Abstract
We study a ramification of a phenomenon discovered by Baird and Eells (in: Looijenga et al (eds) Geometry Symposium Utrecht 1980. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1981) i.e. that non-constant harmonic morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^{\textrm{N}} \rightarrow N^2\) from a \(\mathrm N\)-dimensional (\(\textrm{N} \ge 3\)) Riemannian manifold \({{\mathfrak {M}}}^{\textrm{N}}\), into a Riemann surface \(N^2\), can be characterized as those horizontally weakly conformal maps having minimal fibres. We recover Baird–Eells’ result for \(S^1\) invariant harmonic morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^{2n+2} \rightarrow N^2\) from a class of Lorentzian manifolds arising as total spaces \({{\mathfrak {M}}} = C(M)\) of canonical circle bundles \(S^1 \rightarrow {{\mathfrak {M}}} \rightarrow M\) over strictly pseudoconvex CR manifolds \(M^{2n+1}\). The corresponding base maps \(\phi : M^{2n+1} \rightarrow N^2\) are shown to satisfy \(\lim _{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \, \pi _{{{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi } \, \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon = 0\), where \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) is the mean curvature vector of the vertical distribution \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi = \textrm{Ker} (d \phi )\) on the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\epsilon )\), and \(\{ g_\epsilon \}_{0< \epsilon < 1}\) is a family of contractions of the Levi form of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Harmonic Morphisms in Riemannian Geometry Versus Lorentzian Geometry
A harmonic morphism is a continuous mapping \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^{\textrm{N}} \rightarrow N^m\) of semi-Riemannian manifolds \(({{\mathfrak {M}}}, \, g)\) and \((N, \, h)\) such that for every solution \(v: V \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) to \(\Delta _h v = 0\), defined on an open subset \(V \subset N\), the pullback \(u = v \circ \Phi \) is a distribution-solution to \(\Delta _g u = 0\) on \(U = \Phi ^{-1} (V)\), where \(\Delta _g\) and \(\Delta _h\) are the Laplace–Beltrami operators of the given semi-Riemannian manifolds. Considerable attention has been given to the study of harmonic morphisms within the Riemannian category, and the main results up to 2003 were reported on in the wonderful monograph by Baird and Wood [5]. By a result of Fuglede (cf. [34]) every non-constant harmonic morphism of Riemannian manifolds is an open map. Remarkably, Fuglede’s result relies on the Harnack inequality for positive harmonic functions on a Riemannian manifold (cf. e.g. Serrin [59]) thus establishing a solid bond between the geometry of harmonic morphisms and elliptic theory (cf. e.g. [39]). However, harmonic morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^2 \rightarrow N\), from a Lorentzian surface \({\mathfrak {M}}\) into a semi-Riemannian manifold, that aren’t open maps, do exist (cf. [5, pp. 446–448]). For morphisms from Fefferman spaces we may state (leaving definitions momentarily aside)
Theorem 1
Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, equipped with the positively oriented contact form \(\theta \in {{\mathscr {P}}}_+ (M)\), and let N be a Riemannian manifold. Any nonconstant \(S^1\) invariant harmonic morphism \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) from the total space of the canonical circle bundle \(S^1 \rightarrow C(M) \rightarrow M\), endowed with the Lorentzian metric \(F_\theta \) [the Fefferman metric of \((M, \, \theta )\)], is an open map. Moreover, if M is compact and N is connected then N is compact and \(\Phi \) is surjective.
As another contrasting feature of the semi-Riemannian case, harmonic morphisms of semi-Riemannian manifolds may be non smooth. Indeed the proof that a continuous harmonic morphism \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}} \rightarrow N\) of Riemannian manifolds is actually \(C^\infty \) relies (cf. [5, p. 111]) on two ingredients i.e. (i) the existence of harmonic local coordinate systems on the target manifold N, and (ii) the hypoellipticity of the Laplace–Beltrami operator \(\Delta _g\) of \(({{\mathfrak {M}}}, \, g)\), itself following from the ellipticity of \(\Delta _g\). The known proof of the existence of harmonic local coordinates is tied (cf. DeTurck and Kazdan [22]) to the ellipticity of \(\Delta _h\), although harmonic local coordinate systems on Lorentzian manifolds were used in spacetime physics as early as the work by Lanczos (cf. [47]) and Einstein himself (cf. [30]), yet without questioning their existence. Moreover, if say \(({{\mathfrak {M}}}, \, g)\) is a Lorentzian manifold, then its Laplace–Beltrami operator is the geometric wave operator \(\square _g\) which is not hypoelliptic. For morphisms from Fefferman spaces we may state
Theorem 2
Any continuous \(S^1\) invariant harmonic morphism \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) from the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold N is smooth.
Unique continuation (cf. [5, pp. 111–112]) doesn’t hold for harmonic maps and morphisms of semi-Riemannian manifolds (cf. [5, p. 448]). It should also be mentioned that J.H. Sampson’s unique continuation theorem for harmonic maps of Riemannian manifolds (cf. Theorem 1 in [58, p. 213]) relies on a unique continuation result for solutions to elliptic equations due to N. Aronszajn (cf. [2]) whose proof is believed to be wrong, cf. Appendix A in [25, pp. 433–434], (although the very result in [2] may hold true, at least for solutions to \(\Delta _g u = 0\)). Apart from a brief conjectural discussion in \(\S \, 6\), unique continuation of subelliptic harmonic maps and morphisms will be addressed in further work.
By a celebrated result of Baird and Eells (cf. [3]) a smooth non-constant horizontally weakly conformal map \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^{\textrm{N}} \rightarrow N^m\) of Riemannian manifolds is a harmonic morphism if and only if
where \(\lambda (\Phi )\) and \(\mu ^{{\mathscr {V}}}\) are respectively the dilation of \(\Phi \) and the mean curvature vector of its fibres. Cf. also [16] for the case \(m = \textrm{N} - 1\). In particular, if the target manifold is a real surface (\(m = 2\)) then harmonic morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}} \rightarrow N^2\) have minimal fibres. The case where \({\mathfrak {M}}\) is Lorentzian has not been studied, and a Lorentzian analog to the fundamental equation
(cf. (4.5.2) in [5, p. 120]) and to the characterization (1) are not known, so far.
Given a Riemannian manifold \(N^m\), the purpose of the present paper is to analyze harmonic morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^{2n+2} \rightarrow N^m\) from the total space \({{\mathfrak {M}}} = C(M)\) of the canonical circle bundle \(S^1 \rightarrow {{\mathfrak {M}}} \rightarrow M^{2n+1}\) over a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold M, of CR dimension n. Here M is equipped with a fixed positively oriented contact form \(\theta \), so that \({\mathfrak {M}}\) is a Lorentzian manifold with the corresponding Fefferman metric \(g = F_\theta \). The discussion is confined to \(S^1\) invariant harmonic morphisms \(\Phi \) of \(({{\mathfrak {M}}}, \, F_\theta )\) into \((N^m, \, h)\), whose associated base maps \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) turn out to be subelliptic harmonic morphisms, in the sense of Dragomir and Lanconelli [25]. Our result in this direction is
Theorem 3
Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, of CR dimension n, equipped with the positively oriented contact form \(\theta \in {{\mathcal {P}}}_+ (M)\), and let \((N, \, h)\) be a m-dimensional Riemannian manifold. Let \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) be a continuous \(S^1\) invariant map, and let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be the corresponding base map. The following statements are equivalent
(i) \(\Phi \) is a harmonic morphism of the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\), of square dilation \(\Lambda (\phi ) \circ \pi \).
(ii) \(\phi \) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\), of \(\theta \)-dilation \(\sqrt{\Lambda (\phi )}\).
If this is the case then
(a) \(\Phi \) is nondegenerate at p \(\Longleftrightarrow \) \(\pi (p) \in \Omega (\phi ):= M {\setminus } Z \big [ \Lambda (\phi ) \big ]\).
(b) \(p \in \textrm{Crit} (\Phi ) \Longleftrightarrow \pi (p) \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\).
(c) \(\Phi \) is degenerate at p \(\Longleftrightarrow \) either \(m = 1\) and \(\pi (p) \in \textrm{II}_1 (\phi )\), or \(m \ge 2\) and \(\pi (p) \in M {\setminus } S(\phi )\).
(d) \(\Phi \) is a harmonic map of the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\), while \(\phi \) is a subelliptic harmonic map of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\).
(e) \(\Phi \) is horizontally weakly conformal, while \(\phi \) is Levi conformal.
(f) If \(m = 2\) i.e. \((N, \, h)\) is a real surface, then every leaf of the pullback foliation \(\pi ^*\, {{\mathscr {F}}}\) of \(S(\Phi )\) [the foliation of \(S(\Phi )\) tangent to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \)] is a minimal submanifold of \(\big ( C(M), \, F_\theta \big )\).
The equivalence (i) \(\Longleftrightarrow \) (ii) in Theorem 3 was first observed by Barletta (cf. [6]) for the particular case of the Heisenberg group \(M = {{\mathbb {H}}}_n\). The more general case at hand is treated in Section \(\S \, 4\) of the present paper.
Let \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla \big ) \in C^\infty \big ( {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \big )\) be defined by formally replacing the Levi-Civita connection \(\nabla ^{g_\theta }\) (of the Webster metric \(g_\theta \)) by the Tanaka–Webster connection \(\nabla \) (of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\)) in the ordinary mean curvature vector \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \equiv \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla ^{g_\theta } \big ) \in C^\infty \big ( {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \big )\) of the vertical distribution \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi = \textrm{Ker} (d \phi )\) thought of as a distribution on the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\theta )\). Let \(\Phi = \phi \circ \pi \) be the vertical lift of \(\phi \) to the total space C(M) of the canonical circle bundle over M, equipped with the Fefferman metric \(F_\theta \). To some surprise, while the tension field \(\tau _{F_\theta } (\Phi )\) projects on the pseudohermitian tension field \(\tau _b (\phi )\), the square dilation \(\ell (\Phi )\) is the vertical lift of the square dilation \(\Lambda (\phi )\), and gradients with respect to \(F_\theta \) project on horizontal gradients on \((M, \, \theta )\), the term \(\Phi _*\; \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi }\) (appearing in the fundamental equation (50)) doesn’t project on \(\phi _*\; \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla \big )\), as one might have hoped for, to start with. In a quest for the “correct” pseudohermitian analog to the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), we endow M with the family
of contractions (in the sense of Strichartz [60]) of the Levi form \(G_\theta \), and analyze the behavior of \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) [the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) as a distribution on the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\epsilon )\)] in the limit as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\). The family of Riemannian metrics \(\{ g_\epsilon \}_{0< \epsilon < 1}\) is devised such that \(\big ( M, \, d_\epsilon \big ) \rightarrow \big ( M, \, d_H \big )\) as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), in the Gromov–Hausdorff distance. Here \(d_\epsilon \) and \(d_H\) are respectively the distance function of the Riemannian manifold \(\big ( M, \, g_\epsilon \big )\), and the Carnot–Carathéodory distance function associated to the sub-Riemannian structure \(\big ( H(M), \, G_\theta \big )\) (the maximally complex distribution of the CR manifold M, equipped with the Levi form, cf. [29, 60]). A comparison to the works by Barone-Adesi et al. [13], Cheng et al. [20], Malchiodi et al. [19], Danielli et al. [21], Garofalo et al. [37] and Pauls et al. [38], may reveal \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_{\textrm{hor}}:= \lim _{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \, \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) as the appropriate candidate for the mean curvature vector [of a leaf of the foliation \({\mathscr {F}}\) tangent to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), as a submanifold of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\)]. For the time being, we establish (in the spirit of the work by Ni [53])
Theorem 4
Let \(\phi : M^{2n+1} \rightarrow N^2\) be a non-constant subelliptic harmonic morphism, of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the real surface \((N, \, h)\). Let \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) be the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), as a distribution on the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\epsilon )\). Then \(\pi _{{{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi } \; \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \rightarrow 0\) as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), uniformly on any relatively compact domain \(U \subset M\).
We revisit the notion of horizontal mean curvature of a real hypersurface in a Carnot group (cf. Capogna et al. [18], Capogna and Citti [17]) in the context of subelliptic harmonic morphisms \(\phi : M^{2n+1} \rightarrow N^1\) from a pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into a \(m = 1\) dimensional Riemannian manifold \(N^1\). We compute the horizontal mean curvature of every leaf of the foliation \({\mathscr {F}}\) by real hypersurfaces of \(S(\phi )\) [where, by Theorem 6, \(S(\phi ) = M {\setminus } \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\), an open set] determined by the submersion \(\phi : S(\phi ) \rightarrow N^1\). Precisely, let \(\{ g_\epsilon \}_{0< \epsilon < 1}\) be the family of contractions of \(G_\theta \) given by (2), and let \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon \) be the \(g_\epsilon \)-orthogonal complement of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) in \((T(M), \, g_\epsilon )\). Let \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon \in C^\infty \big ( {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon \big )\) such that \(g_\epsilon \big ( \textbf{n}^\epsilon \,, \, \textbf{n}^\epsilon \big ) = 1\). The horizontal normal \(\textbf{n}^0\) is
and the horizontal mean curvature \(K_0\) of the leaves of \({\mathscr {F}}\) is
where \(\Omega = M \setminus Z(\Lambda )\) (an open set) and the divergence is computed with respect to the volume form \(\Psi = \theta \wedge (d \theta )^n\). The horizontal normal and mean curvature are well defined on \(\Omega \) because \(\Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}}) \subset Z(\Lambda )\) [by Theorem 6 below, and our discussion in \(\S \, 7\)] where \(\Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\) is the set of all characteristic points of the leaves of \({\mathscr {F}}\).
Theorem 5
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N^1\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, of square dilation \(\Lambda \). Then
(i) For every local coordinate system \((V, \, y^1 )\) on N such that \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V) \subset \Omega \)
so that
everywhere in U.
(ii) The vector field
and the mean curvature \(K_0\) are related by
Consequently
In particular, for any local harmonic coordinate system \((V, \, y^1 )\) on N [i.e. \(\Delta _h y^1 = 0\) in V] with \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V) \subset \Omega \)
everywhere in U.
