# Can we exlain Bell's Theorem without dwelving into Quantum Mechanics?

I have recently started learning Quantum Mechanics. We learnt some things on light polarization, so I referred to this site. Luckily I stumbled upon this answer which links to this site which sated my quest for an answer. However, I recalled a video titled "Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox" by MinutePhysics. Is the classical answer insufficient? Why is it insufficient?

• Bell's theorem is a statement about certain (classical) models, so called "local hidden variable models". There is no reference to quantum mechanics whatsoever. Apr 17, 2019 at 23:12
• by "explain Bell's theorem" do you mean "explain the derivation of the result", or "explain the results of a Bell violation"? Because in the first case QM is not involved at all, while in the second case the whole point is that you cannot explain/predict the results within a classical framework. QM correctly predicts physical situations that violate Bell's inequalities, but this does not imply that QM is the only possible theory explaining such violations
– glS
Apr 18, 2019 at 10:24

For example, in the "three-polarizer" experiment you linked to, assuming the light gets through the first filter, you could imagine the possible ontic states to be: $$\{00\},\{01\},\{1x\},$$ where $$\{00\}$$ means "will make it through the second and third filters," $$\{01\}$$ means "will make it through the second filter, but not the third," and $$\{1x\}$$ means "won't make it through the second filter." Then we can describe the whole experiment classically by just assigning probability 1/4 to each of the first two ontic states and probability 1/2 to the third. These probabilities are seen as just encoding our lack of knowledge about the ontic state of each photon, rather than something intrinsic to the photon.