1
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to read section 3 in J. Jost and Y.L. Xin [JX]. This section has to do with the geometry of Grassmannians. I have a question that comes out of the derivation at the top of page 283 in that paper. Let $M$ be a locally symmetric Riemannian manifold. Let $c$ be a geodesic in $M$ and let $J$ be a Jacobi field along $c$. Let $\cdot$ be the derivative (differential) of $c$ and assume $J$ is orthogonal to $\cdot$. Under these hypotheses is it the case that the Lie bracket, $[\cdot, J]$, is $0$? If so, why?

[JX] title = {{Bernstein type theorems for higher codimension.}}, year = {1999}, journal = {{Calculus of Variations}}, volume = {9}, pages = {277--296}.

I would like to include a one-page LaTeX article and a screen shot to help explain my question but I don't know how to do that.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand the question .The vector fields are only defined along curves, but $J$ is not tangent to the curve. The Lie bracket is the derivative as we flow one vector field along the flow of the other (the fishing derivative). But we don't have flows defined. So what is the meaning of Lie derivative here? $\endgroup$
    – Ben McKay
    Commented Jan 6, 2023 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ By definition, a Jacobi field is the restriction of a vector field obtained by differentiating a 1-parameter family of geodesics with respect to the parameter. The Lie bracket of that vector field with the vector field of velocity vectors of the geodesics vanishes. Perhaps that’s what the authors are using. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Jan 6, 2023 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ I took a look at page 283 of the paper, and indeed what I said above is what they mean. I suggest reading about Jacobi fields in any standard textbook on Riemannian geometry and working out your own version of the calculation. If I have time, I’ll write an answer. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Jan 8, 2023 at 7:10

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Here is the general idea: If you have a map $\Phi: (-\delta,\delta) \times (0,T) \rightarrow M$, where and $M$ is a smooth manifold, then the vector fields $S = \partial_1\Phi(0,t)$ and $T = \partial_2\Phi(0,t)$ along the curve $\gamma(t) = \Phi(0,t)$, $0 < t < T$, commute. This of course follows from the fact that, since partial derivatives commute, $$ [S,T] = [\partial_1\Phi,\partial_2\Phi] = 0. $$ on the entire domain $(-\delta,\delta) \times (0,T)$. In particular, if $M$ is a Riemannian manifold, then $$ \nabla_S T = \nabla_TS. $$ If you now restrict $S$ and $T$ to the curve $\gamma$, you can do calculations with $S$ and $T$ using the equation above, even though the equation is ill-defined along the curve.

This fact can used when doing calculations involving Jacobi fields. In particular, it is how the Jacobi equation is derived. In this specific context, $M$ would be a Riemannian manifold and $\Phi$ a $1$-parameter family of constant speed geodesics, i.e., for each $s \in (-\delta,\delta)$, the curve $t\mapsto \Phi(s,t)$ satisfies $$ \nabla_TT = 0, $$ where $T = \partial_t\Phi(s,t)$. On the other hand, the restriction of the vector field $$ J = \partial_s\Phi(s,t) $$ to $s = 0$ is a Jacobi field along each geodesic $t \mapsto \Phi(s,t)$. By the simple fact above, $$ \nabla_JT = \nabla_TJ. $$

Most of us do the calculation on the entire domain $(-\delta,\delta)\times [0,T]$ first and then observe that the final equation holds along the geodesic $\gamma$. However, some Riemannian geometers just use the above equation along a constant speed geodesic without comment.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the explanation. I knew that you can get a Jacobi field by differentiating a family of geodesics (w.r.t. the appropriate parameter). I.e., that operation yields a vector field satisfying the Jacobi equation (which I take to be the definition of a Jacobi field). I was unsure whether the converse is true, i.e., if you have a vector field satisfying the Jacobi equation then there exists a family of geodesics, etc. I guess the answer is "yes". $\endgroup$
    – Steve
    Commented Jan 9, 2023 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ You should prove that yourself. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Jan 9, 2023 at 23:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .