4 ms·

Thanks for the feedback, truly appreciate it! Will make those changes. The superposition part though, maybe I could've been more clearer, but I meant to imply

Thanks for the feedback, truly appreciate it! Will make those changes. The superposition part though, maybe I could've been more clearer, but I meant to imply the "being in both states" is what superposition meant. I saw it being similar to the coin example conceptually. Or was the coin example supposed to be a more proper representative of the concept?

vtomole 7y ago
That coin example is not a proper representative either. There is no possibility for interference. I recommend you explain superposition by making the analogy that in coins, the probabilities are real numbers but in quantum mechanics they are complex amplitudes. The way you should explain this is like https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/2.pdf. Don't avoid math. You can't explain superposition and entanglement correctly without it. I didn't need to read those sections to figure out that they were incorrect. I just looked for some notation like vectors, matrices e.t.c.. and I didn't see any.