Does Defining a Four-Dimensional Velocity Vector Make Sense for Time Dilation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NanakiXIII
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Sr
NanakiXIII
Messages
391
Reaction score
0
When looking at time dilation, I once came across a piece (I don't remember where) that said you could view time dilation as follows. Everything moves through four-dimensional spacetime at a constant velocity c. Something stationary is only moving in the time dimension. Something that has a velocity v in a spatial direction, however, cannot move at velocity c in the time dimension since its total velocity would change. Thus its velocity in the time dimension is decreased, hence time dilation.

I thought that was a nice thought, but I never came across anything that verified that it makes any sense. Today I was prompted to consider this statement a bit more quantitatively. It works if you take the vector (my reference frame being S and there being some reference frame S' with spatial velocity v with respect to S)

r_4 = (c t', x, y, z) = (\frac{c}{\gamma} t, x, y, z)

so that

v_4 = \.{r}_4 = (\frac{c}{\gamma}, \.{x}, \.{y}, \.{z}).

The length of this vector is c, as per

v_4 \cdot v_4 = c^2 (1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}) + v^2 = c^2.

So, defining this vector things might make sense. What I'm wondering, however, is how much sense it makes to define this vector. It takes the spatial co-ordinates from S and the time co-ordinate from S', which seems odd. Does differentiating ct' make any sense if you want the velocity in the time dimension?

I couldn't find anything about this and I have no idea what it would be called, which makes searching for it a bit difficult. It sounds somewhat like a layman's explanation and I'm fairly sure I came across this in a very much simplified treatment of Special Relativity, but I'd like to hear what anyone has to comment on it, whether it has any merit.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Post #7 in this thread may be useful.
 
Brian Greene is the one who I've seem summarizing relativity in terms of the "everything travels at c through spacetime" idea, and I quoted the math he uses to justify this in post #3 here.
 
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...

Similar threads

Replies
73
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top