B Is Born's rule really verified?

[Dimosthenis76]

Hello to everybody

Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule.

 

[Nugatory]

Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in literature that verifies Born's rule.

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.

When I was in college I spent several days preparing photons in a particular polarization state and then verifying that the Born rule properly predicted their interaction with polarization filters. However, the point of this exercise was not to test the Born rule, the point was to test the proposition "Nugatory is capable of setting up the experimental apparatus competently".

 

[Dimosthenis76]

I really would like to see the maths and the corresponding experiment that verifys Born's rule. Newton's laws can easily be verified in any common university's laboratory. It 's not the same.

 

[DarMM]

Here's a very stringent test of the Born Rule:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08563

There are more recent ones that bound deviations more strongly, but this one is a bit more readable I think.

 

[Dimosthenis76]

I have seen this paper a long time ago. If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrodinger's equation and compare the theoritical 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!

 

[Cthugha]

This one is also quite readable in my opinion as it is based on the double/triple slit:
Sinha et al., "Ruling out multi-order interference in quantum mechanics", Science 329, 418 (2010). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5990/418

arXiv version here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4193

 

[Nugatory]

Newton's laws can easily be verified in any common university's laboratory.

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.

 

[DarMM]

I have seen this paper a long time ago. If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrodinger's equation and compare the theoritical 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!

They implement a unitary (several in fact) from a state $\psi_0$ to a state $\psi_1$, which is evolution under Schrodinger's equation and then perform measurements. What am I missing?

 

[PeroK]

I have seen this paper a long time ago. If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrodinger's equation and compare the theoritical 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!

Back to Newton's Laws, then! Ho hum.

 

[bhobba]

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!

I think you should study Gleason's Theorem:
http://kiko.fysik.su.se/en/thesis/helena-master.pdf

If you want to verify Born's rule, you have to solve Schrodinger's equation and compare the theoritical results with experimental results. This is not happening in that paper.

If Born's Rule is wrong you have non-contextuality. This has been tested (the Kochen-Specker theorem is a simple corollary to Gleason):
http://www.equinoxomega.net/files/studies/quantenphysik_Handout.pdf

No violation of non-contextually has ever been found.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

This is not happening in that paper.

Why do you think so?

And by the way, any quantum interference experiment is a test of the Born rule.

 

[HomogenousCow]

Born's rule gets tested and verified billions of times per second on whatever device you made this post on.

 

[zonde]

Hello to everybody

Is really Born's rule verified? I can not find any experiment in bibliography that verifies Born's rule.

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.

So what is your hypothesis how Born's rule might break down that you want to see tested?

 

[akhmeteli]

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.

 

[bhobba]

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.

Well then you have proved contextuality. That would mean an immediate Nobel. The fact it has not happened strongly suggests it does not stand up, but I will let those more into experimental physics give their take on the details.

Thanks
Bill