Different Levels of the Meaning of Wave-Particle Duality and a Suspensive Perspective on the Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Science and Education

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1011-1030

  Cheong, Yong Wook ^a   Song, Jinwoong ^b  

^a Gyeonggi Science High School   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899638138     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-013-9633-2     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Baily, C. (2011). Perspectives in quantum physics: Epistemological, ontological and pedagogical. Doctorial Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States.
5. Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Development of quantum perspectives in modern physics. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 5, 010106.
6. 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.
7. Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010b). Refined characterization of student perspectives on quantum theory. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 6, 020113.
8. Ballentine, L. E. (1970). The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 43, 358-381.
9. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195-200.
10. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 166-193.
11. Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48, 696-702.
12. Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Manfred, E., Weinfurter, H., & Zeilinger, A. (1997). Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature, 390, 575-579.
13. Brukner, Č., Aspelmeyer, M., & Zeilinger, A. (2005). Complementarity and Information in "Delayed-choice for Entanglement Swapping". Foundations of Physics, 35(11), 1909-1919.
14. 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.
15. Bunge, M. (2012). Does quantum physics refute realism, materialism, and determinism? Science & Education, 21, 1601-1610.
16. Cheong, Y. W., & Song, J. (2011). Analysis of textbook's expression about wave-particle duality. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 61, 479-488.
17. Chiaverini, J., et al. (2004). Realization of quantum error correction. Nature, 432, 602-605.
18. Cordero, A. (2003). Understanding quantum physics. Science & Education, 12(5-6), 503-511.
19. Cordero, A. (2012). Mario Bunge's scientific realism. Science & Education, 21, 1419-1435.
20. Cushing, J. T. (1995). Hermeneutics, underdetermination and quantum mechanics. Science & Education, 4, 137-146.
21. Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories (Chap. 23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Dickson, M. (2007). Non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In J. Butterfield & J. Earman (Eds.), Philosophy of Physics Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. Dubson, M., Goldhaber, S., Pollock, S., & Perkins, K. (2009). Faculty disagreement about the teaching of quantum mechanics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179, 137-140.
24. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777-780.
25. Everett, H. (1957). "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454-462.
26. Falk, J. (2007). Students' depictions of quantum mechanics: A contemporary review and some implications for research and teaching, Licentiate Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
27. 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.
28. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman lectures on physics (Vol. 3, Chap. 1). New York: Addison-Wesley.
29. Fischler, H., & Lichifeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students' conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181-190.
30. 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.
31. Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism (Chap. 1). University of Chicago Press, London.
32. Gisin, N. (1984). Quantum measurements and stochastic processes. Physical Review Letters, 52, 1657-1660.
33. Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., & Zbinden, H. (2002). Quantum cryptography. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 145-195.
34. 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.
35. Hacking, I. (1991). Experimentation and realism. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, & J. D. Tout (Eds.), The philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
36. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science (Chap. 1). Cambridge University Press, London.
37. 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.
38. Hodson, D. (2008). Toward scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science (Chap. 6). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
39. Jammer, M. (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers.
40. Johnston, I. D., Crwaford, K., & Fletcher, P. R. (1998). Students difficulties in learning quantum mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 427-446.
41. Jones, D. G. (1991). Teaching modern physics-misconceptions of the photon that can damage understanding. Physics Education, 26, 93-98.
42. Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional model for radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts. Science Education, 87(2), 257-280.
43. 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.
44. Klassen, S. (2010). The photoelectric effect: Reconstructing the story for the physics classroom. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 719-731.
45. Kragh, H. (2002). Quantum generation (Chap. 11 & 14). Prinston, NJ: Prinston University Press.
46. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Chap. 7). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. 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.
48. Liboff, R. (2002). Introductory quantum mechanics (4th ed., Chap. 3). New York: Addison-Wesley.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 200-209.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Ozawa, M. (2003). Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement. Physical Review A, 67, 042105.
59. 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.
60. Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075-1088.
61. 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.
62. Rosenfeld, L. (1963). The epistemological conflict between Einstein and Bohr. Zeitschrift für Physik, 171, 242-245.
63. Singh, C. (2008). Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 76, 400-405.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Zeilinger, A. (1999). Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Review of Modern Physics, 71, S288-S297.
68. Zhang, H. I. (1998). Epistemic subject and epistemological structure of science. Korean Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 1-33.