Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

12-Year-Old Genius Expands Theory of Relativity

The theory of Modified Newtonian Dynamics is quite well known. What's impressive is at this young age, he seems to be able to understand and explain it.

I think what might not be too good is he's being fed with the existing theories etc as opposed to letting him develop his own theories, who knows, he might offer a very different perspective. :)
 
This reminds me of a 22 year old guy who learned the Swedish language in 2-weeks, he solves very advanced math problems by making shapes in his head, and remembers the first 22,000 digits of pie. Look it up cause I forget the name.
 
Mousse said:
Yes. Spoken like a true scientist.:cool: We had a saying back when I was studying: "Although I'm not always right, I'm never, ever wrong." Science only confirms or disproves. Once something has been proven wrong, science throws it out. As long as it hasn't been proven false, we accept it as true.
Click to expand...

This is not how science works. :eek:
 
All I can say after watching that is, wow, and I thought I was good at that age just doing advanced calculus & group theory (Think First year US College/ Further Maths A-Level UK)... Although I could just about do 85-90%of what hes doing at 12, at 12, I sure as heck couldn't explain it (even now Id have trouble). Props to him for being truly brilliant, and I hope that in 10 years Im reading papers written by him, instead of him suffering burnout (I grew up, and got lazy, and boom, there goes any chances of little me getting a Field's Medal..., although I am still a year ahead in my Degree, and am doing some research into exciting areas of Computational Mathematics - still nothing compared to where I could be if I had just continued ploughing on with Maths like it was all that mattered. I also discovered Computers.. which didn't help - The internet is far too distracting).
 
chrismacguy said:
All I can say after watching that is, wow, and I thought I was good at that age just doing advanced calculus & group theory (Think First year US College/ Further Maths A-Level UK)... Although I could just about do 85-90%of what hes doing at 12, at 12, I sure as heck couldn't explain it (even now Id have trouble). Props to him for being truly brilliant, and I hope that in 10 years Im reading papers written by him, instead of him suffering burnout (I grew up, and got lazy, and boom, there goes any chances of little me getting a Field's Medal..., although I am still a year ahead in my Degree, and am doing some research into exciting areas of Computational Mathematics - still nothing compared to where I could be if I had just continued ploughing on with Maths like it was all that mattered. I also discovered Computers.. which didn't help - The internet is far too distracting).
Click to expand...

Agreed! But still time travel has long been proven a fact.. even before this little squat came on board.. Steven Gibbs also wrote a thesis on Three Dimensional theory and the case for time travel using Einstein's mathematical formulas.
 
(marc) said:
This is not how science works. :eek:
Click to expand...

Name one scientific theory that has been proven false that we still accept as true? I can't think of one.

Off the top of my head, I can think of several way out there theories we hold true because science hasn't proven them false yet. The Big Bang Theory is wackier than most creation myths, yet we accept it as true. Quantum entanglement, best illustrated by Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, is another. They're prime candidates for scientific fallacies. But until someone can find proof that they're wrong, we'll keep accepting them as true.
 
Mousse said:
Name one scientific theory that has been proven false that we still accept as true? I can't think of one.

Off the top of my head, I can think of several way out there theories we hold true because science hasn't proven them false yet. The Big Bang Theory is wackier than most creation myths, yet we accept it as true. Quantum entanglement, best illustrated by Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, is another. They're prime candidates for scientific fallacies. But until someone can find proof that they're wrong, we'll keep accepting them as true.
Click to expand...

That's a load of ********, please research your ramblings before spewing them on this forum. Both theories have a lot of evidence behind them - the big bang was only accepted after some very convincing evidence, previously the thought had been a static universe. The same goes for quantum entanglement - even Einstein (who hated quantum mechanics) accepted it.
There's nothing in science assumed true because it hasn't been proven wrong yet, otherwise I could say anything is true.
 
chrismacguy said:
All I can say after watching that is, wow, and I thought I was good at that age just doing advanced calculus & group theory (Think First year US College/ Further Maths A-Level UK)... Although I could just about do 85-90%of what hes doing at 12, at 12, I sure as heck couldn't explain it (even now Id have trouble). Props to him for being truly brilliant, and I hope that in 10 years Im reading papers written by him, instead of him suffering burnout (I grew up, and got lazy, and boom, there goes any chances of little me getting a Field's Medal..., although I am still a year ahead in my Degree, and am doing some research into exciting areas of Computational Mathematics - still nothing compared to where I could be if I had just continued ploughing on with Maths like it was all that mattered. I also discovered Computers.. which didn't help - The internet is far too distracting).
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this extremely self-grattifying post :p
 
Mousse said:
I'm not a theoretical physicist nor do I play one on TV.:p But like the saying goes, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Unless we can some how confirm or disprove these hypothesis...
Click to expand...

When studying advanced physics for nuclear engineering, our phrase was, "In theory, everything works. In the real world, where friction exists, nothing does." Of course that was before we were taught the equations that incorporate the effect of friction. To note that statement does use the term "friction" very loosely, referring to anything that reduces efficiency.
 
danielcox said:
Both theories have a lot of evidence behind them - the big bang was only accepted after some very convincing evidence, previously the thought had been a static universe. The same goes for quantum entanglement - even Einstein (who hated quantum mechanics) accepted it.
There's nothing in science assumed true because it hasn't been proven wrong yet, otherwise I could say anything is true.
Click to expand...

Those theories are best guesses from the evidence available. Once a single shred of evidence appears that refutes the theory, it goes tossed out. Proper scientists fit the theories to the data, not the other way around.

It's my fault for not explaining my stance more clearly. I never said science accepts everything as true until proven false. Scientific theories are held to be true because no data has be found yet that contradicts those theories. Once data (not caused by human error or falsification) is found to contradict those theories the old theory is no long held true. A new theory is thought up to encompass the new seemingly contradictory data. Hence, the saying among some scientist: "I might not always be right, but I'm never, ever wrong."

As evident in your reasoning why the Big Bang theory supplanted the static universe theory. New evidence show the old theory was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back