Beauty ≠ truth
Scientists prize elegant theories, but a taste for simplicity is a treacherous guide. And it doesn’t even look good
by Philip Ball 3,000 words
Theoretically beautiful; geometrically pruned trees, Leer, Germany. Photo by Karl Johaentges/Getty
Philip Ball is a British science writer, whose work appears in Nature,New Scientist andProspect, among others. His latest book is Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitler (2013).
Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is a century old next year and, as far as the test of time is concerned, it seems to have done rather well. For many, indeed, it doesn’t merely hold up: it is the archetype for what a scientific theory should look like. Einstein’s achievement was to explain gravity as a geometric phenomenon: a force that results from the distortion of space-time by matter and energy, compelling objects – and light itself – to move along particular paths, very much as rivers are constrained by the topography of their landscape. General relativity departs from classical Newtonian mechanics and from ordinary intuition alike, but its predictions have been verified countless times. In short, it is the business.
Einstein himself seemed rather indifferent to the experimental tests, however. The first came in 1919, when the British physicist Arthur Eddington observed the Sun’s gravity bending starlight during a solar eclipse. What if those results hadn’t agreed with the theory? (Some accuse Eddington of cherry-picking the figures anyway, but that’s another story.) ‘Then,’ said Einstein, ‘I would have been sorry for the dear Lord, for the theory is correct.’ Read more of this post