X Global Lorentzian Geometry Beem

bout the first edition
...
-General Relativity and Gravitation
'RE A N D
A P P L I E D
M A T H E M A T I C S
...a definitive source-book. "

bout the second edition . ..
A Series o f Monographs and Textbooks
his fully revised and updated Second Edition of an incomparable referenceltext 5dges the gap between modem differential geometry and the mathematical ~ysicsof general relativity by providing an invariant treatment of Lorentzian 2ometry-reflecting the more complete understanding of Lorentzian geometry zhieved since the publication of the previous edition. arefully comparing and contrasting Lorentzian geometry with Riemannian geoietry throughout, Global Lorentzian Geometry, Second Edition offers a compreznsive treatment of the space-time distance function not available in other books... :cent results on the general instability in the space of Lorentzian metrics for a wen manifold of both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness...new laterial on geodesic connectibility... a more in-depth explication of the behavior I the sectional curvature function in a neighborhood of a degenerate two-plane .and more.
bout the authors
3HN
GLOBAL LORENTZ GEOMETRY

Second Edition
. ..
K. BEEM is a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, olumbia. The coauthor or coeditor of three books and the author or coauthor of ver 60 professional papers, he is a member of the American Mathematical ociety, the Mathematical Association of America, and the International Society )r General Relativity and Gravitation. Dr. Beem received the Ph.D. degree !968) in mathematics from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
E. EHRLICH is a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Florida, iainesville. A member of the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical .ssociation of America, and the International Society for General Relativity and iravitation, he is the author or coauthor of numerous professional papers that :flect his research interests in differential geometry and general relativity. Dr. .hrlich received the Ph.D. degree (1974) in mathematics from the State University f New York at Stony Brook.
AUL
EASLEY is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Truman State Jniversity, Kirksville, Missouri. He is a member of the American Mathematical ociety, the Mathematical Association of America, and the American Association 3r the Advancement of Science. Dr. Easley received the Ph.D. degree (1991) in lathematics from the University of Missouri, Columbia, where he studied ~rentzian geometry under Professors Beem and Ehrlich.
~ V I N L.
John K. Beem
Paul E. Ehrlich
Kevin L. Faslev
GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

A Program of Monographs, Textbooks, and Lecture Notes
MONOGRAPHS AND TEXTBOOKS IN PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

1. K. Yano, Integral Formulas in Riemannian Geometry (1970) 2. S. Kobayashi, Hyperbolic Manifolds and Holomorphic Mappings (1970) 3. V. S. Vladimirov, Equations of Mathematical Physics (A. Jeffrey, ed.; A. Littlewood, trans.) (1970) 4. B. N. Pshenichnyi, Necessary Conditions for an Extremum (L. Neustadt, translation ed.; K. Makowski, trans.) (1971) 5. L. Narici et a/., Functional Analysis and Valuation Theory (1971) 6. S. S. Passman, Infinite Group Rings (1971) 7. L. Dornhoff, Group Representation Theory. Part A: Ordinary Representation Theory. Part B: Modular RepresentationTheory (1 971, 1972) 8. W. Boothby and G. L. Weiss, eds., Symmetric Spaces (1972) 9. Y. Matsushima, Differentiable Manifolds (E. T. Kobayashi, trans.) (1972) . Ward, Jr., Topology (1972) 10. L. E 11. A. Babakhanian, Cohomological Methods in Group Theory (1972) 12. R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory (1972) 13. J. Yeh, Stochastic Processes and the Wiener lntegral (1973) 14. J. Barros-Nero, lntroduction to the Theory of Distributions (1973) 15. R. Larsen, Functional Analysis (1973) 16. K. Yano and S. lshihara, Tangent and Cotangent Bundles (1973) 17. C. Procesi, Rings with Polynomial Identities (1973) 18. R. Hermann, Geometry, Physics, and Systems (1973) 19. N. R. Wallach, Harmonic Analysis on Homogeneous Spaces (1973) 20. J. Dieudonn&, lntroduction to the Theory of Formal Groups (1973) 21. 1. Vaisman, Cohomology and Differential Forms (1973) 22. B.-Y. Chen, Geometry of Submanifolds (1973) 23. M . Marcus, Finite Dimensional Multilinear Algebra (in t w o parts) (1973, 1975) 24. R. Larsen, Banach Algebras (1973) 25. R. 0.Kujala andA. 1. Vitrer, eds., Value Distribution Theory: Part A; Part 8 : Deficit and Bezout Estimates by Wilhelm St011 (1973) 26. K. B. Stolarsky, Algebraic Numbers and Diophantine Approximation (1974) 27. A. R. Magid, The Separable Galois Theory of Commutative Rings (1974) 28. B. R. McDonald, Finite Rings with Identity (1 974) 29. J. Satake, Linear Algebra (S. Koh et al., trans.) (1975) 30. J . S. Golan, Localization of Noncommutative Rings (1975) 31. G. Klambauer, Mathematical Analysis (1975) 32. M . K. Agoston, Algebraic Topology (1976) 33. K. R. Goodearl, Ring Theory (1976) . Mansfield, Linear Algebra with Geometric Applications (1976) 34. L. E 35. N. J. Pullman, Matrix Theorv and Its ADDlications (1976) 36. B. R. ~ c ~ o n a l ~eometric d, Algebra over Local Rings (1976) 37. C. W. Groetsch, Generalized Inverses of Linear Operators (1977) J. E. Kuczkowskiand J. L. Gersting, Abstract Algebra (1977) C. 0.Christenson and W. L. Voxman, Aspects of Topology (1977) M . Nagata, Field Theory (1977) R. L. Long, Algebraic Number Theory (1977) W. F. Pfeffer, lntegrals and Measures (1977) R. L. Wheeden and A. Zygmund, Measure and Integral (1977) J. H. Curtiss, lntroduction to Functions of a Complex Variable (1978) K. Hrbacek and T. Jech, lntroduction to Set Theory (1978) W. S. Massey, Homology and Cohomology Theory (1978) M. Marcus, lntroduction to Modern Algebra (1978) E . C. Young, Vector and Tensor Analysis (1978) S. B. Nadler, Jr., Hyperspaces of Sets ( 1 978) S. K. Segal, Topics in Group Kings (1978) A. C. M. van Rooij, Non-ArchimedeanFunctional Analysis (1978) L. Corwin and R. Szczarba, Calculus in Vector Spaces (1979) C.Sadosky, interpolation of Operators and Singular Integrals (1979)
EXECUTIVE EDITORS
Earl J . Taft Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey
Zuhair Nashed University of Delaware Newark, Delaware
EDITORIAL BOARD
M. S. Baouendi University of California, Sun Diego Jane Cronin Rugers University Jack K. Hale Georgia Institute of Technology S. Kobayashi University of California, Berkeley Marvin Marcus University of California, Santa Barbara W. S. Massey Yale University Anil Nerode Cornell University Donald Passman University of Wisconsin, Madison Fred S. Roberts Rugers University Gian-CarloRota Massachusetts Institute of Technology David L. Russell Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Walter Schempp Universitiit Siegen
Mark Teply University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
C. W. Groetsch, Elements of Applicable Functional Analysis (1980) 1. Vaisman, Foundations of Three-Dimensional Euclidean Geometry (1980) H. I. Freedan, Deterministic Mathematical Models in Population Ecology (1980) S. B. Chae, Lebesgue Integration (1980) C. S. Rees etal., Theory and Applications of Fourier Analysis (1981) L. Nachbin, lntroduction to Functional Analysis (R. M . Aron, trans.) (1981) G. Onech and M. Orzech, Plane Algebraic Curves (1981) R. Johnsonbaugh and W. E. Pfaffenberger, Foundations of Mathematical Analysis (1981) 63. W. L. Voxman and R. H. Goetschel, Advanced Calculus (1981) 64. L. J. Corwin and R. H. Szczarba, Multivariable Calculus (1982) 65. V. I. Ist@tescu, lntroduction t o Linear Operator Theory (1981) 66. R. D.Jsirvinen, Finite and Infinite Dimensional Linear Spaces (1981) 67. J. K. Beem and P. E. Ehrlich, Global Lorentzian Geometry (1981) 68. D. L. Armacost, The Structure of Locally Compact Abelian Groups (1981) 69. J. W. Brewer and M . K. Smith, eds., Emmy Noether: A Tribute (1981) 70. K. H. Kim, Boolean Matrix Theory and Applications (1982) 71 T. W. Wieting, The Mathematical Theory of Chromatic Plane Ornaments (1982) 72. D. B.Gauld, Differential Topology (1982) 73. R. L. Faber, Foundations of Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry (1983) 74. M. Carmeli, Statistical Theory and Random Matrices (1983) 75. J. H. Carruth et a/., The Theory of Topological Semigroups (1983) 76. R. L. Faber, Differential Geometry and Relativity Theory (1983) 77. S. Bamett, Polynomials and Linear Control Systems (1983) 78. G. Karpilovsky, Commutative Group Algebras (1983) 79. F. Van Oystaeyen and A. Verschoren, Relative lnvariants of Rings (1983) 80. 1. Vaisman, A First Course in Differential Geometry (1984) 81. G. W. Swan, Applications of Optimal Control Theory in Biomedicine (1984) 82. T. Petrie and J. D. Randall, Transformation Groups on Manifolds (1984) 83. K. Goebeland S. Reich, Uniform Convexity, Hyperbolic Geometry, and Nonexpansive Mappings (1984) 84. T. Albu and C. Ngstasescu, Relative Finiteness in Module Theory (1984) 85. K. Hrbacek and T. Jech, lntroduction t o Set Theory: Second Edition (1984) 86. F. Van Oystaeyen and A. Verschoren, Relative lnvariants of Rings (1984) 87. B. R. McDonald, Linear Algebra Over Commutative Rings (1984) 88. M. Namba, Geometry of Projective Algebraic Curves 11984) 89. G. F. Webb, Theory of Nonlinear Age-Dependent Population Dynamics (1985) 90. M. R. Bremner et a/., Tables of Dominant Weight Multiplicities for Representations of Simple Lie Algebras (1985) . Fekete, Real Linear Algebra (1985) 91. A. E 92. S. B. Chae, Holomorphy and Calculus in Normed Spaces (1985) 93. A. J. Jerri, lntroduction t o Integral Equations w i t h Applications (1985) 94. G. Karpilovsky, Projective Representations of Finite Groups (1985) 95. L. Nariciand E. Beckenstein, Topological Vector Spaces (1985) 96. J. Weeks, The Shape of Space (1985) 97. P. R. Gribik and K. 0. Kortanek, Extremal Methods of Operations Research (1985) 98. J.-A. Chao and W. A. Woyczynski, eds., Probability Theory and Harmonic Analysis (1986) 99. G. D. Crown etal., Abstract Algebra (1986) 100. J. H. Carruth etal., The Theory of Topological Semigroups, Volume 2 (1986) 101. R. S. Doran and V. A. Belfi, Characterizations of C*-Algebras (1986) 102. M . W, Jeter, Mathematical Programming (1986) 103. M . Altman, A Unified Theory of Nonlinear Operator and Evolution Equations with Applications (1986) 104. A. Verschoren, Relative lnvariants of Sheaves (1987) 105. R. A. Usmani, Applied Linear Algebra (1987) 106. P. Blass and J. Lang, Zariski Surfaces and Differential Equations in Characteristic p > 0 (1987) 107. J. A. Reneke eta/., Structured Hereditary Systems (1987) 108. H. Busemann and B. B. Phadke, Spaces w i t h Distinguished Geodesics (1987) 109. R. Harre, lnvertibility and Singularity for Bounded Linear Operators (1988)
54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.
J. Cronin, Differential Equations (1980)
110. G. S. Ladde e t a/., Oscillation Theory of Differential Equations w i t h Deviating Arguments (1987) 111. L. Dudkin et al., Iterative Aggregation Theory (1987) 112. T. Okubo, Differential Geometry (1987) 113. D. L. Stancland M. L. Stancl, Real Analysis with Point-Set Topology (1987) . C. Gard, lntroduction t o Stochastic Differential Equations (1988) 114. T 115. S. S. Abhyankar, Enumerative Combinatorics of Young Tableaux (1 988) 116. H. Strade and R. Farnsteiner, Modular Lie Algebras and Their Representations (1988) 117. J. A. Huckaba, Commutative Rings w i t h Zero Divisors (1988) 118. W. D. Wallis, Combinatorial Designs (1988) 119. W. Wipslaw, Topological Fields (1988) 120. G. Karpilovsky, Field Theory (1988) 121. S. Caenepeel and F. Van Oystaeyen, Brauer Groups and the Cohomology of Graded Rings (1989) 122. W. Kozlowski, Modular Function Spaces (1988) 123. E. Lowen-Colebunders, Function Classes of Cauchy Continuous Maps (1989) 124. M. Pavel, Fundamentals of Pattern Recognition (1989) 125. V. Lakshmikantham eta/., Stability Analysis of Nonlinear Systems (1989) 126. R. Sivaramakrishnan, The Classical Theory of Arithmetic Functions (1989) 127. N . A. Watson, Parabolic Equations on an lnfinite Strip (1989) 128. K. J. Hastings, lntroduction t o the Mathematics of Operations Research (1989) 129. B. fine, Algebraic Theory of the Bianchi Groups (1989) 130. D. N . Dikranjan et a/., Topological Groups (1989) . C. Morgan 1 1 , Point Set Theory (1990) 131. J 132. P . Biler and A. Witkowski, Problems in Mathematical Analysis ( 1 990) 133. H. J. Sussmann, Nonlinear Controllability and Optimal Control (1990) 134. J.-P. Florens et a/., Elements of Bayesian Statistics (1 990) 135. N. Shell, Topological Fields and Near Valuations (1990) 136. B. F. Doolin and C. F. Martin, lntroduction t o Differential Geometry for Engineers (1990) 137. S. S. Holland, Jr., Applied Analysis by the Hilbert Space Method (1990) 138. J. Oknirfski, Semigroup Algebras (1990) 139. K. Zhu, Operator Theory in Function Spaces (1990) 140. G. B. Price, An lntroduction t o Multicomplex Spaces and Functions (1991) 141. R. B. Darst, lntroduction t o Linear Programming (199 1) 142. P. L. Sachdev, Nonlinear Ordinary Differential Equations and Their Applications (1991) 143. T. Husain, Orthogonal Schauder Bases (1991) 144. J. Foran, Fundamentals of Real Analysis (1991) 145. W. C. Brown, Matrices and Vector Spaces (1991) 146. M. M. Rao and Z. D. Ren, Theory of Orlicz Spaces (1991) 147. J. S. Golan and T. Head, Modules and the Structures of Rings (1991) 148. C. Small, Arithmetic of Finite Fields (1991) 149. K. Yang, Complex Algebraic Geometry (1991) 150. D. G. Hoffman etal., Coding Theory (1991) 151. M. 0. Gonzdlez, Classical Complex Analysis ( 1 992) 152. M. 0. Gonzdlez, Complex Analysis (1992) 153. L. W. Baggett, Functional Analysis (1992) 154. M. Sniedovich, Dynamic Programming (1992) 155. R. P. Agarwal, Difference Equations and Inequalities (1992) 156. C. Brezinski, Biorthogonality and Its Applications t o Numerical Analysis (1992) 157. C. Swarrz, An lntroduction to Functional Analysis (1992) 158. S. B. Nadler, Jr., Continuum Theory (1992) 159, M. A. Al-Gwaiz, Theory of Distributions (1992) 160. E. Perry, Geometry: Axiomatic Developments with Problem Solving (1992) . Castillo and M. R. Ruiz-Cobo, Functional Equations and Modelling in Science and 161. E Engineering (1992) 162. A. J. Jerri, Integral and Discrete Transforms with Applications and Error Analysis (1992) 163. A. Charlier e t a/., Tensors and the Clifford Algebra (1992) 164. P. Biler and T. Nadzieja, Problems and Examples in Differential Equations (1992) 165. E. Hansen, Global Optimization Using Interval Analysis (1992)
183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202.
S. Guerre-Delabridre, Classical Sequences i n Banach Spaces (1992) Y . C. Wong, Introductory Theory of Topological Vector Spaces (1992) S. H. Kulkarniand B. V. Limaye, Real Function Algebras (1992) W. C. Brown, Matrices Over Commutative Rings (1993) J. Loustau and M. Dillon, Linear Geometry with Computer Graphics (1993) W. V . Petryshyn, Approximation-Solvability of Nonlinear Functional and Differential Equations (1993) E. C. Young, Vector and Tensor Analysis: Second Edition (1993) T. A. Bick, Elementary Boundary Value Problems (1993) M. Pavel, Fundamentals of Pattern Recognition: Second Edition (1993) S. A. Albeverio eta/., Noncommutative Distributions (1993) W. Fulks, Complex Variables (1993) M .M . Rao, Conditional Measures and Applications (1993) A. Janicki and A. Weron, Simulation and Chaotic Behavior of a-Stable Stochastic Processes (1 994) P. Neittaanmakiand D. Tiba, Optimal Control of Nonlinear Parabolic Systems (1994) J . Cronin, Differential Equations: lntroduction and Qualitative Theory, Second Edition (1994) S. Heikkila and V. Lakshmikantham, Monotone Iterative Techniques for Discontinuous Nonlinear Differential Equations (1994) X. Mao. Exoonential Stabilitv of Stochastic Differential Eauations 1 1994) B. S. ~ h o m i o nSymmetric , Properties of Real Functions (i994) J. E . Rubio. Ootimization and Nonstandard Analvsis (1994) J. L. Bueso eral., Compatibility, Stability, and sheaves (1995) A. N . Micheland K. Wang, Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems (1995) M. R. Darnel, Theory of Lattice-Ordered Groups (1995) Z. Naniewicz and P. D. Panagiotopoulos, Mathematical Theory of Hemivariational Inequalities and Applications (1995) L. J. Convin and R. H. Szczarba, Calculus in Vector Spaces: Second Edition (1995) L. H. Erbe eta/., Oscillation Theory for Functional Differential Equations (1995) S. Aaaian et a/.. Binaw Polvnomial Transforms and Nonlinear Diaital Filters 1 1995) M. l.v~i/', ~orm'~stimation for s Operation-Valued Functions and-~pplications(1995) P. A. Grillet, Seminroups: An lntroduction t o the Structure Theorv (1995) S. ~ichenassam~,- onl linear Wave Equations (1996) V . F. Krotov, Global Methods i n Optimal Control Theory (1996) K. I. Beidar eta/., Rings with Generalized Identities (1996) V. I. Arnautov et a/., lntroduction t o the Theory of Topological Rings and Modules (1996) G. Sierksma, Linear and Integer Programming (1996) R. Lasser, lntroduction t o Fourier Series (1996) V. Sima, Algorithms for Linear-Quadratic Optimization (1996) D. Redmond, Number Theory (1996) J. K. Beem eta/. Global Lorentzian Geometry: Second Edition (1996)
Additional Volumes in Preparation
GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

Second Edition
John K. Beem
Department of Mathematics University of Missouri- Columbia Columbia, Missouri
Paul E. Ehrlich
Department of Mathematics University of Florida- Gainesville Gainesville, Florida
Kevin L. Easlev
d
Department of Mathematics Truman State University Kirksville, Missouri
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
New YorkeBasel Hong Kong
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beem, John K. Global Lorentzian geometry. -2nd ed. /John K. Beern, Paul E. Ehrlich, Kevin L. Easley. p. cm. - (Monographs and textbooks in pure and applied mathematics ; 202) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8247-9324-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Geometry, Differential. 2. General relativity (Physics). I. Ehrlich, Paul E. 11. Easley, Kevin L. 111. Title. IV. Series. QA649.B42 1996 51 6 . 3 ' 7 6 ~ 2 0 96-957 CIP The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quantities. For more information, write to Special Sales/Professional Marketing at the address below. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright O 1996 by MARCEL DEKKER, INC. All Rights Reserved. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. MARCEL DEKKER, INC. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Current printing (last digit): 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The second edition of this book continues the study of Lorentzian geometry, the mathematical theory used in general relativity. Chapters 3 through 12 contain material, slightly revised in some cases, which was discussed in Chapters 2 through 11 of the first edition. Much new material has been added to Chapters
7 and 11, and new Chapters 13 and 14 have been written reflecting the more
complete and detailed understanding that has been gained in the intervening years on many of the topics treated in the first edition. Inspired by an example of P. Williams (1984), additional material on the instability of both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness for general space-times has been provided in Section 7.1. Section 7.4 has been added giving sufficient conditions on a spacetime to guarantee the stability of geodesic completeness for metrics in a neighborhood of a given complete metric. New material has also been added to Section 11.3 on the topic of geodesic connectibility. Appendixes A, B, and C of the first edition have now been expanded into Chapter 2, which also contains new material on the generic condition as well as Section 2.3, which gives a proof that the null cone determines the metric up to a conformal factor in any semi-Riemannian manifold which is neither positive nor negative definite. Also, a deeper treatment of the behavior of the sectional curvature function in a neighborhood of a degenerate two-plane is given in Chapter 2. In the concluding Chapter 11 of the first edition, which is now Chapter 12, we showed how the Lorentzian distance function and causally disconnecting sets could be used to obtain the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem concerning geodesic incompleteness of the space-time manifold. Around 1980, S. T. Yau suggested that the concept of "curvature rigidity," well known for
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
iv
PREFACE T O THE SECOND EDITION
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDlTION
the differential geometry of complete Riemannian manifolds since the publication of Cheeger and Ebin (1975), might be applied to the seemingly unrelated topic of singularity theorems in space-time differential geometry. (Earlier. Geroch (1970b) had suggested that spatially closed space-times should fail to be timelike geodesically incomplete only under special circumstances.) As a step toward this conjectured rigidity of geodesic incompleteness, the Lorentzian analogue of the Cheeger-Gromoll Splitting Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds of nonnegative Ricci curvature needed to be obtained. This was accomplished in a series of research papers published between 1984 and 1990. Aspects of the proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem are discussed in the new Chapter 14. Another new chapter in the second edition, Chapter 13, draws upon investigations of Ehrlich and Emch (1992a,b,c, 1993) and is devoted to a study of the geodesic behavior and causal structure of a class of geodesically complete Ricci flat space-times, the gravitational plane waves, which were introduced into general relativity as astrophysical models. These space-times provide interesting and nontrivial examples of astigmatic conjugacy [cf. Penrose (1965a)l and of the nonspacelike cut locus, a concept discussed in Chapter 8 of the first edition. As for the first edition, this book is written using the notations and methods of modern differential geometry. Thus the basic prerequisites remain a working knowledge of general topology and differential geometry. This book should be accessible to advanced graduate students in either mathematics or mathematical physics. The list of works to which we are indebted for the two editions is quite extensive. In particular, we would like to single out the following five important sources: The Large Scale Stmcture of Space-time by S. W. Hawking and G. I?. R. Ellis; Techniques of Diflerential Topology in Relativity by
m Grossen by D. Gromoll, W. KlinR. Penrose; Riemannsche Geometric i genberg, and W. Meyer; the 1977 Diplomarbeit a t Bonn University, Exzstenz
present, it has been interesting to observe the enormous expansion in the journal literature on space-time differential geometry. This is reflected in the substantial growth of the list of references for the second edition. However, this wealth of new material has precluded our treating many interesting new developments in space-time geometry since 1980 which are less closely tied in with the overall viewpoint and selection of topics originally discussed in the first edition. The authors would like to thank all those who have provided encouraging comments about the first edition and urged us to issue a second edition after the first edition had gone out of print, especially Gregory Galloway, Steven Harris, Andrzej Kr6lak, Philip Parker, and Susan Scott. We thank Gerard Emch for insisting that the second edition be undertaken, and the first two authors thank Stephen Summers and Maria Allegra for independently suggesting that a third author be added to the team to share the duties of the completion of this revision. It is also a pleasure to thank Maria Allegra and Christine McCafferty at Marcel Dekker, Inc., for working with us to see the second edition into print. We are also indebted to Lia Petracovici for much helpful proofreading and to Todd Hammond for valuable technical advice concerning A M S W . John K. Beem Paul E. Ehrlich Kevin L. Easley
und Bedeutung von konjugierten Werten in der Raum-Zeit, by G. Bolts; and Semi-Riemannian Geometry by B. O'Neill. In the time from the late 1970's when we wrote the first edition to the
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
This book is about Lorentzian geometry, the mathematical theory used in general relativity, treated from the viewpoint of global differential geometry. Our goal is t o help bridge the gap between modern differential geometry and the mathematical physics of general relativity by giving an invariant treatment of global Lorentzian geometry. The growing importance in physics of this approach is clearly illustrated by the recent Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems described in the text of Hawking and Ellis (1973). The Lorentzian distance function is used as a unifying concept in our book. Furthermore, we frequently compare and contrast the results and techniques of Lorentzian geometry to those of Riemannian geometry to alert the reader to the basic differences between these two geometries. This book has been written especially for the mathematician who has a basic acquaintance with Riemannian geometry and wishes to learn Lorentzian geometry. Accordingly, this book is written using the notation and methods of modern differential geometry. For readers less familiar with this notation, we have included Appendix A which gives the local coordinate representations for the symbols used. The basic prerequisites for this book are a working knowledge of general topology and differential geometry. Thus this book should be accessible t o advanced graduate students in either mathematics or mathematical physics. In writing this monograph, both authors profited greatly from the opportunity to lecture on part of this material during the spring semester, 1978, a t the University of Missouri-Columbia. The second author also gave a series of lectures on this material in Ernst Ruh's seminar in differential geometry a t Bonn University during the summer semester, 1978, and would like to thank
vlll
...
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
Professor Ruh for giving him the opportunity to speak on this material. We would like to thank C. Ahlbrandt, D. Carlson, and M. Jacobs for several help ful conversations on Section 2.4 and the calculus of variations. We would like to thank M. Engman, S. Harris, K. Nomizu, T. Powell, D. Retzloff, and H. Wu for helpful comments on our preliminary version of this monograph. We also thank S. Harris for contributing Appendix D to this monograph and J.-H. Eschenburg for calling our attention to the Diplomarbeit of Bolts (1977). To anyone who has read either of the excellent books of Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975) on Riemannian manifolds or of Hawking and Ellis (1973) on general relativity, our debt to these authors in writing this work will be obvious. It is also a pleasure for both authors to thank the Research Council of the University of Missouri-Columbia and for the second author to thank the Sonderforschungsbereich Theoretische Mathematik 40 of the Mathematics Department, Bonn University, and to acknowledge an NSF Grant MCS7718723(02) held at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey,
CONTENTS
Preface to the Second Edition Preface to the First Edition List of Figures
1. Introduction: Riemannian Themes in Lorentzian Geometry
iii vii xiii

1
for partial financial support while we were working on this monograph. Finally it is a pleasure to thank Diane Coffman, DeAnna Williamson, and Debra Retzloff for the patient and cheerful typing of the manuscript. John K. Beem Paul E. Ehrlich
2. Connections and Curvature 2.1 Connections
15
.............................................. 16
2.2 Semi-Riemannian Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3 Null Cones and Semi-Riemannian Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.4 Sectional Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.5 The Generic Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.6 The Einstein Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3. Lorentzian Manifolds and Causality
49
3.1 Lorentzian Manifolds and Convex Normal Neighborhoods . . . . . . 50

3.2 Causality Theory of Spacetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3 Limit Curves and the C" Topology on Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.4 Two-Dimensional Spacetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.5 The Second Fundamental Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
.......................................... 94 3.7 Semi-Riemannian Local Warped Product Splittings . . . . . . . . . . . 117

3.6 WarpedProducts
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
xi
4 Lorentzian Distance
135
4.1 Basic Concepts and Definitions 4.2 4.3 4.4
............................. 135 Distance Preserving and Homothetic Maps .................. 151 The Lorentzian Distance Function and Causality ............. 157 Maximal Geodesic Segments and Local Causality ............. 166
9 T h e Lorentzian C u t Locus 295 9.1 The Timelike Cut Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 9.2 The Null Cut Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 9.3 The Nonspacelike Cut Locus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311 9.4 The Nonspacelike Cut Locus Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 10 Morse Index T h e o r y o n Lorentzian Manifolds 323 10.1 The Timelike Morse Index Theory ........................ 327 10.2 The Timelike Path Space of a Globally Hyperbolic Space-time ............................................ 354 10.3 The Null Morse Index Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
1 1 . S o m e Results i n Global Lorentzian G e o m e t r y
5 Examples of Space-times 173 5.1 Minkowski Space-time .................................... 174 5.2 Schwarzschild and Kerr Space-times ........................ 179
5.3 Spaces of Constant Curvature 5.4 Robertson-Walker
.............................. Space-times ............................
181 185
5.5 Bi-Invariant Lorentzian Metrics on Lie Groups

6 Completeness a n d Extendibility
............... 190
197
I
I
6.1 Existence of Maximal Geodesic Segments
.................... 198
6.2 Geodesic Completeness .................................... 202 6.3 Metric Completeness ...................................... 209
399 11.1 The Timelike Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 11.2 Lorentzian Comparison Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .406 11.3 Lorentzian Hadamard-Cartan Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
......................................... 214 6.5 Local Extensions ......................................... 219 6.6 Singularities ............................................. 225
6.4 IdealBoundaries
7 Stability of Completeness and Incompleteness 239 7.1 Stable Properties of Lor(M) and Con(M) ................... 241 7.2 The C1 Topology and Geodesic Systems ..................... 247 7.3 Stability of Geodesic Incompleteness for Robertson-Walker Space-times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 7.4 Sufficient Conditions for Stability ........................... 263
8. Maximal Geodesics and Causally Disconnected Space-times
12 Singularities 425 12.1 JacobiTensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 12.2 The Generic and Timelike Convergence Conditions . . . . . . . . . 433 12.3 Focal Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 12.4 The Existence of Singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 12.5 SmoothBoundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 13 Gravitational P l a n e Wave Space-times 479 13.1 The Metric. Geodesics. and Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 13.2 Astigmatic Conjugacy and the Nonspacelike Cut Locus . . . . . 486 13.3 Astigmatic Conjugacy and the Achronal Boundary . . . . . . . . . 493 14 T h e 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5
271 8.1 Almost Maximal Curves and Maximal Geodesics ............. 273 8.2 Nonspacelike Geodesic Rays in Strongly Causal Space-times ... 279 8.3 Causally Disconnected Space-times and Nonspacelike GwdesicLines ........................................... 282
Splitting P r o b l e m i n Global Lorentzian G e o m e t r y 501 The Busemann Function of a Timelike Geodesic Ray . . . . . . . . 507 Co-rays and the Busemann Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 The Level Sets of the Busemann Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 The Proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem ............. 549 Rigidity of Geodesic Incompleteness ...................... 563
xii
CONTENTS
Appendixes 567 Jacobi Fields and Toponogov's Theorem for Lorentzian A. Manifolds by Steven G. Harris ........................... 567 From the Jacobi, to a Riccati, t o the Raychaudhuri B. Equation: Jacobi Tensor Fields and the Exponential Map Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .573 References List of Symbols Index
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Brief Description of Figure

chronological and causal future basis of Alexandrov topology, I f ( p ) n I - ( q ) reverse triangle inequality for p << T << q failure of causal continuity nonspacelike curves may b e imprisoned in compact sets hierarchy of causality conditions limit curve convergence but not C0 convergence
C0 convergence but not limit curve convergence

for the proof of Proposition 3.34 for the proof of Proposition 3.42 for the proof of Theorem 3.43 warped product structure of M x f H for the proof of Theorem 3.68
yn
-+ y ,
but lim L (7,) = 0 < L ( y )
d ( p , q ) = cc in Reissner-Nordstrijm space-time pn p, but d(p, q ) < lim inf d ( ~ n q ,) inner ball B + ( p ,E )

+
outer balls O + ( P ,E ) and 0- (p, E ) causally continuous with d ( p , q) not continuous horismos E + ( p ) in Minkowski space-time unit sphere K ( p , 1 ) horismos in W : = L~with one point removed
y = Ln with null, spacelike, timelike infinity conformal W
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Brief Description of Figure

Penrose diagram for Minkowski space-time Kruskal diagram for Schwarzschild space-time de Sitter space-time 2-dimensional universal anti-de Sitter space-time spacelike and null complete, but timelike incomplete
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

In the 1970's, progress on causality theory, singularity theory, and black holes in general relativity, described in the influential text of Hawking and Ellis (1973), resulted in a resurgence of interest in global Lorentzian geometry. Indeed, a better understanding of global Lorentzian geometry was required for the development of singularity theory. For example, it was necessary to know that causally related points in globally hyperbolic subsets of spacetimes could be joined by a nonspacelike geodesic segment maximizing the Lorentzian arc length among all nonspacelike curves joining the two given points. In addition, much work done in the 1970's on foliating asymptotically flat Lorentzian manifolds by families of maximal hypersurfaces has been motivated by general relativity [cf. Choquet-Bruhat, Fischer, and Marsden (1979) for a partial list of references]. All of these results naturally suggested that a systematic study of global Lorentzian geometry should be made. The development of "modern" global Riemannian geometry as described in any of the standard texts [cf. Bishop and Crittenden (1964), Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975), Helgason (1978), Hicks (1965)] supported the idea that a comprehensive treatment of global Lorentzian geometry should be grounded in three fundamental topics: geodesic and metric completeness, the Lorentzian distance function, and a Morse index theory valid for nonspacelike geodesic segments in an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold. Geodesic completeness, or more accurately geodesic incompleteness, played a crucial role in the development of singularity theory in general relativity and has been thoroughly explored within this framework. However, the Lorentzian distance function had not been as well investigated, although it had been of
d ( p ,x , )
+ 0,
but no accumulation point for {x,)
TIP'S and TIF's local b-boundary extension compact closure in a local extension local extension of Minkowski space-time for the proof of Theorem 6.23 Reissner-Nordstrom space-time with e2 = m2 for the proof of Proposition 8.18 example with s(v) = m, v,
-t
v, and s(v,)
54
simply connected but not future 1-connected for the proof of Proposition 10.36 focal points in the Euclidean plane focal points t o a spacelike submanifold a focal point example in
Wi = L3
Cauchy development D+(S) a trapped set example in S1 x S1 a causal completion example a causally disconnecting set example causal disconnection for a Robertson-Walker space-time the conjugate locus and astigmatic conjugacy the null tail and astigmatic conjugacy
INTRODUCTION
RIEMANNIAN T H E M E S IN LORENTZIAN G E O M E T R Y
some use in the study of singularities [cf. Hawking (1967), Hawking and Ellis (1973), Tipler (1977a), Beern and Ehrlich (1979a)l. Some of the properties of the Lorentzian distance function needed in general relativity had been briefly described in Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 215-217). Further results relating Lorentzian distance to causality and the global behavior of nonspacelike geodesics had been given in Beem and Ehrlich (1979b). Hence, as part of the first edition, a systematic study of the Lorentzian distance function was made. Uhlenbeck (1975), Everson and Talbot (1976), and Woodhouse (1976) had studied Morse index theory for globally hyperbolic space-times, and we had sketched [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979c,d)] a Morse index theory for nonspacelike geodesics in arbitrary space-times. of the current book. The Lorentzian distance function has many similarities with the Riemannian distance function but also many differences. Since the Lorentzian distance function is still less well known, we now review the main properties of the Riemannian distance function and then compare and contrast the corresponding results for the Lorentzian distance function. For the rest of this portion of the introduction, we will let (N, go) denote a Riemannian manifold and (M, g) denote a Lorentzian manifold, respectively. Thus N is a smooth paracompact manifold equipped with a positive definite inner product golp : T,N x TpN -+ R on each tangent space T,N. In addition, if X and Y are arbitrary smooth vector fields on N , the function N by p
4
The Riemannian distance do(p, q) between p and q is then defined to be
For any Riemannian metric go for N , the function do : N x N the following properties: (1) ~ o ( P q) , = do(q,p) for all P, q E
[0,co) has
N.
(2) do(p, q) I do (P, r ) + do(r, q) for all P,q, r E N . (3) do(p,q) = 0 if and only if p = q.
More surprisingly,
(4) do : N x N
+
But no complete treatment of this
10, co) is continuous, and the family of metric balls
theory for arbitrary space-times had been published prior to the first edition
for all p E N and
> 0 forms a basis for the given manifold topology. >0
Thus the metric topology and the given ~narlifoldtopology coincide. Furthermore, by a result of Whitehead (1932), given any p E N , there exists an R such that for any
E
< E < R, the metric ball B ( p , E) is geodesically convex. Thus for any E with 0 < E < R, the set B(p, E) is diffeomorphic to the
with 0 n-disk, n = dim(N), and the set {q E N : do(p,q) =
E)
is diffeomorphic to
sn-1
Removing the origin from R2 equipped with the usual Euclidean metric and setting p = (-1, O), q = (1, O), one calculates that do(p, q) = 2 but finds no curve c E R,,, with Lo(c) = &(p,q) and also no smooth geodesic from p to q. Thus the following questions arise naturally. Given a manifold N, find conditions on a Riemannian metric go for N such that (1) All geodesics in N may be extended to be defined on all of R.
-+ R
given
go(X(p),Y(p)) is required to be a smooth function. The Riemannian

4
structure go : T N x T N
R then defines the Riemannian distance function
as follows. Let Q , , denote the set of piecewise smooth curves in N from p

to q. Given a curve c E flp,, with c : [O,1] + N , there is a finite partition 0 = tl < tz < . . . < t k = 1 such that c 1 It,, ti+l] is smooth for each i. The Riemannian arc length of c with respect to go is defined as
(2) The pair (N, do) is a complete metric space in the sense that all Cauchy
sequences converge. (3) Given any two points p,q E N, there is a smooth geodesic segment c E Q,,, with Lo(c) = do(p, q).
A distance realizing geodesic segment as in (3) is called a minimal geodesic

segment. The word minimal is used here since the definition of Riemannian
INTRODUCTION
RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
distance implies that Lo(y) 2 do(p, q) for all y E R,,,.
More generally, one
tition of unity argument, it follows that N also admits a complete Riemannian metric. We now turn our attention to the Lorentzian manifold (M, g). A Lorentzian metric g for the smooth paracompact manifold M is the assignment of a nondegenerate bilinear form glp : T,M x TpM -+ R with diagonal form (-,
may define an arbitrary piecewise smooth curve y E R,,, to be minimal if Lo(y) = &(p, q). Using the variation theory of the arc length functional, it is minimal, then y may be reparametrized to a may be shown that if y f a,,, smooth geodesic segment. The question of finding criteria on go such that (I), (2), or (3) holds was resolved by H. Hopf and W. Rinow in their famous paper (1931). In modern terminology the Hopf-Rinow Theorem asserts the following. T h e o r e m (Hopf-Rinow). lowing are equivalent: (1) Metric completeness: (N, &) is a complete metric space. (2) Geodesic completeness: For any v E T N , the geodesic c(t) in N with c'(0) = v is defined for all positive and negative real numbers t E R. (3) For some p E N , the exponential map exp, is defined on the entire tangent space TpN t o N at p. (4) Finite compactness: Every subset K of N that is do bounded (i.e., sup{&(p, q) : p, q E K) For any Riemannian manifold (N, go) the fol-
+, . . . , +)
to each tangent space. It is well known that if M is compact and x ( M ) # 0, then M admits no Lorentzian metric. On the other hand, any noncompact manifold admits a Lorentzian metric. Geroch (1968a) and Marathe (1972) have also shown that a smooth Hausdorff manifold which admits a Lorentzian metric is paracompact. Nonzero tangent vectors are classified as timelike, spacelike, nonspacelike, or null according to whether g(v,v)
< 0, > 0, 5 0, or = 0, respectively. [Some authors use the convention (+, -, . . . ,-) for the Lorentzian metric,
and hence all of the inequality signs in the above definition are reversed for them.] A Lorentzian manifold (M, g) is said to be time oriented if M admits a continuous, nowhere vanishing, timelike vector field X. This vector field is used to separate the nonspacelike vectors a t each point into two classes called future directed and past directed. A space-time is then a Lorentzian manifold (M,g) together with a choice of time orientation. We will usually work with space-times below. In order to define the Lorentzian distance function and discuss its properties, we need to introduce some concepts from elementary causality theory. It is standard t o write p
< m) has compact closure.
Furthermore, if any one of (1) through (4) holds, then
(5) Minimal geodesic connectibility: Given any p, q E N , there exists a

smooth geodesic segment c from p to q with Lo(c) = do(p, q).
A Riemannian manifold (N,go) is said to be complete provided any one (and

hence all) of conditions (1) through (4) is satisfied. It should be stressed that the Hopf-Rinow Theorem guarantees the equivalence of metric and geodesic completeness and also that all fiemannian metrics for a compact smooth manifold are complete. Unfortunately, none of these statements is valid for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds.
< < q if there is a future directed piecewise smooth timelike
curve in M from p to q, and p
< q if p
= q or if there is a future directed
piecewise smooth nonspacelike curve in M from p to q. The chronological past and future of p are then given respectively by I-(p) = {q E M : q J-(p) = {q E M : q
< < p)
and
I+(p) = {q E M : p << q). The causal past and future of p are defined as
A remaining question for noncompact but paracompact manifolds is the

existence of complete Riemannian metrics. This was settled by Nomizu and Ozeki's (1961) proof that given any Riemannian metric go for N, there is a complete Riemannian metric for N globally conformal to go. Since any paracompact connected smooth manifold N admits a Riemannian metric by a par-
< p)
and J+(p) = {q E M : p
< q).
The sets I-(p) and
I+(p) are always open in any space-time, but the sets J-(p) and J+(p) are neither open nor closed in general (cf. Figure 1.1). The causal stmcture of the space-time (M,g) may be defined as the collection of past and future sets at all points of M together with their properties.
INTRODUCTION
RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN G E O M E T R Y
theory depend only on the conformal class C ( M , g ) and not on the choice of Lorentzian metric representing C(M, g).
, . :..:..:...... . .. . . . . . .. . . . ..; . :.. :_. :_. :.. , . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . -... ..?. . ... ... .. .. .. . .. . .'.. . .. :.. . .. :.. . .. : ../
Perhaps the two most elementary properties to require of the conformal structure C ( M , g) are either that (M, g) be chronological or that (M,g) be
! I + ( p ) for all causal. A space-time (M,g) is said to be chronological if p $
+ i ,
remove this closed set r
p E M . This means that (M,g) contains no closed timelike curves. The space-time (M, g) is said to be causal if there is no pair of distinct points
p, q E M with p
< q < p.
This is equivalent to requiring that (M, g) contain
no closed nonspacelike curves. Already at this stage, a basic difference emerges between Lorentzian and Riemannian geometry. On physical grounds, the space-times of general relativity are usually assumed to be chronological. But it is easy to show that if M is compact, (M, g) contains a closed timelike curve. Thus the space-times usually considered in general relativity are assumed to be noncompact. In general relativity each point of a Lorentzian manifold corresponds to an event. Thus the existence of a closed timelike curve raises the possibility that a person might traverse some path and meet himself at an earlier age. Wlore generally, closed nonspacelike curves generate paradoxes involving causality
FIGURE 1.1. The chronological (respectively, causal) future of a

point consists of all points which can be reached from that point by future directed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curves. In this example, the causal future J + ( r ) of r is the closure of the chronological future I + ( r ) of r. However, the set J+(q) is not the closure of I+(q). In particular, the point w is in the closure of I+(q) but is not in J+(q). I t may be shown that two strongly causal Lorentzian metrics gl and g2 for
and are thus said to "violate causality." Even if a space-time has no closed nonspacelike curves, it may contain a point p such that there are future directed nonspacelike curves leaving arbitrarily small neighborhoods of p and then returning. This behavior is said to be a violation of strong causality at
p. Space-times with no such violation are strongly causal.
The strongly causal space-times form an important subclass of the causal space-times. For this class of space-times the Alexandrov topology with basis {I+(p) n I-(q) : p, q E M) for M and the given manifold topology are related as follows [cf. Kronheimer and Penrose (1967), Penrose (1972)l.
M determine the same past and future sets at all points if and only if the
two metrics are globally conformal [i.e., gl = Rg2 for some smooth function
Theorem. The following are equivalent:

(1) ( M Ig) is strongly causal.
0 :M
--+
(0, a ) ] Letting . C(M,g) denote the set of Lorentzian metrics glob-
ally conformal to g, it follows that properties suitably defined using the past and future sets hold simultaneously either for all metrics in C(M, g) or for no metric in C(M,g). Thus all of the basic properties of elementary causality
(2) The Alexandrov topology induced on M agrees with the given manifold
topology. (3) The Alexandrov topology is Hausdorff
INTRODUCTION
(<
q is zero. On the other hand, if p
(<
q and p and q lie in a geodesically
convex neighborhood in
U,the
future directed timelike geodesic segment in U
from p to q has the largest Lorentzian arc length among all nonspacelike curves
U from p
to q. Thus the following definition for d(p, q) is natural: fixing J+(p), and otherwise calculate d(p, q)
a point p E M, set d(p, q) = 0 if q
for q E J+(p) as the supremum of Lorentzian arc length of all future directed nonspacelike curves from p to q. Thus if q E J+(p) and y is any future directed nonspacelike curve from p to q, we have L ( y ) 5 d(p, q). Hence unlike the Riemannian distance function, the Lorentzian distance function is not a priori finite-valued. Indeed, a secalled totally vicious space-time may be characterized in terms of its Lorentzian distance function by the property that d ( p , q) = m for all p, q E M. Also, if (M, g) is nonchronological and p E I+(p), it follows that d(p,p) = w. The Reissner-Nordstrijm space-times, physically important examples of exact solutions to the Einstein equations in general relativity, also contain pairs
FIGURE 1.2. Sets of the form I+(p)nI-(q) with arbitrary p, q E M

form a basis of the Alexandrov topology. This topology is always at least as coarse as the original topology on M. The Alexandrov topology agrees with the original topology if and only if (M,g) is strongly causal. Ure are ready a t last to define the Lorentzian distance function d = d(g) : M x M
-+
of chronologically related distinct points p << q with d(p, q) = co. By definition of Lorentzian distance, d(p, q) = 0 whenever q f M - J'(p), We have even seen that d(p, p) = rn is possible. Thus for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds there is no analogue for property (3) of the Riemannian distance function. Also, the Lorentzian distance function tends from its definition to be a nonsymmetric distance. In particular, for any space-time it may be shown that if 0
[0, m]
< d(p, q) < m, then d(q,p) = 0. But the Lorentzian distance function
does possess a useful analogue for property (2) of the Riemannian distance function. Namely, d(p, q) 2 d(p, r) + d(r, q) for all p, q, T f IvI with p
of an arbitrary space-time. If c : [O, 1 1 -+ M is a piecewise smooth nonspacelike curve differentiable except a t 0 = t l
< r < q.
< t2 < ... <
tk
= 1, then the length
The reversal of inequality sign is to be expected since nonspacelike geodesics in a Lorentzian manifold locally maximize rather than minimize arc length. Since d(p,q)
L(c) = L,(c) of c is given by the formula
>0
if and only if q E I+(p), and d(q,p)
>0
if and only if
q E I-(p), the distance function determines the chronology of (M,g). On the other hand, conformally changing the metric changes distance but not the If p
(<
q, there are timelike curves from p to q (very close to piecewise null
chronology, so that the chronology does not determine the distance function. Clearly, the distance function does not determine the sets J+(p) or J-(p) since d(p, q) = 0 not only for q E J+(p) - I+(p) but also for q E M - J+(p).
curves) of arbitrarily small length. Hence the infimum of Lorentzian arc length of all piecewise smooth curves joining any two chronologically related points
INTRODUCTION
11
With these remarks in mind, it is natural to ask if some class of spacetimes for which the Lorentzian distance function is finite-valued and/or continuous may be found. The globally hyperbolic spacetimes turn out to be such a class. Here a space-time (M, g) is said to be globally hyperbolic if it is strongly causal and satisfies the condition that J + ( p ) n J - ( q ) is compact for allp,q E M. It has been most useful in proving singularity theorems in general relativity to know that if (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, then its Lorentzian distance function is finite-valued and continuous. Oddly enough, the finiteness of the distance function, rather than its continuity, characterizes globally hyperbolic space-times in the following sense (cf. Theorem 4.30). We say that a spacetime (M, g) satisfies the finite distance condition provided that d(g)(p, q) < oo for all p,q E M. It may then be shown that the strongly causal Lorentzian manifold (M,g) is globally hyperbolic if and only if (M,g') satisfies the finite distance condition for all g' C ( M , g). Motivated by the definition of minimal curve in Riemannian geometry, we
FIGURE 1.3. If r is in the causal future of p and q is in the causal

future of r, then the distance function satisfies the reverse triangle inequality d(p, q) between p and q.
> d(p, r ) + d(r, q). The reverse triangle inequality
make the following definition for space-times.
will not be valid in general for some point r' which is not causally
A future directed nonspacelike curve y from p to q is said to be maximal if L ( y ) = d(p, q).

Definition. (Mazimal Curve)
It may be shown (cf. Theorem 4.13), just as for minimal curves in Rie-
Property (4) of the Riemannian distance function is the continuity of this function for all Riemannian metrics. For space-times, on the other hand, the Lorentzian distance function may fail to be upper semicontinuous. Indeed, the continuity of d : M x M
+
mannian spaces, that if y is a maximal curve from p to q, then
-f
may be
reparametrized to a nonspacelike geodesic segment. This result may be used to construct geodesics in strongly causal spacetimes as limit curves of appropriate sequences of "almost maximal" nonspacelike curves (cf. Sections 8.1, 8.2). In view of (5) of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem for Riemannian manifolds, it is reasonable to look for a class of space-times satisfying the property that if p
10, m ] has the following consequence for the causal
structure of (M,g) [cf. Theorem 4.241. If (M,g) is a distinguishing spacetime and d is continuous, then (M, g) is causally continuous (cf. Chapter 3 for definitions of these concepts). Hence it is necessary to accept the lack of continuity and lack of finiteness of the Lorentzian distance function for arbitrary space-times. The Lorentzian distance function is a t least lower semicontinuous where it is finite. This may be combined with the upper semicontinuity in the C0 topology of the Lorentzian arc length functional for strongly causal space-times to construct distance realizing nonspacelike geodesics in certain classes of space-times (cf. Sections 8.1 and 8.2).
< q, there is a maximal geodesic segment from p to q. Using the compactness

We are finally led to consider what can be said about Lorentzian analogues
of J+(p) n J-(q), one can show that globally hyperbolic space-times always contain maximal geodesics joining any two causally related points. for the rest of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem. Here, however, every conceivable thing goes wrong. Thus much of the difficulty in Lorentzian geometry from
12
INTRODUCTION
13
the viewpoint of global Riemannian geometry or its richness from the viewpoint of singularity theory in general relativity stems from the lack of a sufficiently strong analogue of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem. We now give a basic definition which corresponds to (2) of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem. Definition. (Timelike, Null, and Spacelike Geodesic Completeness)
if q $ J+(p), convergence of arbitrary sequences in (M,g) with respect to the Lorentzian distance function does not make sense. But timelike Cauchy completeness may be defined (cf. Section 6.3). It can b e shown for globally hyperbolic space-times that timelike Cauchy completeness and a type of finite compactness are equivalent. In addition, results analogous to the Nomizu-Ozeki Theorem mentioned above for Riemannian metrics have been obtained. For instance, given any strongly causal space-time (M, g), there is a conformal factor f l:M
-+
space-time (M,g) is said to be timelike (respectively, null, spacelike, nonspacelike) complete if all timelike (respectively, null, spacelike, nonspacelike) geodesics may be defined for all values -co
(0, m)
<t <c m of an aRne parameter t.
such that the space-time (M,fig) is timelike and null geodesically conlplete (cf. Theorem 6.5). It is still unknown, however, whether this result can be strengthened to include spacelike geodesic completeness as well. It should now be clear that while there are certain similarities between the Lorentzian and the Riemannian distance functions, especially for globally hyperbolic space-times, there are also striking differences. In spite of these differences, the Lorentzian distance function has many uses similar to those of the Riemannian distance function. In Chapter 8 the Lorentzian distance function is used in constructing maximal nonspacelike geodesics. These maximal geodesics play a key role in the proof of singularity theorems (cf. Chapter 12). In Chapter 9 the Lorentzian distance function is used to define and study the Lorentzian cut locus. In Chapter 10 a Morse index theory is developed for both timelike and null geodesics. A number of global results for Lorentzian manifolds are obtained in Chapter 11 using the index theory and the Lorentzian distance function. Also, results are presented concerning the relationship of geodesic connectibility to geodesic pseudoconvexity and geodesic disprisonrnent. In Chapter 13 a nontrivial example is given of the cut locus structure and certain associated achronal boundaries for the class of gravitational plane wave space-times from general relativity. Finally, Chapter 14 treats the concept of rigidity of geodesic incompleteness and the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem for space-times satisfying the timelike convergence condition which also contain a complete Lorentzian distance-realizing timelike geodesic line. In this setting, the almost maximal curves of Chapter 8 again play a role [cf. Galloway and Horta (1995)l.
A space-time which is nonspacelike incomplete thus has a timelike or null

geodesic which cannot be defined for all values of an affine parameter. Such space-times are said to be singular in the theory of general relativity. It is first important to note that global hyperbolicity does not imply any of these forms of geodesic completeness. This may be seen by fixing points
p and q in Minkowski space with p
< <q
and equipping M = I+(p) n I-(q)
with the Lorentzian metric it inherits as an open subset of Minkowski space. This space-time M is globally hyperbolic. Since geodesics in M are just the restriction of geodesics in Minkowski space to M , it follows that every geodesic in M is incomplete. It was once hoped that timelike completeness might imply null completeness, etc. However, a series of examples has been given by Kundt, Geroch, and Beem of globally hyperbolic space-times for which timelike geodesic completeness, null geodesic completeness, and spacelike geodesic completeness are all logically inequivalent. Thus, there are globalIy hyperbolic spacetimes that are s~acelike and timelike complete but null incomplete. Metric completeness and geodesic completeness [(I) iff (2) of the HopfRinow Theorem] are unrelated for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds. There are also Lorentzian metrics which are timelike geodesically complete but also contain points p and q with p << q such that no timelike geodesic from p to q exists (cf. Figure 6.1). On the brighter side, there is some relationship between (1) and (4) of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem for globally hyperbolic space-times. Since d(p, q) = 0
CHAPTER 2
CONNECTIONS AND CURVATURE
Let (M, g) be an n-dimensional manifold M with a semi-Riemannian metric g of arbitrary signature (-, . . . , -, +, . . . , +). Then there exists a unique connection V on M which is both compatible with the metric tensor g and torsion free. This connection, which is called the Levi-Czvita connection of (M, g ) , satisfies the same formal relations whether or not (M,g) is positive definite. Thus geodesics, curvature, Ricci curvature, scalar curvature, and sectional curvature may all be defined for semi-Riemannian manifolds using the same formulas as for positive definite Riemannian manifolds. The only difficulty which arises is that the sectional curvature is not defined for degenerate sections of the tangent space when (M,g) is not of constant curvature. In fact, the sectional curvature is only bounded near all degenerate sections a t a point in the case of constant sectional curvature [see Kulkarni (1979)l. This generic "blow up" of the sectional curvature at degenerate sections corresponds to a generic unboundedness of tidal accelerations [cf. Beem and Parker (1990)] for objects moving arbitrarily close to the speed of light. In the first section of this chapter there is an introduction to connections, and in the second section semi-Riemannian manifolds are discussed. Riemannian manifolds are positive definite semi-Riemannian manifolds and thus have metrics of signature (+, +, . - . , +). Consequently, the metric induced on the tangent space of a Riemannian manifold is Euclidean, The types of semiRiemannian manifolds of primary interest in this book are Lorentzian manifolds. These manifolds have metric tensors of signature (-,
+, . . . ,+).
Thus,
the tangent spaces of a Lorentzian manifold have induced Minkowskian metrics. The tangent vectors a t p E M of length zero form the null cone at p. For semi-Riemannian manifolds which are neither positive nor negative definite, a
16
2.1
CONNECTIONS
17
null cone is an (n - 1)-dimensional surface in the tangent space. In the third section of this chapter we show that null cones determine the metric up to a conformal factor for metrics which are not definite. In the fourth section we consider sectional curvature. This curvature is related to tidal accelerations using the Jacobi equation. The Jacobi equation analyzes the relative behavior of "nearby" geodesics and will be of fundamental importance in later c h a p ters. We introduce the generic condition in the fifth section. This condition corresponds to a tidal acceleration assumption. The Einstein equations are introduced in the last section. These are partial differential equations relating the metric tensor and its &st two derivatives to the energy-momentum tensor T. The Einstein equations thus link geometry in terms of the metric and curvature to physics in terms of the distribution of mass and energy. The manifold M will always be smooth, paracompact, and Hausdorff. The tangent bundle will be denoted by TM, and the tangent space at p E M will be denoted by TpM. If (U,x) is an arbitrary chart for M, then (x', x2,. . . ,xn) will denote local coordinates on M and 6/6x1, 6/6x2,. . . ,6/6xn will denote the natural basis for the tangent space.
2.1
smooth curve which passes through p and has tangent X(p) at p [cf. Hicks (1965, p. 57)]. To see this, let El, Ez,.. . , E n be smooth vector fields defined near p which form a basis of the tangent space at each point in a neighborhood of p. Then X(p) = C Xi(p) Ei (p) and Y = C Yi Ei. Hence
It follows that Xi(p), Yi(p), and X(p)(Yi) determine VxYI, completely if the VE,(,)Ei's are known. Given the connection V on M and a curve y : [a,b ]
M , we may define
parallel translation of vector fields along y. Here a vector field Y along y is a smooth mapping Y : [a,b ] + TM such that Y(t) E T,(t)M for each t E [a,b ] . For to E [a,b ] we may locally extend Y to a smooth vector field defined on a neighborhood of $to). Then we may consider the vector field V,,(,]Y along y. The preceding arguments show that this vector field along y is independent of the local extension, and consequently V,,Y (= Y') is well defined. A vector field Y along y which satisfies V,lY(t) = 0 for all t E [a,b ] is said to move by parallel translation along y. A geodesic c : (a, b)
-+
Connections
Let X(M) denote the set of all smooth vector fields defined on M , and let $(M) denote the ring of all smooth real-valued functions on M . A connection is a function V : X(M) x X(M) + X(M) with the properties that (2.1) (2.2)
M is a smooth curve of M
such that the tangent vector c' moves by parallel translation along c. In other words, c is a geodesic if
(2.4)
+ Y) = v v x + VvY, Vfv+hw(X) = f V v X + hVwX,

Vv(X V v ( f X ) = f v v x + Vtf ) X
Vc~c1 = 0.
(geodesic equation)
and
(2.3)
for all f , h E z ( M ) and all X, Y, V, W E X(M). The vector V X ( ~ ) Y = VxYIp at the point p E M depends only on the connection V, the value X(p) = Xp of X at p, and the values of Y along any
A pregeodesic is a smooth curve c which may be reparametrized to be a geodesic. Any parameter for which c is a geodesic is called an afine parameter. If s and t are two affine parameters for the same pregeodesic, then s = at + b for some constants a , b f R. A pregeodesic is said to be complete if for some affine parametrization (hence for all affine parametrizations) the domain of the parametrization is all of R. The equation VC,c1 = 0 may be expressed as a
18
2.1
CONNECTIONS
19
system of linear differential equations. To this end, we let (U, ( x l ,x 2 , . . . ,x n ) ) be local coordinates on M and let d / d x l , d / d x 2 , . .. ,d / d x n denote the natural
The torsion tensor T of V is the function T : X ( M ) x X(M) + X(M) given by

(2.8)
basis with respect to these coordinates. The connection coefficients

with respect to ( x l ,x2, . . .,xn) are defined by
rfj of V
T ( X ,Y ) = V x Y - V y X - [ X ,Y ] .
(torsion tensor)
(2.5)
(5) f
=
k=I
"
dxk
(connection coefficients)
The mapping T is said to be f -bilinear since it is linear in both arguments and also satisfies T ( f X , Y ) = T ( X ,f Y ) = f T ( X ,Y ) for smooth functions f . The value T ( X ,Y)I, depends only on the connection V and the values X ( p ) and Y ( p ) . Consequently, T determines a bilinear map T,M x T,M
+
Using these coefficients we may write equation (2.4) as the system
T,M
(2.6)
d2xk + " dt i,j=l
dxi dxj x= 0. dt
(geodesic equatzons i n coordinates)
a t each point p E M . Using the skew symmetry ( [ X Y , ]= - [ Y , X I ) of the Lie bracket, it is easily seen that T ( X ,Y) = - T ( Y , X ) , and hence T is also skew. Since [ d / d x i ,d / d x j ] = 0 for all 1 5 i , j
The connection coefficients (Christoffel symbols of the second kind) may also be used to give a local representation of the action of V. If the vector fields X and Y have local representations as
n
< n, it follows that
and x = x ~ ' ( x ) ~
i=l
d Y = ~ Y ' ( ~ ) - , i=l axz
Consequently,
then V x Y has a local representation where
T i k j = rtj -$ ' I
The vector field V x Y is said to be the covariant derivative of Y with respect to X . A semicolon is used to denote covariant differentiation with respect to a natural basis vector. If X = d / d x J , then the components of V x Y = V a / a z , Y are denoted by Y k i j where
(torsion components)
Clearly, the torsion tensor provides a measure of the nonsymmetry of the connection coefficients. Hence, T = 0 if and only if these coefficients are symmetric in their subscripts. A connection V with T = 0 is said to be
torsion free or symmetric.

The curvature R of V is a function which assigns to each pair X , Y E X ( M ) the f-linear map R ( X ,Y ) : X ( M ) -+ X(M) given by
The Lie bracket of the ordered pair of vector fields X and Y is a vector field
[X, Y ]which acts on a smooth function f by [ X ,Y ] ( f = ) X ( Y (f)) - Y ( X ( f ) ) .

If X = C ~ " x ) ) d / d and x ~ Y = C Y i ( x ) d / d x i ,then
Curvature provides a measure o f the nuncommutativity of Vx and Vy. I t
should be noted that some authors define the curvature as the negative of the above definition. Consequently, they differ in sign for some of the definitions
(Lie bracket)
of curvature quantities given below. The curvature R represents a tensor field.
20
2.2
SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
21
Hence, the map (X, Y, Z) -+ R(X, Y)Z from X(M) x X(M) x T(M) to X(M) is f-trilinear, and the vector R(X, Y)Zlp depends only on X(p), Y(p), Z(p), and
inner product glp : TpM x TpM -+ R of signature (-, . . . ,-,
+, . . . ,+). Here
nondegenerate means that for each nontrivial vector v E T,M there is some
V. If x, y, z E TpM, one may extend these vectors to corresponding smooth

vector fields X, Y, Z and define R(x, y)z = R(X, Y)Zlp. If w E T,*M is a cotangent vector at p and x, y, z E TpM are tangent vectors at p, then one defines
w E TpM such that gp(v,w) # 0. If g has components gij in local coordinates, then the nondegeneracy assumption is equivalent to the condition that the
determinant of the matrix (gij) be nonzero. Although we consider only smooth metrics, some authors have studied distributional semi-Riemannian metrics [cf. Parker (1979), Taub (1980)l. Also, a number of authors have studied semi-Riemannian metrics for which degen-
for X , Y, and Z smooth vector fields extending x, y, and z, respectively. The curvature tensor R is a (1,3) tensor field which is given in local coordinates by
eracy is allowed [cf. Bejancu and Duggal (1991), Katsuno (1980), Kossowski (1987, 1989)l. In local coordinates (U,(xl, x2,. . . ,xn)) on M, the metric g is represented by g 1U =
n
gij(r) dxi 8 dxi

i,j=l
(metric tensor)
where the curvature components
Rzjkm
are given by
with
- 9, ,. 9'. .
Notice that R(X, Y ) Z = -R(Y, X ) Z , R(w, X, Y, 2 ) = -R(w, Y, X, Z), and Rijkm = - ~ ,mk. i F'urthermore, if X = C X i d / d x i , Y = Yi6'/dx" Z =
,,
(symmetric)
and
det(gij)
# 0.
(nondegenerate)
If g has s negative eigenvalues and r = n - s positive eigenvalues, then the signature of g will be denoted by (s, r). For each fixed p E M , there exist local coordinates (U, (xl, x2,. . . ,xn)) such that gp = g I TpM can be represented
C Zia/dxi, and w = C widxi, then
as the diagonal matrix diag{-, . - . , -, +, . . . ,+). For each semi-FLiemannian manifold (M, g) there is an associated semi-Riemannian manifold (M, -9) obtained by replacing g with -g. Aside from some minor changes in sign, there is and no essential difference between (M, g) and (M, -g). Thus, results for spaces of signature (s, r ) may always be translated into corresponding results for spaces of signature (r, s) by appropriate sign changes and inequality reversals. Two vectors in TpM are orthogonal if their inner product with respect to Consequently, one has R(dxi, d/dxk, a/dxm, a/dxj) = Rijkm.
2.2
Semi-Riemannian Manifolds
gp is zero. Note that when g has eigenvalues with different signs, there will be some nontrivial vectors which are orthogonal to themselves (i.e., satisfy g(v,v) = 0). These are known as null vectors. A given vector is said to be a unit vector if it has inner product with itself equal to either +1 or -1. Thus,
A semi-Riemannian metric g for a manifold M is a smooth symmetric tensor field of type (0,2) on M which assigns to each point p E M a nondegenerate
' , . an orthonormal basis {el, ez, .. . ,en) of T,M satisfies Jg(e,,e,)] = 6
22
2.2
SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
23
Given a semi-Riemannian manifold (M,g), there is a unique connection V on M such that (2.16) Z(g(X, Y)) = g(VzX, Y) and (2.17) [X, Y] = VxY - V y X (torsion free)
Some standard curvature identities satisfied by the components of this tensor are
&jkm
= Rkrnrj = -Rjikrn = -Rijmk and Rilkm
+ Rikmj + Rimjk = 0.
The trace of the curvature tensor is the Ricci curvature, a symmetric (0,2)
+ g(X, V z Y )
(metric compatible)
tensor. For each p E M , the Ricci curvature may be interpreted as a symmetric bilinear map Ric, : T p M x T p M + R. To evaluate Ric(u, w), let e l , ea, . . . , e n be a n orthonormal basis for T p M . Then
for all X, Y,Z E X(M). This connection V is called the Levi-Czvita connection of (M,g). As indicated above, (2.16) is the condition that the connection V be compatible with the metric g, and (2.17) is the condition that V be torsion free. Setting 2 = c' in (2.16), one finds that parallel translation of vector fields along any smooth curve c of M preserves inner products. For semi-Riemannian manifolds, the connection coefficients are given by (2.18)
or equivalently,
n
(2.23)
Ric(v,w) = x g ( e i , ei) x(ei, v: ei, w). r=l and then write

n
One may express v and w in the natural basis as v = C v a d / d z b n d w =
C wid/dxi
1 " dgia 89.. rk. = - Igak -'+ %)

'3
2 a=l
(-
dxj
dxa
dx2
(connection coeficzents) where (2.25) Ri, =

n
where gij represents the (2,O) tensor defined by

n
C Raiaj.
a=l
(Ricci curvature components)
(2.19)
C g i a 9 a j = bij a=l
for 1 5 i , j 5 n.
If one uses the Einstein summation convention of summing over repeated indices, then equations (2.24) and (2.25) become Ric(v, w) = Rijviw3 and Rij = Raiaj, respectively. The Ricci tensor is the ( 1 , l ) tensor field which corresponds to the Ricci curvature. The components of the Ricci tensor may be obtained by raising one index of the Ricci curvature. Either index may be raised since the Ricci curvature is symmetric. Thus,
n
n
The local representations gij and gij may be used to raise and lower indices. For example, if the upper index of the curvature tensor is lowered, one obtains the components of the Riemann-Christoffel tensor which is also known as the couariant curvature tensor.
n
(2.20)
&jkm
= ):gat
Rajkrn
(couariant curvature components) as the (0,4)
(2.26)
a=l Alternatively, one may define the Riemann-Christoffel tensor tensor such that (2.27)
R> = ) ga'~a3 =) gaa~ja. a=l a=l
(Rzccz tensor components)

T.
The trace of the Ricci curvature is the scalar curvature

n
7
Historically, this
function has been denoted by the much used symbol R. Accordingly,

=R =
Raa. a=l
(scalar curuature)
24
2.3
NULL CONES AND SEMI-RIEMANNIAN METRICS
25
Thus i f e l , e2, . . . ,en is an orthonormal basis of T p M , one has

n
A Riemannian manifold ( M ,g) is a semi-Riemannian manifold o f signature (0, n ) [i.e., (+,. . . ,+)I. Thus, on each tangent space T p M o f a Riemannian
manifold the metric gp is positive definite. Consequently, the metric induced on each tangent space is Euclidean, and all (nontrivial) vectors for Riemannian manifolds are spacelike.
(2.28)
=R =
g(ei,ei) Ric(ei,ei). i=l
The gradient and Hessian are defined for semi-Riemannian manifolds just as for Riemannian manifolds. I f f : M
R is a smooth function, then df is a ( 0 , l ) tensor field (i.e., one-form) on M , and grad f is the (1,O) tensor field (i.e., vector field) which corresponds to df. Thus,
--+
(2.29)
Y ( f ) = df ( Y ) = g(grad f , Y )
(gradient)
for an arbitrary vector field Y . In local coordinates (U, ( x l ,x 2 , . . . ,xn)), the vector field grad f is represented by (2.30) grad f = ..af gZ3 --. i,i=l axi 8x3
A Lorentzian manifold is a semi-Riemannian manifold ( M ,g) o f signature ( 1 , n - 1) [i.e., (-,+,...,+)I. At each point p f M the induced metric on the tangent space is Minkowskian. Each point o f a Lorentzian manifold has timelike, null, and spacelike tangent vectors. A smooth curve is said t o be timelike, null, or spacelike if its tangent vectors are always timelike, null, or spacelike, respectively.
A timelike curve in a Lorentzian manifold corresponds to the path of an observer moving at less than the speed of light. Null curves correspond to
(gradient using coordinates)
moving at the speed of light, and spacelike curves correspond to the geometric equivalent of moving faster than light. Although relativity predicts that physical particles cannot move faster than light, spacelike curves are of clear geometric interest.
T h e Hessian H f is defined to be the second covariant differential o f f:

~f
= V ( Vf ).
(Hessian)
For a given f E 5 ( M ) ,the Hessian Hfis a symmetric (0,2) tensor field which is related t o the gradient o f f through the formula
A vector field X on M is timelike i f g ( X , X ) < 0 at all points o f M . A Lorentzian manifold with a given timelike vector field X is said to be time
oriented b y X . A space-time is a time oriented Lorentzian manifold. Not all Lorentzian manifolds may be time oriented, but a Lorentzian manifold which is not time orientable always admits a two-fold cover which is time orientable (cf. Chapter 3).
for arbitrary vector fields X and Y . The Laplacian Af = div (grad f ) is now defined to be the divergence o f the gradient o f f. A tangent vector v f T p M is classified as timelike, nonspacelike, null, or spacelike i f g(v, v ) is negative, nonpositive, zero, or positive, respectively: g(v, v ) < 0, g(v, v ) 1 0, g(v, v ) = 0, g(v, v ) > 0. (timelike) (nonspacelike or causal) (null or lightlike) (spacelike)
2.3
Null Cones and Semi-Riemannian Metrics
One o f the folk theorems o f general relativity asserts that the space-time metric is determined up t o a conformal factor by the set o f null vectors. In this section we examine more generally to what extent the null vectors o f a nondefinite nondegenerate inner product on a vector space determine the given inner product and obtain as a consequence in Theorem 2.3 an elementary proof o f this folk theorem for spacetimes [cf.Ehrlich (1991)l.
26
CONNECTIONS A N D CURVATURE
23
NULL CONES A N D SEMI-RIEMANNIAN METRICS
27
Lemma 2.1. Let V be a real n-dimensional vector space, n 2 2, and let g and h be two nondefinite nondegenerate inner products on V of arbitrary signature. Suppose that g and h satisfy the condition that for any v f V, (2.31 ) g(v,v) = 0 iff h(v, v) = 0.
for any 8 f R. In vlew of (2.31), we obtain (2.34)
0 = h(v(@), ~(0))
= hll
+ cos2(8) . h,, + sin2(6) . hkk + 2 cos(8) . hl, + 2sin(8) . hlk + sin(28) . hJk.
0 = hi1
and
Th cn
(1) either g and h or g and -h have the same signature, and
Taking 8 = 0 and 8 = .rr respectively in (2.34) yields
(2) there exists X (2.32 )
# 0 such that
h(v, w) = Xg(v, w)
+ h,, + 2h1,,
+ h,,
- 2hl, ,
J
0 = hll
from which we conclude hl, = 0 and h,, = -hll for all information, equation (2.34) reduces to the equation
2 r + 1. With this
for all v,w E V.

Furthermore, i f g has signature ( s , ~ with )
T
s,
then X > 0 if g and h have or simply
0 = h l l - (cos28
+ sin2 6) . hll + sln(26)
hJk
the same signature and X
< 0 if g and -h have the same signature.

= s = 1. Let {el, e2) be an arbitrary
Proof.Flrst conslder the case that r

7 7 1
0 = sin(28) - hJk.
g-orthonormal basis for V such that g(el,el) = -1 and g(e2, e2) = +1. Then
= el
+ e2 and 172 = el - e2 are both g-null vectors.

0 = h(711,771)= h l l + h22 + 2h12,
Hence, hJk = 0 for all j, k
2 r + 1, j # k .
Hence, setting h,, =
h(e,, e,), we obtain the system of equations
We now have for r = 1 that hpq = 0 if p # q , and h l l = -hz2 = -hS3 = ... - -hnn. Hence if X = -hll > 0, then g and h both have signature
(-,
+, . . . ,+), whereas if X = -hli
In either case, h = Xg with parameter family
< 0, then h has signature (+, -, . . . , -). X = -hll as required.
0 = h(~2,772) = h l l + h22 - 2h12,

from which we conclude hll = -hz2 and h12 = 0. Since g(e,,e,) also have hil, hz2 h(el,el) < 0 and X
If r 2 2, we have a little more work left. First, consideration of the one-
# 0. Thus if we set X < 0 if h(el,el) > 0.
= -hll, then h
# 0 , we =X g with X > 0 if
Multiplying g by -1 if necessary, we consider the case that g has signature (r,s) with r 2 1 and s 2 2. Let {el,. . . ,e,, e,+l,. . . , e n ) be any g-orthonormal basis for V with {el,. . . ,e,} g-unit timelike and {e,+l,. .. , e n ) g-unit spacelike. Again by (2.31), we have hJ3 = h(e,, e,) # 0 for all j. Fix any j , k with j (2.33)
with j, k 5 r and j -h,,.
k yields hJk = h,,
0 and hll = hz2 = .. . = h,, =
It remains to show that hl, = 0 and h,, = 0 if p
< r < q. But for this
we need simply consider the one-parameter null family

x ( 0 ) = cos(8) . el
> r +1
+ sin(8) . ep + eq,
# k.
Then we have a one-parameter family of g-null vectors v(8) = el
since the equation 0 = h(x(8), x(8)) reduces to
+ cos(8) . e, + sin(8) . ek
28
2.4
SECTIONAL CURVATURE
29
in view o f our above results. Thus we have obtained hll = hz2 = h,, = -h,+l,,+l = ... = -hnn and h J k = 0 i f j conclusion follows as above. As a corollary, we obtain
. ..
Corollary 2.4. Let ( M Ig) and ( N ,h ) be smooth manifolds of dimension

n 2 3 having Lorentzian signature (-,
# k , from which the desired
+, . . . ,+). Suppose that f
:M
-+
N is
a diffeomorphism which satisfies condition (2.36). Then f is a global conformal transformation o f ( M ,g) onto ( N ,h).
One could paraphrase this last result as follows: a diffeomorphismo f spacetimes which preserves null vectors is a conformal transformation. Hence Corollary 2.4 is a differentiableversion o f a much deeper a priori topological result o f Hawking, King, and McCarthy (1976).
2.4
Corollary 2.2. Let V be a real n-dimensional vector space, n 2 3, and assume V is equipped with inner products g and h , both o f Lorentzian signature (-,
+, . . . ,+).
Suppose g and h determine the same null vectors. Then
g for some constant A > 0. h =X W i t h this last result applied t o each tangent space, we obtain the desired result. Theorem 2.3. Let M be a smooth manifold of dimension n 2 3 with metrics g and h, both o f Lorentzjan signature (-, R :M
-+
Sectional Curvature
Let ( M ,g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. A two-dimensional linear sub-
+, . . . ,+). Suppose for any
space E of T p M is called a plane section. The plane section E is said t o be nondegenerate if for each nontrivial vector v 6 E there is some vector u E E with g ( u , v ) # 0. This is equivalent to the requirement that gp I E be a nonde generate inner product on E. I f v and w form a basis o f the plane section E , then g(v,v)g(w,w ) - [g(v, w)j2 is a nonzero quantity i f and only i f E is nondegenerate. This quantity represents the square o f the semi-Euclidean area o f the parallelogram determined by v and w. The plane E is said t o be timelike i f the signature o f gp I E is ( 1 ,I ) , i.e., (-, +). It is spacelike if the signature is (0,2), i.e., (+, +). For Lorentzian manifolds, degenerate planes are called either null or lightlike and always have signature (0,+). A null plane in T p M is a plane tangent to the null cone in T p M . Thus, in the Lorentzian case a degenerate plane contains exactly one generator o f the null cone. Using the square o f the semi-Euclidean area o f the parallelogram determined by the basis vectors { v , w ) , one has the following classification for plane sections o f Lorentzian manifolds: g(v,v ) g ( w ,w ) - Ig(v,w)I2 < 0, g(v, v)g(w,w ) - [g(v, w)I2 = 0 , g(v, v ) g ( w ,W ) - lg(u,w)I2 > 0. (tzmelike plane) (degenerate plane) (spacelike plane)
v E T M that g ( v , v ) = 0 i f fh ( v , v ) = 0. Then there exists a smooth function (0,m) such that h = Rg.
A somewhat more general class o f objects than globally conformally r e lated metrics has been considered in differential geometry and general relativity, namely, conformal transformations. Here a global diffeomorphism F : ( M , g ) -+ ( N ,h ) between two semi-Riemannian manifolds ( M Ig) and ( N ,h) is said to be a global conformal transformation i f there exists a smooth function R : M -t ( 0 ,m) such that
(2.35) h(F*v,F,w) = R(p)g(v,w)
for all v , w f T p M and p E M . In the Riemannian case, such maps would be angle preserving. Evidently, condition (2.35) implies that ( M , g ) and ( N ,h ) have the same signature. Conversely, given two semi-Ftiemannian manifolds ( M ,g) and ( N ,h ) , we may apply Lemma 2.1 t o g and F'h in order t o obtain that the condition (2.36) g(v,v ) = 0 i f f h(F.v, F,v) = 0 for all v f T M
serves to ensure that F is a global conformal transformation o f ( M , g ) onto either ( N ,h ) or ( N ,-h). Especially for space-times, one has the following well-known extension of Theorem 2.3.
T h e sectional curvature o f the nondegenerate plane section E with basis
30
24
SECTIONAL CURVATURE
31
{v, w) where v = C v i d / d x i and w = C wid/dxi is then given by
constructed which have all timelike sectional curvatures bounded in one direction [cf. Harris (1979)j. However, if dim(M)
> 3 and if the sectional curvatures
of all nondegenerate planes are bounded either from above or from below, then the sectional curvature is constant [cf. Kulkarni (1979)l. Sectional curvature
-
R w , v, w, V) g(v, v)g(w1w) - [g(v,w)I2
(sectional curvature)
has been further investigated by Dajczer and Nomizu (1980b), Nomizu (1983), Beem and Parker (1984), and Cordero and Parker (1995a,c).
A semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) which has the same sectional curvature on all (nondegenerate) sections is said to have constant curvature. If (M,g) has
For positive definite manifolds the Ricci curvature evaluated at a unit vector is sometimes thought of as more or less an average sectional curvature weighted by a factor of (n- I). More precisely, let w be a unit vector at p in the Riemannian manifold (M, g), extend to an orthonormal basis {el, ez, . ..,en-l, en = w), and let Ei = span{ei, w) for 1 5 i 5 n - 1. Equations (2.22) and (2.37) yield Ric(w, w) = constant curvature c, then R(X, Y ) Z = c [g(Y, Z ) X - g(X, Z)Y] [cf. Graves and Nomizu (1978)l. Thorpe (1969) showed that the sectional curvature can only be continuously extended to degenerate planes in the case of constant curvature. Spaces of constant sectional curvature have been investigated in connection with the space form problem [cf. Wolf (1961, 1974)l. The curvature tensor, Ricci curvature, scalar curvature, and sectional curvature may all be calculated in local coordinates using the metric tensor components and the first two partial derivatives of these con~por~ents. Thus, the It is instructive to contrast the above with the Ricci curvature evaluated a t a unit timelike vector in a Lorentzian manifold. In this case the interpretation is in terms of the negative of the timelike sectional curvature. For let u be a unit timelike vector at a point p of the Lorentzian manifold (M,g). Extend to a n orthonormal basis {el, e2,. . . ,en-1, en = u) and let Ei = span{ei, u) for I metric tensor determines the curvatures. In contrast, curvature does not necessarily determine the metric. Nevertheless, for most Lorentzian manifolds the metric will be determined either completely or up to a constant conformal factor given sufficient information concerning curvature in local coordinates [cf. Hall (1983, 1984), Hall and Kay (1988), Ihrig (1975), Quevedo (1992)j. Conjugate points along geodesics may be defined using Jacobi fields. These objects are studied in Chapter 10 in connection with the development of the Morse index theory for timelike and null geodesics. If c : (a, b) geodesic, then the smooth vector field J : (a, b) Thus, if u is a timelike vector with Ric(u, u)
+
C g ( ~ ( e iW)W, , ei) = C K(p, E,).
5 i <n
- I. Equations (2.22) and (2.37) yield
-+
M is a
T M along c is a Jacobi field
> 0, then in some sense the
if it satisfies the Jacobi equation, (2.38)
"average" sectional curvature for planes in the pencil of u is negative. For Riemannian manifolds one has a number important "pinching" theorems [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975)l. However, similar results fail for Lorentzian manifolds. In particular, if the sectional curvatures of timelike planes are bounded both above and below, and if dim(M)
J" + R(J,cJ)cJ= 0,
(Jacobz equatzon)
where J" = V,,(V,lJ).
In an intuitive sense, one thinks of a Jacobi field
as representing the relative displacement of "nearby" geodesics [cf. Hawking
> 3, then (M,g) has constant
and Ellis (1973), Hicks (1965), or Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (1973)l. In particular, let c be a unit speed timelike geodesic. Then c represents the path of a "freely falling" particle moving a t less than the speed of light. Taking J
curvature [cf. Harris (1982a), Dajczer and Nomizu (l980a)l. Nevertheless, families of Lorentzian manifolds conformal to ones of constant curvature may be
32
2.5
THE GENERIC CONDITION
as a Jacobi field which is orthogonal to the tangent vector c', one interprets J
as a vector from the original particle to another particle moving on a nearby
2.5
The Generic Condition
timelike geodesic, and one interprets J" as the relative (or tidal) acceleration of the second particle as measured by the first. If g(J, J )
The sectional curvature can be used to study the generic condition, which will be of importance in the singularity theorems t o be considered in C h a p
# 0, then the definition
of sectional curvature together with g(cl, c') = -1 and g(J, c') = 0 yield
Wad/dxais a tangent vector, then the values W a are the contravariant components. Using the metric g one has values Wb = Cr=l gabWawhich are the covariant components. Thus, Wbdxb is the
ter 12. If W =
xr=l
cotangent vector corresponding to the original W . The generic condition is
At points where J does not vanish, the vector J / d m is a unit vector in the direction of J. Using J" = -R(J, cl)c', one finds that the radial component
of the tidal acceleration is given by
said to be satisfied for a vector W at p E M if

n
(2.40)
c.d=l
wC wdwfa R
~ wfl# ~ 0. ~ (generic ~ [ condition) ~
~f condition (2.40) fails to hold (i.e., if C:,,=,WCWdWI,Rblcdl,Wfl = o), then
W will be called nongeneric.

The generic condition is said to hold for a geodesic c : (a, b)
-+
M if at some
point c(t0) the tangent vector to the geodesic is generic, i.e., one has (2.40) This equation shows that for "close" particles the radial component of the tidal acceleration varies directly with the separation distance I J I and with the sectional curvature K(cl, J ) of the plane containing both c' and J. Thus, using our sign conventions, a timelike plane with positive sectional curvature corresponds to freely falling particles accelerating away from each other, and negative sectional curvature of a timelike plane corresponds to particles accelerating toward each other. Since Ric(cl, c') satisfied with W = cl(to). Notice from continuity that if (2.40) holds for some W = cl(to), then it will hold for W = cl(t) whenever t is sufficiently close to to. We will show in Proposition 2.6 that for a vector W which is nonnull (i.e., g(W, W ) # O), the nongeneric condition is equivalent to requiring that all plane sections containing W have zero sectional curvature. For null vectors, the nongeneric condition is slightly more complicated.
> 0 corresponds to the timelike
planes containing c' having negative average sectional curvature, it follows that Ric(cl, c') > 0 corresponds to average attractive (i.e., focusing) tidal forces. It should be kept in mind that some authors use different sign conventions and may have sectional curvature equal to the negative of ours.
Lemma 2.5. Let Rabcdrepresent the components of the curvature tensor

The vector W = vn satisfies the generic condition (2.40) iff there exist b and e with
with respect to an oi.thonormal basis { v l , vz, . . . ,v,) of T,M.
I the maximum tidal acceleration will be radial For a constant value of I J

[cf. Beem and Parker (1990, p. 820)j. Thus at any fied value to, a n observer traversing the timelike geodesic c will have zero tidal accelerations if and only if all planes E containing cl(to) have zero sectional curvature.
1 < b, e
< n - 1 such that Rbnne# 0.

. . . = Wn-'
= Wl =
Proof. The components of W are given by W 1 =
. .. = Wn-1 = 0, W" = 1, and W, = +l or
-1. Consequently,
34
2.5
35
Proposition 2.6 implies that the only way for a timelike geodesic c to fail to satisfy the generic condition is for the corresponding observer to fail to ever experience any tidal accelerations.
-
w a Rbnn j We + Wb Rann j W e )
In Chapter 12 we will make use o f an alternative formulation o f the generic condition using the curvature tensor. Let c be a unit speed timelike geodesic, p = c(to), and W = cl(to). T h e set of vectors orthogonal t o W is an ( n - 1)-dimensional linear subspace W ' = V L ( c ( t o ) lying ) in T p M , and the metric induced on this linear subspace is positive definite. Thus v L ( c ( t o ) )is a spacelike hyperplane in T p M . I f y E T p M ,then g ( W ,R(y, W ) W ) = 0 which implies that R ( y , W ) W lies in V L ( c ( t o ) ) .It follows that the curvature tensor R induces a linear map from V L ( c ( t o ) ) to V L ( c ( t o ) ) :
- bna Rbnnj bne
+ bnb Rannj S n e ) .
It is easily seen that this expression is nonzero i f and only i f Rbnne # 0 for someb,ewithl~b,e~n-1.
Proposition 2.6. If W E T p M is a nonnull vector, then W fails to be
generic (i.e., is nongeneric) i f ffor each nondegenerate plane section E containing W the sectional curvature K ( p ,E ) vanishes. Proof. W e may assume without loss o f generality that W is a unit vector. Set W = vn and extend to an orthonormal basis { v l ,v2, . . . ,v,) o f T p M . Let Rabcdrepresent the components o f the curvature tensor with respect t o this basis. From Lemma 2.5, i f W fails t o satisfy the generic condition, then Rbnne = 0 for all 1 5 b, e 5 n - 1. This and the skew symmetry of Rabcdin both the first pair o f indices and the second pair o f indices yield Rbnne = 0 for all 1 5 b, e 5 n. Hence Rnbne = -Rbnne = 0 for all such b and e. I t follows that i f U is another tangent vector at p, one has z:,b,c,e=lRabceWaUbWCUe = ~ ~ , eR,~,,U~U" = l = 0. Fkom (2.37), we conclude that i f E is the plane spanned by { W ,U), and i f E is nondegenerate, then K ( p ,E ) = 0. Conversely, assume all nondegenerate planes containing W have zero sectional curvature. Then (2.37) easily shows that all terms o f the form Rbnnb must be zero. Assume b # e. Notice that E = span{vb,vb + 2ve) cannot be degenerate. Using (2.37) we obtain R(vn,vb, v,, vb) = R(vn,v,, v,, v,) = R(vn, vb + 2ve,vn, vb + 2ve) = 0. T h e multilinearity of R and standard curvature identities then yield 0 = R(vn,vb Since g I V L ( c ( t o ) ) is positive definite, this curvature map is nontrivial i f and ) g ( y n , R ( y l ,W ) W )# 0. T h e only i f there arc vectors yl, y2 f V L ( c ( t o ) with next result shows this map is nontrivial i f and only i f W is generic.
Proposition 2.7. If W = cl(to) is a timelike vector in the Lorentzian
manifold ( M ,g ) , then the following three conditions are equivalent: ( 1 ) The timelike vector W is generic. ( 2 ) At least one plane containing W has nonzero sectional curvature. (3) R( . , W ) W is not the trivial map. Proof. Clearly, Proposition 2.6 shows the first two conditions are equivalent. Let Rabcdrepresent the components o f the covariant curvature tensor with respect to an orthonormal basis { v l , v 2 , .. .vn-l,vn = W ) o f T p M . I f W satisfies the generic condition, then Lemma 2.5 implies that -Rbnen = Rbnne # 0 for some 1 5 b, e 5 n - 1. Consequently, g(vb,R ( v e ,v n ) v n ) # 0 which shows R(v,, vn)vn is a nontrivial vector. Thus, when W is generic the map R( . ,W ) W is not the trivial map. Conversely, assume that R ( . , W ) W is not trivial. Let yl, yz be vectors in W L = spanjvl, v2, . . . ,vn-l) with g(y2,R ( y l ,vn)vn) # 0. This last inequality Z , X , Y ) = g(W, R ( X , Y ) Z ) yield b together with the multilinearity o f 2(~,
+ 2ve,v,, vb + 2ve) = 4 @v,,
vb, v,, we).
This shows f i b n e = 0 and hence Rbnne= 0. Using Lemma 2.5, it follows that W fails t o satisfy the generic condition as desired. U
36
2.5
37
and e with 1 5 b, e n - 1 such that Rbnne# 0. Thus, Lemma 2.5 shows that W is generic as desired. The next proposition shows that a sufficient condition for the nonnull vector W to be generic is that Ric(W, W) # 0.
Proposition 2.8. If W E TpM is a nonnull vector with Ric(W, W)
<
W and finds an orthonormal basis {en-', en) of E with W = (en-l +en)/&, en-1 spacelike, and en timelike. Then one extends to an orthonormal basis {el, e2,. . . , e n ) and sets vi = ei for 1 vn-1
=N =
<i
5 n - 2. Finally, one assigns
(-en-l +en)/&, and vn = W.
The next lemma provides the null version of Lemma 2.5 using a pseudo-
0,
orthonormal basis. In the lemma below, the values of b and e only go to n - 2 as opposed to n - 1 in Lemma 2.5. Lemma 2.9. Let Rabcd represent the components of the curvature tensor with respect to a pseudo-orthonormal basis { q , . . . ,vn-2, vn-1 = N, vn = W) ofTpM. The null vector W = vn satisfies thegeneric condition (2.40) iff there exist b and e with 1 5 b, e 5 n - 2 such that Rbnne# 0.
then W is generic.
Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that W is a unit vector

and extend to an orthonormal basis {vl, v2,. . . , vn-1, vn = W ) of TpM. Then,
Proof. The components of W are given by W' = . .. = Wn-' = Wl = . . = Wn-2 = Wn = 0, Wn = 1, and Wn-l = -1. Consequently,
which shows that Ric(W, W )
# 0 implies Rnin # 0 for some 1 5 i 5 n
- 1. -
The result now follows from Lemma 2.5. 0 In particular, this last proposition shows that if c : (a, b) --+ M is a timelike geodesic with Ric(c1,c')
w a Rbnnf We + Wb Rannf We)
> 0 for some t
= to, then c is generic.
In order to investigate the generic condition for (nontrivial) null vectors, we first define a pseudo-orthonoma1 basis Icf. Hawking and Ellis (1973)l. Let {vl, 7.12,. .. ,vn-2) be n - 2 unit spacelike vectors in TpM that are mutually orthogonal, and let W, N be two null vectors which satisfy g(W, N ) = -1 and which are both orthogonal to the first n - 2 vectors. Then a pseudoorthonormal basis of TpM is formed by {vl, va, . . .,vn-2, N, W). In this basis the metric tensor at p has the form
- 6.. ,3 and gV .. -
It is easily seen that this expression is zero for all a , b, e, f whenever one or more of a , b, e, f equal n. If it is nonzero for some a, b, e, f , then exactly one of a , b must be n - 1, and also exactly one of e, f must be n - 1. It follows that
x:d=l WCWdWIaRblcdIeWfl # 0 iff Rbnne# 0 for some 1 5 b, e 5 n - 2.
If n = 2, then Lemma 2.9 shows all null vectors fail to be generic since there are no values of b and e with 1 5 b, e I n - 2.
gin-l=gin=O
= -1
forl<i,jSn-2, gnn = gn-ln-l = 0.
Corollary 2.10. If dim(M) = 2, then a l l null vectors are nongeneric

If W is a nontrivial null vector in TpM, then the orthogonal space W-' = N(W) = {v E TpM / g(W, v) = 0) is an (n - 1)-dimensional linear subspace of the tangent space and contains the null vector W. The set N(W) is a hyperplane which is tangent to the null cone at p along one generator. The
i
with
and
It is not difficult to show that any nontrivial null vector W can be extended to a pseudo-orthonormal basis. One first takes any timelike plane E containing
38
2.5
39
signature of g I N(W) is degenerate of order one and positive of order n - 2. Notice that g(W, R(v, W)W) = 0 implies that R(v, W)W lies in N(W). The one-dimensional linear subspace determined by W will be denoted by [W]. Let G(W) = N(W)/[W] be the (n - 2)-dimensional quotient space and
T
Conversely, assume R ( . , W)W is not the trivial map. Since 3 is positive definite, there must exist E and 8 in G(W) with 3 ( i i , R(v, W)W ) Choose u f n-'(E) and v E a-'(5).
0.
Then multilinearity, the fact that
: N(W) -+ G(W) be the natural projection map. Since R(W, W) = 0 and
the multilinearity of the curvature tensor yield R(v
+ aW, W)W = R(v, W ) W
# 0, and R(W, W ) W = 0 together imply there must be b and e, 1 5 b,e < n - 2, such that g(vb, R(ve,W)W) # 0. Hence, Rbnen = -Rbnne # 0, and W is generic by Lemma 2.9. 0
3 ( E , R(u, W)W )
= g(u, R(v, W)W)
for all v, each element of a given coset of G(W) is mapped to the same element of N(W) by R ( . , W)W. It follows that one has a linear map The next proposition shows that Ric(W, W) vectors in Proposition 2.8. defined by (G, W) W = x (R(v, W) W) where v is any vector in 7r-l(8). The Proposition 2.12. Let (MIg) be a Lorentzian manifold, and let W E TpM be a tangent vector. If Ric(W, W) degenerate metric g 1 N(W) projects to a positive definite metric 3 on G(W) since vl,vz E N(W) must satisfy g(v1 a, b. Thus, (2.44)
-
# 0 is a sufficient condition for
a vector W to be generic. This was already proven for timelike and spacelike
+ aW,v2 + bW) = g(vl,v2) for all real
# 0,
then W is generic.
Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that W is a null vector because of Proposition 2.8. It is always possible to construct both an orthonorma1 basis {el, e2, . . . , e n ) and a pseudo-orthonormal basis
g(G1,G2) = g(v1, v2)
(quotient metric on G(W))
where V1 = x(v1) and 5 2 = x(v2). The next result is the null version of Proposition 2.7. We do not give a statement corresponding to condition (2) of Proposition 2.7. In general, a null vector may lie in planes with nonzero sectional curvature and yet fail to be generic. Proposition 2.11. Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold, and let W E TpM be a nontrivial null vector. Then the following two conditions are equivalent: (1) The null vector W is generic.
(2) R ( . , W)W is not the trivial map.
with v, = e, for 15 i 5 n - 2,
and en timelike. Let Rabcdbe the components of the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor with respect to the pseudo-orthonormal basis and the components with respect to the orthonormal basis. Then,
Rabcd
be
Proof. Let Rabcd represent the components of the covariant curvature tensor with respect to a pseudo-orthonormal basis {vl,. . . ,v,-2,vn-l,vn
= W) of
T,M, N(W) = WL, and G(W) = N(W)/[W] as above. Notice that N ( W ) = span(vl, ~ 2 ,... ,vn-2, W). Assuming W is generic, Lemma 2.9 yields b and e with Rbnne# 0 for 1 5
b, e 5 n - 2. Consequently, g ( ~ ( v b,)Z(T(V,),W)W) = g(vb, R(ve,W)W) =

Rbnen= -Rbnne # 0 which shows that R ( . ,W)W is not trivial.
40
2.5
41
Hence,
t o have constant sectional curvature at that point. Using a cubic definition for "generically situated" [cf.Beem and Harris (1993b, pp. 969-972)],one may establish the following result.
Proposition 2.15. Let ( M ,g) be a Lorentzian manifold o f dimension four,
and let p E M . I f T,M has 11 null nongeneric vectors generically situated, then all sectional curvatures at p are equal. In particular, i f ( M ,g) does not have constant sectional curvature at p, then the generic null directions at p form an open dense subset o f the two-sphere o f all null directions at p. This last proposition yields that "generically" a given null direction at a point p satisfies the generic condition. which shows that Ric(W, W ) # 0 implies
%,in
# 0 for some 1 5 i 5 n - 2.
Assume that ( M ,g) is a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, and recall that the Jacobi equation is J"
The result now follows from Lemma 2.9. 0 T h e next corollary follows from Corollary 2.10 and Proposition 2.12
Corollary 2.13. Let ( M , g ) be a Lorentzian manifold with d i m ( M ) = 2.
+ R ( J , cl)c' = 0. Let c b e a unit speed timelike
vector, and assume { E l ,E2, E3, E4) is an orthonormal basis along c which moves by parallel translation along c and satisfies Eq = cl(t). I f J = is a Jacobi field, the Jacobi equation can then be written as
c :J z~ El ~
I f W is null, then Ric(W,W ) = 0. T h e generic condition holds generically in each tangent space o f any point where there is some component o f the curvature tensor not equal t o zero. More precisely, one can establish the following result [cf.Beem and Harris (1993a, p. 950)].
Proposition 2.14. Let ( M ,g) be a Lorentzian manifold of dimension four
=-
k=l using
~ ~ 4 . 4= 4
~ ' 4 k J~ 4
(Jacobi equation)
0. Since { E l ,E2,Esl E4) is an orthonormal basis with c l ( t ) =
and let p E M . If T p M has five nonnull and nongeneric vectors with four o f them linearly independent and with the fifth not in any plane determined by any two o f the original four, then the curvature tensor vanishes at p. In particular, i f any component o f the curvature tensor fails to be zero at p, then one cannot find five nonnull nongeneric vectors at p in general position. T h e situation for nongeneric null vectors is somewhat different. Having all null vectors nongeneric does not necessarily imply zero curvature at a point. For dimension three and higher, all null vectors at a point will be nongeneric i f and only i f there is constant sectional curvature at the point. In dimension four, one can have a "cubic" o f nongeneric null vectors at a point and yet fail
E4, the vectors { E l ,E2, E3) are unit spacelike vectors, and the Jacobi equation becomes
W e now illustrate the unboundedness of tidal accelerations for observers with velocity vectors close to the direction o f a null vector W which satisfies the generic condition [cf. Beem and Parker (1990)l. T o this end, assume that (U,Xl,X2,X3,~4)are local coordinates near c(t0) = p. Assume also that the natural basis for the x,-coordinates at p is the orthonormal set { E l ,E2, E3, Ed). Denote the components o f the curvature tensor for this
42
2.5
T H E GENERIC CONDITION
43
basis by Rabcd. Regard 8 as temporarily fixed, and define new coordinates ) P by YI = 21, y2 = 22, y3 = 5 3 cosh(8) - 2 4 sinh(B), and (YI,~ 2~ , 3~ , 4 near y4 = -23 sinh(8) 2 4 cosh(8). Let the natural basis a t p for the y-coordinates be denoted by { E l , E p , E3, E4), and let the curvature tensor components at p with respect to this basis be denoted by Rabcd. The new basis { E l , E2,E3,E 4 ) is also orthonormal, and if one lets 8 corresponds in T,M
--+
this will hold if and only if the following equations hold:
+-
- - - -
+m, the direction of
& converges to
the null direction determined by W = E3
+ E 4 . This change of coordinates

The vector W is nongeneric if and only if (2.53), (2.54), and (2.55) all hold, and it is nondestructive if (2.51)-(2.55) all hold [cf. Beem and Parker (1990), Beem and Harris (1993a,b)]. Tidal forces and radiation for a falling body in Schwarzschild space-time have been studied by Mashhoon (1977). Also, tidal impulses have been investigated by Mashhoon and McClune (1993). Further results on nondestructive directions have been obtained by Hall and Hossack (1993).
t o what is called a "pure boost." The new curvature
components fZabcd are related to the original components Rabcdby
Using
XI
= yl, x2 = y2,
23
= y3 cosh(0)
+ y4sinh(8), and x 4 = y ~ s i n h ( 8 + )
y4 cosh(8), one finds
Remark 2.16. In order to get a physical interpretation of (2.51)-(2.55),

consider a "freely falling" steel ball with center having velocity vector E4 at
p. Assume the ball has rest mass m o and radius = a. Tidal accelerations for
points on the surface of the ball will correspond to IJI = a. Recall that the formula for the special relativistic increase in mass (or energy) is given by
where y = 1 to 8 An observer traversing the timelike geodesic which has tangent vector a t p has a rest space at p given by d2J'/dt2 = -+
/ d m= cosh(8), v is the speed measured with respect

-+ c
to
the original rest frame, and c is the speed of light. Of course, v
corresponds
+m. In other words, the classical special relativistic magnification
factor of mass is y = cosh(8). If one of (2.53), (2.54), or (2.55) fails to hold, then W = E3
F:
- - = span{El, E2, E3). TOinvestigate
+ E4 is generic, and the increase in tidal accelerations for large 8
tidal accelerations for this observer, one may consider the Jacobi equation
is approximately proportional to -y2 which is the square of the increase in the mass. For particles approaching the speed of light in a direction corresponding to a generic null direction, eventually the increase in tidal accelerations will become a bigger difficulty than the increase in mass. If (2.53)-(2.55) all hold,
c:=,
as 8
4
~ iRt4k4Jk , ~using vectors in this rest space of the form J =

fZz4k4
J " %
with I J I = 1. Notice that the tidal accelerations will be bounded are bounded for large 8, and
+m if and only if the components
44
2.6
THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS
45
but at least one of (2.51) or (2.52) fails to hold, then the increase in tidal accelerations for large B is approximately proportional to y. In this case, the null direction corresponding to W is (tidally) destructive but is not generic.
2.6
where 1
< i,j 5 4. The Ricci curvature and scalar curvature involve the first
and second partial derivatives of the components gij of the metric g but do not involve any higher derivatives. Hence, the Einstein equations represent (nonlinear) partial differential equations in the metric and its first two derivatives. These sixteen equations reduce to ten because all of the tensors in equation (2.58) are symmetric. There is a further reduction to six equations [cf. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973, p. 409)] using the curvature identity
T h e Einstein Equations
In this section we give a brief description of the Einstein equations. A heuristic derivation of these equations may be found in Frankel (1979, Chapter 3). Since these equations apply to manifolds of dimension four, we restrict our attention in this section to this dimension. The Einstein equations relate purely geometric quantities to the energy-momentum tensor T, which is a physical quantity. They may thus be used to state energy conditions in terms of T. In the case of a perfect fluid, the energy-momentum tensor also takes a simple form. This is important in general relativity because the matter of the universe is assumed to behave like a perfect fluid in the standard cosmological models. The physical motivation for studying Lorentzian manifolds is the assumption that a gravitational field may be effectively modeled by some Lorentzian metric g defined on a suitable four-dimensional manifold M. Since every manifold which admits a Lorentzian metric clearly admits uncountably many such metrics, it is necessary to decide both which manifold and which Lorentzian metric on that manifold should be used to model a given gravitational problem. The Einstein equations relate the metric tensor g, Ricci curvature Ric, and scalar curvature
T
which yields four conservation laws given by
C
j=1
~ ' j ;= j O.
(conservation laws)
Here, ";j" denotes covariant differentiation in the xj direction (i.e., 'i7a/dzl). The Einstein equations do not determine the metric on M without sufficient
, ) It E boundary conditions. For example, let M = { ( t r

do2
R and r > 2m) x
S2.
Then M is topologically lR2 x S2. Let A = 0 and T = 0, and set dR2 =
+ ~ i n ~ ( e ) d $Then ~ . M with this A and T admits both the flat metric

+ dr2 + r2dR2 as well as the Schwarzschild metric
dr2
ds2 = -dt2
(= R) to the energy-momentum tensor

(2.59) ds2 = -
T. The tensor T is to be determined from physical considerations dealing with

the distribution of matter and energy [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, Chapter 3), Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973, Chapter 5)]. The Einstein equations may be written invariantly as (2.57)
+ r2dR2
(Schwarzschild)
as solutions to the Einstein equations. Each of these rnetrics is asymptotically flat, and each is Ricci JEat (i.e., Ric = 0). However, the Schwarzschild metric has a nonzero curvature tensor, and hence the two metrics cannot be isometric. Nevertheless, a counting argument shows that, in general, one expects the Einstein equations to determine the metric up to diffeomorphism [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 74)j. First, notice that the metric tensor g has 16 components which, by symmetry, reduce to ten independent components. Furthermore, four of these ten components can be accounted for by the dimension of M
1 Ric - - R g + A g = 87rT 2
(Einstein equations)
where A is a constant known as the cosmological constant. The constant factor of 87r is present for scaling purposes. In local coordinates, one has
1
(2.58) Rij - -Rgij 2
+ h g i j = 87rTij
(Einstein equations in coordinates)
which allows four degrees of freedom. Thus the metric tensor is thought of
46
2.6
T H E EINSTEIN EQUATIONS
47
as having six independent components after symmetry and diffeomorphism freedom are taken into account. Consequently, the Einstein equations yield six independent equations to determine six essential components of the metric tensor. More rigorous approaches to the problem of existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Einstein equations using Cauchy surfaces with initial data may be found in a number of articles and books such as Chrusciel (1991), Hawking and Ellis (1973, Chapter 7), Marsden, Ebin, and Fischer (1972, pp. 233-264), and Choquet-Bruhat and Geroch (1969). The Einstein equations may be used to relate the timelike convergence condition (Ric(v, v) 2 0 for all timelike, and hence also all null vectors v) t o the energy-momentum tensor. In order to evaluate the scalar curvature R in terms of T at p E M , let {el, e 2 , . . . , e n ) be a n orthonormal basis of T,M, and use equation (2.57) to obtain
This last equation shows that the condition Ric(v,v) 2 0 is equivalent to the inequality T(v, v) 2 [tr(T)/2 - A/8n] g(v, v). If follows that when A = 0 and dim(M) = 4, the condition
is equivalent to the condition
[cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 95)]. Note that (2.60) and (2.61) show that if A = 0, then T = 0 (i.e., vacuum) is equivalent to Ric = 0 (i.e., Ricci flat). The Einstein equations are fundamental in the construction of cosmological models. Consider a fluid which moves through space. This motion generates timelike flow lines in space-time. Let v be the unit speed timelike vector field which is everywhere tangent to the flow lines of the fluid. The fluid is said to be a perfect fluid if it has an energy density p , pressure p, and energy-momentum tensor T such that
Using the fact that the scalar curvature R is the trace of the Ricci curvature, this last equation becomes
(2.62) which is
T = (p
+ p) w 8 u + p g,
(perfect fiuid)
Tij = (p+p)vivj + p g i j
Hence, (2.60) in local coordinates. Here w = z v i d x i is the one-form corresponding to the vector field v = via/dxi. It follows from the above form of T that a perfect
R = - 8 tr(T) ~ + 411.
The Einstein equations become Ric - 2( - 8 ~ tr(T) Thus,

1
+ 4A)g + Ag = 8x2".
fluid is an isotropic fluid which is free of shear and viscosity. Let (M,g) be a manifold for which T has the above perfect fluid form. If the vectors {el, e:!, e3, e4) form an orthonormal basis for T,M, then the trace of T may be calculated as follows:
4
(2.63)
tr(T) =
g(ei, el) T(e,, e,) i=l = -(P+P) $ 4 ~

= 3p - p.
48
Using equation (2.61), it follows that the timelike convergence condition for a perfect fluid is equivalent to
CHAPTER 3
for all timelike (and null) w. For Lorentzian manifolds, it is easy to verify that the inner product of a timelike vector and another timelike (or nontrivial null) vector is nonzero. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that g(v, w)
LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS AND CAUSALITY
# 0.
Using equation (2.62) we obtain
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 give a brief review of elementary causality theory basic to this monograph as well as to general relativity. Then Section 3.3 describes an important relationship between the limit curve topology and the C0 topology for sequences of nonspacelike curves in strongly causal space-times. Namely,
which simplifies to
if y : [a, b]
--+
M is a future directed nonspacelike limit curve of a sequence
{y,) of future directed nonspacelike curves, then a subsequence converges to y in the C0topology. This result is useful for constructing maximal geodesics in Since g(w, w) 5 0 and g(v, w) strongly causal spacetimes using the Lorentzian distance function (cf. Chapter
# 0, equation (2.64) shows that a negative
cosmological constant has the effect of making the timelike convergence condition more plausible and that a positive cosmological constant has the opposite effect. Einstein originally introduced the cosmological constant because the Einstein equations with A = 0 predict a universe which is either expanding or contracting, and in the early part of this century it was believed that the universe was essentially static. After the discovery that the universe was expanding, the original motivation for the cosmological constant was removed; however, removing A from the theory has been more difficult. While astronomical experiments have failed to detect a A different from zero, one may always argue that A is so small that the experiments have not been sufficiently sensitive. Discussions of the experimental evidence for general relativity may be found in a number of books such as Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973) and Will (1981).
8 and Chapter 12, Section 4).

In Section 3.4 we study the causal structure of two-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds. In particular, we show that if (M, g) is a space-time homeomorphic to R2, then (M,g) is stably causal. Section 3.5 gives a brief discussion of the theory of Lorentzian submanifolds and the second fundamental form needed for our discussion of singularity theory in Chapter 12. An important splitting theorem of Geroch (1970a) guarantees that a globally hyperbolic space-time may be written as a topological (although not necessarily metric) product R x S where S is a Cauchy hypersurface. This result suggests that product space-times of the form (R x M, -dt2 @ g) with (M, g) a Riemannian manifold should be studied. While this class of space-times includes Minkowski space and the Einstein static universe, it fails to include the physically important exterior Schwarzschild and Robertson-Walker solutions to Einstein's equations. In Sections 3.6 and 3.7 we study a more general class of product space-times, the so-called warped products, which are spacetimes MI x f M2 with metrics
50
3.1
LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS, CONVEX NORMAL NEIGHBORHOODS
51
of the form gl
@I fg2.
This class of metrics, studied for Riemannian manifolds
More precisely, we have the following definition. Definition 3.1. (Space-time) A space-time (M,g) is a connected Cm Hausdorff manifold of dimension two or greater which has a countable basis, a Lorentzian metric g of signature (-,
+?.
by Bishop and O'Neill (1969) and later for semi-Riemannian manifolds by O'Neill (1983), includes products, the exterior Schwarzschild space-times, and Robertson-Walker space-times. The following result, which may be regarded as a "metric converse" to Geroch's splitting theorem, is typical of the results of Section 3.6. Let (R x M, -dt2 @ g) be a Lorentzian product manifold with (M, g) an arbitrary Riemannian manifold. Then the following are equivalent: (1) (M, g) is a complete Riemannian manifold. (2) (R x M , -dt2 @ g) is globally hyperbolic.
. . ,+), and a time orientation.
We now show how to construct a time oriented two-sheeted Lorentzian covering manifold n : ( E , i j ) which is not time orientable. To this end, first let (M,g) be an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold. Fix a base point PO E M . Give a time orientation to TpoM by choosing a timelike tangent vector vo E TpoM and defining a nonspacelike w E TpoM to be future [respectively, past] directed if g(v0, w) < 0 [respectively, g(v0, w)
+
(M,g) for any Lorentzian manifold ( M , g)
(3) (R x M , -dt2
3 . 1
@I g)
is geodesically complete.
Lorentzian Manifolds a n d Convex N o r m a l Neighborhoods
> 01. Now let
Let M be a smooth connected paracompact Hausdorff manifold, and let
1 -+ M with y(0) = po q be any point of M . Piecewise smooth curves y : [O, 1 and $1) = q may be divided into two equivalence classes as follows. Given
~ 1 ~ :7 [0,11 2
TM denote the tangent bundle of M with n : T M
-+
M the usual bundle map
taking each tangent vector to its base point. Recall that a Lorentzzan metric g for M is a smooth symmetric tensor field of type (0,2) on M such that for each p f M, the tensor glp : TpM x TpM of signature (1, n
-+
M with ~ l ( 0 ) = ~ ( 0= ) PO and yl(1) = y2(1) = 91 let Vl (respectively, T/z) be the unique parallel field along y l (respectively, yz) with
-+
R is a nondegenerate inner product All noncompact manifolds admit
Vl(0) = V2(0) = vo. Wesay that yl and 7 2 areequivalent ifg(Vl(l),V2(1)) < 0. If yl and
72
- 1) [i.e., (-,
+, . . . , +)I.
are homotopic curves from po to q, then yl and 7 2 are equivalent.
Lorentzian metrics. However, a compact manifold admits a Lorentzian metric if and only if its Euler characteristic vanishes [cf. Steenrod (1951, p. 207)]. The space of all Lorentzian metrics for M will be denoted by Lor(M).
But equivalent curves are not necessarily homotopic. Given y : [O, 1 1 -+ M with y(0) = po, let [y] denote the equivalence class of y. Let
2 consist of all such equivalence classes of piecewise smooth curves
A continuous vector field X on M is timelike if g(X(p),X(p)) < 0 for all

points p E M . In general, a Lorentzian manifold does not necessarily have globally defined timelike vector fields. If (M,g) does admit a timelike vector field X E X(M), then (M,g) is said to be time oriented by X . The timelike vector field X divides all nonspacelike tangent vectors into two separate classes, called future and past directed. A nonspacelike tangent vector v E T,M is said to be future [respectively, past] directed if g(X(p), v)
y : [O, 1 1 -+ M with $0) = PO. Define n :
is time orientable, then M = M .
M by ~ ( [ y ]= ) y(1). If (M, g)
T
Otherwise,
M is a two-sheeted
covering [cf. Markus (1955, p. 412)]. Suppose now that the Lorentzian manifold (M, g) is not time orientable. It is standard from covering space theory to give the set Define a Lorentzian metric Then the map
7r
ii;j a
topology and dif-
ferentiable structure such that n : M + M is a two-sheeted covering manifold.

:
< 0 [respectively,
g(X(p),v) > 01. A Lorentzian manifold (M,g) is said to be time onentable if (M,g) admits a time orientation by some timelike vector field X. In this case, (M,g) admits two distinct time orientations defined by X and -X, respectively. A time oriented Lorentzian manifold is called a space-time.
g for M
- by ij = n*g, i.e., ;(v, -
w) = g ( ~ , vn,w). ,
-+
M is a local isometry.
In order to show that (%,g) is time orientable, it is useful to establish a preliminary lemma. Fix a base point
Fo E T - ' ( ~ ~ for ) M. Let Go E T~,M be
the unique timelike tangent vector in TFo M with r,Go = VO.
52
3.1
-+
LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS, CONVEX NORhlAL NEIGHBORHOODS
53
Lemma 3.2. Let
qE
be arbitrary and let yl,;j;2 : [0, I]
% be
two
if, fixing any base point po E M and timelike tangent vector vo E Tp,M, the following condition is satisfied for all q f M. Let yl,yz : [0,1] --+ M be any two smooth curves from p to q. If V , is the unique parallel vector field along yi with V,(O) = vo for i = 1,2, then g(V1(l),V2(1)) < 0. This condition means that parallel translation of the future cone determined by vo at po to any other point q of M is independent of the choice of path from p to q. Hence a consistent choice of future timelike vectors for each tangent space may be made by parallel translation from po. Recall that a smooth curve in (M,g) is said to be timelike (respectively, nonspacelike, null, spacelike) if its tangent vector is always timelike (respectively, nonspacelike, null, spacelike). As in the Riemannian case, a geodesic c : ( a ,b)
+
piecewise smooth curves with Yl(0) = 72(O) = Po and ;j;l(l) = 72(1) = g. If V2(0) = 6, then g(v1(1), %(I)) Proof. Let y l = .n o yl and fields along 7 1 and
72,
fi, - 1/2 are the parallel vector fields along y1 and y2, respectively, with
< 0.
7 2 = 7r o
(0) =
72. Since .n : ( M , $ )
---t
(M, g) is
a local isometry, the vector fields Vl = .n,(vl) and
6 = 7riT,(v2) are parallel
respectively, with Vl(0) = h(O) = n,vo = vo. Also,
g ( K ( l ) , Wl))= g(x*G(l),x*%(l)) = g ( G ( l ) >%(I)). Suppose now that $(Ql(l), V2(1)) y! 0. Since ?1(1) and ?2(1) are timelike tangent vectors, it follows that 5(?1(1), V2(1)) > 0. Thus g(Vl(l), h ( 1 ) )
>0
at q = .n(@). By definition of the equivalence relation on piecewise smooth curves from po to q, we have [yl] # [y2]. F'rom the construction of M , we know that T1(l) = [yl] and T2(l) = Im]. Thus %,(I) # 72(1), in contradiction.
M is a smooth curve whose tangent vector moves by parallel dis-
b). The tangent vector field cl(t) of placement, i.e., V,jcl(t) = 0 for all t E (a,
a geodesic c satisfies g(cl(t), cl(t)) = constant for all t 6 (a,b) since
Theorem 3.3. Suppose that (M,g) is not time orientable. Then the twosheeted Lorentzian covering manifold
(%,$)
of (M,g) constructed above is Consequently, a geodesic which is timelike (respectively, null, spacelike) for
-+
time orientable and hence is a space-time.
T E %, let o : [O, 1 1 % be a smooth curve with a(0) = Po,a(1) = $ Let V be the unique parallel vector
Proof. Let
& and Go be as above.
Given any
some value of its parameter is timelike (respectively, null, spacelike) for all values of its parameter. The exponential map expp : TpM + M is defined for Lorentzian manifolds just as for Riemannian manifolds. Given v E TpM, let cu(t) denote the unique geodesic in M with cv(0) = p and cul(0) = v. Then the exponential exp,(v) of v is given by expp(v) = c v ( l ) provided c,(l) is defined. Let vl, v2, . . . ,vn be any basis for the tangent space TpM. For sufficiently small (21, 22,. . . , x,) E Rn, the map xlvl
field along a with ?(o) = Go. Set F + ( q ) = (timelike w E T& : ~ ( v ( l ) w) ,

u. Hence if+
<
0). By Lemma 3.2, the definition of F + ( a ) is independent of the choice of
F+(T) consistently assigns a future cone t o each tangent space
T ~ % ,q E
G.
Now let h be an auxiliary positive definite Riemannian metric for %. We by choosing may define a continuous nowhere zero timelike vector field X on X ( 5 ) to be the vector in F + ( q ) which is the unique h-unit vector in F + ( q ) having a negative eigenvalue of continuous function X : M
+
g with respect
to h. That is, we may find a
+ 22212 + . . . + X n V n --' ~ X P ~ (+ X 2 ~ 2 ~ U+ 2~ . . . + xnvn)
(-a, 0) and a continuous timelike vector field
X on
X ( q ) E F+(q"), h(X(T), X ( c ) ) = 1, and $(X(g), v) = X(y) h(X(q), v) for all v f T& and 5 E %. U
% satisfying
is a diffeomorphism of a neighborhood of the origin of T,M onto a neighborhood U(p) of p in M . Thus, assigning coordinates (xl,x2,. . . , x n ) to the point expp(xlvl
+ 22712 + . . . + xnvn) in U(p) defines a coordinate chart for M
Implicit in the proof of Theorem 3.3 is an alternative definition for the time orientability of a Lorentzian manifold (M, g). Namely, ( M g) is time orientable
called normal coordinates based at p for U(p). The set U(p) is said to be a (simple) convex neighborhood of p if any two points in U(p) can be joined by
54
3.2
CAUSALITY THEORY OF SPACE-TIMES
55
a unique geodesic segment of (M,g) lying entirely in U(p). Whitehead (1932) has shown that any semi-Riemannian (hence Lorentzian) manifold has convex neighborhoods about each point [cf. Hicks (1965: pp. 133-136)]. In fact, it may even be assumed that for each q E U(p), there are normal coordinates based a t q containing U(p). We call such a neighborhood U(p) a convex normal neighborhood [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 34)]. The next proposition is essential to the study of the local behavior of causality. A proof is given in Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 103-105). It is important t o carefully note the phrase "contained in U" in the statement of this result. Proposition 3.4. Let U be a convex normal neighborhood of q. Then the points of U which can be reached by timelike {respectively, nonspacelike) curves contained in U are those of the form expq(u), u E TqM, such that g(v, v)
3.2
For a given p E M , the chronological future Ii(p), chronological past I-(p), causal future Ji(p), and causal past J-(p) of p are defined as follows: I f (p) = { q f M
:p
<< q ) ,
6 q),
(chronologicalfuture) (chronological past) (causal future) (causal past)
I-(p) = { q E M : q < < p), ~ + ( p= ) {q E M

:p
J-(p) = { q E M : q
< p).
For general subsets S 2 M, the sets I i ( S ) , I - ( S ) , J + ( S ) , and J - ( S ) are defined analogously: for example, I + ( S ) = { q E A 4/s The relations
< < q for some s E S ) .
< < and
Q are clearly transitive. Moreover,

q
< 0 {respectively,g(v,v) 5 0).

Causality T h e o r y of Space-times and
p< < q and
<r
implies p << r,
p6q
and
q << r
implies p < <r
In a space-time (M, g) a (nowhere vanishing) nonspacelike vector field along a curve cannot continuously change from being future directed to being past directed. It follows that a smooth timelike, null, or nonspacelike curve in (M, g) is either always future directed or always past directed. We will use the standard notation p timelike curve from p to q, and p and P # qA continuous curve y [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 14)]. If there is a future directed timelike curve from p to q, there is a neighborhood U of q such that any point of U can be reached by a future directed timelike curve. Consequently, it follows that L e m m a 3.5. If p is any point of the space-time (M,g), then I+(p) and I-(p) are open sets of M. An example has been given in Chapter 1, Figure 1.1, to show that the sets J+(p) and J-(p) are neither open nor closed in general. Two especially important classes of subsets of a space-time are future sets and past sets. In this section we will restrict our attention to open future and past sets, which may be defined as follows. Definition 3.6. (Future and Past Sets) set if F = I + ( F ) (respectively, P = I-(P)). These sets will be used in studying the causality of the gravitational plane wave space-times in Chapter 13. Future and past sets have often proven useful The (open) subset F (respec-
< < q if there is a smooth future directed

< q will mean p 6 q
< q if either p = q or there is a smooth future

--+
directed nonspacelike curve from p to q. Furthermore, p

:
(a, b)
M is said to be a future directed nonE
spacelike curve if for each to E (a, b) there is an any tl, tz with to - E
> 0 and a convex normal
neighborhood U(y(t0)) of y(t0) with y(t0-E, to+) C U(y(t0)) such that given
< t l < t2 < to + E, there is a smooth future directed non-
spacelike curve in (U(y(to)), g I U(y(t0))) from y(t1) to y(t2). It is necessary to use the convex normal neighborhood U(y(to)) in this definition for the following reason. There exist space-times for which p << q for all (p, q ) E M x M . But in these space-times, any continuous curve y satisfies both y(tl) and y(t2) << y(tl) for all tl and t2 in the domain of y.
tively, P) of the space-time (M,g) is said to be a .future (respectively, past)
< < y(ta)
56
3.2
57
in causality proofs [cf. Hawking and Sachs (1974), Dieckmann (1987)l. Rather complete discussions of this topic may be found in Penrose (1972, Section 3) and in Hawking and Ellis (1973). The simplest examples are formed by taking F = I + ( S ) or P = I P ( S ) , where S is an arbitrary subset of M. (Indeed, these sets may also be defined in this manner.) They also share the following property with the chronological past and future sets I-(p) and I+(p) of an arbitrary point p in M: x in F and x
are obtained for arbitrary space-times:
I+(p) = {x E M : I+(%) C I+(p)),

= {x E M : I-(2)
(closure)
I-(p)), (boundary)
d(I+(p)) = {x E M : x and
4f I+(p) and I + ( x ) C I+(p)), d(I-(p)) = {x E M : x 4 I-(p) and I-(x) C I-(p)).
< < y implies y in F ; < x implies y in P. x in P and y <
Past and future sets have played an important role in singularity theory (future set) (past set). in general relativity as treated in Penrose (1972) or Hawking and Ellis (1973) via the allied concept of achronal boundaries. A subset B of M is said to be an achronal boundary if B = d ( F ) for some future set F . (Of course, it is necessary to prove that a ( F ) is achronal, i.e., that no two points of d ( F ) may be joined by a future timelike curve, for this definition to make sense.) In particular, for any p in M the set
The next two results give simple characterizations of the closures and boundaries of sets which are either future or past.
Proposition 3 . 7 .
(1) If F is a future set, then (2)
F = {x E M : I+(x) c F ) . If P is a past set, then P = {x E M : I-(2) C P}.

is a simple example of an achronal boundary. Achronal boundaries have the following important regularity properties. Theorem 3.9. The (nonempty) boundary d ( F ) of a future set is a closed achronal (Lipschitz) topological hypersurface. Discussions of this result are given in Penrose (1972, pp. 21-23) and in Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 187) from the viewpoint of applications in singularity theory. A rather complete treatment of a number of mathematical aspects may be found in O'Neill (1983, pp. 413-415). I t may happen that p E I+(p). If so, there is a closed timelike curve through p, and the space-time is said to have a causality violation. For example, on the cylinder M = S1 x
Proof. As usual, it suffices to establish (1). First, suppose I+(x) 2 F. We
2 F, this yields x E 7. Conversely, let x E 7 be given. Select any z E I+(x). Then x E I- (z) which is open, and since x E 7,there exists y E I - ( z ) n F . But then y E F and y< < z implies z f F since F is a future set. Thus I+(x) C_ F as required. 0
may take {q,) Z+(x) with lim,,,q,
= x. Since {q,)
Corollary 3.8. Let F (respectively, P) be a future (respectively, past) set.
Then
E F ) , and (2) d ( P ) = {x E M : x 4 P and I-(2) E P ) .

(1) B(F) = {x 6 M : x @ F and Z+(x)
W with
the Lorentzian metric ds2 = -do2
+ dt2, the
In the particular cases where F = I+(p) or P = I-(p), the following useful characterizations of
circles t = constant are closed timelike curves. In this space-time, I+(p) = M for all p E M. A number of causality conditions have been defined in general relativity in recent years because of the problems associated with examples of causality violations.
- I- (p) = J-(p)
and
- I+(p) = J+(p)
58
3.2
59
Space-times which do not contain any closed timelike curves [i.e., p
# I+(p)
A distinguishing space-time is said to be causally continuous if the setvalued functions I + and I - are outer continuous. Since I+ and I - are always inner continuous [cf. Hawking and Sachs (1974, p. 291)], the causally continuous spacetimes are those distinguishing space-times for which both the chronological future and past of a point vary continuously with the point. Here I+ is said to be inner continuous a t p E M if for each compact set
for all p f M ] are said to be chronological. A space-time with no closed nonspacelike curves is said to be causal. Equivalently, a causal space-time contains no pair of distinct points p and q with p
< q < p.
The cylinder M =
S 1 x R with the Lorentzian metric ds2 = do d t is a n example of a chronological

space-time that fails to be causal. The only closed nonspacelike curves in this example are the circles t = constant, which with proper parametrization are null geodesics. The chronological condition is the weakest causality condition which will be introduced. The next proposition guarantees that no compact space-time is either causal or chronological. Proposition 3.10. Any compact space-time (M, g ) contains a closed timelike curve and thus fails to be chronological.
I + ( p ) , there exists a neighborhood U ( p ) of p such that K
c I + ( q ) for
each q f U ( p ) . The set-valued function I+ is outer continuous a t p E M if for each compact set K E M - I+(p), there exists some neighborhood U ( p ) of p such that K
c M -I+(q) for each q E U ( p ) . Inner and outer continuity
of I - may be defined dually. An example of a space-time for which I - fails t o be outer continuous is given in Figure 3.1. The concept of causal continuity was introduced by Hawking and Sachs (1974). For these space-times the causal structure may be extended to the causal boundary [cf. Budic and Sachs
Proof. Since the sets of the form I + ( p ) are open, it may be seen that ( I f ( p ) : p f M ) forms an open cover of M . By compactness, we may extract a finite
subcover ( I f ( P I ) ,I f ( p 2 ) ,. . . ,I f ( p k ) ) . Now pl E I + ( p i p ) ) for some i ( 1 ) with
(1974)l. Fbrthermore, a metrizable topology may be defined on the causal

completion of a causally continuous space-time [cf. Beem (1977)l. An open set
1 5 i ( 1 ) 5 k. Similarly, p,(l) E I+(pq2))for some index i ( 2 ) with 1 5 i ( 2 ) 5 k .

Continuing inductively, we obtain an infinite sequence . . . < < p , ( ~ << ) pi(2) < <
like curve intersects
U in a space-time is said to be causally convex if no nonspaceU in a disconnected set. Given p E M , the space-time
( M ,g ) is said to be strongly causal at p if p has arbitrarily small causally convex neighborhoods. Thus, p has arbitrarily small neighborhoods such that no nonspacelike curve that leaves one of these neighborhoods ever returns. The space-time (M,g) is strongly causal if it is strongly causal a t every point. It may be shown that the set of points of an arbitrary space-time (M, g ) a t which (M, g) is strongly causal is an open subset of M fcf. Penrose (1972, p. 30)]. It is not hard to show that strongly causal spacetimes are distinguishing. Strongly causal space-times may be characterized in terms of the Alexandrov topology for M. The Alexandmv topology on an arbitrary space-time (M,g) is the topology given M by taking as a basis all sets of the form
pi(l) << pl. Since k is finite, there are only a finite number of distinct P ~ ( ~ ) ' s .
Thus there are repetitions on the list, and from the transitivity of <<,it follows that pi(,) f I'-(pi(,)) for some index pi(,). timelike curve through pi(n). Tipler (1979) has proved that certain classes of compact space-times contain closed timelike geodesics, not just closed timelike curves. Since the proof uses the Lorentzian distance function as a tool, discussion of Tipler's result is postponed until Section 4.1, Theorem 4.15. Thus (M,g) contains a closed
A spacetime is said to be dzstinguishing if for all points p and q in M, either I + ( p ) = I+(q) or I - ( p ) = I - ( q ) implies p = q. In a distinguishing
space-time, distinct points have distinct chronological futures and chronological pasts. Thus, points are distinguished both by their chronological futures and pasts.
I + ( p ) n I - ( q ) with p, q E M (cf. Figure 1.2). The given manifold topology on

M is always at least as fine as the Alexandrov topology since I + ( p )
I-(q)
is an open set in the given topology by Lemma 3.5. The following result has been obtained by Kronheimer and Penrose [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 34)].
60
3.2
61
all points which can be reached by geodesic segments in U of the form exp,(tu) for 0 5 t
5 1,where v is a future (respectively,past) directed timelike vector at

agrees
q. This demonstrates that the Alexandrov topology on (U(p), g lU(p))
with the given manifold topology on U(p). Using the fact that no nonspacelike curve of (M,g) intersects U(p) more than once, it follows that the Alexandrov topology agrees with the given manifold topology. Now assume t h a t strong causality fails to hold at p E M . Then there is a convex normal neighborhood V(p) of p such that if W(p) is any neighborhood of p with W(p) V(p), a nonspacelike curve starts in W(p), leaves V(p), and returns to W(p). It follows that all neighborhoods of p in the Alexandrov topology contain points outside of V(p). Thus, the Alexandrov topology differs from the given manifold topology. O
delete
1 /
In order to study causality breakdowns and geodesic incompleteness in general relativity, it is helpful to formulate the concept of inextendibility for nonspacelike curves. This may be done as follows. Let y : [a,b) if
t-b-+
M be a curve
in M. The point p E M is said to be the endpoint of y corresponding to t = b lim y (t) = p.
FIGURE 3.1.
A space-time which is not causally continuous is

-+
If y : [a,b)
-4
M is a future (respectively, past) directed nonspacelike curve
shown. The map p
I-(p) fails to be outer continuous at the

-
with endpoint p corresponding to t = b, the point p is called a future (respectively, past) endpoint of y. A nonspacelike curve is said to be future znextendible (or future endless) if it has no future endpoint. Dually, a past inextendible nonspacelike curve is one that has no past endpoint.
point q. The compact set K is contained in M - I - ( q ) , yet each neighborhood U(q) of q contains some point contained in M
- I-(r).
such that K is not
Convention 3.12. A nonspacelike curve y : (a, b) Proposition 3.11. The Alexandrov topology for (M, g) agrees with the
given manifold topology iff (M, g) is strongly causal.
-+
M is said to be
znextendible (or endless) if it is both future and past inextendible. Causal space-times exist that contain inextendible nonspacelike curves hav-
Proof. Assume first that (M,g) is strongly causal. Then each p E M has some convex normal neighborhood U(p) such that no nonspacelike curve intersects U(p) more than once. The set U(p) is a convex normal neighborhood of each of its points, and hence Proposition 3.4 implies that for each q E U(p), the chronological future (respectively, past) of q in (U(p), g
ing compact closure. An example given by Carter is displayed in Figure 3.2 Icf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 195)]. An inextendible nonspacelike curve which has compact closure and hence is contained in a compact set is said to be imprisoned. Thus, Carter's example shows that imprisonment can occur in causal space-times.
IU(,)
consists of
62
3.2
63
Proposition 3.13. If (M, g) is strongly causal, then no inextendible non-
spacelike curve can be partially future (or past) imprisoned in any compact
identify
set. We now discuss another important class of space-times in general relativity, stably causal space-times. For this purpose as well as for later use, it is helpful to define the fine C T topologies on Lor(M). Recall that Lor(M) denotes the space of all Lorentzian metrics on M . The fine C T topologies on Lor(M) may be defined by using a fixed countable covof M by coordinate neighborhoods with the property that the ering B = {Bi)
___f
identify-
closure of each Bi lies in a coordinate chart of M and such that each compact subset of M intersects only finitely many of the Bi's. This last requirement is the condition that the covering be locally finite. Let 6 : M
+
( 0 , m ) be
-+
FIGURE 3.2. A causal space-time (M, g) is shown which has imprisoned nonspacelike curves that are inextendible. Let a be an irrational number, and let M = (t, y, z)
a continuous function. Then gl, g2 E Lor(M) are said to be 6 : M
(0, m )
close in the CTtopology, written Igl - g21r < 6, if for each p E M all of the corresponding coefficients and derivatives up to order r of the two metric tensors gl and g2 are 6(p) close at p when calculated in the fixed coordinates of
-- (t, y, z + l ) and
W x S' x S1 = {(t, y, z) E IR3 : (t, y, z) -- (t, y+1, z+a)). The Lorentzian
metric is given by ds2 = (cosht - 1)'(dy2 - dt2) - dt dy
+ dz2.
3 which contain p. The sets {gl E Lor(M) all Bi 6 I

g2 E Lor(M) arbitrary and 6 : M
4
Igl - gzlr < 6 ) , with
( 0 , m ) a n arbitrary continuous function,
form a basis for the fine CTtopology on Lor(M). This topology may be shown to be independent of the choice of coordinate cover B. The
C ' topologies for r = 0,1,2 may be given the following interpretations.
Let y : [a,b)
M be a future directed nonspacelike curve. Then y is said
Remark 3.14. (1) Two Lorentzian metrics for M which are close in the
to be future imprisoned in the compact set K if there is some to that y(t) E K for all to
< b such < t < b. The curve y is said to be partially future
fine C0 topology have light cones which are close. (2) Two Lorentzian metrics for M which are close in the fine C' topology have geodesic systems which are close (cf. Section 7.2). (3) Two Lorentzian metrics for M which are close in the fine C 2 topology have curvature tensors which are close.
imprisoned in the compact set K if there exists an infinite sequence t, f b with y(t,) E K for each n. If (M,g) is strongly causal and K is a compact subset of M , then K may be covered with a finite number of convex normal neighborhoods {Ui) such This that no nonspacelike curve which leaves some U, ever returns to that Ui. observation leads to the following result.
A space-time (M,g) is said to be stably causal if there is a fine CO neighborhood U(g) of g in Lor(M) such that each gl E U(g) is causal. Thus a stably causal space-time remains causal under small Co perturbations.
64
3.2
65
Stably causal space-times may be characterized in terms of a partial ordering
that any pair of causally related points may be joined by a nonspacelike geodesic segment of maximal length. Definition 3.15. (Globally Hyperbolic) A strongly causal space-time (M,g) is said to be globally hyperbolic if for each pair of points p, q E M , the set Jf (p) n J-(q) is compact.
< for Lor(M) defined using light cones to compare Lorentzian metrics.
Explicitly, if A is a subset of M , one defines gl < A g2 if for each p E A and v E TpM with v # 0, gl(v,v) 5 0 implies g2(v,v) 5 0. One also defines gl < A 92 if for each p E A and v E T,M with v # 0, gl(v,v) 5 0 implies g2(v,v) < 0. We will write gl < g2 (respectively, gl < gz) for gl < M g2 (respectively, gl
<M
g ~ ) Thus . gl
< g2 means that a t every point of M the light
A distinguishing space-time (M,g) is causally simple if J+(p) and J-(p)

are closed subsets of M for all p E M. It then follows that P r o p o s i t i o n 3.16.
cone of gl is smaller than the light cone of g2, or g2 has wider light cones than gl. I t may be shown that (M,g) is stably causal if and only if there exists some causal gl E Lor(M) with g
globally hyperbolic space-time is causally simple.
< gl.
A C0function f : M
W is a global time function if f is strictly increasing
Since I - ( r ) is open and q E J+(p), it may be seen that r E I+(p) by taking a subsequence {q,) 2 J+(p) with q,
-+
Proof. Suppose q E J+(p) - J+(P) for some p E M. Choose any r E I+(q). q and using the fact that p 6 q, and
along each future directed nonspacelike curve. A space-time (MIg) admits a global time function if and only if it is stably causal [cf. Hawking (1968), Seifert (1977)l. However, there is generally no natural choice of a time function for a stably causal space-time.
qn << r imply p << r. Consequently, q E Jt(p) n J - ( r ) - ( J + ( p ) n J - ( r ) ) . But
J - ( r ) is compact hence closed. 0 this is impossible since J+(p) fl Globally hyperbolic space-times may be characterized using Cauchy surfaces. A Cauchy surface S is a subset of M which every inextendible nonspacelike curve intersects exactly once. (Some authors only require that every inextendible timelzke curve intersect S exactly once.) It may be shown that
W be a smooth function such that the gradient V f is always timelike. If y : (a,b) -+ M is a future directed nonspacelike curve with nonvanishing tangent vector yl(t), then g(Of (y(t)), yl(t)) = yl(t)(f) must either be always positive or always negative. Thus f must be either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing along y. It follows that f must be strictly increasing or decreasing along all future directed nonspacelike curves. Hence f or -f is a smooth global time function for M . Furthermore, V f must be orthogonal to
Let f : M
-+
a space-time is globally hyperbolic if and only if it admits a Cauchy surface [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 211-212)). Furthermore, Geroch (1970a) has established the following important structure theorem for globally hyperbolic space-times [cf. Sachs and Wu (1977b, p. 1155)l.
T h e o r e m 3.17. If (M, g) is a globally hyperbolic space-time of dimension n, then M is homeomorphic to
each of the level surfaces f -'(c) = {p E M : f (p) = c), c
W, of f . These
level surfaces are hypersurfaces orthogonal to a timelike vector field and are spacelike, i.e., g restricted to each of these hypersurfaces is a positive definite metric. Since the gradient of f is nonvanishing and df is an exact 1-form, it follows that M is foliated by the level surfaces {f-'(c) : c E W ) . Each nonspacelike curve y of M can intersect a given level surface a t most once since f must be strictly increasing or decreasing along y. One of the most important causality conditions which we will discuss in this section is global hyperbolicity. Globally hyperbolic space-times have the important property, frequently invoked during specific geodesic constructions,
x S where S is an (n - 1)-dimensional
topological submanifold of M, and for each t , { t ) x S is a Cauchy surface. The proof of this theorem uses a function f : M -+ W given by f(p) = m(J+(p))/m(J-(P)) where m is a measure on M with m ( M ) = 1. The level sets o f f may be seen to be Cauchy surfaces as desired, but f is not necessarily smooth. A time function f
:
--+
W will be said to be a Cauchy time function if
each level set f -'(c), c E
W,is a Cauchy surface for M. In studying globally
66
3.2
67
hyperbolic space-times, it is helpful to use Cauchy time functions rather than arbitrary time functions. In a complete Riemannian manifold, any two points may be joined by a geodesic of minimal length. Avez (1963) and Seifert (1967) have obtained a Lorentzian analogue of this result for globally hyperbolic space-times.
and local volume forms as follows [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 199), Geroch (1970a, p. 446), Dieckmann (1988, p. 860)]. Let w be the usual volume form for all of M , and let {p,) be a partition of unity subordinate to a covering
{Un) with each Un being a simple region and with
Theorem 3.18. Let (M, g) be globally hyperbolic and p
< q.
Then there
is a nonspacelike geodesic from p to q whose length is greater than or equal to that of any other future directed nonspacelike curve from p to q. It should be emphasized that the geodesic in Theorem 3.18 is not necessarily unique. This result will also be discussed from the viewpoint of the Lorentzian distance function in Section 6.1. It is natural to consider how continuity properties of a given candidate for a time function on a given space-time are influenced by the causal structure of the space-time. We have just indicated how Geroch (1970a) used past and future volume functions to obtain the globally hyperbolic topological splitting theorem (Theorem 3.17) and how stably causal space-times may be characterized in terms of the existence of a (continuous) global time function [cf. Hawking (1968), Seifert (1977), Hawking and Sachs (1974)l. It is often stated that an auxiliary "additive measure H on M which assigns positive volume H[U] to each open set U and assigns finite volume HIM] to M . . ." may be employed in this context. For such a measure, it has been asserted that a distinguishing space-time (M,g) is reflecting (cf. Definition 3.20), hence causally continuous, if and only if the past and future volume functions t- and t+ associated to any such measure H on M are continuous global time functions.
Then let m be the Borel measure associated (by integration) to the 4-form
It is easily seen that m ( d ( ~ + ( ~ ) )) = m(d(1-(p))) = 0 for any p in M . Now define a measure H for M as follows. Put 0 = (0,0,0,0) and
Then even though (M,g) is certainly causally continuous, the past volume function t-(p) = H[I-(p)] fails to be continuous at 0. The difficulty is that H assigns measure one to the point 0. Thus, H assigns positive measure to light cones containing this point. This counterexample led Dieckmann (1987, 1988) to investigate more precisely, for a subclass of probability measures for a given space-time, how the past and future volume functions are related to space-time causality. We will summarize certain of these results. We begin with an arbitrary spacetime (M,g) and, following Dieckmann, abstract the crucial properties of the Borel measure m whose construction was sketched above. Definition 3.19. (Admissible Measure) said t o be admissible provided that (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) m(U) m(M)
A Borel measure m on (M, g) is
J. Dieckmann (1987, 1988) has noted that the above assertion fails to be
valid unless certain further regularity properties are imposed on the measure H . In particular, one needs to restrict attention to measures that are not positive on the boundaries of chronological futures and pasts (cf. Definition 3.19). The need for this restriction is best understood by means of an example. Let (M, g) be four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, and let m be any Borel measure for M with m(M) finite and with m(d(I+(p))) = m(b(l-(p))) = 0 for all p in M. Such a measure may be constructed using a partition of unity
> 0 for all nonempty open sets U, < +oo, and
m(d(If (p))) = m(d(I-(p))) = O for all p in M .
Clearly, the above measure H fails to satisfy condition (3.3) and thus fails to be admissible.
68
3.2
CAUSALITY THEORY O F SPACE-TIMES
69
The past (respectively, future) volume functions (associated t o the measure m) are given respectively by
It is also interesting that the usual continuity properties of a measure imply that t- (respectively, t+) is lower semicontinuous (respectively, upper semicontinuous). We now introduce a causality condition important in Hawking and Sachs (1974) and in Dieckmann (1987, 1988). Definition 3.20. (Reflecting) A space-time (M,g) is said to be past
and
reflecting (respectively, future reflecting) a t q in M if for all p in M for all p in M. The crucial importance of property (3.3) is that it implies (3.9) respectively, (3.10) I-(p) _> I-(q) implies ~ ' ( p ) I+(~) I+(P) 2 I+(q) implies I-(p)
C I-(q),
m
and
(m) 41=
(PI)
and is said to be reflecting at q if it satisfies both conditions. The space-time is said to be reflecting if it is reflecting at all points. It is well known that for space-times which fail to be reflecting, the past and
for all p in M . If the given space-time happens to be totally vicious, so that I-(p) = I+(p) = M for all p in M, then t- and t + take on the constant values m(M) and -m(M), respectively. More generally, in the presence of certain causality violations the past and future volume functions are only weakly increasing along future causal curves and may also fail to be continuous. Hence the volume functions do not, in general, define generalized time functions in the sense of Definition 3.23 below without imposing some causality conditions on the space-time in question. For convenience, we will employ the notational convention used in O'Neill (1983) that p < q if there exists a (nontrivial) future directed nonspacelike curve from p to q. Thus, p
future volume functions may fail to be continuous [cf. Figure 1.2 in Hawking and Sachs (1974, p. 289)]. Even more strikingly, Dieckmann obtained the following more precise relationship between continuity and reflexivity. In this result, properties (3.6) and (3.7) for the admissible measure are crucial. Proposition 3.21. Let (M, g) be a (not necessarily distinguishing) spacetime, and let t- and t+ be the past and future volume functions associated to an admissible Bore1 measure. Then (1) t- is continuous at q iff (M, g) is past reffecting at q, and (2) t+ is continuous a t q iff (M, g) is future reflecting a t q. Moreover, from his proof of a version of Proposition 3.21, Dieckmann is able to conclude that the set of points a t which the volume function t- (respectively, t+) fails to be continuous is a union of null geodesics without past (respectively, future) endpoints. Especially, a space-time may not fail to be reflecting a t isolated points, as had already been noted in Vyas and Akolia (1986). Thus, reflexivity settles the question of the continuity of the volume functions independent of choice of admissible measure. The "time function" aspect
< q if p < q and p # q. The usual transitivity relationships (i.e., r << p, p < q, and q << s together imply r << q and p (< s)
yield that the volume functions t- and tf are (not necessarily continuous) "semi-time functions" in the sense that for any p, q in M (3.8) p
< q implies t- (p) 5 t- (q) and t +(PI 5 t+(q).
70
3.2
CAUSALITY THEORY O F SPACE-TIMES
o f being strictly increasing along future directed nonspacelike curves employs the following lemma [cf.Dieckmann (1987, p. 47)). L e m m a 3.22. Let ( M , g ) be an arbitrary {not necessarily distinguishing) space-time, and let t - be the past volume function associated to an admissible Borel measure. Suppose that p, q in M satisfy p
T h e o r e m 3.25. The following are equivalent: ( 1 ) The space-time ( M , g ) is causally continuous. ( 2 ) For any (and hence all) admissible Borel measures, the associated volume functions t - and t+ are both continuous time functions. T h e condition o f "causal continuity" implies the "stable causality" condition but not conversely. Stable causality has the characterization that ( M ,g) admits some continuous global time function (which will not, in general, be a volume function associated to some admissible Borel measure). W e now state the characterization o f global hyperbolicity in terms of volume functions [implicit in Geroch (1970a)l which is given in Dieckmann (1987). T h e o r e m 3.26. Let t - (respectively, t + ) be the past (respectively, future) volume functions associated to an admissible Borel measure m for the spacetime ( M ,g). Define t : ( M ,g) -+ R by
< q and I - ( p ) # I - ( 9 ) . Then
Lemma 3.22 has the immediate consequence that ( M ,g) is chronological i f and only i f some past (or future) volume function is strictly increasing along all future timelike curves. More importantly, with Lemma 3.22 in hand the following proposition may now be obtained with the help o f future set techniques. For clarity, let us first make precise the notion o f "generalized time function" as employed in the present context. Definition 3.23. (Generalized Time Function) tinuous) function t : ( M , g ) -+ for all p, q in M , (3.12) p < q implies t ( p ) < t(q). A (not necessarily con-
W is said to be a generalized time fisnction i f ,

for p in M . Then the following are equivalent: ( 1 ) The space-time ( M ,g) js globally hyperbolic. ( 2 ) The past and future volume functions t - , t+ are continuous time functions, and for any inextendible future directed nonspacelike curve y : ( a ,b) -+ ( M , g ) we have lim,,bt+(~(u)) = l i m u 4 a t - ( y ( u ) ) = 0. ( 3 ) The function t given by (3.13) is a continuous time function, and for any inextendible future directed nonspacelike curve y, range(to y ) = W. ( 4 ) For all a in R, the set t - ' ( { a ) ) is a Cauchy surface. T h e next proposition gives sufficientconditions for a space-time to be causal in terms o f the volume functions [cf.Dieckmann (1987)l. Proposition 3.27. Let t be a past or future volume function associated to an admissible Borel measure for the given space-time ( M , g ) . Suppose further that (1) p
Thus t is strictly increasing along all future nonspacelike curves but is not required t o be continuous. Proposition 3.24. Let t - (respectively, t + ) be the past (respectively, future) volume function on ( M , g ) associated to an admissible Borel measure. Then ( 1 ) ( M ,g ) is past distinguishing i f ft- is a generalized time function; and ( 2 ) ( M ,g ) is future distinguishing i f ft+ is a generalized time function. Now it has been established that "causal continuity" (i.e., ( M , g ) is distinguishing and I+ and I - are outer continuous) is equivalent t o "reflecting" and "distinguishing" [cf.Hawking and Sachs (1974, p. 292)). Hence, Propositions 3.21 and 3.24 imply the following characterization o f causal continuity in terms o f volume functions.
< < q implies t ( p ) < t ( q ) for all p, q in M (which implies chronology),
and
72

-+
3.3
LIMIT CURVES AND THE C0 TOPOLOGY ON CURVES
73
(2) for each complete null geodesic ,f3 : R such that t(P(u1)) Then (M, g) is causal.
(M,g), there exist u l , u z in W

globally hyperbolic
< t(P(u2)).
In Vyas and Joshi (1983), a discussion is given of how causal functions similar to (3.5) may be related to the ideal boundary points and singularities of a space-time. An interesting list of 71 assertions on causality to be proved or disproved (together with answers) has been given in Geroch and Horowitz (1979, pp. 289-293). We now give a diagram (Figure 3.3) indicating the relations between the causality conditions discussed above [cf. Hawking and Sachs (1974, p. 295), Carter (1971a)l.
3.3
causally simple
4
causally continuous
C
I
stably causal
Limit Curves and the C O Topology on Curves
1
strongly causal
Two different forms of convergence for a sequence of nonspacelike curves
{y,) have been useful in Lorentzian geometry and general relativity [cf. Penrose (1972), Hawking and Ellis (1973)l. The first type of convergence uses the concept of a limit curve of a sequence of curves, while the second type uses the C0 topology on curves. For arbitrary space-times, neither of these types of convergence is stronger than the other. However, we will show that for strongly causal space-times, these two forms of convergence are closely related. This relationship will be useful in constructing maximal geodesics in strongly causal space-times (cf. Sections 8.1 and 8.2). Definition 3.28. (Limit Curve) A curve y is a limit curve ofthe sequence such that for all p in the image of y,each
I
I
C
distinguishing
4
causal chronological
FIGURE 3.3. This diagram illustrates the strengths of the causality conditions used in this book. Global hyperbolicity is the most restrictive causality assumption that we will use. contained in the set t = 0. Recently, the phrase "cluster curve" has been sug-
(7,) if there is a subsequence (y,) {y,).

The subsequence (7,)
neighborhood of p intersects all but a finite number of curves of the subsequence is said to distinguish the limit curve y.
In general, a sequence of curves (7,) may have no limit curves or may have many limit curves. This is true even if the curves (y,) are nonspacelike. Furthermore, even in causal space-times a limit curve of a sequence of nonspacelike limit curves is not necessarily nonspacelike. For example, the
) (0,0, u) in Carter's example (cf. Figure 3.2) is not nonspacelike curve ~ ( u=
gested as a more mathematically precise term for t h e convergence in Definition 3.28. In contrast, we have the following result for strongly causal space-times. Lemma 3.29. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time. If y is a limit curve of the sequence {y,) of nonspacelike curves, then y is nonspacelike.
y , ) although it is a limit curve of any sequence {
of inextendible null geodesics
76
3.3
LIMIT CURVES AND T H E C0 TOPOLOGY ON CURVES
77
where hij are the components of h with respect to the local coordinates
XI,.
Let h be an auxiliary complete Riemannian metric for M with distance function
. . ,2,. Since Ixi'l 5 K1, the length Lo(y I [tl, ta]) satisfies
4 as above, and give each y,, an arc length parametrization with
respect to h. Then the domain of each y, i s R as each curve is assumed to be inextendible. Shifting parametrizations if necessary, we may then choose where H is the supremum of lhijj on the compact set lies in U has length bounded by n for 1 5 i, j 5 n. Thus, a subsequence {y,) of (7,) such that ym(0) + p as m + co since p is an Using the fact that each y, has an any nonspacelike curve from the level set f -l(tl) to the level set f -'(t2) which ~K1 Itl ~ - t21. / Furthermore, ~ covering (M, g) by a locally finite cover of sets with the properties of U and (V, x) above, it follows that any nonspacelike curve of (M,g) defined on a compact interval of accumulation point of the sequence y,.
arc length parametrization with respect to h, we obtain
R must
have finite length with respect to h. Thus every nonspacelike curve of
for each m and tl,t2 E do(y,(O),p) do(p, q) 5 to
R.
Thus the curves {y,)

+
form an equicontinu-
(M, g) may be given a parametrization which is an arc length parametrization with respect to h. Also, an inextendible curve y which has an arc length parametrization with respect to h must be defined on all of W because do is complete (cf. Lemma 3.65). We now state a version of Arzela's Theorem which may be established using standard techniques [cf. Munkres (1975, Section 7.5)].
ous family. Furthermore, since y,(O)
p, there exists an N such that
< 1 whenever m
> N.
This implies that for each fixed to E R, Hence the family {y,) satisfies the hy-+
the curve ym 1 [-to, to] of the subsequence lies in the compact set {q E M :
+ 1) whenever m > N.
potheses of Theorem 3.30, and we thus obtain a (continuous) curve y : R and a subsequence {yk) of the subsequence {y,) y uniformly on each compact subset of R. Clearly, yk(0)
+
such that {yk) converges to p = y(0). The
Theorem 3.30. Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space with a countable basis, and let (M,h ) be a complete Riemannian manifold with distance function do. Assume that the sequence {f,) of functions respect to 4. Then there exist a continuous function f : X
fn :
convergence of {yk) to y also yields the inequality do(y(tl),y(t2)) 5 Itl - t21 for all tl, t2 E W. It remains to show that y is nonspacelike and inextendible. To show that y is nonspacelike, fix tl E
{q E
M is
equicontinuous and that for each s o 6 X the set Un{fn(xo)) is bounded with
+M
R and
let U be a convex normal
and a sub-
neighborhood of (M,g) containing y(t1). Choose 6
sequence of {f,) which converges to f uniformly on each compact subset of
> 0 such that the set M : do(y(tl),q) < 6 ) is contained in U . If tl < t2 < tl + 6, then (3.16)
X.
Using Arzela's Theorem, we may now obtain the next proposition, given in Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 185), which guarantees the existence of limit curves for a sequence (7,) of nonspacelike curves having points of accumulation. Proposition 3.31. Let {y,) be a sequence of (future) inextendible nonspacelike curves in (M, g). If p is an accumulation point of the sequence {y,), then there is a nonspacelike limit curve y of the sequence {yn) such that p E y and y is (future) inextendible. Proof. We will give the proof only for inextendible curves since the proof for future inextendible curves is similar.
and the uniform convergence on compact subsets yields that for all large k, the set ~ k [ t l t2] > lies in U . Using yk(t1) 1 k ( t 1 <U ) ~k(t2) ~ ( t l )~, k ( t 2 --' ) ~ ( t 2 )~ for all large k, and the fact that U is a convex normal neighborhood, we obtain that y(t1) y(t2). Thus y ] [tl,t2] is a future directed nonspacelike curve in U [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, Proposition 4.5.1)]. It follows that y is a future directed nonspacelike curve in (M, g). It remains to show that y is inextendible. We will give the proof only of the future inextendibility since the past inextendibility may be proven similarly. To this end, assume that y is not future inextendible. Then y(t)
as t
-+
-+
qo f M
m. Let U' be a convex normal neighborhood of q o such that
U ' is a
compact set contained in a chart (V, x ) of M with local coordinates (xl,. . . ,x,)
78

+
3.3
79
such that f = x1 : U '
W is a time function for U'. An inequality of the
Ui. As in the proof of Proposition 3.31, there exists a number N, for each i such that each nonspacelike curve y : [a,b]
+
form of (3.15) shows that if y I [tl, m )
C U',
then no nonspacelike curve in U'
Ui has length less than N, with re-
from the level set f -I( f ( ~ ( t l ) )to ) the level set f -'( f (qo)) can have arc length with respect to h greater than some number 6' > 0. On the other hand, for sufficiently large k we must have yk[tl+ l , t l +6' +2] 5 f -l([f (y(tl)), f (qo)]). Since the length LO(yk[tl contradiction.
(3
and N = Nl spect to h [cf. equation (3.15)]. Thus if U = UIU.. . u U ~ every nonspacelike curve y : [a, b] + U must satisfy Lo(?) 5 N.
+. . - + N k ,
-+
Extend each given nonspacelike curve y, to a future inextendible nonspacelike curve, also denoted by y,. We may assume that each y, : [0,co)
+ l , t l + 6'+ 21) = 6' + 1 for all k, this yields a
M has
been parametrized by arc length with respect to h [cf. equation (3.15)]. Thus if U = Ul U...UUk and Proposition 3.31 is applied to {y,) with accumulation point p of {y,(O) = p,), then there exist a future inextendible nonspacelike limit curve y : [0, m ) such that y, for 0
-+
+
Even if all of the inextendible nonspacelike curves of the sequence {y,) are parametrized by arc length with respect to a complete Riemannian metric h, the limit curve y obtained in the proof of Proposition 3.31 need not be parametrized by arc length. This is a consequence of the fact that the Riemannian length functional, while lower semicontinuous, is not upper semicontinuous in the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets. Even though the curve y constructed in the proof of Proposition 3.31 need not be parametrized by arc length, the curve y will still be defined on all of R provided each y, is inextendible. Furthermore, if (M,g) is strongly causal, the Hopf-Rinow Theorem and Proposition 3.13 imply that do(y(O), y(t))
--t
M with $0) = p and a subsequence {y,)
of {y,)
= q,
y uniformly on compact subsets of [0, a ) . Using y,(t,)

+
< t, 5 N and q,
T
q, we conclude that y passes through q for some

T
parameter value
which satisfies 0 <
I N.
It follows that y 1 10, T] is a
nonspacelike limit curve of {y,
10, t,])
which joins p to q.
We now consider convergence in the C0 topology [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 49)].
co as
It -+ co. Here, do denotes the complete Riemannian distance function induced on M by h as above. An alternative treatment of the technicalities of Proposition 3.31, closer in spirit to that given in Hawking and Ellis, may be found in O'Neill (1983, p. 404) in the section on "quasi-limits." In the globally hyperbolic case, a stronger version of Proposition 3.31 may be obtained.
Definition 3.33. (Convergence of Curves in C0 Topology) Let y and all curves of the sequence { y , ) be defined on the closed interval [a,b]. The
sequence {y,) is said to converge to y in the C0 topology on curves if ?,(a) y(a), yn(b)
-+
-+
y(b), and given any open set V containing y, there is an integer
N such that y,
C V for all n 2 N.
:
Any space-time contains a sequence {y,) that has a limit curve y, yet {y,) does not converge to y in the C0 topology. For, let a ,P [O,1]
-+
M be any
Corollary 3.32. Let (M, g) be globally hyperbolic. Suppose that {p,) and
{q,) are sequences in M converging to p and q in M respectively, with p p
two future directed timelike curves with a([O, I]) n P([O, I]) = 0. Set
< q,
Then {y,) does not converge to either a or P in the C 0 topology. However, the subsequence
(72,)
# 4, and p,
< q,
for each n. Let y, be a future directed nonspacelike curve
from p, to q, for each n. Then there exists a future directed nonspacelike limit curve y of the sequence (7,) which joins p to q. Proof. Let h be an auxiliary complete Riemannian metric on M with length functional Lo. Choose a finite cover of the compact set J+(p)
(respectively, {y2,-1)) of {-/n) converges to a (respectively,
n J-(q)
by con-
p) in
the C0 topology. A space-time which is not strongly causal may also of { y , ) converges to 7 in the C0 topology on
vex normal neighborhoods Ul, U2, . .. ,Uk, each of which has compact closure and such that no nonspacelike curve which leaves any U, ever returns to that
contain a sequence {y,) of nonspacelike curves which has a nonspacelike limit curve y, yet no subsequence {y,)
-3
3.3
81
obtained by going around the circle on the null geodesic t = 0 and then up the generator B = 0 from t = 0 to t = 1 , then (7,) converges t o y in the C 0 In strongly causal space-times, however, these two types o f convergence are
topology, but y is not a limit curve o f {y,) ( c f .Figure 3.5).
almost equivalent for sequences of nonspacelike curves [cf.Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, p. 164)].A more precise statement is given by the following result.
Proposition 3.34. Let ( M ,g ) be a strongly causal space-time. Suppose
remove
that (7,) is a sequence o f nonspacelike curves defined on [a,b ] such that

+
yn(a) -+p and yn(b) --+ q. A nonspacelike curve y : [a,b ]
M with y(a) = p and y(b) = q is a limit curve o f { y , } i f f there is a subsequence {y,} o f (7,) which converges t o y in the C0 topology on curves.
Proof. (+) W e may assume without loss o f generality that y and {y,) are
V . Cover the compact image o f y with convex normal neighborhoods W l ,W 2 , .. . ,W k such that each W i V and no nonspacelike curve which leaves W i ever returns to
all future directed curves. Let V be any open set with y
Wi. There exists a subdivision a = to < tl < . . . < t j

-
=b
o f la, b ] such that
for all 0 5 i 5 j and 1
1, each pair y(t,), y(t,+l) lies in some Wh. Here h = h ( i ) for all i. Let {y,} be a subsequence that distinguishes and p ( j , m ) = y,(b).
< h(i) 5 k
y as a limit curve. For each m , let p(0, m ) = y,(a) Furthermore, for each fixed i with 0
< i < j , choose p(i, m) E ym such that
in which a sequence FIGURE 3.4. A causal space-time (M,g), {y,} o f nonspacelike curves may have a limit curve 7 yet fail t o have a subsequence which converges t o y in the C 0 topology on curves, may be formed from a subset o f Minkowski space as shown. curves. This is illustrated in Figure 3.4 [cf.Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 193) for a discussion of the causal properties o f this example]. Conversely, a sequence o f nonspacelike curves (7,) may converge in the C 0 topology t o some nonspacelike curve y but fail t o have y as a limit curve. This may be seen on the cylinder M = S1 x
{ p ( i , m ) }converges to $ti). Since y(ti+l) lies in the causal future o f y(t,) and M is strongly causal, the point p(i + 1, m) lies in the causal future o f p(i, m) for all m larger than some N l . Also, there is some N2 such that p(i, m) and
p ( i + l , m ) l i e i n W h ( i ) f o r a l l O ~ji-~ landm?
Nz. L e t N = m a x { N l , N z ) .
T h e portion o f ym joining p ( i , m ) t o p(i + 1, m) must lie entirely in W h ( ; )for

m 2 N because no nonspacelike curve can leave W h and return. It follows
that ym
5 W l U . . . U W k V for all m > N as required.
(e) Let {y,} be a subsequence o f {y,} converging to y in the C 0 topology on curves. Define A = { t o E [a,b ] : each point o f y I [a,to] is a limit point o f the
given subsequence }. W e wish t o show that A = [a,b ] . Clearly, ym(a) -+ y(a) implies a E A. I f r = sup{to : to E A ) , then for each a 5 t < y ( t ) is a limit point o f the subsequence (7,).
7
W with the Lorentzian metric ds2 =
d8dt. Let y, be the segment on the generator 8 = 0 given b y yn(t) = ( 0 , t ) for 0 5 t 5 1 and for all n. I f y is the piecewise smooth nonspacelike curve
the point
T o show r E A we assume
3.4
TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIMES
83
with V must intersect each Cauchy surface f-'(s) exactly once. Fix s with
< m, and define x(s) = y n fP'(s). This intersection exists because y ( r ) E V and y(b) $ V. Since y ( r ) and y(b) are limit points of {y,), the
s
<
curves y, x,(s) x,(s)
must have a nonempty intersection with f-'(s)

= y,
for all sufficiently
large m. Set x,(s)

4
n f-'(s)
for all such m. I n order t o verify that
x(s), we observe that for each neighborhood W of y the points Consequently, the
must lie in W fl f -'(s) for all large m (cf. Figure 3.6). This shows
that each x(s) is a limit point of the subsequence {y,).
set A contains numbers greater than T, in contradiction to the definition of T. We conclude A = [a,b] which shows y is a limit curve of the subsequence {yrn).
0
+
Let y : [a,b]
(M,g) be a nonspacelike curve in a strongly causal space-
time (M,g). Choose a compact subset K of M such that y 2 Int(K). Let the nonspacelike curves which are contained in K be given the C0 topology. It is known [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 54)] that the Lorentzian arc length functional L(y) [cf. Chapter 4, equation (4.l)]is upper semicontinuous with respect to the C0 topology on curves fcf. Busemann (1967, p. lo)]. This is the analogue of the well-known result that the Riemannian arc length functional is lower semicontinuous. R e m a r k 3.35. Let (M,g) be strongly causal, and let y be a given nonspacelike curve in (M,g). If the sequence {y,) of nonspacelike curves converges to y in the C0 topology on curves, then
T
FIGURE 3.5. In chronological space-times, a sequence of nonspacelike curves {y,) may converge to the nonspacelike curve y in
the
C0topology on curves, and yet y may fail to be a limit curve

of {y,). The curves y, are segments on
of any subsequence (7,)
the line 0 = 0 from t = 0 to t = 1. The curve y goes around the cylinder once, then traverses y,.
> a and let i t k ) be a sequence with
t k -+ T-.
Each neighborhood U(y(7)) Thus y ( r )

3.4
of y ( r ) is also a neighborhood of y(tk) for sufficiently large k and hence must intersect all but a finite number of curves of the subsequence {y,). is a limit point of {y,), that
7
L(y) L lim sup L(y,). Two-Dimensional Space-times
and A must be a closed subinterval of [a,b]. Assume
< b. Using the strong causality of (M,g), we may find a convex normal
In this section we consider the topological and causal structures of twodimensional Lorentzian manifolds. Using the pair of null vector fields generated by the tangent vectors to the two null geodesics passing through each point of M, we show that the universal covering manifold of any two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold is homeomorphic to R2. We then show that any twodimensional Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to R2 is stably causal. In
neighborhood V of y ( r ) such that no nonspacelike curve of (M, g) which leaves
V ever returns. Letting V be sufficiently small we may assume that (V, gj,) is globally hyperbolic and that f : V --+ W is a Cauchy time function for (V, gIv) with f (V) = R and f ($7)) = 0. We may also assume y(b) # V. Then each inextendible nonspacelike curve of (M, g) which has a nonempty intersection
84
3.4
TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACGTIMES
85
useful in obtaining results about all geodesics in (M,g) from results valid in higher dimensions only for nonspacelike geodesics. Let (M, g) be an arbitrary two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, and fix a point p E M . Choose a convex normal neighborhood U(p) based at p, and consider the following method of assigning local coordinates to points in U(p) sufficiently close to p. Let the two null geodesics y l and 72 through p be given parametrizations yl : (-el, 1) -+ U(p) and geodesics through q will intersect yl and
72
72 : (-e2,
2) -' U(p) with
yl(0) = yz (0) = p. For each point q E U(p) sufficiently close to p, the two null in U(p) at unique points yl(to) and y2(so)respectively. Assign coordinates (to, so) to q. In these coordinates the null geodesics near p are contained in sets of the form t = to or s = so. We have established
Lemma 3.36. Let (M, g) be a two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Then

each p E M has local coordinates x = (XI,22) with x(p) = 0 such that each null geodesic in this neighborhood is contained in a set of the form x1 = constant or $2 = constant. Suppose X is a future directed timelike vector field on M. Then at each p E
M, there are two uniquely defined future directed null vectors n l , n2 E T,M
such that X(p) = nl FIGURE 3.6. In the proof of Proposition 3.34 the globally hyperbolic neighborhood V of y(7) has a Cauchy time function f : V with f ($7)) the Cauchy surface f-'(s)
--+
+ n2. Clearly, a sufficiently small neighborhood U(p) of p

+ X2(q) for all q E U(p). If
may be found such that n l and n2 may be extended to continuous null vector fields X I , X2 defined on U(p) with X(q) = Xl(q)
= 0. For all large m the curves ym must intersect
M is simply connected, we now show X1 and X2 can be extended to all of M .

Proposition 3.37. Let (M,g) be a simply connected Lorentzian manifold of dimension two. Then two smooth nonvanishing null vector fields X1 and X2 may be defined on M such that X1 and X2 are linearly independent a t each point of M.
at a single point xm(s). If W is any
neighborhood of y, then xm(s) E W n fF1(s) for all large m. We may choose W such that W n f -'(s) is as small a neighborhood of Z(S) = y
n f -'(s)
in f -l(s) as we wish. Thus xm(s) -+ x(s), and
x(s) must be a limit curve of the subsequence {y,). particular, every simply connected two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold is causal. Thus no Lorentzian metric for R2 has any closed nonspacelike curves. It should also be noted that two- (but not higher) dimensional Lorentzian manifolds have the property that (M, -g) is also Lorentzian. This is sometimes
Proof. Since M is simply connected, (M,g) is time orientable. Thus we may choose a smooth future directed timelike vector field X on M .
Fix a base point po E M, and let X(po) = nl other point q E M, let y : [0,1]
-4
+ 7x2 as above.
Given any
M be a curve from po to q. There is exactly
one way to define continuous null vector fields X1 and X2 along y such that
86
3.4
TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACGTIMES
87
Xl(0) = n l , Xz(0) = n2, and X(y(t)) = Xl(t) Xz(t) for all t E [O,l]. If 77 : [O,1 1 -+ M is any other curve from po to q, then y and 7 are homotopic since M is assumed to be simply connected. Hence if Yl and Y2 were null vector fields along q with Yl(0) = n l and E ( 0 ) = n2, we would have Yl(1) = X1(l) and Yz(1) = Xz(1) by standard homotopy arguments. Thus this construction produces a pair of continuous vector fields X I and X2 on M which are linearly independent at each point.
Corollary 3.40. If (M,g) is a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to R2, then (M, g) contains no closed null geodesics. Moreover, every inextendible null geodesic y : (a, b)
+M
is injective and hence contains no loops.
A family F of inextendible null geodesics is said to cover a manifold M

s i m p l y if each point p f M lies on exactly one null geodesic of F . Suppose
(M, g ) is a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to W2. Then the integral curves of the null vector field X1 (respectively, Xz) given in Proposition 3.37 may be reparametrized to define a family Fl (respectively, F2) of geodesics on M . Each family F, covers M since X,(p)
C1
Corollary 3.38. Let (M, g) be any two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Then the universal Lorentzian covering manifold morphic to R2.
(z,~) of (M, g) is homeo-
# 0 for i = 1, 2 and all p E M .
Furthermore,
since exactly one integral curve of X, passes through any p E M , each family
Proof. Since % is simply connected and tw~dimensional, is homeornorphic to EC2 or S2. But since the Euler characteristic of S2is nonzero, S2does
not admit any nowhere zero continuous vector fields. Recall that an integral curve for a smooth vector field X on M is a smooth curve y such that yl(t) = X(y(t)) for all t in the domain of y [cf. Kobayashi and Nomizu (1963, p. 12)]. The following result is well known [cf. Hartman (1964, p. 156)]. P r o p o s i t i o n 3.39. Let X be a smooth nonvanishing vector field on R?, and let y : (a, b)
,R2
F, covers M simply. Consequently, Proposition 3.37 implies [cf. Beem and

Woo (1969, p. 51)] P r o p o s i t i o n 3.41. Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to R2. Then the inextendible null geodesics of (M,g) may be partitioned into two families F1 and F2such that each of these families covers M simply. Let y : (a, b)
-+
M be an inextendible timelike curve, and let c : (cu,P)
-+
M be a n inextendible null geodesic. Obviously, in arbitrary two-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds, y and c may intersect more than once. However, if M is homeomorphic to W2, y and
c
intersect in a t most one point [cf. Beem and
be a maximal integral curve of X . Then y(t) does not

+ a+
Woo (1969, p. 52), Smith (1960b)l. P r o p o s i t i o n 3.42. Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to
remain in any compact subset of R2 as t
[or t
+ b-).
Now assume that ( M , g ) is a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to
R2.
R2. Then each timelike curve intersects a given null geodesic at most once.
Let X I , X 2 be the null vector fields on M given by Proposition 3.37. Clearly, each null geodesic of (M,g) may be reparametrized to an integral curve of X1 or X2. Equivalently, the integral curves of X I and X2 are said to be null
Proof. Let
co
be an inextendible future directed null geodesic in M , which
we may assume belongs to the family Fl defined by the null vector field XI as above. Suppose that a is a future directed timelike curve in M which intersects
co twice (possibly a t the same point). We may then find a, b f R with a
pregeodesics. Suppose y : (a, b)

tl
M is an inextendible null geodesic which

of Xl(y(tl)), it
<b
may be reparametrized to a n integral curve of XI. If y(t1) = y(t2) for some
such that u(a), u(b) lie on co and u(t)
for a < t < b. Since u is timelike, u
# t2, then since both yl(tl) and yli(tz) are scalar multiples
is locally one-to-one. Hence if u / [a,b] is not one-to-one, u contains a t worst closed timelike loops. Using one of these loops. it is possible to find a , /3 f R with a < a < , B < b and a second null geodesic cl E Fl such that u 1 [a, /3] is one-to-one, u ( a ) and u(p) lie on cl, and u(t)
follows from geodesic uniqueness that y is a smooth closed geodesic. However, this is impossible by Proposition 3.39. Thus Proposition 3.39 has the following corollary.
4 cl
for cu < t
< p.
88
LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS AND C A U S A L I T Y
3.4
89
Thus the theorem will be established if we show that it is impossible to find an injective future directed timelike curve y : [a,b] on q and y(t) $ GJ for a
--+
M with y(a) and y(b)
< t < b. Traversing y from y(a) to y(b) and then the
portion of q from ?(b) to y(a) yields a closed Jordan curve which encloses a set
W with ' i i ; i compact (cf. Figure 3.7). Let U be a convex normal neighborhood
based on y(a). Choose tl with a < tl < b and y(t1) E U. Let cl be the null geodesic in Fl passing through y(tl). Since cl may be reparametrized to be an integral curve of XI and cl enters y (b), we must have t i
at y(tl), it follows by Proposition
3.39 that cl leaves W a t some point y(ti) with t i > tl. As q intersects y at
< b. In particular, itl, ti] C (a, b). Hence we have found

and y intcrsccts the
a closed interval [tl,t;] 2 (a,b) such that y([tl,t;]) 2 null geodesic cl E Fl at y(tl) and ?(t:) (cf. Figure 3.7). geodesic
We may now form a second closed Jordan curve by traversing y from tl to t i followed by the portion of cl from y (ti) to y (tl). Repeating the argument of the preceding paragraph, we obtain a closed interval [tz, ti] C (tl,t',) such that the timelike curve y 1 [tz,ti] intersects a null geodesic c2 in the family
Fl at y(t2) and y(ti) and such that y(t2) is contained in a convex normal
neighborhood of y(tl). Inductively, we can construct a nested sequence of intervals [tk+1, borhood
FIGURE 3.7. In a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to R2, the

timelike curve y is assumed to cross the null geodesic y(t;) where t i
Q
C (tk,tjc) such that ~ ( t k +lies ~ ) in a convex normal neighof y(tk) and y I [ t k + l r t ~ +intersects l] a null geodesic ck+l F l at
at y(a)
Y(tk+l)and ~ ( t : + ~ )Moreover, . the intervals [tk, t i ] may be chosen such that n E l [ t k , t i ] = {to) for some to E (a,b). We thus have constructed two sequences t k
and y(b). The null geodesic cl enters W at y(tl) and first leaves at
> tl.
1 to
and t:
1 to such that
the timelike curve y intersects a null
geodesic in Fl at both y(tk) and y(tjc) for each k 2 1. But this is impossible by Proposition 3.4. Hence the geodesic y : [a,b ] -+ M intersects at most once. We will show below that if y : [a,b] c for a
,M
is an injective future directed

a 1 [a, b ] is injective, this
Theorem 3.43. Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to R2.
timelike curve, there i s no c E FI such that ~ ( a and ) y(b) lie on c but y(t) $
Then (M, g) is stably causal.
< t < b. If the original timelike curve
Proof.Recall that g
E Lor(M) is stably causal if there is a fine C0 neigh-
argument applied to a 1 [a,b] yields the desired contradiction. If a I [a, b ] is not injective but intersects at a ( a ) and a(b), then this argument applied to
borhood U of g in Lor(M) such that all metrics in U are causal. Since strongly causal implies causal, it will thus follow that all metrics in Lor(M) are stably causal if all metrics in Lor(M) are strongly causal. Thus to prove the theorem,
p] yields the desired contradiction. cl and a 1 [a,
90
3.4
it is enough to show that if g is any Lorentzian metric for M , then (M, g) is strongly causal.
4 such that (M, g) is not Thus suppose that g is a Lorentzian metric for A
strongly causal. Then there is some p E M such that strong causality fails at
p. Let (U, x) be a chart about p, guaranteed by Lemma 3.36, such that the
null geodesics in U lie on the sets x l = constant and x2 = constant. Since strong causality fails a t p, there are arbitrarily small neighborhoods V of p with V
C U and timelike curves which begin at p, leave V , and then return to
V. By Proposition 3.42, there are no closed timelike curves through p. Thus

if y is a future directed timelike curve with y(0) = p which leaves V and then returns, we have y ( t ) # p for all t > 0. Since the null geodesics in U through p are given by x1 = 0 and by
22
= 0 in the local coordinates x = ( X I , x2) for U ,
it follows that y may be deformed to intersect one of the null geodesics through p upon returning to V (cf. Figure 3.8). Hence y intersects a null geodesic in
Fl or F2twice, contradicting Proposition 3.42.

Corollary 3.44. No Lorentzian metric for R2 contains any closed nonspacelike curves.
A different proof of the result that any simply connected Lorentzian twomanifold is strongly causal may be found in O'Neill (1983). For n may be constructed on Rn. For every two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold (M,g), there is an associated Lorentzian manifold (MI -g). lary 3.44 to (M, -g) we obtain The timelike curves of (MI -g) are the spacelike curves of (M, g) and vice versa. Using M = R2 and applying Corol-
FIGURE 3.8.
(M,g) is a two-dimensional space-time such that
>
3,
strong causality fails a t p. There is a future directed timelike curve
Lorentzian metrics which are not chronological and hence not strongly causal
y which starts a t p, later returns close to p, and crosses one of the

null geodesics through p. Corollary 3.46. Let (M,g) be a Lorentzian manifold homeomorphic to
R2. Then there is a smooth conformal factor 0

(M, 52g) is geodesically complete.
: M
-+
(0,m) such that
There are examples of twudimensional space-times such that no global conCorollary 3.45. No Lorentzian metric for R2 contains any closed spacelike curves. formal change makes them nonspacelike geodesically complete (cf. Section 6.2). Thus, Corollary 3.46 cannot be extended to all two-d~mensionalspace-times
by covering space arguments. The recent monograph by Weinstetn (1993)
If (M, g) is two-dimensional and both (MIg) and (M, -g) are stably causal,
then using techniques given in Beem (1976a), one may show there is some smooth conformal factor 52 : M
--, ( 0 , m )
contains many further interesting results on Lorentzian surfaces inspired in part by Kulkarni's (1985) study of the conformal boundary for such a surface [cf. Smyth and Weinstein (1994)l.
such that the manifold (M, Rg) is
geodesically complete. This yields the following corollary.
92
3.5
THE SECOND FUNDAMENTAL FORM
93
3.5
The Second Fundamental Form
Let N be a smooth submanifold of the Lorentzian manifold ( M , g ) . If i : N + M denotes the inclusion map, then we may regard T p N as being a subspace of T p M by identifying i,,(TpN) with T p N . Let go = z*g denote the pullback of the Lorentzian metric g for M to a symmetric tensor field on N . Under the identification of T p N and i e p ( T P N )we , may also identify go at p and g ( T,N x T p N for all p f N . This identification will be used throughout this section. The submanifold N of ( M , g ) is said to be nondegenemte if for each p E N and nonzero v E T p N , there exists some w f T p N with g(v, w) f 0. If, in addition, g 1 T p N x T p N is positive definite for each p E N , then N is said to be a spacelike submanzfold. If g I T p N x T p N is a Lorentzian metric for each p E N , then N is said to be a timelike submanifold. For the rest of this section, we will suppose that N is a nondegenerate submanifold. Thus for each p E N , there is a well-defined subspace T k N of Definition 3.47. (Nondegenerate Submanifold)
form Sn : T p N x T p N ,W in the direction n as follows. Given x , y E T p N , extend to local vector fields X, Y tangent to N , and put
Define the second fundamental form S : T i N x T p N x T p N
W by
Given n E T i N , the second fundamental form operator L, : T p N + T p N is defined by g(L,(x), y) = Sn(x,y) for all x,y E T p N . It may be checked that this definition of S,(x, y) is independent of the choice of extensions X , Y for x , y E T p N and also that S, : T p N x T p N is a symmetric bilinear map. Furthermore, S : T i n r x T p N x T p N trilinear for each p E N . Lemma 3.49. Let N be a nondegenerate submanifold of ( M , g ) . The second fundamental form S = 0 on N iff V x Y = V g Y for all vector fields X and Y tangent to N .
,
+
W is
T pM given by
T ~ = N { v E T p M : g(v,w) = 0 for all w E T p N )

which has the property that T k N n T p N = (0). Consequently, there is a welldefined orthogonal projection map P : TpM + T p N . The connection V on ( M ,g) may be projected to a connection V 0 on N by defining V g Y = P ( V x Y ) for vector fields X , Y tangent to N . It is easily verified that V 0 is the unique torsion free connection on ( N ,go) satisfying
X ( ~ ~ ( y l z ) )
Proof. Obviously, Definition 3.48 implies that if V x Y = V$Y for all vector
fields tangent to N , then S = 0. Now suppose S = 0. Let p E N be an arbitrary point. We then have
g ( V x Y I p - V $ Y l p , n ) = 0 for all n E T i N and vector fields X, Y tangent to N . Since g T pN x T pN is nondegenerate, g 1 T i N x T i N is also nondegenerate. Thus V x Y I p and V $ Y l p have the same projection onto T k N . Since TpM = T p N @ T k N , we have O X Y I P= V $ Y l p , as required. 0
The second fundamental form may be used to characterize totally geodesic nondegenerate submanifolds of ( M ,g). A submanifold N of ( M ,g) is said to be
=~O(V%Y +? g~ ~) (~lv%z)
for all vector fields X, Y, Z on N . The second fundamental form, which measures the difference between V and V O , may be defined just as for Riemannian submanifolds [cf. Hermann (1968, p. 319), Bolts (1977, p. 25, pp. 51-52)]. Definition 3.48. (Sewnd Fundamental Form) Let N be a nondegenerate submanifold of ( M , g ) . Given n E T ~ Ndefine , the second fundamental
geodesic at p E N if each geodesic y of ( M ,g) with y(0) = p and ~ ' ( 0E)T p N is contained in N in some neighborhood of p. The submanifold N is said to be totally geodesic if it is geodesic at each of its points. The following proposition is the Lorentzian analogue of a well-known Riemannian result Icf. Hermann (1968, p. 338), Cheeger and Ebin (1975, p. 23)].
94
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
95
Proposition 3.50. Let N be a nondegenerate submanifold of (M, g). Then N is totally geodesic iff the second fundamental form S satisfies S = 0 on N . Proof. Given that S = 0 on N , Lemma 3.49 implies that VxY = V$Y for all vector fields X , Y tangent to N. Let c : (-6, c)
--+
In this section, we will use warped product metrics t o construct Lorentzian manifolds and will then study the causal structure and completeness properties of this class of Lorentzian manifolds. The theory for Lorentzian manifolds differs from the Riemannian theory somewhat, since the product of two Lorentzian manifolds (M, g) and (HIh) has signature (-,
M be a geodesic in
--+
(M,g) with cl(0) = v E TpN for some p E N. Also let y : (-45) the geodesic in (N,go) with yl(0) = v. Since Vy,yl = V:,yl
N be
-, T, . . . , +) and
= 0, the curve y
hence is not Lorentzian. Nevertheless, warped product Lorentzian metrics may be constructed from products of Lorentzian and Riemannian manifolds. In particular, this product construction may be used to produce examples of bi-invariant Lorentzian metrics for Lie groups (cf. Section 5.5). A treatment of warped products of semi-Riemannian (not necessarily Lorentzian) manifolds, including a calculation of their Riemannian and Ricci curvature tensors, is given in O'Neill (1983). Throughout this section, we will let ( m , h )M ~ X H. Definition 3.51. (Lorentzian Warped Product) dimensional manifold (n 2 1) with a signature of (-, be a Riemannian manifold. Let f : M
-+
T
is also a geodesic in (M,g). Set 11 = min{c,6). From the uniqueness of the geodesic in (M, g) with the given initial direction v, we have c(t) = y(t) for all
t E (-7, 7). Hence y 1 ( - q , ~ ) N as required.

Conversely, suppose N is totally geodesic in (M, g). Let p E N be arbitrary. Given n E T i N and x E TpN, let c : J
,N
be the geodesic (in both M
and N ) with c'(0) = x. Extend cl(t) to a vector field X tangent to N near p. We then have S(n, x, x) = g(V,yXlp, n) = g(V,lcl(0), n) = g(0, n) = 0. By polarization, it follows that S(n, x, y) = 0 for all x, y E TpN. Hence S = 0 on N.
Mx H
-+
M and 7 : M x H
H denote the projection maps given by ~ ( m h) , = m and ~ ( mh) , = h for
0
As will be seen in Chapter 12, the second fundamental form plays an im-
Let (M,g) be an n-
portant role in singularity theory in general relativity.
+,.. . , +), and let (H, h)
(0, cm)be a smooth function. The
3 . 6
Warped Products
Lorentzian warped product M x f H is the manifold % = M x H equipped defined for v, w E T~~ R by with the Lorentzian metric ?j
If (M, g) and (H, h) are two Riemannian manifolds, there is a natural product metric go defined on the product manifold M x H such that ( M x H, go) is again a Riemannian manifold. Bishop and 07Neill(1969)studied a larger class of Riemannian manifolds, including products, which they called warped products. If (M,g) and (H, h) are two Riemannian manifolds and f : M ric g @ f h is said to be a warped product and f : M
+
-+ (0, oo)
A warped product M x f H with f = 1 is said to be a Lorentzian product and will be denoted by M x H .

Definition 3.52. (Lorentzian Product) R e m a r k 3.53. One may also obtain Lorentzian manifolds by considering warped products H x f M , where (H, h) is a Riemannian manifold, (M, g) is a Lorentzian manifold, and f : H
--+
is any smooth function, the product manifold M x H equipped with the met(0, m) is called the warping functzon. Following Bishop and O'Neill, we will denote the Riemannian manifold ( M x H Ig @ I f h ) by M x f H. Bishop and O'Neill (1969, p. 23) showed that M x f H is a complete Riemannian manifold if and only if both (M,g) and (H, h) are complete Riemannian manifolds. Utilizing this result, they were able to construct a wide variety of complete Riemannian manifolds of everywhere negative sectional curvature using warped products.
(0, a) is a smooth function. The universal
covering manifold of anti-de Sitter space (cf. Section 5.3) is an example of a space-time important in general relativity which may be written as a warped product of the form H x f M with H Riemannian and M Lorentzian but not
as a warped product of the form M x f H of Definition 3.51. We will only treat warped products of the form M x f H in this section.
96
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
97
We begin our study of the causal properties of warped products with the following lemma.
From the hierarchy of causality conditions given in Figure 3.3, we then obtain
Lemma 3.54. The warped product M x f H of ( M Ig) and ( H ,h ) may be

time oriented iff either ( M ,g) is time oriented (if dim M 2 2) or ( M ,g) is a one-dimensional manifold with a negative definite metric.
Corollary 3.56. Let ( H Ih ) be an arbitrary Riemannian manifold, and let M = ( a ,b) with -cm 5 a < b 5 +abegiven the negative definite metric -dt2.
For any smooth function f : M
-t
(0,a ) , the warped product ( M x f H, 3 ) is
Proof. Suppose that M x f H is time orientable. If dimM = 1. then ( M , g ) has a negative definite metric by Definition 3.51. Now consider the
case dim M
chronological, causal, distinguishing, and strongly causal. In the proof of Lemma 3.54 above, we have seen that if M = S1, then the warped product (S1 x f H , g ) fails to be chronological and hence fails to be causal, distinguishing, or strongly causal. We now list some elementary properties of warped products that follow directly from Definition 3.51. A homothetic map F
:(MI, g l ) -+
> 2.
Since M x f H is time orientable, there exists a continuous
timelike vector field X for M x f H. Since f then have g(r,X, r , X ) 5 g ( X ,X ) time orientation for ( M ,g).
> 0 and h is positive definite, we
< 0.
Thus the vector field n,X provides a
Conversely, suppose first that dim M 2 2 and ( M ,g) is time oriented by the timelike vector field V. Then V may be lifted to a timelike vector field 7on
( M 2 ,92) is a
diffeomorphism such that F'(g2) = cgl for some constant c. We remark that some authors only require homothetic maps to be smooth and not necessarily one-to-one.
M x H which satisfies
r,v = V and 77,V = 0. Explicitly, fixing j j = (m, b) E
M x H , there is a natural isomorphism
Remark 3.57. Let M x f H be a Lorentzian warped product.

(1) For each b 6 H , the restriction r / v - l ( b : 77-'(b) )
--+
M is an isometry
Thus we may define V at jj by setting V(p)= ( V ( m ) , O b ) using this isomorphism to identify TF(M x H ) and TmM x TbH. It is immediate from Definition 3.51 that 3 ( V ,V ) = g(V, V ) < 0. Hence 7 time orients M x f H as required. Now consider the case dim M = 1. It is then known that M is diffeomorphic to S 1 or R. In either case, let T be a smooth vector field on M with g(T,T ) = -1. Defining T(P) = (T(r(jj))lO,(ii)) as above, we have
--
of q-l(b) onto M .
( 2 ) For each m f MI the restriction qlT-l(m): T-'(m) --+ H is a homothetic map of r - ' ( m ) with homothetic factor I/ f (m). (3) If v E T ( M x H ) , then g(n,v,r,v) 5 g(v,v ) . Thus n , : T p ( M x H ) -+ TT(p)M maps nonspacelike vectors to nonspacelike vectors, and r maps nonspacelike curves of M x f H to nonspacelike curves of M .
(4) Since l g ( n , v , ~ ~ v> ) /lg(v,v)/ if w 6 T(M x H ) is nonspacelike, the
time orients B. Note also in the case that M
71*T = 0 , SO that T = S1the integral curves of T in
M are closed timelike curves. Thus M is not chronological. 0

Lemma 3.55. Let ( H Ih) be an arbitrary Riemannian manifold, and let M = (a,b) with -cc 5 a < b 5 +cm be given the negative definite metric -dt2.
For any smooth function f : M stably causal.
--,
map r is length nondecreasing on nonspacelike curves (cf. Section 4.1, formula (4.1) for the definition of Lorentzian arc length). (5) For each ( m , b ) E M x H , the submanifolds r-'(m) and q - v b ) of
(0,a ) , the warped product ( M x f H , g ) is
Proof. The projection map n : M x H

tion. El
--+
W serves as a time func-
M x f H are nondegenerate in the sense of Definition 3.47. -+ H is an isometry, then the map @ = 1 x q5 : M x f H -+ M x f H given by @ ( m b) , = (m,q5(b))is an isometry of M x f H. (7) If $ : M M is an isometry of M such that f o ?C, = f , then the map Q =$J x 1 : M x f H -+ M x f H given by Q(m,b) = (?C,(m),b) is an
(6) If q5 : H
+
98
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
99
isometry of M x f H . Thus if X is a Killing vector field on M (i.e.,
Lxg
= 0) with X ( f ) = 0, then the natural lift
of X to M x f H
[isometric to
given by x ( p ) = (X(n(p)), Oq(*))is a Killing vector field on M x f H.
M]
Lemma 3.58. Let M x f H be a Lorentzian warped product. Then for

each b E H , the leaf v-l(b) is totally geodesic. Proof. Since the map n : M x f H
-+
M is length nondecreasing on non-
[homothetic to H]
spacelike curves and since nonspacelike geodesics are locally length maximizing, it follows that any nonspacelike geodesic of 77-'(b) (in the metric induced by the inclusion q-'(b)
5 M x f H ) is a geodesic in the ambient manifold
M x f H. Thus the second fundamental form vanishes on all nonspacelike vectors in T(q-'(b)). Since any tangent vector in T(q-'(b)) may be written as a linear combination of nonspacelike vectors in T(q-'(b)), it follows that the second fundamental form vanishes identically. Hence, 77-'(b) is totally geodesic by Proposition 3.50. 0
FIGURE 3.9. Let (m, b) be a point of the warped product M x f H .

In view of Corollary 3.56, we may now restrict our attention t o studying the fundamental causal properties of time oriented Lorentzian warped products ( M x H , i j ) with dim M 2 2. Then the projection map n restricted to q-l(b) is an isometry onto M, and the projection map 77 restricted to ?rp'(m) is a homothetic map onto H .
Lemma 3.59. Let p = (pl, pz) and q = (ql, q2) be two points in M x f H
with p Pl
< < q (respectively, p < q) in
( M x f H , g ) . Then pl
< < ql
(respectively,
< q1) in (M,g).

Proof. If y is a future directed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve
in M x f H from p to q, then n o y is a future directed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve in M from pl to ql. While n : M x f H
-+
Lemma 3.60. If p = (pl, b) and q = (91, b) are points in the same leaf
~-l(b) of M X I H , then p
q (respectively, p Q q) in (M x f H , g ) iffpl < < ql (respectively, pl ,< ql) in (M, g).
M takes nonspacelike curves to nonspacelike curves,

Proof. By Lemma 3.59, it only remains to show that if pl
pl
.rr does not preserve null curves. Indeed, it follows from Definition 3.51 that if
y is any smooth null curve with q,y(t)
< < ql (respectively,
# 0 for all t , then g(z,y(t), T , y(t)) < 0
< ql) in (M,g), then p << q (respectively, p ,< q)
in (M x f H,ij). But if
for all t. For points p and q in the same leaf q-l(b) of M x f H, Lemma 3.59 may be strengthened as follows.
1 --, M is a future directed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve yl : [O,1
in M from pl to ql, then y ( t ) = (yl(t), b), 0 5 t 5 1, is a future directed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve in M x f H from p to q.
100
3.6
W A R P E D PRODUCTS
101
Lemma 3.60 implies that each leaf 77-'(b), b E H , has the same chronology and causality as (M,g). In particular, Lemmas 3.59 and 3.60 imply that ( M x f H , g ) has a closed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve iff (M,g) has a closed timelike (respectively, nonspacelike) curve. Hence
Fz(yk(1/2)) 2 E > 0 for all k and some parametrization of ~ k .Choose a neighborhood W of pl in M such that W is covered by the local coordinates
.rr 0 yk
. i r0
(XI,. . . ,xi) above and such that sup(F1 (r) : r E W ) 5 ~ / 2 . The curves are then future directed nonspacelike curves in ,nil with .ir o ~ ~ (-+ 0 p)l , yk(l)
-+
Proposition 3.61. Let (M, g) be a space-time, m d let (H, h) be a Riemannian manifold. Then the Lorentzian warped product (M x j H , g ) is
chronological (respectively, causal) iff (M, g) is chronological (respectively, causal). A similar result holds for strong causality.
pl, and
. i ro
yk(1/2) $! W . Hence W and {T o yk) show that strong required. I ?
causality fails a t pl in (M, g)
In Proposition 3.64 we prove the equivalence of stable causality for (M, g) and ( M x j H, ij) for dim M
2 2. From this proposition and the last two
propositions, it follows that the basic causal properties of ( M x f H , i j ) are determined by those of (M, g).
Proposition 3.62. Let (M, g) be a space-time, and let (H, h) be a Riemannian manifold. Then the Lorentzian warped product ( M x j H,ij) is
strongly causal iff (MIg) is strongly causal. Proof. We first show that if the space-time (M,g) is not strongly causal a t pl, then ( M x f H , g ) is not strongly causal a t p = (pl, b) for any b E H . Since (M, g) is not strongly causal at pl, there is an open neighborhood Ul of pl in M and a sequence {yk
:
Remark 3.63. If g < gl on M , then there is a smooth conformal factor for all nontrivial vect.ors which R : M -+ (0, m) such that Rgl(v,21) < g(71,~)
are nonspacelike with respect to g.
Proposition 3.64. Let (M,g) be a space-time and (H,h) a Riemannian

manifold. Then the Lorentzian warped product (M x f H , ij ) is stably causal iff (M, g) is stably causal. Proof. In this proof we will use the identification Tp(M x H ) 2 Tp, M x TbH for a l l p = (pl,b) E M x H . Assuming that ( M x f H, 3 ) is stably causal, there exists ij, E Lor(M x H) such that ij
[O,1] -+ M ) of future directed nonspacelike curves

+
with yk(0) -+ pl and yk(1)
pl as k
-+ m
, but yk(1/2) $! U1 for all k. Define
uk : I0,1] -+ M x H by ak(t) = (yk(t), b ) Let Vl be any open neighborhood of b in H, and set U = Ul x Vl in M x H. Then U is an open neighborhood of p = (pl, b) in M x f H , and {ak) is a sequence of nonspacelike future directed curves in M x f H with ak(0)
+
< gl and
?jl is causal. If b is a fixed point of H , then we may
p and a k ( l )
p as k
-+
m , but ak(1/2) $ U
is nondegenerate since ?jI,-,(,) assume without loss of generality that ?jlI,-,(,) is nondegenerate. Setting = ijll,-l(b, and using T / , - , ( ~ ) to identify 77-'(b) with M , we obtain a metric gl E Lor(M) such that .irl,-l(b) is an isometry of (7-'(b),:~) onto (M,gl). Notice that since ( M x H,G1) is causal, the space-time (q-l(b),&) is causal, and hence (M,gl) is also causal. To show g < g1 on M , we choose a nonzero vector vl E TplM such that g(v1, vl) 5 0. If
Ob
for all k. Thus ( M x f H , g ) is not strongly causal a t p. Conversely, suppose that strong causality fails a t the point p = (pl, q l ) of ( M x j H,ij). Let (xl,. . . ,x,) be local coordinates on M near pl such that g has the form diag(-1, + I , . (51,. . . ,x,, x,+l,.
..,+I)
at pl, and let ( x , + ~ . , . . , o n ) be local coor-
dinates on H near ql such that f h has the form diag(f1,. .. ,+1) a t ql. Then
. .,x,)
are local coordinates for M x f H near p. Further-
denotes the zero vector in TbH, then g(v,v) = g(vl,vl) 5 0. where
more, Fl = x1 and Fz = xl o .ir are (locally defined) time functions for M near pl and for M x f H near p, respectively. The failure of strong causality a t p implies the existence of a sequence yk directed nonspacelike curves with yk(0)
-+
v = (vl, Ob) E TplM x TbH. Since ij < gl, we obtain ij,(v, v) = gl(vl, v l ) < 0. Hence g < gl, and (M, g) is stably causal. Conversely. we now assume that ( M g) is stably causal. Let gl E Lor(M) be a causal metric with g
IO,l]
M x f H of future
+
p and y k ( l ) -+ p as k
m, but
< gl. By Remark 3.63 we may also assume that
102
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
103
g1 ( v l ,v l ) < g(v1, v l ) for all vectors vl # 0 which are nonspacelike with respect t o g. Since Proposition 3.61 implies that g1 = gl @ f h is a causal metric on M x H , it suffices t o show that 3
Theorem 3.66. Let ( H ,h) be a Riemannian manifold, and let M = ( a ,b)
with -m 5 a is complete.
< b I +co be given the negative definite metric -dt2. Then
< 3,. T o this end, let v
= ( v l , v z ) be a
the Lorentzian warped product ( M x f H , g ) is globally hyperbolic i f f ( H ,h )
nontrivial vector o f T p ( M x H ) which is nonspacelike with respect t o g. Then ) h(v2, ) vz) > 0 since 3 ( v ,v ) = g(v1, v l ) + f ( 4 2 1 ) ) . h(v2,v2) I 0 and f ( ~ ( v . with v2 # 0 , the nontriviality of v implies that vl # 0 and g ( v l ,v l ) 5 0. Thus . h) (v )2 , ~ 2< ) g(v1,vl) f ( n ( v ) ). h ( v 2 , ~ 2I ) 0 31(v,u) = g i ( u i , v i ) + f ( 4 ~ which shows that 3 < 3, and establishes the proposition. Geroch's Splitting Theorem (cf.Theorem 3.17) guarantees that any globally hyperbolic space-time may be written as a topological product R x S where
S is a Cauchy hypersurface. Geroch's result suggests investigating conditions
Theorem 3.66 may be regarded as a "metric converse" t o Geroch's splitting theorem. I f f = 1 is assumed, so that the warped product ( M x f H , g ) is simply a metric product ( M x H , g @ h ) , Theorem 3.66 may be strengthened t o include geodesic completeness ( c f .Definition 6.2 for the definition o f geodesic completeness).
Theorem 3.67. Suppose that ( H ,h ) is a Riemannian manifold and that
on ( M , g ) and ( H ,h ) which imply that the warped product ( M x f H , g ) is globally hyperbolic. These conditions are given for dim M = 1 and dim M 2 2 in Theorems 3.66 and 3.68, respectively. In order t o prove these results, it is first necessary t o show that a curve in a complete Riemannian manifold which is inextendible in one direction must have infinite length.
Lemma 3.65. Let ( H ,h ) be a complete Riemannian manifold, and let
R x H is given the product Lorentzian metric -dt2 are equivalent:

(1) ( H ,h ) is geodesically complete.
h . Then the following
( 2 ) ( R x H , -dt2 ( 3 ) ( R x H, -dt2
@h) @ h)
is geodesically complete is globally hyperbolic.
Proof. W e know that ( 1 ) i f f ( 3 ) from Theorem 3.66. Thus it remains to show ( 1 ) i f f (2). But this is a consequence o f the fact that all geodesics o f
IR x H are either (up t o parametrization) o f the form (At,c ( t ) ) ,(Ao,c ( t ) ) , or
y : [O, 1) -+ H be a curve of finite length in ( H ,h). Then there exists a point p E H such that y ( t ) -4 p as t
+
I-.
Proof. Let do denote the Riemannian distance function induced on H by the Riemannian metric h. Let L = Lo(?) be the Riemannian arc length of y , and set K = { q E H : do(y(O),q)5 L ) . T h e Hopf-Rinow Theorem [cf.Hicks (1965, pp. 163-164)] implies that K is compact. Fix a sequence (t,) in [O,1) y ( t ) ) 5 L ( y 1 [O,t])5 L for t E [0,1), we have with t , -+ 1. Since d(y(O), y[O,1 ) C K . Thus by the compactness o f K , the sequence { y ( t , ) ) has a limit point p E K . I f lirnt,iy ( t ) # p, there would then exist an E > 0 such that y leaves the ball { m E M : d(p,m) 5 E ) infinitely often. But this would imply that 7 has infinite length, in contradiction. T h e following theorem may be obtained from the combination o f Corollary 3.56 and Lemma 3.65. T h e proof, which is similar to that o f Theorem 3.68, will be omitted.
(At,ho), where A, A . E R are constants, ho E H , and c : J geodesic in H .
H is a unit speed
Suppose that a space-time ( M ,g) o f dimension n 2 3 satisfies the timelike convergence condition (i.e., has everywhere nonnegative nonspacelike Ricci curvatures) and satisfies the generic condition (i.e., each inextendible nonspacelike geodesic contains a point where the tangent vector W satisfies the equation xF,d=l W C W d W [ a R b l c d [ e W # 0f l [cf.Chapter 21). Then i f ( M , g ) has a compact Cauchy surface, the space-time ( M , g ) is geodesically incomplete. Thus Theorem 3.66 may not be strengthened for arbitrary warped products to include geodesic completeness. T h e "big bang" Robertson-Walker cosmological models ( c f . Section 5.4) are examples o f globally hyperbolic warped products which are not geodesically complete.
104
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
In contrast, let (W x H , -dt2 6+h ) be a product space-time of the form considered in Theorem 3.67. Fix any bo E H . Then y ( t ) = ( t ,bo) is a timelike geodesic with R ( y l ( t ) , v )= 0 for all v E T-,(t)(W x H ) for each t E W. Thus
(R x H, -dt2
@ h ) fails
to satisfy the generic condition.
If dim M = 1 and M is homeomorphic to
W,we have just
given necessary
and sufficient conditions for the warped product M x f H to be globally hyperbolic. If M = S 1 , we remarked above that (M x f H , g ) is nonchronological no matter which Riemannian metric h is chosen for H. Thus no warped product space-time ( S 1 x f H , 3 ) is globally hyperbolic. We now consider the case dim M 2 2.
Theorem 3.68. Let ( M ,g) be a space-time, and let (H, h) be a Riemannian manifold. Then the Lorentzian warped product ( M x f H , g ) is globally hyperbolic iff both of the following conditions are satisfied:
( 1 ) ( M ,g) is globally hyperbolic. (2) ( H ,h ) is a complete Riemannian manifold.
Proof. (+) Suppose first that ( M x f H , g ) is globally hyperbolic. Fixing

b E H , we may identify ( M , g ) with the closed submanifold 77-'(b) = M x {b)
since the projection map r : 7/-1(b) -+ M is an isometry, Lemma 3.60 implies that under this identification, the set J f ( p l ) n 3-(91) in M corresponds to
77-l(b) n J+((pl,b)) n J - ( ( Q , b)) in ( M x f H ) for any pl and ql in M . Since ?-l(b) is closed and ( M x f H , 3 ) is globally hyperbolic, 77-'(b) n J f ( ( p l ,b ) ) n J-((91, b)) is compact in ( M x f H ) . Hence J+(pl) n J - ( q l ) is compact in M . Because ( M x f H , 3 ) is globally hyperbolic, it is also strongly causal.
Thus ( M , g ) is strongly causal by Proposition 3.62. Hence ( M ,g) is globally hyperbolic as required. Now we show that (M x f H,G) globally hyperbolic implies that ( H ,h ) is a complete Riemannian manifold. We will suppose that ( H ,h ) is incomplete and derive a contradiction to the global hyperbolicity of ( M x j H , g ) . For this purpose, fix any pair of points pl and ql in M with pl << ql, and let
71 :
FIGURE 3.10. In the proof of Theorem 3.68, the curve c : [0,P ) H is a geodesic which is not extendible to t = /3 < m. The curves T ( t ) = ( y l ( t )c , ( t ) ) and p(t) = ( y l ( L - t ) ,c ( t ) ) are inextendible nonspacelike curves in ( M x f H , 3 ) and hence do not have compact
+
closure. given warping function. Since y1([0,L ] ) is a compact subset of M , we have
o<a<m.
Assuming that ( H ,h ) is not complete, the Hopf-Rinow Theorem ensures the
c l ( t ) )= l / a which is not existence of a geodesic c : [0,/3)-+ H with h(cl(t),
[0,L]
--t
M be a unit speed future directed timelike curve in M from

: M -+
pl to ql. Set a: = s u p { f ( y l ( t ) ) : t E [O, L ] ) where f
( 0 , m ) is the
< m. By changing c(0) and reparametrizing c if necessary, we may suppose that 0 < /3 < L/2. Define a future directed nonspacelike curve 7 : [0,/3) M x H and a past directed nonspacelike curve 5 : [0,/3) -+ M x H by ~ ( t =) ( y l( t ) c , ( t ) ) and ;I;(t) = (yl ( L - t ) , c ( t ) ) ,respectively. For each t with 0 5 t < /3, we have y l ( t ) << y l ( L - t ) in ( M , g ) since t < L - t . Hence
3 extendible to t = /
-+
106
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
107
by Lemma 3.60, we have ( y l ( t ) , c ( t ) ) < < ( y l ( L - t ) , c ( t ) )in M x f H . Thus
Cauchy surfaces may be constructed for globally hyperbolic Lorentzian warped products as follows.
Theorem 3.69. Let ( H ,h ) be a complete Riemannian manifold. Let
< P ( c f . Figure 3.10). It follows that ?([O, P ) ) is contained in J+ ( ( p l ,c(0)))n J - ((ql,~ ( 0 ) ) ) Since . c = r] o 7 does not have compact closure in H , the curve 7 : [O, P) -+ M x f H does not have compact closure in J+ ((pl,c ( 0 ) ) )n J - ((ql,~ ( 0 ) ) )But . since ) )J)- ( ( q l , c ( ~ ) )is ) ( M x f H , g ) is globally hyperbolic, the set J + ( ( ~ ~ , c ( on
) T(t) ( p l ,c(1)) ,< ~ ( t<< compact, in contradiction.
< (91,c(0)) for all 0 5 t
( M x f H , g ) be the Lorentzian warped product of ( M , g ) and ( H ,h ) . ( 1 ) I f M = ( a ,b) with -m
< a < b 5 +co is given the metric -dt2,
then
{ p l ) x H is a Cauchy surface o f ( M x f H , i j ) for each pl E M . ( 2 ) I f ( M ,g ) is globally hyperbolic with Cauchy surface S 1 , then S1 x H is a Cauchy surface o f ( M x f H , g ) .
(e) Suppose now that ( M , g ) is globally hyperbolic. Assuming that the

warped product ( M x f H , i j ) is not globally hyperbolic, we must show that ( H ,h ) is not complete. Since ( M , g ) is strongly causal, ( M x f H , i j ) is also strongly causal by Proposition 3.62. Hence since ( M x f H , i j ) is not globally hyperbolic, there exist distinct points ( p l ,b l ) and (p2, b2) in M x f H such that J + ( ( p l ,b l ) ) nJ-((pz, b2)) is noncompact. There is then a future directed nonspacelike curve y : [O, 1) -+ J+((pl,b l ) )n J-((p2, b2))which is future inex-
Proof. Since the proofs o f ( 1 )and (2) are similar, we shall only give the proof o f ( 2 ) . In this case, S1 x H is an achronal subset of ( M x j H , 3 ) . To show
S1 x H is a Cauchy surface, we must show that every inextendible nonspacelike curve in M x f H meets S1 x H. Now given (pl,p2) E ( M x H ) - ( S 1 x H ) , either every future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve in ( M ,g ) beginning at pl meets S1 or every past directed, past inextendible, nonspacelike curve starting at pl meets S1. Since the two cases are similar, we will suppose the former holds and then show that every future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve y : [O, 1) --+ M x f H with y(0) = ( p l , p z ) meets S1 x H .
M and u2 : [O, 1) H . Then u1 : [O, 1 ) M is a future directed nonspacelike curve contained in J+(pl) n JW(p2). Since ( M , g ) is globally hyperbolic, J+(pl) n JW(p2)is compact. Hence i f we set a0 = i n f { f ( m ): m E J+(pl) n J-(pz)), then c r ~ > 0. Also since ( M , g ) is strongly causal, no future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve may be future imprisoned in the compact set J+(pl) n J-(p2) ( c f . Proposition 3.13). Hence there exists a point r E J+(pl) n J - ( p z ) with lim,,l- u l ( t ) = r . W e may then extend u 1 1 M by setting u l ( 1 ) = r. Since the curve t o a continuous curve u1 : [O, 1 y = (u1,u2) was inextendible to t = 1, it follows that u z ( t ) cannot converge t o any point of H as t -+ I-. By Lemma 3.65, either ( H ,h ) is incomplete or u2 has infinite length. As u1 : [ O , l ] M is a nonspacelike curve defined on a compact interval, ul has finite length in ( M , g ) . Since f ( u l ( t ) )> cro > 0 for all t E [0,I ] and
tendible in ( M x f H . 3 ) . Let y ( t ) = ( u l ( t ) , u 2 ( t ) ) where , u1 : [O, 1)
+
--+
it follows that u2 has finite length in ( H ,h). Thus ( H ,h ) is incomplete as required. U
M x f H is a future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve with y(0) = (pl,pz) which does not meet S 1 x H . Decompose y ( t ) = ( u l ( t ) , u a ( t ) with ) ul : [O, 1 ) M and u2 : [O, 1) + H . Since S1 is a Cauchy surface for ( M ,g) and ( M ,g ) is globally hyperbolic, the set J+(pl) O J-(S1) is compact [cf.Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, p. 163)). As in the proof o f Theorem 3.68, the strong causality o f ( M ,g) implies that there exists a point r E J+(pl) n J-(S1) with limt,l- u l ( t ) = r. Since (0,co) achieves a J+(pl) n J - ( S l ) is compact, the warping function f : M minimum cro > 0 on J+(pl)n J - ( S 1 ) . As in the proof o f Theorem 3.68, this then implies that u2 : [O, 1) H has finite length. Since ( H ,h ) is complete, by Lemma 3.65 there exists a point b f H with limthl- u2(t) = b. Setting y(1) = ( r ,b), we have then extended y t o a nonspacelike future directed curve y : [O, 1 1 -+ M x f H , contradicting the inextendibility o f y. Hence y must meet S1 x H as required. 0
Thus suppose that y : [O,l)
+ +
108
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
109
We now consider the nonspacelike geodesic completeness of the class of = (a,b) x f H with g = -dt2 @ Lorentzian warped products of the form
In order to study geodesic completeness, it is necessary to determine the Levi-Civita connection for a Lorentzian warped product metric. For this purpose, we will consider the general warped product ( M x f H , g e f h ) where
f :M
-+
f h. Here a space-time is said to be null (respectively, timelike) geodesically incomplete if some future directed null (respectively, timelike) geodesic cannot be extended to be defined for arbitrary negative and positive values of an affine parameter (cf. Definitions 6.2 and 6.3). Since we are using the metric -dt2 on (a, b), the curve c(t) = (t, yo) with yo E H fixed is a unit speed timelike 3 ) no matter which warping function is chosen. Consequently, geodesic in if a > -oo or b < +co, then ( M , g ) is timelike geodesically incomplete for all possible warping functions f . Moreover, if a and b are both finite and if y = ( a ,b) x f H, then L(y) 5 b - a < oo. Thus is any timelike geodesic in if a and b are finite, all timelike geodesics are past and future incomplete.
(0, co),(H, h) is Riemannian, and (M, g) is equipped with a metric of
signature (-,
+, . . . , +). Let V1 denote the Levi-Civita connection for (MIg)
and V2 denote the Levi-Civita connection for (H, h). Given vector fields X I , Yl on M and X2, Y 2 on H , we may lift them to M x H and obtain the vector fields X = (XI, 0) (0, X2) = (XI, X2) and Y = (Yl, 0) the metric 3 = g @ f h by the Koszul formula
(z,
+ (0, Yz) = (Yl ,Y2)
on M x H . Recall that the connection 7for ( M x f H , g @ f h ) is related to
Nonetheless, if the warping function f is chosen suitably, (%,g) may be null geodesically complete even if a and b are both finite. This will be clear from the proof of Theorem 3.70 below. If [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975, p. 2)]. Using this formula and setting we obtain the following formula for 7for X and Y as above:
4 = In f ,
z= W x f H with 3 = -dt2 @ f h , then any timelike geodesic of the

=
( t ,yo) is past and future timelike complete. However, warped = W x f H may be constructed for which all nonspaceproduct space-times
form c(t) like geodesics except for those of the form t
+
Here grad4 denotes the gradient of the function 4 on (M,g), and we are identifying the vector VklYl,1 E T,M with the vector (V&,Yl,0,) E
(t, yo) are future incomplete.
One such example may be given as follows. Busemann and Beem (1966) stud= {(x,y) W2 : y > 0) with the Lorentzian metric ied the space-time ds2 = y-2(dx2 - dy2). Busemann and Beem (1966, p. 245) noted that all
timelike geodesics except for those of the form t
(t,yo) are future incom-
plete. Setting t = In y, this space-time is transformed into the Lorentzian warped product R x f R with 3 = -dt2 @ fdt2, where f (t) = e-2t. Since the W x f W,g) given by F(x, y) = (x, ln y) is a global isomemap F : ( S , ds2) -+( try, all timelike geodesics of ( W x f W, B) except for those of the form t -+ (t, yo) are future incomplete. It will also follow from Theorem 3.70 below that all null geodesics are future incomplete. Similarly, if (Wn,h) denotes Rn with the usual Euclidean metric h = dxI2 + dxZ2+ . . - + dxn2, then ( W x f Wn, ?j) with = -dt2 @ f h and f (t) = e-2t is a space-time with all nonspacelike geodesics future incomplete except for those of the form t
-+
T(,,,)(M x HI, etc. We are now ready to obtain the following criterion for null geodesic incompleteness of Lorentzian warped products = (a, b) x f H [cf. Beem, Ehrlich, and Powell (1982)l. Throughout the rest of this section, let w o denote an interior point of ( a ,b).
Theorem 3.70. Let = (a, b) x f H be a Lorentzian warped product with Lorentzian metric = -dt2 @ f h where -co 5 a < b 5 +m, (H,h) is an arbitrary Riemannian manifold, and f : (a, b) -+ (0, m). Set S(t) = Then if lim,-.+
JtwO
m.
S(s)ds respectively, limt+a-
future directed null geodesic in ( X , ? jis ) past [respectively, future] incomplete. Proof. Let yo be an arbitrary future directed null geodesic in (?i?,?j). We may reparametrize yo to be of the form y(t) = (t,c(t)), where y is a smooth
~(s)ds] is finite, every
(t, yo).
110
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
111
null pregeodesic. Accordingly, there exists a smooth function g(t) such that
s + g(s) = -dt2 @ f (s)h of metrics will not be a continuous curve in ~ o r ( M )
in the fine C' topologies. Thus the space-times be far apart in ~ o r ( M for ) s # 0. [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 33)]. However, since yl(t) = d l % [ , +cl(t) and ?j(yl, yl) = -1 g(cl, c') = 0, we obtain using formula (3.17) that
( 2g(0)) , and ( M, g(s)) may
Notice that if the Riemannian manifold (H,h) is geodesically incomplete, then

= (a, b) x H may be null geodesically incomplete even if both integrals
in Theorem 3.70 diverge. On the other hand, if the completeness of (H,h) is assumed, the following necessary and sufficient condition for the null geodesic incompleteness of '7i? = (a, b) x H may be obtained from the proof of Theorem 3.70.
Equating terms with a d l & component, we obtain the formula
Remark 3.71. Let ?@ = (a, b) x f H be a Lorentzian warped product with

Lorentzian metric
3 = -dt2 @ f h , where (H,h) is a complete Riemannian manifold and - m 5 a < b 5 + m . Let S(t) = as above. Then
( M , 3 ) is past (respectively, future) null geodesically incomplete if and only if
t-a+
Thus ~ 7 t y 1 1= t (1/2)[ln f (t)]' y'(t) = [lnS(t)llyl(t). If we define p : (a, b) by ~ ( t= )
lim
LwO
S(S) ds is finite (respectively,
Jrs ( ~ ) d ~ ,
wo
In Powell (1982), a more comprehensive study is made of nonspacelike geodesic completeness of Lorentxian warped products, beginning with the observation that a geodesic in M x f H projects to a pregeodesic in (H,h) and continuing with the observation that if
then pl(t) = S ( t ) > 0 so that p-' exists. Moreover, from the classical theory of projective transformations we know that the curve yl(t) = y o p-'(t) (p-'(t), c o p-l(t)) is a null geodesic [cf. Spivak (1970, pp. 6-35 ff.)]. Let A = lim p(t)
t-a+
7 and
, B are unit speed geodesics in
(H, h) and (y, 5)is a pregeodesic of M x f H, then (y, and B = lim p(t).
t-b-+
g) is also a pregeodesic
M
xf H
of M x f H . Then Powell shows that if the Lorentzian warped product
is timelike (respectively, null or spacelike) geodesically complete, then (H,h) Since p is monotone increasing, we have that p : (a, b) (A, B ) is a bijection. Hence p-' : (A, B) -+ (a, b) and thus yl = y o p-l : (A, B ) --+ ?@. Therefore if is Riemannian complete and further (M,g) is timelike (respectively, null or spacelike) complete. A second aspect of Powell (1982) is the study of timelike geodesic completeness for warped products of the form
+
A is finite, yl is past incomplete, and if B is finite, yl is future incomplete as

required. It is immediate from Theorem 3.70 that if a and b are finite and the w a r p ing function f : (a, b) (0, m ) is bounded, then (?@,g) is past and future null geodesically incomplete. Thus, assuming that a and b are finite, one-dt2 @ f(s)h) of past and future null parameter families ( a , g ( s ) ) = (?@, geodesically incomplete space-times may easily be constructed. Choosing the one-parameter family of functions f (s) : (a, b)
4
= (a, b) x f H with metrics
g = -dt2@ f h , corresponding to Theorem 3.70 and Remark 3.71 above for null
completeness. As remarked above, the completeness of the timelike geodesics of the form T(t) = (t, yo) for some yo E H, which Powell terms "stationary," is entirely dependent on whether a = -co or a is finite, and/or b = +co or b is finite. Also, if a and b are both finite, then all timelike geodesics are hoth past and future incomplete independent of choice of warping function. How-
(0, m ) suitably, the curve
112
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
113
ever, for a suitable warping function, even if a = -oo and b = +m, it can be arranged for all non-stationary timelike geodesics to be incomplete. More
As above, let V' [respectively, V2] denote the covariant derivative of (M,g) [respectively, (H, h)]. Also let r$ = In f and recall that grad4 denotes the gradient of
b), then all fuprecisely, Powell shows that if (H, h) is complete and wo E (a,
ture directed non-stationary timelike geodesics are future (respectively, past) complete if and only if
4 on
(M,g). As before, we will decompose tangent vectors x in

XI, yl
TF(M x H) as x = (x1,x2). Let R' [respectively, R ~ denote ] the curvature tensor of (M,g) [respectively, (H, h)]. Given tangent vectors define the Hessian tensors H+ and h+ by
E TpM,
L (mi)
(t)
-
dt = +m,
respectively,
JwO
(a)
4
dt = +m.
From this result and our above results on null completeness, relationships may be derived between null and timelike completeness for this class of warped products. (In general, these types of geodesic completeness are logically independent (cf. Theorem 6.4). In particular, null completeness of R x f H does not imply timelike completeness.) However, if the warping function the timelike and null completeness are equivalent. In singularity theory in general relativity, conditions on the curvature tensor of (%,-ji) which are discussed in Chapters 2 and 12, called the generic condition and the timelike convergence condition, are considered. These two conditions guarantee that if a nonspacelike geodesic y may be extended to be defined for all positive and negative values of an affine parameter and dimz
and
f for
We will also write 11 grad +/I2
= g(grad 4, grad 4). Using the sign convention
M = R x ~H f is bounded from above and (H, h ) is Riemannian complete, then for the curvature tensor and substituting from formula (3.17), one obtains the formula
> 3, then y
contains a pair of conjugate points. Hence these cur-
vature conditions may be combined with geometric or physical assumptions, such as ( 2 , g ) is causally disconnected or ( M , g ) contains a closed trapped set, to show that ( 2 , g ) is nonspacelike geodesically incomplete (cf. Section 12.4). Since ( M , g ) satisfies the generic condition and strong energy condition if all nonspacelike Ricci curvatures are positive, it is thus of interest to consider conditions on the warping function f of a Lorentzian warped product which guarantee that ( z , g ) has everywhere positive nonspacelike Ricci curvatures. The assumption d i m m where x, y, 2 E Tlp,,)(M x H ) . curvature at
jj
.
< j < m, and g(ei,ej) = 0 if i # j.
Suppose now that dim M = m and dim H = n. To calculate the Ricci

= @,q) E M x H , let {el,e2,. . . , e m ) be a basis for TpM
> 3 made in singularity theory is necessary
with g(el,el) = -1, g(ej,ej) = 1 for 2 Also, let {em+l,.. . ,en+,) x, y E TF(M x H ) , we have
for null conjugate points to exist since no null geodesic in any two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold contains a pair of conjugate points. We now give the formulas for the curvature tensor R and Ricci curvature tensor Ric for the warped product space-time ( M x f H , g ) where 3 = g @ fh.
be a 7j-orthonormal basis for T,H. Then for any
114
3.6
WARPED PRODUCTS
115
T h e d'Alembertian
0 4 of 4 may also be calculated as
nonnegative Ricci curvature and 3 = -dt2 @ f h with f ( t ) = t ' for a fixed constant r 6 R satisfying (21dim H ) < r
< 2. I f ( H ,h ) is taken to be W 3 with
the usual Euclidean metric and r = 413, we recover t h e Einstein-de Sitter universe of cosniology theory [cf.Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 138), Sachs and Using (3.21),it then follows that W u (1977a, Proposition 6.2.7 ff.)]. W e may also obtain the following condition on 4 = In f for positive nonspacelike Ricci curvature i f the Ricci tensor o f ( H ,h ) is bounded from below.
-
dim H g(x2, 1/21 [ i o 4 ( p ) + 7
Proposition 3.72. Let
3 = ( a ,b) x f H
with n = dim H 2 2, g = -dt2
fh, and dim H dim H -2 h+(x1,~1 )- - p 1 ( 4 ) ~ 1 ( 4 ) where x = ( x l ,y l ) , y = ( y l ,y2) E T(,,,) ( M x H ) , and ~ i c and l Ric2 denote the Ricci curvature tensors of ( M ,g ) and ( H ,h ) , respectively. W e now restrict t o the case hl = ( a ,b) x f H with warped product metric
i j = -dt2 @ fh. In this case, O 4 ( t ) = -4I1(t) and
4 = In f .
Suppose that there exists some constant X E
R such that
Ric2(v,v ) (3.26)
> Xh(v,v) for all v E T H . Then i f

24I1(t)< min
{- ( q ! ~ ' ( t )4(n ) ~ , - l)-'Xe-@'('))

(li?, 3 ) has everywhere posi-
for all t E ( a ,b), the Lorentzian warped product tive nonspacelike Ricci curvature.
11 gad$(t)l12 =
-[4'(t)I2.
b) x H ) that Thus we obtain from (3.22) for 3 = (0,v ) E T(t,,)((a, (3.23) Ric(i?,i?) = R ~ c ~ v () v+ , g(v, v)
Proof. It suffices to show that Ric(x, x ) > 0 for all nonspacelike tangent vectors x o f the form x = d l d t
+ v E T ( M x H ) , v E T H . Since 3 ( x ,x) 5 0
and ij(a/dt,d l d t ) = - 1, we have p = g(v, v ) 5 1. Hence 0 5 ,B 5 1. Then h(v,v ) = Be-$ and we obtain from (3.24) that we obtain
I f x = bldtl,
+ v E T(,,,)((a,b) x H ) with v E T,H,
1 dim H 4 14'(t)12) (3.24) Ric(x, x ) = ~ i c ' ( vv, ) + g(v,v ) {5411(t) -
dim H
- --[4'(t)12) dim H
where Thus Ric(x,x ) > 0 provided 4" < G ( P ) for all /3 E [O,l],
4 Both bracketed terms in formulas (3.23) and (3.24) will be positive provided that (3.25) Calculating G1'(P), one finds that G1(,B) does not change sign in [0,I]. Thus G(,B)obtains its minimum on [ O , l ] for p = 0 or /3 = 1. Hence Ric(x, x) > 0
-[4'(t)I2dim H < 2d1'(t)< -[4'(t)12
provided that
4" < min{G(O),G ( P ) ) ,which yields inequality
(3.26).
for all t E ( a ,b). Thus i f Ric2(v,v) 2 0 for all v E T H and condition (3.25) holds, the space-time (v,ij) will have everywhere positive Ricci curvatures. A globally hyperbolic family o f such space-times is provided by warped products
W e now consider the scalar curvature o f warped product manifolds o f the form = R x f H , 3 = -dt2 @ f h . W e will let n = dim H below. Given ( t , p )E M , choose el E T,H for 1 < j < n such that i f Zl = (0,e,) E T(t,p)%, then { d l & = ( d l d t ,O,),El,. . . ,En) forms a 3-orthonormal basis for T ( t , p ) M .
-
= (0,co) x f H , where ( H ,h ) is a complete Riemannian manifold of
116
3.7
SEMI-RIEMANNIAN LOCAL WARPED PRODUCT SPLITTINGS
117
Hence {mel,. . . , m e , } forms an h-orthonormal basis for T p H . Thus if r : 2 -+ W and

TH : H
-+
Lorentzian metric ijx = -dt2 @ eXth,i.e., f (t) = ext. By Theorem 3.70, for all X
W denote the scalar curvature functions of ( 2 , 3 )
and (H,h) respectively, we have
> 0 the space-time (Rn+',?jx) is future null geodesically complete but past null geodesically incomplete, and for all X < 0, the space-time (Rn+1,3x) is
past null geodesically complete but future null geodesically incomplete. Using formulas (3.28), (3.29), and (3.30), we obtain
and and Now formulas (3.23) and (3.24) above simplify to
Thus if X and
# 0, (zA,?jx)
is an Einstein space-time with constant positive scalar
curvature. E x a m p l e 3.74. Let li?x = (0,co) x f x3, where gA = -dt2 @ f h with

f (t) = At, X
for 1 5 j 5 n. Consequently, we obtain the formula

1 r ( t , p) = - r ~ (p)
> 0, and h the usual Euclidean metric on LR3. It is then immediate from formula (3.31) that r(gX)= 0 for all X > 0. Since d ( t ) = ln(Xt), it may
f (4
+ n+I1(t) +
1 (n2
be checked using formulas (3.28) and (3.29) that
(z~, 3,) is neither Ricci flat
+ n) [+'(t)12.
nor Einstein for any X
> 0. Also we have for any X > 0 that
Recalling that $(t) = In f (t), this may be rewritten as

?jA) are "inextendible across" for all t > 0. It follows that the space-times ( z A ,
where dim H = n as above. In particular, in the case that n = 3 as in general relativity, we obtain the simpler formula
(0) x R3 (cf. Section 6.5). Also, ( R x , g x )is future null geodesically complete
by Theorem 3.70.
3.7
Semi-Riemannian Local W a r p e d P r o d u c t Splittings
In each of the exact solutions to Einstein's equations which are presented E x a m p l e 3.73. With the formulas of this section in hand, we are now ready to give an example of a 1-parameter family gAof nonisometric Einstein metrics for Wn+' such that for X = 0, (Wn+l,go) is Minkowski space-time of dimension n + 1. Let (Wn, h) be Euclidean n-space with the usual Euclidean metric h = dx12 dx22+ - . . +dzn2, and put MA = lipn+' = W x f Wn with the
as warped product manifolds, the warped product decomposition emerges as a

natural mathematical expression of assumed physical symmetries. Moreover, formulas for warped product curvatures (cf. Proposition 3.76) indicate that any semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) must possess certain measures of symmetry and flatness in order to be (locally or globally) isometric to a warped product
118
LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS A N D CAUSALITY
3.7
SEMI-RIEMANNIAN LOCAL WARPED P R O D U C T SPLITTINGS
119
B x F. In this section we identify geometric conditions on a semi-Riemannian manifold (M,g) which are necessary and sufficient to ensure that (M,g) is locally isometric to a warped product B x f F. We shall call such a local isometry a 'Llocalwarped product splitting." There are a number of different "splitting" or decomposition theorems throughout differential geometry. For example, the splitting theorem of Geroch (1970a), Theorem 3.17 in this chapter, demonstrates that a globally hyperbolic space-time may be written as a particular type of topological product but not necessarily as a metric product. By contrast, a well-known result of de Rham [cf. Kobayashi-Nomizu (1963, p. 187)] asserts that a complete simply connected Riemannian manifold which has a reducible holonomy representation is isometric to a Riemannian product. Along very different lines, Chapter 14 provides the following Lorentzian analogue of the Cheeger-Gromoll Splitting Theorem: if (M, g) is a space-time of dimension n 2 3 which (1) is globally hyperbolic or timelike geodesically complete, (2) satisfies the timelike convergence condition, and (3) contains a complete timelike line, then (M, g) is isometric to a product (R x V, -dt2
$ h ) , where
The geometry of a warped product B x f F is expressed through the geometries of the base (B,gB) and fiber ( F , g F ) and various derivatives and integrals of the warping function f E 5(B). We will consider warped products
M = B x f F where both (B, g s ) and (F,gF) may be semi-Riemannian manifolds (thus generalizing the Lorentzzan warped products of Definition 3.51). The symbols
T
:M
-+
B and a
: M -+
F denote the standard projections.
As in portions of Section 3.6, we will find it convenient to consider the square root S of the warping function f . Throughout this sectzon, we wzll adhere t o
the conventzon that S ( b ) = warped product wzth metric tensor
for b E B where M = B x f F denotes a
The function S will be called the root warpzng functzon. As defined in Section 3.6, the lzft of f E 5 ( B ) to a function defined by the formula
j E
S ( M ) is
7= f o T. The lifted function will simply be denoted
(V,h ) is a complete Riemann-
by f as well, when no ambiguity results. A vector field V E X(B) is lifted to
ian manifold. Since a product manifold is trivially a warped product, either of these last two results clearly provides sufficient conditions to ensure that a manifold is globally isometric to a warped product. However, the examples (S1 x H, 3) of non-globally hyperbolic warped product space-times discussed in Section 3.6 indicate that causal assumptions such as global hyperbolicity are not necessary for the existence of a global warped product splitting. The global splitting question typically involves rather delicate topological considerations; our focus in this section will be on the simpler local warped
M by defining
E X(M) in such a manner that at each (p, q) E M , T/(p, q)
is the unique vector in the tangent space T(,,,]M such that both d ~ ( ? )= V and do(?) = 0. Similar definitions apply for lifts from F to M. We shall also denote lifted vector fields without the tildes, and we write V E C ( F ) to denote a vector field on M lifted from F. More generally, vectors tangent to
leaves B x q are called honzontal while those tangent t o fibers p x F are called vertzcal. Lifts of covariant tensors on B and F are now defined in the obvious
way through the use of the pullbacks
T*
and a*.
product splitting question: given a semi-Riemannian manifold (M,g) and a point p E M, what conditions are necessary and suficient for the existence of a n open neighborhood U of p such that the submanzfold (U,g lu) is isometric t o a warped product B x F ? The following assumption will be needed.
Convention 3.75. It will be assumed throughout the remainder of this
section that the neighborhood U mentioned above is a connected, simply connected, open set.
Let D denote the Levi-Civita connection on M, and use V to denote the Levi-Civita connections on both B and F. The curvature tensors on B x f F = M may be characterized through their actions on lifted horizontal and vertical vector fields. In the following proposition, the symbols B R and symbol H S will be used to denote
F~
denote the
lifts t o M of the Riemannian curvature tensors on B and F , respectively. The that in general H S ( X , Y) = H'(x, Y) only for horizontal vector fields X , Y. For notational simplicity, the bracket notation ( , ) will be occasionally used
5, the lift to M of the Hessian of S. Note
120
3.7
121
to denote the metric g on M; the metrics on B and F will always be denoted by g~ and g ~ . Some basic curvature formulas for warped product manifolds are now given in Proposition 3.76 for ease of reference. The standard reference for this material is O'Neill (1983). Proposition 3.76. Let the semi-Riemannian warped product M = B x f F have Riemannian curvature tensor R, Ricci curvature Ric, and root warping function S =
for all vector fields X , Y, and 2. The unit vector field i ( d / d y 2 ) does not have vanishing curl, in general. These observations lead to the following result. Lemma 3 . 7 7 . Given a two-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) and a point p E M, p has a neighborhood U such that (U, g lu) is isometric to
a warped product if and only if there exists a non-vanishing Killing field on

an open neighborhood of p.
a.Assume X, Y, Z
(9) V.
E C ( B ) and U, V, W E C(F).
Proof. The local existence of a nonvanishing Killing field about any point
of a two-dimensional semi-Riemannian warped product was noted above. Conversely, suppose there exists a neighborhood U about p E M having a nonvanishing Killing field V. If the Killing field is null, then it is well known that (U, g lu) is isometric to (a portion of) Minkowski two-space RT and hence is (trivially) a warped product. If the Killing field V is not null, then we may complete the classical construction of local geodesic (or Fermi) coordinates (xl, x 2 ) [cf. do Carmo (1976)] such that V = d/dx2 on U and x1 measures g-arc length along the geodesics orthogonal to the integral curves of V. In these coordinates the metric assumes the form ds2 = 1 dzl @ dxl
(1) If h f 5(B), then the gradient of the lift h o 7r of h to M = B x f F is the lift to M of the gradient of h on B, i.e., grad (71) = grad h. (2) DxY f L(B) is the lift of VxY on B, i.e., (3) DxV = D v X = (4) Ric(X, Y) = l?.ic(X,Y) -
D ~ =F (VxY).
I V
($) H'(x,
Y) where d = dim F.
(5) Ric(V, X ) = 0.
(6) Ric(V, W) = Ric(V, W) - (V,W)Sd where S n =
9 + (d - ,1 )
d = dimF, and AS is the
Laplacian of the root warping function S on B. Consider first the local warped product splitting question in dimension two. Assume a semi-Riemannian surface (M,g) is a warped product so that in the appropriate local coordinates (yl, y2) adapted to B and F , the metric is given by (3.34) g = cldyl 8 dyl
+ 2 F'(xl, x2)dx2 8 dx2

= 0,
where ci = & I , i = 1,2. Since V = d/dx2 is Killing, we must have yielding ds2 = 1 dxl 8 dxl
+ c2[s(y1)I2dy28 dy2
curve is a geodesic of M (more
+ 2 F'(x1)dx2 8 dx2
0
and leading to the desired local warped product representation.
where ci = r t l , i = 1,2. It is immediate that d/dy2 is a local Killing field (recall the elementary fact that a coordinate vector field d/dxk is Killing if and only if
In generalizing the preceding result to higher dimensions, the existence of a Killing field V must be supplemented by an integrability condition which allows the construction of leaves B x q orthogonal to V. This integrability condition holds trivially in dimension two but need not hold in higher dimensions where, in general, a Killing field need not be irrotational. It is also necessary to include the additional assumption that the Killing field be nonnull. Recall that a space-time (M, g) is called static if there exists on M a nowhere zero timelike Killing field X such that the distribution of (n- 1)-planes orthogonal to X is integrable. The following result parallels the formal construction
& = 0 for all i,j). Each (d/dyl)-integral
generally, each leaf B x q of a warped product is a totally geodesic submanifold). Thus d/dy2 restricted to y is a Jacobi field for each such coordinate geodesic y, and of course, {dl&', d/dy2) = 0 along y. Further, direct calculation shows that d/dyl is ir-rotational-that is, curl(d/dyl) = 0, where the curl of a vector field is the skew-symmetric (0,2) tensor defined through the formula (3.35) [curlX](Y, 2 ) = (DUX,2 ) - (Y, D z X )
124

--t
3.7
125
and a : (x1,x2,. . . , x n )
(0,0,. . . ,O,xn). For arbitrary X , Y f X(U) with Xi(d/dxi), Y = Yi(d/dxi), we have
of dimension two. The following computational lemma is a necessary preliminary step. In the following result, the symbols "K and B K will be used to denote the sectional curvatures of F and B , respectively. Since these objects are bnctions on the surfaces F and B, they may be unambiguously lifted to M as well. Proposition 3.79. Let M = B x f F be a 4-dimensional semi-Riemannian warped product with dim B = dim F = 2 and root warping function S = fl. For M to be Ricci fiat, it is necessary and sufficient that (1) F have constant sectional curvature F K , (2)
= sAs
coordinate basis expansions X =
+ gB(grad S, grad S )
= F K on B , where F~ is the
The "dimensional dual" of the preceding result asks for conditions necessary and sufficient to ensure that (M, g) is locally isometric to a warped product B x f F with dim B = 1. One answer to this question involves a construction which bears strong similarities to the formal development of the RobertsonWalker cosmological models [cf. O'Neill (1983)l. Recall that a signal feature of Robertson-Walker space-time is the presence of a proper time synchronizable geodesic observer field U . Since the observer field U is irrotational, the infinitesimal rest spaces of U may be integrated to provide local rest spaces. Through a construction quite similar to that of the preceding lemma, it is possible to verify the following [cf. Easley (1991)]: given an n-dimensional (n 2 3) semi-Riemannian manifold and point p E M I the point p has a neighborhood U (3)
constant value from (1) and A denotes the Laplacian on B, and
D x(grad S ) =
(p ) X for all X E L(B).
Further, if M is Ricci flat, then
A s-BK (4) -3-
onB,
and the sectional curvatures and root warping function are related as follows:
(5) K . S3= 2 C,w on B, where CM is a const ant, and (6) FK = B K . S2 g~ (grad S, grad S ) on B.
Proof. Using Proposition 3.76, we see that M is Ricci flat if and only if (3.36) (3.37) Ric(X, Y) - ~H'(X, Y) = 0 Ric(V, W) - (V, W)S$ = 0 and
M such that (U,glu) is isometric to a warped product B x j F with dim B = 1 and dim F = (n - 1) if and only if (1) there exists an irrotational
unit vector field U (either spacelike or timelike) on a neighborhood of p such that (2) the flow J[r induced by U acts as a positive homothety on the local ( n - 1)-dimensional submanifolds which are everywhere orthogonal to U near
for all X , Y E C ( B ) and V, W E C(F), where SQ = denotes the Laplacian on B. On the semi-Ftiemannian surface B we have
and A
p. Condition (2) is of course equivalent to a number of different geometric
conditions expressible in terms of curvature and the connection. The local splitting problem in the context of Ricci flat (M,g) has an extremely restricted class of solutions. We consider first the only case in dimension four which will not be subsumed under more general results, namely, the case when M is locally isometric to a warped product with base and fiber each with the analogous formula holding on the surface F (here the symbol Ric denotes the Ricci tensor on B and not its lift to M). Projecting equations (3.36) and (3.37) onto B and F respectively, we see that M is Ricci flat if and
126
3.7
127
only if the following two conditions hold: (3.38) (3.39) . g B ( X , Y ) = $H'(x,Y), FK . g ~ ( W) v =s~~F(v W)S' ,
B~
where and
F~
denotes the constant value of the sectional curvature of F. Differ-
entiating both sides of equation (3.41) produces

0 =s2(xBK)
for all X , Y E X(B) and V,W E X(F). Equation (3.39) must hold as we project from each fiber p x F into F. Since S is constant on fibers we see that equation (3.39) will hold if and only if
F~ =
+B = S 2 ( x B K )+ B =s 2 ( x B ~ +)3 . B
+ 2gB(vx(grad 2 ~S ) , grad~ S) ~ + S . B2 ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ )
~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ) .
~ ~
Thus, X(BK) = yielding
constant, and
(3 .
*K(xS)
for all
x t X(B)
f 2 ~ g = S A S + g ~ ( g r a d S , g r a d S ) = F ~OnB.
Rewriting the Hessian as H S ( x , Y) = gB(Vx(grad S), Y), equation (3.38) is equivalent to
and this holds for all lifts X E C(B). It follows that S3. B K is constant on B (and hence its lift is constant on M ) . which in turn holds if and only if Vx(grad S ) =
( B ~ .
It is now possible to characterize all (2 x 2) Ricci flat warped products
$) X
for all X E X(B).
M = B x j F with base B of constant curvature.

Corollary 3.80. If M = B x f F is a four-dimensional Ricci flat warped
product with base B a surface of constant curvature, then M is simply a product manifold B x G where B and G are flat two-manifolds. Thus the metric on M is semi-Euclidean. Proof. Assume B has constant curvature. Proposition 3.79-(5) shows that the root warping function S, and hence also the warping function f , must be as a product manifold. Equations constant on B , and thus M may be v~ewed (2) and (4) of Proposition 3.79 now imply that F and B are flat.
O
That conditions (I), (2) and (3) are necessary and sufficient for M to be Ricci flat now follows. Proposition 3.76-(2) is used to obtain the lifted form of condition (3). From condition (3) it follows that for a local orthonormal frame field Eo,El on B with
~i = gp,(Ei,
Ei),
Thus the Laplacian of S is given by
The following result deals with (2 x 2) warped products B x f F where the curvature
B~
is not constant.
By combining (3.40) with condition (21, we see that

(3.41)
F~
1
6
Proposition 3.81. Let M = B x j F be a R i c c ~flat semi-Riemannian

warped product with dim B = dim F = 2, and assume that the sectional curvatureBK of the base B isnot constant. IfgradS isnonnuil and (grad S)I, # 0
= Ks2
+ g~ (grad S, grad S )
B $
128
3.7
SEMI-RIEMANNIAN LOCAL W A R P E D P R O D U C T SPLITTINGS
129
a t a given point p E B, then there exist local coordinates (t, r ) on a neighborhood U
Furthermore, since
C B of p such
that the following conditions hold on U.
(1) The metric on B has coordinate expression ds2 = E(r)dt2 where G(r) = ( F K- % ) - I ,
+ G(r)dr2,
the gradient of S is given in (T,t ) coordinates by
E(T) = i G - ' , CM is a constant, and
F K is the constant value of the sectional curvature on F.

(2) The root warping function has the form S(t, T) = T.
(3) The sectional curvature on B is given by B ~ ( t) ~ = ,
9.
Equation (5) of Proposition 3.79 now shows that the curvature on the surface
The sign of E in condition (1) depends upon the signature of B. Proof. Assume grad S is nonnull and (grad S)I,
B is a function solely of r and is given by
# 0.
By continuity, we may
find a neighborhood U of p on which the gradient of S is non-vanishing. Let co = S-'(k) n U ,k E W+,denote a single level curve of S in U. Consider geodesics intersecting co orthogonally; these geodesics are also integral curves of grad S, and the orthogonal trajectories of these geodesics are level sets of
Now gB(grad S,grad S ) = &, so formula (6) of Proposition 3.79 yields
S. Applying the classical geodesic coordinate construction, we introduce local

coordinates (u, u) such that the geodesics are the u = constant curves and the orthogonal trajectories are the u = constant curves. In these coordinates the metric assumes the form We have determined the metric coefficient G: Rescale coordinates, introducing r = T(U)and t = t(v) such that r(u) = S(u) and Da,at(a/at) = 0. It remains to determine the form of the metric coefficient E ( t , r ) . We first show that E is a function only of the variable E(r). Note that
r
Thus, r merely traces the values of the warping function S, and t is an affine coordinate along the geodesics. It should be noted that this will imply In ( t , r ) coordinates we have metric tensor components
T
and then derive the function
> 0.
so that in particular we have with the root warping function given simply by
= 0. However, since
(t,r ) are orthogonal coordinates,
1 E . G . ~ ; ,= l ~ t . ~ .
It follows that Et = 0 and E is a function solely of r .
130
3.7
131
Now using Proposition 3.79 with grad S = Dalat
&&,
we obtain
absolute values since the end result will show such considerations to be unnecessary.
(&g)
t1
(BK .
S d Z ) z,
or equivalently
CM Dalat ( a l d r ) = 7-2 at'

a
=
giving
7 z.
Since B K = that
G.CM d
However, in the orthogonal ( t ,T ) coordinate system, we have
9, we see that a = 1, and the sign in this final term is deter-
mined by the signature of B and the sign of G ( r ) . We have therefore shown
It follows that ~ C M Er = G(T)-
Observe that dt is a local nonvanishing Killing field on U in the above lemma,
T-2
'
and thus
which is valid for spaces of arbitrary signature. Let us now fix the signature of all spaces under consideration to the Lorentzian signature (-,
+, +, +). Corol-
lary 3.80 and Proposition 3.81 now have the following import: a Ricci flat
(2 x 2) warped product M is completely specified (locally) by the choice of
base ( B , g B ) and the constants With the substitution y = F~ -
F~
and CMin Proposition 3.79. Since we are
%,this becomes
giving or finally
working locally, we may assume the fiber F of constant sectional curvature F K is a subset of (1) the sphere S 2 ( p )if " K = (2) Euclidean space Ift2if
F~
l=I In I E
J 3, ? f
+ c,
$,
= 0, or
l n ] E l = fIn lyl
( 3 ) hyperbolic space H 2 ( p )if F K = - 7 .

Theorem 3.82. Assume ( M ,g) is a Ricci Aat four-manifold of Lorentzian
signature (-,
.=fa.
(FK_+)
and
r
+, +,+), and let p E M be any point of M.

~ positive )
The point p has a
where a = eC is positive. In orthogonal coordinates with e =
g=
m,the curvature is given by the classical formula
neighborhoodU such that (U, g lu) is isometric to a (2 x 2) warped product with both parameters (CM, F
k
and nonconstant sectional curvature B K
on B if and only if M is locally isometric to an open subset of Schwarzschild CM "space-time with mass Mo = -
i
Since E and G are functions of r only, this reduces to the following simple formula. We are ignoring the case-by-case analysis of the signs involving the
b
( F K ) ~ '
Proof. Assume M admits such a local warped product structure. Since we are working locally, we may assume the fiber F is the 2-sphere of radius 1 JF7;;'
132
3.7
133
Let du2 denote the canonical metric on the unit 2-sphere. Proposition 3.81 implies the metric may be expressed on U in the form
(2) (F, g ~ is ) an Einstein manifold with
Ric = 2(grad S,grad S)gF =
CO. gF.
This result indicates that a Ricci flat manifold ( M , g ) can admit only one of a restricted class of local warped product splitting at p f M if we require
with E(r) = ( becomes
F ~ -
%).
F K
Upon making the change of variables u = --$-- and v = tm, the metric
dim B = 1. If dim F = 2, for example, it follows that F is a surface of constant curvature F K since FRic = F we have S =
~ in g this ~ case. If we also assume F K = 0,

product is merely a standard
Jf = constant, and the warped
product manifold with a semi-Euclidean metric. has constant If dim F = 3, it follows that the Einstein manifold ( F , ~ F ) thus demonstrating the first claim. The converse is now clear.
13
curvature [cf. Petrov (1969, p. 77) 1. If (F, g ~ is)Riemannian, we may consider F a subset of
(1) the sphere S3(r) if
F~
This result should be contrasted with Birkhoff's Theorem [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 372)j on spherically symmetric solutions to Einstein's vacuum field equations, which also offers an alternate proof of Theorem 3.82.
5'
1
(2) Euclidean space IR3 if FK = 0, or (3) hyperbolic space ~ ~ (if r F~) = - 7
Theorem (Birkhoff). Any C2 solution of Einstein's empty space equations which is spherically symmetric in an open set V is locally equivalent to part of the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution in V. The typical construction of Schwarzschild space-time [cf. O'Neill (1983)l follows the proof of Birkhoff's theorem. A number of strong physical assump tions, not the least of which is spherical symmetry, lead one inevitably to Schwarzschild space-time as the unique model. What we have shown is that a Ricci flat space-time which possesses enough symmetry t o be expressed locally as a (2 x 2) warped product must have spherical, planar, or hyperbolic symmetry. In the first case we obtain the conclusion t o Birkhoff's Theorem:
with analogous restrictions holding if g~ is indefinite. An exact solution to Einstein's equations which uses F = S3 is the spatially homogeneous TaubNUT model [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 170)].
M is locally isometric to a portion of Schwarzschild space-time.

The following result may be established by an argument similar to the one employed in the proof of Proposition 3.79 [cf. Easley (1991)].
Theorem 3.83. Let M = B x f F be a semi-Riemannian warped product

with dim B = 1 and dim F = n 2 2. For M to be Ricci flat, i t is necessary and sufficient that the following two conditions hold. (1) The root warping function S satisfies (grad S,grad S ) = Co,a constant.
CHAPTER 4
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
With the basic properties of Riemannian metrics in mind (cf. Chapter I), it is the aim of this chapter to study the corresponding properties of Lorentzian distance and to show how the Lorentzian distance is related to the causal structure of the given space-time. which preserve the metric tensor. While there are many similarities between the Riemannian and Lorentzian distance functions, many basic differences will also be apparent from this chapter. Nonetheless, a duality between "minimal" for Riemannian manifolds and "maximal" for Lorentzian manifolds will be noticed in this and subsequent chapters.
4.1
We also show that Lorentzian distance
preserving maps of a strongly causal space-time onto itself are diffeomorphisms
Basic Concepts and Definitions
Let (M,g ) be a Lorentzian manifold of dimension n with p
> 2.
Given p, q E M
< q, let fl,,,
denote the path space of all future directed nonspacelike is then defined as follows [cf. Hawking and Ellis
Qp,,,
curves y : [0, I] + M with $0) = p and $1) = q. The Lorentzian arc length functional L
= L, : Clp,q 'R
(1973, p. 105)]. Given a piecewise smooth curve y E 0 = to < tl < ... < t,-l
choose a partition
< tn = 1 such that
y 1 (t,.t,+l) is smooth for each
i = 0 , 1 , . . . ,n - 1. Then define
It may be checked as in elementary differential geometry [cf. O'Neill (1966, pp. 51-52)] that this definition of Lorentzian arc length is independent of
136
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1
BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
137
are curves y E
Q,,q
with arbitrarily small Lorentzian arc length. Hence, the
infimum of Lorentzian arc lengths of all piecewise smooth curves joining any two chronologically related points p << q is always zero. However, if p and q lie in a geodesically convex neighborhood U, the future directed timelike geodesic segment in U from p to q has the largest Lorentzian arc length among all nonspacelike curves in U from p to q. Thus it is natural t o make the following definition of the Lorentzian distance function d = d(g) : M x M of (M, g).
+
W U {m)
Definition 4.1. (Lorentzian Distance Function)

if q
Given a point p in M ,
:y E
9 J+(p), set d(p, q ) = 0. If q E J+(P), set d(p,q) = sup{L,(y)
n,,,).
From the definition. it is immediate that (4.2) d(p, q)
>0
if and only if
q E I'(p).
Thus the Lorentzian distance function determines the chronological past and future of any point. However, the Lorentzian distance function in general fails FIGURE 4.1. L(yn) --t 0. the parametrization of y. Since an arbitrary nonspacelike curve satisfies a local Lipschitz condition, it is differentiable almost everywhere. Hence the Lorentzian arc length L(7) of 7 may still be defined using (4.1). Alternative but equivalent definitions of L(y) for arbitrary nonnull nonspacelike curves may be given by approximating y by C' timelike curves [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 214)] or by approximating y by sequences of broken nonspacelike geodesics {cf.Penrose (1972, p. 53)j. The Lorentzian arc length of an arbitrary null curve may be set equal to zero. Now fix p, q E M with p The timelike curve y from p to q is approximated
+y
to determine the causal past and future sets of p since d(p,q) = 0 does not imply g E J+(p) - I+(p). But at least if q E J+(p) - Ii(p), then d(p, q) = 0. We emphasize that the Lorentzian distance d(p, q) need not be finite. One way that the condition d(p, q) = m may occur is that tirnelike curves from p to q may attain arbitrarily large arc lengths by approaching certain boundary points of the space-time. Ellis (1973, p. 160)]. In Figure 4.2, two points with d(p,q) = co are shown in a Reissner-Nordstrijm space-time with e2 = m2 [cf. Hawking and
by a sequence of curves {y,) with yn
in the C0 topology but
A second way Lorentzian distance may become infinite is through causality violations. Recall that a space-time is said to be vicious at the point p E M if I+(p) n I-(p) = M and totally vicious if I+(p) n I V ( p ) = M for all p E M.
Lemma 4.2. Let (M, g) be an arbitrary space-time.
(1) I f p E If(p), thend(p,p) = co. Thusforeachp E M , eitherd(p,p) = 0 or d(p,p) = co. (2) (M,g) is totally vicious iff d(p, q) = m for all p, q E M. (3) If (M, g) is vicious a t p, then (M,g) is totally vicious.
< < q.
If y is any timelike curve from p to q, then

+
L(y) > 0. On the other hand, y may be approximated by a sequence (7,)
of piecewise smooth "almost null" curves y, : [O,1] yn(l) = q such that yn

+
M with yn(0) = p and
y in the Co topology, but L(yn) -+ 0 (cf. Figure 4.1).
This construction shows, moreover, that given any p, q E M with p << q, there
138
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1
139
Proof.(1) Suppose p
y : [0,1]
+
E I+(p). Then we may find a closed timelike curve
M with y(0) = y(1) = p. Since y is timelike, L(y) > 0. If

-+ ca
u, E R , , is the timelike curve obtained by traversing y exactly n times, then L(u,) = nL(y)
as n
--t
ca. Thus d(p,p) = m . with L(yl) 2 n by from p to q. Then
(2) Suppose (M,g) is totally vicious. Fix p, q E M, and let n > 0 be any positive integer. Since p E I+(p), we may find yl E R,,, part (1). Since q E I+(p), there is a timelike curve y = yl
72
* yz E R,,,
is a timelike curve with length L(y) = L(y1)
+ L(yz) > n.
Hence d(p, q) = m. Conversely, suppose d(p, q) = m for all p,q E M . Fixing r E M , we have d(r,p) > 0 and d(p,r) I + ( r ) n I-(r) = M . (3) Inspired by Lemma 4.2-(2), T. Ikawa and H. Nakagawa (1988) proved (3) using the Lorentzian distance function. Subsequently, B. Wegner (1989) noted that the following elementary argument yields the desired result. Let q E M = I+(p)nI-(p). Then q E I+(p) so I-(p)
> 0 for all p
E M . Thus by (4.2), it follows that
C I-(q)
by the transitivity of
<. Similarly, q E I-(p)

+ -
implies I+(p) 5 I+(q). Hence, M = I+(p) n I-(p)
By Definition 4.1, if I+(p)
# M then there are points q E M with d(p, q) = 0
FIGURE 4.2.
A Reissner-Nordstrom space-time with e2
= m2 is
but p # q. Hence unlike the Riemannian distance function, the Lorentzian distance function usually fails to be nondegenerate. Indeed, we have seen that d(p,p)
shown. By taking timelike curves y from p to q close to Jf and

3-. we can make L(y) arbitrarily large. Thus d(p, q) = m , which
> 0 is possible. But if (M, g) is chronological, then d(p,p)
= 0 for all
means an accelerated observer may take arbitrarily large amounts of time in going from p to q.
p E M. Also, the Lorentzian distance function tends to be nonsymmetric. More precisely, the following may be shown for arbitrary space-times.
Remark 4.3. If p # q and d(p, q) and d(q,p) are both finite, then either
d(p,q) = 0 or d(q,p) = 0. Equivalently, if d(p,q) > 0 and d(q,p) > 0, then d(p, 9) = 4 9 , P) = a.
Proof. If d(p, q) > 0 and d(q,p)
A further consequence of Definition 4.1 is that if y : [O,ca) -+ (M, g) is any

future directed, future complete, timelike geodesic in a n arbitrary space-time (M, g ) , then limt,c,
a : [0,m )
d(r(O), y(t)) 2 limt,m L(y I 10,t ] ) = m . By contrast,
complete Riemannian manifolds (N,go) may contain (nonclosed) geodesies
> 0, we may find future directed timelike

--+
(NIgo) for which sup{do(u(0),u(t)) : t 2 0) is finite. Fur-
curves yl from p to q and yz from q to p, respectively. Define a sequence (7,) by yn = yl * (72 * y ~ E )Rp,q. ~ AS n infinite. Similarly, d(q, p) = m . m , L(yn)
+
ther assumptions are needed for Riemannian manifolds to guarantee that limt,, d(u(O), u(t)) = co for all geodesics a : [O,m)
--+
m , whence d(p,q) is
(N,go) [cf. Cheeger
and Ebin (1975, pp. 53 and 151)].
140
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1
While the Lorentzian distance function fails to be symmetric and nondegenerate, at least a reverse triangle inequality holds (cf. Figure 1.3). Explicitly, (4.3) If P < r
< q, then d(p, q) 2 d(p, r ) + d(r, q).
We now discuss some properties of the Lorentzian distance that make it a useful tool in general relativity and Lorentzian geometry. First, the Lorentzian distance function is lower semicontinuous where it is finite [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 215)].
Lemma 4.4. For Lorentzian distance d, if d(p,q) < m, p,
+
p, and
p, and
qn
q,
-+
+
q, then d(p,q) 5 liminf d(p,,q,). q, then limn,, d(p,, q,) = m.
Also, if d(p,q) = m, p,
Proof. First consider the case d(p,q) < m. If d(p, q) = 0, there is nothing
to prove. If d(p,q)
> 0, then q E
I+(p) and the lower semicontinuity follows

6
from the following fact. Given any
> 0, a timelike curve y of length L
>
FIGURE^.^. L e t M b e { ( x , y ) : O < y < 2 ) - { ( x , l ) : - 1 5 x 5 1 )
d(p, q) - 12 from p to q and sufficiently small neighborhoods Ul of p and U2 of q may be found such that y may be deformed to give a timelike curve of length L' 2 d(p, q) - c from any point r of Ul to any point s of U2. Suppose now that d(p,q) = oo but liminfd(p,,q,)
= R
with the identification (x, 0)
(x, 2) and the flat Lorentzian metric

+
ds2 = dx2 - dy2. Let p = (O,O), q = (0,1/2), and p,
p as shown.
Then p, E I+(pn) and hence d(pn,pn)= m for all n. For large n we have q E I+(p,) and thus d(p,,q) = m. On the other hand, d(p, q) = 112 which yields d(p, q)
<
m.
Since
d(p, q) = m there exists a timelike curve y from p to q of length L(y)
>
< lim inf d(p,, q). This space-
R + 2. This implies that there exist neighborhoods Ul and Uz of p and q, respectively, such that y can be deformed to give a timelike curve of length
L' R 1 from any point r of Ul to any point s of U2. This contradicts lim inf d(p,, q,) = R. 0
In general, the Lorentzian distance function fails to be upper semicontinuous. We give an example of a space-time (M, g) containing an infinite sequence {p,) with p, -+ p and a point q E I+(p) such that d(p,,q) = m for all large n but d(p, q) < ca (cf. Figure 4.3). For globally hyperbolic space-times, on the other hand, the Lorentzian distance function is finite and continuous just like the Riemannian distance function.
time is not causal. However, the distance function may also fail to be upper semicontinuous in causal space-times (cf. Figure 4.6).
> +
Proof. To prove the finiteness of d, cover the compact set J+(p) n J-(q)
. .. ,B, such that with a finite number of convex normal neighborhoods B1, B2, no nonspacelike curve which leaves any Biever returns and such that every nonspacelike curve in each Bi has length at most one. Since any nonspacelike curve y from p to q can enter each Bi no more than once, L(y) 5 m. Hence d(p1q) 5 m. If d failed to be upper semicontinuous at (p,q) E M x M, we could find
a 6
> 0 and sequences ipn) and {q,) converging to
p and q respectively,
such that d(p,, q,) 2 d(p, q)
+ 26
for all n. By definition of d(p,, q,), we
L e m m a 4.5. For a globally hyperbolic space-time (M,g), the Lorentzian

distance function d is finite and continuous on M x M.
may then find a future directed nonspacelike curve y, from p, to q, with L(y,) 2 d(p, q) + 6 for each n. By Corollary 3.32, the sequence {y,) has a
142
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1
nonspacelike limit curve y from p to q. By Proposition 3.34, a subsequence {y,) of {y,) converges to y in the C0 topology. Hence L(y) 2 d(p, q) + 6 by Remark 3.35. But this contradicts the definition of Lorentzian distance. Thus d is upper semicontinuous a t (p, q). U
We now define the following distance condition [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1977,
Condition 4)].
Definition 4.6. (Finite Distance Condition)

isfies the finite distance condition if d(g)(p, q)
The space-time (M, g) sat-
< m for all p, q f M.
Lemma 4.5 then has the following corollary.
Corollary 4.7. If (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, then (M,g) satisfies the

finite distance condition and d(g) : M x M
+R
is continuous.
If (MIg) is globally hyperbolic, all metrics in the conformal class C ( M , g) are globally hyperbolic. Hence all metrics in C(M,g) satisfy the finite distance condition. We will examine the converse of this statement in Section 4.3, Theorem 4.30. Since the given topology of a smooth manifold coincides with the metric topology induced by any Riemannian metric, it is natural to consider the sets {m f I+(p) : d(p, m) < E) for a Lorentzian manifold. However, as Minkowski space shows, these sets do not form a basis for the given manifold topology (cf. Figure 4.4). Indeed, this same example shows that no matter how small
E
FIGURE 4.4.
The set B + ( p , ~ )= {q E I+(p) : d(p,q)
< E)
in Minkowski space-time does not have compact closure, is not geodesically convex, and does not contain p. Furthermore, sets of the form B+(p, E) do not form a basis for the manifold topology. But in general, if (M,g) is a distinguishing space-time with
a continuous Lorentzian distance function, then a subbasis for the
manifold topology is given by sets of the form B+(p, E)and B-(p, E) [cf. Proposition 4.311. Hence these sets do form a subbasis for the given topology of Minkowski space-time.
> 0 is chosen, the sets {m E J f (p) : d(p, m) 5
E)
may fail to be compact
and fail to be geodesically convex as well as failing to be diffeomorphic to the closed n-disk. The sphere of radius
E
for the point p f M is given by K ( ~ , E= ) {q E M :
nor the past inner ball B-(P, 1 = {q f I-(P) : d(q,P) < 1 need be open. On the other hand, when the distance function d : M x M
-+
d(p,q) = E). This set need not be compact. However, the reverse triangle inequality and (4.2) imply that K(p, E) is achronal for all finite E > 0 and all
p~ M .
In arbitrary space-times, neither the future inner ball
R U {m) is continuous, these inner balls must be open. In Section 4.3 we will
show that for distinguishing space-times with continuous distance functions, the past and future inner balls form a subbasis for the manifold topology.
144
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1
145
A different subbasis for the topology of any strongly causal space-time

(M,g) with a possibly discontinuous distance function d = d(g) : M x M -+
WU{co) may be obtained by using the outer balls O+(p, E)and 0-(p, E)rather
than the inner balls. The outer ball O+fp,E) [respectively, 0 - ( p , ~ ) ]of I+(p) [respectively, I-(p)] is given by
Definition 4.8. (Outer Balls O+(p,E), 0-(p, e))
respectively, O-(P,E) = {q E M : d(q,p) > E) (cf. Figure 4.5) Since the Lorentzian distance function is lower semicontinuous where it is finite, the outer balls O+(p, E)and 0 - ( p , E) are open in arbitrary space-times. The reverse triangle inequality implies that these sets also have the property that if m, n f O+(p, E ) [respectively, m, n E 0-(p, E)]and m ,< n , then any future directed nonspacelike curve from m to n lies in Ot(p, 0-(p, E)]. Moreover, we have Theorem 4.9. Let (M, g) be strongly causal. Then the collection
E)
[respectively,
FIGURE 4.5.
The outer balls Of (p, E) = {q E M
d(p, q)
> E)
and 0-(p, E) = {q f M : d(q,p) > E) are open in arbitrary spacetimes. Furthermore, O+(p, <) and 0 - ( p , <) are always subsets of I+(p) and I-(p), respectively. If (M,g) is strongly causal, the outer balls O+(p, E ) and 0-(p, E) with p E M and form a subbasis for the manifold topology.
E
> 0 arbitrary
forms a basis for the given manifold topology. For complete Riemannian manifolds, any two points may be joined by a Proof. Let m f M be given, and let U be any open neighborhood containing m. We may find a local causality neighborhood Ul with m E Ul
PI << m
(< p2
minimal (distance-realizing) geodesic segment. We now examine the dual of this property for space-times. In Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 110), a timelike geodesic y from p to q is said to be maximal if the index form of y is negative semidefinite. This definition implies that if the geodesic y is not maximal, there exist variations of y which yield curves from p to q "close" to y having longer Lorentzian arc length than
y. If y is maximal in this sense, however, no small variation of y keeping p
C U,
i.e.,
no nonspacelike curve which leaves Ul ever returns. Choose pl,p2 E Ul with such that I+(pl)flI-(pz) C Ul. By the chronology assumptions on PI and p2, we have d(p1, m) > 0 and d(m,pz) > 0. Choose constants el, t2 with 0 < 1 < d(p1,m) and 0 < 2 < d(m,pz). Then m E O + ( p l , ~ l ) n 0-(pz, 2). Since 0' (PI, 1) C I+(pl) and 0 - ( p z , ~ z ) G I-(pz), we also have O+(PI,1) n 0-(pz, 2) E I+(pl) n I-fpz)
c UI c u as required.
and q fixed will produce timelike curves u from p to q with L(u) > L(y).
146
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
a 1
4.1
147
Nonetheless, there may still exist a timelike geodesic
in M from p to q
that y(t) $ Int(@). Let yl be the unique null geodesic in U from p to y(t), and let yz be the unique null geodesic in U from y(t) t o q. By Proposition 2.19 of Penrose (1972, p. 15), y l * is ~either ~ a smooth null geodesic or p << q. Since d(p, q) = 0, p << q is impossible. Hence yl
("far" from y) with d(p,q) = L(o1) > L(y). Thus maximality as defined by Hawking and Ellis does not imply "maximality in the large." To study "maximality in the large," we adopt, in analogy to the concept of minimality in Riemannian geometry, a definition of maximality valid for all curves in the path space O,,, [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1977, Definition I)]. The motivation for our definition is Theorem 4.13 below [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, p. 166)] and its applications, particularly the construction of geodesics as limit curves of sequences of "almost maximal" curves in Chapter 8 and the definition of the Lorentzian cut locus in Chapter 9. Definition 4.10. (Maximal Curve) Let p, q E M with p
* 7 2 is a smooth null geodesic

17
which, by convexity of U , must coincide with ?5-Q up to parametrization. Proposition 4.12 has the following important consequence.
Theorem 4.13. If y E Op,, satisfies L(y) = d(p,q), then y may be reparametrized to be a smooth geodesic.
Proof. Fix any point y(t) on y. We may find 6 > 0 such that a con-
< q, p # q. The
vex neighborhood centered at y(t
+ 6) contains y([t - 6, t + 61).
By Remark
curve y E Op,, is said to be maximal if L(y) = d(p,q). An immediate consequence of the reverse triangle inequality (4.3) is Remark 4.11. If y : [O, 11 -+ M in R,,, is maximal, then for all s , t with 0 5 s < t 5 1, we have d(y(s),y(t)) = L(y j [s,t]). The following result, stated somewhat differently in Penrose (1972, Proposition 7.2), is the analogue of the principle in Riemannian geometry that "locally" geodesics minimize arc length [cf. Bishop and Crittenden (1964, p. 149, Theorem 2)]. Proposition 4.12. Let U be a convex normal neighborhood centered at point p E M. For q E J f ( p ) , Jet jjij denote the unique nonspacelike geodesic
1 is maximal. Thus Proposition 4.12 implies that 4.11 the curve y I [t - 6, t + 6 y I [t - 6, t + 6 1 may be reparametrized to be a smooth geodesic. As t was arbitrary, the theorem now follows. As an illustration of the use of Definition 4.10 and Theorem 4.13, we give a simple proof of a basic result in elementary causality theory [cf. Penrose (1972, Proposition 2.20)] that is usually obtained by different methods. Corollary 4.14. If p
< q but it is not the case that p < < q, then there is a
maximal null geodesic from p to q.
Proof. The causality assumptions on p and q imply that d(p, q) = 0. Now let y be a future directed nonspacelike curve from p t o q. By definition of
Lorentzian distance, d(p,q) 2 L(y) 2 0. Thus L(y) = d(p,q) = 0 and y is maximal. By Theorem 4.13, y may be reparametrized t o a smooth geodesic c : \O, 1 1 --t M from p t o q. Since L(c) 5 d(p, q ) = 0, the geodesic c must be a null geodesic.
1 -+ U in U with c(0) = p and c(l) = q. If y is any future directed c : [O, 1

nonspacelike curve in U from p to q with L(y) = d(p, q), then y coincides with jjij up to parametrization.
Proof. For q E I+(p) and d(p,q) > 0, Penrose (1972, p. 53) shows, using a synchronous coordinate system, that if y is any causal trip in U from p to q
other than ?5-Q, then L(y) < L(jjij) = d(p, q). This may be obtained equivalently using the Gauss Lemma (cf. Corollary 10.19 of Section 10.1). Hence the result is established if d(p, q)
Note in Corollary 4.14 that since the null geodesic is maximal, it cannot contain any null conjugate points to p prior to q [cf. O'Neill (1983, p. 404)j. A sometime useful special case of Corollary 4.14 occurs when p = q is assumed. In this case, one may deduce that if the space-time ( M , g ) is chronological but not causal, then there exists a smooth null geodesic
> 0.
+
I ki ;
Suppose now that d(p, q) = 0, and let y be any nonspacelike curve in U from p to q. Then L(y) 5 d(p, q) = 0. Thus y : [O,1]
I
t
: [O, 1 1i (M, g)
M is a null curve. Suppose
with P(0) = @(I) and p ( 1 ) = Ap(0) for some A > 0. (If p ( 1 ) and p ( 0 )
148
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.1

+
149
were not proportional, then ,O could be deformed near P(0) to be future timelike, contradicting the condition d(m, m) = 0 for all m in M , since (M, g) is chronological [cf. Proposition 2.19 of Penrose (1972, p. 15)]. Even more dramatically, a closed timelike curve could be produced to violate chronology [cf. Proposition 10.46 of O'Neill (1983, pp. 294-295)].) As a second application of the elementary properties of the distance function, we give a proof of the existence of a smooth closed timelike geodesic on any compact space-time having a regular cover with a compact Cauchy surface. Using infinite-dimensional Morse theory, it may be shown [cf. Klingenberg (1978)] that any compact Riemannian manifold admits a t least one smooth closed geodesic. However, the method of proof relies crucially on the positive definiteness of the metric and thus is not applicable to Lorentzian manifolds. Nonetheless, one may obtain the following theorem of Tipler by direct methods [cf. Tipler (1979) for a stronger result].
M is a timelike geodesic. Since Z(0) = r l and E(1) = +(rl), we also have c(0) = c(1). If c were not smooth at c(O), we could deform c to a timelike curve u : [O, 11 + M with a(0) E S1and Z(1) = q(Z(0)) E
S2.
hyperbolic. Because 5 = ~ ' g it , follows that c = ?r oE : [0, I]
with L,(o) > L(c), a(0) = u(1) E ~ ( S I )which , lifts to a curve 3 : [O,1 1 -+ M But then L z ( a ) = L,(u)
> L,(c)
L a (Z) = A, in contradiction. 0
More recently, G. Galloway (1984b) has obtained, by elementary geometric arguments, the existence of a closed timelike geodesic from any stable nontrivial free homotopy class of closed timelike curves on an arbitrary compact spacetime. Galloway's approach is based on geodesic convexity methods which were earlier used to obtain a result, basic to the development of global Riemannian geometry during the early part of this century, given first by J. Hadamard for surfaces and then by E. Cartan for general Riemannian manifolds of higher dimension. Their result concerns the existence, within any nontrivial free homotopy class of curves on a compact Riemannian manifold, of a shortest curve in the given homotopy class, which must then be a nontrivial smooth closed geodesic. From a directly geometric viewpoint, certain basic ideas involved in the existence of this geodesic are the following.
Theorem 4.15. Let (M,g) be a compact space-time with a regular covering space which is globally hyperbolic and has a compact Cauchy surface.
Then (M, g) contains a closed timelike geodesic. Proof. Since M is compact, there exists a closed, future directed, timelike curve y : [0,1] + M. Set p = y(0) = y(1). Let T : G -+ M denote the given covering manifold, and let 7 : [0, I] + M be a lift of y, i.e., ~ o y ( t = ) y(t) for all
t E [0, 1 1 . Then 7 is a future directed timelike curve in
z . Put pl
> 0 denote the infimum of all lengths of curves in this homotopy class. Choose a minimizing sequence {ck) with lim L(ck) = LOin the given free
Let Lo homotopy class. By compactness and convexity radius arguments, one covers the given manifold by a finite number of geodesically convex neighborhoods (each having compact closure in a larger geodesically convex neighborhood). Using these neighborhoods in succession, each ck may be approximated by a piecewise smooth geodesic, or equivalently, may be viewed as an N-tuple of successive points pl(k),p2(k),... ,pN(k), where a uniform bound needs to be given for the number N of points required. Since a geodesic segment in a convex neighborhood is the shortest curve between any two of its points, this approximation procedure produces a shorter curve than ck, but one which is also still homotopic to ck, and hence is in the given free homotopy class. By compactness, a diagonalizing argument gives points pi, pz, . . . , p which ~ are limits of a subsequence of all of the above sequences. Joining p, to p,+l
= y(0) and
implies pl and p2 are distinct p2 = r(1). Then the global hyperbolicity of points which cannot lie on any common Cauchy surface. Since T : G -+ M is regular, there must be a deck transformation 11, : G -t
% taking pl
to pz
[cf. Wolf (1974, pp. 35-38, 60)j. Choose a compact Cauchy surface S1 of
containing pl, and define S 2 = $I(&). Since (%,7j) is globally hyperbolic, the - distance function d = d(Z) : M x M + WU (m) is finite-valued and continuous. Thus we may define a continuous function f : S1 -t W by f (s) = d(s, $(s)). Since f 071) > 0, we have A = sup{d(s, +(s))
+
:s
E S1) > 0. Moreover, since
S1 is compact, A < w and there exists an rl E S 1 with d(rl111,(rl)) = A. Let E : [0, I] be a timelike geodesic segment with Z(0) = TI, Z(1) = $(rl), and L(E) = d(rl,$(rl)) = A. This geodesic exists since ( z , ~ is ) globally
150
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.2
DISTANCE PRESERVING AND HOMOTHETIC MAPS
151
successively produces a piecewise smooth geodesic c in the given free homotopy class which realizes the minimal length Lo. Now the geodesic c must in fact be smooth a t the pi's, or an even shorter closed curve in the free homotopy class could be produced by the usual "rounding off the corners" procedure. Since Lo > 0, this closed geodesic c must be nontrivial, i.e., not a "point curve." A detailed discussion of the steps involved in the above argument may be found in Spivak (1979, p. 358). Now in carrying these ideas over to the space-time setting, it is clear that "minimal geodesic segment" should be replaced by "maximal timelike geodesic segment." Technical difficulties arise, however, since the set of unit timelike tangent vectors based at a given point is not a compact set. Hence, problems can arise with timelike tangent vectors tending toward a null direction when trying to d o subsequence arguments. Equivalently, in the above context, it is necessary t o prevent timelike geodesic segments joining pi(k) t o pi+l(k) from converging t o a null geodesic segment from pi to pi+l when the diagonalization procedure is carried out. Indeed, Galloway (198613) gives a n example of a compact space-time which contains no closed timelike geodesics but which contains a closed null geodesic. In view of these difficulties, Galloway (1984b) considers timelike free homotopy classes which are "stable" for a given compact space-time (M,go). Here a given free timelike homotopy class C for (M, go) is said to be stable if there exists a "wider" Lorentzian metric g for M , i.e., go < g in the sense of the discussion following Remark 3.14, such that if L, denotes the Lorentzian arc length for (M,g), then the given timelike homotopy class C satisfies the condition sup L,(c)
CE
class of closed timelike curves to be stable. Finally, we note that in Galloway (198613) it is shown by covering space arguments that every compact twodimensional Lorentzian manifold contains a closed timelike or null geodesic. Here one uses dimension two in the essential way that a closed timelike curve for
(M, g) corresponds to a closed spacelike curve (hence a spacelike hypersurface)

for (M, -g), which is also a Lorentzian manifold since dim(M) = 2. Thus, certain techniques in general relativity involving spacelike hypersurfaces may be applied to the existence problem.
4.2
Distance P r e s e r v i n g a n d H o m o t h e t i c M a p s
Myers and Steenrod (1939) and Palais (1957) have shown that i f f is a distance preserving map of a Riemannian manifold (Nl, gl) onto a Riemannian manifold (N2,g2), then f is a diffeomorphism which preserves the metric tensors, i.e., f *gz = 91. In particular, every distance preserving map of (Nl,gl) onto itself is a smooth isometry. In this section we give similar results for Lorentzian manifolds following Beem (1978a). Recall that a diffeomorphism f : (M1,gl)
+
(M2,gz) of the Lorentzian
manifold (M1,gl) onto the Lorentzian manifold (M2,gz) is said to be homothetic if there exists a constant c > 0 such that gz(f,v, f,w) = cgl(v, w) for all v, w E TpMl and all p E MI. In particular, if c = 1, then f is a (smooth) isometry. The group of homothetic transformations is important in general relativity since it has been shown to be the group of transformations which preserves the causal structure for a large class of space-times [cf. Zeeman (1964, 1967), Gobel (1976)j. We will let dl denote the Lorentzian distance function of (Ml, gl) and d2 denote the Lorentzian distance function of (M2, 92) below. The distance analogue of a smooth homothetic map is defined as follows.
< +m.
Galloway (1984b) shows that this concept of stability gives the control needed to force convergence arguments to be successful and hence obtains the theorem that for any compact Lorentzian manifold, each stable free timelike homotopy class contains a longest closed timelike curve which is of necessity a closed timelike geodesic. Galloway also shows how his result may be used to recover Tipler's Theorem 4.15 given above and gives a criterion for a free homotopy
A map f : ( M I ,gl) --+ (M2,gz) is said to be distance homothetic if there exists a constant c > 0 such that
d2(f(p), f(q)) = cdl(p,q) for all p,q E 1M. If c = 1, then f is said to be distance preserving.
Definition 4.16. (Distance Homothety)
152
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.2

+ M2
153
It i s important to note that for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds, distance preserving maps are not necessarily continuous. For if ( M , g ) is a totally
+M
that a map f : Ml an open set in M2.
is said to be open if f maps each open set in M I t o
vicious space-time, we have seen that d@,q) = 03 for all p, q E M [cf. Lemma
L e m m a 4.20. Let ( M I ,g l ) be strongly causal and let ( M 2 , g 2 )be an arbitrary space-time. If f is a (not necessarily continuous) distance homothetic map of ( M I , g l ) onto (M2,g2), then f is open and one-to-one.
4.2-(2)]. Hence any set theoretic bijection f : M

but need not be continuous.
is distance preserving
. 1 7 . Let ( M I , g l ) be a strongly causal space-time, and let Theorem 4

(M2,g2) be an arbitrary space-time. If f : ( M l , g l )
-+
( M 2 ,g 2 ) is a dis-
Proof. The openness of f is immediate from part ( 2 ) of Lemma 4.19. It remains to show that f is one-to-one. Assume there are distinct points p and q of M I with f ( p ) = f(q). Let U ( p ) be an open neighborhood of p with q$ ! U ( p ) and such that no nonspacelike curve intersects U ( p ) more than once.
Choose r l , 7-2 E U ( p )with rl << p << 7-2. Clearly, q 6 I f ( r l ) n I - ( r 2 ) .It follows from Lemma 4.19 that f ( r 1 ) << f ( p ) = f ( q ) << f (r2) implies rl This yields q f I + ( r l ) n I-(r2) which is a contradiction. Applying Lemma 4.20 to f and f-' we obtain
tance homothetic map (not assumed to be continuous) of Ml onto M 2 , then f
is a smooth homothetic map. That is, f is a diffeomorphism, and there exists

a constant c > 0 such that f *g2= cg1. In particular, every map of a strongly
causal space-time ( M ,g) onto itself which preserves Lorentzian distance is an isometry. Corollary 4.18. If ( M Ig) is a strongly causal space-time, then the space of distance homothetic maps of ( M ,g) equipped with the compact-open topology is a Lie group.
< < q << 7-2.
g2) be an P r o p o s i t i o n 4.21. Let ( M I ,g l ) be strongly causal, and let ( M 2 ,

arbitrary space-time. Let f be a (not necessarily continuous) map of M I onto
Proof of Corollary 4.18. Since ( M , g ) is strongly causal, this group coincides

by Theorem 4.17 with the space of smooth homothetic maps of M onto itself which preserve the time orientation. But this second group is a Lie group. CI The proof of Theorem 4.17 will be broken up into a series of lemmas. Lemma 4 . 1 9 . Let ( M l , g l ) and ( M z , g 2 )be space-times, and consider a map f : ( M l , g l ) --+ (M2,g2)which is onto but not necessarily continuous. If
M2. I f f is distance homothetic, then f is a homeomorphism and (M2,g2)is

strongly causal.
Proof. The relation f

Furthermore, f
-' is continuous since Lemma 4.20 shows f
-'is a function since f
is one-to-one by Lemma 4.20. is an open map. is continuous.
In order to complete the proof it is sufficient to show M2 is strongly causal since Lemma 4.20 will then imply f the distance homothetic map f
-' is an open map, whence f
f is distance homothetic, then
Given pi E M2, let p = f-'(p'). If r' << p'
< < q', then Lemma 4.19 applied to
-' yields f -'(rl) << p << f - l ( q l ) . Let U1(p')be

is globally hyperbolic. Let {r;) and
an open neighborhood of p'. Choose V1(p')2 U'(pl)with the closure of V ' ( p l ) a compact set contained in an open convex normal neighborhood W ' ( p l )of p'. We may assume that ( W ' ( p f ) , g 2 I,(,)
Proof. First ( 1 ) holds since d2(f (p), f ( 9 ) ) = cdl(p,q), and P
< < q [respec-
< f (q)]iff dl(p,q) > 0 [respectively, d2(f (PI, f ( 9 ) )> 01. Since (1) tively, f ( p ) < implies p << r << q iff f (p) < < f ( r )< < f (q),statement (2) foll~ws. 0
The importance of (2) stems from the fact that if ( M ,g) is strongly causal, the sets { I + ( p )n I - ( q ) : p, q E M ) form a basis for the topology of M . Recall
(9;) be sequences in V1(p')such that r; -+ P I , q; --, p', and r; << << q; for all n. Assume the strong causality of M2 fails at pl. This means that for
each n, the set I+(r;) n I-(9;) cannot be contained in the convex normal neighborhood W 1 ( p ' )because otherwise the sets I f (r;) n I-(9;) would give
' which each nonspacelike curve intersects arbitrarily small neighborhoods of p
154
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.2
155
at most once. Choose a sequence o f points (2;) contained in the boundary o f V t ( p ' ) with zk E I + ( & ) n I-(qh) for each n. The sequence ( 2 6 ) has an accumulation point z because the closure o f V t ( p t )is compact. Furthermore,
f
E f -l(I+(rh)nI-(qh))= I+(f -'(rL))nI-(f
Proof of Theorem 4.17. T h e fact that f is a diffeomorphism follows from a result proved by Hawking, King, and McCarthy (1976) which states that a homeomorphism which maps null geodesics t o null geodesics must be a diffeomorphism. Since Ml and M2 are strongly causal, for each p E Ml there exists a convex normal neighborhood Ul ( p ) such that for q E U1( p ) with p
T h e continuity
of f
-' implies that f -l(r;)

+
p and f
-+
p. T h e strong causality o f
< < q, the
M I yields that the sets I+( f - l ( r k ) ) n I - ( f -l(q&)) are approaching the point p which means f - l ( z ) = p = f -'(pt). This contradicts p. Thus, f - I ( & ) the one-to-one property of f - l . Consequently, M2 must be strongly causal, and the proposition is established. 13
lengths o f the timelike geodesics a ( p ,q) joining p to q and a(f ( p ) ,f ( q ) )joining f ( p ) t o f (q) are given by dl(p,q) and d2(f ( p ) ,f ( q ) ) ,respectively. Using d2(f ( P ) , f ( q ) ) = c d l ( p , q ) ,it follows that f maps gl onto the tensor c-2gz. It is well known that i f a complete Riemannian manifold is not locally flat,
Consider the strongly causal space-time M . Given p E M , let U ( p ) be a convex normal neighborhood of p. The set U ( p ) may be chosen so small that whenever q, r E U ( p ) with q < r , the distance d(q,r ) is the length o f the unique geodesic segment a ( q ,r ) from q to r which lies in U(p). Furthermore, U ( p ) may be chosen such that i f q, z,.r E U ( p ) with q
then it admits no homothetic maps that are not isometries [cf.Kobayashi and Nomizu (1963, p. 242, Lemma 2 ) ] . An essential step in the proof consists o f showing for arbitrary complete Riemannian manifolds that any homothetic map which is not an isometry has a unique fixed point. This may be done by using the triangle inequality for the Riemannian distance function and the metric completeness o f any geodesically complete Riemannian manifold. In view o f Theorem 4.17 above, it is then o f interest to consider the analogous question of the existence o f nonisometric homothetic maps o f a Lorentzian manifold [cf.Beem (1978b)j. In what follows, we will use the standard terminology o f proper homothetic map for a homothetic map which is not an isometry. W e first note that R2 with the Lorentzian metric ds2
=
< < z <<
r , then the
reverse triangle inequality d(q,r ) 2 d(q,z ) + d ( z ,r ) is valid with strict cquality i f and only i f z is on the geodesic segment from q to r in U(p). Thus, timelike geodesics in a strongly causal space-time are characterized by the space-time distance function, and it follows that distance homothetic maps take timelike geodesics to timelike geodesics.
Lemma 4.22. I f f is a distance homothetic map defined on a strongly
causal space-time, then f maps null geodesics to null geodesics. Proof. Let U ( p ) be a convex normal neighborhood o f p as in the above paragraph, chosen sufficiently small such that f ( U ( p ) )lies in a convex normal neighborhood o f f ( p ) . Let a ( q , r ) be a null geodesic in U ( p ) . Choose q and r , -- r with q, << T, for all n. Proposition 4.21 then imq,
dxdy provides an
example of a globally hyperbolic geodesically complete space-time that admits a fixed-point free, proper homothetic map. For fixing any ,b' # 0 and choosing y) = ( x -k p, cy) is a fixed-point free homothetic any c > 0 , the map f (x: map with homothetic constant c. Thus the existence o f a fixed point for a proper homothetic map must be assumed for geodesically complete Lorentzian manifolds unlike the Riemannian case. Now suppose f is a proper homothetic map o f a space-time ( M , g ) such that f ( p ) = p for some p E M . Then f,p : T,M
+
f (q) and f (r,) -+ f ( r ) . The map f takes the timeplies that f (q,) like geodesic a(q,,r,) with endpoints q, and r, t o the timelike geodesic
+
a(f (q,), f (r,)). Since the geodesics a(q,, r,) converge t o a ( q ,r ) and the geodesics a(f (q,), f (r,)) converge t o a(f (qf ,f ( r ) ) , it follows that f maps r,
T,M has at least one
a ( f(q)i f ( r ) ) .
nonspacelike eigenvector [cf.Beem (1978b, p. 319, Lemma 3)]. This eigenvector may be null, however. For example, composing the Lorentzian "boost"
156
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.3
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE FUNCTION AND CAUSALITY
157
isometry F of (W2,ds2 = dx2 - dy2), F(x, y) = (x cosh t + y sinh t, x sinh t + y cosh t) with t > 0 fixed, and a dilation T(x, y) = (cx, y)with c > 0 and c # 1yields a proper homothetic map f of Minkowski space-time fixing the origin such that f*(,,,,has null vectors for eigenvectors. But if f,p : T p M T p M is a proper homothetic map which has a timelike
+
we obtain the following formulas for the Levi-Civita connection of ( R ~ds2): ,
x VxY = --ex"Z, 4 and I'i3 = I'i, =
x V x Z = -X, 2
and
x V y Z = -Y. 2
Thus the only nonzero Christoffel symbols are I ' i l= z, the usual system of second order differential equations
r:2 = , : ' I
= -$ex",
= I?j2 = $. Hence if y(t) = (x(t), y(t), ~ ( t )is ) a geodesic,
eigenvector with eigenvalue X
< 1, it may be shown that (M, g) is Minkowski
space-time [cf. Beem (197813, p. 319, Proposition 4)]. Also, iff is a homothetic map with a fixed point p such that all eigenvalues of f,p are real and all have absolute value less than one, then (M,g) is Minkowski space-time [cf. Beem (197813, p. 316, Theorem I)]. We now give an example of a n o d a t space-time admitting a global homothetic flow. Let M = W3 with the metric g = ds2 = exzdxdy for y reduces to the following system:
+ dz2.
Thus
are tangent vectors a t (x, y, z), we have
It may finally be checked that the curve y
: (-1,
w)
(LR3,ds2) defined by
y(t) = (ln(1 + t), 0 , l ) satisfies this system of differential equations and hence Thus , , ) .this is the unique null geodesic in (W3,ds2) with yl(0) = d / d ~ l ~ ~ , ~ It may then be checked that while (M, g) is not flat, the map (W3, ds2) given by &(x, y, z) = (etx, e-3ty, e?z) is a proper homothety with g(&v, q5t.w) = e-2tg(v, w) for each fixed nonzero t. We now show, however, that this space-time is null geodesically incomplete. Let X = d/dx, Y = d/by, and Z = d/az. Then all inner products vanish except for g(X, Y) = ezz/2 and g(Z, Z) = 1; furthermore, [X, Y] = [X,Z] = 0. Hence using the Koszul formula
4,
: (W3, ds2) -+
space-time is null geodesically incomplete.

4.3
The Lorentzian Distance Function and Causality
In this section we study the relationship between the continuity and finite-
W U{ a ) for ness of the Lorentzian distance function d = d(g) : M x M (M, g) and the causal structure of (M, g). The most elementary properties, extending Lemma 4.2 above, are summarized in the following lemma. Re+
call that Lor(M) denotes the space of all Lorentzian metrics for M. The C0 topology on Lor(M) was defined in Section 3.2.
Lemma 4.23.
11) d(p,q) > 0 iff 9 f I+(P). (2) The space-time (M, g) is t o t d y vicious iff d(p, q) = co for all p, q E M .
158
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.3
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE FUNCTION
AND
CAUSALITY
159
(3) The space-time (M, g) is chronological iff d is identically zero on the diagonal A(M) = {(p,p) : p E M ) of M x M . (4) The space-time (M,g) is future [respectively, past] distinguishing iff for each pair of distinct p, q E M , thcrc is some x E M such that exactly one of d(p, x) and d(q, x) [respectively, d(x, p) and d(x, q)] is zero.
( 5 ) The space-time (M,g) is stably causal iff there exists a neighborhood
U of g in the fine C0 topology on Lor(M) such that d(gl)(p,p) = 0 for all g' E U and p E M.
Proof. Similar to Lemma 4.2 and Remark 4.3. Recall that the Lorentzian distance function in general fails to be upper semicontinuous. Thus the continuity of d(g) should have implications for the causal structure of (M,g). An example is the following result first stated in Beem and Ehrlich (1977, p. 1130). Here d is regarded as being continuous at (p, q) E M x M with d(p,q) = co because d(p,, q,) p, -+ p and q,
-+
-+
w for all sequences

FIGURE 4.6. Let (M,g) denote Minkowski space-time with the point r deleted. Choose p, q E M such that in Minkowski spacetime the point r is on the boundary of I+(p) n I-(q) as shown. Let {q,) be a sequence of points approaching q with q each n. There is a smooth conformal factor 0 : M that R
T.
-+
q (cf. Lemma 4.4).
Theorem 4.24. Let (M,g) be a distinguishing space-time. If d = d(g) :

M xM
+ R U {w) is
continuous, then (M, g) is causally continuous.
Proof. We need only show that I+ and I- are outer continuous. Assume
I+is not outer continuous. There is then some compact set K C M - I+(p) and some sequence p, -+ p such that K n I+(p,) # 0 for all n. Let q, E K
< < q,
for
(0, m) such
= 1 on I+(p) n I-(q)
and yet d(Qg)(p, q,) 2 2d(g)(p, q) for
n I+(pn) and let
{qm) be a subsequence of {q,) such that {q,)
converges
each n. The function R will be unbounded near the deleted point Since d(g)(p, q) = d(Rg)(p,q) < liminf d(Rg)(p,q,), the ca~lsally continuous space-time (M, Rg) has a Lorentzian distance function which is discontinuous at (p, q) E M x M .
to some point q of the compact set K. Then q , -+ q and q , E I+(p,) imply there must be a sequence {q;) converging to q such that qk E I+(p,) for each m. Since M - I+(p) is an open neighborhood of q, there is some r E M - I+(p) with q and hence p,
0
< < r.
For sufficiently large m we then have q i
< <r
<< qk << r. Thus d(p,, r ) 2 d(p,, qk) + d(qk, r). Using the
lower semicontinuity of distance and the causality relation q
< < r,
we obtain
< d(q,r) 5 liminf d(qk,r). Consequently, d(p,,r)
d(q,r)/2
>
0 for
all sufficiently large m. However, since r hence d(p,r)
I+(p), we have d(p,r) = 0, and
A similar argument shows that I- is outer continuous. Thus continuity of d

implies that (M, g) is causally continuous. fl
# lirnd(p,,r).
Thus if d is continuous, I+ is outer continuous.
160
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.3
161
The following example shows that the converse of Theorem 4.24 is false. Let (M, g) denote Minkowski space-time with a single point removed. The spacetime (M,Rg) will be causally continuous for any smooth conformal factor R :M
-+
with associated local distance functions {(D,, U,)), then {(D,, U,)) uniquely determines g on M. We now characterize strongly causal space-times in terms of local distance functions [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, Theorem 3.4)].
(0,m). However, R may be chosen such that d = d(Rg) is not
continuous (cf. Figure 4.6). We now turn to a characterization of strongly causal space-times in terms of the Lorentzian distance function. The definition of convex normal neighborhood was given in Section 3.1. Given any spacetime (M,g), we have
Theorem 4.27. A space-time (M, g) is strongly causal if and only if each point r E M has a convex normal neighborhood U such that the local distance
function (D, U) agrees on UX U with the distance function d = d(g) : M x M
-+
R u {m).
Proof. If (M, g) is strongly causal and r E M, then there is some convex normal neighborhood U of r such that no nonspacelike curve which leaves U ever returns. The local distance function for U then agrees with d = d(g) 1 (U x U). Conversely, assume that strong causality breaks down at some point r E M . Let U be a convex normal neighborhood of r such that D(p, q) = d(p, q) for all p, q f U. There exists a neighborhood W
Definition 4.25. (Local Distance Function)

function D : U x U
-+
A local distance function
(D, U) on (M, g) is a convex normal neighborhood U together with the distance
R induced on U by the space-time (U, gIu).
More explicitly, given p, q E U, then D(p, q) = 0 if there is no future directed timelike geodesic segment in U from p to g. Otherwise, D(p, q) is the Lorentzian arc length of the unique future directed timelike geodesic segment in U from p to q. We will let I+(p, U) (respectively, J+(p, U)) denote the chronological (respectively, causal) future of p with respect to the space-time (U, glU).
CU
of r such that any
future directed nonspacelike curve y : (0,1] -+ U with y(1) E W and y past inextendible in U contains some point not in J f (W, U). Since strong causality fails to hold at r, there is a future directed timelike curve y,
T '
: [O, 1 1 --+
M with
Lemma 4.26. Let (M, g) be a space-time, and let U be a convex normal

neighborhood of (M, g). Assume that D : U x U on U+ = {(p, q) E U x U : q E I+(p, U)). Proof. Given p,q E U with q E J+(p,U), let cpq : [0, I] -+ U denote the unique nonspacelike geodesic segment with cpq(0) = p and %,(I) = q. We then have D(p, q) = [-g(ci,(~), C ~ , ( O ) ) ] and ~/~ D(P, 9)' = [-g(ciq(0), c;,(O))]. R o m the differentiable dependence of geodesics on endpoints in convex neighborhoods, it is immediate that D is continuous on U x U and that D is differentiable on U+. U Minkowski space-time shows that D fails to be differentiable across the null cones and thus fails to be smooth on all of U x U. It is not hard to see that the local distance function (D, U) uniquely determines the Lorentzian metric g on U. Consequently if {U,) is a covering of M by convex normal neighborhoods
-t
= yl(0) E W, y1(1/2)
7 1 nU
4 U, and y l ( l ) E
W. By construction of W, there
IF% is the distance function
is some point p E p. Thus D(rl,p) theorem.

(7
with p 2$ J+(r1,U). Hence D(rl,p) = 0. However,
for (U, glu). Then D is a continuous function on U x U and D is differentiable
d(rr,p) > 0 since d(rr,p) is at least as large as the length of yl from r' to
d(rr,p). Taking the contrapositive then establishes the
Corollary 4.28. If (M, g) is strongly causal, then d is continuous on some
neighborhood of A(M) = {(p,p) : p E M) in M x M. Also, given any point m E M, there exists a convex normal neighborhood U of m such that
d 1 (U x U) is finite-valued.
We now give a characterization of globally hyperbolic space-times among all strongly causal space-times using the Lorentzian distance function. For this purpose, it is first necessary to show that the usual definition of globally hyperbolic may be weakened.
162
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.3
163
Lemma 4.29. Let ( M ,g) be a strongly causal space-time. If J + ( p ) nJ - ( q )
compact closure. Let h be an auxiliary geodesically complete positive definite metric on M , and let do : M x M
+
has compact closure for all p, q E M , then ( M ,g) is globally hyperbolic. Proof. I t is only necessary to show J+(p)n J - ( q ) is always closed. Assume
T
B be the Riemannian distance function
induced on M by h. The Hopf-Rinow Theorem implies that all subsets o f M which are bounded with respect to & have compact closure. Thus J+(p) n J - ( q ) is not bounded. Hence, for each n we may choose p, E J+(p) n J - ( q ) ' with p ' such that do(p,p,) > n. Choose p' and q
E ( J + ( p )n J - ( q ) ) - ( J + ( p )n J - ( q ) ) . Choose a sequence {T,) o f points r . For each n let yn : [O, 1) --, M be a future in J+(p) n J - ( q ) with r ,
+
directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve with p = y,(O) and r, E y,, q E y,. By Proposition 3.31, there is some future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike limit curve y : [O, 1) -+ M o f the sequence (7,). Furthermore, p = y(0). The limit curve y cannot be future imprisoned in any compact subset o f M because ( M , g ) is strongly causal ( c f . Proposition 3.13). Consequently, there is some point x on y with x @ J+(p) fl J-(q). The definition o f limit curve yields a subsequence (7,) o f {y,) and points x , E y, with x ,
-t
< <p < <q< < q'. W e wish to
q') = w. For each show there exists a conformal factor 0 such that d(Rg)(pl,
x.
Since x @ J+ (p)n J - ( q ) ,we have x , 4 J+(p) n J-(q) for all large m. Using y, C J+(p), it follows that x , @ J-(q) for large m. Hence q lies between p and x, on y, for large m. Let y [ p ,x ] (respectively, y,[p, x,]) denote the portion o f y (respectively, 7,) from p to x (respectively, x,). By Proposition i f necessary,
3.34 we may assume, by taking a subsequence o f {y,[p, x,])
n > 1, choose y, t o be a future directed timelike curve from p ' t o pn such that yn[1/2,3/41 5 { r E M : n - 1 < da(p,r ) < n ) . For each n > 1, let R, : M -+ IW be a smooth function such that O,(x) = 1 i f x 4 { r : n - 1 < &(p, r ) < n ) and such that the length of yn[1/2,3/41 is greater than n for the metric R,g. Let R= R,. This infinite product is well defined on M since for each x E M at most one o f the factors R, is not unity. Then d(Rg)(p', p,) > n for each n > 1. Hence d(flg)(pl, 9') = as d(Rg)(p1, q') L d(Rg)(pl, pn) + d ( R g ) ( ~ n q') , for each n. 0
n,
W e now turn to the proof that for distinguishing space-times with continuous distance functions, the future and past inner balls form a subbasis for the given manifold topology. Recall that
that {y,[p,xm]) converges to y [ p , x ] in the C0 topology on curves. Hence r and T , 6 q which yield r E y [ p , q ] .Thus r E J + ( p )n J-(q), in contradiction. O q E y,[p, x,] for large m implies q E y [ p ,x ] . Also r ,
-+
Recall from Definition 4.6 above that a space-time ( M , g ) is said to satisfy the finite distance condition i f and only i f d(g)(p, q) < m for all p, q E M . This condition may be used t o characterize globally hyperbolic space-times among strongly causal space-times [cf.Beem and Ehrlich (197913,Theorem 3.5))
Theorem 4.30. The strongly causal space-time ( M ,g) is globally hyper-
and
Thus defining f i : M R for i = 1,2 by fi(q) = d(p,q) and f2(q) = d(q,p), we have B+(P,E ) = f ~ ' ( ( 0E, ) ) and B - ( p , E ) = f ~ ' ( ( 0E,) ) . Hence i f ( M ,g) has
+
a continuous distance function, the inner balls B+ ( p ,E) and open in the manifold topology.
B-( p ,E ) o f M are
bolic i f f( M , g r )satisfies the finite distance condition for dl g'
C ( M ,g).
Proof. I t has already been remarked that i f ( M , g ) is globally hyperbolic, then all metrics in C ( M ,g) satisfy the finite distance condition ( c f .Corollary 4.7). Conversely, assume that ( M ,g) is not globally hyperbolic. Lemma 4.29 implies that there exist p,q E M such that J+(p) n J - ( q ) does not have
Proposition 4.31. Let ( M ,g) be a distinguishing space-time with a con-
tinuous distance function. Then the collection
forms a basis for the given manifold topology o f M
164
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.3
165
Proof. T h e above arguments show that sets of the form B+(p,c l ) n B V ( qc2) , are open in the manifold topology. Thus given an arbitrary point r E M and an arbitrary open neighborhood U ( r ) o f r in the manifold topology, it is sufficient t o show that there exist p, q E M and
1, 2
Proposition 4.32. Let ( N , 3 ) be a totally geodesic timelike submanifold o f the strongly causal space-time ( M , g ) . Then given any p E N , there exists a neighborhood V of p in N such that d 1 ( V x V ) = 2 ( V x V ) . Proof. First, let W be a convex neighborhood o f p in ( M ,g ) such that every pair o f points m , n E W are joined by a unique geodesic o f ( M ,g) lying in W and i f m 6 n, then this geodesic is maximal in ( M , g ) . W e may then choose a smaller neighborhood Vo of p in M with Vo C W such that i f V = Vo n N , then V is contained in a convex normal neighborhood U o f p in N with U contained in W . Suppose first that m , n E V and n E J + ( m ,N ) . Since V C U , there exists a nonspacelike geodesic y o f (N,ij) in U from m to n . Also, as N is totally geodesic, y is a nonspacelike geodesic in ( M ,g). Because y is contained in U and U E W , y is maximal in ( M , g ) . W e thus have d ( m , n )
> 0 with T E B+(p,el) n
B-(q, 2 ) U ( r ) . Theorem 4.24 yields that ( M , g ) is causally continuous and hence also strongly causal. Thus we may choose a convex normal neighborhood V o f r with V U ( r ) such that no nonspacelike curve which leaves V ever returns
+ W U {oo) is
and such that d : V x V p, q E V with p

2
finite-valued (cf. Corollary 4.28). Fix

1 =
< < r << q.
Then r E I+(p) n I - (q) C V since no nonspaced(p,r) + 1 and
like curve from p to q can leave V and return. Letting

= d(r,q)
+ 1, we obtain
> Z ( y ) = L(T) =
d ( m ,n ) . In view o f (4.4),we obtain d ( m ,n ) = d ( m ,n ) as required. which establishes the proposition. 0 W e conclude this section with a characterization o f totally geodesic timelike submanifolds in terms o f the Lorentzian distance function. An analogous result holds for submanifolds o f (not necessarily complete) Riemannian manifolds [cf.Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, p. 159)]. Let ( M ,g) denote an arbitrary strongly causal space-time. Suppose that
-
It remains to consider the case that m , n E V and n
# J + ( m ,N ) . Thus
d ( m ,n ) = 0 by definition. Suppose that d ( m ,n ) > 0. Then there exists a m , n E U , there exists a geodesic
72
timelike geodesic yl o f ( M , g ) in W from m to n. On the other hand, since o f ( N , i j ) from m to n lying in U which must be spacelike since n
J + ( m ,N ) . Since (N,?j) is totally geodesic, 7 2 is
also a spacelike geodesic o f ( M Ig) from m t o n which lies in U C W . Thus we have distinct geodesics yl and 72 in W from m to n , in contradiction. Hence d ( m , n ) = 0 =Z(m,n)as required. Cl W e now prove the converse o f Proposition 4.32. Proposition 4.33. Let ( N , i j ) be a timelike submanifold o f the strongly causal space-time ( M ,g ) . Suppose that for all p E N there exists a neighborhood V o f p in N such that d / ( V x V ) = 2 (V x V ) . Then ( N , g ) is totally
i : N + M is a smooth submanifold and set i j = i*g. Recall that ( N ,i j ) is said t o be a timelike submanifold of ( M ,g) i f 3 l p : T p N x T p N + W is a Lorentzian metric for each p f N . As usual, we will identify N and i ( N ) . Let Z , L and 2, d denote the arc length functionals and Lorentzian distance functions o f ( N , i j ) and ( M , g ) , respectively. Then i f y is a smooth curve in ( N , i j ) ,we have Z(r)= L ( y ) . Note also that i f q E I+(p,N ) , then p < < q in ( M ,g), and i f q E J+(p,N ) , then p < q in ( M , g ) . Thus it follows immediately from the definitions o f d and d that
-
geodesic in ( M ,g). Proof. It suffices t o fix any p E N and show that the second fundamental
(4.4)
d ( m ,n ) 5 d ( m ,n)
for all m, n E N .
form S, vanishes at p (cf. Definition 3.48). Since any tangent vector in T p N may be written as a sum o f nonspacelike tangent vectors, it is enough t o show that S,(v,w) = 0 for all nonspacelike tangent vectors in T p N . Also, as
W i t h this remark in hand, we are ready to prove the following result.
166
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.4
MAXIMAL GEODESIC SEGMENTS, LOCAL CAUSALITY
167
Sn(- v, w) = -Sn(v, w), it suffices to show that Sn(v,w) = 0 for all future directed nonspacelike tangent vectors in T,N. Thus let v E T,N be a future directed nonspacelike tangent vector. Let y denote the unique geodesic in (N,?j) with y'(0) = v. Also let V be a neighborhood of p in N on which the distance functions Choose t
all metrics conformal t o a given strongly causal metric for a space-time forces the conformal class of space-times to be globally hyperbolic. If a space-time
4 there exists a is strongly causal, then we noted that for any given p in A
neighborhood U of p in which the local distance function of (U,glu) coincides with the global Lorentzian distance function on U x U. Hence the Lorentzian distance function is forced to be finite-valued on U x U. For the purposes of this section, it will be convenient to reformulate Definition 4.10 slightly as follows. Definition 4.35. (Mmimal Segment) curve c : la, b] a s s l t l b . Evidently, the Lorentzian distance function restricted t o the image of a maximal segment must be finite-valued and continuous. In the terminology of Definition 4.35, the previous Proposition 4.12 may be rephrased as follows. Suppose that (M, g) is strongly causal. Given p in M , let U b e a local causality neighborhood of p, i.e., a causally convex neighborhood about p which is also a geodesically convex normal neighborhood. Then any nonspacelike geodesic segment lying in U is a maximal segment in the space-time (M,g). In Chapter 14 the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem for timelike geodesically complete (but not necessarily globally hyperbolic) space-times is studied. Since global hyperbolicity is not assumed and hence the global continuity and finite-valuedness of the space-time distance function may not be taken for granted, it is necessary to make a careful study of the space-time distance function and asymptotic geodesics in a neighborhood of a given timelike line. What emerged in a series of papers, as summarized in the introduction to Chapter 14 which will not be repeated here, is that the existence of a global maximal timelike geodesic has important implications for the distance function and the Busemann function of the timelike line in a neighborhood of the given line [cf. Eschenburg (1988), Galloway (1989a), Newman (1990), Galloway and Horta (1995)l. Especially, Newman (1990) made a thorough study of the geodesic geometry in the case that timelike geodesic completeness, but not global
,
a and d coincide.
> 0 such that if m
= y(t), then m E V and z(p, m) = Z(y 1 [0, t ] ) is
finite. We then obtain d ( ~ , mL ) L(T / 10, t ] ) = Z(y 1 10,t ] ) = a(p, m). But since m E V we have d(p,m) = z(p,m), whence L(y I [O,t]) = d(p,m). Hence y I [O, t ] is a geodesic in (M,g) by Theorem 4.13. Thus we have shown that if u E TpN is any future directed tangent vector, the geodesic in (M,g) with initial direction u is also a geodesic in (N,?j) near p. Therefore Sn(u, u) = 0 for all future directed nonspacelike tangent vectors. Since the sum of two nonparallel future directed nonspacelike tangent vectors is future timelike, it follows by polarization that S,(u, w) = 0 for all future directed nonspacelike tangent vectors u, w E TpN, as required.
A future directed nonspacelike ( M , g) is said to be a maximal segment provided that
L(c) = d(c(a), c(b)) and hence L(c 1 [ s , t ] ) = d(c(s), c(t)) for all s , t with
Combining Propositions 4.32 and 4.33 yields the following characterization of totally geodesic timelike submanifolds of strongly causal space-times in terms of the Lorentzian distance function. Theorem 4.34. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time of dimension
n 2 2, and suppose that (N, i'g) is a smooth timelike submanifold of (M,g),
i.e., ?j = i*g is a Lorentzian metric for N . Then (N,?j) is totally geodesic iff given any p E N, there exists a neighborhood V of p in N such that the Lorentzian distance functions 2 of ( N , 3 ) and d of ( M , g ) agree on V x V.
4.4
Maximal Geodesic Segments and Local Causality
We have seen in this chapter that certain causality conditions placed on a space-time are related to pleasant local or global behavior of the Lorentzian distance function. For instance, we saw that if (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, then all metrics conformal to g for M are not only continuous but also satisfy the finite distance condition as well. Further, the finite distance condition for
168
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.4
169
hyperbolicity, is assumed. In this section we give certain elementary preliminaries which will be germane to Chapter 14 but which fit into the spirit of this chapter. It is interesting that the reverse triangle inequality plays an important role, hence this material is decidedly non-Riemannian. Also the lower semicontinuity of the Lorentzian distance function for an arbitrary space-time (cf. Lemma 4.4) is useful here. Note as an immediate first example that if a space-time (M,g) contains a single maximal segment, then (M,g) cannot be totally vicious, since the Lorentzian distance function is finite-valued on the particular segment while totally vicious space-times satisfy d(p, q) = +m for all p, q in M. Newman (1990) noted the more interesting consequence that the existence of a maximal timelike segment c : [a, b] -4 (M,g) implies that strong causality holds a t all points of c((a, b)). Since strong causality is an open condition [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 30)], this thus yields an open neighborhood U of c((a, b)) for which strong causality at q is valid for all q in U . Hence, not only does the existence of a local causality neighborhood in a strongly causal space-time guarantee the local existence of maximal segments, but a kind of converse holds: the existence of a maximal timelike segment implies that some local region of (M,g) containing all interior points of the given maximal timelike segment must be strongly causal. For our use in Chapter 14, these basic consequences of the existence of maximal segments will be treated in the present section. We begin with a maximal null segment.
Lemma 4.36. Let c : [O, 11 -4 (M,g) be a maximal null geodesic segment,
(2) For any p, q in J+(c(s)) n J-(c(t)) with p ,< q, we have d(p, q) = 0;
and
(3) Chronology holds at all points of J+(c(O)) n J- ( ~ ( 1 ) ) . Proof. (1) By assumption, c(s) (4.5). Further, since c(s)
< r < c(t) and d(c(s), c(t)) = 0 , so that the
reverse triangle inequality d(c(s), c(t)) 2 d(c(s),r ) +d(r, c(t)) implies equation
< r < c(t) is assumed, there exist future causal curves
cl from c(s) to r and cz from r to c(t) which by (4.5) must both be maximal null geodesic segments. Since c(s) and c(t) are not chronologically related, the concatenation of cl and cz must constitute a single null geodesic by basic causality theory [cf. Penrose (1972, Proposition 2.19)], whence r E c(I(c)).
(2) This is immediate from the reverse triangle inequality applied to
(3) Condition (3) now follows since if chronology fails to hold, then d(p,p) is infinite which contradicts (2) applied with q = p. We should caution that I(c) is not necessarily equal to [O, +m) (cf. Lemma 7.4). In the case of a maximal timelike segment, the reverse triangle inequality yields the finiteness of Lorentzian distance from points in some neighborhood of the segment despite the possible general lack of finiteness of distance for chronologically related points (cf. Figure 4.2). Similar arguments to those used in Lemma 4.36 yield the following finiteness of the distance function in the causal hull of any causal maximal segment.
Lemma 4.37. Let c : [O,1] , (M,g) be a causal maximal segment. Then

(1) Given any p, q in J+(c(O)) n J - ( ~ ( 1 ) )with p 6 q , the distance d(p, q) is finite.
(2) Chronology holds at all points of J+(c(O)) n J - ( ~ ( 1 ) ) .
and let I(c) denote the domain of c extended to be a future inextendible null geodesic emanating from c(0). Then (1) For any s, t with 0 5 s < t 5 1 and r E J+(c(s)) fl J-(c(t)), we have
Having dealt with chronology, let us now consider the stronger requirement of causality. The cylinder M = S' x W with metric ds2 = dBdt contains closed null geodesics c : [0, +m) local chronology.
-t
M which satisfy d(c(O), c(t)) = 0 for all t 2 0.
Hence, the existence of a maximal null geodesic does not imply more than hence T lies on c(I(c));
170
LORENTZIAN DISTANCE
4.4
171
Lemma 4 . 3 8 . Let c : [0, I] + (M,g) be a maximal timelike segment. Then

causality holds a t all points of c([O, 11).
lower semicontinuity of distance at (q,p), we have d(y,, x,) > 0 for some n sufficiently large. Hence y , also have x, << y,. Thus x,
< < x,. On the other hand, by Lemma
4.39 we
Proof. Suppose that cl is a closed nonspacelike curve beginning and ending

at c(t1) with tl > 0. Since chronology holds at c(t1) by Lemma 4.37, cl must be a maximal null segment (cf. Corollary 4.14). Consider the composite causal curve y = (c I [0, tl]) * cl from c(O) to c(tl). Since 7 is a causal curve from c(0) to c(tl) which is a timelike followed by a null geodesic, first variation
< < x,,
which contradicts Lemma 4.37-(2). Thus
d(q,p) = 0 and the geodesic X from q to p is a maximal null segment. We now show how a timelike curve from c(O) to c(a) of length greater than a may be constructed, contradicting the maximality of the timelike segment c. Consider first the concatenation ,O = X * c I [to,a] which is a future causal curve from q to c(a). Since /3 consists of a null followed by a timelike geodesic and L(0) = L(c I [to,a]) = a - to, rounding the corner at p produces a causal curve from q to c(a) of length greater than L(0) = a - to. (Take a convex normal neighborhood V centered at p, and join a point close to p on the null geodesic
X to c(to
l from c(0) t o c(tl) "rounding the corner" arguments produce a causal curve y
which is longer than y,hence longer than ~110, tl] [cf. O'Neill (1983, p. 294)). But this contradicts the maximality of c 1 [O,tl].
If t l = 0, apply the samc type of argument to the composition of the closed

null geodesic cl followed by c 1 [O,l]. Now we turn to a result with a somewhat more difficult proof first given in Newman (1990, p. 166) and an alternate proof suggested in Galloway and Horta (1995). In the course of the proof, it will be helpful to employ a characterization of the failure of strong causality given by Kronheimer and Penrose [cf. Penrose (1972, p. 31)j.
+ 6),for 6 sufficiently small, by a timelike geodesic segment lying in

E
V.) Hence, there exists a constant
> 0 such that d(q, c(a)) > ( a - to) + 46.
By Lemma 4.4, we may find a neighborhood
U 5 I'(c(0))
of q such that
for every q' in
U. Choose n sufficiently large that y,
x, = c(t,) satisfies L(c 1 [0,t,]) = d(c(O),c(t,)) = t, 2 to
U and also that - E. Fixing this n,
Lemma 4 . 3 9 . Let p E (M, g). Then strong causality fails a t p if and only
if there exists a point q E J - ( p ) with q # p (which may be chosen arbitrarily closely to p) such that x (M,g). Proposition 4 . 4 0 [Newman (1990)j.Let c : [0,a] + (M, g) be a rnaximal timelike geodesic segment. Then for any to with 0 < to < a, strong causality holds a t p = c(t0).
<( p
let cl be a future timelike curve from x, to y, guaranteed by Lemma 4.39. Also given y,, in view of inequality (4.6) we may find a causal curve c2 from y, to c(a) with L(cz) 2 a - to estimate
and q << y together imply x << y for all x, y in
+ 26. Now let y = c 1 jO, t,] * cl * c2, which is a
future causal curve from c(0) to c(a). On the other hand, we have the length
L ( r ) 1 L(c I [O, t,l)
+ L(cz)
Proof. For convenience, we will assume that c is parametrized by unit speed

and also, given p = c(to), take q E J-(p) in Lemma 4.39 sufficiently close to p that q E I+(c(O)). Now assume that strong causality fails to hold a t p. We first need to establish that d(q,p) = 0, whence q is the initial point of a maximal null segment from q to p. Suppose that d(q,p) > 0. Choose a sequence {y,) C I+(q) with y, --, q and a sequence {t,) with 0 < t, < to and t, -4 to. Put x, = c(t,), whence {x,) C I-(p) and x, -+ p. By the
Z (to - E) (a - to + 26)
But this inequality contradicts the maximality of the timelike segment c. Hence, strong causality must hold at c(to). 0
CHAPTER
EXAMPLES OF SPACE-TIMES
In this chapter we present a variety of examples of space-times.
Some
of these space-times are important for physical as well as mathematical reasons. In particular, Minkowski space-time, Schwarzschild space-times, Kerr space-times, and Robertson-Walker space-times all have significant physical interpretations. Minkowski space-time is simultaneously the geometry of special relativity and the geometry induced on each fixed tangent space of an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold. Thus Minkowskian geometry plays the same role for Lorentzian manifolds that Euclidean geometry plays for Riemannian manifolds. Minkowski space-time is sometimes called fE~t space-time. But more generally, any Lorentzian manifold on which the curvature tensor is identically zero is flat. The Schwarzschild space-times represent the spherically symmetric, empty space-times outside nonrotating, spherically symmetric bodies. Since suns and planets are assumed to be slowly rotating and approximately spherically symmetric, the Schwarzschild space-times may be used t o model the gravitational fields outside of these bodies. These space-times may also be used to model the gravitational fields outside of dead (i.e., nonrotating) black holes. The usual coordinates for the Schwarzschild solution outside a massive body are ( t ,r, 0, &), where t represents a kind of time and r represents a kind of radius [cf. Sachs and Wu (1977a, Chapter 7)]. This metric has a special radius r = 2m associated with it. Points with r = 2m correspond to the surface of a black hole. It was once thought that the metric was singular at r = 2m, but it is now known that the usual form of the Schwarzschild metric with r > 2m may be analytically extended to points with 0 < r < 2m. In fact, there is a
174
5.1
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME
maximal analytic extension of Schwarzschild space-time [cf. Kruskal (1960)l which contains an alternative universe lying on the "other side" of the black hole. The gravitational fields outside of rotating black holes apparently correspond to the Kerr spacetimes [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 161, 331), Carter (1971b), O'Neill (1995)j. These spacetimes represent stationary, axisymmetric metrics outside of rotating objects. The Kerr and Schwarzschild space-times are asymptotically flat and correspond to universes which are empty, apart from one massive body. Thus while these metrics may be reasonable models near a given single massive body, they cannot be used as large scale models for a universe with many massive bodies. The usual "big bang" cosmological models are based on the RobertsonWalker space-times. These space-times are foliated by a special set of spacelike hypersurfaces such that each hypersurface corresponds to an instant of time. The isometry group I ( M ) of a Robertson-Walker space-time ( M , g ) acts transitively on these hypersurfaces of constant time. Thus RobertsonWalker universes are spatially homogeneous. Furthermore, they are spatially isotropic in the sense that for each p E M, the subgroup of I ( M ) fixing p is transitive on the directions at p which are tangential to the hypersurface of constant time through p. In our discussion of Robertson-Walker space-times, we will use Lorentzian warped products Mo x f H , as described in Section 3.6. The cosmological assumptions made about Robertson-Walker universes imply that (H, h) is an isotropic Riemannian manifold. Hence the classification of two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifolds yields a classification of all Robertson-Walker space-times. We also show how the results of Section 3.6 may be specialized to construct Lie groups with bi-invariant globally hyperbolic Lorentzian metrics. This space-time is time oriented by the vector field d/dxl.It is also globally hyperbolic and hence satisfies all of the causality conditions discussed in Section 3.2. The geodesics of Minkowski space-time are just the straight lines of the underlying Euclidean space Rn. The affine parametrizations of these geodesics in Minkowski space are even proportional to the usual Euclidean arc length parametrizations in Rn. The null geodesics through a given point p in Minkowski space form an elliptic cone with vertex p. The future directed null geodesics starting at p thus form one nappe of the null cone of p. This nappe forms the boundary in Rn of an open convex set which is exactly the chronological future I+(p) of p. In Minkowski space, the causal future J+(p) of p is the closure of
FIGURE 5.1. Let (M, g) be Minkowski space-time. The null cone at p has a future nappe and a past nappe. The future [respectively,
past] nappe is also the horismos E+(p) [respectively, E-(p)] of p. The chronological future I f (p) is an open convex set bounded by E+(p). In more general space-times, I+(p) may fail to be convex but is always open.
5 . 1
Minkowski Space-time
Minkowski space-time is the manifold M = Rn together with the metric
EXAMPLES OF SPACGTIMES
5.1
MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME
177
FIGURE 5.3.
Two-dimensional Minkowski space-time with one
point q removed is shown. The future horismos E + ( p ) of p is an
"L" shaped figure consisting of a half-closed line and a half-open

line segment. The causal future J + ( p ) is the union of I t ( p ) and
E + ( p ) . Notice that J f (p) is not a closed set nor is J + ( p ) equal to

the closure of If ( p ) . metric -dt2 and Wn-' is given the usual Euclidean metric go, then ( R n =
R x Rn-l, -dt2 @go) is the n-dimensional Minkowski space-time. Consider two points p = (pl,p2,. .. ,pn) and q = ( q l , 92,. ... qn) in Minkowski space-time. The chronological relation p << q holds whenever pl < ql and FIGURE 5.2. The unit sphere K ( p , 1 ) corresponding to p is half of
a hyperboloid of two sheets. It is n o t compact, and p does not lie in the convex open set bounded by K ( p , 1).
(PI
n
( P I - q ~ > )(p2 ~ - q2)2 i- . . from p to q is given by
- + ( p , - qn)2 in R. If p << q, then the distance

-qd2- ) i = 2 (pi - qi)2
I + ( p ) . The future horismos E f ( p ) = J + ( p ) - I + ( p ) is the nappe of the null
cone of p corresponding to the future (cf. Figure 5.1). Minkowski space-time is a Lorentzian product (i.e., a warped product in the sense of Definition 3.51 with f = 1). If W is given the negative definite
The "unit sphere" in Minkowski space-time centered a t p is then K ( p , 1) =
1t
{ q E A4 : d ( p , g ) = 1 ) . However, this set is actually one sheet of a hyperboloid

of two sheets (ct Figure 5.2).
5.2
SCHWARZSCHILD .4ND KERR SPACE-TIMES
/--------
iFIGURE 5.5.
The Penrose diagram for Minkowski space-time is
iFIGURE 5.4. Minkowski space-time is conformal to the open set enclosed by the two null cones indicated. The vertices i+ and i - correspond to timelike infinity. All future directed timelike geodesics go from i- to i+. The sets 3+ and 3- represent future and past null infinity. Topologically, 3+ and 3- are each
shown. Minkowski space-time and many other important space-times may be r e p resented by Penrose diagrams. A Penrose diagram is a two-dimensional r e p resentation of a spherically symmetric space-time. The radial null geodesics are represented by null geodesics a t 145O. Dotted lines represent the origin
(T
x Sn-2. The
= 0) of polar coordinates. Points corresponding to smooth boundary points
intersection of the two null cones is a set which is identified to a single point iO.The point i0 is called spacelike infinity. If we remove a point from Minkowski space-time, then it is no longer causally simple and hence no longer globally hyperbolic (cf. Figure 5.3). It is possible to conformally map all of Minkowski space-time onto a small open set about the origin. This is illustrated in Figure 5.4 [cf. Penrose (1968, p. 178), Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 123)j.
(cf. Section 12.5) which are not singularities are represented by single lines. Double lines represent irremovable singularities (Figure 5.5; cf. Figure 4.2 of a Reissner-Nordstrom space-time with e2 = m2 for an example).
5.2
Schwarzschild and Kerr Space-times
In this section we describe the four-dimensional Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions to the Einstein equations. Let R4 be given coordinates ( t , r,8, +), where (r,B,4) are the usual spherical coordinates on R3. Given a positive
180
EXAMPLES O F SPACE-TIMES
5.3
SPACES O F CONSTANT CURVATURE
181
constant m , the exterior Schwarzschild space-time is defined on the subset r
Schwarzschild solution may be analytically continued across the surface given by the equation r = 2m. Kruskal(1960) investigated the maximal analytic extension of Schwarzschild space-time. Suppressing 8 and 4, the following two-dimensional representation of this maximal extension may be given (cf. Figure 5.6). The gravitational field outside of a rotating black hole will not correspond
> 2m of W4, a subset which is topologically W2 x S2. The Schwarzschild metric for the region r > 2m is given in (t, r, 8 , 4 ) coordinates by the formula
Each element of the rotation group SO(3) for W3 induces a motion of the Schwarzschild solution. Given qb E S 0 ( 3 ) , a motion ?C, of Schwarzschild space-
to the Schwarzschild solution. The generally accepted solutions of the Einstein equations for rotating black holes are Kerr solutions. In Boyer and Lindquist coordinates (t, r, 8 , 4 ) the Kerr metrics are given by [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 161), O'Neill (1995)l
$)). Thus a t a fixed time may be defined by setting q ( t , r,$, 4) = (t, $(T, @,
instant t in time, the exterior Schwarzschild space-time is spherically symmetric. The metric for this space-time is also invariant under the time translation t -+t
+ a.
The coordinate vector field a/at is a timelike Killing vector field
which is a gradient, and the metric is said to be static. This space-time is also Ricci flat (i.e., Ric = 0). Using the Einstein equations (cf. Chapter 2), it follows that the energy-momentum tensor for the exterior Schwarzschild space-time vanishes. Thus this space-time is empty. The exterior Schwarzschild space-time may be regarded as a Lorentzian warped product (cf. Section 3.6). For let M = {(t, r ) the Lorentzian metric
E
where p2 = r2 a2 cos2 0 and A = r2 - 2mr
+ a2. The constant m represents
the mass, and the constant m a represents the angular momentum of the black hole [cf. Boyer and Price (1965), Boyer and Lindquist (1967)l. Tomimatsu and Sato (1973) have given a series of exact solutions which include the Kerr solutions as special cases.
W2 : r > 2m) be given
5.3
and let H = S2 be given the usual Riemannian metric h of constant sectional curvature one induced by the inclusion S2 -+ W3. Define f : M where i j = g $ f h. Physically, the exterior Schwarzschild solution represents the gravitational field outside of a nonrotating spherically symmetric massive object. Comparison with the Newtonian theory [cf. Einstein (1916, p. 819), Pathria (1974, p. 217)] shows that m can be identified with the gravitational mass of the massive body. The solution is not valid in the interior of the body. The above form of the exterior Schwarzschild metric appears to have a singularity at r = 2m. However, this is not a true singularity; the exterior
--+
Spaces of C o n s t a n t C u r v a t u r e
W by
It is known that two Lorentzian manifolds of the same dimension which have constant sectional curvature K are locally isometric [cf. Wolf (1974, p. 69)]. Thus any Lorentzian manifold of constant sectional curvature zero is locally isometric to Minkowski space-time. In this section we will consider Lorentzian model spaces which have constant nonzero sectional curvature. We first define
f ( t , r ) = r2. Then (M x f H,ij) is the exterior Schwarzschild space-time,
W : to be the standard semi-Euclidean space of signature
(-, . . , , -, +, . . .,+), where there are s negative eigenvalues and n - s positive

eigenvalues. Hence the semi-Euclidean metric on
W :
is given by
EXAMPLES O F SPACCTIMES
5.3
SPACES OF CONSTANT CURVATURE
183
In particular,
IR;
is n-dimensional Minkowski space-time. We also define for
r > 0 [cf. Wolf (1974, Section 5.2)]
and
Topologically, S;" is R' x Sn-I and The semi-Euclidean metric on
H i ' is S' x Rn-' [cf. Wolf (1974, p. 6 8 ) ) .

(respectively, R;+') induces a Lorentzian (respectively, K = -r-2) on
T - ~ .
w ; "
metric of constant sectional curvature K = r-'
S y (respectively, HT). The space-time Sf. is a Lorentzian analogue of the

usual Riemannian spherical space of radius r and has positive curvature The universal covering manifold curvature -rW2.
H;" of H;"is
topologically Rn and is thus
a Lorentzian analogue of the usual Riemannian hyperbolic space of negative
Definition 5.1. (de Sitter and anti-de Sitter Space-times)

universal covering
Let S;" and
Hf. be defined as above. Then SF- is called de Sitter space-time, and the
Hr
of H r is called (universal) anti-de Sitter space-time.
Remark 5.2.
( 1 ) Sf. is simply connected for n
> 2 and .rrl(S:)
= Z.
(2) Sf. is globally hyperbolic and geodesically complete.
FIGURE 5.6.
The Kruskal diagram for the maximal analytic ex-
(3) H f . is nonchronological since y(t) = ( T cos t ,r sin t , 0 , . . . ,0) is a closed

timelike curve. Also bolic. The de Sitter space-time represented in Figure 5.7 may be covered by global coordinates (t,x,B,$) with -m < t
tension of the exterior Schwarzschild space-time is shown. The extended space-time is the connected nonconvex region I U I1 U I' U 11' bounded by the hyperbola corresponding t o r = 0. The points of this hyperbola are the true singularities of this space-time. The lines a t f45' separate the space-time into four regions. Region I corresponds to the exterior Schwarzschild solution. Region I1 is the "interior" of a nonrotating black hole. Region I' is isometric t o region I and corresponds to a n alternative universe on the "other side" of the black hole. There is no nonspacelike curve from region I to region 1'.
@, while strongly causal, is not
globally hyper-
< cm,0 < x < 0 < B 5 T , and < $ 5 27r. Here t is the coordinate on IR and (x,B,$) represent coordinates
T,
on S 3 Icf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 125, 136)]. In these coordinates, the metric for de Sitter space-time of constant positive sectional curvature l / r 2 is given by
184
EXAMPLES OF SPACGTIMES
5.4
ROBERTSON-WALKER SPACGTIMES
185
Riemannian metric h of constant negative sectional curvature -1 on the hyperbolic three-space H = W3, this space-time may be represented as a warped product of the form (Rx f H , -f dt2@h),where the warping function is defined on the Riemannian factor H (cf. Remark 3.53). 5.4 Robertson-Walker Space-times
In this section we discuss Robertson-Walker space-times in the framework of Lorentzian warped products. These space-times include the Einstein static universe and the big bang cosmological models of general relativity. In order to give a precise definition of a Robertson-Walker space-time, it is necessary to first recall some concepts from the theory of two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifolds and isotropic Riemannian manifolds. Let (H, h) be a Riemannian manifold. Denote by I ( H ) the isometry group of (H, h) and by & : H x H
-+ R
the Riemannian distance function of (H, h).
Definition 5.3. (Homogeneous and Two-Point Homogeneous Manifolds) FIGURE 5.7. The n-dimensional de Sitter space-time with positive constant sectional curvature r-2 is the set -x12 +x22+-. .+x:+~ = r 2 in Minkowski space-time R;'~. The geodesics of S,"lie on the intersection of S," with the planes through the origin of R;". This may be reinterpreted as a Lorentzian warped product metric (cf. Section 3.6) as follows. Let f : W
+
The Riemannian manifold (H, h) is said to be homogeneous if I ( H ) acts transitively on H , i.e., given any p,q f H , there is an isometry
E I ( H ) with
4(p) = q. Further, (H, h) is said to be two-point homogeneous if given any

= do(p2, 4, there is a n isometry PI, ql, p2,92 E H with do(~1,ql)
E I(H)
with +(PI) = p2 and 4(ql) = 92.
(0, m) be given by f (t) = r2cosh2(t/r), and
Since it is possible to choose p, = q, for z = 1 , 2 , a two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifold is also homogeneous. Two-point homogeneous spaces were first studied by Busemann (1942) in the more general setting of locally compact metric spaces. Wang (1951, 1952) and Tits (1955) classified two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifolds. Notice that in Definition 5.3 it is not required that (H, h) be a complete Riemannian manifold. Nonetheless, homogeneous Riemannian manifolds have the important basic property of always being complete.
let S3 be given the usual complete Riemannian metric of constant sectional curvature one. Then the de Sitter space-time described in local coordinates as above is the warped product ( W x S3, -dt2 @ fh). Universal anti-de Sitter space-time of curvature K = -1 may be given coordinates (t', r, 8,4) for which the metric has the form
[cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 131, 136)). Regarding -(dt')2 as a negaas the complete tive definite metric on W and dr2 sinh2(r)(a2 sin2 B
L e m m a 5.4. If (H, h) is a homogeneous Riemannian manifold, then (H, hf

is complete.
186
5.4
ROBERTSON-WALKER SPACE-TIMES
187
Proof. By the Hopf-Rinow Theorem, it suffices to show that ( H ,h ) is geodesically complete. Thus suppose that c : [a,1) -+ H is a unit speed geodesic which is not extendible t o t = 1. Choosing any p E H , we may find a constant a > 0 such that any unit speed geodesic starting at p has length
1 2 a. Set 6 = min{a/2, ( 1- a ) / 2 )
with $,cl(0) = -cJ(0). Hence by geodesic uniqueness, g!~(c(t)) = c ( - t ) for all t E ( a ,6). This implies that the length of c 1 ( a ,0] equals the length o f c 1 [0,6). Since p may be taken t o be any point o f the geodesic c, it follows that a = -m and 6 = f m . Thus ( H ,h ) is geodesically complete. Hence by the Hopf-Rinow Theorem, given any two points pl, p2 E H , there is a geodesic segment
Q
> 0. Since isometries preserve geodesics, it
follows from the homogeneity o f ( H ,h ) that any unit speed geodesic starting at c(1 - 6 ) may be extended t o a geodesic o f length 1 2 26. In particular, c may be extended to a geodesic c : [a,1 inextendibility o f c to t = 1. 0 R e m a r k 5.5. It is important to note that the conclusion o f Lemma 5.4 is false in general for homogeneous Lorentzian manifolds [cf.Wolf (1974, p. 95), Marsden (1973)l. W e now recall the concept o f an isotropic Riemannian manifold. Given p 6 ( H ,h ) , the isotropy group I p ( H ) o f ( H ,h ) at p is the closed subgroup I p ( H )= { 4 E I ( H ) : $(p) = p ) o f I ( H ) consisting of all isometries of ( H ,h ) , maps T p H onto T p H which fix p. Given any 4 E I p ( H ) ,the differential # since 4 ( p ) = p. As h(4,v, & v ) = h ( v ,v ) for any v E T p H , the differential q5,, also maps the unit sphere SpH = {v E T,M : h ( v ,v ) = 1 ) in T,H onto itself. Definition 5.6. (Isotropic Riemannian Manifold) A Riemannian manifold ( H ,h) is said t o be isotropic at p i f I p ( H ) acts transitively on the unit sphere SpH o f T p H ,i.e., given any v , w E S,H, there is an isometry 4 E I,(H) with 4,v = w.The Riemannian manifold ( H , h ) is said t o be isotropic i f it is isotropic at every point. W e now show that the class o f isotropic Riemannian manifolds coincides with the class of two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifolds [cf.Wolf (1974, p 289)]. Proposition 5.7. A Riemannian manifold ( H ,h ) is isotropic iff it is twopoint homogeneous. Proof. Recall that & denotes the Riemannian distance function o f ( H ,h). First suppose that ( H ,h ) is isotropic. Then for each p E H and each inextendible geodesic c : ( a ,b) -+ H with c(0) = p, there is an isometry 4 E I,(H)
o f minimal length &(pl,pz) from pl to p2. Let p be the midpoint
+6)
-4
H , in contradiction t o the
o f Q. As ( H ,h ) is isotropic, there is an isometry # E I,(H) which reverses Q. I t follows that # ( P I ) = p2. Hence ( H ,h ) is homogeneous. It remains to show that i f P I , ql, p2, q2 E H with & ( P I , ql) = do(p2,q2) > 0 are given, we may 2 and # ( q l ) = q2. Choose minimal find an isometry 4 E I ( H ) with # ( P I ) = p unit speed geodesics cl from pl t o ql and c2 from p2 to 92. Since ( H ,h ) is homogeneous, we may first find an isometry 1I, E I ( H ) with lI,(pl)= p2. Then as ( H ,h ) is isotropic, we may find 77 E I,,(H) with
v*((+o c1)'(0))= ~ ' ( 0 ) .
I t follows that 4 = 71 0 $ is the required isometry.

Now suppose that ( H ,h ) is two-point homogeneous. Fix any p E M , and let U be a convex normal neighborhood based at p. Choose a > 0 such that expp(v)E U for all v E T,H with h ( v , v ) 5 a . Now let v?w E T p H be any pair o f nonzero tangent vectors with h ( v ,v ) = h ( w ,w )< a/2. Set ql = exppv and
= q2 = exp, w.Then ql, q2 E U and d(p,q l ) = = d(p,q2). Since ( H ,h ) is two-point homogeneous, there is thus an isometry $ E I ( H )
with 4 ( p ) = p and $(ql) = q2. I t follows that $,v = w. The linearity o f qap: T p H --t T p H for any 11 E I p ( H )then implies that I,(H) acts transitively on S p H . Thus ( H ,h ) is isotropic at p. As the same argument clearly holds for all p E H , it follows that ( H ,h ) is isotropic as required. Corollary 5.8. Any isotropic Riemannian manifold is homogeneous and complete. R e m a r k 5.9. ( 1 ) T h e two-point homogeneous Riemannian manifolds are well known [cf.Wolf (1974, pp. 290-296)]. In particular, the odd-dimensional two-point homogeneous (hence isotropic) Riemannian manifolds are just the odd-dimensional Euclidean, hyperbolic, spherical, and elliptic spaces [cf.Wang (1951, p. 47311. ( 2 ) Astronomical observations indicate that the spatial universe is approxi-
188
5.4
ROBERTSON-WALKER SPACE-TIMES
189
mately spherically symmetric about the earth. This suggests that the spatial universe should be modeled as a three-dimensional isotropic Riemannian manifold. Hence the possibilities are limited to the Euclidean, hyperbolic, spherical, and elliptic spaces. However, if one only assumes local isotropy, there are more possibilities [cf. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973, pp. 713-725)]. (3) Any three-dimensional isotropic Riemannian manifold (H, h) has constant sectional curvature, and also dim I ( H ) = 6 [cf. Walker (1944)l. We are now ready to define Robertson-Walker spacetimes using Lorentzian warped products and isotropic Riemannian manifolds.
Theorem 3.69 we also know that every level surface n.-'(c) = {c) x H is a Cauchy surface for Mo x f H. Next to Minkowski space Rn = R x Rn-' itself, the Einstein static universe is the simplest example of a Robertson-Walker space-time.
Example 5.11. (Einstein Static Universe)

Riemannian metric. I f f : R
-+
Let Mo = R with the neg-
ative definite metric -dt2, and let H = Sn-' with the standard spherical (0, m ) is the trivial warping function f = 1, then the product Lorentzian manifold M = Mo x H = Mo x f H is the ndimensional Einstein static universe. If n = 2, then M is the cylinder R x S' with Aat metric -dt2
Definition 5.10. (Robertson-Walker Space-time) A Robertson-Walker space-time (M, g) is any Lorentzian manifold which can be written in the form
of a Lorentzian warped product (Mo x f H,g) with Mo = ( a , b ) , -co 5 a Riemannian manifold, and with warping function f : Mo -+ (0, m). In the notation of Section 3.6, we thus have g = -dt2 @ f h and Mo x f H is also topologically the product Mo x H. Letting du2 denote the Riemannian metric h for H and defining S(t) = may be rewritten in the more familiar form
+ do2. If n 2 3, then this metric for M = R x Sn-' is
not flat since Sn-' has constant positive sectional curvature K = 1. For the rest of this section we restrict our attention to four-dimensional Robertson-Walker spacetimes. By Remark 5.9, these are warped products Mo x f H , where (H, h) is Euclidean, hyperbolic, spherical, or elliptic of dimension three. In the first two cases, H is topologically R3. In the third case
<
b 5 -too,given the negative definite metric -dt2, with (HI h) an isotropic
m, the Lorentzian metric g for Mo x f H
H = S3, and in the last case H is the real projective three-space RP3.We thus have the following
Corollary 5.12. All four-dimensional Robertson-Walker spacetimes are topologically either R4, R x S3, o r R x RP3.
Also by Remark 5.9, the sectional curvature K of (H, h) is constant. If K is

. : Mo x f H The map n
--+
R given by x(t,z) = t is a smooth time function
nonzero, the metric may be rescaled to be of the form ds2 = -dt2 usually studied in general relativity.
+ S2(t)du2
on Mo x f H so that the Lorentzian manifold Mo x f H , of Definition 5.10 actually is a (stably causal) spacetime. Also each level surface n.-l(c) of the map
T
on M so that K is either identically $1 or -1. This is the form of the metric In physics, cosmological models are built from four-dimensional RobertsonWalker space-times assumed to be filled with a perfect fluid. The Einstein equations (cf. Chapter 2) are then used to find the form of the above warping function S2(t). Among the models this technique yields are the big bang cosmological models [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 134-138)]. These models depend on the energy density p and pressure p of the perfect fluid a s well as the value of the cosmological constant A in the Einstein equations. In the big bang cosmological models, the inextendible nonspacelike geodesics are all past
: Mo
xfH
--+
Mo
c R is an isotropic Riemannian manifold which is

T(H)of I(Mo x f H ) as follows.
Given 4 E I(H),
homothetic to (HIh). Furthermore, the isometry group I ( H ) of (HIh) may be identified with a subgroup defbe
E F(H) by
$(T,
h) = (r,$(h)) for all (r, h) E Mo x H. With this
definition, F(H) restricted to the level surfaces s-'(c) of s acts transitively on each level surface. Since all isotropic Riemannian manifolds are complete, Theorem 3.66 implies that all Robertson-Walker spacetimes are globally hyperbolic. From
190
EXAMPLES O F SPACE-TIMES
5.5
LIE GROUPS: BI-INVARIANT LORENTZIAN METRICS
191
incomplete. The stability of this incompleteness under metric perturbations will be considered in Section 7.3. Astronomical observations of clusters of galaxies indicate that distant clusters of galaxies are receding from us. This expansion of the universe suggests the existence of a "big bang" in the past and also suggests that the universe is a warped product with a nontrivial warping function rather than simply a Lorentzian product. Observations of blackbody radiation support these ideas [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, Chapter
5.5
Thus any compact Lie group is furnished with a large supply of bi-invariant Riemannian metrics. On the other hand, while (5.1) equips any Lie group with left-invariant Lorentzian metrics, the standard Haar integral averaging procedure used for Riemannian metrics fails to preserve signature (-, metrics. But we will see shortly that a large class of bi-invariant Lorentzian metrics may be constructed for noncompact Lie groups of the form any Lie group admitting a bi-invariant Riemannian metric.
+, . - . ,+), so it cannot be
used to convert left-invariant Lorentzian metrics into bi-invariant Lorentzian
lo)].
Bi-Invariant Lorentzian Metrics o n Lie G r o u p s
R x G, where G is
The purpose of this section is to show how Theorems 3.67 and 3.68 of Section 3.6 may be used to construct a large class of Lie groups admitting globally hyperbolic, bi-invariant Lorentzian metrics. We first summarize some basic facts from the elementary theory of Lie groups. Details may be found in a lucid exposition by Milnor (1963, Part IV) or at a more advanced level in Helgason (1978, Chapter 2). A Lie group is a group G which is also an analytic manifold such that the mapping (g, h) gh-I from G x G
+
Before giving the construction, we need to discuss product Lie groups briefly. Let G and H be two Lie groups. The product manifold G x H is then turned into a Lie group by defining the multiplication by
It is immediate from (5.2) that if u = (g, h) E G XH , then the translation maps L,, R, : G x H
-+
-+
G x H are given by L, = (L,, Lh), and R, = (R,, Rh),
G is analytic. This multiplication induces left and right
i.e., L,(gl, hl) = (L,gl, Lhhl)>etc. Recall that T,(G x H) 2 T,G x ThH. It is straighforward to check that for any u E G x H and any tangent vector
translation maps L,,
R, for
each g E G I given respectively by L,(h) = gh
and Rg(h) = hg. A Riemannian or Lorentzian metric (
, ) for G
is then said
= (v, w)
t = (v, w) f T,(G
and
x H ) 2 TgG x ThH, one has
to be left invariant (respectively, right invariant) if (L,*v, L,,w)
(respectively, (Rgtv,R,,w) = (v, w)) for all g E G and v, w E TG. A metric which is both left and right invariant is said to be bi-invariant. By an averaging procedure involving the Haar integral, any compact Lie group may be given a bi-invariant metric [cf. Milnor (1963, p. 112)]. In fact, the Haar integral may be used to produce a bi-invariant Riemannian metric for G from any left invariant Riemannian metric for G. Any Lie group may be equipped with a left invariant Riemannian (or Lorentzian) metric by starting with a positive definite inner product (respectively, inner product of signature n - 2) ( , )I, on the tangent space T,G to G a t the identity element e E G, then defining
X
Now if ( ,
)l
is a Lorentzian metric for G and ( , j2 is a Riemannian
metric for H , the product metric (( , )) = ( , )1 @ ( , )2 is a Lorentzian metric for G x H . Explicitly, recalling Definition 3.51, we have for tangent vectors
El
= (vl, wl) and
t2= (vz, w2) in T,(G
x H ) the formula
)I,:T,GxT,G+
W by
i
I
((Ei,E2)) = (v1,~2)1 + (~1,w2)2. It is then immediate from (5.3) and (5.4) that if ( , is a bi-invariant Lorentzian metric for G and ( , )2 is a bi-invariant Riemannian metric for H , then (( , )) is a bi-invariant Lorentzian metric for G x H. To summarize,
i
P
192
5.5
193
Proposition 5.13. Let (G, (
be a Lie group equipped with a bi-
for any [ E T,,(G x H) we have

~ u . <= ~ u (1,. .
( ~ ~ ; l [ ) )
invariant Lorentzian metric, and let (H, ( , )2) be a Lie group equipped with a bi-invariant Riemannian metric. Then the product metric ((
, )) = ( , ) I @
( , ) z is a bi-invariant Lorentzian metric for the product Lie group G x H . Hence (G x H, (( , ))) is a Lorentzian symmetric space and, in particular, is
geodesically complete. Proof. It is only necessary to prove the last statement which is a standard fact in Lie group theory. Recall that we must show that for each a E G x there exists an isometry I,, : G x H
-+
= R,,.
(- R,:.<)
( = -[.
since
C E T,(G x H )
= -R,.R,;IJ
= - (R,R,,-I),
H,
G x H which fixes a and reverses the
Thus I , reverses geodesics at a as required. We have therefore shown that G x H is a symmetric space. It may be shown that any symmetric space is geodesically complete as follows. Let y be a geodesic in M, and set p = y(0). Supposing that q = y(A) is defined, one may derive the formula [cf. Milnor (1963, p. log)]
geodesics through a. That is, if y is a geodesic in G x H with y(0) = u, we must show that I,(y(t)) = y(-t) for all t. This is equivalent to showing that
I,. : T,(G x H ) Is2 = Id.
-+
T,,(G x H ) is the map I,,(E) = -[ and also implies that
We will follow the proof given in Milnor (1963, pp. 109, 112). First, if we denote the identity element of G x H by e and define a map I, : G x H
-t
Gx H
by Ie(a) = u - ' , then I,, : T,(G x H ) -+ Te(G x H ) is given by I,-(v) = -v. Thus I,. : Te(G x H ) -+ T,(G x H ) is an isometry of T,(G x H). To see that I,. is an isometry of any other tangent space T,(G x H ) + To-I(G x H ) and hence that I, : G x H 4 G x H is an isometry, we simply note that
provided that y(t) and y(t 2A) are defined. Thus if y is defined originally on an interval y : [O, X]
G x H , y may be and putting
extended to a geodesic ;j: : [O,2X]-+ G x H by choosing q = $4'2) (-co, co). Thus (G x H , ((
y(t) = I,Ip(y(t - A)) for t E [A, 2 4 . It is then clear that y may be defined on
, ))) is geodesically complete. 0
Now Proposition 5.13 has the apparent defect that the existence of Lie
Since (( Then as
, )) is bi-invariant, all left and right translation maps are isometries.

Ie.
groups (G, ( , ) I ) equipped with bi-invariant Lorentzian metrics is assumed. It will now be shown how such Lie groups may be constructed by taking products of the form (R x G, -dt2 @ (
, )) where (G, ( , )) is a Lie group
I,
= R,;l
1,Ie.
IeLu;l
,1
equipped with a Riemannian hi-invariant metric. The Lie group structure on (R, -dt2) we will use is that induced by the usual addition of real numbers. Accordingly, we will write (a, b) I-+ a + b for the Lie group "multiplication" despite our use of the product notation above for the group operation. Here R is the analytic manifold determined by the
and I,, ,1 is an isometry of T,(G x H ) , it follows that I,, : T,(G x H ) --+ To-I(Gx H ) is also an isometry. The map I, : G x H -+ G x H is thus the required geodesic symmetry at e. We define the geodesic symmetry I , for any a E G by setting I,, = R,I,R,-1. Since R, and R,-1 are isometries by the bi-invariance of ((
, ))
W,t(r) = r. Let a/at denote the corresponding coordinate vector field on R. The left and right translation maps La, R, : R l R are given by
chart t : IW
-+
+
and we have just shown that I, is an isometry, it follows that I , :G x H , G x H is an isometry, and obviously I,(a) = a since I,(h) = ah-'a. Finally,
L,(r) = a + r and R,(r) = r + a . It is easy to check that if v = X dl&/, E then L,*v and R,-v in T,+,(R) are given by L,*v = Ra-v = X d/&l,+,.
T,W,
Hence
194
EXAMPLES OF S P A C S T I M E S
SO
5.5
195
-dt2(L,*v, La.v) = - d t 2 ( ~ , - v ,R,.v) = -A2 = -dt2(v,v) and right invariant.
that -dt2 is left
ported in Hilgert, Hofmann, and Lawson (1989) or Lawson (1989), has sparked renewed interest in the causality and differential geometry of Lorentzian Lie groups on the part of the semigroup community. A representative research paper where causality and Lie semigroups are considered is Levichev and Levicheva (1992). Additional results for left invariant Lorentzian metrics on Lie groups of dimension three have recently been obtained by Cordero and Parker (1995b).
Let (G, ( , )) be a Lie group with a bi-invariant Riemannian metric. By the proof given in Proposition 5.13, G is a complete symmetric space. Also using (5.3) and (5.4), it is easily seen that the metric (( is a bi-invariant Lorentzian metric for and
, )) = -dt2
W x G.
(Here, if
El
= (A1 a/&],, vl)
E2
= (Az dldtl, ,v2) with vl, v2 E TSG, the inner product ((El, &)) =
-A1A2
+ (vl,v2).) Since (G, (

, )))
, )) is a complete Riemannian manifold, the
product (R x G, (( obtained
is globally hyperbolic by Theorem 3.67. We have
Theorem 5.14. Let
(R, -dt2) be given the usual additive group structure
and let (G, ( , )) be any Lie group equipped with a bi-invariant Riemannian metric. Then the product metric (( , )) = -dt2 @ ( , ) is a bi-invariant Lorentzian metric for the product Lie group W x G. Thus (R x G, (( , ))) is a geodesically complete, globally hyperbolic space-time. Much research inspired by E. Cartan's work was done on Lie groups, homogeneous spaces, and symmetric spaces equipped with indefinite metrics before causality theory had assumed such a prominent role in general relativity. Thus most of this work was carried out not for Lorentzian metrics in particular but rather for general semi-Riemannian metrics of arbitrary signature. Rather than attempting to give an exhaustive list of references, we refer the reader to the bibliography in Wolf's (1974) text. Much of this research has been concerned with the problem of classifying all geodesically complete semi-Riemannian manifolds of constant curvature (the "space-form problem"). Two papers dealing with semi-Ftiemannian Lie theory have been written by Kulkarni (1978) and Nomizu (1979). Nomizu's paper deals specifically with Lorentzian metrics, considering the existence of constant curvature left-invariant Lorentzian metrics on a certain class of noncommutative Lie groups. A more general treatment of the class of Lie groups which admit left invariant Lorentzian metrics of constant sectional curvature was then given in Barnet (1989). Also more recently, research in the Lie theory of semigroups, as re-
CHAPTER 6
COMPLETENESS AND EXTENDIBILITY
We mentioned in Chapter 1 that the Hopf-Rinow Theorem guarantees the equivalence of geodesic and metric completeness for arbitrary Riemannian manifolds. Further, either of these conditions implies the existence of minimal geodesics. That is, given any two points p,q E M, there is a geodesic from p to q whose arc length realizes the metric distance from p to q. If M is compact, it also follows from the Hopf-Rinow Theorem that all Riemannian metrics for M are complete. In the noncompact case, Nomizu and Ozeki (1961) established that every noncompact smooth manifold admits a complete Riemannian metric. Extending their proof, Morrow (1970) showed that the complete Riemannian metrics for M are dense in the compact-open topology in the space of all Riemannian metrics for M [cf. Fegan and Millman (1978)l. In the first three sections of this chapter we compare and contrast these results with the theory of geodesic and metric completeness for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds. In Section 6.1 a standard example is given to show that geodesic completeness does not imply the existence of maximal geodesic segments joining causally related points. Then we recall that the class of globally hyperbolic space-times possesses this useful property. In Section 6.2 we consider forms of completeness such as nonspacelike geodesic completeness, bounded acceleration completeness (b. a. completeness), and bundle completeness (b-completeness) that have been studied in singularity theory in general relativity [cf. Clarke and Schmidt (1977), Ellis and Schmidt (1977)l. We also state a corollary to Theorem 8 of Beem (1976a, p. 184) establishing the existence of nonspacelike complete metrics for all distinguishing space-times. In Section 6.3 we discuss Lorentzian metric completeness and the finite compactness condition.
198
6.1
EXISTENCE OF MAXIMAL GEODESIC SEGMENTS
199
In the last three sections of this chapter we discuss extensions and local extensions of space-times. Since extendibility is related to geodesic completeness, extendibility plays an important role in singularity theory in general relativity [cf. Clarke (1973, 1975, 1976), Hawking and Ellis (1973), Ellis and Schmidt (1977)l. In particular, one usually wants to avoid investigating space-times which are proper subsets of larger space-times since such proper subsets are always geodesically incomplete. A space-time (M1,g') is said to be an extension of a given space-time ( M , g ) if (M,g) may be isometrically embedded as a proper open subset of (MI, g'). A space-time which has no extension is either said to be inextendible [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973)l or maximal [cf. Sachs and Wu (1977a, p. 29)). A local extension is an extension of a certain type of subset of a given space-time. In general, local inextendibility (i.e., the nonexistence of local extensions) implies global inextendibility. Since questions of extendibility naturally relate to the boundary of space-time, in Section 6.4 we briefly describe the Schmidt b-boundary and the Geroch-Kronheimer-Penrose causal boundary. In Section 6.5 two types of local extensions are defined and studied. If a Lorentzian manifold has no local extensions of either of these two types, it is shown to be inextendible. We also give a local extension of Minkowski space-time which shows that while b-completeness forces a space-time to be (globally) inextendible, b-completeness does not prevent a space-time from having local extensions. In Section 6.6 local extensions are related to curvature singularities. For example, if (M,g) is a n analytic space-time such that each timelike geodesic y : [O, a)
+
FIGURE6.1.
The universal cover M = {(x,t)
-x/2 < r <
7r/2) of two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space is shown. The metric dx2). The points p and q are is given by ds2 = sec2x (-dt2 chronologically related in M , yet no maximal timelike geodesic in M joins p to q since all future directed timelike geodesics emanating from p are focused at r. maximal geodesic segments joining causally related pairs of points. Second, we discuss the important and useful fact that distance realizing geodesics do exist for the class of globally hyperbolic space-times. The universal covering manifold (M, g) of two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space provides an example that geodesic completeness does not imply that every pair p, q E M with p
M which is inextendible to t = a is either complete (in the sense
that a = m) or else corresponds to a curvature singularity, then ( M , g ) has no analytic local b-boundary extensions. Also, the a-boundary of Scott and Szekeres (1994) and its role in classifying singularities is discussed.
6 . 1
Existence of Maximal Geodesic Segments
The purpose of this section is twofold. First, we recall that for arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds, geodesic completeness does not imply the existence of
< < q may
be joined by a timelike geodesic y with
L ( y ) = d ( p ,q) (cf. Figure 6.1). %call that if y is any future directed timelike
200
6.1
EXISTENCE O F MAXIMAL GEODESIC SEGMENTS
201
curve from p to q with L(y) = d(p, q), then y may be reparametrized to a timelike geodesic (cf. Theorem 4.13). Thus this same example shows that geodesically complete space-times exist which contain points p << q such that L(y) < d(p, 4) for all y f O,,,. The space-time (M, g) may be represented by the strip M = {(x,t ) E R2 : --7r/2
< q, the nonspacelike path space a,,, is compact.

a,,,
with L(yo) = sup{L(y)
:y E
On the other hand, since

--t
(M,g) is strongly causal, the arc-length functional L : 52,,, yo E

Q,,,).
R is upper
semicontinuous in the C0 topology (cf. Section 3.3). Thus there exists a curve It follows from the variational theory of arc length that if yo is not a reparametrization of a smooth geodesic, a curve a E R,,, with L(a) > L(y) may be constructed, in contradiction. then L(y0) = d(p,q) by the Alternatively, if L(y0) = sup{L(y) : y E a,,,), to reparametrization, a smooth geodesic. In the case that p
< x < r / 2 ) in B2 with the Lorentzian metric ds2 = sec2 x (-dt2
+ dx2)
yet
[cf. Penrose (1972, p. 7)j. The points p and q in Figure 6.1 satisfy p timelike conjugate point
T.
(< q,
all future timelike geodesics emanating from p are focused again a t the future Thus there is no timelike geodesic in M from p to q. Hence there is no maximal timelike geodesic or maximal timelike curve from p to q. Even more strikingly, it should be noted that an open set U
definition of Lorentzian distance. Hence Theorem 4.13 implies that yo is, up
< < q, the maximal curve yo may also be constructed using

--t
C I+(p)
the results of Section 3.3. Let h : M for (M,g). Choose to with h(p)
B be a globally hyperbolic time function

= J+(p)fl J-(q)flh-'(to)
of points of the type of q as in Figure 6.1 may be found with the property that none of the points of U are connected to p by any geodesic whatsoever, despite the geodesic completeness of this space-time. We now consider which space-times do have the property that every pair of points p,q E M with q E J+(p) may be joined by a distance realizing geodesic. If M = R2-((0, 0)) with the Lorentzian metric ds2 = dx2-dy2, then p = (0, -1) and q = (0,l) are points in M with d(p, q) = 2 > 0 which cannot be joined by a maximal timelike geodesic. [The desired geodesic would have to be the curve y(t) = (O,t), -1 5 t 5 1, which passes through the deleted point (0, O).] On the other hand, this space-time is chronological, strongly causal, and stably causal. Thus it is reasonable to restrict our attention to the class of globally hyperbolic space-times. For these space-times, Avez (1963) and Seifert (1967) have shown that given any p, q E M with p
< to < h(q). Then K
is compact, and any nonspacelike curve from p to q intersects K. By definition of Lorentzian distance, we may find a curve y, E O,,, with
for each positive integer n. Let rn E x n K . Since K is compact, a subsequence {T,(~))converges to

T
E K. By Corollary 3.32, there is a nonspacelike limit

T
curve yo of the sequence {yn(j)) passing through
and joining p to q. Since
(M,g) is strongly causal, a subsequence of {y,(,)) converges to yo in the C0

topology by Proposition 3.34. Using Remark 3.35 and condition (6.1), we obtain L(yo) > d(p, q). Hence by the definition of distance, L(yo) = d(p, q), and yo may be reparametrized to a smooth geodesic by Theorem 4.13. If p ,< q and d(p, q) = 0, we already know that there is a maximal null geodesic segment from p to q by Corollary 4.14. In connection with Theorem 6.1, it should be noted that global hyperbolicity is not a necessary condition for the existence of maximal geodesic segments joining all pairs of causally related points. For let M = {(x, y) E R2
:
< q, there is a
geodesic from p to q which maximizes arc length among all nonspacelike future directed curves from p t o q (cf. Theorem 3.18). In the language of Definition 4.10, this may be stated as follows. Theorem 6.1. Let (M, g) be globally hyperbolic. Then given any p, q E M with q E J+(p), there is a maximd geodesic segment y E i2,,,, i.e., a future directed nonspacelike geodesic y from p to q with L(y) = d(p,q). We sketch Seifert's (1967, Theorem 1) proof of this result [cf. Penrose (1972, Chapter 6)]. Since (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, it may be shown that if
<
x < 10, 0 < y < 10) be equipped with the Lorentzian rr~etricit inherits as an open subset of Minkowski space. Since the geodesics in M are just Euclidean
straight line segments, it is readily seen that maximal geodesics exist joining any pair of causally related points. However, if p = ( 1 , l ) and q = (1,9), then
202
6.2
GEODESIC COMPLETENESS
203
J+(p)
n 5-(q)
is noncompact. Hence this space-time, while strongly causal,
incomplete, inextendible, nonspacelike geodesics does not force a space-time to contain a black hole, these examples suggest that nonspacelike geodesic incompleteness might be used as a first order test for "singular space-times" [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, Chapter 8), Clarke and Schmidt (1977), Ellis and Schmidt (1977)j. Thus it is standard to make the following definitions in general relativity. Recall that a geodesic is said to be inextendible if it is both past and future inextendible. Definition 6.3. (Geodesically Complete) A space-time (M,g) is said
fails to be globally hyperbolic.

6.2
Geodesic Completeness
We showed in Theorem 4.9 that for space-times which are strongly causal, the Lorentzian distance function may be used to construct a subbasis for the given manifold topology. Nonetheless, the sets {q E M : d(p, q)
< R ) fail
t o form a basis for the given manifold topology. Thus geodesic completeness rather than metric completeness of spacetimes has usually been considered in general relativity. Let (M, g) be an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold. Definition 6.2. (Complete Geodesic) defined for -m A geodesic c in (M, g) with affine to be timelike (respectively, null, nonspacelike, spacelike) geodesically wmplete if all timelike (respectively, null, nonspacelike, spacelike) inextendible geodesics are complete. The space-time (M, g) is said t o be geodesically complete if all inextendible geodesics are complete. Also, (M, g) is said to be timelike (respectively, null, nonspacelike, spacelike) geodesically incomplete if some timelike (respectively, null, nonspacelike, spacelike) geodesic is incomplete. A nonspacelike incomplete space-time is said to be a geodesically singular spacetime. It was once hoped that timelike geodesic completeness might imply null geodesic completeness, etc. However, Kundt (1963) gave a n example of a spacetime that is timelike and null geodesically complete but not spacelike complete. Then Geroch (1968b, p. 531) gave an example of a space-time conformal to Minkowski two-space and thus globally hyperbolic which is timelike incomplete but null and spacelike complete. Also Geroch remarked that modifications of Kundt's and his examples gave space-times that were (1) incomplete in any two ways but complete in the third way, (2) spacelike incomplete but null and timelike complete, and (3) timelike incomplete but spacelike and null complete. Then Beem (1976~) gave an example of a globally hyperbolic space-time that was null incomplete but spacelike and timelike complete. These results may be summarized as follows. parameter t is said to be complete if the geodesic can be extcnded to be
<t <
moo. A past and future inextendible geodesic is said
to be incomplete if it cannot be extended to arbitrarily large positive and negative values of an affine parameter. Future or past incomplete geodesics may be defined similarly. An affine parameter t for the curve c is a parametrization such that c(t) satisfies the geodesic differential equation V,.c1(t) = 0 for all t [cf. Kobayashi and Nomizu (1963, p. 138)]. It is necessary to use the concept of an affine parameter since null geodesics, which have zero arc length, cannot be parametrized by arc length. If s and t are two affine parameters for c, it follows from the geodesic differential equations that there exist constants a , /3 E
I R such
that
s(t) = a t + P for all t in the domain of c. Hence completeness or incompleteness
as defined in Definition 6.2 is independent of the choice of affine parameter. In

particular, if c is a n inextendible timelike geodesic parametrized by arc length (i.e., g(cl(t),cl(t)) = -1 for all t in the domain of c), then c is incomplete if
L(c) < m. Even if L(c) = m, it may happen that c is incomplete. This occurs,
co), where a > c o . for example, when the domain of c is of the form (a,
Certain exact solutions to the Einstein equations in general relativity, like the extended Schwarzschild solution, contain nonspacelike geodesics which become incomplete upon running into black holes. Even though the existence of
T h e o r e m 6.4. Timelike geodesic completeness, nu11 geodesic complete-
ness, and spacelike geodesic completeness are all logically inequivalent.
6.2
GEODESIC
COMPLETENESS
205
Conformally change the metric gl to a new metric g = $gl for W2, where 4 : R2 --+ ( 0 ,co) is a smooth function with the following properties (cf. Figure 6.2): (1) $ ( x , t ) = 1 i f x s -1 o r x > 1; (2) $(x, t) = $(-x, t) for all (x, t ) f W2; and (3) On the t axis, d(0, t ) goes to zero like t-4 as t
-4
a.
Since g is conformal t o gl, the space-time (W2, g) is globally hyperbolic, and null geodesics still have as images straight lines making angles of 45" with the positive or negative x axis. By property (2), the reflection F ( x ,t) = (-x, t) is an isometry of Since the fixed point set of a n isometry is totally
+ m.
geodesic, the t axis may be parametrized as a timelike geodesic. By condition (3), this geodesic is incomplete as t Thus (W2,g) is timelike incomplete. But every null or spacelike geodesic which enters the region -1 5 x 5 1 eventually leaves and then remains outside this region. Thus condition (1) implies that (EX2,g) is null and spacelike complete. We now consider the converse problem of constructing geodesically complete Lorentzian metrics for paracompact smooth manifolds. In order to preserve the causal structure of the given space-time, we restrict our attention to global conformal changes rather than arbitrary metric deformations. For Riemannian metrics, Nomizu and Ozeki (1961) showed that an arbitrary metric can be made complete by a global conformal change. On the other hand, space-times exist with the property that no global conformal factor will make these space-times nonspacelike geodesically complete. A two-dimensional example with this property has been given by Misner (1967). In this example there are inextendible null geodesics which are future incomplete and future trapped in a compact set [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 171-172)j. Any conformal change of this example will leave these null geodesics pointwise fixed and future incomplete. Thus one may not establish an analogue of the Nomizu and Ozeki result for arbitrary space-times. However, the existence of nonspacelike complete Lorentzian metrics has been shown for space-times satisfying certain causality conditions. Seifert (1971, p. 258) has shown that if (M, g) is stably causal, then M is conformal
FIGURE 6.2.
Shown is Geroch's example of a space-time glob-
ally conformal to Minkowski two-space, which is null and spacelike geodesically complete but timelike geodesically incomplete. Here the positive t axis may be parametrized to be an incomplete t i m e like geodesic since b(O, t)
+0
like t T 4 as t
-+
a.
In order to illustrate the constructions used in the proof of Theorem 6.4, we now describe Geroch's example of a space-time which is null and spacelike complete but timelike incomplete. Let (IR2, gl) b e Minkowski two-space with global coordinates (x, t) and the usual Lorentzian metric gl = ds2 = dx2 - dt2.
206
6.2
GEODESIC COMPLETENESS
207
to a space-time with all future directed (or all past directed) nonspacelike geodesics complete. Also Clarke (1971) has shown that a strongly causal spacetime may be made null geodesically complete by a conformal factor. Beem (1976a) studied space-times with the property that for each compact subset
of this section, we will discuss two of these additional types of completeness, b.a. completeness (bounded acceleration completeness) and b-completeness (bundle completeness). The concept of b.a. completeness stems from the preceding example of Geroch. For the purpose of stating Definition 6.6, we recall than any C 2 timelike curve may be reparametrized to a C 2 timelike curve y : J g(yl(t), yl(t)) = -1 for all t f J. Definition 6.6. (Bounded Acceleration)
--+
K of M, no future inextendible nonspacelike curve is future imprisoned in K. (Recall that the nonspacelike curve y is said to be future imprisoned in K if there exists to E R such that y(t) E K for all t 2 to.) If (M,g) is
a causal space-time satisfying this condition, then there exists a conformal factor Sl : M
-t
M with
(0, GO) such that (M, Slg) is null and timelike geodesically
A C2 timelike curve y : J
-+ M
complete [Beem (1976a, p. 184, Theorem 8)]. This imprisonment condition is satisfied if ( M , g ) is stably causal, strongly causal, or distinguishing. Hence we may state the following result. T h e o r e m 6.5. If ( M , g ) is distinguishing, strongly causal, stably causal, or globally hyperbolic, then there exists a smooth conformal factor R : M plete. It is a n open question as to whether Theorem 6.5 can be strengthened to include spacelike geodesic completeness as well (cf. Corollary 3.46 for spacetimes homeomorphic to R2). Suppose that a space-time is defined to be nonsingular if it is geodesically complete. Then "no regions have been deleted from the space-time manifold" of a nonsingular space-time [Geroch (1968b, Property I)]. But Geroch (196813, Property 2) suggested a second condition that nonsingular space-times should satisfy, namely, "observers who follow 'reasonable' (in some sense) world lines should have a n infinite total proper time." Here a "world line" is a timelike curve in (M,g). Then Geroch (1968b, pp. 534-540) constructed a geodesically complete space-time which contains a smooth timelike curve of bounded acceleration but having finite length. Thus this example fails t o satisfy Geroch's Property 2 even though all timelike geodesics have infinite length by the geodesic completeness. Accordingly, in addition to geodesically incomplete space-times, further kinds of singular space-times have been studied in general relativity. In the rest
,
with g(yl(t),yl(t)) = -1 for all t E J is said to have bounded acceleration if there exists a constant B > 0 such that Ig(V,iyl(t), V , J ~ ' ( ~ ) )5 I B for all t E J. Here V is the unique torsion free connection for M defined by the metric g [cf. Section 2.2, equations (2.16) and (2.17)). In particular, if y is a geodesic, then y has zero and hence bounded acceleration. The requirement that y be C 2 makes it possible to calculate V,jyl. Definition 6.7. (b.a. complete space-time) A space-time (M,g) is said
(0, m) such that the space-time (M, Rg) is timelike and null geodesically com-
to be b.a. complete if all future (respectively, past) directed, future (respectively, past) inextendible, unit speed, C2 timelike curves with bounded acceleration have infinite length. If there exists a future (or past) directed, future (or past) inextendible, unit speed, C2 timelike curve with bounded acceleration but finite length, then (M,g) is said to be b.a. incomplete. Geroch's example (1968b, pp. 534-540) shows that geodesic completeness does not imply b.a. completeness. Furthermore, Beem (1976c, p. 509) has given an example to show that even for globally hyperbolic space-times, geodesic completeness does not imply b.a. completeness. Trivially, b.a. completeness implies timelike geodesic completeness. On the other hand, the example of Geroch given in Figure 6.2 may be modified by changing the sign of the metric tensor to show that b.a. completeness does not imply spacelike geodesic completeness. A stronger form of completeness, b-completeness, does imply geodesic completeness and hence overcomes this last objection to b.a. completeness. The
208
6.3
METRIC COMPLETENESS
209
concept of b-completeness, which was first studied for Lorentzian manifolds by Schmidt (1971), is intuitively defined as follows [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 259)). First, the concept of an affine parameter is extended from geodesics to all Ci curves. Then a space-time is said to be b-complete if every C 1 curve of finite length in such a parameter has an endpoint. We now give a brief discussion of b-completeness. First, it is necessary to discuss the concept of a generalized afine parameter for any C1 curve y : J
--+
Suppose y : J
M is any smooth geodesic. Taking El(t) = yl(t) in the
above construction, for any choice of E2,. . . , E n we have generalized affine parameter p(y, E l , E 2 , . . . ,En)(t) = t. Hence b-completeness implies geodesic completeness. It is also known that b-completeness implies b.a. completeness. Geroch's example (cf. Figure 6.2) with the sign of the metric tensor changed shows that there are globally hyperbolic space-times which are b.a. complete but not b-complete. Thus b.a. completeness does not imply b-completeness.
6.3
M. Recall that a smooth vector field V along y is a smooth map V : J --t TM such that V(t) E T7(tlM for all t E J. Such a smooth vector field V along
y is said to be a parallel field along y if V satisfies the differential equation
M e t r i c Completeness
The Hopf-Rinow Theorem for Riemannian manifolds (N,go) implies that the following are equivalent: (1) N with the Riemannian distance function do : N x N
+
Vy,V(t) = 0 for all t E J (cf. Chapter 2). A generalized affine parameter p = p(y, El,E 2 , . . . ,E n ) may be constructed for y : J -+ M as follows. Choosing any to E J, let {el, e2, .. . ,en} be any basis for Ty(t,lM. Let Ei be the unique parallel field along y with E,(to) = ei for 1 5 i 5 n. Then {El(t), E2(t), ... , En(t)) forms a basis for T7(tlM for each t E J. We may thus write yl(t) = Cy=l Vi(t)E,(t) with Vi : J -+ R for 1 5 i 5 n. Then the generalized affine parameter p = p(y, El,.. . , E n ) is
given by
[O, a) is a
complete metric space, i.e., all Cauchy sequences converge. (2) (N, do) is finitely compact, i.e., all do-bounded sets have compact closure. (3) (N, go) is geodesically complete. Here a set K in a Riemannian manifold (N,go) is said to be bounded if sup{do(p, q) : p, q E K } < co. By the triangle inequality, this is equivalent to the condition that K be contained inside a closed metric ball of finite radius.
The assumption that y is C1 is necessary in order to obtain the vector fields {El, E 2 , . . . ,E n ) by parallel translation. It may be checked that y has finite arc length in the generalized affine parameter p = p(y, El,. . . , E n ) if and only if y has finite arc length in any other generalized affine parameter p = p ( y , E l , . .. , E n ) calculated from any other basis {E,):=,
In Section 6.2 we considered the geodesic completeness of Lorentzian manifolds. In this section we shall consider Lorentzian analogues of conditions (1) and (2) above. From the very definition of Lorentzian distance [i.e., d(p, q) = 0 if q $ ! J+(p)], it is clear that attention should be restricted to timelike Cauchy sequences. Busemann (1967) studied general Hausdorff spaces having a partial order-
for TMI, obtained
by parallel translation along y [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 259)j. Hence the concept of finite arc length with respect to a generalized affine parameter is independent of the particular choice of generalized affine parameter. It thus makes sense to make the following definition. Definition 6.8. (b-complete space-time) The space-time (M, g) is said
<q ing with properties similar to those of the chronological partial ordering p <
of a space-time. Also, Busemann supposed that these spaces, which he called timelike spaces, were equipped with a function which behaves just like the Lorentzian distance function of a chronological space-time restricted to the set {(p, q) E M x M : p
to be b-complete if every C1 curve of finite arc length as measured by a generalized affine parameter has a n endpoint in M.
< q}.
For this class of nondifferentiable spaces, Busemann
observed that the length of continuous curves could be defined and, moreover,
6.3
METRIC COMPLETENESS
211
Definition 6.9. (Timelike Cauchy Complete) The causal space-time (M,g) is said to be timelike Cauchy complete if any sequence {x,) of points
with x,
< < x,+,
for n, m = 1 , 2 , 3 , .. . and d(z,, x,+,) x,) 5 B,] for all m 1 0, where B,

-+
x, and d(x,+,,
5 B, [or else x,+, < < 0 as n -+ oa,is a con-
vergent sequence. For Riemannian manifolds, finite compactness may be defined by requiring that all closed metric balls be compact. On the other hand, we have noted above (cf. Figure 4.4) that thesubsets {q E J+(p) : d(p, q ) 5 e ) of a space-time are generally noncompact. Thus the Riemannian definition must be modified. One possibility is the following [cf. Busemann (1967, p. 22)].
Definition 6.10. (Finitely Compact) The causal space-time (M,g) is said to be finitely compact if for each fixed constant B > 0 and each sequence
of points {x,) with either p and d(z,,p)
< < q < x,
and d(p, x,) 5 B for all n, or x,
<q< <p
in M .
< B for all n, there is a point of accumulation of {x,)

< < q < x,
(or x,
It may be seen that without requiring p (cf. Figure 6.3).
<q< < p) for some
q E M in Definition 6.10, Minkowski space-time fails to be finitely compact
FIGURE 6.3.
Shown is a sequence {x,) in Minkowski two-space
(IR2,ds2 = dx2-dy2) with 2,
> > p for all n, d(p, z ) ,
+ 0 as n -+ co,
For globally hyperbolic space-times, a characterization of finite compactness more reminiscent of condition (2) above for Riemannian manifolds may be given.
but such that {x,) has no point of accumulation.
the length functional is upper semicontinuous in a topology of uniform convergence [cf. Busemann (1967, p. lo)]. Busemann's aim in studying timelike spaces was to develop a geometric theory for indefinite metrics analogous to the theory of metric G-spaces [cf. Busemann (1955)j. In particular, Busemann studied finite compactness and metric completeness for timelike spaces in the spirit of (1) and (2) of the Hopf-Rinow Theorem. Beem (1976b) observed that Busemann's definitions of finite compactness and metric completeness for timelike G-spaces may be adapted to causal spacetimes. First, timelike Cauchy completeness may be defined for causal spacetimes as follows.
Lemma 6.11. Let (M,g) be globally hyperbolic. Then (M, g) is finitely

compact iff for each real constant B > 0, the set {x E M : p << q 6 x, d(p, x) 5 B) is compact for any p,q E M with q E I+(p) and the set {x E M : x < q << p, d(x,p) 5 B ) is compact for any p,q E M with p E I+(q). Proof. This now follows easily because the sets J + ( q ) are closed and the Lorentzian distance function is continuous since (M, g) is globally hyperbolic. Minkowski space-time is both timelike Cauchy complete and finitely compact. More generally, it may be shown that these concepts are equivalent for all globally hyperbolic space-times [cf. Beem (1976b, pp. 343-344)l.
212
6.3
METRIC COMPLETENESS
213
Theorem 6.12. If (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, then (M, g) is finitely com-
then its image must be a closed achronal subset which is diffeomorphic to
pact iff (M, g) is timelike Cauchy complete. Also, if (M,g) is globally hyperbolic and nonspacelike geodesically complete, then (M,g) is finitely compact and timelike Cauchy complete.
Remark 6.13. Even for the class of globally hyperbolic space-times, finite
Rn and it must be embedded as a graph of a function defined on a spacelike

hyperplane. A more detailed resume of Harris's work on spacelike completeness together with additional references is given in Harris (1993, 1994). Separate investigations had earlier been conducted in the case of constant mean curvature spacelike hypersurfaces S of Ln+' which are closed subsets of Ln+' in the Euclidean topology. For this class of space-times, Cheng and Yau (1976) showed that the condition of constant mean curvature Ho implies that
compactness, or equivalently, timelike Cauchy completeness, does not imply timelike geodesic completeness. Indeed, Geroch's example given in Figure 6.2 is a timelike geodesically incomplete, globally hyperbolic space-time which is finitely compact. At times, it is important to consider the completeness of a submanifold as well as that of the given manifold. Conditions which are sufficient to guarantee the completeness of submanifolds of Lorentzian manifolds are, in general, more complicated than corresponding conditions for submanifolds of Riemannian manifolds [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1985a,b), Harris (1987, 1988a,b, 1994)j. If (H, h) is a complete Riemannian manifold and F : M
+H
S is complete in the induced Riemannian metric. (A complete treatment of the

issue of the achronality en route to the proof of completeness is given in Harris (1988a, pp. 112, 118). Also, Harris (1988a, p. 118) showed that the hypothesis of bounded principal curvatures may be substituted for constant mean curvature.) Further, Cheng and Yau (1976) showed that constant mean curvature Ho implies that the length of the second fundamental form is bounded by
n /No[ and also that S has nonpositive Ricci curvature. In particular, in the
is an embedding
of M with F ( M ) a closed subset of H , then M is a complete Riemannian manifold using the induced metric. The converse of this result is false. For example, let the curve c : (0, +m) -+ W2 be given by c(t) = (t,sin(l/t)). This curve has an image which is a complete submanifold of the usual Euclidean plane, but this image clearly fails to be a closed subset of R2. Unlike the Riemannian case, closed embedded submanifolds of Lorentzian manifolds need not be complete. To see this, it suffices to take a curve in the Minkowski plane which is asymptotic to a null line quickly enough in at least one direction along the curve. For example, the following map [cf. Harris
case of a maximal (i.e., Ho = 0) spacelike hypersurface, this estimate shows that the second fundamental form is trivial. Hence these results of Cheng and Yau (1976) combine with earlier work of Calabi (1968) for n = 3 to yield the result that the only maximal spacelike hypersurface which is a closed subset of Minkowski space is a linear hyperplane. Nishikawa (1984) investigated the more general case of a locally symmetric target manifold satisfying the timelike convergence condition and a condition that the sectional curvature of all nondegenerate two-planes spanned by a pair of spacelike vectors be nonnegative. Nishikawa showed that a complete maximal spacelike hypersurface in such a target space-time would be totally geodesic. In the case of nonzero constant mean curvature, Goddard (1977b) carried out perturbation calculations for hyperboloids in Minkowski space (and
is an embedding of W1 as an incomplete closed spacelike submanifold of the (x, y) plane with the usual Minkowski metric 77 = dx2-dy2. Harris (1988a) has studied the completeness of embedded and immersed spacelike hypersurfaces of Minkowski space. Among other things, he has shown that if such an immersed hypersurface in (n + 1)-dimensional Minkowski space (i.e., Ln+') is complete,
also for appropriate submanifolds of de Sitter space-time) which suggested that perhaps all entire, constant mean curvature, spacelike hypersurfaces of Minkowski space should be hyperboloids. This issue was thoroughly investigated by Treibergs (1982), who took the starting point that in the case of positive mean curvature, an entire spacelike hypersurface could be realized as
214
6.4
IDEAL BOUNDARIES
--t
215
the graph of a convex function. Now for an entire convex function f whose graph is a spacelike hypersurface, Treibergs (1982, p. 51) defines the projective
Recall that a curve y : [O,a)
M is said to be b-incomplete if it has
finite generalized affine parameter (cf. Section 6.2). .4ny curve y : [O,a)--, M which is both b-incomplete and inextendible to t = a defines a point of dbM corresponding to y(a). In Minkowski space-time, generalized affine parameter values along a curve can be made to correspond to Euclidean arc length. Thus Minkowski space-time has an empty b-boundary, and each b-incomplete curve in Minkowski space-time has an endpoint in the space-time. The causal boundary of a space-time (M,g) will be denoted by dcM. This boundary is constructed using the causal structure of the space-time. Thus it is invariant under conformal changes. We will only be interested in considering this boundary for strongly causal space-times. The causal boundary is formed using indecomposable past (respectively, future) sets which do not correspond to the past (respectively, future) of any point of M . A past (respectively, future) set A is a subset of M such that I-(A)
boundary values o f f at infinity, Vj, as
f (7.~1 Vj(x) = lim -.

r++m
Treibergs defines two entire, constant mean curvature, spacelike hypersurfaces to be equivalent if they have the same projective boundary values a t infinity. Treibergs then proves that the set of such equivalence classes coincides with convex homogeneous functions whose gradient has norm one whenever defined. Treibergs further shows that constant mean curvature spacelike hypersurfaces with given projective boundary data a t infinity are highly nonunique, because arbitrary finite perturbations of the given light cone (at infinity) may be made producing different f (x), hence different spacelike hypersurfaces, each strongly asymptotic to its own perturbed light cone, yet all having the same projective boundary behavior V ( x ) a t infinity. Thus the geometry for entire, constant (but nonzero) mean curvature, spacelike hypersurfaces turns out t o be more complicated than the maximal (No = 0) case.
6.4
CA
(respectively, I+(A)
A). The open past (respectively, future)
sets are characterized by I-(A) = A (respectively, If (A) = A). An indecom-
posable past set (IP) is an open past set that cannot be written as a union
Ideal Boundaries
of two proper subsets both of which are open past sets. An indecomposable
In this section we give brief descriptions of the b-boundary and the causal boundary for a space-time. Further details may be found in Hawking and Ellis (1973, Sections 6.8 and 8.3) or Dodson (1978). The b-boundary of a space-time (M,g) will be denoted by d b M . This boundary is formed by defining a certain positive definite metric on the bundle of linear frames L ( M ) over M , taking the Cauchy completion of L(M), and then using the newly formed ideal points of L ( M ) t o obtain ideal points of M . The b-boundary is particularly useful in telling whether or not some points have been removed from the space-time. Somewhat unfortunately, the b-boundary often consists of just a single point [cf. Bosshard (1976), Johnson (1977)l. This boundary is not invariant under conformal changes and also is not directly related to the causal structure of (M,g). A discussion of the merits and demerits of the b-boundary and geodesic incompleteness may be found in the review article of Tipler, Clarke, and Ellis (1980).
future set (IF) is defined dually.

A terminal indecomposable past set (TIP) is a subset A of M such that (1) A is an indecomposable past set, and
(2) A is not the chronological past of any point p E M.
A terminal indecomposable future set (TIF) is defined dually. The causal

boundary bcM is formed using TIP's and TIF's after making certain identifications which will be described below [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 218-221)]. These identifications allow the topology of M to be extended to M * = MU&M in such a way that the causal completion of M is Hausdorff, provided that (M, g) satisfies certain more restrictive causality conditions such a s stable causality. The use of TIP's and TIF's t o represent ideal points of the causal boundary of (M, g) is illustrated in Figure 6.4.
216
6.4
IDEAL BOUNDARIES
217
open past sets Ul and U2 such that neither is a subset of the other. Choose
rl E U1 - U2 and
7-2
E U2 - U l . There must exist points r: t y such that
r , E I - ( r : ) for i = 1,2 because Ul U U2 = I - ( 7 ) . However, whichever Ui contains the futuremost of r; and r; must then contain all four of r l , 7-2, T : ,
and
T;.
This contradicts either the definition of rl or of r2.
On the other hand, assume that W is a TIP. If p is any point of W , then
W = [WnI+(p)]u(WI+(p)]and thus W = I - ( W n I f ( p ) ) u I - ( W - I+ ( p ) )
since W is a past set. Since W is an IP, either W = I - ( W
n I + ( p ) ) or
W = I - ( W - I+(p)). Consequently, as p $ I - ( W - I + ( p ) ) , we have W =
I - ( W n I+(p)). Thus, given any q # p in W , there must be some point r in W which is in the chronological future of both p and q. Inductively, for each
finite subset of W , there exists some point of W in the chronological future of each point of the subset. Now choose a sequence of points {p,) which forms a countable dense subset of W . We will define a second sequence {q,) inductively. Let qo be a point of W in the chronological future of po. If qi for
i = 1 , 2 , . . . ,k - 1 has been defined, then choose q k to be a point of W in the
FIGURE 6.4. The ideal point p in 8,M is represented by the terminal indecomposable past set A, and the ideal point ?j is represented by the terminal indecomposable future set B. The point 5: is represented by both the set C, which is a TIP, and the set D, which is a TIF.
chronological future of pk and of q, for i = 1,2,. . . ,k - 1. Finally let y be any future directed timelike curve which begins a t qo and connects each qi to the next qi+1. Clearly, each p, lies in I - ( y ) and I-(?)
W . Using the openness of W and the denseness of the sequence {p,), it follows
that W = I - ( y ) as required. 0 In space-times which are not strongly causal, there may exist future directed We now show that a TIP may be represented as the chronological past of a future inextendible timelike curve. This result is due t o Geroch, Kronheimer, and Penrose (1972, p. 551).
Proposition 6.14. A subset W of the strongly causal space-time (M, g) is
and future inextendible timelike curves y such that I - ( y ) is the chronological past of some point [i.e., I - ( 7 ) is not a TIP]. Consider, for example, the cylinder W1 x S 1 with the flat metric ds2 = dt dB and the usual time orientation with the future corresponding to increasing t. The lower half of the cylinder W =
{ ( t ,8 ) : t < 0) is an IP which can be represented as I - ( y ) for a future directed

and future inextendible timelike curve y. However, W is not a T I P since W can be represented as the chronological past of any point on the circle t = 0. By restricting our attention to strongly causal space-times, the IP's which are not TIP'S are in one-to-one correspondence with the points of M. The dual statement holds for IF'S which are not TIF1s.
a T I P iff there exists a future directed and future inextendible timelike curve
y such that W = I-(?). Proof. Assume there is a future inextendible timelike curve y with W = I - ( 7 ) . Using the strong causality of ( M , g ) , it follows that if W is an IP, then W is a TIP. To show W is an IP, assume that W = Ul U U2 for nonempty
218
6.5
LOCAL EXTENSIONS
219
We now define M (respectively, M) to be the collection of all IP's (respectively, IF'S). Fhrthermore, let ~d
= M UM/
show, for a nonspacelike curve y with endpoint q in M , that the induced curve
N, where for each p
E M
I+o y does not necessarily have a unique endpoint in M. Both Rube (1988)
and Szabados (1988) suggest stronger causality conditions on the underlying space-time (M, g) which will ensure that the equivalence relation Rh proposed as above will exist, and hence this construction will produce a Hausdorff causal boundary d,M for M identified with its image in M * under the mapping I f . The simplest such condition to impose is that (M,g) be stably causal.
the element I-(p) of M is identified with the element I+(p) of M. The map
I+ : M
MI given by p
-+
I+(p) then identifies M with a subset of Ms.
Using this identification, the set Mu corresponds to M together with all TIP'S and TIF's. In order to define a topology on Mu, first define for any A E M the sets
~ i n and t
Aext by
= {V E
v nA # 0 )
9 A).
6.5
Local Extensions
and
AeXt= {V E M
: V = I - ( W ) implies I+(w)
In this section, extendibility and inextendibility of Lorentzian manifolds are defined. Also, two types of local extendibility are discussed. Most of the results of this section hold for Lorentzian manifolds which are not time orientable as well as for space-times. Definition 6.15. (Extension) An extension of a Lorentzian manifold
-+
Similar definitions of BInt and BeXt are made for any B E M. A subbasis for a topology on Mfl IS then given by all sets of the form Alnt, AeXt, BRnt, and Bext. The sets Alnt and BInt are analogues of sets of the form I+(p) and
-
I-(p), respectively. The sets A"* and BeXtare analogues of M - I+(p) and M - I - (p), respectively. Now in Geroch, Kronheimer, and Penrose (1972), it is proposed to obtain a Hausdorff space M * = M U a,M from Mu, with the topology given as above, by identifying the smallest number of points of MI necessary to obtain a Hausdorff space M * . Equivalently, it is proposed that M * = M U 8,M should be taken t o be the quotient M I I R ~ where , R h is the intersection of all is Hausdorff. equivalence relations R on MI such that M ~ / R Unfortunately, Szabados (1988) and Rube (1988, 1990) independently observed that the assumption of strong causality for the given space-time (M, g) was not sufficient to ensure that the minimal equivalence relation R h exists, and hence the Geroch-PenroseKronheimer choice of topology may not be used to induce a Hausdorff causal completion M * for a general strongly causal space-time. Szabados points out two difficulties that may arise for general
(M,g) is a Lorentzian manifold (MIlg') together with an isometry f : M of (M, g) is an extension f : (M, g)
-+
M ' which maps M onto a proper open subset of MI. An analytic extension (MI,g') such that both Lorentzian
+
manifolds are analytic and the map f : M extensions, it is said to be inextendible.
M' is analytic. If (M,g) has no
Suppose that the Lorentzian manifold (M,g) has an extension f
(M,g )
(M',gl). Since M' is connected and f ( M ) is assumed t o be open in MI, it follows that
where f ( M ) denotes the closure of f ( M ) in M'. Because d(f ( M ) ) # the isometry f

:M
-+
0 and
M' maps geodesics in M into geodesics in M' lying
Aext,BInt,Bext) strongly causal space-times if the topology given via {Atnt,

is chosen. First, inner points corresponding to the embedding of M into M @ via the map I+ and pre-boundary points are in general only TI-separated, but not Tz-separated, with this choice of topology. Second, an example is given to
in f (M), it is easily seen that (M,g) cannot be timelike, null, or spacelike geodesically complete. Recalling that b-completeness and b.a. completeness both imply timelike geodesic completeness (cf. Section 6.2), we thus have the following criteria for Lorentzian manifolds to be inextendible.
220
6.5
LOCAL EXTENSIONS
221
Proposition 6.16. A Lorentzian manifold ( M , g ) is inextendible if i t is

complete in any of the following ways:
( 1 ) b-complete; (2) b.a. complete; ( 3 ) timelike geodesically complete;

(4) null geodesically complete; or
( 5 ) spacelike geodesically complete.

We now define two types of local extensions [cf. Clarke (1973, p. 207), Beem
(1980),Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 59)].

Let ( M ,g) be a Lorentzian manifold. ( 1 ) Suppose y : [0,a ) --t M is a b-incomplete curve which is not extendible to
Definition 6.17. (Local Eztension)
FIGURE 6.5. Let y
: [O, a )
-+
M be a b-incomplete curve which
is not extendible to t = a in the space-time ( M , g ) . Assume that there is an isometry f : (U,glu) -+ (U',gl)which takes y to a curve f o y having an endpoint p in U'. Then f o y may be continuously extended beyond t = a. Thus ( M ,g) has a local b-boundary extension about r.
t = a in M. A local b-boundary extension about 7 is an open neighborhood

U C_ M of 7 and an extension (U', g') of (U, gl,) U' is C0 extendible beyond t = a.
such that the image of y in
( 2 ) A local extension of ( M , g ) is a connected open subset U of M having noncompact closure in M and an extension (U', g') of (U, gl,) such that the
image of U has compact closure in U'.
Remark 6.18. This definition of local extension differs from the corr* sponding definition of local extension in Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 59) in that U is required to be connected in Definition 6.17-(2) but not in Hawking
and Ellis (cf. Figures 6.5 and 6.6).
Lemma 6.19. If ( M ,g) is a space-time with no imprisoned nonspacelike

curves and if ( M ,g) has a local b-boundary extension about y, then (M,g ) has a local extension.
Proof. Suppose that f : (U, glll)
+
(U', g') is a local b-boundary extension

f j in U' with compact y ( t ) E W' for all to 5 t < a.
We now investigate the relationships between these two types of local extensions. An arbitrary space-time may contain a b-incomplete curve 7 : 10, a ) -+
about y. Then f o y : 1 0 , ~4 ) U' is extendible, and f o y ( t ) converges to some
E U' as t --+ a. Let W' be an open neighborhood of

o
M which is not extendible to t = a , yet y[O,a ) has compact closure in M. However, Schmidt has shown that such space-times contain compactly imprisoned inextendible null geodesics [cf. Schmidt (1973), Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 280)]. On the other hand, if ( M , g ) contains no imprisoned nonspacelike curves, and ( M , g ) has a local b-boundary extension about y , we now show this same extension yields a local extension.
closure in U'. Choose to E [O,a) such that f Set Vl = f-'(W'),
and let V be the component of Vl in U which contains
the noncompact set y I [to,a). Since U is open in M, the set V is a connected open set in M with noncompact closure in M . Also f ( V )has compact closure in U' since f ( V ) C W' Thus f J v. ( V , glv) -+ (U',g') 1s a local extension of
(M,g). 0
6.5
LOCAL EXTENSIONS
223
t = to in M , and has noncompact closure in M. Taking U = M , U' = MI, and
f = F in (1) of Definition 6.17, it follows that ( M , g ) has a local b-boundary

extension about y. Taking W to be any open subset about we obtain a local extension Flu : (U, glU) -t (M', 9 ' ) .
p with compact
closure in M', U' = M', and U to be the component of F - ' ( W ) containing y,
The next example shows that Minkowski space-time has local extensions. Since Minkowski space-time is b-complete, this example shows that even though b-completeness is an obstruction to global extensions, it is not an obstruction to local extensions (cf. Proposition 6.16). This example is unusual in that it does not correspond to a local extension of M over a point of either the b-boundary
abhl
or the causal boundary d,M. I t is a local extension of a
set which extends to i0 (cf. Figure 5.4).
FIGURE 6.6. Let U be a connected open subset of M having noncompact closure in M . A local extension is defined to be an isometry f : (U, glu) -+ (U', g') such that f (U) has compact closure in
U'. Minkowski space-time shows that even real analytic b-complete space-times may admit analytic local extensions (cf. Example 6.21). Thus a space-time may admit local extensions but not admit local b-boundary extensions.
Example 6.21. Let ( M = Rn,g) be n-dimensional Minkowski space-time and let M' = W x Tn-l, where Tn-' = {(82,83,. . . ,On) : 0 5 8, )~ -dt2 Lorentzian metric g' for M' by g' = ( d ~ ' =
< 1) is the
(n - 1)-dimensional torus (using the usual identifications). We may define a
+ d822 $ . . . + don2. Then ( M ,g) is the universal Lorentzian covering space of ( M ' ,g') with covering map
f (xl, . . . ,xn) = (XI,x2(mod 1), xa(mod I), . . . ,xn(mod 1)).
f : (M,g) -+ (M', g') given by
B > 0 and consider the curve y : [I,m) 4 M given by Fix ,
We now show that both types of local inextendibility imply global inextendibility. Proposition 6 . 2 0 . If the Lorentzian manifold (M, g) has no local extensions of either of the two types in Definition 6.17, then (M,g) is inextendible. Proof. Suppose (M, g) has an extension F : (M, g) B(F(M)), and choose a geodesic a to E (0, I] such that u(t) E the curve 7 = F-'
:
+
Then f o y : [I, ca) -+ M' is a spiral which is asymptotic to the circle t = B3 = . . = 8, = 0 in M'. Let U be an open tubular neighborhood about y in M such that U is contained in some open set {(XI,. . . ,x,) E Rn : 0 < XI < a ) for some fixed a
(M1,g'). Let
E
[O, I]
(M1,g') with o(0)
F(M)
M' is a homeomorphism onto its image (cf. Figure 6.7). Intuitively, the set U must b e chosen to be thinner as
:U
-t
> 1 and such that f 1,
and a(1) = p. Since F ( M ) is open in M' and

0 a][o,to) :
5 4 F ( M ) , there exists some F ( M ) for all 0 < t < to but a(to) 4 F ( M ) . Then
[0, to)
-+
s -+ c=ain order to satisfy the requirement xl > 0 for (XI,.. . ,x,) E U. While U does not have compact closure in Minkowski space-time, f ( U ) does have compact closure in M ' since f (U) is contained in the compact set [O, a]x Tn-l.
M is b-incomplete, inextendible to
6.6
SINGULARITIES
225
Thus f : (U, glU) --, (M', g') is an analytic local extension of Minkowski spacetime. Notice that if y~ : [0,a)
--+
U is any curve with noncompact closure in
M , then f o yl cannot be extended to t = a in MI.
Let d M denote an ideal boundary of M (i.e., d M represents either dbM or d,M).
A point q E d M is said to be a regular boundary point of M if
there exists a global extension (MI, g') of (M, g) such that q may be naturally identified with a point of MI. A regular boundary point may thus be regarded as being a removable singularity of M. Let y : 10, a)
-+
M be an inextendible curve such that y(a) corresponds
to an ideal point of M. The curve y is said to define a curvature singularity [cf. Ellis and Schmidt (1977, p. 916)] if some component of Ra6cd;el,,,,,ek is not
C0on [0,a] when measured in a parallelly propagated orthonormal basis along
y. A curvature singularity is an obstruction to a local b-boundary extension

about y because if there is a local b-boundary extension about y, then the curvature tensor and all of its derivatives measured in a parallelly propagated orthonormal basis must be continuous and hence converge to well-defined limits as t
+
a-. A related but somewhat different notion is that of strung curvature
FIGURE 6.7. Minkowski space-time has analytic local extensions. Let M = Wn be given the usual Minkowskian metric g, and let Tn-I be the (n - 1)-dimensional torus with the usual positive definite flat metric h. Let M' = W x Tn-' be given the Lorentzian product
metric g' = -dt2 8 h. Then (M,g) is the universal covering space of (MI, g'), and the quotient map f : M
7 : [I, m)
-+
+
singularity which may be defined using expansion 8 along null geodesics. The notion of strong curvature singularity has been useful in connection with cosmic censorship [cf. Kr6lak (1992), Kr6lak and Rudnicki (1993)l.
A b-boundary point q
dbM which is neither a regular boundary point

-+
nor a curvature singularity is called a quasi-regular singularity. Clarke (1973, p. 208) has proven that if y : [0, a)
M' is locally isometric.
M is an inextendible b-complete
Choose U to be an open set in M about y(s) = (s-P, s, .. . ,0), M , such that f ] U is one-to-one and f ( U ) has compact
-+
curve which correspo,lds to a quasi-regular singularity, then there is a local b-boundary extension about y. This shows that curvature singularities are the only real obstructions to local b-boundary extensions. In general, it can be quite difficult to decide if a given space-time has local extensions of some type. However, for analytical local b-boundary extensions of analytic space-times, the situation is somewhat simpler (cf. Theorem 6.23).
closure in Mi. Then f 1~ : (U,gu)
(M1,g') is an analytic local
extension of Minkowski space, but this extension is not across points of dcM and not across points of dbM.
226
6.6
SINGULARITIES
227
For the proof of Theorem 6.23, it is useful to prove the following proposition about real analytic space-times and local isometries. Recall that a local isometry F : M
-+ M'
7 1 : [O,to) -+ M. But since F is smooth, F,x = F,X(to) = lim,,5
F,X(t).
Because F, o X is a parallel vector field for all t with 0 that lim,-,o F,X(t)
< t < to, it follows
is a map such that for each p E M , there exists an open
# 0.
Hence Fax # 0. Thus F is nonsingular a t the point
neighborhood U(p) of p on which F is an isometry. Thus local isometries are local diffeomorphisms but need not be globally one-to-one. Proposition 6.22. Let (M, g) and (Ml,gl) be real analytic space-times
r, whence r E V in contradiction.
We are now ready to turn to the proof of Theorem 6.23 on local b-boundary extensions of real analytic space-times. Theorem 6.23. Suppose (M, g) is an analytic space-time with no imprisoned nonspacelike curves, which has an analytic local b-boundary extension about y : [O,a) + M . Then there are timelike, null, and spacelike geodesics of finite &ne parameter which are inextendible in one direction and which do not correspond to curvature singularities. The proof of Theorem 6.23 will involve two lemmas. Lemma 6.24. Suppose (M,g) is an analytic space-time with no imprisoned nonspacelike curves, which has an analytic local b-boundary extension about y : [O, a )
+
MI is a real analytic map. If M contains an open set U such that Flu : U + Ml is an isometry, then F
-+
of the same dimension and suppose that F : M
is a local isometry.
Proof. Let W = {m E M
:
F,v # 0 for all v # 0 in T,M),
which is an
open subset of M by the inverse function theorem. Since Flu is an isometry,
U is contained in W. Fix any p E U, and let V be the path connected

component of W containing p. We will establish the proposition by showing first that Ffvis a local isometry and second that V = M . Let q be any point of V. Choose a curve y : [0,1] -+ V with $0) = p and $1) = q. By the usual compactness arguments, we may cover y[O, I] with a finite chain of coordinate charts (Ul, (U2,+2), . . . ,(Uk, &) such that each is an analytic diffeomorphism, p E
M . Then (M, g) has an incomplete geodesic.

+
Proof. Let f : (U, glU)
(U1,g') be an analytic extension about y. We Let W' be a neighborhood of p such that
U, is simply connected, Flu, : U,

Ul C u n v , q E UI;, and U,nU,+l
-+ MI
may assume U contains the image of y. Also, f o y is extendible in U'. Thus
# 0 for each i with 1 I i I k-1. Since UI C
y(t)
-+
p E U' as t
-+
a-.
UnV, we have g = (Flul)*gl on Ul. Thus g = (FIUl)*glon UlnU2. Since Uln

U2 is an open subset of U2 and F is a real analytic diffeomorphism of U2 onto its image, it follows that g = ( FIU2)*glon U2. Continuing inductively, we obtain g = (FIUk)*glon Uk, whence F is an isometry in the open neighborhood Uk of q. Thus FIv : V MI is a local isometry. It remains to show that V = M. Suppose V
+
#
T
M . Choose any point
W' is a convex normal neighborhood of each of its points. Then exp;l : W' -+ T,U' is a diffeomorphism for each fixed x E TV'. Assume to is chosen with f 0 y(t) E W' for all to < t < a. Set q = y(t0) and T = f(q). Then H = exp, of;' o exP;' : W' -+ M is analytic and is a t least defined near r. The map H takes geodesics starting a t r to geodesics starting a t q, and H preserves lengths along these geodesics. In fact, H agrees with f-' near r .
The map H need not be one-to-one since expq is not necessarily one-to-one. Because the domain of exp, is a union of line segments starting at the origin of T,M, the domain V' of H must be some subset of W' which is a union of geodesic segments starting a t r. Hence the set V' fails to be all of W' only when expq : T,M
-t
rl E M - V. Let yl : [O, 1 1 -+ M be a smooth curve with y(0) = p and
y(1) = rl. There is a smallest to E [O, 1) such that
= y(to) E M - V. Then
F restricted to the neighborhood V of yl{O,to) is a local isometry. It suffices to show that r E V to obtain the desired contradiction. Since r E M - V,
there exists a tangent vector x
# 0 in T,M with F,x
= 0. Let X be the
M is defined on a proper subset of TqM which does not
unique parallel field along 7 with X(to) = x. Then F, o X is a parallel field along F o yl : [O,to) -+ MI since F is a local isometry in a neighborhood of
include all of the image
f ; ' o exp;l(W1). Thus if we show V' # W', there is
some incomplete, inextendible geodesic starting at q. But the analytic maps
228
6.6
SINGULARITIES
229
H and f
-'must agree on the component o f f (U) nV' which contains r. This
implies V'
on a neighborhood of f o ?[to, a). This yields H o f o y = y for to 5 t implies y is extendible in M across the point H(p), in contradiction. We will continue with the same notation in the next lemma. L e m m a 6.25. The map H : V'
+
# W'. Otherwise, H and f -'would agree on f (U) nW' and hence < a and
M is a local isometry.
f
FIGURE 6.8. In the proof of Theorem 6.23, the map f : (U, glu) -+ (U', g') is an isometry which is an analytic local b-boundary extension about y. The point p E U' is the endpoint of f o y in U'. In this figure, f (9)= r, and all points of f o y between r. and p are in
the chronological future of x.
Proof.The space-time (M, g) is analytic, (U', g') is analytic, and H is analytic. Furthermore, H agrees with the isometry f -l near r , and H is defined on an arcwise connected set V'. Thus Proposition 6.22 implies H is a local isometry. O We are now ready to complete the Proof of Theorem 6.23. There are three cases to consider corresponding to incomplete timelike, null, and spacelike geodesics. We only give the proof for the timelike case. Let U, U', f , etc., be as in Lemmas 6.24 and 6.25. Assume without loss of generality that there is some point x E W' such that in a chronological ordering on W', we have x to 5 t If x
< <p
and x
< <f
o y(t) for all
< a (cf. Figure 6.8).
4 V',
let a: be the geodesic segment in W' from r to x. Then H takes Hence the analyticity in the hypothesis of Theorem 6.23 cannot be replaced by a Cw assumption. Corollary 6.27. Let (M, g) be an analytic space-time with no imprisoned nonspacelike curves such that each timelike geodesic y : [0, a )
--+
an V' to an inextendible, incomplete, timelike geodesic starting at q. Lemma

6.25 implies that this geodesic does not correspond to a curvature singularity. If x E V', let y = H(x) and define H' = exp, OH,= o exp;' : W' + M. The map H' is defined on some subset V" of W'. It is a local isometry for the same reasons that H is a local isometry, and H' agrees with both H and f near r. The set V" cannot contain all of f
oy
-'
< a since this would yield an endpoint H1(p) of y in M . Using x << f o y(t) for to 5 t < a,
for y on to 5 t we conclude that there is an inextendible incomplete timelike geodesic starting at y in M which does not correspond to a curvature singularity. 13
Remark 6.26. There are examples of Cw space-times which are both
M which is
inextendible to t = a is either complete (i.e., a = CQ) in the indicated direction or else corresponds to a curvature singularity. Then (M, g) has no analytic local b-boundary extensions. Extensive work has been done on classifying singularities by various differ-
geodesically complete and locally b-extendible [cf. Beem (1976c, p. 506)].
ent methodologies. Indeed, the monograph by Clarke (1993) may be consulted to obtain much more detailed information than that which is provided in this
230
C O M P L E T E N E S S AND EXTENDIBILITY
6.6
SINGULARITIES
231
chapter. Our treatment here will be limited to a discussion of the "abstract boundary" &(M) and its application to the classification of singularities as given in Scott and Szekeres (1994) and Fama and Scott (1994). (In Clarke (1993), a somewhat different "A-boundary" obtained by taking the closures of a n atlas of normal coordinate charts is discussed.) To form the a-boundary, equivalence classes of boundary points of a given smooth manifold under all possible open embeddings are considered. The a-boundary thus has no dependence on any choice of affine connection or semi-Riemannian metric. When the manifold is further endowed with an extra structure, like an affine connection or a semi-Riemannian metric, then abstract boundary points may be classified as regular boundary points, points a t infinity, unapproachable points, or singularities, with the classification having some dependence upon a particular curve family C selected, which is associated to the added structure for M . The abstract boundary also has the feature that if a closed region is removed from a singularity-free semi-Riemannian manifold, then the resulting semi-Ftiemannian manifold is still singularity-free since only regular boundary points are introduced by the excision of the closed set. We will begin by discussing the construction of the a-boundary for a given smooth manifold M of dimension n. Since no metric is yet involved, we will adopt the terminology of Scott and Szekeres (1994) and define an enveloped manifold (MI MI, f l ) to be a pair of (connected) smooth manifolds M , MI of the same dimension together with a smooth embedding f l : M
+ MI.
The set of enveloped manifolds and resulting boundary sets is much too large an object to use to form a useful boundary. Thus the following relation is introduced between enveloped manifolds and boundary sets. Let (M, M I , f l , B1) and (M, M2, f2, B2) be two envelopments for M with boundary sets B1 and B2, respectively. Then the boundary set Bl is said to cover the boundary set B2 if for every open neighborhood Ul of B1 in MI, there exists an open neighborhood U2 of Bz in M2 such that (6.2)
Definition 6.29. (Covering Boundary Sets)
fl
(u2n f 2 ( ~ ) )
c u,.
This requirement may be conveniently checked in terms of sequences as follows.
Proposition 6.30. The boundary set B1 covers the boundary set B2 iff
for every sequence {pk) in hfsuch that the sequence { f2(pk)) has a limit point in B2, the sequence
(fl
(pk)) is required to have a limit point in B1.
Since the requirement (6.2) is to some degree only a topological restriction, examples may be given of different envelopments of M = Rn - ((0)) for which one envelopment produces the boundary set B1 = ((0)) consisting of precisely one point, but a second envelopment produces the boundary set B2 = Sn-l. and even more remarkably, B1 covers B2 and B2 covers B1. Thus a single point which is the boundary set of a given envelopment may cover znfinzte sets of points which are contained in a boundary set for a second envelopment.
Since
both manifolds have the same dimension, f l ( M ) is a n open submanifold of MI. (A very special type of envelopment would then be provided by a global extension of a given space-time [cf. Definition 6.151.)
Definition 6.31. (Equivalent Boundary Sets) Let (M, M I ,f l , B1) and (M, M2,f 2 , B2) be two enveloped manifolds with boundary sets B1 and B2,
respectively. Then B1 is said to be equivalent to B2 iff B1 covers B2 and Bz covers B1. Denote this equivalence relation on the class of boundary sets for M by B1
Definition 6.28. (Boundary Point, Boundary Set)
A boundary point p
of a n enveloped manifold (M, M I , f 1) is a point p f MI - f l (M) such that every open neighborhood U of p in Ml has non-empty intersection with fl(M), i.e., p belongs to the topological boundary d(fl(M)) = f l ( M ) - fl(M). A boundary set B contained in MI - f l ( M ) is any set of boundary points for the enveloped manifold (M, MI, fl). We will use the notation (M,MI, fl, B ) for an enveloped manifold with distinguished boundary set B.
B2. An abstract boundary set [B] is then an equivalence class of bound-
ary sets. In Fama and Scott (1994), topological properties of boundary set equivalence are studied. It is noted that if a boundary set B of a given envelopment is compact, then all boundary sets B' of all other envelopments which
232
6.6
SINGULARITIES
233
are equivalent to B must also be compact. In particular, all boundary sets
Definition 6.34. (C1-Regular Boundary Point)
A boundary point p
B equivalent to a single boundary point [ p ] are compact. However, closedness, connectedness, and simple connectedness of boundary sets are unfortunately not invariant under boundary set equivalence. Fama and Scott (1994) give a detailed discussion of "topological neighborhood properties," including the connected neighborhood property and the simply connected neighborhood property, which are preserved by boundary set equivalence. With all of these preliminaries settled, we may now define the a-boundary
of an envelopment (M, g, MI, gl, f 1) is C1-regular for g if there exists a C' semi-Riemannian manifold (M2,gz) such that f l (M) U {p) (M, g, Mz,gz, f i ) is a CLextension of (M, g). Further analysis of the boundary points as "singular boundary points" or "points a t infinity" is possible only if a certain family of curves C with the bounded parameter property has been specified, and indeed it is natural that this classification should depend on the choice of the particular curve family selected. Thus we assume that the smooth manifold M is furnished with a family C of parametrized curves satisfying the bounded parameter property. Here a parametrized curve will be taken to mean a C' map y : [a, b) with a
+
C Mz C MI
and
as in Scott and Szekeres (1994).

Definition 6.32. (The a-boundary aa(M)) set {p) under the equivalence relation If p is a boundary point of an
enveloped manifold (M, M I , fl), then the equivalence class [ p ] of the boundary
of Definition 6.31 is called a n abstract
< b 5 +m and with yl(t) # 0 for all t in [a,b).

A family C of param-
boundary point of M. The set aa(M) of all such abstract boundary points for all envelopments of the given manifold M is called the abstract boundary or the a-boundary. More symbolically, one has that &(M) = ( I p ] : p is in f l ( M ) - f l ( M ) for some envelopment (M, M i , fl)). In the beginning of this section, the concept of regular boundary point was defined for space-times in terms of global extensions. A similar definition is given in Scott and Szekeres (1994) for general semi-Riemannian manifolds. Now let (M, g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold with a metric tensor g of class
Definition 6.35. (Bounded Parameter Property) members of C satisfy the following:
etrized curves in M is said to satisfy the bounded parameter property if the (1) Through any point p of M passes a t least one curve y of the family C;
(2) If y is a curve in C, then so is every subcurve of y; and
(3) For any pair of curves yl and
72
in C which are obtained from each
other by a monotone increasing C 1 change of parameter, either the parameter on both curves is bounded, or it is unbounded on both curves. Examples of suitable families of curves C in our context include: (1) the family of all geodesics with affine parameter in a manifold M with affine connection; (2) all C' curves parametrized by "generalized affine parameter" (cf. Definition 6.8) in an affine manifold; and (3) all future timelike geodesics parametrized by arc length in a space-time. As a n alternative to Proposition 6.30, boundary sets may be studied using parametrized curves.
Ck. Let (M,g, MI, f l ) be an envelopment of M . The induced metric tensor
(fcl)* g on f l ( M ) will be denoted by g when there is no risk of ambiguity.

Definition 6.33. (C1-Extension of (M,g))
-+
A Cl-extension (1 5 1 5 k) M I , such that
of a Ck semi-=emannian manifold (M,g) is an envelopment of (M, g) by a C1 semi-Remannian manifold (Ml,gl), fi : M
This will be denoted by (M, g, MI, gl, fi). With this definition in hand, the concept of a C1-regular boundary point may be formulated independent of any choice of curve family for (M, g).
Definition 6.36. (Limit Point, Endpoint of Curve) be a parametrized curve. Then
Let y : [a, b)
(1) A point p in M is a limit point of the curve y : [a, b)
M if there
234

-4
6.6
SINGULARITIES
235
exists a n increasing sequence ti
b such that $ti)
-4
p. p as t
+
Definition 6.41. (C1-Point at Infinity for (M,g, C))

b-
Given (M, g, C), a
(2) A point p in M is an endpoint of the curve y if y(t)
boundary point p of an envelopment (M, g, C, M I , f l ) is said to be a C1-point at infinity for C if

(1) p is not a C1-regular boundary point (recall Definition 6.34),
(For Hausdorff manifolds, curve endpoints are unique.)
M be a parametrized curve and (M, MI, f l ,B ) a boundary set in an envelopment of

Let y : [a, b) M.
Definition 6 . 3 7 . (Approaching a Boundary Set)
(2) p is a C-boundary point, and
(3) no curve in C approaches p with bounded parameter.

Since the family C is assumed to satisfy the bounded parameter property, the concept of a point a t infinity is Independent of the choice of parametrization for the curves from C which approach p. Condition (3) says more explicitly that for no interval [a,b) with b finite is there a curve y
:
(1) The parametrized curve y : [a, b) -t M approaches the boundary set B

if the curve f l o y has a limit point lying in B. (2) The parametrized curve y : [a, b) curve f o y : [a, b)
-+ MI
+
M has its endpoint in B if the
has its endpoint in B.
[a, b)
,( M , g )
in
the family C and an increasing sequence of real numbers t, The analogue of Proposition 6.30 above in this setting is then
,b such
that
Proposition 6 . 3 8 . If a boundary set B1 covers a boundary set B2, then

every curve y : [a, b)
4
M which approaches
B2 also approaches B1.
A tricky aspect of a point p at infinity for (M,g,C) is that it is possible that p is covered by a boundary set B of another embedding consisting only of regular or unapproachable boundary points. In this case, Scott and Szekeres (1994, p. 238) term the point p at infinity for (M, g,C) a removable point at infinity. If no such covering by a boundary set of another embedding exists, If then p is termed an essential point at infinity. It may be shown that the concept of being an essential point a t infinity passes to the abstract boundary, i.e., these points cannot be transformed away by a change of coordinates. Thus an abstract boundary point [ p ] is termed an abstract point at infinity if it has
Now we restrict our attention to a semi-Riemannian manifold (M,g) for which a family C of curves for M with the bounded parameter property has been selected, and we use the notation (M, g, C) to denote this selection.
Definition 6 . 3 9 . (Approachable Boundary Point, C-Boundary Point)
(M,AJ1, f l ) is a n envelopment of (M,g,C), then a boundary point p of this envelopment is approachable, or a C-boundary point, if p is a limit point of some curve 7 : [a, b)
+
M of the family C. Boundary points which are not
C-boundary points will be called unapproachable. As a result of Proposition 6.38, this definition passes to the a-boundary:
a representative in some envelopment which is an essential point at infinity

for that envelopment. Essential points at infinity may cover regular boundary points of another embedding. Hence, the following final dichotomy is used for essential points a t infinity: a n essential boundary point a t infinity which covers a regular boundary point is termed a mixed point at infinity. Otherwise, p is termed a pure point at infinity. So far the two categories of regular points and points at infinity have been defined. The final category to be treated is that of singular boundary points. Here a more subtle viewpoint is taken than that of Definition 6.3 above in which "geodesic singularity" is defined. According to this previous definition)
Definition 6.40. (Approachable a-Boundary Point, Abstract C-Boundary

Point) An abstract boundary point [p] is an abstract C-boundary point, or approachable, if p is a C-boundary point. Similarly, a n abstract boundary point
[ p ]is unapproachable if p is not a C-boundary point.
With the family C specified, the points a t infinity for (M, g, C) may now be detected by determining whether they may be reached along any curve in C a t a finite value of the given parameter.
236
6.6
SINGULARITIES
237
if one takes, for example, two points p and q in Minkowski space with p << q and puts M = 14(p) n If (q) with the induced metric from the inclusion of M in Minkowski space, then M is a singular space-time. Indeed, every geodesic of (M,g) is incomplete. Yet the given space-time has a global embedding in Minkowski space such that after this enlargement, every geodesic becomes complete. Thus this example should perhaps not really be regarded as a singular space-time, Definition 6.3 notwithstanding.
Definition 6.44. (C1-Singularity)
A semi-Ftiemannian manifold (M, g)
with a distinguished class C of curves satisfying the bounded parameter p r o p erty has a C'-singularity if there exists an envelopment of M having an essential C1-singularity p, i.e., p is a C1-singular point for some envelopment of (M,g,C) which is not covered by a CL-non-singular boundary set B of any other envelopment for (M,g,C). Conversely, (hf,g, C) is said to be C1singularity free if it has no C1-singularities, i.e., for every envelopment of M , the boundary points are either C"nonsingular (C1-regular boundary points, C'-points at infinity, or unapproachable boundary points), or C'-removable singularities. According to Scott and Szekeres (1994)) any theory of singularities ought to pass over the following hurdle.
Definition 6.42. ((7'-Singular Point)
A boundary point p of an envel-
opment (M,g,C, MI, f l ) is said to be C1-singular if

(1) p is not a C1-regular boundary point,
(2) p is a C-boundary point, and (3) there exists a curve in the family C which approaches p with bounded parameter. Thus a singular boundary point for the envelopment is a C-boundary point which is not C1-regular and is not a point a t infinity. Again, in this case, a finer subclassification is made. If p is covered by a non-singular boundary set of a second envelopment, then p is termed a removable singularity. If not, then p is an essential singularity, and a further classification is made as follows: if p covers some regular boundary points or points a t infinity of another embedding, then p is commonly called a mixed or directional singularity. If no such covering behavior is exhibited, then p is said to be a pure singularity. Then an abstract boundary point [ p ] in d,(M) may be termed an abstract singularity if it has a representative which is an essential singularity. We conclude this section with considerations akin to the more simple concepts of Section 6.2 and "geodesic singularity" of Definition 6.3. First, the notion of geodesic completeness for a space-time may be extended to that of C-completeness for the manifold M with distinguished curve family C.
Theorem 6.45. Every compact semi-ftiemannian manifold (M,g, C), with

any family of curves C satisfying the bounded parameter property, is singularity
free. Proof. A compact manifold M has no non-trivial envelopments (M, M I , fl), for MI is required to be connected yet would contain f l ( M ) as a compact open subset. Thus f l ( M ) would be both open and closed in MI, whence MI = fl(M). Since M has no envelopments, b,(M) is empty and hence can contain no singular points.
Theorem 6.46. If (M, g) is a semi-Riemannian manifold which is C-complete for a curve family C satisfying the bounded parameter property, then
(M, g, C) is singularity-free.
Proof. Suppose that (M, g, C) contains a singularity. Then there exists an envelopment (M, g, C, M I , fi) which has a C-boundary point p E M1 - fl(M). Hence, there exists a curve y : [a, b)
+
M in C which has p as a limit point
and also b < +m. Now by the assumed C-completeness, y has an endpoint
q in M . But endpoints are unique limit points of curves so that of necessity
Definition 6.43. (C-Completeness) Given a manifold M with a curve family C satisfying the bounded parameter property, M is said to be C-complete
if every curve y : [a,b) a n endpoint in M.
+
p = f l (q), which is impossible since p $ fl(M).
M in C with bounded parameter, i.e., b < +co, has
In Section 6.5, Proposition 6.16, it was noted that various types of completeness such as b-completeness, b.a. completeness, timelike geodesic complete
238
ness, null geodesic completeness, and spacelike geodesic completeness preclude global extendibility. In the present context, the analogous statement is the following.
Theorem 6.47. I f the semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) is geodesically

complete, then (M, g) has no regular boundary points. Complete discussions of all of these boundary points classifications together with extensive examples, including Taub-NUT space-time as simplified by Misner (1967) and the Curzon space-time, may be found in Scott and Szekeres (1994) and Fama and Scott (1994).
CHAPTER 7
STABILITY OF COMPLETENESS AND INCOMPLETENESS
In proving singularity theorems in general relativity, it is important to use hypotheses that hold not just for the given "background" Lorentzian metric g for M but in addition for all metrics gl for M sufficiently close to g. Not only does the imprecision of astronomical measurements mean t h a t the Lorentzian metric of the universe cannot be determined exactly, but also cosmological assumptions like the spatial homogeneity of the universe hold only approximately. Nevertheless, if an incompleteness theorem can b e obtained for the idealized model (M, g) using hypotheses valid for all metrics gl for M in an open neighborhood of g, then all space-times (M, gl) with gl sufficiently close to g will also be incomplete. Hence if the model is believed to be sufficiently accurate, conclusions valid for the model are also valid for t h e actual universe. Recall that Lor(M) denotes the space of all Lorentzian metrics for a gzven manzfold M and that Con(M) denotes the quotient space formed by identifyzng all pozntwise globally conformal metrics gl = Rg2 for M. where R : M
(0, CQ) is smooth. Let
T
: Lor(M) + Con(M) denote the natural projection
) g of map which assigns to each Lorentzian metric g for M the set ~ ( g = all Lorentzian metrics for M pointwise globally conformal to g. Given g E Con(M), set C(M, g) = T - ' ( ~ )C Lor(M). It is customary in general relativity to say that a curvature or causality condition for a space-time (M,g) is C r stable in Lor(M) [respectively, Con(M)], if the validity of the condition for (M, g) implies the validity of the condition for all gl in a Cr-open neighborhood of g in Lor(M) [respectively, Con(M)]. More generally, a stable condztion for a set of metrics zs one which holds on an open subset of such metrics. After the singularity theorems described in Chapter 8 of Hawking and Ellis (1973) were obtained, it was of interest to study the Cr stability of conditions
238
ness, null geodesic completeness, and spacelike geodesic completeness preclude global extendibility. In the present context, the analogous statement is the following.
Theorem 6.47. If the semi-Riemannian manifold (M, g) is geodesically complete, then (M, g) has no regular boundary points.
Complete discussions of all of these boundary points classifications together with extensive examples, including Taub-NUT space-time as simplified by Misner (1967) and the Curzon space-time, may be found in Scott and Szekeres (1994) and Fama and Scott (1994).
CHAPTER 7
In proving singularity theorems in general relativity, it is important to use hypotheses that hold not just for the given "background" Lorentzian metric g for M but in addition for all metrics gl for M sufficiently close to g. Not only does the imprecision of astronomical measurements mean that the Lorentzian metric of the universe cannot be determined exactly, but also cosmological assumptions like the spatial homogeneity of the universe hold only approximately. Nevertheless, if an incompleteness theorem can be obtained for the idealized model (M, g) using hypotheses valid for all metrics gl for M in an open neighborhood of g, then all space-times (M,gl) with gl sufficiently close to g will also be incomplete. Hence if the model is believed to be sufficiently accurate, conclusions valid for the model are also valid for the actual universe. Recall that Lor(M) denotes the space of all Lorentzian metrics for a given
manifold M and that Con(M) denotes the quotient space formed by identifying all pointwise globally conformal metrics gl = Rg2 for M, where R : M
(0,w) is smooth. Let
T
: Lor(M)
Con(M) denote the natural projection
map which assigns to each Lorentzian metric g for M the set ~ ( g ) =
6 of
all Lorentzian metrics for M pointwise globally conformal to g. Given g E Con(M), set C(M, g) = T - ' ( ~ ) C Lor(M). It is customary in general relativity to say that a curvature or causality condition for a space-time (M, g) is Cr
stable in Lor(M) [respectively, Con(M)], if the validity of the condition for

(M, g) implies the validity of the condition for all gl in a Cr-open neighborhood of g in Lor(M) [respectively, Con(M)]. More generally, a stable condition for
a set of metrics is one which holds o n a n open subset of such metrics.

After the singularity theorems described in Chapter 8 of Hawking and Ellis (1973) were obtained, it was of interest to study the C r stability of conditions
240
7 . 1
STABLE PROPERTIES OF Lor(M) AND Con(M)
241
such as the existence of closed trapped surfaces, positive nonspacelike Rcci curvature, and geodesic completeness, which played such a key role in these singularity theorems. Geroch (1970a) established the stability of global hyperbolicity in the interval topology on Con(M). Then Lerner (1973) made a thorough study of the stability in Lor(M) and Con(M) of causality and curvature conditions useful in general relativity. In particular, Lerner noted that the interval and quotient topologies for Con(M) coincide. Hence Geroch's stability result for global hyperbolicity holds for Con(M) in the quotient topology and thus automatically holds in Lor(M). In Section 7.1 we define the fine Cr topologies and the interval topology for Con(M). We then review stability properties of Lor(M) and Con(M) which were established by Geroch (1970a) and Lerner (1973). We give examples of Williams (1984) to show that both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness may fail to be stable. These two properties are C0 stable for definite spaces, but for all signatures (s,r) with s 2 1 and r are unstable. In Section 7.2, using the "Euclidean norm"
results yields the C1 stabzhty of past nonspacelzke geodeszc zncompleteness for Robertson- Walker space-tames. In the last sectlon of this chapter we consider space-times which need not have any symmetry properties. We show (Theorem 7.30) that nonzmpnsonment zs a suficient condztzon for the C' stabzlzty of geodeszc zncompleteness [cf. Beem (1994)l. Sufficient condit~ons for the stability of geodesic completeness involve pseudoconvexity as well as nonimprisonment. Here a space is said to have a pseudoconvex class of geodesics if for each compact subset K there is a larger compact subset H such that any geodesic segment of the class with endpoints in K lies entirely in H. Nonzmpnsonment and pseudoconvexzty of nonspacelzke geodesics taken together are suficzent for the C' stabilzty of nonspacelzke geodeszc completeness. This result (Theorem 7.35) implies that nonspacelike geodesic completeness is stable for globally hyperbolic space-times. At the end of Section 3.6 we discuss the relationship between the choice of warping function f : (a, b)
+
> 1 one may construct examples for which these properties
(0, oo) and the nonspacelike geodesic incom-
pleteness of a given Lorentzian warped product space-time (a, b) x j H.
7 . 1
Stable Properties of Lor(M) and Con(M)
,E ) by a coordinate chart (U, x) for M and standard estiinduced on ( T M J U

mates from the theory of systems of ordinary differential equations in Rn, we obtain estimates for the behavior of geodesics in (U,x) under C1 metric perturbations. In Section 7.3 we apply these estimates to coordinate charts adapted to the product structure M = (a, b) x f H of a Robertson-Walker space-time (cf. Definition 5.10) to study the stability of geodesic incompleteness for such space-times. We show (Theorem 7.19) that if ((a, b) x j H, g) is a RobertsonWalker space-time with a > -m, then there is a fine C0 neighborhood U(g) of g in Lor(M) such that all timelike geodesics of each space-time (M, gl) are past incomplete for all gl E U(g). If we assume b < oo a s well, we may obtain (Theorem 7.20) both future and past incompleteness of all timelike geodesics for all gl E U(g). A similar result (Theorem 7.23) may be established for null geodesic incompleteness using the C' topology on Lor(M). Combining these
An equivalence relation C may be placed on the space Lor(M) of Lorentzian metrics for M by defining gl,g2 E Lor(M) to be equivalent if there exists a smooth conformal factor R : M -+ ( 0 , ~such ) that gl = Rg2. As in 1, we will denote the equivalence class of g in Lor(M) by C ( M , g). The Chapter quotient space Lor(M)/C of equivalence classes will be denoted by Con(M).
: t
1
There is then a natural projection map
Lor(M)
-+
Con(M) given by
~ ( 9= ) C(M, g). The fine C0 topology (cf. Section 3.2) on Lor(M) induces a quotient topology on Con(M) as usual. A subset A of Con(M) is defined to be open in this topology if the inverse image ?-'(A) is open in the fine C0 topology on Lor(M). Con(M) may also be given the interval topology [cf. Geroch (1970a, p. 447)). Recall from our discussion of stable causality in Section 3.2 that a partial ordering may be defined on Lor(M) by defining gl < g2 if gl(v, v) 5 0 implies
242
7.1
243
< 0 for all v # 0 in T M . It may then be checked that gl, g2 E Lor(M) satisfy gl < g2 if and only if g; < g; for all g; E C(M,gl) and g$ E C(M, gz). Thus the partial ordering < for Lor(M) projects to a partial ordering on Con(M) which will also be denoted by <. A subbasis for the internal topology
g2(u, v) on Con(M) is then given by all sets of the form
The Ricci curvature involves the first two partials of the metric tensor but
1 1 0
higher derivatives. Using this fact, Lerner (1973) established the following
result. Proposition 7.3. If (M,g) is a Lorentzian manifold such that g(v, v) 5 0 and v v
# 0 in T M imply Ric(g)(v, v) > 0, then there is a fine C2 neighborhood
U(g) of g in Lor(M) such that for all gl E U(g), the relations gl(v, v) 5 0 and where gl and g2 are arbitrary Lorentzian metrics for M with gl
< g2. The
# 0 in T M imply Ric(gl)(v, u) > 0.

It is well known that compact positive definite Riemannian manifolds are
quotient and interval topologies agree on Con(M) [cf. Lerner (1973, p. 23)). Thus intuitively, two conformal classes C(M,gl) and C(M,g2) are close in either of these topologies on Con(M) if and only if at all points p of M the metrics gl and g2 have light cones which are close in T,M. A property defined on Lor(M) which holds on a Cr-open subset of Lor(M) is said to be C' stable. Also, a property defined on Lor(M) which is invariant under the conformal relation C is said to be confomally stable if it holds for an open set of equivalence classes in the quotient (or interval) topology on Con(M). The continuity of the projection map r : Lor(M) -+Con(M) implies that any conformally stable property defined on Lor(M) is also C0 stable on Lor(M). Furthermore, since the fine Cr topology is strictly finer than the fine
always complete. In contrast, compact space-times need not be complete [cf. Fierz and Jost (1965)]. Examples of Williams (1984) show that both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness are, in general, unstable properties for space-times. In fact, the examples show that both of these properties may fail to be stable for compact space-times as well as non-compact space-times. These instabilities are related to questions involving sprays and the Levi-Civita map [cf. Del Riego and Dodson (1988)j. An inextendible closed geodesic c is one which repeatedly retraces the same image. For spacelike and timelike geodesics this implies the geodesic is complete since these geodesics have constant nonzero speed and thus increase in affine parameter by the same amount for each circuit of the image. However, there are closed null geodesics which are inextendible and incomplete. This incompleteness results from the fact that the tangent vector to a null geodesic may fail to return to itself each time the geodesic traverses one circuit of the image. For closed null geodesics, the tangent vector may return to a scalar multiple of itself where the multiple is different from one. In this case, the closed geodesic fails to be a periodic map and the domain is an open subset of which is bounded either above or below. More precisely, we have the following result. L e m m a 7.4. Let (M,g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold with an inextendible null geodesic P a
:
CS topology on Lor(M) for r > s , any conformally stable property defined on Lor(M) is also Cr stable for all r 2 0.
Example 7.1. (Stable Causality) Stable causality is conformally stable and hence also Cr stable for all r 2 0. Indeed, a metric g E Lor(M) may be defined to be stably causal if the property of causality is C0 stable in Lor(M) at g. A second example of a conformally stable property is furnished by a result of Geroch (1970a, p. 448). T h e o r e m 7.2. Global hyperbolicity is conformally stable and hence Cr stable in Lor(M) for all T 2 0. It may also be shown that if S is a smooth Cauchy surface for (M, g), there exists a COneighborhood U of g in Lor(M) such that if gl E U, then S is a Cauchy hypersurface for (M,gl) [cf. Geroch (1970a, p. 448)].
(a, b)
M satisfying P(0) = P(1) and p ( 0 ) =
XP/(O). If X = 1, then ,D is complete. If 0
< X < 1, then P is incomplete with

= -co and
>
-m and b = +m. If 1
< A, then ,D is incomplete with a
b < +m.
244
7.1
245
Proof. If X = 1, then P[O, l ] is a closed geodesic which is periodic (i.e.,
p(t + 1) = P(t) for all t), and clearly the domain of , B is all of R. If 1 < A, then the speed of /3 increases by a factor of X each time around the
image in the positive direction. In particular, if y(s) = P(Xs), then y(Xml) = P(1) = P(0) = y(0) and y'(0) = Xfl(0) = fl(1). Thus y(t) = P(1 (i.e., 1
of the original flat metric g has metrics g, for large n , it follows that geodesic completeness is not stable at the Lorentzian metric g. This last example may be generalized [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1987, p. 328)]. If (M,g) is a geodesically complete semi-Remannian manifold which contains a closed null geodesic, then each CT neighborhood of g contains incomplete metrics. On the other hand, it has recently been shown that any Lorentzian metric on a compact manifold which has zero curvature, i.e., R = 0, is geodesically complete [cf. Carrikre (1989), Yurtsever (1992)l. Hence no deformation of the flat metric g = dxdy on the torus through flat metrics can produce geodesic incompleteness, as in Example 7.5.
+ t), and
P
in by
the first circuit of y (i.e., 0 5 t 5 X-') corresponds to the second circuit of ,O
< t 5 1 + A-I).
Thus a countably infinite number of circuits of
the positive direction starting with t = 0 increase the &ne parameter of
It follows that the domain of P has a finite upper bound, and one finds < +m. Of course, traversing the geodesic P in the negative b = (1 direction starting at t = 0 changes the affine parameter by
x:=l
Williams modified his previous example somewhat to demonstrate the instability of geodesic
Example 7.6. (Instability of Geodesic Incompleteness)
An = co,
which yields a = -co. If 0 < X < 1, then similar arguments show a > -m and b = +m. We will now consider two examples of Williams (1984). These examples are for metrics of the form dx dy + f (x)dy2 on the torus. Let S1 x S1 = M = {(x, y) 10 5 x 5 27r, 0 5 y f : W1 -+ Let W1 be a periodic function with period 2a. One may then easily Let g = dxdy +
< xo < 27r, one may show that the null geodesic starting at ($0, yo) with dyldx # 0 at xo will
incompleteness. Using f (x) = 1 - cosx and xo with 0 be incomplete for the metric g = dxdy
+ f (x)dy2. Williams shows this by
solving for x = x(t) and then obtaining an integral formula for y = y(x) involving integrating the reciprocal of f(x). However, he also finds that using f,(x) = 1 - cosx ( l l n ) one obtains geodesically complete metrics
< 27r) with the usual identifications.
gn = dxdy
+ fn(x)dy2 which are arbitrarily close to the incomplete metric g.
calculate the Christoffel symbols for the metric g = dxdy + f (x)dy2.

Example 7.5. (Instability of Geodesic Completeness)
Examples 7.5 and 7.6 both involve two-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds. However, the examples may be slightly modified to give examples which show geodesic completeness and incompleteness are not necessarily stable for any metric signature (s, r ) with both s and r positive. If (MI, gl) and (M2,gz) are semi-Riemannian manifolds, the product manil @g2, and with this fold MI x M2 may be given the usual product metnc g = g
f (x)dy2. If f is identically zero, one has a flat metric g = dxdy on the torus M which is geodesically complete. In particular, the closed null geodesic corresponding to x = 0 is complete. On the other hand, using fn(x) = ( l l n ) sin(x) one may directly calculate that the closed null geodesic x = 0 of gn = dx dy + fn(x)dy2 is not complete [cf. Williams (1984)l. This incompleteness results from the fact that the tangent vector to this null geodesic of g, fails to return to itself each time the geodesic traverses the circle corresponding to x = 0. Each time around the circle, the tangent vector returns to a scalar multiple of itself where the multiple is different from one. Lemma 7.4 yields that this null geodesic is incomplete for each g,. Since each Cr neighborhood
metric the geodesics of the product are of the form (yl(t),y2(t)) where each factor y,(t) is either a geodesic of (Mz,g,) or else is a constant map. Clearly, the product MI x M2 is geodesically complete if and only if each (M,,gz) is geodesically complete. The semi-Euclidean space of signature (s,r) is the product manifold MI x M2 where Ml = W8 with g1 = C:=l -dxz2 and M2 = Rr with gz = Cr=l dxt2.
246
7.2
THE C1 TOPOLOGY AND GEODESIC SYSTEMS
247
By taking the first manifold (Ml,gl) to be the manifold (M,g) of Example 7.5 (respectively, Example 7.6) and taking the second manifold (M2,g2) to be the semi-Euclidean space of signature ( r - 1 , s - I ) , one may obtain an example MI x M2 which shows that geodesic completeness (respectively, incompleteness) may fail to be stable for signature (s, r ) whenever neither s nor T is zero. The situation for positive definite (i.e., s = 0) and negative definite (i.e.,
T
there are examples to show that both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness may fail to be stable for the Whitney C k topologies for k
> 0.
In this chapter the manifold M is always fixed. However, one-parameter families (MA, g ~ of ) manifolds and Lorentzian metrics have been considered in general relativity [cf. Geroch (1969)].
7.2
The C ' Topology a n d Geodesic Systems
= 0) signatures is quite different. For these signatures, both geodesic com-
If (M, g) is an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold, then metrics in Lor(M) which are close to g in the fine C1 topology have geodesic systems which are close to the geodesic system of g. The purpose of this section is to give a more analytic formulation of this concept, which is needed for our investigation of the C1 stability of null geodesic incompleteness for Robertson-Walker space-times in Section 7.3. We begin by recalling a well-known estimate from the theory of ordinary differential equations Icf. Birkhoff and Rota (1969, p. 155)]. We will always use /1x1I2 to denote the Euclidean norm [ELlxi2] of the point x = (51, 2 2 , . . . ,x,) E Wrn. Proposition 7.9. Suppose that f = ( f l , . . . , f , ) and h = ( h l , . . . , h,) are continuous functions defined on a common domain D that f satisfies the Lipschitz condition
pleteness and geodesic incompleteness are C0 stable. For example, if (M, g) is positive definite, then the set U(g) consisting of all positive definite metrics h on M with 1< h(v,v) < 4 4 g(v1v) for all nontrivial vectors v is a Co-open subset of the collection Riem(M) of
-
all Riemannian metrics on M. Clearly, U(g) contains the metric g. If h is a fixed metric in U(g), then any given curve has an h-length Lh and a g-length L, with 1 - L , 5 Lh 5 2Lg. 2 This inequality shows that either g and h are both complete or else both are incomplete. It follows that geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness are C0 stable for positive definite spaces. The same reasoning applies in the negative definite case, and consequently one obtains the following result. Proposition 7.7. Let (M, g) be either a positive definite or negative definite semi-Riemannian manifold. If (M, g) is geodesically complete, then for each r 2 0 there is a Crneighborhood U(g) with each gl E U(g) complete. If
R x Wm, and suppose
Ilf (5-1x1- f(~15)112 I Lllx - 4 1 2

for all (s, x), ( s , f ) E D. Let x(s) = (xl(s), . . . ,xm(s)) and y(s) = ( y ~ ( s ) . ,.. ,ym(s)) be solutions for 0 5 s 5 b of the differential equations
- = f (8, x)
(M,g) is geodesically incomplete, then for each r 2 0 there is a Cr neighborhood U(g) with each gl E U(g) incomplete.
We summarize this last result and the examples of Williams in the following remark. Remark 7.8. Geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness are statopology for both positive definite and negable properties in the Whitney tive definite semi-Riemannian manifolds. For all other metric signatures (s, T),
dx ds
and
d~ ds = h(s, y),
respectively. Then if 11 f (s, x) - h(s, x) ]I2 5 e for all (s, x) E D with 0 5 s 5 b, the following inequality holds for all 0 5 s 5 b:
246
STABILITY O F COMPLETENESS AND INCOMPLETENESS
7.2
T H E C' TOPOLOGY AND GEODESIC SYSTEMS
247
By taking the first manifold (M1,gl) to be the manifold (M,g) of Example 7.5 (respectively, Example 7.6) and taking the second manifold (Mz,g2) to be the semi-Euclidean space of signature (T - 1, s - I), one may obtain an example MI x M2 which shows that geodesic completeness (respectively, incompleteness) may fail to be stable for signature ( s , ~ whenever ) neither s nor T is zero. The situation for positive definite (i.e., s = 0) and negative definite (i.e.,
T
there are examples to show that both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness may fail to be stable for the Whitney C"opologies for k
> 0.
In this chapter the manifold M is always fixed. However, one-parameter families ( M A gx) , of manifolds and Lorentzian metrics have been considered in general relativity [cf. Geroch (1969)l.
7.2
The C ' Topology a n d Geodesic Systems
= 0) signatures is quite different. For these signatures, both geodesic com-
If (M,g) is an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold, then metrics in Lor(M) which are close to g in the fine C' topology have geodesic systems which are close to the geodesic system of g. The purpose of this section is to give a more analytic formulation of this concept, which is needed for our investigation of the C1 stability of null geodesic incompleteness for Robertson-Walker space-tlmes in
pleteness and geodesic incompleteness are C0stable. For example, if (M, g) is positive definite, then the set U(g) consisting of all positive definite metrics h on M with
for all nontrivial vectors v is a Co-open subset of the collection Kem(M) of all Riemannian metrics on M . Clearly, U(g) contains the metric g. If h is fixed metric in U ( g ) , then any given curve has an h-length LI, and a g-lengt
We begin by recalling a well-known estimate from the theory of ordinary fferential equations [cf. Birkhoff and Rota (1969, p. 155)]. We will alays use IlzIlz to denote the Euclidean norm
L, with
1 -L, 5 Lh 1 2Lg. 2 T h i s inequality shows that either g and h are both complete or else bot incomplete. It follows that geodesic completeness and geodesic incomple are C O stable for positive definite negative definite case, and consequently one obtains the following result Proposition 7.7. Let (M, g) inite ,cjemi-fi~annianmanifold.
[ C : ,x Z 2 ]
of the point x =
roposition 7.9. Suppose that f = ( f l , . . . ,f,)
and h = ( h l , . . . , h,)
are
Ilf ( s >x) - f (.,z)llz 5 Lllx - z 1 1 2

. ,y,(s))
& r 2 0 thexe i s a C Y neighborhood .\M. 3) & * x m * e -
be solutions for
k,GT,i
*edLz?-s'-
-J
1 1 1 -
248
7.2
THE C1TOPOLOGY AND GEODESIC SYSTEMS
249
Now let M be a smooth manifold, and let (U, x) be any coordinate chart for M . We may obtain an associated coordinate chart
We will use the notation expq[g,] for the exponential map at q E (M,g,), a = 1,2. If v E TMIU, then s --+ expq[ga](sv)is the solution of (7.1) in U with initial conditions (q,v) for (M,g,). In order to apply Proposition 7.9 to these exponential maps, we identify TMlu with a subset of W2" using the coordinate chart (TMIu ,Z ) and define f (s,X ) = f (X) and h(s, X ) = h(X)
z=(~1,~2 . - ,,xn,xn+lr. . - .1 ~ 2 n )
for TMlu as follows. Let d/dxl, . . . ,d/dxn be the basis vector fields defined on U bv the local coordinates x = (xi,. . .,xn). Given v E TqM for q E n Then E(v) is defined to be Z(v) we may write v = ai
zEl $1".
(xl(q), x2(q),. . . ,xn(q),al, a2,. . . ,an). These coordinate charts may then be used to define Euclidean coordinate distances on U and TMIU. Explicitly, given p, q E U and v, w f TMIU,set
and
fi+n(X) = -rjk(gl)~j+n~k+n, = -rjk(92)xj+nxk+n
for 1 5 i , j , k 5 n a n d X = (xl ,..., x2,) E WZn.

Lemma 7.10. Let (U, x) be a local coordinate chart for the n-manifold
M. Let (p,v) E TMIu, and assume that cl(s) = exp,[gl](sv) lies in U for all
and 0
> 0, there exists a constant 6 > 0 such that JJv - wl12 < 6 and llgl-g2111,u < 6implythatca(s) = expq[g2](sw)liesinU ford10 5 s < b,
Given E
< s 5 b.
and moreover,
respectively. Also if T 2 0 is given, we will use the notation IJgl-g2\lr,v gl,g2 E Lor(M) and a positive constant 6
<6 > 0 to mean that calculating wi
Ibj 0 CI)'(S)- (53

for all 1 5 j 5 n a n d 0 5 s 5 b.
CZ)'(S)I <E
the local coordinates (U,x), all the corresponding entries of the two metri tensors and all their corresponding partial derivatives up to order r are 6clos at each point of U. We will denote the Christoffel symbols of the second kind for gl,g2 E Lor(M) by rJk(gl) and rJk(g2):respectively. Then for a = 1,2, the geodesic equations in the coordinate chart (U, x) for (M, g,) are given by
Proof. Let f (X) and h(X) be defined as above. Then X(s) = (cl (s), cll(s))
and Y(s) = (cz(s),czl(s)) are solutions to the differential equations dX/ds = f(Xf and dY/ds = h(Y), respectively. Choose Do to be an open set in TMlu about the image of the curve X(s) such that DOis compact. Then there exists a constant L such that f satisfies a Lipschitz condition 11 f ( X ) - f ( x ) ] / 25 L1IX - Xllz on Do. We may make the term jlX(0) - Y(0)IJ2 in the estimate of Proposition
for 1 5 i, j, k 5 n, where we employ the Einstein summation convention throughout this chapter.
7.9 as small as required by making Ilu - wll2 small. Furthermore, since the Chriitoffel symbols depend only on the coefficients of the metric tensor and
on their first partial derivatives, we may make 11 f (X) - h(X)ll2 as small as we
250
7.3
GEODESIC INCOMPLETENESS
251
wish on Do by requiring that IJgl - g2jll,u be small. Hence for a sufficiently small 6
we will formulate the results in the first portion of this section for the larger class of Lorentzian warped products M = (a, b) x f H with the usual coordinate on ( a ,b) throughout this section. In order to study the geodesic incompleteness of such space-times under metric perturbations, it is helpful to use coordinates adapted to the product structure. Fix p = ( t l , h l ) E (a,b) x H. Since the submanifold {tl) x H of M is spacelike, the Lorentzian metric g for M restricts to a positive definite inner product on the tangent space to this submanifold at p. Identifying {tl) x H and H, we may use an orthonormal basis for the tangent space to i t l ) x H at p to define Riemannian normal coordinates xz,. . . ,x, for H in a neighborhood V of hl. Then (XI,x2,. . . ,x,) defines a coordinate system for
-00
> 0, Proposition 7.9 may be applied to guarantee that c2(s) E U for all 0 5 s 5 b and also to yield the estimate IIX(s) - Y(s)l12 < E for all 0 5 s 5 b. Consequently, Ixi(s) - yi(s)I < E for all 1 5 i 5 2 n and 0 5 s < b. In view of
(7.1), this establishes the desired inequalities. 0
5 a <b5 too
and (H,h) a homogeneous Riemannian manifold. We will let xl = t denote
The following slightly more technical lemma, which is needed in Section
7.3, follows directly from Lemma 7.10 by using the triangle inequality and the
continuity of the geodesic solution X ( s ) = (cl(s), cl' (s)). L e m m a 7.11. Let (U, x) be a local coordinate chart on the n-manifold
5 b. Let E > 0 and s l with 0 < s l < b be given. Then there exists a constant 6 > 0 such that if ilv - wllz < 6, 1/91- 92111,~ < 6, and ]SO - s l J < 6, the geodesic c2(s) = exp,[g2](sw) lies in U for all 0 5 s < b, and moreover,
M. Suppose that cl(v) = exp,[gl](sv) lies in U for all 0
<s
M on (a, b) x V. By construction, g has the form diag{-1, + I , .
. . , +1)
at p
in these coordinates. Because the submanifold {tl) x H is not necessarily totally geodesic iff is nonconstant, these coordinates are not necessarily normal coordinates. Nonetheless, the coordinates (XI,x2, . . . ,x,) are well adapted to the product structure since the level sets xl(t) = X are just {A) x V. We will say that coordinates (XI,.. . ,x,) constructed as above are adapted at p E M and call such coordinates adapted coordinates. It will also be useful to define adapted normal neighborhoods.
and
for all 1 5 j 5 n. Furthermore, if (xl such that

0
cl)'(sl)
0, then the constant 6
> 0 may be chosen
Definition 7.12. (Adapted Normal Neighborhood) vex normal neighborhood be an adapted normal neighborhood if hold:
An arbitrary con-
U of (M,g) with compact closure 7 7 is said to
is covered by adapted coordinates
(xl,x2,. . . ,x,) which are adapted at some point of U such that the following
7 . 3
Stability of Geodesic Incompleteness for Robertson-Walker
Space-times In this section we investigate the stability in the space of Lorentzian rnetrics of the nonspacelike geodesic incompleteness of Robertson-Walker space-times
(1) At every point of U , the components gij of the metric tensor g ex-
pressed in the given coordinates (XI,xz, . . . ,x,) differ from the matrix diag(-1, +I,. ..,+1) by at most 112.
(2) The metric g satisfies g < U 71, where 71 is the Minkowskian metric
M = (a, b) x f H (cf. Definition 5.10). It turns out, however, that the proof o f the C0 stability of timelike geodesic incompleteness uses only the homogeneity of the Riemannian factor (H,h) and not the isotropy of (H, h). Accordingly,
ds2 = -2dx12 +dxz2
+ ... + dxn2 for U (see the definition of stably
causal in Section 3.2 for the notation g <u ql).
252
7.3
253
Thus on the neighborhood U o f Definition 7.12 the Lorentzian metric g may be expressed as
c : (a,wo] -4 ( M , i j ) given by c(t) = (t,yo) has a covering by an admissible chain.
where the functions kiJ : U -+ IR satisfy Ikajl I 1/2 for all 1 5 i, j I n. For use in the sequel, we need t o establish the existence o f countable chains {Uk) o f adapted normal neighborhoods covering future directed, past inextendible, timelike geodesics o f the form c(t) = ( t ,yo). Since in Definition
a
Proof. W e will say that {Uk), { t k ) is an admissible chain for c I (9,wo],9 a, i f {Uk), { t k ) satisfy the properties o f Definition 7.14 except that tk -+Bt as k + oo instead o f t k --+ a+ as k -t co. Set
T
>
= inf{8 E [a,wo] : there is an admissible chain
{Uk), I t k ) for c 1 W e must show that

T
(el,
wo] for all 0'
7.14 and in Lemma 7.15 it is possible that a = -co, we adopt the following convention throughout this section.
Convention 7.13. Let wo denote any fixed interior point o f the interval
= a.
9).
( a ,b). Now we make the following definition.

Definition 7 . 1 4 . (Admissible Chain)
B y taking an adapted normal neighborhood centered at c(wo),it is easily seen that T < W O . Suppose that T > a. Let U be any adapted normal neighborhood adapted at the point
( T , yo)
M . Choose T > T such that all future
directed nonspacelike curves u ( t ) = (t,u l ( t ) ) originating at (r,yo) lie in U for Let M = ( a ,b) x f H denote a Lor@ fh.
entzian warped product with metric g = -dt2
Fix any yo E H and let
c : ( a ,wo]-+ ( M ,3 ) be the future directed, past inextendible, timelike geodesic
given by c ( t ) = ( t , yo). A countable covering {Uk)p=l o f c by open sets and a strictly monotone decreasing sequence {tk)& with tl = wo and tk
+
where E > 0. There exists an admissible chain {U,), {t,) for C((T +7 ) / 2 , W O ] with tm < r for some m. Define U, = = U . Extending the finite chain {U1,U2,. . . ,Urn-1,Urn, Um+l),{ t l , t 2 , . . . ,t m - l l t m l ~ 6) to an infinite admissible chain yields the required contradiction. 0 all
T
-E I t I
T,
a+
as k -+ co is said t o be an admissible chain for c : (a,wo] following two conditions hold:
( M , g ) i f the
W e now show that the subset o f Uk for which property (2) o f Definition 7.14 holds may be extended from the point ( t k , yo) to a neighborhood I t k ) x V k ( y o ) in { t k ) x H . T h e notation Ilg - glllo,pk 7.2.
< 6 has been introduced in Section
(1) Each Uk is an adapted normal neighborhood containing c(tk) = (tk,yo) which is adapted at some point of c. ( 2 ) For each k , every future directed and past inextendible nonspaceliie curve u ( t ) = ( t , a z ( t ) )with u ( t k )= ( t k ,yo) remains in Uk for all t with tk+l I t I
tk.
Lemma 7 . 1 6 . Let {Uk), { t k ) be an admissible chain for the timelike ge-
odesic c ( t ) = (t,yo), c : (a,wo] -+ ( M , g ) . For each k , there is a neighborhood Vk(y0) of yo in H such that any future directed nonspacelike curve ) { t k ) x &(yo) remains in Uk for d l t with a ( t ) = ( t , a l ( t ) ) with ~ ( t k E tk+l 5 t 5 t k . Furthermore, Vk(yo)and 6 > 0 may be chosen such that i f gl E Lor(M) and I(g - glllo,uk < 6, then the following two conditions are satisfied. If y ( t ) = (t,-yl(t)) is any nonspacelike curve of ( M , g l ) with
Any future directed nonspacelike curve u in ( M , g ) may be given a parametrization of the form u ( t ) = (t,u l ( t ) ) . Thus condition ( 2 ) applies t o all future directed nonspacelike curves issuing from (tk,y o ) W e now show that admissible chains exist.
Lemma 7 . 1 5 . Let M = (a,b) x f H with a 2 -m and 3 = -dt2 $ fh be a Lorentzian warped product. For any yo E H , the timelike geodesic
), ~ ( t kE) { t k ) x V ~ ( Y O then
( 1 ) y remains in Uk for tk+l 5 t 5 t k ; and ( 2 ) The gl-length o f yl [ t k + ~ tk] , is at most &n(tk - tk+l).
254

--+
7.3
255
Proof. First recall that z : M = (a,b) x H
W given by ~ ( h t ),= t serves
as a global time function for M . In particular, the vector field V z satisfies g ( V z ,V z )< 0 at all points of M . Define g E Lor(M) by
Assuming now that the Riemannian factor ( H ,h ) o f the Lorentzian warped product is homogeneous, we may extend Lemma 7.16 from Uk t o [tk+l, t k ]x H . W e will use the notation lgl - glo < 6, as defined in Section 3.2. Lemma 7.17. Let ( M , g ) be a Lorentzian warped product with ( H ,h )
I t follows that g < $ on M so that U2 = { i 2 E C o n ( M ) : g2 < ~ ( 9 )is) an open neighborhood o f C ( M , g ) in Con(M). Let Ul = r-l(U2). Then Ul is a Co-open neighborhood o f g in Lor(M) such that i f gl E U l , the projection map z : M --+ W is a global time function for ( M ,gl). Hence the hypersurfaces { t ) x H , t E ( a ,b), remain spacelike in ( M l g l ) . Thus any nonspacelike curve y of ( M ,g l ) , gl E U l , may be parametrized as y ( t ) = ( t ,y l ( t ) ) . Thus the lemma will apply to any nonspacelike curve o f ( M ,g l ) originating at any point provided g1 E Ul is sufficientlyclose t o g on Uk. o f { t k ) x Vk(yO) Let ( x l , . . . ,x,) denote the given adapted coordinate system for the adapted normal neighborhood Uk. In view of condition ( 2 ) o f Definition 7.12, we may find 61 > 0 such that llg - g1110,~,< 61 implies gl < 72 on Uk, where 772 is the Lorentzian metric on Uk given in the adapted local coordinates by 772 = -3 dx12+ dx22 + - . . + dxn2. Secondly, since Co-close metrics have close light cones, it follows by a compactness argument that there exist a neighborhood Vk(yo)o f yo in H and a constant 62 > 0 such that i f gl E Lor(M) satisfies llg-glllo,vk < 62 and y ( t ) = ( t ,y l ( t ) ) is any future directed nonspacelike curve o f ( M , g l ) with y(tk) E { t k ) x V ~ ( Y O then ) , y ( t ) E Uk for tk+l i t I tk. I t remains t o establish the length estimate (2). Set 6 = min{61,62, 1/21. Suppose that g ' E Lor(M) satisfies jig'-gllo,uk < 6, and let y ( t ) = (t,y l ( t ) ) be any nonspacelike curve o f ( M ,g') with y (tk) E { t k ) x Vk (yo),y : [ t k + l , tk] M . Let L ( y ) denote the length o f y in ( M ,g'). Thus
+
homogeneous, and let {Uk), { t k ) be an admissible chain for c ( t ) = ( t ,yo), c : ( a ,wo] M . For each k , there is a continuous function bk : [tk+l,tk]x H -+
+
(0,co)such that i f gl Lor(M) and lg - gllo < 6k on
[&+I,
tk] x H , then any
nonspacelike curve y ( t ) = ( t ,y l ( t ) ) , y : [tk+l,tk]-' ( M , g l ) ,joining any point of {tk+l) x H to any point o f { t k ) x H , has length at most &n(tk - t k i l ) . Proof. Fix any k > 0. Let 6 > 0 be the constant given by Lemma 7.16 such that i f gl E Lor(M) satisfies Ilgl - gllo,pk < 6, then any nonspacelike curve y ( t ) = ( t ,y l ( t ) ) in ( M , g l ) with y(tk) E { t k ) x &(yo) remains in Uk for
tk+l
I t i t k and has length at most &n (tk - & + I ) . Also let ( x l , . . . , x,)
denote the given adapted coordinates for Uk. W e may find isometries {$,)El in I ( H ) such that i f yi = $i(yo) and V k ( ~ i= ) $i(Vk(yo)), then the sets {l/k(yi))& together with Vk(y0) form a locally finite covering of H . Let @, : M -+ M be the isometry given by h ) = ( t ,+i(h)),and set Ui = @i(Uk)for each i. Then the sets {Gi) @i(t,
, l ) form adapted local cocover [tk+l,t k ] X H and ( X I , x2 0 ah1,. . . , x, 0 @ ordinates for Ui for each i. Since everything is constructed with isometries,
the constant 6 > 0 that works in Lemma 7.16 for Uk and c ( t ) = ( t ,yo) works equally well for each
6i and
@i 0
c, provided that the adapted coordinates
. ,x , 0 a;') are used for Ui. ~f we let bk : [tk+l, tk] x H -+ M ( ~ 1 ~0x@ 2 ill.. t k ] x H implies be any continuous function such that ilgl - gllo < hk on [tk+1,
that llgl - g110,5i < 6 for each i, then the lemma is immediate from Lemma 7.16 Cl W e are now ready t o prove the C0 stability of timelike geodesic incomplete-
Fkom Definition 7.12 and the choice o f the 6's, we have lgi31 5 (1+ 1/2)+1/2 = 2 and Iyil(t)l 5 & for all 1 2 i,j 5 n. Thus, as required,
ness for Lorentzian warped products M = ( a ,b) x f H with a > -m and ( H .h ) homogeneous. Theorem 7.18. Let ( M , g ) be a warped product space-time o f the form M = (a,b) x f H with a > -03, g = -dt2 @ fh, and ( H ,h ) a homogeneous
256

CO
7.3
257
Riemannian manifold. Then there exists a fine ( M ,g l ) are past incomplete for each gl E U ( g ) .
neighborhood U ( g ) o f g
'I'heorem 7-19. Let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker space-time o f the form
in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all timelike geodesics o f
M = ( a ,b) x f H with a > -W. Then there exists a fine C0neighborhood U ( g ) of g in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all timelike geodesics of ( M ,g l ) are past incomplete for each gl E U(g).
Proof. Fix any yo E M and let c : (a,wo] 4 M be the past inextendible future directed geodesic given by c(t) = (t,yo). Let {Uk), { t k ) be an admissible chain for c, guaranteed by Lemma 7.15. Also choose 6k : [&+I, t k ]x H 4 (0,a ) for each tk according t o Lemma 7.17. Let 6 : M -+ (0,CO) b e a continuous
function such that 6(q) I &(q) for all q E [tk+i,tk]X H and each k > 0. Set v ~ = (~ {gl )E Lor(M) : lgl - glo < 6). Since global hyperbolicity is a Co-open condition, we may also assume that all metrics in q ( g ) are globally hyperbolic. By the first paragraph o f the proof of Lemma 7.16, we may choose a
CO
I f we change the time function on ( M ,9 ) to T I : M -+ R defined by
( t ,h) =
-t, and apply Lemmas 7.16 and 7.17 t o the resulting space-time, we obtain
the exact analogue o f these lemmas for the future directed timelike geodesic c : ["o, b) ( M ,9 ) given by c(t) = (t,yo) in the given space-time. Hence i f ( M ,g ) is a Lorentzian warped product M = (a,b) x f H with ( H ,h ) homogeneous and
+
b < oo, the same proof as for Theorem 7.18 yields the C0 stability o f the future timelike geodesic incompleteness. Combining this remark with Theorem 7.18 then yields the following result.
T h o r e m 7-20. Let ( M , g ) be a Lorentzian warped product o f the form
each ) , hyperV2(g)o f g in Lor(M) such that for all gl E V Z ( ~ surface { t ) x H , t E (a,b), is spacelike in ( M , g l ) . Then every nons~acelike curve y
: (a,
M = ( a ,b)
Xf
H , g = -dt2 @ f h , with both a and b finite and ( H ,h ) ho-
p) -+ ( M ,g
~ may ) be parametrized in the form y ( t ) = ( t ,yl(t)).
Hence Lemma 7.16 may b e applied to all inextendible nons~acelikegeodesics in ( M , g l ) with gl E Vz(g). Now U ( g )= V l ( g ) n V z ( g ) is a fine neighborhood o f in the CO topology.
mogeneous. Then there is a fine C0 neighborhood U ( g ) o f g in Lor(M) of globally hyperbolic metrics such that all timelike geodesics o f ( M ,g l ) for each 91 f U ( g ) are both past incomplete and future incomplete. It is interesting t o note that while the finiteness o f a and b is essential t o the proof o f Theorem 7.20, the proof is independent of the particular choice o f warping function f : (a,b) -t (0,CO). While the homogeneity o f the Riemannian factor ( H ,h ) is also used in the proof o f Theorem 7.20, no other geometric
r topological property o f ( H ,h ) is needed.
Let gl E U ( g ] ,and let y : ( a ,p) -t ( M ,gl) be any future directed inextendible timelike geodesic. W e may assume that { t l ) x H is a Cauchy surface
( M ,g l ) by the arguments o f Geroch (1970a, p. 448), and hence there exists an so E ( a ,p) such that y(s0) E { t ~x}H . In passing f k m {tk+i) X H t o { t k )
the gl length of y is at most &n ( t k - &+I), applying Lemma 7.17 for each k. Summing up these estimates, it follows that the gl length o f ( a ,so] is at most f i n (tl - a ) . Since yl (a,so] is a past inextendible timelike geodesic finite gl length, it follows that y is past incomplete in ( M , g l ) . 0 Lerner raised the following question (1973, p. 35) about the Roberts Walker big bang models ( M ,g): under small C 2 perturbations o f the me does each nonspacelike geodesic remain incomplete? Since the Ftiemannl factor ( H ,h) o f a Robertson-Walker spacetime is homogeneous, we obt the following corollary t o Theorem 7.18 which settles affirmatively for time geodesics the question raised by Lerner (1973, P. 35).
In general relativity and cosmology, closed big bang models for the unise are considered [cf.Hawking and Ellis (1973, Section 5.3)]. These models Robertson-Walker space-times for which b - a < oo and H is compact. ce Theorem 7.20 implies, in particular, the 60 stability o f timelike geodesic mpleteness for these models. now turn t o the proof o f the C 1 stability o f null geodesic incompleteness
)-2
Robertson-Walker space-times. Taking M = ( 0 , l ) x f W with f ( t ) = and 3 = -dt2 @ fdx2, it may be checked using the results o f Section plete null geodesic. Thus by choosing the warping function suitably, it
) (et, e 2 t ) is a past that the curve 7 : (-m,O) -t ( M , g ) given by ~ ( t=
258
7.3
259
is possible to construct Robertson-Walker space-times with a > -m which are past null geodesically complete. Thus unlike the proof o f stability for timelike geodesic incompleteness, it is necessary to assume that ( M ,g) contains a past incomplete (respectively, past and future incomplete) null geodesic to obtain the null analogue o f Theorem 7.19 (respectively, Theorem 7.20). Not surprisingly, the proof of the C 1 stability of null geodesic incompleteness is more complicated than for the timelike case since affine parameters must be used instead of Lorentzian arc length to establish null incompleteness. Also for the proof o f Lemma 7.22, we need the isotropy as well as the homogeneity o f ( H ,h). Thus we will assume that M = (a,b) x f H is a Robertson-Walker space-time in the rest o f this section. Let (V,x l , . . . ,x,) denote an adapted normal neighborhood of ( M ,g) with adapted coordinates ( x l , .. . ,x,). For the proof o f Lemma 7.22, it is necessary t o define a distance between compact subsets o f vectors that are null for different Lorentzian metrics for M and are attached at different points o f V . Recall from Section 7.2 that local coordinates ( x l ,... ,x,) for V give rise to local coordinates Z = ( x l , . . . ,x,, x,+l,.
Lemma 7.21. Let V be an adapted normal neighborhood adapted at p E
> 0, there exists 6 > 0 such that Ilp - ql/2 < 6, g1 E Lor(M) with Ilg - g1110,v < 6, and la1 - a / < 6 together imply that a , 9 ) ) < c. dist(S(91cul,gl),S(P,
E
( M , g ) . Given a > 0 and
Now let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker space-time ( a ,b) x f H which is past null incomplete. Thus some past directed, past inextendible null geodesic c : [O,A)-+ ( M , g ) is past incomplete (i.e., A < ca). Since ( H ,h ) is isotropic and spatially homogeneous, and since isometries map geodesics t o geodesics, it follows that all null geodesics are past incomplete. W e now fix through the proof o f Theorem 7.23 this past inextendible, past incomplete, null geodesic c : [0,A )
--+
( M ,g ) with the given parametrization.
Let (wo,yo) = c(0) E M = (a,b) x f H. W i t h this choice o f wo, apply Lemma 7.15 t o the future directed timelike geodesic t -+ ( t ,yo), t 5 wo, to get an admissible chain {Uk), { t k ) for this timelike geodesic. Using this choice of { t k ) , we may find sk with 0 = sl < s:, < . . . < sk < ... < A such that
c ( s ~f) { t k ) x H for each k. Set Ask = sk+l - sk. AS above, let xl
:M
-+
. .,x2,) for T V = T M I V . Thus given
denote the projection map x l ( t , h ) = t on the first factor o f M = ( a ,b) x f H. Notice that i f (V,X I , x2,.. . ,x,) is any adapted coordinate chart, then the
any q E V , gl E Lor(M), and cu > 0 , we may define S ( q , a , g l ) = { v E T,M : gl(v,v) = 0 and z,+l(v) = -a). Then S(q, a, g l ) is a compact subset o f T,M for any cr > 0 and gl E Lor(M). Given p,q f V , gl,g2 E Lor(M), and cul,az > 0, define the Hawdorff distance between S ( p ,~
1gl) ,
and S(q,a2,g2) by
R coincides with this projection map. I f y is any smooth curve o f M which intersects each hypersurface { t ) x H o f M exactly once and y ( s ) E { t ) x H , we will say that l ( x l o y)'(s)l is the $1 speed o f y at { t ) x H . In particular, we will denote by ak = / ( X I o c)'(.qk)l the x l speed o f the fixed null geodesic c : [0,A ) ( M ,g) at { t k ) x H for each k .
coordinate function xl : V
r
+
Lemma 7.22. Let
> 0 be given. Then for each k > 0 , there exists

'
--+
continuous function 6k : [tk+l,tk] X H
( 0 , m ) with the following properties.
Let gl E Lor(M) with lg - g1]1 < 6k on [tk+l,tk]x H , and let y : [O,B) M be any past directed, past inextendible, null geodesic with $0) E i t k ) x H T h e continuity o f the components o f the metric tensor g as functions g,?
:
and with x1 speed o f cuk at { t k ) x H . Then y reaches { & + I )x H with an ncrease in f i n e parameter o f at most 2 A s k , and moreover, the x1 speed 9 of
y at {tk+l) x H satisfies the estimate
V x V -+ W and the closeness o f light cones for Lorentzian metrics close in the C0 topology imply the continuity o f this distance in p, a , and g [cf.Busemann (1955, pp. 11-12)].
260

+
7.3
261
Proof. Let c : [0,A) (M,g) be the given past incomplete null geodesic as above. Fix k > 0. By the spatial homogeneity of Robertson-Walker spacetimes, we may find an isometry $ I ( H ) such that $ = id x 4 I ( M , g ) satisfies +(c(sk)) = (tk,YO)with yo as above. Since k is fixed during the
course of this proof, we may set p = (tk,yo) without danger of confusion. Put cl(s) = $ o c ( s + sk). Then cl is a past inextendible, past incomplete, null geodesic of (M,g) with cl(0) f {tk) x H, cl(Ask) E {tk+l) x H , and cl(s) = exp,[g](sv) for v = $,(cl(sk)). Choose b > 0 with Ask < b < 2Ask such that cl(s) E Uk for all s with 0 5 s for some t
such that for any geodesic c2(s) = exp[gl](sw) with gl and w both 61-close to
g and v, we have
21 0 c ~ ( s ' ) = tk+l
for some st f [Ask - bo, Ask
+ bo]. Hence
as 61
< 60, we may apply estimate (2) above with so = s' t o obtain
We now need to extend these estimates from a neighborhood of v E T,M to a neighborhood of S(p, a k , g). TO this end, note that since (a, b) x f H =
M is a warped product of H and the one-dimensional factor (a, b) with f :

(a, b) any
,
< b.
Since b > Ask, we have cl(b) {t) x H
R,it follows that I ( H ) acts transitively on S(p, ak,g). Thus given

S(p, ak,g), we may apply the previous arguments using the same
< tk+l. Hence (xi o cl) (Ask) - (xi 0 cl)(b) = tk+i - t > 0. Set 1 = min{c, tk+l - (xi 0 cl)(b)) > 0.
Now let gl E Lor(M), and let q E Ukn ({tk) x H). Suppose that y : [0, B) --+ (M, gl) is any past directed, past inextendible, null gl geodesic with y(0) = q and with xl speed xn+,(w)
a k
admissible chain {Uk), {tk) to find a constant 61(t) > 0 such that if w E T M satisfies Ilw - 4 2 < 61(z), .rr(w) E U k n ({tk) x HI, llgl - 9lll,uk < bl(z), and 4 s ) = exp[gl](sw) has xl speed a k at {tk) x H , then c2 has an increase in affine parameter of at most 2Ask in passing from {tk) x H to {tk+l) x H and satisfies estimate (7.4). Using the compactness of S(p, ak,g), we may choose null vectors vl, v2, . . . ,v, E S(p, ak, g) such that S(p, a k , g) is covered by the sets {w f S(p,ak,g) : IIw - vrnI12 < 61(vrn)) for m = 1,2,. . . ,j. Set b2 = mini61 (v,)
: 15
a t q. Then w = yl(0) f TqM satisfies gl(w, w) = 0 and

= expq[gl](sw). Applying Lemmas 7.10 and
< 0. Moreover, y(s)
7.11 to cl and c2 = y with the constant 1 as above, we may find a constant 60 > 0 with 0 < 60 < Ask such that Ilv - wll2 Iso - Ask\ < 60 imply that (I) ) (21 0 ca)(~)I < 1 I(XI 0 c ~ ) ( s -
< 60, 1 1 9 - gllll,uk < 60, and
m 5 j}. By Lemma 7.21 we may find a constant b3 with
< tk+l - (XI
~l)(b)
<~ 63, and w E S(P, ak, gi), 0 < 63 < 62 such that if I ~ P - 4\12 < 63, llgi - 9 1 1 1 , ~ then Ilw - vrnl12 < 61(vm) for some m. Hence b3 has the following properties.
If y : [0, B)
+
for all s with 0 5 s 5 b and (2) 1 - 1 <
(M, gl) is any past inextendible, past directed, null geodesic of
("I O C2)'(s0) (21 O cl)'(Ask)
< 1+ 1.
(M,gl) such that Ilgl-gl(l,vk < 63, ~ ( 0 ) ({tk)xH)n{q f Uk : II~--9112 < 63) where p = (tk, yo), and y has xl speed a k at y(O), then the conclusions of the theorem apply to y. Since I ( H ) acts transitively on H , we may extend this result from ({tk) x H ) n {q f U k : Ilp - 9 1 1 2 constructed exactly as in Lemma 7.17. 0 With Lemma 7.22 in hand, we are now ready to prove the C1 stability of t null geodesic incompleteness for Robertson-Walker space-times. Since bertson-Walker space-times are isotropic and spatially homogeneous, past
incompleteness of one inextendible null geodesic implies past incompleteness
Setting s = b in (I), we obtain ](XIocl)(b) -(xi oc2)(b)l < tk+l- (xi ocl)(b) from which (xl o c2)(b) < tk+l. Hence there exists an s1with 0 < s'
< 63) to all of {tk)

-+
x H just as
< b su
in the proof of Lemma 7.17. The function 6k : [tk+l,tk]x H
(0, a ) may be
that (xl o c2)(s1) = tk+l. But then s' < b < 2Ask, which shows that th increase in affine parameter of c2 in passing from { t k ) x H to {tk+l) x H less than 2Ask provided that 60 is chosen as above. For any geodesic q ( s ) = exp[gl](sw) with gl and w 60-close to g an as above, let s' denote the value of the f i n e parameter s of c2 such t x1 o c2(s1) = tk+l. AS 60 -+ 0, the corresponding value of s' must appro Ask by Lemma 7.10. Thus by continuity we may choose b1 with 0 < 61 <
of all null geodesics. Thus the stability theorem may be formulated as follows.
262
7.4
SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR STABILITY
263
T h e o r e m 7.23. Let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker space-time containing

an inextendible null geodesic which is past incomplete. Then there is a fine C'
Using inequality (7.5), we thus have that y increases in affine parameter by at most 4ASk+, in passing from {tk+l) x H to {tk+l+l)x H. Since ELl Ask = A , it follows that the total afFine length B o f y is less than 4A. Since 4 A < m, it follows that y is past incomplete as required.
[3
neighborhood U ( g )o f g in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all null geodesics o f ( M ,g l ) are past incomplete for each gl f U(g).
Proof. Let M = (a,b) x f H and let c : [0,A ) + ( M , g ) be the given inextendible past incomplete null geodesic. W i t h wo = xl(c(O)),let {Uk), { t k ) , { s k ) , and { a k ) be chosen as in the paragraph preceding Lemma 7.22. Let { P k ) be a sequence of real numbers with 0
By reversing the time orientation, we may obtain the analogue o f Theorem 7.23 for Robertson-Walker space-times having future incomplete null geodesics. Thus Theorem 7.23 implies the following result. T h e o r e m 7.24. Let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker s p a c e t ~ m e containing an inextendible null geodesic which is both past and future incomplete. Then there is a fine C' neighborhood U ( g ) of g in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all null geodesics of ( M ,gl) are past and future incomplete
< Pk < 1 for each
k such that
112 < n L l ( 1 - P k ) < 1. Thus for each m 2 1, we have
For each k 2 1, we apply Lemma 7.22 with function bk : i t k f ltk] , XH

'
= Pk t o obtain a continuous
for each gl E U ( g ) . W e now obtain two stability theorems for nonspacelike geodesic incompleteness by combining Theorems 7.19 and 7.23 and by combining Theorems 7.20 and 7.24. The first o f these theorems applies to all big bang models, and the second theorem applies t o the closed big bang models. T h e o r e m 7.25. Let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker space-time o f the form (a,b) x f H , where a > -m. Assume that ( M ,g) contains a past incomplete and past inextendible null geodesic. Then there is a fine C' neighborhood U(g) o f g in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all nonspacelike geodesics o f ( M , g l ) are past incomplete for each gl E U ( g ) . T h e o r e m 7.26. Let ( M ,g) be a Robertson-Walker space-time o f the form
(0,m) with the properties o f Lemma 7.22.

+
Choose a continuous function 6 : M
(0,m) such that for each q in M we
have 6(q) < bk(q) for ail k with q in the domain of 6k. Let U l ( g ) = {gl E Lor(M) : lgl - gjl < 6 ) . Also choose a C1-openneighborhood Uz(g) o f g in Lor(M) such that all metrics in U2(g)are globally hyperbolic and such that each hypersurface { t ) x H is spacelike in ( M , g l ) for all t E ( a ,b) and any gl E U2(g) (cf.Lemma 7.16). Set U ( g ) = Ul(g)n Uz(g). Now suppose that gl E U ( g ) and that y : [0,B ) + M is any past directed and past inextendible null geodesic o f ( M ,gl). Reparametrizing y i f necessary, we may assume that x l ( y ( 0 ) )= tk for some k 2 1 and that y has xl speed
C Y ~ at
{ t k ) x H . By Lemma 7.22, y changes in d n e parameter by at most x H. In order t o apply Lemma 2Ask in passing from {tk) x H to 7.22 t o y as y passes from {tk+l) x H to {tk+2) x H , it may be necessary to reparametrize y at {tk+l) x H t o have xl speed ak+l at {tk+l) x H. Nonetheless, i f Bk+' denotes the xl speed o f y at {tk+l) x H , we have 1 - Pk <
lek+l/~~k+ll < 1 +Pk from Lemma 7.22. Thus the xl speed of y at {&+I) x H
cannot be less than ( 1 - r C j k ) ~ k + ~Hence . the affineparameter o f y increases in passing from {tk+l) x H t o {tk+2) x H by at most 2(1 - Pk)-lAsk+l. Arguing inductively, it may be seen that y increases in affine parameter by at most
(a,b) X / H , where both a and b are finite. Assume that ( M , g ) contains an inextendible null geodesic which is both past and future incomplete. Then there is a fine C' neighborhood U ( g ) o f g in Lor(M) o f globally hyperbolic metrics such that all nonspacelike geodesics o f ( M , g l )are both past and future incomplete for each gl E U ( g ) .
k
7.4 Sufficient Conditions for Stability In this section we show that nonimprisonment is a sufficient condition for the C' stability o f incompleteness [cf.Beem (1994)l. Sufficient conditions for the
AS^+^
nfzA(l-
~k+%)-'
in passing from {tk+l) x H t o (tk+~+l) x H.
264
7.4
265
stability o f completeness involve both nonimprisonment and pseudoconvexity. W e first state two lemmas which follow from standard results (cf.Lemmas 7.10 and 7.11). Lemma 7.27. Let ( M ,g) be a given semi-Riemannian manifold, fix a geodesic y : (a,b) -+ M o f ( M , g ) ,and let W = W ( y I Itl,t2])be a neighborhood o f y I [ t l , t z ] .There is a neighborhood V o f y1(tl)in T M and a constant the domain o f c includes the value t 2 and c ( t ) E W for all tl
E
of incompleteness. In contrast, the stability o f (nonspacelike) completeness (Theorem 7.35) result will require the nonimprisonment o f all nonspacelike geodesics as well as the pseudoconvexity of nonspacelike geodesics. Let M be given an auxiliary, positive definite, and complete Riemannian metric. This metric has a complete distance function do : M x M -+ W,and the Hopf-Rinow Theorem [cf.Hicks (1965)l guarantees that the compact subsets o f M are exactly the subsets which are closed and bounded with respect to
do. The proof of Theorem 7.30 [cf.Beem (1994)l will use a sequence o f n-
>0
such that i f llg - gllll,w < E and i f c is a geodesic o f gl with c l ( t l )E V , then
< t 5 t2.
dimensional annuli {W,) [i.e., sets bounded by spherical shells with respect to the distance do which are centered at a fixed point y(to)]. T h e approach involves requiring the perturbed metric gl t o be sufficientlyclose to the original metric g on the sequence {W,). For a fixed gl, one constructs a sequence o f geodesics cj o f gl such that a given c, is either tangent or almost tangent to
Lemma 7.28. Let ( M , g ) be a given semi-Riemannian manifold, fix a geodesic y : (a,b) -+ M o f ( M , g ) ,and let W = W ( yI [tl,t2]) be a neighborhood o f y 1 [ t l , t 2 ] .Given any neighborhood Vl o f y l ( t l ) in T M , there is a constant
E
> 0 and a neighborhood fi o f y1(t2)in T M such that i f llg - glll1,w < 6 and
i f c is a geodesic o f gl with c1(t2)f V2, then cl(tl) E Vl and c(t) E W for all tl < t < t2.Furthermore, i f y is timelike (respectively, spacelike), then V2 and E > 0 may be chosen such that each v E 7 2 o f each such metric gl is timelike (respectively, spacelike). If y is null, then E > 0 may be chosen such that each such metric gl has some null vectors in V2.
W e now define partial imprisonment and imprisonment. Definition 7.29. (Imprisonment and Partial Imprisonment) ( a ,b) -+ M be an endless (i.e., inextendible) geodesic. ( 1 ) T h e geodesic y is partially imprisoned as t -+ b i f there is a compact b- such that y ( t j ) E K for set K M and a sequence { t j ) with t ,
+
the original y at a certain point y ( t j ) o f W j . A limit geodesic o f the sequence

will be the desired geodesic c o f gl. Theorem 7.30. Let ( M ,g) be a semi-Riemannian manifold. Assume that ( M , g ) has an endless geodesic y : (a,b) compact set as t
-+
M such that y is incomplete in
the forward direction (i.e., b # oo). I f y is not partiaI1y imprisoned in any

+
b, then there is a C 1 neighborhood U ( g ) o f g such that
Let y :
each gl in U ( g ) has at least one incomplete geodesic c. Furthermore, i f y is timelike (respectively, null, spacelike) then c may also be taken as timelike (respectively, null, spacelike). Proof. Choose some to in the interval (a,b). We will construct sequences t,, D,, and L,. Let tl and Dl be chosen with Dl > 1 and t l > to such
= Dl and do(y(to), y ( t ) ) > Dl for all tl < t < b. In that d o ( y ( t o ) , y ( t l ) ) other words, y 1 [to,b) leaves the closed ball o f radius Dl for the last time at
all j .
(2) T h e geodesic y is imprisoned i f there is a compact set K such that the
entire image of y is contained in K .
In other words, y is partially imprisoned in K as t 4 b i f either y ( t ) E K for all t sufficiently near b or i f y leaves and returns t o K an infinite number of times as t + b-. An imprisoned geodesic is clearly partially imprisoned, but for general space-times one may have some partially imprisoned geodesics which fail t o be imprisoned. T h e stability o f incompleteness result (Theorem 7.30) will hold for geodesics which fail t o be partially imprisoned in the direction
t l . T h e existence o f t l follows using the fact that y is not partially imprisoned

as t
-+
b. Set Lo = 0 and L1 = 1
+ sup{do(y(to),y ( t ) )1 to < t < t l ) . Notice
that on the interval [to, t l ] the geodesic y remains within the closed ball o f radius L1 - 1 about y(t0). I f t l , . . . ,t,-1, D l , . . . ,D,-1, and Lo, L1, . . . ,L,-1 have been defined, then t, and D, are defined by letting D, > L, - 1 i-1 and requiring both do(y(to), y(t,)) = D, and &($to), ? ( t ) )> D, for all t, < t < b.
266
7.4
267
Existence again follows using the nonimprisonment hypotheses. Define L j =

1
j
the sequence {cj) yield that v is timelike (respectively, null or spacelike) for gl if the original geodesic y is timelike (respectively, null or spacelike) for g. Let c be the endless (i.e., inextendible) geodesic of gl with cl(to) = v. Note that each geodesic c , satisfies h ( t j ) E .rr(V,) for all 0 5 j 5 m. Also, for each t in the domain of c, cm(t) converges to c(t) and cml(t) converges to cl(t)
+ sup{do(y(to),r(t)) It0 < t

+
co,and hence t j
-+
b as j
W2 = {X E M I &(y(to), X) Lj) for j > 2. The sets Wj are n-dimensional annuli with respect to the of open sets {V,) of T M . Let Vo be an open neighborhood of yl(to) in TM with
< tj). Note that limy(tj) does not exist as w . Set Wl = {x E M I &(y(to), x) < L1), < L2), and Wj = {X E M I Lj-2 < do(y(to), X) <
+
distance do. We now define a sequence of positive numbers {cj) and a sequence compact closure, and assume that the closure of V o does not contain any trivial vectors. If g(yl(to),yl(to)) > 0 [respectively, g(yl(to),yl(to)) < 01, we assume without loss of generality that all v E g(v, v) to obtain an open set cl(tj) E
6 implies c(tj+l) exists. Furthermore, ckt(tj+1) f V,+I for all k > j + 1 yields cl(tj+l) 6 vj+l. Thus, c is defined for
as m
-+
w . By construction, cl(tj) f
all values of tj, and &(y(to), c(tj))
oo as j
w . It is easily shown that the

+
limit c is not partially imprisoned in any compact set as t
b. It only remains
70satisfy
g(v, v)
>
0 [respectively,
to show that c cannot have any domain values above b (i.e., c(b) does not exist). Assume the domain of c contains b. Since c is continuous, the set c([to,b]) would be compact in contradiction to the condition do(yo(to),c(tj)) -+ co. 0 An interesting aspect of the construction used in the above proof is that the final geodesic c of the metric gl has the same value b for the least upper bound of its domain as the original geodesic y of the metric g. In essence, this is o and to the fact that do(cj(tj),cj(to)) due to cjl(tj) E T/, implying cjl(to) E V diverges to infinity. Notice that the methods used in the proof of Theorem 7.30 show that if gl is another semi-Riemannian metric on M and if gl is close to g in the C' sense on a neighborhood of y , then gl has a corresponding geodesic which is incomplete. In other words, the proof of Theorem 7.30 only really requires that g and gl be metrics which are C1 close near y. Thus, if (M,g) has a finite number N of incomplete geodesics and none of these are partially imprisoned in any compact set, then one may construct a C1 neighborhood U(g) of g such that each gl in U(g) has at least N incomplete geodesics. On the other hand, one may construct space-times which have all geodesics complete except for a single geodesic which is incomplete and which is not partially imprisoned [cf. Beem (1976c)j. Thus, the existence of a single incomplete geodesic does not imply that there is more than one such geodesic.
< 01. Assume that &, Vl, .. . ,T/;-l have been defined. Use Lemma 7.28
V, = T/;(yl(tj)) of yl(tj) in T M and a positive number
cj such that if Ilg-gljll,p
< cj where P = Wj, and if c is a geodesic of gl with Vj, then cl(tj-1) E y-l and c(t) E Wj for all tj-l 5 t 5 tj. Lemma
7.28 implies that if the original geodesic y is timelike (respectively, spacelike), then we may assume each v in Vj is timelike (respectively, spacelike) for gl. If
y is null, then we may assume that gl has some null vectors in V,. Lemma 7.27
implies we may assume that if c is a geodesic of such a gl with cl(tj) E
vj,
then the domain of c contains tj+l. We may also assume without loss of generality that the diameter with respect to & of K(V,) is less than 112 and cj+l
< cj for all j . Notice that points of M are in a t most two consecutive
E
sets of the sequence Wj. It follows that there is a continuous positive-valued function
:M
+
( 0 , w ) with ~ ( x < ) ej for all j with x 6 Wj. Let gl satisfy
1 1 9 - gllll,M
< ~ ( x ) We . will construct a sequence of geodesics of gl. Assume
first that the original geodesic y is either timelike or spacelike. For each j, let cj(t) be the geodesic of gl which satisfies cjl(tj) = yl(tj). Notice that if y is timelike (respectively, spacelike), then each cj is timelike (respectively, spacelike). If the original geodesic y is null, then we choose c j such that cjl(tj) E Vj and cjl(tj) is null. The above construction yields that cjt(tk) E Vk o has compact closure and this closure does not for all 0 5 k 5 j. Since V contain any trivial vectors, one obtains a nontrivial vector v in T o and a subsequence { m ) of {j) such that cml(to)
+
Corollary 7.31. If (M,g) is a strongly causal space-time which is causally

geodesically incomplete, then there is a C1 neighborhood U(g) of g such that each gl in U(g) is nonspacelike geodesically incomplete.
v. The constructions of V o and
268
7.4
269
Proof. This follows from Theorem 7.30 using the fact that for strongly causal space-times, no causal geodesic is future or past partially imprisoned in any compact set. 0 It is known that no null geodesic in a twc-dimensional Lorentzian manifold has conjugate points. However, a chronological space-time in which all null geodesics have conjugate points is strongly causal and has dimension at least three. Thus, we obtain the following corollary.
can, of course, consider this property for other classes such as the class of all null geodesic segments, all spacelike segments, etc. Furthermore, pseudoconvexity and disprisonment have also been applied to sprays [cf. Del Riego and Parker (1995)l.
Definition 7.34. (Nonspacelike Pseudoconuexity) We say (M, g) has a pseudoconuex nonspacelike geodesic system if for each compact subset K of M ,
there is a second compact set H such that each nonspacelike geodesic segment with both endpoints in K lies in H. The following [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1987, p. 324)] gives sufficient conditions for the stability of nonspacelike completeness.
Corollary 7.32. Let (M, g) be a chronological space-time of dimension at

least three which is causally geodesically incomplete. If (M,g) has conjugate points along all null geodesics, then there is a C1 neighborhood U(g) of g such that each gl in U(g) is nonspacelike geodesically incomplete. Let (a, b) x f H be given the metric g = -dt2
+ f (t)dcr2. If either a or b is
Theorem 7.35. Let (M,g) be a Lorentzian manifold which has no imprisoned nonspacelike geodesics and which has a pseudoconvex nonspacelike geodesic system. If (M, g) is nonspacelike geodesically complete, then there is a C1 neighborhood U(g) ofg in Lor(M) such that each gl f U(g) is nonspacelike complete. Pseudoconvexity is a type of "internal" completeness condition in somewhat the same sense that global hyperbolicity is such a condition. The next proposition shows that nonspacelike pseudoconvexity is a generalization of global hyperbolicity. An example of a nonspacelike pseudoconvex space-time which fails to be globally hyperbolic is given by the open strip { ( t , x) : 0 < x the Minkowski plane.
finite, then (a,b) x f H is timelike geodesically incomplete. Note that (a, b) x H is necessarily stably causal since f (t,y) = t is a time function. Using Corollary 7.31 and the fact that stably causal space-times are strongly causal, we obtain
Corollary 7.33. Assume (H, h) is a positive definite Riemannian manifold,

and let the warped product (a, b) x f H be given the Lorentzian metric g = -dt2
@fh.
If either a # -ca o r b # +ca, then there is a fine C1 neighborhood
U(g) of g such that each metric gl in this neighborhood is timelike geodesically incomplete. This last corollary applies to a much more general class of spacetimes than the Robertson-Walker space-times because we have not made symmetry assumptions on (H, h). Of course, for the special case of Robertson-Walker space-times we have already established the stronger conclusion that there is a C0 neighborhood U(g) with each gl in U(g) having all timelike geodesics incomplete (cf. Theorem 7.18). If K is a subset of Wn, then the conuez hull K H of K is the union of all Euclidean line segments with both endpoints in K. It is well known that the convex hull of a compact set is again a compact set. Pseudoconvexity is a generalization of this property to manifolds. In Definition 7.34 below, we assume the class of geodesic segments under consideration to be nonspacelike. One
< 1) in
Proposition 7.36. If (M,g) is a globally hyperbolic space-time, then (M,g) has a pseudoconvex nonspacelike geodesic system.
Proof. Let K be a compact subset of M . For each p E K choose points q and r with q in the chronological past I-(p) of p and r in the chronological future If (p) of p. Then U(p) = I+(q) n I-(T) is an open set containing p. Since (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, the set U(p) has compact closure given by J+(q)
n J-(T).
Cover the compact set K with a finite number of open set
U(p,) = I+(q,) n I-(r,) for i = 1 , 2 , .. . ,k, and let H be the union of the k2 compact sets of the form J+(q,) nJ-(r,) for 1 5 i,j 5 k. It is easily seen that
270
all nonspacelike geodesic segments with both endpoints in K must lie in the compact set H. Since globally hyperbolic space-times are strongly causal, they have no imprisoned nonspacelike geodesics. Consequently, Theorem 7.35 and Proposition 7.36 yield the following corollary. Corollary 7.37. Let (M,g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time. If (M,g) is nonspacelike geodesically complete, then there is a C1 neighborhood U(g)
of g in Lor(M) such that each gl E U(g) is nonspacelike complete.
CHAPTER 8
M A X I M A L GEODESICS A N D CAUSALLY DISCONNECTED S P A C S T I M E S
Many basic properties of complete, noncompact Riemannian manifolds stem from the principle that a limit curve of a sequence of minimal geodesics is itself a minimal geodesic. After the correct formulation of completeness had been given by Hopf and Rinow (1931), Rinow (1932) and Myers (1935) were able t o establish the existence of a geodesic ray issuing from every point of a complete noncompact Riemannian manifold using this principle. Here a geodesic y : [0,co) --t (N,go) is said to be a ray if y realizes the Riemannian distance between every pair of its points. Rinow and Myers constructed the desired geodesic ray as follows. Since (N, go) is complete and noncompact, there exists an infinite sequence (p,) of points in N such that for every point p E N, do(p,p,) -+ CXI as n -+m. Let y, be a minimal (i.e., distance realizing) unit speed geodesic segment from p = y,(O) to p,. This segment exists by the completeness of (N,go). If v E T,N is any accumulation point of the sequence {ynl(0)) of unit tangent vectors in TpN, then y(t) = exp, tv is the required geodesic ray. Intuitively, y is a ray since it is a limit curve of some subsequence of the minimal geodesic segments (7,). The existence of geodesic rays through every point has been an essential tool in the structure theory of both positively curved [cf. Cheeger and Gromoll (1971, 1972)] and negatively curved [cf. Eberlein and O'Neill (1973)l complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds.
Minkowski space-time is globally hyperbolic and geodesically complete. Furthermore, its (entire) geodesic system is pseudoconvex. In other words, given any compact set K , there is a larger compact set H such that any geodesic segment (timelike, null, or spacelike) with endpoints in K must lie in H. In fact, one may take H to be the usual convex hull of K . The next proposition gives the C1 stability of global hyperbolicity, nonimprisonment, completeness, and inextendibility for Minkowski space-time. The C1 stability of global hyperbolicity follows from the stronger C0 stability result of Geroch (1970a). The stability of nonimprisonment and of geodesic completeness ( all geodesics) follows from Beem and Ehrlich (1987, pp. 324-325). See a Beem and Parker (1985, p. 18). The stability of inextendibility follows fro the stability of completeness using Proposition 6.16 which guarantees th geodesically complete space-times are inextendible. Proposition 7.38. There is a C1 neighborhood U(7) of n-dimension Minkowski space-time (M, 7 ) such that for each metric gl in this neighborhood: (1) (M, gl) is globally hyperbolic; (2) No geodesic of (M,gl) is imprisoned; (3) (M, gl) is geodesically complete; and
(4) (M, gl) is an inextendible space-time.
A second application of this basic principle of constructing geodesics as limits of minimal geodesic segments is a concrete geometric realization for complete Riemannian manifolds of the theory of ends for noncompact Hausdorff topological spaces [cf. Cohn-Vossen (1936)l. An infinite sequence (p,) of points in a manifold is said to diverge to infinity if, given any compact sub-
272
MAXIMAL GEODESICS, DISCONNECTED SPACE-TIMES
8.1
ALMOST MAXIMAL CURVES AND MAXIMAL GEODESICS
273
set K , only finitely many members of the sequence are contained in K. If a complete Riemannian manifold (N,go) has more than one end, there exists a compact subset K of N and sequences {p,) and {q,) which diverge to infinity such that 0 < &(p,, q,) --+ oo and every curve from p, to q, meets K for each
n. Let -y, be a minimal (i.e., distance realizing) geodesic segment from p, to
disconnecting two divergent sequences is said to be causally disconnected. It is evident from the definition that causal disconnection is a global conformal invariant of C(M, g). Applying the principle of Section 8.1, we show that if the strongly causal space-time (M,g) is causally disconnected by the compact set
q,. Since each y, meets K , a limit geodesic y : R -+ M may be constructed. Moreover, y is minimal as a limit of a sequence of minimal curves. Then
"y(-m)" corresponds to the end of N represented by { p , ) and "y(+m)" to
the end represented by (9,).
In particular, a complete Riemannian manifold N with more than one end contains a line, i.e., a geodesic y : (-co,+m) that is distance realizing between any two of its points. Motivated by these Riemannian constructions, we study similar existence theorems for geodesic rays and lines in strongly causal space-times. From the viewpoint of general relativity, it is desirable to have constructions that are valid not only for globally hyperbolic subsets of space-times, but also for strongly causal space-times. However, if we only assume strong causality, it not true in general that causally related points may be joined by maximal g e odesic segments. Thus a slightly weaker principle for construction of maximal geodesics is needed for Lorentzian manifolds than for complete Riemannian manifolds. Namely, in strongly causal space-times, limit curves of sequences o "almost maximal" curves are maximal and hence are also geodesics. In Secti 8.1 we give two methods for constructing families of almost maximal curv whose limit curves in strongly causal space-times are maximal geodesics. T strong causality is needed to ensure the upper semicontinuity of arc length the C0 topology on curves and also so that Proposition 3.34 may be appli In Section 8.2 we apply this construction to prove the existence of past and ture directed nonspacelike geodesic rays issuing from every point of a stron causal space-time. In Section 8.3 we study the class of causally disconnec space-times. Here a space-time is said to be causally disconnected by a pact set K if there are two infinite sequences {pn) and { q n ) , both divergi infinity, such that p, < q,, p, # qn, and all nonspacelike curves from Pn meet K for each n. A space-time (M, g) admitting such a compact K caus
K, then (M, g) contains a nonspacelike geodesic line y : (a, b) -4 M which intersects K. That is, d(y(s), y(t)) = L ( y I [s,t]) for all s , t with a < s t < b. This result is essential to the proof of the singularity theorem 6.3 in Beem and Ehrlich (1979a), as will be seen in Chapter 12. We conclude this chapter by studying conditions on the global geodesic structure of a given space-time (M,g) which imply that (M,g) is causally disconnected. In particular, we show that all two-dimensional globally hyperbolic space-times are causally disconnected. Also, it follows from one of these conditions and the existence of nonspacelike geodesic lines in strongly causal, causally disconnected spacetimes that a strongly causal space-time containing no future directed null geodesic rays contains a timelike geodesic line.
8.1
Almost Maximal Curves and Maximal Geodesics
The purpose of this section is to show how geodesics may be constructed
as limits of "almost maximal" curves in strongly causal spacetimes. In both constructions, the upper semicontinuity of Lorentzian arc length in the C0 topology on curves for strongly causal space-times and the lower semicontinuity of Lorentzian distance play important roles. The strong causality of (M,g ) is used in our approach here so that convergence in the limit curve sense and in the CO topology on curves are closely related (cf. Proposition 3.34). The first nstruction may be applied to pairs of chronologically related points p, q with (p, q) < a. While this approach is therefore sufficient to show the existence of nonspacelike geodesic rays in globally hyperbolic space-times [cf. Beem and Ehrlich ( 1 9 7 9 ~ Theorem ~ 4.2)], it is not valid for points at infinite distance. cordingly, for use in Sections 8.2 and 8.3, we give a second construction ich may be used in arbitrary strongly causal space-times. In Section 14.1 a
ghtly different approach to constructing maximal segments from sequences of onspacelike almost maximal curves is presented [cf. Galloway (1986a)J. Here,
274
8.1
275
the use of uniform convergence in a unit speed reparametrization with respect t o an auxiliary complete Riemannian metric is employed to dispense with the global requirement of strong causality which we assume in this chapter. Let (M, g) be an arbitrary space-time and suppose that p and q are distinct points of M with p
We are now ready to give an example of the principle that for strongly causal space-times, limits of almost maximal curves are maximal geodesics. Strong causality is used here (with all curves given a "Lorentzian parametrization") since convergence in the limit curve sense and in the C0 topology are closely related for strongly causal space-times but not for arbitrary spacetimes (cf. Section 14.1). Proposition 8.2. Let (M,g) be a strongly causal space-time. Suppose that p, -+ p and q, -+ q where p, < q, for each n and 0 < d ( p ,q ) < m. Let y, : [a, b ]
+
< q.
If d(p,q) = 0, then letting y be any future directed
nonspacelike curve from p to q, we have L(y) 5 d(p, q) = 0. Hence L(y) = d(p, q) and 7 may be reparametrized to a maximal null geodesic segment from p to q by Theorem 4.13. Thus suppose that p << q, or equivalently, that d(p, q)
> 0. If d(p, q) < co as well, then by Definition 4.1 there exists a future
M be a future directed nonspacelike curve from p , to q, with
directed nonspacelike curve y from p to q with
for any E
E
> 0. Of course, inequality (8.1) is only a restriction on L(y) provided
where
6,
--, 0 as
m.
If y
[a,b ]
--+
M is a limit curve of the sequence
< d(p, q). In this case, we will call y an almost maximal curve.
We note the following elementary consequence of the reverse triangle in-
{m)with y(a) = p and y(b) = q, then L(y) = d(p,q). Thus y may be reparametrized to be a smooth maximal geodesic from p to q.
Proof. First, y is nonspacelike by Lemma 3.29. Second, by Proposition 3.34, a subsequence {y,) of {y,) converges to y in the C0 topology on curves. By the upper semicontinuity of arc length in this topology for strongly causal space-times (cf. Remark 3.35), we then have
equality.
Remark 8.1. Let y : [O, 11 -+ M be a future directed nonspacelike curve

from p to q, p # q, with
Then for any s < t in [O,l], we have
Proof. Assume that L ( y I [s, t]) Then
< d(y(s),y(t)) - c for some s < t in [O,l].
using the lower semicontinuity of Lorentzian distance (Lemma 4.4). But by definition of distance, d(p,q) 2 L(y). Thus L(y) = d(p, q) and the last state-
l [ ment of the proposition follows from Theorem 4.13. E

We now consider a second method for constructing maximal geodesics in strongly causal space-times (M,g) which may be applied to points at infinite Lorentzian distance. For this purpose, we fix throughout the rest of Chapter
8 an arbitrary point po E M and a complete (positive definite) Riemannian
in contradiction. 0
metric h for the paracompact manifold M. Let do : M x M
R denote the
276
8.1
277
Riemannian distance function induced on M by h. For all positive integers n , the sets
-
For strongly causal space-times, the Lorentzian distance function d and the d [Bn]'s are related by the following lower semicontinuity. L e m m a 8.5. Let (M,g) be strongly causal. If p,
+
B n = {m E M : do(po,m) F n)
p and q,
q, then
are compact by the Hopf-Rinow Theorem. Thus the sets
{B,
:n
> 0) form a
d(~ 9) ,
compact exhaustion of M by connected sets. For each n , let
< lim inf d [Bn](pn qn).

< a. Let 6 > 0 be given. By definition of Lorentzian distance and
Proof. If d(p, q) = 0, there is nothing to prove. Thus we first assume that 0 < d(p, q) denote the Lorentzian distance function induced on B, by the inclusion B, (M, g). That is, given p f B,, set d [Bn](p,q) = 0 if q $ ! J + ( ~R), , and for 4 E J + ( ~ , B , ) , let d [Bn](p,q) be the supremum of lengths of future directed nonspacelike curves from p to q which are contained in B,. It is then immediate that d q) 5 d(p, q) for all p, q E B,. However, d [B,] is not in general these two distances the restriction of the given Lorentzian distance function d of (MIg) to the set standard results from elementary causality theory [cf. Penrose (1972, pp. 1516)], a timelike curve y from p to q may be found with d(p, q) - 6 < L ( y ) 5 d(p, q). Since y is timelike and L(y) > d(p,q) - E , we may find TI,rz E y with d(p, q) - 6
< L(y[rl,rz]) and p << TI << r2 << q. Since I - ( T I ) and I + ( r 2 ) are

+
open and pn large.
large. Also y C B n , p, E J-(rl, Since e
B, x
B,. Nonetheless, for strongly causal space-times
< < rl < < rg << qn for all n sufficiently B,), and q, E J+(rz, B,) for all n sufficiently Consequently, d(p, q) - 6 < L(y[rl, m]) 5 d [Z,](p,, q,) for all large n.
p, qn -+ q, we have p,
coincide "in the limit." L e m m a 8.3. Let (M, g) be strongly causal. Then for all p, q E M , we have d(p, 9) = lim d [Bn](p,9). Proof. Since d [Bn](p,q) 5 d(p,q), the desired equality is obvious in the event that d(p, q) = 0. Thus suppose that d(p, q) > 0. By definition of Lorentzian distance, we may find a sequence {yk) of future directed nonspacelike curves from p to q such that L(yk) -+ d(p, q) as k choose (yk) such that L(yk)
+
the case that 0
> 0 was arbitrary, we thus have d(p, q) 5 lim inf d [Bn](pn,q,) in < d(p, q) < m . Assume finally that d(p, q) = co. Choosing
timelike curves yk from p to q with L(yk)

k that d [B,](p,, q,) 1 k 6
> k for each k, we have for each
for all n sufficiently large as above. Hence limd [B,] (pn,qn) = co as required. 13 Since we are assuming that (M,g) is strongly causal but not necessarily globally hyperbolic, it is possible that the Lorentzian distance function d : M x M --t W U {m) assumes the value + w . Nonetheless, for any given Bn
m. (If d(p, q) = m,
> k for each k.)
Since the image of yk in M is
compact and the Riemannian distance function do : M x M -+ W is continuous and finite-valued, there exists an n(k) > 0 for each k such that yk C Bj for all j 2 n(k). Thus d(p, q) = lim L(yk) 5 limd [Bn](p,q). Hence as d [Bn](p, q) 5 d(p, q) for each n, the lemma is established. It will be convenient to introduce the following notational convention for use throughout the rest of this chapter. Notational Convention 8.4. Let y be a future directed nonspacelike ) q = y(t) with s < t and curve in a causal space-time. Suppose p = ~ ( s and p
R U {m) is finite-valued. This is a consequence of the compactness of the Bn and the compactness of certain subspaces of nonspacelike curves in the C0 topology on curves [if. Penrose (1972, p. 50, Theorem 6.5)]. Moreover, this compactness also implies the existence of curves realizing the d [B,] distance for points p, q E Bn with
+
the distance function d [B,] : Bn x
B,
E J+(P, Bn).
L e m m a 8.6. Let (M,g) be a strongly causal space-time and let n arbitrary. If q E J + ( ~ , B , ) , then d [Bn](p,q)< directed nonspacelike curve y in d[B,l(p,q).
XI
> 0 be
and there exists a future
B, joining
p to q which satisfies L(y) =
# q. We will let y[p, q ] denote the restriction of 7 to the interval [s, t].
278
8.2
GEODESIC RAYS IN CAUSAL SPACE-TIMES
279
Proof. By definition o f the distance d [B,], i f d [ B n ] ( p , q ) = 0 and q E
d(p,q) L lim inf d [Bn] ( P , q)

= lim inf L ( y n )
J + ( ~ , B , )then ,
there exists a future directed nonspacelike curve y in
B,
from p t o q with L ( y ) 5 d [Bn](p,q) = 0. Hence L ( y ) = d [Bn](p,q) as required. Thus we may suppose that d q) > 0. Again by definition o f d [&I, L(yk) we may find a sequence { y k ) o f future directed nonspacelike curves . I f d [B,](p,q) = oo,choose yk with from p t o q with L(yk) -t d [ R ] ( p l q ) (
L lim sup L ( y n ) L L ( y ) Ld(~ q) !

as required. C3
Now let p, q be distinct points o f an arbitrary strongly causal space-time with p
> k for each k.)
Since
3, is compact
and ( M , g ) is strongly causal,
there exists a future directed nonspacelike curve y in B, joining p t o q with the property that a subsequence {y,} o f { y k )converges t o y in the C Otopology on curves by Theorem 6.5 o f Penrose (1972, pp. 50-51). But then using the upper semicontinuity o f arc length in the C 0 topology on curves, we have d [B,](p, q) = lim L(y,) as required.
< q and
let a sequence {y,} of nonspacelike curves from p to q be
chosen as in Proposition 8.7. While a limit curve y for the sequence {y,) with y(0) = p may always be extracted by Proposition 3.31, we have no guarantee that y reaches q unless ( M , g ) is globally hyperbolic. Indeed, i f d(p,q) = co, then there is no maximal geodesic from p to q, and hence no limit curve y o f the sequence (7,) with y(0) = p passes through q. Thus the hypothesis that y joins p t o q in Proposition 8.7 together with the conclusion o f Proposition 8.7 implies that d(p,q) < co. On the other hand, the condition that d(p,q) < co
5 L ( y ) which implies the finiteness o f d [B,](p,q).
from the definition, we also have d (B,](p,q) = L(y) Since L ( y ) <_ d [ R ] ( p , q )
Now let p, q E M with p
< q, p # q, be arbitrary.
Choose any nonspace-
does not imply that any limit curve y o f (7,) with y(0) = p reaches q when ( M ,g ) is not globally hyperbolic. Examples may easily be constructed by deleting points from Minkowski space-time. 8.2 Nonspacelike Geodesic R a y s i n Strongly Causal Space-times
like curve yo from p t o q. Since the image of yo is compact in M and the Riemannian distance function is continuous, we may find an N > 0 such that yo is contained in
BN.
Hence q E J + ( p , B n ) for all n 2 N . Thus using T h e purpose o f this section is t o establish the existence o f past and future directed nonspacelike geodesic rays issuing from every point o f a strongly causal space-time ( M ,g).
Lemma 8.6 we may find a future directed nonspacelike curve y, from p to q with L(y,) = d [B,](p, q) for each n 2 N . For C 0 limit curves o f the sequence
{ y , ) ,
we then have the following analogue o f Proposition 8.2.
Proposition 8.7. Let ( M Ig) be strongly causal and let p, q f M be distinct points with p
Definition 8.8. (Future and Past Directed Nonspacelike Geodesic Rays) A future directed (respectively, past directed) nonspacelike geodesic ray is a future (respectively, past) directed, future (respectively, past) inextendible, y ( t ) ) = L ( y 1 [0,t ] ) nonspacelike geodesic y : [O,a)-t ( M , g ) for which d(y(O), (respectively, d ( y ( t ) y , ( 0 ) ) = L ( y I [0,t ] ) ) for all t with 0 5 t < a. T h e reverse triangle inequality then implies that a nonspacelike geodesic ray is maximal between any pair o f its points. Using Lemmas 8.5 and 8.6 we first prove a proposition that will be needed not only for the proof o f the existence o f nonspacelike geodesic rays, but also
< q.
For all n > 0 sufficiently large, let yn be a future
q). I f -y directed nonspacelike curve from p t o q in B, with L(y,) = d [Bn](p, is a nonspacelike curve from p to q such that {y,} converges t o y in the C0 topology on curves, then L ( y ) = d(p,q) and hence y may be reparametrized to a maximal geodesic segment from p t o q.
Proof. Using Lemma 8.5 and the upper semicontinuity of arc length in the C 0 topology on curves in strongly causal space-times, we have
280
8.2
GEODESIC RAYS IN CAUSAL SPACE-TIMES

+ +
281
for the proof of the existence of nonspacelike geodesic lines in strongly causal,
-
causally disconnected spacetimes in Section 8.3. Let
and d [B,] :
x, E y, with x, x as m w. Passing to a subsequence {yk) of {y,) if necessary, we may assume by Proposition 3.34 that yk[p,xk]converges to y[p, x] in the C0 topology on curves (recall Notational Convention 8.4). Since y[p, x] is closed in M and q # y, there exists an open set V containing y[p, x] with q
B,
-+
R be constructed as in Section 8.1.
Proposition 8.9. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time and let K be any compact subset of M. Suppose that p and q are distinct points of M such that p < q and every future directed nonspacelike curve from p to q meets K. Then at least one of the following holds: (1) There exists a future directed maximal nonspacelike geodesic segment from p to q which intersects K. (2) There exists a future directed maximal nonspacelike geodesic which starts at p, intersects K, and is future inextendible. (3) There exists a future directed maximal nonspacelike geodesic which ends at q, intersects K , and is past inextendible. (4) There exists a maximal nonspacelike geodesic which intersects K and is both past and future inextendible.
V . Since yk[p,xk] -+ y[p,x] in the C0 topology on curves, there exists an Nl > O such that yk[p,xk]2 V for all k 2 N l . Hence q @ yk[p,xk] for all k 2 N I . Thus yk[p,xk] E yk[p, q] for all k 2 N1 which implies that ) all k > N1. By Lemma 8.5 and the upper L(yk[p,xk]) = d [ B k ] ( P , ~ kfor semicontinuity of arc length in the C0 topology on curves for strongly causal spacetimes, we have
d(p, x)
< lim inf d [Bk](p,xk)

= lim inf L(yk[p,~ k ] )
5 f i m s uL ~(yk\~ xk]) , 5 L(y[p, XI).

Since L(y[p,x])
< d(p,x) by definition of Lorentzian distance, we thus have
d(p, x) = L(y[p, XI) as required.
Proof. Let yo be any future directed nonspacelike curve in M from p to q.

Since K U yo is compact, there exists an N > 0 such that K U yo is contained in
For globally hyperbolic space-times, case (1) of Proposition 8.9 always applies because J+(p) n J-(q) is compact and no inextendible nonspacelike curve is past or future imprisoned in a compact set. However, space-tirnes which are strongly causal but not globally hyperbolic and which have chronologically related points p
Bn for all n 2 N.
Hence q E J+(P,B,) for all n 2 N. Thus by Lemma
8.6, for each n >_ N there exists a future directed nonspacelike curve y, in Bn joining p to q with L(yn) = d [B,](p, q). By hypothesis, each yn intersects K in some point r,. Since K is compact, there exists a point T E K and a subsequence {r,) of {r,) such that r, r as m + m. Extend each curve
+
< < q to which exactly one of cases (2) to
(4) applies may be
constructed by deleting points from Minkowski space-time. With Proposition 8.9 in hand, we are now ready to prove the existence of past and future directed nonspacelike geodesic rays issuing from each point of a strongly causal space-time. By the usual duality, it suffices to show the existence of a future directed ray at each point.
Theorem 8.10. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time and let p E M
ym to a past and future inextendible nonspacelike curve which we will still denote by ym. By Proposition 3.31, there exists an inextendible nonspacelike limit curve y for the subsequence (7,) necessary, we may assume that {y,) such that y contains T . Relabeling if distinguishes y.
Now the limit curve y may contain both p and q, only p, only q, or neither p nor q. These four cases give rise respectively to the four cases (1) to (4) of the proposition. Since the proofs are similar, we will only give the proof for the second case. Thus we assume that y : (a, b) -+ M contains p = y(to) but not q. We must show that y 1 [to,b) is maximal. To this end, let x be an arbitrary point of y 1 [to,b). Since 1%) distinguishes y, we may find points
be arbitrary. Then there exists a future directed nonspacelike geodesic ray y : [O,a) -+ M with y(0) = p, i.e., d(p,y(t)) = L ( y 1 [ O , t ] ) for all t with Olt<a.
Proof. Let c : [0, b)
--+
M be a future directed, future inextendible, timelike
curve with c(0) = p. Since (M,g) is strongly causal, c cannot be future
282
MAXIMAL GEODESICS,
DISCONNECTED SPACE-TIMES
8.3
DISCONNECTED SPACE-TIMES, NONSPACELIKE LINES
283
imprisoned in any compact set (cf. Proposition 3.13). Thus there is a sequence {t,) with t, each n. We now apply Proposition 8.9 to each pair p,qn with K = {p). Thus for each n , either (1) there is a maximal future directed nonspacelike geodesic segment from p to q,, or (2) there is a future directed, future-inextendible, nonspacelike geodesic ray starting at p. If case (2) occurs for some n , we are done. Thus assume that for each n there is a maximal future directed nonspacelike geodesic segment y, from p to q,. Extend each y, to a future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike curve, still denoted by y,. By Proposition 3.31, the sequence (7,) has a future directed, future inextendible, nonspacelike limit curve y : [O,a) + M with y(0) = p. Relabeling the q, if necessary, we may suppose that the sequence {y,) itself distinguishes y. It remains to show that if x E 7 with p that x,
-+ --+
noncompact complete Riemannian manifold by geodesic lines [cf. Freudenthal (1931) for the original definition of ends of a noncompact Hausdorff topological space]. Recall that an infinite sequence in a noncompact topological space is said to diverge to infinity if given any compact subset C, only finitely many elements of the sequence are contained in C. Definition 8 . 1 1 . (Causally Disconnected Space-time) A space-time is
b such that do(p,c(tn))--+ co as n
co. Set q, = c(t,) for
said to be causally disconnected by a compact set K if there exist two infinite sequences {p,) and {q,) diverging to infinity such that for each n,p, p,
< q,,
# q,,
and all future directed nonspacelike curves from p, to q, meet K. A
space-time (M, g) that is causally disconnected by some compact K is said to be causally disconnected. Note first that if k or p,.
#x
is arbitrary, then L(y[p, x]) =
n, then pk is not necessarily causally related to q,
d(p, x). Since {y,) distinguishes y, we may choose x, E y, for each n such x as n
+ co.
Also the compact set K may be quite different from a Cauchy surface
Choose a subsequence (7,) of {y,) by Proposition
(cf. Theorem 3.17) and non-globally hyperbolic, strongly causal space-times may be causally disconnected even though they contain no Cauchy surfaces. An example is provided by a Reissner-Nordstrom space-time with e2 = m2 (cf. Figure 8.1). It is immediate from Definition 8.11 that if ( M , g ) is causally disconnected and gl E C(M, 9 ) is arbitrary, then (M,gl) is causally disconnected. Thus causal disconnection is a global conformal invariant. We have previously used a more restrictive version of the concept of causal disconnection in which we assumed in addition to the conditions of Definition 8.11 that 0 < d(p,, q,) < co for each n [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, p. 171, 1979c)l. With this additional condition our previous definition was, in general, conformally invariant only for the class of globally hyperbolic space-times. We now give the following definition. Definition 8.12. (Nonspacelike Geodesic Line) bitrary space-time. L(y ]
b) spacelike geodesic y : (a,
3.34 such that { ~ m [ p , x m ]converges ) to y[p,x] in the C0 topology on curves.
C BN for all m 2 N. Since BN is compact and do(p, q,) + co, there exists an Nl 2 N such that q , $ BN for all m 2 Nl. Hence L(ymip,x,]) = d(p, x,) = d [B,](p, 2,) for all m 2 N1. Using Lemma 8.5 and the upper semicontinuity of Lorentzian arc length in the C0 topology on curves, we then obtain
Hence there exists an N > 0 such that y,[p,x,] d(p, x) 5 lim inf d x,)
= lim inf L(y,[p, x,])
5 limsupL(ym[p,xm1) 5 L(y[p,xI)
whence d(p, x) = L(y[p,x]) as in Proposition 8.9. 0
8.3
Causally Disconnected Space-times a n d Nonspacelike
Geodesic Lines In this section we define and study the class of causally disconnected spacetimes. Our definition of this class of spacetimes is motivated by the geometric realization, discussed in the introduction to this chapter, of the ends of a
Let (M,g) be an ar-
A past and future inextendible, future directed, non4
M is said to be a nonspacelike geodesic line if
IS, t ] )= d(-y(s),r(t))for all s, t with a < s < t < b.
284
8.3
285
We now establish the existence of nonspacelike geodesic lines for strongly causal, causally disconnected space-times. This result will be an important ingredient in the proof of singularity theorems for causally disconnected s p a c e times in Chapter 12.
Theorem 8.13. Let ( M , g ) denote a strongly causal space-time which is

causally disconnected by a compact set K. Then M contains a nonspacelike geodesic line y : (a, b)
-+
M which intersects K.
Proof. Let K, {p,), and {q,) be as in Definition 8.11. Applying Proposition

8.9 to K , p,, and q, for each n, we obtain a future directed nonspacelike geodesic 7, intersecting K at some point r, and satisfying at least one of the
, cases (1) to (4) of Proposition 8.9. If case (4) holds for any y
then we are
done. Thus assume that no y, satisfies case (4). Hence at least one of cases (I), (2), or (3) holds for infinitely many n. Since the proofs are similar, we will only give the proof assuming that case (2) holds for infinitely many n. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may suppose that condition (2) holds for all n. Since K is compact, there exists a subsequence {r,) of {r,) such that r, as m by y,,
--+
-+ r
m. Extend each y, past p, to get a nonspacelike curve, still denoted

that is past as well as future inextendible for each m. By Proposition has a future directed, past and future inextendible,
3.31, the sequence {y,)
nonspacelike limit curve y with r f y. Relabeling if necessary, we may assume that {y,) distinguishes y. We will prove that y is the required nonspacelike line. To prove this, it suffices to show that if z , y f y are distinct points with x Q r 6 y, then L(y[x, y]) = d(x, y). Since {y,) points x,, y ,
E ym such that x,
+x
distinguishes y, we may find

-+
and y,
y as m
--+
m. Passing to
7 , ) if necessary, we may suppose by Proposition 3.34 a subsequence {yk} of ( that yk [xk,yk] converges to y [x, y] in the fl topology on curves. Since y [x, y]
FIGURE 8.1. A Penrose diagram for a Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime with e2 = m2 containing a causally disconnected set K and
is compact in M , there exists an N > 0 such that y[x,y] C Int(BN). By definition of the C0 topology on curves, there is then an Nl 2 N such that yk[zk, yk] C Int(BN) for all k 2 Nl. Since {pk) diverges to infinity and BN is compact, there is an Nz > Nl such that pk $ BNfor all k 2 Nz. Consequently, xk comes after pk on yk for all k 2 N2 so that yk[xk,yk]is maximal for all
h i ispace associated divergent sequences { p , ) and {q,) is shown. T

time contains no Cauchy surfaces because it is not globally hyperbolic.
286
8.3
DISCONNECTED SPACSTIMES, NONSPACELIKE LINES
287
> N2. We thus have

d(x, y) 5 lim inf d(xk, yk) = lim inf L(yk[zk, yk])
hyperbolic, causally disconnected spacetimes which do not have null geodesic lines. Thus the existence of a null geodesic line is not a necessary condition for a globally hyperbolic space-time to be causally disconnected. Evidently, the strong causality in Proposition 8.14 may b e replaced by any other nonimprisonment condition which guarantees that both ends of c diverge to infinity, together with the requirement that (M,g) be causal. In the next proposition we will give a sufficient condition for a strongly causal space-time (M,g) to be causally disconnected. For the proof of this result (Proposition 8.18), it is necessary to recall some additional concepts from elementary causality theory. A subset S of (M, g) is said to be achronal if no two polnts of S are chronologically related. Given a closed subset S of (M,g), the future Cauchy development or domazn of dependence D f (S) of S is defined as the set of all points q such that every past inextendible nonspacelike curve from q intersects S. The future Cauchy honzon H+(S) is given by Hf (S)= D+(S) - I-(D+(S)). The future honsmos E+(S) of S is defined to be E+(S) = J + ( S ) - I+(S). An achronal set S is said to be future trapped if E + ( S ) is compact. Details about these concepts may be found in Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 201, 202, 184, and 267, respectively). For the proof of Proposition 8.18 we also need to use a result first obtained in Hawking and Penrose (1970, p. 537, Lemma 2.12). This result is presented somewhat differently during the course of the proof of Theorem 2 in the text of Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 266). In the proof of this theorem, it is assumed that dim M
5 l i m s u ~ L ( ~ k [ ~ k5 ,~ L(Y[x, k ] ) Y])< ~ ( x , Y ) .
Hence d(x, y) = L(y[x,y]) as required. 0 We now give several criteria, expressed in terms of the global geodesic structure, for globally hyperbolic space-times and for strongly causal space-times to be causally disconnected. In particular, we are able to show that all twodimensional globally hyperbolic spacetimes are causally disconnected. Also one of our criteria (Proposition 8.18) together with Theorem 8.13 implies that if a strongly causal space-time (M,g) has no null geodesic rays, then (M, g) contains a timelike geodesic line. Recall that an inextendible null geodesic y : (a, b) -+ (M, g) is said to be a null geodesic line if d(y(s),y(t)) = 0 for all s, t with a
< s 5 t < b.
Proposition 8.14. Let (M,g) be strongly causal. If (M, g) contains a null geodesic line, then (M, g) is causally disconnected.
(M, g) be the given null geodesic line. Choose d with a < d < band put K = {c(d)). Choose sequences {s,), {t,) with s, < d < t, and s, -+ a, t, + b. Put p, = c(s,) and q, = c(t,). Since c is both future and past inextendible and (M, g) is strongly causal, both {p,) and {q,) diverge to infinity by Proposition 3.13. Now because c is a maximal null geodesic, any future directed nonspacelike curve a from p, to q, is a reparametrization of cl [s,, t,], whence a meets K as required. (First, a may be reparametrized to be a smooth future directed null geodesic segment a : [O, 1 1 --+ M with a(0) = p,, a(1) = q, by Theorem 4.13. If a l ( l ) # Xcl(tn) for some X > 0, then q,+~ E I+(pn). But this contradicts d(p,, qn+l) = 0 since c is maximal. Hence, a'(1) = Xc1(tn)for some X > 0. But then since (M, g) is causal, a must simply be a reparametrization of c 1 [s,, t,].) D
Proof. Let c : (a,b)
-+
> 3 and that
(M,g) has everywhere nonnegative nonspacelike
Ricci curvatures and satisfies the generic condition [conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 21. However, it may be seen that in the proof of Lemma 8.2.1 and the following corollary in Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 267-269), it is only necessary to assume that (M, g) is strongly causal to obtain our Lemma 8.15 and Corollary 8.16. We now state these two results for completeness.
Lemma 8.15. Let A be a closed subset of the strongly causal space-time
Proposition 8.14 implies that Minkowski space-time, de Sitter space-time, and the Friedmann cosmological models are all causally disconnected. Ako, the Einstein static universe (cf. Example 5.11) shows that there are globally
(M,g). Then H + ( E f (A)) is noncompact or empty. From this lemma, one obtains as in Hawking and Penrose (1970, p. 537) or Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 268-269) the following corollary.
288
8.3
DISCONNECTED SPACGTIMES, NONSPACELIKE LINES
289
Corollary 8 . 1 6 . Let (M,g) be strongly causd. If S S s future trapped in (M,g), i.e., E+(S) is compact, then there is a future inextendible timelike curve y contained in D+(E+(S)). It will also be convenient to prove the following lemma for the proof of Proposition 8.18.
With these preliminaries completed, we may now obtain a sufficient condition for strongly causal space-times to be causally disconnected. Minkowski space-time shows that this condition is not a necessary one. Recall that a future directed, future inextendible, null geodesic y : [0, a ) --+ M is said to be a null geodesic my if d(y(O),y(t)) = 0 for all t with 0 _< t
< a.
Lemma 8 . 1 7 . Let (M, g) be strongly causal. If E+(p) is noncompact, then

E+(p) contains an infinite sequence {q,) which diverges to infinity.
Proposition 8.18. Let (M,g) be strongly causal. If p E M is not the origin of any future [respectively,past] directed null geodesic ray, then (M,g) is causally disconnected by the future [respectively, past] horismos E+(p) = J+(p) - I+(p) [respectively, E- (p) = J- (p) - I- (P)] of p.
Proof. If E+(p) is closed, this is immediate since a closed and noncompact

subset of M must be unbounded with respect to do. Thus assume that E+(p) is not closed. Then there exists an infinite sequence {x,) xn
C E+(p) such that
-t x 4 E+(p) as n -4 c o .Since x, E E+(p), we have d(p, x , ) = 0 and hence as x, E J+(p), there exists a maximal future directed null geodesic segment
Proof.We first show that the assumption that p is not the origin of any future directed null geodesic ray implies that E+(p) is compact. For suppose that E+(p) is noncompact. Then there exists an infinite sequence {q,) C E+(p) which diverges to infinity by Lemma 8.17. Since q, E E+(p), we have
d(p, q,) = 0 for all n. As qn E Jf (p), there exists a future directed null geodesic yn from p to q, by Corollary 4.14. Extend each yn beyond qn to a future inextendible nonspacelike curve, still denoted by 7 , .Let y be a future inextendible nonspacelike limit curve of the sequence (7,) with y(0) = p, guaranteed by Proposition 3.31. Using Proposition 3.34 and the fact that the qn's diverge to infinity, it may be shown along the lines of the proof of Theorem 8.10 that if q is any point on y with q # p, q 2 p, then L(y [p, q]) = d(p, q). Thus y may be reparametrized to a null geodesic ray issuing from p, in contradiction. Hence Ef (p) is compact. We now show that E+(p) causally disconnects (M,g). Since E+(p) is compact, the set {p) is future trapped in M. Thus by Corollary 8.16, there is a future inextendible timelike curve y contained in D+(Ef (p)). Extend y to a past as well as future inextendible timelike curve, still denoted by y. From the definition of D+(Ef (p)), the curve y must meet E+(p) at some point r . Since E+(p) is achronal and y is timelike, y meets E+(p) at no other point than r. Now let {p,) and (9,) be two sequences on y both of which diverge to infinity and which satisfy p, << r < < q, for each n (cf. Proposition 3.13). To show that {p,), {q,), and E+(p) causally disconnect (M,g), we must show that for each n, every nonspacelike curve X : [O, 1 1 -+ .hri with X(0) = p, and
yn from p to x, for each n. Extend each ^/, beyond x, to a future inextendible
y , ) nonspacelike curve still denoted by y,. By Proposition 3.31, the sequence {

has a future inextendible, future directed, nonspacelike limit curve y : [O,a) + M with y(0) = p. We may assume that the sequence {y,) itself distinguishes y. If x E y, then x E J+(p). Since d(p,x) 5 liminfd(p,z,) = 0, we then have x E J+(p) - I+(p) = E+(p), in contradiction to the assumption that x 4 E+(p). Thus x f y. We now show that y[O, a) is contained in E+(p). To
, this end, let z E y be arbitrary. Since {y,) distinguishes y,we may find z, E y
such that z,
-t
z as n
-+ a. By
Proposition 3.34, there is a subsequence {yk)
? , ) of {
Since x
such that 7k[P,zk] converges to yip, z] in the

-t
c0topology on curves.
x f
4 7, we may find an open set U containing 7[p, z] such that
n.
Since xk
x, it follows that zk comes before xk on yk for all k sufficiently
large. Thus y[p, zk] is maximal and d(p, zk) = 0 for all k sufficiently large. Hence d(p, z) 5 liminf d(p, zk) = 0. Since z was arbitrary, we have thus shown that d(p, z) = 0 for all z E y. Since y is a nonspacelike curve, 7 is then a maximal, future directed, future inextendible geodesic ray. Letting {t,) be any infinite sequence with t, -4 a- and setting q, = y(t,) gives the required divergent sequence. D
290
8.3
291
X(1) = q, meets E+(p). Given A, extend X to a past inextendible curve
5 by
traversing y up to p, and then traversing X from p, to q, (cf. Figure 8.2). As qn E D f (E+(p)), the curve 5 must intersect Ef (p). Since y meets E+(p) only a t T, it follows X intersects E f (p). Thus {p,), {q,), and K = E+(p) causally disconnect (M, g) as required. 13 Combining Theorem 8.13 and Proposition 8.18, we obtain the following result on the geodesic structure of strongly causal space-times with no null geodesic rays. Examples of such space-times are the Einstein static universes (Example 5.11).
Theorem 8.19. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time such that no

point is the origin of any future directed null geodesic ray Then (M,g) contains
a timelike geodesic line.
Proof. By Proposition 8.18, (M,g) is causally disconnected. Thus (M,g)

contains a nonspacelike line by Theorem 8.13. By hypothesis, the line must be timelike rather than null. 0 An equivalent result may be formulated using the hypothesis that no point is the origin of any past directed null geodesic ray. Using Propositions 8.14 and 8.18, we are now able to show that all twodimensional globally hyperbolic space-times are causally disconnected. We first establish the following lemma.
Lemma 8.20. Let (M, g) be a two-dimensional globally hyperbolic spacetime. If E+(p) [respectively, E-(')] is not compact, then both of the future [respectively, past ] directed and future [respectively, past] inextendible null geodesics starting at p are maximal.
Proof. Assume E+(p) is noncompact for some p E M. Let cl : 10,a ) -+M

and c:! : [0,b)
+
M be the two future directed, future inextendible, null
geodesics with cl(0) = cz(0) = p. Suppose that cl is not maximal. Setting to = supit E [0, a ) : d(p, cl (t)) = 0), we have 0 < t o < a since cl is not maximal and (M,g) is strongly causal (cf. Section 9.2). Let q = cl(t0) and choose t,
i
FIGURE 8.2. In the proof of Proposition 8.18, the set E*(p) is shown to causally disconnect (M,g) if p is not the origin of any future directed null geodesic ray. The timelike curve y intersects E+(p) in the single point T, and any nonspacelike curve X from p, to q, must meet E+(p).
distance, w-e have d(p, q) = 0. Since cl(t,) E I+(p) and (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, there is a maximal future directed timelike geodesic y, from p to
t g with t, < a for each n. By the lower semicontinuity of Lorentzian
292
MAXIMAL GEODESICS, DISCONNECTED SPACETIMES
8.3
DISCONNECTED SPACGTIMES, NONSPACELIKE LINES
293
cl(tn) for each n. The sequence (7,) has a limit curve y which is a nonspacelike geodesic, and y joins p to q by Corollary 3.32. Ikthermore, d(p, q) = 0 implies that y is a null geodesic. Since dim M = 2, y is either a geodesic subsegment of cl or a subsegment of cz. If y value tb. have a contradiction. cl and let U(q) be a convex normal neighborhood about q. Assume y Let U(q) be chosen so small that no nonspacelike curve which leaves U ( q ) ever returns. The inextendible null geodesics of U(q) may be divided into each of which cover U(q) simply (cf. Section two disjoint families Fl and F2, 3.4). Let Fl be the class which contains the null geodesic cl n U(q). Let c3 be the unique null geodesic of F2which contains q. For some fixed large n the timelike geodesic segment yn from p to cl(tn) must intersect c3 at some point r. We must have q which is false.
r
We obtain the following corollary to Theorems 8.13 and 8.21.
Corollary 8.22. Let (M, g) be any globally hyperbolic space-time of dimension n = 2. Then (M, g) contains a nonspacelike line.
5 cz, then cz passes through q at some parameter In this case E+(p) = {cl 1 [O,to]) U {cz 1 [O, tb]) is compact and we
< r since if r < q, then p << r would yield p << q, However, q < r, q = cl n cs, q < cl(tn), and r E cs imply
D
$ cl(tn), [cf. Busemann and Beem (1966, p. 245)]. This contradicts the fact
that r << cl(tn) because r comes before cl(tn) on the timelike geodesic 7,. This establishes the lemma.
Theorem 8.21. All two-dimensional globally hyperbolic space-times are

causally disconnected.
Proof. Let (M, g) be a two-dimensional globally hyperbolic space-time. If E+(po) is compact for some po E M, then each future directed null geodesic starting at po has a cut point and thus fails to be globally maximal (cf. Section 9.2). Thus (M,g) is causally disconnected by Proposition 8.18. Now suppose
E+(p) is noncompact for each p E M. Assume c : (a,b) , M is a future directed inextendible null geodesic. Let s , t with a < s 5 t < b be arbitrary. Applying Lemma 8.20 at the point p = c(s), we find that c 1 [s, b) is maximal t]). This implies that c is maximal and hence and thus d(c(s), c(t)) = L ( c ] [s, c is a null line. Using Proposition 8.14, it follows that (M,g) is causally disconnected. O
CHAPTER 9
THE LORENTZIAN CUT LOCUS
Let c : 1 0 , ~ )-+ N be a geodesic in a complete Riemannian manifold starting at p = c(0). Consider the set of all points q on c such that the portion of c from p to q is the unique shortest curve in all of N joining p t o q. If this set has a farthest limit point, this limit point is called the cut point of p along the ray c. The cut locus C(p) is then defined to be the set of cut points along all geodesic rays starting at p. Since nonhomothetic conformal changes do not preserve pregeodesics, the cut locus of a point in a manifold is not a conformal invariant. The cut locus has played a key role in modern global Riemannian geometry, notably in connection with the Sphere Theorem of Rauch (1951), Klingenberg (1959, 1961), and Berger (1960). The notion of cut point, as opposed to the related but different concept of conjugate point, was first defined by Poincari. (1905). An observation of Poincark (1905) important in the later work of Rauch, Klingenberg, and Berger was that for a complete Riemannian manifold, if q is on the cut locus of p, then either q is conjugate to p, or else there exist at least two geodesic segments of the same shortest length joining p to
q [cf. Whitehead (1935)l. Klingenberg (1959, p. 657) then showed that if q is
a closest cut point to p and q is not conjugate to p, there is a geodesic loop at p containing q. Klingenberg used this result to obtain an upper bound for the injectivity radius of a positively curved, complete Riemannian manifold in terms of a lower bound for the sectional curvature and the length of the shortest nontrivial smooth closed geodesic on N. The importance of the cut locus in Ftiemannian geometry suggests investigating the analogous concepts and results for timelike and null geodesics in space-times. The central role that conjugate points, which are closely related
296
T H E LORENTZIAN C U T LOCUS
297
to cut points, have played in singularity theory in general relativity (cf. Chap ter 12) supports this idea. While there are many similarities between the Riemannian cut locus and the locus of timelike cut points in a space-time, there are also striking differences between the Riemannian and Lorentzian cut loci. Most notably, null cut points are invariant under conformal changes. Thus the null cut locus is an invariant of the causal structure of the spacetime (M,g). This may be used [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, Corollary 5.3)] to show that if (M,g) is a Riedmann cosmological model, then there is a C2 neighborhood U(g) in the space C ( M ,g) of Lorentzian metrics for M globally conformal to g such that every null geodesic in (M,gl) is incomplete for all metrics gl E U(g). Because there are intrinsic differences between null and timelike cut points, we prefer to treat these cases separately. One such difference is that unlike null cut points, timelike cut points are not invariant under global conformal changes of Lorentzian metric. In Section 9.1 we consider the analogue of Riemannian cut points for timelike geodesics. In the Lorentzian setting, timelike geodesics locally maximize the arc length between any two of their points. Thus the appropriate question to ask in defining timelike cut points is whether the portion of the given timelike geodesic segment from p to q is the longest nonspacelike curve in all of M joining p to q. This may be conveniently formulated using the Lorentzian distance function. Let y : [O,a) + M be a future directed, future inextendible, timelike geodesic in an arbitrary space-time. Set to = sup{t E 10,a ) : d(y(O),y(t)) = L ( y I [0,t])). If 0
results given in the rest of Section 9.1 often require global hyperbolicity. What is essential here is to know that chronologically related points at arbitrarily large distances may be joined by maximal timelike geodesic segments. Even so, the proofs are more technical for space-times than for Riemannian manifolds. Instead of using the exponential map directly as in Riemannian geometry, it is necessary to regard a sequence of maximal timelike geodesics as a sequence of nonspacelike curves, extract a limit curve, take a subsequence converging to the limit in the C0 topology (by Section 3.3), and finally, using the upper semicontinuity of arc length, prove that the limit curve is maximal and hence a geodesic. This technical argument, which is isolated in Lemma 9.6, yields the following analogue of Poincark's Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds. If (M, g) is a globally hyperbolic space-time and q is the future cut point of p along the timelike geodesic segment c from p to q, then either one or possibly both of the following hold: (i) q is the first future conjugate point to p; or (ii) there exist a t least two maximal geodesic segments from p to q. In Section 9.2 we study null cut points. Even though null geodesics have zero arc length, null cut points may still be defined using the Lorentzian distance function. Let y : [O,a) -+ M be a future directed, future inextendible, null geodesic with p = y(0). Set to = supit E [O,a) : d(p, y(t)) = 0). If 0 < to < a, then $to) is called the future null cut point of y(0) along y. The null cut point, if it exists, has the following properties: (i) y is maximizing up to and including the null cut point; (ii) there is no timelike curve joining p to y(t) for any t 5 to; (iii) if to < t
< to < a, then y(t0) is
said to be the future timelike cut point of y(0) along y. The future timelike cut point y(to) then has the following desired properties: (i) if t < to, then y I [O,t ] is the only maximal timelike curve from y(0) to y(t) up to reparametrization; (ii) y 1 [O,t] is maximal for any t 5 to; (iii) if t > to, there exists a future directed nonspacelike curve a from y(0) to y(t) with L(a) > L ( y 1 [O,t]); and (iv) the future cut point y(to) comes at or before the first future conjugate point of y(0) along y. Since many of the theorems for Riemannian cut points are true only for complete Riemannian manifolds, it is not surprising that the more "global"
< a, there is a timelike curve from y(0) to y(t); and
(iv) the future null cut point comes at or before the first future conjugate point of y(0) along y. For globally hyperbolic space-times, it is true for null as well as timelike cut points that the analogue of Poincark's Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds is valid. Thus if (M,g) is globally hyperbolic and q is the future null cut point of p = y(0) along the null geodesic y, then either one or possibly both of the following hold: (i) q is the first future conjugate point of
p along y; or (ii) there exist at least two maximal null geodesic segments from
p to q. We conclude Section 9.2 by using null cut points t o prove singularity theorems for null geodesics following Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, Section 5).
298
9.1
T H E TIMELIKE CUT LOCUS
299
The nonspacelike cut locus, the union of the null and timelike cut loci of a given point, is studied in Section 9.3. For complete Riemannian manifolds, if q is a closest cut point to p, then either q is conjugate t o p or there is a geodesic loop based a t p passing through q. The globally hyperbolic analogue (Theorem 9.24) of this result has a slightly different flavor, however. If (M, g) is a globally hyperbolic space-time and q E M is a closest (nonspacelike) cut point to p, then q is either conjugate to p or else q is a null cut point to p. Thus there is no closest nonconjugate timelike cut point to p. We also show that for globally hyperbolic space-times, the nonspacelike and null cut loci are closed (Proposition 9.29). It can be seen (Example 9.28) that the hypothesis of global hyperbolicity is necessary here. In Section 9.4 we treat null and timelike cut points simultaneously, but nonintrinsically, using a different tool than the unit timelike sphere bundle of Section 9.1. This approach, developed in collaboration with G. Gallow while non-intrinsic, enables the hypothesis of timelike geodesic completenes to be deleted from Proposition 9.30.
9.1
Definition 9.2. Let T-IM = {v E T M : v is future directed and g(v,v) =

-1). Given p E M , let T-lMlp denote the fiber of T-l M a t p. Also given v E T-1M, let c, denote the unique timelike geodesic with cV1(0)= v.
It is immediate from the reverse triangle inequality that if y : [0,a)
-+
M is
a future directed nonspacelike geodesic and d(y(O), y(s)) = L ( y 1 [O,s]), then d(y(O),y(t)) = L ( y 1 [O,t]) for all t with 0 I t 5 s. Also, the reverse triangle inequality implies that if d(y(O),y(s)) > L ( y 1 [0, s]), then d(y(O), y(t)) L ( y 1 [O,t]) for all t with s
>
<t
< a. Hence the following definition makes

,
Definition 9.3. Define the function s : T-lM

supit 2 0 : d(r(v), c,(t)) = t).
Ru
{ m ) by s(v) =
We may first note that if d(p,p) = m , then s(v) = 0 for all v E T-lM with r(v) = p. Also S(V)> 0 for all v E T-1M if (M,g) is strongly causal. The number s(v) may be interpreted as the "largest" parameter value t such that
c, is a maximal geodesic between c,(O) and c,(t). Indeed from Lemma 9.1 we
know that the following result holds.
The Timelike Cut Locus
Recall that a future directed nonspacelike curve y from p to q is said t be maximal if d ( p ,q) = L(y). We saw above (Theorem 4.13) that a maxim future directed nonspacelike curve may be reparametrized to be a geode We also recall the following analogue of a classical result from Rieman geometry. The proof may be given along the lines of Kobayashi (1967, p. using in place of the minimal geodesic segment from pl to p2 in the Rieman proof the fact that if p
Corollary 9.4. For 0 < t < s(v), the geodesic c, : [0,t ] -+ M is the unique maximal timelike curve (up to repararnetrization) from c,(O) to c,(t).
The function s fails to be upper semicontinuous for arbitrary spacetimes as may easily be seen by deleting a point from Minkowski space. But for timelike geodesically complete space-times we have the following proposition.
< <q
Proposition 9.5. Let v f T-1M with s(v) > 0. Suppose either that (v) = +m, or ~ ( v is ) finite and c,(t) = exp(tv) extends to [0, s(v)]. Then s is
pper semicontinuous at v f T-1M. Especially, if (M, g) is timelike geodesially complete, then s : T-1M
-+
and p and q are contained in a convex norm
neighborhood, then p and q may be joined by a maximal timelike geo segment which lies in this neighborhood.
W U { ~ ) is everywhere upper semicontinuous.

+
Proof. It suffices to show the following. Let v,
v in T-lM with (s(vn))
Lemma 9.1. Let c : [O,a] -+ M be a maximal timelike geodesic segm

Then for any s , t with 0 5 s < t < a , the curve c 1 [s, t ] is the unique maxi geodesic segment (up to parametrization) from c(s) to c(t). Before commencing our study of the timelike cut locus, we need to defi the unit future observer bundle T - I M [cf. Thorpe (1977a,b)].
onverging in R U { a ) . Then s(v) 2 lim s(v,). If s(v) = m, there is nothing prove. Hence we assume that s(v) < lims(vn) = A and s(v) < co and rive a contradiction. We may choose 6 > 0 such that s(v)
+6
d also assume that s(v,) 2 s(v)
+6 =
< A is in the domain of c, b for all n. Let c, = tun. Since
300
9.1 and q = c,(A beyond A past b , Now c,

4
301
b s(v,), we have d(n (v,), c,(b)) = b for all n. Since v, 4 v, we have by lower ) b. semicontinuity of distance that d(r(v),~ ( b )5 ) liminf d(r(v,), ~ ( b )= Thus d(x(v), c,(b)) b = L(c, 1 [0,b]), this last equality by definition of arc length. On the other hand, d(n(v), ~ ( b ) 2 ) L(q, 1 [0, b]) so that d(r(v),q,(b)) = L(c, diction. 0
<
<
+ 6). Since v, v and c, is defined for some parameter values + 6, the geodesics c, must be defined for some parameter values whenever n is larger than some N 2 No. Let q, = c,(b,) for n > N.
I
[O,b,] cannot be maximal since b ,
[0, b]) = b. Hence s(v) 2 b = s(v)
+ 6, in contra-
> s(v,).
Because M is globally
In order to prove the lower semicontinuity of s for globally hyperbolic spacetimes, it will first be useful to establish the following lemma.
hyperbolic and c,(O) << c,(b,), we may find maximal unit speed timelike geodesic segments y, : [O,d(p,,q,)] M from p, to q,. Set w, = yn1(O). Since c, ( [0,s(v)) is a maximal geodesic and thus has no conjugate points, it is impossible for v to be a limit direction of {w, : n c,. This then implies that s(v)
2 N). Thus the maximal
geodesic c, joining p to q given by Lemma 9.6 applied to {w,) is different from
Lemma 9.6. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time, and let {p,)
and {q,) be two infinite sequences of points with p, p and q,
--+
< A + 6, which contradicts A + 6 < s(v).
q where The following example of a strongly causal space-time which is not globally hyperbolic shows that the hypothesis of global hyperbolicity is necessary for the lower semicontinuity of the function s in Proposition 9.7. Let W2 be given the usual Minkowski metric ds2 = dx2 - dy2, and let (M,g) be the spacetime formed by equipping M = W2 - {(l,y) R2 : 1 v, = b/dylpn for all n 2 1. Then v, and yn(t) = (p,, t) for all t v as n
-+
p << q. Assume c, : [O,d(p,, q,)] 4 M is a unit speed maximal geodesic ) T-lM. Then the sequence {v,) segment from p, to q,, and set v, = ~ ' ( 0 E has a timelike limit vector ur f T-l M. Moreover, c , , , : [0,d(p, q)] --+ M is a maximal geodesic segment from p to q.
Proof.By Corollary 3.32, there is a nonspacelike future directed limit curve c of c, from p to q. By Proposition 3.34 and Itemark 3.35, we have L(c) '2 limsup L(%) = limd(~,,q,) = d(p,q) > 0. Thus as d(p, q) 2 L(c), it follows that L(c) = d(p, q) > 0. Hence Theorem 4.13 implies that the curve c may
be reparametrized to be a maximal timelike geodesic segment from p to q. Finally, w = c'(0) / [-g(cl(0), c'(o))]'/~ is the required tangent vector. We are now ready to prove the lower semicontinuity of s for globally hype bolic space-times.
Proposition 9.7. If (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, then the function
< y < 2)
with the
induced metric (cf. Figure 9.1). Let p = (O,O),p, = (l/n,O), v = bldyl,, and
--+
m. Also let y(t) = (0,t)
2 0. Conformally changing g on the compact set
C shown in Figure 9.1 which is blocked from I+(p) by the slit {(I, y) E It2 : 1 < y 5 21, we obtain a metric Zj for M with the following properties. First
y is still a maximal geodesic in (M,Zj) so that s(v) = +m. But for each n
there exists a timelike curve on passing through the set C and joining p, to a point q, = ( l l n , y,) on yn with y, 5 4 such that L(a,) > L(ynIpn,q,]). Hence y,[p,, q,] fails to be maximal for all n so that s(v,) 5 4 for all n. Thus s is not lower semicontinuous. Note that (M,g ) is strongly causal but (M, Zj) is not globally hyperbolic since J + ( ( l , 0)) n J-((1,3)) is not compact. The
--+
T-lM
-+
W U {co) is lower semicontinuous.
Proof.It suffices to prove that if v, -+ v in T h l M and s(v,) A W U {m}, then s(v) 5 A. If A = oo, there is nothing to prove. Thus supp A < m. Assuming s(v) > A, we will derive a contradiction. Choose 6 > 0 such that A + 6 < s(v). (Since A + 6 < s(v), the
c,(A
analogous construction may be applied to n-dimensional Minkowski space to roduce a strongly causal n-dimensional space-time for which the function s
ils to be lower semicontinuous.
+ 6) exists even if G, does not extend to s(v).)
Globally hyperbolic examples also may be constructed for which the function s is not upper semicontinuous. However, this discontinuity may occur at
Define b, = s(v,
c, = cvn,pn = ~n
, and let No be such that b
< s(v) for all n 2 No. Put
a tangent vector v E T-lM in a globally hyperbolic space-time only if s(v) is
302
9.1
finite and ~ ( tdoes ) not extend to t = s(v). Combining Propositions 9.5 and 9.7, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 9.8. Let ( M , g ) be globally hyperbolic, and suppose for v E
T - l M that either s ( v ) = +co, or s ( v ) is finite and c,(t) = exp(tv) extends to [0,s ( v ) ] . Then s is continuous at v E T - l M . Especially, i f ( M , g ) is globally hyperbolic and timelike geodesically complete, then s : T-1M everywhere continuous. W e are now ready t o define the timelike cut locus.
Definition 9.9. (Future and Past Timelike Cut Loci)
4
BU
{CQ}
is
T h e future timelike
s(v)
in T,M is defined t o be r+(p) = { s ( v ) v : v E T-lMIp and 0 < < co). T h e future timelike cut locus C , f ( p ) of p i n M is defined t o be C t ( p ) = exp,(r+(p)). I f 0 < s ( v ) < co and c,(s(v)) exists, then the point
cut locus
c,(s(v)) is called the future cut point o f p = c,(O) along c,. T h e past timelike cut locus C;(p) and past cut points may be defined dually. W e may then interpret s ( v ) as measuring the distance from p up t o the ture cut point along c,. Thus Theorem 9.8 implies that for globally hyperboli timelike geodesically complete spacetimes, the distance from a fixed p v. W e now give Lorentzian analogues of two well-known results relating cut a conjugate points on complete Riemannian manifolds. T h e following proper o f conjugate points is well known [Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 111-116 Lerner (1972, Theorem 4(6))].
Theorem 9.10. A timelike geodesic is not maximal beyond the first co
E
t o its future cut point in the direction v E T - l M l p is a continuous function
jugate point. In the language o f Definition 9.9 this may be restated as follows.
Corollary 9.11. The future cut point o f p = c,(O) along c, comes no la
FIGURE 9.1. A strongly causal space-time ( M ,5) is shown with unit timelike tangent vectors v, which converge t o v, but with ,R ~ { c o } s ( v ) = +m and s(v,) 5 4 for alln 2 1. Hence s : T - I M is not lower semicontinuous.
Theorem 9.12. Let ( M ,g) be globally hyperbolic. I f q = c ( t ) is the future cut point o f p = c(0) along the timelike geodesic c from p t o q, then either one
than the first future conjugate point o f p along c,. Utilizing this fact, we may now prove the second basic result on cut an conjugate points in globally hyperbolic space-times.
or possibly both o f the following hold: ( 1 ) The point q is the first future conjugate point o f p along c.
304
T H E LORENTZIAN CUT LOCUS
9.2
T H E NULL CUT LOCUS
305
(2) There exist a t least two future directed maximal timelike geodesic segments from p to q. Proof. Without loss of generality we may suppose that c = c, for some v E T-lM and thus that t = d(p, q) = s(v). Let {t,) be a monotone decreasing sequence of real numbers converging to t. Since c(t) E M , the points c(tn) exist for n sufficiently large. By global hyperbolicity, we may join c(0) to c(tn) by , , , with v, E T-1 MIp. Since t, a maximal timelike geodesic c, = c
Riemannian manifolds [cf. Wolter (1979, p. 93)]. The dual result also holds for the past timelike cut locus C c (p).
9.2
The Null Cut Locus
The definition of null cut point has been given in Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, Section 5) where this concept was used to prove null geodesic incompleteness for certain classes of space-times. Let y : [0,a ) -+ (MIg) be a future directed null geodesic with endpoint p = $0). Set to = supit E [0,a ) : d(p,y(t)) = 0). If 0 < to < a , we will say y(t0) is the future null cut point of p on y. Past null cut points are defined dually. Let C$(p) [respectively, CG (p)] denote the future [respectively, past] null cut locus of p consisting of all future [respectively, past] null cut points of p. The definition of Cz(p) together with the lower semicontinuity of distance yields d(p, q) = 0 for all q E C2(p). We then define the future nonspacelike cut locus to be C+(p) = C$(p) U Cz(p). The past nonspacelike cut locus is defined dually. For a subclass of globally hyperbolic space-times, Budic and Sachs (1976) have given a different but equivalent definition of null cut point using null generators for the boundary of I+(p). The geometric significance of null cut points is similar to that of timelike ut points. The geodesic y is maximizing from p up to and including the cut oint ?(to). That is, L ( y 1 [O,t]) = d(p,y(t)) = 0 for all t 5 to. Thus there no timelike curve joining p to y(t) for any t with t 5 to. In contrast, the eodesic y is no longer maximizing beyond the cut point y(t0). In fact, each oint y(t) for to
>t
= s(v),
we have v # v, for all n. Let w E T-lM be the timelike limiting vector for {v,) given by Lemma 9.6. If v # w, then c and c, are two maximal timelike geodesic segments from p to q. It remains to show that if v = w, then q is the first future conjugate point of p along c. If v = w, then there is a subsequence {v,) of {v,) with v ,
-+
v.
If v were not a conjugate point, there would be a neighborhood U of v in T-lMI, such that expp : U -+ M is injective. On the other hand, since c, and
c 1 [0,t,] join c(0) to c(t,) and v ,
+
v, no such neighborhood U can exist.
Thus q is a future conjugate point of p along c. By Corollary 9.11, q must be the first future conjugate point of p along c. Theorem 9.12 has the immediate implication that for globally hyperbolic spacetimes, q E C:(p) if and only if p E Cc(q). The timelike cut locus of a timelike geodesically complete, globally hyperbolic space-time has the following structural property which refines Theorem 9.12. We know from this theorem that if q f C$tp) and q is not conjugate to p, then there exist at least two maximal geodesic segments from p to q. Accordingly, it makes sense to consider the set Seg(p) = { q E C$(p) : there exist at least two future directed maximal geodesic segments from p to q). Since
s :
< t < a may be joined to p by a timelike curve.
Utilizing Proposition 2.19 of Penrose (1972, p. 15) and the definition of aximality, the following lemma is easily established.
Lemma 9.13. Let (M, g) be a causal space-time. If there are two future
irected null geodesic segments from p to q, then q comes on or after the null cut point of p on each of the two segments.
TP1M
-+
WU
(m)
is continuous by Theorem 9.8 and maximal The cylinder S1 x W with Lorentzian metric ds2 = dedt shows that the assumption that (M,g) is causal is needed in Lemma 9.13. We next prove the null analogue of Lemma 9.6.
geodesics joining any pair of causally related points exist in globally hyperbolic space-times, it may be shown that Seg(p) is dense in C,f(p) for all p E M. The proof may be given along the lines of Wolter's proof of Lemma 2 for complete
306
9.2
T H E NULL CUT LOCUS
307
Lemma 9.14. Let (M, g) be globally hyperbolic, and let p, q be distinct

points in M with p 6 q and d(p,q) = 0. Assume that p, p,
+
p, q,
< q,.
models in the Einstein static universe is given in Penrose (1968) [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 132, 141)]. We now digress briefly to give an explicit computational discussion of the well-known fact that null pregeodesics are invariant under global conformal changes. An indirect proof of the conformal invariance of null cut points may also be given using the Lorentzian distance function. Recall that a smooth curve y : J
+
q and
Let c, be a maximal geodesic joining p, to q, with initial direction
v,. Then the set of direction {v,) has a limit direction w, and c, is a maximal null geodesic from p to q. Proof. Using Corollary 3.32 we obtain a future directed nonspacelike limit curve X from p to q. Since d(p, q) = 0, the curve X must satisfy L(X) = 0. It follows that X may be reparametrized to a maximal null geodesic. We may now obtain the null analogue of Theorem 9.12.
M is said to be a pregeodesic if y can
be reparametrized to a smooth curve c which satisfies the geodesic differential

= 0. Also recall the following definition. equation VC~cr(t)
Theorem 9.15. Let (M,g) be globally hyperbolic and let q = c(t) be the
future null cut point of p = c(0) dong the null geodesic c. Then either one or possibly both of the following hold: (1) The point q is the first future conjugate point of p along c.
A diffeomorphism f : (MI, gl) --+ (M2, g2) of MI onto M2 is said to be a global conformal diffeomorphism if there exists a smooth function R : MI
-+
Definition 9.16. (Global Conformal Dzffeomorphism)
R such that
(2) There exist a t least two future directed maximal null geodesic segments
from p to q. Proof. Let v = c'(O), and let t, be a monotone decreasing sequence of real numbers with t, -+ t. Since q E M , we know that c(t,) exists for all sufficiently large n. Since (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, we may find maximal nonspacelike geodesics c, with initial directions v, joining p to c(t,). By Lemma 9.14 the set of directions {v,) has a limit direction w. If v
The space-time (M1,gl) is said to be globally conformally diffeomorphic to an open subset U of (M2,gz) if there exists a diffeomorphism f : M1 -+ U and a smooth function R : Ml
r
R such that
The purpose of using the factor e20 rather than just a positive-valued smooth function in Definition 9.16 is to give the simplest possible formula relating the connections V for (M1,gl) and function, then
# w, then the geodesic c,
is a second maximal null geodesic joining p to q as d(p, q) = 0. If v = w, then q is conjugate to p along c. Since d(p,q) = 0, q must be the first conjugate point of c (cf. Theorem 10.72). D We now show how the null cut locus may be applied to prove theorems on the stability of null geodesic incompleteness. The key ideas needed for this application are first, that many physically interesting space-times may be conformally embedded in a portion of the Einstein static universe (cf. Exa ple 5.11) that is free of null cut points and second, that null cut points irivariant under conformal changes of metric. A discussion of global con ma1 embeddings of anti-de Sitter space-time and the Friedmann cosmologi
9 for (M2,92). Explicitly, it may

-+
be shown that if f*g2 = e20gl where j : (M1,gl)
(Mz,g2) is any smooth
j
b
h
for any pair X, Y of vector fields on MI. Here "gradRn denotes the gradient vector field of C 2 with respect to the metric g1 for MI. Using formula (9.1), it is now possible to show that if y : J --+ MI is a null geodesic in (MI,gl), then a = f 0 y : J M2 is a null pregeodesic in (M2,g2).
+
308
9.2
THE NULL CUT LOCUS
309
The crux of the matter is that because yl(t) is null and V,q' (9.1) simplifies to ?bjal(t) = 2y1(t)(R)a'(t)
= 0, formula
geodesic y, then f (q) is a null cut point of f (p) along the null pregeodesic f o r : I0,a)
+
(M2,92).
Proof. It suffices to assume that q is the future null cut point of p along y and that (M2,g2) is time oriented so that f o y is a future directed null curve in M2. Let a : [0, b)
+
for all t E J. Note, however, that if y were a timelike geodesic, then the factor gl (y', y') f*(grad R) in formula (9.1) would prevent f o y from being a timelike pregeodesic in (M2,g2).
(M2,g2)be a reparametrization of f
oy
to a
future directed null geodesic guaranteed by Lemma 9.17 with f (p) = a(0). Then f (q) = u(t1) for some tl E (0, b). Let d, denote the Lorentzian distance function of (M,, g,) for i = 1,2. We show first that d2(a(0),o(t)) = 0 for any t with 0
Lemma 9.17. Let f : (MI, gl) -+ (M2,g2) be a global conformal diffeomorphism of MI onto M2. Then y : J -+ (MI, gl) is a null pregeodesic for
(MI, gl) iff f o y is a null pregeodesic for (M2,gz). Proof. Since f
< t 5 tl.
For suppose
-': (M2,g2) + (MI,gl) is also a conformal diffeomorphism,
t 5 tl. Then we may find a future d2(a(O),u(t)) # 0 for some t with 0 directed nonspacelike curve P in M2 from a(0) to a(t) with Lg,(P) > 0. Thus o p is a future directed nonspacelike curve in MI from p to f -l (a(t)) with L,, (f o p ) > 0. Since f (q) = cr(tl), we have f-l(u(t)) = y(t2) for some f
<
it is enough to show that if y : J + MI is a null geodesic, then a = f oy is a null pregeodesic of (M2,92). That is, we must show that a can be reparametrized to be a null geodesic of (M2,g2). But it has already been shown that
-'
-'
t2 5 to. Hence dl(p, y(t2)) 2 L,, (f along y.
-'op) > 0, which contradicts the fact that
dl(p, y(t2)) = 0 since t2 5 to and y(t0) = q was the future null cut point to p We show now that d2(u(O),a(t)) # 0 for any t > tl. This then makes f (q) = u(t1) the future null cut point of f (p) along a as required. To this end, fix t > tl. There is then a t2 > to so that f-'(a(t)) = y(t2). Since y(t0) = q is the future null cut of p along y, we have dl (p, y(t2)) > 0. Hence there is a future directed nonspacelike curve a from p to y(t2) with L,, ( a ) > 0. Then f o a is a future directed nonspacelike curve from f (p) to u(t) Hence d2(f(p),a(t))2Lg,(f oa)>Oasrequired. ! J With Proposition 9.18 in hand, we may now apply the null cut locus to study null geodesic incompleteness. Recall that a geodesic is said to be incomplete if it cannot be extended to all values of an affine parameter (cf. Definition 6.2). Let R and Ric denote the curvature tensor and Ricci curvature tensor of (M,g), respectively. Recall that an inextendible null geodesic y will satisfy the generic condition if for some parameter value t, there exists a nonzero tangent vector v E T,(t)M with g(v, yl(t)) = 0 such that R(v, yl(t))y'(t) is nonzero and is not proportional to yl(t) (cf. Proposition 2.11, Section 2.5). In particular, if Ric(v, v) > 0 for all null vectors v E T M , then every inextendible
for some smooth function f
J --t W. Just as in the classical theory of projectively equivalent connections in Riemannian geometry, however, formula
:
(9.2) implies that a is a pregeodesic [cf. Spivak (1970, pp. G37 ff. )]. We are now ready to prove the conformal invariance of null cut points under global conformal diffeomorphisms f : (M1,gl) -r (M2, g2). Notice that if (MI, gl) is time oriented by the vector field XI, then (M2,g2) is time oriented either by X2 = f*X1 or -X2. If M2 is time oriented by X2, then f maps future directed curves to future directed curves and thus future (respectively, past) null cut points to future (respectively, past) null cut points in Proposition 9.18. On the other hand, if M2 is time oriented by -X2, then f maps future (respectively, past) null cut points to past (respectively, future) null cut points since f maps future directed curves to past directed curves.
Proposition 9.18. Let f : (MI, gl)
--t
(M2, g2) be a global conformal
diffeomorphism of (Ml,gl) onto (M2,gz). Let y : [O,a) --t (MI, gl) be a null geodesic of MI. If q = $to) is a null cut point of p = y(0) along the
310
T H E LORENTZIAN CUT LOCUS
9.3
T H E NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
311
null geodesic of (M,g) satisfies the generic condition. In Section 2.5, it was noted that dim M 2 3 is necessary for the null generic condition to be satisfied. Thus we will assume that dim M 2 3 in the following proposition. Proposition 9.19. Let (M,g) be a space-time of dimension n
(M,g) is globally conformally diffeomorphic to some portion of the subset M' of the Einstein static universe, then d l null geodesics of (M,g) are incomplete. Since Minkowski space-time is free of null cut points, the above result remains valid if we replace M' with Minkowski space-time. Friedmann space-times are used in cosmology as models of the universe. In these spaces it is assumed that the universe is filled with a perfect fluid having zero pressure. We will also assume that the cosmological constant A is zero for these models. These space-times are then Robertson-Walker spaces (cf. Section 5.4) with p = A = 0. These space-times may be conformally embedded in the subset M' of the Einstein static universe defined above [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 139-141)). Furthermore, Ric(g)(v, v)
> 3 such
that all inextendible null geodesics satisfy the generic condition and such that Ric(v, v) 2 0 for all null vectors. If (M, g) is globally conformally diffeomorphic to an open subset of a space-time (MI, g') which has no null cut points, then all null geodesics of (M, g) are incomplete. Proof. Proposition 4.4.5 of Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 101) shows that if the Ricci curvature is nonnegative on all null vectors, then each complete null geodesic which satisfies the generic condition has conjugate points (cf. Proposition 12.17). Since maximal geodesics do not contain conjugate points, we need only show that all null geodesics of (M,g) are maximal to establish their incompleteness. Assume that y is a future directed null geodesic from p to q which is not maximal. Then there is a timelike curve from p to q. Since conformal diffeomorphisms take null geodesics to null pregeodesics and timelike curves to timelike curves, the image of y must be a nonmaximal null geodesic in (MI, g'). This implies that (M', g') has a null cut point and hence yields a contradiction. Recall that the four-dimensional Einstein static universe (Example 5.11) is the cylinder x 2 + y 2 + ~ 2 + w 2 = 1 embedded in R5with the metric induced from the Minkowski metric ds2 = -dt2 +dx2 +dy2 + dz2 +dw2. The Einstein static universe is thus
> 0 for all nonspacelike > 0 for all
vectors in a F'riedmann cosmological model (M, g). By Proposition 7.3, there is a C 2 neighborhood U(g) of g in C(M,g) such that Ric(gl)(v, v) gl E U(g) and all nonspacelike vectors v in (M, gl). Since R ~ C ( ~ I )v) (V > ,0 implies that the generic condition is satisfied by all null geodesics in (M, gl), Corollary 9.20 yields the following result. Corollary 9.21. Let (M, g) be a Friedmann cosmological model. There is a
c2neighborhood U(g) of g in C(M, g) such that

The Nonspacelike C u t Locus
every null geodesic in
(M, gl) is incomplete for all gl E U(g).

