Why are the fundamental and anti-fundamental representation in $text{SL}(2,mathbb{C})$ not equivalent?
I am currently learning group theory and I learnt that the fundamental representation and the anti-fundamental representation of $text{SL}(2,mathbb{C})$, $2 times 2$ matrix with determinant of $1$, are not equivalent. This means that no similarity transformation can map one of them to the other.
My professor gave an explanation (on the 2nd last paragraph on page 75 of the following document http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~tseng/teaching/b2/b2-lectures-2018.pdf) but I don't see how the difference in the signs in the exponent imply that the representations are inequivalent.
Can anyone please explain the explanation of my professor, or perhaps give another explanation?
group-theory representation-theory lie-groups
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
add a comment |
I am currently learning group theory and I learnt that the fundamental representation and the anti-fundamental representation of $text{SL}(2,mathbb{C})$, $2 times 2$ matrix with determinant of $1$, are not equivalent. This means that no similarity transformation can map one of them to the other.
My professor gave an explanation (on the 2nd last paragraph on page 75 of the following document http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~tseng/teaching/b2/b2-lectures-2018.pdf) but I don't see how the difference in the signs in the exponent imply that the representations are inequivalent.
Can anyone please explain the explanation of my professor, or perhaps give another explanation?
group-theory representation-theory lie-groups
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
3
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
6
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39
add a comment |
I am currently learning group theory and I learnt that the fundamental representation and the anti-fundamental representation of $text{SL}(2,mathbb{C})$, $2 times 2$ matrix with determinant of $1$, are not equivalent. This means that no similarity transformation can map one of them to the other.
My professor gave an explanation (on the 2nd last paragraph on page 75 of the following document http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~tseng/teaching/b2/b2-lectures-2018.pdf) but I don't see how the difference in the signs in the exponent imply that the representations are inequivalent.
Can anyone please explain the explanation of my professor, or perhaps give another explanation?
group-theory representation-theory lie-groups
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
I am currently learning group theory and I learnt that the fundamental representation and the anti-fundamental representation of $text{SL}(2,mathbb{C})$, $2 times 2$ matrix with determinant of $1$, are not equivalent. This means that no similarity transformation can map one of them to the other.
My professor gave an explanation (on the 2nd last paragraph on page 75 of the following document http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~tseng/teaching/b2/b2-lectures-2018.pdf) but I don't see how the difference in the signs in the exponent imply that the representations are inequivalent.
Can anyone please explain the explanation of my professor, or perhaps give another explanation?
group-theory representation-theory lie-groups
group-theory representation-theory lie-groups
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
edited Dec 5 '18 at 3:31
Andrews
3521317
3521317
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
asked Nov 25 '18 at 1:23
foxielmaofoxielmao
1269
1269
3
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
6
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39
add a comment |
3
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
6
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39
3
3
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
6
6
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
For $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~:=~{gin {rm Mat}_{2times 2}(mathbb{C})mid det g = 1 }tag{1}$$
viewed as a complex Lie group, the finite dimensional linear representations should by definition be complex manifolds, which rule out complex conjugate representations in the first place, cf. e.g. this Math.SE post. In physics texts (like the one OP is linking to) the irreducible representations are labelled by an half integer $jin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0,$ and of complex dimension $2j+1$.For the same group $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~cong~ Spin(1,3,mathbb{R})tag{2}$$ viewed as a real Lie group, it is not hard to see that the complex conjugate representation
$$rho: Gto GL(2,mathbb{C}), qquad rho(g)~=~bar{g}, qquad g~in~ G, tag{3}$$
of the defining representation (1) are not equivalent, i.e. there does not exist an element $Min GL(2,mathbb{C})$ such that
$$forall gin G: Mg=bar{g}M, tag{4}$$
cf. e.g. user Dan Yand's Math.SE answer.One complexification of $G$ is $$G_{mathbb{C}}~cong~Spin(1,3,mathbb{C})cong SL(2,mathbb{C})times SL(2,mathbb{C}).$$ In the physics literature the irreducible representations are typically labelled by a pair of half integers $j_L,j_Rin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0$, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The inequivalent left and right Weyl spinor representations (which OP's link mentions) are labelled $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$, respectively.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012312%2fwhy-are-the-fundamental-and-anti-fundamental-representation-in-textsl2-mat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~:=~{gin {rm Mat}_{2times 2}(mathbb{C})mid det g = 1 }tag{1}$$
viewed as a complex Lie group, the finite dimensional linear representations should by definition be complex manifolds, which rule out complex conjugate representations in the first place, cf. e.g. this Math.SE post. In physics texts (like the one OP is linking to) the irreducible representations are labelled by an half integer $jin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0,$ and of complex dimension $2j+1$.For the same group $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~cong~ Spin(1,3,mathbb{R})tag{2}$$ viewed as a real Lie group, it is not hard to see that the complex conjugate representation
$$rho: Gto GL(2,mathbb{C}), qquad rho(g)~=~bar{g}, qquad g~in~ G, tag{3}$$
of the defining representation (1) are not equivalent, i.e. there does not exist an element $Min GL(2,mathbb{C})$ such that
$$forall gin G: Mg=bar{g}M, tag{4}$$
cf. e.g. user Dan Yand's Math.SE answer.One complexification of $G$ is $$G_{mathbb{C}}~cong~Spin(1,3,mathbb{C})cong SL(2,mathbb{C})times SL(2,mathbb{C}).$$ In the physics literature the irreducible representations are typically labelled by a pair of half integers $j_L,j_Rin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0$, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The inequivalent left and right Weyl spinor representations (which OP's link mentions) are labelled $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$, respectively.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
add a comment |
For $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~:=~{gin {rm Mat}_{2times 2}(mathbb{C})mid det g = 1 }tag{1}$$
viewed as a complex Lie group, the finite dimensional linear representations should by definition be complex manifolds, which rule out complex conjugate representations in the first place, cf. e.g. this Math.SE post. In physics texts (like the one OP is linking to) the irreducible representations are labelled by an half integer $jin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0,$ and of complex dimension $2j+1$.For the same group $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~cong~ Spin(1,3,mathbb{R})tag{2}$$ viewed as a real Lie group, it is not hard to see that the complex conjugate representation
$$rho: Gto GL(2,mathbb{C}), qquad rho(g)~=~bar{g}, qquad g~in~ G, tag{3}$$
of the defining representation (1) are not equivalent, i.e. there does not exist an element $Min GL(2,mathbb{C})$ such that
$$forall gin G: Mg=bar{g}M, tag{4}$$
cf. e.g. user Dan Yand's Math.SE answer.One complexification of $G$ is $$G_{mathbb{C}}~cong~Spin(1,3,mathbb{C})cong SL(2,mathbb{C})times SL(2,mathbb{C}).$$ In the physics literature the irreducible representations are typically labelled by a pair of half integers $j_L,j_Rin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0$, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The inequivalent left and right Weyl spinor representations (which OP's link mentions) are labelled $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$, respectively.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
add a comment |
For $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~:=~{gin {rm Mat}_{2times 2}(mathbb{C})mid det g = 1 }tag{1}$$
viewed as a complex Lie group, the finite dimensional linear representations should by definition be complex manifolds, which rule out complex conjugate representations in the first place, cf. e.g. this Math.SE post. In physics texts (like the one OP is linking to) the irreducible representations are labelled by an half integer $jin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0,$ and of complex dimension $2j+1$.For the same group $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~cong~ Spin(1,3,mathbb{R})tag{2}$$ viewed as a real Lie group, it is not hard to see that the complex conjugate representation
$$rho: Gto GL(2,mathbb{C}), qquad rho(g)~=~bar{g}, qquad g~in~ G, tag{3}$$
of the defining representation (1) are not equivalent, i.e. there does not exist an element $Min GL(2,mathbb{C})$ such that
$$forall gin G: Mg=bar{g}M, tag{4}$$
cf. e.g. user Dan Yand's Math.SE answer.One complexification of $G$ is $$G_{mathbb{C}}~cong~Spin(1,3,mathbb{C})cong SL(2,mathbb{C})times SL(2,mathbb{C}).$$ In the physics literature the irreducible representations are typically labelled by a pair of half integers $j_L,j_Rin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0$, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The inequivalent left and right Weyl spinor representations (which OP's link mentions) are labelled $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$, respectively.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
For $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~:=~{gin {rm Mat}_{2times 2}(mathbb{C})mid det g = 1 }tag{1}$$
viewed as a complex Lie group, the finite dimensional linear representations should by definition be complex manifolds, which rule out complex conjugate representations in the first place, cf. e.g. this Math.SE post. In physics texts (like the one OP is linking to) the irreducible representations are labelled by an half integer $jin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0,$ and of complex dimension $2j+1$.For the same group $$G~:=~SL(2,mathbb{C})~cong~ Spin(1,3,mathbb{R})tag{2}$$ viewed as a real Lie group, it is not hard to see that the complex conjugate representation
$$rho: Gto GL(2,mathbb{C}), qquad rho(g)~=~bar{g}, qquad g~in~ G, tag{3}$$
of the defining representation (1) are not equivalent, i.e. there does not exist an element $Min GL(2,mathbb{C})$ such that
$$forall gin G: Mg=bar{g}M, tag{4}$$
cf. e.g. user Dan Yand's Math.SE answer.One complexification of $G$ is $$G_{mathbb{C}}~cong~Spin(1,3,mathbb{C})cong SL(2,mathbb{C})times SL(2,mathbb{C}).$$ In the physics literature the irreducible representations are typically labelled by a pair of half integers $j_L,j_Rin frac{1}{2}mathbb{N}_0$, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. The inequivalent left and right Weyl spinor representations (which OP's link mentions) are labelled $(1/2,0)$ and $(0,1/2)$, respectively.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
edited Dec 5 '18 at 18:52
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
answered Dec 5 '18 at 12:34
QmechanicQmechanic
4,87711854
4,87711854
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012312%2fwhy-are-the-fundamental-and-anti-fundamental-representation-in-textsl2-mat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
I had a hard time following the notation, but the quoted claim is not correct. There is a unique irreducible representation of each dimension up to isomorphism.
– Tobias Kildetoft
Nov 25 '18 at 7:28
6
Those notes are talking about the real representations of the group $SO^+(3, 1)$, which has a double cover by $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. So you're really asking about the real representations of the real Lie group $SL(2, mathbb{C})$. Perhaps this helps.
– Joppy
Nov 26 '18 at 10:57
Crossposted from physics.stackexchange.com/q/443092/2451
– Qmechanic
Dec 1 '18 at 12:39