|
Mercury,
January/February 2004 Table of Contents

|
Image
courtesy of NASA and Hubble Heritage Team. |
by
Chris Impey
Astronomy
is an empirical science, yet scientific definitions of truth and
beauty are closely tied to the fact that mathematics appears to
provide an accurate description of the physical Universe.
Cosmology
is not always beautiful to the practitioner. Consider on the one
hand the petty professional rivalries, the computers that can’t
calculate the quantity you want, the clever ideas discarded like
a child’s broken toys, the photons that travel billions of
light-years only to hit a cloud or fall uselessly to the ground
beside your telescope.
On
the other hand, there is an undeniable grandeur to the Universe.
For a species only a thousand generations removed from savagery,
many of whose members still live in poverty and misery, humans'
goal of understanding the origin of time, space, and matter is audacious
indeed.
Is
the Universe beautiful? A cosmologist might blink uncomprehendingly
at the question. As George Santayana has said, "Art critics
talk about theories of art; artists talk about where to buy good
turpentine." Yet the question is well motivated because a similar
aesthetic sense drives both cosmologists and other creative thinkers.
If
you enjoyed this excerpt from a feature article and would
like to receive our bi-monthly Mercury magazine, we invite you to
join the ASP and receive
6 issues a year.
|