How does the covariant exterior derivative generalize to vector bundles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Matterwave
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Covariant Derivative
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the generalization of the covariant exterior derivative D from principal bundles to vector bundles, as outlined in Bishop and Crittenden's work. The participant expresses confusion regarding the definitions and relationships between forms on the principal bundle P and the manifold M, specifically questioning whether the covariant exterior derivative can be applied to vector bundles. Key points include the existence of a vertical subspace and horizontal distribution in vector bundles, and the need for clarity on the relationship between covariant exterior derivatives and covariant derivatives on manifolds.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of principal bundles and vector bundles
  • Familiarity with covariant derivatives and exterior derivatives
  • Knowledge of differential forms and their properties
  • Basic concepts of manifold theory and topology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the covariant exterior derivative as defined in Bishop and Crittenden's "Geometry of Differential Forms"
  • Explore the relationship between covariant exterior derivatives and covariant derivatives in manifold theory
  • Investigate the properties of vector bundles and their associated principal bundles
  • Review the mathematical rigor in "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (MTW) regarding differential geometry
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mathematicians, and students studying differential geometry, particularly those focusing on the applications of covariant derivatives in vector bundles and manifold theory.

Matterwave
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
329
Hi, I have some more questions about this stuff, which, as always, confuses me. I am (extremely slowly) working through Biship and Crittenden, and I'm pretty much at the point where I don't think I can understand it much at all, so, I think instead of trying to go through it all not knowing where the pay off is, I think I'll just ask my questions here (read: I've given up...lol). In the book, they define the covariant exterior derivative D (in chapter 5), but only for (as far as I can tell) forms living in a principle bundle P. From D, they obtain the curvature form from the covariant exterior derivative of the connection 1-form which also lives on P. As a physicist, I am more interested in vector bundles than principle bundles. Does this generalize trivially to the case of a vector bundle? I know that the construction of a vertical subspace, and a horizontal distribution works in the case of a vector bundle as well, correct? Even though Bishop and Crittenden seem to only ever give the definition of a connection on a vector bundle as the induced connection from an associated principle bundle...Another question is I'm used to forms on the manifold itself (existing therefore in T*M), and not forms on the bundle P (which, I assume would exist on T*P). Unless I'm just getting some terminology confused here? When people say "w is a one form on P", they mean that it lives in T*P right? They definitely don't mean that it literally lives on P right? My brain hurts...T_T

(Help!)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, knowing definitely the relationship between a "covariant exterior derivative" and simply a covariant derivative on my manifold would be my main goal in this (MTW is not very mathematically rigorous when it comes to this, and I find I cannot understand very well either Bishop and Crittenden or Cartan's books on this matter).
 
I realized my post is probably way too vague to get an answer. The book defines the covariant exterior derivative in a very similar fashion to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_exterior_derivative

But the deal is that it's a derivative of a form on P (the bundle space) and not M (the manifold space).

Do you get the derivatives on M simply by inducement? Is it true that M is an embedded submanifold of P? If it is, it seems that it could work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K