The symbol of space, in its most elemental and crystalline form, is the cube—a solemn and silent sentinel of three dimensions. With its six square walls, it encloses a finite void, a miniature cosmos balanced on the symmetry of eight vertices. Each edge traces the logic of extension, and each face confronts its opposite in silent equilibrium.
But nature, as always, plays in dualities. Opposite the cube stands its geometric twin, the octahedron—a figure of eight triangular faces and six converging vertices (square bipyramid). Where the cube stands firm, the octahedron spins, airy and precise, each point tapering like a thought reaching outward. And it is among these six vertices that we find a deeper enigma.
![]() |
But nature, as always, plays in dualities. |
Two of these six are not like the others.
In the esoteric grammar of Lie sphere geometry—a geometry that sees through appearances and speaks the language of contact and curvature—these two points take on a special role. They break symmetry, not by defect, but by signifying something beyond the solid form. They whisper of "time"—not time as a mere parameter, but as a two-dimensional entity, a subtle twin-threaded fabric that cuts across the frozen lattice of space.
Where the cube represents the fixed scaffold of extension, these special vertices in the dual figure suggest movement, directionality, and the possibility of becoming. Thus, in this quiet interplay between cube and octahedron, between solid and point, space and time touch—not as opposites, but as intimate correspondents in a deeper, unseen order.
According to Sophus Lie the Universe is 6-dimensional
6 = 3 + 1 + 2.
But who was Sophus Lie? Here is a relevant part from the history:
"In 1894 in the Russian city of Kazan, an international prize was instituted to commemorate the mathematician Lobachevsky. The prize was to be awarded to a mathematician who had made prominent contributions to geometric research, particularly in the development of non-Euclidean geometry. In 1897 Klein was asked by the prize committee to provide a description of Lie's work, and Klein's evaluation led to Lie receiving the award in 1897 - the very first recipient of this esteemed prize. In his argument, over and above everything else, Klein pointed to the third volume of Theorie der Transformationsgruppen, where the theory was applied to the principle axioms of geometry. Klein's evaluation was printed in Mathematische Annalen a year later. "
Arild Stubhaug, The Mathematician Sophus Lie", Springer 2002
And here is the relevant part from Kazan's University site:
"At the time of the establishment of the prize in 1895, the remaining principal capital amounted to 6,000 rubles in gold, and a prize of 500 rubles was paid out of the interest on it every 3 years. At the first three awards, the person who wrote a critical review of the nominee’s work was awarded the N. I. Lobachevsky gold medal.
Now that we have a clue about the person, we can move to his six-dimensional Universe - the home of spheres. We shall do it in slow steps, carefully, to avoid lurking dangers.1897 — Lee Sophus , for work on the theory of transformation groups; the gold medal was awarded to the referee Felix Klein.
The three main monographs discussing the subject are:
[1] Benz Walter, Classical Geometries in Modern Contexts: Geometry of Real Inner Product Spaces, chapter 3: Sphere geometries of Möbius and Lie, Birkhäuser 2007.
[2] Cecil, Thomas E. Lie sphere geometry, Springer 2008.
[3] Jensen G.R. et al., Surfaces in Classical Geometries, Springer 2016.
Wikipedia article "Lie sphere geometry"
contains additional references. In my exposition I am following mainly
Ref. [3]. To my surprise I did not find anything on this subject written
by Russian mathematicians. If there is something that I am not aware
of, I will be thankful for an advice. I have consulted AI on this issue
and received the following answer:
"Lie sphere geometry isn’t as mainstream a term in Russian
mathematical literature as, say, hyperbolic geometry or Lie group
theory. It’s often subsumed under broader topics like conformal geometry
or contact geometry. English-language works, such as Thomas E. Cecil’s
Lie Sphere Geometry: With Applications to Submanifolds (translated or
referenced globally), dominate specific treatments, and Russian
equivalents might not have been as distinctly branded. Soviet
mathematicians tended to embed such ideas within larger frameworks
rather than isolating them in monographs."
Following this advice I did another search to find this:
Код УДК Описание
5 Математика и естественные науки
51 Математика
514 Геометрия
514.1 Общая геометрия. Геометрия в пространствах с фундаментальными группами
514.15 Геометрия в пространствах с другими фундаментальными группами
514.152 Конформная геометрия и ее аналоги
514.152.6 Геометрия сфер Ли
And then, just minutes ago, I was able to find this:
А. И. Бобенко, Ю. Б. Сурис, О принципах дискретизации дифференциальной геометрии. Геометрия сфер, УСПЕХИ МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКИХ НАУК, 2007 г. январь — февраль т. 62, вып. 1 (373).
A 48 pages long survey. I will have to study it yet!
The 6D octahedral universe of Sophus Lie
We take six-dimensional real vector space R6 with coordinates x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5. There we introduce the indefinite scalar product
(x,y) = x0y0 + x1y1 + x2y2 + x3y3 - x4y4 - x4y5.
We denote by R4,2 the resulting inner-product space. We endow R4,2 with orientation and denote by e0,...,e5 the corresponding orthonormal basis in R4,2. Thus
(e0,e0)=(e1,e1,)=(e2,e2)=(e3,e3)=1, (e4,e4)=(e5,e5)= -1.
Now we go to projective space by introducing in R4,2 the equivalence relation
x∼y if and only if there exists a real λ≠0 such that y=λx.
The equivalence classes [x] form the projective space P(R4,2). It is a compact 5-dimensional manifold.
Definition. The Lie quadric Q⊂P(R4,2) is the smooth quadric hypersurface
Q = {[u]∈P(R4,2): (u,u) = 0}.
We notice that Q is well defined: if λ≠0 the (u,u)=0 if and only if (λu,λu) = 0. The condition defining Q takes away one dimension from the five dimensions of P(R4,2). Thus Q is a four dimensional and compact.
Proposition. The following formula defines an explicit isomorphism between the space of oriented spheres (discussed in Lie Sphere Geometry Part 4: oriented spheres) and Q:
(m,t) ⟼ [m+cos(t)e4+sin(t)e5].
The analysis, the proof, and the formula for the inverse map will be discussed in the next post.
P.S. 11-04-25 16:40 Reading about the Dogon people. They were mentioned in the discussion after yesterday Vladimirov's seminar.
"The fundamental element of the world for the Dogon people is the particle “po,” which has the form of a small millet seed. Amma also had this same form. This “po” seed “spun and emitted particles of matter through sound and light action, while remaining invisible and inaudible.” In the “po” seed, Amma constructed the entire Universe, but in order to “release the world outward,” he began to rotate around his own axis… The Dogon say: “Spinning and dancing, Amma created all the spiral star worlds of the Universe.”
P.S. 12-04-25 14:06 Playing with circles (geodesics of hyperbolic geometry):
The AI drivels at the beginning of this post are hopeless.
ReplyDeleteSpecially for you here is the HI original version:
DeleteThe symbol of space is a 3D cube. The cube has 6 walls and eight vertices. Dual to the cube is octahedron, with 8 walls and six vertices. Among these six vertices two are special. In our Lie sphere geometry they will represent two-dimensional "time".
Much better.
Delete"There we introduce the indefinite scalar product"
ReplyDeleteWhat's the meaning of the term "indefinite" in this context?
"(e0,e0)=(e1,e2)=(e3,e3)=1"
The middle bracket should probably be two of them, one for e1 and the other for e2.
Thanks. Indefinite means both pluses and minuses in the signature.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_inner_product_space
Aha, thanks. So it refers to the result of the scalar product possibly being positive, negative and/or zero, if understood correctly what's written on Wikipedia reference link.
DeleteIn our case it means that there are vectors with (x,x)>0 and with (x,x)<0. But the scalar product is nondegenerate, that is (x,y)=0 for all y implies x=0.
DeletePoleciwszy nieprzeczytawszy.
DeleteI should have written write "and other vectors with (x,x)<0...".
Delete"So it refers to the result of the scalar product possibly being positive, negative and/or zero"
DeleteNo.
with (x,x)<0
DeleteChecking less then sign.
with (x,x)<0
DeleteWhy it works now?
@Bjab
DeleteCould you please elaborate in a bit more words what you are trying to convey? With these shortish remarks it is not exactly intelligible what you are saying.
@Bjab
Delete"Poleciwszy nieprzeczytawszy.". It is good to learn how to operate in a confusing universe.
"Poleciwszy nieprzeczytawszy."
DeleteOnline translator says:
"Recommended not readable",
what does that mean and what does it refer to?
@Saša
DeleteOK. So, scalar product is usually positive, negative, or zero (or complex).
What "indefinite scalar product" means is that quadratic form induced from that scalar product (norm squared) can be positive, negative, or zero.
@Bjab
Delete"with (x,x)<0
Why it works now?"
Probably because you didn't 'close' it with greater than sign.
Having recommended without reading.
DeleteIt refers to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_inner_product_space"
Delete"What "indefinite scalar product" means is that quadratic form induced from that scalar product (norm squared) can be positive, negative, or zero."
DeleteAha, thanks.
Checking
Delete(x,x)>0 and with (x,x)<0
and the other way round
x,x)<0 and with (x,x)>0
"Thus Q is a four dimensional and compact."
ReplyDeleteIn essence, this is a compactification of the light cone that devours dimension. There is also a compactification of the light cone that entails a compactification of pseudo-Euclidean space itself. It is not known which of these compactifications will be required to justify the quantum world.
In fact it is the conformal compactification of the Minkowski space, but I will come to this view only much later.
DeleteYou obviously mean compactified Minkowski space as the product of compactification of an isotropic cone of 6-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space, but I meant compactification of any pseudo-Euclidean space by compactification of its cone. For example, the pseudo-Euclidean plane compactifies into a torus because isotropic lines compactify into a figure-eight.
DeleteIgor, do you mean that ANY pseudo-Euclidean space of ANY signature and ANY dimension n can be compactified by its cone into an (n-1)-dim "good' compact space? Is there a general propositions about it? Can we say anything else about the resulting space?
DeleteДостаточно свернуть в окружности изотропные прямые всех псевдоевклидовых плоскостей произвольного псевдоевклидова пространства сигнатуры (p,q) и в результате мы получим пространство S^{p} x S^{q}. Для перехода к тому компактному пространству, с которым работает Аркадиуш, необходимо все окружности нашего пространства свернуть восьмёркой и склеить. В случае тора это означает, что его следует натянуть на сферу с выколотыми полюсами.
DeleteDear Ark, thank you for the new fascinating part of our journey - for the spindle-shaped octahedron, so similar to the arrow of time, for mentioning the Russian mathematical school and the close ties between Lobachevsky and Lie, for the perfectly smooth transition from the space of oriented spheres to the Lie quadric.
ReplyDeleteI could hardly have dreamed of such a wonderful voyage into the deep secrets of the world - leisurely, reverent contemplation, full of deep essential ideas. Invariably accompanied by your beloved cat, and that is right - cats should know the truth about everything.
@Anna General construction goes like this: Take pseudo-Euclidean space R^(p,q). It has dimension p+q. Take R^(p+1,q+1). It has dimension p+q+2. Take the isotropic cone there. It has dimension p+q+1. Take the the quotient - go to projective space. It has dimension p+q again. You get the compactification of your original R^(p,q).
DeleteMoreover, so constructed compactification carries a natural conformal structure of signature p,q.. Original R^(p,q) can be conformally embedded onto an open subset of the compactification. The remaining closed subset of the compactification is called "conformal infinity".
Delete"It has dimension p+q+1. Take the the quotient - go to projective space."
