Quantum 2.0 review: An ambitious look at quantum physics is fun – but overdoes it a little

Quantum 2.0
Paul Davis Penguin (UK, out November 27); University of Chicago Press (USA, due February 2026)

Physicist Paul Davis Quantum 2.0: past, present and future of quantum physics ends on a beautiful note. “To understand the quantum world is to see the grandeur and elegance of the physical universe and our place in it,” he writes on the last page of the book.

This romantic and alluring look permeates the entire book. Quantum 2.0 is a valiant attempt to describe the quantum world and the very limits of our knowledge of it, and Davis is an informed and enthusiastic storyteller. However, his zeal is at times dangerously close to hype, and his remarkable writing fills in gaps where a few quotes would be more appropriate than a clever turn of phrase.

Davis's book is extremely easy to read, despite its ambitious goal of covering almost every aspect of quantum physics. He discusses quantum technologies for calculationscommunication and sensing, touches on quantum biology and cosmologyand somehow he had enough time left to sift through the many competing interpretations of quantum theory.

there are no equations in it Quantum 2.0and the several technical diagrams and diagrams included are neither cumbersome nor slow down the reading process.

Like a person who I write about quantum physics myselfI noticed how clearly Davis explains experiments, as well as protocols for quantum information processing and cryptography – it's not easy at all!

As a guide to the quantum world and all its eras, Davis is a welcoming and friendly conversationalist, and his own curiosity and excitement are undeniable. However, this excitement is not always as well-founded as the nuances of modern research in the field of quantum physics require. Unfortunately, in my experience, excitement about most quantum things must always come with a lot of caveats.

For example, in the first 100 pages of the book, Davis twice argues that quantum computers could be used to advance climate modeling, which is not a consensus view among computer scientists and mathematicians, especially when it comes to the machines we will use in the near future.

As another example, in the next chapter on quantum sensors, he notes that manufacturers of some sensors claim they can help analyze conditions such as epilepsy, schizophrenia and autism. I waited for Davis to justify the claim or tell me what experts who don't sell such sensors thought, but the subsequent discussion was sparse and uncritical.

As a further caveat, I noticed that the examples given during Davis's discussion of demonstrating the superiority of quantum computers over their conventional counterparts were several years out of date.

A reader who is not very well versed in quantum research (who would certainly have no trouble reading this book) could easily mistake some of Davis's more speculative claims about quantum research as being closer to the truth. This is only reinforced by powerful statements such as “It is safe to say that whoever controls Quantum 2.0 controls the world.”

To be clear, I don't think Davis's opinion is wrong. Many of the devices that control our daily lives are already based on quantum physics, and our technological future has a good chance of becoming even more quantum. I personally root for this.

Advances in emerging fields such as quantum biology or better integration of quantum theory and cosmic theory also seem inevitable; just ask the countless researchers who are hard at work trying to formulate, for example, a quantum theory of gravity.

But when it comes to describing that future to someone for the first time, storytelling and writing skills simply must be combined with rigor and nuance.

Otherwise, everyone will be disappointed.