Why the need for elevated jargon in the Quantum 2.0 era

Language is important. If we can't find the right language to describe quantum phenomena, it may hinder the development of quantum technology.

Today, superposition, entanglement and other "puzzling" aspects of the quantum world are the driving force behind breakthrough technologies. Whereas in "Quantum 1.0" people were simply probing the mysteries of Schrödinger's wave equation and filling in theoretical gaps through clever experiments, "Quantum 2.0" is about putting the most exotic aspects of quantum physics to work on a day-to-day basis: superposition-based quantum computers based on superposition, and encryption devices that rely on entanglement to communicate over long distances, are now technically feasible.

But despite the boom in quantum technology, one thing that hasn't changed is that the language we use to talk about all things quantum is both cumbersome and counterintuitive. While entanglement and superposition are unquestionably real, describing them in words is as maddening as ever. Quantum phenomena are strange, but that doesn't mean we should be content to describe them in "strange" terms.

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and others have been trying to understand Quantum 1.0, the novelty of non-classical physics, since the dawn of quantum mechanics. Their efforts have involved a gap between the way we talk about phenomena, and the way we encounter them in the laboratory: the reason for this gap is that imperfect metaphorical language is still predominantly used in describing non-classical phenomena.

While the reality of entanglement and superposition is unquestionable, describing them in language is as maddening as ever

The concept of entanglement conjures up images of two (or more) discrete things intertwined but somehow separated, like tangled yarn. As for "superposition", it conjures up images of a mass of different states, only one of which has been chosen for some external reason, while the others have disappeared.

Or think of terms and phrases like "field", "path", "self-coherence", "wavefunction collapse" and so on --There is a huge difference between what they depict and the phenomena they label.

When physicists delve into physics, they usually have enough of an intuitive grasp of the phenomena taking place that they are generally not bothered by these terms, even if they sometimes remain a mystery. However, in the Quantum 2.0 era, with the proliferation of devices and future applications, we should be careful about using language inherited from the Quantum 1.0 era.

There are two reasons for this:

- The first is clarity. If scientists can't describe how these devices and applications work in a straightforward way, it makes them seem mysterious and "out of this world." Weird and counterintuitive language can also make scientists look like priests, communicating with the supernatural. If physicists can't express things in a language that others understand, it means that no language makes sense, or that physicists can't find language that makes sense, or that they are making things up. This ultimately fuels skepticism and science denial, as well as the acceptance of scientific illiteracy.

- The second reason is practicality. Finding the right language for quantum effects helps avoid confusion when developing Quantum 2.0 technology. Bad metaphors can make certain devices (quantum telephones, human teleportation devices) seem more physically plausible than they actually are. On the other hand, using metaphors too literally-too close to the picture they paint-can tilt designers' thinking in the wrong direction. A better portrayal of the real situation will help plan better experiments to study it.

For example, the term "entanglement" is a good way to talk about quantum physics in some fields, because we can describe the behavior in terms of particles. However, we cannot oversimplify the discrete energy states in a field as being particle-like; that is, they are independent of each other. To do this requires a mechanism by which they are interdependent. This in turn requires other metaphors, such as the ability of the wave function to "choose" its state, which in turn requires non-local effects or superluminal communication.

As for "superposition", it is also a metaphor that works in some cases. For example, in some cases it may seem that all possibilities exist at the same time. But this suggests that there is a "container of possibilities" (like an electron in a potential well) that only exists at the quantum scale. This in turn implies that there is a clear boundary between quantum and classical phenomena, rather than a difference in degree. Thus, the analogy is difficult to apply to quantum fluctuations near the event dome boundary of a macromolecule, a quantum liquid, or a black hole, where the two would interpenetrate.

Bohr famously argued that our inability to literally depict quantum phenomena seems to create an insurmountable barrier to precise language. But he didn't mean that we should give up trying to create a language that we truly understand, a language that accurately describes the phenomena we encounter. Bohr went to great lengths to create a language that would harmonize the peculiarities of quantum phenomena with the ordinary language used to describe experimental situations.

Nevertheless, there is no reason to think that it is impossible to develop a language that successfully describes quantum phenomena.

The QBism language combines the resources of Bayesian probability theory and quantum information theory, and instead of treating the preparation of a quantum system as a matter of picking out waves or particles, it drafts a probabilistic assessment of the results of the measurements for the user; the QBism approach treats the results as an "update" of the "information" about our "system". "update".

This language provides a unified description, but does not insist that photons are "particle-like" or "wave-like". Of course, not all physicists are happy with QBism, and it may not be the only way to describe quantum phenomena. But any alternative to QBism must help us see what is really puzzling about quantum mechanics, rather than leaving us stuck with past descriptions of the puzzle.

If such an attempt succeeds, we will truly be on the threshold of Quantum 2.0.

Reference link:

[1]https://sites.uclouvain.be/youngminds/2021/03/23/bayesian-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/

[2]https://physicsworld.com/a/lets-talk-about-quantum-2-0-why-we-need-to-sharpen-up-our-language/

[3]https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02030