The rotation group is ${\rm SO(3)}$. It is the group of $3\times 3$ orthogonal matrices $\{g(\theta)\}$ with unit determinant. So these are already defined in terms of $3\times 3$ matrices. But we use unitary representation $\{U(g(\theta))\}$ of the rotation group in quantum mechanics. What does that even mean?

How do we define rotation group if not in terms of explicit ${\rm SO(3)}$ matrices? Is this already not a representation? Isn't the definition of rotation group already in terms of this representation?

Given the elements of the rotation group (i.e., the ${\rm SO(3)}$ matrices $g(\theta)$) how do we get, $U(g(\theta))$?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is way too broad. Do you know what the formal definition of a representation is? Have you at least read the wikipedia entry? $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 29 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform yes, I know the definition of representation. Group elements are represented by matrices that obey the group structure. Does it help? $\endgroup$ – mithusengupta123 May 29 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ May or may not be helpful but I wrote some notes on representation theory of SO(3) and QM here: scholar.harvard.edu/files/noahmiller/files/… $\endgroup$ – user1379857 May 29 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ Do you understand that representations can have various dimensions? For example there are $5 \times 5$ and $17 \times 17$ matrices representing 3D rotations, not just $3 \times 3$ ones. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 30 at 0:02

[about SO(3)] SO(3) is an abstract group with a lot of well-known properties (Lie, compact, topological etc). The representation of SO(3) via 3d, orthogonal, real-valued maricies is one of many possible ones. But this is, by definition, a faithful representation, i.e. every group member has a distinct matrix that corresponds to it.

[about getting unitary reps]

The rotation matricies are orthogonal and real-valued, so they are already unitary, thus, technically, the question is moot.

If your question is how to go from the general orthogonal, 3d, real-valued matrix with unity determinant to its representation as $R=\exp\left(\dots\right)$, i would suggest diagonalizing the matrix.

You will find that this does not work over the space $\mathbb{R}^3$, but it does work over $\mathbb{C}^3$. Quite simple reasoning can show that any

$R\in \mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3$ with $\det R=1$ and $R^T=R^{-1}$ can be diagonalized in the complex space with eigenvalues:

$\lambda_{1,2,3}=\exp\left(\pm i\phi\right), 1$ for some $\phi\in\mathbb{R}$

Thus $R=V \exp\left(i\left(\begin{array}\\ \phi &&0 && 0\\ 0 && -\phi && 0\\ 0 && 0 && 0 \end{array}\right)\right) V^{\dagger}$

Where the $V$ is the unitary matrix with eigenvectors. Now simply take the $V$ matricies into the exponential and you will have your representation.


The point here is that, if $\omega\in SO(3)$, and if $\omega_1\cdot \omega_2=\omega \in SO(3)$ is the combination rule on abstract elements, then a representation (by matrices) $U$ is a map $\omega\mapsto U(\omega)$ so that the rule $$ \omega_1\cdot \omega_2=\omega \quad \Rightarrow \quad U(\omega_1)\cdot U(\omega_2)=U(\omega) \tag{1} $$ for any $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega\in SO(3)$ is also satisfied by the matrices $U(\omega)$ representing the elements. There is a theorem stating that, for $SO(3)$ and a bunch of others, all representation are equivalent to unitary representations, so that $U(\omega^{-1})=U^{-1}(\omega)=U^\dagger(\omega)$.

Although the so-called defining representation is in terms of a $3$-dimensional space on which $SO(3)$ acts "naturally", there may be matrices of dimension other than $3$ that satisfy the basic composition law of $\omega_1\cdot \omega_2=\omega $ or its matrix version of Eq.(1).

You can "obtain" a representation by larger matrices by tensoring and decomposing the resulting representation. For instance, if $\{\vert {1}\rangle ,\vert {2}\rangle,\vert {3}\rangle\}$ are a basis for the $3$-dimensional irrep of $SO(3)$, then the set$\{\vert i\rangle\vert j\rangle\}$ spans a 9-dimensional space with $$ U(\omega)\left[\vert i\rangle\otimes\vert j\rangle\right]:= \left[U(\omega)\vert i\rangle\right]\otimes \left[U(\omega)\vert j\rangle\right] $$ will provide you with a $9$-dimensional representation, which turns out to be reducible. Note that I'm abusing the notation here because on the left I have $U$ as a $9\times 9$ matrix but on the right the $U$'s are $3\times 3$ matrices. In fact, the $9\times 9$ representation is reducible: it contains $L=2,1,0$, i.e. irreducible pieces of dimensions $5,3$ and $1$. The $L=2$ and $L=0$ irreps are spanned by symmetric combinations like $\vert 1\rangle\vert 2\rangle+ \vert 2\rangle\vert 1\rangle$ etc, while the $L=1$ contains antisymmetric pieces.

In cases other than $SO(3)$ (or $SU(2)$), one can also obtain inequivalent representations by taking the conjugate. The simplest example would be $SU(3)$, where the defining representation ($3\times 3$) is often denoted by $\textbf{3}$ or $(1,0)$ in the Dynkin scheme, and where its (non-equivalent) conjugate is denoted by $\textbf{3*}$ or $(0,1)$. One can then construct any representation by tensoring a suitable number of copies of $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ and decomposing the result.

Note that $SO(3)$ representations (and also $SU(2)$ representations) are "self-conjugate" in the sense that taking the conjugate yields the same representation.


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.