Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the article. In the article, I first show how to "break" the Bell inequality without making a reference to any complicated math or Ph

Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the article. In the article, I first show how to "break" the Bell inequality without making a reference to any complicated math or Physics, this is the section "Breaking the Bell inequality with non-local information", which uses the dice roll example. This is on purpose, for pedagogical reasons, and this is why the Python approach imo is so useful to demonstrate this whole thing: the key idea is, to break the inequality, you need to "peek" at the other side. Then, the next mental step is simply the statement that, in "real life", you can prepare a composite system (eg. 2 photons modeled as 2 qubits) that you can seperate (modeled as the split() function in Python), you can send the 2 parts to two different observers, they use a certain measurement setup, and the whole game is played, statistic computed, etc. and then you get this value 2.82 (which breaks the Bell inequality)! So somehow, the 2 qubits are doing that we can only model [in Python] as peeking! The actual derivation of how to get that 2.82 is, in some sense, almost like a a detail. I think with this approach, even a non-physicist can understand what this whole argument is (=Bell's genius). "a talented college physics student can do it" - I'm a Physicist, but I'm not working as a Physicist, and I was able to derive all the numbers in that table by hand with pen & paper directly. I figured if I can do it 15 years out of school, so can a talented college physics student! The next article will be that derivation [of the raw probabilities], I just need to transcribe it from my notebook to Latex and clean it up. If you want to see the original notes: https://photos.app.goo.gl/sqxLnEhyeZTDD7oA6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/sqxLnEhyeZTDD7oA6