Invariance of scalar products on Lie algebras

SergejVictorov
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Hi folks,

If I have a Lie algebra \mathfrak{g} with an invariant (under the adjoint action ad of the Lie algebra) scalar product, what are the conditions that this scalar product is also invariant under the adjoint action Ad of the group? For instance, the Killing form is invariant under both actions. Is this also true in general?

My idea for the proof would be the following: If I know that the scalar product is invariant under Ad, then for any fixed vectors v,w in the Lie algebra, the function
f: G \rightarrow \mathbf{R}
\ g \mapsto \langle Ad(g)v, Ad(g)w \rangle
is constant, i.e.
f(g)=f(1)=k
By differentiating this function, I should be able to obtain the converse of the statement I need. I hope that this can be used to derive a condition for the invariance under Ad, given the invariance under ad.

I would be grateful for any hints since I'm stuck with this very crude ansatz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the group is connected, then ad-invariance will automatically imply Ad-invariance. Basically, ad-invariance implies that this function f that you've defined is locally constant (since its differential will be 0). If G is connected, then locally constant implies constant.

Hope this helps!
 
rmehta said:
If the group is connected, then ad-invariance will automatically imply Ad-invariance. Basically, ad-invariance implies that this function f that you've defined is locally constant (since its differential will be 0). If G is connected, then locally constant implies constant.

Hope this helps!

Thank you!
 
Thread 'Derivation of equations of stress tensor transformation'
Hello ! I derived equations of stress tensor 2D transformation. Some details: I have plane ABCD in two cases (see top on the pic) and I know tensor components for case 1 only. Only plane ABCD rotate in two cases (top of the picture) but not coordinate system. Coordinate system rotates only on the bottom of picture. I want to obtain expression that connects tensor for case 1 and tensor for case 2. My attempt: Are these equations correct? Is there more easier expression for stress tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
144
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top