text:
# On the associated family of Delaunay surfaces

## 1. Introduction

The Gauss map of a constant mean curvature (CMC) surface is a harmonic map  and Uhlenbeck  has shown that such harmonic maps can be obtained as projections of horizontal holomorphic maps from the universal cover of the surface into a certain loop group. There is a Weierstraß type representation for this procedure, commonly referred to as the DPW method, due to Dorfmeister, Pedit & Wu . The construction involves solving a linear differential system with values in a loop group and then Iwasawa decomposing the solution to obtain the extended unitary frame of the Gauss map.

The DPW method is analogous to the Weierstraß representation for minimal surfaces insomuch as input data in the form of meromorphic functions on a Riemann surface generate a conformal CMC immmersion of the universal cover. If the underlying Riemann surface is not simply connected, it is necessary to investigate various monodromies and solve period problems in order that one member of the resulting associate family is invariant under deck transformations. Recently, progress has been made in constructing CMC immersions of $`n`$–punctured spheres with Delaunay ends in the DPW approach ,  and .

Since Delaunay surfaces are ubiquitous in the study of CMC surfaces with embedded ends , we feel the necessity to give a self contained account of Delaunay surfaces in the DPW framework. Here we thus desribe the construction of the associated family of Delaunay surfaces using holomorphic data on the twice punctured Riemann sphere.

This paper grew out of a part of the author’s PhD thesis  and it is a pleasure to herewith express my gratitude to my advisor Franz Pedit as well as to Nicholas Schmitt for numerous useful discussions.

## 2. Loop groups

We adopt the notation $`\mathrm{diag}[u,v]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& 0\\ 0& v\end{array}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{off}[u,v]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& u\\ v& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and begin by collecting some well known results on loop groups.

For real $`r(0,1]`$ denote the analytic maps of $`C_r=\{\lambda :|\lambda |=r\}`$ with values in $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)=𝒪(C_r,\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$. We have an involution on maps $`C_r𝔤𝔩(2,)`$ given by

$$𝝈:g(\lambda )\sigma g(\lambda )\sigma ^1\text{ with }\sigma =\mathrm{diag}[1,1]$$

and denote the twisted $`r`$–Loop group of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma =\{g\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,):𝝈g=g\}.$$

The Lie algebras of these groups, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r𝔰𝔩(2,)_\sigma `$, consist of analytic maps $`g:C_r𝔰𝔩(2,)`$, which satisfy $`𝝈g=g`$. We will use the following subgroups of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$: Let $`K=\{\mathrm{diag}[a,1/a]:a>0\}\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ and $`I_r=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<r\}`$ and denote

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma =\{g\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma 𝒪(I_r,\mathrm{SL}(2,)):g(0)K\}.$$

Let $`A_r=\{\lambda :r<|\lambda |<1/r\}`$ and by an abuse of notation set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma =\{g\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma 𝒪(A_r,\mathrm{SL}(2,)):g|_{S^1}\mathrm{SU}(2)\}.$$

For $`r=1`$ we will omit the subscript. Corresponding to these subgroups, we analogously define Lie subalgebras of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r𝔰𝔩(2,)_\sigma `$. Of fundamental importance is a certain Loop group factorisation, the Iwasawa decomposition. We cite McIntosh , where it is proven that Multiplication

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma \times \mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma $$

is a diffeomorphism onto. The associated splitting $`g=FB`$ of $`g\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ with $`F\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ and $`B\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ will be called Iwasawa decomposition. The condition $`B(0)K`$ ensures that the factorization is unique and

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma =\left\{\mathrm{Id}\right\}.$$

## 3. DPW method

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ denote the holomorphic $`1`$–forms on a Riemann surface $`M`$ and define

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{\mathrm{}}𝔰𝔩(2,)_\sigma =\{\xi 𝒪(^{},𝔰𝔩(2,)_\sigma ):\lambda \xi 𝒪(,𝔰𝔩(2,))\}.$$

CMC surfaces come in $`S^1`$ families, the associated family. The DPW method  constructs conformal CMC immersions of the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ in the following three steps. Let

$$\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})=\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{\mathrm{}}𝔰𝔩(2,)_\sigma ,$$

$`\stackrel{~}{z}_0\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$: The first step consists in solving the initial value problem

(3.1)
$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{z}_0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$

to obtain a unique map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$. Secondly, Iwasawa decompose $`\mathrm{\Phi }=FB`$ pointwise on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to obtain a unique map $`F:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$.
Let $`_\lambda =\frac{}{\lambda }`$. The final step is performed by plugging $`F`$ into the Sym-Bobenko formula

(3.2)
$$f_\lambda =\frac{1}{H}\left(i\lambda (_\lambda F)F^1+\frac{i}{2}F\sigma F^1\right)$$

to obtain conformal immersions $`f_\lambda :\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔰𝔲(2)_\sigma `$ with constant mean curvature $`H0`$, that is for each $`\lambda _0S^1`$ we have a conformal CMC immersion $`f_{\lambda _0}:\stackrel{~}{M}𝔰𝔲(2)^3`$. We call $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ the holomorphic potential. We thus have a map $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)f_\lambda `$ and the triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ is called the DPW data of a CMC immersion. The metric and Hopf differential are determined by a triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ as follows. Locally, on $`UM`$, if we write $`\xi =\lambda ^1\mathrm{off}[a_1,a_2]+\mathrm{}`$ and $`B(\lambda =0)=\mathrm{diag}[r,r^1]`$ for holomorphic $`1`$–forms $`a_i\mathrm{\Omega }(U)`$ and $`r:U^+`$, then it can be shown that $`f_1`$ has metric $`4r^4|a_1|^2`$ and Hopf differential $`Q=\frac{1}{2}a_1a_2`$. It follows that $`f_1`$ has branch points at the zeroes of $`a_1`$ and umbilics at the zeroes of $`a_2`$. Our basis of $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ will be

$$e_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),e_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),e_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right).$$

As a consequence of using twisted loop groups in the construction, there is some redundency in the associated family in that every surface appears twice up to rigid motion.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Under the map $`\lambda \lambda `$ the corresponding surface is rotated about $`e_1`$ by $`\pi `$ \- radians, that is $`f_\lambda e_1f_\lambda e_1^1`$.

###### Proof.

Twistedness is $`\xi (\lambda )=𝝈\xi (\lambda )=e_1\xi (\lambda )e_1^1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ solves (3.1) with triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }e_1`$ solves (3.1) with triple $`(e_1\xi e_1^1,\mathrm{\Phi }_0e_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$. ∎

It is a well known, that to every CMC surface there exist two parallel surfaces, one of constant Gaussian curvature, the other of constant mean curvature, obtained by moving every point on the surface in the normal direction by $`\frac{1}{2H}`$ and $`\frac{1}{H}`$ respectively. The parallel associated family of CMC immersions is given by

(3.3)
$$f_\lambda ^{par}=\frac{1}{H}(i\lambda (_\lambda F)F^1\frac{i}{2}F\sigma F^1).$$

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`f_\lambda `$ be the associated family of CMC immersions obtained from $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$. Then the triple $`(e_3\xi e_3^1,e_3\mathrm{\Phi }_0e_3^1,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ generates the parallel associated family $`f_\lambda ^{par}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ solves (3.1) for the triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e_3\mathrm{\Phi }e_3^1`$ solves (3.1) for the triple $`(e_3\xi e_3^1,e_3\mathrm{\Phi }_0e_3^1,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ with resulting associated family $`g_\lambda `$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }=FB`$ is the Iwasawa decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e_3FBe_3^1`$. Since $`b_0`$ is diagonal, we can write $`b_0e_3^1=e_3^1b_0^1`$ and thus $`Be_3^1=e_3^1\stackrel{~}{B}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }=e_3F\stackrel{~}{B}e_3^1`$ and the Sym-Bobenko formula gives

$`g_\lambda `$ $`=\frac{1}{H}(i\lambda e_3(_\lambda F)F^1e_3^1+\frac{1}{2}e_3Fe_3^1e_1e_3F^1e_3^1)`$
$`=\frac{1}{H}e_3(i\lambda (_\lambda F)F^1\frac{1}{2}Fe_1F^1)e_3^1=e_3f_\lambda ^{par}e_3^1`$
Therefore the surface generated by the potential $`e_3\xi e_3^1`$ is the parallel surface rotated about $`e_3`$ by $`\pi `$ \- radians. ∎

The left action by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ on the initial condition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0C\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ results in an Euclidean motion of the surface. In fact, we have the following

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ solve (3.1) with triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ and let $`f_\lambda `$ denote the resulting associated family. Let $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ and for $`\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |=1`$ define $`A=\mathrm{diag}[\alpha ,\overline{\alpha }]`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C\mathrm{\Phi }A`$ solves (3.1) for the triple $`(A^1\xi A,C\mathrm{\Phi }_0A,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ and the resulting associated family $`g_\lambda `$ is is given by

(3.4)
$$g_\lambda =\frac{1}{H}i\lambda (_\lambda C)C^1+Cf_\lambda C^1.$$

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }=FB`$ is the Iwasawa decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`A^1BA\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^+\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ and the Iwasawa decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=CFBA=CFAA^1BA`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the unitary frame $`CFA`$, which inserted into the Sym–Bobenko formula gives

$`g_\lambda `$ $`=\frac{1}{H}(i\lambda (_\lambda CFA)(CFA)^1+\frac{1}{2}(CFA)e_1(CFA)^1)`$
$`=\frac{1}{H}(i\lambda ((_\lambda C)C^1+C(_\lambda F)F^1C^1+\frac{1}{2}CFe_1F^1C^1))`$
$`=\frac{1}{H}i\lambda (_\lambda C)C^1+Cf_\lambda C^1`$
an proves the result. ∎

## 4. The period problem

Let $`M`$ be a connected Riemann surface with universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the group of deck transformations. Let $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ with $`\gamma ^{}\xi =\xi `$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ be a solution of the differential equation $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\xi `$. Writing $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma `$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we define $`\chi (\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ by $`\chi (\gamma )=(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. The matrix $`\chi (\gamma )`$ is called the monodromy matrix of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with respect to $`\gamma `$.

If $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ is another solution of $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\xi `$ and $`\widehat{\chi }(\gamma )=(\gamma ^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^1`$, then there exists a constant $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ such that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=C\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Hence $`\widehat{\chi }(\gamma )=C\chi (\gamma )C^1`$ and different soultions give rise to mutually conjugate monodromy matrices.

A choice of base point $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and initial condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ gives the monodromy representation $`\chi :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ of $`\xi `$. Henceforth, when we speak of the monodromy representation, or simply monodromy, we tacitly assume that it is induced by an underlying triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\stackrel{~}{z}_0)`$ with invariant holomorphic potential $`\gamma ^{}\xi =\xi `$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is shown in  that CMC immersions of open Riemann surfaces $`M`$ can always be generated by such invariant holomorphic potentials.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }=FB`$ is the pointwise Iwasawa decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$, then we shall need to study the monodromy of $`F`$ as a means to controlling the periodicity of the resulting immersion (3.2). A priori, we are not assured that the quantity $`(\gamma )=(\gamma ^{}F)F^1`$ is $`z`$–independent for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. One way to circumvent this issue is to ensure that $`\chi `$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$–valued.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`\chi (\tau )`$ be the monodromy of $`\xi `$ for $`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\chi (\tau )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ then $`\chi (\tau )=(\tau )`$.

###### Proof.

From the Iwasawa decomposition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=FB`$ we obtain $`\chi (\tau )FB=\tau ^{}F\tau ^{}B`$. If $`\chi (\tau )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$, then (2.1) yields $`(\tau ^{}F)^1\chi (\tau )F=(\tau ^{}B)B^1=\mathrm{Id}`$. Therefore $`\chi (\tau )=(\tau )`$. ∎

The condition $`\chi (\tau )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ can be ensured if the initial condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in (3.1) is unitary and the potential $`\xi `$ is skew hermitian along a curve $`\tau \pi _1(M)`$ that passes through the base point.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and $`\tau ^{}\xi =\xi `$ for $`\tau \pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Pick a point $`z_0\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$ be the solution of (3.1) with triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_0,z_0)`$. If $`\xi `$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔰𝔲(2)_\sigma `$–valued along $`\tau `$, then $`\chi (\tau )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

The potential $`\xi `$ being $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔰𝔲(2)_\sigma `$–valued along $`\tau `$ means that $`\overline{\xi }^t=\xi `$ along $`\tau `$. Hence for $`\xi =\mathrm{\Phi }^1d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we have $`d\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^t+\mathrm{\Phi }d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^t=0`$. Integrating this last equation gives $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^t=C`$ for a $`z`$–independent $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SL}(2,)_\sigma `$. The initial condition satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}^t=\mathrm{Id}`$ forcing $`C=\mathrm{Id}`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$–valued along $`\tau `$ ensuring that $`\chi (\tau )\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$. ∎

The next result characterizes the period problem in the DPW framework.

###### Theorem 4.3.

 Let $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$–valued monodromy $`\chi `$ and let $`f_\lambda `$ be the associated family generated by the triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{Id},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{z}}_0)`$. Then there exists a $`\lambda _0S^1`$ such that $`\tau ^{}f_{\lambda _0}=f_{\lambda _0}`$ for $`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }`$ if and only if $`\chi (\tau ,\lambda )`$ satisfies both

(4.1) $`\chi (\tau ,\lambda _0)`$ $`=\pm \mathrm{Id},`$
(4.2) $`_\lambda \chi (\tau )|_{\lambda _0}`$ $`=0.`$
## 5. Delaunay surfaces

As an application of the above, we shall construct the holomorphic data in the DPW representation that generates the family of Delaunay surfaces. The conformal structure of a Delaunay surface is that of a twice punctured Riemann sphere, so we let $`M=^{}`$. If we identify $`^{}/2\pi i`$, then $`\mathrm{exp}:^{}`$ is the universal covering map and we shall write $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\mathrm{log}(z)`$. The group of deck transformations $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is generated by $`\tau :\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z}+2\pi i`$. In the associated family, we shall solve the period problem (4.1) and (4.2) for $`\lambda _0=1`$, and choose the base point $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0=0`$. Consider

(5.1)
$$\xi =\xi _1\frac{dz}{z}\text{ with }\xi _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c& a\lambda ^1+\overline{b}\lambda \\ \lambda ^1+\overline{a}\lambda & c\end{array}\right)$$

with $`a,b`$ and $`c`$. The two eigenvalues of $`\xi _1`$ are $`\pm \sqrt{det\xi _1}`$. Since the residue is invariant under $`z\alpha z`$ for $`|\alpha |=1`$, the induced surface has intrinsic rotational symmetry. The solution to (3.1) with triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{Id},0)`$ is obtained by exponentiation and with $`z=re^{it}`$ can be factored

(5.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{log}(z)\xi _1)=\mathrm{exp}(it\xi _1)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}|r|\xi _1).$$

###### Lemma 5.1.

$`F_1(t):=\mathrm{exp}(it\xi _1)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ is a one parameter family of rotations with common axis $`i\xi _1`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\xi _1`$ is hermitian $`it\xi _1𝔰𝔲_2`$ for all $`t`$. Hence $`F_1(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$ and $`[i\xi _1,F_1(t)]=0`$. The claim now follows by uniqueness of the axis. ∎

The differential equation for a profile curve $`r(t)`$ of a CMC $`H`$ surface of revolution is given by

(5.3)
$$\frac{\ddot{r}+1/r}{(1+\dot{r}^2)^{3/2}}=2H$$

which is equivalent to the first order equation $`\dot{s}=0`$ for $`s(t)=\frac{r}{\sqrt{1+\dot{r}^2}}r^2H`$. At a neck or a bulge we have $`\dot{r}=0`$, so there is a constant $`\kappa `$ such that $`r(1rH)=\kappa `$. In 1841 Delaunay  proved the following theorem. An elementary proof is given by Smyth .

###### Theorem 5.2.

 A surface of revolution is a constant mean curvature surface if and only if the profile curve is a roulette of a conic.

The resulting one parameter family of CMC cylinders, complete immersed surfaces of revolution, are called Delaunay surfaces. A Delaunay surface is uniquely determined by the bulge and neck radii up to rigid motions. The surfaces obtained from ellipses are called unduloidal, the surfaces obtained from parabolas are called nodoidal . In particular, Delaunay surfaces have no umbilic point. A quadratic meromorphic differential on $`^1`$ has degree $`4`$. For an unbranched cylinder without umbilics, the four poles of the Hopf differential have to be at the ends. By translational symmetry, the Hopf differential of a Delaunay surface has to have a pole of order $`2`$ at each end. Hence, up to coordinate transformations, the Hopf differential for a Delaunay surface is of the form $`z^2dz^2`$.

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`\xi =\xi _1\frac{dz}{z}`$ whith $`\xi _1`$ as in (5.1). If $`|a+\overline{b}|^2+c^2=1/4`$ and $`ab`$, then the triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{Id},0)`$ generates the associated family of Delaunay surfaces which at $`\lambda =1`$ has bulge/neck radius

(5.4)
$$\frac{1}{2H}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\pm \sqrt{116ab}).$$

###### Proof.

Diagonalizing $`\xi _1`$, the solution to (3.1) with triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{Id},0)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z,\lambda )=T(\lambda )\mathrm{diag}[z^{\mu (\lambda )},z^{\mu (\lambda )}]T(\lambda )^1\text{ where }T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\left(c\mu \right)\lambda }{\overline{a}\lambda ^2+b}& \frac{\left(c+\mu \right)\lambda }{\overline{a}\lambda ^2+b}\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$

and $`\mu (\lambda )=\sqrt{a\overline{a}+b\overline{b}+c^2+ab\lambda ^2+\overline{ab}\lambda ^2}`$. Since $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }^\sigma 𝔰𝔲_2`$ along $`|z|=1`$, the holonomy is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{SU}(2)_\sigma `$–valued and given by

$$\chi (\lambda )=T(\lambda )\mathrm{diag}[e^{2\pi i\mu (\lambda )},e^{2\pi i\mu (\lambda )}]T(\lambda )^1.$$

The first closing condition $`\chi (1)=\pm \mathrm{Id}`$ is equivalent to $`\mu (1)\frac{1}{2}`$. For the constants $`a,b,c`$ this holds if and only if $`|a+\overline{b}|^2+c^2\frac{1}{4}`$. The second closing condition $`_\lambda H|_{\lambda =1}=0`$ holds if $`_\lambda \mu |_{\lambda =1}=0`$ which is equivalent to $`ab`$ if the first closing condition is assumed. Let $`\mathrm{arg}`$ denote some fixed branch of argument, then since $`ab`$, we have $`\mathrm{arg}(\overline{b})=\mathrm{arg}(a)`$. Let $`\gamma =e^{i\mathrm{arg}(a)}`$ and define $`A=\mathrm{diag}[\sqrt{\gamma },\sqrt{\overline{\gamma }}]`$. By Lemma 3.3, the surface generated by the triple $`(A\xi A^1,\mathrm{Id},1)`$ is a rotation of the surface generated by the triple $`(\xi ,\mathrm{Id},1)`$, but since the coefficients of $`\lambda ^1,\lambda `$ in the potential $`A\xi A^1`$ are real, we can assume without loss of generality that $`a,b`$ and the two closing conditions together with the requirement that the surface be simply wrapped, reduce to the equation of an elliptic cylinder $`(a+b)^2+c^2=\frac{1}{4}`$. This leaves two real paramters of freedom, the necksize of the surface and the radius of the image circle of $`S^1`$: At the basepoint $`z_0=1`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1,\lambda )=\mathrm{Id}`$ and the image under the immersion is $`f(1,\lambda )=\frac{1}{2H}e_1`$. By Lemma 5.1, the frame along $`|z|=1`$ is given by the one parameter family of rotations $`\mathrm{exp}(it\xi _1)`$ with common axis $`i\xi _1`$. Hence the resulting surface is a surface of revolution and thus a Delaunay surface. The unit cirle $`|z|=1`$ is mapped to the circle with center

$$\frac{1}{2}(f(1,\lambda )f(1,\lambda ))=\frac{8a^2+8ab1}{2H}e_1\frac{4ac}{H}e_3,$$

radius $`2|aH^1|`$ and axial direction $`i\xi _1`$. The angle $`\theta `$ between the axis and the tangent vector of the profile curve $`r(t)`$ at some $`r_0`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\dot{r}^2}}=2(a+b).$$

The quadratic equation at a neck or bulge is

(5.5)
$$r(1rH)=2(a+b)2|a/H|4H|a/H|^2$$

whose solutions are given by (5.4). ∎

By Lemma 3.2, the parallel CMC surface of a Delaunay surface is obtained by interchanging neck and bulge. We conclude our discussion of Delaunay surfaces by indicating how the choice of the constants determine the resulting surface. The case $`ab>0`$ results in unduloids, while $`ab<0`$ yields nodoids. For $`a=b=1/4`$, the resulting surface is the round cylinder and the limiting case $`a=1/2,b=0`$ produces a round sphere with two points removed.


format: text

text:
# Topological methods for searching barriers and reaction paths

## Abstract

We present a family of algorithms for the fast determination of reaction paths and barriers in phase space and the computation of the corresponding rates. The method requires the reaction times be large compared to the microscopic time, irrespective of the origin — energetic, entropic, cooperative — of the timescale separation. It lends itself to temperature cycling as in simulated annealing and to activation-relaxation routines. The dynamics is ultimately based on supersymmetry methods used years ago to derive Morse theory. Thus, the formalism automatically incorporates all relevant topological information.

A situation often met in chemical reactions, protein folding and nucleation transitions is that the evolution breaks into fast local relaxations and rare activation processes. This timescale separation can be a consequence of low temperature (intra-valley equilibration occurs in $`\tau _{fast}=O(1)`$, passage times are exponential $`\tau _{activ}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }E/T)`$), or of cooperative dynamics: e.g. in a ferromagnet of size $`L`$ the relaxation time within a state $`\tau _{fast}<L^2`$ (the time for the largest domain to collapse), and between phases $`\tau _{activ}\mathrm{exp}(cL^{d1})`$. It can also be the result of of entropic barriers, flat but narrow energy canyons that the system is unlikely to transit.

In all these cases, a knowledge of the actual connectivity of paths and saddles gives a global picture of a system’s behavior Wales (2003). Direct information on the barriers can also be used to model the activated processes, without the need to wait for them to occur spontaneously, thus allowing to simulate a reaction even faster than nature. Furthermore, activation/relaxation procedures Mousseau and Barkema (1998), alternating ordinary relaxation with forced activation, offer an efficient way to sample phase-space. For these investigations, several algorithms Mousseau and Barkema (1998); Wales (2003) have been implemented to locate saddle points in energy. In cases when the nature of barriers is qualitatively affected by entropy, one needs to study directly the transition probability — thus taking into account the multiplicity of paths through the (“free energy”) barrier. A well known method to do this is a MonteCarlo sampling of the trajectories with ends fixed in the initial and the target state, known as ‘Transition Path Sampling’ Dellago et al. (1998); Bolhuis et al. (2002); E et al. (2002). In practice, this means going from an ‘open-ended’ to a ‘two-ended’ procedure.

The purpose of this paper is to present a family of methods for the determination of reaction distributions and barriers. It is based on a dynamics that converges to barriers and reaction paths, much in the same way that diffusion in a potential converges to energy minima and metastable states. This allows us to construct ‘free energy barrier’ algorithms that can however be implemented in an open-ended manner.

The organization of this paper is as follows: in the first section we present the dynamics and we justify it in the second section.

DIFFUSION DYNAMICS AND PATH SAMPLING

Consider a Langevin process in an $`N`$-dimensional energy landscape $`E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$:

$$\dot{x}_i=E_i+\eta _i(t)$$
(1)
where $`\eta (t)`$ is a white noise of variance $`2T`$. Here and in what follows $`E_i`$ and $`E_{ij}`$ denote derivatives of $`E`$, $`_i\frac{}{x_i}`$ and we adopt the summation convention. An equivalent way of stating (1) is to consider the probability distribution $`P(x,t)`$, evolving according to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P(x,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{\text{FP}}P(x,t)=_iJ_i(x)`$ (2)
$`H_{\text{FP}}`$ $`=`$ $`_i\left(T_i+E_i\right)`$ (3)
which defines the current $`J_i(x,t)\left(T_i+E_i\right)P(x,t)`$.

The problem is how to modify (1) in order to devise a diffusive dynamics that targets saddle points and reaction paths. We shall show below that a set of $`N`$ functions $`R_i(𝒙)`$ evolving with

$$\frac{R_i(x,t)}{t}=H_{\text{FP}}R_i(x,t)E_{ij}(𝒙)R_j(x,t)$$
(4)
yields, at times $`\tau _{fast}<t\tau _{activ}`$ a vector field $`R_i(t)=J_i(𝒙)`$ describing reaction currents between metastable states — which one depends on the initial conditions. In other words, (4) does for reaction paths what (2) does for states.

Equation (4) is not immediately suitable for practical computations. Just as the natural way to simulate (2) is to use a diffusion dynamics (1), in order to have a practical approach we have to find the diffusion dynamics yielding (4).

Vector walkers. We consider a population of independent walkers $`𝒙^𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ carrying a vector internal degree of freedom $`𝒗^𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, an $`N`$-dimensional normalized vector. The dynamics consists of three types of transformations. Putting $`A(𝒙^a)v_i^aE_{ij}v_j^a`$, they are :

* Ordinary diffusion of the positions $`𝒙^𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ as in (1);
* Length preserving rotation of the vector with a position-dependent rate: $`\frac{dv_i^a}{dt}=E_{ij}v_j^a(t)A(𝒙^a)v_i^a`$;
* Cloning with rate $`A(𝒙^a)`$ (if $`A(𝒙^a)>0`$), or death with rate $`A(𝒙^a)`$ (if $`A(𝒙^a)<0`$). Clones are born in the same place with the same vector 111Occasionally one must adjust the total number of walkers with a global death/birth rate..

The rotation-cloning steps play the role of singling out the least stable direction, somewhat like in eigenvector-following and related methods Wales (2003); Mousseau and Barkema (1998). After a transient $`\tau _{fast}<t\tau _{activ}`$, the system tends to a regime in which particles organize along trails: the reaction paths (Fig. 1). The distribution is almost stationary, there are regions of birth and emigration (near saddles) and regions of immigration and death (within the states). There is only a small global death rate of the order of the inverse reaction time along the specific path.

Denoting $`F(𝒙,𝒗,t)`$ the density of walkers, the current distribution is calculated from the average $`R_i(𝒙,t)=𝒅𝒗𝒗F(𝒙,𝒗,t)`$. One can check that the $`R_i`$ then satisfy (4), as desired. This algorithm can be seen as a Diffusion Monte Carlo as applied to (4) (see Refs. Fahy and Hamann (1991) and Fantoni et al. (2000)).

Once an unnormalized transition current $`𝑱`$ is known, the reaction time is obtained for example through:

$$\tau _{activ}=\frac{𝑑𝒙e^{\beta E}|𝑱|^2}{𝑑𝒙e^{\beta E}(\text{div}𝑱)^2}$$
(5)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{T}`$. The barrier resistance $`e^{\beta E}|𝑱|^2`$ is large in (and serves to indicate) barriers, while $`e^{\beta E}(\text{div}𝑱)^2`$ is concentrated and essentially constant within the states involved in the passage Gaveau and Schulman (1998). In Fig. 2 we show the barrier resistance, as obtained from the present algorithm, for a purely entropic barrier.

Let us conclude by mentioning that sign problems are not a priori excluded here. They consist in the appearance of neighboring walkers with opposite vectors. For very low temperatures, and in particular for the evaluation of saddle-points, one can show Tănase-Nicola and Kurchan (to be published) that this poses no problem. Even at finite temperatures walker cancellations turn out not to be serious. However, one can always decimate the walkers, lumping them together according to the mean local orientation.

Transition path sampling with saddle-seeking paths. One can also use these ideas to improve transition path sampling Dellago et al. (1998); Bolhuis et al. (2002); E et al. (2002). This family of techniques involves sampling over trajectories, weighted with the appropriate action. In order to obtain information on reaction paths, it is necessary to force the ends of the trajectory to be at either side of a barrier — otherwise the trajectory collapses to a globular shape around one minimum.

If we wish the trajectory to seek for saddles, we need to add the effect of the second term on the rhs of (4). A simple calculation shows that this involves adding to the usual action a Lyapunov term equal to the logarithm of the largest eigenvalue of $`U(t)`$ defined from 222Note that this differs from the usual Lyapunov exponent that is defined considering $`U^{}U`$ — but one can that the eigenvalues of $`U`$ are on average also positive.:

$$\dot{U}_{ij}=E_{ik}U_{kj}$$
(6)
(Adding in general the $`k`$-th eigenvalue makes the path seek the saddles with $`k`$ unstable directions).

One can show that the path obtained with the Lyapunov term is concentrated with a density proportional to the barrier resistance $`e^{\beta E}|𝑱|^2`$ (cfr. Eq. (5)): thanks to this modification, if the trajectory is not constrained in any way, it will spend its time near a barrier (even if entropic), and not in a state (see Fig. 3), although the value of the action remains the same as for a pure Langevin weight. Thus the sampling can take better advantage of the regions that are difficult for the passage, also eliminating the problem of the large fluctuations associated with the jump time. If instead one end is tied to a minimum, the trajectory leaves the minimum and collapses to a globular shape around a nearby saddle (see Fig. 3): this can be used as a strategy to explore exit paths from a known configuration. The transition times in this setting can be calculated adapting the methods in Dellago et al. (1998).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

To show these results, and to place them in a wider context, we introduce the supersymmetric formalism. Let us start by artificially ‘completing the square’ in (3) as follows: we introduce the $`N`$ fermion creation and annihilation operators $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$, with anticommutation relations $`[a_i,a_j^{}]_+=\delta _{ij}`$, and define charges as:

$$\overline{Q}=ia_i^{}(T_i+E_i);Q=iTa_i_i$$
(7)
Both operators $`\overline{Q}`$ and $`Q`$ commute with $`H`$, are nilpotent $`\overline{Q}^2=Q^2=0`$, and:

$$H=\frac{1}{T}(\overline{Q}+Q)^2=H_{\text{FP}}+E_{ij}a_j^{}a_i$$
(8)
We consider a wave function $`|𝝍`$ in the enlarged space and:

$$\frac{d|𝝍}{dt}=H|𝝍$$
(9)
which yields a separate evolution for each fermion number subspace. The zero-fermion subspace is just the original space of probability distributions and (9) is the Fokker-Planck equation (3) for them. The one-fermion subspace is made of $`N`$-component functions $`R_i(𝒙)a_i^{}|`$ ($`|`$ the fermion vacuum) and (9) reduces to (4) for them. More generally, the $`k`$-fermion subspace is spanned by $`N!/k!(Nk)!`$ functions.

As is well known, $`H_{\text{FP}}`$ can be taken to a Hermitian form $`H_{\text{FP}}^h=e^{\beta E/2}H_{\text{FP}}e^{\beta E/2}`$, and this is also true of $`H`$:

$`H_{\text{FP}}^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[T^2_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}E_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}E_{ii}\right]`$ (10)
$`H^h`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta E/2}He^{\beta E/2}=H_{\text{FP}}^h+E_{ij}a_j^{}a_i`$ (11)
The eigenvalue equations are:

$$H\mathbf{|}𝝍^𝑹\mathbf{}=\lambda \mathbf{|}𝝍^𝑹\mathbf{};H^h\mathbf{|}𝝍^𝒉\mathbf{}=\lambda \mathbf{|}𝝍^𝒉\mathbf{}$$

where

$$\mathbf{|}𝝍^𝑹\mathbf{}=e^{\beta E/2}\mathbf{|}𝝍^𝒉\mathbf{}$$
(12)
Now, it is easy to see that applying $`Q`$ to any eigenvector $`\mathbf{|}𝝍^𝑹\mathbf{}`$ we get either a degenerate eigenvector with one less fermion, or zero. Similarly, applying $`\overline{Q}`$ we get either a degenerate eigenvector with one more fermion or zero. Clearly, both $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ annihilate the Gibbs measure. The spectrum is thus organized as in Fig 4.

The subspaces with non-zero fermion numbers are at this stage artificial. The main result we need here is that small-eigenvalue (right) eigenvectors with one fermion encode the transition currents between states. On the other hand, small-eigenvalue $`k`$-fermion eigenvectors in the Hermitian base are peaked in all the saddle points with exactly $`k`$ unstable directions.

States. Before discussing transition distributions, we need to specify what we understand in general by ‘states’. In cases in which there is a timescale separation $`\tau _{fast}\tau _{activ}`$, whatever its origin, the Fokker-Planck spectrum has a gap $`\tau _{fast}^1\tau _{activ}^1`$. Suppose there are $`K`$ eigenvalues ‘below the gap’. An important and intuitive result due to Gaveau and Schulman Gaveau and Schulman (1998) is that using linear combinations of them we can construct $`K`$ distributions that are essentially Gibbsean in $`K`$ disjoint regions, and elsewhere negligible. In other words, metastable states (up to a lifetime $`\tau _{activ}`$) are linear combinations of states below the gap, and conversely. All these statements become sharper the larger the gap. The case of small temperatures is emblematic: the ‘states’ are simply narrow distributions (typically of width $`\sqrt{T}`$) peaked around local minima. This can be shown immediately from the low $`T`$ expansion of (10).

