Michael Brooks, consultant
Quantum Daughter (Image: GLeNKTV)
After months of waiting, we can announce the results of the Centre for Quantum Technologies/New Scientist Quantum Shorts film competition.
Our illustrious panel of judges was blown away by the quality of the shortlisted films. Ben Bowie, twice-Emmy-nominated producer of Discovery Channel?s Stephen Hawking?s Universe and creative director at Darlow Smithson Productions, was impressed by the variety of submissions. ?I think it?s safe to say each and every film has something special,? he said.
Quantum physicist Artur Ekert, the director of the Centre for Quantum Technologies, said the brief of the competition made it a real challenge. "Given that the subject matter is difficult I thought it was an interesting collection to watch."
We asked the judges to rate their top three films, and from this we have a winner and runner-up. In addition, we asked you to vote for your favourite: the People?s Choice.
First prize of 2000 Singapore dollars (just over ?1000) goes to the animation Quantum Daughter, an astonishing snapshot of life in a future where we can travel between different universes. Lisa Randall, Harvard University professor of theoretical physics and author of Knocking on Heaven?s Door, acclaimed it as easily her favourite. ?It?s clever, creative, had some of the physics and is funny,? she said. Ariane Koek, who leads the arts-science programme at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, also marked it as a favourite, calling it ?original, quirky and funny, as well as technically good?.
For the runners-up prize, the judges showed an even split, with no way of choosing between two films. So, the prize of 1000 Singapore dollars (just over ?500) is shared between Alice in Quantumland and Heisenberg.
Alice in Quantumland uses the quantum trick of existing in more than one place to open up a romantic opportunity. This, according to Lonce Wyse, director of the Arts and Creativity Lab in the Interactive and Digital Media Institute at the National University of Singapore, had ?good cinematography and a rich connection to various aspects of quantum theory?. Jeremy Webb, editor-in-chief of New Scientist, liked the fact that you don't need to understand quantum theory to follow the plot. ?I think it introduces people to some funky quantum effects in an intriguing, humorous, enjoyable way,? he said.
Heisenberg?s cheeky dialogue tickled many of the judges. ?It?s pretty funny,? Randall said. Bowie agreed. ?It?s funny and sexy,? he said. ?Who?d have thought that was possible in a film about quantum physics??
All the judges agreed that it wasn?t easy picking out winners from such a strong field. ?I am really impressed that quantum theory can inspire such creativity,? said Webb. ?I would like to congratulate all the directors on their imaginations and the skill with which they have told their stories?.
And the People?s Choice? Well, hundreds of you voted, and Alice in Quantumland came out on top, with quantum thriller the Cat coming a close second.
Congratulations to all the entrants. If you haven?t seen the films, it?s worth checking them out - they?re available to watch here.
Follow @CultureLabNS on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
wilson chandler bristol motor speedway prometheus grand canyon skywalk tonga pid corned beef hash
Saying that social sharing sites show the ?best of the world? is like saying television only shows the Hollywood dream version of reality. The Web is like a realtime sample of humanity; it?s all the emotions at once. Joy. Rage. Empathy. A LOT of Schadenfreude. For years, Facebook?s killer feature was a complete accounting of all the people who didn?t like me in high school. 
I barely use Pinterest, but I?m a Facebook freak. I practically live on Facebook, both personally and professionally. If it?s possible to be clinically addicted to it, well, I probably am. Most of my personal Facebook status updates are sickeningly upbeat and maybe even a little cocky (?I just published this article here.? ?Off to the dojo to spar.? ?I just ran X miles in X minutes.?). Fine, they?re mostly cocky, which is probably super annoying to anyone whose newsfeed I status bomb up to four or five times a day. I use Facebook to gather career cred and contacts (a la LinkedIn), but mostly to interact with former classmates, friends, and family? and several dozen strangers whom I?m not even sure why I friended. I try stay mainly positive on my FB wall, but switch it up with whiny updates from the downer side of life (?Up all night with hurling kiddos again.? ?Blew a red light and totaled my car.? ?Can?t believe some dude fell asleep during my speech.?). 
I?ve read about the Stanford research on how social media can make people sad, but I think it?s misguided. Proper casual usage is a joy and connects us with old friends we would otherwise lose touch with. It provides more social access and opportunity than we might have otherwise, and it makes keeping in touch more efficient. 
It?s a big world out there and with the fast pace of social media, we can use it for entertainment, social good, advertising, networking?the list is almost neverending. It?s true that many people, myself included, want to put their best face forward whether it is online through social media, or in person at a business function or social event. As long as we are honest and resist embellishing the truth, we can use the medium for fun, and even use its power to do good. I?ve used Twitter to help out with fundraising and have seen others use it very successfully for campaigns. 
If you only live your life online and through other people, you?re probably going to be disappointed and unhappy at some point. Online networks and platforms are not a substitute for real, live and in person interaction with people. Pinterest, Facebook and other social platforms are tools you can use to share your experiences with other people and begin to develop relationships. They are not meant as a vehicle to live someone?s else?s life. 
In this context, it could be argued that TV, magazines and movies have always been happiness sabotagers. Sites like Facebook and Pinterest are just new versions of the same antics. However, if we dig into how traditional media and social media are different, there may be something to this. 
Every year there is a new social media platform to try ? some stick and some fall. But as users spend more and more time with social media, their lives become more dependent and intertwined with their favorite mediums. This goes beyond the common (and frankly pathetic) practice of broadcasting your entire life via social media, the ?look at me? mentality has now spread across multiple generations, morphing into a user base that lives their life through social media. Early critics of social media warned this would occur, and recommended the medium be used as a convenient extension of real-life human interaction, augmenting personal and professional relationships. Unfortunately for our society that is not what happened. So now we have an inflated issue of the grass is greener effect thanks to instant access to the successes and failures of our social media circles. 
Dermatologists can rest assured that they will not be computers by smartphones anytime soon.