1. Introduction
If an almost Hermitian manifold 
 has a parallel almost complex structure 
J, i.e., 
, then it is a Kähler manifold. If, however, a weaker condition holds, that is, if the tensor 
 is skew-symmetric, the manifold is nearly Kähler. It was shown in [
1] that nearly Kähler manifolds are locally Riemannian products of six-dimensional nearly Kähler manifolds, certain homogenous nearly Kähler spaces, and twistor spaces over quaternionic Kähler manifolds with positive scalar curvature, endowed with the canonical nearly Kähler metric. It was proved in [
2] that the only homogeneous six-dimensional nearly Kähler manifolds are the following compact 3-symmetric spaces: the nearly Kähler six-dimensional sphere 
, the manifold 
, the projective space 
, and the flag manifold 
, where the last three are not endowed with their standard metrics.
The Jacobi operator with respect to a tangent vector field X of a Riemannian manifold M with the curvature tensor R is provided by , and is inspired in a natural way by the well-known differential equation of Jacobi fields along geodesics. In particular, if M is a hypersurface of an almost Hermitian manifold with a unit normal vector field N, the tangent vector field  is said to be characteristic, or the Reeb Vector field. In this particular setting, the Jacobi operator with respect to  is called the structure Jacobi operator, and is denoted by .
The study of Riemannian submanifolds in different ambient spaces by means of their Jacobi operators has been active in recent years. One of the reasons for this is that the conditions provided in terms of the structure Jacobi operator generate larger families then the analogue conditions provided in terms of the Riemannian tensor. In particular, many recent results deal with questions of the existence of hypersurfaces with structure Jacobi operators that satisfy conditions related to their parallelism. In [
3], the real hypersurfaces of the complex space form with a Ricci tensor and structure Jacobi operator parallel with respect to the Reeb vector field were classified, while in [
4] it was shown that the hypersurfaces of the complex space form with a structure Jacobi operator symmetric along the Reeb flow and commuting with the shape operator is a Hopf hypersurface. In [
5], the classification of the hypersurfaces in complex two-plane Grasmannians with a structure Jacobi operator commuting with any other Jacobi operator or with the normal Jacobi operator was provided, and in [
6] it was shown that there are no Hopf real hypersurfaces in complex two-plane Grasmannians with parallel structure operators. In [
7], the class of real hypersurfaces in non-flat complex space forms with generalized 
-parallel structure Jacobi operators was classified. In [
8], the non-existence of the particular class of Hopf hypersurfaces in complex two-plane Grasmannians was provided. The non-existence of real hypersurfaces in non-flat complex space forms with structure Jacobi operators of the Lie–Codazzi type was proven in [
9]. In [
10], the non-existence of real hypersurfaces in non-flat complex space forms with recurrent structure Jacobi operators was shown. In particular, most of the known results deal with Kähler manifolds, where the parallelism of the almost complex structure somewhat simplifies the calculations. Here, we want to initiate a similar line of research with respect to the hypersurfaces in nearly Kähler manifolds, in particular, the homogeneous six-dimensional sphere 
, in terms of its structure Jacobi operator. We prove the following non-existence theorem.
Theorem 1. There exist no real hypersurfaces with parallel structure Jacobi operators in .
 We note that the skew symmetry of the tensor G imposes a somewhat different approach to analizing hypersurfaces in nearly Kähler manifolds compared to the one in Kähler manifolds, necessitating the construction of a suitable moving frame along the hypersurface.
  2. Preliminaries
We denote by  and g, respectively, the standard Euclidean metric in the space  and the metric on  induced by . The corresponding Levi-Civita connections we denote by D and , respectively.
We will briefly recall the construction of the almost complex structure of 
. Namely, one can regard the space 
 as the space of purely imaginary Cayley numbers 
 and use the Cayley multiplication to introduce a vector cross product in 
, in the following way
      
This cross product is well defined in the space 
. Moreover, if we denote by 
 an orthonormal basis of 
 then we have the following multiplication table.
			
 |  | 
 |  | 
Any orthonormal basis or frame that satisfies the relations of this table is called a 
 basis or a 
 frame. Then, for an arbitrary point 
 and 
 we define a (1,1)-tensor field 
J by
      
	  Then, one can show that 
J is an almost complex structure which is, moreover, Hermitian and nearly Kähler.
Let 
M be a Riemannian submanifold of the nearly Kähler sphere 
 Then, the 
-tensor field 
G on 
 defined by 
 where 
 is the Levi–Civita connection on 
, is skew-symmetric and satisfies
      
Moreover, following [
11], we have
      
      for the arbitrary vector fields 
 tangent to 
.
We denote by 
 and 
 the Levi–Civita connection of 
M and the normal connection induced from 
 in the normal bundle 
 of 
M in 
, respectively. Then, the formulas of Gauss and Weingarten are respectively provided by
      
      where 
 are tangent, 
N is a normal vector field on 
M, and 
h and 
 are the second fundamental form and the shape operator with respect to the section 
N, respectively. The second fundamental form and the shape operator are related by 
 In addition, for the tangent vector fields 
, and 
W we have the following Gauss and Codazzi equations
      
      where we denote by 
R the Riemannian curvature tensor of 
M, and consider that 
.
We denote by 
N the unit normal vector field of 
M and by 
 the corresponding Reeb vector field. We denote by 
 a 1-form on 
M. For a vector field 
X tangent to 
M, we set 
, where 
 is the tangential component of 
. It then follows that 
 is a 
 tensor field on 
M and that 
 defines an almost contact metric structure on 
M, that is,
      
      and 
 for 
 tangent to 
M.
Let . Then,  is a four-dimensional smooth distribution on M, which is J-invariant.
A real hypersurface of an almost Hermitian manifold is Hopf if 
 is principal, that is, if 
 for a certain function 
 on the submanifold. Recall, see [
12], that, for a Hopf hypersurface in 
, the function 
 is a constant. Namely, from (
3), by taking 
, we obtain that
      
Hence, 
.Note that, since there are no 4-dimensional almost complex submanifolds in 
, see [
13], the distibution 
 is not integrable and there exist vector fields 
 such that 
 has a non-vanishing component in direction of 
. Then 
 yielding 
. Consequently, 
 is a constant.
The classification of the Hopf hypersurfaces of the sphere 
 is well known; see [
12]. Such hypersurfaces are either totally geodesic spheres or tubes around almost complex curves. Hence, every Hopf hypersurface in 
 has exactly one, two, or three distinct principal curvatures at each point. The umbilical varieties are open subsets of geodesic hyperspheres with a principal curvature 
 of multiplicity 5, while the non-umbilical varieties are open subsets of tubes around almost complex curves. If 
M is an open part of a tube around a totally geodesic almost complex curve in 
, then 
M has exactly two distinct principal curvatures, namely, 
 of multiplicity 3 and 
 of multiplicity 2. Alternatively, if 
M is an open part of a tube around an almost complex curve of type (I), (II), or (III), then it has three distinct principal curvatures, 
 of multiplicity 3 and 
 and 
 of multiplicity 1; see [
14].
  3. The Moving Frame for Hypersurfaces in 
Here, we present one of the more convenient moving frames to work with and the relationship between the connection coefficients in it; for details, see [
15]. We also refer readers to [
16,
17,
18].
For each unit vector field 
, let 
, 
, 
. Then, the set 
 is a local orthonormal frame on 
M; see [
15]. Moreover, the following holds.
Lemma 1 ([
15])
. For the previously defined orthonormal frame, the following relations hold: Note that such a moving frame is not uniquely determined and depends on the choice of the vector field .
For one such frame, let us denote by
      
The connection D is metric and the second fundamental formsymmetric, meaning that we have  and .
Lemma 2. For the previously defined coefficients, we have  Proof.  The above Lemma follows from (
4) and the relation
        
        by taking 
 and 
.
For 
, we obtain
        
For 
, we have
        
The other relations follow in a similar way. □
 Lemma 3. The differentiable functions (5) satisfy  Proof.  By taking 
 in (
1), we obtain that 
. Similarly, by taking 
, we obtain 
 and for 
, we obtain 
. Finally, for 
 and 
, respectively, we have 
 and 
 which completes the proof. □
 If the hypersurface 
M is not Hopf, then the vector field 
 has a non-vanishing projection 
 on 
 and therefore, there is a unique smooth vector field 
 such that 
. If 
M is a Hopf hypersurface then we have that 
. Thus, for any smooth vector field 
 we may write 
. Hence, regardless of the case there exists a smooth vector field 
 and differentiable functions 
 and 
 such that
      
Because the components of 
 in the direction of 
 vanish, we have
      
Now, we can use the Gauss equations to obtain further relations between the coefficients. In the following Lemma, we list those that we directly use in further calculations.
Lemma 4. For the coefficients (5), the following relations hold:  Proof.  By taking 
 into the Gauss Equation (
2), we obtain that
        
Similarly, the second and third equations are obtained by taking 
, 
, 
, 
 and 
, 
, 
, 
 into (
2). The other equalities follow in a similar way. □
 Now, by taking the results of Lemma 4 and calculating the Gauss equation for different choices of the vector fields appearing in it, we can obtain the covariant derivatives of coefficients in various directions. Here, we omit most of the obtained expressions due to the length of the list. However, we note that by taking 
, 
, and 
 in (
2), we obtain the last three equations, respectively, in the following lemma as a result.
Lemma 5. The functions (5), α, and β satisfy    4. Proof of the Main Theorem
Let . The condition of the parallel structure Jacobi operator is equivalent to , .
From 
, 
, using Lemma 5, we have, respectively,
      
We now treat the cases of Hopf and non-Hopf hypersurfaces separately.
Case 1: Suppose that M is a Hopf hypersurface, i.e., ,  is an eigenvector field for the shape operator A, . Then, see Preliminaries,  is a constant.
We have from Lemma 5 and 
, 
 that
      
Recall that the principal curvatures are continuous and smooth functions, and that, around any point in 
M, there is a local orthonormal frame, consisting of principal directions, diagonalizing the shape operator. Note that in this case we have the freedom to choose the vector field 
. Therefore, let us take 
 to be an eigenvector field for the shape operator 
A, corresponding to the eigenvalue that we may specify a few steps later. As 
, we have
      
      thus, 
, while from Lemma 4 we have
      
From 
, we have
      
      thus, if we add this up with (
8), we obtain
      
      therefore, 
. From
      
      we obtain 
, thus, the second equation of (
12) becomes 
.
As 
, the Hopf hypersurface 
M is not totally geodesic, and is therefore part of the tube around an almost complex surface. Therefore, there exists an eigenvalue for the shape operator 
A different from 
. We may assume that the vector field 
 is such that its corresponding eigenvalue 
. Straightforwardly, it follows that 
 and 
. Then, from Lemma 4, 
, 
 and 
. Thus, we obtain, respectively,
      
Now, Equation (
8) and the third equation of (
12)reduce to 
 and 
. By subtracting (
10) from the first equation of (
12), we obtain 
; furthermore, 
. Then, Lemma 4 yields
      
      and 
=0. Therefore, (
13) becomes 
, so 
. From (
8) and (
10) we obtain, respectively, 
 and 
; thus,
      
From the previous, we have
      
If we assume that 
, from (
16) we have 
 and 
, and because (
17), we can find that 
 and 
 are eigenvectors with eigenvalue 
 and that 
 is an eigenvector with eigenvalue 
, which is a contradiction.
Thus, 
. From (
16), we have 
 and 
. Now, the second and third equations of (
14) and (
15) become, respectively,
      
      thus, 
 and 
. From
      
      using Lemma 4 we can obtain 
. Now, from
      
      we have 
. Finally, by putting this into
      
      we obtain a contradiction.
Case 2: We now assume that 
M is not a Hopf hypersurface, i.e., that 
. Then, the second equation of (
11) implies 
; thus, from (
11) we obtain
      
 Further, from Lemma 4, we have
Then, from 
 and 
, we have
      
Now, by using Lemmas 4 and 5 and (
21), from 
, 
, we obtain
      
Further, from  and , we have  and ; hence, the following holds.
Lemma 8. The coefficients in (5) satisfy  Proof.  From (
9), we have 
, and therefore, 
.
Now, by taking , we obtain the first relation of the Lemma.
Further, it follows that (
25) 
 (
24) 
 (
8) 
 (
20) 
, and we have 
. If we multiply this by 
 and use 
, we obtain the second relation of the Lemma.
Now, the sum of the third relation of Lemma 6 and the third relation of Lemma 7 and the first relation of Lemma 7, respectively, reduce to
        
If we multiply the first relation of (
26) by 
 and add it to the second, we obtain
        
If we assume that 
, from the last relation of Lemma 6 we have 
. On the other hand, if we assume that 
, first, by using the second relation of the Lemma we obtain 
 from the first equation of (
22), thus, 
. Then, from the last equation of Lemma 6, we have 
; thus, 
. In both cases, we have 
.
The third relation of the Lemma now follows directly from .
The fourth relation is obtained as the sum of the third and the product of (
23) by 
.
Note that the second relation of (
26) has now become
        
From the forth relation, using the second relation of the Lemma we have 
; thus, from the second relation of (
26), we obtain 
. Now, the first relation of (
22) becomes 
, therefore, it holds that 
.
Using the second relation of the Lemma along with , from  we can obtain the fifth equation.
The sixth equation follows from 
(
24)
(
23)
 by taking 
.
Because 
(
24)
(
10)
(
20)
(
8)
, we obtain the seventh equation.
The eighth equation is deduced from 
(
24)
(
10)
(
20)
, and the ninth then follows from 
(
19)
(
20)
(
8)
(
20)
(
8)
.
From 
(
24)
(
10)
,
(
20)
(
8)
(
20)
(
8)
 and 
(
19)
(
24)
, respectively, we obtain 
, and the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth relations are obtained. □
 Now, we consider the ninth relation of Lemma 8.
Case 2.1: We first assume that ; then, from the sixth relation of Lemma 8 we have  and from the eight we have .
From Lemma 4 and 
, we obtain 
. From 
(
20)
(
8)
 and the second relation of (
22) we have, respectively,
      
      thus, 
 and 
. The fifth relation of Lemma 8 then yields 
, thus, 
. As 
, from 
 and using Lemma 4, we obtain
      
      thus, we have 
. If we multiply (
24) by two and add it to (
10), we have 
, thus, 
. Finally, if we add 
 to (
10), we obtain 
; thus, 
 Now, from (
18), we have 
, which is a contradiction. Therefore, 
, 
, and 
.
Case 2.2: From the tenth relation of Lemma 8 we have , while the twelfth yields  and the eleventh .
From the third relation of Lemma 6 and the fifth relation of Lemma 8 we have, respectively,  and . If , we have a contradiction; thus,  and . Furthermore, from the eighth relation of Lemma 8, we have ; thus,  and the second yields , meaning that . Now, from the ninth and seventh equations of Lemma 8 we respectively obtain  and , which is a contradiction.
This completes the proof.