burning book: lc reads a science article

From NYX Science Times section on the 13th, day my book was gonna be released according to its little postcard, though now, like other apocalypses it’s been pushed back (a couple weeks):  in a black hole:  “you would die, of course, but how?  crushed smaller than a dust mote by monstrous gravity, as astronomers and science fiction writers have been telling us for decades?  or flash-fried x a firewall of energy, as alarming new calculations seems to indicate?”  (Bizarrely, the article seems to suggest that the reason understanding stuff like relativity is important is b/c now we can have GPS systems “in our pockets”.)  Important phrases from the article:  Quantum entanglement, aka spooky action at a distance, in which particles separated by distance, sometimes light years, can still instantaneously appear to remain connected.  (ie just for a flash, a moment?  “you can’t use it to send a message faster than light, b/c the correllation shows up only when the 2 experimenters get together and compare results.  But it plays a crucial role in quantum computing and CRYTPOGRAPHY…”).   theory that:  when a black hole finally exploded, the radiation coming from it would convey no information about what had fallen into it, that info lost to the universe forever.  that was a hawking theory that contradicted basic tenet that “information is always preserved.  From the material in the smoke and flames of a burning book, for example, one could figure out whether it was the Bible or the Kama Sutra [ha ha clever fer examples, science writer…]”  What is at stake is whether information exists infinitely or whether it can be lost/destroyed.  Einstein’s theory principle of equivalence is incompatible with quantum field theory (space is smooth).  Followed by annoying personification of particles with some kind of gendered morality tale.  The article then trifurcates, three metaphors for relationship, I think, btwn things and information (??) nature as hologram, matrix video game thing, and labeled soup can.   Then an 18th cent. farce type explanation of wormholes and identity.  But really it’s about information and if anything can kill it, from what I can tell, and it’s about the struggle to find a consistent truth that unites seemingly incompatible conceptualizations about how the universe works, but particularly the way understanding the universe feels like a way to understand people, how they do & ought to behave, and for me one of the basic things I’m wondering is about using people as metaphors for physical elements, when they are physical elements, but in a way/ to an extent that we don’t understand.  This loop of using one thing we don’t understand to conceive of another thing we don’t understand in order that we can better understand that first thing, b/c it’s the only thing we have any foothold in understanding (ie what it’s like to be ourselves/a person.)  I picked up this article the other day in Santa Monica.  I was staying with an esteemed philosophy professor friend and he was reading it while I was getting ready to go.  This was the morning after doing my first official reading from the apocalypse book.  Before I left, we went to the bluffs and looked out over the pier.  I had a break-up on that beach just a few years ago, and haven’t seen it since.  Breaking up, watching trapeze artists practice.  I was telling him about that and he was telling me the history of Santa Monica, I was thinking about what it would be like to make a working class wage and get to live on the beach, and about the constant wind, interrupted only now and then by the Santa Ana, which makes some people anxious and angry, and some people libidinous.  I took the article with me because I thought it had something to do with my apocalypse book (obvious) and also with the swank hotel (human/narrative problem of incompatible simultaneous truths vs the perspective from which the order of things is visible), which I have not worked on since Rome, wanting to make that transition, to try to find the relationship btwn old and new spaces, real and conceptual.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *