Exposing The Common Misconceptions Of Quantum Physics In Spiritualism’s Balderdash
Introduction: The Divide Between Classical and Quantum Physics
Classical and quantum physics describe the universe in profoundly different ways. Classical physics, rooted in Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity, accurately explains motion, gravity, and the large-scale structure of space-time.
Quantum physics governs the microscopic world of atoms and subatomic particles, where probabilities replace deterministic laws.
Despite their clear distinctions, pseudoscientific misrepresentations have linked quantum mechanics to Eastern spiritual traditions like Taoism and Zen. These comparisons distort the fundamental nature of quantum probability, wave-particle duality, and uncertainty, turning rigorous scientific principles into mystical nonsense.
This essay will outline the key differences between classical and quantum physics, explore their role in understanding the universe’s size, shape, and age, and expose the absurd misuse of quantum theory in spiritual mysticism.
1. Classical and Quantum Physics: The Foundation of Scientific Understanding
Classical physics provides a deterministic framework for understanding the universe. Newton’s laws describe motion, while Maxwell’s equations govern electromagnetism. Einstein’s general relativity further refines our comprehension of gravity, explaining phenomena such as black holes and cosmic expansion.
Through classical physics, scientists have determined the universe’s size to be at least 93 billion light-years across and its age to be 13.8 billion years (Planck Collaboration, 2020). These calculations rely on measurable constants, such as the speed of light and cosmic background radiation. Unlike quantum physics, classical mechanics leaves no room for interpretative mysticism.
2. Quantum Physics: A Probabilistic View of Reality
Quantum mechanics governs the subatomic realm. Particles behave as both waves and discrete units, an effect described by wave-particle duality. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that one cannot measure both a particle’s position and momentum with absolute precision. Instead of deterministic outcomes, quantum mechanics predicts probabilities.
However, probability in quantum mechanics is not “consciousness-dependent” or “mystical.” The Schrödinger equation describes how wave functions evolve, governed by strict mathematical rules. The universe does not “decide” how to behave based on human observation—our measurements simply reveal pre-existing states and the probability of those states.
3. The Age, Shape, and Size of the Universe: Classical and Quantum Physics
Classical physics provides large-scale cosmic measurements, while quantum mechanics explains atomic interactions within stars and galaxies. For example, quantum tunneling allows nuclear fusion to occur in the sun, sustaining life on Earth (Atkins, 2018).
The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), detected through classical physics, confirms the universe’s age and expansion rate (Fixsen, 2009). Quantum physics does not offer alternative models of cosmic structure—it operates at a microscopic scale, complementing but not replacing classical explanations.
4. Classical and Quantum Physics: Quantum Probability and Eastern Philosophy Mysticism
The meat of this post, then, focuses on the misuse of Quantum mechanics to validate Taoist or Zen concepts of balance, unity, or consciousness creating reality. Claims that particles “choose” their state upon observation reflect ignorance of wave function collapse and the role of decoherence in measurement (Schlosshauer, 2007).
Furthermore, the Copenhagen interpretation, often twisted into spiritual nonsense, simply states that quantum probabilities become definite when interacting with classical systems—not that “awareness shapes reality.” No credible physicist supports these mystical claims.
What also strikes me is simply cherry-picking concepts that mean one thing in understanding how quantum mechanics and classical physics complement each other by comparing scientific conclusions in one with principles of spirituality because they appear to be speaking of similar outcomes, one scientific and the other a spiritual interpretation somehow correlates the two is to make a logical error; correlation does not predict causation. While wildly misused, such analyses crate no logical connection of one with the other.
5. Probability in Quantum Physics and the Math of Classical Physics Is Not Mystical!
Many confuse quantum probability with vague philosophical ideas. In physics, probability represents measurable uncertainty within defined constraints. The Born rule, a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, assigns precise probabilities to particle states—not mystical possibilities (Griffiths, 2017).
By contrast, spiritual claims of “infinite possibilities” reflect magical thinking, not science. A quantum particle’s probability distribution is mathematically exact—it does not fluctuate based on human beliefs or Zen meditation.
