- #1

- 3,872

- 88

## Main Question or Discussion Point

This is a spin-off from the thread on Bell's theorem, following this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3819552

Instead of discussing about λ and the way to account for it, Nick Herbert seems to have provided a stunningly simple and convincing proof of "quantum non-locality" here (thanks for the link Lugita15):

- http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

The essential part is in the last drawing, with the text just above it:

It surely looks very convincing to me! :tongue2:

Thus my questions:

- are there known issues with that proof?

- I thought that models exist that reproduce the characteristic of QM of a greater "mismatch". However, according to Herbert's proof, that is not possible. What's going on?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3819552

Instead of discussing about λ and the way to account for it, Nick Herbert seems to have provided a stunningly simple and convincing proof of "quantum non-locality" here (thanks for the link Lugita15):

- http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

The essential part is in the last drawing, with the text just above it:

*simple arithmetic and the assumption that Reality is Local leads one to confidently predict that the code mismatch at 60 degrees must be less than 50%.*It surely looks very convincing to me! :tongue2:

Thus my questions:

- are there known issues with that proof?

- I thought that models exist that reproduce the characteristic of QM of a greater "mismatch". However, according to Herbert's proof, that is not possible. What's going on?