Anti-Invariant Lorentzian Submersions From Lorentzian Concircular Structure Manifolds

Abstract

This research article attempts to investigate anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions and the Lagrangian Lorentzian submersions (LLS) from the Lorentzian concircular structure [in short (LCS)_n] manifolds onto semi-Riemannian manifolds with relevant non-trivial examples. It is shown that the horizontal distributions of such submersions are not integrable and their fibers are not totally geodesic. As a result, they can not be totally geodesic maps. Anti-invariant and Lagrangian submersions are also explored for their harmonicity. We illustrate that if the Reeb vector field is horizontal, the anti-invariant and LLS can not be harmonic.

1 Introduction

In 2003, Shaikh [1] studied the properties of Lorentzian manifold M endowed with a concircular vector field, and he named such manifold the Lorentzian concircular structure manifold (briefly (LCS)_n-manifold), which is the extension of the Lorentzian para-Sasakian (in short, LP-Sasakian) manifold developed by Matsumoto [2] and Mihai and Rosca [3]. Many researchers have looked at the characteristics of (LCS)_n-manifolds, and used them in applied mathematics and mathematical physics (as an example, see [4–8]). In [9], Mantica and Molinari have proved that the (LCS)_n-manifold coincides with generalized Robertson-Walker (GRW) spacetime, which was introduced by Alı́as, Romero and Sánchez [10] in 1995. The geometry of semi-Riemannian submersions has became a fascinating topic for research due to its involvement in physics, particularly in the theory of relativity (GR) such as Yang-Mills theory, String theory, Kaluza-Klein theory, and Hodge theory, etc.

We can develop more structures, for example, locally trivial fiber spaces include product manifolds, covering spaces, the tangent and cotangent bundles of a manifold. Thus, we can use the framework on structure preserving submersions to study the spaces with symmetries. In particular, the theory can be directly applied to study the black holes of various dimensions, Lagrangian with symmetries, and simple quantum systems with symmetrical properties.

In 1956, Nash [11] proved the embedding theorem for a Riemannian manifold. According to him, every Riemannian manifold can be isometrically embedded into some Euclidean space. Thus, the differential geometry of Riemannian immersions is well-known and available in many textbooks such as [12, 13]. On the other hand, the Lorentzian submersions are the semi-Riemannian submersions whose total space is a Lorentzian manifold [14].

The concept of semi-Riemannian submersions was given by O’Neill [15, 16] and Gray [17]. In 1983, Magid [18] described the Lorentzian submersion from anti-de Sitter spacetime. In fact, these Lorentzian submersions are generalizations of Lorentzian warped products. Various spacetimes in general relativity (GR), such as Robertson-Walker spacetimes and (LCS)₄- spacetimes, are warped products. This study is closely connected to these works.

Watson [19] considered the Riemannian submersions between almost Hermitian manifolds, and he named almost Hermitian submersions. Afterwards, the almost Hermitian submersions between various subclasses of almost Hermitian manifolds are thoroughly studied in [20–22]. Moreover, paracontact semi-Riemannian submersions were extensively discussed by Yilmaz and Akyol [23, 24] and Faghfouri et al. [25]. Recently, Siddiqi et al. [26, 27] discussed some properties of anti-invariant semi-Riemannian submersions which are closely related to this work. The majority of the works on semi-Riemannian, almost contact Riemannian submersions have been found in the books [12, 13].

Şahin [28] first described anti-invariant Riemannian submersions and Lagrangian submersions from almost Hermitian manifolds onto Riemannian manifolds. Since then, the topics of anti-invariant Riemannian submersions and Lagrangian submersions have become an active field for researchers. The extension of anti-invariant Riemannian submersion as various types of submersions, such as anti-invariant ξ^⊥-Riemannian submersions and Lagrangian submersions, have been studied in different forms of structures such as Kähler [28, 29], nearly Kähler [22], almost product [30], locally product Riemannian [31], Sasakian [32–34], Kenmotsu [35], cosymplectic [36] and hyperbolic structures [37, 38]. Moreover, a Lagrangian submersion is a specific version of anti-invariant Riemannian submersion such that the total manifold (almost complex structure) interchanges the role of horizontal and vertical distributions [39].

The following is an overview of the paper’s content. In sections 2, 3, and 4, we reveal basic definitions and known results of (LCS)_n-manifolds, Lorentzian submersions, and anti-invariant Lorentzian and LLS, respectively. In Section 5, we study anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions from (LCS)_n-manifolds onto semi-Riemannian manifolds admitting the vertical Reeb vector field (VRVF). Section 6 is concerned with the study of the properties of anti-invariant submersions with the horizontal Reeb vector field. We also provide an example of anti-invariant submersions with the horizontal Reeb vector field and study its characteristic properties. In Section 7, we consider LLS admitting VRVF and investigate the geometry of vertical and horizontal distributions. We give a non-trivial example of LLS admitting a VRVF. We also give a necessary and sufficient condition for such submersions to be harmonic.

Note: Throughout the paper we used the following acronyms:

LLS: Lagrangian Lorentzian submersion.

HRVF: Horizontal reeb vector field.

VRVF: Vertical reeb vector field.

2 Lorentzian Concircular Structure Manifolds

Lorentzian manifold L of dimension n = (2m + 1) is a smooth connected manifold with a Lorentzian metric g, that is, L admits a smooth symmetric tensor field g of type (0, 2) such that for each point p ∈ L, the tensor is a non-degenerate inner product of signature (−, +, …., +), where T_pL denotes the tangent vector space of L at p and is the real number space. A non-zero vector v ∈ T_pL is said to be timelike, null, and spacelike, if it fulfills g_p(v, v) < 0, g_p(v, v) = 0, and g_p(v, v) > 0, respectively.

Definition 2.1. [1] Let (L, g) be a Lorentzian manifold, a vector field Q ∈ Γ(TL) satisfying g(E, Q) = P(E), is said to be a concircular vector field iffor any E, F ∈ Γ(TL), where α is a non-zero scalar function, ω is a closed 1-form, and ∇ is the Levi-Civita connection corresponding to the Lorentzian metric g.

Let the Lorentzian manifold L of dimension n admit a unit timelike concircular vector field ζ, it follows thatSince ζ is a unit concircular vector field, consequently, there exists a non-zero 1-form η such that g(E, ζ) = η(E), then the following equations holdfor all vector fields E, F and α is a non-zero real valued function. Further, we havehere ρ is a scalar function defined as ρ = − (ζα). If we writeon using Eqs 2.2, 2.3, we deduceAs a consequence, φ is a symmetric (1, 1) tensor field, which is known as the structure tensor field of L. Thus, the Lorentzian manifold L with unit timelike concircular vector field ζ, 1-form η, and (1, 1) tensor field φ is said to be Lorentzian concircular structure manifold (LCS)_n-manifold). If α = 1, then the (LCS)_n-manifolds become LP-Sasakian manifolds. The following tensorial equations holds on a (LCS)_n-manifold [1].

3 Lorentzian Submersions

We provide the required foundation for Lorentzian submersions in this section.

A surjective mapping γ: (L, g) → (S, g_S) between a Lorentzian manifold (L, g) and a semi-Riemannian manifold (N, g_S) is called a Lorentzian submersion [15] if γ_* is onto it and it satisfies.

(C1)Rank(γ) = dim(S), where dim(L) > dim(S).

In this situation, for each q ∈ S, is a t-dimensional submanifold of L termed as a fiber, where t = dim(L) − dim(S).

A vector field E on L is vertical (resp. horizontal) if it is consistently tangential (resp. orthogonal) to fibers. A vector field E on L is termed basic if E is horizontal and γ-related to a vector field E_* on S.

Also, γ_*(E_p) = E_*γ(p) for all p ∈ L, where γ_* is the differential map of γ. Here and indicates the projections on the vertical distribution Kerγ_*, and the horizontal distribution , respectively. Generally, the manifold (L, g) is said total manifold and the manifold (N, g_N) is said the base manifold for submersion γ.

(C2) The lengths of the horizontal vectors are conserved by γ_*.

This situation is analogous to saying that the derivative map γ_* of γ is a linear isometry when confined to . O’Neill’s tensors and , which are formulated as follows, describe the geometry of semi-Riemannian submersions:

for any vector fields E₁ and E₂ on L, where ∇ is the Levi-Civita connection of g. and are skew-symmetric operators on the tangent bundle of L inverting the vertical and the horizontal distributions, as can be shown.

The features of the tensor fields and are stated. On M if V₁, V₂ are vertical and E₁, E₂ are horizontal vector fields, we possessEquations 3.1, 3.2, entail thatwhereIt is easy to see that operates on the fibers as the second fundamental form, whereas operates on the horizontal distribution and evaluates the restriction to its integrability. We refer to O’Neill’s work [15] and book [12] for more information on the semi-Riemannian submersions.

Next, we revisit the theory of map between semi-Riemannian manifolds with a second fundamental form. Let (L, g) and (S, g_s) be Riemannian manifolds and f (L, g) → (S, g_s) is a smooth map. Then the second fundamental form h satisfies the relationfor E₁, E₂ ∈ Γ(TL), where ∇^h is the pull back connection and ∇, the Riemannian connection of the metrics g and g_S, respectively. Furthermore, if (∇h_*)(E₁, E₂) = 0 for all E₁, E₂ ∈ Γ(TL) (see [40], page 119), h is said to be totally geodesic and if trace(∇h_*) = 0 for all E₁, E₂ ∈ Γ(TL), h is termed as harmonic map (see [40], page 73).

4 Anti-Invariant Lorentzian and Lagrangian Lorentzian Submersions From (LCS)_n-Manifolds

We first recall the definition of an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion whose total manifold is an (LCS)_n-manifold.

Definition 4.1. ([32, 33]). Let L be an (LCS)_n-manifold (dim(L) = 2m + 1) with (LCS)_n-structure (φ, ζ, η, g, α) and S be a semi-Riemannian manifold with g_S as its semi-Riemannian metric. If there is a Lorentzian submersion γ: L → S such that the vertical distribution Kerγ_* is anti-invariant with respect to φ, i.e., , then the semi-Riemannian submersion γ is known as an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion.

In this instance, the horizontal distribution is decomposed aswhere μ is an orthogonal complementary distribution of φKerγ_* in and it is invariant with respect to φ.

For an anti-invariant submersion γ: L → S, if the Reeb vector field ζ is tangential (or normal) to ker γ_*, then ζ is said to be vertical Reeb vector field (VRVF) (or horizontal Reeb vector field (HRVF)).

More information on anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_N) may be found in [32, 33, 35, 36].

Remark 4.2. Throughout this paper, We consider a (LCS)n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) as the total manifold of the anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion.

The notion of Lagrangian submersion is a particular case of the anti-invariant submersion. Next, we review the definition of an LLS from (LCS)_n-manifold onto a semi-Riemannian manifold.

Definition 4.3. [34] Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_N). If μ = {0} or μ = Span{ζ}, i.e., or , correspondingly, then we say that the submersion γ is a Lagrangian Lorentzian submersion (an LLS).

Remark 4.4. This situation has been investigated as a particular example of an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion; for additional information, see [32–36].

5 Anti-Invariant Lorentzian Submersions With Vertical Reeb Vector Field

In the present segment, we begin with the anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions admitting VRVF from (LCS)_n-manifolds (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α). Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S). For any , we writewhere and . We now calculate the impact of the (LCS)n-structure on tensor fields on L. and of the submersion γ.

Lemma 5.1. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S) with VRVF. Then, we havewhere U, V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof For any U, V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), from (2.6), we infer

Using (3.5), 3.6 and 5.1 in the above equation, we obtain

In light of the fact that ζ is vertical, equating the vertical and horizontal components of (5.8), we get (5.2) and (5.3), correspondingly. By Equation 2.6, we havefor any E, F ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*).

On using Eqs 3.7, 3.8, 5.1, we getIf we compare the vertical and horizontal components of (5.9) and using the fact that ζ is vertical, we get (5.6) and (5.7), respectively. The rest of the claims may be derived in the same way

Now, we discuss anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold such that the Reeb vector field ζ is vertical. Let us consider that γ is an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion admitting VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S). Then, using (5.1) and the condition (S2), we come up withfor every and V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), this suggests thatAs a result, we demonstrate:

Theorem 5.2. Let (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) is an (LCS)_n-manifold of dimension (2L + 1) and (S, g_S) is a semi-Riemannian manifold of dimension s. Let γ (L, φ, ζ, η, g) → (S, g_S) be an anti-invariant such that . Then the Reeb vector field ζ is vertical and l = s.

Proof By the assumption , we havefor any U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), which shows that the Reeb vector field is vertical. Now, we assume that is an orthonormal frame of Γ(Kerγ_*), where k = 2L − s + 1.

Since , then ϕU₁, …, ϕU_k−1 form an orthonormal frame of . Therefore, in view of (5.1) we get k = s + 1, which implies that l = n.

Theorem 5.3. Let (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) be an (LCS)_n-manifold of dimension (2L + 1) and (S, g_S) is a semi-Riemannian manifold of dimension s. If γ (L, φ, ζ, η, g) → (S, g_S) is an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion with VRVF, then the fibers are not totally umbilical.

Proof Using (2.2) and 3.5, we havefor any U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*). We suppose that the fibers are totally umbilical, then we havefor any vertical vector fields U and V, where H is the mean curvature vector field of the fiber. Since , we have H = 0, which prove that the fibers are minimal. Hence the fibers are totally geodesic, which is a contradiction to the fact that , which proves the theorem.

From 2.4 and 5.1, we have following Lemmas.

Lemma 5.4. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion with VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) to a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S). Then we havefor any .

Lemma 5.5. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion with VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) to a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S). Then we havefor and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*).

Proof In the light of Equations 3.7, 2.5, we get (5.11). For and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), Equations 3.2, 5.1, and .5.11 give

Since and ζ ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), Equation 5.15 implies (5.12). Now, from (5.12) we get

for and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*). The geodesic condition together with Equation 5.15 yield

Since , we obtain (5.13). Using the skew-symmetry of and (3.4), we directly get (5.14).

6 Anti-Invariant Lorentzian Submersions With Horizontal Reeb Vector Field

Example. Let be a 9-dimensional semi-Riemannian space given by.

.

Then we choose an (LCS)₉-structure (φ, ζ, η, g) on such as

,

,where , 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 are vector fields. Indeed is an (LCS)₉ manifold [6].

Now, we consider the map defined bywhere g₅ is the semi-Riemannian metric of . Then the Jacobian matrix of γ is

Since rank of the Jacobian matrix is equal to 5, the map γ is a submersion. On the other hand, we can easily see that γ satisfies the condition (C2). Therefore, γ is a Lorentzian submersion. Now, after some computation, we turn upand

In addition, we notice that φ(V_i) = H_i for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4, which implies that . Thus γ is an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion and ζ is a HRVF.

Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_N). For any , we writewhere and . At first, we examine the behaviour of the tensor fields and for the (LCS)_n-manifold submersion γ.

Lemma 6.1. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S) with HRVF, then we havewhere U, V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof. The proof is quite similar to proof of Lemma 5.1. As a result, we leave it out.

Next, we study the properties of anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold (S, g_S) if the Reeb vector field ζ is horizontal. Using (6.1), we have .

Now, let V and E denote the vertical and horizontal vector fields, respectively. In the light of the previous relationship and (2.6), we arrive at

From Eqs 2.6, 6.1, we conclude the following Lemma.

Lemma 6.2. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) to (S, g_S). Then

for any .

Lemma 6.3. Let γ be an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) to (S, g_S). Then

for and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*).

Proof On using eequations (2.5) (3.8), and (5.1), we obtain (6.6). Using (3.6) and 2.5, we obtain (6.7). Since is vertical and φU is horizontal for and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), we have (6.8). Also (6.8) givesfor and U ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*). Then using (3.7) and 2.6 we have

Since , we obtain (6.9). From (4.1) we get

Hence, we obtain (6.10).

7 Lagrangian Lorentzian Submersions With Vertical Reeb Vector Field From (LCS)_n-Manifold

In this section, the integrability and totally geodesicness of the horizontal distribution of LLS admitting VRVF from (LCS)_n-manifolds will be determined. The behavior of the O’Neill’s tensor of such a submersion is first investigated. From Lemma 6.1, we obtain the following:

Lemma 7.1. Let γ be an LLS with a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S), then we havefor U, V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof. For a Lagrangian submersion, we have . Thus, assertions (7.1) and (7.2) follow from 5.2 and 5.4, respectively. Eqs 7.3 follows from 3.5 and 5.13.

Remark 7.2. It is known from [41] that the fibers of a semi-Riemannian submersion are totally geodesic if the O’Neill’s tensor vanishes ie., .

From Lemma 7.1, we can notice that the O’Neill’s tensor . Therefore, in view of Remark 7.2, we immediately get the next result.

Theorem 7.3. Let γ be an LLS with a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g) onto (S, g_S). Then the fibers of γ cannot be totally geodesic.

Next, we give some results about the characteristic of the O’Neill’s tensor of γ.

Corollary 7.4. Let γ be an LLS with a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S), then we havefor V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof. The assertions (7.4) and (7.5) follow from 5.5 and 5.8, respectively. The last assertion follows from 3.3 and 3.7.

Remark 7.5. In fact in a semi-Riemannian submersion, the integrability and totally geodesicness of the horizontal distribution are comparable to each other. This situation can be noticed from 3.4 and 3.8. In this case, the O’Neill’s tensor vanishes.

From Eq. 7.6, we can observe that the O’Neill’s tensor can not vanish for γ. Thus, we state the following result.

Theorem 7.6. Let γ be an LLS with a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then the totally geodesicness of horizontal distribution of γ can not be integrable.

Remark 7.7. A smooth map γ (M, g) → (N, g_N) between semi-Riemannian manifolds is said to be a totally geodesic map if γ_* preserves parallel translation. Moreover, Vilms [41] classified totally geodesic Lorentzian submersions and verified that a Lorentzian submersion γ (L, g) → (S, g_S) is totally geodesic if and only if both O’Neill’s tensors and vanish.

Thus, in view of Remark 7.7 and from Theorem 7.3 or Theorem 7.6, we turn up the following theorem.

Theorem 7.8. Let γ be an LLS admitting a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then the submersion γ can not be a totally geodesic map.

Finally, we exhibit a necessary and sufficient condition for submersion γ to be harmonic.

Theorem 7.9. Let γ be an LLS with a VRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then γ is harmonic if and only if for V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*), where is the restriction of to Kerγ_*.

Proof. From [42], we know that γ is harmonic if and only if γ has minimal fiber. Let {e₁, …, e_k, ζ} be an orthonormal frame of Kerγ_*. Thus γ is harmonic if and only if . Since , it follows that γ is harmonic if and only if . Now, we calculate . By orthonormal expansion, we can writewhere {φe₁, …, φe_k} is an orthonormal frame of φKerγ_*. Since is skew-symmetric, we obtainHere, from (7.1), we knowThus, we getsince both η(e_j) = 0 and η(e_i) = 0. Using (3.3), we arriveSince φe₁, …, φe_k are linearly independent, from (7.7), we see thatIt is clear to observe that,for any V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*). On the other hand,and by (7.3),Thus Eqs 7.8.10.–.Eqs 7.7.10 complete the proof.

Remark 7.10. Since an LLS is a specific case of an anti-invariant Lorentzian submersion. Then, in the view of Remark 7.7, Theorem 7.3, Theorem 7.6 and Theorem 7.8 also hold for anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions with a VRVF.

Example.

Let , where be the standard coordinates in and be (LCS)_n-manifolds as in previous Example.

Now, let us consider the mapping defined by the following:where g₂ is the semi-Riemannian metric of . Then the Jacobian matrix of γ is as follows:

Since the rank of the matrix is equal to 2, the map γ is a submersion. On the other hand we can easily see that γ holds the condition (C2). Then, by a direct computation, we turn upand

It is obvious to recognize that φ(V₁) = H₁, φ(V₂) = H₂ and φ(V₃) = 0, which mean

As a result γ is an LLS such that ζ is a VRVF.

8 Lagrangian Lorentzian Submersions With Horizontal Reeb Vector Field From an (LCS)_n-Manifold

In this section, we examine the LLS with a HRVF from (LCS)_n-manifolds (M, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto a semi-Riemannian manifold.

Theorem 8.1. Let the dimension of (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) be (2m + 1) and (S, g_S) be a semi-Riemannian manifold of dimension n. If γ (L, φ, ζ, η, g) → (S, g_S) is an LLS with HRVF, then m + 1 = n.

Proof. Let us consider that U₁, U₂, …, U_k is an orthonormal frame of (Kerγ_*), where k = 2m − n + 1. Since , {φU₁, …, φU_k, ζ} forms an orthonormal frame of . So, from (5.10) we get k = n − 1 which implies that m + 1 = n.

Note that the proof of Theorem 8.1 has also been given in [32], but we gave it here for clarity.

From Lemma 5.1, we deduce the next corollary.

Corollary 8.2. Let γ be an LLS with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then, we have

for U, V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof. Assertions (8.1) and (8.2) follow from (6.2) and 6.3, respectively. The last assertion (8.3) follows from (5.13) and 3.6 or directly from (6.7).

From (8.3), we see that the tensor can not be zero, so we have the following results.

Theorem 8.3. Let γ be an LLS from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then, the fibers of γ can not be totally geodesic.

Corollary 8.4. Let γ be an LLS with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then, we have

for V ∈ Γ(Kerγ_*) and .

Proof. Assertions (8.4) and (8.5) follow from (6.4) and (6.5), respectively. The third assertion (8.6) follows from (3.3) and (3.7). The last one comes from (8.7).

From (8.4) and (8.5), it can be easily seen that the tensor can not be zero. Thus, by Remark 7.5, we have the following result.

Theorem 8.5. Let γ be an LLS with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then, the horizontal distribution of γ can not be integrable.

In view of Remark 7.7 and Theorem 8.3 or Theorem 8.5, we get the following result.

Corollary 8.6. Let γ be an LLS with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then, the submersion γ can not be a totally geodesic map.

Finally, we give a result concerning the harmonicity of such submersions.

Theorem 8.7. Let γ is an LLS with a HRVF from an (LCS)_n-manifold (L, φ, ζ, η, g, α) onto (S, g_S). Then γ can not be harmonic.

Proof. Let {e₁, …, e_k} be an orthonormal frame of Kerγ_*. Then {φe₁, …, φe_k, ζ} forms an orthonormal frame of . Hence, we haveUsing the skew-symmetricness of and (8.1), we obtainBy (3.3) and (8.3), we getNow, we assume that γ is harmonic. Then . From (8.8), it follows that . This implies that the set {φe₁, …, φe_k, ζ} is linearly independent.

Remark 8.8. In view of Remark 7.7, Theorem 8.3, Theorem 8.5 and Corollary 8.6 also hold for anti-invariant Lorentzian submersions with a HRVF.

References

• 1.

  ShaikhAAOn Lorentzian Almost Paracontact Manifolds with a Structure of the Concircular Type. Kyungpook Math J (2003) 43:305–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 2.

  MatsumotoKOn Lorentzian Paracontact Manifolds. Bull Yamagata Univ Natur Sci (1989) 12:151–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 3.

  MihaiIRoscaROn Lorentzian P-Sasakian Manifolds. In: Classical Analysis (Kazimierz Dolny, 1991). River Edge, NJ: World Sci. Publ. (1992). p. 155–69.

  • Google Scholar

• 4.

  ChaubeySKShaikhAAOn 3-dimensional Lorentzian Concircular Structure Manifolds. Commun Korean Math Soc (2019) 34(1):303–19. 10.4134/CKMS.c180044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5.

  ShaikhAABaishyaKKOn Concircular Structure Spacetimes. J Math Stat (2005) 1:129–32. 10.3844/jmssp.2005.129.132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6.

  ShaikhAAMatsuyamaYHuiSKOn Invariant Submanifolds of ( LCS ) N -manifolds. J Egypt Math Soc (2016) 24:263–9. 10.1016/j.joems.2015.05.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7.

  SiddiqiMDChaubeySKAlmost η-conformal Ricci Solitons in (LCS)₃-manifolds. Sarajevo J Math (2020) 16:245–60. 10.5644/SJM.16.02

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8.

  YadavSKChaubeySKSutharDLSome Geometric Properties of η Ricci Solitons and Gradient Ricci Solitons on (Lcs) N -manifolds. Cubo (2017) 19(2):33–48. 10.4067/s0719-06462017000200033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9.

  ManticaCAMolinariLGA Notes on Concircular Structure Spacetimes. Commun Korean Math Soc (2019) 34(2):633–5. 10.4134/CKMS.c180138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10.

  AlíasLJRomeroASánchezMUniqueness of Complete Spacelike Hypersurfaces of Constant Mean Curvature in Generalized Robertson-Walker Spacetimes. Gen Relat Gravit (1995) 27(1):71–84. 10.1007/bf02105675

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  NashJNThe Imbedding Problem for Riemannian Manifolds. Ann Math (1956) 63(2):20–63. 10.2307/1969989

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  FalcitelliMIanusSPastoreAMRiemannian Submersions and Related Topics. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific (2004).

  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  ṢahinBRiemannian Submersions, Riemannian Maps in Hermitian Geometry and Their Applications. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press (2017).

  • Google Scholar

• 14.

  AllisonDLorentzian Clairaut Submersions. Geometriae Dedicata (1996) 63:309–19. 10.1007/bf00181419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15.

  O’NeillBThe Fundamental Equations of a Submersion. Mich Math J (1966) 13:458–69. 10.1307/MMJ/1028999604

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16.

  O’NeillBSemi Riemannian Geometry with Application to Relativity. New York: Academic Press (1983).

  • Google Scholar

• 17.

  GrayAPseudo-Riemannian Almost Product Manifolds and Submersion. J Math Mech (1967) 16:715–37.

  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  MagidMASubmersions from Anti-de Sitter Space with Totally Geodesic Fibers. J Diff Geom (1981) 16:323–31. 10.4310/jdg/1214436107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  WatsonBAlmost Hermitian Submersions. J Diff Geom (1976) 11(1):147–65. 10.4310/jdg/1214433303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20.

  FalcitelliMPastoreAMA Note on Almost Kähler and Nearly Kähler Submersions. J Geom (2000) 69:79–87. 10.1007/bf01237477

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21.

  ṢahinBInvariant and Anti-invariant Riemannian Maps to Kähler Manifolds. Int J Geom Methods Mod Phy (2010) 7(3):1–19. 10.1142/SO219887810004324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22.

  ShahidATanveerFAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Nearly Kählerian Manifolds. Filomat (2013) 27(7):1219–35. 10.2298/FIL1307219A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23.

  AkyolMAGündüzalpYSemi-invariant Semi-riemannian Submersions. Commun Fak Sci Univ Ser A1 Math Stat (2018) 67(1):80–92. 10.1501/Commua1_0000000832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24.

  GündüzalpYParacontact Semi-riemannian Submersion. Turk J Math (2013) 37:114–28. 10.3906/mat-1103-10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25.

  FaghfouriMMashmouliSOn Anti-invariant Semi-riemannian Submersions from Lorentzian Para-Sasakian Manifolds. Filomat (2018) 32(10):3465–78. 10.2298/fil1810465f

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26.

  SiddiqiMDChaubeySKSiddiquiANClairaut Anti-invariant Submersions from Lorentzian Trans-sasakian Manifolds. Ajms (2021). ahead-of-print. 10.1108/AJMS-05-2021-0106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27.

  SiddiqiMDAhmadMAnti-invariant Semi-riemannian Submersions from Indefinite Almost Contact Metric Manifolds. Konuralp J Math (2020) 8(1):38–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 28.

  ṢahinBAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Almost Hermitian Manifolds. Cent Eur J Math (2010) 8(3):437–47. 10.2478/s11533-010-0023-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  TaştanHMOn Lagrangian Submersions Hacettepe. J Math Stat (2014) 43(6):993–1000. 10.15672/HJMS.2014437529

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  GündüzalpYAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Almost Product Riemannian Manifolds. Math Sci Appl E-notes (2013) 1:58–66.

  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  TaştanHMÖzdemirFSayarCOn Anti-invariant Riemannian Submersions Whose Total Manifolds Are Locally Product Riemannian. J Geom (2017) 108:411–22. 10.1007/s00022-016-0347-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  Küpeli ErkenİMurathanCAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Sasakian Manifolds (2013). New York, NY: Cornell University, Press. arxiv: 1302.4906v1 [math.DG].

  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  LeeJWAnti-invariant ξ^⊥-Riemannian Submersions from Almost Contact Manifolds. Hacettepe J Math Stat (2013) 42(3):231–41.

  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  TaştanHMLagrangian Submersions from normal Almost Contact Manifolds. Filomat (2017) 31(12):3885–95. 10.2298/FIL1712885T

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  Beri̇AKüpeli̇ ErkenİMurathanCAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Kenmotsu Manifolds onto Riemannian Manifolds. Turk J Math (2016) 40(3):540–52. 10.3906/mat-1504-47

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  MurathanCKüpeliEAnti-invariant Riemannian Submersions from Cosymplectic Manifolds onto Riemannian Manifolds. Filomat (2015) 29(7):1429–44. 10.2298/fil1507429m

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  SiddiqiMDAkyolMAAnti-invariant ξ ⊥ -Riemannian Submersions from Hyperbolic β-Kenmotsu Manifolds. Cubo (2018) 20(1):79–94. 10.4067/s0719-06462018000100079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  SiddiqiMDAkyolMAAnti-invariant ξ^⊥-Riemannian Submersions from Almost Hyperbolic Contact Manifolds. Int Elect J Geom (2019) 12(1):32–42.

  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  TaştanHMSiddiqiMDAnti-invariant and Lagrangian Submersions from Trans-sasakian. Balkan J Geom App (2020) 25(2):106–23.

  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  AkyolMASariRAksoyESemi-invariant-ξ^⊥-Riemannian Submersions from Almost Contact Metric Manifolds. Int J Geom Methods Mod Phys (2017) 14(5):170074. 17. 10.1142/s0219887817500748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  VilmsJTotally Geodesic Maps. J Diff Geom (1970) 4:73–9. 10.4310/jdg/1214429276

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  EellsJSampsonJHHarmonic Mappings of Riemannian Manifolds. Am J Mathematics (1964) 86(1):109–60. 10.2307/2373037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar