We All Move At The Speed Of Light… Kind Of.

I am thinking in many dimensions I'm not like regular people example earth spins about in 1600km hr at its ecator and then the speed of our planets orbits and our starts momvemt in space and the spin of our galaxy and its speed three out in space so on so we are moving very fast and I would love to know our speed we move in space

Can you dig deep into that rabbit hole of "ic"? Why is there "i" in that equation & what's that equation? 🙏 it's either speed of light or not Speed of light. What do u mean by we're moving at "kind of" speed of light??

Time can be conceptualized or modeled as a dimension, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is what it is. If the classical view of time is correct and it is simply the speed and sequence of events involving matter and energy moving through space, then time doesn't exist beyond a concept-an emergent property of matter and energy in motion.

You don't know how right you are. We are moving with the speed of light and light moves with a speed ... zero.

TL,DR: everything travels at the speed of light, except light

sooo...
my takeaway is that everything moves at the speed of light.
except light itself.
nice.

Oh my goodness, time speed and space speed are traded for each other,
oh my goodness the relationship is quadratic-hyperbolic, thats why things at the 100% speed of light do not really experience time, theyre like, at the limit

That 4-V is an important clue in how gravity works. Give light a reason to slow and Time has to change with it, which changes the accelerations in all the subatomics in every bit of normal matter.

I picked this up in The Elegant Universe but Nick always has a great way of teaching

I can't help but thinking that our 4d speed is always the speed of light holds the key to understanding time at a deeper level. But I'm probably wrong.

So, perhaps. Millisecond.
AI, will convey?

If I drive my car at almost the speed of light and I honk my horn, will I hear it at all or differently?😀

A new perspective on understanding the speed of light

How do "tachyons" fit into this?

Nick!
Is it possible for a human to know why the universe exists?

So c isn't the universal speed maximum its also the speed minimum

If light is passing at me, then I must be traveling at " light's perspective" at the speed of light.😂

Thank you Nick Lucid!🌈

If your feeling bored, maybe you can share your thoughts on a hypothesis I've been playing with... I'm sure you get these all the time, but I find this concept intriguing and It seems to me that it could answer a lot of seeming paradoxes that we see under the current models. It's nothing too crazy, and really it's just subtly different from current QFT models, but I feel it could have some merit...

This hypothesis maintains the core principles of QFT, particularly the existence of fields that underlie all particles. However, it deviates from QFT in its interpretation of how these fields manifest as particles. In traditional QFT, particles are continuously existing excitations of these fields; in this revised model, the particle like excitation with defined properties only exists during an interaction, Kind of like the initial spike when a stone is thrown in water, but unless there is continuous interactions between fields, like a standing wave pattern, such as is seen with orbitals, the propagating excitations are not particles themselves but are pulses that carry the potential for particle-like interactions, not all that unlike the ripples that propagate out across the water after the stone is thrown in. An important note is that the energy from the interaction become diffused across the probability wave, which if spreading out spherically, decreases at the square of the distance. So the probability wave and the "potential wave" are one in the same.

The core concept hinges on the idea of "field renormalization" in which the fundamental fields only communicate locally, but will renormalize/harmonize after an excitation, which only occurs during "measurement"/exchange of force carriers, giving the appearance of nonlocality, or even retro causality... I'll explain.

In this revised framework, fundamental particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks are not considered as discrete, continuously-existing entities. Instead, they are manifestations of pulse-like waves of field potential within their respective quantum fields. These pulses are akin to fluctuations in voltage or pressure waves, carrying the necessary information to exhibit inherent particle-like properties during interactions, but are too diffuse to be considered as particles themselves.

In this model, quantum fields are constantly fluctuating, not unlike the classical fields in electromagnetism. These fluctuations are not particles themselves but are more akin to wave packets or pulses of increased field potential. These pulses carry the quantum information (like spin, charge, mass) typically associated with particles. When these pulses interact with other fields or particles, the quantum information carried by them manifests as what we observe as particles. This interaction is the point at which properties like position and momentum become defined, in line with the principles of quantum mechanics.

