Equality involving matrix exponentials / Lie group representations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between matrix exponentials and Lie group representations, specifically examining the expression \( B^{-1} M B = AM \) where \( A \) and \( B \) are elements of different representations of the same Lie group. The scope includes theoretical aspects of Lie algebras and their applications in physics.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it suffices to show the relation \( -YM + MY = XM \) to prove \( B^{-1} M B = AM \) for all \( t \).
  • Another participant mentions that in their experience, it is often straightforward to prove \( B^{-1} M B = AM \) directly, suggesting that the "Lie algebra way" may not be critical in certain situations.
  • A different expression is introduced by a participant, stating that they are trying to prove \( B^{-1} M^{(\mu)} B = \sum_{\nu} A^\mu{}_\nu M^{(\nu)} \), indicating a more complex scenario involving four-dimensional representations and multiple matrices.
  • This participant notes that the problem may not be general and suggests that specifics should be considered, indicating a potential follow-up in a different forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and sufficiency of the Lie algebra approach, with some finding direct proofs more accessible while others seek deeper theoretical understanding. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the sufficiency of the conditions presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the representations and the specific conditions under which the expressions hold. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in proving the relationships.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying Lie groups, matrix exponentials, and their applications in theoretical physics, particularly in contexts involving representations and algebraic structures.

MisterX
Messages
758
Reaction score
71
We have that A and B belong to different representations of the same Lie Group. The representations have the same dimension. X and Y are elements of the respective Lie algebra representations.
[itex]A = e^{tX}[/itex]
[itex]B = e^{tY}[/itex]

We want to show, for a specific matrix M

[itex]B^{-1} M B = AM[/itex]

Does it suffice to show this to first order?

[itex]\left(1 -tY + \dots \right)M \left(1 + tY + \dots \right) = \left(1 + tX + \dots \right)M[/itex]

In other words is

[itex]-YM + MY = XM[/itex]

sufficient to show

[itex]B^{-1} M B = AM[/itex]

for all t?

I have seen this used in physics derivations, but it's not clear to me if and why this is sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind, this came as a result of misreading something.
 
I've been wondering the same thing, so I wouldn't mind following some discussion.

According to my experience with theoretical physics, usually in particular situations it is quite easy to prove

MisterX said:
[itex]B^{-1} M B = AM[/itex]

directly, and therefore the "Lie algebra way" isn't critical. Of course it would still be interesting to know some theory about the topic.
 
actually the expression I am trying to prove is

[tex]B^{-1} M^{(\mu)} B = \sum_{\nu} A^\mu{}_\nu M^{(\nu)}[/tex]
That is, [itex]A[/itex] and [itex]B[/itex] are from four dimensional representations, and there are four different 4x4 matrices [itex]M^\mu[/itex], which form a space closed under conjugation by [itex]B[/itex]. The matrix [itex]A[/itex] is the corresponding element of a different representation, but marvelously [itex]A[/itex] gives the components of [itex]B^{-1} M^{(\mu)} B[/itex] within that subspace spanned by the [itex]M^\mu[/itex]. I think this is not a general problem, we have to get into the specifics. I may follow up in the quantum mechanics forum, in case you are interested.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K