Dimosthenis76

My email is irrelevant if someone wants to continue the discussion.

Nice to meet you guys.

Dimosthenis Michopoulos

Physicist 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

It is most certainly NOT a theory. A theory is NOT a guess. A theory is the best current explanation we currently have for a particular phenomenon. It's the best science has to offer. Does that describe your paper? NO.

You don't need to respond to moderator notes, you just have to follow the rules mentioned in them.

 

That's just your opinion.

If the suggested experiments work, we talk if it is or if it is not a theory.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

So are you going to respond to my questions about the bag of balls?

Or do you expect to be the only speaker at this conference?

What's the question. I didn't understand it.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This is a speculative work in itself, so you can't use it to support further speculation. You'll have to have this paper discussed in a thread all by itself.

 

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.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well yes, sort of.

It is incomplete by itself.

Ok keep it.

Go on with your example.

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

The complex wave function Ψ is a solution of Schrondingers equation.

Do you agree with this statement?

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

The complex wave function Ψ is a solution of Schrondingers equation.

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.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Different presentations are possible

 

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.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Meanwhile, I can put a cloud of atoms into a superposition of two states, which QM says is a wave function that is a linear combination of the two eigenvectors with equal amplitudes, and then measure the population in each state, and find they are equal, as part of an experiment. How does that work, if Born's rule is incorrect?

 

 

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

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

So now let us look first at my point 1

There are different ways of looking at the physical phenomena we call Quantum Mechanics.

I offered a simple plot of a wave (not a quantum wave), just any old wave so the picture is instantly recognisable.

A wave satisfies a wave equation (there is more than 1 wave equation).

I asked a question about this plot which shows this idea of more than one view.

To move on I will answer it.

The plot can have either time or space on the horizontal axis.

For this wave equation they look identical and you cannot distinguish between them unless you are told beforehand.

 

So two views, different but of the same phenomenon.

 

Do you understand this, it is vitally important to understanding more complicated wave equations such as Shroedinger or Dirac.

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

The experiments mesure exactly the fraction N/No, even in Cern.

The cheat comes in calculation of the theoretical probability.

Born's rule is wrong and useless and its verification is a cheat. No-one experiment actually rely on Born's rule. 

Its like I say something clearly stupid (earth is as big as sun) and I don't examine it separately but between other sentences which are correct and verified, that doesn't mean that earth is as big as sun.

Why after a 100 years, we don't have a clear verification of it?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

You are quite right to observe that you asked for experimental verification.

Unfortunately, we cannot come to that unless and until you answer the question I asked.

for convenience I will restate it.

Proper understanding of probability is vital to the answer.

 

I am sorry you did not like the paper I lined to, I thought it would be of interest.

Probability of course means: N particles in the asking area/No total particles.

The paper you lined to was ok. It helps me to tell how someone (the writer) can not understand any of physics.

Born's rule is an axiom. As an axiom it couldn't even have a theoretical proof but only an experimental verification.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Does an imaginary number have a physical meaning?

By itself, no, but when you square it, it does. It’s not like the wave function is unique in this regard, and such an objection is meaningless.

Yes, the “unreasonable standard” gambit.

 

In refraction and electricity the imaginary numbers have physical meaning. The quantum wave function is absolutely unique magnitude in physics.

I don't understand what you mean. Has Ψ physical meaning? The physical meaning is the point, not the complex numbers.

Anyway, if someone shows me a paper where the eigenvectors of Ψ come from the Schrodinger's equation solution, then calculate the square absolute Ψ, and at last compares them with experimental probabilities we talk.

That and only that would have been Born's rule verification.

For example

F=ma

F is force

m is mass

a is acceleration

All of them are physics magnitudes

Is Ψ also a physics magnitude?

No it isn't. There is no physical meaning behind Ψ.

That's what I mean.

Excuse my English, are really bad but I am making effort.

In all equations in physics we have  magnitudes of physics.

As quantum mechanics says exception is the Schrodinger's equation where Ψ is not a magnitude of physics but only a magnitude of mathematics. 

Quantum mechanics also says that the square of the absolute Ψ is the physics magnitude which is equal to the probability of finding the particle in a specific area.

If someone wants to verify that statement has to make an experiment and compares the theoretical prediction with the experiment's results.

The paper you show me, has only the theoretical part, as we define that the vectors OA,OB etc are probabilities, we logically conclude that theirs sum is also a probability. This isn't a verification, this is a tautology!

Other papers (like the one I gave the link above) have the experimental part. There, they measure the intensity of light, or the intensity of another magnitude of particles, and then contribute it to the experimental areas, and in this way they mesure probabilities. We knew that intensity is analogous of probability, we didn't expect quantum mechanics says that to us. (The grater the intensity of an area, the grater the probability of finding the particle there).This also isn't a verification, this is also a tautology!

I haven't seen any paper which has the comparison of the theoretical and the experimental part.

Allow me to tell you where the stole is.

They say that they verify Born's rule by comparing the intensities with probabilities. Like they do in this paper 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08563

As I said this is as stole, a tautology!

Nobody solves Schrodinger's equation to prove that probability is given by the wave function square. 

That's why quantum mechanics doesn't make sense. It has deep problems.

I am writing here because I don't have more posts for today.

As quantum mechanics says wave function is only a mathematical magnitude. The wave function square is the physics magnitude. What is the proof that the wave function square is analogous intensity?

You are right about the "stole". I should have said cheat.

I don't believe so, all the axioms in science are experimentally verified.

The exception is Born's rule!

Thank you for your answer StringJunky but this isn't a proof.

If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrodinger's equation and compare the theoritical results with experimental results. This is not happening nowhere! 
 

Hello to everybody

Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule.