19
$\begingroup$

In this interview by Eric Weinstein to Roger Penrose, Timestamp 1:24:05., what result is the host talking about?

Transcription of the relevant part:

"If you have two sets of symmetries, known as Lie groups, that act transitively on the same sphere in usual position, then either their intersection acts transitively on that sphere, or the dimension of that sphere is $15$. And I believe the intersection of the groups looks like the electro-strong group. So it's very close to the... particle spectrum of theoretical physics... pulled out of nowhere just by talking about sphere transitive group actions"

Edit: it seems like the host is trying to recall a particular result. Given how bizarre and peculiar the result seems to be (in line with dimension $4$ being special for differentiable structures on Euclidean spaces, or dimension $7$ in the case of exotic spheres), I would like to know if it's a real thing and, in case it's real, what's the exact statement.

In particular,

  1. I don't care if the exact quoted statement is true or false;
  2. I only want to know if there's a result that sounds very similar to that one and is actually true and, if you're aware of such a result, what's its exact statement.
$\endgroup$
17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Maybe you could transcribe the relevant bit for people's convenience? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 19:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It reads kinda like nonsense (but maybe is a paraphrase of a real result). For starters: how can we "intersect" two different Lie groups? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 19:42
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Well, the statement as quoted is clearly false: For example, consider the group $G$ of left multiplications by unit quaternions, which acts transitively on the $3$-sphere (i.e., the unit quaternions), and the group $H$ of right multiplications by unit quaternions, which also acts transitively on the $3$-sphere. Their intersection is $\{\pm I\}$, which does not act transitively on the $3$-sphere. Something similar works for every odd-dimensional sphere, not just $S^{15}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 19:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice: you're absolutely right. Deleted. $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 20:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Has anyone tried contacting the person who said this? $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 20:18

1 Answer 1

35
$\begingroup$

My guess is that Weinstein was thinking of this fact, but didn't get it out correctly:

For every $n\not=15$, there is a compact Lie group $H_n\subseteq\mathrm{SO}(n{+}1)$ that acts transitively on the $n$-sphere such that any Lie group $G$ that acts transitively and effectively on the $n$-sphere contains a subgroup $G'$ that acts transitively on the $n$-sphere and is conjugate to $H_n$ in $\mathrm{Diff}(S^n)$.

There are two non-isomorphic subgroups, $\mathrm{Spin}(9)$ and $\mathrm{Sp}(4)$ of $\mathrm{SO}(16)$, both of dimension $36$, that act transitively on $S^{15}$ such that any Lie group $G$ that acts transitively on $S^{15}$ contains a subgroup $G'$ that is conjugate to (exactly) one of these two subgroups in $\mathrm{Diff}(S^{15})$.

Note:

$\bullet$ For $m\not=0,3$, $H_{2m}\simeq \mathrm{SO}(2m{+}1)$, while $H_0\simeq\mathrm{O}(1)$ and $H_6 \simeq \mathrm{G}_2$,

$\bullet$ for $m\not=0$, $H_{4m+1}\simeq \mathrm{SU}(2m{+}1)$ while $H_1\simeq\mathrm{SO}(2)$, and

$\bullet$ for $m\not=4$, $H_{4m-1}\simeq\mathrm{Sp}(m)$.

This follows from Borel's classification of the Lie groups acting transitively on spheres.

N.B.: The phrase 'and effectively' in the above statement is needed to rule out the following kinds of (ineffective) actions: First, $\mathbb{Z}$ has a transitive action on $S^0 = \{-1,1\}\subset\mathbb{R}$ but has no subgroup isomorphic to $\mathrm{O}(1)\simeq \mathbb{Z}_2$. Second, the simply-connected cover of $H_1=\mathrm{SO}(2)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$, and it acts transitively on $S^1$ without containing a subgroup isomorphic to $H_1 = \mathrm{SO}(2)$. Third, for $m\not=0,3$, $H_{2m}\simeq\mathrm{SO}(2m{+}1)$ has a nontrivial double cover $\mathrm{Spin}(2m{+}1)$ that acts transitively on $S^{2m}$ but does not contain a subgroup isomorphic to $H_{2m}$.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thank you, this was exactly the answer I was looking for. (In fact, if "even Robert Bryant didn't know about such a result", I would've had a good reason to suspect that it didn't actually exist :) ) $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 11:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Qfwfq: You're welcome. It took a while to figure out what he was referencing, but given that the conversation was at a level in which "you can do calculus in different ways only in dimension $4$" is meant to convey "only $\mathbb{R}^4$ supports non-diffeomorphic smooth structures", it's not too outrageous. The key was realizing what he was trying to convey with the phrase "in the usual position"; indeed, with the usual tabulation of the transitive subgroups of $\mathrm{SO}(n{+}1)$, they do all contain $H_n$, except for $n=15$. What the(?) "electro-strong group" is, though, I have no idea. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 12:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Presumably he means $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ by the electro-strong group, governing the Standard Model. Is this is $Spin(9) \cap Sp(4)$, appropriately conjugated inside $SO(16)$? $\endgroup$
    – Ian Agol
    Commented Aug 25, 2020 at 20:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @IanAgol: Well, each group does contain a subgroup with the right Lie algebra (which is often enough for physicists), but the two subgroups are not conjugate in $\mathrm{SO}(16)$. Maybe there are less obvious subgroups that are conjugate, but I don't see it. Meanwhile, each group also contains a copy of $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ as a subgroup and those two subgroups are conjugate in $\mathrm{SO}(16)$, so the electro-strong group is not the maximal possible dimension of an intersection of conjugates of the two groups in $\mathrm{SO}(16)$. The minimal intersection is the common center $\{\pm I_{16}\}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2020 at 9:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @IanAgol: Update. I realized (duh) that because the electro-strong group has rank 4, a maximal torus for it would also be a maximal torus in the two larger groups, so everything reduces to roots and weights. By this, it's easy to see that each of $\mathrm{Spin}(9)$ and $\mathrm{Sp}(4)$ has a connected subgroup with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(3)\oplus\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus\mathfrak{u}(1)$ and that it is unique up to conjugacy. However, as noted above, these two subgroups are not conjugate in $\mathrm{SO}(16)$, so no conjugates of the two groups can have the electro-strong group as intersection. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2020 at 12:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .