Talk:Alain Aspect

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh?

Can someone explain this article for the layman? I don't understand a word of it and it sounds important! ThePeg (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried... cojoco (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few understandable words. Split something in half. Take one of the halves and place it in another universe. Make a change in the half that is near you. In no time at all, the half that is in another universe will also be changed. This is called nonlocality and Aspect is supposed to have proved it to be true.Lestrade (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

that's pretty much it, except for the "placing in another universe part", which is not necessary (lucky, as I don't know how to do this) cojoco (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A mere appearance and an incomplete conclusion

The article states that " 'ghostly action at a distance' did in fact appear to be realised…." Does that mean that "in fact" the results were not realised, but only gave the appearance of being realised? Also, if "his results were not completely conclusive," then are they considered to be mistaken or wrong?Lestrade (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Again on incomplete conclusion

This article says:

"Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism. See local hidden variable theory."

When I look at the article on local hidden variable theory, I see this:

"... As a result of this it is now generally accepted that there can be no interpretations of quantum mechanics which use local hidden variables."

If the above statement in the local hidden variables article is "generally accepted" as it says, the phrase in this article around "his results were not completely conclusive" seems a little strong / wrong.

In fact, the statement might be revised to say something like "(although all scientific theories are subject to revision as we learn more), currently, it is generally accepted that spooky action at a distance is real, and is not caused by local hidden variables".

Can someone knowledgeable comment on this, and, if appropriate, make some adjustments in either or both articles? There may also be other articles where this is appropriate, as well.

If something like my proposed language change is not appropriate, please explain why!

Rhkramer (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alain Aspect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412040140/http://www1.hw.ac.uk/annual-review/2008/people_awards.html to http://www1.hw.ac.uk/annual-review/2008/people_awards.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://collections.royalsociety.org/DServe.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqCmd=show.tcl&dsqSearch=%28RefNo%3D%3D%27EC%2F2015%2F48%27%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Honoris causa

The mention of the Heriot-Watt honoris causa doctorate does not seem very relevant and I'd remove it: someone with the standing of Aspect probably has been offered dozens of them (a quick search immediately finds half a dozen and is likely incomplete), so there is not much point in singling out one and from a not extremely prestigious university. 90.112.65.233 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

We need a pronunciation key for his whole name, since so many people (including all Swedish Nobel academics!) do not know about the basic French consonant-pronounced-before-vowel rule, in this case the 'n' before Aspect. Embarrassing to hear his name mispronounced over and over. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)