While many scientists appreciate the work done by science communicators today, there would be deeper respect if we could be more precise about the words used to describe things. Words have meaning, and we need more people to avoid the shades of grey they communicate often by pandering to the colloquial nature of everyday language. Why? Frankly, there's too much loose scientific language consumed and recast as pseudoscientific snake oil by abusive salespeople today.

One example I've come across with increasing frequency over the years is the confusing use of phrases like "because of quantum physics." Physical events do not occur because of a body of scientific theories. Only physical processes cause physical events.

I googled the exact phrase "because of quantum physics" to offer several examples of this claim. Here are some from the first page of results of my search that yielded 682,000 results:

1. "The Sun Only Shines Because Of Quantum Physics." - forbes
2. "The bread toast which you enjoy while sipping on your morning tea is able to make its way to your plate only because of Quantum Physics." - the studiousguy
3. "Bubbles give off weird light when popped because of quantum physics." - newscientist
4. "Fireworks are only possible because of quantum physics." - bigthink
5. "Things only seem solid because of quantum physics, that's Pauli's exclusion principle, to be precise." -wukali

To be clear, in no way, shape, nor form, can a mathematical construct, or theory, be the cause of any physical event. Only a physical mechanism can be the cause of a physical event. Not math. Not a theory. Not a thought. Fireworks have existed for well over a millennium; quantum physics has existed for about a century.

When you say something physical happened "because of quantum physics" it's like saying it happened because your Uncle Buck said it does. In other words, we need to state plainly what it is your Uncle Buck said about the physical mechanism that caused the physical event to occur. This is where trust can take shape, and we'll have greater integrity in our explanation.

Making statements like this suggests science communicators are perhaps not really sure what they're talking about, so they point to the whole heaping salad plate of ideas on which there's somewhere an explanation for the physical mechanism. Tell us if it's the tomato, the baby carrot, the cucumber, or the bleu cheese dressing that causes things to seem solid. Maybe it's the way the light reflects from a particular-shaped green pea that toasts a slice of bread?