R
with integrable screen distribution
Makoto Sakaki
Abstract. We give the necessary and sufficient condition for a lightlike hypersurface inR42 with integrable screen distribution to be minimal.
Us-ing the condition we can get many minimal lightlike hypersurfaces inR42
which are not totally geodesic.
M.S.C. 2000: 53C42, 53C50.
Key words: lightlike hypersurface, minimal, screen distribution, semi-Euclidean space.
1
Introduction
LetM be a submanifold in a semi-Riemannian manifold ( ¯M ,g¯). If the induced metric
g= ¯g|M is non-degenerate, then (M, g) becomes a semi-Riemannian manifold and it can be studied as a semi-Riemannian submanifold. Wheng is degenerate, (M, g) is called a lightlike submanifold, and many different situations appear (cf. [2]). In this case, the tangent bundleT Mand the normal bundleT M⊥
have a non-trivial intersec-tion, which is called the radical distribution and denoted by Rad(T M). Then we may choose a (non-unique) semi-Riemannian complementary distribution of Rad(T M) in
T M, which is called the screen distribution and denoted byS(T M).
In particular, in the case of lightlike hypersurfaces, the normal bundleT M⊥
coin-cides with the radical distribution Rad(T M), and there exists a canonical transversal vector bundle tr(T M) corresponding to the screen distributionS(T M) which is called the lightlike transversal vector bundle.
Recently, Bejan and Duggal [1] introduced the notion of minimal lightlike sub-manifolds. In the proof of Theorem 3.2 of [1], they implicitly show that a lightlike hypersurfaceM in a semi-Riemannian manifold ( ¯M ,g¯) with integrable screen distri-bution S(T M) is minimal if and only if the radical distribution Rad(T M) contains the mean curvature vector field of any leaf ofS(T M). But this statement is a general one, and not easy to use to give some examples of minimal lightlike hypersurfaces.
In this paper, we discuss minimal lightlike hypersurfaces in the 4-dimensional semi-Euclidean space R42 of index 2. We give the necessary and sufficient condition
∗
Balkan Journal of Geometry and Its Applications, Vol.14, No.1, 2009, pp. 84-90. c
for a lightlike hypersurface inR42 with integrable screen distribution to be minimal,
as follows:
Theorem 1.1. Let (M, g, S(T M)) be a lightlike hypersurface in R42 with integrable
screen distributionS(T M). ThenM is minimal if and only if the eigenvalues of the shape operator of any leaf ofS(T M)in the direction of the lightlike transversal vector bundle are both zero.
The necessary and sufficient condition in Theorem 1.1 seems stronger than that from [1, Th.3.2], but they are equivalent in our case, as we will see in Section 3. And in Section 4, using the discussion in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we give a class of minimal lightlike hypersurfaces inR42 which are not totally geodesic.
2
Preliminaries
In this section, following [2] and [1], we recall some basic facts on lightlike hypersur-faces.
Let ¯M be a semi-Riemannian manifold with metric ¯gand Levi-Civita connection ¯
∇. Let M be a lightlike hypersurface in ¯M, that is, the induce metric g = ¯g|M is degenerate. In the case of lightlike hypersurfaces, the normal bundleT M⊥
coincides with the radical distribution Rad(T M), defined by
Rad(TxM) ={ξ∈TxM|g(ξ, X) = 0, X∈TxM},
where dim(Rad(TxM)) = 1. There exists a screen distribution S(T M) which is a semi-Riemannian complementary distribution of Rad(T M) inT M, that is,
T M =S(T M)⊥Rad(T M) =S(T M)⊥T M⊥.
We note that if ¯M is of indexq, thenS(T M) is of indexq−1. IfS(T M) is integrable, thenM is locally a productL×d, wheredis a null geodesic in ¯M as an integral curve of Rad(T M) andLis a semi-Riemannian submanifold in ¯M as a leaf ofS(T M).
From [2, p.79], we know that for a screen distributionS(T M), there exists a unique vector bundle tr(T M) of rank 1 such that, for any non-zero local sectionξ ofT M⊥
onU there is a unique sectionN of tr(T M)|U satisfying
¯
g(ξ, N) = 1, ¯g(N, N) = ¯g(N, W) = 0
for allW ∈Γ(S(T M)|U). This vector bundle tr(T M) is called the lightlike transversal vector bundle with respect toS(T M), and we have the decomposition
TM¯|M =T M ⊕tr(T M).
From now on,ξ denotes a non-zero local section of Rad(T M). According to the above decomposition, we have the Gauss formula
¯
whereX, Y ∈Γ(T M). Then∇is a torsion-free linear connnection onM, and B is a symmetricC∞
(M)-bilinear form on Γ(T M). This formB is called the local second fundamental form ofM, which is independent of the choice ofS(T M). WhenB= 0,
M is called totally geodesic.
Following the Definition 2 of [1] in the case of lightlike hypersurfaces,M is called minimal if trace(B) = 0, where the trace is written with respect to g restricted to
S(T M). This condition is independent of the choice ofS(T M) andξ.
3
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let (M, g, S(T M)) be a lightlike hypersurface inR42 with
in-tegrable screen distributionS(T M). ThenM is locally a productL×d, where dis an open set of a lightlike line in R42 as an integral curve of Rad(T M) and L is a
Lorentzian surface inR42as a leaf ofS(T M).
LetLbe an arbitrary leaf ofS(T M), andf :L→R42be the inclusion map. Along L, we choose a local frame field {e1, e2} so that {f∗e1, f∗e2} is orthonormal with
signature (+,−), and a local normal orthonormal frame field{e3, e4}with signature
(+,−). Then we may assume that the inclusion mapF :M →R42 is given by
F(p, t) =f(p) +t(e3(p) +e4(p)), p∈L, t∈(−ε, ε).
We shall use the following ranges of indices:
1≤A, B, ...≤4, 1≤i, j, ...≤2, 3≤α, β, ...≤4.
LetωBA be the connection forms which satisfy
d(f∗ei) =
2
X
j=1
ωijf∗ej+
4
X
α=3
ωαieα, deα=
2
X
i=1
ωαif∗ei+
4
X
β=3 ωαβeβ.
We note that, in our situation,ωB
A =−ωBAif|A−B|is even, andωBA =ωAB if|A−B| is odd. Then
de3=ω13f∗e1+ω32f∗e2+ω43e4=−ω31f∗e1+ω23f∗e2+ω34e4,
de4=ω41f∗e1+ω42f∗e2+ω34e3=ω41f∗e1−ω24f∗e2+ω43e3.
Lethα
ij denote the components of the second fundamental formhofL, so that
ωiα=
2
X
j=1 hαijωj,
where{ω1, ω2}is the coframe field dual to{e1, e2}.
Set
˜
F∗e˜1= (1−tA11)f∗e1+tA12f∗e2+tω43(e1)(e3+e4),
F∗e˜2=−tA12f∗e1+ (1 +tA22)f∗e2+tω43(e2)(e3+e4), F∗∂t=e3+e4=:ξ,
where we set
Aij =h3ij−h4ij. As the induced metricgis given by
g(X, Y) =hF∗X, F∗Yi, X, Y ∈Γ(T M),
we have the components ofg by
g(˜e1,˜e1) = 1−2tA11+t2(A211−A212),
g(˜e2,e˜2) =−1−2tA22+t2(A212−A222), g(˜e1,˜e2) =−2tA12+t2A12(A11−A22),
g(˜e1, ∂t) =g(˜e2, ∂t) =g(∂t, ∂t) = 0.
Thus, for sufficiently smallt, M is a lightlike hypersurface, andξis a non-zero local section of the radical distribution Rad(T M).
We choose the screen distribution S(T M) so that it is spanned by {F∗e˜1, F∗e˜2}.
Then, for eacht, the mapFt:L→R24 defined byFt(p) =F(p, t) becomes an
inclu-sion map of a leaf ofS(T M). Let tr(T M) be the lightlike transversal vector bundle corresponding toS(T M), and N be the local section of tr(T M) which corresponds toξas in Section 2. ThenAij are the components of the second fundamental formh ofLin the directionN.
With respect to the local second fundamental formB, we may obtain
B(˜e1,e˜1) =hD˜e1F∗e˜1, ξi=A11−t(A
2
11−A212), B(˜e1,e˜2) =hD˜e2F∗e˜1, ξi=A12−tA12(A11−A22),
B(˜e2,e˜2) =hD˜e2F∗e˜2, ξi=A22−t(A212−A222),
whereD is the induced connection from the flat connection onR42. By the definition, M is minimal if and only if trace(B) = 0 where the trace is written with respect tog
restricted toS(T M), which is now equivalent to that
(3.1) g(˜e2,e˜2)B(˜e1,˜e1)−2g(˜e1,˜e2)B(˜e1,e˜2) +g(˜e1,˜e1)B(˜e2,˜e2) = 0.
It is a cubic identity fort, and is equivalent to that
(3.2) A11=A22, A211=A212.
Let us consider
Aij = (h3)ij−(h4) j i ,
which are the components of the shape operator ofLin the directionN. Noting that
we can see that the condition (3.2) is equivalent to that the trace and the determinant of (Aij) are both zero, which is also equivalent to that the eigenvalues of (Aij) are both zero. Thus we have proved the theorem. ✷
Let M be a lightlike hypersurface in a semi-Riemannian manifold ( ¯M ,¯g) with integrableS(T M). As noted in the introduction, the proof of [1, Th.3.2] implies that
M is minimal if and only if (∗) ”Rad(T M) contains the mean curvature vector field of any leaf ofS(T M)”. So the necessary and sufficient condition in Theorem 1.1 seems stronger than the above condition (∗), but they are equivalent in our case, as we have shown. We note that the condition (∗) corresponds to the equation (3.1), which is equivalent to (3.2) for an arbitrary leaf. Namely, for a lightlike hypersurfaceM inR42
with integrableS(T M), if Rad(T M) contains the mean curvature vector field of any leaf ofS(T M), then the leaves must satisfy another condition.
4
A class of minimal lightlike hypersurfaces
In this section, using the discussion in Section 3, we give a class of minimal lightlike hypersurfaces inR42which are not totally geodesic. In fact, we give a class of Lorentzian
surfaces inR42 which satisfy the condition (3.2).
Let{x1, x2, x3, x4} be the standard coordinate system forR42with metric
Thenf gives a Lorentzian surface inR42 which satisfies the condition (3.2).
hfu, fui= 4{Q
ij denote the components of the second fundamental form off with respect to these frames. Then we can get
h311=
Thus the condition (3.2) is satisfied, and we have proved the proposition. ✷
Remark 1 This construction is inspired by the previous paper [5] and the struc-ture of complex curves inR4=C2.
By the discussion in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we get the following result
Theorem 4.2. Let f, e3, e4 be as in Proposition 4.1. Then the map
F(u, v, t) =f(u, v) +t(e3+e4)
gives a minimal lightlike hypersurface inR42, which is not totally geodesic if
Q′2(u−v)Q
By Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 4.2, we can get many minimal lightlike hyper-surfaces inR42 which are not totally geodesic. For example, when
Q1(z) =Q2(z) =z, Q3(z) =Q4(z) =ez,
References
[1] C. L. Bejan and K. L. Duggal,Global lightlike manifolds and harmonicity, Kodai Math. J. 28 (2005), 131-145.
[2] K. L. Duggal and A. Bejancu,Lightlike Submanifolds of Semi-Riemannian Man-ifolds and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
[3] F. Massamba,Lightlike hypersurfaces of indefinite Sasakian manifolds with par-allel symmetric bilinear forms, Differ. Geom. Dyn. Syst. 10 (2008), 226-234. [4] B. Sahin,Slant lightlike submanifolds of indefinite Hermitian manifolds, Balkan
Jour. Geom. Appl. 13, 1 (2008), 107-119.
[5] M. Sakaki, Two classes of Lorentzian stationary surfaces in semi-Riemannian space forms, Nihonkai Math. Jour. 15 (2004), 15-22.
Author’s address:
Makoto Sakaki
