Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

Please welcome our new moderators!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,545 answers , 19,342 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
408 active unimported users
More ...

Is this a simple Lie algebra?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
18 views

This question comes from Georgi, Lie Alegbras in Particle Physics. Consider the algebra generated by $\sigma_a\otimes1$ and $\sigma_a\otimes \eta_1$ where $\sigma_a$ and $\eta_1$ are Pauli matrices (so $a=1,2,3$). He claims this is "semisimple, but not simple". To me, that means we should look for an invariant subalgebra (a two-sided ideal). The multiplication table is pretty easy to figure out:

$[\sigma_a,\sigma_b]=i\epsilon_{abc}\sigma_c,$

$[\sigma_a,\sigma_b\otimes\eta_1]=i\epsilon_{abc}\sigma_c\otimes\eta_1$

$[\sigma_a\otimes\eta_1,\sigma_b\otimes\eta_1]=i\epsilon_{abc}\sigma_c\otimes1$

I'm dropping off the identity in all the places where it looks like it should be. So the only subalgebra is the $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ generated by $\sigma_a\otimes 1$, and that is not invariant from the second line above. So this looks like a simple algebra to me. Is there a typo somewhere I do not see?


This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

asked Nov 23, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by cduston (160 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Mar 25, 2014 by dimension10
By the way, Lie algebra ideals are always two-sided because of the antisymmetry of the bracket. Thus one usually says just "ideals".

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Alternatively, you could try to see if it is a direct sum of two simple lie algebras.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

2 Answers

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Unless I am mistaken, your algebra is $\mathfrak{so}(4)=\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus\mathfrak{su}(2)$. The generators are $\sigma_a\otimes 1 \pm \sigma_a\otimes\eta_1$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Nov 23, 2011 by Pavel Safronov (1,115 points) [ no revision ]
@AlexV, I believe the usual convention in physics is to have structure constants of the generators of a real Lie algebra be purely imaginary, so that the real span of $i$ times generators is the Lie algebra itself. E.g. the generators of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ are taken to be $\sigma_a$ and not $i\sigma_a$. In the OP's example, $\mathfrak{so}(4)=span_\mathbf{R}(i\sigma_a\otimes 1,i\sigma_a\otimes\eta_1)$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
In such a case OP could write $[i\sigma_a,i\sigma_b]=\cdots$. It is not a convention, it is rather a convenient trick to work with Lie algebra of unitary group, because the algebra is anti-Hermitian matrices. If to use the convention without warning we could not distinguish $sl(2,C)$ and $su(2)$

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I am writing $\sigma_a$ as generators of $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ and simply calling it $\mathfrak{su}(2)$. This seems is the "convention" in physics...rather we are just not smart enough to know the difference.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
It is rather $so(4,{\mathbb C}) \approx sl(2,{\mathbb C}) \oplus sl(2,{\mathbb C})$, because OP defines it as a complex algebra.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Luboš Motl: any Pauli matrix meets two last equations and after all ${\rm diag}(+1,-1)$ is also Pauli matrix $\sigma_z$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I agree. The first commutator verifies that $\sigma_a$ are Pauli matrices. $\eta_1$ isn't a Pauli matrix, it is ${\rm diag}(+1,-1)$, as implicitly seen from the last two equations. So one deals with $4\times 4$ block diagonal matrices with a combination of Pauli matrices in each $2\times 2$ block, and that's clearly $SU(2) \times SU(2)$, with your right generalization. Just to answer the OP's question, it is a product so it is not simple.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 7 like - 0 dislike

In this relatively simple example, one can observe that the subalgebras $\{\sigma_a \otimes \frac{1\mp\eta_1}{2}\}$ are the two commuting copies of $su(2)$.

For more complicated situations, one actually has an algorithm to veify the simplicity of a Lie algebra. This is because (the root systems of) simple Lie algebras are classified by Cartan, thus one just needs to verify if the root system of the given Lie algebra coincides with one of the types. Actually, an algebra which is semisimple but not simple will necessarily have orthogonal simple roots.

Taking the given example for illustration. One can choose $\sigma_3\otimes 1$ and $\sigma_3\otimes \eta_1$ as the generators of the Cartan's subalgebra. The corresponding root generators can be found as: $\sigma_{\pm} \otimes \frac{1\mp\eta_1}{2}$. The positive roots can be chosen as: $\alpha = [1,1 ]$, and $\beta = [1,-1 ]$. Now we notice that on one hand they are linearly independent thus they are simple roots. On the other hand we have $\alpha.\beta=0$ in contradiction to the property of a simple root system requiring that for any distinct simple roots $\alpha.\beta<0$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Nov 24, 2011 by David Bar Moshe (3,505 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...