Reaction Paths. Let us now sketch a proof of the fact that one-fermion eigenvectors below the gap give the reaction-path distribution between states, and their times. This means that Eq. (4) on times larger than $`\tau _{fast}`$ gives the reaction paths, and this in times much smaller than the passage-times $`\tau _{activ}`$ themselves.

Consider for simplicity the low-temperature situation, in which there are $`K`$ minima separated by energy barriers, and a Langevin evolution starting from each minimum with a certain probability. If the time is of the order of the inverse of the largest passage time between any of the $`K`$ states, there will be a current leaking through this saddle, and negligible flowing through all other paths (which take exponentially longer times). Next, consider times enough to allow the second fastest passage, there will be current flowing only through it: the faster reaction has already taken place (the states involved have mutually thermalized) and the slowest reactions-currents are exponentially smaller. If we continue this reasoning $`K`$ times, each time allowing for a new activation, we obtain a sequence of $`K`$ different linear combinations $`\varphi _K(𝒙),\mathrm{},\varphi _1(𝒙)`$ of the states below the gap, the last one $`\varphi _1(𝒙)`$ the Gibbs measure.

Consider next the $`K1`$ one-fermion right eigenvectors obtained acting with $`\overline{Q}`$ on the $`\varphi _2(𝒙),\mathrm{},\varphi _K(𝒙)`$:

$$\overline{Q}\varphi _a^L=(T_i+E_i)a_i^{}\varphi _a^L=J_i^a(x)a_i^{}|$$
(13)
From the preceding argument, they represent exactly $`K1`$ independent passage current distributions. Hence, in general each individual one-fermion eigenvector below the gap obtained as in (13) represents a passage current distribution with sources and sinks in the states (themselves defined as above). In the low temperature case, the distribution is non-negligible along a tube following ascending and descending gradient lines, passing through a barrier. The direction of $`J_i^a(x)`$ is parallel to the tube. The converse is also true: each passage between any two states is a linear superposition of these $`K1`$ currents.

In Fig. 4, we see that there are also one-fermion eigenvectors that are not the result of acting with $`\overline{Q}`$ as in (13). They are characterized by being annihilated by $`Q`$, and this implies that they correspond to divergenceless current distributions. They are ‘tours’, for example an activated process leading from a minimum to itself through a saddle (think for example of a tilted Mexican hat). They are automatically distinguished in this formalism: for example (5) yields infinite timescales for them.

Hermitian base: saddles and Morse Theory. One way to convince oneself that the formalism is a natural one is to see how it yields quite simply the topological relations between saddles (Morse theory). Let us review briefly the derivation in Witten (1982), specializing to the case of the topology of ordinary flat space and bounded systems. Consider the low temperature (harmonic) spectrum of (10): it is easy to show that $`k`$-fermion eigenvectors that have zero eigenvalue to leading order, are narrow Gaussians sitting on saddles with $`k`$ unstable directions. This one-to-one relation between eigenfunctions ‘below the gap’ in the Hermitian base and saddles implies, as can be seen from Fig. 4 that there are relations between the numbers of saddles with successive numbers of unstable directions: $`(1+n_1)`$, $`(n_1+n_2)`$, … , $`(n_{N1}+n_N)`$. The fact that $`n_a>0`$ constitute the strong Morse inequalities for our case.

CONCLUSIONS

We described a family of methods to find transition paths and saddle points that, to the best of our knowledge, are quite different from the standards ones. The statement of the algorithms is simple, but the inspiration for them – and indeed the proof that they work – is based on the supersymmetric quantum mechanics construction, and its connection to Morse theory. Although we could not provide here many details of the derivations, and we have not yet performed tests in really hard cases, we hope we have argued convincingly that the tools are quite relevant for the problem Tănase-Nicola and Kurchan (to be published).

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank N. Mousseau, W. Krauth, F. Schmüser and D. Wales for useful discussions.


text:
# The energy-momentum tensor as a second fundamental form

## 1. Introduction

In this paper, we show that there exists an analogy between the role of the energy-momentum tensor associated with an eigenspinor field of the Dirac operator and the role of the second fundamental form of a hypersurface.

In , O. Hijazi proved that on a compact Riemannian spin manifold, any eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the Dirac operator $`D`$, to which is attached an eigenspinor $`\psi `$, satisfies

$$\lambda ^2\underset{M}{inf}(\frac{1}{4}S+|T^\psi |^2),$$
($``$)
where $`S`$ is the scalar curvature of the manifold, and $`T^\psi `$ is the energy-momentum tensor associated with $`\psi `$. This lower bound gives a non-trivial information on the spectrum of $`D`$ without requiring $`S`$ to be positive (compare with Friedrich’s inequality ). Even though the r.h.s. of ($``$) depends on the eigenspinor $`\psi `$, we shall show that, in the case of a hypersurface, the limiting case can be geometrically interpreted.

Therefore, we begin by recalling basic facts regarding spin geometry of hypersurfaces, such as the identification of the restriction of the spin bundle of an ambient space with the spin bundle of a hypersurface, and the spinorial Gauß formula.

We then prove that the extrinsic lower bound for the eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on a compact hypersurface bounding a compact domain given in  is related to the intrinsic estimate ($``$). Equality cases are characterized by the existence of special sections of the spinor bundle, called *$`T`$-Killing spinors*, which generalize the notion of Killing spinors (these particular sections have been studied by E.C. Kim and Th. Friedrich in ).

Recall that complete simply connected Riemannian spin manifolds carrying real Killing spinors are characterized in . For this, C. Bär proved that the usual cone constructed over such a manifold has to be Ricci flat. The geometry of the cone being studied by S. Gallot in , it suffices then to apply the already known characterization of irreducible, simply connected Riemannian spin manifolds carrying parallel spinors ,.

In the last three sections, we show that the above argument can be generalized to Riemannian spin manifolds carrying $`T`$-Killing spinors in the following way:

We start by constructing a generalized warped product over a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$, deforming the initial metric in the direction of the energy-momentum tensor $`T^\psi `$ associated with a $`T`$-Killing spinor field $`\psi `$. Therefore, we can consider $`(M,g)`$ as a hypersurface of the constructed manifold $``$ whose second fondamental form is given by $`T^\psi `$. In the case where this $`2`$-symmetric tensor is parallel, we then show how this construction extends the one of the usual warped product. We finally prove that in the case of a manifold carrying a $`T`$-Killing spinor field whose energy-momentum tensor is a projector, the manifold $``$ has to be Ricci flat (Theorem 5.1).

## 2. The restriction principle and $`T`$-Killing spinors

### 2.1. Restricting spinors to a hypersurface

Let $`(N^{n+1},g)`$ be an oriented Riemannian spin manifold of dimension $`n+1`$, with a fixed spin structure. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ the spinor bundle associated with this spin structure. If $`M^n`$ is an oriented hypersurface isometrically immersed into $`N`$, denote by $`\nu `$ its unit, globally defined, normal vector field. Then $`M`$ is endowed with a spin structure, canonically induced by the one on $`N`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ the corresponding spinor bundle. Recall that the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ splits into

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }N=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+N\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}N$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm N`$ is the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspace for the action of the complex volume forme $`\omega _{n+1}=i^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}\omega `$. The following proposition is essential for what follows (see for example , , , ):

###### Proposition 2.1.

There exists an identification of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{|M}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+N_{|M}`$) if $`n`$ is even (resp. odd) with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, which after restriction to $`M`$, sends every spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ to the spinor field denoted by $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$. Moreover, if $`\underset{𝑁}{}`$ (resp. $``$) stands for Clifford multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$), then one has

$$(X\underset{𝑁}{}\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\psi )^{}=X\psi ^{},$$
(1)
for any vector field $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$.

Another important formula is the well-known spinorial Gauss formula: if $`^N`$ and $``$ stand for the covariant derivatives on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ respectively, then, for all $`XTM`$ and $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$

$$(_X^N\psi )^{}=_X\psi ^{}+\frac{1}{2}h(X)\psi ^{},$$
(2)
where $`h`$ is the second fundamental form of the immersion $`MN`$ viewed as a symmetric endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $`M`$.

