Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

The Born rule -- 100 years ago and today

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The modern Born rule follows from a linear-response definition of a detector.

desk verdict A lucid historical synthesis and a clean mathematical argument whose load-bearing premise (DRP) is as strong as the Born rule it claims to derive. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08545 v3 pith:USFFS25V submitted 2025-02-12 quant-ph

Arnold Neumaier This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81-0381P1081P15
keywords BornrulePOVMdetectorresponseprinciplequantummeasurementstatisticalinterpretationprobabilityproblemhistoryofmechanics
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the modern, measurement-general forms of the Born rule—the POVM form and the condensed form "statistical expectation equals quantum expectation"—are not independent postulates but theorems that follow from an intuitive definition of what a quantum detector is. The definition, called the Detector Response Principle, says that each detection element responds to a stationary source with a nonnegative mean rate that depends linearly on the source's density operator, and that the rates from all elements sum to the source's intensity. From this alone, a representation theorem yields response probabilities $p_k = \operatorname{tr}\,\rho P_k$ with a positive-operator-valued measure $P_k$, and the expectation $E(x_k)=\operatorname{tr}\,\rho X$ follows. A century of history is read through this lens: Born's 1926 scattering rule was objective and measurement-free, spectral forms came to dominate textbooks, POVMs entered around 1970, and the projective forms are recovered as idealized special cases with restricted domains of validity. If the derivation is right, the foundational status of the Born rule shifts from a mysterious probability axiom to a consequence of linear response.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Detector Response Principle (DRP), a definition of a quantum measurement device as a finite collection of detection elements whose mean response rates are nonnegative, depend linearly on the density operator, and sum to the source intensity. The argument then runs through the Detector Response Theorem, which represents any such device by a unique discrete positive-operator-valued measure (a "quantum measure"): a finite family of positive semidefinite Hermitian operators $P_k$ summing to the identity, with response probabilities $p_k = \operatorname{tr}\,\rho P_k$. The theorem turns the statistical expectation of any assigned scale $x_k$ into the quantum expectation $\operatorname{tr}\,\rho X$, and the orthogonality condition $P_jP_k=\delta_{jk}P_k$ selects the traditional projective measurements as an idealized limiting case. The proof of the Detector Response Theorem is not reproduced in the paper; it is delegated to a cited companion book.

What would settle it

Take a single detection element and prepare two source states $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ plus a 50/50 statistical mixture; if the element's mean count rate on the mixture differs from the average of its rates on the two components by more than statistical error, the linearity premise fails and the derived $p_k = \operatorname{tr}\,\rho P_k$ is not the response law of that device. Equivalently, a detector whose efficiency changes with source intensity would falsify the derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the POVM form of the Born rule, and with it the condensed form used throughout quantum information and statistical mechanics, follows from the Detector Response Principle stated in Section 3.1. The principle postulates that a detection element $k$ responds to a stationary source with density operator $\rho$ at a nonnegative mean rate $p_k$ that is linear in $\rho$, and that $\sum_k p_k$ equals the intensity $\operatorname{tr}\,\rho$. The Detector Response Theorem then asserts there is a unique discrete quantum measure $P_k$—a finite family of positive semidefinite Hermitian operators summing to the identity—such that $p_k = \operatorname{tr}\,\rho P_k$; assigning a scale $x_k$ to each element gives a measured quantity $X=\sum_k x_k P_k$ whose statistical expectation is $E(x_k)=\operatorname{tr}\,\rho X$. Hence the projective Born rule appears as the special case where the $P_k$ are mutually orthogonal projections, and the eigenvalue-eigenstate link is broken: the same quantity can be detected with different possible outcomes in different detectors. The paper also argues that the objective, measurement-free forms of the rule were abandoned for good reason, and that the remaining open problem is not the rule itself but the question of which physical systems satisfy the Detector Response Principle.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a real detector's mean response rate is exactly linear in the source's density operator—no saturation, dead time, or state-dependent efficiency—and the derivation also depends on the Detector Response Theorem, whose proof is cited to a companion book rather than given here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the DRP is accepted, the POVM form $p_k = \operatorname{tr}\,\rho P_k$ and the condensed form $E(x_k)=\operatorname{tr}\,\rho X$ become theorems rather than axioms of quantum measurement.
  • Projective measurements are recovered only as an idealized special case requiring mutually orthogonal $P_k$; most real measurements, including position-momentum tracking and lossy optical detection, fall outside the spectral forms.
  • The eigenvalue-eigenstate link is broken: different detectors measuring the same quantity $X$ can legitimately produce different sets of possible results, none of which need be eigenvalues of $X$.
  • The condensed form gives the maximum-entropy principle and quantum statistical mechanics the expectation rule they need, while the objective scattering and expectation forms of the rule are rejected as untenable for noncommuting observables.
  • The quantum measurement problem survives: the DRP says what a detector is, but not which microscopic models actually satisfy it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the derivation is sound, the Born rule's status changes from a probability postulate to a definitional consequence of "detector," which shifts the open problem to deriving the DRP itself from the quantum statistical mechanics of metastable devices coupled to a heat bath.
  • A natural testable extension: calibrate detectors against tomographically characterized states and check linearity under convex mixtures; this would turn the DRP from a definition into an experimentally constrained property.
  • The historical narrative suggests that the early objective scattering form failed only because of noncommutativity, while event-rate language may avoid joint-probability problems; one could try to re-express scattering probabilities as rates of a DRP-type detector.
  • If the POVM rule is a theorem, then attempts to "derive the Born rule" from decoherence or other dynamics are aiming at the wrong target; what needs derivation is the detector response principle itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines a historical survey of the Born rule from 1926 to the present with a systematic taxonomy of ten formulations, and a modern derivation of the POVM and condensed forms of the Born rule from a 'Detector Response Principle' (DRP). The DRP, stated in Section 3.1, asserts that a quantum measurement device consists of detection elements whose nonnegative mean response rates depend linearly on the source density operator and sum to the intensity. Theorem 3.1, cited from the authors' book, converts the DRP into the POVM form p_k = tr(rho P_k), and equation (11) then gives the condensed form E(x_k) = tr(rho X). The paper also discusses the limited domain of validity of the various Born-rule formulations and argues that the quantum measurement problem remains unsolved.

Significance. The historical part is a genuine service: it gathers primary sources, distinguishes objective from measurement-based formulations, and documents the shift from Born's scattering probabilities to the POVM framework. The taxonomy of ten forms is useful and the domain-of-validity discussion contains thought-provoking examples, such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The derivation itself is mathematically straightforward once the DRP is granted, but its physical content is largely contained in the linearity assumption. The paper is explicit about the unresolved measurement problem in Section 3.5, which is honest, but this also means the central claim must be read as a conditional statement. The value of the paper lies more in its historical synthesis and critical review of other derivations than in a new, non-circular derivation of the Born rule.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, DRP] The DRP's load-bearing assumption is that the mean response rate p_k is linear in rho. For each k, p_k is then a positive linear functional on the trace-class operators with Sigma_k p_k = tr rho, and the Riesz representation theorem immediately gives p_k = tr(rho P_k) with P_k >= 0 and Sigma_k P_k = 1. This is exactly the POVM Born rule, equation (8). Thus the derivation is a representation theorem for the definition of a detector; the physical content of the Born rule is already contained in the word 'linearly'. The paper should state this equivalence explicitly and temper the claim that the Born rule is 'derived' from a more primitive principle, rather than relocated into a definition.
  2. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 is the central mathematical step, but its proof is not included; it is cited to Neumaier and Westra [58, Section 4.1.2], a book by the same authors. Since Section 3.3 claims 'we have proved the POVM form (BR-POVM) of the Born rule', the paper should provide a self-contained proof or at least a precise statement of the hypotheses on the space H and the continuity assumptions needed for the representation. Without this, the derivation is not self-contained and the reader cannot verify that the theorem applies to the general setting of Section 3.1.
  3. [Section 3.5] The paper concedes that explaining which quantum models of matter satisfy the DRP is an unsolved problem, i.e., the quantum measurement problem is unsolved. This is an important qualification, but it undercuts the abstract's phrasing that the Born rule follows from 'an intuitive definition of the notion of a quantum detector'. The result should be formulated as a conditional statement: if a physical device satisfies the DRP, then its response obeys the POVM and condensed forms of the Born rule. The introduction and abstract should be adjusted so that the conditional nature is not obscured.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typographical artifact 'Bor n rule' and an incomplete sentence after the reference to Westra; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 1.1, BR-OE] The word 'respctively' is a typo for 'respectively'.
  3. [Section 1.4, p. 10] The phrase 'reconstructed in in a time projection chamber' contains a duplicated 'in'.
  4. [Section 2.4, p. 21] The name 'Puli' appears to be a typo for 'Pauli'.
  5. [Section 3.5, p. 37] The phrase 'mathemetcal definition' should be 'mathematical definition'.
  6. [Section 3.4.2, p. 32] The word 'holdes' should be 'holds'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The DRP's linear-response definition of a detector already contains the Born rule; the POVM theorem is imported from the authors' own book.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (DRP) and Section 3.3 (derivation of BR-POVM and BR-C), Eqs. (8) and (11)]
    "(DRP): A detection element k responds to an incident stationary source with density operator ρ with a nonnegative mean rate pk depending linearly on ρ. The mean rates sum to the intensity of the source. ... Formula (8), derived here from very simple first principles, becomes (4), but with Pk not restricted to projections. Thus we have proved the POVM form (BR-POVM) of the Born rule."

    The derivation reduces BR-POVM and BR-C to the linearity assumption in DRP. Theorem 3.1 is the Riesz representation of the postulated positive linear functional p_k(ρ), yielding p_k = trρP_k, which is exactly Eq. (4); Eq. (11) then follows by the definition of the scale-weighted expectation. The paper itself says DRP 'defines what it means ... to be a quantum detector,' and Section 3.5 concedes that deriving DRP from detector microphysics is the unsolved measurement problem. Thus the Born rule is encoded in the definition of a detector, not derived from independent first principles.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 3.2, Theorem 3.1, cited to Neumaier & Westra [58, Section 4.1.2]]
    "The key result for the theory of quantum measurements is the following detector response theorem, proved in [58, Section 4.1.2]. 3.1 Theorem. For every measurement device, there is a unique discrete quantum measure Pk (k ∈ K) whose quantum values ⟨Pk⟩ determine, for every source with density operator ρ, the mean rates pk = ⟨Pk⟩ = trρPk for k ∈K."

    Theorem 3.1 is the load-bearing bridge from DRP to Eq. (8), i.e., to the POVM form of the Born rule. It is not proved in this paper; it is cited to a book by the same authors, Neumaier and Westra. The existence and uniqueness of the POVM P_k is exactly the content of BR-POVM, so the central claim is imported from the authors' prior work rather than demonstrated here. A standard representation theorem would be independent support if proved, but as presented the derivation chain rests on a self-citation.

full rationale

The historical Sections 1-2 are ordinary scholarship and contain no circularity. The circularity is confined to the claimed modern derivation in Section 3. DRP postulates that a detector's mean response rates are nonnegative, linear in ρ, and sum to trρ. Theorem 3.1 (cited, not proved) represents such rates as trρP_k, and Eq. (11) converts this into E(x_k)=trρX. Hence BR-POVM and BR-C are mathematical rewritings of the linearity/normalization assumption; the Born rule is built into the definition of a quantum measurement device. The paper concedes in Section 3.5 that deriving DRP from microphysics is the unsolved measurement problem. The load-bearing Theorem 3.1 also comes from the authors' own book, so the derivation is not self-contained. Score 6 rather than higher because DRP is broader than the spectral Born rule and the Riesz-style representation theorem is a genuine mathematical step, though the physical input is essentially as strong as the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The derivation rests on the DRP as an unproved linear-response postulate, on a theorem proved in a self-cited book, and on the standard mathematical framework of density operators. No free parameters are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Detector response principle (DRP): a detection element's mean response rate is a nonnegative linear function of the density operator, and rates sum to the source intensity.
    Introduced in Section 3.1 as a postulate or definition of a quantum measurement device; it carries the empirical content and is not derived.
  • domain assumption The source is stationary during the measurement, so a mean rate has operational meaning.
    Parenthetical in Section 3.1, needed to interpret measured rates as probabilities.
  • standard math States are represented by positive semidefinite Hermitian density operators; operators are everywhere defined on a Hermitian vector space.
    Formal framework in Section 3.1, taken from Neumaier & Westra [58].
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 3.1 (detector response theorem) is assumed as proved in [58, Section 4.1.2].
    The central theorem is stated without proof and referenced to a self-cited book.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantum measurement device as characterized by the DRP
    purpose: Defines what counts as a detector so the Born rule can be derived from a linear response assumption.
    Conceptual redefinition rather than a new physical entity. The paper offers no specific falsifiable prediction beyond the already-established linearity of quantum detectors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Born rule -- 100 years ago and today." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USFFS25V

@misc{pith2026250208545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Born rule -- 100 years ago and today},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USFFS25V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08545}
}
read the original abstract

Details of the contents and the formulations of the Born rule changed considerably from its inception by Born in 1926 to the present day. This paper traces the early history of the Born rule 100 years ago, its generalization (essential for today's quantum optics and quantum information theory) to POVMs around 50 years ago, and a modern derivation from an intuitive definition of the notion of a quantum detector. It is based to a large extent on little known results from the recent books 'Coherent Quantum Physics' (2019) by A. Neumaier and 'Algebraic Quantum Physics, Vol. 1' (2024) by A. Neumaier and D. Westra, Also discussed is the extent to which the various forms of the Born rule have, like any other statement in physics, a restricted domain of validity, which leads to problems when applied outside this domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aharonov and T

    Y. Aharonov and T. Shushi, Improving the proof of the Born rule using a physical require- ment on the dynamics of quantum particles, Quantum Studies: Math ematics and Founda- tions 11 (2024), 287–290. [26]

    2024

  2. [2]

    Ali and G.G

    S.T. Ali and G.G. Emch, Fuzzy observables in quantum mechanics, J . Math. Phys. 15 (1974), 176–182. [6]

    1974

  3. [3]

    Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models

    A.E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian and T.M. Nieuwenhuizen, Understandin g quantum measure- ment from the solution of dynamical models, Physics Reports 525 (2 013), 1–166. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2138 [25, 37]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Allahverdyan, R

    A.E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian and T.M. Nieuwenhuizen, Teaching ideal quantum measure- ment, from dynamics to interpretation, Comptes Rendus. Physiqu e 25 (2024), 251–287. [37]

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bacciagaluppi, The Statistical Interpretation: Born, Heisen berg, and von Neumann, pp

    G. Bacciagaluppi, The Statistical Interpretation: Born, Heisen berg, and von Neumann, pp. 203–231 in: The Oxford Handbook of the History of Quantum Inter pretations (O. Freire et al., eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford 2022. [12, 16]

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Balian and N.L

    R. Balian and N.L. Balazs, Equiprobability, inference, and entropy in quantum theory, Ann. Phys. 179 (1987), 97–144. [8]

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    Bauer, Th´ eorie quantique de la valence

    E. Bauer, Th´ eorie quantique de la valence. Les liaisons hom´ eopo laires, Bull. Soc. Chim. France. M´ em. (5) 1 (1934), 293–347. (Cited after [81]) [12]

    work page 1934

  8. [8]

    Bohr, H.A

    B. Bohr, H.A. Kramers and J.C. Slater, ¨Uber die Quantentheorie der Strahlung, Z. Physik 24 (1924), 69–87. [3]

    work page 1924

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Born, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f

    M. Born, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f. Physik 37 (1926), 863–867. (English translation: On the quantum mechanics of collisions, Section I.2, pp. 52–55 in [78].) [12, 19]

    1926

  2. [10]

    Born, Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Z

    M. Born, Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Z. Phys. 38 (1926), 803–827. [4, 12, 19, 32]

    1926

  3. [11]

