d'Espagnat takes big prize for work on quantum mechanics

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Earlier this week, the Templeton Foundation announced the 2009 winner of its $1.4 million Templeton Prize, French physicist and philosopher Bernard d’Espagnat. He is best known for his work to understand and test one of the strangest predictions of the theory of quantum mechanics: that particles are uncannily good players of The Newlywed Game. Pairs of them can give exactly the same responses to measurements conducted on them at the same time in isolated booths.

In the 1960s, physicist John Stewart Bell derived a set of mathematical inequalities that the responses would obey if the particles had some kind of a built-in cheat sheet. But d’Espagnat, Alain Aspect, and other experimenters found that particles violate these inequalities. Somehow the particles retain an intimate connection that transcends space. Physicists, even the most romantically inclined among them, have yet to fathom it.

“For those interested in the fundamental structure of the physical world, the experimental verification of Bell’s inequality constitutes the most significant event of the last half-century,” Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics at Rutgers University, has written.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For me, the award also brings back fond memories of one of Scientific American’s most classic articles, d’Espagnat’s “The Quantum Theory and Reality,” in our November 1979 issue, which provides a step-by-step explanation of Bell’s inequalities and goes into the subtleties that my above summary glosses over. It’s not the easiest article to read, but it rewards the effort, and it inspired a streamlined explanation by David Mermin in the April 1985 issue of Physics Today, which I, in turn, further simplified for my own book.

This month’s cover story, by Columbia University philosopher David Albert and writer Rivka Galchen, delves more into the implications, many of which are not well known even by most physicists. As it happens, my colleague Ivan Oransky and I saw Galchen Monday night at the award ceremony for the Young Lions Fiction Award, for which her Pynchonesque novel Atmospheric Disturbanceswas a finalist. Congratulations, Rivka!

Photo of Bernard d’Espagnat, courtesy Templeton Foundation

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe