A Metric of the "space" of 3d rotations

  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Space
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the topology of 3D rotations, specifically that the space of these rotations is diffeomorphic to real projective space P3(R). It examines the construction of a metric for this space, suggesting that the distance between points could be defined by the rotation angle needed to transition from one point to another. The conversation also touches on whether such a metric exists and if it would be Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian, with references to relevant literature and concepts like the Haar measure and the Killing form. Participants express uncertainty about the existence of a metric tensor for this space, highlighting the complexity of defining such a structure. The exploration of these mathematical concepts indicates a rich area for further research and analysis in the field of 3D rotations.
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,419
Reaction score
1,591
I was recently reading that the space of 3d rotations should have the topology of a real projective space. For confirmation, see wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_rotation_group.

wiki said:
The Lie group SO(3) is diffeomorphic to the real projective space P 3 ( R ) . {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ^{3}(\mathbb {R} ).}[4]

Consider the solid ball in R^3 of radius π (that is, all points of R^3 of distance π or less from the origin). Given the above, for every point in this ball there is a rotation, with axis through the point and the origin, and rotation angle equal to the distance of the point from the origin. The identity rotation corresponds to the point at the center of the ball. Rotation through an angle 𝜃 between 0 and π (not including either) are on the same axis at the same distance. Rotation through angles between 0 and −π correspond to the point on the same axis and distance from the origin but on the opposite side of the origin. The one remaining issue is that the two rotations through π and through −π are the same. So we identify (or "glue together") antipodal points on the surface of the ball. After this identification, we arrive at a topological space homeomorphic to the rotation group.

It seems to me that when we assign coordinates to this space (I was thinking of using the Euler angles, but actually there's no need to be so specific), the resulting space should have a metric, the "distance" between points being the amount one has to rotate to get from one "point" to another.

I was wondering if anyone has written a metric for this space (there should be more than one, I'm interested in any such realization), and whether it would be Riemannian or pseudo-Riemanian. There is also the possibility that my intuition that such a metric exists is incorrect, proof that it does not exist would also be interesting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pervect said:
when we assign coordinates to this space (I was thinking of using the Euler angles, but actually there's no need to be so specific), the resulting space should have a metric
I don't think this is true in general; assigning coordinates means it's a manifold, but a manifold does not have to have a metric.
 
pervect said:
I was wondering if anyone has written a metric for this space (there should be more than one, I'm interested in any such realization), and whether it would be Riemannian or pseudo-Riemanian. There is also the possibility that my intuition that such a metric exists is incorrect, proof that it does not exist would also be interesting.
This paper might be germane: Metrics for 3D Rotations: Comparison and Analysis.
 
  • Like
Likes Filip Larsen
There is the concept of the Haar measure, but that relates to a group invariant volume form, not necessarily to a metric tensor. I am unsure whether similar arguments can be used to construct a metric tensor (i.e., a positive definite symmetric bilinear map on the Lie algebra so(3)). I have not seen such a construction, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Edit: Search and thou shalt find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_form
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
691
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K