“Everything in life matters and ultimately has a place, an impact and a meaning.” — Laurens Van Der Post
Been one of those weeks where every conversation with all kinds of different kinds of people began with talk of the drought and the state of our personal water supplies, and from there we spun off into discussions of the swiftly changing reality of what it is to be human on this little planet that used to seem so vast.
“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it.” — John Ruskin
You might have missed the news, or simply not given a hoot, that Stephen Hawking recently announced there are no black holes. Thus thousands of astronomers, physicists, science teachers, and graduate students are in various stages of shock that the foundation of their careers has been decreed by Mr. Black Hole himself to be a misconception, and that their decades of work have been about what isn’t there, and that billions of dollars spent on black hole-related research was essentially a big waste of money, not to mention time and space. Oops.
What made Hawking’s proclamation especially interesting to me was that the widespread foundational scientific belief in the existence of black holes was apparently not scientific at all, but mere conjecture. Hawking and his influential colleagues have abruptly changed their minds, so everyone else (including millions of people who ponied up the cash to buy Hawking’s A Brief History of Time) better change their minds, too, or risk…what? Not agreeing with the emperor who now blithely admits he wasn’t wearing any clothes, though he kind of thought he was, sort of? This is science? You betcha. Remember: medical doctors all over our scientific nation used to prescribe cigarettes to ameliorate symptoms of anxiety. Oops.
I hunted up Hawking’s explanation for why he and the entire scientific community were wrong about black holes, and I present his explanation here for your enjoyment. For extra fun, I suggest you imagine John Cleese and Eric Idle of Monty Python impersonating balding scientists taking turns presenting this blatantly self-contradictory proclamation—also pure conjecture if not outright balderdash.
“The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes, in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity. There are however apparent horizons that persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field. It will also mean that the CFT on the boundary of anti de Sitter space will be dual to the whole anti de Sitter space, and not merely the region outside the horizon.
“The no hair theorems imply that in a gravitational collapse the space outside the event horizon will approach the metric of a Kerr solution. However inside the event horizon, the metric and matter fields will be classically chaotic. It is the approximation of this chaotic metric by a smooth Kerr metric that is responsible for the information loss in gravitational collapse. The chaotic collapsed object will radiate deterministically but chaotically. It will be like weather forecasting on Earth. That is unitary, but chaotic, so there is effective information loss. One can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance.”
“There are two ways of seeing objects, one being simply to see them, and the other to consider them attentively.” — Nicolas Poussin
Songs nowadays are no longer songs as I used to think of songs being songs. That is to say, the things I still call songs can be listened to with my eyes closed. But the popular songs of today, the Grammy winners and the songs on all the charts of today’s music must be seen in order to be properly heard? Songs today, not the ones we oldsters think of as songs, but the new ones the youngsters live by, are inextricably bound to little movies for which music is soundtrack, and most of these soundtracks are composed of many layers of synthesized sonic noise underpinned by mechanically generated rhythm tracks designed to support the visuals comprising the little movies.
“Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter: second, telling other people to do so.” — Bertrand Russell
I like that definition of work: altering the position of matter. I would add that for some position altering of matter one earns money, and for some position altering of matter one does not earn money; and there are two kinds of money: regular money and gig money.
Gig money is worth much more than regular money. I used to think the added buying power of gig money had something to do with black holes, but now that black holes no longer exist, perhaps the extra buying power is attributable to anti de Sitter space, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I think the extraordinary nature of gig money is alchemical. Now before you climb on your scientific high horse and declare alchemy a pile of mystical infantile wishful thinking black hole rabbit poop, feast your eyes on the following from Smithsonian Magazine: “There is growing evidence that alchemists seem to have performed legitimate experiments, manipulated and analyzed the world in interesting ways and reported genuine results. And many of the great names in the canon of modern science took note, including Sir Isaac Newton and Lavoisier.”
What do I mean by gig money? The word gig has come to mean job in today’s world. “I have a regular nine-to-five gig for a software company, but my main thing is recording random street sounds and turning them into rhythm tracks,” is common parlance today, but a gig used to mean a performance, usually of jazz or poetry, made with the hope of possibly making some money from the performance, but maybe not making any money. It is this maybe/maybe not making money aspect of a gig that endows gig money with its alchemical mystical extra-potent power. Why? Because nature abhors a vacuum or nature doesn’t abhor a vacuum. You choose.
For instance, one night I made forty bucks for reading my short stories and telling jokes in a used bookstore in Sacramento, the audience unexpectedly large, the donations jar overflowing. With that gig money I bought groceries for the entire week, went out for Mexican food twice, bought new guitar strings and three pairs of pants at the Salvation Army, and still had money left over. So I bought a pile of Russell Hoban novels at the used bookstore, gave ten bucks to a friend, bought my sweetheart some flowers, and splurged on three goldfish for the backyard pond, and I still had money left over. And if I hadn’t gone and cultivated negative thoughts about an annoying person who was just doing the best he could, I might still have that gig money because thoughts are actions and the karmic wheel rolls on ceaselessly. Which is why we should always endeavor to be kind and generous even when we’re just sitting still with our eyes closed listening to songs.
“There are two kinds of fools: one says, ‘This is old, therefore it is good’; the other says, ‘This is new, therefore it is better.’” — W.R. Inge
Currently in the throes of rewriting my new novel, I am carving up my printed-out pages with red ink flowing from a pen held in my hand attached to my arm and directed by my brain far from the madding computer and text on a screen. Writing longhand and editing longhand are considered by most writers under the age of fifty, and even by many writers over fifty, to be antiquated practices inferior to doing everything on the screen from start to finish. I beg to differ, but who cares if I can tell by reading a few paragraphs of a novel or short story whether the author composed his or her words longhand or on a computer? That doesn’t mean one way of writing is better than the other, but it does prove (to my satisfaction) that there is a qualitative difference between those two ways of writing, and I find the quality of one of those ways vastly superior to the other. But that’s just me. And speaking of black holes, here is a recently crafted paragraph from my new novel.
In the near distance Donald sees the sign known to every alcoholic and pool player for a hundred miles around, a gigantic square of blinking neon, pink and green and blue, spelling Hotsy Totsy, a misleading moniker if there ever was one. Home to three pool tables, a long bar, seventeen bar stools, six warped plywood booths, two hideous bathrooms, and a juke box full of rock music from the 1960’s and 70’s—nothing after 1975—Hotsy Totsy is a low-ceilinged beer-soaked bunker presided over by the bald and portly Hell’s Angel Calvin Jensen, owner, bartender, bouncer and popcorn maker, popcorn and peanuts the primary foodstuffs available at Hotsy Totsy.
Todd Walton’s web site is UnderTheTableBooks.com
Todd,
Your derogatory remarks on science manifest a lack of understanding of conjecture, hypotheses, theories, and the scientific method. Your tone is reminiscent of Fox News at its worst–when they have a story about Wynona Ryder caught shoplifting, or Hugh Grant soliciting the services of a prostitute. Not what I expect from the author of Buddha in a Teacup, one of my favorite books.
A conjecture is just a guess or opinion that is usually made with insufficient information. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that has not been tested or exposed to peer review. Unlike conjecture, a scientific hypothesis may only be applied to an explanation that is testable. The testing and peer review process may require years of thought and debate, new technologies, and more sophisticated mathematical analysis before it can become a theory. Some hypotheses, like those of multiple universes, are tested only by the most sophisticated forms of mathematics
In science, a theory is a scientific hypothesis that has been tested and peer reviewed and is accepted as the best available explanation for now. This last point is important. Unlike orthodox systems, science thrives on controversy, debate, and iconoclasm. Religion depends on obedience; science on challenging, retesting, and revising, when necessary, hypotheses and even theories.
Copernican astronomy and Einstein physics are examples of science at its best; however, both Copernicus’s theory of the solar system and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity have been refined from their original forms.
Scientists are often fools. Even when their theories are accurate, the consequences of the theories can prove horrendous. This is due to human frailty, not science. Science is not a magic wand that you can just wave and turn Todd Walton into a dung- beetle–although right now, I wish I could if only for a few hours. Science is the most effective engine for accumulating knowledge about the real world that we have. It’s not perfect, but without it you wouldn’t have novocaine, morphine, antibiotics, computers, or Dick Cheney’s pacemaker–as I said, it’s not perfect.
Shame on you Todd. Hawkings may look ridiculous at the moment, but he’s a great scientist and an admirable human being. He does not deserve to be compared with the whore-monger scumbag doctors who peddled cigarettes, or with the caricatures of a Monty Python skit. And, your dismissal of science with the statement, “This is science? You betcha,” is simplistic and puerile.
Louis S. Bedrock
Louis–And shame on you Louis. How do you know that the cigarette prescribing doctors were whores/shills for the tobacco companies? Weren’t they just disseminating and applying the accepted knowledge of the day? For someone so critical of another persons judgement, you seem to have jumped into that crap bucket with both feet. Other than that I enjoyed your post.
Todd Wagner:
Well said. Shame on me indeed.
Louis