2

I am confused about the double covers and universal cover of ${\rm SO}^+(p,q)$, where by this notation I mean the connected component with the identity. Previously I thought that ${\rm SO}^+(p,q)$ had the property that it is doubly connected and that the universal cover matches the double cover. But in comments here it is said that this is not true: if $p>1,q>1$ the double cover does not match the universal cover. However, in this Phys.SE thread it is claimed, as I've seem many times being done in Physics, that for ${\rm SO}^+(p,q)$ groups the universal cover is the double cover.

Someone is clearly wrong because the statements are in contradiction. What is really the case? Is the universal cover of ${\rm SO}^+(p,q)$ the same as the double cover or not if $p>1,q>1$? And more importantly, how can we prove this?

Gold
  • 26,547
  • 5
    Do not believe math statements that you find in the physics literature, unless you know a reference in math literature. Incidentally, $SO(p,q)$ is not even connected if $pq\ne 0$. – Moishe Kohan Feb 18 '24 at 20:14
  • 1
    I think this is a very wise advice. Can you give me a reference in math that discusses this matter in detail? On the issue with connectedness, I believe it was a bad notation I used. I actually was talking about the connected component with the identity. I changed the notation to ${\rm SO}^+(p,q)$. – Gold Feb 18 '24 at 20:18
  • 1
    The maximal compact connected subgroup in $SO(p,q)$ is $SO(p)\times SO(q)$. – Moishe Kohan Feb 18 '24 at 20:19
  • 1
    I will have to look for a reference when I have more time. – Moishe Kohan Feb 18 '24 at 20:19
  • 1
    @Gold, you are certainly correct that $\pi_1$ of a connected real Lie group is the "covering group" of its universal cover... That's a general fact... :) – paul garrett Feb 18 '24 at 20:23
  • 1
    Since $SO^+(p,q)$ is homotopy-equivalent to its maximal compact subgroup, the fundamental group is the product $\pi_1(SO(p))\times \pi_1(SO(q))$. If both $p,q>2$, this group is the product of two groups of order 2, hence has order 4. If $p$ or $q$ equals 2, then the fundamental group is infinite. Hence, the physics claim is always false. – Moishe Kohan Feb 18 '24 at 20:28

1 Answers1

1

First, some generalities from algebraic topology (you can find these in any algebraic topology textbook). Suppose that $M$ is, say, a connected manifold (this works for a much larger class of topological spaces but we will not need this). Then the covering spaces of $M$ are classified (up to an isomorphism) by subgroups of the fundamental group of $M$. Furthermore, the degree of a covering map $M_H\to M$ corresponding to a subgroup $H\le \pi_1(M)$ equals the index of $H$ in $\pi_1(M)$. In particular, if $H$ is the trivial subgroup, $M_H\to M$ is the universal covering map and its degree equals the order (aka the cardinality) of $\pi_1(M)$. Thus, you are effectively asking about the order of the fundamental group $\pi_1(SO^+(p,q))$, where $p>1, q>1$.

Let $G$ be a connected Lie group and $K< G$ be its maximal compact subgroup. It is a general fact $G$ is diffeomorphic to the product of $K$ and some Euclidean space (see the references given here). (All maximal compact subgroups are conjugate to each other, hence, it does not matter which one you take.) In particular, $\pi_1(G)$ is isomorphic to $\pi_1(K)$. Thus, in order to compute $\pi_1(SO^+(p,q))$ we need to identify the/a maximal compact subgroup of $SO^+(p,q)$. You can find this, for instance, in

Helgason, Sigurdur, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces., Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 34. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS). xxvi, 641 p. (2001). ZBL0993.53002.

A free (and better, in my opinion) reference is Brian Konrad's online notes "Examples of maximal compact subgroups".

In any case, the maximal compact subgroup of $O(p,q)$ is $O(p)\times O(q)$, which yields $SO(p)\times SO(q)$ for $SO^+(p,q)$. Thus, $$ \pi_1(SO^+(p,q))\cong \pi_1(SO(p))\times \pi_1(SO(q)). $$

You can find a computation of $\pi_1(SO(n)), n\ge 2$ in many places, for instance, in the answers to this question. But you probably already know that $\pi_1(SO(2))\cong {\mathbb Z}$ and $\pi_1(SO(n))\cong {\mathbb Z}_2$, $n\ge 3$.

Thus, we obtain:

(a) If $p=q=2$, then $\pi_1(SO(p))\times \pi_1(SO(q))\cong {\mathbb Z}^2$ (hence, is infinite).

(b) If $p>2, q=2$, then $\pi_1(SO(p))\times \pi_1(SO(q))\cong {\mathbb Z}_2\times {\mathbb Z}$ (hence, is infinite).

(c) if $p>2, q>2$, then $\pi_1(SO(p))\times \pi_1(SO(q))\cong {\mathbb Z}_2\times {\mathbb Z}_2$ has order four.

In particular, in all cases, $\pi_1(SO^+(p,q))$ has order 4 or is infinite; it never has order two as long as $p>1, q>1$.

The bottom line is that for $p>1, q>1$ the universal cover of $SO^+(p,q)$ is never the (2-fold) spin-cover $Spin(p,q)$. I am not sure about the origin of the claim in the physics literature that $Spin(p,q)$ is the universal cover of $SO^+(p,q)$. Most likely, somebody have read that the universal cover of $SO^+(n,1), n\ge 3$, is $Spin(n,1)$ (which is true, of course) and extrapolated (without thinking) to all indefinite orthogonal groups.

Moishe Kohan
  • 97,719