Truth and Beauty

July 5th on The Colbert Report, the theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, made some pretty interesting claims. For example, some of the things we have dreamed up in SciFi will make it into reality in the not so distant future, like Time Travel. When Stephen Colbert mentioned that we would already know about it because we would see the people traveling back in time, Kaku said that we will have an invisibility cloak within the next ten years. Um, okay. That's going to make marking absences in class a little more difficult, but whatever.

Kaku had also mentioned the illusive link between Quantum theory and Cosmology, saying that we are looking for a "1 inch equation." He alludes to the E=Mc2 equation. I asked hubby, "what if the link is just not so simple or elegant as E=Mc2?" What if we are ruling out the "mind of God" connection because we want something so small that it can fit on a license plate? (see http://mkaku.org/ ). Hubby answered that usually the most simple is usually the right answer, and we promptly started washing the dishes.

Fast forward to a very enlightening conversation I had with Rich Tollerton yesterday. He was referring to some reading he has been doing about how science and religion have interacted through the ages and came up with a quip that stopped me dead in my tracks. When asked to write it down to be quoted, he was hesitant, but came up with "[When facts are dealt with,] scientists are concerned with beauty." but when he first said this, he said something more like "Scientists seem to be looking more for beauty than truth." (I think he found this comment to be too damning for scientists, whom he emphatically supports/reads/enjoys; this was spoken more in frustration I think, but I digress.)

This reminds me of Einstein who rejected a lot of proven material because it was not beautiful and it was too complicated. It also reminds me of Aristotle, the Father of Science, who discussed his scientific hypothesis with other people without trying anything out. Truly, we have a lot of stuff to rule out to even form a hypothesis, (can I mention the parental anecdote of attempting to figure out why a baby is crying? 'Is the diaper wet? Is she hungry? Is she hot? Is there some variable I'm not aware of?') but can't this process of ruling extraneous material out end up being less about trying to discover truth and more about the justification of one's preferences?

I've also been reading a lot lately on the power of assumption and how assuming can be helpful. If you had to prove to yourself every morning that your car will turn on when you turn the key in the ignition, chances are you would be late a lot; however, if you assume that your car will start no matter what, there are chances that you will be very wrong and, perhaps, this assumption could be harmful if you don't, say add oil to it and maintain it because you just assume that it will all be okay.

So, in conclusion, I am not all that sure of Michio Kaku's hypothesis that we will go sneaking around invisible, or that it is even a good idea, (can I say terrorist attack?) but I do hope for the part about unifying the micro to the macro in physics, I just don't think it has to be so simple to be correct or even work, and, frankly, I do not trust Michio Kaku. He's too... flashy. I'm sure the long, silver hair and bombastic claims get him coveted spots on the Colbert Report and other perks, reminiscent of Tycho Brahe, (had to throw that in, Rich,) but that doesn't make him reliable.

Maybe what we should be looking for, not just in science but in art, entertainment, history, and current events, is the reliability factor - not just how cool something looks.