Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Advanced Level Physics Students' Conceptions of Quantum Physics.

Azam Mashhadi

Published Jan 1, 1995• 2 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This study addresses questions about particle physics that focus on the nature of electrons. Speculations as to whether they are more like particles or waves or like neither illustrate the difficulties with which students are confronted when trying to incorporate the concepts of quantum physics into their overall conceptual framework. Such questions illustrate the difficulties in using analogies taken from ordinary experience, described mostly by classical models, in explaining the subatomic world. Data for this study were obtained from a semi-structured questionnaire completed by physics students (N=57). The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions, drawings of particular situations, and attitude scales. Findings indicate that students are inclined to incorporate the new quantum phenomena into the older mechanistic conceptions and that most students are not epistemologically aware that quantum physics constitutes a new paradigm. Contains 16 references. (Author/DDR) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Paper presented at the Singapore Educational Research Association 9th Annual Conference, 22-24 November 1995. Advanced level Physics students' conceptions of Quantum Physics Azam Mashhadi Affiliation: Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom. Address for correspondence: Block 16 #07-125, Hougang Avenue 3, Republic of Singapore 530016 e-mail: chrizam@pacific.net.sg Abstract ...I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics ....do not keep saying to yourself, if you possibly can avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman (1967: 129)..I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics ....do not keep saying to yourself, if you possibly can avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman (1967: 129) Especially over the last fifteen years there has been considerable research interest in the student's perceptions of phenomena in such areas as energy, motion, the particulate nature of matter, electricity, and light. However, ninety years after the genesis of Quantum Physics significant research on students' understanding of such revolutionary phenomena is only beginning to emerge. What are electrons really like? Are they like particles or waves? Are they like both particles and waves, or like neither? These questions illustrate the psychological difficulties with which students are confronted when trying to incorporate the concepts of Quantum Physics into their over-all conceptual framework. They also illustrate the difficulties in using analogies taken from ordinary experience (i.e. essentially classical models) to 'explain' the subatomic world. In its predictive abilities Quantum Theory is the most successful physical theory that has ever been conceptualised, and forms the basis of high technology industries. However Einstein once remarked that Quantum Theory reminded him of 'the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent paranoiac, concocted of incoherent elements of thought.' (In Arthur Fine, 1986). Following a review of previous research the initial findings of a study investigating students' understanding of quantum phenomena is presented. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND ; DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL BEEN .RANT .D TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement yeCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as eived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 1

Related papers

Insights into students' understanding of quantum physics: visualizing quantum entities

Azam Mashhadi, Brian E. Woolnough

Ninety years after the genesis of quantum physics significant research on students' understanding of such revolutionary phenomena is beginning to emerge. What are photons really like? Are they like particles or waves? Are they like both particles and waves, or like neither? The implications of quantum theory for the commonsense notion of an object illustrate the difficulties in using ordinary experience to make sense of the subatomic world. Part of the findings of a series of studies investigating students' understanding of quantum physics is presented, describing students' visualizations of quantum entities (i.e. electrons and photons).

European Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1999•76 citations

Particle Interference without Waves

Marcello Cini

After eighty years of Quantum Mechanics (QM) we have learned to live with wave functions without worrying about their physical nature. This attitude is certainly justifled by the extraordinary success of the theory in predicting and explaining not only all the phenomena encountered in the domain of microphysics, but also some spectacular nonclassical macroscopic behaviors of matter. Nevertheless one cannot ignore that the wave{particle duality of quantum objects not only still raises conceptual problems among the members of the small community of physicists who are still interested in the foundations of our basic theory of matter, but also induces thousands and thousands of physics students all around the world to ask each year, at their flrst impact with Quantum Mechanics, embarrassing questions to their teachers without receiving really convincing answers. Remember that Feynman once said \It is fair to say that nobody understands

