Linguistic Corruption in Quantum Theory: A Critique from the Wittgensteinian Perspective
Wittgenstein's Warning
In Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein repeatedly emphasized that linguistic confusion is not a harmless rhetorical issue but a disease of thought. When the usage of a word systematically deviates from its meaning, it not only misleads the speaker but also causes the entire community to lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. The highest form of linguistic corruption occurs when people believe they understand something while using a term, when in reality they understand nothing—and have even lost the willingness to ask questions.
The linguistic situation in quantum theory is precisely a systematic example of this corruption. It is not an accidental misuse of individual terms, but a scenario where the meanings of a whole set of core terminologies have been hollowed out, swapped, and institutionally fixed in incorrect usages. Consequently, generations of physicists have thought within these words without ever touching the physical reality these words were meant to point to.
Example 1: Calling Assumptions "Principles"
In science, the word "principle" has a clear meaning: it refers to a fundamental truth that has been extensively tested, possesses universal validity, and does not depend on a specific theoretical framework. Conservation of Energy is a principle because no known experiment violates it. The Constancy of the Speed of Light is a principle because it has been repeatedly confirmed by countless experiments. The characteristic of a principle is that you cannot casually abandon it; doing so means abandoning the foundation of physics itself.
But what are called "principles" in quantum mechanics?
The Measurement Postulate: The claim that the wavefunction instantaneously collapses into an eigenstate upon measurement is hailed as one of the basic principles of quantum mechanics. Yet, it has never been independently tested; no experiment can directly observe the process of "collapse"; its physical mechanism is completely unknown; and it directly contradicts the deterministic evolution of the Schrödinger equation. Debates about it have persisted for nearly a century. This is not a "principle"; it is a controversial, unproven assumption with an unknown physical mechanism. However, because it is labeled a "principle," questioning it becomes tantamount to questioning the foundations of physics. This is the function of linguistic corruption: gaining undeserved authority through naming.
The Complementarity Principle: The idea that a particle behaves sometimes as a wave and sometimes as a particle, with the two being complementary, is also crowned with the title of "principle." In reality, this is merely a renaming of a dilemma: we do not know what a particle actually is, so we declare it "both and neither," and then label this confusion a "principle." Wittgenstein would say: This is not an explanation; it is using a solemn word to cover up the absence of an explanation.
The Uncertainty Principle: This name implies that uncertainty is a fundamental property of nature. However, the spectral analysis perspective of Natural Quantum Theory (NQT) reveals that the so-called uncertainty relation is simply a basic mathematical property of wave analysis (the Fourier duality between frequency and time). It exists in all wave phenomena and has nothing to do with the ontological assertion that "nature is essentially uncertain." Calling a mathematical theorem a "principle of nature" is a typical case of conflating mathematical structure with physical reality.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle: By elevating the result of magnetic moment interactions to the status of a "principle," it has hindered the exploration of the true physical mechanisms behind it.
The effect of calling assumptions "principles" is that debate is shut down before it begins. You can question an assumption, but questioning a "principle" makes you look like you don't understand physics. This is the political function of linguistic corruption.
Example 2: A "Field Theory" Without Fields
This is the most ironic form of linguistic corruption. The name "Quantum Field Theory" (QFT) suggests it is a theory about fields, inheriting the tradition established by Maxwell and Einstein. However, as previously discussed, there are no physically meaningful fields in the ontology of QFT. The so-called "quantum field" is an operator for creating and annihilating point particles, not a reality that occupies space, carries energy, or possesses physical structure.
The corrupting effect of this naming is twofold:
It leads people to believe that QFT has answered the question "What is a field?"—after all, if it's called a "field theory," fields must be in it.
It blocks the motivation to ask "What exactly is a field?"—since the theory is already named "field theory," what else is there to ask?
Wittgenstein stated in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." What QFT has done to the word "field" is exactly the opposite: it uses the word in an unclear way, and then uses the authority of that word to prevent people from asking what it is actually saying.
Similar corruption is evident in the term "Gauge Field." The word "gauge" originally meant a standard of measurement or a reference scale, implying a degree of physical choice. However, in standard treatments, gauge freedom is treated as "non-physical redundancy." If it is non-physical, why use a word that implies physical choice? NQT points out that gauge degrees of freedom correspond to real choices in the direction of magnetic moments, thereby restoring the physical meaning that the word "gauge" ought to possess.
Example 3: "Spin" is Not Spin
This is perhaps the most absurd instance of linguistic corruption in quantum theory. The English word "spin" literally means rotation. It was introduced into physics precisely because Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck proposed in 1925 that the electron was "spinning." The naming was entirely accurate—spin possesses all the characteristics of angular momentum: it has an angular momentum quantum number, a magnetic moment, precession, splits in a magnetic field, and satisfies the commutation relations of angular momentum.
But what happened next? Because a zero-dimensional point cannot rotate in the point-particle model (moment of inertia is zero), the physics community did not question the point-particle assumption. Instead, they declared: "Spin is not rotation." It is an "intrinsic angular momentum," a "purely quantum mechanical property," having "no classical counterpart," and one should "not try to understand it as rotation."
Wittgenstein would immediately point out the problem here: You use the word "rotation" to name something, and then tell every learner that this thing "is not rotation." What does this mean linguistically? You retain the entire mathematical structure of the word (angular momentum algebra) and all its experimental manifestations (magnetic moment, precession, splitting), yet you declare that the physical meaning of the word does not hold. This is not using language; this is abusing language.
More seriously, the statement "spin is not rotation" actively prevents physical understanding. Generation after generation of students is told not to use intuition to understand spin, not to ask about its physical mechanism, and merely to learn to calculate with Pauli matrices. NQT restores the physical meaning of spin: it is rotation—a real physical rotation with angular momentum of 1ℏ , with relativistic corrections from Thomas precession making the spectroscopic manifestation appear as 1/2ℏ . Once a finite particle size is restored, the objection that "point particles cannot rotate" disappears automatically. The model was wrong, not the name.
