On the flux of pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms (Q1007184)

Let \(S\) be a compact oriented surface with nonempty boundary, \(\omega\) be an area form on \(S\) and \(h\) be an area-preserving diffeomorphism of \((S,\omega)\). If there is a contact form \(\alpha\) on the mapping torus \(\Sigma(S,h)\) of \(S\) for which \(d\alpha_{|S\times\{0\}}=\omega\) and the corresponding Reeb vector field \(R_\alpha\) is directed by \(\partial_t\), then \(h\) is called the first return map of \(R_\alpha\). In this note the following question is investigated: ``What is the difference between an area-preserving diffeomorphism \(h\) of a surface \((S,\omega)\) and the first return map of a Reeb flow \(R_\alpha\), defined on \(\Sigma(S,h)\)?'' The above question can be rephrased as follows: ``Can every area-preserving \(h\) be expressed as the first return map of a Reeb flow \(R_\alpha\)?'' It is proven that the answer to the second question is negative and an invariant of an area-preserving diffeomorphism \(h\), called the flux, which is an obstruction to \(h\) being the first return map of a Reeb flow, is defined. It is also shown that the flux of a diffeomorphism can be modified within its isotopy class. In the particular case when \(h\) is pseudo-Anosov, the authors ask the following question: ``Can every pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism \(h\) be expressed as the first return map of a Reeb flow \(R_\alpha\)?'' It is proved that the flux is not always zero for pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms and thus the answer to this last question is also negative.