    Born, Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik, Zeitsch rift f

    M. Born, Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik, Zeitsch rift f. Physik 40 (1927), 167–192. [15]

    1927

  4. [12]

    Born, Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik, Z

    M. Born, Das Adiabatenprinzip in der Quantenmechanik, Z. Phys . 40 (1927), 167–192. [13]

    1927

  5. [13]

    Brandt, Positive operator valued measure in quantum infor mation processing, Amer

    H.E. Brandt, Positive operator valued measure in quantum infor mation processing, Amer. J. Physics 67 (1999), 434–439. [7] 39

    1999

  6. [14]

    Busch, M

    P. Busch, M. Grabowski and P. Lahti, Operational quantum ph ysics, Springer, Berlin 1995. [7, 34]

    1995

  7. [15]

    Busch and P

    P. Busch and P. Lahti, Measurement theory, pp.374–379 in: Co mpendium of Quantum Physics (D. Greenberger et al., eds.), Springer, Dordrecht 2009. [38]

    2009

  8. [16]

    Caldeira and A.J

    A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative s ystem, Ann. Phys. 149 (1983), 374–456. [37]

    1983

  9. [17]

    Chanda and R

    N. Chanda and R. Bhattacharyya, Emergence of the Born rule in strongly driven dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021), 022436. [26]

    2021

  10. [18]

    Chuang and M.A

    I.L. Chuang and M.A. Nielsen, Prescription for experimental det ermination of the dynamics of a quantum black box, J. Modern Optics. 44 (1997), 2455–2467 [2 4]

    1997

  11. [19]

    Daneri, A

    A. Daneri, A. Loinger and G.M. Prosperi, Quantum theory of mea surement and ergodicity conditions, Nucl. Phys. 33 (1962), 297–319. [36]

    1962

  12. [20]

    D’Ariano, M.G.A

    G.M. D’Ariano, M.G.A. Paris and M.F. Sacchi, Quantum tomography, Adv. Imaging Elec- tron Phys. 128 (2003), 205–308. [7]

    2003

  13. [21]

    Davies and J.T

    E.B. Davies and J.T. Lewis, An operational approach to quantum probability, Comm. Math. Phys. 17 (1970), 239–260. [6]

    1970

  14. [22]

    de Broglie, Einf¨ uhrung in die Wellenmechanik, Akad

    L. de Broglie, Einf¨ uhrung in die Wellenmechanik, Akad. Verlagsge s., Leipzig 1929 [14]

    1929

  15. [23]

    Dirac, ¨Uber die Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 44 (1927), 585–595

    P. Dirac, ¨Uber die Quantenmechanik der Stossvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 44 (1927), 585–595. [12]

    1927

  16. [24]

    Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1st ed., Oxfor d Univ

    P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1st ed., Oxfor d Univ. Press, Oxford

  17. [25]

    Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed

    P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. Claren don Press, Oxford 1947. [24]

    1947

  18. [26]

    Englert, On quantum theory

    B.G. Englert, On quantum theory. The European Physical Jour nal D 67 (2013), 238. [7]

    2013

  19. [27]

    Feynman and F.L

    R.P. Feynman and F.L. Vernon, The theory of a general quantu m system interacting with a linear dissipative system, Ann. Phys. 24 (1963), 118–173. Reprin ted in: Ann. Phys. 281 (2000), 547–607. [37]

    1963

  20. [28]

    Fine, Probability and the interpretation of quantum mechanic s, Brit

    A. Fine, Probability and the interpretation of quantum mechanic s, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 24 (1973), 1–37. [24] 40

    1973

  21. [29]

    Fowler, General Forms of Statistical Mechanics with Specia l Reference to the Require- ments of the New Quantum Mechanics, Proc

    R.H. Fowler, General Forms of Statistical Mechanics with Specia l Reference to the Require- ments of the New Quantum Mechanics, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 113 (1 926), 432–449. [18]

  22. [30]

    Fuchs, QBism, where next? Manuscript (2023)

    C.A. Fuchs, QBism, where next? Manuscript (2023). arXiv:2303 .01446v2 [36]

    2023

  23. [31]

