Q01 The quantum sea
All aboard! The train departs on a journey to find aspects of quantum physics and quantum computing that are uniquely interesting and tough to understand. Is it possible to explain simply? Let's find out...
The web version for mobile and desk is here
(- the references will pop up when selected - not available on the email version.
- note also, the email version does not include updates)
Q01 The Fragile Sea Quantum Series
Firstly welcome!
This series presents aspects of quantum physics and quantum computing I’ve found to be uniquely interesting or difficult to understand. The posts are not intended for experts but written in a kind of wonder to see if I can explain difficult concepts in plain English. I want to bring something different to the table.
Along the way, how quantum physics, AI, and quantum computing together might drive breakthroughs in the coming years will be a relevant focus. But that’s not the end of it, the mysteries of quantum behaviour, and how ready we are for post quantum cryptography, all have a place.
On the face of it, we live in troubling and exciting times [1], [2] [3], [4], [5].
I hope you enjoy the posts.
Let’s go!
What the series will cover
In this post I’ll touch on what the series covers immediately below, then a few comments about various sources, different interpretations of the standard model of quantum mechanics, the various knowledge domains in quantum physics and computing, and comments on scientific theories and proof.
Q02 will touch on particles, waves, and fields, where we start to behold the idea of ‘quantum weirdness’ - ideas unlike our everyday reality.
Q03 raises classical and quantum computing concepts in preparation for deeper quantum concepts in the next two posts.
Q04 digs deeper into quantum computing concepts, superposition, entanglement, interference, superdense coding, decoherence, and teleportation.
Q05 journeys into everyday life, how stable bonds of atoms create and maintain our large object world, and how electrons and photons enable our telecommunications and energy networks. We also look at the deep level of global research that has been in progress for many years in quantum telecommunications networks.
Q06 raises cybersecurity and the NIST* standards for post quantum cryptography (PQC), including the risks to our current security. There’s a great need, for example, to ‘get cracking’ in preparation for “Q-day”, the day a “cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) can break our current encryption”, thought by some to be this side of 2030, but still with many challenges yet to overcome for the risk to be realized [6], [7], [8]. * NIST = the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Q07 is where we discuss corporate requirements, and strategies for quantum readiness, and post quantum cryptography. The main question is, are we ready?
Q08 looks at quantum hardware, research, and the hurdles still to overcome to achieve sustained quantum advantage.
Q09 is where the integration of quantum and AI is discussed. A few ‘tasters’ here [9], [10], [11].
Q10 waltzes down the aisle of quantum concepts and consciousness. Both seem to attract highly contested propositions and a significant number of papers and blogs. To mix metaphors, I’ll try to characterise the debates in a ‘rugby referee’ sort of manner.
A quantum journey – some sources
Quantum physics has produced classic works of non-fiction. When John Gribbin released his popular science book In Search of Schrödinger‘s Cat in 1984 [12], it lit a fire for me, the quantum world seemed wonderful and fascinating, I was hooked. It was the start of a love affair, pretty much the same as I’ve written about AI [13].
Gribbin’s book led me to Erwin Schrödinger’s What is Life [14], originally published in 1944, and still a classic today - as relevant as ever, which brought together the domains of molecular biology, chemistry, and quantum physics, along with personal and philosophical reflections.
When Schrödinger wrote that a gene comprised less than 1,000 atoms, and mutations took place in such small quantum groupings, the idea that all three domains – biology, chemistry, and physics, are linked, opened my eyes. It’s obvious of course, but I’d never considered it that way before, a biological mutation at the quantum scale, in such a small rearrangement of atoms. I learnt later that a point mutation can occur in a single nucleotide, fewer than 50 atoms [15].
That set me on an intellectual journey to the present day. To The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler [16], a foundational classic on quantum physics which suggests that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe, to Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg [17] (a title that explains itself and another classic), and to The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes [18], which won the Pulitzer prize and is still my favorite non-fiction book of all time.
Three books developed the concept of unity – Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism [19], and Frank J Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality [20] and The Physics of Christianity [21].
Not to everyone’s taste, perhaps, but brilliant all the same, and my initial insights were twofold: quantum physics and philosophy are inextricably linked, and one must approach them together with an open mind and keep that openness, well, open. That’s challenging, there are many aspects that are barely explainable, and much of it doesn’t make sense.
But the journey was only just starting. I went on to other books by Gribbin, Richard Feynman’s short books and lectures on quantum mechanics, David Deutsch on a brilliance I can’t describe exactly (think quantum algorithms and multiple universes or ‘many worlds’), and Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawking, on quantum cosmology, black hole formation, and various theories including the cycle of time.
Each book led me to other aspects – to Brian Greene on string theory and spacetime, Max Tegmark on theories of everything (ToE), many worlds, and math, Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli on particles, waves, quantum fields, elegant quantum histories, and other insights, and Jim Baggott on the philosophy of science and measuring the infinitesimally small. Also, Carl Sagan, Fred Hoyle, Paul Dirac, and Paul Davies.
I’m aware now that I did not discover earlier the contributions of many women, often unsung, who played a vital part in math and quantum history [22], [23] [24], [25], [26], [27]. Nothing is ever perfect [28], but the fields of quantum physics and quantum computing now attract significant advancement for women at all levels [29], [30].
I leave history to others
In these posts, the histories of quantum mechanics and quantum computing are explained well elsewhere, for example, Chris Ferrie writes a great post on Medium ‘Whence Quantum Computing?’ which I’ll refer to later [31], (it’s also a chapter in his book What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers [32]). In quantum physics, I also avoid recounting Thomas Young’s 1801 double-slit photon experiment [33] and Schrödinger’s ‘alive and dead’ cat thought experiment in uncertainty [34], as they are practically ubiquitous in quantum textbooks, lectures and online sources.
Good, short backgrounds
The Wikipedia entry ‘Timeline of quantum mechanics’ is a good basic timeline [35], and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has an important history on their involvement in jump-starting quantum information science, particularly atomic clocks, lasers, and quantum logic gates [36]. These sources, along with a brief CERN page on the Standard Model of particle physics [37], are short and readable for background. (CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research [38]).
For a deeper introduction to quantum computing, Marin Ivezic’s ‘Glossary of Quantum Computing Terms’ is worth a pleasant browse [39]. All of Ivezic’s posts and articles are deep, engaging and highly readable [40]. There are many other fascinating books, posts, and papers for deeper dives which I’ll add as we go.
It’s unlike anything we experience in everyday reality
The point is, quantum behavior is so unlike our everyday reality, explaining it can be very difficult [41].
Richard Feynman, the famous physicist, educator, writer, and Nobel Laureate noted in his Lectures on Physics (Vol III): “Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone - both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience” [42].
The standard model and the Copenhagen Interpretation
Two of the pillars of quantum physics are the standard model of particle physics and the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The standard model is a theory that provides a mathematical framework for interactions among elementary particles; it is a quantum field theory (more below), with testable results, and a high degree of accuracy [43].
The Copenhagen Interpretation is a philosophical framework where particles exist in a superposition (also explained below) of possible states and only ‘collapse’ to a definite state when measured (by a human or a measurement device). It is a way to make sense of probabilistic uncertainty where quantum states remain undefined until they are measured, a hard mystery to accept, i.e., it proposes that quantum mechanics does not necessarily describe underlying reality independent of observation. Though it is not a theory but a framework, the major effects central to it have been observed in countless tests and experiments [44].
Many interpretations exist
It does not, however, satisfy everyone. As Wikipedia notes: “While some variation of the Copenhagen interpretation is commonly presented in textbooks, many other interpretations have been developed. Despite a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best ‘represents" reality’” [45].
The four fundamental forces, or are there only three?
The standard model was developed through the work of many scientists during the 20th century (and into the 21st Century), but leaves some physical phenomena unexplained [43]. The CERN reference above on the model notes “There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest, but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has (an) infinite range, but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles”.
Some people conjecture that gravity may not be a fundamental force at all and instead, emerges from spacetime (see below).
A brief summation is as follows:
The electromagnetic force is exclusively mediated by massless, force-carrying photons, which are elementary particles in the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays [46]. A photon is the quanta (or unit) of the electromagnetic wave associated with that photon; its frequency (where it exists on the electromagnetic spectrum), corresponds to how often the electric and magnetic fields in that wave oscillate per second [47]. We discuss particles and waves more in Q02.
The electromagnetic force keeps atoms and molecules intact by causing attraction between negatively charged electrons and positively charged nuclei. Electromagnetism does not, however, hold atomic nuclei together because all protons in a nucleus repel each other due to their positive charge.
The strong nuclear force overcomes this electromagnetic repulsion and binds protons and neutrons in the nucleus. It is much stronger than electromagnetism but acts only over extremely short (subatomic) distances. Atomic nuclei, made up of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons (both having mass), are much heavier than electrons; most of the atomic mass comes from the nuclei. Protons and neutrons are composite particles made up of elementary particles called quarks, bound together by elementary gluons.
