Is the Dual of a Reeb field a Contact Form?

In summary, the conversation discusses the conditions for a 1-form to be a contact form on a 3-dimensional manifold. It is noted that in a 1-dimensional situation, there is not much room for different structures. However, there may be multiple contact structures on a 3-dimensional manifold. The conversation also mentions the Reeb field associated with a contact form and the difference between a contact vector field and a Reeb field. The concept of tight and overtwisted structures is also brought up.
  • #1
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,910
10,292
Hi, All:

Let X be a Reeb vector field, and let ω be a 1-form dual to X. Is ω necessarily a contact form?

I know if we have a contact 1-form θ , and Zθ is the Reeb field associated with θ

, then from the definition of Reeb field, we have θ (Zθ)=1, which mostly means

that θ is nowhere zero, and we can rescale it to make it be 1 . But is the opposite the case,

i.e., if θ (Rθ)=1 , does it follow that Rθ is the Reeb field associated to

θ ? It seems like, since we're in a 1-dimensional situation, there isn't much room to maneuver

and get different things.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
As far as I remember, ##\theta (R) = 1## is not the only condition for R to be a Reeb field. Don't you also need

[tex]d \theta \; (R) = 0 \; ?[/tex]
That may be sufficient information to answer your question.
 
  • #3
Thanks, but the problem is that I don't have an explicit representation for the form, so that I can evaluate whether dw( R,.)=0 ; all I know is that the form w is dual to the Reeb field ( under, say , a choice of Riemannian metric ; I think this is called the Musical isomorphism between tangent and cotangent bundles). Since the form is defined on a 1-manifold, all forms and vector fields are 1-dimensional. I thought this would simplify things, but maybe not.

WWGD: What Would Gauss Do ?
 
  • #4
On a 1-dimensional manifold, isn't every nonvanishing 1-form a contact form? It seems trivial to me...in fact I thought you needed at least 3 dimensions to talk sensibly about contact structures.
 
  • #5
Good point; yes; the manifold itself is 3-dimensional (in this case; it must be (2n+1)-dimensional, for finite n), but the contact form is itself a 1-form w so that the 3-form ##w \wedge dw ≠ 0##, i.e., w is nowhere-integrable (and, if the form is a global form, then the manifold must be orientable, since then ## w \wedge dw ≠ 0## is a global nowhere-zero form for M). I think this last is a corollary of Frobenius' theorem (the one that gives conditions for the integrability of the manifold). So, at the end of the day, I guess we consider a 1-dimensional subspace of forms in a (graded) space of , dimension, I think, ## 2^n ## of 1,2, and 3-forms.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Now I'm confused. Are we talking about a 1-dimensional or a 3-dimensional space?

Where did 1-dimensional come from?
 
  • #7
No; sorry, the space itself is 3-dimensional. I'm referring to a contact 1-form on a 3-manifold. The form itself is a 1-form w , satisfying ##w \wedge dw ≠ 0 ##
 
  • #8
Can a 3-dimensional manifold have more than 1 contact structure? That is, where equivalence is modulo exact forms and multiplication by nonzero functions.

I think the answer is yes, since the cone over a contact manifold has a symplectic structure, and in 4 dimensions you can have 3 distinct symplectic structures.

A simpler way to approach your question may be to stick with R^3 and the standard Euclidean metric. If it is true anywhere, it is probably true there. And if it is not true, it should give you a clear idea what prevents it being true.
 
  • #9
Well, I was thinking now that there may be just one contact structure on a 3-manifold ## M^3 ##, but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, but I can't see the flaw in my argument: since the (sub)space of 1-forms in ##TM^{*} M^3 ## is 1-dimensional, then every 1-form is of the type fdx , for f any ## C^ {\infty}## function... Ouch, I realized just now that the space of 1-forms in ## M^3 ## is not 1-dimensional; it is 3-dimensional. A basis could be given by {## dx,dy,dz ##}. So my argument for why we can have only 1 contact structure (basically, if the space of 1-forms actually was 1-dimensional, then every 1-form would be of the type fdx , and the kernel of fdx equals the kernel of gdx for f,g ## C^ {\infty}##) fails.

It seems to come down to linear algebra; having 1-linear maps in a 3-D vector space. If there was just one contact form, that would imply that every single 1-linear map has the same kernel (since the kernel at a point is the contact plane) , which is not the case. ALTHO, we need to mod out by isotopy; the kernels of the 1-forms may be different as assignments of contact planes, but these assignments may become equal up to isotopy. But I think we need the isotopy (done individual-plane-wise) has to be done thru contact structures, to guarantee that the isotope planes are still contact planes.

It would be nice to know of some invariants of contact structures, to help decide if different structures are equivalent. I know only one, but I don't know how to test it: a contact structure can be either tight, or overtwisted; I think it has to see with the orbits of the Reeb field associated with the structure: if the orbits loop, or not. Not very precise; let me look into it. Thanks for your the feedback , it is helping me clear things up.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Hey, Ben, according to Wikipedia ( see the part under "Reeb Field" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_geometry ), the Reeb field X associated to a contact form ## w## can be defined as the unique element in the kernel of dw satisfying ## w(X)=1 ##. It is interesting to try to tell the difference between a contact vector field -- a vector field whose flow preserves the contact structure ( tho it does not necessarily preserve the form itself; it preserves it only up to product by a function ) , while the Reeb field (the pushforward along the flow) actually preserves the form itself. I'll try to read into that, and into tight and overtwisted structures. Thanks again for the feedback.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the Dual of a Reeb field?

The Dual of a Reeb field is a mathematical concept in differential geometry that is used to study contact forms. It is defined as the set of one-forms that annihilate the Reeb vector field.

2. What is a Contact Form?

A Contact Form is a differential one-form on a manifold that satisfies certain conditions related to the tangent spaces. It is used to study contact geometry, which is a branch of mathematics that deals with hypersurfaces.

3. What is the significance of the Dual of a Reeb field?

The Dual of a Reeb field is significant because it provides a way to study contact forms and contact geometry. It helps to understand the properties and behavior of contact forms on a manifold.

4. How is the Dual of a Reeb field related to contact forms?

The Dual of a Reeb field is closely related to contact forms as it is defined in terms of the Reeb vector field, which is a crucial component of contact forms. It is used to study the properties of contact forms and their behavior on a manifold.

5. How is the Dual of a Reeb field used in research?

The Dual of a Reeb field is used in research to study contact forms and contact geometry. It is also used in the study of symplectic geometry and Hamiltonian dynamics. It has applications in various fields, including physics, engineering, and computer science.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
408
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top