Why Do SO(n) & SU(n) Have Different Dimensions Despite Same Constraint?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gentsagree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constraint Dimensions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the dimensional differences between the special orthogonal group SO(n) and the special unitary group SU(n) compared to their respective parent groups O(n) and U(n). Participants explore the implications of constraints on determinants and the nature of the groups involved, touching on aspects of topology and manifold theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why SO(n) has the same number of dimensions as O(n), while SU(n) has fewer dimensions than U(n), despite both groups having the same determinant constraint (detM=1).
  • Another participant explains that while the determinant constraint is the same, the nature of the groups differs: U(n) is complex and allows for a continuous range of determinant values, while O(n) is real and has a discrete set of determinant values.
  • A participant notes that requiring U∈SU(n) restricts the determinant to exactly one, thus reducing the dimension by one, while requiring O∈SO(n) does not reduce the dimension since it only selects one of two discrete options for the determinant.
  • One participant adds a topological perspective, suggesting that O(n) consists of two disjoint sets based on the determinant, and that removing the set with detR=-1 does not eliminate any subgroup but rather a coset.
  • Another participant agrees with the topological reasoning, stating that U(n) is a connected manifold, and that SU(n) corresponds to a submanifold where the determinant is fixed at one, thus having one less dimension.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning behind the dimensional differences, particularly regarding the nature of the determinant in the complex versus real cases. However, there remains some uncertainty about the topological implications and the completeness of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of confidence in their understanding of topology and group theory, indicating that some assumptions may not be fully explored or agreed upon.

gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
Qhy does SO(n) have the same number of dimensions of O(n), whereas SU(n) reduces the dimensions of U(n)? Isn't the constraint the same for both cases, i.e. detM=1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I haven't misunderstood something myself:

The constraint is the same, sure, but the other is complex and the other real:

If U∈U(n), |det(U)|=1 (it preserves the norm) and det(U) is in ℂ, so it's of the form e for some θ∈ℝ -- there is one free parameter "in the determinant". Further requiring U∈SU(n) means that det(U) is exactly one, so one "degree of freedom" (one free parameter) is lost and θ=0 exactly. So dim(SU(n))=dim(U(n))-1.

If O∈O(n), |det(O)|=1 still, but since det(O) is now in ℝ, there is a discrete set of two possible values instead of a free parameter: Either det(O)=1 or det(O)=-1. So, requiring O∈SO(n) just picks one of these two options, that det(O)=1, but it doesn't remove any actual free parameters, so dim(SO(n))=dim(O(n)).

(That's obviously not a proof, of course, but merely something that made me understand the reasoning behind it.)
 
Thank you, I had just gotten to a similar conclusion myself. Also, I thought about it topologically: in the orthogonal case, O(n) is formed of two disjoint sets, (i) detR=1 and (ii) detR=-1, of which only one is a subgroup {i.e. SO(n), with detR=1, as it contains the identity}. Therefore removing the bit (ii) detR=-1 doesn't "get rid" of any subgroup, but only of a coset in O(n). In U(n) nothing of this happens, as it is compact and connected (which I think reflects on the fact that we have a continuous set of possible values, as opposed to the discrete one in O(n)).

I don't enough topology or group theory to be sure about this, but this is the way I thought about it. Can somebody tell me if I'm wrong?
 
It seems right to me. ##U(n)## is a connected ##n^2 - 1##-dimensional manifold, you can always create a coordinate system where one of the coordinates is ##\theta## the logarithm of the determinant. Hence, ##SU(n)## is simply the ##\theta = 0## submanifold, and so has one dimension less.

In the ##O(n)## case we simply have two manifolds of the same dimension, one indexed with ##+1## and the other indexed with ##-1##. ##SO(n)## is simply one of these manifolds.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
17K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K