Abstract
There is no consensus on the genuine meaning of wave-particle duality and the interpretation of quantum theory. How can we teach duality and quantum theory despite this lack of consensus? This study attempts to answer this question. This research argues that reality issues are at the core of both the endless debates concerning the interpretation of quantum theory. As practical instructional frameworks, this study suggests three different levels of meaning for duality as well as a new suspensive perspective. The key idea behind these notions is a distinction between the prediction rule and the reality-related interpretation, instead of a traditional division between formalism and interpretation. After elaborating upon those notions, this study compares this new suspensive perspective with other interpretations or educational stances concerning the interpretation of quantum theory. Several practical guides for the better instruction of duality and quantum theory as well as its implication on students’ understanding of the topics are also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One can refer to Albert’ book (1992), Quantum Theory and Experience for a description of the advantages and shortcomings of the interpretations.
References
Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ambrose, B. S., Shaffer, P. S., Steinberg, R. N., & McDermott, L. C. (1999). An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference. American Journal of Physics, 67(2), 146–155.
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49, 91–94.
Baily, C. (2011). Perspectives in quantum physics: Epistemological, ontological and pedagogical. Doctorial Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States.
Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Development of quantum perspectives in modern physics. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 5, 010106.
Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010a). Teaching and understanding of quantum interpretations in modern physics courses. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 6, 010101.
Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010b). Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum theory. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 6, 020113.
Ballentine, L. E. (1970). The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 43, 358–381.
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.
Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 166–193.
Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48, 696–702.
Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Manfred, E., Weinfurter, H., & Zeilinger, A. (1997). Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature, 390, 575–579.
Brukner, Č., Aspelmeyer, M., & Zeilinger, A. (2005). Complementarity and Information in “Delayed-choice for Entanglement Swapping”. Foundations of Physics, 35(11), 1909–1919.
Bunge, M. (2003). Twenty-five centuries of quantum physics: From Pythagoras to us, and from subjectivism to realism. Science & Education, 12(5–6), 445–466.
Bunge, M. (2012). Does quantum physics refute realism, materialism, and determinism? Science & Education, 21, 1601–1610.
Cheong, Y. W., & Song, J. (2011). Analysis of textbook’s expression about wave-particle duality. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 61, 479–488.
Chiaverini, J., et al. (2004). Realization of quantum error correction. Nature, 432, 602–605.
Cordero, A. (2003). Understanding quantum physics. Science & Education, 12(5–6), 503–511.
Cordero, A. (2012). Mario Bunge’s scientific realism. Science & Education, 21, 1419–1435.
Cushing, J. T. (1995). Hermeneutics, underdetermination and quantum mechanics. Science & Education, 4, 137–146.
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories (Chap. 23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dickson, M. (2007). Non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Philosophy of Physics Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dubson, M., Goldhaber, S., Pollock, S., & Perkins, K. (2009). Faculty disagreement about the teaching of quantum mechanics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179, 137–140.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.
Everett, H. (1957). “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.
Falk, J. (2007). Students’ depictions of quantum mechanics: A contemporary review and some implications for research and teaching, Licentiate Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Faye, J. (2008). Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagn.
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics (Vol. 3, Chap. 1). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Fischler, H., & Lichifeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181–190.
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, I. R., & Benatti, F. (1995). Describing the macroscopic world: Closing the circle within the dynamical reduction program. Foundations of Physics, 25(1), 5–38.
Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism (Chap. 1). University of Chicago Press, London.
Gisin, N. (1984). Quantum measurements and stochastic processes. Physical Review Letters, 52, 1657–1660.
Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., & Zbinden, H. (2002). Quantum cryptography. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 145–195.
Greca, I. M., & Freire, O, Jr. (2003). Does an emphasis on the concept of quantum states enhance students’ understanding of quantum mechanics. Science & Education, 12, 541–557.
Hacking, I. (1991). Experimentation and realism. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, & J. D. Tout (Eds.), The philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science (Chap. 1). Cambridge University Press, London.
Hobson, A. (2005). Electrons as field quanta: A better way to teach quantum physics in introductory general physics course. American Journal of Physics, 73(7), 630–634.
Hodson, D. (2008). Toward scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science (Chap. 6). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Jammer, M. (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers.
Johnston, I. D., Crwaford, K., & Fletcher, P. R. (1998). Students difficulties in learning quantum mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 427–446.
Jones, D. G. (1991). Teaching modern physics-misconceptions of the photon that can damage understanding. Physics Education, 26, 93–98.
Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science Education, 87(2), 257–280.
Karakostas, V., & Hadzidaki, P. (2005). Realism vs. constructivism in contemporary physics: The impact of the debate on the understanding of quantum theory and its instructional process. Science & Education, 14, 607–629.
Klassen, S. (2010). The photoelectric effect: Reconstructing the story for the physics classroom. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 719–731.
Kragh, H. (2002). Quantum generation (Chap. 11 & 14). Prinston, NJ: Prinston University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Chap. 7). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuipers, Theo A. F. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism: On some relations between confirmation, empirical progress, and truth approximation (pp. 1–14). Boston: Kluwer.
Liboff, R. (2002). Introductory quantum mechanics (4th ed., Chap. 3). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Mannila, K., Koponen, I. T., & Niskanen, J. A. (2002). Building a picture of students’ conceptions of wave- and particle-like properties of quantum entities. European Journal of Physics, 23, 45–53.
McKagan, S. B., Handley, W., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect. American Journal of Physics, 77, 87–94.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008a). Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 4, 010103.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2008b). Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 76, 406–418.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2010). Design and validation of the quantum mechanics conceptual survey. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 6, 020121.
Mehra, J., & Rechenberg, H. (1982). The quantum theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and Sommerfeld: Its foundation and the rise of its difficulties 1900–1925 (pp. 511–532). New York: Springer.
Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 200–209.
Niaz, M., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., & Metz, D. (2010). Reconstruction of the history of the photoelectric effect and its implications for general physics textbooks. Science Education, 94(5), 903–931.
Olsen, R. V. (2002). Introducing quantum mechanics in the upper secondary school: A study in Norway. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 565–574.
Ozawa, M. (2003). Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Physical Review A, 67, 042105.
Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2009). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233–258.
Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075–1088.
Pospiech, G. (2001). Experiences with a modern course in quantum physics. In H. Behrendt, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education-past, present, and future. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rosenfeld, L. (1963). The epistemological conflict between Einstein and Bohr. Zeitschrift für Physik, 171, 242–245.
Singh, C. (2008). Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 76, 400–405.
Thacker, B. A. (2003). A study of the nature of students’ models of microscopic processes in the context of modern physics experiments. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 599–606.
Wuttiprom, S., Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Chitaree, R., & Soankwan, C. (2009). Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 631–654.
Zbinden, H., Brendel, J., Tittel, W., & Gisin, N. (2001). Experimental test of relativistic quantum state collapse with moving reference frames. Journal of Physics A, 34, 7103–7111.
Zeilinger, A. (1999). Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Review of Modern Physics, 71, S288–S297.
Zhang, H. I. (1998). Epistemic subject and epistemological structure of science. Korean Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 1–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheong, Y.W., Song, J. Different Levels of the Meaning of Wave-Particle Duality and a Suspensive Perspective on the Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Sci & Educ 23, 1011–1030 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9633-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9633-2