About Lie group product ([itex]U(1)\times U(1)[/itex] ex.)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the reducibility of the Lie group product U(1) × U(1) and its representations. It is established that the representation ρ(U(1) × U(1)) can be expressed as a direct sum of individual representations, confirming its reducibility. The conversation clarifies that the reducibility pertains to representations rather than the groups themselves, emphasizing that direct products of groups cannot be simple due to their normal subgroup structure. Additionally, the representation of U(1) as a 2x2 matrix is questioned regarding its reducibility, highlighting the need for a defined homomorphism.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lie groups and their representations
  • Familiarity with group theory concepts such as reducibility and irreducibility
  • Knowledge of matrix representations in linear algebra
  • Basic concepts of homomorphisms in group theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of direct products and normal subgroups in group theory
  • Learn about the representation theory of Lie groups, focusing on reducible and irreducible representations
  • Explore the concept of semidirect products and their implications in representation theory
  • Investigate homomorphisms and their role in defining group representations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students specializing in group theory, representation theory, and theoretical physics, particularly those interested in the structure of Lie groups and their applications in particle physics.

guest1234
Messages
38
Reaction score
1
I recently got confused about Lie group products.
Say, I have a group U(1)\times U(1)'. Is this group reducible into two U(1)'s, i.e. possible to resepent with a matrix \rho(U(1)\times U(1)')=\rho_{1}(U(1))\oplus\rho_{1}(U(1)')=e^{i\theta_{1}}\oplus e^{i\theta_{2}}=\begin{pmatrix}e^{i\theta_{1}} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\theta_{2}}\end{pmatrix}? Can I say it's reducible, right? Because the way I see it, if the transformation is applied to a 2-dimensional vector, then the first (second) element is transformed by the first (second) U(1) (U(1)'), thus leaving us two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces under the group actions.

Is it always possible to represent a group product as the direct sum of individual group representations? Or is it just an Abelian case? (IMHO, it seems so because the transformation SU(2)\times U(1) on leptons isn't a 3\times3 block-diagonal matrix (as one would expect, because fundamental rep. dimensions are 2+1 = 3) but a 2\times 2 matrix).

Thanks a lot

edit: bonus question -- is 2\times2 rep. of U(1), \begin{pmatrix}e^{i\theta} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\theta}\end{pmatrix} a reducible or irreducible representation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
guest1234 said:
I recently got confused about Lie group products.
Say, I have a group U(1)\times U(1)'. Is this group reducible into two U(1)'s, i.e. possible to resepent with a matrix \rho(U(1)\times U(1)')=\rho_{1}(U(1))\oplus\rho_{1}(U(1)')=e^{i\theta_{1}}\oplus e^{i\theta_{2}}=\begin{pmatrix}e^{i\theta_{1}} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\theta_{2}}\end{pmatrix}?
You mix up terms here. We don't say a group is reducible in this context. You are talking about direct products of groups.
Groups without proper normal subgroups are called simple, the others are simply not simple. Direct products cannot be simple because their factors are normal subgroups.

What can be reducible are representations ##φ## of groups. A representation is a homomorphism of a group ##G## into the linear group ##GL(V)## of a vector space ##V##. ##φ## is called irreducible if there are no subspaces ##U⊆V## for which ##φ(G)(U) ⊆ U## holds beside ##U=\{0\}## and ##U=V##. Other representations are called reducible, i.e. there is a ##0 ⊂ U ⊂ V## with ##φ(G)(U) ⊆ U##.

The confusion probably comes from the fact that the gauge groups you mentioned are themselves defined as subgroups of a general linear group in which case a representation comes in for free with its embedding. Your representation ##ρ## is correct. You may represent ##U(1) \times U(1)## in this way. (Just do me a favor and drop the ' on the second ##U(1)##. It's not a different one, but simply a second one.)

Can I say it's reducible, right? Because the way I see it, if the transformation is applied to a 2-dimensional vector, then the first (second) element is transformed by the first (second) U(1) (U(1)'), thus leaving us two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces under the group actions.
Yes, ##ρ## is a reducible representation of ##U(1) \times U(1)## for the reason you said. Only your wording is a bit unfortunate.
Formally I would say: ##ρ(U(1) \times U(1)) (\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}) ⊆ ℂ \cdot \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} ## (and likewise for ##\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}##) determine one dimensional invariant subspaces of ##ℂ^2## thus showing that ##ρ## is reducible.

Is it always possible to represent a (Edit: direct) group product as the direct sum of individual group representations?
Yes. Two representations (not necessarily the same) of each one of the (normal) subgroups of a (direct) product of groups can be arranged via block matrices to a single representation of the whole group.

Or is it just an Abelian case? (IMHO, it seems so because the transformation SU(2)\times U(1) on leptons isn't a 3\times3 block-diagonal matrix (as one would expect, because fundamental rep. dimensions are 2+1 = 3) but a 2\times 2 matrix).

Thanks a lot
No. it's not about Abelian, it's about the direct product where both factors are normal subgroups. Things change a bit for semidirect products.

edit: bonus question -- is 2\times2 rep. of U(1), \begin{pmatrix}e^{i\theta} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\theta}\end{pmatrix} a reducible or irreducible representation?
Define your representation before I can answer this! There is no natural way to do so.
Edit: ... as long as you don't explicitly identify ##U(1)## with certain elements of ##ℂ##. In either case you should establish the homomorphism.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
676
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K