text:
# The Period Function of Second Order Differential Equations

## 1 Introduction

The general question of monotonicity of the period function has been treated by several authors in the special case when the phase flow has a Hamiltonian form. In particular, there is the case when the differential equation is of conservative Newtonian type

$$(E_c)x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0.$$

For a review of the different criteria, one will be able to consult the papers \[R\], \[C\], \[Sc\], \[Ch-C\] and the references herein.
C. Chicone \[C2\] points out a special interest of the behavior of the period function in understanding the Neumann boundary value problem $`x^{}(0)=0,x^{}(T)=0`$. A solution of this problem corresponds to one of the periodic orbits in the phase plane that starts at time $`t=0`$ on the x-axis and returns to the x-axis after time $`T`$. The monotonicity ensures the uniqueness of the solutions with a fixed number of nodes $`N`$, which corresponds to such a periodic trajectory with minimum period $`\frac{2T}{N}`$. This situation may occur for autonomous systems other than conservative ones. The interval of values of the period determines the interval of initial conditions for which the equation has a solution.

In outsides of this position, we know only little of cases, where the behavior of the period function perfectly is known as well as the isochronicity of the center.
The Lienard equation

$$(L)x^{\prime \prime }+f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0,$$

is not in Hamiltonian form and new result on the monotonicity of their period function can appear particularly interesting.

M. Sabatini \[S\] proved if the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are analytic odd functions such that $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0,`$ the origin $`0`$ is an isochronous center if and only if

$$g(x)=g^{}(0)x+\frac{1}{x^3}[_0^xsf(s)𝑑s]^2$$

These hypotheses in particular impose the strong condition $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$. This one will be the central point of our discussion, where one will attempt to overcome this hypothesis.

Concerning the above problem, the interesting question that remains is the one to know if the only isochronous centers for Lienard systems are those given by \[S\], as believe certain authors. For the moment, one not know examples of other isochronous systems.

This paper is organized as follows. In the second part we examine monotonicity conditions of the period function for the Lienard equation where the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are such that $`fC^1(J,R)`$ and $`gC^3(J,R)`$ on the interval $`J=(a,b),a<0<b`$ and satisfying some conditions so that the origin $`0`$ is a center of this equation. It implies in particular $`g^{}(0)>0.`$ The period $`TT(\gamma )`$ where $`\gamma `$ is a cycle surrounding $`0`$ is defined.

We prove that

$$g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(x)\frac{5}{3}g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(x)\frac{2}{3}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)g^{}(0)0$$

implies the monotonicity of the period function $`T`$ in a neighborhood of $`0`$ . In particular, $`g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3}g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(0)\frac{2}{3}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)=0`$ and $`f^{}(0)g^{\prime \prime }(0)g^{}(0)f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ are necessary conditions for the center $`0`$ to be isochronous.
When $`g`$ is of class $`C^3`$, our criteria appears in a certain direction to be more general than those given by Sabatini \[S\] for the period function to be monotonic.
In particular, if $`f0`$, we find the condition $`g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3}g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(0)0`$ which implies the monotonicity of the period for the conservative case. This agrees with Schaaf condition, \[R\]

$$g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)\frac{5}{3}g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(x)0$$

in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

As a corollary of this result, we obtain the following

Theorem Let the origin $`0`$ be a center of equations $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ and $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$ Supppose the two functions $`fC^1([a,b]),`$ and $`gC^3([a,b]),`$ verify $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0.`$
If the period function $`T`$ of $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ is increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$, then the period function of $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$ is also increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

As a consequence me may deduce that under the hypothesis $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)0`$ a necessary condition for the Lienard sytem to have an isochronous center, is the period of the conservative associated system has to be decreasing.

We also notice that under restrictive hypotheses, the function $`g(x)`$ is of class $`C^k,k3`$ and $`fC^2`$, it is possible to extend some results of \[S\]. For that, one has to suppose

$$g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0,f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)\frac{2}{3}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)0$$

in a neighborhood of $`0`$, for the origin to be a center and the period function to be monotonic.

Nevertheless, our result presents the advantage of to be more natural. In this direction that if $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ it reduces himself to the one of Z. Opial \[O\] when $`f0`$.
This point will be studied early in the first part, where one will remark that in the conservative case the criterion given by F. Rothe appears to be the better one since it does not demand the above condition $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$.

## 2 On the monotonicity conditions of the period

In this section, we give other results concerning the monotonicity of the period energy-function of the conservative system. In particular, we prove that if $`g`$ is of class $`C^2`$, we cannot improve the Opial result without supposing $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)0`$ . If $`g`$ is of class $`C^3`$ and to obtain the same result we have to suppose additional conditions.
Moreover, we prove that Opial result is the better one among those for which these $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$.
Let us consider the conservative system

$`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0.`$ (1)
$`0`$ is a center for (2.1), $`gC^1(J,R)`$, where $`J`$ is a real interval containing $`0`$ and satisfying $`g(0)=0`$ and $`g^{}(0)>0`$. Let $`G`$ the primitive of $`g`$, verifying : $`G(0)=0\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}G(a)=G(b)=c,`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ satisfy the inequalities $`\alpha <a<0`$ and $`0<b<\beta .`$ Thus, there exists a constant $`\delta ,`$such that $`0<c<\delta .`$
The energy-period function is $`T(r)=\sqrt{2}_a^b\frac{dx}{\sqrt{G(r)G(x)}}`$, where $`G(r)=c`$.

We prove the following , which slightly improves Opial result (\[O\], Theorem 8)

Proposition 1. Let a function $`g`$, and $`J`$ an interval containing $`0`$ such that $`g(0)=0`$ . Suppose the function $`g`$ satisfies $`xg(x)>0`$ for $`xJ`$, then for each following condition
(i) - $`gC^1(J,R)`$, and $`g^{}(0)>0`$.
(ii) - $`gC^2(J,R)`$, and $`g^{}(0)>0`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$,
we have

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}({\displaystyle \frac{g}{x}})\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x<0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x>0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (2)
then the period function $`T`$ of (2.3) is strictly increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}({\displaystyle \frac{g}{x}})\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x>0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x<0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (3)
then the period function $`T`$ of (2.3) is strictly decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.
Moreover, if $`gC^3(J,R)`$, then $`xg^{(3)}(x)`$ and $`\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{g}{x})`$ have a same sign in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Proof Consider for $`r(0,b)`$,

$$T_1(r)=\sqrt{2}_0^r\frac{dx}{\sqrt{G(r)G(x)}}.$$

The proves are similar if we start from hypothesis (2-2) or (2-3). Suppose for example (2-2) is verified, let us prove that $`T_1`$ is strictly increasing on $`(0,b)`$. Following \[O\], consider $`p=\frac{r^{}}{r}`$, where $`0<r<r^{}<b`$. Define the new function

$$h_p(x)=\frac{g(px)}{p}.$$

By (2-2), for $`x(0,\frac{b}{p})`$ we have

$$g(x)=\frac{g(x)}{x}x>\frac{g(px)}{px}x=h_p(x).$$

Let $`I(x)=_0^xh_p(u)𝑑u`$, we then have $`G(r)G(x)>I(r)I(x).`$ We obtain

$$T_1(r)<\sqrt{2}_0^r\frac{dx}{\sqrt{I(r^{})I(x)}}=\sqrt{2}_0^r\frac{dx}{\sqrt{G(r^{})G(px)}}=T_1(r^{}).$$

Then $`T_1`$ is strictly increasing on $`(0,b).`$ By similarity , we prove that under hypothesis (2-2)

$$T_2(s)=\sqrt{2}_0^r\frac{dx}{\sqrt{G(s)G(x)}}$$

is strictly decreasing on $`(a,0)`$. The period function $`T`$ is obviously

$$T(r)=T_1(r)+T_2(s)$$

where $`s(a,0)`$ is such that $`G(s)=G(r)`$.
$`T(r)`$ is increasing because $`G(x)`$ is strictly increasing for $`x>0`$ and strictly decreasing for $`x<0`$.
Furthermore, let the function $`\psi (x)=x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}))`$, its derivative is $`\psi ^{}(x)=g^{\prime \prime }(x)\frac{\psi (x)}{x}`$. By the l’Hopital’s rule we find

$$2lim_{x0}(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\psi }{x})=lim_{x0}\psi ^{}(x)=g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.$$

Moreover, the second derivative of the function $`\psi (x)`$ is

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=g^{(3)}(x)\frac{\psi ^{}(x)}{x}+\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}=g^{(3)}(x)\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(x)}{x}+2\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}.$$

Thus, by l’Hopital’s rule again we obtain

$$lim_{x0}\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=2lim_{x0}\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}=lim_{x0}\frac{\psi ^{}(x)}{x}=g^{(3)}(0)lim_{x0}\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}.$$

So, $`g^{(3)}(0)`$ has the same sign as the function $`\psi (x)=x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}))`$ .
thus, $`x\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{g}{x})`$ has a constant sign only if we suppose $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.`$

### 2.1 Remark 1

(i) In the convex case of the function $`g(x)`$ in the interval $`(a,b)`$, Chow and Wang \[C-W\] gave a criterion of monotonicity for the period function . They prove that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}(i)\hfill & g^{\prime \prime }(x)>0,\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }(x)=x(g^{\prime \prime }(0)g^{}(x)g^{}(0)g^{\prime \prime }(x))0(0),\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b).\hfill \end{array}(𝒞_1)$$
(4)
implies

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}H_0(x)=g(x)^2+\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{3g^{}(0)^2}g(x)^32G(x)g^{}(x)>0(<0),\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),x0,\hfill \end{array}(𝒞_0)$$
(5)
which implies the monotonicity of the period function $`T(r)`$ for $`0<r<r_1`$.

(ii) In the case where $`g(x)`$ is of class $`C^2`$ and non convex in the interval $`(a,b)`$, S.N. Chow and D. Wang prove a analogous result , where the function $`\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{g}{x})`$ in Proposition 1 is replaced by $`x\frac{d^2}{dx^2}g`$ (their result is obviously weaker than Proposition 1 because $`x\frac{d^2}{dx^2}g`$ and $`\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{g}{x})`$ share the same sign).
But F. Rothe exhibited a stronger criterion, where this function is replaced by
$`3g^{\prime \prime }(0)g^{}(x)^2g^{\prime \prime }(0)g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)(3g^{}(0)^2)g^{\prime \prime }(x)`$. The condition

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}H_4(x)=x[3g^{\prime \prime }(0)g^{}(x)^2g^{\prime \prime }(0)g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)(3g^{}(0)^2)g^{\prime \prime }(x)]0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),\hfill & \end{array}(𝒞_4)$$
(6)
denoted $`f_4`$ in \[R\], was proposed by F. Rothe .
Remark that the following assumption

$$xg^{\prime \prime }(x)<0\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙}x0$$

implies also $`(𝒞_4)`$ to hold. But, then necessarily implies $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0,`$ which is a strong condition actually (see Proposition 2 below).

(iii) Recall that conditions $`(𝒞_0)`$ and $`(𝒞_1)`$ are given by Chow and Wang.
The following criterion $`(𝒞_3)`$ is due to R. Schaaf, but (i) is replaced by a weaker condition:

$$\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{}(x)=0,\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛}g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)<0.$$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}H_3(x)=5g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(x)3g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)>0(<0),\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),x0.\hfill & & \end{array}(𝒞_2)$$
(7)
Note that it is equivalent to $`(G^{\prime \prime })^{2/3}`$ being convex ($`G`$ is the primitive of $`g`$).

Notice that our following criterion $`(𝒞_5)`$ (see \[Ch-C\]) which is more inclusive than conditions $`(𝒞_1)`$ and $`(𝒞_3)`$ and with an additional assumption, more general than the above Rothe and Schaaf criteria ( respectively $`(𝒞_4)`$ and $`(𝒞_3)`$ ) .

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}(i)\hfill & g^{\prime \prime }(0)[3g^{}(x)^2g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)3g^{}(0)^2g^{\prime \prime }(x)0,\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0),0),\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \frac{g^{}(x)g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{g^{\prime \prime }(x)g^{}(0)^2}\frac{2G(x)}{g(x)^2},\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(0,b),x0.\hfill \end{array}(𝒞_5)$$

As we have seen in our preceding works \[Ch-C\], each of these conditions implies that $`(𝒞_0)`$ holds, which itself implies the monotonicity of the period.

Concerning the non convex case of the function $`g(x)`$ ( see remark (ii) above ), the following result gives relations between monotonicity conditions of the period function. But especially in the case where $`g(x)`$ is of class $`C^2`$ or $`C^3`$, it does to appear necessary conditions that are very restrictive. What puts in evidence the role of the Rothe criterion. Not only because it is the better one, but also because it does not require any supplementary conditions for the function $`g(x)`$. This result seems to not be known under this form, in any case it improves Theorem 1 of \[R\].

### 2.2 Proposition 2

Let $`J`$ be an interval containig $`0`$. Suppose the function $`g(x)`$ is of class $`C^2`$ satisfying $`xg(x)>0`$ for $`xJ`$ and $`g^{}(0)>0`$. Let the function $`G(x)`$ be the primitive of $`g(x)`$ verifying $`G(0)=0`$ and $`G(a)=G(b),a<0<b,a,bJ`$. Then we have the following implications

$$xg^{\prime \prime }(x)<0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)>0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}))<0.$$

Moreover, each of these conditions implies that the period function $`T(r)`$ of (2.3) is strictly increasing for $`0<r<r_1`$.

$$xg^{\prime \prime }(x)>0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)<0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}))>0.$$

Moreover, each of these conditions implies that the period function $`T(r)`$ of (2.3) is strictly decreasing for $`0<r<r_1`$.
A necessary condition to have any of these conditions is $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ .
If we suppose in addition $`g(x)`$ is of class $`C^3`$, then

$$g^{(3)}(x)<0(>0)\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}xg^{\prime \prime }(x)<0(>0).$$

Proof Notice that, since $`G(x)>0`$ for $`x0`$ and

$$\frac{d}{dx}[g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)]=2G(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x),$$

then $`2xG(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)<0(\text{r}esp.>0)`$ implies $`g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)>0(\text{r}esp.<0)`$. Because $`x\frac{d}{dx}[g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)]`$ and $`xg^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ have the same sign. So, we have proved the two first implications.
The second implications $`g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)>0(\text{r}esp.<0)\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x})<0(\text{r}esp.>0)`$ have been proved by Rothe (see \[R\] Proposition 4 p. 138, according his notations: $`h_3^+h_2^+`$).

Remark that conditions

$$xg^{\prime \prime }(x)<0\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝}.>0\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}g^2(x)2G(x)g^{}(x)<0\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝}.>0$$

independently imply $`H_0(x)=g(x)^2+\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{3g^{}(0)^2}g(x)^32G(x)g^{}(x)0,(\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝}.0)`$ and imply the period function increasing (resp. decreasing), see \[C-W\] Corollary 2.3.
On the other hand, condition $`g^{(3)}(x)<0(>0)\text{a}ndg^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ implies

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_3(x)=5g_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}(x)3g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)>0(<0),\hfill & \mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),x0.\hfill & \end{array}(𝒞_3)$$
(8)
holds, which itself implies $`(𝒞_0)`$.
We proceed as in Proposition 1, let the function $`\psi (x)=x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}`$, By the l’Hopital’s rule we find

$$2lim_{x0}(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\psi }{x})=g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.$$

We have seen that $`\psi (x)`$ is

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=g^{(3)}(x)\frac{\psi ^{}(x)}{x}+\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}=g^{(3)}(x)\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(x)}{x}+2\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}.$$

We have also calculated

$$lim_{x0}\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=g^{(3)}(0)lim_{x0}\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}.$$

So, notice that $`g^{(3)}(0)`$ has the same sign as the function $`\psi (x)=x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x})`$

Thus, $`g^{(3)}(x)<0(>0)\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0\mathrm{𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}xg^{\prime \prime }(x)<0(>0),`$ which implies $`x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x}))<0(>0)`$.

From the latter remark, if $`g^{(3)}(0)0`$ the function $`x(\frac{d}{dx}\frac{g}{x})`$ has the same sign as $`g^{(3)}(0),`$ we may deduce the following.

### 2.3 Corrolary 1

Let a function $`gC^k(J,R),k2`$ where $`J`$ is an interval containing $`0`$ such that $`g(0)=g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0,g^{(3)}(0)0`$ and $`g^{}(0)>0`$. Suppose in addition $`xg(x)>0`$ for $`xJ`$. Then we have

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{(3)}(0)<0\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}({\displaystyle \frac{g}{x}})\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{and}x<0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x>0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (9)
then the period function $`T`$ of (2.1) is strictly increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{(3)}(0)>0\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}({\displaystyle \frac{g}{x}})\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{and}x>0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{and}x<0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (10)
then the period function $`T`$ of (2.1) is strictly decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

## 3 Equation of Lienard type

Let the equation

$$x^{\prime \prime }+f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0,$$
(11)
such that $`g(0)=0`$. Thus, $`x0`$ is a trivial solution, and the origin is a singular point of the equivalent system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=y\hfill & \\ y^{}=g(x)f(x)y\hfill & \end{array}`$ (12)
Suppose $`0`$ is a center of (3.1), let $`\gamma _0`$ the central region, be the open connected set covered with cycles surrounded the center $`0`$. This periodic trajectories may be parametrized for exemple by choosing their initial values in the segment $`(0,\pi )`$ on the $`x`$ \- axis.
Let $`T:\gamma _0R`$ , be the function defined by associating to every point $`(x,0)\gamma _0`$ the minimum period of the trajectory starting at $`(x,0)`$, to reach the negative x-axis. $`T`$ is the period function and is constant on cycles. We say $`T`$ is (strictly) increasing if, for every couple of cycles $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2,\gamma _1`$ included in $`\gamma _2`$ , we have $`T(\gamma _1)T(\gamma _2)`$ ( $`T(\gamma _1)<T(\gamma _2)`$).
We say $`0`$ is isochronous center if $`T`$ is constant in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Concerning this equation, different problems have been considered by several authors . In particular, existence, boundeness, uniqueness, multiplicity of periodic solutions and related questions were debated.
M. Sabatini \[S\] interested in the monotonicity of the period function $`T`$ of a center $`0`$ of (3.1), or in the isochronicity of $`0`$.
Suppose the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ are assumed to be $`C^2`$ functions on an interval $`J`$ which satisfy $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0.`$ These assumptions ensure the origin $`0`$ to be a center, so the period function $`T`$ is defined.
Since multiplication of the system of equations (3.2) by $`\alpha ^{1/2}`$ does not change the nature (of monotonicity) of the period but only changes each period by a constant multiple.

More precisely, for any positive real number $`\alpha `$ equation (3.1) is equivalent to

$$X^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha }}f(X)X^{}+\frac{1}{\alpha }g(X)=0$$

by the scaling

$$x(t)=X(\sqrt{\alpha }t).$$

We are led to a system of the form

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{1/2}}y\hfill & \\ y^{}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{1/2}}g(x)\frac{1}{\alpha ^{1/2}}f(x)y\hfill & \end{array}`$ (13)
In fact it is equivalent to another system more convenient to study, We may show the following which agrees with Lemma 2 of \[S\] for $`g^{}(0)=1`$

Lemma 1 Suppose $`f,g`$ are continuous functions of class $`C^k,k1`$ on $`J`$, an interval containing $`0`$ and $`f(0)=0`$. Let the function $`C(x)=\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}g(x)\frac{1}{g^{}(0)x^3}[_0^xsf(s)𝑑s]^2`$. Then the system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=y\frac{1}{x\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}_0^xsf(s)𝑑s\hfill & \\ y^{}=g(x)\frac{1}{g^{}(0)x^3}[_0^xsf(s)𝑑s]^2\frac{y}{x^2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}_0^xsf(s)𝑑s\hfill & \end{array}`$ (14)
is of class $`C^k,k1`$ in a neighborhood of $`0`$ and equivalent to (3.1).

Proof Let us define $`\psi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}_0^xsf(s)𝑑s`$. By l’Hopital rule we get
$`lim_{x0}\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}=\frac{f(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}`$. One also proves that the function $`\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}`$ is differentiable at $`0`$ and its derivative takes the value $`\frac{f^{}(0)}{3\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}.`$
Moreover, the function $`C(x)`$ is obviously differentiable and we get $`C^{}(0)=1`$.
A calculation gives

$$C^{\prime \prime }(0)=\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{2}{3g^{}(0)}f(0)f^{}(0)\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}C^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=\frac{g^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{2}{3g^{}(0)}f^{}(0)^2.$$

This proves the regularity of the system (3-3).
Furthermore, let us consider $`(x(t),y(t))`$ a solution of (3-3), then $`x(t)`$ is a solution of (3-1). Remark that for $`x0`$, we get

$$x[\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}]^{}=x^3f(x)\frac{2x\psi (x)}{x^3}=f(x)2\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}.$$

Moreover, by differentiating $`y=x^{}+x\frac{\psi (x)}{x^2}`$, we get

$$x^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}g(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}f(x)x^{}.$$

This is equivalent to (3.1) by scaling the time, here $`\alpha =g^{}(0)`$. This gives

$$x(\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}})=X(\tau )$$

we then obtain by differentiating with respect to $`\tau `$, and since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are independent on $`t`$, we have $`f(x)=f(X)`$ and $`g(x)=g(X)`$

$$X^{\prime \prime }=g(X)f(X)X^{}.$$

The following result specifies the behavior of the period function for the Lienard system in the neighborhood of the center 0. We have need nevertheless hypotheses, to know $`f`$ is $`C^1`$ and $`g`$ is $`C^3`$. It allows of some to deduct several interesting corollaries. Notably, simple conditions of monotonicity and to test in a quick way the isochronicity of the center.

Theorem 1. Let a function $`fC^1([a,b])`$ , and $`gC^3([a,b])`$ , verifying $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0`$ and let the origin $`0`$ be a center of

$$x^{\prime \prime }+f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0.$$

Then,

$$\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)\frac{2}{3}f^2(0)g^{}(0)0$$
(15)
the period function $`T`$ of a periodic solution of this equation is monotonic in a neighborhood of $`0`$.
More precisely,

$$\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)\frac{2}{3}f^2(0)g^{}(0)<0$$

then $`T`$ is increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

$$\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}g^{}(0)g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)\frac{2}{3}f^2(0)g^{}(0)>0$$

then $`T`$ is decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Proof To establish necessary conditions, we give for that an expansion of the period function near the center. We will use implicit function techniques.
Since the origin is a center, orbits solutions starting on the positive x-axis must be closed. Let $`x(t,c),y(t,c)`$ be a solution other than the origin of

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}y\hfill & \\ y^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}g(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}f(x)y\hfill & \end{array}`$ (16)
which take the value $`x(0,c)=c,y(0,c)=0`$ at $`t=0.`$ Let us suppose $`c`$ is a positive constant closed to $`0`$. After a certain time closed to $`\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}`$ this solution will go around the origin and will again intersect the positive x-axis at $`x(T,c)`$. Consider the following functions dependant on $`c`$,

$$\varphi (T,c)=x(T,c)c,\psi (T,c)=y(T,c).$$

We will solve $`\psi (T,c)=0`$ for $`T=T(c)`$ a function on $`c`$ small. Thus, $`\varphi `$ is a function on $`c`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=\varphi (T(c),c)`$. We find that the position of return is $`x=c+\mathrm{\Phi }(c).`$ Thus, the orbit is closed if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=0.$$

We will know the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(c)`$ when $`c`$ tends to $`0`$, in calculating its first derivatives at $`0`$. At first, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0,T(0)=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}`$ and the partial derivatives of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are

$$\varphi _T(0,0)=x^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0,\psi _T(0,0)=y^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0$$

$$\varphi _c(0,0)=x_c(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)1,\psi _c(0,0)=y_c(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0).$$

The index $`c`$ or $`T`$ denote differentiation with respect to $`c`$ or $`T`$.
The derivatives $`x_c(t,c)`$ and $`y_c(t,c)`$ with respect to $`t`$ satisfy the Lienard system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x_c^{}=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}y_c\hfill & \\ y_c^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}g^{}(x)x_c\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}f(x)y_c\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}f^{}(x)x_cy\hfill & \end{array}`$ (17)
with initial conditions $`x_c(0,c)=1,y_c(0,c)=0`$. According to our hypotheses, $`g(0)=f(0)=0`$, If we set $`c=0`$ the system becomes

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x_c^{}(t,0)=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}y_c\hfill & \\ y_c^{}(t,0)=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}x_c\hfill & \end{array}`$ (18)
It implies in particular, $`x_c(t,0)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)`$ and $`y_c(t,0)=\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t).`$ Thus, $`\varphi (0,0)=0`$ and $`\psi (0,0)=0`$.
We now calculate the second derivatives

$$\varphi _{TT}(0,0)=x^{\prime \prime }(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0,\psi _{TT}(0,0)=y^{\prime \prime }(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0$$

$$\varphi _{Tc}(0,0)=x_c^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0,\psi _{Tc}(0,0)=y_c^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}$$

$$\varphi _{cc}(0,0)=x_{cc}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0),\psi _{cc}(0,0)=y_{cc}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0).$$

The derivatives satisfy the system

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{cc}^{}=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}y_{cc}\hfill & \\ y_{cc}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[[g^{}(x)f^{}(x)y]x_{cc}+[g^{\prime \prime }(x)f^{\prime \prime }(x)y](x_c)^2f(x)y_{cc}2f^{}(x)x_cy_c]\hfill & \end{array}$$

Setting now $`c=0`$ in the preceding system, according to above intial conditions we get

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{cc}^{}=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}y_{cc}\hfill & \\ y_{cc}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[g^{}(0)x_{cc}+[g^{\prime \prime }(0)(\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t))^22f^{}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)]\hfill & \end{array}$$

The solution of the latter system is

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{cc}^{}=\frac{1}{6\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[3g^{\prime \prime }(0)+g^{\prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)+4f^{}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)+\hfill & \\ g^{\prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)2f^{}(0)\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)]\hfill & \\ y_{cc}^{}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[[g^{\prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)2f^{}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)+\hfill & \\ g^{\prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)+2f^{}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{g^{}(0)}t)]\hfill & \end{array}$$

We deduce from this the values

$$\varphi _{cc}(0,0)=\psi _{cc}(0,0)=0$$

By similar method we establish the value of the third derivatives. We find in particular

$$\varphi _{Tcc}(0,0)=x_{cc}^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0,\psi _{Tcc}(0,0)=y_{cc}^{}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}$$

$$\varphi _{TTc}(0,0)=x_c^{\prime \prime }(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=g^{}(0),\psi _{TTc}(0,0)=y_c^{\prime \prime }[\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=0$$

$$\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)=x_{ccc}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=\frac{3\pi }{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2g^{}(0)}\frac{f^{}(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}\frac{f^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}]$$

$$\psi _{ccc}(0,0)=y_{ccc}(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}},0)=\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[\frac{f^2(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{10g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)}{4g^2(0)}+9\frac{g^{(3)}(0)}{6g^{}(0)}]$$

From the above calculus, we may write the expansion of $`\psi (T,c)`$ near $`(0,0)`$

$$\varphi (T,c)=\frac{g^{}(0)}{2}(T\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}})^2c+\frac{1}{6}\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)$$

$$\psi (T,c)=(T\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}})c+\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}(T\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}})c^2+\frac{1}{6}\psi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)$$

Finally, return now to our problem. Solving $`\psi (T(c),c)=0`$ for $`T`$ as function of $`c`$

$$T(c)=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}\frac{1}{6}\psi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)$$

Recall the orbit is closed if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=\varphi (T(c),c)=0.`$ In substituting $`T=T(c)`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=\frac{1}{6}\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)`$ Thus, we have the expansion of the period function for $`c`$ small

$$T(c)=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}\frac{\pi }{12\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[\frac{f^2(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{10g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)}{4g^2(0)}+9\frac{g^{(3)}(0)}{6g^{}(0)}]c^2+o(c^3)$$

which leads to the necessary condition and gives the theorem.

We obtain in particular this consequence

Corollary 2 Let the conservative equation $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ and the Lienard equations $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$. Supppose the two functions $`fC^1([a,b])`$ , and $`gC^3([a,b])`$ , verifying $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0`$ and let the origin $`0`$ be a center for these equations.
If the period function of $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ is increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$, then the period function of $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$ is also increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

As a consequence of Theorem 1, we may deduce the following which also precises results of \[S\] .

Proposition 3 Let a function $`fC^2([a,b])`$ , and $`gC^3([a,b])`$ , verifying $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0`$ and let the origin $`0`$ be a center of (3.1) and in addition suppose that $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$. Let $`C(x)=\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}g(x)\frac{1}{g^{}(0)x^3}[_0^xsf(s)𝑑s]^2,`$ we have in particular,

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}C(x)\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑥}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x<0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}x>0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (19)
then $`T`$ is increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}C(x)\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑥}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{and}x>0,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ\mathrm{and}x<0,\hfill & \end{array}`$ (20)
then $`T`$ is decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

$`\mathrm{𝑖𝑓}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}C(x)0\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}xJ,`$ (21)
then $`T`$ is constant in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Proof After change in polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$, we obtain the following equivalent system to (3.4)

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}r^{}=\sqrt{g^{}(0)}r\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta r\beta (r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta C(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\hfill & \\ \theta ^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta C(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )C^{}(0)(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{r}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (22)
We also observe that from system (3.1) we get

$$r^2\theta ^{}=r^2\omega (r,\theta )=xC(x)y^2,$$

here $`T(r)=_{[0,2\pi ]}\frac{d\theta }{\omega }`$. By Theorem 1 of \[S\], it is sufficient to prove for example that hypothesis (3.9) implies that $`\frac{\delta \omega (r,\theta )}{\delta r}0`$ for almost all values $`\theta [0,2\pi ]`$.

A calculus gives

$$\frac{\delta \omega (r,\theta )}{\delta r}=\frac{\delta }{\delta r}\frac{[\mathrm{cos}\theta (C(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )C^{}(0)(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )]}{r}$$

$$=r\mathrm{cos}^2\theta C^{}(r\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta C(r\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$

We then obtain

$$\frac{\delta \omega (r,\theta )}{\delta r}=\frac{xC(x)x^2C^{}(x)}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}=x\frac{C(x)xC^{}(x)}{(x^2+y^2)^{3/2}}.$$

Remark obviously that since $`(xC^{}(x)C(x))^{}=xC^{\prime \prime }(x)`$, then according to the hypothesis, the function $`CC^3([a,b])`$ and condition $`xC^{\prime \prime }(x)0`$ for $`xJ`$ which is equivalent to hypothesis (3.9) implies $`\frac{\delta \omega (r,\theta )}{\delta r}0`$.
By the same way, we prove condition $`xC^{\prime \prime }(x)0`$ for $`xJ`$ which is equivalent to hypothesis (3.6) implies $`\frac{\delta \omega (r,\theta )}{\delta r}>0`$.
We then prove the functions $`\frac{\delta \omega }{\delta r}`$ and $`xC^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ have a same sign.
In fact, we can that with a other manner. A calculation gives

$$C^{\prime \prime }(0)=\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{2}{3g^{}(0)}f(0)f^{}(0)\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}C^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=\frac{g^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{2}{3g^{}(0)}f^{}(0)^2.$$

Then , we necessarely have $`C^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$, since $`xC^{\prime \prime }(x)0`$ (if $`x0`$) implies the monotonicity of the period. Thus, $`xC^{\prime \prime }(x)`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\frac{2}{3}f^{}(0)^2`$ have the same sign in a neighborhood of $`0`$. This determines the monotonicity of the period function.
Also, condition $`f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ appears to be necessary by the following Lemma.

Lemma 2 Let $`fC^2([a,b])`$ , and $`gC^3([a,b])`$ , verifying $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0`$ and let the Lienard equation (3.1). Then, a necessary condition for the origin $`0`$ to be a center of (3.1) is

$$f^{}(0)g^{\prime \prime }(0)2g^{}(0)f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0$$

Proof In the proof of Theorem 1, we have given the behavior of the period near the origin. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(c)0`$ for small $`c`$ means there will be no any closed orbit in a neighborhood of $`0`$. Indeed, $`c+\mathrm{\Phi }(c)`$ corresponds to the position of return to the x-axis. Since, we have seen

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=\varphi (T(c),c)=\frac{g^{}(0)}{2}(T\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{g^{}(0)}})^2c+\frac{1}{6}\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)$$

and according the expansion of $`T(c)`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(c)=\frac{1}{6}\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)c^3+o(c^3)$$

Thus, a necessary condition for the origin to be a center is :

$$\varphi _{ccc}(0,0)=\frac{3\pi }{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}[\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2g^{}(0)}\frac{f^{}(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}\frac{f^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2\sqrt{g^{}(0)}}]=0$$

The lemma is then proved.

Notice that by definition of $`C(x),`$ $`f(x)0`$ implies $`C(x)\frac{g(x)}{g^{}(0)}`$ and Corollary 2 reduces to the above Proposition 1. Remark also condition $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ appears to be necessary to study the various monotonicity conditions of the period function.

The following which may be deduce from Theorem 1 is particularly interesting

Corollary 3 Let the conservative equation $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ and the Lienard equations $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$. Supppose the two functions $`fC^1([a,b])`$ , and $`gC^3([a,b])`$ , verifying $`f(0)=g(0)=0,g^{}(0)>0`$ and let the origin $`0`$ be a center of these equations.
If $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)0`$ and the center $`0`$ of $`x^{\prime \prime }\pm f(x)x^{}+g(x)=0`$ is isochronous then the period function $`T`$ of $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ is strictly decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

We prove that in considering Corrolary 2 , and on account of the fact that $`g`$ is not a odd function.
According to this result, to establish the existence of isochronous centers for the Lienard sytem, it is necessary first to make sure that the period of the conservative associated system is decreasing at least in a neighborhood of $`0`$ . One will be able to use for that the different criteria of monotonicity of the period function.

From Theorem 1 we may deduce other consequences.

Corollary 4 Let a function $`fC^1([a,b])`$ , and $`g`$ a smooth function, verifying $`f(0)=g(0),g^{}(0)>0`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)0,`$ and let the origin $`0`$ be a center of (3.1) . Then necessary conditions on the function $`f`$ so that equation (3.1) has $`T`$ constant in a neighborhood of $`0`$ are

$$f^{}(0)=\pm \sqrt{3g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{g^{}(0)}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)},f^{\prime \prime }(0)=\pm \frac{g^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2g^{}(0)}\sqrt{3g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{g^{}(0)}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)}$$

Indeed, it suffices to remark by Corollary 3 the period function of the equation $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ has to be decreasing. Then, according to criteria of Schaaf it is necessary that $`3g^{(3)}(x)\frac{5}{g^{}(x)}g^{\prime \prime 2}(x)>0`$ in a neighborhood of $`0`$. This result is interesting since we do not need to suppose $`g(x)`$ odd. In particular, if $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ we have $`\frac{d^2}{dx^2}C(x)0`$ implies $`C^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=\frac{g^{(3)}(0)}{g^{}(0)}\frac{2}{3g^{}(0)}f^2(0)=0`$.

On the other hand, in considering the following function depending on $`f`$ and $`g`$

$$\sigma (x)=2x^2\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}f(x)_0^xsf(s)𝑑s4\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}[_0^xsf(s)𝑑s]^2+x^3g_n(x)x^4g_n^{}(x)$$

where $`g_n(x)=\frac{1}{g^{}(0)}g(x)x`$. Then, for this $`\sigma (x)`$ we have the following result which has been proved by \[S\] in the case where $`g`$ and $`f`$ are $`C^1`$ (Theorem A, Theorem 2 and Corollary 1)

Proposition 2 Let $`f,gC^3(a,b),f(0)=g(0)=0`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$. The origin $`0`$ being a center of (3.1) . If $`xC(x)>0`$ in a punctured neighborhood $`J`$ of $`0`$,
then we have

(1) if $`\sigma (x)0`$ for $`xJ`$, then $`T`$ is decreasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

(2) if $`\sigma (x)0`$ for $`xJ`$, then $`T`$ is increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$;

(3) if $`\sigma (x)0`$ for $`xJ`$, then $`T`$ is constant in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Notice that while considering the assumption $`xC(x)>0`$ in the case where $`g`$ is $`C^3`$ and $`f`$ is $`C^1`$, we have $`g^{}(0)>0`$ and $`C(x)`$ is $`C^3`$ . Furthermore, $`\sigma (x)`$ and $`C(x)`$ are related

$$\sigma (x)=x^5\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{C(x)}{x}.$$

This function may be written in a neighborhood of $`0`$,

$$\sigma (x)=2x^6[g^{(3)}(x)\frac{2}{3}f^2(x)]+\mathrm{}..$$

That imposes an additional condition $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ which turns out to be necessary since we have seen $`C^{\prime \prime }(0)=g^{\prime \prime }(0)`$. Moreover, it implies necessarely $`f^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$ by Lemma 2.

### 3.1 Other class of equations

In \[C2\], Chicone consider the class of differential equations of the form

$$x^{\prime \prime }+F(x^{})+G(x)=0$$

with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary values. These functions verify $`F(0)=G(0)=0`$ . This is equivalent to the system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=y\hfill & \\ y^{}=xx\stackrel{~}{g}(x)y\stackrel{~}{f}(y)\hfill & \end{array}`$ (23)
In the stantard Neuman situation the functions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are such that $`\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}C^2([a,a])`$ and satisfy the conditions (C)

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(s)=\stackrel{~}{f}(s),\stackrel{~}{g}(s)=\stackrel{~}{g}(s),\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}s[a,a]$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(s)0,\stackrel{~}{g}^{}(s)0,\stackrel{~}{f}^{\prime \prime }(s)0,\stackrel{~}{g}^{\prime \prime }(s)0,\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}s[0,a].$$

The trajectories of this system are symmetric with respect to the x-axis. So, it has obviously a center at the origin of the phase plane. Chicone proved that under the above conditions, the period function is monotone increasing.
The following class of Raleigh equations with linear restoring term may have a monotone increasing period in a neighborhood of the center $`0`$.

$$(R)x^{\prime \prime }+F(x^{})+x=0.$$

Without supposing hypotheses above, we may prove an analogous result which also improves Corollary 9 of \[S\]. We only need for that to suppose $`F(x)`$ is an even function with $`F^{\prime \prime }(0)0,`$ instead of conditions $`(𝐂)`$.

Corollary 5 Let $`h`$ be an analytic even function such that $`F(0)=0,`$ and $`F^{\prime \prime }(0)0`$. The origin $`0`$ be a center of $`(R)`$. Then the period function $`T`$ of equation $`R`$ is monotone increasing in a neighborhood of $`0`$.

Proof The system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=y\hfill & \\ y^{}=x+F(y)\hfill & \end{array}`$ (24)
which is equivalent to (R), has a unique singular point at the origin. By exchanging the variables and multiplying by $`1`$ we obtain the equivalent system

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=yF(x)\hfill & \\ y^{}=x\hfill & \end{array}`$ (25)
which is a lienard system with $`g(x)=x`$, and $`f(x)=\pm F^{}(x)`$. Moreover, the origin is a center implies $`f(x)`$ is odd (Corollary 7 of \[S\]). The conclusion holds by Theorem 1 since $`\frac{2}{3}f^2(0)g^{}(0)<0`$.

### 3.2  General remarks

The results that we propose (Theorem 1) presents the advantage of to be natural and easy to apply. The monotonicity condition as well as the isochronicity case can verify itself more easily. So much as the function $`C(x)`$ reduces itself to the function $`g(x)`$ when $`f(x)0`$ in a neighborhood of $`0`$. This puts in evidence the parallel between our result and the one of Opial. More precisely, a calculation gives

$$C^{\prime \prime }(0)=g^{\prime \prime }(0)\frac{2}{3}f(0)f^{}(0)\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}C^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=g^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)\frac{2}{3}f^{}(0)^2.$$

Then we have necessarely $`C^{\prime \prime }(0)=0`$.
We may remark that condition $`C^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)<0`$ for $`x(a,b)`$ implies (2.7) and $`C^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)>0`$ implies (2.8) (this requires necessarily $`C^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)<0)`$ when $`g`$ is $`C^3`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)<0`$).
It naturally seems that the function $`C(x)`$ plays a same role for the system (3.3) as the function $`g(x)`$ for the conservative system. Indeed, if we take $`f(x)0`$, conditions (3.7) and (3.8) reduce to the conditions (2.2) and (2.3) respectively of the Proposition 1. Notice that Rothe condition for the monotonicity of the period function

$$H_4(x)=x[3g^{}(x)^2g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)(3\frac{g^{}(0)^2}{g^{\prime \prime }(0)})g^{\prime \prime }(x)]0(0),\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}x(a,b),$$

is more general than (2.2) and (2.3) (see Remark 1 and \[R\]).
We may expect that the results of the above Theorem 1 can be generalize. In the sense where $`C(x)`$ is replaced by another more general appropriated function let $`D(x)`$, which itself can be reduce to the Rothe function

$$(3\frac{g^{}(0)^2}{g^{\prime \prime }(0)})g^{\prime \prime }(x)3g^{}(x)^2+g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)$$

for the conservative case $`f(x)0.`$ This function have to be such that

$$D^{(3)}(0)=g^{(3)}(0)\frac{5}{3g^{}(0)}g^{\prime \prime 2}(0)\frac{2}{3}f^2(0)$$

One separates thus the necessary condition $`g^{\prime \prime }(0)=0.`$
We may also expect that the sign of the following function

$$g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)\frac{5}{3}g^{\prime \prime 2}(x)\frac{2}{3}f^2(x)g^{}(x)$$

determines the global monotonicity of the period function $`T`$ of the Lienard system. In the conservative case, the last function reduces to $`g^{}(x)g^{(3)}(x)\frac{5}{3}g^{\prime \prime 2}(x)`$ which intervenes in the Schaaf condition ( see condition $`(𝒞_3)`$ in Section 2 above). Recall that the last one is less inclusive than the Rothe condition.
Moreover, according Corollary 4 to determine the isochronous centers at the origin for the Lienard system (other than those determined by \[S\] ) we have to insure that the associated conservative sytem has a decreasing period function.

REFERENCES

\[C\] C.Chicone The monotonicity of the period function for planar Hamiltonian vector fields J. Diff Eq., vol 69, p. 310-321, (1987).

\[C2\] C.Chicone Geometric methods for two-point nonlinear boundary value problems J. Diff Eq., vol 72, p. 360-407, (1988).

\[Ch-C\] R.Chouikha and F. Cuvelier Remarks on some monotonicity conditions for the period function Applic. Math., vol 26, 3, p. 243-252, (1999).

\[C-W\] S.N. Chow and D. Wang On the monotonicity of the period function of some second order equations Casopis Pest. Mat. 111, p. 14-25, (1986).

\[C-D\] CJ Christopher and J. Devlin Isochronous centers in planar polynomial systems SIAM J. Math. Anal., vol 28, p.162-177, (1997).

\[L\] W.S. Loud The behavior of the period of solutions ofcertain plane autonomous systems near centers  Contr. Differential Equations, 3, p. 21-36, (1964).

\[O\] Z. Opial Sur les periodes des solutions de l’equation differentielle $`x^{\prime \prime }+g(x)=0`$ Ann. Polon. Math., 10, p. 49-72, (1961).

\[R\] F. Rothe Remarks on periods of planar Hamiltonian systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 24, p.129-154, (1993).

\[S\] M. Sabatini On the period function of Lienard systems J. of Diff. Eq., 152, p. 467-487, (1999).

\[Sc\] R.Schaaf A class of Hamiltonian systems with increasing periods J. Reine Angew. Math., 363, p. 96-109, (1985).


format: text

text:
# I Results on 𝑦. A shorter lifetime for the CP-even neutral 𝐷 corresponds to 𝑦>0.

TECHNION-PH-2001-19

EFI 01-07

hep-ph/0103110

March 2001

Measuring $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ Mixing and Relative Strong Phases

at a Charm Factory 111To be submitted to Physics Letters B.

Michael Gronau and Yuval Grossman

Department of Physics, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
Technion City, 32000 Haifa, Israel

and

Jonathan L. Rosner

Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

ABSTRACT

> We propose a set of measurements at a charm factory to determine the $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the strong phase difference $`\delta `$ between doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) and Cabibbo-favored (CF) neutral $`D`$ decays into $`K^{}\pi ^+`$. The method can also be used to measure strong phase differences between other corresponding DCS and CF amplitudes. These phase differences are important for studies of $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing.

The time development of decays of neutral $`D`$ mesons to doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) modes such as $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ exhibits interesting behavior. At $`t=0`$ the only term in the amplitude is the direct DCS $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ term, but for $`t>0`$ a $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing contribution appears. The interference of this term with the DCS contribution involves the lifetime and mass differences of the neutral $`D`$ mass eigenstates as well as the final-state strong phase difference $`\delta `$ between the Cabibbo-favored (CF) $`\overline{D}^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and DCS $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitudes.

A recent study of this process by the CLEO Collaboration , when combined with direct measurements of the lifetime difference between CP-even and CP-odd neutral $`D`$ mesons , suggests that this strong phase difference may be large . The FOCUS Collaboration has also presented data in agreement with CLEO’s results . Several attempts to estimate this phase theoretically  involve various degrees of model-dependence. A recent proposal to measure the phase  assumes that $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ DCS $`DK\pi `$ amplitudes into $`I=1/2`$ final states involve equal strong phases. In the present note we suggest an entirely assumption-free method for determining this phase experimentally. We show that related measurements are capable of determining $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing parameters at the percent level.

A charm factory operating at the $`\psi (3770)`$ resonance produces $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs in a state of definite charge-conjugation eigenvalue $`C=`$. At slightly higher energies one can produce such pairs with $`C=+`$ . One may tag one of the neutral $`D`$ mesons as a CP eigenstate through its decays into CP eigenmodes, such as $`K_S(\pi ^0,\rho ^0,\omega ,\eta ,\eta ^{},\varphi )`$, $`K^+K^{}`$, and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. (These decays are important in a different context of studying the weak phase $`\gamma `$ in $`BD^0K`$ .) The other neutral $`D`$ meson must then have opposite CP if $`C(D^0\overline{D}^0)=`$ and the same CP if $`C(D^0\overline{D}^0)=+`$ . One measures its decay rate into $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, which includes an interference between CF and DCS amplitudes. The measured rate thus is given in terms of the already-measured CF and DCS rates and the relative strong phase $`\delta `$, which permits a determination of $`\delta `$. (This phase plays an important role in a method  for measuring $`\gamma `$ in $`BD^0K`$.)

We now discuss details of this method, beginning with conventions and notation and ending with an estimate of the achievable precision. For the majority of our discussion we shall neglect CP violation in neutral $`D`$ mixing and decays, which is expected to be very small in the Standard Model. Our master equations for correlated hadronic decays of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs, Eqs. (9)–(10) below, apply also to the case of CP violation. Towards the end of our study we will argue that including CP violation beyond the Standard Model has a negligible effect on the proposed measurement of the relative strong phase $`\delta `$.

The mass eigenstates in the neutral $`D`$ meson system may be defined as

$`D_1`$ $``$ $`p|D^0+q|\overline{D}^0,`$
$`D_2`$ $``$ $`p|D^0q|\overline{D}^0,`$ (1)
where $`|p|^2+|q|^2=1`$, with corresponding eigenvalues $`\mu _{1,2}M_{1,2}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}/2`$. Neglecting CP violation in $`D^0`$$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing, we adopt the convention  in which $`D_1`$ is the CP-odd and $`D_2`$ the CP-even state, choosing further $`p=q=1/\sqrt{2}`$. We define

$$M\frac{M_1+M_2}{2},\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{2},\mu \frac{\mu _1+\mu _2}{2},$$

$$x\frac{M_2M_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},y\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }},\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mu _2\mu _1=\mathrm{\Gamma }(xiy).$$
(2)
The decay amplitudes are defined as

$$K^{}\pi ^+|D^0Ae^{i\delta _R},K^{}\pi ^+|\overline{D}^0\overline{A}e^{i\delta _W},\delta \delta _R\delta _W,$$
(3)
where $`\delta _R`$ and $`\delta _W`$ refer, respectively, to “right-sign” and “wrong-sign” strong phases in the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ system.

With the above-mentioned convention for CP eigenstates, self-consistency requires us to take $`D^0c\overline{u}`$, $`\overline{D}^0u\overline{c}`$ as in Ref. . The decay $`D_1K^+K^{}`$ then is forbidden. With this convention, in the SU(3) limit, we would have $`\overline{A}/A=V_{cd}V_{us}^{}/V_{ud}V_{cs}^{}=+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C0.05`$, where $`\theta _C`$ is the Cabibbo angle. We thus take, more generally, $`\overline{A}/Ar>0`$.

We note that (3) implies $`K^+\pi ^{}|D^0=\overline{A}^{}e^{i\delta _W}`$ which is equal, by a U-spin $`sd`$ substitution and a replacement of CKM elements, to $`[V_{cd}V_{us}^{}/V_{ud}V_{cs}^{}]A^{}e^{i\delta _R}`$. Thus $`\delta =0`$ in the SU(3) limit .

We begin by considering the process studied by CLEO and FOCUS , which does not require a symmetric charm factory. A state which is identified at the time of production as a $`D^0`$, e.g., by the decay $`D^+\pi ^+D^0`$, evolves in time as $`D^0(t)=D^0f_+(t)+\overline{D}^0f_{}(t)`$, where

$$f_\pm (t)=\frac{1}{2}[e^{i\mu _1t}\pm e^{i\mu _2t}]=e^{i\mu t}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu t/2)\\ i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu t/2)\end{array}\right\}.$$
(4)
Similarly $`\overline{D}^0(t)=\overline{D}^0f_+(t)+D^0f_{}(t)`$. The time-dependence of a “wrong-sign” final state is governed by the amplitude

$$K^{}\pi ^+|\overline{D}^0(t)=e^{i\mu t}[K^{}\pi ^+|\overline{D}^0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu t/2)+K^{}\pi ^+|D^0i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu t/2)]$$

$$K^{}\pi ^+|D^0e^{i\mu t}e^{i\delta _W}[r+ie^{i\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }t(xiy)/2],$$
(5)
where the small-argument approximation is sufficient for the trigonometric functions since $`r,x,y1`$. The ratio of wrong-sign to right-sign decays, as a function of time, is then

$$R(t)\left|\frac{K^{}\pi ^+|\overline{D}^0(t)}{K^{}\pi ^+|D^0(t)}\right|^2\left|r+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{2}(xiy)e^{i\delta }\right|^2.$$

$$=r^2+ry^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }t+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{2}\right)^2(x^2+y^2),$$
(6)
where $`x^{}x\mathrm{cos}\delta +y\mathrm{sin}\delta `$, $`y^{}=y\mathrm{cos}\delta x\mathrm{sin}\delta `$. The suggestion of large $`\delta `$ first arose because the CLEO analysis  slightly favored negative $`y^{}`$ in the term linear in $`t`$ in the above equation, while the FOCUS result for $`y`$ , the dominant one in terms of statistical error, favored $`y>0`$. The results for $`y`$ are summarized in Table 1. The evidence for $`y>0`$ now is slightly less than $`2\sigma `$. CLEO reported $`y^{}=(2.5_{1.6}^{+1.4}\pm 0.3)\%`$ in an analysis allowing for CP violation and $`y^{}=(2.3_{1.4}^{+1.3}\pm 0.3)\%`$ when CP symmetry was assumed.

If all three terms in Eq. (6) (constant, linear, and quadratic in $`t`$) are measurable, and $`y`$ is also measured, then it is possible in principle to determine $`x`$ and $`\delta `$ up to discrete ambiguities. However, most (but not all) estimates of $`x`$ and $`y`$ within the Standard Model are considerably less than a percent . If this is so, the last term in (6) may be inaccessible even though there may exist evidence for the $`ry^{}`$ term, and we need an independent determination of $`\delta `$. This may be achieved through experiments at a charm factory, as we now show.

We consider a $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pair produced in a state of definite charge-conjugation eigenvalue $`\eta _C=\pm 1`$. The initial states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\eta _C}`$, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[D^0(\widehat{p})\overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})\pm \overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})D^0(\widehat{p})],$$
(7)
evolve in time to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (t,\overline{t})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\mu (t+\overline{t})}\{\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (t\pm \overline{t})/2][D^0(\widehat{p})\overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})\pm \overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})D^0(\widehat{p})]$$

$$\pm i\mathrm{sin}[\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (t\pm \overline{t})/2][D^0(\widehat{p})D^0(\widehat{p})\pm \overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})\overline{D}^0(\widehat{p})]\},$$
(8)
Here $`t`$ refers to the proper time of a state traveling along the $`+\widehat{p}`$ direction, while $`\overline{t}`$ refers to one traveling along $`\widehat{p}`$.

We now consider decays of these correlated systems into various final states, searching in particular for interference effects depending on $`\delta `$. In all cases we integrate with respect to proper time, since vertex separation in a symmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ “charm factory” is likely to be problematic. An early study of correlated $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ decays into specific flavor final states, assuming $`\delta =0`$, was carried out by Bigi and Sanda . More recently Xing  has considered both time-dependent and time-integrated decays into correlated pairs of states, including some effects of a nonzero final state phase difference. However, he has not considered the cases ($`3^{}`$) and ($`3^+`$) below, from which we propose to measure $`\delta `$. For completeness, we derive general expressions for time-integrated decay rates into a pair of final states $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$, from $`C=1`$ and $`C=+1`$ $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ states, in agreement with :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{C=1}(f_1,f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|A^{()}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B^{()}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x^2}}\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{C=+1}(f_1,f_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|A^{(+)}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{(1y^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{(1+x^2)^2}}\right]`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B^{(+)}|^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+y^2}{(1y^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{(1+x^2)^2}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left\{A^{(+)}B^{(+)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{y}{(1y^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ix}{(1+x^2)^2}}\right]\right\},`$
where

$`A^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`f_1|D^0f_2|\overline{D}^0\pm f_1|\overline{D}^0f_2|D^0,`$ (11)
$`B^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`f_1|D^0f_2|D^0\pm f_1|\overline{D}^0f_2|\overline{D}^0.`$ (12)
The rate expressions simplify if one of the states (say, $`f_2`$) is a CP eigenstate $`S_\zeta `$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta =\pm 1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{C=1}(f_1,S_\zeta )=|A_{S_\zeta }|^2\frac{|f_1|D^0+\zeta f_1|\overline{D}^0|^2}{1y^2},$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{C=+1}(f_1,S_\zeta )=|A_{S_\zeta }|^2\frac{|f_1|D^0\zeta f_1|\overline{D}^0|^2}{(1+\zeta y)^2},$$
(14)
where $`A_{S_\zeta }=S_\zeta |\overline{D}^0`$, and we have used $`CP|D^0=|\overline{D}^0`$.

The expressions for products of amplitudes in Eqs. (11) and (12) can be easily generalized allowing for CP violation:

$`A^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}A_1A_2\left(\lambda _2\pm \lambda _1\right),`$ (15)
$`B^{(\pm )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}}A_1A_2\left(1\pm \lambda _2\lambda _1\right),`$ (16)
where

$$A_if_i|D^0,\overline{A}_if_i|\overline{D}^0,\lambda _i\frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A}_i}{A_i}.$$
(17)
Here and everywhere we use a normalization in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^0f_i)=|A_i|^2`$.

Keeping terms up to order $`r^2,x^2,y^2`$ in the expressions for rates, and assuming CP conservation we list the following results for various cases:

$`C=1`$ $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ states:

($`1^{}`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(K^{}\pi ^+,K^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^4|1r^2e^{2i\delta }|^2(x^2+y^2)`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^4(x^2+y^2),`$
where $`A`$ was defined in Eq. (4). This process serves to measure mixing effects when normalized by the one which follows.

($`2^{}`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^+\pi ^{}(\widehat{p})`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(K^{}\pi ^+,K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`A^4|1r^2e^{2i\delta }|^2[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x^2y^2)]`$ (19)
$``$ $`A^4[12r^2\mathrm{cos}2\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x^2y^2)].`$
The dominant contribution is proportional to $`A^4`$, so by comparing this case with the previous one we can learn the combination $`x^2+y^2`$ describing mixing. Similar information could be gleaned from a fit to the time-distribution of a single tagged $`D^0`$ as described above, if $`x^2+y^2`$ is sufficiently large, but this may not be the case. The small interference terms in (19) are probably unmeasurable.

($`3^{}`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})S_\zeta (\widehat{p})`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(K^{}\pi ^+,S_\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`A^2A_{S_\zeta }^2|1+\zeta re^{i\delta }|^2(1+y^2)`$ (20)
$``$ $`A^2A_{S_\zeta }^2(1+2\zeta r\mathrm{cos}\delta ).`$
Recall $`r\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _C0.05`$ in the SU(3) limit. By comparing rates with $`\zeta =+1`$ final states such as $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`\zeta =1`$ final states such as $`K_S(\rho ^0,\omega ,\varphi )`$ one can measure the ratio $`(1+2r\mathrm{cos}\delta )/(12r\mathrm{cos}\delta )`$ and, given an independent measurement of $`r`$, one can obtain $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$.

($`4^{}`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^{}(\widehat{p})`$.

Using a leptonic $`\overline{D}^0`$ flavor tag and defining $`A_{\mathrm{}^{}}=\mathrm{}^{}X|\overline{D}^0`$, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(K^{}\pi ^+,\mathrm{}^{})=A^2A_{\mathrm{}^{}}^2[1\frac{1}{2}(x^2y^2)].$$
(21)
This process serves as a normalization for the one which follows describing the opposite-sign $`D^0`$ flavor tag.

($`5^{}`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(K^{}\pi ^+,\mathrm{}^+)=A^2A_\mathrm{}^+^2[r^2+\frac{1}{2}(x^2+y^2)],$$
(22)
where $`A_\mathrm{}^+=\mathrm{}^+X|D^0=A_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$. By comparing this process with the previous one, we obtain $`r^2+(x^2+y^2)/2`$. This may be of interest for mixing parameters if $`r,x,y`$ are of comparable size but, as mentioned, it is much more likely that $`x,yr`$ in which case this process can be used to measure $`r`$.

($`6^{}`$) $`S_\zeta (\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_\zeta ,\mathrm{}^+)=A_\mathrm{}^+^2A_{S_\zeta }^2(1+y^2).$$
(23)
Strictly speaking, the $`y^2`$ correction is one order higher in small parameters than we have been keeping, since $`A_{S_\zeta }^2`$ is already of order $`r`$. This process serves as a normalization for others.

$`C=+1`$ $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ states:

($`1^+`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(K^{}\pi ^+,K^{}\pi ^+)=4A^4[r^2+ry^{}+\frac{3}{8}(x^2+y^2)].$$
(24)
This expression gives information similar to that learned from the time-dependence (6) in the decay of a single tagged neutral $`D`$.

($`2^+`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^+\pi ^{}(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(K^{}\pi ^+,K^+\pi ^{})=A^4[1+2r^2\mathrm{cos}2\delta +4r\stackrel{~}{y}\frac{3}{2}(x^2y^2)],$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{y}y\mathrm{cos}\delta +x\mathrm{sin}\delta `$. The correction terms are probably unmeasurable, so this process serves as a normalization in comparison with the previous one.

($`3^+`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})S_\zeta (\widehat{p})`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(K^{}\pi ^+,S_\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`A^2A_{S_\zeta }^2|1\zeta re^{i\delta }|^2(12\zeta y+3y^2)`$ (26)
$``$ $`A^2A_{S_\zeta }^2(12\zeta r\mathrm{cos}\delta )(12\zeta y).`$
There thus appears to be ample information to constrain $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ once $`r`$ and $`y`$ are well-enough known.

($`4^+`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^{}(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(K^{}\pi ^+,\mathrm{}^{})=A^2A_{\mathrm{}^{}}^2[1+2r\stackrel{~}{y}\frac{3}{2}(x^2y^2)].$$
(27)
There is a small difference in comparison with the corresponding $`C=1`$ case.

($`5^+`$) $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(K^{}\pi ^+,\mathrm{}^+)=A^2A_\mathrm{}^+^2[r^2+2ry^{}+\frac{3}{2}(x^2+y^2)].$$
(28)
In contrast to the corresponding $`C=1`$ case, this expression involves interference between mixing and DCS decay similar to Eq. (24).

($`6^+`$) $`S_\zeta (\widehat{p})\mathrm{}^+(\widehat{p})`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(+)}(S_\zeta ,\mathrm{}^+)=A_\mathrm{}^+^2A_{S_\zeta }^2(12\zeta y+3y^2).$$
(29)
This differs from the $`C=1`$ case by a term of first order in $`y`$.

An additional set of cases involves the detection of one flavor eigenstate with direction $`\widehat{p}`$ and a different flavor eigenstate with direction $`\widehat{p}`$. Examples are $`K\pi `$, $`K\rho `$, and $`K^{}\pi `$. Processes with opposite-flavor final states \[such as $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^+\rho ^{}(\widehat{p})`$\] serve for normalization. Processes with same-flavor eigenstates \[such as $`K^{}\pi ^+(\widehat{p})K^{}\rho ^+(\widehat{p})`$\] from $`C=1D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs then give rise to a leading term in the rate proportional to $`|r_ie^{i\delta _i}r_je^{i\delta _j}|^2`$, where $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote two different channels, $`r_i`$ is the ratio of DCS to CF amplitudes in the channel $`i`$, and $`\delta _i`$ is the strong phase difference between right-sign and wrong-sign decays in that channel. Given three such measurements, and independent determinations of two of the three $`r_i`$, one can solve for the three phase differences $`\delta _i\delta _j`$ up to discrete ambiguities. Measurement of the third $`r_i`$ reduces those ambiguities by a factor of 2 and provides one constraint. There remains an overall ambiguity in the common sign of all phases. One can thereby check whether the quantities $`\delta _i`$ differ from channel to channel. The comparison of strengths of $`K^{}\pi `$ and $`K\rho `$ Dalitz plot bands in (DCS) $`DK\pi \pi `$ and (CF) $`D\overline{K}\pi \pi `$ decays already indicate the possibility of this difference , since U-spin relations of flavor SU(3)  appear to be violated in such cases. This method is unable to provide absolute values of any of the phases $`\delta _i`$, in contrast to those based on the examples $`(3^{})`$ and $`(3^+)`$ above.

At this point let us comment briefly on how our results may be modified in the presence of CP violation. In the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa framework CP violation in neutral $`D`$ mixing and decays, dominated by the first two generations, is very small and can be safely neglected. Extensions of the Standard Model could induce new sources of CP violation. The most likely sizable effect is a possible new CP violating phase, $`\varphi =\mathrm{arg}(q\overline{A}/pA)`$, occuring in the interference between $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing and decay amplitudes into $`K\pi `$ or other hadronic states. Dependence on such a phase requires mixing and would affect, for instance, the term linear in $`t`$ in Eq. (6)  and the $`ry^{}`$ terms in Eqs. (24) and (28). However, it affects Eq. (20), from which $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ is obtained, only in terms quadratic in $`x,y`$, which we neglected. This is true also for possible CP violation in mixing, $`|q/p|1`$.

Other CP violating effects in Eq. (20) can come from direct CP violation in Cabibbo-favored $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ and in singly Cabibbo-suppressed $`D^0S_\zeta `$ decays. This would introduce in the amplitudes $`A`$ and $`A_{S_\zeta }`$ corrections of order $`|K^+\pi ^{}|\overline{D}^0/`$ $`K^{}\pi ^+|D^0|1`$ and $`|S_\zeta |\overline{D}^0/S_\zeta |D^0|1`$, respectively. Such effects are expected to be very small in extensions of the Standard Model, where direct CP violation was shown to be negligible even in DCS decays . This can be checked directly by comparing $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ branching ratios into CP-conjugate states. Furthermore, these small effects can be shown to occur only at second order when combining the rate of Eq. (20) with its CP-conjugate.

In order to estimate the total sample of events needed to perform a useful measurement of $`\delta `$, we note that the rates for the processes of interest are given in terms of the already measured CF and DCS rates and the relative strong phase $`\delta `$. Let us define an asymmetry

$$𝒜\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_{})},$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{()}(S_\pm )`$ is a rate for a $`C=1`$ $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ configuration to decay into a $`CP`$-eigenstate $`S_\pm `$ with direction $`\widehat{p}`$ and a flavor eigenstate such as $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ with direction $`+\widehat{p}`$ \[the case $`(3^{})`$ noted above)\]. Eq. (20) implies a small asymmetry, $`𝒜=2r\mathrm{cos}\delta `$. For a small asymmetry, a general result is that its error $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜`$ is approximately $`1/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of events tagged with CP-even and CP-odd eigenstates. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}\delta )\frac{1}{2r\sqrt{N}}.$$
(31)
The number $`N`$ of CP-tagged events decaying to $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ is related to the total number of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs $`N(D^0\overline{D}^0)`$ through $`N0.01N(D^0\overline{D}^0)(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)4\times 10^4N(D^0\overline{D}^0)`$, since the branching-ratio-times-efficiency factor for tagging CP eigenstates is only about 1.1%  (the total branching ratio into CP eigenstates is larger than about 5% ). With $`r=1.2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.06`$ , one then has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{cos}\delta )\frac{400}{\sqrt{N(D^0\overline{D}^0)}}.$$
(32)
The cross section for $`e^+e^{}\psi (3770)`$ is about 10 nb at the peak , while a foreseen integrated luminosity for a charm factory operating at this energy is about 3 fb-1 . One can thus envision collecting $`3\times 10^7`$ $`D\overline{D}`$ pairs, of which half are charged and half are neutral. We are entitled to a factor of 2 for considering both $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ final states. We thus estimate that one may be able to reach an accuracy of about 0.07 in $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$.

The achievable error on $`(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}`$ is of the order of a percent. To see this, we note that the case $`(1^{})`$ mentioned above should yield about $`15\times 10^6(x^2+y^2)[(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)]^22.2\times 10^4(x^2+y^2)`$ $`(K^{}\pi ^\pm )(K^{}\pi ^\pm )`$ events under the conditions mentioned above, giving rise to sensitivity to $`x^2+y^2`$ at the level of about $`10^4`$. Modest improvements will be possible by adding other final states.

The parameter $`y^{}=y\mathrm{cos}\delta x\mathrm{sin}\delta `$ is obtained from the $`ry^{}`$ terms occuring in the time-dependence (6) in the decay of a single tagged neutral $`D`$, and in the rates (24) and (28) measured by producing $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ pairs with $`C=+1`$. Since $`r>x,y`$, the accuracy of measuring $`y^{}`$ is expected to be better than of measuring $`(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}`$. Once $`\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ is measured with the above calculated precision, separate measurements of $`x`$ and $`y`$ at a corresponding level of sensitivity may be achieved.

We thank David Asner, David Cinabro, Jonathan Link, Harry Nelson, Sandip Pakvasa, and Alex Smith for useful discussions, and A. I. Sanda for extending the hospitality of Nagoya University during part of this work. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560, by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and by the U. S. – Israel Binational Science Foundation through Grant No. 98-00237.


text:
# Totally geodesic subgroups of diffeomorphisms

## 1. Introduction

Euler equation for an ideal fluid flow is just the geodesic equation on the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms with right invariant $`L^2`$-metric, see \[A\]. In their book Arnold and Khesin \[AK\] state, that the subgroup of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms is totally geodesic in the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms on compact, oriented surfaces. This means that the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms is totally geodesic in the group of symplectic diffeomorphisms, which has a physical interpretation, namely the existence of a single valued stream function for the velocity field at the initial moment implies the existence of a single valued stream function at any other moment of time. We will prove that a closed, oriented surface having this property either has the first Betti number zero (the Lie algebras of symplectic and Hamiltonian vector fields coincide) or it is a flat $`2`$-torus.

A much more general classification result is actually true: twisted products of a torus by a Riemannian (resp. Kähler) manifold with vanishing first Betti number are the only Riemannian (resp. Kähler) manifolds, where the exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms lie totally geodesic in the Lie group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms (resp. the Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms in the symplectic diffeomorphisms), see Definition 2, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 in section 2.

The problem can be formulated in the setting of regular Fréchet-Lie groups: given a regular Fréchet-Lie group in the sense of Kriegl-Michor, see \[KM\], and a (bounded, positive definite) scalar product $`g:𝔤\times 𝔤`$ on the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, we can define a right invariant metric on $`G`$ by

$$G_x(\xi ,\eta ):=g((T_x\rho ^x)^1\xi ,(T_x\rho ^x)^1\eta )\text{for }\xi ,\eta T_xG\text{,}$$

where $`\rho ^x`$ denotes the right translation on $`G`$. The energy functional of a smooth curve $`c:G`$ is defined by

$$E(c)=_a^bG_{c(t)}(c^{}(t),c^{}(t))𝑑t=_a^bg(\delta ^rc(t),\delta ^rc(t))𝑑t,$$

where $`\delta ^r`$ denotes the right logarithmic derivative on the Lie group $`G`$.

Assuming $`c:[a,b]G`$ to be a geodesic with respect to the right invariant (weak) Riemannian metric, variational calculus yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}X_t`$ $`=\mathrm{ad}(X_t)^𝖳X_t`$
$`X_t`$ $`=\delta ^rc(t),`$
where $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳:𝔤𝔤`$ denotes the adjoint with respect to the Hilbert scalar product of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$, see \[KM\], which we assume to exist as bounded linear map $`\mathrm{ad}()^𝖳:𝔤L(𝔤)`$. A Lie subgroup $`HG`$ is totally geodesic if any geodesic $`c`$ with $`c(a)=e`$ and $`c^{}(a)𝔥`$ stays in $`H`$. This is the case if $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳X𝔥`$ for all $`X𝔥`$. If there is a geodesic in $`G`$ in any direction of $`𝔥`$, then the condition is necessary and sufficient.

The setting for the whole article is the following: Given a regular Fréchet-Lie group $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and a bounded, positive definite scalar product on $`𝔤`$. We assume, that $`\mathrm{ad}()^𝖳:𝔤L(𝔤)`$ exists and is bounded. Furthermore we are given a splitting subalgebra $`𝔥`$, i.e. $`𝔥`$ has an orthogonal complement $`𝔥^{}`$ in $`𝔤`$ with respect to the scalar product. We only assume $`𝔤=𝔥𝔥^{}`$ as orthogonal direct sum, in the algebraic sense. It follows, that $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$ are closed, and that the orthogonal projections onto $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$ are bounded with respect to the Fréchet space topology. $`𝔥`$ is called totally geodesic in $`𝔤`$ if $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳X𝔥`$ for all $`X𝔥`$. The following reformulation of the condition provides the main condition for our work:

###### Lemma 1.

In the situation above, $`𝔥`$ is totally geodesic in $`𝔤`$ iff $`[X,Y],X=0`$ for all $`X𝔥`$ and $`Y𝔥^{}`$.

In this article we consider the following important examples of the outlined situation: Let $`M`$ be a closed, connected and oriented manifold. The regular Fréchet-Lie group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ is modeled on the vector fields $`𝔛(M)`$, a Fréchet space. The Lie algebra is $`𝔛(M)`$ with the negative of the usual Lie bracket. The symbol $`[,]`$ will denote the usual Lie bracket and $`\mathrm{ad}(X)Y=[X,Y]`$. With these conventions, the geodesic equation on diffeomorphism groups has no minus sign. The following subgroups are regular Fréchet-Lie subgroups of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$, see \[KM\]:

1. The group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M,\mu )`$ of volume preserving diffeomorphisms of $`(M,\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ is a volume form on $`M`$; its Lie algebra is $`𝔛(M,\mu )`$ the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields.
2. The group $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\text{ex}}(M,\mu )`$ of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms of $`(M,\mu )`$ with Lie algebra

$$𝔛_{\text{ex}}(M,\mu )=\{X𝔛(M):i_X\mu \text{ is an exact differential form}\}.$$
3. The group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M,\omega )`$ of symplectic diffeomorphisms of the symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔛(M,\omega )`$ of symplectic vector fields.
4. The group $`\mathrm{Diff}_{\text{ex}}(M,\omega )`$ of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of $`(M,\omega )`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔛_{\text{ex}}(M,\omega )`$ of Hamiltonian vector fields.

Let $`(M,g)`$ denote a closed connected and orientable Riemannian manifold with Riemannian metric $`g`$, $``$ the Levi-Civita covariant derivative and $`\mu `$ the canonical volume form on $`M`$ induced by the metric $`g`$ and a choice of orientation. By $`\mathrm{}_g:T^{}MTM`$ we denote the geometric lift $`g(\mathrm{}_g\alpha ,)=\alpha `$ and by $`\mathrm{}_g`$ its inverse. We will omit the index $`g`$ when no confusion is possible. The Hodge-$``$-operator is given with respect to the volume form $`\mu `$ such that $`g(\beta ,\eta )\mu =\beta \eta `$ for $`\beta ,\eta `$ $`k`$-forms, where $`g`$ denotes the respective scalar product on the forms. The exterior derivative is denoted by $`d`$, the codifferential by $`\delta =(1)^{n(k+1)+1}d`$ on $`k`$-forms. With this convention $`d`$ and $`\delta `$ are adjoint with respect to scalar product on forms. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Delta }=d\delta +\delta d`$.

In the case of $`G=\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ the adjoint of $`\mathrm{ad}(X)`$, with respect to the induced right invariant $`L^2`$-structure is given by the expression

$$\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳X=_XX(\mathrm{div}X)X\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{grad}(g(X,X)).$$

We apply here the notions of gradient of a function $`\mathrm{grad}f=\mathrm{}(df)`$ and divergence of a vector field $`\mathrm{div}X=\delta (\mathrm{}X)`$, i.e. $`L_X\mu =\mathrm{div}(X)\mu `$. If $`HG`$ is a subgroup with splitting subalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$, then for $`X𝔥`$

$$\mathrm{ad}(X)|_𝔥^𝖳X=\pi (\mathrm{ad}(X)|_𝔤^𝖳X),$$

where $`\pi :𝔤𝔥`$ denotes the orthogonal projection.

In particular we obtain for the volume preserving diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}(M,\mu )`$

$`\mathrm{ad}(X)|_{𝔛(M,\mu )}^𝖳X`$ $`=_XX(\mathrm{grad}p)(X)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ $`=\mathrm{div}(_XX).`$
Such a function $`p`$ exists, is unique up to a constant and smooth by application of the smooth inverse of the Laplacian on its range. Hence $`(\mathrm{grad}p)(X)`$ is a well defined smooth vector field. Remark, that the orthogonal complement to divergence free vector fields are gradients of some functions, with respect to the $`L^2`$-metric, which is easily seen due to the orthogonal Hodge decomposition $`𝔛(M)=\mathrm{}_gd\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M)\mathrm{}_g\mathrm{ker}\delta `$, where $`\mathrm{}_g`$ denotes the geometric lift. Consequently the geodesic equation on $`\mathrm{Diff}(M,\mu )`$ with right invariant $`L^2`$-metric is

$$\frac{d}{dt}X_t=_{X_t}X_t(\mathrm{grad}p)(X_t),$$

the Euler equation for an ideal fluid flow, see \[A\].

Let $`M`$ be an closed, connected almost Kähler manifold $`(M,g,\omega ,J)`$, i.e. the symplectic form $`\omega `$, the almost complex structure $`J`$ and the Riemannian metric $`g`$ satisfy the relation $`g(X,Y)=\omega (X,JY)`$. Note, that a Kähler manifold has a natural orientation given by $`J`$. Moreover we have $`\mathrm{}_\omega (X)=(\mathrm{}_gX)J=\mathrm{}_g(JX)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\omega \phi =J\mathrm{}_g\phi =\mathrm{}_g(\phi J)`$, especially $`\mathrm{}_\omega :T_x^{}MT_xM`$ is an isometry, for $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{}_g`$ are.

For the symplectic diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}(M,\omega )`$ we obtain the following adjoint

$`\mathrm{ad}(X)|_{𝔛(M,\omega )}^𝖳X`$ $`=_XX{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{grad}(g(X,X))\mathrm{}_\omega ((\delta \alpha )(X))`$
$`d((\delta \alpha )(X))`$ $`=di_{_XX+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{grad}(g(X,X))}\omega `$
and the geodesic equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}X_t=_{X_t}X_t\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{grad}(g(X_t,X_t))\mathrm{}_\omega ((\delta \alpha )(X_t)).$$

Remark that via the symplectic lift the orthogonal Hodge decomposition of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)=d\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M)^1(M)\delta \mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)$$

can be carried to the vector fields. Symplectic vector fields are those with $`L_X\omega =d(\mathrm{}_\omega X)=0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{}_\omega X\mathrm{ker}d=d\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M)^1(M)`$. So there is some (symplectic) harmonic part and some Hamiltonian part, see \[KM\]. In the above formula $`(\delta \alpha )(X)`$ is uniquely determined and smoothly dependent for $`X𝔛(M,\omega )`$ by the Hodge decomposition. The divergence part is zero, since symplectic diffeomorphisms are volume preserving.

## 2. Statement and proof of the results

In this section we develop the necessary notions and prove the asserted main results of the article. We shall provide several equivalent conditions, geometric and analytic ones, in the Riemannian and Kähler case, such that the presented subgroups are totally geodesic.

For a $`1`$-form $`\phi `$ we set

$$(\phi )^{\text{sym}}(X,Y):=(_X\phi )(Y)+(_Y\phi )(X),$$

the symmetric part of $`\phi `$. Note that $`\mathrm{}\phi `$ is a Killing vector field, i.e. generates a flow of isometries, if and only if $`(\phi )^{\text{sym}}=0`$. Note also, that

$$d\phi (X,Y)=(_X\phi )(Y)(_Y\phi )(X),$$

the skew symmetric part of $`\phi `$, and $`\mathrm{tr}(\phi )^{\text{sym}}=2\mathrm{div}\mathrm{}\phi =2\delta \phi `$.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a closed oriented $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold and $`𝔤𝔛(M)`$ a closed subalgebra, such that $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳:𝔤𝔤`$ exists for all $`X𝔤`$. Then one has

$$2_Mg(\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳(X),Y)\mu =_M((\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}+(\mathrm{div}Y)g)(X,X)\mu .$$

Moreover

$$\mathrm{tr}\left((\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}+(\mathrm{div}Y)g\right)=(n+2)\mathrm{div}Y.$$

Especially $`(\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}+(\mathrm{div}Y)g=0`$ iff $`(\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}=0`$, i.e. $`Y`$ is Killing.

###### Proof.

We have:

$`{\displaystyle }g(\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳(X),Y)\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle g(X,[X,Y])\mu }`$
$`={\displaystyle \left(g(X,_XY)g(X,_YX)\right)\mu }`$
$`={\displaystyle \left(i_X_X\mathrm{}Y\frac{1}{2}L_Yg(X,X)\right)\mu }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}(X,X)\mu }+\frac{1}{2}g(X,X)L_Y\mu `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left((\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}+(\mathrm{div}Y)g\right)(X,X)\mu }`$
The second statement follows from $`\mathrm{tr}((\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}})=2\mathrm{div}Y`$ and $`\mathrm{tr}(g)=n`$. ∎

###### Definition 1.

We say $`𝔤𝔛(M)`$ is big enough to detect the vanishing of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field, if a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }(S^2T^{}M)`$ vanishes if

$$_MT(X,Y)\mu =0\text{for all }X,Y𝔤\text{.}$$

###### Remark 1.

Let $`𝔤𝔛(M)`$ be the Lie algebra of a Lie group of diffeomorphisms $`G`$, such that $`\mathrm{ad}()^𝖳:𝔤L(𝔤)`$ is bounded. Suppose $`HG`$ is a Lie subgroup with splitting Lie subalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$ and assume that $`𝔥`$ is big enough to detect the vanishing of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor. It will then be easy to decide if $`𝔥`$ is totally geodesic in $`𝔤`$, for the condition of being totally geodesic, $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳X𝔥`$ for all $`X𝔥`$, translates in this case to $`(\mathrm{}Y)^{\text{sym}}=0`$ for all $`Y𝔥^{}`$, i.e. $`Y`$ is Killing for all $`Y𝔥^{}`$.

Note also, that if $`𝔥`$ has an orthogonal complement in $`𝔛(M)`$, i.e. $`𝔥𝔥^{}=𝔛(M)`$, then $`𝔥`$ is a splitting subalgebra of $`𝔤`$, since $`𝔥^{}=𝔥^{}𝔤`$ is the orthogonal complement of $`𝔥`$ in $`𝔤`$.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold. Then the Lie algebra of compactly supported Hamiltonian vector fields is big enough to detect the vanishing of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`T`$ is a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field, which does not vanish at a point in $`M`$. Using Darboux’s theorem, and rescaling $`\omega `$ and $`T`$ by constants, we may choose a chart $`MU(1,1)^{2n}^{2n}`$, such that

$$\omega =dx^1dx^2+\mathrm{}+dx^{2n1}dx^{2n}$$

and $`T_{22}(x)>0`$ for all $`x(1,1)^{2n}`$, where $`T=T_{ij}dx^idx^j`$. Now choose a bump function $`b:[0,1]`$, such that $`b(t)=0`$ for $`|t|\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`b(0)=1`$. For $`0<\epsilon 1`$ we define

$$\lambda _\epsilon (x^1,\mathrm{},x^{2n}):=b(\frac{x^1}{\epsilon })b(x^2)\mathrm{}b(x^{2n})$$

and $`Z_\epsilon :=\mathrm{}_\omega d\lambda _\epsilon `$. Since the support of $`\lambda _\epsilon `$ is contained in $`(\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times (1,1)^{2n1}`$, $`Z_\epsilon `$ extends by zero to a compactly supported Hamiltonian vector field on $`M`$. An easy calculation shows

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon _MT(Z_\epsilon ,Z_\epsilon )\omega ^n=_{(1,1)^{2n}}\left(b^{}(x^1)b(x^2)\mathrm{}b(x^{2n})\right)^2T_{22}(0,x^2,\mathrm{},x^{2n})\omega ^n>0$$

and hence $`_MT(Z_\epsilon ,Z_\epsilon )\omega ^n0`$ for $`\epsilon `$ small enough. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`(M,\mu )`$ be a manifold with volume form, $`dim(M)>1`$. Then the Lie algebra of compactly supported exact divergence free vector fields is big enough to detect the vanishing of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Lemma 3, we choose a chart $`MU(1,1)^n^n`$, such that

$$\mu =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n$$

and such that $`T_{22}>0`$ on $`x(1,1)^n`$. Take a bump function $`b`$ as above and set

$$\lambda _\epsilon :=b(\frac{x^1}{\epsilon })b(x^2)\mathrm{}b(x^n).$$

Now define $`i_{Z_\epsilon }\mu :=d(\lambda _\epsilon dx^3\mathrm{}dx^n)`$. Then $`Z_\epsilon `$ is a compactly supported exact divergence free vector field on $`M`$ and

$$Z_\epsilon =b(\frac{x^1}{\epsilon })b^{}(x^2)b(x^3)\mathrm{}b(x^n)\frac{}{x^1}\frac{1}{\epsilon }b^{}(\frac{x^1}{\epsilon })b(x^2)\mathrm{}b(x^n)\frac{}{x^2}.$$

Again we get

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon _MT(Z_\epsilon ,Z_\epsilon )\mu =_{(1,1)^n}\left(b^{}(x^1)b(x^2)\mathrm{}b(x^n)\right)^2T_{22}(\epsilon x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n)\mu >0,$$

and hence $`_MT(Z_\epsilon ,Z_\epsilon )\mu 0`$ for $`\epsilon `$ small enough. ∎

###### Definition 2 (Twisted products).

Let $`T^k=^k/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a flat torus, equipped with the metric induced from the Euclidean metric on $`^k`$. Suppose $`F`$ is an oriented Riemannian manifold and that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acts on $`F`$ by orientation preserving isometries. The total space of the associated fiber bundle $`^k\times _\mathrm{\Lambda }FT^k`$ is an oriented Riemannian manifold in a natural way. Locally over $`T^k`$ the metric is the product metric. We call every manifold obtained in this way a twisted product of a flat torus and the oriented Riemannian manifold $`F`$.

If $`k`$ is even, $`F`$ Kähler and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ acts by isometries preserving the Kähler structure then $`^k\times _\mathrm{\Lambda }FT^k`$ is a Kähler manifold in a natural way and we call it a twisted product of a flat torus with the Kähler manifold $`F`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a closed, connected and oriented Riemannian manifold with volume form $`\mu `$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. The group of exact volume preserving diffeomorphisms is a totally geodesic subgroup in the group of all volume preserving diffeomorphisms.
2. Every harmonic $`1`$-form is parallel.
3. $`\mathrm{ric}(\beta _1,\beta _2)=0`$ for all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$.
4. $`(M,g)`$ is a twisted product of a flat torus and a closed, connected, oriented Riemannian manifold with vanishing first Betti number.
5. For all $`2`$-forms $`\alpha `$ and all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta `$ one has

$$_Mg(d\delta \alpha ,\delta \alpha \beta )\mu =0.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

Recall that the orthogonal complement of $`𝔛_{\text{ex}}(M,\mu )`$ in $`𝔛(M,\mu )`$ is $`\{\mathrm{}\beta :\beta \text{ harmonic }1\text{-form}\}`$. The equivalence $`(\text{1})(\text{2})`$ now follows immediately from Remark 1, Lemma 4 and the fact that for closed $`1`$-forms $`(\beta )^{\text{sym}}=0`$ is equivalent to $`\beta =0`$.

$`(\text{2})(\text{3})`$ is obvious from the definition of the curvature $`R_{X,Y}Z=_X_YZ_Y_XZ_{[X,Y]}Z`$ and $`\mathrm{ric}=\mathrm{tr}_{13}R`$.

The integrated Bochner equation on $`1`$-forms, see for example \[LM\], takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,\alpha =\alpha ^2+_M\mathrm{ric}(\alpha ,\alpha )\mu ,$$

and $`(\text{3})(\text{2})`$ follows.

$`(\text{4})(\text{2})`$: Suppose $`M=^k\times _\mathrm{\Lambda }F`$. Since $`H^1(F;)=0`$ it follows from the Leray-Serre spectral sequence that the projection $`MT^k`$ induces an isomorphism $`H^1(M;)H^1(T^k;)`$. So every harmonic $`1`$-form comes from $`T^k`$ and hence is parallel.

$`(\text{2})(\text{4})`$, cf. Theorem 8.5 in \[LM\] and \[CG\]: Suppose $`(M,g)`$ is a closed, connected and oriented Riemannian manifold, such that every harmonic $`1`$-form is parallel. Choose an orthonormal base $`\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _k\}`$ of harmonic $`1`$-forms. Since they are parallel they are orthonormal at every point in $`M`$. Choose a base point $`x_0M`$, let $`U\pi _1(M,x_0)`$ be the kernel of the Huréwicz-homomorphism

$$\pi _1(M,x_0)H_1(M;)H_1(M;)/\mathrm{Tor}(H_1(M;))^k,$$

and let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ be the covering of $`M`$, which has $`U`$ as characteristic subgroup. This is a normal covering, the group of deck transformations is $`^k`$ and $`\pi ^{}\beta _i=df_i`$ for smooth functions $`f_i:\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let $`z_0`$ be a base point in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ sitting above $`x_0`$ and assume $`f_i(z_0)=0`$. Consider the mapping

$$f:\stackrel{~}{M}^k,f(z)=(f_1(z),\mathrm{},f_k(z)).$$

Obviously this is a proper, surjective submersion and $`F:=f^1(0)`$ is a compact submanifold. Let $`X_i:=\mathrm{}_g\pi ^{}\beta _i`$. Then the $`X_i`$ are orthonormal at every point and they are all parallel, especially they commute. Consider

$$\kappa :F\times ^k\stackrel{~}{M},\kappa (z,t):=\left(\mathrm{Fl}_{t_1}^{X_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{Fl}_{t_k}^{X_k}\right)(z).$$

Of course we have $`f\kappa =\mathrm{pr}_2`$, and it follows easily, that $`\kappa `$ is a diffeomorphism. So $`F`$ is closed, connected, oriented and $`H^1(F;)=H^1(\stackrel{~}{M};)=0`$. Moreover $`\kappa ^{}g`$ is the product metric of the induced metric on $`F`$ and the standard metric on $`^k`$. Every deck transformation of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is of the form

$$F\times ^kF\times ^k,(z,t)(\phi _\lambda (z),t+\lambda ),$$

where $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^k`$ and $`\phi _\lambda `$ is an orientation preserving isometry of $`F`$. So $`M`$ is a twisted product, as claimed.

To see $`(\text{1})(\text{5})`$ let $`\mathrm{}\delta \alpha `$ be an exact volume preserving vector field, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$, and let $`\beta `$ be a harmonic $`1`$-form. Then

$`{\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{ad}(\mathrm{}\delta \alpha )^𝖳\mathrm{}\delta \alpha ,\mathrm{}\beta )\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{}\delta \alpha ,[\mathrm{}\delta \alpha ,\mathrm{}\beta ])\mu `$
$`={\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{}\delta \alpha ,\mathrm{}\delta (\delta \alpha \beta ))\mu `$
$`={\displaystyle _M}g(d\delta \alpha ,\delta \alpha \beta )\mu ,`$
where we used

$$\delta (\phi _1\phi _2)(\delta \phi _1)\phi _2+\phi _1\delta \phi _2=\mathrm{}[\mathrm{}\phi _1,\mathrm{}\phi _2]\text{for }\phi _1,\phi _2\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)$$

to obtain $`[\mathrm{}\delta \alpha ,\mathrm{}\beta ]=\mathrm{}\delta (\delta \alpha \beta )`$ for the second equality. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`(M,g,J,\omega )`$ be a closed, connected Kähler manifold. Then the following are equivalent:

1. The group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms is a totally geodesic subgroup in the group of all symplectic diffeomorphisms.
2. Every harmonic $`1`$-form is parallel.
3. $`\mathrm{ric}(\beta _1,\beta _2)=0`$ for all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$.
4. $`(M,g,J,\omega )`$ is a twisted product of a flat torus and a closed connected Kähler manifold with vanishing first Betti number.
5. For all functions $`f`$ and all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta `$ one has

$$_M(\mathrm{\Delta }f)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}=0.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

Recall that the orthogonal complement of $`𝔛_{\text{ex}}(M,\omega )`$ in $`𝔛(M,\omega )`$ is $`\{\mathrm{}_\omega \beta :\beta \text{ harmonic }1\text{-form}\}`$. By Remark 1 and Lemma 3, (1) is equivalent to $`(\beta J)^{\text{sym}}=(\mathrm{}_g\mathrm{}_\omega \beta )^{\text{sym}}=0`$ for all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta `$. On a Kähler manifold one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\phi J)=(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )J`$ for $`1`$-forms $`\phi `$. Particularly the space of harmonic $`1`$-forms is $`J`$-invariant, and so $`(\text{1})`$ is equivalent to $`(\beta )^{\text{sym}}=0`$ and since harmonic $`1`$-forms are closed this is equivalent to (2).

$`(\text{2})(\text{3})`$ and $`(\text{4})(\text{2})`$ are as in the proof of Theorem 1. For $`(\text{4})(\text{2})`$ one needs some extra arguments: One observes, that the span of the $`X_i`$ constructed in the proof of Theorem 1, is $`J`$-invariant and so is its orthogonal complement. Hence $`F`$ is a complex submanifold and therefore a Kähler submanifold. Moreover the complex structure is, locally over $`T^k`$, the product structure and so is the symplectic structure as well.

$`(\text{1})(\text{5})`$ follows from the following computation for a function $`f`$ and a closed $`1`$-form $`\beta `$:

$`{\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{ad}(\mathrm{}_\omega df)^𝖳\mathrm{}_\omega df,\mathrm{}_\omega \beta )\omega ^n`$ $`={\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{}_\omega df,[\mathrm{}_\omega df,\mathrm{}_\omega \beta ])\omega ^n`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}g(\mathrm{}_\omega df,\mathrm{}_\omega d(L_{\mathrm{}_\omega \beta }f))\omega ^n`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}g(df,d(L_{\mathrm{}_\omega \beta }f))\omega ^n`$
$`={\displaystyle _M}(\mathrm{\Delta }f)(L_{\mathrm{}_\omega \beta }f)\omega ^n`$
$`=n{\displaystyle _M}(\mathrm{\Delta }f)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}`$
For the second equality we used $`[\mathrm{}_\omega \phi _1,\mathrm{}_\omega \phi _2]=\mathrm{}_\omega (L_{\mathrm{}_\omega \phi _2}\phi _1)`$ for closed $`1`$-forms $`\phi _1,\phi _2`$, a relation derived from $`i_{[X,Y]}=L_Xi_Yi_YL_X`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.

The fact that $`M`$ is Kähler was only used to show, that the space of harmonic $`1`$-forms is invariant under $`J`$. In the almost Kähler case the arguments in the proof of Theorem 2 show, that following are equivalent:

1. The group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms is a totally geodesic subgroup in the group of all symplectic diffeomorphisms.
2. $`\mathrm{}_\omega \beta =\mathrm{}_g(\beta J)=J\mathrm{}_g\beta `$ is Killing for every harmonic $`1`$-form $`\beta `$.
3. For all functions $`f`$ and all harmonic $`1`$-forms $`\beta `$ one has

$$_M(\mathrm{\Delta }f)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}=0.$$

###### Remark 3.

The computation in the proof of Theorem 2 shows, that for a function $`f`$, $`\mathrm{ad}(\mathrm{}_\omega df)^𝖳\mathrm{}_\omega df=0`$ if and only if

$$_M(\mathrm{\Delta }f)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}=0\text{for all closed }1\text{-forms }\beta \text{,}$$

even on almost Kähler manifolds. If $`f`$ is a ‘generalized eigenvector’ of the Laplacian, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=hf`$ for some smooth function $`hC^{\mathrm{}}(,)`$, then

$$_M(\mathrm{\Delta }f)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}=_M(hf)𝑑f\beta \omega ^{n1}=_Md\left((Hf)\beta \omega ^{n1}\right)=0$$

with $`H`$ an integral of $`h`$, consequently the condition is satisfied. So the geodesic is given by an exponential. These are examples of a more general method how to solve the geodesic equation: In the general setting any finite dimensional submanifold $`S𝔤`$ such that $`\mathrm{ad}(X)^𝖳XT_XS`$ for $`XS`$ admits the calculation of flowlines in the manifold $`S`$. In the above case the submanifold $`S`$ is given by a single point.

## 3. Final Remarks

Since Killing vector fields are divergence free, Remark 1 immediately implies

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`M`$ be a closed, connected and oriented Riemannian manifold. Then there does not exist a closed Lie subalgebra $`𝔛(M,\mu )𝔤𝔛(M)`$, such that $`\mathrm{ad}()^𝖳:𝔤L(𝔤)`$ is bounded and such that $`𝔛(M,\mu )`$ is totally geodesic in $`𝔤`$.

On a closed Riemannian manifold the Lie algebra of Killing vector fields is finite dimensional. So Remark 1 also implies

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`(M,g,J,\omega )`$ be a closed, connected almost Kähler manifold. Then the symplectic diffeomorphisms are not totally geodesic in the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms, provided $`dim(M)>2`$.

###### Remark 4.

Let $`K`$ be a compact Lie group acting by isometries on the closed connected orientable manifold $`(M,g)`$. In \[V\] it is shown that the group of $`K`$-equivariant diffeomorphisms is a totally geodesic subgroup of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$. Its Lie algebra, $`K`$-invariant vector fields on $`M`$, is split, a complement is $`\{X𝔛(M):_Kk^{}X𝑑k=0\}`$, infinite dimensional. This does not contradict the arguments above, for the Lie algebra of $`K`$-invariant vector fields on $`M`$ does not detect the vanishing of a symmetric $`2`$-tensor field.

Let $`𝔛_{\text{ex}}^\text{c}(M,\omega )`$ denote the compactly supported Hamiltonian vector fields.

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a connected symplectic manifold and let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$. If

$$L_X\alpha =0,\text{for all }X𝔛_{\text{ex}}^\text{c}(M,\omega )$$

then there exists $`\lambda `$ such that $`\alpha =\lambda \omega `$.

###### Proof.

Choose a Darboux chart centered at $`zM`$, such that

$$\omega =dx^1dy^1+\mathrm{}+dx^ndy^n$$

and write

$$\alpha =\underset{i<j}{}a_{ij}dx^idx^j+\underset{i<j}{}b_{ij}dy^idy^j+\underset{i,j}{}c_{ij}dx^idy^j.$$

Let $`h`$ be a compactly supported function on $`M`$, such that $`h=x^i`$ resp. $`h=y^i`$ locally around $`z`$. Then the condition $`L_{\mathrm{}_\omega dh}\alpha =0`$ shows that $`a_{ij}`$, $`b_{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}`$ are all constant locally around $`z`$. Using $`h=(x^i)^2`$ one sees, that $`b_{ij}=0`$ and $`c_{ij}=0`$ for $`ij`$. Using $`h=(y^i)^2`$ yields $`a_{ij}=0`$. Finally, using $`h=x^ix^j`$ shows $`c_{ii}=c_{jj}`$. So $`\alpha =\lambda \omega `$ locally around $`z`$, for some constant $`\lambda `$. Since $`M`$ is connected this is true globally. ∎

We denote by

$$𝔛(M,[\omega ]):=\{X𝔛(M):\lambda :L_X\omega =\lambda \omega \}.$$

Notice that for closed $`M`$ we have $`𝔛(M,[\omega ])=𝔛(M,\omega )`$. Moreover if $`L_X\omega =f\omega `$ for some function $`f`$ and if $`dim(M)>2`$ then $`f`$ is constant, due to the non-degeneracy of $`\omega `$.

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold and let $`Z𝔛(M)`$. If

$$[Z,X]𝔛(M,[\omega ]),\text{for all }X𝔛_{\text{ex}}^\text{c}(M,\omega )$$

then $`Z𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`\alpha :=L_Z\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$. Then for every $`X𝔛_{\text{ex}}^\text{c}(M,\omega )`$ we have

$$L_X\alpha =L_XL_Z\omega =L_{[X,Z]}\omega =\lambda \omega =0.$$

Here $`\lambda `$ has to vanish, since $`[X,Z]`$ has compact support. So by the previous lemma there exists $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, such that $`L_Z\omega =\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\omega `$, i.e. $`Z𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$. ∎

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold. Then there does not exists a Lie subalgebra $`𝔛(M,[\omega ])𝔤𝔛(M)`$, such that $`𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$ has finite codimension in $`𝔤`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`𝔤`$ is bigger than $`𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$. Then there exists $`Z𝔤`$ and an open subset $`UM`$, such that $`Z|_V𝔛(V,[\omega ])`$, for every all open $`VU`$. For any $`k`$ we choose disjoint subsets $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_kU`$. Since $`Z|_{V_i}𝔛(V_i,[\omega ])`$ Lemma 6 yields $`X_i𝔛_{\text{ex}}^\text{c}(V_i,\omega )`$, such that $`Y_i:=[Z,X_i]𝔛(V_i,[\omega ])`$. But $`Y_i𝔤`$ and obviously $`\{Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_k\}`$ are linearly independent in $`𝔤/𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$. Hence the codimension of $`𝔛(M,[\omega ])`$ in $`𝔤`$ is at least $`k`$. Since $`k`$ was arbitrary we are done. ∎

###### Corollary 3.

Let $`(M,g,J,\omega )`$ be a closed, connected almost Kähler manifold. Then there does not exist a closed Lie subalgebra $`𝔛(M,\omega )𝔤𝔛(M)`$, such that $`\mathrm{ad}()^𝖳:𝔤L(𝔤)`$ is bounded and such that $`𝔛(M,\omega )`$ is totally geodesic in $`𝔤`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose conversely such a $`𝔤`$ exists. By Remark 1 and Lemma 3, $`𝔛(M,\omega )`$ has an orthogonal complement in $`𝔤`$, consisting of Killing vector fields. So this complement has to be finite dimensional, but this contradicts Proposition 1. ∎

For a manifold with volume form $`(M,\mu )`$ we let

$$𝔛(M,[\mu ]):=\{X𝔛(M):\lambda :L_X\mu =\lambda \mu \}.$$

Notice, that for closed $`M`$ one has $`𝔛(M,\mu )=𝔛(M,[\mu ])`$. Similarly, although it does not yield anything new for our totally geodesic subgroups, one shows

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`(M,\mu )`$ be a manifold with volume form and $`dim(M)>1`$. Then there does not exist a Lie subalgebra $`𝔛(M,[\mu ])𝔤𝔛(M)`$, such that $`𝔛(M,[\mu ])`$ has finite codimension in $`𝔤`$.