Dimensionality of Non-Euclidean geometry

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the dimensionality of non-Euclidean geometry, particularly in relation to how 3D non-Euclidean spaces might be represented or understood without necessarily embedding them in higher dimensions. Participants explore concepts related to manifolds, intrinsic versus extrinsic geometry, and the implications of one-to-one mappings between Euclidean and non-Euclidean coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a one-to-one mapping exists between 3D Euclidean coordinates and 3D non-Euclidean coordinates, then higher spatial dimensions may not be necessary for understanding 3D non-Euclidean geometry.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of manifolds, noting that a 3-dimensional manifold can locally resemble Euclidean space but may require multiple charts to describe it fully.
  • A later reply emphasizes the importance of intrinsic geometry, stating that it does not require embedding in higher dimensions to understand the geometry observed through measurement on the manifold itself.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic geometry, highlighting that intrinsic geometry does not convey how a manifold bends in space, while extrinsic geometry does, and that these two are closely related.
  • One participant mentions the Gauss curvature as an example of intrinsic geometry, which can be determined by the behavior of the unit normal in 3D space as it moves across the surface.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of higher dimensions for understanding 3D non-Euclidean geometry, with some supporting the idea of one-to-one mappings while others emphasize the complexity of manifolds and the need for multiple charts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of mappings between coordinate systems and the definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic geometries, which may not be universally agreed upon. The relationship between curvature and the geometry of manifolds is also highlighted but not fully resolved.

yuiop
Messages
3,962
Reaction score
20
In introductions to non Euclidean geometry, examples are often given in the form of measuring angles on a 2D surface embedded in a 3D space, such as the surface of a sphere or on a saddle surface. This gave me the initial impression that 3D non Euclidean geometry would have to be embedded in 4 or more spatial dimensions. However, it then occurred to me that if I can map 3D Euclidean coordinates to 3D non Euclidean coordinates in a one to one relationship in an unambiguous manner, then I can describe any set of Euclidean 3D coordinates in terms of non Euclidean coordinates, without having to invoke any higher spatial dimensions. Is the one to one mapping relationship true and is the conclusion true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should read about manifolds. A 3-dimensional manifold locally looks like 3-dimensional Euclidean space, but in general you don't have a single 3D coordinate system (chart) for the entire manifold, but in general they're constructed by piecing together several charts.

For example: the 3-sphere S3 can be described by two charts: one defined everywhere on the sphere except the north pole, and another defined everywhere except the south pole.
 
adriank said:
You should read about manifolds.
...and Riemannian geometry!
 
kev said:
In introductions to non Euclidean geometry, examples are often given in the form of measuring angles on a 2D surface embedded in a 3D space, such as the surface of a sphere or on a saddle surface. This gave me the initial impression that 3D non Euclidean geometry would have to be embedded in 4 or more spatial dimensions. However, it then occurred to me that if I can map 3D Euclidean coordinates to 3D non Euclidean coordinates in a one to one relationship in an unambiguous manner, then I can describe any set of Euclidean 3D coordinates in terms of non Euclidean coordinates, without having to invoke any higher spatial dimensions. Is the one to one mapping relationship true and is the conclusion true?

If you have a 3d coordinate system that is described by lines with known lengths and angles - e.g. a geodesic coordinate system - then you do not need to embed that manifold into 4d or higher in order to see its geometry. This is the geometry you would observe by measurement on the manifold itself rather than the geometry you get by looking down on it from the outside.

There is a difference between the intrinsic geometry and the embedded geometry. Intrinsic geometry does not tell you how the manifold bends and curves in space whereas extrinsic does. However the two geometries are intimately linked. For instance, the Gauss curvature of a surface - which is intrinsic - can be determined by the way the unit normal in 3 space changes direction as you move it around on the surface.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K