October 17, 2025 | 5 minute read
Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning
by Karen Barad
What I read
In the introduction to this text, prior to engaging the normal academic text formula of describing what a reader can expect, the author analyzes the play Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn. This is a fictional account of a meeting between the physicists Bohr and Heisenberg, showing why this meeting occurred, and considering possible alternative outcomes of the meeting (such as a German Atomic end to the war.)
The author makes vague connections between Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (“there is a necessary limit to what we can simultaneously know about certain pairs of physical quantities, such as the position and momentum of a particle”) and the play itself, giving the playwright a great deal of credit in assuming there is actually any connection there at all, as if the play wasn’t simply a piece of artistic expression. She notes that the play has been criticized for its “gross historical inaccuracies,” which is of course the point of a work of fiction, historically-driven or otherwise; the play was intended for a popular audience, and Barad’s attempt to relate the contents to what is likely to emerge later in the text as her academic theory showcases her disconnect from the real world of non-academics. This is underscored by her assertion of “public fascination with quantum physics,” as if to imply that most people have interest in or time to consider theoretical views of the world. She even asserts that “it’s hard to resist the temptation to contemplate a new play” that considers quantum physics, as if the pull of historical fiction authorship is just too great for the populus to escape from.
Eventually, the critical analysis of a popular play shifts to a discussion of what is actually to come in the book—which appear to be an argument for a middle ground between absolutism and relativism, to avoid “only the binary options of free will and determinism.” This analysis is, according to the author, extremely monumental, and “it may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that every aspect of how we understand the world, including ourselves, is changed.”
The author then describes how each chapter will provide such a fundamental shift to collective understanding. This will require drawing on the insights of “quantum physics, science studies, the philosophy of physics, feminist theory, critical race theory, postcolonial theory, (post-) Marxist theory, and poststructuralist theory.” For a brief moment, the author puts aside her scholarly obfuscation to present some of the real content to follow—the phenomenon of diffraction, or “the way waves combine when they overlap and the apparent bending and spreading out of waves when the encounter an abstraction.” Chapter four is described as the “core chapter of the book,” where the author will provide the “central theoretical framework—agential realism,” which appears to have a relationship to diffraction. But moving quickly back to academic jargon, this is described as “an epistemological, ontological, and ethical framework that makes explicit the integral nature of these concerns. The framework offer a posthumanist performative account of technoscientific and other naturalcultural practices.” Unfortunately, this is never translated into something legible.
The author ends the introduction by describing many of the shortcomings of the book, but again, with a lack of respect for a popular audience, describing that the “book is lengthier than is fashionable these days.” She then helpfully provides a guide for skipping material portions of the text, ending by suggesting that “less scientifically inclined readers” at least make an attempt at understanding chapter 7—it isn’t only for “poststructuralist scholars, in particular, who are used to making their way through difficult and dense theoretical terrains.” After reading the introduction, it’s unclear who, exactly, this book is for, or what, exactly, or even vaguely, it will accomplish. It is clear that the author intends to create an unnecessary intellectual divide between herself and “regular people,” is fully aware of building that division, and has no respect for readers who just don’t get it.
...
I read through two chapters, and I’ve given up on this text. It’s absolutely trash. The author may claim expertise in many areas, but writing cannot be one of them. They’ve made no effort to make the text accessible to “laypeople,” which would be fine, I guess—except that the author indicates it is for regular old people, not just academics. Barad is an intellectual bully, which even if set aside, doesn’t leave much. The book is just a bunch of overinflated words, lots of words, lots of Really Important Names For Really Important Theories, in support of an idea that most of us had and largely discounted while we were stoned in college and that could take just a sentence to write: what if things aren’t there if we close our eyes?
So, I’ll unabashedly take to ChatGPT on this. It’s a complete surrender, but it’s the only way I’m getting through the text. This is all ChatGPT’s interpretation of the work. None of the following is mine.
Chapter 1
Here’s the clear “dumb terms” summary of the first chapter, now tuned by everything we’ve discussed as you’ve worked to understand this.
1. What Barad says
We usually think we can look at the world from the outside and describe it. She says that’s impossible. When we look, measure, or talk about something, we change it. We’re not separate from the world — we’re part of it.
2. Where she gets this
From quantum physics — experiments show that how you measure something changes what you find. Light acts like a wave or a particle depending on the setup. So there’s no fixed “thing” underneath, only what appears through the setup. Barad takes that idea and says: this is true for everything, not just electrons.
3. Her big words
Intra-action: things don’t exist first and then meet; they come into being through their relationships. Agential realism: the world is real and active; people, tools, and ideas all help make what’s real.
4. What this means
Science isn’t just observing; it’s making the world in certain ways. Objectivity doesn’t mean standing back — it means being honest about how your work shapes what you see. Ethics isn’t something added later; it’s built into the act of studying or designing anything.
5. Why people care
She gives a way for feminist and social theorists to talk about science using science’s own language — quantum physics — instead of being dismissed as “soft.” That’s why she’s famous in theory circles even if scientists mostly ignore her.
6. The short version
When you study or describe something, you’re not outside it — you’re part of how it becomes real. Knowing is doing, and doing makes the world.
Chapter 2
Here’s the updated “Chapter 2 – Diffractions” summary in that second-to-dumb register, now reflecting the clarifications we’ve made.
1. What Barad wants to fix
She says most people in science and philosophy act as if knowledge just shows what’s already there—like holding up a mirror to the world.
