Political instability in the Western world can be viewed through the lenses of quantum physics and linguistics where human unpredictability, observed behavior, and polarizing language interact to push our political systems from a stable equilibrium to increasing polarization. Anyone who has watched the Marvel movies knows what quantum physics is at a baseline, but what about quantum politics? Armen Sarkissian, former Armenian president and physicist who studied at Cambridge with Stephen Hawking, coined this term, “Quantum Politics”, and since then this term has been used to describe United States politics.

For those who are unfamiliar with quantum physics, let’s break it down. Newtonian physics (we’re talking apple + gravity = fall) is predictable. We know what is going to happen when we let go of an apple high above the ground. Quantum physics, conversely, is unpredictable and uncertain. Quantum physics says that the simple act of observing something changes its outcome. Now when we connect this to politics, from a quantum perspective, outcomes are uncertain and observer-dependent. Most if not all U.S. citizens observe, or consume, media, and this media consumption alters beliefs and behaviors. Media is created by humans. Politics involves humans. Candidates and voters are human beings, and human beings can be behaviorally volatile. Because of this unpredictability that comes with media and humanity, quantum physics becomes the perfect metaphor for our current political situation.

Let’s apply the quantum principle that “observation affects reality” to the political landscape in the United States. Viewing, hearing, or learning something is going to impact our knowledge base and affect our opinions, but with current social media algorithms this becomes more complicated. Algorithms amplify content based on engagement. Let’s say someone is engaging with soft-core, red pill content, then they unknowingly go down what we know is the “Red Pill” far-right pipeline (an essay for another time, but a prime example). On the other end, if someone regularly likes and comments on far-left journalists and news sources, they will be shown more of those sources alone. Eventually, their algorithm doesn’t even place other opinions on their screen, so how can they know they are there?

Media intake is funneling viewers into reinforcement loops where people only see content that reinforces what they already believe. This exponential build up of extremist content leads to heightened emotions, such as anger and fear, which are more likely to induce behavior volatility in people (a.k.a the people who vote in democratic elections). These unpredictable and polarized media patterns shift the political landscape from a nice, balanced bell shaped curve (where we have a moderate majority) to an M-shaped distribution with political extremes. The intake of media and observation of social and political data is no longer passive. It actively reshapes the political system, which means algorithms are systematically shaping the political landscape.

This polarization isn’t happening by accident, so an active solution is necessary. To predict and manage future outcomes, one has to understand the past and current data. Let’s use the years of 1945-ish to 1970-ish of the U.S. presidency. Presidents during this time period include Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon. While they were members of different political parties, they were fairly moderate in the sense that they leaned towards the middle from their respective left or right parties. One could argue that these candidates genuinely represented who the majority of citizens and voters wanted to lead the “Free World” (ironic wording considering the conversation). For about 25 years the U.S. political landscape was in stable equilibrium. Think of a ball in a valley. There may be small pushes to the right or left, but natural momentum always brings it to the center of the valley. This model is explained much more eloquently in “The Art of Physics: Eight elegant ideas to make sense of almost everything” by Zahaan Bharmal (Chapter 5). Overall, there was low polarization and broad consensus in politics during this time of bell graphs and stable equilibrium. The ball (the policies and work of the president) gravitated towards the middle (the general consensus held by his or her constituents).

Alas, it could not last (not that it was perfect, presidents and voters were on the same page). I think it’s fair to say that our two party system is not often openly in agreement on policy. Our government has been in a state of mad oscillation since the 70s. We went from a valley to a mountain with an unreachable peak and two totally divided valleys on either side. There’s no way that ball is making it back up either side with natural momentum. There is no consensus, just two sides of one very conflicting spectrum. To visualize this, think of a pendulum. Since the 1970s, we’ve had Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden (oh, and Donald Trump again). The ball on one end of the pendulum hit once, then all that force built up and swung out a little harder on the other side. Ope, and back again a little harder. Now the pendulum swings back and forth with an exponentially growing force leading to further polarization in each direction. Characteristics of this back and forth are growing ideological contrasts between both sides. A symptom of this  can be seen during presidential campaigns, where the campaign runs on specific, far-leaning partisan issues to get the vote rather than focus on representing the majority of constituents well.

