Matt Jones Studio

fun news about painting 100,000 years ago

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:18:23 -0400

fun news about painting 100,000 years ago

Been staring at these for too long, need some fresh eyes on...

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:27:51 -0400

Been staring at these for too long, need some fresh eyes on them. I can’t tell if the toucan piece is working at all, I think I like the stretched mound painting, and just picture the sculpture with a clock in it as that is coming. Throw me a bone folks!

Will the universe end in a big snap? By David Shiga

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 09:52:00 -0400

Focusing on a logical but gruesome end for the universe could reveal elusive quantum gravity

IMAGINE one day you wake up and look at yourself in the mirror only to find that something is terribly wrong. You look grainy and indistinct, like a low-quality image blown up so much that the features are barely recognisable. You scream, and the sound that comes out is distorted too, like hearing it over a bad phone line. Then everything goes blank.

Welcome to the big snap, a new and terrifying way for the universe to end that seems logically difficult to avoid.

Dreamed up by Massachusetts Institute of Technology cosmologist Max Tegmark, the snap is what happens when the universe’s rapid expansion is combined with the insistence of quantum mechanics that the amount of information in the cosmos be conserved. Things start to break down, like a computer that has run out of memory.

It is cold comfort that you would not survive long enough to watch this in the mirror, as the atoms that make up your body would long since have fallen apart. But take heart, accepting this fate would without question mean discarding cherished notions, such as the universe’s exponential “inflation” shortly after the big bang. And that is almost as unpalatable to cosmologists as the snap itself.

So rather than serving as a gruesome death knell, Tegmark prefers to think of the big snap as a useful focal point for future work, in particular the much coveted theory of quantum gravity, which would unite quantum mechanics with general relativity. “In the past when we have faced daunting challenges it’s also proven very useful,” he says. “That’s how I feel about the big snap. It’s a thorn in our side, and I hope that by studying it more it will turn out to give us some valuable clues in our quest to understand the nature of space.” That would be fitting as Tegmark did not set out to predict a gut-wrenching way for the universe to end. Rather, he was led to this possibility by some puzzling properties of the universe as we know it.

According to quantum mechanics, every particle and force field in the universe is associated with a wave, which tells us everything there is to know about that particle or that field. We can predict what the waves will look like at any time in the future from their current state. And if we record what all the waves in the universe look like at any given moment, then we have all the information necessary to describe the entire universe. Tegmark decided to think about what happens to that information as the universe expands (arxiv.org/abs/1108.3080).

To understand his reasoning, it’s important to grasp that even empty space has information associated with it. That’s because general relativity tells us that the fabric of space-time can be warped, and it takes a certain amount of information to specify whether and in what way a particular patch of space is bent.

One way to visualise this is to think of the universe as divided up into cells 1 Planck length across - the smallest scale that is meaningful, like a single pixel in an image. Some physicists think that one bit of information is needed to describe the state of each cell, though the exact amount is debated. Trouble arises, however, when you extrapolate the fate of these cells out to a billion years hence, when the universe will have grown larger.

One option is to accept that the added volume of space, and all the Planck-length cells within it, brings new information with it, sufficient to describe whether and how it is warped. But this brings you slap bang up against a key principle of quantum mechanics known as unitarity - that the amount of information in a system always stays the same.

What’s more, the ability to make predictions breaks down - the very existence of extra information means we could not have anticipated it from what we already knew.

Another option is to leave quantum mechanics intact, and assume the new volume of space brings no new information with it. Then we need to describe a larger volume of space using the same number of bits. So if the volume doubles, the only option is to describe a cubic centimetre of space with only half the number of bits we had before (see diagram).

This would be appropriate if each cell grows, says Tegmark. Where nothing previously varied on scales smaller than 1 Planck length, now nothing varies on scales smaller than 2 Planck lengths, or 3, or more depending how much the universe expands. Eventually, this would impinge on the laws of physics in a way that we can observe.

Photons of different energies only travel at the same speed under the assumption that space is continuous. If the space-time cells became large enough, we might start to notice photons with a very short wavelength moving more slowly than longer wavelength ones. And if the cells got even larger, the consequences would be dire. The trajectories of waves associated with particles of matter would be skewed. This would change the energy associated with different arrangements of particles in atomic nuclei. Some normally stable nuclei would fall apart.

Chemical reactions would get messed up too, since these depend critically on the energy associated with configurations of electrons and ions that would be altered by the large granularity of space. Living things would regrettably cease to function. “It would probably kill us at the point where the nuclear physics gets messed up,” Tegmark says. “Many of the atoms of which we’re made would disintegrate.”

Does a gruesome future await? Maybe not. If the big snap is really what’s in store, we should already be seeing signs of it - and thankfully we are not.

In an expanding universe with a finite lifetime, most of the volume - along with its stars, galaxies, and planets - shows up for the final curtain, simply because that is when the universe has grown to its largest size. If we assume the early universe expanded at an extremely rapid pace, as posited by the widely accepted theory of inflation, we are most likely to be just a few billion years away from the big snap. In that case, the granularity of space should already be large enough to skew the arrival time of photons of different wavelengths in gamma-ray bursts. Yet observed gamma-ray bursts, powerful stellar explosions that can be seen from extremely far off, show no sign of such an effect.

Therefore, for the universe to end in a big snap, we either have to reject inflation altogether. Or alternatively assume we are very atypical beings, and do in fact occupy a special place in the universe in violation of the Copernican principle. Both options are anathema to cosmology. “There’s something here that’s just very wrong,” Tegmark says.

Raphael Bousso of the University of California in Berkeley and Andreas Albrecht of UC Davis, both agree. A big snap in the universe’s future “somehow can’t be right”, says Bousso.

That’s a relief. But what does happen to information in an expanding universe, then? Tegmark hopes that a complete theory of quantum gravity, which would describe how the tiniest regions of space and their associated information behave, might change the whole picture in a way that avoids the big snap.

“A lot of people in quantum gravity have gotten a little depressed,” he says. There is a sense that progress cannot be made without building particle accelerators to probe space down to the Planck length, which is so far beyond today’s technology that it seems out of the question.

Pondering the big snap, however, could stimulate new ways of thinking. Tegmark says: “I suspect there might be other ways of learning about quantum gravity without building impossible machines.”

New Scientist article questioning theories on the end of the universe to stimulate a conversation about what happens to information, matter, energy etc in an expanding universe (?)

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:25:00 -0400

New Scientist article questioning theories on the end of the universe to stimulate a conversation about what happens to information, matter, energy etc in an expanding universe (?)

drawing I started recently…

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:17:11 -0400

drawing I started recently…

Updates from my studio, got’er all painted a-fresh, new lights...

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:38:00 -0400

Updates from my studio, got’er all painted a-fresh, new lights and just been painting a lot. Much has been made by me about my frustrations with painting, although what I think I’ve come to realize is that my frustrations with painting were mostly just frustrations about art in general; I mean how difficult is it to come up with an image/object that is legitimately interesting, powerful, and unique in history these days? I’m trying not to worry too much about this stuff and just do my best to make images that I like and dwell upon the stuff that I’m interested in. All works are in progress. Process-wise I like the idea that I can take anything and warp-it/morph-it into something powerful, so I usually start on impulses and ride the piece out until it feels done, although at the same time always looking for the quick solution.

The Command Center and studio installation.

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:20:43 -0400

The Command Center and studio installation.

Anselm Keifer documentary

Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:31:19 -0400

is playing at Film Forum, anyone interested in seeing it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/movies/sophie-fienness-over-your-cities-grass-will-grow.html?ref=arts

test print from the beginning of the summer (but not really...

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:56:00 -0400

test print from the beginning of the summer (but not really crazy about making such graphic things so I’m trying to move away from that)

some small pieces

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:52:00 -0400

some small pieces

One of the drawings I’ve been working on…thoughts?

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:03:00 -0400

One of the drawings I’ve been working on…thoughts?

-New Studio! -Painting I think is finished, thoughts/comments...

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:59:27 -0400

-New Studio!

-Painting I think is finished, thoughts/comments appreciated

xoxo EWiley

Joshua Abelow

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:40:31 -0400

Joshua Abelow:

What do you all think of this artist? What about his sister Tisch (http://tischabelow.com/)?

A draft of some ideas of shared energy. What do you see, what do...

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:09:34 -0400

A draft of some ideas of shared energy. What do you see, what do you think?

P.S.1 visit and resulting thoughts and questions

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:06:51 -0400

I went to P.S.1 on Thursday and saw part 2 of the Francis Alys show, Ryan Trecatin’s Any ever, and Laurel Nakadate’s Only the Lonely. I would recommend all of them, although the Alys show was the least engrossing of the three; his Moma show was more substantial, although the piece with the 64 guards in London was awesome. The Trecartin show is insane, I can’t say I’ve ever been to a show that was so intensely disturbing. The Nakadate show was very quiet and intimate, the installation fairly straightforward but I was no less impacted. I left the museum pleased, feeling pessimistic about painting as a relevant art form, and contemplating the function of creativity, this last point resulting in the heaviest thoughts for me. Sure Trecartin’s show had a higher quantity of creative decisions, taken to a level of intellectual hyperactivity I assumed but then questioned, but the directness and simplicity of the Nakadate and Alys show felt far more moving to me, as a human being. To the point, I am questioning the use of “artistic vision” (or whatever you would label insanity in art) over just cutting the crap and presenting directly the actual issues being discussed; efficiency in art. Is it laziness on my part, or the artist, that wants this efficiency? Another example may be Matthew Barney vs. Werner Herzog; the former makes very complex and mostly unintelligible films based on his own “personal narrative” (methinks a heavy reliance on myth, symbolism, etc.. I saw the entire Cremaster series and while I thought they were quite pleasurable and gave me a lot to chew on, I never really got a clear message or anything that helped me understand the world better) while the later, as I’ve experienced and interpreted, makes films in a way where there is very little insanity (this is the best term I can think of to refer to, maybe, artistic license, absurdity, creativity, or something?) and who’s redeeming qualities are the “truths” of the world stated flat-out and connect me to my core humanity or whatever. The formal conflict between Trecartins over-the-top fever-dream of teens with painted faces in high-pitched distorted voices squealing disconnected sentences whose pop culture references are at once obvious and meaningless (is this the point? does this say anything new? is it just there to disturb and confuse me? don’t I already know enough about the trouble with pop culture and consumerism? what am I missing? reality T.V. sucks, I know this…) AND Nakadate’s videos and photos exhibiting a very real-world connection with loneliness, sex issues, loss/death issues (she is actively engaging with the real world which is both exciting and scary as an artist) couldn’t be more clear, one makes meaning through direct contact in a way that is fairly clear but still (and perhaps as a result is more) powerful and the other makes the viewer determine the meaning, or direct relation as a human being, through semi-academic thought-processes and critical thinking (although I suppose both adopt both methods to a certain extent). Is it telling that I felt threatened by both Trecartin and Nakadate in that I am jealous of what they have achieved in their successful creation of art, but with Trecartin it is more jealousy that there is no way I could make anything of such manic insanity, and with Nakadate that I have been mostly a hermit and not directly creating in the real world? How does art work in reality? What is over-indulgent and what is honest? I know the art world wants to find “genius” (I am referring to the Trecartin/Barnery camp with their insanity) but does that actually exist and if it does what is it and is it valuable; my immediate inclination is that insanity is bad and frankness is better, more powerful (perhaps this has to do with my design background). The other side may say that by introducing insanity perhaps reality is brought to a finer clarity (and without question insanity is very enjoyable). Blue Velvet, in my mind, was so good because the insanity was minimal and thus more powerful. What do you all think about these issues?

-Eric

I just saw The Tree of Life and it was astounding. Highly recommended. -Eric

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:30 -0400

I just saw The Tree of Life and it was astounding. Highly recommended.

-Eric

read and comment

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:09:00 -0400

read and comment

Right now

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:10:28 -0400

Who are three active, living, and exhibiting artists you like and why? Please include images.

Photo

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:58:08 -0400

Abstract Painting with Tulip and Grass Oil on canvas 20 x 16...

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:28:30 -0400

Abstract Painting with Tulip and Grass

Oil on canvas

20 x 16 inches