I'm trying to prove that $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ is the universal covering group for the proper orthochronous Lorentz group $SO(1,3)^{\uparrow}$. The standard way goes as follows.

(1) Exhibit a real vector space isomorphism between Minkowski space and the space of $2\times 2$ Hermitian matrices, $H$.

(2) Let $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ act on $H$ by $X\mapsto AXA^{\dagger}$ and prove this induces a surjective, 2:1 homomorphism from $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ to $SO(1,3)^{\uparrow}$.

I'm wondering whether there is a better way however. To prove that $SU(2)$ is the universal covering group of $SO(3)$ it suffices to go to the Lie algebra and demonstrate that the adjoint representation is an isomorphism of Lie algebras. Can I do something analogous here?

Here's what I've tried. The Lie algebra of $SO(1,3)$ is $su(2)\oplus su(2)$ which naturally acts on a 4-dimensional complex vector space. The Lie algebra of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ is the space of traceless complex matrices, of dimension 6. I can't now see how to proceed.

Maybe this approach doesn't work at all now. Is it just a special property of $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$ that happens because $SU(2)$ happens to have dimension 3, exactly the right number for an $SO(3)$ action?

Many thanks in advance!

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd say it's purely coincidental and follows from identification of vectors and antisymmetric matrices in dimensions $3$. In any case, could you elaborate how does the adjoint rep. of $su(2)$ help us prove that $SU(2)$ is a universal cover of $SO(3)$? $\endgroup$ – Marek Feb 12 '13 at 12:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Certainly. First one shows that the adjoint representation of $su(2)$ yields an isomorphism to $so(3)$, by identifying $su(2)$ with $\mathbb{R}^3$. Next since $su(2)$ is simply connected we know that $ad$ exponentiates to $Ad$, yielding a homomorphism of $SU(2)$ into $SO(3)$. But since $SO(3)$ is connected and the Lie algebras are isomorphic, this must be surjective. To prove it's 2:1 takes a little more work, but not too much! I'm inclined to agree it's coincidental having thought a bit more about it. $\endgroup$ – Edward Hughes Feb 12 '13 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, that's a nice argument. The adjoint rep. won't work in general, but finding any isomorphism of Lie algebras will, so I guess that's good enough. $\endgroup$ – Marek Feb 12 '13 at 16:18

Maybe this is more of a comment but a general method to show that a Lie group $G$ is isomorphic to $SO^+(p,q)$ is to find a $p+q$ dimensional representation of $G$ that preserves an inner product of signature $(p,q)$. Then if $\dim G = \dim SO(p,q)$ and $G$ is connected, this will give an isomorphism $G/\ker \to SO^+(p,q)$.

In the case of $G = SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$, we need a 3-dimensional rep of $SU(2)$. Since $SU(2)$ is three dimensional, we can try the adjoint representation of $SU(2)$ on its Lie algebra. Since $SU(2)$ is compact any real representation is orthogonal so this maps into $SO(3)$. Then we just need to check that the kernel is $\{\pm 1\}$. Note also here that there is no need to go to the Lie algebra.

For your case of $SL(2,\mathbb C)$ the adjoint representation is 6 dimensional and irreducible since $SL(2,\mathbb C)$ is simple.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your insight. I don't see how you get surjectivity without going to the Lie algebra though. Could you expand on that? Perhaps as an answer to this question I have just raised? $\endgroup$ – Edward Hughes Feb 12 '13 at 16:11

I am not totally sure, but I think you can use the same method. Here $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ has real dimension 3 and $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ has real dimension 6.

Any matrix in $\mathrm M \in \mathfrak{sl}(2)$ splits into $\mathrm M = \mathrm M_1 + i\mathrm M_2$ where $\mathrm M_1$ and $\mathrm M_2$ are trace zero hermitian matrices. This shows that $\mathfrak{sl}(2) \simeq \mathfrak{su}(2) \oplus \mathfrak{su}(2)$.

So I guess that the adjoint representation should give an isomorphism of Lie algebras.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't quite see how you show that it's exactly the adjoint representation that gives this isomorphism. Could you possibly elaborate? $\endgroup$ – Edward Hughes Feb 12 '13 at 13:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.