I've just finished reading Nick Herbert's book 'Quantum Reality,' and I was a bit puzzled by his intuitive proof of Bell's theorem.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The part that puzzles me is the graphs on pp. 223 and 224, Fig 12.4 and 12.5. These show the 'matches per four marks' as a function of 'calcite difference.' They say that when the calcite difference is 90 degrees, the matches are zero.

It seems to me that when the calcite difference is 90 degrees, the correlation is zero, but then the matches should be 2 out of 4, since there's a 50-50 chance of a match when the correlation is zero. It seems to me that the calcite difference would need to be 180 degrees to achieve 0 matches.

Am I missing something, or did Herbert confuse 'correlation = zero' with 'matches = zero?'

Bruce

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

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!

# Question about Nick Herbert's Bell proof

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**