What areas are left for major breakthroughs by a "super genius" ?

The_Animus said:
It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.
Click to expand...
Some of those things require courage, but not necessarily "genius".

Rosa Parks, for example, was arguably a catalyst that caused massive societal change in the US.
 
The_Animus said:
That is definitely a huge part of it. We are also indoctrinated to think that our current system is the best thing that ever was or ever will be. As a result anyone who wants to try something different is called a terrorist or communist, or nazi or some other label meant to be derogatory. Further all the land is already owned and bound by a pile of laws, statutes, and cultural norms. Anyone who wants to break away and have their own little society is automatically labeled an evil cult or violent rebels and raided or killed. Granted most such cults or rebels are just that, but not all.
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention the attitude that the current system is perfect. In this country (United States of America), we don't accept universal medicine, despite that in other countries it is proven to work, for example. We apparently think that the system of "**** YOU! You're LAZY!" (that's yet another thing that we need to stop doing -- judging each other's intentions in such negative manners.) is the best, and we LIKE it... As though the system is PERFECT, and CAN'T hold someone back, nah, that can't happen, naah...

The_Animus said:
If there was a state that wanted to secede and every single resident of the state was for the seceding so that they could form their own separate society the government wouldn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't that lead to a war of some kind against the 'host' country? That seems to happen often in those kinds of cases... And if you break it up into a whole bunch of little countries they might just war with each other even more...
 
Plenty to figure out in biology, medicine, gene regulation, how the brain developed and works, effects of commensal organisms (you have about 10x more bacteria in you than your own cells!).
 
Such an excellent, interesting, stimulating thread with which to start off a Saturday morning. None of my contemporaries and friends will start the day similarly. Carolenextdoor - very fortunate that she is next door too! - will be just as interested but she, being younger, has plenty of other projects and things which take priority. The first name that sprang to mind was Cavendish, the 18th centuryrecluse genius of but that wouldn't happen today.

jnelso99 said:
Portable holes?

Dehydrated water?

Rocket-powered skis?

Warp drive?
Click to expand...
:D Love it!! And warp drive? Oh, yes please - but theyve got to hurry up about that!


Edited to confirm to myself century for Cavendish
[
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.
Click to expand...

Here here!

Way to go. May I call you 'friend'?
 
The_Animus said:
It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.
Click to expand...

This is the Science,Mathematics,Medicine and Technology forum.
 
Trent Wray said:
I could really use some good input by anyone willing to post.

I am in a conversation with another person who is claiming that science will only continue to progress with massive funding and technological resources, and that our knowledge will now no longer increase significantly without it. He is referencing the "great man theory" of science verses the "institutional theory" of science (at least, that's what he's calling it. I'm ignorant of those terms).

In considering the "great man theory" .... where a "super-genius" arises and advances progress without the necessary need to simply advance by funding and resources only, the question arose:

What areas of scientific exploration are left for a "super genius" to arise and shake things up? Many? Few?

The one I am conversing with argues there are none.

And in trying to define "super genius" ... it's assumed that one of the traits of the super genius would be their ability to cause a paradigm shift or "shock the scientific world" with their insight and scientific knowledge, etc and so forth ... or at the very least, shake it up in a real-world way that actually proves useful and not just in theory.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A supergenius would very possibly come up with new fields we can't predict currently - no reason it has to be something we are looking for now. Part of genius is often looking at things and seeing patterns that others can't see/ways of maneuvering that don't lead to solutions of an old problem but negation of it as a problem - just part of a new path. Also, just as a side, the supergenius may not be operating in the field of science - could easily be in arts and related or math or sociology...........
 
fuelair said:
A supergenius would very possibly come up with new fields we can't predict currently - no reason it has to be something we are looking for now. Part of genius is often looking at things and seeing patterns that others can't see/ways of maneuvering that don't lead to solutions of an old problem but negation of it as a problem - just part of a new path.
Click to expand...
This is more of what I'm getting at I think ... so it's almost ridiculous to say, "well then, what areas do you predict we'll have breakthroughs in that are beyond our ability to predict?"

So far, a lot of good ideas have come up in areas that currently exist but sort of push those boundaries. So maybe I should ask this as well: are there any areas we currently call "pure woo" that anyone thinks will ACTUALLY produce something viable once a "super-genius" or a group of super-geni lol pop up and say, "I've got it!". Or perhaps there are some which are beyond the pure woo that actually exists as a "new field", where the woo is a place holder?

Also, based on concepts such as Moore's law, various types of games theory perhaps, etc .... are there any algorithms that currently exist which aim to predict the arrival of paradigm shifts/super-genius breakthroughs, etc?

Hopefully I didn't bring up too many points to address in a single post ...
 
General-purpose robotics. General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI).


I'm convinced when all is said and done, general AI will be able to run on watch processors of 20 years ago, though they may require a lot more RAM and data.
 
The_Animus said:
It is interesting that everyone in this thread refers solely to scientific matters.

What about a breakthrough in the form of an alternative and far superior societal or economic system?

I mean considering crime, economic disparity, class warfare, and so forth a breakthrough of the socio or economic type would be marvelous.
Click to expand...




Technology has had the most profound impact on all of those issues. The more technology we get, the more people learn how to use it, the more integrated society becomes the less social outcasts you have. The more technological a group becomes the more wealth they have and when everyone is finally at an even level skill and knowledge wise th only outcasts will be those who choose to be that way.
 
bruto said:
Wouldn't the next real paradigm shift be inherently unexpected? If we could figure out what it's going to be, we'd be the supergeniuses.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make the next paradigm shift the Spanish Inquisition?
 
Breakthroughs in Physics.

Here are some ideas (covered with more detail found in GravitySummaryNews.txt, which file may be located by Internet searching) based on experimental results (regarding the discrete nature of things) and based on reason. I think these ideas should correspond to big breakthroughs in physics. I suspect that they will eventually be accepted as common knowledge, when we begin to understand some of these simple new paradigms.

Nature of Gravity. Every fundamental charge is a perpetual continual source of discrete electric fields forever. Any fundamental charge that absorbs a discrete electric field will have its velocity changed and thus it can have its kinetic energy changed (either increased or decreased or not changed depending upon the particular circumstances). Two discrete electric fields coming from opposite fundamental charges could travel precisely together through large amounts of matter, until the two discrete field traveling companions are eventually attractively absorbed, when conditions are just right. First one discrete electric field is attractively absorbed and then a short time later the other discrete electric field is absorbed. Both conditions must be proper or neither will be absorbed. It is a total or "quantum" situation. That is gravity. There would be 10 to 13 constraints for the formation and absorption of gravitons compared with only two constraints for electric fields. That is why gravitational "forces" are so much weaker than electric "forces". The two largest constraints in the formation of the graviton are that the two electric fields must be traveling in almost precisely in the same direction (the common direction being specified by two angles). I suppose that there would be a very small but nonzero allowed deviation in their direction corresponding to their quantum association and their interaction with space. That means there is a very small but nonzero error basket of the electric fields heading in the same direction so that it would be possible to form a graviton. It might be as if there is a very fine local directional quantization of space for the propagation of electric fields.

New Mass Arising in the Universe. The two-part gravitons could pull down on opposite fundamental charges temporarily available in starlight and thus free these opposite fundamental charges. The opposite fundamental charges could be organized into hydrogen atoms by God. I suspect that it would be organized into matter and not anti-matter by choice of God. The new "dark" matter would absorb starlight coming from distant realms. We don't see that light (from far beyond the limits of our visibility) as it doesn't get here. That is why it is dark at night, despite the universe having infinite extent in all directions. The big bang theory would be well understood to be wrong, with there being a return to the more correct steady state theory of the universe. There would be matter arising in the emptiness of space from the energetic gravitons pulling down on starlight and creating new spiritual matter (or rather very fine fundamental opposite charges). See D&C 131:7-8. The infinite universe would be "locally" expanding by photon propulsion with photons coming from stars. Since the universe continually expands and reproduces itself, it could properly be considered to be living. We should understand that the living universe will never die a heat death, because of the works of God and the energetic two-part gravitons.

Bessler Principle. A two-part attractive energetic graviton (with slightly delayed absorption of the last electric field by the higher elevation fundamental charge) could provide more rotational kinetic energy to opposite pairs of rotating fundamental charges (of matter) that were initially rotating about a horizontal axis relative to the graviton. The larger the previous angular speed about a horizontal axis, the more energy is acquired by the absorption of the energetic two-part graviton. This would be a greatly-overlooked fundamental friction-masked mechanical property of all wheels rotating about horizontal axes. The property would be the Bessler principle previously understood and symbolically discussed by Bessler. The principle would explain a large number of otherwise unexplained phenomena. I think that Bessler will eventually be recognized for his great insight and his invention of his special low friction Orffyrean mechanical roller bearing. See figure 9 associated with GravitySummaryNews.txt on my Internet site. I am currently not allowed to provide a direct link to it because I haven't made my 15 posts yet. Maybe someone else would post a link to Fig9_Roller_Angles.TIF (or Fig9_Roller_Angles.JPG) or maybe someone can post a copy of the figure. We may wonder how we could have missed noticing such a fundamental mechanical property (as the Bessler principle). Maybe someone would show links to or post the three figures Fig5_BesslerPrinc1.TIF (or Fig5_BesslerPrinc1.JPG), Fig6_BesslerPrinc2.TIF (or Fig6_BesslerPrinc2.JPG), and Fig7_BesslerPrinc3.TIF (or Fig7_BesslerPrinc3.JPG). Each of the three figures graphically explains by example how the Bessler principle works. I think that production of rotational kinetic energy using the Bessler principle will be better understood in the future.

Change to Discrete Basis for Physics. The general theory of relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) would be tossed out partly because of evidence of the absorption within the moon of gravitons coming from the sun during total solar eclipses. That absorption and the Bessler principle itself suggest that gravitons are two-part discrete entities. They are not a continuous structure. It would be a great paradigm shift that physics must be based on discrete entities, which was a viewpoint that Einstein was prepared to switch to. Einstein was prepared to give up his theory of gravity for such a change (from continuous structures theories to discrete entities, as the proper basis of physics). I suspect that Einstein was aware of the Foucault pendulum anomalies (observed by Allais during a total solar eclipse on 30 June 1954) when he wrote his strong words to his good friend Besso in 1954. Einstein's special theory of relativity would also be discarded since it would be well recognized that the Hertz field equations are more accurate than the linearized Maxwell field equations. Consider the Marinov motor and Phipps' analysis in "Infinite Energy", as an example. One would need to get the physical relations correct before one considers if they transform properly. The Hertz field equations relativistically transform according to the Galilean transform. The well known equation E=mcc is not dependent upon Einstein's special theory of relativity. Lorentz transformations would disappear. The Galilean invariant transformations would be back but with the appropriate modifications. For some details, see the "Hertzian Electromagnetism" Chapter 4 of "Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description" (1986) by Thomas E. Phipps. See his discussion of covering theory. I suspect that the speed of light would be according to the preponderance of prevailing matter, including spirit matter. Gauss' law as applied to electric and gravitational field intensities would need to be discarded when it is recognized that those discrete entities can be absorbed by neutral matter. Conservation for the "field" intensities would only apply to the unabsorbed portions. Photons and electric fields should be recognized as the propagation of waves upon an infinite sea of virtual fundamental charges waiting to arise. The charges temporarily arise and then go away according to the passage of the waves. Forces and potentials will be well understood to be nonphysical entities. Magnetic fields will be understood to be nonphysical abstractions that are fundamentally due to the electric fields emanating from fundamental charges while they are in motion. The forces, potentials and magnetic fields would be considered approximations that are sometimes convenient. The energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation laws will be recognized as generally invalid. Space (even "empty" space) neither has translational nor rotational symmetry, so why should we expect to have conservation of linear and angular momentum? All the laws of thermodynamics will be well understood to be invalid because of the Bessler principle, because no isolated system can keep out energetic gravitons. They go everywhere.

New Devices. New devices for producing energy (and doing other things) that will be more clearly dependent upon the Bessler principle should soon come forth. Such a device would be the Orffyrean roller bearing that Bessler invented about 299 years ago as part of his wheels. The mechanical bearing will now need to be reinvented according to the provided construction hints. Other new Bessler wheel devices should include the GEET reactors, the reinvented Papp engines, modern two-compartment yin-yang water cylinders, and devices for producing aquygen. The formation (and use of) aquygen will be more clear cut from a perspective of the rotation of the nuclear ground states, as rotationally sped up by the two-part gravitons. See my post #419 "Solution to Aquygen Gas Problem" on the thread "Denny Klein - Fuel from Water - Is this a scam?" concerning my solution to this modern day riddle. It will be more obvious that there are modern methods of nuclear alchemy, using the interaction of rotating nuclear ground states, as for example occurs during cold fusion. We should learn that we can clean up radioactivity in materials by rapidly rotating their nuclear ground states. I think that can be done using the GEET reactors. With cooperation we can clean up our environment and make proper use of the Bessler principle for producing more than sufficient energy according to our needs.

Linking Favor. Would someone please insert a direct link to the 19 March 2011 text file, GravitySummaryNews.txt , assuming that they consider that a link to the text file might be of value. I think that this is my fifth posting on a JREF thread so I would need to make 10 more posts before I would be allowed to post direct links on a JREF thread. AEP - 26 Mar 2011
 
@ AldenPark:

Your ideas assume both gravitons and a God exists, yes?

If so, I suppose --- to be fair --- it would be a breakthrough to prove the existence of certain particles (like tachyons), gravitons, etc .... and this thread does involve hypotheticals :). But would it take a super-genius to prove the existence of those things? Hmm .... ;)
 
mike3 said:
Couldn't that lead to a war of some kind against the 'host' country? That seems to happen often in those kinds of cases... And if you break it up into a whole bunch of little countries they might just war with each other even more...
Click to expand...

That is a possible outcome. Most wars are fought for either land and resources, or some overarching idealism that the host group feels must be spread everywhere. So it would likely be dependent upon how the new society and economy of the seceding state was set up. If they followed policies of 'do what you want so long as you leave us alone' and 'maintaining a sustainable society in terms of population and resources', I doubt there would be much violence from the newly seceded state.

But even if it might cause problems, would it be right for the government to suppress millions of people because of that potential fear?

quarky said:
Here here!

Way to go. May I call you 'friend'?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Let us be friends!

Westwall said:
Technology has had the most profound impact on all of those issues. The more technology we get, the more people learn how to use it, the more integrated society becomes the less social outcasts you have. The more technological a group becomes the more wealth they have and when everyone is finally at an even level skill and knowledge wise th only outcasts will be those who choose to be that way.
Click to expand...

Granted technology has a huge part in producing goods which can make life more comfortable or increase the efficiency of various societal and economic systems. The rest of what you've said is so far off from what I see in the world today that I have little interest in continuing discussion down that line.
 
AldenPark said:
For some details, see the "Hertzian Electromagnetism" Chapter 4 of "Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description" (1986) by Thomas E. Phipps.
Click to expand...

I read 'Heretical Verities' by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., about 15 years ago. Although I haven't read it since, it made a lasting impression on me. I remember it well.

What I concluded is that Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. is both a mathematical and illiterate and a very toxic phony. He does not understand the subjects that he claims to rewrite. He tries to intimidate the reader with ad hominem attacks without correctly representing their point of view.

This genius wanna-be has made grand claims based on false hypotheses on basic science.

Most of his experiments required a lock-in amplifier. Phipps does not understand how a lock-in amplifier works. He explains the operation of a lock-in amplifier using an invalid analogy with the harmonic oscillator. There is no such things as 'velocity-like component' and 'translation-like component'. One reason that he doesn't understand lock-in amplifiers is that he doesn't believe in the Fourier transform. He says the Fourier transform (FT) is too 'theoretical'. Maybe that is why he he doesn't use it to analyze the lock-in amplifier.


