Scientific genius is extinct.

[sjastro]

According to a representative from the "soft sciences" the lone scientific genius from the "hard science such as a Newton, Einstein or Darwin is no more.

Scientific genius is extinct - Nature

I'm inclined to agree with this idea from a different perspective using the theoretical gravitational waveform as an example.

Black holes spiral into each other and merge to produce gravitational waves.
Einstein would be turning in his grave as post-Newtonian theory and numerical relativity involves the slicing and dicing of general relativity into a format that could be solved by supercomputers not humans.
The breakthrough which ultimately lead to the observation of gravitational waves came in 2004, eleven years before their discovery when supercomputers became powerful enough to produce the theoretical waveforms.
It could be argued in some areas of physics the subject has become so complicated as to be beyond the grasp of the individual human mind.

 

[jacks]

I'd like to think that genius is still with us, though it is rare. It is genius that lets us think outside the box (or programing) and come up with wholly new paradigms. I wouldn't be surprised if some new breakthrough happens in the near future, there are some smart "kids" out there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to a representative from the "soft sciences" the lone scientific genius from the "hard science such as a Newton, Einstein or Darwin is no more.

Scientific genius is extinct - Nature

I'm inclined to agree with this idea from a different perspective using the theoretical gravitational waveform as an example.

Black holes spiral into each other and merge to produce gravitational waves.
Einstein would be turning in his grave as post-Newtonian theory and numerical relativity involves the slicing and dicing of general relativity into a format that could be solved by supercomputers not humans.
The breakthrough which ultimately lead to the observation of gravitational waves came in 2004, eleven years before their discovery when supercomputers became powerful enough to produce the theoretical waveforms.
It could be argued in some areas of physics the subject has become so complicated as to be beyond the grasp of the individual human mind.

Has John Horgan been reincarnated?

[Are there even any analytic solutions for two black holes in the same space-time? Not even worrying about mutual orbits.]

 

[sjastro]

Has John Horgan been reincarnated?

Never heard of him.

[Are there even any analytic solutions for two black holes in the same space-time? Not even worrying about mutual orbits.]

While there are some exact solutions to the field equations, general relativity being a non linear theory of gravity makes it impossible to solve a two body problem particularly of objects of similar masses such as black hole mergers.
This is where post Newtonian theory and numerical relativity come into the picture as approximations.
Even for a two body problem involving unequal masses such as the orbit of Mercury, where Mercury is treated as the point mass the perihelion advance is based on an approximation using Newton's solution for a Keplerian orbit.
Einstein calculations to be auctioned.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Never heard of him.

John Horgan is (was?) a journalist who wrote a book called "The End of Science" (or some such thing) on a similar bent some years ago. It created quite a stir, but actual scientist mostly just shook there heads in dismay.

While there are some exact solutions to the field equations, general relativity being a non linear theory of gravity makes it impossible to solve a two body problem particularly of objects of similar masses such as black hole mergers.
This is where post Newtonian theory and numerical relativity come into the picture as approximations.
Even for a two body problem involving unequal masses such as the orbit of Mercury, where Mercury is treated as the point mass the perihelion advance is based on an approximation using Newton's solution for a Keplerian orbit.
Einstein calculations to be auctioned.

That's what I thought. It's not like approximate techniques haven't been used to solve problems based on the more precise simple theories for a long time. Indeed I recall getting hit with Green's functions multiple times in grad school for solving systems with multiple point charges.

I'm going to log off and go back to using those techniques referenced in Nature "essay" to learn stuff that absolutely can't be solve by some radical act of genius.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd like to think that genius is still with us, though it is rare. It is genius that lets us think outside the box (or programing) and come up with wholly new paradigms. I wouldn't be surprised if some new breakthrough happens in the near future, there are some smart "kids" out there.

Genius has always been rare. These days, much of the low hanging fruit has been picked, so contemporary genius generally works in specialised fields few people understand. But at some point, I expect that genius will be behind another paradigm shift or unification.

 

[sjastro]

Individuals identified as being idiots or crazy by their contemporaries have achieved genius status after their deaths.
One such individual was Evariste Galois a fiery teenager constantly failing exams and fighting teachers.
He was also a political activist and his untimely death was suspected to be at the hands of an agent provocateur working for the French government.
Fearing his end was near on the last night of his life he wrote up an almost unintelligible 31 page document which laid the foundations of Group Theory which revolutionized mathematics in the 19th century and the sciences such as physics in the 20th century.

 

[sjastro]

If there is a possibility of an individual causing a paradigm change in science chances are it will be a mathematician.
Unlike scientists who work collectively, pure mathematics is still a solitary occupation.
Occasionally pure mathematicians will work in areas that impacts directly on science.

For example of the seven millennium prize problems where one million dollars is offered to solving any one of the problems, two are problems in physics the other in computer science.

The last problem in the list the Poincare conjecture has been solved by the mathematical genius and Rasputin impersonator Grigori Pereleman.
Not being satisfied with refusing to accept the Fields Medal which is the Nobel Prize equivalent in mathematics he also declined the one million dollars in solving the conjecture giving the following bizarre reason.

​

Another example of genius = craziness?

 

[Halbhh]

If there is a possibility of an individual causing a paradigm change in science chances are it will be a mathematician.
Unlike scientists who work collectively, pure mathematics is still a solitary occupation.
Occasionally pure mathematicians will work in areas that impacts directly on science.

For example of the seven millennium prize problems where one million dollars is offered to solving any one of the problems, two are problems in physics the other in computer science.

The last problem in the list the Poincare conjecture has been solved by the mathematical genius and Rasputin impersonator Grigori Pereleman.
Not being satisfied with refusing to accept the Fields Medal which is the Nobel Prize equivalent in mathematics he also declined the one million dollars in solving the conjecture giving the following bizarre reason.

​

Another example of genius = craziness?

That's an immortal quote! heh heh

This makes sense tho: "Despite rumours of madman-esque reclusiveness and self-imposed poverty, a journalist who interviewed Perelman says previous media coverage on the man has misrepresented him:

"Perelman produces an impression of an absolutely sane, healthy, adequate and normal person. ... What the media say and write about him — that he is off his head — all of that is nonsense," he wrote.

When it comes to awards and monetary gain, Perelman just isn't interested; the genius refused the prize, claiming the knowledge gained to be worth more than the financial reward.

"I'm not interested in money or fame," Perelman stated.
Math genius Grigori Perelman explains why he turned down $1 million prize

Right. If someone can enjoy math like that, then money and fame would be a sharp step downward.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's an immortal quote! heh heh

This makes sense tho: "Despite rumours of madman-esque reclusiveness and self-imposed poverty, a journalist who interviewed Perelman says previous media coverage on the man has misrepresented him:

"Perelman produces an impression of an absolutely sane, healthy, adequate and normal person. ... What the media say and write about him — that he is off his head — all of that is nonsense," he wrote.

When it comes to awards and monetary gain, Perelman just isn't interested; the genius refused the prize, claiming the knowledge gained to be worth more than the financial reward.

"I'm not interested in money or fame," Perelman stated.
Math genius Grigori Perelman explains why he turned down $1 million prize

Right. If someone can enjoy math like that, then money and fame would be a sharp step downward.

He probably turns off his cell phone for days at a time too.
It's like that. Money can be distracting.

 

[durangodawood]

....When it comes to awards and monetary gain, Perelman just isn't interested; the genius refused the prize, claiming the knowledge gained to be worth more than the financial reward....

Thats some curious math there. Does he have to trade in his knowledge to get the cash?

 

[sjastro]

Thats some curious math there. Does he have to trade in his knowledge to get the cash?

Heck I did pure mathematics as an undergraduate for three years, the knowledge I gained was at the cost of headaches and the potential onset of a stomach ulcer.

 

[durangodawood]

Heck I did pure mathematics as an undergraduate for three years, the knowledge I gained was at the cost of headaches and the potential onset of a stomach ulcer.

At Berkeley I had a friend who was a sophomore math student and had one course left to complete the major (he was pretty bright).... then he quit and switched to history.

 

[sjastro]

At Berkeley I had a friend who was a sophomore math student and had one course left to complete the major (he was pretty bright).... then he quit and switched to history.

A correct decision.
If I had continued to study pure mathematics at post grad level I would have probably ended up like this poor soul.

 

[Halbhh]

A correct decision.
If I had continued to study pure mathematics at post grad level I would have probably ended up like this poor soul.