Abstract
When we consider a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold, we obtain lightlike tangent vectors that constitute the null tangent bundle, whose fibers are lightlike cones in the corresponding tangent spaces. In this paper, we define and study a class of “g-natural” metrics on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and we investigate the geometry of the null tangent bundle as a lightlike hypersurface equipped with an induced g-natural metric.
Keywords:
pseudo-Riemannian metric; null tangent bundle; lightlike manifold; Ricci type tensor; extrinsic scalar curvature MSC:
53B30; 53C50
1. Introduction
In both special and general relativity, the main tool to study the causal structure of spacetime is the lightlike cone, since it encodes all the information about the behavior of lightlike geodesics. It is also well-known that the null tangent bundle, i.e., the set of all lightlike tangent vectors on a Lorentzian manifold determines its metric up to a conformal transformation ([1]) and, as a result, the null tangent bundle over the underlying manifold specifies its conformal geometry, which constitutes the framework of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology ([2]). To the best of our knowledge, although the study of the geometry of null tangent bundles seems natural for a better understanding of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, surprisingly, we cannot find works on the subject in the literature. One of the reasons is probably a lack of research works on the geometry of tangent bundles of non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.
Actually, when the base manifold is Riemannian, the study of relationships between the geometric properties of the Riemannian base manifold and those of its tangent bundle , have been widely studied in the literature and led to several interesting results. Several well-known metrics on fall within the wide family of g-natural metrics, which are built in some “natural” way from the Riemannian metric g over M ([3,4]). Some examples of investigation of the geometry of such metrics and their interplay with the properties of the base manifold may be found in [5,6,7,8,9] and references therein.
As it is well known, if is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, then it admits some tangent vectors which do not have a Riemannian counterpart, namely, null (or lightlike) vectors. It is then natural to consider the null tangent bundle of , i.e., the set of all its null tangent vectors. To investigate the geometry of , it is interesting to equip with pseudo-Riemannian metrics and to consider as a lightlike hypersurface. Generally speaking, lightlike hypersurfaces play a very important role in mathematical physics, with particular regard to their relevance and many applications in relativity. For this reason, in the last thirty years, the study of lightlike hypersurfaces has attracted the attention of a growing number of researchers, and the literature on the topic is very large. We may refer to the works [10,11] and references therein for some excellent introductions to the topic and its applications.
Like in the case of Riemannian base manifolds, we shall define in this paper a family of metrics on the tangent bundles of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds that we call also g-natural metrics and, equipping the null tangent bundles with the induced metrics, we start addressing the issue of the relationship between the geometry of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and the one of its null tangent bundle.
The results of this paper will allow further research in this direction, starting from the case where the tangent bundle is spacetime. The first steps we accomplish here are a thorough investigation of g-natural metrics G on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold , and an accurate description of the geometric features (connection and curvature) of equipped with the metrics induced on this hypersurface of . From this starting point, the research of geometric features of the null tangent bundle can be developed in several different directions, like for example, harmonic maps defined on lightlike submanifolds [12,13,14], and CR-lightlike submanifolds [15,16,17].
This paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2, we report some basic information concerning the geometry of lightlike hypersurfaces and the tangent bundles. We then give, in Section 3, the general description of pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metrics on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and their possible signatures. In Section 4, we focus on the geometry of null tangent bundle . We first investigate the differentiable structure of . Then, equipping it with a g-natural metric, we construct a corresponding screen distribution, calculate its associated induced connection, and discuss some geometric properties related to the curvature, Ricci type tensor, and extrinsic curvature of . In particular, among other results, we completely characterize the case where the Ricci type tensor is symmetric for a base manifold of constant sectional curvature. To make the core of the paper compact and readable, we stated the details of calculations of the signatures of pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metrics on the tangent bundles, the very long expressions of their curvatures on the null tangent bundles, and the corresponding calculations at the end of this paper in Appendix A and Appendix B.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Lightlike Hypersurfaces
Let denote a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimension m and a lightlike hypersurface of , where g is the induced degenerate metric on M. The intersection of tangent bundle and normal bundle is a one-dimensional subbundle, called the radical distribution of M and denoted by . Furthermore, there exists a complementary non-degenerate vector bundle of in , called a screen distribution of M, such that
where denotes the orthogonal direct sum. Following [10], there exists a unique vector bundle of rank 1 over M, called the lightlike transversal bundle, such that for any non-zero section of on a coordinate neighborhood U in , there exists a unique section N of satisfying
Thus splits into
Let be a null section, N the corresponding transverse vector field, and P the projection morphism of into . The Gauss and Weingarten formulas in M are then given by
for any and , where denotes the Levi-Civita connection on , ∇ is the induced connection from on M through the projection along the transverse vector field N and is the induced connection from ∇ on the screen distribution through the projection along the null vector field .
In the above equations, B is a symmetric bilinear form on independent of the choice of the screen distribution and called the local second fundamental form of M, while C is a bilinear form called the local second fundamental form of the screen distribution. We say that M is a totally geodesic hypersurface of if any geodesic of M with respect to the induced connection on M is a geodesic of (see [11]).
It is known that ∇ is symmetric, but in general, it is not a metric connection, since
while is a metric connection on , which is not necessarly symmetric.
If we denote by and R the Riemannian curvatures with respect to and ∇, we have
for any
The non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold admits a quasi-orthonormal local frame field, i.e., a local frame of such that for every and , where and . A quasi-orthonormal frame on is said a quasi-orthonormal local frame field along an n-dimensional lightlike submanifold if one of the two following conditions is satisfied:
- , , and induces a local frame field on ;
- and induces a local frame field on .
It follows that, in the case of a lightlike hypersurface M, a quasi-orthonormal local frame field along M is of the form , where induces a local frame field on M.
Let be a screen distribution locally spanned by , so that is a quasi-orthonormal local frame field on and is the induced local frame field on M. The induced Ricci type tensor of M is defined for any by
where . The tensor has a geometrical meaning if is symmetric and its value is independent of the screen distribution, its transversal vector bundle and the null section . It is easy to see that it does not depend on the choice of the null section , while for the other conditions we have the following results:
- is symmetric if and only if each 1-form induced by is closed, i.e., on any [10].
- is symmetric on a lightlike hypersurface whose screen distribution is integrable [18].
- is related to the Ricci tensor of by
When the induced Ricci type is not symmetric, C. Atindogbe [19] introduced the symmetrized induced Ricci tensor , defined, for all , by
Definition 1
([19]). Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and a lightlike hypersurface of . The quantity
where is the pseudo-inverse of (see [20]), is called the extrinsic scalar curvature of .
2.2. Geometry of Tangent Bundles
Let be an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold and ∇ the Levi-Civita connection of The tangent space of at any point splits into the horizontal and vertical subspaces with respect to ∇:
Given , for any vector there exists a unique vector such that where is the natural projection. We call the horizontal lift of X to the point The vertical lift of a vector to is defined as the vector satisfying for all functions f on Here, 1-forms on M are interpreted as functions on (i.e., ). Note that the map is an isomorphism between the vector spaces and Similarly, the map is an isomorphism between the vector spaces and
Each tangent vector can be written in the form
where are uniquely determined vectors. Horizontal and vertical lifts of vector fields on M are defined correspondingly.
Each system of local coordinates in M induces on a system of local coordinates Given and , let be the local expression of X in . Then, with respect to the induced coordinates, the horizontal lift and the vertical lift of X to are, respectively, expressed by
where denote the Christoffel’s symbols of g.
The canonical vertical vector field on is defined, in terms of local coordinates, by , but it does not depend on the choice of local coordinates and is globally defined on . For a vector , we see that the vertical lift of u to is exactly the value of the canonical vertical vector field at , i.e., , while the horizontal lift of u to is no other than the value at of the geodesic vector field on , i.e., .
It is worth mentioning that the geodesic (resp. canonical vertical) vector field on is not a horizontal (resp. vertical) lift of any vector field on M. To express it as a horizontal (resp. vertical) lift, we need to introduce lifts of quantities more general than vector fields on M. For this, we consider the vector bundle induced by the tangent bundle and by the natural projection . Any section s of is a -mapping such that . The mappings , where , are examples of sections of .
Sections of give rise to special horizontal and vertical vector fields on : if , then we define the horizontal (resp. vertical) lift (resp. ) as the vector field on given by (resp. ), for any , where the lifts are taken at u. When , , we find the classical definition of horizontal and vertical lifts of vector fields. When s is the identity section, the horizontal (resp. vertical) lift of s is no other than the geodesic vector field (resp. the canonical vertical vector field ) on .
Lie brackets of vector fields on are described as follows:
Lemma 1.
For all vector fields X, Y on M:
- (a)
- , where σ is the identity section of ;
- (b)
- ;
- (c)
- .
To investigate the geometry of tangent bundles of Riemannian manifolds, many (pseudo-)Riemannian metrics have been considered in the literature. The more general class of metrics had been constructed by O. Kowalski and M. Sakizawa [3] using the concept of natural transformations (see [4] for the concept of naturality and associated notions). According to the terminology of [4], we shall call g-natural any metric G on , which comes from g by a first order natural operator . Explicitly, g-natural metrics are described as follows (see [5]):
For any g-natural metric G on , there exist six functions such that for every :
where For , the formulas above hold with .
To investigate the properties of g-natural metrics, we need the following notations:
- ,
- ,
- ,
for all . Using the notations above, a g-natural metric G on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold is:
- Non-degenerate if and only if and for all ;
- Riemannian if and only if , , and , for all .
We observe explicitly that condition is not compatible with the Riemannian case. Several well-known (pseudo-)Riemannian metrics on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold are g-natural. In particular, in the notations above:
- (a)
- The Sasaki metric [21] is the g-natural metric given by and ;
- (b)
- The Cheeger-Gromoll metric [22] is obtained for for all , , ;
- (c)
- The Kaluza–Klein metrics [23] correspond to conditions .
3. -Natural Metrics on the Tangent Bundle of a Pseudo-Riemannian Manifold
g-natural metrics on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold can be defined similarly to the Riemannian case:
Definition 2.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. A metric G on is g-natural if there exist six functions called the generating functions of G, such that for every :
Notations. As in the Riemannian case, we use the following notations:
- ,
- ,
- ,
for .
Remark 1.
Hereafter and unless otherwise stated, when some terms of an expression are evaluated at , we make the following conventions:
- All the lifts of vectors on M involved in that expression are taken at ;
- All the functions , , , α and ϕ involved in that expression are taken at .
3.1. Non-Degenerate g-Natural Metrics on the Tangent Bundle of a Pseudo-Riemannian Manifold
Proposition 1.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimension . A g-natural metric G on is non-degenerate if and only if its generating functions satisfy , for every .
Proof.
Denote by k the index of g. Let and . Then, we have the three following cases according to the causal character of u:
- If u is timelike, then . Let be an orthonormal basis of , such that , , for and , for . Then, the matrix of with respect to the basis of is given by , whereIt is easy to see that , so that is non-degenerate on the timelike cone if and only if and for all
- If u is spacelike, then . Let be an orthonormal basis of , such that , , for and , for . Then, the matrix of with respect to the basis of is given by , whereWe have , so that is non-degenerate on the spacelike cone if and only if and for all
- If u is lightlike, then either or . Let such that and and let be a basis of , such that , , , for and
- , for , if ;
- , for , if ;
- , for , , for , if and .
As , with respect to the basis of , the matrix of is given bywith and We have and therefore is non-degenerate if and only if .Since , is non-degenerate on if and only if .
It follows from the three cases above that is non-degenerate on if and only if for every . □
3.2. Pseudo-Riemannian g-Natural Metrics on the Tangent Bundle of a Pseudo-Riemannian Manifold
To determine the signature of an arbitrary non-degenerate g-natural metric on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, we should give at first the signature of its induced metric on the tangent space of the tangent bundle on an arbitrary point . This leads us to consider three cases corresponding to being timelike, spacelike, and lightlike. In Appendix A, we treat in detail the three cases in Appendix A.1, Appendix A.2 and Appendix A.3, respectively.
Using the discussion in Appendix A, we obtain the following result, which lists all possibilities for the signature of a non-degenerate g-natural metric on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold .
Theorem 1.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature and G be a non-degenerate g-natural metric on its tangent bundle. Then, one of the three following non-overlapping situations occurs:
- 1.
- , , and for all . In this case, the signature of G is ,
- 2.
- , , and for all . In this case, the signature of G is ,
- 3.
- , , for all . In this case, the signature of G is .
Proof.
Since g is non-definite, there exist timelike, spacelike, and lightlike tangent vectors. Using the fact that the index of a pseudo-Riemannian metric is constant, we deduce from Propositions A1–A3 that the possible signatures of G are either or or . The same Propositions specify the conditions on the defining function leading to these possible signatures. □
Remark 2.
In cases (1) and (2) of Theorem 1, we can replace by and (resp. by (resp. .
Example 1.
- (i)
- The Sasaki metric on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature is a pseudo-Riemannian metric of signature .
- (ii)
- A Kaluza–Klein metric on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature is non-degenerate if and only if the function is positive. Moreover, in this case its signature is
- , if α and ϕ are negative everywhere,
- , if for all ,
- , if for all .
We now discuss the possible sign of the defining functions starting from a definite metric.
Proposition 2.
Let be a differentiable manifold with a definite metric.
- 1.
- If g is positive definite, then the signature of a g-natural metric on is determined by the following Table 1.
Table 1. The signature of a non-degenerate g-natural metric on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold. - 2.
- If g is negative definite, then the signature of a g-natural metric on is given by Table 2.
Table 2. The signature of a non-degenerate g-natural metric on the tangent bundle of a negative-definite manifold.
Proof.
This follows from the fact that on a Riemannian (resp. negative-definite) manifold, there are only spacelike (resp. timelike) vectors. □
We now list all possible Lorentzian cases.
Corollary 1.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimension . Then, is a Lorentzian manifold if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
- 1.
- is a Riemannian manifold and
- either , , and , or
- , and .
- 2.
- is a negative definite manifold and
- either , , , or
- , and .
3.3. The Levi-Civita Connection of a pseudo-Riemannian g-Natural Metric
We have the following description of the Levi-Civita connection of a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric, which can be deduced by the same argument used in [9] for the Riemannian case.
Proposition 3.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G be a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on its tangent bundle . The Levi-Civita connection of is characterized by the following identities,
for all , where , , , , and are the sections of defined, for all , by
4. The Null Tangent Bundle
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold. We call the null tangent bundle of the subset of given by
4.1. Differentiable Structure on the Null Tangent Bundle
Proposition 4.
is an imbedded submanifold of of dimension . Furthermore, if we denote by the restriction to of the projection , then is a subbundle over M with fiber at diffeomorphic to the null cone at x.
Proof.
We consider the function
Then, q is a smooth function and . Suppose that there exists a point such that and let be the restriction of q to the fiber and the canonical inclusion. We then have
Since g is non-degenerate, we conclude that , which is a contradiction. Therefore, we deduce that 0 is a regular value of q and hence is an imbedded submanifold of . □
Proposition 5.
For any , the tangent space of at is given by
Moreover, is an orientable submanifold of .
Proof.
We know that, for each , we have the decomposition . Since is a subbundle of , its tangent bundle at a point can be decomposed as . Using the notations of the proof of Proposition 4, we have
Here we used the isomorphism between and . This proves the first part of the Proposition. On the other hand, is an orientable manifold, and the geodesic vector field defined by induces a nowhere vanishing vector field on . So, is an orientable submanifold. □
4.2. Induced g-Natural Metrics on the Null Tangent Bundle
Taking into account Proposition 5, the induced metric on of a g-natural metric G on is completely determined by
where , , and .
Remark 3.
Hereafter and without loss of generality, we shall consider, in the study of the geometry of null tangent bundle, only g-natural metrics on given by (12). Note that, by virtue of Theorem 1, , and . Furthermore, if g is of signature , then we have:
- , and if G is of signature ;
- , and if G is of signature ;
- if G is of signature .
Proposition 6.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on . is a lightlike hypersurface of and the radical of at a point is given by
Thus, is spanned by the vector field induced on by the vector field on , where ζ and are, respectively, the geodesic vector field and the canonical vertical vector field on .
Proof.
Let such that and such that and . Consider a basis of such that , , , for and
- , for , if ;
- , for , if ;
- , for , , for , if and .
The matrix of with respect to the basis of is given by
whose determinant is 0. Therefore, the induced metric on is degenerate.
Since is a degenerate hypersurface of , is one-dimensional, and we can easily see that . □
4.3. A Screen Distribution on the Null Tangent Bundle
Let . If we consider the basis of constructed in the proof of Proposition 6, it is easy to check that a complementary vector subspace of on is given by
and that
Our aim is to construct a (local) screen distribution so that its fiber at is expressed as and, consequently, its corresponding lightlike transversal vector bundle is vertical.
As mentioned in Proposition 6, is a non-zero section of . Then, there is locally a unique section N of such that , , for any local section W of (cf. [11]). Since is a vertical vector of , then N is vertical at any point where it is defined.
To construct explicitly N, we consider the pull-back vector bundle induced by the tangent bundle and the restriction to of the natural projection . The induced metric on by g is none other than the metric induced from the bundle metric on ; hence, we shall denote it by the same symbol . It is then defined by
for any and . Furthermore, has the same signature as .
The restriction to of the identity section of can be considered as a section of the vector bundle , which we also denote by . Then, around any vector of there is an open neighborhood U in and a local section V of defined on U, such that and . From now on, we shall denote by . Taking a smallest U if necessary, we can find sections , , of such that , for and
- , for , if ;
- , for , if ;
- , for , , for , if and .
It is easy to check that the transverse vector field N of the screen distribution on U is given by
where the vertical lift is taken at .
On the other hand, if we define on U the vector fields W, , , , by
where the lifts are taken at , then the screen distribution is locally generated (on U) by , and the lightlike transversal vector bundle with respect to is locally generated (on U) by N.
Now, by virtue of Proposition 5, the restriction to of any horizontal lift of a vector field on M is a vector field on , but this is not the case for vertical lifts. So to go further in our study, we need to construct a new lift that gives rise to (local) vector fields on . We define then the tangential lift of a vector field X on M, with respect to the screen distribution , as the vector field defined by
where the lifts are taken at . By Proposition 5, , so that . Furthermore, we can check easily the following result.
Lemma 2.
For any , we have
As for the case of sections of , we can define horizontal and tangential lifts of sections of , to obtain horizontal and tangential vector fields on . For any section , the horizontal (resp. tangential) lift of s is the horizontal vector field on (resp. on U) defined by (resp. ), for all (resp. ).
For example, the vector fields , N, W, and , on U can be expressed by means of lifts of sections as follows:
The tangential lift of a section can be seen as the vertical lift of an auxiliary section defined, for all , by
i.e.,
It is easy to check that this operation satisfies the following properties:
Lemma 3.
For any and , we have
- 1.
- ;
- 2.
- ;
- 3.
- ;
- 4.
- ;
- 5.
- ;
- 6.
- ;
- 7.
- ;
- 8.
- ;
- 9.
- .
Finally, we note that the tangent space at of is expressed in terms of horizontal and tangential lifts as follows:
where the lifts are taken at . We deduce from (12) the following characterization.
Lemma 4.
The induced metric on of a g-natural metric G on given by (12) is completely determined on U by
for all and .
4.4. The Induced Connection on the Null Tangent Bundle Associated to the Screen Distribution
As for the case of the tangent bundle, to make calculations on covariant derivatives on the null tangent bundle, we need to introduce the induced connection on the vector bundle induced by the tangent bundle and the projection . Remarking that the vector bundle is also the vector bundle induced from and the inclusion map (since ), we deduce that the covariant derivative associated to induced connection on is the restriction of and hence we denote it in the same way. More precisely, let be a moving frame on an open set of M. Then, is a moving frame on and, for every section , we have , where , .
For , is given on by the expression
In particular, for any and , we have
If Z is either a horizontal or a tangential lift of a vector field , then we have
We can define in the same way pointwise, i.e., when .
It is obvious that the connection on is compatible with the induced metric . Consequently, we have the following.
Lemma 5.
For any , we have
- 1.
- ;
- 2.
- ;
- 3.
- ;
- 4.
- .
- 5.
- ,
- 6.
- ,
where σ denotes the identity section on .
Proof.
The four first identities are obvious consequences of (15) and (16). For the fifth identity, using the fact that , the compatibility of with and the first identity, we have
The last identity can be proved in a similar way. □
Using Lemma 5 and the compatibility of with , we obtain the following.
Lemma 6.
For all , , we have
- 1.
- ;In particular,
- 2.
- ;
- 3.
- .
- 4.
- ;In particular, ;
- 5.
- ;
- 6.
- ;In particular, ;
- 7.
- ;In particular,
- 8.
- .
Lemma 7.
The Lie bracket on satisfies the following identities on U:
- 1.
- ,
- 2.
- ,
- 3.
for all .
Proof.
To prove the first identity, it suffices to use the first identity of Lemma 1 and the fact that
To prove the second identity, we use the second identity of Lemmas 1 and 6, to obtain
On the other hand, using the local expression of V and the definition of , we can check that
since by the fifth identity of Lemma 5. This completes the proof of the second identity of the Lemma. The third identity of the Lemma is proved in a similar way by using the third identity of Lemma 1, the last identity of Lemmas 5 and 6. □
The following result will be used in the calculations:
Lemma 8.
For all , we have
- 1.
- and ;
- 2.
- and on U.
According to Remark 3, to study the geometry of equipped with the induced metric of a g-natural metric G on , we can assume that G is given by (12). In this case, using Proposition 3, the Levi-Civita connection of reduces to the form given in the following.
Proposition 7.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G be a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric given by (12) on its tangent bundle . The Levi-Civita connection of is characterized by the following identities:
for all , where , , , , and are the sections of defined by
for all and .
Before giving the induced connection on associated with the screen distribution S, we shall give the local second fundamental form.
Proposition 8.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G a pseudo-Riemannain g-natural metric on its tangent bundle. The local second fundamental form of associated with the screen distribution , given by Equation (13), is characterized on U by
for all and .
Proof.
For , we have by Proposition 7 and Lemma 8
Using the expression of , a routine calculation yields the first identity of the Proposition. A similar calculation gives
From the expression of , we obtain the third identity of the Proposition. The second identity follows from the symmetry of .
Now, let us establish the last identity of the Proposition. Using Lemmas A1 and A2, it is easy to check that
since, from Proposition 7, we have . On the other hand, by the fourth identity of Lemma A3, we have
and hence,
Using again Lemmas 5 and 8, we obtain
□
Corollary 2.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on . Then, is not umbilical at any point of U. Consequently, it is never totally umbilical.
Proof.
Suppose that is umbilical at . Then there is such that , for any . In particular, we have
for any . Using the fourth identity of Proposition 8 and Lemma 4, we find that and . As a consequence, we obtain
In particular, if we take and , we obtain, using the first identity of Proposition 8 and Lemma 4, . Then, and
Substituting from the last equation into the second identity of Proposition 8, we obtain . We deduce that , for all , which contradicts the fact that . □
As a corollary of Proposition 8, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 2.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on its tangent bundle. The induced connection on corresponding to the screen distribution is determined on U by
for all .
Proof.
Using Proposition 7 and (17) and the fact that , we have
In the same way, using Proposition 7 and (18) and the fact that , we have
The second identity of the Theorem follows from the third one and from Lemma 7, using the vanishing of the torsion of . The last identity follows from (19) and the last identity of Proposition 8. □
As a consequence of Theorem 2, we have the following result, which will play a fundamental role in the calculation of the Riemannian curvature of . The proof uses the same arguments as those in the proof of Lemma A3.
Lemma 9.
Let be induced connection on corresponding to the screen distribution . For all and , we have
If we denote by P the projection morphism of on with respect to the decomposition
then, for any , we have
Proposition 9.
The local screen second fundamental form C of the screen distribution is characterized at any by
Proof.
Recall that the transverse vector field N of the screen distribution is given on U by . From , we deduce from Lemma 6 that
Taking into account Theorem 2, calculations yield
and
which gives the first identity of the Proposition. To prove the three other identities of the Proposition, we use the same arguments as before and the following consequences of Theorem 2
and
□
Corollary 3.
Let G be a Kaluza–Klein metric on . The screen distribution has a symmetric second fundamental form (and hence is integrable) if and only if
- 1.
- ,
- 2.
- for all and
- 3.
- for all .
Proof.
Since G is a Kaluza–Klein metric, we have . Using Proposition 9, it is then easy to check that
for all . The screen second fundamental form is symmetric if and only if C restricted to is symmetric, which completes the proof. □
It is worthwhile to note that, while umbilical screen distributions on the null tangent bundle do not exist, screen distributions can be integrable, as the example below shows.
Example 2.
Let and g the metric given by . Let be endowed with any pseudo-Riemannian Kaluza–Klein g-natural metric. We shall construct a vector field V on , which satisfies the three conditions of Corollary 3, which shows that the screen distribution has a symmetric second fundamental form (and hence is integrable). We denote by the canonical frame field on given by , where and . It is easy to see that and , so that . Furthermore, for any such that , there are , such that and , i.e., , and hence either or . Then, we deduce that
For any , we set . Since we must have , we obtain and . We deduce that , , i.e., . For or 0, if we denote , then
and .The manifold being flat, V satisfies automatically the first condition of Corollary 3. We also have for any . Let and , so that . For any , , we have
Thus,
which gives the second condition of Corollary 3. In order to check whether the third condition is satisfied, we calculate for and . On , we have . Hence, and
On , we have , then and so,
Using similar arguments, we show that .
Lemma 10.
The one-form τ corresponding by G to the null vector field ξ is characterized by
for every and .
Proof.
Calculations, using Proposition 7 and Lemma 5, yield on U
and
□
The following two Lemmas are obtained by calculations and arguments similar to the ones above.
Lemma 11.
The shape operator of is characterized by
Lemma 12.
The following formulas characterize the shape operator of the screen distribution of :
Theorem 3.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G a g-natural metric on . Then, is never a screen conformal lightlike submanifold of .
Proof.
Suppose that is screen conformal. Then, there is a non-vanishing smooth function on such that
Using Lemmas 11 and 12, the second equation becomes
and
We deduce from (20) that either or
for any .
If we assume that , Equation (21) becomes
hence,
for any .
In particular, for , we find , which cannot occur. So and
If , Equation (20) is equivalent to
If we take in the third equation, we obtain , which is a contradiction. Hence, and
Using Equation (21), we find that
that is,
which yields
If we take in the last equation, we find that . Then, by (22),
for every , yielding a contradiction. □
4.5. Some Geometric Properties of the Null Tangent Bundle Related to the Curvature
As a first consequence of Proposition A4, we have the following:
Theorem 4.
is never flat.
Proof.
Suppose that , for any and . Then, from the corresponding identity in Proposition A4, we have
whence it follows that , that is,
In particular, if we take and orthogonal to both u and , we find that , for every , which contradicts the fact that g is a non-degenerate metric on M. □
Concerning the symmetry of the Ricci type tensor, we have the following corollary of Proposition A5, in the case of Kaluza–Klein type metrics on the null tangent bundle:
Proposition 10.
Let G denote a pseudo-Riemannian metric on , either of Kaluza–Klein type () or such that . Then, the Ricci type tensor of is symmetric if and only if
- 1.
- , and
- 2.
- for all
Proof.
From the first identity of Proposition A5, we have if and only if
while, using the second and third identities of Proposition A5, we deduce that is equivalent to
Assume now that either or . Then, the Ricci type tensor of is symmetric if and only if and for any and □
Remark 4.
Example 2 gives a situation where the Ricci type tensor of is symmetric.
Corollary 4.
If M is a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian metric of constant curvature k and G is a g-natural metric on , then the Ricci type tensor of is symmetric if and only if
- 1.
- , and
- 2.
- , for any and .
Proof.
From the first identity of Proposition A5, we have if and only if , that is
If we take and , we find that .
The second condition follows directly from in Proposition A5. □
Now, as a consequence of Proposition A6, we have a simpler expression of the extrinsic scalar curvature in the case when the base manifold is of constant sectional curvature, as the following result shows:
Proposition 11.
If M is a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian metric of constant sectional curvature k and G is a g-natural metric on , then the extrinsic scalar curvature of is given by
for all .
The following corollary deals with a special case when the Ricci type tensor is symmetric.
Corollary 5.
Let be a non-definite semi-Riemannian manifold such that . Suppose that for all and let G be a Kaluza–Klein pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on (). Then, the extrinsic scalar curvature of is given by
for all . Moreover, if has a constant sectional curvature, then the extrinsic scalar curvature of is a constant, given by
For the sign of the extrinsic scalar curvature, we have
Corollary 6.
Let be a non-definite semi-Riemannian manifold such that . Suppose that for all Assume that G is a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on such that . Then, has
- (i)
- A positive extrinsic scalar curvature if and only if for all .
- (ii)
- A vanishing extrinsic scalar curvature if and only if for all .
- (iii)
- A negative extrinsic scalar curvature if and only if for all .
Proof.
Suppose that . We deduce from the Proposition A6 that the extrinsic scalar curvature of is equal to
The result is then a direct consequence of Equation (23). □
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work with regard to conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
All data supporting reported results are included in the paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. The Signature of Non-Degenerate g-Natural Metrics on the Tangent Bundle of a Pseudo-Riemannian Manifold
Appendix A.1. On the Timelike Cone
In this case, we have . Let and such that . Put and let , such that for and for .
- If and , we set. The matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . We deduce that the signature is determined by the following Table A1.
Table A1.
and (timelike case).
Table A1.
and (timelike case).
| The signature of | (g(u, u)) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
- 2.
- If and , then . Being G non-degenerate, we deduce that . We have two situations:
- (i)
- : in this case, we setThe matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Then, the signature of is given by the following Table A2.
Table A2.
and (timelike case).
Table A2.
and (timelike case).
| The signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (ii)
- : we put. The matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Hence, the signature of is the same as in Table A2.
- 3.
- If and , then and . One of the following cases occurs:
- (i)
- and . In this case, we setThe matrix of G with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . We deduce that is of signature .
- (ii)
- and . We setThen, the matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . The signature of is then .
- (iii)
- If and , then . We putThe matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Since , the signature of is .
- (iv)
- If and , we putThen, the matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . We deduce that the signature of is .
- 4.
- If and , then in particular . We have one of the following cases:
- (i)
- . In this case, we putSo, the matrix of with respect to the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Therefore the signature of is determined as in Table A3.
Table A3.
, (timelike case).
Table A3.
, (timelike case).
| The signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (ii)
- , we putOn this basis, the matrix of takes the formwhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Then, the signature is determined by Table A4.
Table A4.
, , (timelike case).
Table A4.
, , (timelike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
Summarizing the above discussion, we proved the following result.
Table A5.
Signature at timelike vectors.
Table A5.
Signature at timelike vectors.
| The Signature of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| any | ||||
| any | ||||
| any | any | |||
| any | ||||
| any | ||||
Proposition A1.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G be a non-degenerate g-natural metric on its tangent bundle. Then, for any timelike vector , the signature of is given in Table A5.
Appendix A.2. On the Spacelike Cone
In this case, we have . Let and such that . Put and let , such that for and for .
- If and , we setThe matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . So, the signature of is determined by Table A6.
Table A6.
and (spacelike case).
Table A6.
and (spacelike case).
| The Signature of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
- 2.
- If and , we consider separately two cases:
- (i)
- : we put. The matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . We deduce that the signature of is given by Table A7.
Table A7.
and (spacelike case).
Table A7.
and (spacelike case).
| The signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (ii)
- : let. The matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . As a consequence, the signature of is described in Table A8.
Table A8.
, and (spacelike case).
Table A8.
, and (spacelike case).
| The signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- 3.
- If and , then we have in particular and . We have one of the four following cases:
- (i)
- and . We putThe matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . So, the signature of is .
- (ii)
- and , we putThe matrix of with respect to the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Thus the signature of is .
- (iii)
- and , we putThe matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at , and the signature of is .
- (iv)
- and , we putThe matrix of is thenwhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at , so the signature of is .
- 4.
- If and , we have one of the following cases
- (i)
- . In this case, we consider the basis , whereand we find that the matrix of with respect to this basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at . Thus, the signature of is determined by Table A9.
Table A9.
and (spacelike case).
Table A9.
and (spacelike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (ii)
- , we putThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at , and the signature is determined by Table A10.
Table A10.
, and (spacelike case).
Table A10.
, and (spacelike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
In summary, in the previous discussion we proved the following.
Proposition A2.
Let be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G be a non-degenerate g-natural metric on its tangent bundle. Then, for any spacelike vector , the signature of is given as in Table A11.
Table A11.
Signature at spacelike vectors.
Table A11.
Signature at spacelike vectors.
| The Signature of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| any | ||||
| any | ||||
| any | any | |||
| any | ||||
| any | ||||
Appendix A.3. On the Lightlike Cone
In this case, we have and . Let such that and such that and . Consider a basis of such that , , , for and
- , for , if ;
- , for , if ;
- , for , , for , if and .
We set and .
- If , , we treat separately two cases.
- (i)
- : we takeThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. We deduce that the signature of is determined by Table A12.
Table A12.
, and (lightlike case).
Table A12.
, and (lightlike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (ii)
- : we setThe matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. This yields that the signature of is determined by Table A13.
Table A13.
, and (lightlike case).
Table A13.
, and (lightlike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- 2.
- If , (hence, ) and , then we have one of the following cases:
- (i)
- ,
- if , we putThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. So, the signature of is .
- if , we setThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. Then the signature of is .
- (ii)
- ,
- if , we putThe matrix of in the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. We deduce that the signature of G is .
- if , we putThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. In this case, the signature of is .
- 3.
- If and
- (i)
- ,
- if , we putThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. Then, the signature of is .
- if we setThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0, and the signature of is
- (ii)
- ,
- if we putThe matrix of in the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. This implies that the signature of is .
- if , we setThe matrix of with respect to the basis iswhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. Then, the signature of is .
- 4.
- If and , then .
- (a)
- If , we setThe matrix of with respect to the basis is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. Therefore, the signature is determined by Table A14.
Table A14.
, and (lightlike case).
Table A14.
, and (lightlike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
- (b)
- If , we setThe matrix of , in the basis , is given bywhere the functions in the matrix are evaluated at 0. Thus the signature of is given by Table A15.
Table A15.
, and (lightlike case).
Table A15.
, and (lightlike case).
| The Signature of | ||
|---|---|---|
Thus, we obtained the following:
Proposition A3.
Let such that u is a lightlike vector with respect to g. The signature of the g-natural metric in is determined as follows:
- If and
- (i)
- , then ,
- (ii)
- and , then
- (iii)
- and , then
- If then .
Appendix B. Curvatures on T0M Associated to the Screen Distribution
We shall now proceed to calculate the Riemannian curvature of . For this, we need to know the covariant derivative of horizontal (resp. vertical) lifts of sections that are involved in the identities of Proposition 3. We will start by recalling some facts about some needed induced connections.
It is well known that the Levi-Civita connection ∇ on induces a connection on the vector bundle induced from the tangent bundle and its projection map . Remark that for any , we have , but sections in are not necessarily of this form. To define , we proceed in two steps:
- For any and ,
- To define , for any , we proceed locally: Let be a moving frame on an open set of M. Then, is a moving frame on . In particular, is expressed as , when , We define on as:
In particular, if Z is either a horizontal or a vertical lift of , then we have
We can define in the same manner pointwise, i.e., when . It is easy to check, using (A1), that the following result holds.
Lemma A1.
For any , we have
- 1.
- ;
- 2.
- ;
- 3.
- 4.
- ,
where σ denotes the identity section of .
The metric g on M induces naturally a bundle metric on , defined by
for any and . Furthermore, it is easy to check that has the same signature as and that the induced connection is compatible with it. Using this compatibility and Lemma A1, we obtain the identities stated in the following result.
Lemma A2.
For all , we have
- 1.
- ;
- 2.
- ;
- 3.
- ;
- 4.
- .
Next, we state the following useful Lemma, giving the covariant derivative of the horizontal and vertical lifts of sections of .
Lemma A3.
Denote by and the Levi-Civita connection of and the induced connection on , respectively. For any and , we have
- (i)
- ;
- (ii)
- ;
- (iii)
- ;
- (iv)
- .
Proof.
We shall prove the first identity, the proof of the others being similar. Expressing s locally as and using the first identity of Proposition 3 and the linearity of and with respect to X and Y, we have on
□
Appendix B.1. The Induced Curvature Tensor on T0M Associated to the Screen Distribution
Proposition A4.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Denote by and the curvature tensor fields of and , respectively. Then, the curvature tensor on associated with is characterized, for all vector fields and , by the following identities:
where
Proof.
We shall prove the last identity, the others are calculated in the same way using Theorem 2 and Lemmas 5, 7 and 9. By definition, we have
But
and
Then,
But , thus
□
Appendix B.2. The Ricci Type Tensor on T0M Associated to the Screen Distribution
By contraction of the curvature tensor described in Proposition A4 and the definition of the Ricci type tensor, we obtain the following:
Proposition A5.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and G be a pseudo-Riemannian g-natural metric on . The Ricci type tensor of is characterized by
for all and , where is an orthonormal family of such that , and are any arbitrary extensions of , respectively.
Appendix B.3. The Extrinsic Scalar Curvature on T0M Associated to the Screen Distribution
Finally, by contraction of symmetrized induced Ricci tensor from the Ricci type tensor described in Proposition A5 and the definition of the extrinsic scalar curvature, we obtain the following:
Proposition A6.
Let be a non-definite semi-Riemannian manifold. The extrinsic scalar curvature of , where is the metric on induced from a g-natural metric G on , is given by
for all , where R is the scalar curvature of M.
Finally, if we restrict ourselves to the Sasaki metric on in Propositions 9 and A4–A6, we obtain the following:
Example A1.
Let be a non-definite pseudo-Riemannian manifold and let be equipped with the Sasaki metric. Then
- 1.
- The local screen second fundamental form C of the screen distribution is characterized at any by
- 2.
- The curvature tensor on associated to is characterized, for all vector fields and , by the following identities:
- 3.
- The Ricci type tensor of is characterized byfor all and , where is an orthonormal family of such that , and are any arbitrary extensions of , respectively.
- 4.
- The extrinsic scalar curvature of is given byfor all , where R is the scalar curvature of M.
References
- Beem, J.K.; Ehrlich, P.; Easley, K. Global Lorentzian Geometry; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996; Volume 202. [Google Scholar]
- Tod, P. The equations of conformal cyclic cosmology. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2015, 47, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, O.; Sekizawa, M. Natural transformations of Riemannian metrics on manifolds to metrics on tangent bundles —A classification. Bull. Tokyo Gakugei Univ. 1988, 40, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Kolár, I.; Michor, P.W.; Slovák, J. Natural Operations in Differential Geometry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Abbassi, M.T.K. Note on the classification Theorems of g-natural metrics on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold (M, g). Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 2004, 45, 591–596. [Google Scholar]
- Abbassi, M.T.K.; Calvaruso, G. g-natural contact metrics on unit tangent sphere bundles. Monatsh. Math. 2007, 151, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbassi, M.T.K.; Calvaruso, G.; Perrone, D. Harmonic sections of tangent bundles equipped with Riemannian g-natural metrics. Quartely J. Math. 2011, 62, 259–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbassi, M.T.K.; Sarih, M. On some hereditary properties of Riemannian g-natural metrics on tangent bundles of Riemannian manifolds. Diff. Geom. Appl. 2005, 22, 19–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbassi, M.T.K.; Sarih, M. On natural metrics on tangent bundles of Riemannian manifolds. Arch. Math. 2005, 41, 71–92. [Google Scholar]
- Duggal, K.L.; Bejancu, A. Lightlike submanifolds of semi-Riemannian manifolds. In Lightlike Submanifolds of Semi-Riemannian Manifolds and Applications; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 139–189. [Google Scholar]
- Duggal, K.L.; Sahin, B. Differential Geometry of Lightlike Submanifolds; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bejan, C.L.; Duggal, K.L. Global lightlike manifolds and harmonicity. Kodai Math. J. 2005, 28, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duggal, K.L. Harmonic maps, morphisms and globally null manifolds. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2003, 6, 421–436. [Google Scholar]
- Leite, M.-L. Harmonic mappings of surfaces with respect to degenerate metrics. Amer. J. Math. 1988, 110, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duggal, K.L.; Sahin, B. Contact generalized CR-lightlike submanifolds of Sasakian submanifolds. Acta Math. Hungar. 2009, 122, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, B.; Gunes, R. Geodesic CR-lightlike submanifolds. Beitr. Algebra Geom 2001, 42, 583–594. [Google Scholar]
- Sahin, B.; Gunes, R. Integrability of distributions in CR-lightlike submanifolds. Tamkang J. Math. 2002, 33, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kılıç, E.; Gülbahar, M.; Kavuk, E. Concurrent Vector Fields on Lightlike Hypersurfaces. Mathematics 2020, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atindogbe, C. Scalar curvature on lightlike hypersurfaces. APPS Appl. Sci. 2009, 11, 429–436. [Google Scholar]
- Atindogbe, C.; Ezin, J.-P.; Tossa, J. Pseudoinversion of degenerate metrics. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2003, 55, 3479–3501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasaki, S. On the differential geometry of tangent bundles of Riemannian manifolds I. Tohôku Math. J. 1958, 10, 338–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheeger, J.; Gromoll, D. On the structure of complete manifolds of non negative curvature. Ann. Math. 1972, 96, 413–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, C.M. An existence theorem for harmonic sections. Manuscripta Math. 1990, 68, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).