re-haar-measure-lorentz-killing-form

replied on Twitter with

Do you have a nice (almost)global coordinate chart for SL(2,C)? [Which, on topological grounds, can’t really cover all of SL(2,C)]

Kartik Prabhu

replied on Twitter with

Yes, pick your favourite coordinates on R3 (or H3) and S3. I really don’t care which ones you pick, I’d like one example expression.

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

I haven’t thought about this. I can tell you formulas for the Haar measure on S^3 and formulas for the Lorentz-invariant measure on H^3 in terms of coordinate. But I don’t know the function F you mentioned.

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

This paper claims to have a concrete formula for Haar measure on SL(2,C), in section 3: www-users.cse.umn.edu/~garrett/m/v/S… I got this by typing “Haar measure on sl(2,C)” into Google.

Kartik Prabhu

replied on Twitter with

That’s as far as I got too! I’ll post a short thread explaining why this is useful for physics later this evening.

Leo C. Stein 🦁

replied on Twitter with

Should I worry about the fact that the exponential map from the Lie algebra sl(2,c) is not onto SL(2,C)?

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

Are you worried that the paper is wrong? I haven’t completely understood it but the author looks like they know what they’re doing.

Kartik Prabhu

replied on Twitter with

No need to worry about that. The centre is a Z2 i.e. it is the double cover-ness. If you only look at the identity component you get usual Lorentz (no double cover).

Leo C. Stein 🦁

replied on Twitter with

I agree that they look like they know what they’re doing! My instinct was to construct a map from e->g, and use the differential of the map to translate the measure from T_e to T_g. And I thought that was what the author was doing, too. Except then I remembered that exp is not

Leo C. Stein 🦁

replied on Twitter with

onto, so I figured I must have a hole in my thinking… or that it doesn’t matter?

Leo C. Stein 🦁

replied on Twitter with

Anyway, what I was just trying to get at the fact that constructing a top form at the identity is easy; translating it to the rest of G is however not clear in my mind.

Kartik Prabhu

replied on Twitter with

I have looked at that paper/notes before, but I am not sure I understand it. If you look at the last formula in section 1.3 on pg. 3, the k and k’ are in SU(2) and the r is a real radial coordinate. So that measure looks like it is 7-dimensional which seems wrong.

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

Ugh! They use the Cartan decomposition G = KAK where A is a maximal abelian subgroup of G. For G = SL(2,C) you can take A to be diagonal matrices with det = 1, and that’s a 2d Lie group, but their formula for it in Section 1.1 makes it look 1d. “r” should really be complex!!!

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

They are trying to get the volume form by writing every element of G as exp(k) exp(a) exp(k’) where k,k’ are in the Lie algebra of a maximal compact subgroup and a is in the Lie algebra of a maximal abelian subgroup. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartan_de…

John Carlos Baez

replied on Twitter with

This looks like an interesting strategy but I don’t understand it well enough to pass judgement in a definitive way without some real work… and they seem to have screwed up in claiming the maximal abelian of G = SL(2,C) is *real* diagonal matrices!

Replies

Likes