This paper investigates the “private” interpretations that students of quantum mechanics develop concerning this theory. By means of questionaires, we analyze their conceptions with respect to the double slit experiment, uncertainty principle, quantum state, retrodiction, and projection postulate. Correlating the students’ answers, we observe that different private interpretations are frequently employed for analyzing different problems. Other conclusions about the cognitive processes of the students are also obtained.
This paper investigates the “private” interpretations that students of quantum mechanics develop concerning this theory. By means of questionaires, we analyze their conceptions with respect to the double slit experiment, uncertainty principle, quantum state, retrodiction, and projection postulate. Correlating the students’ answers, we observe that different private interpretations are frequently employed for analyzing different problems. Other conclusions about the cognitive processes of the students are also obtained.
This paper investigates the “private” interpretations that students of quantum mechanics develop concerning this theory. By means of questionaires, we analyze their conceptions with respect to the double slit experiment, uncertainty principle, quantum state, retrodiction, and projection postulate. Correlating the students’ answers, we observe that different private interpretations are frequently employed for analyzing different problems. Other conclusions about the cognitive processes of the students are also obtained.
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.
Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation and interpretation of the theory still remain. These issues have gathered more attention in recent years, but does this mean that physicists are more aware of foundational issues concerning quantum mechanics? A survey was sent out to 1234 physicists affiliated to 8 different universities. 149 responded to the questions, which both concerned foundational issues related to quantum mechanics, specifically, as well as questions concerning interpretations of physical theories in general. The answers to the survey revealed that foundational concepts in quantum mechanics are still a topic that only a minority of physicists are familiar with, although a clear majority of physicists find that interpretations of physical theories are important. The various questions, as well as how the respondents answered, are presented. The survey intends to give an overview of what the opinion of the physics community, in general, is concerning issues related to 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.
The objective of Chapter 4 is to give an overview of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics and their interpretation. Thus this chapter functions as a theoretical preparation for a better understanding of the quantum world and of the knowledge measurement process. First, the terminology of the word “quantum” and its impact on the derivation of the term “knowledge quantum” is explained in Chapter 4.1. Then, the discussion moves to the historical development of quantum mechanics. The key issues and current research field for quantum theory will be given in an overview. The following chapters show some insights into key quantum mechanical concepts such as slit-experiments, wave-particle duality, the Copenhagener interpretation, and quantum probability. Chapter 4 closes with an explanation of the Uncertainty Principle of Werner Heisenberg, especially since the Uncertainty Principle is used to derive the knowledge measurement process through the method of analogical reasoning. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.