text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the period from 1899 to 1926, Eli Cartan developed his theory of exterior differential systems , which included the ideas of spinor systems  and the differential geometry of projective spaces and spaces with torsion . The theory was appreciated by only a few contemporary researchers, and made little impact on the main stream of physics until about the 1960’s. Even specialists in differential geometry (with a few notable exceptions  ) made little use of Cartan’s methods until the 1950’s. Even today, many physical scientists and engineers feel that Cartan’s theory of exterior differential forms is just another formalism of fancy.

However, Cartan’s theory of exterior differential systems has several advantages over the methods of tensor analysis that were developed during the same period of time. The principle fact is that differential forms are well behaved with respect to functional substitution of C1 differentiable maps. Such maps need not be invertible even locally, yet differential forms are always deterministic in a retrodictive sense , by means of functional substitution. Such determinism is not to be associated with contravariant tensor fields, if the map is not a diffeomorphism.

Although the word ”topology” had not become popular when Cartan developed his ideas (topological ideas were described as part of the theory of analysis situs), there is no doubt that Cartan’s intuition was directed towards a topological development. For example, Cartan did not define what were the open sets of his topology, nor did he use in his early works the words ”limit points or accumulation points” explicitly, but he did describe the union of a differential form and its exterior derivative as the ”closure<sup>"</sup>of the form.

In a simplistic comparison it might be said that tensor methods are restricted to geometric applications, while Cartan’s methods can be applied directly to topological concepts as well as geometrical concepts. Cartan’s theory of exterior differential systems is a topological theory not necessarily limited by geometrical constraints and the class of diffeomorphic transformations that serve as the foundations of tensor calculus. A major objective of this article is to show how limit points, intersections, closed sets, continuity, connectedness and other elementary concepts of modern topology are inherent in Cartan’s theory of exterior differential systems. These ideas do not depend upon the geometrical ideas of size and shape (hence Cartan’s theory, as are all topological theories, is renormalizeable). In fact the most useful of Cartan’s ideas do not depend explicitly upon the geometric ideas of a metric, nor upon the choice of a connection as in fiber bundle theories.

In this article the Cartan topology will be constructed explicitly for an arbitrary exterior differential system, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ All elements of the topology will be evaluated, and the limit points, the boundary sets and the closure of every subset will be computed abstractly. An earlier intuitive result  utilized the notion that Cartan’s concept of the exterior product may be used as an intersection operator, and his concept of the exterior derivative may used as a limit point operator acting on differential forms. These ideas will be given formal substance in this article. A major result of this article, with important physical consequences in describing evolutionary processes, is the demonstration that the Cartan topology is not necessarily a connected topology, unless the property of topological torsion vanishes.

### 1.1 The exterior product

Cartan’s theory of exterior differential systems has its foundations in the Grassmann algebra, where the two combinatorial processes used to define the algebra are: vector space addition, and what is now called the exterior product . The exterior product acts on pairs of algebraic elements called exterior p-forms. In this article, the exterior or wedge product operator is symbolized by the ^ symbol for ease of typing; the exterior product of $`A`$ and $`B`$ is then given by the expression $`A\mathrm{^}B`$. The p-forms may have a differential basis, symbolized by the set $`dx`$, combined in the manner of a vector space with functional coefficients. A differential 1-form is then given by the expression,

$$A=A_\mu dx^\mu .$$
(1)
For 1-forms the multiplication rules are:

$$A\mathrm{^}A=0,A\mathrm{^}B=B\mathrm{^}A.$$
(2)
At some regular point, $`\{x\}`$, the 1-form will admit N-1 vector fields, $`𝐕`$, to be constructed such that

$$i(𝐕)A=A_\mu V^\mu =0.$$
(3)
Such vector fields are defined to be ”associated” vectors of the 1-form, $`A`$. If these vector fields have a vanishing Lie bracket, then they span a neighborhood of the point in terms of a simple (hyper) surface. The adjoint vector to this N-1 system acts as the ”normal” field to the surface spanned by the N-1 vectors. The coefficients $`A_\mu `$ form this ”normal” field.

Now consider two such surface systems represented by the 1-forms $`A`$ and $`B`$. Do the two (curved) surfaces intersect? The points in common to the two surfaces are given by the non-null set formed by the exterior product of $`A`$ with $`B`$. If $`A\mathrm{^}B`$ vanishes, then the two surfaces have no points in common. Consider the simple case where the 1-forms $`A`$ and $`B`$ have coefficients which form the components of a gradient field ( a Gauss Weingarten surface normal),

$$A=A_\mu dx^\mu =\varphi d𝐫B=B_\mu dx^\mu =\psi d𝐫$$
(4)
Then ( in 3 dimensions ) $`A\mathrm{^}B=(𝐀\times 𝐁)_zdx\mathrm{^}dy`$\+ cyclic permutations), a result that demonstrates that the Gibbs cross product, $`𝐀\times 𝐁=\varphi \times \psi `$ in euclidean three dimensions is related to the ”line” of points which are in common to both surfaces. This result pictorially cements the notion that the exterior product (acting on 1-forms) is an operator related to the concept of intersection. If the two surfaces do not intersect, and the exterior product vanishes, then the functions $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ are not functionally independent. These concept extends to p-forms of higher rank.

In three dimensions, the Gibbs cross product is considered to be a ”vector” for it has the same number of components as the gradient. Yet it has different behavior under transformations of the basis, and is sometimes called a ”pseudovector” or an axial vector. In the exterior calculus, the exterior product of the two 1-forms, with components proportional to covariant tensor of rank 1, creates a 2-form with covariant components of rank 2. Only in constrained geometries, such as euclidean three space, do 2-forms have any resemblence to the Gibbs cross product (a rule which fails in dimension n $`>`$3). The pseudo-vector is an object that behaves like a contravariant tensor density of rank 1. Such objects are usually defined as ”currents”. In general, there are two species of differential forms (that are often dual to one another and are well behaved with respect to functional substitution and the pullback operation: p-forms and N-p form densities or currents. One species pulls back (meaning that the form is well defined with respect to functional substitution) with respect to the Jacobian transpose, while the other pulls back with respect to the Jacobian adjoint. Of course for orthogonal systems, these concepts are degenerate, for the inverse and the adjoint and the transpose of the Jacobian matrix are the same. Recall that at a point it is always possible to define a vector basis in terms of an orthogonal system (use the Gram-Schmidt process), but it may not be possible to extend the orthogonality concept smoothly (without singularities) from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. If the neighborhoods can be connected by a singly parameterized vector field, then these concepts are at the basis of the Frenet-Serret moving frame analysis. Cartan extended these ideas to domains that are not so simply connected, and developed the notion of the moving basis Frame, which he called the Repere Mobile.

### 1.2 The exterior derivative

The second new operator found in Cartan’s theory of exterior differential systems is the exterior derivative. The exterior derivative, like the exterior product, also has topological connotations when applied to differential forms, but the results are sometimes surprising and unfamiliar. For example consider the exterior derivative of the N-1 form density, $`D`$, in three dimensions, given by the expression,

$`dD`$ $`=d(D^xdy\mathrm{^}dzD^ydz\mathrm{^}dx+D^zdx\mathrm{^}dy)`$ (5)
$`=div_3(𝐃)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\rho (x,y,z)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz`$
where $`\rho `$ has been defined as the resultant of the action of the exterior derivative, $`div_3(𝐃)`$. The usual interpretation of Gauss’ law is that the field lines of the vector $`𝐃`$ terminate (or have a limit or accumulation point) on the charges, $`Q`$. Gauss’ law generates both the intuitive idea that sources are related to limit points, and the novel concept that the exterior derivative is a limit point operator creating these limits points when the operation is applied to a differential form. However, as demonstrated below, the concept that the exterior derivative is a limit point operator relative to the Cartan topology is a general idea, and is not restricted to Gauss’ law.

For example, extending this idea to four dimensions for the N-2 form density, $`G`$, of Maxwell excitations ($`𝐃,𝐇`$),

$$G=D^xdy\mathrm{^}dz+D^ydz\mathrm{^}dxD^zdx\mathrm{^}dy+H^xdx\mathrm{^}dt+H^ydy\mathrm{^}dt+H^zdz\mathrm{^}dt,$$
(6)
the exterior derivative $`dG`$ of $`G`$ yields a three form, $`J`$, defined as the electromagnetic current 3-form,

$$J=J^xdy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dtJ^ydx\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt+J^zdx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dt\rho dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dt$$
(7)
where in 3-vector language,

$$curl𝐇𝐃/t=0div𝐃=\rho .$$
(8)
The charge current density act as the ”limit points” of the Maxwell field excitations. Note that $`dJ=0`$ for C2 functions by Poincare’s lemma.

However, consider the N-1 current, $`C`$ (not necessarily equal to $`J`$ as defined above) in four dimensions

$$C=\rho \{V^xdy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dtV^ydx\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt+V^zdx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dt1dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dt\}$$
(9)
and its exterior derivative as given by the expression,

$$dC=\{div_3(\rho 𝐕)+\rho /t\}dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt.=Rdx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt=R\mathrm{\Omega }_{4\mathrm{\_}vol}$$
(10)
When thre 4-form $`R`$ vanishes, the resultant expression is physically interpreted as the ”equation of continuity” or as a ”conservation law”. Over a closed boundary, that which goes in is equal to that which goes out (when $`dC=0`$). Note that the concept of the conservation law is a topological constraint: the ”limit points” of the ”current 3-form” in four dimensions must vanish if the conservation law is to be true. If the RHS of the above expression is not zero, then the current 3-form is said to have an ”anomaly”, or a source (or sink) . The anomaly acts as the source of the otherwise conserved quantity. The limit points, $`R`$, of the 3-form, $`C`$, are generated by its exterior derivative, $`dC=\{div_3(\rho 𝐕)+\rho /t\}\mathrm{\Omega }_4.`$ When the RHS is zero, the current ”lines” do not stop or start within the domain. (It is possible for them to be closed on themselves in certain topologies).

As another example, consider the 1-form of vector and scalar potentials given by the expression,

$$A=A_xdx+A_ydy+A_zdz\varphi dt=𝐀d𝐫\varphi dt.$$
(11)
The exterior derivative of the 1-form $`A`$ generates the 2-form $`F=dA`$ of electromagnetic intensities, ($`𝐄,𝐁`$):

$$F=dA=B_zdx\mathrm{^}dy+B_xdy\mathrm{^}dz+B_ydz\mathrm{^}dx+E_xdx\mathrm{^}dt+E_ydy\mathrm{^}dt+E_zdz\mathrm{^}dt,$$
(12)
where

$$𝐁=curl𝐀,and𝐄=\varphi 𝐀/t.$$
(13)
The exterior derivative of $`F`$ vanishes if the potential functions are C2 differentiable:

$$ddA=dF=0curl𝐄+𝐁/t=0anddiv_3𝐁=0.$$
(14)
Note that these derivations of Maxwell’s equations are based on topological statements about limit points, and do not depend upon geometrical considerations of metric or connections.

This now almost classic generation of the Maxwell field equations  has another less familiar interpretation: The $`𝐄`$ and$`𝐁`$ field intensities are the topological limit ”points” of the 1-form of potentials, $`\{𝐀,\varphi \}`$, relative to the Cartan topology! The limit points of the 2-form of field intensities, $`F`$, are the null set. For C2 vector fields, the Cartan topology admits flux quanta, charge quanta, and spin quanta, but excludes magnetic monopoles . When the differential system of interest is built upon the forms $`A`$, $`F`$ and $`G`$, it is possible to show that superconductivity is to be associated with the constraints on the limit point sets of $`A,A\mathrm{^}F,andA\mathrm{^}G`$. That is, superconductivity has its origins in topological, not geometrical, concepts. This remarkable idea that the exterior derivative is a limit point operator is given formal substance in the section 4.

## 2 The Cartan Point Set Topology.

Cartan built his theory around an exterior differential system, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which consists of a collection of 0- forms, 1-forms, 2-forms, etc. . He defined the closure of this collection as the union of the original collection with those forms which are obtained by forming the exterior derivatives of every p-form in the initial collection. In general, the collection of exterior derivatives will be denoted by $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the closure of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by the symbol, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^c`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^c=\mathrm{\Sigma }d\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(15)
For notational simplicity in this article the systems of p-forms will be assumed to consist of the single 1-form, $`A`$. Then the exterior derivative of $`A`$ is the 2-form $`F=dA`$, and the closure of $`A`$ is the union of $`A`$ and $`F:A^c=AF`$. The other logical operation is the concept of intersection, so that from the exterior derivative it is possible to construct the set $`A\mathrm{^}F`$ defined collectively as $`H:H=A\mathrm{^}F.`$ The exterior derivative of $`H`$ produces the set defined as $`K=dH`$, and the closure of $`H`$ is the union of $`H`$ and $`K:H^c=HK`$.

This ladder process of constructing exterior derivatives, and exterior products, may be continued until a null set is produced, or the largest p-form so constructed is equal to the dimension of the space under consideration. The set so generated is defined as a Pfaff sequence. The largest rank of the sequence determines the Pfaff dimension of the domain (or class of the form, ), which is a topological invariant. The idea is that the 1-form $`A`$ (in general the exterior differential system, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) generates on space-time four equivalence classes of points that act as domains of support for the elements of the Pfaff sequence, $`A,F,H,K`$ . The union of all such points will be denoted by $`X=AFHK`$. The fundamental equivalence classes are given specific names:

$$Topo\mathrm{log}icalACTION:A=A_\mu dx^\mu $$
(16)
$$Topo\mathrm{log}icalVORTICITY:F=dA=F_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu \mathrm{^}dx^\nu $$
(17)
$$Topo\mathrm{log}icalTORSION:H=A\mathrm{^}dA=H_{\mu \nu \sigma }dx^\mu \mathrm{^}dx^\nu \mathrm{^}dx^\sigma $$
(18)
$$Topo\mathrm{log}icalPARITY:K=dA\mathrm{^}dA=K_{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }dx^\mu \mathrm{^}dx^\nu \mathrm{^}dx^\sigma \mathrm{^}dx^\tau .$$
(19)
The Cartan topology is constructed from a basis of open sets, which are defined as follows: first consider the domain of support of $`A`$. Define this ”point” by the symbol $`A`$. $`A`$ is the first open set of the Cartan topology. Next construct the exterior derivative, $`F=dA`$, and determine its domain of support. Next, form the closure of $`A`$ by constructing the union of these two domains of support, $`A^c=AF`$. $`AF`$ forms the second open set of the Cartan topology. .

Next construct the intersection $`H=A\mathrm{^}F`$, and determine its domain $`of`$ support. Define this ”point” by the symbol$`H`$, which forms the third open set of the Cartan topology. Now follow the procedure established in the preceding paragraph. Construct the closure of $`H`$ as the union of the domains of support of $`H`$ and $`K=dH`$. The construction forms the fourth open set of the Cartan topology. In four dimensions, the process stops, but for N $`>`$4, the process may be continued.

Now consider the basis collection of open sets that consists of the subsets,

$$B=\{A,A^c,H,H^c\}=\{A,AF,H,HK\}$$
(20)
The collection of all possible unions of these base elements, and the null set, $`\mathrm{},`$ generate the Cartan topology of open sets:

$$T(open)=\{X,\mathrm{},A,H,AF,HK,AH,AHK,AFH\}.$$
(21)
These nine subsets form the open sets of the Cartan topology constructed from the domains of support of the Pfaff sequence constructed from a single 1-form, $`A`$. The compliments of the open sets are the closed sets of the Cartan topology.

$$T(closed)=\{\mathrm{},X,FHK,AFK,AF,HK,FK,F,K\}.$$
(22)
From the set of 4 ”points” $`\{A,F,H,K\}`$ that make up the Pfaff sequence it is possible to construct 16 subset collections by the process of union. It is possible to compute the limit points for every subset relative to the Cartan topology. The classical definition of a limit point is that a point p is a limit point of the subset Y relative to the topology T if and only if for every open set which contains p there exists another point of Y other than p . The results of this definition are presented in Table I

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{The Cartan Topology}\\ A=A_kdx^k\\ F=dA,H=A\mathrm{^}F,K=F\mathrm{^}F\\ \text{Basis {A, A}^c\text{, H, H}^c\text{}}=\{A,AF,H,HK\}\\ T(open)=\{X,\mathrm{},A,H,AF,HK,AH,AHK,AFH\}\\ T(closed)=\{\mathrm{},X,FHK,AFK,HK,AF,FK,F,K\}\end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}\begin{array}{c}\text{Subset}\\ \sigma \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\text{Limit Pts}\\ d\sigma \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\text{Interior}\end{array}\\ .\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\text{Boundary}\\ \sigma \end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\text{Closure}\\ \sigma d\sigma \end{array}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ A& F& A& F& AF\\ F& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& F& F\\ H& K& H& K& HK\\ K& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& K& K\\ \begin{array}{c}AF\\ AH\\ AK\\ FH\\ FK\\ HK\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}F\\ F,K\\ F\\ K\\ \mathrm{}\\ K\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}AF\\ AH\\ A\\ H\\ \mathrm{}\\ HK\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ FK\\ FK\\ FK\\ FK\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}AF\\ X\\ AFK\\ FHK\\ FK\\ HK\end{array}\\ AFH& F,K& AFK& K& X\\ FHK& K& HK& F& FHK\\ AHK& F,K& AHK& F& X\\ AFK& F& AF& K& AFK\\ X& F,K& X& \mathrm{}& X\end{array}`$

By examining the set of limit points so constructed for every subset of the Cartan system, and presuming that the functions that make up the forms are C2 differentiable (such that the Poincare lemma is true, $`dd\omega =0,any\omega `$), it is easy to show that for all subsets of the Cartan topology every limit set is composed of the exterior derivative of the subset, thereby proving the claim that the exterior derivative is a limit point operator relative to the Cartan topology. For example, the open subset, $`AH`$, has the limit points that consist of $`F`$ and $`K.`$ The limit set consists of $`FK`$ which can be derived directly by taking the exterior derivatives of the elements that make up $`AH`$; that is,$`(FA=d(AH)=(dAdH)`$. Note that this open set, $`AH`$, does not contain its limit points. Similarly for the closed set, $`AF`$, the limit points are given by $`F`$ which may be deduced by direct application of the exterior derivative to $`(AF):(F)=d(AF)=(dAdF)=(F\mathrm{})=(F)`$.

## 3 Topological Torsion and Connected vs Non-connected Cartan topologies.

The Cartan topology as given in Table 1 is composed of the union of two sub-sets which are both open and closed $`(X=A^cH^c)`$, a result that implies that the Cartan topology is not necessarily connected. An exception exists if the topological torsion, $`H`$, and hence its closure, vanishes, for then the Cartan topology is connected. This extraordinary result has broad physical consequences. The connected Cartan topology based on a vanishing topological torsion is at the basis of most physical theories of equilibrium. In mathematics, the connected Cartan topology corresponds to the Frobenius integrability condition for Pfaffian forms. In thermodynamics, the connected Cartan topology is associated with the Caratheodory concept of inaccessible thermodynamic states , and the existence of an equilibrium thermodynamic surface. If the 1-form, $`Q`$, of heat generates a Cartan topology of null topological torsion, $`H=Q\mathrm{^}dQ=\mathrm{},`$ then the Cartan topology built on $`Q`$ is connected. Such systems are ”isolated” in a topological sense, and the heat 1-form has a representation in terms of two and only two functions, conventionally written as: $`Q=TdS`$. Note again that a fundamental physical concept, in this case the idea of equilibrium, is a topological concept independent from geometrical properties of size and shape. Processes that generate the 1-form $`Q`$ such that $`Q\mathrm{^}dQ=\mathrm{}`$ are thermodynamically reversible. If $`Q\mathrm{^}dQ\mathrm{},`$the process that generates $`Q`$ is thermodynamically irreversible.

When the Cartan topology is connected, it might be said that all forces are extendible over the whole of the set, and that these forces are of ”long range”. Conversely when the Cartan topology is disconnected, the ”forces” cannot be extended indefinitely over the whole domain of independent variables, but perhaps only over a single component. In this sense, such forces are said to be of short range, as they are confined. Note that this notion of short or long range forces does not depend upon geometrical size or scale. The physical idea of short or long range forces is a topological idea of connectivity, and not a geometrical concept of how far.

In an earlier article, these ideas were formulated intuitively in order to give an explanation of the ”four forces” of physics. The earlier work was based upon differential geometry, before the construction of the Cartan topology based upon differential topology as presented herein.  The features of the Pfaff sequence were used to establish equivalence classes for known example metric field solutions, $`g_{\mu \upsilon },`$ to the Einstein field equations. The ideas originally presented upon experience with systems in differential geometry can now be given credence based upon the construction differential topology of the disconnected Cartan topology, which will divide the classes into the long range connected category and the short range disconnected category. The 1-form used to build the Cartan topology was constructed from the space-time interactions, $`A=g_{\mu 4}dx^\mu .`$ Long range parity preserving forces due to gravity (Pfaff dimension 1) and electromagnetism (Pfaff dimension 2) are to be associated with a Cartan Topology that is connected $`(H=A\mathrm{^}F=A\mathrm{^}dA=0).`$ Both the strong force (Pfaff dimension 3) and the weak force (Pfaff dimension 4) are ”short” range $`(H0)`$ and are to be associated with a disconnected Cartan topology. The strong force is parity preserving $`(K=0)`$ and the weak force is not $`(K0).`$ The fact that the Cartan topology is not necessarily connect is the topological (not metrical) basis that may be used to distinguish between short and long range forces.

In much of our physical experience with nature it appears that the disconnected domains of Pfaff dimension 3 or more are often isolated as nuclei, while the surrounding connected domains of Pfaff dimension 2 or less appears as fields of charged or non-charged molecules and atoms. However, part of the thrust of this article is to demonstrate that such disconnected topological phenomena are not confined to microscopic systems, but also appear in a such mundane phenomena as the flow of a turbulent fluid. Physical examples of the existence of topological torsion (and hence a non-connected Cartan topology) are given by the experimental appearance of what appear to be coherent structures in a turbulent fluid flow.

To prove that a turbulent flow must be a consequence of a Cartan topology that is not connected, consider the following argument: First consider a fluid at rest and from a global set of unique, synchronous, initial conditions generate a vector field of flow. Such flows must satisfy the Frobenius complete integrability theorem, which requires that $`A\mathrm{^}dA=0`$. The Cartan topology for such systems is connected, and the Pfaff dimension of the domain is 2 or less. Such domains do not support topological torsion (the Helicity vanishes). Such globally laminar flows are to be distinguished from flows that reside on surfaces, but do not admit a unique set of connected sychronizeable initial conditions. Next consider turbulent flows which, as the anti-thesis of laminar flows, can not be integrable in the sense of Frobenius; such turbulent domains support topological torsion $`(A\mathrm{^}dA0)`$, and therefore a disconnected Cartan topology. The connected components of the disconnected Cartan topology can be defined as the (topologically) coherent structures of the turbulent flow.

Note that a domain can support a homogeneous topology of one component and then undergo continuous topological evolution to a domain with some interior holes. The domain is simply connected in the initial state, and multiply connected in the final state, but still connected. However, consider the dual point of view where the originally connected domain consists of a homogeneous space that becomes separated into multiple components. The evolution to a topological space of multiple components is not continuous. It follows that the case of a transition from an initial laminar state ($`H=0`$) to the turbulent state ($`H0`$) is a transition from a connected topology to a disconnected topology. Therefore the transition to turbulence is NOT continuous. However, note that the decay of turbulence can be described by a continuous transformation from a disconnected topology to a connected topology. Condensation is continuous, gasification is not. It is demonstrated below that relative to the Cartan topology all C2 differentiable, $`𝐕`$, acting on C2 p-forms by means of the Lie derivative are continuous. The conclusion is reached that the transition to turbulence must involve transformations that are not C2, hence can occur only in the presence of shocks or tangential discontinuities.

## 4 The Cartan Topological Structure

A topological structure is defined to be enough information to decide whether a transformation is continuous or not . The classical definition of continuity depends upon the idea that every open set in the range must have an inverse image in the domain. This means that topologies must be defined on both the initial and final state, and that somehow an inverse image must be defined. Note that the open sets of the final state may be different from the open sets of the initial state, because the topologies of the two states can be different.

There is another definition of continuity that is more useful for it depends only on the transformation and not its inverse explicitly. A transformation is continuous if and only if the image of the closure of every subset is included in the closure of the image. This means that the concept of closure and the concept of transformation must commute for continuous processes. Suppose the forward image of a 1-form $`A`$ is $`Q,`$ and the forward image of the set $`F=dA`$ is $`Z`$. Then if the closure,$`A^c=AF`$ is included in the closure of$`Q^c=QdQ`$, for all sub-sets, the transformation is defined to be continuous. The idea of continuity becomes equivalent to the concept that the forward image $`Z`$ of the limit points, $`dA`$, is an element of the closure of$`Q`$ :

> A function $`f`$ that produces an image $`f[A]=Q`$ is continuous iff for every subset $`A`$ of the Cartan topology, $`Z=f[dA]Q^c=(QdQ)`$.

The Cartan theory of exterior differential systems can now be interpreted as a topological structure, for every subset of the topology can be tested to see if the process of closure commutes with the process of transformation. For the Cartan topology, this emphasis on limit points rather than on open sets is a more convenient method for determining continuity. A simple evolutionary process, $`XY`$, is defined by a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The map, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, may be viewed as a propagator that takes the initial state, $`X`$, into the final state, $`Y`$. For more general physical situations the evolutionary processes are generated by vector fields of flow, $`𝐕`$. The trajectories defined by the vector fields may be viewed as propagators that carry domains into ranges in the manner of a convective fluid flow. The evolutionary propagator of interest to this article is the Lie derivative with respect to a vector field, $`𝐕`$, acting on differential forms, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The Lie derivative has a number of interesting and useful properties.

1. The Lie derivative does not depend upon a metric or a connection.

2. The Lie derivative has a simple action on differential forms producing a resultant form that is decomposed into a transversal and an exact part:

$$L_{(𝐕)}\omega =i(V)d\omega +di(V)\omega .$$
(23)
This formula is known as ”Cartan’s magic formula”. For those vector fields $`V`$ which are ”associated” with the form $`\omega ,`$ such that $`i(V)\omega =0,`$ the Lie derivative becomes equivalent to the covariant derivative of tensor analysis. Otherwise the two derivative concepts are distinct.

3. The Lie derivative may be used to describe deformations and topological evolution. Note that the action of the Lie derivative on a 0-form (scalar function) is the same as the directional or convective derivative of ordinary calculus,

$$L_{(𝐕)}\mathrm{\Phi }=i(V)d\mathrm{\Phi }+di(V)\mathrm{\Phi }=i(V)d\mathrm{\Phi }+0=𝐕grad\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(24)
It may be demonstrated that the action of the Lie derivative on a 1-form will generate equations of motion of the hydrodynamic type.

4. With respect to vector fields and forms constructed over C2 functions, the Lie derivative commutes with the closure operator. Hence, the Lie derivative (restricted to C2 functions) generates transformations on differential forms which are continuous with respect to the Cartan topology. To prove this claim:

First construct the closure, $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }d\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$ . Next propagate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$and $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by means of the Lie derivative to produce the decremental forms, say $`Q`$ and $`Z`$,

$$L_{(𝐕)}\mathrm{\Sigma }=QandL_{(𝐕)}d\mathrm{\Sigma }=Z.$$
(25)
Now compute the contributions to the closure of the final state as given by $`\{QdQ\}`$. If $`Z=dQ`$, then the closure of the initial state is propagated into the closure of the final state, and the evolutionary process defined by $`𝐕`$ is continuous. However,

$$dQ=dL_{(𝐕)}\mathrm{\Sigma }=di(V)d\mathrm{\Sigma }+dd(i(V)\mathrm{\Sigma })=di(V)d\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(26)
as$`dd(i(V)\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$for C2 functions. But,

$$Z=L_{(𝐕)}d\mathrm{\Sigma }=d(i(V)d\mathrm{\Sigma })+i(V)dd\mathrm{\Sigma }=di(V)d\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(27)
as$`i(V)dd\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ for C2 p-forms. It follows that $`Z=dQ`$, and therefore $`𝐕`$ generates a continuous evolutionary process relative to the Cartan topology. $`QED`$

Certain special cases arise for those subsets of vector fields that satisfy the equations, $`d(i(𝐕)\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$. In these cases, only the functions that make up the p-form, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, need be C2 differentiable, and the vector field need only be C1. Such processes will be of interest to symplectic processes, with Bernoulli-Casimir invariants.

By suitable choice of the 1-form of action it is possible to show that the action of the Lie derivative on the 1-form of action can generate the Navier Stokes partial differential equations . The analysis above indicates that C2 differentiable solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations can not be used to describe the transition to turbulence. The C2 solutions can, however, describe the irreversible decay of turbulence to the globally laminar state.

## 5 APPLICATIONS

### 5.1 Frozen - in Fields, the Master Equation

A starting point for many discussions of the magnetic dynamo and allied problems in hydrodynamics starts with what has been called the ”master equation” ,

$$Curl(𝐕\times 𝐁)=𝐁/t.$$
(28)
Using the Cartan methods it may be shown that this equation is equivalent to the constraint of ”uniform” continuity relative to the Cartan topology. Moreover, it is easy to show these constraints generate symplectic processes which include Hamiltonian evolutionary systems, such as Euler flows, as well as a number of other evolutionary processes which are continuous, but not homeomorphic. In addition a criteria can be formulated to develop an extension of the ”helicity” conservation law to a more general setting.

The proof of these results produces a nice exercise in use of the Cartan theory. Consider a 1-form $`A`$ that satisfies the exterior differential system

$$FdA=0,$$
(29)
where $`A`$ is a 1-form of Action, with twice differentiable coefficients (potentials proportional to momenta) which induce a 2-form, $`F,`$ of electromagnetic intensities ($`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁,`$related to forces$`)`$. The exterior differential system is a topological constraint that in effect defines field intensities in terms of the potentials. On a four dimensional space-time of independent variables, $`(x,y,z,t)`$ the 1-form of Action (representing the postulate of potentials) can be written in the form

$$A=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k=1}^3A_k(x,y,z,t)dx^k\varphi (x,y,z,t)dt=𝐀d𝐫\varphi dt.$$
(30)
Subject to the constraint of the exterior differential system, the 2-form of field intensities, $`F,`$ becomes:

$`F`$ $`=dA=\{A_k/x^jA_j/x^k\}dx^j\mathrm{^}dx^k=F_{jk}dx^j\mathrm{^}dx^k`$ (31)
$`=𝐁_zdx\mathrm{^}dy+𝐁_xdy\mathrm{^}dz+𝐁_ydz\mathrm{^}dx+𝐄_xdx\mathrm{^}dt+𝐄_ydy\mathrm{^}dt+𝐄_zdz\mathrm{^}dt.`$
where in usual engineering notation,

$$𝐄=𝐀/tgrad\varphi ,𝐁=curl𝐀A_k/x^jA_j/x^k.$$
(32)
The closure of the exterior differential system, $`dF=0,`$ vanishes for C2 differentiable p-forms, to yield

$$dF=ddA=\{curl𝐄+𝐁/t\}_xdy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt..+..div𝐁dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\}0.$$
(33)
Equating to zero all four coefficients leads to the Maxwell-Faraday equations,

$$\{curl𝐄+𝐁/t=0,div𝐁=0\}.$$
(34)
The component functions ($`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁)`$of the 2-form, $`F,`$ transform as covariant tensor of rank 2. The topological constraint that $`F`$ is exact, implies that the domain of support for the field intensities cannot be compact without boundary, unless the Euler characteristic vanishes. These facts distinguish classical electromagnetism from Yang-Mills field theories. Moreover, the fact that $`F`$ is subsumed to be exact and C1 differentiable excludes the concept of magnetic monopoles from classical electromagnetic theory on topological grounds.

Now search for all vector fields that leave the 2-form $`F`$ an absolute invariant of the flow; that is, search for all vectors that satisfy Cartan’s magic formula

$$L_{(𝐕)}F=i(V)dF+di(V)F=0+di(V)F=0.$$
(35)
For C2 functions, the term involving $`dF`$ vanishes, leaving the expression,

$`L_{(𝐕)}F`$ $`=di(V)F`$ (36)
$`=d\{(𝐄+𝐕\times 𝐁)d𝐫(𝐄𝐕)dt\}`$ (37)
$`=\{curl(𝐄+𝐕\times 𝐁)\}_zdy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{}`$ (38)
$`+\{(𝐄+𝐕\times 𝐁)/t+grad(𝐄𝐕)d𝐫\mathrm{^}dt`$ (39)
$`=0.`$ (40)
Setting the first three factors to zero yields

$$curl(𝐄+𝐕\times 𝐁)=0$$
(41)
But for C2 functions, $`curl𝐄=𝐁/t`$, and when this expression is substituted into the above equation, the ”master equation given by the first equation results. Now recall that $`dF`$ generates the limit points of $`A`$, and if $`F=dA`$ is a flow invariant, then all limit points are flow invariants relative to the Cartan topology. This result implies that the vector fields, $`𝐕`$, that satisfy the constraints of the ”master equation” are uniformly continuous evolutionary processes, the limit points, $`F=dA,`$ of the 1-form $`A`$ are flow invariants, and the lines of vorticity are ”frozen-in” the flow. Non-uniform continuity would imply that the limit points are not invariants of the process, but that the closure of the limit points of the target range include the vanishes limit points of the initial domain. Such processes would correspond to a folding of the ”lines” of vorticity, which preserve the limit points, but not their sequential order.

