I read the previous comment not as saying that this explanation was <i>wrong</i>, but that it&#x27;s just unlikely to be truly enlightening to someone who didn&#x27;t already know the subject reasonably well. I&#x27;m on the fence about whether I agree: the cognitive load of interpreting the odd phrasing certainly does compound the cognitive load of understanding the deeply non-intuitive physics.<p>This is quite a good presentation of the topic (or, parts of it), but if clarity of understanding were the primary goal you could probably do substantially better by translating it at least partway back into ordinary language. (But then, fewer people might be intrigued or entertained enough to read that version. So I&#x27;m not really complaining.)