What is the rank of the SU(2)xSU(2) algebra?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gentsagree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra rank So(3)
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the rank of the SU(2)xSU(2) algebra, exploring concepts related to Lie algebras, commutation relations, and Casimir operators. Participants reference the rank of other groups, such as SO(3) and SU(3), to draw comparisons and clarify their understanding of the rank concept in the context of group theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the commutation relations of SO(3) and questions how these imply a rank of 1.
  • Another participant explains that the rank corresponds to the maximum number of mutually commuting generators and mentions the Casimir operator for SO(3).
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about how to determine the number of Casimir operators from the algebra's commutation relations.
  • There is a discussion about the Cartan subalgebra's dimension and its relation to the rank, with one participant suggesting that the Cartan subalgebra of SO(3) is of dimension 1.
  • Participants discuss the rank of SU(3), noting that it is 2 and that there are two commuting generators.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the rank of the Lorentz group SO(3,1) and questions the absence of commuting generators.
  • Another participant provides insight into the generators of sl(2,C) and suggests that the rank is 2 based on the ability to diagonalize certain matrices.
  • There is a proposal to consider specific generators from SU(2)xSU(2) and their commutation properties to understand the overall rank.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the rank of various algebras, particularly between SO(3), SU(3), and SU(2)xSU(2). There is no consensus on the rank of SU(2)xSU(2) as participants explore different interpretations and reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding commutation relations and the properties of the Cartan subalgebra, but there are unresolved questions about the specific ranks and the implications of the commutation relations for different groups.

gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
I am reading in my group theory book the well known commutation relations of the Lie algebra of SO(3), i.e. [J,J]=i\epsilon J.

What I don't understand is the statement that "from the relations we can infer that the algebra has rank 1".

Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The rank of a Lie Group is the maximum number of its mutually commuting generators..In other words it's how many Casimir operators you can construct (Racah's theorem)... for SO(3) that's 1 because if you take J_1, J_2, J_3 they don't commute with each other. The Casimir operator is the J^2 = J_1^2 +J_2^2 +J_3^2 which commutes with the generators J_i: [J_i, J^2]=0
 
Thank you very much, very clear. So, I suppose there is a way to find out how many Casimir operators I can construct, given an algebra with its commutation relations. I know SO(3) has J^2, but it is not clear to me how I know that it is the only Casimir there is.

Also, the rank of the Lie group corresponds to the rank of the Lie algebra, which is given by the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra (as you said, the number of mutually commuting group generators); so which is the one element of the dimension-1 Cartan subalgebra here? Is it correct to think that the Cartan is of dimension 1 since each generator commutes only with itself?
 
how many elements does the Cartan subalgebra of SU(3) have?
 
Ok, what I said above was correct; I see now that from the commutation relations there are no commuting generators, but I can always pick one at random and see that it commutes trivially with itself. This is one way to see that the rank is 1. And from this I can infer there will be only one Casimir by Racah's theorem.

Why the reference to SU(3) ?
 
because I think that the Cartan subalgebra of SU(3) is not of dimension 1.
 
Sure, the rank of SU(3) is 2, so is the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra. There one could see more clearly from the (modified) commutation relations that there are indeed two commuting generators.
 
ΟΚ then, it seems I misunderstood what you meant with this:
gentsagree said:
Is it correct to think that the Cartan is of dimension 1 since each generator commutes only with itself?
 
ChrisVer said:
ΟΚ then, it seems I misunderstood what you meant with this:
I see. Thanks for the help anyway.
 
  • #10
Ok, I think I confused myself again. I thought I was thinking about this the right way, but I can't apply my reasoning to a slightly harder case: the proper orthochronous Lorentz group, SO(3,1), or equivalently, SL(2,C).

Here the commutators read<br /> \begin{split}<br /> [J_{i}, J_{j}] &amp;= i\epsilon_{ijk}J_{k} \\<br /> [K_{i}, K_{j}] &amp;= i\epsilon_{ijk}J_{k}\\<br /> [J_{i}, K_{j}] &amp;= i\epsilon_{ijk}K_{k}<br /> \end{split}<br />

and my book says very confidently that from these I can read off that the rank of the algebra is 2. And there is no way I can think of in which I can see it. I don't see any commuting generators, apart from the trivial case where each specific generator, eg J_{1}, commutes with itself.
 
  • #11
First a fast investigation: the generators of the sl(2,c) are for exaple the pauli matrices and the identity matrix... In fact any complex matrix 2x2 can be written as a linear combination of those four:
M = a_0 I_2 + \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i \sigma_i
Obviously you can simultaneously diagonalize the \sigma_3 and I_2, so it's rank 2...

Now in the case of the su(2)x su(2)
I am pretty sure that taking J_3,K_3 as the diagonalizable matrices.
So the \{J_3,K_3\} (not anticommutation) is a set of mutually commuting/simultaneously diagonalizable generators?
In fact this is like have 2 SU(2)s, so the rank you'd expect is 1 ( either because SU(2) is pretty much like SO(3) or by checking out the commutations each has 1 diagonalizable generator per time which we choose by convention the 3rd J3 ) from each, sum=2.
Would it be easier for you if you tried to define K^{\pm}=c( K_1 \pm i K_2 ), J^{\pm}=c(J_1 \pm iJ_2) and K_3,J_3?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K