
#73
Feb1712, 12:48 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,563

It's a bit of doubletalk, really. Measurements are always scalars, but we can use collections of scalars to reconstruct tensorial objects in a given frame. Coordinates, however, are always irrelevant. The important thing is a frame. A system of coordinates can be used to define a frame, by taking the coordinate basis, but all we really care about is the frame. 



#74
Feb1712, 01:04 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863





#75
Feb1712, 02:32 PM

P: 5,634

I'm really glad 'observables [measurements] in GR is being hashed out. I've been making notes for several months and still am uncertain.
[1] I am unable to keep track of all the claims, counter claims and retractions and some of the terminology as "observation" vs "observable" and varying "definitions" of scalars makes it more uncertain.... If anybody would summarize ANY points of consensus that would be great for us 'amateurs'. [2] What do you think of this assessment: Two fish says: [bottom of page 6, http://brucel.spoonfedrelativity.com...ackground.pdf] ".... Suppose I measure the temperature (°C) at a given point P at a given time. You also measure the temperature (°C) at P at the same time but from a different location that is in motion relative to my location. Would it make any sense if we measured different values; for example, my thermometer measured 25 °C and yours measured 125 °C? ..... Only scalars that remain invariant between coordinate systems like this can be called “tensors of rank 0”. Now let f be the frequency of light coming from a laser at P. Again, let two observers, K and K*, measure the frequency of the light at P at the same time using the same units (Hz). If I am stationary relative to the source, the light will have a certain frequency, for example f. If, on the other hand, you are moving toward or away from the source, the light will be red or blue shifted.... although frequency is a scalar, it is not a tensor of rank 0..." So what I'm asking is if we agree some scalars ARE tensors of rank zero, and these are Lorentz invarient, while other scalars are NOT and these are NOT invariant. If so, how do we tell them apart other than making measurements in different frames of reference and comparing results? 



#76
Feb1712, 02:59 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863

Your second major question is easy to answer. Frequency is effectively the timelike component light's 4momentum. You can't treat one component of a vector as a scaler, just because it is a number in a particular coordinate representation. As to how you know, in GR and SR, there are primary objects defined as scalars, vectors, or tensors. Then, there are standard results in differential geometry to construct scalars out of these (contraction; integration of contractions; etc.). For example, while frequency is not a scalar, a measurement of frequency by a device is, as follows: you take the dot product of light's 4momentum with the instrument's 4velocity to compute the measurement of frequency by the instrument. This is contraction of two vectors with the metric tensor, and is definitely a scalar. (Thus, no matter who does the computation, and what coordinates they use, everyone will agree on the frequency measurement by the specified instrument). 



#77
Feb1712, 10:37 PM

P: 6,863





#78
Feb1712, 10:47 PM

P: 6,863

Part of the reason I think we are arguing is that we are at the boundary where the platonic world meets the real world. I'm pretty sure you could have a mathematically precise definition of "measurement" in which all "measurements" are scalars, but the trouble is that I have a physics background, and if those definitions don't fit the "real world" it's not going to make sense. So I see a pair of gloves and establish that they are lefthanded. If you argue that really isn't an "observation" or a "measurement" then I'm going to have severe problems with those definitions. Similarly, to specify "color" requires at least three numbers. If you argue that "measurements" can only result in one number, then color cannot be measured. You can choose whatever definition of measurement you want when you are proving theorems, but if you come up with a definition of "measurement" that excludes colors, then I'm going to have problems with it. Funny thing. I looked up the word "scalar" on wikipedia and they have three different articles on the topic. Scalar (mathematics), scalar (physics), and scalar (computer science). Curiously, the definition that I've been using is closer to the math definition which is different from the physics one. Apparently the physics definition of scalar are invariants under subset of transformations whereas that restriction doesn't exist in the math definition. Probably the reason for that is that my main interactions with scalars and vectors is financial and computational. But rather than arguing about which definitions is correct, it might be useful to just list the definitions of "scalar" and "observation". Once you have N definitions of scalars and M definitions of observations, then we can create a chart indicating whether all "observations" are "scalars". 



#79
Feb1712, 11:59 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863

Later you say yours is the physicists definition. I disagree  I have GR books going back 100 years, including the originals by Einstein, Pauli, etc. None use a definition resembling yours. 



#80
Feb1812, 12:12 AM

P: 6,863

I think one reason I ended up with my definition is that my introduction to differential geometry was through mathematical finance where obviously Lorenz rotations don't matter. Illiski's "Physics of Finance: Gauge Modelling in NonEquilibrium Pricing" has one of the most readable introductions to fiber bundles that I've ever seen, and I think that left me with definitions that are different from those that are used in GR. What happens in mathematical finance is that in liquid markets, things are scale invariant, but what you are looking for are situations in which scale invariance breaks down. What I think is happening is that, in relativity, unit conversions are trivial (i.e. you can always multiply X feet by a constant factor to get X km) so in defining scalar and vector, it's natural to ignore those. However, in mathematical finance, you can't just multiply X dollars by a constant factor to get Y euros, so when differential geometry is used there, the definition of scalars and vectors are such that scaling relationships are not ignored since that's what you are interested in. 



#81
Feb1812, 12:27 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863





#82
Feb1812, 12:55 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863

I'm not quite sure how to define observation with no circular aspect to its definition. I mean any type of instrument (including a camera, human eye+brain, a dial on a meter, etc) capturing a snapshot of information. The description of a device includes its state of motion or rotation.
Within a particular theory, when physically interpreting its mathematical constructs, I require that internal conventional changes do not affect what I match to physical measurement. What these features are, depends on the theory. In GR, it means diffeomorphisms. The subtlety, is that a mapping that changes, say, a value of (x1 x0) from 1 to 3 will correspond with a change in metric that makes the length stay the same. And I don't consider units of measure part of this at all. Using the same example as chirality, I get to units as saying I have a reference object for meter, for foot, etc. Under diffeomorphism, any measurement referenced to these objects stays the same. Finally, I note, that within GR, to have the right properties (as above) a computation deemed represent a measurement must be a collection of scalars. Really, this could be viewed as a collection of individual measurements. Thus, a color photo of something is really a measurement for each pixel on a CCD or grain on chemical film. 



#83
Feb1812, 06:37 AM

Mentor
P: 16,489

The question about whether or not a quantity is a scalar has nothing to do with flipping switches, just about changing coordinates. Regardless of the coordinate system used to analyze the experiment the number does not change, it is therefore a scalar. 



#84
Feb1812, 07:10 AM

P: 6,863

As a result of this discussion, I've become convinced that within relativity, all observed quantities must be Lorenz invariant and hence are scalar quantities as the term scalar is used in relativity.
Whew..... I'm still not altogether convinced that only scalar quantities can be observed in contexts outside of relativity. For example, you look at a wind tunnel with a wing and then you have little flags pointing in different directions. It seems to me that you are in fact observing a vector field. Also, if you look at a weather vane pointing the in the direction of the wind, that seems like observing a vector. Part of this is that my other exposure to differential geometry has to do with data visualization and the whole point there is to observe vector fields. Again there is this problem with definitions, but if you tell an aerospace engineer or graphics visualization guru that they aren't really observing a vector but a collection of scalars, they will look at you funny, and if you tell them that those are really scalars because they are invariant under a Lorenz transform, they will really look at you funny. So it seems to be that when you apply differential geometry to fluid dynamics or graphic visualization, you can indeed observe vectors. Now if you have a CFD flow that is around a black hole, it seems to me that in that situation you'd have quantities that are "scalar" in the relativistic sense (i.e. the measurement does not change when you change the reference frame) but vector in the CFD sense (you need multiple components to describe the situation). So if suppose you have a fluid flow around a black hole, and you have a field that describes the velocity of the fluid in the local reference frame of each point, I'd guess that a GR person would describe the fluid flow as a "collection of scalars" because the components of that flow do not change when you do a Lorenz transform, but the CFD person would describe the fluid flow as vector since you need multiple components to describe the velocity field. At this point I suppose we bring in fiber bundles. Thoughts? Also if it is the situation that different areas of physics are using different terminology then analogies aren't going to work. 



#85
Feb1812, 07:19 AM

Mentor
P: 16,489





#86
Feb1812, 09:28 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863





#87
Feb1812, 09:39 AM

PF Gold
P: 706

While that may well be so, but do you think a patching together of an image from different perspectives is an accurate representation of the thing as it really is? That if you take the observations of many observers and patch them together in some welldefined fashion, then you have a picture of the universe "as it really is." And why not? As long as your picture contains every event that ever happened, and every event that ever will happen, what do you think? Is that an accurate picture of the universe, or is it flawed? Is it better to represent the universe from the perspective of a single observer; a single observer looking at nonlocal phenomena? With a single observer, your picture can only contain the events which the single observer observed. By contrast, with local observations of all the observers in the environment, your picture contains every event in the environment. 



#88
Feb1812, 09:52 AM

P: 5,634

[two fish posts immediately above clear up some ambiguities for me....]
[1] PAllen posts: [2]The referenced paper says: Although I believe I do understand that components of a vector are themselves vectors...[I had never thought of frequency as a vector component]....I have to think more about this answer......meantime: so what is the referenced paper claiming....Are they wrong, do they have a different definition of scalar, or are they really taking about the 'measurement' ? [3] I also did some searching and found this comparison of classical and relativistic scalars which I did not realize [it seems obvious after reading it though] : No problem with these ideas, right?? 



#89
Feb1812, 10:10 AM

P: 2,900

I think the source of confusion here came from the different meaning each poster attributes to "observations", in fact this concept is broader and more illdefined than the more strict concept of measurement of a physical quantity although some physicists use them indistinctly to refer to the latter meaning. When used strictly in the sense of measurement it is clear all of them are scalars in the physical sense as has been explained in this thread.
So can the affine connection of GR be measured? It is obvious that in the stricter, invariant sense referred to above, it can't. Does this mean it is not "physical"? No. We are certainly feeling their consequences and therefore "observing" it as a force. But what we measure is not so much the connection but the EM resistance of the ground against our natural tendence to follow our geodesic. 



#90
Feb1812, 10:26 AM

PF Gold
P: 706

The article has three examples of scalars, but no clear examples of what are NOT scalars. It lists several quantities:
but does not specify whether these things are considered to be scalars or not. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
What do I do with these christoffel symbols?!  Special & General Relativity  1  
Can someone please explain to me what the Christoffel symbols symbols are?  Special & General Relativity  4  
Christoffel symbols  Special & General Relativity  4  
Christoffel symbols  Differential Geometry  5  
Christoffel Symbols  Advanced Physics Homework  5 