text:
# Wilson Action of Lattice Gauge Fields with An Additional Term from Noncommutative Geometry

## I Introduction

Our work gains inspiration from three sources. First, exterior algebra, the foundation of differential forms on differentiable manifolds, has an intimate relation with Clifford algebra, the root of spinor . Moreover, exterior differential together with metric on differential manifolds can be realized strikingly on the spinor bundles by Dirac operator under A. Connes’ operator theoretic construction of classical geometry . Physically speaking the same results, fermions provide representations for differential structures as well as metric structures of manifolds . Connes generalized this scenario to noncommutative algebra settings and introduced noncommutative geometry(NCG) . Second, a lattice provides a marvelous model for NCG developed by Dimakis and Müller-Hoissen(D&M) . D&M geometry on discrete sets is essentially cohomologic description of broken lines; there is no non-commutativity at the level of 0-step broken lines which are just functions on these sets, while the non-commutativity is characterized by that the ordering to combine two broken lines not all of 0-step can not be exchanged. Third, a proper lattice Dirac operator, with or without root in NCG, more or less being attempted to solve the problem of chiral fermion in lattice field theory(LFT), was pursued by different authors .

We devised a Dirac operator $`𝒟`$ on a n-dimensional lattice recently with the following properties: i) Adopting Connes’ distance formula, we prove that the induced metric of $`𝒟`$ recovers Euclidean geometry on this lattice, when $`n=1,2`$ ; ii) $`𝒟`$ is a Fredholm operator of index zero, i.e. an operator subjected to a “geometric square-root” condition $`𝒟^2\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ; iii) A differential structure on the lattice defined by reduction of calculus within the formalism of D&M can be realized onto spinor space upon this lattice through $`𝒟`$, what’s more this representation is Junk-free (see  for a mathematical reference); iv) Under a specific matrix representation, $`𝒟`$ possesses a staggered Dirac operator interpretation, if $`𝒟`$ is slightly modified to fit a “physical square-root” condition $`𝒟^2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the lattice laplacian . Till now we just explored properties of this operator on a lattice without presenting of gauge fields. In this contribution, gauge coupling is added within the conventional approach in Connes’ geometry. We will show that the unitarity of representation of gauge groups results from the compatibility of involution of covariant differential and gauge transformations. The classical action of lattice gauge fields is calculated. Resulting from the differential structure defined by us, an additional term, which will vanish under the usual assumption of unitarity of link variables in LFT, appears aside to the familiar Wilson action for lattice gauge fields. The losing of unitarity of link variables will be showed having effect on the induced metric on lattices. Other authors’ works with similar purpose deserve to be referred here , though due to the difference of differential structure definitions they did not notice the additional term.

This paper is organized as following. In Section II, necessary notations and formalism of differential forms on a lattice are introduced for describing lattice gauge fields, and then field strength tensor is calculated. In Section III, a inner product on differential forms is defined and the classical action of lattice gauge fields, which differs from the conventional Wilson action by a term vanishing if link variables are unitary, is calculated. Finally we discuss the significance of non-unitary link variables and the mathematical rigidity of our work in Section IV.

## II Differential Forms, Connection and Curvature on Lattices

Notations A n-dimensional lattice can be regarded as a discrete abelian group $`𝒵_N^n`$, the direct product of n cyclic groups $`𝒵_N`$, in which $`N`$ is an integer being large enough. The elements in $`𝒵_N`$ can be written as $`0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$ and the multiplication is just the addition modulo $`N`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be the algebra of complex functions on $`𝒵_N^n`$. A collection of delta functions on $`𝒵_N^n`$ is defined to be a subset of $`𝒜`$: $`ϵ^x(y)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\delta _{y^i}^{x^i},x,y𝒵_N^n`$ where $`x^i,y^i`$ are the ith components of $`x,y`$ respectively. The algebraic structure of $`𝒜`$ can be expressed as $`ϵ^xϵ^y=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\delta ^{x^iy^i}`$, $`_xϵ^x=\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜`$ where $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜(x)=1`$, since all $`ϵ^x`$ form a natural basis for $`𝒜`$. Shift operators acting on $`𝒜`$ is defined by $`(T_\mu ^\pm f)(x)=f(x\pm \widehat{\mu }),x𝒵_N^n,f𝒜`$ or equivalently $`T_\mu ^\pm ϵ^x=ϵ^{x\widehat{\mu }}`$, where $`\widehat{\mu }`$ denotes the unit vector along $`\mu `$-axis. Introduce formal partial derivatives by $`_\mu ^\pm :=T_\mu ^\pm \mathrm{𝟏}`$ with $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ being the trivial action on $`𝒜`$. $`End_𝒞(V)`$ refers to $`𝒞`$-linear endomorphism algebra on a linear space $`V`$, thus $`T_\mu ^\pm ,\mathrm{𝟏},_\mu ^\pm `$ are all elements in $`End_𝒞(𝒜)`$.

### II.1 Differential Structure on Lattices

Based on the observation that $`(_\mu ^\pm f)(x)`$ are two completely independent numbers with $`x`$ being fixed on a lattice, we introduce differential of a function $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$ in this way

$$df=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}(_\mu ^+f\chi _+^\mu +_\mu ^{}f\chi _{}^\mu )$$

in which $`\chi _\pm ^\mu `$ form a basis of first-order differential forms. This intuition gains its rigidity under the following construction. $`𝒜`$ can be extended to be a graded differential algebra $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜),d)`$ by the construction rules shown below: $`i)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)=^{\mathrm{}}_{k=0}\mathrm{\Omega }^k(𝒜)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0(𝒜)=𝒜`$ and the elements in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p(𝒜)`$ are referred as p-order differential forms or just p-forms; $`ii)\mathrm{\Omega }^p(𝒜)\mathrm{\Omega }^q(𝒜)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{p+q}(𝒜)`$; $`iii)d:\mathrm{\Omega }^k(𝒜)\mathrm{\Omega }^{k+1}(𝒜),k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ is a linear map satisfying graded Leibnitz rule and nilpotent rule

$$d(\omega _p\omega ^{})=d(\omega _p)\omega ^{}+()^p\omega _pd(\omega ^{}),\omega _p\mathrm{\Omega }^p(𝒜),\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜),$$

$$d^2=0;$$

iv)$`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜`$ is the unit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$. To make the construction be consistent, some conditions on $`\chi _\pm ^\mu `$ have to be imposed,

$$\chi _\pm ^\mu f=(T_\mu ^\pm f)\chi _\pm ^\mu $$
(1)
$$\{\chi ^\mu ,\chi ^\nu \}=0,\{\chi ^\mu ,\chi ^\nu \}=0,\{\chi ^\mu ,\chi ^\nu \}=\delta ^{\mu \nu }d\chi ^\mu =\delta ^{\mu \nu }d\chi ^\nu $$
(2)
for all $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. We refer  for a detailed account of these statements. Eq.(1) is the fundamental non-commutativity on lattices, which indicates that functions is no longer commutative with differential forms, while the “error” of this non-commutativity is a shift by one lattice spacing, hence vanishing under continuum limit. The geometric interpretation of above construction is that p-forms correspond to linear combinations of p-stepped broken lines on $`𝒵_N^n`$. For example, let $`n=1`$ and consider $`\chi _+`$. It is easy to show that $`\chi _+=_{x=0}^{N1}ϵ^xdϵ^{x+1}`$, thus $`\chi _+`$ can be interpreted as combination of 1-step line segments from $`x`$ to $`x`$+1 with coefficients all being one.

Next we formulate a noncommutative exterior differential algebra $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜),d)`$ by introducing an equivalent relation $`d\chi _\pm ^\mu 0`$ onto $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜),d)`$, s.t. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)/`$. This definition avoids the potential ambiguity of applying wedge product directly, which results from non-commutative relation Eq.(1). Equivalently and practically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜)`$ can be defined to be a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ together with a projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜)=\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜))`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(f_0\chi _s^\mu f_1\chi _t^\nu f_3):=\frac{1}{2}f_0(T_\mu ^sf_1)(T_\mu ^sT_\nu ^tf_3)(\chi _s^\mu \chi _t^\nu \chi _t^\nu \chi _s^\mu )=f_0(T_\mu ^sf_1)(T_\mu ^sT_\nu ^tf_3)\chi _s^\mu \chi _t^\nu $$
(3)
for all $`f_\alpha 𝒜,\alpha =0,1,2`$, $`s,t\{+,\}`$, $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(f_0\chi _s^\mu f_1\chi _t^\nu )=f_0(T_\mu ^sf_1)\chi _s^\mu \chi _t^\nu (T_\nu ^tf_0)f_1\chi _s^\mu \chi _t^\nu =\mathrm{\Pi }(f_1\chi _t^\nu f_0\chi _s^\mu )`$ generally, therefore $`\omega _{(1)}\omega _{(1)}`$ is not necessarily equal to zero for a generic 1-form $`\omega _{(1)}`$. The notion of wedge product makes sense by the projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜),d)`$ will be referred as a differential structure on $`𝒵_N^n`$.

### II.2 Representation of Differential Structure, Dirac-Connes Operator on the Lattice

A “fermion” representation for $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜),d)`$ is developed in this subsection. Introduce a spinor space $`_s=𝒞^{2^n}`$, and let $``$ be a finite dimensional Hilbert space $`𝒜_s`$ under the conventional definition of inner product $`(\psi _1,\psi _2)=_{x𝒵^n}_{i=1}^{2^n}\overline{\psi _1^i(x)}\psi _2^i(x)`$. $`𝒜`$ is represented on $``$ by $`\pi :\pi (f)=f\mathrm{𝟏}_s`$, thus $``$ is turned out to be a left free $`𝒜`$-module in mathematical literature. Now extend $`\pi `$ to be the “fermion” representation on $`End_𝒞()`$ by specifying $`\pi (\chi _\pm ^\mu )`$ and applying algebraic homomorphism rule. First, define

$$\pi (\chi _\pm ^\mu )=i\eta _\pm ^\mu ,\eta _\pm ^\mu =T_\mu ^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu $$
(4)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu `$ are generators of Clifford algebra of 2n-dimensional Euclidean space, thus satisfy that

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^\nu \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\nu \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\nu \}=\delta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏}_s,\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},n$$

as well as that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu )^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\mu `$. Accordingly,

$$\{\eta _+^\mu ,\eta _+^\nu \}=0,\{\eta _{}^\mu ,\eta _{}^\nu \}=0,\{\eta _+^\mu ,\eta _{}^\nu \}=\delta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}_s,\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},n$$

which is the representation of Eq.(2). Since $`(T_\mu ^\pm )^{}=T_\mu ^{}`$, there is $`(\eta _\pm ^\mu )^{}=\eta _{}^\mu `$. Eq.(1) is realized as $`\eta _\pm ^\mu \pi (f)=\pi (T_\mu ^\pm f)\eta _\pm ^\mu `$ and $`\pi (df)=i[𝒟,\pi (f)]`$ where

$$𝒟:=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}(\eta _+^\mu +\eta _{}^\mu )$$

$`𝒟`$ is a so-called Dirac-Connes operator in NCG. One can check that the relation $`𝒟^2=n\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}_s`$ holds, which is the condition for a Fredholm operator of index zero. Consequently, $`(,𝒟)`$ forms a Fredholm module on $`𝒜`$. Besides, it is obvious that $`𝒟`$ is hermitian, $`𝒟^{}=𝒟`$. Second, Eq(3) is implemented by defining the product of two conjoint $`\eta _s^\mu ,\eta _t^\nu `$ to be wedge product, thus a formal noncommutative $`𝒜`$-linear rule $`\eta _s^\mu (\eta _t^\nu f)=\eta _s^\mu ((T_\nu ^tf)\eta _t^\nu )=(\eta _s^\mu (T_\nu ^tf))\eta _t^\nu =((T_\mu ^sT_\nu ^tf)\eta _s^\mu )\eta _t^\nu `$ follows.

### II.3 Gauge Fields on Lattices

Let $`𝒞^k`$ be the color space $`_c`$ upon which gauge group $`G`$ is represented as $`R:GAut_𝒞(_c)`$. Directly product $``$ with $`_c`$ to form a new $`𝒜`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{}=_c`$. $`\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜))`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_c\omega ,\omega \pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜))`$ to which we will still use the symbol $`\omega `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)=End_𝒞(_c)\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒜))`$ consisting of differential forms valued in $`End_𝒞(_c)`$ which are still referred as differential forms without introducing confusion. A sequence of concepts in gauge theory can be developed following a conventional routine. Define connection 1-form to be

$$A=i\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}(A_\mu ^+\eta _+^\mu +A_\mu ^{}\eta _{}^\mu )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)$$

in which gauge potential $`A_\mu ^\pm `$ act trivially on spinor space $`_s`$. $`A`$ is required to be anti-hermitian, $`A^{}=A`$, hence satisfying that $`A_\mu ^{}=T_\mu ^{}(A_\mu ^+)`$. Let covariant differential be $`:=i𝒟+A`$, so $`^{}=`$. Introduce parallel transport by $`U_\mu ^\pm =\mathrm{𝟏}+A_\mu ^\pm `$, then

$$=i\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}(U_\mu ^+\eta _+^\mu +U_\mu ^{}\eta _{}^\mu )$$

and

$$U_\mu ^{}=T_\mu ^{}(U_\mu ^+)$$
(5)
Note importantly that $`U_\mu ^\pm `$ is referred as link variables in physical literature and that, however, no unitarity as a prescription is forced on $`U_\mu ^\pm `$ in this article. Curvature or field strength tensor is defined to be $`F==i\{𝒟,A\}_{}AA`$. It is easy to check that $`F^{}=F`$ and that Bianchi identity holds for $`F`$, namely $`i[,F]_{}=0`$. Even if the gauge group is abelian, there is still an $`A^2`$ term in curvature due to non-commutativity. The detailed form of $`F`$ can be computed using either gauge potentials $`A_\mu ^\pm `$ or parallel transports $`U_\mu ^\pm `$. After a sheet of paper’s algebra, one will reach that $`F=_{\mu \nu }(F_{\mu \nu }^{++}\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu +F_{\mu \nu }^+\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu +F_{\mu \nu }^+\eta _{}^\mu \eta _+^\nu +F_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu )`$ in which

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{++}=\frac{1}{2}((_\mu ^+A_\nu ^+_\nu ^+A_\mu ^+)+(A_\mu ^+(T_\mu ^+A_\nu ^+)A_\nu ^+(T_\nu ^+A_\mu ^+)))=\frac{1}{2}(U_\mu ^+(T_\mu ^+U_\nu ^+)U_\nu ^+(T_\nu ^+U_\mu ^+))$$
(6)
$$F_{\mu \nu }^+=\frac{1}{2}((_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^+_\nu ^{}A_\mu ^+)+(A_\mu ^+(T_\mu ^+A_\nu ^{})A_\nu ^{}(T_\nu ^{}A_\mu ^+)))=\frac{1}{2}(U_\mu ^+(T_\mu ^+U_\nu ^{})U_\nu ^{}(T_\nu ^{}U_\mu ^+))$$
(7)
and $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^+`$ can be given by +$``$\- in $`F_{\mu \nu }^{++}`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^+`$. We point out that the exchange of $`\pm `$ is a symmetry in our formalism which we will use broadly below, and that $`F_{\mu \nu }^{++}=F_{\nu \mu }^{++}`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}=F_{\nu \mu }^{}`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^+=F_{\nu \mu }^+`$.

Gauge transformations are 0-forms valued in $`R(G)`$, denoted by $`g`$. If connect 1-form transforms affinely as $`A^{}=gAg^1+ig[𝒟,g^1]`$, then covariant differential and curvature transform adjointly as $`^{}=gg^1,F^{}=gFg^1`$. Involution of covariant differential and curvature is compatible with any gauge transformation $`g`$, i.e. $`^{}=^{},F^{}=F^{}`$, if $`[,g^{}g]=0`$. Consequently, $`g^{}g`$ equals to unit up to an overall scalar factor; $`R`$ becomes a unitary representation if this factor equals to one. Nevertheless, in our understanding, the unitarity of representation $`R`$ does not imply necessarily the unitarity of link variables $`U_\mu ^\pm `$.

## III Inner Product on Differential Forms and Classical Action of Gauge Fields

An inner product of differential forms $`(,):\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)𝒞`$ has to be specified, such that classical action for gauge fields on this lattice can be written as

$$S[U]=\frac{1}{2(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)}(F,F)=\frac{1}{2(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)}(^2,^2)$$
(8)
First we introduce a hermitian structure $`,:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)End_𝒞(_c)End_𝒞(𝒜)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}tr_s(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{})`$ for all $`\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝒜)`$ where $`tr_s`$ is trace on $`End_𝒞(_s)`$. Then $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}):=tr_cSp\stackrel{~}{\omega },\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{}`$ where $`Sp`$ is the trace on $`End_𝒞(𝒜)`$ and $`tr_c`$ is the trace on $`End_𝒞(_c)`$. Gauge invariance is guaranteed naturally under this definition of $`S[U]`$. To simplify the calculation of $`S[U]`$, we rewrite $`F`$ to be

$$F=\underset{\mu \nu }{}(F_{\mu \nu }^{++}\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu +F_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu +2F_{\mu \nu }^+\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu )$$

Consider a metric tensor

$$g_{(2)}:=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho & \eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho & \eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho \\ \eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho & \eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho & \eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho \\ \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho & \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho & \eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho \end{array}\right)$$

Due the +$``$\- symmetry, $`\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$, $`\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$, $`\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho `$, $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$. Therefore, only $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho `$, $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$, $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$, $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$, $`\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho `$ need to be computed. Some algebra is needed to show

$$\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _+^\rho =\frac{1}{4}(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)(\delta ^{\mu \lambda }\delta ^{\nu \rho }\delta ^{\mu \rho }\delta ^{\nu \lambda })\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏}$$

$$\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =\frac{1}{4}(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)\delta ^{\mu \lambda }\delta ^{\nu \rho }\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏}$$

$$\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\lambda \eta _{}^\rho =0$$

Consequently,

$$g_{(2)}=\frac{1}{4}(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\delta ^{\mu \lambda }\delta ^{\nu \rho }\delta ^{\mu \rho }\delta ^{\nu \lambda })& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta ^{\mu \lambda }\delta ^{\nu \rho }& 0\\ 0& 0& (\delta ^{\mu \lambda }\delta ^{\nu \rho }\delta ^{\mu \rho }\delta ^{\nu \lambda })\end{array}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏}$$

Now apply the result of $`g_{(2)}`$,

$$F,F=\underset{\mu \nu \mu ^{}\nu ^{}}{}(T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^+(F_{\mu \nu }^+F_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^+)\eta _+^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _+^\mu ^{}\eta _{}^\nu ^{}+$$

$$T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^{}(F_{\mu \nu }^{++}F_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^{++})\eta _+^\mu \eta _+^\nu ,\eta _+^\mu ^{}\eta _+^\nu ^{}+T_\mu ^+T_\nu ^+(F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^{})\eta _{}^\mu \eta _{}^\nu ,\eta _{}^\mu ^{}\eta _{}^\nu ^{})$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)\underset{\mu \nu }{}(2T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^+(F_{\mu \nu }^+F_{\mu \nu }^+)+T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^{}(F_{\mu \nu }^{++}F_{\mu \nu }^{++})+T_\mu ^+T_\nu ^+(F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}))$$
(9)
Substitute detailed expressions in Eqs.(6)(7) into (9), and notice anti-hermitian condition (5),

$$F,F=W+(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)S$$

in which the symbols are defined in the following way:
Wilson term

$$W=\frac{1}{4}(tr_s\mathrm{𝟏}_s)\underset{\mu \nu }{}(_{\mu \nu }^++_{\mu \nu }^++_{\mu \nu }^{++}+_{\mu \nu }^{})$$

$$_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(P_{\mu \nu }^\pm +P_{\nu \mu }^\pm )\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏},_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }=\frac{1}{2}(P_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }+P_{\nu \mu }^{\pm \pm })\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏},\mu \nu $$

$$P_{\mu \nu }^+=U_\mu ^{}(T_\mu ^{}U_\nu ^+)(T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^+U_\mu ^+)(T_\nu ^+U_\nu ^{}),P_{\mu \nu }^+=P_{\mu \nu }^+(+),\mu \nu $$

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_\mu ^{}(T_\mu ^{}U_\nu ^{})(T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^{}U_\mu ^+)(T_\nu ^{}U_\nu ^+),P_{\mu \nu }^{++}=P_{\mu \nu }^{}(+),\mu \nu $$

and an additional term

$$S=\frac{1}{8}\underset{\mu \nu }{}(S_{\mu \nu }^++S_{\nu \mu }^++S_{\mu \nu }^++S_{\nu \mu }^++S_{\mu \nu }^{++}+S_{\nu \mu }^{++}+S_{\mu \nu }^{}+S_{\nu \mu }^{})+\frac{1}{4}\underset{\mu }{}(S_\mu ^{++}+S_\mu ^{}S_\mu ^+S_\mu ^+)$$

$$S_{\mu \nu }^\pm =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏},S_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏},\mu \nu $$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^+=U_\nu ^+(T_\nu ^+U_\mu ^{})(T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^+U_\mu ^+)(T_\nu ^+U_\nu ^{}),\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^+=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^+(+),\mu \nu $$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{}=U_\nu ^{}(T_\nu ^{}U_\mu ^{})(T_\mu ^{}T_\nu ^{}U_\mu ^+)(T_\nu ^{}U_\nu ^+),\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{++}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{}(+),\mu \nu $$

$$S_\mu ^\pm =\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\pm \mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏},S_\mu ^{\pm \pm }=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\pm \pm }\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏}$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^+=U_\mu ^{}(T_\mu ^{}U_\mu ^+)U_\mu ^+(T_\mu ^+U_\mu ^{}),\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^+=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^+(+)$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{}=U_\mu ^{}(T_\mu ^{}U_\mu ^+)U_\mu ^{}(T_\mu ^{}U_\mu ^+),\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{++}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{}(+)$$

The geometric interpretations of $`P_{\mu \nu }^{st}(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{st}(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{st}(x)`$ are Wilson-loop operators of parallel transports illustrated as

$$P_{\mu \nu }^\pm (x):x(x\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\widehat{\mu }\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\widehat{\mu })x$$

$$P_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }(x):x(x\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\pm \widehat{\mu }\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\pm \widehat{\mu })x$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\pm (x):x(x\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\widehat{\mu }\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\pm \widehat{\nu })x$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm }(x):x(x\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\pm \widehat{\mu }\pm \widehat{\nu })(x\pm \widehat{\nu })x$$

where $`\mu \nu `$, and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\pm (x):x(x\pm \widehat{\mu })x(x\widehat{\mu })x$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\pm \pm }(x):x(x\pm \widehat{\mu })x(x\pm \widehat{\mu })x$$

The Wilson-loops producing $`P_{\mu \nu }^{st}(x)`$ span fundamental plaquettes, while those producing $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{st}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{st}(x)`$ span no area. Involutive properties can be checked as

$$(P_{\mu \nu }^\pm )^{}=P_{\nu \mu }^\pm ,(P_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm })^{}=P_{\nu \mu }^{\pm \pm },\mu \nu $$

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\pm )^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\pm ,(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm })^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{\pm \pm },\mu \nu $$

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\pm )^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^\pm ,(\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\pm \pm })^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\pm \pm }$$

Collect these results and calculate $`S[U]`$ in Eq.(8) giving

$$S[U]=S_W[U]+S_{NU}[U]$$

$`S_W`$ is of the form of standard Wilson action for lattice gauge fields in LFT up to a normalization factor

$$S_W[U]=\underset{f.p.}{}tr_c(f.p.)$$

where f.p. refers to fundamental plaquette and $`(f.p.)`$ equals to one $`_{\mu \nu }^{st}(x)`$ whose $`()^s\widehat{\mu },()^t\widehat{\nu }`$ span this fundamental plaquette; while,

$$S_{NU}[U]=\frac{1}{2}Sp(tr_cS)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x𝒵^n}{}(tr_cS)(x)$$

and will vanish if parallel transport $`U_\mu ^\pm `$ satisfy unitarity $`(U_\mu ^\pm )^{}U_\mu ^\pm =\mathrm{𝟏}_c\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

## IV Discussions

### IV.1 Non-unitary Link Variables

After the tedious calculation in the last section, we show that an additional term gaining contributions from those Wilson-loops spanning no area has to be added to the classical action of gauge fields on the lattice, if no unitarity of link variables is assumed. Here we illustrate the geometric significance of non-unitary parallel transports on Connes’ distance by an one-dimensional example. Connes’ distance on $`𝒵^n`$ can be defined by $`d_𝒟(x,y)=sup\{|f(x)f(y)|:[𝒟,\pi (f)]1\},x,y𝒵^n`$. Let $`n=1,k=1`$, then $`𝒟,`$ take on the forms like

$$𝒟_{n=1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& T^+\\ T^{}& 0\end{array}\right),_{n=1}=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& U^+T^+\\ U^{}T^{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

In , it is showed that $`d_{𝒟_{n=1}}(x,y)=|xy|`$. Now consider $`d_{(i)_{n=1}}(x,y)`$, and one can check that $`[(i),\pi (f)]=sup\{|U^+|^2(x)|^+f|^2(x):x𝒵\}`$, noticing the anti-hermitian condition Eq.(5); therefore, if $`U^+`$ is unitary, $`d_{(i)_{n=1}}=d_{𝒟_{n=1}}`$, else then

$$d_{(i)_{n=1}}(x,x+k)=\frac{1}{|U^+(x)|}+\frac{1}{|U^+(x+1)|}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{|U^+(x+k1)|}$$

for all $`x𝒵,k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, namely non-unitary link variables will modify induced metric on lattices.

### IV.2 Mathematical Rigidity

Till now we do not apply Connes’ formalism in a restrictive manner. In fact in , Rennie showed that what are recovered from Connes’ axioms for commutative algebras are necessarily $`spin^𝒞`$-manifolds. Hence, a lattice is outside to be a rigid model of Connes’ formalism being applied to commutative algebras, unless additional structures like a real structure or equivalently a charge conjugation in physics jargons is considered. As one aspect of this contradiction in our understanding, most constructions of Dirac-Connes operators on discrete sets including ours fail to fulfill first order axiom which requires $`[[𝒟,f],g]=0,f,g𝒜`$. However, it can be shown that the “error” caused by this violation is proportional to the lattice spacing. In fact, introduce $`a`$ to be lattice spacing and still consider the previous one-dimensional example with $`T^\pm T^\pm /a`$ in the expression of $`𝒟_{n=1}`$ and $`^\pm (T^\pm \mathrm{𝟏})/a`$, there is

$$[[𝒟,\pi (f)],\pi (f^{})]=a\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (^+f)(^+f^{})T^+\\ (^{}f)(^{}f^{})T^{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
Under continuum limit, the should-be vanishing of Eq.(10) is restored. As a suggestion, we would like to modify first order axiom on lattices to be $`[[𝒟,f],g]=𝒪(a),f,g𝒜`$, where $`𝒪`$ measures the convergency of operators under continuum limit.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Climb-Up (Pan Deng) Project of Department of Science and Technology in China, Chinese National Science Foundation and Doctoral Programme Foundation of Institution of Higher Education in China. We are grateful to Alejandro Rivero for his reminding that our geometric square-root condition is essentially the condition for Fredholm operator with zero index.


format: text

text:
# Abstract

Morse theory for the Yang-Mills functional

via equivariant homotopy theory

U. Gritsch

MSC numbers: 58E15, 55P91

###### Abstract

In this paper we show the existence of non minimal critical points of the Yang-Mills functional over a certain family of 4-manifolds $`\{M_{2g}:g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ with generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metrics using Morse and homotopy theoretic methods. These manifolds are acted on fixed point freely by the Lie group $`SU(2)`$ with quotient a compact Riemann surface of even genus. We use a version of invariant Morse theory for the Yang-Mills functional used by Parker in \[Pa1\] and Råde in \[Rå\].

###### 1 Introduction

In this paper we construct a family of Riemannian spin 4-manifolds, denoted by $`\{M_{2g}:g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, acted on by the Lie group $`SU(2)`$ and prove an existence result for non minimal critical points of the Yang-Mills functional over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ (for $`g1`$ ) for generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metrics. The manifold $`M_{2g}`$ is the product of a compact Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ of even genus and the two-sphere $`S^2`$ modulo an involution. The $`SU(2)`$-action is the standard action on $`S^2`$ and the trivial action on $`_{2g}`$. In section 3.4 we prove

###### Theorem 3.4.10

Fix $`g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ be the positive and negative $`SU(2)`$-equivariant spinor bundles over the 4-manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Fix an $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric.

(i) The Yang-Mills functional restricted to the invariant orbit space $`𝒴:_{SU(2)}𝐑`$ over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ has at least $`2g+1`$ critical points on each of the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

(ii) In the case $`g=0`$ for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric the critical point on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ cannot be self dual and on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ it cannot be anti self dual. In the case $`g2`$ for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric at least one of the critical points on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ cannot be anti self dual and at least one of the critical points on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ cannot be self dual.

By Palais’ principle of symmetric criticality \[Pal2\] each of the critical points in (i) is a critical point of the Yang-Mills functional on the non-equivariant orbit space $`𝒴:𝐑`$, i.e. they are Yang-Mills connections.

For a long time it was conjectured that by analogy with the harmonic map problem on the two-sphere the Yang-Mills functional on the 4-sphere does not have other critical points besides the self dual and anti self dual connections. In \[SSU\] L.M. Sibner, R.J. Sibner and K.K. Uhlenbeck however construct a sequence of non minimal critical points on the trivial $`SU(2)`$-bundle on the 4-sphere with the round metric. In \[SS\] L. Sadun and J. Segert find a critical point of the Yang-Mills functional on every $`SU(2)`$-principal bundle $`\eta `$ over the 4-sphere $`S^4`$ with the standard metric provided its second Chern class $`c_2(\eta )`$ is not equal to $`\pm 1`$. In \[Wan\] H.-Y. Wang proves the existence of an infinite number of irreducible $`SU(2)`$-connections over the manifolds $`S^2\times S^2`$ and $`S^1\times S^3`$ with the standard metrics which are non minimal solutions to the Yang-Mills equations. Finally in \[Pa2\] T.H. Parker proves the existence of irreducible non-minimal Yang-Mills fields on the trivial bundle over $`S_L^1\times S^3`$ for some $`L`$, where $`S_L^1`$ denotes the circle of radius $`L`$; and he shows that there exists a family of metrics on the 4-sphere $`S^4`$ each of which admits an irreducible Yang-Mills field on the trivial $`SU(2)`$-bundle.

Naturally one would like to do Morse theory for the Yang-Mills functional defined on the space of connections on a principle bundle over a Riemannian 4-manifold modulo the action of the gauge group. Since this space $``$ is infinite dimensional the Yang-Mills functional needs to satisfy a certain compactness condition, called the Palais-Smale condition. However, by Uhlenbeck’s weak compactness theorem, it is well-known that the Yang-Mills functional defined on the orbit space $``$ does not satisfy this condition.

As noted in \[Pa1\] this problem does not occur if the 4-manifold $`M`$ is acted on by a compact Lie group $`H`$ such that the action has no zero dimensional orbits and we restrict the Yang-Mills functional to the orbit space $`_H`$ of $`H`$-invariant connections modulo the $`H`$-invariant gauge group.

A proof was outlined in \[Pa1\] that the Yang-Mills functional defined on the invariant orbit space $`_H`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition provided the orbit space $`_H`$ has no singularities. Unfortunately this proof contains a gap: It is not clear that one can choose good invariant gauges. A different proof was given recently by J. Råde in \[Rå\]. (See also section 3.1 of this paper).

In \[Pa1\] Parker uses his Morse theory to reprove Sadun’s and Segert’s result in \[SS\] using a fixed point free $`SU(2)`$-action on $`S^4`$ called the quadrupole action. There is also a fixed point free $`SU(2)`$-action on $`S^2\times S^2`$ but Parker’s Morse theory is too weak to establish the existence of irreducible non (anti) self dual Yang-Mills connections. The manifold $`M_{2g}`$ in theorem 3.4.10 is acted on fixed point freely by the Lie group $`SU(2)`$, too.

The general strategy to prove theorem 3.4.10 as proposed by Parker in \[Pa1\] is as follows. Let $`_H_H`$ denote the subspace of the absolute minima of the Yang-Mills functional modulo the invariant gauge group. We assume that the second Chern class of the bundle we are working with is positive. Then the absolute minima of the Yang-Mills functional are the anti self dual connections and there are no self dual connections. (By changing the orientation we obtain the opposite case of negative second Chern class). If the inclusion $`\iota :_H_H`$ is not a homotopy equivalence then the Palais-Smale condition for the Yang-Mills functional implies the existence of at least one non minimal critical point of the Yang-Mills functional on the space $`_H`$. For otherwise the retraction along the flow lines of the gradient flow of the Yang-Mills functional would give a homotopy inverse of the inclusion $`\iota :_H_H`$.

It follows from Uhlenbeck’s weak convergence theorem and its equivariant versions in \[Cho\] and \[Ba\] that if the bundle $`\eta `$ does not admit a reducible $`H`$-invariant anti self dual connection for any metric then for a generic $`H`$-invariant metric the moduli space $`_H`$ is a (possibly empty) compact closed manifold of a dimension which can be computed using the equivariant Atiyah-Singer index theorem.

Denote by $`_H^0`$ the based invariant orbit space of invariant connections modulo the based invariant gauge group. In section 2 of this paper we identify the weak homotopy type of the space $`_H^0`$ in terms of an invariant mapping space. This is a direct generalization from the corresponding non equivariant theorem in \[AB, prop. 2.4, p.540\] or \[DK, prop. 5.1.4, p.174\]. It will turn out that in our example of theorem 3.4.10 (for $`M=M_{2g}`$ and $`H=SU(2)`$) the orbit spaces $`_H`$ and $`_H^0`$ are homeomorphic. Then the information on the homotopy type of the space $`_H`$ and the dimension of the manifold $`_H`$ for generic $`H`$-invariant metrics will be enough to deduce that the inclusion $`_H_H`$ cannot be a homotopy equivalence.

In section 3.2 we define the manifolds $`M_{2g}`$ for $`g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ acted on fixed point freely by the Lie group $`SU(2)`$, show that they are spin and compute the second Chern classes of the positive and negative spinor bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. In section 3.3 we compute the homotopy type of the invariant orbit space $`_{SU(2)}`$ and in section 3.4 we prove theorem 3.4.10.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank my advisor Ralph Cohen for suggesting the problem and for constant support and encouragement. I thank the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes for a dissertation fellowship. This paper is part of my Ph.D. thesis written at Stanford University, 1997.

###### 2 The homotopy type of the space $`_H^0`$

###### 2.1 Notation and terminology

Let $`M`$ be a closed oriented Riemannian 4-manifold and let $`\eta =(PM)`$ be an $`SU(2)`$-principal bundle over the manifold $`M`$. Denote by $`𝒜`$ the space of smooth connections on the bundle $`\eta `$. Let $`𝒢`$ be the group of smooth gauge transformations of this bundle. This means that elements $`g𝒢`$ are smooth automorphisms of the bundle $`\eta `$. Let $`𝒢^0`$ be the subgroup of the group $`𝒢`$ of gauge transformations whose elements are the identity over a given base point $`mM`$.

Let $`H`$ be a compact Lie group acting smoothly on the manifold $`M`$ on the left. We also assume that the action lifts to the total space $`P`$ of the bundle $`\eta `$ such that the left action of the Lie group $`H`$ on the total space $`P`$ commutes with the right action of the structure group $`SU(2)`$ on $`P`$. We define the invariant gauge group $`𝒢_H`$ to be the subgroup of the gauge group $`𝒢`$ such that each gauge transformation commutes with the action of the Lie group $`H`$ on the total space $`P`$ of the bundle $`\eta `$. Analogously we define the based invariant gauge group $`𝒢_H^0`$ to be the equivariant gauge transformations which are the identity over a given based orbit $`𝒪_mM`$.

The groups $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢^0`$ act naturally on the space of connections $`𝒜`$ from the right by the pull back of connections. We define the orbit space $``$ to be the space $`𝒜/𝒢`$ of connections modulo the action of the gauge group and the based orbit space $`^0`$ to be the space $`𝒜/𝒢^0`$ of connections modulo the action of the based gauge group.

The left action of the group $`H`$ on the bundle $`\eta `$ induces a right action on the space of connections $`𝒜`$ again by the pull back of connections. The fixed points of this action are called $`H`$-invariant connections. We denote the space of fixed points by $`𝒜_H`$. The invariant groups $`𝒢_H`$ and $`𝒢_H^0`$ act on the space of invariant connections $`𝒜_H`$ as above. As in the non-equivariant setting we define the invariant orbit space $`_H`$ to be the space $`𝒜_H/𝒢_H`$ of invariant connections modulo the invariant gauge group and the based invariant orbit space $`_H^0`$ to be the space $`𝒜_H/𝒢_H^0`$ of invariant connections modulo the based invariant gauge group.

It is customary in gauge theory to complete the space $`𝒜`$ in the $`L^{2,2}`$-Sobolev norm and the gauge group $`𝒢`$ in the $`L^{3,2}`$-Sobolev norm using a fixed connection $`A`$ on the bundle $`\eta `$. For notational convenience we still denote the completed space of connections by $`𝒜`$ and the completed gauge group by $`𝒢`$. Then the group $`𝒢`$ is a Hilbert Lie group which acts smoothly on the space of connections $`𝒜`$. Analogously we complete the space of invariant connections $`𝒜_H`$ in the $`L^{2,2}`$-Sobolev norm and the invariant gauge group $`𝒢_H`$ in the $`L^{3,2}`$-norm using an $`H`$-invariant connection which we fix once and for all. The based gauge group $`𝒢^0`$ is a closed subgroup (in the $`L^{3,2}`$-norm) of the full gauge group $`𝒢`$. The same holds for the based invariant gauge group $`𝒢_H^0`$. The orbit spaces $``$ and $`^0`$ and the invariant orbit spaces $`_H`$ and $`_H^0`$ inherit a topology from the $`L^{2,2}`$-norm on the space of connections $`𝒜`$ or the space of invariant connections $`𝒜_H`$.

The results of section 2 are also true if we complete the spaces $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_H`$ using Morrey norms as used in \[Rå\]. This will be used in section 3 and explained in 3.1. The reader can also take the spaces $``$ and $`_H`$ to be the smooth (invariant) connections modulo the smooth (invariant) gauge group together with a topology induced from Sobolev or Morrey norms on the space of smooth (invariant) connections.

###### 2.2 Classification of equivariant bundles

In order to get a model for the space $`_H^0`$ in terms of an equivariant mapping space we need to classify equivariant principal bundles. These are classified in much the same way as ordinary bundles are. For computational reasons which will become clear later we prefer to describe the classification theory of equivariant vector bundles. However the classification theories of equivariant vector bundles and equivariant principal bundles are really equivalent. We only give definitions and state results.

Let $`V`$ be a fixed unitary $`H`$-representation. Let $`G_n(V^k)`$ be the Grassmannian of unitary $`n`$-planes in the vector space $`V^k=\underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{V\mathrm{}V}}`$ for $`k>n`$. The group $`H`$ acts naturally on the space $`G_n(V^k)`$ because it acts on the space $`V^k`$. We denote by $`G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})=lim_k\mathrm{}G_n(V^k)`$ the direct limit as an $`H`$-equivariant space. Let $`\gamma _n(V^k)=(E_n(V^k)G_n(V^k))`$ denote the canonical unitary bundle over the Grassmannian. The fiber over a plane $`PG_n(V^k)`$ are the points $`pP`$. The $`H`$-action on the Grassmannian lifts naturally to an $`H`$-action on the total space of the canonical bundle giving this bundle the structure of an $`H`$-equivariant bundle. We take the limit $`E_n(V^{\mathrm{}})=lim_k\mathrm{}E_n(V^k)`$ and obtain the $`H`$-equivariant bundle $`\gamma _n(V^{\mathrm{}})=(\pi :E_n(V^{\mathrm{}})G_n(V^{\mathrm{}}))`$.

Define $`\mathrm{Vect}_H^{V,n}(M)`$ to be the isomorphism classes of $`H`$-equivariant unitary $`n`$-dimensional vector bundles over $`M`$ with the following property: For every $`mM`$ the isotropy representation of the isotropy group $`H_m`$ on the fiber over $`m`$ is equivalent to a sub-module of the $`H_m`$-module $`V^n`$ induced by the given $`H`$-module $`V`$. We call such vector bundles “subordinate to the representation $`V`$”. Let $`[M,G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})]^H`$ denote the $`H`$-equivariant homotopy classes of the $`H`$-maps from the manifold $`M`$ to the equivariant Grassmannian $`G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.1

\[Wasserman, Segal\] The map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [M,G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})]^H& \mathrm{Vect}_H^{V,n}(M)\hfill \\ \hfill [f]& (f^{}(\gamma _n(V^{\mathrm{}})))\hfill \end{array}$$

is well defined, natural in $`M`$ and an isomorphism. The same classification theorem holds in the case of orthogonal or symplectic equivariant vector bundles if we choose the $`H`$-module $`V`$ to be orthogonal or symplectic.

Proof. A proof can be found in \[Wa, section 2, p.132\] in the case of orthogonal equivariant vector bundles. The same proof carries over to unitary and symplectic equivariant vector bundles. A proof of a similar result in the case of complex vector bundles over a compact manifold is also given in \[Se, section 1, p.131\].

We need a similar classification theorem for bundles with a fixed equivariant trivialization over a fixed orbit. Fix one orbit $`𝒪_mH/H_m`$ for some $`mM`$ once and for all. Let $`\mathrm{Vect}_{H,0}^{V,n}(M)`$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of equivariant $`n`$-dimensional unitary vector bundles over $`M`$ subordinate to the representation $`V`$ together with a fixed trivialization over the orbit $`𝒪_m`$. Fix a point $`G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$. Let $`[M,G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})]_0^H`$ denote the equivariant pointed homotopy classes of $`H`$-maps $`f:MG_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$ which map the point $`m`$ to the chosen point $`G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$ and hence which map the orbit $`𝒪_mM`$ to the orbit $`𝒪_{}G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.2

Assume that the manifold $`M`$ is compact. There is a point $`G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})`$ such that the map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [M,G_n(V^{\mathrm{}})]_0^H& \mathrm{Vect}_{H,0}^{V,n}\hfill \\ \hfill [f]& (f^{}(\gamma _n(V^{\mathrm{}})))\hfill \end{array}$$

is well defined, natural in $`M`$ and an isomorphism. The same classification theorem holds in the case of orthogonal or symplectic equivariant vector bundles if we choose the $`H`$-module $`V`$ to be orthogonal or symplectic.

Proof. The proof of theorem 2.2.2 uses the same methods as the proof of theorem 2.2.1 working in the category of based equivariant vector bundles.

###### 2.3 The weak homotopy equivalence $`_H^0\mathrm{Map}_H^0(M,B(H,Sp(1)))^\eta `$

Recall that $`\eta =(PM)`$ is an $`H`$-equivariant $`SU(2)Sp(1)`$-principal bundle and we also denote by $`\eta =(E=P\times _{Sp(1)}𝐇M)`$ the associated quaternionic line bundle with structure group $`SU(2)Sp(1)`$. Choose an orbit $`𝒪_mH/H_m`$ in $`M`$ and a fixed trivialization of the bundle $`\eta `$ over $`𝒪_m`$. Choose a quaternionic representation $`V`$ of the group $`Sp(1)`$ such that the vector bundle $`\eta `$ is subordinate to $`V`$. Denote by $`B(H,Sp(1))=G_1(V^{\mathrm{}})`$ the corresponding Grassmannian which classifies the vector bundle $`\eta `$ together with the trivialization over the orbit $`𝒪_m`$ according to theorem 2.2.2. In the following if an $`H`$-equivariant vector bundle $`\xi `$ is subordinate to an $`H`$-module $`V`$ we say that the associated principle frame bundle (also denoted by $`\xi `$) is subordinate to the $`H`$-module $`V`$ as well. Also, throughout this paper, we give all spaces of maps the compact-open topology.

To prove the weak homotopy equivalence

$$_H^0\mathrm{Map}_H^0(M,B(H,Sp(1)))^\eta $$

(where the right hand side denotes the component of the mapping space of maps which classify the bundle $`\eta `$) we follow the proof of the corresponding non-equivariant result

$$^0\mathrm{Map}^0(M,B(Sp(1)))^\eta $$

in \[DK, prop. 514, p.174\].

As in \[DK, (5.1.5), p.175\] associated to the $`H`$-equivariant $`SU(2)`$-principal bundle $`\eta =(PM)`$ we have the bundle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ over the base $`_H^0\times M`$ defined as $`SU(2)𝒜_H\times _{𝒢_H^0}P_H^0\times M`$. The bundle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is in a natural way an $`H`$-equivariant bundle and hence it is classified by an $`H`$-equivariant map $`\delta :_H^0\times MG_1(V^{\mathrm{}})=B(H,Sp(1))`$. Here $`V`$ is an $`H`$-module to which the bundle $`\eta `$ (and therefore also the bundle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$) is subordinate.

###### Theorem 2.3.1

The adjoint of the map $`\delta `$

$$\delta ^{ad}:_H^0\mathrm{Map}_H^0(M,B(H,Sp(1)))^\eta $$

is well-defined and induces a weak homotopy equivalence.

Proof. The proof is a technical modification of the analogous result in the non-equivariant setting given in \[DK, prop. 5.1.4, p. 174\]. One uses a universal family of $`H`$-invariant framed connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

###### 3 Non minimal critical points of the Yang-Mills functional

In the remaining part of this paper we construct the family $`\{M_{2g}:g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of 4-manifolds and prove theorem 3.4.10.

###### 3.1 Analytical background

We introduce certain completions of the spaces $`𝒜`$, $`𝒜_H`$, $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_H`$ not usually used in gauge theory but used in \[Rå, §4\]. Using these norms J. Råde is able to show (\[Rå, Corollary 3, p. 3\]) that the Yang-Mills functional on the space $`_H=𝒜_H/𝒢_H`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition provided the group $`H`$ acts isometrically with no zero dimensional orbits on the manifold $`M`$ and the $`H`$-equivariant principal bundle $`\eta =(SU(2)PM)`$ has no reducible connections. (A connection is called reducible if its isotropy group of the action of the gauge group on the space of connections is larger than the subgroup $`𝐙_2=\{\pm 1\}`$ of constant gauge transformations).

The Morrey space $`L_\lambda ^p(𝐑^n)=L_\lambda ^{0,p}(𝐑^n)`$, with $`p[1,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\lambda 𝐑`$, is defined as the space of all $`fL^p(𝐑^n)`$ such that

$$\underset{\rho (0,1]}{sup}\underset{x𝐑^n}{sup}\rho ^{\lambda n}f_{L^p(B_\rho (x))}^p<\mathrm{}.$$

It is a Banach space with norm

$$f_{L_\lambda ^p(𝐑^n)}^p=f_{L^p(𝐑^n)}^p+\underset{\rho (0,1]}{sup}\underset{x𝐑^n}{sup}\rho ^{\lambda m}f_{L^p(B_\rho (x))}^p.$$

The Morrey space $`L_\lambda ^{k,p}(𝐑^n)`$ with $`k`$ a positive integer, $`p[1,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\lambda 𝐑`$, is defined as the space of all $`fL_\lambda ^{k,p}(𝐑^n)`$ such that $`^\alpha fL_\lambda ^p(𝐑^n)`$ for all $`\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |k`$. It is a Banach space with norm

$$f_{L_\lambda ^{k,p}(𝐑^n)}^p=\underset{|\alpha |k}{}^\alpha f_{L_\lambda ^p(𝐑^n)}^p.$$

The global Morrey spaces $`L_\lambda ^{k,p}(M)`$ are defined using a local trivialization on the manifold $`M`$ (\[Rå, p.10\]).

The reason, why Morrey spaces are useful in equivariant gauge theory are the following two observations made in \[Rå\].

###### Lemma 3.4.1

(Special case of \[Rå, Lemma 4.1, p.11 \]) Let $`H`$ be a compact Lie group that acts smoothly on the manifold $`M`$, in such a way that all $`H`$-orbits have dimension $`1`$, and that acts smoothly on the bundle $`\eta `$. If $`sL^{k,p}(M,\eta )`$ with $`k𝐙`$ and $`p[1,\mathrm{})`$, is $`H`$-invariant, then $`sL_s^{k,p}(M,\eta )`$. If $`A`$ is a $`H`$-invariant connection on $`\eta `$, then

$$s_{L_{3,A}^{k,p}(M)}^pcs_{L_A^{k,p}(M)}^p.$$

The constant $`c`$ only depends on the Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and on the orbits of the action of the group $`H`$ on the manifold $`M`$.

The second point is that the Morrey spaces $`L_d^{k,p}`$ in $`n`$ dimensions satisfy “the same” embedding theorems as the Sobolev spaces $`L^{k,p}`$ in $`d`$ dimensions. Hence we get multiplications

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_3^{2,2}\times L_3^{2,2}& L_3^{2,2}\hfill \\ \hfill L_3^{2,2}\times L_3^{1,2}& L_3^{1,2}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{and}L_3^{1,2}\times L_3^{1,2}& L_3^3L^2(\text{see [Rå, p.12]}).\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that if we complete the gauge groups $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_H`$ and the spaces $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_H`$ in the $`L_3^{2,2}`$\- and $`L_3^{1,2}`$-norm respectively then $`𝒢`$ and $`𝒢_H`$ are Hilbert Lie groups that acts smoothly on $`𝒜`$ or $`𝒜_H`$ and the Yang-Mills functional is continuous on $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_H`$.

J. Råde is now able to show in \[Rå, Corollary 3, p.3\] that the Yang-Mills functional on the space $`_H=𝒜_H/𝒢_H`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition provided the group $`H`$ acts isometrically with no zero dimensional orbits on the manifold $`M`$ and the $`H`$-equivariant principal bundle $`\eta =(SU(2)PM)`$ has no reducible connections.

If the bundle $`\eta `$ does not admit reducible connections the invariant orbit space $`_H`$ is an infinite dimensional Hilbert manifold. The $`L^{1,2}`$-metric on the space of invariant connections $`𝒜_H`$ is $`𝒢_H`$-invariant and descends to a metric on the manifold $`_H`$. Lemma 3.1.1 shows that the space $`_H`$ together with the $`L_3^{1,2}`$-topology and the $`L^{1,2}`$-metric is a complete Riemannian manifold.

###### 3.2 The manifold $`M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$

Let $`_{2g}`$ denote an oriented Riemann surface of genus $`2g`$. We denote by $`S(v)`$ the unit sphere in the representation $`v`$ where $`v`$ is the standard representation of the Lie group $`SO(3)`$ on $`𝐑^3`$. The space $`S(v)`$ has an induced $`SO(3)`$-action. Topologically the represenation sphere $`S(v)`$ is just the 2-sphere $`S^2`$. We define an involution $`\sigma `$ on the product $`_{2g}\times S(v)`$ as follows. We think of the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ as being obtained from two oriented Riemann surfaces $`_g`$ of genus $`g`$ with a 2-disk $`D^2`$ removed and glued along the boundary $`S^1`$, i.e.

$$_{2g}=(_gD^2)_{S^1}(_gD^2).$$

We say that one of the surfaces $`_gD^2`$ is positive and think of it as lying above the circle $`S^1`$. We call the other negative, think of it as lying below the circle $`S^1`$ and as the mirror image of the positive one. Then there is an involution

$$\sigma _1:_{2g}_{2g}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.2.1})`$
fixing the “gluing circle” $`S^1`$ and interchanging the positive and negative surfaces.

Example 3.2.2. In the case $`g=0`$ the involution $`\sigma _1`$ is the map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma _1:S^2& S^2\hfill \\ \hfill \sigma _1(x,y,z)& =(x,y,z).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\sigma _2:S(v)S(v)`$ be the reflection through the origin, i.e., $`\sigma _2(x,y,z)=(x,y,z)`$. Then we define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma :_{2g}\times S(v)& _{2g}\times S(v)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{by}\sigma (v,w)& =(\sigma _1(v),\sigma _2(w)).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.2.3})`$
Since the involutions $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are both orientation reversing the involution $`\sigma :_{2g}\times S(v)_{2g}\times S(v)`$ is orientation preserving. Also since the involution $`\sigma :_{2g}\times S(v)_{2g}\times S(v)`$ has no fixed points the quotient

$$M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)$$
$`(\mathrm{3.2.4})`$
is a closed oriented 4-manifold. Any pair of metrics on the two-sphere $`S(v)`$ invariant under the involution $`\sigma _2`$ and on the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ invariant under the involution $`\sigma _1`$ induce a metric on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. We fix one arbitrary metric on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$.

The action of the Lie group $`SO(3)`$ on the sphere $`S(v)`$ commutes with the reflection through the origin in $`S(v)`$ and hence we obtain an $`SO(3)`$-action on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ by letting the group $`SO(3)`$ act trivially on the surface $`_{2g}`$ and by the action on $`S(v)`$. For technical reasons which will become clear later we consider the induced $`SU(2)`$-action on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. This action has no fixed points as $`SO(3)`$ acts transitively on $`S(v)`$. Also since the group $`SU(2)`$ is connected it acts in an orientation preserving fashion on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Since the group $`SU(2)`$ is compact we can assume that the chosen metric on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ is $`SU(2)`$-invariant.

###### Lemma 3.2.5

The manifold $`M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ is a spin manifold.

Proof. Let $`TM_{2g}`$ denote the tangent bundle of the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. We have to show that the second Stiefel-Whitney class

$$\omega _2(TM_{2g})H^2(M_{2g};𝐙_2)=\mathrm{Hom}(H_2(M_{2g};𝐙_2);𝐙_2)$$

is zero. Let $`\{x_i:iI\}H_2(M_{2g};𝐙_2)`$ be a generating set of $`H_2(M_{2g};𝐙_2)`$ and represent every element $`x_i`$ by a map $`f_i:XM_{2g}`$ where $`X`$ is a compact surface. It is enough to show that for every map $`f_i`$ as above the pull back bundle $`f_i^{}(TM_{2g})`$ is trivial. We now only sketch the argument.

The group $`H_2(M_{2g};𝐙_2)H_2(M_{2g};𝐙)𝐙_2\mathrm{Tor}(H_1(M_{2g};𝐙);𝐙_2)𝐙_2𝐙_2`$ is generated by two cycles $`f_1e_1^+`$ and $`f_0e_2^+`$ chosen as follows. On the two-sphere $`S(v)`$ we choose a CW-decomposition symmetric under the reflection through the origin consisting of two 0-cells $`e_0^+`$ and $`e_0^{}`$, two 1-cells $`e_1^+`$ and $`e_1^{}`$ and two 2-cells $`e_2^+`$ and $`e_2^{}`$. The cell $`f_0`$ denotes a 0-cell on the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ which lies on the “gluing circle”. Then $`f_1e_1^+`$ and $`f_0e_2^+`$ denote the images of the cartesian products of the appropriate cells on the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ and the two sphere $`S(v)`$ under the projection $`\pi :_{2g}\times S(v)_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$.

The map $`f:𝐑P^2_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$ given by $`[x][f_0,x]`$ represents the torsion element $`f_0e_2^+`$. One shows that $`f^{}(TM_{2g})`$ is the trivial bundle using the same ideas as in \[MS, Lemma 3.4, p.43\] to compute the tangent bundle of the manifold $`𝐑P^2`$.

Let $`g:S^1\times 𝐑P^1_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ be the map $`g(\lambda ,[\mu ])=[\lambda ,\mu ]`$ where we identify the circle $`S^1`$ with the “gluing circle” $`S^1_{2g}`$. The map $`g`$ is a representative for the element $`f_1e_1^+`$. One shows that $`g^{}(TM_{2g})S^1\times f^{}(TM_{2g})/𝐑P^1`$ where we consider the 1-dimensional real projective space $`𝐑P^1`$ sitting inside $`𝐑P^2`$ by the standard inclusion. This finishes the proof of lemma 3.2.5.

Fix a spin structure corresponding to an element $`\sigma H^1(M_{2g};𝐙)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^{}`$ be the associated positive and negative spinor bundles. Both are 2-dimensional complex vector bundles with structure group $`SU(2)`$.

Remark 3.2.6. As $`SU(2)`$-bundles the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^{}`$ do not depend on the choice of the spin structure on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. This means that for two elements $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta H^1(M_{2g};𝐙_2)`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^+,\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\delta ^+,\mathrm{\Delta }_\delta ^{}`$ denote the associated positive and negative spin bundles then as $`SU(2)`$-bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Delta }_\delta ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\delta ^{}`$. This can be proved using an idea which is stated in \[LM, p. 84\].

Recall that the Lie group $`H=SU(2)`$ acts on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ by acting trivially on the surface $`_{2g}`$ and by the action of $`SO(3)`$ on $`S(v)`$. This action on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ has no fixed points and lifts canonically to the tangent bundle $`TM_{2g}T_{2g}\times _\sigma TS(v)`$. Since the Lie group $`SU(2)`$ is connected and simply connected it lifts to any spin bundle over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ covering the action on the tangent bundle. Hence it also lifts to the positive and negative spinor bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. These $`SU(2)`$-actions on the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are lifts of the induced $`SU(2)`$-actions on the bundles $`E_+=TM_{2g}\times _{\rho _+}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2(𝐑^4)`$ and $`E_{}=TM_{2g}\times _\rho _{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2(𝐑^4)`$ to a spin structure on $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$. Here $`\rho _\pm `$ denote the two non equivalent irreducible three dimensional representations of $`SO(4)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^2(𝐑^4)`$. These lifts from the bundles $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ to the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are unique since each two lifts differ by maps $`\alpha _\pm :SU(2)\times P_{Spin}(E_\pm )𝐙_2`$ such that $`\alpha _\pm (\mathrm{Id},p)=1`$ for each $`pP_{\mathrm{Spin}}(E_\pm )`$. Here we denote by $`P_{Spin}(E_+)`$ the principal spin bundle of the bundle $`E_+`$ and define $`P_{Spin}(E_{})`$ similarly. Since the product $`SU(2)\times P_{Spin}(E_\pm )`$ is connected the maps $`\alpha _\pm `$ have to be the constant maps $`\alpha _\pm (\lambda ,p)=1𝐙_2`$ for all elements $`\lambda SU(2)`$ and $`pP_{Spin}(E_\pm )`$.

We now compute the second Chern classes $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ and $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ of the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Since we have the relations $`p_1(E_+)=4c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ and $`p_1(E_{})=4c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ between the first Chern classes and the first Pontryagin classes it is enough to compute the first Pontryagin classes of the bundles $`E_\pm `$.

###### Proposition 3.2.7

Let $`E_+=TM_{2g}\times _{\rho _+}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2(𝐑^4)`$ and $`E_{}=TM_{2g}\times _\rho _{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2(𝐑^4)`$ be the vector bundles induced from the tangent bundle of the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ by the representations $`\rho _\pm :SO(4)GL(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^2(𝐑^4))`$. The first Pontryagin classes are $`p_1(E_+)=4(12g)`$ and $`p_1(E_{})=4(12g)`$.

Proof. $`p_1(E_{})`$ follows from $`p_1(E_+)`$ by changing the orientation. Let $`TSO(4)`$ be the standard maximal torus $`TSO(2)\times SO(2)`$ in the compact Lie group $`SO(4)`$ and let $`T^{}SO(3)`$ be the maximal torus

$$T^{}=\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\theta 2\pi \}.$$

We compute for the representation $`\rho _+`$ restricted to the maximal torus $`T`$ inside $`SO(4)`$ that $`\rho _+(T)T^{}`$ and

$$\rho _+(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1& \mathrm{sin}\theta _1& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1& \mathrm{cos}\theta _1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _2& \mathrm{sin}\theta _2\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta _2& \mathrm{cos}\theta _2\end{array}\right))=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\theta _2)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta _1+\theta _2)\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}(\theta _1+\theta _2)& \mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\theta _2)\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`yH^1(T^{};𝐙)`$ and $`x_1,x_2H^1(T,𝐙)`$ be the generators. Then the induced map in cohomology is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _+^{}:H^1(T^{};𝐙)& H^1(T;𝐙)\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _+^{}(y)& =x_1+x_2\hfill \\ \hfill .& \end{array}$$

By the splitting principle we may assume that $`TM_{2g}l_1l_2`$ where $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are $`SO(2)`$-bundles over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ and $`x_i=c_1(l_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$. By \[BoH, Theorem 10.3.b, p. 491\] we obtain for the total Pontryagin classes of the vector bundle $`E_+`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p(E_+)=1+(x_1+x_2)^2& =1+x_1^2+x_2^2+2x_1x_2\hfill & \\ & =1+p_1(TM_{2g})+2e(TM_{2g})\hfill & (\mathrm{3.2.8}).\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`p_1(TM_{2g})`$ denotes the first Pontryagin class and $`e(TM_{2g})`$ the Euler class of the tangent bundle of the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Hence we obtain from 3.2.8 and lemma 3.2.9 below the equality $`p_1(E_+)=2(22(2g))=4(12g)`$. This finishes the proof of proposition 3.2.7.

###### Lemma 3.2.9

(i) $`e(TM_{2g})=22(2g)`$ and (ii) $`p_1(TM_{2g})=0`$.

Proof of lemma 3.2.9. Let $`\pi :_{2g}\times S(v)_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$ be the canonical projection. On the fourth cohomology group $`H^4`$ with integer coefficients the induced map $`\pi ^{}`$ is multiplication by 2. Also we obviously obtain for the pull back bundle of the tangent bundle $`TM_{2g}`$ the isomorphism $`\pi ^{}(TM_{2g})T_{2g}\times TS(v)`$. As complex line bundles we write $`T_{2g}=l_{2g}`$ and $`TS(v)=l_0`$ with the dual bundles $`\overline{l}_{2g}`$ and $`\overline{l}_0`$.

For (ii) we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^{}(p_1(TM_{2g}))& =2p_1(TM_{2g})\hfill \\ & =p_1(T_{2g}\times TS(v))=c_2((T_{2g}\times TS(v))𝐂)\hfill \\ & =c_2((l_{2g}\overline{l}_{2g})\times (l_0\overline{l}_0))\hfill \\ & =1\times c_1(l_0)^2+c_1(l_{2g})^2\times 1\hfill \\ & =0\mathrm{evaluated}\mathrm{on}H^4(_{2g}\times S(v);𝐙)\hfill \end{array}$$

since the classes $`c_1(l_0)^2`$ evaluated on $`H^{}(S(v),𝐙)`$ and $`c_1(l_{2g})^2`$ evaluated on $`H^{}(_{2g};𝐙)`$ are zero.

For (i) we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi ^{}(e(TM_{2g}))& =2e(TM_{2g})\hfill \\ & =e(T_{2g}\times TS(v))=e(T_{2g})\times e(TS(v))\hfill \\ & =(22(2g))2\mathrm{evaluated}\mathrm{on}H^4(_{2g}\times S(v);𝐙).\hfill \end{array}$$

This gives $`e(TM_{2g})=22(2g)`$ and finishes the proof of lemma 3.2.9.

###### Corollary 3.2.10

The second Chern classes of the positive and negative spinor bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ are given by $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=2g1`$ and $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=12g`$.

We can now set up the equivariant Morse theory. Fix an $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$.

Remark 3.2.11. Since $`H^2(M_{2g};𝐐)=0`$ and since the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ have non zero second Chern classes by theorem 3.1 in \[FU, p.47\] (see also \[Pa1, lemma 3.3, p.346\]) they cannot admit connections with stabilizer in the equivariant gauge group larger than the constant $`𝐙_2SU(2)`$ and hence they do not admit reducible connections.

By corollary 3.2.10 if $`g=0`$ then the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ does not admit anti self dual connections and the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ does not admit self dual connections. If $`g1`$ the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ does not admit self dual connections and the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ does not admit anti self dual connections. We fix the following conventions: For $`g=0`$ we study connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and for $`g1`$ we study connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. In the case $`g=0`$ we define $`_{SU(2)}`$ to be the $`SU(2)`$-invariant connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ modulo the invariant gauge group. In the case $`g1`$ we define $`_{SU(2)}`$ to be the $`SU(2)`$\- invariant connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ modulo the invariant gauge group. Let $`_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}`$ denote the subspace of $`SU(2)`$-invariant anti self dual connections modulo the invariant gauge group on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (if $`g=0`$) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ (if $`g1`$). By changing the orientation we obtain theorems on the existence of critical points of the Yang-Mills functional which are not self dual on the “opposite” bundles.

In order to use Morse or Lusternik-Schnirelman theory we would like to know the weak homotopy type of the invariant orbit space $`_{SU(2)}`$. Therefore in the next section we will compute the homotopy type of this space.

###### 3.3 Computation of the weak homotopy type of the space $`_{SU(2)}`$

Let $`f_0_{2g}`$ be a fixed point of the involution $`\sigma _1:_{2g}_{2g}`$ defined in 3.2.1 and $`e_0S(v)`$ the point $`(1,0,0)`$ of the two sphere $`S(v)`$. Then on the manifold $`M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ we choose the point $`[f_0,e_0]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ as the base point.

Since the action of the Lie group $`SO(3)`$ on the two sphere $`S(v)`$ is transitive the orbit of the $`SU(2)`$-action on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ through the base point $`[f_0,e_0]M_{2g}`$ is equal to the subspace $`\{[f_0,w]:wS(v)\}\sigma _2\backslash S(v)𝐑P^2`$. The $`SU(2)`$-action on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ has 2 types of isotropy groups. Every point $`[f,w]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ is fixed by some circle $`U(1)SU(2)`$. If the point $`f_{2g}`$ is not fixed by the involution $`\sigma _1:_{2g}_{2g}`$ then the isotropy group of the point $`[f,w]`$ for any $`wS(v)`$ is conjugate to the standard circle

$$U(1)\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\end{array}\right):0\theta 2\pi \}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.1})`$
in the Lie group $`SU(2)`$. If the point $`f_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ is fixed by the involution $`\sigma _1:_{2g}_{2g}`$ then the isotropy group of the point $`[f,w]`$ for any $`wS(v)`$ is conjugate to the group $`Pin(2)SU(2)`$ which is generated by the standard circle $`U(1)SU(2)`$ and the element $`jSp(1)SU(2)`$. The group $`Pin(2)`$ is the double cover of the group $`O(2)SO(3)`$.

We now compute the isotropy representations of the two possible isotropy groups $`U(1)`$ and $`Pin(2)`$ in $`SU(2)`$ on the fibers of the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Recall that the positive spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is a lift of the $`SO(3)`$-bundle $`E_+=P(TM_{2g})\times _{\rho _+}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2(𝐑^4)`$.

Let $`m=[f,w]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$ be a point with isotropy group conjugate to the standard circle $`U(1)SU(2)`$ defined in 3.3.1. The isotropy representation of the point $`m`$ on the fiber $`(TM_{2g})_m`$ of the tangent bundle $`TM_{2g}`$ of the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ is conjugate to the homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau :U(1)& SO(4)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence the isotropy representation of the circle $`U(1)`$ on the fiber $`(E_+)_m`$ of the bundle $`E_+`$ is given by the homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _+\tau :U(1)& SO(3)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.2})`$
Since the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is the spinor bundle of the bundle $`E_+`$ for some spin structure on the bundle $`E_+`$ the isotropy representation of the point $`m`$ on the fiber $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)_m`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is conjugate to the representation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U(1)& SU(2)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& \pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.3})`$
Since the circle $`U(1)`$ is connected the sign in 3.3.3 has to be constant and equal to $`+`$. Hence the isotropy representation of the point $`m=[f,w]M_{2g}`$ is conjugate to the standard inclusion $`U(1)SU(2)`$ given in 3.3.2.

Now let $`m=[f,w]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$ be a point with isotropy group conjugate to the group $`Pin(2)=j,U(1)SU(2)`$. The isotropy representation of the group $`Pin(2)`$ on the fiber $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)_m`$ of the positive spin bundle is a 2-dimensional complex representation. Since restricted to the circle $`U(1)Pin(2)`$ this representation is conjugate to the standard inclusion $`U(1)SU(2)`$ (by the same argument as above) it has to be conjugate to the unique irreducible 2-dimensional complex representation of the group $`Pin(2)`$ on $`𝐂^2`$ which is induced from the circle $`U(1)Pin(2)`$ by the 1-dimensional complex representation of weight 1 (or weight $`1`$). This representation is just given by the standard inclusion $`Pin(2)SU(2)`$. The same arguments apply to the isotropy representations of the negative spinor bundle.

Identifying the Lie group $`SU(2)`$ with the Lie group $`Sp(1)`$ we can consider the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ as $`SU(2)`$-equivariant quaternionic line bundles. Recall that an $`SU(2)`$-equivariant quaternionic line bundle $`\eta =(EM_{2g})`$ is subordinate to a quaternionic left module $`V`$ if for every point $`mM_{2g}`$ the isotropy representation of the isotropy group $`SU(2)_m`$ on the fiber $`E_m`$ of the bundle $`\eta `$ over the point $`mM_{2g}`$ is contained up to isomorphism in the space $`V`$ viewed as an $`SU(2)_m`$-module. The previous discussion proves the following proposition:

###### Proposition 3.3.4

The $`SU(2)`$-equivariant quaternionic line bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ over the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ are subordinate to the non trivial 1-dimensional quaternionic $`SU(2)Sp(1)`$-module $`𝐇`$ given by left multiplication of the group $`Sp(1)`$.

Let $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^+`$ denote the $`SU(2)`$-equivariant gauge group of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and let $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{+,0}`$ denote the subgroup of based equivariant gauge transformations, i.e. the equivariant gauge transformations on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ which are the identity on the fiber $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)_m`$ over the base point $`m=[f_0,e_0]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)=M_{2g}`$. Similarly we define the equivariant gauge group $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{}`$ and the based equivariant gauge group $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{,0}`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.5

We have isomorphisms (i) $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^+/𝒢_{SU(2)}^{+,0}𝐙_2`$ and (ii) $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{}/𝒢_{SU(2)}^{,0}𝐙_2`$

Proof. For the proof of (i) let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^+`$ denote the fiber of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ over the base point $`m=[f_0,e_0]M_{2g}`$. Recall that the base point $`mM_{2g}`$ has the isotropy group $`Pin(2)SU(2)`$ since we chose the point $`f_0M_{2g}`$ to be a fixed point of the involution $`\sigma _1:_{2g}_{2g}`$. Define the restriction map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_m:𝒢_{SU(2)}^+& GL(\mathrm{\Delta }_m^+)\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi & \varphi |_m.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the gauge transformation $`\varphi 𝒢_{SU(2)}^+`$ is $`SU(2)`$-equivariant it commutes with the action of the isotropy group $`Pin(2)`$ on the space $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^+`$ and hence $`\varphi |_m`$ is a $`Pin(2)`$-module isomorphism. We have seen above that this $`Pin(2)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^+`$ is irreducible. Therefore by Schur’s lemma it must be given by multiplication with some element $`\lambda 𝐂^{}`$, i.e. $`\varphi |_m=\lambda \mathrm{Id}:𝐂^2𝐂^2`$. But the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ has structure group $`SU(2)`$ and by definition the gauge transformation $`\varphi `$ is an automorphism of the $`SU(2)`$-bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and hence $`\varphi |_mSU(2)`$. This implies $`\lambda 𝐙_2`$. Hence the restriction map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ takes values in $`𝐙_2SU(2)`$ and is obviously surjective. Since the kernel of the restriction map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ is by definition the group $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{+,0}`$ we have proved (i). Since the proof of (ii) is the same we have finished the proof of lemma 3.3.5.

Let $`_{SU(2)}^0`$ denote the orbit space of $`SU(2)`$-invariant connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ if $`g1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ if $`g=0`$ modulo the action of the based invariant gauge group $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{+,0}`$ or $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^{,0}`$ respectively. Let $`\pi :_{SU(2)}^{+,0}_{SU(2)}^+`$ be the canonical projection. Since the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ do not admit a reducible connection (see remark 3.2.11) the map $`\pi `$ is a fibration with fiber $`(𝒢_{SU(2)}^\pm /𝒢_{SU(2)}^{\pm ,0})/𝐙_2`$. By lemma 3.3.5 we have the isomorphism $`𝒢_{SU(2)}^\pm /𝒢_{SU(2)}^{\pm ,0}𝐙_2`$ and hence the projection map $`\pi `$ is in fact a homeomorphism. This proves

###### Proposition 3.3.6

The natural projection map $`\pi :_{SU(2)}^0_{SU(2)}`$ is a homeomorphism.

In the remainder of this section we compute the weak homotopy type of the based invariant orbit space $`_{SU(2)}`$ using theorem 2.3.1.

###### Theorem 3.3.7

There is a weak homotopy equivalence

$$_{SU(2)}^0\underset{2g}{}S^1$$

Proof. Let $`𝐇`$ be the 1-dimensional quaternionic representation of $`SU(2)Sp(1)`$ given by left multiplication. By proposition 3.3.4 the $`SU(2)`$-equivariant bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ are subordinate to this representation. Hence theorem 2.3.1 gives a weak homotopy equivalence

$$_{SU(2)}^0\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(M_{2g},G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))^\pm .$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.8})`$
Here we have chosen the point $`[f_0,e_o]_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ defined before as the base point and a base point $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ according to theorem 2.2.2. Both points are fixed by the group $`Pin(2)SU(2)`$. The superscript $`\pm `$ on the right hand side of 3.3.8 denotes the components of maps which classify the $`SU(2)`$-equivariant positive spinor bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ over the manifold $`M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$.

One checks that any line $`=[(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})]`$ in the infinite dimensional Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ which is fixed by the group $`Pin(2)SU(2)`$ is already fixed by the whole group $`SU(2)`$ and hence is a fixed point of the $`SU(2)`$-action on the space $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$. Hence any map $`f:M_{2g}G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ which is base point preserving maps the whole orbit through the base point $`[f_0,e_0]`$ to the base point $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$, i.e. $`f([f_0,x])=`$ for any $`xS(v)`$. This implies the homeomorphisms

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(\frac{_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)}{\{f_0\}\times _\sigma S(v)},G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.9})`$
Let $`S(v)_+=S(v)\{+\}`$ denote the two sphere $`S(v)`$ with an additional disjoint base point $`\{+\}`$. We choose the point $`f_0_{2g}`$ as the base point in the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ and define the smash product

$$_{2g}S(v)_+=\frac{_{2g}\times S(v)_+}{_{2g}\times \{+\}\{f_0\}\times S(v)_+}.$$

We extend the involution $`\sigma _2:S(v)S(v)`$ given by the reflection through the origin to the space $`S(v)_+`$ by letting it act trivially on the additional base point. The involution $`\sigma :_{2g}\times S(v)_{2g}\times S(v)`$ given by $`\sigma (v,w)=(\sigma _1(v),\sigma _2(w))`$ extends to the space $`_{2g}\times S(v)_+`$ and it preserves the subspace $`_{2g}\times \{+\}\{f_0\}\times S(v)_+_{2g}\times S(v)_+`$. Hence we obtain an induced involution $`\sigma :_{2g}S(v)_+_{2g}S(v)_+`$. Let $`_{2g}_\sigma S(v)_+`$ denote the quotient.

We extend the $`SU(2)`$-action on the two sphere $`S(v)`$ to the space $`S(v)_+`$ by letting it act trivially on the additional base point $`+`$. This induces an action on the smash $`_{2g}S(v)_+`$ which commutes with the action of the involution $`\sigma `$. Hence it induces an $`SU(2)`$-action on the quotient $`_{2g}_\sigma S(v)_+`$. The canonical mapping

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon :\frac{_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)}{\{f_0\}\times _\sigma S(v)}& _{2g}_\sigma S(v)_+\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon ([x,y])& =[x,y]\hfill \end{array}$$

is equivariant with respect to the $`SU(2)`$-action and induces an $`SU(2)`$-equivariant homeomorphism. Together with 3.3.9 this gives a homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v);G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}_\sigma S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})).$$

A map $`f:_{2g}_\sigma S(v)_+G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ is given by a map $`\stackrel{~}{f}:_{2g}S(v)_+G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ which is invariant under the action by the involution $`\sigma `$. (The space $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ is given the trivial $`\sigma `$-action). The adjoint map $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{\mathrm{ad}}:_{2g}\mathrm{Map}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))`$ is then invariant under a $`𝐙_2`$-action where the group $`𝐙_2`$ acts on the Riemann surface by the action of the involution $`\sigma _1`$ and on the mapping space $`\mathrm{Map}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))`$ by the induced action on maps given by the $`\sigma _1`$-action on the space $`S(v)_+`$ and the trivial action on the Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$. Since the $`SU(2)`$-and $`\sigma _2`$-actions on the space $`S(v)_+`$ commute we obtain the homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.10})`$
We now analyze the mapping space $`\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))`$ together with the above $`𝐙_2`$-action. We first need to prove

###### Lemma 3.3.11

There is a homeomorphism $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})`$.

Proof of lemma 3.3.11. Let $`\tau :G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ be the map induced by the natural inclusion $`𝐂𝐇`$. Recall that we view the space $`𝐇^{\mathrm{}}`$ as a right quaternionic vector space endowed with the $`U(1)`$-action given by left multiplication of weight p. Hence the image $`\tau (G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))`$ lies in the fixed point set $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$ of the induced circle action on the Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ and the map $`\tau `$ induces a continuous map $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$. Let $`w=[x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}]`$ be a quaternionic line in $`𝐇^{\mathrm{}}`$ fixed under the circle action. Without loss of generality we may assume $`x_0=1`$. Given $`\lambda U(1)`$ there is an element $`\alpha (\lambda )Sp(1)`$ such that $`\lambda ^px_i=x_i\alpha (\lambda )`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. For $`i=0`$ this gives $`\alpha (\lambda )=\lambda ^p`$. Hence $`\lambda ^px_i=x_i\lambda ^p`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and hence $`x_i`$ lies in the centralizer of $`U(1)`$ in the quaternions $`𝐇`$ which is equal to $`𝐂`$. Hence $`x_i𝐂`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and the element $`w=[x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}]`$ lies in the image of the map $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$. The map $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ induces a homeomorphism $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$. This finishes the proof of lemma 3.3.11.

###### Lemma 3.3.12

There is a $`𝐙_2`$-equivariant homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})$$

where the group $`𝐙_2`$ acts on the infinite dimensional Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})=𝐂P^{\mathrm{}}`$ by complex conjugation on coordinates.

Proof. The inclusion $`S(v)S(v)_+`$ induces a homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(S(v)_+,G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}(S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})).$$

Let $`NS(v)`$ denote the north pole. The evaluation map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}(S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))& G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}\hfill \\ \hfill f& f(N)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.13})`$
induces an $`SU(2)`$-equivariant homeomorphism. Here we identify the two sphere $`S(v)`$ with the homogeneous space $`SU(2)/U(1)`$. By lemma 3.3.11 there is a homeomorphism $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$.

We now compute the $`𝐙_2`$-action on the infinite dimensional complex Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})`$ induced by the homeomorphism in 3.3.13. Let $`\tau `$ be a generator of $`𝐙_2`$. For any map $`f\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}(S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))`$ the map $`\tau f`$ is given by $`\tau f(w)=f(\sigma _2(w))`$. Hence $`\tau f(N)=f(\sigma _2(N))=f(N)=f(S)`$. Here we denote by $`SS(v)`$ the south pole. Let $`ASU(2)`$ be an element such that $`A(N)=S`$. Since the map $`f`$ is equivariant with respect to the $`SU(2)`$-action we obtain $`\tau f(N)=f(\sigma _2(N))=f(S)=f(A(N))=A(f(N))`$. If $`B`$ is another element in $`SU(2)`$ such that $`B(N)=S`$ then $`B=CA`$ for some element $`CU(1)SU(2)`$. Here $`U(1)SU(2)`$ is the stabilizer of the $`SU(2)`$-action on $`S(v)`$ at the north pole $`N`$. But since $`f(N)`$ lies in the fixed point set of the $`U(1)`$-action on the infinite dimensional Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ we obtain $`B(f(N))=A(f(N))`$. Hence the $`𝐙_2`$-action on the space $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))^{U(1)}`$ is given by left multiplication by any element $`ASU(2)`$ such that $`A(N)=S`$.

We now identify $`SU(2)`$ with $`Sp(1)`$ and the two sphere $`S(v)`$ with the purely imaginary quaternions of norm 1. Then the $`SU(2)`$-action on the 2-sphere $`S(v)`$ is given by conjugation on quaternions. The north pole $`N`$ is identified with the quaternion $`k`$. Since $`jk\overline{j}=jkj=k`$ we can choose the element $`ASU(2)`$ to be conjugation by the quaternion $`jSp(1)`$. Hence the $`𝐙_2`$-action on the space $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}`$ induced by the homeomorphism 3.3.13 is given by left multiplication by the quaternion $`j`$. Let $`[x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}]`$ be a line in the Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})`$ invariant under the $`U(1)`$-action. By lemma 3.3.11 we may assume that the coordinates $`x_i𝐇`$ are all complex, i.e. $`x_i𝐂`$ for all $`i`$. Hence

$$j[x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}]=[jx_0,jx_1,\mathrm{}]=[\overline{x}_0j,\overline{x}_1j,\mathrm{}]=[\overline{x}_0,\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{}]$$

and therefore the $`𝐙_2`$-action on the space $`G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}})^{U(1)}G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})`$ is given by complex conjugation. This finishes the proof of lemma 3.3.12.

Hence we have proved

###### Proposition 3.3.14

There is a canonical homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))$$

where the $`𝐙_2`$-action on the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$ is given by the involution $`\sigma _1`$ defined in 3.2.1 and on the infinite dimensional Grassmannian $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})`$ by complex conjugation.

We now compute the homotopy type of the $`𝐙_2`$-equivariant mapping space $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))`$. The inclusion of the “gluing circle” $`S^1`$ into the Riemann surface $`_{2g}=(_gD^2)_{S^1}(_gD^2)`$ gives a $`𝐙_2`$-equivariant cofiber sequence

$$S^1_{2g}𝐙_2^+_g$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.15})`$
where the non trivial element $`1𝐙_2`$ acts on the surface $`_{2g}`$ by reflection on the symmetry plane. Applying the equivariant mapping functor $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(\underset{¯}{},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))`$ to 3.3.15 gives a fibration

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(S^1,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(𝐙_2^+_g,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.16})`$
Since the group $`𝐙_2`$ acts trivially on the circle $`S^1`$ the base space of the fibration 3.3.16 is homeomorphic to the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})^{𝐙_2})`$. Similarly as in lemma 3.3.11 one computes that the inclusion $`G_1(𝐑^{\mathrm{}})G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})`$ induced by the canonical inclusion $`𝐑𝐂`$ induces a homeomorphism $`(G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))^{𝐙_2}G_1(𝐑^{\mathrm{}})`$. Hence the base space of fibration 3.3.16 is homotopy equivalent to the 2-point space $`𝐙_2`$, the total space is homotopy equivalent to the disjoint union of two copies of the fiber and we obtain the homotopy equivalence

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))\underset{2\mathrm{copies}}{}\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(𝐙_2^+_g,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.17})`$
There is a natural homeomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(𝐙_2^+_g,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))\mathrm{Map}^0(_g,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})).$$

Since $`G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}})=BU(1)`$ there is a canonical homotopy equivalence

$$\mathrm{Map}^0(_g,G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))𝐙\times \underset{2g}{}S^1.$$

Here we have switched from the notation $`U(1)`$ for the circle as a group to $`S^1`$ for the circle as a topological space since a mapping space is not necessarily a group. Therefore we obtain the homotopy equivalence

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝐙_2}^0(_{2g},G_1(𝐂^{\mathrm{}}))\underset{2\mathrm{copies}}{}(𝐙\times \underset{2g}{}S^1).$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.18})`$
Hence, using proposition 3.3.14, we obtain a homotopy equivalence

$$\mathrm{Map}_{SU(2)}^0(_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v),G_1(𝐇^{\mathrm{}}))\underset{2\mathrm{copies}}{}(𝐙\times \underset{2g}{}S^1)$$
$`(\mathrm{3.3.19})`$
and each component of the mapping space in 3.3.19 is homotopy equivalent to the $`2g`$-fold product of the circle $`S^1`$. Together with 3.3.8 this finishes the proof of theorem 3.3.7.

###### 3.4 Proof of the main theorem

Recall that we defined the space $`_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}`$ to be the space of invariant anti self dual connections modulo the invariant gauge group on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ if $`g=0`$ and on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ if $`g1`$. Since by remark 3.2.11 the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ do not admit reducible connections the invariant moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ consists of irreducible connections. By proposition 3.1 (p.446) in \[Ba\] (see also theorem 4.6 (p.248) and section 5 in \[Cho\]) for a set of $`SU(2)`$-invariant $`C^q`$-metrics ($`q1`$) on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$, open and dense in the set of all invariant metrics, the invariant moduli space of anti self dual connections $`_{SU(2)}`$ is a smooth (possibly empty) manifold of a dimension which can be computed using the Atiyah-Segal-Singer fixed point formula.

Remark 3.4.1. Proposition 4.1 in \[Ba\] is stated for the case $`H=U(1)`$ but the proof carries over word for word to the case of any compact Lie group.

Remark 3.4.2. The following argument (given to me by J. Råde) shows that Uhlenbeck’s generic metrics theorem (\[FU, Theorem, 3.17, p.59\]) and its equivariant versions in \[Ba\] and \[Cho\] are also true in our Morrey space completions. Any anti self dual connection $`A_{SU(2)}`$ (completed in the $`L_3^{1,2}`$-norm) is smooth since it is a Yang-Mills connection. So we get the same moduli spaces no matter whether we work with Morrey or Sobolev spaces. In a neighborhood of an anti self dual connection $`A`$ the moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ is a manifold if and only if the operator $`D_A^+:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(\mathrm{ad}(\eta ))\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{ad}(\eta ))`$ has trivial null space. Here $`\mathrm{ad}(\eta )`$ is the vector bundle associated to the given $`SU(2)`$-bundle $`\eta `$ via the adjoint representation of $`SU(2)`$. $`D_A^+`$ is an elliptic operator with smooth coefficients so anything in the null space is smooth. Hence the condition that the operator $`D_A^+`$ has trivial null space is independent of the choice of the function spaces.

We now compute the formal dimension of the moduli space of invariant anti self dual connections. Assume that the moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ is not empty. By standard gauge theory and an argument in \[AHS, p.444 and 445\] it follows that for a generic invariant metric the equivariant index of the Dirac operator

$$D/_E^{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\mathrm{ad}(\eta )𝐂))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\mathrm{ad}(\eta )𝐂))$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.3})`$
is an actual representation. Here $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\mathrm{ad}(\eta )𝐂)`$ denotes the coefficient bundle. Also by standard equivariant gauge theory for a generic invariant metric the dimension of the moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ is equal to the dimension of the trivial representation contained in the representation $`\mathrm{ind}(D/_E^{})`$.

Let

$$h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\theta }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta }\end{array}\right)$$

be an element in the standard maximal torus $`U(1)SU(2)`$. If the angle $`\theta `$ is irrational then the closure of the cyclic group generated by the element $`h`$ in $`SU(2)`$ is just the torus $`U(1)`$ defined in 3.3.2. The action of the element $`h`$ on the two sphere $`S(v)`$ fixes the point $`e_0^+=(1,0,0)`$ and $`e_0^{}=(1,0,0)`$. Let $`M_{2g}^h`$ denote the fixed point set of the element $`hSU(2)`$ acting on the manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Then $`M_{2g}^h=_{2g}\times _\sigma \{e_0^+,e_0^{}\}_{2g}`$ where the isomorphism is induced by the inclusion $`_{2g}M_{2g},f[f,e_0^+]`$.

The tangent bundle $`TM_{2g}`$ of the manifold $`M_{2g}`$ restricted to the fixed point set $`M_{2g}^h`$ splits $`U(1)=\overline{h}`$-equivariantly as

$$TM_{2g}T_{2g}^0N(2\theta )$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.4})`$
where $`T_{2g}^0`$ denotes the real tangent bundle of the surface $`_{2g}`$ together with the trivial $`U(1)`$-action and $`N(2\theta )`$ denotes the real two dimensional trivial bundle. Here the generator $`h=e^{i\theta }`$ of the circle $`U(1)`$ acts on the bundle $`N(2\theta )`$ by the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\end{array}\right).$$

The bundle $`N(2\theta )`$ is the equivariant normal bundle of the fixed point set $`M_{2g}^h_{2g}`$ inside the 4-manifold $`M_{2g}`$. Both bundles in 3.4.4 are the underlying real bundles of complex line bundles on the surface $`_{2g}`$.

By the $`G`$-Index Theorem (\[AS, 5.4, p.572\] we obtain

$$\mathrm{ind}_h(\overline{)}D_E^{})=\pm \mathrm{ch}_h(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)\mathrm{ch}_h(\mathrm{ad}(\eta )𝐂)(\widehat{A}_{2\theta }(N(2\theta )))\widehat{A}(_{2g})[_{2g}].$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.5})`$
Here $`\mathrm{ind}_h(\overline{)}D_E^{})`$ denotes the index of the operator $`\overline{)}D_E^{}`$ evaluated on the element $`hU(1)SU(2)`$, $`\mathrm{ch}_h`$ the equivariant Chern character, $`\widehat{A}(_{2g})`$ the $`\widehat{A}`$-genus of the surface $`_{2g}`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{2\theta }(N(2\theta )))`$ a certain characteristic class to be computed later.

Let $`xH^2(_{2g},𝐐)`$ be the first Chern class of the complex tangent bundle of the Riemann surface $`_{2g}`$. We compute:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{A}(_{2g})& =\frac{x}{e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{\frac{x}{2}}}\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{A}(N(2\theta ))& =\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}(2i\theta )}}{e^{2i\theta }1}=\frac{1}{e^{i\theta }e^{i\theta }}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ch}_h(\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm )& =e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{i\theta }+e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{\pm i\theta }\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ch}_h(\mathrm{ad}(\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm )𝐂)& =e^xe^{2i\theta }+1+e^xe^{\pm 2i\theta }\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence for $`g=0`$ and $`\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ind}_h(\overline{)}D_E^{})& =\frac{(e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{i\theta }+e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{i\theta })(e^xe^{2i\theta }+1+e^xe^{2i\theta })x}{(e^{i\theta }e^{i\theta })(e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{\frac{x}{2}})}[S^2]\hfill \\ & =e^{2i\theta }+3+e^{2i\theta }.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.6})`$
For $`g1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ind}_h(\overline{)}D_E^{})& =\frac{(e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{i\theta }+e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{i\theta })(e^xe^{2i\theta }+1+e^xe^{2i\theta })x}{(e^{i\theta }e^{i\theta })(e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{\frac{x}{2}})}[_{2g}]\hfill \\ & =(2g1)(3e^{2i\theta }+5+3e^{2i\theta }).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\mathrm{3.4.7})`$
Remark 3.4.8. Careful investigation shows that the sign in formula 3.4.5 turns out to be $`+1`$.

Hence the dimension of the trivial representation $`V_{2g}\mathrm{ind}(\overline{)}D_E^{})`$ is

$$dim(V_{2g})=\{\begin{array}{cc}2,\hfill & \text{if }g=0\hfill \\ 2(2g1),\hfill & \text{if }g1.\hfill \end{array}$$

This gives

###### Theorem 3.4.9

If $`g=0`$ then either the moduli space of invariant anti self dual connections $`_{SU(2)}`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is empty or, for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric a manifold of dimension 2. If $`g1`$ then either the moduli space of invariant anti self dual connections $`_{SU(2)}`$ on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is empty or, for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric a manifold of dimension $`2(2g1)`$.

We are now able to prove the main theorem of this section:

###### Theorem 3.4.10

Fix $`g=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ be the positive and negative $`SU(2)`$-equivariant spinor bundles over the 4-manifold $`M_{2g}=_{2g}\times _\sigma S(v)`$ of second Chern class $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=2g1`$ and $`c_2(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=12g`$. Fix an $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric.

(i) The Yang-Mills functional restricted to the invariant orbit space $`𝒴:_{SU(2)}𝐑`$ has at least $`2g+1`$ critical points on each of the bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

(ii) In the case $`g=0`$ for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric the critical point on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ cannot be self dual and on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ it cannot be anti self dual. In the case $`g2`$ for a generic $`SU(2)`$-invariant metric at least one of the critical points on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ cannot be anti self dual and at least one of the critical points on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ cannot be self dual.

By Palais’ principle of symmetric criticality in \[Pal2\] each of the critical points in (i) is a critical point of the Yang-Mills functional on the non-equivariant orbit space $`𝒴:^+𝐑`$, i.e. they are Yang-Mills connections.

Proof. Since the Yang-Mills functional is bounded from below and the invariant orbit space $`_{SU(2)}`$ is a complete Riemannian manifold we can apply the classical theorem on Lusternik-Schnirelman theory by Palais (\[Pal1, Theorem 7.2, p.131\]). For a topological space $`X`$ let $`\mathrm{cat}(X)`$ be the category of $`X`$, that is the least integer $`n`$ so that X can be covered by $`n`$ closed contractible subsets of $`X`$. Also define $`\mathrm{cl}(X)`$, the cuplength of the space $`X`$, to be the largest integer $`k`$ such that there exists a ring $`R`$ and cohomology classes $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{k1}H^{}(X,R)`$ with positive dimension such that their cup product does not vanish. One always has the inequality $`\mathrm{cat}(X)\mathrm{cl}(X)`$.

Palais’ theorem says that the Yang-Mills functional on the space $`_{SU(2)}`$ has at least $`\mathrm{cat}(_{SU(2)})`$ critical points. Theorem 3.3.7, proposition 3.3.6 and the inequality $`\mathrm{cat}(X)\mathrm{cl}(X)`$ imply that the Yang-Mills functional on the space $`_{SU(2)}`$ has at least $`\mathrm{cl}(_{2g}S^1)=2g+1`$ critical points. This proves assertion (i).

By theorem 3.4.9 the invariant moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ is either empty or a compact closed manifold of the dimension given in theorem 3.4.9. If this manifold is empty then there is nothing to prove. If it is not empty we proceed as follows:

In the case $`g=0`$ the moduli space $`_{SU(2)}`$ of anti self dual $`SU(2)`$-invariant connections on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ has dimension 2. Hence $`H^2(_{SU(2)};𝐙_2)𝐙_2`$. But $`H^2(_{SU(2)};𝐙_2)=0`$ and hence the inclusion $`_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}`$ cannot be a homotopy equivalence. Since the Palais-Smale condition is satisfied the critical point from (i) cannot lie in the subspace $`_{SU(2)}`$ and hence it cannot be anti self dual.

The case $`g2`$ uses the same argument: Since $`dim(_{SU(2)})=2(2g1)`$ we obtain $`H^{2(2g1)}(_{SU(2)};𝐙_2)𝐙_2`$. Since $`_{SU(2)}_{2g}S^1`$ and $`2(2g1)>2g`$ we obtain $`H^{2(2g1)}(_{SU(2)};𝐙_2)=0`$. Hence the inclusion $`_{SU(2)}_{SU(2)}`$ cannot be a homotopy equivalence and the Palais-Smale condition guarantees the existence of a critical point which does not lie in the subspace $`_{SU(2)}`$. This proves the case $`g2`$. The other cases are proved by changing the orientation. This finishes the proof of assertion (ii).

###### 5 References

\[AB\] Atiyah, M.F., Bott, R.: The Yang-Mills equation over Riemann surfaces, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 308 (1982), 523-615.

\[AHS\] Atiyah, M.F., Hitchin, N.J., Singer, I.M.: Self-Duality in four dimensional Riemannian geometry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 362 (1978), 425-61.

\[AS\] Atiyah, M.F., Singer, I.M.: The index of elliptic operators: III, Ann. of Math. 87 (1968), 546-604.

\[BoH\] Borel, A., Hirzebruch, F.: Characteristic classes and homogeneous spaces I, Amer. J. Math. 80 (1958), 458-538.

\[Ba\] Braam, P.J.: Magnetic Monopoles on three-manifolds, J. Differential Geometry Vol. 30 (1989), 425-464.

\[Cho\] Cho, Y. S.: Finite group actions on the moduli space of self dual connections I, Trans. AMS, Vol. 323, No. 1 (1991), 233-261.

\[DK\] Donaldson, S.K., Kronheimer, P.B.: “The Geometry of Four-Manifolds”, Oxford mathematical monographs, 1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

\[FU\] Freed, D.S., Uhlenbeck, K.K.: “Instantons and Four-Manifolds”, MSRI publications Vol. 1, 1984, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

\[LM\] Lawson, H.B. Jr., Michelsohn, M.-L.: “Spin Geometry”, Princeton Mathematical Series Vol. 38, 1989, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

\[MS\] Milnor, J.W., Stasheff, J.D.: “Characteristic Classes”, Annals of Mathematical Studies No. 76, 1974, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

\[Pal1\] Palais, R.S.: Lusternik-Schnirelman Theory on Banach Manifolds, Topology Vol. 5 (1966), 115-132.

\[Pal2\] Palais, R.S.: The Principle of Symmetric Criticality, Comm. Math. Phys. 69 (1979), 19-30.

\[Pa1\] Parker, T.H.: A Morse theory for equivariant Yang-Mills, Duke Mathematical Journal, Vol. 66, No. 2 (1992), 337-356.

\[Pa2\] Parker, T.H.: Non-minimal Yang-Mills fields and dynamics, Invent. math. 107 (1992), 397-420.

\[Rå\] Råde, J.: Compactness Theorems for Invariant Connections, submitted for publication.

\[Se\] Segal, G.B.: Equivariant K-theory, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 34 (1968), 129-151.

\[SS\] Sadun, L., Segert, J.: Non-self-dual Yang-Mills connections with quadrupole symmetry, Comm. Math. Phys. 145 (1992), 363-391.

\[SSU\] Sibner, L.M., Sibner, R.J., Uhlenbeck, K.K. : Solutions to Yang-Mills equations that are not self-dual, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 86 (1989), 8610-8613.

\[Wa\] Wasserman, A.G.: Equivariant differential topology, Topology Vol. 8, 127-150.

\[Wan\] Wang, H.-Y.: The existence of nonminimal solutions to the Yang-Mills equation with group $`SU(2)`$ on $`S^2\times S^2`$ and $`S^1\times S^3`$, J. Differential Geometry Vol. 34 (1991), 701-767.

U. Gritsch, DPMMS, University of Cambridge, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, U.K..

e-mail: U.Gritsch@dpmms.cam.ac.uk