Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Some questions people asked me on science - based on my art, poems and my work and my replies to them

                                                            Interactive Science Sessions 


After viewing my art works based on science and reading my poems, articles people asked me a few questions and I am adding my replies to them here.

Q: Why do scientists like you also seem to have general knowledge in the humanities?

Krishna: I am interested in several things and want to learn about them as much as possible.

So I am an artist, a writer, a poet, a designer, a network creator, a social activist and deal with several things apart from science.

I use humanities to communicate science effectively.

Well scientists are human beings first and they would naturally be interested in human cultures they were born into. And everything associated with humanity interests them too. If they can use these things for the advancement of their subject as well as bringing together various subjects for mutual benefits that is the peak of human intelligence.  

Q: I find it difficult to associate you with the field of science, your qualifications and the articles/art works/poems you add here. Do you really have a Ph.D. in Science? Do you really write/create the articles/poems/blogs/art works you say you did or post the ones written/created by somebody else? It is impossible for women to cross so many complicated intellectual barriers. You must be a fake!

MR: Your Q really made me laugh! Grow up, man! You are not in 1000 BC. 
This shows how difficult it is for people to overcome various cultural and societal conditioning of minds. You are not alone with this mindset. You have lots of people to keep you company.  
Here is the evidence: 

If you want more proof, come and meet me in person. I will do all that in front of you.

If you cannot accept that I really exist with all those tags after my name, I don't care! My work is my evidence, not my gender or my looks!

Q: Can everything be explained by science? Your poem

The beauty of a rose as perceived by our senses through science's l...

took my breath away. The way we see things and the way scientists view the world are completely different. It made me realize we are partially blind and only when we adopt a scientific view of the world, we can restore our full vision.

MR: Aha, I am on cloud nine, right now. If atleast some people outside of science realize what you have registered, I would be achieving success. 

Science is trying to explain a large part of the world we live in. Like I told people several times  before - This universe started with a Big Bang ( according to one theory - which is not yet proved!) some 14 Billion years ago. But science is just a few hundred years old. It is still in its infancy. It has to learn a lot, study a lot, think a lot, experiment a lot and then only it can come up with all the answers we are seeking right now. How can you expect a child to solve all the problems of his ancestors? And answer the questions posed by his great, great, great, great grand fathers? Is it appropriate to even expect such a thing? I don't think so. We should be amazed at how we have been able to get so far in understanding the things in this universe despite our inadequacies! Science is doing its best with the limited resources it has to both answer the questions and solve the problems. As the time goes by, I am pretty sure, it will succeed more and more. Please have patience!

Science will answer your questions and solve your problems too!

But still what we have learnt till now is quite substantial to show the world in a completely different way. Follow people of science and it will shake your old perception of the world by throwing new light on it!

Q: In your art work Universal Philosophy ,  you said 'Energy can neither be created nor destroyed'. Then how did energy come into existence in the first place?

MR: Please go through my reply to the second Q. We can only speculate a few things like the artists do with regard to certain questions but cannot give you accurate answers for the Q. However, unlike artists, scientists try to fit their 'speculations  based on information' into formulas and hypotheses and try to test them.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.

It was suggested that since the positive energy of a star’s mass and the negative energy of its gravitational field together may have zero total energy, conservation of energy would not prevent a star being created by a quantum transition of the vacuum. 

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed in the Nature journal that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation* of vacuum energy,** resulting in its positive mass-energy being balanced by its negative gravitational potential energy(1).

Due to quantum uncertainity, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever! (1,2,3)

*In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in

Werner Heisenberg's  uncertainty principle.

** Vacuum Energy  is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a time span too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

But they can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission.


Q: According to your art work  choice is yours,  science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science  can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely peoples'. 

But how can laymen understand how to use the knowledge in the right way? How can a terrorist understand it?

MR: This is where science communication comes into picture. It is imparting knowledge - to tell people what is right about science and what is wrong and which way to go. That is exactly what I do here!

Q: You seem to see everything in terms of science. Art, literature, sport, politics, life, spirituality, business - you link all the fields to science and explain in terms of the subject. Can't we see things in any other way?

MR: This universe itself was created/ came into existence on its own based on scientific principles. When the whole of Universe is written in the script of science, there is no other way except to go the scientific way to understand it. 

Forget science only if you want to be blind and ignorant. And I can never picture myself as an uninformed person.

But even if you try to omit science from your mind, your body and your brain won't! They run on scientific terms. You just cannot escape it!

Yes, I am deeply in love with science and cannot imagine a life without it! 

In fact nobody, nothing in this universe can exist without science! That is the truth.

Q: I am an artist, and read your articles and poems on science and science-art and understood the  details. I know how art can make students learn science lessons easily. Now, after reading your articles and poems I also came to know how science is helping art in numerous ways. Your poem 

did you say you don't need science in art

is a real eye opener.

Can you explain how I can create art in a scientific way?

Also I want to create  science-art. Can you please help me?

MR: Yes, but first please read my articles on how to go about it in the group  Scienceart.

Then approach me if you find any difficulty.

You will find 'how to create art in a scientific way' here:


Q: Your art work  Debris in Space made me ask this question.  How can the  space debris be cleaned?

MR: China recently launched a satellite named AoLong-1, or Roaming Dragon to clean space debris. It’s based on the  concept that a satellite which has a robotic arms can be used to collect the space debris.. and throw it in the safe location on the earth (such as oceans). Senior Scientist at China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation said that, it’s the first of many satellites they are launching to fulfil out obligations towards cleaning.

Space Debris, floating at the speed of 36,000km/hr can be harmful to satellites orbiting around the Earth if it is not removed from and stopped from crossing their orbits. 


Q: Recently I came across your science-art website. I was amazed and made my children and wife too to see your work. My children liked your  tiger's story in a football stadium . My son  invited all his friends too to show it to them. I found it very useful in teaching my children science. Thanks for your effort and making our work easy. Can you please create art works on some Physics topics which my children find difficult to understand?

MR: I am glad you and your children found my work useful. The very purpose of creating my art work is making Science easy for people to understand. Please send the topics you find difficult to explain and I will try my best to create art works on them.

Q: I am a teacher and I found your science-themed poems and art works while searching for teaching aids on the net. For the past four months I have been using them to teach my students. 

I never knew before using your works  how arts can engage students in interesting ways. Thanks for your wonderful 'gift' to the world. Can I bring my students  to your art gallery to have a closer look at your works? Can you spare some time for us?

MR: Well, your experience is proof of how science - art interactions can help humanity. Sure you can bring your students to see my works when I exhibit them at various public places. 

Q: You work in several fields. Can you tell us what  differentiates an artist from a scientist?

MR: Based on my experiences I wrote about the major fundamental differences (about 25) between scientists and artists and science and art. You can read my article here on my network: Groups and here: Blogs

I will just mention about one important difference now…

I think artistic creativity is fundamentally different from scientific creativity. Artist's depend mostly on "their thoughts, ideas, beliefs and personal views" for their work whereas scientists' base their work on natural laws and facts and how to fit their informed ideas into these laws to creatively invent or discover something. The imagination of a scientist is based on reality. A scientist has to get his imagination right to succeed where as the artist need not do it right to move forward. In fact, the inadequacies of artists' imagination are what moves the art world forward! They are not the same like several people think and say. At the basic level some overlapping occurs but as you go deep into the subjects, the differences become very clear and I always wonder why people say both artists and scientists do things in similar ways. I think, people who are experts in only one field try to analyse things in other fields too such illusionary perceptions arise. I will give an example here. When artists, writers and poets look at the moon they see it as a silver ball in the sky and describe it or paint it in this manner. I even read some stories where the crescent moon was described as a jewel in the hair of a God! This thinking reflects in their creativity ( metaphor and fiction). Now scientists think in terms of a rocky, dusty satellite that moves in space around the earth trapped in its gravity field when they think about the moon and they use their creativity to take the help of the gravity of the moon to accelerate space ships or change their course to send them to other planets to save fuel and time - the mechanism is called "gravity assist " ( fact). Artists and poets even blamed scientists for disrupting their romantic ideas about moon by landing on it! Of course in some areas of science where there is inadequacy in terms of understanding and equipment to study things - like for example Astro-Physics and Theoretical Physics - some scientists might use metaphor and wild imaginations like artists do. But this is not the norm. If you take such examples and say all scientists do things similar to artists that becomes 'fallacy of composition'.

When artists stop after wondering about something based on their beliefs and imagining things, scientists actually go ahead and investigate and verify whether what they have imagined based on the information available at the time is correct or not.

there is an interesting story about the conversation between Einstein and Chaplin...

Albert Einstein: What I most admire about your art, is your universality. You don't say a word, yet the world understands you.

Charlie Chaplin: It's true. But your fame is greater: the world admires you, when nobody understands what you say.

Story Source: They’re Cheering Us Both, You Because Nobody Understands You, and M...

Q: Your art work 'Dual Existence' is interesting. But you said in your articles here 'according to science, existence of soul  has no evidence'.  What is the real truth? What do you really believe in?

Krishna: I created 'Dual Existence' as an artist. I transform into various beings when I enter different fields. This is very interesting. I become an actor while doing this entering into different roles and acting them up. Thinking like an artist makes me an artist without complaints from the art world. I enter into a pseudo-world which is actually not mine. 

But a real Krishna is a  person of science. I trust science, nothing else.

Yes, according to science, the concept of soul has no evidence. It is difficult for me to accept it without any evidence. 

Q: After reading some of your articles posted here, I think your views are very progressive, highly stimulative, original, unique, somewhat confrontational ( they oppose vastly held public views), and a little bit shocking - they come from a woman - who dares to take on nonsense! Aren't you afraid of anything? What gave you so much strength and a blasting mind? Are all scientists like you?

Krishna: :) My training in science - especially in critical thinking is the main thing. I don't think all the people who are trained in science will be like me. Most of my colleagues are not! The difference is my family. My grandfather was a social reformer. My father  too had his father's qualities. I think all that had been passed on to me. But my sister - who was brought up just like me - is not like me. She is not from the field of science. So what made the difference?

My training in science plus my family atmosphere made a deadly combination that sculpted my unique personality. Nothing appeals to me unless it is subjected to rational analysis of my mind and comes out as the right thing. 

When I was young I used to get frightened very easily. My father made me fearless. I used to faint at the sight of blood then. It doesn't happen now. 

I would be dishonest if I say I won't get frightened. But I can conquer it now with my rational thinking. 

If I think I am right I can take on the whole world. That is what is happening here. And I have enough knowledge to guide me in deciding what is right and what is not. If I lack it in some aspects, I try to learn it from other experts.

I can never step back again. My brain that is broadened by knowledge can never go back to its original size.  An enlightened person can never retract  into darkness. All that I can do now is move forward ... up ... into ... brilliancy!

Q: Can art enhance critical thinking?

Krishna: Art can show  things in a different light which need not be a rational one ( well, most of the time). It is my experience that art makes one an effective communicator.  As far as creativity is concerned, science has its own creative atmosphere which is different from the artistic one.  Out of the box thinking is again ingrained into scientific inventions. There is nothing new in it.

So when science already has all these in-built qualities, all that art can do is promote them. Except for communication, I didn't find much help from art in my scientific quests.

Q:  How can people say art is as important as science, or even more important than science? Afterall, we can’t say Godfather is more important than Theory of Relativity, can we?

Or Jennifer Lawrance is more valuable than Marie Curie?

Or Stanley Kubrick was the real genius, not Einstein??

While the answer is NO to all these, how come people still think that art is as important as science?

Krishna: I am into several fields. Although all things that deal with human creativity are important in their own unique ways, it is my experience that each one differs form others in several ways and I wrote on it in several blogs and posted on my network SCI-ART LAB . I see a new and powerful vision at the confluence of science and art.

I use art and literature to communicate science - in other words I simplify complexity with my unique experiments. (science-based art)

Discussion Forum ( science based literature)

But I find science very interesting and extremely exciting! The enchanting charms of this sublime science reveal only to those who have the courage to go deeply into it. And its beauty is revealed to those who have special vision to capture it!

Science exists apart and independent of the human condition and humanities. For example, E=mc2 is an eternal condition and did not require the mind of man to understand it before it sprang into existence. This universe itself and the life in it came into existence based on scientific principles. Without science, neither the universe, nor life cannot exist. Without scientifically existing life, there won’t be any art or literature. That is the importance of science.

Q: Can a scientist be good exclusively in science without being good in humanities ( literature, philosophy, art, etc.)? 

Krishna: Your brain works as a whole unit while doing anything. Therefore, all the parts that are good at several things work in tandem while dealing with science too.

There is a thing called scientific creativity, which is different from artistic creativity, which is responsible for new inventions and discoveries. There is no need to be good in humanities actually to be a scientist ( I am a polymath, I deal with several fields, including science, art, literature , designing, science -communication, social activities and … what not). But when I am in my lab, none of my other activities help me in any way in dealing with scientific research. In fact I try my best to forget about them because they interfere with my critical thinking and scientific thinking.

However, art and literature help me while communicating science efficiently. They help me relax when my brain gets over-heated with science. That is how they help some other scientists too, along with sports and other extra curricular activities.

But don’t expect more than that from art and literature and other humanities. No, they don’t help us in any way while we are in the lab. You don’t need to deal with them to be a good scientist. If you try to indulge in other activities while you are in your lab, they obstruct your work in reality.

Art can show things in a different light which need not be a rational one ( well, most of the time). It is my experience that art makes one an effective communicator. As far as creativity is concerned, science has its own creative atmosphere which is different from the artistic one. Out of the box thinking is again ingrained into scientific inventions. There is nothing new in it.

So when science already has all these in-built qualities, all that art can do is promote them. Except for communication, I didn't find much help from art in my scientific quests.

Science exists apart and independent of the human condition and humanities. For example, E=mc2 is an eternal condition and did not require the mind of man to understand it before it sprang into existence. This universe itself and the life in it came into existence based on scientific principles. Without science, neither the universe, nor life cannot exist. Without scientifically existing life, there won’t be any art or literature. That is the importance of science.

That is my experience and that of my colleagues.

Tall claims and failing proof of science-art interactions!

Q: Can a person be an artist and a scientist at the same time?

Krishna: Yes! There are various types of scientist-artists.

Earlier when science wasn’t as much developed as it ‘s now, it was easier for people like Da Vinci.

Then there are some scientists who just pursue art to relax from their work load. This is a superficial hobby and don’t create many problems.

If you want to go very deep in both subjects now, only if you can draw lines between various fields and know fully well when to cross them and when to stick to the boundaries, you can succeed.

There is a fundamental difference between artistic creativity and the scientific creativity. A scientist should clearly know this to succeed. A person that has talents in several fields should be able to differentiate between them and overcome the difficulties and able to connect properly the ideas and thoughts and modify them to fruitfully evolve creative ideas in each field.

I communicate science using art and literature. So my artistic creativity is mostly science-related although I deal with some other themes too.

For me it is quite a balancing act. Because science has strict rules and art is freedom-oriented. I strictly stick to science and don’t try to twist it or spin it as communication gets affected if you take liberties with your sci-art.


Science-art-literature interplay

But some artists use their full freedom while dealing with sci-art as communication is not their main aim. They give more importance to art than science.

I also did research in both science and art and science-art too and published papers in all the three subjects. For me it is a very deep involvement with both science and art and also literature and several other fields.

But I am a scientist first: my mind is a scientist’s as I am firmly convinced science is the best among all the various subjects I deal with.

So it is possible to be both a scientist and an artist and a polymath at various levels of involvements - but a scientist has to be strictly a scientist when working in a lab if s/he wants to succeed, that is!

What scientists should be cautious about during the interactions wi...


Krishna: Why do people say that Einstein's and Newton's theories would've been made by other scientists?

Because what these scientists made ‘re ‘discoveries’ waiting in this universe to be found out. Had these scientists not proposed these theories that led to these discoveries, others would have done it. They are about working of our universe and are facts that can’t be changed.

Getting the same scientific theory in different minds can happen. While understanding how our universe works, several people can have the same perception.

Recently I read about an interesting court case. Two people did a music composition in the same way. So the first person who did it went to court - then the court agreed with the second person who argued that there ‘s a possibility of this happening and two artists could get the same idea about a music composition even though they didn’t come across each other’s composition earlier.

I am an artist too (my main field is science). I have realized there is a chance of this happening. Two or three or more artists can get the same idea about an art work even though they never come across one another’s art work.

When billions of people exist on this planet the probability of two or three or more people getting the same idea is more, whether in art or science.

However, presentation of an art work - like composition, colours can vary from person to person but the idea remains the same. Like wise two film directors can do films in the same way too, using different actors and locations. Two people might write the lyrics in the same way using the same words but singers’ voices can differ making their songs sound different. That is why, I was told, if your art work has just three different things - like different colours, composition, and people , from those of others, you can escape a court case even if you copy others’ work!

Yes, two artists can do things in the same way with or without minor variations. How can you say they can’t?

It is like ‘inventions’ in science. Several people can get the same idea based on scientific findings. People can slightly differ in their creativity and work, improvements can happen one after the other but the basic idea remains the same.

So while the first part of your statement or question is correct, the second part is a bit controversial.

Q: What does poetry reveal about science?

Krishna: Poetry has been used to communicate science by some scientists and science communicators. I too do this. Poetry says exactly what science is. It doesn’t reveal more.

Science-art-literature interplay

What scientists should be cautious about during the interactions wi...

Q: How far is it true that a poem is a spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings?

Krishna: Sometimes this is true. When this is the case, the poems will be natural, very rhythmic and invoke strong feelings.

However, while communicating science( I use literature for science communication), occasionally it is not spontaneous and I deliberately try to co-ordinate words and rhythm. I struggle a bit because science and art are two different things and balancing them is difficult.

Now read some of my poems by clicking on the link below and tell me which ones are based on powerful inflow of feelings and which ones are the struggled ones. :)


1.  Edward P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?", Nature, vol. 246, p.396–397, 1973.



Q: Is every scientist an artist? Is every artist a scientist?

Krishna: I am a polymath. So I think scientists can be artists because they have to use some sort of art to tell the world about their work. Some draw pictures, some use other visual and audio art forms, and some write poetry.

Science already has in built- what the artists call- 'aspects of art' - like creativity, observing, imagination, visualization, imaging, pattern recognition, pattern invention analogizing, dimensional thinking, transforming data into visual and graphic forms, converting theories into mechanical procedures etc. Scientists have been using all these things successfully since ages (1).

What are science-illustrations, X-ray and MRI images, satellite images[10], PET- CT scans[11], angiograms ( processes that allow doctors to view the flow of blood in blood vessels ), 3-D mapping and 3-D printing? Aren’t they art too?

All scientists know that 'scientific visualization' is one of the important aspects of the field of science. The purpose of scientific visualization is to graphically illustrate scientific data to enable scientists to understand, illustrate, and glean insight from their data. Data visualization is the study of the visual representation of data, meaning "information that has been abstracted in some schematic form, including attributes or variables for the units of information". The main goal of data visualization is to communicate information clearly and effectively through graphical means. Scientists apply their taste in visual aesthetics to their visual displays of data as do artists, as in the case of a scientist who carefully selects colors or arranges forms used in his/her design of a chip or rendered image. These are aesthetic decisions, signs that the scientist is to some degree thinking as does a visual artist. Although untrained in the processes, many of the best scientists frequently work from visual geometric models in their minds, and identify research problems on the basis of these visual models or paradigms. From the paradigm, the analysis and experiment is derived. This ability to pre-visualize a potential solution to a problem and to build 3 or 4-D (3-D plus time) conceptual models is basic to their scientific process. So, don't scientists know how to understand and proceed with their work and also communicate their hypotheses, observations and conclusions derived from it to the world outside? There is nothing new in this aspect (1).

But can all artists be scientists? NO! To become scientists you need special training, you have to follow some rules and my experience with artists ( I worked with some artists in collaborative projects of science-art) showed to me without any doubt that most artists refuse to follow the scientific rules and the scientific method. They are too much freedom loving to fit into the scientist tags. Without following the scientific method, you cannot do science and become scientists.

So while the answer to the first part of your question is ‘‘YES”, and a big “NO” is the answer to the second part.


  1. What scientists should be cautious about during the interactions wi...

You can get more information here: SCI-ART LAB

Views: 1189

Replies to This Discussion





© 2024   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service