LIGHTLIKE SURFACES WITH PLANAR NORMAL SECTIONS IN MINKOWSKI 3− SPACE 3 1 FEYZAESRAERDOG˘AN,BAYRAMS¸AHI˙N∗,ANDRIFATGU¨NES¸ 0 2 Abstract. In this paper we study lightlike surfaces of Minkowski 3− space n suchthattheyhavedegenerateornon-degenerateplanarnormalsections. We a first show that every lightlike surface of Minkowski 3− space has degenerate J planarnormalsections. Thenwestudylightlikesurfaceswithnon-degenerate 4 planarnormalsectionsandobtainacharacterizationforsuchlightlikesurfaces 2 ] G 1. Introduction D . Surfaces with planar normal sections in Euclidean spaces were first studied by h Bang-YenChen[6]. Latersuchsurfacesorsubmanifoldshavebeenstudiedbymany t a authors[6],[5],[7],[8],[9]. In[7],Y.H.Kiminitiatedthestudyofsemi-Riemannian m settingofsuchsurfaces. Butasfarasweknow,lightlikesurfaceswithplanarnormal [ sections have not been studied so far. Therefore, in this paper we study lightlike surfaces with planar normal sections of R3. 1 1 v 2 We firstdefine thenotionofsurfaceswithplanarnormalsectionsasfollows. Let 7 M be a lightlike surface of R3. For a point p in M and a lightlike vector ξ which 1 7 spans the radical distribution of a lightlike surface, the vector ξ and transversal 5 spacetr(TM)toM atpdeterminea2-dimensionalsubspaceE(p,ξ)inR3 through . 1 1 p. The intersection of M and E(p,ξ) gives a lightlike curve γ in a neighborhood of 0 p, which is called the normal section of M at the point p in the direction of ξ. 3 1 : Fornon-degenerateplanarnormalsections,we presentthe followingnotion. Let v wbeaspacelikevectortangenttoM atpwhichspansthechosenscreendistribution i X of M. Then the vector w and transversal space tr(TM) to M at p determine a 2- r dimensional subspace E(p,w) in R3 through p. The intersectionof M and E(p,w) 1 a gives a spacelike curve γ in a neighborhood of p which is called the normal section of M at p in the direction of w. According to both identifications above, M is said to have degenerate pointwise and spacelike pointwise planar normal sections, respectively if each normalsection γ at p satisfies γ′∧γ′′∧γ′′′ =0 at for each p in M. For a lightlike surface with degenerate planar normal sections, in fact, we show that every lightlike surface of Minkowski 3− space has degenerate planar normal sections. Then for a lightlike surface with non-degenerate planar normal sections, we obtain two characterizations. * Corresponding author 1 2 FEYZAESRAERDOG˘AN,BAYRAMS¸AHI˙N∗,ANDRIFATGU¨NES¸ We first show that a lightlike surface M in R3 is a lightlike surface with non- 1 degenerate planar sections if and only if M is either screen conformal and totally umbilical or M is totally geodesic. We also obtain a characterization for non- umbilicalscreenconformallightlikesurfacewithnon-degenerateplanarnormalsec- tions. 2. Preliminaries Let (M¯,g¯) be an (m+2)-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold with the in- definite metric g¯ of index q ∈ {1,...,m+1} and M be a hypersurface of M¯. We denote the tangent space at x∈M by T M. Then x T M⊥ ={V ∈T M¯|g¯ (V ,W )=0,∀W ∈T M} x x x x x x x x and RadT M =T M ∩T M⊥. x x x Then, M is called a lightlike hypersurface of M¯ if RadT M 6={0} for any x∈M. x Thus TM⊥ = T M⊥ becomes a one- dimensional distribution RadTM on x∈M x M. Then thereTexists a vector field ξ 6=0 on M such that g(ξ,X)=0, ∀X ∈Γ(TM), where g is the induced degenerate metric tensor on M. We denote F(M) the alge- bra of differentialfunctions on M andby Γ(E) the F(M)- module of differentiable sections of a vector bundle E over M. A complementary vector bundle S(TM) of TM⊥ =RadTM in TM i,e., (2.1) TM =RadTM ⊕ S(TM) orth is called a screen distribution on M. It follows from the equation above that S(TM) is a non-degenerate distribution. Moreover, since we assume that M is paracompact, there always exists a screen S(TM). Thus, along M we have the decomposition (2.2) TM¯ =S(TM)⊕ S(TM)⊥, S(TM)∩S(TM)⊥ 6={0}, |M orth that is, S(TM)⊥ is the orthogonal complement to S(TM) in TM¯ | . Note that M S(TM)⊥ is also a non-degenerate vector bundle of rank 2. However, it includes TM⊥ =RadTM as its sub-bundle. Let (M,g,S(TM)) be a lightlike hypersurface of a semi-Riemannian manifold M¯,g¯ . Then there exists a unique vector bundle tr(TM) of rank 1 over M, such (cid:0)that f(cid:1)or any non-zero section ξ of TM⊥ on a coordinate neighborhood U ⊂ M, there exists a unique section N of tr(TM) on U satisfying: TM⊥ in S(TM)⊥ and take V ∈ Γ(F | ),V 6= 0. Then g¯(ξ,V) 6= 0 on U, otherwise S(TM)⊥ would be U degenerate at a point of U [4]. Define a vector field 1 g¯(V,V) N = V − ξ g¯(V,ξ)(cid:26) 2g¯(V,ξ) (cid:27) on U where V ∈ Γ(F | ) such that g¯(ξ,V)6=0. Then we have U (2.3) g¯(N,ξ)=1, g¯(N,N)=0, g¯(N,W)=0, ∀W ∈Γ(S(TM)| ) U LIGHTLIKE SURFACES 3 Moreover,from (2.1) and (2.2) we have the following decompositions: (2.4) TM¯ | =S(TM)⊕ TM⊥⊕tr(TM) =TM ⊕tr(TM) M orth (cid:0) (cid:1) Locally, suppose {ξ,N} is a pair of sections on U ⊂ M satisfying (2.3). Define a symmetric ̥(U)-bilinear from B and a 1-form τ on U . Hence on U, for X,Y ∈ Γ(TM | ) U (2.5) ∇¯ Y = ∇ Y +B(X,Y)N X X (2.6) ∇¯ N = −A X +τ(X)N, X N equations (2.5) and (2.6) are local Gauss and Weingarten formulae. Since ∇¯ is a metric connection on M¯, it is easy to see that (2.7) B(X,ξ)=0,∀X ∈Γ(TM | ). U Consequently, the second fundamental form of M is degenerate [4]. Define a local 1-from η by (2.8) η(X)=g¯(X,N),∀∈Γ(TM | ). U Let P denote the projection morphism of Γ(TM) on Γ(S(TM)) with respect to the decomposition (2.1). We obtain (2.9) ∇ PY = ∇∗ PY +C(X,PY)ξ X X ∇ ξ = −A∗X +ε(X)ξ X ξ (2.10) = −A∗X −τ(X)ξ ξ where ∇∗ Y and A∗X belong to Γ(S(TM)),∇ and ∇∗t are linear connections X ξ onΓ(S(TM))andTM⊥ respectively, h∗is a Γ TM⊥ -valued̥(M)-bilinearform on Γ(TM)× Γ(S(TM)) and A∗ is Γ(S(TM)(cid:0))-value(cid:1)d ̥(M)-linear operator on ξ Γ(TM). We called them the screen fundamental form and screen shape operator of S(TM), respectively. Define (2.11) C(X,PY) = g¯(h∗(X,PY),N) (2.12) ε(X) = g¯ ∇∗tξ,N ,∀X,Y ∈Γ(TM), X (cid:0) (cid:1) one can show that ε(X) = −τ(X). Here C(X,PY) is called the local screen fundamental formof S(TM). Precisely,the two localsecondfundamental forms of M and S(TM) are related to their shape operators by (2.13) B(X,Y) = g¯ Y,A∗X , ξ (2.14) A∗ξ = 0(cid:0), (cid:1) ξ (2.15) g¯ A∗PY,N = 0 , ξ (2.16) (cid:0)C(X,PY(cid:1)) = g¯(PY,A X), N (2.17) g¯(N,A X) = 0. N A lightlike hypersurface (M,g,S(TM)) of a semi-Riemannian manifold is called totally umbilical[4] if there is a smooth function ̺, such that (2.18) B(X,Y)=̺g(X,Y),∀X,Y ∈Γ(TM) where ̺ is non-vanishing smooth function on a neighborhood U in M. 4 FEYZAESRAERDOG˘AN,BAYRAMS¸AHI˙N∗,ANDRIFATGU¨NES¸ A lightlike hypersurface (M,g,S(TM)) of a semi-Riemannian manifold is calledscreenlocallyconformaliftheshapeoperatorsA andA∗ ofM andS(TM), N ξ respectively, are related by (2.19) A =ϕA∗ N ξ where ϕ is non-vanishing smooth function on a neighborhood U in M. Therefore, it follows that ∀X,Y ∈Γ(S(TM)), ξ ∈RadTM (2.20) C(X,ξ)=0, For details about screen conformal lightlike hypersurfaces, see: [1] and [4] . 3. Planar normal sections of lightlike surfaces in R3 1 Let M be a lightlike surface of R3. Now we investigate lightlike surfaces with 1 degenerateplanar normalsections. If γ is a null curve,for a point p in M, we have (3.1) γ′(s) = ξ (3.2) γ′′(s) = ∇¯ ξ =−τ(ξ)ξ ξ (3.3) γ′′′(s) = ξ(τ(ξ))+τ2(ξ) ξ (cid:2) (cid:3) Then,γ′′′(0)isalinearcombinationofγ′(0)andγ′′(0). Thus(3.1),(3.2)and(3.3) give γ′′′(0)∧γ′′(0)∧γ′(0)=0. Thus lightlike surfaces always have planar normal sections. Corollary 3.1. Every lightlike surface of R3 has degenerate planar normal sec- 1 tions. In fact Corollary 3.1 tells us that the above situation is not interesting. Now, we will check lightlike surfaces with non-degenerate planar normal sections. Let M be a lightlike hypersurface of R3. For a point p in M and a spacelike vector 1 w∈S(TM) tangent to M at p , the vector w and transversalspace tr(TM) to M atpdeterminea2-dimensionalsubspaceE(p,w)inR3 throughp. Theintersection 1 of M and E(p,w) give a spacelike curve γ in a neighborhood of p, which is called thenormalsectionofM atpinthedirectionofw. Now,weresearchtheconditions for a lightlike surface of R3 to have non-degenerate planar normal sections. 1 Let (M,g,S(TM)) be a totally umbilical and screen conformal lightlike surface of g¯,R3 . In this case S(TM) is integrable[1]. We denote integral submanifold of 1 S(T(cid:0)M) b(cid:1)y M′. Then, using (2.6), (2.10) and (2.19 ) we find (3.4) C(w,w)ξ+B(w,w)N =g¯(w,w){αξ+βN}={αξ+βN}, where t, α,β ∈R. In this case, we obtain (3.5) γ′(s) = w (3.6) γ′′(s) = ∇¯ w =∇∗w+C(w,w)ξ+B(w,w)N w w (3.7) γ′′(s) = ∇∗w+αξ+βN w (3.8) γ′′′(s) = ∇∗∇∗w+C(w,∇∗w)ξ+w(C(w,w))ξ−C(w,w)A∗w w w w ξ +w(B(w,w))N −B(w,w)A w+B(w,∇∗w)N N w (3.9) γ′′′(s) = ∇∗∇∗w+t{αξ+βN}−αA∗w−βA w. w w ξ N LIGHTLIKE SURFACES 5 Where ∇∗ and ∇ are linear connections on S(TM) and Γ(TM), respectively and γ′(s) = w. From the definition of planar normal section and that S(TM) = Sp{w}, we have (3.10) w∧∇∗w =0 w and (3.11) w∧∇∗∇∗w =0. w w Then,from(3.4),(3.6),(3.8)and(3.10),(3.11)weobtainγ′′′(s)∧γ′′(s)∧γ′(s)=0. Thus, M has planar non-degenerate normal sections. If M is totally geodesic lightlike surface of R3. Then, we have B = 0, A∗ = 0. 1 ξ Hence (3.5)-(3.8) become γ′(s) = w γ′′(s) = ∇∗w+αξ w γ′′′(s) = ∇∗∇∗w+tαξ−βA w. w w N Since A w∈Γ(TM), we have γ′′′(s)∧γ′′(s)∧γ′(s)=0. N Conversely,weassumethatM hasplanarnon-degeneratenormalsections. Then, from (3.5), (3.6), (3.8) and (3.10), (3.11) we obtain (C(w,w)ξ+B(w,w)N)∧ C(w,w)A∗w+B(w,w)A w =0, ξ N (cid:0) (cid:1) thus C(w,w)A∗w+B(w,w)A w =0 or C(w,w)ξ+B(w,w)N =0. If ξ N (cid:16) (cid:17) C(w,w)A∗w+B(w,w)A w =0, then, from ξ N B(w,w) A∗w =− A w ξ C(w,w) N atp∈M,M isascreenconformallightlikesurfacewithC(w,w)6=0. IfC(w,w)ξ+ B(w,w)N =0, then RadTM is parallel and M is totally geodesic. Consequently, we have the following, Theorem 3.1. Let M be a lightlike surface of R3. Then M has non-degenerate 1 planar normal sections if and only if either M is umbilical and screen conformal or M is totally geodesic. Theorem 3.2. Let (M,g,S(TM)) be a screen conformal non-umbilical lightlike surfaceofR3. Then,forT (w,w)=C(w,w)ξ+B(w,w)N thefollowingstatements 1 are equivalent (1) ∇¯ T (w,w)=0, every spacelike vector w∈S(TM) w (2) (cid:0)∇¯T =(cid:1)0 (3) M has non-degenerate planar normal sections and each normal section at p has one of its vertices at p By the vertex of curve γ(s) we mean a point p on γ such that its curvature κ satisfies dκ2(p) =0, κ2 =hγ′′(s),γ′′(s)i. ds 6 FEYZAESRAERDOG˘AN,BAYRAMS¸AHI˙N∗,ANDRIFATGU¨NES¸ Proof. From (3.5), (3.6) and that a screen conformal M, we have ∇¯ T (w,w)=∇¯ T (w,w) w w which shows (a) ⇔ (b). (cid:0)(b) ⇒(cid:1)(c) Assume that ∇¯T = 0 . If ∇¯T = 0 then M is totally geodesic and Theorem 3.1 implies that M has (pointwise) planar normal sections. Let the γ(s) be a normal section of M at p in a given direction w∈S(TM). Then (3.5) shows that the curvature κ(s) of γ(s) satisfies κ2(s) = hγ′′(s),γ′′(s)i = 2C(w,w)B(w,w) (3.12) = hT(w,w),T (w,w)i where w=γ′(s). Therefore we find dκ2(p) (3.13) = ∇¯ T (w,w),T(w,w) = ∇¯ T (w,w),T (w,w) w w ds (cid:10) (cid:11) (cid:10)(cid:0) (cid:1) (cid:11) Since ∇¯ T (w,w)=0, this implies w dκ2(0) =0 ds at p = γ(0). Thus p is a vertex of the normal section γ(s). (c) ⇒ (a) : If M has planar normal sections, then Theorem 3.1 gives (3.14) T (w,w)∧ ∇¯ T (w,w)=0. w (cid:0) (cid:1) If p is a vertex of γ(s), then we have dκ2(0) =0. ds Thus, since M has planar normal sections using (3.13) we find γ′(s)∧γ′′(s)∧γ′′′(s) = w∧(∇∗w+T (w,w)) w ∧ ∇∗∇∗w+tT (w,w)+ ∇¯ T (w,w) =0 w w w γ′(s)∧γ′′(s)∧γ′′′(s) = T(cid:0)(w,w)∧ ∇¯ T (w,w)=(cid:0)0 (cid:1) (cid:1) w (cid:0) (cid:1) and (3.15) ∇¯ T (w,w),T (w,w) =0. w (cid:10)(cid:0) (cid:1) (cid:11) Combining (3.14) and (3.15) we obtain ∇¯ T (w,w) = 0 or T (w,w) = 0. Let us w defineU ={w ∈S(TM)|T(w,w)=0}.(cid:0)Ifint(cid:1)(U)6=∅,weobtain ∇¯ T (w,w)= w 0 on int(U). Thus, by continuity we have ∇¯T =0. (cid:0) (cid:1) (cid:3) Example 3.1. Consider the null cone of R3 given by 1 ∧= (x ,x ,x )|−x2+x2+x2 =0,x ,x ,x ∈IR . 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 (cid:8) (cid:9) The radical bundle of null cone is ∂ ∂ ∂ ξ =x +x +x 1∂x 2∂x 3∂x 1 2 3 and screen distribution is spanned by ∂ ∂ Z =x +x 1 2∂x 3∂x 1 2 LIGHTLIKE SURFACES 7 Then the lightlike transversal vector bundle is given by 1 ∂ ∂ ∂ Itr(TM)=Span{N = x +x −x }. 2(−x2+x2)(cid:18) 1∂x 2∂x 3∂x (cid:19) 1 2 1 2 3 Itfollows that the corresponding screen distribution S(TM)is spannedby Z . Thus 1 ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇ ξ = x +x +x ξ 1∂x 2∂x 3∂x 1 2 3 ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇¯ ∇ ξ = x +x +x . ξ ξ 1∂x 2∂x 3∂x 1 2 3 Then, we obtain γ′′′(s)∧γ′′(s)∧γ′(s)=0 which shows that null cone has degenerate planar normal sections. Example 3.2. Let R3 be the space IR3 endowed with the semi Euclidean metric 1 g¯(x,y)=−x y +x y +x y ,(x=(x ,x ,x )). 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 The lightlike cone ∧2 is given by the equation −(x )2+(x )2+(x )2 =0, x6=0. It 0 0 1 2 is known that ∧2 is a lightlike surface of R3 and the radical distribution is spanned 0 1 by a global vector field ∂ ∂ ∂ (3.16) ξ =x +x +x 0∂x 1∂x 2∂x 0 1 2 on ∧2. The unique section N is given by 0 1 ∂ ∂ ∂ (3.17) N = −x +x +x 2(x )2 (cid:18) 0∂x 1∂x 2∂x (cid:19) 0 0 1 2 and is also defined. As ξ is the position vector field we get (3.18) ∇¯ ξ =∇ ξ =X, ∀X ∈Γ(TM). X X Then, A∗X +τ(X)ξ+X =0. As A∗ is Γ(S(TM))-valued we obtain ξ ξ (3.19) A∗X =−PX, ∀X ∈Γ(TM) ξ Next, any X ∈ Γ S(T∧2) is expressed by X = X ∂ +X ∂ where (X ,X ) 0 1∂x1 2∂x2 1 2 satisfy (cid:0) (cid:1) (3.20) x X +x X =0 1 1 2 2 and then 2 2 ∂X ∂ (3.21) ∇ X = ∇¯ X = x a , ξ ξ A ∂x ∂x AX=0Xa=1 A a 2 2 ∂Xa (3.22) g¯(∇ X,ξ) = x x =−(x X +x X )=0 ξ a A∂x 1 1 2 2 AX=0Xa=1 A where (3.20) is derived with respect to x ,x ,x . It is known that ∧2 is a screen 0 1 2 0 conformal lightlike surface with conformal function ϕ= 1 . We also know that 2(x0)2 A ξ =0. By direct compute we find N 1 A X = A∗X. N 2(x )2 ξ 0 8 FEYZAESRAERDOG˘AN,BAYRAMS¸AHI˙N∗,ANDRIFATGU¨NES¸ Now we evaluate γ′,γ′′ and γ′′′ γ′ = X =(0,−x ,x ) 2 1 γ′′ = ∇ X+B(X,X)N X 1 ∂ 3 ∂ ∂ = x − x +x 2 0∂x 2 1∂x 2∂x 0 1 2 γ′′′ = ∇¯ ∇ X +X(B(X,X))N +B(X,X)∇¯ N X X X = ∇ ∇ X +B(X,∇ X)N +X(B(X,X))N −B(X,X)A X X X X N using A X in γ′′′ we get N 1 ∂ 1 ∂ γ′′′ = x − x . 2 2∂x 2 1∂x 1 2 Therefore γ′′′ and γ′are linear dependence at ∀p∈∧2 and we have 0 γ′∧γ′′∧γ′′′ =0. Namely, ∧2 has non-degenerate planar normal sections. 0 References [1] Atindogbe ,C.Duggal, K.L.,Conformal screen on lightlike hypersurfaces, Int.J. PureAppl. Math.11(4), (2004), 421-442. [6] Chen, B.Y., Classification of Surfaces with Planar Normal Sections, Journal of Geometry Vol.20(1983)122-127 [2] Duggal, K. L. and Bejancu, A., Lightlike Submanifolds of Semi-Riemannian Manifolds and Applications, KluwerAcademicPublisher,1996. [3] Duggal,K.L.andJin,D.H.,NullCurvesandHypersurfacesofSemiRiemannianManifolds, WorldScientific, 2007. [4] Duggal, K. L. and Sahin B., Differential Geometry of Lightlike Submanifolds, Springer Birkhauser,2010. [5] Kim,Y.H.,Minimal surfaces of pseudo-Euclidean spaces withgeodesic normal sections,Dif- ferentialGeometryanditsApplications5(1995) 321-329. [7] Kim,Y.H.,Pseudo-Riemannian Submanifolds withpointwise planar normal sections,Math. J.OkayamaUniv.34(1992), 249-257. [9] Kim, Y. H., Surfaces in a pseudo-Euclidean space with planar normal sections, Journal of GeometryVol.35(1989),120-131. [8] Li.S.J.,Submanifolds withPointwisePlanarNormalSectionsinasphere,JournalofGeom- etry,70(2001) 101-107. [2] O’Neill,B.,SemiRiemannianGeometrywithApplicationstoRelativity,AcademicPress,1983. Faculty of Arts and Science, Department of Mathematics, Adıyaman University, 02040Adıyaman,TURKEY E-mail address: [email protected] Departmentof Mathematics,I˙no¨nu¨ University,44280 Malatya,TURKEY E-mail address: [email protected] Departmentof Mathematics,I˙no¨nu¨ University,44280 Malatya,TURKEY E-mail address: [email protected]