Quantum Mechanics, Transubstantiation & Why Aristotle Was Right After All

Is there a conflict between modern physics and the Aristotelian-Thomistic interpretation of Catholic doctrine? A contemporary Jesuit writer has dismissed transubstantiation as intellectually obsolete, claiming that its reliance on Aristotelian notions of substance and accidents belongs to a premodern physics that quantum mechanics has rendered unintelligible. This argument, which recurs frequently in modern theological discussions, assumes that quantum theory supports a materialist understanding of reality.

There is only one problem with this argument: it is backwards. Quantum mechanics does not invalidate Aristotelian metaphysics — it vindicates it. Quantum theory requires precisely the kinds of distinctions — between potentiality and actuality, and between underlying being and observable properties — that Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy articulates. If Aristotelian categories resolve the paradoxes of quantum theory, it follows that they can also provide a coherent metaphysical context for understanding transubstantiation. This is not to say, however, that quantum theory explains transubstantiation. That the consecrated host and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a natural process but a miracle and, therefore, a mystery in the most profound sense of the word.

To show why quantum mechanics calls for an Aristotelian-Thomistic interpretation, I will briefly examine several well-known quantum phenomena — often described as “mysteries” — that demand explanation. Although a number of contemporary philosophers of science have shown how Aristotelian metaphysical concepts render quantum theory intelligible, this work has had little impact on how most physicists interpret the theory.

The Quantum Mysteries

Some 75 years ago I heard Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for his work in quantum electrodynamics, declare, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I was an undergraduate student at Caltech in Pasadena, auditing his graduate course, and I remember thinking, What the Hell does that mean? Now, after a lifetime of research using quantum mechanics, I am beginning to understand his remark.

Quantum mechanics is possibly the most empirically successful theory in the history of science. The equations work perfectly — they predict experimental results with stunning accuracy. Yet what it actually means — what picture of reality emerges from those equations — remains mysterious. Wikipedia lists 16 different interpretations. Ask ChatGPT, and you’ll get seven more. Most physicists simply “shut up and calculate,” avoiding the philosophical quicksands.

The “measurement problem” lies at the heart of the conceptual difficulties of quantum mechanics. Before measurement, quantum systems exist in superposition, in multiple states simultaneously. The famous Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead. An electron passes through both slits at once. Only upon measurement does the system “collapse” into a definite state.

But what counts as measurement? Does it require a conscious observer? Does the wave function literally collapse or does the universe split into branches? Is there objective reality before measurement or does observation create reality?

The Copenhagen interpretation, dominant for decades, essentially punts on these questions. It treats the wave function as merely a tool for calculating probabilities, not a description of physical reality. “Shut up and calculate” works fine for engineering applications, but it’s philosophically unsatisfying — and, as physicist John Bell pointed out, incoherent. The Copenhagen interpretation requires an arbitrary division between quantum and classical realms that the theory itself cannot justify.

The Many-Worlds interpretation takes the opposite tack: Every quantum possibility becomes real in branching parallel universes. This eliminates the measurement problem by eliminating measurement — everything that can happen does happen, just in different branches. But the metaphysical cost is enormous: an infinite proliferation of unobservable universes, each as real as our own.

Pilot-wave theories (de Broglie-Bohm mechanics) restore determinism and objective reality at the cost of introducing additional hidden variables and nonlocal influences that many find contrived. Every interpretation involves conceptual difficulties. Yet most discussions assume we must choose among variations of these three families.

The Aristotelian Solution

Several physicists and philosophers of science — Robert Koons, Ruth Kastner (who developed the transactional interpretation), Michael Epperson, Gil Sanders, and Alfred Driessen — have explored a new way of understanding quantum theory. They have shown that Aristotelian metaphysical concepts give a consistent explanation of quantum phenomena.

The key insight is Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (energeia). For Aristotle, things can exist in potential before becoming actual. An acorn is potentially an oak tree; it has real potential for oak-hood even before that potential is actualized. Similarly, Aristotle distinguished substance (what a thing fundamentally is) from accidents (its observable properties and characteristics).

Modern philosophy largely abandoned these distinctions. Following René Descartes and the scientific revolution, Western thought embraced a metaphysics in which everything must be either actual or nonexistent. Potential became merely subjective — a feature of our knowledge, not of reality itself. Substance collapsed into measurable properties. This works fine for classical physics, in which everything has definite properties at all times. But quantum mechanics doesn’t work that way. And when we try to force quantum phenomena into a metaphysics in which everything must have definite values for all properties — a metaphysics of actualism — we get the measurement problem, nonlocality paradoxes, and endless interpretational confusion.

Here’s how these Aristotelian-Thomistic ideas explain the quantum mysteries.

Superposition as Real Potentiality

Consider the double-slit experiment: sending electrons one at a time through two slits. Although each electron lands at a definite position on the detecting screen, the total pattern is as though interference occurred — that is, as if each electron went through both slits, as a wave, not a particle. Yet if you try to measure through which slit a given electron passes, the interference pattern disappears. Standard interpretations struggle with this. If the electron definitely went through one slit (Copenhagen), why the interference? If it went through both (naïve realism), how does it become localized when measured? If the universe splits (Many-Worlds), why do we only ever observe one outcome?

The Aristotelian interpretation offers a different picture. Before measurement, the electron exists in a state of real potentiality with respect to position. It hasn’t “chosen” a path because that property isn’t yet actualized. The wave function describes this potentiality mathematically. Upon measurement, the potential becomes actual — not because consciousness magically intervenes or universes split but because measurement is, by its intrinsic nature, an interaction that actualizes what was previously potential.

Rather than wordplay, this interpretation recognizes that reality might include more than just fully actualized properties. Quantum superposition could be nature’s way of showing us that potentiality is metaphysically real — that things can exist in states of genuine becoming, not yet determined but not merely subjective either.

Entanglement & Holism

Quantum entanglement presents another puzzle. Measure one particle of an entangled pair, and you instantly know the state of the other, regardless of distance. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and thought it proved quantum mechanics incomplete. Experiments have vindicated quantum mechanics over Einstein’s objections. But the question remains: How can measurement here instantaneously affect what’s true there, without any signal passing between them?

Again, Aristotelian metaphysics offers conceptual resources. Aristotle recognized that wholes can have properties not reducible to their parts — what might be termed emergent properties. An entangled system is a unified whole, not two separate particles that happen to be correlated. The wave function describes the system as a whole, not individual particles with definite separate properties.

When you measure one particle, you’re not causing something to happen to the other particle; you’re actualizing a potential property of the whole system. The appearance of action-at-a-distance comes from trying to think of entangled particles as separate entities with independent properties — an assumption quantum mechanics shows is wrong.

This doesn’t violate relativity because no information is transmitted from one entangled part to another. The information is present through the entire entangled entity. What changes is our knowledge of an already existing (though potential) property of the system as a whole. The Aristotelian framework makes this conceptually coherent rather than paradoxical.

The Measurement Problem Revisited

The measurement problem asks: Why does measurement seem special? Why do quantum systems “collapse” when observed?

Philosopher and physicist Wolfgang Smith argued, along with others, that measurement isn’t special because of consciousness (Copenhagen’s implication) but because it is a specific kind of physical interaction — one that actualizes potentiality through coupling quantum and classical systems.

The classical measuring apparatus must have definite, actual properties — that’s what makes it useful for measurement. When a quantum system interacts with such an apparatus, the potential becomes actual because the interaction requires it. The apparatus cannot register a superposition; it must show a definite result. This forces actualization.

This avoids the arbitrary quantum/classical cut of Copenhagen. The distinction between quantum and classical isn’t fundamental but contextual. It depends on whether we’re dealing with actualized or potential properties. Measurement is the process by which potential becomes actual through interaction with already actualized systems.

Substance & Accidents in Quantum Reality

Here’s what the critics of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics miss: Quantum mechanics itself demonstrates that substance and accidents can be distinguished — that what something is (its fundamental essence) cannot be reduced to its measurable properties.

A quantum system in superposition possesses real being — substance, if you will — that isn’t exhausted by any set of definite classical properties we might measure. An electron exists as a real entity (substance) even when it hasn’t actualized definite values for position or momentum (accidents). The wave function describes the electron’s substantial being in a state of potentiality, while measurement reveals particular accidents (definite position, definite momentum) by making actual what was previously potential.

The notion of wave-particle duality is a way by which we can picture that fundamental entities don’t behave like either classical particles or classical waves — their substance isn’t reducible to any set of classical accidents. Superposition demonstrates that systems can exist in states not describable by classical material properties — their being transcends their actualized accidents. Entanglement reveals holistic properties — the substance of an entangled system is irreducibly unified, not just an aggregate of separate substantial parts.

Far from rendering Aristotelian distinctions “meaningless,” quantum mechanics shows they’re indispensable. We need the substance/accidents distinction to understand quantum reality: Entities with real being (substance) exist prior to and independently of any particular set of measured properties (accidents). We need the potentiality/actuality distinction because quantum systems exist in states of real potentiality before measurement actualizes definite outcomes. These aren’t obscure medieval concepts but philosophical ideas necessary for understanding quantum reality.

Transubstantiation Reconsidered

With all the above in mind, let us examine the concordance between the metaphysical scheme that explains quantum mechanics and the concepts Aquinas used to understand transubstantiation.

1. Substance and accidents can be distinguished: Quantum systems have real being not exhausted by measurable properties.
2. Potentiality is metaphysically real: Quantum superposition reflects genuine ontological indeterminacy.
3. Reality includes multiple levels: What something is transcends what we measure.

Once we admit these points for quantum mechanics, the conceptual space for transubstantiation re-opens.

The Church teaches that during the consecration of the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine changes into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, while the accidents — all the physical properties measurable by instruments — remain unchanged. To a materialist framework, this seems incoherent. If every measurable property (accidents) remains identical, how can anything real have changed?

But we’ve just seen that quantum mechanics demonstrates that this is possible. Quantum systems possess real being (substance) that isn’t reducible to or exhausted by their measurable properties (accidents). A quantum system can undergo a real change in its substantial state while measurements yield the same statistical distributions of properties.

The consecrated host retains all of bread’s accidents — molecular structure, taste, appearance, even quantum states of constituent particles — yet its substance has changed. The change is metaphysically real even though empirically undetectable, because substance and accidents belong to different ontological levels.

This parallels exactly what we see in quantum mechanics. Before measurement, an electron exists as real potentiality — it possesses the potential for various positions without having actualized any specific location. Upon measurement, one potential becomes actual. The wave function (describing potentiality) transforms into a definite outcome (actuality). Different order of being, same reality.

Similarly, at consecration, the substance (bread’s fundamental being) transforms into a different substance (Christ’s Body), while the accidents (all measurable physical properties) remain stable. The change is metaphysically real even though physically undetectable, because substance and accidents belong to different ontological levels, just as quantum potentiality and classical actuality do.

It is wrong, therefore, to say that quantum physics supports materialism — the reduction of all reality to measurable physical properties. It doesn’t. Quantum mechanics challenges materialism at every turn, showing that reality includes dimensions (potentiality, substance, holistic properties) that transcend measurement.

Critics sometimes object that modern physics has eliminated the substance-accident distinction by showing that matter is just arrangements of particles and fields. But quantum mechanics demonstrates that physical reality cannot be exhaustively described by arrangements of particles. Superposition shows entities existing in modes that aren’t reducible to definite classical properties. Entanglement reveals holistic properties not reducible to parts. The measurement problem proves that observation involves more than just physical interaction.

If quantum mechanics requires that we recognize potentiality as metaphysically real — not subjective but a genuine mode of being — then we have indeed acknowledged that reality exceeds what materialism describes. We’ve admitted that substance (the underlying being) and accidents (observable properties) can be distinguished.

The Same Metaphysical Principles for Physics & Theology

To the extent that transubstantiation can be understood, we can use Aristotelian categories. Instead of potential becoming actual through physical interaction (measurement), substance changes through sacramental action while accidents remain stable. In doing this, we must recognize that reality has multiple dimensions, that what something is cannot be reduced to its perceived properties.

This doesn’t make transubstantiation a “quantum effect.” That would be a category mistake. The Eucharist is a miracle, not a natural process. But both quantum mechanics and transubstantiation reveal that Aristotelian metaphysics captures genuine features of reality that modern materialism misses. Both show that substance and accidents, potentiality and actuality, are not obsolete ideas from ancient philosophy but necessary concepts for understanding how things can change, what makes them what they are, and how deeper reality can underlie surface appearance.

The same philosophical toolkit that helps us understand electrons in superposition helps us understand how bread becomes Christ’s Body — not because they’re the same phenomenon but because they both involve levels of reality that materialism cannot accommodate. Aristotle’s concepts work for quantum physics and sacramental theology because they describe reality — a reality richer and stranger than post-Enlightenment philosophy imagined.

Should this surprise us? No. The sacramental principle — that material things can bear spiritual realities, that the visible can contain the invisible — has always suggested that reality operates on multiple levels. Quantum mechanics confirms from physics what theology has always claimed: Materialism is too crude a philosophy for the universe we inhabit.

Contemporary philosophy struggles with both quantum mechanics and transubstantiation because it lacks the conceptual tools. Post-Cartesian thought treats reality as purely actual and measurable. This conceptual framework does not allow for potentiality or for substance changes that don’t alter measurable properties. The error is trying to force reality into a purely actualist, materialist metaphysics even though reality includes both potential and actual modes of being, both substance and accidents.

Why This Matters

Quantum mechanics confirms that Aristotle was onto something — that reality includes more than just actualized material properties, that there are modes of being our modern metaphysics neglects. The standard interpretations of quantum mechanics struggle because they try to explain quantum phenomena by inadequate post-Cartesian philosophies.

An interpretation that takes seriously Aristotelian concepts — potentiality and actuality, substance and accidents, matter and form — resolves quantum paradoxes more coherently than do the alternatives. It explains superposition without multiplying universes. It explains entanglement without mysterious action-at-a-distance. It explains measurement without requiring consciousness or arbitrary cuts between quantum and classical.

And it does so using the same philosophical model that explains transubstantiation.

The path forward for understanding both quantum mechanics and the Eucharist isn’t to abandon Aristotelian metaphysics for modern materialism. It’s to recognize that Aristotle’s careful observations about change, being, substance, and causation captured something essential about reality — something that both cutting-edge physics and ancient sacramental theology require.

Conclusion

After 75 years of “shut up and calculate,” it’s time to admit that the philosophical tools commonly used to understand quantum mechanics — and reality itself — do not work. The standard interpretations involve serious difficulties. Meanwhile, many ignore the Aristotelian metaphysics on which quantum phenomena map naturally — philosophical concepts that have given us a better understanding of transubstantiation.

We must recognize that these metaphysical concepts are intellectual resources that both modern physics and ancient theology require. Aristotle’s concepts weren’t arbitrary inventions. They emerged from careful observation of change, being, and causation in nature. Quantum mechanics and the Eucharist both tell us that Aristotle was onto something — that reality includes more than just actualized material properties, that there are modes of being that modern metaphysics ignores.

The path forward for both physics and theology requires looking backward — not to abandon modern physics or sacramental theology but to enrich them with conceptual resources from an older, and perhaps wiser, philosophical tradition. Feynman was right that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Maybe that’s because we’ve been using the wrong philosophy to try to do so.

©2026 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, click here.