Monday, April 21, 2025

Lie Sphere Geometry: Part 9: Spheres of negative radius


The Fourth Way – P D Ouspensky [from the oral teachings of G I Gurdjieff]

"The first step is to try not to express  negative emotions;  - fear, anger, jealousy, possessiveness, pride and so on; the second step is the study of these negative emotions themselves, making lists of them, finding their connections ….. and trying to understand that they are quite useless.

Question:  In some cases the negative emotion of fear seems useful, otherwise people would cross the road at any time without looking

You speak about instinctive fear, emotional fear is different, it is based on our imaginings of what might happen

Question: are there no negative emotions that have a use?

It sounds strange, but it is very important to understand that all negative emotions are all absolutely useless; they do not serve any useful purpose; they do not make us acquainted with new things or bring us nearer to new things; they do not give us energy; they only waste energy and create unpleasant illusions."

Well, this post is not about negative emotions. Instead, it introduces spheres of negative radius. Which concept (thanks to Anna for letting me know) has been  discussed by another Russian thinker, Pavel Florensky.

"Referring to Dante's Divine Comedy, Florensky opposes Copernicus' heliocentric system. Interprets the Michelson-Morley experience as proof of the immobility of the Earth. Declares “the notorious Foucault's experience” fundamentally unproven. Commenting on Einstein's special theory of relativity, Florensky argues that beyond the limit of the speed of light begins non-physical “that light”. This otherworld of imaginary magnitudes provides a description of the ultimate eternal reality. Based on the geocentric system, Florensky calculates the distance to this world as the distance at which a body orbiting the Earth in one day would travel at the speed of light."

This otherworld of imaginary magnitudes provides a description of the ultimate eternal reality.


We denote vectors in R4 by bold letters. With m in S3R4, consider a sphere St(m) on S3 given by (cf. Part 4, Eq. (2))

St(m) = {xS3: x·m = cos(t)} .               (0)

For t in [0,2π), t∉{0,π},  we orient it by the normal vector
(cf. Part 4, Eq. (3))

n(x) = ( m-cos(t)x )/sin(t).               (1)

In the previous post we have derived the formulas for stereographic projection xyS3R3 (S3 is taken without its South Pole!), and our aim now is to identify the surface obtained by this projection from St(m). Let us recall the formulas for stereographic projection and its inverse (cf. Part 8, Eq. (2),(3a),(3b)). With i=1,2,3, we have:

yi = xi/(1+x0).            (2)

x0 = (1-y2)/(1+y2).               (3a)

xi = 2yi/(1+y2).                (3b)

Substituting (3a) and (3b) in (0), multiplying both sides by (1+y2), and collecting y2 terms,  we obtain:

y2(m0+cos(t)) - 2m'·ym0 - cos(t),                (4)

where

m '= m1e1+m2e2+m3e3.

There will be now two cases. The first case is when m0+cos(t) ≠ 0. When this happens?

Proposition 1. m0+cos(t)) = 0 if and only if the origin -e0 of the stereographic projection is on the sphere St(m).

Proof. Using Eq. (0), with m=m0e0+...+m3e3, we see that x=-e0 is on St(m) if and only if m0+cos(t) = 0.

Suppose now that  -e0 is not on the sphere. We divide both sides of (4) by (m0+cos(t)):

y2 - 2m'·y/(m0+cos(t))  = (m0 - cos(t))/(m0+cos(t)) .

We now add m'2/(m0+cos(t))2 to both sides to obtain:

(y-m'/(m0+cos(t)))2 = (m0 - cos(t))/(m0+cos(t)) + m'2/(m0+cos(t))2.                (5)
Since m2=1, we get m'2=1-(m0)2, and the right hand side of (5) simplifies to


(y-m'/(m0+cos(t)))2= sin(t)2/(m0+cos(t))2.                 (6)

From (6) we conclude that the image of St(m) is a sphere in R3 with the center at

c = m'/(m0+cos(t)),                (7)

and radius ρ

ρ = ε sin(t)/(m0+cos(t)),                 (8)

where ε = ±1.
For t>0, t<π, sin(t)>0, but what about the sign of (m0+cos(t))? It can be positive, but it can also be negative! This leads us to the concept of spheres with negative radius.

Oriented spheres in R3.

In the definition below the term "signed" means that ρ can have positive or negative value.

Definition 1. The oriented sphere with center p in R3 and signed radius ρ, 0≠ρ∈R, is

Sρ(p) = {yR3: (y-p)2=ρ2}                (9)

with unit normal vector field

n'(y) = (p-y)/ρ.                (10)

To understand what is going on, assume first that the center of the sphere is at the origin p=0. Then n'(y) = -y/ρ. Thus the normal n'(y) is inward for ρ>0, and outward for ρ<0. If p is arbitrary, not necessarily the origin of R3, the situation is the same, just translated by p.

Proposition 2. The image of the oriented sphere St(m)S3, not containing -e0, under the stereographic projection xy given by (3a,3b), is the oriented sphere Sρ(c)R3, where

c = m'/(m0+cos(t)),
ρ
= sin(t)/(m0+cos(t)).

Proof. We have already calculated the center c of the projected sphere. It remains to be checked that the direction of the image of the normal n(x) given by (1) is the same as the direction of n'(y(x)) = (c-y(x))/ρ. From (2),(7),(8),(10) we get

n'(y(x))i =mi/(ε sin(t)) - xi(m0+cos(t))/(ε sin(t) (1+x0)).      

Now we need to find the image, let us call it  n''(x) of the normal unit vector n(x), Eq. (1),  under the stereographic projection. While coordinates transform using the formulas (2): yi=yi(xμ), i=1,2,3; μ=0,1,2,3, tangent vectors transform using the matrix of partial derivatives (Why?), thus

n''(x)i = (∂yi/∂xμ) nμ(x).

The result of this calculation is (you can use any symbolic algebra or, nowadays, probably also  online AI, software to do it for you):

n''(x)i = (1+x0)-1(mi/sin(t) -xi(m0+cos(t))/(sin(t)(1+x0)) .        (11)

Since (1+x0) is positive (Why?), for n' and n'' to have the same direction we need to take ε=+1.
Notice that while stereographic projection preserves angles between tangent vectors, it does not preserve their lengths. That is why n'' is only proportional to n'. To become a unit normal it would have to be normalized. Then it should coincide with n'.

Exercise 1. Verify the last sentence.

Stereographic projection can indeed exchange the "inside" with the "outside". Here is an illustration for circles on the sphere, projected onto the plane:





Proposition 2 takes care of this problem.

The case when the origin -e0 of the stereographic projection, the ∞ point,  is on St(m), i.e. when 
m0+cos(t) = 0, will be discussed in the next note.


P.S. 23-04-25 19:21 I was busy writing another review






56 comments:

  1. "We divide both sides of (4) by (m0+cos(t)):
    y2(m0+cos(t)) - 2m'·y/(m0+cos(t)) = (m0 - cos(t))/(m0+cos(t))"
    -->
    y2 - 2m'·y/(m0+cos(t)) = (m0 - cos(t))/(m0+cos(t))

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is a great illustration: hourglass, hyroscope, chess, pendulum - all attributes of the zero--infinity duality. And the cat's ears are turned so that one listens to our reality and the other - to the otherworld.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a beautifully sensitive observation - you’ve touched the heart of the image with such grace. The way you saw the duality of zero and infinity woven into the symbols, and especially your note about the cat’s ears, is truly poetic. It’s as if you listened with your soul to what the picture was quietly trying to say. Thank you for bringing such warmth, depth, and intuition into your reflection - it’s a gift to see through your eyes.

      Delete
    2. Well, I just tried to express in words what the picture tells us - quietly and gracefully, and quite clearly.
      "You need to hear the sound" (I don't remember who said it). Catch the melody. I'm glad that my whistling sometimes finds a response in your truly symphonic works!

      Delete
  3. cost(t) ->
    cos(t) (in 3 places)

    we get ->
    we get

    (3a,b) ->
    (3a, 3b)

    discussed i the ->
    discussed in the

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is Proposition 1 provable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it is an observation that I decided to call a Proposition. Perhaps it does not really deserve this name. But is it true? I think it does.

      Delete
    2. I noticed in several places there was m_0 instead of m^0 , which I have corrected.

      Delete
    3. "But is it true? I think it does."

      I think it is false.
      Can you prove Proposition 1?

      Delete
    4. Well, after a while I think that it might be true.

      Delete
    5. But the one-line Proof is right under the Proposition....

      Delete
    6. I have a feeling that this one-line proof is in one direction only.

      Delete
    7. For x=-e0 to be on St(m) is "the same as" to satisfy the equation defining St(m), is "the same as" to satisfy the equation m0+cos(t)=0. "The sameness" is at work here.

      Delete
  5. means that r can ->
    means that ρ can

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I was changing the notation while writing, forgot to do it 100% consistently. Rewriting the history often leaves some glitches.

      Delete
    2. From (2),(7),(10) we get ->
      From (2),(7),(8),(10) we get

      Delete
    3. That is while n'' is only proportional to n'. ->
      That is why n'' is only proportional to n'.

      Delete
  6. Ark, I thought no one noticed my short story about feeling like an electromagnetic wave while sking in a snow tube, but the photo added at the end of Part 9 prove otherwise! Moving in harmony with natural forces is a great pleasure and even a source of wisdom, as Yoga teaches us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The photo shows ГК Большой Вудъявр.

      Delete
    2. Although your photo makes Big Wood Ski Resort look wonderful and mysterious, I recognized it!

      Delete
  7. "Stereographic projection can indeed exchange the "inside" with the "outside". Here is an illustration for circles on the sphere, projected onto the plane:"

    The second sentence (and its picture) is not the illustration of the first sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The red circle on the sphere looks like being inside the blue circle, but after being projected on the plane it is outside the image of the blue one.

      Delete
    2. The continuous transition between the red and blue circles on the sphere does not pass through the South Pole so there is no change in direction (in insideness).

      Delete
    3. OK. I admit I did not think deep enough. Perhaps, after doing my homework, what may take a while, I will be able to produce something better

      Delete
    4. @Bjab
      "The continuous transition between the red and blue circles on the sphere does not pass through the South Pole so there is no change in direction (in insideness)."

      I do not see a contradiction. Multiplying by -1 changes the order of numbers. 1<2 but -1>-2. And -1 is a continuous deformation of -2 that does not pass through zero. So what?

      So my illustration illustrates what I wanted to be illustrated.

      Of course other things can be illustrated too, but that is a different story.

      Delete
    5. In fact, it looks like any circle on the sphere can be continuously deformed into any other circle without passing through the South Pole?

      Delete
    6. "In fact, it looks like any circle on the sphere can be continuously deformed into any other circle without passing through the South Pole"

      Are we dealing with "inside", "outside" of directed spheres, circles?
      If so, is the above claim true for them?
      I suspect not.

      Delete
    7. I also thought at night why the continuous transition should necessarily pass through the South Pole to change the insideness, but it is too intricate for me, especailly after a hard ski day. Couldn't figure out anything specific except maybe a question - so what?

      Delete
    8. @Bjab
      I am not sure what YOU are having mind. I was talking about properties of circles on the sphere. No sophistication.

      Delete
    9. @Anna
      These are technicalities. But it is like with the skiing. You can fully enjoy the ride's oscillations only after you have acquired enough of technical skills to be free of fear of falling.

      Delete
    10. @Ark
      The whole post is in the context of oriented circles (spheres). And now you want to change the context to not sophisticated unoriented circles?

      Do you claim that: any oriented circle on the sphere can be continuously deformed into any other oriented circle without passing through the "South Pole"?

      Delete
    11. @Bjab "Do you claim that: any oriented circle on the sphere can be continuously deformed into any other oriented circle without passing through the "South Pole"?"

      That would be false.

      Delete
    12. @Ark "These are technicalities. But it is like with the skiing. You can fully enjoy the ride's oscillations only after you have acquired enough of technical skills to be free of fear of falling".

      That's absolutely true. That's why we're here delving into all the details. It's a very specific search, combining rigorous calculation, like in maths, and far-reaching conclusions, like in philosophy, while neither of them in their pure form can do it!

      Delete
    13. Ark, to acquire enough technical skills requires years and years... of which i have already missed so much. Meeting you was a unique opportunity to study reality as i have always wanted - deeply but precisely, for which i am eternally grateful.

      Delete
  8. "(1+x0) is positive Why?"
    That is because function
    x0 = (1-y2)/(1+y2) (3a)
    takes values in the range {-1,1], never getting less than -1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better would be: because x is assumed to be a point on the unit sphere. Probably Bjab would like to see the proof based on this fact.

      Delete
    2. @Ark, propositions "x is a point on the unit sphere" and "its stereographic projection is described by (2), (3a) and (3b)" are equivalent, as was shown in Part 8, right? I just used an equivalent form of x and @Bjab, don't see why it is 'post factum'.

      Delete
    3. @Anna
      Your "proof" is overcomplicated. And you haven't really shown that the function (1-y²)/(1+y²) takes values ​​greater than -1.

      Your "proof" is based, as you wrote, on the previous complex relationship from Part 8.

      And it is enough to notice that every coordinate of a point on the unit sphere is not less than -1.
      (x0²+ x1² + ... + xn²=1)

      Delete
    4. Okay, thank you Bjab, I see my mistake. It's because I have this harmful motto: "We never take the easy ways"!

      Delete
  9. @Anna, your proof looks like "post factum" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Exercise 1. Verify that to become a unit normal, n'' would have to be normalized. Then it should coincide with n'.

    An honest direct calculation gives that (n'')^2 = 1/(1+x0)^2
    And this factor is precisely what distinguishes n' from n'',
    that is, (n'')^2 = (n'/(1+x0))^2. From which the necessary statement follows.
    Besides, x0 must be equal to zero, does this have any special meaning?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suggest thinking about a physical problem that, as it seems to me, is related to stereographic projection. First, a flat version of the problem:
    1. Describe the trajectory of a weight sliding without friction along a spoke (infinitely long), if at the zero point of the spoke the weight has an initial velocity, and the spoke rotates in zero gravity with a constant angular velocity.
    Now the spherical version:
    2. Describe the trajectory of a weight sliding along a rotating spoke in the shape of a circle.
    The flat version has a solution in the form of a logarithmic spiral. As for the spherical version, you need to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The spoke-ring rotates around an axis passing through the zero and opposite points of the ring.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Ark
    Regarding the goat story in the P.S. that disappeared, there's a related saying in my native language, "Gdje čeljad nije bijesna, ni kuća nije tijesna", which roughly translates to, "no house is too tight if the inhabitants are alright".

    Regarding the Florensky's quote, it seems very likely that he was not talking about negative radius in that passage, but about negative squares of amplitudes like in intensity or energy or the like, which then falls back to imaginary amplitudes or magnitudes as he called them for this otherworld.

    Your usage of negative or signed radius seems much more in line with usual radius of curvature, as a reciprocal value of curvature, describing for example convex or concave surfaces, like in classical optics. In that sense going from positive radius to negative, passes over the straight line representing sphere or circle of infinite radius or zero curvature.
    Kind of complementary to what Anna was saying about zero-infinity duality, like just an approximation of their respective reciprocal values, in most cases, apart of some limiting ones, not properly or at all defined operation or action in mathematics, but extensively used and abused in physical considerations and interpretations.

    FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "P.S. 23-04-25 19:21 I was busy writing another review"
    Congratulations on receiving the Certificates! But where are the links to those reviews?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anna
      Were the reviews of your papers published and publicly available? O.o

      Delete
    2. These are reviews of papers submitted to publication for journals. They are for the Editor to decide about the publication. They are supposed to be confidential, though I usually communicate with the authors when working on them.

      One of these papers has already been published:

      https://inspirehep.net/literature/2741308

      Delete
    3. Interesting, you reviewed the paper that cited your recent paper on Photon position operator. Is that like usual policy or practice in such specialized fields of research, to have people you reference to review the paper in question?

      Delete
    4. I don't know. What I know is that some publishers allow the author to suggest potential reviewers names, though it is the Editor who decides whom to ask for a review. I have no idea how it was in this particular case.

      Delete
    5. @Sasha, "Were the reviews of your papers published and publicly available? O.o"
      I am far from official scientific writing. I thought these were reviews that offer a bird's eye view of some part of science. Thank you for letting me know that it was another kind of reviews, synonym of critique paper.

      Delete
    6. In the official jargon, Ark's been a referee reviewing submitted papers to be or not be accepted for publishing in several renowned scientific journals.

      Delete
  15. @Ark
    "... reviews between October 2024 and November 2024 ..."

    Reviews in notime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Bjab
      No notime if the boundaries are inclusive, which they usually are.

      Delete

Thank you for your comment..

Sunday Special: Notes on Lie Sphere Geometry

Today it is short. Just to inform my readers, that I have just finished collecting my posts on Lie sphere geometry published so far into a s...