5
$\begingroup$

There are all sorts of curios in low-dimensional Lie groups and Lie algebras, many of them due to the presence of the quaternions. There is, I have recently learned, an isomorphism $SO(6,2) \simeq SO(4,\mathbb{H})$ (this isn't listed on Wikipedia, for instance). I'm curious to know

is there is any corresponding exceptional isomorphism for $Spin(6,2)$

analogous to the well-known isomorphism $Spin(5,1)\simeq SL(2,\mathbb{H})$? Clearly one cannot make a simple appeal to the Lie algebra isomorphism, but need to pull out some Clifford algebra or spin representation built from quaternions.

EDIT: bonus imaginary internet points if this exceptional isomorphism is compatible in some way the one for $Spin(5,1)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't remember the answer off the top of my head, but I think you'll find what you want in F. Reese Harvey's book Spinors and Calibrations. I imagine that it's some form of triality, i.e., that you'll get something like an embedding of Spin(6,2) into the product of two copies of SO(4,$\mathbb{H}$), just as Spin(8) appears as embedded in the product of two copies of SO(8). $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Aug 2 '16 at 4:56
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertBryant actually, digging a bit harder I get a suggestion that there is an isomorphism with Sp(4,H), for a sensible definition of this group, or USp(4,4;C) $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Aug 2 '16 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertBryant And thank you for the pointer! $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Aug 2 '16 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ Just out of curiosity: what is wrong with $Spin(6,2)\cong Spin(2,\mathbb H)$? $\endgroup$ – Friedrich Knop Aug 6 '16 at 8:13
  • $\begingroup$ @FriedrichKnop what is $Spin(2,\mathbb{H})$? Can you point me to a definition? $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Aug 6 '16 at 8:27
7
$\begingroup$

To put the problem to a rest, I add my comment as an answer which is, in a nutshell, $Spin(6,2)\cong Spin(4,\mathbb H)$. The existence of this isomorphism follows from the isomorphism of the Satake diagrams and simple connectedness.

The tricky thing is the definition of a spin group over the quaternions which is explained in much greater generality in section 13 of "The book of involutions" by Knus at al.

The idea is roughly as follows: Given a quadratic space $(V,q)$ over a field $k$ (of characteristic $\ne2$, for simplicity) one constructs the Clifford algebra $Cl(V,q)$. The latter has a $\mathbb Z_2$-grading $Cl=Cl_0\oplus Cl_1$. Then the spin group consists loosely speaking of all $c\in Cl_0$ preserving $V\subseteq Cl_1$.

One can do this construction in two steps. First, one assigns to $(V,q)$ the pair $(A,\sigma)$ where $A$ is the algebra $\mathrm{End}(V)$ and $\sigma\in\mathrm{End}(A)$ is taking the adjoint with respect to $q$. This way, one looses information, though: any scalar multiple $cq$ of $q$ gives rise to the same pair $(A,q)$. But the even part $Cl_0$ depends only on $(A,q)$ and that's where the spin group lives in!

This observed, one can construct an algebra $Cl_0$ from any pair $(A,\sigma)$ where $A$ is a central simple algebra over $k$ and $\sigma$ is an orthogonal (anti-)involution. This means that $\sigma|_k=\mathrm{id}_k$ and $\dim A_+>\dim A_-$ where $A_\pm$ are the $\pm1$-eigenspaces of $\sigma$.

Since $\mathrm{End}(V)=V\otimes V^*=V^{\otimes2}$, the general philosophy is that any construction involving only even tensor powers of $V$ can be done for any pair $(A,\sigma)$, as well. This is the case for $Cl_0$. But also $D=V\otimes Cl_1$ can be defined for any $(A,\sigma)$. Since it possible to formulate the condition "$c\in Cl_0$ preserves $V\subseteq Cl_1$" purely in terms of $D$ (and its $Cl_0$-bimodule structure) alone one arrives at a definition of the group $Spin(A,q)$.

In the case at hand, one takes $k=\mathbb R$, $A=M(4,\mathbb H)$, and $\sigma(X)=a\overline X^ta^{-1}$ with $0\ne a\in\mathbb H$ with $\overline a=-a$. Usually, one works with $a=i$. Observe that conjugation $c\mapsto \overline c$ is a symplectic involution of $\mathbb H$. So, the condition $\overline a=-a$ makes $\sigma$ orthogonal.

EDIT: Let $L_i$ and $\tilde L_i$ be the Levi part of the $i$-th maximal parabolic $P_i$ of $Spin(6,2)$ and $Spin(4,\mathbb H)$, respectively. Then looking at Satake diagrams the groups $L_1,P_1,\tilde L_4,\tilde P_4$ are defined over $\mathbb R$ and the exceptional isomorphism maps $L_1$ isomorphically onto $\tilde L_4$. So also the commutator subgroups $(L_1,L_1)=Spin(5,1)$ and $(\tilde L_4,\tilde L_4)=SL(2,\mathbb H)$ are mapped to each other.

EDIT2: One thing which puzzled me is the way $L_1$ and $\tilde L_4$ projected into $SO(6,2)$ and $SO(4,\mathbb H)$, respectively. In the first case, the image is $SO(5,1)\subseteq SO(6,2)$ in the second it is the $SL(2,\mathbb)\subseteq GL(2,\mathbb H)\subseteq SO(4,\mathbb H)$. The second group is simply connected, the first one is not! The only explanation for this phenomenon is that actually $$ SO(6,2)\not\cong SO(4,\mathbb H). $$ So what is the correct isomorphism? The center of $Spin(6,2)$ is the Klein 4-group. Let $c_+,c_-,c_+c_-$ be its trivial elements such that $Spin(6,2)/c_+c_-=SO(6,2)$. Then $Spin(6,2)/c_\pm=Spin^\pm(6,2)$ are the two "halfspin groups". The correct isomorphisms therefore are $$ Spin^+(6,2)\cong SO(4,\mathbb H)\cong Spin^-(6,2). $$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that your final comment (i.e., that Spin(6,2) occurs embedded into a product of two copies of SO(4,$\mathbb{H}$)) is exactly what I suggested was the case in my comment to the original question. Of course, the projection of Spin(6,2) onto either SO(4,$\mathbb{H}$)-factor is a (nontrivial) double cover. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Aug 6 '16 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That book, while no doubt extremely enlightening to some, leaves me feeling like when Arthur Dent asked for a cup of tea from the Nutri-Matic Drink Synthesizer: almost - but not quite - entirely unlike something I can understand. I'll try to digest it and see how I go. Presumably there's an inclusion SL(2,H) -> Spin(4,H) covering SO(5,1) -> SO(6,2) I can extract somehow... $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Aug 6 '16 at 22:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the book of involutions is complete overkill for your problem. If it helps, Tignol has a shorter version on his homepage (perso.uclouvain.be/jean-pierre.tignol/ChinaLectures.pdf) which I found quite readable. There must be an account for real groups somewhere. $\endgroup$ – Friedrich Knop Aug 7 '16 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ @FriedrichKnop (belated) thanks for the pointer! $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Aug 25 '16 at 4:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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