Slashdot Mirror


12-Year-Old Rewrites Einstein's Theory of Relativity

rhathar writes "A 12-year-old boy by the name of Jacob Barnett is a math genius. Mastering many college level astrophysics courses by the age of 8, he now works on his most ambitious project to date: his own 'expanded version of Einstein's theory of relativity.'"

2 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. Primary Source by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. Stick this boy in a proper school... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    And away from sensationalist reporters going for "OMG! Big Bang didn't happen says genius kid!".

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius-work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI

    Meanwhile, Jake is moving on to his next challenge: proving that the big-bang theory, the event some think led to the formation of the universe, is, well, wrong.

    Wrong?

    He explains.

    "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."

    Plenty of time for Carbon at the beginning of things.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
    http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm

    IANAA, so my GUESS here is that kid lacks the knowledge necessary to put the whole thing in perspective.
    As indicated by astrophysics Professor Scott Tremaine's reply to his theories that suggests "Jake to spend as much time as possible to learn more and to further develop his theory".
    It's a polite way to say "Well thank YOU Mr. Smartypants. Us poor astrophysics scientists here would have NEVER thought of THAT had YOU not come along. NOT!".

    And the journalist simply doesn't have a clue on the subject and is clearly going for a sound-bite.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens