Unveiling the Connection: Rotation Groups & Hyperspheres

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the isomorphism between the group of orthonormal rotations in n-dimensional space, SO(n), and the group of geodesic translations in a positively curved hypersphere of n(n-1)/2 dimensions. The initial post presents this concept as clear and intuitive, though it notes a lack of prior presentation in existing literature. A participant raises the need for clarification regarding the definition of "geodesic translations," particularly in relation to rotations around an axis. They specifically mention the case of n=3, suggesting that rotation is only a geodesic translation for points on the equator of the sphere. The conversation emphasizes the mapping of geodesics to rotations, indicating a deeper exploration of these mathematical relationships.
Tyger
Messages
388
Reaction score
0
My first post, about rotation groups..

A result about rotation groups.

To me this seems clear, simple and very intuitive, but in all the papers and books I've read on the subject I have never seen it presented. Maybe some of you have seen it, or maybe it is new. It is very simple to state:

The group of orthonormal rotations in a space of n dimensions, SO(n) is isomorphic to the group of geodesic translations in a positively curved space (hypersphere) of n(n-1)/2 dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Originally posted by Tyger
A result about rotation groups.

To me this seems clear, simple and very intuitive, but in all the papers and books I've read on the subject I have never seen it presented. Maybe some of you have seen it, or maybe it is new. It is very simple to state:

The group of orthonormal rotations in a space of n dimensions, SO(n) is isomorphic to the group of geodesic translations in a positively curved space (hypersphere) of n(n-1)/2 dimensions.

this is a nice thought. It may require a special clarification of what is meant by "group of geodesic translations" in order to make sense-----or this could be my private confusion and it is immediately understandable to everyone but me!

I think of the case n=3 where your theorem says
SO(3) is isomorphic to the geodesic translations of a sphere in 3 dimensions.
This seems right except that rotation around an axis is only a "geodesic translation" for points on the equator. So that one may have to extend the definition in some fashion.

Sorry about the vagueness, I just this moment saw your message and am replying directly.
 
Maybe I better clarify my statement

Choose any two points in a sphere of n(n-1)/2 dimensions, draw a geodesic from one point to the other. Every such geodesic can be mapped to a rotation in a space of n dimensions.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top