Is the Born Rule Derivable from Other Postulates in Quantum Mechanics?

In summary, the Fröhner paper is a very interesting and comprehensive discussion of a possible derivation of the Born rule from the other postulates of quantum mechanics.
  • #1
tomdodd4598
138
13
TL;DR Summary
Can the Born rule of quantum mechanics be derived from more fundamental principles?
Hey there!

I’ve been thinking about the Born rule recently and whether it can be derived from the other postulates from QM.

I’ve done a bunch of google searching, across PF, stackexchange and the arxiv, but most of it has felt a little opaque, particularly on whether anything has been ‘accepted’ as a derivation yet.

I decided to just try myself: using the assumptions that probability needs to be conserved under unitary transformations, that the rule holds for all quantum systems, and that the probabilities are functions of the respective amplitudes, I think I’ve showed that the Born rule must hold.

Do those assumptions go beyond the other postulates of QM, or are they perhaps in any sense less ‘fundamental’ than the Born rule itself?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That's very interesting. As far as I know so far nobody has been able to derive Born's rule from the other postulates without introducing any other assumption(s). So it would make and interesting research paper!

The issue is very nicely discussed in Weinberg's textbook on quantum mechanics:

S. Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
  • #3
Well, I'll write up about it properly and talk to a tutor or something, always a decent chance I've make a mistake or assumed something implicitly somewhere. I just so happen to have that book, so I'll have a read :)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
tomdodd4598 said:
I’ve been thinking about the Born rule recently and whether it can be derived from the other postulates from QM.
The Born rule in the arbitrary basis can be derived from the Born rule in the position basis. See the paper linked in my signature below.
 
  • #5
As @vanhees71 mentions above, there is no known derivation of the Born rule "purely" from the other postulates of QM.

However, if one supplements the postulates or uses other postulates, the Born rule can be derived.

Gleason's theorem
Hardy, Quantum Theory from Five Reasonable Axioms
G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, P. Perinotti, Informational derivation of Quantum Theory
Lluís Masanes, Thomas D. Galley, Markus P. Müller, The measurement postulates of quantum mechanics are operationally redundant
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
These are exactly the sorts of papers and ideas which I’ve found rather ‘opaque’ :P
Maybe I just don’t know enough maths to understand what exactly they’re doing, but perhaps I’ll go through them again. Just seems to me to be an awful lot more complicated than I imagine it could be...
 
  • #7
tomdodd4598 said:
Summary: Can the Born rule of quantum mechanics be derived from more fundamental principles?

Hey there!

I’ve been thinking about the Born rule recently and whether it can be derived from the other postulates from QM.
Thanks in advance!
Possibly, but I'm not sure if there is any point. Quantum mechanics is essentially an an extension of classical probability theory, so I'm not sure the Born rule is really out of place as a fundamental axiom. In any axiomatic stystem, you have a choice of which statements take the role of axioms and which statements are left to be proved from those axioms. Since quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, the Born rule would seem to be a good choice to consider fundamental to the theory. I really don't see any reason for a lot of angst and hand wringing over this.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #8
tomdodd4598 said:
Summary: Can the Born rule of quantum mechanics be derived from more fundamental principles?

Hey there!

I’ve been thinking about the Born rule recently and whether it can be derived from the other postulates from QM.

I’ve done a bunch of google searching, across PF, stackexchange and the arxiv, but most of it has felt a little opaque, particularly on whether anything has been ‘accepted’ as a derivation yet.

I decided to just try myself: using the assumptions that probability needs to be conserved under unitary transformations, that the rule holds for all quantum systems, and that the probabilities are functions of the respective amplitudes, I think I’ve showed that the Born rule must hold.

Do those assumptions go beyond the other postulates of QM, or are they perhaps in any sense less ‘fundamental’ than the Born rule itself?

Thanks in advance!

Tom,

I suspect that you might like my friend Fritz Fröhner (1988):

“Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem."

Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654. http://zfn.mpdl.mpg.de/data/Reihe_A/53/ZNA-1998-53a-0637.pdf

All the best; N88
 
  • Like
Likes Mentz114 and vanhees71
  • #9
Last edited:
  • #10
tomdodd4598 said:
Summary: Can the Born rule of quantum mechanics be derived from more fundamental principles?

I decided to just try myself: using the assumptions that probability needs to be conserved under unitary transformations, that the rule holds for all quantum systems, and that the probabilities are functions of the respective amplitudes, I think I’ve showed that the Born rule must hold.

