electrical signal, etc. Knowing how to interpret it, to understand it, is another question. When you talk about the strangeness of quantum physics, it seems to me to be a conceptual strangeness. The concepts may seem bizarre, difficult to imagine, but they do not constitute a real problem for me, as a scientist, because I stick to the results of my experiments. Moreover, the goal of my approach is to invent theories that translate this experiment and lead to this result. I am strongly constrained by this reality.

Chadi: For my part, I would say that my practice is governed by two kinds of real-ities, which I try to confront with each other. The first, the “algorithmic” reality—I prefer this term to scientific, which is a bit strong—constitutes the foundation of the software I use for my special effects. It must be respected when simulating a phenomenon. The second reality, just as important, is the reality of the artist. This reality captured by the camera ignores the algorithmic reality. I had the honor of working with the Wachowski sisters for their film Speed Racer. Every time I pre-sented them with a visual track, they pushed me to destroy realism, sometimes by relying on elements as basic as the friction of a tire on the ground. This happens only once in the life of an artist!

Jules: The fact that there is an established science, which you call algorithmic, allows you to contradict it, to create a realistic world because it is based on sci-ence. So, are you trying to create a parallel science? In which case I will have some difficulty following you!

Chadi: I think of Christopher Nolan’s approach for the film Interstellar. He cer-tainly helped advance visual research on black holes. He worked with scientists to create his own vision of this scientific reality. The artist, in this sense, can create a kind of truth. On the other hand, when we think of films like Back to the Future or Contact, inventions that were impossible at the time have become reality.

Jules: For me, Nolan’s black hole remains the vision of a black hole by an artist. One could imagine the black hole of Miró, or others still... If I had to have a vision of a black hole, I would rather go towards the images provided by telescopes dur-ing scientific experiments... even if it results in a much less eloquent blurry image2.

Céline: Can these artistic images be useful for scientists?

Jules: Do we learn more about black holes thanks to Nolan’s? I do not know, but I would say that we learn differently. The scientist’s black hole will be analyzed to give rise to curves and equations. From this substance, validate our conception of great physical theories. The problem with Nolan’s black hole is that I can’t use it scientifically. It was created by him alone: I can’t reproduce it or test the model on which it is based. However, it generates a lot of discussions, among scientists and artists as well as the general public.

Céline: What about images of the infinitely small?

Chadi: There are far fewer narrative elements about the infinitely small. I think of crash-zooms3 like in the Spider-Man movie, where the camera enters the finger of a man who turns into sand. We enter his finger, then inside his skin, and zoom in until we reach the atom. The reverse example, looking at the incredible size of the universe, is surely more evocative for popular imagination. We are much more interested in the larger than the smaller. But the smaller is really interesting in a way that is very disturbing because it is much harder to imagine.

Jules: I can’t quite visualize an atom, yet I have a few images to show my students. I know they are not good representations because they are too simplistic, but they are useful for explanation. Representing the atom as a small ball is quite limited.