A criterion for uniqueness of tangent cones at infinity for minimal surfaces
Paul Gallagher

TL;DR
This paper addresses a conjecture about the asymptotic behavior of minimal surfaces in three-dimensional space with quadratic area growth, providing partial resolution and insights into their tangent cones at infinity.
Contribution
It offers a partial resolution to Meeks' conjecture regarding the uniqueness of tangent cones at infinity for minimal surfaces with quadratic area growth.
Findings
Partial resolution of Meeks' conjecture
Insights into tangent cones at infinity
Advances understanding of minimal surface asymptotics
Abstract
We partially resolve a conjecture of Meeks on the asymptotic behavior of minimal surfaces in with quadratic area growth.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Geometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Meromorphic and Entire Functions
A Criterion for Uniqueness of Tangent Cones at Infinity for Minimal Surfaces
Paul Gallagher
(Date: March 20, 2017)
Abstract.
We partially resolve a conjecture of Meeks on the asymptotic behavior of minimal surfaces in with quadratic area growth.
1. Introduction
Let be an embedded minimal surface in . By the monotonicity formula, the area density
[TABLE]
is nondecreasing. If
[TABLE]
we say that has quadratic area growth, or the area growth of planes.
For surfaces with the growth of 2 planes, there are two canonical examples: the catenoid (Fig 1), and Scherk’s singly periodic surfaces, which occur in a one parameter family (Fig 2 and Fig 3), where the parameter is the angle betwee the two leaves. As the angle goes to zero, the Scherk surfaces approach a catenoid on compact sets after an appropriate rescaling. In 2005, Meeks and Wolf proved the following theorem:
Theorem 1.1**.**
[MW] Suppose that is an embedded minimal surface in which has infinite symmetry group and . Then is either a catenoid or a Scherk example.
Meeks has conjectured that the symmetry condition in the above may be removed:
Conjecture 1.2**.**
[M] Let be an embedded minimal surface in with area growth of 2 planes. Then is either a catenoid or a Scherk example.
However, an initial difficulty with the above is that it is not yet known that a minimal surface with quadratic growth even needs to be asymptotic to a catenoid or a Scherk example. By the compactness theory from GMT, it is known that if is an embedded minimal surface with quadratic area growth, then for any sequence , there exists a subsequence such that converges to a minimal cone in the varifold topology. Such a cone is called a tangent cone at infinity. A priori, there may be many tangent cones at infinity.
This leads to the following conjecture, also due to Meeks:
Conjecture 1.3**.**
[M] Let be an embedded minimal surface in with quadratic area growth. Then has a unique tangent cone at infinity.
In the case of finite genus, this had already been resolved by Collin [C], who proved that any minimal surface with finite genus and quadratic area growth must be asymptotic to a single multiplicity plane. In particular, when combined with a result of Schoen [S], this resolves Meeks’ full conjecture in the case of finite genus - that is, the only minimal surface with the area growth of two planes and finite genus is the catenoid.
In this paper, we prove that Meeks’ conjecture holds true under additional assumptions:
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let be an embedded minimal surface with the area growth of planes. Suppose that there exists such that for all sufficiently large, there exists a line
[TABLE]
is a union of at least disks and such that is homotopically nontrivial in . Then has a unique tangent cone at infinity.
This leads to the following:
Corollary 1.5**.**
Let be an embedded minimal surface with quadratic area growth. Let
[TABLE]
Then if for some , is a union of topological disks each with finitely many boundary components, then has a unique tangent cone at infinity.
Note that the corollary substitutes the homotopy requirement from the theorem for the existence of a single line around which we can base our sublinearly growing set.
1.1. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank his advisor, William Minicozzi, as well as Jonathan Zhu, Frank Morgan, Ao Sun, and Nick Strehlke for their comments and suggestions throughout the writing of this paper.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.4
The proof of this begins with the following:
Lemma 2.1** (Lower Area Bound).**
Suppose that satisfies the conditions of Theorem 1.4. Then for some
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will work on each leaf separately, and the lemma will come from adding the area of all the leaves together.
First note that is a rotationally symmetric solid torus and (since is a disk), is contractible in . However, since is rotationally symmetric, the smallest spanning disk for any such curve has area at least that of a vertical cross section . Any such vertical cross section consists of a half-circle of radius minus a strip of length and width . Thus, we have
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 2.2**.**
Note that Lemma 2.1 implies that there are in fact exactly disks in the statement of Theorem 1.4.
We make a definition:
Definition 2.3**.**
The error at scale of a minimal surfaces with area growth of planes is defined as
[TABLE]
Thus, the Lemma 2.1 is equivalent to the statement:
[TABLE]
We now apply an argument of Brian White [W] to prove uniqueness of the tangent cone.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let satisfy the following: such that for ,
[TABLE]
Then has a unique tangent cone at infinity.
Proof.
Define . Then note that is equal to the area of the projection of onto the unit sphere. We will bound this area. We have:
[TABLE]
By monotonicity, the term inside the first bracket is smaller than . Also, the term in the second bracket can be bounded by distance and area. Thus, we get that the above is smaller than
[TABLE]
Now, by equation (2), along with the fact that , we have that this is bounded by
[TABLE]
Pick and such that . Then
[TABLE]
We then sum the above bound to see
[TABLE]
As , this term goes to zero. Thus, the area of the projection of approaches zero as gets large, which means that the tangent cone must be unique.
∎
3. Proof of Corollary 1.5
Let be one of the components of . Then note that the closure of in must be conformally equivalent to with finitely many boundary points removed. Take a neighborhood of one of these missing boundary points which does not come close to any other missing boundary points. Then has exactly one boundary component. There are two options for the shape of .
- (1)
The function is unbounded in both directions. 2. (2)
is bounded in one direction.
Note that cannot be bounded in both directions, as then would be compact, which it is not.
We temporarily assume that Option 1 occurs. Let be the portion of which is not on the boundary of . Take larger so that . Let . Then some component of will satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1.4. This implies that it is possible to prove the Lower Area Bound lemma for this component, and in particular, the area must be asymptotic to .
The following lemma will complete our proof:
Lemma 3.1**.**
Under our assumptions, Option 2 is not possible.
Proof.
Suppose that Option 2 occurs. WLOG, let be bounded below by 0, and let be the point at which that minimum is achieved. Let . Let be a catenoid where the radius of the center geodesic is strictly larger than . Then by a simple application of the maximum principle, must intersect . In particular, this implies that .
Now, consider a sequence of such that converges to a tangent cone at infinity. By compactness, must either converge to a union of geodesics on or must disappear at infinity. However, due to the discussion of the previous paragraph, cannot disappear at infinty, and so must converge to a nontrivial union of geodesics , possibly with endpoints at the north or south poles.
Let be a nonsmooth point on . Then there must exist a neighborhood of such that restricted to is unbounded as . However, since is a minimal disk with quadratic area growth bounds, must be bounded by , where is the distance of from the boundary of .
Suppose that is not equal to the south pole. Then we can choose our neighborhood of to stay away from the axis, so we will have that uniformly on . Suppose that is equal to the south pole. Then by the assumption of Option 2, is only contained in the region . So, we can choose , and this implies the same uniform bound.
Therefore, there will be no nonsmooth points of , which implies that consists of a single great circle passing through the north pole.
In particular, this implies that there are some such that the area of is greater than , where as . Thus, we have at least components of , each of which has area growth at least by the discussion of Option 1. However, since the global area growth is , no component can have growth . ∎
4. Future Directions
There are several potential extensions of the work above. Theorem 1.4 and Corollary 1.5 effectively assume that all tangent cones of are unions of planes with a common axis. It is likely not significantly more difficult to show that the same result holds in the case when the one-dimensional singular set is more complicated, as long as away from a sublinearly growing neighborhood, is a union of disks. That is, we have the following as another potential step towards the resolution of Meeks’ Conjecture:
Conjecture 4.1**.**
Let have the area growth of planes, and suppose that there exists a uniform such that for each , the following is true: There exist line segments , such that outside of an sublinearly growing neighborhood of , is a union of disks. Then has a unique tangent cone at infinity.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[C] P. Collin, Topologie et courbure des surfaces minimales proprement plonges de ℝ 3 superscript ℝ 3 \mathbb{R}^{3} , Ann. of Math., (145) 2 (1997), 1-31.
- 2[M] William H. Meeks, III, Global Problems in Classical Minimal Surface Theory , Global theory of minimal surfaces, Clay Math. Proc., vol. 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005, p. 453-469.
- 3[MW] William H. Meeks, III and Michael Wolf, Minimal surfaces with the area growth of two planes: The case of infinite symmetry , Journal of the AMS, (20) 2 (2006), 441-465.
- 4[S] Richard Schoen, Uniqueness, Symmetry, and Embeddedness of Minimal Surfaces , Journal of Differential Geometry, (18) (1983), 791-809.
- 5[W] Brian White, Tangent Cones to Two-Dimensional Area-Minimizing Integral Currents are Unique , Duke Mathematics Journal, (50) 1 (1983), 143-160.
