12-Year-Old Boy Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
At a time in his young life where he should be out playing baseball or hanging at the mall, Jacob Barnett is in his fourth year of college, tutoring older students and….oh yeah, working on his own theories of disproving the Big Bang Theory. Thanks goes out to forum member YamahaAlex37 for the heads up.

Young Jacob‘s journey to genius hasn’t been a fairy tale. He didn’t speak until he was two, and he’s been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, a mild form of autism.
Click to expand...
 
Erm,

the big bang theory is not generally believed in many physics circles as far as I'm aware.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Don't know if you can find this programme online anywhere (I'm in the UK).

Quite a few interesting theories about what happened before the "Big Bang", but all of them agree that there was no Big Bang per se

Anyway, kudos to the kid. When I was 12 I was still playing on my 8-bit Spectrum 48k
 
I guess it's good for him to be able to think like this at such a young age, but he's probably flawed in his logic.

All carbon in the universe didn't have to be made during or immediately after the big bang.
 
There was a time when humans thought the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the known universe. Now we know different, but back then if you tried to prove it you would have been labeled as crazy or a fool.

If he has solid evidence to support his theory, I'm not going to rule it out entirely.
 
Brak710 said:
I guess it's good for him to be able to think like this at such a young age, but he's probably flawed in his logic.

All carbon in the universe didn't have to be made during or immediately after the big bang.
Click to expand...

Agreed because the universe is still expanding and carbon is still being created. This will go on until the universe stops and implodes into itself.;)
 
Brak710 said:
I guess it's good for him to be able to think like this at such a young age, but he's probably flawed in his logic.

All carbon in the universe didn't have to be made during or immediately after the big bang.
Click to expand...

Of course its good for him to think at such a young age. He's thinking way beyond the average student right now and likely beyond his teachers. Its quite a feat , however people comparing him to Einstein is just folly , Einstein under the Universe in such an original way that no one will really stand up to that even as the next brilliant scientist comes along.


And its not about the carbon "having" to be made its about the development of carbon time line between inflation and that first 300,000 to 1 million years of the very early model , this kid thinks hes discovered an error in time line which would lead one to conclude that its flawed. Its an interesting idea but many modern day physicists have serious issues with the Big Bang theory any way. There's a lot about it that doesn't add up , Einstein tells us that Gravity was the catalyst for creation but its now believed its far more complex than that.


Hopefully this kid has something to add to it because right now we really need new mathematics to grasp it.
 
cliche said:
Erm,

the big bang theory is not generally believed in many physics circles as far as I'm aware.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Don't know if you can find this programme online anywhere (I'm in the UK).

Quite a few interesting theories about what happened before the "Big Bang", but all of them agree that there was no Big Bang per se

Anyway, kudos to the kid. When I was 12 I was still playing on my 8-bit Spectrum 48k
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't follow 99.99% of physics circles. There is an orgy of evidence that supports the big bang. From background radiation, to the continuing expansion of the universe, to the chemical makeup of the universe. The Big Bang can never be proven as fact as it is just a theory, but gravity is also just a theory. The page you linked to is debating what happened before the Big Bang and what caused it.

As far as the original article, there is an explanation for heavier elements in the universe. They were created well after the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure this is the last we will hear if this kid if he's going into general relativity physics instead of string theory.
 
big bang theory is a terrible show, but it exists. this kid just has to turn on the TV.
 
If he's so smart, why doesn't he know how theoretical science works? You don't abandon your theory just because the evidence contradicts it, you create a new theory to explain why the evidence contradicts your first theory. For example, the universe appears isotropic while the Big Bang predicts a non-isotropic universe. So, someone just came up with the idea of cosmic "inflation" to explain why the Big Bang is true even though the evidence contradicts it.

If he were smart, he'd go into practical science, where your imagination doesn't count as proof of anything.
 
Screw the Big Bang. I want to know what came before that, and what it's like outside of the universe. And if we could even comprehend it if we ever saw it.
 
Big Bang is no longer quite as accepted as it once was. Disproving it however, is virtually impossible.

Wouldn't it be better if he would devote his genius to something of more benefit to mankind? Physics is important, don't get me wrong, just think there are other endeavors, even within that field, that would be of more benefit to the species, and his wallet, than attempting to disprove Big Bang.
 
People (especially kids) with Aspergers will intensely focus onto one single narrow subject and become infatuated with it. This seems to be his focus. For now.
 
weuntouchable said:
Apparently you don't follow 99.99% of physics circles. There is an orgy of evidence that supports the big bang. From background radiation, to the continuing expansion of the universe, to the chemical makeup of the universe. The Big Bang can never be proven as fact as it is just a theory, but gravity is also just a theory. The page you linked to is debating what happened before the Big Bang and what caused it.

As far as the original article, there is an explanation for heavier elements in the universe. They were created well after the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure this is the last we will hear if this kid if he's going into general relativity physics instead of string theory.
Click to expand...


If you are able to access the programme it states that the physics circles have opinions have changed in the last 10 years, so it is a recent phenomenon in those circles

I am happy to upload the file to you somewhere if you wish as they can argue the point far more cohesively than I can
 
So he is a 12 year old know-it-all with asberger's? Normal 12 year olds are obnoxious as it is... But adding a genius IQ and ASBERGER'S to the mix? This guy must be the most obnoxious human beig on the planet!
 
Well I feel sorry for the kid, he's a smart kid, most likely due to his type of autism. But this news reporter most likely is the one putting him up on a pedestal due to the reporters own stupidity, and the unfortunate thing is that people will take him down a notch (like me in a few sentences :D).

Now I've had these smarty pants kids in my classes before, they're great, they tend to be a bit on the shy side simply because they might be overwhelmed with other adults around them, however they always tend to have social issues when they do speak out.

Does he have an IQ larger than Einstein? Sure, but that doesn't mean anything, hell the highest IQ ever was an savant, they could do exactly one thing really well, everything else... not so much. Also IIRC IQ is a function of age, so saying a 12 year old has a high IQ isn't really saying much. Now I do commend him, and hope he hones his knowledge and doesn't burn out, he could be real smarty pants in the future.

Now as to what the article says, yeah he's (or the writer of the article) is taking a few things for granted. First yeah small stars poof and don't get rid of their carbon, however when large stars (which are larger than 1.4 solar masses like he said) boom and they have carbon as well so yeah they'll seed the universe as well. Also when those smaller stars are left as white dwarfs they occasionally boom too if they manage to suck up enough mass to exceed 1.4 solar masses which they can do if they're in binary systems, and that also would seed the universe with carbon.

Finally there is the timeline of events which he doesn't seem to be understanding, universe started nearly 14 billion years ago, Earth about 5 billion years ago, that carbon couldn't have been made in 9 billion years?

Also looking at the difference between population 1 stars (those like our Sun) and population 2 stars (oldest stars) those population 2 stars do have significantly less carbon and other heavier elements, so all the carbon today wasn't around back then.

But again, not trying to put the kid down, he does seem to be missing some fundamental concepts which unfortunately means anything that comes after that tend to be wrong.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Well I feel sorry for the kid, he's a smart kid, most likely due to his type of autism. But this news reporter most likely is the one putting him up on a pedestal due to the reporters own stupidity, and the unfortunate thing is that people will take him down a notch (like me in a few sentences :D).

Now I've had these smarty pants kids in my classes before, they're great, they tend to be a bit on the shy side simply because they might be overwhelmed with other adults around them, however they always tend to have social issues when they do speak out.

Does he have an IQ larger than Einstein? Sure, but that doesn't mean anything, hell the highest IQ ever was an savant, they could do exactly one thing really well, everything else... not so much. Also IIRC IQ is a function of age, so saying a 12 year old has a high IQ isn't really saying much. Now I do commend him, and hope he hones his knowledge and doesn't burn out, he could be real smarty pants in the future.

Now as to what the article says, yeah he's (or the writer of the article) is taking a few things for granted. First yeah small stars poof and don't get rid of their carbon, however when large stars (which are larger than 1.4 solar masses like he said) boom and they have carbon as well so yeah they'll seed the universe as well. Also when those smaller stars are left as white dwarfs they occasionally boom too if they manage to suck up enough mass to exceed 1.4 solar masses which they can do if they're in binary systems, and that also would seed the universe with carbon.

Finally there is the timeline of events which he doesn't seem to be understanding, universe started nearly 14 billion years ago, Earth about 5 billion years ago, that carbon couldn't have been made in 9 billion years?

Also looking at the difference between population 1 stars (those like our Sun) and population 2 stars (oldest stars) those population 2 stars do have significantly less carbon and other heavier elements, so all the carbon today wasn't around back then.

But again, not trying to put the kid down, he does seem to be missing some fundamental concepts which unfortunately means anything that comes after that tend to be wrong.
Click to expand...


It should be noted that people with AS may not actually understand their focus. Which seems to be the case. But then again....most people don't have a clue about anything regarding physics.
 
"Some things are true whether you believe them or not. You're 12 years old, and there are far more interesting things this world has to offer."

That's what I'd say to him if I met him... but, we all need something to do I suppose.
 
Anyone else think of the "genius" (I think his name was Gabe) from Season 1 of Intervention that had a huge sense of entitlement from everyone's "encouragement"? ...and ended up living in his parents' basement and gambled their money away?
 
Good to know even with all the morons mankind is pumping out more intelligent people still, although I'm recovering from last night so not the best time to learn about people many times smarter than myself lol.

I find people referring to the big bang as the start of the universe pretty irritating, If the universe is infinite then see the big bang kind of like a supermassive supernova (yes not really a real term) so not really a start just something that happens as part of the normal flow of matter within this universe.

Although in the words of bill hicks "all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves." kind of throws things off if you have tripped and came to that same conclusion lol.
 
Godmachine said:
Of course its good for him to think at such a young age. He's thinking way beyond the average student right now and likely beyond his teachers. Its quite a feat , however people comparing him to Einstein is just folly , Einstein under the Universe in such an original way that no one will really stand up to that even as the next brilliant scientist comes along.


And its not about the carbon "having" to be made its about the development of carbon time line between inflation and that first 300,000 to 1 million years of the very early model , this kid thinks hes discovered an error in time line which would lead one to conclude that its flawed. Its an interesting idea but many modern day physicists have serious issues with the Big Bang theory any way. There's a lot about it that doesn't add up , Einstein tells us that Gravity was the catalyst for creation but its now believed its far more complex than that.


Hopefully this kid has something to add to it because right now we really need new mathematics to grasp it.
Click to expand...

Did you know that it was a British ( I think) Mathematician who solve Eisnteins differential equations system to prove his theory when an object is not moving at constant speed?
It took Einstein a little bit more to solve them but the mathematician let him take the credit. After all Einstein spent 20 years working on it.
 
The problem here is that humans really need to get over themselves. The real answer is we can only infer (a delicate version of suppose) what really happened and that in reality we don't know. But again, humans are rarely ok with not knowing.
 
Humans are afraid of "not knowing" hence why we have so many stories explaining everything from the begining of time to the tooth fairy. Science is the only "religion" (LOL) that is ok with saying "I don't know but i'll get back to you on that".
 
This is hilarious. We have a genius kid who is at university by 12, teaching other students there, and being told to not bother reading any more into his subjects cos he is that good. Some of the foremost experts in the field are backing him - and yet there are about 5 part time scientists on this forum who think they can tell the kid has his logic flawed.
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
The problem here is that humans really need to get over themselves. The real answer is we can only infer (a delicate version of suppose) what really happened and that in reality we don't know. But again, humans are rarely ok with not knowing.
Click to expand...

For sure...and that's usually relative to fitting into the amount of knowledge we have at the moment. You can usually see this at work within most political debates where the individuals don't have a thorough comprehension of history (or ignore it to try to manipulate things into their own defintions).

That said, the difference between this kid and most other 12yr olds is that he's getting extreme ecouragement...he doesn't necessarily have a great understanding.
 
Disproving the big bang would be a negative proof logical fallacy. I hope he was an alternative theory supported by adequate information.
 
iansilv said:
So he is a 12 year old know-it-all with asberger's? Normal 12 year olds are obnoxious as it is... But adding a genius IQ and ASBERGER'S to the mix? This guy must be the most obnoxious human beig on the planet!
Click to expand...

Aspergers is also a social disorder, so he would likely avoid talking to you at all before he started spouting off physics theories at you like some know-it-all
 
simple answer:

i wasn't there when it happened so i can't prove it than again i can't disprove it either.

i know all the laws of nature and physics and all the mombojambo, but laws are meant to be bent.
 
A cyclical universe that goes through periods of expansion and contraction is more believable than a start from nothing big bang to me. Considering that the majority of the composition of the universe is still a mystery to us, I'm inclined to believe a theory that explains how the universe exists without dividing by zero. It'd be like how an elliptical orbit has point where the satellite is accelerating away from the center of gravity (big bang) or accelerating towards the center (big crunch), but we understand enough about the forces at work to say it undergoes a natural cycle.
 
I want to know why anything exists at all. Why am I self aware? Why am I something that is experiencing "me". Answer that shit and win the prize. (and yeah, I know all the Buddhism stuff, but knowing it is not quite enough)
 
Draax said:
Disproving the big bang would be a negative proof logical fallacy. I hope he was an alternative theory supported by adequate information.
Click to expand...

You can certainly disprove certain things. Sure trying to disprove God would be a negative proof logical fallacy, but proving that I did not kill JFK for example would be an easy task. Just point at the fact that I was not alive at the time of the murder.

You cannot prove that there has never been a big bang, but you could in theory prove that a specific big bang that happened at a specific time and place in the universe did in fact not occur at that specific time and place by looking at the evidence. So he can disprove a specific big bang, but not the idea of a big bang.
 
IQ doesn't really mean anything, to be honest. And he doesn't sound more intelligent than the average intellectual, either.

Unimpressed.

CPU: Core 2 Duo P7450 @2.6GHz
Motherboard: Pegatron (A-12 revision)
GPU: GeForce GTX 260M @570/1450/1900
RAM: Hynix 4GB DDR2 @950MHz
HDD: Seagate Momentus 7200.4 320GB
Monitor: HP w2207 (1680x1050)
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Looking to buy: Intel Core 2 Duo T9800 and Samsung 470 Series 64GB SSD
 
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
Click to expand...

I'm no physicist, but I remember taking a geology course once and reading that the earth is composed of hardly any carbon at all. Mostly Iron, Oxygen,silicon, et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Chemical_composition

Those of you who have a better understanding of chemistry and I suppose astrophysics than I, how would you suppose the above affects his theory?

Either way kudos to the kid for using his talents and having such high aspirations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top