DeleteWhat does "take the quotient" mean? The quotient of what?
Two points x,y on the quadric without the origin (isotropic cone without the origin) call equivalent if they are proportional. Quotient of this quadric with respect to this equivalence relation.
DeleteIn other words: take the space of all isotropic straight lines through the origin.
The quadric is in the extended space R^(p+1,q+1) and NOT in the original R^(p,q)!
DeletePerhaps I should add: Mobius geometry extends R^(p,q) to R^(p+1,q+1). Lie geometry extends R^(p,q) to R^(p+1,q+2).
DeleteI don't get it.
Delete"The quadric is in the extended space R^(p+1,q+1)"
DeleteIn the post quadric was defined in P(R4,2).
The post is about Lie geometry. We start with R^3 and go to R^(3+1,2),
DeleteIn Mobius geometry one usually starts with R^(3,1) - Minkowski space and gets to R^(3+1,1+1).
End result is the same (4,2), but in Lie geometry time comes automatically, from the construction.
"The post is about Lie geometry. We start with R^3 and go to R^(3+1,2),"
DeleteSorry, I know nothing about Lie or Mobius geometry.
Anyway I see that the post starts with R^6.
"The quadric is in the extended space R^(p+1,q+1)"
DeleteSo this quadric is 5 dimensional.
In the post quadric was defined in P(R4,2).
So this quadric is 4 dimensional.
Also don't understand how we go from R^3 go to R^(3+1,2)? Probably, that is when we multiply spheres and circles like in Part 4 (S3⨉S1)/Z2 ?
Delete@Bjab,Anna
DeleteThere are several different issues now brought here, and that creates a confusion. I will have it in mind, and return to it in the future. In order to avoid this (temporary) confusion, let us stick to what is in the post. There is a Proposition at the end. It shows the realization of the space of oriented spheres as a compact manifold. I hope it is clear. It needs a proof. This will be the next post, on Sunday.
"According to Sophus Lie the Universe is 6-dimensional"
ReplyDelete6-dimensional is electromagnetic field in one space-time point. So the Universe is at least 10-dimensional.
That will be your universe. Gennady Shipov also says the universe is 10-dimensional, but instead of EM-field he adds three rotations and three boosts. Very similar idea, at least in form.
DeleteHere I am dealing with old geometric ideas. Of course once we have Lie sphere geometry, we have rotations and boosts and e-m fields - they come automatically. But 3D space in these geometries is spherical rather than flat. And personally I like this idea.
Why do we need 6 additional dimensions to describe electromagnetic fields? It seems that one dimension in the form of a circle is enough for these purposes. As far as I understand, 6-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean space is an auxiliary mathematical (not physical) space that is necessary for the compactification of Minkowski space.
DeleteOne circular extra dimension gives you just a U(1) bundle. But for EM vector potential you still need a connection (parallel transport rule) in this bundle. Bundle alone is not enough.
DeleteCorrect, but this gauge connection does not require 6 extra dimensions.
DeleteCorrect. It does not require, but Maxwell equations in empty space, by some miracle, are invariant under the conformal group, and the conformal group of space-time happens to, by another miracle, coincides with O(4,2). So indeed it does not "require", but it is beautifully "compatible". Of course what is beautiful for one person can be ugly for another (and conversely).
DeleteThe Dirac equation also has the conformal group as its symmetry. The conformal group seems like the structure group for a 4-dim metric. Discussions can get confusing since there's basis vs metric vs structure group vs connections and effects of symmetry breaking.
DeleteAll these contradictions are apparent. They should disappear in the theory of everything.
DeleteMost likely, the conformal invariance of Maxwell's equations means that in nature, at the local level, it is not Minkowski space that is realized, but its compactification.
ReplyDelete"Lie sphere geometry isn’t as mainstream a term in Russian mathematical literature"
ReplyDeleteI have just bought a book: Rosenfeld, Zamakhovsky "Geometry of Lie groups"
First words of the introduction: "In 1997, the book "Lie Group Geometry" was published in English and received an honorable mention from Kazan University at the 1997 Lobachevsky International Competition. The book was based on lectures given at the University of Pennsylvania..."