The strong force is mediated exclusively by the massless gluons, that bind quarks inside protons and neutrons, overcoming the electromagnetic repulsion between protons. We say ‘exclusively mediated by gluons’, however there is a residual strong force, mediated by mesons in the nucleus, which is a weaker, short-range effect that arises from the leftover interactions between certain types of nucleons, but it fundamentally originates from gluons also, and need not concern us here [48].
The weak force does not hold anything together but is responsible for interactions between subatomic particles. It can turn a proton into a neutron, (and vice versa) which is important for nuclear fusion. Types of radioactive decay rely on the weak force. It works on the smallest distance scales, “1,000 times smaller than the strong force (and is) about a million times weaker than the strong force, though it is still considerably stronger than gravity” [49].
Gravity is mediated in massless gravitons (not discovered yet, though gravitational waves have been measured) and is an attractive force for anything that has mass or energy, over very large (‘planetary’) scales. As Albert Einstein presented in his theory of general relativity, both mass and energy distort time and space. Gravity holds together large-scale structures like planets and stars.
Various non-gravitational forces, mostly electromagnetic, plus some limitations, keep everyday objects and planetary scale objects from collapsing together. It is only when gravity greatly exceeds these effects, that black holes and other observed behaviours in stars, and galaxies, can occur [50].
The standard model is experimentally accurate
The standard model is proven to be highly accurate experimentally. In the free online ‘Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model’ (2024), Fernando Quevedo and Andreas Schachnera note “The Standard Model is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. It consistently describes all known fundamental particles and their interactions with the exception of gravity - that is still properly described at low energies” [51] (I have not read this free ebook in total).
They note, for example, that an agreement between theory and experiment, for one of the key measures of the strength of a magnetic source, is “within one part in a trillion… probably the best test of any scientific theory”. Another key measure that characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between electrically charged elementary particles, has been proven to one part in a billion.
The statement “It consistently describes all known fundamental particles and their interactions” is correct, however, there is disagreement as to how many fundamental particles there are [52], and perhaps more still to be discovered [53], even though it is thought that all the fundamental particles predicted by the standard model have been observed, the last one being the Higgs in 2012. Any new particles would have to come from beyond the standard model [54].
Fundamental particles are the smallest known elements of nature with no known internal structure and not composed of any other particles - often referred to as elementary particles [55].
Anomalies
Many particle interactions still puzzle, and while there have been extraordinary discoveries in the past two decades (such as the Higgs boson [56]), and a great degree of consistency in the standard model, many physicists still search for answers to particle interactions that so far elude explanation [57], [58], or where predicted magnitudes vary to experiments – known as ‘anomalies’ [59], [60], [61].
Other puzzles, such as dark matter and dark energy are not encompassed in the standard model either: “All the atoms and light in the universe together make up less than five percent of the total contents of the cosmos. The rest is composed of dark matter and dark energy, which are invisible but dominate the structure and evolution of the universe” [62].
Gravityyyyy
Gravity, therefore, is not the only subject that presents challenges to the standard model. Efforts to accommodate gravity in a so-called ‘Theory of Everything (ToE)’ [63], have been unable to integrate the very large weak scale of gravity with the very small scale where the other forces act, in a grand theoretical framework. Gravitons are predicted but so far have not been experimentally discovered, so they stand outside the “all known particles” quoted above, for now.
Seeking to integrate gravity is not for want of trying though, and there have been many paths suggested. Most recently, Partanen and Tulkki 2025 [64] offer a new theory summarized in this source [65]. Another recent theory suggests, as above, that gravity may not be a fundamental force at all, but emergent behaviour arising from spacetime “events” [66].
Another promising development is the potentially testable proposal put forward by Nick Huggett and Carlo Rovelli, as discussed in their article Quantum Spacetime in the most recent special edition published by Scientific American, Into The Quantum Realm (and in Carlo Rovelli’s books, papers, and posts). Their work stretches back to 2019, and involves the theory of quantum information and finding evidence of gravity at the quantum level, in a quantum loop gravity theory using three concepts we discuss later, entanglement, superposition, and interference [67], [68].
The different fields of quantum physics
It’s useful to have a “terrain map” view of the many disciplines and research fields in quantum physics. This is not a formal map, rather a useful delineation of knowledge domains.
Quantum physics is the general overarching term encompassing all phenomena and theories related to the quantum realm.
