[Math] Does the Levi-Civita connection determine the metric

connectionsholonomyriemannian-geometry

Can I reconstruct a Riemannian metric out of its Levi-Civita connection?
In other words: Given two Riemannian metrics $g$ and $h$ on a manifold $M$ with the same Levi-Civita connection, can I conclude that $g=h$ up to scalars?

If not, what can I say about the relationship between $g$ and $h$? How rigid is the Levi-Civita-Connection?

Best Answer

This is something I have been thinking about recently, allow me to complete Mariano Suárez-Alvarez' answer.

First just an observation: "pick any Riemannian manifold with trivial holonomy at each point: for example, a space form of curvature zero": actually you have no choice, a connection with trivial holonomy has vanishing curvature, so the only candidate metrics are Euclidean. In the language of geometric structures, a flat torsion-free connection is equivalent to an affine structure.

Now to the point. As we are going to see, the answer to your question is "generically, yes". First note that given a connection $\nabla$ (let's permanently assume that $\nabla$ is torsion-free otherwise there's no chance of it being a Riemanniann connection), by definition a metric $g$ has Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ if and only if $g$ is $\nabla$-parallel: $\nabla g = 0$.

Let us make a general observation about parallel tensor fields with respect to a given connection. If $F$ is a parallel tensor field, then $F$ is preserved by parallel transport. In particular:

  1. $F$ is completely determined by what it is at some point $x_0 \in M$ (to find $F_x$, parallel transport $F_{x_0}$ along some path from $x_0$ to $x$).
  2. $F_{x_0}$ must be invariant under the holonomy group $\operatorname{Hol}(\nabla, x_0)$.

Conversely, given a tensor $F_{x_0}$ in some tangent space $T_{x_0} M$ such that $F_{x_0}$ is invariant under $\operatorname{Hol}(\nabla, x_0)$, there is a unique parallel tensor field $F$ on $M$ extending $F_{x_0}$ (obtained by parallel-transporting $F_{x_0}$).

So you have the answer to your question in the following form:

There are as many Riemannian metrics having Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ as there are inner products $g$ in $T_{x_0} M$ preserved by $\operatorname{Hol}(\nabla, x_0)$.

Now you may want to push the analysis further: how many is that? The answer is provided by analysing the action of the restricted holonomy group $\operatorname{Hol}_0(\nabla, x_0)$ on $T_{x_0}M$. Now this is just linear algebra: let's just call $G = \operatorname{Hol}_0(\nabla, x_0)$ and $V = T_{x_0} M$. Let $g$ and $h$ be two inner products in $V$ that are preserved by $G$, in other words $G \subset O(g)$ and $G \subset O(h)$. If $G$ acts irreducibly on $V$, i.e. there are no $G$-stable subspaces $\{0\} \subsetneq W \subsetneq V$, then a little exercise that I am leaving to you shows that $g$ and $h$ must be proportional. So in the generic case where $\nabla$ is irreducible, the answer to your question is yes:

If $\nabla$ is irreducible, all Riemannian metrics with connection $\nabla$ must be equal up to positive scalars.

NB: note that there might not be any such metrics if $G$ does not preserve any inner product on $V$, in other words $G$ must be conjugated to a subgroup of $O(n)$.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, if $G$ is trivial, i.e. $\nabla$ is flat, then $g$ and $h$ can be anything, there are no restrictions:

If $\nabla$ is flat, there are as many Riemannian metrics with connection $\nabla$ as there are inner products in a $\dim M$-dimensional vector space, they are the Euclidean metrics on $M$.

In the "general" case where $\nabla$ is reducible, I hope I am not mistaken (I won't write the details) in saying that you can derive from the de Rham decomposition theorem that the situation is a mix of the two previous "extreme" cases:

If $\nabla$ is reducible, locally one can write $M = M_0 \times N$, such that both $g$ and $h$ split as products. The components of $g$ and $h$ on $M_0$ are both Euclidean and their components on $N$ are equal up to a scalar.

If this is correct, I believe your question is answered completely.

NB: In this paper (see also this one), Richard Atkins addresses this question. I haven't really looked but since it seems to me that there is not much more to say than what I've written, I have no idea what he's really doing in there.