Clifford Algebra, Symmetries, and

Vectors

S. L. ALTMANN”
Brasenose College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4AJ, United Kingdom

Received April 27, 1995; accepted for publication October 23, 1995

ABSTRACT rn
The realization of a Clifford algebra in laboratory space is considered and it is
demonstrated that the elements of the algebra cannot, as often assumed, be directly
identified with vectors in this space, but, rather, that they form the parametric space of
the symmetry operations of the Euclidean group as performed in the laboratory space.
Details of this parametrization are established and expressions are given that determine
the action of the Euclidean-group operations (screws included) on laboratory-space
vectors in terms of the elements of the Clifford algebra. A discussion of Clifford vectors,
bivectors, and pseudoscalars and their relation to the Gibbs vectors is provided. The
correct definition of axial and polar vectors within the Clifford algebra is carefully
discussed. It is shown how simple it is to generate finite point groups in 4-dimensional
space by means of the Clifford algebra. 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

usually been defined in relation to some abstract

Introduction linear vector spaces and it has often been the
practice in the past to identify in an axiomatic way
the elements of such spaces with physical objects

I n early work about molecular and solid-state

studies, the necessary symmetries were treated
by geometrical or matrix methods, the latter being
based on the clumsy Euler-angle parametrization
of rotations, subject to various singularities in its
parameter space. It is desirable in modern work to
move over to algebraic methods, which are far
more precise and are easier to program. Progress
with algebraic methods, however, have been ham-
pered by problems of interpretation. Algebras have
*It is my pleasure to dedicate this article to Roy McWeeny,
in warm recognition for his extensive contributions to the study
of symmetry.
such as physical vectors. These realizations of the
abstract vector spaces are frequently regarded as
mappings which require no further justification
than the verification of some formal rules. The
inventor of the first algebra that had direct rele-
vance to the study of the rotation group S0(3),
Hamilton [ 11, thus identified the algebra spanned
by the three quaternion units with ordinary vec-
tors in 3-space. Riesz [2] pointed out that such
identification was wrong since the vectors so de-
fined are axial and not polar vectors. Altmann [3]
went further and showed that Hamilton’s “vec-
tors’’ were nothing else than binary rotations (rota-

InternationalJournal of Quantum Chemistry, Vol. 60, 359-372 (1996)

0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0020-7608 I 9 6 I 0 10359-14
ALTMANN
tions by T).He showed that binary rotations could
masquerade as vectors for the following reason: To
each rotation of SO(3), a unique point of the unit
sphere can be associated with it, which is the point
of the unit sphere left invariant by the rotation and
such that from outside that point the Dtation is
seen as counterclockwise. Such poiltLaare called
poles of the rotations. (Of course, the pole of a
rotation can be identified with the vector corre-
sponding to it, and in this article, we shall do so,
thus regarding the poles of rotations as vectors.)
Position vectors of points of the unit sphere can, if
necessary, be uniquely identified by poles of rota-
tions that coincide with them. That a position
vector and the pole of a rotation coincide does not
alter the fact that the position vector and the sym-
metry operation used to map the vector via its
pole are entirely different geometrical objects (be-
cause their transformation properties are different),
a point that appears to have been glossed over in
the past. Handling a position vector via a pole
must be done very carefully, as this article will
demonstrate.
The study of the symmetry operations in SO(3)
and O(3) can be done by means of the quaternion
algebra, as fully demonstrated in [41, where 75
point groups and their double groups have consis-
tently been tabulated by this method. Although
the quaternion parametrization allows for a very
compact presentation of the results, the inversion
has to be treated in an ad hoc manner since it
cannot be mapped within the algebra. When more
detail is required and especially if symmetry oper-
ations in spaces of symmetry higher than three are
to be studied, for which the quaternion method
fails, a more general algebra is required. It is well
known that the Clifford algebra, C,, is most ade-
quate for this purpose, although its practical appli-
cation to the study of symmetry has not been
extensive. For simplicity, we shall discuss only C,
in most of this article, which will give us all
symmetries in three-dimensional space, although
point groups in higher-dimensional spaces will be
discussed in a final section. In C,, we have three
units el ( i = 1,2,3) such that
e,e, + e,e, = 26,,. (1)
Given e,, e2, and e, terms of second and third
rank, e,e, and e,e,e,, respectively, can be formed
and all these terms are units in the sense that their
square is of unit modulus, as follows by repeated
360
application of (I):
e2ez= 1, (2)
e~e e e 1 = -ee,e,e,el
~ 1 = -1, (3)
e,e,e,e,e,e, = -e,e,e,e,e,e,
= e,e,e,eke,ek= - el el ek ek = -1. (4)
The applications of Clifford algebra in physics
have been much studied. After Marcel Riesz’s pio-
neering work, Hestenes [51 constructed a very ele-
gant and powerful multivector algebra, further
developed by Hestenes and Sobczyk [61. This work
has been continued and extended by Greider [7]
and his school at Davis. (See also [8,9].) A very
important contribution of Hestenes to the subject
is his insistence in giving paramount importance
to the geometrical meaning of any vector algebra
used, a principle which will be followed very
strictly in the present article, albeit from a different
point of view. The elements of Hestenes’ multivec-
tor algebra, are identified with vectors in 3-space,
but this identification has not always been done
without some uncomfortable results. Thus,
Hestenes [5] concluded that a vector product is a
polar and not an axial vector, which, of course,
disagrees with current practice in physics. (See
also [lo].) Such interpretation was also followed by
Greider and his school (see, e.g., 1111, p. 11-24) but
not necessarily by all proponents of the multivec-
tor algebra, [121. It should be stressed that what-
ever the status of the above interpretation might
be the value and importance of the multivector
algebra cannot be ignored. The geometrical inter-
pretation to be discussed in this article, however,
starts from a different point of view, namely, that
the elements of the Clifford algebra must be recog-
nized as mappings of symmetry operations of O(3)
forming the parametric space of this group and
that therein lies their primary geometrical mean-
ing. As in the case of quaternions, if one wishes to
deal with laboratory-space vectors by means of the
Clifford algebra, position vectors must first be
mapped by poles of symmetry operations and it is
only then that carefully defined rules permit the
recovery of the ordinary vector algebra in labora-
tory space. Numerous examples of this important
technique will be given in this article.
The connection between the Clifford algebra
and symmetry reflections is, of course, well known.
Riesz 121 devoted a section of his book to this
subject. In pure mathematics, since Cartan [13],
general results along this line valid for spaces of
VOL. 60,NO. 1
 CLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS
all dimensions have been obtained [14,15]. It
should be stressed, nevertheless, that however well
known theoretically these results were they had
never been systematically exploited to parametrize
the operations of O(3) in terms of Clifford-algebra
elements. [This is not surprising, since the param-
etrization of SO(3) by the quaternion algebra, which
is a great deal simpler, and which is the most
natural way to deal with rotations, was practically
ignored in the study of point groups until some 10
years ago or so.] There is a wide gap in practice
between the existential results obtained in pure
mathematics as regards the mapping of Clifford
vectors onto reflections and the formulation of a
workable parametrization of these symmetry oper-
ations, which is one of the main problems ad-
dressed in this article. It cannot be stressed too
strongly that up to the present day the
parametrization of the operations of O(3)is carried
out in the literature by ad hoc heuristic procedures
based on S 0 ( 3 ) , which, of course, affects pro-
foundly the study of the point groups so much
used in crystallography and in the study of molec-
ular structure.
One other important preoccupation in this arti-
cle is in relation to another aspect of the multivec-
tor algebras. It often appears in these algebras that
vectors are defined in terms of the Clifford units
and then, similarly, bivectors and pseudoscalars.
Fundamental distinctions are often made between
the vectors and bivectors on the grounds that
when the units e, change sign then the vectors
change sign, whereas the bivectors (which are
written in terms of products e,e,) do not, and these
distinctions appear to be correlated with those
between polar and axial vectors and pseu-
doscalars. It does not seem to be widely appreci-
ated that the distinction between polar and axial
vectors which, whatever the terminology used in
mathematics, is fundamental in much of physics,
must be made not in terms of the inversion of an
arbitrarily defined vector space but rather in terms
of the inversion operation in the physical configu-
ration space (laboratory space). It is for this reason
that in the main body of the article we shall stick
to the now rather old-fashioned terminology of
polar and axial vectors, leaving it to one of the last
sections to make contact with the properties of
vectors and bivectors. It must be emphasized that
the relation between polar and axial vectors is still
most important in physical applications and that it
cannot be ignored or tampered with without sig-
nificant consequences.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY
The main purpose of this article was to present
an alternative point of view to that of the multi-
vector algebras of the Hestenes type. Like Hestenes,
we shall strongly emphasize at each stage the
geometrical meaning in laboratory space of the
objects defined. We shall not define, however, any
new type of vector in the laboratory space: Our
vectors there will be the standard Gibbs vectors
with all their standard properties. On the other
hand, we shall construct a Clifford space out of the
standard Clifford algebra and we shall make the
important connection between the two spaces by
proposing that the Clifford space be used as the
parametric space of the symmetry operations in
the laboratory space. Thus, the Clifford units will
be identified not with vectors but with orthogonal
reflections in O(3). It will be shown that this pro-
posal is entirely in agreement with the geometry of
O(3) and that the Clifford algebra spanned by the
units so-defined maps all the operations of O(3)
and, indeed, of the full Euclidean group. One of
the main results of this article, therefore, will be
the obtention of a parametrization of the Euclidean
group, as defined in the laboratory space, by means
of the Clifford algebra, in such a way as to ensure
that the correct multiplication rules are obtained
and, most importantly, that one can operate on the
(Gibbs) vectors of the laboratory space correctly, a
point that requires a little care. It is self-evident
that, in molecular applications for instance, the
symmetry operations that are used must transform
correctly all the physical Gibbs vectors required, a
point that will be guaranteed by the present
method.
As can be seen from the above, the general
approach of this article is firmly based on the
premise that geometry in the laboratory space is
paramount and that no assertion about any map-
ping between the Clifford-space and the labora-
tory-space vectors should be made until rigorous
tests are made to ensure that all the properties of
the laboratory-space geometry are correctly given.
For this reason, the language that we shall adopt
will be as nearly as possible that used in labora-
tory-space geometry.
The provision of an algebra along the lines
described, which as we shall see will allow us to
transform vectors in the laboratory space under all
the operations of the Euclidean group, is of some
importance in many practical applications, not only
in molecular and solid-state structure, but also in
such varied subjects as robotics and ray-tracing in
optical systems. Before embarking into our main
361
ALTMANN

discussion, it will be useful to review the simpler

work that is done in SO(3) by means of the quater-
nion algebra.

with
Rotations and Quaternions
cos++, = 4cos++,cos++, - n1 * n 2 sin$+, sin++,,
A rotation R(+,n) is defined by an angle of
(9)
+
rotation 0 2 2 T and an axial vector n from the
fixed origin of the unit sphere. This vector is in- n3 sin+(b3= n 2 cos++, sin$+, + n1cos++,sin+(b,
variant under the rotation and it is called its pole:
+ n1 x n 2 sin:+, sin$+,. (10)

R(+,n)n = n. (5) Equations (9) and (10) are the well-known

quaternion-multiplication rules. If a vector such as
All rotation angles are defined as positive n is written in terms of the usual orthogonal unit
(counterclockwise) as seen from outside the sphere vectors i, j, and k (axial, of course), then
when looking at the head of the pole. The distinc-
tion between positive and negative rotations is i = LO, ill, j = [IO, jl, k = [O, kl (11)
done through the pole: All positive rotations and are the usual quaternion units which satisfy
all binary rotations are given poles in a conven- Hamilton’s well-known rules:
tionally defined positive hemisphere H and all
negative rotations are given poles in the negative i2 = -1, ij = k ,
hemisphere. The positive hemisphere need not be ijk 1, and cyclic permutations.
= - (12)
defined as a connected area on the unit sphere and
its choice must be carefully done if one is dealing It must be noted, however, that Hamilton, and
with finite subgroups of SO(3) (see [3]). most of the literature that followed on quater-
Normalized quaternions [a, A] (a, real scalar; A, nions, made no distinction between i and i, say.
axial vector; a’ + A’, equal to unity) can be Also, on comparing (11) with (6), it is evident that
mapped onto the rotations R(+,n) of SO(3) as the quaterinion units are not unit vectors at all, but,
follows: rather, binary rotations (rotations by T ) . (See [3]
for further discussion of the results above.)

(Notice that the vector n is axial.) For the purpose

Conventions
of multiplying rotations, which is the problem that
Before we go any further, we shall clarify a few
we have in mind, and purely for this purpose, it is
conventions that we shall use in this article and
possible to parametrize each rotation R(+,n) by
which are absolutely necessary to avoid such con-
the unique positive quaternion in ( 6 ) by means of
cepts as those of an axial vector to be ridden by
the following device: All poles n are chosen as
fallacies thLat easily result from mixing conventions
stated above, and all rotation angles are chosen in
or from the use of loose terminology. The right-
the range given in (6). When two rotations are
handed orthogonal axes i, j, and k are fixed in the
multiplied, the rotation angle in the product rota-
laboratory and never transformed. A (Gibbs) vec-
tion is always brought into the range stated, if
tor such as r is given by components rl, r2, and r3,
necessary, by addition of a multiple of 2 ~ and
r any
respectiveliy, in those axes. Symmetry operations
negative factor thus appearing is disregarded (al-
will always be understood in the active picture:
though it is, of course, essential if one wishes to
They transform all position vectors in the labora-
construct projective or spinor representations of
tory space but they do not change the axes. All
the rotation group). Under these restrictive condi-
symmetry operations are fixed in i, j, k, which
tions, the mapping is isomorphic: If
means that the symmetry elements, and therefore
also their poles, are never changed when symmetry
operations are performed in the laboratory space.

362 VOL. 60.NO. 1

 CLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS
The inversion operation changes the sign of the
components of all position vectors in laboratory
space and of all polar vectors, but does not change
the sign of the components of axial vectors. This is
identically the same, in the active picture but not
necessarily otherwise, as saying that the inversion
operation reverses the direction of polar but not of
axial vectors.
It is sometimes stated that when inverting a X b
not only the vectors must be inverted but also that
the cross-product rule must be changed, thus re-
sulting in the cross-product changing sign (and,
thus, allegedly behaving like a polar vector). Al-
though there is an element of truth in this state-
ment, it has to be very carefully formulated to
avoid the fallacious result stated. There is no doubt
whatever that at least in low-energy physics it is
not possible to establish a difference between the
two possible chiralities (handedness). It is thus a
major principle that all statements involving chi-
rality must be neutral, in the sense that one must
be able to use such statements without knowing
which is the chirality that one is using. Thus, the
instructions to construct a vector product must
read as follows: Choose a basis of three orthogonal
unit vectors i, j, k. Then, given two polar vectors a
and b, a, b, and a x b must have the same chiral-
ity as that of i, j, k. It is thus obvious that in the
active picture, since there is no change of basis and
thus no change of chirality, the reversal of direc-
tion of a and b under inversion does not entail a
reversal of direction of a X b, which is therefore
axial.
Although we do not use the passive picture in
this article, we shall restate the last result in that
picture. In the passive picture, the inversion re-
verses the direction of the i, j, k, vectors. Polar
vectors do not change direction but their compo-
nents change sign. Axial vectors, instead, reverse
their direction and thus their components are in-
variant. (These are statements that can cause con-
fusion: For them to be absolutely clear in the
passive picture, three unit vectors I, J, K must be
defined that coincide with i, j, k for the identity
but, as a difference from i, j, k, are never trans-
formed. When we say that a polar vector does not
change direction, we mean that it is invariant with
respect to the fixed axes I, J, K and contrarywise
for an axial vector.) When i, j, k are inverted, a
and b remain invariant in the sense just explained,
but because the set a, b, a x b must change chiral-
ity (owing to the change in chirality of the basis),
a x b must reverse its direction and it is thus
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY
axial. Notice that endless confusion can be created
by loosely referring to ”vectors changing sign,”
meaning either that the vector reverses its direc-
tion or that its components change sign, state-
ments which may or may not be equivalent. No-
tice also that the positive sense of rotation should
be defined as that which takes i into j when
looking from the head of k, for any basis i, j, k of
arbitrary chirality.
It will be useful for later reference to summarize
the distinctions between polar and axial vectors,
within the conventions defined (always using ac-
tive transformations). Polar vectors reverse direc-
tion under inversion (and their components change
sign), but axial vectors remain invariant. A polar
vector reverses direction when reflected through a
perpendicular reflection plane but remains invari-
ant when this plane is parallel. An axial vector
reverses direction when reflected through a paral-
lel plane but remains invariant when this plane is
perpendicular. (A simple geometrical treatment of
these results may be found in [16].) Also, within
our conventions, ”reverse direction” of a vector is
equivalent to ”change the sign of its components.”
Reflections and the Clifford Units
Quaternion algebra is an excellent tool for deal-
ing with all the operations of SO(3) but the inver-
sion and reflections that appear in O(3) are not
tractable within this algebra, although it is possible
to deal with them by ad hoc techniques. The virtue
of the Clifford algebra is not only that it deals with
all the operations of O(3) equally well, but that it
can also be extended to cover all the operations of
the Euclidean group. The relation between reflec-
tions and the Clifford units was already sketched
in [ 3 ] ,but it will now be done in a more conve-
nient and general way. A reflection u is given as
the product iC, of the inversion i with a binary
rotation C, with the axis of rotation perpendicular
to the plane of u and it can be uniquely mapped
to an axial vector P,, which we shall call the pole
of the reflection. This is a unit axial vector normal
to the reflection plane and chosen so that it coin-
cides with the pole of the binary rotation C,, as
chosen by the rules stated. The main property of P,
is that it is invariant under u.
u P, = P, , (13)
363
ALTMANN

because an axial vector is invariant under a reflec-
tion perpendicular to it.
It will be important in what follows to keep in
mind some properties of the inversion and reflec-
tion operations. If we call the identity E and the
anti-identity 2,the operations that multiply all
Hamilton's turns, much developed recently by
Biedenharn (see [ 181). The geometrical relation (15)
will be important for us as a check of the validity
of the identification that we shall now provide of
reflections within the Clifford algebra.
If el, e,, e, are the units of C,, we propose the

-
operands by +1 and -I, respectively, it has been

-
following mapping:
shown [3,17] that there are two multiplication
rules for the inversion which are both fully com- el ax,e2 c-) my,e3 u2, (19)
patible with the conventions used in physics. They whereupon
are i2 = 1 or i2 = -1, which have been called by
Altmann the Pauli and Cartan gauges, respec-
tively. Whereas most of the literature on the sym-
metry operations of O(3) is based on the Pauli
gauge, it has been demonstrated [171 that the Car-
eIe3
e2e1
--
e3e2 c.) uzuY= C,,
u,u2= CZy= [O,j]
uYux
= C,,
=

=
[O,i]

[O, k]
=

=
i,

j,
k.
(20)
(21)
(22)
tan gauge cannot be ignored: its use, as we shall
see, is, in fact, unavoidable in the present work We have thus established a mapping between
[see Eq. (2611 and will henceforth be adopted. the bivectors e,el and the quaternion units. (Al-
As regards reflections, the orthogonal reflec- though the details of this mapping differ from
tions a,, uy, uz,respectively perpendicular to the those given in [3], the present choice is more
orthogonal directions x , y, z , will be useful. Given adequate for the purposes of this article.) We can
two reflections u2 and u, with poles P, and P,,
separated by the angle i4 from P, to P,, then,
from the quaternion multiplication rules (9) and
(101,
ii -
verify that this mapping is isomorphic:

e3e2e3e2= -e3e3e2e2 = -1,

ij * e,e2e,e, = e2e1 = c-) k ,
(23)
(24)
u2u, = ~~O~~,IliCO,P11 (14) in agreement with (12). It should be noticed that
- P,, P2 x PI]
-
= i 2 [ - P, within this mapping the inversion is a trivector:
= [P, - P,,P, x P2il (15) 1 = eIe2e3 = i,
uxuyu, (25)
= [cosi4,nsin$c,h] = R(+,n), (16)
and that we are unavoidably led to the Cartan
with gauge:
n = (PI x P,)/IP, x P21. (17) ii * z2 = e,e2e3ele2e3 = -1. (26)
It follows that for i4 5 i n , the vector n is in
(Notice that an upper-case letter has to be used for
the direction of P, X P,, but if i4 > i n , then n is
the image of the inversion in the Clifford algebra,
in the opposite direction, since, on using the rule
to avoid confusion with the quaternion unit i.
stated for the rotation products, the sign of the
Notice also that, because I behaves like the imagi-
quaternion requires change. (There is an element
nary unit i, it is often identified with it, which is
of convention here for the case i4 = in-,which
not entirely satisfactory: There are many objects in
has been chosen so as to agree without change
this work that share this form of behavior.)
with the products in the Cartan gauge as given in
It will presently be useful to consider the form
[ 3 ] . )From (16) and (17), we find, in particular, that
of a general binary rotation C, with pole n which,
uY uX = C2*,and cyclic permutations, (18) from (6), is

where C,, is a binary rotation about the z axis. C2 = LO, nl = [O, n,i + n2 j + n,kJ (27)
Relation (16) was obtained by Hamilton [l], al- = n,i + n, j + n,k. (28)
though, since he never parametrized rotations by
half-angles, he did not give it explicitly. Rather, We shall now identify a general reflection v
the construction of a rotation by 4 as the product with pole P as an element of the Clifford algebra
of two reflections separated by i+was the basis of C,. We write u for this purpose, as before, as iC2,

