The Strange Story Of The First Quantum Art Exhibition in Space
How NASA, ESA and MIT joined forces with a Dutch artist to create a bizarre work of art using the International Space Station, the James Webb Telescope and the Universe itself.
When Samantha Cristoforetti blasted towards the International Space Station in November last year, she became first female Italian astronaut and something of a celebrity at the European Space Agency. Given the unusual cargo she was carrying, that fame could soon spread.
Among her possessions, was a tiny telescope just 4 centimetres long and 1 centimetre in diameter, attached to an unpowered CCD array from a smartphone camera.
The telescope is part of an art project designed by the Dutch artist Diemut Strebe in which he invokes quantum mechanics to generate all of the art ever made. In space.
At the same time, Strebe has made a second miniature telescope with a powered CCD array which people can interact with on Earth. Strebe’s idea is that the two telescopes can become quantum mechanically correlated so that an individual interacting with the earthbound telescope can influence the orbiting one.
Today, Seth Lloyd at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge describes the quantum mechanics behind the art in an attempt to provide a scientific basis for the work.
The work in question is called “Wigner’s friends” after a thought experiment developed by the Hungarian theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner. This thought experiment is an extension of the Schrodinger’s cat paradox in which a cat is placed in a box with a vial of poison that is released when a radioactive particle decays.
The decay is a quantum process that, in the absence of a measurement, exists in a superposition of states. In other words, the atom can be both decayed and undecayed the same time. The paradox arises when considering the cat, which must also be in a superposition of states and so both alive and dead same time.
Wigner’s extension was to imagine a friend who carries out the Schrodinger’s cat experiment after he had left the laboratory. When Wigner returns, he discovers the result but the question he raised was this. When was the result of the experiment determined— when he discovered the result or at some earlier point?
The key point that Wigner’s friend experiment raises is that consciousness seems necessary to determine the result of a quantum mechanical measurement process. Without consciousness, all the elements of the experiment remain in a superposition of all possible states.
Strebe uses Wigner’s thought experiment to suggest that until it is observed, the CCD array in the telescope exists in a quantum superposition of all possible images, including every piece of art ever made.
Is this a reasonable assumption? According to Lloyd, it is. He imagines the CCD array in the Earth’s shadow cooled to a temperature of around three degrees Kelvin, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation causes the elements of the CCD array to undergo energy fluctuations. “It seems not unreasonable to refer to this fluctuating array as containing all possible images in quantum superposition,” says Lloyd.
The CCD array should remain in this quantum superposition of all possible images as long as there is nobody around to observe it. In other words, as long as Wigner has no friends in space.
That introduces the question of the second telescope, which is powered and pointed at the sky. Strebe’s second idea is that both telescopes can become correlated in some quantum mechanical way. This again raises the question of whether this is a reasonable assumption.
According to Lloyd, the justification comes from a phenomenon known as the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect. This was first observed in the 1950s when astronomers collected light from the star Sirius using two photomultiplier tubes about six metres apart. To the surprise of many physicists, the team discovered a correlation between the two light signals which was eventually explained by the wavelike nature of light that allowed it to enter both photomultipliers at the same time.
Lloyd points out that the same effect could also be at work with the two telescopes made by Strebe— that the photons entering one may be correlated with the photons entering the other. And when this happens, a person interacting with the telescope on Earth must have a small but nonzero influence on the telescope in space, a la Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”
Just how this affects the extraterrestrial display of art, is not clear. But the point is that it can somehow influence it, or so Lloyd would have us believe.
That’s a curious scientific justification for a rather bizarre work of art. Lloyd’s approach is clearly generous. When probabilistic arguments are applied in this way, they can be used to justify almost anything. For example, you could die this afternoon because all the oxygen molecules in your room could end up in the wastepaper basket. Or dropping a pencil could set in train a sequence of events that triggers World War III.
These arguments rely on the notion that although the events are highly unlikely, they are possible and so must be taken seriously.
Experts in risk analysis have a straightforward way of dealing with this. They point out that in the absence of a reasonable mechanism, NOT dropping a pencil is just as likely to trigger World War III as dropping it. So the need to worry about this eventuality effectively cancels out.
Perhaps the same argument should also apply to Strebe’s art. Could the work be just as good if not observed (or not created in the first place)?
According to Lloyd, Strebe’s plan is to organise various “exhibitions” on Earth and then to launch the second telescope into space on NASA’s James Webb Telescope. (Whatever your opinion of the art, it’s hard not to admire Strebe’s powers of persuasion, having co-opted NASA, ESA and MIT in the project.)
Lloyd ends his paper with the following: “The science on which the artwork is based seems to fall within the bounds of artistic license,” a statement clearly delivered with a twinkle in the eye and perhaps with tongue placed firmly in cheek.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1501.01610 : Analysis Of A Work Of Quantum Art