Why isn't velocity a dimension in SR?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vinven7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension Sr Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of dimensions in the context of special relativity (SR), particularly questioning why velocity is not considered a dimension despite its importance in transforming coordinates between different inertial frames. The scope includes theoretical considerations of spacetime, the Lorentz transformation, and the definition of dimensions in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that since velocity is critical for transforming coordinates in SR, it should be considered a dimension alongside the four spacetime coordinates.
  • Another participant suggests that the discussion should focus on a single frame of reference where positions are functions of time, implying that velocity is not necessary to define a point in spacetime.
  • A different participant points out that while the Minkowski metric has four components, it is possible to uniquely map coordinates in spacetime without knowing the velocities of objects, thus questioning the need to classify velocity as a dimension.
  • Another participant compares velocity to a parameter in the Lorentz transformation, similar to how angles are parameters in rotations, suggesting that parameters do not necessitate additional dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether velocity should be classified as a dimension. Some argue for its inclusion based on its role in transformations, while others maintain that it is not necessary for defining points in spacetime, indicating a lack of consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of defining dimensions in the context of spacetime and transformations, with participants referencing different interpretations of the Minkowski metric and the role of parameters in transformations.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
971
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
965
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K