Difference between revisions of "2767: Recipe Relativity"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Transcript)
(Explanation)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RECIPE AUTHOR MOVING AT 94% OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT- Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
+
{{incomplete|Created by an EDITOR MOVING AT 94% OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT- Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
  
 
In this comic, [[Randall]] is cooking a recipe found online. It took him much longer than the recipe said it would, and he concludes that this was due to the recipe author moving at 94% of the speed of light, causing relativistic effects. This is most likely not true, as a more reasonable explanation is that the recipe author is merely a more experienced cook than Randall.{{citation needed}}
 
In this comic, [[Randall]] is cooking a recipe found online. It took him much longer than the recipe said it would, and he concludes that this was due to the recipe author moving at 94% of the speed of light, causing relativistic effects. This is most likely not true, as a more reasonable explanation is that the recipe author is merely a more experienced cook than Randall.{{citation needed}}

Revision as of 06:24, 25 April 2023

Recipe Relativity
It says to cut the onions into 1/4" slices, but I'd better correct for length contraction.
Title text: It says to cut the onions into 1/4" slices, but I'd better correct for length contraction.

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by an EDITOR MOVING AT 94% OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT- Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

In this comic, Randall is cooking a recipe found online. It took him much longer than the recipe said it would, and he concludes that this was due to the recipe author moving at 94% of the speed of light, causing relativistic effects. This is most likely not true, as a more reasonable explanation is that the recipe author is merely a more experienced cook than Randall.[citation needed]

The title text takes this even further, saying that because of Lorentz contraction caused by the recipe author moving close to the speed of light, he should use different sizes for the ingredients. This would cause very strange effects on the taste, as a speed of light distortion would warp the length of objects, which would change the volume differently in different objects, meaning all of the ratios of flavour would be incorrect.

Transcript

Black bean burrito bowl
Total time: 35 minutes
["35 minutes" is circled in red, and all of the text below is also in red.]
MY ACTUAL TIME: 1H 45M
["1H 45M" is circled in red as well. A double-headed arrow points between "35 minutes" and "1H 45M".]
[Equations appear below.]
[The first equation is t = t' divided by the square root of (1 minus v^2/c^2).]
[The second equation, to the right of the first, is v = c times the square root of (1 minus (t'/t)^2).]
[Below the first two equations is the continuation of the second equation, referring to v again, and indicating that it equals c times the square root of (1 - (35/105)^2). This, in turn, equals 0.94c, which is circled.]
[Caption below the panel:]
I think this recipe author is moving past me at 94% of the speed of light.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

Just curious, does anyone know what the dimensions of the onion measure in the recipe when adjusting for contraction? 172.70.175.179 02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not so easy to correct for length contraction, as you have to know in which direction the author is moving (the length contraction only applies in that direction). Sebastian --172.68.110.169 15:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth explicitly saying in the explanation that this is the correct equation for time distortion in Special Relativity? Nitpicking (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Which observer timed the recipe at 35 minutes? The equations only make sense if the observer was moving in approximately the same inertial frame as Randall's, but I doubt such an observer could track a chef over 592 billion meters. 172.71.142.107 06:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I had something similar, turns out the I used the wrong pan. Using a better one helped. 172.71.102.5 07:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The first non-sponsored Google hit on cooking black beans says, "Cook soaked beans for about 45 to 60 minutes and unsoaked for about 50 to 65 minutes." However, my half-used 32 oz. bag of "Great Value" (Walmart) black beans says a "quick soak" takes an hour after a two minute boil, and then cooking soaked beans requires additional simmering for "1 - 1/2 to 2 hours". Can we agree that given the title and estimated time of the recipe, it almost certainly assumed the use of canned beans, but Randall had only dried beans? The circumstantial evidence seems quite compelling. 172.69.134.242 13:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought "burrito bowl" was just a fancy, more compelling neologism for "bean salad", but apparently the experts do draw a distinction: https://www.mexicali-blue.com/is-a-burrito-bowl-a-salad-examining-the-differences/ Not sure that's worth including, though. 162.158.166.231 13:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this one of those "Is cereal a soup?" issues?172.71.30.82 14:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not just online recipes that give false and misleading times. Items packaged for retail sales also give misleading "ready-to-eat" times. A Florida woman is suing Kraft Heinz Foods Company, saying their microwave mac and cheese takes longer to make than advertised. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/business/florida-kraft-velveeta-mac-and-cheese-lawsuit/index.html TCMits (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that both Munroe and R. Author share a reference frame in which the kitchen which the R. Author observed to write his post was moving at relativistic speed. This would explain why, when Munroe (foolishly) prepares the dish in the same reference frame where he lives, it takes longer. My issue is with the onion dimension calculation here: length contraction means that R. Author observes onions to be longitudinally shorter than they "really" are, by a factor gamma=3. Then, if we *let Munroe cook* in his own reference frame, he will need to cut onions longitudinally (this requires knowing the direction of motion of the kitchen) longer by gamma, so 3/4", in order to replicate the kitchen's work. Note that he should still cut the onion to 1/4" in the transverse directions, which experience no length contraction. --Henrynester (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)