The presentation seemed rushed, and seemed to skip a few concepts at some points, but the animation is absolutely beautiful. Would you mind telling us what you used to produce it?
My problem is that if u can’t observe due to moving in the speed o light, u just can’t observe what’s happening at the first time, it doesn’t mean the time stops.
I'm not in physics or calculus. I completed grade 12. At 42 yo, I'm going back for AI. I'm just here because I took interest in the cone. Not the light cone, the regular cone. v̂:= (x,y) -> x/sqrt(x^2+y^2), i*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2) v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))= 1+i*y/x ||v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x I want the '1' on one side and the rest on the other side. sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x-i*y/x=1, that's the quadratic formula in a poor disguise btw. There is also a property of the Lorentz Factor that acts like that but I don't want to make this a thesis. û:= (x,y,z) -> i*x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+j*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+k*z/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))= i+j*y/x+k*z/x ||û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x I want the 'i' on one side and the rest on the other. sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x=i So, I pulled some shenanigans here. I do not believe this is a true statement. One of the limitations of removing the coordinates. I suppose I could square it all, but I wont. Instead I'll just hack it. i*sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x So, what we have here is a cone. I don't know if it has zeros in it like the 2d one. It does appear to have two tangents. Umm, I just looked at the graph. It's not what I expected, a cone. It has a sclar (1/x) so it's a cone, but it's not a cone. It's a hyperbolloid. But it's different. This thing is kind of awesome. This is how we represent the real numbers, not the point cloud in a sphere. The color function (3 coordinates, [x,y,z]) and hamiltones make a gradient, the way it should. It has the grid on it, the way it should.
Beyond The Present My question is, why 45 degrees? There's got to be a better explanation to just "that's the way it is" or "out of convention" Why 45 degrees?
I now can envision as the light sphere stretching outward, the side way darkness moving in so pull the top and bottom in so the final resulted the universe is like a tortoise or a ring if donut shape and that is why there is no zero and there could never anyone can reach infinity meaning there is never ending place fir the universe . ..
So are you saying you can observe the future and all the possibilities? With what? A telescope? Or are you saying we can predict with calculations movements of gravitational objects?
You should replace "you can not travel in space (we're in spacetime) faster than the speed of light" by "Everything travels and it is at the same speed"
First right off the bat, you reduce 4 dimension spacetime to two dimensions. NO ONE is moving forwards or backwards in time. As you said it's relative to the observer. Second WHY 45°? To what restrictions did you refer? The speed of light? How is some one looking "into the future"? Raised more questions than it answered.
He never said looking to the future, any object made of matter is travelling through t at 1 second per second and interacts with massless stuff that arrived via the past or future lightcone. This object could only interact with massive objects with zero space and time seperation that arrived from within the past or future lightcone.
Yeah..that explained nothing..only dictated theory over animation,.the light cone and it's 45° angle is laughable..I've seen this for decades.. particle physics doesn't behave in any way that one can assume a space in space time OR a time in space time that could possibly be interpreted or represented in this manner..
I love dabbing a watching videos like this
I call it a double expansion.
Did I write this comment?
The presentation seemed rushed, and seemed to skip a few concepts at some points, but the animation is absolutely beautiful. Would you mind telling us what you used to produce it?
You forgot Van...
Thank you! Blender
Great!
How theoretically does a source of light evolve to accept a cone? Are we assuming something?
My problem is that if u can’t observe due to moving in the speed o light, u just can’t observe what’s happening at the first time, it doesn’t mean the time stops.
can light cone or time axis tilt some degrees?
Excellant. thank you
How can we be sure that the observer's worldline is straight? How do we know the shape of the time vector?
cool
I'm not in physics or calculus. I completed grade 12. At 42 yo, I'm going back for AI. I'm just here because I took interest in the cone. Not the light cone, the regular cone.
v̂:= (x,y) -> x/sqrt(x^2+y^2), i*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2)
v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))= 1+i*y/x
||v̂(x,y)/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x
I want the '1' on one side and the rest on the other side.
sqrt(x^2+y^2)/x-i*y/x=1, that's the quadratic formula in a poor disguise btw. There is also a property of the Lorentz Factor that acts like that but I don't want to make this a thesis.
û:= (x,y,z) -> i*x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+j*y/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)+k*z/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)
û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))= i+j*y/x+k*z/x
||û/(x/sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2))||= sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x
I want the 'i' on one side and the rest on the other.
sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x=i
So, I pulled some shenanigans here. I do not believe this is a true statement. One of the limitations of removing the coordinates. I suppose I could square it all, but I wont. Instead I'll just hack it.
i*sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2)/x-j*y/x-k*z/x
So, what we have here is a cone. I don't know if it has zeros in it like the 2d one. It does appear to have two tangents.
Umm, I just looked at the graph. It's not what I expected, a cone. It has a sclar (1/x) so it's a cone, but it's not a cone. It's a hyperbolloid. But it's different. This thing is kind of awesome. This is how we represent the real numbers, not the point cloud in a sphere. The color function (3 coordinates, [x,y,z]) and hamiltones make a gradient, the way it should. It has the grid on it, the way it should.
Beyond The Present
My question is, why 45 degrees? There's got to be a better explanation to just "that's the way it is" or "out of convention" Why 45 degrees?
Useful, thanks.
Btw, observer, not observor
Thanks for that!
I now can envision as the light sphere stretching outward, the side way darkness moving in so pull the top and bottom in so the final resulted the universe is like a tortoise or a ring if donut shape and that is why there is no zero and there could never anyone can reach infinity meaning there is never ending place fir the universe . ..
It's Simply went from One law to the Next
Where's my Cigar!
I'll take a cougar.
Hahaha
So are you saying you can observe the future and all the possibilities? With what? A telescope?
Or are you saying we can predict with calculations movements of gravitational objects?
By travelling through spacetime. Of course, using a telescope you can technically look into the past as we do! The comment though was hypothetical.
As clear as mud
You should replace "you can not travel in space (we're in spacetime) faster than the speed of light" by "Everything travels and it is at the same speed"
only 114 likes, whyyyy
I have a tattoo of a light cone 😅
First right off the bat, you reduce 4 dimension spacetime to two dimensions. NO ONE is moving forwards or backwards in time. As you said it's relative to the observer. Second WHY 45°? To what restrictions did you refer? The speed of light? How is some one looking "into the future"? Raised more questions than it answered.
3 dimensions x,y,t not 2 is what he reduced to.
He is using natural units where c = 1 instead of 2.97… x 10 to the eighth power meters per second. Thats why the light cone is at 45°
He never said looking to the future, any object made of matter is travelling through t at 1 second per second and interacts with massless stuff that arrived via the past or future lightcone. This object could only interact with massive objects with zero space and time seperation that arrived from within the past or future lightcone.
The video is trivial and short. Just a waste of bandwidth, nothing interesting here, unfortunately.
Yeah..that explained nothing..only dictated theory over animation,.the light cone and it's 45° angle is laughable..I've seen this for decades.. particle physics doesn't behave in any way that one can assume a space in space time OR a time in space time that could possibly be interpreted or represented in this manner..
It's sort of funny that you discuss a lofty subject like light cones and relativity, yet you misspell "observer".