2

I recently asked about the intuition behind connection 1-forms on pricipal bundles (Intuition behind connection 1-forms and Ehresmann connections). Thanks to the phenomenal answer I received, I now have a good idea of the geometry connection 1-forms and Ehresmann connections are trying to capture.

I would like to build a similar intuition for curvature 2-forms. I am familiar with the technical definition that if $\pi: P \rightarrow M$ is a principal $G$-bundle, $\pi_H: TP \rightarrow H$ the projection map from the tangent bundle on $P$ onto the horizontal vector bundle $H$, and $A$ a connection 1-form, then the curvature 2-form $F$ is defined as $$F(X,Y) = dA(\pi_H(X), \pi_H(Y)) \tag{1}$$ for all $X, Y \in T_pP$ and $p \in P$.

Equivalently, we may define $F$ through the structure equation: $$F = dA + \frac{1}{2} [A \wedge A] \tag{2}$$ where $$[A \wedge A](X,Y) = [A(X), A(Y)] - [A(Y), A(X)]$$ with $[\cdot]$ being the Lie bracket on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.

An answer given by user Tim van Beek to this question (Geometric interpretation of connection forms, torsion forms, curvature forms, etc) says

The curvature measures how much the parallel transport on the surface deviates from the parallel transport in the ambient $\mathbb{R}^3$.

and another answer given by user ಠ_ಠ says

Now, to interpret the curvature, lets just think about any bundle $\pi: E \to M$ with connection $\nabla$. Let's use the notation $x \sim y$ to indicate that two points are infinitesimal neighbours. If we have three points $x,y,z \in M$ such that $x \sim y$, $y\sim z$ and $z\sim x$. These three define an infinitesimal 2-simplex in $M$. Lets consider the transport around (the boundary of) this simplex: $$R(x,y,z) = \nabla(z,x) \circ \nabla(y,z) \circ \nabla(x,y): E_x \to E_x$$ If we transport a point $w \in E_x$ around the simplex, we have no guarantee that we end up back where we started. This is precisely the notion of curvature. The curvature measures the extent to which parallel transport around infinitesimal 2-simplices deviates from the identity.

Other posts answer in terms of Riemannian metrics, which I'm not too familiar with, or in terms of other concepts such as parallel transport or covariant derivatives, which the book I am using has not introduced yet.

Based on the above answers, my understanding is that the connection 2-form measures how "flat" the transport of vectors are in a given connection. The picture I have in mind is that flat curvature means the vectors are transported around in a perfect circle, whereas some curvature means the vectors are transported around in a sort of spiral.

Is this the right picture to have in mind? If so, how does this naturally lead to the definition (1) or (2)? For example, why does the exterior derivative appear here? It seems natural to measure such a thing by mapping the curvature into a scalar field. Instead, why does curvature take values in a Lie algebra?

CBBAM
  • 7,149
  • 3
    you need to keep reading. A textbook isn’t always written linearly from easy to hard. And from a brief look at Hamilton’s book, he’s going general to special. Whenever you’re reading such a book, you must always suspend a little disbelief and keep reading because if you try to ask ‘what is the intuition’ and then you read such a general $\to$ specical book, you’ll never find an answer. If you read an intuitive text, and ask “what’s the rigorous meaning”, you’ll arrive at similar difficulties. Curvature is very closely related to parallel transport, so just keep reading till he introduces it. – peek-a-boo Aug 14 '23 at 22:49
  • @peek-a-boo Thank you for your comment. I ended up getting a bit lost after he introduced curvature and nothing seemed "natural". That is when I stopped to check my understanding and intuition. I think you right and I will continue reading for now. – CBBAM Aug 14 '23 at 22:57
  • 4
    anyway, besides thinking directly in terms of parallel transport, you can start with the decomposition $TP=VP\oplus HP$, and ask ‘is my subbundle $HP$ completely integrable’. Frobenius’ theorem gives you a complete answer to this question. And in Frobenius’s theorem you need to check some conditions. If you work it out, then you’ll arrive at the notion of the curvature 2-form and see the horizontal subbundle is integrable if and only if the curvature vanishes. But still, to work out the calculations in the middle you need to learn to perform various calculations, i.e keep reading. – peek-a-boo Aug 14 '23 at 22:58
  • 1
    Are you at least familiar with the basic concepts of Riemannian geometry? Connections and curvature on vector bundles are generalizations of these concepts in Riemannian geometry. And before that, there’s the concept of a connection and curvature for a surface in Euclidean 3-space. It’s good to study these topics before you tackle principal bundles. I’m also curious what book you’re reading. – Deane Aug 14 '23 at 23:54
  • @Deane I have a very basic familiarity of Riemannian geometry (i.e. what a Riemannian metric is and some basic applications of them) but most of what I have learned has been in passing while learning about smooth manifolds. I am using Hamilton's book Mathematical Gauge Theory, which introduces connections/curvatures without motivating them for Euclidean 3-space, presumably to get to gauge theory as quickly as possible. As a result the only thing I have to go off of (and least so far in the book) are the definitions themselves such as (1) above and a few follow up theorems. – CBBAM Aug 15 '23 at 00:22
  • Unsolicited advice based on bitter first-hand experience: make sure you understand the most elementary examples inside and out, including the complex Hopf fibration $U(1) \to SU(2) \to \mathbb{C}P^1$ equipped with the canonical 'monopole' connection. Hamilton will sneak these in as running examples, but I seem to recall that Naber's book(s) put them more front and centre? [Also, on the off chance you read mathematical German, Baum's Eichfeldtheorie is very good.] – Branimir Ćaćić Aug 15 '23 at 01:49
  • @BranimirĆaćić Thank you for the helpful suggestions. I have so far been able to follow the Hopf fibration examples but I'm not very comfortable with them. If you have any more advice on reading Hamilton's book please feel free to share. – CBBAM Aug 15 '23 at 06:08
  • Reading the last two paragraphs of your question I would advise not to jump right into the colder waters of Gauge Theory. It is better to get a firm understanding of Riemannian geometry first. To understand what curvature-2-forms are it helped me a lot to calculate some of them explicitly for a few concrete examples where the Riemann tensor is well-known. – Kurt G. Aug 15 '23 at 07:50
  • @KurtG. Do you have any textbook suggestions for Riemannian geometry if my goal is mathematical physics and gauge theory? I have heard good things about Tu's Differential Geometry: Connections, Curvature, and Characteristic Classes as a primer for gauge theory but I haven't read it so I don't know how much is focused on Riemannian geometry. I have also heard good things about Lee's book Introduction to Riemannian Manifolds. – CBBAM Aug 15 '23 at 16:05
  • Tu's book I don't have but I have M. Nakahara, Geometry, Topology and Physics. It it is rigorous but physics oriented at the same time and covers Riemannian geometry and some fiber bundle stuff in chapter 10. I have still not made use of it as much as I should but I guess it is terrific. – Kurt G. Aug 15 '23 at 17:20
  • @KurtG. Thank you for the suggestion, I will take a look at that book. – CBBAM Aug 16 '23 at 03:29

1 Answers1

1

I think it's easier to understand this first on a vector bundle, then on the frame bundle associated with the vector bundle, and finally a principal bundle. Using a connection, you can always extend a vector in a vector bundle over a point to a parallel (i.e., "constant") section along a curve through that point. The natural next question is whether you can extend it to a parallel section on a surface containing the point. It's not necessarily possible, and curvature arises naturally when you formulate the obstruction infinitesimally.

On the frame bundle, it's the same ides, except you are trying to extend a frame over a point to a parallel frame on a surface containing that point.

This view of curvature is known as holonomy. Here is an explanation of it for a vector bundle.

Deane
  • 10,298
  • Thank you for your answer. I think I will need to learn more Riemannian geometry as you suggested in the comments. – CBBAM Aug 16 '23 at 03:29