2

Fix a closed hypersurface $\Sigma$ in a Riemannian $3$-manifold $(M,g)$. Let $\Sigma_t$ be a family of closed hypersurfaces evolving from $\Sigma$ by inverse mean curvature flow (IMCF) in $M$. That is, given $x\in\Sigma$, they obey $$\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(x)=-\frac{\mathbf{H}}{H^2}=\frac{1}{H}\nu,\tag{D}$$ where $\mathbf{H}$ is the mean curvature vector of $\Sigma_t$ and $\Phi_{t\in(-\epsilon,\epsilon)}:M\to M$ is a one-parameter family of diffeomorphisms such that $\Phi_0$ is the identity map and $\Phi_t(\Sigma)=\Sigma_t$. If $d\mu_{\Sigma_t}$ denotes the Riemannian volume form on $\Sigma_t$, I would like to show that $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}d\mu_{\Sigma_t}=d\mu_{\Sigma_t}.\tag{1}$$ This formula is included in Geometric Relativity by Dan A. Lee, and he says that it can be inferred from Proposition 2.10, which reads:

enter image description here

The $X$ here is a vector field on $M$ defined by $$X(p)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\Phi_t(p),$$ and that $\hat{X}$ is the tangential part of $X$ obtained from the decomposition relative to the unit normal vector field $\nu$.

Idea: Since we are talking about the hypersurface case with $X$ being purely normal, I would opt for (P2) with vanishing $\hat{X}$, which gives me $$\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\mu(\Sigma_t)=\int_\Sigma H\varphi d\mu_\Sigma=\int_\Sigma d\mu_\Sigma=(\text{the area of $\Sigma$}).\tag{2}$$ This is still far from the desired equation (1). As a matter of fact, I don't even know how the author ditched that particular time instant $t=0$. Could somebody tell me what else he might have done to translate (2) into (1)? Thank you.

Added: Maybe I missed something important. The author said Proposition 2.10 tells us that for any $t$, $$\frac{d}{dt}(\Phi_t^*d\mu_{\Sigma_t})=\Phi_t^*(\mathrm{div}_{\Sigma_t}X_t)(\Phi_t^*d\mu_{\Sigma_t}),$$ where $X_t$ is defined by $$X_t(\Phi_t(p))=\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(p),$$ but I don't see how this works.

Boar
  • 357
  • Where in your argument do you use the fact that the flow is the IMCF? – Deane Aug 21 '23 at 12:39
  • @Deane Hello, I chose $\varphi=H^{-1}$ because $X=H^{-1}\nu$ according to the IMCF definition (D). – Boar Aug 21 '23 at 12:45
  • Are you sure there is no typo in formula (1). As written it says the time derivative of the volume form is equal to the volume form which looks off to me. – quarague Aug 21 '23 at 12:49
  • @quarague Hi, this is all that it is in the book, although the author refers to the volume form as the area measure. – Boar Aug 21 '23 at 12:58
  • 2
    You need the following fact: if $d\alpha$ and $d\beta$ are measures such that for any compactly supported smooth function $\chi$, $$\int \chi,d\alpha = \int \chi,d\beta,$$ then $d\alpha = d\beta$. – Deane Aug 21 '23 at 16:26
  • You have to make a different choice for $\phi$ based on my previous comment. – Deane Aug 22 '23 at 00:41
  • @Deane Thank you, but I don't really get it. Since our $X$ here is fixed as $X=H^{-1}\nu$, how do I choose a different $\varphi$? Are you suggesting scaling $\nu$ to have a different $\varphi$? – Boar Aug 22 '23 at 02:17
  • (P1) holds for any vector field $X$. So you’re allowed to use it as many times as you want with different choices for $X$. – Deane Aug 22 '23 at 02:33
  • @Deane Thank you, but (P1) is obtained with the choice that $X(p)=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\Phi_t(p)$. I'm afraid this formula doesn't apply to an arbitrary vector field. – Boar Aug 22 '23 at 03:23
  • 2
    @Wombat: (P1) is valid for any family $\Sigma_t$ or flow $\Phi_t,$ not just IMCF. Since you can extend any $X$ to a neighbourhood and then integrate it to get a corresponding flow, this formula indeed makes sense for arbitrary $X.$ – Anthony Carapetis Aug 22 '23 at 03:34
  • $\newcommand\R{\mathbb{R}}$Here's another observation. It or something similar to it plays a role. $\Phi_t$ is obtained from $X_t$ by solving an ODE. This implies the following: Consider two time-dependent vector fields $X_t$ and $Y_t$ that are equal for $[0,T)\times O \subset \R\times M$, where $O$ is open. Let $\Phi_t$ and $\Psi_t$ be the respective flows such that $\Phi_0=\Psi_0$. Then there exists $[0,T')\times O' \subset [0,T)\times O$ on which $\Phi = \Psi$. – Deane Aug 22 '23 at 13:32
  • 1
    Also, couldn't you compute $d\mu_{\Sigma_t}$ by a direct calculation and then differentiate it with respect to time? It might be messy but should be straightforward. It never hurts to figure out your own proof. You'll eventually understand Lee's proof, but there's no urgency to do so. – Deane Aug 22 '23 at 13:37
  • @Deane Thank you for your great help. Please allow me some time to think about it. – Boar Aug 22 '23 at 15:44

1 Answers1

4

The following formula is well known and probably found in most expositions of minimal (hyper)surfaces: Let $M$ be a manifold with Riemannian metric $g_M$ and $\Sigma$ be an $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold. Let $\Phi_t: \Sigma \rightarrow M$ be a smooth family of embeddings and $g_t = \Phi_t^*g_M$ be the family of induced Riemannian metrics such that at $t=0$, $$ \partial_t\Phi = \phi \nu, $$ where $\phi$ is a smooth function on $\Sigma$ and $\nu$ is the unit normal to $\Sigma_0$ in the direction of $\partial_t\Phi$. Then the volume measure $d\mu_t$ of $g_t$ satisfies $$ \partial_td\mu_t = \phi H d\mu_t. $$

Here is a calculation using local coordinates $(x^1, \dots, x^{n-1})$ on $\Sigma$ that shows this: For $t \ge 0$, let \begin{align*} g_{ij} &= g_M(\partial_i\Phi_t,\partial_j\Phi_t). \end{align*} It follows that \begin{align*} \partial_tg_{ij} &= g_M(\nabla_t\partial_i\Phi,\partial_j\Phi) + g_M(\partial_i\Phi,\nabla_t\partial_j\Phi)\\ &= g_M(\nabla_i\partial_t\Phi,\partial_j\Phi) + g_M(\partial_i\Phi,\nabla_j\partial_t\Phi)\\ &= g_M(\nabla_i(\phi\nu),\partial_j\Phi) + g_M(\partial_i\Phi,\nabla_j(\phi\nu))\\ &= \phi(g_M(\nabla_i\nu,\partial_j\Phi)+g_M(\partial_i\Phi,\nabla_j\nu))\\ &= 2\phi A_{ij}, \end{align*} where $A_{ij}\,dx^i\,dx^j$ is the second fundamental form. On the other hand, \begin{align*} \partial_td\mu_t &= \partial_t(\sqrt{\det g})\,dx. \end{align*} The formula now follows from the standard formula for the derivative of the determinant (when it is positive): \begin{align*} \partial_t(\log\det M)&= \operatorname{trace} M^{-1}\partial_tM. \end{align*}

A key trick here is to pull everything back to the fixed manifold $\Sigma$ and view everything as time-dependent functions on $\Sigma$. Viewing them as functions on $\Sigma_t$ is more confusing for me, so I avoid it.

You'll have to verify carefully that each step is valid. If you haven't done calculations like this in the past, you might want to use local coordinates on $M$ as well. There are slicker ways to justify the calculation above, but I always recommend working it out in local coordinates first.

Mr. Brown
  • 1,867
Deane
  • 10,298
  • Sir, you are right about it. I'm not familiar with computations in local coordinates. And now I'm thinking about why we can't choose local coordinates ${x^1,x^2}$ on $(\Sigma_{\color{red}t},g_t)$ and compute $(g_t){ij}=g_t(\partial_i,\partial_j)$, since $$d{\mu_{\Sigma_\color{red}{\ t}}}=\sqrt{\det(g_t)_{ij}}\ dx^1\wedge dx^2$$ is to be differentiated. – Boar Aug 23 '23 at 15:00
  • If you are able to do rigorous calculations using coordinates on $\Sigma_t$ rather than $\Sigma$, then that's fine. But notice that the domain of the coordinates $(x^1,x^2)$ changes with respect to $t$. For me, that's a lot harder to deal with than doing the calculation using coordinates on a fixed manifold $\Sigma$ that do not depend on t. If you look at my calculation, then only thing that depends on $t$ is $\Phi_t$. This simplifies the calculation quite significantly. – Deane Aug 23 '23 at 17:32
  • I feel like there was always a subtlety in this computation I never really understood. In the second equality of the computation of $\partial_t g_{ij}$, why does the Lie bracket $L:=[\partial_t\Phi,\partial_i\Phi]$ vanish? I assume that it that $L=\Phi_*[\partial_t,\partial_i]$, where we think of ${\partial_t,\partial_i}$ as coordinate vector fields on $(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times \Sigma$. But pushforwards of Lie brackets are tricky, so I was never sure on this point. – Mr. Brown Aug 25 '23 at 05:12
  • 2
    I'm with Deane here: abstract coordinates on $\Sigma_t$ could be completely unrelated to coordinates on $\Sigma$, and this doesn't help us do any computations. The idea is to use the chosen variation to transfer a fixed coordinate system on $\Sigma$ to the nearby $\Sigma_t$'s, cf. the bottom of page 3 here. The business about the naturality of the Lie bracket can also be found on Proposition 8.30 of the 2nd edition of Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. – Ivo Terek Aug 25 '23 at 06:16
  • @IvoTerek Hello, I read your lecture note: given a chart $(U;x^1,x^2)$ on $\Sigma$, we can produce a chart $(\Phi_t(U);x^1\circ\Phi_t^{-1},x^2\circ\Phi_t^{-1})$ on $\Sigma_t$, whose coordinates still depend on $t$. It doesn't seem to make any difference. Eventually, we still have to differentiate the entire RHS of $$d\mu_{\Sigma_{\ t}}=\sqrt{\det(g_t)_{ij}}\ dx_t^1\wedge dx_t^2.$$ I mean, how do I make $dx_t^1\wedge dx_t^2$ irrelevant to $t$ and thus mean me no harm when I take the $t$-derivative? – Boar Aug 25 '23 at 13:14
  • Looking quickly, I'm under the impression that you might be still omitting a pull-back: when we write $(\Phi_t^*){\rm d}\mu_{\Sigma_t} = v(t) {\rm d}\mu_\Sigma$ and take the $t$-derivative, we are looking at the right side instead of the left, and $t$ does not enter ${\rm d}\mu_\Sigma$ whatsoever. – Ivo Terek Aug 25 '23 at 18:36
  • @IvoTerek Please let me write down my computations and see what else I missed: $$\begin{align} d\mu_{\Sigma_{\ t}}&=\sqrt{\det(g_t){ij}}\ dx_t^1\wedge dx_t^2\ &=\sqrt{\det(g_t){ij}}\ d(x^1\circ\Phi_t^{-1})\wedge d(x^2\circ\Phi_t^{-1})\ &=\sqrt{\det(g_t)_{ij}}\ (\Phi_t^{-1})^(dx^1\wedge dx^2) \end{align}$$ What should I do to differentiate $(\Phi_t^{-1})^$ with respect to $t$, please? Thank you. – Boar Aug 25 '23 at 23:44
  • Right. You won't really take the $t$-derivative of ${\rm d}\mu_{\Sigma_t}$, but instead of $\Phi_t^*{\rm d}\mu_{\Sigma_t}$, which, by your computation above, equals $\sqrt{\det(g_t)_{ij} \circ \Phi_t}, {\rm d}x^1\wedge {\rm d}x^2$. – Ivo Terek Aug 26 '23 at 00:04
  • @IvoTerek I wish I could understand what you really mean, but I just can't get it: is it totally wrong to say $$d\mu_{\Sigma_{\ t}}=\sqrt{\det(g_t){ij}}\ d(x^1\circ\Phi_t^{-1})\wedge d(x^2\circ\Phi_t^{-1})?$$ And why should we take care of $\Phi_t^*{\rm d}\mu{\Sigma_t}$? After all, the very truth we want to justify is whether $d\mu_{\Sigma_t}$ is preserved by $\partial_t$, isn't it? – Boar Aug 26 '23 at 00:31
  • The problem is that differentiating $ d\mu_{\Sigma_t} $ with respect to $t$ is that for different values of $t$, this is a volume form on different domains. In other words, if $t \ne t'$, then $d\mu_t$ is a differential form on $\Sigma_t$ and $d\mu_{t'}$ is a differential form on $\Sigma_{t'}$. It is not obvious how to differentiate this as $\Sigma_t$ moves in $\mathbb{R}^3$. I think it can be worked out. I think that in fact that might be what Lee is doing – Deane Aug 26 '23 at 13:58
  • @Deane May I ask a question, please? How do I interpret $\partial_i\Phi_t$? It doesn't look like a vector field. My guess would be that $$(g_t){ij}=g_t(\partial_i,\partial_j)=g_M((\Phi_t)\partial_i,(\Phi_t)_\partial_j),$$ where $(\Phi_t)_*$ is the push-forward(differential) of $\Phi_t$. Thank you. – Boar Aug 28 '23 at 05:59
  • 1
    @Wombat, yes. That is correct. – Deane Aug 28 '23 at 12:37
  • @Deane Can I ask you a $\textbf{logical}$ question, please? I just derived $\partial_t(g_t){ij}=2\phi A{ij}$ and $\partial_t(g_t)^{ij}=-2\phi A^{ij}$, using $\textbf{normal coordinates}$. Can I logically conclude from my result that any other local coordinates give $\partial_t(g_t)^{ij}=-2\phi A^{ij}$? I suppose not, because normal coordinates are not arbitrary coordinates. – Boar Sep 12 '23 at 09:29
  • 1
    @Wombat, that's not question about logic. That's a fundamental question about what a tensor is and how it behaves under change of coordinates.. – Deane Sep 13 '23 at 02:17
  • 1
    @Deane I'm sorry. I found that $\partial_t(g_t)^{ij}=-2\phi A^{ij}$ does hold for any local coordinates, because all we need is to differentiate $(g_t)^{ik}(g_t){k\ell}=\delta\ell^i$ and trace the result with $(g_t)^{\ell j}$, which process does not rely on properties of normal coordinates at all. – Boar Sep 13 '23 at 11:43
  • 1
    @Deane Sir, if I expand on your calculation of $g(\partial_i(\phi\nu),\partial_j\Phi_t)$, is it like $$g(\partial_i(\phi\nu),\partial_j\Phi_t)=g\left(\ (\partial_i\phi)\nu+\phi\nabla_i\nu,\partial_j\Phi_t\ \right)?$$ And then, the term $g\left(\ (\partial_i\phi)\nu,\partial_j\Phi_t\ \right)$ dies out because $\nu$ is perpendicular to $\partial_j\Phi_t$? Thank you. – Boar Sep 13 '23 at 13:08
  • 1
    @Wombat, yes. That is correct. One quibble is that in what you wrote in your comment, $\partial_i(\phi\nu)$ should be $\nabla_i(\phi\nu)$. – Deane Sep 13 '23 at 14:33
  • @Deane Sir, how did you know $g\left( \nabla_i\nu,(\Phi_t)*\partial_j \right)=A{ij}$? If I follow the textbook by John M. Lee, the scalar second fundamental form $A$ is defined by $A(X,Y)=g(sX,Y)$, where $s$ is the shape operator. Now the Weingarten equation tells us $\nabla_i\nu=s\partial_i$. So we get $g\left( \nabla_i\nu,(\Phi_t)*\partial_j \right)=g\left( s\partial_i,(\Phi_t)\partial_j \right)$. This result seems to have nothing to do with $A$. How did you tackle $(\Phi_t)_\partial_j$? Thank you. – Boar Sep 13 '23 at 23:30