Simple lie algebra that holds just four generators?

PhysSub
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Show that there is no simple lie algebra with just four generators.
Relevant Equations
bracket product
I’m reading Weinberg’s QFT books, and stacking how to solve problem 15.4.
Weinberg says there is no simple lie algebra with just four generators, but I have no idea how to approach this problem. If the number of generators are only one or two, it can easy to say there is not such a simple lie algebra because we can’t take the relevant structure constant. I tried to apply the same discussion to four or five generators, but I think it does not work.
Does anyone know more about this problem? We would appreciate any references or tips.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The solution to this question strongly depends on which results you want to use. E.g. the smallest simple Lie algebra is three-dimensional. Then every Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}## can be written as the semidirect product of a semisimple subalgebra ##\mathfrak{h}\leq \mathfrak{g}## and its radical ##\mathfrak{R}\trianglelefteq \mathfrak{g}## which is a solvable ideal, i.e.
$$
\mathfrak{g}= \mathfrak{h} \ltimes \mathfrak{R}
$$
A four-dimensional Lie algebra is therefore solvable or has a one-dimensional radical. In both cases, there is a one-dimensional ideal. That is what we know because the result is true. We could use this for an indirect proof: Given a four-dimensional Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}##. If we now show that it contains a one-dimensional ideal (and we already know that there is one), then it cannot be simple.

Another idea is: If ##\mathfrak{g}## is a four-dimensional simple Lie algebra, then it contains a copy of ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)## as subalgebra and we can write ##\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}(2) + \mathbb{F}\cdot Z## as a sum of vectorspaces. Both are already subalgebras. If ##[\mathfrak{sl}(2),Z]=0## then ##Z\in \mathfrak{Z(g)}## is a central element and we are done. So all we have to do is to show that ##Z## can be chosen such that ##\mathbb{F}Z## is a one-dimensional ##\mathfrak{g}-##module, an ideal. (In this case it will be the radical and ##\mathfrak{g}## could not be simple.) I guess that ##[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathfrak{g}## is helpful here.

In short: We have to show that every four-dimensional Lie algebra is either solvable or has a one-dimensional center.
 
I think this is a plan:

Let ##\mathfrak{g}## be simple and four-dimensional. Then ##\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z## as a sum of subalgebras. Thus
$$
\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z=\mathfrak{g}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=[\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z,\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z=[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathfrak{sl}(2)]+[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]=\mathfrak{sl}(2)+[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]
$$
and ##Z## can be chosen such that ##Z\in [\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]##. Therefore ##\mathbb{F}Z## is a one-dimensional ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)##-module, i.e. a one-dimensional ideal of ##\mathfrak{g}##, which is impossible if ##\mathfrak{g}## is simple.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top