Lie groups are crucial to some of the most fundamental theories in physics
45 points
2 hours ago
| 7 comments
| quantamagazine.org
| HN
stochastician
1 hour ago
[-]
If, like me, you're not a real mathematician but suffered through linear algebra and differential equations, you can still totally understand this stuff! I started off teaching myself differential geometry but ultimately had far more success with lie theory from a matrix groups perspective. I highly recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Lie-Groups-Introduction-Graduate-Math...

and

https://bookstore.ams.org/text-13

My friends were all putnam nerds in college and I was not, and I assumed this math was all beyond me, but once you get the linear algebra down it's great!

reply
voxleone
33 minutes ago
[-]
My experience with groups and linear algebra is similar. I made real progress only after I got past the initial fear and intimidation, making a point of understanding those beautiful equations. Now I find myself agreeing with those who argue that mathematics education could profitably begin with sets and groups instead of numbers.

https://d1gesto.blogspot.com/2025/11/math-education-what-if-...

reply
lebca
49 minutes ago
[-]
Second this! And if you want a part memoir part history of this subject as it relates to physics (through Langlands Program) part ode to the beauty of maths, I recommend reading Edward Frenkel's Love & Math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Math

and if you went to school in maths but now have left that world, this book engenders an additional spark of nostalgia and fun due to reading about some of your professors and their (sometimes very difficult) journey in this world.

reply
pjbk
1 hour ago
[-]
What I always miss from this introductory abridged explanations, and what makes the connection between Lie groups and algebras ('infinitesimal' groups) really useful, is that the exponential process is a universal mechanism, and provides a natural way to find representations and operators (eg Lie commutator, the BCH formula) where the group elements can be transformed through algebraic manipulations and vice-versa. That discovery offers a unified treatment of concepts in number theory, differential geometry, operator theory, quantum theory and beyond.
reply
qf_community
18 minutes ago
[-]
We are running a live online bootcamp, Group Theory 360: https://quantumformalism.academy/group-theory-360.

Lie groups are central part of the bootcamp where we will cover their applications beyond physics including geometric deep learning!

reply
moleperson
59 minutes ago
[-]
> For instance, the fact that the laws of physics are the same today as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow — a symmetry known as time translation symmetry, represented by the Lie group consisting of the real numbers — implies that the universe’s energy must be conserved, and vice versa. “I think, even now, it’s a very surprising result,” Alekseev said.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the implication here but wouldn’t it be much more surprising if that weren’t the case?

reply
free_bip
52 minutes ago
[-]
It's funny you say that, because energy actually isn't conserved in general.

One somewhat trivial example is that light loses energy due to redshift since photon energy is proportional to frequency.

reply
measurablefunc
19 minutes ago
[-]
Where does the energy go then?

Edit: I just looked into this & there are a few explanations for what is going on. Both general relativity & quantum mechanics are incomplete theories but there are several explanations that account for the seeming losses that seem reasonable to me.

reply
pvitz
49 minutes ago
[-]
That symmetries imply conservation laws is pretty fascinating (see the Noether theorem). I guess it seems only strange it you assume already that the conservation law holds.
reply
SpaceManNabs
53 minutes ago
[-]
It is surprising that you can derive conversation laws entirely from the symmetry of lie groups, and that every conservation law can be tied to a symmetry.
reply
user3939382
20 minutes ago
[-]
Correct. I have all of this worked out if anyone wants to check my work. I validated it through John Baez.
reply
YetAnotherNick
1 hour ago
[-]
Such a bad (AI written?) article. These kind of introduction to advanced topics feels like how to draw an owl tutorial where they spent so much time diving into what group is.

> The group of all rotations of a ball in space, known to mathematicians as SO(3), is a six-dimensional tangle of spheres and circles.

This is wrong. It's 3D, not 6D. In fact SO(3) is simple to visualize as movement of north pole to any point on the ball + rotation along that.

reply
cvoss
37 minutes ago
[-]
The quality of this article is par for the course for Quanta Magazine, sadly. I do not need to accuse the author of using AI to explain the data I'm seeing here. It feels like every submission on HN from Quanta garners the exact same discussion: The article is almost worthless because it presents complex ideas in such a cheap, dumbed-down, and imprecise way that it ceases to communicate anything interesting. (Interested readers can fare much better by reading other sources.) It's been this way for years. The phenomenon is almost Wolfram-Derangement-Syndrome-like.
reply
masfuerte
43 minutes ago
[-]
If you look at that quote in context it is talking about the shape of the manifold:

> This extra property is what makes SO(2) a Lie group — it can be visualized as a smooth, continuous shape called a manifold. Other Lie groups might look like the surface of a doughnut, or a high-dimensional sphere, or something even stranger: The group of all rotations of a ball in space, known to mathematicians as SO(3), is a six-dimensional tangle of spheres and circles.

This article describes a 4D manifold (among other things):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charts_on_SO(3)

For all I know there's a 6D one too.

reply
wholinator2
48 minutes ago
[-]
That is very strange. It's certainly not an academic level explanation, but that's not what the magazine is for. But the blatant incorrect statement is beyond the pale. Dim(SO(N)) = N(N-1)/2. Thus SO(4) has dimension 6.
reply
anon291
21 minutes ago
[-]
I hate statements like this due to their imprecision and their contribution to making mathematics difficult to learn.

> Though they’re defined by just a few rules, groups help illuminate an astonishing range of mysteries.

An astute reader at this point will go look up the definition of groups and come away completely mystified how they illuminate anything (hint: they do not).

A better statement is that many things that illuminate a wide range of mysteries form groups. By themselves, the group laws regarding these things tell you very little. It's the various individual or collective behaviors of certain groups that illuminate these areas.

reply