2
$\begingroup$

Let $\nabla\colon\Gamma(TM)\times\Gamma(E)\to\Gamma(E),(X,\sigma)\mapsto\nabla_X\sigma$ be a connection on a vector bundle $E$ over a smooth manifold $M$, and let $\gamma\in C^\infty(I,M),I:=[0,1]$ be a smooth curve in $M$. In our lecture we "defined" the parallel transport of $v_0\in E_{\gamma(0)}$ along $\gamma$ as follows.

The equation $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\sigma\equiv0$ corresponds to an ODE which for any given initial value $\sigma_{\gamma(0)}=v_0\in E_{\gamma(0)}$ has a unique solution $\sigma\in\Gamma(E)$. We call $\sigma_{\gamma(1)}\in E_{\gamma(1)}$ the parallel transport of $v_0$ along $\gamma$.

I see one problem with this definition: The derivative $\dot\gamma=D\gamma(\partial_t)\colon I\to TM$ is not a vector field on $M$, i.e. it is not a section of $TM$. Even when viewed as a map $\gamma(I)\subset M\to M$, it isn't defined on all of $M$ making it unsuitable as an argument to $\nabla$. I am aware of the locality (or tensoriality) of the connection. But if there does not exist any vector field $X\in\Gamma(TM)$ which coincides with $\dot\gamma\colon\gamma(I)\to TM$ on $\gamma(I)$, then you can't use locality to argue that $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\sigma$ is well-defined. If $\dot\gamma\colon\gamma(I)\to TM$ can actually be extended to a full section $\dot\gamma\in\Gamma(TM)$, then problem solved. But if $\gamma$ intersects itself with different velocities at the intersection, extending $\dot\gamma$ becomes impossible.

The only reasonable approach I could come up with is to define some pullback connection $\gamma^*\nabla\colon\Gamma(TI)\times\Gamma(\gamma^*E)\to\Gamma(\gamma^*E)$ on the pullback bundle $(\gamma^*E)_t=T_{\gamma(t)}M$ (over $I$) and define $\sigma\in\gamma^*E$ to be the solution of $(\gamma^*\nabla)_{\partial_t}\sigma\equiv0$ with initial value $\sigma_0=v_0\in T_{\gamma(0)}M$.

After a little bit of digging I found this Wikipedia article, where the author claims that there exists a unique connection $\gamma^*\nabla$ on $\gamma^*E$ satisfying $(\gamma^*\nabla)_X(\gamma^*\sigma)=\gamma^*(\nabla_{d\gamma(X)}\sigma)$ for all $X\in^?\Gamma(TI)$ and $\sigma\in\Gamma(E)$. But this seems to suffer the same problem as above, because $d\gamma(X)\colon I\to TM$ is not a section of $TM$ leaving $\nabla_{d\gamma(X)}\sigma$ undefined.

The same problem occurs in the definition of geodesics.

$\gamma$ is called a geodesic of $M$ with respect to an affine connection $\nabla\colon\Gamma(TM)\times\Gamma(TM)\to\Gamma(TM)$, if $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma\equiv0$.

But again, $\dot\gamma\notin\Gamma(TM)$.

This brings me to my question: How are geodesics and the parallel transport of a vector $v_0\in E_{\gamma(0)}$ actually defined? Is there a rigorous way of defining these concepts?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What book are you reading? Most textbooks will discuss this issue. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Jan 22 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ None, I have lecture notes from the lecture. You can find them here (section C2 is about connections): www3.math.tu-berlin.de/geometrie/Lehre/WS19/DGII $\endgroup$ – Cubi73 Jan 22 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ My suggestion is to get a textbook, in addition to your class notes. This will clarify many issues. For instance, $\gamma'(t)$ should be regarded as a vector field along $\gamma$, i.e. a section of $\gamma^*(TM)$. Furthermore, the covariant derivative $\nabla_{\gamma'(t)}$ at $t_0$ depends only on the vector $\gamma'(t_0)$ and not on the vector field $\gamma'(t)$ along $\gamma(t)$. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Jan 22 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ There always exists a vector field of $M$ that coincides with $\dot{\gamma}$. Extend $\dot{\gamma}$ to a section $\tilde{\gamma}$ of $\gamma^*TM$, use the exponential map to identify $\gamma^*TM$ with a tubular neighborhood of $\gamma(I)$ in $M$, push $\tilde{\gamma}$ forward with the exponential map, and multiply by your favorite cutoff function. Define $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}$ as $\nabla_{\mbox{exp}^*\tilde{\gamma}}$. Use tensoriality of the connection to argue that your choices don't matter. Conclude $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}$ is well-defined. $\endgroup$ – Neal Jan 22 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Neal Why does using the exponential map make parallel transport well-defined? The exponential map is defined using geodesics, i.e. curves $\gamma\colon I\to M$ which are solution to the ODE $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma\equiv0$. But as you can see, the term $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma$ has the exact same problem as in my question above: $\dot\gamma\notin\Gamma(TM)$. $\endgroup$ – Cubi73 Jan 23 at 16:51
1
$\begingroup$

The formally correct would be indeed to use the pullback connection, which exists by the following theorem:

If $f:S\to M$ is smooth map between smooth manifolds and $E$ is a smooth vectorbundle over $M$ with connection $\nabla$ then there is unique connection $f^*\nabla$ on $f^*E$ such that for all $p\in S$, $X_p\in T_pS$ and $\sigma\in\Gamma(E)$ $$(f^*\nabla)_{X_p}(f^*\sigma)=\nabla_{df(X_p)}\sigma$$

Note that since a connection is tensorial tensorial in the first slot it actually makes sense to plug in tangent vectors instead of vectorfields. The output will then be also just a tangent vector.

Now if $\nabla$ is a connection on $TM$ and $\gamma: I\to M$ is a smooth curve then $\dot\gamma\in\Gamma(\gamma^*TM)$, so if $\frac{\partial}{\partial s}$ is the standard vectorfield on $I$ (meaning the vectorfield coming from the curve $t\mapsto t$) then $\ddot \gamma(t)=(\gamma^*\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial s}}\dot\gamma)(t)$ is well defined and may be also denoted by $(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma)(t)$.

As a last word: If the curve $\gamma$ satisfies $\dot\gamma(t)\neq 0$ for all $t\in I$ then one can avoid using the pullback connection (even if $\gamma$ has self-intersections) by using the locality priciple and an extension argument, see for example here.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh, I think you just nailed down the problem I had with this. We introduced connections as maps $\Gamma(TM)\times\Gamma(E)\to\Gamma(E)$ whose properties make them tensorial, so I thought that talking about local properties nevertheless requires the existence of a full vector field. But from the comments and your answer it seems that one can define "pointwise connections" $T_pM\times\Gamma(E)\to\Gamma(E)$ which (under some extra conditions) can be "glued" together along $M$ to give a connection $\Gamma(TM)\times\Gamma(E)\to\Gamma(E)$. Is that right? $\endgroup$ – Cubi73 Jan 23 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ $\nabla$ does not need a vectorfield as input in the following sense: For $X_p\in T_pM$ and $\sigma\in\Gamma E$ one defines $\nabla_{X_p}\sigma=(\nabla_{\bar X}\sigma)(p)$ where $\bar X\in\Gamma (TM)$ is any vectorfield with $\bar X_p=X_p$. Such a vectorfield always exists and by tensoriality this definition does not depend on the choice of $\bar X$. So for fixed $p\in M$ $\nabla$ can be regarded as a map $T_pM\times \Gamma(E)\to E_p$. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 23 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure though if there are nice conditions under which "pointwise-connections" can be glued together to obtain a connection, but this is also not needed here. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 23 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ For a single point that is correct, but $\dot\gamma$ cannot always be extended to a vector field. This is the reason why I asked about the definition of $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}$. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and $(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\sigma)_p$ really is just defined to be $\nabla_X\sigma$ for some vector field $X$ with $X_p=\dot\gamma(p)$ regardless of $\dot\gamma\notin\Gamma(TM)$. Is that the case? $\endgroup$ – Cubi73 Jan 23 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ An expression like $(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\sigma)_p$ was not defined at all. All what was defined is the expression $(\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma)(t):=(\gamma^*\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial s}}\dot\gamma)(t)$ which with the definition in the comment above can also be written as $\gamma^*\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial s}(t)}\dot\gamma$, so you should regard the expression $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma$. So you should regard the expression $\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma$ more like an abuse of notation. $\endgroup$ – lulu Jan 23 at 22:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.