Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Meet Jake Barnett. He’s 12. He’s in college. He has Asperger’s Syndrome. He’s very, very smart. He’s a mathematical genius. Here’s just a sample of his genius...when he was 3-years old (!!) as reported by the Indianapolis Star:
As a 3-year-old, he loved looking at a book about stars, over and over again.
So off they went on a tour of the Holcomb Observatory and Planetarium at Butler University.
Kristine Barnett will never forget the day.
"We were in the crowd, just sitting, listening to this guy ask the crowd if anyone knew why the moons going around Mars were potato-shaped and not round," she recalls. "Jacob raised his hand and said, 'Excuse me, but what are the sizes of the moons around Mars?' "The lecturer answered, and "Jacob looked at him and said the gravity of the planet...is so large that (the moon's) gravity would not be able to pull it into a round shape."
Silence.
"That entire building ...everyone was just looking at him, like, 'Who is this 3-year-old?'"
At 12-years old now, there’s something about the Big Bang that disturbs him. From a mathematical and time standpoint it doesn’t seem to allow for enough time to create carbon and carbon is important because it’s what the Earth and us and billions upon billions of other planets are made of. So, he’s been working on the problem…and he may end up disproving the Big Bang theory at least from a mathematical perspective. If he’s successful, then a lot of other physicists, mathematicians and cosmologists are going to have to contend with his theory…and everyone of us numbskulls who were just starting to warm up to the Big Bang as that point of reference for the creation of the universe.
Thanks a lot, Jake! (Keep up the good work, buddy!)
- Comment (160)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Brian;
I sit five doors down from one of the two Nobel recipients who's instruments measured the cosmic background radiation (the thermal echo from the event) "proving" the Big Bang. He is a really regular kind of guy, but I do not think he would be pleased if the Swedes came by to re-collect his medal on the ruminations of a 12 year old math genius.
There is a lot of "interesting" theories that pop out of the folks doing cosmology by math, but there is nothing like good astronomical measurement to really stir the science egos. Judging from the video you clipped, he has the correct nerd coefficient to fit right in with them. I hope we have enough of a space program left if he choses that arena for his life challenge.
Mar '11
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Maybe he can explain that spending more money than you take in causes the debt to increase. he can explain "Trillions" to congress.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Have the Swedes ever recollected the prizes? If so, there's one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and another in Tennessee that they need to demand back first.
As for the Big Bang...who knows what Mr. Barnett will come up with. We shall have to wait and see. Maybe he'll have added a symbol or a parentheses that he wasn't supposed to.
Edited on March 26, 2011 at 4:38amJun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Congress may have to go to night school. It's going to take more than one lesson.
Mar '11
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Amazing. I'm genuinely envious of this kid's intellect.
It's sad that he will be subjected to the worst kind of condescension and patronizing his entire life on account of his Aspergers.
May '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
I find it amazing how humans may suffer in one area of their lives, yet make up for it in other areas of their lives.
Here's a big LIKE for exposing us to this wunderkind, Brian!
May '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
I hate empiricism. Even if the Big Bang theory is true, how do they know there was only one Big Bang? They don't.
Think of the explosion of the universe like ripples in a pond from a falling stone. We're on one of the outer ripples. Using Redshift theory (to monitor the velocities of objects around us), we can determine where the "ripples' began — the center of the universe.
Now imagine that another stone (another Big Bang) fell near our stone and caused its own ripples which are now overlapping and interfering with ours. If that stone fell far enough away from the particular ripple on which our little galaxy rides, then we could not detect it. If we can only see three ripples toward the center but the overlap of our ripples with the other stone's is, as of yet, more than three ripples away from us, then that overlap is beyond our scope.
We can only make educated guesses about what occurs beyond what we see. Big Bang theory might not be wholly incorrect, but it makes unfounded assumptions.
Wait, I take that back. Big Bang Theory is entirely laughable.
Jan '11
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Can some scientist answer me this question? (It's not intended to be a gotcha. I honestly assume someone has an answer, but I don't know it.)
If the Big Bang is correct ... how could there be any ... difference?
If all of the material within the original blob was the same (a "singularity" they call it) then how could the Bang make differences? When the pieces flew apart, they "specialized" into different forms. But specialization requires that differences in individual entities already exist. The original blob had no internal differences. There was nothing to specialize with.
Yes, I know I'm betraying my stupidity, but what do I care?
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
KC Mulville: Can some scientist answer me this question? (It's not intended to be a gotcha. I honestly assume someone has an answer, but I don't know it.)
If the Big Bang is correct ... how could there be any ... difference?
If all of the material within the original blob was the same (a "singularity" they call it) then how could the Bang make differences? When the pieces flew apart, they "specialized" into different forms. But specialization requires that differences in individual entities already exist. The original blob had no internal differences. There was nothing to specialize with.
Yes, I know I'm betraying my stupidity, but what do I care? · Mar 25 at 9:52pm
KC you've slipped between "know" physics and quantum theory or partially known physics. What you are asking for is a unifying theory, which is the holy grail of physics. When you figure it out you will get the Nobel Prize, guaranteed.
Edited on March 26, 2011 at 8:43amSep '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Like Aaron I sincerely doubt how it is possible for mere human beings with one infinitesimal perspective to divine some single occurance billions of years ago with any pretense of certainty.
It shows an arrogance of exponential proportions. Most physicists acknowledge they are merely playing with a theory and have utterly no evidence it holds any more merit than any other, but it is akin to looking for the lost key under the streetlight. (Nothing wrong with that IMO because they will always find something)
But, like some other scientific theories (ahem) they get bandied about in popular culture and are taken as gospel by a the type of person who needs some certainty, some belief system that masquerades under the cloak of science.
This kid isn't old enough to be co-opted by the prevailing theories, but smart enough to be able to ask the right questions.
One thing science has taught us - theories don't stand the test of time very well. Ironic that Newtons theories were supplanted by Einstien's theories in 300 years, but the Big Bang happened 100 billion years ago, and we've *solved* it in the year 2000?
Dec '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Franco:
One thing science has taught us - theories don't stand the test of time very well. Ironic that Newtons theories were supplanted by Einstien's theories ...
Einstein's theories did not supplant Newton's. They expanded and built on Newton's theories. Newton never theorized how gravity worked. Einstein did.
The test of any theory is how well it explains the evidence and data, including new evidence and data. The longer a theory holds up as an explanation of the evidence as evidence accumulates over time, the better it stands the test of time. Many theories have stood the test of time very well. Such theories are generally foundational and are not usually replaced. Rather they are modified, expanded, and built upon.
For describing the observed phenomena of the time (and the same phenomena in our time) and for making accurate predictions, Newton's theories are as useful and accurate as they ever were. Newtonian physics is still widely used, more so than Einstein's physics.
Einstein's physics is only used when necessary.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Franco:
One thing science has taught us - theories don't stand the test of time very well. Ironic that Newtons theories were supplanted by Einstien's theories in 300 years, but the Big Bang happened 100 billion years ago, and we've *solved* it in the year 2000? · Mar 26 at 6:00am
Actually many theories do stand the test of time quite well. Evolution created a whole new branch of science - biology which then created genetics. Many of the basic tenants of Evolution that different species and varieties of species come from common ancestors are accepted. It's the method by which that happens that is still a point of contention. Only certain aspects of Newtonian physics were supplanted by Einstein not his entire body of work. For the most part Newtonian physics works quite well and is still used to map out the trajectory of spacecraft for example. As John Derbyshire of NRO has said, (paraphrasing) "Science is never finished. It is not the search for absolute truths it is the search for what can be made sense of in the universe and in nature" If you want absolute unchanging truth turn to religion.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Nickolas essentially answered Franco the same way I did. I hadn't seen his response when I was typing mine. Ah well. What do they say about great minds.... :-)
Edited on March 26, 2011 at 3:54pmJun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Try between 14 and 14.5 billion years ago. And there is no pretension to certainty, only a model of theory that is subject to attack. If this little pisswilly can attack it, all the more power to him. If he can't expand it or disprove the theory, we are certain that he is nothing more than what he has been and is to this day, and that is a little pisswilly who can do more tricks than most.
Aug '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
I'm sorry, but this is just lame. He's one kid, and obviously brilliant. Why on earth would we take him seriously? There are many dozens of equally brilliant minds who have accumulated real evidence of the Big Bang.; such as the background microwave radiation that permeates the universe like an echo.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
"Big Bang" and "Let There Be Light" are both euphemisms to get us past something inconceivable. But it is laughable - seriously it makes me laugh - that “Big Bang” satisfies doubters of divine intent. “I need a reasonable explanation. What happened?”
(Assume NPR "of course" voice) “It was a big bang.”
“Oh yes, a big bang.”
And it still is…
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
That is a perfect description of the problem of the modern scientific era. Too much theorizing and too little experimenting. Though I sympathize because the tasks are getting more and more difficult to do without lots of money.
I hate the notion of singularities being used to describe anything in the physical universe. Dividing by zero is not possible in the real world though it happens all the time in math. People seem to think that the real world is a math puzzle. It's not. Math is a tremendous tool but it is not reality itself.
Example, I think Einstein got seduced by Math, too. I think he was one of the greatest geniuses of all time but he was wrong about Michelson-Morley and wrong about special relativity. Michelson Morley is improperly said to be null result. It wasn't -- it was about 0.25 of the expected speed. Steven Bryant at http://www.relativitychallenge.com/ thinks he has found a math error in M-M results. Also, it looks like a substitution error in the 1905 paper by Einstein.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
The professors at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis are taking him quite seriously. They decided to enroll him there when he was only eight years old. They now want him to be done with coursework so he can concentrate on pure research. No doubt Jacob will be getting the attention of the mathematicians and physicists at MIT and Cambridge in England as well, especially if the substance of his work can't be easily dismissed by other brilliant minds. At this point it may be too early to tell whether this young lad is a flash in the pan or a true genius as brilliant as Einstein, Newton, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, etc.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Brian Watt
... Evolution created a whole new branch of science - biology which then created genetics. ...
Preposterous! Darwin's Evolution was an appendage of natural philosophy that moved quickly into the lay world because of its polemical value in debates about the great Truths. Read David Berlinski's book The Devil's Delusion and weep about the ridiculously politicized state of science today.
Jun '10
Re: Is The Big Bang About To Go Bust?
Larry Koler
Brian Watt
Preposterous! Darwin's Evolution was an appendage of natural philosophy that moved quickly into the lay world because of its polemical value in debates about the great Truths. Read David Berlinski's book The Devil's Delusion and weep about the ridiculously politicized state of science today. · Mar 26 at 8:39am
Evolution is a scientific theory about the origin of species and species similarity and differentiation. It is based on observable phenomena and explains a great deal about common lineage of species over a great distance of time. It became popular because its basic tenants seem to be substantiated by what we have seen and continue to discover in the fossil record and subsequently how genetics plays a part in ascribing certain physical characteristics. It has challenged "the great truths" if by that you mean Biblical truths, for example the Biblical truth of Adam and Eve as the first humans. This is one of the most incendiary aspects of the theory. But to say that Darwin's theory didn't create a whole new branch of scientific study and exploration would be incredibly naive.