Where this all becomes relevant, and potentially testable, is in the concept of wavefunction collapse and it's reinterpretation in this model. Instead of an instantaneous collapse, the field potential undergoes a non-instantaneous adjustment as it 'borrows' energy from its local surroundings. This process results in the appearance of an instantaneous wavefunction collapse from an external observer's perspective, but is in fact a more gradual process within the field itself which propagates at the speed of light.

This is the process of "renormalization" I mentioned earlier. Backpropagation of this field collapse will "rewrite" a new coherent field state across the field as it settles into a lower energy state (or a higher energy state if it is the receiving field). This may include the "erasure" of prior information when forming this new mathematically consistent state.

For example. for entangled particles, this would mean that each value is chosen locally, so a quantum pair may initially both be spin up, but once the effect of the collapse at the two points in the corresponding field reach each other, the field values are forced to renormalize to reflect the combined entangled value, with one being spin up, and the other spin down. This effectively re-writes the past with the new coherent narrative in the present.

Key to this is the fact that all we ever know about the past is the information about it stored in the experience of the present, so when we are looking at the data from an experiment, we are looking at the data from a prior interaction, we don't observe these interactions in real time. We only ever know that a pair of entangled particles remained correlated once the information regarding the state of one arrives at the other, which in this model, could actually change the result.

This would explain a host of quantum paradoxes such as the delayed choice quantum eraser "paradox". It could also imply that although the exchange of virtual particles occurs in quanta, the fields themselves may actually be continuous, in line with the predictions of relativity. Relativity deals with the geometries of the fields, quantum mechanics deals with energy interaction within and between fields. So it's not a question of one or the other, but rather they are discrete aspects of a greater whole, kind of like the story about blind men trying to identify an elephant.

This is barely a hypothesis at this point, more like an idea, but an intriguing one all the same. It has some interesting ramifications if true though. It takes a hard stance on now being the only thing that's real, and it would mean that each point experiences its own reality, but as realities collide, entirely new realities emerge. This opens up a host of mind boggling possibilities.

Anyway.. just some interesting thoughts that I thought I'd share... I'd be happy to hear your thoughts if you'd care to comment... or not.. that's ok too... lol.

Science community, you are driving me nuts with not interpreting current theories correctly. The speed of "C" is not light. Please don't refer to it being light. The chart is correct and the theory doesn't break down if light is not assumed to be "C". Light could have a very, very tiny mass that is not detectable currently. We don't know for a fact that light is actually the speed of "C". Which is why the theory uses a "C" and not a "L". This is the same issue with gravity being said to be a force, when it's not. Current theories need to be interpreted properly as they are 100 years old and I fear progress is not being made because the science community can't even interpret current theories properly. Let's get it right.

Please make a video "What is FPS of Universe?"

Question: I know you said the circle representation is unconventional, but is it mathematically accurate? Or was it used more so for intuitive understanding? If it is mathematically accurate, could one calculate time dialation via triginometry?

This is true and matter doesn't move through space. What we call time is just displacement in 4D spacetime. This is why everything shares the same spacetime interval. So the speed of light is like a projector speed. It gives you a limit to how fast displacement occurs in spacetime. So it's frame by frame by frame and the speed of light is how fast these frames can be projected. At the speed of light there's no frames or time. How can anything actually move through space when nothing can reduce the space time interval?

uhh ohh. You don't quite get speed defined correctly. In words, you write "the change in location divided by the amount of time that change took." Taking the standard meaning of the word "location", "change in location" would have to mean the displacement vector. So really, you just defined AVERAGE VELOCITY. "location" has direction, once a reference frame has been chosen. On the other hand, you have a slide that has in parenthesis "magnitude of velocity" as the definition of speed which is actually correct for (instantaneous) speed. THEN, you say speed is dx/dt, which again, is not correct. When I teach intro calc based physics at a University, I still have students by the time they are taking the final still confused about what speed and velocity are. All one has to say is "instantaneous speed is the magnitude of instantaneous velocity" and STOP, don't define it in any other way!! Then the components of the instantaneous velocity is defined to be (one a reference frame is chosen) Vx = dx/dt, Vy = dy/dt, Vz= dz/dt. So speed is then square root{(dx/dt)^2 +(dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2}. This is not trivial. Students keep missing things because they are confused about the difference between the two. For example, I ALWAYS put this on the final exam as a multiple choice. "You are told that an object moves with constant speed, and that is the only information you are given. Which of the following is correct? 1. the acceleration must be zero, 2. the acceleration might be zero, 3. the acceleration cannot be zero". I still get typically over 30% get this wrong, and it is so basic, I get pissed and want to flunk those who miss it! The intro part of this video will just add to the confusion, even though it is so very simple.

Wait, isn't the speed of light also measured in space, not time. If we measured both our speed and that of light with considerations towards time, we're still slower than light...?

Nick Lucid. Marvel comics couldn't buy his name!

The reason this video has lower engagement is not the thumbnail...it's the clickbait ass title. I love all your videos, the title is just a bit off putting tbh. We respect you for your knowledge, we'll watch you even without all the hype

Brilliant 🤩

The correct (and accurate) sentence for the title would be :
We all move at 100% celerity. Everything in the universe does.

I liked this explanation a lot. I learned a lot of this through the in-variance of the interval concept. That and c = 1. But this gives a good perspective where it clears up who's time is it anyway.

Ahh yes
Old school Science Asylum
Best best 🤩
Btw "τ" is pronounced as TAf although is written "ταυ", "υ" can be pronounced as f or v or "ee" depending on the situation.

Aren't we also moving away at the speed of light relative to someone in a galaxy far far away?

Let me run to increase my speed and travel faster than the speed of light

I had a thought about this recently. I tried to imagine what it would look like if something stopped moving through time. Let's say we have a box at rest. Even if it looks motionless, it's still moving through time because at one instant, it's there and at another instant, it's still there. But let's say it stopped moving through time. What would happen? One instant, it's there. The next, it isn't. And it's not like the box went somewhere else because that too would require motion through time. No, in this case, the box just up and disappears. It's literally erased from the universe, violating conservation of mass and energy, which isn't possible. Which is why everything must always be traveling through time, because otherwise conservation of mass/energy wouldn't be valid.
It's also interesting how this line of thinking hints at the underlying connection between time and mass/energy conservation. Of course, we know it's really energy conservation that stems from time symmetry so it's kind of easy when we already know what to look for 😀

FAST FAST😂

Ok, so a particle traveling at C (say a photon) experiences no time and for it, the spatial dimension is zero.
We are told the universe is probably infinite and expanding at an increasing rate.
A particle at C can never travel an infinite distance in less than infinite time.
So no time passes yet the destination (say a planet an unimaginable distance away which eventually stops the photo) has a distance of zero.
How does this work?

Nick, to be honest, your video is getting boring for me... Can you do more interesting/exciting content?

Amazing as always!! I’ve always thought about what it would be like him. We had two or three temporal dimensions and what that would potentially cause we’re how it would make our physics equations and things completely different, as well as real world, stuff and technology.. very very neat stuff!!

Relative to moving light, we move at the speed of ligh

Have you considered putting your catch phrases on your merch? I was looking for a "Fast fast!" t-shirt

Isn't the time axis hyperbolic though? If so then isn't it an over simplification to use Cartesian coordinates?

I mean if we consider that the planet is moving fast across solar system, solar system is moving fast across milky way, mulky way is moving fast across universe and so on, i think we are are truly moving fast. Like, FAST fast.

few lines of meth

That must be why the speed of light is the same for all observers 😮

Seeing that circular spacetime diagram at the beginning gave me one of the biggest "holy shit" moments ever

So to a photon everything happens at once? Interesting..