12 year old savant provides possible debunking of Big Bang theory.

  • #1
Museigen
Meanwhile, Jake is moving on to his next challenge: proving that the big-bang theory, the event some think led to the formation of the universe, is, well, wrong.

Wrong?

He explains.

"There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it's just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova," Jake said. "What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it's more dense."

OK . . . trying to follow you.

"So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

"So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it's really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?"

He could go on and on.

And he did.

"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. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't going to happen."

"Because of that," he continued, "that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."

So, we had to ask.

If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about?

"I'm still working on that," he said. "I have an idea, but . . . I'm still working out the details."
Source: http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369 [Broken]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html
Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Earth isn't mostly Carbon? It's iron and silicates. Also the Daily Mail isn't exactly exactly well known for is science coverage. I'm sceptical.
 
  • #3
Nucleosynthesis has been studied pretty thoroughly over many decades, and I don't think there are any major inconsistencies between theory and observation at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis There is no way to comment on the merit of the kid's arguments, since they aren't given. If he thinks he's found a major flaw, he can write a paper and submit it to a journal.
 
  • #4
And when that paper is submitted, we can discuss it here.
 
  • #5


I would first commend Jake for his curiosity and critical thinking skills. It is always important to question and challenge established theories in order to advance our understanding of the world. However, it is also important to approach such challenges with caution and to consider all available evidence before making conclusions.

In this case, while Jake's calculations may raise some interesting points, they do not necessarily debunk the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various fields of science, including cosmology, astronomy, and physics. It explains the observed expansion of the universe, the distribution of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the abundance of elements in the universe. The theory has been continuously tested and refined over the years, and it is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Additionally, Jake's reasoning that the universe would have to be 21 billion years old for carbon to form is based on the assumption that the only source of carbon in the universe is from stars. However, there are other processes, such as nucleosynthesis in the early universe, that can also produce carbon. Furthermore, the Big Bang theory does not claim that all elements were formed in the initial explosion, but rather that they were formed in subsequent processes such as stellar evolution.

I would also remind Jake that science is a collaborative and iterative process. While his ideas may be intriguing, they need to be tested and supported by empirical evidence before being accepted as a valid alternative to the Big Bang theory. It is important for young scientists like Jake to continue to question and explore new ideas, but also to be open to feedback and criticism from the scientific community.

Overall, as a scientist, I would encourage Jake to continue his research and to consider all available evidence before dismissing established theories. Who knows, his ideas may one day contribute to our understanding of the universe.
 

1. How can a 12 year old be a savant?

A savant is a person with an exceptional ability in a specific area, despite having a developmental or intellectual disability. It is possible for a 12 year old to exhibit savant abilities, as these abilities are not dependent on age.

2. What is a Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model that explains the origin and development of the universe. It suggests that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since.

3. How can a 12 year old's theory debunk the Big Bang theory?

While it is uncommon for a 12 year old to have a theory that can debunk a well-established scientific theory, it is not impossible. The scientific community evaluates theories based on evidence and experimentation, regardless of the age or background of the theorist.

4. What evidence does the 12 year old's theory provide?

The evidence presented by the 12 year old could include observations, data, and experiments that support their theory. It would need to be rigorously tested and peer-reviewed before being considered a valid debunking of the Big Bang theory.

5. Will this debunking of the Big Bang theory be widely accepted by the scientific community?

The scientific community is open to new ideas and theories, but they require extensive evidence and experimentation before accepting a new explanation for a well-established theory. It is possible that the 12 year old's theory will be accepted if it can withstand the scrutiny of the scientific process.

Similar threads

Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
58
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
56
Views
6K
Back
Top