Simple lie algebra that holds just four generators?

AI Thread Summary
Weinberg's QFT text asserts that no simple Lie algebra exists with just four generators, prompting discussion on how to approach this assertion. The conversation highlights that a four-dimensional Lie algebra must either be solvable or possess a one-dimensional radical, indicating it cannot be simple. Participants suggest using the structure of simple Lie algebras, specifically referencing the inclusion of a copy of sl(2), to demonstrate that such algebras contain a one-dimensional ideal. The conclusion drawn is that every four-dimensional Lie algebra must either be solvable or have a non-trivial center, reinforcing the impossibility of a simple four-generator Lie algebra. This analysis provides a pathway for understanding the limitations of dimensionality in Lie algebras.
PhysSub
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Show that there is no simple lie algebra with just four generators.
Relevant Equations
bracket product
I’m reading Weinberg’s QFT books, and stacking how to solve problem 15.4.
Weinberg says there is no simple lie algebra with just four generators, but I have no idea how to approach this problem. If the number of generators are only one or two, it can easy to say there is not such a simple lie algebra because we can’t take the relevant structure constant. I tried to apply the same discussion to four or five generators, but I think it does not work.
Does anyone know more about this problem? We would appreciate any references or tips.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The solution to this question strongly depends on which results you want to use. E.g. the smallest simple Lie algebra is three-dimensional. Then every Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}## can be written as the semidirect product of a semisimple subalgebra ##\mathfrak{h}\leq \mathfrak{g}## and its radical ##\mathfrak{R}\trianglelefteq \mathfrak{g}## which is a solvable ideal, i.e.
$$
\mathfrak{g}= \mathfrak{h} \ltimes \mathfrak{R}
$$
A four-dimensional Lie algebra is therefore solvable or has a one-dimensional radical. In both cases, there is a one-dimensional ideal. That is what we know because the result is true. We could use this for an indirect proof: Given a four-dimensional Lie algebra ##\mathfrak{g}##. If we now show that it contains a one-dimensional ideal (and we already know that there is one), then it cannot be simple.

Another idea is: If ##\mathfrak{g}## is a four-dimensional simple Lie algebra, then it contains a copy of ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)## as subalgebra and we can write ##\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}(2) + \mathbb{F}\cdot Z## as a sum of vectorspaces. Both are already subalgebras. If ##[\mathfrak{sl}(2),Z]=0## then ##Z\in \mathfrak{Z(g)}## is a central element and we are done. So all we have to do is to show that ##Z## can be chosen such that ##\mathbb{F}Z## is a one-dimensional ##\mathfrak{g}-##module, an ideal. (In this case it will be the radical and ##\mathfrak{g}## could not be simple.) I guess that ##[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathfrak{g}## is helpful here.

In short: We have to show that every four-dimensional Lie algebra is either solvable or has a one-dimensional center.
 
I think this is a plan:

Let ##\mathfrak{g}## be simple and four-dimensional. Then ##\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z## as a sum of subalgebras. Thus
$$
\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z=\mathfrak{g}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=[\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z,\mathfrak{sl}(2)\oplus \mathbb{F}Z=[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathfrak{sl}(2)]+[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]=\mathfrak{sl}(2)+[\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]
$$
and ##Z## can be chosen such that ##Z\in [\mathfrak{sl}(2),\mathbb{F}Z]##. Therefore ##\mathbb{F}Z## is a one-dimensional ##\mathfrak{sl}(2)##-module, i.e. a one-dimensional ideal of ##\mathfrak{g}##, which is impossible if ##\mathfrak{g}## is simple.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top