•Jan 1, 2006•5 citations

The Physical Nature of Wave/Particle Duality

Marcello Cini

1.1 Waves and particles in quantum mechanics In spite of the fact that the extraordinary progress of experimental techniques make us able to manipulate at will systems made of any small and well defined number of atoms, electrons and photons making therefore possible the actual performance of the gedankenexperimente that Einstein and Bohr had imagined to support their opposite views on the physical properties of the wavelike/particlelike objects (quantons) of the quantum world it does not seem that, after more than eighty years, a unanimous consensus has been reached in the physicist's community on how to understand their strange properties. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether Feynman would still insist in maintaining his famous sentence It is fair to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. We can only discuss if, almost thirty years after his death, some progress towards this goal has been made. I believe that this is the case. I will show in fact that, by following the suggestions of Feynman himself, some clarification of the old puzzles can be achieved. This chapter therefore by no means is intended to provide an impartial review of the present status of the question but is focused on the exposure of the results of more than twenty years of research of my group in Rome, which in my opinion provide a possible way of connecting together at the same time the random nature of the events at the atomic level of reality and the completeness of their probabilistic representation by the principles of Quantum Mechanics.

InTech eBooks•Feb 24, 2012•4 citations

Conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics : an investigation into physics students' depictions of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics

Mengesha Ayene Ejigu

Not only is Quantum Mechanics (QM) conceptually rich, it is also a theory that physics students have found abstract and technically formidable. Nevertheless, compared to other classical topics of physics, university students’ understanding of QM has received minimal attention in the physics education literature. The principal purpose of this study was to characterize the variation in the ways that undergraduate physics students depict the basic concepts of QM and to extrapolate the results to scaffold possible changes to instructional practices at the university that provided the context for the study. In so doing, an adaptation of a developmental phenomenographic perspective was chosen. Empirically, the study was approached through in-depth interviews with 35 physics students from two Ethiopian governmental universities after they had been exposed to the traditional QM course for one-third of a semester. Interview responses were analyzed using phenomenographic approach where a picture of students’ depictions was established for each quantum concept by expounding the given responses. For each basic quantum concept addressed, the structure of the description categories was separately constructed, and overall, it was found that naive, quasi-classical ontology and/or variants of classical ways of visualization are dominant in students’ responses. For example, it was found that students’ depictions of the photon concept could be described with three distinct categories of description, which are (a) classical intuitive description, (b) mixed model description and (c) quasi-quantum model description. Similarly, the findings revealed that it is possible to establish three qualitatively different categories of description to picture students’ depictions of matter waves, namely, (a) classical and trajectory-based description, (b) an intricate blend of classical and quantum description and (c) incipient quantum model description. Likewise, it was found that students’ depictions of uncertainty principle can be described as: (a) uncertainty as classical ignorance, (b) uncertainty as measurement disturbance and (c) uncertainty as a quasi-quantum principle. \nWith regard to learning QM, the categories of description made clear several issues: most students did not have enough knowledge to depict the basic concepts of QM properly; they were influenced by the perspective of classical physics and their perceptions in making explanations about QM; and they also applied mixed ideas, one based on their classical model and the other from newly introduced QM. These results are also supported by the findings of previous studies in similar domains. Findings from the study were used to guide the design of multiple representations-based instructions and interactive learning tutorials on the conceptual aspects of QM that has been shown to address specific difficulties identified in the study. Theoretical and practical implications of the study, as well as potential future considerations are drawn.

•Jul 1, 2014•1 citation

Perspectives in Quantum Physics: Epistemological, Ontological and Pedagogical. An investigation into student and expert perspectives on the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, with implications for modern physics instruction

Charles Baily

A common learning goal for modern physics instructors is for students to recognize a difference between the experimental uncertainty of classical physics and the fundamental uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Our studies suggest this notoriously difficult task may be frustrated by the intuitively realist perspectives of introductory students, and a lack of ontological flexibility in their conceptions of light and matter. We have developed a framework for understanding and characterizing student perspectives on the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, and demonstrate the differential impact on student thinking of the myriad ways instructors approach interpretive themes in their introductory courses. Like expert physicists, students interpret quantum phenomena differently, and these interpretations are significantly influenced by their overall stances on questions central to the so-called measurement problem: Is the wave function physically real, or simply a mathematical tool? Is the collapse of the wave function an ad hoc rule, or a physical transition not described by any equation? Does an electron, being a form of matter, exist as a localized particle at all times? These questions, which are of personal and academic interest to our students, are largely only superficially addressed in our introductory courses, often for fear of opening a Pandora's Box of student questions, none of which have easy answers. We show how a transformed modern physics curriculum (recently implemented at the University of Colorado) may positively impact student perspectives on indeterminacy and wave-particle duality, by making questions of classical and quantum reality a central theme of our course, but also by making the beliefs of our students, and not just those of scientists, an explicit topic of discussion.

arXiv:1109.1295•ProQuest LLC eBooks•Sep 6, 2011•0 citations

Approaches for improving students' understanding of quantum mechanics

Robert B. Griffiths

In the first sentence of their article “Improving Students’ Understanding of Quantum Mechanics” ( Physics Today, August 2006, page 43), Chandralekha Singh, Mario Belloni, and Wolfgang Christian refer to Richard Feynman's well-known assertion that nobody understands quantum mechanics. But thereafter they ignore it, and apparently assume that student misconceptions when learning quantum mechanics are not connected with foundational issues. I argue the contrary, that Feynman's statement should be a central concern in all efforts to improve quantum pedagogy. If we teachers do not understand a topic, we pass our own misconceptions on to our students and make the subject much more difficult for them.Many conceptual difficulties, including those Feynman was referring to, arise from the problem of introducing probabilities into quantum theory in a useful and consistent way. Textbooks avoid the problem by assigning probabilities to macroscopic measurement outcomes rather than to microscopic quantum systems. Although that approach avoids inconsistencies, it gives rise to some serious misconceptions: Measurements are somehow special and unrelated to other quantum phenomena; they require a “classical” apparatus that functions outside the scope of quantum mechanics (where is one to find such a thing nowadays?); they produce physical effects at long distances; one can say nothing sensible about what a quantum system is doing in the absence of measurements; measurements can be used to predict the future of the measured system but tell us nothing about its past; and so forth. These misconceptions are not unrelated to those that Singh and coauthors have reported.Students learning quantum mechanics could benefit greatly if their instructors used advances in our understanding that have occurred during the 40 years since Feynman unashamedly confessed his perplexity. He seems to have reacted favorably to a preliminary version of the new ideas (see the letter from Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle in Physics Today, February 1999, page 11), so he might have appreciated the more mature form now available. In brief, we now know how to consistently assign probabilities directly to microscopic systems without referring to measurements, and we can show that under appropriate conditions a properly constructed measurement apparatus, described in fully quantum terms, will reveal properties the measured system possessed before the measurement took place. In such circumstances the probabilities of measurement outcomes are the same as those of the measured properties, and measurements are no longer an essential conceptual tool: One can think directly in physical terms about what the quantum system is doing at different times. This gets rid of a major source of student difficulties and misconceptions.Consider the example reported by Singh and coauthors in which students used a calculation employing 〈A〉 = 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 to find the expectation of an observable A, rather than simply using a probability distribution they had worked out previously. (In that article, A was the energy, but the same principle applies to any observable.) This failure is not surprising given that textbooks lack a good discussion of how to assign probability distributions to observables. So the student memorizes an independent formula 〈A〉 = 〈ψ|A|ψ〉, which is a good way of calculating something that comes up in homework and exams, but whose physical significance is not particularly clear (to student or instructor). What the student should be taught is that A is the quantum counterpart of a random variable in ordinary probability theory, and its average can be obtained from its probability distribution in exactly the same way. Defining 〈A〉 in this manner before introducing 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 as a convenient formula for calculating it would make things clearer. But quantum textbooks do not contain the necessary tools, and for good reason. With two noncommuting observables A and B, it is easy to poke either of them into the 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 formula, whereas assigning probabilities leads into a vast swamp, which work on quantum foundations has shown to be filled with nasty paradoxes ready to bite the unwary. Retreating to macroscopic measurements allows textbook writers to avoid the swamp, but with a serious loss in clarity of thought and physical intuition. It is better to drain the swamp of its root cause: a failed attempt to meld classical and quantum modes of reasoning, instead of consistently applying quantum concepts at all levels, microscopic and macroscopic, which is something we now know how to do.Another misconception reported in the Physics Today article, that measurement of a physical observable causes the system to be stuck forever in the measured eigenstate, is hardly surprising when students are taught that measurements and wavefunction collapse are part of the axiomatic, and thus unanalyzable, structure of quantum theory. Instead, they need to think about measurements as quantum physical processes, governed by the same laws as the rest of the quantum world, and learn how to use conditional probabilities to relate measurement outcomes to the past as well as the future behavior of a measured system. Once again, outdated ideas make the subject harder to learn.For 10 years I have been teaching advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate quantum mechanics courses and courses in quantum information, using the new perspective in which quantum mechanics is based on probabilistic laws of universal validity, with measurements being only one application. Reactions have generally been positive, though the students show signs of shock when I tell them that by the end of the course, provided they do their homework, they will understand some aspects of quantum mechanics better than Feynman did. Presenting the new ideas takes somewhat longer than the material they replace, but not enormously so. Some time will be regained in courses that include an introduction to quantum entanglement and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, since circuitous arguments invoking Bell's inequality and the like, which can leave students quite confused, are replaced by a short, clear treatment of the essentials.Although I can see the value of computer simulations of Schrödinger's equation, I think it is more effective to first introduce students to basic quantum dynamics, both unitary and stochastic, through the use of “toy models.” I included various examples in Consistent Quantum Theory . 1 1. R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge U. Press, New York (2002). Some chapters and a few exercises are available at http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu. The properties of such models are easily worked out with a pencil on a small sheet of paper, like the back of an envelope. Working through them helps students master new concepts and get rid of certain misconceptions about quantum measurements. The fact that students in my courses have been able to learn how to apply probabilities consistently to microscopic systems, in a way that disposes of numerous difficulties and conceptual paradoxes, suggests it might be worthwhile for other teachers to invest some time in learning post-Feynman ideas. The main difficulty is the absence of a textbook. I have used reference 1 as a supplement, though it is not ideal. It has no exercises, although a few are available on the corresponding website. I would be happy to hear from anyone skilled in textbook writing who wants to revise an older one or start something new.In conclusion, I strongly favor every effort to improve students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, and I consider the research reported by Singh and coauthors a valuable contribution to that end. However, if we want our students to genuinely understand quantum mechanics and not simply calculate things, I believe a much bigger step forward is possible by combining the efforts reported in the article with advances in quantum foundations.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge U. Press, New York (2002). Some chapters and a few exercises are available at http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu. Google Scholar© 2007 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Mar 1, 2007•0 citations
This study addresses questions about particle physics that focus on the nature of electrons. Speculations as to whether they are more like particles or waves or like neither illustrate the difficulties with which students are confronted when trying to incorporate the concepts of quantum physics into their overall conceptual framework. Such questions illustrate the difficulties in using analogies taken from ordinary experience, described mostly by classical models, in explaining the subatomic world. Data for this study were obtained from a semi-structured questionnaire completed by physics students (N=57). The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions, drawings of particular situations, and attitude scales. Findings indicate that students are inclined to incorporate the new quantum phenomena into the older mechanistic conceptions and that most students are not epistemologically aware that quantum physics constitutes a new paradigm. Contains 16 references. (Author/DDR) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Paper presented at the Singapore Educational Research Association 9th Annual Conference, 22-24 November 1995. Advanced level Physics students' conceptions of Quantum Physics Azam Mashhadi Affiliation: Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, United Kingdom. Address for correspondence: Block 16 #07-125, Hougang Avenue 3, Republic of Singapore 530016 e-mail: chrizam@pacific.net.sg Abstract ...I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics ....do not keep saying to yourself, if you possibly can avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman (1967: 129)..I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics ....do not keep saying to yourself, if you possibly can avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman (1967: 129) Especially over the last fifteen years there has been considerable research interest in the student's perceptions of phenomena in such areas as energy, motion, the particulate nature of matter, electricity, and light. However, ninety years after the genesis of Quantum Physics significant research on students' understanding of such revolutionary phenomena is only beginning to emerge. What are electrons really like? Are they like particles or waves? Are they like both particles and waves, or like neither? These questions illustrate the psychological difficulties with which students are confronted when trying to incorporate the concepts of Quantum Physics into their over-all conceptual framework. They also illustrate the difficulties in using analogies taken from ordinary experience (i.e. essentially classical models) to 'explain' the subatomic world. In its predictive abilities Quantum Theory is the most successful physical theory that has ever been conceptualised, and forms the basis of high technology industries. However Einstein once remarked that Quantum Theory reminded him of 'the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent paranoiac, concocted of incoherent elements of thought.' (In Arthur Fine, 1986). Following a review of previous research the initial findings of a study investigating students' understanding of quantum phenomena is presented. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND ; DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL BEEN .RANT .D TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement yeCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as eived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 1