A second criteria for limit point invariance is given by the equation,

$$\{(𝐄+𝐕\times 𝐁)/t+grad(𝐄𝐕)\}=0.$$
(42)
The formula indicates that limit point invariance can occur in the presence of dissipation, $`𝐄𝐕0.`$

The criteria for frozen-in fields is established as a constraint on the admissable vector fields, $`di(V)dA=di(V)F=0.`$ The solution vector fields, $`V,`$ subject to this constraint can be put into three global categories:

1. Extremal (Hamiltonian) $`i(V)F=0.`$

2. Bernoulli-Casimir (Hamiltonian) $`i(V)F=d\mathrm{\Theta }.`$

3. Symplectic $`i(V)F=d\mathrm{\Phi }+\gamma _{harmonic}`$

The first category can exist only on domains of support of $`F`$ which are of odd Pfaff dimension, but then the solution vector is unique to within a factor. In the other categories, the solution vector need not be unique. Vector fields that satisfy the equation for uniform continuity are said to be symplectic relative to the 1-form, $`A.`$ Vector fields that belong to categories 1 and 2 have a Hamiltonian representation. Vector fields that belong to category 1, are said to be ”extremal” relative to the 1-form, $`A.`$

### 5.2 Euler flows and Hamiltonian systems.

In 1922 Cartan established the idea that the necessary and sufficient conditions for a system to admit a unique Hamiltonian representation for its evolution, $`𝐕`$, is given by the category 1 constraint,

$$W=i(V)dA=i(V)F=0.$$
(43)
It is apparent that this extremal condition is more stringent than that given above for uniform continuity, $`di(V)F=0`$. Such extremal vector fields are independent of parameterization. That is, for extremal processes, $`i(\rho V)dA=0`$ if $`i(V)dA=0,`$for any function, $`\rho .`$ Extremal vector fields do not exist on domains where the Pfaff dimension of the Cartan 1-form is even. In classical mechanics, the 1-form $`W`$ is defined as the 1-form of Virtual Work, and the Cartan constraint is typical of problems in the variational calculus where it is presumed that the Virtual Work vanishes.

As an example,consider a 1-form of Action defined as

$$A=𝐯d𝐫(𝐯𝐯/2+\mathrm{\Psi })dt,$$
(44)
where $`d\mathrm{\Psi }=dP/\rho `$. Application of the extremal constraint yields the resulting necessary system of partial differential equations is given by known as the Euler equations of hydrodynamics.

$$𝐯/t+grad(𝐯𝐯/2)𝐯\times 𝐰=gradP/\rho ,$$
(45)
It also follows that the Master equation is valid, with the only difference being that $`curl𝐯`$ is defined as $`\omega `$, the vorticity of the hydrodynamic flow. The master equation becomes,

$$curl(𝐯\times \omega )=\omega /t,$$
(46)
and is to be recognized as Helmoltz’ equation for the conservation of vorticity. In the hydrodynamic sense, conservation of vorticity implies uniform continuity. In other words, the Eulerian flow is not only Hamiltonian, it is also uniformly continuous, and satisfies the master equation and the conservation of vorticity constraints. In addition, it may be demonstrated that such systems are at most of Pfaff dimension 3, and admit a relative integral invariant which generalizes the hydrodynamic concept of invariant helicity. In the electromagnetic topology, the Hamiltonian constraint is equivalent to the statement that the Lorentz force vanishes, a condition that has been used to define the ”ideal” plasma or ”force-free” plasma state.

### 5.3 Conservation of Topological Torsion

A slightly more general class of evolutionary processes (flows) is given by the constraints which are gauge equivalent to the Hamiltonian extremal case; a search is made for those flows that satisfy the (non-exrtremal, but Hamiltonian) constraint:

$$i(\rho V)dA=i(\rho V)F=dW.$$
(47)
Such flows admit two topological invariants of the relative integral invariant form. The first integral invariant is 1-dimensional:

$`L_{(\rho 𝐕)}{\displaystyle _{1d\mathrm{\_}closed}}A`$ $`={\displaystyle _{1d\mathrm{\_}closed}}i(\rho V)𝑑A+di(\rho V)A=`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle _{1d\mathrm{\_}closed}}𝑑W+di(\rho V)A`$ $`={\displaystyle _{1d\mathrm{\_}closed}}d\{Wi(\rho V)A\}0,`$ (49)
expressing the relative integral invariance of circulation (Kelvin’s theorem). The second integral invariant is 3-dimensional:

$$L_{(\rho 𝐕)}_{3d\mathrm{\_}closed}A\mathrm{^}𝑑A=_{3d\mathrm{\_}closed}d\{Wi(\rho V)A\}\mathrm{^}𝑑A0,$$
(50)
a result expressing the generalization of the law which in hydrodynamics is called the conservation of Helicity. The integrations are over closed 1 and 3 dimensional domains. These closed integration domains can be either cycles or boundaries. For exampled the 1-dimensional closed curve in the punctured disc that encircles the central hole is a cycle but not a boundary. As the integrands are exact differentials, the closed integrals vanish.

Note that on the domain $`\{x,y,z,t\}`$, the 3-form of topological torsion, $`A\mathrm{^}dA`$, has the general representation with coefficients, $`Z_{\mu \nu \sigma }`$, that transform as a covariant tensor field of third rank. On a 4 dimensional space, the components of $`A\mathrm{^}dA`$ are proportional to a contravariant tensor density of rank 1, whose four components have a vector part defined as, $`𝐓`$, the torsion (pseudo) current, and a (pseudo) density part, $`h`$. The 3-form $`A\mathrm{^}dA`$ is not an impair form (density). In electromagnetic engineering language, the general formula for the torsion 3-form has a component expression given by:

$$T=[𝐓,h]=[𝐄\times 𝐀+\varphi 𝐁,𝐀𝐁].$$
(51)
For the constraints of an Eulerian flow, the 4 components of the Torsion three form reduce to

$$T=[𝐓,h]=[(𝐯\omega )𝐯(𝐯𝐯/2+\mathrm{\Psi })\omega ,𝐯\omega ].$$
(52)
Recall that the closed integration domain used to evaluate the relative integral invariant is not necessarily restricted to a spatial volume integral with a boundary upon which the normal component of $`𝐯`$ vanishes. Also note that the helicity density of hydrodynamic fame is the fourth component, $`h=𝐯\omega ,`$ of a contravariant vector density, equivalent to a covariant tensor of third rank. Care must be used in its transformation with respect to diffeomorphisms, such as the Galilean transformation. Furthermore, for the constraints of an Eulerian flow (an extremal field) described above, the topological parity 4-form vanishes globally, such that there exists a pointwise conservation law of the 3-form, equivalent to the expression,

$$div_3𝐓+h/t=0.$$
(53)
### 5.4 Topological Invariants and Period Integrals

Besides the invariant structures considered above, the Cartan methods may be used to generate other sets of topological invariants. Realize that over a domain of Pfaff dimension $`nN`$, the Cartan criteria admits a submersive map to be made from N to a space of minimal dimension n. The map may be viewed as a vector field of functional components,

$$[V^x(x,y,z..),V^y(x,y,z..),V^z(x,y,z..),\mathrm{}],$$

of dimension n, and will have a representation in the projective geometry of n+1 homogeneous coordinates. The n+1 component will be generated by a function $`\lambda ,`$related to the Holder norm,

$$\rho =1/\lambda =1/\{a(V^x)^p+b(V^y)^p+c(V^z)^p+\mathrm{}..\}^{n/p}.$$
(54)
For any vector field, construct the n dimensional volume element,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho (V)dV^x\mathrm{^}dV^y\mathrm{^}dV^z\mathrm{}$$
(55)
and the n-1 form density (current) $`J`$as:

$`J`$ $`=i(V^x,V^y,V^z,\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Omega }=`$
$`\rho \{V^xdV^y\mathrm{^}dV^z\mathrm{}V^ydV^x\mathrm{^}dV^z\mathrm{}+V^zdV^x\mathrm{^}dV^y\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}.`$ (56)
It is remarkable that the current $`J`$ so defined has a vanishing exterior derivative, independent of the value of p for a given n, and for all values of the constants, plus or minus a,b,c…). All such currents define a ”conservation law”. As the map defining the components of the vector field in terms of the base {x,y,z..} is presumed to be differentiable, then the n-1 form, $`J,`$ has a well defined pull back on the base space (almost every where), and its exterior derivative on the base space also vanishes everywhere mod the defects. That is, the form $`J`$ is locally exact.

In the expression for $`\lambda ,`$ the factors $`\{a,b,c,d\mathrm{}\}`$ are arbitrary constants of either sign. The most familiar format is when $`p=2,`$ and then the function $`\lambda `$ has a null set which is a conic. For positive isotropic signature, the only defect is the origin in the space defined by the functions, $`V.`$ The construction produces the algebraic dual or adjoint vector field from the functional components of the original vector field with integrating factors $`\rho =1/\lambda `$ that create conservation laws for physical systems. The integrals of these closed currents when integrated over closed N-1 dimensional chains form deformation invariants, with respect to any evolutionary process that can be described by a vector field, for

$$L_{(\rho 𝐕)}_{n1}J=_{n1}i(\rho 𝐕)dJ+_{n1}d(i(\rho 𝐕))J)=0+0=0$$
(57)
These integral objects appear as ”topological coherent” structures, which may have defects or anomalous sources, when the integrating factor $`1/\lambda `$ is not defined.

The compliment to the zero sets of the function $`\lambda `$ determine the domain of support associated with the specified vector field. The closed n-1 form, $`J`$, that satisfies the conservation law, $`dJ=0`$, has integrals over closed domains that have rational fraction ratios. As this n-1 current is closed globally, it may be deduced on a connected local domain from a n-2 form, $`G`$. In every case $`J`$ has a well defined pull-back to the base variety, x,y,z,t. Note that the n functions $`[V^x(x,y,z..),V^y(x,y,z..),V^z(x,y,z..),\mathrm{}]`$ represent the minimum number of Clebsch variables that are equivalent to the original action, $`A`$, over the domain of support. As each of these integrals is intrinsically closed, the Lie derivative with respect to any C2 vector field, $`𝐕`$, is a perfect differential, such that (when integrated over closed domains that are p-1 boundaries) the evolutionary variation of these closed integrals vanishes. These n-1 integrals are relative integral invariants for any C2 evolutionary processes, or flows. The values of the integrals are zero if the closed integration domains are boundaries, or completely enclose a simply connected region. If the closed integration domains encircle the zeros of the function $`\lambda `$, then the values of the integrals are proportional to the integers; i.e., their ratios are rational. Note that each signature must be investigated. For the elliptic (positive definite) signature, the singular points are the stagnation points, and the domain of support excludes those singularities. For the hyperbolic signatures, the domain of support excludes the hyperbolic singularities of lower dimension, such as the light cone. Further note that a given vector field may not generate real domains of support for all possible signatures of the quadratic form, $`\lambda `$.

### 5.5 The Flux or Circulation Integral 1-form

For the Cartan topology constructed from a fundamental 1-form of Action and a fundamental N-1 form of Current, several period integrals of closed forms integrated over closed chains appear in a natural manner. In particular on an N=4 dimensional domain, the four period integrals of most interest are the period integrals of flux (circulation), charge, spin and torsion . The fundamental period integral over a closed 1-form will be defined as the ”Circulation” or ”flux” integral. When the Pfaff dimension is 2, there exists a submersive map to two dimensions, and the vector fields on this domain will have two irreducible components, say \[$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z,t),\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,z,t)].`$ Following the procedure of the preceding section, construct the 2-dimensional volume element defined as $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\rho d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{^}d\mathrm{\Psi },`$ and the $`n1=21=`$ 1 form $`A=(\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }d\mathrm{\Phi })/\{\pm a\mathrm{\Phi }^p\pm b\mathrm{\Psi }^p\}^{2/p}.`$ The exterior derivative of such a 1-form is exactly zero for all point sets that exclude the null set of the denominator. The classic choice is for $`p=2,`$and $`a=1,b=1,`$ (+,+) signature. The closed integrals of these closed 1-forms then can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{Ci}rculation\mathrm{\Gamma }=_1A=_1(\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }d\mathrm{\Phi })/\{\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Psi }^2\}$$
(58)
By substituting the functional forms in terms of (x,y,z,t) the circulation integral can be written in terms of functions on (x,y,z,t) and their differentials, $`\{dx,dy,dz,dt\mathrm{}\}`$

As an example, suppose that the domain is three dimensional, N=3. Then the zero sets of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,z)=0,`$ represent two 2 dimensional surfaces which may or may not have one or more lines of intersection. If the surfaces intersect, then

$$Intersection=d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{^}d\mathrm{\Psi }0.$$
(59)
If the closed integration paths cannot be contracted to a point, because they encircle these lines of intersection, the values of the integrals have rational ratios depending on how many lines are encircled and how many times the integration path encircles a line. The lines of intersection must have zero divergence (and therefore must stop or start on boundary points, or are closed on themselves). Otherwise the integration chains can be deformed and then contracted to a point. The classic example is given by the 1-form, $`A=(ydxxdy)/(+x^2+y^2)`$ in three dimensions. For integration contours that encircle the z axis, the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_1A=2\pi .`$ In hydrodynamics, this vector field is called a potential ”vortex”, even though the vorticity $`\omega =curl𝐯=0.`$ Stokes theorem does not apply as the closed integration chain is a cycle that is not a boundary.

An interesting application of the circulation integral is given when there exists a map to the complex domain. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and the circulation integral has the form of the integral of the probability current in standard quantum mechanics.

$$Period=_1(\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}d\mathrm{\Phi })/\{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\}.$$
(60)
### 5.6 The Gauss Linking or Charge Integral 2-form

Many different options exist for construction of these invariant topological structures from closed p-forms. The idea is to find a formulation for a closed form on a domain, and then to specify a closed and compatible integration chain. The integration chain need not be a boundary, but only a closed cycle. For example, from the components of the specified vector, $`A_\mu `$ , the Jacobian matrix, $`\left[A_\mu /x^\nu \right]`$ can be constructed. The rows or columns of the matrix of cofactors of the Jacobian (the adjoint matrix) forms a set of vector fields that have zero divergence , and therefore these vectors could be used to construct relative integral invariants. In every case there exists an algebraic construction which produces a vector that is divergence free and whose line of action is uniquely related to original vector that was used to construct the Cartan topology. That vector may be constructed by multiplying the original vector $`A_\mu `$ by the matrix of cofactors and then dividing by the function $`\lambda `$ defined above. The construction replicates the previous procedure. As an application for n = 3, p=2, consider the vector that represents the difference between two space curves,$`𝐳=𝐑_2𝐑_1`$. Then compute the two form $`G(z)`$ from the ”volume” element $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dz^1\mathrm{^}dz^2\mathrm{^}dz^3/\lambda ,`$ to give

$$G_{n=3}=\{z^1dz^2\mathrm{^}dz^3z^2dz^3\mathrm{^}dz^1+z^3dz^1\mathrm{^}dz^2\}/\lambda $$
(61)
where

$$\lambda =(\pm (z^1)^2\pm (z^2)^2\pm (z^3)^2)^{3/2}.$$
(62)
Next assert that the displacements of interest are constrained by two parametric curves given by

$$d𝐑_1=𝐕_1dtandd𝐑_2=𝐕_2dt^{},$$
(63)
where the parameters $`dt`$ and $`dt`$ are not functionally related (which would imply that $`dt\mathrm{^}dt=0`$).

It is important to realize that kinematic constraints are topological constraints that refine the Cartan topology, a topology based solely upon the specified 1-form of action, $`A`$. From a physical point of view, these constraints can be interpreted as constraints of null fluctuations and in certain circumstances can be associated physically with the limit of zero temperature. To demonstrate the utility of such constraints, substitute these differential expressions into the expression for the 2-form $`G`$ of ”current” in N=3 dimensions, and carry out the exterior products, using $`dt\mathrm{^}dt^{}0,`$ $`butdt\mathrm{^}dt=0`$ and $`dt\mathrm{^}dt=0.`$ The result is the vector triple product representation for the Gauss integral,

$$Q=_2G=_2\{𝐳𝐕_1\times 𝐕_2\}𝑑t\mathrm{^}𝑑t^{}/(𝐑_1𝐑_12𝐑_1𝐑_{21}+𝐑_2𝐑_2)^{3/2}.$$
(64)
The integration domain is the closed ”2-dimensional area” formed by the displacements along the non-intersecting curves defined by the two distinct parameters, $`dt`$, and $`dt^{}.`$ This double integral is to be recognized as the Gauss linking integral of Knot Theory . (Without the kinematic substitutions, it may also be interpreted as the charge integral of electromagnetic theory.) When integrations are computed along closed curves whose tangent vectors are $`𝐕_1`$ and $`𝐕_2`$, then the integer values of the closed integral may be interpreted as how many times the two curves are linked. Note that the same integer result is obtained when the vector $`𝐳`$ is interpreted as the sum of the two vectors, $`𝐳=𝐑_2+𝐑_1`$, although the values of the integrals have different scales.

The constraint that $`dt\mathrm{^}dt^{}0`$ implies that the ”motion” along the curve generated by $`𝐑_1`$ is independent of the ”motion” along the curve generated by $`𝐑_2.`$ If the curve generated by $`𝐑_1`$ is a conic in the $`xy`$ plane and the curve generated by $`𝐑_2`$ is a conic in the $`xz`$ plane, then the surface swept out by the vector $`𝐳`$ is a Dupin cyclide. Such surfaces have application to the propagation of waves in electromagnetic systems.

From another point of view, consider the ruled surface  defined by the vector field of two parameters,

$$𝐳(\mu ,t)=𝐑(t)\pm \mu 𝐕(t).$$
(65)
Vector fields of this type are primitive types of ”strings” for fixed values of the parameter, $`t`$, and string parameter, $`\mu .`$ Direct substitution of the physical constraints, $`d𝐑𝐕dt=0`$, and $`d(𝐕)𝐀dt=0`$ leads to the topological Gauss integral,

$`Q`$ $`=_2G=_2\{𝐑\mu 𝐕\times 𝐀\}/\lambda =`$
$`_2\{𝐀𝐑\times \mu 𝐕\}𝑑t\mathrm{^}𝑑\mu /(𝐑𝐑\pm 2\mu 𝐑𝐕+\mu 𝐕\mu 𝐕)^{3/2}.`$ (66)
It is apparent that the interaction of the ”angular” momentum, $`𝐋=𝐑\times \mu 𝐕`$, and the acceleration, $`𝐀`$, produces a topological invariant whose values are ”quantized” ( in the sense that the ratios of the integrals are rational). Note that for the classical central field problem where the force (acceleration) and the angular momentum are orthogonal, the orbits are in a plane and the Gauss–linking number is zero. Further note that the triple vector product of the integrand is proportional to the Frenet torsion of the orbit. An orbit that is planar has Frenet torsion zero everywhere. The Gauss linking integral is a special case of the Gauss two dimensional period integral of electromagnetic theory when the integration domains can be factored into independent products, $`dt\mathrm{^}dt0.`$

### 5.7 Chaos and the Unknot

Much interest of late has been shown in knot theory and its application to an understanding of the trajectories of dynamical systems. The conjecture is that somehow an understanding of knot theory will give a better understanding of chaos. Counter intuitively is the idea that chaos is to be related to the unknot. Of particular interest will be those cases where lines of vorticity have an oscillatory Frenet torsion with a period equal to 2/3 of the fundamental period of closure. The topological Gauss integral will average to zero for such systems; but these systems can be created by continuous deformations of folding and twisting a closed loop of vorticity, producing a period 3 system which is known to be related to chaos . In the undeformed circular state, tubular neighborhoods guided by the vortex lines can continuously evolve into domains without stagnation points or tangential singularities, or knots, or twists. However, when the closed vortex line is in the deformed period 3 configuration, tangential (hyperbolic) singularities are created by the flow lines of the velocity field, and the evolution becomes highly convoluted and chaotic. See Figure 1.

These topological features may be demonstrated visually by taking a long strip of paper and wrapping the strip three times around your fingers. Close the strip by going under one strand and over the next before pasting together. The strip is of obvious period three. Now slide the closed strip from the fingers and note that it can be deformed 9continuously into a cylindrical strip without twists or knots (Spin 0). If the same procedure is used, except that a double over or a double under crossing is used before pasting the strip ends together, the resulting closed loop will have a continuously irreducible $`4\pi `$ twist (Spin 2). Both the Spin 2 and the Spin 0 strips have a zero Euler characteristic. However, the Spin 2 strip can be continuously deformed into a Klein bottle, or a double lapped Mobius band, and is not homeomorphic to the spin zero strip .

If a model of the Spin0 and Spin 2 systems (deformed to their period 3 configurations) is made from a copper tube, and if flexible bands are created to link any pair of neighboring tubular strands, then it is readily observed that the paired domain twists and folds as it is propagated unidirectionally along the vortex lines. For the spin 2 system the flexible bands will return to their original state in 3 revolutions. However, the paired domain continues to twist and fold, becoming ever more complicated as it follows the evolution around the Spin 0 configuration. The folded spin 0 system has chaotic neighborhoods. This result indicates that the source of chaos in dynamical systems may be due to the unknot, and not the knot! The Cartan theory thereby predicts that the source of chaos in turbulent systems does not require a discontinuous cut and connect process, but may be induced by vortex lines that continuously evolve by twisting and folding into a closed, spin 0, period three configuration.