She thinks that picture is wrong and too simple.
When we study or describe something, we don’t copy it; we take part in making what it becomes.
2. Why she uses “diffraction”
In physics, waves overlap and make patterns of light and dark.
Barad calls that diffraction and uses it as her model for thinking: when ideas, people, or tools meet, they interfere and make new patterns.
So knowledge isn’t reflection (copying); it’s pattern-making through relation.
3. What she’s arguing against
Her target is representationalism—the idea that words, theories, or experiments simply represent reality.
She says that’s a holdover from old philosophy, not how the world really works.
Instead of thinking there’s a world “out there” and a knower “in here,” she says both are part of the same event.
4. What she means by “looking changes things”
She’s not saying your eyes change a brick.
She’s saying that any act of study—any setup, instrument, or description—helps define what counts as the thing being studied.
That idea comes from quantum physics: measurement and result are part of one system.
5. What this means for doing theory
A diffractive reading looks at how ideas or disciplines change one another when they overlap, not which one is “right.”
She wants theory to work more like ripples than mirrors—to trace effects, not declare truths.
6. Why people care
This gives humanities scholars a way to talk about science and ethics together without rejecting either one.
It’s not new data; it’s a new story about how knowledge, matter, and meaning are tangled.
Short version:
Mirrors copy what exists.
Diffraction makes new patterns.
Knowing is part of doing, and doing helps make what’s real.
Chapter 3
Here’s Chapter 3 (“Niels Bohr’s Philosophy-Physics”) again, in dumb level two — simple but keeping the real structure and ideas intact.
1. Bohr’s main point
When you measure something very small—like an electron—you can’t separate what you’re measuring from the tools you use.
Change the setup, and what you find changes. So the measuring tools help make the result.
2. What that means
Bohr said an electron doesn’t have a position or momentum sitting there, waiting to be found.
Those properties only exist when you measure them, and the type of measurement decides which property shows up.
You can’t talk about “the electron itself” apart from the experiment.
3. What Barad does with it
She takes this narrow physics idea and makes it big. If an electron only exists through its setup, maybe everything does.
Reality, she says, is made of events—moments where things and tools and people come together and briefly take shape.
4. Her key words
Apparatus: the whole setup—tools, language, people, context.
Phenomenon: what happens when the setup and the thing meet.
Agential cut: the temporary line that divides “observer” from “observed.”
5. The difference between them
Bohr: this is about tiny particles in experiments.
Barad: this is about everything—science, people, ethics, the world.
Short version:
Bohr said: “The experiment changes what we find.”
Barad says: “That’s how the universe works all the time.”
Chapter 4
Here’s Chapter 4 (“Agential Realism and the Performative Turn”) in the dumbest clear version.
Barad’s big idea: The world is real, but it’s always doing things. Everything — people, stuff, words, tools — helps make what’s real. That’s what she calls agential realism.
“Performative” means doing, not describing. When we speak or act, we don’t just talk about the world — we change it. The world is always being made through what things do.
No split between ideas and matter. Words and things aren’t separate. Both have power and both make the world happen together.
Why this matters to her: Every action is part of reality making itself. So we should be careful — our choices help shape the world. Objectivity means owning your part in that, not pretending to be outside it.
Short version: The world isn’t sitting still; it’s busy. Everything you do helps make it what it is.
Chapter 5
1. What the chapter does
Barad uses famous quantum experiments to argue that the whole universe works through relationships, not isolated things. Each experiment, she says, shows that what’s real depends on how it’s measured and that separation itself is temporary.
2. The main examples
Two-Slit Experiment: Light or electrons act like waves or particles depending on the setup. → How you measure decides what reality looks like.
EPR Paradox (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen): Two particles stay linked even far apart. → Distance doesn’t break connection; what happens to one affects the other.
Bell’s Inequalities Tests: Real experiments proved that entanglement is real, not theory. → Nature itself doesn’t work through strict separation or hidden causes.
Delayed-Choice / Quantum Eraser: Changing the measurement after the fact can still change the outcome. → Cause and effect aren’t fixed; the act of measuring helps define when and what an event is.
3. What she concludes
All of this, to her, means the universe is entangled—everything exists through relations. Each action (scientific or everyday) helps re-configure the world’s pattern. Because we’re part of that pattern, every act carries responsibility for how reality turns out.
Short version: Quantum physics shows connection; Barad says connection is everything. Reality keeps rewriting itself through those links, and we’re woven into that process.
Chapter 6
Here’s Chapter 6 – “Toward an Ethics of Mattering” in the dumbest clear version:
What she’s trying to do: Turn all her talk about connection and entanglement into an idea about ethics — right and wrong.
Her main point: Everything is linked. Because we’re part of the world, not outside it, everything we do helps make what exists. That means every act — big or small — matters.
“Ethics” for her: Being responsible isn’t a choice; it’s built into how the world works. You can’t step back and say you had no part in it. Just existing makes you part of what happens.
Where she gets the idea: She borrows from the philosopher Levinas, who said we’re always responsible for the Other. She widens that: we’re responsible not just for people but for everything — animals, things, the planet.
What “mattering” means:
Things materialize — they take form.
They also matter — they count ethically. She fuses the two: to come into being is to carry moral weight.
What’s missing: No rules or steps, just a reminder: we’re tangled up with the world, so we should act with care.
Short version: Everything you do helps make the world. That means you’re always responsible for it.