So what makes for beauty in science? In A Mathematicians Apology, G H Hardy proposes that the essential criteria for beauty in his field are unexpectedness, inevitability and economy - although he also mentions that depth, or how fundamental a proof is, is relevant. Im also fond of those passages in Michael Faradays The Chemical History of a Candle, in which he says that a candles beauty is not prettiness of colour or shape, but rather something else: "Not the best-looking thing, but the best-acting thing." In Faradays eyes, a candle taps all of the known laws of the universe. The heat of the flame melts the wax and draws up currents of air to cool the wax at the periphery, thus creating a cup for the molten wax, which remains horizontal thanks to gravity - "the same force of gravity which holds worlds together". Capillary action draws the melted wax up the wick from cup to flame, while the flames heat triggers a chemical reaction in the wax that sustains the flame.
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/5/2
