Genius Scientist - Achieving the Impossible

[OvidiuAnghelidi]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to present "Achieving the Impossible", a short story that can inspire other people; the story

presents how is possible to reach world-class level in a top research field and make a discovery, without having

prior training in the field, without speaking with anyone or getting help from anyone and almost without any money.

My name is Ovidiu Anghelidi and I made 3 discoveries:

1. I solved a complex molecular biology problem in neuroscience

2. I found an unbreakable encryption algoritm in computer science

3. I found a new source of energy in physics

I also ran the world's largest brain simulation, see the following Discovery Channel article:

link removed by mod

For additional information please see the following page:

link removed by mod

Thank you.

Sincerelly,

Ovidiu

Edited October 21, 2013 by imatfaal

[Tridimity]

I appreciate that you are being tongue-in-cheek, but actually almost every major historic discovery worth making has been made by lone scientists working independently, in every sense of the term.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Link and contact info removed. Posting simply to advertise your personal site is not permitted. Moved out of science news.

[Strange]

I appreciate that you are being tongue-in-cheek, but actually almost every major historic discovery worth making has been made by lone scientists working independently, in every sense of the term.

Really? I am struggling to think of many examples. Especially in the last couple of centuries.

 

(I wondeer if the OP should be moved to the "Arrogance versus Genius" thread as an example for discussion.)

 

1. I solved a complex molecular biology problem in neuroscience

2. I found an unbreakable encryption algoritm in computer science

3. I found a new source of energy in physics

 

Where will we find details of these breakthroughs?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

I have also removed the link to your own website and the discovery article which seemed to have been edited to include extraneous references.

[Tridimity]

Really? I am struggling to think of many examples. Especially in the last couple of centuries.

 

 

Einstein, the Curies, Darwin, Lovelock... need I go on?

[Strange]

The Curies - well, that was one of the counter-examples I thought of And, of course, it wasn't just the two of them; they exchanged information, materials, ideas, etc with other chemists and physicists.

 

Einstein and Darwin may have published works as the sole author and be the people most associated with the corresponding theories. But it is rather a stretch to say they worked alone. They took ideas from many other people, discussed their theories with others as they were developing them, etc.

 

I know Lovelock invented a few things and has been a spokesman for environmental matters but has he been responsible for any "major historic breakthroughs"?

 

Counter examples:

The structure of DNA

The big bang theory

Continental drift

Almost every aspect of quantum physics

...

And look at the number of theories and laws named after groups of people:

Titius–Bode law

Church-Turing thesis

Bose-Enstein statistics

Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric

 

But that is, of course, meaingless. I don't have any quantitative evidence to argue the point. But the lone (and possibly maverick) scientist image seems like a myth to me.

[StringJunky]

I know Lovelock invented a few things and has been a spokesman for environmental matters but has he been responsible for any "major historic breakthroughs"?

 

 

The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. Topics of interest include how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms affect the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Edited October 21, 2013 by StringJunky

[Strange]

Gaia? Barely a hypothesis. I can't work out if it is trivially true (the Earth will always reach some sort of "balance"; life will evolve to fit changing conditions, etc.) or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

 

I can't see how anyone could describe it as a "major historic breakthrough".

[John Cuthber]

OK, what about the ecd?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture_detector

which is much more useful in my opinion.

 

On the other hand pretty much anything seems to be more use than this thread..

Here's his view on arrogance.

I wonder if he has a youtube movie about irony?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEkETUeYgcw

[Tridimity]

The Curies - well, that was one of the counter-examples I thought of And, of course, it wasn't just the two of them; they exchanged information, materials, ideas, etc with other chemists and physicists.

 

Einstein and Darwin may have published works as the sole author and be the people most associated with the corresponding theories. But it is rather a stretch to say they worked alone. They took ideas from many other people, discussed their theories with others as they were developing them, etc.

 

I know Lovelock invented a few things and has been a spokesman for environmental matters but has he been responsible for any "major historic breakthroughs"?

 

Counter examples:

The structure of DNA

The big bang theory

Continental drift

Almost every aspect of quantum physics

...

And look at the number of theories and laws named after groups of people:

Titius–Bode law

Church-Turing thesis

Bose-Enstein statistics

Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric

 

But that is, of course, meaingless. I don't have any quantitative evidence to argue the point. But the lone (and possibly maverick) scientist image seems like a myth to me.

 

Of course, the named scientists interacted with other people. Working independently is not interchangeable with 'lived in a bubble like the bubble boy and talked to no-one'. However, I would maintain that their major scientific breakthroughs (the Theories of General and Special Relativity, the discovery of Radium, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, the Gaia Hypothesis - and development of the ECD, see John Cuthber's post, if Gaia is too airy-fairy for you ) were largely the result of original thoughts on the part of the discoverers.

 

There is a large difference between the creative dressmaker who makes and models a dress, and the friend who answers the question, 'does my bum look big in this?'

 

So too in Science there is a large difference between the creative Scientist who devises a new Theory and the colleague who provides feedback on that Theory.

 

I will concede that most of the major 'Big Science' experimental breakthroughs require vast teams of Scientists - for example, the Human Genome Project or projects at CERN. But they are the culmination of the thoughts of lone scientists.

[Strange]

for example, the Human Genome Project .... But they are the culmination of the thoughts of lone scientists.

 

Crick & Watson (and the rest of the team)?

[CharonY]

But that is precisely the point, they were not alone. Virtually all scientists rely on the information that has been done before them and new theories tend to be evolution of existing ones. Some scientists just become more prominent because of a variety of reasons. A favorite example of mine is the discovery of the DNA structure. While everybody knows Watson and Crick it should be noted that Franklin actually managed to get the X-ray diffraction done.

If you want to make the dressmaker analogy, the dressmaker does not make the dress out of nothing. You got people make the cloth, you have certain types of stitches established by others etc.

Especially in bio it is hardly possible to make any decent progress with small experiments. The only areas where individuals are doing most of the heavy lifting are probably in certain areas of theoretical physics and mathematics.

[Ringer]

Isn't the 'great person' vs. zeitgeist argument a philosophical one? And is that really the main topic. I'm really asking because the OP doesn't help much in that regard.

[Strange]

Isn't the 'great person' vs. zeitgeist argument a philosophical one?

Well, it is certainly unevidenced (in this thread) so it might as well be.

 

And is that really the main topic. I'm really asking because the OP doesn't help much in that regard.

I'm not sure that there was any topic, other than him introducing himself. (As someone I would not give a job to.)

[pantheory]

Genius Scientist -- Achieving the Impossible ?

 

Some of the greatest discoveries and developers of new ideas for all times were sometimes almost solely the efforts of a single person. In modern times Darwin comes to mind. Many were not highly educated in the fields or subjects where they became famous. In ancient times there was Archimedes. In the Renaissance there was De Vinci. Soon thereafter there was Galileo, De Carte, Newton, etc.etc. True, most had past works of others to build on. Newton: "I stood on the shoulders of giants......" Although influenced by others, all were independent thinkers, and such persons often consider mainstream models as being no better than any other possible model. Logic, experiments, and all relevant observations have been the guiding principles of most such thinkers.

 

I was reading a little humor yesterday concerning an article written by a scientist acquaintance of mine who wrote a funny article a while ago entitled “Am I a sheep or a crackpot?” Although the discussion is old, I think it is still relevant to the OP.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=283351

Edited October 23, 2013 by pantheory

[CharonY]

Darwin is a good example of scientific correspondence. The idea of natural selection did not suddenly emerge from Darwin's mind nor was he alone in the development of it. The impression is mostly due to the fact that he published a book on the topic first and created precedence. It is well known that there were serious exchange between him, Lyell, Hooker and Huxley on that topic, and I believe Hooker was first to realize that Wallace came to similar conclusion as Darwin based on existing evidence. Wallace and Darwin then started conversations that led to at least one back-to-back publication of essays on the topic prior to the publication of Darwin's book.

This is in fact a good example how science usually works. I.e. it is rarely the isolated work of a single person, but innovations often depend on many lines of investigation. The one putting them together in a comprehensive way gets the credit, but assuming that they did it in isolation is the rarest of exceptions.

[swansont]

I agree — the "scientist working in isolation" is not synonymous with "single-authored paper". And let's not forget the OP claims to be an outsider. There is even less support for the notion of an isolated outsider making a significant contribution.

[AfterViewer]

I didn't think the OP's accomplishments, however valid, produced any impossible feats. Impossible has to border on "magical" At least it used to, back in the day.