Generalization of a plane for any number of dimensions.
Kind of the opposite of a line: the line has dimension 1, and the plane has dimension D-1.
In , both happen to coincide, a boring example of an exceptional isomorphism.
Does not require straight line cuts.
The projective space associated with a given vector space is denoted .
The definition is to take the vector space, remove the zero element, and identify all elements that lie on the same line, i.e.
The most important initial example to study is the real projective plane.
Just a circle.
Take with a line at . Identify all the points that an observer
For some reason, Ciro Santilli is mildly obsessed with understanding and visualizing the real projective plane.
To see why this is called a plane, move he center of the sphere to , and project each line passing on the center of the sphere on the x-y plane. This works for all points of the sphere, except those at the equator . Those are the points at infinity. Note that there is one such point at infinity for each direction in the x-y plane.
It good to think about how Euclid's postulates look like in the real projective plane:
- two parallel lines on the plane meet at a point on the sphere!Since there is one point of infinity for each direction, there is one such point for every direction the two parallel lines might be at. The parallel postulate does not hold, and is replaced with a simpler more elegant version: every two lines meet at exactly one point.
- points in the real projective plane are lines in
- For every two projective points there is a single projective line that passes through them.Note however that not all lines in the real plane correspond to a projective line: only lines tangent to a circle at zero do.
This is the standard model.
Ciro Santilli's preferred visualization of the real projective plane is a small variant of the standard "lines through origin in ".
Take a open half sphere e.g. a sphere but only the points with .
Each point in the half sphere identifies a unique line through the origin.
Then, the only lines missing are the lines in the x-y plane itself.
For those sphere points in the circle on the x-y plane, you should think of them as magic poins that are identified with the corresponding antipodal point, also on the x-y, but on the other side of the origin. So basically you you can teleport from one of those to the other side, and you are still in the same point.
Ciro likes this model because then all the magic is confined just to the part of the model, and everything else looks exactly like the sphere.
It is useful to contrast this with the sphere itself. In the sphere, all points in the circle are the same point. But this is not the case for the projective plane. You cannot instantly go to any other point on the by just moving a little bit, you have to walk around that circle.
To see that the real projective plane is not simply connected space, considering the lines through origin model of the real projective plane, take a loop that starts at and moves along the great circle ends at .
Note that both of those points are the same, so we have a loop.
Now try to shrink it to a point.
There's just no way!
TODO understand and explain definition.
The 3D regular convex polyhedrons are super famous, have the name: Platonic solid, and have been known since antiquity. In particular, there are only 5 of them.
The counts per dimension are:
The cool thing is that the 3 that exist in 5+ dimensions are all of one of the three families:the 24-cell. Yes, this is the kind of irregular stuff Ciro Santilli lives for.
The name does not imply regular by default. For regular ones, you should say "regular polytope".
Non-regular description: take convex hull take D + 1 vertices that are not on a single D-plan.
From this we see that there are vertices.
Two vertices are linked iff they differ by a single number. So each vertex has D neighbors.
Take and flip one of 0's to . Therefore has vertices.
Each edge E is linked to every other edge, except it's opposite -E.
- https://maths-people.anu.edu.au/~andrews/DG/ Lectures on Differential Geometry by Ben Andrews
Notably local symmetries appear to map to forces, and local means "around the identity", notably: local symmetries of the Lagrangian imply conserved currents.
More precisely: local symmetries of the Lagrangian imply conserved currents.
TODO Ciro Santilli really wants to understand what all the fuss is about:
Oh, there is a low dimensional classification! Ciro is a sucker for classification theorems! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_low-dimensional_real_Lie_algebras
The fact that there are elements arbitrarily close to the identity, which is only possible due to the group being continuous, is the key factor that simplifies the treatment of Lie groups, and follows the philosophy of continuous problems are simpler than discrete ones.
- https://youtu.be/kpeP3ioiHcw?t=2655 "Particle Physics Topic 6: Lie Groups and Lie Algebras" by Alex Flournoy (2016). Good SO(3) explicit exponential expansion example. Then next lecture shows why SU(2) is the representation of SO(3). Next ones appear to eventually get to the physical usefulness of the thing, but I lost patience. Not too far out though.
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRlVmXqzHjURZO0fviJuyikvKlGS6rXrb "Lie Groups and Lie Algebras" playlist by XylyXylyX (2018). Tutorial with infinitely many hours
- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Frewer/publication/269465435_Lie-Groups_as_a_Tool_for_Solving_Differential_Equations/links/548cbf250cf214269f20e267/Lie-Groups-as-a-Tool-for-Solving-Differential-Equations.pdf Lie-Groups as a Tool for Solving Differential Equations by Michael Frewer. Slides with good examples.
Intuitively, a Lie algebra is a simpler object than a Lie group. Without any extra structure, groups can be very complicated non-linear objects. But a Lie algebra is just an algebra over a field, and one with a restricted bilinear map called the Lie bracket, that has to also be alternating and satisfy the Jacobi identity.
Another important way to think about Lie algebras, is as infinitesimal generators.
Because of the Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence, we know that there is almost a bijection between each Lie group and the corresponding Lie algebra. So it makes sense to try and study the algebra instead of the group itself whenever possible, to try and get insight and proofs in that simpler framework. This is the key reason why people study Lie algebras. One is philosophically reminded of how normal subgroups are a simpler representation of group homomorphisms.
To make things even simpler, because all vector spaces of the same dimension on a given field are isomorphic, the only things we need to specify a Lie group through a Lie algebra are:
Note that the Lie bracket can look different under different basis of the Lie algebra however. This is shown for example at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 71 for the Lorentz group.
- the dimension
- the Lie bracket
As mentioned at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4 "Lie Algebras", taking the Lie algebra around the identity is mostly a convention, we could treat any other point, and things are more or less equivalent.
For continuous groups however, we can't have a finite generating set in the strict sense, as a finite set won't ever cover every possible point.
But the generator of a Lie algebra can be finite.
And just like in finite groups, where you can specify the full group by specifying only the relationships between generating elements, in the Lie algebra you can almost specify the full group by specifying the relationships between the elements of a generator of the Lie algebra.
This "specification of a relation" is done by defining the Lie bracket.
The reason why the algebra works out well for continuous stuff is that by definition an algebra over a field is a vector space with some extra structure, and we know very well how to make infinitesimal elements in a vector space: just multiply its vectors by a constant that cana be arbitrarily small.
The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula basically defines how to map an algebra to the group.
- Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation"
Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) 7.2 "The covering problem" gives some amazing intuition on the subject as usual.
The most important example is perhaps and , both of which have the same Lie algebra, but are not isomorphic.
E.g. in the case of and , is simply connected, but is not.
The unique group referred to at: every Lie algebra has a unique single corresponding simply connected Lie group.
Most commonly refers to: exponential map.
The idea is that we can decompose a finite transformation into infinitely arbitrarily small around the origin, and proceed just like the product definition of the exponential function.
The definition of the exponential map is simply the same as that of the regular exponential function as given at Taylor expansion definition of the exponential function, except that the argument can now be an operator instead of just a number.
Furthermore, TODO confirm it is possible that a solution does not exist at all if and aren't sufficiently small.
Vector spaces are simple because all vector spaces of the same dimension on a given field are isomorphic, so besides the dimension, once we define a Lie bracket, we also define the corresponding Lie group.
Since a group is basically defined by what the group operation does to two arbitrary elements, once we have that defined via the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, we are basically done defining the group in terms of the algebra.
Cardinality dimension of the vector space.
Basically a synonym for Lie group which is the way of modelling them.
Appears to be a synonym for: gauge symmetry.
A local symmetry is a transformation that you apply a different transformation for each point, instead of a single transformation for every point.
TODO what's the point of a local symmetry?
- lecture 3
- https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/618/lects/localsym.pdf by Joel Shapiro gives one nice high level intuitive idea:
In relativistic physics, global objects are awkward because the finite velocity with which effects can propagate is expressed naturally in terms of local objects. For this reason high energy physics is expressed in terms of a field theory.
TODO. I think this is the key point. Notably, symmetry implies charge conservation.
More precisely, each generator of the corresponding Lie algebra leads to one separate conserved current, such that a single symmetry can lead to multiple conserved currents.
Then to maintain charge conservation, we have to maintain local symmetry, which in turn means we have to add a gauge field as shown at Video "Deriving the qED Lagrangian by Dietterich Labs (2018)".
Forces can then be seen as kind of a side effect of this.
- https://photonics101.com/relativistic-electrodynamics/gauge-invariance-action-charge-conservation#show-solution has a good explanation of the Gauge transformation. TODO how does that relate to symmetry?
This important and common simple case has easy properties.
One parameter subgroups can be seen as the continuous analogue to the cycle of an element of a group.
Intuition, please? Example? https://mathoverflow.net/questions/278641/intuition-for-symplectic-groups The key motivation seems to be related to Hamiltonian mechanics. The two arguments of the bilinear form correspond to each set of variables in Hamiltonian mechanics: the generalized positions and generalized momentums, which appear in the same number each.
Seems to be set of matrices that preserve a skew-symmetric bilinear form, which is comparable to the orthogonal group, which preserves a symmetric bilinear form. More precisely, the orthogonal group has: indefinite orthogonal group has: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucahad0/7302_handout_13.pdf They also explain there that unlike as in the analogous orthogonal group, that definition ends up excluding determinant -1 automatically.
Invertible matrices. Or if you think a bit more generally, an invertible linear map.
Exactly as over the real numbers, you just put the finite field elements into a matrix, and then take the invertible ones.
For every matrix in the set of all n-by-y square matrices , has inverse .
Note that this works even if is not invertible, and therefore not in !
Specials sub case of the general linear group when the determinant equals exactly 1.
This is a good first concrete example of a Lie algebra. Shown at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" has an example.
One key thing to note is that the specific matrices , and are not really fundamental: we could easily have had different matrices if we had chosen any other parametrization of the group.
Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" then calculates the exponential map of the vector as:
TODO now the natural question is: can we cover the entire Lie group with this exponential? Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation" explains why not.
Just like for the finite general linear group, the definition of special also works for finite fields, where 1 is the multiplicative identity!
Note that the definition of orthogonal group may not have such a clear finite analogue on the other hand.
Intuitive definition: real group of rotations + reflections.
Mathematical definition that most directly represents this: the orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product.
This is perhaps the best "default definition".
We looking at the definition the orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product, we notice that the dot product is one example of positive definite symmetric bilinear form, which in turn can also be represented by a matrix as shown at: Section "Matrix representation of a symmetric bilinear form".
By looking at this more general point of view, we could ask ourselves what happens to the group if instead of the dot product we took a more general bilinear form, e.g.:
The answers to those questions are given by the Sylvester's law of inertia at Section "All indefinite orthogonal groups of matrices of equal metric signature are isomorphic".
Let's show that this definition is equivalent to the orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product.
These matricese are called the orthogonal matrices.
TODO is there any more intuitive way to think about this?
Or equivalently, the set of rows is orthonormal, and so is the set of columns. TODO proof that it is equivalent to the orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product.
The orthogonal group has 2 connected components:
It is instructive to visualize how the looks like in :
- you take the first basis vector and move it to any other. You have therefore two angular parameters.
- you take the second one, and move it to be orthogonal to the first new vector. (you can choose a circle around the first new vector, and so you have another angular parameter.
- at last, for the last one, there are only two choices that are orthogonal to both previous ones, one in each direction. It is this directio, relative to the others, that determines the "has a reflection or not" thing
A low dimensional example:
From Section "Lie algebra of a isometry group" we reach:
Group of rotations of a rigid body.
Like orthogonal group but without reflections. So it is a "special case" of the orthogonal group.
Has as a double cover.
One notable difference from the orthogonal group however is that the unitary group is connected "because" its determinant is not fixed to two disconnected values 1/-1, but rather goes around in a continuous unit circle. is the unit circle.
Diffeomorphic to the 3 sphere.
The unitary group is one very over-generalized way of looking at it :-)
Double cover of .
TODO motivation. Motivation. Motivation. Motivation. The definitin with quotient group is easy to understand.
In simple and concrete terms. Suppose you observe N particles following different trajectories in Spacetime.
There are two observers traveling at constant speed relative to each other, and so they see different trajectories for those particles:
Note that the first two types of transformation are exactly the non-relativistic Galilean transformations.
- space and time shifts, because their space origin and time origin (time they consider 0, i.e. when they started their timers) are not synchronized. This can be modelled with a 4-vector addition.
- their space axes are rotated relative to one another. This can be modelled with a 4x4 matrix multiplication.
- and they are moving relative to each other, which leads to the usual spacetime interactions of special relativity. Also modelled with a 4x4 matrix multiplication.
The Poincare group is the set of all matrices such that such a relationship like this exists between two frames of reference.
Subset of Galilean transformation with speed equals 0.
This is a good and simple first example of Lie algebra to look into.
Take the group of all Translation in .
The way to think about this is:
- the translation group operates on the argument of a function
- the generator is an operator that operates on itself
A law of physics is Galilean invariant if the same formula works both when you are standing still on land, or when you are on a boat moving at constant velocity.
For example, if we were describing the movement of a point particle, the exact same formulas that predict the evolution of must also predict , even though of course both of those will have different values.
It would be extremely unsatisfactory if the formulas of the laws of physics did not obey Galilean invariance. Especially if you remember that Earth is travelling extremelly fast relative to the Sun. If there was no such invariance, that would mean for example that the laws of physics would be different in other planets that are moving at different speeds. That would be a strong sign that our laws of physics are not complete.
The consequence/cause of that is that you cannot know if you are moving at a constant speed or not.
Lorentz invariance generalizes Galilean invariance to also account for special relativity, in which a more complicated invariant that also takes into account different times observed in different inertial frames of reference is also taken into account. But the fundamental desire for the Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics remains the same.
Generally means that he form of the equation does not change if we transform .
This is generally what we want from the laws of physics.
E.g. a Galilean transformation generally changes the exact values of coordinates, but not the form of the laws of physics themselves.
TODO some sources distinguish "invariant" from "covariant": invariant vs covariant.
Some sources distinguish "invariant" from "covariant" such that under some transformation (typically Lie group):
- invariant: the value of does not change if we transform
- covariant: the form of the equation does not change if we transform .
Or in other words, it is as if two observers had their space and time origins at the exact same place. However, their space axes may be rotated, and one may be at a relative speed to the other to create a Lorentz boost. Note however that if they are at relative speeds to one another, then their axes will immediately stop being at the same location in the next moment of time, so things are only valid infinitesimally in that case.
This group is made up of matrix multiplication alone, no need to add the offset vector: space rotations and Lorentz boost only spin around and bend things around the origin.
One definition: set of all 4x4 matrices that keep the Minkowski inner product, mentioned at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 63. This then implies:
Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 66 shows one in terms of 4x4 complex matrices.
- Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) chapter 3.7 "The Lorentz Group O (1, 3)"
TODO understand a bit more intuitively.
- Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 72
Two observers travel at fixed speed relative to each other. They synchronize origins at x=0 and t=0, and their spacial axes are perfectly aligned. This is a subset of the Lorentz group. TODO confirm it does not form a subgroup however.
Given a matrix with metric signature containing positive and negative entries, the indefinite orthogonal group is the set of all matrices that preserve the associated bilinear form, i.e.: , we just have the standard dot product, and that subcase corresponds to the following definition of the orthogonal group: Section "The orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product".
As shown at all indefinite orthogonal groups of matrices of equal metric signature are isomorphic, due to the Sylvester's law of inertia, only the metric signature of matters. E.g., if we take two different matrices with the same metric signature such as: isomorphic spaces. So it is customary to just always pick the matrix with only +1 and -1 as entries.
First we can observe that the exact matrices are different. For example, taking the standard matrix of : metric signature. However, we notice that a rotation of 90 degrees, which preserves the first form, does not preserve the second one! E.g. consider the vector , then . But after a rotation of 90 degrees, it becomes , and now ! Therefore, we have to search for an isomorphism between the two sets of matrices.
For example, consider the orthogonal group, which can be defined as shown at the orthogonal group is the group of all matrices that preserve the dot product can be defined as:
Basically, a "representation" means associating each group element as an invertible matrices, i.e. a matrix in (possibly some subset of) , that has the same properties as the group.
Or in other words, associating to the more abstract notion of a group more concrete objects with which we are familiar (e.g. a matrix).
Each such matrix then represents one specific element of the group.
As shown at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015)
- page 51, a representation is not unique, we can even use matrices of different dimensions to represent the same group
- 3.6 classifies the representations of . There is only one possibility per dimension!
- 3.7 "The Lorentz Group O(1,3)" mentions that even for a "simple" group such as the Lorentz group, not all representations can be described in terms of matrices, and that we can construct such representations with the help of Lie group theory, and that they have fundamental physical application
A bit like the classification of simple finite groups, they also have a few sporadic groups! Not as spectacular since as usual continuous problems are simpler than discrete ones, but still, not bad.
This does not seem to go deep into the Standard Model as Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015), appears to focus more on more basic applications.
But because it is more basic, it does explain some things quite well.
The author seems to have uploaded the entire book by chapters at: https://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/LieGroups.html
And the author is the cutest: https://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/Personal.html.
- Chapter 3: gives a bunch of examples of important matrix Lie groups. These are done by imposing certain types of constraints on the general linear group, to obtain subgroups of the general linear group. Feels like the start of a classification
- Chapter 4: defines Lie algebra. Does some basic examples with them, but not much of deep interest, that is mostl left for Chapter 7
- Chapter 5: calculates the Lie algebra for all examples from chapter 3
- Chapter 6: don't know
- Chapter 7: describes how the exponential map links Lie algebras to Lie groups