Choice" loophole.
18
Table 2: The Evolution of Bell Test Loopholes
Loophole
Definition
Status
Key Experiment Closing It
Locality Loophole
Detectors could coordinate via sub-light signals.
CLOSED
Aspect (1982), Weihs/Zeilinger (1998) 10
Detection Loophole
Low efficiency biases the sample (Fair Sampling).
CLOSED
Giustina (Vienna), Shalm (NIST), Hanson (Delft) (2015) 10
Freedom of Choice
Settings correlated with source via past events.
CLOSED
Zeilinger (Cosmic Bell Test) (2017) 23
8. Conclusion
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics recognizes a monumental shift in our understanding of the universe. John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger took the "spooky action at a distance" that Albert Einstein famously doubted and proved it to be the fundamental reality of our world.
Clauser demonstrated that the question of hidden variables was experimental, not philosophical.
Aspect forced us to accept that the universe is non-local, with influences transcending space and time constraints.
Zeilinger showed us that this non-locality is a resource, a tool that can be harnessed to teleport information and secure our communications.
Their work laid the foundation for a new era of technology. Just as the transistor revolutionized the 20th century, the manipulation of entanglement is poised to revolutionize the 21st. We now know that the universe is not locally real; it is a vast, interconnected web of quantum information, waiting to be explored. As Anton Zeilinger remarked, "The world is not as real as we think" 37, but the technology built upon this unreality is very real indeed.
Works cited
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - Popular science background - NobelPrize.org, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/popular-information/
Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - NobelPrize.org, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/press-release/
Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 - “FOR ..., accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-4.pdf
Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Bell's Theorem - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/
Profile of John Clauser, Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger: 2022 Nobel laureates in Physics, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304809120
Proving that Quantum Entanglement is Real - Caltech, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/proving-that-quantum-entanglement-is-real
accessed on November 24, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10265984/#:~:text=With%20the%20collaboration%20of%20Stuart,barring%20an%20unlikely%20statistical%20fluke.
2023 Segrè Lecture Featuring John Clauser | Physics - University of California, Berkeley, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://physics.berkeley.edu/2023-segr%C3%A8-lecture-featuring-john-clauser
Bell test - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger have each conducted groundbreaking experiments using entangled quantum states, in, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.kva.se/app/uploads/2022/12/fysik2022engscreen.pdf
Physics Nobel honors foundational quantum entanglement experiments, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/physics-nobel-honors-foundational-quantum-entanglement-experiments
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/press-physicsprize2022-2.pdf
Aspect's experiment - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
2022 Nobel Prize in Physics: Experimental Efforts Towards Quantum Entanglement | Institute of Advanced Studies | NTU Singapore, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.ntu.edu.sg/ias/news-events/news/detail/2022-nobel-prize-in-physics-experimental-efforts-towards-quantum-entanglement
Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 for Anton Zeilinger | the ILL congratulates, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.ill.eu/infos-presse-evenements/general-news/nobel-prize-in-physics-2022-for-anton-zeilinger-the-ill-congratulates
arXiv:quant-ph/9810035v1 13 Oct 1998, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9810035
Anton Zeilinger, "Quantum teleportation", accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IQOQI-Vienna/PDF/publications-zeilinger/2007_Quantum_teleportation.pdf
Experimental Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement Swapping, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=EQEC-1998-QTuJ1
How entanglement has become a powerful tool - Nobel Prize, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/popular-physicsprize2022-3.pdf
Entanglement swapping - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entanglement_swapping
Superdeterminism - Wikipedia, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
Stars align in test supporting “spooky action at a distance” | MIT News, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://news.mit.edu/2017/loophole-bells-inequality-starlight-0207
Cosmic Bell test uses light from ancient quasars - Physics World, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-bell-test-uses-light-from-ancient-quasars/
[1808.05966] Cosmic Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars - arXiv, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05966
The Universe Made Me Do It? Testing “Free Will” With Distant Quasars | NOVA - PBS, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/the-universe-made-me-do-it/
A significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons | NIST, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.nist.gov/publications/significant-loophole-free-test-bells-theorem-entangled-photons
Loophole-free Bell test TU Delft crowns 80-years-old debate on nature of reality: Einsteins “spooky action” is real, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.tudelft.nl/en/dossiers/loophole-free-bell-test-tu-delft-crowns-80-years-old-debate-on-nature-of-reality-einsteins-spooky-action-is-real
[1508.05949] Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km - arXiv, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
From a loophole-free Bell test to a quantum Internet, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://qipconference.org/2016/2016-01-qip_banff_hanson_forwebsite.pdf
Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits - PMC, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10172133/
A significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons - SPIE Digital Library, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10442/2277696/A-significant-loophole-free-test-of-Bells-theorem-with-entangled/10.1117/12.2277696.full
Nobel Prize for quantum physics: the circle for Bell's theorem is complete - Leiden University, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2022/12/nobel-prize-for-quantum-physics-the-circle-for-bells-theorem-is-complete
Ekert protocol - QSNP, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://qsnp.eu/glossary/ekert-protocol/
Entanglement-Based QKD Protocols: E91 and BBM92 - PostQuantum.com, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/entanglement-based-qkd/
Teleportation of entanglement over 143 km - PNAS, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517007112
2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - YouTube, accessed on November 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9FsKqvrJNY
