Words by Chloe Sutton (she/her)
In 1801 Thomas Young did an experiment and kickstarted the adventure into the unknown world of the miniscule, known as “quantum physics”. From that point forward, a strange new world developed between the atoms, where our comprehension of the world crumbled and became ungovernable by the rules of physics that defined our knowledge centuries before. All of a sudden, a particle could be a wave, tunnel through ‘impossible’ barriers, and exist in multiple places at once.
Nowadays, we are beginning to grasp the weirdness and insanity that comes from the quantum world, but we still use a language which is not quite able to grasp the complexity of the subject. Quantum theory is often described through an extensive list of thought experiments, idioms, and mismatched comparisons to terms from classical physics. Some scientists are calling out for a brand new language to be developed to define quantum phenomena, and any further branches of science that evolve from it. But have we reached a limit in our human understanding? Is language, a tool used for 150,000 years, reaching its limit on what we are able to describe? For quantum physics, is it as Fritjof Capra put it: ‘the instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark’?
Quantum physics is, simply, the theory that describes how things that are smaller than an atom behave. Classical physics is deterministic, so there is a clear line of cause and effect. For example when you push someone, they fall. Or on a slightly larger scale, if you knew the exact position and momentum of every particle in the universe at a given moment, you could predict the exact future from that point on (unfortunately, due to quantum effects this is impossible – so for now perhaps stick to tarot cards for any future-telling endeavors). However, on quantum levels, everything is explained through probability. You can no longer think of a particle at a fixed point in space, instead you are given the probability that the particle is there. This basis leads to a whole field of studies appropriately dubbed “quantum strangeness”, and this is where the gap between reality and language is most apparent.
Why is language important in science? Fundamentally, physics is driven by maths. Experiments measured effects and scientists noticed these patterns, turning them into equations. But the human desire for understanding the phenomena we see is the driving force behind discovery. The role of scientific improvement is not to digitise the universe but instead to understand it. To share this knowledge across the world and to a wide audience, it becomes necessary to speak languages that everyone comprehends, not just mathematicians and computers.
For quantum phenomena, it becomes more difficult as the words to describe it just aren’t there. In secondary school, electrons were described as small masses which orbit the nucleus in an atom. Later, they become electron clouds, where they occupy certain energy levels. Now, imagine an electron with a spin of value ½. Except, an electron isn’t a ball, it doesn’t spin, and the value of ½ is arbitrary. Suddenly, the words we have always used no longer fit. Misinterpretation of words is unavoidable in human communication, even when discussing science, but with such a large conceptual gap between the 2 fields of physics, quantum science feels almost entirely up to the observer’s interpretation.
Some argue that this is simply a display of the limitations of science – humans have stepped too far out of their comfort zone, and adventured into unknown territory. Niels Bohr, the father of atomic physics, said that ‘If you aren’t confused by quantum physics, then you haven’t really understood it’. Bertrand Russel, a british philosopher, puts it this way: ‘Everything here in quantum theory is abstract and mathematical except the sensations of colour and heat produced by the radiant energy in the observing physicist.’ One could argue physics has returned to its original roots, and become philosophy again. The issue with this argument is that quantum mechanics is entirely able to be experimentally proven. It is not a philosophical question, it is about the behaviour of the physical world around us. There just isn’t the language to describe it.
Perhaps philosophical thinking is the best answer to quantum physics. By viewing the quantum world hypothetically instead of attempting to ground it in our reality, we might be able to interpret it in a way that makes it comprehensible. Maybe the only way to ever understand it is through sums and equations. Maybe it’s time to develop new words to describe the phenomena. Maybe it is time to surrender and accept that we will never understand it. But as our knowledge of science continues to grow, it is important to ensure we don’t become limited in our communication of it.
P., Mbat & Iniobong Archibong, Emmanuel. (2024). Ordinary Language Problem and Quantum Reality. International Journal of English Linguistics. 2. 154-154. 10.5539/ijel.v2n5p154.