Example 4: "No One Understands Quantum Mechanics"
This phrase, often attributed to Feynman, appears humble on the surface but functions to legitimize ignorance. It implies: "Since even the masters don't understand, it's normal for you not to understand either; there is no need to ask further." Thus, a cognitive gap that should motivate deep exploration is transformed into a closed door against inquiry. More deeply, it presupposes that "quantum mechanics is essentially incomprehensible," which is itself an unargued ontological assertion disguised as a casual remark.
Example 5: "Don't Think Classically"
The injunction "Don't think classically" is more subtle and even more harmful. Its logical structure is: first declare classical intuition invalid, then provide no alternative physical intuition, ultimately forcing the learner to abandon inquiries into physical reality and resort to blind manipulation of mathematical forms. Its substantive effect is: replacing explanation with prohibition. When a student asks, "Where exactly is the electron?" or "What exactly is spin?", this phrase becomes a wall: "You shouldn't ask that, because you are 'thinking classically'."
Together, these two phrases form a closed defensive system: the former declares incomprehensibility, while the latter forbids understanding. Combined, they transform quantum mechanics from a branch of physics into a belief system—you don't need to understand, you just need to calculate; you cannot inquire, because inquiry itself is deemed the wrong mode of thinking. These two sentences represent the most destructive examples of linguistic corruption in quantum physics, as they are not mere terminological misuses but meta-level blockades of thought.
From a Wittgensteinian perspective, this is the most dangerous form of linguistic corruption: it does not merely distort the meaning of a word, but directly destroys the legitimacy of asking questions. When language is used to stop thinking rather than to promote it, the scientific spirit itself is dissolved.
More Mismatches Between Name and Reality
Linguistic corruption in quantum theory is far more extensive than these examples; it is systemic:
"Observation" is not observation. In everyday language, "observation" is passive and does not change the observed object. In quantum mechanics, however, "observation" is endowed with the mysterious power to actively change the physical state. The use of this word implies that consciousness plays some role in physics, opening the door to quantum mysticism. NQT points out: So-called "observation" is merely a physical interaction that changes the system's boundary conditions and eigenmode structure; it has nothing to do with consciousness.
"Entanglement" is not entanglement. The word "entanglement" implies some kind of superluminal, mysterious physical connection between two particles. NQT points out that this is simply a long-range correlation of the field—entirely the result of local physical processes. It is essentially no different from correlations in daily life (like a pair of gloves sent to two different locations), just mathematically more sophisticated.
"Vacuum Fluctuations" are not fluctuations. "Vacuum fluctuations" imply that something is constantly being created and disappearing in empty space. In reality, this is merely a mathematical product of the commutation relations of field operators within the point-particle framework, not a physical process. Naming a mathematical structure as a physical event is another case of conflating form with reality.
"Uncertainty" is not uncertainty. As mentioned above, ΔxΔp≥ℏ/2 is a mathematical property of wave analysis, not an ontological assertion that "nature is essentially uncertain." Yet, the name "Uncertainty Principle" swaps a mathematical relation for a philosophical claim.
"Quantum Jump" is not a jump. "Jump" implies an instantaneous, discontinuous process. However, experiments such as the Mössbauer effect show that so-called "jumps" are continuous field processes occurring over a finite time, not instantaneous quantum leaps.
The Social Function of Linguistic Corruption
Wittgenstein knew well that linguistic corruption is not accidental; it serves social functions. In the context of quantum theory, these functions include at least the following:
Creating Barriers to Entry: When the surface meaning of a set of terms systematically contradicts their actual usage, only "insiders" with long-term training can use them correctly. This turns the physics community into a closed discursive circle: you must first accept these linguistic rules (i.e., accept this conceptual confusion) to be recognized as someone who "understands quantum mechanics." Anyone raising doubts from the outside using normal linguistic logic can be easily dismissed as "not understanding."
Disguising Confusion as Profundity: The "weirdness of quantum mechanics" is largely a product of linguistic corruption. When you say "spin is not rotation," "observation changes reality," or "particles take two paths simultaneously," of course you will feel the quantum world is incomprehensible. But if you say "angular momentum is the angular momentum of rotation," "physical interaction changes the system's eigenmodes," and "the wave has components on both paths," everything becomes clear. The weirdness is not in nature; it is in the language.
Protecting Dogma from Criticism: When core assumptions are called "principles," when an empty shell is called a "field theory," and when questioning is equated with "not understanding," criticism is neutralized at the linguistic level beforehand. You don't even need to respond to criticism directly; you only need to point out that the critic "used the wrong terminology" to declare them unqualified.
Conclusion: Cleaning Language is Cleaning Thought
Wittgenstein said: "The aim of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts." What NQT does in quantum mechanics is, to a large extent, Wittgensteinian language therapy: restoring the proper physical meaning to every physical term and refusing to let the split between name and substance continue.
Spin is rotation.
Field theory should have fields.
Principles should be tested truths, not unproven assumptions.
Observation is physical interaction.
Entanglement is correlation.
When we use language in this way, all the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics disappears—not because we have avoided difficulties, but because the difficulties were manufactured by language itself.
NQT's goal—restoring the finite size of particles,赋予 (endowing) spin with the meaning of real physical rotation, and reducing entanglement to long-range field correlations—is precisely to break this closed system and prove once again that quantum phenomena are understandable and must be understood through physical intuition. "No one understands" is not a fact; it is self-consolation after giving up on understanding.
To clean the language of physics is to clean the thought of physics. And cleaning thought is the prerequisite for all true scientific progress.