--- abstract: | We linearize the Einstein-scalar field equations, expressed relative to constant mean curvature (CMC)-transported spatial coordinates gauge, around members of the well-known family of Kasner solutions on $(0,\infty) \times \mathbb{T}^3.$ The Kasner solutions model a spatially uniform scalar field evolving in a (generally) spatially anisotropic spacetime that expands towards the future and that has a "Big Bang" singularity at $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace.$ We place initial data for the linearized system along $\lbrace t = 1 \rbrace \simeq \mathbb{T}^3$ and study the linear solution's behavior in the collapsing direction $t \downarrow 0.$ Our main result is the identification of a new form of *approximate $L^2$ monotonicity* for the linear solutions that holds whenever the background Kasner solution is sufficiently close to the spatially isotropic Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solution. Using the approximate monotonicity, we derive sharp information about the asymptotic behavior of the linear solution as $t \downarrow 0.$ In particular, we show that some of its time-rescaled components converge to regular functions defined along $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace.$ In addition, we motivate the preferred direction of the approximate monotonicity by showing that the CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge can be realized as a limiting version of a family of parabolic gauges for the lapse variable. An approximate $L^2$ monotonicity inequality also holds in the parabolic gauges, but the corresponding parabolic PDEs are locally well-posed only in the collapsing direction. In the companion article @iRjS2014b, we use the strength of our linear stability results to prove a stable singularity formation result for the nonlinear equations. Specifically, we show that the FLRW solution is globally stable in the collapsing direction $t \downarrow 0$ under small perturbations of its data at $\lbrace t = 1 \rbrace.$ **Keywords**: constant mean curvature, parabolic gauge, spatial harmonic coordinates, stable blow-up, transported spatial coordinates **Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)** Primary: 35A01; Secondary: 35Q76, 83C05, 83C75, 83F05 author: - 'Igor Rodnianski$^{*}$' - 'Jared Speck$^{**}$' bibliography: - 'JBib.bib' title: 'A Regime of Linear Stability for the Einstein-Scalar Field System with Applications to Nonlinear Big Bang Formation' --- [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4] Introduction {#S:INTRO} ============ In this article, we prove approximate monotonicity and stability results for solutions to linearized versions of the Einstein-scalar field system in $1 + 3$ dimensions. Relative to an arbitrary coordinate system, the nonlinear equations are (for $\mu,\nu = 0,1,2,3$) $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{Ric}}_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{R}}{\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \nu} & = {\mathbf{T}}_{\mu \nu}, \label{E:EINSTEINSF} \\ ({\mathbf{g}}^{-1})^{\alpha \beta} {\mathbf{D}}_{\alpha} {\mathbf{D}}_{\beta} \phi & = 0, \label{E:WAVEMODEL}\end{aligned}$$ where the spacetime metric ${\mathbf{g}}$ is Lorentzian and of signature $(-,+,+,+),$ ${\mathbf{Ric}}$ denotes the Ricci tensor of ${\mathbf{g}},$ ${\mathbf{R}}$ denotes the scalar curvature of ${\mathbf{g}},$ ${\mathbf{D}}$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of ${\mathbf{g}},$ and ${\mathbf{T}}$ denotes the energy-momentum tensor of the scalar-field $\phi:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:EMTSCALARFIELD} {\mathbf{T}}_{\mu \nu} = {\mathbf{D}}_{\mu}\phi {\mathbf{D}}_{\nu} \phi - \frac{1}{2} {\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \nu} ({\mathbf{g}}^{-1})^{\alpha \beta} {\mathbf{D}}_{\alpha} \phi {\mathbf{D}}_{\beta} \phi.\end{aligned}$$ In addition to deriving stability results for solutions to linearized versions of -, we also outline (see Sect. \[S:NONLINEARPROBLEM\]) how to use the linear estimates to prove a nonlinear stable singularity formation result; we provide the detailed nonlinear analysis in the companion article @iRjS2014b. More precisely, as we describe below, in @iRjS2014b, we show the nonlinear stability the well-known Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solution in a neighborhood of its Big Bang singularity. The approximate monotonicity driving the results of @iRjS2014b is interesting in itself and moreover, certain aspects of it survive in regimes other than the near-FLRW one; see Sect. \[SS:LINEARIZEDENERGYIDS\]. It is for this reason that we have chosen to isolate the main ideas behind it by studying the linearized equations of the present article. Specifically, in suitable gauges that we describe below, we linearize equations - around members of the well-known Kasner family, which are cosmological solutions[^5] of the nonlinear equations. Exceptional cases aside, the Kasner solutions have a Big-Bang singularity along the past boundary $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace$ where their Kretschmann scalar[^6] blows up like[^7] $t^{-4}.$ For convenience, we restrict our attention to the case in which the Kasner solutions have spacelike Cauchy hypersurfaces diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{T}^3.$ We provide the explicit form of the Kasner solutions in Sect. \[SS:CMCANDKASNER\]. Although some aspects of the approximate monotonicity are present for a large class of Kasner backgrounds, it becomes particularly strong when they are near the spatially isotropic FLRW solution (see ). Under a near-FLRW Kasner background assumption, we consider "initial" data for the linearized equations given along $\lbrace t = 1 \rbrace$ and study the behavior of the linear solutions in the past direction $t \downarrow 0.$ In addition to quantifying the approximate monotonicity (see Theorem \[T:L2MONTONICITY\]), we also extract detailed information about the asymptotics of the linearized solution including showing that certain components converge, *not to $0,$ but rather to a function of the spatial variable $x$* (see Theorem \[T:CONVERGENCE\] and Sect. \[SS:ENDSTATESCOMMENTS\]). Our analysis also shows that the linearized solution exhibits *velocity term dominated* (VTD) behavior at the lower derivative levels near the background singularity $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace.$ In general relativity, the terminology "VTD behavior" means that the spatial derivative terms in the equations become negligible relative to the time derivative terms near $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace.$ This terminology originated in the work @dEeLrS1972. The VTD nature of our linearized solutions is not just a curiosity; it plays a key role in controlling error terms in the nonlinear problem, as we describe in Sect. \[S:NONLINEARPROBLEM\]. It is the combined strength of the estimates provided by Theorems \[T:L2MONTONICITY\] and \[T:CONVERGENCE\] that allows us to prove that the FLRW solution is nonlinearly stable in the collapsing direction (towards the Big Bang). More precisely, in the companion article @iRjS2014b, we prove that if we perturb[^8] (without symmetry assumptions) the FLRW "data" at $\lbrace t = 1 \rbrace,$ then we can solve the Einstein-scalar field equations in the past direction all the way down to $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace,$ where a Big Bang singularity occurs and the Kretschmann scalar blows up like $t^{-4}.$ Actually, we prove the result for a more complicated kind of matter known as the *stiff fluid*,[^9] which reduces to the scalar field model when the vorticity vanishes. As we explain below, the proof in @iRjS2014b is based on a formulation of the equations relative to constant mean curvature (CMC from now on)-transported spatial coordinates. For this reason, in the present article, we use the same coordinates in formulating the nonlinear equations. In particular, we study linearized versions of precisely this formulation of the nonlinear equations. Consistent with our proof of nonlinear stable blow-up in @iRjS2014b, we could also extend our linear stability results to apply when the background solutions are near-FLRW as measured by a Sobolev norm (and hence are spatially dependent). We do not provide such an extension here because it would significantly lengthen the paper without contributing substantially to the main ideas. A related feature of the result @iRjS2014b is that we are able derive the main aspects of stable singularity formation without knowing the precise end state; it suffices to control the difference between the perturbed solution and the FLRW solution, and moreover, our proof would go through if we instead controlled the difference between the perturbed solution and any near-FLRW Kasner solution. Previous work has provided related results showing the stability of singular solutions to the Einstein equations in various contexts, but only under under symmetry assumptions that reduce the analysis to $1+1$ dimensional PDEs[^10] [@pCjIvM1990; @jIvM1990; @hR2009b; @hR2010]. There also is a body of work that provides the construction of (but not the stability of) singularity-containing solutions to select nonlinear Einstein-matter systems, but only under the assumption of symmetry [@sKjI1999; @gR1996; @sKaR1998; @kA2000a; @yCBjIvM2004; @fS2002; @fBpL2010c] and/or spatial analyticity [@lAaR2001; @tDmHrAmW2002]. A related approach to studying Big Bang singularities involves devising a formulation of Einstein's equations that allows one to solve a Cauchy problem with initial data given on the singular hypersurface $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace$ itself;[^11] see, for example, [@kApT1999a; @cCpN1998; @rN1993a; @rN1993b; @pT1990; @pT1991; @pT2002]. In some cases, these works included a proof that the singular solutions exhibit VTD behavior. Readers may consult @aR2000b for a precise comparison of these results as well as an extension of them to prove the existence of singular solutions to the Einstein-vacuum equations with Gowdy symmetry.[^12] In contrast to the regular Cauchy problem studied here and in the companion article @iRjS2014b, the above works are based on prescribing the asymptotics as $t \downarrow 0$ and then constructing a solution that achieves these asymptotics by solving a Fuchsian PDE system that is singular at $\lbrace t = 0 \rbrace.$ The Fuchsian PDEs treated in these works are typically of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:FUCHSIAN} t \partial_t u + A(x)u = F(t,x,u,\partial_x u),\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is the array of unknowns, $A$ is a matrix, and $F$ is an array, and $A$ and $F$ must verify some technical assumptions. We anticipate that in $3$ spatial dimensions, our linear stability results are highly sensitive to changes in the matter model. As evidence, we consider fluids verifying the sub-stiff equation of state $p = c_s^2 \rho$ with the constant $c_s$ verifying $0 < c_s < 1.$ For the Euler-Einstein equations with such fluids, Ringström showed @hR2001 that spatially homogeneous solutions with Bianchi IX symmetry[^13] generically (that is, for non-Taub solutions) have limit points in the approach towards the singularity that must be either *vacuum* Bianchi type I (that is, vacuum Kasner), vacuum Bianchi type $\mbox{VII}_0$, or vacuum Bianchi type II. In particular, Ringström's work showed that a sub-stiff fluid has a negligible effect on Bianchi IX solutions near the singularity. Furthermore, he showed that almost all such solutions are *oscillatory* in the sense that there are at least three distinct limit points, *which stands in stark contrast to the approximately monotonic behavior of our linearized solutions and the nonlinear solutions in @iRjS2014b.* Belinskii and Khalatnikov @vBiK1972 were the first to suggest the existence of *non-spatially homogeneous* approximately monotonic singular solutions to the Einstein-scalar field system. In a later article @jB1978, Barrow argued that fluids verifying the equation of state $p = c_s^2 \rho$ should induce a similar effect if and only if $c_s = 1;$ he referred to the mollifying effect of a stiff fluid as *quiescent cosmology*. The first rigorous construction of such solutions without symmetry was provided by the aforementioned work of Andersson and Rendall @lAaR2001. They constructed a family of spatially analytic solutions to the Einstein-scalar field and Einstein-stiff fluid systems that have Big Bang singularities and that feature approximately monotonic behavior. Their proof was based on a two-step process. In the first step, they constructed a family of spatially analytic solutions to the *velocity dominated* equations, which were obtained by throwing away the spatial derivative terms from the Einstein-matter equations.