Why isn't velocity a dimension in SR?

vinven7
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

Special relativity tells that space and time should be seen as a single four dimensional space time. Even the metric for SR has four components, x1, x2, x3, and x4 = ict. The Lorentz transform tells us how to convert these coordinates from this to another providing that we are moving at a constant velocity v in an inertial frame. Therefore, to completely express an event in a coordinate transformed spacetime, we need, not just the current space and time coordinates but also our velocity.
Now, dimensions are also defined as the minimum number of quantities that are required to completely identify a "point" in our manifold. By this definition, shouldn't velocity be counted as a dimension as well?
To put in other terms: Suppose I tell you that I am at x,y,z at time t but don't tell you what my v is - if we are in different frames of reference, then you still cannot compute my exact coordinates. It seems to me that the velocity v is as critical a quantity as the other four and hence should be accorded the title of a dimension.
If my question is clear to you, what are your thoughts? Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We are both in the same Frame of Reference. You should think in terms of one Frame of Reference in which you specify your postion as a function of time and my postition as a function of time which don't have to be constant velocities. If you don't do that, then of course no one can make any sense of what's going on or how to use the Lorentz transform. When you use the Lorentz transform to get to another Frame of Reference moving with some speed with respect to the first one, it doesn't have to be a speed that either of us is traveling at, it can be any speed. You might want to transform to a speed in which we are both traveling in opposite directions, it doesn't matter.
 
vinven7 said:
Even the metric for SR has four components,

The Minkowski metric has 16 components:

\eta_{\mu \nu }=\begin{bmatrix}<br /> -1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\ <br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\ <br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0\\ <br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{bmatrix}

vinven7 said:
x1, x2, x3, and x4 = ict.

x4=ct if you're using the Minkowski metric. If you're using a positive definite metric, then you could use x4=ict.

vinven7 said:
Now, dimensions are also defined as the minimum number of quantities that are required to completely identify a "point" in our manifold. By this definition, shouldn't velocity be counted as a dimension as well?

No, because you can map a unique coordinate to every point in spacetime without knowing anything about the velocities of anything. It's only when you transform into another set of coordinates that you need this information.
 
The velocity is a parameter of the Lorentz transform (boost), just like the angle is a parameter of rotations. You don't need to add dimensions just because you have a transform which takes a parameter.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Back
Top