Born Rule Derivation: A Closer Look

71GA
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I hear a lot about the Born rule ##P = |\psi|^2## where ##P## is a probability of a particle appearing at some location and ##\psi## is a wave function.

When i look at double slit experiment interference pattern it seems to me that the pattern by itself already represents the probability that electron will hit a screen at some location. So if that interference pattern is a superposition of two wave functions i would intuitively say that:

<br /> \begin{split}<br /> P &amp;= \psi \\<br /> P &amp;= \psi_1 + \psi_2 <br /> \end{split}<br />

So to me it is verry bizare that in a Born rule we take absolute value of ##\psi## (why do we do that?) and square it (why do we do it?).

Is there any derivation at all on how they derived or made up the Born rule? Most of posters on other forums allways say it was a lucky guess... I can't bare the mind of that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thank you.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top