Thore Husfeldt

Shouryya Ray and the Press

with 16 comments

Ah, the joys of editing Wikipedia.

Two days ago, I stumbled over interesting news on the web that a German high schooler, Shouryya Ray, had solved a physics problems posed by Newton that had baffled scientists for centuries. These things interest me, so I read the largely uninformative article and began hunting for more information in the amazingly chaotic font of wisdom that is the internet. What was the problem? Why had it been difficult? What was the solution?

The Wikipedia entry, normally the trusted source for that kind of question, repeated the rather vague descriptions found on the media articles. Mostly human interest stuff about Shouryya Ray’s background, early life, ambitions, and views on mathematics. All nicely sourced to the same media articles, which were all obviously copied from each other, with slight increases in hyperbole. By now, (Monday 29 May) the story has reached the so-called Science and Technology web section of Danish tabloid Ekstrabladet. It has not improved.

What did he do?

A thread at Reddit/mathmatics and a thread at StackExchange mathematics seem to have mostly deduced what Shouryya Ray’s result is over the past few days. A pretty neat (implicit) solution to a differential equation for calculating the trajectory of a particle under certain conditions. Follow the links if you’re interested. This is awesome for a 16-year old high school student, far above what I could have done at that age. Clearly university-level calculus.

He submitted this solution to the annual German youth science contest Jugend forscht, won his regional finals for Saxony, and placed 2nd in the national finals for the category Mathematics and Computer Science. Well done.

What the media got out of it

The source of the rampant media story that followed, as far as my Google skills get me, is an article in the online version of Welt (a normally reputable German paper): 16-jähriges Mathegenie löst uraltes Zahlenrätsel. This appears under Vermischtes, the Misc/Human Interest section of the paper. This article is actually still modest on the hyperbole, only using the formulation that the original problem was formulated by Newton (which, as far as I understand, is true) and “seither ungezählte Mathematiker zur Verzweiflung gebracht haben dürfte”. This translates to “should have brought untold numbers of mathematicians to despair”. Note the conjunctive case dürfte. This is carefully expressed and factually correct: the numbers of mathematicians confounded by the resulting differential equations are indeed ungezählt (uncounted, or untold).

The headline, probably set by somebody else than the journalist Céline Lauer is “16 year old mathematical genius solves ancient maths problem.” This is where the story goes off into lala-land and probably where the excitement starts.

Next stop: the story hits the anglosphere, possibly in the Daily Mail online. Schoolboy ‘genius’ solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton that have baffled mathematicians for 350 years. The conjunctive case, together with any restraint has gone the way of the Dodo. This is a good story, and nobody cares about the original project, it spreads like wildfire between nonmathematical people. Many of the online sources, those that permit comments, contain isolated genuine questions from interested readers about what the result actually was, but nobody gets any wiser.

Wikipedia

What to do? After some soul searching I did the Right Thing and put the Wikipedia article for Shouryya Ray (created three days ago, 27 May) on my watch list, whittling it down to correct, verifiable information. Wikipedia has very well thought out policies about these kinds of things, such as guidelines for Notability of Academics and People notable for only one event.

Of course, once you start doing that, you need to see it through. I’ve been reverting edits from decent, intelligent, friendly, well-intended contributors ever since. All they want is to tell the world about this young genius. And I revert them. It puts me in a foul mood.

At least currently, the page is correct. (Who knows what happened while I typed this.) The comment thread at the Ekstrabladet article, Teenager løste 350 år gammel Newton-gåde, gives me some consolation:

Commenter: that [newspaper] article didn’t tell me much….

Commenter: and why does it say on wikipedia that he got 2nd place???

Commenter: Wikipedia knows EVERYTHING!

[…]

Commenter: Wikipedia does know a bit more than Ekstra-bladet, wouldn’t you agree on that?

What now?

We’ll see where this ends. What I’m worried about is how this may taint the reputation of Shouryya Ray. He did absolutely nothing wrong. He’s clearly very bright and has a valuable career as an academic in front of him. (We can still hope he switches to Theoretical Computer Science, can’t we?)

He fell victim to wanton publicity, to scientifically illiterate journalists, and people who decide what’s newsworthy with their heart instead of their brain. I dearly wish this does not hurt or discourage him.

We need more people like him. And we need fewer bad journalists. And we need more people like the nerds at Reddit. Another good day for internet forums, another bad day for online versions of old media.

Now back to the life-killing task of reverting Wikipedia edits.

Update (29 May, 19:16)

A journalist worth his salt actually wrote a good description of this: 16-year-old’s equations set off buzz over 325-year-old physics puzzler. Alan Boyle at MSNBC. He actually contacted physicists, all of which are naturally reluctant to comment on this. He cites the Reddit thread, too! Good job, Alan. More of that.

Alas, my fears for Shouryya Ray and Jugend forscht are quite valid:

But a falling body with air resistance (however modeled) is hardly a ‘fundamental unsolved problem,’ as [Ray] seems to think.

These comments, and similar ones pop up all over the net now. As if Ray, or his teachers, or the jurors of Jugend forscht made any such hyperbolic claims. As if they were deluded and didn’t do their job right.

But I can’t find any questionable claims from Ray or his teachers or jurors anywhere, on the contrary. In the interviews, Ray is consistently described as very modest. The rot sets in with the Welt article described above, with the dürfte and the sensationalist headline.

This is a story about journalists. Not about Ray, and not about trajectories.

Except for the downward trajectory of the Daily Mail, maybe. Cheap shot, I know.

Advertisements

Written by thorehusfeldt

May 29, 2012 at 14:52

Posted in Uncategorized

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thx for the effort..Good to know there are still people outthere caring about Reality..

    Lies and stupidety are always lurking to alter and destroy Truth..

    Mercy

    May 29, 2012 at 18:02

  2. […] ha skrivit), eller ”Steve” som jag kallar honom (för det heter han), bidrar med den här varianten på temat. En imponerande insats av bloggaren, i det här fallet. Man kan, i alla fall […]

  3. Good summary. It’s really sad that it’s taken me hours to piece together what actually happened, and none of the useful information ever came from the traditional news outlets. Indeed, the reason it was so hard to find actual information was everything was drowning in the sensationalist journalist.

    But you’ve done a very helpful summary.

    You might also be interested in the following thread,

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=609259,

    especially reply #25 and onwards, which contains information I don’t think you’ve mentioned. The implicit solution discussed on reddit and Stackexchange is not his full solution. I’m not in a position to judge how important this full solution is (user Ayre on Physics Forums seems to think it isn’t), but it’s worth looking at.

    Andera

    May 30, 2012 at 01:42

  4. […] story I posted on several days ago, especially if you're looking at the news. The best summary was here, and it refers you to conversations on various websites. Missing from this account, though, is a […]

  5. Thank you for the link, Andera. Very nice. You make a good point regarding the failure of traditional news outlets. Incidentally, the second commenter (punkrutin, in Swedish) infers from this that we should give journalists more money. I find that preposterous! Instead, this is a good example where nontraditional, free media (in this case, web fora and Wikipedia) provide excellent information, while traditional media fail, no matter what their business model is. This is not always the case, but in this instance it is.

    thorehusfeldt

    May 30, 2012 at 09:31

  6. Thank you for your efforts with the story. Sadly, “news” is now what sells. And papers are greedy and in need of money. There goes our “news.”

    alessandrareflections

    May 31, 2012 at 09:13

  7. Thanks for this write-up. I largely agree with your opinions on the matter.

    One thing, though: you wrote in your May 29 update, “But I can [sic] find any questionable claims from Ray or his teachers”. (I assume “can” is a typo for “can’t”.) As Alan Boyle’s article points out, however, there does seem to be a questionable claim from Ray or his teachers in the title they chose for his paper, “Analytische Lösung von zwei ungelösten fundamentalen Partikeldynamikproblemen”, which Boyle says translates to “Analytical Solution of Two Fundamental Unsolved Problems of Particle Dynamics”. It’s not clear that the problems are “fundamental unsolved problems”, nor is it even clear that his solution is really an analytical solution.

    Are you fluent in German or do you know someone who is? If so, perhaps you could get a copy of the actual paper by doing some Googling to find contact information for Ray or his school and then simply asking him to email you a copy. You could then forward it to Boyle and the experts he cites; they could give their opinions to Boyle; he could report them; and then you would have a reliable source for the Wikipedia article.

    Al

    May 31, 2012 at 23:30

  8. Al, thank you for pointing out the missing negation, now fixed. I type like a live (fast, and with a lot of mistakes…)

    Yes, I am absolutely fluent in German, it’s probably my best language.

    Remember, this is a high school project, for crying out loud, and that’s all it wants to be. It’s presented as a poster. I’d be very surprised if any of the involved parties (Ray, his teachers, the jurors) thinks this is a publishable scientific result or should be turned into a scientific paper. Maybe there is a written report, but it’s not meant as a scientific contribution, no more than a take-home exam at an undergraduate university class, or even most bachelor’s theses.

    It’s an awesome project for a teenager. But the result does not deserve scientific scrutiny, and was never intended for it.

    thorehusfeldt

    June 1, 2012 at 08:57

  9. Why Wikipedia says Shouryya Ray is German? Apparently, he was borne in India, and out of his 16 year life, he spent only the 4 years in Germany. It is also said that, when arrived, he didn’t speak any German. He is a resident of Germany, but the nationality is Indian. If so, why the wrong undocumented nationality claim in Wikipedia?

    Ricardo

    June 1, 2012 at 11:12

    • I’m happy to remove it. Next time you see something at WP you find questionable, just Be Bold and update it yourself.

      thorehusfeldt

      June 1, 2012 at 13:12

      • Thank you!

        Ricardo

        June 1, 2012 at 13:44

  10. […] This is a brief update on the Shouryya Ray affair mentioned in the previous post on this blog. […]

  11. Thanks for this objective work and summary.
    Appreciations for the young Mr. Ray (who is undoubtedly, an intelligent 16 year old). Woe to the yellow and sensationalist journalism which put the young person and his family at defensive for no fault of their own.

    Regard.

    S.A.M

    June 6, 2012 at 04:39

  12. We, Indians always start boasting of someone when he achieves something. But we never think why he achieves when he goes abroad and not here.

    For example see this blog http://shouryya-ray.whattoshare.in/

    Vignesh Kumar

    September 21, 2012 at 20:43


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: