Dimosthenis76

My email is irrelevant if someone wants to continue the discussion. Nice to meet you guys. Dimosthenis Michopoulos Physicist

That's just your opinion. If the suggested experiments work, we talk if it is or if it is not a theory. What's the question. I didn't understand it.

Speculative? Speculation? What do you mean? Its just a theory with two suggestions for experimental verification. I ll discuss it in a thread all by itself as you like, as soon as I finish this conversation. Ok keep it. Go on with your example.

Do you agree with this statement?

Can we at least deal with it before you continue your example? My English again. Deal with is a phrasal berb, I wanted to say to have a deal.

I don' t understand what that means.

Go on, but in Harvard's book there isn't exist any reference in Born's rule, neither as an axiom or as anything else. Is very close to my opinion, we don't need Born's rule if we want to make the mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics.

But we need to choose one. Do we have an agreement to choose MIT presentation where Born's rule is an axiom? Develop your example, nothing is babish for me.

Show me the experiment. For everyone We need to have a basis of discussion. Agreement in MIT basis? Axioms of quantum mechanics by MIT. MIT22_51F12_Ch3.pdf

Clear enough.

Thank you studiot.

Swansont No you are wrong. The quantum mechanics part except Born's rule is correct (Schrodinger's equation etc). Born's rule is incorrect. That's why I have the right to ask experimental verification of Born's rule. Quantum Mechanics is a hundred years theory. If we need to fix something, that will be something difficult to distinguish. That's why is needed to examine each axiom separately. Studiot I really missed you I am sorry if I said something that bothers you. I want to be very polite. We just talk. Please one thing per time because I cant follow you. But Born's rule is an axiom. It is basic to understand how a science is founded. Something technical: I have to worry because I have only 6 posts per day. Can someone do something about that?

Ι 'm trying to. You need at first to understand what quantum mechanics says. 1) There is not an experimental verification that the square of absolute Ψ gives probabilities. Can you find one? 2) Quantum Mechanics says that Ψ hasn't physical meaning, not me. 3) I didn't say anything like that.

CLASSICAL QUANTUM MECHANICS.pdf

Guys it's very difficult for me to express myself in English in a such a difficult issue. Try to find a paper at least that proofs that Pi=wave function square. This should be proved. Instead of this everybody proofs that Pi=Ni/N=Ii/I, where Ii=E/tA=Ni*h*f/tA. This isn't a proof, is a tautology! Maybe everything I say is wrong, of course I don't believe so. Thank you for your hospitality. Regards Dimosthenis