Given a contact 3-manifold $(M,\omega)$ and its Reeb vector field $R$ and contact structure $\Delta$, I want to understand in some sense 'how large' is the set of Reeb vector fields supported by $\Delta$ which is the set of Reeb vector fields $R_f$ associated to every $f\omega$ for $f$ positive function.

1- More specifically I want to understand whether if multiplying by a non-zero function $f$ can I obtain a a contact structure whose Reeb vector field $R_f$ lies in a fixed 2 dimensional subbundle of $TM$.

2- A more concrete question related to this would be given a 2 dimensional subbundle of $TM$ can I always find a contact structure whose Reeb vector field is parallel to this 2-dimensional subbundle (in the case of 1 dimensional subbundles the answer is negative as shown in this topic: In a contact manifold, is every tranverse 1-foliation given by some Reeb vector field?)

Any reference where people study such properties of Reeb vector fields would also be welcome.

  • $\begingroup$ How can a 3-manifold be symplectic? $\endgroup$ – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Feb 12 '15 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill: I imagine that the OP mean 'contact', rather than 'symplectic'. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Feb 12 '15 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertBryant: I'd agree. It certainly makes the question more sensible! $\endgroup$ – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Feb 13 '15 at 9:42

The answer to your first question depends on the $2$-dimensional subbundle of $TM$. (I don't have an answer to your second question, which is harder.)

Suppose that $\Delta$ is a contact structure on $M^3$ with $\Delta$ defined by a $1$-form $\omega$ such that $\omega\wedge\mathrm{d}\omega\not=0$. Let $X$ be the Reeb vector field for $\omega$, i.e., $\omega(X) = 1$ and $\iota(X)(\mathrm{d}\omega) = 0$. (Here, $\iota(X)$ means the interior product with $X$.)

If $f$ is a nonzero function on $M$, and $\tilde\omega = f\omega$, then the Reeb vector field for $\tilde\omega$ is $$ \tilde X = \frac1{f}\ X + F, $$ where $F$ is the unique vector field that satisfies $\omega(F)=0$ and $$ \iota(F)(\mathrm{d}\omega) = \frac{\mathrm{d}f - \mathrm{d}f(X)\ \omega}{f^2}. $$

Now, suppose that one has a $2$-plane field on $M$ defined as the kernel of a nowhere vanishing $1$-form $\theta$ on $M$. Then one can write $\theta$ uniquely in the form $\theta = a\,\omega + \iota(B)(\mathrm{d}\omega)$ where $a$ is a smooth function on $M$ and $B$ is a vector field that satisfies $\omega(B) = 0$. To know whether $\tilde X$ lies in the kernel of $\theta$, one just evaluates to get $$ 0 = \theta(\tilde X) = \frac{a}{f} + \iota(F)\bigl(\iota(B)(\mathrm{d}\omega)\bigr) = \frac{a}{f} - \iota(B)\bigl(\iota(F)(\mathrm{d}\omega)\bigr) = \frac{a}{f} - \frac{\mathrm{d}f(B)}{f^2} $$ Thus, the condition on $f$ is the first order linear PDE $$\mathrm{d}f(B) - af = 0.$$ Since $f$ is nowhere vanishing, we can assume that $f$ is positive and write it in the form $f = e^u$ for some smooth function $u$ on $M$, so that the equation becomes $$ \mathrm{d}u(B) = a. $$ Note that one can't have $B=0$ at any point where there is a solution because that would force $a$ to vanish there, which would make $\theta$ vanish there. Thus, $B$ must be nowhere vanishing if there is to be a solution, i.e., $\theta\wedge\omega$ must be nonvanishing. That's one obvious condition.

However, there are more global conditions: For example, if $B$ has a closed integral curve and $a$ is positive along that integral curve, then there cannot be any solution $u$ to the above equation along this curve, because $u$ would have to be strictly increasing along this closed curve. Since it is easy to construct a $B$ with a closed integral curve on such a $3$-manifold and then choose $a$ to be a positive function on $M$, there will always be $2$-plane fields for which there is no solution to your problem.

Another global condition comes directly from the formula for $\tilde X$. Note that, at any critical point of $f$ (i.e., where $\mathrm{d}f$ vanishes), one must have $F$ vanish as well, in which case $\tilde X$ will be a multiple of $X$. Thus, if your $2$-plane field $\theta=0$ is always transverse to the line field spanned by $X$ (i.e., if $a$ is nowhere vanishing), then there can't be a solution in this case either.

  • $\begingroup$ Based on your answer I was able to derive some conditions which are more geometric, but I am still not sure if they admit global solutions. If you can have a look an comment I would be very greatful. Moreover this also means that this is always locally possible right? (contrary to the case where you want the Reeb vector field to be exactly on a specified line bundle which turns out to be a system of PDE). $\endgroup$ – Avicenna Mar 22 '15 at 10:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As long as the $2$-plane field you are trying to get $X$ to lie in is distinct from the contact $2$-plane field (i.e., in the above notation $\theta\wedge\omega$ is nowhere vanishing), the equation $\mathrm{d}u(B)-a = 0$ is always locally solvable for $u$. In fact, the solution is trivial in flow box coordinates for $B$: If $x = (x^i):U\to\mathbb{R}^3$ are $B$-flowbox coordinates on an open set $U\subset M$, i.e., $B = \partial_1$ in $U$, then, in $U$, the solution for $u$ is $$u(x^1,x^2,x^3)=v(x^2,x^3) +\int_0^{x^1}a(t,x^2,x^3)\,\mathrm{d}t$$ for any arbitrary function $v$ of two variables. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Mar 22 '15 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ (cont.)... Thus, in this 'generic' case, the obstructions are all necessarily global. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Mar 22 '15 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, any directions or ideas as to how to understand whether if a global solutions is possible? My first attempt was to express the PDE as much as possible using geometric objects. But I have never though about global solutions to PDE before so any keywords or referenes or anything would be most welcome. $\endgroup$ – Avicenna Mar 22 '15 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Avicenna: In general, I think that the global theory is not good. You are asking how to tell when a given function $a$ on $M^3$ is globally the Lie derivative of some other function $u$ by a given (nowhere vanishing) vector field $B$. The dynamics of the vector field $B$ can be very complicated, which strongly influences whether or not there are global solutions. I already mentioned obvious things such as when $B$ has closed orbits or when $a$ is everywhere positive, but much more complicated and delicate things can happen in this situation, and general theorems are few and far between. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Mar 23 '15 at 10:36

Based on the answer of Robert Bryant, I was able to derive some more conditions which look a bit more geometric. As above $\omega$ is the contact form, $\Delta$ the contact structure, $X$ is the reeb vector field and $\theta$ is the other 1-form which defines the plane distribution $P$. I will assume to start with that $P$ and $\Delta$ are distinct everywhere. I will work local coordinates. So they intersect in a one dimensional line bundle spanned by some vector field $Y$ so that $\theta(Y) = \eta(Y)=0$.

I derived two conditions.

First one:

Now I denote by $\eta_f = f\eta$ and its Reeb vector field $R_f$. Now since $d\eta_f(R_f,\cdot)=0$, one has that $\theta(R_f)=0$ if and only if $d\eta_f = \theta \wedge \beta_f$ for some everywhere non-vanishing 1-form $\beta_f$. This means $d\eta_f|_P=0$. Taking $Y$ as above and $X$ any other vectorfield in $P$, expanding $d\eta_f = df \wedge \eta + f d\eta$ and evaluating this 2-form on $(X,Y)$ one gets the equation:

$$\mathcal{L}_Y(ln(f)) = \eta(\mathcal{L}_Y(\frac{X}{\eta(X)})) $$

This is the first equation, I don't know if it admits a global solution.

Second one:

We know that $\theta \wedge d\eta_f=0$ by above. We let $Z$ be a vectorfield inside $\Delta$ distinct from $Y$. Then we evaluate this on $(Z,Y,R)$ to get

$$\mathcal{L}_Y(ln(f)) = \frac{\theta(R)}{\theta(Z)}d\eta(Z,Y)$$

In this case the quantity $d\eta(Z,Y)$ can be related to how the contact structure $\Delta$ twists along the integral curves of $Y$ and I have hopes somehow that right hand side can be written as the differential of a function but I am not sure because here the ugly term is $\theta(R)$ which may vanish at some points.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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