My “Complementary Principle”

..From a conventional point of view, as a visual artist perceiving a classical world (not quantum), my occupation, as a picture maker, is simply to put things together to make art (for  whatever that is)..So here below is a picture I create and named “My “complementary principle“”….. So what has Art to do with Complementary  which is a quantum concept ?

Portrait of a kibbutz member


Well, I will go straight to the point. The Danish physicist Bohr one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics coined the word “complementary”  meaning among others: particle and wave, (There is more to that..) Well as a fan of Science Fiction, seeking after a connection between art  and quantum mechanics, I found the following text:  “From Cubist Simultaneity to Quantum Complementarity by” Christophe Schinckus.

The abstract says:

“This article offers a contribution to the history of scientific ideas by proposing an epistemological argument supporting the assumption made by Miller whereby Niels Bohr has been influenced by cubism (Jean Metzinger) when he developed his non-intuitive complementarity principle. More specifically, this essay will identify the Bergsonian durée as the conceptual bridge between Metzinger and Bohr. Beyond this conceptual link between the painter and the physicist [etc…]. ...See here for the full text.

So…I the visual artist  looking after a connection between me  and the weird quantum mechanics… and he, Niels Bohr the  prize Nobel physicist, doing the same in reverse, as by  Miller’s assumption,  was influenced by cubism (Jean Metzinger) when he developed his non-intuitive complementarity principle….??

Today it is common practice that some scientists are also artist and that a minority of artist are very curious about quantum mechanics’s potential to make art.. (See here) So for me it’s not an  unusual coincidence…

Now,  I presume that I am 95% classical (not quantum) in every day mode. I perceive science and my own art making on the same epistemic and ontological  footing: they share together  the same Newtonian  space and time (for all practical purpose) and share Einsteins Relativity for light speed, not very practical in my atelier… but my above picture’s name point to the fact that I somehow mentioned my quantum attributes: particle (myself) + wave (myself) in my  ordinary every day life..Is it factually correct? Or is it Science Fiction like the movies “Interstellar” and “Blade Runner 2049…………….

The 95% classical and 5% quantum appearance of myself and Noah

 Let’s see,  I quote from “Scientists take next step towards observing quantum physics in real life”

..”Small objects like electrons and atoms behave according to quantum mechanics, with quantum effects like superposition, entanglement and teleportation. One of the most intriguing questions in modern science is if large objects – like a coffee cup – could also show this behavior. Scientists at the TU Delft have taken the next step towards observing quantum effects at everyday temperatures in large objects. They created a highly reflective membrane, visible to the naked eye, that can vibrate with hardly any energy loss at room temperature. The membrane is a promising candidate to research quantum mechanics in large objects.”  Read more at...

Now I am a large object like the coffee cup, so there is in me some leftovers of quantumness ..that I can not see and feel but that I can imagine in the same way Rene Magritte’s painting “This is not a pipe” or in the  “My Quantum Complementarity” picture.

To resume…Remembering that the majority of artist,  galleries, art schools, museums, critics, curators, art magazines, lives in the explicit classical world (non quantum), don’t raise the question of why we live in a classical world that perhaps implicitly is manufactured in the quantum world does not mean that our every day perceptions are absolute. And more to that, that new “visual concepts” on the verge of science fiction can  factually be  create taking into account the “implicit” back stage of the quantum weirdness.

So the whole  above story,  my be condensed in  a few words “The Translation from the Quantum (microscopic weird world) to the Classical (our old good world)”  implies that without the quantum  back stage there is no old good world… and that the art world with her whole machinery  artist,  galleries, art schools, museums, critics, curators, art magazines, is included in and comes from the quantum….so what can a curious visual artist (me) do with that… if not make another art closer to a more fundamental “reality”. Our own good old reality being perhaps only an approximation an average (like temperature)….Its fun.

The sum over histories of my life



My Leftovers. Superposition. Particle. Wave.

,Leftovers…………………………………………. Leftovers………………………Leftovers…………………………………….Leftovers

The Decoherencer……………………………………………..The Decoherencer………………………………….The Decoherencer





….being human in a perhaps “non existing” classical world…

‘I am a visual artist and  from time to time I ask myself is picture drawing painting etc nothing more than modelling a fake reality…. as many physicist argue ….


The thinking of Ridley Scott:

Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, released in 1982, was a towering landmark of cyberpunk cinema that spawned decades of imitations, redefined dystopian sci-fi, and questioned what it means to be human. (see here )…

The decoherencer expulse a falling angel….

How a physicist think:

…”Alan Bustany, Trinity Wrangler, Triple A Science Student
Answered Oct 22, 2016 ……………”Which statement is more accurate: “an electron is neither a particle nor a wave”; or “an electron is both a particle and a wave”?
Both statements are misleading. And they are misleading for a very fundamental reason, the understanding of which will enhance your appreciation of the scientific method and what fundamental science is all about.
They are misleading because you and I think we understand what a particle or a wave is. That is, we have an intuitive, or even a sophisticated, understanding of classical particles and classical waves. In circumstances not too far removed from our everyday experience, reality plays by well-behaved rules that generally conform to the intuitions our brains have developed over millions of years of evolution. Even then we can occasionally be fooled by various forms of illusion.

…one of possible paths in a field…

The scientific method aims to replace our intuition, analogies, and models with measurable, verifiable, independent evidence – especially in situations far removed from everyday experience: scales of atoms; speeds approaching that of light; large gravitational fields; and so on. In dealing with extreme situations, thinking of analogies like “little billiard balls” or “waves reflecting off a wall” can be positively detrimental. That is certainly the case when you consider Quantum Field Theory (QFT) for subatomic particles like an electron.


The Decoherencer create a Falling Angel,,,

In QFT (Quantum Field Theory) you have some mathematical model of reality that predicts certain measurable effects that correspond with astonishing accuracy to actual measurements. Some effects, such as quantum entanglement, are very counterintuitive but nevertheless seem to express what is actually going on. Some of the mathematical objects in QFT can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as particles or particle-like. Others can be interpreted as waves or wave-like. Some can be interpreted as particle-like in some circumstances and wave-like in other circumstances.

What, then, is really going on underneath? Unfortunately this question does not even make sense. A scientific theory incorporating a mathematical model is just that, a model of reality. We can never know in principle whether it is the correct model or even if such an entity exists”... See Quora,,,

So this is quite a subjective science fiction story ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////




Whats the Trouble with Art

Question: is art a commodity a fact or a dream….? Answer: I don’t know…but tentatively… it is something I like and need… so it is a (like,need) and it is…. the physicist J.A. Wheeler says it is “it from bit” see here   

So a bit is information it is physical…”it”:  the picture the paint the canvas the photo the Fabriano paper the computer screen …. my (like,need) etc… So my art production is selling bits to someone absorbing my bits and calling it Art and paying me with bitcoins….

So “Whats the Trouble with Art” …. art is a classical perception: pictures salon galleries museums sellers curators  artists etc…. the trouble is that art does not reveal the borderline between the classical perception and the Qubit “perception” – the quantum world where “it is from Qubit”

So this is my own subjective Science Fiction see the “Interstellar”  movie

this picture correlate my bits to your bits trough the veiled qubits….

prof. Leonard Susskind…  I (like,need) his bits…

this  drawing is art representing the fuzzy bit/qubit space in my or your salon….

Sculptures… Curators Interpretations: quantum theory vocabulary, classical vocabulary


New vocabulary..for Art..Revolution

Quantum theory vocabulary


…..Voss-Andreae is aware, however,
that his artwork cannot be held up as
definitive, objective representation of
quantum concepts, as quantum physics,
he says, does not support objective reality
Relying on the phenomenology of
most of the objects he makes, Voss-
Andreae does not attempt to shy away
from materiality. Materiality, however,
contradicts the principle of indeterminacy
of quantum superposition. Nevertheless,
these objects can hint at the
unknown reality beyond their physical
structure. Quantum Man and Night Path
are material imaginings of a state that is
ordinarily beyond our perception. They
represent two separate theories of superposition:
one, in which superposition in
our physical world does not collapse, and
a corollary theory, where all possible positions
collapse into one outcome. Perhaps,
of the two works, Quantum Man,
because it resembles the human form,
is more successful in conveying the idea
that wave/particle superposition is part
of our extended reality



Classical vocabulary

(Translated by google?!)

Yaara Zach is interested in creating split objects. In the series “Dancers” (2016), three punch bags were cut and spread like round carpets that look like dresses in motion. In the transformation of the object into a linear object, there is a dimension of assimilation or camouflage, passive defense tactics used by animals and plants for survival, but also for courtship and procreation.

The series “crutches” (2016) consists of four sculptures created especially for the exhibition “Workers’ Movement”. The sculptures are characterized by role-playing games between predator and prey, between male and female and active and passive. The physiological and psychological response of fight or flight, which is used in times of danger to the needs of evolutionary survival, is also associated with situations that arise during arousal and sexual desire.

The “Workers’ Movement” exhibition will close at the end of the month. Waiting for you during the holiday hours (….Curator, Smadar Keren,


No automatic alt text available.

The new art roots are in my unmeasured environment but the Jewish visual artist is blind by definition,, change the definitions

Decoherence, quantum to classical

More Technical NOTE

…..If we think of reality as a mind-independent,
objective and knowable concept,
then features of the quantum world challenge
that reality. Physicists have called
for a reevaluation of our view of reality
to incorporate quantum features, and
visual art can assist this re-evaluation.
Although problematic and paradoxical,
in that material and metaphors from
our reality must be used in varying degrees,
the artworks of Jonathan Keats,
Julian Voss-Andreae, Antony Gormley
and Daniel Crooks all, to some extent,
provide a macroscopic translation of
superposition—a fundamental mystery
of quantum physics. In some ways these
artworks help to expand our awareness
that reality may be more than just the
seemingly objective, mind-independent
world that we perceive with our senses.
They may also provoke a radical departure
from or revision of our views of
conventional reality. At the very least,
they introduce quantum concepts to a
wider audience through translations
freed from the mathematical formalism
of quantum physics. These works are a
step toward grasping the bizarre reality
of the quantum word.




6 Conclusion
We have seen various approaches to the question of the quantum-to-classical
transition. We now want to summarize what they can offer to answer this
question and point out what they have in common or where they differ.
Let us start with the most commonly used approach, the decoherence pro-
gram. We have seen that the interaction with an uncontrollable environment

The Feynman Vocabulary



6 Conclusion
We have seen various approaches to the question of the quantum-to-classical
transition. We now want to summarize what they can offer to answer this
question and point out what they have in common or where they differ.
Let us start with the most commonly used approach, the decoherence pro-
gram. We have seen that the interaction with an uncontrollable environment

not only explains quite well, why we do not see superpositions of macroscopic
objects, but also shows that the interaction even selects a preferred (pointer)
basis. However, macroscopic superpositions are not
per se
excluded, since
one could always (at least in principle) reduce the environment’s influence.
Several experiments, e.g. interference of large molecules, have shown that
we are able to control the environment better and better, maybe arriving at
a point where we are faced with a real cat paradox. In addition, the deco-
herence program is inherently quantum mechanical and therefore not able
to resolve the problem of outcomes. A further interpretation is needed to
explain why measurements have definite outcomes.
Now what can the collapse theories, presented in this work, tell us about
the quantum-to-classical transition? Although they are based on the modi-
fication of the Schr ̈odinger equation, they lead to predictions similar to de-
coherence. This is not surprising, since in both cases a macroscopic super-
position evoles into a classical mixture. In fact, the time evolution of a
system in both the decoherence and collapse theory can be described by a
masterequation of the Lindblad form. However, the two approaches differ
on a fundamental level. In the case of the decoherence program, coherence
becomes destroyed only locally (and is still existing in the larger system-
environment), whereas the collapse theory achieves a ”real” loss of coherence
on a fundamental level, i.e. independent of any interaction with some envi-
ronment. Contrary to the decoherence program, the real physical collapse
of each state vector explains why we have definite outcomes in every mea-
surement. Furthermore, the collapse theory provides a real boarder for the
observability of superpositions, i.e. superpositions are
a priori
excluded at
some level. However, the mechanism provided by the collapse theories suffers
from the preferred basis problem. This means that the choice of the operator
in the additional term of the Schr ̈odinger equation determines in which basis
the collapse can be achieved. This seems to be unsatisfying. Furthermore
the modification lacks a physical motivation in general.
Anyhow, we want to emphasize that it is not a matter of taste, which
approach one prefers. We point out again that, due to the modification of
the Schr ̈odinger equation, the collapse theory is a real rival theory, concerning
standard quantum mechanics. However, since decoherence effects are found
to be much stronger in the present experimental setups, it is still impossible to
test collapse models against quantum theory. Hopefully, future experiments,
e.g. with huge molecules, will become sensitive enough, to confirm or exclude
collapse theories.
Since the approach of coarse-grained measurements only differs conceptu-
ally from decoherence on the one hand, and is still demanding a generalization
on the other hand, we do not want to say much about it. However, in the

authors view it is an interesting idea. Especially due to the fact that the
realistic assumption of imprecise measurement apparatuses can lead to the
emergence of classicality.
Finally, we have seen that there exist a lot of explanations for the ap-
pearance of a classical world in quantum theory. However, there still exist
an important issue which we have not talked about. Even if it was possible
to explain the nonobservability of macroscopic superpositions, to answer the
question of the quantum-to-classical transition we still would have to explain
explicitly the emergence of classical physics, i.e. to show that it is possible
to derive Newton’s laws from quantum theory.

catalog of events

Fallen Angels from some Quantum Measurements

Is there a way to escape from ART ??

We need a new Basel congress to escape from the classical Herzl art to the quantum Herzl “art”..

Faith is a tool for the falling angels…


The new art roots are in my unmeasured environment  but the Jewish visual artist is blind by definition,, change the definitions…


New vocabulary..for Art..Revolution


In the comments on the above video (Damien Hirst) I found something like this:

….”This piece of shit is a talentless sociopath that belongs more in Broadmore than he does in an art gallery. This is how low European culture has sunk where the merit is in how much you can spin a web of bullshit and intimidate your way into the art world which is full of weak kneed sycophants that are afraid to criticise anything, than have any actual talent.”

And this:

“To all the people judging the art and saying it’s “shit” – you make the assumption that you know what is “not shit” – in which case, why aren’t you making “not shit” art and raking in all of the rewards? Just curious, since you seem to ‘know’?”


“if any of his work was put in a natural history museum, people would walk by and say “ooh, sharks and cows sure are interesting.” But he puts it in a snooty modern art gallery and everyone says “oh what a profound conceptual genius he is! Lets appraise this for millions of dollars!”

And also:

…”Kinda unrelated, but kinda not at the same time-The fact that art critics (and the concept of critiquing art in general) exist is ridiculous enough idea on it’s own. Whether art is “art” is completely subjective. Whether art is good, great, or shit is completely subjective. There is no right or wrong in art. Critiquing it for the masses and telling others whether they should like it or not completely defeats the purpose of it’s existence. Art is an intensely personal medium-that’s the point of it. By telling someone that they’ve done something wrong with it, that their art is shit-you’re essentially”…


t’s his art, and it had an audience, and that audience wanted it, and they had money. But, I think the litmus test is that, if you take all that stuff away, would this artist keep making the same stuff? In Damien’s case, I think he probably would. He would just be doing it in poverty. (So no diamond skulls, cigarette butts, yeah sure] That, I can respect. It’s a fools errand being an artist really. The overwhelming likelihood is that you’ll die poor, alone, unrecognised and forgotten by everyone. It’s not like being a mechanic, a clerk, or a telco engineer. [which I have been, to eat.] So one would only continue to do it if it’s what you’re naturally driven to do. An irrational need to make something useless. Nobody would choose that. It’s like a mental illness. Except in the cases when it turns good, like it did for him. [and even then, it can still go wrong. Basquiat et al.]

And finally :

…”funny how we think we know what art it is, Picasso? warhol? Rembrandt? duchamp? banksy? What is considered art for everyone is what have you been told is art… if the rich people pays 100 millions for Picasso must be art then…. I personally think art should transmit, and give you emotions.”..

And N.B.

…:”A drunk wanking on the street is art. Everything is art if you look at it with an artistic view point. I believe this is the point of his work. Many people view art in a very small category with all sorts of restrictions but art has no barriers. A butterfly is an insect but wouldn’t you also consider it art? I can understand people being upset with his work because of the fact that much of it used to be living, but if I died and then was later used as art I would be quite flattered.”…

So what is Art ?!…. Nobody knows……………..I need a new vocabulary…………framing all the above comments into a new point of view…. a la “””””Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution++++++…….


….from uncertainty to certainty…..