This is likely a basic question, but I can't come up with a straightforward (dis)proof that the traces of generators of a Lie group are invariant. The reason I am asking is because the elements of the restricted Lorentz group have determinant $1$, and I wonder if the determinant is $1$ under other representations. I don't find this self-evident even though it is the case for the $(1/2,0), (0,1/2), (1/2,1/2)$ irreps.
1 Answer
Here’s a cartoon proof that, if the representation is unitary and finite dimensional, with Det=$+1$, then the trace of any generator is $0$. I’ll suppose the dimension is $3$ for clarity but this is adaptable to any dimension.
We can without loss of generality suppose the group element $g$ is brought to diagonal form in the irrep $\Gamma$: $$ \Gamma(g)= \exp(-i \alpha \hat T)=\hat 1-i\alpha\hat T+\ldots $$ for some diagonal $\hat T$ where $$ \hat T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} T_{11}&0&0\\ 0&T_{22}&0\\ 0&0&T_{33}\end{array}\right)\, . $$ Since $\text{Det}(\Gamma(g))=1$, we have \begin{align} 1&=\text{Det}\left(1-i\alpha \left(\begin{array}{ccc} T_{11}&0&0\\ 0&T_{22}&0\\ 0&0&T_{33}\end{array}\right)-\frac{\alpha^2}{2} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} T^2_{11}&0&0\\ 0&T^2_{22}&0\\ 0&0&T^2_{33}\end{array}\right)+\ldots\right)\, ,\\ &=1-i\alpha (T_{11}+T_{22}+T_{33})+{\cal O}(\alpha^2) \end{align} from which $T_{11}+T_{22}+T_{33}=0$.
This also clearly works if $\Gamma(g)$ is not diagonal, although the bookkeeping is messier.
If $\Gamma$ is not unitary, then the assumption $\Gamma(g)$ is the exponential of a Hermitian operator is invalid, but the strategy may still work. If the irrep is a direct sum of irreducible this probably also work. If the irrep is indecomposable I don’t think. If the group is not simply connected I don’t know either. Clearly the exponential maps enters into this but I’m weary of pitfalls and assumptions that are common in most examples in physics.
-
$\begingroup$ I think I can follow your proof for this case. But for the finite-dim Lorentz group irreps I suppose it doesn't hold? I did find this question and answer on MSE which might be the full answer math.stackexchange.com/questions/1483570/… ? I don't know for sure. $\endgroup$– user346886Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 19:05
-
1$\begingroup$ @osolitonmio in the case of finite-dim of Lorentz, the rep is still the exponential of generators (just not hermitian). I’ve never thought about this case and it might still work. Not sure if it would work for - say - indecomposables. maybe irreducible to enough. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 19:50
-
1$\begingroup$ @osolitonmio The proof in MSE is fine and applies here. In fact, all you need do is trace $\pi_{(m,n)}(J_i) = J^{(m)}_i \otimes 1_{(2n+1)}+1_{(2m+1)} \otimes J^{(n)}_i $ in WP which is how all representations of the type you are discussing are defined in the first place! Make sure you understand why both direct product summands are traceless! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 13:24
-
$\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos that's a very comprehensive Wiki page. I think I should also start reading lecture notes on Lie groups and algebras in parallel to my introductory field theory books. I read also on the wiki page you sent that spinor representations are a result of lack of simple connectedness. For me at least that's a rather amazing / deep result which I'd like to know more about. $\endgroup$– user346886Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 15:51
-
$\begingroup$ WP reviews, doesn't introduce. You seem as though you'd greatly profit from Wu-Ki Tung's classic book... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 15:58