2

I considered a Ring-like one dimensional geometry. In this, if we fix an origin (at some point on the circumference), we can think of set of all displacements along the circumference to form a vector space. Now one vector can be denoted by (for some reasons that will become clear), $$ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x \\ 1 \end{array} \right) $$ Further one can obtain any other vector in the space by translating the vector, say $ x_0 \rightarrow x_0+a $. We can use the linear transformation : $$ T(a) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & a \\ 0 & 0\end{array} \right) $$ such that $$ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x + a \\ 1 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x \\ 1 \end{array} \right)+ T(a)\left( \begin{array}{ccc} x \\ 1 \end{array} \right) $$ Now the set of all such linear transformations will form a group.

Most important part of this transformation is that, if the circumference of the ring is some $L$, then the transformation $T(nL)$ where $ n \in \mathbb Z $ should not change the vector. Mathematically, $$ T(nL) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) $$

Now my question is, with these definitions is the group of Translations a Compact one ? And if it is the generator of the translations will have some properties like angular momenta (although this is a generator of translations) ?

PS : I hope I am not talking about rotations. I am just talking translations along the circumference of the circle.

user35952
  • 2,965
  • 1
    This is a perfectly legitimate technical physics question question. What is the point of the close vote? I have to say that it is rather worrysome that more and more such and similar legitimate questions of people who are seriously interested in studying physics at a technical level seem to be no longer welcome here ... – Dilaton Feb 07 '14 at 18:06
  • Related by OP: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/667502/ – Kyle Kanos Feb 07 '14 at 18:12
  • 3
    @Dilaton The close vote was a migrate vote (to math.SE); I re-read the question and found it also asks about angular momentum towards the end. Close vote retracted (even though I'm not entirely sure if it should be considered primarily a math question or not). – joshphysics Feb 07 '14 at 18:19
  • @joshphysics the other question Kyle Kanos linked too should not have been migrated either. 3 community members indeed took it out of the close queue by saying leave open, but then it got migrated by a mod anyway. As I said to Kyle Kanos, imho it is, as in this and the other case not always possible to draw a clear line because physics is written in the language of math, explaining consevation laws needs group theory for example, and the more advanced/theoretical the topic the more math is needed to technically talk about it. I would really like to see some more tolerance towards rather – Dilaton Feb 07 '14 at 18:28
  • 1
    @Dilaton As someone who answered that other question; I probably agree that it should have stayed here. – joshphysics Feb 07 '14 at 18:30
  • mathy questions on Physics SE in favor of people who are interested in studying physics at a serious technical level. I just remember the in physics much more relevant 1+1+1 = -1/2 question, even Lubos Motl who is a well known expert on the topic said it should have stayed here. On Math SE, such too physicsy questions tumbleweed in the best case, as people there are not too interested in physics related things, apart from often having a different than physicists way of looking at these things. – Dilaton Feb 07 '14 at 18:34

1 Answers1

2

First of all I try to restate your question into a more clear form.

Consider $\mathbb R$ equipped with the equivalence relation:

$x \sim y$ if and only if $x-y= 2k\pi$ with $k \in \mathbb Z$.

The space ${\mathbb R}/ \sim$ of equivalence classes $[x]$ is $\mathbb S^1$ also as a topological space using the quotient topology.

Next consider the standard actions of the Lie group of translations $\mathbb R$ on the real line $\mathbb R$: $$T(a)x:=x+a\quad \forall x,a \in \mathbb R\:,$$

and define the representation of the translation group on $\mathbb S^1$ as $$T′(a)[x]:=[T(a)x]\:\forall x,a \in \mathbb R\:. \quad (1)$$

The map $\mathbb R\ni a \mapsto T′(a)$ is in fact a representation of the translation group on $\mathbb S^1$ in terms of isometries of the circle (when equipped with the standard metric). In particular, one has $T'(0)= id$ and $T'(a)T'(b)= T'(a+b)$.

However all that has nothing to do with compactness (false!) of the translation group, even if the outlined procedure gives rise to a representation of that (non-compact) Lie group on a compact manifold, in terms of isometries of that manifold.

Let us eventually come to the relation with the rotations group of $\mathbb R^2$: $SO(2) \equiv U(1)$.

As $\mathbb R$ is the universal covering of $U(1)$, with covering (surjective Lie group) homomorphism: $$\pi : \mathbb R^1 \ni a \mapsto e^{ia} \in U(1)\:,\qquad (2) $$ every representation of the group of $\mathbb R^2$ rotations $U(1)$ is also a representation of the group of translations $\mathbb R$.

Identifying $\mathbb S^1$ with $U(1)$ in the standard way, the natural action (representation) of $U(1)$ on the circle is trivially

$$R(e^{ia}) e^{ix} = e^{i(a+x)} \qquad (3)$$

where the first $e^{ia}$ is viewed as an element of the group $U(1)\equiv SO(2)$ and the other two are viewed as elements of the circle $U(1) \equiv \mathbb S^1$.

The interplay of $T', R$ and $\pi$, as one easily proves is: $$R(\pi(a))= T'(a)\quad \forall a \in \mathbb R\:.\qquad (4)$$

This is in agreement with the remark above that reps of $SO(2)$ are also reps of $\mathbb R$.

Thus, as a matter of fact, it is not possible to distinguish between the action of $\mathbb R$ and that of $SO(2)$ on the circle $\mathbb S^1$, though they are different groups and only the latter is compact (and in a certain way related with the component of angular momentum orthogonal to $\mathbb R^2$.)

  • I really appreciate your answer. But I am just beginning to learn Lie Algebra (and I am student of Physics). Although I understand the crux of your answer I am at loss to understand the mathematical details. – user35952 Feb 08 '14 at 14:33
  • Also I am interested in understanding how to find the compactness of a Group – user35952 Feb 08 '14 at 14:34
  • Hi, if you are just beginning to learn these things, maybe your question is too complicated, as it needs a technical answer as you saw. however I am a physicist too (including my PhD). Regarding compactness the story is easy. Almost all interesting groups in theoretical physics are groups of matrices, so they are subsets of $\mathbb R^{n^2}$ with $n$ large enough. The topology and the differentiable structure are those induced by $\mathbb R^{n^2}$. As in $\mathbb R^N$ compacts sets are all of closed bounded sets, you should only check these two conditions. – Valter Moretti Feb 08 '14 at 17:25
  • Oh ok !! Thanks, but I just made up the question in curiosity. Thinking further, shouldn't there be a similar connection to $SO(3)$ and $U(2)$ (so is that what gives us these spin-half particles. – user35952 Feb 08 '14 at 17:32
  • So, for instance $U(n)$ can be seen as a subset of $\mathbb R^{(2n)^2}$. It is a closed subset of that space because it includes its limit points (if $A_kA_k^\dagger =I$ and $A_k \to A$ in $\mathbb R^{(2n)^2}$ then $AA^\dagger =I$). It is also compact because is bounded: If $U \in U(n)$ then $|U_{rs}|^2 \leq \sum_{i} ( \sum_{j}U_{ij}U_{ij}^*) = \sum_{i} \delta_{ii} = n$. – Valter Moretti Feb 08 '14 at 17:37
  • Concerning $SO(3)$ and $U(2)$, yes there is the connection you think and it leads to the two types of representations of the spin. See my (sorry, quite technical) answer to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/96569/double-connectivity-of-so3-group-manifold/97877#97877 – Valter Moretti Feb 08 '14 at 17:40
  • Thanks !! any suggestions of learning Lie Groups and Algebra with a slight mathematical inclination. – user35952 Feb 08 '14 at 17:46
  • Can I generalise by considering a hypersphere in N-dimensions, can there be connection between the groups U(N) and SO(N+1). If not, what is the limit of N (or condition) that this breaks down ? – user35952 Feb 12 '14 at 17:24
  • A necessary condition is that the two groups have same dimension as real manifolds (i.e. same dimension of the respective Lie algebras). $SU(N)$ is a Lie group with real dimension $N^2-1$, $SO(N+1)$ is a Lie group with real dimension $((N+1)^2-(N+1))/2$. They match for $N=2$ only. In fact $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$ are locally identical. – Valter Moretti Feb 12 '14 at 18:43
  • Concerning U(N) and SO(N+1) instead, the Lie algebra of U(N) has dimension $N^2$. So they match for $N=1$ only. In fact $SO(2)$ and $U(1)$ are isomorphic. – Valter Moretti Feb 12 '14 at 18:47