Learning to Read “Quantum”: Pseudoscientific Appropriation of Quantum Vocabulary and the Case for Boundary Work in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/ijesd.453Keywords:
Quantum physics education; pseudoscience; nature of science; science communication; demarcation.Abstract
Quantum physics has entered the secondary curricula of many countries, and quantum technologies attract unprecedented public investment. In the same period, “quantum” has become one of the most productive vocabularies for pseudoscientific claims, yet the two developments are discussed by different communities. This paper argues that quantum education should teach the boundary between legitimate and usurped uses of quantum vocabulary. I make three claims: the appropriation has a stable, teachable structure; the “mysterious quantum” framing that communicators use supplies the resource that appropriation exploits; and identifying a misused term is not the same as making a nature-of-science judgement.
Downloads
References
[1] Stadermann, H. K. E., et al. (2019). Secondary school quantum physics curricula of 15 countries. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15, 010130. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010130
[2] Kelly, A. M., et al. (2024). QIST professional learning for secondary teachers. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20, 020154. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020154
[3] Su, C.-Y. (2026). Enhancing pseudoscience discernment through student-generated educational animations. Journal of Science Education and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-026-10325-5
[4] Zheltikov, A. M. (2018). The critique of quantum mind. Physics-Uspekhi. https://doi.org/10.3367/ufne.2017.06.038155
[5] Burwell, J. (2013). Figuring matter: quantum physics as a New Age rhetoric. Science as Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.768222
[6] Nagato, Y. (2026). When should we criticize hype in quantum technology? NanoEthics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-026-00506-2
[7] Wang, M. B., & Xu, D. (2025). Examining quantum science hype on online US national media. Online Media and Global Communication. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2025-0009
[8] Turgut, H. (2010). The context of demarcation in nature of science teaching: astrology. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9250-2
[9] Onorato, P., et al. (2025). To teach or not to teach quantum physics? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2950, 012028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2950/1/012028
[10] Karaman, A. (2022). Teachers’ conceptions about science and pseudoscience. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00312-0
[11] Sciarretta, W., et al. (2024). Pseudoscientific beliefs in quantum mechanics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20, 020145. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020145
[12] Brang, M., et al. (2025). Quantum terminology in pseudoscience. EPJ Quantum Technology. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00403-9
[13] Webersen, Y., & Riese, J. (2025). Protecting physics students from pseudoscience. European Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ae03f6
[14] Boudry, M. (2021). Diagnosing pseudoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09572-4
[15] Vermaas, P. E. (2017). The societal impact of quantum technologies. Ethics and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9429-1
[16] Meinsma, A. L., et al. (2023). Is everything quantum “spooky and weird”? Quantum Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/acc968
[17] Meinsma, A. L., et al. (2025). Quantum in the media: Dutch newspaper coverage. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251318300
[18] Wackers, D. Y. M., et al. (2026). Signalled metaphors for quantum science and technology. Language & Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2026.07.004
[19] Zhou, L., & Xu, H. (2018, March 14). “Quantum”, or a scam? A market survey. Xinhua News Agency.
[20] China Consumers Association. (2021, June 16). Consumer warning: so-called “quantum products” are pseudo-technology.
[21] China Internet Joint Rumor-Busting Platform. (2026, March 25). Exposing the “quantum scam”.
[22] Huaihua Municipal Administration for Market Regulation. (2026, September 23). Unfair competition cases in elderly care services.
[23] Chang’an Sword. (2021, August 24). Inside the “Spiritual Growth” training course scam.
[24] Chen, T., et al. (2026). Risk assessment and countermeasures of tarot divination. Science and Atheism, 3.
[25] Dong, X., et al. (2026). Deconstructing quantum pseudoscience and its regulation. Studies in Science of Science.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education and Social Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
