We continue our exploration from Part 20. But before diving in, let’s pause to reorient ourselves in the intellectual landscape we’ve been cultivating. It’s a landscape shaped as much by precision as by repetition, a principle philosophers and mathematicians alike have lauded. Aristotle reminds us, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Schopenhauer, taking a more hedonistic turn, observes that “Happiness consists in frequent repetition of pleasure.”
Repetition, then, is both the sculptor and the rhythm of mastery. Think
of the pianist perfecting a sonata, the athlete refining their form, or
the mathematician—us—rewriting the foundations of Minkowski space to
craft an associative algebra with unity. Each iteration brings us closer
to elegance.
Speaking of pleasure, our joy in this series has been the art of complexification. We’ve taken the familiar terrain of Minkowski space and imbued it with richer structure, transforming it into a four-dimensional complex associative algebra. Each layer added is not merely an act of calculation but one of creative fulfillment—a reminder that repetition, when combined with curiosity, is the essence of discovery.
We write a general element of the algebra as p = (p0,p), where p0 is a complex scalar, and p is a complex vector with three complex components p1,p2,p3. The multiplication formula is simple to remember:
(p0,p)(q0,q) = (p0q0 + p·q, p0q + q0p + i p⨯q). (1)
On the other hand we can interpret this rule as coming from the real 8-dimensional Clifford algebra with a basis e0=1, e1, e2, e3, e2e3, e3e1, e1e2, e1e2e3. When treated as complex space, we set i = e1e2e3, and the complex basis has only four elements 1,e1,e2,e3, since, for instance, e1e2=ie3.
When thinking of Cl(V) as a complex algebra it is useful to remember two formulas. For u,v in V we have
uv + vu = 2u·v
uv - vu = 2i u⨯v.
Adding these two equation together we obtain:
uv = i u⨯v + u·v.
On the other hand, if Cl(V) is being considered as an 8-dimensional real vector space, we have the wedge product and the identity:
uv = u∧v + u·v .
In calculations it is always necessary to decide in advance whether we perform the calculation in real 8 dimensions or complex 4 dimensions, otherwise contradictions may easily arise.
These are useful formulas that are worth of being memorized. In the algebra we also have the anti-automorphism ν, which in the above notation, for x = (x0,x), takes the simple form
ν(x) = (x0,-x). (2)
It is clear from this last formula that ν is complex linear i.e. ν(ix) = i ν(x). It readily follows from (1) and (2) that for any element x of the algebra we have that xν(x) is a scalar:
xν(x) = ν(x)x = ((x0)2 - x2, 0).
We have defined the group G as consisting of those elements of the algebra for which this scalar is equal to one:
G = {u: uν(u) = 1} ={u: (u0)2 - u2 = 1}.
From the defining formula, uν(u) = 1, we see that for all u in G we have
ν(u) = u-1.
Now, after this recall of the main formulas, we can return to our task at hand. We want to see how G acts on the null cone in Minkowski space, and how this action translates to its action on the (x,y) plane of stereographic projection. Since we want real x to be transformed into real x, we choose the action
x' = gxτ(g),
the option already studied as 1) in Part 17. Here we will do it again, this time using the complex notation. But we will do it in the next post.
P.S. 07-12-24 12:04 Here are additional comments in response to the apparent contradiction noted by Bjab in the comments.
We have real algebra Cl(V) and we have the algebra of complex quaternions, let us call it here A. We have a real linear isomorphism of vector spaces, let us call it c from Cl(V) onto A:
c(1)=1
c(e1) = e1, c(e2)=e2, c(e3) = e3,
c(e1e2e3) =i,
c(e1e2) = ie3, c(e2e3)=ie1, c(e3e1)=ie2.
In the above we can write e1∧e2 instead of e1e2 etc. This is the same for orthogonal vectors
The elements of A we can represent in terms of components (u0,<b>u</b>). Then, for any u,v in Cl(V) c(uv) is given by (1) in terms of components c(u) and c(v). But it is not true that in general c(u∧v) = i c(u)⨯c(v), even if both sides are well defined. Example: u=e1, v=e2e3.
P.S. 07-12-24 14:27 8 years after I posted this video I am getting a question "Camera setting pls , is this from video mode ?". Like I remember!
Thanks for the formula:
ReplyDeleteu∧v = i u⨯v.
Now on one hand:
(because of associativity)
e1∧(e1∧e2) = (e1∧e1)∧e2 = 0e2 = 0
but on the other hand:
e1∧(e1∧e2) = e1∧ ((1/i) e1⨯e2)
= (1/i) e1∧ (e1⨯e2)
= (1/i) (1/i) e1⨯ (e1⨯e2)
= - e1⨯ (e1⨯e2)
= - (-e2)
= e2
What is going on?
Thanks! Perhaps I have messed up something. Will analyze the problem. Writing the pdf file I realized that I need to distinguish between Cl considered as a real 8D Clifford algebra and the same algebra considered as a 4D complex algebra. I need to denote them differently and always be clear in which environment a given formula holds. It can be confusing. So, please, be patient.
DeleteCross product as such is not associative, so the first equality in "on one hand" is not correct, FWIW.
Delete@Saša:
DeleteCross product as such is not associative, so the first equality in "on one hand" is not correct
But in "on one hand" there is not cross product - There is wedge product which, they say, is associative.
P.S.
DeleteFrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product
"The cross product is anticommutative (that is, a × b = − b × a) and is distributive over addition, that is, a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c. The space E [a three-dimensional oriented Euclidean vector space] together with the cross product is an algebra over the real numbers, which is neither commutative nor associative, but is a Lie algebra with the cross product being the Lie bracket."
meaning it satisfies the Jacobi identity in 3d (but fails to do so in 7d).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobi_identity
"Let + and × be two binary operations, and let 0 be the neutral element for +. The Jacobi identity is
x × (y × z) + y × (z × x) + z × (x × y) = 0.
Notice the pattern in the variables on the left side of this identity. In each subsequent expression of the form a × (b × c), the variables x, y and z are permuted according to the cycle x ↦ y ↦ z ↦ x. Alternatively, we may observe that the ordered triples (x, y, z), (y, z, x) and (z, x, y), are the even permutations of the ordered triple (x, y, z)."
FWIW.
@Bjab "Cross product as such is not associative, so the first equality in "on one hand" is not correct." Indeed. So I have to correct what is incorrect, even if it looks "so nice and simple".
DeleteWill do it tomorrow, with a fresh mind. Thanks a lot!
Saša,
Deletewhy do you keep mentioning cross product when there are wedge products in e1∧(e1∧e2) and wedge product IS assotiative?
Because in the line above "on one hand" you thanked for formula identity of wedge and cross products, and then used that formula in "on the other hand".
DeleteP.S. If you use the wedge and cross product formula, then evidently "on one hand" is incorrect because the cross product is not associative, and if you claim that wedge product is associative then automatically that formula is incorrect. In principle, no need for anything further than that.
DeleteIn Part 5,
Deletehttps://ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-spin-chronicles-part-4-exterior.html
it was defined that the exterior product "∧" (or a wedge product) of two vectors resulted in a bivector, i.e. moved us outside of simple 3d space of vectors.
In that sense, it's evident that either in formula
u∧v = i u⨯v,
where u and v are 3d vectors and × is their cross product, the symbol "∧" is not a wedge product from Part 5, or the formula as such is not correct because the result should not be a 3d vector.
Roger, we're copying it. Working on it.
DeleteWe have to be careful - some of the following equations must be wrong:
Deletee1∧(e1∧e2) = e1∧(i e1⨯e2)
= i e1∧(e1⨯e2)
= i i e1⨯(e1⨯e2)
= - e1⨯(e1⨯e2)
= - (-e2)
= e2
"e1∧(e1∧e2) = e1∧(i e1⨯e2)"
DeleteHere you are mixing real and complex. In the updated post I have warned against such manipulations.
Yet my conscience is not yet at peace. Have to think somewhat deeper.
DeleteI think the source of the confusion is my using the same symbol for complex vectors and for real vectors. It would be better to use different notation. Though I do not know yet how to do it in a simple way.
Delete"e1∧(e1∧e2) = e1∧(i e1⨯e2)"
Delete"Here you are mixing real and complex. In the updated post I have warned against such manipulations."
Well, I think that the above equation is OK because:
e1∧e2 = i e1⨯e2 = i e3 = e12
I think this one:
e1∧(i e1⨯e2) = i e1∧(e1⨯e2)
is suspected.
I added a P.S. to the note. Is it OK now?
DeleteAre the dot products defined the same way, i.e. identical for both, 8d real and 4d complex Cl(3)? That is, is in general true that c(u.v) = c(u).c(v)?
DeleteYes and no. The same way in the sense that the same formula holds. For real vectors from V we have x.y = x_i y_i. And for any two elements of Cl(V) considered as complex 4D space we also have u.v = u_i v_i. But x.y is a real number, while u.v will be, in general, a complex number. But if x,y are real vectors from V, then c(x.y) = x.y =c(x).c(y).
DeleteMakes sense, thanks.
DeleteThat might also add an explaination to the issue with the wedge and cross products, meaning that the dot product result, being complex number for example, might add terms to the cross product result so that overall identity for the multiplication holds for both cases, for 8d real and 4d complex. Right?
Imdeed, mixing together different categories is dangerous endeavour. There is a category of real vector spaces and another category of complex vector spaces. There may be maps from objects of one category to objects in another category. They should be written explicitly as maps. I was trying to take notational shortcuts, and got into a trouble. I have managed to confuse even myself this way. Good that Bjab noticed the problem,
DeleteAgree. God bless Bjab, and thanks Heavens for sending him/her, like a good spirit Casper to watch over you/us here.
DeleteA quick recap question:
ReplyDeleteAfter setting the stage with 8d real Cl(V) (more or less), we are now decorating it to reflect the same setting but as 4d complex Cl(V), or poetically said, we're having fun complexifying everything out of our Cl(V) that we can. Is that close to being true?
No, it is not complexification. Complexification increases the dimension of a real space by the factor of two. We are not "complexifying". We are noticing the existence of a "complex structure" on CL(V), where V is 3-dimensional. Then we realize that Cl(V), with its complex structure, can be viewed as a complexified 4-dimensional Minkowski space.
DeleteAha, thanks.
DeleteSo complexified 4d Minkowski space would then actually be 8 dimensional real space just as our Cl(3)?
Well, it works also for n=1, but that is probably all.
DeleteInteresting. Another thing where Nature or Universe preferred 3 over other possibilities. Thank you for explanation.
DeleteWhat do you mean that it works for n=1?
DeleteIf n=1 then n+1=2 but 2^(1-1)=2^0=1.
O.o
You are right. I was wrong. So, only n=3.
DeleteWell, you might also be right if we consider 1-dim real space which we complexify to 2-dim space, while Cl(1) would be 2-dim from the start, so we might view Cl(1) as a complexified 1-dim V.
DeleteWould that be OK?
But that would be a different logic.
DeleteTrue. Thanks.
Delete