- #1

- 27

- 0

If the above is correct, and since time is also independent of spacial coordinates, then why can't time be a vector?

eg: in the definition of velocity as dx/dt, x is a vector while time is a scalar. Why so?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter lowerlowerhk
- Start date

- #1

- 27

- 0

If the above is correct, and since time is also independent of spacial coordinates, then why can't time be a vector?

eg: in the definition of velocity as dx/dt, x is a vector while time is a scalar. Why so?

- #2

Stephen Tashi

Science Advisor

- 7,642

- 1,496

- #3

- 7

- 0

- #4

- 27

- 0

The reason to not define time as another vector is that, in classical mechanics, the value of time is independent of reference frame. In math terms, it means that the value of time does not change under a coordinate transform and thus the length of the resultant vector magnitude might change. This defeats the very purpose of creating the concept of vector - to get rid of coordinate dependency.

In special relativity, where time does change under coordinate transform, time could be formulated as a component of a 4D space-time vector. This vector's magnitude is defined to be conserved under coordinate transform.

Share: