text:
# Cheeger-Gromov Theory and Applications to General Relativity

## 1. Background: Examples and Definitions.

The space $`𝕄`$ of Riemannian metrics on a given manifold $`M`$ is an infinite dimensional cone, (in the vector space of symmetric bilinear forms on $`M`$), and so is highly non-compact. Arbitrary sequences of Riemannian metrics can degenerate in very complicated ways.

On the other hand, there are two rather trivial but nevertheless important sources of non-compactness.

$``$ Diffeomorphisms. The group $`𝒟`$ of diffeomorphisms of $`M`$ is non-compact and acts properly on $`𝕄`$ by pullback. Hence, if $`g`$ is any metric in $`𝕄`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ is any divergent sequence of diffeomorphisms, then $`g_i=\varphi _i^{}g`$ is a divergent sequence in $`𝕄`$, (at least if the manifold $`M`$ is compact for instance). However, all the metrics $`g_i`$ are isometric, and so are indistinguishable metrically. In terms of a local coordinate representation, the metrics $`g_i`$ locally are just different representatives of the fixed metric $`g`$.

Thus, for most problems, one considers only equivalence classes of metrics $`[g]`$ in the moduli space

$$=𝕄/𝒟.$$

(A notable exception is the Yamabe problem, which is not well-defined on $``$, since it is not invariant under $`𝒟`$).

$``$ Scaling. For a given metric $`g`$ and parameter $`\lambda >`$ 0, let $`g_\lambda =\lambda ^2g`$ so that all distances are rescaled by a factor of $`\lambda .`$ If $`\lambda \mathrm{},`$ or $`\lambda `$ 0, the metrics $`g_\lambda `$ diverge. In the former case, the manifold $`(M,g_\lambda )`$, say compact, becomes arbitrarily large, in that global invariants such as diameter, volume, etc. diverge to infinity; there is obviously no limit metric. In the latter case, $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ converges, as a family of metric spaces, to a single point. Again, there is no limiting Riemannian metric on $`M`$.

Although one has divergence in both cases described above, they can be combined in natural ways to obtain convergence. Thus, for $`g_\lambda `$ as above, suppose $`\lambda \mathrm{},`$ and choose any fixed point $`pM.`$ For any fixed $`k>`$ 0, consider the geodesic ball $`B_p=B_p(k/\lambda ),`$ so the $`g`$-radius of this ball is $`k/\lambda `$ 0, as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, in the metric $`g_\lambda ,`$ the ball $`B_p`$ is a geodesic ball of fixed radius $`k`$. Since $`k/\lambda `$ is small, one may choose a local coordinate system $`𝒰=\{u_i\}`$ for $`B_p,`$ with $`p`$ mapped to the origin in $`^n.`$ Let $`u_i^\lambda =\lambda u_i=\varphi _\lambda u_i`$, where $`\varphi _\lambda (x)=\lambda x`$. Thus $`\varphi _\lambda `$ is a divergent sequence of diffeomorphisms of $`^n`$, and $`𝒰_\lambda =\{u_i^\lambda \}`$ is a new collection of charts. One then easily sees that

(1.1)
$$g_\lambda (/u_i^\lambda ,/u_j^\lambda )=g(/u_i,/u_j)=g_{ij}.$$

As $`\lambda \mathrm{},`$ the ball $`B_p`$ shrinks to the point $`p`$ and the coefficients $`g_{ij}`$ tend to the constants $`g_{ij}(p).`$ On the other hand, the metrics $`g_\lambda `$ are defined on the intrinsic geodesic ball of radius $`k`$. Since $`k`$ is arbitrary, the metrics $`\varphi _\lambda ^{}g_\lambda `$ converge smoothly to the limit flat metric $`g_0`$ on the tangent space $`T_p(M),`$ induced by the inner product $`g_p`$ on $`T_p(M),`$

(1.2)
$$(M,\varphi _\lambda ^{}g_\lambda )(T_pM,g_0).$$

This process is called “blowing up”, since one restricts attention to smaller and smaller balls, and blows them up to a definite size. Note that the part of $`M`$ at any definite $`g`$-distance to $`p`$ escapes to infinity, and is not detected in the limit $`g_0.`$ Thus, it is important to attach base points to the blow-up construction; different base points may give rise to different limits, (although in this situation all pointed limits are isometric).

There is an analogous, although more subtle blowing up process for Lorentzian metrics due to Penrose, where the limits are non-flat plane gravitational waves, cf. .

If $`(M,g)`$ is complete and non-compact, one can carry out a similar procedure with $`\lambda 0`$, called “blowing down”, where geodesic balls, (about a given point), of large radius $`B_p(k/\lambda )`$ are rescaled down to unit size, i.e. size $`k`$. This is of importance in understanding the large scale or asymptotic behavior of the metric and will arise in later sections.

This discussion leads to the following definition for convergence of metrics. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in $`^n`$ and let $`C^{k,\alpha }`$ denote the usual Hölder space of $`C^k`$ functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\alpha `$-Hölder continuous $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ partial derivatives. Similarly, let $`L^{k,p}`$ denote the Sobolev space of functions with $`k`$ weak derivatives in $`L^p.`$ Since one works only locally, we are only interested in the local spaces $`C_{loc}^{k,\alpha }`$ and $`L_{loc}^{k,p}`$ and corresponding local norms and topology.

###### Definition 1.1.

A sequence of metrics $`g_i`$ on $`n`$-manifolds $`M_i`$ is said to converge in the $`L^{k,p}`$ topology to a limit metric $`g`$ on the $`n`$-manifold $`M`$ if there is a locally finite collection of charts $`\{\varphi _k\}`$ covering $`M`$, and a sequence of diffeomorphisms $`F_i:MM_i,`$ such that

(1.3)
$$(F_i^{}g_i)_{\alpha \beta }g_{\alpha \beta },$$

in the $`L_{loc}^{k,p}`$ topology. Here $`(F_i^{}g_i)_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the local component functions of the metrics $`F_i^{}g_i`$ and $`g`$ in the charts $`\varphi _k.`$

The same definition holds for convergence in the $`C^{k,\alpha }`$ topology, as well as the weak $`L^{k,p}`$ topology. (Recall that a sequence of functions $`f_iL^p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ converges weakly in $`L^p`$ to a limit $`fL^p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ iff $`f_igfg,`$ for all $`gL^q(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ where $`p^1+q^1=`$ 1).

It is easily seen that this definition of convergence is independent of the choice of charts $`\{\varphi _k\}`$ covering $`M`$. The manifolds $`M`$ and $`M_i`$ are not required to be compact. When $`M`$ is non-compact, the convergence above is then uniform on compact subsets.

In order to obtain local control on a metric, or sequence of metrics, one assumes curvature bounds. The theory described by Cheeger-Gromov requires a bound on the full Riemann curvature tensor

(1.4)
$$|Riem|K,$$

for some $`K<\mathrm{}.`$ Since the number of components of the Riemann curvature is much larger than that of the metric tensor itself, (in dimensions $`4`$), this corresponds to an overdetermined set of constraints on the metric and so is overly restrictive. It is much more natural to impose bounds on the Ricci curvature

(1.5)
$$|Ric|k,$$

since the Ricci curvature is a symmetric bilinear form, just as the metric is. Of course, assuming bounds on Ricci is natural in general relativity, via the Einstein equations. Thus throughout the paper, we emphasize (1.5) over (1.4) whenever possible.

The Cheeger-Gromov theory may be viewed as a vast generalization of the basic features of Teichmüller theory to higher dimensions and variable curvature, (although it was not originally phrased in this way). Recall that Teichmüller theory describes the moduli space $`_c`$ of constant curvature metrics on surfaces, cf.  and references therein. On closed surfaces, one has a basic trichotomy for the behavior of sequences of such metrics, normalized to unit area:

$``$ Compactness/Convergence. A sequence $`g_i_c`$ has a subsequence converging smoothly, ($`C^{\mathrm{}}`$), to a limit metric $`g_c.`$ As in the definition above, the convergence is understood to be modulo diffeomorphisms. For instance this is always the case on $`S^2,`$ since the moduli space $`_c`$ is a single point for $`S^2`$.

$``$ Collapse. The sequence $`g_i_c`$ collapses everywhere, in that

(1.6)
$$inj_{g_i}(x)0,$$

at every $`x`$, where $`inj_{g_i}`$ is the injectivity radius w.r.t. $`g_i`$. This collapse occurs only on the torus $`T^2`$ and such metrics become very long and very thin, (if the area is normalized to 1). There is no limit metric on $`T^2.`$ Instead, by choosing (arbitrary) base points $`x_i,`$ one may consider based sequences $`(T^2,g_i,x_i)`$, whose limits are then the “collapsed” space $`(,g_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}})`$. Here $``$ is the real line, and $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is any Riemannian metric on $``$; recall that all metrics on $``$ are isometric. The convergence here is that of metric spaces, i.e. in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology, cf. , .

$``$ Cusp Formation. This is a mixture of the two previous cases, and occurs only for hyperbolic metrics, i.e. on surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ of genus $`g`$ 2. In this case, there are based sequences $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g,g_i,x_i)`$ which converge to a limit $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}})`$ which is a complete non-compact hyperbolic surface of finite volume, hence with a finite number of cusp ends $`S^1\times ^+`$. The convergence is smooth, and uniform on compact subsets. As one goes to infinity in any such cusp end $`S^1\times ^+`$, the limit metric collapses in the sense that $`inj_g_{\mathrm{}}(z_k)0`$, as $`z_k\mathrm{}`$. There are other based sequences $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g_i,y_i)`$ which collapse, i.e. (1.6) holds on domains of arbitrarily large but bounded diameter about $`y_i`$. As before, limits of such sequences are of the form $`(,g_{\mathrm{}},y_{\mathrm{}}).`$

## 2. Convergence/Compactness.

To prove the (pre)-compactness of a family of metrics, or the convergence of a sequence of metrics, the main point is to establish a lower bound on the radius of balls on which one has apriori control of the metric in a given topology, say $`C^{k,\alpha }`$ or $`L^{k,p}.`$ Given such uniform local control, it is then usually straightforward to obtain global control, via suitable global assumptions on the volume or diameter. (Alternately, one may work instead on domains of bounded diameter).

To obtain such local control, the first issue is to choose a good “gauge”, i.e. representation of the metric in local coordinates. For this, it is natural to look at coordinates built from the geometry of the metric itself. In the early stages of development of the theory, geodesic normal coordinates were used. Later, Gromov  used suitable distance coordinates. However, both these coordinate systems entail loss of derivatives - two in the former case, one in the latter. It is now well-known that Riemannian metrics have optimal regularity properties in harmonic coordinates, cf. ; this is due to the special form of the Ricci curvature in harmonic coordinates, known to relativists long ago.

Given the choice of harmonic gauge, it is natural to associate a harmonic radius $`r_h:M^+`$, which measures the size of balls on which one has harmonic coordinates in which the metric is well controlled. The precise definition, cf. , is as follows.

###### Definition 2.1.

Fix a function topology, say $`L^{k,p}`$, and a constant $`c_o>1`$. Given $`x(M,g)`$, define the $`L^{k,p}`$ harmonic radius to be the largest radius $`r_h(x)=r_h^{k,p}(x)`$ such that on the geodesic ball $`B_x(r_h(x))`$ one has a harmonic coordinate chart $`U=\{u_\alpha \}`$ in which the metric $`g=g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is controlled in $`L^{k,p}`$ norm: thus,

(2.1)
$$c_o^1\delta _{\alpha \beta }g_{\alpha \beta }c_o\delta _{\alpha \beta },(\mathrm{as}\mathrm{bilinear}\mathrm{forms}),$$

(2.2)
$$[r_h(x)]^{kpn}_{B_x(r_h(x))}|^kg_{\alpha \beta }|^p𝑑Vc_o1.$$

Here, it always assumed that $`kp>n=dimM`$, so that $`L^{k,p}`$ embeds in $`C^0,`$ via Sobolev embedding. The precise value of $`c_o`$ is usually unimportant, but is understood to be fixed once and for all. Both estimates in (2.1)-(2.2) are scale invariant, (when the harmonic coordinates are rescaled as in (1.1)), and hence the harmonic radius scales as a distance.

Note that if $`r_h(x)`$ is large, then the metric is close to the flat metric on large balls about $`x`$, while if $`r_h(x)`$ is small, then the derivatives of $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ up to order $`k`$ are large in $`L^p`$ on small balls about $`x`$. Thus, the harmonic radius serves as a measure of the degree of concentration of $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ in the $`L^{k,p}`$ norm.

It is important to observe that the harmonic radius is continuous with respect to the (strong) $`L^{k,p}`$ topology on the space of metrics, cf. , . In general, it is not continuous in the weak $`L^{k,p}`$ topology.

One may define such harmonic radii w.r.t. other topologies, for instance $`C^{k,\alpha }`$ in a completely analogous way; these have the same properties.

Suppose $`g_k`$ is a sequence of metrics on a manifold $`M`$, (possibly open), with a uniform lower bound on $`r_h.`$ On each ball, one then has $`L^{k,p}`$ control of the metric components. The well-known Banach-Alaoglu theorem, (bounded sequences are weakly compact in reflexive Banach spaces), then implies that the metrics on the ball have a weakly convergent subsequence in $`L^{k,p},`$ so one obtains a limit metric on each ball. Using elliptic regularity associated with harmonic functions, it is straightforward to verify that the overlaps of these charts are in $`L^{k+1,p}`$, and so one has a limit $`L^{k,p}`$ metric on $`M`$. The convergence to limit is in the weak $`L^{k,p}`$ topology and uniform on compact subsets. Strictly speaking, one also has to prove that the harmonic coordinate charts for $`g_k`$ also converge, or more precisely may be replaced by a fixed coordinate chart, but this also is not difficult, cf. ,  for details.

The same type of arguments hold w.r.t. the $`C^{k,\alpha }`$ topology, via the Arzela-Ascoli theorem; here weak $`L^{k,p}`$ convergence is replaced by convergence in the $`C^{k,\alpha ^{}}`$ topology, for $`\alpha ^{}<\alpha `$.

Thus, the main issue in obtaining a convergence result is to obtain a lower bound on a suitable harmonic radius $`r_h`$ under geometric bounds. The following result from  is one typical example.

###### Theorem 2.2.

(Convergence I). Let $`M`$ be a closed $`n`$-manifold and let $`(\lambda ,i_o,D)`$ be the space of Riemannian metrics such that

(2.3)
$$|Ric|k,inji_o,diamD.$$

Then $`(\lambda ,i_o,`$ D) is precompact in the $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and weak $`L^{2,p}`$ topologies, for any $`\alpha <`$ 1 and $`p<\mathrm{}`$.

Thus, for any sequence, there is a subsequence which converges, in these topologies, to a limit $`C^{1,\alpha }L^{2,p}`$ metric $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`M`$.

Sketch of Proof: As discussed above, it suffices to prove a uniform lower bound on the $`L^{2,p}`$ harmonic radius $`r_h=r_h^{2,p},`$ i.e.

(2.4)
$$r_h(x)r_o=r_o(k,i_o,D),$$

under the bounds (2.3).

Overall, the proof of (2.4) is by contradiction. Thus, if (2.4) is false, there is a sequence of metrics $`g_i`$ on $`M`$, satisfying the bounds (2.3), but for which $`r_h(x_i)`$ 0, for some points $`x_iM`$. Without loss of generality, (since $`M`$ is closed), assume that the base points $`x_i`$ realize the minimal value of $`r_h`$ on $`(M,g_i).`$ Then rescale the metrics $`g_i`$ by this minimal harmonic radius, i.e. set

(2.5)
$$\overline{g}_i=r_h(x_i)^2g_i.$$

If $`\overline{r}_h`$ denotes the harmonic radius w.r.t. $`\overline{g},`$ by scaling properties one has

(2.6)
$$\overline{r}_h(x_i)=1,\mathrm{and}\overline{r}_h(y_i)1,$$

for all $`y_i(M,\overline{g}_i).`$ By the remarks preceeding the proof, the pointed Riemannian manifolds $`(M,\overline{g}_i,x_i)`$ have a subsequence converging in the weak $`L^{2,p}`$ topology to a limit $`L^{2,p}`$ Riemannian manifold $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (Again, this convergence is understood to be modulo diffeomorphisms, as in Definition 1.1). Of course $`diam_{\overline{g}_i}M\mathrm{},`$ so that the complete open manifold $`N`$ is distinct from the original compact manifold $`M`$. The convergence is uniform on compact subsets.

So far, nothing essential has been done - the construction above more or less amounts to just renormalizations. There are two basic ingredients in obtaining further control however, one geometric and one analytic.

We begin with the geometric argument. The limit space $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ is Ricci-flat, since the bound (2.3) on the Ricci curvature of $`g_i`$ becomes in the scale $`\overline{g}_i,`$

(2.7)
$$|Ric_{\overline{g}_i}|kr_h(x_i)0,\mathrm{as}i\mathrm{}.$$

Actually, it is Ricci-flat in a weak sense, since the convergence is only in weak $`L^{2,p}.`$ However, it is easy to see, (cf. also below), that weak $`L^{2,p}`$ solutions of the (Riemannian) Einstein equations are real-analytic, and so the limit is in fact a smooth Ricci-flat metric.

Next, by (2.3), the injectivity radius of $`\overline{g}_i`$ satisfies

(2.8)
$$inj_{\overline{g}_i}i_or_h(x_i)^1\mathrm{},\mathrm{as}i\mathrm{},$$

so that, roughly speaking, the limit $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ has infinite injectivity radius at every point. More importantly, the bound (2.8) implies that $`(M,\overline{g}_i)`$ contains arbitrarily long, (depending on $`i`$), minimizing geodesics in any given direction through the center point $`x_i.`$ It follows that the limit $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ has infinitely long minimizing geodesics in every direction through the base point $`x_{\mathrm{}}.`$ This means that $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ contains a line in every direction through $`x_{\mathrm{}}.`$

Now the well-known Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem  states that a complete manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature splits isometrically along any line. It follows that $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ splits isometrically in every direction through $`x_{\mathrm{}},`$ and hence $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})=(^n,g_0),`$ where $`g_0`$ is the flat metric on $`^n.`$

Now of course $`(^n,g_0)`$ has infinite harmonic radius. If the convergence of $`(N,\overline{g}_i)`$ to the limit $`(^n,g_0)`$ can be shown to be in the strong $`L^{2,p}`$ topology, then the continuity of $`r_h`$ in this topology immediately gives a contradiction, since by (2.6), the limit $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ has $`r_h(x_{\mathrm{}})=1`$.

The second or analytic part of the argument is to prove strong $`L^{2,p}`$ convergence to the limit. The idea here is to use elliptic regularity to bootstrap or improve the smoothness of the convergence.

In harmonic coordinates, the Ricci curvature of a metric $`g`$ has the following especially simple form:

(2.9)
$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }g_{\alpha \beta }+Q_{\alpha \beta }(g,g)=Ric_{\alpha \beta },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta `$ is the Laplacian w.r.t. the metric $`g`$ and $`Q`$ is quadratic in $`g`$, its inverse, and $`g.`$ In particular, if $`r_h(x)=`$ 1 and $`r_h(y)r_o>`$ 0, for all $`yB_x(1),`$ then one has a uniform $`L^{1,p}`$ bound on $`Q`$ and uniform $`L^{2,p}`$ bounds on the coefficients for the Laplacian within $`B_x(1+\frac{1}{2}r_o).`$

If now $`Ric`$ is uniformly bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}},`$ then standard elliptic regularity applied to (2.9) implies that $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is uniformly controlled in $`L^{2,q},`$ for any $`q<\mathrm{}`$, (in particular for $`q>p`$). More importantly, if $`g_i`$ is a sequence of metrics for which $`(Ric_{g_i})_{\alpha \beta }`$ converges strongly in $`L^p`$ to a limit $`(Ric_g_{\mathrm{}})_{\alpha \beta },`$ then elliptic regularity again implies that the metrics $`(g_i)_{\alpha \beta }`$ converge strongly in $`L^{2,p}`$ to the limit $`(g_{\mathrm{}})_{\alpha \beta }.`$ For the metrics $`\overline{g}_i`$, (2.7) implies that $`Ric0`$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$, and so $`Ric0`$ strongly in $`L^q`$, for any $`q<\mathrm{}`$.

These remarks essentially prove that the $`L^{2,p}`$ harmonic radius is continuous w.r.t. the strong $`L^{2,p}`$ topology. Further, when applied to the sequence $`\overline{g}_i`$ and using (2.6), they imply that the metrics $`\overline{g}_i`$ converge strongly in $`L^{2,p}`$ to the limit $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}}.`$ This completes the proof.

It is easy to see from the proof that the lower bound on the injectivity radius in (2.3) can be considerably weakened. For instance, define the 1-cross $`Cro_1(x)`$ of $`(M,g)`$ at $`x`$ to be the length of the longest minimizing geodesic in $`(M,g)`$ with center point $`x`$ and set

$$Cro_1(M,g)=\underset{x}{inf}Cro_1(x).$$

We introduce this notion partly because it has a natural analogue in Lorentzian geometry, when a minimizing geodesic is replaced by a maximizing time-like geodesic, cf. §5. Then one has the following result on 4-manifolds, cf. .

###### Theorem 2.3.

(Convergence II). Let $`M`$ be a 4-manifold. Then the conclusions of Theorem 2.2 hold under the bounds

(2.10)
$$|Ric|k,Cro_1c_o,volv_o,diamD.$$

The proof is the same as that of Theorem 2.2. The lower bound on $`Cro_1`$ implies that on the blow-up limit $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}})`$ above, one has a line. Hence, the splitting theorem implies that $`N=N^{}\times `$. It follows that $`N^{}`$ is Ricci-flat and hence, since $`dimN^{}=3`$, $`N^{}`$ is flat. Using the volume bound in (2.10), it follows that $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})=(^4,g_0)`$, cf. (2.12)-(2.13) below. (The volume bound rules out the possibility that $`N^{}`$ is a non-trivial flat manifold of the form $`^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). This gives the same contradiction as before.

Of course, in dimension 3 any Ricci-flat manifold is necessarily flat, and so the same proof shows that one has $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and $`L^{2,p}`$ precompactness within the class of metrics on 3-manifolds satisfying

(2.11)
$$|Ric|k,volv_o,diamD.$$

Thus, no assumptions on $`inj`$ or $`Cro_1`$ are needed in dimension 3.

###### Remark 2.4.

(i). Although (2.4) gives the existence of a lower bound on $`r_h`$ in terms of the bounds $`k`$, $`i_o`$ and $`D`$, currently there is no proof of an effective or computable bound. Equivalently, there is no direct proof of Theorem 2.2, which does not involve a passage to limits and invoking a contradiction. This is closely related to the fact there is currently no quantitative or finite version of the Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem, where one can deduce definite bounds on the metric in the presence of (a collection of) minimizing geodesics of a finite but definite length.

If however the bound on $`|Ric|`$ in (2.3) is strengthened to a bound on $`|Riem|`$, as in (1.4), then it is not difficult to obtain an effective or computable lower bound on $`r_h`$, cf. .

(ii). The proof above can be easily adapted to give a similar result if the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ bound on $`Ric`$ is replaced by an $`L^q`$ bound, for some $`q>n/2;`$ one then obtains convergence in weak $`L^{2,q}.`$

In the opposite direction, the convergence can be improved if one has bounds on the derivatives of the Ricci curvature. This will be the case if $`Ric`$ satisfies an elliptic system of PDE, for instance the Einstein equations. In this case, one obtains $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ convergence to the limit.

(iii). The assumption that $`M`$ is closed in Theorem 2.2 is merely for convenience, and an analogous result holds for open manifolds, away from the boundary.

The bounds on injectivity radius in (2.3), or even the 1-cross in (2.10), are rather strong and one would like to replace them with just a lower volume bound, as in (2.11).

An elementary but important result, the volume comparison theorem of Bishop-Gromov , , states that if $`Ric(n1)k`$, for some $`k`$, on $`(M,g)`$, $`n=dimM`$, then the ratio

(2.12)
$$\frac{volB_x(r)}{volB_k(r)}$$

is monotone non-increasing in $`r`$; here $`volB_k(r)`$ is the volume of the geodesic $`r`$-ball in the $`n`$-dimensional space form of constant curvature $`k`$. In particular, if the bounds (2.11) hold, in dimension $`n`$, then (2.12) gives a lower bound on the volumes of balls on all scales:

(2.13)
$$volB_x(r)\frac{volM}{volB_k(D)}volB_k(r).$$

Note that the estimate (2.13) also implies that, for any fixed $`r>0`$, if $`volB_x(r)v_0>0`$, then $`volB_y(r)v_1>0`$, where $`v_1`$ depends only on $`v_0`$ and $`dist_g(x,y)`$. Thus, the ratio of the volumes of unit balls cannot become arbitrarily large or small on domains of bounded diameter.

Now a classical result of Cheeger  implies that if (2.11) is strengthened to

(2.14)
$$K_PK,volv_o,diamD,$$

where $`K_P`$ is the sectional curvature of any plane $`P`$ in the tangent bundle $`TM`$, then one has a lower bound on the injectivity radius, $`inj_g(M)i_o(K,v_o,D)`$. However, it was observed in  that this estimate fails under the bounds (2.11). It is worthwhile to exhibit a simple concrete example illustrating this.

###### Example 2.5.

Let $`g_\lambda `$ be the family of Eguchi-Hanson metrics on the tangent bundle $`TS^2`$ of $`S^2.`$ The metrics $`g_\lambda `$ are given explicitly by

(2.15)
$$g_\lambda =[1(\frac{\lambda }{r})^4]^1dr^2+r^2[1(\frac{\lambda }{r})^4]\theta _1^2+r^2(\theta _2^2+\theta _3^2).$$

Here $`\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3`$ are the standard left-invariant coframing of $`SO(3)=^3`$, (the sphere bundles in $`TS^2)`$ and $`r\lambda .`$ The locus $`r=\lambda `$ is the image of the 0-section and is a totally geodesic round $`S^2(\lambda )`$ of radius $`\lambda .`$

The metrics $`g_\lambda `$ are Ricci-flat, and are all homothetic, i.e. are rescalings (via diffeomorphisms) of a fixed metric; in fact,

(2.16)
$$g_\lambda =\lambda ^2\psi _\lambda ^{}(g_1),$$

where $`\psi _\lambda (r)=\lambda r,`$ and $`\psi _\lambda `$ acts trivially on the $`SO(3)`$ factor. As $`\lambda `$ 0, i.e. as one blows down the metrics, $`g_\lambda `$ converges to the metric $`g_0,`$ the flat metric on the cone $`C(^3).`$ The convergence is smooth in the region $`rr_o,`$ for any fixed $`r_o>0`$, but is not smooth at $`r=`$ 0. Since $`S^2(\lambda )`$ is totally geodesic, the injectivity radius at any point of $`S^2(\lambda )`$ is $`2\pi \lambda ,`$ which tends to 0. On the other hand, the volumes of unit balls, or balls of any definite radius, remain uniformly bounded below.

One sees here that the metrics $`(TS^2,g_\lambda )`$ converge as $`\lambda `$ 0 to a limit metric on a singular space $`C(^3).`$ The limit is an orbifold $`^4/_2,`$ where $`_2`$ acts by reflection in the origin.

The Eguchi-Hanson metric is the first and simplest example of a large class of Ricci-flat ALE (asymptotically locally Euclidean) spaces, whose metrics are asymptotic to cones $`C(S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(4)`$, on spherical space forms. This is the family of ALE gravitational instantons, studied in detail by Gibbons and Hawking, cf.  and references therein, in connection with Hawking’s Euclidean quantum gravity program.

It is straightforward to modify the construction in Example 2.5 to obtain orbifold degenerations on compact 4-manifolds satisfying the bounds (2.11). Thus, one does not have $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ or even $`C^0`$ (pre)-compactness of the space of metrics on $`M`$ under the bounds (2.11). Singularities can form in passing to limits, although the singularities are of a relatively simple kind. The next result from  shows that this is the only kind of possible degeneration or singularity formation.

###### Theorem 2.6.

(Convergence III). Let $`\{g_i\}`$ be a sequence of metrics on a 4-manifold, satisfying the bounds

(2.17)
$$|Ric|k,volv_o,diamD.$$

Then a subsequence converges, (in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology), to an orbifold $`(V,g)`$, with a finite number of singular points $`\{q_j\}.`$ Each singular point $`q`$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to a cone $`C(S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a finite subgroup of $`SO(4)`$.

The metric $`g`$ is $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ or $`L^{2,p}`$ on the regular set

$$V_0=V\{q_j\},$$

and extends in a local uniformization of a singular point to a $`C^0`$ Riemannian metric. Further, there are embeddings

$$F_i:V_0M$$

such that $`F_i^{}(g_i)`$ converges in the $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ topology to the metric $`g`$.

Here, convergence in the Gromov-Hausforff topology means convergence as metric spaces, cf. , . We mention only a few important issues in the proof of Theorem 2.6. First, the Chern-Gauss-Bonnet formula implies that for metrics with bounded Ricci curvature and volume on $`4`$-manifolds, one has an apriori bound on the $`L^2`$ norm of the full curvature tensor:

$$\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_M|R|^2𝑑V\chi (M)+C(k,V_o),$$

where $`C(k,V_o)`$ is a constant depending only on $`k`$ from (2.17) and an upper bound $`V_o`$ on $`vol_gM`$: $`\chi (M)`$ is the Euler characteristic of $`M`$. Second, with each singular point $`qV`$, there is a associated a sequence of rescalings $`\overline{g}_i=\lambda _i^2g_i,\lambda _i\mathrm{},`$ and base points $`x_iM`$, $`x_iq`$, such that a subsequence of $`(M,\overline{g}_i,x_i)`$ converges in $`C^{1,\alpha }L^{2,p}`$ to a non-trivial Ricci-flat ALE space $`(N,\overline{g}_{\mathrm{}})`$ as above. It is not difficult to see that any such ALE space has a definite amount of curvature in $`L^2.`$ This implies basically that there are only a finite number of such singular points. Further, the ALE spaces $`N`$ are embedded in $`M`$, in a topologically essential way.

## 3. Collapse/Formation of Cusps.

In this section, we consider what happens when

$$vol0\mathrm{or}diam\mathrm{}$$

in the bounds (2.11). This involves the notion of Cheeger-Gromov collapse, or collapse with bounded curvature.

For simplicity, we restrict the discussion to dimension 3. While there is a corresponding theory in higher dimensions, cf. , there are special and advantageous features that hold only in dimension 3 in general. Further, the relations with general relativity are most direct in dimension 3, in that the discussion can be applied to the behavior of space-like hypersurfaces in a given space-time.

The simplest non-trivial example of collapse is the Berger collapse of the 3-sphere along $`S^1`$ fibers of the Hopf fibration. Thus, consider the family of metrics on $`S^3`$ given by

(3.1)
$$g_\lambda =\lambda ^2\theta _1^2+(\theta _2^2+\theta _3^2),$$

where $`\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3`$ are the standard left-invariant coframing of $`S^3.`$ The metrics $`g_\lambda `$ have an isometric $`S^1`$ action, with Killing field $`K`$ dual to $`\theta _1,`$ with length of the $`S^1`$ orbits given by $`2\pi \lambda .`$ Thus, in letting $`\lambda `$ 0, one is blowing down the metric in one direction. (This is exactly what occurs on approach to the horizon of the Taub-NUT metric, cf. ). A simple calculation shows that the curvature of $`g_\lambda `$ remains uniformly bounded as $`\lambda 0`$. Clearly $`vol_{g_\lambda }S^3\lambda 0`$. The metrics $`g_\lambda `$ collapse $`S^3`$ to a limit space, in this case $`S^2.`$

This same procedure may be carried out, with the same results, on any 3-manifold (or $`n`$-manifold) which has a free or locally free isometric $`S^1`$ action; locally free means that the isotropy group of any orbit is a finite subgroup of $`S^1,`$ i.e. there are no fixed points of the action. Similarly, one may collapse along the orbits, as in (3.1), of a locally free $`T^k`$-action, where $`T^k`$ is the $`k`$-torus. Remarkably, Gromov  showed that more generally one may collapse along the orbits of an isometric nilpotent group action, and furthermore, such groups are only groups which allow such a collapse with bounded curvature. Thus for instance collapsing along the orbits of an isometric $`G`$-action, where $`G`$ is semi-simple and non-abelian, increases the curvature without bound.

A 3-manifold which admits a locally free $`S^1`$ action is called a Seifert fibered space. Such a space admits a fibration over a surface $`V`$, with $`S^1`$ fibers. Where the action is free, this fibration is a circle bundle. There may exist an isolated collection of non-free orbits, corresponding to isolated points in $`V`$. Topologically, a neighborhood of such an orbit is of the form $`D^2\times S^1`$, where the $`S^1`$ acts by rotation on the $`S^1`$ factor and by rotation through a rational angle about $`\{0\}`$ in $`D^2`$.

The collection of Seifert fibered spaces falls naturally into 6 classes, according to the topology of the base surface $`V`$, i.e. $`V=S^2`$, $`T^2`$, or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, $`g2`$, and according to whether the $`S^1`$ bundle is trivial or not trivial. These account for 6 of the 8 possible geometries of 3-manifolds in the sense of Thurston . These geometries are: $`S^2\times `$, $`^3`$, $`^2\times `$, $`S^3`$, $`Nil`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{SL(2,)}`$, respectively. The two remaining geometries are $`Sol`$, corresponding to non-trivial torus bundles over $`S^1`$, and the hyperbolic geometry $`^3`$.

Now suppose $`N`$ is a compact Seifert fibered space with boundary. The boundary is a finite collection of tori, on which one has a free $`S^1`$ action. In a neighborhood of the boundary, this $`S^1`$ action then embeds in the standard free $`T^2`$ action on $`T^2\times I.`$ Given a collection of such spaces $`N_i,`$ one may then glue the toral boundaries together by automorphisms of the torus, i.e. by elements of $`SL(2,)`$. For example, the glueing may interchange the fiber and base circles.

###### Definition 3.1.

A graph manifold $`G`$ is a 3-manifold obtained by glueing Seifert fibered spaces by toral automorphisms of the boundary tori.

Thus, a graph manifold has a decomposition into two types of regions,

(3.2)
$$G=SL.$$

Each component of $`S`$ is a Seifert fibered space, while each component of $`L`$ is $`T^2\times I,`$ and glues together different boundary components of elements in $`S`$. The exceptional case of glueing two copies of $`T^2\times I`$ by toral automorphisms of the boundary is also allowed; this defines the class of $`Sol`$ manifolds, up to finite covers. The Seifert fibered components have a locally free $`S^1`$ action, the $`T^2\times I`$ components have a free $`T^2`$ action; in general, these group actions do not extend to actions on topologically larger domains.

Graph manifolds are an especially simple class of 3-manifolds; they were introduced, and their structure was completely classified, by Waldhausen . The terminology comes from the fact that one may associate a graph to $`G`$, by assigning a vertex to each component of $`S`$, and an edge to each component of $`L`$ which connects a pair of components in $`S`$.

It is not difficult to generalize the construction above to show that any closed graph manifold $`G`$ admits a sequence of metrics $`g_i`$ which collapse with uniformly bounded curvature, i.e.

(3.3)
$$|Ric_{g_i}|k,vol_{g_i}G0.$$

The metrics $`g_i`$ collapse the Seifert fibered pieces along the $`S^1`$ orbits, while collapsing the toral regions $`T^2\times I`$ along the tori. Thus the collapse is rank 1 along $`S`$, while rank 2 along $`L`$. (Of course a bound on the full curvature is the same as a bound on the Ricci curvature in dimension 3).

If the graph manifold is Seifert fibered, then the collapse (3.3) may be carried out with bounded diameter,

(3.4)
$$diam_{g_i}SD,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}D<\mathrm{}.$$

In fact, if $`S`$ is a $`Nil`$-manifold, then the collapse may be carried out so that $`diam_{g_i}S0`$, cf. .

On the other hand, suppose $`G`$ is non-trivial in that it has both $`S`$ and $`L`$ components. If $`N`$ denotes any $`S`$ or $`L`$ component, then it follows from work of Fukaya  that

(3.5)
$$diam_{g_i}N\mathrm{}$$

under the bounds (3.3). This phenomenon can be viewed as a refinement of the remark following (2.13), in that one has uniform control on the relative size of the injectivity radius on domains of bounded diameter, (cf. also ). In particular, the transition from Seifert fibered domains to toral domains takes longer and longer distance the more collapsed the metrics are. One obtains different collapsed “limits” depending on choice of base point. This “pure” behavior on regions of bounded diameter is special to dimension 3, cf.  for further details.

The discussion above shows that one may collapse graph manifolds with bounded curvature. The Cheeger-Gromov theory, , see also , implies that the converse also holds.

###### Theorem 3.2.

(Collapse). If $`M`$ is a closed 3-manifold which collapses with bounded curvature, i.e. there is a sequence of metrics such that (3.3) holds, then $`M`$ is a graph manifold.

In fact, this result holds if $`M`$ admits a sufficiently collapsed metric, i.e. $`|Ric_g|k`$ and $`vol_gM\epsilon _o`$, for some $`\epsilon =\epsilon _o(k)`$ sufficiently small. Note of course that a collapsing sequence of metrics $`g_i`$ is not necessarily invariant under the $`S^1`$ or $`T^2`$ actions associated with the graph manifold structure; these local group actions are smooth actions, but need not be isometric w.r.t. a highly collapsed metric.

In a certain sense, the vast majority of 3-manifolds are not graph manifolds, and so Theorem 3.2 gives strong topological restrictions on the existence of sufficiently collapsed metrics.

Idea of proof: First, it is easy to see from elementary comparison geometry, cf. , that

$$vol_{g_i}B_x(1)0inj_{g_i}(x)0.$$

At any $`x`$, rescale the metrics $`g_i`$ to make $`inj(x)=1`$, i.e. set

$$\overline{g}_i=[inj_{g_i}(x)]^2g_i.$$

Now the bound (3.3) gives $`|Ric_{\overline{g}_i}|0`$. Thus, the metrics $`\overline{g}_i`$ are close to flat metrics on $`^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a non-trivial discrete group of Euclidean isometries, (by Theorem 2.2 for instance). Thus, essentially, $`^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }=^2\times S^1`$, or $`\times S^1\times S^1`$. It follows that the local geometry, i.e. the geometry on the scale of the injectivity radius, is modeled by non-trivial, flat 3-manifolds. One then shows that these local structures for the geometry and topology can be glued together consistently to give a global graph manifold structure.

If $`S`$ is a closed Seifert fibered space, the orbits of the $`S^1`$ action always inject in $`\pi _1(S)`$, i.e.

$$\pi _1(S^1)\pi _1(S),$$

unless $`S=S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In case $`S`$ has non-empty toral boundary components, the tori in $`S`$ always inject in $`\pi _1(S)`$ except in the single case of $`S=D^2\times S^1,`$ cf. . Thus, if a graph manifold $`G`$ is not a spherical space form, or does not have a solid torus component in its Seifert fibered decomposition (3.2), then the fibers of the decomposition, namely circles and tori, always inject in $`\pi _1`$:

(3.6)
$$\pi _1(fiber)\pi _1(G).$$

Hence, in this situation, one can pass to covering spaces to unwrap any collapse. If $`g_i`$ is a collapsing sequence of metrics, by passing to larger and larger covering spaces, based sequences will always have convergent subsequences (in domains of arbitrary but bounded diameter). In addition, the isometric covering transformations on the covers have displacement functions converging uniformly to 0 on compact subsets. Hence, all such limits have a free isometric $`S^1`$ or $`T^2`$ action, depending on whether the collapse is rank 1 or 2 on the domains. This means that the limits have an extra symmetry not necessarily present on the initial collapsing sequence. Again, this feature of being able to unwrap collapse by passing to covering spaces is special to dimension 3, cf.  for further discussion and applications.

Finally, we discuss the third possibility, the formation of cusps. This case, although the most general, corresponds to a mixture of the two previous cases convergence/collapse, and so no essentially new phenomenon occurs. To start, given a complete Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$, choose $`\epsilon >`$ 0 small, and let

(3.7)
$$M^\epsilon =\{xM:volB_x(1)\epsilon \},M_\epsilon =\{xM:volB_x(1)\epsilon \}.$$

$`M^\epsilon `$ is called the $`\epsilon `$-thick part of $`(M,g)`$, while $`M_\epsilon `$ is the $`\epsilon `$-thin part.

Now suppose $`g_i`$ is a sequence of complete Riemannian metrics on the manifold $`M`$.

$``$ If $`x_iM^\epsilon `$, for some fixed $`\epsilon >0`$, then one has convergence, (in subsequences), in domains of arbitrary but bounded diameter about $`\{x_i\}`$, see the discussion concerning (2.13). Essentially, the bounds (2.11) hold on such domains in this case.

$``$ If $`y_iM_{\epsilon _o}`$, for $`\epsilon _o`$ sufficiently small, then domains of bounded, depending on $`\epsilon _o`$, diameter about $`\{y_i\}`$ are graph manifolds, in fact Seifert fibered spaces.

$``$ If $`z_iM_{\epsilon _i}`$, $`\epsilon _i0`$, then domains of arbitrary but bounded diameter about $`\{z_i\}`$ are collapsing.

If $`(M_\epsilon ,g_i)=\mathrm{}`$, for some fixed $`\epsilon >0`$, then one is in the convergence situation. If $`(M^\epsilon ,g_i)=\mathrm{}`$, for all $`\epsilon >0`$ sufficiently small, depending on $`i`$, then one is in the collapsing situation. The only remaining possibility is that, for any fixed small $`\epsilon >0`$,

(3.8)
$$(M^\epsilon ,g_i)\mathrm{},\mathrm{and}(M_\epsilon ,g_i)\mathrm{}.$$

This is equivalent to the existence of base points $`x_i`$, $`y_i`$, such that,

(3.9)
$$volB_{x_i}(1)\epsilon _1,volB_{y_i}(1)0,$$

for some $`\epsilon _1>0`$. Observe that the volume comparison theorem (2.13) implies that $`dist_{g_i}(x_i,y_i)\mathrm{}`$ as $`i\mathrm{},`$ so that these different behaviors become further and further distant as $`i\mathrm{}.`$

This leads to the following result, cf. ,  for further details.

###### Theorem 3.3.

(Cusp Formation). Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold and $`g_i`$ a sequence of unit volume metrics on $`M`$ with uniformly bounded curvature, and satisfying (3.8). Then pointed subsequences (M, $`g_i,p_i)`$ converge to one of the following:

$``$ complete cusps $`(N,g_{\mathrm{}},p_{\mathrm{}})`$. These are complete, open Riemannian 3-manifolds, of finite volume and with graph manifold ends, which collapse at infinity. The convergence is in the $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and weak $`L^{2,p}`$ topologies, uniform on compact subsets.

$``$ Graph manifolds collapsed along local $`S^1`$ or $`T^2`$ actions to lower dimensional metric spaces of infinite diameter. The convergence is in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology.

In contrast to the topological implications of collapse in Theorem 3.2, (i.e collapse implies $`M`$ is a graph manifold), in general there are no apriori topological restrictions on $`M`$ imposed by Theorem 3.3. To illustrate, let $`M`$ be an arbitrary closed 3-manifold and let $`\{C_k\}`$ be a collection of disjoint solid tori $`D^2\times S^1`$ embedded in $`M`$; for example $`\{C_k\}`$ may be a tubular neighborhood of a (possibly trivial) link in $`M`$. Then it is not difficult to construct a sequence of metrics of bounded curvature which converge to a collection of complete cusps on $`MC_k`$ and collapse along the standard graph manifold structure on each $`C_k.`$

The ends of the cusp manifolds $`N`$ in Theorem 3.3, i.e. the graph manifolds, necessarily have embedded tori. If such tori are essential in $`M`$, i.e. inject on the $`\pi _1`$ level, then Theorem 3.3. does imply strong topological constraints on the topology of $`M`$; cf. §6 for some further discussion.

###### Remark 3.4.

We point out that there are versions of Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 also in dimension 4, as well as in higher dimensions. The concept of graph manifold is generalized to manifolds having an “F-structure”, or an “N-structure” (F is for flat, N is for nilpotent), cf. , provided bounds are assumed on the full curvature, as in (1.4). In dimension 4, this can be relaxed to bounds on the Ricci curvature, as in (1.5), provided one allows for a finite number of singularities in F-structure, as in Theorem 2.6.

## 4. Applications to Static and Stationary Space-Times.

In this section, we discuss applications of the results of §2-3 to static and stationary space-times, i.e. space-times (M, g) which admit a time-like Killing field $`K`$. These space-times are viewed as being the end or final state of evolution of a (time dependent) gravitational field. Since they are time-independent in a natural sense, they may be analysed by methods of Riemannian geometry, which are not available in general for Lorentzian manifolds.

Throughout this section, we assume that (M, g) is chronological, i.e. (M, g) has no closed time-like curves, and that $`K`$ is a complete vector field.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the orbit space of the isometric $``$-action generated by the Killing field $`K`$, and let $`\pi :𝐌\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the projection to the orbit space. The 4-metric g has the form

(4.1)
$$𝐠=u^2(dt+\theta )^2+\pi ^{}(g),$$

where $`K=/t,\theta `$ is a connection 1-form for the bundle $`\pi `$, $`u^2=𝐠(K,K)>0`$ and $`g=g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the metric induced on the orbit space.

The vacuum Einstein equations are equivalent to an elliptic system of P.D.E’s in the data $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g,u,\theta )`$. Let $`\omega `$ be the twist 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, given by $`2\omega =(\kappa d\kappa )=u^4d\theta `$, where $`\kappa =u^2(dt+\theta )`$ is the 1-form dual to $`K`$. (The first $``$ operator is on M while the second is on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Then the equations on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are:

(4.2)
$$Ric_g=u^1D^2u+2u^4(\omega \omega |\omega |^2g),$$

(4.3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=2u^3|\omega |^2,$$

(4.4)
$$d\omega =0.$$

The maximum principle applied to (4.3) immediately implies that if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a closed $`3`$-manifold, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ is flat and $`u=const`$, and so (M, g) is a (space-like) isometric quotient of empty Minkowski space $`(^4,\eta )`$. Thus, we assume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is open, possibly with boundary.

Locally of course there are many solutions to the system (4.2)-(4.4); to obtain uniqueness, one needs to impose boundary conditions.

We consider first the global situation, and so assume that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ is a complete, non-compact Riemannian 3-manifold. Boundary conditions are then at infinity, i.e. conditions on the asymptotic behavior of the metric. In this respect, one has the following classical result, cf. , .

###### Theorem 4.1.

(Lichnerowicz). The only complete, stationary vacuum space-time (M, g) which is asymptotically flat (AF) is empty Minkowski space-time $`(^4,\eta ).`$

It is most always taken for granted that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should be AF. Stationary space-times are meant to model isolated physical systems, and the only physically reasonable models are AF, since in the far-field regime, general relativity should approximate Newtonian gravity. In fact, from this physical perspective, the Lichnerowicz theorem may be viewed as a triviality. Since there is no source for the gravitational field, it must be the empty Minkowski space-time.

However, mathematically, the Lichnerowicz theorem is not (so) trivial. Moreover, the assumption that (M, g) is AF is contrary to the spirit of general relativity. Such a boundary condition is adhoc, and its imposition is mathematically circular in a certain sense. Apriori, there might well be complete stationary solutions for which the curvature does not decay anywhere to 0 at infinity. From this more general perspective, one should be able to deduce that the far-field regime of stationary space-times is necessarily AF and not have to assume this to begin with.

The following result from  clarifies this issue.

###### Theorem 4.2.

(Generalized Lichnerowicz). The only complete stationary vacuum space-time (M, g) is empty Minkowski space-time $`(^4,\eta )`$, or a discrete isometric quotient of it.

The starting point of the proof of this result is to study first the moduli space of all complete stationary vacuum solutions. As noted above, any given solution may, apriori, have unbounded curvature, i.e. $`|Ric_g|`$ may diverge to infinity on divergent sequences in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ Under such a condition, the first step is then to show, by taking suitable base points and rescalings, that one may obtain a new stationary vacuum solution, (i.e. a new point in the moduli space), with uniformly bounded curvature, and non-zero curvature at a base point. This step uses the Cheeger-Gromov theory, as described in §2-§3, and requires the special features of collapse in 3-dimensions.

The next step in the proof is to recast the problem in the Ernst formulation. Define the conformally related metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ by

(4.5)
$$\stackrel{~}{g}=u^2g.$$

A simple calculation shows that (4.2) becomes

(4.6)
$$Ric_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2(d\mathrm{ln}u)^2+2u^4\omega ^20.$$

Further, the system (4.2)-(4.4) becomes the Euler-Lagrange equations for an effective 3-dimensional action given by

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{eff}}=[R\frac{1}{2}(\frac{|d\varphi |^2+|du^2|^2}{u^4})]𝑑V.$$

Here $`\varphi `$ is the twist potential, given by $`d\varphi =2\omega `$. (In general one must pass to the universal cover to obtain the existence of $`\varphi `$).

This action is exactly 3-dimensional (Riemannian) gravity on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{g})`$ coupled to a $`\sigma `$-model with target the hyperbolic plane $`(H^2(1),g_1).`$ Thus, the Ernst map $`E=(\varphi ,u^2)`$ is a harmonic map

(4.7)
$$E:(\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{g})(H^2(1),g_1).$$

Now it is well-known that harmonic maps $`E:(M,g)(N,h)`$ from Riemannian manifolds of non-negative Ricci curvature to manifolds of non-positive sectional curvature have strong rigidity properties, via the Bochner-Lichnerowicz formula,

(4.8)
$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }|DE|^2=|D^2E|^2+Ric_g,E^{}(h)(E^{}R_h)(e_i,e_j,e_j,e_i).$$

By analysing (4.8) carefully, one shows that $`E`$ is a constant map, from which it follows easily that (M, g) is flat.

###### Remark 4.3.

(i). The same result and proof holds for stationary gravitational fields coupled to $`\sigma `$-models, whose target spaces are Riemannian manifolds of non-positive sectional curvature, i.e. $`E:(\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{g})(N,g_N)`$ with $`Riem_{g_N}0`$.

(ii). Curiously, the Riemannian analogue of Theorem 4.2 remains an open problem. Thus, does there exist a complete non-flat Ricci-flat Riemannian 4-manifold which admits a free isometric $`S^1`$ action?

(iii). It is interesting to note that the analogue of Theorem 4.2 is false for stationary Einstein-Maxwell solutions. A counterexample is provided by the (static) Melvin magnetic universe , cf. also . I am grateful to David Garfinkle for pointing this out to me. For the stationary Einstein-Maxwell system, the target space of the Ernst map is $`SU(2,1)/S(U(1,1)\times U(1))`$, ($`SO(2,1)/SO(1,1)`$ for static Einstein-Maxwell). Both of these target spaces have indefinite, (i.e. non-Riemannian), metrics.

The rigidity result Theorem 4.2 leads to apriori estimates on the geometry of general stationary solutions of the Einstein equations. Thus, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not complete, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}`$. Note that part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may correspond to the horizon $`H=\{u=`$ 0} where the Killing field vanishes. The following result is also from .

###### Theorem 4.4.

(Curvature Estimate). Let (M, g) be a stationary vacuum space-time. Then there is a constant $`C<\mathrm{},`$ independent of (M, g), such that

(4.9)
$$|𝐑|(x)C/r^2[x],$$

where $`r[x]=dist_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi (x),\mathrm{\Sigma }).`$

Here, the curvature norm $`|𝐑|`$ may be given by

$$|𝐑|^2=|R_\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2+|d\mathrm{ln}u|^2+|u^2\omega |^2.$$

Note that Theorem 4.2 follows from Theorem 4.4 by letting $`r\mathrm{}`$. Conversely, it is a general principle for elliptic geometric variational problems that a global rigidity result as in Theorem 4.2 leads to apriori local estimates as in Theorem 4.4.

###### Remark 4.5.

(i). Using elliptic regularity, one also has higher order bounds:

(4.10)
$$|^k𝐑|(x)C_k/r^{2+k}[x].$$

(ii). A version of this result also holds for stationary space-times with energy-momentum tensor $`T`$. Thus, for example one has

(4.11)
$$|𝐑|(x)C_\alpha |T|_{C^\alpha (B_{[x]}(1))},$$

for any $`\alpha >0`$, where $`B_{[x]}(1)`$ is the unit ball in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ about $`[x]`$. The proof is the same as that of (4.9) given in .

Thus, one can use the Cheeger-Gromov theory to control the local behavior of stationary space-times, possibly with matter terms, away from any boundary.

The results above can in turn be applied to study the possible asymptotic behavior of general stationary or static vacuum space-times, without any apriori AF assumption. For example, (4.9) implies that the curvature decays at least quadratically in any end $`(E,g)`$ of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$. For simplicity, we restrict here to static space-times.

Thus, let (M, g) be a static space-time with orbit space $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be pseudo-compact if there exists $`r_o>0`$ such that the level set $`\{r=r_o\}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact; recall that $`r`$ is the distance function to the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (There are numerous examples of static space-times for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is non-compact, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ pseudo-compact). Let $`S(s)=r^1(s)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`E`$ is an end of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$, define its mass $`m_E`$ by

(4.12)
$$m_E=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{4\pi }_{S(s)}\mathrm{ln}u,r𝑑A.$$

It is easily seen from the static vacuum equations that the integral is monotone non-increasing in $`s`$, and so the limit exists. The mass $`m_E`$ coincides with the Komar mass in case $`E`$ is AF. The following result is from .

###### Theorem 4.6.

(Static Asymptotics). Let (M, g, u) be a static vacuum space-time with pseudo-compact boundary. Then (M, g) has a finite number of ends. Any end $`E`$ on which

(4.13)
$$\underset{E}{lim\; inf}u>0,$$

is either:

AF

or

(4.14)
$$\mathrm{small}_{def}_1^{\mathrm{}}[areaS(r)]^1𝑑r<\mathrm{}.$$

Further, if $`m_E`$ 0 and $`sup_Eu<\mathrm{},`$ then $`E`$ is AF.

This result is sharp in the sense that if any of the hypotheses are dropped, then the conclusion is false. For instance, if (4.13) fails, then there are examples of static vacuum solutions with ends neither small nor AF.

We note that when $`E`$ is AF, the result implies it is AF in the strong sense that

(4.15)
$$|gg_0|=\frac{2m}{r}+O(r^2),|R|=O(r^3),\mathrm{and}|u1|=\frac{m}{r}+O(r^2).$$

More precise asymptotics can then be obtained by using standard elliptic estimates on the equations (4.2)-(4.4), or from . Again, a version of Theorem 4.6 holds for static space-times with matter, cf. again  for further information.

The idea of the proof is to study the asymptotic behavior of an end $`E`$ by blowing it down, as described in §1. Thus, for $`R`$ large and any fixed $`k`$, consider the metric annuli $`A(R,kR)`$ about some base point $`x_o(\mathrm{\Sigma },g)`$ and consider the rescalings $`g_R=R^2g.`$ The annulus $`A(R,kR)`$ then becomes an annulus of the metric form $`A(1,k)`$ w.r.t. $`g_R.`$ Further, the estimate (4.9) implies that the curvature of $`g_R`$ in $`A(1,k)`$ is uniformly bounded. Thus, one may apply the Cheeger-Gromov theory as described in §2,§3, to a sequence $`(A(1,k),g_{R_i})`$, with $`R_i\mathrm{}`$. One proves that the convergence case gives rise to AF ends, while the collapse case gives rise to small ends.

Note that in the collapsing situation, one obtains an extra $`S^1`$ or $`T^2`$ symmetry when the collapse is unwrapped in covering spaces. Thus, the behavior in this case is described by axisymmetric static solutions, i.e. the Weyl metrics. Small ends typically have the same end structure as $`^2\times S^1,`$ where the $`S^1`$ factor has bounded length and so typically have at most quadratic growth for the area of geodesic spheres.

It is worth pointing out that there are static vacuum solutions, smooth up to a compact horizon, which have a single small end. This is the family of Myers metrics , or periodic Schwarzschild metrics, (discovered later and independently by Korotkin and Nicolai). The manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is topologically $`(D^2\times S^1)B^3,`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=S^2`$ with a single end of the form $`T^2\times ^+.`$ Metrically, the end is asymptotic to one of the (static) Kasner metrics. This is of course not a counterexample to the static black hole uniqueness theorem, since the end is not AF.

Note that since $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })=`$ here, one may take non-trivial covering spaces of the Myers metrics. This leads to static vacuum solutions with an arbitrary finite number, or even an infinite number, of black holes in static equilibrium. This situation is of course not possible in Newtonian gravity, and so is a highly non-linear effect of general relativity.

## 5. Lorentzian Analogues and Open Problems.

In this section, we discuss potential analogues of the results of §2 and §3 for Lorentzian metrics on 4-manifolds. The main interest is in space-times (M, g) for which one has control on the Ricci curvature of g, or via the Einstein equations, control on the energy-momentum tensor $`T`$. In particular, the main focus will be on vacuum space-times, $`Ric_𝐠=0`$.

One would like to find conditions under which one can take limits of vacuum space-times. One natural reason for trying to do this is the following. There are now a number of situations where global stability results have been proved, namely: the global stability of Minkowski space-time , and of deSitter space-time , the global future stability of the Milne space-time , and the future $`U(1)`$ stability of certain Bianchi models . These results are openness results, which state that the basic features of a given model, e.g. Minkowski, are preserved under suitably small perturbations of the initial data. It is then natural to consider what occurs when one tries to pass to limits of such perturbations.

The issue of being able to take limits is also closely related with the existence problem and singularity formation for the vacuum Einstein evolution equations. From this perspective, suppose one has an increasing sequence of domains $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,𝐠_𝐢)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{i+1}`$ with $`𝐠_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}=𝐠_𝐢`$, which are evolutions of smooth Cauchy data on some fixed initial data set. If $`𝐌=\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is the maximal Cauchy development, then understanding (M, g) amounts to understanding the limiting behavior of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,𝐠_𝐢).`$

There are two obvious but essential reasons why it is much more difficult to develop a Lorentzian analogue of the Cheeger-Gromov theory, in particular with bounds only on the Ricci curvature. The first is that the elliptic nature of the P.D.E. for Ricci curvature becomes hyperbolic for Lorentz metrics, and hyperbolic P.D.E. are much more difficult than elliptic P.D.E. The second is that the group of Euclidean rotations $`O(4)`$ is compact, while the group of proper Lorentz transformations $`O(3,1)`$ is non-compact.

A: $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ Level Problem.

Consider first the problem of controlling the space-time metric g in terms of bounds, say $`L^{\mathrm{}},`$ on the space-time curvature R,

(5.1)
$$|𝐑|_L^{\mathrm{}}K<\mathrm{},$$

since already here there are significant issues.

First, the norm of curvature tensor $`|𝐑|^2=𝐑_{ijkl}𝐑^{ijkl}`$ is no longer non-negative for Lorentz metrics, and so a bound on $`|𝐑|^2`$ does not imply a bound on all the components $`𝐑_{ijkl}.`$ In fact, for a Ricci-flat 4-metric, there are exactly two scalar invariants of the curvature tensor:

(5.2)
$$𝐑,𝐑=|𝐑|^2=𝐑_{ijkl}𝐑^{ijkl}\mathrm{and}𝐑,𝐑=𝐑_{ijkl}(𝐑^{ijkl}).$$

Both of these invariants can vanish identically on classes of Ricci-flat non-flat space-times; for instance this is the case for the class of plane-fronted gravitational waves, given by

$$𝐠=dudv+(dx^2+dy^2)2h(u,x,y)du^2,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(x,y)}h=0,$$

cf. \[15,§8\] and references therein. Here, $`h`$ is only required to harmonic in the variables $`(x,y)`$, and is arbitrary in $`u`$. The class of such space-times is highly non-compact, and so one has no local control of the metric in any coordinate system under bounds on the quantities in (5.2).

Thus, one must turn to bounds on the components of R in some fixed coordinate system or framing. The most efficient way to do this is to choose a unit time-like vector $`T=e_0,`$ say future directed, and extend it to an orthornormal frame $`e_\alpha ,`$ 0 $`\alpha `$ 3. Since the space $`T^{}`$ orthogonal to $`T`$ is space-like and $`O(3)`$ is compact, the particular framing of $`T^{}`$ is unimportant. One may then define the norm w.r.t. $`T`$ by

(5.3)
$$|𝐑|_T^2=(𝐑_{ijkl})^2,$$

where the components are w.r.t. the frame $`e_\alpha .`$ This is equivalent to taking the norm of R w.r.t. the Riemannian metric

$$g_E=𝐠+2TT.$$

If, at a given point $`p`$, $`T`$ lies within a compact subset $`W`$ of the future interior null cone $`T_p^+`$, then the norms (5.3) are all equivalent, with constant depending only on $`W`$. Of course if $`D`$ is a compact set in the space-time (M, g) and the vector field $`T`$ is continuous in $`D`$, then $`T`$ lies within a compact subset of $`T^+D,`$ where $`T^+D`$ is the bundle of future interior null cones in the tangent bundle $`TD`$.

It is quite straightforward to prove that if $`(M,g)`$ is a smooth Riemannian manifold with an $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ bound on the full curvature, $`|R|K`$ then there are local coordinate systems in which the metric is $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ or $`L^{2,p},`$ with bounds depending only on $`K`$ and a lower volume bound, cf. Remark 2.4(i).

However, this has been an open problem for Lorentzian metrics, apparently for some time, cf. , for instance. The following result gives a solution to this problem.

To state the result, we need the following definition. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in a smoooth Lorentz manifold (M, g), of arbitrary dimension $`n+1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is said to satisfy the size conditions if the following holds. There is a smooth time function $`t`$, with $`T=t/|t|`$ the associated unit time-like vector field on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, such that, for $`S=S_0=t^1(0)`$, the 1-cylinder

(5.4)
$$C_1=B_p(1)\times [1,1]\mathrm{\Omega },$$

i.e. $`C_1`$ has compact closure in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here $`B_p(1)`$ is the geodesic ball of radius 1 about $`p`$, w.r.t. the metric $`g`$ induced on $`S`$ and the product is identified with a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the flow of $`T`$.

It is essentially obvious that any point $`q`$ in a Lorentz manifold has a neighborhood satisfying the size conditions, when the metric g is scaled up suitably.

Let $`D=ImT|_{C_1}T^+\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in a vacuum $`(n+1)`$-dimensional space-time $`(𝐌,𝐠)`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the size conditions, and that there exist constants $`K<\mathrm{}`$ and $`v_o>`$ 0 such that

(5.5)
$$|𝐑|_TK,vol_gB_p(\frac{1}{2})v_o.$$

Then there exists $`r_o>0`$, depending only on $`K,v_o`$ and $`D`$, and coordinate charts on the $`r_o`$-cylinder

$$C_{r_o}=B_p(r_o)\times [r_o,r_o],$$

such that the components of the metric $`𝐠_{\alpha \beta }`$ are in $`C^{1,\alpha }L^{2,p}`$, for any $`\alpha <1`$, $`p<\mathrm{}`$.

Further, there exists $`R_o`$, depending only on $`K`$, $`v_o`$, $`D`$ and $`p`$, such that, on $`C_{r_o}`$,

(5.6)
$$𝐠_{\alpha \beta }_{L^{2,p}}R_o.$$

Here, the components $`𝐠_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the full space-time components of g, and the estimate (5.6) gives bounds on both spatial and time derivatives of g, up to order 2, in $`L^p`$, where $`L^p`$ is measured on spatial slices of $`C_{r_o}`$.

This result is formulated in such a way that it is easy to pass to limits. Thus, if one has a sequence of smooth space-times $`(𝐌_i,𝐠_i)`$ satisfying the hypotheses of the Theorem, (with fixed constants $`K`$, $`v_o`$ and uniformly compact domains $`D`$), then it follows that, in a subsequence, there is a limit $`C^{1,\alpha }L^{2,p}`$ space-time $`(𝐌_{\mathrm{}},𝐠_{\mathrm{}})`$, defined at least on the $`r_o`$-cylinder $`C_{r_o}`$. Further, the convergence to the limit is $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ and weak $`L^{2,p}`$, and the estimate (5.6) holds on the limit.

We sketch some of the ideas of the proof; full details appear in . First, one constructs a new local time function $`\tau `$ on small cylinders $`C_{r_1}`$, with $`|\tau |^2=1`$, so the flow of $`\tau `$ is by time-like geodesics. On the level sets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ of $`\tau `$, one constructs spatially harmonic coordinates $`\{x_i\}`$, (w.r.t. the induced Riemannian metric). This gives a local coordinate system $`(\tau ,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ on small cylinders about $`p`$. One then uses the transport or Raychaudhuri equation, together with the Bochner-Weitzenbock formula, (Simons’ equation), and elliptic estimates to control $`𝐠_{\alpha \beta }`$.

The vacuum Einstein equations are needed in Theorem 5.1 only to prove the $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ time derivatives of the shift $`_\tau _\tau 𝐠_{0\alpha }`$ are in $`L^p`$, via use of the Bianchi identity. In place of vacuum space-times, it suffices to have a rather weak bound on the stress-energy tensor in the Einstein equations. All other bounds on $`𝐠_{\alpha \beta }`$ do not require the Einstein equations.

It would be interesting to apply this result, or variants of it, to obtain further information on the structure of the boundary of space-times.

If the volume bound on space-like hypersurfaces in (5.5) is dropped, then it is possible that space-like hypersurfaces may collapse with bounded curvature, as described in §3. Examples of this behavior occur on approach to Cauchy horizons, (as noted in §3 in connection with the Berger collapse and the Taub-NUT metric). More generally, Rendall  has proved the following interesting general result: if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a compact Cauchy horizon in a smooth vacuum space-time in 3+1 dimensions, then nearby space-like hypersurfaces collapse with bounded curvature on approach to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

B: $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ Level Problem.

While Theorem 5.1 represents a first step, one would like to do much better by replacing the bound on $`|𝐑|_T`$ by a bound on the Ricci curvature of (M, g), or assuming for instance the vacuum Einstein equations. Thus, one may ask if analogues of Theorems 2.2 or 2.3 hold in the Lorentzian setting.

The main ingredients in the proofs of these results are the splitting theorem - a geometric part - and the strong convergence to limits - an analytic part obtained from elliptic estimates for the Ricci curvature. Now one does have a direct analogue of the splitting theorem for vacuum space-times, (or more generally space-times satisfying the time-like convergence condition). Thus, by work of Eschenburg, Galloway and Newman, if (M, g) is a time-like geodesically complete, (or a globally hyperbolic), vacuum space-time which contains a time-like line, i.e. a complete time-like maximal geodesic, then (M, g) is flat, cf.  and references therein.

In analogy to the Riemannian case, define then the 1-cross $`Cro_1(x,T)`$ of a Lorentzian 4-manifold (M, g) at $`x`$, in the direction of a unit time-like vector $`T`$, to be the length of the longest maximizing geodesic in the direction $`T`$, with center point $`x`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a domain with compact closure in M and $`T`$ a smooth unit time-like vector field, define

$$Cro_1(\mathrm{\Omega },T)=\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }}{inf}Cro_1(x,T).$$

What is lacking is the regularity boost obtained from elliptic estimates. For space-times, the vacuum equations give a hyperbolic evolution equation, (in harmonic coordinates), for which one does not have a gain in derivatives. However, the smoothness of initial data is preserved under the evolution, until one hits the boundary of the maximal development.

Let $`H^s=H^s(U)`$ denote the Sobolev space of functions with $`s`$ weak derivatives in $`L^2(U)`$, $`U`$ a bounded domain in $`^3`$. For $`s>2.5`$, (so that $`H^s`$ embeds in $`C^1`$), and a space-like hypersurface $`S`$ (M, g), define the harmonic radius $`\rho _s(x)`$ of $`xS`$ in the same way as in Definition 2.1, where the components $`𝐠_{\alpha \beta }`$ and derivatives are in both space and time directions. For the following, we need only consider $`s^+`$, with $`s`$ large, for instance, $`s=3`$.

Now a well-known result of Choquet-Bruhat  states that the maximal vacuum $`H^s`$ development of smooth ($`C^{\mathrm{}}`$) initial data on $`S`$ is the same for all $`s`$, provided $`s>2.5`$. Thus, one does not have different developments of smooth initial data, depending on the degree of desired $`H^s`$ regularity. Here, one may assume that $`S`$ is compact, or work locally, within the domain of dependence of $`S`$. This qualitative result can be expressed as follows. Let $`S_t`$ be space-like hypersurfaces obtained by evolution from initial data on $`S=S_0`$. If $`x_tS_t`$, then

(5.7)
$$\rho _s(x_t)c_1\rho _{s+1}(x_t)c_2,$$

where $`c_2`$ depends on $`c_1`$ and the $`(C^{\mathrm{}})`$ initial data on $`S_0`$.

We raise the following problem of whether the qualitative statement (5.7) can be improved to a quantitative statement.

Regularity Problem. Can the estimate (5.7) be improved to an estimate

(5.8)
$$\underset{x_tS_t}{inf}\rho _{s+1}(x_t)c_0\underset{x_tS_t}{inf}\rho _s(x_t),$$

where $`c_0`$ depends only on the initial data on $`S`$? One may assume, w.l.o.g, that $`t1`$.

The important point of (5.8) over (5.7) is that the estimate (5.8) is scale-invariant. Here, we recall that $`\rho _s(x)`$ measures the degree of concentration of derivatives of the metric in $`H^s`$, so that $`\rho _s0`$ corresponds to blow-up of the metric in $`H^s`$ locally.

If (5.8) holds, it serves as an analogue of the regularity boost. In such circumstances, one can imitate the proof of Theorems 2.2 or 2.3 to obtain similar results for sequences of space-times $`(𝐌,𝐠_i)`$.

In fact, the validity of (5.8) would have numerous interesting applications, even if it could be established under some further restrictions or assumptions.

Suppose next one drops any assumption on the 1-cross of (M, g) and maintains only a lower bound on the volumes of geodesic balls, as in (5.5), on space-like hypersurfaces. This leads directly to issues of singularity formation and the structure of the boundary of the vacuum space-time, where comparatively little is known mathematically.

A useful problem, certainly simple to state, is the following: for simplicity, we work in the context of compact, (i.e. closed, without boundary), Cauchy surfaces.

Sandwich Problem.

Let $`(𝐌,𝐠_i)`$ be a sequence of vacuum space-times, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^2`$ be two compact Cauchy surfaces in $`𝐌`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^2`$ to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^1`$ and with

$$1dist_𝐠(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^1)10,$$

for all $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^2`$. Suppose the Cauchy data $`(g_i^j,K_i^j)`$, $`j=1,2`$ on each Cauchy surface are uniformly bounded in $`H^s`$ for some fixed $`s>2.5`$, possibly large. Hence the data $`(g_i^j,K_i^j)`$ converge, in a subsequence and weakly in $`H^s`$, to limit $`H^s`$ Cauchy data $`g_{\mathrm{}}^j,K_{\mathrm{}}^j`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^j`$.

Do the vacuum space-times $`A_i(1,2)(M,g_i)`$ between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ converge, weakly in $`H^s`$, to a limit space time,

(5.9)
$$(A_i(1,2),g_i)(A_{\mathrm{}},g_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{?}$$

This question basically asks if a singularity can form between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^2`$ in the limit. It is unknown even if there could be only a single singularity at an isolated point (event) $`x_0(A_{\mathrm{}},g_{\mathrm{}})`$.

The existence of such a singularity may be related to the Choptuik solution. However, both the existence and the smoothness properties of the Choptuik solution have not been established well mathematically; cf.  for an interesting discussion.

Such a limit singularity would be naked in a strange way. It could be detected on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, since light rays from it propagate to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, but on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, no remnant of the singularity is detectable, since the data is smooth on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$. Thus, the singularity is invisible to the future (or past) in a natural sense.

A resolution of this problem would be useful in understanding, for instance, limits of the asymptotically simple vacuum perturbations of deSitter space, given by Friedrich’s theorem . The sandwich problem above asks: suppose one has control on the space-time near past and future space-like infinity $`^\pm `$, does it follow that one has control in between?

Similar questions can be posed for non-compact Cauchy surfaces, and relate for instance to limits of the AF perturbations of Minkowski space given by Christodoulou-Klainerman, .

## 6. Future Asymptotics and Geometrization of 3-Manifolds.

In this section, we give some applications to the future asymptotic behavior of cosmological spaces times.

Let (M, g) be a vacuum cosmological space-time, i.e. (M, g) contains a compact Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of constant mean curvature (CMC). It is well-known that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then embeds in a (local) foliation $``$ by CMC Cauchy surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, all diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, and parametrized by their mean curvature $`\tau `$. The parameter $`\tau `$ thus serves as a time function, with respect to which one may describe the evolution of the space-time. We refer to the work of Bartnik ,  and Gerhardt  for results on the existence of such foliations, and to the surveys by Marsden-Tipler  and Rendall  for an overview of this topic.

We assume throughout this section that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of non-positive Yamabe type, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admits no metric of positive scalar curvature. It then follows from the Hamiltonian constraint equation that the mean curvature $`\tau `$ never achieves the value $`0`$. Thus

(6.1)
$$\tau (\mathrm{},0),$$

with $`\tau `$ increasing towards the future in (M, g). The sign of the mean curvature is chosen so that $`vol_{g_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is increasing with increasing $`\tau `$, i.e. expanding towards the future. The foliated region $`𝐌_{}`$ is thus a subset of M, although in general one cannot expect that $`𝐌=𝐌_{}`$ due to the formation of singularities.

Suppose that (M, g) is geodesically complete to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ and that the future is foliated by CMC Cauchy surfaces, i.e. $`𝐌=𝐌_{}`$ to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These are of course strong assumptions, but are necessary if one wants to understand the future asymptotic behavior of (M, g) without the complicating issue of singularities.

The topology of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is fixed, and so the metrics $`g_\tau `$ induced on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ by the ambient metric g give rise to a curve of Riemannian metrics on the fixed manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In all known situations, one has $`vol_{g_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}`$ as $`\tau 0`$, and the metrics $`g_\tau `$ become locally flat, due to the expansion, compare with the discussion in §1. It would be of interest to prove these statements in general, although it is hard to imagine situations where either one of them fails.

The local geometry of $`g_\tau `$ thus becomes trivial locally. This is of course not very interesting. As in §1 and §4, to study the asymptotic behavior, one should rescale by the distance to a fixed base point or space-like hypersurface. In this case, the distance is the time-like Lorentzian distance. Thus, for $`x`$ to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,`$ let $`t(x)=dist_𝐠(x,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and let

(6.2)
$$t_\tau =t_{max}(\tau )=max\{t(x):x\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \}=dist_𝐠(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

It is natural to study the asymptotic behavior of the metrics

(6.3)
$$\overline{g}_\tau =t_\tau ^2g_\tau ,$$

on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau .`$ Observe that in the rescaled space-time (M, $`\overline{𝐠}_\tau ),`$ the distance of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,\overline{g}_\tau )`$ to the “initial” singularity, (big bang), tends towards 1, as $`\tau `$ 0. Any other essentially distinct scaling would have the property that the distance to the initial singularity tends towards 0 or $`\mathrm{}`$, and so is not particularly natural.

We need the following definition, closely related to Thurston’s Geometrization Conjecture  on the structure of 3-manifolds.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed, oriented, connected 3-manifold, of non-positive Yamabe type. A weak geometrization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a decomposition

(6.4)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=HG,$$

where $`H`$ is a finite collection of complete, connected hyperbolic manifolds, of finite volume, embedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ and $`G`$ is a finite collection of connected graph manifolds, embedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ The union is along a finite collection of embedded tori $`𝒯=T_i=H=G.`$

A strong geometrization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a weak geometrization as above, for which each torus $`T_i𝒯`$ is incompressible in $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ i.e. the inclusion of $`T_i`$ into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ induces an injection of fundamental groups.

Of course it is possible that the collection $`𝒯`$ of tori dividing $`H`$ and $`G`$ is empty, in which case weak and strong geometrizations coincide. In such a situation, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is then either a closed hyperbolic manifold or a closed graph manifold. For a strong geometrization, the decomposition (6.4) is unique up to isotopy, but this is certainly not the case for a weak geometrization, c.f. the end of §3.

In general, no fixed metric $`g`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will realize the decomposition (6.4), unless $`𝒯=\mathrm{}`$. This is because the complete hyperbolic metric on $`H`$ does not extend to a metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. However, one can find sequences of metrics $`g_i`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which limit on a geometrization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the sense of (6.4). Thus, metrics $`g_i`$ may be chosen to converge to the hyperbolic metric on larger and larger compact subsets of $`H`$, to be more and more collapsed with bounded curvature on $`G`$, and such that their behavior matches far down the collapsing hyperbolic cusps.

Next, to proceed further, we need to impose a rather strong curvature assumption on the ambient space-time curvature. Thus, suppose there is a constant $`C<\mathrm{}`$ such that, for $`x`$ to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$

(6.5)
$$|𝐑|(x)+t(x)|𝐑|(x)Ct^2(x).$$

Here, the curvature norm $`|𝐑|`$ may be given by $`|𝐑|_T`$ as in (5.3), where $`T`$ is the unit normal to the foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. Since (M, g) is vacuum, this is equivalent to $`|𝐑|^2=|E|^2+|B|^2`$, where $`E`$, $`B`$ is the electric/magnetic decomposition of R, $`E(X,Y)=𝐑(X,T)T,Y`$, $`B(X,Y)=(𝐑)(X,T)T,Y`$ with $`X`$, $`Y`$ tangent to the leaves. Similarly, $`|𝐑|^2=|E|^2+|B|^2.`$

The bound (6.5) is scale invariant, and analogous to the bound (4.9) or (4.10) for stationary space-times, (where it of course holds in general). The bound on $`|𝐑|`$ in (6.5) is needed only for technical reasons, (related to Cauchy stability), and may be removed in certain natural situations.

The discussion above leads to the following result from , to which we refer for further discussion and details.

###### Theorem 6.2.

Let (M, g) be a cosmological space-time of non-positive Yamabe type. Suppose that the curvature assumption (6.5) holds, and that $`𝐌_{}=𝐌`$ to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Then (M, g) is future geodesically complete and, for any sequence $`\tau _i`$ 0, the slices $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i},\overline{g}_{\tau _i})`$, cf. (6.3), have a subsequence converging to a weak geometrization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ in the sense following Definition 6.1.

We indicate some of the basic ideas in the proof. The first step is to show that the bound (6.5) on the ambient curvature R, in this rescaling, gives uniform bounds on the intrinsic and extrinsic curvature of the leaves $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau .`$ The proof of this is similar to the proof of Theorem 5.1.

Given this, one can then apply the Cheeger-Gromov theory, as described in §2- §3. Given any sequence $`\tau _i0`$, there exist subsequences which either converge, collapse or form cusps. From the work in §3, one knows that the regions of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i},\overline{g}_{\tau _i})`$ which (fully) collapse, or which are sufficiently collapsed, are graph manifolds. This gives rise to the region $`G`$ in (6.4). It remains to show that, for any fixed $`\epsilon >0`$, the $`\epsilon `$-thick region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\epsilon `$ of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i},\overline{g}_{\tau _i})`$ converges to a hyperbolic metric.

The main ingredient in this is the following volume monotonicity result:

(6.6)
$$\frac{vol_{g_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }{t_\tau ^3},$$

i.e. the ratio is monotone non-increasing in the distance $`t_\tau .`$ This result is analogous to the Fischer-Moncrief monotonicity of the reduced Hamiltonian along the CMC Einstein flow, cf. . The monotonicity (6.6) is easy to prove, and is an analogue of the Bishop-Gromov volume monotonicity (2.12). It follows from an analysis of the Raychaudhuri equation, much as in the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, together with a standard maximum principle.

Moreover, the ratio in (6.6) is constant on some interval $`[\tau _1,\tau _2]`$ if and only if the annular region $`\tau ^1(\tau _1,\tau _2)`$ is a time annulus in a flat Lorentzian cone

(6.7)
$$𝐠_𝐨=dt^2+t^2g_1,$$

where $`g_1`$ is a hyperbolic metric. Again, the ratio in (6.6) is scale invariant, and so

(6.8)
$$\frac{vol_{g_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }{t_\tau ^3}=vol_{\overline{g}_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau .$$

In the non-collapse situation, $`vol_{\overline{g}_\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is uniformly bounded away from 0 as $`\tau 0`$, (i.e. $`t_\tau \mathrm{}`$), and hence converges to a non-zero limit. On approach to the $`\tau =0`$ limit, the ratio (6.6) tends to a constant, and hence the corresponding limit manifolds are of the form (6.7). This implies that $`\epsilon `$-thick regions converge to hyperbolic metrics, giving rise to the $`H`$ factor in (6.4).

It would be of interest to construct large families of examples of vacuum space-times exhibiting the conclusions (and hypotheses) of Theorem 6.2.

Recent Note: (January, 04). The recent work of Grisha Perelman -, currently under evaluation in the mathematics community, implies a solution of Thurston’s Geometrization Conjecture, and hence in particular the Poincaré Conjecture.

August, 2002