Proofs of Group Theory for Theoretical Physicists - Daniel

dextercioby
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
13,388
Reaction score
4,040
It's always annoying when one finds in books (written by (theoretical) physicists for (theoretical) physics students) statements like those below without a mere cross-reference for a mathematically-rigurous proof. And that's what I'm searching for right now: either point me to some books, or post the proofs right here (that would be perfect). So here's what's been bugging me lately:

1. A noncompact Lie group has no nontrivial finite dimensional unitary linear irreps.
2. The linear representations of a simply connected Lie group are fully reducible.
3. The unitary linear irreps of a simply connected Lie group can be put in bijective correspondence with (essentially) selfadjoint irreps of the corresponding Lie algebra.
4. The Theorem of Nelson. The only reference for a proof that i found is the original article by Nelson, but, unfortunately, it's not within my reach.

The relevance of this thread: these mathematical results are fundamental in understanding the concept of implementing space-time symmetries in the Hilbert space language of QM through the so-called "Wigner-Weyl method".

Daniel.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The underlying idea is the following:

any lie group homomorphism is determined uniquely by the induced lie algebra map.

See Fulton and Harris, Representation Theory (A First Course) Springer GTM 129 (1991) Lecture 8 onwards.

I don't know that it'll answer all your questions, but it seems like it'll be a start in the right direction. It is quite a cheap and readily available book. You library should have a copy.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top