# Is Born's rule verified

## Recommended Posts

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.

Regards

Dimosthenis

• Replies 64
• Created

#### Posted Images

The evidence is that QM relies on the rule, and QM works.

Science doesn’t deal in “proof” as in mathematics.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

Guys it's very difficult for me to express myself in English in a such a difficult issue.

OK so let us try to overcome the language barrier.

You have proposed three things.

1) Born's interpretation is false.

2) The quantum wave function is meaningless

3) Probability can be measured as Ns/No, where Ns is a measured  value and No is a total population.

Let us take a look at each of these claims in turn.

1)

Born's interpretation offers a connection between two different views of the same thing.
This is nothing new in Physics.
Look at this diagram.What do you notice (apart from the poor quality of drawing) ?

I have only labelled one axis.

The labelled one I have called wave function. This may be a voltage, a displacement or many other things.

But what do you think should be written on the horizontal axis label?

2)

The quantum wavefunction has physical dimensions, so it has physical meaning just as the quantity which has physical dimensions ML0T-2, and it interacts with other physical quantities according to those dimensions, just as my example (surface tension) does according to its dimensions.

On 3/23/2019 at 5:20 PM, Dimosthenis76 said:

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

3)

So consider a bag of 20 balls, 18 blue and 2 red.

I withdraw one ball at random and discover that it is blue.

How does that tell me the Probability of drawing a red ball?

How many such trials must I conduct before I can assign a value to P(red) ?

##### Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

This is not an answer to my very reasonable questions concerning your claims.

Reported.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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.

But there are a bunch that rely on it being true. Why are you ignoring this?

You do not need explicit verification. You do the verification that's experimentally available to you, not some arbitrarily-demanded confirmation. The latter is intellectually dishonest.

##### Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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.

Quote

You need at first to understand what quantum mechanics says.

Since Quantum Mechanics is about probability, you need to understand what probability is before you can understand QM.

That is what MY question 3 is about.

Quote

I didn't say anything like that.

No you didn't say anything like that, you didn't say anything about my question 3 at all and you still have not answered it.

Quote

1) There is not an experimental verification that the square of absolute Ψ gives probabilities. Can you find one?

When you have answered my question 3 and understand probabilities better, you will be in a position to understand a discussion about this.

Alternatively you can just take Dr Swanson's practical approach.

It works every time.

Note none of this is an answer to my question 1 which was

Quote

studiot

But what do you think should be written on the horizontal axis label?

So why have you gone off and introduced on your own point (1).

You still haven't answered my question (1)

Quote

Quantum Mechanics says that Ψ hasn't physical meaning, not me.

Then why did you state this if you do not accept it?

Quote

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

Further you have still not directly addressed my point 2.

Do you understand the method of dimensions?

Please note I am respecting and assuming your knowledge of the subject, unless you say otherwise.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

But there are a bunch that rely on it being true. Why are you ignoring this?

You do not need explicit verification. You do the verification that's experimentally available to you, not some arbitrarily-demanded confirmation. The latter is intellectually dishonest.

Would one say it is axiomatic?

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Would one say it is axiomatic?

No.

The point I am trying to demonstrate is that, like many other branches of Science, there is more often than not more  than one single view of a particular point available.

The trick is to choose the most convenient.

Born's Interpretation is just such a multiplicity. It provides a link between probability density and material density.

But because no point of view is complete,

It is very important to follow the conditions of application of any one point.

Obviously (I hope) any complete view would superceed all others.

##### Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Dimosthenis76
##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

Something technical: I have to worry because I have only 6 posts per day. Can someone do something about that.

New members are allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours.

After that there is no limit.

If you get any problems about this send a private message to a moderator (or me though I can't do more than pass it on) to get the problem fixed.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

Thank you studiot.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

Thank you studiot.

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).

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.

##### Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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?

You are only limited to five posts on your first day here. You can post as you wish now.

##### Share on other sites

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).

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.

##### Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Would one say it is axiomatic?

No, I don't think so.

We have, for example, demonstrations that Newtonian gravity is a 1/r^2 force, that do not depends on measuring the force at different distances and confirming we get the correct plot. Orbits working the way they do, for example.

41 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

Swansont

No you are wrong. The quantum mechanics part except Born's rule is correct (Schrodinger's equation etc). Born's rule is incorrect.

And while you are clamoring for experimental evidence, you have failed to show how QM fails owing to this alleged problem.

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?

41 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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.

Pretty interesting that it has gotten to be that old if one of the critical parts is wrong.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dimosthenis76
##### Share on other sites

Well in the text accompanying these 'axioms' is stated the following

Quote

Different presentations (for example starting fromdensity operators instead of state vectors) are possible.

What have I been saying?

Would you like to develop my simplified wave example further or is it too babyish for you?

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dimosthenis76
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, I don't think so.

We have, for example, demonstrations that Newtonian gravity is a 1/r^2 force, that do not depends on measuring the force at different distances and confirming we get the correct plot. Orbits working the way they do, for example.

OK. Cheers.

##### Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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.

Quote

But we need to choose one.

Why should we?

Quote

Do we have an agreement to choose MIT presentation where Born's rule is an axiom?

What do you know about axiomatic systems?

The famous one is Euclid with 5 axioms.

One axiom is different from all the others becasue it is totally independent of the correctness of the others, which are interdependent.

Which axiom type do you think the MIT 'Born axiom' is?

So no, I think the MIT presentation is too advanced to use at this point in the discussion.
I note you also rejected the Harvard axiomatic QM system I offered you earlier.

Quote

Develop your example, nothing is babish for me.

OK so back to my waveplot.

Consider a massive pendulum swinging back and fore along its trajectory. (massive means that it has mass, any mass, not necessarily a lot of mass, in scientific English)

My plot could be the velocity-time of velocity-space curve for the motion.

Now consider yourself with a rifle, shooting at the bob.

Which would be the best point in the trajectory to aim at, to have the greatest chance of hitting it?

Now we are on the way to connecting Energy to Probability.

Yes, this is all classical (and easier), but Born is about the connection between Energy and Probability under QM.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dimosthenis76
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dimosthenis76 said:

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.

In fact there are many approaches, as a quick survey in my library shows.

Author                                      Born's Rule explicitly stated/used             Born's Rule an axiom

Lawden                                    NO                                                                    NO

Mackey                                   NO                                                                     NO

Mott and Sneddon               NO                                                                      NO

Coulson                                 NO                                                                       NO

Atkins                                   YES                                                                       YES

Moelwyn-Hughes              YES                                                                       NO

Spice                                     YES                                                                      NO

Mandl                                    NO                                                                        NO

Davies and Betts                YES                                                                     YES

McMurray                              NO                                                                       NO

Clark                                       YES                                                                     Called interpretation.

The first three are by mathematicians and quite theoretical.

The next four are advanced Chemistry authors.

The last four are advanced Physics authors.

It can be seen that the Mathematicians make the least play on Born's rules, and Chemists the greatest, with Physicists in the middle.

Aside -  A quirk of statistics that so many books ons QM are authored by someone whose name begins with 'M'

Here is short extract from one of them

This is a mathematical description of the subject under discussion.

Note very carefully the conditions I have underlined

This brings us right back to my simplified examples with a bag of red and blue balss that you were too high and mighty to consider.

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

I don' t understand what that means.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×