In the pasxt several people (in anotgher forum) became confused over the terms "Scalar," "Invariant," and "Observer independant."(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The termscalaris another name of a tensor of rank 0. The termInvariantis often used to mean the same think in SR/GR. But caution should be exercised when you see these terms so that when you run across something funky on these subtleties when they arise in the physics literature you'll be able to recognize it immediately. To clarify this issue I made an entire web page dedicated to this point.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/ma/invariant.htm

I used the widely known example (E.g. SeeA first course in general relativity,Bernard F. Schutz, page 52. MTW page 65) E =P*U_{obs}wherePis the 4-momentum of a partcile,U_{obs}is the 4-velocity of an observer and E is the energy as measued by that observer. In this sense the quantity E is a scalar. Many find that fact very hard to deal with since one typically does not think of energy as a scalar

Lest one gets the idea that this is never really found in the physics literature I came across this counter example. FromEnergy Conservation as the Basis of Relativistic Mechanics II,R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Am. J. Phys., 33, 995-997 (1965). The authors write on page 996

----------------------------------------------------------

We recall that the 3-velocity u is given by U = gamma(u,c); hence the

4-velocity of an inertial observer relative to his own frame is

V=(0,c). Thus

gamma = V*U/c^2

i.e. the Lorentz factor of a particle relative to any inertial observer is

given by the scalar product of the two corresponding 4-velocities divided

c^2. And this product, being invariant, can be evaluted in any inertial

frame of reference.

----------------------------------------------------------

How often have you seen gamma refered to as an invariant?

Other well known examples can be found in the literature. A simialar idea is found inGravitationby Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, page 65. Eg. if v = (v_x, v_y, v_z) is the velocity of a particle then there is a four vector V whose components in the observers frame of reference are

V = (0, v_x, v_y, v_z)

Same thing for the electric field 4-vector. That 4-vector has components in the observers rest frame of

E = (0, E_x, E_y, E_z)

Notice that the magnitude of V is v and that the magnitude of E is sqrt[ (v_x)^2 + (v_y)^2 + (v_z)^2

As such I'm at a loss to decide on a good definition of "invariant". Should it be "not defined in terms of a basis vector"?

The components of a tensor are

M_ab = M(e_a, e_b)

This is clearly a contraction of M with the two unit vectors e_a and e_b and therefore M_ab is a scalar.

Pete

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Scalar, Invariant, Observer depdanat

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Scalar Invariant Observer | Date |
---|---|

I Why are scalar fields Lorentz invariant? | Aug 18, 2016 |

Lorentz-Invariant Scalar Products | Sep 26, 2014 |

Scalar invariance across inertial and non-inertial frames | Sep 8, 2008 |

Proving that the scalar product is invariant | Aug 29, 2008 |

Differences between Lorentz scalars and Lorentz invariants | Feb 1, 2008 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**