Dimosthenis76 Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Hello to everybodyIs really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 It's derived from Schrödinger's equation, so basically all QM experiments that rely on it verify it, even if it is not tested directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Share Posted March 22, 2019 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

StringJunky Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Quote The Born Rule is certainly correct, as far as all of our experimental efforts have been able to discern. - Sean Carroll Have a look at his thoughts on it: Why Probability in Quantum Mechanics is Given by the Wave Function Squared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Share Posted March 22, 2019 Thank you for your answer StringJunky but this isn't a proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

StringJunky Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Dimosthenis76 said: Thank you for your answer StringJunky but this isn't a proof. There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Share Posted March 22, 2019 I don't believe so, all the axioms in science are experimentally verified. The exception is Born's rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Dimosthenis76 said: 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! Tell me more, he says, while a bunch of atomic clocks which do this very thing (time-resolved interferometry involving superpositions of states) are a stone's throw away. (They wouldn't work if the Born rule were wrong) The whole group of entanglement experiments are examples of confirming the Born rule. A whole slew of spectroscopy experiments. The Born rule is what allows you to make predictions and compare experiment with theory. If there's no Born rule, there's no theory making predictions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Share Posted March 22, 2019 (edited) 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. Edited March 22, 2019 by Dimosthenis76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

MigL Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Definitely not a tautology, and I don't know the meaning/interpretation of 'stole'. But you're saying no one has ever done an experiment to directly prove air exists. They have only ever proved it indirectly by the forces it exerts on balloons, airfoils, etc. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Bufofrog Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said: That's why quantum mechanics doesn't make sense. It has deep problems. So the title "Is Born's rule verified", should have been, "I think QM is wrong". I guess that is why you are not acknowledging the answer to your question - your mind is already made up. Got it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Dimosthenis76 said: Hello to everybodyIs really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule. Have you looked at this paper? Quote Abstract The Born’s rule to interpret the square of wave function as the proba bility to get a specific value in measurement has been accepted as a postulate in foundations of quantum mechanics. Although there have been so many attempts at deriving this rule theoretically using different approaches such as frequency operator approach, many-w orld theory, Bayesian probability and envariance, literature shows that arguments in each of these methods are circular. In view of absence of a convincing theoretical proof, recently some researchers have carried out experiments to validate the rule up-to maximum possible accuracy using multi-order interference But, a convincing analytical proof of Born’s rule will make us understand the basic process responsible for exact square dependency of probability on wave function. In this paper, by generalizing the method of calculating probability in common experience into quantum mechanics, we prove the Born’s rule for statistical interpretation of wave function. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12810/1/Dikshit-Born-rule-preprint.pdf What exactly is your understanding of the meaning of the statement The probability if event, E is P ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Dimosthenis76 said: 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. I have no idea what you mean by this. “Magnitudes of physics?” What is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Dimosthenis76 said: 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. So, when we have a complex term, as in e.g. a complex index of refraction, that’s somehow not physics anymore? Or complex numbers in electric circuits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 5 hours ago, Dimosthenis76 said: 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. 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. 20 hours ago, studiot said: What exactly is your understanding of the meaning of the statement The probability if event, E is P ? I am sorry you did not like the paper I lined to, I thought it would be of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 45 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said: I don't understand what you mean. Has Ψ physical meaning? The physical meaning is the point, not the complex numbers. 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. Quote 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. Yes, the “unreasonable standard” gambit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) 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. Edited March 23, 2019 by Dimosthenis76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 28 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said: In refraction and electricity the imaginary numbers have physical meaning. The quantum wave function is absolutely unique magnitude in physics. When you use it in the proper equation it has a physical meaning. And there are experiments that rely on Born’s rule, and thereby confirm it. Much like GPS is a confirmation of relativity, while not being a test of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 19 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said: 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. English is clearly difficult for you, so I will only comment that the above is a poor definition of probability and not an answer to the question I actually asked. Probability is a (mathematical) limit. And knowing what it is a limit of and what that means for experiment is crucial. It most certainly does not mean the fraction you have stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Dimosthenis76 Posted March 23, 2019 Author Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) 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? Edited March 23, 2019 by Dimosthenis76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 55 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said: The experiments mesure exactly the fraction N/No, even in Cern. So? Quote The cheat comes in calculation of the theoretical probability. You need to explain that. How is that a cheat? Quote Born's rule is wrong and useless and its verification is a cheat. No-one experiment actually rely on Born's rule. If I put atoms in a superposition of two states, and then measure the population, how does that not rely on Born’s rule? Quote Why after a 100 years, we don't have a clear verification of it? If your engine is running, do you need independent verification the the fuel injection is working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Dimosthenis76 said: The experiments mesure exactly the fraction N/No, even in Cern. I very much doubt it, even at CERN. Do you have any idea of the difficulty of tracking a number of atoms, when that number is of the order of 10^{23 }? In any case that is one single experiment (or trial since I am using the word in a statistical sense) so it only produces an estimate (and not a very good one) of the probability of finding an atom in the given space. The actual probability is of course, the limit of an infinite amount of such trials. This is the experimental aspect you have failed to consider. Proper interpretation of Probability as a statistical variable follows from this as do the consequences for experimental methods. You have come here disputing both well established Physics and well established Mathematics in a most desultory manner. When we examine your claims and try to offer what we hope and consider to be helpful discussion comments do you not stop to enquire why we have said what we said ? For instance On 3/22/2019 at 2:25 PM, swansont said: It's derived from Schrödinger's equation, so basically all QM experiments that rely on it verify it, even if it is not tested directly. On 3/22/2019 at 2:27 PM, Dimosthenis76 said: 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! You will find the appropriate solution to Schroedinger that links it to a probability spectrum of states derived on pages 81 to 85 of Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics by G W Makey of Harvard University Published by Princeton university Press in the Mathematical Physics mongraphs series. It involves some quite advanced maths applying Stone's Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone's_theorem_on_one-parameter_unitary_groups to some very abstract algebra. Mackey also develops QM on an axiomatic basis in the book. But Born's Principle is not an axiom since it refers to an interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts