TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in words of four letters or less (1999)

240 点作者 signa11大约 1 个月前

25 条评论

hkmaxpro大约 1 个月前
Reminds me of Yasha Berchenko-Kogan’s excellent answer to the question “What do grad students in math do all day?”<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quora.com&#x2F;Mathematics&#x2F;What-do-grad-students-in-math-do-all-day-Do-they-just-sit-at-their-desk-and-think" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quora.com&#x2F;Mathematics&#x2F;What-do-grad-students-in-m...</a><p>&gt; a bit like trying to explain a vacuum cleaner to someone who has never seen one, except you&#x27;re only allowed to use words that are four letters long or shorter.<p>&gt; What can you say?<p>&gt; &quot;It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.&quot;
评论 #43679569 未加载
评论 #43679353 未加载
评论 #43679154 未加载
评论 #43680089 未加载
评论 #43679919 未加载
stavros大约 1 个月前
This essay is fantastic at demonstrating that putting a word length limit actually makes explaining things <i>more</i> complicated. I got lost at around chapter 5 because the author couldn&#x27;t use words like &quot;gravity&quot; and &quot;acceleration&quot; and I got confused by which one is &quot;new pull&quot; and which one is &quot;old pull&quot;. It&#x27;s too bad, as it was interesting up to that point.
评论 #43681352 未加载
评论 #43679423 未加载
评论 #43682758 未加载
评论 #43682772 未加载
评论 #43679504 未加载
评论 #43682823 未加载
jaynetics大约 1 个月前
Reminds me of &quot;Gadsby&quot;, a 50.000 word novel without the letter &quot;e&quot;:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gadsby_(novel)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gadsby_(novel)</a>
评论 #43678817 未加载
评论 #43679758 未加载
评论 #43678815 未加载
评论 #43680134 未加载
freetonik大约 1 个月前
It was interesting to notice that not all short words are necessarily simple. Words like &quot;void&quot;, &quot;iota&quot;, &quot;mass&quot;, or &quot;veer&quot;.
评论 #43679559 未加载
blueaquilae30 天前
This is kinda confusing at it&#x27;s more for people who already know the meaning. Take the bus exemple, it&#x27;s so short that it skip explaining why someone on a moving bus will see different timing for the asteroid landing. You can decipher it if you know it, you&#x27;ll not gonna learn from the story line.
FilosofumRex30 天前
&quot;It&#x27;s tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.&quot; Maslow 1966. The essay is about physics, but all comments are about formatting and LLMs.<p>The conversationalist tone of the essay is misleading too. Hilbert, Minkowski, &amp; Poincare, had done all the heavy lifting math and had held Einstein&#x27;s hand all through 1915. As mathematicians they wouldn&#x27;t qualify for Noble prize so made no claim to the discovery of GR.
api30 天前
I&#x27;m not sure if this is physically accurate, but the best description I&#x27;ve encountered for relativity is:<p>You are always traveling at the same speed. That speed is &#x27;c&#x27;, the speed of light.<p>If you are sitting still, you are &#x27;falling&#x27; through the time dimension at &#x27;c&#x27;. If you move in the X,Y,Z dimensions, you must move slower in the &#x27;t&#x27; dimension so that your velocity vector still sums to &#x27;c&#x27;.
评论 #43681575 未加载
ahazred8ta大约 1 个月前
For reference, Poul Anderson&#x27;s &#x27;Uncleftish Beholding&#x27; -- an essay on atomic theory written in modernized anglo-saxon.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Uncleftish_Beholding" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Uncleftish_Beholding</a><p>Up Goer Five; rocket science explained using only the one thousand most common english words.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.explainxkcd.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;1133:_Up_Goer_Five" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.explainxkcd.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;1133:_Up_Goer_Fiv...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.explainxkcd.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Thing_Explainer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.explainxkcd.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Thing_Explainer</a>
评论 #43680940 未加载
ck230 天前
I was thinking this morning how weird it is that everyone knows who Einstein was<p>But much smaller percent Niels Bohr<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates</a>
andai30 天前
I appreciate this, though the hard rule seems to be doing more harm than good. For example, one 5-letter word became 6 words, because 5-letter words aren&#x27;t allowed!<p>So while the vocabulary is kept low, the writing style becomes harder to process, at least for me. I wonder if there&#x27;s a way to win on both fronts, to make it maximally comprehensible for all involved.<p>I&#x27;d argue &quot;use normal words that everyone knows&quot; (even if they are 5 letters!) would be included in such a strategy.<p>Edit: Okay now I made it further in and I&#x27;m being asked to keep several different perspectives in my head simultaneously, perceiving different events at different rates of time... I think I need a diagram... or a microdose...
评论 #43681203 未加载
russellbeattie大约 1 个月前
OK, I&#x27;ll give it a go...<p><i>&quot;Any glow from an item will move in a void at the same rate. Each item has mass. Mass is the same as a glow. Mass will bend the area near it. Each item will move on a bent path in that area. If you move at a fast rate, time will seem to slow. An item will feel a pull down if the item goes up and does not stop.&quot;</i><p>That&#x27;s way more work than it seems! Not being able to use -s or -er words is a real problem.
ActorNightly大约 1 个月前
