»Meje kraljestva so občutljive.« Michel Houellebecq, Osnovni delci

»V času med 1900 in 1920 so skušali, predvsem na pobudo Einsteina in Bohra, nov model atoma uskladiti s klasično sliko atoma; klasična teorija se je dokončno in nepreklicno zlomila v začetku dvajsetih let. Nielsa Bohra so imeli za pravega utemeljitelja kvantne mehanike, ne le zaradi njegovih osebnih odkritij, temveč predvsem zaradi izredno ustvarjalnega vzdušja, ki ga je znal pričarati, vzdušja, v katerem so se prepletali intelektualno vrvenje, svobodnjaški duh in prijateljstvo. Inštitut za fiziko iz Københavna, ki ga je Bohr ustanovil leta 1919, je sprejemal vse mlade raziskovalce, kar jih je premogla evropska fizika. V njem so se učili Heisenberg, Pauli in Born. Bohr je bil sicer od njih nekoliko starejši, toda z mešanico filozofske daljnovidnosti, dobrohotnosti in strogosti je znal ure in ure razpravljati o malenkostnih detajlih njihovih hipotez. Bil je pikolovsko natančen in ni dopuščal nikakršnih približkov pri interpretaciji poskusov, toda nobena nova zamisel se mu ni zdela že vnaprej nora in noben klasični pojem nedotakljiv. Študente je rad vabil v svojo podeželsko hišo v Tisvildeju; v njej je gostil tudi znansvenike drugih disciplin, politike in umetnike. Pogovori so se svobodno in neomejeno vrteli med fiziko in filozofijo, umetnostno zgodovino, religijo in temami iz vsakdanjega življenja. Česa podobnega človeštvo ni videlo vse od rojstva grške misli.« (Michel Houellebecq, Osnovni delci, str 17, prevod Mojca Medvedšek.)

11. Izis, z naslovom Osnovni delci, nas je kaj kmalu pripeljal do pogovorov, ki so se vrteli tudi okrog kvantne mehanike. Teorije, ki je prelomila s klasično sliko atoma in v leta 2020 izdani knjigi Helgoland italijanskega fizika Carla Rovellija napeljala k izjavi, da je: »Klasični pogled na svet halucinacija, ki ni več potrjena« (Rovelli, Helgoland, 196). Čeprav je šlo za kolektivno delo, bi lahko za njen temeljni uvid določili točen datum, 7. 6. 1925, ko Werner Heisenberg na otoku Helgoland o njem poroča takole: »Ura je bila že skoraj tri ponoči, preden je bil pred menoj končni rezultat računa, […] tako da nisem več mogel dvomiti o matematični nedvoumnosti in sklenjenosti tako nakazane kvantne mehanike. Prvi trenutek sem se zgrozil do dna duše. Imel sem občutek, da gledam skozi površino atomskih pojavov v notranjost nenavadne lepote, ki leži globoko pod površino, in skoraj zavrtelo se mi je ob misli, da bi moral zdaj raziskovati to obilico matematičnih struktur, ki jih je narava razgrnila pred menoj.« (Heisenberg, Del in celota, 76)

Københavnska interpretacija predpostavlja veljavnost tako Newtonove kot kvantne mehanike, meja med obema pa ni jasno določena, predvsem pa se na kvantni ravni dogajajo čudne reči, enkrat valovanje, drugič delec, odvisno od tega, ali to kdo gleda. Česar še danes fiziki ne znajo enoznačno opisati z besedami. Sean Connell, zagovornik – københavnski nasprotne – interpretacije več svetov pravi, da je: »Z enačbami kristalno jasno, z besedami pa je težko«.

»Heisenberg si predstavlja, da elektroni ne obstajajo zmeraj. Obstajajo samo, ko so v interakciji s čim drugim. […] Einstein ni hotel popustiti pri zanj ključni točki: da obstaja objektivna resničnost, neodvisna od tega, kdo interagira s kom, ostane prepričan, da stvari ne morejo biti tako čudne in da mora ‘zadaj’ obstajati bolj verjetna razlaga. Minilo je sto let in nahajamo se na isti točki. Enačbe kvantne mehanike in njihove posledice na najbolj raznovrstnih področjih vsakodnevno uporabljajo fiziki, inžinirji, kemiki in biolgi. So izredno uporabne za vso sodobno tehnologijo, a vendar ostajajo nedoumljive: ne opisujejo, kaj se dogaja znotraj nekega fizikalnega sistema, ampak samo, kako je nek fizikalni sistem percepiran s strani drugega fizikalnega sistema. Kaj to pomeni? Da je resničnost fizikalnega sistema neopisljiva? Da manjka en del zgodbe? Ali pa to pomeni, kot se mi zdi, da moramo sprejeti idejo, da je resničnost zgolj interakcija?« (Rovelli, Sedem kratkih lekcij o fiziki, 26–29)

Pri letošnjem Izisu smo jo poskušali – Rovellijevo relacijsko interpretacijo – kar se da sprejeti. Libertas kot razstavni prostor postaviti v največjo možno odvisnost z razstavljenim. Kuratorsko delo z avtorji in avtoricami. Meje osebe do avtorstva. Predvsem pa: ustvarjalni proces vsakega izmed nas z notranjim jedrom nujnosti, ki ga žene. In po vseh letih, ki so minila od nadobudnega prvega Izisa – če je res, da je osnovni delec odnos, – »v katerem so se prepletali intelektualno vrvenje, svobodnjaški duh in prijateljstvo,« preveriti, če je ta trditev še veljavna.

»‘Če mine, tedaj ni bila prava ljubezen.’ Zakaj tedaj ni bila? Je naša izkušnja taka, da je trajno le to občutje in ne ono? Ali uporabimo podobo: ljubezen preizkusimo glede na njeno notranjo strukturo, ki je neposredno občutje ne razodene. Toda ta podoba nam je pomembna. Ljubezen, torej tisto pomembno, ni občutje, temveč nekaj globljega, kar se le izrazi v občutju. Imamo besedo ‘ljubezen’ in damo ta naslov sedaj tistemu najpomembnejšemu.« (Wittgenstein v: Simoniti: O ljubezenskih izjavah)

Izis posvečamo Branetu Grguroviču, čigar Fuck Off Illusion nas je prvič pripeljal v Libertas, ki je rad ponavljal, da so mu fotončki rekli, in je 1. 8. 2023 umrl. Z besedama vabljeni in vabljene se nadejamo, da se lahko skupaj »z uporabo teh besed učimo njihovih omejitev« (Werner Heisenberg).

Karlo Hmeljak

“The kingdom’s limits are fragile.” after Michel Houellebecq, Atomised

“Between 1900 and 1920, Einstein, Bohr and their contemporaries developed a number of ingenious models which attempted to recon­cile this idea with previous theories. It was not until the 1920s that it became apparent that such attempts were futile. Niels Bohr’s claim to be the founder of quantum mechanics rests less on his own discoveries than on the extraordinary atmosphere of creativity and intellectual openness he fostered around him. The Institute of Physics, which Bohr founded in Copenhagen in 1919, welcomed the cream of young European physicists. Heisenberg, Pauli and Born served their apprenticeships there. Though some years their senior, Bohr would spend hours talking through their hypotheses in detail. He was perceptive and good humoured, but extremely rigorous. However, if Bohr tolerated no laxity in his students’ experiments, he did not think any new idea foolish a priori; no concept was so established that it could not be challenged. He liked to invite his students to his country house in Tisvilde, where he also welcomed politicians, artists and scientists from other fields. Their conversations ranged easily from philosophy to physics, history to art, from religion to everyday life. Nothing comparable had happened since the days of the Greek philosophers.” (Michel Houellebecq, Atomised, p. 15–16, trans. Frank Wynne.)

11th IZIS, with the title Elementary Particles, soon had us discussing quantum mechanics. The theory which dismantled the classic image of the atom and pushed the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli to declare in his book Helgoland (2020) that: “The classical vision of the world is no longer a confirmed hallucination.” Even though the development of the theory was a group effort, we can perhaps establish the exact date, 7. 6. 1925, when its fundamental insight was brought to light. Werner Heisenberg reports on it from the island Helgoland: “It was almost three o’clock in the morning before the final result of my computations lay before me, […] and I could no longer doubt the mathematical consistency and coherence of the kind of quantum mechanics to which my calculations pointed. At first, I was deeply alarmed. I had the feeling that, through the surface of atomic phenomena, I was looking at a strangely beautiful interior, and felt almost giddy at the thought that I now had to probe this wealth of mathematical structures nature had so generously spread out before me.” (Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond)

The Copenhagen interpretation assumes the validity of both Newtonian and quantum mechanics, while the border between them is not clearly defined, and especially on the quantum level strange happenings abound: sometimes there are waves and sometimes particles, all depending on whether there is an observer. Even today physicists cannot unambiguously explain this with words. Sean Connell, the proponent of the Many worlds interpretation – as opposed to the Copenhagen one – tells us, that: “With equations it’s crystal clear, with words is hard.”

“Heisenberg imagined that electrons do not always exist. They only exist when someone or something watches them, or better, when they are interacting with something else. […] Einstein did not want to relent on what was for him the key issue: that there was an objective reality independent of whoever interacts with whatever, and remained convinced that things could not be as strange as it proposed – that ‘behind’ it there must be a further, more reasonable explanation. A century later we are at the same point. The equations of quantum mechanics and their consequences are used daily in widely varying fields: by physicists, engineers, chemists and biologists. They are extremely useful in all contemporary technology. Yet they remain mysterious. For they do not describe what happens to a physical system, but only how a physical system affects another physical system. What does this mean? That the essential reality of a system is indescribable? Does it mean that we only lack a piece of the puzzle? Or does it mean, as it seems to me, that we must accept the idea that reality is only interaction?” (Rovelli, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics)

At this year’s IZIS we tried to acknowledge and accept – as much as we could – Rovelli’s relational interpretation. To make the Libertas exhibition space display the highest possible degree of interconnection with what is exhibited. The curatorial work with the authors. The limits of personhood with authorship. And above all else: the creative process of each of us with the inner core of necessity that drives us. And after all these years that have passed since the youthful aspirations of the first IZIS – if it is true that the elementary particle is the relationship – “which was a tangle of intellectual tumult, free spirit and friendship,” to verify if this statement still holds true.

“‘If it passes, it means it was not true love.’ In this case, why not? Is our experience such that only this feeling is permanent, while the other is not? Or we use an image: we experience love through its inner structure, which is not revealed by direct feeling. And yet this image matters to us. Love, that which matters, is not a feeling but something deeper, which is only expressed in the feeling. We have the word ‘love’ and we use this title for that which is most important.” (Wittgenstein in: Simoniti, On Declarations of Love)

We dedicate IZIS to Brane Grgurovič, whose Fuck Off Illusion brought us to Libertas for the first time. He was fond of saying that the photons have told him and he died on August 1^st, 2023. You are invited: we hope that “by using these words, we can learn their limitations” (Heisenberg) together.

Karlo Hmeljak

Translated by Jasmin B. Frelih