What areas are left for major breakthroughs by a "super genius" ?

[quarky]

Useful for day to day smarts? I bet it did and does, they just didn't pursue applying those same gifts elsewhere in some instances. Chess is a good example. It is so time-consuming to become a grandmaster and win tournaments that it crowds out other pursuits.

Some gifts are uber-specific.
They don't trickle down well.

 

[mike3]

Jacob Barnett seems to be for real:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Barnett

I hope he achieves great things.

As for a real "theory of everything" for physics, we already have theories so abstruse they cannot be understood without extraordinary dedication, training, and intelligence. Relatively few people will ever get themselves into a position where they could even begin to contribute at that level. Those who do may not be super geniuses on the level of Jacob Barnett, but it would be a stretch to say they're normal.

So would he be a great "hand" (or "brain" maybe) to have on this? Do you think he could, with such training, contribute a lot to this field?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Jacob Barnett seems to be for real:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Barnett

I hope he achieves great things.

As for a real "theory of everything" for physics, we already have theories so abstruse they cannot be understood without extraordinary dedication, training, and intelligence. Relatively few people will ever get themselves into a position where they could even begin to contribute at that level. Those who do may not be super geniuses on the level of Jacob Barnett, but it would be a stretch to say they're normal.

So would he be a great "hand" (or "brain" maybe) to have on this? Do you think he could, with such training, contribute a lot to this field?

Sure. The odds are against him making a truly major contribution, but he's got a far better chance of doing so than more normal people. If he doesn't fall apart, he should have a successful career as a research scientist. Beyond that, who can say?

 

[marplots]

There are a few things I'd like to see illuminated by super-genius before I die. The first is a practical, room temp superconductor and the second is a good theory about time. I'm taking a leap here thinking I would understand any of it though.

 

[quarky]

If perception turns out to be creative, or pro-active, we not only wouldn't understand it, we would fight for the right to disallow its possibility.
Something of a 'skeptic's dilemma'.

 

[Westwall]

Kind of a limited choice, no Archimedes or Eratosthanes? I find it amazing that Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth, as accurately as he did, with shadows. Remarkable.

I think someone taking Tesla's ideas further as regards powering the gridwith the Earths magnetic field would be an interesting idea to follow. It would actually make EV's vible.

 

[Trent Wray]

Excellent question and remark. I'll throw out this list, which is heavily weighted toward math and physics. We can then debate how much of this was just a matter of putting the final piece into place.

• What is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter? Answered to three significant digits by Archimedes (c 287-212 BCE), who also described an algorithm for calculating pi to any desired precision; he also invented the bilge pump.
• Do heavy things fall faster than lighter things? Answered by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642); he also introduced the idea that physical laws should be described using mathematics, invented the telescope, and revolutionized astronomy.
• What kind of mathematics can describe the motion of objects? Answered independently by Isaac Newton (1643-1627) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), who both invented calculus.
• What is that calculus stuff talking about? Answered by Leonhard Euler (1707-1783), who invented the concept of a function; he also invented modern trigonometry and a bunch of other things.
• Which regular polygons can be constructed via compass and straightedge? Answered by Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855); he also invented modular arithmetic, proved the fundamental theorem of algebra, conjectured the prime number theorem, developed methods for least squares approximation, stated the normal distribution law (involving what is now called the Gaussian distribution), and invented the notion of Gaussian curvature.
• Getting back to that calculus stuff, what are integrals really? Answered by Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866); he also developed non-Euclidean geometry and invented differential geometry, tensors, and the Riemann curvature tensor.
• With respect to the basic laws of electromagnetism, are we there yet? Answered by James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), who added the final piece to what are now known as Maxwell's equations; that final piece predicted radio and other electromagnetic waves.
• How and why does the Galilean rule for adding velocities break down when things are moving really fast? Answered by Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who was inspired by Maxwell's equations; he also invented general relativity (using Riemann's math) and received a Nobel Prize for discovering the law of the photoelectric effect.
• Part of Hilbert's sixth problem: How can we axiomatize quantum mechanics? Answered by John von Neumann (1903-1957), who axiomatized Hilbert spaces; he also invented modern game theory, proved the minimax theorem, invented the merge sort, invented algorithms for pseudo-random number generation, designed the first self-reproducing automaton, and contributed to the Manhattan project.
• Isn't there a better way to do these calculations in quantum mechanics? Answered by Paul Dirac (1902-1984); he also predicted the positron.
• Can we construct a complete proof procedure for first order logic? Answered (in the affirmative) by Kurt Gödel (1906-1978); in addition to Gödel's completeness theorem, he also proved his two incompleteness theorems, and proved the relative consistency of both the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis with Zermelo-Frankel set theory.
• Can't we at least figure out whether a computer program will ever stop? Answered by Alonzo Church (1903-1995) and Alan Turing (1912-1954); Church invented lambda calculus, Turing invented Turing machines, and the Church-Turing thesis states their joint conjecture that all reasonable definitions of computable functions will turn out to be computable by both lambda calculus and Turing machines. Turing also worked as a cryptanalyst for the Allies during World War II.

Hardly any child prodigies revolutionize their fields. Too many of them burn out. Most become more normal as they grow older.

I can't quantify any of those statements.

Thanx, as always, to everyone who is posting ... and esp to Clinger for taking the time to post this list.

 

[steve s]

Jacob Barnett seems to be for real:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Barnett

From his wiki page...

his hypothesis being that the Big Bang couldn't be responsible for the amount of carbon present in the universe via his calculations

If he's so smart, why doesn't he know that carbon wasn't created as a result of the big bang. It is created in the cores of stars and is released into the universe during supernova explosions.

Steve S

 

[mike3]

From his wiki page...



If he's so smart, why doesn't he know that carbon wasn't created as a result of the big bang. It is created in the cores of stars and is released into the universe during supernova explosions.

Steve S

The full explanation is here:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369

"There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it's just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova," Jake said. "What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it's more dense."

OK . . . trying to follow you.

"So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

"So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it's really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?"

He could go on and on.

And he did.

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen."

"Because of that," he continued, "that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."

So, we had to ask.

If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about?

"I'm still working on that," he said. "I have an idea, but . . . I'm still working out the details."

The thing that gets me here is the bit where he says the Earth is mostly made out of carbon. That's flat wrong -- it is silicon, oxygen, and iron, in that order, that are the major components of the Earth. If this is what he's getting his estimates for the amount of C in the universe from, well...

 

[Tony]

Proving string theory?

 

[Trent Wray]

The full explanation is here:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369



The thing that gets me here is the bit where he says the Earth is mostly made out of carbon. That's flat wrong -- it is silicon, oxygen, and iron, in that order, that are the major components of the Earth. If this is what he's getting his estimates for the amount of C in the universe from, well...

Lemme ask ... is he already essentially referencing another theory of the origins of the universe that exists, he just doesn't realize it yet (but will once he reaches his conclusions for example)? Or do his calculations hinge upon however he's come up with the amount of carbon that should be in our universe?

Also ... could his calculations simply be off because he's not taking into account a possibly cyclic model of the universe (Bangs and Crunches) .... or did I just speak out my arse? lol

 

[PixyMisa]

The thing that gets me here is the bit where he says the Earth is mostly made out of carbon. That's flat wrong -- it is silicon, oxygen, and iron, in that order, that are the major components of the Earth. If this is what he's getting his estimates for the amount of C in the universe from, well...

Might be the smartest kid in the world but he don't know squat about shark fishing astrophysics.

 

[PixyMisa]

• What kind of mathematics can describe the motion of objects? Answered independently by Isaac Newton (1643-1627) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), who both invented calculus.

Newton. Clearly the greatest genius of all time, since he invented time travel.

 

[Trent Wray]

Might be the smartest kid in the world but he don't know squat about shark fishing astrophysics.

Arguably the smartest kid in the world manages to get everything he wants and always successfully blames the other kids ...

 

[The_Animus]

It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.

 

[mike3]

It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.

There's a lot of good systems that have been proposed, the problem is lack of will power on the part of people to want to actually follow something other than their stupid greed.

 

[The_Animus]

There's a lot of good systems that have been proposed, the problem is lack of will power on the part of people to want to actually follow something other than their stupid greed.

That is definitely a huge part of it. We are also indoctrinated to think that our current system is the best thing that ever was or ever will be. As a result anyone who wants to try something different is called a terrorist or communist, or nazi or some other label meant to be derogatory. Further all the land is already owned and bound by a pile of laws, statutes, and cultural norms. Anyone who wants to break away and have their own little society is automatically labeled an evil cult or violent rebels and raided or killed. Granted most such cults or rebels are just that, but not all.

If there was a state that wanted to secede and every single resident of the state was for the seceding so that they could form their own separate society the government wouldn't allow it.

 

[jnelso99]

What areas of scientific exploration are left for a "super genius" to arise and shake things up?

Portable holes?

Dehydrated water?

Rocket-powered skis?

Warp drive?

 

[patchbunny]

How to catch a Roadrunner (or in this case, a rabbit)?

That's one of my favorite clips. I love the dramatic music with Bugs on the tractor.

 

[randman]

Proving string theory?

Proving string theory? How about just explaining it and why it could be?

Sounds less serious than it is.