text:
# Short Timescale Correlations Between Line and Continuum Fluxes in Cygnus X-1

## 1 Introduction

The spectra of accreting black holes in the soft state generally consist of a strong quasi-thermal component, generally assumed to come from a cold accretion disc (Shakura & Sunyaev, 1973), a power law tail thought to originate in a corona of hot electrons above the disc, and some additional features (a Compton reflection bump and some iron emission lines) thought to result from reprocessing of the hard photons from the corona by the disc (Basko, Sunyaev, & Titarchuk 1974; George & Fabian 1991).

Several studies of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) have shown that changes in the profile and equivalent width of the iron line can be related to continuum changes (Iwasawa et al. 1996; Yaqoob et al. 1996; Nandra et al. 1999; Wang et al. 1999; Weaver, Gelbord, & Yaqoob 2000), suggesting that the iron line is indeed due to reprocessing of the continuum by ambient cold matter, e.g., the accretion disc. The results of the AGN studies, however, have been somewhat ambiguous and are likely complicated by factors that are less likely to arise in compact binary systems. Reprocessing from a dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985) and the possibility that the iron line does not come exclusively from the disc are two such factors (Weaver & Reynolds 1998). Studies of binaries thus should prove useful in providing confirmation that the iron lines from accreting black holes really do represent reprocessing of coronal X-rays by the disc and in disentangling the disc components’ contributions from other contributions.

Timing characteristics have been used to provide evidence for the applicability of reflection models in the canonical Galactic black hole candidate Cygnus X-1 through the technique of Fourier resolved spectroscopy (Gilfanov, Churazov, & Revnivtsev, 2000). This technique works by Fourier transforming the lightcurve of Cyg X-1 in several energy bands, then re-assembling a spectral energy distribution at each Fourier frequency to determine the spectrum of the component of the lightcurve that varies on a particular timescale. Their analysis found that the reflected component and the primary emission tracked each other down to timescale less than about 30 ms. It also showed that the the iron line flux is roughly constant for frequencies $``$ 30 Hz, giving an estimate for the inner disc size.

A significant drawback of this technique, however, is that it loses phase information. The iron line features cannot be definitively shown to be due to reflection unless some correlation is found between the phase of the iron line and the phase of the incident hard photons. This paper seeks to complement the Fourier resolved spectrum by working instead in the time domain. While photon statistics do not permit us to probe down to the very shortest timescales, we nonetheless can obtain useful spectral information down to short timescales $`10`$ seconds, where significant continuum flux variability is present. By direct spectral fitting, we demonstrate that the iron line equivalent width remains constant on short timescales in both the soft state and the transition state of Cygnus X-1, i.e., that the iron line tracks continuum changes. At the same time, under the assumption that the observed continuum is Comptonised radiation, we find no evidence for significant changes in the seed photon distribution. This suggests that the mechanism responsible for powering the hot coronal electrons is responsible for most of the observed flux variations, and that the disc is relatively quiescent. In section 2 below, we outline our data reduction procedure. In section 3 we discuss the fitting procedure and the model used. In section 4, we show fits both for the 16 second timescales we emphasize in this work, and for the full RXTE dwells on the source in order to assess the problems that may be induced by fitting on the shorter timescales with the lower signal to noise. In section 5, we compare short timescale variability in the soft and transition states to that in the hard state and show that it is likely that coronal changes drive the variability in all three states. In section 6, we summarize all our conclusions.

## 2 Observations

Analysis is presented of eight RXTE (Bradt, Rothschild, & Swank, 1993) observations taken while Cygnus X-1 was in its “soft state” in June of 1996 (proposal 10512). The soft state of Cygnus X-1 shows a stronger power law spectral tail and more variability than typical black hole binary soft states and may actually be an intermediate state (see Nowak 1995 for a review of spectral state nomenclature). The data are prepared using the standard RXTE screening criteria: earth elevation greater than 10 degrees, offset less than 0.01 degrees, all five proportional counter units on, and appropriate time separation both before and after South Atlantic Anomaly Passages. Spectra are then extracted on a 16-second time scale to allow for background subtraction and response matrices are computed all using the standard FTOOLS 5.0.4 routines. All layers and all 5 Proportional Counter Units are included, since the source dominates the background and the most possible source counts are desired. Response matrices are computed using PCARMF version 7.10. The total duration of the data analyzed is 9856 seconds (9546 seconds of live time). The 16-second time scale is chosen because it is convenient for background subtraction purposes and because counting statistics do not permit studies on much shorter time scales.

Results are also shown from the transition state into and out of the soft state (RXTE proposal 10412). These observations were taken in May and August of 1996, respectively. The same selection criteria specified above are used to determine the good time intervals. The total duration of the transition state data analyzed is 14096 seconds (13354 seconds of live time). Finally, the hard state data from December of 1997 (RXTE proposal 30158) were also analyzed, but the low count rates do not allow for strong constraints to be place on the variations of the equivalent widths of the iron lines in this state.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Discussion of Systematic Errors

Observations of iron lines are not straightforward with an instrument like RXTE that has poor energy resolution. Iron line variability has been seen in previous RXTE observations (e.g. Lee et al 2000), but care must be taken with the data analysis to avoid spurious results. In order to justify our choice of energy channels and to present evidence that the correlations to be discussed are real and not instrumental artefacts, we present spectral fits to the two Crab observations taken most nearly in time to the Cyg X-1 observations presented here. In both cases, the neutral hydrogen column is fixed to the Galactic value, $`3.8\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2. The power law index of the Crab is fit to be 2.175. We then fit the normalisation both with all channels included and with just the channels from 3.5-10 keV included. For the Crab spectrum just after our observations (July 23, 1996), the deviations are less than 1% in the 3.5-10 keV range and generally less than 0.5% when only the channels from 3.5-10 keV are used for fitting the normalisation. The residuals are slightly larger for the observation taken before Cyg X-1 had begun its transition to the high state (May 3, 1996). The normalisations of the two fits were consistent within much less than 1%. Since the accuracy of the response matrix is significantly worse below 3.5 keV, we ignore these channels. We plot the results of the July 23 fit in Figure 5.1. The $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ values for the two fits are 5.8 and 2.9 for the May 3 and July 23 fits respectively (with 17 bins and hence 15 degrees of freedom for each). While these are formally quite bad fits, the statistical errors for even a few hundred seconds of observation of a source as bright as the Crab are quite small, and the systematic errors dominate. To estimate the appropriate systematic errors, we add systematic errors to all channels and re-fit the data until a $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ of 1.0 is achieved. We find that a 0.35% error is required for the May 3 observation and an 0.3 % error is required for the July 23 observation. While this estimate of the systematic errors is not strictly correct (as the systematic errors in the different channels could be correlated), it represents the best estimate that can be made with the given data.

### 3.2 Spectral fits

Using XSPEC 10.0 (Arnaud 1996), the spectra are fit from 3.5 keV to 10 keV (including 17 channels) with a simple model consisting of a comptonised blackbody component (compbb in XSPEC - Nishimura, Mitsuda, & Itoh, 1986), a Gaussian component to fit the iron line. The spectral resolution of RXTE is not sufficient to provide strong constraints on the shape of the feature we call an iron line, so other explanations for this flux remain possible. Still, it is the most physically likely explanation for this excess flux, so we refer to this feature as an iron line throughout the remainder of the paper. This model was multiplied by photoelectric absorption (wabs). When more complicated models were fit to the data (such as pexrav - Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995 to replace the power law component), the increased number of free parameters resulted in degenerate fits and the individual parameters had substantially larger error bars. By ignoring the channels above 10 keV, we are able to exclude the range of energies where reflection is likely to be an important contributor to the broad continuum features in the spectrum. While using complicated models over a larger range of energies might, in principle, allow us to constrain the distribution of the Comptonising electrons in the corona and the reflection fraction (as in Frontera et al. 2000), such models are too computationally intensive for applications to our short timescale data, and the lever arm from hard photons needed to constrain the parameters of such models suffers from poor statistics on short timescales. The iron line center is constrained to lie between 6.2 and 7.0 keV (but always fits best to energies between 6.4 and 6.5 keV), the neutral hydrogen column density is fixed at $`5\times 10^{21}`$ cm -2, according to ASCA results (see e.g., Gierlinski et al. 1999). All the other parameters were allowed to float freely. A systematic error of 0.3% is included as suggested by the Crab fits. We also plot the results of a ratio of the source data to the Crab data in Figure 5.1b, and of a 16 second integration in Figure 5.1c.

In Table 2 we present the results of spectral fits to the full observations shown here, with an iron line included. Since there are 17 energy channels, one can fit the 7 parameter model with 10 degrees of freedom. We also tabulate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ that results from removing the iron line from the model. Fits of a reflection model (i.e. pexriv) with no Gaussian component are similarly bad.

A more phenomenological model (disc blackbody + power law + Gaussian) gives an acceptable fit in terms of $`\chi ^2/\nu `$, but results in an artificially low line energy ($``$ 6.2 keV) and an artificially high line equivalent width ($`>`$ 1 keV). This problem is relatively severe because the two continuum components intersect near 6 keV. The real continuum of a Comptonised spectrum shows strong curvature at energies where the seed blackbody spectrum begins to fall sharply, and the phenomenological model fails to reproduce that curvature. The Gaussian component drifts to lower energy and to higher flux level to fill in the missing flux from the incorrect estimation of the continuum. If the flux at the lowest energies contains a significant contribution from Comptonised radiation, as suggested by the more detailed long-timescale fits of Gierlinski et al. (1999) and Frontera et al (2000), then the temperature of the soft component is also systematically overestimated by phenomenological model, as the peak energy in the spectrum is shifted upwards by the Comptonisation process driving the best fit temperature to larger values as well. Using a Comptonised blackbody as the continuum model is not computationally expensive and avoids all these problems. As we shall see, doing so also gives parameters in reasonable agreement with those obtained using the more detailed, wider energy range fits.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Transition state - full integrations

In the transition state, the blackbody temperature is always fit by a value consistent with 400 eV. The value of the disc temperature as well as the values of all the line parameters (line energy, physical width and equivalent width) are consistent with those found from joint fits to ASCA/RXTE observations taken during the same transition state (Frontera et al., 2001) within the 90% error bars, which lends confidence to the interpretation that the continuum is well modeled by compbb in the energy range examined and that the response of RXTE is sufficient for making these measurements (since the ASCA observations will place much stronger constraints on the parameters of line features than RXTE does). The iron line equivalent width seems to rise going into the soft state, as the two lowest equivalent width observations were taken during the earliest part of the transition state, but the equivalent widths of the line in the different transition state observations are all consistent with one another at the 90% confidence level, so no strong claims can be made.

There is evidence for variability of both the optical depth and the electron temperature of the corona. Since the best fit electron temperatures are typical factors of $``$ 2-3 greater than the highest photon energy used in the fit, the temperature and optical depth are somewhat degenerate parameters, and small errors in either the response matrix or the model itself could result in significant deviations from the real values of the optical depth and temperature. Furthermore, the soft state and the transition state of Cygnus X-1 have been shown to have strong non-thermal electron components (Gierlinski et al. 1999; Frontera et al. 2001), so the physical interpretation of the optical depth and temperature derived from the best-fit thermal Comptonisation model is not clear. Thus while the observations suggest that the changes in the optical depth of the system are more important than the changes in the temperature, one can only be certain that the Compton $`y`$ parameter,

$$y=(4k_BT)/(m_ec^2)Max(\tau ,\tau ^2)$$

has changed, and not which component has actually changed.

### 4.2 Soft state - full integrations

In the soft state, the best fitting blackbody temperature is about 380 eV, slightly lower than the best fit for the transition state, but consistent with having the same value as in the transition state. The iron lines show a slightly greater equivalent width than in the transition state, typically around 370 eV, consistent with BeppoSax observations of the soft state (Frontera et al. 2001). The most significant difference between the fit parameters to the integrated spectra of the two states is that the optical depths are systematically lower in the soft state than in the transition state. As noted above, this can safely be interpreted only as a lowering of the Compton $`y`$ parameter, i.e., a smaller typical amplification of the energy of a seed photon in the soft state than in the transition state.

### 4.3 Short integrations

#### 4.3.1 Procedure

Having established an appropriate model for the long integrations, we then fit this model to the data for the 16 second segments. The standard 0.3 % systematic errors are added to each channel. The iron line energy, iron line physical width and the coronal temperature are frozen to the values from the full integrations (leaving 13 degrees of freedom), but even when allowed to vary, they typically differ by no more than $``$ 10% different than the values from the full integrations. These parameters are frozen because the fits are least sensitive to them and because the $`\chi ^2`$ values that are significantly below 1 for the full integrations suggest the model is “overfitting” the data. The optical depth parameter is allowed to float rather than the coronal electron temperature simply because the optical depth is observed to vary more dramatically in the best fits, and not for any physically motivated reason. The two parameters are essentially degenerate given the energy range being fit.

#### 4.3.2 Results

The $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ values for the 16 second fits are typically about 1.0 (the mean $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ is 1.01 for the soft state and 0.94 for the transition state), and never larger than 2.8, nor smaller than 0.22. Since over 1000 fits have been done, a few outliers at relatively large and relatively small $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ are to be expected. Errors in the best fit parameters are estimated using the steppar command within XSPEC on a representative sample of the fits (direct computations of all the errors is not computationally feasible for this large number of fits). Typical 90% errors in the iron line flux level are about 20%, errors in the optical depth are 5%, and errors in the blackbody temperature are 25%.

We then look for the amplitude of variations of the different fit parameters and for correlations in their variations. In table 3, the fractional RMS variations of the fit parameters are presented. Since the 90% errors correspond to 1.65 $`\sigma `$ variations, the random errors expected are about 12% in iron line flux, 3% in optical depth, and 15% in blackbody temperature. One cannot explicitly fit the equivalent width in XSPEC, so one cannot derive explicit error bars, but they should be slightly larger than those of the iron line flux normalization, since there are errors in both the flux of the line and of the underlying continuum. The errors in the overall flux should be quite small ($`<`$ 1%).

It is thus clear that the line normalisation, the overall flux, and $`\tau `$ vary on 16 second timescales. The line normalisation tracks the overall flux, while the equivalent width does not. In all the observations except 10412-01-01-00, the iron line normalisation tracks very well with the best fit value of $`\tau `$. A typical plot (from observation 10512-01-09-01) is shown in Figure 5.4a. Since the optical depth is a proxy for the spectral index of the power law, and the line normalization correlates with the continuum flux, what this correlation really shows is that in general, the spectrum gets harder as the source gets brighter. Why observation 10412-01-01-00 does not fit the trend is unclear. The errors for the best fit $`\tau `$ and $`k_BT_{cor}`$ to the full integration are much larger than for the other observations, so the most likely explanation is that the initial parameters for the short timescale fits are somehow in error, but a real physical difference between this observation and the others cannot be ruled out. However, the optical depth does not correlate with the equivalent width, as is shown in Figure 5.4b. The maximum variations in the flux are factors of 2.6 within individual observations (in obs 10512-01-08-00), 6 across the whole set of soft state observations, and 3 across the whole set of transition state observations.

The blackbody temperature and the iron line equivalent width show variability that is generally consistent with or less than the fitting errors. In the cases where the variability is less than that expected due to the errors, the likely cause is that the systematic errors contribute to the size of the fitting errors, but due not contribute to the variability. We thus confirm previous results (Gilfanov, Churazov & Revnitsev 2000) that the seed photon component shows little if any intrinsic variability on relatively short timescales. Since these two components show no evidence of variability, any correlations between their values and those of other parameters would likely be due to errors in the fit parameters rather than intrinsic correlations, so we do not discuss any such possible correlations. We do plot the iron line equivalent width versus flux (3.5 to 10 keV) for observation 10412-01-01-00 in Figure 5.5. These results are typical of all the observations and demonstrate that there is no correlation between line equivalent width and overall flux. Furthermore, one can see from the plot that the variations in the equivalent width are consistent with being due to the fit errors.

## 5 Comparison to the Hard State

It has been previously shown that in the hard state of Cygnus X-1, the variability must be driven by changes in the corona’s properties rather than changes in the properties of the seed photon distribution (Maccarone, Coppi, & Poutanen 2000; Böttcher 2001). One of the key pieces of evidence for this in hard state observations is that the typical shot duration decreases with increasing energy. This observation rules out light-travel time models for the time lags seen in the hard states of X-ray binaries (see e.g. Kazanas, Hua, & Titarchuk 1997). The time lag spectra in the hard and soft state have been shown to be similar to one another (Pottschmidt et al. 2000). Additionally, we have now shown that the seed photon component is much less variable that the coronal component of the spectrum, in concordance with the results of Gilfanov et al. (2000) who found a blackbody-type spectrum in their phase resolved spectroscopy that showed up only at zero frequency. Finally we present in Figure 5.8 the autocorrelations and cross-correlations of the three spectral states and show that qualitatively, the same trends occur in all three. In all cases, the typical variability timescale is longer at lower energies. Since the variability is driven by changes in the corona in all cases and the qualitative trend of typical variability timescale versus energy is also the same, it seems likely that a single origin might explain the variability in all three states.

## 6 Summary

We find that the equivalent width of the iron line in Cygnus X-1 remains constant on 16 second timescales in the soft state, despite changes in continuum flux by factors of order 3. A constant equivalent width indicates that the line intensity and the continuum intensity vary together, i.e. the phase of the line variations is the same as that of the continuum variations. This observation suggests that (1) the line flux level has now been definitively shown to correlate with the continuum flux level on short timescales, (2) at least 80% of both the line and the continuum fluxes comes from within about 16 light seconds of the black hole (most likely nearly 100% of the flux comes from these distances, but the fit errors preclude a stronger statement) and (3) it is unlikely that major changes in the accretion geometry occur during the soft state.

We find essentially the same results for the transition state. There is suggestive evidence that the iron line equivalent width evolves over the transition state. (In fact this almost certainly must be the case since the equivalent widths in the soft state are slightly larger than those in the transition state). Thus we find again, that the line flux is correlated with the continuum flux level, that the bulk of the X-ray luminosity in both the line and in the continuum must comes from within 16 light-seconds, and that there are unlikely to be major geometry changes in the accretion flow in the transition state on short timescales (i.e. less than 10000 seconds).

It is worth noting that the requirement that essentially all the iron line flux comes from within 16 light seconds requires that the emission comes from reflection off the accretion disc, and not off the companion star or the outer portion of the stellar wind that makes the accretion stream, since for the 5.6 day orbit and roughly 30 $`M_{}`$ total mass of the Cyg X-1/HD 226868 system, the binary separation between the black hole and its companion star is roughly 0.2 AU, or 100 light-seconds. Since this is substantially larger than the 16 light-seconds on which we observe the changes in the line and continuum intensities, one would expect to observe an anti-correlation between equivalent width and continuum intensity as well as a time delay between continuum rises and line intensity rises if a substantial portion of the line emission was due to reflection off the companion star. This finding is in accord with the observation from ASCA that, in the hard state, the iron line equivalent width can drop to less than 30 eV in the hard state (e.g. Ebisawa et al. 1996), which provides an upper limit for the reprocessing effects of the companion star and its wind.

Our two key results, (1) that no variability is detected in the seed photon component on timescales where the hard component varies strongly and (2) that the iron line flux variations track the continuum flux variations, supply strong constraints on the nature of the processes driving the X-ray variability. One might expect to see changes in the properties of the blackbody as a result of the energy deposited in the disc by the Compton reflection process. However, the corona’s contribution to the total energetics of the system in the soft and transition states is typically of order 20%, so the soft component dominates the overall energetics of the system (Frontera et al. 2001). Moreover, since the short timescale variability of the coronal luminosity is only about 10%, the seed photon component would be expected to vary by only a few percent even if Compton reflection deposited 100% of the hard photons’ energy into the disc. Thus, assuming the disk is intrinsically steady, one should not be too surprised to see no evidence for the disc varying, assuming that the disc is intrinsically steady. Both the steadiness of the disc component and the correlation between $`y`$ and the line strength suggest that the variability is instead driven by changes in the properties of the corona, e.g., as in the spectral evolution model of Poutanen & Fabian 1999, rather than by changes in the soft photon flux with a steady corona present (see e.g. Kazanas, Hua & Titarchuk 1997; Böttcher & Liang 1999). The models of spectral variability in accreting black holes have been developed almost entirely with the hard state in mind, but the observations of Cygnus X-1 in the soft and transition states are qualitatively consistent with what is seen in the hard state of Cygnus X-1 in that coronal variations rather than modulation of the soft component must be invoked (see e.g. Maccarone, Coppi, & Poutanen 2000). Furthermore, our finding that the disc appears intrinsically steady is in good agreement with observations of other systems where the soft state spectra show essentially no power law tails and the soft state lightcurves show essentially no variability.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Mike Nowak and Raj Jain for useful discussions. We thank Charles Bailyn and Cole Miller for critical readings of this manuscript and hope the readers of this work are grateful for their insistence that the plots be made such that the data and model could be distinguished more easily. We are indebted to the anonymous referee for numerous suggestions that improved the quality of this work substantially. This work has made use of data obtained from the HEASARC online archive operated by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The basic idea underlying the term ‘duality” may be stated as follows: Two distinct classical theories, prescribed by actions based on different sets of fields, not necessarily in the same spacetime dimension, may be equivalent at the quantum level. This means that it is possible to establish a correspondence between observables and states in the respective quantum theories. If the difference in spacetime dimensions of the dual theories is $`\pm 1`$, then the term “holography” is used to capture the general idea that all physical information of the higher dimensional theory is potentially manifested in one lower dimension.

That such correspondences may be possible should not come as a surprise since quantum theories know about spacetime dimension only through the choice of representation chosen for classical observables. In particular the coordinate and momentum representations are the specific choices which inject spacetime dimension information into quantum theory. Their use is not necessary since even the simple harmonic oscillator may be quantized algebraically via the creation and annihilation operators.

In theories with large gauge invariance groups, particularly general coordinate invariance, the interest lies in identifying and using gauge invariant observables for quantization. In such theories it is not appropriate to quantize based on the fundamental Poisson bracket, but rather on a suitable Poisson algebra of gauge invariant observables.? For generally covariant theories without matter fields, such observables are necessarily non-local. With matter, local observables may be constructed by using combinations of matter and geometric variables such that the matter acts as a reference system to locate spacetime points.? In either case, the emphasis is on first finding gauge invariant classical observables, and attempting to represent these as operators in a quantum theory.***An alternative is to construct a quantum theory by first eliminating all gauge invariances at the classical level; the remaining problem here is whether different gauges lead to unitarily equivalent quantum theories.

Dualities are potentially very useful if they allow the probing of one quantum theory using another which is better understood. In this sense dualities may be viewed as a means for obtaining new “collective variables” for studying a given theory in spacetime or energy domains where other variables reach their limits of usefulness. Of particular interest is the question of whether dualties can provide insights for quantum gravity. The AdS/CFT correspondence?,? in principle has the potential to do so. However to date it has yielded little insight into what happens to spacetime at the quantum level, or the role played by diffeomorphism invariance in the dual CFT. For this reason it may be useful to search for duals of geometric theories simpler than general relativity or supergravity. An interesting probe of this correspondence would be to seek manifestations in the CFT of interesting metric structures such as event horizons. A more general question in this regard is understanding of the role played in the CFT by metric parameters in asymptotically AdS spacetimes.

In this paper I probe some of these questions. I first describe a rather explicit duality between the simple harmonic oscillator and a topological field theory in four dimensions. Following this I discuss the AdS/CFT duality between gravity on 5-dimensional AdS spacetime and 4-dimensional conformal Yang-Mills theory, in particular the Wilson loop calculation. This calculation may be done explicitly for asymptotically AdS scalar field spacetimes with naked singularities. The results are remarkably similar to those for the AdS black hole. I discuss the interpretation of this result with emphasis on whether the calculation captures true horizon and temperature information in the CFT.

## 2 A Toy Duality

Consider the 4-dimensional topological field theory given by the action

$$S=_MBF(A).$$
(1)
The fields are the Abelian connection $`A`$ and the two-form $`B`$, with $`F(A)=dA`$. This action is invariant under diffeomorphisms, $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations, and $`BB+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for one forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (for vanishing surface terms). Consider the Hamiltonian quantization of this action for manifolds $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact without boundary. aaaQuantization of models of this type have been discussed before. The Hamiltonian approach followed here is a review of earlier work by the author.? Since the action is first order, it is easy to put into canonical from:

$$S=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R}ϵ^{0abc}\left[B_{ab}_0A_c+2B_{0a}F_{bc}B_{ab}_cA_0\right].$$
(2)
Thus the canonical coordinates are $`(A_a,E^a)`$, where $`E^a=ϵ^{0abc}B_{bc}`$. The Hamiltonian is a linear combination of the constraints

$$F_{ab}=0,_aE^a=0.$$
(3)
These constraints are first class and generate the gauge transformations of the theory. Note that the Hamiltonian is a linear combination of the two contraints as expected for a generally covariant theory, and that spatial diffeomorphisms are generated by the combination $`A_a_bE^b+E^bF_{ab}`$.

Since the constraints generate gauge transformations, gauge invariant observables $`𝒪(E,A)`$ are defined by the Poisson bracket conditions

$$\{𝒪(E,A),C(E,A)\}=0,$$
(4)
where $`C`$ denotes the two constraints. In the present case the basic observables satisfying this condition are

$$T^0(A,\gamma )=\mathrm{exp}\left[_\gamma 𝑑s\dot{\gamma }^aA_a\right],T^1(E,S)=_Sd^2\sigma n_aE^a,$$
(5)
which are parametrized by loops $`\gamma `$ and surfaces $`S`$, $`n_a`$ is a one form field defining the surface $`S`$ ($`ϵ^{0abc}n_c`$ is the area 2-form and $`\dot{\gamma }^a`$ is tangent vector to the loop $`\gamma `$). These observables satisfy the Poisson algebra

$$\{T^0(A,\gamma ),T^0(A,\beta )\}=0,\{T^1(E,S),T^1(E,S^{})\}=0,$$
(6)
$$\{T^0(A,\gamma ),T^1(E,S)\}=c(\gamma ,S)T^0(A,\gamma )$$
(7)
where

$$c(\gamma ,S)=𝑑sd^2\sigma \dot{\gamma }^an_a\delta ^3(\gamma (s)S(\sigma )).$$
(8)
The last Poisson bracket vanishes if the loop lies in the surface.

On the constraint surface the observables $`T^0`$ and $`T^1`$ depend only on the non- contractible loops and surfaces in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus they capture topological information about $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To proceed further we must fix the topology, which determines the number of independent observables, and hence degrees of freedom. For the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^1\times S^2`$ there is exactly one non-contractible loop and surface, for which $`c(\gamma ,S)=1`$. Thus there are two degrees of freedom, and the Poisson algebra (7) becomes

$$\{T^0,T^1\}=T^0.$$
(9)
A quantum theory can be constructed by representing this algebra on a state space of “occupation numbers” by defining

$$\widehat{T}^0|n>=\sqrt{n}|n1>\widehat{T}^1|n>=n|n>.$$
(10)
The commutator algebra following from these defintions has the appropriate classical limit. This establishes the duality with the harmonic oscillator, with $`T^1`$ corresponding to the “composite” number operator $`a^{}a`$.

This procedure may be applied in other dimensions and spacetime topologies. The number of degrees of freedom depend on the topology. There is an extension of the observables to the non-Abelian case, which is a bit more involved, and the algebra of observables does not correspond to the harmonic oscillator.?

The basic lesson from this example is that dualities may turn out to be of no more than mathematical interest. The lesson for quantum gravity is that even if this type of Hamiltonian procedure can be carried out to completion starting from classical general relativity (without matter), the task of extracting a classical spacetime would be formidable. This is because fully gauge invariant observables, being non-local, would not carry any local spacetime information. This problem may be eased by solving the Hamiltonian constraint at the classical level via gauge fixing to a preferred classical time coordinate, or alternatively, by incorporating matter and using it to locate spacetime points in a diffemorphism invariant manner.?

## 3 The Wilson loop in AdS/CFT

Dualities between theories with infinitely many degrees of freedom are clearly of much more interest than quantum mechanical models of the type discussed in the previous section. An early example is the Thirring model and its bosonic dual.

A potential basis for constructing dual theories is the basic observation that quantum field theories on a fixed background spacetime carry representations of the spacetime isometry group. Since the possibility exists that spacetimes of different dimensions may have the same spacetime isometry group, theories in different dimensions have the potential to be dual. Since the conformal group of $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime and the isometry group of $`(d+1)`$-dimensional anti-deSitter spacetime are both $`SO(d,2)`$, there is the potential of a large number of dualities between conformal theories on Minkowski spacetime and theories on AdS, or asymptotically AdS (AAdS) spacetimes. This of course is a first requirement, and it is necessary to establish a correspondence between operators, and between states, in the two theories. For example collective states and composite operators of one theory may correspond to more “basic” states and operators in the other. If the duality is to aid in performing computations in one theory which are difficult in the other, it is necessary to establish the latter correspondences.

The first example of an AdS/CFT duality was discovered by Maldacena.? It is between supergravity on AAdS spacetimes and supersymmetric conformal Yang-Mills theory. This has been extensively studied in the last few years?. It has the potential to yield insights into quantum gravity, since in principle the dual YM theory provides a window. In practice many key questions remain unanswered, among them the role that spacetime diffeomorphisms play in the YM theory.

One of the results of these works, of interest for this paper, is the proposal for determining the expectation value of the Wilson loop in the Yang-Mills theory via a computation in supergravity.? This proposal has been studied in detail by a number of authors, ?,? and includes discussion of the exciting possibility of correspondences between (quantum) phases of Yang-Mills theory and classical AAdS geometries.

The proposal is the following: consider string worldsheets $`s_\gamma `$ in an AAdS spacetime which have the loop $`\gamma `$ as boundary. The expectation value of the Wilson loop is given by

$$<W_\gamma >=Ds_\gamma e^{S_{NG}(s_\gamma )}$$
(11)
where $`S_{NG}=𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \sqrt{h}`$ is the Nambu-Goto action of the world sheet.?,? (This is reminiscent of the “no-boundary” proposal for quantum gravity.) In practice, the integral is approximated by computing the Nambu-Goto action for a solution of the classical string equations, for a choosen class of surface $`s`$, bounding loop $`\gamma `$, and AAdS spacetime.

For static rectangular loops, of space and time extensions $`L`$ and $`T`$ lying along the $`t,x`$ coordinates of the Minkowski boundary, $`<W_\gamma >`$ determines the quark potential $`V(L)`$. The calculation in fact gives a divergent $`S_{NG}(s_\gamma )`$. This is renormalised by subtracting the divergent part of the integral, which is proportional to the loop’s circumference. Thus

$$<W_\gamma >=e^{S_{NG}(L)kL}e^{TV(L)},$$
(12)
where $`k`$ is a constant.

In principle this computation should be capable of yielding any of the three phases of YM theory: $`V(L)1/L`$ (Coulomb), $`V(L)L`$ (confinement) and $`V(L)e^L/L`$ (Higgs) depending on the geometry used. In this way the proposal provides a link between AAdS geometries and phases of Yang-Mills theory. In particular, it may also provide a means of seeing how horizon and singularity information is encoded, or at least interpreted in the conformal YM theory.

The calculation was first done for the global AdS geometry,? and subsequently for the AdS-Schwarzschild metric.? In the former case, one obtains the result expected on grounds of unbroken conformal invariance – the only scale is the quark separation $`L`$, which results in the Coulomb phase. In the latter case, the black hole horizon provides a scale. The calculation for this geometry shows a distortion of the Coulomb behaviour such that the the potential $`V(L)`$ goes to zero at a finite value of $`L`$. This is physically interpreted to be the result of temperature, which screens the $`1/L`$ behaviour of the potential for $`L`$ larger than a critical “screening length” $`L_c`$. The derivation of this result follows.

The specific form of the AdS black hole metric used is

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{l}\right)^2\left[f(r)dt^2+(dx^i)^2\right]+\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^2f^1(r)dr^2$$
(13)
where $`f(r)=1r_0^4/r^4`$, and $`r_0`$ is the black hole horizon parameter.bbb The $`S^5`$ part of the $`10`$dimensional metric and the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$ also appear in the metric but are not relevant for the main outline of the calculation. The AdS scale $`l`$ is related to the YM parameters $`(g,N)`$ by $`l^2=\sqrt{4\pi gN}`$. The conformal Minkowski boundary coordinates where the loop lies are $`t,x^i`$ ($`i=\mathrm{1..3}`$). A static rectangular loop may be taken to lie along one of the spatial coordinates $`x`$, and $`t`$. The action is calculated by setting $`\tau =t`$ and $`\sigma =x`$, such that $`r=r(x)`$ describes the embedding of the worldsheet in the black hole geometry. The Euclidean metric is used, which gives

$$S_{NG}=T𝑑x\sqrt{(_xr)^2+(r^4r_0^4)/l^4}$$
(14)
This is extremised by noting that it doesn’t depend explicitly on $`x`$, so the “energy”

$$e=\frac{r^4r_0^4}{\sqrt{(_xr)^2+(r^4r_0^4)/l^4}}$$
(15)
is conserved. It is useful to write the constant $`e`$ as a function of the minimum value $`r_m`$ of $`r(x)`$. Thus $`r_m`$ is given by $`e=l^2\sqrt{r_m^4r_0^4}`$. Integrating the last equation gives an integral for $`x(r)`$:

$$x(r)=\frac{l^2}{r_m}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{r_0}{r_m}\right)^4}_1^{r/r_m}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{(y^41)(y^4(r_0/r_m)^4)}}.$$
(16)
As $`r\mathrm{}`$ (ie. to the boundary), this integral gives half the spatial length $`L`$ of the loop (since it is symmetric in $`r`$). Thus

$$L(r_m)=\frac{2l^2}{r_m}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{r_0}{r_m}\right)^4}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{(y^41)(y^4(r_0/r_m)^4)}},$$
(17)
which relates the loop dimension $`L`$ to the minimum value $`r_m`$ of $`r`$. The action for this solution is

$$S_{NG}|_{\mathrm{loop}}=Tr_m_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\sqrt{\frac{y^4(r_0/r_m)^4}{y^41}}.$$
(18)
This integral is divergent and proportional to $`y`$ for large $`y`$. It is rendered finite in the usual way by integrating up to $`y_{max}`$, subtracting the divergence $`r_my_{max}`$ (up to an additive constant to be determined), and then removing the regulator $`y_{max}\mathrm{}`$. There is a physical interpretation of this procedure which provides the additive constant: the subtracted term corresponds to the energy of free quarks, which is also divergent, and given by the static configuration where $`r`$ is not a function of $`x`$. This solution is obtained by setting $`\tau =t`$ and $`\sigma =r`$ (with all other coordinates constant) in the Nambu-Goto action: $`S_{NG}|_{\mathrm{free}}=_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r`$, where the lower limit is the horizon radius, since this is the lowest value of $`r`$ in the Euclidean calculation. The finite potential $`V(r_m)`$ is therefore

$$V(r_m)=r_0r_m+r_m_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\left(\sqrt{\frac{y^4(r_0/r_m)^4}{y^41}}1\right)$$
(19)
The function $`V(L)`$ is obtained by substituting $`L(r_m)`$ from Eq. (17) into the last equation, which may be done numerically. Figure 1. shows the typical behaviour: the screening length $`L_c0.76`$ corresponds to the intersection of the graph with the $`L`$ axis. The small $`L`$ behavior is $`1/L`$, and the result is considered unphysical above the $`L`$ axis. For global AdS ($`r_0=0`$), $`V(L)1/L`$ for all $`L`$.

## 4 Naked singularities

From the AdS black hole result, it appears that dimensional parameters in metrics will lead to distortions of the Coulomb behaviour of $`V(L)`$. The natural question is whether spacetimes other than black holes can lead to qualitatively similar behaviour of $`V(L)`$, and if so, what the YM interpretation should be. This is the question we now probe by using AAdS spacetimes that have naked singularities.

We first give a new solution of the Einstein-scalar field equations for massless minimally coupled scalar field with negative cosmological constant. This solution is used as the AAdS geometry for the Wilson loop calculation, and is compared with the result for the negative mass AdS-Schwarzschild metric.

The low energy actions derived from string theory are of the form

$$S=d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[e^\varphi \left(R+(\varphi )^2\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }+L_{\mathrm{matter}}\right].$$
(20)
Such actions may be put into the standard minimal coupling form by the conformal transformation of the metric $`gg`$exp$`(\varphi )`$. Thus we can consider the usual Einstein-scalar equation in $`d`$ dimensions

$$G_{ab}\frac{(d1)(d2)}{2l^2}g_{ab}=_a\varphi _b\varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{ab}_c\varphi ^c\varphi .$$
(21)
The new solution is obtained starting with the metric ansatz

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{l}\right)^2\left(f(r)dv^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d2}{}}(dx^i)^2\right)+2g(r)dvdr$$
(22)
where $`r,v`$ are radial and advanced time coordinates. The solution is

$$f(r)=1,g(r)=\left[1+\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{2(d1)}\right]^{1/2}$$
(23)
with scalar field given by

$$_r\varphi (r)\frac{1}{r}\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{2(d1)}\right]^{1/2},$$
(24)
where the proportionality factor depends on $`d`$. For $`r_0=0`$ the solution is global AdS in these coordinates – the scalar field vanishes with $`r_0`$. In all dimensions $`d3`$, the large $`r`$ behavior indicates that the spacetimes are asymptotically AdS, with fairly rapid falloff with $`r`$. It is also evident that there is a timelike curvature singularity at $`r=0`$. The conformal Minkowski boundary is obtained by multiplying the solution by the factor $`(l/r)^2`$ and taking the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$.

We consider the case $`d=5`$, and describe the Wilson loop calculation using world sheets in this geometry. The key similarities and differences from the black hole case will become evident. As for the AdS black hole, consider the surface given by $`r=r(x)`$ with $`\sigma =x`$ and $`\tau =v`$. The action is

$$S_{NG}=T𝑑x\sqrt{\left(\frac{r}{l}\right)^4+(_xr)^2\left[1+\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^8\right]^1}.$$
(25)
On the solution this is

$$S_{NG}|_{\mathrm{loop}}=Tr_m_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^6dy}{\sqrt{(y^41)(y^8+(r_0/r_m)^8)}},$$
(26)
where $`r_m`$ is the minimum value of $`r(x)`$ for this worldsheet. The dimension $`L`$ of the rectangular loop is related to $`r_m`$ by

$$L(r_m)=\frac{2l^2}{r_m}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^2dy}{\sqrt{(y^41)(y^8+(r_0/r_m)^8)}}.$$
(27)
The action and hence $`V(r_m)`$ are divergent on the solution, with the divergence again proportional to $`y`$ for large $`y`$. Following the same renormalization procedure, we subtract the divergent action corresponding to free quarks. This is the configuration $`\tau =v`$ and $`\sigma =r`$ ($`r(x)`$) with all the $`x^i`$ constant. Its action is

$$S_{NG}|_{\mathrm{free}}=T_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rg_{vr}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[1+\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^8\right]^{1/2}.$$
(28)
This differs from the constant integrand obtained for the AdS black hole. The finite potential is obtained as before by integrating the loop and free actions up to a finite $`y_{max}`$, subtracting, and taking the limit $`y_{max}\mathrm{}`$. This gives

$$V(r_m)=r_m_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^4dy}{\sqrt{y^8+(r_0/r_m)^8}}\left[\frac{y^2}{\sqrt{y^41}}1\right]r_m_0^1𝑑y\frac{y^4}{\sqrt{y^8+(r_0/r_m)^8}}.$$
(29)
The last equation combined with Eq. (27) gives $`V(L)`$ for the scalar field solution. A typical plot of $`V(L)`$ is shown in Fig. 2. The similarity with the AdS black hole case is apparent, in particular the intersection with the $`L`$ axis at a critical $`L_c`$. Also similar is that $`V(L)`$ becomes double valued above this axis, which again indicates that the calculation is not valid for $`L>L_c`$.

The comparison of these results with the negative mass AdS-Schwarzschild case is interesting.cccI thank T. Padmanabhan for asking about this case. The calculation proceeds in exactly the same way with the only difference being the subtraction integral necessary to obtain a finite $`V(L)`$: this now has lower limit $`r=0`$ rather than the horizon radius $`r=r_0`$. The result is

$`V(r_m)`$ $`=`$ $`r_m\left[1+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{y^4+(r_0/r_m)^4}{y^41}}}1\right)\right],`$ (30)
$`L(r_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2l^2}{r_m}}\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r_m}}\right)^4}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\sqrt{(y^41)(y^4+(r_0/r_m)^4)}}}.`$ (31)
The graph of $`V(L)`$ appears in Fig. 3. The features similar to the previous cases are again the $`1/L`$ behaviour for sufficiently small $`L`$, and the intersection with the $`L`$ axis. The additional feature is that the potential does not become double valued for $`L>L_c`$, and thus may represent real physics. Remarkable is the linear behavior in this region, which indicates a confining potential. Thus this singular spacetime seems to correspond to the Coulomb to confining phase transition!

## 5 Conclusions

We have seen that there are explicit dualities between a class of topological field theories and the simple harmonic oscillator. These appear to be mainly of mathematical interest since the correspondences are in a sense too limited to extract “physics.” The model nevertheless raises the question of what physics can be learned about geometrical theories from their non-geometrical quantum duals.

The purpose of the AdS/CFT Wilson loop calculation for singular spacetimes is to see how their metric parameters are manifested in the YM quark potential. A component of this question is whether the calculation even leads to sensible results.

The surprising answer is that the distortion of the Coulomb behaviour for the AdS black hole is also present in the singular scalar field and negative mass AdS-Schwarzschild spacetimes, and it is qualitatively very similar: a “thermal screening” interpretation is clearly possible by looking at just the potential for $`LL_c`$.

The negative mass AdS-Schwarzschild metric presents an additional surprise: it suggests a Coulomb to confining phase transition at $`L=L_c`$. Why a nice result like this follows from such a bad spacetime requires further probing of the AdS/CFT conjecture.

Note added: After this work was submitted to the archives, additional references ?,?,? concerning Wilson loop calculations were brought to the author’s attention. The first paper describes a supersymmetric AAdS solution which could be used to study the Wilson loop. The second and third papers give Wilson loop calculations respectively for the charged AdS black hole, and a certain regular bosonic background. The charged black hole metric also gives a screening potential, suggesting that the addition of charge does not alter the results, wheras the latter metric gives a linear potential.

Acknowledgments

I thank the organisers for their invitation to speak at the Workshop, and the participants for their questions and comments. I also thank Saurya Das and Lee Smolin for their comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References


text:
# Certain basic inequalities for submanifolds in a (𝜅,𝜇)-contact space form

## 1 Introduction

In , B.-Y. Chen established a sharp inequality for a submanifold in a real space form involving intrinsic invariants, namely the sectional curvatures and the scalar curvature of the submanifold; and the main extrinsic invariant, namely the squared mean curvature. Similar inequalities were established in case of submanifolds of Sasakian space forms also (,).

Recently, T. Koufogiorgos introduced the notion of $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form (), which contains the well known class of Sasakian space forms for $`\kappa =1`$. Thus it is worthwhile to study relationships between intrinsic and extrinsic invariants of submanifolds in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains necessary details about $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form and its submanifolds. In section 3, we state a Lemma relating scalar curvature, squared mean curvature and squared second fundamental form for a submanifold tangential to the structure vector field in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form, then we obtain two basic inequalities involving the scalar curvature and the sectional curvatures of the submanifold on left hand side and the squared mean curvature on the right hand side. In the last section, we study invariant submanifolds of $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space forms. We also obtain a B.-Y. Chen inequality for Chen like $`\delta `$-invariant for invariant submanifolds in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form.

## 2 Preliminaries

A $`\left(2m+1\right)`$-dimensional differentiable manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is called an almost contact manifold if its structural group can be reduced to $`U\left(m\right)\times 1`$. Equivalently, there is an almost contact structure $`(\phi ,\xi ,\eta )`$ consisting of a $`(1,1)`$ tensor field $`\phi `$, a vector field $`\xi `$, and a $`1`$-form $`\eta `$ satisfying $`\phi ^2=I+\eta \xi `$ and (one of) $`\eta (\xi )=1`$, $`\phi \xi =0`$, $`\eta \phi =0`$. The almost contact structure is said to be normal if the induced almost complex structure $`J`$ on the product manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}\times `$ defined by $`J(X,\lambda d/dt)=(\phi X\lambda \xi ,\eta \left(X\right)d/dt)`$ is integrable, where $`X`$ is tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, $`t`$ the coordinate of $``$ and $`\lambda `$ a smooth function on $`\stackrel{~}{M}\times `$. The condition for being normal is equivalent to vanishing of the torsion tensor $`[\phi ,\phi ]+2d\eta \xi `$, where $`[\phi ,\phi ]`$ is the Nijenhuis tensor of $`\phi `$. Let $`,`$ be a compatible Riemannian metric with $`(\phi ,\xi ,\eta )`$, that is, $`X,Y`$ $`=`$ $`\phi X,\phi Y`$ $`+`$ $`\eta \left(X\right)\eta \left(Y\right)`$ or equivalently, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(X,Y)X,\phi Y=\phi X,Y`$ along with $`X,\xi =\eta \left(X\right)`$ for all $`X,YT\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Then, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ becomes an almost contact metric manifold equipped with an almost contact metric structure $`(\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,,)`$. An almost contact metric structure becomes a contact metric structure if $`\mathrm{\Phi }=d\eta `$. A normal contact metric manifold is a Sasakian manifold. An almost contact metric manifold is Sasakian if and only if $`(\stackrel{~}{}_X\phi )Y=X,Y\xi \eta (Y)X`$ for all $`X,YT\stackrel{~}{M}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is Levi-Civita connection. Also, a contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is Sasakian if and only if the curvature tensor $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{R}(X,Y)\xi =\eta (Y)X\eta (X)Y`$ for all $`X,YT\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

In a contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, the $`(1,1)`$-tensor field $`h`$ defined by $`2h=𝔏_\xi \phi `$ is symmetric and satisfies

$$h\xi =0,h\phi +\phi h=0,\stackrel{~}{}_X\xi =\phi X\phi hX,\text{trace}\left(h\right)=\text{trace}\left(\phi h\right)=0.$$
(1)
The $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-nullity distribution of a contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a distribution

$`N(\kappa ,\mu )`$ $`:`$ $`pN_p(\kappa ,\mu )=\{ZT_pM\stackrel{~}{R}(X,Y)Z=\kappa (Y,ZXX,ZY)`$
$`+\mu (Y,ZhXX,ZhY)\},`$
where $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ are constants. If $`\xi N(\kappa ,\mu )`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is called a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact metric manifold. Since in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact metric manifold one has $`h^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\kappa 1\right)\phi ^2`$, therefore $`\kappa 1`$ and if $`\kappa =1`$ then the structure is Sasakian. Characteristic examples of non-Sasakian $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact metric manifolds are the tangent sphere bundles of Riemannian manifolds of constant sectional curvature not equal to one. For more details we refer to  and .

The sectional curvature $`\stackrel{~}{K}(X,\phi X)`$ of a plane section spanned by a unit vector $`X`$ orthogonal to $`\xi `$ is called a $`\phi `$-sectional curvature. If the $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has constant $`\phi `$-sectional curvature $`c`$ then it is called a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form and is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$. The curvature tensor of $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$ is given by ()

$`\stackrel{~}{R}(X,Y)Z={\displaystyle \frac{c+3}{4}}\left\{Y,ZXX,ZY\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c1}{4}}\left\{2X,\phi Y\phi Z+X,\phi Z\phi YY,\phi Z\phi X\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c+34\kappa }{4}}\left\{\eta (X)\eta (Z)Y\eta (Y)\eta (Z)X+X,Z\eta (Y)\xi Y,Z\eta (X)\xi \right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{hY,ZhXhX,ZhY+\phi hX,Z\phi hY\phi hY,Z\phi hX\right\}`$
$`+\phi Y,\phi ZhX\phi X,\phi ZhY+hX,Z\phi ^2YhY,Z\phi ^2X`$
$`+\mu \left\{\eta (Y)\eta (Z)hX\eta (X)\eta (Z)hY+hY,Z\eta (X)\xi hX,Z\eta (Y)\xi \right\}`$ (2)
for all $`X,Y,ZT\stackrel{~}{M}`$, where $`c+2\kappa =1=`$ $`\kappa \mu `$ if $`\kappa <1`$.

The Riemannian invariants are the intrinsic characteristics of a Riemannian manifold. The scalar curvature is the most studied scalar valued Riemannian invariant on Riemannian manifolds. Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold. The scalar curvature $`\tau `$ at $`p`$ is given by $`\tau =_{i<j}K_{ij}`$, where $`K_{ij}`$ is the sectional curvature of the plane section spanned by $`e_i`$ and $`e_j`$ at $`pM`$ for any orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ for $`T_pM`$. We denote by $`K(\pi )`$ the sectional curvature of $`M`$ for a plane section $`\pi `$ in $`T_pM`$.

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional submanifold in a manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ equipped with a Riemannian metric $`,`$. The Gauss and Weingarten formulae are given respectively by $`\stackrel{~}{}_XY=_XY+\sigma (X,Y)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_XN=A_NX+_X^{}N`$ for all $`X,YTM`$ and $`NT^{}M`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, $``$ and $`^{}`$ are Riemannian, induced Riemannian and induced normal connections in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, $`M`$ and the normal bundle $`T^{}M`$ of $`M`$ respectively, and $`\sigma `$ is the second fundamental form related to the shape operator $`A_N`$ in the direction of $`N`$ by $`\sigma (X,Y),N=A_NX,Y`$. Then, the Gauss equation is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(X,Y,Z,W)=R(X,Y,Z,W)\sigma (X,W),\sigma (Y,Z)+\sigma (X,Z),\sigma (Y,W)$$
(3)
for all $`X,Y,Z,WTM`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`R`$ are the curvature tensors of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`M`$ respectively. The mean curvature vector $`H`$ is expressed by $`nH=\text{trace}\left(\sigma \right)`$. The submanifold $`M`$ is totally geodesic in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ if $`\sigma =0`$, and minimal if $`H=0`$. If $`\sigma (X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`X,YH`$ for all $`X,YTM`$, then $`M`$ is totally umbilical.

