Scalar as one dimensional representation of SO(3)

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of representations of groups on vector spaces and how they relate to scalars. It is mentioned that a scalar is something that is invariant under rotation, and that an ordinary scalar belongs to the one-dimensional representation of the SO(3) group. The conversation also delves into the definition of a homomorphism and how it applies to the mapping of a group element to the number 1. The concept of a scalar being represented by a column matrix is also discussed. Overall, the conversation provides insight into the relationship between groups, representations, and scalars.
  • #1
iorfus
68
0
Hi to all the readers of the forum.
I cannot figure out the following thing.

I know that a representation of a group G on a vector spaceV s a homomorphism from G to GL(V).
I know that a scalar (in Galileian Physics) is something that is invariant under rotation.

How can I reconcile this with the following sentence:
"an ordinary scalar belongs to the one-dimensional representation of the SO(3) group".
(It is taken from Griffiths' Introduction to elementary particles, but it is written in all introductory books on Particle Physics, as you will know)

What is the one-dimensional representation in question? Is it the function constantly equal to 1?
Even in that case, I am not sure I would understand.

Please, can someone elaborate on that? I cannot see which is the homomorphism involved!

Thank you for any help :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
iorfus said:
Is it the function constantly equal to 1?

Yes, this is indeed the case.

If g is a homomorphism, it must hold that g(ab) = g(a)g(b). For the mapping g(a) = 1 for all a, we have that g(ab) = 1 = 12 = g(a)g(b) so it is a homomorphism (it is a homomorphism for all groups.
 
  • #3
Thanks! So far so good.
Maybe my next questions betrays a more fundamental problem in my comprehension of the subject.

To each group element we associate the number 1. Okay.
So what does it mean to say that tha modulus of a vector, say (1,1,0) which is 2, is a scalar? I just know that this is invariant if I rotate the vector!

What does it mean to say that the modulus belongs to a unidimensional representation of SO(3)?
Is the previous sentence precise/true/correct?
 
  • #4
iorfus said:
So what does it mean to say that tha modulus of a vector, say (1,1,0) which is 2, is a scalar?

It is sqrt(2) ... but anyway.

A scalar is a number which is invariant under the group action. In general, if a quantity transforms according to the n-dimensional representation g, then it is represented by a column matrix v (with n entries), which transforms according to
$$v\to g(a) v$$
under the transformation ##a##. In the case with the trivial representation, a scalar is a number ##s## which transforms as ##s \to g(a)s = 1s = s##.
 
  • #5
Perfect!
Last thing:
Orodruin said:
In general, if a quantity transforms according to the n-dimensional representation g, then it is represented by a column matrix v (with n entries), which transforms according to
$$v\to g(a) v$$
Is this a matter of definition/convention (isomorphisms between Rn and the groups of matrices, etc. ) or is there a "reason" for that?
 
  • #6
Maybe it is simply the definition that the dimension of a representation is the dimension of the vector space on which it acts?
 
  • #7
That would be by definition, yes.
 
  • #8
Thanks!
 
Last edited:

1. What is a scalar in relation to SO(3)?

A scalar is a single numerical value that represents a quantity, such as mass or temperature, and does not have a direction associated with it. In the context of SO(3), a scalar can be used as a one-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional rotation group, where the scalar value represents the angle of rotation.

2. How is a scalar used to represent SO(3)?

A scalar can be used as a one-dimensional representation of SO(3) by defining a mapping between the scalar value and the rotation group. This mapping can be achieved using the exponential map, which converts a scalar value into a rotation matrix in SO(3).

3. What are the advantages of using a scalar to represent SO(3)?

Using a scalar as a one-dimensional representation of SO(3) can simplify calculations and reduce the dimensionality of the problem. It also allows for easy interpolation between two rotations and can be used in optimization algorithms to find the minimum or maximum value of a scalar function.

4. Can a scalar fully represent the complexity of SO(3)?

No, a scalar cannot fully represent the complexity of SO(3). While it can be used as a one-dimensional representation, SO(3) is a three-dimensional rotation group and cannot be fully captured by a single scalar value. However, for certain applications, a scalar may be sufficient to represent the desired rotation.

5. Are there any limitations to using a scalar as a representation of SO(3)?

One limitation is that a scalar cannot distinguish between clockwise and counterclockwise rotations. This means that a scalar representation may not be suitable for applications that require a specific direction of rotation. Additionally, using a scalar may also result in loss of information, as it reduces the dimensionality of the problem.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
949
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Back
Top