arXiv:2105.11264v1 [math.DG] 24 May 2021
BALLS
IURY DOMINGOS, RONEY SANTOS, AND FELICIANO VIT ´ORIO
Abstract. In this article, we prove new geometric integral inequalities for free boundary hypersurfaces in the unit ball of a space form. We also give some applications of these formula in order to obtain some rigidity results. For instance, we are able to show, in the three dimensional case, a relationship between the geometry of a hypersurface and the topology of its boundary. Moreover, we also reobtain the classical Nitsche Theorem as well as its generalisation for constant mean curvature surfaces in space forms balls, and we provide a new point of view to the Catenoid Conjecture.
1. Introduction
Minimal surface is a traditional subject studied in Differential Geometry since 18th cen- tury. Initially motivated by variational problems, L. Euler and J. Lagrange considered the problem of finding a surface which is area-minimizing within a given boundary configu- ration. In 1849, J. Plateau, a mathematical physicist, verified that minimal surfaces can be obtained by immersing a wire frame into a soapy water, and since then, the problem proposed by L. Euler and J. Lagrange became known as Plateau Problem. In 1931, the existence of those surfaces when the boundary is a Jordan curve was showed independently by J. Douglas and T. Rad´o, and it is a milestone in minimal surfaces theory.
In terms of the mean curvature, minimal surfaces have zero mean curvature. A general- ization of these surfaces are the constant mean curvature surfaces. They also minimize area subject to a volume constraint.
The main goal of this work is to study free boundary constant mean curvature hypersur- faces in balls in space forms. For our propose, a compact hypersurface Σ, with non-empty boundary ∂Σ, into a ball B in a space form Mn+1c is said a free boundary hypersurface in B if int(Σ)⊂ int(B), ∂Σ ⊂ ∂B and Σ meets ∂B orthogonally.
This kind of problem was firstly studied in the middle of 20th century by R. Courant and H. Lewy. In their study, they consider the area-minimizing problem among all surfaces with predetermined boundary lying in a surface. It is worthwhile mention that it is a natural extension of Plateau Problem.
In the unit ball B centered at the origin of R3, the simplest examples of free bound- ary constant mean curvature surfaces are the equatorial disk, some spherical caps and the
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 58J32; Secondary 53A10, 58C35.
Key words and phrases. Free boundary problem, minimal surfaces, geometric inequality.
The second author was partially supported by CAPES/Brazil.
1
critical catenoid (for this last surface, see [14, Example 1.2]). Very many examples of free boundary minimal surfaces were obtained for a large class of surfaces with different number of boundary connected components and genus (cf. [11, 15, 17]). In the higher dimensional case, we also have examples of free boundary minimal hypersufaces (cf. [16]).
Many results suggest that there is interesting analogy between closed minimal subman- ifolds in the sphere and free boundary minimal submanifolds in the Euclidean ball. For example, the classical Nitsche Theorem states that a free boundary minimal disk in the unit ball centered at the origin of the R3 is the equatorial disk (cf. [19]), and the Almgren Theorem states that a minimal sphere in S3 is an equator of S3 (cf. [4]).
Due to the work of A. Fraser and R. Schoen, free boundary surfaces receives many at- tention in the last decade. In [13] and [15], they studied the spectrum of the Dirichlet-to- Neumann map on surfaces with boundary and showed that any smooth metric maximizing the first normalized Steklov eigenvalue must be realized by a free boundary minimal surface.
On the recent research in free boundary minimal surfaces, it is important to highlight the acclaimed conjecture about the critical catenoid due to A. Fraser and M. Li. In comparison with closed minimal surfaces in S3, this conjecture is analogous to the uniqueness of minimal torus in S3 (cf. [6, Theorem 1]).
Catenoid Conjecture ([12]). The unique free boundary minimal annulus in the Euclidean unit ball centered at the origin of R3 is the critical catenoid.
This work is organized as follows. In section 2, we quote some basic concepts and facts which will be used and addressed throughout this paper. The first fact is the Simons Inequality for constant mean curvature hypersurfaces in space forms. Next, we remember a version of a Hardy-type integral inequality, due to M. Batista, H. Mirandola and the third author, for free boundary constant mean curvature hypersurfaces in the unit ball in a space form with non-positive constant sectional curvature; we finish this section establishing a relationship between geometric objects of this hypersurfaces restricted to its boundary, and the geometric objects of this boundary as a hypersurface of the boundary of the ball.