The explanation still kinda sucks. I like this one:<p>The easiest way to understand the relationship between time and space is repeat the thought experiment with the void, but assume that there is no consciousness there (i.e nothing running that can sense time passing).<p>Now imagine the only action you can take is to fire particles (say photons) in a given direction. In a void, that action is meaningless - the particle fires and never comes back. No information exists.<p>Now imagine there is a mirror somewhere in space. A particle fires, and then comes back. And maybe interacts with another particle. But still, this is generally meaningless and you cant derive any measurable thing from it, but you have a piece of information - particle comes back.<p>Imagine there are 2 mirrors in different directions. What you do is you set up 2 identical devices. Each one fires a particle, and when the particle comes back, it triggers a certain color ball to fall down a common shared tube, and then the particle gets fired again.<p>So with 2 mirrors, you get a sequence in the tube that looks something like blue, blue, blue, green, blue, blue, blue, green. Now you can make a measure of distance. You take the &quot;blue&quot; mirror as your unit, and say green mirror is 2 away.<p>You have also in fact created a clock. The tube contains information on how many cycles have passed - i.e in order to say that mirror is x away, you need to have counted x blue balls before that respective ball shows up. So you can see how distance and time is intimately intertwined. To measure distance, you have to necessarily have something that measures time.<p>Now lets say that the &quot;green&quot; mirror starts moving away from you, at a slow speed (i.e your particles are much faster. You start to see 3 balls in sequence, then 4, then 5, and so on. By comparing the difference in the subsequent position of the green balls, you can measure speed.<p>What happens if the speed of the mirror is 99% of the particle speed? The particle takes its sweet time getting there, and sweet time coming back. Even if you fire the particle as the green mirror is close to the particle emitter, its going to result in a measurement of a very large distance.<p>This is the relativistic effect where the space behind something moving fast increases.<p>This whole experiment demonstrates that what we consider space is precisely defined by measurements, and relativistic effects alter these measurements, which alters our perception of space.<p>You can do similar thought experiments to understand why space in front of you seems to shrink, why time dilation becomes a thing, and so on.
评论 #43679281 未加载
评论 #43679658 未加载
评论 #43682240 未加载
评论 #43679354 未加载
评论 #43679408 未加载
TobTobXX大约 1 个月前
Reminds me also of the &quot;Up Goer Five&quot;. An xkcd poster which roughly explains Saturn V with only the top 1000 used words in English[0]. Even better IMO is the collab video with MinutePhysics[1].<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1133&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;1133&#x2F;</a><p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=2p_8gx-XHJo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=2p_8gx-XHJo</a>
评论 #43679380 未加载
crooked-v大约 1 个月前
People talk about the &#x27;good old days&#x27; of the web, but boy, in a multi-tab environment it stucks to try and read something that doesn&#x27;t put any effort at all into side margins.
评论 #43678801 未加载
评论 #43680780 未加载
评论 #43679001 未加载
评论 #43678777 未加载
评论 #43678605 未加载
评论 #43682189 未加载
评论 #43678956 未加载
评论 #43678649 未加载
评论 #43679320 未加载
评论 #43680688 未加载
评论 #43678719 未加载
评论 #43678623 未加载
michaelsbradley30 天前
Or, if you want to learn the core ideas and math involved, but in terms of computer programming, see:<p><i>Functional Differential Geometry</i> by Gerald Sussman, same author behind <i>Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;FunctionalDifferentialGeometry&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;FunctionalDifferentialGeometry&#x2F;</a>
nrds29 天前
&gt; [R]ays move just the same if what puts them off is held fast or not. Izzy had no way to know that, back then, but it&#x27;s true.<p>Isn&#x27;t this historically inaccurate? Wasn&#x27;t Einstein looking for an explanation for why Maxwell&#x27;s equations mysteriously assigned a constant velocity to electromagnetic phenomena, apparently contradicting Galilean relativity?
Tepix大约 1 个月前
Needs a (1999) tag
janpmz大约 1 个月前
I turned this into a little audio book: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pdftomp3.com&#x2F;shared&#x2F;67fcc7f933aa6c3115b114da" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pdftomp3.com&#x2F;shared&#x2F;67fcc7f933aa6c3115b114da</a>
评论 #43681129 未加载
Der_Einzige30 天前
I wrote the OG paper about making LLMs do this task (before chatGPT came out too!!!)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2306.15926" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;2306.15926</a>
gcanyon30 天前
Four letters is an interesting constraint, but it doesn&#x27;t guarantee simplicity. I&#x27;d replace<p>&gt; no one can say who&#x27;s held fast<p>with &quot;no one can what does move and what does not&quot;
评论 #43703961 未加载
robinhouston30 天前
On the theme of difficult ideas explained using a limited vocabulary, I suppose one has to mention xkcd&#x27;s Thing Explainer as well as George Boolos&#x27;s classic _Gödel&#x27;s Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable_:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thing_Explainer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Thing_Explainer</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu&#x2F;myl&#x2F;BoolosOneSyllable.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu&#x2F;myl&#x2F;BoolosOneSyllable.pdf</a>
andrepd30 天前
I&#x27;m patiently waiting for the translation of Misner Thorne and Wheeler to Toki Pona.
amelius大约 1 个月前
Reads like it could have been AI generated.
评论 #43681228 未加载
77pt7730 天前
len(&quot;gravity&quot;) = 7 &gt; 4
TZubiri30 天前
Fun fact, this is a great piece of art because it was written in 1999.<p>If you were to write this in 2025, it would be indistinguishable from trash.<p>So many doors are closing.