10-Year-Old Accidentally Discovers New Explosive Molecule
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
I'm not saying that this is a great discovery. I'm just saying that the idea of a ten-year old kid rearranging the atoms on a wooden molecule set leading to the discovery of a potentially useful new molecule makes for great watercooler talk. And yet, this has started a flame war.
Good lord, this molecule is so dangerous that even discussion of it makes things blow up.
Good lord, this molecule is so dangerous that even discussion of it makes things blow up.
I have to side with Matthew94 on this one. There's a huge difference between happening upon something and knowing what to do with it, and happening upon something and going "look what I found! Cool, right?" She didn't figure out the molecule by trial and error, she figured it out by sticking things wherever they might go and getting lucky. That's not praise-worthy. If, instead of putting them together randomly, she'd gone through a bunch of "no, that won't work... no no, that's not right... well, that's close, but I still need more... no no, scrap that..." and so on, then she'd have demonstrated some talent. If it truly was a random assemblage, then she didn't do anything a toddler couldn't have done.
It's a touching story that a 10 year old girl was able to find a new molecule structure, but since she had no idea what to do with it, or what it could be used for, or even what the next steps should be, there's no reason to shower her with praise.
It's a touching story that a 10 year old girl was able to find a new molecule structure, but since she had no idea what to do with it, or what it could be used for, or even what the next steps should be, there's no reason to shower her with praise.
Cubane [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubane] was probably among the first hypothetical molecules constructed after the invention of these build-a-molecule playsets, yet the person we credit for its discovery is Phillip Eaton, the person who actually synthesized it for the first time in 1964 - since that is actually the infinitely harder part. Similarly, making the compound into an super-powered explosive by attaching nitro-groups to all 8 corners was probably among the first possible applications he thought of, yet what matters is that it wasn't until 35 years later that one of his students, Mao-Xi Zhang, figured out a way to synthesize it.
And even then, these cubane compounds, despite theoretically having the "ideal" structure for an explosive, may never find a commercial application because good old RDX is just infinitely more economically viable.
So yeah, as much as I commend this girl for actually getting engaged in her chemistry class, proclaiming her a genius for this supposedly earth-shattering invention seems kind of... premature.
And even then, these cubane compounds, despite theoretically having the "ideal" structure for an explosive, may never find a commercial application because good old RDX is just infinitely more economically viable.
So yeah, as much as I commend this girl for actually getting engaged in her chemistry class, proclaiming her a genius for this supposedly earth-shattering invention seems kind of... premature.
Maddox? Seriously? People care about him these days?snave said:
I thought the age when merely having an opinion made a person edgy on the internet ended with YouTube.
It would be more impressive if she won Olympic gold in the 100m sprint, but, y'know, again, nobody said anything about that, just like nobody said anything about her being a genius. It's irrelevant.Waaghpowa said:
No, again, like I said, I think the odds are more in favour of her building the molecule using a basic understanding of the valencies of the atoms she had been given. That is much more likely than coming up with a viable molecule by random chance. You give the impression that you have not even read, or at least not comprehended, the post you are replying to.
Option 1. Kid builds viable molecule by randomly sticking things together: Very unlikely.
Option 2. Kid builds viable molecule using basic rules of atomic valency: Happens every day.
In the absence of evidence either way, I'm more inclined to assume the more likely option, that she built the molecule using the very simply rules she was taught by her teacher.
So actually I would be MORE impressed if it was pure random chance.
I'm basing my assumptions on the information and on what seems reasonable to me given my experience of living in the universe, whereas I don't know what you're basing yours on besides the use of the word "random" by a faculty press communications writer who may or may not understand the true meaning of the word.
I'm treating this as I would any kid who figured out something fairly cool. "Good for you!" *Pat on the back*
So it's more likely that a 10 year old consciously creates a never before seen molecule using basic understanding of valencies? Funny thing about kids, people tend to treat them like they're an exception to everything. Kid does something smart "She must be a genius", kid does something bad "Oh well she doesn't understand, lay off her". You know what's far more apparent than this kids intelligence? The fact that people seem to be giving this kid more attention for accidentally creating a new molecule while if it weren't for the professor's brilliance to recognize it as something potentially ground breaking, we wouldn't be here. Yet people are insisting on making this about the girl.oktalist said:
Odds are, if it weren't for this man, none of this would be news. And unless you can prove that this girl really understood what she was doing, it's more likely it was all due to chance. Every day there is probably someone else with better understanding and qualifications doing this exact same thing, yet they didn't find it? And you insist it isn't chance.
