To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Unbelievable. So THIS is the reason why in the Minkowsky SpaceTime representation, light is ALWAYS represented as a diagonal line with an inclination of 45°.... Because otherwise the formula for the S would not give a result of 0. I would have never got to understand this without you, Eugene. I confirm what I said in another video of yours: You have a gift, you are able to transform into reality and visualization concepts which are totally abstract. This denotes you really DO possess the knowledge of such high-level physics and mathematics. Hats off for you, sir.
***** Thanks for that really great compliment. Light will have an angle of 45 degrees because the units for space and time on the diagram are chosen such that C = 1. Therefore, the equation for S simplifies to S^2 = distance^2 - time^2. And thanks again for the compliment.
In case, you have not already seen them, I also uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their RU-vid search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Lots more videos are coming very soon. Thanks.
***** No, I have not activated a donate button on my RU-vid page. If someone wants to help out, the best way to do this is simply by sharing the links to my videos, thereby encouraging more people to subscribe to my channel. Thanks for the offer, though.
This is the first video in a long time in which I actually had to watch some parts again in order to get a grasp on them (meaning I didn't only see something familiar in a new way, but instead really learned something new). Thank you, Eugene!
Brilliant as always Eugene. I've recommended your channel to PBS as they are producing a series on relativity now, so hopefully they will tell their viewers about videos like this and you can help bring relativity to even more people!
This is not a channel, it is the most gorgeous piece of art about the nature that I have ever seen. The animations, the data, everything is just perfect! P.s: Admiration from Brazil.
A comment on your method: so many videos present difficult material at lightning speed, giving the listener less than one second between presentation of important facts. You present the material at a reasonable rate which gives the listener at least several seconds to grasp what you are saying. Your videos are taking me much further toward understanding physics than I ever have in the past. Much appreciation for what you are doing and how you are doing it. Please keep it up.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: ru-vid.com_video?ref=share&v=zScn3tV9YPU You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
I don't like the 2 food ads, which made me hungry, but eating some snacks, which fills up my stomach, goes well with watching your videos, which fill up my brain with lots of info on things.
These videos are SO helpful in visualizing 3+ dimensional realities! Thank you so much for putting these together, and making them available. Keep up the good work! Nisia Thornton. Kentucky, USA, Earth, Sol system
In music, timing is critical. When playing with other musicians, one person is assigned to be the time keeper - another musician in small groups, and a conductor for large groups - and the rest of the group is supposed to watch that one member. Yet many concert musicians cheat by just watching the music, and "playing by ear" and playing when they hear the beat. A major difference between playing with concert bands, and playing with marching bands, is that marching bands are usually so physically separated that "playing by ear" no longer works. Several beats of music may pass in the time it takes a drum beat to travel across the football field, or echo off the grandstands. So memorizing the music and watching the conductor (and assistant conductors, mirroring the conductor, spread around the field) becomes mandatory in top bands - to compensate for the propagation delay from the speed of sound. And it's another instance where observers would not agree on the timing of events. Someone seated at the center of the stadium could hear a drum beat and trumpet play at the same time, while an observer seated at one end of the stadium could hear the drum beat entirely before the trumpet playing. Thanks again for making these great videos, simple in execution yet complex in concept.
AS usual, thanks to the entire time for an instructive and engaging video! Always a pleasure to watch, and learn. Even with stuff (I'm supposed!) to know, 'seeing' it this way helps a lot.
Just keep at it. I don't really understand the math, but after relentlessly bombarding myself with this stuff for long enough, I did eventually get it--at least way more than I used to. Well, at least I think I do. 😂
It's not actually that difficult, just profoundly counterintuitive. Somehow, Einstein just kinda realized all this. He didn't develop it in isolation, but he did put it all together. I have no idea how someone just kinda realizes all this. I'm fairly intelligent, but that is a species of brilliance that is unknown to me.
The key is treating time as another dimension. It doesn't even matter if it actually is another dimension or not. This is what is so bizarre -- we don't live in a 4D world. You know how a helicopter can move in three separate dimensions? If you can manage to add another one--even for a few seconds--you will suddenly get it. It is perhaps the most profound idea I have ever contemplated. I just kinda forced myself to think in 4D. It physically hurt. Think of it as if everything is moving at the speed of light all the time through 4D space-time. Motion in any of the other three dimensions is motion that can't happen any other, because they all need to add up to the speed of light. Like with a helicopter: it's airspeed is speed on x,y,z, axes put together. Everything is moving through spacetime at the speed of light. That is the only speed anything moves at. It's just that light doesn't move at all in the 4th dimension. I mean, how the @$_# did Einstein just kinda realize this? He figured this out in his idle time at the patent office. I actually WEPT when I managed to understand it, that is how profound this is. I don't know if there are actually more than three dimensions, but it does make sense, and it has never, ever been falsified. Every single prediction that has ever been made using these equations checks out. They have NEVER failed. EVER.
Eugene, I just want to say again that you do an amazing work! I, like many other people here really appreciate your videos and the opportunity to learn more about physics. Also, maybe one day you could make a video talking about metric tensors and the role they play in general relativity. I am studying differential geometry now, but still a lot of conceptual gaps in my understanding and I know the moment I watch a video from you on the subject I will be able to see much more clearly. Just an idea! Thank you!
1:17 Object moving along time-axis is not moving at the speed of light through time but at zero speed through time actually. That axis shows no motion in space and no velocity also. @Eugene Khutoryansky
And Then comes the Kozyrev work on Time and Torsion field Physics... Non compliant with classical entropy based science... And Compatible with the active Torsion field Tech embodied in still working Indian Pyramids and Collating Lingams...
According to minkowski spacetime diagram if I want to Time Travel why I cannot choose a straight along time axis path from future to past or past to future or any curved in the light cone and why it is necessary to choose a curved path out of the light cone for time travelling??????
You have changed my perception of reality and how I measure it. Words can not express my gratitude to you for this video. I literally teared up from the music when watching the video again and this epiphany hit me. The beautiful music and work got me! Thank you and think freely.
One of the best and most useful channels on RU-vid. Also it is very good that you share videos more frequently now. By the way do you have any plan of making videos about sub atomic particles , strong-weak interaction ?
alperkarasuer Thanks for that really great compliment. I might eventually make videos on subatomic particles, but I have many other physics topics that I would like to make videos on first. Thanks.
What you are talking about is rotation of the axes due to a relative velocity between two inertial reference frames. However, supposing a "rest frame" you can perfectly fine rotate the three spatial axes and still get the same x^\mu^2 distance and spacetime interval for any events. It's only when you are talking about inertial reference frames such that γ > 1 the classical x^\mu^2 does not hold.
Very good! It is a strange thing when you recognize a math from one application being used in a an apparently different one, thereby, understanding both better. In this case, I recognize a math we used to try to gain psychological insights in the highly interactive field of human motivation by tinkering with 3 axis. Thank you.
Eugene, this is unreal! You've got a lot of great material for middle school math that I will be showing my students in the coming school year. I'll definitely be sharing your stuff my friend. I've got a couple of questions for you: Is Poser Pro user friendly? My idea is to get some of my middle school students creating stuff for extra credit. I'd also like to personallly experiment with it to create my own science and math resources. I'm familiar with adobe premiere and after effects. Would you know if there any overlap in the skills involved between Adobe and Poser Pro?
Ramy Melhem Thanks for the compliment, and I am glad to hear that you will be sharing my videos with your students. In reply to your question, Poser Pro is user friendly, but it is also expensive. There are free 3D software programs available, but they are not as user friendly, and they don't come with a large free library of characters and props. So there is a trade off. Thanks.
Thanks for another great vid ! Even though some of these are a bit above my level in maths, I get inspired to keep pressing along when I see the concepts animated while I eat my breakfast / dinner haha. (:
I don't quite understand in what way the axis for time should rotate differently. Edit: My guess is that both X and Y can have their own corner values with the time axis at the same time and that the yellow lines (space time interval = 0) are always "angle bisectors" cutting said corner angles/rotations exactly in half. Only two scenario's are shown (X=45°,Y=0° & X=0°,Y=45°) but the yellow lines imply some other X & Y angle combinations: As long as any possible yellow line (all possibilities together would look like a yellow cone actually) is an angle BISECTOR for both the X corner and the Y corner values seperately, the XY angle combination is valid. That said, both X and Y are always between 0° and 45° inclusive. Correct?
I believe there is one and only one "absolute truth", (defined as the 100% correct and 100% complete set of facts; that no human has nor is physically capable of having), BUT, there are many perspectives to that truth, one possibly for each and every conscious entity that perceives that truth. The more we can all share our perspectives, preferably in peaceful ways, the more we can all get a better picture of absolute truth reality as best as we humanly can that we can all work off of together. If there ever was such a thing as one world religion, let it be "truth".
Markus How could it not apply? Is it true or isn't it? Do you exist or don't you exist? Can you think for yourself or can't you? There has to be one and only one absolute truth to how everything actually is. Deal with it or not, and that's the truth, the real absolute truth.
+Charles Brightman as far as I can tell in our study of the universe up to this point, yes (with regards to final fandy's comment). Now, don't get me wrong, on some of my more 'optimistic' days, I'd tend to agree with you. However, think of any concept you possibly can, and I can think of it's atithesis. You say there is only one '100% truth' yet then there has to be some object called the '100% untruth' that has to exist in order for that polar opposite thing, the 'truth' to exist... or maybe that truth contains the untruth? Something to do with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?
+Alexander Bray Let's utilize modern science: Modern science says that from a singular mass, everything in existence came into existence in this universe, including the current laws of nature, you, me and our consciousness. Modern science also says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, hence it must be eternally existent. Now, this is either true or it is not true. Assuming that modern science is true concerning the above, then: 1. I AM a part of the mass that banged; 2. I AM a part of the singularity; 3. I AM the lessor part of the greater "I AM" (the singularity in it's totality); 4. This singular mass has a consciousness as evidenced in you and me. Now, also apparently true, if asked how old I am, I guess it depends on which age you ask for, and for which part of me you ask it for. 1. Some of the cells in my body get replaced on a daily basis; 2. My Earth age in this current form of me is yet another age; 3. Some of the atoms and molecules in my body might be just under the age of the universe; 4. The energy itself that is inside me is older than the universe itself. But then again, do "I" even exist, OR does only this eternally existent energy singularity exist as "me"? So, what is the real "truth"? Your guess is as good as mine. We truly do not know what we do not know.
False. In water or glass it will move at the same speed for all observers also, at 225000 km/s and 195000 km/s respectively. Same principle for other mediums.
@@bonaparte54, that is a corollary of the nature of absorption/re-emission of photons in a medium such as glass or water. The true speed of light is still the speed of light in vacuum, which is constant, and namely 299,792,458 m/s. You must also take into account parameters of the medium, such as the temperature and pressure of the water the light is passing through, in order to derive the apparent speed through that medium.
I’m pretty knew to physics/math of any kind and I’m wondering why we take the time to square every figure in an equation… when the fact that they are all squared just cancels that entire function out for the entire equation. (As seen in the equation for finding the spacetime interval around 6:00 ) 😅 I’m sure there is a very good reason and I’m curious what it is!
Imagine two events: the impact of an asteroid on the moon and a fireworks explosion. Next, you input the separation and duration into the equation. The value 'S' represents the magnitude of the position vector connecting these two events. As Eugene stated, a moving observer likely perceives the events and locations in different sequences, but the vector's magnitude remains constant for all observers. This concept is somewhat analogous to rotating a vector along a circle, altering its components but not its magnitude, except in this case, the vector is four-dimensional.
@rorytribbet6424 adding squares of numbers is fundamentally different from adding numbers. The squares don’t cancel out. Eg- if (a+b) squared = (b+c) squared, you can cancel squares. But if it was a square + b square = c square + d square, u cannot. (3^2+4^2=5^2) .( 3+4 =/= 5)
Maybe the time axis rotating differently then the space axes is what Newton saw in classical mechanics as time being separate from space. I'm not sure, but the answer is likely no.
I must admit I'm still trying to wrap my ears around special relativity. Not having a foundation in physics is not helping. This video does help a little.
Time is the dimension of change (the fourth dimension). It is not a third dimension of space (upwards), as it is mistakenly shown on the graph (the z coordinate).
+Alex Lupini, time was not meant to be taken for the z coordinate of space. The z coordinate of space is still present, but not being shown on the graph. You can add time as an extra axis to any graph.
Thanks for beautiful visual arts and wonderful physical sciences blended dynamics decoded dimensionality highlighting hidden aspects at rest / movements between Spacetime intervals and beyond distances separating events along same / different axis focused origins coordinated points of light that intersects through 45 degree and projects on both observers frame of references being self processing and other world information processing fabric of quantum universe forced fields Entangled fluxes SPINNED structured spheres Influencing spectral Intensity Shifting density of body frequency Modulated thermodynamic entropy caused energy lost due to ground surface resistance bound center of gravity flows state chained from bottom, to Top resonant earth orbit protective EMP shield.
I am a physics major but have not done the electromagnetism course yet so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I've heard that if you pick Maxwell's equations and fiddle with them a bit you get a constant that has units of velocity, this velocity is exactly the speed of light (c). The problem is that Maxwell's equations are frame independent and you always need to mesure speed in relation to something else. So the fact that you got a constant "c" made the scients of the day think that "c" was special in someway and Einstein abandoned the ideia of absolute time dominant at time and tryed to make a physics with absolute "c". And turned out he could explain a lot of things with that and so began Special and General Theory of relativity.
"Light always travels along paths where the space-time interval is exactly zero between every two points along the path." @ 5:55. Well put, which means that time has no effect on light. Therefore, light always has a zero "age". But does this apply when light is moving at a low speed in an e.g. Bose-Einstein condensate?
Perfect explanation, as always!! I was thinking you would make a three-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional graphic, Haha Really great video!! Keep them coming!
Theenerd ジェームズ Thanks for the compliment. I already have a video on representing four dimensional objects, so for this topic, I thought it best not to further confuse people on an already confusing subject.
Dear Eugene, at 1:17 shouldn't the basis vectors of time and the space coordinate stretch as the angle between them shrinks? Many thanks for your videos. They are very helpful! Max
Do glass, water, and other refractory objects influence the spacetime interval? Is that why light's path changes when traveling through these substances?
Thanks for another relativity video Eugene. I've learnt a lot from your videos and they're the best ones at visualizing theory of relativity, but I feel like more I know less I understand it (if you know what I mean by that). Is it possible to fully understand relativity without math? If no, can you recommend any literature "for begginers" explaining this easily?
+Dominik Šafář unfortunately it really is impossible to completely understand the theory without knowing the math that goes with it since math is how it is all described. Its like how we can lose meaning during the translation of languages because 'that' language has a word for such and such where as our language does not. I hope that makes sense. I know its daunting, but you could probably learn all the math to at least start making sense of it all in about a year or so (that's how long it took me). You need algebra, trigonometry and elementary calculus and know how to do some maths with vectors.... Easier said than done I know.
Smf. The time dimension should be magnitude. Time is a rate of velocity or change in Magnitude. It not an existence in itself. It is a perceptive and representative function that will appear to pass at a specific rate that is mainly determined by magnitude and influenced (perceptively) by the orders of which the reference frame and the view point are separated.
Can you show what it looks like if some object in the x y plane is rotating about the t axis and thus makes a spiral along the t axi such as a planet orbiting the sun?
Proper Time = Local Time but it assumes all others are moving and it is stationary but what if we looked at a number of clocks in various reference frames and discovered they are all running at different rates? Wouldn't that be proof that there is a spacetime reference frame (effected by GR so it's not flat) and objective proof that this assumption (all others are moving) is wrong ? After all this Proper Time is only based on the simple assumption that the closing velocity or opening velocity is the other object's movement and not your's ? It also assumes vector velocity as objective and not subjective velocity. We know through experimental data that clocks compaired before and after acceleration are rock solid proof that time dilation is a product of velocity (with one hypothetical exception that I believe is key). Given my input the math is correct even though it gives no evidence if xt or x't' is the one experiencing dilation only assuming x't' is actually the one with vector velocity. At best we can only assume this is a differential equation but like with special relativity without outside data there is no way to tell which Reference Frame is "correct", however if in reality we could look at these clocks the one running slower is more correct, the problem with Minkowski is it's a limited model assuming one space dimension which would actually correlate to a vector speed compaired to another vector speed (if xt and x't' are both moving). Someone please tell me I'm not wasting this insight on "math majors" who lack imagination and those who are awed but don't have a clue.
i can not understand the relationship between the equation: ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 - c2dt2 and the statement: ' the velocity of light does not changes in different observers '. Can you explain in detail?
No one see a problem with things rotating dimensionally without a separate form of time ? or spaces shrinking to absolute zero distances ? I hope i can convey my thoughts in a manner that is clear, so read them gently. Remember time is just a description of a count of spaces between things. Rotation of such vectors would take a time itself but a different kind of time then in the way it is normally thought of. To say of minimums counts or ticks that occur at a uniformed rate. Consider this example... Two bicyclists both starting from the same position each with the same bike. These odd bikes have tires akin to sticky tank tracks so that they do not glide. If they should not pedal they stop were they are. In addition chalk has been fitted to a certain spot on the track, so as one may count out the equal distance traversed for equally sized tires. By counting the spots upon the ground following either trail. Both begin to pedal in any direction 100 times and they will count out there strides However ... Let us imagine each bike rider has a different gear set so that less or more tire rotation occurs for each rider per pedal rotation. While both have pedaled a equal amount 100x they have not both laid the same number of spots because in a high or low gear the rotations of the tire are not equal. The dots are the time dilation's due to the gears, but the energy in the count of pedals remains constant and real regardless. ... If we as observers of the dots only see one or many and try to make sense of them. We might assume that all these bikes were pedaled continuously and equally and that one of the bikers simply had less time to pedal. From seeing that the width and track marks for both are the same. We may studiously determine they are similar but have different property's such as light and mass Is not what we see with things moving slower positionally then c , just as valid as saying that they are in fact velocity dilated ? then take the perspective of -(ct)^2 instead as -(t*t*c) for a point of view What we are seeing here in these formulas is actually akin to the relation of a velocity distance component to another form of time totally alien to our normal thought process. A sort of dilation error built up from these ticks into motions or perceived lack thereof time. Not the actual spacial energy distance mechanism of the form of a 'time', That is... The reality imperceptible directly by us which determines the differences between here or there and now or then. i don't think i can explain my views any more clearly then above. i simply don't know how to make it more simple. In no way can we say that light has no time, or that it does not traverse distance. Such spaces have distances and times were light and matter are concerned regardless of dilation, in that real times are not defined in the way we define them. Light has the exact same amount of actual time as every other piece of matter in the universe In that from this view It is constant and uniformed, pedals need only move again when all have taken a stride, regardless the number of dots on the ground or the direction traveled. In this way dilation is not actually time but a illusion, dots from the bike gears. Were real time is in the purest form of logical machinery, the actual pedaling. i hope that's comprehensible, well anyways that's how i see it.
+will motill that was very barely comprehensible to me lol all I can say is that there is no special frame of reference (no true time as I think you've described it) as far as we can tell because each of us is essentially the 'center of the universe'. So, you're the center of the universe, but so am I, and so is that person and so is that other person. So we can only conclude that there really isn't a center of the universe. Only different reference frames. Plus, apparently atomic clocks have been used to demonstrate time dilation, there's gravitational lensing, frame-dragging, etc. that backs up this view of the universe (evidence baby!). Then again, I've never personally done these experiments and I doubt most other youtubers have either so maybe its all a conspiracy that they'd been feeding us for a century now? Who knows....
Ah well i was talking about time from the point of view of higher dimensions. The whole thing was to make just one point. I suppose im pretty bad at that, and it doesnt matter anyways. But basically im saying everything including matter is moving at the same speed in a higher dimension because it has to be. and that is in reality what time is. Energy cant really have differing time at its base level otherwise it wouldnt be equivalent. dilation wouldnt work. which means essentially that matter itself in space time regardless of its velocity is also moving at the speed of light thru paths that may not directly be observable. that is possible if such paths bring them back to the same apparent positions. then that time dilation is simply the lack of travel thru these curving dimensional paths to arrive back at the same apparent position. where for they instead follow a straighter path. If that makes sense that way. As for centers what good is one without a edge.
I think I almost understand. It seems like you're saying that motion if just an illusion? Or at least the way that we observe motion in our universe is an illusion? And the thing about the matter travelling through unobserved space at the speed of light can't be true. It might very well be travelling through some kind of higher dimension or something but massive particles cannot move at the speed of light, only massless ones cans.
To the first paragraph the second question. Yes. To the second paragraph. I believe regardless of how we perceive the motion of massive particles or massless ones. The component energy should be in total traversing the same equal distance. though across un-equal portion of paths in many dimensions. Even if we are unable to observe or measure that motion in some of those dimensions. Since we do see from emc2 itself mass and light are transformable. With that idea in mind then if we ask. Why cant matter fully reach the speed of light. Or whats in mass that prevents maximum velocity aside from formulas we have devised. One might be able to just say then that matter is traversing a path or has a vibration thru a dimension/s light simply doesn't traverse. To say mass has extra paths or orbits it takes thru additional dimensions. Then as you put it there is a illusion perceived. We could say that takes time more steps if you like some thru dimensions we cant measure such a effect would be dilation when such steps are less in matter and always absent in light. Yet ... we could say that its still the same distance of traversal in total equal between massless or massive comprised objects, that its smallest quantity of uniformed motion is actual time, or dimensional uniformed steps or vibrations. so you can translate things to space time or quantum fields or whatever but it is in this point of view a matter of topology. I came to this point of view a very long time ago and is often my preferred way of visualizing things in a comparative context. It has a virtue of transforming things that might be seen as dualitys into simpler geometrys and magnitudes. The idea is simple but its extremely difficult for me to convey. As well i don't usually share, as i have no official title of authority. I suppose if nothing else its food for thought. Enjoy Despise or Dismiss as you like.
I think I've got a better idea of what you're trying to say. Like an invariant spacetime interval but one that not only traverses our 3+1 spacetime but some higher spaces like in string/m theory.
I think there is a small mistake. it should be written as S² = (ct)² -(x²-y²-z²) , instead of (x²+y²+z²)-(ct)² because doing so you'l get negative value.
It is not a mistake. I assume you meant to write S² = (ct)² - (x²+y²+z²). It can be defined as S² = (ct)² - (x²+y²+z²) or it can be defined as S² = (x²+y²+z²) - (ct)². You will find both of these different definition in different text books, depending on which text book you select. But the underlying physics is the same.
Thank you SO VERY much for putting this up. I have been studying the various kinds of spaces that are used mathematically in physics and am really happy to see this video. If at some point you could do a video on De Sitter space and even Anti-De Sitter space I would very much appreciate it. Thank you for all the videos as well as the sexy computer generated girls...... just teasing. These videos help me to visualize things and for me that is the way I learn.
What happens when we travel along the negative axis in time? does that correspond to the past travel. .how does the axis rotate for that negative axis in time??
Special Relativity is based on Lorentz Transformation which violates a fundamental physics law, Translation Symmetry. Therefore, Special Relativity in NOT valid in physics. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iffHjlpbvyg.html Special Relativity has caused lots of confusion for more than 100 years. Such confusion is commonly called paradox. It is time to move Special Relativity out of physics and into mathematics. vixra.org/abs/1706.0498 vixra.org/abs/1709.0120
When you say, at the beginning, that when an object is moving along the time axis, "it is not moving through space but along the time axis at the speed of light through time" What do you mean? "Speed" implies distance V= d/t. I am lying in my bed not moving. How am I moving through time at the speed of light? Confusing statement.
Jim Keller We are measuring the spatial dimensions and the time dimension in the same unit. So we are measuring them in meter or seconds. I.e distance from NY to London is 4.2 seconds.
Their claim is that: 'Time moves at the speed of Light'. That mathematically equates to saying: "Light moves at the speed of time". So, Light is actually a _'standing wave'_? If it's motionless at each Plank time, yet only appears to move with the 'speed of time' (instantaneous), every animation of light oscillating, or _moving_ through spacetime, is wrong. Then time and space are _not_ digital, but continuous. IDK
Fun fact : light moving through spacetime is only for our brain. We only "see" light when we receive it, i.e when a CCD captor or chemical compound convert it's energy (wavelength) into eletricity. In quantum physics they where a bit annoyed with particles being anywhere until they are observed. Now you have an insight. But I dont understand how you conclude that time and space is continuous. I'd rather say binary : "here", "not here".
