What Counts as a “Physical Model”?
A physical model is a set of assumptions plus mathematical rules that let you take a description of a system (inputs) and produce testable predictions (outputs). In this course, the outputs we care about are not just “what will happen,” but which outcomes can happen and how likely each outcome is.
In classical physics, a model typically aims to predict a system’s future state exactly (given perfect information). In quantum physics, the model is built to predict measurement outcomes and their probabilities, even when the system is prepared in the same way many times.
What quantum theory is used to predict
- Possible outcomes of a measurement (e.g., which detector clicks, which energy value is obtained).
- Probabilities for each outcome, given how the system was prepared.
- Statistics over many trials (frequencies) that should match those probabilities.
Quantum theory is not “vague” because it uses probabilities; it is precise about which probabilities should occur for a given setup.
(1) Everyday Expectations: Particles and Waves
Before learning quantum rules, it helps to name the default expectations many people bring from everyday experience. These expectations are not “wrong” in daily life; they are classical intuitions that work well at human scales.
Everyday particle expectations
- Definite properties: A particle has a specific position and a specific momentum at every moment, whether or not anyone looks.
- Trajectories: If you know where it is and how fast it’s moving now, you can imagine a continuous path it follows.
- Determinism: With perfect knowledge of initial conditions and forces, the future is fixed.
Everyday wave expectations
- Spread-out behavior: A wave can be in many places at once (as an extended disturbance).
- Interference: Two waves can add or cancel depending on phase.
- Energy distribution: A wave can deliver energy across a region (e.g., sound, water waves).
Classically, “particle” and “wave” are distinct categories. Quantum predictions force us to use a different organizing principle: what you can predict depends on how you prepare and what you measure, and some classical combinations of properties cannot be jointly assigned in the same way.
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
Classical Claims vs Quantum Claims (Conceptual Contrast)
Classical-style claims
- Simultaneous definiteness: Position and momentum both have definite values at all times.
- Measurement reveals: Measuring a property uncovers a pre-existing value (perhaps with small error).
- Deterministic evolution: The state evolves predictably, and randomness is only due to ignorance.
Quantum-style claims (as used in this course)
- Probabilistic outcomes: Even with identical preparation, individual measurement results can vary.
- Constraints on joint properties: Some pairs of observables cannot both be assigned sharp values in the same state (the theory limits what can be simultaneously well-defined).
- Measurement as a rule in the model: The model includes a mapping from a prepared state to a probability distribution over outcomes for a chosen observable.
Important nuance: quantum theory still has strict rules. The “probabilistic” part is not a lack of structure; it is the structure.
(2) Concrete Quantum-Era Questions This Course Will Answer
To replace classical intuition with a working quantum toolkit, we will repeatedly return to questions like these:
- What does a wavefunction represent? Is it a physical wave in space, a bookkeeping device for probabilities, or something else?
- Why can’t we predict individual outcomes? What in the formalism forces probabilities rather than certainty?
- What exactly is a “measurement” in quantum theory? What counts as an outcome, and how is it modeled?
- What makes two properties incompatible? How do we tell when two observables can be jointly sharp?
- How do probabilities arise from the state? What rule connects the mathematical state to experimental frequencies?
- What changes when we change what we measure? How can the same preparation yield different probability distributions depending on the chosen observable?
- What does it mean to “prepare the same state” repeatedly? How do we define repeatability operationally?
These questions are designed to be answerable using a small set of definitions and rules that you will reuse across many examples.
(3) Vocabulary Toolkit (Used Consistently Later)
Quantum foundations becomes much easier when you keep a strict separation between (a) the system, (b) the mathematical objects in the model, and (c) the experimental readouts. The following terms will be used with specific meanings.
State
The state is the model’s description of how the system is prepared. It is the input to predictions. In many cases it is represented by a wavefunction ψ or a state vector |ψ⟩, but the key idea is operational: a state corresponds to a repeatable preparation procedure that leads to stable measurement statistics.
Observable
An observable is a measurable quantity (e.g., position, momentum, energy, spin along an axis). In the model, choosing an observable means choosing which set of outcomes you are asking about and which probability distribution you want the theory to provide.
Measurement outcome
A measurement outcome is the specific result recorded by the apparatus in a single run (a number, a detector click, a label such as “up/down”). Outcomes are the raw data that, over many trials, form frequencies.
Probability
A probability is the model’s prediction for how often an outcome will occur in repeated trials with the same preparation and the same measurement choice. Probabilities are tested by comparing them to observed frequencies.
Prediction pipeline (step-by-step)
When we say “quantum theory predicts outcomes and their probabilities,” we will mean the following workflow:
- Specify the preparation (the state).
- Specify what you will measure (the observable).
- List the possible outcomes for that measurement.
- Use the quantum rule (introduced later in detail) to compute a probability for each outcome.
- Compare to experiment by repeating the trial many times and checking frequencies.
Notice what is not in the pipeline: a promise to predict the single-run outcome with certainty. The model instead predicts the distribution of outcomes.
Classical vs quantum use of the word “state”
| Idea | Classical intuition | Quantum usage in this course |
|---|---|---|
| State means | Complete list of properties (e.g., exact position and momentum) | Preparation description sufficient to predict outcome probabilities |
| Future | Fixed by the state (deterministic) | Outcome probabilities fixed by the state and observable |
| Measurement | Reveals pre-existing values | Produces an outcome distributed according to the state |
(4) Conceptual Checkpoints: Classify the Statements
For each checkpoint, decide whether the statement is a classical assumption (CA) or a quantum postulate-style claim (QP) as used in this course. You are not being asked whether you “like” the statement—only which framework it belongs to.
Checkpoint A: Definite values
- 1) “A particle has an exact position at all times, even if no one measures it.”
- 2) “A prepared state determines a probability distribution for position outcomes.”
- 3) “If we knew all hidden details, we could predict the exact outcome of every run.”
Answer key: 1) CA, 2) QP, 3) CA (as a classical-style expectation about determinism).
Checkpoint B: Trajectories
- 1) “Between measurements, the system follows a definite path through space.”
- 2) “The theory’s job is to predict detector statistics for chosen measurements.”
- 3) “Two different measurement choices on the same preparation can yield different outcome distributions.”
Answer key: 1) CA, 2) QP, 3) QP.
Checkpoint C: Joint properties
- 1) “Position and momentum can both be simultaneously sharp for the same system.”
- 2) “Some observables are incompatible: the model limits how sharply they can be jointly specified.”
- 3) “Measurement error is the only reason we cannot know both precisely.”
Answer key: 1) CA, 2) QP, 3) CA.
Checkpoint D: What a model promises
- 1) “A correct model must output a single definite future for the system.”
- 2) “A correct model must output probabilities that match long-run frequencies.”
- 3) “Randomness in outcomes can be fundamental rather than due to ignorance.”
Answer key: 1) CA, 2) QP, 3) QP.
Practice: Turn a classical prediction into a quantum-style prediction
Take this classical-style statement: “If I know the initial conditions exactly, I can predict where the particle will land.” Convert it into a quantum-style statement by following the prediction pipeline:
- Preparation: Describe how the system is prepared (state).
- Measurement: Specify what is recorded (observable and outcomes).
- Prediction: Replace “will land at X” with “has probability P(X) to land in region X.”
This conversion is the core habit you will use throughout the course: replace trajectory-and-certainty language with state–observable–outcome–probability language.
