Cayley-Klein Geometries and physics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GcSanchez05
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Cayley-Klein geometries and their implications in physics, particularly addressing the limitations of Euclidean geometry in the context of special relativity. It highlights the significance of alternative geometries such as Minkowski and anti-Minkowski in resolving these limitations. The conversation also explores the derivation of geometries from Projective Geometry and the representation of these geometries using complex numbers, specifically through Hermitian 2x2 complex matrices which relate to Minkowski space.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries
  • Familiarity with special relativity concepts
  • Knowledge of Projective Geometry
  • Basic principles of complex numbers and matrices
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Minkowski geometry in special relativity
  • Explore the derivation of geometries from Projective Geometry
  • Investigate the role of complex numbers in geometry
  • Read "The Four Pillars of Geometry" by John Stillwell for a comprehensive overview
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, mathematicians interested in geometry, and anyone exploring the relationships between different geometrical frameworks and their applications in theoretical physics.

GcSanchez05
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I have some questions concerning the nine geometries of the plane and their physical significance.

(Euclidean, Hyperbolic, Elliptical, Minkowski, anti-Minkowski, Galilean,

For starters, what are some of the limitations or problems we encounter when using Euclidean geometry in physics [special relativity(?)]? And how do other geometries fix this?

How do we derive other geometries from Projective Geometry? Like de Sitter, Minkowski, anti-euclidean geometry, etc.

Lastly, I read that some of these geometries can described using complex numbers. How so?

Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My knowledge of geometry is nowhere near broad enough to answer everything you asked, but I can recommend a really good book, which was the textbook in a course I graded for last semester: John Stillwell - The Four Pillars of Geometry. It doesn't cover everything you asked about, but it's a really nice overview of four different approaches to geometry (via axioms, linear algebra, projective geometry, or transformation groups) and relationships between different geometries.
 
GcSanchez05 said:
Lastly, I read that some of these geometries can described using complex numbers. How so?

Please help!

For instance Hermitian 2x2 complex matrices can be naturally identified with Minkowski space. Determinant of the matrix defines in this case the quadratic form of Minkowski space geometry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
12K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K