G e n e r a l a r t I c l e Re-Visioning Reality: Quantum Superposition in Visual Art a b s t r a c t The counterintuitive phenom- enon of quantum superposition requires a radical review of our ideas of reality. The author Lynden Stone suggests that translations of quantum concepts into visual art may assist in provoking such a revision. This essay first introduces the concept n philosophy, the usual definition of conven- a radical departure from the clas- of quantum superposition and I points out its divergence from tional reality is that it is independent, objective, meaningful sical conception of the fabric of and, in principle, knowable [1]; I adopt this definition for the reality” [7], and Karen Barad states conventional perceptions of real- ity. The author then discusses purpose of this article. My experience of reality generally ac- that we need a “reassessment of how visual art might provide cords with this definition, insofar as I perceive objects to exist physical and metaphysical notions insight into quantum superposi- independently of me and that objects have predetermined that explicitly or implicitly rely on tion. Finally she discusses the characteristics that are independent of whatever observations old ideas about the physical world” visual representation of quantum or measurements I might perform on them. In particular, I can superposition by contemporary [8]. Trying to understand a world artists Jonathon Keats, Julian unobtrusively observe and measure objects without affecting described by quantum theory, says Voss-Andreae, Antony Gormley their state or the dynamics of the system within which they philosopher Lawrence Sklar, re- and Daniel Crooks; the problem- exist. I sense that objects exist outside of my mind and are not quires a far more radical revision of atic and paradoxical nature of just a creation of it. Naturally, I conclude that objects, other our understanding of the nature of such representations; and how these works might provoke a people and the rest of the physical world would exist even if things than that demanded by the revision of our views of physical I did not exist. theories of relativity [9]. reality. However, quantum mechanics [2] conflicts with the notion Quantum mechanics is mind- of a knowable, mind-independent, objective reality in a funda- boggling, counterintuitive and mental and shocking way. In contrast to the macroscopic con- tricky to grasp. A famous quote is ventional reality I perceive, in the subatomic quantum world, attributed to Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand there is no physical matter as I understand it. Rather, accord- quantum mechanics, you don’t understand it.” Feynman, ing to the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics, states however, did definitely say, “I think I can safely say nobody of pre-matter exist in a superposition consisting of a connected understands quantum mechanics” [10]. For nonscientists, the wave/particle duality (“wavefunction”) of multiple possibilities mathematical formalism used to explain quantum concepts that, according to conventional views, is collapsed and brought acts as a further barrier to understanding. Visual art, however, into a definite state of singular material reality through my can provide ways of conceiving these concepts outside the own observation or measurement [3]. Rather than reality be- bounds of scientific formalism, possibly facilitating the nec- ing knowable, objective and mind-independent, conventional essary conceptual revision. Physicist and philosopher David quantum theories pose the confounding possibility that there Bohm believed that art was a vehicle capable of exploring is a quantum realm imperceptible to and unknowable by me “fundamentally new modes of perception, through the senses and that the reality I experience is brought into existence and new forms of imagination” [11]. Because visual art relies through my measurements or observations [4]. In a further on methods such as metaphor and the phenomenal, it can challenge to my perception of reality, quantum particles can arguably represent quantum concepts in a more comprehen- exist in states of “entangled” superposition that indicate an sible form than can the mathematical formula. Barbara Staf- inexplicable interconnectivity of physical matter. ford suggests that images can simplify a complex environment The features of quantum mechanics and their contradiction conceptually and also make “aspects of the world perceptually to conventional reality are the basis for the persistent call for salient and cognitively distinctive for us” [12]. a reevaluation of our notion of conventional reality. In 1935, Representing quantum concepts through visual art, how- Niels Bohr called for a “radical revision of our attitude towards ever, is problematic and challenging. Although quantum ef- the problem of physical reality” [5]. Werner Heisenberg noted fects are puzzling, uncertain and inchoate, they are necessarily that the change to the concept of reality proposed by quan- described using the concepts of classical physics, which is pre- tum theory was not a continuation of past concepts; rather, “it cise and bears relation to our physical world. The available seems to be a real break in the structure of modern science” language of description limits what can be described. The art- [6]; David Deutsch suggests that quantum theory “require[s] ist, too, is limited by the language and connotation of the ma- terials used to convey the immaterial. Metaphors and symbols from our experience of reality may be inadequate, imprecise Lynden Stone (visual artist, scholar), Queensland College of Art, Griffith University, or powerless to suggest the imperceptible. Furthermore, due Brisbane, Australia; 35 Deerhurst Road, Brookfield, Queensland, Australia, 4069. E-mail: to the limiting factors of materiality and interpretation, any <[email protected]>; URL: <www.lyndenstone.com.au>. representation of quantum concepts may be criticized as erro- See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/46/5> for supplemental files associated with this issue. neous. These factors limit the effectiveness of visual represen- tations of quantum concepts. In the second part of this paper, article Frontispiece. Daniel crooks, Static No. 12 (seek stillness in movement) (details of video stills) HD digital video 05:23 min, 16:9, in focusing on quantum superposition, a fundamental mys- 1080p24, stereo, 2010. (© Daniel crooks. Image courtesy of the tery of quantum mechanics, I examine how visual representa- artist and anna schwartz Gallery.) tions by artists Jonathon Keats, Julian Voss-Andreae, Antony © 2013 ISAST doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00640 LEONARDO, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 448–454, 2013 449 Gormley and Daniel Crooks address these challenges and how their work might provide insights into quantum su- Fig. 1. Jonathon Keats, Quantum perposition that, in turn, might help us Entanglements, 2011, revise our perception of reality. installation shot. (© Jonathon Keats) Jonathon Keats: Quantum EntanglEmEnts Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats invites participants to contemplate the bizarre properties of quantum entanglement (i.e. generalized superposition involving more than one particle [13]) through interaction with his Quantum Entangle- ments (2011) (Fig. 1). In the work, a par- ticle beam splitter (Fig. 2) was installed in a New York gallery in 2011 [14]. Ac- cording to Keats, a nonlinear crystal beam splitter uses sunlight to spray en- tangled pairs of photons onto couples standing at designated spots on the gallery floor. Physicists can create such entangled pairs of photons by sending them through crystal beam splitters. Separated parts of the same entangled system have been observed to remain in a connected state of superposition. A measurement or observation on one of the separated parts influences the other instantaneously (faster than the speed of light), even when they are separated by vast distance. This conflicts with our experience of local realism (i.e. that only objects that share a proximate relation- ship to each other are perceived to affect each other). In quantum theory, the fact that quantum objects that do not share proximity can be affected by each other definite superposition until measured tanglement “between two people—at an suggests a possible connectedness or uni- or observed. atomic level—is likely to take place as a versality that is not observed as part of Keats addressed the paradoxical na- result of interaction with my apparatus” our everyday reality, at least suggesting ture of describing non-material quantum [17]. that “particles that were once together superposition in the material world by Physicist Geoff Pryde says that Quan- in an interaction remain in some sense using little in the way of materiality for tum Entanglement would fail to effect any parts of a single system, which responds Quantum Entanglements: a lens, a crystal real quantum entanglement [18]. Pryde together to further interactions” [15]. A and a mirror secured to a small metal is Associate Professor in the Centre for measurement made on one half of the base plate to catch the sun, a mat on the Quantum Dynamics at Griffith Uni- separated entangled pair that instantly floor, some dangling mirror pieces—the versity and conducts research into the affects the separated half also conflicts latter seemingly filling only aesthetic application of entangled quantum sys- with our experience that an observation function. This minimal materiality of the tems for computing and encryption. He or measurement on