Quantum mechanics is a specific branch in quantum physics that provides a formalized mathematical framework to describe the probabilistic behaviour of particles at atomic and subatomic scales. Some people say there is no difference between the terms Q physics and Q mechanics, and they are often used interchangeably [69], though Q mechanics seems to be preferred.
Quantum field theory is a” theoretical framework that combines field theory and the principle of relativity with ideas behind quantum mechanics” [70]. The standard model of particle physics relies on QFT, and at low energies, a modified form called Effective Field Theory (EFT [71]. For photons with energies above ultraviolet (such as X-rays or gamma rays), the full theory must be used instead of the low-energy EFT [72]. This is discussed in more depth in later posts.
Quantum electrodynamics is a field theory that focuses on the interaction of photons with charged particles and the electromagnetic force [73].
Quantum chromodynamics focuses on the strong nuclear force, particularly the interactions of sub-particles inside protons and neutrons [74].
Quantum optics studies the integration of light with matter and the massless photon [75].
Quantum chemistry applies quantum mechanics to chemical systems, molecular structures, and the properties of atoms and molecules [76].
Condensed matter quantum physics studies the quantum effects exhibited by physical matter in certain states, where different behaviour emerges, such as superconductivity at near-zero temperatures [77].
Quantum gravity seeks to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, for example the Huggett/Rovelli idea (above) of quantum loop gravity, also string theory. This subject generates many papers [78], [79], [80].
Quantum cosmology is considered a specialised subfield within quantum gravity, itself a subfield of quantum physics. It applies the principles of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole [81]. Ideas around the Big Bang, black holes, and the emergence of spacetime from quantum origins (among other ideas), all live here [82], [83], [84].
Quantum physics and scientific proof
The standard model has stood the test of time but theories to resolve its incompleteness have led to some fiery exchanges between scientists, and bickering, and other fascinating human interactions. One of the valid areas of disagreement is over ‘virtual particles’, that appear to spontaneously emerge from a vacuum at short time and space ranges and then disappear [85], perhaps into another parallel universe.
The effects have been indirectly measured as temporary "blips" or disturbances in their underlying quantum fields, manifesting as particle-like behavior for a brief moment. There is a great disagreement about whether virtual particles exist [86], [87], however, theories on multiple universes [88], string theory [89], and variants, have arisen partly motivated by these observed effects.
Is a theory scientific if it cannot be experimentally tested?
The issue in science with theories below or beyond testable scale magnitudes lies at the heart of scientific debate. Many of the theories attempt to explain phenomena that occur at dimensions so small (or large) that they are untestable, therefore can they really be scientific theories?
In 2015, scientists gathered in Munich in what was billed as ‘a fight for the soul of science’, as recounted by Natalie Wolchover in Quanta Magazine [90], a good overview of the central issues. The recent Qanta Magazine article by Charlie Wood on the 100th Quantum Mechanics Birthday meetup, adds additional recent colour to the story [91].
Richard Feynman didn’t think untestable theories were an issue at all, he thought they were vital and necessary. In his second lecture on quantum mechanics (Vol III) he said: “It is not true that we can pursue science completely by using only those concepts which are directly subject to experiment… Today we say that the law of relativity is supposed to be true at all energies, but someday somebody may come along and say how stupid we were. We do not know where we are “stupid” until we “stick our neck out,” and so the whole idea is to put our neck out. And the only way to find out that we are wrong is to find out what our predictions are. It is absolutely necessary to make constructs” [42].
The journey to uncover quantum behaviour involves human behaviour
The struggle to come up with explanations and the disagreements, however, are fascinating. Three books recount the various controversies in the long path to today:
‘Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science’, by David Lindley, a great read on the early establishment of quantum theories [92],
‘Farewell to Reality – How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth’, by Jim Baggott, not as trenchant as the title sounds, and well written [93], and
‘String Theory and the Scientific Method’, by Richard Dawid, offering a ‘novel assessment into the nature of theory assessment itself’, and an attempt at a more rigorous framework for untestable theories. [94]. When it was first released, I was surprised at the level of outrage expressed over Dawid’s propositions.
More recently (July 2025), a Nature survey found that “researchers still disagree widely on how best to describe the physical reality that lies behind the mathematics (of quantum mechanics)” [95], which shows that the debates persist and are (perhaps healthily), alive and well. There are five (of many more) prominent theories we’ll visit in later posts.
Bye for now
I’ve come to understand that quantum physics can get quite heated, a bit like the search for consciousness. Well, I’m going to write how I see things and where my curiosity takes me, in simple language. It just might bring different insights to the table. As Feynman said, “we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience”.
Alas, we walk in fields of giants and dragons.
In the second post we’ll look at particles, waves, and fields, and set up the discussion on classical and quantum computing concepts for the third post.
But first, it’s late summer, a poem in the Japanese classical waka form [96]
Until yesterday
The scattering of blossoms
Was what I did regret, but
Was it in my dreams, or reality that
Summer has fallen into dusk?
Kinkai wakashū 175 [97]
Till next time, then. Take care, Brent.
P.S. Please feel free to subscribe here, it’s free. My posts go out by email as well as online when released. They are not regular.
I release notifications on LinkedIn and Facebook and welcome comments there. I very much regret that I’m unable to respond readily at the present time. If there is something particularly egregious you wish to contest, or that would help my own understanding, or you do wish to make contact, please do so by using the contact page on this web.
Full disclosure:
I own all the books referenced in this post and unless noted otherwise in the post, I have read them cover to cover.
All the written words, apart from acknowledged quotes, are my own. Some phrases and definitions are common to many sources.
For around 35% of primary research, I have used perplexity.ai to check multiple sources and gain a sense of the accuracy of my own writing, but the words written come from developing my own understandings and concepts over many years. All the papers and most of the web sources were already known to me or found myself before or during writing, without using AI.
© 2025 The Fragile Sea - all rights reserved
[1]: Vivatechnology, ‘How Quantum Computing Will Impact AI in the Next 10 Years’, Vivatechnology, Jan. 18, 2025. https://vivatechnology.com/news/how-quantum-computing-will-impact-ai-in-the-next-10-years
[2]: SpinQ, ‘Quantum Computing News: ICQE 2025 & Latest Quantum Research | SpinQ’, Jun. 17, 2025. https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/latest-quantum-computing-news-and-quantum-research
[3]: digwatch, ‘Quantum computing breakthroughs push 2025 into a new era | Digital Watch Observatory’, Aug. 12, 2025. https://dig.watch/updates/quantum-computing-breakthroughs-push-2025-into-a-new-era
[4]: Brown University, ‘Discovery of new class of particles could take quantum mechanics one step further | Brown University’, Aug. 05, 2025. https://www.brown.edu/news/2025-01-08/new-quantum-particles
[5]: NASA Space News, ‘This New Particle Could Change Quantum Physics Forever! - YouTube.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI_wlt_UJtI&t=347s
[6]: M. Ivezic, ‘What Will Really Happen Once Q-Day Arrives – When Our Current Cryptography Is Broken? | LinkedIn’, Jun. 23, 2025. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-really-happen-once-q-day-arrives-when-our-current-marin-ivezic-zn1bc/
[7]: M. Ivezic, ‘Q-Day Revisited – RSA-2048 Broken by 2030: Detailed Analysis’, PostQuantum - Quantum Computing, Quantum Security, PQC, Jun. 19, 2025. https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/q-day-y2q-rsa-broken-2030/
[8]: M. Ivezic, ‘The Trouble with Quantum Computing and Q-Day Predictions’, PostQuantum - Quantum Computing, Quantum Security, PQC, Aug. 04, 2025. https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/q-day-predictions/
[9]: G. Acampora et al., ‘Quantum computing and artificial intelligence: status and perspectives.’ arXiv, Jun. 16, 2025. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.23860
[10]: T. Kadowaki, ‘Quantum Computing and AI: Perspectives on Advanced Automation in Science and Engineering.’ arXiv, May 15, 2025. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.10012
[11]: Temitope Oluwatosin Fatunmbi, ‘Quantum computing and Artificial Intelligence: Toward a new computational paradigm’, World J. Adv. Res. Rev., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 687–695, Jul. 2025, https://www.doi.org/10/g9wm3z
[12]: J. Gribbin, In Search Of Schrodinger’s Cat: The bestselling classic introduction to quantum physics. London: Black Swan, 1987.
[13]: B. Smith, ‘The Fragile Sea | AI Connections 2024: Part 1 Introduction’, The Fragile Sea, Jan. 10, 2024. https://www.thefragilesea.com/AI_connections_2024_Part_1_Intro
[14]: E. Schrödinger, E. Schrödinger, and E. Schrödinger, What is life? the physical aspect of the living cell ; with, Mind and matter ; & Autobiographical sketches. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[15]: Wikipedia, ‘Mutation’, Wikipedia. Aug. 08, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutation&oldid=1304765736.
[16]: J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford [England]: ; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
[17]: W. Heisenberg, Physics & Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Science, 1st Harper Perennial Modern Classics ed. New York: HarperPerennial, 2007.
[18]: R. Rhodes, Ed., The Making of the Atomic Bomb, 25th anniversary ed. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2012.
[19]: F. Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston: Shambhala, 2010.
[20]: F. J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God, and the Resurrection of the Dead. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1994.
[21]: F. J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity, 1. ed. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
[22]: Science News, ‘The unsung women of quantum physics get their due’, May 20, 2025. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/the-unsung-women-of-quantum-physics
[23]: UNESCO, ‘Highlighting Women in Quantum History’, IYQ 2025, Jun. 27, 2025. https://quantum2025.org/news-link/highlighting-women-in-quantum-history/
[24]: Wikipedia, ‘Women in physics’, Wikipedia. Jul. 16, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_physics&oldid=1300796022.
[25]: E. Conover, ‘In her short life, mathematician Emmy Noether changed the face of physics’, Jun. 12, 2018. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/emmy-noether-theorem-legacy-physics-math
[26]: Bold Business, ‘10 People Who Should Have Won the Nobel Prize But Didn’t’, Bold Business, Oct. 20, 2023. https://www.boldbusiness.com/human-achievement/10-people-who-should-have-won-nobel-prize-didnt/
[27]: R. Arianrhod, Seduced by Logic: Émilie Du Châtelet, Mary Somerville and the Newtonian Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2012.
[28]: Mi. Allen, ‘Fledgling quantum industry is heavily male dominated, finds report’, Physics World, Apr. 06, 2023. https://physicsworld.com/fledgling-quantum-industry-is-heavily-male-dominated-finds-report/
[29]: D. Black, ‘Will 2025 be the year of women in quantum computing ?’, Disruption Banking, Jan. 23, 2025. https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2025/01/23/will-2025-be-the-year-of-women-in-quantum-computing/
[30]: J. Dargan, ‘52 Wonder Women Working In Industry As Quantum Scientists & Engineers’, The Quantum Insider, Aug. 24, 2021. https://thequantuminsider.com/2021/08/24/52-wonder-women-working-in-industry-as-quantum-scientists-engineers/
[31]: C. Ferrie, ‘Whence Quantum Computing?’, Medium, May 27, 2024. https://csferrie.medium.com/whence-quantum-computing-ac5fb1efa642
[32]: C. Ferrie, ‘What You Shouldn’t Know About Quantum Computers’, Medium, May 27, 2024. https://csferrie.medium.com/what-you-shouldnt-know-about-quantum-computers-0a13863cc0c2
[33]: J. Chu, ‘Famous double-slit experiment holds up when stripped to its quantum essentials’, MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jul. 28, 2025. https://news.mit.edu/2025/famous-double-slit-experiment-holds-when-stripped-to-quantum-essentials-0728
[34]: Wikipedia, ‘Schrödinger’s cat’, Wikipedia. Jun. 27, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat&oldid=1297622386.
[35]: Wikipedia, ‘Timeline of quantum mechanics’, Wikipedia. Jun. 24, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_quantum_mechanics&oldid=1297087200.
[36]: B. P. Stein, ‘How NIST Helped Start an Industry: Our Role in Jump-Starting Quantum Information Science’, NIST, May 2025, https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/how-nist-helped-start-industry-our-role-jump-starting-quantum-information.
[37]: CERN, ‘The Standard Model’, CERN, Jun. 27, 2025. https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model
[38]: CERN, ‘CERN’, Wikipedia. Jul. 17, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CERN&oldid=1300972853.
[39]: M. Ivezic, ‘Glossary of Quantum Computing Terms’, PostQuantum - Quantum Computing, Quantum Security, PQC, Apr. 05, 2022. https://postquantum.com/quantum-computing/glossary-quantum-cyber/
[40]: M. Ivezic, ‘PostQuantum.com – Quantum Computing, Quantum Security’, PostQuantum - Quantum Computing, Quantum Security, PQC, Sep. 11, 2023. https://postquantum.com/
[41]: J. van Wezel, L. Mertens, and J. Henke, ‘Quantum Physics Isn’t as Weird as You Think. It’s Weirder’, Scientific American, Oct. 12, 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-isnt-as-weird-as-you-think-its-weirder/
[42]: R. P. Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III: The New Millennium Edition: Quantum Mechanics. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
[43]: Wikipedia, ‘Standard Model’, Wikipedia. Jun. 11, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Model&oldid=1295056759.
[44]: Wikipedia, ‘Copenhagen interpretation’, Wikipedia. Apr. 11, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copenhagen_interpretation&oldid=1285117080.
[45]: Wikipedia, ‘Interpretations of quantum mechanics’, Wikipedia. Jun. 07, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics&oldid=1294374513.
[46]: Energy.gov, ‘DOE Explains...Photons’, Energy.gov, 2024. https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsphotons
[47]: Wikipedia, ‘Electromagnetic spectrum’, Wikipedia. Aug. 15, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_spectrum&oldid=1305968550.
[48]: E. Siegel, ‘The Strong Nuclear Force Made Easy: Without Colors Or Group Theory’, Forbes, Feb. 20, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/04/20/the-strong-nuclear-force-made-easy-without-colors-or-group-theory/
[49]: NASA, ‘The Four Fundamental Forces’, Sep. 01, 2020. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/forces/
[50]: Wikipedia, ‘Gravitational collapse’, Wikipedia. Jul. 18, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitational_collapse&oldid=1301157812.
[51]: F. Quevedo and A. Schachner, ‘Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model.’ arXiv, Sep. 13, 2024. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.09211
[52]: Imminent_Extinction, ‘How many fundamental particles are there?’, r/askscience https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p6j7bh/how_many_fundamental_particles_are_there/
[53]: Wikipedia, ‘List of hypothetical particles’, Wikipedia. Apr. 27, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_hypothetical_particles&oldid=1287708837
[54]: Wikipedia, ‘Physics beyond the Standard Model’, Wikipedia. Jul. 17, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model&oldid=1301041565
[55]: Fundamental Particles, (Apr. 30, 2014). [Video]:. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTDHS64wJkk.
[56]: CERN, ‘Higgs Boson | CMS Experiment’, 2025. https://cms.cern/physics/higgs-boson
[57]: R. Jones, ‘The Standard Model of Particle Physics May Be Broken – A Physicist at the Large Hadron Collider Explains’, SciTechDaily, May 15, 2022. https://scitechdaily.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-may-be-broken-a-physicist-at-the-large-hadron-collider-explains/
[58]: K. Hartnett, ‘The Mystery at the Heart of Physics That Only Math Can Solve’, Quanta Magazine, Jun. 10, 2021. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/
[59]: S. Lee, ‘Unraveling the Mysteries of Particle Physics Anomalies’, Jun. 04, 2025. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-anomalies-in-particle-physics
[60]: M. Schirber, ‘Repeated Particle Measurements Disagree with Theory—What Now?’, Physics, vol. 17, p. 6, Jan. 2024, https://www.doi.org/10.1103/Physics.18.148
[61]: A. Crivellin and B. Mellado, ‘Anomalies in particle physics and their implications for physics beyond the standard model’, Nat Rev Phys, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 294–309, May 2024, https://www.doi.org/10/g9wn2k
[62]: Center for Astrophysics, ‘Dark Energy and Dark Matter | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian’, 2025. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/dark-energy-and-dark-matter
[63]: Wikipedia, ‘Theory of everything’, Wikipedia. Jun. 30, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_everything&oldid=1298063278.
[64]: M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, ‘Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Standard Model’, Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 88, no. 5, p. 057802, May 2025, https://www.doi.org/10/g9hdtq
[65]: T. Puiu, ‘This Bold New Theory Could Finally Unite Gravity and Quantum Physics’, ZME Science, May 08, 2025. https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/finland-unifying-gravity-quantum-mechanics/
[66]: A. Feldman, ‘New theory could finally make ‘quantum gravity’ a reality — and prove Einstein wrong’, Live Science, May 15, 2025. https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/quantum-physics/physicists-may-be-on-their-way-to-a-theory-of-everything-after-reenvisioning-einsteins-most-famous-theory
[67]: N. H. Rovelli Carlo, ‘Can Space and Time Exist as Two Shapes at Once? Mind-Bending Experiments Aim to Find Out’, Scientific American, Sep. 01, 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-space-and-time-follow-quantum-rules-these-mind-bending-experiments-aim-to-find-out/
[68]: M. Christodoulou and C. Rovelli, ‘On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries’, Physics Letters B, vol. 792, pp. 64–68, May 2019, https://www.doi.org/10/gj6ssc
[69]: Wikipedia, ‘Quantum mechanics’, Wikipedia. Jul. 29, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=1303078084.
