Can scalar curvature and diameter control volume?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












Scalar curvature can control the volume of geodesic ball locally, however, it can not bound the diameter. As for as I know, the example for a manifold with a large scalar curvature and volume has large diameter.



Comparing with the n sphere with the standard metric, if a smooth manifold has scalar curvature larger than this sphere, and the diameter of the manifold is smaller, should the volume of the manifold be smaller than the sphere?










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
    – Gabe K
    20 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












Scalar curvature can control the volume of geodesic ball locally, however, it can not bound the diameter. As for as I know, the example for a manifold with a large scalar curvature and volume has large diameter.



Comparing with the n sphere with the standard metric, if a smooth manifold has scalar curvature larger than this sphere, and the diameter of the manifold is smaller, should the volume of the manifold be smaller than the sphere?










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
    – Gabe K
    20 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2






2





Scalar curvature can control the volume of geodesic ball locally, however, it can not bound the diameter. As for as I know, the example for a manifold with a large scalar curvature and volume has large diameter.



Comparing with the n sphere with the standard metric, if a smooth manifold has scalar curvature larger than this sphere, and the diameter of the manifold is smaller, should the volume of the manifold be smaller than the sphere?










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Scalar curvature can control the volume of geodesic ball locally, however, it can not bound the diameter. As for as I know, the example for a manifold with a large scalar curvature and volume has large diameter.



Comparing with the n sphere with the standard metric, if a smooth manifold has scalar curvature larger than this sphere, and the diameter of the manifold is smaller, should the volume of the manifold be smaller than the sphere?







riemannian-geometry






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Yiyue Zhang

211




211




New contributor




Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
    – Gabe K
    20 mins ago
















  • As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
    – Gabe K
    20 mins ago















As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
– Gabe K
20 mins ago




As a follow up, to build a counter-example I ended up needing there to be some negative Ricci curvature. I experimented a little bit and couldn't figure out how to build any counter-examples with non-negative Ricci curvature. I wonder if it might be possible to get some volume control with non-negative Ricci, positive scalar and bounded diameter that's better than what the volume comparison theorem states.
– Gabe K
20 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













A connected sum of two spheres can be done with arbitrary thin neck while keeping the lower bound on scalar curvature.



Take a sphere of radius $tfrac110$ and attacch to it 1000000 spheres of the same radius by very thin necks.
You get this way a space of small diameter, large scalar curvature and huge volume.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    In general, the scalar curvature does not give enough control to get these sorts of volume estimates. However, if you use the Ricci curvature instead, you can get these kinds of estimates using the volume comparison theorem or something similar.



    For an example of why scalar curvature bounds and diameter bounds are not enough to compare the volume to a sphere, consider the manifold $M_1$ which is the metric product of a ball of radius r in hyperbolic space $mathbbH^2$ (with sectional curvature 1) and the sphere $mathbbS^2(r)$. For the second manifold, consider the $4$-sphere $mathbbS^4(s)$.



    The volume of $M_1$ is $sinh(t) times 4 pi r^2$ while its diameter is $sqrtpi^2 r^2+ 4t^2 < pi r +2 t$. The scalar curvature is $2(frac1r^2-1)$. Whenever $r<1$, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is positive. Meanwhile, the volume of the $4$-sphere is $frac83pi^2 s^4$, its diameter is $pi s$, and its scalar curvature is $frac12s^2$.



    To force our first manifold to have much larger volume then the second, we set $s$ very large so that the scalar curvature is less than $1$.
    We also set $r=1/2$ and $t=s-1/2$. In this case, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is 6 and the diameter of $M_1$ is strictly smaller than that of $mathbbS^4(s)$. However, since hyperbolic sine grows exponentially in $t$ whereas the volume of the $4$-sphere grows as $s^4$, for sufficiently large $s$ the volume of $M_1$ is larger than that of the sphere. By setting $s$ arbitrarily large, we can force $M_1$ to have much larger volume than $mathbbS^4$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "504"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314644%2fcan-scalar-curvature-and-diameter-control-volume%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      A connected sum of two spheres can be done with arbitrary thin neck while keeping the lower bound on scalar curvature.



      Take a sphere of radius $tfrac110$ and attacch to it 1000000 spheres of the same radius by very thin necks.
      You get this way a space of small diameter, large scalar curvature and huge volume.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        A connected sum of two spheres can be done with arbitrary thin neck while keeping the lower bound on scalar curvature.



        Take a sphere of radius $tfrac110$ and attacch to it 1000000 spheres of the same radius by very thin necks.
        You get this way a space of small diameter, large scalar curvature and huge volume.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          A connected sum of two spheres can be done with arbitrary thin neck while keeping the lower bound on scalar curvature.



          Take a sphere of radius $tfrac110$ and attacch to it 1000000 spheres of the same radius by very thin necks.
          You get this way a space of small diameter, large scalar curvature and huge volume.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          A connected sum of two spheres can be done with arbitrary thin neck while keeping the lower bound on scalar curvature.



          Take a sphere of radius $tfrac110$ and attacch to it 1000000 spheres of the same radius by very thin necks.
          You get this way a space of small diameter, large scalar curvature and huge volume.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          Anton Petrunin

          25.8k578193




          25.8k578193




















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              In general, the scalar curvature does not give enough control to get these sorts of volume estimates. However, if you use the Ricci curvature instead, you can get these kinds of estimates using the volume comparison theorem or something similar.



              For an example of why scalar curvature bounds and diameter bounds are not enough to compare the volume to a sphere, consider the manifold $M_1$ which is the metric product of a ball of radius r in hyperbolic space $mathbbH^2$ (with sectional curvature 1) and the sphere $mathbbS^2(r)$. For the second manifold, consider the $4$-sphere $mathbbS^4(s)$.



              The volume of $M_1$ is $sinh(t) times 4 pi r^2$ while its diameter is $sqrtpi^2 r^2+ 4t^2 < pi r +2 t$. The scalar curvature is $2(frac1r^2-1)$. Whenever $r<1$, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is positive. Meanwhile, the volume of the $4$-sphere is $frac83pi^2 s^4$, its diameter is $pi s$, and its scalar curvature is $frac12s^2$.



              To force our first manifold to have much larger volume then the second, we set $s$ very large so that the scalar curvature is less than $1$.
              We also set $r=1/2$ and $t=s-1/2$. In this case, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is 6 and the diameter of $M_1$ is strictly smaller than that of $mathbbS^4(s)$. However, since hyperbolic sine grows exponentially in $t$ whereas the volume of the $4$-sphere grows as $s^4$, for sufficiently large $s$ the volume of $M_1$ is larger than that of the sphere. By setting $s$ arbitrarily large, we can force $M_1$ to have much larger volume than $mathbbS^4$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                In general, the scalar curvature does not give enough control to get these sorts of volume estimates. However, if you use the Ricci curvature instead, you can get these kinds of estimates using the volume comparison theorem or something similar.



                For an example of why scalar curvature bounds and diameter bounds are not enough to compare the volume to a sphere, consider the manifold $M_1$ which is the metric product of a ball of radius r in hyperbolic space $mathbbH^2$ (with sectional curvature 1) and the sphere $mathbbS^2(r)$. For the second manifold, consider the $4$-sphere $mathbbS^4(s)$.



                The volume of $M_1$ is $sinh(t) times 4 pi r^2$ while its diameter is $sqrtpi^2 r^2+ 4t^2 < pi r +2 t$. The scalar curvature is $2(frac1r^2-1)$. Whenever $r<1$, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is positive. Meanwhile, the volume of the $4$-sphere is $frac83pi^2 s^4$, its diameter is $pi s$, and its scalar curvature is $frac12s^2$.



                To force our first manifold to have much larger volume then the second, we set $s$ very large so that the scalar curvature is less than $1$.
                We also set $r=1/2$ and $t=s-1/2$. In this case, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is 6 and the diameter of $M_1$ is strictly smaller than that of $mathbbS^4(s)$. However, since hyperbolic sine grows exponentially in $t$ whereas the volume of the $4$-sphere grows as $s^4$, for sufficiently large $s$ the volume of $M_1$ is larger than that of the sphere. By setting $s$ arbitrarily large, we can force $M_1$ to have much larger volume than $mathbbS^4$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  In general, the scalar curvature does not give enough control to get these sorts of volume estimates. However, if you use the Ricci curvature instead, you can get these kinds of estimates using the volume comparison theorem or something similar.



                  For an example of why scalar curvature bounds and diameter bounds are not enough to compare the volume to a sphere, consider the manifold $M_1$ which is the metric product of a ball of radius r in hyperbolic space $mathbbH^2$ (with sectional curvature 1) and the sphere $mathbbS^2(r)$. For the second manifold, consider the $4$-sphere $mathbbS^4(s)$.



                  The volume of $M_1$ is $sinh(t) times 4 pi r^2$ while its diameter is $sqrtpi^2 r^2+ 4t^2 < pi r +2 t$. The scalar curvature is $2(frac1r^2-1)$. Whenever $r<1$, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is positive. Meanwhile, the volume of the $4$-sphere is $frac83pi^2 s^4$, its diameter is $pi s$, and its scalar curvature is $frac12s^2$.



                  To force our first manifold to have much larger volume then the second, we set $s$ very large so that the scalar curvature is less than $1$.
                  We also set $r=1/2$ and $t=s-1/2$. In this case, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is 6 and the diameter of $M_1$ is strictly smaller than that of $mathbbS^4(s)$. However, since hyperbolic sine grows exponentially in $t$ whereas the volume of the $4$-sphere grows as $s^4$, for sufficiently large $s$ the volume of $M_1$ is larger than that of the sphere. By setting $s$ arbitrarily large, we can force $M_1$ to have much larger volume than $mathbbS^4$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  In general, the scalar curvature does not give enough control to get these sorts of volume estimates. However, if you use the Ricci curvature instead, you can get these kinds of estimates using the volume comparison theorem or something similar.



                  For an example of why scalar curvature bounds and diameter bounds are not enough to compare the volume to a sphere, consider the manifold $M_1$ which is the metric product of a ball of radius r in hyperbolic space $mathbbH^2$ (with sectional curvature 1) and the sphere $mathbbS^2(r)$. For the second manifold, consider the $4$-sphere $mathbbS^4(s)$.



                  The volume of $M_1$ is $sinh(t) times 4 pi r^2$ while its diameter is $sqrtpi^2 r^2+ 4t^2 < pi r +2 t$. The scalar curvature is $2(frac1r^2-1)$. Whenever $r<1$, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is positive. Meanwhile, the volume of the $4$-sphere is $frac83pi^2 s^4$, its diameter is $pi s$, and its scalar curvature is $frac12s^2$.



                  To force our first manifold to have much larger volume then the second, we set $s$ very large so that the scalar curvature is less than $1$.
                  We also set $r=1/2$ and $t=s-1/2$. In this case, the scalar curvature of $M_1$ is 6 and the diameter of $M_1$ is strictly smaller than that of $mathbbS^4(s)$. However, since hyperbolic sine grows exponentially in $t$ whereas the volume of the $4$-sphere grows as $s^4$, for sufficiently large $s$ the volume of $M_1$ is larger than that of the sphere. By setting $s$ arbitrarily large, we can force $M_1$ to have much larger volume than $mathbbS^4$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Gabe K

                  581212




                  581212




















                      Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


















                      Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Yiyue Zhang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314644%2fcan-scalar-curvature-and-diameter-control-volume%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?