12-Year-Old Rewrites Einstein's Theory of Relativity 588
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.'"
Re:Aspergers Syndrome (Score:4, Interesting)
So from pure science POV it matters not that he burns out, but that his flame burns bright enough.
Evolution.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Primary Source (Score:3, Interesting)
the Earth, made mostly of carbon
He's good at math, but he's applying that math on an ignorant premise.
Re:Stick this boy in a proper school... (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it difficult to sort out the journalist's inexperience from their sensationalism. For instance, The Indianapolis Star version mentions a "calculus-based physics class he has been taking this semester" but then says "he needs work at an instructional level, which currently is a post college graduate level in mathematics". There is a big gap between calculus-based physics and graduate level math--at least serious graduate level math. Differential geometry would seem to be right up his alley, but there's no (even horribly obfuscated) mention of it.
The highest level of math directly mentioned in the article that I was able to figure out was "funky letters and upside-down triangles", presumably meaning Greek and the gradient symbol (it has other uses), which are undergraduate level. The video only discusses basic calculus at a level that perhaps one in a thousand high school freshmen reach; it's remarkable, but not "12-Year-Old Rewrites Einstein's Theory of Relativity" remarkable. The article mentions a YouTube video on quantum mechanics but I couldn't immediately find it. I agree with previous posters that the subtext of the quotes of the letter from Prof. Tremaine is "I want to encourage you, but, aside from your age, your ideas are unremarkable at my level of physics."
Without more info, my opinion (FWIW) is that he's got a great memory and is at a relatively advanced undergraduate level in physics and math. He'll probably make a great researcher after a few more years of maturation, which is probably why he's been offered a research position--for his potential, not for his current work, as some of the article text implies. I wish him the best of luck, and all the creativity he'll need to make truly interesting discoveries.
I think he's saying there is. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no astrophysicist, just a lowly programmer with a background in engineering physics, but I thought it was pretty much the standard (and understood by all) that carbon and anything heavier was produced by the stars? And I'm pretty sure I knew that by 12....
Um yes and he knows that too; he says so in another part of the quote. He's not saying the big bang predicts too much carbon too soon.
What he's saying is that it would take too long from the birth of the universe for sufficient carbon to be formed in stellar fusion for enough of it to be here in time to form earth. Thus "wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?" or "We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."
I've heard observations like this before, along with cosmologists saying that there are theoretical explanations. I'm betting what others said is right -- he's not on to as much as he thinks, and not the first to think of this. But I'm willing to give him some credit. ;)