I'm trying to follow this mathematical explanation of Bell's theorem.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The problem I find is with the assumption of a probability density for the hidden variable. That implies - and my question is: am I wrong? why? - that you can expect the same distribution of such a variable for any repetition of the experiment (measurement). Now that's inconsistent (imho) with the nature itself of the variable, that should represent an unknown law of physics, an expression whose values are clearly function of time, at least, and space. I mean, I could just imagine that distribution as a Dirac delta of a predetermined result, but function of the angle of measurement and different for each measurement (cause each one will happen in a different space-time...). I fail to see how a (unique) unitary integral of a density for the hidden variable is realistic.

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

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

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

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

# Bell's theorem in nLab

Tags:

Loading...

Similar Threads - Bell's theorem nLab | Date |
---|---|

What's the difference between Bell curve and Gaussian distribution | May 21, 2013 |

Statistics Help! Bell shaped distribution | Jan 23, 2012 |

Boole vs. Bell - a mathematicians perspective? | May 29, 2011 |

Bell's impossibility theorem, equivalence classes: SOS! | Dec 22, 2010 |

Deriving points conforming to bell curve | Jun 21, 2010 |

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