Math Relativity
Math Relativity
José Natário
Lisbon, 2021
Contents
Preface 3
Chapter 1. Preliminaries 5
1. Special relativity 5
2. Differential geometry: mathematicians vs physicists 10
3. General relativity 13
4. Exercises 14
Chapter 2. Exact solutions 17
1. Minkowski spacetime 17
2. Penrose diagrams 18
3. The Schwarzschild solution 21
4. Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker models 27
5. Matching 37
6. Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse 39
7. Exercises 43
Chapter 3. Causality 55
1. Past and future 55
2. Causality conditions 59
3. Exercises 60
Chapter 4. Singularity theorems 63
1. Geodesic congruences 63
2. Energy conditions 66
3. Conjugate points 67
4. Existence of maximizing geodesics 74
5. Hawking’s singularity theorem 78
6. Penrose’s singularity theorem 80
7. Exercises 86
Chapter 5. Cauchy problem 89
1. Divergence theorem 89
2. Klein-Gordon equation 91
3. Maxwell’s equations: constraints and gauge 96
4. Einstein’s equations 98
5. Constraint equations 102
6. Einstein equations with matter 104
1
2 CONTENTS
7. Exercises 104
Chapter 6. Mass in general relativity 109
1. Komar mass 109
2. Field theory 114
3. Einstein-Hilbert action 120
4. Gravitational waves 124
5. ADM mass 126
6. Positive mass theorem 129
7. Penrose inequality 130
8. Exercises 132
Chapter 7. Black holes 139
1. The Kerr solution 139
2. Killing horizons and the zeroth law 141
3. Smarr’s formula and the first law 145
4. Second law 147
5. Black hole thermodynamics and Hawking radiation 150
6. Exercises 151
Appendix: Mathematical concepts for physicists 155
Topology 155
Metric spaces 156
Hopf-Rinow theorem 156
Differential forms 156
Lie derivative 158
Cartan structure equations 160
Bibliography 163
Index 165
Preface
3
CHAPTER 1
Preliminaries
1. Special relativity
Consider an inertial frame S ′ moving with velocity v with respect to
another inertial frame S along their common x-axis (Figure 1). According
to classical mechanics, the coordinate x′ of a point P in the frame S ′ is
related to its x coordinate in the frame S by
x′ = x − vt.
Moreover, a clock in S ′ initially synchronized with a clock in S is assumed
to keep the same time:
t′ = t.
Thus the spacetime coordinates of events are related by a so-called Galileo
transformation (
x′ = x − vt
.
t′ = t
If the point P is moving, its velocity in S ′ is related to its velocity in S
by
dx′ dx − vdt dx
′
= = − v.
dt dt dt
This is in conflict with the experimental fact that the speed of light is the
same in every inertial frame, indicating that classical mechanics is not cor-
rect. Einstein solved this problem in 1905 by replacing the Galileo transfor-
mation by the so-called Lorentz transformation:
(
x′ = γ(x − vt)
.
t′ = γ(t − vx)
Here
1
γ=√ ,
1 − v2
5
6 1. PRELIMINARIES
S S′
y y′ P
vt x′
and we are using units such that the speed of light is c = 1 (for example
measuring time in years and distance in light-years). Note that if |v| is much
smaller than the speed of light, |v| ≪ 1, then γ ≃ 1, and we retrieve the
Galileo transformation (assuming v xt ≪ 1).
Under the Lorentz transformation velocities transform as
dx
dx′ γ(dx − vdt) dt − v
= = .
dt′ γ(dt − vdx) 1 − v dx
dt
In particular,
dx dx′ 1−v
=1⇒ ′ = = 1,
dt dt 1−v
that is, the speed of light is the same in the two inertial frames.
In 1908, Minkowski noticed that
−(dt′ )2 + (dx′ )2 = −γ 2 (dt − vdx)2 + γ 2 (dx − vdt)2 = −dt2 + dx2 ,
that is, the Lorentz transformations could be seen as isometries of R4 with
the indefinite metric
ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 = −dt ⊗ dt + dx ⊗ dx + dy ⊗ dy + dz ⊗ dz.
Definition 1.1. The pseudo-Riemannian manifold (R4 , ds2 ) ≡ (R4 , h·, ·i)
is called the Minkowski spacetime.
Note that the set of vectors with zero square form a cone (the so-called
light cone):
hv, vi = 0 ⇔ −(v 0 )2 + (v 1 )2 + (v 2 )2 + (v 3 )2 = 0.
Definition 1.2. A vector v ∈ R4 is said to be:
(1) timelike if hv, vi < 0;
(2) spacelike if hv, vi > 0;
(3) lightlike, or null, if hv, vi = 0.
1. SPECIAL RELATIVITY 7
∂
∂t
null vector ∂
∂y
p ∂
spacelike vector ∂x
1
The length |hv, vi| 2 of a timelike (resp. spacelike) vector v ∈ R4 repre-
sents the time (resp. distance) measured between two events p and p + v in
the inertial frame where these events happen in the same location (resp. are
simultaneous). If c : [a, b] → R4 is a timelike curve then its length
Z b
1
τ (c) = |hċ(s), ċ(s)i| 2 ds
a
represents the proper time measured by the particle between events c(a)
and c(b). We have:
Proposition 1.3. (Twin paradox) Of all timelike curves connecting
two events p, q ∈ R4 , the curve with maximal length is the line segment
(representing inertial motion).
Proof. We may assume p = (0, 0, 0, 0) and q = (T, 0, 0, 0) on some
inertial frame, and parameterize any timelike curve connecting p to q by the
time coordinate:
c(t) = (t, x(t), y(t), z(t)).
8 1. PRELIMINARIES
Therefore
Z T 1
Z T Z T
1
τ (c) = −1 + ẋ2 + ẏ 2 + ż 2 2
dt = 2 2
1 − ẋ − ẏ − ż 2 2
dt ≤ 1dt = T.
0 0 0
Most problems in special relativity can be recast as questions about the
geometry of the Minkowski spacetime.
Proposition 1.4. (Doppler effect) An observer moving with velocity v
away from a source of light of period T measures the period to be
r
′ 1+v
T =T .
1−v
Proof. Figure 3 represents two light signals emitted by an observer at
rest at x = 0 with a time difference T . These signals are detected by an
observer moving with velocity v, who measures a time difference T ′ between
them. Now, if the first signal is emitted at t = t0 , its history is the line
t = t0 + x. Consequently, the moving observer detects the signal at the
event with coordinates given by the solution of
t0
t = 1 − v
t = t0 + x
⇔ .
x = vt
x =
vt 0
1−v
t
x = vt
T′
T′ = T
Derivative of a function df ∇µ f ≡ ∂ µ f
Covariant derivative ∇X Y X µ ∇µ Y ν
Covariant derivative tensor ∇X ∇µ X ≡ ∂µ X ν + Γνµα X α
ν
3. General relativity
Newtonian gravity is described by a scalar function φ, called the grav-
itational potential. The equation of motion for a free-falling particle of
mass m in Cartesian coordinates is
d2 xi d2 xi
m 2 = −m∂i φ ⇔ = −∂i φ.
dt dt2
Note that all free-falling particles follow the same trajectories (an observa-
tion dating back to Galileo). The gravitational potential is determined from
the matter mass density ρ by the Poisson equation
∆φ = 4πρ
(using units such that Newton’s gravitational constant is G = 1; this choice,
together with c = 1, defines the so-called geometrized units, where lengths,
time intervals and masses all have the same dimensions).
To implement his idea of describing gravity via a curved four-dimensional
Lorentzian manifold (M, g), Einstein had to specify (i) how free-falling par-
ticles would move on this manifold, and (ii) how to determine the curved
metric g. Since free particles move along straight lines in the Minkowski
spacetime, Einstein proposed that free falling particles should move along
timelike geodesics. In other words, he suggested replacing the Newtonian
equation of motion by the geodesic equation
ẍµ + Γµαβ ẋα ẋβ = 0.
Moreover, Einstein knew that it is possible to define the energy-momentum
tensor Tµν for the matter content of the Minkowski spacetime, so that the
14 1. PRELIMINARIES
4. Exercises
(1) Twin paradox: Two twins, Alice and Bob, are separated on their
20th birthday. While Alice remains on Earth (which is an inertial
frame to a very good approximation), Bob departs at 80% of the
speed of light towards Planet X, 8 light-years away from Earth.
Therefore Bob reaches his destination 10 years later (as measured
on the Earth’s frame). After a short stay, he returns to Earth,
again at 80% of the speed of light. Consequently Alice is 40 years
old when she sees Bob again.
(a) How old is Bob when they meet again?
(b) How can the asymmetry in the twins’ ages be explained? No-
tice that from Bob’s point of view he is at rest in his spaceship
and it is the Earth which moves away and then back again.
4. EXERCISES 15
(c) Imagine that each twin watches the other trough a very pow-
erful telescope. What do they see? In particular, how much
time do they experience as they see one year elapse for their
twin?
(2) A particularly simple matter model is that of a smooth massless
scalar field φ : M → R, whose energy-momentum tensor is
1
Tµν = ∂µ φ ∂ν φ − (∂α φ ∂ α φ)gµν .
2
Show that if the Lorentzian manifold (M, g) satisfies the Einstein
equations with this matter model then φ satisfies the wave equa-
tion
φ = 0 ⇔ ∇µ ∂µ φ = 0.
(3) The energy-momentum tensor for perfect fluid is
Tµν = (ρ + p)Uµ Uν + pgµν ,
where ρ is the fluid’s rest density, p is the fluid’s rest pressure, and
U is a unit timelike vector field tangent to the histories of the fluid
particles. Show that:
(a) (Tµν ) = diag(ρ, p, p, p) in any orthonormal frame including U ;
(b) the motion equations for the perfect fluid are
(
div(ρU ) + p div U = 0
,
(ρ + p)∇U U = −(grad p)⊥
where ⊥ represents the orthogonal projection on the spacelike
hyperplane orthogonal to U .
CHAPTER 2
Exact solutions
1. Minkowski spacetime
The simplest solution of the Einstein field equations with zero cosmo-
logical constant in vacuum (i.e. with vanishing energy-momentum tensor) is
the Minkowski spacetime, that is, R4 with the metric
ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 .
Since this metric is flat, its curvature vanishes, and so do its Ricci and
Einstein tensors. It represents a universe where there is no gravity whatso-
ever. Transforming the Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) to spherical coordi-
nates (r, θ, ϕ) yields
ds2 = −dt2 + dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 .
where
1
r(u, v) = (v − u).
2
The coordinates (u, v) are called null coordinates: their level sets are null
cones formed by outgoing/ingoing null geodesics emanating from the center.
Note that they are subject to the constraint
r ≥ 0 ⇔ v ≥ u.
Finally, the coordinate change
( (
ũ = tanh u u = arctanh ũ
(3) ⇔
ṽ = tanh v v = arctanh ṽ
17
18 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
This region is usually called the Penrose diagram for the Minkowski
spacetime. If we take each point in the diagram to represent a sphere S 2 of
radius r (ũ, ṽ), the diagram itself represents the full spacetime manifold, in a
way that makes causality relations apparent: any causal curve is represented
in the diagram by a curve with tangent at most 45◦ from the vertical. In
Figure 2 we represent some level hypersurfaces of t and r in the Penrose
diagram. The former approach the point i0 in the boundary of the diagram,
called the spacelike infinity, whereas the later go from the boundary point
i− (past timelike infinity) to the boundary point i+ (future timelike
infinity). Finally, null geodesics start at the null boundary line I − (past
null infinity) and end at the null boundary line I + (future null infinity).
These boundary points and lines represent ideal points at infinity, and do
not correspond to actual points in the Minkowski spacetime.
2. Penrose diagrams
The concept of Penrose diagram can be easily generalized for any spher-
ically symmetric space-time. Such spacetimes have metric
ds2 = gAB dxA dxB + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 , r = r(x0 , x1 ),
2. PENROSE DIAGRAMS 19
i+
I+
r=0 i0
I−
i−
To write the Schwarzschild metric in the form (6) we note that the
quotient metric is
2M −1 2
2 2M 2
ds = − 1 − dt + 1 − dr
r r
" #
2M −2 2
2M 2
=− 1− dt − 1 − dr
r r
" #" #
2M −1 2M −1
2M
=− 1− dt − 1 − dr dt + 1 − dr
r r r
2M
=− 1− du dv,
r
where we define
2M −1
Z
u=t− 1− dr = t − r − 2M log |r − 2M |
r
and
2M −1
Z
v =t+ 1− dr = t + r + 2M log |r − 2M |.
r
In the domain of coordinates r > 2M we have 1 − 2M r > 0, and so the
quotient metric is already in the required form. Note however that, unlike
what happened in the Minkowski spacetime, we now have
v − u = 2r + 4M log |r − 2M | ∈ (−∞, +∞).
Consequently, by applying the coordinate rescaling (3) we obtain the full
square, instead of a triangle (Figure 4). Besides the infinity points and null
boundaries also present in the Penrose diagram for the Minkowski spacetime,
there are two new null boundaries, H − (past event horizon) and H +
(future event horizon), where r = 2M .
It seems reasonable to expect that the metric can be extended across the
horizons, since r does not tend to zero nor to infinity there; this expectation
is confirmed by calculating the so-called Kretschmann scalar:
48M 2
Rαβµν Rαβµν = .
r6
This is perfectly well behaved as r → 2M , and seems to indicate that the
horizons are mere singularities of the coordinate system (t, r). To show that
this is indeed the case, note that in the (u, r) coordinate system the quotient
metric is written
2 2M
ds = − 1 − du2 − 2du dr.
r
Since
−1 + 2M
r −1
det = −1,
−1 0
3. THE SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION 23
i+
H+ I+
i0
H− I−
i−
H− H−
i− i−
r=0
i+
H+ I+
i0
H− I−
i− r=0 i−
r=0
i+ i+
H+ H+
i+ r=0 i+
H+ I+
i0
H− I−
i−
i+ r=0 i+
I+ I+
i0
I− I−
i− r=0 i−
Let us now analyze in detail the Penrose diagram for the maximal ana-
lytic extension of the Schwarzschild spacetime. There are two asymptoti-
cally flat regions r > 2M , corresponding to two causally disconnected uni-
verses, joined by a wormhole. There are also two regions where r < 2M : a
black hole region, bounded by the future event horizons H + , from which
no causal curve can escape; and a white hole region, bounded by the past
event horizons H − , from which every causal curve must escape. Note that
the horizons themselves correspond to spheres which are propagating at the
speed of light, but whose radius remains constant, r = 2M .
4. FRIEDMANN-LEMAÎTRE-ROBERTSON-WALKER MODELS 27
4. Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker models
The simplest models of cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole,
are obtained from the assumption that space is homogeneous and isotropic
(which is true on average at very large scales). It is well known that the
only isotropic 3-dimensional Riemannian metrics are, up to scale, given by
dr2
dl2 = + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 ,
1 − kr 2
where
1
for the standard metric on S 3
k= 0 for the standard metric on R3 .
for the standard metric on H 3
−1
Allowing for a time-dependent scale factor a(t) (also known as the “radius
of the Universe”), we arrive at the Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-
Walker (FLRW) family of Lorentzian metrics:
dr2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(8) ds = −dt + a (t) + r dθ + sin θdϕ .
1 − kr2
To interpret these metrics, we consider a general Lorentzian metric of
the form
ds2 = −e2φ dt2 + hij dxi dxj = −e2φ dt2 + dl2 .
The Riemannian metric dl2 is readily interpreted as giving the distances
measured between nearby observers with fixed space coordinates xi in radar
experiments: indeed, such observers measure proper time τ given by
dτ 2 = e2φ dt2 .
The null geodesics representing a radar signal bounced by a given observer
from a nearby observer (Figure 10) satisfy
ds2 = 0 ⇔ e2φ dt2 = dl2 ⇔ dτ 2 = dl2 ⇔ dτ = ±dl.
Since the speed of light is c = 1, the distance traveled between the
observers will be half the time between the emission and the reception of
the signal:
(τ + dl) − (τ − dl)
= dl.
2
Moreover, the unit timelike covector field tangent to the histories of the
observers with fixed space coordinates xi is
U = −eφ dt ⇔ Uµ = −eφ ∇µ t.
28 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
2dl
Therefore
∇U U µ = −U ν ∇ν (eφ ∇µ t) = (U · φ)U µ − eφ U ν ∇ν ∇µ t
= (U · φ)U µ − eφ U ν ∇µ ∇ν t = (U · φ)U µ + eφ U ν ∇µ (e−φ Uν )
= (U · φ)U µ − U ν Uν ∇µ φ + U ν ∇µ Uν
1
= ∇µ φ + (U ν ∇ν φ)U µ + ∇µ (U ν Uν ) = ∇µ φ + (U ν ∇ν φ)U µ ,
2
since U ν Uν = −1. In other words,
∇U U = (grad φ)⊥ ,
where ⊥ represents the orthogonal projection on the spacelike hyperplane
orthogonal to U .
Therefore the observers with fixed space coordinates in the FLRW mod-
els have zero acceleration, that is, they are free-falling (by opposition to the
corresponding observers in the Schwarzschild spacetime, who must acceler-
ate to remain at fixed r > 2M ). Moreover, the distance between two such
observers varies as
d0 d0 ȧ
d(t) = a(t) ⇒ d˙ = ȧ = d.
a0 a0 a
This relation, known as the Hubble law, is often written as
v = Hd,
where v is the relative velocity and
ȧ
H=
a
is the so-called Hubble constant (for historical reasons, since it actually
varies in time).
4. FRIEDMANN-LEMAÎTRE-ROBERTSON-WALKER MODELS 29
4π ρa3 = α
3
(where α is an integration constant). The first Friedmann equation is a first
order ODE for a(t); it can be seen as the equation of conservation of energy
for a particle moving in the 1-dimensional effective potential
α Λ 2
V (a) = − − a
a 6
with energy − k2 . Once this equation has been solved, the second Friedmann
equation yields ρ(t) from a(t). We now examine in detail the FLRW models
arising from the solutions of these equations.
where dlH2 represents the metric of the unit hyperbolic 3-space; this is the
3
so-called Milne universe. It turns out that the Milne universe is isometric
to an open region of the Minkowski spacetime, namely the region limited
by the future (or past) light cone of the origin. This region is foliated by
hyperboloids St of the form
T 2 − X 2 − Y 2 − Z 2 = t2 ,
whose induced metric is that of a hyperbolic space of radius t (Figure 11).
Note that the light cone corresponds to a(t) = t = 0, that is, the Big Bang
of the Milne universe.
St
and
r = cosh t sin ψ.
Since
+∞
dt
Z
= π,
−∞ cosh t
we see that the quotient metric is conformal to the square (0, π) × [0, π] of
the Minkowski 2-dimensional spacetime, and so the Penrose diagram is as
depicted in Figure 13. Note that there are two lines where r = 0, corre-
sponding to two antipodal points of the 3-sphere. A light ray emitted from
one of these points at t = −∞ has just enough time to reach the other point
at t = +∞ (dashed line in the diagram). Note also that in this case I −
and I + (defined as the past and future boundary points approached by null
geodesics along which r → +∞) are spacelike boundaries.
4.3. Anti-de Sitter universe. If α = 0 and Λ < 0 we can choose
units such that Λ = −3. The first Friedmann equation then becomes
ȧ2 + a2 = −k.
In this case only k = −1 is possible; the corresponding metric is
ds2 = −dt2 + cos2 t dlH
2
3.
It turns out (see Exercise 5 in Chapter 5) that this model is an open region
of the spacetime with metric
ds2 = − cosh2 ψdt2 + dψ 2 + sinh2 ψ dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
I+
r=0 r=0
I−
To obtain the Penrose diagram for the anti-de Sitter universe we write
its metric as
dψ 2
2 2 2
+ sinh2 ψ dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
ds = cosh ψ −dt + 2
cosh ψ
= cosh ψ −dt + dx2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
2 2
where
ψ
dψ
Z
x=
0 cosh ψ
and
r = sinh ψ.
Since
+∞
dψ π
Z
= ,
0 cosh ψ 2
we see that the quotient metric is conformal to the strip R × [0, π2 ) of the
Minkowski 2-dimensional spacetime, and so the Penrose diagram is as de-
picted in Figure 14. The FLRW model above corresponds to the triangular
region in the diagram. Note also that in this case I − ≡ I + ≡ I is a
timelike boundary.
4.4. Universes with matter and Λ = 0. If α > 0 and Λ = 0, the
first Friedmann equation becomes
2α
ȧ2 − = −k.
a
In this case all three values k = 1, k = 0 and k = −1 are possible. Although
it is possible to obtain explicit formulas for the solutions of these equations,
it is simpler to analyze the graph of the effective potential V (a) (Figure 15).
Possibly by reversing and translating t, we can assume that all solutions
are defined for t > 0, with limt→0 a(t) = 0, implying limt→0 ρ(t) = +∞.
Therefore all three models have a true singularity at t = 0, known as the
4. FRIEDMANN-LEMAÎTRE-ROBERTSON-WALKER MODELS 33
r=0 I
Big Bang, where the scalar curvature R = 8πρ also blows up; this is not
true for the Milne universe or the open region in the anti-de Sitter universe,
which can be extended across the Big Bang. The spherical universe (k = 1)
reaches a maximum radius 2α and re-collapses, forming a second singularity
(the Big Crunch); the radius of the flat (k = 0) and hyperbolic (k = −1)
universes increases monotonically.
To obtain the Penrose diagram for the spherical universe we write its
metric as
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dψ 2 + sin2 ψ dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
V (a)
k = −1
k=0 a
k=1
we see that the quotient metric is conformal to the rectangle (0, 2π) × [0, π]
of the Minkowski 2-dimensional spacetime, and so the Penrose diagram is
as depicted in Figure 16. Note that there are two lines where r = 0, corre-
sponding to two antipodal points of the 3-sphere. A light ray emitted from
one of these points at t = 0 has just enough time to circle once around the
universe and return at t = tmax (dashed line in the diagram). Note also that
the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are spacelike boundaries.
To obtain the Penrose diagram for the flat universe we write its metric
as
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dρ2 + ρ2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
we see that the quotient metric is conformal to the region (0, +∞) × [0, +∞)
of the Minkowski 2-dimensional spacetime, and so the Penrose diagram is
as depicted in Figure 17. Note that the Big Bang is a spacelike boundary.
The Penrose diagram for the hyperbolic universe turns out to be the
same as for the flat universe. To see this we write its metric as
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dψ 2 + sinh2 ψ dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
Big Crunch
r=0 r=0
Big Bang
I+
r=0
i0
Big Bang
Figure 17. Penrose diagram for the flat and hyperbolic universes.
4.5. Universes with matter and Λ > 0. If α > 0 and Λ > 0 we can
choose units such that Λ = 3. The first Friedmann equation then becomes
2α
ȧ2 − − a2 = −k.
a
In this case all three values k = 1, k = 0 and k = −1 are possible. As before,
we analyze the graph of the effective potential V (a) (Figure 18). The hyper-
bolic and flat universes behave qualitatively like when Λ = 0, although ȧ(t)
is now unbounded as t → +∞, instead of approaching some constant. The
spherical universe has a richer spectrum of possible behaviors, depending on
α, represented in Figure 18 by drawing the line of constant energy√−k = −1
at three different heights. The higher line (corresponding to α > 93 ) yields
a behaviour similar to that of the hyperbolic
√ and flat universes. The inter-
3
mediate line (corresponding to α = 9 ) gives rise to an unstable equilibrium
√
point a = 33 , where the attraction force of the matter is balanced by the
repulsion force of the cosmological constant; it corresponds to the so-called
Einstein universe, the first cosmological model ever proposed. The inter-
mediate line also yields two solutions asymptotic to the Einstein universe,
one containing a Big Bang and the√ other endless expansion. Finally, the
3
lower line (corresponding to α < 9 ) yields two different types of behaviour
(depending on the initial conditions): either similar to the spherical model
with Λ = 0, or to the de Sitter universe.
V (a)
k = −1
k=0 a
k=1
It is currently believed that the best model for our physical Universe is
the flat universe with Λ > 0. If we write the first Friedmann equation as
ȧ2 8π Λ
H2 ≡ 2
= ρ+
a 3 3
5. MATCHING 37
then the terms on the right-hand side are in the proportion 2 : 5 at the
present time.
4.6. Universes with matter and Λ < 0. If α > 0 and Λ < 0 we can
choose units such that Λ = −3. The first Friedmann equation then becomes
2α
ȧ2 − + a2 = −k.
a
In this case all three values k = 1, k = 0 and k = −1 are possible. As
before, we analyze the graph of the effective potential V (a) (Figure 19).
The qualitative behaviour of the hyperbolic, flat and spherical universes is
the same as the spherical universe with Λ = 0, namely starting at a Big
Bang and ending at a Big Crunch.
V (a)
k = −1
k=0 a
k=1
5. Matching
Let (M1 , g1 ) and (M2 , g2 ) be solutions of the Einstein field equations
containing open sets U1 and U2 whose boundaries S1 and S2 are timelike
hypersurfaces, that is, hypersurfaces whose induced metric is Lorentzian
(or, equivalently, whose normal vector is spacelike). If S1 is diffeomorphic
to S2 then we can identify them to obtain a new manifold M , gluing U1 to
U2 along S1 ∼= S2 (Figure 20).
Let n be the unit normal vector to S1 pointing out of U1 , which we
identify with the unit normal vector to S2 pointing into U2 . If (x1 , x2 , x3 )
are local coordinates on S ≡ S1 ∼ = S2 , we can construct a system of local
1 2 3
coordinates (t, x , x , x ) in a neighbourhood of S by moving a distance
t along the geodesics with initial condition n. Note that U1 , S and U2
38 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
g1
n
g2
S1 ∼
= S2
∂
correspond to t < 0, t = 0 and t > 0 in these coordinates. Since ∂t is the
unit tangent vector to the geodesics, we have
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
, = ∇∂ , i + ,∇ ∂
∂t ∂t ∂xi ∂t ∂t ∂x ∂t ∂t ∂xi
∂ ∂ ∂ 1 ∂ ∂
= ,∇ ∂ = i
, =0
∂t ∂xi ∂t ∂x 2 ∂t ∂t
(i = 1, 2, 3), where we used
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
∇∂ − ∇ ∂ = , = 0.
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂t ∂t ∂xi
Since for t = 0 we have
∂ ∂ ∂
, = n, i = 0,
∂t ∂xi ∂x
∂
we see that ∂t remains orthogonal to the surfaces of constant t. This result
will be used repeatedly.
Lemma 5.1. (Gauss Lemma I) Let (M, g) be a Riemannian or a
Lorentzian manifold, and S ⊂ M a hypersurface whose normal vector field
n satisfies g(n, n) 6= 0. The hypersurfaces St obtained from S by moving
a distance t along the geodesics orthogonal to S remain orthogonal to the
geodesics.
The same ideas can be used to prove a closely related result.
6. OPPENHEIMER-SNYDER COLLAPSE 39
6. Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse
We can use the matching technique to construct a solution of the Einstein
field equations which describes a spherical cloud of dust collapsing to a black
hole. This is a physically plausible model for a black hole, as opposed to the
eternal black hole.
40 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
where
2M
V =1− ,
r
and choose S2 to be a spherically symmetric timelike hypersurface given by
the parameterization (
t = t(τ )
.
r = r(τ )
The exact form of the functions t(τ ) and r(τ ) will be fixed by the matching
conditions; for the time being they are constrained only by the condition
that τ is the proper time along S2 :
−V ṫ2 + V −1 ṙ2 = −1.
The induced metric is then
g2 |T S = −dτ 2 + r2 (τ ) dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 ,
2
or, using E = 1,
K2 = r(τ ) dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 .
r=0 S2
i0
I−
I−
i− i−
r=0 i+
I+
i0
S
r=0
I−
i−
7. Exercises
(1) In this exercise we will solve the vacuum Einstein equations (with-
out cosmological constant) for the spherically symmetric Lorentzian
metric given by
ds2 = −(A(t, r))2 dt2 + (B(t, r))2 dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 ,
A′ Ḃ
ω0 r = ωr 0 = dt + dr ;
B A
1
ωθ r = −ω r θ = dθ ;
B
sin θ
ω ϕr r
= −ω ϕ = dϕ ;
B
ω ϕθ = −ω θ ϕ = cos θdϕ .
(c) Using
Rαβ µν ω α ∧ ω β ,
X
Ωµ ν =
α<β
2M −1 2 2
2 2M 2
dr +r dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 .
ds = − 1 − dt + 1 −
r r
p w2
x2 + y 2 + z 2 = 2M +
8M
(Figure 23).
ds2 = −(A(t, r))2 dt2 + (B(t, r))2 dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
∂ ∂
are given by (using the notation ˙ = ∂t and ′ = ∂r )
2B ′ B2 − 1 2m′
G00 = + = ;
rB 3 r2 B 2 r2
2Ḃ
G0r = Gr0 = ;
rAB 2
2A′ B2 − 1
Grr = − ;
rAB 2 r2 B 2
A′′ B − A′ B ′ ȦḂ − AB̈ A′ B′
Gθθ = Gϕϕ = + + − ,
AB 3 A3 B rAB 2 rB 3
where
− 1
2m(t, r) 2
B(t, r) = 1− .
r
(a) Assuming
• G0r = 0 (so that B, and hence m, do not depend on t);
• G00 +Grr = 0 (so that A = α(t)
B for some positive smooth
function α(t));
• α(t) = 1 (which can always be achieved by rescaling t),
show that
1 2 ′′ 1 2 ′
Gθθ = Gϕϕ = A + A .
2 r
(b) Prove that the general spherically symmetric solution of the
vacuum Einstein field equations with a cosmological constant
Λ is the Kottler metric
Λ 2 −1 2
2M Λ 2 2 2M
g =− 1− − r dt + 1 − − r dr
r 3 r 3
+ r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 .
(c) Obtain the Penrose diagram for the maximal extension of the
Kottler solution with Λ > 0 and 0 < M < 3√1 Λ .
(d) Consider now the spherically symmetric electromagnetic field
F = E(t, r) ω r ∧ ω 0 .
Show that this field satisfies the vacuum Maxwell equations
dF = d ⋆ F = 0
(where ⋆ is the Hodge star) if and only if
e
E(t, r) = 2
r
for some constant e ∈ R (the electric charge in units for which
4πε0 = 1).
7. EXERCISES 47
(f) Obtain the Penrose diagram for the maximal extension of the
Reissner-Nordström solution with M > 0 and 0 < e2 < M 2 .
(4) Consider the spherically symmetric Lorentzian metric
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
ds = −dt + a (t) dr + r dθ + sin θdϕ ,
1 − kr2
where a is a positive smooth function.
(a) Use Cartan’s first structure equations,
(
ωµν = −ωνµ
,
dω µ + ω µν ∧ ω ν = 0
are
− 1
ω 0 r = ω r 0 = ȧ 1 − kr2 2
dr ;
0 θ
ω θ =ω 0 = ȧrdθ ;
ω0 ϕ = ω ϕ0 = ȧr sin θdϕ ;
1
ω θ r = −ω r θ = 1 − kr2 2
dθ ;
1
ω ϕr = −ω r ϕ = 1 − kr 2 2
sin θdϕ ;
ω ϕθ = −ω θ ϕ = cos θdϕ .
Ωµ ν = dω µν + ω µα ∧ ω αν ,
48 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
(c) Using
Rαβ µν ω α ∧ ω β ,
X
Ωµ ν =
α<β
3ä
R00 = − ;
a
ä 2ȧ2 2k
Rrr = Rθθ = Rϕϕ = + 2 + 2.
a a a
Conclude that the nonvanishing components of the Einstein
tensor on this frame are
3ȧ2 3k
G00 = + 2;
a2 a
2ä ȧ2 k
Grr = Gθθ = Gϕϕ = − − 2− 2.
a a a
(d) Show that the Einstein equations with a cosmological constant
Λ for a comoving pressureless perfect fluid of nonnegative den-
sity ρ, G + Λg = 8πρ dt2 , are equivalent to the system
2
ȧ k 8πρ Λ
a 2
+ 2
= +
a 3 3
.
2
2ä + ȧ + k = Λ
a a2 a2
7. EXERCISES 49
(c) The region W > 1 of the same hyperboloid using the parame-
terization
T = sinh t cosh ψ
= sinh t sinh ψ sin θ cos ϕ
X
Y = sinh t sinh ψ sin θ sin ϕ .
Z = sinh t sinh ψ cos θ
W = cosh t
(d) The region T > W of the same hyperboloid using the param-
eterization defined implicitly by
T = W + et
X = et x
.
Y = et y
Z = et z
50 2. EXACT SOLUTIONS
t=π
ψ=0 ψ = +∞
t=0
t = −π
Causality
with (ηµν ) = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), we have to show that Wp (q) < 0. Let Wp (t) =
Wp (c(t)). Since xµ (p) = 0, we have Wp (0) = 0. Setting xµ (t) = xµ (c(t)), we
obtain
X3
Ẇp (t) = 2 ηµν xµ (t)ẋν (t);
µ,ν=0
3
X 3
X
Ẅp (t) = 2 ηµν xµ (t)ẍν (t) + 2 ηµν ẋµ (t)ẋν (t),
µ,ν=0 µ,ν=0
and consequently
Ẇp (0) = 0;
Ẅp (0) = 2hċ(0), ċ(0)i < 0.
1. PAST AND FUTURE 57
Therefore there exists ε > 0 such that Wp (t) < 0 for t ∈ (0, ε).
By the Gauss Lemma, the level surfaces of Wp are orthogonal to the
geodesics through p. Therefore, if cv (t) = expp (tv) is the geodesic with
initial condition v ∈ Tp M , we have
(grad Wp )cv (1) = a(v)ċv (1).
Now
d d
(grad Wp )cv (t) , ċv (t) = Wp (cv (t)) = htv, tvi
dt dt
d 2
= t hv, vi = 2thv, vi,
dt
and hence
(grad Wp )cv (1) , ċv (1) = 2hv, vi.
On the other hand,
(grad Wp )cv (1) , ċv (1) = ha(v)ċv (1), ċv (1)i = a(v)hv, vi.
We conclude that a(v) = 2, and therefore
(grad Wp )cv (1) = 2ċv (1).
Consequently, grad Wp is tangent to geodesics through p, being future-
pointing on future-directed geodesics.
Suppose that Wp (t) < 0. Then (grad Wp )c(t) is timelike future-pointing,
and so D E
Ẇ (t) = (grad Wp )c(t) , ċ(t) < 0,
as ċ(t) is also timelike future-pointing. We conclude that we must have
Wp (t) < 0 for all t ∈ [0, 1]. In particular, Wp (q) = Wp (1) < 0, and hence
there exists a future-directed timelike geodesic connecting p to q.
To prove assertion (3), let us see first that I + (p) ⊂ J + (p). If q ∈ I + (p),
then q is the limit of a sequence of points qn ∈ I + (p). By (2), qn = expp (vn )
with vn ∈ Tp M timelike future-pointing. Since expp is a diffeomorphism, vn
converges to a causal future-pointing vector v ∈ Tp M , and so q = expp (v)
can be reached from p by a future-directed causal geodesic. The converse
inclusion J + (p) ⊂ I + (p) holds in general (cf. Proposition 1.2).
Finally, (4) is obvious from (3) and the fact that expp is a diffeomorphism
onto V .
This local behavior can be used to prove the following global result.
Proposition 1.2. Let (M, g) be a time-oriented spacetime and p ∈ M .
Then:
(1) I + (p) is open;
(2) J + (p) ⊂ I + (p);
(3) I + (p) = int J + (p)
(4) if r ∈ J + (p) and q ∈ I + (r) then q ∈ I + (p);
(5) if r ∈ I + (p) and q ∈ J + (r) then q ∈ I + (p).
58 3. CAUSALITY
Proof. Exercise.
The twin paradox also holds locally for general spacetimes. More pre-
cisely, we have the following statement:
Proposition 1.3. (twin paradox) Let (M, g) be a time-oriented space-
time, p0 ∈ M and V ⊂ M a geodesically convex open neighborhood of p0 .
The spacetime (V, g) obtained by restricting g to V satisfies the following
property: if p, q ∈ V with q ∈ I + (p), c is the timelike geodesic connecting p
to q and γ is any timelike curve connecting p to q, then τ (γ) ≤ τ (c), with
equality if and only if γ is a reparameterization of c.
Proof. Any timelike curve γ : [0, 1] → V satisfying γ(0) = p, γ(1) = q
can be written as
γ(t) = expp (r(t)n(t)),
for t ∈ [0, 1], where r(t) ≥ 0 and hn(t), n(t)i = −1. We have
γ̇(t) = (expp )∗ (ṙ(t)n(t) + r(t)ṅ(t)) .
Since hn(t), n(t)i = −1, we have hṅ(t), n(t)i = 0, and consequently ṅ(t) is
tangent to the level surfaces of the function v 7→ hv, vi. We conclude that
γ̇(t) = ṙ(t)Xγ(t) + Y (t),
where X is the unit tangent vector field to timelike geodesics through p
and Y (t) = r(t)(expp )∗ ṅ(t) is tangent to the level surfaces of Wp (hence
orthogonal to Xγ(t) ). Consequently,
Z 1
1
τ (γ) = ṙ(t)Xγ(t) + Y (t), ṙ(t)Xγ(t) + Y (t) 2 dt
0
Z 1
1
= ṙ(t)2 − |Y (t)|2 2 dt
0
Z 1
≤ ṙ(t)dt = r(1) = τ (c),
0
where we have used the facts that γ is timelike, ṙ(t) > 0 for all t ∈ [0, 1]
(as γ̇ is future-pointing) and τ (c) = r(1) (as q = expp (r(1)n(1))). It should
be clear that τ (γ) = τ (c) if and only if |Y (t)| ≡ 0 ⇔ Y (t) ≡ 0 (Y (t) is
spacelike or zero) for all t ∈ [0, 1], implying that n is constant. In this case,
γ(t) = expp (r(t)n) is, up to reparameterization, the geodesic through p with
initial condition n ∈ Tp M .
There is also a local property characterizing null geodesics.
Proposition 1.4. Let (M, g) be a time-oriented spacetime, p0 ∈ M and
V ⊂ M a geodesically convex open neighborhood of p0 . The spacetime (V, g)
obtained by restricting g to V satisfies the following property: if for p, q ∈ V
there exists a future-directed null geodesic c connecting p to q and γ is a
causal curve connecting p to q then γ is a reparameterization of c.
2. CAUSALITY CONDITIONS 59
2. Causality conditions
For physical applications, it is important to require that the spacetime
satisfies reasonable causality conditions. The simplest of these conditions
excludes time travel, i.e. the possibility of a particle returning to an event
in its past history.
Definition 2.1. A spacetime (M, g) is said to satisfy the chronology
condition if it does not contain closed timelike curves.
This condition is violated by compact spacetimes:
Proposition 2.2. Any compact spacetime (M, g) contains closed time-
like curves.
Proof. Taking if necessary the time-orientable double covering, we can
assume that (M, g) is time-oriented. Since I + (p) is an open set for any
p ∈ M , it is clear that {I + (p)}p∈M is an open cover of M . If M is compact,
we can obtain a finite subcover {I + (p1 ), . . . , I + (pN )}. Now if p1 ∈ I + (pi ) for
i 6= 1 then I + (p1 ) ⊂ I + (pi ), and we can exclude I + (p1 ) from the subcover.
Therefore, we can assume without loss of generality that p1 ∈ I + (p1 ), and
hence there exists a closed timelike curve starting and ending at p1 .
A stronger restriction on the causal behavior of the spacetime is the
following:
Definition 2.3. A spacetime (M, g) is said to be stably causal if there
exists a global time function, i.e. a smooth function t : M → R such that
grad(t) is timelike.
60 3. CAUSALITY
3. Exercises
(1) Let (M, g) be the quotient of the 2-dimensional Minkowski space-
time by the discrete group of isometries generated by the map
f (t, x) = (−t, x + 1). Show that (M, g) is not time orientable.
(2) Let (M, g) be a time-oriented spacetime and p ∈ M . Show that:
(a) I + (p) is open;
(b) J + (p) is not necessarily closed;
(c) J + (p) ⊂ I + (p);
(d) I + (p) = int J + (p);
(e) if r ∈ J + (p) and q ∈ I + (r) then q ∈ I + (p);
(f) if r ∈ I + (p) and q ∈ J + (r) then q ∈ I + (p).
(3) Consider the 3-dimensional Minkowski spacetime (R3 , g), where
g = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 .
3. EXERCISES 61
Let c : R → R3 be the curve c(t) = (t, cos t, sin t). Show that
although ċ(t) is null for all t ∈ R we have c(t) ∈ I + (c(0)) for all
t > 0. What kind of motion does this curve represent?
(4) Let (M, g) be a stably causal spacetime and h an arbitrary sym-
metric (2, 0)-tensor field with compact support. Show that for suf-
ficiently small |ε| the tensor field gε = g + εh is still a Lorentzian
metric on M , and (M, gε ) satisfies the chronology condition.
(5) Let (M, g) be the quotient of the 2-dimensional Minkowski space-
time by the discrete group of isometries generated by the map
f (t, x) = (t + 1, x + 1). Show that (M, g) satisfies the chronology
condition, but there exist arbitrarily small perturbations of (M, g)
(in the sense of Exercise 4) which do not.
(6) Let (M, g) be a time-oriented spacetime and S ⊂ M . Show that:
(a) S ⊂ D+ (S);
(b) D+ (S) is not necessarily open;
(c) D+ (S) is not necessarily closed.
(7) Let (M, g) be the 2-dimensional spacetime obtained by removing
the (closed) positive x-semi-axis of Minkowski 2-dimensional space-
time (cf. Figure 1). Show that:
(a) (M, g) is stably causal but not globally hyperbolic;
(b) there exist points p, q ∈ M such that J + (p) ∩ J − (q) is not
compact;
(c) there exist points p, q ∈ M with q ∈ I + (p) such that the
supremum of the lengths of timelike curves connecting p to q
is not attained by any timelike curve.
t t
D(S) J + (p)
x x
Singularity theorems
1. Geodesic congruences
Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold. A congruence of curves in an
open set U ⊂ M is the family of integral curves of a nonvanishing vector
field X in U . We will assume that X is unit timelike and geodesic, that is,
hX, Xi = −1 and ∇X X = 0.
The properties of the congruence determined by X are best analyzed by
considering its second fundamental form
Bµν = ∇ν Xµ .
This tensor is purely spatial, that is,
Bµν X µ = Bµν X ν = 0.
Indeed, since X is unit,
1
Bµν X µ = X µ ∇ν Xµ = ∇ν (Xµ X µ ) = 0.
2
On the other hand, because X is geodesic,
Bµν X ν = X ν ∇ν Xµ = ∇X Xµ = 0.
Proposition 1.1. The second fundamental form B satisfies
∇X Bµν = −Bµα B αν + Rανµβ X α X β .
Proof. We have
X α ∇α Bµν = X α ∇α ∇ν Xµ = X α ∇ν ∇α Xµ + X α Rανµβ X β
= ∇ν (X α ∇α Xµ ) − (∇ν X α )(∇α Xµ ) + Rανµβ X α X β
= −Bµα B αν + Rανµβ X α X β .
63
64 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
Let c(t, s) be a one-parameter family of geodesics of the congruence,
parameterized such that
∂c
=X
∂t
(Figure 1). The Jacobi vector field associated to c is
∂c
Y = .
∂s
Proof. We have
∇X ∇X Y α = ∇X (B αβ Y β ) = (∇X B αβ )Y β + B αβ ∇X Y β
= −B αµ Bµβ Y β + Rµβ αν X µ X ν Y β + B αβ B β µ Y µ
= Rαβµν X β X µ Y ν .
Alternatively, we can simply notice that
∇X ∇X Y = ∇X ∇Y X = ∇Y ∇X X + R(X, Y )X = R(X, Y )X.
Conversely, it can be shown that any solution of the Jacobi equation
along a timelike geodesic c is a Jacobi vector field for some geodesic congru-
ence including c.
We now define the kinematic quantities associated to the congruence.
Definition 1.4. The spatial metric associated to the congruence is
hµν = gµν + Xµ Xν .
The expansion, shear and vorticity are defined as1
θ = hµν Bµν = g µν Bµν ,
1
σµν = B(µν) − θhµν ,
3
ωµν = B[µν] ,
so that we have the decomposition
1
Bµν = θhµν + σµν + ωµν .
3
Note that all the tensors above are purely spatial:
hµν X ν = σµν X ν = ωµν X ν = 0,
Moreover, the trace of h is
hµν hµν = g µν hµν = g µν (gµν + Xµ Xν ) = 4 − 1 = 3,
and so the shear is traceless:
hµν σµν = g µν σµν = 0.
Fix a geodesic c, and let Y be a Jacobi field along c. If Y is initially
orthogonal to c then it will remain orthogonal:
X · (Xµ Y µ ) = (∇X Xµ )Y µ + Xµ ∇X Y µ = Xµ B µν Yν = 0.
In an orthonormal frame {X, E1 , E2 , E3 } parallel along c we then have
i j 1 1
Ẏ = Bij Y = θδij + σij + ωij Y j = θY i + σij Y j + ωij Y j
3 3
1Curved brackets indicate symmetrization: B 1
(µν) = 2
(Bµν + Bνµ ).
66 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
2. Energy conditions
Definition 2.1. A given energy-momentum tensor Tµν , with trace T ≡
g µν Tµν , is said to satisfy:
(1) the strong energy condition (SEC) if Tµν X µ X ν + 12 T ≥ 0 for
all unit timelike vectors X;
(2) the weak energy condition (WEC) if Tµν X µ X ν ≥ 0 for all
timelike vectors X;
(3) the null energy condition (NEC) if Tµν X µ X ν ≥ 0 for all null
vectors X;
(4) the dominant energy condition (DEC) if −T µν Xν is causal
and future-pointing for all causal future-pointing vectors X.