Right now, in 2026 as I sit here writing this, the U.S. is in a state of unstable equilibrium. Before, we had a ball at the bottom of the valley. Little shoves this way and that caused some movement, but it always returned to center. Now, the ball is at the top of a hill and any little nudge or poke has a higher risk of complete gravitational pull to the bottom of either side. Any shift leads to divergence (instability) rather than a return to center (stability). There’s nothing to restore the force to that center and, as a result, we are rapidly diverging into extremes. We are at extremes. I’d argue that there isn’t one person to blame, though pointing the finger may be easier to do. This instability is a symptom of a greater system, and it will continue to be unstable with future presidential leaders until an active force returns it to stable equilibrium.

But how can this be done while there are current forces causing that polarization? Anyone on social media or tuned into news outlets knows that things are always heating up. It’s similar to how heat affects a magnet. Temperature has the power to affect the magnetism of materials by destabilizing atomic alignment. If we think of social media, information overload, and language as “temperature” increases, we can imagine how they are greatly impacting political polarization by “heating up” the political landscape. As a collective, the public and voting body is no longer aligned. We (the atoms) are all over the place. We have access to extreme viewpoints on both sides and our algorithms are shepherding us into very distinct pipelines. Once we are in these pipelines and look around us, everyone else within our pipeline has been shepherded there too. We don’t even know the other pipelines are just as full of people, so we all think we must be right. How are we pulled into these pipelines? This is where language comes into play.

Shared language can shape our reality, or at least our perception of reality. News outlets, political campaigns; we have access to it all. Language makes up media and communication. Ideological language, generic language, and target language all affect how we perceive truth. For example, broad claims such as “Democrats want XYZ (negative thing)” or “Republicans are to blame for XYZ” can be heard everywhere. Lumping entire groups into extreme viewpoints (example: pro-life or pro-choice) eliminates space for common ground (that stable equilibrium we were talking about) and creates an “us vs. them” situation. It eliminates the possibility for internal variation within both groups and exaggerates differences between people who identify with either. This is in-group vs. out-group framing. Amanda Montell talks about this in her book “Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism”, (which is such a fun introduction to linguistics by the way–5/5 stars from me). This us vs. them framing is a psycho-social concept in which individuals define themselves by either belonging or not belonging to a group. If you’re in the group, you’re the best and you’re totally right always. You are preferred over anyone who isn’t. Then you view anyone outside of your group negatively because they’re, like, so wrong (i.e. harmful stereotypes and systemized hate… eek). Not only are you a part of this system already, you’re now getting it spit back at you and repeatedly confirmed by your social media algorithm. It’s a never-ending loop that you can’t escape–the ever-looming algorithm. And you don’t want to stop because you WANT to be informed. Except now, the messaging is more extreme. And now the voters are more extreme, so the candidates are more extreme. And the pendulum swings on.

But this entire argument using physics with a touch of linguistics to explain our current polarized political sphere doesn’t take into account everything else that influences politics, like institutions, economics, finances, culture, the job market, and technology. Our world is ever-developing, so politics is too. This conversation only takes into account one piece of the puzzle (unpredictability, polarization, and language), but it is an important piece. These models I’ve used to make sense of the political polarization are analogies, not laws carved into stone. Certainly we can agree that stability is better than instability, and U.S. politics could use some stability. Possible paths towards stabilization? Electoral reforms, institutional constraints, fact checking in campaigns, media literacy… and, in general, literacy. For the love of God, teach the children! Let them become our next educated and knowledgeable scientists, linguists, and politicians.

I haven’t been around since the 1940s, but I can infer that the U.S. political system has transitioned over time by observing history. The U.S. went from a stable equilibrium to an unstable, self-reinforcing polarization. From a bell curve to an M-shaped graph. From a centered valley to a swinging pendulum. What’s important to note is that this stability is not random, it’s systemically produced by institutions, political campaigns, and social media algorithms. Without intervention, our political system will continue to diverge away from a central, stable ground. Reintroducing a “stabilizing force” is necessary to return to stability.

‍

Essay inspired by Chapter 5 “The Physics of Breaking Up” from “The Art of Physics: Eight elegant ideas to make sense of almost everything” by Zahaan Bharmal.