Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:43:40.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Scattering rigidity with trapped geodesics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2013

CHRISTOPHER CROKE*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395, USA email ccroke@math.upenn.edu

Abstract

We prove that the flat product metric on ${D}^{n} \times {S}^{1} $ is scattering rigid where ${D}^{n} $ is the unit ball in ${ \mathbb{R} }^{n} $ and $n\geq 2$. The scattering data (loosely speaking) of a Riemannian manifold with boundary is the map $S: {U}^{+ } \partial M\rightarrow {U}^{- } \partial M$ from unit vectors $V$ at the boundary that point inward to unit vectors at the boundary that point outwards. The map (where defined) takes $V$ to ${ \gamma }_{V}^{\prime } ({T}_{0} )$ where ${\gamma }_{V} $ is the unit speed geodesic determined by $V$ and ${T}_{0} $ is the first positive value of $t$ (when it exists) such that ${\gamma }_{V} (t)$ again lies in the boundary. We show that any other Riemannian manifold $(M, \partial M, g)$ with boundary $\partial M$ isometric to $\partial ({D}^{n} \times {S}^{1} )$ and with the same scattering data must be isometric to ${D}^{n} \times {S}^{1} $. This is the first scattering rigidity result for a manifold that has a trapped geodesic. The main issue is to show that the unit vectors tangent to trapped geodesics in $(M, \partial M, g)$ have measure zero in the unit tangent bundle.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
©2013 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beylkin, G.. Stability and uniqueness of the solution of the inverse kinematic problem in the multidimensional case. J. Soviet Math. 21 (1983), 251254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burago, D. and Ivanov, S.. Riemannian tori without conjugate points are flat. Geom. Funct. Anal. 4 (3) (1994), 259269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burago, D. and Ivanov, S.. Boundary rigidity and filling volume minimality of metrics close to a flat one. Ann. of Math. (2) 171 (2) (2010), 11831211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croke, C.. Rigidity for surfaces of non-positive curvature. Comment. Math. Helv. 65 (1990), 150169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croke, C.. Rigidity and the distance between boundary points. J. Differential Geom. 33 (1991), 445464.Google Scholar
Croke, C.. Rigidity theorems in Riemannian geometry. Geometric Methods in Inverse Problems and PDE Control (The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, 137) Eds. C. Croke, I. Lasiecka, G. Uhlmann and M. Vogelius. Springer, New York, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croke, C. and Kleiner, B.. Conjugacy and rigidity for manifolds with a parallel vector field. J. Differential Geom. 39 (1994), 659680.Google Scholar
Croke, C. and Kleiner, B.. A rigidity theorem for manifolds without conjugate points. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 18 (4) (1998), 813829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croke, C. and Schroeder, V.. The fundamental group of compact manifolds without conjugate points. Comment. Math. Helv. 61 (1986), 161175.Google Scholar
Eschenèurg, J. H.. Horospheres and the stable part of the géodésie flow. Math. Z. 153 (1977), 237251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, A. and Mañé, R.. On the entropy of the geodesic flow in manifolds without conjugate points. Invent. Math. 69 (1982), 375392.Google Scholar
Gromov, M.. Filling Riemannian manifolds. J. Differential Geom. 18 (1983), 1147.Google Scholar
Gulliver, R.. On the variety of manifolds without conjugate points. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 210 (1975), 185201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendi, A., Henn, J. and Leonhardt, U.. Ambiguities in the scattering tomography for central potentials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), 073902.Google Scholar
Lassas, M., Sharafutdinov, V. and Uhlmann, G.. Semiglobal boundary rigidity for Riemannian metrics. Math. Ann. 325 (2003), 767793.Google Scholar
Michel, R.. Sur la rigidité imposée par la longuer des géodésiques. Inv. Math. 65 (1981), 7183.Google Scholar
Mukhometov, R. G.. The reconstruction problem of a two-dimensional Riemannian metric, and integral geometry. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 232 (1) (1977), 3235 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Otal, J.-P.. Sur les longueurs des géodésiques d’une métrique à courbure négative dans le disque. Comment. Math. Helv. 65 (2) (1990), 334347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestov, L. and Sharafutdinov, A.. Integral geometry of tensor fields on a manifold of negative curvature. Siberian Math. J. 33 (3) (1992), 527533 (transl. from Sib. Mat. Zh. 29(3) (1988), 114–130).Google Scholar
Pestov, L. and Uhlmann, G.. Two dimensional simple compact manifolds with boundary are boundary rigid. Ann. of Math. (2) 161 (2005), 10931110.Google Scholar
Stefanov, P. and Uhlmann, G.. Local lens rigidity with incomplete data for a class of non-simple Riemannian manifolds. J. Differential Geom. 82 (2009), 383409.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, G. and Wang, J.. Boundary determination of a Riemannian metric by the localized boundary distance function. Adv. Appl. Math. 31 (2003), 379387.Google Scholar
Zhou, X.. Recovery of the ${C}^{\infty } $ jet from the boundary distance function. Geom. Dedicata 160 (1) (2012), 229241.Google Scholar