Born rule ($p_j=|⟨j|\psi ⟩{|}^2$)

The Born rule connects a quantum state to measurement probabilities. Let $\{|j⟩\}$ be a complete orthonormal basis, finite or countably infinite, for a Hilbert space, and letAn ideal measurement distinguishing these basis vectors returns label $j$ with probabilityThis assignment is a physical measurement rule. Its compatibility with total probability one follows from orthonormality and normalization:The probabilities are the squared moduli, not the amplitudes themselves or the squares $a_j^2$. ^[ref].

If the basis is an eigenbasis of an observable, the reported numerical value is its eigenvalue. Several vectors can share one eigenvalue; the probability of that value is then the sum over the corresponding basis labels. More generally, a projective measurement with orthogonal projections $P_r$ assignsfor a pure state and a general density matrix $\rho$, respectively. This also covers mixed states and degenerate eigenspaces. The Born rule determines outcome statistics; the ideal conditional state change is specified separately by the Lüders rule. See projective measurement for that formulation and its assumptions. ^[ref].

For a worked example, take the normalized qubit quantum stateThe squared moduli add to $3/4+1/4=1$. A computational-basis measurement, equivalently a measurement of the $Z$ Pauli matrix, hasThese probabilities do not depend on the relative quantum phase $\varphi$. Now choose the Hadamard basiswhose vectors are eigenstates of the $X$ Pauli matrix, also used by the Pauli X gate. The new probability amplitudes and probabilities areBoth probabilities are nonnegative and their sum is one. The relative quantum phase becomes visible because the two probability amplitudes add before their squared modulus is taken:

A Hadamard gate followed by a computational-basis measurement realizes these $X$ statistics, since $H|\pm ⟩=|0⟩,|1⟩$, respectively. Compare the two bases using fresh, identically prepared copies: a preceding measurement may change the state. The quantum superposition section shows why replacing the preparation by the mixed state $\mathrm{diag}(3/4,1/4)$ keeps the $Z$ statistics but gives $p_{+}=p_{-}=1/2$ for every $\varphi$.

The usefulness of the Born rule is this conversion from linear algebra to experimental predictions: calculate overlaps in the basis actually measured, then take squared moduli. Its appealing geometry is that changing basis redistributes probability while preserving total squared norm. The same rule relates an energy eigenstate expansion to an energy measurement and a position wavefunction to a probability density.

Born's 1926 paper on quantum scattering interpreted the outgoing-wave coefficients in terms of the probabilities of collision outcomes; a corrective footnote specified proportionality to the square of the amplitude. This is a historical scattering formulation, rather than the general density matrix formula above. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

For an orthonormal basis $\{|e_j⟩\}$ and nonnegative numbers $p_j$ summing to one, the displayed vector is a unit vector and gives measurement probabilities $p_j$ by the Born rule. Conversely, every pure state with those probabilities has coefficients of these magnitudes, with arbitrary phases on the nonzero coefficients. A common change of all phases is a global phase; differences between them are relative phases that can affect measurements in another basis. Zero-probability coefficients vanish, so their phases have no effect.

For a prepared normalized pure state $|i⟩$ and a final projective measurement onto the normalized state $|f⟩$, unitary time evolution gives the displayed probability, by the Born rule. This depends on the preparation, final measurement, and time-evolution operator; it does not assume a classical Markov chain of transitions.

For a normalized wavefunction $\psi (x)$, the probability of a position measurement lying in a measurable set $A$ is ${\int }_A|\psi (x){|}^{2}dx$. It is a spatial-projection probability and differs from an energy measurement outcome probability.

The scattering interpretation connects an incoming preparation to the relative frequency of outgoing directions and final atomic states. Max Born's 1926 paper treats a distant incoming electron and a chemical atom, expands the outgoing wavefunction into final atomic states, and imposes conservation of energy. Its translated correction footnote specifies the square of the coefficient; the modern complex modulus notation below is ours.^[ref]

In his 11 December 1954 lecture, Max Born recalled the difficulty of interpreting bound electrons alone. He instead described an incident electron wave generating an outgoing spherical wave, with direction-dependent squared amplitude determining relative scattering probabilities. Distinct final atomic states describe excitation with corresponding electron energy loss. This is a retrospective account of an interpretation, rather than the report of a new apparatus.^[ref]

The distinction from the modern Born rule matters. The historical question was which collision outcome occurs: a direction of motion and a final atomic state. The general projective measurement formula applies to arbitrary observables, including degenerate outcomes and mixed states; a positive operator-valued measure describes still more general detector statistics. Those formulations should not be read back as the explicit contents of the short 1926 scattering paper. Nor does the scattering interpretation itself supply a rule for the conditional post-measurement state.

Actual experimental settings are described in the Davisson–Germer experiment and the Franck-Hertz experiment. The former scans collected electric current as an electron beam scatters from prepared nickel; changing direction, accelerating voltage and surface preparation probes electron diffraction. The latter uses acceleration through mercury vapor and a retarding collector to infer discrete energy losses from current minima, with vapor density and retarding settings as controls. Angular resolution and surface backgrounds limit the first inference; initial energy spread and collision positions limit the second. These linked experiments supply the preparation, apparatus and readout; the examples below are original calculations, not Born's measured data.

Take nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, a short-range interaction, a fixed heavy target, and a common projectile mass $m$. An incoming plane wave in atomic state $a$ has unit coefficient. In an open scattering channel $i$, the target finishes in a normalized atomic state ${\chi }_i$, and the projectile has positive velocity magnitude $v_i=\hslash k_i/m$. At large distance,Here $\Omega$ denotes direction, $d\Omega$ is a solid angle element, and ${\epsilon }_i$ is an internal atomic energy. Different ${\chi }_i$ are orthogonal. The scattering amplitude $f_{ia}$ has units of length. A closed scattering channel has no propagating outgoing probability current at this total energy.

