Metric of the "space" of 3d rotations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topology and metric properties of the space of 3D rotations, specifically considering the relationship between the rotation group SO(3) and real projective space. Participants explore the existence of metrics on this space, the implications of assigning coordinates, and the potential for different types of metrics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the space of 3D rotations has the topology of real projective space and describes a method for visualizing this using a solid ball in R^3.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that assigning coordinates to this space necessarily implies the existence of a metric, stating that a manifold does not require a metric.
  • A participant expresses interest in existing metrics for this space, questioning whether they would be Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian, and suggests that proof of non-existence of such metrics would also be valuable.
  • There is mention of the Haar measure as a group invariant volume form, with uncertainty about its relation to constructing a metric tensor on the Lie algebra so(3).
  • A reference to the Killing form is provided as a potential avenue for further exploration regarding metric construction.
  • Links to external resources on charts on SO(3) and geodesics of the rotation group are shared, though their relevance is noted as uncertain by the contributor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between coordinate assignment and the existence of a metric, indicating a lack of consensus on this point. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence and nature of metrics on the space of 3D rotations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of metrics and manifolds, as well as the unresolved nature of the mathematical constructions discussed.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,447
Reaction score
1,610
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   Reactions: 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
 

Similar threads

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