Setup:
I was reading about slices and principal orbit theorems (Theorem 3.4.6) from these notes.
Let the Lie group $G$ act on a complete Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ isometrically on $M$, i.e. $\phi^{*}g= g \forall \phi \in G,$ i.e. the Riemannian metric $g$ is $G$-invariant. Also assume the action is proper but not necessarily free. Let the quotient be $Q:=M/G, \pi:M\to Q$ be the quotient map. Equip $Q$ with the quotient metric: $d_Q(q_1, q_2):=min_{\{(p_1,p_2)\in M \times M: \pi(p_1)=q_1, \pi(p_2)=q_2\} } d(p_1, p_2).$
When $G$ is compact, two things happen:
Existence of global slice for $G$-action: By Theorem 3 of these notes, there is a global slice $S_p$ through every point $p\in M.$ (I hope I understood it correctly? I haven't gone through the proof yet) since the $M$ is equipped with a $G$-invariant metric, as $G$ acts on $M$ isometrically.
Existence of principal orbits: There are open dense subsets $M_0 \subset M, Q_0 \subset Q$, such that $M_0\to Q_0$ is a Riemannian submersion and that $M_0$ is the union of all the principal (maximal) orbits, i.e. the union of orbits with minimal isotropy types.
My questions, connecting the above two, are:
- Assume $G$ is compact. Then Then are there any sufficient conditions on the $G$-action so that $M_0$ can be expressed as a disjoint union of global slices in $M_0$, i.e. given $p \in M_0,$ does there exist a global slice $S_p \subset M_0$ so that $M_0= \bigcup_{g \in G} S_{g.p}, G.S_p=M_0.$ (because of globality).
My question is motivated by simple examples of $G:=\operatorname{SO}(2)=\mathbb{S}^1$ action on $M:=\mathbb{R}^2,$ where $M_0=\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \{0\}$ is a union of the principal orbits $\mathbb{S}^1.p$, $p \ne 0$, but $M_0$ is also the disjoint union of the global slices $S_p:=\{cp: c>0\}$ in $M_0$. Similar examples for the $G:=\operatorname{SO}(2)=\mathbb{S}^1$ action on $M:=\mathbb{S}^2$, where $M_0= M\setminus \{(0,0,\pm 1)\}$, can be decomposed into slices $S_p$, that is the "unique open longitudinal line on the sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ passing through $p$."
EDIT: following the comment of Moishe Kohan, is it possible to have a counterexample where it's not the case?
- Same question for proper $G$ action, $G$ not necessarily compact.