Talk:Born rule

message: There's no English translation of Born's paper available online?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teutanic (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of adding disambiguation note to the top of page. That should be sufficient 72.221.122.168 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Was the collapse of the wave function following measurement part of Born's theory?  In textbooks I see this listed as part of Born's rule but this article doesn't say one way or the other. Dstahlke (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Born doesn't mention it, but it is an implication with a lot of hindsight.  I think von Neumann introduced the idea. --Michael C. Price talk 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse of Wave Function 

message: I came here looking for confirmation of this idea: The Born Rule, roughly speaking, says that wave intensity at a location predicts the probability of finding the particle in question at that location.
IF this is true, would someone please add such a statement? I heard it in a popularization featuring  Benjamin Schumacher. Thanks -- 69.138.209.185 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roughly speaking . . . 

message: This is just a suggestion:  Because applying the Born rule is so fundamental to making experimental predictions in quantum mechanics, I feel that the article would be helped by including an explicit example or two-- perhaps of the quantum harmonic oscillator and/or of the hydrogen atom, or even just a particle in a box?  The terms used in the article are very abstract and confusing to non-experts, rendering the article impenetrable to most people.  But even just one simple example of applying the Born rule could make it much easier for a layperson to discern the meaning of what's being described.  (Some familiarity with complex functions and integral calculus would have to be assumed, I suppose, but nothing beyond that.)50.174.178.168 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Can something be done to make the mathematical symbols in this article more legible?  Currently they render so faintly that it's impossible to decipher most of them.  
This is, BTW, a problem common to many Wikipedia articles which use graphical representations for these symbols, rather than fixed font characters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Font? 

message: The language in this article seems unnecessarily abstruse and overcomplicated. Especially in introductory quantum mechanics, the Born interpretation is often explained without reference to an arbitary operator or probability-projection subsets thereof of it; the fact that a wavefunction is defined (whether real or complex) and its modulus squared over an infinitesimally small point in space gives the probability is sufficiently robust to then introduce the concept of integrating over all the region through which the wf is defined in order to sum up all the probabilities (which should equal one due to the normalization requirement). --50.67.247.221 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Should this "the probability density of finding the particle at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point" say amplitude rather than magnitude?
(I am not an active editor.  Please go ahead and change if it makes sense to.
--Sarabseth (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para 

message: I would have thought the article should list experiments proving or at least giving evidence that the calculation works. Lowell Boggs (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, it's a step in every calculation in applied quantum mechanics, so every experiment ever done that supports quantum mechanics is evidence that Born's rule is the right way to go. There's not much point listing every physics experiment since 1900. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there no experimental proofs listed 

message: This article effectively claims:
* The true Born rule involves projection operators.
* The commonly-taught Born rule is only one special case of the true rule (and differs in being inapplicable to non-degenerate observables).
* The Born rule can be derived from POVM (but not vice versa).
Are there any reliable sources to support these claims? Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the true Born rule? 

message: What is a PVM? Len loker (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Projection-valued measure. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Born Rule