4
$\begingroup$

I am very confused by this. In Hall's book on Lie theory, he states that the representations of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ are indexed by a half-integer. This is the usual result for $\text{su}(2)$ in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. This is the case since the complexification $\text{su}(2)_\mathbb{C}=\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$. I am guessing then that to find representations of $\text{SU}(2)$ one is interested in exponentiating representations of $\text{su}(2)_\mathbb{C}$. In quantum field theory, however, it is claimed that the representations of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ are indexed by two half-integers. I believe this is because $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ is here seen as a real Lie algebra and thus has twice the dimension. How does this relate to us now considering the double cover $\text{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ of the orthochronous proper Lorentz group $L_+^\uparrow$ rather than the double cover $\text{SU}(2)$ of the proper rotation group $\text{SO}(3)$?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$
  1. The Lie group $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, viewed as a complex Lie group, has irreducible representations of complex dimension $2j+1$ classified by a single half-integer $j\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}_0$.

  2. The Lie group $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ is the double-cover of the restricted Lorentz group $G:=SO^+(1,3;\mathbb{R})$. The latter is naturally viewed as a real Lie group in physics.

  3. Its complexification $G_{\mathbb{C}}=SO(1,3;\mathbb{C})$ has double cover $SL(2,\mathbb{C})\times SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, whose irreducible representations are classified by two half-integers (since there are now a product of two $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ groups). See e.g. this & this Phys.SE posts.

  4. A representation of the complexification $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ is also a representation of the restricted Lorentz group $G$. Conversely, any physically relevant representation of $G$ is expected on physical grounds to be a representation of $G_{\mathbb{C}}$ by analyticity.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why are fields representations of the complex Lorentz group rather than the real one? It seems to me that the real one is the physically relevant one. $\endgroup$ – Iván Mauricio Burbano Jan 28 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jan 28 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry but I don't see why we study representations of the $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_\mathbb{C}$ to find representations of $\text{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. I thought all representations of a simply connected Lie group came from its Lie algebra, not from its complexification. I know that working with the complexification is easier and every representation of a Lie algebra can be extended to one of its complexfication. The converse is not true. In fact we don't even have to go to relativity. Looking for representations of $\text{SU}(2)$ one uses $\text{su}(2)_\mathbb{C}$ not $\text{su}(2)$. $\endgroup$ – Iván Mauricio Burbano Jan 29 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, maybe I am wrong. Wikipedia cites Knapp when stating that all real linear representations of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ are in one to one correspondence with the complex linear representations of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_\mathbb{C}$. I see the forward direction. However, I don't see how a complex linear representation of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_\mathbb{C}$ induces a real linear one of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$. $\endgroup$ – Iván Mauricio Burbano Jan 29 at 0:56
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I just saw the other direction is completely trivial. I will add an answer explaining what I've learned. $\endgroup$ – Iván Mauricio Burbano Jan 29 at 1:05
0
$\begingroup$

In quantum theory (and thus in the classical field theory which will ultimately be physically relevant through quantization), we are only interested in projective representations of the orthochronous Lorentz group $L_+^\uparrow$ on complex vector spaces. Equivalently, we are interested in the representations of the double cover $\text{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. Being a simply connected Lie group, these are in one to one correspondence via the exponential map to the representations of its Lie algebra $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$. Coming from a Lie group, this Lie algebra is to be regarded as real. We are thus interested in the real linear representations of $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$. These are on one to one correspondence to the complex linear representations of the complexification $\text{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_\mathbb{C}$.

Indeed, if one has a real linear representation $\pi:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow\text{End}(V)$, an extension to the complexification is readily available via $\tilde{\pi}:\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\text{End}(V):(X_1,X_2)\mapsto\pi(X_1)+i\pi(X_2)$. On the other hand, a complex linear representation $\tilde{\pi}:\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\text{End}(V)$ induces a real linear one $\pi:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow\text{End}(V):X\mapsto\tilde{\pi}(X,0)$.

$\endgroup$

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.