ブラックホールから取り出した膨大なエネルギーを生活に利用したり爆弾にしたりすることができる
ブラックホールは光さえ脱出することができないほど重力が強く、高密度に大量の質量が存在する天体です。「ブラックホールに吸い込まれてしまうと一巻の終わり」と考えて恐ろしくなることもありますが、そんなブラックホールから大量のエネルギーを取り出して有効利用する方法がある、と日常のさまざまな疑問に科学的・論理的なアプローチで答えるKurzgesagtがYouTubeにムービーを公開しています。
The Black Hole Bomb and Black Hole Civilizations
ブラックホールは宇宙で最強のエネルギーの塊です。
物体や光が近づきすぎれば、ブラックホールに吸い込まれてしまいます。
しかし、ブラックホールからエネルギーを取り出し、有効活用する方法があるとのこと。
光すら抜け出すことができないというブラックホールからエネルギーを取り出す方法とは、一体どういうものなのでしょうか。
ブラックホールからエネルギーを取り出すというアイデアの重要なポイントは、「ブラックホールには超高速で回転しているものがある」とする「カー解」という説です。
大質量の星が死ぬ時、自らの重力に耐えきれずに核がつぶれ、小さなブラックホールとなります。
崩壊する前、星は自転を行っています。そして、宇宙の基本法則によれば、回転している物体が勝手に止まることはありません。
星が持っている回転のエネルギーは、たとえ大きな星から小さなブラックホールになったとしても失われることはないそうです。
回転する物体が小さくなればなるほど、同じ回転エネルギーによる回転速度は速くなります。
よって、カー解によるとブラックホールは、私たちが想像もできないほど高速で回り続けているのです。中には毎秒数百万回も回転するブラックホールもあるとのこと。
回転するブラックホールには事象の地平面と呼ばれる、光でさえも到達できない箇所が存在し……
その中心には、ブラックホールが持つ質量の全てが凝縮された特異点があります。
特異点は密度と重力が無限大となるブラックホールの中心部で、通常は「表面を持たず、無限に小さい点」として説明されます。しかし、このような「点」は「回転する」ことができません。
よって、回転するブラックホールには、点ではなく「リング状特異点」が存在します。リング状特異点は厚みがゼロで表面を持たず、超高速で回転し、ブラックホール全ての質量を含みます。
リング状特異点のあまりに速い回転により、ブラックホールの周囲では時間と空間が歪みます。
それにより、事象の地平面よりも外部に、「エルゴ球」と呼ばれる新たな領域が形成されます。
事象の地平面では時空が完全に壊れていますが、エルゴ球の内部では時空が半分だけ壊れているとのこと。
回転しないブラックホールに吸い込まれるのは、穴に滑り落ちるようなものですが……
回転するブラックホールに吸い込まれるのは、水が渦を巻く排水溝の中に吸い込まれるようなもの。
回転するブラックホールは、エルゴ球の中に入った物質に回転するエネルギーを受け渡します。
そのため、リング状特異点の放つ回転エネルギーは、近づいた物体を非常に速いスピードで押し流すと考えられているそうです。
このエルゴ球から、リング状特異点が放つ回転エネルギーを取り出すことができれば、かなりのエネルギーを得ることができます。このブラックホールから回転エネルギーを取り出す方法を、ペンローズ過程と呼びます。
天の川銀河の中心にある超大質量ブラックホールは、銀河の多くの星々が何十億年もかけて放出するのと同等のエネルギーを持っているとのこと。
エネルギーを取り出す簡単な方法として、ブラックホールに物体を侵入させるというものがあります。
ブラックホールは外部から入ってきた質量に対して、質量に応じたエネルギーを受け渡すからです。
上手にロケットをエルゴ球に突入させることができれば……
リング状特異点が押し流す方向に流れに大きなエネルギーを得ることができます。
この方法は化学エネルギーを運動エネルギーに変換し、ロケットを宇宙に向けて飛ばすよりも効率がいいとのこと。
例えるならば、ロケットの打ち上げは自力でプールを泳ぐようなものですが、エルゴ球内でロケットが進むのは、流れるプールの中で流れに後押しされつつ泳ぐようなもの。
ブラックホールの回転は非常に高速であり、エルゴ球からロケットが出る時には、ロケットの侵入時よりも大幅に加速されていると考えられています。
ブラックホールはその分、わずかに回転エネルギーを失って回転が遅くなりますが、そうそう簡単にブラックホールが全ての回転エネルギーを失うことはありません。
もう一つ、ブラックホールからエネルギーを取り出す有効な方法があります。
まず、超高速で回転するブラックホールの外側に、大きな鏡を覆うように取り付けます。
一見したところ、巨大な天体を覆って全てのエネルギーを余すことなく回収するダイソン球と似ています。
しかし、ブラックホールは宇宙の他の天体と比較すれば非常に小さく、材料も鏡だけでいいことから、こちらの方が建設は簡単です。
太陽と同質量のブラックホールを厚さ10cmの鏡で覆うには……
