Slashdot Mirror


Enter the Relativity Challenge

An anonymous reader writes "Any slashdotters wanna pick up a lazy 25,000 Euros? All you have to do is explain Einstein's theory of relativity in a five minute multimedia presentation. The Pirelli Group have laid down this 'Relativity Challenge' to anyone as part of the International Year of Physics. Entries close on 31 March 2005."

4 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Sure by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...just remember that PowerPoint is not "multimedia."

    --
    Yeah, right.
  2. Re:Hm by stanmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Explain females to ANYONE in 4 minutes, and I'll build you a bridge from san diego, california to Honolulu Hawaii.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  3. Re:Twins Paradox - Hogwash by jgoemat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Apparently my explanation works for why we don't see ourselves going faster than light when travelling 20,000 light-years in 2 years (we think we only travelled 2 light-years), but not for the Twins Paradox.

    From this explanation. Twin A stays on Earth and Twin B sets off in a spaceship going 0.995 c (time and space will dilate to 1/10th). He reaches a point C that is 9.995 light-years away and heads back at the same speed. Let's assume accelleration is instantaneous. When Twin B leaves earth, both twins agree their clocks read zero. When Twin B reaches point C, Twin A sees that his clock reads 10 years and Twin B's clock reads 1 year. Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 0.1 year. As soon as he turns around, Twin A still thinks B's clock reads 1 year and his clock reads 10 years, but Twin B thinks his clock reads 1 year and Twin A's clock reads 19.9 years. It all depends on your frame of reference, and the accelleration changes that.

    Personally, I don't think I will ever understand it. I think it's all philosophical because it is dependant on definitinitions. What does "observe" mean. What is "simultaneous"? Until you start studying special relativity, these terms are pretty easy to understand. I think physicists should come up with new words to describe these relativistic concepts and not use "observe" and "simultaneous" anymore in physics discussions. I have a special relativity textbook and the book contradicts itself on the meaning of those words in the first few chapters.

  4. Re:Like Dirty Harry said: by Stanza · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I have a poster of Einstein on my wall, with a quote:

    "Do not worry about your troubles in mathematics. I assure you, mine are much greater."

    I might not have that exactly right, but as I understand it he was struggling with the math too.