6
$\begingroup$

In this thread Lorentz transformations for spinors, V. Moretti made a claim as follows: "it is possible to prove that no non-trivial finite-dimensional unitary representation exists for a non-compact connected Lie group that does not include proper non-trivial closed normal subgroups". What is the mathematical proof of this claim?

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

Proposition. Let $G$ be a connected non-compact Lie group that is a semisimple Lie group and $$U: G \ni g \mapsto U_g \in B(H)$$ ($B(H)$ being the set of bounded operators $A:H \to H$) a continuous unitary representation over the finite-dimensional Hilbert space $H$. The following facts hold.

(a) $U$ cannot be faithful.

(b) If $G$ is a simple group or, more generally, if $G$ does not contain non-trivial proper normal closed subgroups, then $U$ is the trivial representation $U : G \ni g \mapsto I$.

Remarks

(1) Notice that no hypothesis is made on (ir)reducibility of the representation.

(2) The theorem applies to the simple Lie group $SO(1,3)_+$ since this is non-compact, connected and it does not include non-trivial closed normal subgroups: its strongly-continuous unitary representations are infinite-dimensional or trivial.

(3) The same result is valid for $SL(2,\mathbb C)$, which is non-compact and connected but not simple. Indeed, $\{\pm I\}$ is the unique non-trivial proper normal closed subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb C)$. A finite-dimensional continuous unitary representation $U : SL(2, \mathbb C) \to B(H)$ cannot be faithful by (a). Therefore the closed normal subgroup $U^{-1}(I)$ cannot be trivial and therefore coincides with either $SL(2,\mathbb C)$, making $U$ trivial, or with $\{\pm I\}$. Let us examine this second possibility, and prove that $U$ has to be trivial also in this case. As is well known, the Lie group $SL(2,\mathbb C)$ is the universal covering of the Lie group $SO(1,3)_+$, and $\{\pm I\}$ is just the kernel of the covering homomorphism, so $SO(1,3)_+$ is diffeomorphic to $SL(2,\mathbb C)/\{\pm I\}$. It is easy to prove that, consequently, $U : SL(2, \mathbb C) \to B(H)$ defines a finite-dimensional continuous unitary representation $$U' : SO(1,3)_+ \ni \pm A \:\mapsto U_A \:\in B(H)\:.$$ The representation $U'$ must be trivial by (b). In turn, $U$ must be trivial as well because $U'(SO(1,3)_+)=U(SL(2,\mathbb C))$ and $U'(SO(1,3)_+)= \{I\}$.

Proof of the proposition.

Let us identify $H$ with $\mathbb C^n$ by means of an orthonormal basis. In this way, the representation $U$ can be viewed as an injective continuous group homomorphism $f : G \to U(n)$.

(a) Our final goals is proving that $f(G)$ is a compact embedded submanifold of $U(n)$ and that the injective homomorphism $f: G \to f(G)$ is actually a homeomorphism. This is not possible, because $G$ is not compact by hypotheses.

By known theorems on Lie groups , $f$ is differentiable (analytic) and $df|_e$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism which is injective if $f$ is faithful (because the kernel of $f$ is the discrete subgroup $\{e\}$). Assuming that $f$ is injective (i.e., $U$ is faithful), consider the Lie subalgebra $a := df|_e T_eG \subset u(n)$ where $u(n)$ is the Lie algebra of $U(n)$. Since $df|_e$ is injective, $a$ is isomorphic to $T_eG$. There is exactly one connected Lie subgroup $K \subset U(n)$ whose Lie algebra is $a$ in view of a known theorem. By definition of Lie subgroup, $K$ is an immersed submanifold of $U(n)$. However since this subgroup has a semisimple Lie algebra, Theorem 14.5.9 of [1] implies that it is closed in U(n) and thus it is an emebedded submanifold as a consequence of Cartan theorem.

It must be clear that $f(G) \cap K$ contains all one-parameter subgroups of $U(n)$ generated by the elements of $a$ because these subgroups are simultaneously in $K$ and in $f(G)$, as the reader can prove immediately. On the other hand, every element $h\in K$ is a finite product of elements belonging to the one-parameter subgroups of $K$ and thus $h$ is also a finite product of elements of $f(G)$. Since $f$ is a group homomorphism, every element $h\in K$ satisfies $h\in f(G)$. We have so far established that $K= f(G)$. The map $f: G \to K$ is a bijective differentiable map from the manifold $G$ to the embedded submanifold $K$ of $U(n)$. Since $df|_g = dL_{g^{-1}} \circ df|_e \circ d R_{g}$ where $R_g : G \ni h \mapsto hg \in G$ and $L_k : U(n) \ni r \mapsto kr \in U(n)$ are diffeomorphisms and therefore both $dL_{g^{-1}}$ and $d R_g$ are a bijections, we conclude that $df|_g$ is everywhere injective. As a consequence, if $p=\dim G$ and $q=\dim U(n)\geq p$, then for any chart $(S_g,\phi)$ around any $g \in G$ there is some chart $(V_g,\psi)$ in $U(n)$ around $f(g)$ with $$\psi \circ f \circ \phi^{-1}(x^1,\ldots, x^p) = (x^1,\ldots, x^p, 0,\ldots, 0) $$ where $(x^1,\ldots, x^p)$ belongs to the open set $\phi(V_g) \subset \mathbb R^q$. Since $f(G)= K$ is an embedded submanifold of $U(n)$, we have that $V_g \cap f(G)= f(S_g)$ possibly restricting $V_g$ around $f(g)$. In other words $f(S_g)$ is open in the induced topology of $f(G)\subset U(n)$. Since $g\in G$ is arbitrary and the property is valid by replacing $S_g$ with any smaller open set containing $g$, the injectivity of $f$ proves that $f: G \to K= f(G)$ is open: every open set $A\subset G$ is the union of open sets $A = \cup_{g\in G} A \cap S_g$; since $f$ is bijective onto $K$ we also have that $f(A)= \cup_{g\in G}f(A \cap S_g)$, which is open because union of open sets. The inverse $f^{-1}: K \to G$ which, again, exists because $f$ is bijective onto $K$, is therefore continuous. $K$ is closed and hence compact ($U(n)$ is compact). This is not possible, because $f^{-1}(K) = G$ is not compact by hypotheses and $f^{-1}$ is a continuous function. We conclude that $f: G \to U(n)$ cannot be injective, that is, $U: G \to B(H)$ cannot be faithful.

(b) If $G$ does not include non-trivial proper closed normal subgroups, the normal closed subgroup $U^{-1}(I)$ of $G$ must equal either $G$ or $\{e\}$. In the second case $U$ would be faithful, which is not permitted by (a). Summing up, $U^{-1}(I) = G$ so that $U(G)=\{I\}$. QED

[1] Hilgert, J., Neeb, K.-H.: Structure and Geometry of Lie Groups. Springer, New York, (2013).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What's $B(H)$ here? $\endgroup$ – JamalS Sep 21 '17 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ The set of bounded operators over the Hilbert space $H$. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Sep 21 '17 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ The answer seems to prove that no non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representation.... The question seems to ask for a proof that no non-trivial unitary representation exist - whether finite dimensional or not. $\endgroup$ – mike stone Sep 21 '17 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, but we simply forgot to write finite-dimensional. Thanks for the correction. DanielC extracted a too short statement from the original post where the question originates. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Sep 21 '17 at 12:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Berni Waterman You are definitely right! I realized the gap some moths ago, but I forgot to correct this answer. Actually I forgot the existence of this answer of mine at all! So, thank you very much. In fact, I omitted a crucial hypothesis: G must be also a semisimple Lie group. Theorem 14.5.9 in Hilgert, J., Neeb, K.-H.: Structure and Geometry of Lie Groups. Springer, New York, (2013) implies that its the representation in U(n) must be an embedded Lie subgroup and hence a compact subgroup. Yours is only immersed. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti Jul 29 '18 at 15:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.