In 2025, the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, as designated by the United Nations, many of us working in quantum attended a slurry of events. I was traveling, on average, once a month, with one particularly intense stretch taking me from Italy to Poland to South Korea. This was quite a shock considering I had received my first passport only months before.
The benefit of traveling abroad comes in many forms. There is the obvious benefit of seeing different regions and cultures, but there is also something to be learned from experiencing the broad range of communication that comes with them. People receive and share information in many different ways. While this is differentiated at the individual level, it is also deeply influenced by culture, education and upbringing.
For a field like quantum, the way we disseminate information is relevant to how the technology develops and to who is able to influence it. The issue with quantum technology is not that it is impossible to understand, an oft-repeated sentiment in the field that tends to do more harm than good. The issue is that the quantum physics behind quantum technologies can be non-intuitive because we perceive the world around us as classical. Our brains interpret information according to previous patterns and expectations. We see the effects of classical mechanics all around us, while we do not explicitly observe quantum mechanics in our everyday lives.
This creates a problem of communication.Quantum can be difficult to communicate, and it is important that we do so with a dedication to scientific rigor and accuracy. Yet, in protecting that accuracy, we risk limiting the reach of who hears about quantum and who feels entitled to engage with it. What is the solution? Most likely, we need a spectrum in how we talk about and communicate quantum technology.
Throughout the International Year of Quantum, we sat on panels as quantum technologists, often talking to other quantum technologists about why they should care about quantum technology. This is an oversimplification, but it is not too far from the truth. Who benefits from that conversation?
The Quantum for Good session at AI for Good was a program that considered its audience and, importantly, an audience made up of relatively few quantum technologists.
The room was packed from start to finish, with standing room the only option for those who did not arrive half an hour before the program began. This was the second year I attended. Last year, the audience was smaller and more closely connected to the quantum community. This year, the room was filled with technologists working in AI, people advocating on behalf of climate, policymakers, legal professionals and others from across the larger AI for Good community. It felt like a much more reflective sampling of the event itself, rather than a quantum program created primarily for the quantum community.
The program moved through sessions that demonstrated a variety of ways to communicate. Katia Moskvitch and her son, Kai, hosts of The Quantum Kid podcast, opened by answering a deceptively simple question: Can anyone understand quantum physics? Can a child? A montage of past episodes, showing Kai traveling the globe to meet scientists on their own turf, from Chile to Switzerland, suggested that children absolutely can.
Kai heard from scientists including Peter Shor and Scott Aaronson. He heard from people deeply involved in the industry, from Alexandra Beckstein at QAI Ventures to Elisa Torres Durney at Girls in Quantum. He experienced the fuller picture of quantum technology, from in-depth discussions to hands-on exploration in laboratories. And we, the audience, were able to go on that journey with him.
Later, I had the opportunity to sit on a panel brilliantly moderated by Alessandra Jabłonowska, Poland Ambassador for Girls in Quantum. Beforehand, she came to us with an idea: How do we engage the audience? How do we make them feel as though they are part of the experience, as they should be?
It was a reminder that the purpose of sitting on these panels is not to converse among ourselves. We opt in to travel across the globe for a fleeting moment in which we can communicate with the audience and bring them into our world so they, too, can see through our eyes why we care and why we do this work. Alessandra directed questions directly to the audience, and their answers influenced how we responded.
We entered the session with one idea of what the audience needed to hear, then adjusted in real time as the actual need became clearer. We could see where the audience and the panel stood on different sides of a conversation. Many members of the audience felt that the people who needed to know about quantum technology already did. Those of us on the panel felt that many of the communities most likely to be affected by the technology were not yet aware of it or had not yet been meaningfully invited into the conversation.
It demonstrates why communication cannot simply involve choosing a message and delivering it. It must also involve listening, understanding who is in the room and being prepared to reconsider what they need from us.
From lightning keynotes on real-world applications to intentionally engaging moderation, the program presented quantum through a range of formats. It then concluded with a session from quantum artist-in-residence Wiktor Mazin, who wanted to demonstrate that quantum could also be visual and audible.
Through artwork reflecting how quantum patterns appear in nature, including fractals, and through quantum music presented by McKenna McGrew, the session reinforced the idea that communication exists on a spectrum.
Scientific information can be delivered through technical explanation, conversation, demonstration, storytelling, visual art and sound. None of these approaches must replace the others. Together, they can create more points of entry. This may be one of the more important lessons behind Quantum for Good.
Perhaps “quantum for good” is less about identifying a fixed category of virtuous applications and more about being cognizant of how we communicate the technology as it develops. It is about allowing society the opportunity to know about quantum, to question it, to influence it and to be part of the conversation.
If quantum technology is going to affect society, then society cannot be invited in only after the most consequential decisions have already been made. Communication is part of how impact is determined.