By a result in [5, p. 448], to every non-constant harmonic morphism \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) of class \(C^\infty \), there corresponds a symbol \(\sigma _p (\Phi ): \big ( T_p (C(M)), \; F_{\theta , \, p} \big ) \rightarrow \big ( T_{\Phi (p)} (M), \; h_{\Phi (p)} \big )\) which is a harmonic morphism (this may fail if \(\Phi \in C^{\ell }\) for some \(2 \le \ell < \infty \) yet \(\Phi \not \in C^{\ell + 1}\)). The CR structure on M induces a natural strictly pseudoconvex CR structure on the tangent space \(T_{x} (M)\) at every point \(x = \pi (p)\), yet the properties of the symbol \(\sigma _{x} (\phi ): T_{x} (M) \rightarrow T_{\phi (x)} (N)\) of a subelliptic harmonic morphism are not known, so far.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 recalls the essentials of CR and pseudohermitian geometry (by following [29]) and of subelliptic harmonic maps \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\), from a pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into a Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\) (cf. [9, 44]). The needed material on subelliptic harmonic morphisms is reviewed in Sect. 3 (cf. [7, 25]). Theorems 1, 2 and 3 are proved in Sect. 5. The Lorentzian and pseudohermitian ramifications of the result by Baird and Eells (cf. [3]) are treated in Sect. 3, where we also prove Theorem 4. In Sect. 7 we prove Theorem 5. Sect. 8 exhibits a few examples i.e. subellitic harmonic morphisms from the Heisenberg group and from Rossi spheres. The study of the properties of the symbol of a subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) is relegated to a further paper.
Given a 3-dimensional nondegenerate CR manifold \(M^3\), let \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^4 \rightarrow N^2\) be a harmonic morphism from a 4-manifold \({{\mathfrak {M}}}^4\) equipped with the Lorentizan metric g, into the Riemann surface \(N^2\), such that the vertical spaces \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p = \textrm{Ker} \big ( d_p \Phi \big )\) are nondegenerate for every \(p \in {{\mathfrak {M}}}^4\), and let \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \) be the g-orthogonal complement of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \). By a result of J. Ventura (cf. [62]) the Ricci curvature of \(\big ( {{\mathfrak {M}}}^4, \, g \big )\) may be computed in terms of i) the (square) dilation of \(\Phi \), ii) the first fundamental forms of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \) and \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \), iii) the second fundamental forms of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \) and \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \) and their adjoints, iv) the sectional curvature of the fibers of \(\Phi \), v) the mean curvature of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \), vi) the mean curvature of the fibers of \(\Phi \), and vii) the integrability 1-form of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \). Let \(g^{{\mathscr {V}}}\) and \(g^{{\mathscr {H}}}\) be the bundle metrics induced on \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \) and \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \), respectively. Given \(C^\infty \) functions \(\sigma , \, \rho : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^4 \rightarrow (0, \, + \infty )\) the Lorentzian metric
is a biconformal deformation of g. The Einstein equation
recasts as a PDE system in the unknown functions \(\sigma \) and \(\rho \), and solving (8) for \(\sigma \) and \(\rho \) amounts to producing solutions (Einstein metrics) \(\tilde{g}\) by biconformal deformations of an a priori given Lorentzian metric g. The approach was devised by Ventura (cf. [62]) and the method was applied to a number of space-times and morphisms \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}}^4 \rightarrow N^2\) e.g. for the Schwarzschild metric g and a projection \(\Phi \) from the Schwarzschild space-time onto \(N^2 = S^2\). Cf. also Baird and Ventura [4], where the approach is however confined to the case of a Riemannian 4-manifold \({{\mathfrak {M}}}^4\). Given a positively oriented contact form \(\theta \) on \(M^3\), the Fefferman metric \(g = F_\theta \) is never Einstein (cf. Lee [49]). The curvature calculations in [62] and the resulting attempt to solve (8) is then liable to produce Einstein metrics on the total space \({{\mathfrak {M}}}^4 = C(M^3 )\) of the canonical circle bundle over M, by a biconformal deformation [associated to a given harmonic morphism \(\Phi \) from \(C(M^3 )\) into a Riemann surface] of the Fefferman metric.
A similar problem was solved (outside harmonic morphisms theory) by Leitner (cf. [50]) who built pseudo-Einstein (cf. [29]) contact forms \(\theta \) of vanishing pseudohermitian torsion, and observed that the corresponding Fefferman metric is conformally Einstein i.e. there is a \(C^\infty \) function \(\sigma : C(M^3 ) \rightarrow (0, \, + \infty )\) such that \(\tilde{g} = \big ( 1 / \sigma ^2 \big ) \, F_\theta \) is an Einstein metric [cf. (7) with \(\sigma \equiv \rho \), as \(F^\theta = F_\theta ^{{\mathscr {H}}} + F_\theta ^{{\mathscr {V}}}\) for any harmonic morphism \(\Phi \) with a nondegenerate vertical distribution]. The results in [50, 62] were not paralleled so far. It is an open problem, suggested by the Reviewer, to build examples of Einstein metrics on \(C(M^3 )\) by a biconformal deformation of the Fefferman metric \(F_\theta \), associated to a contact form \(\theta \) that is neither pseudo-Einstein nor transversally symmetric (and compensating said obstructions by an appropriate choice of harmonic morphism \(\Phi \)).
2 Subelliptic Harmonic Maps
For notations, conventions and basic results in CR and pseudohermitian geometry, we follow the monograph by Dragomir and Tomassini [29]. Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, of CR dimension n, equipped with a positively oriented contact form \(\theta \), and let N be a m-dimensional Riemannian manifold, with the Riemannian metric h. Let \(T_{1,0}(M) \subset T(M) \otimes {{\mathbb {C}}}\) be the CR structure on M and let \(H(M) = \textrm{Re} \big \{ T_{1,0} (M) \oplus T_{0,1} (M) \big \}\) be the corresponding maximally complex, or Levi, distribution. Here \(T_{0,1}(M) = \overline{T_{1,0}(M)}\) and overbars denote complex conjugates. Let \(J: H(M) \rightarrow H(M)\) be the natural complex structure i.e.
Let \(H(M)^\bot \subset T^*(M)\) be the conormal bundle i.e. the real line bundle
As is well known (cf. e.g. [29, pp. 8–9]) under the mild assumption that M is orientable, the conormal bundle is trivial i.e. \(H(M)^\bot \simeq M \times {{\mathbb {R}}}\) (a vector bundle isomorphism). The set of all globally defined nowhere zero \(C^\infty \) sections in \(H(M)^\bot \) is denoted by \({{\mathscr {P}}}(M)\). For every \(\theta \in {{\mathscr {P}}}(M)\) let \(G_\theta \) be the Levi form i.e.
Cf. [29, pp. 5–7]. Let \({{\mathscr {P}}}_+ (M)\) denote the set of all \(\theta \in {{\mathscr {P}}}(M)\) such that \(G_\theta \) is positive definite. By its very definition, strict pseudoconvexity of the given CR structure \(T_{1,0}(M)\) is equivalent to \({{\mathscr {P}}}_+ (M) \ne \emptyset \). A contact form \(\theta \in {{\mathscr {P}}}_+ (M)\) is termed positively oriented. Let us consider the functional \(E_b: C^\infty (M, \, N) \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) given by
Here \(\Omega \subset \subset M\) is a relatively compact domain and \(\Pi _H \, B\) denotes the restriction to \(H(M) \otimes H(M)\) of the bilinear form B. A \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) is subelliptic harmonic map if it is a critical point of \(E_b\) i.e.
for any smooth 1-parameter variation \(\{ \phi _t \}_{|t| < \epsilon } \subset C^\infty (M, N)\) of \(\phi _0 = \phi \) with \(\textrm{Supp} (V) \subset \Omega \), where \(V = \partial \phi _t /\partial t \in C^\infty \big ( \phi ^{-1} T N \big )\) is the infinitesimal variation induced by \(\{ \phi _t \}_{|t| < \epsilon }\). Subelliptic harmonic maps [from a pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into a Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\)] were first introduced by E. Barletta et al. [9], under the name pseudoharmonic maps. Cf. also [24]. Let \(\{ X_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) be a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on the open set U which is also the domain of a local chart \(\chi : U \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^{2n+1}\). Then \(X \equiv \{ \chi _*\, X_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) is a Hörmander system of vector fields on \(\chi (U)\) and for any pseudoharmonic map \(\phi \) the map \(\phi \circ \chi ^{-1}\) is subellitic harmonic in the sense of Jost and Xu [44] i.e. as a map of \(\chi (U)\) [an open set in \({{\mathbb {R}}}^{2n+1}\) equipped with the Hörmander system X] into the Riemannian manifold N (thus motivating the adopted terminology).
Let \(\nabla \) and \(\nabla ^h\) be respectively the Tanaka–Webster connection (cf. [29, Theorem 1.3, Definition 1.25, pp. 25–31]; see also Eq. (11) below) of \((M, \, \theta )\) and the Levi–Civita connection of \((N, \, h)\). For every \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) let
be the pseudohermitian second fundamental form of \(\phi \). Here \(\phi _*X\) is the \(C^\infty \) section in the pullback bundle \(\phi ^{-1} T(N) \rightarrow M\) defined by
Also \(D^\phi = \phi ^{-1} \nabla ^h\) is the pullback of \(\nabla ^h\) by \(\phi \) [a connection in the vector bundle \(\phi ^{-1} T(N) \rightarrow M\) parallelizing the bundle metric \(h^\phi = \phi ^{-1} h\) (the pullback of h by \(\phi \))]. Let us set
(the pseudohermitian tension field of \(\phi \)) so that
(the first variation formula for \(E_b\)) for any smooth 1-parameter variation \(\{ \phi _t \}_{|t < \epsilon }\) of \(\phi \) supported in \(\Omega \). A \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi \) is subelliptic harmonic if and only if
Note that \(\tau _b (\phi )\) is not the full trace of \(\phi ^*\, h\), but rather the trace (with respect to the Levi form \(G_\theta \)) of \(\Pi _H \, \phi ^*\, h\) [the restriction of \(\phi ^*\, h\) to \(H(M) \otimes H(M)\)]. Omitting a direction in the calculation of the trace [as in (9)] has far reaching consequences, as explained by Dragomir and Perrone (cf. [28]): the principal part in the subelliptic harmonic map system (10) is the sublaplacian \(\Delta _b\) of \((M, \, \theta )\), a degenerate elliptic operator whose ellipticity degenerates at the cotangent directions spanned by \(\theta \).
Pseudohermitian second fundamental forms were introduced by Petit (cf. [56]) who formally modified the definition of the second fundamental form (of a map of Riemannian manifolds) by replacing the Levi–Civita connection of the source manifold with the Tanaka–Webster connection. Nevertheless M does carry a natural Riemannian metric \(g_\theta \), springing from the given structure \(\big ( T_{1,0} (M), \, \theta \big )\), and \(B_b (\phi )\) is related to the ordinary second fundamental form \(B (\phi )\) of \(\phi \), as a map between the Riemannian manifolds \((M, \, g_\theta )\) and \((N, \, h)\). Precisely, let \(T \in \mathfrak {X}(M)\) be the Reeb vector field of \((M, \, \theta )\) i.e. the globally defined, nowhere zero tangent vector field on M, transverse to H(M), determined by \(\theta (T) = 1\) and \(T \, \rfloor \, d \theta = 0\). Profiting from the direct sum decomposition \(T(M) = H(M) \oplus {{\mathbb {R}}} T\) one may extend the Levi form \(G_\theta \) to a Riemannian metric \(g_\theta \) on M [the Webster metric of \((M, \, \theta )\)] by postulating that
for any \(X \in H(M)\). Then \(g_\theta \) is a contraction of the sub-Riemannian structure \(\big ( H(M), \, G_\theta \big )\) (cf. Strichartz [60]) i.e. \(d(x, y) \le \rho (x, y)\) for any \(x, y \in M\), where d and \(\rho \) are respectively the Riemannian distance (associated to the Webster metric) and the Carnot–Carathéodory distance (associated to the sub-Riemannian structure). Let \(\nabla ^{g_\theta }\) be the Levi–Civita connection of \((M, \, g_\theta )\) and let
be the second fundamental form of \(\phi \) as a map of \((M, \, g_\theta )\) into \((N, \, h )\). The tension field of \(\phi \) is
The Levi–Civita and Tanaka–Webster connections \(\nabla ^{g_\theta }\) and \(\nabla \) are related by (cf. [29, p. 46])
where \(\tau \) is the pseudohermitian torsion of \(\nabla \) and
A calculation relying on (11) shows that
so that the notions of a harmonic map and a subelliptic harmonic map are logically inequivalent. Let \(\textrm{div}: \mathfrak {X}(M) \rightarrow C^\infty (M )\) be the divergence operator with respect to the volume form \(\Psi = \theta \wedge (d \theta )^n\) i.e.
where \({{\mathcal {L}}}_X\) is the Lie derivative. The sublaplacian is the formally self-adjoint, positive, second order operator \(\Delta _b\) given by
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^\infty \) map. Let \(\{ X_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \} \subset C^\infty (U, \, H(M))\) be a \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal [i.e. \(G_\theta (X_a \,, \, X_b ) = \delta _{ab}\)] local frame and let \((V, \, y^\alpha )\) be a local coordinate system on N such that \(\phi (U) \subset V\). The subelliptic harmonic map system (10) may be written locally as
where \(\phi ^\alpha = y^\alpha \circ \phi \) and \(\left\{ \begin{array}{c} \alpha \\ \beta \gamma , \end{array} \right\} \)are the Christoffel symbols of the second kind of \(h_{\alpha \beta }\). The sublaplacian is degenerate elliptic, yet subelliptic of order 1/2 and hence hypoelliptic (cf. Hörmander [42]). The study of subelliptic harmonic maps, and then the study of subelliptic harmonic morphisms (a particular sort of subelliptic harmonic maps, as introduced by Dragomir and Lanconelli [25]) fits into the larger program of Jost and Xu (cf. [44]) devoted to the study of second order quasi-linear PDE systems of variational origin whose principal part is at least hypoelliptic.
The sublaplacian \(\Delta _b\) may be thought of as the linear operator of Hilbert spaces
with domain
where \(\nabla ^H\) is the weak horizontal gradient and \(\big ( \nabla ^H \big )^*\) is its adjoint. Then, although the subelliptic harmonic map system is but quasi-linear, weak solutions may be defined as maps \(\phi \in W^{1,2}_H (M, N)\) such that for any \(\varphi \in C^\infty _0 (M)\)
To make sense of the Sobolev type spaces \(W^{1,2}_H (M, N)\) (the Folland–Stein spaces) the definition is either confined to target manifolds N which may be covered by a single coordinate neighborhood, or one first embeds (isometrically) N into a sufficiently high dimensional Euclidean space (by using Nash’s embedding theorem [52]). The generalized Dirichlet problem for the PDE system (13) was solved by Jost and Xu (cf. [44]) who also proved interior continuity of solutions. Finally, existence of \(C^\infty \) subelliptic harmonic maps may be established by applying a result by Xu and Zuily (cf. [63]) who proved smoothness of continuous solutions to a class of PDE systems including the subelliptic harmonic map system.
3 Subelliptic Harmonic Morphisms
Definition 1
A continuous map \(\phi \) of \((M, \theta )\) into (N, h) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism if for every open subset \(V \subset N\), and every \(C^2\) function \(v: V \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\), if \(\Delta _h v = 0\) in V then the pullback function \(u = v \circ \phi \) is a distribution-solution to \(\Delta _b u = 0\) in \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\). \(\square \)
Cf. Dragomir and Lanconelli [25]. Here
is the Laplacian on (V, h).
Proposition 1
Every subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi \) of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\) is smooth.
Proof
For every point \(x_0 \in M\) let \((V, \, y^\alpha )\) be a harmonic local coordinate system with \(\phi (x_0 ) \in V\), and let us set \(\phi ^\alpha = y^\alpha \circ \phi \). Then \(\Delta _b \phi ^\alpha = 0\) in \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\) hence (as \(\Delta _b\) is hypoelliptic) \(\phi ^\alpha \in C^\infty (U)\). \(\square \)
Definition 2
A \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) is Levi conformal if there is a continuous map \(\lambda = \lambda (\phi ): M \rightarrow [0, + \infty )\) (the \(\theta \)-dilation of \(\phi \)) such that \(\lambda ^2\) is \(C^\infty \) and
for any \(x \in M\) and any local normal coordinate system \((V, \, y^\alpha )\) on N with center at \(\phi (x) \in V\). \(\square \)
We set as customary \(\Lambda (\phi ) = \lambda (\phi )^2\) (the square \(\theta \)-dilation). For a fixed Levi conformal map \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) we abbreviate the notation to \(\Lambda = \Lambda (\phi )\). Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a Levi conformal map, of \((M, \, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\), and let \(x \in M\) be an arbitrary point. Let \(\big ( V^\prime \,, \, {y^\prime }^\alpha \big )\) be an arbitrary local coordinate system on N such that \(\phi (x) \in V^\prime \), and let us set \({\phi ^\prime }^\alpha = {y^\prime }^\alpha \circ \phi \). Then
on \(\phi ^{-1} (V \cap V^\prime )\). Moreover [by (15) and (14)]
i.e. if \(\phi \) is Levi conformal then for any \(x \in M\) and any local coordinate system \((V, \, y^\alpha )\) about \(\phi (x)\)
everywhere in \(\phi ^{-1} (V)\).
By a result of Barletta [7] (revisited as in Appendix B of [25]) a \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \((M, \, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\) if and only if \(\phi \) is Levi conformal and a subelliptic harmonic map. Moreover (again by [7]) if \(m > 2 n\) then every subelliptic harmonic morphism is a constant, while if \(m \le 2 n\) then for every point \(x \in M\) with \(\lambda (x) \ne 0\) there is an open neighborhood U of x such that \(\phi : U \rightarrow N\) is a \(C^\infty \) submersion. Barletta’s result is a pseudohermitian analog to the Fuglede–Ishihara characterization (cf. Fuglede [34], Ishihara [43]) of harmonic morphisms between Riemannian manifolds.
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^\infty \) map and let us set
where the orthogonal complement is meant with respect to the inner product \(g_{\theta , \, x}\).
Lemma 1
Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, of CR dimension n, endowed with the positively oriented contact form \(\theta \), and let (N, h) be a m-dimensional Riemannian manifold. Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^\infty \) map. Then
(i) For every \(x \in \phi ^{-1} (V)\)
(ii) Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a Levi conformal map, and let \(Z(\Lambda ) = \{ x \in M \;: \; \Lambda (x) = 0 \}\) be the zero set of its \(\theta \)-dilation. Then
Also
for any \(x \in Z(\Lambda ) \setminus \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\).
(iii) Let us assume that \(m \le 2 n\), and let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism. Then for every \(x \in M {\setminus } Z(\Lambda )\)
is a linear basis in \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\). In particular
Proof
(i) Let \(x \in M\) and \(v \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\). Then
that is
\(\square \)
(ii) Let \(x \in \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\). Then
[by the uniqueness of the direct sum decomposition \(T_x (M) = H(M)_x \oplus {{\mathbb {R}}} T_x\)]
hence [by (14)] \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\), accounting for (17).
Next, let \(x \in Z(\Lambda ) \setminus \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). Then [by (14)]
so that
Finally, for every \(v \in {{\mathscr {V}}}_x^\phi \) [by statement (i) in Lemma 1]
yielding [by (20)] \(T_x \in \big ( {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x \big )^\bot = {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\). \(\square \)
(iii) Let \(x_0 \in M \setminus Z(\Lambda )\). By a result of Barletta [7], there is an open neighborhood \(U \subset M\) of \(x_0\) such that \(\phi : U \rightarrow N\) is a \(C^\infty \) submersion. Hence, \(d_x \phi : {{\mathscr {H}}}_x^\phi \rightarrow T_{\phi (x)} (N)\) is a \({{\mathbb {R}}}\)-linear isomorphism, for any \(x \in U\). By statement (i) in Lemma 1 it suffices to show that the system \(\Big \{ \big ( \nabla \phi ^\alpha \big )_{x_0} \;: \; 1 \le \alpha \le m \Big \} \subset {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\) is free. Indeed if for some \(\mu ^\alpha \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), \(1 \le \alpha \le m\),
then \(\mu _\alpha \, \big ( \nabla ^H \phi ^\alpha \big )_{x_0} = 0\) yielding \(\mu ^\alpha = 0\), because [by (14)] the vectors
are linearly independent.
Next, let \(x \in M\) be a point such that \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\). Either x is a critical point of \(\phi \), so that [by (17)] \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\), or \(x \in M {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). For the remainder of the proof we argue by contradiction, i.e. let us assume that \(\Lambda (x ) \ne 0\). If this is the case, for any \(1 \le \alpha \le m\)
hence (21) is a linear basis of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\), too, yielding \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x \subset H(M)_x\) and in particular \(T_x \in H(M)_x\), a contradiction. \(\square \)
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \theta )\), into the Riemannian manifold (N, h). For each \(x \in M\) we set
If \(x \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) then
If \(x \in M {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) then the differential \(d_x \phi : T_x (M) \rightarrow T_{\phi (x)} (N)\) may, or may not, be an epimorphism.
Definition 3
A regular point in the set
is called a submersive point of the morphism \(\phi \). \(\square \)
At every submersive point \(x \in S(\phi )\)
Lemma 2
Let M and N be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, of CR dimension n, and let N be an m-dimensional Riemannian manifold, such that \(m \le 2 n\). Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, of \(\theta \)-dilation \(\sqrt{\Lambda }\). Then (i)
(ii) For every submersive point \(x \in S(\phi )\)
Proof
(i) Let \(x \in M\) with \(x \not \in Z(\Lambda )\). Then, on one hand [by (ii) in Lemma 1] x is a regular point of \(\phi \). On the other hand \(m \le 2 n\) and \(\Lambda (x) \ne 0\) so that, by a result of Barletta (cf. [7]) \(\phi \) is a submersion on some neighborhood of x, and in particular x is a submersive point. \(\square \)
(ii) For instance, for every \(x \in S(\phi )\) the relations
yield (19). \(\square \)
Note that [by taking complements in (22)] \(M {\setminus } S(\phi ) \subset Z(\Lambda )\). Next, as a consequence of (23) and (24), the set of submersive points of \(\phi \) admits the natural partition
Indeed, case (IV) where \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} = m\) and \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} = 2n - m + 1\) is ruled out by \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} \oplus {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} \subset H(M)_x\).
The main difficulties one encounters are related to the presence of two pairs of complementary distributions on M [rather than just \(\big ( H(M), \, {{\mathbb {R}}} T \big )\) as in CR geometry, or just \(\big ( {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \,, \, {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \big )\) as in the theory of harmonic morphisms between Riemannian manifolds]. These distributions intersect, and the dimension of the intersections may vary from a point to another, requiring a classification of types of points, relative to a fixed subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi \), as captured by the partition (25). Our conclusive finding is
Theorem 6
Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, equipped with the contact form \(\theta \in {{\mathscr {P}}}_+ (M)\), and let \((N, \, h)\) be a m-dimensional Riemannian manifold. Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, from \((M, \theta )\) into (N, h).
(i) If \(m = 1\) then
(ii) If \(m \ge 2\) then
Consequently, for every subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi : M \rightarrow N^m\) all points in M are submersive, except for the critical points of \(\phi \) when \(m = 1\), or for the zeros of the square dilation \(\Lambda = \Lambda (\phi )\) when \(m \ge 2\).
The proof of Theorem 6 requires a number of lemmas.
Lemma 3
Under the assumptions of Lemma 2, let \(x \in S(\phi )\) be a submersive point. Then
(i) \(x \in \textrm{I}_m (\phi ) \Longleftrightarrow T_x \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\).
(ii) \(x \in \textrm{II}_m (\phi ) \Longleftrightarrow T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\).
Proof
(i) If \(x \in \textrm{I}_m (\phi )\) then \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x = m\) hence \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x = {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} \subset H(M)_x\) yielding \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x = \big ( {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x \big )^\bot \supset H(M)_x^\bot = {{\mathbb {R}}} T_x\). \(\square \)
Viceversa, if \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) then \(T_x\) is orthogonal to \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\) i.e. \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x \subset H(M)_x\) yielding \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x = {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{H, \, x}\), and consequently \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} = m\). The sets \(\textrm{I}_m (\phi )\), \(\textrm{II}_m (\phi )\) and \(\textrm{III}_m (\phi )\) are mutually disjoint, so it must be that \(x \in \textrm{I}_m (\phi )\). \(\square \)
(ii) If \(x \in \textrm{II}_m (\phi )\) then \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} = 2 n - m + 1\), hence \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x = {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _{H, \, x} \subset H(M)_x\) implying that \(T_x\) is orthogonal to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) i.e. \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\). \(\square \)
Viceversa, if \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\) then \(T_x\) is orthogonal to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) i.e. \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x \subset H(M)_x\). It follows that the subspaces \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _{H, \, x}\) and \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) coincide, yet the space \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) is \((2n - m + 1)\)-dimensional, so that \(x \in \textrm{II}_m (\phi )\), again because (25) is a partition.
Lemma 4
Under the assumptions of Lemma 2
Consequently
Proof
For every \(x \in \textrm{II}_m (\phi )\) [by statement (ii) in Lemma 2] \(T_x \in {{\mathcal {H}}}^\phi _x\) and then [by statement (iii) in Lemma 1] \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\). \(\square \)
To prove the opposite inclusion, let \(x \in S(\phi ) \cap Z(\Lambda )\). Then \(\Lambda (x) = 0\) so that [by (14)]
Consequently [by statement (i) in Lemma 1]
and there is \(\alpha \in \{ 1, \, \ldots \,, \, m \}\) such that \(T_x (\phi ^\alpha ) \ne 0\), because x is a regular point. Therefore \(T_x \in {{\mathcal {H}}}^\phi _x\). \(\square \)
Let us set \(\Omega = \Omega (\phi ):= M \setminus Z(\Lambda )\) (an open subset of M). Then
Lemma 5
Under the assumptions of Lemma 2
Proof
Let \(x \in S(\phi )\). We distinguish two cases, as A) \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\), or B) \(z \not \in Z(\Lambda )\). In case (A) [by Lemma 4]
In case (B)
To check the opposite inclusion, let \(x \in \Omega (\phi ) \cup \textrm{II}_m (\phi )\). Then [by (28) and (22)] either
or
\(\square \)
Lemma 6
Under the assumptions of Lemma 2
(1) \(\textrm{I}_m (\phi ) \subset \Omega \),
(2) \(\textrm{III}_m (\phi ) = \Omega {\setminus } \textrm{I}_m (\phi )\).
Proof
(1) Given any \(x \in \textrm{I}_m (\phi )\), let us show that \(x \not \in Z(\Lambda )\). We argue by contradiction. If \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\) then [by statement (ii) in Lemma 1, as x is a regular point] \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}_x^\phi \). Yet [by statement (i) in Lemma 3] \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {V}}}_x^\phi \), implying that \(T_x = 0\), a contradiction.
(2) By (30) and the first statement in the current lemma
implying [by (25)] \(\Omega {\setminus } \textrm{I}_m (\phi ) = \textrm{III}_m (\phi )\). \(\square \)
Lemma 7
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, from \((M, \theta )\) into (N, h). Then for every \(x \in Z(\Lambda ) {\setminus } \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\)
and in particular \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} \, (d_{x} \phi ) T_{x} (M) = 1\).
Proof
Let \(x \in Z(\Lambda ) \setminus \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). By \(\Lambda (x) = 0\) and (14) [as \(\phi \) is Levi conformal]
Let \(\{ E_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) be a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on an open neighborhood \(U \subset M\) of x. Then
hence
that is
As \(x \not \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) it must be
Indeed, if \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) then [by (32)] \(T_x (M) \subset {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) i.e. \(d_x \phi = 0\), a contradiction. Next, let \(v \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) so that
for some \(\lambda ^a \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), \(1 \le a \le 2 n\). By applying \(d_x \phi \) to both members [and using (32) and (33)]
that is \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x \subset H(M)_x\), yielding equality in (32). \(\square \) In particular [by (31)]
\(\square \)
At this point we may complete the proof of Theorem 6.
(i) By Lemmas 1 and 4 the inclusion
holds for arbitrary \(m \ge 1\). To check the opposite inclusion, let \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\). Then either \(x \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) and we are done, or \(x \not \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) and then we may apply Lemma 7 to conclude that the space \((d_x \phi ) \, T_x (M)\) is 1-dimensional. Hence (as \(m = 1\)) \(d_x \phi \) is an epimorphism, implying that \(x \in S(\phi )\), and then
(according to Lemma 4). \(\square \)
To prove the second equality in (26) note first that
[by its very definition, \(S(\phi )\) lies in the complementary of \(\textrm{Crit} (\phi )\)]. To check the opposite inclusion, let \(x \in M {\setminus } S(\phi )\). We argue by contradiction i.e. we assume that \(x \not \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). On the other hand [by \(x \not \in S(\phi )\)] the differential \(d_x \phi \) is not on-to, implying that \(\Lambda (x) = 0\) [otherwise \(\phi \) is a submersion on some neighborhood of x, a contradiction]. At this point we may apply Lemma 7 to conclude that \((d_x \phi ) T_x (M)\) is 1-dimensional, so that \(d_x \phi \) is surjective i.e. \(x \in S(\phi )\), a contradiction.
(ii) The proof of \(\textrm{II}_m (\phi ) = \emptyset \) is by contradiction. If \(\textrm{II}_m (\phi ) \ne \emptyset \), let \(x \in \textrm{II}_m (\phi )\) i.e. (by Lemma 4) \(x \in S(\phi ) \cap Z(\Lambda )\). Therefore \(d_x \phi \ne 0\) and \(\Lambda (x) = 0\) so we may apply Lemma 7 to conclude that \(T_{\phi (x)} (N) = (d_x \phi ) T_x (M)\) is 1-dimensional i.e. \(m = 1\), a contradiction. \(\square \)
To prove the second statement in (27), let \(x \in Z(\Lambda )\). Then either \(x \in \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\), implying that \(d_x \phi \) is not on-to i.e. \(x \in M {\setminus } S(\phi )\), or \(x \not \in \textrm{Crit}(\phi )\) and one may apply Lemma 7 to conclude that
hence \(d_x \phi \) is not on-to i.e. \(x \not \in S(\phi )\). The inclusion \(Z(\Lambda ) \subset M \setminus S(\phi )\) is proved. As to the opposite inclusion, let \(x \in M \setminus S(\phi )\) and let us assume that \(x \not \in Z(\Lambda )\). Then \(\phi \) is a submersion on some neighborhood of x, and in particular \(x \in S(\phi )\), a contradiction. This yields \(M {\setminus } S(\phi ) \subset Z(\Lambda )\). \(\square \)
4 Harmonic Morphisms from Fefferman Spaces
Let M be a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold, of CR dimension n, and let \(\theta \) be a positively oriented contact form on M. A complex p-form \(\eta \) on M is of type (p, 0), or a (p, 0)-form, if \(T_{0,1} (M) \, \rfloor \, \eta =0\). Let \(\Lambda ^{p,0} (M) \subset \Lambda ^p T^*(M) \otimes {{\mathbb {C}}}\) be the relevant bundle. Unlike the case of complex geometry, top degree (p, 0)-forms are \((n+1, 0)\)-forms [rather than (n, 0)-forms, due to the presence of the additional real cotangent direction \(\theta \)]. Then \(\mathbb {R}_+ = \textrm{GL}^+ (1, {{\mathbb {R}}})\) acts freely on \(K^0 (M) = \Lambda ^{n+1,0} (M){\setminus } \{ \mathrm{zero \ section}\}\) and
\(C(M) = K^0 (M) /\mathbb {R}_+\) is a principal \(S^1\) bundle over M (the canonical circle bundle). The \((2n+2)\)-dimensional manifold C(M) carries the Lorentzian metric \(F_\theta \) (the Fefferman metric) naturally associated to \(\theta \)
Cf. Lee [49] (or [29, pp. 128–129]). Here \(\tilde{G}_\theta \) is the (degenerate) bilinear form on T(M) got by requiring that \(\tilde{G}_\theta = G_\theta \) on \(H(M) \otimes H(M)\) and \(\tilde{G}_\theta (T, V) = 0\) for any \(V \in \mathfrak {X}(M)\). Also \(\sigma \) is the (globally defined) real 1-form on C(M) given by
where \(\pi : C(M) \rightarrow M\) is the projection and \(\gamma : \pi ^{-1} (U) \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) is a local fiber coordinate on C(M). Also, for any local frame \(\{ T_\alpha \,: \, 1 \le \alpha \le n \} \subset C^\infty \big ( U, \, T_{1,0}(M) \big )\)
and \(\rho \) is the pseudohermitian scalar curvature (cf. [29, p. 50]). By a result of Graham (cf. [40]) \(\sigma \) is a connection 1-form on the canonical circle bundle [the Graham connection on C(M)]. For every tangent vector field \(X\in \mathfrak {X}(M)\) let \(X^\uparrow \in \mathfrak {X}(C(M))\) be the horizontal lift of X with respect to the Graham connection i.e.
for any \(p \in C(M)\). Let \(S\in \mathfrak {X} (C(M))\) be the tangent to the \(S^1\) action. Locally \(S = [(n+2)/2] \, \big ( \partial /\partial \, \gamma \big )\). Then \(T^\uparrow -S\) is a globally defined time-like vector field on C(M), hence the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), F_\theta )\) is time oriented.
Let \(\Box \) be the Laplace–Beltrami operator of the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), F_\theta )\) (the geometric wave operator). By a result of Lee (cf. [49]) the pushforward of \(\Box \) is precisely the sublaplacian \(\Delta _b\) of \((M, \, \theta )\) i.e.
By a result of Barletta et al. (cf. [9]) a \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : \, (M, \theta ) \rightarrow (N, h)\) is subelliptic harmonic if and only if its vertical lift \(\Phi = \phi \circ \pi : (C(M), F_\theta ) \rightarrow (N, h)\) is a harmonic map.
Our main purpose in the present section is to relate (\(S^1\) invariant) harmonic morphisms from \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) to subelliptic harmonic morphisms from \((M, \theta )\), in the spirit of the geometric interpretation of subelliptic harmonic maps provided in [8], and prove Theorem 3.
The equivalence (i) \(\Longleftrightarrow \) (ii) in Theorem 3 may be accounted for, as follows. Let \(v: V \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) be a \(C^2\) solution to \(\Delta _h v = 0\) with \(V \subset N\) open, and let \({{\mathscr {U}}} = \Phi ^{-1} (V)\) and \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\). For any \(x \in U\) and \(p\in \pi ^{-1} (x) \subset {{\mathscr {U}}}\) [by (36)]
[hence \(\Box (v \circ \Phi ) = 0\) in \({{\mathscr {U}}}\) \(\Longleftrightarrow \) \(\Delta _b (v\circ \phi ) = 0\) in U]. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1
Follows from statement (i) \(\Longrightarrow \) (ii) in Theorem 3, a result by S. Dragomir & E. Lanconelli (cf. Corollary 4 in [25, p. 421]), and the fact that \(\pi : C(M) \rightarrow M\) is an open map. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 2
Follows from Theorem 3 and Proposition 1. \(\square \)
The study of harmonic morphisms in the semi-Riemannian category was started by Fuglede [35] (cf. also Parmar [54]) and the state-of-the-art up to 2003 is described in the monograph [5], where from we recall a few basic notions, confined to our needs i.e. to the case of harmonic morphisms from the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\).
Definition 4
A \(C^\infty \) map \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) is harmonic if it is a critical point of the energy functional
for any relatively compact domain \(D \subset \subset C(M)\). That is
for every smooth 1-parameter variation \(\{ \Phi _t \}_{|t| < \epsilon } \subset C^\infty \big ( C(M), \, N\big )\) of \(\Phi _0 = \Phi \) supported in \(\Omega \) i.e. \(\textrm{Supp} ({{\mathbb {V}}}) \subset D\). \(\square \)
Here \({{\mathbb {V}}} \in C^\infty \big ( \Phi ^{-1} T N \big )\) is the infinitesimal variation induced by \(\{ \Phi _t \}_{|t| < \epsilon }\) i.e.
Also
is the canonical volume form on C(M), associated to the Lorentzian metric \(F_\theta \), where we have set
and \((U, \, x^A )\) is an arbitrary local coordinate system on M. The Euler–Lagrange equations of the variational principle \(\delta \, {{\mathbb {E}}}_D (\Phi ) = 0\) are
where \(\tau _{F_\theta } (\Phi ) \in C^\infty (\Phi ^{-1} T N)\) is the tension field of \(\Phi \) i.e.
Let \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^\infty \) map. For each point \(p \in C(M)\) we set
(the perp space is meant with respect to \(F_\theta \)).
Definition 5
\(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) is nondegenerate at \(p \in C(M)\) if \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is a nondegenerate subspace of the inner product space \(\big ( T_p (C(M)), \, F_{\theta , \, p} \big )\). Otherwise \(\Phi \) is degenerate at \(p\in C(M)\). \(\square \)
We also recall (cf. [5, p. 444], or Fuglede [35]).
Definition 6
Let \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^1\) map, and let \(p \in C(M)\) be a point. \(\Phi \) is horizontally weakly conformal at p provided that
(i) If \(p \in C(M) \setminus \textrm{Crit}(\Phi )\) and \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is nondegenerate, then the differential \(d_p \Phi : \mathcal {H}_p^\Phi \rightarrow T_{\Phi (p)} (N)\) is on-to, and there is a unique nonzero number \(L (p) \in \mathbb {R} {\setminus } \{ 0 \}\) such that
for any \(X, Y \in \mathcal {H}_p^\Phi \).
(ii) If \(p \in C(M)\) and \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is degenerate, then
[i.e. \(F_{\theta , \, p} (X, Y) = 0\) for any \(X, Y \in {{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \)]. The number L(p) is the (square) dilation at p. \(\square \)
It is customary to set \(L (p) = 0\) when \(p \in \textrm{Crit}(\Phi )\) or \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is degenerate. The resulting function \(L: C(M) \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) [the (square)Footnote 1dilation of \(\Phi \)] is continuous. Also \(\Phi \in C^\infty \Longrightarrow L \in C^\infty \). Occasionally we refine the notation to \(L = L(\Phi )\). We shall need the following characterization of horizontal weak conformality (cf. [5, pp. 444–445]).
Lemma 8
Let \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) be a \(C^1\) map, and let \(p \in C(M)\). The following statements are equivalent
(i) \(\Phi \) is horizontally weakly conformal at \(p \in C(M)\), with dilation L(p).
(ii) There is \(L(p) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\) such that
and \(L(p) \ne 0 \Longrightarrow d_p \Phi \) is on-to.
(iii) There is \(L(p) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\) such that, for every local coordinate system \(\big ( V, \, y^i )\) on N about \(\Phi (p)\)
where \(\Phi ^i = y^i \circ \Phi \).
Here \(\nabla u = \nabla ^{F_\theta } u\) is the gradient of \(u \in C^1 (C(M))\) with respect to the Fefferman metric i.e. \(F_\theta (\nabla u, \, X ) = X(u)\) for any \(X \in \mathfrak {X}(C(M))\).
We shall need the following result (the semi-Riemannian version of the Fuglede–Ishihara theorem, cf. Theorem 14.6.2 in [5, p. 447], or Fuglede [35])
Theorem 7
A \(C^2\) map \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) is a harmonic morphism of the Lorentzian manifold \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\) if and only if \(\Phi \) is both a harmonic map, and a horizontally weakly conformal map.
We now attack the remaining part of the proof of Theorem 3. We start by observing that
Lemma 9
The dilation \(L(\Phi )\) is \(S^1\)-invariant.
Proof
Indeed the distributions \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \) and \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \) are invariant by right translations with respect to the natural action of \(S^1\) on C(M) i.e. for every \(p \in C(M)\) and \(a \in S^1\)
Here \(R_a: C(M) \rightarrow C(M)\) denotes the right translation with \(a \in S^1\). Next [as \(\Phi \) is horizontally weakly conformal]
Let \(a\in S^1\) and \(u, \, v \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _{p}\), and let us set
Then [by (40)]
and [by \(S^1 \subset \textrm{Isom} (C(M), F_\theta )\)]
yielding
so that \(L(\Phi )_{p\cdot a} = L(\Phi )_p\) when \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) is nondegenerate, and \(L(\Phi )_p = 0\) when \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) is degenerate. Once again, as the right translation \(R_a\) is an isometry, the degeneracy of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) implies that of \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _{p \cdot a}\), and hence \(L(\Phi )_{p\cdot a} = 0\).
\(\square \)
Next, we relate the horizontal weak conformality condition on \(\Phi = \phi \circ \pi \) to the Levi conformality condition on \(\phi \). Let us set
Let \(\{E_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2n \}\) be a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M)
defined on the open set \(U \subset M\). Then
is a local \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of T(C(M)) i.e.
on \(\pi ^{-1} (U)\). Then
for some \(\lambda ^\alpha \in C^\infty \big ( \pi ^{-1} (U) \big )\). Contracting with \(F_\theta \) one gets
namely
Consequently
We recall the following (cf. Proposition 14.5.4 in [5, p. 445])
Proposition 1
A \(C^\infty \) map \(\Phi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) is horizontally weakly conformal at \(p\in C(M)\) with (square) dilation L(p) if and only if one of the following statements holds
(i) \(L(p)\ne 0\), \(d_p \Phi \) is on-to, and \((\Phi ^*h )_p = L (p) \, F_{\theta , \, p}\) on \({{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \times {{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \).
(ii) \(p\in \textrm{Crit} (\Phi )\) [so that \(L(p)=0\) and \(d_p\Phi =0\)].
(iii) \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p\) is degenerate and \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p \subset {{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p\) [so that \(L(p) = 0\) yet \(d_p \Phi \ne 0\)].
Statement (a) in Theorem 3 is proved in two steps i.e. we show that
Lemma 10
\(\Phi \) is nondegenerate at p \(\Longleftrightarrow \) \(L(\Phi )_p > 0\) \(\Longleftrightarrow \) \(\pi (p) \in \Omega (\phi )\).
We proceed by distinguishing between the cases contemplated by Proposition 1. To start with, let us assume that \(L (p) \ne 0\). Then \(d_p \Phi \ne 0\), the restriction of \(d_p \Phi \) to \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) is surjective, and (38) holds. Moreover \(\Phi \) is nondegenerate at p and [by (iii) in Lemma 8] \(\{ (\nabla \Phi ^j)_p \, \ 1 \le j \le m\}\) is a linear basis in \({{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \). Once again by (iii) in Lemma 8
[by (41) together with the fact that S is lightlike and \(F_\theta \)-orthogonal to each \(E_a^\uparrow \)]
Hence [as h is Riemannian] \(0 \ne L (\Phi )_p \ge 0\) i.e. \(L (\Phi )_p > 0\). Thus \(L (\Phi )_p > 0\) is a necessary condition for the nondegeneracy of \(\Phi \) at p. Clearly, it also suffices [if \(L(\Phi )_p > 0\) then \(d_p \Phi \) is onto and \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) is space-like by (ii)of Lemma 8]. So \(\Phi \) is nondegenerate at p \(\Longleftrightarrow \) \(L (\Phi )_p >0\). Next [by Lemma 9] there is a \(C^\infty \) function \(\ell (\Phi ): M \rightarrow (0, \, + \infty )\) such that \(L (\Phi )= \ell (\Phi ) \circ \pi \). The horizontal weak conformality condition on \(\Phi \) is then
or [by (34)]
hence [by (42), and then by \(\big ( \pi ^*\theta \big ) ( \nabla \Phi ^j ) = 0\)]
Next [by the Levi-conformality condition on \(\phi \)]
hence [as h is positive definite and \(\Lambda (\phi )_x = \ell (\Phi )_x\)]
so that \(L (\Phi ) (p) > 0 \Longleftrightarrow x \in M {\setminus } [Z(\Lambda (\phi ))]\). \(\square \)
Let us now examine the case \(L(p) = 0\), when either \(p\in \textrm{Crit } (\Phi )\) or \(d_p \Phi \ne 0\), \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is degenerate, and \({{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \subset {{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \).
(b) If \(p \in \textrm{Crit } (\Phi )\) then \(x = \pi (p) \in \textrm{Crit } (\phi )\) and conversely. Indeed let \(d_p \Phi = 0\). Then \(\big ( \nabla \Phi ^j \big )_p = 0\) hence [by (41)]
so that \((\nabla \phi ^j)_x = T(\phi ^j)_x \; T_x\). Yet
so that \((\nabla \phi ^j )_x = 0\) i.e. \(d_x \phi = 0\). \(\square \)
(c) If \(d_p \Phi \ne 0\), \({{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \) is degenerate, and \({{\mathscr {H}}}_p^\Phi \subset {{\mathscr {V}}}_p^\Phi \), then (equivalently) \(x \in Z(\Lambda ) \setminus \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). Indeed, if \(x \not \in Z(\Lambda )\) then [by our discussion of the case \(L(p) \ne 0\)] \(\Phi \) is nondegenerate at p, while if \(x \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) then \(p \in \textrm{Crit} (\Phi )\) [by statement (b) in Theorem 3]. The proof of statement (c) in Theorem 3 is now completed by applying Theorem 6 to \(x = \pi (p) \in Z(\Lambda ) {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\).
