Concepções de professores de física sobre o paradoxo de EPR: Implicações na formação de professores

Abstract

This research aims to analyze the discourses of Physics teachers about EPR paradox (EinsteinPodolsky-Rosen). This paradox consists in the simultaneity of states on the same system, as well as in the idea of two particles separated by a long distance whose measurement of the state of one leads to the definition of the state of the other, instantly. This occurs as a result of observation and is called wavefunction collapse. For EPR, the formal description of physical reality provided by Quantum Mechanics for this experiment is not complete, as it cannot describe it without having to use probability and superposition of states. Thus, the methodology of this research adopts an exploratory qualitative approach, as it allows a detailed understanding of the characteristics of a situation, allowing inferences about the conclusions. Our methodology begins by applying this research with six Physics teachers remotely in three meetings. The main criteria for selecting these volunteers are: having a degree in Physics, tools that allow remote meetings and availability of schedules. Thus, we had the application of an open questionnaire in the first meeting and another in the third meeting. The choice of the open questionnaire is precisely to allow volunteers to express their thoughts without the interference of options. In the second meeting, the content of the EPR paradox was addressed through a slide presentation, a video and a virtual simulator involving the concepts of wave-particle duality of light and collapse of function. Based on the data collected in the meetings, we categorized the discourses with the aim of drawing up a Collective Subject Discourse (CSD) for each questioning. Finally, we reached some worrying conclusions since some professors mentioned that they did not understand Quantum Mechanics during their degree, showed knowledge disorder and change of discourses regarding the questions aimed at the EPR paradox. Another worrying factor was the difficulty of interpreting some questions.