Factor 1/2 in the Curvature Two-form of a Connection Principal Bundle

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter center o bass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Connection Curvature
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factor of 1/2 in the curvature two-form of a connection on a principal bundle. Participants explore the formulation of connections, the covariant exterior derivative, and the implications of gauge-covariance in this context. The conversation includes technical reasoning and clarifications regarding the definitions and transformations of the connection form.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the curvature of the connection and questions the absence of the factor 1/2 in their derivation.
  • Another participant asserts that the original assumption of taking a covariant derivative of the connection is incorrect, stating that the connection is not gauge-covariant.
  • Some participants discuss the transformation properties of the connection, noting that it transforms in a way that does not maintain gauge covariance.
  • A later reply suggests that the curvature can be defined as the exterior covariant derivative of the connection 1-form, implying that the factor of 1/2 can be verified through specific cases.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the terminology of horizontal and vertical components in the context of gauge connections.
  • Another participant clarifies that the transformation of the connection under pullback involves derivatives of the transformation, which complicates the notion of covariant derivatives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of taking a covariant derivative of the connection and the implications of gauge covariance. There is no consensus on the resolution of the factor of 1/2, as some argue for its inclusion while others challenge the initial assumptions leading to its omission.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the definitions of gauge-covariance and the nature of the connection form in principal bundles. The discussion reveals potential limitations in the assumptions made regarding the covariant derivative and its application to the connection.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
In the formulation of connections on principal bundles, one derives an
expression for the covariant exterior derivative of lie-algebra valued forms which is given by
$$D\alpha = d \alpha + \rho(\omega) \wedge \alpha,$$
where ##\rho: \mathfrak g \to \mathfrak{gl}(\mathfrak g)## is a representation on the Lie algebra. Now, one often encounters the following formula for the curvature of the connection ##\omega##:
$$\Omega = D\omega = d\omega + \frac{1}2 [\omega, \omega].$$

However, if we use the representation ##\text{ad}:\mathfrak g \to \mathfrak{gl}(\mathfrak g)##, then the covariant exterior derivative of ##\omega## gives
$$D\alpha = d \alpha + \rho(\omega) \wedge \alpha = d \alpha + [\xi_k, \xi_l] \omega^k \wedge \omega^l = d\alpha + [\omega, \omega]$$.

But where have the factor ##1/2## gone?

I suspect my error might lie in one of the following:
(1): my definition of ##[\omega, \omega]## as ##[\xi_k, \xi_l] \omega^k \wedge \omega^l##.
(2): or, that what is meant by the expression ##\rho(\omega) \wedge \omega## is perhaps not ##[\xi_k, \xi_l] \omega^k \wedge \omega^l##.

But which one is it? And why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your error is in assuming that you can take a covariant derivative of the connection ##\omega##. But ##\omega## is not gauge-covariant!

To be clear, this line is in error:

center o bass said:
$$\Omega = D\omega = d\omega + \frac{1}2 [\omega, \omega].$$

It is true that

$$\Omega = d\omega + \frac12 [\omega,\omega] = d \omega + \omega \wedge \omega.$$
However, you cannot write this as "##D\omega##", because there is no such object as "##D\omega##". And as you have shown, attempting to write out "##D\omega##" from the standard formula gives you the wrong answer.

You should be able to show, however, for a gauge-covariant form ##\alpha##, that

$$DD\alpha = \Omega \wedge \alpha.$$
 
Last edited:
Ben Niehoff said:
Your error is in assuming that you can take a covariant derivative of the connection ##\omega##. But ##\omega## is not gauge-covariant!

To be clear, this line is in error:
It is true that

$$\Omega = d\omega + \frac12 [\omega,\omega] = d \omega + \omega \wedge \omega.$$
However, you cannot write this as "##D\omega##", because there is no such object as "##D\omega##". And as you have shown, attempting to write out "##D\omega##" from the standard formula gives you the wrong answer.

You should be able to show, however, for a gauge-covariant form ##\alpha##, that

$$DD\alpha = \Omega \wedge \alpha.$$

When you say ##\omega## is not gauge covariant, what do you mean? ##\omega## transforms as ##\omega \mapsto Ad_{g^{-1}} \omega## under pullback of the right action on ##P##.

Furthermore, in http://empg.maths.ed.ac.uk/Activities/GT/Lect2.pdf, he defines the curvature as
##\omega = d\omega \circ \text{hor}## where ##\hor## picks out the horizontal component of any vector field according to ##\omega##. This is also how he defined the exterior covariant derivative on the same page.

Is it the fact that ##\omega## is not a horizontal 1-form that is the source of my error? Indeed, http://empg.maths.ed.ac.uk/Activities/GT/Lect2.pdf, defines the exterior covariant derivative for horizontal and covariant forms.
 
Sorry, I'm not as fluent in "horizontal/vertical" language. In the notation I'm familiar with, the gauge connection ##\omega## transforms as

$$\omega \to g^{-1} \omega g + g^{-1}dg,$$
which fails to be covariant (because it involves derivatives of the transformation). Writing "##D\omega##" is analagous to taking the covariant derivative of a Christoffel symbol; it doesn't make sense.
 
Ben Niehoff said:
Sorry, I'm not as fluent in "horizontal/vertical" language. In the notation I'm familiar with, the gauge connection ##\omega## transforms as

$$\omega \to g^{-1} \omega g + g^{-1}dg,$$
which fails to be covariant (because it involves derivatives of the transformation). Writing "##D\omega##" is analagous to taking the covariant derivative of a Christoffel symbol; it doesn't make sense.
Ah, okay. On the principal it does transform as ##\omega \mapsto g\omega g^{-1}##. It is the pullback of ##\omega## with a local section that transform according to
$$\omega \mapsto g^{-1} \omega g + g^{-1}dg.$$
 
The curvature 2 form of a connection on a principal bundle may be defined as the exterior covariant derivative of the connection 1 form. (By definition the exterior covariant derivative is the exterior derivative composed with horizontal projection.) One can verify that your formula is the same thing by checking three cases: the two vectors are both horizontal,both vertical,one horizontal one vertical.

$$\Omega = D\omega = d\omega + \frac{1}2 [\omega, \omega].$$

is the correct equation in the principal bundle. If you check the three cases, the factor of 1/2 will be clear.

Notice that $$ d\omega(X,Y) = X\omega(Y) - Y\omega(X) - \omega[X,Y]$$

And $$ \omega[X,Y] = [\omega(X),\omega(Y)]$$

The trivial case is when both vectors are horizontal. Then the equation is just

$$\Omega = D\omega = d\omega.$$

This because $$\Omega(X,Y) = d\omega(hX,hY) + 0= d\omega(X,Y).$$

I have always seen the exterior covariant derivative denoted with a large D.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K