Tuesday, May 10, 2016

symmetry - On finite-dimensional unitary representations of non-compact Lie groups


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?



Answer



Proposition. Let G be a connected non-compact Lie group that is a semisimple Lie group and U:GgUgB(H)

(B(H) being the set of bounded operators A:HH) 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:GgI.


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,C), which is non-compact and connected but not simple. Indeed, {±I} is the unique non-trivial proper normal closed subgroup of SL(2,C). A finite-dimensional continuous unitary representation U:SL(2,C)B(H) cannot be faithful by (a). Therefore the closed normal subgroup U1(I) cannot be trivial and therefore coincides with either SL(2,C), making U trivial, or with {±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,C) is the universal covering of the Lie group SO(1,3)+, and {±I} is just the kernel of the covering homomorphism, so SO(1,3)+ is diffeomorphic to SL(2,C)/{±I}. It is easy to prove that, consequently, U:SL(2,C)B(H) defines a finite-dimensional continuous unitary representation U:SO(1,3)+±AUAB(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,C)) and U(SO(1,3)+)={I}.


Proof of the proposition.


Let us identify H with Cn by means of an orthonormal basis. In this way, the representation U can be viewed as an injective continuous group homomorphism f:GU(n).


(a) Our final goals is proving that f(G) is a compact embedded submanifold of U(n) and that the injective homomorphism f:Gf(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|eTeGu(n) where u(n) is the Lie algebra of U(n). Since df|e is injective, a is isomorphic to TeG. There is exactly one connected Lie subgroup KU(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)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 hK 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 hK satisfies hf(G). We have so far established that K=f(G). The map f:GK is a bijective differentiable map from the manifold G to the embedded submanifold K of U(n). Since df|g=dLg1df|edRg where Rg:GhhgG and Lk:U(n)rkrU(n) are diffeomorphisms and therefore both dLg1 and dRg are a bijections, we conclude that df|g is everywhere injective. As a consequence, if p=dimG and q=dimU(n)p, then for any chart (Sg,ϕ) around any gG there is some chart (Vg,ψ) in U(n) around f(g) with ψfϕ1(x1,,xp)=(x1,,xp,0,,0)

where (x1,,xp) belongs to the open set ϕ(Vg)Rq. Since f(G)=K is an embedded submanifold of U(n), we have that Vgf(G)=f(Sg) possibly restricting Vg around f(g). In other words f(Sg) is open in the induced topology of f(G)U(n). Since gG is arbitrary and the property is valid by replacing Sg with any smaller open set containing g, the injectivity of f proves that f:GK=f(G) is open: every open set AG is the union of open sets A=gGASg; since f is bijective onto K we also have that f(A)=gGf(ASg), which is open because union of open sets. The inverse f1:KG 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 f1(K)=G is not compact by hypotheses and f1 is a continuous function. We conclude that f:GU(n) cannot be injective, that is, U:GB(H) cannot be faithful.


(b) If G does not include non-trivial proper closed normal subgroups, the normal closed subgroup U1(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, U1(I)=G so that U(G)={I}. QED


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


No comments:

Post a Comment

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...