The weak energy condition is the reasonable requirement that any ob-
server should measure a non-negative energy density, and the null energy
condition can be thought of as the same requirement for observers moving
at the speed of light. The dominant energy condition, on the other hand,
demands that any observer should measure the flow of energy and momen-
tum to be causal. To understand the strong energy condition, we write the
Einstein equations as
1
Rµν − Rgµν = 8πTµν
2
(possibly including the cosmological constant in the energy-momentum ten-
sor). Note that the trace of this equation yields
−R = 8πT,
3. CONJUGATE POINTS 67
3. Conjugate points
Definition 3.1. Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold. A point q ∈ M is
said to be conjugate to p ∈ M along a timelike geodesic c if there exists a
nonvanishing solution Y of the Jacobi equation ∇X ∇X Y = R(X, Y )X such
that Yp = Yq = 0.
Informally, two points p and q are conjugate along c if there exists a
nearby timelike geodesic intersecting c at both p and q (Figure 2).
Chose an orthonormal frame {X, E1 , E2 , E3 } parallel along c, where X
is the unit tangent vector. Let Y be a Jacobi field Y which vanishes at
p = c(0). If we write
Y = Y 0 X + Y i Ei
then the Jacobi equation becomes
(
Ÿ 0 = 0
.
Ÿ i = Ri 00j Y j
Therefore the expansion of the congruence blows up if and only if the geo-
desic approaches the first conjugate point q.
Theorem 3.2. Let (M, g) be a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold sat-
isfying the SEC, c a timelike geodesic and p = c(0). Suppose that the ex-
pansion θ of the congruence of timelike geodesics through p takes a negative
value θ0 < 0 at some point r = c(τ0 ), with τ0 > 0. Then there exists a point
q conjugate to p along c at a distance at most |θ30 | from r.
We have
Z t1 Z t1 Z t1
dτ ∂f 1 1
= dt = − hX, ∇Y Xi dt = − hX, ∇X Y i dt
ds t0 ∂s t0 f t0 f
Z t1 Z t1
1 X
=− X· hX, Y i dt + ∇X , Y dt
t0 f t0 f
Z t1
X
= ∇X , Y dt,
t0 f
where we used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the fact that
Yp = Yq = 0. This shows that the timelike curve c defined as c(t) = c(t, 0)
has extremal length among all timelike curves in such one-parameter families
if and only if
X
∇X = 0,
f
that is, if and only if it is a timelike geodesic. Assume this to be the case.
Then
Z t1 Z t1
d2 τ
X X
2
(0) = Y · ∇X , Y dt = ∇Y ∇X , Y dt.
ds t0 f t0 f
Assuming that f (t, 0) = 1 (that is, c is parameterized by its proper time)
and hX, Y i = 0 for s = 0 (which is always possible by reparameterizing
c(t, s)) leads to
Z t1
d2 τ
(0) = h∇Y ∇X X, Y i dt.
ds2 t0
Finally, using
R(X, Y )Z = ∇X ∇Y Z − ∇Y ∇X Z − ∇[X,Y ] Z = ∇X ∇Y Z − ∇Y ∇X Z
we obtain
t1
d2 τ
Z
(0) = h∇X ∇Y X − R(X, Y )X, Y i dt
ds2 t0
Z t1
= h∇X ∇X Y − R(X, Y )X, Y i dt.
t0
Because there are no conjugate points, the fundamental matrix solution A(t)
is nondegenerate for t ∈ (t0 , t1 ], and we can set
Y i = Aij Z j .
We have
Ÿ i = Aij Z̈ j + 2Ȧij Ż j + Äij Z j = Aij Z̈ j + 2Ȧij Ż j + Ri 00k Akj Z j ,
and so
Z t1
d2 τ j
k k
(0) = A ij Z Aik Z̈ + 2Ȧik Ż dt
ds2 t0
Z t1
= Z t At AZ̈ + 2ȦŻ dt
t0
t1
d t t
Z
t t t t t t
= Z A AŻ − Ż A AŻ − Z Ȧ AŻ + Z A ȦŻ dt
t0 dt
Z t1 Z t1
t
=− (AŻ) AŻdt + Z t At Ȧ − Ȧt A Żdt.
t0 t0
Above we used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the fact that
(AZ)t AŻ = Y t (Ẏ − ȦZ) = Y t (Ẏ − BY ) vanishes at t0 and t1 (although B
blows up as (t − t0 )−1 , Y vanishes as t − t0 or faster by Taylor’s formula).
From Ȧ = BA we have
At Ȧ − Ȧt A = At BA − At B t A = At B − B t A = 2At ωA = 0,
because the vorticity matrix ω vanishes for the congruence of timelike geodesics
through p. Therefore
Z t1
d2 τ
(0) = − (AŻ)t AŻdt ≤ 0,
ds2 t0
with equality if and only if
Ż ≡ 0 ⇒ Z ≡ 0 ⇒ Y ≡ 0
(note that if Z is constant then it must be zero because 0 = Yq = A(t1 )Z
and A(t1 ) is nonsingular). We conclude that c is indeed a maximum of the
proper time along any one-parameter family of timelike curves connecting p
and q.
On the other hand, if there exists a conjugate point along c between p
and q, say r = c(t∗ ), then let Ŷ be a nonvanishing Jacobi field such that
Ŷ (t0 ) = Ŷ (t∗ ) = 0 (in particular Ŷ is orthogonal to c), and let Y be the
vector field along c that coincides with Ŷ between p and r and is zero between
r and q. Similarly, let Ẑ be the (necessarily spacelike) vector field parallel
along c such that Ẑ(t∗ ) = −∇X Ŷ (t∗ ), and let Z(t) = θ(t)Ẑ(t), where θ is
a smooth function satisfying θ(t0 ) = θ(t1 ) = 0 and θ(t∗ ) = 1. Finally, let
Yε be the vector field along c defined by Yε = Y + εZ, and consider a one-
parameter family of curves cε (t, s) such that cε (t, 0) = c(t) and Yε = ∂c ∂s .
ε
72 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
Since Yε is not C 1 , we must write the formula for the second derivative of
the length as
Z t1
d2 τ
(0) = − h∇X Yε , ∇X Yε i + hR(X, Yε )X, Yε i dt = I(Yε , Yε ),
ds2 t0
Therefore for ε > 0 sufficiently small the one-parameter family cε (t, s) con-
tains curves whose length is greater than the length of c.
Figure 3 illustrates the geometric idea behind the proof above: cs rep-
resents a generic curve of a one-parameter family corresponding to Y , and
has the same length as c; adding εZ changes cs between points u and v, say,
making it longer by the twin paradox.
v
∇X Ŷ (t∗ )
r
u
Y
cs
c
A(0) = I
Ȧ(0) = K .
Äij = Ri 00k Akj
Proof. The proof is basically the same as for curves connecting two
points. The main differences are the in formula
Z t1 Z t1
dτ 1 X
=− X· hX, Y i dt + ∇X , Y dt
ds t0 f t0 f
Z t1
1 X
= hXp , Yp i + ∇X , Y dt,
f (t0 , s) t0 f
which requires c to be orthogonal to S at p = c(t0 ); the fact that A(t0 ) does
not vanish, but instead
(AZ)t AŻ = Y t (Ẏ − ȦZ) = Y t (Ẏ − BAZ)
= Y t (Ẏ − BY ) = Y t (Ẏ − KY ) = 0
at t0 (where we assume without loss of generality that the curves c(t, s) are
orthogonal to S); and the integrated formula
Z t1
d2 τ
µ ν
(0) = −(Kµν Y Y )(p) − h∇X Y, ∇X Y i + hR(X, Y )X, Y i dt
ds2 t0
= −(Kµν Y µ Y ν )(p) + I(Y, Y ),
which vanishes when Y is a Jacobi field.
U n1
p = p1
U n2
p2
p3
γ ∈ T (S, p) is in the open ball Bε (c) ⊂ C(A) for the Hausdorff metric dH
then we can use u as a parameter, thus obtaining
du(γ̇) = 1 ⇔ hγ̇, grad ui = 1.
Therefore γ̇ can be decomposed as
1
γ̇ = grad u + X,
hgrad u, grad ui
where X is spacelike and orthogonal to grad u, and so
1
1 2
|γ̇| = + hX, Xi .
hgrad u, grad ui
Given δ > 0, we can choose ε > 0 sufficiently small so that
2
1 δ
− < 1+
hgrad u, grad ui 2τ (c)
on the ε-neighborhood Uε (c) (as hgrad u, grad ui = −1 along c). We have
Z t(p) Z t(p) Z τ (c)
dγ du
τ (γ) = dt = |γ̇| dt = |γ̇| du,
0 dt 0 dt u(γ∩S)
where we have to allow for the fact that c is not necessarily orthogonal to
S, and so the initial point of γ is not necessarily at u = 0 (cf. Figure 5).
Consequently,
Z τ (c) 1
1 2
τ (γ) = − − hX, Xi du
u(γ∩S) hgrad u, grad ui
Z τ (c)
δ δ
< 1+ du = 1 + (τ (c) − u(γ ∩ S)) .
u(γ∩S) 2τ (c) 2τ (c)
Choosing ε sufficiently small so that
2 −1
1
|u| < +
τ (c) δ
on S ∩ Uε (c), we obtain τ (γ) < τ (c) + δ, proving upper semicontinuity in
T (S, p). As a consequence, the length function can be extended to C(S, p)
through
τ (c) = lim sup{τ (γ) | γ ∈ Bε (c) ∩ T (S, p)}
ε→0
(as for ε > 0 sufficiently small the supremum will be finite). Also, it is clear
that if c ∈ T (S, p) then the upper semicontinuity of the length forces the
two definitions of τ (c) to coincide. The extension of the length function to
C(S, p) is trivially upper semicontinuous: given c ∈ C(S, p) and δ > 0, let
ε > 0 be such that τ (γ) < τ (c) + 2δ for any γ ∈ B2ε (c) ∩ T (S, p). Then it is
clear that τ (c′ ) ≤ τ (c) + 2δ < τ (c) + δ for any c′ ∈ Bε (c) ∩ C(S, p).
Finally, we notice that the compact sets of R for the topology O are the
sets with a maximum. Therefore, the length function attains a maximum
at some point c ∈ C(S, p). All that remains to be seen is that the maximum
78 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
Uε (c)
p
u = τ (c)
γ c
S u=0
dr m 2
K= − 2 dt + rdθ2 + r sin2 θdϕ2 ,
dτ r
we have
− 1
2m 2 2 3m
θ= −1 − 2 .
r r r
Therefore we have θ = θ0 < 0 on any Cauchy hypersurface S =
{r = r0 } with r0 < 3m 2 , and hence Theorem 5.2 guarantees that
the Schwarzschild solution is singular to the future of S. More-
over, Theorem 5.2 implies that this singularity is generic: any suf-
ficiently small perturbation of the Schwarzschild solution satisfying
the strong energy condition will also be singular. Loosely speaking,
once the collapse has advanced long enough, nothing can prevent
the formation of a singularity.
(3) It should be noted that Theorem 5.2 proves geodesic incomplete-
ness, not the existence of curvature singularities. For instance, it
applies to the Milne universe, or a globally hyperbolic region of the
anti-de Sitter universe, whose curvature is bounded (they are sim-
ply globally hyperbolic regions in larger, inextendible Lorentzian
manifolds).
where ψu is the flow along the timelike geodesics orthogonal to S and the
map exp : (−ε, ε) × ψu (Σ) → M is defined as above.
6. PENROSE’S SINGULARITY THEOREM 81
∂ ∂ ∂
Since ∂r is tangent to null geodesics, we have grr = ∂r , ∂r = 0. On
the other hand, we have
∂grµ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= , µ = ,∇ ∂
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂x ∂r ∂r ∂xµ
∂ ∂ 1 ∂ ∂ ∂
= , ∇ ∂µ = , = 0,
∂r ∂x ∂r 2 ∂xµ ∂r ∂r
for µ = 0, 1, 2, 3. Since gru = −1 and gr2 = gr3 = 0 on ψu (Σ), we have
gru = −1 and gr2 = gr3 = 0 on V . Therefore the metric is written in this
coordinate system as
g = αdu2 − 2dudr + 2βA dudxA + γAB dxA dxB .
Since
α −1 β2 β3
−1 0 0 0 γ 22 γ 23
β2 0 γ22 γ23 = − det γ32 γ33 ,
det
β3 0 γ32 γ33
we see that the functions
∂ ∂
γAB = A
, B
∂x ∂x
form a positive definite matrix, and so g induces a Riemannian metric on
the 2-dimensional surfaces exp(r, ψu (Σ)), which are then spacelike. Since the
vector fields ∂x∂A can always be defined along cp , the matrix (γAB ) is also
well defined along cp , even at points where the coordinate system breaks
down, i.e. at points which are conjugate to Σ. These ∂ ∂are ∂the ∂points for
which γ = det (γAB ) vanishes, since only then will ∂u , ∂r , ∂x2 , ∂x3 fail to
∂
be linearly independent. In fact the vector fields ∂xA are Jacobi fields along
cp .
It is easy to see that
Γuur = Γurr = ΓurA = Γrrr = ΓA
rr = 0 and ΓA
rB = γ
AC
βCB ,
1 ∂γAB
where (γ AB ) = (γAB )−1 and βAB = 2 ∂r .
Consequently,
∂ΓA
u A Ar B A
Rrr = Rurr + RArr = − − ΓAr ΓrB
∂r
∂
γ AB βAB − γ BC γ AD βCA βDB .
=−
∂r
The quantity
θ = γ AB βAB
appearing in this expression is called the expansion of the null geodesics,
and has an important geometric meaning:
1 ∂ 1 ∂ ∂ 1
θ = tr (γAB )−1 (γAB ) = log (det (γAB )) = log (det (γAB )) 2 .
2 ∂r 2 ∂r ∂r
82 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
Therefore the expansion yields the variation of the area element of the
spacelike 2-dimensional surfaces exp(r, ψu (Σ)). More importantly for our
purposes, we see that a singularity of the expansion indicates a zero of
det (γAB ), i.e. a conjugate point to ψu (Σ).
Proposition 6.2. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic spacetime satisfy-
ing the null energy condition, S ⊂ M a Cauchy hypersurface with future-
pointing unit normal vector field N , Σ ⊂ S a compact 2-dimensional sub-
manifold with unit normal vector field n in S and p ∈ Σ a point where
θ = θ0 < 0. Then the null geodesic cp with initial condition Np + np con-
tains at least a point conjugate to Σ, at an affine parameter distance of at
most − θ20 to the future of Σ (assuming that it can be extended that far).
Proof. Since (M, g) satisfies the null energy condition, we have Rrr =
∂ µ ∂ ν
Rµν ∂r ∂r ≥ 0. Consequently,
∂θ
+ γ BC γ AD βCA βDB ≤ 0.
∂r
Choosing an orthonormal basis (where γ AB = δAB ), and using the inequality
(tr A)2 ≤ n tr(At A)
for square n × n matrices, it is easy to show that
1
γ BC γ AD βCA βDB = βBA βAB = tr (βAB )(βAB )t ≥ θ2 .
2
Consequently θ must satisfy
∂θ 1 2
+ θ ≤ 0.
∂r 2
Integrating this inequality yields
1 1 r
≥ + ,
θ θ0 2
and hence θ must blow up at a value of r no greater than − θ20 .
We define the chronological future and the causal future of the
compact surface Σ as
[ [
I + (Σ) = I + (p) and J + (Σ) = J + (p)
p∈Σ p∈Σ
(with similar definitions for the chronological past and the causal past
of Σ). It is clear that I + (Σ), being the union of open sets, is itself open,
and also that J + (Σ) ⊂ I + (Σ) and I + (Σ) = int J + (Σ). On the other hand,
it is easy to generalize Proposition 4.1 (and consequently Corollary 4.2) to
the corresponding statements with compact surfaces replacing points. In
particular, J + (Σ) is closed. Therefore
∂J + (Σ) = ∂I + (Σ) = J + (Σ) \ I + (Σ),
6. PENROSE’S SINGULARITY THEOREM 83
q
γ
cp
p S
Since Σ is trapped (and compact), there exists θ0 < 0 such that the
expansions θ+ and θ− of the null geodesics orthogonal to Σ both satisfy
θ+ , θ− ≤ θ0 . We will show that there exists a future-directed null geodesic
orthogonal to Σ which cannot be extended to an affine parameter greater
than r0 = − θ20 to the future of Σ. Suppose that this was not so. Then,
according to Proposition 6.2, any null geodesic orthogonal to Σ would have
a conjugate point at an affine parameter distance of at most r0 to the future
of Σ, after which it would be in I + (Σ), by Proposition 6.3. Consequently,
∂I + (Σ) would be a (closed) subset of the compact set
exp+ ([0, r0 ] × Σ) ∪ exp− ([0, r0 ] × Σ)
(where exp+ and exp− refer to the exponential map constructed using the
unit normals n and −n), hence compact. Therefore the image of π would
also be compact, hence closed as well as open. Since M , and therefore S, are
connected, the image of π would be S, which would then be homeomorphic to
∂I + (Σ). But S is noncompact by hypothesis, and we reach a contradiction.
Remark 6.6. It should be clear that (M, g) is singular if the condition
of existence of a trapped surface is replaced by the condition of existence of
an anti-trapped surface, that is, a compact surface Σ ⊂ S such that the
expansions of null geodesics orthogonal to Σ are both positive. In this case,
there exists a past-directed null geodesic orthogonal to Σ which cannot be
extended to an affine parameter time greater than r0 = θ20 to the past of Σ.
Example 6.7.
(1) The region {r < 2m} of the Schwarzschild solution is globally hy-
perbolic, and satisfies the null energy condition (as Rµν = 0). Since
r (or −r) is clearly a time function (depending on the choice of
time orientation), it must increase (or decrease) along any future-
pointing null geodesic, and therefore any sphere Σ of constant (t, r)
is anti-trapped (or trapped). Since any Cauchy hypersurface is dif-
feomorphic to R × S 2 , hence noncompact, we conclude from Theo-
rem 6.5 that the Schwarzschild solution is singular to past (or fu-
ture) of Σ. Moreover, Theorem 6.5 implies that this singularity is
generic: any sufficiently small perturbation of the Schwarzschild
solution satisfying the null energy condition will also be singu-
lar. Loosely speaking, once the collapse has advanced long enough,
nothing can prevent the formation of a singularity.
(2) The FLRW models with α > 0 and Λ = 0 are globally hyper-
bolic, and satisfy the null energy condition. Moreover, radial null
geodesics satisfy
dr 1p
=± 1 − kr2 .
dt a
Therefore, if we start with a sphere Σ of constant (t, r) and follow
the orthogonal null geodesics along the direction of increasing or
86 4. SINGULARITY THEOREMS
7. Exercises
(1) Let g be a Lorentzian metric given in the Gauss Lemma form,
g = −dt2 + hij dxi dxj ,
∂
and consider the geodesic congruence tangent to ∂t .
(a) Show that
1 ∂hij
Bij = Γ0ij = ,
2 ∂t
that is,
1
B = L ∂ g = K,
2 ∂t
where K is the second fundamental form of the hypersurfaces
of constant t.
(b) Conclude that the expansion of the congruence of the galaxies
in a FLRW model is
3ȧ
θ= = 3H.
a
(2) Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold.
(a) Use the formula for the Lie derivative of a tensor,
(LX g)(Y, Z) = X · g(Y, Z) − g(LX Y, Z) − g(Y, LX Z)
to show that
(LX g)(Y, Z) = g(∇Y X, Z) + g(Y, ∇Z X).
(b) Show that this formula can be written as
(LX g)µν = ∇µ Xν + ∇ν Xµ .
(c) Suppose that X is a Killing vector field, i.e. LX g = 0. Use the
Killing equation
∇µ Xν + ∇ν Xµ = 0
7. EXERCISES 87
2m −1 2
2m
dt2 + 1 − dr + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2
g =− 1−
r r
(with m > 0).
(a) Show that for any r0 > 2m the curve
r
π m
c(t) = t, r0 , , t
2 r0 3
is a timelike, null or spacelike geodesic, according to whether
r0 > 3m, r0 = 3m or r0 < 3m. q
r0 3 π
(b) Argue that the point q = π m , r0 , 2 , π is conjugate to
the point p = 0, r0 , π2 , 0 along c (note that this can be done
Cauchy problem
A fundamental fact about the Einstein equations is that they are hy-
perbolic in nature. In this chapter we discuss the Cauchy problem for the
Einstein field equations, following [Wal84]. We start by studying the Klein-
Gordon equation, as a prototypical wave equation, and the Maxwell equa-
tions, where the issues of constraints on the inital data and gauge freedom
also arise. We then sketch the proof of the Choquet-Bruhat theorem, and
discuss the Lichnerowicz method for solving the constraint equations. See
[Rin09] for a more complete discussion.
1. Divergence theorem
It is possible to define the divergence of a vector field on any orientable
manifold where a volume form has been chosen.
Definition 1.1. Let M be an orientable n-dimensional manifold with
volume form ǫ, and let X be a vector field on M . The divergence of X is
the function div X such that
d(Xy ǫ) = (div X)ǫ.
The following result is a straightforward application of the Stokes theo-
rem.
Theorem 1.2. (Divergence theorem) If M is a compact orientable
n-dimensional manifold with boundary ∂M then
Z Z
(div X)ǫ = Xy ǫ.
M ∂M
n timelike
n null
n spacelike
spacelike component points outwards (Figure 1). Note that the magnitude
(but not the sign) of the volume element σ will depend on the choice of n.
2. Klein-Gordon equation
Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold. A smooth function φ : M → R is
a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation if it satisfies
φ − m2 φ = 0 ⇔ ∇µ ∂µ φ − m2 φ = 0
for some constant m > 0. For reasons that will become clear in Chapter 6,
we define the energy-momentum tensor associated to this equation as
1
Tµν = ∂µ φ ∂ν φ − gµν ∂α φ ∂ α φ + m2 φ2 .
2
If φ is a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation then
∇µ Tµν = φ ∂ν φ + ∂µ φ ∇µ ∂ν φ − ∂α φ ∇ν ∂ α φ − m2 φ ∂ν φ
= (φ − m2 φ)∂ν φ = 0
Moreover, if (M, g) is time-oriented then it is possible to prove that T sat-
isfies the dominant energy condition, that is, Tµν X ν corresponds to a past-
pointing causal vector whenever X is a future-pointing causal vector. As-
sume that X is a future-pointing timelike Killing vector field, and define
Y µ = T µν Xν . Then Y is a past-pointing causal vector field satisfying
∇µ Y µ = T µν ∇µ Xν = 0
(where we used the Killing equation ∇(µ Xν) = 0 and the symmetry of T ).
92 5. CAUCHY PROBLEM
Let us now focus on the case when (M, g) is flat Minkowski spacetime
∂
and X = ∂t . Consider the Cauchy hypersurface S0 = {t = t0 }, and let B0
be the ball of radius R in that hypersurface:
B0 = {t = t0 , x2 + y 2 + z 2 ≤ R2 }.
Let S1 = {t = t1 }, with t1 > t0 , be another Cauchy hypersurface, and
consider the ball B1 = D(B0 ) ∩ S1 in that hypersurface (Figure 2). By the
divergence theorem we have
Z Z Z
hY, Xi + hY, ni + hY, −Xi = 0,
B0 C B1
B1
n
C
B0
S0
Note that
1
hY, Xi = Tµν X µ X ν = (X · φ)2 + ∂α φ ∂ α φ + m2 φ2
2
1
(∂0 φ)2 + (∂x φ)2 + (∂y φ)2 + (∂z φ)2 + m2 φ2 .
=
2
We conclude immediately that if φ is a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation
and φ = ∂0 φ = 0 in B0 then φ = 0 in B1 , and indeed in D(B0 ) (since t1 is
arbitrary). Because B0 can be taken arbitrarily large and the Klein-Gordon
equation is linear we can then deduce the following result.
Proposition 2.1. Given two smooth functions φ0 , ψ0 : S0 → R, there
exists at most a solution φ of the Klein-Gordon equation satisfying φ = φ0
and ∂0 φ = ψ0 on S0 .
2. KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION 93
therefore smooth, and, passing to the limit, must satisfy the Klein-Gordon
equation in all sets of the form D(B0 ).
Using similar tecnhiques, it is possible to prove a much stronger result
(see for instance [Rin09]).
Theorem 2.5. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic spacetime with a Cauchy
hypersurface S and future unit normal N . Then the linear, diagonal sec-
ond order hyperbolic system
g µν ∇µ ∂ν φi + Aµij ∂µ φj + Bij φj + Ci = 0 (i = 1, . . . , n),
where Aµij ,Bij and Ci are smooth and ∇ is any connection, yields a well-
posed Cauchy problem with initial data in S. More precisely, given smooth
initial data (φ1 , . . . , φn , N · φ1 , . . . , N · φn ) on S there exists a unique smooth
solution of the system, defined in M . Moreover, the solutions depend con-
tinuously on the initial data, and if two initial data sets coincide on some
closed subset B ⊂ S then the corresponding solutions coincide on D(B).
To solve the Cauchy problem for the Einstein equations, we will need to
solve more complicated systems of hyperbolic equations.
Theorem 2.6. Consider the quasi-linear, diagonal second order
hyperbolic system
g µν (x, φ, ∂φ)∇µ ∂ν φi = Fi (x, φ, ∂φ) (i = 1, . . . , n),
where g µν and Fi are smooth and ∇ is any connection on some manifold
M . Let (φ0 )1 , . . . , (φ0 )n be a solution of this system, and define (g0 )µν =
g µν (x, φ0 , ∂φ0 ). Assume that (M, g0 ) is globally hyperbolic, and let S be a
Cauchy hypersurface. Then the system above yields a well-posed Cauchy
problem with initial data in S, in the following sense: given initial data
in S sufficiently close to the initial data for (φ0 )1 , . . . , (φ0 )n there exists
an open neighborhood V of S such that the system has a unique solution in
V , and (V, g(x, φ, ∂φ)) is globally hyperbolic. Moreover, the solutions depend
continuously on the initial data, and if two initial data sets coincide on some
closed subset B ⊂ S then the corresponding solutions coincide in D(B).
Proof. The idea of the proof is to start with the linear hyperbolic
system
g µν (x, φ0 , ∂φ0 )∇µ ∂ν φi = Fi (x, φ0 , ∂φ0 ) (i = 1, . . . , n),
which by the previous theorem has a unique solution φ1 close to φ0 . Because
of this, there exists a neighborhood V1 of S such that (V1 , g(x, φ1 , ∂φ1 )) is
globally hyperbolic with Cauchy hypersurface S, and so the system
g µν (x, φ1 , ∂φ1 )∇µ ∂ν φi = Fi (x, φ1 , ∂φ1 ) (i = 1, . . . , n),
again has a unique solution φ2 close to φ1 . Iterating this procedure we obtain
a sequence φn which can then be shown to converge to the unique solution
of the quasi-linear hyperbolic system (see [Rin09] for more details).
96 5. CAUCHY PROBLEM
yield the same fields B and E (A′ and φ′ are said to be related to A and φ
by a gauge transformation). The remaining Maxwell equations can now
be written as
∂
div E = 0 ∆φ + (div A) = 0
∂E ⇔ ∂t 2 .
curl B = grad(div A) − ∆A = − grad ∂φ − ∂ A
∂t ∂t ∂t2
Therefore, if there exist gauge potentials satisfying
∂φ
div A = −
∂t
(the so-called Lorentz gauge) then these equations reduce to uncoupled
wave equations:
(
φ = 0
A = 0
To solve the Maxwell equations using the gauge potentials we then solve
these wave equations with initial data φ0 , ∂φ ∂A
∂t and A 0 , ∂t 0 satisfying:
0
(1) curl A0 = B0 (possible because div B0 = 0);
(2) φ0 = 0 (by choice);
(3) ∂A = −E0 (giving the correct initial electric field);
∂t 0
∂φ
(4) ∂t = − div A0 (so that the Lorentz gauge condition holds).
0
These potentials will determine a solution of the Maxwell equations with
the correct initial data if the Lorentz gauge condition holds for all
time. Now
∂φ ∂
div A + = div(A) + (φ) = 0
∂t ∂t
and by (4)
∂φ
div A + = 0.
∂t 0
Moreover,
∂2φ
∂ ∂φ ∂A ∂A
div A + = div + 2 = div + ∆φ,
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t
and so
∂ ∂φ
div A + = − div E0 = 0.
∂t ∂t 0
By uniqueness of solution of the wave equation, we conclude that the Lorentz
gauge condition does hold for all time, and so the potentials obtained by
solving the wave equation with the initial conditions above do determine the
solution of the Maxwell equations with initial data E0 and B0 .
98 5. CAUCHY PROBLEM
4. Einstein’s equations
Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic spacetime and S ⊂ M a Cauchy
hypersurface. Let us write g in the Gauss Lemma form near S,
g = −dt2 + hij (t, x)dxi dxj ,
so that the level sets of t are Riemannian manifolds with induced metric
h(t) = hij dxi dxj and second fundamental form
1 ∂hij i j
K(t) = dx dx .
2 ∂t
For this choice of coordinates (gauge), finding the metric is equivalent to
finding a time-dependent Riemannian metric h(t) on S. The vacuum Ein-
stein field equations Gµν = 0 can be split into constraint equations
( ( 2
G00 = 0 R̄ + K ii − Kij K ij = 0
⇔
G0i = 0 ¯ iK j − ∇
∇ ¯ jKj = 0
j i
and evolution equations
∂
Gij = 0 ⇔ Kij = −R̄ij + 2Kil K lj − K ll Kij ,
∂t
¯
where ∇, R̄ and R̄ij are the Levi-Civita connection, the scalar curvature
and the Ricci tensor of h. Note that the evolution equations allow us to
4. EINSTEIN’S EQUATIONS 99
evolve h(t) and K(t), whereas the constraint equations restrict their initial
values h(0) and K(0). If the initial data satisfy the constraint equations, so
does the solution of the evolution equations. Indeed, the contracted Bianchi
identities give us “for free” the equations
∇α Gαβ = 0 ⇔ ∇0 G0β + ∇i Giβ = 0 ⇔ −∇0 G0β + hij ∇j Giβ = 0
⇔ ∂0 G0β − Γα00 Gαβ − Γα0β G0α = hij (∂j Giβ − Γαji Gαβ − Γαjβ Giα ).
If the evolution equations hold, we have Gij = ∂α Gij = 0, and so the
contracted Bianchi identities become
(
∂0 G00 = Γα00 Gα0 + Γα00 G0α + hij (∂j Gi0 − Γαji Gα0 − Γ0j0 Gi0 )
∂0 G0k = Γ000 G0k + Γα0k G0α − hij (Γ0ji G0k + Γ0jk Gi0 )
(
∂0 G00 = hij (∂j Gi0 − Kji G00 − Γ̄kji Gk0 )
⇔ .
