>>11161664entanglement is just a feature of quantum mechanics. it is implicit in the early formulations of heisenberg and schrodinger.
>>11161673>The experiment that showed it was super important (probably earned a Nobel prize).this is a silly thing to say. entanglement was recognized as a feature very early by e.g. einstein, before people were doing particular experiments to look for entangled states. even when Bell was talking about his bell's theorem stuff, it was mostly just theoretical, but aharanov and bohm were doing similar stuff which basically equates to the same thing in many ways without thinking about pairs of entangled particles. even feynman's path integral stuff sort of amounts to the same thing if you think about it. different ways of giving names to general quantum weirdness
i guess an early example of experimentally preparing entangled states is parametric downconversion.... which never got a nobel prize because it is similar in many ways to older stuff like lasers and superconductors and whatnot
anyhow, Bell probably made it the most famous by showing exactly how weird quantum theory gets, and he never won a nobel prize. he only showed what the two different answers would be if it were classical versus quantum, and it wasn't even super clear until CHSH. no nobels there for that work. experimental tests of it that confirmed quantum theory were mainly done by Alain Aspect, but some earlier things were done and there were always claims that there are "loopholes" in the result. he never got a nobel either.
there are rumors that Bell might have gotten it but he died like that year so he couldn't get it. i don't really buy it -- the Nobel committee is much more interested in giving the award to people who find very real results that lead to new technologies or more discoveries, whereas the bell inequality tests are not going to lead to anything aside from going "well that's weird!" and designing ever-weirder stuff that goes nowhere (eg DCQE)
