latentcorpse
- 1,411
- 0
Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?
Thanks.
Thanks.
latentcorpse said:Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?
Thanks.
fzero said:Most manifolds have no isometries at all, so no. If you are talking about some Kaluza-Klein or string theory model that would try to reproduce standard model physics, then there are additional constraints on the allowed manifolds that require certain symmetries.
latentcorpse said:Yeah. Thanks.
Just to clear up what an isometry actually is though:
I know it is a symmetry transformation of the metric tensor field.
i.e. a map [itex]\phi: M \rightarrow M[/itex] such that [itex](\phi)_*g=g[/itex]
However, what does this actually mean?
Suppose the metric is invariant of t. We can see from Killing's equation that [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/itex] will be a Killing vector field easily enough but what does this actually mean the isometry is?
Would the isometry be the map [itex]\phi: M \rightarrow M ; t \mapsto t+c[/itex] i.e. time translations?
Thanks.