Textbook Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics Part Ii Fibre Bundles Topology and Gauge Fields Gerd Rudolph Ebook All Chapter PDF

Differential Geometry and Mathematical
Physics Part II Fibre Bundles Topology

and Gauge Fields Gerd Rudolph
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/differential-geometry-and-mathematical-physics-part-i
i-fibre-bundles-topology-and-gauge-fields-gerd-rudolph/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
From Differential Geometry to Non commutative Geometry

and Topology Neculai S. Teleman
https://textbookfull.com/product/from-differential-geometry-to-
non-commutative-geometry-and-topology-neculai-s-teleman/
Synthetic differential topology Bunge
https://textbookfull.com/product/synthetic-differential-topology-
bunge/
Aspects of Integrability of Differential Systems and

Fields A Mathematical Primer for Physicists Costas J.
Papachristou
https://textbookfull.com/product/aspects-of-integrability-of-
differential-systems-and-fields-a-mathematical-primer-for-
physicists-costas-j-papachristou/
Mathematical Gauge Theory With Applications to the

Standard Model of Particle Physics Mark J.D. Hamilton
https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-gauge-theory-with-
applications-to-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-mark-j-d-
hamilton/
Basics of algebra topology and differential calculus
Gallier J
https://textbookfull.com/product/basics-of-algebra-topology-and-
differential-calculus-gallier-j/
Partial Differential Equations Arising from Physics and

Geometry A Volume in Memory of Abbas Bahri London
Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 1st Edition
Mohamed Ben Ayed (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/partial-differential-equations-
arising-from-physics-and-geometry-a-volume-in-memory-of-abbas-
bahri-london-mathematical-society-lecture-note-series-1st-
edition-mohamed-ben-ayed-editor/
Mathematical Gauge Theory With Applications to the

Standard Model of Particle Physics 1st Edition Mark
J.D. Hamilton (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-gauge-theory-with-
applications-to-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-1st-
edition-mark-j-d-hamilton-auth/
Differential geometry and Lie groups A computational

perspective Gallier J.
https://textbookfull.com/product/differential-geometry-and-lie-
groups-a-computational-perspective-gallier-j/
Topology and Physics of Circular DNA (1992) First

Edition Vologodskii
https://textbookfull.com/product/topology-and-physics-of-
circular-dna-1992-first-edition-vologodskii/
Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
Gerd Rudolph
Matthias Schmidt
Differential
Geometry and
Mathematical
Physics
Part II. Fibre Bundles, Topology and
Gauge Fields
Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics
The series founded in 1975 and formerly (until 2005) entitled Texts and Monographs in
Physics (TMP) publishes high-level monographs in theoretical and mathematical
physics. The change of title to Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (TMP) signals that
the series is a suitable publication platform for both the mathematical and the theoretical
physicist. The wider scope of the series is reflected by the composition of the editorial
board, comprising both physicists and mathematicians.
The books, written in a didactic style and containing a certain amount of elementary
background material, bridge the gap between advanced textbooks and research
monographs. They can thus serve as basis for advanced studies, not only for lectures
and seminars at graduate level, but also for scientists entering a field of research.
Editorial Board
W. Beiglböck, Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
P. Chrusciel, Gravitational Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
J.-P. Eckmann, Département de Physique Théorique, Université de Genéve, Geneve,
Switzerland
H. Grosse, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
A. Kupiainen, Department of Mathematics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
H. Löwen, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf,
Düsseldorf, Germany
M. Loss, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA
N.A. Nekrasov, Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, State University of New
York, Stony Brook, USA
M. Ohya, Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Japan
M. Salmhofer, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg,
Germany
S. Smirnov, Mathematics Section, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
L. Takhtajan, Department of Mathematics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, USA
J. Yngvason, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/720

Gerd Rudolph Matthias Schmidt
•
Differential Geometry
and Mathematical Physics
Part II. Fibre Bundles, Topology and
Gauge Fields
123
Gerd Rudolph Matthias Schmidt
Institute for Theoretical Physics Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of Leipzig University of Leipzig
Leipzig Leipzig
Germany Germany
ISSN 1864-5879 ISSN 1864-5887 (electronic)

ISBN 978-94-024-0958-1 ISBN 978-94-024-0959-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0959-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950402
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
The registered company address is: Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3311 GX Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to thank all our friends and collaborators for fruitful joint work over
so many years. Notably, we wish to thank Szymon Charzyński, Jochen Dittmann,
Christian Fleischhack, Hendrik Grundling, Alexander Hertsch, Johannes
Huebschmann, Peter Jarvis, Jerzy Kijowski, Yu. A. Kubyshin, Rainer Matthes, José
Mourão, Olaf Richter†, Torsten Tok, Igor P. Volobuev and Raimar Wulkenhaar.
Moreover, we are grateful to Detlev Buchholz, Bernd Crell, Heinz-Dietrich
Doebner, Klaus Fredenhagen, Thomas Friedrich, Krzysztof Gawędzki, Bodo
Geyer, Arkadiusz Z. Jadczyk, Hartmann Römer, Manfred Salmhofer, Konrad
Schmüdgen, Klaus Sibold, Andrzej Trautman, Armin Uhlmann, Rainer Verch,
Stanisław L. Woronowicz and Eberhard Zeidler† for helpful and inspiring dis-
cussions. We are especially indebted to Tobias Diez and Peter Jarvis for reading
parts of the manuscript. We also wish to thank our librarian, Mrs. Gabriele Menge,
for her permanent support.
v
Contents
1 Fibre Bundles and Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Principal Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Associated Bundles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3 Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4 Covariant Exterior Derivative and Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5 The Koszul Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.6 Bundle Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1.7 Parallel Transport and Holonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.8 Automorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1.9 Invariant Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2 Linear Connections and Riemannian Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.1 Linear Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.2 H-Structures and Compatible Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.3 Curvature and Holonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
2.4 Sectional Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2.5 Symmetric Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2.6 Compatible Connections on Vector Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.7 Hodge Theory. The Weitzenboeck Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.8 Four-Dimensional Riemannian Geometry. Self-duality . . . . . . . . . . 181
3 Homotopy Theory of Principal Fibre Bundles. Classification. . . . . . . 189
3.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.2 Fibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.3 The Covering Homotopy Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
3.4 Universal Principal Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
3.5 The Milnor Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3.6 Classification of Smooth Principal Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.7 Classifying Mappings Associated with Lie Group
Homomorphisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 240
3.8 Universal Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 244
vii
viii Contents
4 Cohomology Theory of Fibre Bundles. Characteristic Classes . . . . . . 257

4.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
4.2 Characteristic Classes for the Classical Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
4.3 Whitney Sum Formula and Splitting Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
4.4 Field Restriction and Field Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
4.5 Characteristic Classes for Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
4.6 The Weil Homomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
4.7 Genera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
4.8 The Postnikov Tower and Bundle Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
5 Clifford Algebras, Spin Structures and Dirac Operators . . . . . . . . . . 353
5.1 Clifford Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
5.2 Spinor Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
5.3 Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
5.4 Spin Structures and Spinc -Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
5.5 Clifford Modules and Dirac Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
5.6 Weitzenboeck Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
5.7 Elliptic Complexes. The Hodge Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
5.8 The Atiyah–Singer Index Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
5.9 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
6 The Yang–Mills Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
6.1 Gauge Fields. The Configuration Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
6.2 The Yang–Mills Equation. Self-dual Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
6.3 The BPST Instanton Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
6.4 The ADHM Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
6.5 The Instanton Moduli Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
6.6 Instantons and Smooth 4-manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
6.7 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
6.8 Non-minimal Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
7 Matter Fields and Model Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
7.1 Matter Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
7.2 Yang–Mills–Higgs Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
7.3 The Higgs Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
7.4 Magnetic Monopoles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
7.5 The Bogomolnyi–Prasad–Sommerfield Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
7.6 The Seiberg–Witten Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
7.7 The Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics. . . . . . . . . . . . 604
7.8 Dimensional Reduction. Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
7.9 Dimensional Reduction. Model Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
8 The Gauge Orbit Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
8.2 Gauge Orbit Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
8.3 The Gauge Orbit Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Contents ix
8.4 Geometry of Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652

8.5 Classification of Howe Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
8.6 Classification of Howe Subbundles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
8.7 Enumeration of Gauge Orbit Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
8.8 Partial Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
9 Elements of Quantum Gauge Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693
9.1 Path Integral Quantization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694
9.2 The Gribov Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
9.3 Anomalies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706
9.4 Hamiltonian Quantum Gauge Theory on the Lattice. . . . . . . . . . . . 725
9.5 Field Algebra and Observable Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
9.6 Including the Nongeneric Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
9.7 A Toy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750
Appendix A: Field Restriction and Field Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
Appendix B: The Conformal Group of the 4-Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
Appendix C: Simple Lie Algebras. Root Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771
Appendix D: f-Function Regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775
Appendix E: K-Theory and Index Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
Appendix F: Determinant Line Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781
Appendix G: Eilenberg–MacLane Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Introduction
This is the second part of our book on Differential Geometry and Mathematical
Physics. It is based on our teaching of these subjects at the University of Leipzig to
students of physics and of mathematics and on our research in gauge field theory
over many years.
As in Part I, let us start with some historical remarks. The concept of gauge
invariance first appeared in the famous papers [660] and [661] of Hermann Weyl
from the year 1918.1 In this work, Weyl extended Einstein’s principle of general
relativity by postulating that, additionally, the scale of length can vary smoothly
from point to point in spacetime. In more detail, Weyl’s basic idea was to develop a
purely infinitesimal geometry. Behind that concept was his belief that ‘a true
infinitesimal geometry should, however, recognize only a principle for transferring
the magnitude of a vector to an infinitesimally close point …’, see page 25 in [660].
In this context, the notion of connection appeared for the first time in the mathe-
matical literature.2 In a modern geometric language, he was led to a generalization
of Riemannian geometry characterized by a pair consisting of a conformal
Riemannian structure and a connection in a line bundle over spacetime. Weyl
proposed to identify the connection form with the electromagnetic gauge potential
and, consequently, its curvature with the electromagnetic field tensor. Thus, he
obtained a unification of general relativity with electromagnetism. However, it
quickly became clear that this model was not compatible with basic physical
principles. It was Einstein who observed that if this theory was correct, then the
behaviour of clocks would depend on their history. This is in contradiction with
empirical evidence.3 Although this model did not survive, the gauge principle did
though. In 1929 Weyl proposed to apply it to quantum mechanics. He recognized
1
In these papers, the term ‘gauge invariance’ appears in German as ‘Maßstab-Invarianz’.
2
Of course, there were predecessors, notably Christoffel, Ricci and Levi-Civita. The latter had a
clear mathematical understanding of parallel transport and of the covariant derivative operator, but
up to our knowledge, he did not invent the term ‘connection’.
3
See the postscript by Einstein in [660] and the author’s reply. This started a long discussion
between Weyl and Einstein. For further reference, see also [604] and [496].
xi
xii Introduction
that it is the phase of the Schrödinger wave function which should be gauged, see
[663]. In more detail, the idea of Weyl was as follows: since only the absolute value
of the wave function has a physical interpretation, the wave function itself may be
multiplied by an arbitrary point-dependent phase factor.4 However, the transformed
wave function obviously does not satisfy the Schrödinger equation any more. In
order to restore invariance, Weyl proposed to replace the partial derivatives with
respect to space and time coordinates occurring in the Schrödinger equation by the
covariant derivatives obtained by adding to the partial derivatives the components
of the electromagnetic potential. This modified Schrödinger equation is invariant
under simultaneous gauge transformations of the wave function and of the
electromagnetic potential. This way, the first quantum mechanical model of a
U(1)-gauge theory was born.
The combination of this U(1)-gauge principle with the quantum theory of fields
led to Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). For an exhaustive historical introduction
to that theory we refer to Volume I of [654], see Sect. 1.2. The early contributions
to the development of QED date back to the late 1920s and are due to Dirac [152],
Weisskopf and Wigner [658], Jordan and Pauli [350], Jordan and Wigner [351] and
Heisenberg and Pauli [292]. In the 1930s, QED was studied intensively leading to a
further development of the formalism as well as to successful applications. This
period culminated in the famous Solvay report by Pauli in 1939, see [505]. Clearly,
the biggest puzzle was the emergence of infinities in various kinds of calculations.
Amongst a number of approaches to tackle this problem, in the end, the concept of
renormalization of the parameters of the theory became the widely accepted strat-
egy. In this spirit, in the late 1940s, Schwinger [579], Tomonaga [629] and
Feynman [194] brought QED to its final manifestly relativistic form.5
The first non-Abelian gauge theory was proposed by Yang and Mills in 1954,
see [685].6 Their work was based on the idea that the forces between the nucleons
were mediated by the exchange of pions and that the interaction was invariant under
the isospin group SU(2). In this model, the proton and the neutron form an isospin
doublet and the three charged states of the pion form a triplet in the adjoint rep-
resentation. Yang and Mills postulated the principle of local isotopic gauge
invariance. As a consequence, they were led to introduce an SU(2)-gauge potential.
They found the field equations of this system, proposed a generalization of the
Lorenz gauge fixing condition and made preliminary remarks on the quantum
theory of their model. The paper by Yang and Mills dealt with the special gauge
group SU(2) only, but from their presentation it was clear how to generalize the
4
In the group theoretical language, such a transformation is given by a function on spacetime with
values in the Abelian group U(1).
5
For this work, Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.
Initially, Feynman’s diagrammatic technique seemed quite different from the operator-based
approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but Dyson [171] showed that the two approaches were
equivalent.
6
There was an earlier paper by Klein [378] written in the spirit of Kaluza-Klein theory which
already contained a non-Abelian gauge potential.
Introduction xiii
model to an arbitrary non-Abelian gauge group, see [639] and [236]. It took over
ten more years before this seminal paper came into prominence. In 1964 Gell-Mann
and Ne’eman [235], [237] proposed SU(3) as the gauge group of strong interactions
and in the years 1964–1967 Brout and Englert [106], Higgs [298–300] and Kibble
[364] discovered a symmetry-breaking mechanism which gave a mass to some
components of the Yang–Mills field. Based on this work and on earlier work by
Glashow [247] and others, in the years 1967–1968 Weinberg [654] and Salam
[552] unified the electromagnetic and the weak interactions.7 At the beginning
of the 1970s, Gross and Wilczek [264], Politzer [513] and Weinberg [656] created
the theory of strong interactions called Quantum Chromodynamics. These theories
became the two basic building blocks of the standard model of elementary particle
physics.8
In the period just described, Weyl’s original ingenious understanding that the
gauge principle is closely related to the notion of connection did not play any role.9
The development of the theory of connections evolved in a completely separate way
as part of modern geometry and was generally unknown to the physics community.
In the beginning of the 1920s, on the basis of his deep expertise in Lie theory and
under the influence of Einstein’s theory of general relativity and of Klein’s Erlangen
programme, Élie Cartan started building a general theory of connections with
respect to various groups. In contrast to Weyl, who used the absolute differential
calculus of Levi-Civita and Ricci, Cartan relied on the calculus of differential forms.
In the context of what he called ‘generalized spaces’,10 Cartan developed the theory
of connections (including torsion) for various types of geometries (Riemannian,
Lorentzian, Weylian, affine, conformal, projective and others), see [115–120] and
further references in [130] and [568].11 The next step forward was taken at the
beginning of the 1940s by Ehresmann, a student of Cartan, who proposed to use
fibre bundles as the natural geometric structure allowing for a global description of
a connection, see [174–176] and [410] for further references.12 As a matter of fact,
the very notion of a fibre bundle existed already at that time. It was invented by
Seifert [584] as early as in 1932. In the 1930s and 1940s, the study of fibre bundles
7
For this work, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam received the Nobel prize in 1979.
8
For an exhaustive presentation of the history of the standard model see [657].
9
However, inspired by the work of Einstein, Weyl, Yang, Mills and Utiyama, as early as in 1963,
Lubkin [411] made a first step towards the analysis of the geometric content of the gauge concept
in terms of connection theory in fibre bundles.
10
A generalized space in the sense of Cartan is a space of tangent spaces such that two infinitely
near tangent spaces are related by an infinitesimal transformation of a given Lie group. Such a
structure clearly defines a connection. We note that the tangent space is an abstract notion here, it
may not coincide with the space of tangent vectors.
11
The paper [130] by Chern and Chevalley contains a description of the work of Cartan as a whole.
The paper [568] by Scholz gives some interesting insight into the scientific interrelation between
Weyl and Cartan.
12
The paper [410] by Libermann describes the influence of Ehresmann on the development of
modern differential geometry in detail.
xiv Introduction
became a quickly developing field of topology.13 The main steps were taken by
Whitney [665, 666], Hopf and Stiefel [602], Hurewicz and Steenrod [330, 331],
Ehresmann and Feldbau (already cited above), Chern14 [126–129] and Pontryagin
[516]. This period culminated in the textbooks on the topology of fibre bundles by
Steenrod [599] and on the geometry of connections in fibre bundles by Nomizu
[491]. By that time, the theory of fibre bundles was settled as a classical field of
geometry and topology. It is beyond the scope of this introduction to describe the
further development of this field up until the present time.
The first full description of gauge theory in the language of fibre bundles and
connections was presented by Trautman in 1970 [630]. Thereafter, the study of the
geometric structure of gauge theories quickly became part of mathematical physics
and, within the next decade, quite a number of papers propagating this geometric
point of view have been written, see e.g. [161], [173] and [147]. This was related to
the fact that, at that time, mathematicians became excited about questions posed by
physicists, notably by the question of how to find all self-dual solutions of the
Yang–Mills equations. This problem was solved by Atiyah, Drinfeld, Hitchin and
Manin [36] using methods of algebraic geometry. In our eyes, this is one of the
most fascinating interactions of geometry and physics in the second half of the
twentieth century. Via the study of the moduli space of the solutions, it led to deep
new insight into the topology of differentiable four-manifolds, see [159]. In the
middle of the 1990s, guided by the study of the vacuum structure of N = 2
supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory, Seiberg and Witten [582, 583] arrived at a
U(1)-gauge model coupled to a spinor field. The investigation of this model gave a
new impetus to the study of the topology of differentiable four-manifolds. Within a
few months, many of the results obtained via instanton theory were reproved within
this new theory and new results, notably in the theory of symplectic manifolds,
were obtained. Yet another fruitful interaction of physics and geometry happened in
the theory of magnetic monopoles. The three fields of research just mentioned will
be discussed in some detail in Chaps. 6 and 7. By the end of the 1970s and the
beginning of the 1980s, geometrical and topological methods also started playing a
role in quantum gauge theory. This applies, in particular to the study of the Gribov
problem and to anomalies. Both of these aspects will be discussed in Chap. 9.
Moreover, starting from the beginning of the 1990s, a number of observations,
conjectures and results concerning the relevance of the stratified structure of the
gauge orbit space for quantum gauge theory appeared. This is one of our fields of
research, so we will discuss the structure of the gauge orbit stratification, together
with a concept how to implement it on quantum level, in detail in Chaps. 8 and 9.
We continue with a few remarks on the structure and the content of this volume.
This volume consists of three building blocks: in the first four chapters we present
the geometry and topology of fibre bundles, in Chap. 5 we study the theory of Dirac
operators and the remaining four chapters are devoted to gauge theory. In more
See [434] for a history of the theory of fibre bundles.

13
14
See [309] for a detailed description of his mathematical work.
Introduction xv
detail, in Chap. 1, we study principal and associated bundles and develop the theory
of connections. This includes elementary bundle reduction theory, the theory of
holonomy and the theory of invariant connections. In Chap. 2, we study linear
connections in the frame bundle of a manifold and their reductions. This leads us to
H-structures15 allowing for a unified view on possible geometric structures mani-
folds may be endowed with. From this perspective, Riemannian geometry occurs as
an important special example. In this context, we study compatible connections, the
relation of curvature and holonomy and we give an introduction to the theory of
symmetric spaces. Moreover, we present elementary Hodge theory and discuss
some aspects of 4-dimensional Riemannian manifolds. In Chap. 3, we study the
homotopy theory of fibre bundles. We prove the Covering Homotopy Theorem and
develop the concept of universal bundles. Using this tool, we prove the fundamental
classification theorem for principal bundles in terms of homotopy classes of map-
pings. We also include a discussion of universal connections. In Chap. 4, we
present the basics of the cohomology theory of fibre bundles. We study the
cohomology rings of characteristic classes for the classical groups, derive the
Whitney Sum Formula and the Splitting Principle and discuss the effect of field
restrictions and field extensions. Next, we present the characteristic classes in terms
of de Rham cohomology via the Weil homomorphism and discuss the related
genera. Finally, we discuss the concept of Postnikov tower and show how it may be
used to classify bundles over low-dimensional manifolds. Chap. 5 is devoted to the
study of Dirac operators. Given their great importance in gauge theory, we provide
the reader with a systematic and quite exhaustive presentation. We start with
Clifford algebras, spinor groups and their representations. Next, we discuss spin
structures, Dirac bundles and Dirac operators. Since we are going to use the
Atiyah–Singer Index Theorem in gauge theory a number of times, we give a full
proof of this theorem via the heat kernel method. In the remaining four chapters, we
present topics in gauge theory. Clearly, we had to make a choice here, that is, we
had to omit a number of interesting topics like, say, topological field theory. In
Chap. 6, we study pure gauge theories. We start by deriving the Yang–Mills
equations from the variational principle for the Yang–Mills action and show that
(anti-)self-dual solutions correspond to absolute minima of the action. We then
present a systematic study of instantons: we discuss the BPST-instanton family in
detail, present the ADHM-construction and give a partial proof that via that con-
struction one obtains all solutions. In our presentation, we limit our attention to the
base space S4 and to the gauge group G = SU(2). Next, we study the moduli space
and outline how it is used for the study of the topology of differentiable
4-manifolds. Finally, we present the classical stability analysis of the Yang–Mills
Equation and include a short discussion of non-minimal solutions. In Chap. 7, we
include matter fields. We start with the theory of Yang–Mills–Higgs models: we
discuss the Higgs mechanism, present a topological classification of static
finite-energy configurations and address the problem of constructing asymptotic as
15
In the literature, the term G-structure is common as well.
xvi Introduction
well as exact solutions to the Yang–Mills–Higgs equations. In particular, we focus

on magnetic monopole solutions including the Bogomolnyi–Prasad–Sommerfield
model. Next, we pass to the Seiberg–Witten model. We discuss the basic properties
of this model in detail and outline some of the topological consequences. Next, we
present the (classical) standard model of elementary particle physics in the geo-
metric language. In the remaining two sections, we give an introduction to the
method of dimensional reduction in the context of gauge theories including some of
our own results. Chap. 8 is devoted to the study of the gauge orbit stratification. In
the first part, we provide the reader with the classical geometrical and topological
results on that structure. In the second part, we present our own results on the
classification of gauge orbit types in some detail. For clearness of presentation, we
limit our attention to the case G = SU(n). The classification is in terms of char-
acteristic classes (fulfilling a number of algebraic relations) of certain reductions
of the principal bundle under consideration. We also show how to derive the natural
partial ordering of strata. Finally, in Chap. 9, we come to some elements of
quantum gauge theory with the main emphasis on those aspects which are related to
the structure of the classical gauge orbit space in one or the other way. In the first
part, we present the classical Faddeev–Popov path integral quantization procedure,
address the Gribov problem in the language of differential geometry and discuss the
classical results of Singer concerning the obstruction against the existence of a
global gauge fixing. Next, we discuss anomalies within the geometric setting. In the
second part, we present some of our results on non-perturbative quantum gauge
theory for (finite) lattice models in the Hamiltonian framework. We construct the
quantum model via canonical quantization, derive the field algebra and the
observable algebra of the system and discuss the Gauß law. Next, we explain how
to include the non-generic gauge orbit strata on the quantum level and discuss their
possible physical relevance for a toy model.
We assume that the reader is familiar with the calculus on manifolds as presented
in Chaps. 1–4 of Part I and with the theory of Lie groups and Lie group actions as
presented in Chaps. 5 and 6 of Part I. For the understanding of Chaps. 3 and 4, basic
knowledge in homotopy theory and some elements of algebraic topology are
needed. In Chap. 9, we use elements of the theory of C -algebras. For the con-
venience of the reader we have added a number of appendices.
Chapter 1
Fibre Bundles and Connections
In this chapter, we present the basics of the theory of fibre bundles and connections.
In the first part, we discuss principal and asssociated bundles and the theory of
connections including the Koszul calculus. The text is illustrated by many examples
which will be taken up later on. In the second part, we focus on topics which are
particularly important in this book. We study bundle reductions, discuss the theory
of holonomy in some detail and analyze the transformation laws of connection and
curvature under bundle automorphisms. Finally, we present the theory of invariant
connections for the case of group actions which are not necessarily transitive on the
base manifold, that is, we go beyond the classical Wang Theorem.
1.1 Principal Bundles
In a gauge theory describing the fundamental interaction of elementary particles, the

interaction is assumed to be mediated by a gauge potential. In geometric terms, a
gauge potential is the local (spacetime) representative of a connection form, which
naturally lives on a principal fibre bundle over spacetime.
Let us recall the following definition from Sect. 6.5 of Part I.
Definition 1.1.1 (Principal bundle) Let (P, G, Ψ ) be a free Lie group action, let M
be a manifold and let π : P → M be a smooth mapping. The tuple (P, G, M, Ψ, π )
is called a principal bundle if for every m ∈ M there exists an open neighbourhood
U of m and a diffeomorphism χ : π −1 (U) → U × G such that
1. χ intertwines Ψ with the G-action on U × G by translations1 on the factor G,
2. pr U ◦χ (p) = π(p) for all p ∈ π −1 (U).
1 Left (right) translations if Ψ is a left (right) action.

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 1
G. Rudolph and M. Schmidt, Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics,
Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0959-8_1
2 1 Fibre Bundles and Connections
For simplicity, we will sometimes use the short-hand notation P(M, G) or just P. If
not otherwise stated, we will consider right principal bundles. If there is no danger of
confusion, sometimes we will simply write Ψg (p) = p · g. For a right action, denoting
κ := pr G ◦χ : π −1 (U) → G, (1.1.1)
condition 1 can be rewritten as
κ(Ψa (p)) = κ(p)a, p ∈ π −1 (U), a ∈ G . (1.1.2)
The group G is called the structure group of P. If G is fixed, P is referred to as a

principal G-bundle. The pair (U, χ ) is called a local trivialization. A local trivial-
ization (U, χ ) with U = M is called a global trivialization. If there exists a global
trivialization, then P is called trivial. The existence of local trivializations implies
that π is a surjective submersion. Hence, by Proposition I/1.7.6, the subsets π −1 (m),
m ∈ M, are embedded submanifolds, called the fibres of P. They are diffeomorphic
to the group manifold G.
Remark 1.1.2 Let (P, G, Ψ ) be a free proper Lie group action. Let M be the orbit
space, equipped with the smooth structure provided by Corollary I/6.5.1, and let π :
P → M be the natural projection to orbits. Every tubular neighbourhood of an orbit
defines a local trivialization over a neighbourhood of the corresponding point of M.
Hence, the Tubular Neighbourhood Theorem I/6.4.3 implies that (P, G, M, Ψ, π ) is a
principal bundle. Conversely, if (P, G, M, Ψ, π ) is a principal bundle, then (P, G, Ψ )
is a free proper Lie group action, M is diffeomorphic to the orbit space P/G and π
corresponds, via this diffeomorphism, to the natural projection to orbits.
We will also need the general notion of fibre bundle.
Definition 1.1.3 (General fibre bundle) Let E and M be manifolds and let π : E →
M be a smooth surjection. The triple (E, M, π ) is called a fibre bundle if there
exists a manifold F such that the following holds. Every m ∈ M admits an open
neighbourhood U and a diffeomorphism χ : π −1 (U) → U × F fulfilling pr U ◦χ =
π . The manifold F is called the typical fibre of π .
The details of the following example are left to the reader (Exercise 1.1.1).
Example 1.1.4
1. Let M be a manifold, let G be a Lie group and let pr M : M × G → M be the natural
projection. Then, (M × G, G, M, Ψ, pr M ), with Ψ given by right translation of G
on the second factor of M × G, is a principal bundle, called the product principal
bundle. It is obviously trivial.
2. Let (P, G, M, Ψ, π ) be a principal bundle and let U ⊂ M be open. Define PU :=
π −1 (U) and take the restrictions πU : PU → U of π and ΨU : PU × G → PU of
Ψ . By intersection, any local trivialization of P induces a local trivialization of
PU . Thus, (PU , G, U, ΨU , πU ) is a principal G-bundle over U.
1.1 Principal Bundles 3
3. Let P1 (M1 , G1 ) and P2 (M2 , G2 ) be principal bundles. Then, the direct product
P1 × P2 carries the structure of a principal (G1 × G2 )-bundle over M1 × M2 .
4. Let G be a Lie group and let H ⊂ G be a closed subgroup. Consider the free
action of H on G by right translation. By Example I/6.3.8/3, this action is proper.
Thus, Remark 1.1.2 implies that G carries the structure of a principal H-bundle
over the homogeneous space G/H.2
Definition 1.1.5 Let (P, G, M, Ψ, π ) be a principal bundle. A section of P is a

smooth mapping s : M → P such that π ◦ s = idM . A local section of P over an
open subset U ⊂ M is a section of the principal bundle PU .
Proposition 1.1.6 Local trivializations of P are in one-to-one correspondence with
local sections. In particular, a principal bundle is trivial iff it admits a global section.
Proof If χ : P → M × G is a global trivialization, then we set s(m) := χ −1 (m, 1),
where 1 is the unit element in G. This is a smooth global section of P. Conversely,
given a global section s : M → P, for every point p ∈ P there exists a unique group
element κ(p) such that p = Ψκ(p) (s(π(p))). This defines a smooth mapping κ : P →
G, which fulfils κ(Ψa (p)) = κ(p) a. Thus, (M, π × κ) is a global trivialization.
Next, we introduce the notion of morphism of principal bundles.
Definition 1.1.7 (Morphism) Let (P1 , G1 , M1 , Ψ 1 , π1 ) and (P2 , G2 , M2 , Ψ 2 , π2 ) be
principal fibre bundles.
1. A morphism from P1 to P2 is a pair of mappings (ϑ, λ), where ϑ : P1 → P2
is smooth and λ : G1 → G2 is a homomorphism of Lie groups such that for all
g ∈ G1
ϑ ◦ Ψg1 = Ψλ(g)
2
◦ ϑ. (1.1.3)
2. A morphism (ϑ, λ) is called an isomorphism if ϑ is a diffeomorphism and λ is an

isomorphism of Lie groups. In particular, an isomorphism of a principal bundle
onto itself is called an automorphism.
We note that, by Definition I/6.6.1, a morphism of principal bundles P1 and P2 is a
morphism of the Lie group actions (P1 , G1 , Ψ 1 ) and (P2 , G2 , Ψ 2 ).
Remark 1.1.8 (Special morphisms)
1. By condition (1.1.3), ϑ maps fibres to fibres. Thus, it induces a mapping ϑ̃ :
M1 → M2 such that the following diagram commutes.
ϑ / P2
P1
π1 π2
ϑ̃

M1 / M2
2 This statement also follows from Theorem I/5.7.2 and Remark I/5.7.3.
By local triviality, ϑ̃ is smooth. We say that ϑ projects to ϑ̃, or that ϑ covers ϑ̃.
If (ϑ, λ) is an isomorphism, then ϑ̃ is a diffeomorphism. Given isomorphisms
ϑ1 : P1 → P2 and ϑ2 : P2 → P3 , we have (Exercise 1.1.3)
−1 ∼
(ϑ2 ◦ ϑ1 )∼ = ϑ̃2 ◦ ϑ̃1 , ϑ1 = ϑ̃1−1 . (1.1.4)
2. If the principal bundles P and Q have the same base manifold M and if ϑ̃ = idM ,
then (ϑ, λ) is said to be vertical. If P and Q have the same structure group G
and if λ = idG , then ϑ is called a G-morphism. By local triviality, every vertical
G-morphism is a diffeomorphism and hence an isomorphism.
3. If ϑ̃ and λ are injective immersions, then ϑ is an injective immersion, too. In this
case, P1 is called a subbundle of P2 .
(a) If, additionally, ϑ̃ and λ are embeddings, then P is called an embedded
subbundle. In this case, P1 may be identified with the image of the morphism
ϑ in P2 .
(b) If, additionally, M1 = M2 = M and ϑ̃ = idM , then P1 is referred to as a λ-
reduction or, simply, a reduction of P2 . In this case, one says that G1 is a
reduction of the structure group G2 . Two reductions are said to be equivalent
if they differ by a vertical automorphism of P.
Remark 1.1.9 (Pullback of principal bundles)

1. In complete analogy to vector bundles, see Sect. 2.6 of Part I, given a principal
G-bundle P over M with canonical projection π , we define its pullback by a
smooth mapping ϕ : N → M:
ϕ ∗ P := {(y, p) ∈ N × P : ϕ(y) = π(p)} .
This is a principal G-bundle over N and the canonical projection N × P → P

restricts to a morphism ϕ ∗ P → P covering ϕ. One can show the following (Exer-
cise 1.1.4).
(a) If P is vertically isomorphic to some principal G-bundle Q over M, then f ∗ P
is vertically isomorphic to f ∗ Q.
(b) If ψ : K → N is a further smooth mapping, then ψ ∗ (ϕ ∗ P) is vertically iso-
morphic to (ϕ ◦ ψ)∗ P.
(c) Let ϑ : P → Q be a principal G-bundle morphism covering ϑ̃ : M → N.
The induced mapping

P → ϑ̃ ∗ Q, p → π(p), ϑ(p) ,
is a vertical isomorphism and ϑ decomposes into the composition of this

isomorphism with the natural principal G-bundle morphism ϑ̃ ∗ Q → Q.
2. The following is an important special class of pullback bundles. Let P1 (M, G1 )
and P2 (M, G2 ) be principal bundles. By Example 1.1.4/3, P1 × P2 carries the
structure of a principal (G1 × G2 )-bundle over M × M. Let Δ : M → M × M be

the diagonal embedding. Then, Δ∗ (P1 × P2 ) is a principal bundle with structure
group G1 × G2 over M. It will be denoted by P1 ×M P2 and will be called the
fibre product of P1 and P2 .3
In complete analogy with vector bundles, principal fibre bundles can be character-
ized and studied in terms of transition mappings associated with a chosen covering of
the base manifold. Let there be given a principal bundle P(M, G). By definition, one
can choose a countable open covering {Ui }i∈I of M such that there exists a system of
local trivializations
χi : π −1 (Ui ) → Ui × G.
The collection {(Ui , χi )}i∈I will sometimes also be called a bundle atlas of P. Let
κi : π −1 (Ui ) → G be the corresponding system of mappings defined by (1.1.1). Then,
κi (Ψa (p)) · κj (Ψa (p))−1 = κi (p) · a · a−1 · κj (p)−1 = κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ,
that is, the mappings π −1 (Ui ∩ Uj ) p → κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ∈ G are constant on fibres.
Thus, they induce smooth mappings
Ui ∩ Uj m → ρij (m) := κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ∈ G, p ∈ π −1 (m), (1.1.5)
which are called the transition mappings of P. They fulfil
ρij (m) = ρik (m) · ρkj (m), m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj ∩ Uk . (1.1.6)
This condition implies, in particular,
ρii (m) = 1, m ∈ Ui ,
ρij (m) = (ρji (m))−1 , m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj .
Proposition 1.1.10 Let M be a manifold and let G be a Lie group. Then, for every
countable open covering {Ui }i∈I of M and every system of smooth mappings ρij :
Ui ∩ Uj → G fulfilling condition (1.1.6) there exists a principal G-bundle over M
admitting a system of local trivializations with transition mappings {ρij }.
Proof Take the topological direct sum

X := Ui × G.
i∈I
3 Some authors call it the spliced product [83].

We define
(i, m, g) ∼ (i , m , g ) iff m = m, g = ρii (m) · g,
which, by condition (1.1.6), yields an equivalence relation on X. We denote by

P = X/ ∼ the topological quotient and by pr : X → P the canonical projection.
Since X admits a countable basis, P admits a countable basis, too. Moreover, it is
easy to show that P is Hausdorff, see Exercise 1.1.2. We endow P with the structure
of a principal G-bundle. For that purpose, we define
Ψ : P × G → P, Ψ ([(i, m, a)], b) := [(i, m, a · b)].
Clearly, this definition does not depend on the choice of the representative (i, m, a).
Thus, Ψ defines a topological right group action, which is obviously free. By con-
struction, [(i, m, a)] = [(i , m , a )] implies m = m. Thus, we can define a continuous
mapping
π : P → M, π([(i, m, a)]) := m.
Since the Ui cover M, π is surjective. Let pr i be the restriction of pr to Ui × G. By

construction, for every i ∈ I, it defines a bijection
pr i : Ui × G → π −1 (Ui ).
We endow P with the structure of a differentiable manifold by observing that π −1 (Ui )

is an open subset and by postulating that pr i be a diffeomorphism for every i ∈ I.
With respect to this differentiable structure, the action Ψ is smooth. Finally, putting
χi := pr −1 −1
i : π (Ui ) → Ui × G
we get a system of local trivializations whose transition mappings coincide with

the mappings ρij . Moreover, by the definition of Ψ , the induced mappings κi :
π −1 (Ui ) → G fulfil condition (1.1.2).
Our next aim is to show that vertical isomorphism classes of principal G-bundles
over M can be labelled in terms of the first Čech cohomology of M. Thus, let P1 and P2
be isomorphic principal G-bundles over M via a morphism (ϑ, λ). Let {(Ui , χi1 )} and
{(Ui , χi2 )} be local trivializations and let {ρij1 } and {ρij2 } be the corresponding transition
mappings of P1 and P2 , respectively. Here, again without loss of generality, we have
assumed that both trivializations are associated with one and the same covering of
M. Let m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj . Since p ∈ π1−1 (m) implies ϑ(p) ∈ π2−1 (m), using (1.1.5), we
obtain
ρij2 (m) = κi2 (ϑ(p)) κj2 (ϑ(p))−1

−1 1 1 −1 2 −1 −1
= κi2 (ϑ(p)) κi1 (p) κi (p) κj (p) κj (ϑ(p)) κj1 (p) .
Since, for every a ∈ G, we have

−1 −1
κi2 (ϑ(Ψa (p))) κi1 (Ψa (p)) = κi2 (ϑ(p)) κi1 (p) ,
we can define a smooth mapping

−1
ρi : Ui → G, ρi (m) := κi2 (ϑ(p)) κi1 (p) , p ∈ π −1 (m).
Thus, for every m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj , we obtain
ρij2 (m) = ρi (m) ρij1 (m) ρj (m)−1 . (1.1.7)
To summarize, if the principal G-bundles P1 and P2 are vertically isomorphic, then

there exists a family of smooth mappings ρi : Ui → G such that their transition
mappings are related by (1.1.7).
It turns out that the converse is also true.
Theorem 1.1.11 Two principal G-bundles over M are vertically isomorphic iff there
exists a family of smooth mappings ρi : Ui → G such that the corresponding transi-
tion mappings fulfil (1.1.7).
Proof It remains to show that condition (1.1.7) implies that P1 and P2 are isomorphic.
Thus, let there be given a family of mappings {ρi }i∈I fulfilling (1.1.7). In the above
notation, we define
−1
ϑi : π1−1 (Ui ) → π2−1 (Ui ), ϑi := χi2 ◦ (idM ×ρi ) ◦ χi1
for every i ∈ I. Obviously, this is a family of diffeomorphisms fulfilling π2 (ϑi (p)) =

π1 (p), p ∈ π1−1 (Ui ). By (1.1.5), we have
−1
χjα ◦ χiα = idM ×ρjiα , α = 1, 2.
Using this and condition (1.1.7), we obtain ϑi = ϑj on π2−1 (Ui ∩ Uj ) for every pair
(i, j) such that Ui ∩ Uj = ∅. Thus, the family {ϑi }i∈I defines a diffeomorphism ϑ :
P1 → P2 fulfilling π2 ◦ ϑ = π1 . By (1.1.2), it also fulfils the equivariance property
(1.1.3). We conclude that ϑ is a vertical isomorphism of principal G-bundles.
Remark 1.1.12 (Čech cohomology) The systems of mappings {ρi } and {ρij } are,
respectively, referred to as a 0-cocyle and a 1-cocyle on M with values in G, relative to
a chosen covering U = {Ui }i∈I . Formula (1.1.7) defines an equivalence relation in the
set of 1-cocycles. The corresponding set of equivalence classes HČ1 (U, G) is referred
to as the first cohomology set HČ1 (U, G) in the sense of Čech, relative to a chosen
covering. The set of open coverings of M forms a directed system with respect to
refinement, that is, U ≤ V if each Vα ∈ V is contained in some Ui ∈ U. By restriction,
we get a mapping HČ1 (U, G) → HČ1 (V, G). The cohomology set HČ1 (M, G) is the
direct limit of the sets HČ1 (U, G) with respect to the restriction mappings, as U runs
through all open coverings of M, cf. [304] for further details.
Note that there is a distinguished element 1 ∈ HČ1 (M, G), given by the constant
1-cocycle. More precisely, for any open covering, we put ρij (m) = 1 for every pair
(i, j). Note, however, that HČ1 (M, G) is in general not a group.
Using this terminology, Theorem 1.1.11 can be reformulated as follows.
Corollary 1.1.13 The vertical isomorphism classes of principal G-bundles over M

are in one-one correspondence with the elements of the cohomology set HČ1 (M, G).
Thereby, the product bundle M × G corresponds to the distinguished element.
We close this section with a number of examples. All of them will be taken up again
later on.
Example 1.1.14 (Frame bundle of a manifold) Let M be an n-dimensional mani-

fold. A linear n-frame at m ∈ M is an ordered basis u = (u1 , . . . , un ) of the tan-
gent space Tm M. Let L(M) be the set of all linear n-frames on M. For an n-frame
u = (u1 , . . . , un ) at m ∈ M and an element a = (ai j ) ∈ GL(n, R), the ordered set
ua := ui ai j is again an n-frame. Thus, we get a right action of GL(n, R) on L(M),
Ψ : L(M) × Gl(n, R), Ψ (u, a) := ua,
which is obviously free. Clearly, the orbit space of this action is M and the corre-
sponding canonical projection π : L(M) → M coincides with the mapping which
assigns to an n-frame u at m ∈ M the point m.
Let (U, ϕ) be a local chart of M. Then, on U, every basis vector ui belonging to
ϕ
u = (u1 , . . . , un ) ∈ π −1 (U) can be represented by ui = (ui )ϕ,j ∂j , that is, locally u
ϕ
ϕ,j

is given by the matrix u = (ui ) ∈ Gl(n, R). Thus,
χ : π −1 (U) → U × GL(n, R), χ (u) := (π(p), uϕ ) (1.1.8)
is a bijection fulfilling pr U ◦χ = π . By the definition of Ψ , it also fulfils the equivari-

ance property (1.1.2). We equip L(M) with a differentiable structure by postulating
that all the mappings (1.1.8) be diffeomorphisms. Then, (L(M), GL(n, R), M, Ψ, π )
is a principal fibre bundle and the family of mappings (1.1.8) forms a system of local
trivializations.
Example 1.1.15 (Frame bundle of a vector bundle) Let E be a K-vector bundle of

rank k over M, where K = R, C or H. Let Lm be the set of bases in the fibre Em .
Then,
L(E) := Lm
m∈M
carries the structure of a principal fibre bundle over M with structure group GL(k, K).
The details are analogous to the previous example and are, therefore, left to the reader
(Exercise 1.1.5).
Definition 1.1.16 Let E be a K-vector bundle of rank k over M, where K = R, C or

H. We say that E is endowed with a fibre metric h, if there exists a non-degenerate
inner product4 on each fibre π −1 (m) of E depending smoothly on m. The pair (E, h)
will be called (pseudo-)Riemannian for K = R and Hermitean for K = C or H.
Remark 1.1.17 Every vector bundle over a manifold admits a fibre metric. This can
be easily shown using a partition of unity of the base manifold (Exercise 1.1.6).
Moreover, note that a fibre metric in the tangent bundle of a manifold M is the same
as a (pseudo-)Riemannian metric on M.
Example 1.1.18 For K = R, C or H, let E be a K-vector bundle of rank k over M

endowed with a fibre metric h. Let Om be the set of h-orthonormal bases in the fibre
Em . Then,
O(E) := Om
m∈M
carries the structure of a principal fibre bundle over M with structure group being
the isometry group of the metric. Details are left to the reader (Exercise 1.1.5).
In the special case where K = R and E is the tangent bundle of an n-dimensional
Riemannian manifold M, this construction yields the orthonormal frame bundle
O(M) of M with the structure group O(n). If M is in addition oriented, the sub-
set O+ (M) ⊂ O(M) of ordered orthonormal frames is a reduction to the subgroup
SO(n) ⊂ O(n).
As an example, consider M = Sn , realized as the unit sphere in Rn+1 . Since for
x ∈ Sn , the tangent space Tx Sn may be identified with the subspace of vectors in Rn+1
orthogonal to x, every orthonormal frame in Tx Sn complements x to an orthonormal
basis in Rn+1 . Since every such basis corresponds to an orthogonal transformation,
we obtain a mapping O(Sn ) → O(n + 1). We leave it to the reader to check that this
mapping is an isomorphism of principal O(n)-bundles, where O(n) acts on O(n + 1)
by right translation via the blockwise embedding O(n) → O(n + 1) defined by the
decomposition Rn+1 = R ⊕ Rn (Exercise 1.1.8). Clearly, this isomorphism restricts
to an isomorphism of principal SO(n)-bundles between O+ (Sn ) with respect to the
standard orientation (pointing outwards) and SO(n + 1).
Definition 1.1.19 The principal bundle L(E) constructed in Example 1.1.15 is called
the frame bundle of E. The principal bundle O(E) constructed in Example 1.1.18 is
called the orthonormal frame bundle of E. More precisely, it is called the bundle of
orthogonal, unitary and symplectic frames for, respectively, K = R, C and H.
For the following two examples, the reader should recall the notion of projective
space, cf. Example I/1.1.15.
4 Inour convention, for K = C or H, the inner product is assumed to be anti-linear in the first and
linear in the second component.
Example 1.1.20 (Complex Hopf bundle) Consider the natural free action of U(1) on
C2 given by
Ψ : C2 × U(1) → C2 , Ψ ((z1 , z2 ), eiα ) := (eiα z1 , eiα z2 ).
Since the embedded submanifold
S3 = {(z1 , z2 ) ∈ C2 : |z1 |2 + |z2 |2 = 1}
is invariant under Ψ , we have an induced free action of U(1) on S3 . Since the Lie
group U(1) is compact, this action is proper. Thus, by Corollary I/6.5.1, the orbit
space S3 /U(1) admits a unique differentiable structure such that the canonical pro-
jection π : S3 → S3 /U(1) is a submersion. According to Example I/6.5.4, the orbit
space endowed with this smooth structure coincides with the 1-dimensional complex
projective space CP1 . Finally, the Tubular Neighbourhood Theorem I/6.4.3 implies
the existence of local trivializations. Thus, the above action Ψ defines on S3 the
structure of a principal U(1)-bundle over CP1 . This bundle is called the complex
Hopf bundle. For later purposes, we construct a system of local trivializations.
(a) Let U1 := CP1 \ {π(0, 1)}. Then, π −1 (U1 ) = {(z1 , z2 ) ∈ S3 : z1 = 0}. Thus, we
can define

z1
χ1 : π −1 (U1 ) → U1 × U(1), χ1 (z1 , z2 ) := π(z1 , z2 ), .
|z1 |
Then, κ1 (z1 , z2 ) = z1
|z1 |
. Obviously, κ1 is smooth and U(1)-equivariant, that is,
z1 iα
κ1 ((z1 eiα , z2 eiα )) = e .
|z1 |
Thus, χ1 is a local trivialization.

(b) Analogously, we put U2 := CP1 \ {π(1, 0)}. Then, π −1 (U1 ) = {(z1 , z2 ) ∈ S3 :
z2 = 0} and we define

−1 z2
χ2 : π (U2 ) → U2 × U(1), χ2 (z1 , z2 ) := π(z1 , z2 ), .
|z2 |
Thus, κ2 (z1 , z2 ) = z2
|z2 |
and χ2 is also a local trivialization.
Since U1 ∪ U2 = CP1 , the collection {(Ui , χi )}i=1,2 defines a system of local

trivializations. Its transition mapping ρ12 : U1 ∩ U2 → U(1) is given by
−1
−1 z1 z2
ρ12 (π(z1 , z2 )) = κ1 (z1 , z2 )κ2 (z1 , z2 ) = .
|z1 | |z2 |

Remark 1.1.21
1. We show that CP1 is diffeomorphic to the 2-sphere. For that purpose, consider
the smooth mapping
S3 (z1 , z2 ) → (2z1 z2 , |z1 |2 − |z2 |2 ) ∈ C × R.
Since
(|z1 |2 − |z2 |2 )2 + |2z1 z2 |2 = (|z1 |2 + |z2 |2 )2 = 1,
its image is contained in S2 ⊂ C × R. Thus, it induces a smooth mapping f :

S3 → S2 . Since f is U(1)-invariant, it induces a mapping f˜ : CP1 → S2 . The
local triviality of the Hopf bundle implies that f˜ is smooth. It remains to show
that f˜ is invertible and that the inverse mapping is smooth. For that purpose, we
put V+ := S2 \ {(0, 1)} and define

z 1−t
g+ : V+ → C , g+ (z, t) :=
2
√ , .
2(1 − t) 2
Since the image of g+ is contained in S3 , it induces a smooth mapping g+ : V+ →

S3 . Composition with π then yields a smooth mapping g̃+ := π ◦ g : V+ → CP1 .
We continue g̃+ to a mapping g̃ : S2 → CP1 by setting g̃(0, 1) := [(1, 0)]. Then,
g̃ ◦ f˜ = idCP1 and f˜ ◦ g̃ = idS2 , see Exercise 1.1.7. Thus, g̃ is inverse to f˜ . It
remains to show smoothness of g̃ at the point (0, 1). This is left to the reader, see
Exercise 1.1.7.
2. The Hopf bundle is clearly nontrivial, because otherwise S3 would have to be
diffeomorphic to S2 × U(1). This fact can be also read off from the transition
mappings as follows: it is enough to prove that ρ12 is not homotopic to the
constant mapping U1 ∩ U2 π(z1 , z2 ) → 1 ∈ U(1). To show this, it is enough
to find a continuous path t → γ (t) in U1 ∩ U2 such that the path ρ12 ◦ γ in U(1)
is not contractible to a point. We put

1 1 it 1 − 1 it
γ̃ (t) := √ e ,√ e
2 2 , t ∈ [0, 2π ],
2 2
and γ (t) := π(γ̃ (t)). Clearly, γ is continuous and its image is contained in
U1 ∩ U2 . We have ρ12 (γ (t)) = eit , with t running from 0 to 2π . Obviously, this
path is not contractible in U(1) showing that the Hopf bundle is nontrivial, indeed.
By construction, U1 ∩ U2 is homeomorphic to S1 × (0, 1) and the path γ runs
through the S1 -factor exactly once. Since ρ12 ◦ γ also runs through U(1) ∼ = S1
exactly once, the mapping degree of ρ12 is 1. Later on, we will see that the
mapping degree of the transition mapping yields a useful tool for the study of
isomorphism classes of principal bundles over spheres.
3. In complete analogy to the Hopf bundle, the natural action of U(1) on Cn yields
principal U(1)-bundles over the complex projective spaces CPn−1 .5
Example 1.1.22 (Quaternionic Hopf bundle) Recall the skew field H of quaternions,
cf. Remark I/1.1.13. Consider the natural right action of the classical Lie group6 Sp(1)
of quaternions of norm 1 on H2 ,
Ψ : H2 × Sp(1) → H2 , Ψ ((q1 , q2 ), u) = (q1 u, q2 u).
Clearly, Ψ is free and leaves the embedded submanifold
S7 = {(q1 , q2 ) ∈ H2 : q1 2 + q2 2 = 1}
invariant. Thus, it induces a right free action on S7 . Since Sp(1) is compact, this action
is proper. By the same arguments as in Example 1.1.20, the sphere S7 endowed with
the above action carries the structure of a principal Sp(1)-bundle over the quater-
nionic projective space HP1 . This bundle is called the quaternionic Hopf bundle. By
Example I/5.1.10, the Lie group Sp(1) is isomorphic to the special unitary group
SU(2) and, by completely analogous arguments as in Remark 1.1.21/1, the base
manifold HP1 is diffeomorphic to S4 via the mapping (B.1). Thus, the quaternionic
Hopf bundle may be viewed as a principal SU(2)-bundle over S4 . Let π : S7 → S4
be the canonical projection. Again, in complete analogy to the complex Hopf bun-
dle, one constructs a system of local trivializations {(Ui , χi )}i=1,2 as follows: take
U1 = HP1 \ {π(0, 1)} and U2 = HP1 \ {π(1, 0)} and define

q1 q2
χ1 (q1 , q2 ) := π(q1 , q2 ), , χ2 (q1 , q2 ) := π(q1 , q2 ), .
q1 q2
(1.1.9)

Remark 1.1.23
1. Using the criterion given in Remark 1.1.21/2, one can prove that the quaternionic
Hopf bundle is nontrivial (Exercise 1.1.9/c).
2. The construction of the quaternionic Hopf bundle obviously generalizes to the
case of the natural action of Sp(1) on Hn . This way one obtains a family of
principal Sp(1)-bundles with bundle space S4n−1 and base space HPn−1 .
Example 1.1.24 (Stiefel bundles) Recall from Example I/5.7.5 that the Stiefel mani-
fold SK (k, n), with K = R, C or H, is the set of k-frames in Kn which are orthonormal
with respect to the standard scalar product
n
x, y := x i yi .
i=1
5 Sometimes, they are also called Hopf bundles.

6 For the terminology, see Example I/1.2.6.
As shown there, SK (k, n) aquires its manifold structure by identifying it with the
homogeneous space obtained by taking the quotient of the isometry group UK (n) of
the scalar product with respect to the stabilizer UK (n − k) of a chosen frame, that is,
SK (k, n) ∼
= UK (n)/UK (n − k). (1.1.10)
Here, ⎧
⎪
⎨O(n) if K = R,
UK (n) = U(n) if K = C,
⎪
⎩
Sp(n) if K = H.
Correspondingly, consider the Graßmann manifold GK (k, n), which is the set of
k-dimensional subspaces of Kn , cf. Example I/5.7.6. One has
GK (k, n) ∼
= UK (n)/(UK (n − k) × UK (k)). (1.1.11)
Clearly, UK (k) acts smoothly on SK (k, n). By Corollary I/6.5.3, this action is free and
proper. Thus, by the arguments given in Remark 1.1.2, SK (k, n) carries the structure
of a principal fibre bundle over GK (k, n) with structure group UK (k). The principal
bundles so obtained are called, respectively, the real, complex and quaternionic Stiefel
bundles.
Remark 1.1.25 Consider the special case SK (1, n). Then, one has the following dif-
feomorphisms (Exercise 1.1.10):
SK (1, n) ∼
= Sdn−1 , GK (1, n) ∼
= KPn−1 , (1.1.12)
with d = dimR K. Thus, Sn−1 , S2n−1 and S4n−1 carry the structure of principal fibre
bundles with structure groups O(1), U(1) and Sp(1) and base spaces RPn−1 , CPn−1
and HPn−1 , respectively. They are isomorphic to the real, complex and quaternionic
Stiefel bundles with k = 1, respectively. In particular, the Hopf bundles of Examples
1.1.20 and 1.1.22 coincide with the Stiefel bundles SK (1, 2) with K = C and K = H,
respectively.
Example 1.1.26 (Universal Covering) Consider the universal covering space M̃ of

a manifold M. Then, M̃ is a principal fibre bundle over M whose (discrete) structure
group is the first homotopy group π1 (M) (Exercise 1.1.12).
Exercises
1.1.1 Prove the statements of Example 1.1.4.
1.1.2 Complete the proof of Proposition 1.1.10 by showing that P is Hausdorff.

Hint. By elementary set topology, it is enough to prove that pr is open and that the
graph of the equivalence relation is closed in X × X.
1.1.3 Prove Eq. (1.1.4).
1.1.4 Prove the assertion of point 1 of Remark 1.1.8.
1.1.5 Construct the principal bundle structures for Examples 1.1.15 and 1.1.18.
1.1.6 Prove the statement of Remark 1.1.17.
1.1.7 Complete the arguments in Remark 1.1.21/1.

Hint. Consider V− := S2 \ {(0, −1)} and define a second mapping

1+t z
g− : V− → C 2
g− (z, t) := , √ .
2 2(1 + t)
Show that g− induces a smooth mapping g̃− : V− → CP1 and prove that g̃V− = g̃− .
1.1.8 Prove that the mapping O(Sn ) → O(n + 1) constructed in Example 1.1.18 is
an isomorphism of principal O(n)-bundles.
1.1.9 Consider the quaternionic Hopf bundle defined in Example 1.1.22.

(a) By analogous arguments as in Remark 1.1.21/1, show that the base manifold
HP1 is diffeomorphic to S4 .
(b) Show that the mappings defined in (1.1.9) yield a system of local trivializations.
(c) Using the criterion given in Remark 1.1.21/2, prove that the quaternionic Hopf
bundle is nontrivial.
Hint. The group manifold of SU(2) is diffeomorphic to S3 .
1.1.10 Prove the statements made in Remark 1.1.25.
1.1.11 Construct systems of local trivializations for the Stiefel bundles.
1.1.12 Prove the statement of Example 1.1.26.
1.2 Associated Bundles
First, we recall the notion of associated bundle from Sect. 6.5 in Part I. Let
(P, G, M, Ψ, π ) be a principal bundle and let (F, G, σ ) be a left Lie group action.
Let σ̌ be the right action associated with σ ,
σ̌ : F × G → F, (f , a) → σ̌a (f ) := σa−1 (f ).
Since the G-action Ψ on P is free, the direct product action Ψ × σ̌ is free, too.
According to Remark I/6.3.9/2, it is proper. Thus, by Corollary I/6.5.1, the orbit
space
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
that if the government of Pennsylvania could have conveniently
pursued the plan proposed to them by the Philosophical Society, in
the year 1775;[321] or, had that or some such measure been adopted
eight or ten years afterward, when the revolutionary war interposed
no impediment to an important public arrangement of that nature; the
world would, in all probability, at this day be in the possession of
many additional productions of his vastly comprehensive genius. His
astronomical discoveries and other fruits of his prolific mind,
recorded by his pen, would in such case, it may be reasonably
presumed, have redounded to the honour of his country and the
benefit of mankind. But, that an American citizen of slender fortune,
one who was (to use the strongly expressive terms of the
Philosophical Society, on the occasion just mentioned,) “indebted for
bread to his daily toil,”—that a man, thus circumstanced, could be
expected to contribute a large portion of his inestimable time, wholly
unrewarded, either to the public interests or the acquisition of
personal fame, would be an impeachment of his prudence. Dr.
Rittenhouse was not gratuitously furnished with a complete
Observatory and Astronomical apparatus;[322] nor, besides,
recompensed by a liberal compensation from the public purse; in
order that he might be enabled to devote himself to the public
service, in scientific pursuits: Flamstead, Halley, Bliss, Bradley and
Maskelyne, were so rewarded. Each of these eminent astronomers
held, at different periods, the lucrative and honourable place of
Regius Professor, or Astronomer Royal, at Greenwich.[323]
Notwithstanding Dr. Rittenhouse’s published writings are, for the

reasons that have been assigned, not very extensive, his
philosophical publications on various subjects, chiefly astronomical,
are far from being inconsiderable in number; and some of them are
highly important, while others discover the activity and force of his
genius.[324] The following is a list of his papers communicated to the
Am. Philosophical Society, and published in their Transactions;
arranged according to the dates at which they were severally read in
the Society: viz.
1. The first volume, printed in the year 1771,[325] contains—“A
Description of a new Orrery; planned, and now nearly finished, by
David Rittenhouse, A. M. of Norriton, in the county of Philadelphia:”
communicated by Dr. Smith. Read, March 21. 1768.
2. “Calculation of the Transit of Venus over the Sun, as it is to

happen, June 3d 1769, in Lat. 40° N. Long. 5h. W. from Greenwich:”
communicated 21st of June, 1768.
3. An Account of the Transit of Mercury over the Sun, Nov. 9.

1769, as observed at Norriton, in Pennsylvania, by Dr. Smith, and
Messrs. Lukens, Rittenhouse, and O. Biddle, the committee
appointed for that purpose by the Am. Philos. Society: drawn up and
communicated, by direction and in behalf of the committee, by Dr.
Smith—July 20. 1769.
4. Observations on the Comet of June and July, 1770; with the

elements of its motion and the trajectory of its path; in two letters
from David Rittenhouse, M. A. to William Smith, D. D. Prov. Coll.
Philad.[326] Communicated, Aug. 3. 1770.
5. An easy method of deducing the True Time of the Sun’s passing

the Meridian, per clock, from a comparison of four equal altitudes,
observed on two succeeding days; by David Rittenhouse, A. M.[327]
Communicated by William Smith, D. D. Prov. Coll. Philad.—Aug. 17.
1770.
6. Account of the Terrestrial Measurement of the difference of

Longitude between the Observatories of Norriton and Philadelphia;
drawn up by the Rev. Dr. Smith, in behalf of Mr. Lukens, Mr.
Rittenhouse and himself, the committee appointed by the Am.
Philos. Society, for that purpose, agreeably to the request of the
Astronomer-Royal of England. Dated, Aug. 17. 1770.
7. The second volume, printed in the year 1786, contains—An

Explanation of an Optical deception. Read, March 3. 1780.
8. An Account of some Experiments on Magnetism; in a letter from
Mr. Rittenhouse to John Page, Esq. of Williamsburgh. Read, Feb. 6.
1781.
9. A letter from David Rittenhouse, Esq. to John Page, Esq. in

answer to one from Mr. Page;) concerning a remarkable Meteor,
seen in Virginia and Pennsylvania, on the 31st of Oct. 1779. Read,
May 2. 1783. (N. B. Mr. Rittenhouse’s letter is dated Jan. 16. 1780.)
10. Observations on a Comet lately discovered; communicated by

David Rittenhouse, Esq.[328] Read, March 19. 1784.
11. A new Method of placing the Meridian Mark; in a letter to the

Rev. Dr. Ewing, Provost of the University. Read, November. 1785.
12. An Optical Problem, proposed by Mr. Hopkinson, and solved

by Mr. Rittenhouse. Read, Feb. 17. 1786. (N. B. Mr. Hopkinson’s
letter is dated March 16, 1785: the answer is without date.)
13. Astronomical Observations; communicated by Mr.

Rittenhouse. Without date.[329]
14. The third volume, printed in the year 1793, contains—An

Account of several Houses, in Philadelphia, struck with Lightning on
the 7th of June, 1789; by Mr. D. Rittenhouse and Dr. John Jones.
Read, July 17. 1789.
15. An Account of the Effects of a stroke of Lightning on a House

furnished with two Conductors; in a letter from Messrs. David
Rittenhouse and Francis Hopkinson, to Mr. R. Patterson. Read,
October 15. 1790.
16. Astronomical Observations made at Philadelphia: viz. of a

Lunar Eclipse, on the 2d of November, 1789; of the Transit of
Mercury over the Sun’s disk, on the 5th of November, 1789; of an
Eclipse of the Moon, on the 22d of October, 1790; of an Eclipse of
the Sun, on the 6th of November, 1790; and of an Annular Eclipse of
the Sun, on the 3d of April, 1791:[330] with an Account of
corresponding Observations of the two first of these Phænomena,
made at the University of William and Mary in Virginia, by the Rev.
Dr. Madison; and of the second, alone, made at Washington-College
in Maryland, by the Rev. Dr. Smith: communicated by D.
Rittenhouse. Read, February 4. 1791.
17. A Letter from Dr. Rittenhouse to Mr. Patterson, relative to a

Method of finding the Sum of the several Powers of the Sines, &c.
Read, May 18. 1792.
18. An Account of a Comet, (first observed by Mr. Rittenhouse, on

the 11th of January, 1793:) in a letter from D. Rittenhouse to Mr.
Patterson.[331] Read, February 15. 1793.
The fourth volume, printed in the year 1799, (three years after Dr.
Rittenhouse’s death,) contains—
19. A paper, “On the Improvement of Time-keepers;” by David

Rittenhouse, LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society. Read, November 7.
1794.[332]
20. A paper, “On the Expansion of Wood by Heat;” in a letter from

David Rittenhouse, LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society. Dated, May 15.
1795.
21. A Method of raising the common Logarithm of any number

immediately; by D. Rittenhouse, LL. D. Pres. Am. Philos. Society.
Read, August 12. 1795.
22. A communication, “On the Mode of determining the true Place

of a Planet, in an eliptical Orbit, directly from the mean Anomaly by
Converging Series;” by David Rittenhouse, Pres. Am. Phil. Society.
Read, February 5. 1796.
This last communication was made to the Society, within five
months of the time immediately preceding Dr. Rittenhouse’s death.
It is a strong evidence not only of our Philosopher’s industry, but of

his attachment to that institution of which he was so great an
ornament, that, in the course of the twenty-six years during which he
was a member of it, he could find sufficient leisure,—almost
constantly employed, as he was, in important public business, and
frequently bereft of health,—to contribute so many valuable papers
as he did, to the too scanty stock of its published Transactions. Dr.
Franklin, who was a member of the Philosophical Society, and their
president, for twenty-one years, furnished them with only eight
communications during that time: and Mr. Jefferson, who has
nominally occupied the president’s chair[333] in the same Society
above sixteen years, has favoured them with only two or three,
within this period.
Had Dr. Rittenhouse enjoyed leisure to write, there are sufficient

reasons to induce a belief, that his compositions would have been
highly estimable; not solely for the subject matter of them, but for
their manner also. It is true, he laboured under the privations of a
liberal education: his style might therefore, perhaps, have been
deficient in some of the ornamental appendages of classical
learning. Nevertheless, the native energy of his mind, the clearness
of his perceptions, the accuracy with which he employed his
reasoning faculties,—in fine, the very extraordinary intellectual
powers he displayed, when they were directed to the attainment of
any species of human knowledge;—these would, doubtless, have
supplied him with those beauties of language, which are usually, as
well as most readily, derived from academic instruction. And in
addition to all these, the sublimity of the objects which he so ardently
and frequently contemplated, could scarcely fail to have
communicated to his literary productions a due portion of an
elevated style, when treating on subjects of a corresponding
character. Dr. Rush, in noticing the address delivered by Rittenhouse
before the Philosophical Society in the year 1775, observes, that “the
language of this Oration is simple, but” that “the sentiments
contained in it are ingenious, original, and in some instances
sublime:” in another place, the learned Eulogist styles it an “eloquent
performance.” It is presumed, that these characteristic features of
that little work are not unaptly applied; and it will be found, on
perusal, to be also strongly tinctured, throughout, with a vein of
exalted piety[334] and universal benevolence.
Dr. Rittenhouse, by the vigour of his mind, by the transcendent

powers of his genius, had surmounted the disadvantages of a
defective education, as some few other great men have done; but it
may be fairly inferred from the nature of things, that, had not that
privation existed in the case of our Philosopher, he would have
shone with a still superior lustre, not merely as a man of science, but
as a literary character.[335]
The Writer of these Memoirs sincerely regrets, that he differs very

widely, indeed, on this head, from a gentleman who has, himself,
been distinguished in the literary world by his learning, as well as by
his genius and science. “In speaking of Mr. Rittenhouse,” says his
eloquent Eulogist, “it has been common to lament his want of what is
called a liberal education.”—“Were education what it should be, in
our public seminaries,” continues our ingenious Professor, “this
would have been a misfortune; but conducted as it is at present,
agreeably to the systems adopted in Europe in the fifteenth century, I
am disposed to believe that his extensive knowledge, and splendid
character, are to be ascribed chiefly to his having escaped the
pernicious influence of monkish learning upon his mind, in early life.
Had the usual forms of a public education in the United States been
imposed upon him; instead of revolving through life in a planetary
orbit, he would probably” says his Eulogist “have consumed the force
of his genius by fluttering around the blaze of an evening taper:
Rittenhouse the Philosopher, and one of the luminaries of the 18th
century, might have spent his hours of study in composing
syllogisms, or in measuring the feet of Greek and Latin poetry.” In
another part of his Eulogium, (wherein he notices some fine and
benevolent reflections of Dr. Rittenhouse, arising from a
contemplation of particular works of nature,) Dr. Rush addresses an
invocation to that distinguished class of learned men, the clergy, in
terms corresponding with his sentiments just quoted:—“If such,” says
he, “be the pious fruits of an attentive examination of the works of
the Creator, cease, ye ministers of the gospel, to defeat the design of
your benevolent labours, by interposing the common studies of the
schools, between our globe and the minds of young people.”[336]
If, indeed, the “monkish learning” of the fifteenth century was now
taught among us; if “composing syllogisms,” and “measuring the feet
of Greek and Latin poetry,” were now the sole objects of scholastic
instruction in this country; then might our learned Professor have
anathematized, with good reason, the system of teaching in our
Universities and Colleges. But it is well known, that the Aristotelian
Philosophy, and what is denominated the Learning of the Schools,
has been gradually declining in the European seminaries of learning,
in the course of the last two centuries;[337] and more particularly so, in
the great schools of Britain and Ireland: that the system of academic
instruction, deduced from the visionary theories of the philosophers
of antiquity, is there, as well as here, nearly, if not entirely exploded.
It is true, the Greek and Latin tongues are yet taught with great
assiduity and success, in the British Isles; as they have hitherto
been, among ourselves:[338] and it is confidently hoped, that those
languages will long continue to be cultivated with unabated zeal, in
this country; whatever may be their fate on the European continent,
where it is said they are rapidly declining, along with other branches
of useful learning, and accompanied by an evident decay of many
social refinements. Those languages are, in fact, valuable auxiliaries
in the attainment of many branches of useful science, and have ever
been considered the best substratum of polite learning and literary
taste.
A man may, assuredly, be a profound astronomer; he may be

eminently skilled in other branches of natural science, or in the
doctrines of morals; he may be well versed in the polite arts; and yet
may not understand either Greek or Latin. Nevertheless, an intimate
and classical acquaintance with these languages cannot diminish the
powers of his mind, or render him less capable of excelling in other
departments of human knowledge. Bacon, Newton, Boyle, and
Maclauren, with a multitude of others, the most distinguished for
genius, science and learning, received an academical education;
they were masters of the Greek and Latin languages; and were also
instructed, without doubt, even in the formation of syllogisms:[339] yet
these great men were not the less eminent as philosophers. It is to
be presumed, that, while at their several schools and colleges, they
were employed in acquiring the more solid and useful parts of
learning; as well as the ornamental and polite. Both are taught in all
the higher seminaries; and to the Universities of the United States,
as well as of Europe, are attached Professorships[340] for such
instruction.
The able and learned editor of “The American Review of History

and Politics”[341] remarks, that, “for very obvious reasons it could not
be expected, that Philology would be duly appreciated, or cultivated
to any extent, by the American public in general. The state of society
in this country, so admirable under many points of view, renders this
impossible. We should not be surprised or discouraged at a general
ignorance of, and an almost universal indifference about the learned
languages: but this is not all; the public feeling is not confined to
mere apathy: it borders on hostility. Numbers are not wanting,
persons even of influence in the community, who industriously
proclaim, not simply the utter insignificance, but the pernicious
tendency of classical learning; and who would proscribe it as idle in
itself, and as dangerous to republicanism. At the same time, our
progress in this pursuit is far from being in a natural ratio with our
advances in other respects. Philology is in fact, even worse than
stationary among us; from what cause, whether from the influence of
the extraordinary notions just mentioned, or from the absence of all
external excitements, we will not now pretend to determine.”
Should these judicious remarks of the respectable Reviewer be

considered as containing an indirect censure on such “persons of
influence” as he may be supposed to allude to, who “proclaim” the
“pernicious tendency of classical learning,”—it is much to be
lamented by the friends of literature and science, that there should
be any just grounds for its support.
Dr. Rittenhouse understood the German[342] and Low Dutch

languages, well; and had acquired a sufficient knowledge of the
French, to enable him to comprehend astronomical and other works
written in that tongue. These acquisitions, it has been observed,
“served the valuable purpose of conveying to him the discoveries of
foreign nations, and thereby enabled him to prosecute his studies
with more advantage in his native language.”[343]
But these were not the whole of his philological attainments. By

the dint of genius, and by that spirit of perseverance which he
manifested in every thing he undertook, he overcame in a great
degree the difficulties of the Latin tongue.[344] This he did for the
same valuable purpose that he had in view, in learning the German,
Low Dutch and French.
The reading of our Philosopher was extensive. It embraced every

