Wikipedia: using the four-velocity to understand time dilation (?)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of four-velocity and its implications for understanding time dilation as presented in the Wikipedia article. Participants argue that while the norm of four-velocity is defined as equal to the speed of light, the reasoning behind this claim is flawed. Specifically, the assertion that all objects move through spacetime at light speed is critiqued for lacking logical coherence. The conversation highlights the distinction between spatial and temporal components of velocity, emphasizing that proper time runs slower than coordinate time for moving particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of four-velocity in the context of special relativity
  • Familiarity with the concepts of time dilation and proper time
  • Knowledge of the mathematical representation of spacetime intervals
  • Basic grasp of the principles of Lorentz transformations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical formulation of four-velocity in special relativity
  • Explore the implications of Lorentz transformations on time dilation
  • Investigate the concept of proper time and its applications in physics
  • Review critiques of popular science explanations of relativity, such as those by Brian Greene
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the nuances of spacetime concepts and their interpretations in both academic and popular contexts.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

I was wondering if the following quote by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity section "Interpretation") makes sense:

In other words, the norm or magnitude of the four-velocity is always exactly equal to the speed of light. Thus all objects can be thought of as moving through spacetime at the speed of light. This provides a way of understanding time-dilation: as an object like a rocket accelerates from our perspective, it moves faster through space, but slower through time in order to keep the four-velocity constant. Thus to an observer, a clock on the rocket moves slower, as do the clocks in any reference frame that is not comoving with them. Light itself provides a special case- all of its motion is through space, so it does not have any "left over" four-velocity to move through time. Therefore light, and anything else traveling at light speed, does not experience the "flow" of time.

Cause I would think it doesn't make sense: in this reasoning they're acting as if the norm is something like a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2, so that if b^2+c^2+d^2 is big ("rocket [...] moves faster through space"), then to keep the norm constant, a^2^ should be smaller ("slower through time in order to keep the four-velocity constant"). But of course that is not the structure of the norm, so I don't think this reasoning works out. It would even lead to an opposing answer: due to the minus sign in the norm, the "speed through time" should increase along with the spatial speed! (indeed reflected in \eta^0 = \frac{c}{\sqrt{1-u^2/c^2^}}).

I'm not sayig the four velocity is contradicting time dilation, I'm just trying to argue that their reasoning makes no sense. Or if it does, I have something new to learn, so please correct me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mr vodka, You're right! :smile: But then again you're wrong. :frown: In order to maintain the norm of the velocity vector, both the time component and space component must increase. For a particle at rest, V0 = c and for a particle that's moving, V0 = c γ > c. But since also V0 = c dt/dτ where τ is proper time, that means that proper time does run *slower* than coordinate time.
 
Hm, I understand everything you say, but then how would you support their claim:
In other words, the norm or magnitude of the four-velocity is always exactly equal to the speed of light. Thus all objects can be thought of as moving through spacetime at the speed of light.
I don't see the logical "thus"
 
I really dislike the statement you just highlighted. It's been brought up many times before, so I'll just quote myself.
Fredrik said:
Brian Greene used it in the "The elegant universe". I think that explanation is really bad. I wrote some comments about it in another thread recently. These are the relevant posts: 64, 65. The words "earlier in this thread" in the second one refers to 17.

Edit: Those posts also cover a few things you didn't ask about, so I'll answer the question directly. The "thus" is nonsense. The statement "all objects can be thought of as moving through spacetime at the speed of light" is true because we have chosen to define the "speed through spacetime" as the magnitude of the four-velocity, which by definition of "four-velocity" is always 1. So the highlighted statement really says "thus, for any object, the normalized tangent vector of the world line has length 1". (Since "normalized" implies "length 1", the statement is vacuously true).

(I always use units such that c=1).
 
Last edited:
Okay, that sounds good :) thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
737
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K