We solve the Einstein constraint equations for a -dimensional vacuum space–time with a space-like translational Killing field in the asymptotically flat case. The presence of a space-like translational Killing field allows for a reduction of the -dimensional problem to a -dimensional one. The aim of this paper is to go further in the asymptotic expansion of the solutions than in [Constraint equations for vacuum Einstein equations with a translational space-like Killing field in the asymptotically flat case, available at: arXiv:1302.1473]. In particular the expansion we construct involves quantities which are the 2-dimensional equivalent of the global charges.
Einstein equations can be formulated as a Cauchy problem whose initial data must satisfy compatibility conditions known as the constraint equations. In this paper, we will consider the constraint equations for the vacuum Einstein equations, in the particular case where the space–time possesses a space-like translational Killing field. It allows for a reduction of the -dimensional problem to a -dimensional one. This symmetry has been studied by Choquet-Bruhat and Moncrief in [8] (see also [6]) in the case of a space–time of the form , where Σ is a compact two-dimensional manifold of genus , and is the time axis, with a space–time metric independent of the coordinate. They prove the existence of global solutions corresponding to perturbation of particular expanding initial data.
In this paper we consider a space–time of the form , symmetric with respect to the third coordinate. Minkowski space–time is a particular solution of vacuum Einstein equations which exhibits this symmetry. Since the celebrated work of Christodoulou and Klainerman (see [10]), we know that Minkowski space–time is stable, that is to say asymptotically flat perturbations of the trivial initial data lead to global solutions converging to Minkowski space–time. It is an interesting problem to ask whether the stability also holds in the setting of perturbations of Minkowski space–time with a space-like translational Killing field. Let’s note that it is not included in the work of Christodoulou and Klainerman. However, it is crucial, before considering this problem, to ensure the existence of compatible initial data. In [14], we proved the existence of solutions to the constraint equations. The purpose of this paper is to go further in the asymptotic development of the solutions to the constraint equations. The solutions we construct in this paper are actually the one used in [15] to prove the stability in exponential time of Minkowski space–time with a space-like translational Killing field.
In the compact case, if one looks for solutions with constant mean curvature, as it is done in [8], the issue of solving the constraint equations is straightforward. Every metric on a compact manifold of genus is conformal to a metric of scalar curvature −1. As a consequence, it is possible to decouple the system into elliptic scalar equations of the form with , for which existence results are standard (see for example Chapter 14 in [20]).
The asymptotically flat case is more challenging. First, the definition of an asymptotically flat manifold is not so clear in two dimension. In [1,3,4] radial solutions of the -dimensional problem with an angle at space-like infinity are constructed. In particular, these solutions do not tend to the Euclidean metric at space-like infinity. Moreover, the behavior of the Laplace operator on makes the issue of finding solutions to the constraint equations more intricate.
Reduction of the Einstein equations
Before discussing the constraint equations, we first briefly recall the form of the Einstein equations in the presence of a space-like translational Killing field. We follow here the exposition in [6]. A metric on admitting as a Killing field can be written
where is a Lorentzian metric on , γ is a scalar function on , A is a 1-form on and , , are the coordinates on . Since is a Killing field, g, γ and A do not depend on . We set , where d is the exterior differential. F is then a 2-form. Let also denote the Ricci tensor associated to . and are respectively the Ricci tensor and the covariant derivative associated to .
With this metric, the vacuum Einstein equations
can be written in the basis (see [6], Appendix VII)
Equation (2) is equivalent to
where is the adjoint one form associated to . This is equivalent, on , to the existence of a potential ω such that
Since F is a closed 2-form, we have . By doing the conformal change of metric , this equation, together with Eqs (1) and (3), yield the following system,
where is the d’Alembertian1
is the Lorentzian equivalent of the Laplace–Beltrami operator in Riemannian geometry. In a coordinate system, we have .
in the metric g and is the Ricci tensor associated to g. We introduce the following notation
together with the scalar product
We consider the Cauchy problem for Eqs (4), (5) and (6). As it is in the case for the Einstein equation, the initial data for (4), (5) and (6) cannot be prescribed arbitrarily. They have to satisfy constraint equations.
Constraint equations
We can write the metric g under the form
where the scalar function N is called the lapse, the vector field β is called the shift and g is a Riemannian metric on .
We consider the initial space-like surface . Let T be the unit normal to . We set
We will use the notation
where is the Lie derivative. With this notation, we have the following expression for the second fundamental form of
We will use the notation
for the mean curvature. We also introduce the Einstein tensor
where R is the scalar curvature . The constraint equations are given by
where D and R are respectively the covariant derivative and the scalar curvature associated to g (see [6] Chapter VI for a derivation of (10) and (11)). Equation (10) is called the momentum constraint and (11) is called the Hamiltonian constraint. If we came back to the problem, there should be four constraint equations. However, since the fourth would be obtained by taking in (2), it is trivially satisfied if we set .
We will look for g of the form where δ is the Euclidean metric on . There is no loss of generality since, up to a diffeomorphism, all metrics on are conformal to the Euclidean metric. We introduce the traceless part of K,
and following [8] we introduce the quantity
Then Eqs (10) and (11) take the form
where here and in the remaining of the paper, we use the convention for the Laplace operator
The aim of this paper is to solve the coupled system of nonlinear elliptic Eqs (12) and (13) on in the small data case, that is to say when and are small. A similar system can be obtained when studying the constraint equations in three dimensions by using the conformal method, introduced by Lichnerowicz [17] and Choquet-Bruhat and York [9]. In the constant mean curvature (CMC) case, that is to say when one sets , the constraint equations decouple and the main difficulty that remains is the study of the scalar Eq. (13), also called the Lichnerowicz equation.2
The resolution of this equation is closely linked to the Yamabe problem.
The CMC solutions have been studied in [9] and [16] for the compact case, and in [5] for the asymptotically flat case. There have been also some results concerning the coupled constraint equations, i.e. without setting τ constant The near CMC solutions in the asymptotically flat case have been studied in [7]. The compact case has been studied in [13,18] and [12]. See also [2] for a review of these results.
As in [14], the solutions we construct in this paper are of the form
As shown by the analysis in [14], this logarithmic growth does not contradict asymptotic flatness, but actually corresponds to the deficit angle present in [1].
We will do the following rescaling to avoid the and factors
Then Eqs (12) and (13) become
To lighten the notations, we will omit the in the rest of the paper. We consider therefore the system
Before stating the main result, we recall several properties of weighted Sobolev spaces.
Preliminaries
Weighted Sobolev spaces
In the rest of the paper, denotes a smooth non-negative function such that
We will also note when there exists a universal constant C such that .
Let and . The weighted Sobolev space is the completion of for the norm
The weighted Hölder space is the complete space of m-times continuously differentiable functions with norm
Let . The Hölder space is the complete space of m-times continuously differentiable functions with norm
The following lemma is an immediate consequence of the definition.
Letand. Thenimpliesfor.
We first recall the Sobolev embedding with weights (see for example [6], Appendix I). In the rest of this section, we assume .
Let. We assume. Letand. Then, we have the continuous embedding
We will also need a product rule.
Let. We assumeand. Let. Then,
The following simple lemma will be useful as well.
Letandbe such thatThen the multiplication by g mapsto.
We will also need the following modified version of Lemma 2.5.
Letandbe a function such thatLet. Then the multiplication bymapsto.
Let . We estimate
where we have used the Sobolev embedding of in the Sobolev space . □
We will use the following definition.
Let and . We note the set of symmetric traceless 2-tensors whose components are in .
Behavior of the Laplace operator in weighted Sobolev spaces
Letand. The Laplace operatoris an injection with closed rangewhereis the set of harmonic polynomials of degree i. Moreover, u obeys the estimatewhereis a constant such thatwhenand.
Letand. The Laplace operatoris an injection with closed rangeMoreover, u obeys the estimate
We now prove the following two corollaries of Theorem 2.8 which will be fundamental in our work.
Let. Let. Then there exists a solution u ofwhich can be written uniquely in the formwhere. Moreover, we have the estimate
Let F be a radial function, smooth, compactly supported, such that , and G a radial function, smooth, compactly supported, which is 0 in a neighborhood of 0 and such that . We note
Let
be a solution of , and
be a solution of . We may calculate
where .
Thanks to Theorem 2.8, we can solve the equation
since the right-hand side is orthogonal to the polynomials of degree 0 and 1, and we have , which satisfies
Therefore we can solve the equation , and u can be written
where with
This concludes the proof of Corollary 2.10. □
We introduce the notation
Let. Letwith,. Then, there exists a symmetric and traceless 2-tensor K solution ofwhich can be written uniquely in the formwithand
We can look for K of the form
then satisfies
We apply Corollary 2.10 which allows us to find a solution in the form3
Recall that .
with and
We calculate
with and in and
Therefore we can write
with
This concludes the proof of Corollary 2.11. □
Main result and outline of the proof
In [14], we solved the system (14) for with . The solutions we found were of the form
where , . By looking for H as , the system (14) corresponds to three Laplace-like equations. The quantities and are free parameters, while the three parameters α, ρ and η are determined by the three corresponding orthogonality conditions, namely that the integrals of the right-hand sides of (14) vanish.
In this paper, assuming that (i.e. assuming more decay on u and than in [14]), we want to go further in the asymptotic expansion of our solution. This will require to enforce additional orthogonality conditions.
Main result
Let. Letandsuch thatWe noteWe assumeLet. We assumeLetbe such that. Ifis small enough, there exist α, ρ, η, A, J,,in, a scalar functionsand a symmetric traceless tensorsuch that, if r, θ are the polar coordinates centered in, and if we notethen λ, H are solutions of (14) withMoreover, we have the estimatesand
There is a natural rapprochement between the quantities α, ρ, η, , , J, A and the global charges in dimensions (such as the ADM mass, ADM momentum…). See for example [11] for a definition.
The following corollary is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 2.9.
Let δ,,, ε,, B and Ψ be as in the assumptions of Theorem3.1. Moreover, letand assume,and. Then the conclusion of Theorem3.1holds and we have furthermore,, with the estimates
Outline of the proof
We will prove the theorem using a fixed point argument.
Construction of the map F. We consider the map
where if we note
and
then is the solution of
with
where
and H satisfies
with
where
We have noted
The parameters ρ, η and A are suitably chosen during the process.
Solving (20). We will show that satisfies
with . We will prove that we may choose ρ, η and A such that
Then we will show that can be written
with .
Solving (16). We will show that
Then, it will be straightforward to solve (16) using Corollary 2.10. The solution we obtain is of the form
with .
The fixed point. Proving that F is a contracting map easily follows from the estimates for and H. The Picard fixed point theorem then implies that F has a fixed point. To obtain the result stated in Theorem 3.1 then easily follows after performing the following change of variables
which corresponds to work in a frame centered in the center of mass.
The rest of the paper is as follows. In Section 4, we explain how to solve the momentum constraint (20). We also explain how to choose A, ρ, η. In Section 5, we explain how to solve (16). Finally, the map F is shown to have a fixed point in Section 6.
The momentum constraint
The goal of this section is to solve Eq. (20). We will note
We assume a priori
This yields
Ifis small enough, there exists, such that forwith,defined by (22) and (23), there exists a solution of (20) which may be uniquely written under the formwhereandare defined by (18) and (19) andwithsuch thatMoreover, we have the estimates
We introduce the notation
In view of (17), (20) and (21) an easy calculation yields
where
The three following propositions, proved respectively in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 allow us to estimate the different contributions to .
We have
We have, with
We have, with
We have :
For and this follows from Propositions 4.3 and 4.4.
For , this is a consequence of Proposition 4.2. Since is compactly supported, we have
Consequently we have
We have
with thanks to Proposition 2.3. Therefore
and Lemma 2.5 yields with
We want to solve (29) with Corollary 2.11. To this end, we need
The following proposition, proven in Section 4.4, allows us to carefully choose the parameters ρ, η, A in order to enforce the orthogonality condition (31).
Ifis small enough, there existsuch thatMoreover, we have
We choose ρ, η, A according to Proposition 4.5. Since , if is small enough, we have . Since , we can apply Corollary 2.11. Since , we obtain
with such that
and
where we have used the definition (30) of , , Proposition 4.2 and the following calculations
where we have used in the last equality the definition of b (24) and the orthogonality condition (15) for . It remains to estimate in . First, we note that since
is bounded, thanks to Lemma 2.5 and the fact that we have . We now calculate . The contributions are:
The term : it also belongs to thanks to Lemma 2.5.
The term : thanks to Proposition 2.4, belong to , and therefore, thanks to Lemma 2.5, we have .
Consequently, we have and therefore with
This concludes the proof of Proposition 4.1. □
Proof of Proposition 4.2
We calculate
Therefore
For we obtain
Therefore
We now calculate the other contributions. We note that and satisfy
This yields
We now calculate the term involving τ,
Therefore we have
For we obtain
We now calculate the term involving τ.
Therefore we have
In view of (18) and (22), this concludes the proof of Proposition 4.2.
Proof of Proposition 4.3
Since , Lemma 2.5 implies that the terms of the form belong to and satisfy
and consequently, with the Sobolev injection ,
Moreover, thanks to Lemma 2.6, the terms of the form belong to and satisfy
where we have used, that thanks to (26), . The terms of the form are also in and satisfy
Finally, since is compactly supported, we also have
Consequently, the terms which remain to calculate are the ones decaying like and . We obtain
where thanks to (34), (35) and (36), satisfies
We calculate
where thanks to (34), (35) and (36), satisfies
Therefore
For we obtain
where thanks to (34), (35) and (36), satisfies
We calculate
where thanks to (34), (35) and (36), satisfies
Therefore
This concludes the proof of Proposition 4.3.
Proof of Proposition 4.4
We first note
Since , Proposition 2.3 implies that is bounded and consequently
Therefore Lemma 2.6 imply that the terms of the form belong to , with
Since α is of size ε, for ε small enough we have and
The terms of the form satisfy
so, for small enough so that they belong to and satisfy
Since is smooth and compactly supported, the term of the form belong to and satisfy
Consequently the terms which remain to calculate are the one which decay like . We calculate
where we have used (33) and where, thanks to the estimate (40), satisfies
We now calculate
where thanks to the estimates (38), (39) and (40), satisfies
Therefore
For we have
where thanks to the estimate (40), satisfies
where thanks to the estimates (38), (39) and (40), satisfies
Therefore
This conclude the proof of Proposition 4.4.
Proof of Proposition 4.5
Recall that has been defined in (30). We calculate
where we have used Proposition 4.2 and the calculations
where we have used the definition of b (24) and the orthogonality condition (15),
Similarly, we have
We calculate also
where we used and the following calculations
Therefore, in view of (41), (42) and (43), we have
if and only if the quantities , and A are solutions of a linear system of the form
where, since ,
In the last equation we have used to point out that this quantity does not depend on ρ, η. For small enough, this system is invertible, therefore we can find a unique triplet in such that the three integrals are zero, and we have
This concludes the proof of Proposition 4.5.
The Lichnerowicz equation
Let H and τ be given by
with ρ, η, A and given by Proposition 4.1. We recall , and
There exists a solutionof (16) which can be written uniquely under the formwithand we haveand
In order to apply Corollary 2.10 we have to check whether the right-hand side of (16) is in . To estimate , we use Proposition 2.4, which yields with
To estimate terms of the form we use Lemma 2.5. It yields
To estimate terms of the form and we use Lemma 2.6, which yields
In the same way, thanks to Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 2.6 we estimate
We can also estimate
We now calculate
where thanks to the estimates (44), (45), (46), (47) and (48), we have with
Since and we obtain
Consequently, we can solve (16) with Corollary 2.10, and the solution can be written
with
and such that
This concludes the proof of Proposition 5.1. □
Proof of Theorem 3.1
We find it more convenient to perform the fixed point with the quantities instead of , . We recall the relation
We note X the Banach space
equipped with the norm
We have constructed, for small enough, a map
which maps satisfying
and where
to such that, for ρ, η, A, given by Proposition 4.1, if we note
then H satisfies
and
is the solution of
given by Proposition 5.1. Proposition 4.1 implies
and Proposition 5.1 implies
In particular there exist such that
Next we show that F is a contracting map in
We consider, for such that
We note
Since we have for ε small enough
We note , , , , the corresponding quantities given by Proposition 4.1. The proof of the following lemma is postponed to the end of this section.
We have the estimate
We are now in position to prove Theorem 3.1. Thanks to Lemma 6.1 there exists C such that
Consequently, by taking we have
Therefore, if ε is small enough such that , the map F sends into itself. Moreover, we already have noted that the condition is preserved by F for ε small enough. Finally, for the map F is contracting, and the Picard fixed point theorem yields the existence of a fixed point.
We now choose coordinates centered in the center of mass . For these coordinates, we have and consequently
The estimates of Propositions 4.1 and 5.1 complete the proof of Theorem 3.1.
To prove Lemma 6.1, we first prove the following two lemmas.
We have the estimate
We have the estimate
The quantities , , are given by the expressions (41), (42), (43). Therefore we have
and a similar expression for and .
We estimate first , where the quantities are defined by (27). We have
We calculate
We have a similar expression for . Therefore we have
We now estimate , where the quantities are defined by (28). The function does not depend on the index . We calculate
Therefore we obtain
The estimates for the other terms of (50) are similar. Therefore (50), together with the estimates (51) and (52) yields
Similarly we obtain
and consequently
which concludes the proof of Lemma 6.2. □
We compare first and thanks to the formula (32). We obtain
where the notation s.t. stands for similar terms. Therefore, we obtain
and thanks to Lemma 6.2 we infer
We now write the equation satisfied by
Consequently, Corollary 2.11 yields
and thanks to (53)
which concludes the proof of Lemma 6.3. □
In view of (16) we have
The right-hand side is in and satisfies
where we have used Lemma 6.3 in the last inequality. Therefore Corollary 2.10 allows us to write
with
This concludes the proof of Lemma 6.1. □
References
1.
A.Ashtekar, J.Bičák and B.G.Schmidt, Asymptotic structure of symmetry-reduced general relativity, Phys. Rev. D (3)55(2) (1997), 669–686.
2.
R.Bartnik and J.Isenberg, The constraint equations, in: The Einstein Equations and the Large Scale Behavior of Gravitational Fields, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2004, pp. 1–38.
3.
G.Beck, Zur Theorie binärer Gravitationsfelder, Zeitschrift für Physik33(14) (1925), 713–728.
4.
B.K.Berger, P.T.Chruściel and V.Moncrief, On “asymptotically flat” space-times with -invariant Cauchy surfaces, Ann. Physics237(2) (1995), 322–354.
5.
M.Cantor, A necessary and sufficient condition for York data to specify an asymptotically flat spacetime, J. Math. Phys.20(8) (1979), 1741–1744.
6.
Y.Choquet-Bruhat, General Relativity and the Einstein Equations, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2009.
7.
Y.Choquet-Bruhat, J.Isenberg and J.W.YorkJr., Einstein constraints on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds, Phys. Rev. D (3)61(8) (2000), 084034.
8.
Y.Choquet-Bruhat and V.Moncrief, Nonlinear stability of an expanding universe with the S1 isometry group, in: Partial Differential Equations and Mathematical Physics, Tokyo, 2001, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, Vol. 52, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2003, pp. 57–71.
9.
Y.Choquet-Bruhat and J.W.YorkJr., The Cauchy problem, in: General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 1, Plenum, New York, 1980, pp. 99–172.
10.
D.Christodoulou and S.Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space, Princeton Mathematical Series, Vol. 41, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
11.
J.Corvino and R.M.Schoen, On the asymptotics for the vacuum Einstein constraint equations, J. Differential Geom.73(2) (2006), 185–217.
12.
M.Dahl, R.Gicquaud and E.Humbert, A limit equation associated to the solvability of the vacuum Einstein constraint equations by using the conformal method, Duke Math. J.161(14) (2012), 2669–2697.
13.
M.Holst, G.Nagy and G.Tsogtgerel, Rough solutions of the Einstein constraints on closed manifolds without near-CMC conditions, Comm. Math. Phys.288(2) (2009), 547–613.
14.
C.Huneau, Constraint equations for vacuum Einstein equations with a translational space-like Killing field in the asymptotically flat case, available at: arXiv:1302.1473.
15.
C.Huneau, Stability in exponential time of Minkowski space–time with a translation space-like Killing field, available at: arXiv:1410.6068.
16.
J.Isenberg, Constant mean curvature solutions of the Einstein constraint equations on closed manifolds, Classical Quantum Gravity12(9) (1995), 2249–2274.
17.
A.Lichnerowicz, Sur l’intégration des équations d’Einstein, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris213 (1941), 516–518.
18.
D.Maxwell, A class of solutions of the vacuum Einstein constraint equations with freely specified mean curvature, Math. Res. Lett.16(4) (2009), 627–645.
19.
R.C.McOwen, The behavior of the Laplacian on weighted Sobolev spaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.32(6) (1979), 783–795.
20.
M.E.Taylor, Partial Differential Equations III. Nonlinear Equations, 2nd edn, Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 117, Springer, New York, 2011.