Experimental confirmation of the Born rule

[Dadface]

If we assume that a particle can be detected at a particular location, how can we do the detecting?

 

[BvU]

With a suitable particle detector

What is your real question ?

 

[Dadface]

With a suitable particle detector

What is your real question ?

Specifically, how would you attempt to detect an electron, at a particular location whilst in the bound state of the hydrogen atom.
The particle detector you referred to is no good at the moment. It needs re calibrating.

 

[PeterDonis]

how would you attempt to detect an electron, at a particular location whilst in the bound state of the hydrogen atom

By shooting photons at the atom of short enough wavelength to resolve positions to the required accuracy (much less than a Bohr radius). Which would, of course, ionize the atom (with enough kinetic energy left over for the electron to make it relativistic, if my quick back of the envelope estimate is correct), so the result of your position measurement on the electron would be useless in practical terms, but it would satisfy the requirement you have stated.

 

[Dadface]

By shooting photons at the atom of short enough wavelength to resolve positions to the required accuracy (much less than a Bohr radius). Which would, of course, ionize the atom (with enough kinetic energy left over for the electron to make it relativistic, if my quick back of the envelope estimate is correct), so the result of your position measurement on the electron would be useless in practical terms, but it would satisfy the requirement you have stated.

Thank you.

I found a report from 2013 which summarised the work of a team who used the "photoionisation microscope" to observe some nodal structures of the hydrogen atom. The graphical results displayed seemed to show some agreement between experiment and theory.

I'm mainly interested to know if there are results which give backing to The Born rule. I will try to get access to the original paper I referred to and any more up to date papers.

 

[PeterDonis]

I found a report from 2013

Can you give a link?

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm mainly interested to know if there are results which give backing to The Born rule.

Doesn't any experimental result that shows probabilities equal to the squared moduli of the corresponding amplitudes support the Born rule? Which means, all of them?

 

[Dadface]

https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-microscope-peers-into-the-hydrogen-atom/

 

[Dadface]

Doesn't any experimental result that shows probabilities equal to the squared moduli of the corresponding amplitudes support the Born rule? Which means, all of them?

Yes. It's details of the latest experiments I'm looking for.

 

[PeterDonis]

used the "photoionisation microscope" to observe some nodal structures of the hydrogen atom

It should be noted that this "observation" is destructive: the process of "observing" ionizes the atom and thereby destroys the structure that was being observed. So this is not the same as what one would intuitively think of as "observing" an atom, i.e., looking at it without changing it.

 

[Dadface]

It should be noted that this "observation" is destructive: the process of "observing" ionizes the atom and thereby destroys the structure that was being observed. So this is not the same as what one would intuitively think of as "observing" an atom, i.e., looking at it without changing it.

Yes, but how else can we look at the atom without changing it?

 

[PeterDonis]

how else can we look at the atom without changing it?

You can't. But the language scientists often use to describe these experiments to lay people can easily mislead people into thinking that you can. That's why I think it's important to be clear about what is actually going on. What scientists call "looking at an atom" actually means "making destructive measurements on a lot of atoms that were all prepared the same way, and using the measurement results to make a picture".

 

[Dadface]

You can't. But the language scientists often use to describe these experiments to lay people can easily mislead people into thinking that you can. That's why I think it's important to be clear about what is actually going on. What scientists call "looking at an atom" actually means "making destructive measurements on a lot of atoms that were all prepared the same way, and using the measurement results to make a picture".

Agreed.