A Metric of the "space" of 3d rotations

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Space
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,403
Reaction score
1,582
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 this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top