# Covariant derivative of connection coefficients

Is there a meaningful way to define the covariant derivative of the connection coefficients, $\Gamma^a_{bc}$? As in, does it make sense to define the object $\nabla_d\Gamma^a_{bc}$? Since the connection coefficients symbol doesn't transform as a tensor, it would seem like there should be some obstruction to defining this in the usual way, treating $a$ as a contravariant index and $b$ and $c$ a covariant indices.

Part of my motivation for thinking about this was for writing the Riemann tensor in terms of this symbol $\nabla_d\Gamma^a_{bc}$. If you work in a local Lorentz frame at a point where $\Gamma^a_{bc}$ all vanish, the expression for the Riemann tensor is just $$R^a_{\phantom{a}bcd}=\partial_c\Gamma^a_{bd}-\partial_b\Gamma^a_{cd}.$$ So then I'd like to "covariantize" this expression for a general coordinate system by writing \begin{equation} R^a_{\phantom{a}bcd}=\nabla_c\Gamma^a_{bd}-\nabla_b\Gamma^a_{cd}. \tag{*} \end{equation} If I pretend that $\Gamma^a_{bd}$ should have a covariant derivative defined by treating the indices as normal tensor indices, I get for this expression something pretty close to the right answer $$R^a_{\phantom{a}bcd}=\partial_c\Gamma^a_{bd}-\partial_b\Gamma^a_{cd} +2(\Gamma^a_{ce}\Gamma^e_{bd}-\Gamma^a_{eb}\Gamma^e_{cd})$$ and curiously, if I define $$\nabla_c\Gamma^a_{bd} \equiv \partial_c\Gamma^a_{bd} + \Gamma^a_{ce}\Gamma^e_{bd}-\Gamma^e_{cd}\Gamma^a_{eb} + \Gamma^e_{cb}\Gamma^a_{ed}$$ where the last term appears with the wrong sign from what you get with an ordinary $(1,2)$ tensor, the expression $(*)$ above for the Riemann tensor is correct. Is this just a coincidence, or is there some reason to define a covariant derivative of the connection symbol like that?

Update: The expression that gives the right form of the Riemann tensor for $(*)$ is actually $$\nabla_c\Gamma^a_{bd} \equiv \partial_c\Gamma^a_{bd} + \Gamma^a_{ce}\Gamma^e_{bd}-\Gamma^e_{cd}\Gamma^a_{eb}$$ so it is as if we are not treating $b$ as a tensor index, and we are just writing the covariant derivative of a $(1,1)$ tensor.

The formalism is explained very well in Landau-Lifshitz, Vol. II, par. 92 (properties of the curvature tensor). The Riemann curvature tensor can be called the covariant exterior derivative of the connection. The exterior derivative is a generalisation of the gradient and curl operators.

You might also consider looking at the geometry in differential forms language. The connection is seen as a 1-form (to be integrated along a line, the corresponding index is supressed), resulting in a (2-index) transformation matrix.* The Riemann curvature tensor is seen as a 2-form (to be integrated over a surface), again with values in a (2-index) transformation matrix. By doing so, you see Stokes' theorem appear, since integrating the connection (1-form) along a closed lines yields the same result as integrating the Riemann curvature (2-form) over the enclosed surface. That's why the Riemann curvature (2-form) needs to be the covariant exterior derivative of the connection (1-form).

Literature: Nakahara, Geometry, Topology and physics, chap. 5.4 and 7.

*Precisely: a Lie-algebra valued 1-form.

• I posted a question similiar to this one, link, however it concerns the representation of the covariant derivative. – linuxfreebird Mar 5 '14 at 15:06

Is there a meaningful way to define the covariant derivative of the connection coefficients...?

has a very simple answer: NO

It does not make sense (and it would be a very bad practice) to overload the operator "covariant derivative" and force it to somehow work on objects that are not tensors or scalars.

$\delta\Gamma$ (the variation of $\Gamma$ in an action ) is however a tensor with 3 indices, so you will find expressions like $$\delta\Gamma^a_{bc}$$ for the a,b,c component of this tensor and $$\delta\Gamma^a_{bc;d}$$ the a,b,c,d component of its covariant derivative, and even $$\delta R_{ab}=\delta\Gamma^l_{ab:l}-\delta\Gamma^l_{al:b}$$ for the variation of the Ricci tensor.

All this can be found in MTW page 492 and page 500

Pleasse note that: $$\delta\Gamma^a_{bc;d}$$ does not mean $$\delta (\Gamma^a_{bc;d})$$ which is meaningless, but rather $$(\delta\Gamma)^a_{bc;d}$$ since $\delta\Gamma$ is the tensor being differentiated

• Thanks for your answer. I have one more question though. The Riemann tensor is defined as: $$R(X,Y)Z = \nabla_X \nabla_Y Z - \nabla_Y \nabla_X Z - \nabla_{[X,Y]} Z$$ and a term like $\nabla_X \nabla_Y Z$ will surely involve the covariant derivative of the connection coefficient, right? How do we interpret this? – Hunter Apr 29 '14 at 15:23
• No, it would not involve the covariant derivative of the connection coefficient if you know what you are doing with the notation. I suggest you ask a new question along these lines: in a double covariant differentiation, do we have terms involving the covariant derivative of the $\Gamma$? and I will answer it properly. – magma Apr 29 '14 at 15:47
• I have found an answer to the question somewhere else, so it is not really necessary anymore. But thanks for the offer. – Hunter Apr 30 '14 at 8:33

Whether or not this makes sense rigorously$$^\ast$$ is beyond me right now (would need to brush up a bit on (gauge-)natural bundle functors and jet prolongations), but the covariant derivative of connections can be defined.

At first let us work with a gauge connection instead of a tangent space connection.

Suppose that $$\rho:G\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}(V)$$ is a representation of the structure group $$G$$, and $$\psi$$ is a field that transforms under the representation $$\rho$$ as $$\psi^\prime=\rho(g^{-1})\psi.$$ Then infinitesimally ($$g\approx1+\epsilon X$$, where $$X\in\mathfrak g$$ is a Lie algebra element) we have $$\delta\psi=-\rho(X)\psi,$$ where I have used the same $$\rho$$ symbol for the induced Lie algebra representation.

The heuristic idea behind gauge connections is that (infinitesimal) parallel transport should have the same effect on the field components as a gauge transformation, so the parallel transport of $$\psi$$ from $$x$$ to $$x+\mathrm dx$$ is $$\psi_{x+dx}=\rho(U^{-1}(x,dx))\psi_x\approx(1-\mathrm dx^\mu \rho(A_\mu(x)))\psi_x,$$ where $$A_\mu$$ is $$\mathfrak g$$-valued.

Then $$\delta\psi=-\rho(A_\mu)\psi\mathrm dx^\mu$$ is the infinitesimal change in field components during parallel transport. The covariant differential is then $$D\psi(x)=\psi(x+\mathrm dx)-(\psi(x)-\rho(A_\mu(x))\psi(x))=\mathrm d\psi(x)+\rho(A_\mu(x))\psi(x) \\ =(\partial_\mu\psi+\rho(A_\mu)\psi)\mathrm dx^\mu,$$ so the covariant derivative is $$D_\mu\psi=\partial_\mu\psi+\rho(A_\mu)\psi.$$

For clarity, let us assume we are given a different gauge connection $$B_\mu$$. Under a gauge transformation, it transforms as $$B^\prime_\mu=g^{-1}B_\mu g+g^{-1}\partial_\mu g\approx(1-\epsilon X)B_\mu(1+\epsilon X)+(1-\epsilon X)\partial_\mu(\epsilon X) \\ \approx B_\mu -\epsilon XB_\mu+\epsilon B_\mu X+\epsilon\partial_\mu X=B_\mu +\epsilon(\partial_\mu X+[B_\mu,X]),$$ thus $$\delta B_\mu=\partial_\mu X+[B_\mu,X].$$

The field $$B_\mu$$ does not transform under a linear representation of $$G$$, but under a nonlinear action of the group's first jet prolongation, but nontheless we can use the formal $$X\mapsto A_\mu\mathrm dx^\mu$$ rule to determine $$B_\mu$$'s variation under parallel transport by $$A_\mu$$ to get $$\delta B_\mu=\partial_\mu A_\nu\mathrm dx^\nu+[B_\mu, A_\nu]\mathrm dx^\nu.$$

Then the derivative of $$B_\mu$$ is $$DB_\mu=\mathrm dB_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu\mathrm dx^\nu-[B_\mu,A_\nu]\mathrm dx^\nu \\ =(\partial_\nu B_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu +[A_\nu,B_\mu])\mathrm dx^\nu,$$ and so the covariant derivative is $$D_\mu B_\nu=\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu,B_\nu].$$

If we now substitute $$A$$ instead of $$B$$, we obtain $$D_\mu A_\nu=D_{[\mu}A_{\nu]}=\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu,A_\nu]=F_{\mu\nu},$$ the gauge curvature.

For the tangent space connection, the fundamental representation is $$V^{\mu^\prime}=V^\mu\frac{\partial x^{\mu\prime}}{\partial x^\mu},$$ so $$g=\frac{\partial x}{\partial x^\prime}\equiv J$$ (I'll use the notation $$J$$ here). The infinitesimal transformation is then a vector field's ordinary derivative $$\partial_\nu \xi^\mu$$.

For the connection we have (I'll use index notation only in the vector index) $$\Gamma^\prime_\mu=J^{-1}\Gamma_\alpha J J^\alpha_\mu+J^{-1}\partial_\alpha J J^\alpha_\mu,$$ so infinitesimally $$\delta\Gamma_\mu=-\partial\xi \Gamma_\mu + \Gamma_\mu\partial\xi+\Gamma_\alpha\partial_\mu\xi^\alpha+\partial_\mu\partial\xi.$$

The covariant derivative is then ($$\partial\xi\mapsto \Gamma_\mu$$) $$\nabla_\nu\Gamma_\mu=\partial_\nu\Gamma_\mu+\Gamma_\nu\Gamma_\mu-\Gamma_\mu\Gamma_\nu-\partial_\mu\Gamma_\nu-\Gamma_\alpha\Gamma_{\nu\mu}^{\alpha}.$$

Skew-symmetrizing this gives $$\nabla_{[\mu}\Gamma_{\nu]}=\partial_\mu\Gamma_\nu-\partial_\nu\Gamma_\mu+[\Gamma_\mu,\Gamma_\nu]=R_{\mu\nu},$$ where $$R_{\mu\nu}$$ is the Riemann tensor, just the two other indices had been suppressed, and the last term drops out ($$\Gamma$$ is symmetric).

In case $$\Gamma$$ is not symmetric, we probably should have ignored the vector index, since we essentially want to take a funky covariant exterior derivative.

*: The curvature can be interpreted rigorously as the covariant derivative of the connection without using heuristic "$$X\mapsto A_\mu$$" rules or jet prolongations if we lift everything to the overlying principal fibre bundle and use the interpretation of the exterior covariant derivative as $$\Omega=\mathrm D\omega\equiv \mathrm d\omega\circ \mathrm h,$$ where $$\omega$$ is a connection form, $$\mathrm h$$ is the horizontalization and $$\Omega$$ is the curvature form.