Why is probability density = |wavefunction|^2?

Click For Summary
The probability density being equal to the square of the wavefunction, |wavefunction|^2, is primarily viewed as a postulate rather than a derived rule. This concept is motivated by analogy to classical wave phenomena, such as the intensity of light in a double slit experiment, which is proportional to the square of the wave amplitude. The analogy suggests that the peaks in a probability distribution for particles like photons or electrons arise from the wave nature of these particles. While there may be more rigorous analyses available, they are not widely discussed in the current literature. Further exploration can be found on related topics in resources like Wikipedia.
DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
I have looked around for an answer to this. People just call it a "rule". So is it just assumed that the wavefunction of a particle times its complex conjugate is a probability density, or is there some way to show this? For instance, why isn't probability density equal to |wavefunction|^4 or some other even number?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no derivation of the rule, at least not yet. It is essentially a postulate, though I've seen it motivated by analogy. In particular, in a double slit experiment with light, the intensity of the interference pattern is proportional to the wave amplitude squared. So, by analogy, in single photon/single electron/etc experiments where the peaks build up one particle at a time, the peaks are in some sense a probability density. Since the "wave" nature of the particle is guided by the solutions to the wave equation, one might interpret the square amplitude of the wave function as the probability density.

There may be more careful analyses that motivate the Born rule better, but I'm not aware of them. See the wikipedia page for more information (and links to more).
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K