arxiv: v1 [math.dg] 20 Jan 2011

Transcription

1 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE arxiv: v1 [math.dg] 0 Jan 011 BARIS COSKUNUZER ABSTRACT. In this paper, we show that there are non-properly embedded minimal surfaces with finite topology in a simply connected Riemannian 3-manifold with nonpositive curvature. We show this result by constructing a non-properly embedded minimal plane in H 3. Hence, this gives a counterexample to Calabi- Yau conjecture for embedded minimal surfaces in negative curvature case. 1. INTRODUCTION In the last decade, there have been a great progress in the understanding of the global structure of complete, embedded minimal surfaces in R 3. In [CM], Colding and Minicozzi showed that a complete, embedded minimal surfaces with finite topology in R 3 is proper. This result is also known as Calabi-Yau conjecture for embedded minimal surfaces in the literature. Later, Meeks and Rosenberg generalized this result to complete, embedded minimal surfaces with positive injectivity radius inr 3 in [MR1]. A nice survey on Calabi-Yau problem can be found at [Al]. If we consider the question in more general settings, it is not hard to construct examples of non-properly embedded minimal surfaces with finite topology in a non-simply connected 3-manifold, or in a simply connected 3-manifold with some arbitrary metric. However, there is no known example of a non-properly embedded minimal surface with finite topology in a simply connected 3-manifold with nonpositive curvature (See Final Remarks). On the other hand, the key lemma of [MR1] to prove its main result also applies to all 3-manifolds with nonpositive curvature. Hence, the question of whether the generalization of Calabi-Yau conjecture for embedded minimal surfaces to simply connected 3-manifolds with nonpositive curvature is true or not became interesting (See Final Remarks). In this paper, we construct an example of non-properly embedded minimal plane in H 3 which shows that the Calabi-Yau conjecture for embedded minimal surfaces does not generalize to simply connected 3-manifolds with nonpositive curvature. Theorem.1 There exists a non-properly embedded, complete minimal plane in H 3. The author is partially supported by EU-FP7 Grant IRG-606, TUBITAK Grant 109T685 and TUBA-GEBIP Award. 1

2 BARIS COSKUNUZER This example is inspired by the heuristic construction of Freedman and He mentioned also in [Ga]. Note that Meeks and Perez also mentioned such an example in their survey paper [MP]. The idea is as follows: Take a sequence of round circles {C n } in S (H 3 ) which limits on the equator circle. Each circle C n bounds a geodesic plane P n. By connecting each circle C n with C n+1 by using bridges in S (H 3 ), we get a nonrectifiable curve Γ in S (H 3 ) (See Figure 1). Then, we construct a special sequence of minimal disks {E n } with E n Γ and show that the limiting minimal plane Σ with Σ = Γ does not stay close to S (H 3 ) by using barrier tunnels. Then, we prove that Σ is a non-properly embedded minimal plane in H 3. Intuitively, one can imagine Σ as the collection of geodesic planes {P n } which are connected via bridges at infinity (See Figure 3) Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Michael Freedman, William Meeks and David Gabai for very useful conversations, and valuable comments.. THE CONSTRUCTION First, we need a few definitions. Basic notions and results which will be used in this paper can be found in the survey article [Co]. Definition.1. A least area disk in a Riemannian manifold M is a compact disk which has the smallest area among the disks in M with the same boundary. A least area plane is a complete plane such that any compact subdisk in the plane is a least area disk. A least area annulus (compact case) is the annulus which has the least area among the annuli with the same boundary. A minimal surface is a surface whose mean curvature vanishes everywhere. We will finish the construction in 3 steps. First, we construct a special sequence of compact minimal disks {E n } which will limit on a minimal plane. In second part, we show that the limit of {E n } give us a complete, embedded minimal plane Σ inh 3. Finally, we show that Σ is indeed non-properly embedded inh The Sequence. In this step, we will construct a sequence of minimal disks {E n } in H 3 which will give us a complete embedded minimal plane inh 3 as the limit in the next step. First, consider the half space model forh 3. HereS (H 3 ) = R {0} { }. Now, define a sequence of round circles{c n } ins (H 3 ) such thatc n is the round circle inr {0} with center at origin and radiusr n = 1+ 1 n. Hence, the sequence limits on the unit circle inr {0}. Now, we want to connect each consecutive circlec n andc n+1 with thin bridges in S (H 3 ). Let s start with C 1 and C. Like in [Ha], we construct a tunnel in H 3 as follows. Let η 1 + and η 1 be sufficiently small round circles in R {0} with radius δ 1 where δ 1 < r 1 r. Let the center of η 1 + be (r 1+r,ǫ 1 ) and let the center of η1 be (r 1+r, ǫ 1 ) in R where ǫ 1 > δ 1 > 0. Let P 1 ± be the geodesic plane in H 3 with P 1 ± = η± 1. By changing ǫ 1 and δ 1 if necessary, we can find sufficiently large disk D 1 ± in P± 1 with D± 1 = β± 1 such that β+ 1 β 1

3 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 3 Γ 4 T 1 η + 1 l + 1 l 1 η 1 µ Γ FIGURE 1. In the figure left, Γ 4 is constructed by using the circles C 1,C,C 3,C 4 in S (H3 ) by connecting each other with bridges (blue line segmentsl ± i ). The red circles representsη± i. In the figure right, the tunnelt 1 is shown. bounds a least area annulus A 1 in H 3 like in [Ha]. Define the annulus A 1 such that A 1 = (P 1 + D+ 1 ) (P 1 D 1 ) A 1. Then, A 1 separates H 3 into two components. Let T 1 be the component with T 1 = where ± 1 is the disk inr with boundary η 1 ±. We will callt 1 as a tunnel. Note that T 1 = A 1 and T 1 = Now, we will connect ( C 1 and C with a bridge. ) Let µ 1 be an arc segment in C 1 with µ 1 = C 1 [1,3] ( ǫ 1 δ 1, ǫ 1 δ 1 ) and µ be an arc segment in C ( ) with µ = C [1,3] ( ǫ 1 δ 1, ǫ 1 δ 1 ). Let the end points of C n µ n be p + n and p n where p + n be the endpoint belonging to the upper half space in R. Let l 1 + be the straight line segment in R between p + 1 and p+. Likewise, let l 1 be the straight line segment in R between p + 1 and p+. Now, define C 1#C such that C 1 #C = (C 1 µ 1 ) (C µ ) l 1 + l 1. Let Γ 1 = C 1 and Γ = C 1 #C. Notice that Γ separates S (H3 ) into two parts, where one of the parts contains + 1 and 1 which we call the base of the tunnel T 1. In the Poincare ball model for H 3, one can think that the bridge constructed withl 1 + l 1 goes over the tunnel T 1. Next, we will connect Γ and C 3 with a bridge. This time, the bridge will be constructed in the opposite side, i.e. near the line segment [ r 3, r ] {0} line segment in negativex-axis of R. Letλ 1 = r r 3 r 1 r. Now, do the same construction described in the previous paragraphs for ǫ = λ 1 ǫ 1 and δ = λ 1 δ 1. Here, η ± will be the round circles inr with radius δ and center ( r +r 3,±ǫ ). Letφ be the isometry of H 3 with φ 1 (η 1 ± ) = η± and φ 1(( r 1+r,0)) = ( r +r 3,0). Notice that φ can be obtained by composing the parabolic isometry which translates the point ( r 1+r,0) to the point ( r +r 3, 0) fixing { }, and the hyperbolic isometry with dilation constant λ 1. Then, define the second tunnelt as the isometric image of T 1, i.e. T = φ (T 1 ). Define annuli A and A accordingly. The second

4 4 BARIS COSKUNUZER ( ) bridge can be defined similarly. Letτ = C [ 3, 1] ( ǫ δ, ǫ δ ) and ( ) τ 3 = C 3 [ 3, 1] ( ǫ δ, ǫ δ ). Forn, let the end points ofc n τ n be q n + and qn where q n + be the endpoint belonging to the upper half space in R. Let l + be the straight line segment in R between q + and q+ 3. Similarly, l be the straight line segment in R between q and q 3. Like before define Γ #C 3 such that Γ #C 3 = (Γ τ ) (C 3 τ 3 ) l + l. Let Γ 3 = Γ #C 3. Hence, if we continue the process, we can define the tunnels and bridges for any n as follows. Let o n be the largest odd number which is smaller than or equal to n. Let e n be the largest even number which is smaller than or equal to n. In other words, if n is odd, o n = n, and if n is even o n = n 1. Similarly, if n is even, e n = n and if n is odd, e n = n 1. Now, let s define the basic components in the construction of bridges and tunnels in general terms. Let λ n = r n+1 r n+ r 1 r. Then define ǫ n = λ n ǫ 1 and ( δ n = λ n δ 1. µ n is an arc) segment in the circle C n such that µ n = C n [1,3] ( ǫon δ on, ǫon δ on ). Similarly, τ n is an arc segment in the circle C n ( ) such that τ n = C n [ 3, 1] ( ǫen δ en, ǫen δ en ). Then when n is odd, l n ± would be the straight line segments between the points p ± n and p ± n+1, and when n is even, l n ± would be the straight line segments between the points q± n and q± n+1. Hence, the arc segmentsµ n, and odd indexed line segmentsl n ± live in the right side (x > 0) of R, and the arc segments τ n and even indexed line segments l n ± live in the left side (x < 0) of R. Define Γ n inductively such that Γ n+1 = Γ n #C n+1. Here Γ n #C n+1 can be defined as follows. When n is odd, Γ n #C n+1 = (Γ n µ n ) (C n+1 µ n+1 ) l n + l n. When n is even, Γ n#c n+1 = (Γ n τ n ) (C n+1 τ n+1 ) l n + l n. By iterating the procedure, we will get a non-rectifiable connected curve Γ (or Γ ) in S (H 3 ) which has infinite length. We define the tunnels as follows. When n is odd, the round circles η n ± would be the round circles of radius δ n with center ( rn+r n+1,±ǫ n ). Similarly, when n is even, the round circles η n ± would be the round circles of radius δ n with center ( rn+r n+1,±ǫ n ). Then P n ± would be the geodesic planes in H3 with P n ± = η n ±. Define the least area annulus A n such that the boundary curves are in the geodesic planes P n + and Pn. Hence, the tunnel T n can be defined accordingly by using P n ± and A n. Notice that when n is odd, the tunnels T n (and hence η n ±, P n ±, A n ) are in the right side (x > 0) in R, and when n is even, the tunnels T n (and hence η n ±, P n ±, A n ) are in the left side (x < 0) in R. In other words, odd indexed tunnels and bridges are in the right side of R and even indexed tunnels and bridges are in the left side of R. Now, we construct the sequence of embedded minimal disks {E n } in H 3. Let X 1 = H 3 int(t 1 ). Then X 1 = A 1 and X 1 = S (H 3 ) ( ). In general, let X n = H 3 n i=1 int(t i). Then, X n = n i=1 A n and X n = S (H3 ) n i=1 int( + i i ). Define X such that X = i=1 X n = H 3 i=1 int(t i)

5 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 5 Letυ be the circle of radius3with center at origin inr. LetP be the geodesic plane in H 3 with P = υ. Then P separates H 3 into two components. Let Ω be the component whose asymptotic boundary contains the origin. Also, define the horoball H i such that H i = { (x,y,z) H 3 z 1 i }. Let S i be the horosphere with S i = H i, i.e. S i = { (x,y, 1 i ) H3 }. Then define the domain Ω i such that Ω i = Ω H i X. Notice that Ω i is a compact mean convex domain since the horosphere S i has mean curvature 1, and the geodesic plane P and the least area annulus A n have mean curvature 0. Let p be the point (0,0,1) in the upper half space model of H 3. Notice that {p} = Σ 1 l where Σ 1 is the geodesic plane in H 3 with Σ 1 = Γ 1, and l is the vertical geodesic l = { (0,0,t) H 3 t > 0 }. Let C n be the geodesic cone over Γ n in S (H 3 ) with cone point p. In other words, if γ pq is the geodesic ray in H 3 starting from p and limiting on q S (H3 ), then C n = q Γ n γ pq. Let α i n be a simple closed curve inh3 defined as the intersection of the horosphere S i and the geodesic cone C n, i.e. α i n = S i C n. Notice that for any n, there exists a number c n > 0 such that if i c n then α i n T n =. Now, we need a lemma due to Meeks-Yau in order to continue to the construction. Lemma.1. [MY] Let Ω be a compact, mean convex 3-manifold, and α Ω be a nullhomotopic simple closed curve. Then, there exists an embedded least area disk D M with D = Γ. By construction, for any i, Ω i is a compact, mean convex 3-manifold. Also, for anyn,α cn n is a simple closed curve in Ω cn. Hence, by Lemma.1, there exists an embedded least area disk E n inω cn such that E n = α cn n (sayα n for short). Note that being least area in Ω cn does not imply that E n is also least area in H 3. Even though E n may not be not a least area disk in H 3, we claim that it is indeed least area inx = H 3 i=1 int(t i). Lemma.. For any n,e n is a least area disk inx. Proof: We know that E n is a least area disk inω cn by construction. The only case where E n is not a least area disk in X is the existence of another disk D in X with D = E n = α n and D < E n where. represents the area. Notice that the horoball H i and the half space Ω are convex subsets of H 3. Hence, for any i, Ω i = H i Ω is a convex subset of H 3. Then if π i : H 3 Ω i is the nearest point projection, since Ω i is convex, π i would be distance reducing. Let D = π cn (D) (say π for π cn for short). Then, D D and D is a disk in Ω cn with D D < E n. The outline of the proof is as follows: If we can show that D is disjoint from any tunnel T i, then we get a contradiction, as D would a be a disk in Ω cn with D = α n, and D < E n. Hence, if D intersects some tunnels T i, we will do a surgery on D by removing the subdisks where D intersect the tunnels, and get a new disk D in Ω cn with D = α n with D < E n. Since E n is the least area disk inω cn with boundary α n, this will give us a contradiction.

6 6 BARIS COSKUNUZER Notice that π(x) = x for any x D int(ω cn ), and π(d int(ω cn )) S cn. Let T i S cn = O i + Oi. Hence, if we can show that D O± i =, we are done. First, let ψ : D X be a parametrization of D, i.e. ψ(d ) = D. Then let ϕ : D Ω cn be the parametrization of D with ϕ = π ψ, i.e. ϕ(d ) = D. If D O i +, there are two cases: O i + D or O i + D. If D O i + and O i + D, then let V i + = ϕ 1 (O i + D). Since T i is separating, V i + would be a collection of circles. Since O i + D, ϕ( V i + ) is a collection of nonessential circles in T i. Hence, we can push off O i + D, and get another disk D with less area. Now, ifo i + D, then we claim thatϕ 1 (O i + ) consists of even number of disks after removing the nonessential circles like in the previous paragraph. Let y be a point in O i +. π 1 (y) would be a geodesic ray ρ starting at y and orthogonal to S i. Also let τ be an infinite ray in T i starting at y and outside of H cn. We know that D τ = asd X. Let be a homotopy between the infinite rays τ and ρ. In other words, : [0,1] [0,1) H 3 a continuous map such that ({0} [0,1)) = τ, ({1} [0,1)) = ρ and ([0,1] {0}) = y and [0,1] (0,1) is an embedding. We abuse the notation by using for its image. We can also assume is transverse tod. Then D would be some collection of circles and some paths{s j } whose endpoints {q j +,q j } are in ρ as τ D =. Each p± j = ψ 1 (q j ± ) D are in different subdisks W j ± in D where {W j ± } ϕ 1 (O i + ). As ϕ = π ψ, there is a one to one correspondence between the points p ± j which are in ϕ 1 (y) and the disks W j ±, i.e. p± j W± j. Recall that ϕ(p± j ) = y and ϕ(w± j ) = O+ i. Now, we will modify D by pushing it off from O + i and get a new disk D in Ω cn with less area. For a fixed j 0, let B j0 be a subdisk in the interior of D which contains ψ(w + j 0 ) ψ(w j 0 ), and no other ψ(w ± j ) for j j 0. Consider the disk B j0 = π(b j0 ) in S cn. By construction, O + i = π(w ± j ) is in B j0. Now, B j0 consists of two parts, say B j0 = ω 1 ω where ω 1 = π( B j0 ), and ω = B j0 ω 1. By construction, ω. Notice that ω consists of points where the geodesic ray starting from those points orthogonal to S cn are tangent to D. Then by using a version of Sard s theorem, we can find a path γ connecting ω and O + i such that π 1 (x) has even number of preimages (assume exactly for simplicity) withπ 1 (x) = {z + x,z x } for any pointx γ except for a finitely many points {a 1,a,..,a k }. Hence, ϕ 1 ( O + i γ) contains a circle β which bounds a (singular) disk F in D such that ψ(f) W ± j 0. Notice that β = β + β {ϕ 1 ({a 1,a,..,a k })} whereβ + is the arc segment consists of positive preimages {z + x }, and β is defined similarly. Now, consider the disk defined as D = ϕ(d int(f)) = D int(o + i ). Note also that ϕ(d F) = D (O + i γ). Since ϕ(z + x ) = ϕ(z x ), we get a continuous map ϕ : D Ω cn such that D = ϕ (D ). This is because when you remove a subdisk F from D, and identify two connected subarcs β + and β in β = F = β + β, then the new topological object would be a disk again.

7 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 7 Since the collection of points {a 1,a,..,a k } has only one preimage, when we do this surgery in the domain disk, it becomes a topological space which is a disk with k pair of points {b + 1,b 1,...,b+ k,b k } identified. However, can be seen as the image of another map F : D with F(b ± i ) = a i. Hence, the surgered object D can be seen as an image of a disk with D = α n and D T i =. By construction, there are only finitely manyi > 0 with Ω cn T i, i.e. there exists K n > 0 such that for any i > K n, Ω cn T i =. Hence, if we do this surgery for any i K n, we get a disk D in Ω cn with D = α n with D < E n. However, this is a contradiction since E n is the least area disk inω cn with boundary α n... The Limit. In the previous section, we constructed a sequence of least area disks {E n } in X with E n = α n Γ where Γ is the non-rectifiable curve in X S (H 3 ) constructed in the previous part. In this section, we show that the sequence of least area disks {E n } has a subsequence limiting on an embedded least area plane Σ in X with Σ = Γ by using the techniques of Gabai [Ga]. SinceΣis an embedded least area plane in X, it will be an embedded minimal plane in H 3. In the next section, we will show that Σ is also non-properly embedded in H 3, and prove the main result of the paper. First, we need a definition which we use in the following part. For details of the results and notions in this section, see Section 3 in [Ga]. Definition.. The sequence {D i } of smooth embedded disks in a Riemannian manifold X converges to the lamination σ if σ = {x = limx i x i D i,{x i } is a convergent sequence in X } σ = {x = limx ni x i D i,{x i } has a convergent subsequence {x ni } in X } For any x σ, there exists a sequence {x i } with x i D i and limx i = x such that there exist embeddingsf i : D D i which converge in thec - topology to a smooth embedding f : D L x, where x i f i (Int(D )), and L x is the leaf of σ through x, and x f(int(d )). We call such a lamination σ ad -limit lamination [Ga]. In other words, {D i } is a sequence of smooth embedded disks such that the set of the limits of all {x i } with x i D i and the set of the limits of the subsequences are the same. This is a very strong and essential condition on {D i } in order to limit on a collection of pairwise disjoint embedded surfaces. Otherwise, one might simply take a sequence such that D i+1 = Σ 1 andd i = Σ whereσ 1 andσ are intersecting disks. Then, without the first condition (σ being just the union of limit points), σ = Σ 1 Σ in this case, which is not a collection of pairwise disjoint embedded surfaces. However, the first condition forces σ to be either Σ 1 or Σ, not the union of them. By similar reasons, this condition is also important to make sure the embeddedness of the disks in the collection σ.

8 8 BARIS COSKUNUZER Now, we state the following lemma ([Ga], Lemma 3.3) which is essential for the following part. Lemma.3. If {E n } is a sequence of embedded least area disks in H 3, where E n, then after passing to a subsequence {E nj } converges to a (possibly empty) D -limit lamination σ by least area planes in H 3. By using this lemma, we will get a least area plane inx which is constructed as a limit of the sequence of least area disks {E n } inx. Lemma.4. The sequence of least area disks{e n } inx constructed in the previous section has a subsequence{e nj } converges to a nonemptyd -limit lamination σ by least area planes inx. Proof: Even though Lemma.3 is stated for H 3, since its proof is a local construction, it also applies to our case where the ambient manifold is X H 3. Hence, all we need to show is that the lamination we get in the limit is nonempty. To show that, we construct a sequence of points {x n } with x n E n such that {x n } has a convergent subsequence {x nj } with x nj p for p X. In the upper half space model for H 3, let β be the geodesic segment in H 3 starting from the point (0,0, 1 ) and ending at the point (0,0,3) (See Figure 3). Letγ 1 be the round circle in R {0} S (H 3 ) with center (0,0,0) and radius 1, and γ be the round circle with center (0,0,0) radius 3. Let A be the annulus in R {0} bounded by γ 1 and γ. Then for any n, Γ n would be in A. If P i is the geodesic plane with P i = γ i, then let H 3 P i = Ω + i Ω i where (0,0,0) Ω i. Let δ α 4 δ α 4 τ 1 T 1 β τ 1 T τ τ τ 3 T 3 τ 3 D 1 D T4 τ 4 τ 4 Z 4 Collapsing Disks FIGURE. The box corresponds to Z 4. Green tubes are the tunnels, and blue tube is the curveβ. The red curve isα 4. In the right, the grey rectangles are the collapsing disks.

9 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 9 Y = Ω + 1 Ω. Then, Y = A. SinceY is convex, then by convex hull property [Co], for any n,e n would be iny. We claim that E n β for any n. Then by taking x n β E n, we can construct the desired sequence, and finish the proof. We claim that E n = α n links β in X. Recall that for any n, E n Y, and Y = P 1 P. Also, the endpoints of β belong to P 1 and P, i.e. (0,0, 1 ) P 1 and (0,0,3) P. Let Y n = Y n i=1 T i. Clearly, Y is topologically a 3-ball, and Y n is a genus n handlebody (a 3-ball with n 1-handles attached). For any n, α n is a trivial loop in π 1 (Y n ) by construction. If we realizey n topologically as a3-ball withn1-handles attached, and each 1-handle corresponds to a tunnel T i, then π 1 (Y n ) would be free product of n copies of Z i.e. π 1 (Y n ) = n i=1 Z. Hence, π 1(Y n ) =< τ 1,τ,...,τ n > where τ i is the loop which corresponds to an essential simple closed curve in the annulus T i. Again, by construction, α n is a trivial loop in Y n. LetZ n = Y n β be the topologically genus n+1 handlebody which is a3-ball with n+1 1-handles (See Figure ). Then, π 1 (Z n ) =< δ,τ 1,τ,...,τ n > where δ is the generator coming from β. i.e. δ corresponds to the essential loop of the annulus N ǫ (β) int(y). Even though, α n is trivial in Y n, it is not trivial in Z n as α n = δ.τ 1.δ 1.τ1 1.τ.δ 1.τ 1...τ n.δ 1.τn 1 which is not a trivial element in π 1 (Z n ). To see this, one might collapse the disks as in Figure -right, and divide α n to simpler components to write it down explicitly in terms of the generators of π 1 (Z n ). Hence, α n is trivial loop iny n, but it is not trivial inz n. This implies that any disk bounding α n iny n must intersect β. Hence, β E n for any n. Letx n be a point inβ E n for anyn. The sequence{x n } is a subset of compact geodesic segmentβ. Hence, there is a subsequence {x nj } withx nj p wherepis a point inx. Now, replace the sequence {E n } with the subsequence {E nj }. Then by applying Lemma.3 to the new sequence {E n }, we get a subsequence {E nk } which limits on a nonempty D -limit lamination σ by least area planes in X. The proof follows. By the proof of Lemma.3, for any leaf L inσ, for any subdisk D inl, we can find sufficiently close disk D n in the disk D n. Since E n = α n Γ, we can find a least area planeσinσ with Σ = Γ. Note that again by construction σ = Γ where Γ is the closure of Γ in S (H3 ). By construction of Γ, Γ would be Γ γ where γ is the unit circle in R {0} S (H 3 ) with center (0,0,0). Also, by varying the transverse geodesic segment β, it is not hard to show that the geodesic plane P with P = γ is another leaf of the lamination σ..3. Non-properly Embeddedness. In this section, we will show that the least area plane Σ in X constructed in the previous section is not properly embedded (See Figure 3). Hence, this will show thatσis a non-properly embedded minimal plane inh 3, and the main result of the paper follows.

10 10 BARIS COSKUNUZER Theorem.5. There exists a non-properly embedded, complete minimal plane in H 3. Proof: We claim that the least area plane Σ inx constructed in previous section is not properly embedded. SinceΣis a least area plane inx, it is automatically a minimal plane inh 3. Hence, if we show thatσis not properly embedded inh 3, we are done. Assume that Σ is properly embedded. Let β be as in the proof of Lemma.4 (See Figure 3), i.e. In the upper half space model forh 3,β is the geodesic segment in H 3 starting from the point (0,0, 1 ) and ending at the point (0,0,3). If β is not transverse to Σ, modify β slightly at non-transverse points to make it transverse to Σ. Now, as Σ is properly embedded, Σ β is compact. Let γ be the unit circle in R {0} S (H3 ) with center (0,0,0), and P be the geodesic plane in H 3 with P = γ. As mentioned in the previous section P is also a least area plane in the lamination σ, and hence Σ P =. Since Σ β is compact, this implies δ = inf p Σ β {p z R p = (p x,p y,p z ) } > 1. Now, we claim that there is another pointq β Σ with1 < q z < δ which gives us a contradiction. LetN > 0 be such that1+ 1 N < δ. Recall thatγ n = Γ n 1 #C n wherec n is the round circle inr {0} S (H3 ) with radius1+ 1 n and center (0,0,0). Let µ 1 be the round circle in R {0} S (H3 1 ) with radius N+1 < r 1 < 1 N and center (0,0,0). Let µ be the round circle in R {0} S (H 3 ) 1 with radius N+1 < r < 1 N and center (0,0,0). Hence,µ 1 is between the circles C N and C N+1 in R {0}, and µ is between the circles C N and C N+1 in R {0}. By choosing r 1,r accordingly, further assume that µ 1 η ± N = and µ η N ± = (See Figure 1). LetP i be the geodesic plane inh 3 with P i = µ i, and let H 3 P i = Ω + i Ω i where(0,0,0) Ω i. Then, P 1 andp are least area planes inx, too. Σ β Σ H 3 S (H 3 ) H 3 S (H 3 ) FIGURE 3. In the figure left, we see the minimal plane Σ with Σ = Γ. In the figure right, we see the line segment β which is transverse to Σ.

11 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 11 Now, consider Σ P i. First, Σ = Γ and P i = µ i. µ i intersect Γ at exactly points by construction. Sayµ i Γ = {x + i,x i }. SinceΣandP i are least area planes, Σ P i cannot contain a simple closed curve by Meeks-Yau exchange roundoff trick [Co]. Hence, Σ P i = {lj i} where li j is an infinite line segment in H 3 with lj i = {x+ i,x i }. Since P i is separating in H 3, all lines are separating in Σ. Hence, there is a natural ordering among {lj i}. Let l 1 be the lowermost line among {lj 1} and let l is the uppermost line among {lj } such that l 1 l separates a component Σ inσwhere Σ contains no line segments {lj i}. Now, P 1 and P are the geodesic planes with P i = µ i, then let H 3 P i = Ω + i Ω i where (0,0,0) Ω i. Let Y = Ω+ 1 Ω. By assumption on r 1 and r, we know that Y T N = and Y T N =. Hence, Ŷ = Y X would be a genus N 1 handlebody, i.e. Ŷ = Y N 1 i=n+1 T i. By construction, Σ Ŷ. Topologically, we have a closed disk Σ with Σ = α Ŷ. Hence, α is trivial element in π 1 (Ŷ). However, if we define Ẑ = Ŷ β, as in the proof of Lemma.4, we see that α is not a trivial element in π 1 (Ẑ). This proves that Σ β. Let q be a point in Σ β. By construction 1 N < q z < 1 N < δ. However, this contradicts with the definition of δ as δ = inf p Σ β { p z R p = (p x,p y,p z ) }. The proof follows. 3. FINAL REMARKS We should note that our construction differs from the Freedman and He s heuristic construction in the following way. In their construction, they want to apply to bridge principle to construct the sequence of minimal disks, then take the limit. However, the examples of curves in S (H3 ) described in [La] shows that such a limit might not give a connected plane, and bridges might escape to infinity. In our construction, it can be thought that we are still using the bridges, but we are also using the tunnels acting as barrier which prevents bridges to escape to infinity. However, because of these tunnels, while Σ is a least area plane in X (H 3 with tunnels deleted), it is not a least area plane inh 3 anymore by [Co1]. On the other hand, one might try to use a bridge principle at infinity to construct such an example. In other words, one might start with infinite family of geodesic planes as in this paper, and try to build bridges in S (H 3 ) to connect the asymptotic boundaries of the geodesic planes, and take the limit. However, the problem with this approach would be when you make a bridge at infinity, one might completely lost the original geodesic planes which goes through the compact part, and get a completely different least area plane with the new asymptotic boundary which stays close to the asymptotic sphere S (H3 ). Hence, the barrier tunnels in our construction are very essential to construct such an example. Note also that it is known that if Σ is a least area plane in H 3 with Σ = Γ where Γ is a simple closed curve which contains at least one smooth point, then Σ is properly embedded in H 3 by [Co1]. However, since neither Σ is not least area in our example nor Γ is a simple closed curve, [Co1] does not apply here. Also, even though our example gives a complete, non-properly embedded minimal plane

12 1 BARIS COSKUNUZER in H 3, it is still not known the existence of a complete, non-properly embedded least area plane inh 3. So, it would be an interesting question whether there exists a non-properly embedded least area plane in H 3. As it is stated in the introduction, the key lemma of [MR1] to prove its main result that a complete, embedded minimal surfaces with finite genus inr 3 is proper is also true for 3-manifolds with non-positive curvature. However, the example constructed in this paper shows that even though the key lemma (Theorem 1 in [MR1]) is valid for minimal surfaces in H 3, it does not imply the properly embeddedness inh 3 like in R 3. If one considers our example constructed in this paper in the [MR1] context, we get the following picture. Σ (in Theorem.5) is a minimal plane in H 3 with positive injectivity radius. If one applies Theorem 1 (or Theorem 3) of [MR1] to Σ in H 3, we get a lamination σ = Σ = Σ P where P is the geodesic plane whose asymptotic boundary is the unit circle in R {0} S (H 3 ). By using Theorem 1, they prove Theorem in [MR1] which states that a complete embedded connected minimal surface inr 3 with positive injectivity radius is always properly embedded. Our example Σ shows that Theorem of [MR1] is not true in H 3, whereas Theorem 1 of [MR1] is valid in H 3. Now, what goes wrong to get properly embeddedness of Σ in H 3 as in the case of R 3 in [MR1]? In the proof of Theorem in [MR1], Meeks and Rosenberg apply Theorem 1 to a complete embedded minimal surface with positive injectivity radius in R 3, and in the closure, they get a minimal lamination L. By [MR], they concluded that the limit leaves must be planes in R 3. Similarly, the limit leaf P in our lamination σ is also a plane in H 3. So, everything is similar so far. However, when you apply Theorem 4 to L, they show that M must have bounded curvature in an ǫ neighborhood of the limit leaf. However, this contradicts to Lemma 1.3 of [MR] which states that M cannot have unbounded curvature in the neighborhood of a limit leaf. On the other hand, Theorem 4 is valid for σ inh 3, too. Hence, we get that Σ must have bounded curvature in ǫ neighborhood of the limit leaf P. Unlike R 3, this can happen in H 3 case as the high curvature regions which corresponds to the bridges in Σ are far away from the limit leaf in H 3. So, an analogous result of Lemma 1.3 in [MR] is not true in H 3 in general, and this is the place where the technique in [MR1] breaks down in H 3 case. Note also that in [MT], Meeks and Tinaglia recently announced examples of non-properly embedded constant mean curvature surfaces of finite topology for any H [0,1) inh 3. They also show that ifh 1 then the surface must be properly embedded inh 3. Their example is different than ours, as they construct an infinite strip which is a constant mean curvature surface limiting into two constant mean curvature annuli inh 3. The asymptotic boundary of this surface is a pair of infinite lines where each line spirals into a pair of circles (asymptotic boundaries of the annuli).

13 NON-PROPERLY EMBEDDED MINIMAL PLANES IN HYPERBOLIC 3-SPACE 13 REFERENCES [Al] A. Alarcon, Recent progresses in the Calabi-Yau problem for minimal surfaces, Mat. Contemp. 30 (006) [CM] T.H. Colding and W.P. Minicozzi, The Calabi-Yau conjectures for embedded surfaces, Ann. of Math. () 167 (008) [Co1] B. Coskunuzer, Least Area Planes in Hyperbolic 3-Space are Properly Embedded, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 58 (009) [Co] B. Coskunuzer, Asymptotic Plateau problem, eprint; arxiv: [Ga] D. Gabai, On the geometric and topological rigidity of hyperbolic 3-manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997) [Ha] J. Hass, Intersections of Least Area Surfaces, Pacific J. Math. 15 (199) [La] U. Lang, The existence of complete minimizing hypersurfaces in hyperbolic manifolds, Internat. J. Math. 6 (1995), no. 1, [MP] W.H. Meeks and J. Perez, The classical theory of minimal surfaces, preprint. [MR1] W.H. Meeks, and H. Rosenberg, The minimal lamination closure theorem, Duke Math. J. 133 (006), no. 3, [MR] W.H. Meeks, and H. Rosenberg, The uniqueness of the helicoid, Ann. of Math. () 161 (005) [MT] W.H. Meeks, and G. Tinaglia, Properness results for constant mean curvature surfaces, preprint. [MY] W. Meeks and S.T. Yau, Topology of three-dimensional manifolds and the embedding problems in minimal surface theory, Ann. of Math. () 11 (1980) DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, KOC UNIVERSITY, SARIYER, ISTANBUL TURKEY address: bcoskunuzer@ku.edu.tr