Saw said:
Thanks indeed for the complete explanation.
...
[snip] ...Is this more or less the meaning?
Yes, I'm glad this is now clear.
Saw said:
But then Galilean relativity also has "absolute time". Clearly, it is a scalar under Galilean relativity (BTW you did not reply to my puzzlement at your statement that it is also a scalar and not a vector in SR). But how do you accommodate this geometrically? Maybe under the trivial null eigenvector (0,0)?
Edit: or maybe as another meaning implicit in the existing single eigenvector? I must admit that I did not yet understand the last comment about thinking it physically and the impossibility of a timelike eigenvector. Keep thinking about it.
The eigenvectors of the boost should primarily be about maximum signal speeds.
So, if I were to redo that poster,
I would say "absolute maximum signal speed is infinite" instead of "absolute time"
for the ##(0,1)^\top## eigenvector of the Galilean boost.
And the eigenvectors represent limiting the possible 4-velocities (future-timelike directions)
in the Galilean case, as the lightlike eigenvectors in (1+1)-Minkowski spacetime.
(Note that the ##(0,1)^\top## eigenvector of the Galilean boost is also a null vector with respect to the temporal-Galilean metric. Together with the discussion below about absolute time,
this means that ##(0,1)^\top## is both null and spacelike in Galilean geometry,
as a result of "opening up the light cones" from the Minkowski case).The notion of "absolute time" is really about
different frames of reference agreeing on what sets of events are simultaneous.
But before I get to absolute time, I repeat my statements in
#54
- Time is not a vector in spacetime.
Time is a scalar, read off by a wristwatch.
Perhaps "Wristwatch time" (Minkowski's "proper time") is more descriptive.
It is analogous to a distance as read off an odometer that is traveled along a path.
The odometer reading has no direction.
- The "4-velocity" is a unit timelike 4-vector
is the unit tangent vector to the worldline of an object.
This vector maps, for example,
the event "object A's watch (on object A's worldline) reads time tick-1" to
the event "object A's watch (on object A's worldline) reads time tick-2",
and similarly for other objects (generally traveling with different speeds) and other tick-and-(tick+1)'s.
Physically, we think of this vector as the "time axis of an observer".
A further geometric analogy might help distinguish
the
observer's-time-axis (specified by a unit vector)
from the
wristwatch time (a scalar).
- The "unit radius vector" is a vector that points in some direction in the plane away from an origin O.
- The "radius" is a scalar, a number that tells you how far away you are from that origin.
A set of events are simultaneous for an inertial observer
when that observer assigns to those events
the same value of t (as read off that observer's wristwatch).
Geometrically, those events lie on a hyperplane that is orthogonal to that inertial observer.
Orthogonality is defined by the circle in that geometry (related to the metric and dot-product).
The construction (familiar from Euclidean geometry and also given by Minkowski in his "Space and Time") is to find the tangent line to the "circle" (a hyperbola in (1+1)-Minkowski spacetime)
at the tip of the timelike 4-vector. To construct the inertial observer's spatial axis,
draw a vector parallel to this tangent line through the tail of the 4-velocity vector.
In 2D Euclidean geometry, the tangent lines to circles have different inclinations.
For each possible orientation of the rectangular coordinate system labeled by its x-axis,
the y-axis (the x=0 line) of one system is not parallel to the y-axis of another system.
That is, when one system assigns the same x-coordinate to all points on a line,
another system will generally assign the points on that line different individual x-coordinates.
A similar thing happens in special relativity.
The tangent lines to the unit future-hyperbolas (the unit Minkowskian circles whose events are one tick in the future, as read off by wristwatches on inertial worldlines) from an event O have different inclinations.
The inertial observers indexed by their timelike 4-velocities will have different y-axes (t=0 lines) for each observer.
Thus, two events simultaneous (having the same t-coordinate assignment) in one frame
may not be simultaneous in another.
This is the relativity of simultaneity.
For Galilean relativity, with its Galilean circle ( the "t=1" line),
all tangent lines coincide. So, if an observer says two events are simultaneous,
then all other observers will agree.
This universal agreement is absolute simultaneity...
and is a peculiarity of the E=0 case. Among the E-parametrization of geometries,
the Galilean situation (our common sense) is the exception, not the general rule.
To appreciate this, here is an animation from my spacetime diagrammer (
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kv8szi3ic8 ),
showing the cases for E varying from -1 (Euclidean) to 0 (Galilean) to +1 (Minkowski)
(if the above isn't animated, visit
https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8q62.gif
which is taken from my answer at
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/673969/euclidean-space-to-minkowski-spacetime )Because of this universal agreement of simultaneity,
we can slice up spacetime into universally accepted hyperplanes of simultaneity,
which can be labeled by any observer's wristwatch.
This
universal labeling by a wristwatch (a scalar) is absolute time.
The relativity-principle says that there is
no preferred wristwatch,
no preferred 4-velocity vector
(no timelike eigenvector).
(Note that each choice of 4-velocity will
"bevel the deck" of hyperplanes-of-universal-simultaneity differently,
which effectively assigns the same value of the y-coordinate
to events parallel to the 4-velocity.)
...From my ancient set of webpages on relativity
(now archived at
http://visualrelativity.com/LIGHTCONE/ )
Bottom line:
- Observer-Wristwatch-time is a scalar.
- Observer 4-velocity for the observer-time-axis is a vector.