When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.

Niels Bohr made remarks of this kind while reflecting on the conceptual and linguistic difficulties posed by quantum theory in the early-to-mid 20th century. In Bohr’s view, atomic phenomena cannot be pictured in ordinary, commonsense terms; they must be communicated through carefully chosen, often metaphorical language that respects the limits of classical description. The quote is commonly presented as part of his broader insistence on “complementarity”: that mutually exclusive classical concepts (like wave and particle) may both be needed to convey what experiments reveal, even though no single literal picture suffices. The line is frequently cited in discussions of how physicists explain quantum behavior to non-specialists.

Bohr is stressing the limits of ordinary, literal language when we try to speak about quantum phenomena. At the atomic scale, familiar categories (particle, wave, trajectory, position) do not map cleanly onto what experiments reveal; description becomes indirect, model-based, and dependent on the experimental setup. By comparing scientific language here to poetry, Bohr suggests that the aim is not a photographic report of “what is” but the construction of images—conceptual pictures, analogies, and complementary viewpoints—that guide understanding and prediction. The remark aligns with his broader view that quantum theory forces us to use classical terms while recognizing their restricted applicability.