this is pretty dense for the lay-person, but the author themselves sums it up better in the actual paper: > "It is definitely not the intention of this paper t

this is pretty dense for the lay-person, but the author themselves sums it up better in the actual paper: > "It is definitely not the intention of this paper to question the derivation of Bell's inequality. Bell's proof is mathematically correct. The point is simply that the assumptions of Bell's inequality —namely, the restriction to non-contextual models—do not comprehensively describe conceivable physical reality. > "The model should reproduce the QM predictions of polarization measurements of entangled photons. In doing so, it would describe measurement results violating Bell's inequality." The paper will be a slog if you don't know much QM or math; if you know some, you can likely get a handle on it.