QTris: a pedagogical board game to teach Quantum Mechanics

Alessandro Amabile; Alioscia Hamma; Immacolata De Simone; Maria Bondani; Michela Nazzaro; Michele Viscardi

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 51 references

QTris: a pedagogical board game to teach Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read QTris is a board game whose every move sequence works as a simulated quantum experiment on qubits.

desk verdict A sound basic qubit game with a genuine CNOT-rule bug in the entanglement extension and a pilot that is more preliminary than the conclusion admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09430 v1 pith:XJUCJF2U submitted 2026-08-10 physics.ed-ph quant-ph

Alessandro Amabile , Maria Bondani , Immacolata De Simone , Michela Nazzaro , Michele Viscardi , Alioscia Hamma This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ed-phquant-ph

keywords QuantumMechanicsInformationComputationGame-basedlearningGameTheoryQTrisqubit-firstapproachphysicseducation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

QTris, a variant of tic-tac-toe, is designed so that the board is a nine-qubit quantum register: tiles are qubit states, cards are unitary operators, and the final dice roll is a Born-rule measurement. The paper's central claim is that the game's rules reproduce the consequences of the quantum postulates for two-state systems, so that every QTris sequence is, by design, a quantum process of preparation, transformation, and measurement. On that basis the authors argue that high-school students can meet key quantum ideas—probabilistic measurement, incompatible observables, deterministic unitary control, and even entanglement—as concrete game mechanics rather than metaphors. A pilot activity with about 150 students yielded high scores on conceptual questions and lower scores on operational game problems, which the paper reads as an encouraging preliminary sign that the game supports immediate understanding while pointing to where more practice is needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structural analogy table: observables Color$\leftrightarrow Z$ and Orientation$\leftrightarrow X$; states $\{\#, \blacksquare, G\#, H\#\}\leftrightarrow\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle,|+\rangle,|-\rangle\}$; operations cards $\{I,X,Y,Z,H\}\leftrightarrow$ Pauli plus Hadamard operators; measurement dice roll $\leftrightarrow$ Born rule. This table is what lets every cell be written as a vector, every card play as a matrix product, and every sequence as a quantum circuit; extensions such as the $C_X$ card for Bell states, the $U$ card for partial incompatibility, and mixed-state tiles are all required to remain consistent with this same dictionary.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment would settle the pedagogical claim: if students who only attend the seminar, or who play a non-quantum tile game with identical rules, score as well as students who play QTris, then the game mechanics themselves are not doing the causal work. For the simulation claim, a direct check is to test every card sequence and measurement table in the paper against the Born rule for the corresponding qubit states; the paper itself notes that the correspondence partially breaks down at some points, so those points are the natural place to look for a state with no valid quantum counterpart.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a complete, working dictionary exists between QTris and quantum mechanics for qubits. Color and Orientation play the role of two maximally incompatible observables, identified with the Pauli operators $Z$ and $X$; the four tiles $\{\#, \blacksquare, G\#, H\#\}$ are the eigenstates $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle,|+\rangle,|-\rangle\}$; the cards $\{I,X,Y,Z,H\}$ are the Pauli and Hadamard unitaries; and the die-roll measurement obeys the Born rule. The same dictionary extends to two-cell states through a controlled-$X$ card that produces Bell states, decorated tiles that encode partial incompatibility, and mixed-state tiles that distinguish superposition from classical mixture. Because the correspondence is structural rather than illustrative, a QTris game problem—find the final state, compute a scoring probability, choose an optimal sequence—is a quantum mechanics problem in disguise, translatable into Dirac notation and matrix algebra.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that high questionnaire scores measure understanding caused by playing QTris, even though the conceptual questions restate the seminar and there is no control group, pre-test, or transfer task.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every solved QTris problem trains the postulates of quantum mechanics: preparing a state, applying unitary operators, and computing Born-rule probabilities.
Exercise generators follow immediately: from a board configuration one can ask for the probability of a win, draw, or a given score, or for the card sequence that maximizes a player's chance.
The extensions bring entanglement, partial incompatibility, and mixed states into high-school reach without functional analysis or infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Because QTris fits the definition of a sequential quantum game, its strategic analysis can be carried out with quantum game theory tools.
The same platform can be adapted beyond school, from outreach events to workforce training in quantum technologies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: the low score on the orientation-measurement item suggests a concrete upgrade—adding an explicit 'measure Orientation' phase to the game might close the conceptual–operational gap, and that change is testable in a follow-up session.
Inference: the game could be used the other way around, as a laboratory for quantum game theory: because payoff probabilities are computable, QTris sequences can serve as physical demonstrations of strategy phenomena before students meet the formalism.
Inference: the paper's rule that completely mixed states are strategically inert (no card can make them useful) is a promising probe question for teaching; asking students to discover which operations change or fail to change measurement statistics distinguishes superposition from classical mixture in a hands-on way.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Two things to know about arXiv:2608.09430. The basic QTris game is a clean, honest mapping of single-qubit QM: the four tiles are |0>, |1>, |+>, |->, the cards are Pauli and Hadamard, and the measurement probabilities follow from the Born rule. That part is mathematically sound and clear enough to use in a classroom. The second thing is that the advanced entanglement section has a real bug: the CX card is presented as CNOT, but the equal-orientation rule (|++> -> |-->) contradicts the stated CNOT matrix, which maps |++> to |++>. The stress-test calculation is correct. So the claim that every game sequence simulates a qubit process fails for CX on those states, and this is not one of the acknowledged partial breakdowns.

What the paper does well: the pedagogical argument for the two-state approach is well written; the Ludwig-Kraus framing makes the preparation/transformation/measurement structure sticky; the figures and worked examples are careful. The extensions—Bell states, U-decorated states with a concrete rotation angle, and mixed states—are inventive and mostly correct. In particular, the U-decorated-states section explicitly explains why the card names now represent conjugated operators (U P U†), which is exactly the kind of thing that trips up students and teachers. The pilot is transparently reported with item-level data; the authors deserve credit for showing the Q11 confusion rather than hiding it.

Soft spots in order of severity. The CX rule is the main one; it is a genuine mathematical error and should be fixed in a revision. The pilot is preliminary in the usual uncontrolled way: no pre-test, no control, and the conceptual questions largely repeat the seminar. The operational questions test game mechanics, not transfer. The conclusions slightly overstate the evidence—'supports the use of QTris as an effective framework' goes beyond what one session with 142 students can show. But the authors do call it preliminary, so this is an overreach, not a misrepresentation.

This paper is for physics education researchers and anyone building game-based quantum curricula. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to peer review, with a request that the authors correct the CNOT rule and temper the empirical claims.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QTris, a tic-tac-toe variant designed to teach quantum mechanics through a qubit-first approach. Board cells represent qubits, tiles represent eigenstates of the Color (Z) and Orientation (X) observables, move cards represent Pauli and Hadamard operations, and the final die roll implements a Z measurement. The authors present a formal dictionary between game elements and qubit postulates, extend the game to Bell states, partial incompatibility, and mixed states, and report a pilot study with 142 high-school students. The central claim is that by construction every game sequence simulates a quantum process on qubits, so that gameplay provides operational training in preparation, unitary transformation, and measurement.

Significance. If the formal correspondence holds, QTris is a genuinely useful pedagogical instrument: it makes the preparation-transformation-measurement structure of quantum mechanics tangible and connects naturally to quantum game theory. The basic-level analogy is mathematically sound and clearly presented, and the paper provides worked examples, transformation maps, and item-level pilot data that are valuable resources for other educators. The main strengths are the explicit dictionary in Table 1, the reproducible game rules, and the careful discussion of where the game makes design choices for playability. However, the advanced CX rule contains a concrete inconsistency that undermines the central claim for the entanglement extension, and the empirical evaluation is too weak to support the causal language used in parts of the abstract and conclusions. The formal error is local and correctable, and the empirical overreach is repairable by tempering the claims.

major comments (2)

[6.1] The CX rule for equal orientation states contradicts the stated CNOT matrix. In Section 6.1 the card CX is explicitly identified with the matrix CX = |##><##| + |# ><# | + | >< #| + | #>< |, which is the standard CNOT with control first. With the paper's own identifications G# = |+> and H# = |->, the rule 'G#G# --CX--> H#H#' requires CX|++> = |--> = (|00> - |01> - |10> + |11>)/2. But applying the displayed matrix gives CX|++> = (|00> + |01> + |11> + |10>)/2 = |++>. These two results cannot both hold. Moreover, if the rule is intended to define a linear operator on the four-dimensional space, it is impossible for that operator to map the computational basis as CNOT while also mapping |++> to |-->, because the expansion of |++> in that basis is fixed. The section presents CX as the CNOT gate and the triangular states as Bell states without acknowledging this as one of the partial breakdowns, so the paper's central claim that every game sequence simulates a qubit process fails for sequences involving CX on equal orientation states. The rule or the matrix must be corrected, or the claim must be restricted to the basic game.
[7] The empirical evaluation cannot support the causal language used in the abstract and conclusions. The design has no control group, no pre-test, and no transfer task; questions Q1-Q7 ask for content stated explicitly in the seminar, and Q8-Q12 ask for application of the game rules themselves. The high conceptual scores (90.5%) and lower operational scores (56.3%) are equally consistent with seminar recall plus game-rule memorization. The paper appropriately labels the activity as preliminary in several places, but Section 8 states that the results 'support the use of QTris as an effective framework,' which goes beyond what a single-group post-test can establish. The authors should add an explicit limitations paragraph and soften the causal claims, or provide comparative or pre/post data.

minor comments (5)

[5] The statement that for Bell states the effect of I⊗P is equal to the effect of P⊗I for any local Pauli P holds literally only up to a global phase for Y; for example, Y⊗I|Φ+> = -i|Ψ-> whereas I⊗Y|Φ+> = i|Ψ->. Since QTris ignores global phases this is harmless, but the sentence as written is not literally true for the Pauli matrices.
[6.2] The notation for U-decorated states is difficult to follow because several tile symbols render as nearly identical glyphs or are missing from the text. A table with explicit names such as |ψ_#>, |ψ_□>, |ψ_left>, and |ψ_right> would substantially improve readability.
[7] The text reports a mean operational score of 2.83 out of 5, while the caption of Figure 12 reports 2.82; please reconcile the two values.
[2.2] The claim that restricting to finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces involves 'no loss of generality' is too strong, since continuous-variable quantum systems are not covered by the qubit formalism. The pedagogical argument does not require this stronger claim.
[8] The phrase 'the mixed character of the theory, which includes both probabilistic and deterministic aspects' is confusing; a term such as 'dual character' or 'twofold character' would express the intended meaning more clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the game-to-qubit map is a stipulated pedagogical isomorphism, not a derived prediction; the main defects are validity limitations and an internal CX inconsistency, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central claim that QTris sequences simulate qubit processes is an explicit design construction. Section 5 stipulates |#>=|0>, | >=|1>, |G#>=|+>, |H#>=|->, identifies Color/Orientation with Pauli Z/X, and sets card actions as I,X,Y,Z,H and measurement probabilities via the Born rule from those identifications. Because the correspondence is defined, not derived, recovering those probabilities from the Born rule is a consistency check, not a circular prediction. The paper also acknowledges partial breakdowns (Sec 6 intro; Sec 6.2, where it admits that the literal X,Y,Z,H matrices do not connect the U-decorated states and that the game instead uses conjugated operators U P U†). The self-citations to prior QTris papers [9,10] are not load-bearing: the rules are fully specified here. The empirical section (Sec 7) is not a derivation; its conclusion that QTris promotes understanding is weakened by the acknowledged fact that the conceptual questions restate seminar content ("the correct answers to the conceptual questions were given during the seminar"), so high scores partly measure recall. That is a validity threat, not an equation-level circularity. One serious non-circular defect should be noted: in Sec 6.1 the rule "If the control and target are equal Orientation states, it acts like Z on both" (G#G# -> H#H#) contradicts the displayed CNOT matrix, since with |G#>=|+> and |H#>=|->, CNOT|++>=|++>, not |-->. This undermines the entanglement extension's claim to simulate CNOT for those sequences, but it is an internal consistency error rather than a reduction of a claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central mathematical analogy rests on standard QM axioms (Born rule, spectral theorem) and on the pedagogical assumption that the qubit-first approach is an adequate entry point. The game design introduces one free parameter, the U rotation angle, and several invented tile representations, none of which have external evidence independent of the paper.

free parameters (1)

U card rotation angle theta = theta = pi/3, phi = 0
The U card is defined with theta=pi/3 and phi=0 to produce the decorated-state probabilities 1/4, 3/4, 7/100, and 93/100. This is a design choice, not derived from QM; see Section 6.2, U(theta, phi) formula.

assumptions (4)

standard math Born rule gives measurement probabilities from inner products.
Used throughout Sections 5 and 6 to justify the die-roll probabilities and the state vectors; not proved in the paper.
standard math Spectral theorem: eigenstates of an observable form an orthonormal basis.
Invoked in Section 5 to identify color and orientation tiles with eigenstates of Pauli observables.
domain assumption The qubit-first approach preserves all key conceptual elements of QM for high-school teaching.
Section 2.2 asserts there is no loss of generality in restricting to finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces; this is a pedagogical assumption, not a mathematical theorem.
domain assumption The correspondence between game sequences and qubit processes remains faithful in the extended rules.
Section 6 notes places where the correspondence partially breaks down, so full fidelity of the extended game is assumed rather than demonstrated.

invented entities (2)

Triangular Bell-state tiles (aligned/anti-aligned, signed/unsigned)
purpose: Represent entangled two-cell states produced by the CNOT-like card C_X.
These are game artifacts defined to match Bell states; they have no physical handle outside the paper.
U-decorated and H-decorated tiles with pink and red markers
purpose: Represent states generated by the U and H cards on single cells or entangled pairs.
Added by game-design choice; the transformation and measurement rules are fixed by the defined unitary matrices.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QTris: a pedagogical board game to teach Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJUCJF2U

@misc{pith2026260809430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QTris: a pedagogical board game to teach Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJUCJF2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09430}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper we introduce the new version of QTris, a board game designed to teach and learn Quantum Mechanics within the framework of Quantum Information and Computation. The key idea behind the game is that every game sequence simulates a process on a system of qubits. Thus, QTris can be effectively integrated as a pedagogical tool to teach Quantum Mechanics at high-school level following a two-state approach. After arguing in support of this latter approach, we describe QTris' basic rules and some of its possible extensions, emphasizing how the game mechanics puts in clear light key quantum concepts such as incompatibility, probabilistic measurement and unitary transformation. Moreover, we report on the results of a QTris-based educational activity which involved about 150 high-school students and provided encouraging preliminary indications that QTris can be a useful pedagogical platform to promote an immediate understanding of some key concepts of Quantum Mechanics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education

Krijtenburg-Lewerissa K, Pol HJ, Brinkman A, van Joolingen WR. Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2017;13(1):010109

work page 2017
[2]

The core of secondary level quantum education: a multi- stakeholder perspective

Merzel A, et al. The core of secondary level quantum education: a multi- stakeholder perspective. EPJ Quantum Technol. 2024;11:27

work page 2024
[3]

https://qt.eu/

Quantum Flagship. https://qt.eu/

work page
[4]

Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic

Stadermann HKE, van den Berg E, Goedhart MJ. Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2019;15:010130

work page 2019
[5]

Towards a Quantum Technology PCK for Teachers

Verbraeken L, et al. Towards a Quantum Technology PCK for Teachers. J Phys Conf Ser. 2024;2750:012045

work page 2024
[6]

Games for teaching/learn- ing quantum mechanics: a pilot study with high-school students

Chiofalo ML, Foti C, Michelini M, Santi L, Stefanel A. Games for teaching/learn- ing quantum mechanics: a pilot study with high-school students. Educ Sci. 2022;12:446

work page 2022
[7]

The Theory of Quantum Information

Watrous J. The Theory of Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press; 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition

Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010

work page 2010

Show all 51 references

[9]

Quantum Technologies 2024

Bondani M, Caprara S, Chiarello F, Dabbicco M, Hamma A, Malgieri M, et al. Quantum Technologies 2024. Proc SPIE. 2024;12993:129930

2024
[10]

QTris, a new game for teaching quantum physics

Bondani M, et al. QTris, a new game for teaching quantum physics. J Phys Conf Ser. 2026;3203:012035

2026
[11]

QTris - Il gioco della meccanica quantistica

NQSTI. QTris - Il gioco della meccanica quantistica. https://nqsti.it/news/qtris-il-gioco-della-meccanica-quantistica
[12]

Old Quantum Theory and Early Quantum Mechanics

Giliberti M, Lovisetti L. Old Quantum Theory and Early Quantum Mechanics. Cham: Springer; 2024

2024
[13]

Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction

Singh C. Student understanding of quantum mechanics at the beginning of graduate instruction. Am J Phys. 2008;76:277-287

2008
[14]

Modern physics and students’ conceptions

Fischler H, Lichtfeldt M. Modern physics and students’ conceptions. Int J Sci Educ. 1992;14(2):181-190

1992
[15]

Von Neumann’s 1927 trilogy on the foundations of quantum me- chanics: Annotated translations

Duncan A. Von Neumann’s 1927 trilogy on the foundations of quantum me- chanics: Annotated translations. arXiv:2406.02149. 2025. 51

1927 arXiv
[16]

Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition

von Neumann J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2018

2018
[17]

Constructing Quantum Mechanics, Volume 1: The Scaffold: 1900-1923

Duncan A, Janssen M. Constructing Quantum Mechanics, Volume 1: The Scaffold: 1900-1923. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019

1900
[18]

Constructing Quantum Mechanics, Volume 2: The Arch: 1923-1927

Duncan A, Janssen M. Constructing Quantum Mechanics, Volume 2: The Arch: 1923-1927. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2023

1923
[19]

Newton’s Principia

Buchwald JZ, Fox R. Newton’s Principia. In: Smeenk C, Schliesser E, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 109-165

2013
[20]

Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Mathemati- cal Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736

Guicciardini N. Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Mathemati- cal Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999

1999
[21]

The reception of Newton’s Principia

Nauenberg M. The reception of Newton’s Principia. arXiv:1503.06861. 2015

2015 arXiv
[22]

Force concept inventory

Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. Phys Teach. 1992;30(3):141-158

1992
[23]

Force and Geometry in Newton’s Principia

De Gandt F. Force and Geometry in Newton’s Principia. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2016

2016
[24]

https://qtedu.eu/

European Quantum Readiness Center (QTEdu). https://qtedu.eu/
[25]

Competence framework for quantum technologies: methodology and version history

Greinert F, Müller R. Competence framework for quantum technologies: methodology and version history. Brussels: European Commission; 2021

2021
[26]

Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school

Michelini M, Ragazzon R, Santi L, Stefanel A. Proposal for quantum physics in secondary school. Phys Educ. 2000;35(6):406

2000
[27]

Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach

McIntyre DH. Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press; 2022

2022
[28]

Mathematical structures in quantum physics education for high school students: Unveiling the power of Dirac nota- tion for conceptual and problem-solving proficiency

Merzel A, Weissman EY, Katz N, Galili I. Mathematical structures in quantum physics education for high school students: Unveiling the power of Dirac nota- tion for conceptual and problem-solving proficiency. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2024;20:020134

2024
[29]

Investigating the effect of two-state approaches on students’ un- derstanding of quantum measurement: A quasiexperimental field study

Tóth K, et al. Investigating the effect of two-state approaches on students’ un- derstanding of quantum measurement: A quasiexperimental field study. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2025;21(2):020142

2025
[30]

Developing a quantum physics curriculum for lower secondary education: insights into the design of a Spin First teaching concept and first empirical findings

Albert C, Förster M, Pospiech G. Developing a quantum physics curriculum for lower secondary education: insights into the design of a Spin First teaching concept and first empirical findings. EPJ Quantum Technol. 2025;12:132. 52

2025
[31]

Design and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess learners’ understanding of quantum measurement in different two-state con- texts: The context matters

Bitzenbauer P , et al. Design and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess learners’ understanding of quantum measurement in different two-state con- texts: The context matters. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2024;20(2):020136. doi:10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020136

2024 doi
[32]

Foundations of game-based learning

Plass JL, Homer BD, Kinzer CK. Foundations of game-based learning. Educ Psychol. 2015;50(4):258-283

2015
[33]

Quantum strategies

Meyer DA. Quantum strategies. Phys Rev Lett. 1999;82:1052

1999
[34]