[70]: Wikipedia, ‘Quantum field theory’, Wikipedia. Jul. 27, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_field_theory&oldid=1302710815.
[71]: Wikipedia, ‘Effective field theory’, Wikipedia. Jun. 21, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_field_theory&oldid=1296620614.
[72]: A. Falkowski, ‘Lectures on Effective Field Theories’, Sep. 2020, https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/22195/contributions/86017/attachments/59873/81148/eftlectures.pdf.
[73]: Wikipedia, ‘Quantum electrodynamics’, Wikipedia. Jun. 15, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_electrodynamics&oldid=1295805904.
[74]: Wikipedia, ‘Quantum chromodynamics’, Wikipedia. Jul. 29, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_chromodynamics&oldid=1303254875.
[75]: C. Navarrete-Benlloch, ‘Introduction to Quantum Optics.’ arXiv, Mar. 20, 2022. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.13206
[76]: Y. Cao et al., ‘Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing’, Chem. Rev., vol. 119, no. 19, pp. 10856–10915, Oct. 2019, https://www.doi.org/10/ggf897
[77]: Wikipedia, ‘Condensed matter physics’, Wikipedia. Jul. 01, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condensed_matter_physics&oldid=1298283864.
[78]: K. Crowther, ‘Why Do We Want a Theory of Quantum Gravity?’ arXiv, May 07, 2025. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.04858
[79]: J. Oppenheim, ‘Is it time to rethink quantum gravity?’, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, vol. 32, no. 14, p. 2342024, Oct. 2023, https://www.doi.org/10/g9xdh2
[80]: M. Faizal, L. M. Krauss, A. Shabir, F. Marino, and B. Pourhassan, ‘Quantum gravity cannot be both consistent and complete.’ arXiv, May 17, 2025. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.11773
[81]: Q. News, ‘Quantum Cosmology: The Quantum Universe’, Oct. 05, 2024. https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-cosmology-the-quantum-universe/
[82]: M. Bojowald, ‘Quantum cosmology: a review’, Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 78, no. 2, p. 023901, Feb. 2015, https://www.doi.org/10/gknhqt
[83]: L. Menéndez-Pidal, ‘The problem of time in quantum cosmology.’ arXiv, Nov. 16, 2022. https://www.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.09173
[84]: Wikipedia, ‘Quantum cosmology’, Wikipedia. Jun. 01, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_cosmology&oldid=1293307275.
[85]: Wikipedia, ‘Virtual particle’, Wikipedia. May 23, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_particle&oldid=1291858446.
[86]: M. Strassler, ‘Virtual Particles: What are they? – Of Particular Significance’, 2025. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
[87]: G. Jaeger, ‘Are Virtual Particles Less Real?’, Entropy (Basel), vol. 21, no. 2, p. 141, Feb. 2019, https://www.doi.org/10/g9sn3p
[88]: N. Wolchover and P. Byrne, ‘In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds?’, Quanta Magazine, Nov. 03, 2014. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-multiverses-measure-problem-20141103/
[89]: J. L. +1 authors S. Strogatz, ‘Will We Ever Prove String Theory?’, Quanta Magazine, May 29, 2025. https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-we-ever-prove-string-theory-20250529/
[90]: N. Wolchover, ‘A Fight for the Soul of Science’, 2015. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-fight-for-the-soul-of-science-20151216/
[91]: C. Wood, ‘‘It’s a Mess’: A Brain-Bending Trip to Quantum Theory’s 100th Birthday Party’, Quanta Magazine, Aug. 08, 2025. https://www.quantamagazine.org/its-a-mess-a-brain-bending-trip-to-quantum-theorys-100th-birthday-party-20250808/
[92]: D. Lindley, Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science, Anchor, 2008.
[93]: J. E. Baggott, Farewell to reality: how modern physics has betrayed the search for scientific truth, Pegasus Books, 2014.
[94]: R. Dawid, String theory and the scientific method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
[95]: E. Gibney, ‘Physicists disagree wildly on what quantum mechanics says about reality, Nature survey shows’, Nature, vol. 643, no. 8074, pp. 1175–1179, Jul. 2025, https://www.doi.org/10/g9wb5t
[96]: Vers Libre, ‘What is Waka Poetry? - Vers Libre’, May 23, 2024. https://verslibre.co.uk/haiku/what-is-waka/
[97]: Temca, ‘Kinkai wakashū 175 | Waka Poetry’, Apr. 05, 2025. https://www.wakapoetry.net/kinkai-wakashu-175/
Comments ()