\(SO(3)\) and \(SU(2)\)

 The group \(SO(3)\) consists of rotations of the 3D space. It can be defined in several ways, but ultimately we have a linear representation
\[
SO(3) \longmapsto GL(\mathbb{R}^3)
\]

This way, \(SO(3)\) corresponds to orthogonal matrices with determinant equal to 1.

The Lie algebra \(so(3)\) corresponds, with this representation, to antisymmetryc matrices
\[
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -c & b \\
c & 0 & -a \\
-b & a & 0
\end{array}\right] \leftrightarrow(a, b, c) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}
\]
that has a basis

\[
\hat{\mathbf{x}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad \hat{\mathbf{y}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad \hat{\mathbf{z}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right]
\]


On the other hand, we have the group \(SU(2)\), of unitary 2x2 complex matrices with determinant equal to 1. This definition is, in fact, a complex linear representation
\[
SU(2)\longmapsto GL(\mathbb{C}^2)
\]

The Lie algebra \(su(2)\) consists of anti-hermitean matrices with null trace, and has a basis
\[
e_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & i \\
i & 0
\end{array}\right]; \,\,\, e_2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right];\,\,\, e_3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
i & 0 \\
0 & -i
\end{array}\right]
\]

The Lie algebras \(so(3)\) and \(su(2)\) not only have the same dimension, but they are isomorphic: we can map
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{x}\mapsto \frac{1}{2}e_1\\
\hat{y}\mapsto \frac{1}{2}e_2\\
\hat{z}\mapsto \frac{1}{2}e_3\\
\end{array}
\]
and conserve the commutation relations



Since \(SO(3)\) and \(SU(2)\) have the same Lie algebra, they have the same universal covering. And since \(SU(2)\) is simply connected (because it is diffeomorphic to \(S^3\), see this answer), it is the universal covering group of \(SO(3)\).


But we can forget about these sophisticated Lie theory tools, and try to see more directly the relationship between \(SU(2)\) and \(SO(3)\).The idea follows this way:

1. \(SO(3)\) can be seen like rotations of a sphere \(S^2\).Therefore, they can be seen like some kind of transformations of the extended complex plane \(\bar{\mathbb{C}}\), via stereographic projection \(S:S^2\mapsto\bar{\mathbb{C}}\). They constitute a subgroup of Moebius transformations \(\mathcal{M}\), since they are conformal maps (rotations are conformal, and stereographic projection is).




2.But \(\mathcal{M}\) is, in fact, the same as the group \(\mathbb{P}GL(2,\mathbb{C})=GL(2,\mathbb{C})/\{\lambda I\}\) acting over \(\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^1\). This identification comes this way: the Moebius transformation
\[
z\mapsto\frac{a z+b}{c z+d}
\]
with \(ad-bc\neq 0\) corresponds to
\[
\left[\left(\begin{array}{ll}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{array}\right)\right] \in GL(2,\mathbb{C})/\{\lambda I\}
\]
with nonzero determinant.

In other words, the complex vector space \(\mathbb{C}^2\) gives rise to the complex projective line (aka the Riemann sphere). The linear transformations of \(\mathbb{C}^2\) give rise to Moebius transformations.
But several linear transformations give rise to the same Moebius transformation, so we take equivalence classes. Even if we restrict to the singular matrices with unit determinant, we have a 2-1 relation. That is, we have a 2-1 surjection from \(SL(2,\mathbb{C})\) to the group of Moebius, \(\mathcal{M}\). That is,
\[
\mathcal{M}\equiv GL(2,\mathbb{C})/\{\lambda I\} \equiv SL(2,\mathbb{C})/\{\pm I\}
\]
so we can express the Moebius transformation (abusing of notation) by
\[
\pm \left(\begin{array}{ll}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{array}\right)
\]
with \(ad-bc=1\).


3. To see which Moebius transformations correspond to which rotations, let's study two of them: rotation along the \(z\)-axis and angle \(\phi\),
\[
R_z^{\phi}\equiv \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
x^{\prime}=x \cos \phi-y \sin \phi \\
y^{\prime}=x \sin \phi+y \cos \phi \\
z^{\prime}=z
\end{array}\right.
\]
and rotation along the \(x\)-axis and angle \(\theta\),

\[
R_x^{\theta}\equiv \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
x^{\prime}=x \\
y^{\prime}=y \cos \theta-z \sin \theta \\
z^{\prime}=y \sin \theta+z \cos \theta
\end{array}\right.
\]

Pure algebraic manipulations lead us to the Moebius transformations:

\[
r_z^{\phi}=SR_z^{\phi}S^{-1}\equiv\zeta\mapsto \frac{e^{\frac{i \phi}{2}} \zeta+0}{0 \zeta+e^{-\frac{i \phi}{2}}}
\]
and
\[
r_x^{\theta}=SR_x^{\theta}S^{-1}\equiv\zeta\mapsto \frac{\cos \frac{\theta}{2} \zeta+i \sin \frac{\theta}{2}}{i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} \zeta+\cos \frac{\theta}{2}}
\]
so, in \(SL(2,\mathbb{C})/ \{\pm I\}\)
\[
r_z^{\phi}=\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i \frac{\phi}{2}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i \frac{\phi}{2}}
\end{array}\right)
\]
\[
r_x^{\theta}=\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \frac{\theta}{2} & i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} \\
i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} & \cos \frac{\theta}{2}
\end{array}\right)
\]



4. Now, a general rotation \(R\) is a composition of the two above (see entry about Euler angles), so the same is true for the associated Moebius transformation.

So if we start with the rotation of Euler angles \(\phi, \theta, \psi\):
\[
R=R_{\phi, \theta, \psi}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi & -\sin \phi & 0 \\
\sin \phi & \cos \phi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
0 & \sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \psi & -\sin \psi & 0 \\
\sin \psi & \cos \psi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)=
\]

\[
=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \phi \cos \psi-\cos \theta \sin \phi \sin \psi & -\cos \phi \sin \psi-\cos \theta \sin \phi \cos \psi & \sin \phi \sin \theta \\
\sin \phi \cos \psi+\cos \theta \cos \phi \sin \psi & -\sin \phi \sin \psi+\cos \theta \cos \phi \cos \psi & -\cos \phi \sin \theta \\
\sin \psi \sin \theta & \cos \psi \sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}\right)
\]

we get
\[
r_{\phi, \theta, \psi}=\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i \frac{\phi}{2}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i \frac{\phi}{2}}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \frac{\theta}{2} & i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} \\
i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} & \cos \frac{\theta}{2}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i \frac{\psi}{2}} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i \frac{\psi}{2}}
\end{array}\right)
\]

\[
=\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \frac{\theta}{2} e^{i \frac{\phi+\psi}{2}} & i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} e^{i \frac{\phi-\psi}{2}} \\
i \sin \frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i \frac{\phi-\psi}{2}} & \cos \frac{\theta}{2} e^{-i \frac{\phi+\psi}{2}}
\end{array}\right)
\]
where the determinant is obviously 1.


5. You can check that all the matrices like above are of the form
\[
\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & \beta \\
-\bar{\beta} & \bar{\alpha}
\end{array}\right)
\]
with \(|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1\), that is, it belong to \(SU(2)/\{\pm I\}\). But the converse is also true. Every such pair of matrices in \(SU(2)\) comes from a Moebius transformation corresponding to a rotation. To see that, we only have to solve
\[
\begin{aligned}
\cos \frac{\theta}{2} &=|\alpha|, \quad \sin \frac{\theta}{2}=|\beta|, \quad(0 \leq \theta \leq \pi) \\
\frac{\phi+\psi}{2} &=\arg \alpha, \quad \frac{\psi-\phi}{2}=\arg \beta
\end{aligned}
\]
to find the Euler angles.