    Gell-Mann and J.B

    M. Gell-Mann and J.B. Hartle, Classical equations for quantum sy stems, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 3345–3382. [37]

    1993

  24. [32]

    Gilton, Whence the eigenstate-eigenvalue link? Stud

    M.J. Gilton, Whence the eigenstate-eigenvalue link? Stud. Hist. P hil. Sci. B 55 (2016), 92–100. [24]

    2016

  25. [33]

    Fuchs and A

    C.A. Fuchs and A. Peres, Quantum-state disturbance versus information gain: Uncertainty relations for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 53 (1996), 2038– 2045. [7]

    1996

  26. [34]

    Griffiths, The consistent histories approach to quantum me chanics, Stanford Encyclo- pedia of Philosophy, 2024

    R.B. Griffiths, The consistent histories approach to quantum me chanics, Stanford Encyclo- pedia of Philosophy, 2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/qm-consistent-hi stories/ [36]

    2024

  27. [35]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinemat ik und Mechanik, Z

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinemat ik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43 (1927), 172–198. (English translation: The physical content of quan- tum kinematics and mechanics, Section I.3, pp. 62–84 in [78].) [9, 21, 23 ]

    1927

  28. [36]

    Heisenberg, Die physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantentheorie , Hirzel, Leipzig 1930

    W. Heisenberg, Die physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantentheorie , Hirzel, Leipzig 1930. (En- glish translation: The physical principles of the quantum theory, Un iv. of Chicago Press, Chicago 1930.). [34]

    1930

  29. [37]

    Heisenberg, Der unanschauliche Quantensprung, Physikalis che Bl¨ atter 2 (1946), 4–6

    W. Heisenberg, Der unanschauliche Quantensprung, Physikalis che Bl¨ atter 2 (1946), 4–6. [17]

    1946

  30. [38]

    Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechanics, P hys

    E.T. Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechanics, P hys. Rev. 106 (1957), 620–630. [22]

    1957

  31. [39]

    Jeans, Report on radiation and the quantum theory, 2nd e d., Fleetway, London 1924

    J.H. Jeans, Report on radiation and the quantum theory, 2nd e d., Fleetway, London 1924. [3]

    1924

  32. [40]

    Jordan, Grundriss der Physik nach dem neuesten Stande d er Wissenschaft, Springer, Berlin 1898

    K.F. Jordan, Grundriss der Physik nach dem neuesten Stande d er Wissenschaft, Springer, Berlin 1898. [16]

  33. [41]

    Jordan, ¨Uber eine neue Begr¨ undung der Quantenmechanik, Z

    P. Jordan, ¨Uber eine neue Begr¨ undung der Quantenmechanik, Z. Phys. 40 (1 927), 809–838. [12, 20]

  34. [42]

    Kolmogorov, Foundations of the Theory of Probability, 2nd E nglish ed., Chelsea, New York, 1956

    A. Kolmogorov, Foundations of the Theory of Probability, 2nd E nglish ed., Chelsea, New York, 1956. [29] 41

    1956

  35. [43]

    Kramers and W

    H.A. Kramers and W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber die Streuung von Strahlung durch Atome, Zeitschrift f. Physik 31 (1925), 681–708. [16]

    1925

  36. [44]

    Landau, Das D¨ ampfungsproblem in der Wellenmechanik, Z

    L. Landau, Das D¨ ampfungsproblem in der Wellenmechanik, Z. Ph ys. 45 (1927), 430–441. [19]

    1927

  37. [45]

    Langer, Statistical theory of the decay of metastable st ates, Ann

    J.S. Langer, Statistical theory of the decay of metastable st ates, Ann. Phys. 54 (1969), 258–275. [25]

    1969

  38. [46]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics, V ol. 3: Quantum mechanics, 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, 1977. [24]

    1977

  39. [47]

    Lennard-Jones, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

    J.E. Lennard-Jones, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. By P .A.M. Dirac, The Mathe- matical Gazette 15 (1931), 505–506. [21]

    1931

  40. [48]

    Lombardo, F.D

    F.C. Lombardo, F.D. Mazzitelli and R.J. Rivers, Decoherence in fie ld theory: general cou- plings and slow quenches, Nucl. Phys. B 672 (2003), 462–486. [25]

    2003

  41. [49]

    Mehra and H

    J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The Historical Development of Qu antum Theory, Vol. 6: The Completion of Quantum Mechanics, 1926-1941, Part 1: The Probab ility Interpretation and the Statistical Transformation Theory, the Physical Interpret ation, and the Empirical and Mathematica...

    1926

  42. [50]

    von Meyenn (ed.), Eine Entdeckung von ganz ausserordent licher Tragweite: Schr´ odingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Sprin ger, Berlin 2011

    K. von Meyenn (ed.), Eine Entdeckung von ganz ausserordent licher Tragweite: Schr´ odingers Briefwechsel zur Wellenmechanik und zum Katzenparadoxon, Sprin ger, Berlin 2011. [17]

    2011

  43. [51]

    M¨ ohring and U

    K. M¨ ohring and U. Smilansky, A semi-classical treatment of diss ipative processes based on Feynman’s influence functional method, Nucl. Phys. A 338 (1980), 227–268. [37]

    1980

  44. [52]

    Mohseni, A.T

    M. Mohseni, A.T. Rezakhani and D.A. Lidar, Quantum-process t omography: Resource analysis of different strategies, Phys. Rev. A 77 (2008) 032322. [2 4]

    2008

  45. [53]

    Naimark, On a Representation of Additive Operator Set Fun ctions (in Russian), Dokl

    M.A. Naimark, On a Representation of Additive Operator Set Fun ctions (in Russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 41 (1943), 373–375. English translation: M.A. Ne umark, C.R. (Doklady) Akad. Sci. URSS. (N.S.) 41 (1943) 359–361. [7]

    1943

  46. [54]

    Neumaier, Born’s rule and measurement, Unpublished Manusc ript (2019)

    A. Neumaier, Born’s rule and measurement, Unpublished Manusc ript (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09906 [4, 27]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Neumaier, Foundations of quantum mechanics I

    A. Neumaier, Foundations of quantum mechanics I. A critique of the tradition, Unpublished Manuscript (2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10778 [4]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Neumaier, Coherent quantum physics, de Gruyter, Berlin 20 19

    A. Neumaier, Coherent quantum physics, de Gruyter, Berlin 20 19. [4, 9] 42

  49. [57]

    Neumaier, Quantum tomography explains quantum mechanics , Unpublished Manuscript (2021)

    A. Neumaier, Quantum tomography explains quantum mechanics , Unpublished Manuscript (2021). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.05294 [4, 7]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Neumaier and D

    A. Neumaier and D. Westra, Algebraic quantum physics, Vol. 1: Q uantum mechanics via Lie algebras, de Gruyter, Berlin 2024. [4, 7, 10, 26, 28, 30, 35]

    2024

  51. [59]

    von Neumann, Mathematische Begr¨ undung der Quantenme chanik, Nachr

    J. von Neumann, Mathematische Begr¨ undung der Quantenme chanik, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. G¨ ottingen, Math.-Phys. Klasse 1927 (1928), 1–57. [19]

    1928

  52. [60]

    von Neumann, Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischer Aufbau de r Quantenmechanik, Nachr

    J. von Neumann, Wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischer Aufbau de r Quantenmechanik, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. G¨ ottingen, Math.-Phys. Klasse 1927 (1928), 245–272 . [11, 20, 21]

    1928

  53. [61]

    Nielsen and I.L, Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th Anniversary Edition, Cambridge Univ

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L, Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th Anniversary Edition, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 2011. [6]

    2011

  54. [62]

    perspectives on measurement u ncertainty, Web document (ac- cessed February 09, 2025)

    NIST, International and U.S. perspectives on measurement u ncertainty, Web document (ac- cessed February 09, 2025). http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/international1.html [34]

    2025

  55. [63]

    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1954/summary/ [4]

    Nobel Prize in Physics 1954, Web document (accessed Februar y 09, 2025). https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1954/summary/ [4]

    1954

  56. [64]

    Nordheim, Zur Theorie der Anregung von Atomen durch St¨ o sse, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 36 (1926), 496–539

    L. Nordheim, Zur Theorie der Anregung von Atomen durch St¨ o sse, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 36 (1926), 496–539. [3, 12]

    1926

  57. [65]

    Pauli, ¨Uber Gasentartung und Paramagnetismus, Z

    W. Pauli, ¨Uber Gasentartung und Paramagnetismus, Z. Physik 41 (1927), 8 1–102. [19, 20]

    1927

  58. [66]

    Pauli, Albert Einstein in der Entwicklung der Physik, Phys

    W. Pauli, Albert Einstein in der Entwicklung der Physik, Phys. Bl¨ at ter 15 (1959), 241–245. English translation: Chapter 13 in: W. Pauli, Writings on Physics and Ph ilosophy, (C.P. Enz and K. von Meyenn, eds.) Springer, Berlin 1994. [21]

    1959

  59. [67]

    Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, He isenberg u.a., Band I: 1919– 1929, Springer, New York 1979

    W. Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, He isenberg u.a., Band I: 1919– 1929, Springer, New York 1979. [18, 20]

    1919

  60. [68]

    Peskin and D.V

    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder, An introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1996. [32]

    1996

  61. [69]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the quantum-to-classica l transition, Springer, New York

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the quantum-to-classica l transition, Springer, New York

  62. [70]

    Schlosshauer and A

    M. Schlosshauer and A. Fine, On Zurek’s derivation of the Born r ule, Found. Phys. 35 (2005), 197–213. [25]

    2005

  63. [71]

    Schonfeld, The first droplet in a cloud chamber track, Foun d

    J.F. Schonfeld, The first droplet in a cloud chamber track, Foun d. Phys. 51 (2021), 47. [25] 43

    2021

  64. [72]

    Schr¨ odinger, Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Vierte Miteilung) Annalen der Physik 386 (1926), 109–139

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Vierte Miteilung) Annalen der Physik 386 (1926), 109–139. [3]

    1926

  65. [73]

    Vaidman, Derivations of the Born rule, pp

    L. Vaidman, Derivations of the Born rule, pp. 567–584 in: Quant um, probability, logic: The work and influence of Itamar Pitowsky, (K. Svozil, ed.), Springer, C ham 2020. [25]

    2020

  66. [74]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1, Foundatio ns

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1, Foundatio ns. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1995. [33]

    1995

  67. [75]

    Wessels, What was Born’s statistical interpretation? pp.187 –200 in: PSA: Proc

    L. Wessels, What was Born’s statistical interpretation? pp.187 –200 in: PSA: Proc. Biennial Meeting Phil. Sci. Assoc. 1980, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 19 80. [12]

    1980

  68. [76]

    Weyl, Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie, Z

    H. Weyl, Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie, Z. Phys. 46 (1 927), 1–46. [20]

  69. [77]

    Wheeler, On the Mathematical Description of Light Nuclei by the Method of Resonating Group Structure”, Phys

    J.A. Wheeler, On the Mathematical Description of Light Nuclei by the Method of Resonating Group Structure”, Phys. Rev. 52 (1937), 1107–1122. [12]

    1937

  70. [78]

    Wheeler and W.H

    J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (eds.), Quantum theory and measur ement. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 1983. [39, 41]

    1983

  71. [79]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule [4]

    Wikipedia, Born rule, Web document (accessed February 09, 20 25). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule [4]

  72. [80]

    Web docu ment (accessed February 09, 2025)

    Wikipedia, Positive operator-valued measure (POVM). Web docu ment (accessed February 09, 2025). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_operator-val ued_measure [6]

    2025

  73. [81]

    Ziegler, Answer to Who coined the term ”Born ’s rule”? , History of Science and Mathe- matics, Q&A site, July 1, 2018

    F. Ziegler, Answer to Who coined the term ”Born ’s rule”? , History of Science and Mathe- matics, Q&A site, July 1, 2018. https://hsm.stackexchange.com/a/7488/3915 [12, 39] 44

    2018

  74. [1930]

    https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.177580/ [9, 21, 23]

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.