Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

The Race to the "Next Big Thing" in Mobile Phones

Ricky Yuen
Senior Staff Engineer, Qualcomm

The Race to the "Next Big Thing" in Mobile Phones
Emerging Communications
15 minutes, 6.9mb, recorded 2009-03-05

Ecomm-RickyYuen-2009.03.05

With advancements in MEMS, the price of many types of sensors are falling below $1, the cost-point at which handset manufacturers will include them in new handset models, offering many opportunities. For instance, both the iPhone and the Wii have employed the accelerometer in the user interface to the delight of users.

Yuen discusses how sensor data can be combined to help with vertical location, provide directional and location assistance in tunnels, provide assistance upon detecting falling, or enhance cell phone users' experience with information.

Handset applications can provide better location and directional services, better product, and a more intuitive UI for cellphone users. He uses Wiki-2 as an example of what combining data from various sensors can do to provide on-the-fly travel and tourist information. Sensors detecting pressure changes, falls, or gyroscoping positioning can increase the detection of emergency situations or aid in locating victims in an E911 situation.

Customization of OEM sensors - accelerometers, gyroscopes, 6-axis IMUs, pressure sensors, proximity sensors, ambient light sensors, compass devices, and more - for different purposes, and in different combinations - will offer myriad functionality and application opportunities for handheld devices.


Ricky Yuen is Senior Staff Engineer/Manager at Qualcomm and is responsible for Sensor related technology development, integration, and commercialization. His current responsibilities include the development of various sensor-based technologies for GPS navigation, lifestyle applications, gaming, and user interface enhancement, and the integration of these technologies into customer handset devices and consumer electronics products. Ricky Yuen has more than 14 years of experience in the telecommunications industry working on pioneering many different technologies including CDMA, GPS, Bluetooth, and Sensors. He has held a broad range of responsibilities, and his experience and expertise include systems architecture design, software engineering, project management, and product launch.

Ricky Yuen earned his MS and BS Degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He also holds an Executive MBA degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

What I Want in My New Google

I sent my first e-mail message in 1995, to a member of my development team. That was the only person I knew who had an e-mail address in those days. I also did my first web search around that time. I think I used Lycos for this. I entered some keywords into a text box, separated by Boolean operators, and received a list of web pages that I could click on that referenced these words.

Sixteen years has passed. I receive about 400 e-mails a day now from people all over the world. E-mail has become part of my life and has changed the way I communicate and the way I work. I don’t know anyone anywhere who doesn’t have an e-mail address. When I went to Sikkim, India, last year, a Buddhist monk in a remote Himalayan monastery even gave me his e-mail address. The web has also evolved in a similar fashion—it seems to be everywhere and connects everyone, for everything. Internet technologies are now toppling dictatorships in the Middle East.

But what has really changed in search? We still go to the same text boxes, enter expressions that we hope the computer will understand, get back lists of web pages that reference those words, and click on links to find the information we are looking for. The only real difference is that now the top links take you to spam sites—which want you to click on other links that make them money and that make Google money. Creating low-quality, low-cost information pages has become such big business that the leading content farm, Demand Media, just went public and is valued at $1.9 billion. According to Blekko’s spam clock, over 1 million spam pages are created every hour. So the web is becoming one giant heap of trash.

I had hoped to put Google and Bing on the spot at the recent BigThink conference by challenging them to fix the spam problem; perhaps to follow Blekko’s bold lead in blacklisting the leading polluters. But they instead got into a pissing match about who was copying whom. Google simply changed the subject. And when I asked the panelists about their long-term vision on search, I was really disappointed at the shallowness of the response. They weren’t talking about changing the world—just about fine-tuning what they’ve been doing forever. You can watch the video below to see what I mean.

In the hope that I don’t have to wait another 16 years to see advancements in search, I’ll share my views on where it needs to go. Perhaps you can also share your views and we can inspire a new generation of startups to do to the current search leaders what Google did to Lycos and AltaVista: antiquate them.

In a nutshell, what I want is for my computer—or a new Google—to serve me. I don’t want to be serving it words that make sense to it, and then have to wade through pages of spam it delivers to me, to find the information I am seeking. I want it to learn what I like and what my friends like and tell me what I want to know or do what I need it to.

If I am visiting New York City tomorrow and want to eat dinner at a moderately priced North Indian restaurant near where I am staying, I want my computer to suggest the two or three places that I will like and that have space available. I book my flights and hotel reservations on line, have my calendar on Google, tweet my likes and dislikes, and talk to my friends on different social media sites, after all. So why can’t my new Google simply take my information and my friends’ information and give me what I want?

Is this so hard? I don’t think so. This week, we witnessed a computer, Watson, beating the top Jeopardy contestants. It was able to parse human speech patterns, make sense of complex questions, do very sophisticated searches, and come back very quickly with the right answer. It didn’t respond with a series of links—it computed the probability that its answer was correct and responded accordingly.

Watson’s technology is a great start, but I want much more. I also want it to analyze my social graph and get recommendations from friends who matter. For example, when it comes to Indian food, I don’t care what my academic peers say or what my South Indian friends say; I want input from fellow Punjabis—they know their tikka masalas and saag paneers better than anyone else does. If I am looking for health-related advice, I want to know what doctors say. If I am shopping for a gift for my wife, I want input from women who share her tastes. This isn’t rocket science.

And then I want more. I want my new Google to automatically make a dinner reservation for me, buy me a ticket to a movie that I may want to watch, or place an order on the cheapest and most reliable shopping site. Yes, I know there are already many applications/sites that do this. Why aren’t my preferred sites integrated into the search function—so I never have to see the 90s-era text links?

What I really don’t ever want to see is the spam that Google delivers. The present page-ranking system is easy to bait—just add the right key words to some garbage content or pay Google for an ad, and your listing appears at the top of everyone’s search results.

Google took some good steps forward this week with its announcement that it will let users tag sites as spam via a Chrome extension and rank the websites of people they know higher than others. But this is still more of the same—the spammers still get top billing. Just do a search on a term like “digital camera under $200” to see what I mean. The results are practically useless. (Bing just added a nice option to let you search by price, but that is buried in its spammy results when you do a regular search).

We need some out-of-the-box thinking here. I doubt we will see this from Google, because it makes billions by serving up ads. So here is an excellent opportunity for entrepreneurs.

MacroWikinomics

Don Tapscott
Author
32 minutes, 14.7mb, recorded 2011-01-18

DonTapscott-2011.01.27


Dr. Moira Gunn talks with author, Don Tapscott about his new book, MacroWikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. In it, he and his co-writer, Anthony Williams, illustrate how mass collaboration is changing the way businesses communicate, create value, and compete in the new global marketplace.

Alone Together - 24 minutes ( Sherry Turkle)

SherryTurkle-2011.02.17

Alone Together
Tech Nation
24 minutes, 11mb, recorded 2011-02-08

Dr. Moira Gunn talks with author and MIT Professor, Sherry Turkle, about her new book, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less From Each Other. In it, she talks about how peoples relationships with their devices is effective their human relationships. One reviewer wrote "a sobering and paradoxical portrait of human disconnectedness in the face of expanding virtual connections in cell-phone, intelligent machine, and Internet usage."

Learn About the Bureau

The central mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans—whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.