Studying special relativity and using the idea of four vectors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of four vectors in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on the definition and implications of the four-velocity. Participants explore the reasoning behind differentiating with respect to proper time rather than the time measured by an observer in a specific frame of reference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the four-velocity is defined using proper time, suggesting that it seems more logical to use the time measured by an observer in the relevant frame.
  • Another participant explains that in classical mechanics, time is absolute, but in special relativity, proper time is considered absolute, which justifies the definition of four-velocity as a derivative with respect to proper time.
  • It is noted that while the four-velocity is not the same as the velocity relative to a specific frame, it transforms as a four-vector due to the invariance of proper time across different observers.
  • One participant emphasizes that the four-velocity relates to the energy and momentum of an object, suggesting its utility despite initial confusion.
  • A mathematical clarification is provided regarding the norm of the four-velocity and its representation as a unit four-vector.
  • Some participants express their struggles with understanding the concepts due to the disorganization of the class and lack of resources.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of four-vectors as elements of a four-dimensional vector space and their transformation properties under Lorentz transformations.
  • One participant asserts that the four-velocity represents motion relative to the space-time continuum rather than a specific frame of reference, noting that all objects have a velocity equal to c in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and implications of four-velocity, with no consensus reached on the best approach to understanding its significance in special relativity.

Contextual Notes

Some participants indicate a lack of clarity in their course materials, which may affect their understanding of the concepts discussed. There are references to the complexity of worldlines, timelike intervals, and the geometry of four vectors, suggesting that these topics may require further study for full comprehension.

JFo
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
We are currently studying special relativity and using the idea of four vectors.

The position 4-vector has been defined in class as

[tex]\vec{X} = (ct, \vec{r}) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ where \ \vec{r} = (x, y, z) \ \[/tex](ie: the usual 3 space position vector)

and the velocity 4-vector is then

[tex]\vec{V} = \frac{d\vec{X}}{d\tau} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ where \ \tau \ \ is \ the \ proper \ time[/tex]

substituting [tex]\ \ \ \tau = \frac{t}{\gamma} \ \ \[/tex] we got

[tex]\vec{V} = \gamma (c, \vec{v})[/tex]

The part I don't understand is why we differentiate with respect to the proper time, rather than the time as seen by an observer in the frame with which we want the velocity with respect to?

To illustrate my concerns, consider the simplified scenario of an object traveling at constant speed u in the +x direction of a frame S.
I would think that if we wanted to find its velocity according to an observer in frame S then we would need to calculate the distance it travels, divided by the time that it took with all quantities being measured by an "observer" in S.
Yet it seems from the definition of a 4-velocity I'm supposed to divide by the time it takes according to the frame stationary to the object (the proper time). This to me doesn't seem logical since were trying to find the velocity wrt S.

I have tried to come up with an argument to explain why we use the proper time, rather than the time measured by S.
Perhaps in the limit that [tex]dt[/tex] goes to zero, [tex]d\vec{X}[/tex] goes to zero as well, so the time it takes to move a distance [tex]d\vec{X}[/tex] approaches the proper time.
Is this the correct explanation, or am I way off?

Your help is greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In classical mechanics,time is absolute & the velocity is defined as the derivative wrt this absolute quantity.In SR,the proper time (or the Lorentz interval) is absolute and that's why we define the 4velocity as a derivative wrt the proper time...

Daniel.
 
The 4-velocity is not the velocity. If you wanted to calculate the velocity, you'd do exactly what you described. But velocities do not transform as 4-vectors.

4-velocities do transform as 4-vectors., because 'tau' is the same for all observers

Take a look at the definition again

(dt/dtau, dx/dtau, dy/dtau, dz/dtau) transforms exactly like

(t,x,y,z)

because tau is the same for all observers. This means you can transform 4-velocities with the Lorentz transform just like any other 4-vector.

If the rationale of the 4-velocity vector doesn't seem obvious, be patient. Aside from their transformation properties, you'll find out (for instance), that the energy and momentum of an object are given by

[tex] \vec{E} = m \vec{u}[/tex]

where u is the 4-velocity. So it's definitely a useful concept.
 
Note that the 4-velocity [tex]\widetilde{V} = \gamma (c, \vec{v})[/tex] is (1/c) times "a [future] timelike unit 4-vector tangent to the worldline of the particle":

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \widetilde{V}\bullet \widetilde{V} <br /> &= \gamma^2 (c^2- \vec{v}\cdot\vec{v}) \\<br /> &= c^2\gamma^2 (1- v^2/c^2)\\<br /> &= c^2\<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
So, [tex]\widetilde{V}/c[/tex] is a unit 4-vector. Without that [tex]\gamma[/tex], the norm of [tex]\widetilde{V}[/tex] would not be a scalar.
 
You guys are great!

What I get from dextercioby's and pervect's posts is that the reason the 4-position is differentiated wrt the proper time, is because the 4-velocity will then be the same for all observers, where if instead, each observer used their respective times, they would get different answers. did I get the right message?

robphy: I don't quite understand your post right away, but this is because I am still not very familiar with worldlines, timelike intervals, and the geometry aspect of 4 vectors. I'm sure it will become clearer to me once I study these things.

Question to all: did 4-vectors seem a little strange when you first encountered them?
 
Not if u're familiar with linear algebra & know a bit o diff.geom...

I was...

Daniel.
 
I've taken a course in linear algebra but haven't started studying diff geom yet, Part of the problem is that there is no book to reference from the class, and the lectures are not very clear. The class started with 30 people, and there are only 12 remaining and we haven't even gotten our first exam back yet. By far the most disorganized class I've ever been in.
 
Last edited:
Okay,then a 4vector is simply an element of a 4D vector space...Changing a basis is done by changing inertial observers and that is achieved through a Lorentz Transformation.That's all there is to 4 vectors.

Daniel.
 


The 4-velocity is not the velocity relative to a given frame of reference S. It is the velocity relative to the space-time continuum itself (which can, in a sense, be regarded as stationary). Objects at rest within the S frame of reference, are not at rest with respect to the space-time continuum. They are moving in the t direction of the S reference frame with a velocity equal to c. Every object and every frame of reference has a velocity equal to c relative to the space-time continuum. However, the direction of the 4-velocity vector (in 4D space) is unique to each object and each frame of reference, and is the same only for frames of reference and objects at rest relative to one another.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K