4 ms·

Ahem, there isn't anything more linear than the sum of two variables...

• jayd16 7y ago
  Its just an analogy. Something to show that a distribution might appear interesting but is actually not. The point is that Bell's theorem relies on the assumption that a linear distribution must be expected and the paper is arguing that that has not been sufficiently proven. At least that's my understanding of the paper's argument.
  • akvadrako 7y ago
    Bell's theorem does not rely on that.
    • jayd16 7y ago
      Can you explain how? Wikipedia states: >With the measurements oriented at intermediate angles between these basic cases, the existence of local hidden variables could agree with/would be consistent with a linear dependence of the correlation in the angle but, according to Bell's inequality (see below), could not agree with the dependence predicted by quantum mechanical theory, namely, that the correlation is the negative cosine of the angle.
      • akvadrako 7y ago
        What that sentence says is: Bell's theorem predicts the linear dependence of the correlations angles - or at least it's consistent with such a model. It's not an assumption of the theory. Also keep in mind we don't observe linear correlations - at least one of the assumptions of Bell's theorem must be wrong.