The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
4 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to thesethese threethree questionsquestions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a relationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to verify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone verify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to these three questions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a relationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to verify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone verify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to these three questions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a relationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to verify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone verify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

    Post Closed as "duplicate" by Qmechanic of
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/492605856044048384
3 added the maths-physics tag
| link
2 removed thanks
source | link

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to thesethese threethree questionsquestions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a replationshiprelationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to varifyverify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone varifyverify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

Thanks!

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to these three questions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a replationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to varify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone varify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

Thanks!

This may be an unenlightening question, but I'm just not sure about the result and hoping someone can help me varify it.

$\\$

This question is related to these three questions.

$\\$

I want to construct the isomorphism relationship between the Lie Groups $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$. I have the feeling that there should be some such isomorphism of groups.

$\\$

To begin, we know that as Lie Algebras

$$ \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) \simeq \mathfrak{so}(1,3) $$

and

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(4) $$

But we also know that

$$ \mathfrak{so}(n) \simeq \mathfrak{o}(n) $$

so I believe that this allows us to write

$$ \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $$

This makes sense anyway, since we know that the real algebra of the complexification of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$, and in taking the real algebra of the complexified Lie algebra we get two commuting copies.

So, the part that I am not yet convinced about is how to get from this relationship between algebras to a relationship between groups.

I was told by someone in the department that

Theorem The Fundamental Theorem of lie Groups: Let $G_1$, $G_2$ be Lie groups. Then $G_1$ and $G_2$ have isomorphic Lie algebras if and only if they are locally isomorphic.

So this is a local statement only.

Moreover, he said that there is an extension of this theorem to a global statement which says that the Lie groups are globally isomorphic if they are simply connected.

Now, for our two groups, $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $SU(2)$, we know that they are indeed simply connected. We could prove this, or instead, recall that they are the Universal Covering Groups of $SO(1,3)\uparrow$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, and so by the definition they must be simply connected.

This would solve our problem, and we could write down

$$ SU(2) \times SU(2) \simeq SL(2,\mathbb{C})$$

and be done.

$\\$

However I want to try to verify that statement, as opposed to taking it in blind faith (not that I have any reason to doubt it, but rather that I'd like to 'learn it' as opposed 'to be aware of it', if that makes sense).

$\\$

I tried looking it up, and the obvious source didn't have anything on a Fundamental Theorem of Lie Groups, only a short bit on The Third Theorem of Lie.

Some searching brought up these lecture notes (in .pdf format) from UCLA. It appears to be getting at what I want, but unfortunately is written in category theoretic language, which I know nothing about.

$\\$

Could anyone verify for me if this is correct, and perhaps point me to a book/ website/ lecture notes etc. where I could reference. (Our library is huge, so a book being online need not be a constraint).

$\\$

1
source | link