Identification tangent bundle over affine space with product bundle

  • #1
cianfa72
1,840
204
TL;DR Summary
About the canonical/natural identification of tangent bundle over an affine space with product bundle
Hi,
as in this thread Newton Galilean spacetime as fiber bundle I'd like to clarify some point about tangent bundle for an Affine space.

As said there, I believe the tangent space ##T_pE## at every point ##p## on the affine space manifold ##E## is canonically/naturally identified with the "translation" vector space ##V## of the affine structure ##(E,V)## (i.e. such identification does not require any arbitrary choice).
$$ T_pE \cong V$$ From the above it should follow that ##\tau(E)##, the tangent bundle over ##E##, is canonically identified with the product bundle ##E\times V##.

Is the above correct ? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
cianfa72 said:
TL;DR Summary: About the canonical/natural identification of tangent bundle over an affine space with product bundle

Hi,
as in this thread Newton Galilean spacetime as fiber bundle I'd like to clarify some point about tangent bundle for an Affine space.

As said there, I believe the tangent space ##T_pE## at every point ##p## on the affine space manifold ##E## is canonically/naturally identified with the "translation" vector space ##V## of the affine structure ##(E,V)## (i.e. such identification does not require any arbitrary choice).
$$ T_pE \cong V$$ From the above it should follow that ##\tau(E)##, the tangent bundle over ##E##, is canonically identified with the product bundle ##E\times V##.

Is the above correct ? Thanks.
Yes.
 
  • #3
My doubt arose since in a linked paper in that thread, namely https://trautman.fuw.edu.pl/publications/Papers-in-pdf/25.pdf
there is a claim that for Galilean spacetime ##E## its principal fiber bundle ##(P(E),E,\pi)## is a product bundle.

I'd say that Galilean spacetime ##E## is an affine space and that its tangent bundle ##(\tau(E), E, \pi)## is a product bundle since it is naturally identified with the product bundle ##E \times V##.

Does it makes sense ?
 
  • #4
The principle bundle and the tangent bundle are different things. The principle bundle in question is the bundle of frames.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and cianfa72
  • #5
martinbn said:
The principle bundle and the tangent bundle are different things. The principle bundle in question is the bundle of frames.
Sorry, given a smooth manifold ##E## (in this case the spacetime manifold) it should be possible that its principle fiber bundle is (or identified with) a product bundle ##E \times X## while its tangent bundle is not ?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
cianfa72 said:
Sorry, given a smooth manifold ##E## (in this case the spacetime manifold) it should be possible that its principle fiber bundle is (or identified with) a product bundle ##E \times X## while its tangent bundle is not ?
No, it is not possible.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #7
martinbn said:
No, it is not possible.
Ok, so what Trautman says in that paper implies that for Galilean spacetime ##E## both its tangent bundle and principal fiber bundle (i.e. bundle of frames) are actually product bundles.

At the same time Galilean spacetime ##E## is both fiber bundle and affine space (actually the fiber bundle structure single out preferred affine charts for the affine structure, i.e. the inertial affine charts).
 
  • #8
cianfa72 said:
Ok, so what Trautman says in that paper implies that for Galilean spacetime ##E## both its tangent bundle and principal fiber bundle (i.e. bundle of frames) are actually product bundles.
I didn't look at it, but yes.
cianfa72 said:
At the same time Galilean spacetime ##E## is both fiber bundle and affine space (actually the fiber bundle structure single out preferred affine charts for the affine structure, i.e. the inertial affine charts).
Yes. I don't know why you keep saying!
 
  • #9
Another point related to this. To prove that the map $$v \mapsto \left . \frac {d} {dt} \right |_{t=0} f(a + tv) = D_vf(a), v \in V$$ is isomorphism I believe we cannot avoid to introduce an arbitrary chart for the affine space ##(E,V)##.

Indeed ##(E,V)## and ##V## are abstract affine and vector spaces respectively. In order to use the chain rule to evaluate the above derivative, we need a chart ##\varphi## for the affine space ##(E,V)##. Then we get
$$(f \circ {\varphi}^{-1}) \circ (\varphi \circ \gamma (t))$$ where ##\varphi \circ \gamma(t)## is the repesentative in the chart ##\varphi## of the curve ##\gamma(t) = a + vt##. Now we're in position to use the chain rule to get $$D_v|_a f = D_vf(a) = \left . v^i \frac {\partial f} {\partial x^i} \right |_a$$ Where ##v^i## are the components of the derivatives w.r.t. ##t## of the curve representative ##\varphi \circ \gamma(t)##.

Does exist a way to intrinsically define it avoiding a such process?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
cianfa72 said:
Sorry, given a smooth manifold ##E## (in this case the spacetime manifold) it should be possible that its principle fiber bundle is (or identified with) a product bundle ##E \times X## while its tangent bundle is not ?
The tangent bundle is a vector bundle. A principal bundle is different. Typically a manifold has both. For instance a Frame bundle is an associated principle bundle to a vector bundle like a tangent bundle that contains all possible basis for the tangent bundle and whose structure group is GL(n).

A good reference for all of this is Hamilton's Mathematical Gauge Theory, chapter 4. You could also read the Wikipedia articles on associated vector bundles.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #12
I am not that familiar with affine spaces so I would have to think about it a bit more to say anything. I think I would want to express the affine conditions as a Principal Bundle over a base manifold that is a quotient of the group of symmetries. I am guessing E(n)/SO(n). Then the rest would follow naturally.
 
  • #13
cianfa72 said:
Indeed ##(E,V)## and ##V## are abstract affine and vector spaces respectively. In order to use the chain rule to evaluate the above derivative, we need a chart ##\varphi## for the affine space ##(E,V)##. Then we get
$$(f \circ {\varphi}^{-1}) \circ (\varphi \circ \gamma (t))$$ where ##\varphi \circ \gamma(t)## is the repesentative in the chart ##\varphi## of the curve ##\gamma(t) = a + vt##. Now we're in position to use the chain rule to get $$D_v|_a f = D_vf(a) = \left . v^i \frac {\partial f} {\partial x^i} \right |_a$$ Where ##v^i## are the components of the derivatives w.r.t. ##t## of the curve representative ##\varphi \circ \gamma(t)##.

Does exist a way to intrinsically define it avoiding a such process?
Re-thinking about this, I believe $$v \mapsto \left . \frac {d} {dt} \right |_{t=0} f(a + tv) := D_vf(a), v \in V$$ is actually a canonical/natural defined map since no choice is involved and ##a + tv## is well-defined from affine space axioms as the function ##f(a + tv)##.

On the other hand, to prove it is a linear map that is isomorphism we must introduce an arbitrary chart as in the quoted post. Therefore, proved it is an isomorphism this way, it follows that it is actually a canonical isomorphism, i.e. ## V\cong T_pE##.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
21
Views
643
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
927
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Differential Geometry
2
Replies
63
Views
8K
Back
Top