He certainly deserves it. He is incredible experimentalist:
- Macroscopic quantum inference with molecules like C70.
- two photon orbital angular momentum entanglement with 600 difference in quantum number.
- multi-particle entangement.
- quantum teleportation
Cosmic Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars (2018) https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... > .. This experiment pushes back to at least ∼7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
Challenging local realism with human choices https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3
>Bell himself noted this weakness in using physical setting choices and argued that human ‘free will’ could be used rigorously to ensure unpredictability in Bell tests8. Here we report a set of local-realism tests using human choices, which avoids assumptions about predictability in physics. We recruited about 100,000 human participants to play an online video game that incentivizes fast, sustained input of unpredictable selections and illustrates Bell-test methodology
>... Project outcomes include closing the ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’ (the possibility that the setting choices are influenced by ‘hidden variables’ to correlate with the particle properties
Please don't flame me if this is an outrageous question, because I readily admit I know nothing on the topic of quantum physics, but isn't it a quite large limitation to assume human free will as a given? Or is "free-will" meant as a proxy for "pseudo-random" and that's enough for this experiment?
It has to do with true randomness in the measurement aspect, not with human free will.