5 Harmonic Morphisms Within Foliation Theory
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \((M, \, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\), of \(\theta \)-dilation \(\lambda (\phi )\), and let \(\Phi = \phi \circ \pi \) be its vertical lift [a harmonic morphism of square dilation \(L(\Phi ) = \lambda ^2 (\phi ) \circ \pi \)]. Let \(S(\phi )\) be the set of all submersive points of the morphism \(\phi \) (cf. Definition 3 above). The connected components of the fibres of \(\phi : S(\phi ) \rightarrow N\) are the leaves of a foliation \({{\mathscr {F}}}\) of \(S(\phi )\). Let us set
Then \(\Phi : S(\Phi ) \rightarrow N\) is a submersion and the corresponding foliation of \(S(\Phi )\) is the pullback of \({\mathscr {F}}\) by \(\pi \) i.e. the foliation \(\pi ^*{{\mathscr {F}}}\) of C(M) whose tangent bundle is
The horizontal lift is meant with respect to the Graham connection \(\sigma \). Cf. Molino [51, p. 54], and Dragomir and Nishikawa [26]. Cf. also [10].
Let \(Q = \nu ({{\mathscr {F}}}) = T(M)/{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) be the transverse bundle, and let \(\Pi : T(M) \rightarrow Q\) be the projection. Let \(\sigma _Q: Q \rightarrow {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \) be the vector bundle isomorphism
and let \(g_Q\) be the Riemannian bundle metric
Let us consider the Q-valued symmetric 2-form \(\alpha \) on \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \otimes {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), the bundle endomorphism \(W(Z): {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \rightarrow {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), and the basic 1-form \(\kappa \in \Omega ^1_B ({{\mathscr {F}}})\), given by
for any \(X, \, X^\prime \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) and \(Z \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \). We follow the notations and conventions in Tondeur [61]. Let \(\chi _{{\mathscr {F}}} \in \Omega ^p (M)\) [with \(p = 2 n - m + 1\)] be the tangential volume form i.e.
Note that \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \, \rfloor \, \chi _{{\mathscr {F}}} = 0\). Rummler’s formula is (cf. Eq. (6.17) in [61, p. 66])
where \({{\mathscr {L}}}_Z\) is the Lie derivative. Next, let
[globally defined, as the trace of \(X^\prime \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \mapsto \pi ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \, \nabla ^{g_\theta }_{X^\prime } X\)] be the divergence operator along the leaves. Similar to (45)
Indeed
[by \(\chi _{{\mathscr {F}}} \big ( E_1 \,, \, \ldots \,, \, E_p \big ) = 1\) and \(\displaystyle {\pi _{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \, \big [ X, \, E_j \big ] = \sum _{i=1}^p g_\theta \big ( \big [ X, \, E_j \big ], \, E_i \big ) \, E_i}\)]
[by \(\nabla ^{g_\theta } g_\theta = 0\) and \(\Vert E_i \Vert = 1\)]
\(\square \)
5.1 Mean Curvature of Fibres
Let \(({{\mathfrak {M}}}^{\textrm{N}}, \, g)\) be a \(\mathrm N\)-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold, equipped with the semi-Riemannian metric g, and let D be a linear connection on \({\mathfrak {M}}\). Let \({{\mathscr {D}}}\) be a \(C^\infty \) distribution on \({\mathfrak {M}}\), of rank \(1 \le r \le \textrm{N} - 1\), and such that \({{\mathscr {D}}}_x\) is a nondegenerate subspace of \((T_x ({{\mathfrak {M}}}), \, g_x )\), for any \(x\in {{\mathfrak {M}}}\). Let \({{\mathscr {D}}}^\bot \) be the orthogonal complement of \({\mathscr {D}}\), and let \(\pi ^\bot : T({{\mathfrak {M}}}) \rightarrow {{\mathscr {D}}}^\bot \) be the projection associated to the direct sum decomposition \(T(M) = {{\mathscr {D}}} \oplus {{\mathscr {D}}}^\bot \). Let us consider the bilinear form \(B_{{\mathscr {D}}} = B_{{\mathscr {D}}} (g, \, D )\) given by
Next, let \(\mu ^{{\mathscr {D}}} = \mu ^{{\mathscr {D}}}(g, \, D )\) be given by
When \(D = \nabla ^g\) [the Levi-Civita connection of \((\mathfrak {M}, \, g)\)] \(\mu ^{{\mathscr {D}}} = \mu ^{{\mathscr {D}}} (g, \, \nabla ^g )\) is the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathcal {D}}}\) (cf. e.g. Definition 1.26 in [29, p. 37]). Given a subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) under the assumptions of Theorem 6, we consider both the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) in \((M, \, g_\theta )\)
and its pseudohermitian analog [got by replacing the Levi–Civita connection of \((M, \, g_\theta )\) by the Tanaka–Webster connection \(\nabla \) of \((M, \, \theta )\)]
From now on, let us assume that \(m\ge 2\) so that [by Theorem 6]
By arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3 [case \(L(p ) \ne 0\)] for every \(p \in S (\Phi ) = \pi ^{-1} \big [ S(\phi ) \big ]\) the horizontal space \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\) is space-like i.e. \(F_{\theta , \, p}\) is positive definite on \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p\). Consequently, for every \(p \in S (\Phi )\) the vertical space \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p\) has index \(\textrm{ind} \, {{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p = 1\), i.e. \(F_{\theta , \, p}\) has signature \((1, \, 2 n - m + 1)\) on \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi _p\). Therefore
Lemma 11
C(M) is foliated by \((2n - m + 2)\)-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds, whose normal bundles are spacelike.
Let \(\beta _p\) be the inverse of \(d_p \Phi : {{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi _p \simeq T_{\Phi (p)} (N)\) [\(\beta : \Phi ^{-1} T(N) \rightarrow {{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \) is the horizontal lift, a vector bundle isomorphism].
Lemma 12
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \((M, \, \theta )\) into \((N, \, h)\), of \(\theta \)-dilation \(\lambda (\phi )\), and let \(\Phi = \phi \circ \pi : C(M) \rightarrow N\) be its vertical lift \(\big (\)a harmonic morphism of square dilation \(\ell (\Phi )^2 = \big [ \lambda (\phi ) \circ \pi \big ]^2\big )\). The second fundamental form \(B_{F_\theta } (\Phi )\) of \(\Phi \) satisfies
everywhere in \(S(\Phi )\).
The proof of Lemma 12 is a verbatim repetition of the arguments in [5, pp. 119–120]. Let us check for instance (48). To this end, let \(\{ Z_\alpha \,: \, 1 \le \alpha \le m \}\) be a local h-orthonormal frame of T(N), defined on the open set \(V \subset N\). Then [by (ii) in Lemma 8]
is a local \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frame for \({{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi \), defined on \({{\mathscr {U}}} = \Phi ^{-1} (V)\). Let \(Y \in \mathfrak {X}(V)\) and let \(H = \beta \, Y \in C^\infty ({{\mathscr {U}}}, \, {{\mathscr {H}}}^\Phi )\). Then
(by the explicit expression of \(\nabla ^{F_\theta }\) as a Levi–Civita connection, cf. e.g. Proposition 2.3 in [45, 46, Vol. I, p. 160])
[by (ii) in Lemma 8 i.e.
and by
cf. e.g. Proposition B.1 inFootnote 2 [27, pp. 303–304]]
Next [again by Proposition 2.3 in [45, 46, Vol. I, p. 160], applied to the Levi–Civita connection \(\nabla ^h\)]
and
so that
\(\square \)
Lemma 13
Under the assumptions of Lemma 12, the tension field of \(\Phi \) is given by
everywhere in \(S(\Phi )\) [the set of submersive points of \(\Phi \)].
Proof
Let
be local \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frames. Then
and [by Lemma 12]
so that
Also
\(\square \)
Next, we project (50) on the base manifold M, so that to get a subelliptic version of the fundamental equation for a harmonic morphism (cf. e.g. Eq. (4.5.2) in [5, p. 129]), applying to the base map \(\phi \). We start by recalling the following resultFootnote 3 (relating the Levi–Civita connection \(\nabla ^{F_\theta }\) of \((C(M), \, F_\theta )\) to the Tanaka–Webster connection \(\nabla \) of \((M, \, \theta )\), cf. [9, p. 26] or [1])
Lemma 14
For any \(X, Y\in H(M)\)
where \(\varphi : H(M) \rightarrow H(M)\) and \(V\in H(M)\) are given by
The tension field \(\tau _{F_\theta } (\Phi )\) may be shown to project on \(\tau _b (\phi )\) i.e.
To prove (57) let \(\{ E_a\,: \, 1 \le a \le 2n \}\) be a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on the open set \(U \subset M\). Then
is a local \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frame for \(T \big ( C(M) \big )\), defined on \({{\mathscr {U}}} = \pi ^{-1} (U)\), so that
Also, for every \(X \in H(M)\) [by Lemma 14 and \(\Phi _*S = 0\)]
Finally
\(\square \)
The gradient \(\nabla \, \log \, \ell (\Phi )\) may be shown to project on the horizontal gradient \(\nabla ^H \, \log \, \lambda (\phi )\). Indeed [by arguing as in the proof of (41)]
Also [by \(\ell (\Phi ) = \lambda (\phi ) \circ \pi \)] \(X^\uparrow (\log \, \ell (\Phi )) = X ( \log \, \lambda (\phi )) \circ \pi \) hence
\(\square \)
Next, we seek to project the mean curvature vector
We need to produce a local \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \), adapted to the decomposition
[and allowing for the use of Lemma 14]. We start from building a local \(g_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), adapted to the decomposition \(T(M) = H(M) \oplus {{\mathbb {R}}}\). Once again, difficulties arise from the fact that the pairs of complementary distributions \((H(M), \, {{\mathbb {R}}} T )\) and \(\big ( {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \,, \, {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi )\) intersect, and then the use of Theorem 6 is crucial in ascertaining that the intersections have constant ranks on certain open sets. Indeed
at every point \(x \in S (\phi )= \Omega (\phi ) = \textrm{I}_m (\phi ) \cup \textrm{III}_m (\phi )\), provided that \(m\ge 2\). Let then
be a \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame, defined on the open set \(U \subset \Omega (\phi )\). Let us set
Our discussion in Sect. 3 shows that \(T^{{\mathscr {V}}}_x \ne 0\) for every \(x \in S(\phi )\), hence one may set
Lemma 15
\(\big \{ V_j \,, \; {{\mathscr {T}}} \,: \, 1\le j \le 2n - m \big \}\) is a \(g_\theta \)-orthonormal frame for \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), defined on \(U \subset \Omega (\phi )\).
Proof
Note that \({{\mathscr {T}}}_x \ne 0\) for every \(x \in \Omega (\phi )\) [otherwise \(T_{x_0} \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _{x_0}\) for some \(x_0 \in \Omega (\phi )\) i.e. \(\textrm{II}_m (\phi ) \ne \emptyset \), a contradiction] and \(\Vert {{\mathscr {T}}} \Vert = 1\). Also
Also \(\theta ({{\mathscr {T}}}) \ne 0\) everywhere in \(\Omega (\phi )\). Indeed, if \(\theta ({{\mathscr {T}}})_{x_0} = 0\) for some \(x_0 \in \Omega (\phi )\) then
a contradiction. \(\square \)
Using the local frame provided by Lemma 15 one may relate the mean curvature vector \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \equiv \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla ^{g_\theta } \big )\) to its pseudohermitian analog \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla \big )\) i.e.
where \(\Pi _{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \, A\) denotes the restriction of A to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \otimes {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \). Indeed [by (11)]
for any \(V \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _H\). Hence
\(\square \)
For further use, note that [by (11)]
Using the Graham connection \(\sigma \) to lift \(\{ V_j \,, \, {{\mathscr {T}}} \}\), one produces the local frame \(\big \{ V_j^\uparrow \,, \; {{\mathscr {T}}}^\uparrow \,, \; S \;: \; 1 \le j \le 2n - m \big \}\) for \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \), defined on \({{\mathscr {U}}} = \pi ^{-1} (U) \subset S(\Phi )\).
Lemma 16
Let us set
Then
is a \(F_\theta \)-orthonormal frame for \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \) with \({{\mathscr {T}}}^\uparrow - v \, S\) timelike.
The proof is straightforward. Note that
and in particular \(|v| \ge 1\).
Lemma 17
Proof
We start by computing the needed components of \(B_{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi }\). By Lemma 14 and \(S \in {{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi \)
The calculation of \(B_{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\Phi } \big ( {{\mathscr {T}}}^\uparrow \,, \, S \big )\) is a bit trickier. One first decomposes \({{\mathscr {T}}} = \Pi _H \, {{\mathscr {T}}} + u \, T\) and then [again by Lemma 14 and \(S (u \circ \pi ) = 0\)]
i.e. (as \(J \, T = 0\))
Next (by Lemma 16 and \(u + v = 2/u\))
Substitution from
yields (60). \(\square \)
Summing up [by Lemmas 13 to 17] the fundamental equation (50) projects on
Besides from the foliation \({\mathscr {F}}\) tangent to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \big |_{S(\phi )}\) [the portion of the vertical bundle \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) over the (open) set \(\Omega (\phi ) = S(\phi ) = \textrm{I}_m (\phi ) \cup \textrm{III}_m (\phi )\) of all submersive points], the manifold M comes equipped with the Reeb foliation i.e. the codimension 2n foliation \({\mathscr {R}}\) of M tangent to T. The case where \({\mathscr {R}}\) is a subfoliation of \({\mathscr {F}}\) is closest to the Riemannian case i.e. (61) becomes
which is the fundamental Eq. (4.5.2) in [5, p. 120], for \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) as a map of the Riemannian manifolds \((M, \, g_\theta )\) and \((N, \, h)\). Indeed, at each point \(x \in \textrm{I}_m (\phi )\) [equivalently \((d_x \phi ) \, T_x = 0\)] one has \(\tau _b (\phi )_x = \tau (\phi )_x\) [by (12)] and \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_x = \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla \big )_x\) [by (60)] hence (61) becomes
along \(\textrm{I}_m (\phi )\). If \({{\mathscr {R}}} \subset {{\mathscr {F}}}\), i.e. \(\phi _*\, T = 0\) everywhere in \(\Omega (\phi )\), then \(T^{{\mathscr {V}}} = T\) and \(u = 1\) on the whole open set \(\Omega (\phi )\), hence \(\nabla T = 0\) yields \(\nabla _{{\mathscr {T}}} {{\mathscr {T}}} = 0\) on \(\Omega (\phi )\). \(\square \)
Corollary 1
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the real surface \((N, \, h)\).
(i) If the Reeb foliation is a subfoliation of \({\mathscr {F}}\) [the foliation of \(\Omega (\phi )\) tangent to \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \)] then every leaf of \({\mathscr {F}}\) is a minimal submanifold of the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\theta )\).
(ii) If \((d_x \phi ) T_x \ne 0\) for some \(x \in M {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\), then
Proof
(i) If \(m = 2\) then (62) yields \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } = 0\). \(\square \)
(ii) Follows from (61).
5.2 \(\epsilon \)-Contractions
Let \(p = 2 n - m + 1\). To some surprise, the term \(p \; \phi _*\, \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } \big ( g_\theta \,, \, \nabla \big ) + \phi _*\, \big \{ 2 \, \theta ({{\mathscr {T}}})^{-1} \, J \, {{\mathscr {T}}} - \nabla _{{\mathscr {T}}} {{\mathscr {T}}} \big \}\) replaces the term \(p \; \phi _*\, \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }\) [occurring in the fundamental equation (62), in the Riemannian setting]. Besides the term \(\phi _*\, \mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi } (g_\theta \,, \, \nabla )\) that one might have hoped for to start with, the fundamental equation for a subelliptic harmonic morphism contains the additional term \(\phi _*\, \big \{ 2 \, \theta ({{\mathscr {T}}})^{-1} \, J \, {{\mathscr {T}}} - \nabla _{{\mathscr {T}}} {{\mathscr {T}}} \big \}\) whose geometric meaning is so far unknown. So, given an immersion \(f: L \rightarrow M\) of a p-dimensional manifold L into the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\), what is the “correct” pseudohermitian analog to the mean curvature vector (of an isometric immersion)?
Pseudohermitian geometry (on a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold) embeds into sub-Riemannian geometry. One may construct families of contractions \(\{ g_\epsilon \}_{0< \epsilon < 1}\) of the Levi form \(G_\theta \) [so that the norm of the Reeb vector T is \(O(\epsilon ^{-1} )\)] and examine Riemannian geometric objects in the limit as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), in an attempt to discover new pseudohermitian invariants. Cf. e.g. the approaches by Barletta et al. [12] and Capogna and Citti [17].
Let \(0< \epsilon < 1\) and let \(g_\epsilon \) be the Riemannian metric
for any \(X, \, Y \in H(M)\). Equivalently
(the \(\epsilon \)-contraction of \(G_\theta \), cf. Strichartz [60], Barletta et al. [12]). To illustrate our strategy, let us assume that, for every \(0< \epsilon < 1\), the map \(\phi : (M, \, g_\epsilon ) \rightarrow (N, \, h)\) is horizontally weakly conformal, with square dilation \(\Lambda _\epsilon \) i.e. for any \(x_0 \in M \setminus \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\) and any local coordinate system \(\big ( V, \; y^\alpha \big )\) on N with \(\phi (x_0 ) \in V\)
Here \(\nabla ^\epsilon \) is the gradient with respect to \(g_\epsilon \). Choose \(V \subset N\) such that \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V) \subset M\) is a relatively compact domain. A straightforward calculation (relying on (63), cf. also [12]) leads to
yielding
and in particular
hence
uniformly on U, and the Levi conformality condition (14) is got, in the limit as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), from the horizontal weak conformality condition on \(\phi : (M, \, g_\epsilon ) \rightarrow (N, \, h)\).
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\), of \(\theta \)-dilation \(\lambda ( \phi )\). We shall compute the mean curvature vector \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) of the vertical distribution \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) on the Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\epsilon )\), and examine the behavior of \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_\epsilon \) as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), in an attempt to discover the “correct” pseudohermitian analog to the ordinary mean curvature vector. To this end, let \({{\mathscr {H}}}_\epsilon ^\phi \) be the \(g_\epsilon \)-orthogonal complement of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \). Let us set
i.e. \(\mu _\epsilon ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }\) is the mean curvature vector of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \). Here \(\nabla ^\epsilon \) is the Levi-Civita connection of \((M, g_\epsilon )\). Let us set
Then \(\big \{ V_j \;, \; {{\mathscr {T}}}_\epsilon \;: \; 1 \le j \le 2 n - m \big \}\) is a local \(g_\epsilon \)-orthonormal frame of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \), adapted to the decomposition \(T(M) = H(M) \oplus {{\mathbb {R}}}T\) [which is both \(g_\theta \) and \(g_\epsilon \) orthogonal]. Let
[the second fundamental form of \(L \hookrightarrow (M, \, g_\epsilon )\), for every leaf \(L \in \big [ M {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\phi ) \big ] \big / {{\mathscr {F}}}\)].
Lemma 18
For every \(X \in \mathfrak {X}(M)\)
Proof
Let \(\pi ^\epsilon _{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }: T(M) \rightarrow {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \) be the projection associated with the direct sum decomposition \(T(M) = {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \oplus {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon \). For every \(X \in T(M)\)
[by (63)]
\(\square \)
We shall need (cf. Lemma 2 in [12, pp. 11–12])
Lemma 19
The Levi–Civita connection \(\nabla ^\epsilon \) of \((M, \, g_\epsilon )\) and the Tanaka–Webster connection \(\nabla \) of \((M, \, \theta )\) are related by
for any \(X, Y\in H(M)\).
Lemma 20
Proof
[by Lemma 19, as \(V_j \in H(M)\)]
[by (65) in Lemma 18 with \(X = \nabla _{V_j} V_j - \epsilon ^2 \, A \big ( V_j \,, \, V_j \big ) \, T\)]
or
Next
and [by Lemma 19, and \({{\mathscr {T}}} = \Pi _H \, {{\mathscr {T}}} + u \, T\), and \(T \, \rfloor \, A = 0\), \(\tau \, T = 0\), \(J \, T = 0\)]
or
Note that [by (69)]
Let us apply \(\pi ^{{{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon }\) to both sides of (69) so that [by (65) in Lemma 18]
Using
equation (71) simplifies to (66). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 4
Next [by (66) with \(p = 2 n - m + 1\)]
Let \(U \subset M\) be a relatively compact domain and \(a = \inf _U u^2\), so that \(0 < a \le 1\). Indeed if \(a = 0\) then for every \(\nu \in {{\mathbb {N}}}\)
hence there is \(x_\nu \in U\) such that \(u(x_\nu )^2 < 1/\nu \). There is a subsequence, denoted by the same symbol \(x_\nu \), such that \(x_\nu \rightarrow x_0\) as \(\nu \rightarrow \infty \), for some \(x_0 \in \overline{U}\). Thus
a contradiction. Let \(\varphi (t) = 2 (1 - t) / t\), \(0 < t \le 1\), so that \(\sup _U \varphi (u) = \varphi (a)\). Note that
where \(\big \Vert \pi _{{{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi } \big \Vert \) is the operator norm. Finally
Consequently
uniformly on \(U \subset M\). \(\square \)
Let us set by definition
When T is tangent to the leaves of \({\mathscr {F}}\)
By Lemma 20
On the other hand, by definition (72) Eq. (61) becomes
so that \(\tau _b (\phi ) = 0\) and \(m = 2\) yield \(\mu ^{{{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi }_{\textrm{hor}} = 0\). Theorem 4 is proved.
6 Unique Continuation
Let \(\Omega \subset {{\mathbb {R}}}^N\) be a domain, \(\alpha > 0\), \(x_0 \in \Omega \), and \(1 \le p \le \infty \). A measurable function \(u: \Omega \rightarrow {{\mathbb {C}}}\) has a zero of order \(\alpha \) at \(x_0\) in the p-mean if
An ordinary zero of order \(\alpha \) [i.e. except on a set of measure zero \(\big | u(x) \big | = O \big ( \big | x - x_0 \big |^\alpha \big )\) as \(x \rightarrow x_0\)] corresponds to a zero in the p-mean for \(p = \infty \). Let L be a second order linear elliptic operator. By a result of N. Aronszajn (cf. [2]) if u is a solution to
and u has a zero of infinite order in the 1-mean at some \(x_0 \in \Omega \), thenFootnote 4\(u \equiv 0\) in \(\Omega \). Aronszajn’s proof to his result was criticized in [25, pp. 433–434], because of Aronszajn’s claim that a pair of conformally related Riemannian metrics (associated to the symbol of L) have the same geodesics. We conjecture that the arguments in [2] may be reconsidered within conformal Riemannian geometry i.e. by understanding the conformal properties of geodesic spheres, based on the use of conformal geodesics (cf. e.g. [33]). The result itself in [2] may nevertheless be true, and if that is the case it yields Sampson’s unique continuation theorem for harmonic maps of Riemannian manifolds (cf. Theorem 1 in [58, p. 213]). Let Let \(\{ X_a \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) be a \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on the open set \(U \subset M\), and let \(\Omega \subset U\) be a domain. Let \(u = \big ( u^1 \,, \, \ldots \,, \, u^m \big ): \Omega \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^m\) be a solution to
We conjecture that, if u has a zero of infinite order at some point of \(\Omega \) then \(u \equiv 0\) in \(\Omega \). Should the conjecture be true, one has
Corollary 2
Let \(\phi , \, \psi : M \rightarrow N\) be two subelliptic harmonic maps, from the connected pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\). If \(\phi \) and \(\psi \) agree on some open set, then they are identical.
Proof
Let \(\chi = (y^1 \,, \, \ldots \,, \, y^m )\) be a local coordinate system on N, whose domain is a ball \(V = \chi ^{-1} \big [ B_r (\xi _0 ) \big ]\), and let \(\{ X_a \;: \; 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) be a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on the open set \(U \subset M\) such that \(\phi (U) \cup \psi (U) \subset V\). Let us set \(u^\alpha := \phi ^\alpha - \psi ^\alpha \) so that [as both \(\phi \) and \(\psi \) are harmonic maps]
Let \(x \in U\) and let \(\xi = \phi (x)\) and \(\eta = \psi (x)\). By the mean value theorem, there is \(0< \tau < 1\) such that
By eventually shrinking U the derivatives \(X_a (\phi ^\beta )\) and \(X_a (\psi ^\beta )\) are bounded, so that \(u^\alpha \) satisfy (73). \(\square \)
We conjecture that the uniqueness continuation result by Garofalo and Lanconelli (cf. Theorem 1.2 in [36, p. 319]) on the solutions to \(\Delta _b u + V(x) \, u = 0\) carries over to equations of the form \(\Delta _b u + f(u) = 0\) [with the nonlinear term f(u) as considered by Birindelli and Prajapat [15] (cf. also Birindelli and Lanconelli [14]) for different purposes] with applications to the unique continuation of subelliptic harmonic maps.
7 Horizontal Mean Curvature
Let \(\phi : M \rightarrow N\) be a subelliptic harmonic morphism, of the pseudohermitian manifold \((M, \, \theta )\) into the Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\). Let \({\mathscr {F}}\) be the foliation of \(S(\phi )\) by maximal integral manifolds of \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \). A point \(x \in S(\phi )\) is a characteristic point of \({{\mathscr {F}}}\) if
Let \(\Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\) be the set of all characteristic points of \({\mathscr {F}}\). If \(x \in \Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\) and \(L \in S(\phi ) /{{\mathscr {F}}}\) is the leaf of \({\mathscr {F}}\) passing through x, then x is a characteristic point of L, e.g. in the sense of L. Capogna & G. Citti (cf. [17, p. 7]). The inclusion (74) yields
hence one has equality in (74) unless \(x \in \textrm{Crit} (\phi )\). Yet \(S(\phi )\), and hence \(\Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\), contains no critical points. Also [by (75)]
This limitation doesn’t occur in [17] (where the ambient space M is a Carnot group, the rank of whose first stratus, or horizontal plane, is in general smaller than the dimension of \({\mathscr {F}}\)). For the remainder of the present section we confine ourselves to subelliptic harmonic morphisms \(\phi : M^{2n+1} \rightarrow N^1\) i.e. \(m = 1\) (so that every leaf of \({\mathscr {F}}\) is a real hypersurface in \(S(\phi )\)). By Theorem 6 (with \(m = 1\))
Let \(\{ g_\epsilon \}_{0< \epsilon < 1}\) be the family of contractions of the Levi form \(G_\theta \) given by (2), and let \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon \in C^\infty \big ( S(\phi ), \, {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon \big )\) such that \(g_\epsilon \big ( \textbf{n}^\epsilon \,, \, \textbf{n}^\epsilon \big ) = 1\). Next, let
be the projection of \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon \) on H(M).
Lemma 21
For every \(x \in S(\phi )\), the following statements are equivalent
(i) \(x \in \Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\).
(ii) \(\nu ^\epsilon _x = 0\) for any \(0< \epsilon < 1\).
Proof
(i) \(\Longrightarrow \) (ii). Let \(x \in \Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\), so that
i.e. for every \(X \in H(M)_x\)
yielding [by \(\theta _x (X) = 0\)]
or \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x = \lambda \, T_x\) for some \(\lambda \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\). Then [by (76)] \(\nu ^\epsilon _x = 0\). \(\square \)
(ii) \(\Longrightarrow \) (i). Let \(\nu ^\epsilon _x = 0\). Then [by (76)] \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x = \lambda \, T_x\) with \(\lambda := \theta \big ( \textbf{n}^\epsilon \big )_x\). As \(\textrm{Sing} (\textbf{n}^\epsilon ) = \emptyset \) and \(\textrm{Sing} (T) = \emptyset \), it must be \(\lambda \ne 0\). Hence \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x \; \bot _{g_{\theta , x}} \; H(M)_x\) implying [by (2)] that \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x \; \bot _{g_{\epsilon , x}} \; H(M)_x\). On the other hand \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x \; \bot _{g_{\epsilon , x}} \; {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) so that (by the uniqueness of the \(g_{\epsilon \,, \, x}\)-orthogonal complement of \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon _x\)) it must be \(H(M)_x = {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi _x\) i.e. \(x \in \Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\). \(\square \)
Let us set
with \({{\mathbb {R}}}_+ = [0, \, + \infty )\). According to the terminology by L. Capogna et al. (cf. [17, p. 7]) \(\textbf{n}^0\) is the horizontal normal (on the leaves of \({\mathscr {F}}\)).
Lemma 22
For each \(x \in \Omega \) the function
is constant i.e. \(\textbf{n}^0 (x)\) in (77) doesn’t depend on \(0< \epsilon < 1\).
Proof
Note that [by (76)]
Also, for any \(\epsilon , \, \epsilon ^\prime \in (0, \, 1)\)
Also [by \(\textrm{dim}_{{\mathbb {R}}} \, {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x = 1\) for any \(x \in \Omega \)] \(\textbf{n}^{\epsilon ^\prime } = \lambda \, \textbf{n}^\epsilon \) for some \(C^\infty \) function \(\lambda : \Omega \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}} {\setminus } \{ 0 \}\). Thus [by (79)]
yielding \(f_{\epsilon ^\prime } (x)^{-1 /2} \; \nu _x^{\epsilon ^\prime } = f_{\epsilon } (x)^{-1 /2} \; \nu _x^\epsilon \) for every \(x \in \Omega \). \(\square \)
For every \(C^1\) vector field X on M, its divergence with respect to the volume form \(\Psi = \theta \wedge (d \theta )^n\) is given by
where \({{\mathscr {L}}}_X\) is the Lie derivative at the direction X.
Definition 7
The horizontal mean curvature of \({\mathcal {F}}\) is
\(\square \)
Let
be the canonical volume form of the oriented Riemannian manifold \((M, \, g_\theta )\). Then (cf. e.g. [9])
for some constant \(C_n > 0\) depending only on the CR dimension n. Hence the divergence operator in (80) is the ordinary Riemannian divergence on \((M, \, g_\theta )\). The volume form \(\Psi \) is parallel with respect to the Tanaka–Webster connection \(\nabla \) of \((M, \, \theta )\), hence \(\textrm{div} (X)\) can be computed as the trace of the covariant derivative \(\nabla X\). Therefore, if \(x \in \Omega \) and \(\{ X_a \;: \; 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) is a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame of H(M), defined on a neighborhood \(U \subset \Omega \) of x, then [as \(\{ X_a \,, \, T \,: \, 1 \le a \le 2 n \}\) is a local orthonormal frame of T(M) on U]
hence [by \(\nabla _T \textbf{n}^0 \in H(M)\), as H(M) is parallel with respect to \(\nabla \), and by \(\nabla g_\theta = 0\)]
To draw a parallel between the considerations in the present paper and those in the work by Capogna et al. (cf. [17]) let \(M = {{\mathbb {H}}}_n\) be the Heisenberg group i.e. the noncommutative Lie group \({{\mathbb {H}}}_n = {{\mathbb {C}}}^n \times {{\mathbb {R}}}\) with the group law
equipped with the strictly pseudoconvex, left invariant, CR structure \(T_{1,0}({{\mathbb {H}}}_n )\) spanned by
[so that \(\overline{L}_\alpha \) are the Lewy operators] and with the contact form
The work [17] deals with an arbitrary Carnot group G, yet in general the horizontal plane H of G may lack a complex structure. Also, if the horizontal plane admits a complex structure \(J: H \rightarrow H\), and the corresponding almost CR structure \(\textrm{Eigen} \big ( J^{{\mathbb {C}}}, \, + i \big ) \subset H \otimes {{\mathbb {C}}}\) is formally integrable, then in general the CR codimension of the resulting CR structure is \(> 1\). So for comparison reasons, between the theory developed here and the geometric foundations on which [17] relies, we confine ourselves to the Heisenberg group \(G = {{\mathbb {H}}}_n\), which is both a Carnot group and a strictly pseudoconvex CR manifold (isomorphic to the boundary of the Siegel domain in \({{\mathbb {C}}}^{n+1}\)). If this is the case
is a (globally defined) \(G_{\theta _0}\)-orthonormal frame of the Levi distribution \(H({{\mathbb {H}}}_n )\). The Reeb vector field and the Tanaka–Webster connection of \(\big ( {{\mathbb {H}}}_n \,, \, \theta _0 \big )\) are \(T \equiv \partial /\partial t\) and
Consequently \(\nabla _{X_a} X_a = 0\), so that for every subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi : {{\mathbb {H}}}_n \rightarrow N^1\) our formula (81) becomes
which is formula (2.2) in [17, p. 7]. Going back to the general case, let us observe that \(T^{{\mathscr {V}}}_x \ne 0\) for every \(x \in \Omega \). Otherwise \(T_x \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x\) for some \(x \in \Omega \), hence [by Lemma 3] \(x \in \textrm{II}_1 (\phi ) = \Sigma ({{\mathscr {F}}})\), a contradiction. Therefore the vector field
(considered by us in Sect. 5.1, though confined to the case \(m \ge 2\)) is well defined for \(m = 1\), as well. In particular, Lemma 15 applies to the case \(m = 1\), producing a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame
Let us complete \(\{ V_j \;: \; 1 \le j \le 2 n - 1 \}\) to a local \(G_\theta \)-orthonormal frame
If \((V, \, y^1 )\) is a local coordinate system on \(N^1\) and \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\) then
Indeed \(\nabla ^H \phi ^1 = \lambda ^a \, V_a\) and
i.e. \(\nabla ^H \phi ^1 = \lambda ^{2n} \, V_{2 n }\). By the Levi conformality condition
for every \(x \in U\), hence \(\lambda ^{2 n} = \sqrt{\Lambda _0}\). \(\square \)
Lemma 23
For every subelliptic harmonic morphism \(\phi : M^{2n+1} \rightarrow N^1\)
everywhere in \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\), where \(V_{2 n} \equiv \Lambda _0^{- 1/2} \; \nabla ^H \phi ^1\).
Proof
As \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _\epsilon \subset T(M) = H(M) \oplus {{\mathbb {R}}} T\)
with \(f_j = 0\) [because of \(g_\epsilon \big ( \textbf{n}^\epsilon \,, \, V_j \big ) = 0\)] i.e. \(\textbf{n}^\epsilon = \lambda \, V_{2 n} + f_0 \, T\) with \(\lambda := f_{2 n}\). On the other hand
[because of \(\theta \big ( T^{{\mathscr {V}}} \big ) = g_\theta \big ( T, \, T^{{\mathscr {V}}} \big ) = \Vert T^{{\mathscr {V}}} \Vert ^2 = u^2\)]. Here \(u = \theta ({{\mathscr {T}}})\). Then
Finally [by (84)]
\(\square \)
As a corollary of (83)
Proposition 2
(i) The function \(f_\epsilon \in C^\infty ( \Omega )\) in (77) is given by
(ii) The vector field \(\nu _\epsilon \in C^\infty \big ( \Omega , \, H(M) \big )\) is given by
everywhere on \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\).
(iii) The horizontal normal \(\textbf{n}^0\) is given by
on U.
(iv) The horizontal mean curvature of \({\mathcal {F}}\) is given by
on U.
Proof
(i) By (83)
and then
The remainder of the section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 5. Statement (i) was proved in Proposition 2.
(ii) The horizontal mean curvature is given by
[by \(g_\theta \big ( \nabla _{V_{2n}} \textbf{n}^0 \,, \, V_{2 n} \big ) = 0\) and \(\nabla g_\theta = 0\)]
On the other hand
hence [by taking the inner product with \(\textbf{n}^0\)]
Next [by (iii) in Proposition 2]
and [by Lemma 1] \(\nabla \phi ^1 \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \). Consequently [by (86)]
As \(\dim _{{\mathbb {R}}} {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi _x = 1\), there is a unique function \(\varphi \in C^\infty ( \Omega )\) such that
To compute \(\varphi \) one starts from \(T^{{\mathscr {H}}} = T - T^{{\mathscr {V}}}\), yielding
On the other hand [by (88)]
so that [by the Levi conformality property]
We may now compute the last term in (85) i.e.
[by (88)]
[by \(T^{{\mathscr {V}}} = T - T^{{\mathscr {H}}}\) and \(T \; \bot \; H(M) \ni \nabla _{V_j} V_j\)]
[by (88)]
[by \(\nabla g_\theta = 0\)]
[as \(\nabla ^H \phi ^1 \in {{\mathscr {H}}}^\phi \; \bot \; {{\mathscr {V}}}^\phi \ni V_j\)]
[by (iii) in Proposition 2]
[as \(g_\theta \big ( \nabla _{V_{2n}} V_{2n} \,, \, V_{2n} \big ) = 0\) and \(g_\theta \big ( V_{2n} \,, \, V_{2n} \big ) = 1\)]
hence [by (iv) in Proposition 2]
Equation (85) becomes [by (90)]
This yields (4) in Theorem 5 because of
Indeed, the identity \({{\mathscr {T}}} = u^{-1} \big \{ T - \varphi \, \nabla \phi ^1 \big \}\) implies
Also [by (87)]
Finally
[by (94), as \(g_\theta ({{\mathscr {T}}}, \, J {{\mathscr {T}}}) = 0\)]
and (92) is proved.
Let us recall (61). This was stated for \(m \ge 2\) yet it is easily seen to hold for any \(m \ge 1\), everywhere in \(\Omega \). Then [by (61) with \(m = 1\)]
so that [by \(\tau _b (\phi ) = 0\)]
Note that \(\Lambda _0 = \Lambda \, \big ( h^{11} \big )^\phi \) yields
The right hand side in (97) may be computed as follows
hence (97) becomes
or [by (3)]
where \(- \Delta _b \phi ^1 + \Lambda _0 \, \Big \{ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 11 \end{array} \Big \}^\phi = 0\) (as \(\phi \) is also a subelliptic harmonic map). Therefore, unlike the case \(m = 2\), the fundamental equation (61) for a subelliptic harmonic morphism is equivalent to (4) in Theorem 5 and implies no further restrictions on \(K_0\).
8 Examples
8.1 Morphisms from the Heisenberg Group
Let us set \(f (z, t) = |z|^2 - i \, t\), so that f is a CR function on \({{\mathbb {H}}}_n\) i.e. \(\overline{L}_\alpha f = 0\) for any \(1 \le \alpha \le n\).
Theorem 8
Let \(\phi : {{\mathbb {H}}}_n \setminus \{ 0 \} \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) be the \(C^\infty \) map given by
Then
(i) \(\phi \) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of the pseudohermitian manifold \(\big ( {{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}, \, \theta _0 \big )\) into the Riemannian manifold \(\big ( {{\mathbb {R}}}, \, d y^1 \otimes d y^1 \big )\).
(ii) \(\textrm{Crit} (\phi ) = \emptyset \) and \(S(\phi ) = \mathbb {H}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}\).
(iii) \(\textrm{I}_1 (\phi )= {{\mathbb {C}}}^*\times \{ 0 \}\) where \({{\mathbb {C}}}^*= {{\mathbb {C}}} \setminus \{ 0 \}\).
(iv) \(\phi \) is a subelliptic harmonic map of \(({{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}, \, \theta _0 )\) into \(({{\mathbb {R}}}, \, d y^1 \otimes d y^1 )\), and a Levi conformal map of square dilation
Consequently
(v) The horizontal mean curvature of the leaves of \({\mathscr {F}}\) is
Here \(Q = 2 n + 2\) (the homogeneous dimension of \({{\mathbb {H}}}_n\)) and \(|x| = \big ( |z|^4 + t^2\big )^{1/4}\) [the Heisenberg norm of \(x = (z, t) \in {{\mathbb {H}}}_n\)].
Proof
(i) By (98) \(\phi (x) = |x|^{- Q + 2}\) for any \(x \in {{\mathbb {H}}}_n\). Then \(\phi (x)\) is the fundamental solution to \({{\mathscr {L}}}_0 = \Delta _b\) discovered by Folland (cf. [31]) i.e. there is a constant \(c_0 \ne 0\) such that \(\Delta _b \phi = c_0 \, \delta \), where \(\delta \) is the Dirac distribution (concentrated in zero). In particular \(\phi : {{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \} \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \(\big ( {{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}, \; \theta _0 \big )\) into \(\big ( {{\mathbb {R}}}, \; d y^1 \otimes d y^1 \big )\).
(ii) The Euclidean gradient of \(\phi \) is
so that \(\textrm{Crit} (\phi ) = \emptyset \), and then \(S(\phi ) = {{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}\).
(iii) Note that
Hence [by statement (i) in Lemma 3]
\(\square \)
(iv) The horizontal gradient of \(\phi \) is
Then [by (16)] the square dilation is
which is (99). Next [by (99) together with statements (ii) in Lemma 3 and (iii) in Lemma 1]
\(\square \)
(v) The use of the CR function \(f (z, t) = |z|^2 - i t\) greatly simplifies calculations. One starts by rephrasing the square dilation as
so that
yielding [by (103) and statement (i) in Theorem 5] (101). \(\square \)
The sublaplacian \(\Delta _b\) on \(({{\mathbb {H}}}_n \,, \, \theta _0 )\) belongs to the family \(\{ {{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \}_{\gamma \in {{\mathbb {C}}}}\) of Folland-Stein operators (cf. e.g. [29, p. 177])
A \(C^\infty \) map \(\phi : {{\mathbb {H}}}_n \setminus \{ 0 \} \rightarrow N\) into a Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\) is a \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \)-morphism if for any harmonic function \(v: V \subset N \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) [i.e. \(\Delta _h v = 0\) in V] \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma (v \circ \phi ) = 0\) in \(U = \phi ^{-1} (V)\).
A complex number \(\gamma \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\) is admissible if and only if \(c_\gamma \ne 0\) where
By a result of Folland and Stein (cf. [32], or [29, p. 179]) if \(\gamma \) is admissible (equivalently \(\gamma \in \big \{ \pm n, \; \pm (n + 2), \; \pm (n + 4), \; \ldots \; \}\))
is a fundamental solution to \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \) i.e. \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \, \phi _\gamma = c_\gamma \, \delta \). In particular
are \({{\mathscr {L}}}_{\pm p}\)-morphisms, of \({{\mathbb {H}}}_n {\setminus } \{ 0 \}\) into \(\big ( {{\mathbb {R}}}, \, d y^1 \otimes d y^1 \big )\). Also \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \) is hypoelliptic if and only if \(\gamma \) is admissible. The study of \({{\mathscr {L}}}_\gamma \)-morphisms into a general Riemannian manifold \((N, \, h)\) is an open problem.
8.2 Morphisms from Rossi Spheres
Let \(S^2 = \big \{ \big ( y^1 \,, \, y^2 \,, \, y^3 \big ) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}^3 \,: \, \sum _{j=1}^3 (y^j )^2 = 1 \big \}\) and \(S^3 = \big \{ (z, \, w) \in {{\mathbb {C}}}^2 \,: \, |z|^2 + |w|^2 = 1 \big \}\), and let \(\pi : S^3 \rightarrow S^2\) be the Hopf fibration i.e. \(\pi (z, \, w) = \big ( y^1 \,, \, y^2 \,, \, y^3 \big )\)
Let \(h_{S^N} = \textbf{j}^*\, g_0\) be the first fundamental form of \(\textbf{j}: S^N \hookrightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^{N+1}\), where \(g_0\) is the Euclidean metric on \({{\mathbb {R}}}^{N+1}\). Let \(S^3\) be equipped with the standard CR structure \(T_{1,0} (S^3)\) [induced by the complex structure of \(\mathbb {C}^2\)], and with the canonical contact form
\(T_{1,0} (S^3)\) is the span of \(L = \overline{w} \, \big ( \partial / \partial z \big ) - \overline{z} \, \big ( \partial /\partial w \big )\). Let us set
and let \(H_t\) be CR structure on \(S^3\) spanned by \(L_t\) [\(\{ (S^3 \,, \, H_t ) \}_{|t| < 1}\) are the Rossi spheres]. By a result in [57], the CR manifold \((S^3 \,, \, H_t )\) is globally embeddable in \({{\mathbb {C}}}^2\) if and only if \(t = 0\).
