I've mentioned before several attempts at using various physics topics or principles as a dance motif. Read here, here, here, and here. Add this one to the list.
The choreographer has been working with Andrew Melatos, a theoretical physicist at Deakin. Melatos is an expert in string theory, the strand of particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. The pair's collaboration has led to Multiverse, an "innovative, animated dance work" that is being workshopped before a premiere next year.That sounds like a hoot!
Stewart says Multiverse - taken from the term coined by 19th-century philosopher William James, who put forward the idea of multiple parallel universes - will be a combination of live dance and three-dimensional animation, requiring the audience to wear 3-D glasses.
I'd like to ask this: without invoking or being told about the "physics" behind the dance, can you enjoy the performance as is? If yes, then how come one doesn't sell it as such?
I again am curious about why these things are done. I mean, sure, they'll argue that this is another way to "visualize" various aspects of physics, and visualize this from an artistic point of view. But (i) why; (ii) is this really accurate; (iii) is this really necessary? Did someone who had no idea about physics saw this and suddenly got inspired to either study physics, or support physics? Did someone who didn't quite understand a certain aspect of physics suddenly understands it better after seeing such a performance?
I'm not saying this shouldn't be done. I'm just awfully curious on why and what are the consequences of such a thing. After all, a lot of effort, time, and money were spent for one of these things. It has to mean SOMETHING!