How can a representation of SO(3) be more than 3 dimensional?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The group SO(3) can be represented (and defined) by 3-by-3 matrices as most of us have seen many times before.
But in "Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists", we "construct" an 8-dimensional representation by stacking two one dimensional and two 3-dimensional representations "on top" of each other, and we get an 8-dimensional (obviously reducible) representation. But I cannot comprehend how an 8-dimensional representation would even make sense when talking about rotations in 3 dimensions. The original 3-dimensional representation would work on a 3-dimensional vector but how would an 8-dimensional matrix be able to perform any meaningful operation on such a vector? Am I missing the point?
group-theory representation-theory
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The group SO(3) can be represented (and defined) by 3-by-3 matrices as most of us have seen many times before.
But in "Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists", we "construct" an 8-dimensional representation by stacking two one dimensional and two 3-dimensional representations "on top" of each other, and we get an 8-dimensional (obviously reducible) representation. But I cannot comprehend how an 8-dimensional representation would even make sense when talking about rotations in 3 dimensions. The original 3-dimensional representation would work on a 3-dimensional vector but how would an 8-dimensional matrix be able to perform any meaningful operation on such a vector? Am I missing the point?
group-theory representation-theory
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The group SO(3) can be represented (and defined) by 3-by-3 matrices as most of us have seen many times before.
But in "Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists", we "construct" an 8-dimensional representation by stacking two one dimensional and two 3-dimensional representations "on top" of each other, and we get an 8-dimensional (obviously reducible) representation. But I cannot comprehend how an 8-dimensional representation would even make sense when talking about rotations in 3 dimensions. The original 3-dimensional representation would work on a 3-dimensional vector but how would an 8-dimensional matrix be able to perform any meaningful operation on such a vector? Am I missing the point?
group-theory representation-theory
The group SO(3) can be represented (and defined) by 3-by-3 matrices as most of us have seen many times before.
But in "Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists", we "construct" an 8-dimensional representation by stacking two one dimensional and two 3-dimensional representations "on top" of each other, and we get an 8-dimensional (obviously reducible) representation. But I cannot comprehend how an 8-dimensional representation would even make sense when talking about rotations in 3 dimensions. The original 3-dimensional representation would work on a 3-dimensional vector but how would an 8-dimensional matrix be able to perform any meaningful operation on such a vector? Am I missing the point?
group-theory representation-theory
asked Aug 8 at 20:06
tbaek
62
62
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04
add a comment |Â
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Yes, you are :-). You're looking at a very specific and rather anomalous case where a group happens to be defined in terms of linear maps on a vector space â that's not the best way to get to grips with the concept of a linear representation, since it invites you to confuse the defining representation with representations in general.
Better to start with a different example. The symmetric group $S_n$ can act linearly on all sorts of vector spaces. For instance, on the space of real-valued functions on $n$ elements, yielding an $n$-dimensional representation (which decomposes into a $1$-dimensional and an $(n-1)$-dimensional irreducible representation). Or on the space of real-valued functions on ordered pairs of $n$ elements, yielding an $n^2$-dimensional representation (which contains a copy of the $n$-dimensional representation in the previous example).
So a representation and its possible dimensions have nothing to do with any dimensions that may occur in the definition of the group, as most groups (like $S_n$) have nothing to do with vector spaces.
In the case of $SO(3)$, consider how the group acts on $3times3$ matrices, where the action of an element $Oin SO(3)$ on a matrix $A$ is defined by $O^top AO$. This is a linear action on the $9$-dimensional space of $3times3$ matrices, and thus a $9$-dimensional representation of $SO(3)$. Multiples of the identity transform among themselves and thus form a $1$-dimensional subrepresentation. Antisymmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $3$-dimensional subrepresentation. Traceless symmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $5$-dimensional subrepresentation.
This $9$-dimensional representation happens to have a clear physical interpretation in $3$-dimensional space. For instance, the moment of inertia of a body is a symmetric $3times3$ matrix, which you can decompose into a scalar part and a traceless part. When you rotate the system, these transform according to the above $1$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional subrepresentations, respectively. But representations don't need to have such interpretations; all that's required for a representation is the abstract property that the multiplication among a set of linear maps on a vector space corresponds to the group multiplication.
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Yes, you are :-). You're looking at a very specific and rather anomalous case where a group happens to be defined in terms of linear maps on a vector space â that's not the best way to get to grips with the concept of a linear representation, since it invites you to confuse the defining representation with representations in general.
Better to start with a different example. The symmetric group $S_n$ can act linearly on all sorts of vector spaces. For instance, on the space of real-valued functions on $n$ elements, yielding an $n$-dimensional representation (which decomposes into a $1$-dimensional and an $(n-1)$-dimensional irreducible representation). Or on the space of real-valued functions on ordered pairs of $n$ elements, yielding an $n^2$-dimensional representation (which contains a copy of the $n$-dimensional representation in the previous example).
So a representation and its possible dimensions have nothing to do with any dimensions that may occur in the definition of the group, as most groups (like $S_n$) have nothing to do with vector spaces.
In the case of $SO(3)$, consider how the group acts on $3times3$ matrices, where the action of an element $Oin SO(3)$ on a matrix $A$ is defined by $O^top AO$. This is a linear action on the $9$-dimensional space of $3times3$ matrices, and thus a $9$-dimensional representation of $SO(3)$. Multiples of the identity transform among themselves and thus form a $1$-dimensional subrepresentation. Antisymmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $3$-dimensional subrepresentation. Traceless symmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $5$-dimensional subrepresentation.
This $9$-dimensional representation happens to have a clear physical interpretation in $3$-dimensional space. For instance, the moment of inertia of a body is a symmetric $3times3$ matrix, which you can decompose into a scalar part and a traceless part. When you rotate the system, these transform according to the above $1$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional subrepresentations, respectively. But representations don't need to have such interpretations; all that's required for a representation is the abstract property that the multiplication among a set of linear maps on a vector space corresponds to the group multiplication.
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Yes, you are :-). You're looking at a very specific and rather anomalous case where a group happens to be defined in terms of linear maps on a vector space â that's not the best way to get to grips with the concept of a linear representation, since it invites you to confuse the defining representation with representations in general.
Better to start with a different example. The symmetric group $S_n$ can act linearly on all sorts of vector spaces. For instance, on the space of real-valued functions on $n$ elements, yielding an $n$-dimensional representation (which decomposes into a $1$-dimensional and an $(n-1)$-dimensional irreducible representation). Or on the space of real-valued functions on ordered pairs of $n$ elements, yielding an $n^2$-dimensional representation (which contains a copy of the $n$-dimensional representation in the previous example).
So a representation and its possible dimensions have nothing to do with any dimensions that may occur in the definition of the group, as most groups (like $S_n$) have nothing to do with vector spaces.
In the case of $SO(3)$, consider how the group acts on $3times3$ matrices, where the action of an element $Oin SO(3)$ on a matrix $A$ is defined by $O^top AO$. This is a linear action on the $9$-dimensional space of $3times3$ matrices, and thus a $9$-dimensional representation of $SO(3)$. Multiples of the identity transform among themselves and thus form a $1$-dimensional subrepresentation. Antisymmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $3$-dimensional subrepresentation. Traceless symmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $5$-dimensional subrepresentation.
This $9$-dimensional representation happens to have a clear physical interpretation in $3$-dimensional space. For instance, the moment of inertia of a body is a symmetric $3times3$ matrix, which you can decompose into a scalar part and a traceless part. When you rotate the system, these transform according to the above $1$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional subrepresentations, respectively. But representations don't need to have such interpretations; all that's required for a representation is the abstract property that the multiplication among a set of linear maps on a vector space corresponds to the group multiplication.
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Yes, you are :-). You're looking at a very specific and rather anomalous case where a group happens to be defined in terms of linear maps on a vector space â that's not the best way to get to grips with the concept of a linear representation, since it invites you to confuse the defining representation with representations in general.
Better to start with a different example. The symmetric group $S_n$ can act linearly on all sorts of vector spaces. For instance, on the space of real-valued functions on $n$ elements, yielding an $n$-dimensional representation (which decomposes into a $1$-dimensional and an $(n-1)$-dimensional irreducible representation). Or on the space of real-valued functions on ordered pairs of $n$ elements, yielding an $n^2$-dimensional representation (which contains a copy of the $n$-dimensional representation in the previous example).
So a representation and its possible dimensions have nothing to do with any dimensions that may occur in the definition of the group, as most groups (like $S_n$) have nothing to do with vector spaces.
In the case of $SO(3)$, consider how the group acts on $3times3$ matrices, where the action of an element $Oin SO(3)$ on a matrix $A$ is defined by $O^top AO$. This is a linear action on the $9$-dimensional space of $3times3$ matrices, and thus a $9$-dimensional representation of $SO(3)$. Multiples of the identity transform among themselves and thus form a $1$-dimensional subrepresentation. Antisymmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $3$-dimensional subrepresentation. Traceless symmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $5$-dimensional subrepresentation.
This $9$-dimensional representation happens to have a clear physical interpretation in $3$-dimensional space. For instance, the moment of inertia of a body is a symmetric $3times3$ matrix, which you can decompose into a scalar part and a traceless part. When you rotate the system, these transform according to the above $1$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional subrepresentations, respectively. But representations don't need to have such interpretations; all that's required for a representation is the abstract property that the multiplication among a set of linear maps on a vector space corresponds to the group multiplication.
Yes, you are :-). You're looking at a very specific and rather anomalous case where a group happens to be defined in terms of linear maps on a vector space â that's not the best way to get to grips with the concept of a linear representation, since it invites you to confuse the defining representation with representations in general.
Better to start with a different example. The symmetric group $S_n$ can act linearly on all sorts of vector spaces. For instance, on the space of real-valued functions on $n$ elements, yielding an $n$-dimensional representation (which decomposes into a $1$-dimensional and an $(n-1)$-dimensional irreducible representation). Or on the space of real-valued functions on ordered pairs of $n$ elements, yielding an $n^2$-dimensional representation (which contains a copy of the $n$-dimensional representation in the previous example).
So a representation and its possible dimensions have nothing to do with any dimensions that may occur in the definition of the group, as most groups (like $S_n$) have nothing to do with vector spaces.
In the case of $SO(3)$, consider how the group acts on $3times3$ matrices, where the action of an element $Oin SO(3)$ on a matrix $A$ is defined by $O^top AO$. This is a linear action on the $9$-dimensional space of $3times3$ matrices, and thus a $9$-dimensional representation of $SO(3)$. Multiples of the identity transform among themselves and thus form a $1$-dimensional subrepresentation. Antisymmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $3$-dimensional subrepresentation. Traceless symmetric matrices also transform among themselves and thus form a $5$-dimensional subrepresentation.
This $9$-dimensional representation happens to have a clear physical interpretation in $3$-dimensional space. For instance, the moment of inertia of a body is a symmetric $3times3$ matrix, which you can decompose into a scalar part and a traceless part. When you rotate the system, these transform according to the above $1$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional subrepresentations, respectively. But representations don't need to have such interpretations; all that's required for a representation is the abstract property that the multiplication among a set of linear maps on a vector space corresponds to the group multiplication.
edited Aug 9 at 5:15
answered Aug 8 at 20:29
joriki
165k10180328
165k10180328
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
1
1
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
Thank you so much for your answer - I feel like I'm getting closer to understanding. I'm still trying to understand everything you write, so I may follow up with some questions.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:29
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
@tbaek: You're welcome. I corrected the part about the moment of inertia, which isn't traceless but rather decomposes into a scalar and a traceless part. Do feel free to ask questions about the answer.
â joriki
Aug 9 at 5:20
1
1
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
I just want to follow up and say, that after carefully reading your response throughout the day, I (feel like I) get it - so, thanks again!
â tbaek
Aug 9 at 17:16
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2876529%2fhow-can-a-representation-of-so3-be-more-than-3-dimensional%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Where did an $8$-dimensional vector come from? You have a group consisting of $3times 3$ matrices, and it happens to have a nice action via linear maps on an $8$-dimensional vector space. It seems like you have even been given an explicit description of this action.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:22
Sorry, I meant to ask where the $8$-dimensional matrix came from.
â Tobias Kildetoft
Aug 8 at 20:28
The book asks if we can construct an 8-dimensional representation of SO(3) and answers by creating one by "stacking" already established representations "on top of each other" looking like this. I don't think I understand the rest of your comment, since I don't have an 8-dimensional vector space.
â tbaek
Aug 8 at 21:22
"Stacking" representations gives you what is called the direct sum -- in your case you get $8times 8$ matrices acting on $8$-dimensional vectors. The way it works is you just act on each part of the vector at once, according to that part's chosen representation.
â Kyle Miller
Aug 9 at 0:04