High School A doubt regarding vectors, scalars and their role in physics

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of physical quantities as vectors or scalars and the reliability of operations involving them. It is noted that there are no guarantees that all measured quantities can be categorized this way, as these classifications are based on axioms and postulates that are tested experimentally. An example is provided where the mass of a hydrogen atom does not equal the sum of its constituent proton and electron masses in relativistic mechanics. Scalars and vectors are described as zero- and first-order tensors, respectively, with higher-order tensors also being relevant in physics and engineering. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in these classifications.
JackFyre
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
A doubt regarding vectors, scalars and their role in physics
I have a doubt regarding the basic function of vectors and scalars in physics-

What is the guarantee that every quantity(measured) in physics can be classified as either a vector or a scalar, and that while performing operations on said quantities, they will obey the already established rules of vector/scalar operations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JackFyre said:
What is the guarantee that every quantity(measured) in physics can be classified as either a vector or a scalar, and that while performing operations on said quantities, they will obey the already established rules of vector/scalar operations?

zero... zero guarantees... It just seems to do quite alright considering what we've achieved by using them. What do you suggest as alternative?
 
JackFyre said:
Summary:: A doubt regarding vectors, scalars and their role in physics

I have a doubt regarding the basic function of vectors and scalars in physics-

What is the guarantee that every quantity(measured) in physics can be classified as either a vector or a scalar, and that while performing operations on said quantities, they will obey the already established rules of vector/scalar operations?
Can you be more precise about your question?

It's generally implied in classical physics that if we have two particles of mass ##m_1## and ##m_2## and we put them together, then we have a system of mass ##m = m_1 + m_2##.

There's no guarantee that will be correct. It's more an axiom or postulate of classical mechanics that gets tested (along with all the other axioms, postulates or laws of motion) during an experiment.

And, in fact, in relativistic mechanics if ##m## above represents rest mass, then it's not true. For example, if ##m_e## is the mass of an electron and ##m_p## the mass of a proton, and ##m## is the mass of a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron, then: ##m \ne m_p + m_e##.
 
PeroK said:
Can you be more precise about your question?

It's generally implied in classical physics that if we have two particles of mass ##m_1## and ##m_2## and we put them together, then we have a system of mass ##m = m_1 + m_2##.

There's no guarantee that will be correct. It's more an axiom or postulate of classical mechanics that gets tested (along with all the other axioms, postulates or laws of motion) during an experiment.

And, in fact, in relativistic mechanics if ##m## above represents rest mass, then it's not true. For example, if ##m_e## is the mass of an electron and ##m_p## the mass of a proton, and ##m## is the mass of a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron, then: ##m \ne m_p + m_e##.
That pretty much answers it, thanks!
 
Scalars and vectors are just zero- and first order tensors, respectively. In physics and engineering we also need to employ higher order tensors, such as the stress tensor.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K