SU(2) as representation of SO(3)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between the groups SU(2) and SO(3), particularly exploring whether SU(2) can be considered a representation of SO(3) and the nature of group representations in general. Participants delve into concepts such as homomorphisms, fundamental representations, and the implications of SU(2) being a double cover of SO(3).

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that SU(2) and SO(3) are homomorphic groups and question if SU(2) can be viewed as a representation of SO(3).
  • Others clarify that not every representation of SU(2) is a representation of SO(3), emphasizing that SU(2) is the double cover of SO(3) and isomorphic to the coset SO(3)/Z2.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of representations, with some arguing that a representation is a homomorphism from a group to GL(V), while others contend that a representation can be viewed as a group itself.
  • Participants discuss the concept of fundamental representations, noting that elements of SU(2) can be represented as 2x2 complex matrices and that there exists a natural group homomorphism from SU(2) to SO(3).
  • Some participants express confusion about the definitions of representations and sets, leading to clarifications about the distinction between a representation as a map and a set with multiplication.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of "double-valued representations" and the preference among mathematicians for discussing "projective representations," "multipliers," and "cocycles," indicating a divergence in terminology and conceptual understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of representations and their relationship to groups, with no consensus reached on whether SU(2) can be definitively classified as a representation of SO(3). The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise definitions and implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of group representations, noting that definitions can vary and that the relationship between SU(2) and SO(3) involves nuanced mathematical properties that are not fully settled in the discussion.

maxverywell
Messages
197
Reaction score
2
The SU(2) and SO(3) groups are homomorphic groups. Can we say that the SU(2) group is representation of SO(3) and vice versa (SU(2) representation of SO(3))?

Is a representation R of some group G a group too? If so, is it true that G is representation of R?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the case of matrix Lie groups, the fundamental representation is the group itself, so then you could say, in an abuse of language, that "the representation is a group". But in general the group is an abstract set with four rules, and can be represented in many ways.

But be careful: not every representation of SU(2) is a representation of SO(3)! SU(2) is the double cover of SO(3), and SU(2) is isomorphic to the coset SO(3)/Z2.
 
haushofer said:
In the case of matrix Lie groups, the fundamental representation is the group itself, so then you could say, in an abuse of language, that "the representation is a group". But in general the group is an abstract set with four rules, and can be represented in many ways.

But be careful: not every representation of SU(2) is a representation of SO(3)! SU(2) is the double cover of SO(3), and SU(2) is isomorphic to the coset SO(3)/Z2.

Oh I see... I think I get the point now, thnx!

Btw, what is a fundamental representation and a double cover?
 
maxverywell said:
Btw, what is a fundamental representation and a double cover?

Elements of [tex]SU(2)[/tex] are 2x2 complex matrices. If to each matrix [tex]A\in SU(2)[/tex] you assing the transformation [tex]x\mapsto Ax[/tex] of [tex]\mathbf{C}^2[/tex] - then you have the fundamental represantation of [tex]SU(2)[/tex]

There is a very nice a natural group homomorphism, call it [tex]\rho[/tex],

[tex]\rho: SU(2)\rightarrow SO(3)[/tex].

It has the property

[tex]\rho(A)=\rho(-A)[/tex].

Matrices [tex]A[/tex] and [tex]-A[/tex] are mapped to the same element of [tex]SO(3)[/tex]. Thus the name "double cover".
 
maxverywell said:
The SU(2) and SO(3) groups are homomorphic groups. Can we say that the SU(2) group is representation of SO(3) and vice versa (SU(2) representation of SO(3))?

Is a representation R of some group G a group too? If so, is it true that G is representation of R?
R isn't a group. It's a group homomorphism from G into GL(V) (the group of invertible linear operators on a vector space V).
 
Fredrik said:
R isn't a group. It's a group homomorphism from G into GL(V) (the group of invertible linear operators on a vector space V).

R is a set of matrices which with matrix multiplication forms a group.
 
maxverywell said:
R is a set of matrices which with matrix multiplication forms a group.

Set is not a representation. Representation is a map from one set to another, with particular properties.
 
arkajad said:
Set is not a representation. Representation is a map from one set to another, with particular properties.

I said set with multiplication. So a group representation is a group whose elements are matrices.
 
Last edited:
No. Please, check the definition from a good book. Well, I will do it for you:

From H. Jones, "Groups, Representations and Physics", p. 37:

Definition

A representation of dimension n of the abstract group G is defined as a
homomorphism D: G -> GL(n, C), the group of non-singular nxn
matrices with complex entries.

More generally, you can replace GL(n,C) by L(V,K). But the important thing is that it is homomorphism, that is a map with appropriate properties, not a "set with appropriate properties".
 
  • #10
I know that it's a homomorphism etc. but it's a group as I said. Take for example the group of order 2: G={e,a} and its regular representation D={D(e),D(a)}
were

[tex]D(e)=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}[/tex] and [tex]D(a)=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}[/tex]

Now, this two matrices form a group (which is actually the same as G, they are isomorphic because it's regular representation).
 
Last edited:
  • #11
maxverywell said:
I know that it's a homomorphism etc. but it's a group as I said.
Well, you may like to learn how to distinguish between objects and arrows that connect objects. You never know, one day this ability may come handy...

You may find some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
You are right, sorry. Indeed, a representation is an arrow from one group to another (group of matrices).
 
  • #13
So, for instance, we have representations:

[tex]SU(2)\rightarrow GL(2,C)[/tex]

[tex]SU(2)\rightarrow SO(3)\subset GL(3,R)[/tex]

Physicists also sometimes say that there is a "double-valued representation"
[tex]SO(3)\rightarrow SU(2)[/tex]
but this must considered with great care, and mathematicians do not like it all. Instead mathematicians prefer to discuss "projective representations", "multipliers", "cocycles" etc. And they are right. But this is an "advanced subject".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K