3 ms·
If you use seconds and light-seconds as the units instead of meters, then the magnitude of the vector is just a constant 1. Another way of putting that: This i
by Filligree 2y ago
If you use seconds and light-seconds as the units instead of meters, then the magnitude of the vector is just a constant 1.
Another way of putting that: This isn’t a vector at all, it’s just a direction. Treating it as a vector gives rise to silly statements like “one second per second”, which is yet another way to explain that it’s magnitude 1… because it’s a direction.
- IgorPartola 2y agoNot really because a light second is meters. I mean like yes you can measure time and space with the same units in the way you suggest but then the concept of velocity changes as well.
- stouset 2y agoI think that’s GP’s point. If you take at face value that your speed through spacetime is constant and that the only thing that can vary is the magnitude distributed through (x, y, z, t), then the only important component of your spacetime velocity is its angle in 4D space (e.g., your “direction”). But also our own personal velocity is stationary. We (AIAU, IANAP) always perceive our own velocity vector as (0, 0, 0, 1). When we undergo acceleration it only ever affects the directional components of every other part of the universe, not our own experiential frame.
- scotty79 2y agoIt's a really funny way of thinking about things. That when your rotate, you don't, instead you rotate entire universe around you. Yet, somehow, how hard is it to rotate has nothing to do with what's in the universe but everything to do with you. Moving your point of view from one inertial frame of reference to another is easy enough, but there should be some overarching mathematical construct that can model all the inertial frames and their relationships at once. Phenomenons such as energy, mass and acceleration should be easier to understand within it.