- #51

DarMM

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,370

- 1,402

So the first equation has:OK, thanks, let me try again. Let's call the 2 top equations on p.198: (14a) and (14b).

So, to me, (14a) is true; it is simply a definition of Bell's terms.

But (14b) looks false to me; and this view is backed by the fact that it (by plain mathematics) leads to Bell's famous eqn (15): which IS false under QM.

$$-A(a, \lambda)A(b, \lambda) + A(a, \lambda)A(c, \lambda)$$

Extract ##A(a, \lambda)##:

$$A(a, \lambda)\left[A(c, \lambda) - A(b, \lambda)\right]$$

Since ##A(b,\lambda)^{2} = 1## by the equation (1) in the paper:

$$A(a, \lambda)\left[A(b,\lambda)^{2}A(c, \lambda) - A(b, \lambda)\right]$$

Then just extract ##A(b,\lambda)##:

$$A(a, \lambda)A(b,\lambda)\left[A(b,\lambda)A(c, \lambda) - 1\right]$$

So it's just basic algebra. No physical assumptions. The assumption QM breaks comes earlier in the paper. It's the assumption that ##A, B, C## are in fact random variables over some common space of polarization settings and variables ##\lambda##.