He has this strange model where the 'velocity-like components' are ninety degrees out of phase with the 'translation components'. So he looks for the velocity components at 90 degrees phase difference to the tuning fork vibration. However, he is using a square wave as a reference. He doesn't seem to realize that the square wave has second harmonics! So in all likelihood, he is picking up the second harmonic of the square wave then any components of the vibration.

I know because I have use lock-in amplifiers in my experiments. I am an optical physicist. I know the limits of a lock-in amplifier. If I was trying to knock down the foundations of physics in my garage, I would provide the lock-in amplifier with a sinusoidal reference. He also seems unaware that nonlinear effects in the optics table can generate second harmonic signals. Thus, his experiments who conclusion 'debunk relativity' are bogus.

He doesn't try to verify that there are no significant vibrations from outside. I know physicists who do supersensitive measurements in quantum mechanics.They take great pains to isolate the system. They measure the background for days. If the background signal peaks at rush hour, they assume that it is caused by cars. They then take extra precautions. I met a physicist who detached the room from the rest of the building to eliminate outside vibration! Phipps feels that his 'soft materials' totally block vibration. He doesn't even try to check where the materials really block vibration.

Phipps relies on his own theory that soft materials don't carry vibration. He doesn't know about dispersive relations in waves. He doesn't know that the optical tables has its own resonant frequencies, even when loaded. He doesn't even try to check. So he claims that no one else has tried such experiments.

Apparently, he doesn't even believe the manufacturers manual on his equipment! BTW: He doesn't tell us what equipment he is using. So I can't give exact numbers for most of this stuff. However, the second harmonic amplitude of a square wave is about 30% the fundamental amplitude of the square wave. So obviously his 'velocity component' has to be an artifact.

Phipps doesn't understand the properties of elastic materials in any context. Half his experiments with a lock-in amplifier can be compromised by vibration. They probably were. However, he placed a metal frame made of invar on his lock-in amplifier. He then claimed that the invar blocks vibrations. In fact, invar transmits vibrations fine. The reason scents like to use invar alloys is that invar at room temperatures has a very small thermal expansion coefficient. So his invar frame does nothing to stop vibration.

He also tries to disprove the small angle approximation using a calculator. He claims that he prefers this approach because it is experimental. You see the calculator is a machine. Calculus is only a theory. Hence, if the small angle approximation fails in a calculator then obvious it has been experimentally disproved. Thus, he shows that he is unaware of truncation error.

That is one of his main failings in experimental science. Lets go into his theoretical science.

He knows nothing about elastic properties of materials. He doesn't understand that so called rigid bodies are really elastic up to their plastic limit of amplitude. So he often makes the assumption that there are no internal forces in a material that is effectively rigid. He effectively makes the assumption that the speed of sound in a solid is much greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. I think he says that explicitly at one point! He doesn't understand that energy is carried in strain fields. In his view, a mechanical impulse travels through a steel rod instantly.

Anyone who has worked with real materials knows how wrong this assumption is. Mechanical impulse travel through a material at the sped of sound, which is much less than the speed of light. Hence, his claims about instantaneous transmission are garbage. He claims he is analyzing the propagation of electromagnetic signals. In actual fact, there is a delay due to the propagation of compressive waves.

The compressive waves carry both energy and momentum even according to classical theory. Phipps does not consider the energy and momentum carried by a compressive wave. Since the wave carries energy, , relativity says they contain mass. He ignores the mass carried by the wave. So he misrepresents relativistic theory. He claims that he has found inconsistencies with Einsteinian theory, when he doesn't even have the Galilean theory correct!





I have followed the cult that has grown around Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. I am fascinated with it. So I would be glad to discuss Vereties with you. One condition:

Please don't deflect by bringing up the 'failings' of Einstein. I have full respect for real scientists trying to challenge the theories of Einstein and Lorentz. I don't want to talk about the 'cult of Einstein'.

I want to talk about the 'cult of Phipps'. Phipps is a phony. He is a sociopath. He is a conman. I can demonstrate that he doesn't know a thing about actual physics or engineering.


Phipps fails in the little stuff. He doesn't know how a lock-in amplifier works. He has severe problems with the concept of mathematical limit. He doesn't know the more formal aspects of calculus. He does know acoustics. He hides his ignorance with his hostility. Phipps claims to be ignored by a scared scientific establishment. So lets talk about Phipps!!!!
 
Darwin123 said:
I have followed the cult that has grown around Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. I am fascinated with it. So I would be glad to discuss Vereties with you.
Click to expand...
The poster you are addressing last visited this site in April 2011, so don't hold your breath for a response.
 
Pixel42 said:
The poster you are addressing last visited this site in April 2011, so don't hold your breath for a response.
Click to expand...

I can't defend Phipps, but I'd like to know more. I hope this doesn't immediately die.
 
Gilmar said:
Plenty to figure out in biology, medicine, gene regulation, how the brain developed and works, effects of commensal organisms (you have about 10x more bacteria in you than your own cells!).
Click to expand...

Yes, I think here there is room. I think of Barry Marshall who had an insight while working with a friend who was a vet and proved Helicobacter pylori is the cause of most Peptic Ulcers.

Or the breakthrough by my friends Ian Frazer and Jian Zhou which ultimately led to the first vaccine for preventing cancer. While they had institute funding and help, it was relatively small scale and Ian took several mortgages on his house to keep the early research going.

The human microbiome is something we barely understand but early insight seems to indicate it has quite dramatic influences on human health.
 
marplots said:
I can't defend Phipps, but I'd like to know more. I hope this doesn't immediately die.
Click to expand...

The thread is about super geniuses. Phipps was listed. I am just presenting my opinion that Phipps isn't one!

Phipps has published a lot of articles in fringe publications like 'Free Energy'. He has gotten some articles in refereed journals. I think he once did some real scientific work!

A lot of these fringe publications talk about Galilean relativity as an alternative to Einsteinian relativity. I have some empathy with them as I think there is a seed of truth in their accusations.

It is a mystery to me how a person with the disabilities that I infer could have done any work. I read one article of his on some new method of analyzing mathematical series. It didn't seem all that innovative to me, but it certainly seemed valid. That may show my mathematical shortcoming, but maybe Phipps knows something. He also did some measurements on spectral lines that was published.

However, what I got from Vereties is mostly ad hominem attacks on 'the scientific establishment' including Einsteinians. Almost everything had some glaring scientific mistake in it. He showed some expHowever, he covered many of his mistakes with diatribes against Einsteinian relativity.

I first learned about Phipps while arguing with Geocentric Creationists. The GCs are people who believe, based on the literal word of the Bible, that the sun and everything else circles the earth while the earth stands still. They generally refuse to believe any type of relativity including Galilean. They dislike acentric models as much as they dislike heliocentric models.

One Geocentrist started to discuss Galilean relativity. He argued that Newtonian physics was better than Einsteinian physics because it used Galilean relativity. I pointed out that Galilean relativity is still acentric. There is no preferred center in Newtonian physics any more than there is a preferred center in Einsteinian relativity. The fellow was sure I was wrong.

He was nice enough to mail me a copy of Vereties on loan. I got fascinated in Phipps for the wrong reasons. I could only find one thing in the entire book that seemed correct. I mailed that copy back to the Geocentrist. However, I became fascinated with how this odd meme propagated.

Let me point out the only thing in the book that I consider both correct and innovative. Phipps did an experiment with a shaving head to clarify one point in general relativity (the Thomas precession). I think he did the experiment correctly although I disagree with Phipps interpretation. However, when I bring it up with Phipps fans (PF?), I can't get past the antiEinstein polemic. They don't want to hear MY understanding of what relativity means. They just keep on raving about the 'Einstein conspiracy'.

I like to start discussing Phipps on the Internet with his fans. What I find interesting is that they never stick to discussion about the basics. I mention lock-in amplifiers, and they start going on about the scams of Evil Einstein. I mention elastic forces, and they talk about paradigm shifts. When I bring up the formal theory of limits, they dismiss it as 'pure theory'.

I don't know much about Phipps before he went crackers and famous. I know that he was a scientific advisor to La'Roach (LR) for a while. La'Roach was a third party candidate for U.S. President (I forgot when) with what is considered a 'right wing' platform. The platform was primarily based on the idea that power from nuclear fusion could be immediately available to solve all the world's economic problems.

LR was singular as a candidate because he his conjectures on physics were part of his political platform. He had strong opinions on plasma physics! L'Roach is another luny that I became fascinated with. He could have become our President! It just required the vote to be divided up between the three parties.

I think the energy shown by Phipps fans is probably based on politics, not science. However, I am very interested in the leakage. Some of the same nonsense has surfaced with regard to Artificial Global Warming. However, I like to avoid hot topics while they are still hot. The Phipps Phenomenon comprises a smaller subculture. So I have a better chance of understanding the dynamics of conspiracy theories from studying the PF cult.

Part of the fascination with these crackpots is that there is often a seed of truth in their rants. However, some giant delusion often grows from these rants. Eventually, the delusion matures into a full grown cult. So I am fascinated by ontology of these cults.
 
Trent Wray said:
What areas of scientific exploration are left for a "super genius" to arise and shake things up? Many? Few?

The one I am conversing with argues there are none.
Click to expand...
There are many interesting problems in computer science, the major ones I can think of are:

P=NP? Algorithms solve computational tasks, but not all algorithms are equal, and not all tasks are computationally equivalent. Algorithmic problems are broadly categorized as P, meaning they can be solved in polynomial time (e.g. O(1), O(n), O(n lg n), O(VE), O(V + E), O(n2)) on a deterministic Turing machine; or NP, meaning the problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, they are solved in exponential time (e.g. O(n!), O(2n)) on a deterministic Turing machine.

Problems that look superficially similar, like finding the shortest path between two points in an unweighted graph (P) and finding the longest acyclic path between two points in an unweighted graph (NP), may belong in different complexity classes.

Often, one can write an algorithm to convert or "reduce" one kind of problem into another. For example, represent the vertex cover problem (NP) in terms of the 3-SAT problem (NP). The problem here is that, while one can write an algorithm exists to convert one NP problem into another NP problem in polynomial time, there is no known algorithm which converts an NP problem into a P problem in polynomial time.

One can often verify a solution to an NP problem in polynomial time, but finding a solution requires exponential time (best example I can think of is the subset sum problem).

Most computer scientists believe that P != NP, but this statement lacks a proof. Whoever proves this statement will be remembered to the end of time.

On the flip side, if someone proved that P = NP (for example, they discovered an algorithm which reduces an NP problem to a P problem in polynomial time, or found a polynomial time solution to a NP problem), that would "shake things up" to say the least ;)

While the P=NP problem is the best known example of whether one complexity class reduces to another, it is also an open question whether P=BPP, NP=C, NL=L, P=PSPACE, P=co-NP, etc.

What is the complexity class of integer factorization? Integer factorization is currently not known to be either P or NP or a separate complexity class altogether. Many prime number sieves run in polynomial time for some value of n, but require exponential time proportional to the length of the number (usually in bits) in calculations. We do not know of any algorithm on a classical computer which can factor which can factor a number in polynomial time, meaning an algorithm that runs at least O(length_in_bitsk) time for some constant k.

Factoring using a general number field sieve is known to be sub-exponential time, but still grows faster than any polynomial time algorithm.

Shor's algorithm a quantum algorithm does factors in polynomial time, but because it is a non-deterministic algorithm, it has a (bounded) probability of error. It belongs to a (presumed) superset of P problems known as bounded error quantum polynomial or BQP.

Determining the complexity class of integer factorization is a more specific version of the following class of questions:

What is the fastest algorithm for XYZ? There are many polynomial time algorithms for multiplying of n-bit numbers, matrix multiplication, and solving fast fourier transforms, but it is not known whether faster algorithms exist, nor is it known what the lowerbound solution to these problems are.

Similar to integer factorization, there is no known polynomial time algorithm for computing discrete logarithms, but it is not known whether this problem is P or NP.

Frustratingly, linear programming has a notoriously difficult complexity analysis. It is known to be polynomial, but not known whether it is strongly polynomial. A proof showing that there is no strongly polynomial algorithm to solve linear programming problems would imply that it a different complexity class entirely.
 
Last edited:
Super genius is pretty competitive now, what with billions of brains running around on the planet. One consequence is we hold things pretty close to the vest, lest we get scooped. After all, part of the super-genius task is to find, then answer, big questions.
 
Dessi said:
The problem here is that, while one can write an algorithm exists to convert one NP problem into another NP problem in polynomial time, there is no known algorithm which converts an NP problem into a P problem in polynomial time.
Click to expand...

<pedant>
There is not only no known algorithm to do that, there is no possible algorithm to do that. If you can take a problem and convert it into a P problem in P time, then your original problem is, in fact, a P problem. It can only be an NP problem if no algorithm can convert it to a P problem in P time.
 
Dr. Keith said:
ftfy
Click to expand...

Alcohol has calories (about seven per gram). Anything that contains alcohol will contain calories.

I consider it a scientific fact that if it doesn't contain alcohol, it cannot be beer.
:alc:
 
Dessi said:
There are many interesting problems in computer science, the major ones I can think of are:

P=NP?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, IMHO that is the single most important open problem in computing science.

(and it's computing science, not computer science - the field has as much to do with the study of computers as astronomy has to do with the study of telescopes, to paraphrase Edsger Dijkstra).

Dessi said:
One can often verify a solution to an NP problem in polynomial time, but finding a solution requires exponential time (best example I can think of is the subset sum problem).
Click to expand...
IIRC, every NP problem can be verified in polynomial time; it's in fact an alternative definition for NP.

Dessi said:
Most computer scientists believe that P != NP, but this statement lacks a proof. Whoever proves this statement will be remembered to the end of time.

On the flip side, if someone proved that P = NP (for example, they discovered an algorithm which reduces an NP problem to a P problem in polynomial time, or found a polynomial time solution to a NP problem), that would "shake things up" to say the least ;)
Click to expand...
Another way to prove P = NP would to show a polynomial solution for a so-called NP-complete problem. An NP-complete problem is a problem for which has been shown that every other NP problem can be reduced to it in polynomial time. The Travelling Salesman Problem is an example of it.

Ziggurat said:
<pedant>
There is not only no known algorithm to do that, there is no possible algorithm to do that. If you can take a problem and convert it into a P problem in P time, then your original problem is, in fact, a P problem. It can only be an NP problem if no algorithm can convert it to a P problem in P time.
Click to expand...
Your claim is wrong, the reasoning is right. As long as the question whether P = NP is open, it's not known if there's a possible algorithm to do that. If such an algorithm were found, the question P = NP would be answered.
 
Looks like it turned out that Jacob kid was bogus hype drummed up by his mom. The wiki on him is quite a bit different than it was the last time this thread contained a link to it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Barnett

And a very interesting article on him, debunking the extravagant claims:

Kristine Barnett’s son Jacob is autistic and he has become really good at mathematics at an early age. This much appears to be true, and it is not necessarily out of the ordinary for autistic savants, many of whom develop early propensities for unique skill sets involving numbers and music. But Jacob’s mother, who has published a book called The Spark: A Mother’s Story of Nurturing Genius (Random House, 2013) fails to provide any solid evidence that Jacob is anything more than a typical autistic savant (defined as someone with autism who also has a special skill set).1 The hype around Jacob—that he has created an original theory in astrophysics worthy of the Nobel Prize, that his IQ is higher than Einstein’s, and that his genius can only be nurtured in a university environment despite his young age—dissipates upon skeptical inquiry.
Click to expand...

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom