Abstract
In this paper we make a detailed analysis of conservation principles in the context of a family of fourth-order gravitational theories generated via a quadratic Lagrangian. In particular, we focus on the associated notion of energy and start a program related to its study. We also exhibit examples of solutions which provide intuitions about this notion of energy which allows us to interpret it, and introduce several study cases where its analysis seems tractable. Finally, positive energy theorems are presented in restricted situations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We are parametrising these solutions in a convenient form for our purposes.
Notice that the Einstein constraint equations imply that \(\Lambda \)-vacuum initial data sets, with \(\Lambda >0\), cannot be AE according to standard definitions.
Such invariance property has been analysed in other important limiting cases in [10]
Notations and conventions are detailed in the appendix Sect. 7.1
The completely antisymmetric symbols \({\mu _{\hat{\bar{g}}}}_{\alpha _0\cdots \alpha _{n}}\) are defined by the relation \(dV_{\hat{\bar{g}}}={\mu _{\hat{\bar{g}}}}_{\alpha _0\cdots \alpha _{n}}\vartheta ^{\alpha _0}\wedge \cdots \wedge \vartheta ^{\alpha _n}\) for some positively oriented co-frame \(\{\vartheta ^{\alpha _0},\cdots ,\vartheta ^{\alpha _n} \}\).
by admissible we mean all metric which actually remain static spherically symmetric. In particular having \(f\le 0\) means that the roles of r and t are exchanged and the space loses its static attribute.
This would be \(g_{ij} = \delta _{ij} + O_2(r^{-\tau })\) and \(K_{ij} = O_1(r^{-\tau - 1})\), with \(\tau > 0\).
The ± sign for \(\dot{N}\) depends on whether we are in the asymptotically expanding or contracting case (see Remark 5.1).
See Theorem 5.2 for a detailed statement.
Since below we shall only be interested in an explicit expression for \(\partial _t X^j\) near infinity, where \(|X|_e \rightarrow 0\), this condition will be satisfied. Within the general Cauchy problem, this does not pose a relevant problem, since the metric e is actually auxiliary. Thus, if \(X\ne 0\), one can chose an equivalent metric given by \(e'= \frac{1}{2 \max |X|_e} e,\) which guarantees that \(|X|_{e'} <1\) over all of M over all of M.
In this case, in the \(o_4(|x|^{-\sigma })\) hypothesis we impose on \(\Omega \) implies that time-derivatives also increase the decay by one order.
References
Abbott, L., Deser, S.: Stability Of Gravity With A Cosmological Constant. Nucl. Phys. B 195, 76 (1982)
Abraham, R., Marsden, J., Ratiu, T.: Manifolds, Tensor Analysis, and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2001)
Adami, H., et al.: Conserved charges in extended theories of gravity. Phys. Rep. 834–835, 1–85 (2019)
Alexakis, S., Mazzeo, R.: Complete Willmore surfaces in \(\mathbb{H} ^3\) with bounded energy: boundary regularity and bubbling. J. Diff. Geom. 101, 1 (2015)
Alty, L.: The generalized Gauss–Bonnet–Chern theorem. J. Math. Phys. 36, 3094 (1995)
Arms, J., Marsden, J., Moncrief, V.: The structure of the space of solutions of Einstein’s equations II: several killing fields and the Einstein–Yang–Mills equations. Ann. Phys. 144, 81–106 (1982)
Arnowitt, R., Deser, S., Misner, C.: Coordinate invariance and energy expressions in general relativity. Phys. Rev. 122(3), 9971006 (1961)
Ashtekar, A., Das, S.: Asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-times: conserved quantities. Class. Quant. Grav. 17, L17 (2000)
Avalos, R., Laurain, P., Marque, N.: Rigidity Theorems for Fourth Order Gravity (2022)
Avalos, R., Laurain, P., Lira, J.: On the positive energy theorem for stationary solutions to fourth-order gravity. Calc. Var. 61, 48 (2022)
Avalos, R., Lira, J.: Reduced thin-sandwich equations on manifolds euclidean at infinity and on closed manifolds: existence and multiplicity. J. Math. Phys. 61, 122501 (2020)
Avez, A.: Formule de Gauss–Bonnet–Chem en métrique de signature quelconque. C.R. Acad. Sci. 255, 2049–2051 (1962)
Bartnik, R.: The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34, 661–693 (1986)
Bartnik, R.: Phase space for the Einstein equations. Commun. Anal. Geom. 13(5), 845–885 (2005)
Berezin, V., Dokuchaeva, V., Eroshenko, Y.: Spherically symmetric conformal gravity and “gravitational bubbles”. Astrophys. J. (1989)
Boulware, D., Deser, S., Stelle, K.: Energy and supercharge in higher derivative gravity. Phys. Lett. B 168(4), 336–340 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)91640-0
Boulware, D., Deser, S., Stelle, K.: Properties of energy in higher derivative gravity theories. Quant. Field Theory Quant. Stat. 2, 101 (1987)
Branson, T.: Differential operators canonically associated to a conformal structure. Math. Scand. 57, 293–345 (1985)
Branson, T.: The Functional Determinant. Lobal Analysis Research Center Lecture Note Series 4, Seoul National University (1993)
Bryant, R.: A duality theorem for Willmore surfaces. J. Differ. Geom. 20, 23–53 (1984)
Burgess, C.: Quantum gravity in everyday life: general relativity as an effective field theory. Living Rev. Rel. 7, 5 (2004)
Carlotto, A.: Four lectures on asymptotically flat riemannian manifolds. In: Einstein Equations: Physical and Mathematical Aspects of General Relativity (2019)
Cederbaum, C., Sakovich, A.: On center of mass and foliations by constant spacetime mean curvature surfaces for isolated systems in General Relativity (2018). arXiv:1901.00028 [math.AP]
Chang, A., Yang, P.: Extremal metrics of zeta function determinants on 4-manifolds. Ann. Math. 2 142(1), 171–212 (1995)
Chern, S.: On the curvatura integra in a Riemannian manifold. Ann. Math. 2nd Se. (1945)
Choquet-Bruhat, Y.: The Cauchy Problem. Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research (1962)
Choquet-Bruhat, Y.: Positive-energy theorems. Relativite, groupes et topologie II/Relativity, groups and topology II (1984)
Choquet-Bruhat, Y.: General Relativity and the Einstein Equations. Oxford Mathematical Monographs, pp. xxvi+785. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
Choquet-Bruhat, Y., Christodoulou, D., Francaviglia, M.: Cauchy data on a manifold. Annales de l’I. H. P., section A 29(3), 241–255 (1978)
Choquet-Bruhat, Y., Isenberg, J., Pollack, D.: The constraint equations for the Einstein-scalar fi eld system on compact manifolds. Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 809 (2007)
Chruściel, P.: Lectures on energy in general relativity, Kraków, March–April 2010. http://homepage.univie.ac.at/piotr.chrusciel (2013) ()
Chruściel, P.: Lectures on Energy in General Relativity. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/piotr.chrusciel/teaching/Energy/Energy.pdf (2012)
Chruściel, P., Corvino, J., Isenberg, J.: Construction of N-body initial data sets in general relativity. Commun. Math. Phys. 304, 637–647 (2011)
Chruściel, P., Delay, E.: On mapping properties of the general relativistic constraints operator in weighted function spaces, with applications. M é m. Soc. Math. de France 94, 1–103 (2003)
Chruściel, P., Isenberg, J., Pollack, D.: Initial Data Engineering. Commun. Math. Phys. 257, 29–42 (2005)
Corvino, J.: Scalar Curvature Deformation and a Gluing Construction for the Einstein Constraint Equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 214, 137 (2000)
Corvino, J., Schoen, R.: On the asymptotics for the vacuum Einstein constraint equations. J. Differ. Geom. 73, 185–217 (2006)
Deser, S., Jackiw, R., Templeton, S.: Three-Dimensional Massive Gauge Theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 975 (1982)
Deser, S., Jackiw, R., Templeton, S.: Topologically Massive Gauge Theories. Ann. Phys. 140, 372 (1982)
Deser, S., Tekin, B.: Energy in generic higher curvature gravity theories. Phys. Rev. D (3) (2003)
Deser, S., et al.: Critical points of D-dimensional extended gravities. Phy. Rev. D 83, 061502 (2011)
Dilts, J., et al.: Non-CMC solutions of the Einstein constraint equations on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds. Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 065001 (2014)
Djadli, Z., Hebey, E., Ledoux, M.: Paneitz-type operators and applications. Duke Math. J. 104(1), 129–169 (2000)
Djadli, Z., Malchiodi, A.: Existence of conformal metrics with constant \(Q\)-curvature. Ann. Math. 168, 813–858 (2008)
Donoghue, J.: General relativity as an effective field theory: the leading quantum corrections. Phy. Rev. D 50(6), 3874 (1994)
Dzhunushaliev, V., Schmidt, H.: New vacuum solutions of conformal Weyl gravity. J. Math. Phys. 41, 3007 (2000)
Eichmair, M., Metzger, J.: Unique isoperimetric foliations of asymptotically flat manifolds in all dimensions. Invent. Math. 1, 1–40 (2012)
Eichmair, M., et al.: The spacetime positive mass theorem in dimensions less than eight. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 18, 83–121 (2016)
Esposito, P., Robert, F.: Mountain pass critical points for Paneitz–Branson operators. Calc. Var. Part. Differ. Equ. 15(4), 493–517 (2002)
Fiedler, B., Schimming, R.: Exact solutions of the Bach field equations of general relativity. Rep. Math. Phys. 17, 15–36 (1980)
Fischer, A., Marsden, J.: Linearization stability of nonlinear partial differential equations. Proc. Symposia Pure Math. 27, 219 (1975)
Fischer, A., Marsden, J., Moncrief, V.: The structure of the space of solutions of Einstein’s equations. I. One Killing field. Annales de l’I. H. P. Section A tome 33(2), 147–194 (1980)
Girbau, J., Bruna, L.: Stability by Linearization of Einstein’s Field Equation. Birkh ä user, Springer, Basel AG (2010)
Graham, C., et al.: Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian, I: Existence. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 46(2), 557–565 (1992)
Gursky, M.: The principal eigenvalue of a conformally invariant differential operator, with an application to semilinear elliptic PDE. Commun. Math. Phys. 207, 131–143 (1999)
Gursky, M., Malchiodi, A.: A strong maximum principle for the Paneitz operator and a non-local flow for the \(Q\)-curvature. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17, 2137–2173 (2015)
Gursky, M., Malchiodi, A.: A strong maximum principle for the Paneitz operator and a non-local flow for the \(Q\)-curvature. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 17, 2137–2173 (2015)
Hang, F., Yang, P.: Sign of Green’s function of Paneitz operators and the \(Q\) curvature. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 19, 9775–9791 (2015)
Hang, F., Yang, P.: \(Q\) curvature on a class of \(3\)-manifolds. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 69(4), 734–744 (2016)
Hang, F., Yang, P.: \(Q\) curvature on a class of manifolds with dimension at least \(5\). Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 69, 1452–1491 (2016)
Henneaux, M., Teitelboim, C.: Asymptotically Anti-De Sitter spaces. Commun. Math. Phys. 98, 391 (1985)
Hollands, S., Ishibashi, A., Marolf, D.: Comparison between various notions of conserved charges in asymptotically AdS spacetimes. Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 2881 (2005)
Holst, M., Meier, C.: Non-CMC solutions to the Einstein constraint equations on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds with apparent horizon boundaries. Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 025006 (2015)
Holst, M., Nagy, G., Tsogtgerel, G.: Rough solutions of the Einstein constraints on closed manifolds without near-CMC conditions. Commun. Math. Phys. 288, 547 (2009)
Holst, M., Tsogtgerel, G.: The Lichnerowicz equation on compact manifolds with boundary. Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 205011 (2013)
Hooft, G., Veltman, M.: One loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar é : Section A, Phys. Theor. 20, 69 (1974)
Huisken, G., Yau, S.-T.: Definition of Center of Mass for Isolated Physical Systems and Unique Foliations by Stable Spheres with Constant Mean Curvature. Invent. Math. 124, 281–311 (1996)
Humbert, E., Raulot, S.: Positive mass theorem for the Paneitz–Branson operator. Calc. Var. Part. Differ. Equ. 36, 525–531 (2009)
Isenberg, J.: Constant mean curvature solution of the Einstein constraint equations on closed manifold. Class. Quant. Grav. 12, 2249–2274 (1995)
Isenberg, J., Maxwell, D., Pollack, D.: A gluing construction for non-vacuum solutions of the Einstein-constraint equations. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 9, 129–172 (2005)
Isenberg, J., Mazzeo, R., Pollack, D.: Gluing and Wormholes for the Einstein constraint equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 231, 529 (2002)
Kaku, M.: Quantization of conformal gravity: another approach to the renormalization of gravity. Nucl. Phys. B 203, 285–296 (1982)
Kehagias, A., et al.: Black hole solutions in R 2 gravity. J. High Energy Phys. 2015, 1–20 (2015)
Kim, W., Kulkarni, S., Yi, S.: Quasilocal conserved charges in a covariant theory of gravity. Phy. Rev. Lett. 111, 081101 (2013)
Lee, D.: Geometric Relativity. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 201. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2019)
Lee, J., Parker, T.: The Yamabe Problem. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 17, 1 (1987)
Lee, J., Wald, R.: Local symmetries and constraints. J. Math. Phys. 31, 725 (1990)
Lohkamp, J.: The Higher Dimensional Positive Mass Theorem I. (2016). arXiv:math/0608795 [math.DG]
J. Lohkamp, The Higher Dimensional Positive Mass Theorem II. (2017). arXiv:1612.07505 [math.DG]
Lü, H., Pope, C.: Critical gravity in four dimensions. Phy. Rev. Lett. 106, 181302 (2011)
Lü, H., et al.: AdS and Lifshitz black holes in conformal and Einstein–Weyl gravities. Phy. Rev. D 86, 044011 (2012)
Maldacena, J.: Einstein Gravity from Conformal Gravity. (2011). arXiv:1105.5632 [hep-th]
Mannheim, P.: Making the case for conformal gravity. Found. Phys. 42, 388–420 (2012)
Mannheim, P., Kazanas, D.: Exact vacuum solution to conformal Weyl gravity and galactic rotation curves. Astrophys. J. (1989)
Marque, N.: Minimal bubbling for Willmore surfaces. In: International Mathematics Research Notices (2020). rnaa079. https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnaa079
Maxwell, D.: Rough solutions to the Einstein constraint equations on compact manifolds. J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 2(2), 521–546 (2005)
Maxwell, D.: Solutions of the Einstein constraint equations with apparent horizon boundaries. Commun. Math. Phys. 253, 561–583 (2005)
Maxwell, D.: A class of solutions of the vacuum Einstein constraint equations with freely specified mean curvature. Math. Res. Lett. 16(4), 627–645 (2009)
Moncrief, V.: Space-time symmetries and linearization stability of the Einstein equations. II. J. Math. Phys. 17, 1893 (1976)
Ndiaye, C.: Constant \(Q\)-curvature metrics in arbitrary dimension. J. Funct. Anal. 251, 1–58 (2007)
Nerz, C.: Foliations by stable spheres with constant mean curvature for isolated systems without asymptotic symmetry. Calc. Var. Part. Differ. Equ. 54(2), 1911–1946 (2015)
Nerz, C.: Foliations by spheres with constant expansion for isolated systems without asymptotic symmetry. J. Differ. Geom. 109(2), 257–289 (2018)
Noakes, D.: The initial value formulation of higher derivative gravity. J. Math. Phys. 24, 1846 (1983)
Paneitz, S.: A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo- Riemannian manifolds (summary). Symmet. Integrabil. Geom. Methods Appl. 4, 1 (2008)
Regge, T., Teiltelboim, C.: Role of surface integrals in the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity. Ann. Phys. 88, 286–318 (1974)
Schmidt, H.: A new conformal duality of spherically symmetric space-times. Annalen Phys. 9SI, 158–159 (2000)
Schoen, R.: Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to constant scalar curvature. J. Differ. Geom 20, 479–595 (1984)
Schoen, R., Yau, S.-T.: On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in general relativity. Commun. Math. Phys. 65, 4576 (1979)
Schoen, R., Yau, S.-T.: Proof of the Positive Mass Theorem. II. Commun. Math. Phys. 79, 231–260 (1981)
Schoen, R., Yau, S.-T.: Positive Scalar Curvature and Minimal Hypersurface Singularities (2017). arXiv:1704.05490 [math.DG]
Spivak, M.: A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry, vol. I. PUBLISH OR PERISH, INC (1999)
Starobinsky, A.: A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. Phys. Lett. B 91, 99–102 (1980)
Stelle, K.: Renormalization of higher-derivative quantum gravity. Phy. Rev. D 16(4), 953 (1977)
Stelle, K.: Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives. Gen. Rel. Grav. 9(4), 355–371 (1978)
Wald, R., Zoupas, A.: A general definition of “conserved quantities’’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity. Phys. Rev. D 61, 084027 (2000)
Willmore, T.J.: Riemannian geometry. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. xii+318 (1993)
Witten, E.: A new proof of the positive energy theorem. Commun. Math. Phys. 80, 381–402 (1981)
Zwiebach, B.: Curvature squared terms and string theories. Phys. Lett. B 156, 315 (1985)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the CAPES-COFECUB and CAPES-PNPD for their financial support and Paul Laurain for insightful discussions on this topic. This article was submitted for publication when the first author was employed by the University of Ceará, and the third author by the University of Potsdam. The first author would also like to thank the University of Tübingen and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for partial financial support related to the research presented in this paper. Similarly, the third author would like to thank the Université de Lorraine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Mihalis Dafermos.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Geometric Conventions
1.1.1 Curvature Conventions
To avoid any ambiguity let us pinpoint the curvature conventions we follow in this text: the curvature tensor is defined as:
with its components ordered as follows:
From this we get the canonical Ricci, Einstein, and scalar tensors:
1.1.2 Differential Forms
In this section we will establish our conventions concerning differential forms and operations related to them. First of all, given a k-form \(\omega \in \Omega ^k(V)\) on a d-dimensional manifold V and a local coordinate system \(\{x^i\}_{i=1}^d\), we fix \(\omega _{i_1\cdots i_k}\doteq \omega (\partial _{i_1},\cdots ,\partial _{i_k})\) as its components relative to the basis \(\{dx^{j_1}\wedge \cdots dx^{j_k}\}_{j_1<\cdots <j_k}\), and therefore we may locally write
where in the last equality the summation is not restricted to \(i_1<\cdots <i_k\). In this setting we have several well-known operations. To start with, given a semi-Riemannian manifold \((V^d,g)\) we have an induced semi-Riemannian metric \(g^{(k)}\) on each space \(\Omega ^k(V)\) which is given by
where above \(\beta ^{i_1\cdots i_k}\doteq g^{i_1j_1}\cdots g^{i_kj_k}\beta _{j_1\cdots j_k}\). It is not difficult to see that if \(\{e_1,\cdots ,e_d\}\) is a g-orthonormal basis for \(T_pV\) at a point \(p\in V\), and if \(\{e^1,\cdots ,\) \(e^d\}\) stands for its dual basis, then \(\{e^i_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge e^{i_k}\}_{i_1<\cdots <i_k}\) is a \(g^{(k)}\)-orthonormal basis for the fibre of \(\Omega ^k(V)\) over p (see, for instance, [2, Proposition 7.2.11]). In particular, it holds that
where above \(c_{i_{j}}\doteq g(e_{i_j},e_{i_j})=\pm 1\).
Also, in this setting, we introduce the Hodge-star operator, which is defined pointwise as a linear operator on each fibre. For this one needs to introduce a volume form. Thus, let us again consider an orientable semi-Riemannian manifold \((V^d,g)\) and denote the associated Riemannian volume form by \(dV_g\), which locally reads as \(dV_g=\sqrt{|\textrm{det}(g)|}dx^1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^d\). Given our vector bundle \(\Omega ^k(V)\xrightarrow []{\pi } V\), one defines a linear operator
by the requirement that for all \(\alpha ,\beta \in \Omega ^{k}(V)\) it holds that
Above, we add the subscript g on \(\star \) to highlight the dependence on this operator on the choice of metric g. This can be seen to be well-defined and, in fact, in local (oriented) coordinates one can see that the action of \(\star \) on \(\alpha \in \Omega ^k(V)\) is given by (see, for instance, [2, Proposition 7.2.12 and Example 7.2.14(D)]):
where above \(\epsilon _{j_1\cdots j_d}\) stands for the antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol and the sums which appeal to Einstein summation convention are understood as over all possible values of the indices. Sometimes, we shall write \(\mu _{j_1\cdots j_d}=\epsilon _{j_1\cdots j_d}\) \(\sqrt{|\textrm{det}(g)|}\) which is defined via the relation
Let us now recall that, given \(\alpha \in \Omega ^k(V)\), the exterior differential \(d:\Omega ^k(V)\mapsto \Omega ^{k+1}(V)\) is characterised by its local action given by
In particular, given a 1-form \(\alpha \in \Omega ^1(V)\), we see that
Now, given a semi-Riemannian manifold \((V^d,g)\) we can consider the formal adjoint \(d^{*}:\Omega ^{k+1}(V)\mapsto \Omega ^{k}(V)\), which we shall denote by \(\delta _{g}\) and where we shall highlight its dependence on g, which arises through the canonical choice of \(dV_g\) as the volume form. One can thus globally write
where \(\textrm{Ind}(g)\) denotes the index of the semi-Riemannian metric g. For instance, if g is Lorentzian, we have \(\textrm{Ind}(g)=1\). One can then compute that, in local coordinates, the following formula holds:
where above \(\nabla \) stands for the Riemannian connection associated to g.
Also, given \(X\in \Gamma (TV)\), let us introduce the interior product \(X\lrcorner :\Omega ^k(V)\mapsto \Omega ^{k-1}(TV)\) on any manifold \(V^d\), which is defined by
An important formula linking the exterior derivative, the interior product, and the Lie derivative is given by Cartan’s famous magic formula:
The above formula plays an important role in the application of Stokes’ theorem to operators in divergence form. Since in the core of this paper we will be interested in certain flux formalae which are derived in this manner within the Lorentzian setting, let us below briefly highlight a few differences with the more usual Riemannian setting.
Let \((V^{n+1}=M^n\times \mathbb {R}, \bar{g})\) be a Lorentzian manifold, parametrise the \(\mathbb {R}\) factor with a coordinate t. Assume \(\partial _t\) is time-like and denote by \(g_t\) the induced Riemannian metric on each \(M_t\doteq M\times \{t\}\). Assume furthermore that \((M^n,g_t)\) are orientable Riemannian manifolds and denote by \(dV_{g_t}\) their corresponding volume forms. With all this, we have a natural orientation for V: if at \(p\in M\) \(\{e_1,\cdots ,e_n\}\) denotes a positive basis for \(T_pM\), then \(\{\partial _t,e_1,\cdots ,e_n\}\) denotes a positive basis for \(T_{(p,t)}V\). Thus, if \(\{x^i\}_{i=1}^n\) is a positively oriented coordinate system for M, then \(dV_{\bar{g}}=\sqrt{|\textrm{det}(\bar{g})|}dt\wedge dx^1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx^n\) denotes our volume form.
Let \(\Omega \subset M\) be a compact subset with smooth boundary and define the subset \(\mathcal {C}_T=\Omega \times [0,T]\). This subset is Stokes regular, in the sense that it is regular enough so as to apply Stokes’ theorem over it. Now, let \(X\in \Gamma (TV)\) and from the formula
one gets that
where above \(\mathcal {J}^{*}:\partial \mathcal {C}_T\mapsto \mathcal {C}_T\) denotes the inclusion. We can split \(\partial \mathcal {C}_{T}=\Omega _0\cup \Omega _T\cup L\), where \(\Omega _0=\Omega \times \{0\}\), \(\Omega _T=\Omega \times \{T\}\) and \(L=\partial \Omega \times [0,T]\). On each of these hypersurfaces we denote the inclusion into V by \(\mathcal {J}^{*}_0,\mathcal {J}^{*}_T\) and \(\mathcal {J}^{*}_L\), respectively. Now, let n denote the future-pointing unit normal to each t-constant hypersurface \(M_t=M\times \{t\}\). Then, writing \(X=-\bar{g}(X,n)n + X^{\top }\), we find
Notice that in (73) \(\Omega _0\) is oriented with its Stokes induced orientation, where the outward-pointing unit normal corresponds to \(-n\) and thus \(\{e_1,\cdots ,e_n\}\) is a positive basis for \(\Omega _0\) at p iff \(\{-n,e_1,\cdots ,e_n\}\) is positive for \(\mathcal {C}_T\). This implies that the induced Stokes orientation for \(\Omega _0\) is actually opposite to its intrinsic orientation. On the other hand, we see that in the case of \(\Omega _T\) these two orientations agree. All this implies that
and, using intrinsic orientations for \(\Omega \),
where \({J}^{*}_L(X\lrcorner dV_{\bar{g}})=g_t(X,\nu )\nu \lrcorner dV_{\bar{g}}=g_t(X,\nu )dL\), with \(\nu \) the outward pointing unit normal vector field to L, which is to be understood with its induced Stokes orientation.
1.1.3 Extrinsic Geometry
In this section we shall quickly fix our conventions for the extrinsic curvature. Thus, let \(M^n\hookrightarrow (V^{n+1},\bar{g})\) be an immersed hypersurface in a time-oriented Lorentzian manifold. We define the second fundamental form of M as
where \(\bar{X}\) and \(\bar{Y}\) denote arbitrary extensions (respectively) of X and Y to V, \(\bar{\nabla }\) denotes the Riemannian connection associated to \(\bar{g}\), and \(TM^{\perp }\) denotes the normal bundle of M. Associated to the second fundamental form, we have the extrinsic curvature, here denoted by \(K\in \Gamma (T^0_2M)\), which we define with respect to the future-pointing unit normal to M. Thus, K is defined by
Also, we define \(\tau \doteq \textrm{tr}_gK\) as the (not normalised) mean curvature of the immersion, and therefore we find that
Finally, let us notice that if \(V^{n+1}=M^n\times \mathbb {R}\), with \(\mathbb {R}\) parametrised by a coordinate t and the time orientation given by \(\partial _t\), then defining the associated lapse N and shift X by
we may write \(n=\frac{1}{N}(\partial _t-X)\). This implies that
Therefore,
That is,
Notice that locally this reduces to a simple expression given by
from which we sometimes write \(K=-\frac{1}{2N}\left( \partial _tg - \pounds _{X}g \right) \).
1.2 Proof of Proposition 4.1
Since the sketch presented has already dealt with the \(2 \alpha + \beta = 0\) case, we will assume in the following that \(\chi := 2 \alpha + \beta \ne 0\). Employing the same Maple procedure as presented in Fig. 1, we can see (see Fig. 3) that, as announced in the sketch of the proof: \(M= -m -\frac{\Lambda }{3}r^3 +C_1 r^{f(\alpha ,\beta )} + C_2 r^{g(\alpha ,\beta )}\), with
and
with
The \(4 \alpha + \beta =0\) case will be treated separately as a special case.
Remark 7.1
We must point out that \(100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2\) is not necessarily positive. We will consider first that \(100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2 \ge 0\), before explaining that the situation is highly similar in the opposite case.
Since \(100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2 = 25 \left( 2 \alpha + \beta \right) ^2 -8 \beta \left( 2 \alpha + \beta \right) = 25 \chi ^2 - 8 \beta \chi \), we will favour working with \((\chi , \beta )\) instead of \((\alpha , \beta )\). We will thus write:
and
This of course works under the assumption that \(\chi \) is positive. However, if \(\chi \le 0\), \( \frac{ \sqrt{ 100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2} }{\chi } = \textrm{sg}(\chi ) \sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi }}\). Up to exchanging f and g, and the \(t_i^+\) and the \(t_i^-\), the coefficients remain the same.
Using these formulas, one can deduce that there exist a finite number of \([\alpha , \beta ] \in \mathbb {R}\mathbb {P}^1\) for which one of the \(t_i^\pm \) equals another \(t_j^\pm \). We present those values in the table, Fig. 4 and detail a few representative cases:
-
\(t_1^- =t_2^-, t_3^-\) clearly has no solution.
-
\(t_1^-=t_4^- \) is equivalent to \(\frac{9}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } } }{2}=3 -\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } }\) which is rephrased as \(\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } }=-3\). There are then no solutions.
-
\(t_1^-=t_1^+\) if and only if \(\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } }=0\), i.e. \(\frac{\beta }{\chi }=\frac{25}{8}.\)
-
\(t_1^-=t_2^+\) if and only if \(\frac{9}{2} -\frac{\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } } }{2}=\frac{5}{2} +\frac{\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } } }{2}\), i.e. \(\sqrt{25 -8 \frac{\beta }{\chi } }=2\), which means that: \(\frac{\beta }{\chi }=\frac{21}{8}\).
All the other combinations fall into one of these configurations (obviously no solution, no solution because of negative squareroot, solution with null squareroot, solution with positive squareroot).
Outside of those specific values, the \(\left( r^{t_i^\pm } \right) \) form a free family. Thus for the metric to be A flat one must have:
This equation is obtained by looking at the \(r^{\frac{10 \alpha +5 \beta - \sqrt{100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2}}{4 \alpha + 2 \beta }}\) term (last term of the first line in formula (2) in Fig. 3). We will rephrase (78) in terms of \(\beta \) and \(\chi \):
which implies that either \(C_2=0\) or \(\frac{\beta }{\chi }=0\), i.e. \(\beta =0\).
Similarly, looking at the \(r^{\frac{10 \alpha +5 \beta + \sqrt{100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2}}{4 \alpha + 2 \beta }}\) term (the term of (2) in Fig. 3 between the third and fourth line):
We once more rephrase this as:
which implies that \(C_1=0\) or \(\frac{\beta }{\chi }=3\).
Thus outside of \(\frac{\beta }{\chi } = 2, \) \(\frac{25}{8}\) \(\frac{21}{8}\), \(\frac{28}{9}\) 0, 3, one must have \(C_1=C_2=0\), which implies that the metric is Schwarzschild-de Sitter (or AdS). We only have to test these remaining values to conclude. For convenience, and in order to use the same Maple procedure, we will rephrase those in term of \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \). We need to test the cases: \( \beta +4 \alpha =0\), \(50 \alpha + 17 \beta =0\), \(42 \alpha +13 \beta =0\), \(56 \alpha + 19 \beta =0\), \(\beta =0\), \(3 \alpha + \beta =0\). Actually, this last case corresponds to the conformally invariant one and will not be considered here (see Proposition 4.2 for this configuration).
On the Maple results displayed in Fig. 5, one can see that for \( \beta +4 \alpha =0\), \(42 \alpha +13 \beta =0\), \(56 \alpha + 19 \beta =0\) one must have \(C_1=C_2=0\), which is the desired result. In the configuration \(50 \alpha + 17 \beta =0\) however, one obtains only \(C_1+C_2=0\). Nevertheless, since this corresponds to the case where \(f=g\), one concludes that \(M(r)= m + \frac{\Lambda }{3}r^3\) (second line of (4) in Fig. 5), which implies that the metric is indeed Schwarzschild-de Sitter (or AdS).
In the final case: \(\beta = 0,\) while \(C_1=0\), a priori \(\Lambda =0\), \(C_2 \ne 0\) is an admissible solution, corresponding to the Reissner-Nordström metric. We can check that it is indeed a solution (see Fig. 6) and conclude the proof.
Of course the above stands when \(100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2\ge 0\). The reasoning when \(100 \alpha ^2 + 84 \alpha \beta + 17 \beta ^2<0\) will be very similar. We will thus give a brief overview of the proof in that case: one simply has to replace f and g by
The algebraic operations will remain the same even with complex exponents, and thus A will be written as a sum of (complex) powers of r. One simply has to replace the \(t_i^{\pm }\) by:
In this case, the \(t_i^{\pm }\) cannot interfere and thus the \(r^{t_i^{\pm }}\) form a free family. One can then, mutatis mutandis, look at (78) and (79) in the same manner as before, and conclude that \(C_1=C_2=0\), and thus that the metric is Schwarzschild-de Sitter (or AdS).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Avalos, R., Lira, J.H. & Marque, N. Energy in Fourth-Order Gravity. Ann. Henri Poincaré (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-024-01440-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-024-01440-3