4 ms·

I've read the Wikipedia pages on Quantum Computing and qubits a few times and all I can say is, "Yes, mmhmm, yes. I know some of these words." I wonder if com

I've read the Wikipedia pages on Quantum Computing and qubits a few times and all I can say is, "Yes, mmhmm, yes. I know some of these words." I wonder if computing, and other sciences, will become so advanced that fewer and fewer people will be able to comprehend the fundamentals or will there be a time when things like quantum mechanics are a high school subject?

rprospero 15y ago
Basic quantum mechanics could be a high school subject. While solving the hydrogen atom might be out of their reach, some simple angular momentum operators and Clebsh-Gordan tables shouldn't be beyond the reach of a sophomore.
- greeneggs 15y ago
  Basic quantum mechanics should be a high-school subject. The way physicists teach it currently, based on its historical development instead of on the modern understanding, is tragic. It just makes everyone repeat that nonsense quote, that nobody understands quantum physics. Teaching angular momentum and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients seems pointless. There should be a standard class on probability theory and statistics. Quantum theory should be introduced as a generalization of probability theory. This is the right foundation for the field, not some vague and basically meaningless statements like particles are both particles and waves.
  - rprospero 15y ago
    I agree with you that the students need a good course in statistics and probability. Also, anyone who bring up wave-particle duality should be shot and stripped of her physics degree. However, that probability background is useless if they never actually calculate any probabilities. Doing angular momentum and Clesch-Gordan tables are the simplest possible quantum systems to calculate that I'm aware of. Doing an infinite square well takes too much calculus. We could always give them the wavefunction, but then they're not really learning the physics part of it and it's just an applied probability lesson. Doing Clebsh-Gordan and angular momentum calculations just requires basic algebra, but it will still give real results for honest experiments. Of course, I'm probably biased, since a large amount of my research involves particle spin. What would you have the students calculate?
    - __float 15y ago
      What's wrong with talking about the wave-particle duality? Bear in mind I've never actually had a physics class (scheduling conflicts, my how they've screwed me over) but we did talk about quantum mechanics a bit in AP Chemistry.
      - rprospero 15y ago
        The problem with the wave-particle duality is that it's a poor description of the phenomenon that's often more confusing than it is enlightening. Imagine a biologist describing a creature which has human-butterfly duality. If you measure its number of legs, it turns into a human. If you measure its number of wings, it turns into a butterfly. If you measure whether it can ask for a cracker, it turns into a human. If you measure whether it's brightly colored, it turns into a butterfly. It's constantly shifting back and forth between these two completely different species. Of course, it might be simpler to just call it a parrot. The problem with many explanations at quantum mechanics is that they present light or matter as shifting between being a particle and being a wave. A common symptom of this is that people say light has a wave-particle duality, despite the fact that the properties that they're describing are universal and not just related to the nature of light. A better description is to say that everything follows the Schrodinger equation and that, at certain limits, we see a set of properties that we refer to as particles while, under a different set of limits, we see properties that we tend to call waves. It's not that light switches between being a wave and a particle; the terms wave and particle are simply not complete enough to describe the properties that light possesses.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Some subjects of QM are discussed, for instance, in high-school chemistry (at least were, in my school), but the joke I was referring to is more targeted, perhaps, at how different it is from the day-to-day newtonian experiences our brains evolved to deal with. I'm quite sure my cat is alive, regardless of whether I'm observing her or not.

rprospero 15y ago

Basic quantum mechanics could be a high school subject. While solving the hydrogen atom might be out of their reach, some simple angular momentum operators and Clebsh-Gordan tables shouldn't be beyond the reach of a sophomore.

greeneggs 15y ago
Basic quantum mechanics should be a high-school subject. The way physicists teach it currently, based on its historical development instead of on the modern understanding, is tragic. It just makes everyone repeat that nonsense quote, that nobody understands quantum physics. Teaching angular momentum and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients seems pointless. There should be a standard class on probability theory and statistics. Quantum theory should be introduced as a generalization of probability theory. This is the right foundation for the field, not some vague and basically meaningless statements like particles are both particles and waves.
- rprospero 15y ago
  I agree with you that the students need a good course in statistics and probability. Also, anyone who bring up wave-particle duality should be shot and stripped of her physics degree. However, that probability background is useless if they never actually calculate any probabilities. Doing angular momentum and Clesch-Gordan tables are the simplest possible quantum systems to calculate that I'm aware of. Doing an infinite square well takes too much calculus. We could always give them the wavefunction, but then they're not really learning the physics part of it and it's just an applied probability lesson. Doing Clebsh-Gordan and angular momentum calculations just requires basic algebra, but it will still give real results for honest experiments. Of course, I'm probably biased, since a large amount of my research involves particle spin. What would you have the students calculate?
  - __float 15y ago
    What's wrong with talking about the wave-particle duality? Bear in mind I've never actually had a physics class (scheduling conflicts, my how they've screwed me over) but we did talk about quantum mechanics a bit in AP Chemistry.
    - rprospero 15y ago
      The problem with the wave-particle duality is that it's a poor description of the phenomenon that's often more confusing than it is enlightening. Imagine a biologist describing a creature which has human-butterfly duality. If you measure its number of legs, it turns into a human. If you measure its number of wings, it turns into a butterfly. If you measure whether it can ask for a cracker, it turns into a human. If you measure whether it's brightly colored, it turns into a butterfly. It's constantly shifting back and forth between these two completely different species. Of course, it might be simpler to just call it a parrot. The problem with many explanations at quantum mechanics is that they present light or matter as shifting between being a particle and being a wave. A common symptom of this is that people say light has a wave-particle duality, despite the fact that the properties that they're describing are universal and not just related to the nature of light. A better description is to say that everything follows the Schrodinger equation and that, at certain limits, we see a set of properties that we refer to as particles while, under a different set of limits, we see properties that we tend to call waves. It's not that light switches between being a wave and a particle; the terms wave and particle are simply not complete enough to describe the properties that light possesses.
rbanffy 15y ago
Some subjects of QM are discussed, for instance, in high-school chemistry (at least were, in my school), but the joke I was referring to is more targeted, perhaps, at how different it is from the day-to-day newtonian experiences our brains evolved to deal with. I'm quite sure my cat is alive, regardless of whether I'm observing her or not.