department of polite literature, as well as many branches of what is
called, by way of distinction, useful knowledge. He appears to have
been more particularly attached to history, voyages and travels, and
to the poetick muse:[345] but the drama, ingenious productions of the
imagination, and other works of taste and fancy, likewise engaged a
portion of his attention.[346] Dr. Rush asserts, that he had early and
deeply studied most of the different systems of theology.[347] On this
head, no further information can be given by the writer of these
Memoirs: yet he thinks he has good reason for believing,—and such
as are independent of Dr. Rittenhouse’s known liberality, with respect
to various modes of faith and worship, that he never gave a very
decided preference to any one regular society of Christians, over
others; he loved that sort of Christianity, which inculcates sound
morals: his charity, in regard to theological opinions and other
concerns of religion, was great; and he felt no disposition to observe
any thing like a scrupulous adherence to such tenets or rites, as he
deemed less essential to the well-being of mankind. It was, in fact,
the liberal manner (and this alone) in which he sometimes expressed
himself on subjects of this nature, influenced by sentiments of the
purest benevolence, that induced some persons of more rigid
principles, and perhaps less candour, to doubt the soundness of his
faith in revealed religion: but the whole tenor of his life, and the
religious sentiments he had publicly and repeatedly avowed, shew
how ill-founded such suspicions were.[348] A mind so contemplative
as his, so devoted to the pursuit of truth, so boundless in its views,
and so ardently attached to virtue, would naturally lead him to an
investigation of the principles of Christianity; and it is evident from
some passages in his Oration, and also in his familiar letters to his
friends, that he believed in the fundamental articles of the Christian
faith,[349] however he may have doubted respecting some of the more
abstract and less important tenets of the church.
As Dr. Rittenhouse never attached himself to the distinguishing

dogmas of any one sect of Christians; so, on the authority of a letter
addressed to the Memorialist by Mr. B. Rittenhouse, soon after his
brother’s decease, it may be asserted, that our Philosopher “was
never joined in communion with any particular religious society;
though he esteemed good men of all sects.” In his youth, it is
probable he was bred a Baptist; the sect to which his father (and, it is
believed, his mother also,) belonged: at subsequent periods, he
entertained favourable opinions of the church of England, and of the
principles of the quakers (so called.) In some of the latter years of his
life, he and his family pretty frequently attended divine service in a
presbyterian congregation, of which a very respectable and worthy
gentleman then was the pastor and until very lately continued to
officiate as such.[350] That church is situated in the same street
wherein Dr. Rittenhouse dwelt; and its then minister was one of
many clergymen, belonging to different churches, whom he
personally esteemed.
Some of his letters to his confidential friends testify, nevertheless,

that he by no means embraced some of the doctrines of Calvinism:
nor did he, probably, approve of others, in their more rigid
interpretation.[351] In one of those letters, addressed to the Rev. Mr.
Barton, (an Episcopalian, of the English church,) from Philadelphia,
so early as September, 1755, he wrote thus: “I have been here
several days, and am fatigued and somewhat indisposed. You know
my spirits are never very high, and will therefore expect a
melancholy letter from me at present. I should be glad of
opportunities to receive letters from you, and to write to you oftener:
—indeed, I am desirous of disclosing to you some of my most
serious thoughts.” It can scarcely be doubted, from the complexion
of this paragraph and the character of the person to whom our then
young philosopher was writing, that these “most serious thoughts,”
which he wished so much to disclose to his clerical friend, related to
some points in divinity. After subjoining, in the same letter, some
reflexions, of such a cast as shew that his spirits were depressed by
fatigue and indisposition, as was usually the case with him, he
proceeded thus: “I assure you, notwithstanding, I am no
misanthrope; but think good society one of the greatest blessings of
life. Whatever is said of original sin, the depravity of our nature, and
our propensity to all evil; though men are said to be wolves to men;
yet, think, I can see abundance of goodness in human nature, with
which I am enamoured. I would sooner give up my interest in a
future state, than be divested of humanity;—I mean, that good-will
which I have to the species, although one half of them are said to be
fools, and almost the other half knaves. Indeed I am firmly
persuaded that we are not at the disposal of a Being who has the
least tincture of ill-nature, or requires any in us. You will laugh at this
grave philosophy, or my writing to you on a subject you have thought
of a thousand times. But, can any thing that is serious, be ridiculous?
Shall we suppose Gabriel smiling at Newton, for labouring to
demonstrate whether the earth moves or not, because the former
plainly sees it move?”
This extract (the latter part of which constitutes a note to Dr.

Rush’s Eulogium,) expresses, in the concluding sentence, a beautiful
and apt allusion, in reference to the subject. It likewise contains a
finely-turned compliment to the superior knowledge he presumed Mr.
Barton to possess, on theological subjects; without its seeming to
have been intended, that it should comprehend himself also,—
otherwise than as he might be considered, for a moment, to be
personating that branch of science which he most assiduously
cultivated. The compliment, so far as it appeared to apply to himself,
was unquestionably due to him; but his modesty would have
forbidden his using it, even to a brother-in-law, could he have
imagined at the instant of penning it, that a portion of it might be
referred to himself, personally.
The whole scope of the passage, just quoted, “shews,” however,

as his Eulogist has observed, “how early and deeply the principles of
universal benevolence were fixed in his mind.” And in his Oration,
composed when he was in the full meridian of life, our Philosopher
has plainly indicated, that the same philanthropic spirit, that species
of benevolence which is the basis of true religion, and that warmed
his youthful breast, continued to animate it with unabated fervency:
“That Being,” said he, “before whose piercing eye all the intricate
foldings and dark recesses of the human heart become expanded
and illuminated, is my witness, with what sincerity, with what ardour, I
wish for the happiness of the whole race of mankind; how much I
admire that disposition of lands and seas, which affords a
communication between distant regions, and a mutual exchange of
benefits; how sincerely I approve of those social refinements which
really add to our happiness, and induce us with gratitude to
acknowledge our great Creator’s goodness; how I delight in a
participation of the discoveries made from time to time in nature’s
works, by our philosophic brethren in Europe.”
In the opinion of our Philosopher, “every enlargement of our

faculties, every new happiness conferred upon us, every step we
advance towards the perfection of the Divinity, will very probably
render us more and more sensible of his inexhaustible stores of
communicable bliss, and of his inaccessible perfections.”[352] He
supposed, that, even in this world, “wherein we are only permitted ‘to
look about us and to die,’ there is ample provision made for
employing every faculty of the human mind; even allowing its powers
to be constantly enlarged through an endless repetition of ages;” but
admitting, at the same time, “that there is nothing in it capable of
satisfying us.”
Similar indications of his extensive benevolence, and of the high
sense he entertained of the dignity of human nature, as well as of
the attributes of the Deity, are found every where in his writings; and
the “elegant and pious extract” (as it is termed by Dr. Rush, in his
Eulogium,) from a letter to one of his friends, quoted in another
place, affords a striking instance of the prevalence of that disposition
in the towering mind of Rittenhouse.
If “he believed political, as well as moral, evil, to be intruders into

the society of men,”[353] he was certainly too well acquainted with the
moral constitution of man and the evident nature of humanity, to
suppose, “that a time would come, when every part of our globe
would echo back the heavenly proclamation of universal peace on
earth and good will to man.”[354] Possessing a most benevolent
disposition, he did believe, “that a conduct in this life, depending on
our choice, will stamp our characters for ages yet to come.” He was
so far from expecting any thing like perfectibility here, that he
thought, that man as a free agent, in darkening his faculties by an
unworthy application of them here on earth, might “degrade himself
to some inferior rank of being,” hereafter; while, on the other hand,
by “the exercise of virtue, and a rational employment of those talents
we are entrusted with,”—“we shall, in a few years, be promoted to a
more exalted rank among the creatures of God—have our
understandings greatly enlarged—be enabled to follow Truth in all
her labyrinths, with an higher relish and more facility; and thus lay
the foundation for an eternal improvement in knowledge and
happiness.” Our Philosopher acknowledged, that he was “not one of
those sanguine spirits who seem to think, that, when the withered
hand of death hath drawn up the curtain of eternity, almost all
distance between the creature and the creator, between finite and
infinite, will be annihilated.”[355] Yet, the Writer of these Memoirs has
no hesitation in expressing an opinion, with which a long and
intimate acquaintance with Dr. Rittenhouse has forcibly impressed
his own mind; that this virtuous man was inclined to believe, or
rather, actually did believe, (with the distinguished author of the
Dissertation on the Prophecies,)[356] in a final restitution of all things
to harmony and happiness in another state of existence.
The learned Eulogist of our Philosopher, whom his present
biographer has already so often quoted with much interest and
pleasure, (although he is, on some points, so unfortunate as to be
compelled to dissent from him,) has remarked, that Dr. Rittenhouse
“was well acquainted with practical metaphysics.” He had, without
doubt, attentively studied those branches, at least, of this science,
which embrace moral philosophy, connected, as it is, with a rational
system of natural religion: probably, too, he had investigated its more
abstruse and less useful departments: and, perhaps, he had also
directed his all-inquisitive mind, in some degree, to a contemplation
of those mental vagaries of the modern philosophy, as it is termed,
which neither subserve the purposes of ethics or of natural theology:
a system, if it deserve that appellation, made up of such incongruous
materials, such visionary notions, as by their falsity alone,
independently of their mischievous operation in society, seem
calculated to dishonour the name of philosophy, and to depreciate
the highly meritorious services rendered to mankind by the votaries
of true science. If, however, Dr. Rittenhouse ever did condescend to
employ any considerable portion of his valuable time, in making
himself acquainted with the delusive principles of this multifarious
sect of pseudo-philosophers, it has been already manifested with
what sentiments of disapprobation, if not of abhorrence, he regarded
their doctrines.[357]
It being presumed, therefore, that our Philosopher was, in the

words of his Eulogist, “well acquainted with practical metaphysics,”
an inference may thence be fairly made, that, with respect to
metaphysical deductions, “he could use them,” as has been said of
Maclaurin, “with as much subtlety and force as any man living; but”—
also like that celebrated philosopher—“he chose rather, in his
conversation as well as his writings, to bring the matter to a short
issue, in his own way.” Certain it is, however, that Dr. Rittenhouse
reprobated, as did his eminent predecessor just named, that subtile,
vague and inconclusive kind of ratiocination, the mode of reasoning,
in matters of abstract science, from causes to effects,[358] which so
much characterize that “cobweb philosophy,”[359] of which the mass
of mere metaphysical systems is made up. Rittenhouse was a
practical philosopher: he held in contempt the obscurity of mysticism,
in every object of rational enquiry; viewing it as being, always, either
the parent or the offspring of error. He loved “sober certainty,”[360] in
philosophy; and therefore he pursued Truth, in all his scientific
researches, in that practical and rational mode of philosophizing,
which he deemed conformable to the nature of truth itself, and best
adapted to the construction and faculties of the human mind.[361]
What was the general bias of Dr. Rittenhouse’s opinions on the

subject of government, no one who knew him could doubt; and they
are likewise deducible, not only from his writings, but from the
uniform course of his public and official conduct. He was, in fact,
from the dawn of the American controversy with the government of
the mother-country to the year 1775, a whig, in his political
principles. From the commencement of hostilities in that year, his
feelings, as a native of America, prejudiced him strongly against the
administration of the British government; and the prejudices thus
imbibed, were transferred, soon after, from those men who
administered that government—as well as their measures, to the
nature and form of the government itself. And finally, on the
establishment of the national independence of the United States, in
1776, his opinions settled down, very decidedly, in favour of the
governmental system of a representative and elective republic.
But, until the arrival of that important epocha, when thirteen North-
American colonies of Great Britain solemnly announced to the world
their separation from the parent-state, Rittenhouse thought and
acted, in relation to political affairs, pretty much as his countrymen
did. “Previous to the American revolution,” as Ramsay the historian
has remarked, “the inhabitants of the British colonies were
universally loyal:” and another American writer[362] of respectability
has correspondently observed, that the proceedings of the first
congress were “cool, deliberate and loyal, though marked with
unanimity and firmness.” Indeed many months elapsed, after the
appeal to arms was actually made, before the strong attachment to
the mother-country, which the American colonists had always
manifested, generally subsided. But, after the middle of the year
1775, “the prejudices in favour of a connexion with England and of
the English constitution,” (to use the words of Chief-Justice Marshall,
[363]
“gradually, but rapidly wore off; and were succeeded by
republican principles, and wishes for independence.”
Such then, it is confidently believed, was the progress of political

sentiments in their operation upon the mind of Rittenhouse, in
common with a large majority of the American people.
The information must therefore have been wholly erroneous, upon

which Dr. Rush was induced to ground his assertion, that “the year of
the declaration of Independence, which changed our royal
governments into republics, produced no change in his
(Rittenhouse’s) political opinions,—for,” continues the Doctor, “he
had been educated a republican by his father.” The very reason
which the able and zealous Eulogist has here assigned for Dr.
Rittenhouse’s political principles having undergone no change in
consequence of the American revolution, being predicated upon an
assumed but mistaken fact, it serves to invalidate that allegation; and
it would never have been made, had not Dr. Rush been led into the
error by misinformation on the subject. Because, those who were
personally acquainted with our Philosopher’s father, (Mr. Matthias
Rittenhouse,) must well know, that the old gentleman was
remarkable for his quiet, unoffending principles and conduct; that he
meddled very little, if at all, with public affairs; and that, although a
man of good judgment, he had never turned his attention to political
controversies or speculations on the science of government. He was
in truth a pious man, of great industry, plain manners and
unambitious temper; and he uniformly approved himself a peaceable
and faithful subject of that monarchy under which he lived seventy-
three years, until 1776. On the other hand, the theory of government
was a subject upon which the son had, doubtless, thought and read
much. It cannot, therefore, be reasonably concluded, that Dr.
Rittenhouse was “educated a republican by his father.”
It is asked: “How could he (Rittenhouse) behold the beauty and

harmony of the universe as the result of universal and mutual
dependance, and not admit that Heaven intended Rulers to be
dependant upon those, for whose benefit, alone, all government
should exist? To suppose the contrary,” it is added, “would be to
deny unity and system in the plans of the great Creator of all
things.”[364] But, with all due deference to the genius and talents of
the highly respectable gentleman here quoted, the writer cannot
persuade himself, that our Astronomer could have drawn such
inferences as the results of analogical reasoning, from the beauty
and harmony of the Universe, as those which the foregoing extract
would seem to impute to him. For, who are those, “for whose benefit,
alone, all government should exist?” The People: And in such a
republic as the United States—where there cannot exist,
constitutionally, “a privileged order of men”—the Rulers are, surely, a
part of the People. What, then, is the nature of this mutuality of
dependence between Rulers and People? If government should
exist for the benefit of the People, that is, all the members of the
community, as most assuredly it ought to do; then it should be
conducted for the benefit of the Rulers, as well as of those who are
ruled; the former being a component part of the entire community,
under the comprehensive denomination of the People. It is therefore
conceived, that, on republican principles, the People and their Rulers
cannot be so contradistinguished as separate bodies of men, as that
the former, alone, should be dependant on the latter; but that there
ought to be between them, as constituting jointly and collectively the
People, that “mutual dependance,” of which the ingenious Eulogist
speaks: otherwise, a privileged order of men must be considered as
actually existing among us. Yet, even in the monarchical republic of
Great Britain,[365] the business of government is not wholly “limited” to
“a privileged order of men:”[366] One branch of the legislative body is
popular; and one branch, also, of the judicial department of that
government, the institution of juries, is purely republican.
The learned professor, here referred to, is nevertheless an highly

estimable citizen of the American Republic, as his numerous and
important public services fully evince. In his “Address to the People
of the United States,” published shortly before the sitting of the
Federal Convention, he has pointed out two “errors or prejudices on
the subject of government in America, which,” as he very justly
observes, “lead to the most dangerous consequences.” The
correctness of his sentiments on the subject of those errors, does
him honour: such of his observations as are more particularly
applicable to the present subject, are contained in the following
passages.
“It is often said, that ‘the sovereign power and all other power is
seated in the people.’ This idea is unhappily expressed. It should be
—‘all power is derived from the people.’ They possess it only on the
days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their Rulers; nor
can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of
importance to circulate this idea, as it tends to order and good
government.” And again:
“The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word

Sovereignty: hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe,
it is applied only to those states, which possess the power of making
war and peace, of forming treaties, and the like. As this power
belongs only to Congress, they are the only sovereign power in the
United States.”
The Memorialist is persuaded, that Dr. Rittenhouse would have

fully concurred in this construction of the nature of sovereignty, in an
elective government: and he has been the more diffuse on this
subject, in order both to prevent and remove, as much as possible,
any misconceptions respecting the political opinions of our
Philosopher.
An unostentatious simplicity and strict integrity, with a due

proportion of dignity and firmness, in the administration of the public
affairs; a judicious economy, in the management and expenditure of
the public revenues; a zealous attention to the public interests and
the happiness of the people; a wise and faithful administration of
justice among the various members of the community, without any
invidious distinctions; a strict observance of good faith, in all relations
with foreign states; a sincere attachment to peace with its
concomitant blessings, and consequently, an abhorrence of
unnecessary wars, whether provoked, or undertaken, by means of
the cupidity or the ambition of rulers; these have been usually
considered, in theory, as characteristics of republican governments.
Greatly is it to be desired, that they may always prove to be so, in
fact.
That both the Rittenhouses, father and son, should be attached to

an order of things in the commonwealth, established and conducted
on the principles just mentioned, may be readily conceived from a
knowledge of their characters. To a system of civil polity, productive
of such substantial benefits to all those under its immediate
operation, Dr. Rittenhouse would naturally have been inclined: his
habits, manners and principles, would so dispose him. Hence, after
having indulged, for a moment, the pleasing but fanciful hypothesis,
that if the inhabitants of the other planets resemble man in their
faculties and affections; if, like him, they were created liable to fall,
though some of them might be presumed to retain their original
rectitude; he proceeds with supposing, “that they are wise enough to
govern themselves according to the dictates of that reason which
God has given them, in such manner as to consult their own and
each other’s happiness, upon all occasions. But if, on the contrary,”
said he, “they have found it necessary to erect artificial fabrics of
government, let us not suppose they have done it with so little skill,
and at such an enormous expence, as to render them a misfortune,
instead of a blessing. We will hope,” continues the philanthropic
Rittenhouse, “that their statesmen are patriots, and that their kings, if
that order of beings has found admittance there, have the feelings of
humanity.” He next deplores, in terms which evince the strength of
his feelings on the occasion, the folly as well as iniquity of holding
the Africans in bondage among us; national rapacity; the scourges of
war, then recently inflicted on the north of Europe; and, finally, he
deprecates in very impressive language, the inroads of “luxury, and
her constant follower, tyranny.”[367]
Dr. Rittenhouse having entertained such sentiments as these, at

the time he penned his Oration, and it will be recollected, that this
was only two or three months before hostilities had actually taken
place between Great-Britain and her North-American Colonies, he
was naturally enough induced to believe, that many of the political
evils which were, about that period, experienced in civil society by a
large portion of mankind, arose from the nature of their respective
governments. And, the principal states of Europe, with the exception
of the Dutch commonwealth, were then governed under the
monarchical form.
In the American continental colonies of Great-Britain, generally, it

was the prevalent opinion of the people at the commencement of the
revolution, that the grievances complained of by the colonists,
originated, almost as a matter of necessity, from the monarchical
spirit of the mother-country: consequently, many of those great
public evils which sprung from the genius, habits and pursuits, of the
people themselves, in the great monarchies of the old world, were
generally attributed to some peculiar vices inherent in that species of
government. It was the universality, almost, of these opinions; which
soon after obtained throughout the United Colonies, that produced a
determination in the people to establish, for themselves, republican
forms of government, as independent states. Such were accordingly
established; and the American people have long experienced their
efficiency in promoting the prosperity of the country.
Should it, nevertheless, unfortunately happen at any future period,

that the now existing national constitution should, by any means, be
perverted from its original design; should a system of government so
well planned—“in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;”[368]
should this well-defined Charter of American freedom, by means of
mal-administration or otherwise, eventually frustrate the patriotic
intentions of its illustrious framers; then, indeed, will the noblest effort
ever made by any people to institute a rational system of free
government, blast the best hopes of the advocates of republicanism.
In such event—which, may heaven avert! the often quoted couplet
would be too fatally verified, wherein the poet says:

Textbook Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics Part Ii Fibre Bundles Topology and Gauge Fields Gerd Rudolph Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics Part Ii Fibre Bundles Topology and Gauge Fields Gerd Rudolph Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Differential Geometry and Mathematical

Physics Part II Fibre Bundles Topology

From Differential Geometry to Non commutative Geometry

Synthetic differential topology Bunge

Aspects of Integrability of Differential Systems and

Mathematical Gauge Theory With Applications to the

Partial Differential Equations Arising from Physics and

Mathematical Gauge Theory With Applications to the

Differential geometry and Lie groups A computational

Topology and Physics of Circular DNA (1992) First

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/720

ISSN 1864-5879 ISSN 1864-5887 (electronic)

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

1 Fibre Bundles and Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 Cohomology Theory of Fibre Bundles. Characteristic Classes . . . . . . 257

8.4 Geometry of Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652

See [434] for a history of the theory of ﬁbre bundles.

well as exact solutions to the Yang–Mills–Higgs equations. In particular, we focus

1.1 Principal Bundles

In a gauge theory describing the fundamental interaction of elementary particles, the

1 Left (right) translations if Ψ is a left (right) action.

condition 1 can be rewritten as

κ(Ψa (p)) = κ(p)a, p ∈ π −1 (U), a ∈ G . (1.1.2)

The group G is called the structure group of P. If G is fixed, P is referred to as a

We will also need the general notion of fibre bundle.

Definition 1.1.5 Let (P, G, M, Ψ, π ) be a principal bundle. A section of P is a

2. A morphism (ϑ, λ) is called an isomorphism if ϑ is a diffeomorphism and λ is an

Remark 1.1.9 (Pullback of principal bundles)

ϕ ∗ P := {(y, p) ∈ N × P : ϕ(y) = π(p)} .

This is a principal G-bundle over N and the canonical projection N × P → P

is a vertical isomorphism and ϑ decomposes into the composition of this

structure of a principal (G1 × G2 )-bundle over M × M. Let Δ : M → M × M be

κi (Ψa (p)) · κj (Ψa (p))−1 = κi (p) · a · a−1 · κj (p)−1 = κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ,

Ui ∩ Uj m → ρij (m) := κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ∈ G, p ∈ π −1 (m), (1.1.5)

which are called the transition mappings of P. They fulfil

ρij (m) = ρik (m) · ρkj (m), m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj ∩ Uk . (1.1.6)

This condition implies, in particular,

Proof Take the topological direct sum

3 Some authors call it the spliced product [83].

which, by condition (1.1.6), yields an equivalence relation on X. We denote by

Ψ : P × G → P, Ψ ([(i, m, a)], b) := [(i, m, a · b)].

Since the Ui cover M, π is surjective. Let pr i be the restriction of pr to Ui × G. By

We endow P with the structure of a differentiable manifold by observing that π −1 (Ui )

we get a system of local trivializations whose transition mappings coincide with

ρij2 (m) = κi2 (ϑ(p)) κj2 (ϑ(p))−1

Since, for every a ∈ G, we have

we can define a smooth mapping

Thus, for every m ∈ Ui ∩ Uj , we obtain

ρij2 (m) = ρi (m) ρij1 (m) ρj (m)−1 . (1.1.7)

To summarize, if the principal G-bundles P1 and P2 are vertically isomorphic, then

for every i ∈ I. Obviously, this is a family of diffeomorphisms fulfilling π2 (ϑi (p)) =

Using this terminology, Theorem 1.1.11 can be reformulated as follows.

Corollary 1.1.13 The vertical isomorphism classes of principal G-bundles over M

Example 1.1.14 (Frame bundle of a manifold) Let M be an n-dimensional mani-

Ψ : L(M) × Gl(n, R), Ψ (u, a) := ua,

χ : π −1 (U) → U × GL(n, R), χ (u) := (π(p), uϕ ) (1.1.8)

is a bijection fulfilling pr U ◦χ = π . By the definition of Ψ , it also fulfils the equivari-

Example 1.1.15 (Frame bundle of a vector bundle) Let E be a K-vector bundle of

Definition 1.1.16 Let E be a K-vector bundle of rank k over M, where K = R, C or

Example 1.1.18 For K = R, C or H, let E be a K-vector bundle of rank k over M

Ψ : C2 × U(1) → C2 , Ψ ((z1 , z2 ), eiα ) := (eiα z1 , eiα z2 ).

Ui ∩ Uj m → ρij (m) := κi (p) · κj (p)−1 ∈ G, p ∈ π −1 (m), (1.1.5)

S3 (z1 , z2 ) → (2z1 z2 , |z1 |2 − |z2 |2 ) ∈ C × R.