Symmetries of Higher Dimensions & Extra Spacetimes

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
latentcorpse said:
Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?

Thanks.

Most manifolds have no isometries at all, so no. If you are talking about some Kaluza-Klein or string theory model that would try to reproduce standard model physics, then there are additional constraints on the allowed manifolds that require certain symmetries.
 
fzero said:
Most manifolds have no isometries at all, so no. If you are talking about some Kaluza-Klein or string theory model that would try to reproduce standard model physics, then there are additional constraints on the allowed manifolds that require certain symmetries.

Yeah. Thanks.

Just to clear up what an isometry actually is though:

I know it is a symmetry transformation of the metric tensor field.
i.e. a map \phi: M \rightarrow M such that (\phi)_*g=g

However, what does this actually mean?

Suppose the metric is invariant of t. We can see from Killing's equation that \frac{\partial}{\partial t} will be a Killing vector field easily enough but what does this actually mean the isometry is?
Would the isometry be the map \phi: M \rightarrow M ; t \mapsto t+c i.e. time translations?

Thanks.
 
latentcorpse said:
Yeah. Thanks.

Just to clear up what an isometry actually is though:

I know it is a symmetry transformation of the metric tensor field.
i.e. a map \phi: M \rightarrow M such that (\phi)_*g=g

However, what does this actually mean?

Suppose the metric is invariant of t. We can see from Killing's equation that \frac{\partial}{\partial t} will be a Killing vector field easily enough but what does this actually mean the isometry is?
Would the isometry be the map \phi: M \rightarrow M ; t \mapsto t+c i.e. time translations?

Thanks.

Yes, any isometry corresponds to the existence of a Killing vector field. From the Killing vector, we can define a conjugate coordinate, at least locally, for which the isometry corresponds to a translation.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
988
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top