Close
today i learned (til)

Learning Quantum Mechanics

October 13, 2017

Mastering science concepts for many students can be difficult. Great instructors, learning resources, and even video games can all be ways to help students comprehend difficult information. For college students and some high schoolers, quantum mechanics is a topic that many have a hard time understanding. Researchers Johnston, Crawford and Fletcher at the University of Sydney focus on better approaches to teaching quantum mechanics concepts. Their research is driven by answering two questions: 1) How do we define the most important concepts to learn quantum mechanics and 2) How do students conceptualize the ideas of quantum mechanics (pg 428). Researchers and students at Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a quantum mechanics game for students. I recently had a chance to interview one of the students working on the project, Aditya Anupam a 2nd year PhD student in Digital Media.

aditya2
Aditya Anupam working on project

How long have you been working on the project? Why did you join?

I started working on the project in 2016. I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering and was frustrated with how science was being taught.

Why teach quantum mechanics through video games? Its immersive and easily accessible to students and teachers in and outside the classroom.  

What is the quantum mechanics game about?

The core concept for the game(which is named: Particle in a Box) was to help undergraduate students challenge their preconceptions about quantum mechanics (which are often rooted in classical mechanics). Quantum mechanics is hard because people don’t get the opportunity to engage actively with the quantum phenomena or experiment with quantum systems.  The game provides a scientifically accurate, yet fun, environment to do this.

logo2-2

Why is science important?

There are four reasons why I think science is important:  

Jobs: most jobs require at least a basic understanding of science.  

Personal use:  for example, choosing the right food, fixing things in your house

Public discourse: It helps us become more informed so that we can support the right policy that will impact science.

It’s beautiful: It helps us understand the world and our place in it

Is Particle in a Box being used in the classroom? And where can we play it?

We tested the game on undergraduate electrical engineering students at Georgia Institute of Technology and received generally favourable results. Who is the audience for the game? The game is primarily for undergraduate students enrolled in courses involving introductory quantum mechanics, but it may also be of interested to high schoolers. Where can we play game?  You can visit: learnqm.gatech.edu and please feel free to share feedback if you have suggestions on how we can improve the game.

What’s the next project you’ll be working on?

I plan to continue working on the field of digital media and science education. We are currently in the process of redesigning the game based on our research results. We are interested in making a multiplayer version of the game to encourage a more collaborative learning atmosphere in the classroom. Other than the game, I am also interested in the public understanding of science and how depictions of science in the media affect that understanding.

If you get a chance, please play the quantum physics game at learnqm.gatech.edu. And let’s work on making sure more students are given the resources to succeed in the field of science!

Notes: What is Particle in a Box?

So you maybe wondering, how does the game work?  The game design is very similar to Donkey Kong and Mario in the appearance and layout. Once you begin the game, there is a small textbox on the left bottom corner. The textbox has information on how to play the game and explains principles of quantum mechanics.  The user plays a small blue character that has to pick up certain materials when prompted. 

Resources:

Crawford K., I.D. Johnston and P.R. Fletcher. “Student difficulties in Learning Quantum Mechanics.” International Journal of Science Education, vol.20, no. 4, 1998, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download doi=10.1.1.1009.2311&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 22 September 2017.

Special thanks to Aditya Anupam for the interview!!!

Tags:
0Likes
Brooke Bosley
About Author

My name is Brooke Bosley and I am a second year masters student in the Digital Media Program at Georgia Institute of Technology.

You May Also Like

Courtesy of Bella Beeco
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Evolution from Fossil to Monster
today i learned (til)
The Science of Why We Love Music
today i learned (til)
Battle of the Hands: Mittens vs. Gloves
today i learned (til)
Let’s Get Physical – a pumpin’ playlist to get you moving

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.