### 5.8 The Torsion 3-form and the Braid integral

For n = 4 the same procedures used above can be used to produce a period integral over a closed 3-dimensional domain. In fact, the same vector field that is used to define the Cartan 1-form of Action may be used to construct a dual N-1 form that is closed. The algorithm is to substitute for the functions $`[V^x(x,y,z..),V^y(x,y,z..),V^z(x,y,z..),\mathrm{}]`$ the functions $`[A_x,A_y,A_z\mathrm{}]`$, that make up the covariant 1-form of Action.. This construction is equivalent to constructing the Jacobian matrix of the original vector field on the N-dimensional velocity space, computing its cofactor matrix, multiplying the original vector by the cofactor matrix, and then dividing by the quadratic form, $`\lambda `$. When these operations are completed, functional substitution will lead to an conserved axial vector current density on (x,y,z,t). Another form of the topological integral invariant is constructed in the following way. First, for the classic Cartan action, $`A=P_kdx^kEdt/c`$, construct the N-volume, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dP_x\mathrm{^}dP_y\mathrm{^}dP_z\mathrm{^}dE/c.`$ Next contract $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the vector, $`(Px,Py,Pz,E/c)`$, and then divide by $`\lambda =\{\pm PP\pm (E/c)^2\}^2.`$ For sake of simplicity, assume that $`E/c`$ is a constant such the $`dE=0`$. Then the closed 3-form or current becomes equivalent to

$$J=(E/c)dP_x\mathrm{^}dP_y\mathrm{^}dP_z/\lambda withdJ=0$$
(67)
Now invoke the same Cartan trick of individual parametrization as uses above. Consider a total momentum vector composed of three individual vector components, $`𝐏=𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟑}.`$ Assume that the Cartan topology is constrained in such a way that for each vector component a Newtonian kinematic law of parametrization is maintained such that

$$d𝐩_1𝐟_1dt=0,d𝐩_2𝐟_2dt^{}=0,d𝐩_3𝐟_3dt^{\prime \prime }=0.$$
(68)
Also note that $`dt\mathrm{^}dt^{}\mathrm{^}dt^{\prime \prime }0;`$ that is, the parameters used in the Newtonian kinematic descriptions are not sychronizeable. If they were functionally related the value of J must be zero. Substitute these expressions into the equation for the closed current $`J`$ and integrate over a closed 3 dimensional chain to yield a triple Braid integral,

$`Braid`$ $`=_3J=_3(E/c)𝑑P_x\mathrm{^}𝑑P_y\mathrm{^}𝑑P_z/\lambda `$
$`=_3(E/c)\{𝐟_1(𝐟_2\times 𝐟_3)\}𝑑t\mathrm{^}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{^}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }/\{\pm 𝐏𝐏\pm (E/c)^2\}^2`$ (69)
The integrations are now over three closed curves whose tangents are the Newtonian forces, $`𝐟`$, on three ”particles”. Where in the two dimensional Gauss integral, of the previous section, the evaluation was along the closed curves of two particles that formed the ends of a string, in this case the integrations are along the closed trajectories of three ”particles” which form the vertices of a triangle. In every case, the trajectories are the trajectories of a system of limit points.

The idea that three ”lines” are used to form the integral (whose values form rational ratios) is the reason that this topological integral in the format given above is defined as the braid integral. Of course the three form of topological torsion is a variant of the braid integral, but applies to those topologies where the system is not reducible to three factors $`dt,dt`$ and $`dt\mathrm{"}`$ (such systems are said to have torsion cycles). An example of a period 3 braid with Braid integral zero (chaotic) and Braid integral 2 (non-chaotic) is given in Figure 1

The equivalent to this Figure, and the fact that there are two distinct period 3 configurations, one chaotic and one non-chaotic, was brought to the attention of the present authors during a stimulating lecture given by J. Los at the August, 1991, Pedagogical Workshop on Topological Fluid Mechanics held at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara UCSB.

It is to be noted that the 3-form of topological torsion is related to the braid integral, a three dimensional thing in four dimensions, and not the Gauss linkage integral, which is a two dimensional thing in three dimensions. The literature of helicity is sometimes confused on this point, and often attempts to relate the helicity integral to the linkage integral.

### 5.9 Navier Stokes flows and Pfaff Dimension 4

As a last example consider a system where the strong kinematic (topological) constraint $`d𝐱𝐕dt=0`$ is not imposed apriori. In other words, the admissable evolutionary processes, $`𝐕`$, may have anholonomic fluctuations about kinematic perfection.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱=d𝐱𝐕dt0$$
(70)
The physical system will be built on the Cartan topology of the 1-form, $`A`$, given previously for the Euler flow. However, the Cartan topology will be constrained, not by the Hamiltonian conditions required to generate an extremal system ( which is free of kinematic fluctuations), but by a more relaxed set of conditions that permit finite kinematic fluctuations, $`d𝐱𝐕dt0`$. As it is known that $`i(V)dA`$ must be transversal to the vector field, $`V`$, it follows that a weaker topological constraint might exist in the form,

$$i(V)dA=f_k(dx^kV^kdt)+d\theta ,$$
(71)
where the functions $`\theta `$ are Bernoulli-Casimir first integrals in the sense that $`i(V)d\theta =0.`$

When $`f_k=0`$, these fluctuation constraints reduce to the more stringent Hamiltonian conditions for an extremal flow, or in the case where $`d\theta 0,`$ to the Bernoulli-Casimir symplectic conditions. If is assumed that

$$f_k=v(curlcurl𝐕)_k,$$
(72)
it follows that the expression given above, $`i(v)dA=f_k(dx^kV^kdt),`$ is exactly equivalent to the Navier-Stokes partial differential system  for an incompressible viscous flow on the variety $`x,y,z,t`$.

$$\{𝐕/t+grad(𝐕𝐕/2)𝐕\times curl𝐕\}=\{\nu ^2𝐕\}gradP/\rho $$
(73)
These relaxed topological constraints, which admit evolutionary fluctuations in the Cartan system, permit the Topological Parity 4-form to be computed for the Navier Stokes fluid; the result is:

$$K=F\mathrm{^}F=2\nu (curl𝐕curlcurl𝐕)dx\mathrm{^}dy\mathrm{^}dz\mathrm{^}dt.$$
(74)
From this result it is apparent that the Pfaff dimension of the domain is 4, unless the viscosity is zero, or the vorticity field satisfies the conditions of Frobenius integrability. The Torsion current anomaly is equal to $`2\nu (curl𝐕curlcurl𝐕)`$. The torsion lines can stop or stop within the domain producing defect structures that effect the cohomology of the Cartan topology.

An interesting result is the proof that the closed integral of topological Torsion-Helicity is a relative integral invariant for the viscous, compressible fluid, if the Cartan sequence has a Pfaff dimension equal to 3. Recall that the evolution of the 3-form $`H=A\mathrm{^}dA`$ is given by the Lie derivative expression,

$$L_{(\beta V)}_3H=_3\{i(\beta V)dH+d(i(\beta V)H\}=_3\{i(\beta V)dH\}+0$$
(75)
But if $`curl𝐕curlcurl𝐕`$ vanishes (for any viscosity) then $`dH=dA\mathrm{^}dA=0`$, and the RHS of the above expression vanishes, for any reparameterization, $`\beta `$. Therefore, the closed integral of the Topological Torsion three form is a deformation invariant not only of Eulerian flows, but also of viscous flows for which the vorticity field is of Pfaff dimension 2 (the velocity field is Pfaff dimension 3). The folklore concept that viscosity destroys the helicity invariant is not necessarily true.

## 6  <br>Acknowledgments

This article was presented as a talk given in August, 1991, at the Pedagogical Workshop on Topological Fluid Mechanics held at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara UCSB.

## 7 REFERENCES

 E. Cartan ”Sur certaines expressions dfflerentielles et le systeme de Pfaff” Ann Ec. Norm. 16 329 (1899)

 E. Cartan, ”Systems Differentials Exterieurs et leurs Applications Geometriques”, Actualites sci. et industrielles 944 (1945)

 E. Cartan, ”Lecons sur la theorie des spineurs” (Hermann, Paris 1938)

 E. Cartan, ”La Theorie des Spaces a Connexion Projective”, (Hermann, Paris, 1937)

 S.S.Chern, Annais of Math. 45, 747- 752 (1944).

 R. M. Kiehn, ”Retrodictive Determinism” Int. Journ. Eng Sci (1976)

 R.M. Kiehn, ’Topological Torsion, Pfaff Dimension and Coherent Structures” in Topological Fluid Mechanics, H. K. Moffatt and A. Tsinober, editors, (Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 225.

 H.Flanders, ”Differential Forms”, (Academic Press, N. Y. 1963).

 R.M. Kiehn and J. F. Pierce, The Physics of Fluids 9 1941 (1969)

 R. M. Kiehn, J. Math Phys. 9 1975

 R. M. Kiehn, ”Are there three kinds of superconductivity” INt J. of Mod. Phys.10 1779 (1991)

 W. Slebodzinsky, ”Exterior Forms and their Applications

 Van der Kulk and Schouten ”Pfaffs Problem Oxford University Press.

 S. Lipschutz, ”General Topology”, (Schaums Publishing Co.,New York, 1965) p.97

 R. Hermann, ”Differential Geometry and the Calculus of Variations”, (Academic Press, New York, 1968).

 R. M. Kiehn, Lett al Nuovo Cimento 14, 308 (1975) Submersive Equivalence Classes for Metric Fields”

 W. Gellert, et.al. Editors ’The VNR Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics”, (Van Nostrand, New York 1977), p.686.

 J. G. Hocking, ”Topology”, (Addison Wesley, N. Y., 1961), p.2.

 R. L Bishop and S. l. Goldberg, ”Tensor Analysis on Manifolds”, (Dover, N. Y., 1968).

 R. M. Kiehn, ’Topological Parity and the Turbulent State” submitted to Jap. J. of Fluid Res.

 N. E. Kochin, l. A. Kibel, and N. V. Roze Theoretical Hydrodynamics” (Inter-science, New York 1965)

 H. W. Turnbull, ”The Theory of determinants, matrices and invariants” (Dover, New York 1960)

 D. Struik, ”Differential Geometry” , Addison Wesley, (Reading, Mass 1961)

 J. Yorke and T.U, Amercan Mathematical Monthly 82, 985 (1975).

 R. M. Kiehn, Lett al Nuovo Cimento 12, 300 (1975); Lett al Nuovo Cimento 22, 308 (1978)


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

A CONSTRUCTIVE DEMONSTRATION

OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE CHRISTOFFEL SYMBOL

Victor Tapia111TAPIENS@CIENCIAS.CIENCIAS.UNAL.EDU.CO

Departamento de Física

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Bogotá, Colombia

The Christoffel symbol

$$\{{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{\lambda }\}(𝐠)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda \rho }(_\mu g_{\nu \rho }+_\nu g_{\mu \rho }_\rho g_{\mu \nu }),$$
(1)
is usually introduced (Spivak, 1975) as the connection which solves the metricity condition

$$_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(2)
On the other hand, whether the Christoffel symbol is the only connection which can be constructed from a symmetric second–rank tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ remains an open question. In this note we exhibit a constructive demonstration of the uniqueness of the Christoffel symbol.

Let us start by reviewing some simple results of tensor calculus. Let $``$ be an $`n`$–dimensional differentiable manifold. Several geometric objects can be introduced over conveniently defined fibered bundles based on $``$. In order to classify them we adopt a taxonomic approach, cf. (Visconti, 1992): a tensor is an object which transforms like a tensor, etc. The previous definition makes reference to the way in which an object transforms under changes of local coordinates. Let $`x^\mu `$, $`\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`y^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, be local coordinates on $``$. Both sets are related by $`y^\alpha =y^\alpha (x^\mu )`$, and the differential form of this relation is

$$dy^\alpha =\left(\frac{y^\alpha }{x^\mu }\right)dx^\mu .$$
(3)
Due to the intrinsic function theorem, this relation tells us that $`y^\alpha `$ are functions of $`x^\mu `$, $`y^\alpha =y^\alpha (x^\mu )`$. In order to express $`x^\mu `$ as functions of $`y^\alpha `$, $`x^\mu =x^\mu (y^\alpha )`$, we need to invert eq. (3). This can be achieved if

$$det\left(\frac{y^\alpha }{x^\mu }\right)0.$$
(4)
If this is the case we have an inverse matrix $`(x/y)`$ and the relation (3) can be inverted to

$$dx^\mu =\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)dy^\alpha .$$
(5)
Then $`x^\mu =x^\mu (y^\alpha )`$.

Now we are ready to proceed to our taxonomic classification of geometrical objects. Relation (3) provides the first example. Let us consider a set of functions $`v^\mu (x)`$ and $`v^\alpha (y)`$ which are related in the way given by (3)

$$v^\alpha (y)=\left(\frac{y^\alpha }{x^\mu }\right)v^\mu (x).$$
(6)
This defines a contravariant vector. Accordingly, a set of functions $`v_\mu (x)`$ and $`v_\alpha (y)`$ which are related by

$$v_\alpha (y)=\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)v_\mu (x),$$
(7)
defines a covariant vector. Let us now consider the functions $`\varphi (x)=v_\mu (x)v^\mu (x)`$ and $`\varphi (y)=v_\alpha (y)v^\alpha (y)`$. From the relations above we easily obtain

$$\varphi (y)=\varphi (x).$$
(8)
This relation defines a scalar. The relations above can be extended to tensors of different rank and covariance. For example, a covariant second–rank tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is an object which transforms as

$$g_{\alpha \beta }(y)=\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{x^\nu }{y^\beta }\right)g_{\mu \nu }(x).$$
(9)
Let us now consider the derivative of the scalar function (8). We obtain

$$\frac{\varphi }{y^\alpha }(y)=\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)\frac{\varphi }{x^\mu }(x).$$
(10)
Therefore, the ordinary derivative of a scalar function is a vector. Next, let us consider the ordinary derivative of a covariant vector. From (7) we obtain

$$\frac{v_\beta }{y^\alpha }(y)=\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{x^\nu }{y^\beta }\right)\frac{v_\nu }{x^\mu }(x)+\left(\frac{^2x^\mu }{y^\alpha y^\beta }\right)v_\mu (x).$$
(11)
Therefore, this quantity is not a vector. Let us observe that covariance is broken by a term linear in $`v_\mu `$. Let us therefore introduce a new derivative

$$_\mu v_\nu =_\mu v_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}v_\lambda ,$$
(12)
where a term linear in $`v_\mu `$ is introduced to compensate the wrong behaviour of the last term in (11). Let us now impose that this quantity be a tensor. The result is that $`𝚪`$ must transform according to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}(y)=\left(\frac{x^\mu }{y^\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{x^\nu }{y^\beta }\right)\left[\left(\frac{y^\gamma }{x^\lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}(x)\left(\frac{^2y^\gamma }{x^\mu x^\nu }\right)\right].$$
(13)
It is clear that $`𝚪`$ is not a tensor; this is not unexpected since in order to compensate the non–tensor character of $`v`$ we need a non tensor object. $`_\mu v_\nu `$ is the covariant derivative, and $`𝚪`$ is the connection.

In Riemannian geometry the natural object is the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The metric is not related to the connection. However, we may relate them through a metricity condition. The simplest metricity condition is

$$_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Gamma }g_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(14)
The relation (14) has the unique solution

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\{{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{\lambda }\}(𝐠)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\lambda \rho }(_\mu g_{\nu \rho }+_\nu g_{\mu \rho }_\rho g_{\mu \nu }),$$
(15)
which is known as the Christoffel symbol.

The Christoffel symbol is the connection which solves the metricity condition (14). It happens to be constructed from a second–rank tensor. However, there is a further question we may ask: which is the more general connection we can construct in terms of a second–rank tensor? We must therefore look for a more general scheme providing a most complete answer.

Let us therefore consider the problem of how to construct a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ only from a second–rank tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For this purpose let us remind that the connection is related to a derivation and therefore has dimensions corresponding to an inverse lenght, i.e.

$$\mathrm{dim}[𝚪]=L^1.$$
(16)
On the other hand, the derivation is a linear operation. Therefore, the needed connection must be a linear combination of derivatives of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}(𝐠)=G_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda \sigma \tau \rho }(𝐠,𝐠^1)_\sigma g_{\tau \rho },$$
(17)
where $`𝐆`$ is a function depending only on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and its inverse $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, and therefore it is a tensor. The transformation rule for $`𝚪`$ in (17) is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)_\delta g_{ϵ\varphi }`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)_\delta \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^\mu }{y^ϵ}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^\nu }{y^\varphi }}\right)g_{\mu \nu }\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\gamma }{x^\lambda }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\alpha }{x^\mu }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\beta }{x^\nu }}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}(x)`$
$`+2G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2x^\mu }{y^\delta y^ϵ}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^\nu }{y^\varphi }}\right)g_{\mu \nu }`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\gamma }{x^\lambda }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\alpha }{x^\mu }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\beta }{x^\nu }}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}(x)`$
$`+2G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)g_{\varphi \eta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^\eta }{x^\lambda }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2x^\lambda }{y^\delta y^ϵ}}\right).`$
Now we require that this object transform like a connection and if we compare with (13) we obtain

$$2G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)g_{\varphi \eta }\left(\frac{y^\eta }{x^\lambda }\right)\left(\frac{^2x^\lambda }{y^\delta y^ϵ}\right)=\left(\frac{y^\gamma }{x^\lambda }\right)\left(\frac{^2x^\lambda }{y^\alpha y^\beta }\right).$$
(19)
Therefore

$$\left[4G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)g_{\varphi \eta }\delta _\eta ^\gamma \left(\delta _\alpha ^\delta \delta _\beta ^ϵ+\delta _\beta ^\delta \delta _\alpha ^ϵ\right)\right]\left(\frac{y^\eta }{x^\lambda }\right)\left(\frac{^2x^\lambda }{y^\delta y^ϵ}\right)=0.$$
(20)
What must be zero is the symmetric part of the square bracket and then we obtain

$$2G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)g_{\varphi \eta }+2G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma ϵ\delta \varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)g_{\varphi \eta }\delta _\eta ^\gamma \left(\delta _\alpha ^\delta \delta _\beta ^ϵ+\delta _\beta ^\delta \delta _\alpha ^ϵ\right)=0.$$
(21)
Considering cyclic permutations of the indices $`\delta ϵ\varphi `$ we arrive to a set of equations which allow to determine $`𝐆`$. The solution is

$`G_{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma \delta ϵ\varphi }(𝐠,𝐠^1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[g^{\gamma \varphi }\left(\delta _\alpha ^\delta \delta _\beta ^ϵ+\delta _\beta ^\delta \delta _\alpha ^ϵ\right)+g^{\gamma \delta }\left(\delta _\alpha ^ϵ\delta _\beta ^\varphi +\delta _\beta ^\varphi \delta _\alpha ^ϵ\right)g^{\gamma ϵ}\left(\delta _\alpha ^\delta \delta _\beta ^\varphi +\delta _\beta ^\varphi \delta _\alpha ^\delta \right)\right].`$
If we now replace this result in (16) we obtain that the connection is precisely the Christoffel symbol, namely eq. (15).

One can inmediately check that

$$_\lambda ^gg_{\mu \nu }0,$$
(23)
where $`^g`$ is the covariant derivative constructed with the Christoffel symbol.

We have shown that the Christoffel symbol is the only connection which can be constructed from a symmetric second–rank tensor. The metricity condition (23) appears just as a side result and not as the starting point for the construction of the Christoffel symbol.

References

1. M. Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry (Publish or Perish, Boston, 1975).
2. A. Visconti, Introductory differential geometry for physicists (World Scientific, River Edge, 1992).


text:
# Hydrogen atom in a magnetic field: The quadrupole moment

## I Introduction

Plenty of works have been devoted to study of a hydrogen atom in a magnetic field (see, e.g., Refs. ) and this problem was among the first ever studied in quantum mechanics. To a great extent, the reason for such interest is due to its importance in various branches of fundamental physics: astrophysics, spectroscopy, solid state, and plasma physics. From a physical point of view, the first appearances of the influence of a magnetic field $`B`$ on the atom are (i) changes in binding energies, including the Zeeman level splitting which removes a degeneracy; and (ii) the development of a nonvanishing quadrupole moment $`Q_{ab}B_aB_b`$ as a consequence of the deformation of the spherical-symmetrical atomic shape. In contrast to the former phenomenon, the latter has not been thoroughly studied. Meanwhile, the appearance of a quadrupole moment leads to a drastic change in the interaction of the atoms. A standard van der Waals attraction which originates in the interaction of induced dipoles is overtaken by quadrupole-quadrupole interaction (which is repulsive when atoms are situated along magnetic line – see Refs. ). In many applications (for instance, for construction of an equation of state), one needs to include the effects of atom-atom interactions. For example, a study of pressure ionization of a strongly magnetized hydrogen plasma was performed in Ref.  with a simple occupation probability model, which was based on a calculation of quantum-mechanical atomic sizes . This model is fully adequate at sufficiently high temperatures $`T`$. However, in order to extend the domain of applicability to lower $`T`$, where the neutral fraction is large, electrical multipole interactions of atoms should be taken into account. Therefore, quadrupole-quadrupole interaction can be significant at certain plasma parameters.

For various quantum-mechanical states of the H atom in a magnetic field, there have been accurate calculations of binding energies , oscillator strengths , and photoionization rates . Moreover, binding energies , geometrical sizes and oscillator strengths , electric quadrupole transition probabilities , and photoionization cross sections  have also been successfully calculated for an atom moving in a strong magnetic field (equivalent to an atom in crossed magnetic and electric fields), which is an essentially three-dimensional system. Despite this progress, up to now the quadrupole moment was not studied basically with probably a single exception . A goal of the present Brief Report is to carry out such a study for the ground state using (i) a variational method and (ii) a method based on a solution of the Schrödinger equation by expansion in Landau orbitals with coordinate-dependent coefficients. We explore a range of magnetic field strengths $`B`$ from 0 to the “relativistic” field $`B_rm_e^2c^3/(\mathrm{}e)=4.414\times 10^{13}`$ G.

## II Asymptotic results

Hereafter, we will measure lengths in units of $`a_0\mathrm{}^2/(m_ee^2)=\mathrm{0.529\hspace{0.17em}177}`$Å and energies in units of $`\mathrm{Ry}\frac{1}{2}e^2/a_0=13.6057`$ eV. Assuming a constant uniform magnetic field directed along the $`z`$-axis, we take the vector potential $`𝐀`$ in the symmetric (axial) gauge: $`(A_x,A_y,A_z)=(B/2)(y,x,0)`$. A natural parameter of the nonrelativistic theory is $`\gamma =B/B_0`$, where $`B_0m_e^2e^3/(\mathrm{}^3c)=2.3505\times 10^9\mathrm{G}`$. The field is called “strong” if $`\gamma 1`$.

Since the magnetic quantum number is equal to zero for the ground state, the Hamiltonian has the form

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{2}{r}+\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}\rho ^2,\rho ^2=x^2+y^2.$$
(1)
Because of the axial symmetry of the problem, the components $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the quadrupole tensor obey the following relations (e.g., Ref. ):

$`Q_{xy}=Q_{yz}=Q_{zx}=0,`$ (2)
$`Q_{xx}=Q_{yy}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_{zz}=z^2x^2.`$ (3)
In the weak-field limit, the usual perturbation theory gives

$$Q_{zz}=\frac{5}{2}\gamma ^2\frac{615}{32}\gamma ^4+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
In the opposite case of an ultrastrong field, $`\mathrm{ln}\gamma 1`$, when $`x^2z^2`$, the longitudinal motion can be separated, which gives rise to the one-dimensional model . In the ground state, $`z^2`$ is mainly determined by the exponential tail of the one-dimensional wave function, $`z^2(2E)^1`$, where $`E`$ is the binding energy. Using the method of Hasegawa and Howard  for an evaluation of $`E`$, we find

$$Q_{zz}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^2}+\frac{2\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )}{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^3}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^3}\right)$$
(5)
at $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$.

## III Variational method

In order to construct an adequate variational trial function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, we follow a recipe formulated in Refs . That is, the potential $`V_0=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_0)/\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ should reproduce the Coulomb singularity at the origin, and the harmonic oscillator behavior at large distances. Furthermore, the trial function should have a correct functional expansion in coordinates at small and large distances from the origin, as well as correct expansion in powers of $`B`$. Since the ground state wave function has no nodal surfaces in configuration space, we may write $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=e^\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is a smooth real function of coordinates. The asymptotic behavior of this function was calculated in Refs. :

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \rho ^2/4+O(r)(\rho \mathrm{}),`$ (6)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`r+\gamma ^2(Ar^3+Br\rho ^2+Cr^2+D\rho ^2)`$ (8)
$`+O(\gamma ^4r^5)(r0),`$
where $`A,B,C`$, and $`D`$ are known parameters. These expansions prompt to choose the following seven-parametric trial function

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{[a^2r^2+(\alpha _1r^3+\alpha _2\rho ^2r+\alpha _3\rho ^3+\alpha _4\rho r^2)\gamma `$ (10)
$`+(b_1\rho ^4+b_2\rho ^2r^2)\gamma ^2/16]^{1/2}\}`$
(cf. Refs. ), where $`a,\alpha _{14}`$, and $`b_{12}`$ are variational parameters. One can check that the effective potential $`V_0`$ corresponding to this trial function correctly reproduces the potential in Eq. (1) at $`r0`$ (Coulomb regime) and at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ (Landau regime). Furthermore, Eq. (10) gives a correct functional form of the first corrections in powers $`B^2`$ to the exponential phase of the ground-state wave function (see Ref. ) and, even more importantly, the functional form of the first correction to the Landau phase factor $`B\rho ^2`$ at large distances (for a detailed discussion, see Ref. ). Thus, Eq. (10) takes into account the available information on the ground-state wave function of Hamiltonian (1).

## IV Expansion in Landau orbitals

The shape of the atom is close to a sphere at $`BB_0`$ and to a cylinder at $`BB_0`$. In the latter case, the expansion of the atomic wave function over the Landau functions is appropriate (e.g., Refs. ).

If there were no Coulomb attraction, then the transverse part of the wave function could be described by a Landau function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}(\rho ,\phi )`$ \[where $`\phi `$ is the polar angle in the $`(xy)`$ plane\], which satisfies the equation

$$\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}}{\rho }\right)\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}}{\phi ^2}+\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}=(2n+1)\gamma .$$
(11)
(e.g., Ref. ). Here $`n`$ is the Landau quantum number and $`s`$ is the negative of the $`z`$ projection of the electron orbital momentum ($`n0`$, $`sn`$). The Landau functions form a complete orthogonal functional basis on the $`(xy)`$ plane.

When the atom does not move as a whole across the field, $`s`$ is an exact quantum number. Thus a wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be presented as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}(\rho ,\varphi )g_n(z).$$
(12)
The sum in Eq. (12), if truncated at some $`n=N`$, can be considered as a variational trial function. The one-dimensional functions $`g_n`$ are to be found numerically. The minimum of the energy functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }||\mathrm{\Psi }`$ implies zero functional derivatives: $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }||\mathrm{\Psi }/\delta g_n(z)=0`$ ($`n`$). Taking into account Eq. (11), one arrives at a system of coupled differential equations for the set of $`g_n(z)`$ and $`E`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}z^2}g_n(z)+2\underset{n^{}}{}V_{nn^{}}^{(s)}(z)g_n^{}(z)=(E+2n\gamma )g_n(z),$$
(13)
where

$$V_{nn^{}}^{(s)}(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho d\rho _0^{2\pi }d\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}^{}(\rho ,\phi )\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n^{}s}(\rho ,\phi ).$$
(14)
The effective potentials \[Eq. (14)\] can be reduced to a finite sum of one-dimensional integrals feasible for numerical calculation .

Using the relations

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}x^2\hfill \\ y^2\hfill \end{array}\right)=r_+r_{}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r_+^2+r_{}^2),`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{\gamma }r_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}=\sqrt{n+s}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,s1}\sqrt{n+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n+1,s1},`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{\gamma }r_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ns}=\sqrt{n+s+1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,s+1}\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1,s+1},`$ (19)
where $`r_\pm \rho e^{\pm i\phi }`$, one can calculate the expectation values

$`z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}z^2|g_n(z)|^2dz,`$ (20)
$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`y^2=\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}[(2n+s+1)|g_n(z)|^2`$ (21)
$``$ $`2\sqrt{(n+1)(n+s+1)}|g_n^{}(z)g_{n+1}(z)|]\mathrm{d}z.`$ (22)
and finally the quadrupole moment $`Q_{zz}`$.

At $`\gamma 1`$ the first term $`n=0`$ dominates in the sum in Eq. (12). Hence Eq. (22) results in $`x^2=y^2(s+1)/\gamma `$. It is worthwhile to note that neglecting all terms in Eq. (12) except the one at $`n=0`$ is equivalent to the adiabatic approximation used in early works (e.g., Refs. citeCV77,Hasegawa).

## V Results and discussion

The results of our calculations of the binding energy $`E`$ and the quadrupole moment $`Q_{zz}`$ are presented in Table I. When available, we compare the binding energy with the most accurate up-to-date results .

The variational approach of Sec. III, based on a single seven-parametric function \[Eq. (10)\], gives very high relative accuracy in the binding energy on the order of $`10^7`$ at small magnetic fields which then falls to $`10^2`$ at the largest studied magnetic fields. Basically, this corresponds to the same absolute accuracy (on the order of $`10^7`$) in the total energy for the whole explored range of magnetic fields. Two major parameters $`a`$ and $`b_1`$ are changed as a function of magnetic field in a very smooth and slow manner, from $`a1`$, $`b_10.9`$ for $`10^9`$ G to $`a3`$, $`b_10.99`$ at $`10^{13}`$ G, respectively. Other parameters also vary smoothly and slowly.

For the second method (Sec. IV), we retain $`n,n^{}=0,1,\mathrm{},12`$ in the system of equations (13) and solve it for the ground state at $`\gamma 1`$ using the algorithm described in Ref. . Then we calculate $`Q_{zz}`$ from Eq. (3) using Eqs. (20) and (22).

In Table I we see that for the binding energy the method of expansion in the Landau orbitals turns out to be more accurate at $`\gamma 10`$, whereas the variational method of Sec. III is superior at lower field strengths. This is confirmed by a comparison with the results of Ref. . We emphasize that our methods give very close results for the quadrupole moment (the deviation does not exceed 10%). This agrees with the qualitative behavior found in .

The data in Table I can be approximated by the expression

$`Q_{zz}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \gamma ^{7/4}}{0.3392+(1+\xi ^3)\gamma ^{7/4}}},`$ (24)
$`\text{where }\xi =4\mathrm{ln}(1+0.212\gamma ^{1/4}).`$
This approximation reproduces the exact asymptotic behavior: $`Q_{zz}(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^2`$ at $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and $`Q_{zz}\frac{5}{2}\gamma ^2`$ at $`\gamma 0`$. Its deviation from the results in Table I does not exceed a few percent in the whole range of studied magnetic fields.

Figure 1 shows $`|Q_{zz}|`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$. Numerical results obtained as described in Secs. III (shown by dots) and IV (solid line) are compared with perturbation theory of order $`B^2`$ and $`B^4`$ (lines marked ‘1’ and ‘2’, respectively) and with the fit \[Eq. (24)\] (dashed line). The quadrupole moment grows smoothly with magnetic field increase, reaching the maximum at $`\gamma 3`$ and then decreases. For the strongly elongated atom at $`\gamma 1`$, the van der Waals constant can be roughly estimated as $`WEz^2^3(\mathrm{ln}\gamma )^4`$. Thus $`W`$ decreases at $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ at the same rate as $`Q_{zz}^2`$. This means that the distance $`R`$, where the van der Waals potential $`W/R^6`$ becomes comparable with the quadrupole-quadrupole interaction potential $`Q^2/R^5`$, tends to a finite value at $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. Our results may have an important impact on the modeling of relatively cool neutron star atmospheres, whose spectra are being measured with the x-ray telescopes onboard the recently launched Chandra and XMM-Newton space observatories (e.g., Refs. ).

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to J. Babb for reading the manuscript and useful comments. A. T. thanks J. C. Lopez Vieyra for help with numerical calculations. A. P. thanks M. V. Ivanov for a valuable remark and acknowledges support from RFBR (Grant No. 99-02-18099). The work of A. T. is supported in part by DGAPA Grant No. IN105296 (México).