364 VOL. 60, NO. 1

 CLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS
with P as the pole of C2. On using (25) and (281,
we have
u= e,e2e3(P,i + P, j + P 3 k ) (29)
= P,e, + P,e, + P3e3, (30)
as can readily be derived on using (20) to (22) and
(1).
We shall verify that the multiplication rule (15)
is recovered with this identification, thus support-
ing the consistency of our parametrization. Con-
sider the reflections u, and ul, with poles P, and
PI, respectively, and write, from (301,
= '2,lel + '2,Ze2 + P2,3e3f (31)
Ul = P,,,e, + P,,ze2 + '1,3e3. (32)
Therefore,
This equation coincides with (15) and thus rela-
tion (16) is established, verifying (so far) the
parametrization of reflections given by (30). Notice
that from (36) it follows that u 2 = + E , which is
correct in the Cartan gauge. Also, to regain (151, no
arbitrary factors are allowed in (31) and (321, ex-
cept for a factor of -1 in both equations, which
merely entails a trivial redefinition of the positive
hemisphere H.
Transformation of a Vector
It will first of all be necessary to make a nota-
tional distinction between a polar vector r and an
axial vector with the same components, to be de-
noted with i.. (Two such vectors will be called
associated.) We have seen in (5) and (13) that for
any rotation or reflection h of O(3) a unique axial
vector f h can be given, which is invariant under
that operation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY
h f h= Zh, (37)
and which is called the pole of the corresponding
operation. (Strictly speaking, as we have discussed
in the section on conventions, in the active picture
of symmetry operations, their poles are never af-
fected by any of them. When we discuss the
"transformation" property or, as here, the "invari-
ance" of a pole under a symmetry operation, we
must assume that we superimpose on each pole a
position vector which is a copy of the pole and that
it is this copy which is then transformed or other-
wise left invariant.)
Consider now an arbitrary operation g of O(3)
that transforms the vector f k into another one, 8 i . h
(see Fig. 1). We assert that g z h coincides with the
pole of the operation ghg-l of O(3). In fact,
Let us call g the element of the Clifford algebra
that parametrizes the operation g. For a reflection,
it will be given by the right-hand side of (301, and
for a rotation, it will be given in terms of its
corresponding positive quaternion in (6). Similarly,
h will be the element of the Clifford algebra which
parametrizes the operation h. As is clear from (6)
and (30), each g and h will entail a vector part
which is the pole of the corresponding operation.
On the other hand, it follows from (38) that if we
want to transform a vector f h under g it is suffi-
cient to find the pole of ghg-', which is the vector
part of ghg-', so that we write
gzh = Ve(ghg-');
(axial vector transformation). (39)
The operator "Ve" here means: "find the com-
ponents 1, 2, 3 of the Clifford vector (or bivector)
FIGURE 1. Conjugate poles.
365
ALTMANN
on its right and use them as components, in the
right order, of an axial vector spanned by the unit
vectors i, j, k in laboratory space." (If h is a
rotation and h is not a pure quaternion, it must be
remembered that the vector part of the quaternion
contains the vector in the form n sin$+.)
In practice, however, we shall most often want
to transform a polar vector r. We do this, first, by
finding a pole i,, formally equal to r and, second,
by taking the vector part of ghg-', on changing at
the same time axial into polar vectors. This, how-
ever, is not all that is required, for the following
reason: In ghg-', we are transforming the axial
vector I,, under the operation g and this axial
vector will transform identically with r if and only
if g is a proper rotation: Axial vectors transform
identically with polar vectors under proper opera-
tions but change sign with respect to the transform
of a polar vector under an improper operation
(reflection or inversion). Thus, if we now under-
stand V e + to mean "apply V e on the expression
on its right and replace axial vectors by their
associated polar vectors," we have
gr = ve+(ghg-'), g proper;
( polar vector transformation). (40)
gr = - V e + Cghg-' 1, g improper;
( polar vector transformation). (41)
For simplicity, we have now dropped the sub-
script h from the vector r on the left of these
equations. Therefore, when using them, it must be
remembered that h is the Clifford-algebra element
that maps the operation of which r is the pole. One
important observation must be made about these
equations: The transformed vector g? in the source
Eq. (39) is the pole of the operation ghg-' conju-
'
gate to h. Because h and ghg- belong to the same
class of conjugation, both operations must be of
the same point-group type (i.e., both rotations by
the same angle, or both reflections, etc.) and the
norms of their parametric elements must be pre-
served. This is the reason why the inner automor-
phism ghg-' of the Clifford space is one that must
preserve the norm of h, a well-known result that
can be directly tested and that it is often, since the
days of the original conical transformation of Cay-
ley and Hamilton, taken to "prove" that the "vec-
tor" h must be obtained from ghg-' by a symme-
try operation, because symmetry operations must
be norm-preserving. (It should have been recog-
nized instead that h could be the parametric im-
366
age of a syinmetry operation, in which case ghg-'
is the pararnetric image of another operation in the
same class of conjugation; hence, the norms of the
parameters, as well as those of any vector parts
that they might contain, must be left invariant.)
Thus, if h is a rotation, in which case h must be a
quaternion, ghg-' is a rotation of the same angle
so that the quaternions h and ghg-' have both the
same scalar part, which allows us to interpret the
transforma tion entailed in these equations as one
that transforms only the underlying vectors, as we
have assumed.
We have two choices as regards the operation h
whose pole is going to map the desired vector r.
First, we can take h to be a rotation, in which case
h = l a , ill. (42)
The scalar part a of the quaternion in this equa-
tion can be quite arbitrary and we have now
dropped thle subscript of the pole. Second, we can
take h to be a reflection, in which case, from (301,
h = ?,el + ?,e, + F,e,. (43)
We shall illustrate the first choice for mapping
the vector r in the case when it is desired to
transform this vector under g , a proper rotation
with pole P and rotation angle +. Equation (40)
then gives
R ( + . P )=
~ ve+{Ccost+,Psin~+1Ca,i~
X [ ; C O S -Psin++]}
+~, (44)
= Ve+[a, i'], (45)
where the quaternion on the right-hand side is the
product of the three quaternions in (44). Hamilton
wrote this equation differently. First, he never
made a distinction between i and r. Second, he
took a to vanish (a point about which far too much
has been made in the literature to this day). Third,
he identified the so-called pure quaternion 60, r],
now appealring on the right-hand side of (441, with
the vector r. Thus, Eq. (44) is written in the Hamil-
ton sense as
This is the Cayley-Hamilton conical trunsforma-
tion. Although (46) can be used heuristically and
although it is undoubtedly convenient to take a in
(42) to vanish, the identification of the pure quater-
VOL. 60, NO.1
 CLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS

nion [O,r] with the vector r is imprudent, since with that of Pgl, and all that we require in order
from comparison with (6) this quaternion maps a to apply the symbol is to remember to replace Y by
rotation by r r (binary rotation) and does not have its corresponding polar vector r. We thus write
the transformation properties of a vector. Thus,
although the Ve operator in (39) to (41) may ap- crr = -PuyPu, (51)
pear as somewhat clumsy, it does precisely the
operations that are left dangerously implicit in the but it must be understood that this is mere short-
more standard notation. Obviously, once one is hand: On the right-hand side of this expression,
absolutely sure of what one is doing, a simplified one is simply multiplying symmetry operations
notation in the style of (46) may be adopted, as rather than operating in any strict sense with vec-
will later on be done in this article. tors and one must also remember that the Clifford
We shall now use the transformation method components must be properly assembled into a
given by (41) in order to find the transform v r of a laboratory-axes vector.
(polar) position vector r under a reflection v on a We shall first of all use the transformation en-
plane through the origin 0 with pole P. This is a tailed in (491, for which purpose we write
rather trivial geometrical result:
[O,ZJ = + f , j + F,k
F,i
vr = r - 2(r P)P, (47)
= Fle,e2 + + F3e2el,
*
F2eie3 (52)
but its undoubted validity will provide a good
check on our method. [Notice that in this section and Pu as in (48). Therefore,
we identify explicitly axial vectors with a tilde and
that in (47) P must be replaced, as we have done, (
P , [ Y o , ~ ~=~ PFlel
, + F2e2 + P 3 e 3 )
by its associated polar vector.]
To do this work, we shall first of all rewrite (41) x(F,e,e, + f2e,e, + f,e2e,)
for the two choices for h given by (42) and (43). x ( F l e l + F2e2+ P3e,) (53)
We must take g in (41) to be a reflection cr with
pole P, whose parametric Clifford-algebra element = (I; - P)P {P x (I; x P)}li
-
will be written, from (30), as follows:
-{P x (i x P))2 j
P , = P,e,
- - -
+ P,e, + P,e,. -(P X (? X P)},k,
(48) (54)

