Dec. 21st, 2011

jazzy_dave: (Default)




The woman in this photo is sniffing every book in the Museum of Modern Art collection in New York. Books all have their different smells. Some of them are quite nice and some of them aren’t pleasant at all. She has noted down in a large book what each book smells like, going from sweet tea, perfume, armpit and dog poop.


Like this woman, who seems to have the most marvellous job in the world, I am a habitual book-sniffer. It is an essential part of enjoying a book, to be able to breath in that heavenly deep smell of paper and ink. The book I am reading now (Magic Flutes by Eva Ibbotson) smells strangely of almonds. I don’t know if this is the book, or the previous owner as it is second hand, but it smelly lovely and nutty.

I prefer woody smells over ink. They smell of the forest, of something natural and living. Of course, now the tree is a book it is no longer living in that sense, but in another way the book is always a living thing. The ebook in that sense wins a point for environmentalism, but in all other ways detracts from what a book is for me.

I like clean musky smells of older books too. The kinds that have been well loved and looked after by their previous owners that they still retain a hint of their original scent despite age. I do not enjoy the smell of mildew on a book.

I think I am going to be inspired by this lady to add a ‘book smell’ column to my blog for next year, although I doubt my books will have quite the range of different scents as old library books will have.

Who else shares this bookish habit, and what is your favourite smell? Can you remember a particular book for it’s particular smell?


I am in the middle of the book on string theory, "Not Even Wrong",  which has a nice oaky smell to it. It would go well with a classic rioja red wine..



jazzy_dave: (Default)
Funnily enough , reading this book about string theory has tied up quite neatly the maths I did at the Open University many years ago. At the time the pure maths did not tie up with anything to do with physics but reading this book from a scientist who has studied both areas very deeply has given me a number of eureka moments.

Late seventies I studied the O.U. Maths Foundation course (M101) , which apart from calculus introduced matrices. Matrices are an important step towards calculating symmetries, which give rise to symmetries in particle physics and the chiral properties in nature. For example a lemon is a mirror image of an orange in terms of their molecular structure but giving quite different smells (check QI for this).

Group theory is also important in the development of determining spin of a particle, and that all fermions , such as electrons, have an angular momentum spin of ½ integer value whereas bosons  (such as the proton) have a spin of 1.

The two hypothetical particles, the graviton and the Higgs boson , would have a spin of 0 and 2 respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29

After achieving a good result in the foundation course I did attempt to do the second level pure maths course which introduced vectors, eigenvalues and eigenstates, the Hamiltonian operator, and the Hilbert space. Once again , all these terms become important in the wave equations of Schroedinger and Heisenberg. Reading the Peter Woit book bring all these terms flooding back into my memory, but now I can see why the maths is fundamental to the science.

I also completed the science foundation course the year before and studied physics to third level.

Enough of the brain melting for the morning. Off to Canterbury and Maidstone today and then cinema at Rochester.
jazzy_dave: (Default)

Profile

jazzy_dave: (Default)
jazzy_dave

June 2025

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 01:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios