2
$\begingroup$

Is there a name for a pseudo-Riemannian manifold that admits no nonzero null vectors? More precisely: For a pseudo-Riemannian manifold $(R,g)$, a null vector is a non-zero vector field $X:M \to TM$ such that $$ g(X,X)(m) = 0, \forall m \in M. $$ As this [question][1] shows - vector like this exist. But can there exist manifolds where they do not exist and do such manifolds have a name?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ You are asking about 'nonvanishing null vector fields', not 'nonzero null vectors', and your attempt of '[question][1]' for a link to some other reference question is not working, so we can't see that. $$ $$An explicit example is to consider the torus $T = R/(\pi Z)\times R/(\pi Z)$ and the metric $g = \cos 2x\, (2\,dx\,dy) + \sin 2x\,(dx^2-dy^2)$, which has no nonvanishing null vector field, $X= a\,\partial_x + b\,\partial_y$ because such an $X$ would have $a$ and $b$ be $\pi$-periodic and satisfy either $a\cos x + b\sin x=0$ or $b\cos x-a\sin x = 0$.Either forces $(a,b)$ to vanish somewhere. $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2021 at 12:03

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

Note first that every pseudo-Riemmanian manifold admits a null vector field which is not identically $0$ (just construct one locally and multiply it by a bump function). So by "non-zero vector field" I assume you mean "nowhere vanishing".

Let $(M,g)$ be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature $(p,q)$. The tangent bundle $TM$ always admits an orthogonal splitting as $E \overset{\perp}{\oplus} F$, where $E$ and $F$ are respectively positive and negative definite (hence of respective rank $p$ and $q$). Moreover this splitting is unique up to homotopy (because, pointwise, the set of such splittings is the symmetric space of the orthogonal group $O(p,q)$, which is contractible).

Proposition: $M$ admits a nowhere vanishing null vector field if and only if $E$ and $F$ both admit nowhere vanishing sections.

Proof: Decompose a nowhere vanishing null vector field $X$ as $X_E + X_F$. Then $g(X_E,X_E) = -g(X_F,X_F)$. If this is $0$ at some point then $X_E$ and $X_F$ vanish at that point (since $g$ is positive definite on $E$ and negative definite on $F$) contradicting the non-vanishing of $X$. Hence $X_E$ and $X_F$ are non-vanishing sections of $E$ and $F$.

Conversely, if $X_E$ and $X_F$ are non-vanishing sections of $E$ and $F$ respectively, then up multiplying $X_F$ them by a positive function, we can assume that $g(X_E,X_E) = -g(X_F,X_F)$. Hence $X_E+X_F$ is a nowhere vanishing null vector field. CQFD

There are thus topological obstructions to the existence of such a vector field (mainly the non-vanishing of the Euler class of $E$ or $F$). For instance, Let $(A,g_A)$ and $(B,g_B)$ be Riemannian manifolds, with $A$ of non-zero Euler characteristic, and consider $(M,g) = (A\times B, g_A \oplus -g_B)$. Then $M$ does not admit a nowhere vanishing null vector field. Indeed, we have the splitting $TM = TA\oplus TB$, and the projection of a null vector field to TA must vanish somewhere since the Euler class of TA is non-zero.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer! However are you sure that one can always construct a globally defined non-zero vector field. Take the manifold $\mathbb{R}$ and endow $T\mathbb{R}$ with a Riemannian metric that is semi-definite at $0$ and positive definite everywhere else (we can do so by multiplying the metric by a smooth function that vanishes at zero and only at zero). Then the bump fuction argument doesn't seem to work since the "support of the non-positive definitness" is a single point. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2021 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ Your example is not considered a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, since at zero the metric is degenerate. $\endgroup$
    – Pierre PC
    Oct 8, 2021 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Pierre: yes of course, thanks for pointing this out. $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2021 at 7:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Pierre: Do the "metrics" considered in my example fit into some more general class? $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2021 at 9:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NicolasTholozan Although very true, I also like to think of them as degenerate metrics on the cotangent. Depending on what the OP has in mind, maybe their $T\mathbb R$ is actually a $T^*\mathbb R$. That said, even this case would not be considered a sub-Riemannian manifold by many authors. $\endgroup$
    – Pierre PC
    Oct 11, 2021 at 15:49
3
$\begingroup$

Such manifolds are precisely the Riemannian ones and their “opposites”.

Suppose $M$ is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold whose signature is not trivial in one direction or the other. We work in a neighbourhood of a point and will define a vector field with arbitrarily small support, so we may as well consider $M=\mathbb R^d$. Suppose also, after a linear change of coordinates, that the metric at zero is $dx_1^2+\cdots+dx_k^2-dx_{k+1}^2-\cdots-dx_d^2$. By hypothesis $0<k<d$.

For all x sufficiently close to 0, define $X(x)$ as the only vector inbetween $\epsilon_1:=(1,0,\ldots,0)$ and $2\epsilon_d:=(0,\ldots,0,2)$ of norm 0. If you accept for a moment that this is a well-defined smooth vector field, then a suitable multiple of $X$ will have very small support, hence be defined everywhere upon extending by zero, but will be precisely $(2/3,\ldots,2/3)$ at zero.

The fact that it is smooth comes from the inverse function theorem. We are looking for $(1-t,0,\ldots,0,2t)$ where $t$ is solution to $$ (1-t)^2g_x(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_1) + 4t(1-t)g_x(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_d) + 4t^2g_x(\epsilon_d,\epsilon_d) = 0. $$ Single roots of a polynomial depend smoothly on the coefficients, so if we show that $t$ is a single root, then it will depend smoothly on the metric. But this is an open condition, and at $x=0$ we have $$ (1-t)^2g_0(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_1) + 4t(1-t)g_0(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_d) + 4t^2g_0(\epsilon_d,\epsilon_d) = (1-t)^2 - 4t^2 = -(3t-1)(t+1) $$ so the root $1/3$ is simple.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.