A Scientist's Encounters with Novelty and Art: an interview with world-renowned scientist and author Lee Smolin
photo courtesy of NASA
So here we are, my first interview with a scientist. And Lee
Smolin, no less. If you don’t know who he is, stop and google his name now.
Did you do it?
I did this while on my way to interview him. I had read all
of his books and had invited him to my shows about Einstein and solar flares, but there it was on the
internet – one of the four most famous and important writers of cosmology and
physics for the general public. Right up there with Stephen Hawking, Brian
Greene, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
No pressure, Lucy. Pretend you didn’t read that and keep
walking up to the front door of his house and ring that doorbell.
I am so glad I did.
Although Lee never describes a particular process he follows
in his work, his reminiscences of encounters with artists and their processes are imbued with the creative spark. Not the spark of solution
or answer, but the spark of origin, a thing that propels him into a deeper
query. It pushes him to evolve from a hill climber to a valley crosser and vice
versa – that will make sense later --
and to keep the tension of exploration adjusting and readjusting.
LUCY: Part of my journey into the intersection of art and science came from reading a scientist's description of the scientific process as four stages: Saturate,
Incubate, Illuminate, Verify.
LEE: Hhmmmm.
LUCY: When I read that I instantly felt that’s what
I do when I’m choreographing and dancing. I’ve tried to formalize the four stages into my
creative process, I let them guide me when I
launch into a new project.
LEE: I’ve never heard that description. What were those
stages?
LUCY: Saturate, Incubate, Illuminate, Verify. I cannot
remember who said it.
LEEE: I don’t think there is a scientific method, but that’s not a bad description.
LEEE: I don’t think there is a scientific method, but that’s not a bad description.
LUCY: Maybe that’s an advantage science has over art: even if there isn't a set method, there’s an expectation you will formalize things into a quantifiable or defined process?
LEE: But that’s not the process of making science.
I’m going to tell you my one dance story. A long time ago I was living in New York, I became enamoured of the Martha Graham Company. I saw
her. She didn’t perform but she came out and took a bow. It was the late 80s or
early 90s. And then I was in Argentina for a conference and I went to see the
Graham company perform there. We ran into some of the principal dancers in the
street and started chatting
We made a bet as to whether quantum mechanics or Martha Graham’s
dances would last longer. Each of us betting on the other. Their view was that
the dances were very fragile. And it requires people who have living knowledge
to keep it alive. Even though there’s notation, they were very worried that
when they retired the dances would be lost. They were the last generation who
were trained by Martha Graham. The dances were going to disappear. We, on the
other hand, were very hopeful that quantum mechanics would be super-ceded.
LUCY: And I guess quantum mechanics hasn’t really been super-ceded.
LEE: Unfortunately no. And I don’t know what the status of
the Martha Graham company is.
LUCY: The company is struggling to find a way to keep going without becoming a museum company, just re-staging Graham's old works. There are dancers
in their 60s and 70s who were trained by Martha who can pass on their knowledge
to younger dancers, but there must be some kind diluting effect as it
happens. The company wants to stay relevant, yet it bears the name of this
woman who is an indelible historical mark on the development of modern dance in
North America….
So to you....what drew you into physics?
LEE: I’ve told that story a few times.
LUCY: I’m sure. I apologize for asking again!
LEE: When I was in high school I was into rock and roll. I
was a bad musician. My mother was a playwright and I was into writing too. I
was very rebellious. We did some testing in grade 8 that said I wasn’t good
enough to go into advanced math. But we had a friend who was a professor of
mathematics, in Cincinnati and he arranged for me to do advanced math in the university
and so I got to calculus very early and I had use of a computer when very few
kids did. Now it’s universal but back then it was something to make a fuss
over.
I wasn’t interested in it [math/science] as something to do. Then I met and
heard a talk with Buckminster Fuller. My father had wanted to be an architect
and saw he was speaking and my friend and I were in charge of a Speakers Program
at the high school so I called the hotel he was staying at and left a message
that if he wanted to speak at the high school he should call….I got called to
the school office in second period. The principal told me I should pick him up
at 2. So we went down and picked him. He just got in the car with a couple of
kids.
The principal had called an assembly for the last period.
Mr. Fuller came out looked around, went back stage and got a chair, put it on
stage, went to the podium and put one microphone in each breast pocket, sat
down, took out his hearing aid, took off his glasses, closed his eyes and
talked for six hours.
click on photo for
Buckminster Fuller documentary
I got very inspired. And shortly after that I dropped
out of high school. I started working with structures, with curved surfaces.
And I applied for Hampshire College which was a small experimental school on
the basis of my playing around with architecture They accepted me and then I
got into designing curved surfaces, arbitrary surfaces, writing computer code
to do structural confirmations of curved surfaces, dividing them up into
triangles. Which is very ironic because the models we make for quantum space
look like triangles, triangulated structures.
I was getting books from the public library, math books. All
the books on curved surfaces had chapters on relativity. So I got a book of
essays about Einstein. An essay by Einstein about why he went into physics… I
just got this feeling that I could do this. Of course, I had never taken a physics
course. I just got this feeling maybe, not maybe --just a calm feeling that I
could.
He laid out what were for him the open problems at that
time: quantum mechanics, beyond quantum mechanics and combine that with
relativity. It’s like I got an assignment. And that’s what I’ve done ever since.
LUCY: Einstein is a touchstone for so many people in- and out-side of science. I started reading his works while finishing my
history degree. I wound up making a dance about –in an abstract way -- about Einstein's thought experiments.
I felt like you: like I got an assignment. Can you go on stage and do a thought
experiment? Maybe the end result of this thought experiment will be that it
feels different every time, the movements will link together differently….It
opened up my way of making and performing dance.
Then I read his writings on peace and was extremely moved. I go
back to his writing when I feel a little lost. Einstein, Bertrand Russell and
Henry Miller.
LEE: That’s an interesting trio. Einstein, Miller,
Russell…all pre-modern in a way. The last classics.
It’s interesting too that Einstein never got modern. People
tried to get him to move forward but he wouldn’t. People are trying to figure
out if he ever went to hear jazz. It would have been easy for him to have gone
into New York and heard Coltrane or Monk.
LUCY: It would’ve been interesting to know his response to
jazz.
LEE: There’s no evidence he ever attended any concerts.
LUCY: Jazz appeals to very analytical minds… a certain
mathematical element to it?
LEE: Yes.
LUCY: A mind that can see the world in mathematics really
can plug into the music.
LEE: One of the things [composer/musician/producer] Melvin Gibbs talked about was that for African-Americans who were mathematical there weren’t career
paths into mathematics, science or engineering but they had career paths into
jazz. So several of them like Coltrane, like Ornette Coleman, had very mathematical theories of harmony.
Melvin Gibbs in a vintage NYC performance, 1988
LUCY: I never thought about it that way before. But that
makes a lot of sense.
LEE: Do you think Einstein on the Beach was a series of thought experiments?
LUCY: I would imagine so. It seems like Philip Glass would do
something like that.
LEE: And the choreographer?
LUCY: Lucinda Childs? I don’t know. What I know of her, it
seems she has a very analytical, mathematical and highly-structured mind, very
intentional. I just saw her choreography for the opera Doctor Atomic about Robert Oppenheimer.
LEE: I didn’t know there was an opera about Oppenheimer!
Canadian singer Gerald Finley in "Batter My Heart" from John Adams' Doctor Atomic
LUCY: Oh it’s beautiful. In the choreography the dancers are
generally behind the action of the main characters, behind a veil, either
literally or metaphorically. It took me a few scenes of thinking “Why are they so
far back, just moving around?” and then I realized that they were moving as the
atoms.
LEE: One of the dances in Einstein on the Beach has a dancer
being a photon. In a kind of thought experiment about light.
LUCY: I suspect that was a choreographed version of a
thought experiment but I don’t think the dancers themselves were undergoing a
thought experiment as they were dancing. Probably the thought experiment was
the choreographer’s creative process rather than the way the dancers approached
performing it. Even Einstein on the Beach being such a phenomenon of epic
performance. So well-known by so many people who don’t know about opera and new
music…
LEE: Who composed the Oppenheimer opera?
LUCY: John Adams. It’s so beautiful. How can you
make an opera about Oppenheimer’s inner struggle with the Manhattan Project and
make it interesting?
LEE: And you’d have to deal with….well...Oppenheimer’s a very
problematic personality and he did a lot of damage. A lot of people got hurt.
Not just the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
LUCY: It's a time and an issue that is still problematic and unresolved. It
never will be resolved. It was a tricky time.
LEE: It was a complicated thing.
LUCY: Do you feel that you have a shape of a process that
you go through? I’ll call it a creative process rather than separating artistic
and scientific since they are both creative.
LEE: They’re both creative…Well, first of all I believe that
novelty is real and that nature has the capacity to generate novel forms of
matter, novel structures, novel patterns. Human beings have the capacity to
invent novel ideas and novel explanations as an expression of the general
capacity of nature to create novel forms. Novel means not anticipatable, not
predictable from knowledge from the past.
That’s a very strong form of emergence.
So what’s the creative process? Any process which creates
novelty. Art is a particularly refined, purified form of the invention of
novelty. Science is less so. Science is the search for good explanations about
the natural world and as such…I mean I know there is rigour in art and it is
hard to do well. There’s progress and criticism, but science is demanding in a
different way. Science has a very conservative element and a very radical
element and they have to coexist in tension. A good scientist is conservative
and a rebel as well.
Scientific process is very labour intensive, very emotional.
Any breakthroughs you have in the understanding of something are surrounded by
doubt and criticism and it’s very much back and forth.
I’m somebody who is relatively good at inventing new ideas
and hypotheses, which is rare. Science gets by with 90% of scientists as incrementalists.
They advance a given research paradigm incrementally.
LUCY: What do you mean by incrementalist in this context?
LEE: If knowledge is a landscape and better knowledge is a higher
hill there are hill climbers who don’t know how to get down the other side.
They are very good at climbing but get confused and don’t know what to do when
they get to the top, so they tend to stay there and defend, making fun of
people sitting on top of other hills. The minority of people are valley
crossers.
That seems to be part of the dynamic that makes science
successful: if we were all valley crossers it would collapse, if we were all
hill climbers it would collapse.
And a good scientist has to be able to do both to some
extent. Everyone has different balances, different amounts of tension.
LUCY: That’s a beautiful word, tension. Tension gets talked about a lot in theatre,
not so much in dance. How to keep tension alive between movements, bodies. Not
physical tension, more energetic. If there’s not enough tension, it leaves
audiences caring a little less about what they are witnessing. A degree of risk
or high-stakes is involved when there is tension.
LEE: I think the hill climbers and valley crossers exist in
art too. But it’s inherent in many scientific fields. The tensions within
oneself and also within the community of one particular discipline of science.
That gets lost sometimes in the arts. We don’t have to be all radicals. We need
the tensions within ourselves and amongst each other.
LUCY: In terms of science, art and more generally in our
world. It wouldn’t work if we were all valley crossers.
So when I read your book Time Reborn. I cried during the last chapter of
this book.
LEE: The epilogue.
LUCY: Yes. I would read the book in before going to sleep, in bed, and I'd roll over to my husband and say, “Ok
listen to this.” These are the conversations we have at night, just before we fall asleep
we get on to the nature of the universe and philosophy of the world. But when I
read Time Reborn I was also reading Edward O. Wilson's books, encountering these different
disciplines talking the same way about being responsible for the world. Saying
this is how it’s possible for us to make changes that will make things better.
It came out of left field – the turn of energy in your epilogue and when I got to the end it, it took
my breath away.
LEE: Thank you. I’m glad because I coded very personal stuff
in there. My first book Life in the Cosmos…I don’t know if you read it…
LUCY: Oh yes.
LEE: The epilogue in Time Reborn is a response to the
epilogue of Life in the Cosmos. That entire epilogue was inspired by the remark
of a friend, Paul Sinclair St. Moon, a Brazilian sculptor. We were at a party
where I asked him what post modernism was…I think can quote him by heart:
“If the point of modernism was to burn down the old house of
classicism then all post-modernism has been doing is playing with the charred
little pieces that were left. Which is a very purile thing to be doing
considering that winter is coming.”
LUCY: Whooooooooaaaaa.
LEE: That resonated with me somehow and on the subway home
from that party, I wrote the epilogue. It came out in one thing, in a notebook
on the subway.
So that book is partly an application of ideas from biology
to evolutionary physics, but it was very much inspired by my interactions with artists,
especially visual artists in New York in the 90s.
LUCY: It’s like there’s a post-modern vortex… it can suck
people in. Steve Reich and Philip Glass – even their music creates an aural
vortex.
LEE: I don’t know music really well, but I have had two
experiences with Philip Glass – Einstein on the Beach and a solo dance
performance in the 90s – I can’t remember the dancer. I liked dance but I never
knew that much about it. It was a pretty formal dancer, intriguing and she came
to the end and there was call for an encore and she came in front of the
curtain, she said she’d like to do a piece she’d been working on…The curtain
opened and there was a piano and sitting at it was Philip Glass.
His music is highly emotional. It’s highly structured and
within that it was extremely expressive and probably a lot of lesser composers
with the same structure made things that were not interesting, not expressive.
LUCY: There’s something about those two – Reich and Glass --
where they did it so well that it transcends its own formalism.
LEE: Yes. Do you know who that dancer might have been?
LUCY: It was probably Lucinda Childs, who choreographed
Einstein on the Beach. Or Trisha Brown. Did you see Einstein on the Beach in
Toronto recently?
LEE: Yes. I expected to hate it. [Director] Robert Wilson
wanted to have a session of response from physicists at the Perimeter
Institute. Dina, my wife, wanted to go because she’s connected with music, on
the board of Array Music. There was to
be a session of commentary after the performance. I insisted on an aisle seat
so I could leave, because I was sure I was going to hate it.
As soon as they started I was captivated.
choreography by Lucinda Childs from Philip Glass "Einstein on the Beach"
LUCY: Why did you think you would hate it?
LEE: Because it was post-modern and minimalist and 5 hours.
LUCY: Yeah, if you’re going to ask people to be there for 5
hours it better be good.
LEE: And no intermission. But there is the assumption that
people will leave and come back. I did leave a little bit, but I was mostly
there.
LUCY: Part of the reason I didn’t go to see it is because I
thought there was no way I could sit still for 5 hours. I would need to go for
a run and come back.
LEE: You could have! It would be interesting to know what
you thought of the choreography.
LUCY: I would expect it was unrelenting. Her work starts and
just goes, usually.
LEE: Also for the singers.
LUCY: I can’t imagine singing for 5 hours….I’ve had to dance
that long, but singing? Although I guess if I trained for that kind of performance
I would have strategies.
LEE: There are tricks I understand. We asked the performers,
because the “words” are mostly nonsenses syllables and the time signatures
change constantly. There are counting tricks that Glass developed for the
singers. They said if you sing contemporary music you get used that kind of
challenge.
LUCY: For dancers too. There’s that joke that dancers can only
count to 8. But contemporary dancers have to switch all the time and so much of
it we don’t even count anymore, so the sense of time is created by personal
rhythm and proprioceptive devices, a collective experience of time.
So what are you working on now, do you have a new area?
LEE: I have one thing which is very risky – it’s the
craziest thing I’ve done in a long time and it has to do with seeing if an
effect of quantum gravity could explain something of what dark matter is. I
can’t talk about it very much….but it’s addressing the failure of dark matter
to explain everything that it’s supposed to explain.
LUCY: That feels like a frontier right now. I just
read Lisa Randall’s book…
LEE: Her book about dark matter and the dinosaurs?
LUCY: Yes. I need to read a bit more because I have flashes
of visceral understanding but I need to read more so that I can really wrap my
brain around it. I get drawn to the edge of science to explain what we see and
experience and I love the mystery that is out on that edge.
The reason I’ve been drawn into reading on cosmology etc., is because my parents used to get my sister and me up in the
middle of the night to watch meteor showers. I grew up in a house where we
never watched TV while eating unless it was the Muppet Show, National Geographic
specials or Carl Sagan's Cosmos. My mum died when I was 15 and my dad when I was 22. I had just finished university, just finished my dance degree, about to launch into
the world and not at all ready to be without parents. I spent the whole summer
after my dad died reading The Origin of Species, the Voyage of the Beagle and
every book by Carl Sagan that was in our house – we had all of them that had
been written to that point.
Reading about the natural laws of the universe helped me cope.
Reading about the natural laws of the universe helped me cope.
When I had my son a great deal of anxiety arose in me –
worrying about my mortality and the future and time passing – and it is reading
your books, and others like them, that helps me release from the anxiety of my
little place in the universe.
LEE: That parental anxiety is what's coded into the epilogue of
Time Reborn, without it saying so explicitly. That was a motivation.
LUCY: I can see for my son too, that touchstones for him
with his anxiety is learning about the world.
LEE: Anything else you want to ask?
LUCY: So many things….but we should wrap it up. It’s
wonderful to hear you speak. It’s very reassuring to hear people speak about
their work. I like to know how people do what they do.
LEE: There’s more to say about that. It’s hard to have good
ideas. They come in a moment…I like those four stages…what was the first? Saturate.
Very good ideas they come in a moment. Cosmological natural selection came one
day when I was sailing. I have a visual memory of that sail. I had a very good
idea in the White Squirrel cafĂ©…only time I went there. I don’t want to go back
and jinx it. Bad ideas come just floating on the wind. Good ideas take an
immersion in the problem.
Then you are responsible for it. It takes months, years, to
turn an idea into a legitimate scientific hypothesis.
Lucy Rupert in her work investigating Einstein's thought experiments
"The speed of our vertigoes" photo by Jeremy Brace
LUCY: Ideas are all consuming. You don’t leave it on your
desk at the end of an 8-hour day. It travels along inside you. Truly an embodied action.
Do you see it as a good thing that there seems to be a surge
in popular interest in understanding the universe?
LEE: This might be a bit deflationary on that count: If you
look behind it, there’s one person, a literary agent. Almost everybody you’ve
mentioned, we share the same agent. He’s a great business man, a great
storyteller and a person of great vision. John Brockman. His vision is
something like this: there used to be a place in North American culture for public
intellectuals: Susan Sontag, Lionel Trilling etc....John’s analysis is that
post-modernism focused the attention inward and intellectuals forgot how to
communicate to the public at large. And that role now is empty. He proposes the
third culture take up that space. Third culture is artists, scientists and the digerati together. He
sought out us all out, people who had new ideas for books that could be written
as though for our colleagues, but with the general public looking over their
shoulders.
LUCY: I don’t think that’s deflationary at all. That one
agent is bringing the mystery and the new ideas to the public. We need it. We
need to share the mystery.
LEE: Well then let’s end there.
LUCY: Beautiful.
Comments