Fumfer Physics 37: From IQ Puzzles to Physics Breakthroughs
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner to compare one of the hardest known IQ-test problems—the three interpenetrating cubes from the Mega Test—to challenges in real-world physics. Rosner situates the puzzle alongside deep problems in group theory, particle classification, and the discovery of fundamental symmetries. He contrasts patience-driven spatial reasoning with the decade-long conceptual grind behind general relativity, highlighting intuition, persistence, and mathematical endurance. Drawing on Einstein, Maxwell, and historical breakthroughs, Rosner argues that elite physics problems share the same core demand as extreme puzzles: sustained visualization, disciplined reasoning, and a willingness to work through complexity step by step.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would be the real-world physics equivalent, in terms of difficulty, of the three interpenetrating cubes problem from the Mega Test of the Mega Society by Ronald Hoeflin?
Rick Rosner: That is a genuinely good question. It is widely regarded as the hardest problem on the Mega Test, which at the time of its publication was considered the most difficult IQ test in existence.
In physics, I would guess that some of the work involving group theory and the classification of particle families might approach that level of difficulty. I am not well-versed enough in advanced physics to say this with confidence, but there are certainly problems where the solution requires long chains of mathematical reasoning. When you see cartoons of physicists standing in front of blackboards ten feet tall and forty feet wide, filled with equations, that is not pure exaggeration. That kind of work really happens.
Dissecting particle families using group theory, or uncovering deep symmetries in nature, often requires an extraordinary mix of intuition and persistence. Some of those breakthroughs may be comparable, in intellectual difficulty, to solving that cube problem.
There was a woman physicist about a century ago who identified a profound symmetry in physics—its name escapes me at the moment—and Maxwell’s equations themselves are another example of astonishing conceptual achievement. I am not certain whether anyone with enough time and discipline could have worked their way to those results, or whether they required a uniquely rare kind of insight.
People sometimes say that if Einstein had been hit by a bus, someone else would have discovered special relativity within a few years. That might be true for parts of special relativity, which involved working through the implications of a small number of assumptions, such as the constancy of the speed of light. General relativity is different. It began with the insight that a uniformly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable, from within that frame, from a gravitational field. Turning that insight into a full mathematical theory took Einstein about ten years, and even then he relied heavily on mathematical input from colleagues.
That kind of work required enormous persistence. The cube problem, by contrast, does not demand brilliance so much as patience: a little intuition followed by a lot of trial, visualization, and diagram-drawing. When I worked on it in the 1980s, that meant sketching endlessly on paper. Today, you would do much of that on a computer, which would make the visualization more flexible.
A lot of high-level physics has that same character. General relativity took a decade of sustained reasoning. Special relativity took months of carefully tracing consequences from simple premises. Many deep mathematical and spatial problems share this quality: you sit with them, visualize them, identify the underlying assumptions, and then grind your way forward step by step.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 