Is Proper Time a Relativistic Invariant?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of proper time and whether it is a relativistic invariant. Participants explore arguments and reasoning related to proper time in both inertial and non-inertial frames, as well as the implications of different observers measuring time between events.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that proper time is a relativistic invariant in the case of inertial motion, citing the relationship between proper time and the spacetime interval.
  • Others suggest that proper time may not be invariant in cases where the velocity is not constant, indicating that the reasoning used for inertial motion does not apply universally.
  • One participant emphasizes that proper time is defined as the time measured by an observer moving between two events, raising questions about how different observers can agree on the measurements of a single observer.
  • Another participant elaborates on the geometric interpretation of proper time as the spacetime arc-length of a timelike curve, noting that all observers agree on the spacetime interval between events.
  • There is a discussion about the largest proper time being associated with the spacetime interval, particularly in the context of timelike events and geodesic paths.
  • Some participants propose that the simplest argument for the invariance of proper time relies on the count of ticks registered by a clock, which is seen as indisputable.
  • One participant reflects on a scenario involving two observers in relative uniform motion with identical clocks, suggesting that they would measure the same proper time intervals under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether proper time is a relativistic invariant, with some supporting its invariance in inertial frames while others question its invariance in non-inertial contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general applicability of proper time as an invariant.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of motion (inertial vs. non-inertial) and the definitions of proper time and spacetime intervals, which may affect the interpretations presented.

bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
988
Reaction score
1
do you kinow a simple and convincing argument for the fact that proper time is a relativistic invariant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bernhard.rothenstein said:
do you kinow a simple and convincing argument for the fact that proper time is a relativistic invariant?

Have a look here

In the case of inertial motion proper time reduces to:
[tex]c\Delta \tau=\sqrt(c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2)[/tex]

Since [tex]c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2[/tex] is frame invariant , it follows that in the case of inertial motion proper time is also invariant.

The above proof was facilitated by using the fact that [tex]dx/dt=constant[/tex]. What happens in the case of [tex]dx/dt[/tex] not constant? Since the integrand used in the definition of [tex]\tau[/tex] varies with time, we cannot use the reasoning seen above anymore. Most likely, in the general case, proper time is no longer an invariant.
 
Last edited:
"Proper time" between 2 events is the time that is measured by an observer moving from event1 to event2. How could different observers disagree on what some other observer measured? (they can all measure different times between the events but they all agree on what one "chosen" observer measured)
Also, all observers agree on the ST interval between events. the proper time is equal to this interval.
 
daniel_i_l said:
"Proper time" between 2 events is the time that is measured by an observer moving from event1 to event2. How could different observers disagree on what some other observer measured? (they can all measure different times between the events but they all agree on what one "chosen" observer measured)

To amplify daniel_i_l's comment:

Of course, elapsed proper-time is a timelike-path-dependent quantity between two timelike-related events. Geometrically speaking, the elapsed proper time between two events is the spacetime arc-length of the given timelike curve [which all observers will agree upon]. Proper time requires the specification of a timelike-curve.

daniel_i_l said:
Also, all observers agree on the ST interval between events. the proper time is equal to this interval.

More correctly, the interval is a measure of the largest proper time between the two events [in a nice enough region of spacetime]. (The clock effect.)

The time associated with the "spacetime-interval between two timelike events" is a specialized case where the events are infinitesimally close and a geodesic path is taken. In Minkowski space, this definition can be extended to distant timelike-related events joined by a straight inertial worldline. This time for this spacetime-interval is the largest proper-time among all other proper-times along timelike-curves joining those events. (The Euclidean analogue is that the length of the straight-line joining two points is the shortest among all other curves joining those points.)

bernhard.rothenstein said:
do you kinow a simple and convincing argument for the fact that proper time is a relativistic invariant?

As daniel_i_l suggests above,
probably the simplest argument just relies on
asking what that clock-owner measured, more specifically: count of the number of ticks his clock registered. No one can dispute that!

What you then might ask is how his clock was constructed and how it registers the ticks, i.e. at what events do those ticks occur?
 
As daniel_i_l suggests above,
probably the simplest argument just relies on
asking what that clock-owner measured, more specifically: count of the number of ticks his clock registered. No one can dispute that!

What you then might ask is how his clock was constructed and how it registers the ticks, i.e. at what events do those ticks occur?
__________________
+---
Please confirm if I am right interpreting your help.
You and I we are in relative uniform motion. We have identical wristwatches and let tau be the period of the two clocks as measured by me and by you respectively. Both clocks read a zero time when we are located at the same point in space. We make the convention to measure N ticks of our clocks and so the time intervals Ntau. Special relativity teaches us that counted numbers are invariants and what we measure under such conditions are proper time intervals having for both of us the same magnitude.:smile:
Thanks you and to all participants on my thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
12K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K