Why Beauty is Truth and
Truth Beauty
Dr.Mae-Wan
Ho, invited lecture
Making Visible the Invisible Conference,
University of Huddersfield,
Huddersfield, UK, 10-11 March 2011
Is beauty
truth in science?
Scientists, especially the greatest
scientists are motivated by the beauty of the
natural order of things. So intensely felt is
the love for the beauty of a scientific
theory that some scientists are unconcerned
as to whether the theory happens to be true.
Fortunately, really beautiful theories tend
to be true, in the sense that their
predictions can be tested and confirmed
empirically. Thats what Indian-born
American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan
Chandrasekhar (1910-1995), recipient of the
1983 Nobel Prize for his work on the
evolution of stars, argued in his book Truth
and Beauty, Aesthetics and Motivation in
Science published 1987 [1].
It is important to distinguish between
mathematics and science here, even though
they are closely linked. Mathematics is always
true in the sense that the deductions follow
from the axioms, and the theorems have been
proven (although my mathematician husband
Peter Saunders tells me that some proofs are
controversial and not universally accepted as
such). The big difference is that unlike
science, it need not apply to nature. It
could indeed be misapplied, resulting in
scientific theories that are neither true nor
beautiful.
In his book, Why Beauty is Truth, A
History of Symmetry published in 2007 [2],
Ian Stewart at Warwick University extols the
beauty of mathematical symmetry. But does it
give us beautiful science [3]? Mathematical
symmetry has spawned a series of string
theories and superstring theories, 10500
of them, to be precise, to explain ultimate
physical reality. Among its recent triumphs
is a complex mathematical structure of 248
dimensions [4, 5]; though only a much
simplified version in 2 dimensions can be
depicted for the benefit of non-mathematicians.
Many scientists are unimpressed, some
declaring string theory outright ugly [6]
because it is strongly reminiscent of the
epicycles that described the paths of the
planets around the earth in the earth-centred
theory of the solar system before it was
replaced by the much simpler, more elegant,
and hence genuinely beautiful heliocentric
theory. Beauty is pivotal to the
scientists judgment as to whether a
theory is true.
More than that, the quest for beauty is
central to the life of the scientist. Henri
Poincare (1854-1912), French mathematician-physicist
and the Last Universalist excelling in
all fields of mathematics in his time, once
wrote [1]: The scientist does not study
nature because it is useful to do so. He
studies it because he takes pleasure in it;
and he takes pleasure in it because it is
beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it
would not be worth knowing and life would
not be worth living [emphasis added].
I add emphasis to life would not be
worth living because thats
exactly how I feel. The greatest gift a human
being can have and everyone has it -
is the capacity to be inspired by beauty; it
is the fount, if not the raison
detre of all creation. To be
inspiring, one must have the capacity to be
inspired.
Poincare referred to ultimate beauty as [1]
the harmonious order of its parts [to
the whole]; and went on to say that the
scientist delights in both the
vastness and the prodigious
smallness of things - domains that
transcend everyday experience thereby
inviting us to reach for the deeper mysteries
of nature.
Transcendence of the mundane is a hallmark
of beauty, as it is of science and art.
Thats why one should be wary of
educationalists who insist on reducing
science and mathematics to prosaic everyday
experience. For the same reason, one should
hold onto that dumb inspiration, the sublime
beauty that leaves you lost for words. You
will find yourself returning to it again and
again, until perhaps a great scientific
theory, or work of art drops like a ripe
fruit from the tree of creativity that grows
out of the fertile ground of the imagination.
I wholeheartedly agree with JWN Sullivan (1886-1937),
London-born journalist and biographer of
Newton and Beethoven among others, who wrote
[1]: The measure of success of a
scientific theory is, in fact, a measure of
its aesthetic value
The measure in which
science falls short of art is the measure in
which it is incomplete as science.
Implicit in what Sullivan said is that art is
a measure of beauty.
In response, artist and art critic Roger
Fry (1866-1934) observed that there is no
reason why a beautiful scientific theory has
to agree with facts. Like
Poincare, who posited pleasure in
the beauty of nature as the motivation for
science, Fry laid great store by
emotional pleasure in the pursuit
of art. But is it the same
pleasure in both cases? Fry
pointed out that in art, the emotional
pleasure comes from the recognition of
relations that is immediate and
sensational, and curiously akin
to those cases of mathematical geniuses who
have immediate intuition of relations which
it is beyond their powers to prove. In
that sense, art is more akin to mathematics
than science.
A famous case was the Indian mathematical
genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920), who
left a large number of notebooks that
recorded several hundred formulae and
identities; many were proven decades after
his death by methods that Ramanujan could not
have known.
British mathematician GN Watson (1886-1965)
spent several years proving Ramanujans
identities, and vividly described how coming
across those identities gave him a
thrill indistinguishable from
that which he felt on seeing
Michelangelos sculptures
Day, Night,
Evening, and Dawn
over the Medici tombs in Florence, Italy [1].
Ramanujan inspired the recent multi-award
winning play A Disappearing Number by
Théâtre de Complicité and British
playwright Simon McBurney [7]; and it is
the most beautiful play I have seen in the
past ten years.
But it is all the more thrilling, I think,
when nature appears to conform to an elegant
mathematical theory. German theoretical
physicist Werner Heisenberg recalled his
extreme elation on discovering the laws of
quantum mechanics [1]: I had the
feeling that, through the surface of atomic
phenomena, I was looking at a strangely
beautiful interior, and felt almost giddy at
the thought that I now had to probe this
wealth of mathematical structure nature had
so generously spread out before me. In
his conversation with Albert Einstein
afterwards, he recorded: If nature
leads us to mathematical forms of great
simplicity and beauty by forms I am
referring to coherent systems of hypotheses,
axioms, etc. to forms that no one has
previously encountered, we cannot help
thinking that they are true, that
they reveal a genuine feature of nature.
Is beauty and truth relevant to art?
Heisenberg was anticipated by English
romantic poet John Keats (1795-1821) in the
enigmatic last lines of his poem Ode on
a Grecian Urn, which have been debated
by generations of poets and critics since [8]:
Beauty is truth,
truth beauty that is all
Ye know on earth,
and all ye need to know.
T.S. Eliot said the lines were [4]
meaningless and a serious
blemish on a beautiful poem. Famously
aggressive American critic John Simon opened
a movie review with one of the greatest
problems of art - perhaps the greatest - is
that truth is not beauty, beauty not truth.
Nor is it all we need to know.
Are artists motivated by the quest for
beauty and truth? What would
truth mean in art?
Or is the quest for beauty and truth in
both science and art no longer relevant in
the present day, having been overtaken by the
profit imperative. One commentator remarks [9]:
A century ago, beauty was almost
unanimously considered the supreme purpose of
art and even synonymous with artistic
excellence. Yet today beauty has come to be
viewed as an aesthetic crime. Artists are now
chastised by critics if their works seem to
aim at beauty.
But the pendulum is swinging back. Since
the early 1990s there has been a rising
chorus to bring beauty back to art [10-13],
if not to science. Arthur Danto,
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Columbia
University and art critic, for example, said
that the modernists were right to exclude
beauty from art, but also that beauty is
essential to human life, and need not always
be excluded from art [9].
If beauty (and truth) is essential for
human life, then beauty and truth are central
to art and science, and recovering them is
the most urgent task facing humanity as
corporate manipulation of truth and beauty
threatens the survival of people and planet.
Thats the project we have taken on at
the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).
Recovering beauty in its organic form
What does it mean to recover beauty and
truth in science and art? Is there an agreed,
universal concept of beauty? I cannot think
of a universal concept of beauty,
although I believe the sense of beauty
is universal.
Of course, there is no end of apologists
who tell us that the concept of beauty
changes through the ages, and what was
thought ugly when first perceived, such as
Andy Warhols Brillo Box, or
Marcel Duchamps Fountain, a
urinal, is now revered as high art. And there
are those who claim that beauty is culture-bound,
and what is beautiful in one culture is
abomination in another.
Yet, beneath it all, we know that beauty
is timeless and universal. Witness that
collective sharp intake of breath when
successive prehistoric cave paintings were
unveiled to the world, the most recent
spectacle in the Chauvet cave of Ardeche,
France, dating from 30 000 BC [14]. Or marvel
at the astonishing creative transgressions of
cultural/ethnic/genre boundaries in
contemporary music and art, albeit mostly
away from the mainstream.
Do discover the truly avant garde
of science and art at the history-making
event Quantum Jazz Biology,
Medicine, and Art [15] taking place 26-27
March 2011. It is marked by three important
publications: Celebrating ISIS, Quantum
Jazz Biology *Medicine*Art [16], a 100-page
commemorative volume featuring the works of
scientists, artists and others appearing at
the event; Quantum Jazz Art [17], a
DVD of virtual art exhibits accompanied by
specially selected original contemporary
music; and Celebrating ISIS Event [18],
a DVD of the actual art exhibitions, musical
performances, lectures, interviews, and other
activities at the event (all available from
ISIS online bookstore).
The year 2011 happens to be the 12th
anniversary of ISIS, co-founded by me and
Peter Saunders, with a mission to reclaim
science for the public good through providing
accessible and critical scientific
information to the public, insisting on
sustainability and accountability in science,
and especially, promoting holistic organic
science in place of the mechanistic. Holistic
science is ultimately a way of knowing and
understanding that engages all our
faculties, both rational and aesthetic, and
hence recognizes no separation between
science and art. So we are really recovering
the values of the pre-modernist romantic era,
with one important difference.
We need to transcend traditional concepts
of harmony and elegance that are static and
mechanical, hence quite inadequate to
encompass the protean, shimmering splendor of
natures organic beauty.
In science, the static harmony of the
golden mean has blossomed into
the mathematics of chaos and strange
attractors, and fractal geometry, much closer
to how nature expresses herself; though not
exactly, and that is important in real
science, as opposed to mathematics.
Some strange attractors
containing the possible trajectories of
nonlinear dynamical systems that
exhibit deterministic chaos
Mathematics and science have caught up to
the capricious volatility of natural
processes and the endless diversity of
natural forms. Fractal mathematics reveals
that the variability of the healthy heartbeat
is a sign that the heart is in coherent
intercommunication with the rest of the body,
and hence reflects the entire range of the
bodys biological rhythms [19, 20] (The
Heartbeat of Health, Happiness
Is A Heartbeat Away, SiS 35), with
a characteristic self-similar mathematical
structure over a range of time scales. The
dynamic structure is absent from the
unhealthy and superficially much more regular
heartbeat.
Even more fundamentally, fractal processes
and structures are ubiquitous in organisms,
and this accounts for the allometric scaling
of physiological processes with body size
that has long puzzled biologists. This new
discovery deserves to be called perhaps Biologys
Theory of Everything? [21] (SiS 21).
Nevertheless, nature does not conform to
ideal mathematics, which succeeds only in
approximating it [22]. The contingent,
unpredictable, unrepeatable freedom of the
moment is what makes life and art. In The
Biology of Free Will [23] (ISIS
scientific publication), I showed how, in
freeing itself from mechanical determinism
and mechanistic control, the organism becomes
a sentient, coherent being that is free, from
moment to moment, to explore and create its
possible futures . A work of art is unique
for the occasion, as are all organic forms
and organisms, as opposed to mechanically
manufactured objects.
So perhaps Andy Warhol was saying
something critical and profound with his
piles of identical Brillo boxes and Campbell
tinned soups.
Mechanical uniformity has given way to
dynamic coherence (more later).
Beauty is truth in art
Beauty in science and art comes in
endlessly diverse organic forms, surprising
and unpredictable, and always sublime
in arousing that rapturous thrill
that I can only describe as an all-encompassing
love, not just directed at the
particular object of beauty, but permeating
the universe at large. And I venture to
suggest: the same truth or
authenticity underlies beauty in art as in
science, in that it resonates with some
universal, timeless aspects of nature to
which we are connected, and in which we are
utterly immersed [24] (In
Search of the Sublime, SiS 39).
Let me do a little experiment that may
illustrate what I am saying about beauty and
authenticity. Here are two electron
micrographs of the same kind of cells
prepared using two difference procedures.
Which is the more beautiful, the one on the
left, or on the right?
Which is the more beautiful?
You have all chosen the one on the left (30
out of 30)!
Now, which is the more true to life, the
one on the left, or on the right?
The one on the right is the state-of-the-art
conventional electron microscopy, involving
fixation and dehydration before staining. The
one on the left however, was done without
dehydration. Instead, it was freeze-dried,
then sectioned, and the water sublimated away
through a very long, laborious process, which
the scientist Ludwig Edelman believes, is
crucial in capturing what the cell is really
like in life, when it is hydrated with 70 to
80 percent by weight of water [25, 26] (What's
the Cell Really Like? SiS 24).
There are more structures preserved in
the non-dehydrated cell processed by Edelman,
so it is reasonable to conclude that it
represents more closely what the cell is like
in life. Beauty and truth coincide in the
electron micrograph, which is as much a work
of art as a work of science.
From other research including my own that
I shall presently describe, we now know that
the water in the cell and extracellular
matrix is in a very special, liquid
crystalline state that form dynamically
coherent units with the macromolecules
embedded within it, and without which, the
enzyme proteins, the DNA, RNA, would not work
at all.
Water has very special properties, even
outside the body. It has fascinated and
intrigued generations of scientists,
including me. Here are a couple of pictures
taken by an artist that are also scientific
documents. Michel Kappeli is an extraordinary
experimental artist who has enabled the river
water in a remote Swiss village to speak to
him directly, unmediated by complicated
technical aids [27] (Water
- Uncharted Spaces the Body of the
Transitory, SiS 48). These
beautiful large scale structural symphonies
leave you in no doubt that liquid water is
coherent at ambient conditions. Michel is
speaking and exhibiting his work at our event.
Large scale structural symphonies in
water
Quantum jazz biology and art
It is19 years since I peered down the
microscope and saw the little fruit fly larva
hatch from its egg, dancing in all the
colours of the rainbow, which no one else
had seen before. These are real
interference colours that some artists would
die for.
Later, the true significance of this
vision dawned on me: it would not have been
possible unless all the molecules in
the cells and tissues within the body of the
little larva are aligned as liquid crystals and
moving coherently together; all including the
water molecules that form dynamically
coherent units with the macromolecules
embedded in it, enabling them to function as
quantum molecular machines with efficiencies
close to 100 percent. That water I call
liquid crystalline water; without
which the molecular machines cannot work and
life would be impossible.
The fruit fly larva is not unique, all
living cells and organisms display themselves
like that under the polarized light
microscope geologists use to look at rock
crystals. My colleague Michael Lawrence and I
had inadvertently discovered a new setting
for the microscope thats particularly
good for looking at biological liquid
crystals.
All organisms are liquid crystalline
These beautiful images of live organisms
are among the key evidence that convinced me
organisms are coherent to a high degree, from
the macroscopic level down to the molecular
and below.
The other important reason we can see such
images at all making the previously
invisible visible - is that we have used a
non-destructive technique to allow the
organisms to show us what they are really
like, and we were richly rewarded. Again,
these are beautiful and authentic works of
science and art.
In the book named after the fruit fly
larva [28] The
Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of
Organisms, first published in 1993 and
now in its 3rd enlarged 2008
edition, I presented theoretical arguments
and empirical evidence to support the idea
that the organism is quantum coherent, and
depends on individual molecular energy
machines embedded in the liquid
crystalline water matrix working
seamlessly together to transform material and
energy without loss.
An organism going around its business of
living is doing quantum jazz inside: an
incredible dynamic light and sound dance-show
involving astronomical numbers of the most
diverse players, coordinated from sub-atomic
dimensions to the macroscopic performing over
a frequency range of 73 octaves, each
improvising spontaneously and freely yet
keeping perfectly in step and in tune with
the whole.
When I first proposed that the organism is
quantum coherent in the early 1990s, only a
handful of exceptional scientists thought
quantum theory had anything to do with
biology at all. The situation has greatly
changed since then. Google ran a workshop on
quantum biology in October 2010 [29],
where various scientists spoke about quantum
coherence at the micron scale for
photosynthesis, and about the
collapse of the quantum wave
function as the basis of consciousness and a
kind of quantum computing in our brain.
Obviously, they have yet to catch up with the
evidence suggesting (to me at least) that the
organism is completely quantum coherent.
Finally, I show you a few of my own
paintings in quest of quantum jazz [15-18];
and you shall have to decide whether they are
beautiful, or beautiful enough to be true.
For much better works than mine, do come
to quantum jazz with us and make history at
our very special event [15].