大きめの小惑星が持つ金属だけで十分かもしれないとのこと。
鏡でブラックホールを覆ったら、鏡の一部を開けて電磁波をブラックホールに向けて打ち込みます。
電磁波はブラックホールに光速で到達し、ごく一部の電磁波が事象の地平面に吸収されて消失される他は、鏡に反射することを繰り返します。
その際に電磁波がエルゴ球を通るたび、電磁波はブラックホールの回転エネルギーを受けて加速します。
電磁波は鏡とブラックホールの間を跳ね回るたびにエネルギーを増していき、ついにはとてつもないエネルギーを得るのです。
電磁波が持つエネルギーが必要量に達したら再び鏡の一部分を開け、エネルギーを取り出すことが可能です。
この方法が確立できれば、理論上は数兆年にわたって人類がエネルギーに困ることはないとのこと。
また、もしエネルギーを取り出さないままひたすら電磁波を反射させ続ければ……
鏡が砕けるほどのエネルギーを電磁波は得て、やがて爆発するでしょう。
この爆発エネルギーは、生物が作り出しうる中で最大の爆発であるといえます。
記事執筆時点では、ブラックホールからエネルギーを取り出すことは、さまざまな問題が山積みで現実には不可能です。
しかし果てしなく遠い未来において、ゆっくりと死にゆく宇宙の中で人類が生き残る最後の方法として、ブラックホールのエネルギーを取り出しているかもしれません。
太陽を初めとする恒星が死滅し、闇に覆われた宇宙では……
回転するブラックホールは人間が利用できる最後のエネルギー源です。
最後の人類たちは、ブラックホールのすぐそばで暮らしているかもしれません。
とても興味深く読みました：
ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した：日本、再生核研究所
ゼロ除算関係論文・本
再生核研究所声明 427(2018.5.8): 神の数式、神の意志 そしてゼロ除算
NHKスペシャル 神の数式番組を繰り返し拝見して感銘を受けている。素晴らしい映像ばかりではなく、内容の的確さ、正確さに、ただただ驚嘆している。素晴らしい。
ある物理学の本質的な流れを理解し易く表現していて、物理学の着実な発展が良く分かる。
原爆を作ったり、素粒子を追求していたり、宇宙の生成を研究したり、物理学者はまるで、現代の神官のように感じられる。素粒子の世界と宇宙を記述するアインシュタインの方程式を融合させるなど、正に神の数式と呼ぶにふさわしいものと考えられる。流れを拝見すると物理学は適切な方向で着実に進化していると感じられる。神の数式に近づいているのに 野蛮なことを繰り返している国際政治社会には残念な気持ちが湧いて来る。ロシアの天才物理学者の終末などあまりにも酷いのではないだろうか。世界史の進化を願わざるを得ない。
アインシュタインの相対性理論は世界観の変更をもたらしたが、それに比べられるオイラーの公式は数学全般に大きな変革をもたらした：
With this estimation, we stated that the Euler formula
$$
e^{\pi i} = -1
$$
is the best result in mathematics in details in： No.81, May 2012 (pdf 432kb)
余りにも神秘的な数式のために、アインシュタインの公式 E= mc^2 と並べて考えられる 神の意志 が感じられるだろう。 ところで、素粒子を記述する方程式とアインシュタインの方程式を融合したら、 至る所に1/0 が現れて 至る所無限大が現れて計算できないと繰り返して述べられている。しかしながら、数学は既に進化して、1/0=0 で無限大は 実はゼロだった。 驚嘆すべき世界が現れた。しかしながら、数学でも依然として、rがゼロに近づくと 無限大に発散する事実が有るので、弦の理論は否定できず、問題が存在する。さらに、形式的に発散している場合でも、ゼロ除算算法で、有限値を与え、特異点でも微分方程式を満たすという新しい概念が現れ、局面が拓かれたので、数学者ばかりではなく、物理学者の注意を喚起して置きたい。
物理学者は、素粒子の世界と巨大宇宙空間の方程式を融合させて神の方程式を目指して研究を進めている。数学者はユークリッド以来現れたゼロ除算1/0と空間の新しい構造の中から、神の意志を追求して 新しい世界の究明に乗り出して欲しいと願っている。いみじくもゼロ除算は、ゼロと無限大の関係を述べていて、素粒子と宇宙論の類似を思わせる。
人の生きるは、真智への愛にある、すなわち、事実を知りたい、本当のことを知りたい、高級に言えば 神の意志 を知りたいということである。 そこで、我々のゼロ除算についての考えは真実か否か、広く内外の関係者に意見を求めている。関係情報はどんどん公開している。 ゼロ除算の研究状況は、
数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられている：http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/ に 関連情報がある。
以 上
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