I Pseudo-Riemaniann isometries

cianfa72
Messages
2,784
Reaction score
293
TL;DR Summary
About the isometries of pseudo-riemannian manifolds and the definition of manifold isotropic around a point
I'd ask for clarification about the symmetries of (pseudo) Riemannian manifold ##M## of dimension ##n##.

The set of smooth vector fields ##\Gamma(TM)## forms a vector space over ##\mathbb R##; the commutator defined as $$[X,Y](f):=X(Y(f)) - Y(X(f))$$ turns it into a (infinite dimensional) Lie algebra.

Consider the set of continuous isometries, i.e. the flows of Killing Vector Fields w.r.t. the tensor metric ##g##. KVFs form a linear subspace of ##\Gamma (TM)## that closes w.r.t. the commutator, i.e. it is a Lie algebra on its own. As far as I can tell, this linear subspace/Lie algebra over ##\mathbb R## has always finite dimension ##m \geq n##.

That said, consider for instance the case of spherically symmetric Lorentzian metric. It has a specific Lie algebra of rotational KVFs. The latter should be a linear subspace/Lie algebra of the Lie algebra of all KVFs.

Now the question: does the definition of isotropy around a point apply to the entire spacetime as manifold or to its spacelike submanifolds ?

I took as definition of isotropy around a point the one from J. Lee - Introduction to Riemannian manifolds" chapter 3 - Symmetries of Riemannian Manifolds.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Lee's definition of isotropic at a point is in the context of Riemannian Geometry where there isn't a time dimension typically per se so it applies to the entire tangent space at a point. Maybe other authors have different conventions in the context of pseudo-Riemannian geometry.
 
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4613275/are-3-dimensional-einstein-manifolds-isotropic has a definition of isotropic in the semi-riemannian case. Basically non-null tangent vectors at a point of the same length must have an isometry that maps one to the other.

This has some interesting cases. For instance a vector whose spatial components are greater than their time components would have to be map into a pure spatial vector with no time component. Locally these are basically the symmetries of the Lorentz group.
 
jbergman said:
Maybe other authors have different conventions in the context of pseudo-Riemannian geometry.
S .Carroll in his book "Spacetime and geometry" section 8.1 defines a manifold isotropic around a point ##p## if for any ##V,W \in T_pM## there exists an isometry ##\theta_p## in the subgroup of isometries that leave fixed ##p## and ##k \in \mathbb R## such that $$\theta_p^*(W)=kV$$ where ##\theta_p^*## is the pushforward associated to ##\theta_p## evaluated at ##p##.

I believe in this case the relevant manifold ##M## to which the notion of isotropy applies isn't the spacetime as whole but its spacelike hypersurfaces (which are Riemannian manifolds of their own).

jbergman said:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4613275/are-3-dimensional-einstein-manifolds-isotropic has a definition of isotropic in the semi-riemannian case. Basically non-null tangent vectors at a point of the same length must have an isometry that maps one to the other.
In that link I believe the relevant condition isn't on the isometry ##\theta_p## fixing the point ##p## by itself, but on its associated pushforward ##\theta_p## at ##p##. It applies to the same type of non-null vectors in tangent space (i.e. either spacelike or timelike).
 
cianfa72 said:
S .Carroll in his book "Spacetime and geometry" section 8.1 defines a manifold isotropic around a point ##p## if for any ##V,W \in T_pM## there exists an isometry ##\theta_p## in the subgroup of isometries that leave fixed ##p## and ##k \in \mathbb R## such that $$\theta_p^*(W)=kV$$ where ##\theta_p^*## is the pushforward associated to ##\theta_p## evaluated at ##p##.

I believe in this case the relevant manifold ##M## to which the notion of isotropy applies isn't the spacetime as whole but its spacelike hypersurfaces (which are Riemannian manifolds of their own).
I glanced at Carroll and it appears that he is talking about a specific foliation of spacetime with the requirement that the submanifold spatial leaves are isotropic. However, he notes that a different non-comoving observer, i.e., a different foliation would not find their leaves also isotropic.
 
Back
Top