Complete steady gradient Yamabe solitons

Abstract

In this paper, we show that nontrivial complete steady gradient Yamabe solitons are either rotationally symmetric manifolds or scalar-flat manifolds.

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

5Y7E

Let (M,g,F) be a nontrivial, complete, steady gradient Yamabe soliton. Then it is either isometric to a rotationally symmetric manifold

([0,+\infty),dr^2) \times_{|\nabla F|} (\mathbb{S}^{n-1},\bar g_S),

where \bar g_S is a round metric on \mathbb{S}^{n-1}, with its scale chosen as above, or a manifold with zero scalar curvature.

Corollary

Corollary 1.2

VK6F

Any nontrivial complete steady gradient Yamabe soliton that is not scalar-flat is rotationally symmetric.

Remark

There are many nontrivial scalar-flat complete steady gradient Yamabe solitons. In fact, for any constants \alpha>0 and \beta\in\mathbb{R} and any complete Riemannian manifold (N^{n-1}(0),g_N) with a scalar-flat metric,

(\mathbb{R}\times N^{n-1}(0),dr^2+\alpha^2g_N,F=\alpha r+\beta,\lambda=0)

is a nontrivial scalar-flat complete steady gradient Yamabe soliton. Taking N^{n-1} to be a flat torus gives a non-rotationally symmetric example.

Theorem

Theorem 2.1

PM2G

Let (M^n,g,F,\lambda) be a nontrivial complete gradient Yamabe soliton. Then |\nabla F|^2 is constant on every regular level hypersurface of F, and exactly one of the following holds:

(1) The potential function F has a unique critical point, and (M,g) is isometric to
([0,+\infty),dr^2) \times_{|\nabla F|} (\mathbb{S}^{n-1},\bar g_S),
where \bar g_S is a round metric on \mathbb{S}^{n-1}, with its scale chosen as above.
(2) The potential function F has no critical point, and (M,g) is isometric to
(\mathbb{R},dr^2) \times_{|\nabla F|} (N^{n-1},\bar g),
where (N^{n-1},\bar g) has constant scalar curvature \bar R.

Moreover, in Case (2), if R\geq0 on M, then either \bar R>0, or R=\bar R=0 and |\nabla F|\equiv a for some constant a>0. In the latter case, (M,g) is isometric to the Riemannian product

(\mathbb{R},dr^2)\times(N^{n-1},a^2\bar g).

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

S6T1

Let a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4 be constants. Suppose that \rho: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is a smooth positive function satisfying the differential equation

\rho\rho'' = a_1- a_2\rho^2 - a_3^2\rho'\rho^2 - a_4^2\rho'^2.

If \rho satisfies either \rho' \geq 0 or \rho' \leq 0 on \mathbb{R}, and there exists a point x_0 \in \mathbb{R} such that \rho'(x_0) = 0, then \rho' \equiv 0 on \mathbb{R}.

Used by Proof

Proof

Z6CC

We only need consider Case (2) of Theorem 2.1. In this case, for a,b,c,d=2,3,\cdots,n, the curvature tensors are obtained as follows:

\begin{aligned} R_{1a1b}&=-F'F'''{\bar g}_{ab},\quad R_{1abc}=0,\\ R_{abcd}&=(F')^2{\bar R}_{abcd}+(F'F'')^2(\bar g_{ad}\bar g_{bc}-\bar g_{ac}\bar g_{bd}), \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} R_{11}&=-(n-1)\frac{F'''}{F'},\quad R_{1a}=0,\\ R_{ab}&=\bar R_{ab}-((n-2)(F'')^2+F'F''')\bar g_{ab}, \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} R=(F')^{-2}\bar R-(n-1)(n-2)\Big(\frac{F''}{F'}\Big)^2-2(n-1)\frac{F'''}{F'}, \end{aligned}

where the curvature tensors with a bar are the curvature tensors of (N,\bar g). By (?) and the soliton equation R=F'', one has the following ODE.

\rho'\rho^2+(n-1)(n-2)\rho'^2+2(n-1)\rho\rho''=\bar R,

where one can choose the direction of r such that \rho(r)=F'(r)>0.

Case 1. \bar R<0.

Assume that there exists r_0\in\mathbb{R} such that \rho'(r_0)=0. By (?), we have

\rho''(r_0)=\frac{\bar R}{2(n-1)\rho(r_0)}<0.

Thus, there is at most one zero of \rho'. Hence,

\rho'>0\qquad\text{on}\quad (-\infty,r_0).

Set s=-r. We use the same notation \rho for the reparametrized function and \dot\rho(s)=\frac{d}{ds}\rho(s). Equation (?) is

-\dot\rho\rho^2+(n-1)(n-2)\dot\rho^2+2(n-1)\rho\ddot\rho=\bar R.

Combining this, \dot\rho(s)<0, and \rho(s)>0 on (-r_0,+\infty), we have \ddot\rho(s)<0 on (-r_0,+\infty). Since \rho(s)>0 on (-r_0,+\infty), we have a contradiction. Thus, there exists no zero of \rho'.

Case 1-a. \bar R<0 and \rho'>0 on \mathbb{R}.

By (?), we have \rho''<0 on \mathbb{R}, which yields a contradiction.

Case 1-b. \bar R<0 and \rho'<0 on \mathbb{R}.

Fix \tilde r\in\mathbb{R}. Set a=\rho(\tilde r). Since \rho'<0, \rho(r)<a on (\tilde r,+\infty).

Assume that \frac{\bar R}{2a^2}\leq\rho'<0. Then, by (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \rho'' &=\frac{1}{2(n-1)\rho} \Big\{ \bar R-\rho'\rho^2-(n-1)(n-2)\rho'^2 \Big\}\\ &<\frac{1}{2(n-1)\rho} \Big\{ \bar R-\rho'a^2 \Big\}\\ &\leq\frac{\bar R}{4(n-1)\rho}<0. \end{aligned}

Hence, if \frac{\bar R}{2a^2}\leq\rho'<0, then \rho' is strictly decreasing. Therefore, we obtain

\rho' \leq\max \Big\{ \rho'(\tilde r),\frac{\bar R}{2a^2}\Big\}<0\qquad \text{on}\quad (\tilde r,+\infty),

which is a contradiction, because \rho is a positive function.

Hence, \bar R<0 cannot occur.

Case 2. \bar R>0.

We show that \rho'(r)\geq0 on \mathbb{R}.

Assume that there exists \tilde r\in\mathbb{R} such that

\rho'(\tilde r)<0.

Hence,

\rho'<0\qquad\text{on} \quad (-\infty,r_2)\ni\tilde r,

for some r_2. In fact, if there exists a point r_0\in \mathbb{R} such that \rho'(r_0)=0, then by (?), we have

\rho''(r_0)=\frac{\bar R}{2(n-1)\rho(r_0)}>0.

Set s=-r and s_2=-r_2. We show the following.

Claim.

The positive function \rho satisfies \rho(r)\rightarrow +\infty as r\rightarrow-\infty.

Proof.

Assume that \rho(s)\to c<+\infty as s\to+\infty.

If \ddot\rho\geq0 on (s_2,+\infty), then \dot\rho is nondecreasing. Hence \rho cannot be bounded from above, which is a contradiction.

Assume that \ddot\rho\leq0 on (s_2,+\infty). If \dot\rho\to \alpha>0 as s\to+\infty, then this contradicts \rho\leq c. Hence \dot\rho\to 0 as s\to+\infty. By (?), \ddot\rho\to \frac{\bar R}{2(n-1)c}>0 as s\to+\infty. However, this contradicts the assumption \ddot\rho\leq0.

Hence there exists a point s_0\in(s_2,+\infty) such that \ddot\rho(s_0)=0. By differentiating (?), we obtain

\ddot\rho\rho^2+2\rho\dot\rho^2-2(n-1)^2\dot\rho\ddot\rho-2(n-1)\rho\dddot\rho=0.

At s_0,

\dddot\rho=\frac{1}{n-1}\dot\rho^2>0.

Therefore, there exists exactly one zero of \ddot\rho, and

\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\ddot\rho<0\qquad\text{on}\quad (s_2,s_0),\\ &\ddot\rho>0\qquad\text{on}\quad (s_0,+\infty). \end{aligned} \right.

Hence \rho cannot be bounded from above, which is a contradiction.

Set G(\rho)=\dot\rho.

\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{d\rho} \Big( \rho^{\frac{n-2}{2}}G(\rho) \Big) &= \frac{1}{2(n-1)G(\rho)}\bar R \rho^{\frac{n-4}{2}}+\frac{1}{2(n-1)}\rho^{\frac{n}{2}}\\ &>\frac{1}{2(n-1)}\rho^{\frac{n}{2}}. \end{aligned}

By integrating both sides of the inequality, we have

G(\rho)>\frac{1}{(n-1)(n+2)}\rho^2+C\rho^{-\frac{n-2}{2}},

for some constant C. For sufficiently large \rho, we obtain

G(\rho)>\frac{1}{2(n-1)(n+2)}\rho^2.

Hence,

\frac{d}{ds} \Big( -\rho^{-1} \Big) >\frac{1}{2(n-1)(n+2)}.

Take s_\ell sufficiently large. For s>s_\ell, integrating both sides of the above inequality, we have

-\rho^{-1}(s)+\rho^{-1}(s_\ell) >\frac{1}{2(n-1)(n+2)}(s-s_\ell).

Taking s\to +\infty, we have a contradiction.

Hence there exists no \tilde r such that \rho'(\tilde r)<0. Therefore \rho'(r)\geq0 on \mathbb{R}.

If there exists r_0 such that \rho'(r_0)=0, then by Lemma 2.2, we have \rho'\equiv0 on \mathbb{R}. By (?), we have \bar R=0, which is a contradiction. Therefore, we obtain \rho'(r)>0 on \mathbb{R}.

Set s=-r. Fix s_1 and set \alpha=\rho(s_1). Since \dot\rho(s)=\frac{d}{ds}\rho(s)<0, we have

\rho<\alpha\qquad\text{on}\quad(s_1,+\infty).

Take a negative constant \beta such that

\beta\alpha^2-(n-1)(n-2)\beta^2\geq-\frac{\bar R}{2}.

If \dot\rho<-\varepsilon for some \varepsilon>0 on (s_1,+\infty), then we have a contradiction, because \rho>0. Hence we may assume that there exists a maximal interval (s_3,s_4)\subset(s_1,+\infty) on which \dot\rho\geq\beta. In this case, by (?),

\begin{aligned} \ddot\rho &\geq \frac{1}{2(n-1)\rho} \Big( \bar R+\beta\alpha^2-(n-1)(n-2)\beta^2 \Big) \geq\frac{\bar R}{4(n-1)\alpha}>0. \end{aligned}

Hence s_4 must be +\infty. However, since \ddot\rho>\frac{\bar R}{4(n-1)\alpha} on (s_3,+\infty), we have a contradiction, because \dot\rho<0.

Case 3. \bar R=0.

We show that \rho'(r)\geq0 on \mathbb{R}.

Differentiating (?), we have

\rho''\rho^2+2\rho\rho'^2+2(n-1)^2\rho'\rho''+2(n-1)\rho\rho'''=0.

Assume that there exists \tilde r\in\mathbb{R} such that

\rho'(\tilde r)<0,

that is, \rho'(r)<0 on a maximal interval (\tilde r_1,\tilde r_2)\ni\tilde r. If \tilde r_1 and \tilde r_2 are finite, then \rho'(\tilde r_1)=\rho'(\tilde r_2)=0. We note that if there exists \tilde r_0\in(\tilde r_1,\tilde r_2) such that \rho''(\tilde r_0)=0, by (?), we obtain

\rho'''(\tilde r_0)=-\frac{1}{n-1}\rho'^2(\tilde r_0)<0.

Hence if there exists a zero of \rho'', then it is unique, and \rho'' crosses zero from positive to negative.

Assume that \tilde r_1 and \tilde r_2 are finite. In this case, \rho(\tilde r_1)>\rho(\tilde r_2). There exists \tilde r_0\in(\tilde r_1,\tilde r_2) such that \rho''(\tilde r_0)=0. However, since \rho is smooth, the above argument yields a contradiction.

Assume that \tilde r_1 is finite and \tilde r_2=+\infty. In this case we have \rho'(r)<0 on (\tilde r_1,+\infty). If there exists \tilde r_0\in(\tilde r_1,+\infty) such that \rho''(\tilde r_0)=0, then the above argument shows that \rho''<0 on (\tilde r_0,+\infty). Combining this, \rho>0, and \rho'<0 on (\tilde r_1,+\infty), we have a contradiction. Hence there exists no zero of \rho''. Since \rho'(\tilde r_1)=0, we have \rho''<0 on (\tilde r_1,+\infty). Positivity of \rho yields a contradiction.

Assume that \tilde r_1=-\infty and \tilde r_2 is finite. If there exists \tilde r_0\in(-\infty,\tilde r_2) such that \rho''(\tilde r_0)=0, then \rho''<0 on (\tilde r_0,\tilde r_2). Since \rho'(\tilde r_2)=0, we have a contradiction. Hence there exists no zero of \rho'' on (-\infty,\tilde r_2). In this case, since \rho'(\tilde r_2)=0, we have \rho''>0 on (-\infty,\tilde r_2). Therefore, \rho\to+\infty as r\to-\infty.

Assume that \tilde r_1=-\infty and \tilde r_2=+\infty, that is, \rho'<0 on \mathbb{R}. If there exists \tilde r_0\in\mathbb{R} such that \rho''(\tilde r_0)=0, then we have \rho''<0 on (\tilde r_0,+\infty). Since \rho>0, we have a contradiction.

Hence we obtain \rho''>0 on \mathbb{R} or \rho''<0 on \mathbb{R}. If \rho''>0 on \mathbb{R}, then we have \rho\to +\infty as r\to-\infty. If \rho''<0 on \mathbb{R}, then positivity of \rho yields a contradiction.

Therefore, we obtain \rho'<0 on (-\infty, \tilde r_2) and \rho\to+\infty as r\to-\infty. Set s=-r and G(\rho)=\dot\rho. By the same argument as in Case 2, we obtain a contradiction.

Therefore, there exists no \tilde r such that \rho'(\tilde r)<0, and we obtain \rho'(r)\geq0 on \mathbb{R}.

If there exists r_0\in\mathbb{R} such that \rho'(r_0)=0, then by Lemma 2.2, we have \rho'\equiv0 on \mathbb{R}. By (?) and the soliton equation \nabla\nabla F=Rg, we have R=\bar R=0.

We consider \rho'(r)>0 on \mathbb{R}.

By (?),

\begin{aligned} \rho'' &= -\frac{\rho\rho'}{2(n-1)}-\frac{(n-2)\rho'^2}{2\rho} <0. \end{aligned}

Since \rho>0 on \mathbb{R}, we have a contradiction.

Uses Theorem 2.1, Lemma 2.2