Violation of the Born Rule: Implications for Macroscopic Fields.

ABSTRACT. It is shown that violation of the Born Rule leads to a breakdown of the correspondence between the quantum electromagnetic field and its classical counterpart. Specifically, the relationship of the quantum coherent state to the  classical electromagnetic field turns out to imply that if the Born Rule were violated, this could result in apparent deviations from the energy conservation law applying to the field and its sources (Poynting’s Theorem). The result, which is fully general and independent of interpretations of quantum theory, suggests that the Born Rule is just as fundamental a law of Nature as are the field conservation laws.

Born Rule Violation and Maxwell Eqs

Article written by

Ruth Kastner

7 Responses

  1. editor
    editor at |

    This paper has been sent out for peer review.

  2. jacksarfatti at |

    I think this paper is not correct. Of course, if one tries to violate the Born rule using only the equations of orthodox quantum theory, then one will get spurious results like an apparent violation of energy conservation. However, it is quite obvious from Rod Sutherland’s retrocausal “weak measurement” completely relativistic Lagrangian formulation of Bohm’s pilot wave/beable theory with the additional post-quantum action-reaction terms between the pilot waves and the beables that the stress-energy current densities are conserved i.e. Tuv^;v = 0 where Tuv = Tuv(pilot wave) + Tuv(be able) + Tuv(pilot wave be able). Kastner’s paper only has, in effect the Tuv(pilot wave) term. There is no consistent way to violate the Born rule without the additional terms. That’s all Kastner has really shown in my opinion. Sutherland has posted his theory elsewhere on this forum.

  3. editor
    editor at |

    A referee report has been received.

  4. […] Full Text Download (201k) | View Submission Post […]

  5. jacksarfatti at |

    Ruth misunderstands my claim. The Sutherland action-reaction post-quantum violation of the Born rule vanishes in the limit where the Glauber coherent state solutions apply to the real world. Therefore, her argument is logically inconsistent.

Comments are closed.