Together, in a singular display of interwar collaboration, Max Planck, Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger and others would intuit, posit, model and eventually be proven right, that quanta in the form of atoms, photons and electrons could exist as both waves and particles until the point of collapse or observation; that their position and velocity could not be simultaneously measured; that they could correlate non-locally across vast distances; and yes, that, Schrödinger’s cat could potentially, simultaneously and absurdly be both alive and dead at the same time until we opened the box.

These principles, of complementarity, uncertainty, entanglement, superposition and wave function, triggered the first revolution of quantum mechanics. They repudiated much of Newtonian physics at the microphysical level. They challenged classical conceptions of space and time at the macrophysical level. They cast into doubt assumptions about causality, prediction and an observer-independent reality at the metaphysical level. And once applied to create disruptive new technologies, they would change geopolitics forever.

Yet the classical image of the atom would persist, and with it, a ‘realist’ worldview of nation-states bouncing off each other like billiard balls in a struggle for material advantage in a state of anarchy (at worst) or in a clockwork balance of power (at best). Bohr admitted that the revolutionary new theory that emerged from the Solvay Conference was only a ‘picture of reality’.  But he and most of the other physicists at Solvay thought quantum as cloud of probabilities until measured or observed to be superior to the classical depiction because it showed that ‘everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real’. From the outset, Bohr was aware that many, in science but also politics, would find this new quantum conception of reality too hard, or just too wierd to grasp.  He confided first to Heisenberg and then to others at Solvay, ‘if quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.’

One hundred years later, quantum mechanics continues to shock and to be poorly understood. ‘Shut up and calculate’, the injunction levelled against those who stray too far from physics and into the metaphysics, has for too long stifled the kind of critical inquiry needed to understand the shocking signficance of quantum mechanics for not only very small but also very big systems. When quantum mechanics enabled nuclear fission and the atom bomb in the first quantum revolution, and the semiconductor and the information bomb in the second revolution, critical thinking lagged terribly behind and practical politics proved woefully unprepared. Now, with a third quantum revolution on the horizon, in computing, communication and artificial intelligence, we need to prepare for the shock of the new by mastering lessons from the past.  A convergence of theory, science and technology could well complete the paradigm shift, making the 21^st century truly a ‘quantum age’.

Much of what is found in the QDoco and QBook first appeared as presentations and interviews from a series of annual symposia held at the historic Q Station, the former quarantine station at the mouth of the Sydney Harbour. Following in the footsteps of the Solvay Conference, and standing on the shoulders of giants, Project Q gathered physicists and philosophers, diplomats and soldiers, social scientists and industry experts a Q Station, to work out the societal and geopolitical implications of the next quantum revolution. Site visits were made to Google, Microsoft and NASA-Ames as well as to University quantum centres in the United States, Australia, China, Singapore and elsewhere. Seeking to escape academic siloes, transcend geopolical rivalries and cut through the commerical hype, our investigations into a global quantum race applied transdisciplinary, transnational, and transmedia approaches, which in turn were informed by critical, reflexive and ethical attitudes.

This global investigation would not have been possible without the support of Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the New South Wales Sydney Quantum Academy (SQA). These intrepid funders made it possible for us to assemble a remarkable team of post-doctoral researchers and doctoral students, to do the detective work and to author the key sections of the QBook, spearheaded by  Jayson Waters (on the co-emergence of Quantum Mechanics and International Relations);  Stuart Rollo (on the China-US geopolitical and technological rivalry) and Gabriella Skoff (on the governance of emerging technologies). In turn, a DFAT Australia-India Cyber and Critical Technology Partnership grant funded a collaboration with Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi, making it possible to conduct deeper investigations into ‘Quantum Meta-Ethics’ (QM-E). This support produced important contributions in Sydney from Nicholas Harrington (on the meta-ethics of AI) and Elijah Perrier (on the governance of quantum technologies); and in New Delhi from Trisha Ray (on the significance of quantum technology for the global economy, geopolitics, ethics, and the need for fresh approaches to accountability and decision-making) and Prachi Mishra (on the importance of broad stakeholder engagement in the development of ethical frameworks for quantum tech).  We are also very grateful, not only for the support of Samir Saran, the Director of ORF, and his active engagement with Project Q and QM-E, but also for his willingness to contribute the introductory essay that follows.

But first, wearing my other hat as a documentary filmmaker, I thought it might be best to ‘show, not tell’ you what Project Q is about:

Quantum science is being utilised in a variety of cutting-edge technologies and applications that leverage principles of quantum physics to process, intercept, transmit, store, and acquire information. These technologies can be used for solving problems in a wide array of fields at unprecedented velocity and across volumes of information that conventional computing struggles to manage competently. While commercially available pure quantum computing is still some years away, even hybrid or cloud-based quantum services can provide a glimpse into the revolutionary potential of quantum.

The World Economic Forum estimates that global public spend in 2022 on quantum technologies exceeded $30 billion. China accounts for roughly half of that amount and the European Union makes up almost another quarter. The United States, Canada, Japan, and the UK account for the bulk of the remaining quarter. At present, 17 nations have dedicated resources towards a national program focused on the research and development in this domain. The frontrunners have already established comprehensive ecosystems to maintain an edge in the quantum realm.

Recently, India has also been pursuing research and development in quantum technology. It has recognised the potential of this emerging field to drive innovation and economic growth. The Union Budget 2020-21 proposed to spend ₹6,000 crore on the newly launched National Mission on Quantum Technologies and Applications (NMQTA) and ₹3660 Crore for a National Mission on Interdisciplinary Cyber Physical Systems (NM-ICPS). The Union Cabinet formally approved the NM-QTA in April 2023.

Quantum technology will transform multiple fields, including computing, communication, and cryptography with direct application across civilian and defense sectors. As the advancement of technology continues, it is likely to have a profound impact on a digital world order that already struggles from frail institutions and disparate norms and conventions. This presents both opportunities and challenges for governments, businesses, citizens and users.

One of the most significant areas where quantum technology will have a major impact is cybersecurity. Quantum computing can break current encryption solutions that protect sensitive information, rendering them vulnerable to attacks, acquisition, and misuse. At the same time, these technologies also offer new encryption techniques that can be used to secure critical infrastructure and confidential data. Governments and organizations worldwide are investing in quantum-resistant cryptography to ensure that their systems are secure against potential cyber threats.

Yet these are just the known unknowns, the true challenge will come from the unknown unknowns. As physicist Niels Bohr said, “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it”. This makes the geopolitical race on quantum technologies all the more transformative and potentially dangerous as well. It raises important questions about global power dynamics and the geopolitical landscape that is being shaped by the prowess of countries and communities in the technology domain more broadly. As the race for quantum dominance heats up, countries with the most significant investments and advancements in quantum technology will enjoy economic and political advantages. It will not be enough for other nations to simply “catch-up”, this race could fundamentally entrench or uproot the current world order.

Advances in quantum technology holds implications beyond geopolitics. They also raise important ethical questions. Does the development and deployment of quantum technology lead to benefits for all members of society? Does it create a new division and new class system in the digital sphere? Moreover, how does it respond to the key imperative of human security and protection? And most fundamentally, does it add to the agency of the user and citizen or gnaw away at personal spaces and freedoms? These questions compel us all to ponder on the governance and ownership arrangements that must shape this domain. As a starting point, we must pursue an inclusive, collaborative and multi stakeholder approach that involves diverse perspectives and ensures that quantum technology is developed and deployed in a way that is equitable, inclusive, and beneficial for all. This is certainly not now how it is unfolding, and this must be rectified.

As we undertake the important task of putting together ideas that will shape our quantum future, we need to discuss these and other critical issues before technology makes the decision for us – a tech fait acompli. Our normative frameworks, regulations, and indeed the ethics that define the principles of innovation must be thought through at this formative stage.

Three interesting questions require serious reflection. The first must be dealing with the ‘harms’ of quantum technology. While assessing technology as a force for good is a romantic approach, technology that harms is a reality. The nature of quantum technologies encourages secrecy and non-transparency. Therefore, it becomes important to start thinking about who designs the ethics, principles, and arrangements that shape innovation. Are we beginning to see the securitisation of the quantum debate, with defense and security sector investments defining the future of quantum tech? If so, we are likely to see the emergence of certain types of outcomes with certain sections of society and many geographies being excluded from many debates. Is it being used to solve some of the most challenging development issues that we are currently facing? If that is the case, we are likely to see a different set of outcomes and it will be beneficial to engage the beneficiaries at this design stage itself.

Then, of course, we need to discuss the demography and stakeholders engaged in the design of this new innovation. Is it being developed largely out of the private and market-based motives of the large economies? If so, then will it align with certain commercial urges and principles? Is there participation by Africans, Asians, and other people who have typically been excluded in the previous waves of innovations and their administrative regimes? If they are included, we are likely to see a different texture to what emerges in this new quantum age. In many ways, where we stand on these issues is determined by where we sit. Eurocentrism or Pax Americana will need to be tempered with inclusiveness that allows the presence, voice, and agency of those who are going to be the largest cohort that will engage with this technology in the future. The billions in Asia and Africa are going to be the largest user base engaging with this technology in the future.

Multistakeholderism, in its true sense, is critical to the success of the quantum design project. Multistakeholderism today is failing us. We need only to look at the vaccine distribution map of the world in the initial months post commercialisation of COVID-19 vaccine to trace the failure of international policies to include the largest segments of humankind. The map reveals a stark asymmetry between Europe and America (and some others) and the rest of the world. The silence, by design, of the voices from rest of the world, raises concerns about the fairness and inclusiveness of the decision-making processes that will govern the quantum domain. Are we condemned to a system where only a select few have a say, while the majority are left unheard, unprepared and disadvantaged?

We also need urgent discussion on the process followed before allowing these technologies to acquire commercial scale and engage with us at the level of individuals. We can learn from the Covid-19 pandemic here. Even at a time when we were confronted with a life-threatening challenge and millions perished, we still followed certain protocols. Vaccines and medicines were not allowed to be taken to the market until they were tested through multiple stages of evaluation and had proven a degree of reliability. Do we need to start thinking about emerging technology in a similar vein? Should it become incumbent on innovators to create regulatory sandboxes, markets sandboxes and initially pilot it at city scale before taking it to the wider population? In this sense, is it time to rethink regulations and create rules that compel innovators, enterprises, investors, and those with the drive to change the world to innovate, test, pilot and then distribute?

The enigma of quantum technology weighs heavily upon us, casting a veil of ambiguity over its future trajectory. We are left grappling with existential questions, bewildered by the opaqueness of decision-making processes, and haunted by the potential ramifications of unchecked innovation. Let us learn from the past and shape the quantum future with foresight, wisdom, and inclusiveness.

The stakes are high, as the impact of quantum technology will be felt far beyond the labs and boardrooms where it is being developed. It is our responsibility to ensure that the benefits of this technology are shared equitably and that the potential harms are mitigated through careful planning, testing, and regulation. The future of quantum technology is not predetermined, and it is up to us to shape it in a way that reflects our values and aspirations for a better world. Let us approach this with humility and purpose, so that we may take a quantum leap forward on both innovation and inclusivity.