The Strange Theory That Built the Modern World
Quantum mechanics is often introduced through its strangest images: a cat imagined as alive and dead, particles described by probabilities, and distant objects displaying correlations that defy everyday intuition. That framing makes the theory sound like an intellectual curiosity. In practice, it became part of civilization’s operating system.
A perspective published in Science by physicists Marlan Scully and William Unruh looks back on that transformation. Quantum mechanics moved from a theory being tested to the foundation of technologies that include transistors, lasers and precision measurement. Its story is no longer simply about physicists learning to describe atoms. It is about abstract knowledge becoming infrastructure.
The quantum world is already public
Quantum technology is not limited to prototype computers in highly controlled laboratories. Semiconductor physics makes modern computing and smartphones possible. Stimulated emission underlies lasers used in communications, manufacturing and medicine. Atomic clocks provide the precision timing on which GPS depends. Quantum principles also support LEDs, solar cells, photodetectors and magnetic resonance imaging.
That list changes the usual public conversation. We tend to ask when the quantum age will arrive, but one version of it arrived decades ago. Its technologies became ordinary precisely because engineers learned to make their underlying strangeness dependable.
The next wave is more ambitious. Researchers are attempting to preserve and manipulate superposition, entanglement and other delicate quantum effects rather than merely relying on the bulk quantum behavior of materials. Those efforts could lead to specialized computers, more sensitive instruments and new communication systems. They have also produced a market crowded with promises that remain difficult for nonspecialists to evaluate.
Promise is not the same as readiness
Quantum computers illustrate the difference between a sound scientific foundation and a mature technology. Existing machines are error-prone, and their quantum states are easily disrupted. More capable systems may eventually help with particular problems in chemistry, materials research or cryptography, but they are not expected to replace classical computers. NIST notes that several early claims of quantum advantage have later been matched or surpassed by classical methods, while large fault-tolerant applications could require immense error-correction overhead.
Other applications are already proving their value. Gravitational-wave observatories have used “squeezed” states of light to reduce quantum noise and increase detector sensitivity. Here, quantum behavior is not a futuristic label attached to a proposal. It is a measurable resource inside a functioning scientific instrument.
Energy research presents a similarly mixed picture. Solar cells are an established quantum-enabled technology. Quantum heat engines, by contrast, remain largely research-scale devices used to investigate thermodynamics in microscopic systems. A 2026 experiment demonstrated a cyclic quantum heat engine using superconducting circuits, but that is far from a new engine for the electrical grid.
Claims about going “beyond classical limits” also require care. When researchers report performance beyond a classical benchmark, the accounting may include coherence or another nonthermal resource. It does not mean the laws of thermodynamics have simply been overturned.
Trust the process, not the metaphor
The public does not need an intuitive mental picture of every scientific theory before making responsible decisions about its applications. Few people can picture the internal operation of a semiconductor or atomic clock. What matters is whether a claim produces testable predictions, survives independent scrutiny and becomes reliable under real conditions.
That suggests a better set of questions for evaluating difficult technologies. Has the result been independently reproduced? Is it a laboratory demonstration, an engineering prototype or a commercially useful system? What problem does it solve better than existing methods? Are performance comparisons transparent? Who bears the cost and risk if the technology fails? Can standards bodies verify what companies claim?
Quantum mechanics earned trust not because its weirdness became intuitive, but because its predictions repeatedly worked. The same standard should govern the technologies now being built from its most delicate effects. Public understanding does not require pretending that the science is simple. It requires institutions that clearly distinguish established capability from experiment, and experiment from aspiration.
That may be the most important lesson of quantum mechanics’ first century. Strange ideas can become essential infrastructure. But the path from equation to public benefit is built through evidence, engineering, standards and accountability—not wonder alone.
Sources and Further Reading
- Science: One hundred years of quantum mechanics
- Texas A&M University: How 100 years of quantum weirdness powers today’s technology
- NIST: Where is quantum in your everyday life?
- NIST: Quantum Computing Explained
- LIGO: Enhancing detector sensitivity with squeezed states of light
- Nature Communications: Initial demonstration of a superconducting-circuit quantum heat engine
Subscribe to Science and Society
Get thoughtful stories about how science is changing our world—and what those changes mean for society—delivered to your inbox.
Science changes possibilities. Society decides what happens next.
