§ Fiber bundles

In the case of a bundle, we have a sequence of maps F→E→BF \rightarrow E \rightarrow B where FF is the fiber space (like the tangent space at the identity TeMT_eM). EE is the total space (the bundle TMTM), and BB is the base space (the manifold MM). We require that the inverse of the projection π−1:B→E\pi^{-1}: B \rightarrow E locally splits as product π−1(U)≃U×F\pi^{-1}(U) \simeq U \times F.

§ Semidirect products

In a semidirect product N⋉KN \ltimes K, we have that NN is normal (because the fish wants to eat the normal subgroup NN / the symbol looks like N◃GN \triangleleft G which is how we denote normality). Thus, we can only quotient by NN, leaving us with KK. This is captured by the SES:

0→N→N⋉K→πK→0 0 \rightarrow N \rightarrow N \ltimes K \xrightarrow{\pi} K \rightarrow 0

§ Viewing the semidirect product space as a G-bundle

Consider the space E≡N⋉KE \equiv N \ltimes K as a bundle over KK given by the projection E≡N⋉K→πKE \equiv N \ltimes K \xrightarrow{\pi} K. We can have NN act on the fibers by a left and a right action. Let's consider both:

So we see that NN acting on the left gives us an action that permutes inside fibers, and KK acting on the right gives us an action that permutes the fibers themselves. So we can write this as N▹N⋉K◃KN \triangleright N \ltimes K \triangleleft K to capture the base-space bundle-space relationship, perhaps.

Also, see that if we quotient N⋉KN \ltimes K by the action of G≡NG\equiv N acting on the left, with the quotient map called [⋅][\cdot] for orbit equivalence classes, we get N⋉K→[⋅](N⋉K)/N=KN\ltimes K \xrightarrow{[\cdot]} (N \ltimes K)/N = K, which is isomorphic to our starting picture N⋉K→πKN \ltimes K \xrightarrow{\pi} K. Hence, it is indeed true that this bundle is a principal GG-bundle.

§ Relationship to gauges

NOTE : this was written before I knew what a G-bundle is. This is perhaps easier to read, but less useful in hindsight.

Let XX be the space of all states. Let OO be a group action whose orbits identify equivalent states. So the space of "physical states" or "states that describe the same physical scenario" is the orbit of XX under OO, or X/OX/O. Now, the physical space X/OX/O is acted upon by some group GG. If we want to "undo the quotienting" to have GG act on all of XX, then we need to construct G⋉OG \ltimes O. GG is normal here because OO already knows how to act on the whole space; GG does not, so OO needs to "guide" the action of GG by acting on it. The data needed to construct G⋉OG \ltimes O is a connection . Topologically, we have X→X/OX \rightarrow X/O and G↷X/OG \curvearrowright X/O. We want to extend this to (G⋉O)↷X(G \ltimes O) \curvearrowright X. We imagine this as:

*1| #1 | @1  X*2| #2 | @2*3| #3 | @3  | |  |  | v  |* | #  | @ X/H

where the action of HH permutes amongst the fibers of *, #, @. Next, we have an action of GG on X/HX/H:

*1| #1 | @1  X*2| #2 | @2*3| #3 | @3  | |  |  | v  |* | #  | @ [X/H] --G--> # | @ | *

We need to lift this action of H the H-orbits. This is precisely the data a connection gives us (why?) I guess the intuition is that the orbits of XX are like the tangent spaces where X→X/OX \rightarrow X/O is the projection from the bundle into the base space, and the GG is a curve that tells us what the "next point" we want to travel to from the current point. The connection allows us to "lift" this to "next tangent vector". That's quite beautiful.

We want the final picture to be:

*1| #1 | @1  X          #2| @2|*2| #2 | @2    --G-->   #1|   |*3| #3 | @3             #3|   |  | |  |                  |   |  | v  |                  |   |* | #  | @ [X/H] --G--> # | @ | *