Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Isn’t Bell’s probability density for hidden variables too restrictive?

  1. May 22, 2007 #1
    J.S. Bell (Physics Vol.1, No. 3, 1964) excludes from consideration any distribution [tex] \rho [/tex] of the hidden variable [tex] \lambda [/tex] that formally depends on the vectors [tex] a [/tex] and [tex] b [/tex], except if [tex] \rho ( \lambda ,a,b) = \rho ' ( \lambda ,a) \rho ' ( \lambda ,b)[/tex] i.e. if the distribution can be factored in a part depending on [tex] a [/tex] and not on [tex] b [/tex] and another part depending on [tex] b [/tex] and not on [tex] a [/tex]. Otherwise he could not derive (22). On precisely which grounds did Bell introduce this restriction? For example, does the locality requirement lead to this restriction? How?Are other principles involved?

    Edit: I made an unforgivable error: According to Bell, neither [tex] \lambda [/tex] itself nor its density distribution [tex] \rho ( \lambda ) [/tex] may depend on [tex] a [/tex] and [tex] b [/tex]. The question is still the same: why not?
    Last edited: May 23, 2007
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted