Vote For Your Favorite PhotoWalk Photos

Voting has started for you to vote on your favorite Particle Physics PhotoWalk contest. There are some stunning photos in here, and I don't know how I can choose just 3.

So get your votes in!

Zz.

Dance The Higgs

Ah, another one of those!

I made no bones about my feeling on such things. This appears to be another attempt at incorporating physics into the arts. In particular, they're incorporating the apparent discovery of the Higgs into dance and photography.

Our Reintegrate project will translate the details of the Higgs boson discovery into a series of precisely choreographed visual images. By translating potentially the greatest breakthrough in particle physics in the 21st century through the intersecting artistic mediums of photography and dance, we will investigate the problem and benefits of communication across three disciplines that weigh heavily toward the non-verbal articulation of ideas.

 First of all, I don't quite understand exactly what is meant by the phrase that I've bold in that paragraph. Secondly, since we're "talking" about non-verbal articulation of ideas here, I would like to challenge the organizers to try this experiment: DO NOT tell your audience in advance what the dance is about. Don't even give them a title (thus, the non-verbal part). Just present the dance. After the presentation, do a poll and see what they think the dance is about. What are the chances that they actually will say "Oh, it is about the problem and benefits of communication across physics, dance, and photography on the discovery of the Higgs boson"?

Now, you could ask me "But ZapperZ, arts, such as dance, is very subjective and interpretive. You don't expect them to actually come up with not only an accurate answer, but also one consistent answer, do you?" And I would say, that's my whole point! If you want to communicate about the discovery of the Higgs, the importance of the physics of the Higgs, etc., your BEST BET in doing that is to convey an UNAMBIGUOUS message is via direct, verbal communication! It cannot be done effectively and unambiguously via "dance". I just don't see it.

If you want to do this simply for entertainment, fine. Knock yourself out. But I seriously question when this thing is being "intellectualized" as if such an exercise can actually produce anything meaningful, informative, and accurate. This is just too close to being an Emperor's New Clothes to me. A lot of people are going along with the "intent" but there hasn't been a lot of substance.

Zz.

Dance To String Theory

It is no secret that I've made fun of many of these efforts to incorporate physics with dance. I'm sure they are of high artistic caliber, but I question the "reason" for doing such a thing, and the effectiveness of it. In other words, if I don't tell you what this is all about, can you decipher it for yourself?

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.

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.

That sounds like a hoot!

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!

Zz.

Is This What It Looks Like To "Learn" Quantum Physics?

When I first saw this piece, I didn't want to comment on this because, frankly, it's one of the most ridiculous, irrelevant, and inaccurate report that I've ever seen. But I couldn't help myself. So here it is.

This Gizmodo article highlights some "art", or photography snapshot of blackboards that supposedly show how it looks like when one "learns" quantum physics. The photos show various shots of messy, jumbled up scribbles all over the place. There was no explanation anywhere on where exactly these were taken, or under what circumstances (was it after a class, was it after two people discussing something, was it in someone's office?).

I will tell you why I consider this to be utterly ridiculous and irrelevant:

1. Everyone who does physics knows that we tend to have either blackboards or whiteboards in our offices. I have one. It is used quite a lot. In fact, we have white boards along the hallways of our offices. Frequently, when we talk and discuss things, we go to one of such boards to either illustrate our ideas, or work something out. Inevitably, after this is done many, many times, the board looks very much like the mess you see in those photos. It has nothing to do with learning quantum physics. It has everything to do with performing one's job. This is not philosophy where esoteric ideas are thrown out verbally. Physics (and sciences in general), mathematics, and engineering all require visual illustrations and descriptions. Any kind of discussion inevitably will require writing down something, be it a piece of paper, a board, or a cocktail napkin!

2. The point where these scribbles are indecipherable seems to imply that this is unique to physics, or to learning quantum physics. Nonsense! Put a bunch of musical notes on the board. I'm musically illiterate, and they might as well be a bunch of gooblygook. So why would a bunch of mathematical symbols be any different? This is not unique to physics. Look at something that you are not an expert in, and you should EXPECT to see a bunch of things that you don't understand. Is this that difficult to comprehend?

Zz.

Art Is Like Science? NOT!

Why do people want to "justify" something by equating it to science or physics in particular? We have seen this "physics envy" in economics, and we have seen many crackpottery and pseudosciences that try to validate themselves by claiming that physics "explains" whatever it is that they believe in. Now along comes the practice of art!

This "practicing artist" is equating what she is doing as being similar to being a scientist.

As a practicing artist I see a lot in common with my scientific counterparts. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, which I determined to have eight stages, in one my earliest essays for HuffPost. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.

Of course, she's only making a comparison at the superficial level here because she doesn't see things underneath that. Let's dissect this carefully, shall we?

1. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. The artist is experimenting using new materials and subjects. That's the extent of it. A scientist is performing an experiment to figure out what Nature is trying to say. A scientist's experiment must produce a set of results that are REPRODUCIBLE, meaning the result is not subjective. And practically ALL scientific experiments are subjected to not only the accuracy of the instruments, but the accuracy/statistics of the results. When was the last time one sees such criteria being imposed on art?

2. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint.
Ignoring the really stupid statement being made here, I could also easily say that she has a lot in common to a butcher (messy coat, splattered with blood). So how come she doesn't make that comparison? And how many experimental physicists do you see wearing lab coats anyway? I don't even own one, much less, wear one!

3. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions.
This is laughable, that she would compare an art exhibitions to a scientific publication. Just think of (i) the refereeing process, (ii) the reason for a science publication (scrutiny, reproducibility by independent sources, etc..) is way different than having an art exhibition.

4. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, 
How is this even similar to what scientists do is anyone's guess. We don't do an experiment on ourselves. This is not a common practice.

5. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.
Oh, I can answer that easily. There won't be, and I'm 100% certain of that.

All of the above comparison done by the artist is based on a superficial appearance of what she thinks a scientist does. There is no attempt at understanding the what, why, and how. It is like she can't tell the difference between a mallard duck and Sesame Street's Big Bird ("oh, they both have what looks like feathers!").

People should not try to piggyback on top of science to justify what they are doing, especially when there's no justification for such comparison.

Zz.

The Confluence of Physics And Dance

Ah yes, one of my favorite topics to ridicule! :)

Let's be honest here, I am NOT a fan of such "interpretive" dance that proclaim to somehow able to interpret some aspect of physics. When one understands a physics concept only superficially, and then one tries to demonstrate this visually, the result is often either hilarious, or downright puzzling. I've already criticized such attempts in previous blog entries (read here, here, here, and here). So there's nothing that I will say in this one that I haven't said before.

But still, it is worth repeating how ridiculous this all sounds. A dance titled "The Matter of Origins" has been performed as part of the Chicago Humanities Festival. Wait till you hear what this dance is all about. It's the doozy!

"Matter of Origins" explores that moral paradox, along with a technical one involving the nature of physical matter. If reality consists of tiny particles, how is it we don't fall through objects containing millions of gaps--a question raised by a contemporary physicist and his wife lying in bed in a scene projected on the work's giant curved screens, where images of the galaxy and the particle collider in Europe are also telecast.

Much of the dancing explores affinities between art and physics. A group approaches the front of the stage, the line of dancers moving their outstretched limbs together in a way that evokes the long debate about light--is it particles or waves? One sequence involves a woman and three men who keep moving a chair away from her--a blunt but keen illustration of the Uncertainty Principle.

Now people, c'mon! I dare you to either read that, or sit through something like that with a straight face! This is really some seriously funny crap here! That thing with the chair to illustrate the HUP. That is too hysterical! You can't make this up!

It is too bad that we can't introduce science, and physics in particular, directly to the people without having to go through such "interpretation". One can only wonder what the average public actually learn from viewing something like this. I hate to think that the HUP is now being depicted as a really bad game of musical chair!

Zz.

Communicating Science Through Arts?

I've seen many of these attempts, and I have tried to hold my judgement on the effectiveness of such a thing, but really, I think someone should explain to me why this is a good idea.

This news items reports a seminar to be given on the topic of science and the arts. My guess is that the primary aim of this is to present science through the arts, either with painting, performance, etc.. etc. I don't get it. I've mentioned this before many times where I questioned the accuracy and effectiveness of such a presentation (read here, here, and here).

Maybe I am illiterate in the arts, but I thought that 'arts' are often subjective, and deal predominantly with emotional quality. How is this a reflection of what science is? Furthermore, how do you know how your "art" is  interpreted by the viewing public? After all, we already have seen how the public can misinterpret even when given a direct, English-language response. Interpreting it via some artistic expression will just makes it even worse, won't it?

I'm all for communicating science to the public in ways that can engage their attention and interests. I just don't think this is one of those ways, because I see it creating more confusion and misinterpretation than necessary.

Zz.

Art Deserves Funding, But NOT Because It Is Like Science

I'm often irritated by other fields in trying to either coattail onto physics, or making rather dubious comparison to it. Worse still, some time someone will try to justify the funding of something by bad-mouthing science.

In this opinion article, the author is arguing why funding for the arts should not be abandoned even during this tough economic times. OK, fine. But then, one of the reasons given why goes a bit awry when a comparison between arts and science is made.

While the arts and science seem like opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, they share a common purpose: discovery. Science is largely concerned with discovering the physical world around us. The arts are concerned with discovering ourselves, through which we discover each other. Discovery starts the process. It comes before. Discovering ourselves and discovering each other is the unifying force in the birth of community long before there are any discussions about budgets or programs or services. The community supports education and infrastructure, but it is the arts that foster community.

I am no scientist, but what little I know of quantum physics suggests that the interaction of the observer with the observed has a much greater influence than we had ever anticipated. It may even be that the observed does not exist until the observer is there to observe it. This is the essence of the arts, through which we confirm our own experience – our own existence. We observe each other the same way. Through the arts, we all enter the world – together.

Let's look at this argument closely, shall we?

I will argue that the process of "self-discovery" through art is NOT UNIQUE, and can be done by many different ways. One can have self-discovery by meditation, by seclusion in a cave somewhere if one prefers, or even by doing physics! Trust me, I've done plenty of self-discovery when I was struggling while doing a Jackson's E&M homework question at 3:00 am! One does not need to look at a Picasso, or listen to a Rachmaninoff piece, to have "self-discovery". On the other hand, the discovery done in science IS unique! One does not discover superconductivity, fractional quantum hall effect, the top quark, etc. by doing other things not science. Even when things are discovered by accident, the validity or it, and the full understanding of it, can only be done through science and nothing else.

So, even IF we grant the idea that art can also produce "discovery" via this thing call "self-discovery", the comparison to science falls short. The nature of the discovery being argued for in this article is not confined to just art. If this is the best that one can come up with, then it has made the argument to fund the arts even weaker, since one can easily do one's "self-discovery" through cheaper, alternative means. Art needs to find its own unique reasons so that one would want to fund it for what it is, not for what it is similar to with other fields. Make it stand on its own, not on the crutches of others.

Zz.

The Dance Of Quantum Entanglement?

First of all, a disclaimer. I am not artistically literate. While I love watching dance moves, I can clearly admit that these avant garde dances are way beyond me, and something I don't get. In fact, I feel that way as well with many modern paintings and sculptures, but that's another story.

So when I first heard about this dance performance called "Spooky Action", my first reaction was "Oh no!", and my second reaction was "How are they doing to bastardize QM to show it in a dance performance?" So yes, I already had a huge bias against it and didn't have quite a high expectation, not in terms of the dance performance itself, but in the "message" that they were trying to convey.

It appears that the first performance of such a dance was performed, and I just finished reading a review of it.

Spooky Action begins in a blackout with a disembodied voice proclaiming, “I am a particle.” Seconds later, the voice identifies itself as a physicist. Which is it? Particle or physicist? And who are the dancers? At times, their actions suggest the random movements of particles in an accelerator; at others, the desperate and often unsuccessful attempts of human beings to connect with one another. When Paul Struck demands “Particle or wave?” with increasing vehemence and urgency, he seems to have adopted the persona of the scientist himself.

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!!

I often would like to ask those who come up with such concepts as to the actual reason for it. I'm very sincere about this. I'm very curious as to why someone would choose such a difficult topic, and try to present it as a dance form. Is it because he/she thinks that he/she can accurately convey a visual representation of the concept? Was there a goal to "educate"? Or is it simply an "application" of the concept as a metaphor to something else, as what appears to be the case here. In other words, what exactly is the expectation here? Or do they simply throw things up in the air and simply let it fall where ever they may be?

I suppose it is "nice" that physics and physics ideas have permeated into the artistic realm. It exposes it to people who may not have either heard of it, or indifferent about it. However, this can also be a double-edged sword. If you present it in such a way as to bastardize it into ways in which it becomes unrecognizable, then I think that that causes more harm than good. The awful movie "What The Bleep Do We Know" isn't going to be used as a marketing tool to promote physics, no matter how much it exposes the general public to concepts in quantum mechanics.

BTW, if this was done by high school students, or even as a parody, it would have been a stroke of genius! I would love to attend something like that.

I fully expect a dance performance to next present their interpretation of tax accounting.

Zz.