I'm reading Ahlfors' original articles about Weil-Petersson metric: "Some remarks on Teichmüller's space of Riemann surfaces" and "Curvature properties of Teichmüller's space".

The tangent space at a point $C$ (here identified with a Riemann surface of genus $g$) of the Teichmuller space can be identified with the space of Beltrami differentials on $C$ and the author defines the Weil-Petersson hermitian form as $\langle \nu,\mu\rangle=\int_C\nu\varphi(\mu)dxdy$, for every Beltrami differentials $\nu,\mu$ on $C$, where $\varphi(\mu)$ is the quadratic differential corresponding to $\mu$.

On the Teichmuller space $\mathcal{T}_g$ there are complex coordinates $t_1,\dots,t_n$, because every Beltrami differential $\mu$ can be written $\mu=t_1\nu_1+\dots+t_n\nu_n$, where $\nu_1,\dots,\nu_n$ is a base. Then author then wants to write the Weil-Petersson form in this coordinates as $\sum_{\alpha,\beta}g_{\alpha\overline{\beta}}(\mu)dt_\alpha d\overline{t}_\beta$.

What I don't get is why he writes $g_{\alpha\overline{\beta}}(\mu)=\langle L^\mu\nu_\alpha,L^\mu\nu_\beta\rangle$

The definition of $L^\mu\nu$ is the following. Consider $f^\mu:\hat{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow\hat{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\partial_{\overline{z}}f^\mu=\mu\partial_zf^\mu$, then, given three Beltrami differentials $\mu,\rho$ and $\lambda$, we write $\rho=\mu|\lambda$ iff $f^\mu=f^\rho\circ f^\lambda$ which is true iff $\rho\circ f^\lambda=\frac{\mu-\lambda}{1-\overline{\lambda}\mu}(\partial_zf^\lambda/|\partial_zf^\lambda|)^2$.

Then, by abuse of notation, we can define the function on Beltrami differentials $\rho:\mu\mapsto \mu|\lambda$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu}\rho(\lambda):=lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\rho(\lambda+t\nu)-\rho(\lambda)}{t}=L^\lambda\nu=(\nu\frac{(\partial_zf^\lambda)^2}{|\partial_zf^\lambda|^2-|\partial_\overline{z}f^\lambda|^2})\circ(f^\lambda)^{-1}$

Why this definition of $L^\mu\nu$ should imply that, imposing $g_{\alpha\overline{\beta}}(\mu)=\langle L^\mu\nu_\alpha,L^\mu\nu_\beta\rangle$, we get the metric $\int_C\nu\varphi(\mu)dxdy$?


One way to define Teichmueller space is to fix a Riemann surface $X$, with a fixed complex structure, and define the space of all Beltrami differentials $\mathcal{M}(X)$ on $X$. Notice that in this way we have fixed a base point $X$ of Teichmueller space with a fixed "background" complex structure. By a Beltrami differential I mean a $(-1,1)$ form $\mu(z)\frac{d\bar{z}}{d z}$ such that $\|\mu\|_{\infty} < 1$. By an infinitesimal Beltrami differential I simply mean a $(-1,1)$ form without the latter inequality, all of which form the set $\mathcal{IB}(X)$. Then one way to define Teichmueller space is $\mathcal{T}(X) = \mathcal{M}(X) / \sim$, where two Beltramies $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2 \in \mathcal{M}(X)$ are equivalent, i.e. $\mu_1 \sim \mu_2$, exactly when there is a quasi-conformal homeomorphism $f : X \to X$ homotopic to identity such that $$\mu_1 = f^*\mu_2 = \frac{\bar{\partial} f + (\mu_2\circ f) \overline{\partial f}}{{\partial} f + (\mu_2 \circ f) \partial\bar{f}}. $$ Furthermore, the tangent space $T_X\mathcal{T}(X)$ of $\mathcal{T}(X)$ at the base point $X$ can be thought of as $\mathcal{IB}(X)/\sim$.

Now, if by $X^{\mu}$ I denote the Riemann surface with complex structure induced by the Beltrami $\mu$ on $X$, then the tangent space of the Teichmueller sapce at that point is $T_{X^{\mu}}\mathcal{T}(X) = T_{[\mu]}\mathcal{T}(X) = \mathcal{IB}(X^{\mu})/\sim$. The Wiel-Petersson hermitian form, calculated at the point $[\mu]$, is defined as $$\langle\nu_1, \nu_2\rangle_{\mu} = \int_{X^{\mu}} \nu_1 \varphi(\nu_2),$$ where $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2 \in \mathcal{IB}(X^{\mu})$ are infinitesimal Beltramies on $X^{\nu}$ (not on $X$!). This is the reason for which one needs to use the formulas you are asking about. One needs to look at all the infinitesimal Beltramies $\nu = \sum_{\alpha} t_{\alpha}\nu_{\alpha}$ on the base point Riemann surface $X$ from the perspective of the Riemann surface determined by $[\mu] \in \mathcal{T}(X)$, i.e. to look at the infinitesimal Beltriemies $\nu|_{\mu} = \sum_{\alpha} t_{\alpha}\nu_{\alpha}|_{\mu}$ on the surface $X^{\mu},$ i.e. $\nu|_{\mu} \in \mathcal{IB}(X^{\mu})$. In order to do that, first one needs a way to move all Beltramies from $\mathcal{M}(X)$ to $\mathcal{M}(X^{\mu})$ by establishing an appropriate isomorphism. Then, by differentiating that isomorphism at the point $[\mu]$ one would find out how infinitesimal Beltramies are moved from $X$ to $X^{\mu}$ isomorphically, i.e. one would obtain the tangent isomorphism. Consequently, one would have an identification between $\mathcal{IB}(X^{\mu})/\sim$ and $\mathcal{IB}(X)/\sim$.

Given a Beltrami $\lambda$ denote by $f^{\lambda} : X \to X^{\lambda}$ the quasi-conformal map (unique up to post-composition with a holomorphic isomorphism) that determines the Beltrami $\lambda = \frac{\bar{\partial} f^{\lambda}}{\partial f^{\lambda}}$ on $X$. Also denote by $f^{\lambda|_{\mu}} : X^{\mu} \to X^{\lambda}$ the quasi-conformal map that determines the (intermidiate) Beltrami $\lambda|_{\mu} = \frac{\bar{\partial} f^{\lambda|_{\mu}}}{\partial f^{\lambda|_{\mu}}}$ on $X^{\mu}$ (not on $X$!). Then, (technically up to holomorphic isomorphism) $f^{\lambda} = f^{\lambda|_{\mu}} \circ f^{\mu} : X \to X^{\lambda},$ where $ f^{\lambda|_{\mu}} : X^{\mu} \to X^{\lambda}.$ After differentiating the latter identity between the three quasi-conformal maps, $df^{\lambda} = df^{\lambda|_{\mu}} \circ df^{\mu}$, and then combining it with the expressions of the type $df(z) = \partial f(z) dz + \bar{\partial} f(z) d\bar{z}$, one obtains again the formula, already featured above,

$$\lambda = f^{\mu*}(\lambda|_{\mu}) = \frac{\bar{\partial} f^{\mu} + (\lambda|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu}) \overline{\partial f^{\mu}}}{{\partial} f^{\mu} + (\lambda|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu}) \partial\overline{f^{\mu}}}. $$ By solving for $\lambda|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu}$ and using the fact that $\bar{\partial} f^{\mu} = \mu \partial f^{\mu}$, one obtains exactly the expression $$\lambda|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu} = \frac{\lambda - \mu} {1 - \bar{\mu}\lambda}\left(\frac{\partial f^{\mu}}{|\partial f^{\mu}|}\right)^2.$$ This is basically the map from $\mathcal{M}(X)$ to $\mathcal{M}(X^{\mu})$ sending Beltramies on $X$ to Beltramies on $X^{\mu}$. To obtain a tangent vector at $[\mu] \in \mathcal{T}(X)$, take an infinitesimal Beltrami $\nu$ on $X$ and form the one parameter family $\mu_t = \mu + t \nu$. On $X^{\mu}$ this family becomes $$\mu_t|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu} = \frac{\mu + t \nu - \mu} {1 - \bar{\mu}(\mu + t \nu)}\left(\frac{\partial f^{\mu}}{|\partial f^{\mu}|}\right)^2 = t \frac{\nu } {1 - \bar{\mu}(\mu + t \nu)}\left(\frac{\partial f^{\mu}}{|\partial f^{\mu}|}\right)^2.$$ To obtain the tangent vector $\nu|_{\mu}$ at the point $\mu$ simply differentiate the last identity with respect to $t$ and then set $t=0$. The result is $$\nu|_{\mu} \circ f^{\mu} = \nu \frac{(\partial f^{\mu})^2} {|\partial f^{\mu}|^2 - |\bar{\partial} f^{\mu}|^2}.$$ After pre-composing with $(f^{\mu})^{-1}$, one obtains exactly the formula you mention $$L^{\mu}\nu = \nu|_{\mu} = \left(\nu \frac{(\partial f^{\mu})^2} {|\partial f^{\mu}|^2 - |\bar{\partial} f^{\mu}|^2}\right)\circ (f^{\mu})^{-1}.$$ That is why the Weil-Petersson form should look like $$\langle\nu_{\alpha}|_{\mu}, \nu_{\beta}|_{\mu}\rangle_{\mu} = \langle L^{\mu}\nu_{\alpha}, L^{\mu}\nu_{\beta}\rangle_{\mu} = \int_{X^{\mu}} \nu_{\alpha}|_{\mu} \varphi(\nu_{\beta}|_{\mu}) = \int_{X^{\mu}} L^{\mu} \nu_{\alpha} \varphi(L^{\mu} \nu_{\beta}),$$ for any $\nu_{\alpha}$ and $\nu_{\beta}$ from $\mathcal{IB}(X)$ (notice that the base point is $X$!).


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.