Jag har aldrig riktigt förstått varför fysiker och andra naturvetare förhåller sig så passionerat till skönhet – eller varför de har en så konventionell syn på vad vackert betyder. Detta ständiga prat om hurdana ekvationer, teorier m.m. som är vackra:
a
”Ask any physicist about symmetry and the answer will probably be a variation of the following. ‘Nature is symmetric. Through mathematics, we uncover these symmetries. Our equations and theories are the embodiment of this inherent order of all things. Symmetry is beautiful and beauty is thruth.'”
a
”In art and in music, what is considered modern is often asymmetric. During the early twentieth century, the break with classic art was, to a large extent, expressed as the breaking of symmetric patterns in nature and the human figure.”
a
”There is need for a new kind of aesthetic in science, a new kind of beuaty that leaves behind expectations of order and symmetry inspired by age-old monotheistic beliefs.”
a
Citaten är hämtade ur fysikern Marcelo Gleisers bok A tear at the Edge of Creation, A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe. Boken är en av allt fler som tar sig an det som kunde kallas fysikens metafysik.
a
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7527320-a-tear-at-the-edge-of-creation
cirklar runt detta utanför 