Symmetries of Higher Dimensions & Extra Spacetimes

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

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.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of isometries and their relationship to the metric tensor field. Questions are raised about the implications of time invariance and the meaning of isometries in the context of Killing vector fields.

Discussion Status

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.

Contextual Notes

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
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K