Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:42:35.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the unitary irreducible representations of the universal covering group of the 3 + 2 deSitter group†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Joachim B. Ehrman
Joachim B. Ehrman
Affiliation:
Nucleonics Division U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unitary irreducible representations on a Hilbert space of the universal covering group G of the 3 + 2 deSitter group are determined, using Harish-Chandra's theory of semi-simple Lie groups. These irreducible representations of G are reduced out with respect to representations of the universal covering group K of the direct product R2 × R3 of a two-dimensional and a three-dimensional rotation group. It is convenient to distinguish between two types of irreducible representations of G, called ‘irreducible case’ and ‘reducible case’ representations. The former are more numerous in a certain sense, while the latter may be regarded as special cases.

Let (j, µ) be an irreducible unitary representation of K, where j denotes the (ray) representation of R3 involved (2j is a non-negative integer) and µ that of R2 (µ is a real number). Then in an ‘irreducible case’ representation of G, each (j, µ) that occurs at all occurs with multiplicity j + ½ if 2j is odd, or j + ½ ± ½ if 2j is even. In a ‘reducible case’ representation of G, the multiplicity of the (j, µ)'s is smaller, and may even be 1 for all (j, µ)'s which occur. (The analogous problem for the 4 + 1 deSitter group has been solved by L. H. Thomas by reducing out the irreducible representations of the whole group with respect to those of the four-dimensional rotation group R4. However, each irreducible representation of the 4 + 1 deSitter group contains any irreducible representation of R4 at most once, so that the more general Harish-Chandra theory is not then needed to carry out the classification.)

In an irreducible representation of G, only those irreducible representations (j, µ) of K may occur for which the fractional part of µ is fixed throughout the representation of G. This fractional part of µ helps to characterize the representations of G, as do the two polynomials in the infinitesimal elements, one of degree 2 and the other of degree 4, which generate all those polynomials which have the property of commuting with all members of the Lie algebra of G.

Representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group may be obtained from representations of G by the process of contraction, as defined by Inonu and Wigner, just as representations of the former group may in turn be contracted to obtain representations of the Galilei group.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 1957 , pp. 290 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Thomas, L. H.Ann. Math., Princeton, 42 (1941), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Wigner, E. P.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 36 (1950), 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Wigner, E. P.Ann. Math., Princeton, 40 (1939), 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Wigner, E. P.Z. Phys. 124 (1947), 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Bargmannn, V. and Wigner, E. P.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 34 (1948), 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Bargmann, V.Ann. Math., Princeton, 59 (1954), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Harish-Chandra, , Ann. Math., Princeton, 50 (1949), 900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Newton, T. D. Thesis (Princeton, 1949).Google Scholar
(9)Newton, T. D.Ann. Math., Princeton, 51 (1950), 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Pais, A.Physica, 19 (1953), 869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Pais, A.Progr. Theor. Phys., Osaka, 10 (1953), 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Pais, A.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 40 (1954), 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Gell-Mann, M.Phys. Rev. 92 (1953), 833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Gell-Mann, M. and Pais, A.Proceedings of the International Physics Conference (Glasgow, 1954).Google Scholar
(15)Nakano, T. and Nishijima, K.Progr. Theor. Phys., Osaka, 10 (1953), 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Nishijima, K.Progr. Theor. Phys., Osaka, 12 (1954), 107 and 13 (1935), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Sachs, R. G.Phys. Rev. 99 (1955), 1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Utiyama, R. and Tobocman, W.Phys. Rev. 98 (1955), 780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Utiyama, R.Phys. Rev. 100 (1955), 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Salam, A. and Polkinghorne, J. C.Nuovo Cim. 2 (1955), 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)D'espagnet, B. and Prentki, J.Cern, 55–11.Google Scholar
(22)Harish-Chandra, , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 37 (1951), 170, 362, 366, 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23)Inonu, E. and Wigner, E. P.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 39 (1953), 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)Ehrman, J. B. Thesis (Princeton, 1954).Google Scholar
(25)Wigner, E. P.Gruppentheorie und ihre Anwendung auf die Quantenmechanik der Atomaprektren (Braunschweig, 1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(26)Harish-Chandra, , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 70 (1951), 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(27)Bargmann, V.Ann. Math., Princeton, 48 (1947), 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar