A classic result in the foundations of Yang-Mills theory, due to Barrett [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30, 1171–1215 (1991)], establishes that given a “generalized” holonomy map from the space of piece-wise smooth, closed curves based at some point of a manifold to a Lie group, there exists a principal bundle with that group as structure group and a principal connection on that bundle such that the holonomy map corresponds to the holonomies of that connection. Barrett also provided one sense in which this “recovery theorem” yields a unique bundle, up to isomorphism. Here we show that something stronger is true: with an appropriate definition of isomorphism between generalized holonomy maps, there is an equivalence of categories between the category whose objects are generalized holonomy maps on a smooth, connected manifold and whose arrows are holonomy isomorphisms, and the category whose objects are principal connections on principal bundles over a smooth, connected manifold. This result clarifies, and somewhat improves upon, the sense of “unique recovery” in Barrett’s theorems; it also makes precise a sense in which there is no loss of structure involved in moving from a principal bundle formulation of Yang-Mills theory to a holonomy, or “loop,” formulation.

1.
T. T.
Wu
and
C. N.
Yang
, “
Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields
,”
Phys. Rev. D
12
,
3845
3857
(
1975
).
2.
S.
Kobayashi
and
K.
Nomizu
,
Foundations of Differential Geometry
(
Interscience Publishers
,
New York
,
1963
), Vol.
1
.
3.
A.
Trautman
, “
Fiber bundles, gauge fields, and gravitation
,” in
General Relativity and Gravitation
, edited by
A.
Held
(
Plenum Press
,
New York
,
1980
), pp.
287
308
.
4.
R. S.
Palais
,
The Geometrization of Physics
(
Institute of Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University
,
Hsinchu, Taiwan
,
1981
), available at http://vmm.math.uci.edu/.
5.
D.
Bleecker
,
Gauge Theory and Variational Principles
(
Addison-Wesley
,
Reading, MA
,
1981
), reprinted by Dover Publications in 2005.
6.
M.
Göckeler
and
T.
Schücker
,
Differential Geometry, Gauge Theories, and Gravity
(
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
,
1987
).
7.
P.
Deligne
and
D. S.
Freed
, “
Classical field theory
,” in
Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians
, edited by
P.
Deligne
,
P.
Etinghof
,
D. S.
Freed
,
L. C.
Jeffrey
,
D.
Kazhdan
,
J. W.
Morgan
,
D. R.
Morrison
, and
E.
Witten
(
American Mathematical Society
,
Providence, RI
,
1999
), pp.
137
226
.
8.
J. O.
Weatherall
, “
Fiber bundles, yang-mills theory, and general relativity
,”
Synthese
193
,
2389
2425
(
2016
).
9.
S.
Mandelstam
, “
Quantum electrodynamics without potentials
,”
Ann. Phys.
19
,
1
24
(
1962
).
10.
J. W.
Barrett
, “
Holonomy and path structures in general relativity and yang-mills theory
,”
Int. J. Theor. Phys.
30
,
1171
1215
(
1991
).
11.
R.
Loll
, “
Gauge theory and gravity in the loop formulation
,” in
Canonical Gravity: From Classical to Quantum
, edited by
J.
Ehlers
and
H.
Friedrich
(
Springer
,
Berlin
,
1994
), pp.
254
288
.
12.
R.
Gambini
and
J.
Pullin
,
Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories, and Quantum Gravity
(
Cambridge University Press
,
1996
).
13.
Yet another approach is to characterize gauge theories directly using a generalized notion of the parallel transport maps induced by principal bundles with connections. See Schreiber and Waldorf21 and
F.
Dumitrescu
, “
Connections and parallel transport
,”
J. Homotopy Relat. Struct.
4
,
187
244
(
2009
).
14.
Caetano and Picken [A. Caetano and R. F. Picken, “
An axiomatic definition of holonomy,
Int. J. Math.
5
,
835
848
(
1994
)] prove an analogous result using a different definition of loop space, which they take to eliminate certain disadvantages of Barrett’s construction. The results presented here do not depend on which definition is used.
15.

In what follows, we limit attention to manifolds that are smooth, Hausdorff, and paracompact, and will no longer state these assumptions explicitly.

16.

Everything discussed here is independent of the particular choice of reparameterization of the composition. The standard method is to define γ2γ1(t)={γ(2t)fort12γ(2(t12))fort12.

17.

Note that the (generalized) holonomy maps HΓ,u determined in this way really do depend on the choice of uP, even for connected manifolds; changing base point, even within a fiber, yields a holonomy map that is conjugate in G to the one we began with, so if u2 = u1g, then HΓ,u2(γ) = g−1HΓ,u1(γ) g for any γLπ(u1). In the sequel, we make precise a sense in which these are nonetheless isomorphic holonomy maps.

18.

For another version of this worry, used to question the significance of Barrett’s result, see Healey.19 

19.
R.
Healey
,
Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories
(
Oxford University Press
,
New York
,
2007
).
21.
U.
Schreiber
and
K.
Waldorf
, “
Parallel transport and functors
,”
J. Homotopy Relat. Struct.
4
,
187
244
(
2009
), e-print arXiv:org/abs/0705.0452v5.
22.
For more on this way of thinking about this issue, see J. O. Weatherall, “Are Newtonian gravitation and geometrized Newtonian gravitation theoretically equivalent?,” Erkenntnis81, 1073–1091 (
2016
) and J. O. Weatherall, “Understanding ‘gauge’,” Philosophy of Science83(5) (2016).
You do not currently have access to this content.