That's how strange fate works out: Russian specialists in Lie geometry gave lectures and wrote books in English, which only tens of years later return back to Russia.
Since the book has conformal geometries, I may find some use of it here. Thanks for reminding me about this book.
DeleteThanks to Vadim Varlamov:) It was he who referred to this book when explained to me that Mathews and Zymaris in their 'Spinors and Descartes Theorem' paper started from Penrose interpretation where spinor is represented as a point on the light cone and a 2d tangent plane (flag) at this point.
DeleteI would really really like to see that this is the case. Where is it described in details?
DeleteAccording to V.V., Penrose twistors are a specific case of more general geometrical construction by Rozenfeld. In "Геометрия групп Ли" МЦНМО, 2003, it is on p. 524 where Rozenfeld mentions Penrose twistors (point 9.9.5.).
DeleteThanks. But I was asking about this: "Penrose interpretation where spinor is represented as a point on the light cone and a 2d tangent plane (flag) at this point." Where can I find a proof that this is indeed the case. I have seen such statements, but I did not see any proof of the fact that this is indeed a correct representation of a spinor.
DeleteDo you know if Varlamov gave such a proof somewhere?
DeleteI am sorry, i supposed "Penrose interpretation where spinor is represented as a point on the light cone and a 2d tangent plane (flag) at this point" is somewhat well-established among mathematicians and did not ask Vadim for a proof, although for me it is not evident at all. It would be very good if you could ask Vadim directly and then adopt his answer for us here :)
DeleteI would like to note that the conformally compactified pseudo-Euclidean plane also deserves attention. At least you can place a pendulum there, the oscillations of which are described by the Riemann zeta function.
ReplyDelete@Anna
DeleteI think that it is a rather misleading statement. Never seen a proof, but have seen wave-handing arguments and proofs of something else than this particular claim. Perhaps in one of the future posts I will explain why this statement is misleading.
*hand-waving
DeleteFor now I can presume that some rigorous arguments can be found in "Rozenfeld geometric approach to spinors" paper by V.V.
DeleteThanks. I will look into it. This paper is very difficult to read as it is not separated into definitions, theorems, proofs. It is like a continuous stream of ideas/reasonings. The last page has spinors in it mentioned, the concept of a spinor being undefined, there is no space, no time, no light-cone, no embedding of space-time into its compactification, so I see no flag-pole picture of a spinor there. But it will be a good exercise for me to try to make a precise sense of all that, and to draw some clear conclusions.
DeleteProbably, the information in Rozelfeld's "Lie group geometry" on p.524 and a bit before it will shed some light? There appears the notion of isotropic cone and some 'plane which intersects the cone along the straight lines of vectors s and t' (which are actually spinors). I cannot find the explicit notion of flag there, but may be this is the same described in other words...
DeleteIsotropic cones can be in different spaces, planes two. Never he shows that a spinor is a flag in our 3D space. If it is not in our space, it is in some other abstract space. As well it can be a pair of complex numbers. It does not help us in understanding what spinors are. And associating it with a flag in our space is misleading. Flags in our space after rotations by 360 degrees come back to the original position. Therefore they are not spinors.
DeleteА вы пробовали на роль спинора (S^1xS^1)/Z_2 в вашем (S^1xS^3)/Z_2 ?
DeleteЖил один пытливый хлопец Андрей. Хотел он все знать. Куда ни глянет, что ни увидит, обо всем у людей расспрашивает, обо всем выведывает. Плывут по небу облака... Откуда они взялись? И куда плывут? Шумит за деревней река... Куда течет? Растет лес... Кто его посадил? Почему у птиц крылья. всюду вольно летают, а у человека нет крыльев?
DeleteThis means Igor has got on the right track...)
Delete