9.3
Recall the following definitions. Definition 9.22. (Future and Past Nonspacelike Cut Loci) nonspacelike cut locus C+(P) of p is defined as C+(p) = C:(P) cut locus is C(p) = C-(p)
U C+(p).
B x S3 with a Lorentzian product metric. The geodesics and

The future The
U C$(P).
null cut points are easy to determine in this space-time. The null cut locus of
w) merely consists of the two points ( t i n , -x, -y, -2, -w) the point (t, x, y, t,
Consequently, the subset M'=((t,s,y,z,w):O<t<n,

X ~ + ~ ~ + Z ~ + W ~ = ~ )
past nonspacelike cut locus is C-(p) = CL(p) U Cg(p), and the nonspacelike
has the property that C N ( ~n ) M' = 0 for all p M'. Proposition 9.19 th has the following consequence. Corollary 9.20. Let (M, g) be a space-time such that all null geod satisfy the generic condition and such that Ric(v, v ) >_ 0 for alI null vectors
We mentioned in Chapter 8 that a complete noncompact Riemannian manifold admits a geodesic ray issuing from each point. Thus at each point there a direction such that the geodesic issuing from that point in that direction as no cut point. For strongly causal space-times, the Lorentzian analogue of is property follows similarly from the existence of past and future directed
312
THE LORENTZIAN C U T LOCUS
9.3
THE NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
3 13
nonspacelike geodesic rays issuing from each point. This may be restated as the first half of the following proposition. Proposition 9.23. (1) Let (M,g) be strongly causal. Then given any point p E M , there is a future and a past directed nonspacelike tangent vector in T,M such that the geodesics issuing from p in these directions have no cut points. (2) Let (M,g) be globally hyperbolic. Given any point p f M , p has no farthest nonspacelike cut point. Proof. As we have already remarked, part (1) follows immediately from Theorem 8.10. For the proof of part (2), assume q E M is a farthest cut point of p. Then q is a cut point along a maximal geodesic segment y from p to q. Choose a sequence of points {q,) such that q << q, for each n and q, --+ q. Since (M,g) is globally hyperbolic, there exist maximal timelike geodesic segments c , : [O, d(p, q,)] + M from p to q, for each n. Extend each
c,
then d(p, q,)
0 in a globally hyperbolic space-time since the Lorentzian
distance function is continuous. Thus it is not unreasonable to expect that, for globally hyperbolic space-times, there is no closest tirnelike cut point q to p that is nonconjugate to p. T h e o r e m 9.24. Let (M,g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time, and assume that p E M has a closest future (or past) nonspacelike cut point q. Then q is either conjugate to p, or else q is a null cut point of p. Proof. Let q be a future cut point of p which is a closest cut point of p with respect to the Lorentzian distance d. Assume q is neither conjugate to p nor a null cut point of p. Then p << q, and by Theorem 9.12 there exist a t least two future directed maximal timelike geodesics cl and cz from p to q. Let y : [O,a)
-+
M be a past directed timelike curve starting at
q. By choosing a > 0 sufficiently small, we may assume the image of y lies in the chronological future of p. Then p << y(t) << q for 0 < t < a implies d(p, q)
to a future inextendible geodesic. Since q is a farthest cut point of p and
> d(p,y(t))+d(y(t),q) > d(p, y(t)) using the reverse triangle inequality.
d(p, q,) 2 d(p, q) +d(q, q,) > d(p, q), for each n the geodesic ray c, contains no cut point of p. The sequence {G) has a limit curve c which is a future &rected and future inextendible nonspacelike curve starting at p by Proposition 3.31. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that {c,) converges topology on curves (cf. Proposition 3.34). Using the global to c in the hyperbolicity of (M,g) and the fact that q, r E c and r, E c, with r,
-+
Since q is a closest cut point, the point y(t) comes before a cut point of p on any timelike geodesic from p to y(t). Thus any timelike geodesic from p to y(t) is maximal. Since q is not conjugate to p along cl, there is a timelike geodesic from p to y(t) near cl for all sufficiently small t. Similarly, there exists a timelike geodesic from p to y(t) near cz for all small t. The existence of two maximal timelike geodesics from p to y(t) implies y(t) is a cut point of p and yields a contradiction since d(p, y(t)) < d(p, q). O For Riemannian manifolds, the set of unit tangent vectors in any given tangent space is compact. It is then an immediate consequence of the Riemannian analogues of Propositions 9.5 and 9.7 above that the cut locus of any point in a complete Riemannian manifold is a closed subset of M [cf. Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, pp. 170-171), Kobayashi (1967, pp. 100-101)]. For Lorentzian manifolds, the timelike cut locus is not a closed subset of M in general as the Einstein static universe (Example 5.11) shows. However, for globally hyperbolic space-times it may be shown that the nonspacelike cut locus and the null cut locus of any point are closed subsets of M [cf. Beem and Ehrlich ( 1 9 7 9 ~ Proposition ~ 6.5)]. It may be seen by Example 9.28 given below
-+
q, we find that q E c. If
r , then d(p,r) = limd(p,r,). Using the upper
semicontinuity of arc length for strongly causal space-times, we find that the length of c from p to r is at least as great as limsupd(p, r,) = limd(p, r,) = d(p, r). Thus c is a maximal geodesic ray. Since q is a cut point of p on 7, the geodesics c and y are &stinct maximal nonspacelike geodesics containing p and q. Either Lemma 9.1 or Lemma 9.13 now yields a contradiction to the maximality of c beyond q. 0 We now turn to the analogue of Klingenberg's observation that, for Rie mannian manifolds, if q is a closest cut point to p and q is nonconjugate to p, then there is a geodesic loop a t p passing through q. For Lorentzian manifolds, however, a different result is true. If {q,) 5 Cz(p) converges to q E C$(p),
314
9.3
THE NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
315
that the assumption of global hyperbolicity is necessary for the nonspacelike cut locus to be a closed subset of M. An "intrinsic" proof for Lorentzian manifolds is more complicated than the proof for Riemannian manifolds as a result of the lack of unit null tangent vectors. We now turn to the proof of the closure of the nonspacelike and null cut loci for globally hyperbolic space-times. We first establish a technical lemma. Here the assumption that expp(v) = q is essential to the validity of the conclusion of this lemma.
Lemma 9.27. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time. Then the future (respectively, past) nonspacelike conjugate locus in M is a closed subset
of M. Proof. Assume that {q,) is a sequence of future nonspacelike conjugate points of p with q, exp,(v,)
+
q. Then p
q, p
< q, and p < q,
for each n. Let
v, E T,M be a nonspacelike vector such that (exp,), is singular at v, and

= q,. Then c,(t) = exp,(tv,)
is a future directed, future inextendible
geodesic starting a t p and containing q,. The geodesics c , must have a limit
Lemma 9.25. Let (M,g) be a strongly causal space-time. Assume p

and q,
+
< q,
curve y by Proposition 3.31. Since (M, g) is globally hyperbolic, y must contain q. Using the strong causality of (M,g) and the fact that y is a limit curve of nonspacelike geodesics, we find that y is itself a nonspacelike geodesic. Let v be the unique (nonspacelike) vector tangent to y at y(0) = p such that expp(v) = q. Since y is a limit curve of {c,), there must be some subsequence {m) of {n) such that the directions of the vectors urn converge to the direction of v. Lemma 9.25 then implies that v ,
-+
# p. If expp(vn) = q,,
exp,(v) = q, and the directions of the
nonspacelike vectors v, converge to the direction of v, then u, + v. Proof. Choose numbers a,
> 0 such that the vectors w,
= a,v,
converge
to v. Then the sequence of points r, = expp(wn) must be defined for large n and must converge to q. Since (M, g) is causal, there is only one value t, o f t such that expp(tnwn)= q,, namely t, sequence {u,) converges to v. Fix a point p E M . A tangent vector v E T,M is a conjugate point to p in T,M if (exp,), is singular at v. The conjugate points to p in T,M must form a closed subset of the domain of exp, because (exp,), is nonsingular on an open subset of T,M. A point q f M is conjugate to p along a geodesic c if there is some conjugate point v E T,M such that exp, v = q and c is (up to reparametrization) the geodesic expp(tv). If q f M , p
= a;'.
Using r,
-+
q, q,
q, and the the
v. Since the vectors urn belong to
strong causality of (M, g) near q, we find that t,
1. Since v, = t,w,,
the total conjugate locus of p in T,M and this conjugate locus is a closed subset of the domain of exp,, the vector v is a conjugate point of p in T,M. Because v is a future directed nonspacelike vector, the point q = expp(v) is a future nonspacelike conjugate point of p in M. This establishes the closure in M of the future nonspacelike conjugate locus. The dual proof shows that the
i past nonspacelike conjugate locus is also closed. C

At this juncture we stress that Lemma 9.27 reflects a specifically nonRiemannian phenomenon. Contrary to well-established folk lore, the (first) conjugate locus, even for a compact Riemannian manifold, need not be closed in general [cf. Magerin (1993)l. In the space-time case we are rescued by the non-imprisonment property that a nonspacelike geodesic must escape from any compact subset of a globally hyperbolic space-time in finite affine parameter. On the other hand, examples may be constructed of stably causal space-times which do not have closed nonspacelike conjugate loci by deleting appropriate subsets from the four-dimensional Einstein static universe.
< q, and q is conjugate
to p along a nonspacelike geodesic, then we will say q is a future nonspacelike conjugate point of p. Past nonspacelike conjugate points are defined dually. If (M,g) is a causal space-time, then p cannot be in its own future or past nonspacelike conjugate locus because a nonspacelike geodesic passes through p a t most once and (expp), is nonsingular at the origin of T,M.
Remark 9.26. It is possible even in globally hyperbolic space-times for a point to be conjugate to itself along spacelike geodesics, however. This happens
in any Einstein static universe of dimension n 2 3.
Example 9.28. Let M = S1 x IR = ((9,t) : 0 5 0 5 2 ~ t, E
R ) with
the flat metric ds2 = do2 - dt2. This is the two-dimensional Einstein static
316
9.3
T H E NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
317
universe which is globally hyperbolic. There are no conjugate points in this space-time. If p = (0, O), the future null cut locus C$(p) consists of the single n). The future timelike cut locus Cz(p) consists of {(n, t) : t point (T,
the directions determined by {v,) and {w,) have limit directions v and w respectively. If v and w determine different directions, we apply Lemma 9.14 to obtain two maximal null geodesics from p to q. In this case q is a cut point of p. On the other hand, v and w may determine the same direction. If this is so, we first note that there are constants a
> T}
and is not closed. On the other hand, C+(p) = C$(p) U C$(p) is closed.
f n/4,277) from M , we obtain a strongly causal If we delete the two points (

space-time (M', glM,) which is not globally hyperbolic. In (MI, glM,) the future nonspacelike cut locus C+(p) is not closed. Proposition 9.29. Let (M,g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time. For any p E M, the sets C$(p), C i ( p ) , C+(p), and C-(p) are all closed subsets of M. In particular, the null cut locus and the nonspacelike cut locus o f p are each closed. Proof. Since the four cases are similar, we will show only that C$(p) is closed in M . To this end, let q, E C$(p) and q,
-+
> 0 and b > 0

+ av.
such that av = b w However v ,
and expp(av) = expp(bw) = q. Applying Lemma 9.25, it follows that for some
, subsequence ( m ) of ( n ) we have urn -+ av and w
#w ,
and expp(vrn) = expp(wrn) then yield that (exp,), must be singular at av. Thus q is conjugate to p along y(t) = exp,(tav), and since d(p, q) = 0 we find that q is the cut point of p along y(t). ! I
Surprisingly, the above result holds without any assumptions about the timelike or null geodesic completeness of (M,g). In particular, the null cut locus and the nonspacelike cut locus in globally hyperbolic space-times are closed by Proposition 9.29, even though the function s : T T I M -+ R U {co) may fail to be upper semicontinuous. It is well known [cf. Kobayashi (1967, pp. 100-101)] that using the cut locus, it may, be shown that a compact Riemannian manifold is the disjoint union of an open cell and a closed subset (the cut locus of a fixed p E M) which is a continuous image (under expp) of an (n - 1)-sphere. Thus the cut loci inherit many of the topological properties of the compact manifold itself. For Lorentzian manifolds, cut points may be defined (using the Lorentzian distance at least) only for nonspacelike geodesics. Hence a corresponding result for space-times must describe the topology not of all of M itself, but only of J+(p) for an arbitrary p E M. To obtain this decomposition with the methodology of this section, we need to assume that (M,g) is timelike geodesically complete as well as globally hyperbolic, so that the function s : T - I M --t R U {co) defined in Definition 9.3 will be continuous and not just lower semicontinuous (cf. Propositions 9.5 and 9.7). Recall also that the future horismos E+(p) of any point p E M is given by E+(p) = J+(p) - I+(p) and that C+(p) denotes the future nonspacelike cut locus of p.
q. Since (M,g) is
globally hyperbolic, q # p and q E Jt(p). From the definition of C$(p) we see that d(p, q,) = 0. Using the continuity of Lorentzian distance for globally hyperbolic space-times (Lemma 4.5),it follows that d(p,q) = limd(p, q,) = 0. Let 7 be any nonspacelike geodesic from p to q. Then d(p, q) = 0 implies that y is a maximal null geodesic and that the cut point to p along y cannot come before q. There are two cases to consider. Either infinitely many points q , are future nonspacelike conjugate to p or else no q, is future nonspacelike conjugate to p for large n. In the first case we apply Lemma 9.27 and find that if q is future nonspacelike conjugate to p, then if this conjugacy is along y, q is the cut point along y because the cut point along y comes before or a t the &st conjugate point along y. If q is a future nonspacelike conjugate point to p along some other nonspacelike geodesic y', then y' must be null, and Lemma 9.13 shows that q is the cut point along both y and y ' . Assume now that q, is not future nonspacelike conjugate to p for all sufficiently large n. Theorem 9.15 implies that for large n there exist a t least two maximal null geodesics from p to q,. Thus for large n there are two future directed null vectors v, and w, with expp(vn) = exp,(w,) = q,. The future directed nonspacelike directions a t p form a compact set of directions. Thus
318
9.4
T H E NONSPACELIKE C U T LOCUS REVISITED
319
Proposition 9.30. Let (M, g) be globally hyperbolic and timelike geodesicdly complete. For each p E M the set J+(p) - [C+(P) U E+(P)] is an open cell.
cut loci for globally hyperbolic spacetimes could not draw on the continuity properties of the s-function established in Proposition 9.7. Rather, we relied on a more indirect proof method which called upon the characterization of nonspacelike cut points given in Theorems 9.12 and 9.15. In this section wc will give a more elementary method to derive the closure of the nonspacelike cut loci for globally hyperbolic spacetimes which treats both null and timelike cut points simultaneously but is non-intrinsic. The treatment given in this section has been worked out in discussions with G. Galloway. We have noted in Section 9.3 just prior to Example 9.28 that Magerin (1993) has given examples for Riemannian spaces that show that, contrary to folk lore, the first conjugate locus of a point in a compact Riemannian manifold need not be closed. Thus for completeness, we present an elementary proof that the cut locus of any point in a complete Riemannian manifold is closed, nonetheless. T h e o r e m 9.31. Let (N, go) be a complete Riemannian manifold, and let s a closed subset of p in N be arbitrary. Then the cut locus C(p) of p in N i
PTOO~. Let B = J+(p)- [C+(p)uE+(p)]. Then q E B if and only if there is a

maximal future directed timelike geodesic which starts at p and extends beyond q. Thus B = I+(p) - C+(p) which shows that B is open. Now T-'MI,
= {v E
TpM : v is future directed and g(v,v) = -1) is homeomorphic to lRn-l. Let
H : T-'MIP + IRn-' be a homeomorphism, and define 3 : Itn-' -+ R U {m) by 3 = s o H-'. There is an induced homeomorphism of B with {(x,t) E
wn-1
x R : 0 < t < ~ ( x ) defined ) by q + (H(v), t), where v is the vector in T-IM such that exp,(sv) is the unique (up to reparametrization) maximal
geodesic from p to q, and expp(tv) = q with v f T-IM. Let f : [0,m ] + [o, 1 1
be a homeomorphism with f (0) = 0 and f ( m ) = 1. Then the map (x, t ) -4 (x, f ( t )/ f ( ~ ( 2 ) )shows ) B is homeomorphic to Etn-' x (0, I), which establishes the proposition. Since I+(p)
J + ( p ) , Proposition 9.30 yields some indirect topological in-
formation about I+(p). The Einstein static universe shows that I+(P)need not be an open cell even if (M,g) is globally hyperbolic. However, (I+(p), glI+(p)) is globally hyperbolic whenever (M, g) is globally hyperbolic. Thus I+ (p) may be expressed topologically as a product I+(p) = s x W,where S is an (n - 1)dimensional manifold (cf. Theorem 3.17).
Proof. We have the basic fact that the distance to the cut point in unit direction v, which we will denote as is customary by s : SN , W u {rn)
corresponding to Definition 9.3 for unit timelike vectors, is continuous provided (N, go) is complete. Now let {q,) G C(p) be given with qn -+ q in M . Represent q, = expp(s(vn)vn)with llvnll = 1. Since the set of unit vectors in TpM is compact, we may assume by passing to a subsequence if necessary that un ,v f TpM. By continuity of the s-function, lims(vn)vn = s(v)v. Since (N,go) is geodesically complete, exp,(s(v)v) is defined. Hence q = lim qn = lim exp,(s(vn)vn) = exp,(s(v)v). Therefore, q is a cut point to p. Now Galloway suggested a non-intrinsic way to deal with the nonspacelike
9.4
T h e Nonspacelike C u t Locus Revisited
In Sections 9.2 and 9.3 we treated the null and timelike cut loci separate1 because the intrinsic unit observer bundle T-1M was used as the prim technical tool for investigating the timelike cut locus. This approach s the drawback, however, that if {q,) is a sequence of future timelike cut poi to p and q, = exp(s(vn)v,) converges to a null cut point q to p, then (9.3) lim s(vn) = 0.
As a result of the technical differences in handling the null and timelike loci, the proof in Proposition 9.29 of the closure of the nonspacelike and n
cut locus in such a manner as to bring an analogue of (9.4) to bear. The wo facts that (i) future inextendible nonspacelike geodesics are not trapped m compact sets in strongly causal spacetimes, and (ii) a modified s-function
320
9.4
T H E NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS REVISITED
321
defined for all future causal directions t o be constructed below is lower semicontinuous for globally hyperbolic space-times suffice t o ensure that the basic ideas o f the above proof are valid in the space-time setting. Fix throughout the rest o f this section an auxiliary complete Riemannian metric h for the space-time ( M ,g). Let U M = { v E T M : h(v,v ) = 1 and v is future directed ). Then we define the modified s-function on U M , which will be denoted by s l , as would be expected. Definition 9.32. Define the function sl : U M
+W U
L e m m a 9.34. Let ( M , g ) be a globally hyperbolic space-time. Suppose that c, : [0,b,] -+ ( M ,g) is a sequence o f future nonspacelike maximal geodesic segments with v, = cnl(0) in U M and c,(O) = p. Put q, = cn(bn), and suppose that q, --t q in M , b, -+ b > 0 in W U { m ) , and v, -+ v in U M . Let c : 10, a ) + ( M ,g ) denote the maximally extended nonspacelike limit geodesic given by c(t) = exp,(tv). Then ( 1 ) b < a, so that b is finite and positive, ( 2 ) c(b) = q, and ( 3 ) s1(v) 2 b.
Proof. ( 1 ) Suppose a 5 b. Fix any q' with q < < q'. T h e n for any s with 0 < s < a , we have c,(s) defined for all n sufficientlylarge, and c,(s) E I-(9')
{ m ) by
where c,(t) = exp(tv) as before. Evidently, for timelike v in U M
for all such large n. Since v, v and cn(s) is defined for all sufficientlylarge n, we have c(s) = limc,(s), whence c(s) E J-(9'). Thus the future inextendible,
+
nonspacelike geodesic c 1 10, a) is contained in the compact set J+(p) n J-(q'), which is impossible since ( M ,g) is strongly causal. Thus b < a , and b = limb, must be finite as well. ( 2 ) Since b < a, we find that c(b) is defined and q = lim q, = lim c,(b,) by uniform convergence. ( 3 ) Since the geodesic segments c, 1 10, b,] are assumed t o b e maximal and b = limb,, the limit segment
c
= c(b)
and further it is not difficult t o see that the semicontinuity proofs given for s and T-lM apply equally well t o sl and U M with minor modifications. Also, i f ( M ,g) is strongly causal, then s l ( v ) > 0 for any v in U M . Proposition 9.33. ( 1 ) Let v E U M with s l ( v ) > 0. Suppose either that s l ( v ) = +m, or s l ( v ) is finite and cv(t) extends to [O,sl(v)].Then sl is upper semicontinuous at v in U M . Especially, i f ( M , g ) is future nonspacelike geodesically complete, then sl : U M semicontinuous.
-+
I [0,b ] must also be maximal, whence s l ( v ) 2 b.
T h e o r e m 9.35. Let ( M , g ) be globally hyperbolic. Then the future nonspacelike cut locus and the future null cut locus o f any point p in M are closed subsets o f M .
Proof. T h e proof may be given in a uniform fashion either for (q,) a se-
J R U { m ) is everywhere upper
--t
( 2 ) I f ( M ,g) is globally hyperbolic, then sl : U M semicontinuous.
R U { m ) is lower
quence o f null cut points t o p or a sequence o f nonspacelike cut points to p, so we will not specify. Suppose qn -+ q in M . Choose v, E U M with
Before giving the elementary proof o f the closure o f the nonspacelike cut s helpful t o note the following locus for globally hyperbolic space-times, it i technical result. I t is not required a priori in this result that either o f a or b is finite. Similar issues are addressed in a more general context and on a more systematic basis in Lemma 11.20 and the proof o f Theorem 11.25.
and put b, = sl(v,). Because {w E U M : w E T p M ) is compact, by taking successive subsequences we may suppose that v, --t v in U M and that b, -+ b in W U { m ) . Put c ( t ) = expp(tv).By Proposition 9.33-(2), we have b 2 s l ( v ) ,
322
so that b > 0 . By Lemma 9.34, b is finite? c(b) = q, and s l ( v ) 2 b. Hence s l ( v ) = b, and thus q is a cut point of the required type.
G. Galloway has also remarked that with non-intrinsic methods, the hypothesis of "timelike geodesic completeness" may be removed from Proposition
CHAPTER 10
9.30.
Proposition 9.38 (Galloway). Let (M, g) be globally hyperbohc. Then for each p in M the set
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON EORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS
B = Ji(p) - [C+(p)U E+(p)]is an open cell.

>O
+
Given a nonspacelike geodesic y sufficiently small that if
Proof. -4s before, B = I + ( p ) - C+(p).Fix c

we set V = ( v E T M
,
[O.a )
-+
M In a causal space-tlme, Xe
nonspacclike curve
h ( v , v ) = c, v future timelike), then C
have seen in Chapter 9 that if ?(to) is the future cut point to 7 ( 0 )along 2 , then for any t
expp(V) is
contained in B. Also, fix a diffeomorphism f : U
< t o the geodesic segment y I [O, t ]is the longest

In
Rn-l. Define a projection map r, : B i U by letting ?(m) denote the point of intersection of U with the unique future timelike gcodcsic in M from p to m. Now choose a second
auxiliary complete Riemannian metric hl just for the open subset B of M. considered as a manifoid in its own right. For each q in U ,let "14 denote the g-geodesic cexp;~(q) reparametrized as an hl-unit speed curve in B with efq(0) = q and parametrized with the same orientation a s the corresponding g-geodesic. By Lemma 3.65. y , : W -+ 3 for each q in U. Now define t : B -+ R by the requirement that (t(m)) = m Then we may define a homeomorphism F :
from ~ ( 0 to ) y(t)
all of M . We could ask a much less stringent quest~on:
among all nonspacelike curves u from $0) to "((to) sufficiently "closc" to 7, is L ( y ) 2 L(u)? If so, y(to) comes at or before the first future conjugate point of y(0) along y. The crucial difference here is between "in all of M" for cut points and "close to y" for conjugate points. The importance of t h ~ s distinction is illustrated by the fact that while no two-dimensional space-time has any null conjugate points, all null geodesics in the two-dimensional Einstein static universe have future and past null cut points. Since only the behavior of "nearby" curves is considered in studying conjugate poirits, it is natural to apply similar techniques from the calculus of
x Rn-' by F ( m ) =
variations to geodesics in arbitrary Rlernannian manifolds and to nnnspacelike geodesics in arbitrary Lorentzian manifolds. To ~ndicate the flavor of the Lorentzian index theory. we sketch the Ivlorse Index theory of an arbitrary (not, necessarily complete) Riemannian manifold (iV, go). Let c : [a,b j starting s t c(a) and ending at c(b). More precisely, let a : 'a, bl x ( - c , be a continuous, piecewise smooth map with and &(a,s ) = c(a), a(b, s) = c(b) for all s f clirve a, . t
4
f?
be a fixed geodesic segment and consider a one-parameter family of curves a,

E)
--, AT
CY(~.
0) = ~ ( tfor ) all t E [a,b ] ,
(-t, t)
Thus each neighbor~ng
cr,(t) = a(t,s ) is piecewlse smooth. The vanatzon vector field (or s-parameter denvatzve) V of this deformation is given by
324
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAN RlANIFOLDS
325
Since c is a smooth geodesic, one calculates that
Also, c has only finitely many points in (a, bj conjugate to c(a). With the Morse Index Theorem in hand, the homotopy type of the loop space for complete Riemannian manifolds may now be calculated geornetrically [cf. Milnor (1963, p. 95)]. One obtains the result that if (N,go) is a
and the second variation works out to be
complete Riemannian manifold and p, q E N are any pair of points which are not conjugate along any geodesic, then the loop space fl(p,,)of all contiriuous paths from p to q equipped with the compact-open topology has the homotopy
-(b(ffs))1 ds2 S=O

b
=a
d2
bo(V1, V ' ) - go(R(V, c1)c',V) - c'(go(V, cl))l dt
It
type of a countable CW-complex which contains a cell of dimension X for each geodesic from p to q of index A. The purpose of Sections 10.1 and 10.3 is to prove the analogues of (1) through (3) for nonspacelike geodesics in arbitrary space-times Let c : [a,b]
,
+ 90(VvV,c1) I,.
This second variation formula naturally suggests defining an zndez form
&I [respectively, P : [a.b] M ] denote an arbitrary timelike [respectively, null] geodeslc segment in ( M , g ) . Let V , ( c ) [respectively, V$(P)] denote the
+
infinite-dimensional vector space of piecewise smooth vector fields Y along c [respectively, P] perpendicular to c [respectively, P] with Y ( n ) = Y(b) = 0. on the infinite-dimensional vector space V $ (c) of plecewise smooth vector fields X along e orthogonal to e with X(a) = X(b) = 0 It IS then shown that necessary and sufficient cond~tlonfor e to be free of conjugate points is tha The timelike index form I : q ( c ) x Vo-(c)
-+
R may be defined by
I ( X ,X ) > 0 for all nontr~vialX E V&(c). Th~s suggests that for a geodeslc segment c : [a,b] -+ N wlth conjugat points to t = a, the index Ind(c) of c with respect to I : Vg'(c) x V$(c) -+
should be defined as the supremum of dimensions of all vector subspaces o V&(c) on which I is negative definite. Even though e ( c ) is an infinit dimensional vector space, the Morse Index Theorem for arbitrary Riemannia manifolds asserts that. (1) Ind(c) is finlte; and
(2) Ind(ef equals the geodesic index of c, l.e., the number of conjugat
in analogy with the Riemannian index form. It may also be shown that c
[a.b] A 4 has no conjugate points in (a. b) if and only if I . *(c) x V$(c) i R is negative definite. Similarly, an index form I : V&(P) x @(P) + R may be defined by r(X, Y) = - J , ~ [ ~ Y' ()x -' g, ( R ( X . P1)P1,Y)]dt. But since P is a null geodesic, g(P1,@') = 0. Consequently, vector fields of thc form V(t) = f (t)P1(t) with f : [a. b]
points along c counted wlth multlphattes. More precisely, if we let Jt(c) denote the vector space of smooth vector fie1 -0wi Y along c sat~sfying the Jacob1 differential equation Y" R(Y, c') c' -
R piecewise smooth and f ( a ) = f (b) = O are always : V;(f?) x e ( P ) -- R yet never give rise to null conjugate points. One way around this difficulty is to consider the quotient bundle Xo(P) of V$(P) formed by identifying YI and Y 2 in V$(/3) if
+
in the null space of I
boundary conditions Y ( a ) = Y(t) = 0, then (2) is equivalent to the formula
(3) Ind(c) =
dlm Jt (c).
Yl - Y2= fP/ for some piecewise smooth function f . [a.b ] --+ W. The index form I : Vo-(@) x Vo-(6) -+ R may also be projected to a quotient index form 7 : Xo(Pj x Xo($) 4 R. It may then be shown that the null geodesic segment , B : [a, b ]
-+
M has no conjugate points in [a,b ] if and only if
326
10
10.1
THE TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX THEORY
327
I : Xo(P) x Xo(P) -+ ?Itis negatlve definite [cf. Hawking and Ellis (i973. Section 4.5), Bolts (1977, Chapters 2 and 4)j. In the case of a congruence of null
geodesics, the procedure of forming the quotient bundle has also been utilized
in general relativity since the 1960's. and the term "screen space" has been
M are any two points with p < < q such that p and q are not conjugate along any nonspacelike geodesic, then the timelike loop space C(,,,) has only fintfelg many cells
globally hyperbolic (hence noncompart) space-time, and p, q This striking difference between the Lorentzian and Riemannian loop spaces and Riemannian is a result of the following basic difference between Lorentzia~ manifolds. If y is any nonspacelike curve from p to q ir an arbitrary spacetime and d ( p , q ) 1s finite. then y has bounded Lorentzian arc length since L(y) 5 d ( p ,q). In contrast. any curve a in the Riemannian path space saticifies Lo(a) 2 do(p,q), hence has arc length bounded from below but not above
10.1
ernployed [cf. Robinson and Trautman (1983) for a recent reference]. Let Jt (c) [respectively, Jt (P)] denote the space of Jacob1 fields along c [ r e spectively, ,Dl with Y ( a )= Y ( b ) = 0. Define the index Ind(c) of c [respecti.rrely,
I!, to be the supremum of dinlensions of all vector subspaces of V$(c) Ind(B) of ?

[respectively, Xo(B)] on which I [respectively, -I] is positive definite. We establish the Morse Index Theorem
The Timelike Morse Index Theory
Ind(c) =
tE(a,b)
dim Jt (c)
In this section we give a detailed proof of the Morse Index Theorem lor timelike geodesics in an arbitrary space-time. Several different approacl~ebto Morse index theory for timelike geodesics under various causality conditions have been published by Uhlenbeck (1975), Woodhouse (1976), Everson and Talbot (1976). and Beem and Ehrlich (1979~). Were we give a treatment which parallels the proof of the Morse Index Theorem for an arbitrary bcmannian manifold in Gromoll, Kllngenberg, and hfeyer (1975, Sections 4.5 and 4.6).
and
for the timelike geodesic c : [a, b]
-+ M
and the null geodesic 5 ,' . [a,b ] -+ n/f in

-+
Sections 10.1 and 10.3, respectively. The reason for ronsidering the timelike and null cases separately is that the quotient index form f : Xo(j?) x Xo(P)
must be used to obtain the Null, but not the Timelike. Morse Index Theorem. In Section 10.2 we study the theory of timelike loop spaces for globally hyperbolic space-cimes, summarizing some results of Uhlenbeck (1975). Since completeness is necessary to develop the Riemannian loop space theory. it is not surprising that global hyperbolicity is needed for the Lorentzian theory. Yet a significant difference occurs between the Lorentzian and Riemannian loop spaces. Let (.&?,go) be a complete Riemannian manifold with positive Ricci curvature bounded away from zero. Thus N is compact by Myers' Theorem. It is shown in Milnor (1963, Theorem 19.6) that if p and q in such a Riemannian manifold are nonconjugate along any geodesic: then the loop space O(p,p) has the homotopy type of a CW-complex having only finitely many cells in each dimension. But the loop space may still be an ~nfinzte CW-complex a s is seen by the example of Sn with the usual complete metric of constan: sectional curvature. On the other hand. if (M,g) is an arbztrary
A sim~lartreatment of the results in this section through Theorem 10 22 has

been given in Bolts (1977). Let (M, g) be an arbztrary space-time of dimens~onn 2 2 throughout this section. We will denote by ( , ) the Lorentzian metric g (cl(t),c1(t)) = -1 for all t E [a, b ] . Definition 10.1. (Paecewzse Smooth Vector Fzeld) vector field Y along (the timelike geodesLC; c map Y
:
IR
this section. Also.

1.e..
all timelike geodesics c : [a,b ] 4 M will be assumed to have unit speed,
[a,b ]
- Jf is
A pzece.iiilse smooth
a coniin~ioiis
[a.b] -* I M . with Y(t) E Tc(t+' for all t E [a.h ] , such that there
exists some finite partition a = to < t l <
Y/[,, ,,+,\ : [t,,t,+l] 4 denote the R-vector space of all piecewise smooth vector fields Y along c with {Y(t).c l j t ) ) = 0 for all 0 t 5 b. Also let fib'(c) = {Y t VL:c) Y(b)= 0 ) and Ar(c(t)) = ( u E T,(L)&f. ( v , c i ( t ) )= 0 ) .
< t k m l < t k = h of [a,b j so that TM is smooth for each z with 0 5 2 i, k - 1. Let VL(c)
<
Y(a\ =
328
10
10.1
THE TIMELIKE LIORSE INDEX THEORY
329
( a ,b) such that Y 1s = V,tY(t) for differentiable on [a,b] - lo.Define Y' : [a,b] + T M by Y 1 ( t ) t E [a,b] - I. and extend to points t , E lo by secting Y1(ti) = lim Y 1 ( t )
t-t;
G~ven Y E V L ( c ) ,there is a finite set of points I.
Thus if Y E VoL(c)and X is smooth, one obtains the formula

5
(10.3)
(X"
+ R ( X ,cl)c',Yjd t
linking the index form to Jacobi fields. Remark 10.5. Given a piecewise smooth vector field X E V L ( c ) .we may
Thus Y' is extended to [a,bj by left continuity but is not necessarily continuous at points of Io.
< t l < < tk-I < t k smooth for each i = 0 , l . 2 , . . . , k - 1. Let

choose a partition a = t o
= b such that X
It,,
is
Remark 10.2. Since cl(t)is timelike, N ( c ( t ) )is a vector space of dimension n-1 consisting of spacelike tangent vectors, and thus (v E N(c(t)) : (v:w) 5 1)
is compact. Definition 10.3. (Conjugate Point) geodesic. Then t l , t z E {a,b ] with tl Let c : [a,b]
+
A,, ( X I ) = X1(a+),
A,, ( X I ) = -X1(b-),
and
t-t;
M be a timelike
A , ( X I ) = lirn X 1 ( t )- lim X 1 ( t )
t-t:
# t2 are conjugate with respect to c
if there is a nontrivial smooth vector field J along c with J ( t l ) = J ( t n ) =
for i = 1,2,. . . , k - 1. It may then be seen by applying (10.2) on each subinterval (t,, that
0 satisfying the Jacobi equation J" + R(J,cl)c' = 0. Were J' denotes the
covariant derivative operator on vector fields along c induced by the LeviCivita connection of ( , ) on M. Also tl E ( a ,b) is said to be a conjugate
poznt of the geodesic segment c : [a,b] --+ M if a and tl are conjugate along c. The geodesic segment c is said to have no conjugate points if no tl E (a:b ] is conjugate to t = a along c. A smooth vector field J along c satisfying the
differential equation J1'
This is the form of the second variation formula given in Hawking and Ellis
(1973. p. 108) and Bblts (1977. pp. 86-87) [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975,p. 21)]
In order to give geometric applications using the index form, it is useful to make the following standard definition. Let c : [a,b] -+ M be a smooth curve. A vanatzon (or homotopy) of c is a smooth mapping a [a,b ] x ( - E . E ) -+ M . for some F > 0 , with cr(t 0 ) = c ( t ) for all t E :a,b j The variation cu is said to be a proper vanatton if cr(a.9) = c ( o ) and cr(b, s) = c(h) for all s E (-E, E ) A continuous mapping a : [a,b] x ( - E . e ) -+ M is said to be a pteceui7se f m 00th. va7.~atzon, of c if there exists a finite partition a = to < t i < . . . < t k - 1 < t b = h of [a. b ] such that cr I [t,,t,+l] x ( - E , E ) is a smooth variation of c / [t,, t,-l] for e a c h z = 0 , 1 , 2 ,..., k - 1 . Definition 10.6. (Variatzon)
+ R(J,c1)c' = 0 1s called a Jacob%fieEd
along c
We now define the Lorentzian index form I : V L ( c )x V L ( c )4 R.

Definition 10.4. (Lorentzian Index Form)
The indez form I : V'fc) x
V L ( c )--t R is the symmetric bilinear form given by
for any X : Y E V L ( c ) If X E V L ( c )is smooth, we also have
If we set a,(t) = cu(t.s) in Definition 10 6. then for a smooth variation a , each curve a, : [a,b ] -+ M is a smooth curve and thus :he mapping s cu,
330
10
10.1
331
is a deformation of the curve c through the "neighboring curves' a,. If a is a piecewise smooth variation, the neighboring curves a, will be 2iecewise smooth. If a is a proper variation, all of the neighborlng curves a, begin at c(a) and end at c(b). It is customary in defining variations of timelike curves to ratrict consideration to variations having the additional property that all neighboring curves or, : [a,b] --,M are timelike. However, if we use Definition
such that a,'(af) and a,'jb-) are timelike vectors for ail 1 s 5 6 and the curves
a , are timelike for all 1s 5 6. Now let (Y : [a,b j x (-E.E)

timeilke geodesic c : [a, b] a = to < t l
-+
-+
M be a piecewise smooth variation of the
lif. There is by Defin~tion10 6 a finite partition
< ... < tk = b such that a 1 [t:, t,+( x ( - E , F ) 4hf is a smooth variation of c / :t,, t,+l]. By the above paragraph. we may find a constant 6, > 0
such that for all s with Is/ 5 E,, the tangent vectors as1(t:) timelike and a, I [t,, t,,~]
1s a
10.6, this restriction is unnecessary by the following lemma.
and a,'(t;+,)
are
timellke curve. Taking b = min(6~. b l , . . . ,6k-1)
shen yields the required 6.
Lemma 10.7. Let a : [a, b] x ( - 6 , ~ ),A 4 be a piecewise smooth variation

of the tirnelike geodesic segment c : [a,b ] -+ Al. Then there exists a constant
O > 0 depending on a such that the neighboring curves a, are timelike for all s with Is] 5 6
Remark 10.8. There is no result corresponding to Lemma 10.7 for variations of null geodesics (cf. Definition 10.58 ff.).
The index form may now be related to variat~ons of timelike geodesic segments c : [a,b]
, ht as
follows. Given Y E V ~ ( C ) define , the canonzcal proper E) -+ M of c by setting 4 t . s) = exp,(z)(sy(t)).
variation a : [a,b] x
Proof We first suppose that a is a smooth variation. Choose any el with
(-6,
0<
< E. Then a is differentiable on the compact set [a,b] x [-el,el] by
(10.5)
Definition 10.6. Hence by definition of differentiability, a extends to a smooth mapping of a larger open set containing [a,b] x [-el, el]. Since c is a timelike geodesic, the vectors cl(a+) and cl(b-) are timelike. It follows from this and the extension of a constant El
N
It should first be noted that slnce c([a,G]) is a compact subset of M , and the differential of the exponential map, exp,-. is nonsingular at the origin of T,M for all p E M, it is possible given c([a, b]) to find an
E
> 0 such that
to an open set containing [a,h ] x [-el, el] that there exists
exp,(,)(sY(t)) is defined for all s with Is/ 5 c and for each t E [a,b]. Secondly,
s a piecewise fro111 Definition 10.1 it follows that a ( t , s) defined as in (10.5) 1
> 0 such that the tangent vectors a,'(ai) and cuS1(b-) to the xeighboring curves a, are timelike for all s with ( s j < bl.
Suppose now that no 6
sn~ooth variation of c. Nence given Y t VoL(c),we know from Lemma 10.7 that there exists some constant 5 > 0 such that all the neighborlng curves
a, : t
-+
> 0 can be found such that all the curves a, are
a(t, s) are timelike for all s with -6 < s < 6.

E) ,
timelike for Is] < 6. Then we could find a sequence s, --+ 0 such that the curves a,,, failed to be timelike. Thus there would be t, E [a,b] so that
g (orin (t,), a:, (t,))
Given an arbitrary smooth variation a . [a,bj x (-e,

c
M of c : [a,b ] -+
M . the van'atzon vector field V of a is defined 50 be the vector field V(t) along
given by the formula
2 0 for each n. Since [a, b ] x [-el. el] is compact, the

has a poirit of accumulation ( t ,s). Since s ,
sequence ((t,,
5,))
0 , this
point must be of the for111 (t,O). and also the existence of
61 above shous
More precisely, lettlng a l a s be the coordinate vector fieid on [a, b ] x (-e, e) corresponding to the s parameter, the variation vector field is given 'ny
that t # a, b. But then as g (a:,, (t,), a,'n(t,)) 2 0 for each n, it follows that g(cJ(t), cl(t)) >_ 0, in contradic~ion to the fact that c was a timelike gecdesic segment. Thus we have seen that ~f a
:
[a. b ] x (-E,E)
M is a smooth
variation of the timelike geodesic c : [a,b] 4M , then there is a constant 5 > 0
332
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAN MAXIFOLDS
10.1
333
For a piecewise smooth variation a : [a. b ] x (-E, E ) --+ M , one obtains a continuous piecewise smooth varlatlon vector field as follows. Let a = to <
(Y', c"} = (Y", c')
= -(R(Y, cl)c', c') = 0 by the skew symmetry of the
Riemann-Ghristoffei tensor Thus (Y: c') is an affine function. Corollary 10.10. If Y is any Jacob1 field along the timelike geodesic c : [a,b; Y E VL(c).
--+
< tk = b be a partit~onof [a, b ] such that cu / It,. t,+l] x (-E,E) IS smooth for z = 0,1,. . . ,k - 1. Given t E [a, b], choose an index z such that t, < t < t,+l, and set
t2 <
<
IM and Y ( t ~ j= Y(tz)
= 0 for distinct t ~ . t nE [a,bj, then
~ ( t= ) [ aI it,, t,+ll x
(-E,
~11,
Corollary 10.11. If Y E @ ( c ) is a Jacobi field; then Yf E VL(c).
The canonical variation (10.5) has the property that each curve s -+ a ( t , s) 1s
Using the canonical variation, we are now ready to derive the following geometric consequence of the existence of a conjugate point to E (a, b) to t = a along c. Proposition 10.12. Suppose that the timel~kegeodes~cc : [a. b ]
-+
just the geodesic s exp,(,)(sY(t)) i which has initial direct~on Y(t) at s = 0.

Hence the variation vector field of the canonical variation (10.5) is just the glven vector field Y E V $ (c). If we put L(s) = L(a,) = L(t c
IS
-+
a ( t , s)), then L'(0) = y \ 8 = o= 0 since
a smooth tlmelike geodesic, and L"(0)=2L(s) dZ
(10.8) Thus if I(Y, Y)
> 0 for some Y E Vg'(c),
Lo
contains a conjugate point to E (a,b) to t = a along c Then there exists a piecewise smooth proper variation a , ofc such that L(a,) > L(c) for all s # 0. Thus c : [a,b]
--+
=I(Y,Y).
M is not maximal.
then the canonical proper variation
Proof. In view of (10.5), (10.8), and Lemma 10.7, it is enough to construct

a piecewise smooth vector field
a ( t , s) defined by (10.5) using Y will produce timelike neighboring curves a, joining c(a) to c(b) with L(a,) > L(c) for s sufficiently small. Thus if the timdike geodesic c : ;a, b]
E V$(c) with I(Y, Y)
> 0 and let a be
the canonical variation associated with Y. To this end, let Yl be a nontrivial Jacobi field along c with YI (a) = Yl (to) = 0. By Corollary 10.10, Yl E VL(c). Hence as Yl(a) = &(to) = 0, we have YI' E VL(c) by Corollary 10.11. Since Yl(to) = 0 and Yl is a nontrivial Jacobi field. it follows that YI1(to) is a (nonzero) spacelike tangent vector.
M is maximal [i.e., L(c) = d(p,q)], then I . V$(c) x V&(c) --+ W must be negative semidefinite. Before proving the Morse Index Theorem for tirnelike geodesics, we must establish the following more precise relationship between corljugate points, Jacobi fields, and the index form. First, the null space of the index form on V$ (c) consists of the smooth Jacobi fields in VO-(c), and second, c has no conjugate points on [a, b] if and only if the index form is negative definite on V&(c). We first derive an elementary but important consequence of the Jwobi differential equation.
i
: denote the restriction of the index form to cj [a,s ] , that Let I( , )
IS.
Then since Yl is a Jacobi field, we have from (10.2) of Definition 10.4 that
Lemma 10.9. Let c : [a, b ] --+ M be a timelike geodesic segment an

Y be any Jacob] field along c. Then (Y(t), cl(t)) 1s an affine function of (Y ( t ) , cl(t)) = a t + /3 for some constants a,p E R. r any Z E Vi(c). We are now ready to construct a piecewise smooth vector iield Y 6 V$(c)
ith IfY,Y)
Proof. First (Y, c')'
= (Y', c'}
+ (Y, c")
= (Y',c'), as c" = V,lcr =
> 0. Let $J: [a,b] --,I R be a smooth function with @(a)= @(b) =
along the geodesic c. Differentiating again, we o b t a ~ n(Y, c')" = (Y", d )
0 and + ( t o ) = 1. Also let Z1 be the uniqae smooth parallel vector Seld along
334
10
10.1
T H E TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX THEORY
335
c with &(to) = -fil(to). Then Z = ~ Z E 1 V ~ ( C )Define . a oneparamete1 family Y, E @(c) by Y I ( ~+ ) Z(t) t:Z(t)
If Y is a Jacobi field. I(Y, Z) = - (Y', 2) . :1
Thus l(Y, Z)vanishes for all
z E VoL(c).
ifastto, if to t b. To show (2) =+ (1). we first note that since c is a tirnelike geodesic segment and Y E v ( c ) , we have (Y', c') = 0 and (Y"
K(t) =
< <
+ R(Y, c')cl, cl) = 0 at all points
Then using (10.9) we obtain I ( K , K ) = I(Y,, Y,)2
where Y is differentiable. Taklng left-hand limits. we have (Y1(t,),cl(t,)) = 0 also at the finitely many polnts of d~scontinuity a = to < tl < , . < tk = b of Y. By contmuity, the right-hand limit lim,+,;(Y1(t),c'(t)) = 0 as well. Hence the vectors Ot*(Y1)defined in Remark 10.5 also satisfy (At,(Y').cl(t,)) = 0
+ I(Y,, yE)fo = I(Y1 + 2 ,Yl + E Z ) + ~ I(&, EZ):~ = I(Y1, fi)? + 2tI(Yl, Z)? + C~I(Z,Z)? + t21(2, z ) i 0 = - (Yll, Y I ) I :- 2 6 z)(: + E~I(Z, 2).
(~1'.
By (10.4) of Remark 10.5, the index form may be calculated as

k
b
(10.10) Let p : [a, b]
Since Yl(a) = Yl(to) = 0, this simplifies to
Z(t,)) I(Y. Z) = X ( O t , (Y'), ,=o

-+
(Y" + R(Y, cl)c', 2 ) dt
I ( X . Y,) = -2(Y11(to),Z(t0))
=2 E 11 Yjl(fJo)/I2
+ 21(2.
[0, 1 1 be a smooth function with d(to) = +(tl) = . . . = Q(tk) =

2.
2)
0 and #(t)
> 0 elsewhere. Then the vector field Z1 = d(Y" + R(Y, c')cl) is In

Since it
1 s
E'I(Z, 2).
V$(c) and Zl(t,) = 0 for all
assumed that I(Y. 2)= 0 for all
As Yll(to) is a (nonzero) spacelike tangent vector and I ( Z , Z) is finite, it follows that there is some t: > 0 such that I ( K ,K ) Y
= YE for
Z E V&(c),we obtain from (10.10) that
> 0. Put the required vector field

As
2 1
this value of
E.
We now turn to an important characterization of Jacobi fields in terms o f the index form. The same characterization holds for Riemannian spaces with an identical proof. It is important to note that the index form characterizes smooth Jacob1 fields among all pzecewzse smooth vector fields in VoL(c) and not just among all smooth vector fields in Vg'(c).
Proposition 18.13. Let c : [a, b ] -+ ( M ,9) be a timclike geodesic segment.
is a spacelike vector field, smooth except at the t,'s, and ~ ( f > ) 0 if
ita). we obtain Y1'(t)
+ R(Y(t). cl(t))c'(t) = 0 if t d
it,). Thus Y is a
piecewise Jacobi field and formula (10.10) reduces to
Then for Y E Vo-(c), the following me equivalent: (1) Y is a (srnootl-i) Jacobi field along c.
(2) I (Y, Z) = 0 for all Z E V $ (c) .
Recalling from above that (At,(Y').cl(t.)) = 0 for each we have 0 = I(Y, 22) =
2,
a vector field Z2 E
V$(c) may be constructed with Z2(t,) = At, (Y') for 1. = 1,2.. . , k - 1. Then
k-1
Proof. First (1)
+ (2)
is immediate, since for smooth vector fields Y and
arbitrary Z the index form may be written as I(Y.Z)=-(Y1,z)/:+
/lAl%(Y1) l2 2=1 Since all of the tangent ~ e c t o r sin this sum are spacelike. it follows that At,(Y1) = 0 for z = 1,2,. . . ,k
-
i"
1. This :hen implles that Y1 has no breaks

IS
(Y1l+R(Y,e')e',Z)dt.
at the t,'s. Since for any t E [a,bj there
a .lniqu3 Jacobi field along c
336
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY Oh' LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS
10.1
337
with Y ( t )= v and Y 1 ( t )= tour? it follows that the Jacobi fields Y / [ti,ti+,] fit together to form a smooth Jacobi field. In view of Propositions 10.12 and 10.13, it should come as no surprise that the negative definiteness of the Lorentzian index form should be relzted to the absence of conjugate points just as the positive definiteness of the Riemannian index form is guaranteed by the nonexistence of conjugate points [Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, p. 145)j. The negative semidefiniteness of the index form in the absence of conjugate points has been given in Hawking and Ellis (1973, Lemma 4.5.8). It has been noted in Bolts (1977. Satz 4.4.5) and Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, p. 376) that the negative definiteness of the index form in the absence of conjugate points follows "algebraically" from the semidefiniteness just a s in the proof of positive definiteness for the Eemannian index form. In order to give a proof of the negative semidefiniteness of the Lorentzian index form in the absence of conjugate points, we need to obtain the Lorentzian analogues of several important results in Riemannian geometry [cf. Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, pp. 132, 136-137, 140)]. For the purpose of constructing Jacobi fields, it is useful to introduce some notation for the identification of the tangent space T,(TpM) with TpM its by "parallel translation in T,M."
Definition 10.14. (Tangent Space T,(T,M))
Definition 10.15. (Canonical Isomorphzsm) r, : TpM -+ T , (T,M) is given by
The canonzcal isomo7;iihssm
where, as in Definition 10.14,
In particular, let v = Q,, the zero vector in the tangent space T,M. Then
4,
TpM is the curve & ( t ) = tu: in Top(TpiZif). and we find that Thtis To,(T,M) is often canonically identified with T,M itself
ro,(w) = 4,.
by identifying the vector w E TpM and the map 4,. then since exp, : T'M -t
If p E M and v E T p M , M . the definition of the differentlal gives
In particular, for v = Op we have exp,,

: To,
Given any p E M an
(TpM) --t T,IM

Q :R
v E TpM, the tangent space T,(T,M) to the tangent space

by T,(T,M) = (4, where
:R
-+
T'M at v is give
since expp(O,) = p. If E = ~ o (v) p E Top(TpM) and we define
- T, bf hy
q(t) = tu, then exp,,(b) = exp,.(q5, d/dzlo), where

T,M) bector field for
a/&
is the usual bask
TR defined above. Thus we obtain
&(t) = v i r t u .
Then T,(TpM) may intuitively be identified with T,M by identifying th image of 9, in TpM with the vector w. More formally, let 1be given th usual manifold coordinate chart x ( r ) = r for all r E W ,i.e., s = id. The
B/dz is a vector field on R. Since
hus exp,
orv = I ~ T , M . This fact 1s commonly stated a s "the differential .%' the exponential map at the origin of TpJVi 1s the identity."
,+ ,
. TpM and &(0) = v, we hav : TOR-+ T, (T,hf). We may then make the following definition.
:R
4,
The following proposition shows how the differential of the exponeritial map ay be used to construct Jacobi fields.
338
10

,M
10.1
THE TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX T H E O W
339
Proposition 10.16. Let c : [O, b]

and J1(0) = w is given by
be a geodesic with c(0) = p. Let
Proof. If d(t) = tz, then a = dl(l). If c is the geodesic c(t) = exp,(tv) = exppc+(t), we then have expp.a = cl(l). Also set w = rV-l(b) E T,M. Let Y be the unique Jacobi field along c with Y(0) = 0 and Y1(0) = w. By Proposition 10.16, we know that Y ( t )= exppw ( t ~ ~ , w )1x1 . particular, Y ( l j =
w E T,M be arbitrary. Then the unique Jacobi field J aiong c with J(O) = 0
J(t) = ex?,- ( t ~ i ~ ~ ( ~ ) ~ ) . Prooj. Set v = cl(0). We may find an

a : [a,b ] x (-E, E )
+M
E
expp, (rvw) = expp. (b). From Definition 10.17, we have ((a,b)) = (.r;'(a),r;'(b)) the Gauss Lemma
IS
> 0 so that the smooth variati
= ( v , ~ )Hence .
of c : [a,b]
-+
M given by a(t,s) = exp,(t(v
+ sw
proved if we show that (z., w) = (cl(l),Y(1)). But by

cyt
is defined. Since this is a variation of c whose s-parameter curves t
+ a(t,s
Lemma 10.9, the function f (t) = (cl(t),Y(t)) = t(v, w). In particular, ( c l ( l ) ,Y(1)) = f (1) = ( L , w)
+ /3 for some constants

required.
are geodesics, it follows that the variation vector field of this deformation i (tw)), the variation vecto a Jacobi field. Since a , D/dsl(,,,) = expp*(rt(v+sw) . a(0,s ) = c(O) for a1 field is just J ( t ) = ex?,. (rt,tw) = exp,. (t ~ ~ , w )Since s, we have J(0) = 0, and a calculation also gives J1(0) = w Icf. Gromoll Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, p. 132)]. As in the Riemannian theory, it is now possible to prove the Gauss Eemm using Proposition 10.16. We first need to put a natural inner product ( ( on T,(T'M) using the given Lorentzian metric ( isomorphism.
Definition 10.17. (Inner Product on T,(T,M))
a , P E R. Since Y(0) = 0, we have O = O and j ( t ) = t f l ( 0 )= t(cf(0),Y1(0)) =

%
The Gauss Lemma has the following geometric consequences. The proofs of these corollaries, which are given along the lines of Gromoll. Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, pp. 137-138) in Bolts (1977, pp 75-77), will be omitted. The use of the Gauss Lemma here replaces the use of a synchronous coord~nate system in Penrose (1972, p. 53). Corollary 10.19. Let U be a convex normal neighborhood in M, and let c : [O,lj , U be a future directed timel~ke geodesjc segment from p = c(O) to
q = c(1) in
, )
, ) on TpM and the canonic

The inner product
U . Then if P : [0, 11
- U is any future directed timelike piecewise

< L(c) unless
is
((
, )) : Tv(Xp~v) x Tv(TpAd) R
+
srnooth curve from p to q, we have L(P) 5 L(c), and L(O) j u s t a reparametrization of c.
associated with the Lorentzian metric (
, ) for M
is given by
The basic idea of the proof is that since lJ is convex, B and c may be lifted to rays : [0,1] + TpM and F : [O, 1 1,T,M. with F(t) = tcl(0) Then the Gauss Lemma may be appl~edto compare P I = expp* and d = exp,. o Z
((a, b ) ) = (7,'(a),.r,-l(b)) for any a, b E T,(TpM). T h e o r e m 10.18 (Gauss Lemma). Let v E T,(T,M), (10.12 ) Then for any b E T,(TpM), we have ((a, b:: = (exp,. a , exp,. b),
OF
and hence the lengths of
P and the geodesic c.
T'M
be a t a n g e ~ ~ vect t
An alternative formulation of Corollary 10.19 is also given in Bolts (1977. pp. 75-77) as follows. Corollary 10.20. Let v E T,M be a timelike tangent vector In the domain of definition of exp,.
in the domain of definition of the exponential mapping and let a = T,(%)
T,M be the curve +(t) = tv. Let : ;0, lj + TpM be a piecewise smooth curve with d(0) = q(0) and +(1) = d(1)
: [0,1] +
--$
Let
Thus the exponential map is a "addial isometry."
such that exp, 3w : j0,11
M is a future directed nonspaceljke curve Then
340
10
10.1
341
L(exp o+) 5 L(exp 04); and moreover,
Corollary 10.20 then implies that L(a,) = L(exppoQ) 5 L(exp, od) = L(c) for each s with I s 1 5 6, and equality holds only if a, is a reparametrization of c. C
provided that there is a to E (O,1] such that the component b of +'(to) perpendicular to ~+(~,)($(to)/ll$(t~)/l) satisfies expp.b
With Proposition 10.21 in hand, we may now show that the negative definiteness of the index form on V$(c) is equivalent to the assumption that c has no points conjugate to t = a along c in [a,b].
# 0.
We are now ready to show that if the timelike geodesic segment c has no conjugate points (recall Definition 10.3), then the length of c is a local maximum. Proposition 10.21. Let c : [a,b]
4
T h e o r e m 10.22. For a given future directed tirnelike geodesic segment c : la, b ]
M , the following are equiva!ent:
M be a future directed timelike geo6)
desic segment with no conjugate points to t = a and let a : [a, b] x (-E,
-M
(1) The geodesic segment c has no conjugate points to t = a in (a,b ] . (2) The index form I : V/(c) x V$(c) ,R is negative definite.
be any proper piecewise smooth variation of c. Then there exists a constant
6 > 0 such that the neighboring curves a, : [a, b] -+ M given by cr,(t) = a(t, s) satisfy L(cr,) 5 L(c) for ail s with Is/ < 6. Also L(a,) < L(c) ~f0 < 1st < 6 of c. unless the curve a, is a reparmetrizat~on
Prooj. Reparametrize cr to a variation n :
Lemma 10.7, there is an
1
Proof. ( 1 ) 3 (2) Suppose Y # 0 in V$(c) and I(Y. Y) > 0. Let cr(t. s) = exp,(,)(sY(t)) be the canonical variation associated to Y . Then we have
[O.P] x
(-c,~)
M . By
# 0 sufficiently small, > L(c). Bu&this then contradicts Proposition 10.21. Hence if Y # 0, L(cY,) Y) 5 0, so that the index form 1s negative semidefinlte. then I (Y.
L1(0) = 0, L1'(0) = I ( Y . Y )
s
> 0 , so that for all
> 0 such that all the neigllboring curves a,
It remains to show that if Y E V&(c) and I(Y, Y) = 0. then Y = 0. To this end, let Z E V$(c) be arbitrary. By Remark 10.2, we have Y - t Z E V$(c) for all t E -2tI(Y, Z)
of a 1 [0,/3] x (-tl,el) are tirnelike. We may then restrict our attention to
[O,P] x ( - ~ 1 , ~ 1 ) . Set p = c(0) and let
R. Hence I(Y - tZ, Y - t Z ) 5 0 for all t
W by the negative
4 : [O,$1
TpM be the ray +(t) = tcl(0). Since
semidefiniteness of the index form just established. Since I(Y - tZ, Y - t Z ) =
c has no conjugate points, expp has maximal rank at p(t) E TpM for each
+ t21(Z,Z), it follows that I(Y,Z ) = 0.
As Z was arbitrary. this
E [O, p ] . Thus by the inverse function theorem, there is a neighborhood of
then implies by Proposition 10.13-(2) that Y is a Jacobi field. Since c has no conjugate points, Y = 0. (2) + (1) Suppose Y is a Jacobi field with Y ( a ) = Y(tl) = 0, a < tl 5 b. By Corollary 10.10, Y E VL(c). Extend V to a nontrivial vector field Z E V$(c) by setting
+(t) in TpM which is mapped by exp, diffeomorphically onto a neighborhood of c(t) in M. Since +([O,
0 = to < tl < - - . < t k each J = 0,1,. . . ,k - 1 such that h, = exp
PI) is compact in TpM, we can find a finite partition = P and a neighborhood U, > 6([t3,t,+l]) in T,M for
p
: U,4
u3
M is a diffeomorphism
of U3 onto its image. By continuity, we may then find a constant 6, > 0 such that a([t,,t,+l]x (-6,, 6,))
exp,(U,) for each j = 0,1, . . . :li - 1. Set
6 = min(61,62,. . . ,6k). Then we may define a pierewise smooth map Q : [0,/3] x (-6.6) IO,@]x [-6,6]. choose j with t E [t,,t,+l], and set @(t, s) = (h,)-"a(t,
Then I ( Z , 2 ) = I(Z. 2):

-+
+ I(Z, Z)& =
(Z', z)/: + 0 = 0.
T,M
s)).
A consequence of Theorem 10.22 that is crucial to the proof of the Timelike

Morse Index Theorem is the following maximality pro?erty of Jacobi fields with respect to the index form for timelike geodesic segments without conjugate
with exgp o@ = N and @(t.0) = d(t) for all t E [O.41 a s follows. Given (t, s) E
342
10
10.1
points. This result is dual to the minimality of Jacobi fieids with respect to the index form for geodesics without conjugate points in Riemannian manifolds. Indo(c) = iuWdii11A . A is a vector subspace of v$(c) and I / .A x A is posltlve sem~definite). Also let Jt(c) denote the W-vector space of sclooth Jacobi fields Y along c with Y(a) = Y ( t )= 0. a < t 5 b. Mre now relate Ind(c) to Indo(c) and establish their finiteness in Proposition 10.25. The maximality of Jacobi fields with respect to the index form for we have timelike geodesics without conjugate points plays a key role in the proof of this proposition. The basic idcas involved in the proof of Proposition 10.25 and Theorem 10.27 are due to Marston Morse (1934) Proof. The vector field W = J - Y E V&(c) by (10.13) and W Y
Theorem 10.23 (Maximality of Jacobi Fields). Let c : [a, b] + M be a timelike geodesic segment with no conjugate points to t = a, and let J E VL(c) be any Jacobi field. Then for any vector field Y E VL(c) with Y # J , and
(10.13) Y(u) = J ( a ) and Y(b) = J(b),
0 as
# J by hypothesis.
Proposition 10.25. Let c : [a,b ] -+ M be a future directed timellke geodesic segment. Then Ind(c) and Indo(c) are finite and (10.15) Indo(c) = Ind(c)
By Theorem 10.22. we thus have I(W, W) < 0. Now
calculating i(W, W) we obtain I(W, W) = I(Y, Y)

= I(Y,Y)
-
2I(J, Y) + I ( J , J )
+ dim Jb(c).
+ 2 (J',Y)/! - (J', J)J;.
Since Y(a) = J ( a ) and Y(b) = J(b), we have (J',Y)I: = (J'.J)/:. Thus , (J',J)/: I(W,W) = i ( Y , Y ) 2 { J 1 ,~ ) l b= I(Y,Y) - I ( J , J ) .
Proof. The proof follows the usual method of dpproxirnating V$(c) by finite-dimensional ~ e c t o r spaces of piecewire srriooth Jacob! fields. To this
end, dioose a finite partition a = to
< tl < . . . < t k
= b so that c 1
[t,,t,+l]
+ = I(Y,Y) + (J', J)I:
has no conjugate poirlts to t = t , for each z with 0 5 z 5 k - 1. Let J ( t , ) denote
the subspace of Vj'(c) consisting of all Y E V&(c) suck1 that Y / [t,,t,+l] is a Jacobi field for each z with 0 5 points for each
2,
< k - 1. Since c / [t,, t,+l] has no conjugate
As i(W, W) < 0, this establishes (10.14). Now that Theorem 10.23 is obtained, a Morse Index Theorem may be established. First we must define the ~ndex of any timelike geodeslc c : [a, b] --+ M . The definition given makm sense because Vo-(c) is a vector space. The index Ind(cf and M are defined the extended zndez Indo(c) of the timelike geodesic c : [a,b ]
+
it follows that dim J{t,) = (n - l ) ( k - 1).
Mre now define the approximation 4 : ~ & ( c 4 ) J{tz) of V,'-(c) by J { t , ) as follows. For X E V&(c) let (pX) I [t,,t,+l] be the unique Jacobi field along c / [tl,tB+l]with (q5X)(tE)= X(tb) and (4X)(t,+l) = X(t,,l) for each z with 0 ( i 5 k - 1. Thus X is approximated by a piecewise smooth Jacob] field OX such that (dX)(tt) = X ( t t ) at each t,, 0 < 5 k This approximat~onis useful in t h ~ s context a s 9 is iqdex nondecr~asing KIore explicitly, other hand, if X $ J j t , ) then the inequality
Q
Definition 10.24. (Indez and Extended Indez)
1 .J{t,)
by Ind(c) = lub(dim A : A is a vector subspace of ~ & ( c ) and Il A x A is positive definite),
is just the identity map, so that I ( X , X) = I(4X. q X ) ~f X E J{t,). On the
344
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAX MANIFOLDS
10.1 THE TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX THEORY

a = so < s l
345
may be obtained by applying Theorem 10.23 to each subinterval It,, t,+l] and summing. We estabiish the following sublemma which shows the finiteness of Inda(c) and Ind(c) and also allows us to replace Vo-(c) by J{ti) in calculating these indexes.
Srrblemrna 10.26. Let Indb(c) and Indl(c) denote tbe extended index and index, respectively, of I1 J ( t i ) x J(ti). Then
< . . . < s,,
= b so that {sl,sa, .. .,sm-3}n (t1,t2,. . . t r - l ) = Q
and c / that
[s,,
s,+lj has no conjugate points for each i with 0 5 z
<m
1. Lct
J{s,) denote the vector subspace of V ~ ( consisting C) of all vector fields Y such
Y1
[s:, sz4 1 1 is a Jacobi fieid for each z with 0

(3,)
< i < m - 1. Since the two

( 4
partitions
and {t,) are distinct except for a = so = to and b = s, = tk,
it fallows that J(tJ n JGE)= ~ ~
where .Jb(c) denotes the vector space of all (smooth) Jacobi fields J along c Indo(c) = Indb(c) Hence Indo(c) and Ind(c) are finite.
and
Ind(c) = Indl(c).
with J ( a ) = J ( b ) = 0. By Corollary 10.10, we have Jb(c)
V$(c). Also, if
E J(s,) but X
$4 Jb(c), we have by (10.16) that
Proof. First it is easily seen by the uniqueness of the Jacobi field J along
c ] [t,,t,+l] with J(t,) = v and J(t,+l) = w that ihe map
4 . VOL(c)-+
J{t,) Applying the proof of Sublemma 10.26 to the partition {s,) of [a!b ] , we may choose a vector subspace is a vector subspace of map
is R-linear. That is, if X I , X2 E V$(C) and a,P E R, then @ ( a x 1 PX2) =
a Q ( X l ) P+(Xa). Thus maps a vector subspace of Vd(c)to a vector subspace of J{t,). In order to establish the sublemma, we first show that if A is any subspace of q ( c ) on which I I A x A is positive semidefinite, then &IA : -4 + J(t,) is injective. Thus suppose X E A and &(X) = 0. If X E J(t,), then + ( X ) = X,
so that X = 0. If X
B A
of J{s,) with Il
B hx
B A positive semidefinite
A = Indo(c) < m, it follows that Jb(c) and with Indo(c) = dim B;. Since dim B BA. By
(10.17) and the proof of Sublemma 10.26, the
bjBA: B A
- J{t,}
J(t,), then I(+(X),p(X))
> I ( X , X ) by (10.16).
Thus $X = 0 implies that I ( X , X) < 0 which contradicts the assumption that
is injective. Thus if we set Bo = &(B&), we have d!m Bo = dimBA = Indo(c).

Since Bo is a finite-dimensional vector space and Jb(c) is a vector subspace, we may find a vector subspace B of Bo such that Bo = B 9Jb(c), where 9 denotes the direct sum of vector spaces We claim now that TI B x B is positive definite know that Il represent Z = $(X)with By construction. we
I ] A x A is positive semidefinite Thus if +X = 0: then X = 0.

Now that we know that
c$
is injective on subspaces of V$(C) on which I is
positive semidefinite, we may prove the sublemma. For if A is a subspace of V/(c) on which 1 1 A x A is positive semidefinite, inequality (10.16) implies that the index form of J ( t , ) is positive semidefinite on the subspace d(A) of J{t,). Since q5 is injective on such a subspace from above, dim A = dim $ ( A ) . Hence Indb(c) 2 Indo(c). However, since J(t,) is a vector subspace of q ( c ) , we have Ind&(c) 5 Indo(c). Thus Indo(c) = Indb(c). The same argument shows Ind(c) = Ind(cl). 3 To conclude the proof of Proposition 10.25, we must establish the equality Indo (c) = Ind(c) + dim Jb(c). To this end, we choose a second partition
B h x B; is positive semidefinite. Also if 0 # Z E B and we X E Bb,then X 4 .ib(c). (For if X E J b ( c ) . we ) which is impossible since have b(X) = X so that Z = 4(X) = X E J ~ ( c also, B r Jb(c) = {O) by construction.) Hence I ( Z . Z ) = I($X, 4X) > I ( X , X ) , the last inequality by (10.17). Thus as I Bh x B& is positive semidefinite, we obtain I(Z, 2 ) > I ( X , X ) 2 0 so that I ( Z , Z ) > 0 . This shows that
I1 B x B is positive definite. With the notation of SubIernma 10.26, we then have Indl(c) 2 dim B.
346
10
MORSE IXDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS
10.1
T H E TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX THEOXY
From the direct sum decomposition Bo = B @ Jb(c). we obtain the equality Indo(c) = dim Bo = dim B and we also know that Indl(c)
for each t E [a,b ] by for a 5 s 5 t , for t 5 s 5 b.
+ dim Jb(c),
i(Y) (s) = 0
2 dim B. Thus the proof of Proposition 10.25
will be complete if we show that Indl(c) 5 dirn B. J(t,) is a vector subspace with To establish this inequality, suppose B'
Evidently dirn Jt(c) = dirni(Jt(c)) for any t 6 (a. b] Recall that Indo(c) is finite by Proposition 10.25 Thus to show that c has only finitely many conjugate points, it suffices to prove that if Itl, t2, . .tk) is any set of pairwise distinct conjugate points t o t = a along c, then k 5 Indo(c). To this end, set Ag = z(Jt, ( c ) )for each j = 1,2,. . . , k and A = A1 B . . . @ Ak.
s Z = Then A is a vector subspace of V&(c), and ilecon~posingZ E A a
I j B' x 3' positive definite and dim B' = Indl(c). Suppose that dim B' >
dim B . Then I is positive semidefinite on B' @ &(c)
SO
that dim(B1@Jb(c)) 5
Indo(c). On the other hand, since dim B1 > dim B we obtain
This contradiction shows that dimB1 5 dimB, whence Indl(c) 5 dim B as required. 13
We are now in a position t o prove a Morse Index Theorem for tirnelike geodesic segments. The proof we give here 1s modeled on the proof for Riemannian spaces given in Gromoll. Klingenberg, and bfeyer (1975, pp. 150-152).
Theorem 10.27 (Timelike Morse Index Theorem). Let c : [a, b ] 4
A3, we obtain I ( Z , 2 ) = C,,lA,AII(Z,, 21). l )= I(Zj. 21): I ( Z 3 .Zl)Zi = -(&I, ZJ)l; But if t3 _< t l , we obtain I(Z2, Z I(0, &);, = 0 using (10.21, Z l 6 At, and Z,(a) = ZJ(tl) = 0. Hence i ( Z .2 ) = 0 from the symmetry of the index form. Thus I I A x A is positive semidefinite.
6
c:,~ X3ZJ with A3 E W,Zg
Hence
A4 be a timelike geodesic segment, and for each t E [a, b] let Jt(c) denote the
R-vector space of smooth Jacobi fields Y along c with Y (a) = Y (t) = 0. Then c has only finitely many conjugate points, and the index Ind(e) and extended index Indo(c) of the index form I formulas (10.18) and (10.19) respectively. Indo(c) = dim Jt(c),
t~(a,bj
*
as required. Therefore c : [a, b ] -+ A 4 has only finitely many conjugate points b], which we denote by tl < tz < ... < t , Except for t E (tl,ta, in (a.
, t,),
we have dim Jt(c) = 0, and thus establish the equality
V&(c) x V ~ ( C --+ )
W are given by the
CtE(a,b dim .7t(r) i.; a finite sum
Since Jndo(c) = Ind(c) + dim Jb(c) from Proposition 10 25, !t is enough to
Ind(c) =
tE(a,b)
dim Jt(c) Indo(c) = dim Jt(c)
to prove Theorem 10.27. Let Zdenote the integers with the discrete topology and define f , fo : ( a ,b]
-+
Z by f (t) = ind(c 1 [a, t ] ) arid fo(t) = Indo(c / [a, t ] ) .

=
We now show that (10.20) holds if we establish the left ~oritinuityof f arid
Proof. We first show th2t dim Jt(c) is a finite sum. We know that dim Jt(c) 2 1 if arid only if c(t) is a conjugate point of t = a along c. We may
also define embeddings
i : Jt(c)
xCtE(a,bj
the right continuity of So. liere we mean that iirntnrtf ( t n ) Emtnlt fo(tn) = fo(t). Using (10.15) it follows that f (tj- fo(t)
f ( t ) a11d
= - aim Jt(c) =
I#(.)
0 if t $ ! (ti, t z , . . .,t,). Assuming we have shown f is left continuous and f U is right cont~nuous, we also have f (t3+l) = fO(t3)f ~ each r 3 = 1 , 2 , . . . ,T - 1.
348
10
10.1
349
Thus
points. Choose a partition a = to < tl < ..- < tk-l < t k = t (unrelated to the above enumeration of conjugate points) such that It, - tgtll < S for each z = 0,1,2,. . . , k - 1. Let J C [a, b] be an open interval containing t with It - tk-11 < E for ail t E J . FOT each t E J , let J"(c,) denote the finite-dimensional R-vector subspace of V&(c/ [a,t]) consisting of all vector fields
E 'ybi(cj[a,t]) such that Yl[t,,t,+i] for each j = 0.1.. . . k - 2
By Theorem 10.22 the index form is negative definite if c has no conjugate points, so that f ( t ) = 0 for all t < t l . Hence f(tl) = 0 since f is left continuous. Thus
and Y I [tk-1, t] are Jacobi fields. By Sublemma 10.26, f ( t ) is the index of I restricted to J"(ct) x T(ct) x T(ct). Now let E = N(c(t1)) x N(c(t2)) x
y(ct) and
fo(t) is the extended index of 1 restricted to
CtE(a,bl dim Jc(c) = fo(tr).
Since fo is constant on [t,, b],
we have fo(t,) = jo(b). Hence
. . - x N ( ~ ( t k - ~ )The ) set E is ciosed
since each N(c(t,)) = (v E T,(t,)M : (v,cl(t,)) = 0) is a closed set of spacelike tangent vectors. We may define a Euclidean product metric (( , )) : E x E -+ R by ( ( v , ~ ) ) = ~ f i T , ' ( v w,) , , for v = (vi, 212, - ., ,uk-1). w = which establishes (20.20). We have thus reduced the proof of the Morse Index Theorem to showing that f is left continuous and fo is right continuous. First note that f and fo are nondxreasing (i.e., f ( t )1 f (8) if t 2 s). For suppose we fix t l , t2 E (a, b] with tl 5 tz. Let cl = c 1 [a,tl] and
6.2
( u l w2 , ,... ,wk-l)E E. Then by Remark i0.2, S = {v E E : compact.
lltrll
= 1) is
If Y E T(ct), then Y ( a ) = Y(t) = 0 by definition. Also since c j [t,,t,+l] has no conjugate points, for any v E N(c(t,)) and w f N ( c ( ~ , + ~there ) ) is a unique Jacobi field Y along c with Y(t,) = v and Y(t,+l) = ZL. Since (Y,cl)l,
is an aEne function of t and (v. cf(t,)) = (w, ~ ' ( t , + ~ = ) ) 0. it follows that
= cl [a,tz]. We then have an R-linear
embedding i : v$(c~) + ~ d ( c 2 given ) by
(Y, c') 1, = 0 for all t. Hence the map
4t : ?(ct)
This map has the property that I(Y, Y) = I(i(Y), i(Y)), where the indexes are calculated with respect to cl and c2, respectively. Thus if A C @(cl) is a vector subspace on which the index form of cl is positive (semi) definite, then i ( A ) is a vector subspace of V&(cz) on which the index form of c2 is positive (serni) definite and dim A = dim i ( A ) . Thus f (tl) = Ind(c I defined for t E J by
+E
[a,tl]) < Ind(c I [O,tz]) =

E
f jt2) and similarly fo(tr) 5 Soft2). Thus fo and f are nondecreasing. To obtain the continuity properties of f and fo, we fix an arbitrary
( a ,b] and study the continuity off and fo at ;using the same approximation techniques as in the proof of Sublemma 10.26. Since c([a, b ] ) is a compact
subset of M , there is a constant 5 > 0 such that for any sl,sz E la, b] with
Is1 - szl
< 6 and sl 5
82,
the geodesic segment c 1 [sl, s2]has no conjugate
is an isomorphism. For each t t J we also have a quadratic form Qt : E x E -4 R given by QQt (u, v) = I(#;' (u), #tf(v)). Sublemma 10.26 implies that jo(t) the extended index of the quadratic form &t on E x E and f ( t ) is the index ofQtonExEforeacht~J. Each Qt may then be used to define a map Q . E x E x J -+ W given by Q(u.v,t) = Qt(u, v). We want to show that Q is continuous in order to prove that f and fo have the d ~ i r e d continuity properties. To this end, let
350
10
10.1
T H E TIMELIKE MO=E
INDEX THEORY
351
B = ( Y / [a,tkPl] : Y E
Z(c,)).
Then B is isomorphic to E via the mapping
that Q,,, / A, x A, is positive semidefinite. Let (a' (n),a2(n),. . . . ak(n)) be an orthonormal basis of A, for each n. Thus al(n), uz(n), . . . . ak(n) are contained in the compact subset S of E. By the compactness of S, we may assume
4 :B
E given by
a,(n)
Thus
-+
a, 6
S for
(51,
each j
By continuity of the innel product, it follows
that the vectors
ar, . . . ,a,) form an orthonormal subset of S. Let A =

=
k
span{al, az.. . .,ak), which is thus a k-dimensional subspace of E. Given u E
A. we may write u
~ ( n) I u as n obtain where are the Jacobi fields along c given by and YVat
-+
A3a3. Let u(n) =
k C,=l Xla,(n).
Obviously
oo. Thus using the continuity of Q : E x E x J
- R.
me
QZ(u,u)= lim Q(u(n),u(n).s,)

11-00
20
since Q,- 1 A, x A, is positive semidefinite for each n. Hence Qt A x A is positive semidefinite. Thus f o ( t ) and
2 dim A = k
as required.
YV,t = $';'(v)
I [tk-1, t l .
4
We cnnclude this section with an application of the Timelike Morse Index Theorem to the structure of the cut locus of future one-connected, globally
Since the map (u, v) -+ I(p-'(u). $-'(v)) from E x E
W is a bilinear form,
hyperbolic space-times [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, Section 8)j. Definition 10.28. (Future One-Connected Space-Tzme) A space-time ( M , g ) is said to be juizlkre one-connected if for all p,q E M, any two future directed timelike curves from p to q are homotoplc through smooth future directed timelike curves with fixed endpoints p and q. This concept, a Lorentzian analogue for simple connectivity, has been studied in Avez (1963), Smith (1960a), and Flaherty (1975a, p. 395). The vanishing of the Lorentzian fundamental group implies that ( M , g )is future orieconnected. However, the simple connectivity of M as a topological space does
not imply that ( M ,g j is future one-connected, as the following example of Ge-
the map ( u , ~ , t+ ) I($-1(u),6-1(v)) is certainly continuous. By Proposition 10.16, the map (u,v,t) 4 (Xu,t,~:,,)/:k-l is continuous. This establishes the continuity of Q : E x E x 3 -+ tlnuous at the arbitrary
W.
(a, b]. Since Sublemma 10.26 implies that f
We are finally ready t o show that fo is right continuous and f is left con-
is finite-valued, we may choose a subspace A of E with dimA = Q ( u , u , t ) > 0 for all u E A, u f 0 Since Q : E x E x .J
-+
f(t) and
is contirnions
and S1 = S n A = (u E A : l/ull = 1) is compact, there is a neighborhood 30 of Fin J such that Q(zl.u, t ) > 0 for all t E Jo and u E S1. Hence Qt 1 A x A
is positive definite for dl t E Jo. Thus f(t)
nondecreasing, it follows that f ( t )= f left continuous.
2 f (r)for all t f Jo. Since f is (z)for all t E Jo with t 5 z Hence f
1 s
roch shows. Consider B3 with coordinates (x, y, t ) and the Lorentzian metric ds2 = -dt2
+ dz2 + dy2. Let T = ((z, 0,O)
E W3 : x
7: 0) and set M
= B3- T
It remains to show the right continuity of fo at Let (s,) be a sequence Since Jo is nondecreasing and integer, > t for all n and s , In J with s valued, we may suppose that fo(s,) = k for all n. By the monotonicity of
+
with the induced Lorentzian metric from (W3, ds2) Then M is simply connected. On the other hand, let p = (2,0, -1) and q = (2.0,1). Then p and q may be joined by future directed timelike curves yl and sides of the positive z axis (cf. Figure 10.1) But
-/I
fo, we then have f o ( t ) 5 k. It thus rernains to &how that f o f t )
> k.
To
lying on opposite and 72 are not homotopic
accomplish this, choose for each n a k-dimensional subspace A, of E such
through fcture directed timelike curves starting at p and ending at, q since such
352
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZISN MANIFOLDS
10.1 THE TIMELIKE MORSE INDEX THEORY
353
proposition 10.29. Let ( M , g ) be future one-connected and globally hyperbolic. F i x p 6 M and suppose that every future directed timelike geodesic segment starting at p has index zero or index greater than or equal to two. Given q E I+@)such that q is not conjugate to p along any future directed timelike geodesic from p to q, there is exact1.y one future directed timelike geodesic from p to q of index zero, namely, the unlque maximal geodeslc from p to q. We are now ready to prove the Lorentzian analogue for globally hyperbolic, future one-connected space-times of a theorem of Cheeger and Ebin (1975. Theorem 5.11) on the cut locus of a complete Riemannian manifold which generalized a theorem of Crittenden (1962) for simply connected Lie groups w~th bi-invariant Riemannian metrics. The global hyperbolicity is used in Theorem 10.30 to guarantee the existence of maximal geodesic segments joining
chronologically related points. Here the order of a conjugate point t = to to
p along the t~rnelikegeodesic y with $0) = p is defined as dim J,, (y) lrecali Definition 10.241. T h e o r e m 10.30. Let (M,g ) be future one-connected and globally hyperbolic. Suppose that for p A4,the first future conjugate point ofp along every timelike geodesic y with y(0) = p is of order tu-o or greater. Then the future timelike cut locus of p and the locus of first future timelike co~~jugate p o ~ n t of s
FIGURE 10.1. A space-time M = W3 - T which is simply connected but not future one-connected is shown. The future directed timelike curves yl and 7 2 from p to q are not homotopic through timelike curves with endpoints p and q.
a homotopy would have to go around the point (0. 0 , 0), which would introduce spacelike curves. Note that if (M,g) is future one-connected. then the path space of smooth timelike curves from p to q is connected. Thus Lemma 4.11-(2) of Cheeger and Ebin (1975, p. 85) and the standard path space Morse theory [cf. Everson and Talbot (1976), Uhlenbeck (1975), Woodhouse (1976)]imply the followmg proposition.
p coincide. Thus all future timelike geodesics from p maximize up to the first
future conjugate point.
Proof. All geodesics will be unit speed and future timelike during the course
of this proof. It suffices to show that ~f y : [O, t ] -+ M wlth y(0) = p has index zero and y(t) is not conjugate to p along y 1 10,t ', then y 1s maximal. Since the set of singula points of expp is closed, it follows from Theorem 10.27 that there exist
EI,E~
> 0 such that if <(u,y1(O))< 1 and c < 2 , then the future
timelikc geodesic c- : [O, t + 1 --t
nit11 al(0)= u is of index zero. Here
denotes angle measure using an auxiliary Ttiernailrlidn metric.
By Sard's Theorem, we may find a sequence of points { p , ) E, I t ( p ) with p, -4 y ( t ) such that every timelike geodesic segment from p to pz has conconjugate endpoints. Thw, by hypothesis, every such segment has index zero or
354
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAK MANIFOLDS
10.3
HYPERBOLIC SPACE-TIME: TIMELIKE PATE SPACE
355
Index two or greater. By Proposition 10.29, there is a unique timelike maximal from p to p, of index zero. geodesic segment 7% large there are geoSince (exp,), is nonsingular at t?'(O), for ? suEcie~ltly from p to p, with desic segments 7%
-
F . C(p,,) -t R may then be considered from the pomt of vlew of the calculus
of variations. Thus a cntzcal poznt of F is a polnt at ujhlch all first variations vanish, and a cntzcal value is the image under F of a critical polnt. The functional F on C(,%,) is said to be a homotopzc A4orse jknctzon if for any b
7% -+
y. Since 6(Tt1(0), yf(D))
-+
0, these
for large i. It follows that for i sufficiently large, segments have index z ~ r o
> a which is not
a critical value of F, the topological space F - I ( - m , b) 1s a ) with celis adjoined, where
y, = y, and hence 7, is maximal. Thus 7 is maximal as a limit of maximal

geodesics. t
homotopically equivalent to the space F-"-w.
one cell of dimension equal to the index of the cor~esponding critical polnt 1s adjoined for each critical point of F with critical talue in ( a ,b).
10.2
The Timelike Path Space of a Globally Hyperbolic
We will show in this section that the Lorentzian arc length functional is a homotopic Morse function for C(,,,) provided that p and q are nonconjugate along any nonspacelike geodesic. This result is analogous to Morse's result [cf. Milnor (1963, Theorems 16.3 and 17.3)) for complete Riemannian manifolds. Namely, if p and q are any two dlstinct points not conjugate along any geodesic, then the space R(,,,) of piecewise smooth curves from p to q has the homotopy type of a countable CW-complex with a cell of dimension X for each geodesic from p to q of index A. Given that p and q must be nonconjugate along any geodesic for L to be a Morse function, it is of interest to know that such pairs of points exist. As for Riemannian spaces, conjugate points in an arbitrary Lorentzian manifold may be viewed as singularities of the differentia! of the exponential mapping. Hence Sard's Theorem [cf. Hirsch (1976, p 69)] may be applied. Here a subset
Space-time
In this section we discuss the Morse theory of the path space of future directed timelike curves joining two chronologically related points in a globally hyperbolic space-tirne following Uhlenbeck (1975) [cf. also Woodhouse (1976)j. Both of these treatmerits are modeled on Milnor's exposition (1963,pp. 8&92) of the Morse theory for the path space of a complete Riemannian manifold in which the full path space is approximated by piecewise smooth geodesics. A different approach has been given to the Morse theory of nonspaeelike curves in globally hyperbolic space-time by Everson and Talbot (1976, 1978). They use a result of Clarke (1970) that any four-dimensional globally hyperbolic space-time may be isometrically embedded in a high-dimensional hlinkowski space-time to give a Wilbert manifold structure to a subclass of timelike curves in M . We now turn to Uhlenbeck's treatment of the Morse theory of the path space of piecewise smooth timelike curves joining points p << q of any globally hyperbolic space-time (M,g) of dimension n 2 2
X of a manifold is said to have measure zevo if for every chart (li.4): the set O(U n X ) E R" has Lebesgue measure zero in Wn, n = dim A 4 Also a subset
of a manifold is said to be residual if it contains the intersection of countably many dense open sets. A residual subset of a complete metric space is dense by the Baire Category Theorem [cf. Kelley (1955, p. 200):. Sard's Theorem then implies the following result,
Definition 10.31. (The Tzrnelzke Path Space C!,,,))
Given p, q E. ( M ,g)
with p << q, let C(,,,) denote the space of future directed piecewise smooth timelike curves from p to q, where two curves which differ by a parametrization are identified. While C:p,q) is not a manifold modeled on a Banach space, it does possess tangent spaces consisting of piecewise smooth vector fields along the given piecewise smooth curve assumed to be parametrized by arc length. Functionah
Theorern 10.32. Let ( M , g ) be a globally hyperbolic space-time, and let

p E M be arbitrary. Then the set of points of M conjilgate to p along some
geodesic has measure zero. Thus for a residual set of q E M , p and q are nonconjugate along ail geodesics between them.
356
10

:
10.2
HYPERBOLIC SPACGTIME: TIMELIKE PATH SPACE
357
Recall the following properties of the Lorentzian arc length functional L
(4) In paxticular. if { z l , x2,. . . ,s k ) is any timefike chain from p to q with
C(p,q) -" R. First, from the cdculus of variations, the critical points of L on C(p,,) are exactly the future dlrected timelie geodesic segments from p to q
with parameter proportional to arc length. Second, the Timelike Morse Index Theorem (Theorem 10.27) implies that the index of a critical point of L is just its index rn a geodesic, i.e , the number of conjugate points t o p along the geodesic, counting multiplicitim, from p up to but not including q. In order to show that L is a homotopic Morse function, it is necessary to a p proximate C(p,p) by a subset such that there exists a retraction of C(p,q) onto -W(,,,) which increases the length functional L. This step corresponds to the finite-dimensional approximation of the loop space in Riemannian Morse theory. The corresponding Lorentzian approximation makes crucial use of the global hyperbolicity of (n/i,g), as will be apparent from Lemma 10.34 below. First it is useful to make the following definition.
x, E f-l(t,) for each i = 1.2,. .., k , then there is a unique maximal l , zk to q , and s, future directed tlrnelike geodesic segment from p to s to x , , ~ for each E with 1 5 i 5 k - 1.
Since p , q E M with p
<g
are given, we may now fix i t l , t 2 , . . . . t k ) sat-
isfying the conditions of Lemma 10.34. Denote by
S, the Cauchy surface
S, = f -I(&) for each i = 1,2,, . . ,k. We may now define a space McP,4) of
from the point of view of the broken timelike geodesics to approximate C(p,q) arc length functional. Let M ( P P q be the 1 -+ M such that y(0) = p, y ( 1 ) = q. and space of all continuous curves y : [O,1
Definition 10.35. (Tzmeizke Guwe Space M(,,,))
y ( i / ( k t 1)) E St for each i = 1.2,.

7 1 [i/(k
...k
and such that the restricted curve
+ 1 ) . (z
I -
1)/(k
+ I ) ] is a future direczed timellke geodeslc for each + 1 ) / ( k+ l ) ]must be the unique maximal seg-
i = 0 , 1 , . . . .k.
Definition 10.33. (Timelike Chain)
finite collection (xl,x2,. Let p. q E ( M , g ) with p << q. A is said to be a timelike chazn
fvom p
. . ,x3) of points of A4 to q if p < < x1 <( xz < < .. . <C xJ < < q.
Since each y / [ i / ( k I ) , (i
ment joining its endpoints by Lemma 10.34, it follows that
The next lemma follows from the existence of convex normal neighborhoods (cf. Section 3.1), the compactness of J f (p) n J-(q) in a globally hyperbolic space-time, and Theorem 6.1.
(10.21) J W ( ~= ,~ {) (Z~,TZ .. ,. , zk) : x, 6 S , for 1 < i 5 k ,

p <C 2 1 , x,
< s,+l for each 1
s i 5 k - 1, arid xp,< < y).
Since chronological future and past sets arc open. M(p,g) viewed as in (10 21)
Lemma 10.34. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time with a fixed f : M -+ R. Let p, q E M with p < q smooth globally hyperbolic time funct~on be given. Then there exists (tl,tz,. , .,tk) with f ( p ) < tl < tz... < tk < f ( q )
satistying the following properties:
M(p,q) + S2 be the ..,..x k ) = z1 for each z = 1,2.. . ,k . S~nce projection map given by 7 i , ( ~ ~ , x 2 I+(p) n I - ( q ) h a compact closure by the global hyperbolicity of M , and
is an open submanifold of S1 x Sz x - - x
7 i ~ :
&. Let
~,(hf(c ~I ,+ ~( p ) )) n I - ( q ) , ~t follows that
T~(A~(,,,)) has compact closure In
( 1 ) If z E f - -'(f(P),tl] m d p < x, then there is a unique maximal future directed nonspacelike geodesic segment from p to x;
(2) For each i with 1
S, for each i = 1,2.. . . . k.
A length-nondecreasing retraction of C(p,q) onto hf(p,,) may now be established along the lines of Riemannian Morse theory [cf M~lnor(1963, p Ql)] Proposition 10.36. There exists a retraction Qx, 0 onto hf(p,q) which is Lorentzian arc length nondecreasing.
5 i 5 k - 1, if x
E f-'(tz) and y E f-'(t,,t,+l]
with p
< x ,< y < q. then there is a unique maximal future directed
<X
5 1, of C(,,,)
nonspaceiike geodesic segment from z to y:
(3) If y E. f-l[tk. f ( q ) ) and y G q, then there is a unique maximal future dlrected nonspacelike geodesic segment from g to q;
Proof. Let y E C(,,,; be arbitrary W e may suppose that y is parametrized

so that f ( y ( t ) )= t where f : M
-+
B is the globally hyperbolic time function
358
10
10.2
HYPERBOLIC SPACE-TIME: TIMELIKE PATH SPACE
359
fixed in Lemma 10.34. Tnus y : [f(P), f (q)] Qx(y) : [f(P), f (411 -" M as follol-s Set to = f (p)and tk+: = f (4). If P satisfies t,
-M
For each X E [O. I], define
B = (1- X ) f (PI + X f ( q ) , and put < 0 5 tl+l for i with O < 'L j k, let
p.
Q x ( ~ ) ( tbe ) the unique broken timelike geodesic joining the point p to r ( t l ) , y(tl) to y(tz). . . . , y(t,-1) to y(t,), and y(t,) to yfP) successiveiy for t 5 and let Q:,(r)(t) = y(t) for t 2 p (cf. Figure 10 2). It is ~mmediate from the is )] definltlon that Qo(y) = y and that Ql(y) E M(,,,). Since Q ~ ( y ) [ y ( t , ) , ~ ( P maximal from y(t,) to r ( P ) by Lemma 10.34, we have
where d denotes the Loreiltzian distance function of (M, g) and we have used Notational Convention 8.4. Similarly, since Qx(y) is the unique niaximal geodesic segment from y(t3) to y(t,+l) for each j with 0 5 j
< i - 1, we have
L($x(y)[y(t,),y(t,+~)]) 1L(y I [t,,t,+,]) for each j with 0 L j I i - 1. Summing, we obtain L(Q:,(y)[p, y(P)]) 1 L(y I [f ( P ) ,PI). Since Qx(y)(t) = ;dt) for t 2 p, we thus have L(Qx(y)) 2 L(y). Moreover, it is clear from the above argument that L(QA(y)) = L(y) for all X if and only if y is a broken timelike geodesic from p to q with breaks possible only at the s , ' ~ .In particular.
Q:, ( IV~,,,) = Id for all X E [O,1]. Finally, the continuity of the map X
convex neighborhoods.
--, Qx
is clear from the differentiable dependence of geodesics on their endpoints in
4 ( , , , ) the restriction As in Uhlenbeck (1975, p. 791, we denote by L, = L 1 A

of C(p,q). Just as of the Lorentzian arc length functional to the subset M(p,q) in the Riemannian case [cf. Milnor (1963. Theorem 16.2)], it can be seen that
FIGURE
10.2. In the proof of Proposition 1 0 36. the curve Qx(y)
is used to approximate the given curve 7 .
L, : I d ( , , , 4 ) R is a faithful model of L : C(,,,)

of
W in the following sense

denote the unique maximal timelike geodesic segment from r , to
z = 0,1. . . ,k. Then
rz+l for
Proposition 10.37. lf(-k?. g) isglobally hyperbolic, then the critical points
L, = L 1 Af[,,,) are smooth timelike geodesic segments from p to q. These
rritical points are nondegenernte iffp is not conjugate to q dong any timelike geodesic from p to q. Moreover, the index of each critical point is the same in L. ( r l , TZ,
. . . , I*)= C J
2=0
krl
j - ( - h f j t ) . yti,'(i)) dt.
C(,,,) and M(,,,). namely, the index by conjugate points.
Proof. Identify M(p,q) with k-chains (zl,xz, . . xk) from p to q with z , .E S , for each i, as in (10.21). Set so = p and xk+l = q. Let y, : [0, I] -r M
Suppose we have a smooth deformation (xl ( t ) .s 2 ( t )., . , s k ( t j ) of the given chain {xl,22,. . . .xk}. Then since each t -r x,( t ) is a curve in SZ,the vari-
360
10

I/
10 2
HVPERSOLIC SPACE-TIME TIMELIKE PATH SPACE
361
ation vector field
of the deformation must lie in T,,(S,) at x,. Also as
where
we are deforming the glven chain, which represents a piecewlse smooth timelike geodesic, through plecewise smooth timelike geodesics with discontinuities only at the St's, the space of deformations of (xl, 22, tified with all vector fields Y along is1.12,. for z = 1,2,. no y,
, xk) may be den-
. , xi,)
so that Y (z,) E Tx3(S,)
for L, = L 1 -44(,,,). R o m (10.23), it is a standard argument to see that 6L,(yl,y2,. . ..yk) = 0 for all (yl,yz.. only if the tangent vectors 7i1(1) 1/-(7%1(1)-711(1)) and 7:+1(0)
,k .
Y ( p ) = Y ( q ) = 0, and Y 17, is a smooth Jacobi field
.. . yk) E ' I ( 5 z ' 1 ) x, ... x
Tzls(Sk) if and
along y, for each
z = 0,1, ,k . By choice of the S,'s as in Lemma 10.34, [0, l] -- Af has any conjugate points. Tllus given any v, E T,* ( S t )
and zu, E T,,,, (S,+lJ,there is a unique Jacobi field J along with J(0) =
?it
[O. 1, -+ iM
and J(1) = w,. Thus the space of 1-jets of deformations of
J- kL'+1(0)?
x
pf%'-l(0))
the given chain
isl,x2,
, s k ) may slmply be identified with the Cartesian
in T,>(M) have the same projection into the subspace T,, (S,)of each i = 1:2,. . ., k. This then implies that y = yo reparametrized to be a smooth timelike geodesic from p to g. Thus we have seen that the critical points of L, : M(,,,)
-+
T , , (M) for
x T,, (Sk). product T,, (SI) x Tx,(Sz) x timelike curve parametrized Let u : [ a ,b ] --+ M be a smooth future d~rected
y, * . . . * yk can be
so that J-(al(s). al(s)) = A is constant for all and ol(b-) are timelike tangent vectors
V . If
: [a. b ] + itl
s E
( a ,b) and so that ol(a+)

+
R and L
Let
n :
[a, h ] x (-c.c)
M be a
C ( , )
-+
R coincide and are exactly the smooth timelike geodesics from p to q.
smooth variation of a through nonspacelike curves with variation vector field

A*
By our proof of the Timelike hlorse Index Theorem (Theorem 10.27) by approximating V&(c)by spaces of piecewise smooth Jacobi fields (cf. Sublemma 10.26), it follows that the indices of L, : -M(,,,)
-t
denotes the curve a,(t) = o ( t ,s ) , then the first variation
formula for ~ ' ( 0 = ) (d/ds)L(~~.)],=o is given by
R and L
: C(,
coincide. The Timelike Morse Index Theorem (Theorem 10.27) then implies that a critical point c is degenerate if and only if p and q are conjugate along
c (cf. also Proposition 10.13).

Thus if o is a timelike geodesic. ~ ' ( 0 = ) (-l/A)(V,
a of an element { s l , z z ,
6
With Proposition 10.37 in hand, the followiilg result rnay now be established.
Proposition 20.38. Let ( M g) be globally hyperbolic. If p and g are nonconjugate along any nonspacelike geodesic. then L : C(p,,) -+ l R and L , .
-+
\'Vc now apply (10.22) to calculate the first variation of a proper deformation
,zk)E M(P,,,). As before, let y, : [O. 1 1

r,+l
M be
tlmelike geodesics from x, to
for
= 0,1,
k Then {xl, x2
represented by the piecewise smooth timelike geodesic y =
,xk) IS -0 * yl * ., . * y k
Let V be the variation vector field of a along y and set y, = V(rr,) E T,, (S,)
M(,,,)
As we mentioned above the piecewise smooth Jacobi field V along y may then
be identified with (yl,y2, .
l/k)
R have only a finite number of critical points. ln partielljar, there are only finitely many future directed timelike geodesies from p to q.
i
f TT, (5'1) x
... x T l k(Si,).
Restricting V to
ProoJ. By Proposition 10.37, it is enough to show that L, : ~%f(,,~) + R

has only finitely many critical points. Suppose L, has infinitely many critical
each y, and applying formula (10.22), we obtain the first variation formula
points. Then there would be an infinite sequence of smooth timelike geodesics from p to q. Since each ? T ~ ( M ( has ~,~ compact ,) closure in S,, the h ' s have a subsequence which must then converge to a timelike or null geodesic c
362
10
1 0 . 2
HYPERBOLIC SPACE-TIIvIE: TIMELIKE PATH SPACE
363
from p to q. Since c is a limit of an infinite sequence of geodesics from p to q, it follows that p is conjugate to q along c, in contradiction. 0 Another interesting property of L, : M(,,,) result. Proposition 10.39. L, : & I ( , , , ) component of hf(,,,).
+
y = 70* 7 1 * . . - * */kt with each y, parametrized on [O. 1 1 arid A,, B, s above. the gradient of L. is given by the formula
R is given by the following
-B
assumes its maximum on every Using this formula. Uhlenbeck (1975, pp. 80-81) then establishes the following lemma.
Proof. While M(,,,) is an open submanifold of SIx Szx
. . x Sk, its closure
iM(,,,) is compact in S1 x S2x . . . x Sk. Also
Lemma 10.40. Let /3
: (a, b) -+
M(,,,) be a maximal integral curve for
grad L,. Then b = oo and limt,,
P ( t ) lies in the cri~ical set of
L,.
With the behavior of grad L, established, ~t now follows [Uhlenbeck (1975,

x2,. . . ,xn) from p to q. where xo = p and xk+l = q for any timelike chain {xl,
p. 81)] that if p and 4 are nonconjugate along any timelike geodesic. then
Thus as the Lorentzian distance function is finite valued for globally hyperbolic space-times, it follows that L, is bounded on each connected component U of Ad(,,,). Let (7,) be a sequence in the connected component U of M(p,q) with L,(y,) in S1 x Sz x
$2
-+
L, : M(,,,)
-+
R is a Morse function for A4(,,,). The main result now follows
from this fact and Propositions 10.36 and 10.38.
sup(L,(y)
y E U) as n
a. By compactness of Z(,,,)
SS, x
- . . x Sk,the sequence {y,)

E
has a limit curve y, in
Theorem 10.41. Let (M, g) beglobally hyperbolic, and let p, q he any pair g) with p << q and such that p and q are not conjugate along of points in (34, any nonspaceiike geodesic from p to q. Then there are only finitel-v many future
directed timelike geodesics in (M, g) from p to q, and the arc length functional
( ,) L : C
-+ W
x Sk. Since {y,) was a maximizing sequence for L, ] U, it follows that
L,(y,)
2 L,(n) for any a
22,. . . ,xk) E S1 x element (sl,
g, and L,(y,) > 0. If y, is represented by the . . . x S k , we have p < zl < 3.2 < . .. ,< r k 6 q,
is a homotoplc Morse function. Thus ~f b
>a
are any two
noncritical values of L, then L - I ( - m , b) is homotopically equivalent to the space L-'(-03, a ) with a cell attached for each smooth timellke geodesic y from p
GO q
and if a is the unique maximal geodesic from 2% to x,+l guaranteed by Lemma
10.34, then each 7% is either null or timelike. If some y, is null. it follows from the first variation (10.23) that y, may be deformed to a curve y E jl with L, (y) > L, (7,). This then contradicts the maximality of L, / at y,. Thus, in fact, the Iimit element r , , E U. U T, (St) denote the orthogonal projection map for any x E S,and each i = 1,2.. . . ,k . The set M(p,q) regarded as an open subset of S1 x - x 31, may thus be given
--+
with a
< L(-f) < b. where the dimens~onof the attached cell is
the (geodesic) index of y Thus C(,,,) hds the hornotopy type of a finite CWcomplex with a cell of d~mensionX for each srnooth future directed timellke geodesic 2 from p to q of index A. Note that in Theorem 10.41 the topology of C i ,, )
is not related to the
Again, consider LW(~,,) .ca a subset of S1 x . . . x Sk. Let P, : T,(M)
given rnanifold topology. But Uhlenbeck (1975, Theorem 3) has shown for a class of globally hyperbolic spacetimes sat~sfying a metric growth condition [cf. Uhlenbeck (1975. p. 7 2 ) ]that the hamotopy of the loop space of M itself
a Riemannian metric induced from the Lorentzian metric restricted to the
. . .,Sb It then follows from formula spacelike Cauchy hypersurfaces S1, Sz,
represented by the broken timelike geodesic (10.23) that at the point of &I(,>,)
may be calculated geometrically as follows. Let ( Mg) , be a globally hyperbol:~

space-time satisbing Chlenbeck s metric growth condition. Then there is a
364
10
10.3
T H E NULL MORSE INDEX THEORY
365
class of smooth timelike curves y : [0. 0 3 ) + M with the following property For any such timelike curve y, there is a residual set of points p E M such that the loop space of Al is homotopic to a cell compiex with a cell for each null geodmc from p to y, where the dimension of the cell corresponds to the conjugate polnt index of the geodes~c. It will be clear from the proof of Proposition 10.42 below that the finiteness in Theorem 10.41 follows of the homotopy type of the timelike loop space C(,,,) from the assumption that p is not conjugate to q dong any null geodesic together with the fact that L(7) 5 d ( p ,q ) < co for a l l y E R(,,,). For complete Riemannian manifolds (N.go) on the other hand, it is known from work of Serre (1951) that if iV is not acyclic [i.e., H , ( N ; Z ) the loop spaces
fl(,,q)
Suppose that it is only assumed that p and q are not conjugate along any timelike geodesic in the hypotheses of Prcpositioc 10.42. If there are infinitely many tirxelike geodesics {c,) in C(p,q), we then have L(c,)
-+
0 as n
m,
and the limit curve c in the proof of Proposition 10.42 is a, null geodesic such that q is conjugate t o p along c. In particular, c contains a future null cut point t o p (cf Section 9 2) Thus, Theorem 10.41 or the proof of Proposition 10.42 also yields the following result which applies. in particular, to the Friedmann cosmological models with p = A = 0.
Corollary 10.43. Suppose that ( M , g ) is globally hy-perboljc and that

p,q E M are chosen such that p
+ 0 for some i > 01. then
< <
q, p is not conjugate to q along
an^;
timelike geodesic, and the future null cut locus of p in M is empty, Then there are oniy finitely many timelike geodesics from p to q.
are infinite CW-complexes for all p, q E N . Thus if p
and q are nonconjugate along any geodesic, there are infinitely many geodesics
c, : [O, 11 4 N from p to q. Since p and q are nonconjugate along any geodesic it may be seen that Lo(&) -+ oo and La(?) > do(p,q) > 0 for all y E a(,,,), asn-+w.
For completeness, we now give a different proof from Proposition 10.38 of
( , ) the existence of only finitely many critical points for L : C
+ P. Instead
Prooj. If there were infinitely many timelike geodesics from p to q, there

would be a null geodesic c from p to q such that q is conjugate to p along c. But then p contains a future null cut point along c, in contradiction.
R
If d i m M = 2, then ( M , g ) contains no null conjugate points (cf. Lemma

10.45). Thus we also have the following result.
of
by using the finite-dimensional approximation of Cb,,)
W,,,). we work directly
with C(,,,) using the existence of nonspwelike limit curves as in Section 3.3.
Proposition 10.42. Let ( M ,g) be globally hyperbolic, and suppose that
p, q E M with p << q are chosen ssuch that p and q are not conjugate dong
Corollary 10.44. Suppose that (M,g) is any two-dimensional globally

hyperbolic space-time and that p. q E M are chosen such that p many timelike geodesics from p to q.
10.3
<q
and q is
geodesic. Then there are only finitely not conjugate to p along any ~imelike
any future directed nonspacelike geodesic. Then there are only finitely many cimelike geodesics from p to q.
The Nu11 Morse Index Theory
Thi9 section is devoted to the proof of a Morse Iedex Theorem for null geo-
Proof. Suppose that there are infinitely many future directed timelike geodesic segments c,
desic segments @ : [a,h ] + (M,gj in an arbitrary space-time. The appropr~ate index form we will use. however, 1s not the standard index form defined on
A 4 in C(p,g).Using Corollary 3.32 and the arguiients of Section 3.3 we obtain a nonspacelike geodesic c : [O, 1 1 + A4 with
:
[0, l]
'but rather its proj~ction to the piecewise smooth vector fields orthogonal to 0
quot~ent bundle formed by identifving vector fields differing by a miiltipie of
p'. The tdea to use the quotient bundle as the domain of definition for the null
c(0) = p and c(1) = q which is a limit curve of the sequence (h) and such c , ) that a subsequence of {
converges to c in the COtopology on curves. Since
) to a subsequence of the pairwise distinct tangent vectors ( ~ ' ( 0 ) converges El cl(0), it follows that q is conjugate t o p along c, in contradiction.
index form is zmplicitly contained in the discussion of variatmn of arc length for null geodesics in Hawking and E!hs (1973, Sectlon 4.5) and is further de-
366
10
10.3
THE NULL MORSE INDEX THEORY
367
veloped in Bolts (1977) [cf. Robinson and Trautman (1983)]. The first part of this section develops the basic theory of the index form along the lines of Chapters 2 and 4 of Bolts (1977) In the second part of this section, we give
suppose we consider an index form I : V j ( P ) x V t ( f i ) -+ R defined by
I ( X 7Y ) = -
/ [(x',
Y ' ) - ( R ( X ,01)/3'.Y)]dt
a detailed proof of the Morse Index Theorem for null geodesics sketched In
Beem and Ehrlich (1979d). Instead of working with the energy functional. Uhlenbeck (1975, Theorem 4.5) has constructed a Morse theory for nonspacelike curves in globally hyperbolic space-times as follows. Choosing a globally hyperbolic splitting analogous to the index Lorm (10.1) for timelike geodesics In Section 10.1. Then
M = S x (a,b) as in Theorem 3.17. Uhlenbeck projected nonspacelike curves

y ( t ) = ( c l ( t ) ,cZ(t)) onto the second factor and showed that the functional J ( 7 ) = S[c2'(t)l2dty~elded an index theory.
{f ( t ) P i ( t )1 f . [a,b ] -+ R is a smooth function with f ( a ) = J ( b ) = 0 ) 1s an infinite-dimensional vector space such that I ( Y . Y) = 0 for all Y E A. Thus xV : ( $ ) -+ R the extended index of /3 defined using the index form I : Yo'-(@) is always infinite. Also while I ( f P', Y) = 0 for any Y E VZ(0) and f 9' E A.
the vector field fP1 is not a Jacobi field unless f" = 0. Thus the relationships we derived for the index form of a timelike geodesic in Section 10.1 linking Jacobi fields, conjugate points, and the definiteness of tlie index form fail to hold for I
:
It should be mentioned at the outset that the null index theory, unlike the timelike index theory, is interesting only if dim M 2 3 for the following reason
voA(a) x V,-(B)
The crux of the difficulty is that
P'
and tP1 are both Jacobi fielda i n
~'(0).
Lemma 10.45. No null geodesic# , in any two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold has any null conjugate poin~s.
Proof. Let p : (a,b) + ( M ,g ) be an arbitrary null geodesic. Suppose that J is a Jacobi field along /3 with J(tl)= J ( t 2 ) = O for some t I # t2 in ( a ,b).
Thus by ignoring vector fields in A, it is possible to define an ~ndex form for null geodesics nlcely related not only to the second variation formula for the energy functional but also to conjugate points and Jacobi fields. This may be accomplished by working with the quotlent bundic VL(/3)/[/3'] rather than
V 1 ( P ) itself Using this quotient space, an index form
7 may be
defined so
Just as in the proof of Lemma 20.9, we have ( J ,,@)I'= - ( R ( J : ,B')P1,9') = 0 so that ( J ( t ) ,P1(t)) = 0 for all t E (a,b). Since spacelike and null tangent vectors are never orthogonal when d i m M = 2, the space of vector fields Y along j 3 perpendicular to
that , 9has no conjugate points if and only if? is negative definite [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, Proposition 4.5.11). Bolts (1977, Satz 4.5.5)j. Also, a Morse Index Theorem for null geodesic segments in arbitrary space-timcs may be obtained for the iridex form 7 [cf. Beern and Ehrlich (1979d)j. Since we are interested in studying conjugate points along null geodesics, it is important to note that Lemma 10 9 and Corollar~es10.10 and 10.11 carry over to the null geodesic ease with exactly the same proofs
@' is spanned by P'
itself. Hence J(tf = f ( t ) P 1 ( t )
for some smooth function f : (a,b) + R. The Jacobi equation then becomes
0 = J"
+ R(J. @)P' = f"P1 + fR(P', P')P = f1I/?' by the skew symmetry of
the curvature tensor in the first two slots. Hence f"(t) = 0 for all t E (a, b) Since J ( t i ) = J ( t z ) = 0 , it follo~vs that f = 0. Thus J = 0 as required. In view of Lemma 10.45. we will let ( M , g ) be an arbitrary space-time of &rnension n 2 3 throughout this section and let
M be a fixed null geodesic segment in -44. If we let V1(P) denote the W-vector space of ! , with (Y(t),P1(t)) = 0 for all all piecewise smooth vector fields Y along 3 t E [a, b ] , then pl(t) and t,B1(t) are both Jacobi fields in V1(P). k t h e r ,
0 . (a, b ] -+
Lemma 10.48. Let /3 : [a, b ] -+ ( M , g ) be a null geodesic segment. and let Y be any Jacobi field along P. Then (Y( t ) y(t)) , is an afine function of f Thus i f Y ( t l ) = Y(t2= ) 0 for distinct t l , t z E [a.b j . then ( Y ( t ) , f l ( t ) )= 0 for all t E [a, b ] .
Accordingly, we may restrict our attention to the following spaces of vector fields.
368
15
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAK MANIFOLDS
15.3
369
Definition 10.47. Let V L ( P )denote the R-vector space of all piecewise sinooth vector fields Y along
V $
(n,fll(0)) = -1.
Parallel translate n along
to obtain a null parallel field
with ( Y ( t ) , f l ( t ) ) = 0 for all t E [a,b]. Let Also set N ( P ( t ) )= (v E Tp(tjM :
(0) =(Y
v'@)
: Y (a) = Y {b) = 0).
(v. pl(t))= 01, and let

=
q along with ( ~ ( t P1(t)) ) , = -1 for all t E [a,b ] . Choose spacelike tangent e3j = 0 for ali vectors el. en,. . . ,en-2 6 Tp(o)M such that (n,e,) = (01(0), j = 1.2, . . ..n - 2 and (e,, e2)= 6 , ,for all J = 1,2,. .. ,n - 2. E x t e ~ d by par-
) . I
astsb
N(P(t)).
. . ,En-2 E allel translation to spacelike parallel vector fields El, E2,.

and set
n-2
vJ-(P),
For any Y E V L ( @ ) the , vector field Y' E V L ( P )may be defined using left-hand limits just as in Section 10.1. Since /3 is a smooth null geodesic.
(10.28)
CA,E,(~) :A, E R for
<j s n - 2
P1(t)E N ( p ( t ) )for all t
[a.b ] . Thus, following Bolts (1977, pp. 39-44). we make the follo\ving algebraic construction. Since N ( P ( t ) )is a vector space and
E
3=1
Then V ( P ( t ) )is a vector subspace of N ( P ( t ) )consisting of spacelike tangent vectors, and we have a direct sum decomposition
is a vector subspace of N ( P ( t ) )for each t E [a,b], we may define the quotient vector space for each t E [a:b ] . Set V ( P )= lJa<t5b V ( D ( t ) ) and , let % ( a ) = {Y E V ( O ) : Y ( u ) = Y ( b ) = 0). If P'(t) and ~ ( t are ) given, V ( P ) 1s independent of the particular choice of {el, en, .. . ,en-2) in Tp(o)lVI. However. if n E T p p ) M and hence 17 are changed: a different direct sum decomposition (10.29) may and the quotient bundle arise since the given Lore~ltzianmetric g restricted to .?-(,B(t))1s degenerate. Nonetheless, we may regard V ( P ( t ) )as being a geometric realization of the quotient bundle G(@) via the map Z Elements of G ( P ( t ) ) are cosets of the form v + [P1(t)], where 1; E N ( B ( t ) )and is the zero element of G(P(t))for each t E [a,b]. the vector subspace [P1(t)] Also 7: + [PJ(t)] = w + [@'(t)] in G ( P ( t ) ) if and only if v = w + XP1(t)for some
X E R. We may define a natural projection map
2.r
--+
+I'@(
from V(P):nto G ( P ) . It 1s
sum easily checked that this map is an isonlorphisin since (10.29) is a d~rect decomposition. We may dcfine the inverse isomorphism
: :V(P(t))4
G ( B ( t ) )by
for each t E la, b ] as follo~vs.Given v E G ( $ ( t ) ) , choo~i. any rr E N ( P ( t ) )with
(10.27)
('u) = TJ
+ [P1(t)].
The projection map 7i on each fiber induces a projection map 2.r : N ( P ) -+ G(P) given by r ( Y ) = Y + [P'], i.e., r ( Y ) ( t )= Y ( t ) + [P1(t)] E G(P(t)) for each
t E [a,b ] .
This quotient bundle construction may be given a (non-unique) geometric realization as follows. Let n E Tp(o)Mbe a null tangent vector with
~ ( x= ) TJ. Decomposing 3: uniquely as x = X/j"(t) zo with vo E V ( P ( t ) ) by (10.29), set 6(v) = vo. If any other X I E N ( P ( t ) )with 7i(zl) = .r, had been chosen. we would still have X I = p P ( t ) vo w ~ t h the same ' ~ ' 0 E V(B(t)) for some /I E R. Thus 6 is well defined. As a first step toward defining the index form on the quotient bundle G(P), we show how the Lorentzian metric, covariant derivat:ve, and curvature
370
10
10.3
371
tensor of (M, g) may be projected to G(P). First, given any u , w f G(P(t)). choose x,y f N ( P ( t ) )with n ( x ) = v and n ( y ) = w. Define B(v. w ) by
Given V E X ( P ) , choose X E V L ( 0 ) with T ( X ) = V . We then have X ( t ) = f(t)O1(t) B(V)(t)with 6 as in (10.30). According to (10.32),we may using B(V) as V f ( t ) = 7(VP(B(V))(t)) Now . B(V) satisfies thus calculate V 1 ( t )
(P1(t), O(V)(t)) = ( ~ ( tB(V)(t)) ), = O for all t E [a,61. Since 0 is a geodesic and

Suppose we had chosen Then x = z1
XI,
yl E N ( P ( t ) )with
= yl
~ ( 2 1 = )
v and ~ ( y l = ) w.
E R, arid thus
7j
is parallel along
3, we obtain on
diserentiating that (O1(t), V p t B ( V ) ( t )= )
+ XPf(t) and y
+ p/3'(t) for some X,p
( ~ ( tV )p , B(V)(t)) = 0 for all t E [a,b ] . Thus 'G?$'O(V) E V ( P ) . Hence we

obtain
g(x, Y) = g(al,yi)+Xg(yl.,3'(t))f ~ g ( x ~ , P ' ( t ) ) + ~ X g ( P ' ( t ) , P ' ( = t )y)( z l , y l ) . Hence g is well defined. It is also easily checked that B(v,w)= g(B(u), B(w))for all v, zli E G(P(t)).Hence the metric on G ( P ( t ) ) may be identified with the
x V(P(t)) is positive given Lorentzian metric g on V(O(t)).Since g 1 V ( P ( t ) )
(10.33)
6 ( V f ( t )= ) (B(V))'(t)
for all t E [a,b ]
where the differentiation on the left-hand side is in G(P) and on the rightcovariant hand side is in V(/3). Thus if we identify G(0) and V ( P ) using @, differentiation in G(P) and in
x G(P(t)) -t R thus definite for each t 6 [a,b ] . the induced metric 3 : G(P(t))
has the following important property.

Remark 10.48. Fhr each t E [a,b ] , the metric j j : G(P(t))x G ( P ( t ) ) -+ R
is positive definite.
V(0) are the same.
To project Jacobi fields and the Jacobi differential equation to G(/3).it 1s necessary to define a curvature endomorphism
We now extend the covariant derivative operator acting on vector fields along
P to a covariant
derivative operator for sections of G(F). We first introfor each t E [a,b ] . This may be done as follows. Given v E G(P(t)),choose any
3:
duce the following notation.
Definition 10.49. Let X(P) denote the piecewise smooth sections of the
quotient bundle G(P),and let
E N ( P ( t ) )with ~ ( x=)v, and set
This definition is easily seen to be independent of the choice of x 2: f ( B ( t ) ) with ~ ( x= ) v since R(P1, fil)Pf = 0. if 71 = Given V E X(@, choose X E V'(6) with n ( X ) = V. Set
T(X)
and u : = n ( y ) with x, y E
N(P(t)), it follows from (10.31) and (10.34) that
If XI E V L ( P ) also satisfies: x ( X 1 ) = V , then XI = X + jPf for some f : [a,b ] + R, and we obtain X I 1 = XI + f1p since P is a geodesic. Thus
Finally horn the symmetry properties of g ( R ( x ,g ) z , w)we obtain
x ( X l f( t ) ) = x ( X 1 ( t ) for ) all t E [a,b ] . Hence the covariant, derivative for X ( P ) given by (10.32) is well defined. It may also be checked that this covariant
differentiation is compatible with the metric g for G(P) and satisfies thc usual properties of a covariant derivative.
for all u , w E G(P(t)) With these preliminary considerat!ons completed, we are now ready to define Jacobi classes in G(P) [cf. Boltr (1977, pp 43-44)]
372
1 0
10.3
373
Definition 10.50. (Jacobi Class)
A smooth section V E X(P) is said to
be a Jacobi class in G(P)if V satisfies the Jacobi differential equation
A more precise relationship between Jacobi fields in the geometric realization V ( 0 )of G ( P ) and Jacobi classes in X(0) is given by the following lemma.
L e m m a 10.52. Let W he a Jacobi class in X(P). Then there is a Jacohi
field J E V ( P ) with r ( J ) = W iff the geometric realization 6(W)of W in V ( 0 )
where the covariant differentiation is given by (10.32) and the curvature endomorphism
a by (10.34).
IS a
satisfies the condition R(O(W),/3')p'/t E V ( P ( t ) )for all t E [a,b ] .
Given a Jacobi class W E X(P) with W ( a ) # [,@(a)]and W(b)# [ P ( b ) ] , we will see in the next series of lemmas that there two-parameter family
Proof. If J
V(P)and n ( J ) = W , we have @ ( W= ) J. But as J is a Jacobi
field, we then obtain
Jx
,of Jacobi fields of the form JA,, = J i- A/? + ptP1 in V i ( P ) , A. /I E R,

since J E V(P). Now suppose that R ( @ ( W ) /?')dl , E V ( @and ) J = 0 ( W ) . Then R ( J , /3')P1 =
, = W . Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that given a Jacobi with r ( J x )

class W E X(P), there may be no Jacobi field J in any geometric realization
V ( G ) for G ( P ) with z ( J ) = W . On the other hand, there will always exist

a Jacobi field J E V L ( P )with r ( J ) = W . But it may be necessary for J to have a component in
!/?'I.
The reason for this is made precise in Lemma
+ fi(W, P1)j3' = [PI] in G ( 0 ) ,we know that J must satisfy a differential equation of the form J" + R(J,P1)P1= fP1 in V L ( P ) .
R(O(W),,B')P1. Since W "
But if R(0(V),j3')fi1 = R(J,P1)@'E V ( P ) . the vector field J" -R(J,P)/3' is in
10.52. In the next series of lemrnas, we will use the geometric realization
VL(p) = [pl]@ V ( p )defined in (10.29).

Lemma 10.51. Let W be a Jacobi class of vector fields in G(@).Then
there is a smooth Jacobi field Y E
V ( P ) Hence by the deconlposition (10.29), J"
+ R(J,P1),D' = 0.
For the purpose of studying conjugate points, it is helpful to prove the following refinement of Lemma 10.51 [cf. Bolts (1977, pp. 43-44 )].
VL(0) with K ( Y ) = W . Conversely, i f Y
is
a Jacobi field in VL (P), then r ( Y )is a Jacobi class in G(B).

Proof. The second part of the lemma is clear, for if Y"
then
[P'] = r ( 0 ) = 7i(Y1' + R(Y,PI)@) = ( a ( Y ) ) l l +z(=(Y), PI)@.
+ R(Y,Pt)j3'
= 0,
Lemma 10.53. Let W E X ( P ) be a Jacobi class with W ( a )= [P1(a)] and W ( b ) = [/3'(b)]. Then there is a unique Jacobi field Z E vL(P) with ~ ( 2 =) W
and Z(a) = Z(b) = 0.
It remains to establish the first part of the lemma. Given the Jacobi class W. let Yl be a smooth vector field in the geometric realization V ( P ) with
Proof. From Lemma 10.51, we know that there exists a Jacobi field Y E VL(/3) with a ( Y ) = W . However, we do not know that Y ( a ) = Y ( b ) = 0. But
for any constants A, p E R, the vector field Y in V - ( a ) with 7i(Y + XPt+ pt?) some constants cl,c2 E
b-I [(clb- c2a)( b- a)-'
.ir(Y1) = W . Slnce W 1 ' + ~ ( W PI)@' , = [,@I in X(@),there is a smooth function f : [a,b ] 4 R such that Yl" R(Y1,pt)p' = fP1. Let h : [a,b] . R be a
+ XB' + /1t/3' is also a Jacobi field

and p =
smooth function with h" = f and set Y = Yl - hp'. Then r ( Y )= W , and
= W . Since x ( Y ) = W , W ( a ) = [/.?'(a)],
and W ( b ) = [,B'(b)],we know that Y ( a ) = c1,O1(a)and Y ( b ) = c2,B1(b)for
f 0' = Yl " + R ( & , /'3")P1
W. Choosing X
= (cza - c ~ b ) ( b a)-'
+ hfi')" + R ( Y + hot,P1)P' = Y" + h"P1 + R(V,Pt)P'

= (Y = Y"
+
fP'+ R(Y,P1)/3'.
O
- c2], it follows easily that Z = Y X,Bt - pt9' satlefies Z ( a ) = Z(b) = 0. For uniqueness, suppose that Zl is a second Jacobi field in V L ( @with )
r ( Z 1 )= W and Zl ( a ) = 21 (b) = 0 . Then X = Z1 - Z is a Jacob) field of the form X = hp' with X ( a ) = X ( b ) = 0. Since 0 = X" R(X,fl),B1 = h"O1 i
Therefore 0 = Y ' I
-+ R(V,,B')/?' as required.
374
25
15.3
3
-t
hR(P1, P1)F = h1'pP', it follows that h is an xffine function. As h ( a ) = h(b) = 0, we must have iz = 0. Therefore Z 1 = Z as required. C3
With Lemma 10.53 in hand, it is now possible to make the following definition. Recall also that if J is any Jacobi field along ,f3 with J ( t l ) = J ( t 2 ) = 0 for tl
Definition 10.56. (Energy Functzon)
Let y : [ c , d ]
(M,g) be
smooth nonspacelike curve. The smooth mapping E- : [c, d ]
-+
R given by
# t2, then J E Vi(p) (cf. Lemma 10.46).
is called the eneqy finct~on of 7 ,and the number E ( y ) = E,(d) is called ti energy of y. The energy of a piecewise smooth nonspacelike curve y is calculated 1 summing the energies over the intervals on which -/ is smooth just as in formu (4.1) for the arc length functional. If we let L y ( t ) = L(y j c , t ] ) , then tl Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields
Definition 10.54. (Conjugate Point) geodesic. For tl
Let ,B : [a,b] -+ ( M . g ) be a null t2 in [a, b ] , tl and t2 are said to be conjugate dong /3
if there exists a Jacobi class W
# [P']
in
X(0) with W ( t l )= [B1(tl)]and
W(t2) = [pl(t2)].Also t l E (a, b ] is said to be a conjugate point of ,B if t = a and tl are conjugate along 8. Let
Jt(P) = (Jacobi fields Y along P : Y ( a ) = Y(t) = 0)
and
Also. equality holds in (10.38) if and only if Ily'(t)11 1s constant. Thus equals
J@) = (Jacobi classes W E X ( P ) : W ( a ) = [P1(a)] and

W(t) = IB1(t)j).
holds for null or timelike geodesics. Recall that V - ( 8 ) denotes the space of piecewise smooth vector fields along ,B that are orthogonal to
0 and Y ( b ) = 0).
P', and @(@)
(Y E ~ ' ( 9 ) : Y(a)
The11 J t ( P ) C vi(@) and tl and t 2 are conjugate along f l in the sense of Definition 10.54 if and only if there exists a nontrivial Jacobi field J along /3 with J ( t 1 ) = J ( t 2 ) = 0. Also we obtain the following important result from the uniqueness in Lemma 10.53. Corollary 10.55. The natural projection map isomorphism for each t
E
T
Definition 10.57. (Index F o n )
The index f o n I : v-'(@) x V L ( P )-
W of the null geodesic P : [a,b ]

b
M is given by
Jt@)
(a, b ] . Thus
Tt(P) is finite-dimensional,
(10.39)
((X'. Y ' )- ( R ( X , P')P1.Y ) )dt
J,(,L?)is an
and also
for any X . Y E V-' (p). Formula (10.39) may be integrated by parts just as in the timelike c a (cf. Remark 10.5) to give the alternative but equivalent definition of the i~ dex form used in Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 114) and Bolts (1977, p. 110 Explicitly,
dim Jt(@ = dim &(p) for all t E (a, b]. We are now ready to study the index form of the null geodesic /3 : la, b ] --+ ( M , g ) . For the geometric interpretation of the index form, ~t will be useful to introduce a functionai analogous to the arc length functional for timelike geodesics, namely the energy functional. The reason for using energy rather than arc length is simply that the derivative of the function f (2)= f i does not exist at x = 0, but J--g(,l3'(t), ,@(t))= 5 for all t geodesic.
E
[a, b] if /3 is a null
376
10
where a partition a = to < tl < - .. < t k P l < t k = b has been chosen such that X 1 It,, taTljis smooth for i = 0: 1 , 2 , .. . , k - 1 and such that
f (b) = 0. and Y 6 V&(P)is arbitrary, then I ( X , Y) = 0. Thm the index forrr
I : Vo-(P) x V$($)
W is never negative definite and even worse, alwaytys ha
A,, ( X I ) = X ' ( a f ),
an infinite-dimensional null space. This suggests that the index form should be projected to G(D) [cf. Ifawking and Ellis (1973. p. 114). Bolts (1977, p. 111)] Recall that the notation X(@)was introduced for piecewise smooth sections o
A,, ( X ' ) = -X'(b-),

and
G(P), and Xo(P) = {W E X ( P ) : W ( a )= [P'(a)l, W ( b )= [P'fb)] 1.
Definition 10.58. (Quotient Bundle Index F o n n )

At, (X') = lim X 1 ( t )- lim X 1 ( t )
t-+t;t
The indea: form
7 : X(p) x X ( p )
(10.42)
R is given by
t-t;
f o r i = 1 , 2 ,..., k - 1 .
, such that the neighboring curves If a is a variation of the null geodesic @
[3(V',W ' ) - 3 @(v,P1)P1, W )] dt
are all null, then all derivatives of the energy functional vanish at s = 0 since
where V , W E X(P) and
E(a,) = 0 for all s. Thus it is customary to restrict attention to the following

class of variations.
g R, and the covariant differentiation of sectlons of G(P) are given by (10.31), (10.34), and (10.32). respectively.
Just as for the index form I : V L ( P )x V L ( p ) 4 IR, formula (10.42) may
Definition 10.58. (Admisszble Variation) A piecewise smooth variation cu : [a,b ] x ( - 6 , E) 4 A 4 of a piecewise smooth nonspacelike curve / 3 : [a, b ] -+
be integrated by parts to give the formula
M is said to be admissible if all the neighboring curves a, : [a,b ] + M given

by a,(t) = aft, s ) are timelike for each s
a . [a,b ]x ( - E ,
# 0 in ( - 6 ,
E).
Now suppose that for W E VL(P), there exists an admissible variation

E) +
where a partition a = t o
< tl < . - . <
< t k = 1, has been chosen such that
M with variation vector field a, d / d ~ / ( , = , ~W ) ( t )for each

Then d/ds [ E ( a , ) ]Is=, = 0 since p is a geodesic and
Vl[t,,t,,l] is smooth for i = 0,1, . .. .k - 1. In particular, if V is a smooth section of G(P) we obtain
E [a, b ] . Let
E(u,) be the energy of the neighboring curve a , : [a,b] -- M

t ) .
for each s E
(-E,
and if V is a Jacobi class in
X(P), we have
As E ( P ) = E ( a o ) = 0. we must have d2/ds2 [ E ( a , ) ]I,=,
> 0.
Thus a
necessary condition for W E VL(/3) to be the variation vector field of some admissible variation a of /3 is that I(TN, W ) 2 0. Note also that if the future null cut point to P(a) along P comes after P(b). then there are no admissible proper variations of Also, since vector fields of the form f(t)P1(t)are in the null spzce of the index form I . V L ( P )x Vi(P)
-+
R, for any X,Y E
vL(,B) with a ( X ) = V and
(cf. Corollary 4.14 and Section 9.2).
It is immediate from (10.39) that if X E
I/dF($')
sr(Y)= W , it follows that
is a vector field of the form

: [a, b ] -+
X ( t ) = f (t),B1(t) for any piecewise smooth function
R with f ( a ) =
378
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LORENTZIAN MANIFOLCS
10.3
379
where the index on the left-hand side is calculated in X ( P ) and on the righthand side in V L ( B ) . We saw in Section 10.1 that for timelike geodesic segments. the null space of the index form consists preciseljr of the smooth Jacobi fields vanishing at both endpoints. We now establish the analogous result for the index form 7on the quotient space Xo(Y) for an arbitrary null geodesic segment
: la, b ] --+ M.
it follows by continuity that AtJ ( Y ' ) E V ( P ( t 3 ) )for each j = 1.2,. . . ,k-1. Let
E V(P) be a smooth vector field urith X ( a ) = X ( b ) = 0 and X ( t 3 ) = A,, ( Y 1 )
for each j = 1 , 2 , . . . ,k - 1. Set Z = T ( X )E X o ( P ) Then we obtain
which yields At, ( Y 1 )= 0 for 3 = 1,2, . . . , k - I. Hence Y' is continuous at the

t,'s as required.
Theorem 10.60. For piecewise smooth vector classes W E Xo(P), the

following are equimlent:
(1) W is a smooth Jacobi class in Xo(/3).
Notice that in the first part of the proof of ( 2 ) + (1) of Theorem 10.60, we
5
(2)
I (W,Z ) = 0 for all Z

5
Xo (9).
do not know that Y"
+R(Y.fl)Y
V ( P )even though Y E V(O). Thus we

Thls is precisely
cannot conclude that Y is a Jacobi field except at the t,'s.
Proof. First. (1)

of showing (2)
(2) is clear from formula (10.45). For the purpose

field
the point In passing to the quotient bundle G ( P ) in which W"
+ z ( W ,pP')P'
+ ( I ) , fix the unique piecewise smooth vector
Y In the
lies in G ( P ) by construction and the induced metric g is positive definite on
geometric realization V ( P ) for G ( P ) given by (10.28) with r ( Y ) = W and
G(P) x G(P).
The aim of the next portion of this section is to prove the important result that the index form 7 : Xo(P) x Xo(/3) -t R is negative definite if and only if there are no conjugate points to t = a along ,B in ju, b 1. A proof of this result, which is implicitly given in Propositions 4.5.11 and 4 5.12 of Hawking and Ells (1973),is given in complete detail in Bolts (1977. pp. 117-123). Because the proof of negative definiteness differs considerably from the corresponding proof (cf. Theorem 10.22) for the timelike geodesics, we briefly outline the proof in the timelike case in order to clarlfy the differences. Recall that w-e first showed that arbitrary proper piecewise smooth variations a of a timelike geodesic segment have timelike neighboring curves a, for sufKciently small s It was then a conseqnence of the Gauss Lemma and the inverse function theorem that if c : u , b ] --+ M is a future direc:ed timelike geodesic segment without conjugate points. then for any proper piecewise smooth variation a of cj the neighboring curves a, satisfy L ( a , ) 5 L ( c ) for all
.s
Y ( a ) = Y ( b ) = 0. Let a = to < t1 < . . - < t k = b be a finite partition of [ a ,b ] such that Y / [t3,t3+1]is smooth for J = 0 , 1 , . .. ,k - 1. Let p : [a,b ] --+ R be a smooth function with p(t3) = 0 for each j with 0 5 j 5 i , and p(t) > 0
otherwise. Set Z = 7r(p(Y1' obtain
+ R(Y,/3')Pf)) E Xo(P).
Then from (10.43) we
Remembering that 3 is positive definite (cf. Remark 10.48), we obtain Wtl(tj+
R ( W ( t ) , P 1 ( t ) ) P ' ( t= ) [,Bf(t)] except possibly at the t3's. Thus JV / [tl, t,+l]is a smooth Jacobi class for each j. To show that W fits together at the tJ's to
form a smooth Jacobi class on all of [a,b ] , it is enough to show that the vector field Y in the geometric realization V ( P ) representing W is a 6' vector field
First observe that since W1'(t)
R(w ( t ) ./3'(t))P1(t)
k-1
[PI
(t)] except possiblj
at the t,'s, we have using (10.43) that
isufficiently small This
implied that the lndex form is negative semidefinite In the absence of conjugate points. Algebra~callv,we were then able to prove the negative definiteness. Conversely. if c had a conjugate point in (a,b ] we produced a piecewise smooth vector field Z E Vg'(c) of zero index csing a nontrivial Jacobi field guaranteed by the existence of a conjugate point to t = a.
0 = T(w, Z ) =
r;:3 ( Z ( t , ) . A , ( W 1 ) )
. ., t k ) .
and
j=1
for any Z E Xo(j3). Since Y E V ( P )we , have ( Y ( t ) ,P1(t))= ( Y ( t ) ,~ ( t )= : 0 for
) (Y1(t),7(t)) = 0 for t $ ( t o , t l . . all t E [a,b ] . Thus ( Y r ( t ) , B / ( t ) =
382
10
10.3
THE NULL MOXSE INDEX THEORY
383
For the purpose of the null index theory, however, we need to consider (1,1) tensor fields not on VL(P) but rather on the quotient bundle G(P). A (1,l) tensor field
-
Definition 10.61. (Jacob2 Tensor Fzeld)
2 = x(t)
A : G(P)
A snlooth (1.1) tensor field G(P) is said to be a Jacobz tensor if 3 satisfies the conditions
: G(P(t)) -+ G(P(t)) is a linear map for each
t E [a,b ] which maps vector classes to vector classes Using the projection of the covariant derivative to X(P) [cf. equation (10.32)],we may differentiate piecewise smooth (1,1) tensor fields in G(P(t)) and obtain the formulas and
for all t E [a,b]. and Condition (10.56) has the consequence that ~f Y E X(P) is any parallel vector class along since
+ provided is nonsingular. Since the projected metric 3 : G(P(-t)) x G(O(t)) R is positive definite, we may also define the adjoznt = z * ( t ) to the (1,1)
P: then J
= A(Y) is a Jacobi class along 8. This follows
x*
J"
tensor field A(t) for G(P(t)) by the formula
+ B(J,O')pl = Z"(Y) + Z A ( y ) = (A" + R;?)(Y) = 0

if
using Y' = 0 Condition (10 57) has the follow~ngimpllcatlon for all vector classes Z, W E G(P(t)) and all t E [a,b ] . We may also define the composed endomorphism
Yl ,Yn-2 are linearly Independent parallel sections of X(P). then ~ ( Y I ) .., A(Yn-2)are
fjz:G(P(t))
--,G(P(t)) by
!inearly Independent Jacobi sect~ons in the following sense. If XI.. real constants such that
.,
are
where 3 is the projected curvature operator given by (10.34). Also the kernel ker ( X ( t ) ) of the (1.1) tensor field z(t): G(P(t)) space
-+
for a l l t E [ a , b ] ,thenX1
=A2
=..,=X,-2=0.
G(P(t)) is the vector
The converse of the above construction may be used to show that Jacobi tensors exist,. Fbr let El. E z ,. . . . En-2 be the spacehke parallel fields spanning V(P) chosen ?n (10 28). Let class
~II
X(P) Also let J 1 , J z , . . . , Jr.-2 be the Jacobi classes along
z, = .;r(E,) be the corresponding parallel vector

-
with
-4 (1,1) tensor field x(t): G(fl(t)) , G(F(t)) is the zero tensor field, written
A = 0, if z(t)(w) = [P1(t)]for all w E G(P(tf) and all t E [a, b].

With these preliminaries out of the way, we are ready to define Jacobi and
initial conditions 5,(a) = [@'(a)] and T Z f ( a ) = F,(a) for z = 1 . 2 , . . . , n - 2. A Jacobi tensor 2 satisfying the initial conditions x ( a ) = 0, x 1 ( a ) = Id may then be defined by requiring that
Lagrange tensor fields.
384
10
10 3
T H E NULL MORSE INDEX THEORY
385
for each i = 1,2. . . . , n - 2 and extending to all G(P) by linearity. Since the JI3sare Jacobi classes and the z ' s are parallel classes in X(P), it follows that
given boundary conditions A(a) : G(B(n)) G(a(b)).
G(/?(a)) and A(b) . G(B(b)) --+
-1
A satisfies (10.56). To check that 3 satisfies (10.571, suppose that x ( t ) ( ~= )
A (tj(?;)= [P1(t)]for some E G(P(t)). Choose the unique v E V(P(t)) with ~(v= ) 'ii, and write v = x,E,(~). Then 'ii = X,F,(t), and we obtain [P1(t)]= -A(%) = ~:=;2 ~ ~ 5 %and (t)
' denote the space of (1.1) tensor fields in G(0) satisfying the Proof, Let J
differential equation
~rz
2" i-? i z =
0. A linear map $ : J' -+ L(G(P(a))) x

,M
L(G(P(b))) may then be defined by Q ( l ) = (z(a),A(b)). Since P : [a,b] has no conjugate points, Qj is injective. For if parallel vector class in X(P), then J [@'(a)] and J(b) = [Fi(b)] so that J =
=
+(x)= (0.0) and Y is any
X(Y) is a Jacobi class with J ( a ) = Slnce b is an injective h e a r map
.I'$[
' = ddim[L(G(P(a)))x L(G(P(b))) it follows that rp is surjective. 13 and dim J
1,
7 = ~:_;2 ~ ~is 5 a Jacobi % class in G(P) with J ( t ) = 5'(t)= [P1(t)]. 7 = [p'j. Thus X,Z,(s) = [P1(s)]for all s E [a, b], contradicting - the linear independence of the parallel classes El, E z , . .., Therefore ker(a(s)) n ker(zl(s)) = [@'(a)]for all s E [a, b] as required.
Thus Hence It is also useful to note the following result.
Even though tensor Rather,
R* and
(A1)*=
( A * ) ' , the adjoint 3' of a Jacobi

--* (zx)* ji R A
3 is not necessarily a Jacobi tensor since
in general
( R z )*
= 2 *R. Nonetheless, Jacobi tensors and thelr adjoints have
the following useful property which is conveniently stated using the Tironskian tensor field [cf. Eschenburg and O'Sullivan (1976, p 226), Bolts (1977. p. 23)) Definition 10.65. (Wronskian) G(0) given by Let
L e m m a 10.62- ker(x(so)) nker(xl(so)) = [pl(so)] for some so E [a, b] iff
A satisfies condition (10.57).

Proof. Suppose v E ker(X(s0)) n ker(X'(so)), v
along G(@). Then their Wronskian W(A, B ) is the ( I l l ) tensor field along
2 and B be two Jacobi tensors --
[P1(so)]. Let
Y be the
parallel class in T(,/i) with Y(so) = u. Then J = Z(Y) is a Jacobi class satisfying J(so) = A(u) = {@'(so)] and .J1(.so) = ~ ' ( z J= ) !P1(so)]. Hence
J =
[PI]
from which it follows that Y(t) E ker(z(t)) n ker(xl(t)) for all
It follows from the fact that R* = R and equations (10 51) and (10.56) that if 2 and B are any two Jacobi tensor fields along G(,f3), then [ W ( A B)!' ; = 0. Thus W ( A, B ) is a constant tensor field. It is then natural to consider the following subclass of Jacobi tensors. Definition 10.65. (Lagraege Tensor Fzekd) along G(P) is said to be a Lagrange tensor field if
-- -
t~[a,b]. The following two lemmas are not d~fficult to obtain from the relationship between parallel classes, Jacobi classes, and Jacobi tensors indicated above icf. Bolts (19771, p. 28 and p. 49)j.
X Jacobi tenbur field 2
L e m m a 10.63. The points @(to) and $(tl) are conjugate along the null
geodesic P : [a, b
W ( Z , Z )= 0.
M iff there exists a Jacobi tensor
x :G(P)
-+ G ( 0 ) with
For the proof of Proposition 10.68, W P need the following consequence of Definition 10.66.
A(to) = 0: z'(t0) = Id, and ker(Z(t1)) #
(p(tl)]).
Lemrna 10.64. Let /3 : [a,b] , A4 be a null geodesic without eonjugate points to t = a. The= there exists a unique smooth (1,l) tensor field A : G(P) -+ G(P) satisfying the differential equation RZ = 0 with
L e m m a 10.67. Let
some 30 E [a, b], then
2 be a
Jacobi tensor along G(P). If x ( s o ) = 0 for and in particular,
2 is a Lagrange tensor,
x" +
386
10
MORSE INDEX TEEORY ON LORENTZIAN MAXIFOLDS
10.3
Proof. We know that W ( 2 , X ) is a constant tensor already. But if Z ( s o ) = -0: then z*(so) = 0 also, and iletlce W ( x , X ) ( s o ) = 0. Thus W ( A , A ) = 0 as
required. JVe are now ready to prove the following important proposition
Proposition 10.68. Let ,i3 : [a,b ] -+ M be a null geodesic without conju-
Substituting into the above formula for 7
(~ w) : then yields
gate points to t = a in ( a ,b ] . Tl~eu P(W,W ) < 0 for all W E Xo(P), T.I'
# [P'].
Proof. Let ' ; l be the Jacobi tensor along G ( P ) with initial conditions X ( a ) =
0 and ~ ' ( a =)Id. Since ,!3 has no conjugate points, Lemma 10 63 implies that k e r ( z ( t )) = ( [ p l ( t ) ] for ) all t E (a,b ] Now let W E Xo(/3) be arbitrary. Since 2 is nonsingular in ( a ,b ] and W ( a ) = ip1(a)], we may find Z E X ( 0 ) with W = x(Z). By the rules for
covariant differentiation of tensor fields. we obtain
Now the first term vanishes since W ( a ) = :,!3'(a)]and W(b)= [pl(b)].Thus we obtain
and
W ) . First Now we are ready to calculate ?(w;
using (10.60). If Z i ( t ) = 0 for all t , then Z is parallel along 8 and hence
W =
X ( Z ) would
be a nontrivial Jacobi vector class along /3 with W ( a ) =
lP1(a)] znd W(b)= [/3'(b)].Since
3 has no conjugate points
in (a.l i ] , this is
impossible. Hence from the positive definiteness of 3 and the nonsingularity of A ( t ) for t E ( a ,b ] , we obta~n ?(I.I/, W ) < 0 as required.
=-i
= =
[ g ( 7 i i ( 2 )X , 1 ( 2 )) -k 2 3 ( Z 1 ( 2 Z(2')) ),
+ i j ( Z ( z ' ) . X ( z f ) )+ B ( ~ ~ ' ( Z ) , A ( dt Z))]
This proposition has the well-known geometric consequence in general relativity that if / 3 : [a,b ] -+ (M,g) is free of conjugate points, then no "small" variation of f l gives a timelike curve from p to q [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973:
p. 115)].
using (10.56) and (10.61). Now
We are now ready to prove the fnllowing theorem
~ ( X " ( Z )~ . ( 2= ) ij([Z1(.Z)]'. ) ~ ( 2) i) j(A'(Z1j~ , ( 2 ) )

[ g ( Z 1 ( zZ(z));l ), -~ ( Z ' ( Z [) X> ( Z )1') - g(Z1(z'),B(z))
[T ( 2 ' ( ~ ) , Z ( z -j g) (A ] '~ ( z ) , Z ( z l ) )- 3(A1(z),X'(z))
- 3(A1(z1),A(zj).
Theorem 10.69. Let following are equivalent.
O : [a,b ] ,M
be a null geodesic segment Then the
(1) The segment ,t3 has no conjugate points to t = a in (a,b ] .
( 2 ) f(W,W ) 4 0 for dl W E Xo(P), W # [pi:.
388
10
MORSE INDEX TWEGRY ON LOFtENTZIAN MANIFOLDS
10.3
T a E NULL MORSE INDEX THEORY
38s
Proof. We have already shown ( 1 ) + (2) in the proof of Proposition 10.68.
from @(a)to P(b) provided that t = a 1s conjugate to some to E ( a ,6) along

p. We thus give a separate proof of this result m Theorem 10.72 [cf. Hawking
To show (2)
+ ( I ) , we suppose @(a)is conjugate
to P(to) with O < t o 5 b
and produce a nontrivial vector class W E X o ( p ) with?(W, W )2 0. If ,/3(a) is conjugate to P(tof, we know that there is a nontrivial Jaeobi cl= with
and Ellis (1973, pp. 115-116), Bolts (1977, pp. 117-121); It For convenience, we will assume that /3 : [O. 1 1 -+
1s
first helpfu
Z E X(P)
to derive conditions for a proper varlstion of a null geodeslc to be admissible
so that the formulas lr
Z ( a ) = /P1(a)]
Set
and
Z(to) = [Pf(to)].
the proof of Theorem 10.72 will be simpler.
W ( t )=
Then
-
z(t)
ial(tji
a<tLto, to t 5 b.
M be a piecewise smooth proper variation o 0 such that each neighboring curve a , ( t ) = a(t,s ) 1s future timelike for s # 0 Let d / d t and a i d s denote the coordinate vector fields on [O, I] x ( - E . e ) , anc
(-t,~) -+
Now let a : jO. 1) x
put V = cr,(d/as) and T = a , ( d / a t ) . Then T / ( t , o )= P 1 ( t ) ,and Vl[,,,)is
I(W, W )= f (w, W)? -t 7(W,w)!',

= -g(Zi,
called the vanatoon vector field of the variation

= V/(,, ) = 0. Also, variation, V/(o,o)
CA
of ,B. Since a is a proper
2 ) 1 2s 0 = 0
since g ( T . T)j(,,,)< 0 for s # 0 and g(T,T)j(t,o) = g ( $ ( t ) , P ' ( t ) ) = 0. Calculating,
using (10.451, Z ( a ) = [PJ(a)], and Z ( t 0 ) = [,fj"(to)]. Thus (2) + ( 1 ) holds. -4s in the Riemannian and timelike cases (cf. Theorem 10.23); Theorem 10.69 has the following consequence which is essential to the proof of the Morse Index Theorem for null geodesics.
Theorem 10.70 (Maxirnality of Jacobi Classes). Let ,5 : [a,b j --+
be a null geodesic segment with no conjugate points t o t = a, and let J E X ( 0 ) be any Jacobi class. Then for any vector class Y E X ( P ) with Y f J ,
(10.63) we have (10.64) Y(a)=J(a),
and
Y(b)=J(b)
Thus since ,3 is a geodesic, we obtain
I ( J ;3) > f (Y,Y).
Proof. This may be established just as in Theorem 10.23 using (10.45) and
Theorem 10.69.
Now f (t) = g(V. T)l(t,o)is a piecewise smooth function with f ( 0 ) = f ( 1 ) = 0. Hence if f ( t )
Since the canonical variation (10.5) of Section 10.1 applied to a vector fie
# 0 for some t
61 0 , 11, there exists a to E (O,1) with f l ( t o ) > 0.
W E V'(@ is not necessarily an admissible variation of fi in the sense of D inition 10.58, Theorem 10.69 do- not imply the existence of a timelike c
Then
390
10
10.3
in contradiction to (10.65). Hence we obtain as a first necessary condition for
we obtain
a to be an admissible deformation of ,6 that
for all t E [0,I]. Thus V E V-(0). Consequently
This calculation yields the following lemma. for all t E [O, I]. It then follows from (10.67) that the neighboring curves a, of the variation will be timelike provided that the variation vector field satisfies (10.66), (10.67). and the condition that d 2 / d s 2 ( g ( T ,T))l(t,O) < -c < 0 for all
ation a11 s
Lemma 10.11. A sufficient condition for the plecewise smooth proper vari[0,1] x ( - e , ~ )-+ A4 of the null geodes~cD [0,I] -+ M to he an CL.
[I
adrnlsslble varlatlon
e , the curves cx,(t) = a(t s ) are tlrnellke for s j O] for
E (0:1). As above,
# 0 suficientlysmall is that the vanation vector field V ( t )= ~ ~ . , d / d $ l ( ~ , ~ )
satisfies the condltlons

(10.68) Hence (10.69)
g ( ~ ( t ) , p ' (= t )0 ) d -(g(T T))/(t,O = )0 ds
for all t E {O,I]: for

f
E [O,l:; and
for all t E (O,1) at which V is smooth. We are now ready to prove the desired result [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 115)) Using the identities
Theorem 10.72. Let
P : [0,1]-+M be a null geodesic. If ,!3(to)is conju-
gate to F(0) along /3 for some to E (0. I ) , then there is a timelike curve from
a(of tool-1).
Proof. We uiill suppose that to > 0 is the first conjugate point of B(0) along
and
ValatTllt), = 'ValatP1lt= 0 ,
0. It is enough to show that for some t2 wlth to < ta 1. there is a future directed timelike curve from $(O) to $(t2).For then we have B(O) < B(tz)<
<
392
10
10.3
THE NULL lvIORSE INDEX THEORY
P(1) whence P(O) < P ( 1 )
Thus there exists a timelike curve from B(0) to
Because W is a Jacobi class, we obtain
P(1). Since P(to) is conjugate to B(0) dong ,D, there exists a smooth nontrivial and W ( t o ) = [$'(to)]. W-e may 3acobi class W E X(3) with W ( 0 ) = {fl(O)] write
o = 3 (w", a(wpl)pt,%)
= fIi
+ 2ft3(w,@-) + f g ( W , @) + f 3 (R(*,pl)P'.
fh.
= $(l)' = 0, we obtain the formllla
= f"+2f1?j(lV'.*)+
But since g($, @) =
a(g(@, I@))'
f" =
where @ I is a smooth -vector class along /? with g(%,
I & ' ) = 1 and f : [O, I ] --+
-fh. Returning to consideration of the vector class 2, first note that by choice
and z ( t l ) = [P1(tl)]. In view of the constants a and b, we have z ( 0 ) = [P1(0)] --/I -of formula (10.70), we wish to have g ( Z , Z + R ( Z , P 1 ) P 1> ) 0 also. Setting yields
a smooth function. Since to is the first conjugate point along P, f (0) = f ( t o ) =
0 , and changing t % ' to -T@
if necessary, we may assume that f ( t ) > 0 for
all t E (0,to). Since W is a nontrivial Jacobi class and W(to)= [$'/(to)]. we have Url(to) # [P1(to)]. Thus from the formula W1(to) = fl(to)I&'(to) +
r ( t ) = b(eat - 1) + f ( t ) remembering that 7j(lvi/', I % =' 0. ) and dderentiating ij(Z,Z1' + x ( Z ,pl)pl) = r(rU+ r h ) = r[beat(n2 + h ) - hh + fl' + fh].
Since f" = -f h. we obtain
f (to)@'(to) = f'(to)l.i/(to), we obtain fl(to) # 0. Hence we may choose tl E (to. 1 1 such that W ( t )# $'(t)] and f (f) < O for all t E (to, tl].
With tl as above, the idea of the proof 1s now to show that there exists a t2 E (to, t l ] such that there is an admissible proper variation cu : [0,t2] x (-e, 1 M of ,B I [O, tz]. Then the neighboring curves a, of the variation a will be timelike curves from P ( O ) to O ( t 2 ) for s $ 0 . This will then imply that F ( O ) < P(1) as required. To this end, we want to deform W 1 [0,t l ] to a vector class Z 1 [I). t2] - -11 with 7.j ( 2. Z ot)@l) > 0 so that if Z E V L ( P )is a n appropriate lift of Z E X($ / [0,t z ] )and a is a variation of ,B 1 [O: tz] with variation vector field Z , then conditions (10.69) and (10.70) of Lemma 10.71 will be satisfied. Consider a vector class of the form
Noiv b = -f (tl)(eatl- 1) > O as f ( t l ) < 0. so the expression b(eat[a2 --I/ -h ( t ) ]- h ( t ) ) > 0 for all t E [0,t l ] . Thus g ( Z , Z R ( Z , ,LY)O1)It > O provided
r ( t ) > 0. Since f (t)> 0 for t E (O,to), we have r(t) > 0 for t E (0,to]. B y continuity, there is some t z > to with r ( t ) > 0 for t E [to, t z ) and r ( t z ) = 0. If
t2
+a@,
> t l r then in fact t 2 = t l since r ( t l ) = 0 by construction, and we let tz = tl

< tl, then the vector class Z / 10,tz] will satisfy Z ( t a ) = [Pr(t2)] --,I +R ( Z .P')F1)lt > 0 for all t E (0,t a ) We now
below. If tz
since r ( t z )= 0 and also g ( Z , Z work with ,B 1 [O, t 2 ] .
with b = -f (tl)(eatl- I)-'
E R and a
> O in R chosen such that
Let 2 E V L ( PI [0,t z ] )satisfy a ( 2 ) = Since z(0)= [,LY(O)] and Z ( t 2 ) = [pt(t2)] we , have Z(0) = pP1(0)and Z(t2) = XP1(t-,) for some constants p. X E R. Set Z = 2 - p,8' + [ ( j i - X)/t2]t01. Then Z ( 0 ) = Z ( t a )= 0 and 7i(Z) = 2. Consequently
- z.
(a2+ glb(h(t) : t E [O, t l ] ) )> 0,

where for all t E ( 0 ,t 2 ) . Chowe a constant
E
> O SO that
h(;) = g(*
+ K(I@,B')P', .1,
(10.73)
< glb {g ( Z 1 ' ( t + ) R ( z ( t ) . P 1 ( t ) ) P ' f tZ ) .( t ) ) : t G
[?, 2 1 )
394
10
10.3
395
which is possible in view of (10.72). Now define a function p : [O: tP] -+ R by

-t
Corollary 10.73. The null cut point of ,B : [O, a ) -r M comes at or before
o i t i 2 ,
the first null conjugate point.

,
(t-2)
~(t2 -t)
:
9 5L5t2.
h 4 < - t < -& 4
We are at last ready to turn to the proof of the T\/iorse Index Theorem for
null geodesics The proof parallels that of the Timelike Morse Index Theorem.
We now have a given vector field Z E V&(P / [0,t z ] ) and a given function
G ,
Theorem 10.27. In view of Theorem 10.69, the index ind(0) and the extended index Indo(@)of
(0.t2]-+ R. Recall that we had fixed a pseudo-orthonormal frame field El. E2,. .. .En-?. 7,@' for ,6 with (?,pi) = -1 in (10.28). We now need to find a proper variation a : [O, tz]x ( - E , E ) --+ M of ,B / [O, t2]satisfying the initial
with respect to the index form
Xo(P) x Xo(P)
-+
should be defined as follows.

Definition 1 0 . 7 ' 4 . (Index and Extended index)
The zndex Ind(P) and
conditions
extended znde.c Indo(P) of P with respect to the index form -f : Xo(O) x X o ( 0 ) --+
R are given by
and Ind(p) = lub {dim A : A is a subspace of Xo(p) and and for all t E [O, t2]. Thus we wish to specify the first and second derivatives of the curves s
-+
A x A is positive definite )
a ( t ,s) for each t E [O, tzj. The existence of such a deformation
Indo(Oj = lub {dim A : A is a subspace of Xo(P) and respectively. As a preliminary step toward establishing the null index theorem, we need the following lemma.
is guaranteed by the theory of differential equations applied to (10.74) and

(10.75) written out in terms of a Fermi coordinate system for the geodesic
f 1A x A
is positive semidefinite
),
defined by the pseudo-orthonormal frame El. E2,.. . , En-2, 7,pl. Given the proper variation cu of ,O 1 [O, tz] satisfying (10.74) and (10.75) arid setting T = a,a/dt and V = a,d/ds as above, it follows that
Lemma 10.75. If ,l3 / [ 5 , t ]is free of conjugate points, then give11 ary v f
G ( P ( s ) ) and
i i j E
G ( P ( t ) ) ,there is a unique Jacobi class
X(P) with
Hence
d
Z(5) = i j dnd Z(t) = a.
( g ( V a / a s Vp') , + Q(V,V')) /(,,o) dt
=~ ' ( t = )
ost<g, ?st<?,
y<t<tz
(10.70)
Proof. Let v E V(P(s)) and
zu 6 V(P(1)) satisfy ~ ( v = ) Ti
and ~ ( w= )E
By the nonconjugacy hypothesis, there is a unique Jacohi field J 6 VL(/?) with .7(.9) = a and J ( t )= a,. Then Z = ~ ( 5 is)a Jacobi class in X ( 3 ) with
Z(s) = 5 and Z ( t ) = E.
Thus in vlew of (10.73), the variation a of
P I [O. ta] satisfies condition
of Lemma 10.71. Applying Lemma 10 71, we find that this variation produces timelike curves a, from P(0) to P(t2) for smail s f 0 as required. U
Suppose now that Zl is a second Jacobi class in X(B) with Z l ( s ) = 5

7i(JI)
and Zl(t) = E. By Lemma 10.51, there 1s a Jacobi field JI E VL(fi) wlth = ZI. Sirice Z l ( s ) = B and Zl ( t ) = a,~t follows that Jl(s) = v clfl (s)
398
10
MORSE INDEX THEORY ON LOWNTZIAN MANIFOLDS
contradiction. Hence Ind'(0) proposition.
< dimB as required, completing the proof of the
ti
Now that we have obtained Proposition 10.76, it i,i straightforward to see that the proof of Theorem 10.27 of Section 10.1 may be applied to the index form f : G(P) x G(P) -t R and the projected positive definite metric ? to j yield the equalities
CH.4PTER 11
SOME RESULTS I N GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
In Chapter I1 we apply the techniques of the preceding chapters to obtain and Lorentzian analogues of two remarkable results in global Riemannian geometry. The first, the Bonnet-Myers Diameter Theorem, asserts that if a complete Riemannian manifold AT has everywhere positwe Rlccl curvature bounded away Since dimjt(/3) = dim Ji(/3) by Corollary 10.55, we have thus established the following Morse Index Theorem for null geodesics. from dero, then N is compact, has finite dlameter. and has finlte fundamental group. The second result, the Hadamard-Cartan Theorem, states that if a corilplete Riernannlan manifold has everywhere nonpositlve sectional curvature, then its universal cowring manifold is diffeomorphic to higher hoinotopy groups r,(Ai, *) = (e) for z
Theorem 10.77. Let @ : [a,b] -t M be a null geodesjc in an arbitrary space-time Let 7 : Xo(0) x Xo(P) -+ lft be the index form on plecewise
smooth sections of the quotient bundle G(P) defined in (10.42). Then
IRr" and thus the
0 hhas
2 2.
In addition. the un~versal
only finitely inany conjugate points, and the index Ind(P) and extended index
Indo(P) off : Xo (P) x Xo (P) -t R are related to the geodesic index of the null geodesic P by the formuias Ind(P) = dim J t ( @
t(a,b)
covering space with the pullback Riemannian metric has the property that any two points may be joined by exactlj one geodesic, up to reparametrization. In Section 11.1 we consider the Loreritzian a~lalogue of the Bonnet-Myers Theorem and in so doing, study the timelike diameter of space-times The
tzmelake dzameter diam(M, g ) of a space-time (M, y) is given by

diam(M. g) = sup(d(p, q) : p, q E A l ) .
and Classes of space-times with finlte timellke dlameter, lncludlng the "Wheeler universes," have been studied in general relativltg [cf. Tipler (1977c p. 500)j. where
&(a)denotes the vector space of jacobi fields Y along P with Y ( a ) =
If a complete Riemannian manifold has finite dlameter, ~t is compact by the Nopf-Rillow Theorem. Even so, all geodesics have znfinzte length as a result of the metric completeness. But for spitce-times (M, g ) since L(y) 5 d(p. q) for all future directed nonspacelike curtes 7 from p to q. evenj timelike geodesic must satisfy L(r)
U ( t ) = 0.
Extensions of Theorem 10.77 to the focal case of a null geodesic segment perpendicular to spacelike endmanifolds have been given irr Ehrlich and Kim (1989a,b), Studies of spacelike conjugate points have recently been made in Helfer (1934a,b).
< diam(M, g). Thus if a space-tlme ( M .g ) has finite timelike
diameter, all timelike geodesics have finite length and hence are incorilplete.
In particular, a space-time (M.g) with finite timelike diameter is timelike

geodesically incomplete.
3 99
400
11
SOME RESULTS IN GLOBAL LORENTZIAX GEOMETRY
11.1
THE TIMELIKE DIAMETER
401
Since we have adopted the signature convention (-,
+,. . . , +) for the Lor-
ity guarantees the existence of at least one (maximal length) geodesic segment joining any two causally related points. However, it does not yield any information about points which fail to be causally related. Furthermore, geodesic completeness does not imply geodesic connectedness for Lorentzian manifolds. In fact, even compact space-times may fail to be geodesically connected (cf. Example 11.23). SufKcient conditions for geodesic connectedness are given in Proposition 11.22 in terms of disprisonment, pseudoconvexity, and a lack of conjugate points along all geodesics. In Theorem 11.25 we find these conditions actually suffice for our second version of the Kadamard-Cartan Theorem This result yields sufficient conditions for the exponential map at any fixed point to be a diffeomorphism from its domain in the tangent space onto the manifold
entzian metric instead of (+,-, . - . ,-), curvature conditions of positive (respectively, negative) sectional curvature for Riemannian manifolds trw-slate
a s curvature conditions of negative (respectively, positive) timelike sectional curvature for Lorentzian manifo!ds. Using the timelike index theory developed in Section 10.1, we obtain the fol!owing Lorentzian analogue of the Bonnet-Myers Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds. Let ( M ,g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time with either (1) all nonspacelike Ricci curvatures positive and bounded away from zero, or
(2) all timelike sectional curvatures negative and bounded away from zero.
Then ( M ,g) has finite timelike diameter. In Section 11.2 we give Lorentman versions of two well-known comparison theorems in Eemannian geometry, the index comparison theorem and the Rauch Comparison Theorem. Using the latter of these two results, we are able to give an easy proof (Corollary 11.12) of the basic fact that in a spacetime with everywhere nonnegative timelike sectional curvatures, the differential expp* of the exponential map,
M.
11.1
The Timelike Diameter
Motivated by the concept of the diameter of a complete Riemannian manifold, the following analogue has been considered for arbitrary space-times [cf. Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, Section 9)]. Definition I f . I . (Timelike Dzameter) The tzmelzke dzameter of the
is norm nondecreasing on nonsparelike tangent vectors. In Section 11.3 u-e consider two analogues of the Nadamard-Cartan Theorem. The first of these is for future one-connected globally hyperbol:1c spacetimes. The space-time ( M . g ) is said to be future one-connected if for any p, q E M with p
space-time (M,g ) , denoted by diam(M, g), is defined to be diam(M, g) = supid@, q) : p, q G M ) .
A similar concept has been used by Tipler (1977a. p. 17) m studying singuiarity theory in general relativity. Physically. the timel~ke diameter represents the supremum of possible proper times any particle could possibiy experience in the given space-time. A space-time of finite timelike diemeter is singular (recall Definition 6.3) in a striking way.
Remark 11.2. If diarn(M, g)
< q,
any two smooth. future directed timelike curves with
endpoints p and q are homotopic through smooth. future directed timelike curves with endpoints p and q. Using the hlorse theory of the timelike path ( , . ) space C from Sectlon 10.2, it may be shown that if (M,g) is a future one-connected globally hyperbolic space-time with no nonspacelike conjugate points, then given any p, q E M with p << q, there is exactly one future directed timelike geodesic segment (up to parametrization) from p to q (cf. Theorem 11.16). A Lorentzian manifold is said to be geodesically connected if each pair of distinct p o i ~ t s is joined by at least one geodesic segment. Global hyperbolic-
< m, then
-+
all timelike geodesics have length
less than or equal to diam(M, g ) end are thus incomplete. Proof. Suppose that c
(a, b)
M is a timelike geodehic which satisfies
L(c) > diam(N,g). We may then find s, t E (a;b), 5 < t , such that
402
1 1
SOME RESULTS IN GLOBAL LORENTZI.4N GEOMETRY
11.1
T H E TIMELIKE DIAMETER
403
But then
d(c(.s),e ( t ) )2 L(c / :s, t
for singularity theory in general relativity [cf. Section 12.2 or Hawking and
1) > diam(M. g)
Ellis (1973. Section 4.4)].
which is impossible. From a physlcal point of view. the most interesting space-times of finite timelike diameter are the Wheeler universes [cf. Tipler (1977c, p. 500)]. In particular, the "closed" Fhedmann cosmological models are examples of Wheeler universes. For a complete Riemann~anmanifold ( N .go), the diameter is finite if the manifold is compact. In this case. we may always find two points of Ai whose distance realizes the diameter. On the other hand, for space-times with finite timelike diameter, the diameter is never achieved.
Definition 11.5. (Tzmelzke Two-Plane)

tangent vector and a timelike tangent vector.
A tzmellke two-plane 0 is a two-
dirnenqional subspace of T,M for some p M which is spanned by a spacelike
Recall that the sectional curvature K ( o ) of the timelike two-plane spacelike tangent vector and setting
may
be calculated by choos~nga basis {v.w) for u consisting of a timelike and a
Remark 11.6. Rather than considering all sectional curvatures. zt is esProposition 11.3. Let (34,g) be an arbitrary space-time. and suppose that there exist p , q E M such that d(p, q) = diam(M, g). Then d(p. q) = oo. Proof. Suppose d ( p , q ) = diam(.%f:g) < m, Let q' E If ( q ) be arbitrary. Then
d ( p , 9')
sential to restrict attention to timelike sectional curvatures for the following reason. If (M,g) is a space-time of dimension n 1 3 and the sectional curvature function of ( M , g ) is either bounded from above for all nonsingular two-planes or bounded from below for all nonsingular two-planes, then (M,g) has constant sectional curvature [Kulkarni (1979)'. Here a two-plane a 1s said v)g(w, w) - [g(v,m)I2# 0 for some (and hence for to be nonszngular ~fg(v, any) basis {v.w) for a.On the other hand, space-times with all tzmelzke secsectional curvatures K(u) 2 k2 tional curvatures K ( a ) 5 -k2 or a11 timel~ke exist. But Harris (1982a) has shown that if all timelike sectional curvatures are bounded both from above and below, then (iM,g) has corlstant sectional curvature. Thus no obvious analogue for the Lorentzian sectional curvature exists for pinched Riemannian rnanifoids [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975. p 118) for Riemannian pinching].
L d(p: 9 ) + 4% p') > d(p, 9 ) = diam(M, gl
in contradiction. C Recalling that globally hyperbolic spacetimes satisfy the finite distance condition (cf. Definition 4.6), we have the following corollary to Proposition 11.3.
Corollary 11.4. (1) The timelike diameter is never realized by any pair of
points in a space-time of finite timelike diameter.
(2) The timelike diameter is never achieved in a globally hyperbolic spacetime

T V e now prove the Lorentzian analogue (Theorem 11.9) of Bonnet's Theorem and Myers' Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975. pp. 27-28)], Similar results have been given by Avez (seminar lecture), Flaherty (unpublished), Uhlenbeck (1975, Theorem 5.4 and Corollary 5 4 , and Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, Theorem 9.5). Also, Theorem 11.9 is contained implicitly in stronger results using the Raycl~audhuriequatiori needed
. . . .+) used here for Lorentzian metWith the signature convention (-: i-,
rics, curvature conditions in Riemannian geometry for complete Riemannian manifolds of positive (respectively, negative) sectional curvature tend to correspond to theorems for globally hyperbolic space-times of negative (respectively, positive) sectional curvature. On the other hand, if we change this signature convention to (+, -, . . . , -) by setting
(M, g) = (M, -g) , then
K(3) = -K(g). Thus Riemannian theorems for pos~tive(respectively. nega-
404
11
SOME RESULTS IN GLOBAL LORENTZlAN GEOMETRY
11.1
T H E TIMELIKE DIAMETER
405
tive) sectional curvature correspond to Lorentzian theorems for positive (respectively, negative) sectional curvature for (M,tj) [cf. for instance Flaherty (1975a, pp. 395-396) where the convention (+, -,
the other band, if c 1 10, Lj is free of conjugate points, then I(W,. W,f < O for each i by Theorem 10.22. Hence c has a pair of conjugate points if L
as required.
> T/&,
. . . :-)
is used]. But whether
13
g or ij is chosen as the Lorentzian metric for M , Ricfg) = Ric(6). It is convenient to isolate part of the proof of Theorem 11.9 in the folfotving proposition. &call the notation V&(c) from Definition 10.1.
A slight variant of Proposition 11.7 may also be proved similarly using the
Timelike Morse Index Theorem (Theorem 10.27).
Proposition 11.8. Let (M,g) be an arbitrary space-time of dimension
Proposition 11.7. Let (M,g) be an arbitrary space-time of dimension
n satisfying either (or both) of the curvature conditions of Proposition 11.7.
n 2 2. Suppose that (M, g) satisfies either the curvature condition (1) Every timelike plane 0 has sectional curvature K ( a ) or the curvature condition (2) Ric(g)(v, v) 1 (n- 1)k > O for aII unit timelike tangent vectors v E
< -k
If c : [a,b ] -+ M
i 0,
is any timelike geodesic with L(c) > 7r/&,
then t = a is
b), and hence c is not maximal. conjugate along c to some to E (a,
Proof. Using L(c) > n/& and the same vector field ti/; a s in the proof of Proposition 11.7, we obtain this time that
n-1
TM.
Then if c : [D, b ] -+ M is any timelike geodesic with L(c) 2 TI&, the geodesic segment c has a pair of conjugate points. Prooj. Since curvature condition ( 1 )implies curvature condition (2) by taking the trace, we will prove that condition (2) implies the desired conclus~on. Hence I(Ur2, I/Yd)
CI(W%,W%) > 0.
%=I
> O for some i.
Thus Ind(c)
> O. By the Timelike hIorse

0 for some t E (a. 6). This
Index Theorem (Theorem 10.27), dim Jt(c) completes the proof.
L] --, A 4 is parametrized as a unit For convenience, we will suppose that c : [0, L]. and speed tinlelike geodesic with length L. Set En(t) = ct(t) for all t E [O,
let (El,E 2 , .. . ,En-l) be n - 1 spacelike parallel vector fields along c such that {El(t). Ez(t), . . . ,En(t)) fornls a Lorentzian orthonormal basis of T'(l)lM for each t E (0,L]. Set liV,(t)= sin(xt/L)E,(t), so that VnJ, E q ( c ) . Using equation (10.3) of Definition 10.4, we obtain
Now we are ready to give the Lorentzian analogue of the Bonnet Myers Diameter Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds.
Theorem 11.9. Let (M, g) be a globally hyperbolic space-time of dimen-
sion n satisfying either of the following curmture conditions:

(1) K ( o )
< -k
< 0 for all timelike sectional curvatures K ( o ) .
(2) Ric(%, a ) 2 (n - l)k > O for a l l unit timelike vectors v E T M .
Then diam(M, g) I 7i./&. Pmof. Suppose that &am(M,g) Hence with d ( p ,q )
>
7i/&
We may then find p , q E M by defin~tionof diam(M,g). S~nce(M,g) 1s globally
> n/&.
hyperbolic, there exists a maximal tlrnellke geodesic segment c : 1 0 , 1 1 -- M with c(O) = p, c(1) = q. But as L(c) = d ( p , q ) > n/&, the geodmic segment c is not maximal by Proposition 11.8, in contradiction. U If Ric(c'(t),ct(t)) 2 (n- l)k for all t E [O. L]and I(WL, Ws)
L2
Ti/&,
we find that
> 0.
It is clear that an analogue of Proposition 11.8 could be obtained for null geodesics using the null index theory developed in Section 10.3. However. a
Hence I(W,,W,) 2 0 for some i E ( I , ? , . . . , n - 1). On
406
I1
SOME RESULTS IN GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
11.2
LORENTZIAN COMPARISON THEOREMS
407
stronger result may be obtained using the Raychaudhuri effect [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 101)]. Thus we refer the reader to Section 12.2 for a discussion of these results rather than pursuing this analogy any further here [cf. also Harrls (1982a)l. In addition to extensive results in the general relativity literature along the lines of Proposition 11.8, obtained using Raychaudhuri
techniques. disconjugacy theory of O.D.E.'s has also been applied in this set-
a timelike geodesic c and the index Indic) and extended index Indo(c) of c are
defined in Section 10.1, equation (10.1) and Definition 19 24. respectivel?.. T V e first need to define an isomorphism
4 : vl(cl)
-+
v~(c~)
so that g2(4X(t).q X ( t ) ) = g l ( X ( t ) ,X ( t ) ) for all t E 10. L] This may be done following the usual parallel translation constructron We first define an rsometry
in
ting (cf. Tipler (1978), Galloway (1979), Kupeli (19861, just to single out a few of many possible references).
Riemannian geometry
4t : Tc, :t)fif~
11.2
Tc,(t)Al,
Lorentzian Comparison Theorems
as follows. Let
Pt : T c l ( t ) M ~ T,,(G)MI
+
For use in Section 11.3 as well as for their own intrinsic interest, we now present the timelike analogues of two important tools in global Riemannian geometry: the index comparison theorem [Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, p. 174)] and the Rauch Comparison Theorem [Gromoll, Klingenberg, and Meyer (1975, p. 178) or Cheeger and Ebin (1975, p. 29)]. The results in this section, except for Corollary 11.12, have been published in Beem and Ehrlich (1979c, Section 9). Actually, there are two versions of the b u c h Comparison Theorem, often called Rauch Theorem I and Rauch Theorem 1 1 , that are useful in global Riemannian geometry [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975, Theorems 1.28 and 1.29, respectively)]. The result (Theorem 11.11) given in this section is the Lorentzian analogue of Rauch Theorem I. Harris (1979, 19S2a) has given proofs of Lorentzian analogues for both Rauch Theorems I and I1 and using Rauch Theorem I1 has given a Lorentzian version of Toponogov's Comparison Theorem [cf. Cheeger and Ebln (1975, p. 42)j for timelike geodesic triangles in certain classes of space-times. Using this result, Karrls (1979, 1982a) has aiso obtained a Lorentzian analogue of Toponogov's Diameter Theorem [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975, p. 110) and Appendix A]. In the rest of this section, let (MI,gl) and (A42,92) be arbitrary space-times with dim n/r, 5 dim &if2. Also let c, : [O, L] -+ M,, z = 1,2, be unit speed future directed timelike geodesic segments. Throughout this section we will denote both the index form on ~ ' ( c l ) arid V1(cz) by I. Also, during the proofs we will denote both Lorentzian metrics gl and g2 by ( , ). The index form I for
denote the Lorent7ian inner product-preserving isomorphism of parallel translation along rl. Explicitly, given u field along cl with Y(t) = v, and set
TC,(,)IMI,let Y be the unique parailel
Pt(v) = Y ( 0 ) .S~milarly. let

+
Qt : Tc,(,)hf2
TC2(0)M2
denote parallel translation along cz. Cnoose an injective Lorentzian inner product-preserving linear map
i : (T,,(o).MI.
l,,(o))
-+
(Tcs(0)1~2. g21cz(o))
where i(cll(0)) = czt(O). Then the map

Qt : (TC,(tpfl. 9llc,(t)) +
( Z 2 , t ) n / f g21c2!t)) ,,
given by
Ot
= Q,'
o i o Pt 1s an isometry since parallel translation preserves
the Lorentzian structures. We may then define the map
4 : vL(cl) + vL (4
as follows. Given X E VL(cl). define OX E vL(c2) by ((OXj(t) = Qt(X(t)).
It follows as in the Riemannian proof that (QX)' = q ( X 1 ) ,where the first covariant differentiation is in M2 and the second is in hif~
Let 6 2 , t ( denote ~ z ) the set of ail timelike planes
i = 1.2. There is then an induced map
0
containing c,'(t) for
4t : Gz,t(cl)
defined as follows. If
(T
-+
G2,t(c2)
g
G Z , t ( ~ l we ) may write
= span(v.cl1(t)) where v
is spacelike. Put & ( v ) = span{&(u), czl(t)) E G2 t(c2)
408
11
SOME RESULTS IN GLOBAL LOREXTZIAN GEOMETRY
11.2
LORENTZIAN COMPARISON THEOREMS
'
respective
We are now ready to state the timelike version of the index comparison theorem.
Let Yl E VL(c:) and Yz E VL(c2) be Jacobi fields on -211 and satisfying the initial conditions
Theorem 11.10 (Timelike Index Comparison Theorem). Let ( M I , 91) and (M2.92) be space-times with dim MI I dim M2, m d let
MI and c2 : [O,@] -+ M2 be unit speed, future d~rected cimelike O and dl timelike planes a E G2,t(c1) geodesics. Suppose for a21 t with 0 5 t 5 ,
+
cl : [0,p]
and
a )2 % ( d i m ) . that the sectional curvature KMl( we have

(1)
Then for any X E v1(cl)
I(X,X) I I(OX, 4 x 1 ;
rf cz ha? no conjugate points t o t = 0 in (0) L), then
(2) Ind(c1) 5 Ind(c2); and (3) Indo(s) 5 Indo(c2).
Proof.Recalling that (cl', el') = -1 and (X, cl') = 0, we obtain
for all t E (0,L]. In particular. cl has no conjugate points to t = 0 in (0. L ) Proof. This may be given along the lines of Gromoll, Klingenberg, a 1 Meyer (1975, pp. 130-161), except for the proof of their inequality (7), p. 1
Similar formulas hold for
QX and czl. Thus
which must be modified as follows. Let Z 6 Vi(cs) be the unique Jacobi fie along cz with Z(0) = 0 and Z(to) = cpYl(to), $ as above. We must show th;
{-(XI, XI) + ( R ( X ,cll)cl', X ) ] dt = I ( X , X).
To this end, let cg = CI 110,to] and

CI
c4 = c2
/ 10. to].
Then
We may now obtain the more powerful Timelike Rauch Comparison Theorem using the timelike index comparison theorem. Recall Erst that since c, : [0, L] -+ Mi is a timelike geodaic segment for each i , the vector fields in VL(c,) are all spacelike vector fields. (the above inequality by the t i ~ e l i k eindex comparison theorem [Thcore 11.1&(1)])
Theorem 11.11 (Timelike RaucP1 Comparison Theorem).

Let (&, gl) and (M2,gz) be space-times with dim MI 5 dim A&. Let cl : [O, L] -- -MI and e2 : [O,L]+ M2 be future directed, timelike, unit speed geodesic segments. Suppose for all t E [O, L] and my a E Gs,t(cl) that (the above inequal~tyby the rnaximality of Jacobi fields with respect to t: index form in the absence of conjugate points [Theorem 10.231)
410
I1

c2
11.3
LOREKTZIAN HADAMARD-CARTAN THEOREMS
411
It may also be assumed m Theorein 11.11that 11.10-(3).
has no conjugate points
where Pt denote the Lorentzian parallel translation along cz from c2(0) to cz(t). Applying Theorem 11.11, we obtain gl(expp. b. exp,* b) = gi(K(1). &(1))
in [O, L]. Then cl would also ha%eno conjugate points in (0,L] by Theorem For Riemannian manifolds of nonpositive sectional curvature, by ~ q u i p p ~ n g the tangent space with the "Aat metrlc" (cf Definition 10.17) it may be shown thar, the exponentla1 map does not decrease the length of tangent ~ectors [cf. Blshop and Crittenaen (1964, p. 178, Theorem 2 (i)) for a precise stateComparison ment]. A slmple proof of this fact may be given uslng the R a ~ c h Theorem and conlpdring Jacob1 fields on the given Riemannian manifold to those in R". We will now use the Timelike Rauch Comparison Theorem to prove the analogous ~ e s u l t for space-times of nonnegative tlmelike sectional curvature [cf. Flaherty (1975a- p. 39771. Intuitively. Corollary 11.12 below expresses the fact that if all timelike sectional curvatures of (M,g) are pos~tive, :hen future directed t~melikegeodesics emanating from a given point of lliP spread apart faster than "corresponding" geodesics in M~nkowskispace-time. Recall that the canonical isomorphis~nr, has been defined in Sect~on10.1, Definition 10.15.
Corollary 11.12. L e t (M.g) be a space-time with everywhere nonn
L gofY2(1).Yz(l))
= 5Q(PI(El,PI@)I
= go (727. G ) = gl ( w ,W ) = ((b, b ) )
as required. Returning to the general case, we may decompose ,w = w1 v for some X wl = X

b = bl
+ w2
where
> 0 and g(v, wz) = 0. Set b,
= r,(wz) for i = 1 , 2 SO that
+ 6% Wc now calculate
Applying the Gauss Lemma (Theorem 10.18) to the first two terms, we obtain
tive timelike sectional curvature, and let v E T,M be a given future direct
timelike tangent vector with g(v, z) = -1 Then for any future directed no
u 6 T'M, the vector b = ~ ( w E )T , (T,M) satisfi spacelike tangent vector z
as ((b1,bz)) = g(wl. wz) = 0. Now applying the first part of the proof to the
the mequality
last term, we have

9fexpp, b, exp,. 0) 2 g(w, w) = ( ( 4 b)).
Proof.We first prove the inequality for b = T,(w)
E T,(T,llf)
w~th g(v,w)
as required.
0 by applying the Timelike Rauch Comparison Theorem with (Ml,gl)
(iC.1, g) and (Mz,gz) identified with Minkowski space-time (P?, go) with n dimM. Setting cl(t) = exp, tv, let Yl E VL(c) be the unique Jacobi field wi
Yl(0) = 0, YI1(0) = w By Proposition 10.16, we have Yl(l) = exp,. b. Now let cz : 10. I] -+ Ry be an arbitrary unit speed timelike geodesic, a > gl(w,w). Let & choose 5 E N(cz(0)) with g o ( F , ~ =
E
11.3
Lorentzian Nadarnard-Cartan Theorems
We first prove a basic result linking conjtlgate points and timelike sectional curvat3xe[cf. Flaherty (1975a, Proposition 2.lj-here curvature condition has the opposite sign from ours]. Flaherty uses the signature convention (+, -, . . . , -) for the Lorentzian metric so that his sectional
VL(c2) be t
umque Jacobi field with Yz(0) = 0 and V2'(0) = 3.Then Yz(t) = t
412
11
SOME RESULTS IN GLOB.4L LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
11.3
LORENTZIAN HADAMARPCARTAN THEOREMS
413
Proposition 11.13. Let (M,g) be a space-time with everywhere nonnegative timelike sectional curmtures. Then no nonspacelike geodesic has any conjugate points.
We then obtain by continuity
3 Cfi(w(t>:P1(t))P1(t),w(t)) = 9 (R(w,P1(t))P'tt). w)
= ^i"M lim g(R(wn,vn)vn,w,)
= lim K(wn,vm)g(w,,wn)g(vm.vn)
n-m
Proof. First let c : 10,a) , iM be an arbitrary future directed unit speed

timelike geodesic. Recall from Corollary 10.10 that if X is a Jaeobi field along c with X(O) = X(t0) = O for some to E (O,a), then
L0
E VL(c). Thus we
since g(w,, w,) > 0 , g(v,, v,) either case, have
may restrict our attention to Jacobi fields J E vL(c) with J(O) = 0. Since
< 0. and K(v,, w,) 2 0 for each n. Thus in 3 @ ( W ( t ) ,Pt(t))p'(t), TV(t)) < 0. Hence, provided W # [@'] we
J E VL(c) and c is a timelike geodesic, J' E VL(c) also. Consider the smooth
function f (t)= g ( J ( t ) ,J t ( t ) ) . Differentiating yields
I(W,W )=
Lo
to
[-3wJ, w i )+z(x(w~ l ) p lw)ll, , dt <
as required.
Motivated by a standard definition in global Riemannian geometry, we make the following definition.
Definition 11.14. The space-time (M,g) is said to have no future timelzke

for all t t [O, a). Now if J(t0) = 0 for some to E [&a), then f ( 0 ) = f (to) = 0. Thus as j is nondecreasing. f ( t ) = 0 for all t
conjugate poznts if for any future directed timelike geodesic c : 10, a) 4( M ,g), no nontrivial Jacobi field in VL(c) vanishes more than once In view of Lemma 10.46, similar definitions may be formulated for spacetimes with no future null conjugate points or no future nonspacelike conjugate points. Proposition 11.13 guarantees that if (M,g) is a space-time with everywhere nonnegative timelike sectional curvature, then ( M ,g) has no future nonspacelike conjugate points. Lorentzian manifolds with nonnegative timelike sectional curvature or with
no future timelike conjugate points may be characterized in terms of the be-
[O, to]. Hence 0 = f'(0) =
g(J'(0). J1(0))as J ( 0 ) = 0. from which we conciude that J1(0)= 0. Therefore
J = 0, and no t o f [O, a ) is conjugate to t = 0 along c. We now treat the case that f l : [0,a ) -+ M is a null geodesic using the null index form. Let t o E [O, a ) be arbitrary. We will show that 7 : Xo(P [O, to])x Xo(P 1 (0,to]) -+ R is negative definite. Hence no s E (0,to] is conjugate to t = 0 along j 3 by Theorem 10.69.
If W E Xo(P) is a smooth parallel vector class, then W = [P'] since W ( 0 )=
[,B1(0)].Thus if W E Xo(B) is not a smooth parallel vector class, we have g ( W 1 ( s )W , 1 ( s ) )> O for some s E (@to). Also ij(Wr(t). W1(t)) 2 O for all t E [O, to] since 3 is positive definite. Now consider 3 @ ( ~ ( t j3'(t))Dt(t), ), W(t)) for any fixed t E [O,to].If W ( t )= [/3'(t)].then g @ ( ~ ( t ) , ~ ' ( t ) ) f l ' W (t( ) t ) )= 0. Otherwise, we rnay find a spacelike tangent vector w perpendicular to P1(t)
with ~ ( w = ) W ( t ) . Then, using equation (10.35) of Section 10.3 we have
havior of their Jacobi fields. A similar characterization applies to Riemannian manifolds [cf. O'Sullivan (1974, Proposition 4)]
Proposition 11.18.
i
(If (M,g) has everywhere nonnegative timelike sectiorid curvature iff
3 (-iE(w(t), p'(t))pl ( t ) ,W ( t ) ) = g ( R ( w ,P ( t ) ) P t ( t ) w). , Since w

0,
is spaceliie,
we may find a sequence of t i d i k e two-plaw 5 , = (wn,v,) with w, spacelike, timelike, g(w,,u,)

= 0,
for every Jacobi field Y E VL(c) along any future d~rectedtimelike geodesic c.
w,
-+
w , and v,
pl(t), so that a,
-+
(w.P1(t)).
414
11
SOME RESC'LTS IV GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
11.3
LORENTZIAK HADAMARD-CARTAN THEOREMS
415
(2) (M,9 ) has no future t~rneljke conjugate pornts iff g(Y(t), Y(t)) > 0 for all t > 0 where Y E VL(c) is any nontrivial Jacobi Geld with Y(0) = 0
along any future directed timellke geodesic c. Proof. (1) Assume that (Id. g) has everywhere nonnegative timel~kesectional curvature. Let Y E VL(c) be a Jacobi fieid along the u n ~speed t timel~ke geodesic c. Then Y' E VL(c) also, and we obtain
d2 -(g(Y, dt2
p, q E M with p
< < q, there is exactly one future directed timelike geodes~c (up
to reparmetrization) from p to q. Proof Since (M g) is globally hyperbolic, there exists a maximal f2~ture directed timelike geodesic from p to q. Since there are no future nonspacelike conjugate points, any future directed geodesic from p to q has index 0 by Theorem 10.27. Thus the timelike path space C(p,,)has the homotopy type of a CW-complex with a cell of dimension 0, i.e., a point, for each future directed timelike geodesic from p to q On the other hand, since hf is future one-connected, C(,,,) is connected and hence consists of a single point. Thus there is at most one future directed timelike geodesic from p to q.
Y)) = 2g(Y1,Y')
- 2g(R(Y, c1)c', Y)
= 2g(Y1,Y')+2g(Y,Y)K(Y,c') 20
Conversely, let {v,u;) be future timelike and spacelike tangent vectors, respect~vely,spanning an arbitrary timelike two-plane with g(v, v) = - 1. g(w,u~) = 1 and g(v, w) = 0 Let c(t) = exp(lv) and let Y E VL(c) be the .Tacohi field with initial conditions Y(0) = w and Y'(0) = 0. Then we have by hypothesis, 05 9 d2
d similar result was obtained by Uhlenbeck (1975, Theorem 5 3) for globally

l~yperbolic spacetimes satisfying a metric growth condition [Uhlenbeck (1975.
p. 7 2 ) ]and the curvature condition g (R(v. U)W, 0)
5 0 for all future dlrected ) 0 at every point of M . Namely, M null hectors v and vectors w with g(v, 2 ~ =
can be covered by a space which is topologically Mlnkowski (3.e.. Euclidean)
1
t=O
= -29 (R(Y(0) c1(0))c1(O),Y(Oi)

= -29 (R(w, v)v, w) = 2K(v, w )
space.
g) 1s future 1-connected, Flaherty (1975a, p. 398) has also shown that if ()If,
future nonspacelike carnplete, and has everywhere nonnegative timelike sectional curvatures. then the exporlential map exp, regularly embeds the future cone in T p M at each point p into M. To obtain this result, Flaherty used a lifting argument to show that urider these hypotheses, if v.w E T,M are any two future directed timelike tangent vectors with expp v = exp, w, then
v = w. Thus future onoconnected, future nonspacelike co~rlplete space-times
since the first term in the differentiation vanishes as Y'(0) = 0. Thus K(v, w) 2 0 as required (2) This is clear from Defiilition 11.14. 0 Using the timelike index theory of Sections 10.1 and 10.2, we now gi the following version of a Lorentzian Radamard-Cartan Theorem for global1 hyperbolic space-tlmes This proof is similar to the Morse theory proof of t Hadamard-Cartan Theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds [cf. Lililn (1963. p. 102)] Recall that a spacetime 1s said to be future one-connect (Definition 10.28) if any two smooth, future directed timelike curves from p t
q are homotopic through (smooth) future directed timelike curves w ~ t h fixe
with nonnegative timelike sectional curvatures satisfy the conclusion of Theorem 11.16. On the other hand, Flaherty showed (1975b, p. 200) that any fu~ure one-connected, future nonspacelike complete space time with everywhere nonnegative timelike sectional curvatures is also globally hyperbolic [cf. Galloway (1986a, 1989b)j. h c a l l that in Section 7.4 we applied disprisonment and pseudoconvcxity to nonspacelike geodesics to obtain sufficient conditions for stability of nonspacelike geodesic incompleteness (nonspacelike d~sprlsonmentsuffces) and the stability of nonspacelike geodesic completeness (nonspacelike disprison-
endpo~nts p and q.
Theorem 11.16. Let (M, g) be a future one-connected globally hyperbo space-time with no future nonspacelike conjugate points. Then given
416
11
11.3
LORENTZIAN HAD.4MAtLD-CARTAN THEOREMS
417
rnent and nonspacelike pseudoconvexity taken together suffice). In order to get a Hadamard-Cartan Theorem that applies to the entire space-time, we will apply these two conditions to the set of all geodesics-not just to nonspacelike geodesics [cf. Beem and Parker (1989)j. A manifold will be geodesically disprisoning if each end of every inextendible geodesic fails to be imprisoned in a compact set. The manifold will be geodesically pseudoconvex if for each compact set K the convex hull, using geodesic segments joining points of K, iies in a larger compact set. More precisely,
Lemma 11.20. Let (M,g ) be both geodesically disprisoning and geodesl-
cally pseudoconvex. Let {p,) and (T,) be sequences converging to p and
T,
respectively. If each pair {p,, T,) is joined by a geodesic h,then here is a geodesic c joining p and r . Furthermore, i f each c, is nonspizcelike (respectively,
null). then c may be chosen to be nonspacelike (respectively, null).
Proof, Let h be an auxlliarjr Riemannian metric on M . Let K be a compact

set containing p and r as well as all {p,) and {T,). Fbr each n, let c,
:
[O, b,)
M be a geodesic for the metric g which satisfies c,(O) = p,, %(a,) = r,, and
The spacetime (M. g)
Definition 11.17. ( Geodesacally Disprasonzng)
is geodesically ckisprisonzng if, for each inextendible geodesic c : (a, b) and any fixed to E ( a ,b), the images of each of the two maps c
c I [to,b) fail to have compact closure.
I (a,to]and
-M
which is not extendible to b,. We may assume without loss of generality that h ( c n l ( 0 ) cnJ(0)) , = 1. Since h is positive definite, the sphere bundle over K with respect to h is compact. Consequently, there 1s a subsequence ( m ) of
( n ) and a vector
w E T,M with ~ ' ( 0 -+ ) w. Let c: [0, b) -+ M be the unique
Definition 11.18. ( Geodesically Pseudoconvex)
The space-time (M,g)
geodesic with c'(0) = u: and such that c is not extendible to t = b. Let H be a compact set such that all geodesic segments with endpoints in K lie in
is geodesically pseudoconvex if for each compact subset K of M there is a

b] compact set N such that each geodesic segment c : [a,
-+
M with c(a),c(b) E
K satisfies c ( [ a , b ] ) CW.
By itself, Definition 11.17 allows for the possibility that either (or both) ends
of a given geodesic may be pwtially imprisoned (cf. Definition 7.29). However, the next lemma shows that if ( M , g ) satisfies both of the above conditions,
then partial imprisonment cannot occur.
H . Since (M,g ) is disprisoning, there is some 0 < T < b with C(T)$ H . The ' K for all r 5 t < b. Since c,(T) -+ c(T), construction of W then implies c(t) g it follows that O < a , < T for all suffic~entlylarge rn. Using the fact that [O, T ] is compact, we find there is a limit point a of the sequence { a , ) . Let {k) be a subsequence of { m )with ak -+ a. Then ck(ak) -+ c ( a ) ,and it follows that c(a) = r = lirn r k . Hence c is a geodesic containing both p and r. If each c, is nonspacelike (respectively, null), then cl(0) = lim ~ ' ( 0 shows ) c IS also nonspacelike (respectively, null). U Definition 11.21. ( Geodesacally Connected) The spacetime (M, g ) is geodesically connected if for each pair of distinct points p and q there is at
least one geodesic segment joining p to q. The Nopf-anow Theorem [cf. Hopf and Rinow (1931)] guarantees the g e u However, complete desic connectedness of any complete Riemannian man~fold. Lorentzian manifolds may fail to be geodesically connected. In fact, for complete Lorentzian manifolds, even if r is in the causal future of p, it may happen that there is no geodesic from p to r (cf. Figure 6 1). Of course, global hyperbolicity yields a (maximal length) geodesic segment joining any two causally related points. However, geodesic cornpletenms does not imply global hyper-
Lemma 11.19. Let (M,g ) be both geodesirally disprisoning and geodesib) -+ M is any inextendible geodesir of M and calIy pseudoconvex. If c : (a.
K is any compact subset of M . then there are parameter values sl . sz with

a
< 51 < s~ < b such that c(t) # K for all a < t < sl a d all s~g< t < b.
Proof. Assume the bmma is false. Then without loss of generality we may assume there is some geodesic c: (a, b) -+ M and a sequence {tk) satisfying a < tl < . . . < tk < . . < b, tk + b-, and c ( t k ) E: I ( for some compact subset
K of M . Let Ii be a cornpact set such that any geodesic segment of ( M , g ) with endpoints in K lies in W . Then the image of the map c 1 itl, b) lies in the compact set N, in contradiction to the disprisonment assumption. 0
418
11
SOME Rl3SULTS IN GLOBAL LORENTZlAN GEOMETRY
11.3
LORENTZIAN HXDAMARD-CARTAN THEOREMS
41s
bolicity. Furthermore. global hyperbolicity does not yield the existence of geodesic segments between points that far1 to be causally related The next proposition gives sufficient conditions for the existence of a geodesic segment between anj two points The hypotheses include disprisonment, pseudoconvesity, and a lack of conjugate points but do not require geodesic completeness. Proposition 11.22. Let ( M , g ) be geodesically disprisoning and geodesically pseudoconvex. If (M,g ) has no conjugate points, t h ~ n (M,g ) is geod~sically connected.
Let G be a group of homeomorpl.lisrns acting on the manifold 111. The group
G is said to act freely if f ( p ) = p for some p E M irriplies that j is the identity e of 6 . If G acts freely, then e is the only element of G that has any fixed points. A discrete group G is said to act properly dascontznzlously jcf Boothby
(1986), Wolf (1974)] if the following hold:
( 1 ) Each p E M has a neighborhood U such that the set { f E G : f ( U )n (2) If f (p) # q for all
U # 0) is finite, and f E G, then there are neighborhoods V and W of p and q, respectively, such that j ( V ) n W = 0 for all f E 6.
Group actions arise naturally in the study of co~rering spaces of manifolds.
Proof Let p and r be distlnct points of M, and construct an arbitrary curve
Let M be a smooth manifold. A covenng space of iM 1s a tnple (E,T ,iM)where
M with a ( 0 ) = p and a ( 1 ) = r . Let .r = supis E [O,11 : there IS a geodesic segment from p to a ( t ) for all 0 5 t 5 s). The fact that p lles in a convex normal neighborhood yields r 3 0. Lemma 11.20 implles that there is a geodesic segment c. 10, l] --t M wlth c(0) = p and c ( 1 ) = a ( r ) Let a : [O,I ]
+
E is a smooth manifold and n : E + M
IS
a smooth map of E onto il.1 which is sald to be evenly covered lf for
is evenly covered [cf. O'Neill (1953)l. Here
eachp E M there is a neighborhood U of p such that T - ' ( U ) consists of dlsjolnt open sets (W,) in E and .rr / W , is a diffeomorphisrn of W, onto U for each a. If E is simply connected, then (E.n, M ) is the unzversal coverzng space of &if.
X = c l ( 0 ) Since ( M , g ) has no conjugate points, the exponential map exp, takes a sufficiently small open neighborhood of X onto an open neighborhood of c(1) = a ( r ) . Thus, there exist geodesic segments from p to all points of a sufficiently near ~ ( 7 )It . follows that T = 1, and hence there is a geodesic segment from p to T , as desired. O
Compact Riemannian manifolds are always geodeslcally connected. In contrast, the next example shows that compact Lorentzian manifolds may fail to be geodesically connected.
A covering map T is a l o ~ adiffeomorphism, l but not all local diffeomorphisms

are covering maps because a local diffeomorphism is not necessarill an even cover. For example, let M = S' = {(x,y) : ;c2
+ y2 = 1) = { z E C :
d
1 2 1=
1).
The map f . ( 0 . 4 ~ -+ ) S' defined by f ( 6 ) = r" is
local diffeomorphism
(1,O) is the single
" ' but fails to be a covering map. The inverse image of e

connected open set U about the point (1,O) in
number 27r. Other polnts have two preimages, and the Inverse image of
aniall
S1is three open intervals, one
of which contains the number 27r. Thc map f restricted to the interval of
Exsunple 11.23. (Compact space-tzmes need not be geodeszcally connecte

~ eM t = S b SS'= ((t,s) identifications Lorentzian metric, and
. O is 5 l a n d -47; < t I 4 n ) w i t h t h e u s u
f-l(U) containing 2n is a diffeomorphism onto U , but f restricted to either of the other two intervals is not a diffeomorphism onto U.
The following topological result will be of use in t h e proof of Theorem 11 25.
Let g = (- cost)dt2
+ (2 sint)dtds + ( c o s t ) d s v h ~ sis = cos(tl2) a/& - sin(tl2) B/ds is a unit t ~ m

i s
vector field which tlme orients hf. Using light cones, it
not hard to c
that all geodesics starting on the circle t = 0 must lie in the set -5.rr/2 connected.
<t
M is the universal covenng space of the rnanrfold IM,then the fundamental group i71(.44) of M is either tr~vtalor infinite. If ?rl (M) is trivial, then the covering map .ir :s one-to-one.
--+
Lemma 11.24. I f T : Rn
7x/2. It follows that ( M ,g) 1s a compact space-tlme which is not geodesical
Proof The fundamentai group
7rl(iZ/[)
of h f acts freely and properly dis-
continuously on the total space Rn of the covering [cf. Kobayashi and Nom~zu
420
1 1
11.3
LOREKTZIAN WADAMARD-CARTAX THEOREMS

T
421
(1963, p. 61)]. If a x (M) 1s finite, then it is either trivial or else has an element of prime order. However, a result of Smith (1941, p. 3) yields that any homeomorphism of Bnhaving prime order must f i x some point of Rn.But this would contradict the free action of ~ 1 j i t l ) .Thus, the fundamental group is infinite or has exactly one element. If the fundamental group is trivial, then each p E -M has exactly one preimage and hence the covering is one-to-one. U The next theorem is a Lorentzian version of the Hadamard-Cartan Theorem and is actually valid for any (connected) manifold with an &ne connection
of K. Then there is an open neighborhood U(r) of
with r E U(r)
c K. Let
H be a compact set such that any geodesic segment wlth endpoints in K lies in W . Pseudoconvexity guarantees the existence of N. Choose an auxiliary I ; E Sh(p) Riemannian metric h, and let Sh(p) = ( V E T,M h(v,u) = 1). Let . , ' ( ( O = a. then be arbitrary. If c, : [0,b) -+ M is the geodesic of g wltn c
disprisoriment yields c,(r) $?
H for some
T.
It follows that c,(t) @ K for
all r 5 t < b. Using the continuous dependence of geodesics on the initla1 tangent vector, it follows that there is a neighborhood N(v) of v in Sh(p) such
[cf. Beem and Parker (1989)l. The usual completeness assumption used in the Riemannian version [cf. Kobayashi (1961)] is replaced by disprisonment and
pseudoconvexity assumptions. In some sense, the pseudoconvexity condition is a type of "internal completeness" assumption which plays a role similar to global hyperbollcity (cf. Section 7.4). Since global hyperbolicity is a causality assuimption, it only provides a certain amount of "control" over nonspacelike geodesics. It should also be recalled that global hyperbolicity, which was used in the hypothesis of our previous version of a Lorentzian Hadamard-Cartan Theorem, Theorem 11.16 earlier in this section, implies nonspaceltke geodesic pseudoconvexity (cf. Proposition 7.36).
Theorem 11.25. Let (M, g) be geodesically disprisoning m d geodesically
n this neighborhood must that each geodesic with initial tangent vector lying i
have
7
in its domain and rrlust have image points not in K for all t > T . In
T.
part~cular,if c, happens to intersect U ( r ) . then the intersection must occur for pasameter values not greater than
a v with v E Sh(p) and 0
Let r(v) = {w E T?M : w =
cr
5 r ) . The set I'(v) is compact and lies in the
domain of the local diffeomorphism exp,. Consequently, each point q E U ( r ) has only a finite number of preimages in I'(v). We cover t h e compact set Sh (p) with a finite number of neighborhoods N(vi), . . . iV(v,) corresponding vectors vl,. . . .v,. sets I'(vl). . . . of the above type for Thus, we obtain a finite number of compact By construction, all preimages of
.r(v,)
each having a finite number of preimages of any fixed
'= I'(vl) U. -UI'(z,). point q E U(r). Let I

pseudoconvex If (M, g ) has no conjugate points, then for each point p E M , the exponential map exp, : D
-4
' .Hence we find that r E M has a finite each q E U(r) lie in the compact set I
number of preimages in D
5 T,M.
M is a diffeomorphism from the domain Assume that exp, 1s not a covering map, There must be some r E M such that for each open neighborhood U of r , the set expil(U) fails to consisr, of components each of which is diffeornorphlc to U under expp. Let X, U ( r ) , H. and
D T,M of exp, onto M. Consequently, M is diffeomorphic to Rn,M is geodesically connected, and any two distinct points of M determine exactly
one geodesic. Proof. The map expp is onto M by Proposition 11.22. Furthermore, the exponential map at p must be at least a local diffeomorphism from its domain D onto M since no conjugate points exist. In order to show that expp is a diffeomorphism. we will first show that each r E M has a finite number of preimages Secondly, the map expi, will be shown to be a covering map, and finally, Lemma 11.24 will yield that exp, is one-to-one. To show that a fixed point r of M has a finite number of preimages in D, iue begin by choosing a compact set K of M containing p and with r in the interior
I ? be as above. Let r have k preimages u l , . . . .uk. Slnce exp, is a local
diffeomorphism, there is an open neighborhood V in T,M containing the individual prelrriages of digeomorphism onto V for each than Wl U T.Y2 U
2.
c U(r) of r diffeomorphic
such that exp,
to an open ball. and corresponding disjoint open neighborhoods T.PPi, ...,

7,
is a
It follows that exp;'
(V) consists of more
U K. and this must be -,rue no matter Iiow sinall V 1s

r such that the nuriiber of
chosen Consequently, there is a sequence r,
preimages of each r, is larger than k . This yields a sequence ( w , ) in T p M
42%
11

= T,
11.3
LORENTZIAN RXDAMARD-CARTAX THEOREMS
423
with exp,(w,)
such that no subsequence of (w,)converges to one of the

r.
It remains to show that exp, is a covering map. Select a point
E sr-'(p).
preimages ul, . .. ,u k of
Since each w , lies in the compact set I?, there is a
Let D, 2 T,M be the domain of exp, and D y 5 TF % be the domain of expp. The composition a o exp-, , Dy + M is a covering map since exp-, is
a diffeomorphism onto
1converging to some w in subsequence {w3

k preimages of
T,
r.Thus. w is in the domain of expP,
and expp(w) = limexp,(w,) = limr, = r , which shows w must be one of the in contradiction. We conclude that expp must be a covering map. The (star shaped) domain D of exp, is some open set in Tpn/l, and D must be homeomorphic to
and
. ; ; is
a covering map w:th domain ;i?. Recall
that n is an isometry of any sufficiently smali neighborhood
W ' of P to a corresponding ne~ghborhoodU of p. Also, each geodesic through p projects to

a geodesic through p, and each geodesic though p lifts (uniquely) to a geodesic
W". Thus exp, . D
--t
M is a universal covering
and the number of elements in
(M) is equal to the number of preimages of
) trivial and hence any point r E M . Lemma 11.24 now yields that T ~ ( Mis
p. It follows that the differential of the map (n / W)-' at p yields a diffeomorphism f : D, --+ D F such that expp = K 0 expp o f . Consequently.
through exp, : Dp --+ M is a covering map, as desired. C; Versions of Proposit~on 11.22 and Theorem 11.25 for certain classes of sprays on manifolds have been given in Del Riego and Parker (1995).
4 is a diffeomorphism. as desired. that exp, : D + A

Let a Lorentzian manifold ( M , g ) be given, and assume n : M a covering of M by that
. i r
A 4 is
z. One may obtain an induced metric i j on z such
is a local isometry [cf. Wolf [1974), pp. 41-42]. The geodesics of li;?
project to geodesics of M , and geodesics of M lift to geodesics of ; i ? . It may easily 'happen that the cover is geodesically disprisoning even if the original base manifold ( M ,g) fails to be disprisoning. For example, one could have
Af = S1 x
5" = { ( t , x ) : 0 5 t 5 1, 0 5 5: 5 1) with the usual identifications,
given the flat metric g = -dt2+dz2. Then hPvlinkowski spacetlme.
(x,?j) is the usual two-dimensional
Clearly, Theorem 11.25 may be applied to the cover to obtain information on the base manifold M.
Corollary 11.26. Let ( M , g ) have a covering space n

induced metric ?j = 7i'g on
--+
1 1 . 1 with
z . If this covering space (%:3) has no conjugate
points, is geodesically pseudoconvex, and is geodesically disprisoning, then both (=, 3) and (M, g) are geodesically connected. Furthermore, if p is any point of M , then the exponential map exp, is a covering map.
Proof. Theorem 11.25 yields the geodesic connectedness of the cover To show that M is geodesically connected, first let p and q be two points of M . Lift them to points j j and Ti, respect~vely,in Then the geodesic segment from p to Fj projects to a geodesic segment from p to q. Thus the geodesic connectivity of the cover implies the geodesic connectivity of the base.
z .
CHAPTER 12
SXNGULARPTIES
A common assumption made in studying Riemannian manifolds is that the

spaces under consideration are Cauchy complete or. equivalently, geodesically complete. This assumption seems reasonable since a large number of important Riemannian manifolds are complete. The situation for Lorentzian manifolds 1s quite different. A large number of the more important Lorentzian manifolds used as models in general reiativiry fail to be geodesically complete. Also, the problem of completeness is further complicated by the fact, observed in earlier chapters, that there are a number of inequivalent forms of completeness for Lorentzian manifolds, In this chapter we will be concerned wwlth establ~shing theorems which guarantee the nonspacelike geodesic incompleteness of a large class of space-tlmes. These spacetimes contain at least one nonspacelike geodesic which is both inextendible and incomplete. Such a geodesic has an endpoint in the causal boundary &A4 which may be thought of as being outside the space-time but not a t infinity. For example, if y is a future inextendibie and future incomplete timelike geodesic which has jj E d,M as a future endpoint, then y corresponds to the path of a "freely falling" test particle which falls to the edge of the universe (at p ) in finite time. It has been known for a long t m e in general relativity that a number of important space-times are nonspacelike incompiete. Nonetheless, this incompleteness was thought to be caused by the symmetries of these models. Thus
it was felt that nonspacelike completeness w s a reasonable assumption for
physically realistic space-times. The argument for this assumption was based on physical intuition which was evidently unjustified with hindsight [cf. Tipler,
Clarke, and Ellis (1980, Chapter 4)).
426
12
SINGULARITIES
12.1
JACOB1 TENSORS
427
If (M,g) is an inextendible space-time which has an inextendible nonspacelike geodesic which is incomplete, then ( M ,g) is said to have a singularity. The purpose of this chapter is to establ~sh several singularity (i.e.. incompleteness) theorems. Before beginning our study of singularity theory, we pause to explain why. from a mathema~icalviewpoint. this theory works for all space-times of dimension n
and ker(A(t)) nker(A1(t)) = (0) tensor ~ for all t E [a,b ] If Y is a parallel vector field along c and -4 1s a J ~ c o b on VL(c). then the vector field J = A ( Y ) satisfies the d~fferentlalequation
J"
- R(J,cJ)c' = 0 and hence 1s a Jacobi field

IS
The condition ker(A(t)) 1 7

; t
> 3 but
not for spacetimes of dimension two. It ts simply the
ker(ill(t)) = (0) for ail t E [a.b] guarantees that ~f Y 1s field along c, then J = A(Y)
nonzero parallel
fact noted at the beginning of Section 10.3 that no null geodesic in a twodimensional space-time contains any conjugate points. Yet a key argument in proving singularity theorems is showlng that certain curvature conditions force every complete nonspacelike geodesic to contain a pax of conjugate points. Familiarity with the notations and some of the basic properties of Jacobi fields treated in Sections 10.1 and 10.3 will be assunied in this chapter.
12.1
a nontrivial Jacobi field. Suppose that A is a
Jacob] tensor on VL(c) with A(a) = 0. If A(tn)(v) = 0 for some to E (a, b ] and 0 # v E N(c(to)), then letting Y be the unique parallel field along c with
Y(to) = v. we find that J = A(Y) is a Jacobi field with J ( a ) = J(t0) = 0.
A Jacobi tensor A IS sald to be a Lagrange tensor field ~f
Jacobi Tens~rs
for all t 6 [a,b]. As in the proof of Lemma 10.67, ~tmay be shown that a Jacobi tensor field A is a Lagrange tensor field if A(to) = 0 for some to E [a.b ] . Given a timelike geodesic
As we saw in Section 10.3 (Definition 10.61 ff.), Jacobi terisors provide

a convenient way of studying conjugate points. segment c : [a,bj
-4
Remark 12.1. Let c : ja, b ] --. M be a unit speed timelike geodesic, and
suppose El. E2,.. ., En is a parallelly propagated orthonormal basis along c with
M, let N(c(t)) denote the (n - 1)-dimensional subspace of
Tc(t$4 consisting of tangent vectors orthogonal to cJ(t) a s in Definition 10.1.

A (1,l) tensor field A(t) on VL(c) is a linear map
En = G I . Then N(c(t)) is the span of El,E2,. . . , En-lrand each Jacobi
vector field J along c which is everywhere orthogonal to c' may be expressed in terms of El. ET,. . . ,En-]. Thus J may be represented as a column vector with
(n - 1) components. Using this representation. let J, = J,(t) be the column
for each t 6 [a, b]. Further. a composit~endomorphism R.4(t) : N(c(t)) 4 Nfcft)) may be defined by
vector corresponding to the Jacobi field J along c which satisfies J ( t o ) = 0 and J 1 ( f n ='E,(to) ) Let
The adjoint A*(t) of A(t) is defined by requiring that be the ( n - 1) x (n - 1) matrix with J,(t) for the 7th coli~mn Thic: matrix A(t) is a representation of a Lagrange tensor field along c Using this same for all v, w E N(c(t)). basis El, Ez, . . . , E,-i, the adjolnt A*(t) is represented by the transpose of
A smooth (1,l) tensor field A(t) on VL(c) is said to be a Jacobz tensorjeld

if
A@). The space of Jacob1 fields whlch vanlsh at to and which have derivatives
orthogonal to c' at to may be identifed wiih the span of the columns of A. Tnus conjugate points of c(to) along c are exactly the points where det A ( t ) = 0.
A'/ + RA = 0
Hence det A(t) has isolated zeroes on the interval [a, b ] . Also, the multiplicity of a conjugate point t = t1 to toalong c is just the nullity of A(tl) : iV(c(tl)) , N(c(t1)). The fact that &to) = O and A1(to) = E is essential to the above discussion. Lagrange tensors along a timelike geodesic c : J
+ ( M ,g)
(3) The shear tensor
is defined by
may be constructed
Using an orthonormal basis of parallel fields for VL(c) and matrix algebra, it may be shown that
which are singular at distinct to, t l E J , yet c has no conjugate points. Fbr example, let ( M ,g) be IR3 with the Lorentzian metric ds2 = -dz2 tensor along c with the matrix representation
+ dy2 + dz2
and let c(t) = (t, 0,O). Let El = d/By and E2= d/Bz. Then if A is the Jxobi
e = tr(AIA-'1
as t
= (det A)-'(det A)'
Thus if A is a Jacobi tensor field with A(&) = 0,A1(to)= E . and IB(t)l -i oo

+
t l , then detA(tl) = 0 and t = tl is conjugate to to along c.
We now calculate the derivative of B = AIA-' using ( - 4 - I ) ' = -A-lAIA-'.
with respect to El
c and E2 o c, we have A' = E and A* = A so that
First we have
(A1)*A-A*A1 = 0, and A is a Lagrange tensor. Evidently, A(o)(E~(c(o))) =O and ~ ( l ) ( E ~ ( c ( l )= ) ) 0. But c has no conjugate points since (IE3,ds2) is Minkowski &space. W-e now define the expansion, vorticity, and shear of a Jacobi tensor A along the timelike geodesic c : [a,b] + M. As before, E = E(t) will represent the (1,l) tensor field on vi(c) such that E(t) = Id : N(c(t)) -+ Ar(c(t)) for each t. Note that this definition of B from A parallels the passage in O.D.E. theory from the Jacobi equation to the associated Riccati equation. Using 6' = tr(B) and
B = w + o + [O/(n- 1)]E, we obtain
Definition 12.2. (Expanston. Vortzczty. and Shear Tensors) Let A be a Jacobi tensor field along a timelike geodesic, and set B = A'A-I at points where A-I is defined.
where we have used tr(w) = tr(a) = tr(w0) = 0. Using the orthonormal basis
(1) The expansion B is defined by
El, E z l . . .,En along c with En = cl, we find that
6 = tr(B).
(2) The vorticzty tensor w is defined by
w =
- ( B - B*).
1 2
= Ric(cl, c'j.
12.2
GENERIC AND TIMELIKE CONVERGENCE CONDITIONS
433
and
-1
n - 2' We may calculate t r ( x ) as follows. Let V ( P )denote the geometric realiza-
82 6 = - t r ( 3 ) - tr(z2) - t r ( ~ ' )- -
12.2
The Generic a n d Tirnelike Convergence Conditions
1 1 1 this section we show that if (1Z.l.g) is a space-time of dimemion at

least three which satisfies the generic and tirilelike convergence conditions, then every complete nonspacelike geodesic contains a pair of conjugate points [cf. Hawking and Penrose (1970. p. 539)j. The timelike arid null cases are handled separately. Similar treatments of the ma:erial in this section may be found in Bolts (1977),Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 96-101), and Eschenburg and 03ullivan (1976). We may state the definitions of the generic condition and the timelike convergence condition for our purposes in this section ES follows (cf. Propositions 2.7 and 2.11).
. . ,Yn-2) tion for G ( P ) constructed as in (40.28) of Section 10.3: and let (Yl,.
be an orthonormal basis for to an orthonormal basis
V(P)at every point of ,B. Extend (Y',. ..,Yn-*) {YI, Yz, . . . ,Y , ) along P, where Y , is timelike and
,B1 = (Yn-l + y,)/h.Then we have
using the basic properties of the curvature tensor. Consequently, we obtain
Definition 12.7. (Generic Condition) such that the curvature endomorphism
A timelike geodesic c . (n,b) --t
( M , g ) is said to satisfy the generic wndition if there exists some to E ( a ,b)
is not ~dentlcallyzero. A null geodesic /3 : (a, b) endomorphism This yields the Raychaudhuri equation for Jacobi tensors along null geodesics:
--+
( M . g ) is said to satisfy
the genenc condition if there exists some t o E ( a ,b) such that the curvature
The same reasoning as in the proof of Lemma 12.3 shows we may slmplify the above equation when ;? is a Lagrange tensor field ji.e.. when A A =
-*-I
) not identically zero. The space-time (M. g) is of the quotient space G ( P ( t o ) is said to satisfy the genenc condztaon if each inextendible nonsgacelike geodeslc satisfies this condition. In Section 2.5 we have shown that this formuiation of the generic condition is equivalent to the usual defin~tion given in general relativity; namely. a nonspacelike geodesic c with tangent vector W satisfie8 the generic condition if here is some point of c at which
z'*z).
L e m m a 12.6. If A is a Lagrange tensor field, then the vorticity tensor Zj
vanishes along PI.

We thus obtain the vorticzty-free Raychaudhuri equation for Lagrange tensor fields along null geodesics:
w ~ w ~ u I [ , R ~0.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %
f
434
12
SINGULARITIES
12.2
435
Definition 12.8. (Temeizke Convergence Condztzon) isfies the tzme13e contergence condatzon ~f Ricjv, v) tangent vectors v E TA4.
>
A space-tlme satO for all nonspacelike
gent space. Dajczer and Komizu (198Oa) have obtained the rigidity result that if dim M
> 3 and Ric(w, w) = O for ail null vectors
ui
TM, then (Ad, g)
is Einstein, i.e., Ric = Xg for some constant X E W. Thus if ( M , g ) is not Einstein, there are some nonzero null Ricci curvatures. Suppose further that
By continuity, the curvature condition of Definition 12.8 is equivalent to

the tzrnelzke conveqence condztzon of Hawking and Ellis (1973, p 95) that &c(v,v)
(M, g ) is globally hyperbolic with a smooth globally hyperbolic time function

R such that for some Cauchy hypersurface S = h-'(to), all null Ritci curvatures satisfy Ric(g)(w, w) > O ~f7i(w) E S. If ( M , g ) also satisfies the null convergence condition, then M admits a metric gl globally conformal to g such that the globally hyperbolic space-time (M, gl) satisfies the curvature condition Ric(gl)(w. w) > 0 for all null vectors w E TA4 [cf. Beem and Ehrlich
h : &I
(1978, p. 174, Theorem 7.l)j. An essential step in proving that any complete timelike geodesic in a spacetime satisfying the generic and timelike convergence conditions contains a pair of conjugate points is the following proposition.
Proposition 12.9. Let c : J
-t
> O for all timehke v E TM.
Hawking and Ellis (1973, p 95) also
call the curvature cond~tlonh c ( w , w)
2 O for all null w
E TM the null
convergence condatzon. In Hawking and Ellis (1973, p 89), a Four-dimensional space-time (1M.g) with energy-momentum tensor T (cf. Section 2.6) is said to satisfy the weak energy condatzon if T ( v ,v) O for all tlmelike v E T M . If the Einstein equations hold for the four-d~mens~ona! space-time (M,g) and T with cosmological constant A, then the cond~tion Bc(v,v) 2 O for all timel~ke
c E TM
>
implies that T(v,
( y :_&)
-
0(". v)
(M, g ) be an ~nextendible timelike geodesic
for all timelike v E TM. Hence in Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 95). the fourdimensional space-time (M,g) and energy-momentum tensor T are said to satisfy the strong energy condztzon if T(v, v) to the condition R~c('u, v)
satisfying Ric(cl(t),cl(t))
> 0 for all t E J. Lct A be a Lagrange tensor field

- (n - l)/B1 [respectively, some t in the interval
we have detA(t0) = 0 provided that
along c. Suppose that the expansion B(t) = tr(A1(t)A-'(t)) has a negative [respectively, positive] value B1 = B(tl) at ti E J Then det A(t) = 0 for some t in the interval from t j to t l from tl
> (trT/S)g(v,u) for all timelike
v E TM. When dimM = 4 and A = 0, this nlay be seen to be equivalent
2 0 for
all timelike z E TM (cf. Sectio11 2 6). In
- (n - I)/& to tlj provided that t E J.

-+
Hawking and Penrose (1970, p 533), the condition Ric(v, v) 2 0 for d l unit timelike vectors v E T M is called the energy condztaon. In Frankel (1979) and Lee (1975), the term "strong energy condition'' is provided the same definition which we have given to "timelike convergence condition" in Definition 12. 1 0 1
Proof. Since Q = (detA)'(detA)-',

-+
oo as t
to. Thus we need only show that

s1=
I@(-+
o a on the above
intervals. Put
n-1 -. 81
A discussion of the physical interpretat~on of these curvature conditions in general relativity may he found in Hawking and Ellis (1973. Section 4.3) As we have just noted above, if ( M g ) satisfies the timelike convergence co dttion or the strong energy condition, then (M, g) satisfies the null convergen condition. In view of several rigidity theorems associated wlth curvature co geometry [cf Cheeger and Ebin (1975. pp. v and v~ dltlons In R~emannian 1s natural to consrder the impllcatlons of the curvature condition Rc(w. wj for all null vectors w 6 T M . Applying linear algebraic arguments to each ta
The \orticity-free hychaudhuri equation (12.2) for timelike geodesics and the condition Ric(cl: c')
> 0 yield the inequality
In the case that
< 0, integrating this inequality from tl to t > t l we obtain
436
12
SINGULARITIES
12.2
437
for t E [tl. t l - s l ) . Hence /O(t)l becomes infinite for some t E ( t l ,t l - sl provided that c(t) is defined. In the case that B1 > 0, we obtain for t (tl - sl,tli that n-1 l si - t l , Hence lB(t)l again becomes irliinite for some t E [tl - sl.tl) provided that c(t
( M , g ) be a timelike geodesic without conjugate points and fix s E (tl,oo),Then by Lemma 12.11, there exists a unique (1,1) tensor field on VL(c). which we will denote by D,, satisfying the differential equation D," + RDs = 0 with initial conditions D,(tl) = E and D,(s) = 0. As D,(tl) = E, we have ker(D,(tl)) nker(DBi(tl)) = 10). Thus L), is a Jacobi
Now let c [tl,w)
-+
is defined. D We now show that a timelike geodesic in a space-time that satisfies t timellke convergence condition and the generic condition must either be complete or else have a pair of conjugate points.
Proposition 12.10. Let (M,g) be an arbitrary space-time of d~men
tensor field (cf. Lemma 10.62). Abo, since D,(s) = 0, it follows that D, is a Lagrange tensor field. It will also be shown dur~ng the course of the proof of Lemma 12.12 that if A is the Lagrange tensor field on VL(c) with A(tl) = 0 and A1(tl) = E, then Cls1(s) = -(A*)-'(s) Lemma 12.12. Let c : [tl, oo)
-+ M
be a timelike geodesic without con-
n _> 2. Suppose that c : R
(M,g) is a complete timelike geodesic wh~
jugate points. Let A be the unique Lagrange tensor on VL(c) with A(tl) = 0 and A1(tl) = E. Then for each s E (tl, eo) the Lagrange tensor D, on VL(c) with Ds(tl) = E and D,(s) = 0 satisfies the equation
satisfies Itic(c1(t).cl(t)) 2 0 for dl t E B. If R(,,c'(tl))cl(tl) : N(c(tl))

N(c(tl)) is not zero for sorne t l E W,then c has a pair of conjugate point We first prove four lemmas which are needed for the proof of Propositio
12.10 [cf. BGIts (1977, pp. 30-37)].
Lemma 12.11. Let c : [a, b]
(M, g) be a timelike geodes~cw ~ t
for all t E ( t s] . Thus D, ( t )is nonsingular for t E (t 1, s) .

Proof. Set X ( t ) = A(t) S;(A*A)-'(T)~T. It suffices to show that XI' RX = 0. X ( s ) = D,(s) = 0, and X'(s) = D,'(s).
conjugate points Then there is a unique (I, 1) tensor field A on VL(c) satisfies the diflerexltial equation A1'+RA = 0 with given boundary co A(a) and A(b).
Proof. Let S be the vector space of (1,1) tensor fields A on VL(c) A" + RA = 0, and let L(N(c(t))) denote the set of linear endomorphisms N(c(t)). Define a linear transformation 4 S -+ L(N(c(a))) x L(N(c(b)))
@(A)= (A(a),.4(b)). Since d i m s = dim(L(N(c(a))))
We first check that
X" r RX = 0.
Differentiating, we obtain
+ dim(L(N(c(b))))
= 2(n - I ) ~~t , IS o
Hence
necessary to show that $ is injective in order to prove that Q is an isomorph and establish the existence of a unique solution A. Assume that $( (A(a), A(b)) = (0,O). If Y(t) is any parallel vector field along c, then J ( t A(t)Y ( t )is a Jacobi field -with J(a) = J(b) = 0. Thus J = 0. However,
Y ( t )was an arbitrary parallel field, this implies that A(t) = 0, which sh

is injective and establishes the lemma.
CI
438
12
SINGULARITTES
12.2
439
But since -4 1s a nonsinguiar Lagrange tensor, (A')' = A*rllA-I, so that
Finally, the nonsingularity of D,(t) for t E ( t l ,s) foliows from the formula
(A*)-l(A*)'(A*)-l = A'A-l(A")-l, and we obtain
We then have
since ( A * A ) - ' ( t ) is a positive definite, self-adjoint sensor field for all t
> tl . C3
xl'(t) + R ( t ) X ( t )= (Atl(t)+ ~ ( t ) A ( t/)' ( ]A*A)-~ ( I )dr = o

t
Note that while the integral representation of the Lagrange tensor D, along c satisfying D, ( t l ) = E and D,(s) = 0 given in Le~nrr~a 12.12 was proven only for t E ( t l ,s]. if c is defined for all t E R and has 110 conjugate points, then D,(t) is defined for all t E R. We now show that if c : [ a . m ) -+ ( M , g ) is a timelike geodesic without conjugate points. then the above tensor fields D, converge to a Lagrange tensor field D a s s -+ oo. This construction parallels the construction of stable Jacobi fields in certain classes of complete Riemannian manifolds without conjugate
since A1'(t) R ( t ) A ( t )= 0. Thus X satisfies the Jacobi differential equatio Setting t = s, we obtain
x(s)= ~ ( s l s) ( ~ * ~ ) - l ( I ) r = lo r
and
s
@*A)-I(.)
d~ - A ( s ) ( A * A ) - l ( ~ ) = -(A*)-'(s).
points [cf. Eschenburg and O'Sullivan (1976, pp. 227 ff ), Green (1958).E. Ropf
Thus it remalns to check that Dal(s)= -(A*)-'(s). But ustng R* = R.w obtain
(1948, p. 48)).
Lemma 12.13. Let c : la,co)
conjugate points. For it1
-+
(1W,g) be a timelike geodesic without
>a
and s E [a.x)- ( t l ) , let D, be the Lagrange
[(A*)'D,- A*D,'jl = (A*)I1D, + (A*)'DSJ - (A")'Dsl- A'D,"

= ( A f ) " D 3- A* Dgl'
= -A*R8DS
tensor field along c determined by D,(tl) = E and D,(s) = 0 Then D ( t ) =
lim,,,
+A* RD, = 0.
ail t with tl
D,(t) is a Lagrange tensor field. Furthermore, D ( t ) is nonsingular for < t < m.
Thus (A*)'D, - A"D,' is parallel along c. -4t t = t1, the initial condltlo
A(t1) = 0 and A'(t1) = E for A mpiy that A e ( t l ) = 0 and ( A e ) ' ( t l ) ( A r ) * ( t l= ) E. Hence as D,(tl) = E , we obtain ((A*)'D,- A * D S 1 ) ( t l= ) E.
Hence ((A*)'D,- A'DS1)(t)= E for all t. Setting t = A, we have
Proof. C V e first show that D a l ( t l )has a self-adjoint lir~litds s --+ x. Since D, is a Lagrange tensor, (D,'*D,)(tl) = (D,*D,')(tl). Using D,(ll) = E , we obtain DS1*(tl) = D a l ( t l ) . Thus the limit of DS1(tl)must be a self-adjoint linear map which we will denote by D r ( t l ). N ( c ( t l ) )-+ N ( c ( t l ) )if it exists. Consequently, we need only show that for each y E N ( c ( t t ) ) ,the value of
E = ((A*)'D,- A*Dal)(s) = -(A"Dar)(s)

which implies that D a l ( s )= -(A")-'(s) = X 1 ( s ) . Therefore since D, and both satisfy A"
g(Dsl(tl)y, y) converges to some value g(D1(tl)y, y). We ~vil!show that the function s g(DS1(t1)y, y ) is monotone increasing for all s with tl < s < oo and is bounded from above by g ( D a 1 ( t l ) y , y to ) establish the existence of this limit To this end. assume that tl < r < s
+ RA = 0 and have the same valum and first derivativ
Then by TJernma 12 12 we have
t = s , the tensors must agree for all t.
440
12
SINGULARITIES
12.2
GENERIC AND TIMELIKE CONVERGEKCE CONDITIONS
441
Thus for t E (tl,s) we obtain
We now show that g(DS1(tl)y, y)
< g(Dal(tl)y, y) for all s > t : and any
y E N ( c ( t l ) ) .Again let Y be the unique pardlei field along c with Y ( t l ) = y.
Let J be the piecewise smooth Jacobi field along c / [a.s] given by
J(t) =
A 1 ( t l )= E, where A is the Lagrange tensor field along c satisfying A ( t l ) = 0;
arid Y ( t ) is the parallel vector field along c with Y ( t l ) = y. Thus for t with
DG(t)Y (t) Ds ( t ) Y ( t )
for
fort1
a s t < tl. < t < s.

=
Also let J, = J 1 [a, t l ] and J, =
Jl
[tl.s]. Then J ( a )
J ( s ) = 0 , and J is
t l < t < T , lt follows that
well-defined at t = t l since D,(tl) = D,(tl) = E. Using the index form I for

cI [a.s] given in Definition 10.4 of Section 10.1, we obtain
is given by
Letting t
--+
tl and using Y ( t l ) = y and A1(tl)= 27,we then have
u(osl(t~) 9a ) - g ( ~ . ' ( t i ) y ,9 ) = g
([lg(~*~)-l(T)
di]
ti)) Y ( ~ I ) .
where we have used formula (10.2) of Definition 10,4 and D, ( t ! )= D, ( t l) = E. Since J ( a ) = J ( s ) = 0 and c has no conjugate points in [a,cc). we have
Since Y is parallel along c. it may be checked by choosing an orthonormal basis of parallel fields for VL(c) that
I ( J , J) < 0 by Theorem 10.22. Thus
for all s exists.
> t l ; we conclude that
the self-adjoint tensor D 1 ( t l ) = lim D S 1 ( t l )

s--+a
Now we define D ( t ) by setting D ( t )equal to the unique Jacob! tensor along c which satisfies D(t1) = E and D 1 ( t l )= lim,,, Since (A*A)-' = A-~A*-' , this may be written as both satisfy the differential equation A" lim,,, which must be positive because (A*)-"(T)Y(T)is a spacelike vector In N(c( for each T E [r,s]. Thus of D, approach the initial conditions of D a s s
D,'(tl). Since D ( t ) and D,(t)

--t
+ RA = 0 and the initial conditions

w, it follows that D ( t ) =
D,(t) and D1(t)= lim,,,
D S 1 ( t for ) all t E [a,cc). This inlplies that
&grange :ensor. the limit D ( t ) of the Lagrange tensors D,(t) must also be a LThe last statement of the lemma now follows using the representation
w(t) =~
g(D8"tl)XA
and the map s
-+
( t J~ ) -(A*A)-~ d7 (~)
v ) - g(DT1(tl1v. y) > 0,
and the fact that (A*A)-I ( t ) is a positive definite self-ad~o~nt tensor field for
s
g(DS1(tl)y, y) is monotone for all
> tl
as required.
allt>tl.
El
442
12
SINGULARITIES
12.2
443
Now divide the Lagrange tensors with A(t1) = E along a complete timelike geodesic c : (-m, 400)
+
in Lemma 12.13 Since c I [tl, m) has no conjugate polnts D(t) is nonsingular for all t 2 tl. Thus D $ L- by Lemma 12.14. Hence D E L- and moreover, tr D1(tl)
( M ,g ) with Ric(cl,c') 2 0 and R( . .c'(tl))c1(tI) # 0
for some tl E R into two classes L+ and L- as follows [cf. Bolts (1977. p. 36). Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 98)], Put
> 0 as
D (t L-. Since Di(tlf = lirn,,,
DSi(tl) there exists an
s > tl such that tr(DBfjtl)) > 0. Hence by Lemma 12.14, there exist a tz
< tl
and a nonzero tangent vector v E iV(c(t2)) such that D,(tz)(v) = 0. Recall
L+ = (A : A is a Lagrange tensor with A(tl) = E and
also from the proof of Lemma 12.12 that D,(s) = 0 but DS1(s) = -(A*)-'(s) is nonsingular, Therefore, ~f we let Y E vi(c) be the unique parallel field is a nontrivial Jacobi field along c dong c with Y(t2) = 'u, then J = DD,(Y)
= Y ( s )= 0, In contradiction. with Y ( t 2 )
) q t l ) = tr(A'(t1)) Z 0
and
L- = ( A : A is a Lagrange tengor with A(tl) = E and

B(tl) = tr(A1(tl)) 5 0)
Corolary 12.15. Let ( M , g ) be a space-time of dimension n 2 2 which satisfies the timelike convergence condition and the generic condizion. Then
each timelike geodesic of (M,g) 1s either incomplete or e!se has a pair of conjugate points. We now consider the existence of conjugate points on null geodesics. The methods and results for null geodesics are much the same as for timelike geodesics except that it is now necessary to assume that dimitl 2 3 since dim G(P) = dim M
-
(34, g) be a complete timel~ke geodesic such that Ec(cl, c') 2 0 and R( . , c'(t1))c1(tl) # 0 for some t l E R. Then each A E L- satisfies detA(t) = 0 for sorrle t > t l , and each A E L+ satisfies
-+
Lemma 12.14. Let c : R
detA(t) = 0 for some t
< ti.
Proof if A 6 L-, then B(tl) = tr(AJ(t~)A-'(ti)) = tr(A1(ti))
< 0.
Using
the vorticity-free Raychaudhuri equation (12.2) for timelike geodesics with Ric(ct, c') 2 0 and tr(02)
2 and null geodesics in two-dimensional space-times are
2 0,
we find # ( t )
< 0 for all t.
Thus B(t)
< 0 for
free of conjugate points First, using the vorticity-free Fhychaudhuri equation (12.5) for null geodesics, the following analogue of Proposition 12.9 may be case established with the same type of reasoning in the timel~ke
Proposition 12.16. Let (M. g) be an arbitrary space-time of dimension
7~
all t 1 t l . If 6(to) < 0 for some to > t i , then the result for A f o l l o ~ ~ from s
Proposition 12.9. Assume therefore that B(t) = 0 for t tl. This implies tl since B1(t) = 0 for t 2 t l which yields tr(a2) = 0. Hence a = 0 for t
>
>
cr is self-adjoint. CTsing B = 0 and the self-adjointness of B, ure thus have
B = o = 0 which by equation (12.1) implies that t 2 t l . in contradiction to R(tl) $ 0. If A E L+, the proof is similar. U
We now come to the
= -B2 - B ' = 0 for
Ric(pl(t),pl(t))
> 3. Suppose that ,b : J -+ ( M .g) an inexteridible null geodesic satisfying > 0 for all t 6 J. Let 2 be a Lagrange tensor field dong P such
1 s
that the expansion 8(t) = t r V 1 ( t ) A - ( t ) ) = /detz(t)]-'\detz(t)]' has the negative [respectively, positive] vdue 8i = 8 ( t l ) at tl E J. Then d e t x ( t ) = 0 for some t in the i n t e r d from t l to tl
- (n-
2)/81 [respectrvely. some t in the
(M,g) be a complete timelike geodesic with Ric(ci(t),c1(t)) > 0 for all t E R and with R ( -,c'(tl))cl(tl) # 0
Proof of Proposztzon 12.10. Let c
+
.R
interval from tl
(n - 2)/iJ1 to ti] provided that t 5 J.
The null analogue of Proposition 12.10 may also be established for all spacetimes of dimension n 2 3 using A, B , 8, Zr, etc. in place of the corresponding
for some t1 E R. Suppose that c has no conjugate points. Then let D = lirn,,, D, be the Lagrange tensor field on Vi(c) with D(tl) = E constructed
---
A, B , 8. a, etc. used in the proof for timelike geodesics.
444
12
SINGULANTIES
4
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
445
Proposition 12.17. Let /3 . R
(M,g) be a complete null geodesic with If dimM 2 3 and if
Ric(/?'(t), G(P(t)) points.
,f3'(t)) 2 0 for all i E

,G(P(tf) is nonzero
IW.
z(. ,p(t))P'(t) :
The corresponding point expi(x) of M is said t,o be a focal point o j H along
the geodesic segment expi(tX). When W is a single point, then T,IH = T,M,
and a focal point is just an ordinary conjugate point. Focal points may also be defined using Jacobi fields and the second fundamental form [cf. Bishop and Crittenden (1964, p. 225)j. This approach will be used in this section following the treatment given in Bolts (1977). Jacobi fields are used to measure the separation (or deviation) of nearby geodesics. For example, when a point q 1s conjugate to p along a geodesic c, geodesics which start a t p with initla1 tangent close to c' at p wlll tend to focus a t q up to second order. They need not actually pass through q but must pass close to q. In studying submanifolds one may take a congruence of geodesics orthogonal to the submanifold and use Jacobi fields to measure the separation of geodesics in this congruence. If p is a focal point along a geodesic c which is orthogonal to the submanifold
for some tl E R, then ,f3 has a pmr of conjugate
Combining this result with Corollary 12.15, we obtain tine following theorem.
Theorem 12.18. Let (IM,g) be a space-time of dimension n 2 3 which
satisfies the timelike convergence cond~tionand the generic condition. Then

each nonspacelike geodesic in (1W, g) is e~ther ~ncomplete or else has a pair of conjugate points. Thus every nonspacelike geodesic in (M,g) without conjugate points is incomplete. The material presented in this section may also be treated within the frame work of conjugate points and oscillation theory in ordinary differential equa tions [cf. Tipler (1977d, 1978), Chicone and Ehrlich (1980), Ehrlich and Kim (1994)l. In this approach, the Raychaudhuri equation is transformed by a change of variables to the differential equation zU(t) F(t)x(t) = 0 with F ( t ) = A[Ric(y1(t),yl(t))
H,then some geodesics close
to c and orthogonal to H
tend to focus at p. This is illustrated for the Euclidean plane with the usual positive definite metric in Figure 12.1 and for Lorentzian manifolds in Figure In Section 3.5 we defined the second fundamental form S, : TpW x T p H -t R
in the direction n, the second fundamental form S T ~ U x T,H x T,H
and the second fundamental form operator L,
T,W
+ 2a2(t)j
-t
T p H (cf. Defini-
tion 3.48). Recall that, S(n, x, y) = S,(x, y) = S,(y, x) and g(L,(x), y) =
where rn = n - 1 if y is timelike and rn = n - 2 if y is null.

12.3
Focal Points
The concept of a conjugate point along a geodesic can be generalized to t notion of a focal point of a submanifold. Let H be a nondegenerate subrnani of the space-time ( M , g ) . At each p E H the tangent space TFW may naturally identified with the vectors of T,M which are tangent to H at The normal space T k H consists of all vectors orthogonal to H at p. Sinc
S,(z, y) = g(VXY, n) for n E T i H and z, y E T F H .where X and Y are local vector field extensions of z, y. In this section we will primarily be concerned w ~ t h the operator L, : T p H T,W. Note that a vector field 7 which is orthogonal to H at all points of H defines a (1,1) tensor field Lq on H . We will first consider spacelike hypersurg(g,7) = -1, then ces. If the timelike normal vector field 7j on H sat~sfies we may calculate L, as follows.
-$
Lemma 12.19. Let
be a spacelike hypersurface with unit timelike nor-
H is nondegenerate, T k H n T,H = 10,) for all p E W . We -will denote t

exponential map restricted to the norma! bundle T i H by expi. Then vector X E T k H is said to be a focal poznt of H if (expi), is singular at
mal field 7. Ifx is a vector tangent to W , then L,(x) = -V,v Pmoj. Since g ( ~9,) = -1, we have 0 = X(~(V, 7)) = 2g(0,9, 7 ) which bows that V,q is tangent to W . Now if Y is any vector field tangent to
12
SINGCLARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
447
at q E H determines a congruence of timelike geodesics. Let c he a timelike geodesic of this congruence intersecting
N at q. and let J denote the variation
vector field along c of a one-parameter subfam~lyof the congruence. Then
J is a Jacob1 field which measures the rate of separation of geodesics in the

one-parameter subfamily from c. Since the geodesics of the congruence are all orthogonal to N,it may be shown using Lemma 1219 that J satisfies the initial condition
This suggests the following definition of a focal point to a spacelike hypersurface in terms of Jacobi fields.
Definition 12.20. (Focal Point on a Timelike Geodesic) Let c be a timelike geodesic which is orthogonal to the spacelike hypersurfate N at q. A point
p on c is said to be a Jocal po~ntof H along c if there is a nontrivial Jacobi
field J along c such that J is orthogonal to c', vanishes at p, and satisfies
J ' = -L,J
at q,
Suppose that A is a Jacob1 tensor along the timelike geodesic c which sat-
FIGURE 12.1. A curve in the Euclidean plane has its centers of curvature as its focal points. The osculating circle to the curve y
at t = t o is shown. The segment from $to) to the center p of the osculating circle contains x In its mterior. The point y lies beyond
p on the ray from ?(to) through p. For some ~nterval to - 1
isfies A = E and A' = -L r ) A = -L, at the point q, where c intersects the epacelike Iiypersurface N. Then prior to the first focal point, every Jacob1 field
J orthogonal to c which satisfies J' = -L, J at q may be expressed as J = AY

where Y = Y ( t )is a parallel vector field along c whlch is orthogonal to c. Since there are n - 1 linearly independent parallel vector fields orthogonal to c, there is an (n - 1)-dimensional vector space of Jacobi fields along c which satisfy J' = -L,J at q. We now show that such a Jacob1 tensor A satisfying
<t <
t o + 1, the closest point of y to x is ?(to). On the other hand. for some interval to - 2 < t < t o T 2, the farthest pomt of y(t) from y is ?(to). Furthennore, the straight lines which are orthogonal to y near $to) tend to focus at p.
H, then g ( ~ Y, ) = 0. Thus O = x(g(q,Y)) = g(V,q, Y ) $ g(7, V,Y
that g(V,Y, q) = g(-V,q, Y ) . Consequently, g(L,(x), Y) = g(V,Y, q ) g(-V,q,Y). Since Y was arbitrary, the result follows O Given a unit normal field 77 for the spacelike hypersurface N, the collectio
c s to W with initial direction of unit speed timelike g ~ d ~ i orthogonal
= E and
A ' = -L, at q is in fact a lagrange tensor field.
Lernrna 12.21. Suppose that A is a Jacobi teilsor field along the timelike
geodesic c . Let c be orthogonal co W at ti, and let ZV be the second fundsmental form operator on H . If A ( t l ) = E and A1(t1) = -L,A(tl), then A is a Lagrange tensor field.
P~oof. The second fundamental form S, at 77 E T'H

implies that L, is self-adjoint at q since g ( L , ( x ) , y)
=
1s
symmetric, which
S V ( zg p) = S7(g;x ) =
12
SINGULARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
449
g(L,(?~),s). Thus at t l we have that At(tl) = -L,A(tl) = -L, is selfadjoint. Hence AS'(tl) = A1(tlj. Using A(tl j = A * ( t l )= E, it follows that A1((t)*A(tl) = A*'(t1).4(tl) = A*(tl)A1jtl). Thus A is a Lagrange tensor field as required. C The tensor B = A'A-', expansion 0, and shear o of Lagrange tensors
A satisfying the conditions of Lemma 12.21 may be defined as In Sectlon 12.1, Definition 12.2. As before, the expansion 0 of the iagrange tensor A
along c satisfies the vorticity-free hychaudhuri equation (12.2) for timelike geodesics. We now establish the following analogue of Proposition 12.9 for spacelike hypersurfaces. Proposition 12.22. Let (M,g) be an arbitrary space-time of di~nension
( M ,g) is an inextcndible timelike geodesic which satisfies Ric(cl(t), c'(t)) 2 0 for all t E J and is orthogonal to the spacelike hypersurface H at q = c(tlf. If - tr(L,) has the negative [respectively, positive] value 81 at q: then there is a focal point c ( t ) to W for t in thc interval from
--+
n 2 2. Stlppose that c : J
tl to tl - (n - I)/&, [respectively, in the interval from tl - (n - l)/di to tl ] provided that t E J.
Proof, By Lemma 12.21, the Jacobi tensor field A along c with initial conditions A(tl) = E and A1(tl) = -L,(,)
is a Lagrange tensor field. Also,
FIGURE 12.2. A spacelike submanifold H in a Lorentzian manifold ( M .g ) is shown. Were p is a focal point of H along the geodesic c.
The geodesic segment from p to q contains s in its interior, and 4~ lies beyond p on the geodesic c. All nonspacelike curves "close" to
c[q, x] which join a point of
= 8(tl) = - tr(L). Hence by Proposition 12.9 the tensor A is singular on
the interval from t l to t l - (n- I)/@!. Thus the result follows from the remarks following Definition 12.20. Fbr the purpose of studying focal points to subman~folds.it will be helpful to have the second variation formuia for the arc length functional at h a ~ dWe thus give a derivation of the first and second variation formulas for completeness. Consider a piecewise smooth variation a : [a,b ] x piecewise smooth timelike curve c
:
(-,
H near q to s have length less than or
equal to c[q,
XI.
On the other hand, the farthest point of H near q
to y is not q. There are points close t o q on H which may be joined to y by timelike curves longer than c[q,gj. Furthermore, there is at least one curve y on
6)
( M ,g) of a
[a,b ]
-+
(M, g). Kerice a(t, 0) = c(t) for
H through q such that a family of geodesics
orthogonal to W with respect to the given Lorentzian metric and starting on y near q tend to focus at p up to second order.
all t E [a.b ] , and there is a finite partition a = to < t l < . . < tk-l < tk = b such that a 1 [t,-l.t,] x ( - 6 , E ) is a smooth variation of c 1 [t,-t, t E ]for each
i = 1 . 2 , .. . ,k (cf. Definition 10.6). We will also assume that the neighboring b ] -+ (?M,g) are timelike for all s with -c < s < E curves a, = a ( . ,s ) : [a,
450
12
SINGULARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
451
(cf. Lemma 10.7). As in Section 10.1, for t with t,..~ variation vector field V of a: along c by
V ( t )= (a It,-I, t,] x
(-6. E)),
< t < t,, we define the
On the other hand, since
----n
and
Also, set
it follows that A t , ( Y 1 )= Yi(t:)
-
Y'(tt)
for i = 1,2,. .. ,k - 1, Thus we have
Y=Y
and
At,(Yt) = Yt(t$)
for any piecewise smooth vector field Y ( t ) along c which is smooth on each subinterval curve t
I-+
t,).
which implies that
As in Section 10.1, we will use L ( s ) = L(cr,) to denote the length of the

a ( t ,sj. The fir& variation formula for the arc length functional may
then be derived as usual. Proposition 12.23. Let c . [a, b], ( M , g ) be a unit speed timelike curve
which is piecewise smooth. I f a: : [a,b ] x
(-6.6)
-*
as required. C1
If c : [a, b ]
( M ,g) i s a variation of c
through timelike curves, then
for all z = 1,2,. . . ,k - 1. Thus for a timellke geodesic, the first variation formula simplifies as follo~.~s.
Corollary 12.24. If c
:
h f is a timelike geodesic, then c" = V,fcl = 0 and A,, (c') = O
[a.b ]
E ) -+
(&I, g ) is a unit speed timehke geodesic
segment and cu : [a,b ] x
(-E,
(hd, g ) IS a variatian of c, chen
Pmof. If L,
{ s ) .
: (-E,
E)
-+ R
denotes the arc length runctlon or cu
\t.-l,t.j
then L(s) = ~
f L,(s) = and ~
Now let H be a spacelike hypersurface and assume that c : /a, bi
M is
unit speed timelike curve with c(a) E H In studying focal points of the manifold H , attention may be restricted to variations a + [a,b ] x ( - E , E ) -+
E ) ] and which end For these variations, V ( b )= 0 nd V ( a )is tangent to H at c(a). Proposition 12.23 then yields the following rst variation formula:
g ) of c which start on H [i.e., a(a,s) E H for all s E (-E,

(-E,E)].
Thus
c(b) [i.e., a(b, s ) = c(b) for all s E
452
12
SINGULAWTIES
12 3
FOCAL POINTS
(-LC)
453
Given a spacelike hypersurface H without boundary in ( M , g f , fix a point
miation o f c which is smooth on each s e ~ (t,-l, t,) x a = to < t l < .
for the part~tion
H. Consider the collect~on(possibly empty) of all timelike curv which join some point of H to q. If this collection contains a longest curve
-
q E M
< tk = b of [a.b ] . Let V(t) = c r , d / d ~ l ( ~ denote ,~) the variation vector field of a along c, and set
N ( t ) = V(t) g(V(t),c'(t))c'(t) d d + g a,-,a,-
c : [a, b ] -+ (M.9). then c must be a smooth timeiike geodesic by the usual
arguments that timehke geodesics locally maximize arc length and using the first variational formula to see that c has no corners. Thus assume that the unit speed timelike geodesic c : [a, b]
+
(M,g ) is the longest curve from H to

-E
=.*%I
,,,,
a.
t )
a,
$ 1 ,,,,
with a ( a , s) E H and a(b,s ) = q for all s with and Corollary 12.24 we have
5 s 5 E , then using V(b)=

k
+ ) : g ( ~ ( t * )A , t,(N1)) - 9(V2?,as~, ct)jL.

z=o
Lt(0) = g(V(a),c'(a)).
On the other hand, Lt(0) = 0 since c is of maximal length from H to q. Th V ( a ) is orthogonal to cl(a). Since variations a as above may be constructed with V(a) E T,(,)H arbitrary, it follows that c must be orthogonal to H
e(a). Thus we have obtained the following standard result. Note also that is necessary for H to have no boundary in order to be sure that the extre c is perpendicular to N at c(a).
Proposition 12.25. Let H be a spacelike hypersurface without bound
-5
a*-,a*-
; I);
[-:g
(v~/&
(@*
$1 .
Ll*
dt.
q = c ( b ) $ H which is of maximal length among all timelike curves from H t

q. Then c is a timelike geodesic segment, and c is orthogonal to H at c(a).
9(Va/asValdt~*a/as, a * a / a ) - 9(Va/ata*alas.oa/asa*a/at) [-g(a,d/dt, a,d/&);1/2 g(Valata*a/as, a,a/at)g(Va,dta*a/as, a * d / d t ) [-g(a,d/&, a,d/&)J1/2g(cy,a/dt. cy,d/at) for ( t ,s ) E (t,-*, t,) x (-6. E) Furthermore, we have
have discontinuitia in its derivative at the t-parameter values {tl ,tz, .. . , a t which cr may fail to be smooth. Thus the normal component N = a,d g(a,B/ds,a,d/bt)a,B/dt of V along c may also fail to be smooth at th
terms of N and V [cf. Bolts (1977, pp. 86-90), Hawking and Ellis
p. 108)]. Proposition 12.26. Let c : [a,b ] , ( M . g ) be a unit speed tim
odesic segment, and let cr : [a.b ] x
(-6, e) +
(M,g) be a piece
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
455
Substituting this expression for g(Valat~,d/ds, ValaBa,d/dt)l(,,o) in (12.8)
and using g(a,d/dt, ~ , a / d t ) j ~= , ,-1, ~ ) we obtain
since c is a geodesic and
g(N, a,d/at)l(,,o)= 0 for all t
E ( t a mt,). l , Using
~o/a~va/a~a a*;) : /lt,oj - g ( v a / a t ~ vaIBt-v) . /(t,O) .

This yields
a a,
these last two calculations, we then obtain
L,"(Oj = V~/~aVt?/n 0s a* a * : ).
Thus since Also
- g ( V B / C ~vajal") N, (i,o)
(t 0)
a
since
it follows from these calculations that

Since c(t) = a(t,0) is a geodesic,
a
Therefore,
at
!t,O)
d
= ~g
(Oalasa*z,*.at
The equations
456
12
SINGULARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
457
and V ( t )= a,B/8sI(t,o) together with L =
xFE1 L, yield
it is only necessary to show that -g(Va/asV, c1)j: is equal to g(L,,(Ar), N).
To this end, we first note that a(b, s) = q implies that a , B / d ~ / ( ~ , , = ) O for
all s which yields g(Vala,V.cl)lb = 0 . Also a ( a , s ) E H for all s with - E < < E implies that a,d/8sj(,,,) is tangential to N for all s , and hence ,&'(a) = ry,d/f/a~l~,,~~. Let y(s) = a ( a , s) for all s with - E < s < 6. Extend the vector N(a)E T p H to a local vector field X along N with X o - ( s ) = a*df8s/(,,,) for all s with - E < s < E . Then
s
since V = nT - g(V, cl)c'. Thus
by Definition 3.48. Also let 77 be a unit normal field to H near p with 7 1 ( p )= cl(a). Then we have
where
Proposition 12.26 has the following consequence.

Corollary 12.27. Let H be a spacelike hypersurface, and assume tl
But g(a,b/as,.rl o a)l(,,,) = 0 for all s since a,a/bs)(,,,) is tangential to H . Thus we obtain
(M. g) is a unit speed timelike geodesic which is orthogonal to H Suppose that a : [a, bj x ( - E , E ) 4 (M,g) is a variation s ), 6 N and a(b, s) = q = c(b) for all s with - E < s 5 E . c such that ~ ( n
c : [a, b]
-+
at p = c ( a ) E
V = a,d/dsj;t,o) and N = V + g ( V , cl)c', then
where L,, is the second fundamental form operator of H at p. as required.

Proof. In view of Proposition 12.26 and the equation
Here we have used the fact that since XIp = a,d/dslf,,o), XI,(g(X, 77)) may be calculated as
458
12
SINGULARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
459
In view of Corollary 12.27, the index IH(V, V ) of a vector field V along a t~melike geodesic orthogonal to a spacelike hypersurface should be defined as follows [cf. Bolts (1977, p. 94)].
and Z(b) = 0 such that I H ( Z ,Z ) > 0. Consequentl~; there are tlmelike curves
from H to c(b) which are longer than c.
Proof, By hypothesis there exists a nontrivial Jacobi field JI along

Let c : [a,b ] i smooth Jacobi field J along c hy
with
Definition 12.28. (Spacelake Nypersurjace Index Form)

hypersurface
J1 orthogonal to c. Jl ( t k ) = 0 and Jli(a)= -L,,(,) Jl ( a ) . Define a piecewise
( M . 9 ) be a unit speed timelike geodesic which is orthogonal to a spacehke
at c(a). Assume that Z is a piecewise smooth vector fie1
along c which is orthogonal to c. if Z ( a ) # 0 and Z(b) = 0, then the zndex
Z *zth respect to H is given by TH (z,z) = I ( z . z)+ g(Lcl(Z),Z)la

where
It-1
Since A t b ( J 1 )# 0 , we may construct a smooth vector field V orthogonal to c such that V'(a) = V ( a )= V ( b ) = 0 and g(V(tk), A t = ( J f )= ) -1. Defiae a vector field Z in V L ( c )b y
Then ZJ(a)= -Lct(,)Z(a), and the index I N ( Z . 2 ) is given by where a partition the t,'s. Let a : [a,b ] x
(-E, E)
it,) of (a,b] is chosen such that Z is differentiable except at

-+ ( M ,g) be a variation of the timelike geodesic c, and
IH(Z, Z ) = I ( Z , Z ) + g ( L c / ( Z )Z)ja ,
= I(Z,Z)+ g ( ~ , l ( r - l ~ rV - ) ,r - ' ~ - r V ) l a
satisfies ,~) the conditions of assume the variation vector field V = a , d / d ~ j ( ~
10.1 together with Coroliary Definition 12.28. Then equation (10.4) of Sect~on
12.27 yield L1'(0)= .fH(V,v). This may also be written
+ r-'g(~,t J , J ),1 = I ( Z ,Z ) + r - 2 g ( - ~ ' , J)I~

= 1(Z,2 )
=T-~I(J J ,)
+ r21(V,V )- 2i(J. V )+
T - ~ ~ ( -
J' J )
1,
L** ( V )= IH (br,V ) ,
= r 2 i ( vV ) - 2I(J,V ) .
Here we have used thogonai to a spacehke hypersurface H falls to maximize arc !ength to N a the first focal point. Recall that V L ( c ) consists of plecewlse smooth vect fieids along c which are orthogonal to c.
Proposition 12.29. Let c . l a , b ] -+ M be a unit speed timelike geo
Since J is a piecewise smooth Jacobi field, equation (10.4) of Section 10.1 implies that
I ( J ,V ) = g ( V ( t k ) &,(J1)) , = -1.
Consequently,
I H ( Z , Z )= T ~ I ( V . V +]2
460
12
SINGULARITIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
461
which shows that for sufficiently small T
# 0 the index satisfies
map, then r
IH(Z, Z ) > 0.
This last inequality and the condition Z1(a)= -LC,(,) ( Z ( a ) ) imply that there exist small variations of c with varlation vector field Z which join W to c(b) and have length greater than c. Cl
G(P(a)) is a vector space isomorphism. Hence we --+ T,H to an operator ZE, : G(P(a))+ G(F(a))by setting
+
T ~ H :TpH
may project the second fundamental form operator LEs . T,W
LE, = n o LE,
(T
/ TpN)-I
for 2 = n - 1,n
We now turn our attention to focal points along null geodesics which are
orthogonal to (n- 2)-dimensional spacelike submanifolds. If W is a spacelike
(n - 2)-dimensional submanifold, then the induced metric on T p H is positive
Let a : [a,b ] x
(-E,
E ) --, ( M ,g)
be a variation of the null geodesic ,O such that
a ( a ,s) 6 H for all s with -E < s < E . If V = a*d/ds and W = a,6/&, we will also require that W ( a , s )= E,(a(a,s)) for all s with - E < s < E. Thus
the neighboring curve a ( . , s) starts at a(a,s) on H perpendicular to W and has as initial direction the null vector En(a(a,s)) for all s. We now calculate V 1 ( a ) .
definite and the induced metric on T;H is a two-dimensional Minkowski metric for each p E H . Thus there are exactly two null lines through the origin in
T ~ H Since . the time orientation of (M,g) induces a time-orientation on T ~ H , there are thus two well-defined future null directions in T i H for each p E H. Locally, we may then choose a smooth pseudo-orthonormd basis of vector E , on N such that En-1 and En are future directed fields El, E2,.. , null vectors in T k H for p E H. That is,
9(Et,E J )= 6,,
Lemma 12.30. Let V = a,d/ds be tangential to
N for
f = n and s
arbitrary as above. Then V 1 ( a = ) - L p ( a ) ( V ( a ) ) XP'(a) for some constant
X E R.
Prooj. Using [V. W ] = [cu,d/ds,a,b/dt] = cu, [a/&,d/6t] = 0, we have VVW = VwV = V p V at t = a. s = 0.
iflSz,j<n-2,
ifI<i<n-2,
g(E*.En-I) = g ( E ,En) = 0
9(En,En) = g(En-1, En-1) = 0,

and
g(13n,En-l)=-1.
and En defined locally on N give rise to second
On the other hand, W ( a .s) = E?,(a(a, s ) ) and g(E,,. En) = 0 yield 0 = V(g(W, W ) )= 2g(VvW,W ) = 2g(DwV,W ) = 2g(Vp1V, P') at t = a. s = 0. Thus
Vp(,,V E N(O(a)) = T p H 9[P1(a)].
Since Lp,(,)(V(a)) E Tp(,)H and 'CiP(,)V E N(,B(a)),~t thus suffices to ow that
The null vector fields E,-l
fundamental forms LE,-& and LE,, respectively, which are locally defined
(I,1) tensor fields on H.

If
p : /a.b ] --, ( M ,g ) is a
future directed null geodesic with ,b"(a)= E
[or @(a)= En-* (p)]at p E H, the tangent vectors El ( p ) ,Ez(p),.. . .En ( p p may then be parallel translated along P to give a pseudr>-orthonormal b along /3 whlch will also be denoted by El, E2, . . . ,En. The set of vectors no to ,BJ(t) is thus the space N ( P ( t ) )spanned by El, E2,. . . ,En-2,P', and we form the quotier~r, space G(P(t)) = N ( B ( t ) ) / [ p ( t with ) ] corresponding s in Section 10.3. If 7(- : N(P) -+ G(P) denotes the pr bundle G(P) a
for every y E T9(,]H to establish the result. To calculate g ( L a i ( , ) ( V ( a ) ) . ~ ) , extend y to a local vector field Y along the curve s
-+@(a. s)
that 1s tangent
462
12
SINGULAWTIES
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
463
to
N Then we have
9(Lg~(a)(V(a)),ll! =9 (~VYI(,,,)?B'(~))
= 9 ( V v Y . Wlj(,,o)
Proposition 12.32. Let
N be a spacelike submanifofd of ( M , g ) of dimen-
sion n - 2, and let p : [a,b ] -+ ( M Ig) be a null geodesic orthogonal a t $(a) to
H . If to E (a,b) is a focal point of H along P, then there is a timelike curve

from
to P(b). Thus P does not maximize the distance to
N after the first
- a.
a/ (dY. W)) 8 . 3
(a,,)
g!Y, v v W )
lb0)
focal point.
= 0 - g(Y. = -.Y(Y~
VV)
I(a,o)
A simple example of a focal point is shown in Figure 12.3.

Using the same type of reasoning as in Proposition 12.22, the following result may also be established.
v~'(a)V)
where we have used a*3/Dbs\(,,o)(g(Y, W ) )= 0 since g(Y, W) = g(Y. En) = 0 along the curve s
+ a ( a ,s ) .
Proposition 12.33. Let (hf, g) be a space-time of dimension n 2 3, and

let
H be a spacelike submanifold of dimension 12 - 2. Suppose that P : J
-+
( M .g) is an inextcndible null geodesic which is orthogonal to H at p = P(tl )

If V is to be a Jacobi field measuring the separation of a congruence of nu1 geodesics perpendicular to H , then the last result implies that the vector class and satisfies the curvature condition Ric(p1(t).,8'(t)) 2 0 for all t E J. If
- tr(Lp.(t,))has the negative Ircspectively. positive] value fI1 at p, then there is
V = n(V) along ,l3 should satisfy the Initial condition

-I
a focal point to to H alongp in the parameter interval from t l to t l - (n- 2)/01 [respectively, in the parameter interval from t l that to E J
-
(n - 2)/Q1 to t l ] provided
V ( a ) = -Z,p(,)V(a)
o Lp, o (n
at p = P(a) E H. Here
zp, =x
/ T,H)-'
as above This rnotivat
A particularly important case occurs when H is a compact spacelike (n-2)dimensional submanifold which satisfies the condition (tr L E n ) (tr LE,-l) is an orthonormal basis for T,H, then t r LEn may be calculated a s
the following definition of focal point along a null geodeslc perpendicular to {cf.Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 102), Bolts (1977, p. 58)].
>0
at each point [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973. p. 262)) Here if (el, e2,. . . , en-z)
Definition 12.31. (Focal Poznt on a Null Geodesgc) Let H be a spacelik

submanifold of dimension (n - 2 ) , and suppose that
13 . [a, b]
(M,g) is
null geodesic orthogonal to H at p = P ( a ) Then to E ( a ,b ] is said to be focal poznt of N along ,l3 if there is a nontrivial smooth Jacobi class 7 in G(P such that ; f t ( a ) = -Zpt(,) J ( a ) and ; f ( t o ) = [BJ(to)]. We noted above that a t~melike geodesic orthogonal to a spacellke hy surface falls to be the longest nonspacehke curve to the hypersurface a the first focal point (cf. Proposition 12.29). A simllar result holds for a n submanlfol geodesic which is orthogonal to an (n - 2)-dimensional spacel~ke [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, p. 116), Bdlts (1977, p. 123)]. We sta result as the following propohition.
Definition 12.34. (Clo.qea' lhpped Surface)
Suppose that
N is a com-
pact spacelike submanifold withoiit boundary of ( M , g ) of dimension n - 2. Let En and En-I be linearly independent future directed null vector fields on
N as above. Assume that
L1 and L 2 are the second fundamental forms on H
corresponding to En and En-', respectively. Then
is said t o be a closed
ce if t r LI and trL2 are bosh elther always pos~tiveor always
12.3
FOCAL POINTS
46
A related concept is that of a trapped set jcf. Hawking and Penrose (1970
pp. 534-537):. Recall that the future horisrnos of a bet A is defined by E + ( A ) =
J+ ( A )- I+ ( A ) .
Definition 12.35. (Trapped St) A nonempty achronal set A is said tc
befutz~re [respectively, past] trapped if E + ( A ) [respectively, E - ( A ) ]is compact A trapped set is a set which is either future trapped or past trapped. In general, a closed trapped surface need not be a trapped set and vice versa However, in Proposition 12.45 we will show that under certaln condlt~ons, tht existence of a closed trapped surface implies either null incompleteness or thf existence of a trapped set. In establishing Proposition 12.45. we will need tht following corollary to Proposition 12.33. Corollary 12.36. Let ( M , g ) be a space-tjmo of dimension n 2 3 whicf
0 for all null vectors u E TM. If ( M , g : satisfies the condition Ric(v,v) contains a closed trapped surface H, then either ( I ) or (2) or both is true:
(1) At least one of the sets E f ( H ) or E - ( H ) i s compact.
>
(2) ( M ,g ) is nu12 incomplete.

Proof. Assume that ( M ,g ) is ilull complete and that t r L1> 0 and tr L2 > G
for all q E W . Consider all future directed null geodesics which start at some point of H and have initial direction either or E, at this point. Each such geodesic contains a geodesic segment which goes from a point q 6 H to
FIGURE 12.3. Let (M,g ) be three-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with the usual metric ds2 = -dt2+dz2+dy2, Let H be a circle of radius a in the z-y plane. Then H is a spacelike submanifold of codimension two. For each q E N , there are exactly two future directed null geodesics to H . The focal point of All of H and ,B2 through q which are orthogonal
a first focal point p to W . Using Proposition 12.33 and the cornpactness of H , it follows that the union of all such null geodesic segments from I1 to a focal point is contained in a compact set K consisting of null geodesic segrnents starting on
N. Now if
E E i ( H ) , then
can be joined to H by a past
directed null geodesic but not by a past directed timelike curve. Thus r E K . Hence E + ( H ) 5 K. To show that E i ( H ) is closed let {x,) be s sequence of points of E f ( H ) . This sequence has a limit point x E of K we have x E J + ( H ) . if all n. Thus x
.G
M along Dl is pl = (Q,O,a), and the focal

beyond p l .
point along /?z is pz = (0,0, -a). The point y1 lies on
K From the definition
- {q)
is contained in the chronological paqt of g1. Thus
E I f ( N ) , then the open set I + ( H ) must
there are timelike curves from points on H arbitrarily close to q to yl, and pl[q.5111 does not realize the distance from N to yl.
contain some elements of the sequence { z , ) , c~ntradicting x , E E + ( N ) for
4 I f ( H ) which yields z E E + ( H ) . This shows that
E + ( H ) is a
closed subset of the compact set K and hence is compact.
12
SINGULARITIES
-3
d
12.4
12.4
THE EXISTENCE OF SINGULARITIES
467
The Existence of Singularities
In this section we give the proofs of several singularity theorems in general relativity. In part~cular, we prove the maln theorem of Hawking and Penrose
(1970, p. 533). Our approach is somewhat different from Hawking and Penrose (1970) in that we show ( M ,g) is causally disconnected if :t contains a trapped
set and then apply Theorem 6.3 of Beem and Ehrlich (1979a, p. 172). The basic technique in proving nonspacelike incornpletenws is to first use physical or geometric assumptions on (M,g ) to construct an inextendible nonspacelike geodesic which is maximal and h ~ n c e contains no conjugate points. If ( M , g ) has dimension n
> 3 and satisfies the generic condition and time-
FIGURE 12.4. The future Cauchy development D + ( S ) of S consists of all points p such that every past inextendible nonspacelike curve through p intersects S .
like convergence condition, this geodesic must then be Incomplete by Theorem
12.18.
We first show that a chronological space-time with a sufficient number of conjugate points is strongly causal [cf Hawking and Penrose (1970, p 536), Lerner (1972, p 41)] Proposition 12.39. If (M,g ) is a chmnological space-time such that each
I f we assume that (AM, g) is null complete and that t r L1 < Q and tr L2 < 0
for all q E
N,then similar arguments show E - ( H ) is compact This establishes
the corollary. We now define the Cauchy developments of a closed subset S of ( [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 201-205)) inextendible null geodesic has apair of conjugatepoints, then ( M ,g ) is strongly causal. Let S be a closed subset o
Definition 12.37. (Cazlchy Development)
( M , g ) . The future [respectively, past] Cauchy development Di ( S ) [respec tively, D - ( S ) ] consists of all points p E M such that every past [respective
future] inextendible nonspacelike curwe through p intersects S. The Cauc
Proof. Assume that strong causality falls at p E M . Let U be a convex

normal neighborhood of p, and let Vk C
U be a sequence of neighborhoods
which converge top. Since strong causality fails at p, for each k there is a future directed nonspacelike curve yk which starts in V', leaves U , and returns to
deuelopment of S is D ( S ) = D t ( S ) J D - ( S ) (cf. Figure 12.4).

Closed achronal sets have played an important role in causality the and singularity theory in general relativity. They have the follo erty [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 209, 268), Hawking and Penr p 537)). Proposition 12.38. If S is a closed achronal set in the space-time ( then I n t ( D ( S ) )= D ( S ) - d D ( S ) is globally hyperbolic.
Vk. Using Proposition 3.31, one may obtain an inextendible nonspacel~ke limit
curve y through p of the sequence ( y k ) . No two points of y are chronologically elated since otherwise one could obtain a closed tirrlelike curve, contradicting he fact that
(1%,
g) is chronological. Thus y is a null geodesic, This yields a
and contradiction since by hypothesis each null geodesic has conjugate po~nts thus contains points which may be joined by timelike curves.
Proposition 12.39 and Theorem 12 18 then imply the followifig result.
468
12
SINGULARlTIES (q,).
12.4
465
Proposition 12.40. Let ( M ,g) be a &rono2ogical space-time of dimension n 2: 3 which satisfies the generic condition and the timelike convergence condition. Then (M,g) is either strongly causal or null incomplete. We may now prove the following singularity theorem. The concept of a causally disconnected space-time has been given in Section 8.3, Definition 8.11.
and E 4 ( S ) causally disconnect ( M ,g ) , we must show that for each n
every nompacelike curve X : [O, 1 1 --+ M with X(0) = p, and X(1) = q, meets
E+(S). Given A, extend X to a past inextendible curve 3; by traversing y uy to p, and then traversing X from p, to q,. As q, E D f ( E + ( S ) ) ,the curve
X must intersect E + ( S ) . Since 7 meets E + ( S ) only at

similar argument n a y be used if S is past trapped
T,
it follows that
>
P
intersects E + ( S ) . This establishes the proposition if S is future trapped.
Theorem 12.41. Let ( M ,g) be a chronological space-time of dimension

n
2 3 which is causally disconnected. If (1W.g) satisfies the generic condition

P m f ,Assume all nonspacelike geodesics of ( M ,g) are complete. By Propo-
Theorem 8.13, Proposition 12.39, and Proposition 12.42 now imply the mair theorem of Hawking and Penrose (1970, p. 538). Theorem 12.43. No spacetirne (M,y) of dirnensioi~ n 2 3 can satisfy a1 of the following three require~nents together:
(1) (M, g ) contains no closed timelike curves.
and the timelike convergence condition, then ( M .g) is nonspacelike incomplete.
sition 12.40. the space-tlme ( M , g ) is strongly causal, and by Theorem 12.18 every nonspacelike geodesic has conjugate points. On the other hand. Theorem 8.13 yields the existence of an inextendible maximal nonspacelike geodesic. But then this geodesic has no conjugate points, in contradiction. O Recall that the fut.are [respectively, past] horisrnos of a subset S of ( M , is given by E f ( S ) = J + ( S ) - I f ( S ) [respectively, E - ( S ) = J - ( S ) - 1-(S) The achronal set S is said to be fit'are trapped [respectively, past trapped] E + ( S ) [respectively, E - ( S ) ] is compact. We now give conditions under which the existence of a trapped set irnpl~es causal disconnection.
Proposition 12-42.Let ( M ,g ) be a chronological spacetime of dimension
(2) Every inextendible nonspacelike geodesic in
(M. g)
contains a pair o
conjugate points. (3) There exists a future trapped or past trapped set S in (M,g). This result of Hawking and Penrose implies the following result which k more similar to Theorem 12.41.
Theorem 12.44. Let ( M , g ) be a chronologicd space-time of dimensior n 2 3 which satisfies the generic condition and the timelike convergence condi
n 2 3 such that each inextendible null geodesic has a pair of conjugate points. If ( M ,g) contains a future [respectively, past] trapped set S , then ( M .g ) is causally disconnected by E f (S) [respectively, E- (S)]
tion. If ( M ,g ) contains a trapped set, then ( M .g) is nonspacelike incomplete Recall that a closed trapped surface is a compact spacelike submanifold o dimension n - 2 for which the trace of both null second fundamental forms L j and La is either always positive o : always negative (cf Definition 12.34).
Proposition 12.45.
Proof First, Proposition 12 39 shows that ( M ,g) is strongly causal. If S

assumed to be fi~ture trapped, then Corollary 8.16 yields a frlture inextendibl timelike curve y in the future Cauchy development D f ( E f (S)). Extend to a future and past inextendible timelike curve in ( M ,g ) , still denoted by Then y Intersects the achronal set E f ( S ) in exactly one point r. As in proof of Proposition 8.18, we choose two sequences ( p , ) and (q,) on 7 w diverge to infinity and satisfy p,
Let ( M , g ) be a strongly ca7zsaJ space-time of dimen
sion n 2 3 which satisfies the condition %c(v. v ) 2 0 for all null vector, v E T M . I f ( M , g ) contains a closed trapped surface (1) or (2) is true: ( 1 ) ( M ,g) contains a trapped set. ( 2 ) ( M ,g) is null incomplete.
N,then at least one o
< < T < qg, for each n.
To show that {p
470
12
SINGULARITIES
12.4
471
Proof. Assume that ( M , g ) IS null complete. Corollary 12.36 then lmpiies
q $ If IN), we have p E
that one of E f (H) or E - ( H ) is compact. We consider the case that E f ( H ) is compact and define S by S = E f ( H ) R H . We will show that S is a futxre trapped set. Notice that S is achronal since E f (HI is achronal and S is compact as the intersection of two compact sets. Since E + ( H ) = J + ( H ) - I L ( H ) , the set S will be nonempty if and only But ~fH were contained if H contains some points which are not in I+(N).
in I f ( H ) , there would be a finite cover of the compact set H by open sets
qE
E-(H)? N = S which yleldi Jf ( S ) ,In contradiction. Thls shows that S 1s a future trapped set.
Ef( I f ) Thus p
A similar argument shows that d ( M . g ) is nuil complete and ~f E - ( H ) ig

compact, then S = E - ( H ) n H established. 5 It is possible for a trapped set to consist of just a single point. One way
s follows [cf. Hawking and Penrose (1970, p. 5431, Hawking this may arise is a
IS
a past trapped set. Thus the proposition ic
I + ( p l ) .I+(p2), . . . ,l+(p,) with all p, E N. I-Iowever, this would ~mplythe

existence of a closed tirnelike curve in ( M , g ) (cf. the proof of Proposition
and Ellis (1973. pp. 266-267)]. Let ( M ,y) be a space-time of dimension n 2 2 which satisfies the curvature condition Ric(v, c) 2: 0 for all null vectors u E
3.10) which would contradict the strong causality of (M, g). Hence S # 0.
TM. Suppose that there exists a point p such that on every future directed null geodesic @ : [O,a)-t ( M , g ) with P(0) = p, the expansion 8 of the Lagrange
tensor fieid some t i
In order to show that S is a future trapped set, it is sufficient to prove that E + ( S ) = E+(H). We will demonstrate this by showing that I A ( S ) = I + ( H )
and J + ( S ) = J f ( H ) . To this end, cover the compact set H with a finite number of open sets Ul. U2.. . . ,U k of (M,g) such that each
Z? on
G(P) with x ( 0 ) = 0 and z ' ( 0 ) = E becomes negative for
> 0. Intuitively, each future directed null geodesic emanating from T;
has a point /3(tI) in the future of p at which all future directed null geodesics are reconverging. Thus provided that, the given null geodesic P can be extended
D has a future null conjugate point to to the parameter value t l - ( n - 2 ) / 8 ( t i ) . ,
U,is a convex
normal neighborhood and no nonspacelike curve which leaves U, ever returns. Since H is a spacelike submanifold, we may also assume that each U, rt H is achronal by choosing the U, sufficiently small. Clearly, I i ( S ) exists pl E N with pi
q $ I + ( S ) , we have pl
5 I + ( H ) since
S E H . To show I f (H) 5 I f ( S ) ,assume that q E I + ( H )- I + ( ) . Then there
< < q.
Now pl E U,(l)n H for some index i ( 1 ) . Since
t = tl along P. Hence @ ( t ) E I+(p) for all t > tl - ( n - 2 ) / B ( t l ) . Since the set of null directions at p is a compact set, it follows that E+(p) = J+(p) - I+(p) is compact provided that ( M , g ) is null geodesically complete. Thus we have obtained the following result.
Proposition 12.46. Let (M, g) be a space-time of dimension n 2 3 with
S and hence pl $ E C ( H ) .Thus there exists p2 E H
with p2 < < pl. Since U,(l) n H is achronal, pa $ U,(l). Now pz E ?N for some i ( 2 ) # i(l).Again q $ I f ( S ) yields p2 $ E + ( N ) . Thus there exists
<< p2. Furthermore. by construction of the sets U, we have Thus p3 E f l H for some i ( 3 ) different from z(1) a p ~ @ U,(l) U i(2). Continuing in thm fashion, we obtain an infinite sequence pl, ~ 2 . ~ 3 in H with corresponding sets U,(*). U+). . . such that i ( j i ) # i(3z 31 # ja This contradicts the finiteness of the number of sets U, of the giv cover. Hence I C ( S )= I f ( H ) . It remains to show that J+(S)= J+ ( H J 4 ( S ) C_ J t ( H ) as S C_ H. Thus assume that q E J + ( H ) - .T+(S). Th q $ I + ( S ) = I + ( H ) , and hence there is a future directed null curve R some point p E H to the point q. Since p E N and : ,6 I f ( H ) as p <
p~ E
N with
p3
Ric(v. v) > 0 for all null vectors 2: E T M . Suppose that there exists a point p E M such that on every future directed null geodesic P from p = P(O), the expansion $ of the Lagrange tensor field 2 on G(O) with ';i(O) = 0 and -I .4 ( 0 ) = E becomes negatlve for some t l > 0. Then at least one of (1) or (2) holds:
( 1 ) ( p ) is a trapped set, i.e., E+(p) = J+(p) - I+@) is compact; ( 2 ) (A{, gj is null incomplete
We now consider the case of z compact connected spacelike hypersurface S without boundary in a space-time (M,g). If S is achronal, then E f ( S ) = S S is a trapped set. On the other hand, it may happen that S is not
472
12
SIKGULARiTIES
12.5
SA4OOTH BOUNDARIES
achronal. In fact, an example may easily be constructed of a compact spacelike hypersurface S with S 2 I C ( S )and hence E+(S)= @ (cf. Figure 12.5).
A compact spacelike hypersurface S which is not achronal may be used to construct an achronal compact spacdike hypersurface in a covering manifold of M [cf. Geroch (1970), Hawking (1967, p. 194), O'Neill (1983)j. Thus if
a space-time has a compact spacelie hypersurface, then there is a covering manifold of the given space-time which has a trapped set. But in proving the nonspacelike incompleten~s of (M,g), we may work with covering manifolds just as well as with ( M ,g) since ( M ,g ) is nonspacelike incomplete if and only if each covering manifold of (M, g) equipped with the pullback metric nonspacelike incomplete. These observations on covering spaces together with Theorem 12.44, Proposition 12.45, and Proposition 12.46 yield the following theorem [cf. Rawkin and Penrose (1970. p. 544)].
Theorem 12.47. Let (M, g) be a chronological space-time of dimension
n2
IS
3 which satisfies the generic condition and the timelike convergence co
dition. Then the space-time (M, g) is nonspaceIike incomplete if any of th following three conditions is satisfied: (1) ( M ,g) has a closed trapped surface. a t p is recon (2) (M, g) has a point p such that each null geodesic s t a r t ~ n g verging somewhere in the future (or past) of p. (3) (M,g) has a compact spacelike hypersurface.
Remark 12.48. Conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem 12.47 are reason
cosmological assumptions. Robertson-Walker space-tirnes with physical1 sonable energy momentturn tensors, positive energy density, and A = 0 closed trapped sxrfaces [cf. Hawkin (1). There is some astronomical evi p. 355)j.
% FIGURE 12.5. Let M = 5
S1 be given the Lorentzian metric
E S1) is a compact ds2 = dBI2 - dBz2. The set S = {(01, 0) : 1 9 ~
12.5
Smooth Boundaries
spacelike submanifold of codimension one such that E + ( S ) = 0. Here S is not a trapped set because it is not achronal. However.
In this section we consider the relationship between causal disconnec nompacelike geodesic incompleteness, and points of the causal boundary
(M,g) has a covering manifold ( M ,i j ) which contains a trapped set #?which is diffeomorphic to S.
474
12
SINGULARTTIES
12.5
SMOOTH BOUNDARIES
4 5
(cf. Section 6.4) at which the boundary is differentiable. Many of the more important spacetimes studied in general relativity have causal boundaries which are differentiable at a large number of points. For example, the differentiable part of the causal boundary of Minkowski spacetime consists of JC and 3(cf. Figure 5.4). Since these sets correspond to null hypersmfaces, it is tllus natural to call the points of J+ and 5 - null boundary points. Penrose (1968)
has used conformal methods to study smooth boundary points of Minkowski

space-time and other space-times. In general, we consider a space-time ( M ,g) with causal boundary d,M and let M* denote the causal completion A 4 U DcM of (M,g). Placlng various causality conditions on ( M , g ) (e.g., stable causality) ensures that this completion may be given a Hausdorff topology such that the original topology on
A 4 agrees with the topology induced on iM as a subset of M y c f . Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 220-2211, Rube (1988). Szabados (1988), or Section 6.41
Assume that jj
EcM and let U L = U t ( j j ) be a neighborhood of p in A4

FIGURE 12.6. The space-time ( M , g )has a causal boundary point
j?, and U*(B)is a neighborhood of p in the causal co~npletion M' =
Denote by (U, g) the metric g restricted to the set
A confomak representation of U8(ji) will be a space-time (M'.g') and a hom omorphic embedding f : U * -t M' such that:
( 1 ) f I U is a smooth map; and
(2) There is a smooth function R : U -+ R such that R
on U (Figure 12.6). If the conformal representation f : U* -t MI maps U* to a smooth manifo with boundary, then we will say that jj is a smooth bozlnda9-g poznt.
MU a,M of ( M .g). The homeomorphic embedding j : U * --+ M' is a smooth conformal map on U = U m ( pn ) M.
> 0 and fig = f *gl
If -y
$jis
[a,5) --+ U is a curve in M such that ~ ( t-) t p E M* - Li as t
-+ b,
ther
the curve y is said to have the boundary point 5 , E M* as an endpoint, Also i

a smooth spacelike boundary point. then it is not hard to find a compact
Definition 12.49. (Smooth Causal Boundary Point)

smooth conformal representation
Let U*(p) have
f : U*
M' such that f ( U ) is a smo
set K in M such that all inextendible nonspacelike curves with one endpoint at must intersect K In fact, K may be chosen as a compact, achronal spacelikg ypersurface with boundary (cf. Figures 12.7 and 12.8) Furthermore, giver any neighborhood U * ( p )of j3 in M f . the compact set K may be chosen to lit
= u * ( p )n M .
manifold with a smooth boundary d(f ( U ) ) in M'. Then the point to be a smooth spacelike (respectively. null, tzmebzke) boundary poznt corresponding boundary hypersurface in (MI.9').
a (f ( U ) ) is a spacelike (respectively, null,
12
SINGULARITIES
Theorem 12.51. Let ( M .g) be a chronological space-time of dimension
n 2 3 which satisfies the generic condition and the timelike convergence condition. If (M, g) has a smooth spacelike boundary point, then (M,g) is nonspacelike incomplete.
CHAPTER 13
Proof. This follows from Lemma 12.50 and Theorem 12.41.

Notice that if (141, g) has one smooth spacelike (respectively, null, timelike) boundary point, then (M,g) has uncountably many smooth spacelike (respectively, null, timelike) boundary points. For if j j 6 d,hf corresponds to the point z E d( f ( U ) ) under the given conformal representation J : U* -+ M' of Definition 12.49, then points y f L?(J(U))close to x wili d s o represent smooth spacelike (respectively, null, timelike) boundary points in a,M under the given conformal representation and
GRAVITATIONAL PLANE WAVE SPACCTIMES
It is well known and already mentioned in earlier chapters that for general space-times, geodesic connectedness and gcodcsic completeness are not well related. Indeed, in Figure 6.1 we have given an example of an elementary space-time which is geodesically complete yet have indicated in this figure a point q in I+(p) which is not joined to p by any geodesic whatsoever) let alone by a maximal timelike geodesic. More dramatically, in this same example a whole open neighborhood U about q exists, with U contained in I + ( p ) . yet there is no geodesic from p to any point of U . Hence: despite thc fact that this space-time is geodesically complete, the exponential map from p fails to map onto open subsets of IT(p). In Section 11.3,geodesic connectedness was explored from a general viewpoint and related to geodesic pseudoconvexity and geodesic disprisonment. In this chapter we shall instead consider from the viewpoint of this book, and in particular as an illustration of the nonspacelike cut locus defined in Chapter 9, a class of spacetimes which originated ns wt,rophysical examples yet which display a novel, very non-ltiemannian geodesic behavior. Penrose (1965a) was apparently sufficiently impressed with the fact that the focusing behavior of future null geodesics issuing from appropriately chosen points p precluded this class of space-times from being globally hyperbolic that he chose the title "A remarkable property of plane waves in general relativity" for (1965a). In a series of articles by Ehrlich and Emch (1992a,b 1993), a detailed investigation of the behavior of all geodesics issuing from appropriately chosen
p was conducted, and in so doing it was possible to place this class of space-
d(f (U))
has dimension n - 1 in M'. Hence M
contains uncountably many smooth spacelike boundary points. Thus using the fact that a causally disconnecting set K may be chosen arbitrarily close to
j and the result that a limit of maximal any smooth spacelike boundary point j
curves is maximal in a strongly causal space-time, we may also establish the following result.
Theorem 12.52. Let (M, g) be a strongly causal space-time of dimension

n 2 3. Assume that
(iM, g) has a smooth spacelike boundary point and sat-
isfies the generic condition and the timelike convergence condition. Then for each smooth spacelike boundary point p, there is an incomplete nonspacelike geodesic which is inextendible and has j j as an endpoint. Thus (iM, g) has an tlncountable number of incomplete, inextendible, nonspacelike geodesics. Pmof. First, it follows from the preceding remarks that (M,g) contains an incomplete nonspacelike geodesic for each smooth nonspacelike boundary point. But we have just noted that if (M, g) contains one spacelike boundary point, it contains uncountably many spacelike boundary points.
times precisely in the standard causality ladder as being causally continuous yet not causally simple. Also, the future nonspacelike cut locus was determined
480
13
G W I T A T I O N A L PLANE WAVE SPACE-TIMES
13.1
THE iMETRiC, GEODESICS, A N D CUR\.'ATURE
45 1
and seen to coincide with the first future nonspacelike conjugate locus of p. Unfortunately. since this class of space-time5 was known in advance to fail to be globally hyperbolic, the theorems of Chapter 9 were not applicable here, only the basic concepts and definitions. In Chapters 35 and 36 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973), extensive
where H(y, z, u) has an appropr~ate degree of regularity and is nonvanishing somewhere. The global coordinate u : M
-+
R plays an important role in the
differential geometry of this c l a s of space-times and is even more important for the subclass of gravitational plane waves ~ncroducedbelow in (13.9). The plane fronted metrics (13 3) have the interesting property that all have vanishing scalar curvature but need not be Rcci fiat unless
discussions of gavitational waves as small scale ripples in the shape of spacetime rolling across space-time is given by analogy with water waves a ?smali ripples in the shape of the ocean's surface rolling across the ocean. These gravitational ripples are supposed to be produced by sources like binary stars, supernovae, or the gravitational collapse of a star to form a black hole. The exact plane wave solutions then arise as simplified models for this phenomenon, compromising between reality and complexity to paraphrase Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973). We wili refer the reader to t h s source rather than discussing the physics of these models in this chapter.
13.1
No general statement can be made about the geodesic completeness of this class of spacetimes apart from the geodesics lying in the null hyperplanes
On these hyperplanes, the ambient metric (13.3) is degenerate, so these are

not "Lorentzian submanifolds" in the sense of O'Neill (1983) or of our pre-
The Metric, Geodesics, and Curvature
vious Definition 3.47. Denoting y, Z , V , U by 1 , 2 , 3 . 4 respectively, the only This class of spacetimes, in the form in which we will describe them below, seems to originate with non-vanishing Chfistoffel symbols are
N. Brinkmann (1925) and sterns from the work of
Einstein jcf. Einstein and Rosen (1937)) These metrics were brought to the renewed attention of the general relativity community in the late 1950's by
I. Robinson [cf. Bondi, Pirani, and Robinson (1959) for a discussion of this history]. Let M = B4 with global coordinates (y, z, v, u). Heuristically, we may think of starting with the usual Midowski coordinates and then setting
(13.1)
and
u=-(t-
45
a)
and
v=--(t+x).
JZ
In these coordinates, the Minkowski metric 7 has the form
M satisfies ( ~ 0 4c)"(t) = 0. Then in the case that, 24 0 e ( t ) = uo for all t , one obtains that the geodesics in the nail hyperplanes F(710) are precisely stra~ght lines lying in P(uo)of the form
By direct calculation, it may be verified that any geodesic e
:
( a ,b)
--t
We also make a choice of time orientation which will be convenieni in the sequel, so that B/Bv is past directed null at all points. Now the class of "plane fronted waves" may be defined to be those metrics for coordinates (y, z , V , u) which may be written in the form
= B4 with global
which are ma~lifestly complete. These geodesics are either spacelike or null; we will reserve the notation
482
13
GRAVITATIONAL PLANE WAVE SPACETIMES
13.1
THE METRIC, GEODESICS, A N D CURVATURE
48:
for the member of the class of future d~rected null geodesics lying in P ( u o ) which passes through the point (yo,zc,O, u o ) . An aspect of the differential geometry of plane fronted waves related to this class of null geodesics is the C i u = d/Dv is always a global parallel vector fact that the vector field gradu = ' field, independent of the particular form of W(y, z , u). Already, it may be seen that the global coordinate u : M
-+
Definition 13.1. (Gmv~tational Plane Wave) The manifold M = R4 together with a plane fronted metric g = q H(u, y, z)du2 for which H takes
the quadratic form
R has many
or in matrix notation
aspects of a time function. First. we set things up in analogy with (13.1) so that is past directed null. Thus it follows that u is strictly increas~ng along any smooth future directed timelike curve c ( t ) , for with f ( u ) or g ( u ) not vanishing identically, is said to be a gravatational plane
wave. The wave may he said to be polarezed if g ( u ) = 0.The wave is commonly
as cl(t) is future timelike and d/dv is past directed nonspacelike. Hence, any plane fronted wave is chronological. &rthermore, this coordinate function
u is strictly increasing along any smooth future causal geodesic except for
termed a sandwa'cli wave if both functions f and g have compact support in u. It is interesting that as a consequence of the quadratic nature of (13.9), or equivalently (13.10), the same linear second order system of differential equations
those null geodesics q ( s ) of the form (13.6). For writing an arbitrary geodesic
as ~ ( s = ) ( ~ ( sz)( , s ) ,~ ( s u )( , s ) ) , the geodesic differential equation reduces as
noted above to ul'(s) = 0 for this last component. Hence, if u is nonconstant, it may be rescaled to be u ( s ) = s , and arises in studying the Kllhng fields, the Jacobi fields, and the geodesics of these space-times. C Ahlbrandt has commented that this is to be expected Thus u is indeed strictly increasing along all smooth null geodesics except for those of the form (13.6) lying in one of the null planes P(uO).Recall that a chronological space-time which fails to be causal contains a null gcodesic
/? : [0,1] -+ M with P(0) = P(1). But such a segment cannot lie in one of the
for the last two of these objects by the classical calculus of variations. given the quadratic nature of the metric
In
(13.9) and hence of the assoc~atedart
length functional. Also, all gravitat~onal plane waves are geodesically complete and satisfy Rie = 0 but are not flat since e~therf or g 1s assumed to be nonvanishing. Thus, dny geodesic conjugacy whlch arlses may be attributed to the shear term rather then the Ricci curvature in equation (12.2) of Sectlon
12.1. It may be checked directly that any future nonspacelike geodesic, other
planE%P(u0) hecame all null geodesics in these planes are injective by direct solution of the geodesic PD.E.; hence P must have the form (13.8), but then the form of the iast coordinate precludes P(0) = p(1) from occurring Thm the nature of the global coordinate u and the form of the geodesics in the null planes P(uO)ensure that all members of the class of plane franted waves are causal space-time. In Eardley, Isenberg, Illarsden, and Moncrief (1986), it was shown that a space-time which is a non-trivial vacuum solution of the Einstein equations and which admits at least one non-homothetic conformal Killing vector field must be a plane fronted wave.
than one of the complete null geodesics of the form (13.6). experiences some nonzero timelike sectional curvatures and hence saiisfies the generic cond1t:on (2.40). We now turn to a more careful discussion of the geodesics of a plane wave space-time which are transverse to the null planes P ( u o ) . As previously noted, such geodesics may be parametrized with
U(S)
= S. or equivalently, as
484
13
GR4VIT-ATIONAL PLANE WAVE SPACE-TIMES
13.1
THE METRIC. GEODESICS, AND CURVATURE
485
Kow in the case of the gravitational wave, the ChristoRel symbols simplify to
=
for this class of metrics; an alternate proof may be given based on a knowledge of the isometry group of this class of space-times. Equaiions (13.12)-(13.14) reveal that an important first step in understanding the geodesic behavior of these space-times is studying the system (13.11). Thorough studies of the Killing vector fields and related isometry groups of these space-times have been given in Ehlers and Kundt (1962), Krarner, Stephani, MacCallum, Herit, and Schmutzer (1980), and Ehrlich and Emch (1992a), among others. R o m t h natttlue ~ of the isometry group, i t follows that if the behavior of the exponential map at Po = (0.0,O. ug) is understood, then
5 [f'(u) ty2 - z2) + 2g1(u)yz]

I
r;*= ril = -rid= ~ ( Z L ) Y g(~)~,

and I ? : * = I?& =
= g(u)y - f (u)z.
Hence, the y and z components of the geodesic P.D (13.13) (13.14) y"(u) = f(u)y +g(u)z ~"(u) = and
E read
- f (u)z
as >sometries map geodesics to geodesics, the same behavior obtains at an arb~trary point P with u ( P ) = uo. With choice of initial c o ~ d ~ t i o y(uo) ns =
Z(UO) = v(u0) = 0. equation (13.15) simplifies to
as claimed above. Hence, it 1s ~mrned~ate that if f and g are continuous,

then different~able solutions to (13.13) and (13.14) exist for all values of the parameter u. Rather than using the geodesic differentlal equatlon to solve v(u), it is convenient to give the following indirect argument. Suppose we wish to find the geodesic c(t) with g(cl, c') = A. As cl(u) = (yl(u),zl(u), v'(u) I), this condition is expressed as In Emch and Ehrlich (1992a,b), a conjugacy index associated to this system with the preceding initial condition was discussed. For u, E
R,let
(13.17) L(75) = (solutions (y(a). z(u)) to (13.11) with y(uj) = z(u3) = 0).
x = q(cf,c ' )
or
= (7Jf)2 4- (z1)2 2vt(u) . 1
+ [f(u)(g2 - z2) + 2g(u)yz] - 1. I
Definition 13.2. (Conpgacy Index)

uo and ul to be
For distinct real numbers
ug
< ul,
define the conjugucy indez I(u0, ul) of O.D.E. system (13.11) with respect to
x = (v1)2+ (z1)2+ (f(u)y + g(t4)z)y + (g(u)y - f(u)z) 2 + 22').

Using (13.13) and (13.14), t h s last equatlon becomes
X = (y')2
+ (zf)2 + yl1g+ zllz + 22'
ul) is which, given our dimension restriction, is either 0.1, or 2. The pair {uo,
said to be conjugate provided i(uO. uI) > 0 and astagmatzc conjugate provided that I(uo u l ) = I. Also, {uo, u l ) is said to be a fir& conjugate pazr provided that l(uO. 2
~
so that vl(u) = (13.15)
[-(yyl)'
- (zzl)' + A] Integration produces the equation
1 v(u) = - [-y(u)y'(u) - z(u)zJ(u) -Xu 2
> ~ 0) and I(vo,T I ) = 0 for all u
E (uo,ul). Also. !ntroducc thc
C]
notation (13.19) Conn(Po. u)= (Q E P ( u ) . there is a geodesic from Po to Q).
which shows that slnce y(u) and z(u) are d~fferentiable for all values of u, v may be calculated for all values of u by employing (13 15). T h ~ calculatlo s together with our previous knowledge about the geodesics of the null
planes P(zbo), gives an elementary direct proof of the geodesic completen
It is a consequence of Propos~t~ons 12.15 and 12.17 that every gravitational

plane wave space-time admits a first conjugate pax. This was esteblished
456
13
GRAVITATIONAL PLANE WAVE SPACE-TIMES
132
ASTIGMATIC CONJUGACY, NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCVS
4 1
by direct considerat~ons in a symplectic context in Lemma 2.4 of Ehrlich and

Emch (1992a). In Ehrlich and Emch (1992aj the following facts were established by studying the exponential map and geodesic equation associated to a first astigmatic conjugate pair uo trary. Then (1) if uo 5 u(Q) in [uo.ul).
restrict our attention to the somewhat simpler case of a polarized gravitation,
2 0 Hence the metric takes tk wave with g(u) = 0 and also assume f (u)
form
< UI for an arb~traryplane wave: let PO E P(uo) b ~arii.

and the geodesic differential equation for geodesics transverse to the null plane
<~
1 then ,
there exists a unique geodesic (parametrize
P(u) uncouples as
y'' = f (u)y
2 '
as discussed above) from PO to Q; hence dim Conn(P0, u ) = 3 for all

and
(2) dimConn(P0. u l ) = 2 and Conn(P0~ul)is in fact a plane in P(ul

every point of which is conjugate to Po by a one-parameter family o geodesics.
= -f (u)t.
Under the above assumption on f , standard O.D.E. theory shows that equatio then Q E 14(Po). (13.22) admits a nontrivial first conjugate pair solution z(u) with z(u0) t ( u l ) = O and z(u) for all u
(3) If u(&)
> u1,
(4) If uo 5 u(Q)
< UI,
then Q E I+(Po) if and only if Q lies on a uniqu
maximal timelike geodesic segment issuing from Po. Also, the first future nonspacelike conjugate locus and the future non spacelike cut locus of Po in Conn(&,ul) were seen to coincide. A no ferentlable example was also given of a space-time of the above form dimConn(Po,ul) = 1, so this possibility was not ruled out in the consider ations of Ehrlich and Emch (1992a). Now, the proofs of these results calle upon the estabhshment of a symplectic framework somewhat outside the view point of the subject matter of this book Since it was seen in t h ~ s refercnc that precisely the same behavior obtains in the polarized and nonpolarize cases, we will restrict our discussion in the next section to the polarized c for whlch the equations are somewhat less complicated and more easily de
with In order to illustrate the above points.
> 0 for u with uo < u < UI. Fix such a number uo. A f 2 0, any nontrivial solution y(u) to (13.21) with y(uo) = 0 satisfies y(u) #
> UO.
Let us denote by yl(u) [respectively, zl(u)] the solution to the 0.D.E
(13.21) [respectively, (13.22)] with initial conditions
(13.23)
YI(UO) = zl(vo) = 0,
and
?J:(uo) = -7: (uo) = 1.
Since the isometry group of any gravitational plane wave space-tirile a ~ t :ran s sitivcly on the null planes P(uo) for any uo 6 W, it is sufficient to understanc the behavior of geodesics issuing from Po
=
(0.0.0, uO) to understand expl
for any P E M with u ( P ) = uo. Evidently, any geodesic c(u) issuing from l? which is not a straight line lying in P(uo) and which satisfies g(cl. c') = X ma: be described as
13.2
Astigmatic Gonjugacy and the Nonspacelike Cut Locus
In thls section we turn to the study of astigmatic or Index 1 conju

and the global geometric behavior of the geodesics issuing from Po As mentioned, to avoid the complexities of dealing with the general case, which d not in any way affect the qualitative outcome of the geodesic geometry, we wi in R,in view of eqdation (13.16). For an! u with uo < u < ul, we have arranged ;hat yl(u). zl(u) > 0 Hence, it 1s eas: for some choice of constants cl,
c2
488
13
13.2
ASTIGMATIC CONJUGACY, NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
48
to check from (13.24) that not only does Conn(Po,u) = P ( u ) for all such u, but also given any Q with u(Q) 6 [uo,ul), there is a unique geodes~c from Po to Conn(Po , u,) n
( z =0
4. Now take any poiilk Q = (c,d. e, 2

C(UI)=
~ in ~ Conn(Po. ) 211). Note that

2
(13.25)
Hence, d = 0. Now cl is determined as cl = ~ / y ~ ( 2possible ~ ~ ) , slnce yl ( u l ) > 0 Given this determination of cl, we then make v(ul) = e by choosing th constant X to satisfy (13.26)
A=
[2e
+ c2?4l'(W)lyl(ul)]
1 1 '1 1
-~
0 1
and note that this setup is valid for any c2 E established that (13.27)
B. Hence.
we have not on1
Conn(P0,ul) = P(u1) n { z = 01,
but also letting c2 vary over all possible values - m < cz < +co, we have show that each point
& in Conn(P0,ul) is conjugate to P by this oneparamete
family of geodesics a s cl arld X = g(c', c') are uniquely determined by Q, but c2 is undetermined. The "'unbounded'" nature of this one-parameter family geodesics precludes the geodesic system from being pseudoconvex, and als prevents this class of space-times from being globally hyperbolic [cf. Penros (1965a)l. To recapitulate. we have found that as u increases from u = 710. prlor t reachlng P(ul) each point Q with u(Q) = a is joined to Po by a unique ge set Conn(Po, ul) drops from th desic, but when u = u1, the geodesic jo~n mensions to two dimensions, and as that happens, every point in Conn(P0, u
is conjugate to Poby a one-parameter family of geodes~cs as exhibited expl
FIGURE 13.1. The conjugate locus of Po in Conn(Po.u l ) = P(uo)n ( z = 0) for a first conjugate palr (uO, 2 ~ and ~ ) Po = (0,0,0, uo) is shown.
by Y and V respectively, we obtain the equation (13.28)
v = -[(~/~)YI'(~I)/YI(~I)]~~,
= 0,
for the first future null conjugate locus of Po in Conn(Po,ul). Hence. this
s a planar parabola in Conn(Po.ul). This null conjugate locus, Nconj(Po), 1 same phenomenon is shown to occur for an arbitrary gravitational plane wave
in Ehrlich and Emch (1992a, p. 214) The points in Conn(P3,u l ) whrch lie
itly above The first future null conjugate locus of Po in the null hyperplane may now be determined by taking of
~ ~ l = ~ l
X = 0 in the above discussion. Noting
yl'(ill)/yl(ul) > 0 under our hypotheses, and denoting they and v coordina
, ul
~ ~ l ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ l ~ l
on timeliice geodesics issuing from Po are precisely those which are In the same component of Conn(Po,ul) - Nconj(Po) as the focus of the parabola while those which lie on spacelike geodesics ~ s s u ~ n from g Po !ie in the other component (cf. Figure 13.1).
490
13
13 2
ASTIGEvfATIC CONJUGACY, NONSPACELIKE CUT LOCUS
491
More exactly, the Eollovii~lg result is established for the general plane wave space-time in Ehrlich and Emch (1992a, p. 214). Proposition 13.3. In the presence of astigmatic conjugacy from Po, the future null (respective1,vi nonspacelike) cut locus of Pois prec~sely the first future null (respect~vely, noespacelike) conjugate locus to Poas descr~bed abovc. In particular, every point in the con~ponent of Zonn(P0, ul) -Nconj(Po) lies in the connected component containing the focus of the parabola Nconj
is a future timclike cut point to Po.
Returning to the general setting of a plane wave, for any uo, ul with uo < ZLI, introduce the notation
Arguing along the lines of (13 7 ) ,it may be seen that any suchu-strip has the convexity property that if m, n are contained in S(110,ul). and y . [O,1]
--+
is a future directed nonspacelike curve with y(0) = m and y(1) = n, then
Proof We first recall that these space-times have been known at least since Penrose (1965a) to fail to be globally hyperbolic; thus we may not use the existence of maximal nonspacelike geodesic segnleritv in this proof. Instead, it is helpful to develop a version of the basic Proposition 3.4 which is more adapted to the sublevel sets of the global coordinate function u : M -+ rather than considering a small convex neighborhood centered at Po.While is not a time function in the sense of Section 3.2, u does possess the following two properties as considered in Ehrlich and Em& (1992a, pp. 200-204). Fuactzon) Definition 13.4. (Quasi-Time is differentiable on S(uo, u1). Using the Sgnge world function. define the following partition of S(uo. Ill). Put Now we restrict our attention to a strip S(uD,ul)for whirh (t~o, Z L ~ ) is a first conjugate pair. Then by our above considerations. expro is invertible on this particular strip. Thus the Synge world function cP : S(u0,u1) + R given hy
A smooth function f : N
N = @-'(I)) = (points in S ( U ~ u! l ) that are joined to Po
by a null geodesic),
on an arbitrary space time (N,g) is said to be a quasi-tzme functzon provid
(I) The gradient V f is everywhere nonzero. past directed nonspaceli

and
(2) Every null geodes~c segment c such that f o c is constant is injectiv

From our description of the geodesics of gravitational plane wave spac times and the fact that V f = dldv is past directed null, it is evident that t global coordinate function u : M
+
T = { m E S(uo,ul) : +(m) < 0) = {points in S(UO, ul)

which are joined to Po by a "timelike geodesic), and
P satisfies the properties of this definitio
Property (1) implies that a quwi-time function is also a semi-time func as defined in Section 3.2, but it is the combination of both properties (1)
8 = {rn E S(UO, %I) : +(m) > 0) = (points in S(uO, ul)

which are joined to Po by a spacelike geodesic) Even though T may not be contained in a convex normal neignborhood of
(2) in this definition which ensure that an arbitrary space-time which ad

a quasi-time function must he causal While a semi-time function pre chronology from being violated it does not, in general, prevent the emst of closed nu1 geodesics.
Po, we still have VQ, existing and being future t~melikeon all of T Now the
prom~sedtechnical lemma may be stated
13
GRAVITATIOKAL PLANE WAVE SPACE-TIMES
13.3
ASTIGMATIC CONJUGACY, ACHRONAL BOUNDARY
495
((0,O, s, ul) : s E R) to
4.
But then since R E I+(Po) as Penrose observed,
we have Q E I+(Po) by future set theory, a s I + ( P o ) = (rn E M : I+(m)2 I"(P0)) (cf. Proposition 3.7 or corollary 3.5). Now glven an arbitrary Q with u(Q) > u1, simply take any past directed timelike geodesic c(u) lssulng from
2 !n Q, and from knowledge of the quasi-time function u, we know for any u

(u1,ul c), that S = c(u2) satisfies S << Q and S 6 S ( u I , u I Hence, Q E I+(Po) as well. U Now
+ C)
I+(PO).
= I+(Po) is a particular example of a future sct. and the corre-
sponding achronal boundary is given by
The characterization [cf. P e n r ~ s e(1972, Section 5 ) ] of a general achronal
FIGURE 13.2. The null tail NT(P0) in P(uo) for a first astigmatic
conjugate pair uo
boundary in terms of what relatwists call the null geodeszc generators translates in our simpler context of (13.33) as follows
Theorem 13.10. Let (N,g) be an arbitra~y space-time, arid let B =
< u1 is shown.
Points Q on the null tail NT(P0) then fall into one of two categories: first, those points lying on Nconj(P0) and thus joined to Po by a one-paramet family of null geodesics; and second, those points Q not lying on Nconjj which are thus joined to Po by a one-parameter family of spacelike geod Penrose (1965a) observed from the "noncompact" behavior of the family of n geodesics of the type (13.24) from Po which refocus at Qo that PQ, happ to be a limit curve of this family of null geodesics from Po to Qo, and e more remarkably, this behavior prevents this class of space-times from b globally hyperbolic. 111Ehrlicli axid Emch (1992a, p. 218), we noted that observation may be used as a step in the proof of the following result. Lemma 13.9. Suppose uo < u(Q)
u1
a(I+(Po)) for any Po E N . Suppose l? 6 B - (Po). Then there exists a null geodesic /3 contained in B with future endpoint (1)
R which sat~sfies eilher
p : [O,
I] + N wjth P(0) = Po andfi(1) = R,or
(2) ,O : ( - a , 11 -+ B is past inextendible and 9(1) = R. It is possible for a particular point on the achronal boundary B to possess geodesies of both types (I) and (2) above. The null tail NT(Po) defined above happens to be a subset of the achronal boundary
B = d(I+(Po)). and po~nts R
of NT(Po) which lie on Nconj(Po) as well have null geodesics with endpoint R of both type (1) and type (2) of Theorern 13.10. On the other hand, points R of the null tail NT(Po) which do not lie on the null corijugate locus Nccnj(Po) are future endpoints of a null geodesic 8 only of t j p e (2). For this simple example of a future set. note that points R which satisfy alternative (1) lie in the future horismos E f (Po) = J+(Po) - I'(Po) of Po. Also, it should be noted that if a space-trme ( N , g ) is causally simple, so that J f ( Q ) = J + ( Q ) = I+(Q) for any Q in N , then any future set B defined as in (13 33) sat~sfiesB = b(If (Q)) = E+(Qf Thus to get an example of such an
is a first astigmatic conjugate pair
> u1. Then Q E I+(Po).
Proof. First, choose c > 0 such that (al, .ul -t- c] centalm no u-value co
gate to u = 211. Then from the explicit form of the geodesics for gravi~atio plane waves, it may be calculated that for any Q in the strip S ( u I , u l there exists a future timeirke geodesic from a point
- -
R on the null ray PQ,
496
13
G W I T A T I O N A L PLAKE WAVE SPACE-TIMES
13.3
ASTIGMATIC CONJUGACY, ACHRON.4L BOUNDARY
497
achfonal boundary B whlch contains polnts R satisfjing altei~iative(2) but not alternative (I) of Theorem 13.10, it is necessary to consider space-times which fail to be causally simple. Fortunately, ail gravitational plane waves are known to fa11 to be causally simple, essentially because of the behamor
mentioned above that the null geodesic ray pq,, apart from its terminai point
Definition 13.11. (U~zmodal Gravztatzonal Plane Wave Metnc) larized gravitational plane wave metric g = properties:
A prr
i- f(u)ly2 - z2)du2 is said to
be mimodal ~ff (u) 2 0 and there exist A > 0 and T i 6 R with the following
Qo, is in J f (Po) but not in Jf (Po).
A t present, we know that I+(Po) and B = B(I+(Po)) have the following properties for the first astigmatic conjugate pair u0 < u l and Po= (0,0,0,uo).
(1) If R E I+(Po), then u(R)
(13.35)
( ) < A < -2 ;
'?r
and
> UO.
6
(2) T f uo 5 u(R)
< u1, then R
I+(Po) if and only if R lies on a unique Requirement (13.35) serves to ensure that in a certain Priifer type transformation for the solution of the 0,D.E. (13.22), a continuous determination of arctan may be made [cf. Ehrlich and Emch (1992a, p. 188)]. What we need for our purposes in this section, which is where the assumption of unlmodality enters into the discussion below, is the following variant of a Sturm Separation Theorem, which is implicit in the proof of Theorem 2.14 of Ehrlich and Emch (1992a, p. 187).
maximal timelike geodesic segment c with c(uo) = Poand c(u(R)) = R. (3) If u(R) > 211, then R E I+(Po) automatically.
(4) If u(R) = u1 and
R E Conn(P0, ul), then

R.
R E I*(Po) if and only if R
lies on a uniquely determined 1-parameter family of maximal timellke geodesic segments from P o to
What is not settled is the qaestion of what other points R in P(ul) which do
Po,i.e., z ( R ) # 0, are contained in I+(Po), s astigmatic in simpler terms, what happens to the chronological future of Poa
n o t lie on geodesics issuing from
Lern~na 13.12. Let uo < ul be a first astigmatic conjugate pair for a given
unimodal gravitational wave. Then there exist 5 > 0 and a strictly increasing continuous function a : [O, 6) -+ [0, +x) with a(O) = 0 and such that
conjugacy occurs when u = u;? The corresponding facts for the achronal boundary B = d(I+(Po)) are fol~ows.
(5) If R E B. then u0 5 u(R)

( 6 ) Tf uo
< u1.
is a first astigmatic conjugate pair for all
E
< u(R) < u1, then R E B if and only if R is the endpoint of
in [O, 6).
unique maximal null geodesic segment from Po to R. (7) For R in Conn(Po,uI), it is known that R E B if and only ~f R contained in the null tail NT(Po). In the case of B, then, the issue 1s whether B n P ( u l ) = NT(Po), or equi lently, whether P(ul)
Now we are ready for
Theorem 13.13. Let uo < u1 he a first astigmatic conjugate pair for

a unimodular polarized gavitational wat7e. T,et Po = (yo,20, vo,uo) be an arbitrary point of the null plane P(u0). If R E P ( u l ) does not lie on any geodesic issuing from Po, then R E It(Po). Hence, the null tail NT(Po) of Po satisfies
- Conn(Po,ul) 5 I+(Po).
It may be seen for a subclms of polarized gravitational waves, which termed "unimodal" in Ehrlich and Emch (1992a) and Ehrlich (1993). these related ilssues may be settled affirmatively.
498
13
i3.3
ASTIGMATIC CONJUGACY. ACHRONAL BOUNDARY
499
t
Proof From the nature of the isometry group, ~t suffices to make explicit
Choose a constant E > 0 so that 0 5 f (u) any

?I.
calculations with Po= (0.0.0, u0) as above. With this particular cholce of Po, for any gravitational plane wave metric with g(u) = 0 we have that P(s) = (0,O. 0. s) is a future directed null geodesic issuing from Po Let P, denote the point given by
< B2 for a with uo - !5 ?L < ul
1.
Also as f ( u ) 2 0, we have that y,(u) and g,/(u)/g, JU) are b o ~ h positive for
> ?LO -I- E . Hence (13.43) follows by the usual b u c h comparison theory
P,= P(uo + E)
= (0,O. 0, u0
+r )
techniques The more technical part of the proof is to establish (13.44). Here there are two cases. both of which occur in explicit examples: first, u i $ supp(f(u)), and second, ulE supp(f (u)). In either case, let a ( )be as in (13.37).
Further, let y,(u) and re(%)
denote respectively the unique solutions to the IVP's (13.39)
Y"
(13.40) zl/
f (2519 = 01
Y ( W + E ) = ~ ,y ' ( u o + e ) = l z(u0-J-e)=O, zl(ugSc) = l
and
Consider first the case that supp(f (u)) for all E constants A, so that
7 ~ 1
@ ~11pp(f(u)), and so also

= 0 for all
ZL
UI
+ a ( ) cf
+ f (U)Z= 0,
> D and z"(u)
> ul.
Hence there exist
which arise in studying the exponential map from ~ ( u issuing ) from (13.41)
P,.In view of (13.24)
translated to P,, if a point Q = (y, z , v.u) with u > ug
lies on a geodem for all u
P,with g(c'. cl) = A, then

+ YE(u) zdzo
- uo - ),
> ul.
Consequently,
zv = _&.I9 y2 - i : ( U )z2
Now f i x R = (a, b. c, ul) in P ( u l ) which does not lie on any geodesic issuing from Po, ensurlng b f 0. If we show that R lies on some future timelik geodesic issuing from
so that limit (13.44) is immediate Finally, suppose that 111 E supp(f(u)) L. Flaminio has remarked that the analysis step (13.46) should remain valid because the Jacobi solution Z(U)near ~ t zero s at ul +a() is known to be asymptotically linear A detailed calculation demonwrating thar, this intuition is valid may be given by drawing on the
i ; in the proof of Theorem variant of the Priifer transform technique used a
P,for somc E > 0. then R lies on a future null geod
from Po to P,, follouled by a future timelike geodesic hom P, to R, whe
PQ< R as desired. But the point R will lie on a timelike geodesic from P, for somc provided that the inequality
(13.42)
2c<--
>0
2.14 of Ehrlich and Emch (199%). The IVP's (13.40) in the
(16,
z ) plane are
Y~'(uI) yc(ul)
z*'(uI) b2 ~r(u1)
s in Theorem 2.14 in order to carry out the transformed into the (s,8) plane a
details of the analysis. The crux of the matter is that the transform of z c ( u ) to @,(s)enables a uniform bound on 6,'(s) to be given because of the presence of the term sin[8,(8)] on the right hand side of equation (2.83) of Ehrlich and Ernch (1932a).
is satisfied for some E > 0. Since b2 > 0, this will ensue provided that (13.43) is uniformly bounded as E (13.44)
+
%'(uI) yc(u1) O while lim z,/(u1) = -oc ~~(2~1)
E+O
CHAPTER
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM I N GLOBAL EOPeENTZIAN GEOMETRY

An important aspect of global Riemannian geometry over the past 25 years with curvature inequalities. has been the investigation of rigidity in con~iection
This concept was first widely disseminated in 1975 in the first two paragraphs of the preface to the iduential monograph by J. Cheeger arid D. Ebin (1975),
Comparison Theorems in Riemannian Geometry:

In this book we study complete riemannian manifolds by developing techniques for comparing the geometry of a general manifold
M with that of a simply connected model space MH of constant curvature W .A typicai conclusion is that M retains particular geornetacal properties of the model space under the assumption that
is bounded between suitable constants. its sectional curvature KIM,

Once this has been established, it is usually possible to conclude that M retains topological praperties of MH as well.
The distinction between strict and weak bounds on KM is important, since this may reflect the difference between the geometry of say the sphere and that of euclidean space. However, it is often the case that a conclusion which becomes false when one relaxes the condition of strict inequality to weak inequality can be shown to fail only under very special circumstances. Results of this nature. which are known as ngadzty theorems, generally reqmre a delicate global argument.
A first example is provided by the topological sphere theorem established by

W. Raueh (1951), M. Berger (1960), and W. Klingenberg (1959, 1961, 1962), among other authors.
502
14
THE SPLITTIKG PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14
T H E SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LORENTZIriN GEOMETRY
503
Topological S p h e r e Theorern. Let (N. h) be a s~mply connected, complete Riemannian manifold of dimension n
Cheeger-Gromoll S p l i t t i ~ i g Theorern. Lei (rV,h) be a complete Rieniannian manifold of dimension n
2 2. Suppose the sectional curva-
2 2 which satisfies
the curvature condition
tures of (N, hj satisfy the curvature pinchag condition (14.1)
d.A<K(aj<A
(14.5)
R~c(v, z;) 2 O
for ail 71 in T A . ~
for all two-planes o in 6 2 ( M ) , where d satisfies (14.2)

d>;
and which contains a complete geodesic line. Then (iV. h) may he written uniquely as an isometric product Nl x IWk wl~ere NI contains no lines and W k is given the standard Aat metric. Thus in this example the curvature rigidity arises as condition (14.4) is weakened to condition (14.5). In 1932 Busemann (1932) introduced an analytic method of studying generalizations of the classical horospheres of hyperbolic geometry to a very general class of metric geometries. In the proof of the Cheeger-Gromoll Splitting Theorem given in Cheeger and Gromoll (19711, this particular function w a s independently rediscovered during the course of the proof as a key ingredient. At about the same time. the Busemann function had also been seen to be a useful tool in the study of complete Riemannian manifolds of nonpositive sectional curvature (cf. Eberlein and O'Ne111 (1973), Eberlein (1973a), where the function was named the "'Busemann function" in honor of iis discoverer) This function has played a prominent role continuing up to the present time
and A > O is arbitrary. Then N is homeomorphic to the sphere Sn.

Notice that in this result we have a strict inequality in (14.2) and also in the left inequality of (14.1) Now the rigidity in this context was first proved by M. Berger under the weaker pinching hypothesis
(14.3)
-A
5 K(cr) 5 A.
Berger obtained that either the previous topological conclusion held and that
AT would still be homeomorphic to Sn.or if the previous conclusion faded to
hold, and hence N was no longer homeomorphic to Sn,then A: had not just to be homeomorphic but had to be zsometnc to a compact rank one Rieinannian symmetric space. Here 1s a second example more germane to our context. It follows from the work of Gromoll and Meyer (1969) that a complete Riemannian manifold dimension n 2 2 wlth everywhere positive Ricci curvatures (14 4) Ric(v, v)
in global Riemannian geometry.

In Chapter 12 singularity theorems for spacetimes which satisfy certain global geometric conditions and certain curvature conditions have been discussed. A simple prototype may be stated a s a reminder.
>0
for all nonzero v in T M
P r o t o t y p e Singularity Theorem. Let ( M :g) be a spacetime of dimension n > 2 which satisfies the following three conditions:
(1) ( M ,g) con tans a compact Cauchy surface;
is connected a t infinity. Rigidity now enters into this situatioil in the followln
manner. Suppose only that Ric(v, v)
> O and that (N, h) fads to be connecte
at infinity. Then since (N, h) is assumed to be complete, there ex~stsw is often termed a (geodesic) lzne, i.e., a complete geodesic c R (N, joining any two different ends of I V and minimizing distance between any tw of its points. But then the Cheeger-Gromoll Splitting Theorem (1971) m applied to the line c to establish that (N, h) is zsometnc to a product mani
, 2 0 for ail timelike (or ali nonspacelike) v; (2) ( M ; g ) satisfies R i c ( ~V) and
(3) Every inextendible nonspacelike geodesic satisfies the generic cond~tion (cf. Definition 12.7 and Theorem 12.18).
Then (M, g) contains an incomplete nonspacelike geodecsic
504
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14
T H E SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
505
Now in this result the "strict curvature inequality" is condition (3), which requires for each inextendible nonspacelike geodesic that a certain curvature quantlty be nonzero a t some point of the given geodesic. Thus, in this context, curvature rigldity would suggest studying spxEr-dimes which satisfy all the conditions of the Prototype Singularity Theorem but condition (3) Earlier In an essay on singularities in general relativity, Geroch (1970b, pp. 264-265) had suggested for inextendible closed universes satisbing the Einstein equat~ons that, generically. such space-timm should be timelike geodesically Incomplete [cf. the m~ddlecolumn in Figure 2 on p. 266 of Geroch (1970b)l. Geroch's conjectured v~ewpoint was stated as Thus, we expect that the diagram for closed universes will be almost entirely black. There are, however, at least a few white points there exist closed. geodesically complete flat spacetimes
In a more differential geometric vein, S. T. Yau an the early 1980's (unpublished) proposed the idea of a "rigid singularity theorem.' to use the language of Galloway (1993). This was later stated in Bartnik (1988b) a s follows:
Goeecture. Let ( M .g ) be a space-time of dimension greater than two

(1) contains a compact Cauchy surface, and (2) satisfies the timelike convergence condition Ric(c, v)
> 0 for all timelike
vectors v
s timelike geodesically incomplete, or else ( M ,g ) splits isoThen either ( M ,g) 1
metrically as a product (R x V, -dt2@h), where (V, h) is a compact Rie~narlnian
This philosophy apparently prov~dedYau with the motivation to pose in

the well-known problem sectlon of the Annals of Mathematics Studies, Volume 102 [cf. Yau (1982)], the problem of obta~nlng the Lorentzian analogue of the Cheeger-Gromoll Ricci Curvature Splitting Theorem stated above. Speclfically, Yau posed the question as follows: Show that a space-time (1M,g) which is t~melike geodesically complete, obeys the t~mellkeconvergence condition, and contains a complete timelike line, splits as an Isometric product
.. . Perhaps there are a few other nonsingular closed universes, but

these may be expected to appear either as lsolated points or at least regions of lower dimensionality in an otherwise black diagram. Here Geroch is representing diagammaticauy the space of all solutions to Einstein's equations in the above discussion, with singular space-times represented as a black dot and non-singular, inextendible space-times represented
as a white dot. Further, In Geroch (1970b, p. 288) the following problem was
(R x V, -dt2 $ h). Thls problem was then studled by Galloway (1984~) as well as by Beem, Ehlich, and Markvorsen Galloway considered spatially closed
space-times and employed maximal surface techniques stemming from results in Gerhardt (1983) and Bartnik (1984). The approach of Beem, Ehrlich and Markvorsen, which was directed toward globally hyperbolic rather than timelike geodesically complete space--times, employed entirely different methods in which the use of the Busemann function for a future complete timelike geodesic ray ' i v s introduced into spacetime geometry. Under the less stringent t~rnelikesectional curvature assumption K 5 0 a splitting theorem was obtained; combining forces with Galloway yielded Beem, Ehrlich, Markvorscn, and Galloway (1984, 1985)
Prove or find a counterexample: Every inextendible space-time containing a compact spacelike 3-surface and whose stress-energy tensor satisfies a suitable energy condition is either 6-singular or
flat. (The energy condition must be strong enough to exclude the
Einstein universe. Perhaps one should first prove that the 3-surface cannot be, topologically, a 3-sphere.) Gdloway and Norta (1995) summarize Geroch's ideas here as "spatlall closed spacetimes should fail to be slngular only under exceptional circu stances."
A Riemannian proof contained in Eschenburg and Heintze (1984) for the

Cheeger-Gromoll hemannian Splitting Theorem, different than that originally glven in Cheeger and Gromoll (1971). provided a helpful model for obtaining
506
14
14 1
THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
50
results in the space-time context The d'Alembertian operator for a spacet:me is hvperboiic rather than elliptic. but Cheeger and Gromoll (1971) used analysis methods relying on ellipticity. Next Eschenburg (1988) made a key new observation that if one only studied the geometry in a ne~ghhorhood of the given timelike line, then the h c c i curvature assumption would allow certain arguments to be successfully modlfied from the K
obtained by the use of "aimost maximizers" to construct to-rays rather t h a ~ relyicg on maximal geodes~csas in the previous papers and in the classica
constructions done for complete Bemannian manifolds [cf. Newman (1990
Lemma 3.9)]. Since this method of proof fits rather well with the spirit o Proposition 8.2 of Section 8.1, ~t is this approach to the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem which will be treated here. An elementary complication in the proof of the space-tlme splitting theoren occurs in the construction of what would be called in Riemannian geometry ar "asymptotic geodesic" to a given complete timelike geodeslc through a limltlng process In the space-time c s e , some care is needed to ensure that the llmiting geodesic, which on a priori abstract grounds could be timelike or null, turns out to be timelike rather than null.
< 0 case to the Ricci curva-
ture case, provlded that the space-time was globally hyperbolic and timelike geodesicaiy complete; then a "continuatlon type argument" would allow the splitting obtained in a tubular neighborhood of the given complete timelike ge. odesic to be extended to the entire space-time. Galloway (1989a) removed the assunlption of tirnelike completeness from Eschenburg's work, and finally Newman (1990), rounding out the circle of papers, gave a proof assuming timelike con~pleteness rather than global hyperbolicity. Here the new philosophy was that even though nonspacelike geodesic connectibility is not ensured without the assumption of global hyperbolicity, within a tubular neighborhood of the given complete timelike geodesic, the existence of the single complete geodesic enables certain limiting arguments to be made successfully in this tubular neighborhood despite the possible general lack of geodesic connectibility in other regions of the space-time. It should also be recalled that certain el mentary consequences of the existence of a maximal timelike geodesic segment have already been treated In Section 4.4. All of these results may be summarized in the following simple statement of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem LorePltzian Splitting Theorern. Let (M.g) be a space-time of dimensio
7 6
14.1
The Busemann Function of a Timelike Geodesic R a y
We begin with a few remarks about the Riemannian Busemann function. Thus let (N, h) be an arbitrary Riemannian manifold with associated distance
R. Recall that even for incomplete Riemannian manifolds, the Riemannian distance function is always continuous and finite+m) 4(N, h) be any future complete unit speed geodesic valued. Let c : [O, m y , i e , &(c(O),c(t)) = t for all t 2 0. Then we may consider a Busemann
function do : N x N
-+
function b associated to the geodesic ray c by the formula b(q) = t t ~ m [ tdo(c(t)? q)j
= lim Ido(c(O),c ( t ) )- do(c(t), q)]. t-+m
> 2 which satisfies the following conditions:

(1) (M, g) is either globally hyperbolic or timelike geodesically complete;
(2) ( M ,g) sat~sfies the timelike convergence c o n d ~ t i o ~ and ;
(3) ( M ,g ) con t a n s a compfete t~melike line.
Since the Riemannian distance function a continuous and the triangle inequality holds, elementary arguments reveal that b(q) exists, 1s finlte-~alued,and is continuous. Let us review these arguments to have them firmlv fixed Put
f (q, t) = t - do(c(t), q ) , so that b(qj is the iimi: of f (q. t ) a s t approaches +m.
First the triangle inequality yields

@ h),
Then (M.g) splits isornetnca1ly ;is a product

is a complete lijemmnim mmifold.
(R x V,-dt2
where (V,
f (4,t ) l do(c(O), q:
and second for any t > s that
Many of the arguments given in the references cited above are rather corn plicsted. Thus in Galloway and Borta (1995), considerable simplifications we
(41
t ) 2 f (9, s).
(14.7) and the finiteness of Riemannian distance, is bounded from above hence has a limit. Further, one has the elementary estimate (14.9)
versions of the sphtting theoreem with the more desirable timelike convergence Ricci curvature condition were estabiished, an important new realization was first found in Eschenburg (1988). This was the realization that with the weaker curvature condition, although regularity for the Busemann functions could not initidly be obtained on large subsets of the given manifold, the existence of the future complete timelike line ensured good behavior of the Busemann function and of asymptotic geocimics in a tubular neighborhood of the given line. This control also sufficed to prove the Lorentz~anSplitting Theorem for globally hyperbolic, timelike geodaically complete space-tlmes. For instance, in Section 3 of Eschenburg (1988) it was shown that the Busemann function is Lipschitz continuous in a neighborhood of a given timelike geodesic ray. An important aspect of the differentialgeometry of a complete, noncompact Riemannian manifold ( N , g o ) is the construction of an asymptotic geodesic ray. starting at any p in N, to a given future complete geodesic ray c : 10, +m) -+
If ( ~ , t ) f (q, t)l 5 ~ o ( P q,f
which shows the equicontinuity of this family in t and q and passes in the limit to the inequality (14.10) I~(P) - b(q)l 5
do@>
which evidently establishes the continuity of the Eemannian Busemann function. Recall that for non-globally hyperbolic space-times, the Lorentzian distance function need not be continuous, only lower-semicontinuous (cf. Lemma 4.4), and also that chronologically related pairs of points p << q may have
d ( ~q,) = +m (cf. Figure 4.2 and Lemma 4.2). Further, d(p,q) = 0 automati-
cally if q is not contained in Jf ( p ) , and the triangle inequality is replaced by the reverse triangle inequality, assuming the points involved satisfy appropr ate causality relations. Thus some care is needed in the preliminary analys of the space-time Busemann function, especially as one case of the Lorentz splitting problem assumes timelilie geodesic completeness and not global perbolicity. Even assuming global hyperbolicity and hence guaranteeing a continuous, finitevalued distance function, examples of space-times conformal Minkowsk'~ space show that it is possible for the space-time Busemann functio to assume the value -co or to be discontinuous unless further assumptions made. In Beern, Ehrlich, Markvorsen, and Gailoway (1985), which studied t Lorentzian splitting problem for globally hyperbolic space-times with time1 sectional curvatures K 5 0, it was shown that both Busemam functions and b- associated with the two different ends of a complete timelike geod line c were continuous on the subset I(c) = 17(c) f7 I+(c), and it was established that I(c) = M. Hence the sectional curvature assumption ens that the Busemann functions associated with a complete timelike line continuous on all of M .
(N,go). Let us review this construction to motivate some of the technicalities which must be overcome in the space-time setting. Take it,) with t, -+ +oo. By the Bopf-Rinow Theorem, there exists a minimal unit speed geodesic c,
with h ( 0 ) = p and e,(&(~,c(t,))) = c(t,). exp,(tv), defined for all t Letting v be any accumulation point of the sequence of unit tangent vectors (cnl(0)) in T'n/l, put y(t) =
> 0 by the geodesic completeness.

\
As a limit of a
subsequence of the minimal geodesic segments {c, globally minimal, recalling that (14.11) iim do(p, ~ ( t , ) )= +oo
0. d o ( ~ ~(t,))]), , c ~rlust be
since the triangle inequality gives the immediate estimate
do(^, c(tn)) L do(c(0). c(tn)) - &(P, ~ ( 0 ) = ) in - do(p, ~ ( 0 ) ) .

Even though S. T. Uau formulated the Lorentzian splitting problem for timelike geodesically complete space-times, as recalled in the introduction to this chapter, the first attacks on this problenl were carried out instead for globally hyperbolic spacetimes, for this is the class of space-times for which
510
14
THE SPLITTING PROELEILI IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.1
THE BUSEhlANN FUNCTION
511
maximal geodesic segments exist connecting causally related pairs of points. Hence, one may a t least start the construction as above by taking maximal tirnelike unit speed segments c,
: {O,d(p,c(t,))] -+
( M .9). in that even tl~ough
Convention 14.1. Given a future inextendible nonspacelike curve y in ( M , g ) .y will always be assumed to be reparametrized to be an h-unit speed curve unless otherwise stated. Hence, with such a parametrization. the Hopf-Rinow Theorem guarantees that
7 : [ao.+w) -+ (34.g)
Now, however, a problem arises in considering {c,'(O))
the space of futt~re nonspacelike directions at p is compact (despite the fact that she set of unit future timelike tangent vectors is not compact). the limit direction v obtained for this sequence might be a null vector rather than a timelike vector. Dealing with this technicality motivated the introduction of the t~melikeco-ray condition in Beem, Ehrlich. Markvorsen, and Galloway (1985) as well as the proof that this condition would be satisfied provided that the timelike sectional curvature assumption K
(cf. Lemma 3.65). Similarly, a fiitltr~ causal curve c which is both past and future inextendible may always be given an h-parametrization c : (-00, +m)
< 0 was imposed in order to
( M :g).
bring Harris's Toponogov niangle Theorem of Appendix -4 to bear. Subsequent proofs of the Lorentzian Spl~tting Theorem in the globally hyperbolic case under the weaker Ricc~ curvature assumption dealt with showing that the asymptotic geodaic construction would be well behaved in some neighborhood of the given timelike ray. On the other hand. when Newman
Starting with Galloway (1986a) and continuing In Eschenburg and Galloway (1992) and Galloway and Horta (1995). the following formulation of the Limit Curve Lemma has been found helpfill.
Lemma 14.2 (Limit Curve Lemma). Let y , : (-oe,+m) --+ ( M , g ) be

a sequence of causal curves parametrized with respect to h-arc length, and suppose that p E M is an accumulation point of t h e sequence {y,(O)). Then there exist an inextendible future causal curve y : (-00. +m) --+ ( M , g ) such
(1990) returned to Yau's original formulation of the problem, he had to deal

with the further complication that the existence of maximal geodesic segments connecting pairs of causally related points could not be assumed. Thls led to the necessity of working with sequences of "almost maximal curves" as In Section 8.1 and also in the treatment of Galloway and Horta (1995) to the consideration of the "generalized co-ray co~~dition." In the construction of asymptotic geodcslcs from almost maximal curves as treated in Galloway and Horta (1995), a somewhat different formulation of
the basic nonspacelike limit curve apparatus is employed than that discussed
that ~ ( 0 = ) p and a subsequence ( 7 ) ,

respect to h on compact subsets of B.
which converges to y uniformly with
As noted in Eschenburg and Galloway (1092). dn advantage to the use of the h-limit curve reparametrization is the following upper sernicor~tiriuityresult. obtained without the assumption of strong causality (cf. Remark 3.35). Proposition 14.3. If a sequence 7,L : [a, b] curve y : !a,h ] --+ (M, g), then
-4
(hf, g ) of future causal
in Section 3.3 above. particularly Propositions 3.31 and 3.34. Their approach ha- the advantage of not requiring the assumption of strong causality since the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets, rather than the C0 topology on curves, is used in Proposition 14.3 below. Fix a complete Riemannian metric h for the space-time ( M :g) throughout the rest of this section.
curves (parametrized with h-arc length) converges uniformly to the causal
L(y) L !im sup L(y,)

Proof, Partition [a,b ] as a = t o < t ; < . .. < t , = b such that each pubsegment 7 / [t,,t,+l] is contained in a convex normal neighborhood A',. By the
512
14
14.1
THE BUSEMANN FUKCTION
513
assumption of uniform convergence, y, it,, borhood
is also contained in this neigh-
N,for all sufficiently large n.
Hence the known upper-semicontinmty
A future directed nonspacelike geodesic ray in the sense of Definition 8.8 may then be given an h-reparanletrization a s an S-ray with S taken to be
S = <y(O)). Conversely, an S-ray y in the sense of Definition 14.4 may be reparametrlzed to be a nonspacetike geodesic ray in the sense of Definition 8.8
d ( y ( 0 1 , d t j )< d(S,-4)) =
geodesic and d(y(O), y ( t ) )is finite for any t
of the Lorentzian arc length functional may be applied to the strongly causal
2 l i m s u ~ , ~ -L(?, +~ space-time (N,, g / N * )to obtain U? / [t,,t,+~]) and now summing over z produces inequality (14.12). U
1 it,, t , + ~ ] ) ,
As was noted in Eschenburg and Galloway (1992, pp. 211-212). a second advantage of the use of the awdiary h-parameter is that the Busemann function may be defined for a h t u r e incomplete timelike geodesic ray 7 : 10, a ) --+ ( M ,g) even though the finiteness of a does not permit t
-+
/ [O, t j),
which implies that y may be reparametrized as a Lorentman distance realizing
> 0. Of course, in the applications
+oo in the expression
S will usually be taken to be a spacelike hypersurface unless S = {?(O)].

The first steps toward establishing the regularity of the Busemann function and the Lorentzian distance function in a neighborhood of the given timelike ray may now be taken [cf. Eschenburg and Galloway (!992), Galloway and
analogous to (14.6) above. But if we reparametrize y with h-arc lengtli, then
: [0,+m)
( M .g), and we may put

b(q) = lim b,(q)
T-DI)
(14.13)
where
(14.14)
br(q) = d(?{O),~ ( r ) -)4 9 % %TI)
Lemma 14.5. Let y h-arc length. Then
[O, +GO)
( M , g ) be an S-ray pardmetrized by
and where d denotes the Lorentzian distance function of the given space-time
( M , g ) . Note that if q E n/i - I - ( y ) , then d(q,y f r ) ) = 0. Hence if y is future

complete and thus a = -a, we have that b(q) = +co. Thus the space-time Busemann function b : M
,[ - X I ,
(1) d(p,q) < +GO for all p,q E I-(?) for all p E I-(?) n I + ( S ) ; (3) The Busemmn function b : I-(?)
n It(S), and especlaily d(p,p) = O
( 2 ) For d q E I-(?) f7 I L ( S ) , d(S. q) > 0 is finice.

--+
[-GO,
+m]in general.
+oo] associated to y exists
As recalled above, for general noriglobally hyperbolic space-times, the Lorentzian distance function can ediibit various pathologies. Nonetheless, as first noted in Eschenburg (1988), the existence of a timelike geodesic ray y give finiteness of the distance function and Buseman11 function in I - ( y ) n I+(y(O It will be useful to develop these propesties in the more general context of rays, a s introduced in Eschenburg and Galloway (1992). Thus let S b subset of M, and recall that the distance from q to S is defined as d(S,q) sup{db, 9) . P
S).
and is upper semicontinuous;

(4) Thc Busemann function b associated to tile S-ray y is finite-valued and
positive on I - ( y )
(5) For p, q E I-(?)
n I+(S); n I + ( S ) with p
< q. the Busemmn function satisfies

with s , 5 t,, and suppose t ,
b(q) 2 b(P) $. d(p, 4); and (6) Suppose q,, = y(t,) and p, = y(s,)
and s,
-+
s. Put q = y ( t ) and p = $8). Then d(p,q) = lim d(p,, q,).
Proof. ( 1 ) Unless p
The fkture inextendible c a w
< q, d(p, q) = 0 automatically.
Thus suppose p 9 q.
Definition 14.4. (S-rug z n a Space-tzme)
g ) is said to b curve y with h-arc length parametrization y : [O, +m) + (M.
) any Take any s E S n J-(p), and choose ro > 0 so that s G p $ q << ~ ( rfor ch s and r 2 ro. The reverse triangle inequality then yields
' and 7 maximizes distance to S, l.e., an S-ray if $0) E 5

(14.15) L ( y j [O, a ] )= d(S,y ( a ) ) for all a 2 0.
d(s,P ) + d@,q) + d ( q , y ( r f 5
4 8 ,y(r))
5 d ( S ,y(rj) = L ( y 1 [O. r ] )< +oz
514
14
14.1
515
In particular. d(p.q) must be finite

d(p,p)= O for all p E I-(*)
From Lemma 4.2-(1) we then have
b,(x) = d(? ( O ) , y ( s ) )- d(x,y ( s ) ) is finite by (1) applied to p = x , q = y ( s ) ,
n d+(S)
since d(y(O),*(s)) = L ( y 1 [0,s]) is automatically finite. Hence as r
b,(x) is
Recalling that L ( y 1 [O.r])= d ( y ( Q ) y,( r ) ) , the above chain of inequalitm also yields d(s,p) mequality
(14.16) d ( S ,P )
monotone decreasing, we have b(x) < +m It remains to rule out b ( z ) = -a. To this end, take q = x in equation (14.17), and subtract d(z, y ( r ) ) to obtain
b,(x)
+ d(p,q) + d(q,y ( r ) ) 5 d(y(O),y ( r ) ) for any s in S n J-(p).

S - J m ( p ) ,we obtain from thls 1 s t
Since d(s,p) = O automatically if s E
2 d(S,x) > 0 for any r > s. Taking limits yields
+ d ( P 9) + 4 %~b-1) 5 d(y(O), ~(4)
for any x in I - ( y ) n I + ( S ) .
(5) Choose
TO
for p
< q and any r 2 1-0 chosen as above

4% 9) + d ( q , y ( r ) ) 5 d(?(O),?(TI)
so that p
< q 4 y(r) for all

y ( r ) yields
r 2 ro. Applying the reverse
(2) Take p = q in (14.16) to obtain
triangle inequality to p < q
(14 17)
for all suEciently large r. Since d(y(0). yjr)) is finite, d(S,q) must also be finite. Since q E I + ( S ) ,d(s,q ) > 0 for some s in S ; hence d(S,q ) > 0.
(3) Suppose ,T E I-(?). Thus there exists

s
> O with
< y(r).
Take any
Let r
-+
+m to obtain the desired inequality.

11.
> r. Then
4x7 y ( s ) ) L d ( z . y ( r ) ) + d(-f(r),?(s)).
(6) Since y is maximal, we have d(pn,q,) = L ( y 1 [s,, t,]) for all limd(p,,q,) = lim L(y 1 [s,,tn])= lim L(y 1 [s, t ] )= d(p,q).
Thus
and also
d(y(Q), y ( s ) ) = d(4(0), ?(TI)
f
It has been noted above that in considering the constrilction of asymptotic

d ( y ( r ) ?()). ,
geodesics, somewhat different techniques must be employed to deal with the timelike geodesically complete, but not necessarily globally hyperholir, case. Hence we find certain conventions employed in Galloway and Horta (1995) to be helpful and will use them below. First, we formalize certain aspects of Section 8.1, recalling here that unlike Section 8.1, strong causality is not assumed and also that curves are always given an h-arc length parametrization in this section unless otherwise stated.
Hence
bs(z) = d(y(O),y(s)) - 4 2 ,r j s ) )
5 d(y(O)*?(~ + )) d ( y ( r )y , ( s ) ) - Id(x.y(r))+ d ( y ( r ) y(s))I ,

= d(r(O), y ( r ) ) - d(x,?(TI)
= b, (x) .
Thus for fixed x E I - ( y ) , r

b(x) = brn,,,,
b,(x) is decreasing monotonically in r . so t
b,(xf exists, possibly with the value -a or +m. By the 1
A se( M ,g ) of h-arc length parametrized future causal curves is said to be limzt marcimizzng if
quence y,
Definition 14.6. (Lirnzt Meximzzzng Sequence of Causal Curves)
. [an,hn]
semicontinuity of Lorentzian distance (cf. Lemma 4 4), each b,(x) is upp semicontinuous. and hence the limit function b(x)is also upper semicontlnu
( 4 ) Given any z E I-(?)
n I + ( S ) ,choose s >
O so that x
< -/(s)
where en + 0 as n -+ +m.
516
14
14.1

4
517
Gwen any p, q in ( M .g) with 0 < d(p, q ) < TCO, the definition of Lorentzian distance implies that a sequence of l i m ~ t maximal curves from p to q may be constructed. In a manner similar to the proofs In Section 8.1, the lower semicontinuity of dlstance and the upper semicontlnity of L established in Proposition 14.3 combine t o yield
Proposition 14.7. Suppose that
-i, :
Proof. It is necessary to show chat a, a subsequence, we may suppose that an
+a. Suppose not. By passing to

a
-+
< +x.Because the curves y ,
are parametrized by h-arc length and h is a complete bemanman metric, it follows that all y , are contained in a, compact subset S of M . Note also that in this case we have Lh(yn) = a,
-+
a < +w.
-+ +DO
[a,, b , ]
--. (M, g)
is a limit maxri-
On the other hand, we will show that the assumption that d(z,,p,)
mizing sequence of future directed causal curves that converges uniformly to

a causal curve y : [a, b ] -+ M on some subinterval [a, b j
implies that Lh (7%)+ +oo, yielding the required contradiction. To this end. put a second auxiliary Riemannian metric ho on M more closely associated to the given Lorentzian metric g by the following standard construction. Let T be a unit timelike vector field on (M,g), and define an associated one-form by
r = g(T, .).
E (),[an, bn]. Then
L(y) = d(y(a), y(b)), and hence y may be reparamecrized as a future directed
maximal geodesic from y ( a ) to y(b) .
Proof. Putting y, = yn I [a,b], we have as usual

limsupL(7,) 5 L(y) 5 d(y(a),y(b))
n-+m
Put h1~=~+2r@r=~'+r@~,
and note that for this second Riemannian metric we have the given Lorentzian arc length of any causal curve segment c and the ho-arc length related by
5 llm inf 47, (a),yn (b)) n-+oo 5 lim inf (L(yn) + 6,) ,+too
= lim inf L(y,),
n-+w
Since h and ho are Riemannian metrics and K is compact, there exists a constant X > 0 such that h(v,c) 2 X2 hO(u,V ) for any v E TM / K, whence
whence
(14 20)
L(y) = n++m hm L(-;/,) = n-+m lim d(y,(a),%(b)) = d(r(a),y(b)). for any curve segment c contained in K. Thus we have
The following lemma from Eschenburg and Galloway (1992) has been help in constrricting asymptotic geodesic rays It should be emphasized that unl
, ) (14.11) above for complete R~emannianmanifolds, the condition d(z,, p
Lh('Y731 2 ALg(%)
> Xd(&,pn) - At,
--+
+a by hypothesis.
Cl
+oo in Lemma 14.8 dam not imply that (p,) divergs to infinity but only t
a, --+ +w.
'4 more complex lemma is considered in Escheiiburg and Galloway (1992) in order to allow for dealing with inextendible timelike rays which are not necessarily future complete. But in view of the hypotheses involved in the i (M.g) Lorentzian splitting problem, let us suppose now that y : :O, +oo) is a future complete t i d i k e S-ray, hence of infinite Lorentzian length. Fix z E I-(y) n I+(S). Let z , , z; and put p, = y(r,) where r, + -co. Then
Lernrna 14.8. Let
(2,)
be a sequence in ( M . g ) with z,
-/,
z. Let
(M,g ) be a lirnit maxi ) z, and y,(a,) = sequence of future causal curves with ~ ( 0 = yn : 10. +m) -+ (M. 9) be any future lnextendible extension of 7,. that d(p,, zn) + +DO. Then any limit curve y : [0, +co) + ( M , g ) sequence {T,) is a nonspacelike geodesic ray starting a t z.
+
IS(z,) with d(a,, p,) < +m. Let
. [0,a,]
< -kc for all sz suffciently large by Lemma 14.5-(1). On the other hand, if we fix s > 0 with t << y(s), then for all sufficiently large a we have
d(z,,pn)
518
14
T H E S P L I T T I N G P R O B L E M I N LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.2
CO-RAYS A N D T H E B U S E M A N N F U N C T I O N
519
r,
< <~
( sas ) well. Hence the reverse triangle inequality yields d(r,.p,)
>.
tendible extension of y,.
Then if7 : [O. f a )
--t
(.V,g) is a iimit curve of {?,I,
d(zn,T(s)) ~ ( Y ( s ) , " / ( T --+ ~ ) -too ) since d(r(s).y(r,)) = L ( y / Is,r,]f by hypothesis.

Thus wlth Lemma 14.8 in hand and the above verification, the coxtruction of asymptotic geodesics to a future complete S-ray, y . 10, +m) curves from z, to p,, and let p
+
either y maximizes from p to q or y is a null ray.
Proof. Let a = sup(a,).

at p implies a
The exis~ence of convex neighborhoods centered
> 0.
By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we mav assume
(M, g). may
that a, . a. Then by Proposition 14.7. the iimit curve y [0,a) 1s a maxima! nonspaceliko geodesic. First suppose a
now be accomplished Simply let {p,) be any sequence of limit maximizing
10, +oo)
--+
(M,g ) be any limit curve guar-
<
+w. Because we have diosen an auxiliary complete
anteed by Lemma 14.8 for the extended curves (5,). The use of the auxiliary complete Riemannian metric h to pwametr~zethe curves by h-arc length is what ensures the uniform convergence on compact subintervals necessary to apply Proposition 14.7 and Lemma 14.8. We will adopt the following terminology of Galloway and Horta (1935).
, by l'L-arc length. we know that Riemannian metric and parametrized the y

y I [0,a ) extends to t = a. Also, we have that y / [O, a] is iriaxirnal, and ?(a) =
lim,,+,y,,(a,,)
= q. Since d(p. q)
> 0 and 7 is rnaxinial from p to q in this
case, y must be timelike. Now suppose a = -too. If y is null. then y is the required null raj, and we are finished. Thus suppose 7 is tirnclike. By the assumption of geodesic completeness, y has infinite Lorentzian length. As d(p,q) is a finite positive number. there exists T > 0 such that L ( y ] [O, T I ) > dfp. q ) . Since a, large, we have T
-+
+GO,
Definition 14.9. (Co-rays, Generalzted Co-yaps, and Asymptotes)

(i) Any ray p constructed in this fashion will be called a generalzzed co-ray
to :he given future complete S-ray y.
equation (14.20) in the proof of Proposition 14.7 implies that for n sufficiently
(2) The ray p constructed in this fashion will he called a co-ray to the
given future complete S-ray y if all y , are distance maximizers, I e ,
L(pn) = d(zn,p,) for all n.
< a,, and hence
(3) The ray p constructed in this fashion will be called an asymptote if all
p, are distance maxlmlzers and if t , = z for all n
But this is impossible because y, is a timelike curve segment from p to q. whence L ( y n )
< d ( p . q) by definition of Lorentzian distance.
Ci
In the space-time setting. the concept and term "co-ray" were first Introduced in Beem. Ehrlich, hlarkvorsen. and Galloway (1985), influenced by terminology in Busemann (1955). Generalized co-rays for space-times were first employed in Eschenburg and Gailoway (1992) W-hiie considering limit maximizing sequences of timelike curves. Newm (1990, Lemma 3.9) noticed an important ~mplication of timelike geodesic c pieteness which is formulated In Galloway and Horta (1995) as follows.
Proposition 14.10. Let ( M , g ) be future timelike geodeslcally comple
14.2
Co-rays and the Busernann Function
It u7as first noted in Beem. Ehrlich, Markvorsen. and Galloway (1985) that the acsumption for a globally hyperbolic space-time that all cc-rays contructed to either end of a complete timellke geodesic line y : (-m. +m)
+
M , g ) turn out to be timelike rather than null lrnplies that the Busemann
functions bi and b- associsted to the two different ends of y are continuous and also finite-valued on the
beta
I-(y) and I+(-/),respectlveiy. This assump-
Suppose p, q are points in (M,g ) mth p

? ; 1
<
q and d ( p , q)
<
fm.
tion was called the "timelike co-ray corid~tion.' It was also shown, employing rris's Lorentzian version of the Toponogov Coii~parison Theorem for timegeodesic triangles in globally hyperbolic space-times (cf. Appendix A).
. [0, a,] -+ (M, g)
be a Iimit rnaxirnizing sequence of future directed caus
curves from p to q. For each n, let Fn
. [O, -%a)
--t
(M. g)
be a future in
520
14
14.2
CO-RAYS AND THE BUSEMAKN FUNCTION
521
that the assumption of everywhere nonpositive timelike sectional curLraturea ensures that the given globaliy hyperbolic space-time satisfies this timellke co-ray condition. In the subsequent works, beginn~ng with Eschenburg (1988), more difficult studies of the regularity properties of the Busemann function were made assuming only the timelike convergence condition on the Iticci curvature; hence the space-time Toponogov Comparison Theorem could not be brought to bear on this issue. Another ingredient in the proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorems w the fortuitous publication of Eschenburg and Weintze (1984) in which a ne proof method for the Riemannian Cheeger-Gromoll Ricci Curvature Splitti Theorem was employed. utilizing the technique of smooth upper and lower support functions for the (a priori only continuous) Busemann functions of a geodesic line. The origlnal proof method of Cheeger and Grornoll (1971 relied heavily on the ellipticity of the Laplacian and hence did not seem to be adaptable to the case of the hyperbolic dlAlembertian. We begin this section with the definition of these support functions as fir treated in Eschenburg (1988)for the globally hyperbolic case and later treat In Galloway and Horta (1495) in the current context of timelike geodesic co pleteness. Let y : [0,+w)
(14.13) and (14.14).
-+
Proof. By definition of an asymptote, there exists a sequence of maxi-
mal timelike geodesic segments a, : [O a,]

a,(a,)
--+
( M ,g ) with a,(O)
In
= p and
= y(r,). where r, -+ i-m as n --+ +m Also, since y is future com-+ fix;
plete, a,
slnce d(p.r(r,))
-+ i m .
Let z be
the open neighborhood
U = I - ( a ( s ) ) f'l I + ( S )of p for the fixed s > 0. Then for n sufficiently large. x< < a,(s) as well. By lower semicontinaity of distance, there exists 4, 0 such that d ( x ,cu,(s)) 2 d(x,a@))-S, for all large n. Then for all n sufficiently large. the reverse triangle inequality and the maximality of y imply
4
By (14.20) also, d(p,a,(s))
-+
d ( p , a ( s ) )as
71
+w. Hence taking the
limit in (14.22) yields b(z) - b(p) 5 d(p,a ( s ) )- d ( x . a ( s ) ) ,so that
( M ,g ) be a future complete S-ray in a spac
as required.
time ( M ,g), and let b be the associated Busemann function given hy eqilatio
As noted by Eschenburg (1988)in the globally hyperbolic case, the expected behavior of the Busemann function associated to the glven ray y on rays a mymptotic to y , akin to that previously observed for complete Riemannian manifolds, may now be obtained.
Corollary 14.13. Let y : 10, +m)
+
Definition 14.11 . (Upper Support Fanctzon)

be a timeliie asymptote to 7 with a(O) = p E I - ( y ) let
b,,, : , v
-+ [-co, +m]
Let a : [0,+m) -+ ( M ,
fl
I + ( S ) . For each 5
>
( M ,g) be a future comple~e S-ray
in the space-time ( M , g ) , and let b be the Busemann function associated to

y. If a 10. +m) ( M , g ) is a timelike asymptote to y starting at p in I-(?) n I + ( S ) , then b ( a ( t ) )= d(p, a ( t ) ) b ( p ) for all t 2 0.
a
be defined by
(14.21)
bp,s(2) = b(p)
9
+ d(p,4 3 ) ) - d ( x ,4 s ) ) .
given by (14.21) is
Proof. Taking x = a(t) and fixing any s

L e m m a 24.12. For any
> t in
(14.23) gives
> 0 the function
continuous upper support function for b at p, i . e , b,,,(x) 2 b(x) for all x n

p with equizlity holding when z = p.
522
14
THE SPLITTING PIEOBLEhI IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.2
CO-RAYS AND THE BtiSEMANh FUNCTION
523
since a is maximal. On the other hand, applying Lemma 14.5-(5) to p and q = a ( t ) yields
b ( 4 t ) ) L b(p) + 4 ~ 4 t. )). 0
where limk,,,
e,k
= 0. Because of the dshumed nonexistence of timelike
maximizers from p, to implies :hat l:mk,+, to a null ray as k
?(m), the proof of Proposition
14 10 of Section 14.1
Now we are ready to state the crucial new condition in Galloway and Norta
(1995) which leads to the local regularity of the Busemann function as well as
a,k = +m and also that the sequence {ii.,k) converges

+m, which we will call 0 , . [O, +m)
--t
( M , g ) ,with in~tial
point .Dn(O) = p,. Hence equation (14.20) forces
some control over maximal geodesic connectibility.
Definition 14.14. (Generalized Tzrnelzke Co-ray Condztzon at p) Let ( M ,g ) be a future tirnelike geodesically complete space-time, and let y
timel~ke S-ray Suppose that p E I - ( y ) n I + ( S ) . Then the generalzzed tzrnelz
co-ray condztzon holds at p if every generalized co-ray to y starting at p i
for any s
> 0. Now do a diagonalizing procedure on the nonspacelike curves ( a n k ) to find
an increasing sequence k ( n ) --+ f oo with the property that for 7 , = a,&&(,) and b, = u,k(,), the associated sequence jVn) satisfies
(1) b,
+
tirnel~ke. Arguments similar to thobe of Lemma 14.15 below show that this cond~tio
is an open condition, i.e , ~fthe conditiori holds at a given p E I-(?) n I t ( S
+o=:
( 2 ) L(7, / [O, 11) < 11% for all n; and

( 3 ) L(7n 1 [O,bn]) 1 d(~n(O).qn(bn)) - 1/n
then the condition holds in some neighborhood of p.
for a11 n.
Lemma 14.15. Suppose (hf, g ) is future timelike geodesically comple and Jet y be a timelike S-ray. Assume that the generalized tlmelike c condition holds at p E I-(?) n I+(S). Then there exist a neighborhood p and a constant R > 0 such that for all q E U and for dl r > R, there
a maximal timel~ke geodesic segment from q to y(r).
Proof. Assuming that the desired conclusion is false, we will show that
B y ( I ) , ( 3 ) ;arid Proposition 14.7, the sequence {q,) converges to a nonspacehke geodesic ray q with q ( 0 ) = p. By co~ldition( 2 ) ,the ray q must be null. Thus negating the desired conclusion. we have produced a generalized coq to y with q(0) = p which is a null ray. But this contradicts the hypothesis
of the lemma that all co-rays to y at p are tlmelike. C The next several results from Galloway and Horta (1995) treat the relationship between limit curve convergence and convergence by initial tangent irection for timelike geodesic segments and in particular the property that he timelike co-ray condition ensures that initial tangents of asymptotes contructed in a neighborhood of p are bounded away horn the null cone. Out these considerations. among others. the local continuity of the B~isemann nction may then be established in Theorem 14.19, It is helpful to adopt some mechanism to produce appropriate compact sets of the noncompact set of unlt timelike tangent vectors. To be consistent h Chapter 9, we will recall the notat~onT-liLII, from Definition 9.2 and troduce a new notation following Galloway and Horta of
generalized timelike co-ray condition cannot hold at the given point p diagonalizing argument. Supposing that the conclusion of the lemma is false, we may find { p ,
2 - ( y ) n I + ( S ) with pn
--t
p, r,
--t
+m, and p,
< < y(r,)
such that there
no maximal timelike geodesic segment from p, to y(r,) for ail n. In vie Lemma 14 % ( I ) , we have 0 < d(p,,, ~ ( r , ) < ) +m for each n. Hence
n we may construct n limit maximizing sequence of future nonspacehke cu
ank
[O, ank'
( M .g)
from p, = a n k ( 0 )to y (r,) = ank(ank) with

L ( ~ n k1 ) d ( ~ n k ( O~ ) ,n k ( a n b ) ) enk
524
14
14.2
CO-RAYS AXD THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
525
where C > 0 and h is the auxiliary Riemannian metric for ( M ,g ) fixed above. These sets are compact and nonempty for C sufficiently large, and evidently
But this is contrdictory since h(a'(O),a'(O)) is finite, yet by supposition, limn,+, h(crnl(0).anf(0))= +oo.
Corollary 14.17. Let (M, g) be future tlmelike geodesically complete, and

let y be a timeiike S-ray. Suppose the generdized tlmelike co-ray condition
Lemma 14.16. Let (M, g) be future timelike geodesically complete, and let r be a timelike S-ray. Assume that the generalized timelike co-ray condition
holds at p E I-(?) n I'(S). Then there exist a neighborhood ti of p and constants R > 0, C > 0 such that for alj q in U and any r
holds at p E I-(7)
n If (S). Then
there exist a ne~&borhood U of p and a
constant C > O such that for ail q E U , if a : [0, +m) 4 (M,g) is a co-ray (or asymptote) to y frorn q, parametrized with respect to Lorentzian arc length, then a'(0) E K c ( q ) . The generalized timelike co-ray condition also has implications for the continuity of the Lorentzian distance function, as noted in Galloway and Norta
> R, :f cx : [0,a) -,
(M, g) is any maximal timelike geodesic segment from q to y(r) parametrized
Proof Suppose that the lemma fails to hold. Then there exist sequenc Proposition 14.18. Let (M,g) be future timel~ke g~odesicallycomplete, and let y be a timelike 5'-ray. Suppose the generdized timelike co-ray condition property that h(crn1(0),cun'(0))--, +oo as n + +m. To apply the limit c holds at p E I-(7) f l I+(S). Then there exist a neighborhood U of p and a number R produces a nonspacelike geodesic ray Z with Z(0) = p and with Z a co-r y, to which a subsequence of the 6,'s converge. which we may assume is given sequence (6,) itself. Since the generalized timelike co-ray condition speed timelike ray cu. : [O. + a ) i ( M ,g). The domain is as indicated beca of the assumption of future timelike completeness. Choose S > 0 so that 6([O,b ] ) is contained in a convex normal nei borhood of p and also is contained in I - ( 7 ) . Because of this suppositi d(E,(O), Gn(6)). By equation (14.20) we have
E,
> 0 such that for al! r > R
the function 6 : U
[O. fcc) defined
by 6(x) = d(x,yjr)) is continuous on U .
Proof,Recall first that Lemma 14.5-(1) guarantees that 6 is finite-valued U.By Lemma 4.4, 6 1s lower semicontinuous, so it only remains to establish
Choose
U.R, and C to satisfy the conclusions of Lemmas 14.15 and 14.16. any r > R. Suppose 6 is not upper semicontinuous at x in U . Then
d(x,?(T)). For each n, let a, be a maximal timelike geodesic segment whlch

s parametrized by g-arc length, from
E.
Now using the
timelike completeness and choice of convex normal neighborhood, w

,exppl (~(6)) = E al(0). ,an1(O) = e x P 2 (E(6)) -
x, to y(r). In view of the conditions the initial tangents (anl(0)f- are contained in a tisfied by U , R, and 6, ompact subset of T_lMI,. By this fact and the assumption of timelike future
geodesic a frorn x to y(r). But then by equat~on (14.20), we ha%e d(xn(k),Y(T)) = L(an(ic)) ontradiction.
+
Hence, a,'(O)
-+
al(0) which implies that
L ( a ) = d(x,7(r)).
526
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM Ih' LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.2
GO-RAYS AND THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
527
With these results now established. we are ready for the proof given in of the continuity of the Busemann function in the Galloway and Horta (1995) presence of the generalized tlmei~ke co-ray condition. The treatment is inspired by that in Eschenburg (1988) for the globally hyperbolic case.
Theorem 14.19. Let (M,g) be future timelike geodesically complete, and
Now consider the case that n
> 1. Fixing arbitrary
x , y in U , let c(t) =
(1 - t ) x + ty and I = W n c - l ( U ) . Put g = f o c : I -+ R. Note that In view of the chain rule, the relevant constant in (14.26) applied to g is L1 = L /jx - y / . Applying the n = 1 case to g ( t ) with t = 0 and t = 1 yields
let y be a timelike S-ray. Assume that the generalized timelike co-ray condition holds at p in I-(?) n If(S). Then the Buseiiiann function b associated to 7 is Lipschitz continuous on a neighborhood ofp.
Proof. It is helpful to use a lemma given in the Appendix to Eschenbur (1988).
required.
Proof of Theorem 14.23.

below. Choose take U sufficiently small that
Let y be parametrized by Lorentzian arc length is compact and is contained in a convex normal
U, R, and C according to Lemmas 14.15 and 14.16. Further.
Sublemma 14.20. Let U be an open convex domain in Wn and f
.U
neighborhood ( N :4) such that Q(U) is convex in Wn, n = dim M. Let q 5 =

( x I 7 . .,x,), and let ho denote the associated Euclidean metric for T N given
a continuous function. Suppose that for each q in U there is a smooth 1 support function f, defined in a neighborhood of q such that l/d(fq)qll< Then f is Llpschltz continuous with Lipschitz constant L. i.e., for all x , y i U we have
by
2=1
Since U has compact closure and h, ho are both R~emann~an metrics, there is
a constant K > 0 such that ho K h on TU. Put d,(x) = d(x,y ( r ) ) . It is sufficient to show that the functions b, = r-d,
Proof of Sublemma. First treat the case that n = 1 and thus U is an op
<
are Lipschitz continuous on U with the same Lipschitz constant for all T > R. Since
interval and the estimate amounts to supposing that
br(x) - b,(y) = d,(y) - d , j ~ ) .

this is equiwalent to obtaining the Lipschitz continuity of the d,, r > R, on
U . From Proposition 14.13 we have the continuity of the d,'s; it thus remains
in U such that by replacing f with
y,
-f if necessary, we may suppose t and f satisfy f ( x ) < f(y) and also If(z)- j(y)I > Ljz - yl. G
qo
only to obtain the Lipschitz estimate using Sublemma 14.20. Let D
.N
x N
[O,+m) denote the local Lorentzian distance function

a!
considerations evidently enable one to find an affine function l ( x ) with slope I1(x)= Lo > L such that f(sf < E(s)and f ( y ) > l(y). Put
= su
for (N, g I N ) as described in Definition 4.25 and Lemma 4 26. Fix any point
q in U and r
> R. Let
be a maximal time!ike geodesic segment from q to
[z, y] : f ( t ) < l ( t ) ) . By continuity of f,evidently fm (qo) = f (qo) = l(qo) f,, (t) 5 f (t) < l ( t ) for all t < qo sufficiently close to qo. Hence, l1(q0)= Lo > L, in contradiction to inequality (14.26). Thus the
estimate (14 25) must be valid in the case that n = 1.
~ ( rparametrized ) by g-arc length, guaranteed by Lemma 14.15. Flx any q' in
U which lies on cu with q # q'. Having made these choices, a candida:e for a
local smooth support function for d, near q may then be defined by
528
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM I N LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.2
CO-RAYS AND THE BUSEMANN FUNCTIOK
529
For o in a neighborhood of q, the hnctions z I-+ D(x, q'), and hence f,,,(x), are smooth by Lemma 4.26. Also the Iocd distance function D generally satisfies
Proposition 14.21. Let ( M ,g) be future timelike geodesicdly complete,
D ( x , ql) 5 d(x, q') for any x, q' in N. Thus by the reverse triangle inequality,
fq,r(x) 5 4 x >q')
( M , g ) be a future directed timelike ray. Then any generalized co-ray starting at p = y (a), a > 0,must coincide with y.
and let y
:
[0, t w )
+ 4 q 1 >?(T))
Proof. Here the limit curve techniques of Section 14.1 will be employed, so
5 d b , ?(TI) = dr(x),
and also fp,T(q) = D ( ~ 4') '
all curves will be given a unit speed parametrization with respect to the fixed auxiliary Etiemalnian metric h. Let a : [0, +m)
-+
(M,g) be a generalized co--t
+ d(ql> Y(T))= d ( ~ql) l
ray to y at p = y ( ~ ) Thus . there exists a limit maximizing sequence of future d ( ~ ' l ~ ( r= ) )dr(q) directed causal curves a,
r,
+
10, a,]
( M , g ) from p, to y(r,) with p,
p,
using the maximality of a. It remains to establish an estimate for the lower support functions fq,r o the form needed to employ Sublemma 14.20. To this end, put G=sup(lg,,(x)l:3:EU, and l/vl/o= J have G w
+w, and a,
, +oo, which
converges to a. Let U be any convex normal

p. Since q ,
neighborhood of p. Choose any q in U lying on y to the past of p; and take a sequence {q,} of points on y between q and p such that q,
--+
< <p
lI%,~<n)
and pk
p, by taking a subsequence of (p,) if necessary, we may suppose
) for w TqM Since U has compact closure In N,
that q, << p, for all n and that {p,) C U . Since pn, q, are contained in U and , = p, we may connect q, to p, by a timelike geodesic segment limp, = lim q whose length approaches 0 a s n following
+
> 0. The basic differential geometry of the distance function d(. ,q
from the point q1 prior to the past timelike cut locus of q' provides the gradient calculation v (fq,v) = 9(v. al(0)) for any v E T,M (cf. Lemma 14.26 above) Hence,
fw.
Now define a new sequence {on
: 10, s,] ( M , g ) ) of causal curves by from q to q,, then going along the above timelike geodesic segment
in U from q, to p,. and finally following along a , &om p, to yjr,). qn = an(an) and p, = cr,(b,). new sequence {o-,}.
II~IIO
Put
Id
(f,,,)
(v)l
= Idv,
Fix r > a so that p, E I m ( y ( r ) )and r, > r for
all sufficiently large a. We now need to establish the limit maximality of this
Since y is maximal and the an's are limit maximizing, we have
bn]) + L(gn I [bn,s , ] ) L(mn I LO: snI) = L(cn I [Otan]) + L(mn I [an,
I G lI~'(0)llollvlio
I GKJ~(~~'( a'(0)) o),
5GKC~ Hallo.
Hence, L = G K C ~ has the property that lid (fq,r), 11 ( L for all q E Thus d, and hence 1 3 , are Lipschitz continuous on U with Lipschitz const
L d(q, qn) + L(5n I Ian, bn]) + d ( ~ n~, ( r n )) 6,

= d(q, P) - djqnl P) + L(G
L =G K C ~ by Sublemma 14.20 for any r > R.

Having presented four results on the pleasing consequences of th alized timelike co-ray condition, let us now show as in Gdloway and H (1995) that in the Important special case where S = (-/(0)), and hence S-ray 1s an ordinary geodesic ray, the generalized timeiike co-ray co holds in a neighborhood of the given ray, possibly excluding the initial p y(0). This may be accomplished by &st proving the follo-wing resuit.
I [an.b,,]) + d(?n, ~ ( r n ) ) -6 , .
On the other hand, the lower semicontinuity of distance at (p,y ( r ) j implies the foilowing inequality is valid:
= d(p,y(r,))
-6 , with 6,
-+
O as n
--+
+CG.
530
14
T H E SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LOREKTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.2
GO-RAYS AND THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
531
Combining these two inequalities yields

L(ocT,I [O. sn]) L d(q P ) - d(qn>?) + L(0n I [an,bn])+ d(p, ~ ( r n )-) 6n - en
= d(q.y(r,))
Proof By taking unions. it is sufficient to show that for each s in [O,r],
there exi9ts a neighborhood C of a ( s ) which does not meet the past timelike rut locus of a ( r ) . There are three cases to consider s = r ; O < s <
s=O
r;
- d ( q n , ~+ ) L(an 1 [a,,b,])
and
- 6,
- c,.
Bjr Lemma 14.5-(61, we have d(q,,p)
Case (1) s = r . Since

0 as n
-+
is a timelike ray, strong causal~tyholds at a ( r )
+w. Also by constru

-+
tion, employing the normal neighborhood U , we have L(cr,, I [a,,,b,])

n -+ +m Hence {on} is limit maximizing as desired
by Proposition 4.40. Hence by Theorem 4.27, there exists a convex normal neighborhood U of a ( r ) such that the global Lorentzian distance function d(g) agrees with the local distance function (D. U) Thus nonspnrelike geodesics emanating from the center a ( r ) of this convex neighborhood contain no nonspacelike cut points within Li, and U itself provides the required neighborhood Case (2) 0 < s Lemma 3.10), omitted. Case (3) s = 0 This is the case which makes use of the general~zedtimelike co-ray condition. It is helpful to establish two sublemmas.
Sublemma 14.24. Let the assumptions be as in Proposition 14.23. Then s continuous at p. for any T > 0, the function x H d.,.(z) = d(x. cr(r)) i Proof of Sublemma 14.24. Let pn
+
By Lemma 14.8, any limit curve a of this sequence is a maximal nonspace!~

consist of the portion of y from q to p, followed by
CY
But then by the u
< T . This case, which essentially corresponds to Newman (1990.

IS
similar to the s = 0 case but simpler. Thus d e t a ~ h will be
which implies that a is contained in 3 as desired. 0
the following consequence is obtained from Proposition 14.21.
Corollary 14.22. Let ( M , g ) be timelike geodesically complete, an y : [0,t o o ) --+ ( M ,g) be a future d~rected timel~ke ray Issuing from p =
on an open set c~ntaining y - {pj.
p. Starting with Lemma 14.5-(5) and
the lower semicontinuity of distance, we have for the Busemann function b = b, of y that
port functions bp,, to the Busemann function given in equation (14.21), necessary to have some control of the timelike cut locus. This was done in assumption of timelike gcodeslc completeness rather than global hyperbo so that the theory of Chapter 9 is not immediately appl~cable
Proposition 14.23. Let (11.1. g ) be future timelike geodesically corn and let y be a timelike S-ray. Suppose that the general~zedtimelike c
b(a(r)) - b(pn) 2 d ( p n , c*(r))
2 d(p.4
~)6, )
= b(a(r)) - b(p) - 6,,
the last equality from Corollary 14.13 Smce the generalized timelike co-ray from Theorem 14.19. Hence d(pn,rr(r)) condition is assumed to hold at p. the Busemann function h is continuolls a t p d ( p , tu(r))as n --+ +GO. C1
Sublemma 14.25. Let the assumptions be as in Propos~tion14.23. Then
condition hdds at p E I-(?)
n l+(S),and
let a
: \O,+m)
-+
(M.g)
for each r > 0 there exists a neighborhood U of p such that for each q in U , there exists a maximal timelike geodesic segment from q to cr(r).
ProoJ of Sublemma 14.25. Suppose the lemma is false. Then there exlst
T
> 0, p,
- - p, arid a limit maximizing sequence of past directed causal curves
532
14

4
14.2
CO-RAYS AND THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
533
an,& : [o.a, k j
( M ,gf such that for each k, a,,b(O) = a ( r ) and a,,k(a,,k)
p,. Furthermore for each fixed n, by selecting a suitable subsequence. we may suppose that as k +ce we have u,,k -t a,, where a, is either a
past inextendible null ray or a past inextendible timelike ray. As was done in Lemma 14.15, disgondize to obtain a limit maximizing sequence {qn : [O, a,] ( M ,g ) ) with Vn(0) = ~ ( r )nn{an) , = p,, a, + +m: and with {q,) converging to a past inextendible ray 7 : [0,+oo) ( M . 9)where q ( 0 ) = a(?). (Note here that the curves are parametrized with respect to the auxiliary Riemannian metric h and also that 7 plays no explicit role in the rest of the proof other than serving as a reference frame for the curves q,.) Fix ro > r , and consider the past directed nonspacelike curves j j ,: [0,c,] to
T
p, is a past timelike cut point to a ( r ) for all n. Recall from Section 9.1 that this means that there exists a past directed timelike geodesic
Cn
: 10. d(pn: &(TI)
+6 , )
+ (b.3
9)
with ~ ( 0 = ) a ( r ) and ~ ( d ( p , ,a ( r ) ) ) = p, such that c, [ 10, d(p,, a ( r ) ) ] is maximal but that d(&(t).a(+))
> L ( c , I [ 0 , t ] )for any t > d(p,,a(r)).
Be-
cause a is maximal, p and a ( r ) are not conjugate along a . Hence there is a neighborhood V of - a 1 ( r ) in T,(,)M which is diffeomorphic under expa(,) to a neighborhood U of p. By re-indexing { p , } and shrinking U if necessary, we may assume that (p,) 2 U and that C l satisfies the conclusions of Sublemma 14.25, so that there is a maximal timelike segment from a j r ) to each point of
-+
( M ,g ) obtained by concatenating each q, with tile segment along -a from ro

and reparametrizing appropriately (here c, = 1 f a, where I = TO - T ) . Also put 6, = Note that $,(O) = a ( r o ) , il,(l) = a ( r ) , and 17,(c,) = p,. d,(p) - d,(p,) -+ 0 as n + i c e by Sublemma 14.24.
U.
Let c, be a maximal segment from a ( r ) to p, for each n as described above so that p, is the past timelike cut point, to a ( r ) along c,.
q,
If cnl(0) E V ,
by travelling along c, a little further than p,, we obtain a point q, in U with
Now recalling that the original sequence ( 7 % )is hmit maximizing, the li may be established. For maximality of the new sequence {ij,)
< < p,
and such that c, from a ( r ) to q, is not maximal. BJ using Sublernma
14.25, we then obtain a maximal timelike segment y , from a ( r ) to q, which must satisfy ynl(0) $ V. In this case, replace p, with q,. Hence we may assume that we have maximal timelike geodesic segments
L(% I IO, %I)
= d ( a ( T ) ,a:(T0)1+ L(k I4GZl)
2d(a(~a ) ,( r o ) )+ d ( ~ nQ , ( T ) )- 6% =d(a(~) a:(ra)) , + d ( p , a ( r ) ) - 6, - en

= d(p, a ( % ) ) - 6,
-En
c, from a ( ? ) to p, with %'(Of $ V for any n. By passing to a subsequence

and reasoning as in Sublemma 14.25. ~e obtain a maximal geodesic segment
c from a ( r ) to p. Since a: is also a maxima! timelike segment from a ( r ) to p,

we must have that c is timelike. Also, since ct(0) is a limit point of { c n l ( 0 ) ) , we must have cl(0) $8 V. But this then forces
CY
where 6 , ,
E , -+ 0 .
and c to be two distinct
Since (ij,)is limit maximizing, this sequence converges to a past direc nonspacelike geodeic ray ;j with ij(0) = a ( r o ) Since each 7j, containa segment of ou from a ( r ) to &(TO),the limit ray must be timelike and fur must coincide with a back to a ( 0 ) = p. Hence i j passes through p, an constrllction, is contained in J f ( p ) = I+(p). This implies, using Pr 3.7-(I), that p is in I f ( p ) . whlch contradicts the finiteness of d ( p , p ) .
But then cu from p to a ( r f 6 ) is maximal timelike segments from p to a(?-). not maximal; contradicting the fact that a was a timelike ray. 0 &examination of the arguments employed in the proof of Proposition 14.23 shows that the following alternative result may be proved about the timelike cut locus and a maximal timelike geodesic segment [cf. Galloway and Horta
(1995, Proposition 3.9)j. Let y : [O, TO] --+ ( M .g ) be a maximal timelike ge-
- -
Proof of Case (3) of Proposztion 14.23: s = r.
Let dl timelike ge
4
odesic segment in an arbitrary space-time, and suppose that for each
with
etrized with respect to Lorentzian arc length. S this case. Then there exist r > 0 and p,
< T < T O , the distance function
p suc
534
14

T
14.2
CO-RkYS AND THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
is finite-valued on a neighborhood of y(0). Then for each the past tirnelike cut locus of yjr).
with 0 < T < ro,
for all s. Hence by Corollary 12.24,
there exists a neighborhood U of the segment y(j0, r ] ) which does nos meet Now that control of the cut locus has been established, ~t is standard in the above setting that the distance function a
I-+
d r ( s ) = d(x,cr(r)) is not only
continuous near p as established in Sublemma 14.24 but also is smooth near

p. (This actually follows wizhout needing continuity first since the control of
the timelike cut locus ensures that Lorentzian distance may be expressed in terms of the length in the appropriate tangent space of exponential Inverses of points in M [cf. Lemma 4.263.) We turn t o an estirnate (14.29) for the d'alembertian U(d,) = troHdr, which is an important ingredient in the proof of the splitting theorem. Similar estimates have been important for a long time in global Riemannian geometry [cf. Calabi (1957) for an early illustration]. In our current setting with U chosen
as in the proof of case (3) of Proposition 14.23, we first note the following basic
for any v. Thus. (grad f)(q) = -c1(to) is future directed tirnelike. and (grad J, grad f ) = - 1
Lemma 14.26 then implies that we are now precisely in a well-known geometric setup which is studled in Appendix B. We do our curvature calculations in this framework. Thus let Ul be an open subset of ( M . g ) , and let f : Ul
--+
result. Lemma 14.26. For q ~n U , let to = d(q, ~ ( r ) )and , let c : 10. to] -- ( M , g ) be the past directed unit speed maximal tirnelike geodesic segmezt with c(0) =
~ ( r and ) c(to) = q. P u t f (x) = d,(x) = d(x, cr(r)). Then
R be a smooth function on Ul which satisfies the eikonal differential
equation (grad f , grad f ) = -1. By Lemma B.1. the integral curves of grad f are tlmelike geodesics. Moreover, we note in Section B.l that the (wrong way) Gauchy-Schwarz inequal~ty for timelike tangent vectors Implies that any such integral curve of grad f is maximal in the space-time (Ul, g /u,) We also note that curvature calculations lead to the formulas (B.22) and (B.23) relatlng the
(1)
( p a d fI(9) = -cl(to).
f ) = tr o Ricci curvature of the integral curves off to the d'Alembertian O(

Helpful in these calculations is the baslc identity
~ j ,
Hence,
Iff (v, grad f ) = 0 (2)

(gradf,gradf) = -1, for any v in T(Ul). since and the past directed maximal timelike geodesic segments from ~ ( rto ) poi
of U are integral curves of - grad f in U . P~oof.Let v E T,M be given. and set c,(s) = expp(sv) For s suEcie small, we may define y, : 1 0 , d(c,(s), o ( r ) ) ] . ( M ,g ) to be the unique maxirn
In view of our desired application for which f = d,, we let c denote an integral slgn d~ffereccesw ~ t h curve in Ul of X = - g a d f. (Thus there are certa~n
(B.22) and (B.23) In Appendix B in which c is an integral curve of grad f )
Recall that V x X = 0 on U1 and also N f(x, Y) = 0 for any Y in T ( U l ) .
unit speed timelike geodesic segment from a(rl to c,,Is\. .. -, , Then setting 7
1 ,
( t )defines a variation of the geodesic c through eodesics with
536
14
14.2
60-RAYS AND TEE BUSEMANN FUNCTION
537
Choose an orthonormal frame {El, E2, . . .,E , = X)along c and neighboring integral curves. Also, let V be any parallel field along c, also extended to
somewhat reminiscent of the Raychaudhuri equation (12.2). Of course, it has long been known in the theory of conjugate 0 D E 's that such Riccati inequalities lead to estimates on growth of solutions In this particular case. we will verify that provzded Ric(cl,c') 2 0. integration techniques like those already encountered in Proposition 12.9 may be used to obtain the desired estimate for the d'Alernbertian of f = d,:
these nearby integrai curves as a vector field parallel along them as well Then
[V,X] = v v x - V,fV = V V X
since V is parallel along c Hence, R(V,cl)c' = V v V x X - V,rVvX - VLv,xlX
=
-v,~vvx- V(vvx)X.
for any q in U . Hence, a key aspect of the hypothesis in the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem that Ric(v, v) 2 0 for all timelike w is to ensure that estimate (14.29) is valid. To aid in the derivation of (14.29), introduce the notation +(t)= Dcrd,(c(t)); where c
:
Thus
(R(V, c')cl, V)= -(Vcl VvX, V )- (V(o,x)X,V)
= -cl ((VvX, V)) + (VvX, Vclv) - ~ ( ~ v x , E ~ ) ( v E , x V) ,
,=I
n-l
[O,d(q,a(r))]
( M , g ) denotes the past directed maximal timelike
geodesic segment from a(r) = c(0) to q = c(d(q, a(r))j. Put t o = d(q, a ( r ) ) . Under the Ricci curvature assumption, inequality (14.28) impi~es
using V v X = c,"~:(vvx,E,)E~,
valid since N ~ ( v , B ~ = ) 0. Recalling that It may be checked that +(t) --+ -m as t

-+
V,lV = 0 and X = -grad f,we then obtain O+ by identifymg @(t)a s the
(R(v,c')cl, v ) = - {
dt
(v, V)
f
n-l
0 C)
C ( ~(v, f E,))
E,:)~
trace of the second fundamental form of the "distance sphere" of a ( r )through c(t) or by checking for Minkowski space [cf. Beem, Ehrlich, Markvorsen, and Galloway (1985, p. 38)). Now
j=1
If we put V = E,in this last equation and sum, we obtain

- RC(C', c ' ) = - ( ~ ( f0 ) c)'
+ C (HJ(E,
%,?=I
n-l
2=1
n-1
in view of (14.30). Integating from t = 0 to t = to yields
r -( W )
The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields
n-1
c)' 4-
C (ilf(~,,~,))~.
so that
Thus we are led to the Eccati inequality Hence. recalling that to = d(q, a(?-)), inequality (14.29) is establislied.
538
14
THE SPLITTIXG PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.3
THE LEVEL SETS OF THE BUSEMANN FUKCTION
539
14.3
T h e Level Sets of the Busemann hnction
Note that being edgeless is somewhat like being "locally" a Cauchy surface in that future timelike curves starting at points in I-(A) sufficiently close to
In the differential geometry of simply connected, complete Riemannian manifolds of nonpositi~e sectional curvature, the !eve! sets of the Busemann function are called "horosphcrcs" and have been much studied in differential geometry and dynamical systems Indeed, the already existing notion of a llorosphere for the Poincar6 disk or upper half plane with the usual complete Eemannian metric of constant curvature -1 seems to have motivated Busemann to define what is now called the Busemann function [cf. Busemann (1932)) Much later, in the proof of the Cheeger-Gromoll Riemannian Splitting Theorem. the letel sets of the Busemann function provided the Riemannian factor in the isometric splitting This aspect of the Busemann function suggested that perhaps the Lorentzian Busenlann function should be studied as a means toward proving a Lorentzian ,.,litting Theorem So far in spacetime geometry, the "hor spheres" have primarily been employed as a tool In proving the space-ti splitting theorem Before returning to Galloway and Horta (1995), it is necessary to introduce a standard concept from general relativity which has not been previously encountered in this book. Let A be an achronal subset of a space-time, i.e., no two po~nts of A are chronologically related.
Definition 14.27. (Edge of a n Achronal S e t )
A must intersect 3.
Galloway and Horta (1995) adopt the following definition of a topological spacelike hypersurface. Recall that an acausal set fails to contain any causally related points and is thus also achronal.
Definition 14.28. (Spacelike Hypersurface) -4 subset S of ( M ,g) is said
hypersurface if for eachp in S. there exists a neighborhood to be a CO-spacelzke
U of p in M such that S n U is acausal and edgeless in (U,g 1 ~ ) .

The basic "edge theory' previously mentioned ensures that a spacelike hypersurface according to Definition 14.28 1s an embedded topological submanifold of M of codimension one. A smooth spacelike hypersurface, i.e., a smooth codlmension one submanlfold with everywhere tlmellke normal, is a spacelike hypersurface in the sense of Defin~tion14 28. A somewhat stronger concept that of a partial Cauchy surface.
Definition 14.29. (Partial Cauchy Surface)
IS
A subset S of (M, g) is said
M . to be a partzal Cauchy surface if S is acausal and edgeless in 1

In particular, a partial Cauchy surface is a spacelike hypersurface in the above sense and 1s also closed. Now we are ready to show that the level sets of the Busemann function of a tirnelike 5'-ray are locally partial Cauchy surfaces, provlded the generalized timelike co-ray condition holds [cf. Gallow-ay and Horta (1995, Proposit~on
4.2). Galloway (1989a, Lemma 2.3)].
The edge, edge(A). of th

7~0t meet
achronal set A conslsts of all points p in
io such that every neighborhood 7

A.
p contains a timelike curve from I - ( p , U ) to I f (p, U ) which does
The set A is said to be edgeless if edge(A) = @. Evidently, edge(A)
C 2. O'Neill
(1983, pp. 413-415) gives an excellent ex-
position of the basic facts concerning edge(Aj and topological hypersurfaces: (1) The "achronal identity".
-
Proposition 14.30. Let ( M g) , be future timelike geodeslcdly complete

and let 7 be a timelike S-ray. Suppose that p E I - ( ? ) n I + ( S ) IS a point of a
level set {b, = c ) where the generdlzed t~melike o - r a y condit~on holds Then there exists a neighborhood U of p such that the set C , = U n ( b , = c j is acausal in M and edgeless in U.In particular, C, is a partial Cauchy surface
A - A & edge(A);
(2) An achronal set A is a topological hypersurface if and only if edge(A) = 0, and (3) An achronal set A is a closed topological hypersurface if end o
i n (U,G/U).
1 I
Proof. Choose an open neighborhood W of I, so that b = by is continuous on
U by Theorem 14.19, and also such that Lernrnar 14.15 and
14.16 and
540
14
14.3
THE LEVEL SETS OF THE BUSEMANV FUNCTION
54
Corollvy 14.17 hold on U.Since b(q) 2 b(p) d ( p , q ) by Lemma 14.5, we have b strictly increasing along timelike curves, which impl~es that C , is achronal.
, in U. Then there exist s,y E Suppose p is an edge point of C
the geodesic ray c, : [O. +m) -+ (N. go) by taking the union of distance balls
U - C, and
B u =lJ%(c~(t))
t>o
=U { q e
t>O
(N,go) d o ( q , k ( t ) )< t ) .
future timelike curves cl, c2 : [0, 11
-+
U joining x to y such that cl passes
The horospheie Ii, associated to c, is then the boundary of the horobal
B,. If H, turns out to be sufficiently differentiable (C2), then there is normal geodesic variation of c, along H, for which the stable Jacobi tenso
such that b o c2(t0) = 0. Thus cz(t0) lies on C , in contradiction. field D, is a variation tensor field [cf. Eschenburg and O'Sullivan (1980, p. 8 and Lemma 12.13 for the construction of the stable Jacobi tensor field for In the proofs of various versions of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem, mostl; in the globally hyperbolic case (and also in separate investigations of hyper surface families in Riemannian manifolds), various estimates have been rnadt also the notation b,(x) = d(y(O),y ( r ) ) - d ( x , y ( r ) ) and the definition b( limp,+, b,(x). Now an aspect of o w choice of U is that the initial tange to timeiike geodesics remain bounded away from the null cone in making t asymptotic geodesic construction as a result of the neighborhood Kc( Lemma 14.16 and Corollary 14.17. With this control, it follows that by cu the corner of the broken geodesic q u a , and comparing with the corner of qU there exists E on the Hessian of the diitance function s
++ d(z, a ( t ) ) as
maximal null geodesic segment 11 from x to y. By choice of U , there exist sequence r,

+ +co
such that there are maximal timelike segments a, from
-+
+co where c
is a timelike asymptote to y , en route to obtaining various maximum prin ciples for the Busemann function and its sublevel sets [cf. Eschenburg (1987
1988, 1989), Galloway (1989a), Newman (1990)]. The discussion in the p r e

vious paragraph shows that this step in the proof of the splitting theoren corresponds to forming the horoball in Riemannian geometry. In particular Riccati comparison techniques to estimate these Hessians have been well explored for Riemannian hypersurfaces by Eschenburg (1987, 1989), and it i~ noted that these techniques apply also to families of spacelike hypersurface
> 0 such that for all n sufliciently large,

~T,(Y)
- bTn(x)= d ( x ! ~ ( r n ) )d ( ~ > ~ (> h E). )
in space-times. Eschenburg, Xarcher (1989). and others take the viewpoint

Letting r ,
-+
+m; we obtain b(y) -
b(x) 2
E.
But since x , y E C , we m
have b(z)= b(y) which furnishes the desired contradiction
rather than by using Jacobi equatio
542
14
14.3
THE LEVEL SETS OF THE BUSEMANN FUNCTION

+ +
543
We return to the case of interest in proving the Lorentzian Spllttlng Theorem and thus implicitly to the "horobalK of a timelike geodesic asymptote to y as given in Galloway and Horta (1995, Lemma 4 3 and Proposition 4.4) under the asumption of future timelike geodesic completeness rather than global hyperbolicity. In this result. all timelike geodesics are parametrized Lorentzian unit speed curves, not as unit speed curves in the auxiliary R mannian metric h.
at a(to- s) for 0 equation B,' -+-
< s < to. Moreover. u. B,, u = to - s. obeys the Riccati BU2+ R( . , @')a1 = 0 [cf Eschenburg f 1987, Equation f3))j
Hence given the sectional curvature bound K ( n ) 5 h-, the appropriate Riccati comparison Theorem may be applied je.g., Proposition 2.4 in Eschenburg (1987)] to deduce the existence of a constant A = A ( k ) such that for all v in
T,M J I d i o (w, v) 2 -A (vi,3 ' ) .
Lemma 14.31. Let (M,g) be future timelikegeodesically complete, and I

holds at p E I-(?) constants to
y be a timelike S-ray Assume that the generalized timelike co-ray cond~tio n I f ( S ) Then there exist a neighborhood U of p an
The lemma now follows since t
++
H d t ( v ,u ) is an increasing function of t
> 0 and A > 0
[cf. the proof of Lemma 12.131. 0 Before proving the next result and obtaining two corollaries, which are employed in the proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem, we recall from the Preface of Protter and Weinberger (1984, p. v) a general philosophy important 14.32 is an example. in P.D.E.'s of whicii Propositio~~
such that for each q in U and each timeli
asymptote a to r from q we have (14.32)
fJdt (v, v) 2 - A ( uJ. ,vi)
for all v E T,M and t 2 to, where dt = d ( . , a @ ) ) and vi is the projectio onto the normal space (a'(0))i.
Proof. Let U be a neighborhood of p with compact closure on which t

generalized timelike co-ray condition holds and also Lemmas 14.15 and 14 and Corollary 14 17 hold. By Corollary 14.17, the set of all initial tangents asymptotes to y starting from points of
One of the most useful and best known tools employed in the study of partial differential equations is the maximum principle. This principle is a generalization of the elementary fact of calculus that any function f (z) which satisfies the inequality fl' > 0 on an interval [a,b ] achieves its maximum value at one of the endpoints of the interval We say that solutions of the inequality f"
U is contained in a compact sub
of the unit timelike tangent bundle. Then, by taking U and to sufficient small, we may ensme that the set ( a l ( t ): 0 5 t
< t o ) of all tangents to
> 0 satisfy
initial segments of length to of all asymptotes a emanating from points of contained in a compact subset of the unit timelike tangent bundle. Hence
a maximum principle. More generally, functions which satisfy a differential inequality in a domain D and, because of it, achieve to possess a maximum their maxima on the boundary of D are s a ~ d principle. We now turn to the proof of Proposition 14.32 following Galloway and Horta
l containing these initial tangents is contdne set of all timelike two-planes I

a compact subset of the set of all timelike two-planes in G 2 ( M ) .Thus, t of all sectional cl~rvatures of such planes is bounded above by some co
k; K(rI) 5 k .
Now consider
B = -Hd"
along the segment a 1 1 0 , to]. B = B, corresp
(1995, Proposition 4.4). An earlier result for globallq hyperbolic space-times was obtained in Galloway (1989a, Lemma 2.4), where the opposlte convention for choice of normal was used for calcalat~on of the mean curvature [cf. Newman
to the second fundamental form of the level sets
544
14
14.3
THE LEVEL SETS O F THE BUSEMANPU' FUNCTION
545
Proposition 14.32. Let (M,g) be future timelike geodesically cornplece and suppose also that Ric(v, v) 2 0 for ail timelike v. Let y be a timelike
Let a : [O, 4- oo)-+ ( M ,g) be a timelike asymptote to 7with a(0) = p. Then for each t
> 0,recalling Lemma 14.12 and Proposition 14.23.

b,,t(z) = b(p)
S-rajr, and let W 5 I-(?) n l+(S) be an open set on which the generalized timelike co-ray condit~on holds. Let C C W be a connected smooth spacelike
hypersurface with nonposrtive mean curvature, H z = divc(N) _< 0, where IV is the future pointing unit normal dong C. If the Busemann function b = b, attains a minimum dong C, then b, is constant dong C.
+ t - d(x.a @ ) )
is a smooth upper support function for b at p. Thus the function
Proof.Suppose that b achieves a minimum b(q) = a at q in C. Let U be

a neighborhood of q on which the generalized timelike co-ray condition hold and also Lemmas 14.15, 14.16, and 14.31 hold. Since bl C is continuous, suffices to show that b = a in a neighborhood of q in C. If this is not correc then there exists a coordinate ball B with B C C n U centered at q such that
fc,t
= bp,t
+ ~h
is a smooth upper support function for f, at p, which implies that j,,t also has a minimum at p. We will obtain a contradiction by calcula~ing Ax f,,,(p)and showing that it is negative for e sufficiently small and t sufficiently large. First we digress to give a generd calculation for a smooth funct~onf :
8(B) f DO(B),where
D0(B) = { zE a ( B ) : b(x) = a ) .
Note that b > a on d ( B )- DO(B).Also it follows from Lemma 14.31 that ther exists a constant C > 0 such that
W relating the dd'AlernbertianO(f) of f
to the Laplaclan Ax(f 1 C) of f
restricted to the spacelike hypersurface C. Fix p E C, and let (el, ez, . . . ,en- )
be an orthonormal basis of spacelike vectors for T,C. Combining the sign conventions of Calloway and Horta (1995) with those in Chapter 3, Defin~t~on
3.43 for the second fundamental form, we ntay define the mean curvature Hc(p)
(14.33)
for all asymptotes at
2,for
~ ~ * ( v ,2 v -C )
all x in B, for all v 21 TT,C with (v, v) 5 1, and
n-1
n-1
all t sufficiently large. By choosing B sufficiently small, we may construct a smooth function h C having the followingproperties [cf. Eschenburg and Heintze (1984), Newm (1990, p 177)]:
H ~ P=) t=1
s ~ ( e , , e ,= )
E(V,,N, e,)
%=I
For the purposes of the calculations of Suble~nma14.33, we denote the adient in (M,g ) by
v(f ) and the gradient in (C, g lc)
by V(f ). Also, let
(1) h(q) = 0 ; (2) IjVchj( < 1 on B, where Vc denotes the gradient operator on C;
(3) AGh
denote the Levi-Civita connection for (M,g), let V denote the Levi-Civita onnection for (C, g j ~ ) and , let H; denote the hessian of f 1 C in (C, g (x).
< -D
on B, where D is a positive constant and Ac is the indue
Sublemma 14.33. Let C be a spacelike hypersurface of (,if. g), and let

:M +
Laplacian on C; and
R be a smooth function. Then for any p in C and with the mean ure H z ( p ) given by (14 351, we have
546
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LOREKTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.3
THE LEVEL SETS OF THE BUSEhIANN FUNCTION
547
Pmof o j Sublemma (1) We have

n-I
Recalling inequality (14.29))we have
B(f)(P) = Z(V(f)(p).e,)e, @(f)(P)>N(P))N(P)

t=l
n-1
WP,t)(p) = -O(dt!(P) 5
n-l
7.
= =
ei(f)ez- W f ) N ( P ) z=l V ( f 16)- l V ( f ) N ( P ) .
Because f,,t has a minimum on C at p, we have V c ( j E , t ) ( P= ) 0. Also, V(bt,,)(p) = -aJ(@) [cf. Lemma 14 261. Noiv using Sublemrna 14.33-(I),
V z ( f e , t ) (= ~ )Vc(bp,t)(p) SEVZ~(P) = v(bp,t)( P ) + ( N ( P )V(bp , ,)(PI) N ( P )+ E V C ~ ( P )
(2) Now
n-1
U(f )@) = Z g ( e z ,e z W f ( e , , e,) + ~ ( N ( PW ) .P ) ) Hf (N(P),N(P))

z=l
n-I
= -a'@) - ( N ( p ) .crl(0))N ( p )
Thus, V ~ ( f , , , ) ( p= ) 0 implies that
+~Vch(p)
H f ( e z e,) , - Iff ( N ,N )
*=I
~f
Ip .
N ( P )= ( N ( P )~ , ' ( 0 ) ) - ~ [ - ~+ '( f(Vch)(p)j. 0)

Since H d $ ( v d t ..) = 0. we also have H d c ( a l ( 0 ) ..) = 0 Thus we obtain
Hence we must calculate
(e,, e,) using (1). Now
Hf(e,.e,) = ('5,,Vf,et) = ( V e s V ( f I C).eZ) - (ae,N(f)N.ez)

= ( V e , V ( f 16),e,) -
( e t ( N ( f ) ) N (+ ~) Np(f)Ve,N? et)
Hbppt(AT(p). N ( P ) )= e2 (iv(p), ~ ' ( O ) ) - ,~ (V H~~ h( ~p V ) ,c h ( p ) ) .

By the (wrong way) Cauchy-Schvlarz inequality,
I(N(p),a'(O))l2 IlN(P)ll . ll~'i@)ll =1
= Hi(e,,et) - N p ( f )(V,,N,e,)
Thus,
n-1
U(f)(p) = A c ( f i W P) N * ( f )):(Ve,N
r=l
e z )- Hf tN?N)lF
Since V z h ( p ) is tangent to C at p and also llVch(p)ll 5 1, u-e may apply inequelity (14 33) to deduce H b p f t (Vch(p),V c h ( p ) )< C and hence
~ ~ p ~ (N l v (~ () ~ )),
=Ac(f
I W P) N,(f)Hc(p) - . f f f ( * i . N ) l p . a
f,,t
L ce2.
We now return to the proof of Proposition 14.32. By definition of have
Thus under the mean curvature assumption Nc(p) 5 0 and with the choice of
N ( p ) as future directed tlmellke, we obtain
A ~ ( f ~ , t )= ( fA -r z( )b p , t ) ( + ~ )E A c ~ ~ P )
nz(bt,,>(p)
rn
+ cE2
< A~(bp,t)@ -)DEBy Sublemma 14.33 we have
548
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM IK LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

E
14.4
T E E PROOF OF THE LORENTZIAN SPLITTING THEOREM
549
Then taking t > 0 sufficiently large and
> 0 sufficiently small, we obtain
a timelike S-ray on the set I - ( y ) n I + ( S ) may be extended to the larger region
& 2 ( f t , t ) ( ~ )< 0,
1- ( y )n [Jf(S)U D - ( S ) ] :where D- ( S )denotes the past Cauchy development

(or past domain of dependence) of S , i.e., D-(S) = ( q E M : every future inextendible nonspacelike
which is the desired contradiction
3
curve from q intersects S ) In particular, it is noted that if S is a compact acausal spacelike hypersurface in the future timelike geodesically complete space-time ( M , g ) ,then the generalized timelike co-ray condition holds on I-(-!) n [ J + ( S ) U D - ( S ) ] . As a consequence of these considerations, the following is obtained in Galloway and Borta (1995, Corollary 5.6).
Corollary 74.36. Let ( M , g ) be a globally hy.~erboIic, future timelike
Proposition 14.32 has the following two corollaries [cf. Galloway and Norta
(1995)],which wlll be used in the proof of the splitting theorem in Section 14.4. Inequality (14.36) and these corollaries will indicate that the superlevel
sets
( 4 E M : b,(q)
>4
are in some sense mean convex. This has been studied in the Riemannian case in Eschenburg (1989).
Corollary 14.34. Let ( M , g ) be a future timeiike geodesically compl
space-time which obeys the timehke convergence condition Ric(v, v) all timelike v, and let y be a timellke S-ray. Let W
20
geodesically cnrnprete space-time which contains a compact spacelike hypersurface S, and let y be any S-ray Then 6, in (M, g). Galloway and Worta (1995) note that the de Sitter space-time provides an example of ( M , g ) which is globally hyperbolic, geodesically complete, with compact Cauchy surfaces S , yet contains S-rays y for which I - ( 7 )
: (M
I - ( y ) f? I T ( S ) be
g)
-+
(0,+co] is continuous.
open set on which the generalized timelike co-ray condition holds. Let C be connected xausal smooth spacel~ke hypersurface in W with nonpositive me curvature. Suppose that C and C, = {b, = c ) n W have a point m com and that C
Moreover, the level sets C, = ( q E M : h,(q) = c ) are partial Catlchy surfaces
Jf (C,, W ) . Then
C
c C,.
# M.
Hence, the Busemann function b, of such a ray y is not finite-valued on all of

Corollary 14.35. Let ( M , g ) be a future timelike geodesically corn
M,
14.4
space-time which sat~sfies the timelikc convergence condition Ric(v, v) 2 all timelike v, and let y be a timelike S-ray. Let W
c I-(?) n I f (S) be
The P r o o f of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem
open set on which the generalized timelike co-ray condition holds. Let C b smooth spacelike hypersurface with nonpositive mean curvature whose clo is contained in IV -4ssume that C is acausal in W and E is compa edge(C) C {b, 2 c ) , then
The results have now been assembled which enable us to present a proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem in the timelike geodesically complete case.
cr
Section 14.5 of this ch how the regularity
1 el.
as originally formulated by S. T. Yau (1982) in problem number 155. A proof er this hypothesis, rather than that of global hyperbollcity, was first given Fewman (1990). The proof given in this sectlon follows Galloway and Horta , in which simplifications are obtained in the previous proofs cited in oduction to this ckapter based on the systematic use of the generalized
for the Busemann
550
14
14.4
THE PROOF OF THE LORENTZIAN SPLITTING THEOREM
551
Theorem 14.37. Let (M, g) be a t~melike geodesically complete spacetime which satisfies the t ~ m e l ~ k convergence e condition Ric(v,v) >_ 0 for all timelike vectors v. If ( M ,g ) contains a timelike line, then ( M ,g) is isometric to (R x S, -dt2 h) where (S, h) is a complete Riemannian manifold.
and
Now fix q in I ( y ) . Then there exist s. t
> 0 so that
y(-s)
<C q
< < y ( t ) . Berice.
Earlier work on the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem involving the Busemann function approach assumed global hyperbolicity rather than timelike geodcsic completeness, in part; because of the automatic existence of maximal timelike segments connecting any pair of chronologically related points. Additionally, the Lorentzian distance function of any globally hyperbolic space-time is always continuous as well a~ finite-valued. This version of the splitting theorem
is as follows:
Theorem 14.38. Let ( M , g ) be a globally hyperbolic space-time which
using the reverse triangle inequality,
whence
satisfies the timelike convergence condition Ric(v, v)
> 0 for all timelike vectors
v. If ((M. g) contains a complete timeiike line, then ( M ,g ) splits as in Theorem
Thus B = b+ b- 2 0 on I(?). Similar calculations show that B ( y ( t ) )= 0 along the geodesic y(t) itself. Let U be a convex normal neighborhood of :/((I) such that all the preceding regularity properties hold for bf and b- on U . Consider the "horospheres'" S+ = (b+(q)= 0 ) n U and S - = {b-(q) = 0 ) n U . B y Proposition 1 4 30, both
Sf and S - are partial Cauchy surfaces in U. each containing y(0) Using the topological manifold structure of S f . let W be a small coordinate hall in S+ centered at -(O) whose closure is also In S+. By applying the fundamental existence result of Bartnik (1988a, Theorem 4 1) for spacelike hypersurfaces with rough boundary data, we obtain a smooth maximal (i.e., Hz = 0) space like hypersurface C edge(C) = edge(W)
In this second version, while completeness for all timelike geodesics is n assumed, timelike complpteness of some maximal timelike geodesic is require
Proof of Theorem 14.37. Let y : I--+ ( M . 9 ) be any complete timelike 1 1 = -1. Let - y ( t ) = y(-t) denote y wlth t parametrized wlth (y1(t),-y'(t)) opposite orientation. As in all the proofs of the various versions of the splitti theorems, define
C Sf
U such that C is acausal in U with compact closure. = (b+(q) = 0 ) n U,and C meets y. By deleting
points if necessary. we will also take C to be defined such that and
bf = lim b) and b- = lim b;. r++m T-+w Put I ( y ) = I+(?) r l I P ( y ) . Since y / [a.+m) and -y 1 la, +m) are tim rays for all a E R, b+ and b- are defined and finite-valued on I ( y ) . all the regularity results (and their time duals) hold on a neighborhood
point of y. It will be helpful for use in the sequel to note that Lemma 14 5translates into the following: given any p, q in I(?) with p
First apply Corollary 14.35 to conclude that C C {hf ( q ) 2 0) also. since b-(q) 2 - b f ( q ) on I ( y ) , we have simultaneously that
nU
But
< q, then
Hence, by the time dual of Corollary 14 35 applied to
--f,
.rvc obtain
552
i4

SO
24.4
T H E PROOF OF THE LORENTZIAN SPLITTING THEOREM
553
Thus C G jb+(q) L 0) n {b-(4) L 0). Now since C C (b+(q) 2 0) and points of edge(C) satisfy b+(q) = 0, we obtain from Corollary 14 34 that b+ = 0 along C. Hence if we let x = y(to) denote the point of intersection of C and y, we have b+(z) = 0. Thus as B = O on 7, we obtain b-(x) = 0 as well. This fact and C {b-(9) 2 0) enable the time dual of Corollary 14.34 to be applied to conclude that C C S-. whence (14.38) b+ = b- = O along C.
< 0. Combining these two calculations yields b+(a,(t)) = t for any t < 0, hence for all t in R,recalling
that as B 2 0 on I ( y ) , b+(a,(t)) 2 t for all t (14.39). An analogous argument using inequality (14.37b) in place of (14.37a)
shows that b-(a,(t)) = -t for any t in R. We are now ready to show that a x ( t ) is globally maxlmal. For take any t l ,
t2
with t l < 0
< tz. Applying (14.37a) with p
= a,(tl) and q = a,(tz) gives
whence
(M,g) denote any timelike asymptote to yl [O,+CG) issuing from x, and let a; : [O,+oo) -+ (M.g) denote any tlmellke asymptote to y ] [O. -m) = -7 I [0,+GO) issuing from x. With (14.3
-+
Given any x in C, let a,f : [0, +m)
d(ax(tl)ffs(t2))5 Automatically,
t2 - tl.
in hand, it is now poss~bieto establish that at any x in C, the asympto
: geodesics a; and a
fit together at x to form a smooth maximal geodesi and further, that through each such x in Hence, d(a,(tl), a,(tz)) = tz
line, I.e., [a;i.]'(Q) = -[a,]/(O),
- tl for any tl < 0 < t2, which implies that
a,
there is exactly one tlrnelike asymptote a, to y passing through x. Towa this end consider the (possibly) broken (at t = 0) geodesic &(t) a;(-t) for t 2 0, for t < 0.
is globally maximal. In addition, note that if a, were broken at t = 0, then the usual "cutting the corner" argument applied at x = a,(O) would produce a longer curve from a,(-to) to a , ( t ~ )than a, / [-to, to] for a small to > 0, contradicting the maximality of a, just established. Thus we have seen that for x in C , any future directed asymptote crl to 7 1 10,+m) with ul(0) = x and any past directed asymptote
a2
Flrst, from Corollary 14.13 we obtain for t 2 0 that (14.39) bf (a,(t)) = b+(x)
+ d(x. a,(t))
=O
+t = t
to -y 1 [O,+m) with (TZ(O) =
3.
fit together
at z to form a smooth, maximal timelike geodesic line This is of course the geometric basis for the splitting theorem to be valid in a tubular neighborhood of y. as we now establish. First we establish that both a,f and a; are C-rays for any x in C. Re-
and similarly b-(a,(t)) = -t for t < 0. Now take t w~th p = a,(t) = a;(-t) and q = x. We obtain
< 0, and consider (14.3
0 = b+(x) 2 b+(a,(t))
= b+(@X(t))
+ d(a,
(-t), x)
call that for any q in I-(? j [O, +m)) n f + (C), we have 0
< d(C, g)
< bi(4)
+ (4,
+ b-(a,(t))
[cf. inequality (14.18)j. Taking q = a, (t) with t > 0, we obtain
whence bf (a,(t)) 5 t for all t < 0. On the other hand, for m y t < O B(Q,(~))= h+(a,(t)) But dfX,cr,(t)) 2 d(c~,(O),a,(t)) = L(a, ' [0,t 1) since a, is maximal. Hence, d(C,a,(t)) = t = L(a, / [ 0 7 t ] )for all t > 0, and a$ I [O,+os) is a C-ray as desired. D u d arguments show that a; is also a X-ray. It is then a consequence
= hi (a, (t))
= b'(a,(t))
+ b- (a; (-t))
-t
554
14
14 4
T H E PROOF O F THE LORENTZIAN SPLiTTING THEOREM
555
of basic theory in the calculus of variations that a : and a; are both focal po~nt free and that a, meets C orthogonally (cf. Propositions 12.25 and 12.29). Let us ilow sl~ow that direct geometric arguments reveal that for any pan of distinct points p, q in C, y l = a," and
m = yl(s) = yz(t) for some s, t
72 = a:
hypothesis of timelike geodesic completeness, we may then define the normal exponential map E :
i RxC
-+
(M,g) by E ( t , q) = expq(tN(q)). i n view of
the properties derived above for the asymptotic geodesics to y issuing from ar.d hence a points of C. we already have that E is nonsingular and ~njective diffeomorphism onto its image. By our above calculations for b+(a,(t)) acd h - ( ~ , ( t ) ) ,we have that h+(E(t.q)) = b+(exp(tN(q))) = t
do not intersect. For suppose

= s = d(C,m) since both = to
> 0. First, t
geodesics are unit speed X-rays. Thus put to = t = s > 0,and note also that L(yl 1 10. t o ] )= L(y2 I [0,to]) = d(X, m). Choose any 5 > 0,and let
tl
+S
and n = yl(tl). Starting with the fact that yl is a X-ray, we obtain d(C,n) = L(7l I 10,tlI)
+ L h l I [ t o , tl]) = L(72 I [O,tol) + L(7l I [to, ill).

= L(YI![O, t o ] )
b-(E(t, q)) = b - ( e ~ p ( t N ( ~ )= ) )-t. Since E is a diffeomorphism onto its image, these equatioils reveal that both the previous c
b+ and b- are differentiable on the connected open set fi = E(W x C).
Let c = yzlp,,ol *
~ll~~~ curve , ~ from , ~ , qato n which, by
lation, has the property that L(c we have yll(to) # yzl(to). Hence, done using a convex normai neighborhood of m, show that we may construe future causal curve a from q to n with L(a) intersect. Dual arguments reveal
Fix x
C, and let a,,, denote the unit timelike geodesic from

-
L .
to ? ( r )
-+ +m.
for r sufficiently large. Then as b,f(x) = r Vbf (x) = -Vd,(x) = -a&(0)
d(x,y ( r ) ) = r - d,(x), one has
(cf. Lemma 14.26). Hence letting r,
> L(c). But then L(a) > d(C,

x E C, do
and remembering that U has been chosen so that the asymptotic geodesic construction is well behaved, we have a,'(O) = limn,+,
which is impossible. Thus the future timelike geodesics a : ,
c u L , , n ( 0 ) and thus
x E C, can intersect either. Let us now turn to the non-i

form yl = a : and 72 = a;, for any p, q E X except possibly at p = q C. Suppose that there exist s, t > 0 such that yl(s) = yz(t) = m. b+(m) = b+(yi(s)) = s > 0. On the other hand, taking any t l with 0 < t l we have b+(-y2(tl)) = -tl from our previous work in the course of thih pr Since b+ o yz 1s continuous, there exists t2 > 0 such that b'(yz(t2)) = 0. this then contradicts the achronality of the set {b+ = 0 ) . Hence we h established the fact that no two normal geodesics to C intersect, except the trivial possibility that both issue from the same point p of C and that intersect precisely at that point or coincide. %call that C is a smooth spacelike hypersurface. Hence there exist smooth future pointing unit ~imelike normal field N along C Recalling also
= -aZ1(0), Vb+(x) = lim Vb?=(x) = lim -c~j.~,(O) n-TW n-+m
where a,(t) = E ( t , x). More generally,
Vb+(az (t)) = -ayl(t)

r any t 6 W jcf. Eschenburg (1988)], This discussion shows that f = b+ 1s a ifferentiable function on Ut which satisfies the eikond equation ('17f.Df) = s that for any point q In Ul there exists a unique unit speed maximal elike line asymptotic to y passing through q ) Put
Zt = E ( ( t ) x C).
14.4
557
a certain Lagrange tensor field dong any unit timelike geodesic c(t) in
U1
-y
/ [a,foo),
for any a in R,issuing from any point q in U , coincides
asymptotic to y calculates the mean curvature W ( t )of the leaf of this foliation at c(t). The Raychaudhuri equation associated to this Lagrange tensor fieid then translates Into the following evolution inequality [cf. Galioway and Horta
one of these flow !ines c,(t> of Vb+. (Here up to parametrization w ~ t h
N denotes the future directed unlt clmellke normal to C . )

It is now necessary to show that the local splitting given in Proposition 14.39 may be extended to a global splitting. In Eschenburg (1988) this wa;. carried out by defining tmelike lines ci. ca to be equzvalent if they are joined by a chain of timelike lines
= c l , p2,.. . , /3h = c2 such that each successive
:
Assuming that N fails to be parallel along the geodesic c and recalling the curvature assumption Ric(N, N) 2 0, arguments similar to those in Proposition 12.9 of Chapter 12 show that the mean curvature H(tf t o Ct a t c ( t ) must blow up in finite time. But this contradicts the fact established above that all such timelike asymptotes c to y are focal point free to Co at c(O). Hence, the normal vector field N = -Vb+ must be parallel in U l , and the level surfaces C t are all totally geodesic (cf. Lemma B.5 of Appendix B). Moreover, the parallelism of N also implies that Ul splits locally isometrically by Wu's proof
pair / 3 ,
fl,+l forms the boundary of an isometrically immersed flat strip 4
( R x [al. aa],-dt2@ds2) -+ ( M , g )satisfying 4 ( W x {al)) = P3,F3(Rx{a2)) = p J + l , and F j ( R x is)) is a timelike line for each s in [al.a2].Later. following
the publication of Galloway (1989a),Galloway ind~cated to us that an alternate proof of the global splitting could be given by maximally enlarging the local hypersurface C of Proposition 14.39 originally obtained in a neighborhood of
a given timelike line. It is this second line of reasoning that will be pursued
next.
(1964, p. 299) of the Lorentzian de Rham Theorem. More exactly, let h denote the Riemannian metric induced on the spacelike hypersurfxe C = Go by inclusion in ( M ,9). Then E is an isometry of (R x C, -dt2 the given timelike line. We summarize what has been accomplished so far as
Proposition 14.39. Suppose ( M ,g) is timelike geodesicdiy complete an
$ h)
It will be useful for this purpose to recall the followirlg elementary relationship between parallel translation and parallel field&. Suppose that
and (Ul. g lU,
U is a
(path) connected open set and N is a srnootl~vector field which is globally parallel on U. i.e., for any q E U and any v 6 T q M , we have V,N = 0. Fix any point ql in U , and let vl = N ( q l ) E Tq,M. Then for any qr: in U , If c : 10.11 + U is a smooth curve with c(0) = 41 and c(1) = qz. (14.44) and v2 E T,,M is obtained by parallel translating z l along c from t = O to t = 1, then the resulting vector vz is independent of choice of path c from qi to qz. This basic fact is valid because the parallel field P along c with P ( 0 ) = v l
rrtust be given by P ( t ) = A'
o c(l)
and hence provides the desired isometric splitting in the neighborhood Ulo
satisfies fic(v. v) 2 0 for every timelike v , Let y : R -4 (M, g) be any complet timelike line in (hif, g) . Then there exists an open neighborhood
U of y(W)
M sucb that
( I ) C = (bt = b- = 0) n U is a smooth embedded acausal hypersurfa (M, !?I, (2) (U.glu) is isometric to (Wx C , -dt2 @ h), where h is the metric ind on C by inclusion in ( M ,g), and (3) for each q in C, the curve R
i-
for all t i11 [O, I]. whence va = P(1) = N(q2)
which depends on N and q2 but not on the particular clloice of smooth ~ u i v e c m q l to 92. Thus if the field'%1 on U is globally given. no holonorny problems e encountered in parallel translation along different curves in U . We turn now to the problem of compatibly enlarging a local splitting of
i
U given by c q ( t ) = exp(iA
ma-imai timelike line ~assinp - throud a - which is ~ v m ~ t o t i c given timelike line y. Further, any timelike asymptote to
IR -+ (M,g ) denote a given timelike line, and let W be a convex normal neighborhood of po = ~ ~ (such 0 )
rm given in Proposition 14.39. Thus let
73
55%
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEhl IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY
14.4
559
that the regularity properties for timelike asymptote construction are valid on
V/ and the Busemann functions b$ and b,

to obtain a local isometric splitting E :
are continuous on W. Let Wo

@ hO) -+ (Uo,g) with
curve u : i0, I] -+ Cl P Co from q = a(0) to m = a(1) Since Pil and No are both parallel at all points of C1 n Co and Nl(q) = No(q), ~t foilows agaln from (14.44) that Nl(m) = No(m). Hence. f i = iv, at all points of Cl fl Co. Now given any n E Ul Ti Uo, use either splitting to find a smooth curve p(t) = E ( t , m ) from a point m in El
be a second convex open neighborhood of po with T o 2 W, which is used
(Bx Co, -dt2
Co 2 Wo and E(t,q) = exp(tNo(q)), where No = -Vb$ is globally parallel on U = E ( R x C o ) Let pl E edge(C0) be arbitrary. Take (q,) limn,+, E(0, q,) = pi. By continuity, b$(pl) = limn,+,
+
n Co to n. Since Nl(m)
= No(m) and
C Co with
Nl (n) and No(n) are obtained from Nl (m), No(rn) by parallel translation dong p , we must have Nl (n) = No (n). Thus we have obtained Vb$ = vb$ on Ul TiCro. Since bf ( q ) = b$(q) for any
q
i11
bof(E(0, q,)) = 0, Co with c,(a,)

= q,.
and similarly bi(pl) = 0. Recalling that Co is totally geodesic and W is convex, there exist unit speed ho-geodesics c, . 10, a,] (CO)be an accumulation vector of {cnl(0)) and put c(t) = exp(tw), Let w in Tpo
C1 n Co, it follows that bf = b z on Ul n lie. Put C = Co U C1 furnished
with the Riemannian metric h induced bj inclusion in (M.y). Fbrther, put
c : 10, a ) -+ (Ca, h o ) Since cz(t) = (2t, c(t)). 0 t < a, is a unit timelike geodesic in (M,g) and ( M ,g) is timelike geodesically complete, it follows that
cz(t) extends to t = a. Hence, the geodesic c : [O,a) + (20,he) extends to a geodesic ci : 10,a]
+
<
(&I,g) with cl (a) = pl.

-+
and define the extended splitting E : (R x C, -dt2 63 h) (M,g) with P(0) =
(LroU U, ,g) by
Let P be the unique parallel field along cl : [O, a] yol(0). Put v = P(1) in T,,M, and let y t :R expPl(tv). If we take {s,)
+
( M , g ) be given by yl(t) = (0, a ) with s , -+ a and put u,(t) = exp(tP(s,))
E ( t , q ) = e w ( t N(q)). Kow we ~ndicate how the or~ginal splitting may be extended from the given local splittmg W x Co -+ Uo .'in all directions." Select sufficiently many points (PI, pz,
. . . ,pk)
in edge(&) and associated convex neighborhoods Mil ,. . . , Wk
14.39, each u, is a maximal timelike line asymptotic to 70. Thus 71 is also

maximal timellke line. Apply Proposition 14.39 to yl to get a local splitting E : (Bx El, -rkt2 parallel on Ul, b$(pl) = b;(pl) = 0. We wish to show that Nl(q) = &(q) all points q of Uo n U1, or equivalently, bf(q) = bof(q) (and thus also b l (q) = b;(q)) at all polnts q of U o n UI. Choose b with 0 < b < a so that q = cl(b) 6 C1 n Co, where cl . [0,a] (M,g) denotes the g-geodesic in W from go to pl constructed above. Rec
$
such that after determining local hypersurfaces El, C2,. . . , Ck and tubular neighborhoods Ul, U2,. .. , Uk, that if any pair Up n Uq# then C ,
0 (or C p n Cq # @),
n C, contains a point of the starting hypersurface Co. With this proviso, it follows as above using (14.44) that the Busemann functions (and
-+
their gradients) obtained from the local splitting8 E, : R x C, all overlaps, so that w e may put
U, agree on
and
c =~
o u ~ l U " ' u ~ k
and define a parallel field on U by N(q) = iVj (q) for q in U3 to obtain a welldefined isometric splitting E : R x C e given local splitting E
: (Bx
+
(U,g lo-) via E ( t , qj = exp(t N(q)).

-+
We now present the more general inductive szep necessary to conclude that Co, -dt2 @ h) (Uo,g) may be globalized.
560
14
14.4
THE PROOF OF THE LORENTZIAK SPLITTING THEORElvl
561
Thus we suppose that an open, smooth, path connected spacelike hypersurface

C with Riemannian metric h ~nduced by lncluslon In (hf,g) is given, wlth a
i e., using the Busemann function associated to c(t), the parallel field iV may
be consistently extended to C U El. The crucial remaining step in this procedure is to show that this process just described is well defined. That is. suppose a different point go E W is selected,
1 --+ (M,g) with c2(0) = q ~cz(1) . = p, and c2([0,1)) S C the geodesic r2 . [0, 1
timelike unit normal field N parallel at all points of C so that the mapping
is constructed. and ?u2 6 T,M is obtained by parallel translating N(qo) along given by E(t,q) = expg(t N(q)) is a diffeomorphism onto its image, ns well as being an isometry, and that the timelike geodesics yq(t) = E(t,q) are timelike lines for all q in C. Inductively. suppose further that if
c2
from t = 0 to t = 1. It is necessary to establish that wl = wz in Tp&f. Thus suppose that url
# w2 in T,M.
Let P, denote the parallel field along
is extended to
, (M,g) with Pl(0)= N(po) [respectively, Pz(O) = N ( q o ) ] . Recall c, : 10, l] -
U by setting N(yq(t)) = yql(t),then N is globally parallel on (U. g). Finally.

although this is not necessary to the argument, suppose that C contains a given local hypersurface Cg formed by starting with an originally given complete timelike line yo and that h7/ U t = -Vb:o. as in Proposition 14.39. Suppose that edge(C) is nonempty. Take any p E edge(E). To complete the argument. we will show that C can be extended consistently past p to form an even larger spacelike hypersurface C1 satisfying the above conditions. This then shows that if we want to carry out "Zorn's Lemma" type arguments, then
that in fact P,(t) is equally well determined by the value of N(c3(t)) for any t with O < t < 1. Thus in view of the proof of the local splitting Proposition 14.39, especially the use of Bartnik (1988a). we will replace the given initial
o by points p& on c1 and q h on c2 stifficiently close to p such that points po, g
after the associated local splittings
are obtained, centered about ?,b(t) and %b ( t )respectively, we have p E C;nCb Fkom our previous studies of the compatib~lity of local spllttings, we also have ~ b ; '= 0b2f at all points of C; P~(q6) = -Vb2 as desired.
I
Eb/ may be maximally extended to a smooth spacelike hypersurface ( S ,h ) w ~ t h

edge(S) = 0, and we may thus obtain the desired global splitt~ng. and W contamed Let W & U be a geodeslcally convex open set with p E Inside a larger geodesicallv convex open set. By our prevlous discuss~on,~f we select po in W sufficiently close to p and let be a geodesically convex
neighborhood of po with p In d(Wo), then applying the local splitting Propo-
n C;.
and part~cularly. PI(p&)= -Vb;(&
and
(A).
Thus. in fact, wl = Pl(p) = -Vb:jp) = -'C7bz(p) = wa.
S. -dt2@ Now that the existence of a global isometric splitting ( M ,g) = (EX
h) has been established, the only remaining detail in the proof is to show that
the Riemannian factor (S,h) is forced to be corriplete by the assumed t~mellke completeness of (M, g). But this is the same type of argument that has already been used above. Suppose that (S,h ) fails to be Riemannian complete. Then there exkts an h-unit speed Riemannian geodesic c either n or b is finite, which is inextendible either possibly both. Define 7 2
(a, b)
-+
sition 14.39 produces a hypersurface Co contained in C (? Wo with po 6 Co
odesic el
. \0,1) -+ ( M ,g)
with q ( 0 ) = po, q ( l ) = p, and c1([0,1)) &
: ( a ,b)
--t
(S;h) where
$0 t
= a or to t =
tr or
(M,g) by -{(t) = (2t,c(t)), which is a
geodesic in (iM,g) by formula (3.17) with f = 1. Further, g(-yJ(t),y l ( t ) ) = Thus y is a timdike geodesic in (A4.g) which is either past incomplete or future incomplete, contradicting the hypothesis of timelixe geodesic completeness of (M, g). O
+ h ( e l ( t ) , c l ( t )= ) -1.
562
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAK GEOMETRY
14.5
RTGIDITY OF GEODESIC INCOMPLETENESS
563
Remark 14.40. It is perhaps amusing to note after the fact that the two
versions of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem are not so far apart. (1) Note that under the conclusion of Theorem 14.37. (M,g) must be strongly causal by corollary 3.56. Alternatively, we know from the proof of Theorem 14.37 that a complete timelike line passes through every point of (M, g), hence strong causality also follows from Proposition 4.40.
(2) Since the Riemannian factor (S, h) in Theorem 14.37 turns out to be
Theorem 14.41. Let ( M " ,g ) be a globally hyperbolic space-time which

satisfies the curvature condition %c(P~, v) 2 ( n- 1) for any unit tlmelike vector v. Suppose that (M,g) contains a mlwirnal timelike geodesic segment y
:
( - ~ / 2 ,~ / 2 ) -+ ( M ,g). Then there exists a comple~e Riemaqnian manifold (S,h) such that (M, g) is isometric to the warped product ( ( - ~ / 2 , ~ / 2x ) S, -dt2
+ cos2(t) h)) .
complete, we know that (M,g) had also to be globally hyperbolic (as well a s geodesically complete) by Theorem 3.67, (1) =+ (2), (3).
As a consequence of Theorem 14.41, Andersson and Howard are able to obtain a related result to Theorem A.5 of Harris (1982b). The definition of "globally hyperbolic of order q = 1" is given in dppendix A, Definition -4.3.
(3) Similarly in Theorem 14.38, the global hyperbolicity of (M,g) ensures

after the splitting is obtained that ( M ,g) had to be geodesically complete, also by Theorem 3.67, (3)
* (2).
(4) The use of Theorem 4.1 of Bartnik (1988a) enables certain analytic arguments involving smooth super support functions and subsupport functions to show that the continuous function b+ o c is a%ne, hence differentiable, to be dispensed with in the proof presented here. An aspect of this other proof method is to observe that by estimatw a k ~ n to (14.36), these support functions have arbitrarily small second derivatives [cf. Eschenburg and Heintze (1984), Beem, Ehrlich, Markvorsen. and Galloway (1985, Lemma 5.1), Eschenburg (1988, Lemma 5.2 and Proposition 6.3)j.
Theorem 14.42. Let ( M " , g) be a space-time which is globally hyperbolic cf order 1 and also satisfies the curvature condition Ric(v, v) 2 (n - 1) for any unit timelike vector v.
(1) If ( M ,g) contains a maximal timelike geodesic segment y :
r-,; $1
-+
(M, g) of length x joining x to y , then the causal lnterval D = If ( z ) ri I - (9) is isometric to the warped product of the hyperbolic model space
(3, h) of constant curvature -1 and dimension (n - 1) and the interval
(-5, with warped product metric -dt2 - cos2(t) h. (2) If ( M , g ) contains a timelike geodesic y : (-oo, +co)
that each segment y 1 [t, t
z),
( M ,g) such
+ T] is maximal, then
( M ,g) is isometric to
the universal cover of anti-de Sitter space.

A different application of the Busemann function methods discussed in this chapter has been given in Andersson and Howard (1994) to obtain results more
closely allied to Harris's Maximal Diameter Theorem A.5 of Appendix A. In this setting. for example, estimate (14.29) translates into
O(d,)
14.5
Rigidity of Geodesic Incompleteness
Now that the space-time splitting theorem has been obtained. we are ready to return to the question of rigidity of timehke geodes~eincompleteness as discussed in the introduction to this chapter. The following formulation of this ques~ionwas given in Bartnik (1988b). Bartnik defines a space-tlme to be cosmological if it is globallj hyperbolic with a compact Cauchy surface and satisfies the timelike convergence condition Ric(v, v) 2 0 for all timelike v.
> -(n - 1) tan(a/2 - d,).
Here are two of the results obtained in Andersson and Howard (1994, The
564
14
THE SPLITTIXG PROBLEM IN LORENTZIAX GEObIETAY
14.5
RIGIDITY OF GEODESIC INCOMPLETENESS
565
Co~ecture 14.43 (Bartnik). Let (M. g ) be a cosmoiogical space-time.

Then (I) (M, g) contains a constant mean curvature Cauchy surface; and (2) (M, g) is either timelike geodesirally incomplete or else ( M g) splits
s a product (R x V, -dt2 @ h), where (V h) is a complete isometrically a
Theorem 14.45. Let (A4.g) be a space-time with compact Cauchy surface and with everywhere nonpositive t~melike sectiond curvatures. If ( M ,g) is fl~tiiretjmehke geodesicajly complete, then each future inextendible null geodesic contains a null cut point.
Pmoj. Assume that there is a future inextendible null geodeslc q : 10,a) -+

( M , g ) such that there is no cut point to p = q(0) along 7. Let (tk} be an increasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers converging to a. and set
4.4 = rj(tk). Hence d(p, q k ) = 0 for all k since q contains no null cut point to p.
Riemannian manifold. In Geroch (1966) the following condition was introduced (14.45) For some p E &f. the set A 4 - [If(p) n I-(p)] is compact.
Fix a compact Cauchy surface S containing p, and for each k let A/k be a future
directed timelike geodesic segment from some point
rk
Bartnik (1988b) proves that if condition (14.45) is satisfied, then there is a constant mean curvature Cauchy surface in (M,g) which passes through p. Also Bartnik (1988b) notes that if condition (14.45) holds, then either (M,g) is a metric product or else is timelike geodesically incomplete, extending earlier work of Galloway (1984~) which required that this condition hold at all p on a compact Cauchy surface. Bowever. (1) is false in general [cf. Bartnik (1988b)l. In Beem, Ehrlich, Markvorsen, and Galloway (1985), a rigidity result was stated which may be obtained as a consequence of the Lorentzian Splitting Thcorcm along fairly elementary lines, without any causality assumption like (14.45), but under the weaker sectional curvature hypothesis. -4 complete proof was published in Ehrlich and Galloway (1990)
of S to q k which realizes
d(S, qk). (Her~ce yk is also a rrlaximal geodesic segment.) The sequence has an accumulation point r on S, and thus some subsequence (y,)
irk)
of (y,)
converges to a future inextendible norispacelike limit curve y with y(0) = r which by the usual arguments is a maximal geodesic. Also, for each fixed t the segment y 1 [O, t 1 realizes the distance from S to y ( t ) . klareover, for some t we have d(S,y ( t ) )
>0 > 0 since y cannot be imprisoned in S. Hence, the limit
geodesic must be timelike rather than null. Note also that y is future complete by the assumption of future timelike geodesic completeness. Furthermore,
(14.46)
r n If(p) = 0.
meets I i ( p ) for large m. Hence q, E
Theorem 1 4 . 4 4 . Let (M, g) be a space-time with a compact Cauchy surface and everywhere nonpositive timelike sectional curvatures K 5 0. Then
incomplete or else (-!. g) splits as a metric either (M,g) is timelike geodes~cdy
For suppose y meets I+(p). Then y, I f ( p ) , and thus d(p, q,)
> 0, in contrad~ction.
we may choose m
product
(Bx V. -dt2
Now we use the sectional curvature hypothesls to obtain a contradiction to (14.46). Because y is a timelike limit curve of (y,}. sufficiently large so that q , E I+(r). Lsing I'(q,) I + ( r ) n If (pj f 0. Thus we may fix x in If (r) fl It(p) and let 6 : 10, L]
i
$ h),
where (V, h) is cornpact
Prooj. Suppose that ( M .g) is timelike geodesically complete. Since (M, g) is assumed to have a compact Cauchy surface S, it is not difficult to see that
I+(p). we then o b t a ~ n
(M,g ) is causally disconnected with K = S. Hence by Theorem 8.13, (M, g)

contains a nonspacelike geodes~c line. If the line is shown to be timeilke, then the desired splitting follo~vs from the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem. Nence, it only remains to rule out the alternative that the line is null. This may be accompiishd by using a coroliary to Harris's Toponogov Theorem of Appendix A [cf. Ehrlich and Galloway (1990)).
( M ,g) be a maximal
K timelike geodesic segment from r to z. S~nce
< 0 and 7 is future complete,
eorem 3.1 of Harris (1982b, p. 313), a consequence of Harris's Toponogov e is some t o with x = b(L) <_ ?(to), which yields
?(to) in contradiction to (14.46).
566
14
THE SPLITTING PROBLEM IN LORENTZPAK GEOMETRY
At the end of Section 14.3, a summary was given of how Galloway and Norta
(1995, pp. 18-20) extend the regularity results for the Busemann function as given in this chapter for I-(y) flI+(S) to I-(?)
n [J"(S) U D - ( S ) ] . With this

APPENDIX A
accomplished, Galloway and Worta (1995, Theorem 5.1) are able to improve upon earlier results in Eschenburg and Galloway (1992, Theorem B).
Theorem 14.46. Let ( M ,g) be a space-time which contains a compact

acausal spacelike hmersurface S and satisfies the timelike convergence condition Ric(v, v) 2 O for all timelike v. If (M,g) is timelike geodesically complete and contains a future S-ray y and a past S-ray 77 such that I-(y) then (M, g) splits as in the rigidity conjecture. An entirely unrelated investigation of rigidity of geodesic incompleteness is pursued in Garcia-Rio and Kupeli (1995). Suppose (I\.I,9) is a stably causal spacetime with smooth time function f
:M
-t
JACOB1 FIELDS AND TOPONOGOV'S T M E O B M FOR LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS?
n1+(~ # )0.
One of the important consequences of the Rauch Comparison Theorem in Riemannian geometry is the Toponogov Triangle Comparison Theorem [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (1975, pp. 42-49)]. Let M be a complete Riemannian manifold (metric here and elsewhere in this appendix denoted by (. : . )) with sectional curvature of all 2-planes a in M satisfying K(cr) 2 H for some number H . Let (yl,y2,y3) be geodesics in M forming a triangle: 31(0) = yz(0), yl(L1) = "/3(0), and y2(Lz) = -y3(L3), where L, = L(y,). Suppobe that yz and 7 3 are minimal geodesics and, in the case that H = q2 (q > 0), suppose that L, _< r / q for i = 1,2,3. Assume the geodesics 75 are paranietrized by arc length, and define a3 = (yli(0),y2'(0)) and similarly.
a2 =
R. i.e., g ( V ( f ) , V ( f ) ) < 0.
Rescale the given metric g to produce a new metric g, for M for which g, (Vc(f),Vc(f)) = -1 by setting g, = -g(V(f), V ( f ) ) . g. Now the integral curves of VC(j) are unit speed timelike geodesics (cf. Lemma B.1). Hence, tirnelike geodesic conipleteness of
(M, g,)
implies that the flow of f in (M,g,) Thus the following result is
is complete, and the flow may be used to produce a metric g(t) on the level surface f -l(t) from that of (f -l(0), g l f - i ( , ) ) . obtained. T h e o r e m 24.47 (Garcia-Rio and Kupeli). Let ( M , g ) be a stably causal space-time with smooth time function f : M
-+
{-yI'(Ll),-~31(0)). For
52
a triangle ( T l , T 2 , ~ 3 ) possibly , in another manifold.
and Z3 are defined
(1) In the simply connected two-dimensional Riemannian manifold

of constant curvature H , there is a geodesic triangle (7,. T2,y3) with L(T*) = L,, i = 1,2,3, and 5 2 5 12, E3 5 02. This triangle is determined up to congruence if H 0, or if H > 0 and all L, < r l q .
R. Let
<
(2) In Then either (1) (M, g,) is timelike geodesically incomplete, or (2) (Ad, g) is conformally difleomorphic to a type of pasametrized warped product (R x N, -dt2 @ g(t)), where N = f-'(0)
%, let
'J1
and
T2 be geodesics with
Tl(0) = T2(0), L(7,) = L1.
a g =a a g . Let T3 be a minimal geodesic between the L(Yz) = L2, and E endpoints of and 'J2. Then L(%) >_ L(y3).
It is possible to develop an analogous theorem for Lorentzian geometry: the

program will be sketched here, although the proofs wl!l be omitted Details appear in Harris (1979, pp. 3-41) and Harris (1982a).
fgy Stever, 6. Harris, Department of Mathematics, St Lours Umversity, St Louxs, Mlssourl
and g(t), t E R.is a one-parameter family of Riemannian metrics for N.
568
APPENDIX A
JACOBI FIELDS AND TOPOKOGOV'S THEOREM
APPENDIX A
JACOBI FIELDS AND TOPONOGOV'S THEOREM
569
The first step is to modify the Timelike Rauch Comparison Theorem I (ci. Theorem 11.11) so that it applies to tirnelike geodesics. not without conjugate points, but without focal points: If
Then, for all t in [0, L], (cll, cI')~
> (02/,c2')t
c2
N is a submanifold of a manifold
Thus if el is a nonspaceljke curve, then
is also nonsprtcclikc, and
M , then a point q f M wi!l be said to be a focal poznt o j N fromp (p 6 N ) if

q is the image of a critical point of exp in the normal bundle of 1V at p. For
v a vector in the tangent bundle T M . -W(v)will denote the submanifold of -14

which is the image under exp of a small enough neighborhood of the origin in the perpendicular space of v such that exp is an embedding on it. Thus N ( v ) is an ( n - 1)-dimensional submanifold orthogonal to u. In the following statement of the second Rauch Theorem, and elsewhere in this appendix, A A B will denote the 2-plane spanned by the vectors A and B. T h e o r e m A.1 (Timelike &uch let Thls corollary makes possible a triangle comparison theorem for "thin" triangles. The model spaces used for
comparison
are the two-dimensional
de Sitter and antl-de Sltter spaces of constant curvature [cf. Hawking and Ellis (1973, pp. 124-134). Wolf (1961, pp 114-118)j. A triangle of timelike geodesics (7lry2,?3) given H . let
IS
"th~n"In this context ~f the following holds: For a be limelike geodesics In the simply connected two-
yl and
II). Let t/, be a Jacob] field along a unit
dimensional Lorentzian man~foldof constant curvature H (denoted by h I H )
speed timelike geodesic y, in a space-time M,, z = 1.2, with y, : 10, L] -+ hf,;
with ~ ~ ( = 0 ~) ~ ( 0L(Tl) ) . = L1, L(y2) = Lz, and 0 3 = as. Flrst, suppose

there is a timelike geodesic T3 between the endpoints of
T,= 4%'.Suppose that (VI, VI)O = {VZ, %)o, (VI,TI)O = (V2, T2)0, and (VT,V,)(0) = 0. Further suppose that for any vectors X,a t y,(t)
K ( X i A Ti) 2 K(X2 A 7'2)
7, and T2. Let E be
the parallel translate of TI1(0)along Tiiz For each t m [O, Lz], there 1s a smallest positive number f ( t ) such that exp(f(t)E(t)) lies on Y3. Second, suppose that for ail such t , the geodesic s t~rnelike planes
0
c-t
exp(sE(t)) has no focal point of N ( E ( ~ ) from )
and that
72
has no f0ca-Ipoint of N(yzl(0)) from yz(0). Then for all t Jn [0,L ] ,
T2(t) for s 5 f (t).If these two suppositions hold. and if y 3 is maximal and ail in M satisfy K(u)
< H. then L(y3) > L(7,).
The problem is to start with a more ger~eraltirr~elikegeodesic triangle, slice it up into "thin" triangles, apply the result jusi, mentioned to each sllce, An important corollary of this theorem shows how curvature can affect the lengths of timelike curves. Corollary A.2. Let y, : :O. L] --+ M1, i = 1,2, be two timelike (or two null or two spacelike) geodesics, and let E, be parallel unit timelike vector fields along 7, with (E1,Tl) = (Ez,T2)(Te= %I). Let f and then put them back together. In the Riemannian theorern. ~onipleteness is used to ensare that In any triang!~(yl. ~
2 . 1 ~mlnirnal ) .
geodesics can be
extended from y3(L3) to yl. slicing up the original trisngle. In the Lorentman
s well as long as H context, global hjrperbolicity succeeds just a
0. For
. [O,L] .R
be any
= -q2, however. a problem arises: Not even the model spaces blH arc
smooth red-valued function. Suppose that for all t in [O, L], exp,,(,)(f (t)E,(t))
is defined; call this c,(t). Suppose further that for all t in [O, L], the geodesic
globally hyperbolic; indeed, by Proposition 11.8, no tinlelike geodesic of length

q be maximal in a Lorentzian manifold whose timelike greater than ~ / tan
11 : s w exp,2(t)(~Ez(t)) has no focal point of N(vl(0)) from ~ ( 0 for ) s Finally, suppose that for all tirnelike 2-planes o, in M,,
< f(t),
planes a satisfy K ( o ) 5
-q2.
A sol~ltinn to this problem lies In a new concept.

T
a sort of global hyperbo1ic:ty in the small: For x and y in a l,orenizim manifold
M , let C(x,y) denote the space of nonspacelike curves in A 4 from

modulo reparametrizat~on. wlth the compact-open topology.
to y ,
570
APPENDIX A
JAGOBI FIELDS AND TOPONOGOV'S THEOREM
APPENDIX A
JACOB1 FIELDS AND TOPOKOGOV'S THEOREM
571
Definition A.3. A Lorentzian manifold M is globably hyperbolzc of order q (q
In addition to tirnelike geodesics, it is possible to study the effects of curvature on Jacobi fields along null geodesics. Sectional curvature cannot be used for this since it is undefined for null (singular) planes, b u t a similar concept, introduced here, will work.
Definition A.6. If o is a null plane and V I is any nonzero clement of the
> Of if M
is strongly causal and for ail points x and y in M with sup(L(y)
y E C(s, y ) ) < x / q , this space C ( x ,y) is compact. The Lorentzian analogue of Toponogov's Theorem can now be stated (all geodesics parametrized with un:t speed). T h e o r e m A.4 (Lorentzizen Triangle Comparison Theorem). Let M be a space-time whose timelike planes a satisfy K ( a ) 5 W for some constant
one-dimensional space of null vectors in o,then the null aectzonal curvature of

u
wzth respect to N,
KN(IT), is defined by
H ;M is to be globally hyperbolic or, in case W = -q2, globally hyperbolic of

order q. Let
yZ,-y3) be a triangle of timelike geodesics with
the future where A is any nonnufl vector in a. This expression for null sectional curvature is independent of the vector A and depends in a quadratic fashion on the vector N. Thls curvature quantity has certain interesting relations with ordinary sectional curvature. For instance, see Proposition 2.3 in Harris (1982a). Proposition A.7. If at
d
directed side becween the pastmost and futuremost of the three endpoints, the other future directed side froxn yz(0), and y3 the remaining future direcsed side. Suppose that
72
m d y3 are maximal and, if H = -qa, that L, < r / q ,
i = 1,2,3. Then
triangle (TI,7 2T3) , with L(7,) = L,, (1) There is in MH a timelike geodes~c
i = 1,2,3, and wjthB2 2 a2 andB3
2C
Y ~
(2) For timel~ke geodesics 7, end
constructed in MH with T1(0) = 72(0),
if ,there is a tinlelike geodesic L(T1) = L1, L(T2) = L2, and 3 3 = C Y ~
single point in a Lorenczian manlfold the null
T3 between the endpoints of Tl and %, then L(y3) 5 L(y3).

The Toponogov Triangle Comparison Theorem can be used to show ho a bound on sectional curvature can rigidly determine a complete Rieman manifold
lf
'
sectjonal curvature5 are all positive (respectivel~negative), then timelike sectional curvature at that point is unbounded below (respectively. above): and if the null sectional curvatures all vanish, thexi the tirnelike and spacelike sectional curvatures are all equal. Thus, a Lorentzian rllanifold of clirner~siona t least three has constant curvature iff it has null sectional curvature everywhere
the l~mits of the curvature-imposed constraints are attained.
such result is the maximal diameter theorem [cf. Cheeger and Ebin (19 p. 110)]: If a complete Riernannian manifold M n satisfies K ( u ) >_ q2 > 0 Null sectional curvature can be used much like timelike sectional curvature ith regard to Jacobi fields. Proposition A.8. Let ,8 : [0,L] --, iMn be a null (&neIy parametrized) geodesic with T = 13' If for all nonnull vectors V perpendicular to T, KT(V A
all planes a , and if the diameter of M attains the maximum thus allowable x / q , then M is isometric to the sphere Sn of curvature q2.
Theorem A.4 can be used similarly.
Theorem A.5. Let Mn be a space-time which is globally hyperboli
l timelike planes a. Suppose t order q and satisfies K(IT) 5 -q2 for d

possesses a. complete tirnelike geodesic y which is maximal on a2I inter length nlq. Then M
1 sisometnc
< 0, then p has no conjzlgate points. If for some q, KT(V A T) 2 q2 for all V or, more generallj: if Elic(T. Tj 2 (n- z ) ~ chen ~ , L 2 n/q impiies 0
oes have a conjugate point. Nuli sectional curvature also lends itself to a Rauch-type theorem
to the s~mply connected geodesically co
n-dimensional Lorentz~an manifold of constant curvature -q2.
572
.4PPENDIX A
JACOBI FIELDS AND TOPONOGOV'S THEORZM
Theorem A.9 (Rauch Comparison Theorem for Nu11 Geodesics).

Let
p, . [O. L]
M,,
= 1,2, be nuli geodesics; T, = Pa' Let V, z = 1.2 he

&'I'
perpendicular Jacobi fields along P,, not everywhere parallel to T,, (and thus nowhere parallel to T,), with V(0) = 0 and perpendicular to T,
Vl')o= (Vz'.V2')o
Suppose hat for any t in 10, L] and for any nonnuli vectors
X,at
APPENDIX B
&(tj.
KT~ (Xi A T i )
and that
< K ~ ~ ( AxT2) 2
Then for all t in (0,L],
FROM THE JACOBI, TO A mCGATI. TO THE RAYCNAUDHURI EQUATION: JAGOBI TENSOR FIELDS AND THE EXPONEKTIAL MAP REVISITED
p2 has no points conjugate to &(O).
The use of Jacobi field techniques in the so-called "comparison theory" in Riemannian geometry stems from the close relationship between Jacobi fields and the differential of the exponential map. One very b a i c example is provided by Proposition 10.16 in Section 10.1, in which the Jacobi field J along a unit timelike geodesic c with J(0) = 0 and J1(0)= u i is gi\ien by
{vi,pi)tL {v~,Vz)t.
The necessity of using perpendicular vector fields makes this theory less tractable than that for timelike geodesics. Details for Proposition A.8 and Theorem A.9 can be found in Harris (1982d). Flnally in Harris (1985), consideration is gmen to the case where the rlull curvature function of all null planes associated to a null congruence IS point function. It is shoun that this condlt~onlocally characterizes RobertsonWalker metrics and that ~f further completeness and causality assuinptions are added, then a global characterlzation may be obtained
In this appendix we give a second illustration of the relationship between the differential of the experiential map and Jacobi fields which has come to prominence in the 1980's version of cornparison theory in Riemannian geometry. In this comparison theory, the use of the Jacobi equation has been partly s u p planted by the use of a Riccati equation for the ae~ond fundamental tensor of a local foliation of a Riemannian manifold by hypersurfaceb arising a , the level sets of a differentiable function with gradient of constant length [cf. Karcher
(1989)) Eschenburg (1975, 1987, 1989)j. A recent applicat~on of the Rccati

inequality method to submanifolds of semi-Riemannian manifolds is given in Andersson and Howard (1994).
B.1
Generalities on Semi-Riemannian Manifolds
Let (M,g) be a semi-Eemannian manifold with semi-Remannlan metrlc g of arbitrary signature

( 5 , ~ )
but which is nondegenerate. Let U be an open
subset of &I. This section is cor,cerned with the basic differential geometry of
f :U ,R wlth the foliation induced on U by the level sets of a siriooth fidx~ction
574
APPENDIX B
JACOB1 TENSCR FIELDS
B.l
GENEIRALITIES ON SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
nowhere vanishing gradient vector field
Vf
.e constant = grad f of everywhe*
length. Upon resealing, it may be supposed that
Lemma B.1. Let X = -1 (respectively, -1, 0). Suppose f : U R is a smooth function with g(V f. Vf) = A. Let c : [a, b ] -t U be an integral curve of grad f . Then c is a tirnelike (respectively. spacelike, riullj geodesic.
575
(B.1)
gfgrad f , grad f ) = X
Proof. Fix any p in U and

we have
2. in
T,M. Denoting the Hessian D ( D j ) by
for some choice of X in (-1. 0, +I). Such functions have been termed solutions to the eikonal equasion. This formalism has been useful in a number of different geometric contexts. The first and perhaps most well-known example occurs in the case where (M,g) is Riemannian,
U is a deleted neighborhood of p which does not
Since v was arbitrary and the semi-Riemannian metric ~vasassumed to be nondegenerate, we have
intersect the cut locus of p, and f = d(p, .), where d denotes the Riemannian distance function of (M,g). In this case: X = 1 in (B.l). The analogous situation may be considered on a strongly causal space-time where U could be taken to be a subset of It(p) which does not meet the future timelike cut locus of p, and f = d(p, .), where d this time denotes the Lorentzian distance function of (M,g). In this case, X = -1. The case X = -1 also arises (a posteriori) in the course of the proof of the Lorentzian splitting theorem, a s in Beem, Ehrlich, hlarkvorsen, and Galloway (1985, p. 391, in which U could be taken to be a tubular neighborhood of a complete timelike geodesic line c : R -+ (M.9) in the globally hyperbolic space-time ( M , g ) , and f = b+ (or f = b-) 1s the Busemann function associated to the future timelike ray (respectively, the past timelike ray) determined by the given timelike line. The third case, X = 0, arises in the context of semi-time functions for spacetimes, i s . , g(grad f , grad f )
on U . Thus the integral curves of grad f are geodesics. O In the case that (M. g) is Lorentzian and X = -1, or in the case that (,2.f. g) is Riemannian and X = +1, it is standard that (B.l) has the even stronger implication that any such integral curve of grad f is a maximal geodesic in the space-time (U,i , ] ~ (respectively, ) a minimal geodesic in the Riemannian manifold (U,glu)) by virtue of the reverse (or wrong way) Cauchy Schwarz inequality for timelike vectors [cf. Sachs and Wu, (1977a)J (respectively, the Cauchy-Schxvarz inequality for tangent vectors). We present here the argument for the space-time case, under the assumption that the vector field grad f is future directed. Thus let y . fa b] future directed nonspacelike curve in U with y(n) = r(f 1 ) that
< 0 IS required for a semi-time function
The case
U be any and y ( 6 ) = c(tz),

+
that grad f is identically null 1s encountered for the spare-time M = R x S1 with Lorentzian metric ds2 = d @ d t and f ( t , @ ) = -t. A second larger class of examples is furnished by the gravitational plane wave space-times, Here the global coordinate function f ( 2 . y,u. v) = u hm gradient grad f = d/Dv, which is a global null parallel field. The geometric properties of this so-called "quasi-time fi~nction"have been systematically studied for these space-times in Ehrlich and Emch (1992a,b, 1993) [cf. Chapter 131. The following basic remit explains the significance of constant gradient length in (B.1).
where c is a maximal integral curve of grad f lying in U . Then we first have
4 . f 07) g(grad f ,7 ' )= -$--trivially if y l ( t ) is null, we have
since both vectors are future directed and grad f is timelike. Secondly. by the wrong-way Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the case that y i ( t ) is timelikc, and
576
APPENDIX B
JACOB1 TENSOR FIELDS
B.l
GENERALITIES ON SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
577
so that
fail to be surjective is that Imffa,) = (01, since d i ~ n ( T ~ ( ~= )R 1.) But In this grad f (p))= 0 for all v in T,M. Bus case, we then have from (B.3) that g(v, this then implies that grad f(p) = 0, in contradiction to the assumption that grad f is nowhere vanishing. O The following is the translation to the semi-Riemannian context of a basic result in elementary differential topology.
as required. The argument for the Lorentzian case with grad f null is deferred until after Lemma B.3. Let us now record an elementary identity in the context of a differentiable map
f-'(r)
Lemma B.3. Let c : [0, a) - - U be an integral curve of grad f with c(0) i n Then
(1) I f X = 0, then c(t) E f -l(r) for all t;
(2) I f X = +l, then e(t) E f - l ( r + t ) for all t , and
f : U -+ B for U an open subset of the (nondegenerate) semi-ftiernannian
(3) I f X = -1, then c(t) E f -l(r - t) for all t . Proof. Since c(t) is an integral curve of grad f , wc have from identity (B.3) that
manifold (M,g) that will be useful in the sequel:
for any p in U and v in TpM. This identity follows immediately from the
(f
c)'(t) = f*c'(t) = g(c1(t), grad f ( c ( t ) ) )

= !?( Vf(clt)) , Vf (c(t)j 1 = A.
Hence if X = 0, then (f
c)'(t) = 0 for ali t and (1) follows. The other cases
are similar. (if X = -1, then
(f 0 c)'(t)
= -1 so that (fo c](t) = T - t.)
Thus in the case of a null gradient, instead of mapplng a level surface to a different level surface, the gradient flow o f f maps each level surface into itself. This phenomenon is encountered for the gravitational plane wave space-times where f (3. Z,U,V) = The identity (B.3) then has the following consequence. L e m m a B.2. For X in (-1,0, f l ) , length X as in (B.1). Then im(f,p) = cases simultaneously. Proof. This is an immediate consequence of the assumed nondegeneracy he only way that f,, ( the given semi-Riemannian metric and (B.3). For tl let f : U
+
is the "natural" q u ~ i - t i m e function for this class of
space-times and has everywhere nonvanishing but null gradient (cf Chaptcr
13).
I R have constant gradie
Also as mentioned above, we may derlve the following consequence from Lemma B.3. Let ( M , g ) be Lorentzian, and let c . ( a , b) curve of f : U
-+
Tj(@ for each p in U. Hence, f a submersion and dim( f -l ( T ) ) = dim(M) - 1 for each r in f (U) in a11 t
--, U
be an :ntegral
IW with gradf
= 0. Then c is globally maximal with respect
to arc length among future directed nonspacelike curves lying in U For by considering -grad f if necessary, we may assume that c is future directed. If c fails to be maxima1 in the above sense. then there exist s, t with a < s < t < b
518
APPENDIX B

5
B.l
C(B)
GENERALITIES ON SEMI-RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
579
and a future dirccted timellke curve
[O,1 1
-4
U with ~ ( 0 = )
and
In the case that A = +1 or X = -1 and ( M , g ) is Lorentzian, since the level submanifolds inherit nondegenerate induced metrics, i t is well known that
a ( 1 ) = c ( t ) (cf. Section 9.2). But then ( f o a)'(u) = (V f ( o ( u ) )o , l ( u ) )> 0 , so that f (c(s)) = f ( n ( 0 ) ) > f(a(1)) = f(c(tf), in contradiction to part (1) of
Lemma B.3. Related to Lemmas B 2 and B.3, and also a consequence of equat~on (3.31, is the following description of the tangent spaces and normal vertor field to the local foliation ( f -"u) : :L E W) induced on U by the level submanifolds of
is the shape operator whose %an~shing determ~nes whether the level submanifold is totally geodesic. In the case that A = 0 (or ( M ,g) is not Lorentzian),
it is a consequence of part (3) of Lemma B.4 rather than familiar abstract
f.
Lemma B.4. For any X in (-1: 0, i-11, we have simultaneousiy

(1) The tangent space at any p in f
nonsense that (B.6) is still \slid, so we may contlnue to regard L as the shape operator. This i b further onf firmed by the following lemma which is standard when the induced metric is nondegenerace.
-'(r) is given by
(P))= 0 ) ;
(B.4)
T~ f ( ( r ) )= ker(f e p )
= (2. E TpM : g(v,grad f
Lemma B.5. Let (M.g) be an arbitrary (nondegenerate) semi-R~emannjan manifold, and let X E (-1.0, $1). Suppose f further condition
:
(2)
N = grad f
is a normal field of constant length for each level subman(T)).
-+
R satisfies the
ifold f-'(r); and
(3) For any v in T p ( , f - l ( r ) we ) have D, grad f E T p ( f
Proof. (3) In view of (B.3) it suffices to note that ( a sbefore)
03.7)
Ct, grad f = 0
for all v in T,M and for all p IR U. Then every Jet-el subrnanifold f-'(r) in U is totally geodesic in the mowing sense: Let v E T,( f - ' ( r ) ) , and let In the case that ( M , g ) is Lorentzian and grad f is timelike (respectively. spacelike), the induced metric on the level submanifolds 1s nondegenerate and the submanifold is thus spacelike (respectively, timelike) in the sense of Definltion 3.47. In the case that grad f is null, the induced metric on the level submanifold 1s degenerate in view of (B.4)slnce grad f (p) is both in T p (f - ' ( f ( p ) ) ) and orthogonal to all vectors in Tp(f-'( f Hence, in the case that grad f is null, the level submanifolds are not "semi-Riemannian submanifolds" i11 the sense of OWeill (1983),so that some care needs to be taken in considering the concepts of the second fundamental form and of a totally geodesic submanifold. To be consistent with Section 3.5 in notation, given grad f on U we define an operator L
0 1 1
c . (a.b)
,U
be (the restriction of) the geodesic In ( M , g ) w i t h cl(0) =
V.
Then c((u, b)) is contained in ~+-'((r).
Proof. Consider the function F : (a, 6) --+ R given h>r ~ ( t=) f o c ( t ) . Then we have F ( 0 ) = r , and we need to show that F 1 ( t ) = O for all t to , J(t)) and thus obtain the desired result. Now F1(t)= ( f o c ) ' ( t )= g(V f ( c j t ) ) c F 1 ( Q= ) g ( V f ( p ) , v )= O by (B.4). Further,
Tp(f - ' ( ~ ) )by
since c is a geodesic and (3.7) is assumed. Thus F 1 ( t ) = FJ(0)= 0 m r e quired.
580
APPENDIX B
JACOBI TEh'SOR FIELDS
B.2
THE NORMAL EXPONENTIAL MAP
58 1
B.2
Jacobi Tensors and t h e Normal Exponential Map in the
and
a, 8/& = grad f o a.
Timelike Cease
In this section. we will assume that ( M , g ) is Lorentzian and that equipped with a smooth function f : U gradient. i.e., g(grad f , grad f ) = -1.
-+
is
Since s field
a ( . ,s ) is a variation of c through geodesics, the variation vector
R with everywhere unit t~melike Since grad f is normal to the level
surfaces of f , we will denote N = g a d f . Also, since we are only interested in local calculations in this seetlon, we will not bother to carefully specify domains of geodesics or of maps In the t or s-parameters. Fix r in R with r In f ( U ) . With the above proviso in mind, recall that it is traditional to study the geometry of the submanifold f-'(r) by considering the s ~ c a l l e d normal exponential map E ( . ,t) on f -l(.r), which may be defined is a Jacobi field. By using the chain rule or by introducing some fancy notation, one may remite the third term of equation (B.11) in a form closer to that of Proposition 10.16 as recalled in the introduction to this Appendix. Explicitly. if we let
i : ~ x I R f-'(r) i xR
be the map given by d(s,t) = (b(s),t), then a = E (b' (0); 0) = (v, 0). Hence, we have
o
i and i,
Since the integral curves of N = grad f are geodesics, it follows that in this particular geometric situation (B.8) is equivalent to followrng the gradient flow of f starting at points of f -'(T), a map and thus Lemma B.3 implies that E( . $ t )is for all t in [O, a). Hence, the set of Jacobi fields J ( t ) as v varies over all vectors tangent to f-'(r) at p is identified with the differential E, of the normal exponential map E by means of equation (B.12).
(B.9)
E ( - t ) : f -"r)
-+
ff-'(r - t).
Lemma B.6. The variation vector field J ( t ) of the variation a ( t .s) given
by (B.10) satisfies the differential equation
The normal exponential map may be placed in a variational context with notation?I ; in Chapter 10 for the purpose of studying Jacobi fields along timelike geodesics initially perpendicular to f -l(r) as in Karcher (1989) for Riemannian manifolds.
(B.13)
J I M
= -Lt(J(t))
f o r all t in [O,a)with initid condi~ions J ( 0 ) = 1: and J'(0) = -L(v), where L

is the second fundarr~ental tensor for the level surfaces { f - ' ( T - t ) ) defined as
Fix p in f e l ( r ) , and let c : [O,a) -+M denote the integral curve of N with
c(O) = p; by the above comments, c(t) = exp(tN(p)). Now let v E T,(f-'(r)) be glven, and choose any smooth curve b : (-E,
in (B.5) by Lt(w) = -D,N. Proof. Using (B. 11). one calculates J'it) = D~iat (a*
=
f -'(r) with b(0) = p and bt(0) = v for purposes of computation. Then define a variation a(t, s ) of c by
E ) -+
g)I(,
(a*&)/ ( t , O )
(B.10)
so that
3) = E(b(s), t ) = ex~b(s)(tN(b(s)))
= Dalaa grad f o a = Dn.(~/ds)(t,o) grad f
~ ( t. ) , : f -l(r)
f -'(r
-t)
= Dq9N = -L,(J(t)).
582
APPENDIX B
B.3
THE RICCATi EQUATION FOR L
583
Thus in our particular geometric situation, the usual submanifold initial condition for Jacobi fields, Ji(0) = - L ( v ) = -L(J(O)), is propagated for all t along the level submanifolds f - l ( r - t ) and the transversal timelike geodesic c. Further, we may reinterpret equation (B.13) in the language of Jacobi tensor fields as utilized in Section 10.3 and Sections 12.2-12.3. Let
In this section, we shall follow the route suggested in Karcher (1989) and obtain an intermediate Rtccatr equatlon satisfied by the second fundamental forrn operator in the geometric context under consideration. Thus. let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold and f : U -+ R be a smooth function with everywhere timelih gradient of constant length -1, as in Sectron B.2. Let p E f - ' ( r ) be fixed, and let c : [O, a ) --, U denote the integral curve o f f starting at p. Choose any v E Tp(f - ' ( T ) ) , and let J = J, denote the Jacobi field along c with initial
be the Jacobi tensor along c : [0,a) + M satisfying the initial conditions
conditions J(O) = v and J1(0)= - L ( v ) . We established in Section B.2 the identity
(B.15)
A(O)=E
and
A1(0)=-L. (B.17) J 1 ( t )= - L o J ( t )
Then as me remarked In Lemma 12.21, A is a Lagrange tensor field which intuitively represents the vector space of Jacobi fields J along c which satisfy the initial condition J 1 ( 0 )= -L(J(O)). In view of equation (B.13), we have in the present context the further identification for the associated tensor field for all t in [0,a). Recalling here that X1(S) = DaIatX for vector fields and tensors along the geodesic c, we have
B = AIA-I occurring in the Raychaudhuri equation that

or in more compact notation, for all t in [O, a) for which A ( t ) is non-singular, i.e.,which are not focal points top. Also, one may interpret equation (B.12) as identifying the differential E, of the normal exponential map with the Jacobi tensor A. Equation (B 16) then has the implication that the Rqchaudhuri equation for A (or equivalently, E,) is related to the trace of L and its derivative L', hence to the mean curvature of the ievel surfaces ( f - ' ( r - t ) ) (cf. equation (12.2) in Section 12.1). Thus differentiating (B.17) covariantly with respect to t yields
J" = - ( L OJ)' = - L 1 ( J ) - L ( J 1 )
= -L'(J) - L ( - L ( J ) )
B.3
The Rieeati Equdion for L
again using (B.17). Combining this last result with the Jacobi equation J"
R(J,c1)c' = 0 then yields the desired Riccati type equation for J,:
There is a venerable technique in the disconjugacy theory of ordinary differential equations in which a Jacobi equation such as u" to an associated Riccatr equation r' forming
+ r2 + q(t) = 0 by the change of variables
+ q(t)u = 0 is linked
(3.13)
L1(J,) - ( L o L)(J,) = R(J,. d)cl
for a11 t in [O. a )
r = ul/u [cf. Bartman (1964)]. The n x n matrlx version of this theory involves
if we denote the composition L o L by L? then prior to the first focal point from (B 18) the operator to t = 0 along c to the submanifold f - ' ( r ) , we h ~ v e equatlon
= AIA-'
exactly as is done In general relativity in passlng from
the Jacobi equation A"
+ RA = 0 to the associated h y c h a u d h > ~ requation i
(cf. Sectioris 10.3 and 12.2-12.3).
(B.19)
L' - L~ = R ( - , c')cl.
584
APPENDIX B
JACOB1 TEXSOR FIELDS
B.3
THE XCCAT! EQUATION FOR L
585
Recall from equation (B.16) that B = A A '" m a y
be identified with -L prior
Gdloway (1985, Lemma 4.3 and Corollary 4 4 , for instance. the untraced version of equation (B.23) corresponding to equation (B.20) is employed. Finally, let us conclude this section by deriv~ngas in Karcher (1989) a we!l-known second link between E, and the mean curv~ture tr(L(t)) in the present context by using equations (3.12) and (B.16). Put a ( t ) = det(E,), or more formally, a(t) = det(A(t)). Tnen using the identity tr(AIA-') (detA)-"det A)' of Section 12.1, Definition 12.2, we obtain
to the &st focal point to p along c, and recall also the earlier notation of Definition 12.2 of Section 12.1 of 6 = tr(B). We rnay then rewrite equation (B.19) as
(B. 20)
B' = -B o B - R(,, ct)c'
in exact accord with equation (12.1) of Section 12.1. Recalling further that tr(I3') = [tr(B)I1,we may obtain either from (B.19) or (B.20) the equation (B.21)
8' = -tr(B
o B) - Ric(cl~ c') = -tr(L o L) - Ric(cl,c')
Thus the expansion tensor B(A(t)) is, up to sign, precisely the mean curvature
at c ( t ) of the hypersurface in the family of f-level surfaces passing through the point c(t), Karcher's viewpoint is that the Jacobi equation should be regarded
as giving geometric control by considering the Jacobi equation as equivalent
which corresponds (with change in sign conventions) to equation (1.5.5) in Karcher (1989): d/ds[trace ( S ) ]= - t r a c e ( R ~ ) - trace(S2), which is as far
as Karcher proceeds in decomposing this particular quation. In general rel-
' is derived from (B.21) by further ativity, the Raychaudhuri equation for 6
decomposing B in terms of the expansion, shear, and vorticity tensors and
to the so-called Riccati inequality (B.23) and to equation (B.24). Of course, equation (B.24) also demonstrates rather explicitly the well-known fact that in the hychaudhuri framework, the expansion tensor @(A)is the quantity that measures the infinitesimal change in hypersurface volume; indeed, in Eschenburg (1975, p. 32) the tensor 6 is even called the "volumen-expansion'' tensor. In the context of equation (B.241, the following elementary calculation has been noted. Suppose that a ( t ) and b(t) are differentiable functions which satisfy the ordinary differential equations
calculating B 2 in terms of this decomposition (cf. the derivation of equation (12.2) in Section 12.1). Note also that equation (B.21) occurs in another related form in connection with the "Boehner trick" type identities derived by manipulations of the curvature tensor and by utilizing the fact that the normal field used to calculate the second fundamental tensor is a gradient, i.e., N = grad f . In this formalism, taking a parallel orthonormal basis {El,E2,.. . , En) along c with En = c', one is then led to the following version of (B.21) (U denotes the d2Alembertianof
f 1:
and
and hence the inequality (B.23) -Ric(cl. c') b (m(f) 0 c)'

1 + n_i(I(f)
0
respectively, Then el2, Hence if a(t) and b(t) are positive valued and f 2 g , then a/b is monotonic nondecreasing. This remark provides, after integrating along radial geodesics
which plays a role in the proof of the so-called splitting theorems in both Riemannian and Lorentzian geometry. In Beern, Ehrlich, Markvorsen, and
586
APPEXDIX B
emanating from p, a proof of the Bjshop-Gromov Volume comparison Theorem for Riemannian manifolds, choosing $ = d(p, . ) and taking g to be the correspo~ldingdistance function on the appropriately chosen model space of constant curvature [cf. Karcher (2989, pp. 186-I87)j.
REFERENCES
abresch, U. (1985). Lower curvature bounds, Toponogov's theorem and bounded topology, Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup. 18, 651-670. Abresch. U.(1987), Lower curvature bounds, Toponogov s theorem and bounded topology II, Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup. 20, 475-502. Ahresch. U. and D Gram01 (l99O), O n complete manzfolds wzth nonnegatzve Rzccz curvature, Journal of American Math. Soc 2. 355-374 Aiyama, R. (1991), On complete spacekzke surfaces wzth constant mean curvature zn a Lorentzzan &pace form, Tsukuba J. Math. 15, 235-247. Akutagawa, K (1987), O n spacelike hypersurfaces wzth constant mean curvan the de Sztter space, Math. Zeitschrift 196, 13-19 ture z Akutagawa. K., and S. Nishikawa (2990), The Gauss map and spacelzke surfaces wzth pmscnbed mean curuature zn Mzrhkowskz 3-space. Tohoku Math. J. 42, 67-82 .4lexandrov, A. (1967), A contnbutzon to chronogeornetry, Canad. J. hfath. 19, 1119-1128. Allison, D. (1991), Pseudo-convercity 2 n Lorenttzan doubly warped products, Geom Dedicata 39, 223-227. Ambrose, W., R. S. Palais, and I. M Singer (l960), Sprays, Anais Acad. Brasil Cienc, 32, 163-178. Anderson, J. L. (1967), Princzples of Relativzty Physac~. Academic Press, New York. M. Dahl, and R. Howard (1994), Boundary and lens ngzdity Andersson, L., of Lorentztan surfaces, Research Report, Dept. of Math., Univ. of South Carol~na 8. Andersson, L.. and R. Howard (1994) Cornpanson and ngzdzty theorems zn semi-Raemannzan geomety, prepnnt, Dept. of Math., TRITAIhIAT-19940017, Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm.
588
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
589
Ashtekar, A., and A . Magnon-Ashtekar (1979), Energy momentum zn general relatzvity, Phys. Review Lett. 43, 181-184. Ashiekar, A., and M . Streubel (19811, SympEectzc geometv of radzatave modes and conserved quantitzes at null infinity, Proc. Roy. SOC.Lond., Ser. A 376, 585407. Auslander, L., and L. Marcus (1959), Flat Lorentz 3-Manifolds, Memoir 30, Amer. Math. Soc.. Avez, A . (1963), Essais de ge'omktne memannzenne hyperbolzpe globule. Applicationes b la Relativitt GLnkraLe, Ann. Inst. Fourier 1 3 2 , 105-190. Barbance, 6. (1950), 1Sclnsfonrmtions confomes des vanetes lonentziennes homogenes. 6. R. Acad. Sci Paris, Ser. A-B 291, A347-A350. z of Barnet, F . (19891, On Lie groups that admit left invariant L o ~ n t metncs constant sectzonal curvature, Illinois J. Math 33, 631-642. Barrow, J., 6. Galloway, and F. Tipler (1986), O n the closed universe recollapse conjecture, Mon. Not. Royal Astr. Soc. 223, 395-405. Bartnik, R. (1984), Emstence of rnmirnal surfaces an asymptotically fiat spacetimes, Commun. Math. Phys. 94, 155-175. Bartnik, R. (1988a). Regularaty of vanationat maximal surfaces, Acta Math. 1 6 1 , 145-181. Bartnik, R. (1988b), Remarks on cosmologacal space-times and constant mean curvature surfaces, Comm. Math. Phys. 117, 615-624. Beem, J . K . ( 1976a), Confomal changes and geodeszc completeness, Commun. Math. Phys. 4 9 , 179-186. Beern, J . K . (1976b), Globally hyperbolac space-times which are tzmelike Cauchy complete, Gen. Rel. Grav. 7 , 339-344. Beem, J . K . (1976c), Some examples of mwmplete space-tzmes, Gen. &I. Grav. 1,501-509. Beem, J . K . (1977), A metnc topology jor cazlsally wnknuous completions, Gen. Rel. Grav. 8, 245-257. Beem, J . K. (1978a),Homothetic maps ofthe space-time dzstance i%nction and diflerentiabilzty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 9 , 793-799. Beem, J. K. (1978b), Proper homothetic maps and &ed points, Lett. Math Phys. 2, 317-320. Beem, J . K . (1980), finkowski space-time is locallg ebendzble, commun. Math. Phys. 7 2 , 273-275.
Beem, J . K. f1994), Stabzlity of geodeszc incompleteness, in Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics (3. M. Beem and K. L. Duggal, e&.), Contemporary Math. Series, vol. 170,American Mathematical Society, pp. 1-12. Beem, 3. K., C. Ckicone, md P. E . Ehrlich (1982). The geodeszc flow and sectzonal curnature of pseudo-Riemannian manzfolds, Geom. Dedicata 1 2 , 111-118. Beem. J. K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1977), Distance lorenizzenne finie et ge'odtszquesf-musales incomplktes, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A 581, 1129-1131. Beem, J . K.. and P. E. Ehrlich (1978). Conformal deformatzons, Riccz curvature and energy condzttons on globally hyperbolzc space-tzmes. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 8 4 , 159-175. Beem, J. K , and P. E. Ehrlich (1979a),Singulanhes, zncompleteness and the Lorentzzan dzstance k c t i o n , Math. Proc. Camb. Phil Soc 85, 161-178. Beem, J . K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1979b). The space-tznze cut locus, Gen. Rel. Grav. 11, 89-103. Beem, J. K., and P E. Ehrlich (1979c), Cut poznts, conjugate points and Lorentzaan comparison theorems, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 86, 365384. Beem, J, I ( . ,and P. E. Ehrlich (197961, A Morse index theorem for null geodesics, Duke Math J 46, 561-569. Beem, J. K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1981a), Coastmct~ng maximal geodeszcs zn strongly causal space-times, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 90, 183-130. Beem, J . K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1981b), Stabilztg of geodesic incompleteness for Robertson-WaRer space-times, Gen. Rel, and Grav. 13. 239-255. Beem, J . K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1985a), Incompleteness of timelike submanifolds with non~;anishzngsecond findamental f o m . Gen. Rel. Grav. I?, 293-300. Beem, J. K., and P. E Ehrlich (1985b), Geodeszc completeness of submanifolds i n Minkowski space, Geom. Dedicata 18. 213-225, Beem, J. K., and P. E. Ehrlich (1987), Geodeszc completeness and stabilzty, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 1 0 2 , 319-328. Beem, J . K., P. E. Ehrlich, and S. Markvorsen (1988), T i m e l ~ k e zsornetries and Killing fields, Geom. Dedicata 26, 247-258. Beem, J . K., P.E. Ehrlich, S, Markvorsen, and G. Galloway (1984), A Toponogov splztting theorem for Lorentzzan rnanzfolds, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Math. 1156, 1-13.
590
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
5 9 1
Beem, J. K., P. E Ehrlich. S. Maxkvorsen, and G.Galloway (1985), Decomposztzon theorems for Lorentzzan manzfolds wzth nonposztlve curvature, J. Diff. Geom. 22, 29-42. Beem, J. I<., P. E. Ehrlich, and T. G. Powell (1982), Warpedproduct manzfolds in relativity, in Selected Studies: A Volume Dedicated to the Memory of Albert Einstein (T. M. Rassias and G. hf. Rassias, eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 41-56. Beem, J. K., and S. 6. Harris (1993a), The generic condition is genenc, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 25. 939-962. Beern, J. K., and S. G Harris (1993b), Nongeneric null vectors, Gen Re1 and Grav. 25, 963-973. Beem, J. K., and P. E. Parker (19841, Values of pseudo-Rzemannzan sectional curvature, Comment. Math. Iielvetici 59, 319-331. Beem, J. K., and P. E. Parker (1985), Whztney stability of solvabilzty, Pac. J. Math. 116. 11-23.
.E. Parker (1989), Pseudoconvezdty and geodeszc conneclBeem, J. K., and P edness, Annali Math. Pura. Appl. 155, 137-142.
Beern, J. K., and P. E. Parker (1990). Sectional curvature and tzdal accelerations, J. Math. Phys. 31, 819-827. Beern, J. K.. and P. Y. Woo (1969). Doubly Tzmelzke Surfaces, Memoir 92. Amer. Math. Soe.. Bejancu, A., and K. L. Duggal (1991), Degenerate hypersurfaces of semzRiemannian manzfold3, Bull. Inst. Politchnic Iasi 37, 13-22. Bejancu, A., and K. L. Duggal (1994), izghtlike submanifolds of sernz-Rzemannzan manzfolds, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae (to appear). Benci, V., and D. Fortunato (1990). Existence of geodesics for the Lorentz metne of a statzonary gravztatzonal field, Ann. Inst. W. PolncarB, Analyse Nonlineare 7. Benci, V., and D. Fortunato (1994), On the emstence of infinitely many geodesics on space-time manzfolds, Advances in Math. 105, 1-25. BCrard-Bergery, L., and A. Ikemakhen (1993), On the holonomy of Lorentzzan manifolds, in Differential Georrletry: Geometry in Mathematical Physics and Relased Topics (R. Greene and S,-T. Uau, eds.), vol. 54, part 2, Amer. Math. Soc. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Math.. pp. 27-40. Berger. M. (1960), Les vane'te's 7-iemanmennes (l/A)-pance'es, Annali della Scuola Normale Sup, di Pisa, Ser. III 14, 161-170.
Besse, A. L. (1978), Manzfobds all of whose Geodeszcs are Closed, Ergebn~sse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 93. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Besse A L (1987), Eznstezn Mangjolds, Ergebnisse der Mathernatik und ihrer Grenzgeblete. 3 Folge, Band 10, Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Birkhoff, G., and G . 4 . Rota (1969), Ordznary Dzjferentzal Equatzons, 2nd ed.. Blaisdeli. Waltham. Massachusetts. Birman, G., and K. Nornizu (1984), The Gauss-Bonnet theorem for t%odzmenszonal spacetimes, Mith Math J 31, 77-81 Bishop, R. L , and R. Crittenden (19641, Geometry of Manzfolds, 4cademic Piess, New York. Bishop, R. L., and B. O'Neill (1969), Manzfold~of negatzve cumatunl. Trans. Amer. hlath. Soc 145, 1-49. Bolts, G. (19771, Ezzstenz und Bedeutung von konjugzerten Werten zn der Raum-Zert, Bonn Universitat Diplomarbeit, Bonn. Borldi, H. (1960). Gmvitationab waves zn general relatevzty, Nature 186, 535. Bondi, 11. (1968), Cosmology, 2nd ed.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bondi, W.,F. Pirani, and I. Robinson (1959), Grnvztatzonal waces zn general relatavzty I1I; Exact plane waves, Proc. Roy. Soc London A 251, 519-533 Bonnor, W. (1972): Null hgpemurfaces 2n ,Vznkowskz space-tzme, Tensor N.S. 24, 329-345, Boothby, W. M. (1986), An introductzon to Dzflerentzable Manzfolds and Rzemannzan Geometry. 2nd ed., Pure and Applled Math Ser , vol 120, -4cademic Press, New k'ork. Borde, A. (1985), Szngulantzes zn closed spacetzmes, C l a s . Quantum Grav. 2, 589-596. Bosshard, B (19761, On the b-bouladayy of the closed Fnedmann model, Commun. Math. Phys. 46. 263-268. Boyer, R. H., and R. ViT. Lindquist (1967). Manma1 aaalytzc extenszon of the Kerr rnetrzc, J. Math. Phys. 8. 265-281. Boyer, R. H , and T. G Price (1965), An znterpretatzon of the Kerr rnetnc zn General Relatzvzty, Proc. Camb. Phil Soc. 51. 531-534. Brill, D,, and F. Flaherty (1976), isodated mammal surfaces zn spacetzme, Commun. hlath. Phys. 50, 157-165. Brinkmann, H. (19251, Eznstezn spaces whach are mapped on each other. Math. Ann. 94, 119-145.
592
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
593
Budic, R., J. Isenberg, L. Lindblom. and P. Yasskin (1978), On the deteminatzon of Cauchy surfaces from zntrinsic propertses, Comm. Math. Phys. 61,87-95. Bud~c, R., and R, K. Sachs (1974), Causal boundaries for general relatzvzsttc space-times, J. Math. Phys. 15, 1302-1309. Budic, R., and R. K. S a c k (1976). Scalar time functions: diflerentiability, i .Flato, eds), in Differential Geometry and Relativity (M. Cohen and h Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 215-224. Burns, J. (1977), Curvature functions on Lowntz 2-manifolds. Pacific J. Math. 70, 325-335. die Geomet~en,2n denen die "Krezse mat unBusemann, N. (1932), ~ b e r endlichem Radius" die firzesten Linien sind. Math. Annalen 106, 140160. Busemann, H.(1942), 1Met.ric Methods in Finsler Spaces and in the Foundations of Geometry, Annals of Math. Studies, vol. 8, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Busemann, W (1055), The Geometq of Geodeszcs, Academic Press. New York. Busernann, H. (1967), Tzmelzke Spaces, Dissertationes Math. Rozprawy Mat. 53. Busemailn, N., and J. K. Bee111 (1966), AGoms for indefinzte metrics, Rnd. Cir. Math. Palermo 15, 223-246. Cahen, M., J. Leroy, M. Parker, F. Tricerri, and L. Vanhecke (lSQO), Lorentz manifolds modelled on a Lorentt sgmmetnc space, J. Geom Phys. 7, 571581. Cahen, M., and M. Parker (1980)) Pseudo-riemannian Symmetric Spaces, Memoir 229, Amer. Math. Soc.. Calabi, E. (1957): An eztension oJ E. Hopf's maximum principle with an upplzcatzon to Reemannzan geometry, Duke Math. J. 25, 45-56. Calabi, E. (1968), Examples of Bemstein problems for some nonlinear equations, Proc. Syrnp. Pure and Applied Math. 15, 223-230. Canarutto, D., and C. Dodson (1985)? On the bundle ofp&ncipal connections and the stabibzty of b-zncompleteness of manifolds, Math. Proc. Camb, Phil, SOC.98, 51-59. Canarutto, D., and P. Michor (1937). On the stability of b-incompleteness in the WFbztney topology on the space of connections. Istit. Lombardo Acad Sci. Lett. Rend. A 121, 217-226.
1
I
J
Ii
Carafora, M., and A. Marauoli (1987), Smoothzng out spacefzme geometry, Seventh Italian Conference on Generai Relativity and Grav~tatlonalPhysics, (Rapallo, 1986), World Sci. Publishing, Singapore. 19-34. Carot, J.. and J. dn Costa (1993). On the geometry of warped space-tzmea. Clws. Quantum Grav. 10, 461-482. CarriBre. Y. (1989), Autovr de la Conjecture de L. Markus sur les vnne'tes aBnes, Invent. Math. 95, 615-628. Carter, B. (1971a), Causal structure zn space-time, Gen. Rel. Grav 1,349391. Carter, B. (1971b), Arisyrnmetric black hole has only two degrees of heedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331-333. Chandrasekhar, S. (1983), The Mathematzcal Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press. Cheeger. J., and D. Ehin (1975), Companson Theorems z n Riemannian Geomety, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Cheeger, J., and D. Gromoll (1971), The splzttzng theorem Jor manzfolds of nonnegative Rzccz curvature, J. Diff. Geo. 6, 119-128. Cheeger, J., and D. Gromoll (1972), On the stmcture of complete manzfolds of nonnegative curnature, -4nn. Math. 96, 413-433. Cheng, S.-Y., and S.-T. Yau (1976). Maximal spacelzke hypersurfaces zn Lorentz-hlznkowski space, Ann. of Math. 104, 407-419. Chicone, C., and P. Ehriich (1980), Lzne zntegratzon of R ~ c z curvature and conjugate points in Lorentzzan and Rzemannzan manzfolds, Manuscripta Math. 31, 297-316. Chicone, C., and P. E. Ehriich (1984), Gradzent-like and integrable vector fields on JR2. Manuscripta Math. 49, 141-164. Chicone, C., and P. E. Ehrlich (1985). Lonntzzan geodeszbility. in Cornmemoratiw Volume in Differential Topology, Geometry and Related Fields, and their Applications to the Physical Sciences and Engineering (G. Rassias, ed.), Teubner Text zur Matliematik, pp. 75-99. Choi, H., and A. Treibergs (1990), Gauss map o j spacelike constant mean curvature hgpergurface of Minkowsk space, J. DiE. Geom. 32, 775-817. Choquet-Bruhat, Y., and C. DeWitt-Morette (1989), Analyszs, Manifolds and Physrcs Part 1 1 : 92 Applzcations, North-Holland, .4msterdam. Choquet-Bruhat, Y., C. DeWitt-Morette, and hl. Dillard-Ble~ck (1982), Analy s ~ Munnfolds , and Phgszcs: Revzsed Edztaon, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
595
Choquet-Bruhat, Y., A. E. Fischer, and J. E. Marsden (1979), Mammal hypersurfaces and positavzty of mass, in Proceedings of 1976 International Summer School of Italian Physical Society. "Enrico Fermi." Course LXVII, Isolated Gravitating Systems in General Relativity (J. Ehlers, ed.), North Holland, Sew York, pp. 396-456. Choquet-Bruhat, Y., and R. Geroch (1969), Global aspect of the Cauchy problem, Commun. Math. Phys. 14. 329-335. Christodoulou, D., and S.Klainerman (1993), The Global Nonlinear Babzlzty of .Uinkowski Space, Princeton University Preas, Princeton. Chrusciel, P. T. (1991), On Unzqueness zn the Large of Solutions of Eznste~n Equatzons ( "Stmng Cosmzc Censorship"), Australian University Press, Canberra. Ciufolini, I., and J. A. Wheeler (1995), Gravztatzon and Znertza, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press. Clarke, C. J. S. (1970), On the global isometric ernbeddtng of pseudo-Rzernannian rnanzfolds, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314,417-428. Clarke, C. J. S. (1971), On the geodeszc completeness of causal space-tzmes, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 69,319-324. Clarke, C. 3. S. (1973), Local edensions in singular space-tzrnes, Commun. Math. Phys. 32, 205-214. Clarke, 6. J. S. (1975), Singulanties 2n globally hyperbolzc space-times, Commun. Math. Phys. 41, 65-78. Clarke, C. J. S. (1976), Space-tzme szngulantzes, Commun. Math. Phys. 49, 17-23. Clarke, 6. J. S. (1982), Space-tzmes of low diigerentzabzlity and singulantzes, J Math. Anal Appl. 88, 270-305. Clarke, C. J. S. (1993). The Analysts of Space-teme Szngulantees, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press. Clarke, C. J. S,, and 1 3 . 6 . Schmidt (1977), SinguEa.ritzes: the state of the art, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 8, 129-137. Cohn-Vossen, S (1936), Total Kriimmung und geodatische linzen auf ee z%samrnenhangendenojfenen vollstdndegen Flachenstkcken,, Recueil ematique 1, 139-163. Coll, B., and J.-A. Morale (19881, Sur les reperes symetrzqves lorentaens, R. A c d . Sci. Paris 306, 791-794 Conlon. L. (1993). Difleerentdable ,Wanifofodds: afirst course. Birkhauser. Bosto
Cordero, L. A,, and P. E. Parker (1995a), Examples o f sectzonal curvature wzth prescribed symmetry on 3-rnanzfolds, Czech. Math. 3. 45, 7-20. Cordero, L. A , and P. E Parker (1995b), Left-znvanant Lorentzzan rnetrtcs on 3-dzmenszonal Lze groups, Rend. Math. Appl. (to appear) Cordero, L. A., and P. E. Parker (1995c), Syrnmetnes of sectzonal curvature on 3-maaijolds, Demonstratio Math. 28 (to appear). Cormack, W , and 6. Hal! (1979), Rzemannzan curvature and the class~$catzon of the Rternann and Rzcce tensors zn space-ttrnes, Internat J Theoretlc. Phys. 18, 279-289. Crittenden, R. (19621, .Wtnirnum and conjugate poznts zn symmetric spaces, Canad. J. Math. 14, 320-328. Dajczer, M., and K.Nom~zu(1980a) On the boundedness of Rzccz curvature of an andefinzte metric. Bol. Soc. Brazil Math. 11,25-30. f zndefinzte Dajczer, M., and K. Nomizu (1980b), On sectzonal curvature o metncs TI, Math. Annalen 247, 279-282 Dederzinsk~, A. (1993), Geometry of Elementary Partzcles. in Differ~ntialGeometry: Geometry In Mathe~r~atical Physics and Related Topics (R. Greene and S -T. Yau. eds.). Amer. Math. Soc. Proceedings of Symposia iri Pure Math., 54, part 2. pp. 157-171. De Felice, F., and C. J. S. Clarke (1990), Relatzvity on Curved Manzfolds Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press. Del Riego, L. (1993), Spaces of Spmus, In Taller De Geometria Diferencial Sobre Espacios de Geometria (L. Del Rlego and C. T J. Dodson. eds ), vol. 8, Sociedad Matematica Mexicana Aportaciox~esMatematicas Notas de Investigacion, pp 51-96. Del Rrego, L., and C. T. J Dodson (1988). Sprags. unwer~ahty and stabzhty, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 103 515-534. Del Riego. L., and P. E. Parker (1995). Pseudoconvex and dzsp7.zsonzng homogeneous sprays. Geom. Dedicata 55, 211-220. Dieckmann, J. (1987), Volumenfinktzonen zn der allgerneznen Relaf~vafafstheone, Dissertation, Technical University Berlin, Fachbere~chbfathematik D83 D~eckmann, J. (1988). Volume functzons zn General Relatzvztg, Gen. Rei. Grav. 20. 859-867. (1392), Pseudo-nsotropzc Dillen, F., R. Rosca, L. Verstraelen, and L. Vrancke~~ n -Mznkowskz space, J. Geom. Phys. 9, 149-154 Lorentzian hypersurfaces z
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
597
Do Carrno, M. P. (1976). Dzflerentzal Geometry of Curves and Surfaces. Prentice Hall. Englemod Cliffs, New Jersey. Dodson, C. T. J. (1978), Space-tzme edge geometry, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 17, 389-504. Dodson, 6. T. J. (1980), Categories, Bundles and Spacetime Topology, Shiva Math. Series 1, Shiva, Kent. Dodson, C. T. J., and T. Poston (1977), Tensor Geometv: The Geometnc Viewpoznt and Its Uses. Survey and Reference Works in Math. 1, Pitman, San Francisco. Dodson, C. T, J., and L. J. Sulley (1980): On bundle completion of parallelzzable manifolds, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 87, 523-525. manifolds which leave the class Domiaty, R (1985), On bijections of Lo~entz of spacelzke paths znvanant, Topology Appl. 20, 39-46. Drumm, T. (1993), Marguhs space-ttmes, in Differential Geometry: Geometry in Mathematical Physics and Related Topics (R. Greene and S.-T. Yau, eds.), Amer. Math. Soc. Proceedings of Symp. Pure Math., 54, Part 2, pp. 191-195. Drumm, T., and W. Goldman (1990): Complete flat Lorentz 3-rnanzfolds vzth fee findamental group, Internat. J. Math. 1,149-161. Duggal, K. L.(1990): Lorentzian geomety of globally framed manzfolds, Acta Applicandae h4ath 19, 131-148 Duggal, K. L.. and A. Bejancu (1992). Lighthke submanifolds of codzmenszon two, Math. 3. Toyarna Univ. 15, 59-82. Duggal, K. L., and A. Bejancu (1993), Light-like CR-hypersurfaces of indefinite Kbhler manzfolds, Acta Applicanda~ Mathernaticw 31, 171-190. Eardley, I ) .M., J Isenberg, J. Mwsden, and V. Moncrief (1986), Homothe and confomal symmetnes of solutzons to EznsteinJs equatrons. Commun Math. Phys. 106, 137-158. Eardley, D. M., and L. Smarr (1979), Time functions in numerical relat fdarginalby bound dust collapse, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2239-2259. Easley, K. L. (1991), Local ezistence of warped product metrim, Ph.D. Th University of IvIissouri-Columbia. Eberlein, P. (1972), Product manifolds that are not negative s p c e f o m , Mi Math. J, 19, 225-231. Eberfein, P. (1973a), Geodeszc flows on negativelg curved manifolds; I% T r Amer. Math. Soc. 178, 57-82.
Eberlein, P. (1973b), When ss a geodesac J%owof Anosov type I, J. DlE. Geo. 8. 437-463. Eberlein, P.. and B. O'Neilt (1973). Vzszbzltty rnanzfolds. Pacific J. Math, 46, 45-109. Ehlers. J., and W. Kundt (1962), Exact solutzons of the gravatatzonal field equations, in Gravitation (L. Witten, ed.), Wlley, Chichester. Ehresmann, C. (1951). Les connenons znfinztLszmales dans un espace jibre' diflirentzable, Colloque de Topologie (Espaces Fibrks). Bruxelles 1950, Masson, Paris, 29-55. Ehrlich. P. E. (1974), Contznuity propertzes of the znjectzvzty radzus functzon. Compositio Math. 29. 151-178. I. local convez deforEhrllch, P. E. (1976a), Met& defomatzons of cu7r~ature mattons, Geometriae Dedicata 5, 1-24. Ehrlich, P .E. (1976b), Metric defomatzons of curnature II: compact 3-manzfolds, Geometriae Dedicata 5, 147-161. Ehrlich, P. E. (19821, The displacement functzon of a tzmehke isornet?, Tensor, N. S. 38, 29-36. Ehrlich, P. E (1991), Nu11 cones and pseudo-Rzemannran rnetncs, Semigroup Forum 43, 337-343. Ehrlich, P. E (1993), Astzgmatzc conjugacy and achronal bountlan~s, in Geometry and Global Analysis (T. Kotake, S. Nishikawa, and R. Schoen. eds.), Report of the First MSJ International Research Institute. July 12-23, 1993, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, pp 197-208 Ehrlich, P. E., and G. Emch (1992a), Gmvztatzonal waves and causalzty, Reviews in Mathematical Phys~cs 4, 163-221, Errata 4, 501.
.E., and G. Emch (1992b). Quasz-tzme functzons zn Lorentzzan geEhrlich, P ometry. blarcel Dekker Lecture K o t s in Pure and Applied r\/lathematics 144, 203-212
Ehrlich, P. E., and G. Emch (1992c), The conjugacg zndex and simple astzgmatzc focuszng, Contemporary Mathematics 127, 27-39. Ehrlich, P. E., and G. Emch (1993). Geodesic and causal behavzor of gravttatzonal plane waves: astzgmatzc wnjugacy, in Proc. Symposia in fure Mathematics. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 54, Part 2, pp. 203-209. Ehrlich, P. E , and 6 . Galloway (1990), Twnelzke lanes, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, 297-307.
Ehrlich, P. E., and S.-B. Kim (1989a),-4 Morse zndez theorem for null geodeszcs with spacelzke endmanzfolds, a volume in Geometry and Topology (G Stratopoulos and 6 .Rassias, ed.), World Scientific Publishing Go., pp. 105133. Ehrlich, P. E., and S.-B. Kim (1989b),A focal indez theorem for null gwdeszcs, J. Geom. and Physics 8. 657-670. Ehrlich, P.E., and S.-B. K i m (1991), A focal Rauch companson theorem for null geodesics, Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 6 , 73-87. Ehrlich. P. E.. and S -B. Kim (1994). From the Riccatz znequality t o the Raychaudhu7TS equatzon, in Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics ( J . I ( .Beem and K. L.Duggal, e d s ) , Contemporary Math. Series. vol. 170. American hlathemstical Society, pp. 65-76. Einstein, A. (1916). Die Grundlage der aligemeznen Relativztatstheone, Annalen der Phys. 49, 769-822. Einstein, A . (1953). The Meaning of Relativity, 4th ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Einstein, A. and N Rosen (19371, O n Gravitat~onal Waves, Jour. Franklin Institute 223, 43-54. Ellis, 6 . F. R., and B. 6. Schmidt (1977), Szngular space-times, Gen. Itel. Grav. 8 , 015-953. Emch, G . (1984), .Mathematacal and conceptual foundations of 20th century physzcs, North-Holland. Amsterdam. Eschenburg, J.-N. (1975), Stabziztatsverhalten des Geodatischen Flusses Rzemannscher Mannzgjaltiggkezten,Thesis, Bonn University, also Bonner Math. Schr vol. 87 (1976). Eschenburg, J.-B. (1987), Cornpanson theorems and hypersurfaces, Manuscrip t a Math. 59, 295-323. Eschenburg, J.-H. (1988), The splitting theorem for space-times with stroszg energy condztion. J . Dig. Geom. 27, 477-491. Eschenburg, 3.-N. (1989), .Uazimum pnnczpal for hypersurfaces, hIanuscripta Math. 64,55-75. Eschenburg. J.-H.. and 6. Galloway (1992), Lines i n space-times, Commun. Math. Phys. 148,209-216. Eschenburg, J.-R., and E. Reintze (1984),An elementary proof of the CheegerGromoll splzttzng theorem, Ann. Global Analysis Gcomctry 2, 141- 151. Eschenhurg, J -H., and J. O'Sullivan (1976), Grourth of Jacobz fields and divergence of geodeszcs. Matk. Zeitschrift 150. 221-237.
Eschenburg. J.-H., and J . O'Sullivan (1950), Jacobz tensors and Rzcct cuwature, Math. Annalen 252. 1-26. Everson, J., and C. 3. Taibot (19761, .Morse theor-g o n tamelzke and causal curves, Gen. Rel. Grav. 7, 609-622. Everson. J., and C. J. Talbot (1978), Eraturn: Morse theory on tzmelzke and causal curves, Gen. Rel Grav. 9, 1047. Fama. C. J.. and S. M. Scott (1994), Invanance propertzes of boundary sets of open embeddings of manzfolds and thew applzcatzon to the abstract boundary. In Differential Geometry and Matilerndtical Physics ( J K . Beem and K L Duggal, eds ), Contemporary Math. Serles, vol. 170,American Mathematical Society, pp. 79-1 11. Fegan, H., and R. Millman (1978). Quadrants of Rlemanntan metncs. Mlch. Math. J . 25, 3-7. Fialkow, A. (1938), Hypersurfaces o j a space of constant ~urvature.Ann. o f Math 3 9 , 762-785 Fierz, M.. and J Jost (1965),A f i n e vollstandzgk~7f tind kornpakte Lorentzzsche mannigfaltzgkezten, IIelv. Phys. Acta 38, 137-141. Fischer, A. E., and J. E. Marsden (19721, The Eznstezn equatrons of evolutzona geometric approach, 3 Math. Phys. 13, 546 568 Flaherty, F . (1975a), Lorentzzan manzfolds of nonposztzve curnature, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 27, no 2 , Amer Math. Soc.. 395-399 Flaherty, F. (1975b), Lorentzzan manzfolds of nonposatzve curuature II. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 48. 199-202. Flaherty, F. (1979). The boundary value problem for mazzmal hypersurfacea, Proc. Kat. Arad Sci. U S A 76. 4765-4767. Fock, V. (1966), The T h e o q of Space, Tzme and Gravztatzon, 2nd Revzsed Edztion, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Frankel, T . (1979), Gravztatzonal Curvature, W . B Freeman. San Francisco. e n Frankel, T., and 6 . Galloway (1081), Energy denszty and spatzal curvature general rekatzvzty, J. Math Phys 22, 813-617 Frankel, T., and G Galloway (1982), Stable rnznzmal surfaces and spat~oltopology zn generul relatzvzty, Ivlath. Zeit 181, 395-406. Freudenthal, H. (1931), ~ b e r dze enden topologzscher Bourne und Gmppen, Math Zeitschrlft 33 692-713 Friedlander, F. 6 . (1975). The Wave Eqz~ataonon n Curved Space-tame, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
601
Galloway, 6. (1977), Closure zn anzsompzc cosmologzcal models, J . Math. Phys. 18. 250-252. Gallowas G. (19791, A generalization of Mgers' Theorem and a n applzcatzon to relatzvzstic cosmology, J . Diff. Geo. 14, 105-116. Galloway, G. (1380), O n the topology of Wheeler unzverses, Phys. Lett. 7 9 4 369-370. Galloway, 6. (1982), Some global propertzes of closed spatzally homogeneous space-tzmes, Gen. Re!. Grav. 1 4 , 87-96. Galloway, 6. (1983), Causalzty vzolatzon zn spatially closed space-tzmes, Gen Rei. Grav. 15, 165-171. Gallomay>G . (1984a), Some global aspects of compact space-times, Arch. Math. 4 2 , 168-172. Gallowah G (1984b), Closed tameltke geodesics, Trans Amer. Math Sac. 285, 379-388. . theorems for spatzally closed space-tzmes. ComGalloway, 6. ( 1 9 8 4 ~ )Splittzng mun. hlath. Phys. 96,423-429. Galloway, G . (19851, Some results on Cauchy surface criteria i n Lorentzia geometry, Illinois -Math. J . 29, 1-10. Galloway, G . (1986a), Curvature, causalaty and completeness i n space-tzme wzth causally complete spcicelzke slzces, hiath. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 99 367-375. Galloway, 6. (1986b). Compact Lorentzzan manzfolds wzthout closed nonspace lrke geodesics, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 8 , 119-124. . Lorentzian splittzng theorem wzthout completenes Galloway? 6. ( 1 9 8 9 ~ )The assumption, 3. Diff. Geom. 29, 373-387. Galloway, G (1989b), Some connectzons between global hyperbolzczty and ge desic completeness, J. Geom. and Phys. 6, 127 -141. Galloway, G (1993), The Lorentzzan version of the Cheeger-Gromoll sp theorem and zts applicattons t o General Relatzvzty, in Differential Geome Georuetry in Mathematical Physics and RRlated Topics (R. Greene a T . Yau. eds.), vol. 54, part 2, Amer. Math. Soc. Proceedings o f Symp i n Pure Math.,, pp. 249-257. of Lorentzzan Busemann fun Galloway, G., and A. Horta (1995), Reg ttons, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (to a tade de Matemat
Gwfinkle, D., and Q. Tian (1987), Spacetames wtth cosmologzcal constant and a confomal Killing field have constant curvature. Class. Quantum Grav. 4, 137-139. Gerhardt. C. (1983), Maximal H-surjaces zn Lorenlzzun rnanzfolds, Commun. Math Phys. 98. 523-553. Geroch, R.P. (1966). Szngulafitzes an closed unzuerses, Phys. Review Letters 17,445-447. Geroch, R. P. (1968a). Spznor stmcture of space-tzrnes zn general relatzvoty I, J . Math. Phys. 9, 1739-1744. Geroch, R. P. (1968b). What is a szngularety i n general relatzvity. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 48, 526-540. Geroch, R. P. (1969), Limzts of spacetimes, Cornmun. Math. Phys. 1 3 , 180193. Geroch. R. P. (1970a). Domain of dependence, J . Math Phys. 11.437-449. Geroch. R. P. (1970b), Singulantzes zn Relatzvzty, i n Relativity ( M . Carmeli, S . Fickler, and L. W i t t e n , eds.), Plenum, New York, pp, 259-291. Geroch, R. P., and 6 . T Borowitz (1979), Global s t m c t u ~ of space-tame. i n General Relativity: .4n Einstein Centenary Survey ( S Hawking and W Israel, eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 212-293. Geroch, R . P., E. H. Kronheimer. and R. Penrose j1972), Ideal points i n spacetime, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A327, 545-567. Geroch, R. P., and J. Winicour (1981). Lznkages zn general relafzv7ty J . Math Pliys. 22, 803-812. Gijbel, R . (1976). Zeeman topologzes on space-tzmes of general relatzvzty theory. Commun. Math. Phys 46, 289-307. Gobel, R . (1980), Natuml topologies on Lorentzzan manzfolds, Mitt. b l a ~ hGes. . Hamburg TO, 763-771. Goddard, A. (1977a), Foliations of space-tomes by spacelike hypersurfaces o j constant mean cuwatvre, Comm. Math. Phys 54, 279-282. Goddard, A. (1977b). Some remarks on the enstence of spacelzke hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 82, 489-495. Goldman, W., and Y Kamishima (1984), The fundamental group of a compact pat Lorensz space form zs utrtuallg polycyclzc. J . Diff. Geom 19, 233-240 Graves, L. (1979), Codimenszosi one rsometnc zmmerszons between Lorentz spaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 252, 367-392. Graves, L., and K. Nomizu (1978),On sectzonal curvature ofzndefinzte metncs, Math. Ann. 2 3 2 , 267-272.
602
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
603
Gray, A. (1990). Tubes, Addison-Wesley. Reading, Massachusetts. Green. L. W. (1958))A theorem of E. Hop$ blich. hlath. 3. 5. 31-34 Greene, R. E. (1970). Isometric Embeddings of Rzemanazan and Pseudo-Rzemannian Manzfolds, Mcmoir 97, Amer, Math. SOC.. Gromoll, D.. W. Klingenberg, and W . Meyer (19751, Rzemannsche Geomet n e zm Grossen, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 55, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Gromoll. D., and W. Meyer (1969), On complete open manifolds of posztwe curvature, Ann. of Math. 9 0 , 75-90 Guimares, F . (1992). The zntegral of the scalar c~lrijatlire of complete ~ia'ntfoids without conjugate points, J. Diff. Geom. 32, 651-662. Gulliver, R. (1975), O n the cariety of manifolds without conjugate poznts, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 210, 185-201. Hail, G. S. (1983), Curvature collzneatzons and determanation of the metnc from the curvature, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 15, 581-589. Hall, 6 . S. (1984), The szgnificance of curvature zn general relatzvzty, Gen, Rel. and Grav. 16. 495-500. Hall, 6 .S. (1987), Curvature, metnc and holonomg zn general relatzvity, in Differential geometry and its appiications, Univ. J. E. Purkyne, Brno, pp. 127136. Hall, G. S. (1992), Wey-l manzfolds and connections, J . hlath. Phys. 33. 26332638. Hall, G. S., and D. Hossack (1993), Some remarks on sectional curuatzlw and t~dal accederattons, J. Math. Phys. 34, 5897-5899. Hall, G. S., and W. Kay (1988), Curvature stmcture i n general relatzvzty. J Math. Phys. 29, 420-427. Hano, J., and K. Nomizu (1983), On zsometric immersions of the hyperbolzc pdane into the Lo~ntz-Minkowski space and the Monge-Ampere equations of a certazn type. Math. Ann. 282, 245-253. Harris, S. 6. (1979); Some comparison theorems zn the geometry o j Lorentz manijolds, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago. Harris, S. G. (1982a), A tnangle comparison theorem for Lorentz manzjolds, Indiana Math. J . 31, 289-308. Harris, S. 6. (1982b), O n maximal geodeszc diameter and causality zn Lorentznan manifolds, Math Ann 281, 307-313. Harris, S. G. (1985), A characientatzon of Robedson-Walker spaces by nu11 sectzonal curvature, Gen. Rel. Grav 17, 493-498.
Harris. S. G. (1987). Complete codzmenszon-one spacelzke zmmerszGns. Class Quantum Grav. 4, 1577- 1585. Harris, S. G. (1088a). Closed and complete spacellke i~ypersurfaces zn Mznkowskz space, Class Quantum Grav 5, 111-119. Harris. S 6. (1988h), Complete spacelzke zmmerszons wzth topology. C!ms Quantum Grav. 5, 833-838. Harris, S G. (1992), Conformally statzonavj space-tzmes, Class Quantum Grav. 9, 1823-1827. Harris, S. G. (19931, What is the shape ofcpace t n a spacetame?, :n DlSerential Geometry. Geometry in Mathematical Physics and Related Topics (R. Greene and S.-T. Vau, eds.), vol. 54, part 2, Amer Math. Soc. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics,, pp. 287-296. Harris, S. G. (1994): The method oftzmelzke 2-planes, in Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physics ( J . K. Beem and K. L. Duggal, eds.), Contemporary Math Series vol 170, Amer Math. Soc., pp 125-134 Kartman. P (1964), Ordznay Dtflerenttal Equatzons, Wilcy, New York. Hawking, S. W (1967), The occurrence of szngulantzes zn cosmology III: Causalzty and sar,gulantzes., Proc. Roy. Soc Lond. A300, 187-201 Hawking, S. W (1968), The eastence of cosmzc tzme fincflons. Proc Roy Soc. Lond. A 3 0 8 , 433-435. Hawking, S. W. (1971),Stable and genenc propertzes zn general relatzvzty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 1 , 393-400. Hawking, S. W., and 6. F. R. Ellis (1373), The Large Scale Structure of Spacet m e , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hawking, S. W., A. R. King, and P. 3. McCartrthy (1976), A new topology for curved space-time which zncorporates the causal, dzflerentzal ~ n conformal d stmctures, 3 Math. Phys. 1 7 , 174-181. Hawking, S. W., and R. Penrose (1970), The szngulantzes of gravztatzonal collapse and cosmology, Proc Roy Soc Lond. A314, 529-548. Hawking, S. W . , and R. K . Sachs (19741, Causally contznuous space-tames, Commun. Math. Phys. 35, 287-296. Heifer, A. (1990), The angular momentum of gravztatzonal radzatzon, Phys. Lett. A 150, 342-344. Heifer, A. (1992), Daficultaes wzth quastlocal ?nomenturn and angular momentum, Class. Quantum Grav 9, 1001-1008.
REFEREKCES
REFERENCES
605
Helfer, A. (1993), The kinematics of the gravitatzonal jeld, in Differential Geometry: Geometry in Mathematical Physics and Related Topics (R. Greene and S.-T, Ya.u, eds.), vol. 54, part 2, Amer. Math. Soc. Proceedings of Symp. in Pure Mathematics, pp. 201-316. Helfer, A. D. (1994a), Conjugate poants and hzgher Amob'd-Mmlov classes, in ( . L. DiEerential Geometry and Mathematical Physics (J. K. Beem and I Duggal, eds.). Conteniporary Math. Series, vol. 170,America11 Mathematical Society, pp. 135-146. Helfer, A. D. (1994b), Conjugate p o d s on spacelake geodeszcs or pseudo-selfadjoznt Morse-Stum-LzouvzUe systems, Pacific J. of Math. 164, 321-350. Helgason, S. (1978), Difirentzal Geometry, Lie Groups and Sgrnmetnk Spaces, Academic Press, New York. Hermann, R (1968), Diflerentzal Geometry and the Calculus of Vanattons, Academic Press, New York. Hi&s, N. J. (1965), Notes on Deflerentzal Geometry, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey. Hilgert. J., K. Rofmann, and J. Lawson (1989), Lie Groups, Convex Cones, and Semzgrozlps, Oxford Unlv. Press, Oxford. Hirsch, M. (1976), DzfferentzaE Topology, Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 33, Springer-Verlag, New York. Hopf, E. (1948), Closed surfaces without conjugate points, Proc. Nat. Aead. Sci. 34,47-51. r Begrifl des vollstandigen diflereaNopf, N., itnd W. Rinow (1931), ~ b e den tialgeometrischea Flzche, Comment. Math. Relv. 3, 209-225. Ihrig, E. (1975), An =act detemination of the gm?;itational potentials g,? in terms of the gmvztatzonal fields .Rlz3k, J. Math. Phys. 16, 54-55. Ikaws, T , axid W. Nakagwa (1988), A remark on totally vicious space-tzmes, J, of Geometry 32. 51-54. Israel W. (1994), The internal geometry of black holes, in Differential G e ometry and Mathematical Physics (3. K Beern and K. L. Duggal, eds.), Contemporary Math. Series, vol 170,Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 125-134. , Gauss-Bonnet formulafor general Lorentzian sz~rfacesCeom
Karcher, H.(1982), In~nztesmzalechar&enszemng von Fnedmann-Un2versen, Archiv. hilath. 38, 56-64. Karcher, M. (1989), Riemannzan companson coastructzons, in Global Differential Geometry (S. S. Chern. ed.), M.A.A Studies in Mathematics, vol. 27, Katsuno, K. (19801, Null hypersurfaces zn Lorentzzan manzfolds I, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 88, 175-182. Kelley, 3. L (1955), General Topology, Univ. Ser, in Higher Math., D. Van Kostrand, Princeton, New Jersey Kelly. R., K Tod, and N. Woodhouse (1986), Quasz-local mass for small surfaces. Class. Quantum Grav. 3, 1151-1167. Kercheve, M. (1991), The structure of Einstezn spaces admzftzng conformal motzons, Class. Quantum Grav. 8, 819-825. Ki, U.-H., R.-J. Kim, and H. Nakagawa (1991), On spacelzke hypersufices wzth constant mean curvature of a Lorentz space f o m , Tokyo J. Math. 14. Kim, J.-C., and J.-H. Kim (1986), Wave Surfaces. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. Klingenberg, W. (1959)) Contnbutzons to Rzemannzan geometry zn the large, Ann. of Math. 69, 654-666. (1961), ~ b e Rzemannsche r Mannzgfaltzgketten mzt posetzver Klingenberg, If7. Krtkn.mung, Comment Math. Helv. 3%:47-54. Klingenberg, W. (1962), Uber Riemannsche Mannzgfaltzgkeiten rnzt nach oben beschrankter KrCmmuag, Annali di Mat. 60, 49-59.
on Closed Geodeszcs, Grundlehren der mathKlingenberg, W. (1978), L e c t u ~ s ematischen Wisserlschaften, vol. 230. Springer-Verlag, New York.
KO,hl., E. Ludvigsen, E. Newman, a d K. Tod (1981), The theory of H-space, Phys. Rep. 71, 51-139. Kobayashi, S. (1961), Rzemannzan rnanzfolds wzthozlt conjugate poznts, Ann .Math. P w a . Appl. 53, 149-155. Kobayashi, S. (1967), On conjugate and cut locz. in Studies in Global Geometry and Analysis, M.A.A. Studies in Math, vol. 4, pp. 96-122. Kobayashi. S., and K. Nomizu (1963), Foundatzons of Dzflerendzal Geometn~. Volume I, Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Math, vol. 15, Jolm Wiley, New York.
On the strength of space-time singularzties, J.
606
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
607
Kobayashi, S.. and K . Nomizu (1969). Foundatzons of Dzgerentzal Geometry. Volume 11, Interscience Tracts i n Pure and Applied Math, vol. 15, John Wiiey, New York. ICobayashi, 0.. and hl. Obata (1981), Confonally-flatness and statzc spacetzme, Birkhauser Progress i n Math. 14, 197-206 Koch. L. (1988), Chains on C R rnanzfolds and Lorentr geometry, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 307, 827-841. Kossowski. M. (1987), Pseudo-Rzemannian metnc sangulantzes and the extendzbility ojparallel transport, Proc. Amer. Math Soc. 9 9 , 147-154. Kossowski. M (lG89), A Gauss map and hybnd degree formula for compact hypersurfaces i n Minkowski space, Geom. Dedicata 3 2 , 13-23. Kossowski, M . (1991a), The null blow-up of a surface i n minko ow ski Pspace and intersection i n the spacelike Grassmannian, Mich. Math. J . 38, 401-415. Kossowski, M . (1991b), Restnctzons on zero mean curvature hypersurfaces zn hfinkowskz space, Quart. J . Math. Oxford 42. 315-324. Kramer, D.. R. Stephani, E. Herlt. hl. MacCallum, and E. Schmutzer (1980), Exact solutions of Einstein's field equations, Cambridge hfonographs on hlathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press. KrBlak, A. (1984). Black Holes and the weak cosmic censorshzp, Gen. Rel. and Grav. 16, 365-373. KrBlak, A. (1986), Towards the proof of the cosmic censorship hypothesis., Class. Quant. Grav. 3 , 267-280. KrBlak. A . (1992), Strong curvature sangulanties and causal szmplzcity, J . Math. Phys. 3 3 , 701-704. KrBlak, A . and W . Rudnicki (1993), Szngularitzes, trapped sets. and cosmzc censorshzp zn asymptotacally fiat space-tzmes, Internat. 3. Theoret. Phys. 32, 137-142. Kronheimer, E. H., and R.Penrose (1967), On the stmcture of causal spaces, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 6 3 , 481-501. Kruskal, hI. D. (19601, M d m a l extension oJSchwarzschiEd metric, Phys. Rev. 1 1 9 , 1743-1745. Xulkami, R. S. (19781, Fundamental groups of homogeneous space-foms, Math. Ann. 234, 51-60. Kulkami, R. S. (1979), The values of sectional curvat.am in indefinzte metrics, Comment. Math. Helv. 54, 173-176. Kulkami, R. S (1985), A n analogue of the Riemann mapping theorem for Lorentr metfics, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 4 0 1 , 117-130.
Kundt. W. (1963), Note on the completeness of spacetzrnes. 2s. fur Phys 172. 488-489 Kunzei. H . P. (1994). Eznsteen-Yang-Mzlls fields wzth spherical symmetry, i n Differential Geometry and Mathematical Physlcs (J. K. B, .em and K L. Duggal, e d s ) , Contemporary Math. Series, vol 1 7 8 , Amer. Math. Soc., p p 167-184. Kupeli, D. (1986), O n the emstence and companson of conjugate poznts nn Rzemannzan and Lorentzzan geometry, Math Ann 216. 67-79. Kupeli, D. (1988) On conjugate and focal poznts 171 semr-Rzemanntan geometry, Math. Z 198, 569-589. Lacaze, J. (1979), Feuzlletage d'une zanete lorentzlenne par des hypersurfaccs spatzales a courhure moyenne constante. 6. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A-B 2 8 9 , A771-A774. Law, P. (1991), Neutral Einstenn metncs zn four dzmensions, 3. Math. Pllys. 3 2 , 3039-3042. Law, P. (1992); Neutral geometn~and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem for twodzmenszonal pseudo-Rzemannzan manzfolds, Rocky Mountain J . Math 22, 1365-1383. Lawson, J. (1989), Ordered manzfolds, znvanant cone fields and semzgroups. Forum Mathematician 1. 273-308 of compact space-tzme, Canad Lee. K. K. (1975). Anotherposszble abnoma~zty Math. Bul. 18, 695-697. zn genLerner, D. E.(1972). Technzques of topology and dzfferentzal g e o m ~ t q eral relatzvzty, Springer Lecture Notes in Phrs. 14.1-44. Lerner, D. E. (1973), The space of Lorentr metncs, Commun. Ailath. Phys. 3 2 . 19-38. Levichev, A., and V . Levicheva (1992). Dzstanguzshahzlztg condztzone nnd the future subsemegroup, Sem. Sophus Lie 2, 205-212. Liu, H.-L (1991), Hurrnonzc zndefinzte metncs, harmonzc tensors and harmonzc zmmerszons, Dongbel Shuxue 7.397-405. and P. S. Wesson (1994), cosmologzccll solutzons and thezr ejjectzve Liu, H., n KaEwza-Klezn theory. International J . oi Modern propert~es of matter z Phys. D 3, 627-637, Low. R. (1989). The geometry of the space of null geodesics, J . Mash. Phys 30, 809-811 Low, R. (1990), Spaces of causal paths and naked sszngularztzes, Class. Q u a i ~ t . Grav. 7, 943-954.
608
REFERENCES
Ludvigsen, M., and J. Vickers (1981), The posztzvzty of the Bondz mass. J . Phys. A. 14, 389-391. Ludvigsen, M., and J. Vickers (1982), A simple proof of the positivzty of the Bondi mass, J . Phys. A. 1 5 1 , 67-70. (1993), General conjugate loci an: not closed, in Proc. Symposia Magerin, 6. in Pure Mathematics, vol. 54, part 3, Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 465-478. Magid, M. (1982), Shape operators of Einstein hypersurfaces i n ~ndefinite space f o m , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 84, 237-242. Magid, M. (1984), Indefinite Einstein hypersurfaces with imaginasy principal curvatures, Houston Math. J. 10.57-61. Marathe, K. (1972), A condztzon for paraco.napactness of a manzfold, 3. DiR. Geo. 7, 571-573. Martucci (1992). T h e -rMathematzcal Foundations of Gauge Marathe, K., and G. Theories, North-Holland Studies in Math. Phys., vol. 5 , North-Holland, Amsterdam. Markus, L. (1955), Lzne element fields and Lorent2 structures o n dzgerentzable manzfolds, Ann. of Math. 6 2 , 411-417. Markus, L. (1986), Global Lorentz geometry and relatavistic Brownzan motaon. in From local times to global geometry, control and physics (Coventry, 1984/85), vol. 150, Pittman Research Notes In Math., pp. 273-286. Marsden, J. E. (1973), O n completeness of homogeneozls pseudo-Riemannzan manifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 2 2 , 1065-1066. Marsden, J. E., D. 6. Ebin, and A. E. Fischer (19721, D i f l m m o q h z s m g~o'lkps, hydrodynamics and relativity, in Proceeding of the thirteenth biennial seminar of the Canadian Mathematical Congress (J. R. Vanstone, ed.), pp. 135279. Martin, G., and G. Thompson (1993f, Nonuniqueness of the metree zn Lorentzi a n manifolds, Pacific J. Math. 158, 117-187. Mashhoon, B. (1977), Tidal radiation. Astrophys. 3. 2 1 6 , 591-609. Mashhoon, B. (1987). Wave propagataon z n a gmdtatzonal field, Phys. Lett. A 1 2 2 , 299-304. Mashhoon, B., and 3. C. McClune (1993), Relatevzstic tzdal impulse, Month. Notices Royal Astron Sac. 282, 881-888. McIntosh, C. B. G., and W. D. Halford (1982), T h e Rzemann tensor, the metric tensor, and curvatz~recollir~eationum general relatzplity, J . Math. Phys. 2 3 , 436-441.
Meyer, W. (1989), Toponogov's theorem and applzcatzons, College on Differential Geometry. International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, October 30-December 1, 1989. hiIiller, J. 6. (1979), Bifurcate Kzklzng hora'zons, J. Math. Phys. 20. 1345-1348. Milnor. J. (1963), hlorse Theory, Ann. of Matii. Studies, vol. 51, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Miinor, T. (see also T. Weinstein) (1993), Inedendable conformal r-ealiaatzon of Lorentz surfaces in Mnkowski $-space, Michlgan Math. J . 40, 545-559. Misner, C. W. (1967), Taub-NUT space as a counterexample to almost anythzng, in Relativity and Astrophysics I: Relativity and Cosmology (J. El-llers, ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 160-169. AIisner, C. W., and A. R. Taub (1969), A szngulanty-free empty unzverse. Soc Phys. J.E T.P. 28, 122-133. Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler (1973), Gravitation, W. I-I. Freeman, San Francisco. Moncrief, V. (1975), Spacetzme symrnetnes and lineanzatzon stabzlztg of the Einstein equations, J . &/lath.Phys. 16, 493-498. Montiel. S. (1988), An zntegral inequality for compact spacelzke hypersurfaces zn the de Satter space and applications to the case of constant mean ct~rvature, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 37, 909-917. Morrow, J. (1970), The denseness of complete Rzemannzan metncs, J. Diff. Geo. 4. 225-226. Morse, M. (1934), The Calculus of Vanatzons zn the Large, vol. 18, Amer. Math Soc Colloq. Pub.. Munkres, J. R. (1963), Elementary Diflerential Topology, Ann. of Math. Studies, vol. 54, Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Munkres, J. R. (1975), Topology, Prentice-Hall, Engiewood Cliffs, New Jersey. n the large, Dnke Math. J . 1, Myers, S. B. (1935), Riemannian manifolds a 39-49. Myers, S B., arid N. Steenrod (1939), The group ofzsonaet.ries o f a Riemannzan manifold, Ann. of Math. 40. 400-416. Newman, R. P. A. C. (1990), A pmof of the splzttang conject~reof S.-T. Yau, 3. Diff. Geom. 31, 163-184. Nishikawa, S. (1984). On m m m a l spacelike hypersurfaces in a Lorentzzan rnanifold, Nagoya Math. J. 95, 117-124. Nornizu, K: (1979), Left znvarzant Lorentz metvies o n Lze groups, Osaka Math. 3. 16, 143-150.
610
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
611
Nomizu, K.(1983), Remarks on sectzonal cuniaft~reo j an zndefinlfe metmc. Proc. Amer. hlath. Soc 89, 473-476. Nomizu, K., and H. Ozeki (1961), The enstence of complete Rzemannzan metncs, Proc. Amer. Math. SOC. 1 2 , 889-891. Ohanian, H C., and R. RuEni (1994), Gravztatzon and Spacetime, 2nd Ed., W. W. Norton. New York. of the pnnczpal curvatures of spacelzke Oliker. V. (1992). A p n o n est~mates hgpei-surfaces zn de Sitter space wzth applzcatzons to hypersurfaces zn hgperbolzc space, Amer. 3. Math. 114, 605-626. O'Neill, B. (1966), Elementag Dzflerentzal Geometry, Academic Press. New York. O'Neill. B. (1983). Semz-Rremannzan Geometvy wzth Applzcatsons to Relatzzzty, Pure and Applied Ser., vol 103. Academic Press, New York O'Neill, B (1995), The Geometry of Kerr Block Holes A K Peters, Vt~~llesley, hfassachusetts. O'Sulllvan, J. (1974), Manzfolds wzthout conjugate poznts, Math. ilnnalen 210, 295-311. Otsuki, T. (1988), Singular poznt sets of a general connection and black holes, Math. J. Okayama Univ. 30, 199-211. Palais. R. S (1957). On the d~~fferentzab~lztg of zsometnes, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 , 805-807. Parker, P. E. (1979), Distnbutzonal geometry, J Math. Phys. 20, 1423-1426. Parker, P. E. (1993), Spaces of geodeszcs, in Taller De Geometria Diferencial Sobre Espacios de Geometria (L. Del Rego and 6 . T . 3. Dodson. eds.), vol. 8 , Sociedad Matematica hlexicana Aportaciones Rlatematicas Notas de Investigation, pp 67-79 Parker, P. E (1994), Compatzble metncs on fiber bundles, in Differ~ntialGe ometry and Mathematleal Physlcs (J. K. Beem and K.L. Duggal, eds.), Coiltemporarj Math. Series, vol. 170. Amel. Math. Soc., pp. 201-206. Pathria, R. K. (1974), The Theory of Relatzvzty, 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford. Pemose. R. (1965a), A wrnarkable property of plane wazes zn general relatzv~ty, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37, 215-220. Penrose. R. (1965b), Gravztattonal collapse and space-tzme szngulantzes. Phys. h v . Lett. 14, 57-59.
Penrose, R. (1968). Stmcttare of space-tzme. in Battelle rtecontres (C. M. de Witt and J. A. Whee!er, eds.), Lectures In Mathemat~cs and Physics. Benjamin. Ncw York, pp. 121-235. Penrose, R (1972), Technzques of Dz&rentzal Tgpoloyy z n Relatzvziy, Regional Conference Serles in Applied hlath . vol. 7, SIAM. Philadelphia. Penrose R. (1982), Quasz-local mass and angular momentum tn general relatiurty, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 381, 53-63. Penrose, R (1984). New zmproved qzsasz-local mass and the Schwarzschzld soktzon, Twistor News 18, 7-11. Penrose, R.. and Mr. Rindler (1984), Spznors and Space-tame. Val I , Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Penrose, R.. and W Rindler (1986), Spznors and Space-tzme, Vol 2. Carnbridge Umversity Press, Cambridge. Perlick, V. (1990), On Fernat i pnnczple zn general relatzvztg I Class Quantum Grav. 7. 1319-1331. Petrov, A. Z (1969), Eznstezn Spaces, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Pisani, L. (1991), Exzstence of geodeszcs for statzonan~ Lorentz manzfolds, 13011. Un. hfat. Ital. B 5. 507-520 les izgnes gkodt'szyues des surfaces convexes, Trans. Poincart!, W. (1905). SUT Amer Math. Soc. 6, 237-274. Powell, T. 6 . (1982). Lorentzzan manzfolds wzth non-smooth metncs and warped products, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Mlssoun-Columbia. Protter, M and H. Weinberger (19841, Max%czmumPnnczples zn Dzflerentzal Equatzons, Springer Verlag, New York. Qluevedo. H. (1992), Detemznation of the metnc from the cuntatwe, Gcn. Re1 and Grav. 24, 799-819 Rauch, H (1951). A contnbutron to dzfirentiral geometry zn the large. Ann. of Math. 54. 38-55. Raychaudhuri, A K., S. Banerj~, and A. Banerjee (1992). General Relatzvzty, Astrophyszcs, and Cosmology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Reid. W. T. (1956), Osczllatzon cntema for lznear dzflerentzal systems wath complex coeficzents, Pacific J. Math. 6, 733-751 Rctzloff. D. G., 3.DeFacie, and P. Dennls (1982). A new mathemat?cal formulation of accelerated observers zn general relatzvzty I, I I , J. Math. Phys. 23. 96-104, 105-108. Rinow, W. (1932). ~ b e Zmammenhange r der Dzflerentzokg~ometmzm Grossen und zm Kleinen, Math. Z. 35,512-528.
REFERENCES
613
Robinson, I., and A . T k a u ~ m a n(1983), Conjomal geometry of flows in n dmensions, J . Math. Phys. 24, 1425-1429. Rosca. R. (1972), O n null hypersurfc;ces oj a Lorentzian manifold, Tensor N. S . 23, 6 6 7 4 . Rosquist, K . (1983). Geodestc focwzng and space-tzme topology, Internat. J. Theoret. Phys. 2 2 , 971-979. Rube, P. (1988), Kazlsale Randkonstnsktionen fur Raum-Zeiten der Allgemeinen Relatiuitatstheorie, Dissertation, Technische Universitat Berlin. Rube, P. (1990), A n ezample of a nontrivial causally simple space-time havzng interesting consequences for boundary constructtons, J . Math. Phys. 31, 868-870. Ryan, M. P., and L. C. Shepiey (1975),Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies, Princeton Series i n Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N P ~ Jersey. n S x l l s , R. (1962), Grawitatzond waves zn genera! relativity VIII: Waves a asymptotacally pat space-tzme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 270, 103-126. Sachs, R. K., and W. Wu (1977a), General RelatGvzty for Mathematicians, Grad. Texts in Math., vo!. 48, Springer Verlag, New York. Sachs, R . K., and K. Wu (1977b). General Relatzvzty and cosrnoiogy, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 83, 1101-1164. Sakai, T . (1983). On continuzty of injectivdty radius function, J . Math. O h yama Univ. 25. 91-97. Schmidt, B. 6 . (1971), A new dejinitzon of singzllarpoznts 2n general relatzvzty, Gen. %l. Grav. 1, 269-280. Schmidt, B. 6 . (1973) T h e local b-completeness o f spacetimes, Commun. Math. Phys. 29, 49-54. Schoen, R., and S -T. Y a u (1979a), Posztivity of the total mass of a general space-tzme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1457-1459. Schoen, R. and S.-T. Y a u (1979b), On the proof of the positive mass coqecture zsz general rebatzvzty, Cornmun. Math. Phys. 85.45-76. Schoen, R., and S.-T. Y a u (1982), Pmof that the Bondi mass is positiwe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 369-371. Scott, S. M., and P. Szekeres (1394), The abstract boundaw-a .new approach to singulanties of mmafolds, J . Geom. Phys. 13,223-253. Seifert, K.-J. (1967), Global connectivity by timelzke geodesies, Zs. f. Naturforsche 22a, 1356-1360.
Seifert, H . 4 . (19711, The causal boundary of space-tzmes. Gen Rel. Grav. 1, 247-259. e Gen. Selfert, K -J. (1977), Smoothing and extendeng cosmzc t ~ m junctzons, Rei. Grav. 8, 815-831. Serre, J. P. (1951), Homokogne szngulz2re des espaces jbrgs apphcatzons, Ann. Math. 54, 425-505. Sharma, R. (1993), Proper confomal symrnetraes of space-times wzth dzverg e n e free Weyl confomal tensor, J . Math Phys. 34, 3582-3587. Sharma, R. and Duggal, K. L. (1994), Rzecz c w a t u r e mheatzng symmetls;es of semi-Riemannian manifolds, i n Differential Geometry and NIathematical Physics ( J . K . Beern and K . L. Duggal, eds.), Contemporar~Math. Series, vol. 170,Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 215-224. Smith, J . W . (1960a). Fundamental groups on a Lorentz manifold, Amer. J. Math. 82, 873-890. Smlth, J . W . (1360b). Lorentz ssructures on the plane, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc 95, 226-237. Smith, P. A. (1941), Fmed-poznt theorems for penodzc transfomalzons, Amer. J . Math. 83, 1-8. S m y t h , R., and T. Wemstein (1994), Conformally homeorno-iphzc Lorentz surfaces need not be confomalky dz$eomorphic, Rutgers preprint. Spivak, h1. (1970), A Comprehensive introductaon to Dzfferential Geometry, Vol. 11, Publish or Perish Press, Boston. Spivak, hf. (1979). A Comprehensave Introductzon to Dzflerentzal Geometry, Vol. IV, Publlsh or Perish Press. Berkeley. Californ~a Steenrod. n'. E. (1951), The Topology of Fzber Bundles, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Stephani, N. (1982), Gelaeral Relatzvzty: A n zntroductton to the theory of the gravitational field, Cambridge University Press. Stewart, J . (19911, Advanced General Relatzvity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press. Straumznn, IV. (1984), General Rekatauity and Relativzstzc Astrphyszcs, Texts and Monographs i n Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Synge, J. (1960),Relativity: The General Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Synge, J. (1972), Relativity. The Special Theory, 2nd ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam. n chmnologzcal spaces. Gen. Re1 Szabados, L. (1387), Causal measurabilzty a Grav. 19, 1091-1100.
REFERENCES
REFEREX CES
615
Szabados. L. (1988). Causal boundary for strangly causal space-times. Class Quantum Grav. 5, 121-134. Szcryba, W. (1976). A sympkecttc structure o n the set of Einstein metncs: a canonical fonnalzsm for general mlatzvzty, Comm. Math. Phys. 51, 163182. Taub, A. 11. (1951), Empty gpace-tzmes admzttang a three parameter group of motaons, Ann. of Math. 53, 472-490. Taub, A. N.(19801, Space-tzmes wath dzst~butzon-valuedcurvature tensors. J Math. Phys. 21, 1423-1431. Thorpe. 3. (1969), Curvature and the Petrov canonzcal forms, J. Math. Phys 1 0 , 1-7. Thorpe. J. (1977a), Curvature znvartants and space-tzme sangulantzes, 9. Math. Phys. 18, 960-964. Thorpe. J. (1977b), T h e observer bundle, Abstracts of contributed papers to the 8th International General Relativity Congress, 334. Tipler, I?, (1977a), Sangulanttes and causalzty vzolation. Ann, of Phys. 108, 1-36. Tipler, F. (1977b), Singularities in universes with negative cosmological constant, Astrophys. 3. 209, 12-15. Tipler, F. (1977c), Black holes i n closed universes, Nature 270, 500-501. Tipler, F. (1977d), Causally symmetric space-times, J . Math. Phys. 18. 15681573. Tipler, F. (1978), General Relatzvzty and conjugate ordinary dgerential equations, 3. Differential Equations 30, 165-174. Tipler, F. (1979), Emktence of closed timelike geodesics 2% Lorentz spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soe., 76, 145-147. Tipler, F.. C. J. S, Clarke, and G. F. R. Ellis (1980), Stngularitaes and honzonsa mview artzcle, in General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 2 (A. Held, ed ), Plenum Press, New Yoxk, pp. 97-206. Tits, J. (1955), Sur certaznes classes d'espaces homogenes de groups de Lze, Memoir Belgian Academy of Sciences. Tod, K.(1983), Some examples of Penrose's quasz-local mass constructaon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 388, 457-477. Tod. K. (1984), More o n qua%-localmass, Twistor News 18, 3-6. Tod, K. (1936), More o n Penrose's quasz-local mass, Class. Quantum Grav. 3.
Tomanov, G (1990), The u t r t ~ a isolvabrlzty of the fundamental group of a generalzzed Lorentz space form, J . Diff. Geom 32, 539-547. Tomimatsu. A., and H. Sato (1973)) New senes of exact solutzons for gravztational fields of spinnzng mass, Prog. Theor. Pllys. 5 0 , 95-110. Treibergs, A. (1982). Entzre spacelzke hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature z n lifznkowski space, Invent. hllath. 66, 39-56. Uhlenbeck, K. (1975), A ,Worse t h e o q for geodeszcs o n a Lorentz rnanzfold, Topology 14, 69-90. Vyas, U., and 6. Akolia (1986), Causally dzscontznuous space-tzrnes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 18, 309-319. Vyas, U., and P. Joshi (1983), Causal functzons zn General Relatzvtty. Gen Rel. Grav. 1 5 553-565 TVald, R. M. (1984), General Relatzmty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Walker, A. 6 . (1944). Completely symmetric spaces, J. Lond Math Soc. 19, 219-226. Wang, H.-c. (1951), Two theorems on m e t n c spaces, Pacific J, Math. 1, 473480. Wang, H.-6. (1952), Two-point homogeneous spaces. Ann. of Math. 55. 177191. Warner, F. W. (1983), Foundations of Diflerentiable Manzfolds and Lse Groups, Springer-Ver!ag, New York. Wegner, B.(1985), Zeztartige geodatzsche Schlezfen in kompakten Lorentz Mannzgfaltigkeiten, Mathematical papers giver1 on the occasion of Ernsc Mohr's 75th birthday, Technische Universitat Berlin, pp. 297-306. Vtkgner, B.(1989), Comments o n "A Remark on Totally Vzcious Space-Tzme", J. of Geometry 36, 188. Weinberg, S. (1972), Gravitatton and Cosmology, John Wiley, New k-ork. Weinstein, T. (see also T . Milnor) (1983), Hamonzc maps and classzcal surface t h e o q zn Minkowstz 3-space, Trans. Amer. Math. Sor. 2 8 0 , 161-185. Weinstein, T. (see also T. Milnor) (1957), A confomal Bernsteen's theorem for timelike su.rfdces in Minkowski 3-space, The Legacy of Sonya Kovalevskaya. vol. 64, Amer. Math. Soc. Contemp. Math., pp. 123-132. Weinstein, T. (see also T. Milnor) (1990), Entzre tzrnelzke rninzrnal surfaces in Ex1, Mich. Math. J. 37, 163-177. Weinstein. T. (see also T. Milnor) (1993), A n zntroductzon to Lorentz surfaces, Rutgers University, to appear in de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics. Wheeler, J. A. (1977), Szngulanty and unanomity, Gen. Re1 Grav. 8, 713-715
616
REFERENCES
Whitehead, J. Ii. 6. (1932), Convex regions in the geometnj ofpaths, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 3, 33-42. Whitehead, J. H. 6 . (1933), Convex regions in the geometry of paths-Addendum, Quar. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 4, 226-227. Whitehead, J. H. C. (1935), On the covering of a complete space by the geodesics through a point, Ann. of Math. 38, 679-704. Will, C. M. (1981), Theory and Eqeriment in Gmvztational Physics, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. .&I. (19841, Completeness and zts stabzlzty on manzfolds vzth coaWilliams, P nection, Ph. D. Thesis, Dept. Math., Univ. of Lancaster. Williams, P. (1985), Instability of geodeszc completeness and incompleteness, University of Lancaster preprint. Witten, E. (1981), A newproof ofthe positive energy theorem, Commun. Math. Phys. 80, 381-402. Wolf, J. A. (1961), Homogeneous manifolds of constant curvatun, Comment. Math. Belv. 36, 112-147. Wolf, J. A. (1974), Spaces of Constant Curuature, 3rd ed., Publish or Perish Press, Boston. Wolter, F.-E. (1979), Distance functzon and cut loci on a complete Riemannian manifold, Archiv. der Math. 32, 92-96. Woodhouse, N. M. J. (1973), The diferentzable and cawaE stmctures of spacetime, J. Math. Phys. 14, 495-501. Woodhouse, N. M. J. (1976), An application of Morse theory to space-time geometry, Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 135-152. Wu, H. (1964), On the de Rham decompositzon theorem, Illinois J. Math. 8, 291-311. Yau, S. T. (19821, Problem Sectzon, in Ann. of Math. Studies (S. T. Yau, ed.), vol. 102, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 669-706. Yurtsever, U. (1992), A simple proof of geodesicai completeness for compact space-times of zero curnature, J. Math. Phys. 33. 1295-1300. Zeeman, E. C. (19641, Gausalzty zmplzes the Lonntz group, J. Math. Phys. 5, 490-493. Zecman, E. C. (1967), The topology of Minkowskz space, Topology 6,161-170.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
BALLS B+(P,1, B-(PI6) O+(PIE), O-(P,E) BOUNDARIES

inner balls: future and past. 142, 143 outer balls: future and past, 144
aa-44
dbM BCM d
i f , i-
io
abstract boundary, 198, 232-238 Schmidt boundary, 214 causal boundary, 215-218 topological boundary, 495 timelike infinity: future and past, 178 spacelike infinity, 178
BUSEMANN FUNCTIONS
b
Busemann function, 512 Busemann functions: future and past, 550 various Busernann type functions, 512, 520
b+, bb ~ bp,, ,
CAUSALITY
D+(s), D - ( s ) E + ( s ) , E- (S) H + ( s ) ,ff-(S) I+ (PI, I - (P) J+ {PI , J - (P)

P K q
P Q ~
Cauchy development: future and past, 287 horismos: future and past, 287 Cauchy horizon: future and past, 287 Chronological future and past, 5. 6, 54 Causal future and past, 5, 6, 54 p in chronological past of q, 54 p in causal past of q. 54
LIST O F SYMBOLS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
CUT LOCUS
nonspacelike cut locus, 311-322 nompacelike cut locus: future and past. 311-322 null cut locus: future and past. 296-318 timelike cut locus: future and past. 296-305 cut locus in T,M, 302
INNER PRODUCTS
g(V, W )= ( V , W ) ( w , Xr) = u(X) < < , > >

J
Jt
inner product on tangent space, 327 on one forms and vector fields. 20 inner product on T , ( T , : W ) 338 .
(4 Jt (P)
rz",
Iff
AS V
[X, Yl
grad f = Vf
Christoffel symbols, 18 Hessian of f,24 Laplacian of f , 24, 120 (Levi-Civita) connection, 15, 22 Lie bracket. 18 gradient of f , 24. 307
A @ ) ,a t ) B (= A'A-I),
LENGTH
fS
Jacobi field, 31 Jacobi fields vanishing at a and t , 326 quotient Jacobi tensors vanishing at a and t. 326 Jacobi tensors, 426, 431 used with Jacobi tensors, 428, 431
L(Y
length of curve y. 8, 137
MANIFOLDS AND SPACE-TIMES

ring of smooth, real-valued functions on l ,16 class of srnooth vector fields on h Euler characteristic, 50 warped product, 95 semi-Euclidean space. 181 (universal) anti-de Sltter. 183, 199, 306 hlinkowski, 25, 116. 177 de Sitter, 183, 286 real projective 3-space, 189
DIAMETER
timelike diameter, 399. 401, 402
M ,16
Riemannian distance, 2-4 Lorentzian distance, 8, 137
GROUPS
fundamental group, 399, 419 isometry group, 188 isotropy group at p, 186 left and right translation, 190
MAPS
exponential map, 53 canonical isomorphism, 337
METRICS
INDEX
index of vector fields X, Y, 325 quotient index, 326 index for hypersurface, 458 extended index, 326, 342, 395 index, 326, 342, 395
c ( M .9 )
Con(iM)
set of all metrics conformal t o g. 6, 142 conformal equivalence classes, 239 quotient metric. 370-398 partial order on metncs, 64 partial order on metrics, 64 'iet of all Lorentzian rnetrics on M , 50, 63, 89
sww)
g1 9 1
g2 < 92
4
i
Lor(M)
620
LIST OF SYMBOLS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
SECOND FUNDAMENTAL FORMS

second fundamental form operator, 93, 165 second fundamental form, 92 in direction of n. 93
TANGENT
T ~ N
TM T , M T-lM
normal space to N ,444 tangent bundle of .nA, 16 tangent space to M a t point p, 16 unit observer bundle, 298-304
TENSORS AND CURVATURES

sectional curvature, 29-32 curvature, 19, 20 Riemann-Christoffel, 22 scalar curvature, 23 Ricci curvature, 23, 30 energy-momentum, 44-48 torsion, 13 Wronskian, 385 expansion, 428,431 shear, 429, 431 vorticity, 428, 431
orthogonal to /?'(t).368 null conjugate locus, 489 null tail. 433 null hyperplane in R4 481 piecewise smooth and orthogonal to c, 327, 369 piecewise smooth, orthogonal to c, vanishing at endpoints, 327 366 piecewise smooth and orthogonal to piecewise smooth, orthogonal to P, vanishing at endpoints, 367 change in X'. 329 path space from p to q, 326
a,
TOPOLOGIES
C0 topology CO topology C ' topology
on curves, 49. 72, 79 on metrics, 63, 89, 239, 247 on metrics, 63, 247
VECTOR FIELDS, CURVES, AND BUNDLES

C(~+7)
Conn(P0, u )
piecewise smooth timelike curves from in P(u) and connected to Po by a geodesic, 485 p to g, 354-365 quotient bundle, 326, 368 space orthogonal to c'(t), 327
G(P)
a-boundary (abstract boundary 3,). 198, 232. 233-238 Achronal. 57, 142, ~dentity. 538 Adapted coordmates. 251 normal neighborhoods, 251 Adm~ssl ble chain, 252, 253-255 deformation, 389, 390 measure. 67 variation, 376. 388 Affine 332. 333 f~mctlon, parameter, 12, 17. 112 parameter, generalized, 208 Alexandroff topology. 7, 8, 39-60 Almost maxrrnal curve. 146,272-275 Angular momentum for Kerr spacetime, 181 Anti-de Sitter space-tlrne, 183, 199.
306, 569
b. a. complete (bounded aceelerati 197, 207 b-bcundary (bnndle boundary at), b-complete (bundle c~rnplet~e), 15 208 Basis orthonormal. 21, 30, 404 natural, 1G pseudo-orthanormal, 36, 460 Big bang cosmological model, 10 174, 185, 190, 477 see also Friedmann cosmologic,
Arc length functional, 356 Lorentzim, 135 upper semicontinuity, 83.273, 278, 51 1 Arzela's theorem, 75, 76 Astigmatic conjugate. 485, 486-4'39 ~ s y m p t oe.t 518
models see also Robertson-Walker spac t!me Bi-invariant Lorentziari merrlr, 19( 191-195 Birkhoff's Theorem, 132 Black hole. 480 Schwarzschild. 173, 179-182 Kerr, 174, 179-181 Bonnet-Myers Theorem. 399-400,4 Bore1 Measure, 67 Boundary pomnts a-boundary (d,), 198, 233-238 approachable, 234 b-boundary ( d b ) . 214 causal boundary (8,). 21 5-218
425, 474 C"-rep~llar 219
624
INDEX
INDEX
625
from enveloped manifold: 230 quafi-regular, 225 re,@%, 225 smooth, 472478 Bounded wceleration, 197, 207 Bounded parameter property, 233 Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, 181 Busemann functions, 503-566 Lorentzian, 512, 550 Riemannian, 507 see also horoball see also splitting theorems
C(M,S), 6, 142 c-topology on c ~ w e s49,72, , 79,81-83,272, 273, 278,288, 297 on Lor(M), 50, 63, 89, 239 Q-stable, 242 Cr-topology, 63, 247 Canonical isomorphism (r,), 337 variation, 331, 388 Cauchy complete, 4. 209, 425 development (D+, D-), 287,466 horizon ( N f , H - ) , 287 partial surface, 539 reverse Cauchy-Schwarz, 575 surface, 65, 362 time function. 65 timelike complete, 211 see also horismos Causal boundary (a,), 215-218,425,472478 future ( J f ) , 5, 6 past (J-),5, 6 relation (I), 54 space-time, 7 stably, 63, 89 vector (= nompaeelike), 24 see also globally hyperbolic
Causally continuous, 59-60, 158-160,479 convex, 59, disconnected, 272,228-293 related, 54 simple, 479 18, 248 Chistoffel symbols (r,k,), Chronologicd future ( I f ) , 5, 6, 54, 55 past (I-), 5, 6, 54, 55 relation (a), 54 space-time, 7 Closed geodesics, 145-146 trapped surface, 148-151, 463 Cluster curve, 73 Compact space-time, 58, 418 Complete b, 197 b. a., 197 geodesic, 12, 17, 202 geodesicdly, 4, 425 nonspacelike, 12 m111,12 pregeodesic. 1 7 Riemannian manifold, 4 spacelike, 12 timelike, 12 timelike Cauchy, 211 see also Hopf-Know Theorem Con(M), 239 Cone null, 15, 25-29 Conformal changes and n d l cnt point,s, 306 changes and null geodesics. 308 factor, 91 global transformations, 28, 307 metrics, 6. 28 Conformally stable property of Lor(M), 249 Conjugacy index, 485
Conjugate points, 295, 298, 302-322, 413 definition of, 314, 328, 374 locus of first need not be closed in Riemannian, 315 Conn(P0, u), 485, 489-496 Connection (V), 1 6 I ' : ) , 18, 22 coeficients ( curvature of ( R ( X ,Y)Z), 19, 22 92 mduced on submanifold (VO), Levi-Civita, 15, 22 symmetric, 19 torsion free,19. 22 torsion of ( T ( X ,Y)), 19 Conservation laws, 45 Convex hull, 268, 270 neighborhood, 53-54 normal neighborhood. 53-54,292 Co-ray, 518 asymptote, 518 generalized, 510, 518 (generalized) timelike co-ray condition, 519, 522, 531 Cosmological constant (A), 44, 189 see Einstein Equations Cosmologicd models see F'riedmann cosmologicd models see Robertson-Walker space-tlmw Cosmologieaf space-time, 563 Covariant curvature tensor, 22 derivative (;), 18, 370 Covering boundary sets, 231 Covering space, 52, 86, 148, 419, 473 Critical point, 355, 356, 361 Curl, 120 Curvature bounded, 31 components ( R 3 k m ) , 20 constant, 31, 181-185 covariant tensor, 22 identities. 22-23
null sect~ond cllrvature. 571 Riemann curvature (R or RiJkm), 19, 20, 30 22, Kernam-CIzristoEel (RJk,), 30 Kcci (Ric or K J ) ,23, 30, 45 R(X,Y)Z, 19 scalar (R or r ) , 23 sectional(K(E,p)), 29-32, 399. 403 singularity, 225 tensor, 20 Curve dmost maximal, 146, 272-275 6'-topology on space of, 79, 8183, 272, 273, 278, 288, 297 endless, 61 endpoint of, 61, 233-234 future d~rected, 50 geodesic, 17, 18 impr~soned, 61, 221, 264 inextendible (= endless), 61 lirmt. 72, 81, 297 limit point, 233-234 maximal. 11, 66, 146, 166-171, 272, 275. 278, 296. 298, 356 null (= lightlike), 25 partially imprisoned, 62, 264.426 past directed, 50 pregeodesle, 86, 295, 286, 307309 spacehke, 6 5 timelike, 25 Gut points comparison to conjugate po~nts, 302-322 nonspacellke, 311-323 null, 296-298, 305-318. 395 Riemannian, 295. 317 time!ike. 296, 302-305 see also conjugate point CW-complex, 355. 363. 354
626
INDEX
INDEX
d'Alembertian (a), 114.534,535,545 Degenerate plane section. 29 de Sitter space-time, 163, 184, 286, 549, 569 Diameter, 399 timelike (diam(M,g)), 399, 401, 402 Disprisorment, 401, 415, 416, 418, 420, 422 Distance function, Lorentzim, 8, 137 continuity of for globally hyperbolic, 140 distinpshing space-tlmes, 158 finite, 142, 162 finite compactness. 211 globally hyperbolic spacetimes, 11, 65. 140, 142 B ' , B-), 142, inner (metric) balls ( 143 local distance function. 160 lower semicontinuity of, 140. 277, 290-291, 508 nonsymmetric, 138 144 outer (metric) balls (Of, 0-), preserving maps, 151 reverse triangle inequality, 140. 274. 279, 508 totally vicious space-t~mes, 68. 137 Distance function, Riemanman, 2-4 complete, 4 finite compactness, 4 see also Hopf-Rinow Theorem Distance homothetic map, 151 Distingilishng space-time, 58. 70, 158 Distribution, 121, 123 Diverge to infinity, 271, 272. 283. 288 Domain of dependence, 287 see Cauchy developrneilt
Edge, 538 Eikonal equation. 541, 574 Eimtein equations, 44-48 manifold, 133 space-time, 117 static universe. 189,286, 290, 306, 307: 310. 313, 318, 323,477 silmmation convention, 23 Einstein-de Sitter universe, 115 Embeddings in high-dimens~onal Minkowski spacetime, 354 Empty spacetimes. 180 see also Ricci flat spacetimes Ends, of manifolds, 272, 282 Endpoint, 61, 234 Energy conditions, 434 density, 47, 189 function, 375 Energy-momentum tensor (T, ) ,4448, 180 see also Einstein equations Enveloped mmifold, 2.30 Equivalent boundary sets. 231 Euler characteristic ( x ) , 50 Expansion tensor (8). 428, 585 quotient expansion (8), 431 Exponential map (exp,), 53. 314322, 399, 410 normal exponential map, 580 see also conjugate points see abo normal coordinates Extended index for null geodesics; 395 for timelike geodesics, 342, 407408 Extemion, 198, 219. 219-225 C1-extemion, 232 local, 198, 220, 221-225
7 7 .
rm . a
n ,
Finite compactness, 197, 211 distance condition, 142, 162 First variation formula, 360, 450 r lat metrics, 45, 141 Ricci flat, 45, 124-127, 180 see also semi-Euchdean spaces
I
see perfect fluid Focal point, 444, 445, 446-449, 462 to a spacelike hypersurface, 447 Free, action of a group, 419 Freely falling, 31, 43, 425 Ekiedmann cosmologicalmodels, 286, 306, 311. 402 see also Robertson-Walker spacetimes Fundamental group ( T I ) , 399,419 Future Cauchy development ( D ' ) , 287 causal ( J + ) , 5 chronological ( I + ) ,5 directed vector field, 5 horismos (E'), 175-177,287,288293, 317, 322, 468 horizon (H'), 287 ~mprisoned, 221 one-connected, 351,352,353,400, 414. 415 set, 55 trapped set, 287. 288, 465, 468 unit observer bundle (T-lM), 298304, 523
given a pseudo-orthonormal sis, 37 related to Ricci curvature, 39 related to sectional curvature nonnull, 34 Geodesic f i n e parameter, 17, 202 closed, 149, 295 complete, Lorentzian, 91, 20, complete, Riemamm, 4 comwtedness, 400,417,418, equations of, 17, I8 incomplete, 108. 202, 309 instability of completeness, 2 instability of incompleteness, line, 272, 519 line, nonspacelike, 273, 28.3: 2
29.1 -- -
line. null. 286 --line, timelike, 273, 290, 519 loop, 295. 312 maximal. 66, 146, 166-171. 2 275, 278, 296, 298, 356 minimal, 3, 4, 272 pregeodesic, 86, 295, 307-309 ray, 271, 279, 281,289 Geometric realization for quotient dle, 368, 369, 372, 373 Geroch splitting theorem, 65, 102 Global conformal transformations, 28 time function, 64, 6 6 5 Globally hyperbolic, 11, 65 embedding in high-dimensions kowski space-time. 354 of order q, 570 Gradient, (grad f ) , 24,307, 363,4
1
Gallss' Lemma, 338, 379 General position, 40 Generalized affine parameter, 208 Generic condition, 33-44, 309-3 11, 433 given an orthonormal basis, 33
N
Hadamard-Cartan theorems, 399411-423 Hausdorff closed limit, 74 distance, 258
INDEX
lower limit (Lirn i d {A,)). 74 upper limit (Lim sup (A,)), 74 Hessian (Hf), 24 see also Laplacian see also d'Alembertian Homogeneous completeness of (pos. def. case). 185 implied by isotropic, 186, 187 spatially, 155-188,261 two point. 185-187 Nomothetic, 97, 99, 151, 155, 188 Womotopy, 149, 400 groups, 399. 419 type, 325,326 see also fundamental group Wopf-Rinow Theorem, 4, 75, 197, 205, 271, 276, 399, 417 see also Cauchy complete Horismos ( E + , E-1, 175-177, 287, 288-293, 317, 322, 468 Horizon (H', H-), 257 Noroball, 540, 541 see also Busemann function Norosphere, 538, 541 Hypersurface aehronal, 57 spacelike, 64, 539
Ideal boundaries, 198,214-218,232238 Imprison&, 221,264 Incomplete geodesic, 108, 202, 309 nonspac&ke, 425 null, 108 space-time, 108 timelike, 108 Inequality reverse Cauchy-Sehwarz, 575 reverse triangle, 10,140,274,279 Indecomposiblefuture (past) set, 215218
Index, 323-398 comparison theorem, Lorentzian, 400. 406-410 ramparison theorem. Riemannian, 400. 406 extended index (Indo), 342 forms, 325, 328, 375, 377, 406, 458 geodesic, 324 timelike (Ind), 342,407-408 to a spacelike hypersurface, 458 Inextendible space-time, 219, 220 Infinity diverge to, 271. 272, 283, 288 future timelike (if), 178 spacelike (io), 178 past timelike (i-), 178 Inner continuo^^, 59 Inner products metric (g and < , >), 21 on T,,(T,(M)) (< . >>). 338 on vectors and co-vectors ( w ( X f ) , 20 signature ( ( 8 ,r ) ) , 15, 21 Inner (metric) ball (B+,B - ) , 142. 163 Interval topology, 241 Irrotational, 120 Isometry, 97, 99, 354 local, 181 group ( I ( M ) ) .188 Isotropic, 185, 186, 261 see also two point homogeneous Isotropy group (I,(M)), 186
see also second variation see also tidal accelerations
Kernel of a (1,1) tensor field along a null geodesic, 382 Kerr space-time, 179-181 Killing field, 120, 121, 482 Koszul formnla, 109 Kruskal diagram. 182
Jacobi
classes, 372, 373-398 classes, mslxirndity of, 988

equation, 31, 41, 328 fie&, 51 , 328, 332-398 fields, maximality of, 342 tensor, 383, 426
Lagrange tensor field. 385,427,428, 432 Laplacian (A), 24, 120, 545 see also Hessian Madfold see also dlAlembertian Lorentzlan. 25 Length Riemannian (= pos. def.), 1 Lorentzian, 8, 136 seml-Riemannian, 15, 264 see also energy function tangent bundle of ( T M ) , 16 Levi-Civita connection (V), 15, 22 RIaxlmal metric compatible and torsion free, curve, 146, 296, 298 22 geodesic, 66. 166171, 356 Lie bracket ([X, Y)), 18 space-time, 198 Lie group, 190-195 Maxlmal~ty translations of, 190 of Jacob: classes. 388 see also bi-invariant metric of Jaeobi fields. 342 Light cone. 15, 25-29 Mean clirvature. 213, 544, 585 used to partial order metrics, 64 Measure zero, 355 see also null cone Metric Lightlike (= null), 24 compatible with conneetion, , Lirnit complete Lorentzian, 2/33 curve lemma, 5.72 complete %emaman, 4 curve of a sequence, 49, 12, 297 inner ball, 142. 163 in Co topology, 79, 81-83, 272. Levi-Civita connection of, 22 273, 278, 288. 297 Lorentzian. 25, 51 Hamdorff, 74 nondegenerate. 21, 92 maximizing sequence of causal curves, outer ball. 144-145 515 quotient, 370 point of a curve, 233-234 Rimannian (= pos. def.), I Line, maximal geodesic, 273-293 25 Lipschitz, 57, 75, 136 Schwarzschild. 45, 131. 132, 17 Local extension, 198. 220, 221-225 179-182 Loop space,363, 364 semi-Rlernannian, 20 21 264
Lor(M), 50, 63,64,89; 101. 23s Lorentzian arc length. 135 distance function, 8, 137 manifold, 5, 25 metric, 5 product, metric, 95, 176, 31 quotient metric ( g ) ,370 signature (-, +, . . . , +), 15 51, 400 triangle comparison theorem warped product, 49-50, 95, 133 180-189
630
INDEX
INDEX
semi-Eudidean, 181, 245 signatufe of, 21 tensor (g or g , ) , 21 Minimal geodesic segment, 4. 272 hilinkowski space-time (Ln = Ry), 25, 116, 159, 177, 173-184, 270, 286, 311. 354, 410: 480 Morse function, homotopic, 355,356, 363 Morse Index Theorem null, 365, 398 Riemannian, 324 timelike, 346, 405
geodesic completeness, 91, 202 geodesic incompletenms, 202,306. 309 geodesic ray, 289 geodesics and conformal changes,
308
line, 286, 290 Morse Index Theorem, 324, 365, 398, 405 pregeodesics, 110, 307-309 tail (NT), 493, 494497 tangent vector, 24
Natural basis, 1 6 Nconj (Po), 489-497 Nondegenerate metric tensor, 21 plane section, 29, 403 submanifold, 92 Nongeneric, 33 Noiiimprisoment, 263 Nonspacelike (= causal) curve, 54 cut locas, 311-323 geodesic line, 273, 283, 285-293 geodesic ray, 279, 281 geodesically complete, 202 geodesically incomplete, 202,425 i i d t curve, 73, 297 vector, 24 Normal coordinate neighborhood, 5354 see also convex normal neighbor-
Orientation by timelike vector field, 5, 25, 50 Orthogonal vectors, 21 Orthonormal basis, 21, 30, 404 Outer continuous, 59 Outer (metric) ball, 144
sectional curvature of, 29-32,403 spaceiike. 29 timelike. 29, 403 Plane wave solution, 479-499 definition of gravitational plane wave, 483 definition of plane fronted waves, 480 polarized, 483 sandwich wave, 483 unimodal gravitational plane wave, 497 Positive definite, 15 Pregeodesic, 17, 86, 110, 111. 295, 307-309 Pressure, 47, 180. 189 Proper variation, ,329. 389-391 Properly discoi~ti~mously. 419 Pseudoeonvex, 265, 268, 269, 270. 401, 415, 416. 418, 420, 422, 488 nonspacelike, 269 Pseudo-orthonormal bais, 36, 460
hood Null boundary point, 4 74 cone, 15, 25-29 conjugate point, 306, 395 convergence condition, 434 curve, 25 cut locus, 296-298,306309,395 index forms, 325,375,377,395
P(UO)I 481 Parallel translation, 1 7 Partial imprisonment, 264, 265, 416 order on metrics, 64 Past Cauchy development ( D - ), 287 causal ( J - ) , 5 chronological ( I - ) , 5 directed vector field, 5 set, 55 Path space from p to q, 326 timelike (C(,,q)), 146, 354-365, 400 Penrose diagram, 179, 284 Perfect fluid, 47, 189, 311 Piecewise smooth variation, 329, 389-391, 450 vector field, 327 Plane section degenerate, 29 nondegenerate: 29: 92, 403
Quasi-regular singularity, 225 Qliotient bundle (G(P)), 326, ,368 bundle index form, 377 covariant derivative. 370, 371 c~irvatme tensor, 371 expansion tensor ( 8 ), 431 metric, 370, 371-398 shear tensor ( 8 ), 431 vorticity tensor ( G ), 431 Quotient topology on Con(hf). 241
along mdl geodesics, 432 along timelike geodesics. 430 v~rt~icity free, 430, 432 Real projective space, 189 Reflect,lng, 69 Regular boundary points. 225 Reissner-Nordstrcm space-time, 15 179 Residual set, 355 Retraction. 357 Reverse triangle inequality, 10, 14t 274, 279 Riccati equation. 573. 582 Rieci clirvatlire (&c or 23, 30 45, 180 Riemann-ChristofFel tensor ( a 3 k s n ) 22 Riemannian distance function, 2-4 manifold, 25, 30 nletric (= pos. def.), 15, 24 t,wopoint homogeneous, 185-188 Robe1tso~i-Walker space-tlme, 103, 174. 185-190. 250-263, 311, 477 having closed trapped surfaces, 472 Root warping ftinction (S = 119 see also warping function Rotation group (SO(3)), 180
a3),
a),
Scalar c~~rvature ( R or T ) , 29 Schmidt &boundary ( d b ) , 197. 214 Schwarzsch~ldspace-time. 45. 131, 132, 173, 179-182 Second fundamental forms (S. S , L,)
165, 445
Railch Comparison Theorems. 400, 406. 408, 572 Ray. 271 nonsparelike geodesic, 279 null geodesic, 289, 290 Flaycha~idh~lr~ eqnatiun, 402
general (S),92 in the direction n ( 5 , ) . 93 opelator (L,), 93, 456, 461 see also closed trapped surface see abo totally geodesic
1x1
632
INDEX
INDEX
6 :
Second variation formula, 324, 329 Sectio~lal curvature ( K ( E . p ) ) , 29-32, 399. 403 bounded, 31,403 null, 5.iI timelike, 29-32, 403 Self-abjoint, 430 Semicontinuity. 140, 273, 277, 278. 290-291.299-301, 511 Semi-E~iclidean(R:), 181, 24 5 area, 29 classification of planes, 29 Semi-Riemannian metric, 15, 264 Semi-time function, 68,490 428 Shear tensor (a), quotient ( 5 ), 431 Signature degenerate, 29 Lorentzian, metric, 21, 25, 51. 400 Riemannian (pos. def.), 15, 25 semi-Eudidean. 29, 181, 245 semi-Riemannian, 21 type (ti, r), 21, 181, 245 Simply connected. 352 Singalar C'-singular point. 237 spacetime. 12,203,225-238.426 Singtilarity theorems, 468, 469, 472, 478 Smooth boundary point, 474, 472478 Spacelike botindary point, 474 curve, 25 hypersurface, 539 infinity ( t o ) , 178-179 stibmanifold, 92 Space-time, 25, 51 a-boimndary, 198, 232-238 anti-de Sitter, 183, 199, 306, 569 big bang models, 103-104 b-boundary, 214 b complete, 208
b. a. complete, 207 causal, 7. 58, 73 causal bo~mdary,215-218, 425. 472-478 causally continuous, 59, 71, 73, 158-160,479 causally simple, 65, 73, 479 chronological, 7, 58, 73 cosmological, 563 c~trvat,u~re sin~ilarity, 215 definition of, 5. 51 de Sitter, 183, 184, 286, 549, 569 58, 79, 73, 158 di~t~i~lguishing, Einstein static, 189, 286,289, 306, 307. 310, 313, 318, 323, 477 flat, 141 Riedmann cosmological models, 286 306, 311, 402 f~iture one-connected, 351. 352. 353, 400, 414, 415 geodesically complete, 91. 203 globally hyperbolic, 11, 65, 71, 73, 354 incomplete, 203, 309, 425 Kerr, 174. 179-181 locally inextendible, 198,220-238 Minkowski (Ln = R;), 25, 116. 159, 177, 173-184, 270, 286. 311, 354, 410. 480 nonspacelike geodesirally complete, 203 null geodesically complete, 253 plane wave solution, 479-499 qi~nsi-reglllarsingularity, 225 refiecting, 69 Reissner-Nordstrom, 139, 179 Ricci flat, 45, 124, 180 Robertson-Walker, 103, 174, 185190, 250-263 311. 477 Schwarzxhild, 45, 131, 132, 173, 179-182 singular, 203, 425, 468 stably catlsd, 63, 73, 89, 242 static, 121, 180
strongiy causal, 7, 59, 73 timeiike geodesically complete, 2&? totally vlcious, 68. 137, 168 Sphere Theorem, topological. 502 Sph~tmg theorems Cheeger-Gromoll. 503 Geroch, 49, 65, 102 Lorentzian. 506, 550, 562
causality, 63. 89, 242 conformally, 242 in the C' t?opology.239, 242 properties in Lor(M). 239, 247 Static. 121, 180 Strong callsalits 7, 59 St,rong curvature singularity, 225 Strong energy condit~on, 434 In the first edztzon of thzs book, we used strong energy condition to mean what zs now termed the timelike convergerm condition. Submanifold indticed connection (VO),92 nondegenerate, 92 second ftindamental form. 92-94 spacelike, 92 timelike. 92. 164 tottally geodesic, 99 94. 98, 165 summation con.i.entio11. 23 Synge world filnct~on. 491
Tangent b~lndle( T M ) . 16 Tangent space (T,M), 16. 25. 336
null (= lightlike). 24 spacelike, 24
cnrvatiire (R(.Y.Y ) Z ) ,19 energy-momentum (T or T,,),4 48 expansion ( 8 ) . 428. 585 expansion, quotient ( i ? ), 4 31 Jacobi. 383. 426 Lagrange. 385. 427, 428. 432 metric (g or g,J). 21 23, 30, 180 Rcci (Ric or Bemann-Christoffel (R,J,,), 2 ; scalar ctirvatiire (R or T ) , 23, 21 shear (c) 428 shear. qt~ot~erit ( 8 ), 431 torsion ( T ( X , Y ) or T , J k ) . 19 vortit~ty( w ) , 428 vorticity, quotient ( Z j ), 431 B)). 385 Wrorlskian ( W ( A . Term~nslindecomposible futtire set (TIF), 215-218 past set (TIP), 215-218 Theoreins. selected Arzela's Theorem, 75, 76 Birkhoff's Theorem, 132 Bonnet-Myers Theorem, 339-40( 405 comparison theorems. 400, 408 Geroch Sphtt~ngTheorem, 65, 102 Hadamard-Cartan 'Theorems. 39' 401, 411-423 Hopf-Rinow Theorem, 4.75.197 205. 271 276, 399, 417 Maximal Diameter Theorem. 570 blorse Index Theorems. 324. 346, 365, 398, 405 Ranch Comparison Theorems, 40( 406, 408.572 singi~laritytheorems, 468, 469, 472, 478 splitting theorems 49. 506, 550, 562 Timelike Index Comparison Theorem. 406 Topolog~cal Sphere Theorem, 502
a?),
634
INDEX
INDEX
Toponogov's Dlameter Theorem, 406 Toponogov Triangle Comparison Theorem, 567 Tkiangle Comparison Thecrems, 567, 570 Tidal acceleration, 31-32. 42 ~inboilndedness of, 32, 42-44 see also Jacobi fields TIF's and TIP'S, 215-218 Time function, 64, 70 generalized time function, 70 oriented. 5, 25. 50, 52 q11asl-timefi~nction, 490, 577 semi-time function, 68, 490 Tlrnelike convergence condition, 46. 112 see comment afier strong energy conditton Timelike boundary point, 4 74 Caiichy complete, 211 chain, 356, 357 conjugate point, 328. 413 convergence condition. 46, 112 curve, 25 curve space jiWb,,)). 357 cut l o c ~ ~298-305 s, diameter, 399, 401, 402 geodesic completeness. 209 geodesic incompleteness, 203 geodesic line, 273, 290 index comparison theorem, 400, 4 08 index form, 325. 328, 407-408 (,i z-), 178 infinity z Morse Index Theorem, 324, 346. 405 , 354-365 path space ( C ( , , ) ) 146, sectional curvature ( K ( E , p ) )29, 32, 403 spares, 209 siibma~fold, 92, 164
two plane, 29. 403
vector field, 50 Topology Alexandroff, 7, 8, 59-60 Co on cilrves, 79, 81-63. 272, 273, 278, 288. 297 C' on Con( M), 239 C ' on Eor(M), 239, 247 interval on Con(A4), 241 quotient on Con(M), 241 Toponogov Triangle Comparison Theorem, 567 Torston tensor ( T ( X , Y) or T , J k ) , 19 Totally geodesic, 93, 94, 98. 165 viciotis. 68, 137. 165 ?l-apped set, 287, 465, 468 s~irface, closed, 463 Triangle cornparison theorems, 567, 570 Two point homogeneo~is,185-155
nilli, 22 , 24 spacelike. 24 timellke. 24 ~ m i t 21 , Volnme form, 67 Vorticity tensor (w). 428 quotient (IJ ). 431
u
Unit 298-304 observer biindle (T-Ihf), vector. 21 Upper slipport fiinction, 520. 530
Warped producr (M x f H ) . 95, 94133. 180 163. 250-263 fibers. 119 horizontal vectors, 119 leaves. 119 local warped products, 117 133 vert~cal vectors, 119 Tarping fl~nctlon, 112. 189 see also root warptng fiinct~on Weak energy condition, 434 Wheeler universes, 399, 401 Wlder light cones. 64 385 !Vroiiskidn (IV'(A. B)),
Vactium space-times. 482 see also Ricri flat and empty Variation, 329 admissible. 376, 388-391 canonical. 331, 388 first, 360, 450 plecewise srnooth. 329, 389-391 proper. 329, 389-391 second. 324 vector field. 323. 331, 389 Vector field along a cirrve. 17 Killing, 120. 121 nonsparehke, 24

X Global Lorentzian Geometry Beem

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

X Global Lorentzian Geometry Beem

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

bout the first edition

...a definitive source-book. "

A Series o f Monographs and Textbooks

GLOBAL LORENTZ GEOMETRY

GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

MONOGRAPHS AND TEXTBOOKS IN PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

Zuhair Nashed University of Delaware Newark, Delaware

Mark Teply University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

J. Cronin, Differential Equations (1980)

GLOBAL LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

Department of Mathematics Truman State University Kirksville, Missouri

Marcel Dekker, Inc.

New YorkeBasel Hong Kong

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PREFACE T O THE SECOND EDITION

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDlTION

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

iii vii xiii

2. Connections and Curvature 2.1 Connections

3.1 Lorentzian Manifolds and Convex Normal Neighborhoods . . . . . . 50

.......................................... 94 3.7 Semi-Riemannian Local Warped Product Splittings . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4.1 Basic Concepts and Definitions 4.2 4.3 4.4

.............................. Space-times ............................

5.5 Bi-Invariant Lorentzian Metrics on Lie Groups

6.1 Existence of Maximal Geodesic Segments

Brief Description of Figure

C0 convergence but not limit curve convergence

but lim L (7,) = 0 < L ( y )

d ( p , q ) = cc in Reissner-Nordstrijm space-time pn p, but d(p, q ) < lim inf d ( ~ n q ,) inner ball B + ( p ,E )

y = Ln with null, spacelike, timelike infinity conformal W

Brief Description of Figure

INTRODUCTION: RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

but no accumulation point for {x,)

The Riemannian distance do(p, q) between p and q is then defined to be

But no complete treatment of this

10, co) is continuous, and the family of metric balls

for all p E N and

> 0 forms a basis for the given manifold topology. >0

go(X(p),Y(p)) is required to be a smooth function. The Riemannian

R then defines the Riemannian distance function

as follows. Let Q , , denote the set of piecewise smooth curves in N from p

A distance realizing geodesic segment as in (3) is called a minimal geodesic

RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN GEOMETRY

distance implies that Lo(y) 2 do(p, q) for all y E R,,,.

More generally, one

< m) has compact closure.

Furthermore, if any one of (1) through (4) holds, then

(5) Minimal geodesic connectibility: Given any p, q E N , there exists a

A Riemannian manifold (N,go) is said to be complete provided any one (and

< < q if there is a future directed piecewise smooth timelike

curve in M from p to q, and p

= q or if there is a future directed

A remaining question for noncompact but paracompact manifolds is the

The sets I-(p) and

RIEMANNIAN THEMES IN LORENTZIAN G E O M E T R Y

This is equivalent to requiring that (M, g) contain

FIGURE 1.1. The chronological (respectively, causal) future of a

Theorem. The following are equivalent: