Any biinvariant metric proportional to Killing metric

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter center o bass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Proportional
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between the Killing form on a Lie algebra and other biinvariant metrics on the corresponding Lie group. Participants explore the conditions under which all biinvariant metrics are proportional to the Killing form, particularly in the context of simple Lie algebras. The discussion includes theoretical aspects and references to representation theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that the Killing form can serve as a biinvariant metric and that for simple Lie groups, all other biinvariant metrics are proportional to it.
  • One participant sketches a proof involving Schur's Lemma, asserting that two invariant symmetric bilinear forms on a simple Lie algebra must be scalar multiples of each other.
  • Another participant questions whether the proof can be established without referencing Schur's Lemma, expressing a lack of deep knowledge in representation theory.
  • Some participants suggest that Schur's Lemma is elementary and could be understood quickly, while others seek resources for studying it without delving into modules.
  • There is a suggestion of a specific book that includes solutions and addresses Schur's Lemma, but the discussion remains focused on the challenge of understanding the proof without additional theoretical background.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of Schur's Lemma for proving the proportionality of biinvariant metrics to the Killing form. Some believe it is essential, while others suggest it may be possible to avoid it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding alternative approaches to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of representation theory and the implications of using Schur's Lemma. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity in the proof without requiring extensive additional study.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying Lie algebras, representation theory, and the properties of biinvariant metrics, particularly in the context of mathematical physics.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
The killing form on a lie algebra is defined as
$$B(X,Y) = \text{Tr}ad_X \circ ad_Y$$
where ##ad_X: \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{g}## is given by ##ad_X(Y) = [X,Y]##, where the latter is the lie bracket between X and Y in ##\mathfrak{g}##. Expressed in terms of components on a basis on ##\mathfrak{g}## we have
$$B_{ij} = c_{il}^{\ \ k} c_{jk}^{\ \ l}$$.

The killing form can serve as a biinvariant metric on the lie group G, and I've seen it stated several times that, if the group G is simple, then all other biinvariant metrics are proportional to the killing form. Especially the formula
$$B(X,Y) \sim \text{Tr}(\rho(X)\rho(Y))$$
where ##\rho## is a representation of ##\mathfrak{g}## is thrown a lot around.

So I wonder how this statement is proved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's essentially an application of Schur's Lemma in the context of Lie algebras which I will just give a quick sketch and leave out all the minor details.

Let B,B' be two invariant symmetric bilinear forms. Use the fact that \mathfrak{g} is simple to show B,B' are both either zero or nondegenerate (use the properties of B to show \left\{ x\in \mathfrak{g} : B(x,y)=0~\forall y\in \mathfrak{g} \right\} is an ideal.) We may as well assume each is nondegenerate since otherwise the statement is trivial. We have two different isomorphisms between \mathfrak{g} and \mathfrak{g^*}, say \phi,\psi corresponding to the two different forms. Apply Schur's lemma to conclude \psi^{-1}\circ\phi is a scalar multiple of the identity and show this implies the forms B,B' are themselves scalar multiples of each other.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Terandol said:
It's essentially an application of Schur's Lemma in the context of Lie algebras which I will just give a quick sketch and leave out all the minor details.

Let B,B' be two invariant symmetric bilinear forms. Use the fact that \mathfrak{g} is simple to show B,B' are both either zero or nondegenerate (use the properties of B to show \left\{ x\in \mathfrak{g} : B(x,y)=0~\forall y\in \mathfrak{g} \right\} is an ideal.) We may as well assume each is nondegenerate since otherwise the statement is trivial. We have two different isomorphisms between \mathfrak{g} and \mathfrak{g^*}, say \phi,\psi corresponding to the two different forms. Apply Schur's lemma to conclude \psi^{-1}\circ\phi is a scalar multiple of the identity and show this implies the forms B,B' are themselves scalar multiples of each other.

Can the statement be proved without referring to Schur's Lemma? I'm a phycisist, so I have not
had the time to go deep into representation theory. However, I have read up on ideals, simple and semisimple lie algebras.
 
center o bass said:
Can the statement be proved without referring to Schur's Lemma? I'm a phycisist, so I have not
had the time to go deep into representation theory. However, I have read up on ideals, simple and semisimple lie algebras.

Schur's lemma is really elementary. You can probably understand it if you spend 15 minutes at it.
 
center o bass said:
Can the statement be proved without referring to Schur's Lemma? I'm a phycisist, so I have not
had the time to go deep into representation theory. However, I have read up on ideals, simple and semisimple lie algebras.

Why don't you look into it and get back to us with any question you may have.
 
micromass said:
Schur's lemma is really elementary. You can probably understand it if you spend 15 minutes at it.

Any suggestions where to read up on it? Can it be done and still avoiding "modules"?
 
WWGD said:
Why don't you look into it and get back to us with any question you may have.
I have a deadline for something in which it would be nice have an explanation of the Killing form proportionality. Do you have any suggestions where I could read up on it without having to learn additional material?
 
I don't know many books, but Liebeck and James, it comes with solutions. BTW, representations can be seen as modules, and modules are somewhat like vector spaces, but use rings instead of fields. See the section for Schur's lemma http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~taylor/PDF/jamesliebeck.pdf The book is broken into small, self-contained sections.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K