Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2017 / iii / Paper 302 (Symmetries, Fields and Particles)

The two Lie groups have the same local infinitesimal structure, but different global topology. This difference determines which Lie algebra representations integrate to representations of each group.

An element of the SU(2) group is a unitary matrix of determinant one. Orthogonality of its columns and its determinant give the unique formThus its group manifold is the unit three-sphere in ${\mathbb{C}}^2\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^4$: this is SU(2) as the three-sphere. In particular it is compact, connected and simply connected. In terms of the Pauli matrices one may also write $U=a_{0}I-i\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$ with real coefficients satisfying $a_0^2+{\mathbf{a}}^2=1$.

Differentiate $U(t{)}^{†}U(t)=I$ and $\det U(t)=1$ at $U(0)=I$. The tangent space consists of traceless skew-Hermitian matrices:The Lie bracket of a Matrix Lie group is the matrix commutator. With $T_a=-i{\sigma }_a/2$, the Pauli matrix multiplication law givesThis derives the SU(2) Lie algebra as a three-dimensional real Lie algebra. The Hermitian physics generators $J_a={\sigma }_a/2$ instead obey $[J_a,J_b]=i{ϵ}_{abc}{J}_c$; they are $i$ times the skew-Hermitian tangent generators, so these are consistent conventions.

The SO(3) group consists of real orthogonal matrices with determinant one. Differentiating $R(t{)}^{T}R(t)=I$ at the identity givesThe determinant condition gives no additional infinitesimal constraint because a skew-symmetric matrix already has trace zero. Define $L_a\mathbf{v}={\mathbf{e}}_a\times \mathbf{v}$. The cross product identity impliesTherefore the SO(3) Lie algebra has the same structure constants and $T_a\mapsto L_a$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism.

The global relation is the Adjoint double cover from SU(2) to SO(3). For $V=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$, define $R(U)$ byConjugation preserves the real space of traceless Hermitian matrices and its inner product $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(VW)=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{w}$. Hence $R(U)$ is orthogonal. Continuity and connectedness, together with $R(I)=I$, put it in $SO(3)$. Composition of conjugations makes $R$ a group homomorphism. If $R(U)=I$, then $U$ commutes with every Pauli matrix, hence is scalar; unitarity and determinant one leave precisely $U=\pm I$. The differential sends $T_a$ to $L_a$, so it is an isomorphism. More concretely,induces rotation through angle $\theta$ about $\mathbf{n}$, by the Rodrigues rotation formula. Every three-dimensional rotation has such an axis and angle, proving surjectivity. ConsequentlyThe matrices $U$ and $-U$ are antipodal points on the three-sphere, so the SO(3) group manifold is Real projective space ${\mathbb{RP}}^3$. Equivalently, the closed axis-angle ball $\Vert \theta \mathbf{n}\Vert \le \pi$ has opposite boundary points identified. The fundamental group is ${\pi }_1(SO(3))\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}_2$, whereas ${\pi }_1(SU(2))=0$. A $2\pi$ rotation lifts from $I$ to $-I$; a $4\pi$ rotation returns to $I$. Thus the covering is the universal cover and the groups are not globally isomorphic.

For representation theory, specify finite-dimensional complex continuous representations. Compactness permits an invariant Hermitian inner product, obtained by averaging against Haar measure, and therefore complete reducibility. Complexifying either real Lie algebra gives the sl2 Lie algebra. Its finite-dimensional irreducibles are indexed by $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$, have highest weight $n$, and have dimension $n+1$. By integration of a Lie-algebra representation, since $SU(2)$ is simply connected, every such Lie algebra representation integrates uniquely. The resulting homogeneous polynomial representation of SU2 isIn the spin angular momentum notation $j=n/2$, its Hermitian $J_3$ eigenvalues are $j,j-1,\dots ,-j$. The central matrix $-I$ acts on the symmetric power by $(-1{)}^n$, so descent of an SU(2) representation to SO(3) occurs exactly when $n$ is even. HenceFor a reducible representation, every summand must satisfy the descent condition. The spin-one-half doublet is a genuine representation of the covering group but does not define a single-valued representation of $SO(3)$; the spin-one triplet does and is its vector representation. The distinction is topological, rather than a difference in their isomorphic Lie algebras.

For a complex finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra, a Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$ is a maximal commuting subalgebra of elements whose adjoint maps are semisimple. Equivalently in this setting it is a nilpotent self-normalizing subalgebra. Its dimension is the rank of a semisimple Lie algebra. Simultaneous diagonalization of its Adjoint representation gives the root-space decompositionA root of a root system is a nonzero linear functional $\alpha$ for which this root space is nonzero. For a complex semisimple algebra each root space is one-dimensional. A Cartan-Weyl basis consists of a basis $H_i$ of $\mathfrak{h}$ and one nonzero root vector $E_{\alpha }$ for every root.

The general Lie brackets have the formFor the opposite-root bracket, use the Killing form to define $h_{\alpha }$ by $\kappa (h_{\alpha },H)=\alpha (H)$. Its invariant bilinear form on a Lie algebra property givesOne may normalize the root vectors so that the pairing is one. If instead one uses a coroot as the opposite-root bracket, the root-vector normalization changes accordingly. In particular, root evaluation coordinates cannot simply be used as coefficients in a nonorthonormal Cartan basis.

For the matrix calculation take $N\ge 2$. The complexification of a Lie algebra of the special unitary group Lie algebra is the special linear Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{sl}}_N(\mathbb{C})$: traceless complex matrices. Its Cartan subalgebra consists of traceless diagonal matrices. Write $E_{jk}={\mathcal{T}}^{(j,k)}$ for the matrix units. The given Cartan basis is $H_i=E_{ii}-E_{i+1,i+1}$, $1\le i<N$, and the other basis elements are $E_{jk}$ with $j\ne k$.

The matrix-unit identity $E_{jk}{E}_{lm}={\delta }_{kl}{E}_{jm}$ givesThus all the roots, expressed as evaluation vectors in this precise Cartan basis, areThey are the functionals $e_j-e_k$ on traceless diagonal matrices; there are $N(N-1)$ of them. The corresponding root vector is $E_{jk}$. Together with $N-1$ Cartan generators, they give $N^2-1$ basis elements. The simple roots can be chosen as ${\alpha }_{i,i+1}$, whose evaluation vectors are the rows of the type-$A_{N-1}$ Cartan matrix, with $2$ on the diagonal and $-1$ on adjacent entries. These vectors are evaluations on $H_i$, not coordinates in an orthonormal realization of the root system.

To express every bracket strictly in the chosen basis, introduce the abbreviationThen all pairs are covered byHere both input root vectors have distinct row and column indices. The first case is the only one producing diagonal matrix units, and the displayed sum of $H_p$ resolves them completely into the chosen Cartan basis. Reversing the order gives the negative bracket. This also shows explicitly that the two nonzero non-Cartan cases have structure constants $+1$ and $-1$, and verifies the required root-addition rule.

The triple bond in the original Dynkin diagram gives the Cartan integerswhere $\alpha$ is the long root and $\beta$ the short root. Their product is $4{\cos }^2\theta =3$, and the inner product of distinct simple roots is nonpositive. The ratio of the two integers gives the squared-length ratio. ThereforeIt is convenient to normalize $(\alpha ,\alpha )=6$, $(\beta ,\beta )=2$ and $(\alpha ,\beta )=-3$. Scaling the inner product does not affect the root system or the fundamental-weight relations.

For nonproportional roots $\gamma ,\delta$, the root-string theorem states that the root string is consecutive:The endpoints are maximal, and reflection in $\gamma$ reverses the string. The Cartan integer determines $p-q$, not in general the total $p+q+1$ by itself. This result follows by restricting the Adjoint representation to the sl2 subalgebra associated with a root. If the roots are distinct simple roots, $\delta -\gamma$ cannot be a root: its simple-root coefficients have opposite signs. Thus $p=0$ andHere length means number of roots; the number of intervals between them is one less. Distinctness matters. If $\gamma =\delta$, a reduced root system gives the set $\{\gamma ,-\gamma \}$, with a missing zero between them, so the consecutive-string theorem and the displayed simple-root formula do not apply.

In the G2 root system, the initial strings areFor $\delta =\alpha +3\beta$, $⟨\delta ,{\alpha }^{\vee }⟩=-1$. Since $\delta -\alpha =3\beta$ is not a root in a reduced root system, $p=0$ and $q=1$: this generates $2\alpha +3\beta$. The remaining strings explain why the construction stops. The $\alpha$-strings through $\beta$ and $\alpha +\beta$ are the same two-element string; the one through $\alpha +2\beta$ is a singleton since subtracting $\alpha$ gives $2\beta$, and its Cartan integer is zero; the one through $2\alpha +3\beta$ is the string $\{\alpha +3\beta ,2\alpha +3\beta \}$. The $\beta$-strings through $\alpha$, $\alpha +\beta$, $\alpha +2\beta$ and $\alpha +3\beta$ are the initial four-element string. Finally, $2\alpha +3\beta$ is orthogonal to $\beta$; its $\beta$-string is a singleton because $2\alpha +2\beta =2(\alpha +\beta )$ is not a root. Apply the same reasoning to negatives. Using the permitted completeness of this procedure givesThe short positive roots are $\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +2\beta$, of squared length two; the other three are long, of squared length six. Each root space is one-dimensional and the Cartan subalgebra has dimension two, soHere the dimension refers to the Lie algebra, with one Cartan generator per rank, not just the number of roots.

Write a prospective weight as $w=a\alpha +b\beta$. The pairings with simple coroots areThe fundamental weights are dual to those coroots. Solving the two linear systems gives, in the long-root-first numbering of this paper,The representation with Dynkin labels $(0,1)$ has highest weight $\lambda ={\omega }_2$, a short root. Numbering the short root first, as some references do, would call this the $(1,0)$ representation instead; the representation itself is unchanged.

The weight set of a finite-dimensional irreducible highest-weight representation is invariant under the Weyl group and lies in the convex hull of the orbit of its highest weight. All weights also differ from the highest weight by an element of the root lattice. The orbit of $\lambda$ comprises the six short roots, so all six are weights. The lowering operators give the chainIn particular zero occurs: at weight $\beta$, its pairing with ${\beta }^{\vee }$ is two, so the lowering operator is nonzero by the finite-dimensional sl2 Lie algebra representation theory. The $\beta$-string through it is the usual three-weight string $\beta ,0,-\beta$; higher weight $2\beta$ would lie outside the highest-weight convex hull.

There can be no further weights. Every point of that convex hull has squared norm at most $\Vert \lambda {\Vert }^2=2$, while a root-lattice point hasThe integer solutions of the bound $\Vert w{\Vert }^2\le 2$ are precisely zero and the six short roots: $a=0$ gives $b=-1,0,1$; $a=1$ gives $b=1,2$; and $a=-1$ gives $b=-1,-2$. ThusThe final dimension uses the stipulated nondegeneracy of the weights. It also agrees with the Weyl dimension formula without that stipulation. The zero weight is not in the Weyl orbit of the nonzero weights, so this is not a minuscule representation.

In the diagram above, a coordinate label $(a,b)$ means $a\alpha +b\beta$. The left panel contains all twelve roots of a root system; the right panel contains the six short-root weights and the zero weight. The long-root-first convention is the same as in the calculations.

Use the real Lie-algebra convention of the question, with a gauge covariant derivative $D_{\mu }={\partial }_{\mu }+A_{\mu }$. The gauge field strength is its curvature:Write $a_{\mu }={\delta }_X{A}_{\mu }/ϵ=-{\partial }_{\mu }X+[X,A_{\mu }]$. To first order in $ϵ$,Substitute $a_{\mu }$. The mixed second derivatives of $X$ cancel. The terms containing first derivatives of $X$ cancel in pairs. The remaining terms areThe Jacobi identity combines the last two into $[X,[A_{\mu },A_{\nu }]]$. ConsequentlyThe transformation is homogeneous even though the connection transformation contains an inhomogeneous derivative term.

For a finite-dimensional Lie algebra, define its Adjoint representation by ${\mathrm{ad}}_X(Y)=[X,Y]$ and its Killing form byIt is a symmetric bilinear form by cyclicity of the trace. The Jacobi identity gives ${\mathrm{ad}}_{[Z,X]}=[{\mathrm{ad}}_Z,{\mathrm{ad}}_X]$. Set $A={\mathrm{ad}}_Z$, $B={\mathrm{ad}}_X$, $C={\mathrm{ad}}_Y$. ThenThis proves the invariant bilinear form on a Lie algebra property, without assuming simplicity or nondegeneracy.