Haven't you assumed the born rule in order to derive the born rule?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #11
Gleason's Theorem, proven in 1957, says that the Born rule is the only one that is unitary, the only one where all the probabilities add up to exactly 1. So if you want probabilities its got to be proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wave-function and not the cube or something else. However why we must use probabilities at all and not certainties is unknown.

John K Clark
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and akvadrako
  • #13
johnkclark said:
Gleason's Theorem, proven in 1957, says that the Born rule is the only one that is unitary, the only one where all the probabilities add up to exactly 1. So if you want probabilities its got to be proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wave-function and not the cube or something else. However why we must use probabilities at all and not certainties is unknown.

As I learned from @bhobba, this is not correct. Probability does not preclude certainty. The crucial assumption in Gleason's Theorem is not the assumption of probability, but the assumption of contextuality.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #14
Bit late back to this, but thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to conclude that what I was doing was a rough/lenient form of Gleason's result.
 
  • #16
tomdodd4598 said:
Bit late back to this, but thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to conclude that what I was doing was a rough/lenient form of Gleason's result.
Gleason's theorem can be summarised by the statement that if you assume that dichotomic measurements on physical systems are modeled by projectors from a C*-algebra (loosely a Projector is an operator with ##P^2 = P## and a C*-algbera is the algebra of operators you'd find in QM) then non-contextual probabilities for those measurements have to obey the Born rule, i.e. come from a density matrix.

It's a difficult theorem to prove. Though many say it still leaves the mystery as to why the algebra of measurements is that of a C*-algebra.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #17
That's easy to answer: Because it works so well!

That's the answer to all these questions, like "why is nature behaving the way she does?" This is not a sensible answer to ask in the realm of the natural sciences. It's the other way around: Natural science starts with objective reproducible observations of phenomena. Tha very fact that such reproducible objective phenomena exist is already an observation. Then on discovers some regularities, i.e., causal structure. This means that if I set up something in a specific way, I get after some time something different, which is predictable. QT tells us simply that there's less predictable than within classical physics: In QT, given a certain situation not all observables take determined values but you know the probabilities to find a given possible value of each observable when you measure it. As it has turned out QT is very successful in predicting these probabilities, and so far we haven't found any way for such a causal description which leads back to a deterministic theory which as successfully describes the phenomena as QT.

So the answer to the question, why nature behaves according to the laws described in QT is simple: QT has been discovered by making more and more detailed experiments and the attempt to find a mathematical theory to describe their outcomes. As it turned out, this attempt was very successful, i.e., QT survived all the empirical tests done to check it's accuracy. So it's not that "nature behaves according to the laws of QT" but rather "QT is discovered from observations how nature behaves and tailored such as to describe nature's behavior accurately".
 
  • #18
vanhees71 said:
Just to add: It has also been tested that it's ##|\psi|^2## and not some other power to provide the probabilities (or probability distributions):
It always amuses me that Max Born originally got the power wrong. He originally gave the rule as ##|\psi|## in his 1926 paper - ##|\psi|^2## only appears as a proof correction, in a footnote! ☺
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and weirdoguy

What is the Born Rule?

The Born Rule, also known as the Born interpretation, is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that describes the relationship between the wave function of a quantum system and the probability of observing a particular outcome when a measurement is made.

Why is there confusion about the Born Rule?

There is confusion about the Born Rule because it is a probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which can be difficult to understand and reconcile with our classical understanding of the world. Additionally, there are different interpretations of the Born Rule, leading to further confusion.

How does the Born Rule work?

The Born Rule states that the square of the absolute value of the wave function at a particular point represents the probability of finding the system in that state upon measurement. In other words, the Born Rule provides a mathematical way to calculate the probability of obtaining a specific measurement outcome.

What are the implications of the Born Rule?

The Born Rule has significant implications for our understanding of the quantum world. It suggests that particles do not have definite properties until they are measured, and that the act of measurement can affect the outcome. This challenges our classical understanding of cause and effect.

How is the Born Rule applied in experiments?

In experiments, the Born Rule is used to predict the probability of obtaining a certain measurement outcome. This allows scientists to make predictions and test the validity of quantum mechanics. The Born Rule has been confirmed in numerous experiments and is a crucial aspect of our current understanding of the quantum world.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
922
Replies
2
Views
990
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
861
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top