I have a question regarding the paper by John Bell (www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf [Broken]) in which he shows that a certain hidden variable approach cannot reproduce the expectation values predicted by QM for a pair of particles in the singlet state.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

After eqn 15 on page 4, I don't understand the logic. Why can't ##P(b,c)## be stationary at the point ##b=c##? Seems like ##P## could have a minimum at ##b=c## and hence be a stationary point. How does ##P(b,c)## being the order of ##|b-c|## around ##b=c## prevent that? I guess I'm missing something big here.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Bell Proof Against Hidden Variables in EPR

Loading...

Similar Threads - Bell Proof Against | Date |
---|---|

B Simple proof of Bell's theorem | Nov 22, 2016 |

I How does Bell make this step in his proof? | Oct 4, 2016 |

Do we have any proof of entanglement other than bells inequalities? | Jun 22, 2011 |

Bell's theorem proof. Does it really proofs anything? | Dec 6, 2010 |

A Simple Proof Of Bell's Theorem | Jul 20, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**