i found the following proof of Bell's theorem :(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

we measure spin in 3 different directions a b c we can note the counting of events

N1=n(a+,b+,c+)

N2. + + -

N3. + - +

N4. + - -

N5. - + +

N6. - + -

N7. - - +

We have N3+n4<=n7+n3+n4+n2

With n3+n4=p(+a,-b)

N7+n3=p(-b,+c)

N4+n2=p(+a,-c)

It is violated by quantum mechanics but i don't see where the hypothesis of locality and reality comes into play.

**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 theorem without hypotheses?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Bell theorem without | Date |
---|---|

I Bell's Theorem and Reality | Feb 13, 2018 |

I Is Bell's Theorem correct? | Jan 21, 2018 |

B Teacher needs help: Bra–ket notation for parabolas? | Oct 22, 2017 |

I How do you understand EPR & Bell's Theorem? | Sep 24, 2017 |

B Some questions about "superdeterminism" and Bell's Theorem | May 12, 2017 |

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