The incoming probability current density is $j_{\mathrm{in}}=v_a$. The outgoing radial probability current density in channel $i$ is $j_{r,i}\sim v_i|f_{ia}{|}^2/r^2$. Multiplying by the area $r^{2}d\Omega$ and dividing by $j_{\mathrm{in}}$ gives the differential scattering cross-section:The $r^{-2}$ dilution cancels the detector's area growth. The velocity ratio remains: a squared wave coefficient alone is not generally a flux fraction. A differential scattering cross-section has units of area per solid angle, rather than being a normalized directional probability density. For selected scattering events in acceptance $D$, an ideal detector with equal efficiency in all retained channels instead givesThe denominator specifies the event selection; it need not equal one square unit of area. Absolute rates require incident flux, target number and detector efficiency in addition to these relative weights. The next finite-mode model normalizes outgoing probability current to one incoming event and predicts event fractions directly.

Consider one chosen model at a fixed total energy, with two open scattering channels, no absorption and no omitted outgoing modes. Channel 1 leaves the target unchanged; channel 2 excites it. Let $v_1=v>0$ and $v_2=v/2$. For the same projectile mass, conservation of energy then requires a target excitation $\Delta =3m{v}^2/8$. These are hypothetical parameters, not a fit to a particular atom. Each incoming or outgoing mode is normalized to unit probability current; the outgoing modes will have the angular profiles specified below.

Choose the S-matrixThis phenomenological unitary matrix specifies the channel conversion; it is not derived here from an interaction potential energy. For incidence in channel 1, its first column gives the outgoing flux amplitudesTo recover ordinary wave coefficients relative to an incident coefficient one, undo the velocity normalization:Thus $|c_2{|}^2=32/25>1$ is allowed: channel 2 travels more slowly. Its outgoing probability current fraction is $16/25$, not $32/25$. Renormalizing the unweighted squares would give $9/41$ and $32/41$, the wrong probabilities. More generally the ordinary coefficient map is $A=V^{-1/2}S{V}^{1/2}$, with $V=\mathrm{diag}(v,v/2)$; it obeys $A^{†}VA=V$. The conserved quantity is the squared coefficient norm weighted by velocity, which represents probability current.

Now specify an original angular realization of these two outgoing modes, with scattering angle $\theta$ and no azimuth dependence:The first normalization follows from $2\pi {\int }_{-1}^1(1+u^2)du=16\pi /3$, where $u=\cos \theta$. These angular profiles define the modes of this model; they are not asserted to follow from Born's approximation or an atomic potential energy. The joint directional probability densities are

Suppose a detector accepts the cone $D:0\le \theta \le \pi /3$, with full azimuth and unit efficiency. Its angular fractions within the channels areMultiplying the angular fractions by the outgoing flux weights givesFor $1600$ independent incident events, the expected values are therefore $171$ and $256$ accepted detections, compared with $576$ and $1024$ over all directions. The remaining expected $1173$ events fall outside the cone. The chosen incident number makes the expectations integers; actual counts fluctuate. Conditional on a detection inside the cone, the channel probabilities are $171/427$ and $256/427$, rather than $9/25$ and $16/25$. Angular acceptance changes the observed channel proportions even with equal detector efficiencies.

The final atomic states are orthogonal, so ignoring the atomic readout adds the two channel intensities; it does not produce $|b_1{g}_1+b_2{g}_2{|}^2$. Coherent paths that reach the same final state can instead interfere, as the existing probability amplitude and quantum superposition examples demonstrate. The distinction is physical distinguishability of final states, not whether the detector operator chooses to display their labels. Flux normalization and angular integration make the scattering interpretation useful: they turn complex outgoing waves into conserved event weights and then into the statistics of a specified detector.

A normalized quantum state $\chi =\sqrt{q}{\psi }_1+e^{i\eta }\sqrt{1-q}{\psi }_2$ in two orthonormal energy eigenstates returns to its original one-dimensional measurement subspace with probabilityThis follows by applying unitary time evolution to each energy eigenstate, then the Born rule. The relative phase $\eta$ cancels from the return amplitude. Degenerate energies make the probability identically one.

For two orthonormal energy eigenstates ${\psi }_1,{\psi }_2$, let an observable have distinct nondegenerate eigenstates ${\varphi }_{\pm }=({\psi }_1\pm {\psi }_2)/\sqrt{2}$. Starting in ${\varphi }_{-}$, unitary time evolution gives $(e^{-i{E}_{1}t/\hslash }{\psi }_1-e^{-i{E}_{2}t/\hslash }{\psi }_2)/\sqrt{2}$. Its probability amplitude along ${\varphi }_{+}$ is $(e^{-i{E}_{1}t/\hslash }-e^{-i{E}_{2}t/\hslash })/2$. The Born rule therefore gives the stated transition probability. The energy difference determines the oscillation frequency, while a common energy shift has no effect.

Every bijection of pure-state rays that preserves transition probabilities is induced by either a unitary or an antiunitary operator on the Hilbert space.

Because state vectors differing by a quantum phase represent the same ray, a unitary realization of a group action need only satisfy

A projective unitary representation is a projective representation whose chosen representatives are unitary operators. The phase factors disappear on rays.

An ideal energy measurement returns an eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian with probability equal to the squared norm of the state's projection onto its eigenspace. After obtaining a nondegenerate energy, the state is the corresponding energy eigenstate.