6. Why Quantum Mechanics Cannot Replace Classical Physics
Some claim that quantum mechanics negates classical physics, but this is false. Quantum effects dominate at atomic scales, but Newtonian physics remains essential for engineering, planetary motion, and relativity-based calculations (Feynman, 2011).
For instance, astronauts do not need quantum mechanics to navigate space travel; classical mechanics determines orbits and fuel requirements. Quantum mechanics and relativity operate in separate but compatible domains—one does not invalidate the other; rather they complement each other to explain the workings of the classical or observed universe and the sub-atomic universe which coexist with one another.
Thus, replacement is not the correct stance to understanding, rather understanding follows the path of how one describes facets of the observable world and the Quantum sub-atomic world. Both Classical and Quantum physics describe experimentally verified aspects of a) the observable world and b) the sub-atomic world. Because the precision of the descriptions is correct for the universe being described and can be re-varified by additional experimentation, they are understood as true yet incomplete pictures of the world. Spiritualism has no place in the world of science.,
7. The Consequences of Misinterpreting Classical and Quantum Physics
The misrepresentation of quantum mechanics fosters anti-scientific thinking. Pseudoscientific books, such as The Tao of Physics (Capra, 1975), mislead readers by forcing quantum mechanics into an Eastern mysticism framework. These distortions erode public understanding of science and promote new-age nonsense over empirical reasoning.
Quantum mechanics, like all science, relies on repeatable experiments and mathematical precision, not vague spiritual concepts superstitions, or dogma. Misusing it to justify mystical beliefs degrades both physics and rational inquiry.
Conclusion: Rational Science, Not Wishful Thinking, Defines the Universe
Classical and quantum physics provide complementary perspectives on the universe’s structure. Classical mechanics determines cosmic scales and timeframes, while quantum physics governs the micro-world. Neither supports mystical interpretations.
The universe does not conform to spiritual wishful thinking. Quantum mechanics describes probability with 100% certainty, not as an excuse for vague mystical connections. Rational inquiry, not pseudoscience, is the only path to understanding the cosmos.
—
Sources Cited
Atkins, P. W. (2018). Physical Chemistry: Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press.
Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Shambhala Publications.
Feynman, R. P. (2011). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3: Quantum Mechanics. Basic Books.
Fixsen, D. J. (2009). The temperature of the cosmic microwave background. The Astrophysical Journal, 707(2), 916-920.
Griffiths, D. J. (2017). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Carroll, S. (2016). The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Penguin.
Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Knopf.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam.
Krauss, L. (2012). A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. Free Press.
Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin.
DISCLAIMER: The images on this page, and across the whole blog are created using AI imaging and are intended to illustrate the argument in the post. They are NOT representing real people or events directly, rather the images enhance the argument and nothing more. We do not intend any offense, nor do we wish to single out individuals in any way by the images themselves.
Here are some posts we think you’ll like following this theme
Presidential Integrity: An Astounding Legacy of Leadership and Moral Responsibility
P.S. I am indebted to Don Lincoln, PhD. the lead researcher in the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, who dedicated much of his career to dispelling misconceptions about modern physics, making complex ideas accessible without sacrificing scientific rigor.
His work with The Great Courses series, particularly his lectures on quantum mechanics and relativity, serves as an invaluable resource for those seeking to understand the true nature of the universe without falling prey to pseudoscience. His clear explanations dismantle common misinterpretations, from the exaggerated role of consciousness in quantum mechanics to the misuse of physics in mystical ideologies.
This essay draws inspiration from Lincoln’s steadfast commitment to scientific accuracy, warning against the dangers of turning legitimate physics into misconstrued spiritualism through wishful thinking. Science thrives on empirical evidence and testable theories, not on the distortion of reality to fit personal beliefs.
By recognizing and rejecting pseudoscientific claims, we honor the intellectual integrity that Lincoln champions, ensuring that physics remains a discipline rooted in reason rather than mysticism.
While I am not a Physicist, I do have a doctorate in language and literacy. The whole of my training was based on the rational principle that making broad, sweeping generalizations without the benefit of analyzing the underlying data set and the constant intrusion of my unexamined taken-for-granteds about the world is sloppy and misleading. Dr. Lincoln’s treatment of Classical and Quantum physics debunks the taken-for-granteds that lead to the misinterpretation of physics leading to wishful thinking and overreaching error.