## 3 Certain basic inequalities

We recall the following Chen’s Lemma for later use.

###### Lemma 3.1

() If $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,a_{n+1}`$ are $`n+1`$ $`\left(n>1\right)`$ real numbers such that

$$\frac{1}{n1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i\right)^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^2+a_{n+1},$$

then $`2a_1a_2a_{n+1}`$, with equality holding if and only if $`a_1+a_2=a_3=\mathrm{}=a_n`$.

For a vector field $`X`$ on a submanifold $`M`$ of an almost contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, let $`PX`$ be the tangential part of $`\phi X`$. Thus, $`P`$ is an endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $`M`$ and satisfies $`X,PY=PX,Y`$. Let $`\pi T_pM`$ be a plane section spanned by an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$. Then, $`\alpha (\pi )`$ given by

$$\alpha (\pi )=e_1,Pe_2^2$$

is a real number in the closed unit interval $`[0,1]`$, which is independent of the choice of the orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$. Let $`\xi TM`$ and put

$$\beta (\pi )=(\eta (e_1))^2+(\eta (e_2))^2,$$

$$\gamma \left(\pi \right)=\eta (e_1)^2h^Te_2,e_2+\eta (e_2)^2h^Te_1,e_12\eta (e_1)\eta (e_2)h^Te_1,e_2.$$

Then, $`\beta (\pi )`$ and $`\gamma \left(\pi \right)`$ are also real numbers and do not depend on the choice of the orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$. Of course, $`\beta (\pi )[0,1]`$.

In view of (2) and (3) we state the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2

In an $`n`$-dimensional submanifold $`M`$ in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$ such that $`\xi TM`$, the scalar curvature and the squared mean curvature satisfy

$`2\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{n\left(n1\right)\left(c+3\right)+3\left(c1\right)P^22\left(n1\right)\left(c+34\kappa \right)\right\}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left(\phi h\right)^T^2h^T^2\left(\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)\right)^2+\left(\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)\right)^2\right\}`$
$`+2\left(\mu +n2\right)\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)+n^2H^2\sigma ^2,`$
where

$$\sigma ^2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma (e_i,e_j),\sigma (e_i,e_j),Q^2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_i,Qe_j^2,Q\{P,\left(\phi h\right)^T,h^T\}$$

and $`\left(\phi h\right)^TX`$ and $`h^TX`$ are the tangential parts of $`\phi hX`$ and $`hX`$ respectively for $`XTM`$.

The equation (4) is of fundamental importance and will play main role to establish several inequalities.

Now, we prove the following contact version of Theorem 3 of .

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional $`\left(n3\right)`$ submanifold isometrically immersed in a $`\left(2m+1\right)`$-dimensional $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$ such that $`\xi TM`$. Then, for each point $`pM`$ and each plane section $`\pi T_pM`$, we have

$`\tau K(\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{n^2\left(n2\right)}{2\left(n1\right)}}H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n\left(n3\right)\left(c+3\right)+\left(n1\right)\kappa `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(c1\right)}{8}}\left\{P^22\alpha \left(\pi \right)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(c+34\kappa \right)\beta \left(\pi \right)\left(\mu 1\right)\gamma \left(\pi \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{2\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)+det\left(h|_\pi \right)det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)\right\}+\left(\mu +n2\right)\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\left(\phi h\right)^T^2h^T^2\left(\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)\right)^2+\left(\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)\right)^2\right\}.`$ (5)
The equality in $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ holds at $`pM`$ if and only if there exist an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of $`T_pM`$ and an orthonormal basis $`\{e_{n+1},\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$ of $`T_p^{}M`$ such that (a) $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and (b) the forms of shape operators $`A_rA_{e_r}`$, $`r=n+1,\mathrm{},2m+1`$, become

$$A_{n+1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 0& 0\\ 0& b& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(a+b\right)I_{n2}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
$$A_r=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_r& d_r& 0\\ d_r& c_r& 0\\ 0& 0& 0_{n2}\end{array}\right),r=n+2,\mathrm{},2m+1.$$
(7)
Proof. Let $`\pi T_pM`$ be a plane section. Choose an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ for $`T_pM`$ and $`\{e_{n+1},\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$ for the normal space $`T_p^{}M`$ at $`p`$ such that $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and the mean curvature vector $`H`$ is in the direction of the normal vector to $`e_{n+1}`$. We rewrite (4) as

$$\frac{1}{n1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma _{ii}^{n+1}\right)^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\sigma _{ii}^{n+1}\right)^2+\underset{ij}{}\left(\sigma _{ij}^{n+1}\right)^2+\underset{r=n+2}{\overset{2m+1}{}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\sigma _{ij}^r\right)^2+\rho ,$$
(8)
where

$`\rho =2\tau {\displaystyle \frac{n^2\left(n2\right)}{n1}}H^22\left(\mu +n2\right)\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{n\left(n1\right)\left(c+3\right)+3\left(c1\right)P^22\left(n1\right)\left(c+34\kappa \right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left(\phi h\right)^T^2h^T^2\left(\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)\right)^2+\left(\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)\right)^2\right\}`$ (9)
and $`\sigma _{ij}^r=\sigma (e_i,e_j),e_r,i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\};r\{n+1,\mathrm{},2m+1\}`$. Now, applying Lemma 3.1 to (8), we obtain

$$2\sigma _{11}^{n+1}\sigma _{22}^{n+1}\rho +\underset{ij}{}\left(\sigma _{ij}^{n+1}\right)^2+\underset{r=n+2}{\overset{2m+1}{}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\sigma _{ij}^r\right)^2.$$
(10)
From equation (2) and (3) it also follows that

$`K\left(\pi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{3+c+3\left(c1\right)\alpha \left(\pi \right)\left(c+34\kappa \right)\beta \left(\pi \right)+4\left(\mu 1\right)\gamma \left(\pi \right)\right\}`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{2\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)+det\left(h|_\pi \right)det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)\right\}`$
$`+\sigma _{11}^{n+1}\sigma _{22}^{n+1}\left(\sigma _{12}^{n+1}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{r=n+2}{\overset{2m+1}{}}}\left(\sigma _{11}^r\sigma _{22}^r\left(\sigma _{12}^r\right)^2\right).`$
Thus, from (10) and (11) we have

$`K(\pi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{3+c+3\left(c1\right)\alpha \left(\pi \right)\left(c+34\kappa \right)\beta \left(\pi \right)+4\left(\mu 1\right)\gamma \left(\pi \right)\right\}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{2\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)+det\left(h|_\pi \right)det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=n+1}{\overset{2m+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>2}{}}\{(\sigma _{1j}^r)^2+(\sigma _{2j}^r)^2\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij>2}{}}(\sigma _{ij}^{n+1})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=n+2}{\overset{2m+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j>2}{}}(\sigma _{ij}^r)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=n+2}{\overset{2m+1}{}}}(\sigma _{11}^r+\sigma _{22}^r)^2.`$
In view of (9) and (12), we get (5).

If the equality in (5) holds, then the inequalities given by (10) and (12) become equalities. In this case, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma _{1j}^{n+1}=0,\sigma _{2j}^{n+1}=0,\sigma _{ij}^{n+1}=0,ij>2;\hfill \\ \sigma _{1j}^r=\sigma _{2j}^r=\sigma _{ij}^r=0,r=n+2,\mathrm{},2m+1;i,j=3,\mathrm{},n;\hfill \\ \sigma _{11}^{n+2}+\sigma _{22}^{n+2}=\mathrm{}=\sigma _{11}^{2m+1}+\sigma _{22}^{2m+1}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Now, we choose $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ so that $`\sigma _{12}^{n+1}=0`$. Applying Lemma 3.1 we also have

$$\sigma _{11}^{n+1}+\sigma _{22}^{n+1}=\sigma _{33}^{n+1}=\mathrm{}=\sigma _{nn}^{n+1}.$$
(14)
Thus, choosing a suitable orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$, the shape operator of $`M`$ becomes of the form given by (6) and (7). The converse is easy to follow. $`\mathrm{}`$

For a submanifold $`M`$ of an almost contact metric manifold tangential to the structure vector field $`\xi `$, we write the orthogonal direct decomposition $`TM=𝒟\left\{\xi \right\}`$. Moreover, if the ambient manifold is contact also, then

$$_\xi \xi =0\text{and }\sigma (\xi ,\xi )=0.$$
(15)
Next, we prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional $`\left(n3\right)`$ submanifold isometrically immersed in a $`\left(2m+1\right)`$-dimensional $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$ such that $`\xi TM`$. Then, for each point $`pM`$ and each plane section $`\pi 𝒟_p`$, we have

$`\tau K(\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{n^2\left(n2\right)}{2\left(n1\right)}}H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n\left(c+3\right)\left(n3\right)+\left(n1\right)\kappa `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(c1\right)}{8}}\left\{P^22\alpha \left(\pi \right)\right\}+\left(\mu +n2\right)\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{2\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)+det\left(h|_\pi \right)det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\left(\phi h\right)^T^2h^T^2\left(\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)\right)^2+\left(\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)\right)^2\right\}.`$ (16)
The equality in $`\left(\text{16}\right)`$ holds at $`pM`$ if and only if there exist an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of $`T_pM`$ and an orthonormal basis $`\{e_{n+1},\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$ of $`T_p^{}M`$ such that (a) $`e_n=\xi `$, (b) $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and (c) the forms of shape operators $`A_rA_{e_r}`$, $`r=n+1,\mathrm{},2m+1`$, become $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$ and

$$A_{n+1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 0& 0\\ 0& a& 0\\ 0& 0& 0_{n2}\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
Proof. Let $`\pi 𝒟_p`$ be a plane section at $`pM`$. We choose an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n=\xi \}`$ for $`T_pM`$ and $`\{e_{n+1},\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$ for the normal space $`T_p^{}M`$ at $`p`$ such that $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and the mean curvature vector $`H\left(p\right)`$ is parallel to $`e_{n+1}`$. Using $`\eta \left(e_1\right)=0=\eta \left(e_2\right)`$, we get $`\beta \left(\pi \right)=0=\gamma \left(\pi \right)`$. Thus, proof of (16) is similar to that of (5). In equality case, using (15), (14) becomes

$$\sigma _{11}^{n+1}+\sigma _{22}^{n+1}=\sigma _{33}^{n+1}=\mathrm{}=\sigma _{nn}^{n+1}=0,$$
(18)
and thus (6) is modified to (17). $`\mathrm{}`$

Since in case of non-Sasakian $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form, we have $`\kappa <1`$, and thus $`c=2\kappa 1`$ and $`\mu =\kappa +1`$. Putting these values in (5) and (16), we can have direct corollaries to Theorems 3.3 and 3.4. For example, Corollary to Theorem 3.3 is as follows.

###### Corollary 3.5

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional $`\left(n3\right)`$ submanifold isometrically immersed in a non-Sasakian $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$ such that $`\xi TM`$. Then, for each point $`pM`$ and each plane section $`\pi T_pM`$, we have

$`\tau K(\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{n^2\left(n2\right)}{2\left(n1\right)}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n\left(n3\right)\left(\kappa 1\right)+\left(n1\right)\kappa `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(\kappa +1\right)P^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{3\left(\kappa +1\right)\alpha \left(\pi \right)\left(3\kappa 1\right)\beta \left(\pi \right)2\kappa \gamma \left(\pi \right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{2\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)+det\left(h|_\pi \right)det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)\right\}+\left(\kappa +n1\right)\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left\{\left(\phi h\right)^T^2h^T^2\left(\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)\right)^2+\left(\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)\right)^2\right\}.`$ (19)
The equality in $`\left(\text{19}\right)`$ holds at $`pM`$ if and only if there exist an orthonormal basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of $`T_pM`$ and an orthonormal basis $`\{e_{n+1},\mathrm{},e_{2m+1}\}`$ of $`T_p^{}M`$ such that (a) $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and (b) the shape operators $`A_rA_{e_r}`$, $`r=n+1,\mathrm{},2m+1`$ are of forms given by $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$.

If $`\kappa =1`$, the $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form reduces to Sasakian space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$; thus $`h=0`$ and (2) becomes the equation in Theorem 7.14 of . Therefore, Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.4 provide Sasakian versions as Theorem 3.2 of  and  respectively. Now, we recall Chen’s $`\delta `$-invariant given by

$$\delta _M(p)=\tau (p)(infK)(p)=\tau (p)inf\{K(\pi )|\pi \text{ is a plane section }T_pM\},$$

which is certainly an intrinsic character of $`M`$. Improving Theorem 4.1 of , we have the following

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold isometrically immersed in a Sasakian space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}(c)`$ of constant $`\phi `$-sectional curvature $`c<1`$ with the structure vector field $`\xi `$ tangent to $`M`$. $`M`$ satisfies Chen’s basic equality

$$\delta _M=\frac{n^2(n2)}{2(n1)}H^2+\frac{1}{8}\{(n(n3)c+3n^2n8\},$$
(20)
if and only if $`M`$ is a $`3`$-dimensional minimal invariant submanifold. Hence, Chen’s invariant becomes $`\delta _M=2`$.

## 4 Invariant submanifolds

A submanifold $`M`$ of an almost contact metric manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with the structure $`(\phi ,\xi ,\eta ,,)`$ is called an invariant submanifold if $`\phi T_pMT_pM`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is contact also, then $`\xi TM`$, $`\sigma (X,\xi )=0`$ and $`M`$ is minimal (). On the other hand, we have the following

###### Proposition 4.1

Every totally umbilical submanifold $`M`$ of a contact metric manifold such that $`\xi TM`$ is minimal and consequently totally geodesic.

The proof follows from $`H=\xi ,\xi H=\sigma (\xi ,\xi )=0`$, where (15) is used. Choosing an orthonormal basis $`\{e_i,\phi e_i,\xi \}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},\frac{n1}{2}`$, we also can prove

###### Proposition 4.2

In an $`n`$-dimensional invariant submanifold of a contact metric manifold, we have

$$P^2=n1\text{}\text{trace}\left(h^T\right)=\text{trace}\left(\left(\phi h\right)^T\right)=0,\left(\phi h\right)^T^2=h^T^2.$$
(21)
Thus, for an $`n`$-dimensional invariant submanifold in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$, the scalar curvature and the second fundamental form satisfy

$$2\tau =\frac{1}{4}\left(n1\right)\left\{\left(n+1\right)c+8\kappa +3n9\right\}\sigma ^2.$$
(22)
In view of the above equation, we can state the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.3

For an $`n`$-dimensional invariant submanifold isometrically immersed in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$, we get

$$\tau \frac{1}{8}\left(n1\right)\left\{\left(n+1\right)c+8\kappa +3n9\right\}$$
(23)
with equality if and only if the invariant submanifold is totally umbilical, where $`c=2\kappa 1`$ if $`\kappa <1`$.

For each point $`pM`$, we put ()

$$\delta _M^𝒟\left(p\right)=\tau \left(p\right)inf\{K\left(\pi \right):\text{plane sections }\pi 𝒟_p\}.$$
(24)
Now, we conclude the paper with the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.4

For an $`n`$-dimensional invariant submanifold isometrically immersed in a $`(\kappa ,\mu )`$-contact space form $`\stackrel{~}{M}\left(c\right)`$, we get

$$\delta _M^𝒟\frac{n3}{8}\left\{\left(n+3\right)c+3\left(n1\right)\right\}+\left(n1\right)\kappa .$$
(25)
Proof. Let $`\pi 𝒟_p`$ be a plane section at $`pM`$. We can choose unit vectors $`e`$ and $`Pe`$ such that $`\pi =\text{Span}\{e,Pe\}`$. Thus, we get $`\alpha \left(\pi \right)=1`$, $`\text{trace}\left(h|_\pi \right)=0`$ and $`det\left(h|_\pi \right)=det\left((\phi h)|_\pi \right)`$. Using these facts along with (21) in (16), we get (25). $`\mathrm{}`$

Mukut Mani Tripathi
Department of Mathematics and Astronomy,
Lucknow University,
Lucknow 226 007, India.
Current Address
Department of Mathematics,
Chonnam National University,
Kwangju 500-757, Korea.
email: mm\_tripathi@hotmail.com

Jeong-Sik Kim
Department of Mathematics Education,
Sunchon National University,
Chonnam 540-742, Korea.
email: jskim01@hanmir.com

Jaedong Choi
Department of Mathematics,
P.O. Box 335-2, Air Force Academy,
Ssangsu, Namil, Cheongwon,
Chungbuk, 363-849, Korea.
e-mail: jdong@afa.ac.kr


text:
# On the metrizability of spaces with a sharp base

## Acknowledgements

Much of this research took place whilst the first author held a Universitas 21 Traveling Fellowship at the Department of Mathematics at the University of Auckland. He would like to thank the department for their hospitality and both the department and U21 for their financial support.