The research I am doing is part of my ongoing kinetic scultpture and sound work, I have always loved Tinguely but needed to get a scientific angle on his theory to make sure I can be as critical as possible when referencing his theory.
I got this reply of a physics forum...brilliant response and hilarious....
Originally Posted by
oramics
Hi all new here. I'm by no means a scientist or physicist. I build electronics mostly from schematics and am slowly learning it with my oscilloscope.
Very cool! And may I say
Good for you!
I always appreciate it when someone has a desire to learn, especially with electronics and physics. In fact before I became a physicist I was an electronics technician.
Originally Posted by
oramics
My question is can stillness exist?
Absolutely. You must be referring to this:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_T....21.2C.22_1959
They guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's an artist, not a physicist. He also claims that decomposition does not exist and that's nonsense too. Decomposition is properly defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition
Decomposition is the process by which organic substances are broken down into simpler matter. The process is a part of nutrient cycle and is essential for recycling the finite matter that occupies physical space in the biosphere. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
Here's some sage advice from good-ole me: Never learn physics from an artist and never learn art from a physicist. Learn physics from a physicist and art from an artist.
Originally Posted by
oramics
is everything not in constant exchange on a molecular level, atomic level. My science isn't great but I can follow to an extent. I've just read a brief explantion of Uncertainty Theory which I think is relevant?
You're referring to the branch of physics called quantum mechanics. There's no meaning to
Constant exchange in quantum mechanics. At the atomic level there's not even a notion of "moving". In fact velocity is not something that's directly observable. What's observable are things like position, energy, momentum, spin, etc.
But we don't live at the quantum level, i.e. all of our experiences are at the macroscopic level. At that level its quite normal to speak of something at rest.
When that guy says that static = still is incorrect he's not talking as a physicist would. Think of it like this; can we speak of something being a sphere? What about a circle or a straight line? At the quantum level we can't speak about objects being flat or round or whatever. But at the macroscopic level we most certainly can speak of it. In fact there's a famous example from history we can turn to, Giotto di Bondone. When the Pope asked Giotto to send him a drawing to demonstrate his skill, Giotto drew a circle so perfect it seemed like it was drawn with a compass. Can we speak of a perfect circle? Of course.
It's a cool story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto
The artist you refer to isn't being realistic. As I said above, our experiences, all of them, are in the macroscopic world. In that world we make approximations. We can then speak of the Earth, Moon and Sun as being spheres. We can speak of a car moving at 56 mph. We can speak of objects at rest and therefore static.
If the artist you speak of attempted to argue with a policeman who wanted to give him a speeding ticket by saying that we can't speak of speed since quantum mechanics doesn't allow it, he wouldn't get very far and he might irritate the cop.