Defining quantum games

Piispanen L, Pfaffhauser M, Wootton J, Togelius J, Kultima A. Defining quantum games. EPJ Quantum Technol. 2025;12:7

2025
[35]

J Phys A Math Gen

Nawaz A, Toor AH. J Phys A Math Gen. 2004;37:4437

2004
[36]

Phys Lett A

Iqbal A, Toor AH. Phys Lett A. 2002;65:541

2002
[37]

Quant Inf Comput

D’Ariano GM, Gill RD, Keyl M, Kuemmerer B, Maassen H, Werner RF. Quant Inf Comput. 2002;2:355

2002
[38]

https://qplaylearn.com/

QPlayLearn. https://qplaylearn.com/
[39]

Am J Phys

Goff A. Am J Phys. 2006;74:962

2006
[40]

Computers and Education Open

Weingartner M, Weingartner T. Computers and Education Open. 2023;4:100125

2023
[41]

States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory

Kraus K. States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory. Berlin: Springer; 1983

1983
[42]

The uncertainty principle

Hilgevoord J, Uffink J. The uncertainty principle. In: Zalta EN, Nodelman U, editors. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2024 ed. 2024

2024
[43]

Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality

Eberhard PH. Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality. Nuovo Cimento B. 1978;46:392-419. doi:10.1007/BF02728628

1978 doi
[44]

A general argument against superlumi- nal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process

Ghirardi GC, Rimini A, Weber T. A general argument against superlumi- nal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process. Lett Nuovo Cimento. 1980;27(10):293-298

1980
[45]

Bell nonlocality

Brunner N, Cavalcanti D, Pironio S, Scarani V , Wehner S. Bell nonlocality. Rev Mod Phys. 2014;86:419

2014
[46]

Experimental test of the no- signaling theorem

De Angelis T, Nagali E, Sciarrino F, De Martini F. Experimental test of the no- signaling theorem. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;99:193601

2007
[47]

Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum

Susskind L, Friedman A. Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum. New York: Basic Books; 2014. 53

2014
[48]

Quantum games and quantum strategies

Eisert J, Wilkens M, Lewenstein M. Quantum games and quantum strategies. Phys Rev Lett. 1999;83(15):3077-3080. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3077

1999 doi
[49]

A quantum approach to static games of complete infor- mation

Marinatto L, Weber T. A quantum approach to static games of complete infor- mation. Phys Lett A. 2000;272(5):291-303. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00441-2

2000 doi
[50]

Quantum game theory and the complexity of approximat- ing quantum Nash equilibria

Bostanci J, Watrous J. Quantum game theory and the complexity of approximat- ing quantum Nash equilibria. Quantum. 2022;6:882. doi:10.22331/q-2022-12-22- 882

2022 doi
[51]

Student ability to distinguish between su- perposition states and mixed states in quantum mechanics

Passante G, Emigh PJ, Shaffer PS. Student ability to distinguish between su- perposition states and mixed states in quantum mechanics. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res. 2015;11:020135. 54

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education

Krijtenburg-Lewerissa K, Pol HJ, Brinkman A, van Joolingen WR. Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2017;13(1):010109

work page 2017

[2] [2]

The core of secondary level quantum education: a multi- stakeholder perspective

Merzel A, et al. The core of secondary level quantum education: a multi- stakeholder perspective. EPJ Quantum Technol. 2024;11:27

work page 2024

[3] [3]

https://qt.eu/

Quantum Flagship. https://qt.eu/

work page

[4] [4]

Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic

Stadermann HKE, van den Berg E, Goedhart MJ. Analysis of secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 different countries: Different perspectives on a challenging topic. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2019;15:010130

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Towards a Quantum Technology PCK for Teachers

Verbraeken L, et al. Towards a Quantum Technology PCK for Teachers. J Phys Conf Ser. 2024;2750:012045

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Games for teaching/learn- ing quantum mechanics: a pilot study with high-school students

Chiofalo ML, Foti C, Michelini M, Santi L, Stefanel A. Games for teaching/learn- ing quantum mechanics: a pilot study with high-school students. Educ Sci. 2022;12:446

work page 2022

[7] [7]

The Theory of Quantum Information

Watrous J. The Theory of Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press; 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition

Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010

work page 2010