Why isn't velocity a dimension in SR?

In summary, Special relativity states that space and time should be seen as a single four-dimensional spacetime, with the Lorentz transform used to convert coordinates between inertial frames. The metric for SR has four components and the velocity of an object is a critical quantity in determining its position in spacetime. However, velocity should not be considered a dimension as it is only a parameter in the Lorentz transform and not necessary to identify a point in spacetime.
  • #1
vinven7
58
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
vinven7 said:
Even the metric for SR has four components,

The Minkowski metric has 16 components:

[tex]\eta_{\mu \nu }=\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

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.
 
  • #4
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.
 

1. Why is velocity not considered a dimension in special relativity?

In special relativity, space and time are considered to be the fundamental dimensions. Velocity, on the other hand, is a derived quantity that is defined as the rate of change of position with respect to time. Since velocity can be expressed in terms of the dimensions of space and time, it is not considered a separate dimension in special relativity.

2. Can velocity be treated as a dimension in special relativity?

While velocity is not considered a dimension in special relativity, it can be treated as a dimension in certain cases. For example, in the study of relativistic mechanics, velocity is often used as a dimension to describe the behavior of particles moving at high speeds. However, in the context of special relativity, it is not considered a fundamental dimension.

3. How does the concept of velocity relate to the dimensions of space and time in special relativity?

The concept of velocity is closely related to the dimensions of space and time in special relativity. This is because velocity is defined as the rate of change of position with respect to time. In other words, velocity is a measure of how an object's position changes over time, and therefore, it is directly related to both the spatial and temporal dimensions.

4. Are there any other quantities that are not considered dimensions in special relativity?

In addition to velocity, there are other quantities that are not considered dimensions in special relativity. These include acceleration, force, and momentum. Like velocity, these quantities are derived from the dimensions of space and time and can be expressed in terms of these fundamental dimensions.

5. How does the concept of dimensions differ in special relativity compared to classical mechanics?

In classical mechanics, the concept of dimensions is closely tied to physical quantities such as length, mass, and time. These quantities are considered to be fundamental dimensions in classical mechanics. However, in special relativity, the concept of dimensions is more abstract and is based on the fundamental dimensions of space and time. Velocity, along with other derived quantities, is not considered a separate dimension in special relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
603
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top