∂0 G0k = K ik G0i − hij (Kji G0k + Kjk Gi0 )
∂
∂t
αN
N
β
St
is, coordinates xµ satisfying the wave equation, xµ = 0. This equation can
be written as
1
H µ ≡ ∂α g αµ + g αµ g ρσ ∂α gρσ = 0.
2
We define the reduced Ricci tensor to be
H 1
Rµν ≡ Rµν + gα(µ ∂ν) H α = − g αβ ∂α ∂β gµν + Fµν (g, ∂g),
2
and the reduced Einstein equations to be
H
Rµν = 0.
Note that Rµν H = R µ
µν if the coordinates x are harmonic; in this case, the
reduced Einstein equations coincide with the Einstein equations. Moreover,
the reduced Einstein equations are a quasi-linear, diagonal second order
hyperbolic system for the components of the metric. Given initial data
(hij , Kij ) satisfying the constraint equations, consider the following initial
data for the reduced Einstein equations:
(1) gij = hij (forced);
(2) gi0 = 0 (by choice);
(3) g00 = −1 (by choice);
∂g
(4) ∂tij = 2Kij (forced);
∂g
(5) ∂t0µ such that H µ = 0 in S.
If (hij , Kij ) is close to the trivial data (δij , 0) for the Minkowski spacetime,
Theorem 2.6 guarantees that we can solve the reduced Einstein equations
in some open neighborhood V of S. From
H 1 1
Gµν = Rµν − RH gµν − gα(µ ∂ν) H α + gµν ∂α H α
2 2
4. EINSTEIN’S EQUATIONS 101
H =0
it is easily seen that if gµν satisfies the reduced Einstein equations Rµν
then the contracted Bianchi identities yield
∇µ Gµν = 0 ⇒ g µν ∂µ ∂ν H α + Aαµ β
β ∂µ H = 0.
where ∇ ¯ and R̄ are the Levi-Civita connection and the scalar curvature of
h. Then there exists a unique (up to isometry) 4-dimensional Lorentzian
manifold (M, g), called the maximal Cauchy development of (S, h, K),
satisfying:
(i) (M, g) is a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations;
(ii) (M, g) is globally hyperbolic with Cauchy hypersurface S;
(iii) The induced metric and second fundamental forms of S are h and K;
(iv) Any 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold satisfying (i) − (iii) can be
isometrically embedded into (M, g).
Moreover, if (S, h, K) and (S̄, h̄, K̄) coincide on some closed subset B ∼
= B̄
then D(B) and D(B̄) are isometric. Finally, g depends continuously on the
initial data (h, K) (for appropriate topologies).
It should be stressed that the sketch of proof above glosses over many of
the technical difficulties, such as showing that the upper bound is a Haus-
dorff manifold, or that any solution can be isometrically embedded into the
maximal element; see [Rin09] for the full details. A recent proof of this
result which avoids Zorn’s Lemma can be found in [Sbi16].
5. Constraint equations
To obtain initial data for the Einstein equations it is necessary to solve
the nonlinear constraint equations
( 2
R̄ + K ii − Kij K ij = 0
.
¯ iK j − ∇
∇ ¯ jKj = 0
j i
(that is, K is traceless and divergenceless). These choices satisfy the second,
but not the first, constraint equations. On then defines the conformally
rescaled metric
h̃ = u4 h
and the rescaled symmetric tensor
K̃ = u−2 K.
Clearly K̃ is still traceless, and it is easily seen that it is also divergenceless:
˜ j K̃ j = 0,
∇ i
where ∇ ˜ is the Levi-Civita connection of h̃ (see Exercise 6). The first con-
straint equation for the metric h̃ and the symmetric tensor K̃, on the other
hand, becomes
¯ − 1 R̄u = 0.
∆u
8
As an example, choose h to be the Euclidean metric, hij = δij ; then R̄ = 0
and the equation above is simply the Laplace equation
∆u = 0.
A simple solution, related to the gravitational field of a point mass, is
M
u=1+ .
2r
This solution leads exactly to the Schwarzschild solution, which in isotropic
coordinates is written
!2
1− M M 4
2 2
ds = − 2r
dt + 1 + (dr2 + r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 )).
1+ M2r
2r
Since the Laplace equation is linear, one can superimpose solutions. Thus
an initial data set for a set of N black holes initially at rest can be obtained
by choosing
N
X Mi
u= 1+ ,
2ri
i=1
7. Exercises
(1) Let (M, g) be a time-oriented Lorentzian manifold and X a future-
pointing timelike vector field. Given a smooth function φ : M → R
let
1
Tµν = ∂µ φ∂ν φ − gµν ∂α φ∂ α φ + m2 φ2
2
be the energy-momentum tensor associated to the Klein-Gordon
equation for φ, and let Y be the vector field defined by
Yµ = Tµν X ν .
Show that:
(a) Y = (X · φ) grad φ − 12 hgrad φ, grad φi + m2 φ2 X;
(b) Y is causal.
(c) Y is past-pointing.
(2) (Sobolev inequality) Let Q be a closed solid cone in Rn with
height h, solid angle Ω and vertex at the origin. Let ψ : R → R
be a smooth nonincreasing function with ψ(r) = 1 for r < h3 and
ψ(r) = 0 for r > 2h
3 . Show that:
(a) For any smooth function f : Q → R and any k ∈ N we have
Z R(θ)
(−1)k ∂k
f (0) = rk−1 k (ψ(r)f (r, θ)) dr,
(k − 1)! 0 ∂r
7. EXERCISES 105
Γ̃ijk = Γ̄ijk + 2∂j (log u)hi k + 2∂k (log u)hi j − 2∂ i (log u)hjk .
(b) K̃ is divergenceless for the Levi-Civita connection of h̃.
(c) The Ricci tensor R̃ij of h̃ is related to the Ricci tensor R̄ij of
h by
¯ i ∂j (log u) − 2∆(log
R̃ij = R̄ij − 2∇ ¯ u)hij
+ 4∂i (log u)∂j (log u) − 4 |grad(log u)|2 hij .
7. EXERCISES 107
1. Komar mass
Recall that the Newtonian gravitational field satisfies
div G = −4πρ,
where ρ is the mass density of the matter generating the field. Therefore
the total mass of a given system is given by
1 1
Z Z Z
M= ρ=− div G = − hG, ni ,
R3 4π R3 4π Σ
where Σ is any surface enclosing all the matter and n is the outward unit
normal. The fact that M does not depend on Σ is equivalent to the statement
that div G = 0 in the region between any two such surfaces.
For a static Lorentzian metric, that is, a metric of the form
ds2 = −e2φ dt2 + hij dxi dxj
with φ and h not depending on t, the analogue of the gravitational field
is minus the acceleration of the observers with constant space coordinates
xi , that is, − grad φ (see Chapter 2). On the other hand, since the metric
is static, we expect that the energy computed at a given surface should be
multiplied by the redshift factor eφ to obtain its reference value at infinity.
The relativistic analogue of the formula above is then
1 1
Z Z
M= eφ (∂µ φ)nµ = (∂µ eφ )nµ .
4π Σ 4π Σ
We have
1
∂µ eφ = ∂µ (−K ν Kν ) 2 = −e−φ K ν ∇µ Kν = −N ν ∇µ Kν ,
∂ ∂
where K = ∂t is the timelike Killing vector field and N = e−φ ∂t is the unit
timelike vector with the same direction, that is, the future-pointing unit
109
110 6. MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
K
N
E1
n
− grad φ
Σ
St
q
+ ∂1 | det(gµν )| ∂ φ dx0 ∧ dx1 ∧ dx2 ∧ dx3 + . . .
1
∂
q
= | det(gµν )| dx1 ∧ dx2 ∧ dx3 = 0,
∂t
since the metric coefficients do not depend on t. From the Weitzenbock
formula we then have
⋆d ⋆ dK ♭ = −K ♭ + Ric(K, ·).
Now, adding or subtracting cyclic permutations of the fundamental identity
for the Riemann tensor,
∇µ ∇ν Kα − ∇ν ∇µ Kα = Rµνα β Kβ ,
∇ν ∇α Kµ − ∇α ∇ν Kµ = Rναµ β Kβ ,
∇α ∇µ Kν − ∇µ ∇α Kν = Rαµν β Kβ ,
and using the Killing equation and the first Bianchi identity, we have
∇µ ∇ν Kα = −Rναµ β Kβ ,
whence
Kα = −Rαβ Kβ .
We conclude that
⋆d ⋆ dK ♭ = 2Ric(K, ·) ⇔ d ⋆ dK ♭ = 2 ⋆ Ric(K, ·),
implying that ⋆dK ♭ is indeed closed in vacuum, that is, the Komar mass is
well defined: any two homologous compact orientable surfaces Σ1 and Σ2
which enclose the matter content of the stationary spacetime can be used
to compute it (Figure 2).
If Σ is the boundary of a spacelike 3-dimensional manifold B whose
future-pointing unit normal is N then the Komar mass can be written as
1 1 1
Z Z Z
♭ ♭
M =− ⋆dK = − d ⋆ dK = − ⋆Ric(K, ·)
8π Σ 8π B 4π B
1 1
Z Z D E
=− ǫ(Ric(K, ·)♯ , ·, ·, ·) = − − (Ric(K, ·)♯ , N
4π B 4π B
Z
1 1
Z
= Rµν K µ N ν = 2 Tµν − T gµν K µ N ν
4π B B 2
1. KOMAR MASS 113
Σ1
Σ2
gas,
3
U = pV.
2
2. Field theory
Let us consider the problem of how to define the energy of a field ψ in
flat Minkowski space. The field equations for the field ψ are usually the
equations for the critical points of an action
Z
S= L(ψ, ∂ψ) dt dx1 dx2 dx3 ,
R4
2.2. Electromagnetic field. In this case we can take as our fields the
electromagnetic potentials A0 , A1 , A2 , A3 . The Lagrangian density (in units
where 4πε0 = 1) is
1 αµ βν
L= g g Fαβ Fµν ,
16π
where
Fµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ .
Using
∂Fαβ
= δ µα δ ν β − δ ν α δ µβ ,
∂(∂µ Aν )
it is easily seen that
∂L ∂L
∂µ − = 0 ⇔ ∂µ F µν = 0,
∂(∂µ Aν ) ∂Aν
F µα ∂ ν Aα = F µα F να + F µα ∂α Aν ,
where the first term is symmetric and gauge-invariant, and the second term
is divergenceless:
∂µ (F µα ∂α Aν ) = F µα ∂µ ∂α Aν = 0
R4
↓π
k
S
which does not depend on the choice of t̄. In other words, the metric h is
a quadratic function of the partial derivatives of the fields x̄1 , x̄2 , x̄3 . An
elastic Lagrangian density L for these fields is obtained by assuming that
L = L(x̄i , hij ). The canonical energy-momentum tensor is
∂L
T µν = ∂ ν x̄i − Lg µν ,
∂(∂µ x̄i )
and so in the coordinate system (t̄, x̄1 , x̄2 , x̄3 ) we have
T 0̄0̄ = L,
that is, the elastic Lagrangian density is just the rest energy density ρ = T 0̄0̄
measured by each particle in the medium. The choice of ρ = ρ(x̄i , hij ) is
called the elastic law of the continuous medium.
We define homogeneous and isotropic materials to be those for
which ρ depends only on the eigenvalues (s1 2 , s2 2 , s3 2 ) of hij with respect to
kij (that is, the eigenvalues of the matrix (hij ) in a frame where kij = δij ).
Note that (s1 , s2 , s3 ) are the stretch factors along the principal directions
given by the eigenvectors of hij , that is, the distance between two nearby
points along a principal direction in the current configuration, as measured
by the metric h, divided by the distance between the same points in the
relaxed configuration, as measured by the metric k.
Assume that kij = δij , that is, that (S, k) is the Euclidean space. We
define the more convenient variables
1
λ0 = det(hij ) = ;
(s1 s2 s3 )2
1 1 1
λ1 = tr(hij ) = 2
+ 2 + 2;
s1 s2 s3
1 1 1
λ2 = tr cof(hij ) = 2
+ 2
+ .
(s1 s2 ) (s2 s3 ) (s3 s1 )2
Note that
1
1 2
s1 s2 s3 =
λ0
is the volume occupied in the deformed state by a unit volume of material
in the relaxed configuration. Equivalently,
1
n = (λ0 ) 2
is the number density of particles of the medium in the deformed state, if we
normalize the number density in the relaxed configuration to be 1 particle
per unit volume. Elastic media whose elastic law depends only on n,
ρ = ρ(λ0 ),
2. FIELD THEORY 119
are simply perfect fluids. To check this, we note that from the formula for
the inverse of a matrix we have
1 ji 1 ij
hij = A = A ,
λ0 λ0
where Aij is the (i, j)-cofactor of (hij ). On the other hand, from the Laplace
expansion for determinants we have
3
X
λ0 = hij Aij (no sum over i),
j=1
and so
∂λ0
= Aij = λ0 hij .
∂hij
Therefore
dρ ∂λ0 ∂hij
T µν = ∂ ν x̄k − ρg µν
dλ0 ∂hij ∂(∂µ x̄k )
dρ
= λ0 hij (g µα δ i k ∂α x̄j + g µα ∂α x̄i δ j k )∂ ν x̄k − ρg µν
dλ0
dρ
= 2λ0 hij ∂ µ x̄i ∂ ν x̄j − ρg µν .
dλ0
Since
hµν = hij ∂µ x̄i ∂ν x̄j
is simply the metric on the hyperplanes orthogonal to the worldlines, that
is,
hµν = gµν + Uµ Uν ,
where U is the unit tangent vector to the worldlines, we obtain
µν dρ µ ν dρ
T = 2λ0 U U + 2λ0 − ρ g µν
dλ0 dλ0
= (ρ + p)U µ U ν + pg µν
with
dρ
p = 2λ0 − ρ,
dλ0
which is indeed the energy-momentum tensor √ of a perfect fluid. For example,
dust corresponds to the elastic law ρ = ρ0 λ0 (for some positive constant
ρ0 ), yielding p = 0, and a stiff fluid, with equation of state p = ρ, is given
by the choice ρ = ρ0 λ0 .
To obtain elastic materials that are not fluids we must choose elastic
laws that also depend on λ1 and λ2 . For instance, an elastic law is said to
be quasi-Hookean if it is of the form
ρ = p̂(n) + µ̂(n)σ,
where σ is a shear scalar, that is, a non-negative function of the stretch
factors such that σ = 0 if and only if s1 = s2 = s3 . The functions ρ̂ and
µ̂ are called the unsheared energy density and the rigidity modulus
120 6. MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
3. Einstein-Hilbert action
The variational formulation of field theories is coordinate-free, and so it
gives a simple method to write the field equations on an arbitrary coordinate
system. We must be careful, however, to note that the action written in
the new coordinate system must include the Jacobian of the coordinate
transformation:
Z q
S= L(ψ, ∂ψ) | det(gµν )| dx0 dx1 dx2 dx3 .
R4
where R and ǫ are the scalar curvature and the volume element of the met-
ric g, and the integral is over an arbitrary (oriented) manifold M . Note
that R depends on g and its first and second partial derivatives, unlike the
Lagrangian densities that we encountered before. Instead of deriving the
Euler-Lagrange equations for this case, we will proceed in a more geometric
way. We note here, however, that this action is exceptional in that it leads to
second-order equations for the metric, as opposed to the fourth order equa-
tions that are typical of Lagrangian densities depending on second partial
derivatives.
3. EINSTEIN-HILBERT ACTION 121
α 1
δCµν = g αβ (∇µ δgνβ + ∇ν δgµβ − ∇β δgµν )
2
1
∇µ δgν α + ∇ν δgµ α − ∇α δgµν ,
=
2
where gµν means gµν (0) and all indices are raised or lowered with this metric.
Note carefully that δg means the tensor δgµν , possible with some indices
raised. Thus for instance
δ(g µν ) = −g µα g νβ δgαβ = −δg µν .
From (15) we have
δRµν αβ = ∇µ δCνβ
α α
− ∇ν δCµβ ,
whence
α α
δRµν = ∇α δCµν − ∇µ δCαν
1 1
= ∇α ∇µ δgν α + ∇ν δgµ α − ∇α δgµν − ∇µ ∇ν δgα α .
2 2
Note that
We have
δR = δ(g µν Rµν ) = −δg µν Rµν + ∇µ (−∇µ δgν ν + ∇ν δgµν )
and, using the identity
δ det A = (det A) tr(A−1 δA),
We conclude that
Z
1
Z
δS = − Rµν − Rgµν δg µν ǫ + ∇µ (−∇µ δgν ν + ∇ν δgµν ) ǫ
2
ZM M
=− Gµν δg µν ǫ.
M
for variations of the metric with compact support. We conclude that the
Euler-Lagrange equations for the Einstein-Hilbert action are the Einstein
equations Gµν = 0.
Remark 3.1. It is easy to see that the Einstein tensor of a compact
surface (M, g) vanishes identically. Therefore we have
Z
δ Rǫ = 0
M
automatically. If g1 and g2 are any two Riemannian metrics on M then
g(λ) = (1 − λ)g1 + λg2 is a Riemannian metric which interpolates between
g1 and g2 . We then have
d
Z Z Z
R(λ)ǫ(λ) = 0 ⇒ R1 ǫ1 = R2 ǫ 2 ,
dλ M M M
that is, the integral of the scalar curvature does not depend on the metric.
This statement is known as the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.
To include matter fields ψ and a cosmological constant Λ in the Einstein
equations we consider the action
Z
1
S= L(g, ψ) − (R − 2Λ) ǫ.
M 16π
It is clear that
1
Z Z
δS = E(ψ)δψ ǫ + (Gµν + Λgµν − 8πTµν ) δg µν ǫ,
M 16π M
where we have defined
1
Z Z Z
δ L(g, ψ)ǫ = E(ψ)δψ ǫ − Tµν δg µν ǫ.
M M 2 M
The Euler-Lagrange equations are then the Einstein equations with sources
plus the field equations for ψ:
(
Gµν + Λgµν = 8πTµν
.
E(ψ) = 0
The energy-momentum tensor is then
δL
Tµν = −2 µν − Lgµν ,
δg
where the second term comes from the variation of the volume element and
we have set
δL
δL = µν δg µν + E(ψ)δψ.
δg
124 6. MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
4. Gravitational waves
Since we have computed the variation of the Ricci tensor, we make a
short digression to discuss the linearized Einstein vacuum equations, which
describe the propagation of gravitational waves on a fixed solution (M, g) of
the full nonlinear vacuum equations Rµν = Λgµν . The linearized equations
are simply
δRµν = Λδgµν ,
that is,
∇α ∇µ δgν α + ∇ν δgµ α − ∇α δgµν − ∇µ ∇ν δgα α = 2Λδgµν .
(16)
Note that some variations of the metric are trivial, in that they arise from
the diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein equations: if ψλ is a one-
parameter family of diffeomorphisms, then the variation
g(λ) = ψλ ∗ g
yields metrics which are isometric to g = g(0), but expressed in different
coordinates. In this case we have
δg = LV g,
that is
δgµν = ∇µ Vν + ∇ν Vµ ,
where V is the vector field defined at each point p ∈ M by
d
Vp = ψλ (p).
dλ |λ=0
Therefore, the linearized Einstein equations have gauge freedom: we can
always add a Lie derivative of g to any given variation of the metric without
altering its physical meaning. This corresponds to gauge transformations of
the form
δgµν → δgµν + ∇µ Vν + ∇ν Vµ .
We will now construct a gauge where equations (16) look particularly simple.
To do that, we consider the trace-reversed metric perturbation
1
δg µν = δgµν − (δgα α )gµν ,
2
which transforms under a gauge transformation as
δg µν → δg µν + ∇µ Vν + ∇ν Vµ − (∇α V α )gµν ,
4. GRAVITATIONAL WAVES 125
5. ADM mass
If we write the metric in the Gauss Lemma form,
g = −dt2 + hij (t, x)dxi dxj
then from the exercises in Chapter 5 we have
∂ 2
K i i + K i i + Kij K ij .
R = R̄ + 2
∂t
Setting
∂
X = Ki i ,
∂t
we have
div X = ∇0 X 0 + ∇i X i = ∂0 X 0 + Γii0 X 0 = ∂0 X 0 + K i i X 0 ,
that is,
∂ 2
K i i = div X − K i i .
∂t
We conclude that
2
R = R̄ − K i i + Kij K ij + 2 div X,
and so the Einstein-Hilbert action corresponds to the Lagrangian density
q 2
L = det(hij ) R̄ − K i i + Kij K ij .
for any solution of the vacuum Einstein field equations. That is, the total
energy associated to the fields hij is simply zero.
To try to obtain a nonzero quantity we reconsider the boundary terms
that were discarded when varying the Einstein-Hilbert action:
Z Z
µ ν ν
∇ (−∇µ δgν + ∇ δgµν ) ǫ = (−∇µ δgν ν + ∇ν δgµν ) nµ ω,
M ∂M
where we take M to be a manifold with a timelike boundary ∂M at infinity,
∂
tangent to ∂t , with unit normal n and volume element ω (Figure 4). Note
that it is not necessary to consider the flux of the vector field X which we
discarded above as it is orthogonal to n. The boundary integral can be
written as Z Z
¯ k δhij ni σdt,
−∂i (hjk δhjk ) + hjk ∇
R Σ
5. ADM MASS 127
∂
∂t
∂M
∂
where we take ∂M to be the flow by ∂t of a spacelike surface Σ and ω = dt∧σ.
Suppose that h approaches the Euclidean metric at infinity, so that in an
appropriate coordinate system (x1 , x2 , x3 ) we have
hij = δij + O r−p , δhij = O r−p , ∂k hij , ∂k δhij , Γkij = O r−p−1
2 2 2
as r → +∞, with r2 = (x1 ) + (x2 ) + (x3 ) and p > 21 . Then the boundary
integral can be written as
xi
Z Z
lim (−∂i δhjj + ∂j δhij ) dt
r→∞ R S
r
r
xi
Z Z
= δ lim (−∂i hjj + ∂j hij ) dt = δI,
r→∞ R S
r
r
where Sr is a coordinate sphere of radius r. Note that δ can be brought
outside the integral because we have replaced the metric-dependent terms
¯ n and σ.
∇,
If S is the Einstein-Hilbert action, we then have
Z
δS = − Gµν δg µν + δI,
M
and so the Einstein equations hold if and only if
δ(S − I) = 0.
One can think of I as the integral of a singular Lagrangian density I. The
Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density L should therefore be replaced by L−I,
and so, since I does not depend on Kij , the corresponding Hamiltonian
128 6. MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
Theorem 5.4. (Bartnik [Bar86]) The ADM mass is well defined, that
is, it does not depend on the choice of the chart at infinity.
R̄ = 16πρ,
1 xi
Z
M = lim (∂j hij − ∂i hjj )
r→+∞ 16π Sr r
1 xi
Z
= lim (∂i ∂j f ∂j f + ∂i f ∂j ∂j f − 2∂i ∂j f ∂j f )
r→+∞ 16π Sr r
1 xi
Z
= lim (∂i f ∂j ∂j f − ∂i ∂j f ∂j f ) .
r→+∞ 16π Sr r
130 6. MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY
since the eigenvalues of the matrix (hij ) are 1 + | grad f |2 for the eigenvector
grad f and 1 for the eigenvectors orthogonal to grad f . Consequently the
ADM mass is
1 R̄ ρ
Z Z Z
M= p ǫ= p ǫ< ρ ǫ.
16π S 1 + | grad f |2 S 1 + | grad f |2 S
The difference Z
M− ρǫ < 0
S
can be thought of as the (negative) gravitational binding energy.
7. Penrose inequality
The positive mass theorem admits a refinement in the case when black
holes are present, known as the Penrose inequality. The idea is that black
hole horizons correspond to minimal surfaces Σ on the Riemannian manifold
(S, h), each contributing with a mass M at least as big as the mass of a
Schwarzschild black hole with the same event horizon area A:
r
A
M≥ .
16π
To understand the precise motivation for this inequality, recall that in the
proof of the Penrose singularity theorem we defined the outward null expan-
sion of a 2-surface Σ on a Cauchy hypersurface S as
1 ∂γAB 1
θ = γ AB = tr L ∂ g .
2 ∂r 2 ∂r |T Σ
If N is the future-pointing unit normal to S and n is the outward unit normal
to Σ on S we then have
1 1
θ = tr (LN +n g)|T Σ = tr K|T Σ + tr (Ln g)|T Σ ,
2 2
7. PENROSE INEQUALITY 131
∂
where we used the fact that ∂r = N + n on Σ, and also that if X, Y are
tangent to Σ then
(LZ g) (X, Y ) = hX, ∇Y Zi + hY, ∇X Zi
depends only on Z along Σ. For time-symmetric initial data (K = 0) this
becomes
1 1
θ = tr (Ln g)|T Σ = tr (Ln h)|T Σ = tr κ,
2 2
where h is the metric induced by g on S and κ is the second fundamental form
of Σ on S. We conclude that Σ is marginally trapped, that is, has zero
outward null expansion, if and only tr κ = 0, which is precisely the condition
for Σ to be a minimal surface. Now a marginally trapped surface anticipates
the formation of trapped surfaces, which will lead to geodesic incompleteness
of the resulting spacetime, presumably due to singularities. If one believes
the weak cosmic censorship conjecture, these singularities can only
occur inside black holes, and so there must be a black hole event horizon
enveloping any marginally trapped surface, presumably with greater area.
We shall see in Chapter 7 that the area of a black hole horizon cannot
decrease towards the future, and also that, for a given mass, the area of the
horizon is maximal for a Schwarzschild black hole. If we assume that the
final state of the maximal globally hyperbolic development of (S, h, 0) is a
black hole spacetime, then the final black hole mass must be bounded by the
ADM mass (the difference being the energy carried away by gravitational
radiation). Combining all these observations leads to the Penrose inequality.
Theorem 7.1. (Huisken and Ilmanen [HI01], Bray [Bra01]) Let
(S, h) be a complete asymptotically flat Riemannian manifold with scalar
curvature R̄ ≥ 0. Then:
q
A
(i) Its ADM mass satisfies M ≥ 16π , where A is the sum of the areas
of the outermost
q minimal surfaces (Figure 6).
A
(ii) If M = 16π then the restriction of (S, h, 0) to the exterior of the outer
minimal surfaces coincides with the initial data for the Schwarzschild
solution of mass M outside the event horizon.
Proof. Following [Lam10], we give a proof of only for asymptotically
flat Riemannian 3-manifolds S that are graphs of smooth functions f : U ⊂
R3 → R, with the metric h induced by the Euclidean metric of R4 . Here
N
[
3
U =R \ Ka ,
a=1
obtain
N Z
1 1 X 1
Z
M= R̄ + (∂
2 i
f ∂ ∂
j j f − ∂ ∂
i j f ∂ j f ) ni ,
16π U 16π ∂Ka 1 + | grad f |
a=1
where n is the outward unit normal to ∂Ka . Now, as is well known, the
¯ of f in ∂Ka by
Laplacian ∆f of f in U is related to the Laplacian ∆f
∆f = ∆f¯ + Hf (n, n) + (n · f ) tr κ,
where Hf is the Hessian of f and κ is the second fundamental form of ∂Ka
¯ = 0, and so
in R3 . Since f is constant on ∂Ka we have ∆f
(∂i f ∂j ∂j f − ∂i ∂j f ∂j f )ni = (n · f )∆f − Hf (n, grad f )
= (n · f )Hf (n, n) + (n · f )2 tr κ − hgrad f, niHf (n, n)
= hgrad f, ni2 tr κ = | grad f |2 tr κ,
where we used grad f = hgrad f, nin. Therefore
N Z
| grad f |2
1 1 X
Z
M= R̄ + tr κ
16π U 16π 1 + | grad f |2
a=1 ∂Ka
N Z
1 1 X
Z
= R̄ + tr κ.
16π U 16π ∂Ka a=1
Now Minkowski’s inequality for the smooth boundaries of compact con-
vex sets states that Z p
tr κ ≥ 16πAa ,
∂Ka
where Aa is the area of ∂Ka . Since R̄ ≥ 0 we conclude that
v
N r u N
X Aa u 1 X
M≥ ≥ t Aa ,
16π 16π
a=1 a=1
√ √ √
where we used a + b ≤ a + b for a, b > 0.
We do not prove the rigidity statement (ii). It is interesting to note that
this statement, together with the formula above for the ADM mass, implies
that any graph of the type considered above with zero scalar curvature is a
Flamm paraboloid.
8. Exercises
(1) Let g be a static spherically symmetric Lorentzian metric on R4
whose matter fields have spatially compact support and satisfy the
dominant energy condition. There exist smooth functions φ = φ(r)
and m = m(r) such that
dr2
g = −e2φ(r) dt2 + 2 2 2 2
+ r dθ + sin θdϕ .
1 − 2m(r)
r
8. EXERCISES 133
A1
A2
Show that:
(a) The Einstein equations imply
dm
= 4πr2 ρ;
dr
dφ m + 4πr3 p
= ,
dr r(r − 2m)
where ρ and p are the energy density and the radial pressure
as measured by the static observers.
(b) There exist constants M ≥ 0 and Φ ∈ R such that
lim m(r) = M and lim φ(r) = Φ.
r→+∞ r→+∞
Black holes
momentum as
1
Z
JKomar = ⋆dY ♭
16π Σ
(note the change in sign and absolute value of the constant, due to the
fact that Y is now spacelike and essentially orthogonal to the timelike unit
normal N ). The same exact argument used the Komar mass shows that
JKomar does not depend on the choice of Σ. Performing the calculation for
the Kerr metric yields
JKomar = M a,
and so the parameter a can be interpreted as the angular momentum per
unit mass.
The Killing vector X becomes null on the hypersurface given by the
equation
p
r = M + M 2 − a2 cos2 θ,
known as the ergosphere. However, it is easy to show that the metric
induced on this hypersurface is Lorentzian, and so it cannot be the black
hole event horizon (since it can be crossed both ways by timelike curves).
The event horizon corresponds to the hypersurface r = r+ , where
p
r+ = M + M 2 − a 2 .
Indeed, the function ∆ changes sign on this hypersurface, and so grad r
becomes timelike (meaning that r must decrease along causal curves). Note
that the ergosphere encloses the event horizon, touching it only at the poles,
as shown in Figure 1. The region in between, where X is spacelike, is
called the ergoregion, because matter fields satisfying the dominant energy
condition can have negative energy there, and so extract energy from the
black hole when absorbed (a mechanism known as the Penrose process
in the case of particles or superradiance in the case of fields). Note also
that the existence of an event horizon requires that |a| ≤ M . If |a| < M the
black hole is said to be subextremal, and if |a| = M it is called extremal.
implying that
E = E0 e−kt .
In other words, the energy of the null geodesic as measured by the observers
of the congruence decreases exponentially if k > 0 (redshift effect), and
increases exponentially if k < 0 (blueshift effect).
3. SMARR’S FORMULA AND THE FIRST LAW 145
Since
∇Z ♭ (N, n) = ∇Z ♭ (Z, n) = h∇Z Z, ni = hkZ, ni = k,
we finally obtain the Smarr formula:
kA
M= + 2ΩJ,
4π
where A is the area of the cross-section Σ (which in particular is the same
for all cross-sections of H ).
N
Z
H
E1
A cross section of the event horizon can be obtained by taking the limit
as r → r+ of a surface of constant (t, r). The induced metric is then
2M a2 r+ sin2 θ
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ds = (r+ + a cos θ)dθ + r+ + a + 2 sin2 θdϕ2 ,
r+ + a2 cos2 θ
and its area is
p
2
A = 4π(r+ + a2 ) = 8π(M 2 + M M 2 − a2 ),
whence r
A 4πJ 2
M= + .
16π A
Noting that M = M (A, J) is homogeneous of degree 1/2, we know from
Euler’s homogeneous function theorem that
1 ∂M ∂M
M= A+ J.
2 ∂A ∂J
On the other hand, it is easy to check that
∂M
= Ω.
∂J
Smarr’s formula then implies the following result:
4. SECOND LAW 147
i+
H+ I+
S1
H
i0
S0
H− I−
i−
hole, then, in view of the first law of black hole thermodynamics, we can
rewrite the result above as
8π
dA = (dM − ΩdJ) ≥ 0,
k
that is, the area of the event horizon of a Kerr black hole can only increase
as a result of its interaction with test fields.
In fact, it is possible to prove a general result about the area of the event
horizon of a black hole spacetime.
qn
pn
• Second law: The entropy of the gas cannot decrease towards the
future.
These are remarkably similar to the three laws of black hole thermody-
namics, if we identify the black hole mass M with the internal energy, (some
multiple of) the horizon’s surface gravity with the black hole’s temperature
and (some multiple of) the horizon’s area with the black hole’s entropy. In-
spired by this analogy, Bekenstein [Bek72] proposed in 1972 that black holes
are indeed thermodynamic systems. Hawking initially resisted this sugges-
tion, since objects in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature must emit
black body radiation, which black holes cannot (classically) do. In 1974,
however, Hawking [Haw74] applied methods of quantum field theory in
curved spacetime to show that black holes do indeed emit particles with a
thermal spectrum corresponding to the temperature1
k
T =
2π
(Hawking radiation). In particular, this fixed the black hole entropy as
A
S= .
4
An elementary discussion of quantum field theory in curved spacetime and
Hawking radiation can be found in [Car03].
6. Exercises
(1) To compute the Komar mass and angular momentum of the Kerr
solution we consider the region r ≫ M, a.
(a) Show that a positive orthonormal coframe is approximately
given in this region by
ω 0 ∼ dt, ω r ∼ dr, ω θ ∼ rdθ,
2M a sin θ
ω ϕ ∼ r sin θdϕ − dt.
r2
(b) Establish the following asymptotic formulas:
2M a sin2 θ
♭ 2M
X ∼− 1− dt − dϕ;
r r
2M a sin2 θ
Y♭ ∼− dt + r2 sin2 θdϕ;
r
2M
dX ♭ ∼ 2 ω 0 ∧ ω r + . . . ;
r
6M a sin2 θ 0
dY ♭ ∼ − ω ∧ ωr + . . . .
r2
(c) Prove that MKomar = M and JKomar = M a.
1In units where Boltzmann’s constant and the reduced Planck constant are both set
to 1.
152 7. BLACK HOLES
where
dr
Z
v =t+ ,
V (r)
(b) Assume that there V has an isolated zero at r = rH , so that
this hypersurface is a Killing horizon. Show that the corre-
∂
sponding surface gravity relative to ∂v is
1
k = V ′ (rH ).
2
(5) Consider a one-parameter family of null geodesics γ(τ, λ) connect-
ing two timelike curves c0 (τ ) = γ(τ, 0) and c1 (τ ) = γ(τ, 1). Show
that
∂ ∂γ ∂γ
, = 0,
∂λ ∂τ ∂λ
and use this to prove that if τ is the proper time for the curve c0
and Z τ
τ ′ (τ ) = |ċ1 (t)| dt
τ0
is the proper time for the curve c1 then
dτ ′ E0
= ,
dτ E1
where
∂γ ċ1 ∂γ
E0 = − ċ0 , and E1 = − ,
∂λ |ċ1 | ∂λ
6. EXERCISES 153
Topology
Definition 6.1. A topological space is a set M with a topology,
that is, a list of the open subsets of M , satisfying:
(1) Both ∅ and M are open;
(2) Any union of open sets is open;
(3) Any finite intersection of open sets is open.
All the usual topological notions can now be defined. For instance, a
closed set is a set whose complement is open. The interior int A of a
subset A ⊂ M is the largest open set contained in A, its closure A is the
smallest closed set containing A, and its boundary is ∂A = A \ int A.
The main object of topology is the study of limits and continuity.
Definition 6.2. A sequence {pn } is said to converge to p ∈ M if for
any open set U ∋ p there exists k ∈ N such that pn ∈ U for all n ≥ k.
Definition 6.3. A map f : M → N between two topological spaces is
said to be continuous if for each open set U ⊂ N the preimage f −1 (U ) is
an open subset of M . A bijection f is called a homeomorphism if both f
and its inverse f −1 are continuous.
A system of local coordinates on a manifold is an example of a homeo-
morphism between the coordinate neighborhood and an open set of Rn .
Two fundamental concepts in topology are compactness and connected-
ness.
Definition 6.4. A subset A ⊂ M is said to be compact if every cover
of A by open sets admits a finite subcover. It is said to be connected if it
is impossible to write A = (A ∩ U ) ∪ (A ∩ V ) with U, V disjoint open sets
and A ∩ U, A ∩ V 6= ∅.
The following result generalizes the theorems of Weierstrass and Bolzano.
Theorem 6.5. Continuous maps carry compact sets to compact sets,
and connected sets to connected sets.
155
156 APPENDIX: MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS FOR PHYSICISTS
Metric spaces
Definition 6.6. A metric space is a set M and a distance function
d : M × M → [0, +∞) satisfying:
(1) Positivity: d(p, q) ≥ 0 and d(p, q) = 0 if and only if p = q;
(2) Symmetry: d(p, q) = d(q, p);
(3) Triangle inequality: d(p, r) ≤ d(p, q) + d(q, r),
for all p, q, r ∈ M .
The open ball with center p and radius ε is the set
Bε (p) = {q ∈ M | d(p, q) < ε}.
Any metric space has a natural topology, whose open sets are unions of open
balls. In this topology pn → p if and only if d(pn , p) → 0, F ⊂ M is closed
if and only if every convergent sequence in F has limit in F , and K ⊂ M is
compact if and only if every sequence in K has a sublimit in K.
A fundamental notion for metric spaces is completeness.
Definition 6.7. A sequence {pn } in M is said to be a Cauchy se-
quence if for all ε > 0 there exists N ∈ N such that d(pn , pm ) < ε for all
m, n > N . A metric space is said to be complete if all its Cauchy sequences
converge.
In particular, any compact metric space is complete.
Hopf-Rinow theorem
Definition 6.8. A Riemannian manifold is said to be geodesically
complete if any geodesic is defined for every value of its parameter.
Definition 6.9. Let (M, g) be a connected Riemannian manifold and
p, q ∈ M . The distance between p and q is defined as
d(p, q) = inf{l(γ) | γ is a smooth curve connecting p to q}.
It is easily seen that (M, d) is a metric space. Remarkably, the com-
pleteness of this metric space is equivalent to geodesic completeness.
Theorem 6.10. (Hopf-Rinow) A connected Riemannian manifold (M, g)
is geodesically complete if and only if (M, d) is a complete metric space.
Differential forms
Definition 6.11. A differential form ω of degree k is simply a com-
pletely anti-symmetric k-tensor: ωα1 ···αk = ω[α1 ···αk ] .
For instance, covector fields are differential forms of degree 1. Differential
forms are useful because of their rich algebraic and differential structure.
DIFFERENTIAL FORMS 157
If the coordinate system is positive, that is, if the coordinate basis {∂1 , . . . , ∂n }
has positive orientation at all points, we define
Z Z
ω= a(x)dx1 . . . dxn ,
U x(U )
Lie derivative
A vector field X can be identified with the differential operator that cor-
responds to taking derivatives along X. In local coordinates, this operator
is given by
X · f = X µ ∂µ f.
It turns out that the commutator of two vector fields X and Y , regarded as
differential operators, is also a vector field:
[X, Y ] · f = X · (Y µ ∂µ f ) − Y · (X µ ∂µ f )
= (X · Y µ )∂µ f + Y µ X ν ∂ν ∂µ f − (Y · X µ )∂µ f − X µ Y ν ∂ν ∂µ f
= (X · Y µ − Y · X µ )∂µ f.
LIE DERIVATIVE 159
Definition 6.17. The Lie bracket of two vector fields X and Y is the
vector field
[X, Y ] = (X · Y µ − Y · X µ )∂µ .
This operation is intimately related with the exterior derivative.
Proposition 6.18. If ω is a 1-form then
dω(X, Y ) = X · ω(Y ) − Y · ω(X) − ω([X, Y ])
for all vector fields X and Y .
Proof. In local coordinates we have
dω(X, Y ) = (∂µ ων − ∂ν ωµ )X µ Y ν = Y ν X · ων − X ν Y · ων
= X · (ων Y ν ) − ων X · Y ν − Y · (ων X ν ) + ων Y · X ν
= X · ω(Y ) − Y · ω(X) − ων (X · Y ν − Y · X ν ).
If the vector field X is nonzero at some point p then there exists a
coordinate system defined in a neighborhood of p such that X = ∂1 . In
fact, we just have to fix local coordinates (x2 , . . . , xn ) on a hypersurface Σ
transverse to X at p and let x1 be the parameter for the flow of X starting
at Σ. If T is any tensor, we define its Lie derivative along X as the tensor
with components
(LX T )αβ11...β
···αk
l
= ∂1 Tβα11...β
···αk
l
.
This can be extended to points where X vanishes by continuity. Although
this definition seems to depend on the coordinate system, it is actually
invariant. To check this, we just have to find an invariant expression for the
Lie derivative of functions, vector fields and 1-forms and then notice that
the Leibniz rule applies.
Proposition 6.19. If X is a vector field then:
(1) LX f = X · f for functions f ;
(2) LX Y = [X, Y ] for vector fields Y ;
(3) LX ω = Xy dω + d(Xy ω) for 1-forms ω
(where y means contraction in the first index).
Proof. The formula for functions is immediate. In the coordinate sys-
tem where X = ∂1 ,
LX Y = ∂1 Y µ ∂µ = (X · Y µ − Y · X µ )∂µ = [X, Y ].
Finally, we have
(Xy dω + d(Xy ω))(Y ) = dω(X, Y ) + Y · ω(X) = X · ω(Y ) − ω([X, Y ])
= LX (ω(Y )) − ω(LX Y ) = (LX ω)(Y ),
where we used the Leibniz rule. This formula is sometimes called Cartan’s
magic formula.
160 APPENDIX: MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS FOR PHYSICISTS
α<β
[HI01] G. Huisken and T. Ilmanen, The inverse mean curvature flow and the Rie-
mannian Penrose inequality, J. Diff. Geom. 59 (2001), 353–437.
[Isr67] W. Israel, Event horizons in static vacuum space-times, Phys. Rev. 164 (1967),
1776–1779.
[KN96] S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, Foundations of differential geometry, vol. I and
II, Wiley, 1996.
[Lam10] M.-K. Lam, The graphs cases of the Riemannian positive mass and Penrose
inequalities in all dimensions, arXiv:1010.4256 (2010).
[Mar09] M. Mars, Present status of the Penrose inequality, Class. Quant. Grav. 26
(2009), 193001.
[MTW73] C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman, 1973.
[Mun00] J. Munkres, Topology, Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[Nab88] G. Naber, Spacetime and singularities – An introduction, Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
[O’N83] B. O’Neill, Semi-Riemannian geometry, Academic Press, 1983.
[O’N95] , The geometry of Kerr black holes, A K Peters, 1995.
[Pen65] R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, Phys. Rev. Lett.
14 (1965), 57–59.
[Pen87] , Techniques of differential topology in relativity, Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics, 1987.
[Poi07] E. Poisson, A relativist’s toolkit: The mathematics of black-hole mechanics,
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[Rin09] H. Ringström, The Cauchy problem in general relativity, European Mathemat-
ical Society, 2009.
[Rob75] D. Robinson, Uniqueness of the Kerr black hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975),
905–906.
[Sbi16] J. Sbierski, On the existence of a maximal Cauchy development for the Einstein
equations: A dezornification, Ann. Henri Poincaré 17 (2016), 301–329.
[SY81] R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, Proof of the positive mass theorem ii, Commun. Math.
Phys. 79 (1981), 231–260.
[Sop76] D. Soper, Classical Field Theory, Wiley, 1976.
[Tow97] P. Townsend, Black holes, arXiv:gr-qc/9707012 (1997).
[Wal84] R. Wald, General relativity, University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Index
function quasi-linear, 95
distance, 156 hypersurface
lapse, 99 Cauchy, 60
upper semicontinuous, 76 null, 141
future spacelike, 72
causal, 55, 82 timelike, 37
chronological, 55, 82
domain of dependence, 60 inequality
future-directed curve, 55 Minkowski, 132, 137
future-inextendible curve, 60 Sobolev, 94
future-pointing vector, 7 infinity
null, 18
Galileo transformation, 5 spacelike, 18
gauge timelike, 18
Lorentz, 97 interior, 155
potentials, 96 interior cone condition, 94
transformation, 97 isothermal coordinates, 20
transverse traceless, 125
Jacobi
Gauss Lemma
equation, 64
first version, 38
field, 64
second version, 39
John material, 120
Gauss-Bonnet theorem, 123
geodesically complete manifold, 156 Karlovini-Samuelsson material, 120
geodesically convex neighborhood, 56 Kerr metric, 139
geometrized units, 13 Killing horizon, 141
global time function, 59 Klein-Gordon equation, 91
globally hyperbolic spacetime, 60 Komar
gravitational angular momentum, 140
potential, 13 mass, 110
wave, 124 Kottler metric, 46
Kretschmann scalar, 22
Hamiltonian, 115
density, 114 Lagrangian density, 114
harmonic coordinates, 99 elastic, 118
Hausdorff electromagnetic field, 116
manifold, 102 scalar field, 115
metric, 76 lapse function, 99
Hawking Lemma
radiation, 151 Gauss, 38, 39
singularity theorem, 79 Poincaré, 157
Hodge Zorn, 102
d’Alembertian, 111 Levi-Civita connection, 10
dual, 158 Lichnerowicz method, 102
homeomorphism, 155 Lie bracket, 159
horizon light cone, 6
event, 22, 141 lightlike vector, 6
Killing, 141 linear hyperbolic system, 95
Hubble Lorentz
constant, 28 gauge, 97
law, 28 transformation, 5
Huisken-Ilmanen theorem, 131 Lorentzian
hyperbolic system manifold, 10
linear, 95 metric, 10
168 INDEX
wave
equation, 15
gravitational, 124
weak cosmic censorship conjecture, 131
weak energy condition, 66
Weitzenbock formula, 111
white hole, 26
wormhole, 26