Someone should ask him to create an infinite green source of energy for everyone.

Let him have a life. At 12, your main concern should not be the big bang but what is under girl's skirt !

You can have some interest in science but let it stops to a general interest.

About memory and mental abilities, this is not totally true that there are no correlations. Actually, there are 2 types of memory, WMC (Working memory capacity) and LTM (Long term memory). The WMC storage capacity is usually around 6-9 items whatever an item means. The WMC is strongly correlated to the results in SAT, verbal test results etc...
EDIT: http://www.interactivemetronome.com/IMpublic/Research/Temporal%20Processing/Intelligence/Research_Intelligence_Conway2003.pdf

Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg, it's basically the same thing. The Big Bang Theory is real and not a theory, something caused an explosion to happen. Whether it's a huge bunch of stars, Gases that combined or the Eternal Creator theory.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory (although this says nothing. Gravity is also a theory). I don't think is explains the cause of initial condition, it just tries to explain the universe after that initial condition. (Assuming that the initial condition is what we assume it to be, but I don't think it can be much else given that things are moving away from one and other)

he DOES have a life. He likes music, Discovery channel and even has a girlfriend. Although i'm really not sure I undestand how's that working out, with him having Asperger's. If she's not mildly autistic like him I just don't really understand how can they communicate well enough to be in a relationship of any kind...maybe his autism is really really really mild?
Or maybe she dates him just so that he would do her math homework and stuff like that ;D
I also think that his thoughts about big bang theory should not be taken as a serious disproval. He's smart enough to change his opinion based on incoming data, and he still hasn't worked out the details, which may be crucial.

LIfe on earth is most certainly commonly carbon based, however, we have marine bacteria and small organisms here that are use arsenic as sources of energy and building blocks.
Scientists have also stated that sulfur and phosphorus are capable of forming long chain molecules as carbon does. There are also bacteria here on earth that utilize sulfur as we would oxygen, breaking down the sulfur into hydrogen sulfide. When phosphous molecules combine with nitrogen, the phosphorus macromolecules form a variety of shapes.
It's also been theorized that ammonia and chlorine would play a role in formation of life in worlds with much cooler tempratures than that of earth.



As for what this particular child can accomplish, that depends on his level of self discipline, ability to express himself, to interact, and to learn. Simply memorizing data without utilizing it in useful ways doesn't mean one is a genius, it means they have a talent for memorization.
By what I read in the article, when he gets bored, he'll lose intrest and not perform. Proper collecting and untilization of scientific data happens over years of observation, it's meticulus, dedicated work.

I also agree the thread title is far too misleading.

1 nanosecond = 0.001 microseconds

Pretty vague estimation for a math genius . . .

Obviously this kid is pretty smart, but so many of the things they point out about him in the article aren't unique at all. Anyone can memorize pi if they want, and that little observation about the gravitational pull of the moon was obviously just something he read in a book, little kids quote stuff all the time. Again, I'm not saying he isn't a genius, but the article focused on so many things that aren't even relevant.

You have to realize, this is a journalist writing this down...not the kid.

I hope this kid does something useful. Or in other words, doesn't work on quantum physics.

Mathematical genius? Mildly autistic? He's Sheldon Cooper!

Yep. As soon as you treat science as the undeniable truth you're ruining the point of science, that is, to learn how the world works.

EXACTLY. The kid didn't really say anything to the public. He said a whole bunch of things to the reporter and it was the reporter/journalist who took what he wanted in the article.

So for ANYONE to say anything about the kid is wrong. He didn't make any claims at all, just the journalist and the Original Poster made the claims.

um, saying anything to a reporter is the same as saying it to the public, and the kid's claims were quoted

Thanks, we're here every day just trying to do our best for the community :goodjob:

in your face science

Most child prodigies fizzle out anyways. They usually lack the proper motivation/encouragement to use their entire mental capacity, and being in college at a young age will keep them at arms length from the other college students.

You seem to be a little unclear about how the autism spectrum works. As I've said before, Asperger's is autism. You seem to understand that. Autism's impact on social skills depends entirely on how "far along" an individual is on the autism spectrum - and that can usually only be accurately diagnosed by a psychologist, though some of the outward signs are more obvious than others (those with severe autism will not speak or be able to make eye contact with others, generally). Jacob's autism seems to have had a (relatively) limited impact on his social abilities.

So you assume that quantum physics won't lead to such things as quantum computing, FTL travel or anything like that, huh?

Funny, for the wrong reasons.

not particularly impressed. not because I think I am smarter or that I already thought that, i am not. but I have a little rule that pretty much makes me look really smart when it comes to physics. I say every one is wrong and wait for some one else to prove it. because every one is wrong in even the slightest miniscule way and all it takes is some time before any theory is disproved.

At no point does he actually disprove the theory. He makes valid points for why it's not quite there, but nobody expects it to be, it's a theory. We don't know all this stuff, the big bang theory is what we think we know. If he comes up with one that makes more sense then that's awesome but he hasn't disproved anything just yet.

Still though, interesting read.


You have mastered the most basic rule of winning an argument.

You don't have to be right, as long as you're not wrong. If you are not wrong, people will simply assume you are right and your opponent isn't. And thus, you win without proving a damn thing.

This is a very interesting article and there are all kinds of theories about autism and how it's a development disorder. But what if it's not. What if it's mans next step in evolutionary evolvement? I think it's certianly food for thought.

And the (massive) body of scientific evidence regarding autism, its (possibly) neurological basis and obvious negative effects thereof would seem to heavily counter your theory of autism and its role in human evolution.

Thought food is only good for you if it has nutrition. A.K.A evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies#Psychology

In physics, where's Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Schrodinger and all the others?

Like Einstein said, to be sucessful takes 99% work and 1% talent.

They may have been brilliant, but they didn't "come into" their brilliance until after the age of 15. Thus, not child prodigies, apparently.

Yep, normal people > child prodigies.