it is generally known that there is a two-to-one automorphism from su(2) to so(3)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

but consider the problem in this way:

all elements in so(3) are of the form (up to a unitary transform of the basis)

R(\alpha,\beta.\gamma)=e^{-i\alpha F_z} e^{-i\beta F_y} e^{-i \gamma F_z}

where F_x, F_y, F_z are the 3*3 spin operators

all elements in su(2) are of the form

R(\alpha,\beta.\gamma)=e^{-i\alpha \sigma_z/2} e^{-i\beta \sigma_y/2} e^{-i \gamma \sigma_z/2}

where \sigma_{x,y,z} are pauli matrices

F_{x,y,z} and \sigma_{x,y,z}/2 are of the same lie algebra!

so i think there should be a one-to-one correspondence between so(3) and su(2).

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Why so(3) is not isomorphic to su(2)?

Loading...

Similar Threads - isomorphic | Date |
---|---|

When are isomorphic Hilbert spaces physically different? | Jun 10, 2015 |

Isomorphism symmetry group of 6j symbol | Feb 21, 2013 |

How do you tell if lie groups are isomorphic | Jun 25, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**