Skip to Content
Author's profile photo Former Member

Was Einstein Wrong About Complexity?

In the last two decades of his life, Albert Einstein sought in vain for a unified theory that would describe both gravity and electromagnetism. He felt that the existing theories of the day lacked a simpler, more holistic framework.

He was a big fan of simplicity, which he distinguished from simplemindedness.

“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler,” he said.

Einstein was already famous for his equation E=mc2, which related energy to mass and the speed of light. (This simple yet profound equation explains how the Sun produces energy and led to the atom bomb.)Einstein had also taken Isaac Newton’s description of gravity—the high school physics of falling apples —and reworked it into the theory of general relativity, which predicted (among other things) that gravity could bend light.Half a century earlier, the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell had combined electricity and magnetism into one framework. Now Einstein was hoping to bring gravity and electromagnetism together in a simple, elegant description.

Einstein failed, and, to this day, the holy grail of modern physics is to come up with a single description – a grand unified theory – that will describe all the forces we know.


Einstein lecturing at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Einstein spent the last years of his life trying to find a unified theory of physics. Photo courtesy: American Institute of Physics.

Complexity – in IT or a megacity

The rise of complexity can seem inevitable when it comes to science and technology. As my colleague Paul Taylor has pointed out in his excellent essay, the information technology landscape today is unbelievably cluttered and complex, thanks to an exponential growth of connected devices that have to live with legacy systems and countless editions of software.

The modern IT landscape reminds me of a large metropolis like Lagos or Delhi or Cairo or Sao Paolo – chaotic and complex, where years of unplanned growth have created megacities difficult to navigate. Urban authorities often create arterial roads or demarcate one way streets in an effort to combat traffic jams in these megapolises; similarly, there is a movement by businesses to manage IT complexity.


A traffic jam in Delhi.  Commuting in big megacities like Delhi, Sao Paolo and Lagos is increasingly difficult and a challenge to urban planners.  Photo courtesy: Wikimedia

Order out of chaos

In science, things often grow seemingly complex before they are unified under a simple principle. In fact, it is the increasing complexity that often leads to a paradigm shift. A hundred years before Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species, the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus had started his catalogue of taxonomy.  Linnaeus listed some 10,000 species of plants and animals, and favored a static description, which he ascribed to divine will. By Darwin’s time, the number of known species had grown to more than 100,000; it was in searching for a way to explain this diversity of life forms that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution – a paradigm shift, if there was one.


Charles Darwin as a young man. He would go on to publish The Origin of the Species, which laid out the theory of evolution. Photo courtesy: Wikimedia

Other revolutions have been driven by increasing complexity. Medieval astronomers still used the tables of Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer who lived in the 1st century AD. Ptolemy believed the Earth was the center of the universe and had come up with a complicated model that involved nested circles (called epicycles) to predict the orbits of the planets.  By the 15th century AD, Ptolemy’s model still worked, but only after careful tweaking to fit astronomical observations. The resulting mathematics was very complicated. It was the desire to come up with a simpler framework that led Nicolaus Copernicus to the heliocentric model of the Solar System. Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler improved Copernicus’ framework and, finally, Isaac Newton gave Renaissance astronomy the necessary theoretical underpinning with his theory of gravitation. When the planet Neptune was discovered through a telescope based on Newtonian mechanics, it was a true triumph of science.


Godfrey Kneller’s portrait of Isaac Newton at the age of 46. Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time. Photo courtesy: Wikimedia

Technology and complexity

Increasing complexity leads to change in technology as well. After the steam locomotive was invented in the 19th century, there was a remarkable proliferation of railway lines around the world. Initially, tracks of varying widths were built. Soon, however, the desire to build long distance rail networks (particularly, in the American West) led to adoption of the so-called broad gauge as the standard.  Similarly, the development of railroads led to the need for better time-keeping in the US and led to standardization of times.

Standardization is often the first tool on the way to simplification, and usually leads to growth. The invention of the shipping container standardized and revolutionized global trade. (Instead of spending more time docked at ports for loading and unloading, ships were freed up to transport goods; containers that were sealed at factories also reduced pilferage at the docks, the cost of which was usually passed on to consumers.)


Shipping containers standardized shipping practices – and revolutionized global trade. Here shipping containers are stacked at the port of Clyde. Courtesy: Wikimedia

In recent years, the popularity of the Android platform and the GSM technology standard have together simplified the mobile smartphone landscape, benefiting users around the world.

Today, the information technology landscape has seen some standardization but there is still an overwhelming amount of complexity. Much more requires to be done. We at SAP realize the need for making things simpler.

SAP CEO Bill McDermott is emphatic that “running simple” is more than a slogan or a business objective.

“This is an organizing principle that must galvanize CEOs and their teams as they eliminate unnecessary complexity and restore growth as the unifying priority,” he says.

Coming back to modern science, was Einstein wrong about complexity?

Even though a grand unified theory is yet to be found, many scientists still think that Einstein had a point. Natural laws in science tend to be simple and elegant.

As no less a scientist than Sir Isaac Newton put it: “Nature is pleased with simplicity. And nature is no dummy.”

Assigned Tags

      You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
      Author's profile photo Former Member
      Former Member

      Bold title

      Author's profile photo Ludek Uher
      Ludek Uher

      Many thanks for this. Fantastic read! Alas, I fear that the paradigm of standardization and simplification that works in areas such as science may not work in business, let alone IT environments. In science, the drive for standardization and simplification benefits all. In business and IT, this may not be the case due to, at times, ferocious competition. Take the so called ODBC standard (or many other software / IT "standards"). As soon as the "standard" did not satisfy Microsoft (and others), the standard was broached to the point where today I argue there is no ODBC standard.

      Simplification may be another story, but it may remain a proprietary simplification (e.g.; limited to one product or set of products - rarely will it be global or Enterprise wide). To me, the fact that a 4 year old child can use a smart phone or a tablet is the pinnacle of simplicity abstracting the insane complexities of these device to the point where a little child can use them. I am not sure we can scale this type of simplicity to Enterprise products(?).

      I remember reading about 25+ years ago how the software developer profession was a dead end because the time was coming when a secretary was going to be able to just ask for "it". Talk about simplicity! Are we there yet? Nope. Will we get there?

      This should not stop us for from trying, but with caution and understanding what we want to do and the limits of what we are trying to do.