Theorem 9
(i) The Hopf map \(\pi : S^3 \rightarrow S^2\) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \(\big ( S^3 \,, \, T_{1,0} (S^3 ), \, \theta \big )\) into \((S^2 \,, \, h_{S^2} \big )\).
(ii) \(\pi \) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \(\big ( S^3 \,, \, H_t \,, \, \theta \big )\) into \((S^2 \,, \, h_{S^2} \big )\) if and only if \(t = 0\).
Note that \(\theta \) is indeed a positively oriented contact form on each Rossi sphere \((S^3, \, H_t )\). The corresponding Levi form \(G_\theta (t)\) is
The Reeb vector field of \((S^3 \,, \, \theta )\) is
Also, the CR manifolds \(\{ \big ( S^3 \,, \, H_t \big ) \}_{|t| < 1}\) have the same Levi distribution as \(\big ( S^3 \,, \, H_0 \big )\) i.e. \(H(S^3 ) = \textrm{Re} \{ H_0 \oplus \overline{H}_0 \}\)
Proof of Theorem 9
(i) A calculation shows that \(\pi _*\, T = 0\). Let \(g_\theta \) be the Webster metric of \((S^3 \,, \, {{\mathscr {H}}}_0 \,, \, \theta )\). Then \(g_\theta = g_{S^3}\) (cf. e.g. [29]). The Hopf map \(\pi \) is an ordinary harmonic morphism of \(\big ( S^3 \,, \, g_{S^3} \big )\) into \(\big ( S^2 \,, \, g_{S^2} \big )\). Therefore [by (12)] \(\pi \) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism of \(\big ( S^3 \,, \, H_0 \,, \, \theta \big )\) into \(\big ( S^2 \,, \, g_{S^2} \big )\).
(ii) By statement (i) in Theorem 9, the Hopf map \(\pi \) is a \(C^\infty \) submersion such that \({{\mathscr {V}}}^\pi = {{\mathbb {R}}} T\). In particular the Levi and horizontal distributions coincide i.e. \(H(S^3 ) = {{\mathscr {H}}}^\pi \).
Let us assume that \(\pi \) is Levi conformal, as a map of \((S^3 \,, \, H_t \,, \, \theta )\) into \((S^2 \,, \, h_{S^2} )\). The vector fields
span \(H(S^3 )\) and
Then [by (16)] for any \((z, w) \in S^3 {\setminus } \textrm{Crit} (\pi )\)
i.e.
On the other hand
yields
hence \(t=0\). \(\square \)
The Authors are grateful to the Referee for drawing their attention on the work by J. Ventura (cf. [62]) and the Ricci curvature calculations there vis-a-vis to a horizontally weakly conformal map \(\Phi : {{\mathfrak {M}}} \rightarrow N^2\) from a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold \({\mathfrak {M}}\) to a surface \(N^2\), together with the investigation (cf. op. cit.) of the behavior of Ricci curvature under biconformal deformations (7). It should be noticed that according to our Theorem 9 examples in that context are actually scarce (the only CR structure on \(S^3\) in Rossi’s family, with respect to which the Hopf map \(\pi : S^3 \rightarrow S^2\) is a subelliptic harmonic morphism, is the standard CR structure on the sphere). Several new space-time models are built in [62] starting from classical examples of space-times and harmonic morphisms (cf. [5]) and it is a natural question, asked by the Reviewer, whether and how biconformal changes of the metric affect our examples in Sect. 8. We leave that as an open problem.
We close with the observation that, in a simple context such as \(M^3 = {{\mathbb {H}}}_1\) (the lowest dimensional Heisenberg group) and \(\mathfrak {M}^4 = C \big ( {{\mathbb {H}}}_1 \big )\) equipped with the Fefferman metric \(g_0 = F_{\theta _0}\) [associated to the canonical contact form \(\theta _0\) in Sect. 7] looking for vacuum solutions to the gravitational field equations on \(C({{\mathbb {H}}}_1 )\) by conformal or biconformal deformations of \(g_0\), lacks a physical meaning. Indeed \(g_0\) isn’t flat and its curvature corresponds, by the General Relativity and Gravitation Theory, to the content of matter and energy of the region \(\Omega \subset C({{\mathbb {H}}}_1 )\) where gravitational effects are perceived. Said matter-energy content of \(\Omega \) is described by an energy-momentum tensor \(T_{\lambda \mu }\) that is by definition the traceless Ricci tensor associated to \(g_0\). The linearized Einstein equations (in the presence of the matter distribution assimilated with the non flat character of \(g_0\) i.e. involving \(T_{\lambda \mu }\)) were solved by Barletta et al. [11].
Data Availability
Data availability statement is not applicable.
Notes
Which is the same as the terminology adopted in the Riemannian case [keeping in mind that eventually \(L \big ( C(M) \big ) \cap (- \infty , \, 0) \ne \emptyset \)].
Appendix B in [27, pp. 303–306], is concerned with the geometry of Riemannian submersions, yet Proposition B.1 in there transposes ad literam to semi-Riemannian submersions (submersions of semi-Riemannian manifolds, with nondegenerate fibres) and in particular to \(\Phi : \big ( C(M), \, F_\theta \big ) \rightarrow (N, \, h)\).
Subject to a number of structural assumptions on L, cf. [2, p. 236].
References
Amine, A., Dragomir, S., El Soufi, A.: A lower bound on the spectrum of the sublaplacian. J. Geometr. Anal. 25(3), 1492–1519 (2015)
Aronszajn, N.: A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of second order. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 36, 235–249 (1957)
Baird, P., Eells, J.: A conservation law for harmonic maps. In: Looijenga, E., Siersma, D., Takens, F. (eds.) Geometry Symposium Utrecht 1980. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 894. Springer, Berlin (1981)
Baird, P., Ventura, J.: Four-dimensional Einstein metrics from biconformal deformations. Arch. Math. 57(5), 255–283 (2021)
Baird, P., Wood, J.C.: Harmonic Morphisms Between Riemannian Manifolds. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)
Barletta, E.: Hörmander systems and harmonic morphisms. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2(5), 379–394 (2003)
Barletta, E.: Subelliptic F-harmonic maps. Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma 2(7), 33–50 (2003)
Barletta, E., Dragomir, S., Urakawa, H.: Pseudoharmonic maps from nondegenerate CR manifolds to Riemannian manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 50(2), 719–746 (2001)
Barletta, E., Dragomir, S., Urakawa, H.: Yang–Mills fields on CR manifolds. J. Math. Phys. 47(8), 083504 (2006)
Barletta, E., Dragomir, S., Duggal, K.L.: Foliations in Cauchy–Riemann Geometry, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 140. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2007)
Barletta, E., Dragomir, S., Jacobowitz, H.: Gravitational field equations on Fefferman space-times. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 11(8), 1685–1713 (2017)
Barletta, E., Dragomir, S., Esposito, F.: C-R immersions and sub-Riemannian geometry. Axioms 12(4), 329 (2023)
Barone Adesi, V., Serra Cassano, F., Vittone, D.: The Bernstein problem for intrinsic graphs in Heisenberg groups and calibrations. Calc. Var. Part. Differ. Equ. 30, 17–49 (2007)
Birindelli, I., Lanconelli, E.: A negative answer to a one-dimensional symmetry problem in the Heisenberg group. Calc. Var. Part. Differ. Equ. 18, 357–372 (2003)
Birindelli, I., Prajapat, J.: One dimensional symmetry in the Heisenberg group. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 30(4), 269–284 (2001)
Bryant, S.L.: Harmonic morphisms with fibers of dimension one. Commun. Anal. Geom. 8, 219–265 (2000)
Capogna, L., Citti, G.: Generalized mean curvature flow in Carnot groups. http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3467v1 (2008)
Capogna, L., Pauls, S., Tyson, J.: Horizontal geometry of hypersurfaces in Carnot groups, to appear in Trans. Am. Math. Soc
Cheng, J.-H., Hwang, J.-F., Malchiodi, A., Yang, P.: Minimal surfaces in pseudohermitian geometry. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl Sci. 5(1), 129–177 (2005)
Cheng, J.-H., Hwang, J.-F., Yang, P.: Existence and uniqueness for \(p\)-area minimizers in the Heisenberg group. Math. Ann. 337(2), 253–293 (2007)
Danielli, D., Garofalo, N., Nhieu, D.-N.: A notable family of entire intrinsic minimal graphs in the Heisenberg group which are not perimeter minimizing, preprint (2006)
DeTurck, D.M., Kazdan, L.J.: Some regularity theorems in Riemannian geometry. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 14(3), 249–260 (1981)
Dragomir, S.: On a conjecture of J. M. Lee. Hokkaido Math. J. 23, 35–49 (1994)
Dragomir, S., Kamishima, Y.: Pseudoharmonic maps and vector fields on CR manifolds. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 62(1), 269–303 (2010)
Dragomir, S., Lanconelli, E.: Subelliptic harmonic morphisms. Osaka J. Math. 46, 411–440 (2009)
Dragomir, S., Nishikawa, S.: Foliated CR manifolds. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 56(4), 1031–1068 (2004)
Dragomir, S., Ornea, L.: Locally Conformal Kähler Geometry, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 155. Birkhäuser, Boston (1998)
Dragomir, S., Perrone, D.: Levi harmonic maps of contact Riemannian manifolds. J. Geometr. Anal. 24, 1233–1275 (2014)
Dragomir, S., Tomassini, G.: Differential Geometry and Analysis on CR Manifolds. Birkhäuser, Boston (2006)
Einstein, A.: Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preu\(\beta \)Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 688–696 (1916)
Folland, G.B.: A fundamental solution for a subelliptic operator. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 79(2), 373–376 (1973)
Folland, G.B., Stein, E.M.: Estimates for the \(\overline{\partial }_b\)-complex and analysis on the Heisenberg group. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 27, 429–522 (1974)
Friedrich, H.: Conformal geodesics on vacuum space-times. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0201006v1 (2002)
Fuglede, B.: Harmonic morphisms between Riemannian manifolds. Ann. Inst. Fourier Grenoble 28(2), 107–144 (1978)
Fuglede, B.: Harmonic morphisms between semi-Riemannian manifolds. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 21(2), 31–50 (1996)
Garofalo, N., Lanconelli, E.: Frequency functions on the Heisenberg group, the uncertainty principle and unique continuation. Ann. l’Inst. Fourier 40(2), 313–356 (1990)
Garofalo, N., Nhieu, D.-M.: Isoperimetric and Sobolev inequalities for Carnot–Carathéodory spaces and the existence of minimal surfaces. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 49(10), 1081–1144 (1996)
Garofalo, N., Pauls, S.: The Bernstein problem in the Heisenberg group, preprint (2003)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order. Springer, Berlin (1998)
Graham, C.R.: On Sparling’s characterization of Fefferman metrics. Am. J. Math. 109(5), 853–874 (1987)
Haefliger, A.: Variétés feuilletées. Ann. Scuola Normale Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 16, 367–397 (1962)
Hörmander, L.: Hypoelliptic second-order differential equations. Acta Math. 119, 147–171 (1967)
Ishihara, T.: A mapping of Riemannian manifolds which preserves harmonic functions. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 19, 215–229 (1979)
Jost, J., Xu, C.-J.: Subelliptic harmonic maps. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 350(11), 4633–4649 (1998)
Kobayashi, S., Nomizu, K.: Foundations of Differential Geometry, vol. I. Interscience Publishers, New York (1963)
Kobayashi, S., Nomizu, K.: Foundations of Differential Geometry, vol. II. Interscience Publishers, New York (1968)
Lanczos, K.: Ein vereinfachendes Koordinatensystem für Einsteinschen Gravitationsgleichungen. Phys. Z. 23, 537–539 (1922)
Lanuş, S., Pastore, A.M.: Harmonic maps on contact metric manifolds. Ann. Math. Blaise Pascal 2, 43–53 (1995)
Lee, J.M.: The Fefferman metric and pseudo-Hermitian invariants. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 296(1), 411–429 (1986)
Leitner, F.: On transversally symmetric pseudo-Einstein and Fefferman–Einstein spaces. Math. Z. 256(2), 443–459 (2007)
Molino, P.: Riemannian Foliations. Birkhäuser, Boston (1988)
Nash, J.: The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds. Ann. Math. 63(1), 20–63 (1956)
Ni, Y.: Sub-Riemannian constant mean curvature surfaces in the Heisenberg group as limits, Preprint (2005)
Parmar, V.K.: Harmonic Morphisms Between Semi-Riemannian Manifolds. Dissertation, University of Leeds (1991)
Pauls, S.D.: Minimal surfaces in the Heisenberg group. Geom. Dedicata 104, 201–231 (2004)
Petit, R.: Harmonic maps and strictly pseudoconvex CR manifolds. Commun. Anal. Geom. 41, 575–610 (2002)
Rossi, H.: Attaching analytic spaces to an analytic space along a pseudoconcave boundary. In: Proc. Conf. Complex Analysis (Minneapolis, 1964), pp. 242–256. Springer, Berlin (1965)
Sampson, J.H.: Some properties and applications of harmonic mappings. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 11, 211–228 (1978)
Serrin, J.: Local behavior of solutions of quasi-linear equations. Acta Math. 112, 247–302 (1964)
Strichartz, R.S.: Sub-Riemannian geometry. J. Differ. Geom. 24, 221–263 (1986)
Tondeur, P.: Foliations on Riemannian manifold. Springer, New York (1988)
Ventura, J., Deformation, Biconformal, Solutions to the Einstein Equation Th\(\rm \grave{e}\)se présentée et soutenue à l’Université de Bretagne Occidentale, le 27 octobre,: Unité de recherche: Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Bretagne Atlantique, p. 6205. CNRS, UMR (2021)
Xu, C.-J., Zuily, C.: Smoothness up to the boundary for solutions of the nonlinear and nonelliptic Dirichlet problem. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 308(1), 243–257 (1988)
Acknowledgements
The first two authors (S.D. and F.E.) are grateful for support as members of the research group G.N.S.A.G.A. of Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (Rome, Italy). The third author (E.L.) acknowledges support as a Visiting Professor of INdAM at the Department of Mathematics, Informatics and Economics of Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy (November 2021). The Authors are grateful to the Reviewer whose suggestions and comments improved the original version of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi della Basilicata within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dragomir, S., Esposito, F. & Loubeau, E. Harmonic Morphisms from Fefferman Spaces. J Geom Anal 34, 280 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-024-01731-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-024-01731-5
Keywords
- Harmonic morphism
- Fefferman metric
- Cauchy–Riemann manifold
- Contraction of Levi form
- Subelliptic harmonic morphism
- Mean curvature