Physical meaning of the highest root / weight

[strangerep]

For example if you have two simple roots $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which are opposite of each other (i.e. $\alpha=-\beta$) you can choose either one to be the positive and the other the negative.

I interpreted "highest" as tacitly meaning "highest magnitude", i.e., "highest absolute value". At least, that makes more physical sense to me.

 

[A. Neumaier]

is there a physical meaning to the positive direction of the axis? It is just a name.

It gives the difference of positive and negative spin, hence has a physical meaning.

in higher rank when you don't have a linear order, then what is the physical meaning of any of the orderings?

For higher rank models, one has usually contributions to the Hamiltonain that break the symmetry along a physically determined chain of subgroups, which induce for many groups a unique labelinǵ of the roots. In some cases there are missing label parameter poblems, in which case it is not so clear how to assign meaning to a chosen labeling.

 

[Tendex]

It gives the difference of positive and negative spin, hence has a physical meaning.

The physical meaning lies on the consistent choice of what is labeled positive and negative spin, (or highest weight more generally for the OP question) not the difference between the labels themselves which are conventional. Otherwise measurements couldn't be meaningfully compared.

 

[A. Neumaier]

The physical meaning lies on the consistent choice of what is labeled positive and negative spin, (or highest weight more generally for the OP question) not the difference between the labels themselves which are conventional. Otherwise measurements couldn't be meaningfully compared.

If one has a constant magnetic field and the coordinate system is chosen such that the field vector points in the positive z-direction then there is a standard convention for how to label the spin components. This is not different from all other conventions which provide physical meaning to abstract objects.

 

[Tendex]

If one has a constant magnetic field and the coordinate system is chosen such that the field vector points in the positive z-direction then there is a standard convention for how to label the spin components. This is not different from all other conventions which provide physical meaning to abstract objects.

Yes, the consistent choice of a coordinate system aligned with the way a measurement is performed provides physical meaning by allowing to compare different observations and make predictions based on local approximations.

 

[martinbn]

It gives the difference of positive and negative spin, hence has a physical meaning.

For higher rank models, one has usually contributions to the Hamiltonain that break the symmetry along a physically determined chain of subgroups, which induce for many groups a unique labelinǵ of the roots. In some cases there are missing label parameter poblems, in which case it is not so clear how to assign meaning to a chosen labeling.

That might be a good answer to the original question in this thread. Where can we see some of the higher rank models?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Where can we see some of the higher rank models?

The book

• F. Iachello,Lie algebras and applications, Springer, Berlin 2006

is a good introduction to the physics of higher rank Lie algebras. There is lots of other work by Iachello on the interacting boson model, dynamical symmetries, chains of Lie algebras, and other related stuff. They cite other relevant work in the area.

 

[samalkhaiat]

I observed a certain behavior of maximal eigenvectors in mathematics, not in physics, and wanted to understand, what makes the end of the ladder so special and how it is physically described.

I would say that the proton (and the neutron) is special. Define the operators E_{+} = |p \rangle \langle n|, \ \ \ \ E_{-} = E_{+}^{\dagger} = |n \rangle \langle p|,H = \frac{1}{2} \left(|p \rangle \langle p|- |n \rangle \langle n|\right) , where |p\rangle and |n \rangle are orthonormal basis in 2-dimensional Hilbert space. Clearly, these operators satisfy the Cartan form of \mathfrak{su}(2): \big[ H , E_{\pm} \big] = \pm E_{\pm} , \ \ \ \big[ E_{+} , E_{-} \big] = 2H , and the root-space is one-dimensional. Also, E_{+}|p\rangle = 0, implying that the proton is the highest weight state with H|p\rangle = \frac{1}{2}|p\rangle.
The fact that one cannot go beyond the state |p\rangle, mathematically, means that the representation space is 2-dimensional. Physically, it means that there is no other particle in nature with the same iso-spin, hyper-charge (i.e., quarks content), and the Lorentz’s Casimirs ( m , J^{\pi}) as those of the proton and the neutron (considering that the iso-spin group is a good symmetry).

If I consider combined roots as superposition of basic roots, then I see no reason why the ladder ends at all.

I don’t understand what you mean. For any semi-simple algebra, one can show that the roots form finite “strings”: \vec{\alpha} , \vec{\alpha} - \vec{\beta} , \vec{\alpha} - 2 \vec{\beta} , \cdots , \vec{\alpha} - 2\frac{\vec{\alpha} \cdot \vec{\beta}}{\vec{\beta} \cdot \vec{\beta}} \vec{\beta} . The same argument shows that the weights also form finite strings: \vec{w} - n \vec{\alpha}, \vec{w} - (n-1)\vec{\alpha}, \cdots , \vec{w} , \vec{w} + \vec{\alpha}, \cdots , \vec{w} + 2 \frac{\vec{w} \cdot \vec{\alpha}}{\vec{\alpha} \cdot \vec{\alpha}} \vec{\alpha} , where \alpha is any root and 2 \frac{\vec{w} \cdot \vec{\alpha}}{\vec{\alpha} \cdot \vec{\alpha}} = \mbox{integer}. In an irreducible representation there will be a number of Weyl orbits, each with a dominant weight. The most positive of the dominant weights is called the highest weight j of the irreducible representation and satisfies E_{\alpha}|j\rangle = 0, \ \alpha > 0.

 

[samalkhaiat]

What physical property does this finite dimension correspond to?

There is no “physical property”. However, one can give a physical meaning to certain n-dimensional irreducible representation, if one (for example) think of it as a multiplet of n particles having the same mass, spin and parity.

 

[samalkhaiat]

The thing I'm not crystal clear about lies in the emphasis on "highest weight" by more mathematically oriented authors. Ballentine doesn't even mention that phrase.

This is only because he works with SU(2), the simplest spin group. Even with more sophisticated groups, one can use the tensor methods to deal with lower-dimensional irreducible representations. But imagine using the tensor methods to construct the states of the irreducible representations [27] \mbox{and} [35] of SU(3)! The roots diagrams become very convenient when dealing with higher-dimensional irreducible representations. However, the most important aspect of the canonical Cartan form is the fact that it (the Cartan form) reduces, considerably, the number of the structure constants of the algebra. Namely from \frac{1}{2}n^{2}(n-1) 3-index constants f^{a}{}_{bc} to \frac{1}{2}(n - l)(n - 1) 2-index constants N_{\alpha \beta} and \alpha^{(i)}. In fact, the reduction is even greater because the N_{\alpha \beta} is determined by the \alpha^{(i)}, and the \alpha_{i} are determined in terms of l fundamental eigenvalues.

 

[samalkhaiat]

The number of different values of the spin, minus one.

What number is that? Did you mean to write 2J + 1? But this number is not a "physical property".

 

[samalkhaiat]

The ordering of weights depends on a choice that, to me, seems to be unrelated to physics.

In fact, when Heisenberg discovered iso-spin symmetry, he put the proton and the neutron in the “wrong” order.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Mathematically it is forced by the finite dimension of the representation space.

What physical property does this finite dimension correspond to?

The number of different values of the spin, minus one.

What number is that? Did you mean to write 2J + 1? But this number is not a "physical property".

No. The discussion was about the physical meaning of the dimension $2j+1$ of the irreducible representation with spin $j$. Actually, the minus 1 was spurious (corrected).; the dimension is the number of different spins.

 

[samalkhaiat]

No. The discussion was about the physical meaning of the dimension $2j+1$ of the irreducible representation with spin $j$. Actually, the minus 1 was spurious (corrected).; the dimension is the number of different spins.

I thought the discussions was about a general semi-simple algebra. The number 2j+1 is particular to \mathfrak{su}(2) where the irreducible representations are characterized by one (half) integer j. For the flavour symmetry group SU(3), an irreducible representation of \mathfrak{su}(3) is characterized by two numbers (p,q), with \mbox{dim}(p,q) = \frac{1}{2}(p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2). The physical meaning (even though the question used the phrase “physical property”) of the finite-dimensional (p,q) is the following: Assuming that SU(3) is a good symmetry, and for most of the irreducible rep's (p,q), there are \mbox{dim}(p,q) number of particles (Baryons and mesons) with the same (Lorentz Casimirs) (m,J^{\pi}) in the irreducible representation (p,q).

 

[fresh_42]

I thought the discussions was about a general semi-simple algebra.

Yes. My question was rather simple. (Level "I" to allow an answer at all, and not level "A" since I didn't want to talk about Hamiltonians.) Which physical properties corresponds to highest roots and maximal weights of irreducible, finite dimensional representations of simple Lie algebras?

So far I saw: maximal spin for $(SU(2),\operatorname{ad})$, maximal hypercharge (?), electric charge for $(SU(3),\operatorname{ad})$, and a lot of trivia about root systems in general, which is pure mathematics and off topics here. But already mass - in case it joins the list - makes me wonder, as I thought that mass could always be increased arbitrarily.

Then what about representations which are not the adjoint representation, and which although finite dimensional, can be of arbitrary dimension? What does their highest weights mean?

What about the $(SU(5),\operatorname{ad})$ as GUT candidate. All of a sudden maximal spin isn't a highest root anymore, and neither are the others. Instead we have new end points in the root system. Which physical property corresponds to those roots?

 

[samalkhaiat]

Yes. My question was rather simple. (Level "I" to allow an answer at all, and not level "A" since I didn't want to talk about Hamiltonians.) Which physical properties corresponds to highest roots and maximal weights of irreducible, finite dimensional representations of simple Lie algebras?

So far I saw: maximal spin for $(SU(2),\operatorname{ad})$, maximal hypercharge (?), electric charge for $(SU(3),\operatorname{ad})$, and a lot of trivia about root systems in general, which is pure mathematics and off topics here. But already mass - in case it joins the list - makes me wonder, as I thought that mass could always be increased arbitrarily.

Well there is no shift operator for the mass. The Hermitian irreducible representations of the Poincare algebra are infinite dimensional.

Then what about representations which are not the adjoint representation,

That is not a problem: Since the adjoint representation A(x) = e^{T(x)}, T(x)^{a}_{b} = x^{c}f^{a}_{cb}, of the group is faithful modulo the centre Z, the adjoint representation T(x) of the algebra is faithful modulo the centre c of the algebra. So, if the group centre is discrete, the centre of the algebra vanishes, and T(x) is a faithful representation of the algebra. This is the case for semi-simple algebras. So, in this case, there is no loss of generality in using the adjoint representation for the construction of the Cartan form.

What about the $(SU(5),\operatorname{ad})$ as GUT candidate. All of a sudden maximal spin isn't a highest root anymore, and neither are the others. Instead we have new end points in the root system. Which physical property corresponds to those roots?

Well, yes. “symmetry” groups are used in different contexts. Who knows the actual symmetry of nature?

 

[fresh_42]

The Hermitian irreducible representations of the Poincare algebra are infinite dimensional.

What does Hermitian mean in this context. Say we have $\varphi: \mathfrak{P}\longrightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(V)$, which is the condition on $\varphi$?. There are certainly finite dimensional $V$ and irreducible ones among them. Which condition forces $V$ to be inifnite dimensional?

 

[martinbn]

I don't want to be the curmudgeon of the form, but I think the discussion about the roots was needed. In fact I think it is still not resolved, except for the reference A. Neumaier gave, no one tried to clarify it.

@fresh_42 why don't you give us the definition of highest weight vector that you use, because I do think that there is a choice it depends on. And that choice is a matter of convention. Why do you think it doesn't matter?

 

[samalkhaiat]

Which condition forces $V$ to be inifnite dimensional?

The spectrum of the Casimir operator P^{2} = m^{2} is continuous. The unitary representations of the Poincare group U(a, \omega) = e^{i(a^{\mu}P_{\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\omega^{\mu\nu}M_{\mu\nu})}, with Hermitian operators (P_{\mu} , M_{\mu\nu}) are all infinite-dimensional.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't want to be the curmudgeon of the form, but I think the discussion about the roots was needed. In fact I think it is still not resolved, except for the reference A. Neumaier gave, no one tried to clarify it.

@fresh_42 why don't you give us the definition of highest weight vector that you use, because I do think that there is a choice it depends on. And that choice is a matter of convention. Why do you think it doesn't matter?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387900535/?tag=pfamazon01-20
page 72, section 13.4. Saturated sets of weights.

 

[martinbn]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387900535/?tag=pfamazon01-20
page 72, section 13.4. Saturated sets of weights.

It says

We say that a saturated set $\Pi$ has a highest weight $\lambda (\lambda\in\Lambda^+)$ if $\lambda\in\Pi$ and $\mu\prec\lambda$ for all $\mu\in\Pi$.

Both $\prec$ and $\Lambda^+$ (defined on pages 47 and 67) depend on the choice of a base of the root system.

 

[fresh_42]

Both $\prec$ and $\Lambda^+$ (defined on pages 47 and 67) depend on the choice of a base of the root system.

See theorem 20.2 and its corollary. We wouldn't talk about weights if they were as arbitrary as you pretend they are. They all come from the Killing form or another trace form.

Of course we do not need isospin, charge and hypercharge as basis operators of $SU(3)$. But why should we not? Maximality is given in any finite dimensional case. To ask what it physically means is in my opinion a natural question. Change of basis is a pure distraction and senseless. The question is the same in any basis system: Which physical quantities make the ladders end?

 

[martinbn]

Several sentences above the theorem it says what a maximal vector is and the very next sentence is "This notion of course depends on the choice of $\Delta$."

 

[samalkhaiat]

To ask what it physically means is in my opinion a natural question... Which physical quantities make the ladders end?

Nothing natural about your question because it is meaningless. There is nothing special about the Cartan form and its ladder operators. Irreducible representations of all symmetry groups can be obtained using other methods and without defining any ladder operator. In fact, the Young tableaux, the tensor methods and the theory of induced representation are more familiar to physicists than the Cartan form. Namely, “There's more than one way to skin a cat”.