In section3, we integrate the Simons Inequality to find our first geometric inequality for free boundary constant mean curvature hypersurfaces in the unit ball in space forms. In this situation, we also characterise the totally umbilical n-disks in the equality case. As a consequence, in the three-dimensional case, we can relate the geometry of this hypersurface and the topology of its connected boundary components.
In section 4, we present another parallel about closed minimal surfaces in S3 and free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit Euclidean ball. In [8], G. Catino established a geometric integral inequality for closed constant mean curvature hypersurfaces in space forms, and as consequence, he has reobtained the Hopf-Chern Theorem. In this direction, we first generalise [8, Theorem 1.1] for constant mean curvature hypersurfaces with non-empty boundary. Using this new inequality and the free boundary condition, we obtain another integral inequality and, as consequence, we reobtain the Nitsche Theorem [20, Theorem 2.1]
for constant mean curvature surfaces in space forms balls, and we characterise geometrically the equality in dimension more than two, and topologically in the two-dimensional case. This
last characterisation in the two-dimensional case provides a new perspective to the Catenoid Conjecture.
Throughout this article, we will omit the volume element in the integrals.
2. Preliminaries
Let Σn be a oriented smooth hypersurface in a space form Mn+1c with constant section curvature c∈ R. Let us denote by A the Weingarten operator of Σ. The mean curvature H of Σ is defined as the trace of A. We also consider the umbilicity tensor φ of Σ, given by
φ = A− H nI,
where I is the identity tensor on TΣ, and the polynomial pH associated to Σ defined by pH(t) = t2+ n− 2
pn(n− 1)|H|t − H2
n − nc, t ∈ R.
The following result is the Simons Inequality for hypersurfaces with constant mean cur- vature. For sake of completeness, we present a proof for this result and characterise the equality when the hypersurface is not totally umbilical and has dimension greater than 2.
Lemma 2.1(Simons Inequality, [2,1]). Let Σn be a hypersurface in Mn+1c . If Σ has constant mean curvature H, then at the points of Σ we have
(2.1) |φ|2pH(|φ|) ≥ n + 2
n |∇Σ|φ||2− 1
2∆Σ|φ|2.
Moreover, if n ≥ 3 and Σ is not a totally umbilical hypersurface, the equality occurs if, and only if:
(i) Σ is a catenoid when H = 0 and c≤ 0;
(ii) Σ is either a Clifford torus or an Otsuki hypersurface when H = 0 and c > 0;
(iii) Σ is a Delaunay hypersurface when H 6= 0.
Proof. Let {e1, . . . , en} be an orthonormal frame of TΣ which diagonalizes φ at each point of Σ, i.e., φei = σiei, i = 1, . . . , n. Then (cf. [9, Equation 2.8])
(2.2) 1
2∆Σ|φ|2 =|∇Σφ|2+1 2
Xn i,j=1
Rij(σi− σj)2,
where Rij is the sectional curvature of the plane generated by {ei, ej}. If κ1, . . . , κn denote the principal curvatures of Σ, we have σi = κi−H/n, and then Gauss Equation implies that
Rij = κiκj+ c =
σi+ H n
σj +H n
+ c
= σiσj+ H
n(σi+ σj) + H2 n2 + c.
Moreover, since tr φ = 0, by a direct computation, we get Xn
i,j=1
σiσj(σi− σj)2 = Xn i,j=1
σi3σj − 2σi2σj2+ σiσj3
=−2|φ|4,
Xn i,j=1
(σi+ σj)(σi− σj)2 = Xn i,j=1
σ3i − 2σi2σj+ σiσj2+ σi2σj − 2σiσj2+ σ3j
= 2n Xn
i=1
σi3,
Xn i,j=1
(σi− σj)2 = Xn i,j=1
σi2− 2σiσj + σj2
= 2n|φ|2. Thus, by Kato Inequality, equation (2.2) becomes
(2.3)
1
2∆Σ|φ|2 =|∇Σφ|2− |φ|4+ H Xn
i=1
σi3+H2
n |φ|2+ nc|φ|2
≥ n + 2
n |∇Σ|φ||2− |φ|4+ H Xn
i=1
σ3i + H2
n |φ|2+ nc|φ|2, We observe that, by Okumura Lemma,
− n− 2
pn(n− 1)|φ|3 ≤ Xn
i=1
σ3i ≤ n− 2
pn(n− 1)|φ|3, and, consequently, inequality (2.3) may be rewritten as
1
2∆Σ|φ|2 ≥ n + 2
n |∇Σ|φ||2− |φ|2 |φ|2+ n− 2
pn(n− 1)|H||φ| − H2 n − nc
! .
We suppose that n ≥ 3 and the equality in (2.1) for φ not identically zero in Σ. The minimal case is characterised as a catenoid for c ≤ 0, and either is a Clifford torus or an Otsuki minimal hypersurface for c > 0 (cf. [22, Theorem 3.1], [23, Theorem 1.1]). If H 6= 0, then Σ is a rotational hypersurface, since the equality also occurs in Okumura Inequality, we have that one of the principal curvatures has multiplicity 1 and the others have multiplicity
n− 1 (cf. [10, Theorem 4.2]).
Another important result to our proposes is a Hardy-type integral inequality proved in [5]. In general, this inequality holds for compact submanifolds (possibly with non-empty boundary) in Hadamard manifolds. Here, we will consider only the case where the ambient manifold is a space form with non-positive sectional curvature.
Let Σn, n ≥ 3, be a compact free boundary hypersurface in a unit ball B in the space form Mn+1c , c ≤ 0. We denote by r the distance function of Mn+1c to the center of B. Since r ≤ 1 on Σ and r = 1 on ∂Σ, if we chose p = 2 and γ = 0 in [5, Theorem 3.2], by a direct computation we get the following:
Lemma 2.2(Batista-Mirandola-Vit´orio, [5]). Let Σn, n≥ 3, be a free boundary hypersurface in B. If Σ has constant mean curvature H and f ∈ C1(Σ) is a non-negative function, we
have Z
Σ
f2 ≤ 4 n2
Z
Σ|∇Σf|2+H2 n2
Z
Σ
f2 + 2 n
Z
∂Σ
f2. Moreover, the equality occurs if, and only if, f vanishes on Σ.
Given a compact hypersurface Σ into a ball B in a Riemannian manifold M such that
∂Σ 6= ∅, int(Σ) ⊂ int(B) and ∂Σ ⊂ ∂B, we can restrict the geometric objects of Σ to
∂Σ and see ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B. Since our objective is the study of free boundary hypersurfaces in balls in space forms, it is important for our results to consider the space forms as conformally flat manifolds.
Let BR be the open Euclidean ball with radius 0 < R ≤ ∞ centered at the origin of Rn+1 and ϕ : BR → R be a radial function, meaning that there exists a smooth function u : [0, R2)→ R such that ϕ(x) = u(|x|2). Notice that
∇ϕ = 2u′(|x|2)x,
where ∇ϕ denotes the gradient of ϕ. We consider the metric bg = e2ϕg, where g is the Euclidean metric, and write M = (BR, bg). Let ∇ and b∇ denotes the Riemannian connections of g and bg, respectively. For all vector field X ∈ X(BR), we have that
∇bXx =∇Xx + g(∇ϕ, X)x + g(∇ϕ, x)X − g(x, X)∇ϕ
= X + 2u′(|x|2) g(x, X)x +|x|2X− g(x, X)x (2.4)
= µX,
where|·| denotes the norm induced by g and µ(x) = 1+2u′(|x|2)|x|2is the potential function of x.
Example 2.3 (Space Forms). For c = 0, BR = Rn+1 and ϕ = 0 in Rn+1, we have that Mn+10 = (Rn+1, g) is the Euclidean space endowed with the standard Euclidean metric. If c6= 0, we consider the function ϕc : BR→ R defined by
ϕc(x) = log 2 1 + c|x|2, where R = 1/√
−c if c < 0, and R = ∞ if c > 0. Then Hn+1c = (BR, e2ϕcg) is the hyperbolic space with constant sectional curvature c for c < 0, and Sn+1c \ {p} = (BR, e2ϕcg) the sphere with constant sectional curvature c minus the pole p for c > 0.
From now on, we will to continue using the notations fixed above, but putting our focus on the case of space forms Mn+1c . We write bg = g for c = 0 and bg = e2ϕcg for c6= 0.
The following construction is inspired in the work of L. Al´ıas, J. de Lira and J. Miguel Malacarne (cf. [3]). Let r < R be a positive number chosen such that the closed ball B = (Br, bg) has radius 1 in Mn+1c , where Br is the closed Euclidean ball centered at the origin of Rn+1 with radius r. We consider a compact oriented smooth hypersurface Σ into B such that ∂Σ is non-empty, int(Σ) ⊂ int(B) and ∂Σ ⊂ ∂B. If, respectively, αMN and AMN
denote the second fundamental form and the Weingarten operator of N as a submanifold of the Riemannian manifold M, as particular cases we set α = αΣMnc+1, A = AMΣnc+1, eα = α∂B∂Σ and eA = A∂B∂Σ. Under those notations, for all vector fields X, Y ∈ X(∂Σ), we have that
∇bXY =∇∂BX Y + αB∂B(X, Y )
=∇∂ΣX Y + eα(X, Y ) + αB∂B(X, Y ) and
∇bXY =∇ΣXY + α(X, Y )
=∇∂ΣX Y + αΣ∂Σ(X, Y ) + α(X, Y ),
where∇∂B,∇∂Σ and∇Σ are, respectively, the Riemannian connections of ∂B, ∂Σ and Σ as submanifolds in M. Thus
(2.5) αM∂Bnc+1(X, Y ) + eα(X, Y ) = αΣ∂Σ(X, Y ) + α(X, Y )
along ∂Σ. Since ∂B is a sphere in Mn+1c , there is κ∈ R such that AM∂Bnc+1 = κI, where I is the identity tensor in T(∂B). Therefore, if we denote bg = h , i, since hx, xi = 1, by (2.4), (2.6) κ =hAM∂Bnc+1ei, eii = h
∇beix⊤
, eii = µ0,
where µ0 = µ(r2) and (· )⊤ denotes the orthogonal projection of an arbitrary vector field of X(Mn+1c ) onto X(∂B). Then, by (2.5)
(2.7) − µ0hX, Y ix + h eAX, Yiξ = −hAΣ∂ΣX, Yiν + hAX, Y iη,
where x is the position vector on Br, ξ ∈ X(∂B) is a unit conormal vector field along ∂Σ as a hypersurface in M, ν is the unit conormal vector field along ∂Σ as a hypersurface in Σ pointing outward and η is a globally unit normal vector field defined on Σ.
Proposition 2.4. Let Σn be a free boundary hypersurface in the unit ball B described above.
If Σ has constant mean curvature H, at the points of ∂Σ we have (i) |φ|2 =| eA|2+ (H− eH)2− H2
n ; (ii) ν(|φ|2) =−2µ0
| eA|2+ (n + 1)(H− eH)2− 2H(H − eH) ,
where φ is the umbilicity tensor of Σ, while eA and eH are, respectively, the Weingarten operator and the mean curvature of ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B.
Proof. (i) Since Σ is free boundary in B, we have that x = ν and ξ = η on ∂Σ. Thus, by equation (2.7), A = eA along ∂Σ. Therefore, if {e1, . . . , en−1} is an orthonormal frame on
∂Σ given by eigenvectors of eA, and eκ1, . . . , eκn−1 are its respective eigenvalues, the matrix of
A in the orthonormal frame{e1, . . . , en−1, ν} is given by
A =
eκ1 0 · · · 0 hAν, e1i
0 eκ2 · · · 0 hAν, e2i
... ... . .. ... ...
0 0 · · · eκn−1 hAν, en−1i hAν, e1i hAν, e2i · · · hAν, en−1i hAν, νi
.
Now, we consider the support function f (x) =hx, ηi, x ∈ Σ. Given X ∈ X(Σ), by (2.4) we have X(f ) =hx, b∇Xηi. In particular, since Σ is free boundary in B, for each X ∈ X(∂Σ),
0 =hν, b∇Xηi = −hν, AXi.
Thus, along ∂Σ, ν is a principal direction of Σ and the orthonormal frame{e1, . . . , en−1, ν} diagonalizes A. Therefore
A = Ae 0 0 κn
! ,
where κn=hAν, νi. Moreover, since H = eH + κn, we obtain that κ2n = (H− eH)2, and
|φ|2=|A|2− H2 n
=| eA|2+ (H − eH)2− H2 n . (ii) Since H is constant, we have
ν(|φ|2) = ν(|A|2) = 2 Xn−1
i=1
κiν(κi)− 2κn Xn−1
i=1
ν(κi).
Note that [21, Theorem 2.4] holds for hypersurfaces in an arbitrary ambient space. Thus, since A is a Codazzi tensor on Σ, by (2.6) we have that ν(κi) = µ0(κn−κi) for i = 1, . . . , n−1, and, consequently,
ν(|φ|2) = 2µ0 (H − κn)κn− |A|2+ κ2n− (n − 1)κ2n+ (H − κn)κn
= 2µ0
2H(H− eH)− |A|2− n(H − eH)2
=−2µ0
| eA|2+ (n + 1)(H− eH)2− 2H(H − eH) .
Remark 2.5. Using the relation | eA|2 =|eφ|2+ eH2/(n− 1) in Proposition 2.4, by a direct computation, we get
|φ|2 =|eφ|2+ 1 n(n− 1)
(n− 1)H − n eH2
ν(|φ|2) =−2µ0
|eφ|2+ 1 n− 1
(n− 1)H − n eH2 , where eφ is the umbilicity tensor of ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B.
3. A First Inequality
In this section, we denote by B the unit ball of a space form Mn+1c , c ≤ 0, such that B is modeled by the Euclidean ball centered at the origin of Rn+1 with an appropriate radius, and by Cn,H the constant
Cn,H = (n + 2)(n2− H2)
4n ,
depending on the constant mean curvature H and the dimension of the hypersurface Σn contained in B. We also recall the polynomial pH associated to Σ defined by
pH(t) = t2+ n− 2
pn(n− 1)|H|t − H2
n − nc, t ∈ R.
Theorem 3.1. Let Σn, n ≥ 3, be a free boundary hypersurface in B. If Σ has constant mean curvature H, then
Z
Σ
|φ|2 pH(|φ|) − Cn,H
≥ n 2
Z
∂Σ
(H − eH)2− | eA|2
+2µ0H Z
∂Σ
He−3n− 2
2n H2|∂Σ|+L(µ0), where
L(µ0) = (µ0− 1)
(n + 1) Z
∂Σ
(H − eH)2+ Z
∂Σ
| eA|2− 2H2|∂Σ|
andφ is the umbilicity tensor of Σ, while eA and eH are, respectively, the Weingarten operator and the mean curvature, both of ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B. Moreover, the equality occurs if, and only if, Σ is a totally umbilical hypersurface.
Proof. Integrating Simons Inequality (2.1), by Divergence Theorem and Theorem 2.2 Z
Σ
|φ|2pH(|φ|) ≥ n + 2 n
Z
Σ
|∇Σ|φ||2− 1 2
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)
≥ n + 2 n · n2
4
1−H2 n2
! Z
Σ|φ|2− 2 n
Z
∂Σ|φ|2
− 1 2
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)
= Cn,H
Z
Σ|φ|2− n + 2 2
Z
∂Σ|φ|2−1 2
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2).
Note that Proposition 2.4 implies that along ∂Σ, n + 2
2 |φ|2+1
2ν(|φ|2) = n + 2− 2µ0
2 | eA|2+ n + 2− 2(n + 1)µ0
2 (H − eH)2
− 2µ0H eH− n + 2− 4nµ0 2n H2. Therefore,
Z
Σ
|φ|2 pH(|φ|) − Cn,H
≥ 2(n + 1)µ0− (n + 2) 2
Z
∂Σ
(H − eH)2+2µ0− (n + 2) 2
Z
∂Σ
| eA|2 + 2µ0H
Z
∂Σ
He − 4nµ0− (n + 2)
2n H2|∂Σ|.
By a direct computation we get our assertion.
Note that, by Lemma 2.2, equality occurs if, and only if, φ vanishes identically in Σ. Corollary 3.2. Let Σ3 be a free boundary hypersurface in B. If Σ has constant mean curvature H and Γ1, . . . , Γm denote the m boundary connected components of Σ, then
Z
Σ
|φ|2
pH(|φ|) − 15 4
≥ 6π Xm
i=1
χ(Γi) + (2µ0− 3)H Z
∂Σ
H +e H2− 9µ0
3 |∂Σ| + L(µ0), where χ(M) and eH are, respectively, the Euler characteristic of the given manifold M and the mean curvature of ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B. Moreover, the equality occurs if, and only if, Σ is a totally umbilical hypersurface.
Proof. By Gauss Equation, for each i = 1, . . . , m,
He2 = eκ21+ eκ22+ 2eκ1eκ2 =| eA|2+ 2( eKi− µ0),
where eκ1 and eκ2 are the principal curvatures of Γi as a surface in ∂B, and eKi is the intrinsic curvature of Γi. Thus, Theorem 3.1 and Gauss-Bonnet Theorem implies
Z
Σ
|φ|2
pH(|φ|) − 15 4
− L(µ0)≥ 3 2
Z
∂Σ
H2− 2H eH + eH2− | eA|2
+ 2µ0H Z
∂Σ
He − 7
6H2|∂Σ|
= 3 Xm
i=1
Z
Γi
Kei+ (2µ0− 3)H Z
∂Σ
H +e H2− 9µ0 3 |∂Σ|
= 6π Xm
i=1
χ(Γi) + (2µ0− 3)H Z
∂Σ
H +e H2− 9µ0 3 |∂Σ|.
4. A Second Inequality
In this section, we denote by B the unit ball of a space form Mn+1c , c∈ R, such that B is modeled by the Euclidean ball centered at the origin of Rn+1 with an appropriate radius.
Theorem 4.1. Let Σn, n≥ 2, a compact hypersurface in Mn+1c with boundary ∂Σ. If Σ has constant mean curvature H and it is not a totally umbilical hypersurface, then
Z
Σ
|φ|n−2n H2
n − |φ|2− n− 2
pn(n− 1)|H||φ| + nc
!
≤ 1 2
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)|φ|−n+2n
where φ is the umbilicity tensor of Σ. Moreover, if n≥ 3, the equality occurs if, and only if:
(i) Σ is a catenoid when H = 0 and c≤ 0;
(ii) Σ is either a Clifford torus or an Otsuki hypersurface when H = 0 and c > 0;
(iii) Σ is a Delaunay hypersurface when H 6= 0.
Proof. Since φ vanishes at most in a subset of null volume (cf. [7, Lemma 2.2]), given ε > 0, we define the non-empty subset of Σ
Ωε ={x ∈ Σ : |φ|(x) ≥ ε}
and the continuous function
fε(x) =
( |φ|(x) if x ∈ Ωε ε if x∈ Σ \ Ωε. Note that, by Green Identity
(4.1)
Z
Σ
∆Σ|φ|2f−
n+2
ε n =− Z
Σ
h∇Σ|φ|2,∇Σf−
n+2
ε n i + Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)f−
n+2
ε n
= 2(n + 2) n
Z
Σh∇Σ|φ|, ∇Σfεi|φ|f−
2(n+1) n
ε +
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)f−
n+2 n
ε .
Thus, by Simons Inequality (2.1), we obtain
(4.2)
n + 2 n
Z
Σ
|∇Σ|φ||2f−
n+2
ε n − h∇Σ|φ|,∇Σfεi|φ|f−
2(n+1)
ε n
− Z
Σ
|φ|2pH(|φ|)f−
n+2 n
ε ≤ 1
2 Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)f−
n+2 n
ε .
On one hand, since fε=|φ| on Ωε and ∇Σfε = 0 on Σ\ Ωε,
(4.3) Z
Σ
|∇Σ|φ||2f−
n+2
ε n − h∇Σ|φ|, ∇Σfεi|φ|fε−2(n+1)n
= Z
Σ\Ωε|∇Σ|φ||2ε−n+2n
= Z
Σ
|∇Σ|φ||2f−
n+2
ε n − Z
Ωε
|∇Σ|φ||2|φ|−n+2n ,
and, consequently, since|φ|n+2n f−
n+2 n
ε → 1 almost everywhere on Σ when ε → 0, the left side of (4.2) converges to
(4.4)
Z
Σ
|φ|n−2n H2
n − |φ|2− n− 2
pn(n− 1)|H||φ| + nc
! .
On the other hand, using equations (4.1) and (4.3), and again the fact that|φ|n+2n f−
n+2 n
ε → 1
almost everywhere on Σ when ε→ 0, the Dominated Convergence Theorem implies that limε→0
Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)f−
n+2
ε n = lim
ε→0
Z
Σ
∆Σ|φ|2f−
n+2
ε n − 2(n + 2) n
Z
Σ
h∇Σ|φ|, ∇Σfεi|φ|f−
2(n+1)
ε n
= Z
Σ
∆Σ|φ|2|φ|−n+2n − 2(n + 2) n
Z
Σ
|∇Σ|φ||2|φ|−n+2n (4.5)
= Z
∂Σ
ν(|φ|2)|φ|−n+2n ,
when in the last equality we use the Green Identity once more. Now, the result follows applying (4.4) and (4.5) in (4.2).
Note that equality occurs if, and only if, also occurs in Simons Inequality. Thus, Lemma
2.1 concludes our assertion.
Corollary 4.2. Let Σn, n ≥ 2, be a free boundary hypersurface in B. If Σ has constant mean curvature H and it is not a totally umbilical hypersurface, then
(4.6) Z
Σ|φ|n−2n pH(|φ|) ≥ µ0 Z
∂Σ | eA|2+ (H− eH)2− H2 n
!−n2n+2
| eA|2+ (n + 1)(H − eH)2 .
where φ is the umbilicity tensor of Σ, while eA and eH are, respectively, the Weingarten operator of ∂Σ as a hypersurface in ∂B. Moreover, if n≥ 3, the equality occurs if, and only if:
(i) Σ is a catenoid when H = 0 and c≤ 0;
(ii) Σ is either a Clifford torus or an Otsuki hypersurface when H = 0 and c > 0;
(iii) Σ is a Delaunay hypersurface when H 6= 0.
Proof. By Proposition 2.4, we have
|φ|−n+2n ν(|φ|2) = (|φ|2)−n2n+2ν(|φ|2)
=−µ0 | eA|2+ (H − eH)2− H2 n
!−n2n+2
| eA|2+ (n + 1)(H− eH)2 .
Therefore, Theorem 4.1 implies that Z
Σ
|φ|n−2n pH(|φ|) ≥ µ0 Z
Σ
| eA|2+ (H − eH)2−H2 n
!−n2n+2
| eA|2+ (n + 1)(H− eH)2 ,
and this conclude the proof of Corollary 4.2.
Corollary 4.3. Let Σ2 be a free boundary surface in B. If Σ has constant mean curvature H, then Σ is not a totally umbilical surface if, and only if, χ(Σ) ≤ 0, where χ(Σ) denotes the Euler characteristic of Σ. In particular, equality occurs in (4.6) if, and only if, Σ is an annulus.
Proof. By using Gauss equation, we can check that |φ|2 = −2(K − c) + H2/2, where K is the Gauss curvature of Σ. Moreover, if κg and eκg denote the geodesic curvature of the boundary connected component Γ ⊂ ∂Σ as a curve in Σ and in ∂B, respectively, we have κg = µ0 by equation (2.7), and, since the umbilicity tensor of Γ as a curve in ∂B vanishes, Remark 2.5 implies that along ∂Σ
|φ|2 = 1
2(H − 2eκg)2 and ν(|φ|2) =−2(H − 2eκg)2.
Thus, Corollary 4.2, the equations above and Gauss-Bonnet Theorem implies that 2µ0|∂Σ| ≤
Z
Σ
pH(|φ|) = 2(µ0|∂Σ| − 2πχ(Σ)).
Therefore, χ(Σ)≤ 0. In particular, equality occurs in (4.6) if, and only if, χ(Σ) = 0. Remark 4.4. We point out that by [18, Lema 4.3], in the Euclidean case, a minimal annulus in B can not has umbilical point. In this sense, the assertions of Corollaries 4.2 and 4.3 reformulate the Catenoid Conjecture as a unique solution problem of equality case in (4.6).
Remark 4.5. Note that Corollary 4.3 implies the Nitsche Theorem for constant mean curvature surfaces in tridimensional space forms balls.
References
1. Hil´ario Alencar and Manfredo do Carmo, Hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature in space forms, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc. 66 (1994), 265–274.
2. , Hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature in spheres, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1994), no. 4, 1223–1229. MR 1172943
3. Luis J. Al´ıas, Jorge H. S. de Lira, and J. Miguel Malacarne, Constant higher-order mean curvature hypersurfaces in Riemannian spaces, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 5 (2006), no. 4, 527–562. MR 2261223 4. Frederick J. Almgren, Jr., Some interior regularity theorems for minimal surfaces and an extension of
Bernstein’s theorem, Ann. of Math. (2) 84 (1966), 277–292. MR 200816
5. Marcio Batista, Heudson Mirandola, and Feliciano Vit´orio, Hardy and Rellich inequalities for subman- ifolds in Hadamard spaces, J. Differential Equations 263 (2017), no. 9, 5813–5829. MR 3688433 6. Simon Brendle, Embedded minimal tori in S3and the Lawson conjecture, Acta Math. 211 (2013), no. 2,
177–190. MR 3143888
7. Giovanni Catino, On conformally flat manifolds with constant positive scalar curvature, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 144 (2016), no. 6, 2627–2634. MR 3477081
8. , A remark on compact hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature in space forms, Bull. Sci.
Math. 140 (2016), no. 8, 901–907. MR 3569196
9. Shiu-Yuen Cheng and Shing-Tung Yau, Hypersurfaces with constant scalar curvature, Mathematische Annalen 225 (1977), no. 3, 195–204.
10. Manfredo do Carmo and Marcos Dajczer, Rotation hypersurfaces in spaces of constant curvature, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (1983), no. 2, 685–709. MR 694383
11. Abigail Folha, Frank Pacard, and Tatiana Zolotareva, Free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit 3-ball, Manuscripta Math. 154 (2017), no. 3-4, 359–409. MR 3713919
12. Ailana Fraser and Martin Man-chun Li, Compactness of the space of embedded minimal surfaces with free boundary in three-manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature and convex boundary, J. Differential Geom. 96 (2014), no. 2, 183–200. MR 3178438
13. Ailana Fraser and Richard Schoen, The first Steklov eigenvalue, conformal geometry, and minimal surfaces, Adv. Math. 226 (2011), no. 5, 4011–4030. MR 2770439
14. , Minimal surfaces and eigenvalue problems, Geometric analysis, mathematical relativity, and nonlinear partial differential equations, Contemp. Math., vol. 599, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013, pp. 105–121. MR 3202476
15. , Sharp eigenvalue bounds and minimal surfaces in the ball, Invent. Math. 203 (2016), no. 3, 823–890. MR 3461367
16. Brian Freidin, Mamikon Gulian, and Peter McGrath, Free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit ball with low cohomogeneity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 4, 1671–1683. MR 3601558
17. Nicolaos Kapouleas and David Wiygul, Free-boundary minimal surfaces with connected boundary in the 3-ball by tripling the equatorial disc, 2017.
18. Martin Li, Free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit ball: recent advances and open questions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05053 (2019), 1–30.
19. Johannes C. C. Nitsche, Corrigendum to: “Stationary partitioning of convex bodies” [Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 89 (1985), no. 1, 1–19; MR0784101 (86j:53013)], Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 95 (1986), no. 4, 389. MR 853784
20. Rabah Souam, On stability of stationary hypersurfaces for the partitioning problem for balls in space forms, Math. Z. 224 (1997), no. 2, 195–208. MR 1431192
21. Axel Stahl, Convergence of solutions to the mean curvature flow with a Neumann boundary condition, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 4 (1996), no. 5, 421–441. MR 1402731
22. Luen-Fai Tam and Detang Zhou, Stability properties for the higher dimensional catenoid in Rn+1, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 10, 3451–3461. MR 2515414
23. Biao Wang, Simons’ equation and minimal hypersurfaces in space forms, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 146 (2018), no. 1, 369–383. MR 3723147
Universidade Federal da Para´ıba, Departamento de Matem´atica, 58051-900. Jo˜ao Pessoa - PB, Brazil.
Email address: [email protected]
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciˆencias Exatas, 31270-901. Belo Horizonte - MG, Brazil.
Email address: [email protected]
Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Instituto de Matem´atica, Campus A. C. Sim˜oes, BR 104 - Norte, Km 97, 57072-970. Macei´o - AL, Brazil.
Email address: [email protected]
