latentcorpse
- 1,411
- 0
Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?
Thanks.
Thanks.
The discussion revolves around the symmetries of higher-dimensional spacetimes, particularly focusing on the existence of isometries in various manifold structures and their implications in theories like Kaluza-Klein and string theory.
The discussion is active, with participants clarifying definitions and exploring the implications of isometries. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between isometries and Killing vector fields, though multiple interpretations of isometries are still being examined.
There is an ongoing examination of the constraints on manifolds within specific theoretical frameworks, such as Kaluza-Klein and string theory, which may influence the presence of symmetries.
latentcorpse said:Is it true to say that most higher dimensional spacetimes have symmetries amongst their n extra dimensions?
Thanks.
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.
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.