Obscurantism in Physics: “Counter-Intuitiveness” Is Not a Cloak for Theoretical Deficiency
I. “Counter-Commonsense” Is a Symptom of Theoretical Crisis—Not a Badge of Truth
Conventional quantum theory often adopts an arrogant tone: “The quantum world is inherently counterintuitive—you can’t understand it because you’re stuck in a classical mindset.” This rhetoric elevates “incomprehensibility” into a source of legitimacy, even a mark of superiority.
Yet common sense is the distilled summary of vast empirical observation. The proper task of physics is to explain how common sense extends or gets refined under extreme conditions (e.g., relativity revises our notions of space and time but preserves causality and locality)—not to bluntly declare common sense obsolete.
When a theory claims “there is no classical analogue,” it is effectively saying:
“I cannot explain the physical mechanism behind this phenomenon.”
When a theory insists “it cannot be intuitively understood,” it is confessing:
“My mathematical formalism does not correspond to a coherent physical ontology.”
To enshrine “incomprehensibility” as a principle is a perilous regression in the history of science. It mirrors the Ptolemaic era, when complex epicycles were invented to explain planetary retrograde motion, accompanied by the dogma that “celestial motions need not obey terrestrial mechanical intuition.”
Natural Quantum Theory (NQT) firmly holds:
If a theory defies understanding, the fault lies not with human cognition—but with the theory itself.
II. Semantic “Possession” and Conceptual Pollution
Standard quantum theory commits intellectual dishonesty by borrowing classical terms while stripping them of their classical meanings.
Physics is a precise language. Every term—spin, wave, particle, orbit—carries specific physical imagery and logical definitions.
Take “spin”:
In classical physics, it denotes rotation, angular momentum, and circulating motion.
Standard quantum theory hijacks the word “spin,” exploits its association with angular momentum algebra, yet simultaneously forbids any mental image of actual rotation, declaring it an “intrinsic property with no classical counterpart.”
This is textbook calling a deer a horse.
If it truly isn’t rotation, invent a new term—say, “quantum charge A” or “strangeness degree.”
But if you retain the word “spin,” you implicitly acknowledge its algebraic isomorphism with classical angular momentum.
And if the mathematics is isomorphic, the physical ontology must also be isomorphic—i.e., a vortex field.
This divorce between name and reality creates severe cognitive blockage:
On one hand, classical intuition is covertly used to construct the mathematics (e.g., L⋅S coupling).
On the other, that same intuition is suppressed to defend interpretation (e.g., banning inquiry into electron substructure).
This manufactured confusion is the root cause of quantum mechanics’ century-long pedagogical struggles and persistent public misconceptions.
III. The Tyranny of Instrumental Rationality: Deifying “Abaci” as “Divine Law”
The deepest philosophical error lies in this:
Despite openly acknowledging quantum mechanics as instrumental, it dogmatically reifies its ambiguous conceptual scaffolding into fundamental principles.
The Schrödinger equation, Hilbert space, and operator algebra are, at heart, extraordinarily successful computational tools—akin to the partition function in thermodynamics or actuarial tables in insurance.
Proper role of a tool: Predict experimental probabilities (at which quantum mechanics excels).
Illegitimate overreach: Treating intermediate calculational constructs—wavefunction collapse, path integrals in imaginary time—as real physical processes, then demanding humans accept these “absurdities” as ontological truths.
This is a profound inversion of priorities.
It’s as absurd as claiming, “Since actuarial tables say the average person has 0.9 hearts, humans are ontologically composed of 0.9 hearts.”
Standard quantum theory makes exactly this mistake: it mistakes the statistical description of an ensemble (the wavefunction) for the real physical state of an individual system, thereby conjuring pseudo-problems like “Schrödinger’s cat being simultaneously dead and alive.”
IV. Conclusion: Return to Physical Reality
Quantum theory must return to sound philosophical foundations:
Reject obscurantism: Do not accept “counter-intuitiveness” as a final answer. Insist on seeking intelligible physical mechanisms.
Restore semantic integrity:
If you say “spin,” it must correspond to actual rotation.
If you say “wave,” there must be a medium/ontology and genuine oscillation.
Demote tools to their proper place: Acknowledge that current quantum mechanics is a phenomenological calculational framework—not the ultimate truth about physical reality.
Natural Quantum Theory aims precisely to break the taboo of “forbidden understanding.” By invoking physically intelligible mechanisms—field ontology, current pinching, topological structures—it seeks to derive those seemingly bizarre quantum phenomena from classical-like foundations, thereby demonstrating:
The world is comprehensible. Common sense has not failed. We were merely blinded by poor interpretations.