This guy knows what's going on.DiMono said:
Yes, that's what I said. Well done for finally comprehending the written word.Waaghpowa said:
There are two things going on here. Firstly, the kid created a viable molecule using the basic rules of atomic valencies that her teacher had explained to her class. That's the non-random part. Secondly, the molecule turns out to be one that's never been discovered before. That's the random part. I already said this the first time I replied to you.
Saying that she made the molecule by just sticking bits together randomly makes no sense. Did the teacher say, "okay kids, just stick these things together randomly for an hour while I go to the toilets to sniff coke"? No, he would've told the kids the basic rules for putting the bits together, so that they might learn something, that's his job.
People don't seem to be giving more attention to the kid. They seem to be giving more attention to the news story about the kid, because it's a nice human interest story and that makes it more newsworthy than a dry scientific paper about some new miracle molecule, of which there are hundreds.
All the professor did was type the chemical formula into a computer and have some software tell him it was a new, undiscovered molecule. The kid's teacher deserves the most praise out of the three of them, for being an awesome teacher, stimulating his students' minds and taking an interest in what they came up with.
And if he'd discovered it by himself it wouldn't have been news, as adults are discovering things like this all the time.
I don't see anyone showering her with praise here.DiMono said:
This has been going on for almost 3 days and you're still at it? Someone is getting over defensive.oktalist said:
Again, prove that she knew what she was doing beyond playing with atomic models or this whole thing might as well be chance. Until then, ignored because I can't be bother to argue over this inane topic any longer. I'm not going to spend another 3 days on it.
The professor deserves credit for making this find and the girl deserves credit for being the muse.
Now, why should I feel dumber just because any person reaches higher? I should praise others for their talents and achievements, not grow bitter and evil (Well, MORE evil.) over it. Does the arrival of somebody smarter somehow change my decent level of education? Not at all. I would be pleased to talk to Stephen Hawking, should he randomly appear.
A lot of people don't get science here.
She did not "randomly" put together a molecule that just worked. She did so according to specific rules, which meant she *understood those*. Meaning she already understands more about molecules than most people dissing her, making the dissing pretty hilarious.
Fact: REAL science often is done exactly like this. And I think that's why you get so many people trying to take a shot at her: They fully well know she did something they couldn't, is much more of a real scientists than they will ever be, and that she gets a deserved moment of fame, instead of the dissers. Which is why they are so jealous.
After all, she's just a girl. EWW! Every whiny guy knows girls can't do science because they're stuuuupid! So obviously she can't have done it!!!!!
This man is a good teacher. If we would have more people like him, our current education wouldn't be as bad as it is right now.
She did not "randomly" put together a molecule that just worked. She did so according to specific rules, which meant she *understood those*. Meaning she already understands more about molecules than most people dissing her, making the dissing pretty hilarious.
Fact: REAL science often is done exactly like this. And I think that's why you get so many people trying to take a shot at her: They fully well know she did something they couldn't, is much more of a real scientists than they will ever be, and that she gets a deserved moment of fame, instead of the dissers. Which is why they are so jealous.
After all, she's just a girl. EWW! Every whiny guy knows girls can't do science because they're stuuuupid! So obviously she can't have done it!!!!!
Absolutely. The man is how a teacher SHOULD be. He clearly inspired interest, made his students actuallly understand the issues, AND took them seriously.
This man is a good teacher. If we would have more people like him, our current education wouldn't be as bad as it is right now.
I've already forgotten the child's name. She randomly put together some objects and by chance it was a viable synthetic molecule. Big deal. Out of the millions of students who have ever used these sets and made random things, at least one of them had to eventually make something which can be synthesised. It's just probability, nothing more.
