Born's rule has been extensively verified through various experiments, particularly in the context of single-photon polarization tests and quantum interference experiments. Despite claims of its verification, some participants in the discussion argue that no definitive experimental evidence exists that directly solves Schrödinger's equation and compares theoretical predictions with experimental results. Key references include Sinha et al.'s 2010 paper on multi-order interference and a 2016 arXiv paper that discusses stringent tests of Born's rule. The consensus indicates that while Born's rule is widely accepted, its verification remains a topic of debate among physicists.
PREREQUISITESQuantum physicists, experimental physicists, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to understand the verification and implications of Born's rule in quantum theory.
It has been verified so often and in so many different ways that no one even wastes ink to report that their results are consistent with it - sort of like no one is reporting that dropped objects fall down instead of up. For example, just about every lab exercise that verifies Malus's law for single photons is a test of the Born rule.Dimosthenis76 said:Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in literature that verifies Born's rule.
And so can the Born rule... I just gave you an example from my university laboratory, and the only reason we don't routinely do this in high school labs is because they don't usually have efficient single-photon sources and detectors.Dimosthenis76 said:Newton's laws can easily be verified in any common university's laboratory.
They implement a unitary (several in fact) from a state ##\psi_0## to a state ##\psi_1##, which is evolution under Schrödinger's equation and then perform measurements. What am I missing?Dimosthenis76 said:I have seen this paper a long time ago. If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrödinger's equation and compare the theoretical results with experimental results. This is not happening in that paper.
That's why I believe that Born's rule is not verified and even more that it can not be verified, and there is the point that quantum misunderstanding begins!
Dimosthenis76 said:I have seen this paper a long time ago. If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrödinger's equation and compare the theoretical results with experimental results. This is not happening in that paper.
That's why I believe that Born's rule is not verified and even more that it can not be verified, and there is the point that quantum misunderstanding begins!
Dimosthenis76 said:That's why I believe that Born's rule is not verified and even more that it can not be verified, and there is the point that quantum misunderstanding begins!
Dimosthenis76 said:If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrödinger's equation and compare the theoretical results with experimental results. This is not happening in that paper.
Why do you think so?Dimosthenis76 said:This is not happening in that paper.
To test Born's rule you need some hypothesis how it might break down. There were couple of references where higher order interference is tested. Another hypothesis might be that observed frequencies are not from probabilities. Say if I have measurement with outcomes with equal probabilities of 0.5 and 0.5 I should expect that outcome where I get only one outcome 100 times in a row should happen with probability around 1x10^-32. But maybe this probability is exactly 0 i.e. actual frequencies are slightly more deterministic than predicted. This can be tested experimentally.Dimosthenis76 said:Hello to everybody
Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule.
akhmeteli said:https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2138, p. 115 (published in Physics Reports) seems to predict violations of the Born's rule based on an analysis of the measurement process.