Ninety years after the genesis of quantum physics significant research on students' understanding of such revolutionary phenomena is beginning to emerge. What are photons really like? Are they like particles or waves? Are they like both particles and waves, or like neither? The implications of quantum theory for the commonsense notion of an object illustrate the difficulties in using ordinary experience to make sense of the subatomic world. Part of the findings of a series of studies investigating students' understanding of quantum physics is presented, describing students' visualizations of quantum entities (i.e. electrons and photons).
After eighty years of Quantum Mechanics (QM) we have learned to live with wave functions without worrying about their physical nature. This attitude is certainly justifled by the extraordinary success of the theory in predicting and explaining not only all the phenomena encountered in the domain of microphysics, but also some spectacular nonclassical macroscopic behaviors of matter. Nevertheless one cannot ignore that the wave{particle duality of quantum objects not only still raises conceptual problems among the members of the small community of physicists who are still interested in the foundations of our basic theory of matter, but also induces thousands and thousands of physics students all around the world to ask each year, at their flrst impact with Quantum Mechanics, embarrassing questions to their teachers without receiving really convincing answers. Remember that Feynman once said \It is fair to say that nobody understands
1.1 Waves and particles in quantum mechanics In spite of the fact that the extraordinary progress of experimental techniques make us able to manipulate at will systems made of any small and well defined number of atoms, electrons and photons making therefore possible the actual performance of the gedankenexperimente that Einstein and Bohr had imagined to support their opposite views on the physical properties of the wavelike/particlelike objects (quantons) of the quantum world it does not seem that, after more than eighty years, a unanimous consensus has been reached in the physicist's community on how to understand their strange properties. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether Feynman would still insist in maintaining his famous sentence It is fair to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. We can only discuss if, almost thirty years after his death, some progress towards this goal has been made. I believe that this is the case. I will show in fact that, by following the suggestions of Feynman himself, some clarification of the old puzzles can be achieved. This chapter therefore by no means is intended to provide an impartial review of the present status of the question but is focused on the exposure of the results of more than twenty years of research of my group in Rome, which in my opinion provide a possible way of connecting together at the same time the random nature of the events at the atomic level of reality and the completeness of their probabilistic representation by the principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Not only is Quantum Mechanics (QM) conceptually rich, it is also a theory that physics students have found abstract and technically formidable. Nevertheless, compared to other classical topics of physics, university students’ understanding of QM has received minimal attention in the physics education literature. The principal purpose of this study was to characterize the variation in the ways that undergraduate physics students depict the basic concepts of QM and to extrapolate the results to scaffold possible changes to instructional practices at the university that provided the context for the study. In so doing, an adaptation of a developmental phenomenographic perspective was chosen. Empirically, the study was approached through in-depth interviews with 35 physics students from two Ethiopian governmental universities after they had been exposed to the traditional QM course for one-third of a semester. Interview responses were analyzed using phenomenographic approach where a picture of students’ depictions was established for each quantum concept by expounding the given responses. For each basic quantum concept addressed, the structure of the description categories was separately constructed, and overall, it was found that naive, quasi-classical ontology and/or variants of classical ways of visualization are dominant in students’ responses. For example, it was found that students’ depictions of the photon concept could be described with three distinct categories of description, which are (a) classical intuitive description, (b) mixed model description and (c) quasi-quantum model description. Similarly, the findings revealed that it is possible to establish three qualitatively different categories of description to picture students’ depictions of matter waves, namely, (a) classical and trajectory-based description, (b) an intricate blend of classical and quantum description and (c) incipient quantum model description. Likewise, it was found that students’ depictions of uncertainty principle can be described as: (a) uncertainty as classical ignorance, (b) uncertainty as measurement disturbance and (c) uncertainty as a quasi-quantum principle. \nWith regard to learning QM, the categories of description made clear several issues: most students did not have enough knowledge to depict the basic concepts of QM properly; they were influenced by the perspective of classical physics and their perceptions in making explanations about QM; and they also applied mixed ideas, one based on their classical model and the other from newly introduced QM. These results are also supported by the findings of previous studies in similar domains. Findings from the study were used to guide the design of multiple representations-based instructions and interactive learning tutorials on the conceptual aspects of QM that has been shown to address specific difficulties identified in the study. Theoretical and practical implications of the study, as well as potential future considerations are drawn.
A common learning goal for modern physics instructors is for students to recognize a difference between the experimental uncertainty of classical physics and the fundamental uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Our studies suggest this notoriously difficult task may be frustrated by the intuitively realist perspectives of introductory students, and a lack of ontological flexibility in their conceptions of light and matter. We have developed a framework for understanding and characterizing student perspectives on the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, and demonstrate the differential impact on student thinking of the myriad ways instructors approach interpretive themes in their introductory courses. Like expert physicists, students interpret quantum phenomena differently, and these interpretations are significantly influenced by their overall stances on questions central to the so-called measurement problem: Is the wave function physically real, or simply a mathematical tool? Is the collapse of the wave function an ad hoc rule, or a physical transition not described by any equation? Does an electron, being a form of matter, exist as a localized particle at all times? These questions, which are of personal and academic interest to our students, are largely only superficially addressed in our introductory courses, often for fear of opening a Pandora's Box of student questions, none of which have easy answers. We show how a transformed modern physics curriculum (recently implemented at the University of Colorado) may positively impact student perspectives on indeterminacy and wave-particle duality, by making questions of classical and quantum reality a central theme of our course, but also by making the beliefs of our students, and not just those of scientists, an explicit topic of discussion.
In the first sentence of their article “Improving Students’ Understanding of Quantum Mechanics” ( Physics Today, August 2006, page 43), Chandralekha Singh, Mario Belloni, and Wolfgang Christian refer to Richard Feynman's well-known assertion that nobody understands quantum mechanics. But thereafter they ignore it, and apparently assume that student misconceptions when learning quantum mechanics are not connected with foundational issues. I argue the contrary, that Feynman's statement should be a central concern in all efforts to improve quantum pedagogy. If we teachers do not understand a topic, we pass our own misconceptions on to our students and make the subject much more difficult for them.Many conceptual difficulties, including those Feynman was referring to, arise from the problem of introducing probabilities into quantum theory in a useful and consistent way. Textbooks avoid the problem by assigning probabilities to macroscopic measurement outcomes rather than to microscopic quantum systems. Although that approach avoids inconsistencies, it gives rise to some serious misconceptions: Measurements are somehow special and unrelated to other quantum phenomena; they require a “classical” apparatus that functions outside the scope of quantum mechanics (where is one to find such a thing nowadays?); they produce physical effects at long distances; one can say nothing sensible about what a quantum system is doing in the absence of measurements; measurements can be used to predict the future of the measured system but tell us nothing about its past; and so forth. These misconceptions are not unrelated to those that Singh and coauthors have reported.Students learning quantum mechanics could benefit greatly if their instructors used advances in our understanding that have occurred during the 40 years since Feynman unashamedly confessed his perplexity. He seems to have reacted favorably to a preliminary version of the new ideas (see the letter from Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle in Physics Today, February 1999, page 11), so he might have appreciated the more mature form now available. In brief, we now know how to consistently assign probabilities directly to microscopic systems without referring to measurements, and we can show that under appropriate conditions a properly constructed measurement apparatus, described in fully quantum terms, will reveal properties the measured system possessed before the measurement took place. In such circumstances the probabilities of measurement outcomes are the same as those of the measured properties, and measurements are no longer an essential conceptual tool: One can think directly in physical terms about what the quantum system is doing at different times. This gets rid of a major source of student difficulties and misconceptions.Consider the example reported by Singh and coauthors in which students used a calculation employing 〈A〉 = 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 to find the expectation of an observable A, rather than simply using a probability distribution they had worked out previously. (In that article, A was the energy, but the same principle applies to any observable.) This failure is not surprising given that textbooks lack a good discussion of how to assign probability distributions to observables. So the student memorizes an independent formula 〈A〉 = 〈ψ|A|ψ〉, which is a good way of calculating something that comes up in homework and exams, but whose physical significance is not particularly clear (to student or instructor). What the student should be taught is that A is the quantum counterpart of a random variable in ordinary probability theory, and its average can be obtained from its probability distribution in exactly the same way. Defining 〈A〉 in this manner before introducing 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 as a convenient formula for calculating it would make things clearer. But quantum textbooks do not contain the necessary tools, and for good reason. With two noncommuting observables A and B, it is easy to poke either of them into the 〈ψ|A|ψ〉 formula, whereas assigning probabilities leads into a vast swamp, which work on quantum foundations has shown to be filled with nasty paradoxes ready to bite the unwary. Retreating to macroscopic measurements allows textbook writers to avoid the swamp, but with a serious loss in clarity of thought and physical intuition. It is better to drain the swamp of its root cause: a failed attempt to meld classical and quantum modes of reasoning, instead of consistently applying quantum concepts at all levels, microscopic and macroscopic, which is something we now know how to do.Another misconception reported in the Physics Today article, that measurement of a physical observable causes the system to be stuck forever in the measured eigenstate, is hardly surprising when students are taught that measurements and wavefunction collapse are part of the axiomatic, and thus unanalyzable, structure of quantum theory. Instead, they need to think about measurements as quantum physical processes, governed by the same laws as the rest of the quantum world, and learn how to use conditional probabilities to relate measurement outcomes to the past as well as the future behavior of a measured system. Once again, outdated ideas make the subject harder to learn.For 10 years I have been teaching advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate quantum mechanics courses and courses in quantum information, using the new perspective in which quantum mechanics is based on probabilistic laws of universal validity, with measurements being only one application. Reactions have generally been positive, though the students show signs of shock when I tell them that by the end of the course, provided they do their homework, they will understand some aspects of quantum mechanics better than Feynman did. Presenting the new ideas takes somewhat longer than the material they replace, but not enormously so. Some time will be regained in courses that include an introduction to quantum entanglement and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, since circuitous arguments invoking Bell's inequality and the like, which can leave students quite confused, are replaced by a short, clear treatment of the essentials.Although I can see the value of computer simulations of Schrödinger's equation, I think it is more effective to first introduce students to basic quantum dynamics, both unitary and stochastic, through the use of “toy models.” I included various examples in Consistent Quantum Theory . 1 1. R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge U. Press, New York (2002). Some chapters and a few exercises are available at http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu. The properties of such models are easily worked out with a pencil on a small sheet of paper, like the back of an envelope. Working through them helps students master new concepts and get rid of certain misconceptions about quantum measurements. The fact that students in my courses have been able to learn how to apply probabilities consistently to microscopic systems, in a way that disposes of numerous difficulties and conceptual paradoxes, suggests it might be worthwhile for other teachers to invest some time in learning post-Feynman ideas. The main difficulty is the absence of a textbook. I have used reference 1 as a supplement, though it is not ideal. It has no exercises, although a few are available on the corresponding website. I would be happy to hear from anyone skilled in textbook writing who wants to revise an older one or start something new.In conclusion, I strongly favor every effort to improve students’ understanding of quantum mechanics, and I consider the research reported by Singh and coauthors a valuable contribution to that end. However, if we want our students to genuinely understand quantum mechanics and not simply calculate things, I believe a much bigger step forward is possible by combining the efforts reported in the article with advances in quantum foundations.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge U. Press, New York (2002). Some chapters and a few exercises are available at http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu. Google Scholar© 2007 American Institute of Physics.