The use of the word “quantum” has become rather hackneyed. There are quantum computers, quantum sensors, and even quantum refrigerators; the list is endless. I mean, what’s next—quantum washing machines?
If all the quantum spam has left you exhausted, Paul Davies’s new book, Quantum 2.0: The Weird Physics Driving a New Revolution in Technology, might help. Yes, the title has the q-word, but for the best possible reason. Starting with a brief rundown of what “quantum” actually means, the book lays out in plain language how quantum mechanics changed science in the past century—and how it will continue to do so going forward.
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist and the director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University. A renowned science communicator, he has authored more than 20 books on topics from the origin of life to the nature of time.
Gizmodo spoke to Davies about navigating the so-called quantum noise and how best to understand what quantum mechanics has contributed to our understanding of the universe. The following conversation has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
Gayoung Lee, Gizmodo: So the book’s title is Quantum 2.0. That implies there was a Quantum 1.0. What was Quantum 1.0? What was the turning point that brought us to Quantum 2.0?
Paul Davies: Very good question. The technical term for the branch of quantum physics we’re talking about is quantum mechanics, which began in 1925. This is the most successful scientific theory ever, because it explained the nature of matter all the way from subatomic particles right up to stars.
It also led to some very familiar technology that underpins much of the modern world, for example, the laser, microchips, MRI machines, and nuclear power—your cell phone is packed full of quantum gizmos.
All of this stemmed from what we’re calling “Quantum 1.0,” which is the quantum mechanics developed 100 years ago. With the centenary last year, UNESCO declared 2025 to be the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology. It’s very clear that there is a whole new quantum revolution that is bursting upon us.
And the distinction is really the following: With Quantum 2.0, it’s possible to manipulate individual particles—electrons or photons, for example—and to sculpt their quantum states so that information is actually encoded in the individual particles themselves and not in the bigger devices, like transistors or gates.
Gizmodo: With this revolution, today it seems like everyone is attaching “quantum” to things. What does that really mean? What makes something “quantum”?
Davies: Well, if it’s not a commercial trick—and it generally is—then, in the past, people usually wouldn’t say, “You must go for a quantum MRI scan,” but that uses quantum mechanics. Or you wouldn’t say, “We’re going to build a quantum nuclear power station,” although that uses quantum principles.
With Quantum 2.0, “quantum” usually is a signature of something exploiting the subatomic world. It’s not just a gimmick. It means manipulating quantum physics in some non-trivial ways [by utilizing concepts such as entanglement or superposition].
Gizmodo: Strictly speaking, quantum effects influence everything in the universe. But they’re also often in conflict with observable reality. It seems that scientists don’t know exactly how the two are connected. Yet, if Quantum 2.0 is here, it means we’re using these obscure ideas to create tangible things.
Davies: Quantum mechanics is full of paradoxes and weird concepts that just don’t mesh with the everyday world. In everyday life, we have things like tables and chairs that we assume really exist independently of us measuring them or looking at them. But down at the atomic level, that isn’t the case.
A particle like an electron simply does not have a full set of properties before measurement. If you ask, well, before the measurement, did the particle really have both a position and a motion? The answer is that you cannot say. Even nature doesn’t know what properties the particle had.
The big difficulty is interfacing that shadowy world of the quantum, where things don’t exist in definite, well-defined states, with the everyday world, where everything seems a single concrete reality. Even after 100 years, physicists are squabbling over how to interpret that. It remains an outstanding problem for the next generation of physicists.
Gizmodo: Your book offers many examples of how quantum science has left its mark on science. Is there any particular one you’d like to highlight?
Davies: There’s a whole chapter in the book on quantum biology. One of the founders of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger, realized in 1925 that within a few years, quantum mechanics could explain the nature of matter all the way from subatomic particles up to stars. But living matter seemed to have its own laws. To a physicist, life looks like a miracle.
In 1943, Schrödinger gave a series of lectures called “What Is Life?” He hoped that the powerful nature of quantum mechanics might explain the strangeness of living matter. But he was also open to the possibility that there may be something beyond quantum mechanics—some new kind of physical law, he said—prevailing in living matter.
In recent years, people [are considering] effects like superposition and entanglement, or possibly even quantum information processing, going on in living organisms. I myself am a little bit skeptical, but it’s intriguing. Might life’s apparently miraculous capabilities ultimately be an exploitation of some sort of profound type of quantum mechanics?
Gizmodo: At the start of the book, you write that quantum is the “science that gave us AI.” How exactly did quantum mechanics give us AI?
Davies: There are two sides to this. One is AI as we know it, but the other is the possibility of what I call quantum artificial intelligence, which would be an even greater leap and even more disruptive.
Let’s answer your original question. AI is really just the outcome of doing a very large number of very rapid information processing on a very large scale. If you sat down and tried to work out the number of quantum devices involved in AI, there would be hundreds of components that fundamentally depend upon quantum mechanics through its principles.
But a quantum AI will have a very different type of consciousness from us, because it would see all possible realities at once according to quantum mechanics. It would be able to roam freely across the space of infinite possibilities and somehow capture all of this in its mind at once. So it would be not just a supermind, but a truly alien supermind.
Gizmodo: On that delightful note, if Quantum 1.0 was sketching things out in the scientific realm, and Quantum 2.0 is manipulating individual quantum systems, what would we need to get to Quantum 3.0? And should we be excited or terrified?
Davies: Interesting question—I haven’t been asked about that before. But what occurs to me immediately stems from the answer I just gave about quantum AI. Some people are excited by the possibility of what’s called a mind-machine interface. One example that I find deeply intriguing are helmets that you can wear with quantum magnetic sensors in them. These helmets can measure tiny, flickering magnetic fields in your brain in very high resolution. With a refinement of this, they could literally read your thoughts.
So, Quantum 3.0 could be where we poor human observers, who are just limited to seeing a tiny fraction of the universe, could couple our brains in some way to quantum computers. Then we could probe these other possible realities by coupling the human consciousness to quantum consciousness.
And that would be my Quantum 3.0—terrifying and intriguing to an equal degree. But I think we’re quite a long way from getting there yet.
Gizmodo: I feel like these examples demonstrate how closely quantum science is linked—philosophically speaking—to things that define our humanity, like consciousness or personal and intellectual desires.
Davies: There’s no doubt about it that starting about 1900—the word “quantum” was formed in 1899—there was a feeling that although we didn’t know everything about the world, we sort of understood its conceptual foundations, that the world consists of material particles that really exist.
The big shock of quantum mechanics is that observations don’t uncover reality. They create the reality. That’s a very weird thing. It seems that the act of observation brings into being the concrete reality that you observe.
And that’s really what 100 years of quantum mechanics has done. It’s transformed our understanding of what it means for something to exist, what it means for something to have properties, and the relationship between the observer and the observed—and these are unresolved issues. There is no consensus as to how to make sense of it. So, again, it’s a job for the next generation of physicists.
Quantum 2.0: The Weird Physics Driving a New Revolution in Technology was published in the U.K. on November 29, 2025, and is now available worldwide as of February 2026 via The University of Chicago Press.
Read the full article here
