Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a 2010 3D documentary film by Werner Herzog, about the Chauvet Cave in southern France.[3] The film premiered at the2010 Toronto International Film Festival[4] and consists of footage filmed inside the cave as well as interviews with various scientists and historians.[5]The film also includes footage of the nearby Pont d’Arc natural bridge.[1]

An electron has no definite position, it can only be stated that there is a probability that it can be in a certain place. Heisenberg elaborated on this in 1926 by creating what is now known as the Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg’s theory states that one cannot know the exact position and exact momentum of a particle at the same time. This principle has become one of the most important and central understandings of quantum theory. His theory was based upon shining light in a particle in order to define its present position and velocity. In  doing this, the future position and momentum could be ascertained. (Hawking, 1988, p54). However, Heisenberg realised that the very act of observing an electron changes it. For example, when one observes an object, the act of observing involves bouncing photons of light off the particles. Because an electron is such a small particle, one has to use electromagnetic energy which has a short wavelength in order to see it. This type of energy involves gamma radiation and according to the physicist John Gribbon:

Such gamma radiation is very energetic and any photon of gamma radiation that bounces off an electron and can be detected by our experimental apparatus will drastically change the position and momentum of an electron – if the electron is in an atom, the very act of observing it with a gamma ray microscope may knock it out of the atom altogether. (1984, p157)

In 1927, Bohr conceived a new idea in relation to the Uncertainty Principle. His theory became known as the Copehagen Interpretation and this theory pushed the Uncertainty Principle to a new level of awareness. The Copenhagen Interpretation explains how when an observer interacts with a system, the observer can no longer be thought of as separate from that circumstance. According to David Bohm in Wholeness and the implicate order,”Rather both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and analysable”.

(Bohm, 1980, p12)

It is interesting that there are limits to our knowledge of what an electron is doing when we are looking at it, but it os absolutely mind-blowing to discover that we have no idea at all what it is doing when we are not looking at it.

(Gribbin, 1984, p161)

“Could it be that a wave of something passes through the two slits, only to collapse into a particle when its position is ‘measured’ by the screen?

When we try to look at the spread-out electron wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking at it, it keeps its options open. In terms of Bohm’s probabilities, the electron is being forced by our measurement to choose one course of action out of an array of possibilities. (Gribbin, 1984, p171)

It is astonishing to consider that the units which observable ‘reality’ is composed of, are not definite in the manner they behave and that the slightest observation can alter the form in which they chose to manifest.

For what quantum mechanics says is that nothing is real and that we cannot say anything about what things are doing when we are not looking at them. (Gribbin, 1984, p2)

On the implication of unobservable dimensions, a new interpretation was proposed by Hugh Everett in order to include these multiple dimensions:

In the context of the cat experiment, this states that the entire universe splits into two coexisting, or parallel, realities, one with a live cat and the other a dead cat. Althought it may seem like science fiction, the many-universes theory is entirely consistent with the rules of quantum mechanics and is supported by several leading theoretical physicists. (Davies, 1992, p213)

Continuously splitting versions of reality are being constantly created. David Deutsch has further elaborated on this theory, describing his interpretation as the ‘multiverse’.

Deutsche’s multiverse describes the whole of physical reality and he redefines our understanding of the word “universe” to describe the physical observable matter surrounding us. His ideas spring from careful consideration of the two slit experiment explaining the phenomenon of a single photon passing through two slits simultaneously as a ‘tangible’ photon and a ‘shadow’ photon. It is his belief that for every tangible particle of matter that exists, there are countless shadow realities that coexist with it.

Thus, according to Deutsch, our tangible universe has countless other shadow counterparts in existence and we experience their presence by the interference patter created when the tangible and shadow particle collide. This interpretation states: “that the overlapping wave functions of the whole universe, the alternative realities that interact to produce measurable interference at the quantum level, do not collapse.” (gribbin 1984, p237)

The interpretation suggests that all these quantum states are equally real. It is the measurement process at quantum level, in which the observer picks one of these realities, where this chosen state becomes separated from its alternative state and part of the observer’s reality. One of the most recent and more philosophical interpretations of this multifaceted reality is the interpretation known as ‘ Consciousness causes collapse’.

A conscious observer making a choice collapses all other options and creates one concrete reality.

Buckminster Fuller says,”Everything we see is inside our own heads”

This doesnot mean that you will not have the experience of physics by reading it, it only means that if you do, the experience is coming form you and not the book

 Now they become the dance, now the dance becomes them

 i can hear the voice in my head reading this sentence – jeff liebermann 

 Those who say do not kow, those who know do not say – Lao Tzu

 As long as there is a time interval between the observer and the observed it creates friction and therefore there is a waste of energy. That energy is gathered to its highest point when the observer is teh observed, in which there is no time interval at all. Then there will be energy without motive and it will find its own channel of action because then the “I” does not exists’. – J. Krishnamurti

amazon geoglyphs

David S. Berman:

IN AN art-science collaboration, it is important that the artist does not impose a view on the science. Nature has more imagination than we do, so it is best to let it speak for itself. Equally, if either party tries to impose too much – either by riding roughshod over the scientific content or by demanding needless technical accuracy – things can go wrong.

I work on string theory and M-theory, which aim to provide a unified, fundamental description of nature. I have collaborated with artists on a variety of projects, such as pencil sketches of higher-dimensional objects in M-theory and sound installations representing the hidden dimensions. The aim of each collaboration was to show that we must abandon our preconceived ideas about the world in order to really understand it.

Theoretical physics and art share a common element: they should provide a new way of seeing the world. Relativity and quantum mechanics are now as much a part of the cultural landscape as Shakespeare and Beethoven. It seems natural to me to communicate the exciting new ideas from string theory to the art world, and to a public seeking conceptual challenges.

A successful art-science work should be more than simply communicating scientific ideas in a mathematics-free version. It should impact on people in a direct way, with a sensory component that moves them. In my experience, the areas of science that best lend themselves to this kind of collaboration are the abstract and theoretical. In these disciplines, our views of reality are constantly challenged, just as they are by art.

David S. Berman is a reader in theoretical physics at Queen Mary, University of London. He collaborated in 2009 with artist Jordan Wolfson on the Cartier award-winning piece at the Frieze Art Fair in London, and curated Images in Physics at the University of Cambridge’s Clare Hall

The winner of The Cartier Award 2009 was the American artist Jordan Wolfson. Wolfson is a conceptual artist, based in Berlin and New York.

Wolfson’s winning proposal was selected from over 450 applications by artists from all over the world. At Frieze Art Fair 2009, Wolfson presented a nomadic seminar on the subject of String Theory that took the form of a walking tour of Frieze Art Fair. Each tour, strictly limited to one person at a time, was guided by a theoretical physicist from Queen Mary University, London, who casually explained the concept of String Theory.  The team of physicists was headed by Dr. David Berman, Reader in Theoretical Physics at Queen Mary University, London, and expert in String and M-theory.  Each tour was recorded and then transcribed to form the basis of an ever changing, ever growing script that was reenacted by two actors and directed by the artist in Regent’s Park the following day.


The Cartier Award is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s leading art awards. It allows an emerging artist from outside the UK to realise a major project at Frieze Art Fair as part of the critically acclaimed Frieze Projects programme. Neville Wakefield, curator of Frieze Projects, commented: ‘Jordan’s unique brand of poetic conceptualism ranges across the sciences and humanities to create what are at once delightful and perplexing forays into the narratives and myths that colour our times. Especially exciting is the opportunity to bring such complex and sometimes challenging work to the wider audience of Frieze.’