We can even express the 3x3 rotation matrix in function of the given complexes numbers:
\[
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha^{2}-\beta^{2}+\overline{\alpha^{2}}-\overline{\beta^{2}}\right) & \frac{i}{2}\left(-\alpha^{2}-\beta^{2}+\overline{\alpha^{2}}+\overline{\beta^{2}}\right) & -\alpha \beta-\bar{\alpha} \bar{\beta} \\
\frac{i}{2}\left(\alpha^{2}-\beta^{2}-\overline{\alpha^{2}}+\overline{\beta^{2}}\right) & \frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}+\overline{\alpha^{2}}+\overline{\beta^{2}}\right) & -i(+\alpha \beta-\bar{\alpha} \bar{\beta}) \\
\alpha \bar{\beta}+\bar{\alpha} \beta & i(-\alpha \bar{\beta}+\bar{\alpha} \beta) & \alpha \bar{\alpha}-\beta \bar{\beta}
\end{array}\right)
\]


6. So we have a surjective 2-1 group homomorphism
\[
SU(2) \longmapsto SO(3)
\]
with kernel \(\{\pm I\}\). I.e., \(SU(2)\) is a double cover of \(SO(3)\).




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

About the definition of angle, from Geometric Algebra

Image
In GA, bivectors represent  2-dimensional directions. Any simple bivector can be written as \[ \theta e_1e_2 \] with \(\theta \in \mathbb{R}\) and \(\{e_i\}\) unitary and orthogonal vectors. The unitary vectors specify the 2- direction itself, and \(\theta\) is the size (analogous to the length of a vector, that is a 1-dimensional direction). Given two vectors \(a\) and \(b\) (that we take to be unitary, wlog) we say that the simple bivector \(\theta e_1e_2\) is the angle formed by them if \[ ab=e^{\theta e_1 e_2} \] where we take as a definition \[ e^A=1+A+A^2 /2+\cdots=\lim_N (1+\frac{A}{N})^N \] Real analysis let us assure that this expression is well defined when \(A\) is a 2-blade. In fact, since \(e_1e_2e_1e_2=-1\), we can write \[ e^{\theta e_1 e_2}=cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta) \] where \(cos\) and \(sin\) are defined by their power series. Oserve that \(b=a e^{\theta e_1 e_2}\) and then \[ b=a(cos(\theta)+e_1 e_2sin(\theta))=a\cdot cos(\theta)+ ae_1e_2 \cdot sin(\theta) \]
Read more

Spherical, hyperbolic and parabolic geometry

Image
Let's consider the space \(\mathbb{M}^4\), that is, the manifold \(\mathbb{R}^4\) with coordinates \((x,y,z,t)\) but with the pseudo-Riemannian metric given in each tangent space by \[ ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-dt^2. \] This metric is left invariant by the group \(O(3,1)\) when acting on \(\mathbb{M}^4\). It also leaves invariant the cone \[ t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=0 \] so is logical that we pay attention to it. Now, following TRTR from Penrose page 423, we can consider the family of hyperplanes inside \(\mathbb{M}^4\) given by \[ z+t+\lambda(t-z)=2 \] intersecting our cone in different 2-dimensional submanifolds \(P_{\lambda}\) of \(\mathbb{M}^4\). Here we have a picture from that book, where we consider only \((x,z,t)\) for purposes of drawability. If we analyse the case \(\lambda=0\), we observe that we obtain the submanifold \(P_0\), \(E\) in the picture with a shape of a parabola, given by the embedding \begin{align*}   \phi \colon \mathbb{R}^2 &\longrightarrow \mathbb{M}^4\\   (u_1,u_2
Read more

General covariance and contravariance (new version)

Image
Suppose that a group \(G\) acts transitively on a space \(X\). A transformation \(T\in G\) can be thought of indistinctly as either "moving" the objects in \(X\) or as a change of "point of view" in the following way: Suppose we have a comfortable, mathematically speaking, space with a distinguished point, \((S,s_0)\). We are going to think of \((\mathbb Z,0)\), for easy. Suppose also a bijection \(b_1:S\to X\) (in the line of reasoning of the notes homogeneous space#Intuitive approach and basis and change of basis ). It is better to think in terms of \(b_1^{-1}\). That is, for every \(x\in X\) we have a kind of "coordinates" \(s\) for \(x\), given by \(s=b_1^{-1}(x)\in S\). Think, for example, of a vector space \(V\) and the isomorphism \(b_1:\mathbb R^2 \to V\) (fixing a basis in \(V\)). We can think of this as our initial point of view , and we can imagine as if we were located at \(x_0=b_1(0)\in X\) with some devices to take measurements that let u
Read more