Abstract
We identify various structures on the configuration space C of a flying saucer, moving in a three-dimensional smooth manifold M. Always C is a five-dimensional contact manifold. If M has a projective structure, then C is its twistor space and is equipped with an almost contact Legendrean structure. Instead, if M has a conformal structure, then the saucer moves according to a CR structure on C. With yet another structure on M, the contact distribution in C is equipped with a cone over a twisted cubic. This defines a certain type of Cartan geometry on C (more specifically, a type of ‘parabolic geometry’) and we provide examples when this geometry is ‘flat,’ meaning that its symmetries comprise the split form of the exceptional Lie algebra \({\mathfrak {g}}_2\).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bryant, R.L.: Two exotic holonomies in dimension four, path geometries, and twistor theory. In: Complex Geometry and Lie Theory, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. vol. 53, Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 33–88 (1991)
Čap, A., Slovák, J.: Parabolic Geometries I: Background and General Theory. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2009)
Cannas da Silva, A.: Lectures on Symplectic Geometry. Springer, London (2001)
Dunajski, M., Eastwood, M.G.: Metrisability of three-dimensional path geometries. Eur. J. Math. 2, 809–834 (2016)
Eastwood, M.G., Nurowski, P.: Aerobatics of flying saucers. Commun. Math. Phys. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03621-2
Engel, F.: Sur un groupe simple á quatorze paramètres. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 116, 786–788 (1893)
Fox, D.J.F.: Contact projective structures. Indiana Univ. Math. Jour. 54, 1547–1598 (2005)
Harrison, J.R.: Some Problems in the Invariant Theory of Parabolic Geometries, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (1995)
LeBrun, C.R.: Twistor CR manifolds and three-dimensional conformal geometry. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 284, 601–616 (1984)
LeBrun, C.R.: \({\cal{H}}\)-space with a cosmological constant. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 380, 171–185 (1982)
Lee, J.M.: Manifolds and Differential Geometry. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2009)
Matveev, V.S., Trautman, A.: A criterion for compatibility of conformal and projective structures. Commun. Math. Phys. 329, 821–825 (2014)
Montgomery, R.: A Tour of Subriemannian Geometries, their Geodesics and Applications. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2002)
Nurowski, P.: Projective versus metric structures. J. Geom. Phys. 62, 657–674 (2012)
Penrose, R., Rindler, W.: Spinors and Space-Time, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)
Rumin, M.: Un complexe de formes différentielles sur les variétés de contact. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Math. 310, 401–404 (1990)
Takeuchi, M.: Lagrangean contact structures on projective cotangent bundles. Osaka J. Math. 31, 837–860 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by P. Chrusciel
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work was supported by the Simons Foundation Grant 346300 and the Polish Government MNiSW 2015–2019 matching fund. It was written whilst the first author was visiting the Banach Centre at IMPAN in Warsaw for the Simons Semester ‘Symmetry and Geometric Structures’ and during another visit to Warsaw supported by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN) via the POLONEZ Grant 2016/23/P/ST1/04148, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 665778
.
Appendix: Harmonic Curvature of a \(G_2\) Contact Structure
Appendix: Harmonic Curvature of a \(G_2\) Contact Structure
As already mentioned (see [2] for the general theory), the harmonic curvature of a \(G_2\) contact structure is a section of the bundle . This binary septic may be obtained by the Cartan equivalence method.
Specifically, a \(G_2\) contact structure on a five-dimensional manifold C may be specified in terms of an adapted co-frame as follows. Firstly, we choose a 1-form \(\omega ^0\) whose kernel is the contact distribution \(H\subset TC\). Non-degeneracy of the contact distribution says that \(\omega ^0\wedge d\omega ^0\wedge d\omega ^0\not =0\). The \(G_2\) structure is then determined by completing \(\omega ^0\) to a co-frame \(\omega ^0,\omega ^1,\omega ^2,\omega ^3,\omega ^4\) so that
for some smooth function \(\chi \). Specifically, if \(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4\) is the dual frame, then \(H={\mathrm {span}}\{X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4\}\) and the twisted cubic (21) may be given as
compatibility with the Levi form being a consequence of (27). Imposing the structure equations (27) leaves precisely the following freedom in choice of co-frame:
for arbitrary functions \(t_5,t_6,t_7,t_8,t_9,t_{10},t_{11},t_{12},t_{13}\) on C subject only to \(t_9(t_5t_8-t_6t_7)\not =0\). (The functions \(t_5,t_6,t_7,t_8\) correspond to
as a change of parameterisation in (28) whilst \(t_9,t_{10},t_{11},t_{12},t_{13}\) modify the co-frame with multiples of \(\omega ^0\).) To proceed with Cartan’s method of equivalence, we now pass to the bundle \(\widetilde{C}\rightarrow C\) whose sections are frames adapted according to (27). It is a G-principal bundle where G is the 9-dimensional Lie subgroup of \({\mathrm {GL}}(5,{\mathbb {R}})\) given in (29) and comes tautologically equipped with 1-forms \(\theta ^0,\theta ^1,\theta ^2,\theta ^3,\theta ^4\) whose pull-backs along a section are \(\omega ^0,\omega ^1,\omega ^2,\omega ^3,\omega ^4\), the co-frame on C corresponding to that section. Cartan’s aim is to extend this to an invariant co-frame on \(\widetilde{C}\) by making various normalisations. For our purposes we need not take these normalisations too far. For calculation, we choose a co-frame on C adapted according to (27) so that \(\widetilde{C}\) is identified as \(G\times C\) and the forms \(\theta ^0,\theta ^1\,\theta ^2,\theta ^3,\theta ^4\) are given as
Step 0 Normalise the co-frame on C so that
This is easily achieved by the freedom
and determines the functions \(t_{10},t_{11},t_{12},t_{13}\).
Step 1 Find \(\theta ^5\) such that
This may be achieved by setting \(-t_9=\Delta ^3/\chi \), where \(\Delta =t_6t_7-t_5t_8\) and then
for some function s.
Step 2 Find \(\theta ^7,\theta ^8,\theta ^9\) such that
is of the form \(c^1{}_{\mu \nu }\theta ^\mu \wedge \theta ^v\) for \(\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3,4\). It follows that
It turns out that
where \(\psi _0,\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3,\psi _4,\psi _5,\psi _6,\psi _7\) are functions on C. These are the coefficients of the invariantly defined harmonic curvature. In fact, if
on C and we write
then
From the general theory of parabolic geometry [2, Theorem 3.1.12] we find the following characterisation of flat \(G_2\) contact structures.
Theorem 5
The local symmetry algebra of the \(G_2\) contact structure specified by a co-frame adapted according to (30) is the split exceptional Lie algebra \(G_2\) if and only if \(\psi _0,\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3,\psi _4,\psi _5,\psi _6,\psi _7\) given by (32) all vanish. Moreover, in this case, the manifold C is locally isomorphic to the homogeneous model.
Remark
The formulæ (31) and (32) may alternatively be derived as follows. According to (20), the exterior derivative \(d:\wedge ^1\rightarrow \wedge ^2\) gives rise, via the diagram
to an invariantly defined first order differential operator
In fact, this is nothing more than the second operator in the Rumin complex [16], which depends only on the contact structure on C. The exterior derivative, on the other hand, may be written as \(\omega _b\mapsto \nabla _{[a}\omega _{b]}\) for any torsion-free connection \(\nabla _a\) on TC. Thus, the Rumin operator (33) may be written with spinor indices [15], adapted to our cause, as
One may readily check that the formulæ (31) and (32) amount to the stipulation that
for all sections \(\pi _A\) of . Note, by the Leibniz rule
that the right hand side of (35) is homogeneous of degree 7 over the functions and, therefore, automatically of the form given on the left. It follows that \(\psi _{ABCDEFG}\) is the obstruction to writing (33) as
where \({\mathcal {D}}_{ABC}\) is induced by a connection on , because the Leibniz rule for such a connection would imply that
and the right hand side of (35) would therefore vanish. In other words, the formula (34) depends on \(\nabla _a\) being torsion-free and \(\psi _{ABCDEFG}\) may be seen as some invariant part of the partial torsion of a freely chosen spinor connection \({\mathcal {D}}_a:S\rightarrow \wedge ^1\otimes S\).
More specifically, suppose \({\mathcal {D}}_a:S\rightarrow \wedge ^1\otimes S\) is any connection and define its partial torsion\(T_{ABCD}{}^{EFG}=T_{(ABCD)}{}^{(EFG)}\) according to
Changing the connection \({\mathcal {D}}_a\), leads to a change of partial connection according to
and, therefore, an induced change on , namely
It follows that
and, therefore, that
whence the partial torsion of \({\mathcal {D}}_a\) changes according to
In particular, the trace-free part of \(T_{ABCD}{}^{EFG}\), equivalently
is an invariant of the \(G_2\) contact structure.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eastwood, M., Nurowski, P. Aerodynamics of Flying Saucers. Commun. Math. Phys. 375, 2367–2387 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03622-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03622-1