Vatican Observatory Adjunct Scholar Michelle Francl-Donnay published the article “Quantum quacks” in Nature Chemistry volume 18 (January 2026). The following in an excerpt:
“Do not google zero point energy,” I warn my physical chemistry students. You could find yourself sucked into the dark quantum realms.” I am joking — sort of. Occasionally, their choice to consult the web for the formula for the zero-point energy of an oscillator, rather than their textbook, turns up advertisements for “zero-point energy wands.” Once you’ve seen such a teaser, it is hard to resist clicking into the murky morass of quantum woo where such wands reside.
It is 100 years since the initial development of quantum mechanics, and not only did it bring with it new physics and a greater understanding of the world around us, it also introduced a new lexicon. But gradually the language of quantum mechanics has been flipped to the dark side and appropriated by pseudoscience. Much as Erwin Schrödinger’s famous box is sometimes said to contain a cat both dead and alive, the quantum framework he conceived now encompasses both science and nonsense.
How has the language of the physics that gave us the laser and all its myriad and useful applications — from re-attached retinas to cat toys — found itself entangled with everything from diets to dishwasher detergents to those dodgy wands? How did quantum take on a whiff of woo?
‘Quantum’ is originally a Latin word, having to do with amount or measure. It entered English long before the development of the quantum theory, first as a theological and philosophical term in the 16th century, then more commonly taken to mean some amount, an aliquot (which derives from the same Latin root). By the late 19th century physics had adopted ‘quantum’ to describe a measure of ‘electric fluid.’ The modern physics notion of quantization is often associated with Max Planck’s 1901 paper on blackbody radiation but Planck did not use the term ‘quantum’ (or any derivative thereof) to describe the packets of energy he invoked to resolve the UV catastrophe. Albert Einstein sprinkles “quanta” and “quantum” liberally throughout his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect (in the form of compound German nouns such as Lichtquants and Energiequants, which English translations have neatly dismantled into light quantum and energy quantum).
‘Quantum’ is by no means the only scientific term that has crept into everyday language, collecting new senses as it did so. Words drift from technical lexicons into common usage — magnetic — or vice versa — charm. Fields bat terminology back and forth. So biologists repurpose physics terms — plasma — while physics lifts from biology — nucleus — which in turn took its cue from the astronomer’s term for the fiery core of a comet.
One hallmark of pseudoscience is the appropriation of a scientific vocabulary that is recognizable as such, but where the precise technical definitions are largely unfamiliar to the audience. Advertisements for the zero-point energy wands are a perfect example. Take a mixture of science terms — scalar, far-infrared, quantum, fields — and stir: ‘Access scalar energy via quantum scalar and zero-point fields! The perfect combination of subtle scalar energy and far-infrared energy!’ Quantum mechanics is a rich source of such a vocabulary, which most people will not have encountered in the course of their education.
It is tempting to laugh off nonsensical ad copy such as that which purports to exploit “quantum resonance to energize products to resonate at the zero-point field.” But “quantum resonance” is not the only thing that is being exploited by the makers of these wands. The table of contents a zero-point energy wanding guide tells a story of desperation, suggesting that waving the wand in prescribed patterns can ease the symptoms of advanced cancer or heart disease or cognitive decline. This is the dark side of the quantum universe, where the vulnerable are not only swindled but harmed, swayed by the language of my field.
As much as I might wish it, there is no way to wave a wand and shove ‘quantum’ back into its technical box, but we need not entirely relinquish the ground. So I will seize whatever chances I can to explain why ‘quantum’ is an apt description for discrete pods of detergent, regardless of how advanced the cleaning technology they contain, and to explain why the stars on my kid’s ceiling gently glow when the lights are off. Perhaps to celebrate this 100th anniversary, we might all look for moments to flip the spin on the language of quantum mechanics back to its ground state.
Read the full article here.
From the Editor: When I hear ‘zero point energy,’ I can’t help but think of the villain Syndrome from the Incredibles.
Related:
Op Ed by Michelle Francl-Donnay, For The Philadelphia Inquirer: Medbeds, ‘truths,’ and fantastical science, oh my! (Audio available.)
It will take more than clicking the heels of my ruby slippers twice to pull back the curtain on what is passing for science in the White House.
About the Author
Dr. Michelle M. Francl, is a chemistry professor at Bryn Mawr College (where she has been on the faculty since 1986) and an Adjunct Scholar of the Vatican Observatory. She is a quantum chemist who has developed theoretical methods for computational chemistry and who is interested in the structures of molecules that behave in ways that chemists might not predict they do. She is interested in the philosophy and history of chemistry, and her essays on science, culture and policy appear regularly in Nature Chemistry. She was elected a Fellow of the American Chemical Society in 2009.
Michelle is also a theologian whose reflections on trying to live a contemplative life in the midst of the everyday chaos that comes with being a teacher, wife and mother can be found in a number of print and online venues. Along with various devotional essays and books, she gives the occasional retreat; and she blogs on life, laundry, prayer and God at Quantum Theology.
Vatican Observatory Podcasts featuring Dr. Michelle M. Francl
Steeped in Science (2024) – The Chemistry of Tea, which explores the chemistry behind different styles of tea.
A Taste for Heavy Water – Dr. Francl puts her own twist on combinations that most people might think are impossible.