Recall that the ambient spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ can be endowed with a Hermitian inner product $`(,)_N`$ for which Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`N`$ is skew-symmetric. This product induces another Hermitian inner product on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, denoted by $`(,)`$ making the identification of Proposition 2.1 an isometry. Now, relation (1) shows that Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`M`$ is skew-symmetric with respect to $`(,)`$.

### 2.2. On Hijazi’s inequality involving the energy-momentum tensor

We now discuss the role of the energy-momentum tensor associated with a special section of the spinor bundle when it is involved in lower bounds for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator. Recall the following estimate

###### Theorem 2.2 (Hijazi, ).

On a compact Riemannian spin manifold $`(M^n,g)`$, any eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of the Dirac operator to which is attached an eigenspinor $`\psi `$, satisfies

$$\lambda ^2\underset{M}{inf}(\frac{1}{4}S+|T^\psi |^2),$$
(3)
where $`S`$ is the scalar curvature of $`(M^n,g)`$, and $`T^\psi `$ the field of symmetric endomorphisms defined on the complement of the set of zeros of $`\psi `$ by

$$T^\psi (X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(X_Y\psi +Y_X\psi ,\frac{\psi }{|\psi |^2}).$$

By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one can easily check that this lower bound improves the one obtained by Th. Friedrich

$$\frac{n}{4(n1)}\underset{M}{inf}S,$$

and in particular, it may give a non-trivial lower bound in the case where $`inf_MS`$ is non-positive whereas Friedrich’s inequality requires $`S`$ to be positive.

If equality holds in (3), then $`\psi `$ has constant length,

$$\mathrm{tr}(T^\psi )^2=\frac{1}{4}S+|T^\psi |^2=\text{constant}$$
(4)
and

$$\mathrm{div}(T^\psi )=0.$$
(5)
Interpreting the energy-momentum tensor associated with a spinor field as a second fundamental form (see also ) leads to the following proposition and remarks:

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`M^n(N^{n+1},g)`$ be any compact oriented hypersurface isometrically immersed in an oriented Riemannian spin manifold $`(N^{n+1},g)`$, with constant mean curvature $`H`$ and second fundamental form $`h`$. Assume $`(N^{n+1},g)`$ admits a parallel spinor field, then $`M`$ satisfies the equality case in (3).

Moreover, the energy-momentum tensor associated with the spinor field $`\psi `$ in Theorem 2.2 satisfies

$$2T^\psi =h.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be any parallel spinor field on $`N`$. Then Proposition 2.1 and Gauß formula (2) yield

$$_X\psi +\frac{1}{2}h(X)\psi =0,$$
(6)
with $`\psi :=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Let $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ be a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$. Then for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ we have

$$_{e_j}\psi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}e_k\psi .$$

Taking Clifford multiplication by $`e_i`$ and the scalar product with $`\psi `$, we get

$$\mathrm{}(e_i_{e_j}\psi ,\psi )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}\mathrm{}(e_ie_k\psi ,\psi ).$$

Since $`\mathrm{}(e_ie_k\psi ,\psi )=\delta _{ik}|\psi |^2`$, it follows, by the symmetry of $`h`$

$$\mathrm{}(e_i_{e_j}\phi +e_j_{e_i}\psi ,\psi )=h_{ij}|\psi |^2.$$

Therefore, $`2T^\psi =h`$. Moreover, $`N`$ has to be Ricci-flat, and the Gauß Equation yields

$$\mathrm{tr}(2T^\psi )^2=n^2H^2=S+|2T^\psi |^2=\text{constant}.$$

Tracing Equation (6) completes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 2.4.

Since the Gauß equation implies

$$\frac{n^2}{4}H^2=\frac{1}{4}S+|T^\psi |^2=\text{constant},$$

we point out that we are exactly in the equality case of the extrinsic estimate given in  (Theorem 6), as expected.

###### Remark 2.5.

Conversely, we can not conclude that if $`(M,g)`$, $`dimM3`$, satisfies the equality case in (3), there exists an isometric immersion of $`M`$ as a hypersurface with constant mean curvature into a Riemmanian spin manifold with parallel spinors. However, this is true if $`dimM=2`$ (see ).

### 2.3. On $`T`$-Killing spinors

We now give basic properties of $`T`$-Killing spinors, which satisfy equality case in (3). They are generalizations of Killing spinors, and have been studied by Th. Friedrich and E.C. Kim in .

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian spin manifold. A $`T`$-Killing spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ is a spinor field which satisfies

$$_X\psi =T^\psi (X)\psi ,XTM$$
(7)
and

$$\mathrm{tr}(T^\psi )=\text{constant},$$

where $`T^\psi `$ is the energy-momentum tensor associated with $`\psi `$, defined as in Theorem 2.2. It is easy to see that such a spinor field is an eigenspinor for the Dirac operator and since it satisfies the equality case in (3), it also satisfies Equations (4) and (5). Moreover $`\psi `$ has constant length.

Indeed, computing the action of the spinorial curvature tensor $``$ on the spinor $`\psi `$, we see that necessarily, for all vector fields $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$,

$`(X,Y)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`_X_Y\psi _Y_X\psi _{[X,Y]}\psi `$
$`=`$ $`\left(T^\psi (Y)T^\psi (X)T^\psi (X)T^\psi (Y)\right)\psi `$
$`+\left((_YT^\psi )(X)(_XT^\psi )(Y)\right)\psi `$
and

$`\mathrm{Ric}(X)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e_i(e_i,X)\psi `$ (9)
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}(T^\psi )T^\psi (X)\psi 4T_\psi ^2(X)\psi 2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e_i(_{e_i}T^\psi )(X)\psi .`$
Recall the following definition

###### Definition 2.6.

A symmetric $`2`$-tensor $`TS^2(M)`$ is called a *Codazzi tensor* if it satisfies the Codazzi-Mainardi equation, i.e.

$$(_XT)(Y)=(_YT)(X)X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),$$
(10)
($`T`$ being viewed in this formula via the metric $`g`$ as a symmetric endomorphism of the tangent bundle).

To every nowhere vanishing spinor field $`\psi `$, we can associate the real vector field $`V_\psi `$ defined by

$$g(V_\psi ,X)=i(\psi ,T^\psi (X)\psi ),X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM).$$

Note that $`T`$-Killing spinors have the following property:

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`\psi `$ be a $`T`$-Killing spinor field. If $`T^\psi `$ is a Codazzi tensor, then the associated vector field $`V_\psi `$ is a Killing vector field.

###### Proof.

For all $`X,YTM`$, we compute

$`g(_XV_\psi ,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`Xg(V_\psi ,Y)g(V_\psi ,_XY)`$
$`=`$ $`i(_X\psi ,T^\psi (Y)\psi )+i(\psi ,_X(T^\psi (Y))\psi )`$
$`+i(\psi ,T^\psi (Y)_X\psi )i(\psi ,T^\psi (_XY)\psi )`$
and since Clifford multiplication by vector fields is skew-symmetric with respect to $`(.,.)`$, we have

$$g(_XV_\psi ,Y)=i(T^\psi (Y)T^\psi (X)\psi ,\psi )i(T^\psi (X)T^\psi (Y)\psi ,\psi )+i(\psi ,_X(T^\psi )(Y)\psi )$$

which is clearly skew-symmetric if (10) holds for $`T^\psi `$. ∎

###### Remark 2.8.

A spinor field satisfying Equation (7) and whose associated energy-momentum tensor $`T^\psi `$ is a Codazzi tensor is called a *Codazzi Energy-Momentum spinor*. This notion generalizes the notion of Killing spinors (see  for a study of these particular spinor fields). It is known that given a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ of dimension $`3`$, the existence of a non trivial Codazzi Energy-Momentum spinor field is equivalent to the existence of an isometric immersion of the universal covering of $`M`$ into the Euclidean $`4`$-dimensional space (see ).

## 3. Generalized warped product over a Riemannian manifold

Proposition 2.3 and Remarks 2.4 and 2.8 show that it is natural to consider the energy-momentum tensor associated with a spinor field satisfying (7) as the second fondamental form of an apropriate immersion. In this section, we give a natural construction of a generalized warped product over a Riemannian manifold.

Recall that if $`\pi :MN`$ is a smooth map between two manifolds, then two vector fields $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ and $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN)`$ are said to be $`\pi `$-related ($`X\stackrel{𝜋}{}Y`$) if $`\mathrm{d}\pi (X_p)=Y_{\pi (p)}`$ at all point $`p`$ in $`M`$. Two vector fields $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ and $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN)`$ are $`\pi `$-related if and only if $`X(f\pi )=Y(f)\pi `$ for all smooth function $`f`$ defined on $`N`$. Moreover, it is a classical fact that $`X_1\stackrel{𝜋}{}X_2`$ and $`Y_1\stackrel{𝜋}{}Y_2`$ imply $`[X_1,Y_1]\stackrel{𝜋}{}[X_2,Y_2]`$.

Now let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold. We denote by $``$ the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$. Let $`hS^2(M)`$ be a symmetric $`2`$-tensor, and $`f:I`$ a smooth function, with $`f(1)=0`$ and $`I=]1\epsilon ,1+\epsilon [`$, such that the metric

$$g_t=g+f(t)h$$
(11)
is well-defined on $`M`$ for all $`tI`$. We endow $`M\times I`$ with the metric

$$𝐠=\pi _M^{}(g_t)\pi _I^{}(\mathrm{d}^2t),$$
(12)
where $`\pi _M`$ and $`\pi _I`$ are respectively the first and second canonical projections of $`M\times I`$ on $`M`$ and $`I`$. We denote by $`=(M\times I,𝐠)`$ the generalized Riemannian warped product obtained by this construction.

Note that for $`f(t)=t^21`$ and $`h=g`$, this construction corresponds to the usual cone over $`M`$, the metric $`𝐠`$ being then defined by $`𝐠=t^2g+\mathrm{d}^2t`$ (see ). In the following, we will call $``$ a generalized cone if by definition $`f(t)=t^21`$

The lift of a vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ to $``$ will be called a horizontal vector field. By definition, it is the only vector field, $`\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$, such that $`\mathrm{d}\pi _M(\stackrel{~}{X})=X`$ and $`\mathrm{d}\pi _I(\stackrel{~}{X})=0`$. The set of horizontal vector fields will be denoted by $`()`$. In the following, $`_t`$ will stand for the unit vector field spanning $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TI)`$, as well as its lift to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$. Then we have the following classical proposition (see  for example):

###### Proposition 3.1.

If $`\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}()`$ are horizontal vector fields, then

$$[\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}]=\stackrel{~}{[X,Y]},\text{and}[\stackrel{~}{X},_t]=0.$$

If $`q:I`$ is a smooth function, then the gradient of $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q\pi _I:`$ is the lift of the gradient of $`q`$.

For all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ and $`tI`$ we denote by $`H_t(X)`$ the vector field defined by

$$g_t(H_t(X),Y)=h(X,Y),Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM).$$

###### Proposition 3.2.

If $`\mathbf{}`$ stands for the Levi-Civita connection of the generalized Riemannian warped product $``$, and $`^t`$ for the Levi-Civita connection of $`(M,g_t)`$, then for all $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$, we have the following generalized O’Neill formulas:

$`\mathbf{}__t_t`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t=\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},`$ (14)
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{_X^tY}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}h(X,Y)_t.`$ (15)
###### Proof.

Equality (13) is trivial. Hence, note that since $`𝐠(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)=0`$, we have

$$𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{X},_t)=0.$$

On the other hand, $`𝐠(_t,_t)=1`$ implies $`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,_t)=0`$. By the Koszul formula, we get

$`2𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ $`=`$ $`2𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,\stackrel{~}{Y})=_t(𝐠(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}))=_t(g_t(X,Y))`$
$`=`$ $`_t(g(X,Y))+_t(f(t)h(X,Y))=f^{}(t)h(X,Y)`$
$`=`$ $`f^{}(t)g_t(H_t(X),Y)=f^{}(t)𝐠(\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},\stackrel{~}{Y}),`$
which proves (14). Again, by the Koszul formula

$`2𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},_t)`$ $`=`$ $`_t(𝐠(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}))=_t(g_t(X,Y))`$
$`=`$ $`_t(g(X,Y))_t(f(t)h(X,Y))=f^{}(t)h(X,Y),`$
and

$`2𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}g_t(Y,Z)+\stackrel{~}{Y}g_t(Z,X)\stackrel{~}{Z}g_t(X,Y)`$
$`g_t(X,[Y,Z])+g_t(Y,[Z,X])+g_t(Z,[X,Y])`$
$`=`$ $`2g_t(_X^tY,Z)=2𝐠(\stackrel{~}{_X^tY},\stackrel{~}{Z}).`$
Therefore the proof of (15) is completed.∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

For all $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$, we have

$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}__t_t=\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}__t_t`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (16)
$`\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t=\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{X}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(H_t(X))}`$ (17)
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y}=\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{_X^tH_t(Y)}{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(X,H_t(Y))_t`$ (18)
$`\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A_t(X,Y)}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(_X^tY)}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}h(X,Y)_t`$ (19)
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{_X^t_Y^tZ}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}h(X,_Y^tZ)_t`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}Xh(Y,Z)_t{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(Y,Z)\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},`$
where $`A_t(X,Y)`$ is the vector field defined on $`M`$ by

$`g_t(A_t(X,Y),Z)`$ $`=`$ $`Xh(Y,Z)+Yh(Z,X)Zh(X,Y)`$
$`h(X,[Y,Z])+h(Y,[Z,X])+h(Z,[X,Y]).`$
###### Proof.

Equality (16) is trivial. Since $`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,_t)=0`$, we have $`𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,_t)=0.`$ Moreover,

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ $`=`$ $`_t𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,\stackrel{~}{Y})𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t,\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y})`$
$`=`$ $`_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},\stackrel{~}{Y})\right){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},\stackrel{~}{H_t(Y)})`$
$`=`$ $`_t\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}g_t(H_t(X),Y)\right){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}g_t(H_t(X),H_t(Y))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}g_t(H_t(X),Y){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}g_t(H_t(H_t(X)),Y)`$
$`=`$ $`𝐠({\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(H_t(X))},Y),`$
which proves (17). On the other hand,

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Z})𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Z})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{X}g_t(H_t(Y),Z)g_t(H_t(Y),_X^tZ)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{_X^tH_t(Y)},\stackrel{~}{Z}),`$
and

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},_t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},_t)𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}g_t(H_t(Y),H_t(X))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(H_t(X),Y).`$
Therefore, we proved (18). For (19), we show that

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},_t)`$ $`=`$ $`_t𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},_t)𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathbf{}__t_t)`$
$`=`$ $`_t({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}h(X,Y))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}h(X,Y)`$
and

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}__t\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ $`=`$ $`_t𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Z})𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y},\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{Z})`$
$`=`$ $`_t𝐠(\stackrel{~}{_X^tY},\stackrel{~}{Z}){\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{_X^tY},\stackrel{~}{H_t(Z)})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{A_t(X,Y)},\stackrel{~}{Z}){\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}𝐠(\stackrel{~}{H_t(_X^tY)},\stackrel{~}{Z}).`$
On the other hand, we have

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},_t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},_t)𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left(Xh(Y,Z)+g_t(_Y^tZ,H_t(X))\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left(Xh(Y,Z)+h(_Y^tZ,X)\right)`$
and

$`𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},\stackrel{~}{V})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},\stackrel{~}{V})𝐠(\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\stackrel{~}{Z},\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{V})`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}g_t(_Y^tZ,V)g_t(_Y^tZ,_X^tV){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(Y,Z)h(X,V)`$
$`=`$ $`g_t(_X^t_Y^tZ,V){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(Y,Z)g_t(H_t(X),V)`$
$`=`$ $`𝐠(\stackrel{~}{_X^t_Y^tZ},\stackrel{~}{V}){\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(Y,Z)𝐠(\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)},\stackrel{~}{V}).`$
Therefore the proof of (20) is completed. ∎

###### Proposition 3.4.

If $`𝐑`$ and $`R^t`$ denote respectively the Riemann curvature tensor of $``$ and of $`(M,g_t)`$, then we have the following relations:

$`𝑹(_t,_t)_t`$ $`=`$ $`𝑹(_t,_t)\stackrel{~}{X}=0`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}+{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}\stackrel{~}{H_t(H_t(X))}`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{_X^tH_t(Y)}+\stackrel{~}{H_t(_X^tY)}\stackrel{~}{A_t(X,Y)}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }(t)}{2}}h(X,Y)_t{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}h(X,H_t(Y))_t`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{_X^t(H_t)(Y)}\stackrel{~}{_Y^t(H_t)(X)}\right]`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R^t(X,Y)Z}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(t)}{2}}\left((_Yh)(X,Z)(_Xh)(Y,Z)\right)_t`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(f^{}(t))^2}{4}}\left(h(X,Z)\stackrel{~}{H_t(Y)}h(Y,Z)\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}\right).`$
###### Proof.

Straightforward from the preceding proposition.∎

###### Remark 3.5.

Let $`q`$ be a positive smooth function on $`I`$. Define $`f:=q^21`$ and $`h=g`$. Then $`g_t=q^2(t)g`$ and $``$ is the usual warped product constructed over $`M`$. We have $`f^{}=2qq^{}`$ and $`f^{\prime \prime }=2(qq^{\prime \prime }+(q^{})^2)`$, and since

$$q^2(t)g(H_t(X),Y)=g_t(H_t(X),Y)=h(X,Y)=g(X,Y),$$

we get

$$H_t(X)=\frac{1}{q^2(t)}X.$$

Therefore, it is straightforward to see that Propositions 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 correspond precisely to O’Neill Formulas ( p. 206 and 210).

In the following, take $`f(t)=t^21`$. If $`X,Y,Z,W\mathrm{\Gamma }(T(M\times _fI)_{|M})`$ are vector fields tangent to $`M`$ and $`_t`$ the unit normal vector field on $`M`$, then, Proposition 3.4 yields

$`𝐠(𝑹(X,_t)_t,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`h(H(X),Y)h(X,Y)`$
$`𝐠(𝑹(X,Y)_t,Z)`$ $`=`$ $`(_Xh)(Y,Z)(_Yh)(X,Z)`$
$`𝐠(𝑹(X,Y)Z,W)`$ $`=`$ $`g(R(X,Y)Z,W)+h(X,Z)h(Y,W)h(Y,Z)h(X,W).`$
As expected, the construction of $``$ allows the interpretation of $`h`$ as the second fundamental form of the hypersurface $`M\times \{1\}`$.

## 4. $`T`$-Killing spinors with parallel Energy-Momentum tensor

Assume now that $`(M^n,g)`$ admits a non trivial $`T`$-Killing spinor field $`\psi `$ with parallel energy-momentum tensor $`T^\psi `$. Consider the generalized cone $``$ over $`M`$, with $`h=2T^\psi `$.

Back to the construction of the cone, given $`X,YTM`$, it is straigthforward to see that,

$$_X^tY=_XY+(t^21)B^t(X,Y)$$

where the vector valued $`2`$-symmetric tensor $`B^t`$ is defined by

$$g_t(B^t(X,Y),Z)=(_Xh)(Y,Z)+(_Yh)(Z,X)(_Zh)(X,Y),ZTM.$$

Therefore, Propositions 3.2, 3.4 and formula (9) yield

###### Proposition 4.1.

Assume that $`(M^n,g)`$ admits a non trivial $`T`$-Killing spinor field $`\psi `$ with parallel energy-momentum tensor $`T^\psi `$. Then the Levi-Civita connection and the Riemann curvature tensor of the generalized cone $``$ over $`M`$, with $`h=2T^\psi `$ satisfy

$`\mathbf{}__t_t`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}_t=\mathbf{}__t\stackrel{~}{X}`$ $`=`$ $`t\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}`$
$`\mathbf{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{_XY}th(X,Y)_t,`$
and

$`𝑹(_t,_t)_t`$ $`=`$ $`𝑹(_t,_t)\stackrel{~}{X}=𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})_t=0`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)_t`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}+t^2\stackrel{~}{H_t(H_t(X))}`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`h(X,Y)_tt^2h(X,H_t(Y))_t`$
$`𝑹(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R(X,Y)Z}+t^2\left(h(X,Z)\stackrel{~}{H_t(Y)}h(Y,Z)\stackrel{~}{H_t(X)}\right).`$
Moreover, the Ricci tensor of $`(M^n,g)`$, viewed as a field of symmetric endomorphism, satisfies for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$

$$\mathrm{Ric}(X)=\mathrm{tr}(H)H(X)H^2(X)$$

where $`H`$ stands for $`H_1`$ with the above notations.

With the help of this proposition, we can give an explicit relation between the Ricci tensor of the generalized cone $``$ and the Ricci tensor of $`M`$. For this, we have to define a canonical local oriented orthonormal basis of $`T`$. At a fixed $`tI`$, define the symmetric positive endomorphism $`G_t`$ of $`TM`$ by

$$g_t(X,Y)=g(G_t(X),Y),X,YTM.$$

Now, given a local oriented orthonormal basis $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ of $`TM`$, we get the local oriented orthonormal basis $`(E_1,\mathrm{},E_n,_t)`$ of $`T`$ by defining, at each point $`(x,t)`$, the vector $`E_i(x,t)`$ as the lift of the vector

$$e_i^t(x):=G_t^{\frac{1}{2}}(e_i(x))T_xM$$

(where for all positive symmetric endomorphism $`B`$, $`B^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ stands for its positive square root).

Since $`g_t=g+(t^21)h`$, it is easy to see that $`G_t=\mathrm{Id}+(t^21)H`$ for all $`tI`$. Hence, at a fixed point $`tI`$, $`G_t`$ is parallel since we assumed that $`H`$ is parallel.

We then have the following

###### Corollary 4.2.

Denote the Ricci tensor of $``$ by $`\stackrel{~}{Ric}`$, then for all horizontal vector fields $`\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}()`$, we have at a fixed point $`(x,t)`$

$`\stackrel{~}{Ric}(\stackrel{~}{X},_t)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Ric}(_t,_t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}h(e_i^t,H_t(e_1^t)){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}h(e_i^t,e_i^t)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Ric}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(H)h(X,Y)h(H(X),Y)t^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}h(e_i^t,e_i^t)h(X,Y)+t^2h(H_t(X),Y).`$
###### Proof.

Straightforward from Proposition 4.1. Remark that since $`G_t`$ is parallel, we have

$$g_t(R(e_i^t,X)e_i^t,Y)=g(R(e_i,X)e_i,Y).$$

###### Remark 4.3.

As in Remark 3.5, assuming $`h=g`$, then $`g_t=t^2g`$ and $``$ is the usual cone over $`M`$. We get

$$H_t(X)=\frac{1}{t^2}X\text{and}e_i^t=\frac{1}{t}e_i.$$

Since $`2T^\psi =h`$, the spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ is actually a real Killing spinor field with Killing number $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and we recover C. Bär’s result which says that $``$ has to be Ricci flat ().

## 5. The case of a projector

If $`M`$ carries a $`k`$-dimensional parallel smooth distribution $`𝒦`$, we can define on $`M`$ a parallel field of symmetric endomorphisms $`H`$ satisfying $`H^2=H`$ as the projector on $`𝒦^{}`$, the orthogonal of $`𝒦`$. We can also consider the generalized cone $``$ over $`M`$ constructed with $`H`$. Then, if $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is an oriented orthonormal basis of $`TM`$ such that the vectors $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ span $`𝒦`$, we get

$$H_t(X)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }X𝒦\hfill \\ \frac{1}{t^2}X\hfill & \text{if }X𝒦^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$e_i^t=\{\begin{array}{cc}e_i\hfill & \text{if }1ik\hfill \\ \frac{1}{t}e_i\hfill & \text{if }k+1in.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, Corollary 4.2 implies the following

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold admitting a smooth parallel distribution $`𝒦`$ and let $`\psi `$ be a non-trivial $`T`$-Killing spinor whose energy-momentum tensor $`T^\psi `$ corresponds to the orthogonal projection on $`𝒦^{}`$. Then the generalized cone $``$ has to be Ricci flat.

The argument used by C. Bär in  seems to be still usefull in this situation. Therefore, we can formulate the following question in the case where $`(M^n,g)`$ is a compact Riemannian spin manifold admitting a smooth parallel distribution.

*Is it possible to find lower bounds for the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on $`(M^n,g)`$, such that the limiting cases are characterized by the existence of a non-trivial $`T`$-Killing spinor whose energy-momentum tensor is a projector?*

Such an estimate on a compact Riemannian spin manifold admitting a parallel 1-form is given in . One can note that the problem formulated above is a particular case of the problem of studying the spectrum of the Dirac operator on a manifold admitting a parallel $`k`$-form.