User Tools

Site Tools


math214:04-01

\gdef\vect{\text{Vect}} \gdef\lcal{\mathcal L} \gdef\End{\text{End}} \gdef\Hom{\text{Hom}}

2020-04-01, Wednesday

Today and Friday, we will follow Nicolascu's note 3.3, and discuss connection on vector bundle.

Why we need something called 'connection'?

Suppose we are given a smooth manifold MM. Let ff be a smooth function on MM. We know two things:

  1. We know what it means for ff to be constant.
  2. Given a tangent vector vpTpMv_p \in T_p M, we know how to take directional derivative vp(f)v_p(f).

So, why things are different when we talk about a vector bundle π:EM\pi: E \to M? Let's think about the following thing:

  1. Given a local section σΓ(U,E)\sigma \in \Gamma(U, E) for an open set UMU \In M, what does it mean when we say σ\sigma is a 'constant section'? Or can we say it? (recall a section means a smooth map σ:UE\sigma: U \to E such that πσ=id:UU\pi \circ \sigma = id:U \to U.)
  2. Given a point pMp \in M, σ\sigma a section of EE defined in a neighborhood of pp, and a tangent vector vpTpMv_p \in T_p M, can we take 'directional derivative' of σ\sigma along vpv_p?

Of course, “yes, we can!”, you may say, since we can find a local trivialization of EE over UU π1(U)U×Rk \pi^{-1}(U) \cong U \times \R^k then a section σ\sigma over UU can be described by an kk-tuple of functions (σ1,,σk):URk(\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_k): U \to \R^k, and we all know how to take derivative of functions. Any objection?

The above approach is problematic. How do you know the answer you get does not depends on the local trivialization? Giving a local trivialiation is like giving a local frame (e1,,ek)(e_1, \cdots, e_k) of the vector bundle. If we use the above prescription to define 'taking derivatives' of a section, then, we are declaring these local sections e1,,epΓ(U,E)e_1, \cdots, e_p \in \Gamma(U, E) are 'constant'. That is a huge bias, a huge choice to make. In other words, the notion of 'constant section' would depends on the choice of the trivialization. Hence, the approach in the previous paragraph is not right (in general).

You may remember that we have encountered the same problem, when we try to take derivative of a tangent vector field XX, and we found a solution called 'Lie derivative'. Here, we introduce the notion of connection and covariant derivatives.

Connection and Covariant Derivative

Let π:EM\pi: E \to M be a vector bundle. A connection should satisfies the following

  1. Data: :Vect(M)×C(M,E)C(M,E)\nabla: \vect(M) \times C^\infty(M, E) \to C^\infty(M, E), (X,σ)X(σ)(X, \sigma) \mapsto \nabla_X(\sigma).
  2. C(M)\C^\infty(M)-linear: suppose fC(M)f \in C^\infty(M), we want fX(σ)=fX(σ)\nabla_{fX}(\sigma) = f \nabla_X(\sigma). Note that Lie derivative does not satisfy this property: LfXY=[fX,Y]=f[X,Y]+[f,Y]X=fLXYY(f)X\lcal_{fX} Y = [fX, Y] = f[X,Y] + [f, Y]X = f \lcal_X Y - Y(f) X
  3. Leiniz rule: suppose fC(M)f \in C^\infty(M), we want

X(fσ)=X(f)σ+fX(σ)=X(f)σ+fX(σ). \nabla_X(f \sigma) = \nabla_X(f) \sigma + f \nabla_X(\sigma) = X(f) \sigma + f \nabla_X(\sigma).

One can concisely reformulate the above conditions, using differential one-form. A connection is the following data :C(M,E)C(M,TME) \nabla: C^\infty(M, E) \to C^\infty(M, T^* M \otimes E) such that (fσ)=dfσ+f(σ),fC(M) \nabla(f \sigma) = df \ot \sigma + f \nabla(\sigma), \quad \forall f \in C^\infty(M) where TMET^*M \ot E is the tensor product of two vector bundles, and C(M,TME)C^\infty(M, T^* M \otimes E) is smooth section of it. Sometimes, we use the following notation: recall Ω0(M)\Omega^0(M) is 0-form, ie. smooth function, and Ω1(M)\Omega^1(M) is the space of 1-forms. We use Ω0(M,E)=C(M,E)\Omega^0(M, E) = C^\infty(M, E), and Ω1(M,E)=C(M,TME)\Omega^1(M,E) = C^\infty(M, T^* M \otimes E), then :Ω0(M,E)Ω1(M,E).\nabla: \Omega^0(M, E) \to \Omega^1(M, E). In general, we define Ωk(M,E)=C(k(TM)E) \Omega^k(M, E) = C^\infty( \wedge^k(T^*M) \ot E) as kk-forms with coefficient in EE.

Example 1 : Trivial vector bundle with trivial connection. Suppose E=M×RkE = M \times \R^k, then we can define the trivial connection \nabla on EE as (f1,,fk)=(df1,,dfk). \nabla (f_1, \cdots, f_k) = (df_1, \cdots, df_k).

The space of connection is not a linear space, but rather, an affine linear space. Suppose 0,1\nabla^0, \nabla^1 are both connections on EE. Then, for any smooth function fC(M)f \in C^\infty(M), the linear combination f0+(1f)1:Ω0(M,E)Ω1(M,E). f\nabla^0 + (1-f) \nabla^1: \Omega^0(M, E) \to \Omega^1(M, E). is still a connection. Indeed, the Leibniz rule works.

Proposition Suppose 0,1\nabla^0, \nabla^1 are both connections on EE, then A=10Ω1(M,End(E))A = \nabla^1 - \nabla^0 \in \Omega^1(M, \End(E)).

Remark: In plain words, for any XVect(M)X \in \vect(M), and σ\sigma section of EE, we have AX(σ)(p)A_X(\sigma)(p) only depends on σ(p)\sigma(p), ie., only the value of σ\sigma at pp, not the derivatives of σ\sigma at pp.

Proof: We have A:Ω0(M,E)Ω1(M,E)A: \Omega^0(M, E) \to \Omega^1(M, E) an R\R-linear map automatically. We need to show that AA is C(M)\C^\infty(M) linear, that is, for any fC(M)f \in C^\infty(M), σC(M,E)\sigma \in C^\infty(M, E), we want A(fσ)=fA(σ). A (f \sigma) = f A(\sigma). Indeed, this is easy to check A(fσ)=(10)(fσ)=(dfdf)σ+f(10)(σ)=fA(σ). A(f \sigma) = (\nabla^1 - \nabla^0) (f \sigma) = (df - df ) \otimes \sigma + f (\nabla^1 - \nabla^0) (\sigma) = f A (\sigma).

Prop : the space of all possible connections on EE, denoted as $\acal(E)$ is an affine vector space model on Ω1(End(E))\Omega^1(\End(E)).

Given the previous propostion, we only need to prove that

  1. this space $\acal(E)$ is not empty, and
  2. for any $\nabla \in \acal(E)$, AΩ1(End(E))A \in \Omega^1(\End(E)), $\nabla + A \in \acal(E)$.

The first statement can be shown using partition of unity. The second statement is an easy check.

Tensor, Hom and Dual

Let E1,E2E_1, E_2 be two vector bundles on MM. Recall that we can define the following E1E2,Hom(E1,E2) E_1 \ot E_2, \quad \Hom(E_1, E_2) as vector bundles on MM, where the fiber satisfies (E1E2)p=(E1)p(E2)p(E_1 \ot E_2)_p = (E_1)_p \ot (E_2)_p and Hom(E1,E2)p=Hom((E1)p,(E2)p)\Hom(E_1, E_2)_p = \Hom( (E_1)_p, (E_2)_p). We define the dual bundle of a vector bundle EE as E:=Hom(E,R)E^\vee := \Hom(E, \underline{\R}) where R=R×M\underline{\R} = \R \times M is the trivial bundle.

Suppose (E1,1)(E_1, \nabla^1) and (E2,2)(E_2, \nabla^2) are equipped with connections, we define connection on the tensor and hom bundle as (σ1σ2)=(σ1)σ2+σ1(σ2) \nabla( \sigma_1 \ot \sigma_2) = \nabla ( \sigma_1) \ot \sigma_2 + \sigma_1 \ot \nabla (\sigma_2) where we omit the superscript on \nabla and we use the identification Ω1(M,E1E2)=Ω1(M)Ω0(M,E1)Ω0(M,E2),\Omega^1(M, E_1 \ot E_2) = \Omega^1(M) \ot \Omega^0(M, E_1) \ot \Omega^0(M, E_2), where the tensor on the RHS is over C(M)\C^\infty(M).

Suppose THom(E1,E2)T \in \Hom(E_1, E_2), then we define (T)(σ1)=(Tσ1)T(σ1).(\nabla T)(\sigma_1) = \nabla (T \sigma_1) - T (\nabla \sigma_1).

Moving Frame

Let MM be a smooth manifold of dimension nn, EE a rank rr vector bundle on MM over R\R. Suppose (U,(x1,,xn))(U, (x_1,\cdots, x_n)) is a coordinate chart on MM, and furthermore EUE|_U is trivializable, with a trivialization (eα)α=1,,r(e_\alpha)_{\alpha=1,\cdots,r}. Then we can write a local section uΓ(U,E)u \in \Gamma(U, E) as u=αuαeα=uαeα, u = \sum_\alpha u^\alpha e_\alpha = u^\alpha e_\alpha, using Einstein summation convention. And we can write (u)=(uαeα)=d(uα)eα+uα(eα). \nabla(u) = \nabla(u^\alpha e_\alpha) = d(u^\alpha) \ot e_\alpha + u^\alpha \ot \nabla(e_\alpha). Hence, if we know how \nabla acts on the frame eαe_\alpha, we know how it acts on any sections. We may write (eα)=Γiαβdxieβ \nabla(e_\alpha) = \Gamma^{\beta}_{i \alpha} dx^i \ot e_\beta These coefficients Γiαβ\Gamma^{\beta}_{i \alpha} encodes the data of the connection over UU.

More abstractly, we can say: given a trivilization of EU=U×RrE|_U = U \times \R^r, we may consider the trivial connection dUd_U on U×RrU \times \R^r, then over UU, we have U=dU+AU \nabla|_U = d_U + A_U where AUΩ1(U,End(E))A_U \in \Omega^1(U, \End(E)) is called the local conection 1-form.

math214/04-01.txt · Last modified: 2020/04/03 14:20 by pzhou