Completeness of quantum theory and entanglement: A simplified teaching framework

Mustafa Erol

doi:10.21067/mpej.v10i1.11749

Authors

Mustafa Erol Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v10i1.11749

Keywords:

Completeness of quantum theory, Physics Education, Spin entanglement, Teaching entanglement, Teaching quantum theory

Abstract

This work proposes a clear teaching framework for the completeness of quantum theory and the related phenomenon of quantum entanglement. The framework begins by summarizing and underlining the probabilistic structure of quantum theory. Next, the well-known Einstein–Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) paradox, which questions the probabilistic structure and completeness of the theory, is summarized. Afterward, Bell’s inequality and Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt (CHSH) inequality approaches are enlightened by underlining their abilities to test completeness. The effort next explains how the completeness of quantum theory can be tested via quantum entanglement. Finally, the quantum entanglement of bipartite systems is generally illuminated, and the quantum entanglement of spins is fully resolved for undergraduate teaching purposes. The opinions of the students on the teaching proposal reveal that necessity, simplicity, and originality are high, and significance and importance are medium. The proposed teaching framework is reasonably simple and includes almost all the details that can be easily introduced for undergraduate quantum mechanics courses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aehle, S., Scheiger, P., and Cartarius, H. (2022). An approach to quantum physics teaching through analog experiments. Physics, 4(4), 1241-1252.

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982a). Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters, 49(25), 1804.

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1981). Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell's theorem. Physical Review Letters, 47(7), 460.

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982b). Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell's inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49(2), 91.

Baily, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2015). Teaching quantum interpretations: Revisiting the goals and practices of introductory quantum physics courses. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 11(2), 020124.

Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195.

Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48(8), 696.

Blaylock, G. (2010). The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality. American Journal of Physics, 78(1), 111-120.

Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani V, Wehner S. (2014). Bell nonlocality. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(2), 419.

Carr, L. D., and S. B. (2009). Graduate quantum mechanics reform. American Journal of Physics, 77(4), 308-319.

Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters, 23(15), 880.

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., & Laloë, F. (2019). Quantum mechanics, volume 3: fermions, bosons, photons, correlations, and entanglement. John Wiley & Sons.

Colletti, L. (2023). An Inclusive Approach to Teaching Quantum Mechanics in Secondary School. Education Sciences, 13(2), 168.

Dehlinger, D., and Mitchell, M. W. (2002). Entangled photons, nonlocality, and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory. American Journal of Physics, 70(9), 903-910.

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777.

Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., & Michelini, M. (1995). A fundamental concept in quantum theory: the superposition principle. Thinking Physics for Teaching, 329-334.

Griffiths, R. B. (2011). EPR, Bell, and quantum locality. American Journal of Physics, 79(9), 954-965.

Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for inquiry). Available at:/http://www. exploratorium. edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning. htmlS.

Hobson, A. (1996). Teaching quantum theory in the introductory course. The Physics Teacher, 34(4), 202-210.

Hohenberg, P. C. (2010). Colloquium: An introduction to consistent quantum theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(4), 2835.

Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865.

Kohnle, A.; Bozhinova, I.; Browne, D.; Everitt, M.; Fomins, A.; Kok, P. & Swinbank, E. (2013). A new introductory quantum mechanics curriculum. European Journal of Physics 35(1), 015001.

Michelini, M., Ragazzon, R., Santi, L., & Stefanel, A. (2000). Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school. Physics Education, 35(6), 406.

Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics at an introductory level. American Journal of Physics 70(3), 200-209.

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.

Pospiech, G. (1999). Teaching the EPR paradox at high school? Physics Education, 34(5), 311.

Rodríguez, E. B., Aguilar, L. A., & Martínez, E. P. (2017). A full quantum analysis of the Stern–Gerlach experiment using the evolution operator method: Analyzing current issues in teaching quantum mechanics. European Journal of Physics, 38(2), 025403.

Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 555-563). Cambridge University Press.

Shegelski, M. R. (2013). Triplet versus singlet entangled states in teaching the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. European Journal of Physics, 34(3), 773.

Wilde, M. M. (2011). From classical to quantum Shannon theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.1445.