It is very easy to prove, bearing in mind that P
is a unit vector, that PwP, equals unity; hence, P,
is its own inverse. Thus, we have (first choice for
h)
crr = -Ve+{P,[O,?]q,}
or (second choice for h )
vr = -Ve+(P,(?,e, + f 2 e 2 + F,e,)P,}.
This last expression will be much simplified so
as to adopt a notation more familiar in the litera-
ture. First, we notice that as a difference with (49)
there is no scalar part in the Clifford algebra prod-
uct and therefore that the vector to be extracted
from the right-hand side of (50) is obtained from
the whole of the Clifford algebra element. This
property allows the latter, and, thus, the curly
bracket in (501, to be regarded as "vectors." Thus,
the symbol " V e + " can now be dispensed with,
because the axial nature of the vector in P , cancels
as it can easily be proved after some simple alge-
bra. On introducing (54) into (49), we obtain
crr = -(r - P)P + {P x (r x PI}
= r - Z(r * P)P, (55)
(49)
which, from (51), we can write as
vr = -PurP, = r - Z(r - P)P. (56)
(50)
Equation (56) agrees with the geometrical result
(47). I should like to stress that the object of this
test is the following: Equation (47) is correct be-
yond any reasonable doubt; hence, its recovery in
(56) validates our operating rules and, in particu-
lar, our contention that the elements of the Clifford
algebra cannot be identified with vectors but that
they are the parametric images of reflections and
that here, as in the quaternion algebra, vectors can
only be manipulated by means of products of their
image symmetry operations. Moreover, the axial
property of the vectors used is established beyond

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY 367

ALTMANN
reasonable doubt, since, otherwise, the vital sign in
(49) would not be obtained.
The geometrical result (55) can be identically
reproduced on imaging the vector r by (43) instead
of (42), i.e., by using (50) instead of (49). Although
(50) is more compact than is (49), the work is very
much the same and it will not be reproduced here.
The fact that the two different approaches agree
entirely is, however, not without significance, as
will be discussed in a later section on vectors and
bivectors.
The Euclidean Group: Translations
We want to consider now the Euclidean group.
Let us call ( g } the set of all point-group operations
g E 0(3), such that their fixed points coincide with
the origin 0 of the space. We assume that these
operations have all been parametrized as de-
scribed above and, in particular, that their poles
have all been determined and that they form a set
(Pg}. We have seen in (40) and (41) how such
point-group operations transform a position (polar)
vector r. In the Euclidean group, however, at any
point 0’ of the space, we have another copy of
O(3) with point-group operation g ’ with fixed
point 0’ and another set of poles (Pgr](see Fig. 2).
We propose to express all the point-group opera-
tions of the Euclidean group in terms of the point-
group operations at the origin 0 of the laboratory
space. We must therefore be able to express an
operation g ‘ in terms of the point-group opera-
tions { g } at 0. Call for this purpose u the position
vector of 0’ (with respect, of course, to the origin
0 of the laboratory space) and consider a transla-
tion u by the vector u, which transforms all posi-
tion vectors of the space as follows:
ur = r + u. (57)
FIGURE 2. Parametrization of symmetry operations
centered at different points.
368
It must be remembered that in the active pic-
ture the translation, like all symmetry operations,
does not clhange the symmetry elements at all.
Thus, the poles at 0 and 0’, e.g., are not trans-
formed by the translation in (57). To relate Pxt and
Px under the translation u, dummy copies of these
vectors must be superimposed on them with a
view to transforming these dummies. They, how-
ever, cannot be free vectors, since their points of
application are vital. Neither can they be trans-
lated as the position vectors of the space are, in
(571, since they would then cease to be of unit
length. We must therefore define the translation by
u of the pole Pg (strictly speaking, that of its
dummy copy) as merely translating its point of
application. This is quite legitimate because all
that we need is a relation between Pg. and Pg.
Under the irule just given, it is clear that the pole
Px8 of an operation g’ must be given by upg,
where Pg is the pole of some operation g at 0. It is
very easy to prove, in the same manner as in (38),
that upg is the pole of ugu-l so that g‘ must
coincide with this product. We can thus obtain the
action on a vector r of any point-group operation
of the Euclidean group, g’, the fixed-point of which
has position vector u with respect to 0:
g’r = ugu-lr = u(r - u) = g(r - u) + u. (58)
It is useful to recognize that, if the vector u is
taken to be a continuous function of a real parame-
ter T (which might be the time), Eq. (58) describes
a general screw in laboratory space. The point-
group operation g will in this case be a rotation,
which may be taken, in general, to be also a
continuous function of 7 and, if convenient, to be
an infinitesimal rotation.
We shall illustrate the general procedure given
by (58) for a reflection u ’ (see Fig. 3). On introduc-
ing (51) in that equation, we obtain
v’r = -P,,(Y - u ) P ,+u
= -PurP,, + P,,uP, + u. (59)
From (56),
PUuPu= -U +2 ( ~ PIP
. = -U + 2v, (60)
where v is the perpendicular vector from 0 to the
plane u ’. On introducing this result into (59), we
get
u ’ r = -P,rP, + 2v. (61)
VOL. 60,NO. 1
 ZLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS

It is asserted that the first of these elements, r, can

be called a vector because on changing the sign of
the Clifford units (this, presumably, is thought to
be the passive picture of the inversion) its compc-
nents do change signs as vectors should do. The
bivector s, instead, does not change sign under
such ”operation” and it is thus said to behave like
an axial vector (or a pseudovector, although a
distinction between these two objects should be
In’ - made [12]). I , on the other hand, is in the same
o V manner identified with a pseudoscalar, since it
changes sign under the so-called inversion. This
FIGURE 3. A reflection CT’ at a plane that does not appears to work very well, because the pseu-
contain the origin. doscalar multiplied by the pseudovector should
give a vector, and it is, in fact, obvious that Is
We shall now show that translations may also does indeed give r. However convincing this argu-
be expressed within this algebra. Consider two ment appears, it has nothing whatever to do, un-
successive parallel reflections u ’u where the per- fortunately, with the distinction between Gibbs
pendicular vector from 0 (which is on the plane polar and axial vectors which must be done (in the
a ) to the plane u ’ is v. From (611, passive picture) by applying the inversion on the
unit vectors i, j, k, of the laboratory space, not on
a‘ar = -P,(ar)P, + 2v. (62) those of an arbitrarily defined vector space. Before
this important point is discussed in detail, the
On using (56) here, it follows that following remark is useful: In accordance with the
argument just given, the bivector in (52) should
u’ur = -Pu(-PgrPu)~+
, 2v (63) not behave in the same manner as does the vector
in (431, whereas we have seen after Eq. (56) that
= P:rP: + 2v = r + 2v, (64) both of them behave beyond any reasonable doubt
in identically the same manner as axial vectors. It
since, as already remarked, P , equals unity. This is useful to note that the careful consideration of
result shows that, as is well known, two successive the inversion of the laboratory-space coordinates is
reflections on two parallel planes such that the very important in the Lorentz group, where only
perpendicular distance from the first to the second the space coordinates can be inverted [19].
plane is given by the vector v is a translation t by It must be strongly stressed that axiality or
2v, thus completing the description of all the oper- polarity is a property that can only be discussed
ations of the Euclidean group within the Clifford for vectors defined in the laboratory space. Thus,
algebra. whereas this property is significant for the vectors
r and s in laboratory space that can be extracted
from r and s in (65) and (66), it makes little sense
Vectors and Bivectors for the vectors in the Clifford space. To hammer
this last point home, let us transform under the
I shall now deal with a troublesome fallacy. inversion the vectors r and s associated with r and
When using Clifford multivector algebras, it is s in (65) and (66). As always, we perform this
sometimes asserted that the old-fashioned con- operation within the active picture which requires,
cepts of polar and axial vectors are superseded in in principle, the use of the rule given in (41) for
these algebras. The reasoning behind this assertion applying an improper rotation on a vector. (Notice
appears to go roughly as follows: Define the fol- that this operation has nothing whatever to do
lowing elements of the algebra: with a transformation, whether active or passive,
in the space spanned by the Clifford units.) Since
r = + r2e2 + r3e3,
r,el (65) we assert, however, that the components rl, y 2 , rg
s = rle3e2 + r2ele3 + Y3e2el, (66) in (65) behave like the components of the axial
+
vector r = r,i + r2 j r3k, i.e., that they do not
I = e1e2e3. (67) change sign under the (active) inversion in the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY 369

ALTMANN
space spanned by i, j, and k, we shall revert to the
use of the transformation rule for axial vectors
(39). We must, of course, change the notation a
little. First, f, will be replaced by r and, accord-
ingly, h must be replaced by Y from (65). Also, the
operation g will be chosen to be the inversion,
whereby g must be taken to be I from (67). It is
easy to prove that I-' equals e3e2e1. Finally, it
must be remembered that "Ve" requires that we
extract the components 1, 2, and 3 of the expres-
sion on its right and that we apply them, respec-
tively, on the unit vectors i, j, k of the laboratory
space on which r has been defined. We therefore
write
ir = = Ve{e,e2e,(rle,
IYI-' + r2e2 + r3e3)e3e2el}
(68)
= Ve{r,el + r2e2 + r,e,}, (69)
as can easily be verified. Clearly, the right-hand
side of (69) gives
ir = r,i + r, j + r,k = r, (70)
thus verifying that, as asserted, r is an axial vector.
This result, of course, merely demonstrates the
consistency of our work. The crucially important
result, instead, is that we obtain precisely the same
transformation rule for a bivector, thus giving the
lie to the assumption that Clifford vectors and
bivectors behave differently under the inversion. It
is, in fact, extremely easy to prove that (70) is still
valid when s is substituted for Y in (68). [Both this
result and (70) were, of course, to be expected,
since the inversion commutes with all symmetry
operations: This is another clear example of how
transparent the meaning of products in the Clif-
ford space is, once their nature in terms of symme-
try operations is understood.] This proof not only
corroborates once more that the work on the trans-
formation of vectors that we have given is correct,
but it reinforces our statement that the property of
axiality has nothing whatever to do with the dis-
tinction between vectors and bivectors in the Clif-
ford space.
Point Groups in Three and Four
Dimensions
I shall first review briefly how point groups in
three dimensions are generated by the Clifford
algebra C,, which are listed below. The elements
370
are
In the first column here, we list the eight Clif-
ford algebra elements and, on their right, in the
correct order, the operations of the full rotation
group that they map, for (72) from (19) and for (73)
from (20) to (22). It should be noted that the
Clifford bivectors are the three orthogonal binary
rotations that are the generators of the spinor rep-
resentations of S0(3), as shown in [3], p. 117.
Likewise, we have seen in (26) that the mapping of
the trivector onto the inversion entails the Cartan
gauge. All this means that the elements of C, will
be isomorphic to spinor representations of O(3)
and are capable of generating all of them. Because
the spinor representations are projective ones, if it
is desired to generate the corresponding groups,
projective factors of tl must be ignored when
obtaining cllosure. It is thus easy to verify that (71)
and (73) give the dihedral group D, under this
rule.
We can now deal with the Clifford algebra in
four dimensions, C,, the elements of which, with
their identification (in the same order as given in
the first column), are listed below:
The identification of the symmetry operations is
very simply done by plugging them into an equa-
tion like (68). When this is done for e3e2, e.g., it is
found that the x and w components are invariant
and the other two change sign. Since this opera-
tion, like e3e2 before, must be a binary rotation
under which all vectors operate in the same man-
ner, it means that it must be a binary rotation
about the hyperline xw.In the same manner, e4e,
is a binary rotation about the hyperline yz. The
VOL. 60, NO. 1
 CLIFFORD ALGEBRA, SYMMETRIES, AND VECTORS
product of e3e2 with e4e, is easily proved to be
e1e2e3e4, which is a binary rotation of the whole
space (it changes all four components and behaves
like a binary rotation around the center of a strictly
two-dimensional plane). It is thus sensible to iden-
tify e4e, with a rotation Cix,orthogonal to CZx, in
analogy to the fact that, in three dimensions, the
product of two perpendicular binaries is a binary
rotation perpendicular to the plane of the two
factors.
Going back to (76), the same test, remembering
now that under reflection axial components paral-
lel to the reflection plane change sign, shows that
e, is a reflection on the hyperplane yzw, normal to
the x direction. The operation e,e,e, in (781, in-
stead, is a reflection on a plane normal to the
hyperplane xyz which is parallel to zu-hence, the
symbol adopted.
It is useful to notice in (77) that all the un-
primed operations commute, including the projec-
tive factor, and they likewise commute with the
primed operations with the same label. The primed
operations commute only if projective factors are
disregarded. Also, the operation in (79) when mul-
tiplied by the binary rotations in (77) transforms
them in other binary rotations of the same list, in
such a way that the unprimed rotations transform
into their orthogonal primed ones and vice versa.
Just like in 0(3), the binary rotations C 2 x , CZy,
C,, are the group generators and the six opera-
tions in (77) are the generators of 0(4), which
agrees with Wulfman [20], although he lists them
in a different way (see also [21].)
It is very easy from (75) to (79) to deduce finite
point subgroups of 0(4), which will be designated
with a notation similar to that used for those in
0(3), but with a distinguishing superscript denot-
ing the dimension of the space. The first few, e.g.,
are
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUANTUM CHEMISTRY
The latter group is a dihedral group with a
binary rotation C, of the whole space, orthogonal
to the six binary rotations in (86). These examples
will suffice to show how easily it is to generate
point groups in four dimensions by means of the
Clifford algebra, but it must be remembered that
closure is only satisfied on disregarding the projec-
tive factors since, strictly speaking, the Clifford
algebra will always generate the covering or dou-
ble group.
Conclusions
The main object of this article was that of pro-
viding a number of simple geometrical tests in the
laboratory space in order to understand the prop-
erties of Clifford-space vectors and to construct a
workable parametrization of O(3). These tests al-
low us to obtain practical rules of transformation
of laboratory-space vectors under the most general
transformations of the Euclidean group (such as
screws). This formalism will thus be useful in any
work that requires the tracking of motions in Eu-
clidean space. The very simple geometrical tests
here provided show clearly that no element of a
Clifford algebra can be used to directly map a
vector. The Clifford space, in fact, is the parametric
space of O(3).Vectors in the laboratory space must
first be mapped by poles of rotations or reflections,
these operations being the entities directly mapped
by elements of the Clifford algebra. When this is
done with some care, the standard rules of trans-
formation of the Gibbs vectors are preserved with
no trouble.
The superiority of the Clifford over the quater-
nion algebra must be noticed since, whereas in the
quaternion algebra the inversion, and thus all im-
proper operations, must be handled on an ad hoc
basis, the inversion, reflections, and translations
are all correctly mapped by the elements of the
Clifford algebra. Most importantly, it follows from
the present work that both Clifford vectors and
bivectors may be associated with laboratory-space
axial vectors and that much care must be exer-
cised in defining axiality or polarity when using
Clifford-algebra methods. Finally, the utility of
Clifford algebras in forming point groups in 4-
dimensional space was demonstrated and further
applications along this line are in preparation.
371
ALTMANN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I should like to acknowledge stimulating corre-
spondence with the late Professor Ken Greider. I
am also grateful to Dr. M. F. Ross and Professor W.
M. Pezzaglia for providing me with copies of their
theses and to Professor Pezzaglia for very useful
correspondence. Professor H. K. Urbantke from
Vienna very kindly read a draft of this article and
contributed useful comments, for which I am
grateful, as I am for a discussion with Professor J.
Morzymas from Wroclaw. A preliminary version
of this article was presented at the Second Interna-
tional School of Theoretical Physics at Poznafi, in
August 1992. This work was supported by a travel
grant of the Royal Society and by the Austrian
Ministry of Science under Project GZ 49.731/2-
24/91, for which help I am most grateful.
References
1. W. R. Hamilton, Lectures on Quaternions (Hodges & Smith,
Dublin, 1853).
2. M. Riesz, Clifford Numbers and Spinors, Lecture Series No. 38
(Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Applied Mathematics,
Baltimore, MD, 1958).
3. S. L. Altmann, Rotations, Quaternions, and Double Groups
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
4. S. L. Altmann and P. Herzig, Point-Group Theory Tables
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994).
372
5. D. Hestenes, Space-Time Algebra (Gordon and Breach, New
York, 1966).
6. D. Hestenes and G. Sobczyk, Clifford Algebra to Geometric
Calculus. A Unified Language for Mathematics and Physics
(Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984).
7. K. Greider, Founds. Phys. 14,467 (1984).
8. P. Lounesto, Founds. Phys. 11, 721 (1981).
9. J. S. R. Chisholm and A. K. Common, Eds., Clzfford Algebras
and Their Applications in Mathematical Physics (Reidel, Dor-
drecht, 1986).
10. D. Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 39, 1013 (1971).
11. W. M. Pezzaglia, Doctoral Thesis (University of California,
Davis, 1975).
12. W. E. Bayliss, J. Huschilt, and J. Wei, Am. J. Phys. 60, 788
(1992).
13. E. Cartan, Legons sur la Th&oorie des Spineurs (Hermann,
Paris, 1938).
14. M. Atiyah, R. Bott, and A. Shapiro, Topology 3 (Suppl. 11, 3
(1964).
15. F. R. Harvey, Spinors and Calibrations (Academic Press,
London, 1990).
16. S. L. Altmann, Icons and Symmetries (Clarendon Press, Ox-
ford, 1992).
17. S. L. Altmann, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 20, 4587 (1987).
18. L. C. Biedcnharn and J. D. Louck, Angular Momentum in
Quantum Physics. Theory and Application (Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1981).
19. R. U. Sex1 and H. K. Urbantke, Relativitut, Gruppen, Teilchen,
3rd ed. (Springer, Vienna, 1992).
20. C. E. Wulfman, in Group Theory and Applications E. M.
Loebl, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1971), Vol. 2, p. 151.
21. H. S. M. Coxeter and W. 0. J. Moser, Generators and Rela-
tions for Discrete Groups, 4th ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1984).
VOL. 60.NO. 1