9
$\begingroup$

Given a closed 2-surface $M$ together with a Riemannian metric $g$. We pick a free homotopy class $\gamma \in \pi_1(M)$ and consider the set $C(\gamma)$ of all closed geodesics homotopic to $\gamma$.

Of course, the set $C(\gamma)$ may be infinite. The length of a geodesic loop gives a function on $C(\gamma)$. My question is whether this function is bounded (in terms of $g$)?

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is the long line. It's traditionally not counted as a manifold by a countability axiom. But assuming that we can ignore this it must surely be counted as the longest geodesic. It's takes the class Ord and places a real line between each consecutive ordinal! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 24, 2020 at 13:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Mozibur says his comment above was intended as a joke. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 24, 2020 at 15:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A paper of Gromoll--Meyer entitled 'Periodic geodesics on compact Riemannian manifolds' might be of interest. There it is proved that a simply connected closed manifold $M$ (with $\mathrm{dim} M \geq 2$) has infinitely many, geometrically distinct closed geodesics, provided the sequence of Betti numbers $b_k(\Omega)$ of its loop space is unbounded. These geodesics are all contractible, but I am not sure how their lengths behave. $\endgroup$
    – Leo Moos
    Commented Nov 24, 2020 at 20:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do you somehow exclude the geodesics on $S^2$ that simply traverse a great circle multiple times? If so, what's the precise definition of "closed geodesic"? (For example, do you want it to not intersect itself?) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 24, 2020 at 20:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AchimKrause Geodesics are called geometrically distinct if they have different images. Self-intersections are allowed in closed geodesics; when they are forbidden on speaks of simple closed geodesics. $\endgroup$
    – Leo Moos
    Commented Nov 24, 2020 at 20:28

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

No such bound $C(\gamma)$ exists, even when $S$ is the two-sphere and even assuming that all geodesics considered are simple. Here is the example (which generalises to surfaces with genus).

Suppose that $S$ is the two-sphere. Pick four open disks $(D_i)_{i = 1}^4$ whose closures are closed disks and which are pairwise disjoint. (For example, use small round disks with respect to the usual round metric on $S$.) Let $P = S - \bigcup_i D_i$; so $P$ is a "four-holed sphere". We equip $P$ with a hyperbolic metric $g_P$ where all boundary components are geodesic. We now claim the following:

  • $(P, g_P)$ has infinitely many closed simple geodesics (produced, for example, by a "braiding" construction).
  • All but four of these (namely, the curves of $\partial P$) are disjoint from $\partial P$.
  • In any infinite collection of these geodesics, their lengths are unbounded.

We now choose any riemannian metric $g_S$ on $S$ that extends $g_P$. Note that all of the previous geodesics (except perhaps the components of $\partial P$) remain geodesic with respect to the metric $g_S$. Since all of those geodesics are null-homotopic in $S$, we are done.

Morally: The riemannian surface $(S, g_S)$ has four "mushrooms" (the disks $D_i$). The geodesics used above wander around the surface avoiding the tops of the mushrooms.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why four open disks? $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ Any finite number of open disks ($\ge 3$) would do the job. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ @MattF. - We remove three or more disks to get infinitely many closed geodesics. We remove four or more to get infinitely many closed and simple geodesics. (At least, in this construction.) $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind explaining the role of the fourth hole? I am aware of a braiding construction by Colding-Minicozzi in their paper 'Examples of embedded minimal tori without area bounds', where they only use three holes. How is your argument related to theirs? $\endgroup$
    – Leo Moos
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 15:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The arguments are essentially the same (but they choose a concrete family of homotopy classes while I just waved my hands). Note that in their Lemma 1.3 they take $S$ to be a "connected planar domain with at least three interior boundary components". So $S$ has at least four boundary components - the one on the exterior and the (at least) three on the interior. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 17:56
3
$\begingroup$

This seems relevant to your question.

An isosceles tetrahedron (all four faces congruent) contains arbitrarily long closed simple geodesics. This paper proves the reverse: having such geodesics implies the surface is an isosceles tetrahedron.

Akopyan, Arseniy, and Anton Petrunin. "Long geodesics on convex surfaces." arXiv:1702.05172 (2017).

The authors say that their theorem "implies that a smooth convex surface does not have arbitrarily long simple closed geodesics."


     

     Figure from Akopyan-Petrunin.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is very relevant. But, in order to turn it into the desired example, you need to ensure that all of the geodesics avoid a definite neighbourhood of the vertices. I do that using some negative curvature in my answer. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 2:26
  • $\begingroup$ @SamNead: Could you explain the "need to ensure that all of the geodesics avoid a definite neighbourhood of the vertices"? Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 13:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We want to modify the metric in a neighbourhood of the vertices, to get a riemannian metric. But we also don't want to loose any geodesics. Since the geodesics can get arbitrarily close to the vertices, this is a bit tricky... so I use hyperbolic geometry instead... My example is "morally" very close to yours. $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @SamNead: Thanks for that explanation! $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 14:38
0
$\begingroup$

It is more reasonable to consider the situation when the genus of $M$ is finite, because when genus of $M$ is not finite, we can use some rescaling to expand some part of $M$ and the problem will be less meaningful.

In the compact situation, given $(M,g)$, $M$ is torus or sphere, then $C(\gamma)$ is bounded. This is easy to prove, follow a topology argument and local regularity of geodesic flow, in fact this thing describle in the graph1 can not happen.

For a general compact manifold $M$, genus of $M$ is great than 1, first it is easy to prove there is a metric $g$ on $M$ with constant -1 sectional curvature. So by prime geodesic theorem, $\sup_{\gamma \in H_1(M)}C(\gamma)=\infty$, but there is no contradiction with for general $M,g$ and a fix $\gamma\in H_1(M)$, $C(\gamma)<\infty$, in fact this also follow from the phnomenon of graph1 can not happen(regularity of the ODE describle geodesic flow) enter image description here graph1

For noncompact case, I think following claim could be proved, but I do not guarantee that the following argument is completely correct

Claim Given a orientable closed 2 -surface together with a Riemannian metric $(M,g )$, and genus of $M$ is $n$. If we can give a condition on $g$ to make the following situation do not happen, We pick a cycle $\gamma \in H_{1}(M)$, and define, $$C(\gamma)=\sup_{[c] = \ [\gamma]\in H_1(M)\\ c\ is\ closed\ geodesic}l(c)$$ where $l$ is the length function, then $C(\gamma)$ is finite for all $\gamma\in H_1(M)$.

As a comment, $(M,g)$ with variable pointwise negative curvature can not avoid the situation.

situation

enter image description here proof a fix closed 2 -surface together with a Riemannian metric $(M,g )$ with genus $n$. Such famalliy could be clssification into $n+1$ finer types, to define a type, we need first claim there is a cononical basis in $H_1(M)$ given by $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_n$, for each $\gamma_i$ it is a loop around a hole given in the second picture. And there are two type for "hole", one type is compact "hole", which is defined by the hole can not be eliminate by glue a $D$ to $M$, and the other type is noncompact "hole", which could be eliminate by glue a $D$ to $M$. And a finer type of $(M,g)$ with genus $n$ is just counting the number of compact holes, there is at most $k$ and at least $0$ compact hole, so there is $k+1$ finer type. For each type there is $k$ compact genus and $n-k$ non-compact genus, $0\leq k\leq n$.

Now assume $(M,g)$ with genus $n$ also has type $k$, i.e. there is $k$ compact holes in $M$, and $n-k$ noncompact holes in $M$, assume the generators in $H_1(M)$ is $\{\gamma^c_1,...,\gamma^c_k,\gamma^{nc}_1,...,\gamma^{nc}_{n-k}\}$ for a general cycle $\gamma$ in $H_1(M)$ could be represent by $\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^ka_i\gamma^c_i+\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}b_i\gamma^{nc}_i$, it could be prove that, $$C(\gamma)\lesssim \sum_{i=1}^ka_iC(\gamma^c_i)+\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}b_iC(\gamma^{nc}_i)$$ the constant in the previous inequality only depend on $(M,g)$. So we only need to prove $$C(\gamma^c_i)<\infty, C(\gamma^{nc}_i)<\infty, C([0])<\infty.$$ And if the metric $g$ is choosed such that the situation describle in the picture do not happen, and for example if contract $C([0])=\infty$, then there is a sequence of closed geodesic $w_1,w_2,...,w_n,...$ homotopic to zero and $l(w_1)<l(w_2)<l(w_3)<...<l(w_n)<..., \lim_{k\to \infty}l(w_k)=\infty$, on the other hand fix a compact subset of $M, M_k\subset M$ we can consider a family of covering $A_i, \cup_{a \in A_i}B_{r_i}(a)=M_k, \lim_{i\to \infty}r_i=0$, then for every scale $A_i$, there is a $B_{r_i}(a_i)$ s.t. $\limsup_jl((w_j)\cap B_{r_i}(a_i))=\infty$, and because geodesic flow is a hamiltonian system in $M\times TM$, so if we give some gerularity on $g$ then locally we can gain a uniformly upper bound on $l((w_j)\cap B_{r_i}(a_i))$, this derive the major part of $l(w_k)$ for $k$ suffice large is come fram place out of any compact set of $M$. So if $C([\gamma])$ is not bounded it must follow there is a infinite sequence of closed geodesic around a fix noncompact hole, which fall into the situation.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand what your planned proof is, in genus zero. I also think that I've given counterexamples in my answer. So perhaps there is a mistake, here or there.... :/ $\endgroup$
    – Sam Nead
    Commented Dec 25, 2020 at 2:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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