I have several doubts regarding topological solutions in pure YM -- these are related both to less trivial topological misunderstandings as to rudimentary gauge fixing confusions of mine.
What is the role of the temporal gauge? I have seen it written that it is needed in order for the interpretation of instantons as tunneling between inequivalent CS vacua to come about, but I cannot see it come out of the calculations (i.e., can't the same conclusions be drawn from a general gauge?
About the compactification, there seems to be many non-coherent expositions around. Consider the following line of reasoning: (i) In order to find the inequivalent vacua configurations, in temporal gauge (again, why, besides simplicity?), we require the gauge transformation $U$ for which $A(\vec{x}) = i(\text{d}U(\vec{x}))U^{-1}(\vec{x})$ to assymptotically converge to a constant matrix at infinity -- this identifies spatial infinity as a point and amounts to compactifying each spatial $R^3$ slice to $S^3$. Formally, this requirement seems to be clear from the principal $G$-bundle formulation, in which one sees compactification is needed for non-trivial relevant homotopy groups to exist. Can anyone make this argument complete? I have only seen sketches of it on the complete spacetime $R^4$ (in which case I don't even understand what is the thought process), not on $R^3$ -- perhaps the argument works the same for any flat euclidean space, i.e., there is no non-trivial bundle.
I have also seen statements that the $U(|\vec{x}|\to\infty)\to 1$ condition is a necessity of the hamiltonian quantization (that it is necessary for the Gauss law constraint to hold). Is this true? How does this relate to the differential geometry picture?
In finding the instanton, however, there is no compactification -- the only sphere which appears is the sphere of infinity of space time $\partial R^4 \simeq S^3$, on which we require a classic solution to be pure gauge in order to obtain finite euclidean action; Why isn't this purely physical and clear motivation enough?
Apparently there is another equivalent picture of all this in which gauge transformations (large or small) are modded out. In this perspective, usually evoked when sphalerons are being searched, instantons seem to correspond to non-contractible loops in the space of physical configurations (this is the case since now there is only one vacuum). The radial gauge $x^\mu A^a_\mu=0$ together with the temporal $A^a_0=0$ gauge is employed. How can I be convinced these are compatible? More than that, how can I be simply convinced that the radial gauge alone is achievable? I have tried parametrizing $x^\mu (\partial_\mu U(x))U^{-1}(x)=0$ along a curve $x_\mu(t)$ to try to conclude the resulting PDE is solvable with unique solution, but could not complete the argument.
I can see these may be too many questions, but am not sure on how to divide it -- but am happy to do it after some suggestion.