Melvin Varghese

Quantum entanglement is a physical connection between two or more quantum systems in which the state of the whole cannot be written as separate states of the parts. Measure one entangled particle and you immediately know what the matching measurement on its partner will show, however far apart they are. Yet no usable signal travels between them, so nothing moves faster than light. Experiments awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics have shown that nature does not obey Einstein’s “local realism.”

Key takeaways

• Entangled particles have no independent, definite states before measurement. Only the joint state is well defined.
• Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (1935) argued quantum mechanics was incomplete. Bell’s theorem (1964) turned that dispute into a testable prediction.
• Bell-test experiments, including loophole-free tests in 2015, rule out local hidden-variable theories.
• The no-communication theorem proves entanglement cannot send information faster than light.
• Entanglement now powers quantum cryptography, quantum computing, and ultra-precise sensing.

Imagine holding a fair coin while a collaborator holds another identical coin three thousand miles away. When you flip yours, it lands heads with fifty-fifty probability. You repeat the process ten thousand times: a purely random sequence of heads and tails. Your collaborator observes the exact same randomness.

Yet when you compare logs, you discover that every single time your coin landed on heads, your collaborator’s coin landed on tails. If you tilt your wrist at an angle before tossing, their coin exhibits statistical deviations that match your angle, across thousands of miles, with no delay.

In the classical world, there is only one sensible explanation: someone pre-programmed the coins before they left the mint. In the quantum world, that common-sense explanation is provably false.

This phenomenon, where two particles become so intertwined that the physical state of one cannot be described independently of the other, is quantum entanglement. Albert Einstein dismissed it as spukhafte Fernwirkung (“spooky action at a distance”) and believed it exposed a flaw in quantum mechanics. Decades of rigorous laboratory experiments have shown that the flaw lay in our classical assumptions about reality itself. Physical properties do not exist in definite states prior to observation, and nature operates through a deeper, more interconnected architecture than classical physics imagined.

1. The Genesis of a Crisis: Einstein, Bohr, and the EPR Paper

The story of entanglement began not with an attempt to build quantum computers, but with a philosophical revolt.

By the early 1930s, the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics, spearheaded by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, had become orthodox. It asserted that physical systems do not possess definite properties until they are measured. Before measurement, a particle is described by a wave function, a mathematical object that encodes a cloud of probabilities known as a superposition.

To Einstein, this was unacceptable. Our everyday cognitive models often fall victim to intuitive biases and logical fallacies when we try to force classical mechanics onto microscopic quantum behavior. Einstein championed two foundational pillars of physics:

1. Realism: Physical objects possess objective, definite properties whether we observe them or not. A tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound, and the moon exists even when nobody looks at it.
2. Locality: Physical influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light c, as mandated by Special Relativity. What happens here cannot instantaneously dictate what happens over there without a mediating signal crossing the intervening space.

Together, these principles form the bedrock of local realism.

In May 1935, Einstein joined forces with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. They published a four-page paper in Physical Review titled “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” (now known as the EPR paper).

The authors defined an element of physical reality: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.”

They proposed a thought experiment involving two particles that interact and then separate. By measuring particle A, an experimenter could predict with certainty the exact position or momentum of particle B without disturbing B in any way.

Because relativity forbids instantaneous influence across space, measuring A could not physically alter B. Therefore, B must have possessed that definite position or momentum all along. Yet standard quantum mechanics, bound by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, forbids simultaneous definite values for position and momentum.

The EPR paper did not claim quantum mechanics was wrong; it argued that it was incomplete. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen concluded that the wave function failed to capture the complete state of physical systems. They posited hidden parameters, deterministic instructions carried by the particles from the moment of their interaction, now called local hidden variables.

In 1951, David Bohm reformulated the continuous position-momentum EPR paradox using discrete spin-1/2 states, giving the modern “singlet state” version: |ψ⁻⟩ = (1/√2)(|↑↓⟩ − |↓↑⟩). Most modern discussions of entanglement use this simpler spin version.

2. Schrödinger’s Insight: The Birth of “Verschränkung”

Later that same year, Erwin Schrödinger, who formulated wave mechanics, corresponded extensively with Einstein. While Einstein focused on local realism, Schrödinger recognized something even more radical about the mathematical structure of the composite quantum wave function.

In a landmark 1935 paper in the Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, “Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems,” Schrödinger coined the German term Verschränkung and translated it into English as entanglement. He wrote that it was “not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought.”

Schrödinger realized that when two quantum systems interact, their individual state vectors dissolve. The universe ceases to describe them as two distinct objects. Instead, it describes them through a single, indivisible composite state vector living in a larger mathematical space known as a tensor product Hilbert space.

Even if you transport one particle to the Andromeda galaxy and leave the other on Earth, their quantum identity remains unified. You can possess complete knowledge of the total system while having zero knowledge of the individual parts.

Einstein, for his part, put his objection to non-local effects in a 1947 letter to Max Born, calling them spukhafte Fernwirkung, “spooky action at a distance.” His objection was ontological: he rejected any formalism requiring unmediated influences across space-like separated intervals, which would jeopardize the field-theoretic locality of General Relativity.

3. A Mathematical Glimpse: Inside the Bell State

To appreciate why entanglement departs completely from classical physics, look at the mathematics behind a simple two-qubit quantum state. In quantum computing, a two-level system (such as electron spin or photon polarization) is represented by a qubit, with basis states |0⟩ and |1⟩ in Dirac bra-ket notation.

Consider two independent particles, Alice’s (A) and Bob’s (B). If Alice prepares hers in an equal superposition |ψ_A⟩ = (1/√2)(|0⟩ + |1⟩) and Bob prepares his independently as |ψ_B⟩ = (1/√2)(|0⟩ + |1⟩), the composite state is simply the tensor product of the two:

|Ψ_separable⟩ = |ψ_A⟩ ⊗ |ψ_B⟩ = (1/2)(|00⟩ + |01⟩ + |10⟩ + |11⟩)

In this separable state, Alice’s measurement has no bearing on Bob’s. If Alice measures |0⟩, Bob still has an exact 50% chance of measuring |0⟩ and 50% of measuring |1⟩. The state factors cleanly.

Now contrast this with one of the four maximally entangled two-qubit states known as the Bell states:

|Φ⁺⟩ = (1/√2)(|00⟩ + |11⟩)

1. The missing terms: The cross-terms |01⟩ and |10⟩ have zero amplitude. The particles can only be measured as |00⟩ (both 0) or |11⟩ (both 1).
2. Mathematical non-separability: It is algebraically impossible to write |Φ⁺⟩ as a product of two single-particle states: |Φ⁺⟩ ≠ |ψ_A⟩ ⊗ |ψ_B⟩.
3. The loss of individual identity: Before measurement, Alice’s particle has no definite state. It is not |0⟩, not |1⟩, and not an independent superposition. Its properties do not exist in isolation.

When Alice measures in the computational basis, she gets a random result: |0⟩ half the time, |1⟩ half the time. But the moment her measurement yields |0⟩, the composite state becomes |00⟩. If Bob measures in the same basis, he is guaranteed to observe |0⟩ with 100% certainty.

For about thirty years, physicists treated this as an untestable interpretation. If Alice and Bob both measure heads, was that an instantaneous quantum connection, or simply two matching gloves packed into two identical boxes at the source? Then John Stewart Bell stepped in.

4. Bell’s Theorem: Turning Philosophy into Laboratory Science

In 1964, a Northern Irish theorist working at CERN named John Stewart Bell proved in “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox” that Einstein’s dream of local hidden variables was not a matter of philosophical preference. It was a testable mathematical impossibility. Bell asked a deceptively simple question: can any local hidden-variable model reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics when measurements are made at different angles?

The Glove Analogy and Where It Breaks Down

To understand Bell’s conceptual leap, consider the classic Bertlmann’s socks analogy that Bell himself popularized, a way of looking through the looking glass of human perception at what “definite properties” mean.

Dr. Reinhold Bertlmann was a colleague of Bell’s at CERN who liked to wear socks of different colors, say one pink and one green. If you see his left foot wearing a pink sock, you know instantly that his right foot wears a green one. Did a signal travel from one foot to the other? Of course not. The colors were fixed when he dressed in the morning. That is local realism:

• Realism: The socks had definite colors before you looked.
• Locality: Looking at one sock exerted no physical effect on the other.

If quantum entanglement were merely like Bertlmann’s socks, Einstein would be entirely correct. But quantum systems are not socks. You can choose to measure quantum properties along different angles and orientations, and that choice is what breaks the analogy.

The CHSH Inequality

In 1969, John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt reformulated Bell’s theorem into an experimentally testable form, the CHSH inequality.

Alice can choose between two measurement settings, a and a′. Bob can choose between b and b′. Each measurement gives +1 or −1. Under local realism, each particle carries predetermined answers for every possible setting. Simple algebra on those predetermined values forces the correlation parameter S to obey a strict ceiling:

S = |E(a, b) − E(a, b′) + E(a′, b) + E(a′, b′)| ≤ 2

Here E(a, b) is the statistical correlation between Alice measuring at angle a and Bob at angle b. In a local realist universe, S can never exceed 2.

Quantum mechanics predicts otherwise. For a maximally entangled pair, the correlation is E(a, b) = −cos(θ_a − θ_b). Choose the settings a = 0°, a′ = 90°, b = 45°, b′ = 135° (measured as spin-axis angles; for photon polarization the physical angles are halved). Each term then has magnitude √2/2 and all four add in the same direction:

S = 4 × (√2/2) = 2√2 ≈ 2.828

2.828 is greater than 2. This is the quantum maximum, known as Tsirelson’s bound. The debate was no longer about metaphysics. It was an empirical showdown: if nature produced an experimental value of S > 2, local realism was dead.

5. The Experimental Crucible: Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger

Turning Bell’s pencil-and-paper theorem into a physical apparatus took decades of technical ingenuity. The effort culminated in the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, 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.”

John Clauser: The First Pioneer (1972)

In the early 1970s, working as a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley with graduate student Stuart Freedman, John Clauser built the first practical Bell-test machine (Freedman and Clauser, 1972). They excited calcium atoms until they decayed in a two-stage atomic cascade, emitting pairs of entangled photons in opposite directions. The apparatus was primitive by modern standards.

When the counts were tabulated, the statistics matched quantum mechanics and violated the Bell-CHSH inequality by several standard deviations. Nature rejected local hidden variables. Skeptics still pointed to loopholes: detectors were inefficient and caught only a small fraction of photons (the detection loophole), and detector settings were static, so the particles could in theory have coordinated at sub-light speeds before measurement (the locality loophole).

Alain Aspect: Closing the Locality Loophole (1981–1982)

A decade later at the Institut d’Optique in Orsay, France, Alain Aspect designed an experiment to address the locality loophole directly (Aspect, Dalibard and Roger, 1982). His team installed fast optical switches that changed the analyzer settings while the entangled photons were in flight, across a baseline of about 12 meters. Light needs about 40 nanoseconds to cross that distance, so the choice of setting on one side was space-like separated from the detection on the other. No signal moving at or below the speed of light could coordinate the outcomes.

The results violated the CHSH inequality by a wide statistical margin, in agreement with quantum mechanics. Einstein’s locality was eliminated as a mechanism for hidden variables.

Anton Zeilinger: Entanglement as a Technological Resource

Starting in the late 1980s, Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger transformed entanglement from a foundational curiosity into the working engine of quantum technology:

• SPDC crystals: His team used spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in non-linear beta-barium borate (BBO) crystals, replacing unwieldy atomic cascades with compact lasers able to generate entangled pairs in large numbers.
• GHZ states: Zeilinger demonstrated entanglement of three or more particles (Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states), showing that Bell’s theorem can be demonstrated without statistical inequalities.
• Quantum teleportation (1997): His group demonstrated experimental quantum teleportation of the polarization state of a photon (Bouwmeester et al., 1997). His group also demonstrated entanglement swapping in 1998.
• The cosmic Bell test: To address the “freedom-of-choice loophole” (the speculative idea that detector settings were somehow predetermined), his collaborators used light from distant quasars, billions of years old, to choose measurement settings.

The 2015 Loophole-Free Bell Tests

For decades, researchers had closed the locality loophole and the detection loophole in separate experiments, but never at the same time. That final hurdle fell in 2015. A team led by Ronald Hanson at TU Delft placed electron spins in nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond at two laboratories 1.3 kilometers apart, and simultaneously closed both loopholes, measuring S = 2.42 ± 0.20 (Hensen et al., 2015).

Matching results from Giustina et al. in Vienna and Shalm et al. at NIST solidified the verdict: nature does not obey local realism.

6. The Speed-of-Light Paradox: Why You Cannot Send a Signal

If measuring particle A instantly forces particle B into a correlated state across the galaxy, why can we not use entanglement to send an instant message and break the cosmic speed limit? This is the most common point of confusion in the subject. The answer is the no-communication theorem, established by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber in 1980.

The Mathematical Proof

Take the Bell state |Φ⁺⟩ = (1/√2)(|00⟩ + |11⟩). Bob’s local reality is described not by the global wave function but by his reduced density matrix, obtained by tracing out Alice’s subsystem:

ρ_B = Tr_A(|Φ⁺⟩⟨Φ⁺|) = (1/2) I₂

This is a maximally mixed state: pure randomness. Suppose Alice tries to send a binary “1” by measuring in the computational (Z) basis. Her qubit collapses to |0⟩ or |1⟩, and Bob’s does too. Does Bob’s reduced density matrix change? No: ρ_B′ = (1/2)|0⟩⟨0| + (1/2)|1⟩⟨1| = (1/2) I₂.

What if Alice tries to send a “0” by measuring in the Hadamard (X) basis? Bob’s particle collapses to |+⟩ or |−⟩, but his statistical description is again ρ_B″ = (1/2)|+⟩⟨+| + (1/2)|−⟩⟨−| = (1/2) I₂. It is identical.

Whatever Alice does, whether she measures along Z, along X, or smashes her particle with a hammer, Bob’s local measurements yield a purely random stream of bits. To discover that their results are correlated, Alice must send her measurement log to Bob through a classical channel such as an email, a radio signal, or a laser pulse, and that signal is bound by the speed of light c.

Entanglement is a correlation, not a communication channel. It coordinates outcomes without transmitting energy, mass, or controllable data. Causality remains unbroken.

7. Disentangling the Lexicon: Superposition, Teleportation, and Tunnelling

Popular science writing often conflates different quantum phenomena. They are distinct:

1. Superposition vs. entanglement: Superposition occurs within a single quantum system. A single photon can be in a superposition of horizontal and vertical polarization. Entanglement is a special kind of superposition in a composite system of two or more particles whose joint state cannot be factored into individual states.
2. Quantum teleportation: No matter is transported; the particles stay where they are. The unknown state is destroyed at the source (in accordance with the no-cloning theorem). Two classical bits are mandatory to tell the receiver which transformation to apply. Without them, the receiver holds an unrecognizable maximally mixed state.
3. Quantum tunnelling: A spatial wave phenomenon in which a wave packet penetrates a classically forbidden energy barrier via exponential tail decay. It powers nuclear fusion in stars and flash memory, and involves no non-local correlations.

8. From Paradox to Paradigm: Modern Technological Applications

Entanglement has stopped being an exotic debate among philosophers. Today it is recognized as a physical resource, a currency of the “Second Quantum Revolution.”

1. Quantum key distribution and the E91 protocol: In the Ekert protocol (E91), created by Artur Ekert in 1991, Alice and Bob share entangled photon pairs and measure them along randomly chosen bases to generate a shared cryptographic key. If an eavesdropper (“Eve”) intercepts the photons, her measurement collapses the entangled state, reducing S below 2√2 and revealing the eavesdropping attempt.
2. Quantum computing: A classical register of n bits holds one of 2ⁿ values at a time. A register of n entangled qubits has a state space of dimension 2ⁿ. Entanglement together with superposition is a key computational resource for algorithms such as Shor’s factoring and Grover’s search.
3. Quantum repeaters and global networks: Because photons cannot be copied or amplified without disturbing the quantum state, a global quantum internet relies on entanglement swapping, first demonstrated by Zeilinger’s group in 1998. Entangling two intermediate photons entangles the outer, distant ones, bridging large distances without destroying fragile quantum data.
4. Quantum sensing beyond the classical limit: Entangled states such as NOON states can beat the Standard Quantum Limit (Δφ ∝ 1/√N) and approach the Heisenberg Limit (Δφ ∝ 1/N). Related quantum-enhanced techniques, such as squeezed light, are already used at LIGO to improve gravitational-wave detection.

9. The Philosophical Frontiers: Interpretations, Spacetime, and the Nature of Reality

What does entanglement mean for our ongoing inquiry into the nature of reality? The mathematics is settled; what it says about the world is still debated.

The Interpretation Landscape

• Copenhagen: The wave function represents our knowledge of probabilities. Measurement triggers a non-unitary collapse. Non-locality is an operational feature of the mathematics rather than a signal across space.
• Many-Worlds (Everettian quantum mechanics): Hugh Everett III proposed in 1957 that the wave function never collapses. When an observer measures an entangled qubit, the observer becomes entangled with it, branching the universe into non-interacting decoherent branches. Quantum mechanics is then strictly local and deterministic, and non-locality is an illusion experienced from within a single branch.
• De Broglie–Bohm pilot wave: Particles have definite trajectories at all times (realism is saved), guided by a non-local “pilot wave.” The non-local connection is real and physical, explicitly violating Einstein’s locality.
• QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): Championed by Christopher Fuchs, QBism holds that the quantum state does not describe external reality but an agent’s personal degrees of belief about the consequences of their future actions.

Spacetime from Entanglement: The ER = EPR Conjecture

In 2013, Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind proposed the ER = EPR conjecture: entangled particle pairs (EPR, 1935) and Einstein–Rosen wormholes (ER, 1935) may be descriptions of the same underlying physics. In their picture, two entangled black holes are connected by a non-traversable wormhole in quantum gravity. Related work, such as the Ryu–Takayanagi formula, suggests that spacetime geometry may emerge from networks of entanglement. This is active theoretical research, not settled physics.

10. Correcting Common Misconceptions

• Misconception 1: Entanglement enables a faster-than-light internet. The no-communication theorem forbids faster-than-light signaling. Local measurement outcomes are always completely random.
• Misconception 2: Entanglement is a physical force between particles. No energy, momentum, or force is exchanged between entangled particles.
• Misconception 3: Quantum entanglement links human brains, enables telepathy, or explains cosmic consciousness. Warm, wet biological environments destroy quantum coherence extremely quickly, estimated at around 10⁻¹³ seconds, far faster than neural signaling at about 10⁻³ seconds. Entanglement offers no support for telepathy or mysticism.
• Misconception 4: Bell’s theorem disproves all hidden variables. It disproves local hidden-variable theories. It leaves open non-local hidden-variable theories such as De Broglie–Bohm mechanics, as well as superdeterministic models.

11. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is quantum entanglement in simple terms?

Quantum entanglement occurs when two or more particles become so intimately connected that their physical properties cannot be described independently. Measuring one particle immediately tells you what the matching measurement on the other will show, no matter how far apart they are, even though neither property was fixed before the measurement.

Did Einstein prove that quantum mechanics is wrong?

No. Einstein argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete, not wrong. His 1935 EPR paper maintained that, because quantum mechanics predicted “spooky action at a distance,” there must be underlying hidden parameters the theory failed to account for. Decades of Bell-test experiments have shown that his preferred alternative, local realism, does not hold in our universe.

Can quantum entanglement transmit data faster than light?

No. Local measurement results on an entangled particle look completely random. To find any correlation, experimenters must compare their results over conventional communication channels, which are limited by the speed of light.

How do scientists create entangled particles in a laboratory?

The most common modern method is spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC). A laser beam is fired into a non-linear crystal such as beta-barium borate. Occasionally, a single high-energy photon splits into two lower-energy photons whose polarizations or directions are entangled.

What is the difference between quantum entanglement and quantum superposition?

Superposition is a property of a single quantum system existing in multiple states at once, such as an electron with both spin-up and spin-down amplitudes. Entanglement is a joint superposition of multiple particles that cannot be mathematically factored into independent components.

12. Conclusion: What Entanglement Teaches Us About Reality

Nearly a century after Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Schrödinger wrestled with the foundations of quantum theory, entanglement has evolved from a contested paradox into one of the most rigorously verified facts in science, the kind of idea that rewards the curiosity of a true polymath. The Bell inequalities have been violated, and the major loopholes have been closed.

To make sense of the universe, we must surrender one of our most cherished classical intuitions. If we hold onto realism, the idea that particles have definite properties before we look, we must abandon locality and accept non-local correlations. If we hold onto locality, we must abandon realism and accept that physical properties are brought into definite existence only through measurement. Different interpretations choose differently, and experiment alone has not yet picked one.

What the experiments make clear is that nature does not consist of isolated billiard balls colliding in an inert void. At the deepest scale, physical reality is a network of relationships, far stranger and more unified than our classical minds assumed.

References

1. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
2. Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31(4), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013554
3. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195
4. Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. (1969). Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Physical Review Letters, 23(15), 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880
5. Freedman, S. J., & Clauser, J. F. (1972). Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories. Physical Review Letters, 28(14), 938–941. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938
6. Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804–1807. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804
7. Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Eibl, M., Weinfurter, H., & Zeilinger, A. (1997). Experimental Quantum Teleportation. Nature, 390(6660), 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/37539
8. Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A. E., et al. (2015). Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature, 526(7575), 682–686. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15759
9. Giustina, M., Versteegh, M. A. M., Wengerowsky, S., et al. (2015). Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons. Physical Review Letters, 115(25), 250401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401
10. Shalm, L. K., Meyer-Scott, E., Christensen, B. G., et al. (2015). Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism. Physical Review Letters, 115(25), 250402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402
11. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1980). A General Argument against Superluminal Transmission through the Quantum Mechanical Measurement Process. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 27(10), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02817004
12. Ekert, A. K. (1991). Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s Theorem. Physical Review Letters, 67(6), 661–663. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661
13. Maldacena, J., & Susskind, L. (2013). Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes. Fortschritte der Physik, 61(9), 781–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020
14. The Nobel Committee for Physics (2022). Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-4.pdf