[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 472 KB, 508x270, 1390664576190.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6310674 No.6310674 [Reply] [Original]

Are the times of world changing theories over?

Can there even be a second Albert Einstein?

>> No.6310701

>>6310674
>Are the times of world changing theories over?
probably not
>Can there even be a second Albert Einstein?
yes

>> No.6310708

>>6310674
The thing is we know so much already about everything today that being a "genius" is hard. It takes decades of schooling before someone knows enough to be considered an expert in a field, and there's so many different fields that even experts are quite limited in their knowledge.

That's not to say someone can't revolutionize a field. It just makes it very difficult and unlikely.

>> No.6310713

>>6310708
I've talked with a friend about this and we've come to the conclusion that the difficulty of finding new theorems always remains about the same, no matter how much we already know

the next step will always be the next step

but I agree, all around geniuses like da vinci are no longer possible, we know way too much for someone to be an expert in several fields

>> No.6310758

Well world changing advances in neuroscience will probably come a lot in this century.

>> No.6310775

>>6310708
soon nobody will be smart enough to invent new groundbreaking things because of the biological limitations of our brain. humans stoped evolving ever since we learned how to use use complex language, tools, and build simple things. transhumanism is our only hope

>> No.6310780

>>6310674
>Can there even be a second Albert Einstein?

m8 how can you be on /sci/ and not have heard of Jacob Barnett?

>> No.6310779

everytime we say "hey? maybe there isn't much left to discover" someone comes along and shatters that notion and we call them geniuses I think it is entirely possible for someone to make even more of an impact than einstein or the rest

>> No.6310781

>>6310713
>da vinci
>genius
he was a privileged autistic neckbeard with to much free time, thats all. today's equivalent would be someone building a scale model of a stargate with legos.

>> No.6310783

>>6310775

we will never know what the brain can accomplish if we keep telling ourselves it has a limit

>> No.6310786

>>6310781
you're a privileged autistic neckbeard with too much free time

>> No.6310788

>>6310775
>humans stoped evolving ever since
thats wrong you fucking moron. i wish people would stof thinking their retarded opinions somehow relate to the real world.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.long

>> No.6310791

I think we should be pushing modern science and mathematics to much earlier stages of education. It would create scientists who are experts in their fields while they are much younger and still have their youthful spirit.

Calculus at 15 years of age, quantum mechanics at 16 or 17, intro to QFT as an undergraduate course. I think we would be seeing much more interesting Ph.D. dissertations this way.

>> No.6310792

>>6310783
We're waiting for the technology that'll give our brains the slack it needs.

>> No.6310800

>>6310788
why are you so angry? you sound like an angry 12 year old WoW player

also that article refers to tens of thousands of years as recent. no shit people were still evolving 10000 years ago when there was no medical care and people were still dying from common colds.

>> No.6310808

>>6310791
>15

we should stop teaching kids in primary school how to calculate shit and slowly introduce them to analysis, linear algebra, etc

group theory for instance offers wonderful and fun exercises for kids to work on, calculating shit is such an overexposed area of mathematics and such a small one, too

we should teach the abstract as early as possible

>> No.6310815

>>6310808
Totally agree. Children can be quite smart and schools tend to be incredibly unchallenging and based almost entirely on rote memorization.

>> No.6310873

>>6310775
We're still evolving plenty. The sole issue is just how slow evolution is in comparison to the incredibly rapid change in the human condition. The number of generations as hunter-gatherers far exceeds the number of generations in agrarian societies, which far exceeds the handful of generations which have elapsed since the Industrial and Scientific revolutions.

So long as we don't undergo complete societal collapse, in a few millenia we'll probably start to see significant adaptation to modern society, probably beginning with "not quite so susceptible to becoming sedentary lardasses when given high-calorie diets".

>> No.6310983

>>6310781
>da vinci
>not the single most intelligent human who ever existed

>> No.6310986

>>6310983
why? what has he achieved? he's never mentioned in anything mathetical or physical proof and all other 'sciences' are shit

>> No.6311002

>>6310986
>what has he achieved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_inventions_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci

>> No.6311022

>>6310986
I feel so bad for you...its like you really try to make yourself dumber.

>> No.6311028

>>6311002
so basically he draw a bunch of shit he saw, and a bunch of "inventions" that wouldn't have worked?

>> No.6311034

>>6311028
What's you are IQ?

>> No.6311043

So the first person to imagine and draw a warpdrive spaceship should deserve credit for making it?

LOL

>> No.6311047

>>6311028
He actually got results which led to advancements in his lifetime. That's like saying Newton just drew a bunch of symbols..

>> No.6311050

>>6311034
how the fuck should i know. probably like 180.

>> No.6311088

>>6311050
I seriously doubt it's anywhere near 180. You can't even make proper sentences and and your grammar is all wrong. How much money do you make? How much have you contributed to science? Because if you're telling the truth(which you aren't) it's such a waste to be on 4chan instead of making progress in your field of choice.

>> No.6311093

>>6311088
>What's you are IQ?
>You can't even make proper sentences and and your grammar is all wrong.
lol

>> No.6311111

>>6311093
>using infantile "meme speak"

>> No.6311222

>>6311111
>falling for trolls on /sci/

>> No.6311240

>>6310780
Einstein wasn't a child prodigy
Dat child prodigy track record

2/analogy

>> No.6311252

>>6311222
>falling for trolls on /sci/

>> No.6311256

>>6311252
>falling for trolls on /sci/

>> No.6311386

If by Einstein you mean 1 guy discovering something so magical that he becomes a household name... I think that will happen when we genetically engineer super babies with IQs of 200. Because the research happening today is so specialized and requires a conglomeration of people cooperating together that you're unlikely to associate something groundbreaking with 1 guy and put up posters of him in classrooms. If someone singlehandedly discovers gravitons and their manipulation becomes a daily part of our lives, then maybe it would be that guy. But it's more likely that 100 physicists at CERN working together are credited with that.

>> No.6311411

>>6311386
Einstein had teams of mathematicians and physicists working with him.

>> No.6311417

>>6311386
like how we dont associate the higgs boson with one person?

>> No.6311433

>>6311411
def not before the miracle year, maybe later in his career when he was already a household name

I think it's safe to say Einstein is the greatest genius that has ever lived (or that we know of at least)

>> No.6311499 [DELETED] 

>>6310983
>>6310986
>>6311028
>Bright objects seem smaller
+1, yeah? Probably interesting receiving knowledge.

>> No.6311527

what about quantum gravity?

>Paschal xteNea

>> No.6311540
File: 9 KB, 240x240, 1390694257450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6311540

>>6310775
this statement completely disregards evolution in the surroundings/stimuli and dramatically increased access to information and communication. you and OP are retarded if you believe there are foreseeable limitations to human creation. you can't see around the bend of time. and of course there will be more fucking einsteins, there's tons of people on just this site who have the intelligence, the difference is fame/attention, which really seems to be just luck - maybe there's a breakthrough in your field that relates to something on a popular tv show, or something already gaining national attention.

>> No.6311544

>>6311540
"there's tons of people on just this site who have the intelligence, the difference is fame/attention"

No. Everyone, and I mean everyone on this site is a fucking idiot. And if you think otherwise then you're a bigger idiot than all of them.

>> No.6311546

>>6311544
>implying you don't need brains to be stupid
>implying stupidity is a sign of inferior intelligence

>> No.6311554
File: 463 KB, 3300x3810, 1390694657863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6311554

>>6311546
>implying stupidity is a sign of inferior intelligence

>> No.6312689

>>6310708
The thing about revolutionizing fields is not about schooling at all. It is about daring to question axioms and fundamentals in old models. You don't need to be an expert in what is already known in order to question it's fundamentals.

>> No.6312696

>>6310808
I agree. Algebra early. Abstraction and imagination are the most important parts of mathematics.

I spent quite some time with memorizing "multiplication tables" of integers 1-10 when I was 10-11 years. I never managed to get the arithmetics all correct in less than 5 minutes (which was kind of a competition in our class). And here I am doing a PhD education in a theoretical & technical subject.

Pre-University schools teach and measure the wrong things.

>> No.6312702

>>6311088

Oh yeah. How much money you make is a good indicator of intelligence and technical / scientific ability. LOL.

IQ is also not a very relevant thing to measure.

" Because if you're telling the truth(which you aren't) it's such a waste to be on 4chan instead of making progress in your field of choice."

That's illogical. You are making the faulty assumption that people act rationally all the time. Also spending 100% of your waking time will not make you very work-efficient.

>> No.6312704

>>6311544
Hmm, that includes you..? ;)

>> No.6312706

>>6311554
You can be intelligent - very skilled at something and yet not very wise in other aspects such as social life...

>> No.6312711 [DELETED] 

If you can solve these 4 problems, then you will be greater than Einstein

1) flying car
2) unlimited energy
3) faster than light travel
4) elimination of illness

>> No.6312797

>>6312702
Turns out that tests specifically made to test X are better measurements of X than are correlates and effects of X. Who would have thought?