Understanding Quantum Mechanics

Kim Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, Hendrik Jan Pol, Alexander Brinkman +1 more

Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has become part of many secondary school curricula. These curricula often do not include the mathematical tools for a formal, mathematical introduction of QM. QM therefore needs to be taught at a more conceptual level, but making secondary school students understand counterintuitive QM concepts without introducing mathematical formalism is a challenge. In order to accept QM, students not only have to see the need of it, but also have to see that QM is understandable and logical. Dutch secondary school students are familiar with potential energy (PE) in the context of gravitational and elastic energy. Therefore, the introduction of QM by using the potential wells and tunneling with emphasis on students’ prior knowledge of PE could be a way to make QM more understandable and logical. To explore this, we investigated the relation between the understanding of energy diagrams and the understanding of the potential well and tunneling. A module was created to promote students’ understanding of PE in classical context. Then, a quasi-experimental intervention was used, in which the experimental group received additional lessons using the module on classical energy diagrams before being taught QM. Two tests were developed in order to determine students’ understanding of PE and QM. The results of the tests showed that the experimental group not only had better understanding of PE diagrams, but also of QM even before they were being taught QM. Analysis of the tests also showed that there was a significant correlation between the understanding of PE diagrams and the understanding of QM. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that emphasis on PE can be used to reduce the gap between students’ prior knowledge and QM.

Roland L. Omnes

Peter Gibbins

Why should anyone think that what is so deeply puzzling about the quantum world is really a matter of logic? Why should anyone think that studying the logic of quantum mechanics should be a route to a proper understanding of quantum mechanics? There is a tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, a tradition stronger among philosophical commentators than among physicists, which sees the subject as the business of understanding quantum mechanical language and the way that language relates to the world. It is an idea more strongly held by philosophers – it comes much more naturally to them – because the analytic tradition, in which most Anglo-American philosophers of science are raised, is generally much exercised about words and how they hook on to things. The analytic tradition in the philosophy of quantum mechanics is not unreasonable. Everyone admits that we cannot picture the microphysical world, that a graphic or iconic representation of quantum systems is impossible. Therefore understanding quantum mechanics must be a matter of understanding the logic of the words and the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If this seems implausible, it is because of an ambiguity in our use of the verb ‘to understand’. We understand the physical world, and we understand physics. But physics is not the physical world. It is something of an entirely different sort, a human product, a way of representing the world.

G. J. Troup, M. L. Whippman

GORDON J. TROUP, M. L. Whippman

Richard Dawid

Moritz Schlick’s interpretation of the causality principle is based on his understanding of quantum mechanics and on his conviction that quantum mechanics strongly supports an empiricist reading of causation in his sense. The present chapter compares the empiricist position held by Schlick with Bas van Fraassen’s more recent conception of constructive empiricism. It is pointed out that the development of philosophy of science from Schlick’s understanding of logical empiricism to constructive empiricism reflects a difference between the understanding of quantum mechanics endorsed by Schlick and the understanding that had been established by the time of van Fraassen’s writing.