Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My question is about the extention of kirillov's symplectic structure on coadjoint orbits. The most remarkable feature of the coadjoint representation is the fact that all coadjoint orbits possess a canonical G-invariant symplectic structure. Kirillov defined the coadjoint orbit by the natural way as follows,

Let $G$ be a Lie Group and $\mathfrak{g}$ be its lie algebra,and also $\mathfrak{g^*}$ be the dual of Lie algebra

$\mathfrak{G}=\{Ad^*(g)F, g\in G\}$ where $F\in\mathfrak{g^*}$.

In fact, Kirillov introduced an antisymmetric bilinear form $B_F$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by

$B_F(X,Y)=<F,[X,Y]>$ and showed that $B_F$ is invariant under $Stab(F)=\{g\in G: Ad^*(g)F=F \}$ and by using this fact, he introduced a $G$-Invariant symplectic structure $\omega_{\mathfrak{G}}(F)(ad^*(X)F,ad^*(Y)F)=B_F(X,Y)$ on $\mathfrak{G}$ which is now known as Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau Theorem .

Now, I am trying to extend this result for $\mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g^*} $ instead of $\mathfrak{g^*} $and try to find a G-invariant symplectic structure. The fact is that $\mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g^*}$ is exactly "equal"(in algebraic and geometric sense) to $Lie(T^*G)$, and we have a symplectic structure on $T^*G$ so we will have a symplectic structure on $Lie(T^*G)$, because we just can restrict the symplectic structure of $(T^*G)$ to $T_e(T^*G)$ and get a symplectic structure on $Lie(T^*G)$.(Also we can define a bilinear symmetric and antisymmetric form on $\mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g^*}$ and define a generalized complex structure on it and so we will have a symplectic, poisson, kahler structure on $\mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g^*}$ by this way. ) But it would be a good question , if we define the action of $g\in G$ on $X+F\in \mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g^*} $ by $g.(X+F)=Ad(g)X+Ad^*(g)F$. and define an orbit as same method of kirillov by $\mathfrak{O}=\{Ad(g)X+Ad^*(g)F, g\in G\}$.

So, by this definition,we will have $Stab(X+F)=\{g\in G: Ad^*(g)F=F , gX=Xg \}$, and then $G$ is a fibre bundle over the base $\mathfrak{O}$.

Now, if we construct the symplectic structure

$\omega_{X+F}:T_{X+F}{\mathfrak{O}}\times T_{X+F}{\mathfrak{O}}\to R$

$\omega_{X+F}([Y,X]+ad^*(Y)F,[Z,X]+ad^*(Z)F)$=? THE FACT IS "?" (I mean right hand sight of equality) should be an invariant bilinear form $B_{X+F}(Y,Z)$ and we should find it. So, my question is how can we find this guy?

PS:I edited my question after comments of Ben and Mariano .

share|improve this question
    
you can see the definition 3 for bilinear form of google.fr/url?q=http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/… but just for action $G$ on $\mathfrak{g^*}$ –  Hassan Jolany Sep 12 '13 at 16:50
1  
Are you sure you want $B_{X+F}$ to be invariant under $G$? Note that neither $X$ nor $F$ have been required to be invariant under $G$. So if we are going to produce a formula for $B_{X+F}$ which works universally for all Lie groups and all $X$ and $F$, it seems unlikely that the formula could make any use of $X$ or $F$. As you can see, Woit doesn't arrive at a $G$-invariant bilinear form; his form is only invariant under the appropriate stabilizer subgroup. Moreover, if $G$ is not reductive then there is no $G$-invariant nondegenerate inner product on $\mathfrak{g}$. –  Ben McKay Sep 12 '13 at 16:59
3  
And why don't you explain that in the question? Questions are more interesting (and therefore more likely to attract attention...) if you make them real, if you provide them with a context. You asked a question which has «The zero bilinear form» as an answer, and apparently you have in mind something considerably more interesting than that: sell your question! –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 12 '13 at 17:28
1  
@BenMcKay: Your last phrase is true only for positive-definite inner products. If you allow indefinite metrics, then there are plenty of nonreductive groups with ad-invariant inner products on their Lie algebras. In a way, they generalise the semidirect product $\mathfrak{g} \ltimes \mathfrak{g}^*$, with $\mathfrak{g}^*$ abelian, with inner product given by the natural dual pairing. –  José Figueroa-O'Farrill Sep 12 '13 at 23:18
1  
@HassanJolany, I am not a moderator of MO and I did not downvote your question. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 13 '13 at 17:22
show 9 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

There is no hope for such a construction. The orbits of $G$ on $\frak{g}\oplus\frak{g}^\ast$ are not always of even dimension, so they will not support symplectic structures.

For example, take $G=\mathrm{SO}(3)$. Because $G$ is simple, $\frak{g}^\ast$ is isomorphic to $\frak{g}$ as a $G$-module, so the action of $G$ on $\frak{g}\oplus\frak{g}^\ast$ is just the diagonal action of $G$ on $\frak{g}\oplus\frak{g}$. Now, if $x, y\in\frak{g}$ are linearly independent, then the stabilizer of $(x,y)\in \frak{g}\oplus\frak{g}$ is trivial, so its orbit is just a copy of $G$, which has dimension $3$.

A similar phenomenon happens for any odd-dimensional compact simple Lie group.

share|improve this answer
    
Robert Bryant@ thanks a lot for your good answer. –  Hassan Jolany Sep 14 '13 at 9:56
    
We know that $G\times G$ acts on $T^*G$ by following $(g_1,g_2).(g,F)=(g_1gg_2^{-1},Ad^*(g_2)F)$. So this action make sense. But what can we say about the same question , if we change $G$ to $G\times G$ –  Hassan Jolany Sep 16 '13 at 13:57
1  
Well, of course, $G\times G$ acts on $G$ on the left and right and therefore induced an action of $G\times G$ on $T^\ast G$, which is already a symplectic manifold. In particular, one can perform symplectic reduction on $T^\ast G$ under this group action and get symplectic manifolds. The action you describe on $G\times\frak{g}^\ast$ is equivalent to this action under the appropriate identification of this space with $T^\ast G$, so there is symplectic reduction. Frankly, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, since essentially all homogeneous symplectic manifolds are coadjoint orbits. –  Robert Bryant Sep 16 '13 at 16:25
    
Well, I constructed an orbit as same as coadjoint orbit, but your answer showed that it does not functional , and I wanted to construct a symplectic structure on this orbit. But now, if we change $G$ to $G\times G$, and construct an orbit on it, then can we construct a symplectic 2-form on it like Kirillov's symplectic 2-form ? –  Hassan Jolany Sep 16 '13 at 17:42
1  
Are you considering the orbits of $G\times G$ on $T^\ast G$ or on $\frak{g}\times\frak{g}^\ast$? In either case, if you want to construct a homogeneous symplectic manifold (which is what the coadjoint orbits are), then you won't get anything beyond a coadjoint orbit or a covering of a coadjoint orbit anyway because that's all the homogeneous symplectic manifolds there are. Even if you could construct something by your approach it wouldn't be a new homogeneous symplectic manifold. –  Robert Bryant Sep 16 '13 at 18:41
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.