Since it appears (so far) I am infringing no rule, here is another shameless copy/paste of a thread I started on another forum, where I didn't get too much help - rather, folk tried, but confused me even further! See if you guys can do better. (Note:I am not a physicist)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The mathematics here is not especially exotic, but I cannot get the full picture. As I am working from a mathematics, not a physics, text, I will lay it out roughly as I find it.

So. We start, it seems, with a vector space [tex]\mathcal{A}[/tex] of 1-forms [tex]A[/tex] called "potentials". Is it not the case that the existence of a potential implies the existence of a physical field? (I say "physical field" as I am having some trouble relating this to the abstract math definition - a commutative ring with multiplicative inverse, say).

Anyway, I am invited to consider the set of all linear automorphisms [tex]\text{Aut}(\mathcal{A}): \mathcal{A \to A}[/tex]. It is easy enough to see this is a group under the usual axioms, so set [tex]\text{Aut}\mathcal{A} \equiv G \subseteq GL(\mathcal{A})[/tex] which is evidently a (matrix) Lie group thereby. This is apparently called the gauge (transformation) group.

Now for some [tex]g \in G[/tex], define the [tex]g[/tex]-orbit of some [tex]A \in \mathcal{A}[/tex] to be all [tex]A',\,\,A''[/tex] that can be "[tex]g[/tex]-reached" from [tex]A,\,\,A'[/tex], respectively. In other words, the (finite?) sequence [tex]g(A),\,\,g(g(A)),\,\,g(g(g(A))),....,g^n(A)[/tex] is defined. Call this orbit as [tex]A^g[/tex], and note, from the group law, that any [tex]A \in \mathcal{A}[/tex] occupies at least one, and at most one, orbit.

This induces the partition [tex] \mathcal{A}/G[/tex], whose elements are simply those [tex]A[/tex] in the same orbit [tex]A^g[/tex]. Call this a "gauge equivalence".

Now it seems I must consider the orbit bundle [tex]\mathcal{A}(G, \mathcal{A}/G)[/tex].

Here I start to unravel slightly. By the definition of a bundle, I will require that [tex]\mathcal{A}[/tex] is the total manifold; no sweat, any vector space (within reason) is a manifold. I will also require that [tex]\mathcal{A}/G[/tex] is the "base manifold".

Umm. [tex]\mathcal{A},\,\, G[/tex] are manifolds (they are - recall that [tex]G[/tex] is a Lie group), does this imply the quotient is likewise? I think, not sure.....([tex]G[/tex] is the structure group for the total manifold, btw.)

But surely, this bundle can only be an "orbit bundle" if it is aprincipal bundle, i.e. the fibres are the orbits [tex]A^g[/tex]and[tex]A^g \cong G[/tex], the structure group. If this is so, will it suffice to note that this congruence is induced by the fact that each orbit [tex]A^g[/tex] is uniquely determined by [tex]g \in G[/tex]?

Anyway, it seems that, under this circumstance, I may call the (principal?) orbit bundle the bundle of Yang-Mills connection 1-forms on the principal bundle [tex]P(G,M)[/tex], where I suppose I am now to assume that the base manifold [tex]M[/tex] is Minkowski spacetime, and that the structure group is again a Lie group (same one? Dunno)??

I'm sorry, but this is confusing me. Any other take on this would be most welcome - but keep it simple enough for a simpleton!!

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Yang-Mills Geometry

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**