For definiteness use the Minkowski metric $\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ and take a real compact semisimple Lie algebra as the gauge algebra. Its positive internal metric is $B=-\kappa$. A Killing-form Yang-Mills Lagrangian with the coupling absorbed into the connection isThe spacetime metric is unchanged by internal gauge transformations. HenceThus gauge invariance follows directly from invariance of the Killing form. Other overall conventions are possible, but the energy sign must be checked rather than inferred from a prefactor in isolation.

For physical kinetic terms the internal form must be real, nondegenerate and positive definite after choosing the overall sign. If ${\mathcal{E}}_i=F_{0i}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_i=\frac{1}{2}{ϵ}_{ijk}{F}_{jk}$, the above convention has Lagrangian $[B({\mathcal{E}}_i,{\mathcal{E}}_i)-B({\mathcal{B}}_i,{\mathcal{B}}_i)]/(2g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2)$ and physical energy densityThe canonical Hamiltonian density also contains the nondynamical multiplier and a spatial divergence. With ${\Pi }_i={\mathcal{E}}_i/g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2$ and $D_i{\Pi }_i={\partial }_i{\Pi }_i+[A_i,{\Pi }_i]$, integration by parts using the invariant bilinear form on a Lie algebra givesThe Gauss law constraint in gauge theory sets $D_i{\Pi }_i=0$. If the boundary flux vanishes, or the appropriate boundary contribution is included, the integrated physical Hamiltonian is the positive energy displayed above.

An indefinite internal form would give gauge-field polarizations with opposite kinetic signs. A degenerate form would fail to supply a kinetic term for some directions. The compactness criterion from the Killing form says that negative-definiteness of the Killing form of a real finite-dimensional algebra is equivalent to compact semisimplicity; thus the pure Killing-form construction selects compact semisimple real forms. One cannot use a complex-bilinear Killing form on arbitrary complex field components as if it were a positive Hermitian metric.

This does not prohibit Abelian gauge theories. A compact Abelian factor has zero Killing form, so it needs a separately chosen positive invariant bilinear form on a Lie algebra, rather than the Killing form. More generally an algebra with a positive invariant metric on a Lie algebra is compact reductive, namely a direct sum of a compact semisimple algebra and an Abelian center. A noncompact group can also share the same compact Lie algebra through global covering choices in an Abelian factor; positivity is a statement about the algebra and internal metric, not by itself a classification of global gauge-group topology. Quantum matter anomalies and global restrictions would require additional input; no matter content is specified here.

For the finite matrix transformation, let $g(x)\in SU(N)$ and regard $g$ as a multiplication operator. The identity ${\partial }_{\mu }{g}^{-1}=-g^{-1}({\partial }_{\mu }g)g^{-1}$ givesTaking commutators of these differential operators cancels the adjacent multiplication operators $g^{-1}g$, yieldingThis argument keeps the derivatives acting on test fields and avoids treating $D_{\mu }$ as just a matrix.

There is a normalization issue in the printed last paragraph. The standard Killing form defined through the adjoint trace on $\mathfrak{su}(N)$ isnot simply $\mathrm{tr}(XY)$. For example, with $N=2$ and $X=Y=-i{\sigma }_3/2$, the defining trace is $-1/2$, whereas the adjoint trace is $-2$. The printed trace formula can be used as a rescaled invariant form, with the constant absorbed into the gauge coupling; it has exactly the invariance needed here. For either normalization,by cyclicity. This proves finite Yang-Mills gauge transformation invariance, with the healthy sign chosen for anti-Hermitian gauge fields. The normalization discrepancy is not a failure of gauge invariance.

Finally let $g(x)=e^{ϵX(x)}=I+ϵX(x)+O({ϵ}^2)$. Since $X\in \mathfrak{su}(N)$ is traceless and skew-Hermitian, this exponential lies in $SU(N)$. Expanding the finite formula givesThus the stated infinitesimal transformation is the derivative of the finite transformation at the identity. It describes transformations in the identity component; arbitrary global or large gauge transformations need not be generated by one globally defined infinitesimal parameter.