[^14] In the second step, they constructed spatially analytic solutions to the Einstein-matter equations by writing the true solution as the velocity dominated solution plus error terms that were shown, by Fuchsian analysis, to go to $0$ as $t \downarrow 0.$ The results of @lAaR2001 were extended to higher dimensions and other matter models in @tDmHrAmW2002. The family of solutions constructed in this fashion is large in the sense that its number of degrees of freedom coincides with the number of free functions in the Einstein initial data. However, since the results are based on prescribing the asymptotics near the Big Bang within the class of spatially analytic solutions, they are not true stable singularity formation results. In particular, the map from the set of spatially analytic asymptotic states of @lAaR2001 to the set of Cauchy data (say at $t=1$) might be highly degenerate in the sense that it does not extend to more physically relevant function spaces such as Sobolev spaces. The primary ingredient needed to upgrade the work of Andersson and Rendall to a true stable singularity formation result corresponding to solving a regular Cauchy problem is a suitable statement of linearized stability, strong enough to control the nonlinear terms. This is what our linearized stability theorems provide in the near-FLRW case. Initial value problem formulation of the Einstein equations and a rough statement of the main results {#SS:ROUGHSTATEMENT} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fundamental result @CB1952 of Choquet-Bruhat showed that the (nonlinear) Einstein-scalar field system - has an initial value problem formulation in which sufficiently regular data give rise to a unique local solution. We now state some basic facts about the initial value problem. The data (for the nonlinear equations) consist of the manifold $\mathbb{T}^3$ equipped with the fields $({{^{0} \mkern-2mu g_{i j}}},{{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{i j}}},{{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}},{{^{0} \mkern-2mu \psi}}).$ Here, ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu g_{i j}}}$ is a Riemannian metric, ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{i j}}}$ is a symmetric two-tensor , and ${{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}}$ and ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu \psi}}$ are two functions. A solution launched by the data consists of a four-dimensional time-orientable spacetime[^15] $(\mathbf{M}, {\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \nu}),$ a scalar field $\phi$ on $\mathbf{M},$ and an embedding $\mathbb{T}^3 \overset{\iota}{\hookrightarrow}\mathbf{M}$ such that $\iota(\mathbb{T}^3)$ is a Cauchy hypersurface in $(\mathbf{M},{\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \nu}).$ The spacetime fields must verify the equations - and be such that $\iota^* {\mathbf{g}}= {{^{0} \mkern-2mu g}},$ $\iota^* {\mathbf{k}}= {{^{0} \mkern-2mu k}},$ $\iota^* \phi = {{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}},$ $\iota^* {\hat{\mathbf{N}}}\phi = {{^{0} \mkern-2mu \psi}},$ where ${\mathbf{k}}$ is the second fundamental form of $\iota(\mathbb{T}^3),$ ${\hat{\mathbf{N}}}\phi$ is derivative of $\phi$ in the direction of the future-directed normal ${\hat{\mathbf{N}}}$ to $\iota(\mathbb{T}^3),$ and $\iota^*$ denotes pullback by $\iota.$ Throughout the article, we will often suppress the embedding and identify $\mathbb{T}^3$ with $\iota(\mathbb{T}^3).$ It is well-known (see also Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\]) that the data are constrained by the *Gauss* and *Codazzi* equations, which take the following form for the Einstein-scalar field system: $$\begin{aligned} {{^{0} \mkern-3mu R}}- {{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{\ b}^{a}}} {{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{\ a}^{b}}} + ({{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{\ a}^{a}}})^2 & = 2 {\mathbf{T}}({\hat{\mathbf{N}}},{\hat{\mathbf{N}}})|_{\mathbb{T}^3} = {{^{0} \mkern-2mu \psi^2}}+ \nabla^a {{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}}\nabla_a {{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}}, \label{E:GAUSSINTRO} \\ \nabla_a {{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{\ j}^{a}}} - {{^{0} \mkern-1.5mu \nabla_{\mkern-2muj}}} {{^{0} \mkern-2mu k_{\ a}^{a}}} & = - {\mathbf{T}}({\hat{\mathbf{N}}},\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j})|_{\mathbb{T}^3} = - {{^{0} \mkern-2mu \psi}}\nabla_j {{^{0} \mkern-3mu \phi}}. \label{E:CODAZZIINTRO}\end{aligned}$$ Above, ${\mathbf{T}}({\hat{\mathbf{N}}},{\hat{\mathbf{N}}}) : = {\mathbf{T}}_{\alpha \beta} {\hat{\mathbf{N}}}^{\alpha} {\hat{\mathbf{N}}}^{\beta},$ $\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu g}},$ ${{^{0} \mkern-3mu R}}$ denotes the scalar curvature of ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu g}},$ and indices are lowered and raised with ${{^{0} \mkern-2mu g}}$ and its inverse. Equations - are sometimes referred to as the *Hamiltonian* and *momentum* constraints. As is well known, to obtain a hyperbolic formulation, or more generally, elliptic-hyperbolic or parabolic-hyperbolic formulation, of equations -, one must impose gauge choices. We find that there are two gauges that allow us to detect the aforementioned monotonicity, which plays a central role in our analysis. The first is the aforementioned CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge, which we recall in detail in Sect. \[S:CMCFORMULATIONOFEINSTEIN\]. The second is a one-parameter family of gauges that is in many ways like the CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge, except that the elliptic CMC lapse equation is replaced with a parabolic evolution equation for the lapse variable that is well-posed in the past direction; see Sect. \[S:PARABOLICMONOTONICITY\] for the details. Both of these gauges involve an infinite speed of propagation,[^16] which is essential for synchronizing the singularity in the nonlinear problem. To the best of our knowledge, the earliest instance of using a parabolic gauge in general relativity is found in @jBgDeS1996, where the authors suggested that parabolic gauges might be useful for studying the long-time behavior of solutions. Readers may also consult @cGjMG2006 for a discussion of local well-posedness for the Einstein equations under various gauge conditions involving a parabolic equation for the lapse. We now summarize our main results. We provide the detailed statements in Theorems \[T:L2MONTONICITY\] and \[T:CONVERGENCE\]. <span>.25in</span><span>.25in</span> **Main result 1: Approximate $L^2$ monotonicity for the linearized equations.** Consider a solution to the linearized Einstein-scalar field equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge with data given on $\Sigma_1 := \lbrace 1 \rbrace \times \mathbb{T}^3.$ Specifically, the equations are linearized around a Kasner solution . There exists an energy $\mathscr{E}_{(Total)}$ that controls $t-$weighted $L^2$ norms of the linearized solution variables and that verifies the following estimate for $t \in (0,1]$ whenever ${\upkappa}\geq 0$ is sufficiently small: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SUMMARYENERGYMON} \mathscr{E}_{(Total)}^2(t) & \leq C \mathscr{E}_{(Total)}^2(1) + c {\upkappa}\int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \mathscr{E}_{(Total)}^2(s) \, ds - \mbox{\upshape Coercive potential terms}.\end{aligned}$$ Above, $C$ and $c$ are positive constants, and ${\upkappa}$ is the size of the trace-free part of the second fundamental form of $\Sigma_1$ (relative to the Kasner solution). Furthermore, the "$\mbox{\upshape Coercive potential terms}$" on the right-hand side of are $t-$weighted quadratic spacetime integrals that are *positive definite* in the "potential" components (that is, components not involving time derivatives) of the linearized solution. In addition, we have the following estimate for $t \in (0,1]:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:INTROENERGYBOUND} \mathscr{E}_{(Total)}^2(t) & \leq C \mathscr{E}_{(Total)}^2(1) t^{- c {\upkappa}}.\end{aligned}$$ **Main result 2: Improved behavior for the lower-order derivatives and convergence.** Under the above smallness assumption on ${\upkappa},$ whenever the data for the linearized equations have higher Sobolev regularity, the below-top-order derivatives of the linearized solution enjoy *less-singular-in $t$ behavior* as $t \downarrow 0$ compared to the behavior allowed by . Furthermore, for sufficiently regular data, certain time-rescaled components of the linearized solution have a regular, finite, spatially dependent limit as $t \downarrow 0.$ Some of these convergent components do not generally decay to $0.$ Similar results hold in the parabolic lapse gauge mentioned above; see Theorem \[T:PARABOLICL2MONTONICITY\] and Remark \[R:CONVERGENCEINPARABOLIC\]. CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge and the Kasner family {#SS:CMCANDKASNER} --------------------------------------------------------------- As we mentioned above, the monotonicity is visible upon reformulating equations - relative to CMC-transported spatial coordinates. In this well-known gauge, the spacetime metric ${\mathbf{g}}$ is decomposed into the *lapse* $n$ and the Riemannian $3-$metric $g$ on $\Sigma_t := \lbrace (s,x) \in (0,1] \times \mathbb{T}^3 \ | \ s = t \rbrace$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:GFOURCMCTRANSPORTED} {\mathbf{g}}& = - n^2 dt^2 + g_{ab} dx^a dx^b. \end{aligned}$$ The spatial coordinates[^17] $\lbrace x^a \rbrace_{a=1,2,3}$ are called "transported" because they are constant along the integral curves of the vectorfield ${\hat{\mathbf{N}}}= n^{-1} \partial_t,$ which is the future-directed unit normal to $\Sigma_t.$ The basic variables to be solved for in the nonlinear equations are $g_{ij},$ ${k}_{ij} := - \frac{1}{2} n^{-1} \partial_t g_{ij},$ $n,$ and $\phi.$ The hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t$ have constant mean curvature $\frac{1}{3} {k}_{\ a}^a.$ Here and throughout, ${k}_{\ j}^i = g^{ia} {k}_{a j}$ denotes the (mixed) second fundamental form of the constant-time hypersurface $\Sigma_t.$ We normalize the time coordinate so that ${k}_{\ a}^a(t,x) \equiv - t^{-1}.$ See Sect. \[S:CMCFORMULATIONOFEINSTEIN\] for a more detailed discussion of this gauge. In particular, we provide the corresponding constraint and evolution equations in Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\]. The aforementioned Kasner solutions can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:KASNER} \mathring{{\mathbf{g}}} & = - dt^2 + {\mathring{g}}, \qquad {\mathring{g}}= \sum_{i=1}^3 t^{2q_i} (dx^i)^2, \qquad {\mathring{\phi}}= A \ln t, \qquad (t,x) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{T}^3,\end{aligned}$$ where the constants $q_i$ are called the *Kasner exponents* and $A \geq 0$ is a constant denoting the value of $\partial_t \phi$ at $t=1.$ These quantities are constrained by the equations $$\begin{aligned} \textsc{} \sum_{i = 1}^3 q_i & = 1, \label{E:KASNERTRACECONDITION} \\ \sum_{i=1}^3 q_i^2 & = 1 - A^2. \label{E:KASNERHAMILTONIANCONSTRAINT}\end{aligned}$$ corresponds to our normalization condition ${k}_{\ a}^a(t,x) \equiv - t^{-1},$ while is a consequence of ${k}_{\ a}^a(t,x) = - t^{-1}$ plus the Hamiltonian constraint equation . In this article, we only consider Kasner background solutions in which $$\begin{aligned} q_i > 0, \qquad (i=1,2,3).\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that it is not possible to have all three $q_i > 0$ in the absence of matter. The FLRW solution is a special case of in which all three $q_i$ are equal to $1/3:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:FLRWBACKGROUNDSOLUTION} {\mathbf{g}}_{FLRW} & = - dt^2 + g_{FLRW}, \qquad g_{FLRW} = t^{2/3} \sum_{i=1}^3 (dx^i)^2, \qquad \phi_{FLRW} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \ln t, \qquad (t,x) \in (0,\infty) \times \mathbb{T}^3.\end{aligned}$$ It is the only spatially isotropic member of the Kasner family . In our study of solutions to the linearized equations, an important role is played by the constants $q_{Max} > 0$ and ${\upkappa}\geq 0$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} q_{Max} & := \max \lbrace q_1, q_2, q_3 \rbrace, \label{E:BIGGESTKASNEREXPONENT} \\ {\upkappa}^2 & := \sum_{i=1}^3 q_i^2 - \frac{1}{3} = \sum_{i=1}^3 \left(q_i - \frac{1}{3} \right)^2 = \frac{2}{3} - A^2. \label{E:TRACEFREEPARAMETER}\end{aligned}$$ As we have mentioned, we prove the strongest version of our linearized stability results whenever ${\upkappa}$ is sufficiently small (and thus all $q_i$ are near $1/3$). The relevance of ${\upkappa}$ is: for Kasner metrics , the trace-free part of the second fundamental form ${\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i$ of $\Sigma_t$ (see ), defined by $\hat{{\mathring{k}}}_{\ j}^i := {\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i - \frac{1}{3} {\mathring{k}}_{\ a}^a {I}_{\ j}^i = {\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i + \frac{1}{3} t^{-1} {I}_{\ j}^i$ (where ${I}_{\ j}^i = \mbox{diag}(1,1,1)$ denotes the identity transformation), verifies (with $|\hat{{\mathring{k}}}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 := {\mathring{g}}_{ab} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ij} \hat{{\mathring{k}}}_{\ i}^a \hat{{\mathring{k}}}_{\ j}^b$) $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:KASNERTRACEFREEPARTOFSECONDFUNDAMENTALFORMSIZE} |\hat{{\mathring{k}}}|_{{\mathring{g}}} = {\upkappa}t^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the parameter ${\upkappa}$ drives the possible blow-up rate our $L^2-$based energies for linearized solutions near $t = 0;$ see and Theorem \[T:L2MONTONICITY\]. Monotonicity in another context ------------------------------- Fisher and Moncrief discovered a form of monotonicity that holds in certain contexts in solutions to the Einstein-vacuum equations. Their monotonicity is rather different than that of the present article. As we describe below, Fisher and Moncrief's monotonic quantity turned out to be useful for proving global stability results in the expanding direction for a class of solutions. Specifically, they found a reduced Hamiltonian description of the Einstein-vacuum flow [@aFvM1994; @aFvM2000a; @aFvM2000b; @aFvM2001; @aFvM1997; @aFvM2002] which applied to a family of spacetimes containing CMC hypersurfaces (see also the result @lAvMaT1997 of Andersson-Moncrief-Tromba in two spatial dimensions). Moreover, as in the present article, their time function had level sets $\Sigma_t$ that are CMC hypersurfaces. Their Hamiltonian was the *volume* functional of the $\Sigma_t,$ and they showed that it is monotonic along the flow of their reduced equations. In @lAvM2011, Andersson and Moncrief used this monotonicity to prove a future-global existence theorem (in the expanding direction) for perturbations of spatially compact versions of FLRW-like vacuum spacetimes in $1 + m$ dimensions for $m \geq 3.$ Readers may also consult @aFvM2002 for the linearized stability analysis and [@lAvM2004; @mR2009] for the case $m=3.$ The background solutions were of the form $-dt^2 + \frac{t^2}{m^2} \gamma,$ where the spatial metric $\gamma$ verifies the Einstein condition ${Ric}= - \frac{m-1}{m^2} \gamma,$ where ${Ric}$ is the Ricci curvature of $\gamma.$ In the case $m=3,$ the Einstein condition implies that $\gamma$ has constant negative sectional curvature. The authors also proved that a rescaled version of the perturbed solution converges to an element of the moduli space of $\gamma.$ In the case $m=3,$ Mostow's rigidity theorem implies that the moduli space is trivial and hence the rescaled solution in fact converges to the background solution. Paper outline {#SS:PAPEROUTLINE} ------------- - In Sect. \[S:NOTATION\], we introduce some notation and conventions that we use throughout the article. - In Sect. \[S:CMCFORMULATIONOFEINSTEIN\], we provide the Einstein-scalar field equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates. We also linearize the equations around the Kasner family. - In Sect. \[S:NORMSANDENERGIES\], we provide the norms and energies that we use in our analysis. - In Sect. \[E:TWOMAINCMCTHEOREMS\], we state and prove our two main theorems showing a strong version of linear stability when the Kasner backgrounds are near-FLRW. - In Sect. \[S:NONLINEARPROBLEM\], we give a brief outline of the role that the nonlinear estimates play in our proof @iRjS2014b of the nonlinear stability of the FLRW singularity. - In Sect. \[S:PARABOLICMONOTONICITY\], we introduce our family of parabolic lapse gauges and re-derive the linear stability results in these gauges. Notation and Conventions {#S:NOTATION} ======================== In this section, we summarize some notation and conventions that we use throughout the article. Indices {#SS:INDICES} ------- Greek "spacetime" indices $\alpha, \beta, \cdots$ take on the values $0,1,2,3,$ while Latin "spatial" indices $a,b,\cdots$ take on the values $1,2,3.$ Repeated indices are summed over (from $0$ to $3$ if they are Greek, and from $1$ to $3$ if they are Latin). When working with the nonlinear equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates gauge or the parabolic lapse gauges, spatial indices are lowered and raised with the Riemannian $3-$metric $g_{ij}$ and its inverse $g^{ij}.$ When working with the linearized equations, we will always explicitly raise and lower indices with the background Kasner $3-$metric ${\mathring{g}}_{ij}$ and its inverse $({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ij}.$ Spacetime tensorfields and constant-time hypersurface-tangent tensorfields -------------------------------------------------------------------------- We denote spacetime tensorfields ${\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m}$ in bold font. In the nonlinear equations, we denote the ${\mathbf{g}}-$orthogonal projection of ${\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m}$ onto the constant-time hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t$ in non-bold font: $T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m}.$ We also denote general $\Sigma_t-$tangent tensorfields in non-bold font. Coordinate systems and differential operators {#SS:COORDINATES} --------------------------------------------- We often work in a fixed standard local coordinate system $(x^1,x^2,x^3)$ on $\mathbb{T}^3.$ The vectorfields $\partial_j := \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}$ are globally well-defined even though the coordinates themselves are not. Hence, in a slight abuse of notation, we use $\lbrace \partial_1, \partial_2, \partial_3 \rbrace$ to denote the globally defined vectorfield frame. We denote the corresponding dual frame by $\lbrace dx^1, dx^2, dx^3 \rbrace.$ As we described in Sect. \[SS:CMCANDKASNER\], the spatial coordinates can be transported along the unit normal to $\Sigma_t,$ thus producing a local coordinate system $(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)$ on manifolds-with-boundary of the form $(T,1] \times \mathbb{T}^3,$ and we often write $t$ instead of $x^0.$ The corresponding vectorfield frame on $(T,1] \times \mathbb{T}^3$ is $\lbrace \partial_0, \partial_1, \partial_2, \partial_3 \rbrace,$ and the corresponding dual frame is $\lbrace dx^0, dx^1, dx^2, dx^3 \rbrace.$ Relative to this frame, the Kasner metrics $\mathring{{\mathbf{g}}}$ are of the form . The symbol $\partial_{\mu}$ denotes the frame derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}},$ and we often write $\partial_t$ instead of $\partial_0$ and $dt$ instead of $dx^0.$ Most of our equations and estimates are stated relative to the frame $\big\lbrace \partial_{\mu} \big\rbrace_{\mu = 0,1,2,3}$ and dual frame $\big\lbrace dx^{\mu} \big\rbrace_{\mu = 0,1,2,3}.$ We use the notation $\partial f$ to denote the *spatial coordinate* gradient of the function $f.$ Similarly, if ${\Theta}$ is a $\Sigma_t-$ tangent one-form, then $\partial {\Theta}$ denotes the $\Sigma_t-$tangent type $\binom{0}{2}$ tensorfield with components $\partial_i {\Theta}_j$ relative to the frame described above. If $\vec{I} = (n_1,n_2,n_3)$ is a triple of non-negative integers, then we define the *spatial* multi-index coordinate differential operator $\partial_{\vec{I}}$ by $\partial_{\vec{I}} := \partial_1^{n_1} \partial_2^{n_2} \partial_3^{n_3}.$ The notation $|\vec{I}| := n_1 + n_2 + n_3$ denotes the order of $\vec{I}.$ Throughout, ${\mathbf{D}}$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of ${\mathbf{g}}.$ We write $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SPACETIMECOV} {\mathbf{D}}_{\nu} {\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m} = \partial_{\nu} {\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m} + \sum_{r=1}^m {\mathbf{\Gamma}}_{\nu \ \alpha}^{\ \mu_r} {\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_{r-1} \alpha \mu_{r+1} \cdots \mu_m} - \sum_{r=1}^n {\mathbf{\Gamma}}_{\nu \ \nu_{r}}^{\ \alpha} {\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_{r-1} \alpha \nu_{r+1} \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m}\end{aligned}$$ to denote a component of the covariant derivative of a tensorfield ${\mathbf{T}}$ (with components ${\mathbf{T}}_{\nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mu_1 \cdots \mu_m}$) defined on $\mathbf{M}.$ The Christoffel symbols of ${\mathbf{g}},$ which we denote by ${\mathbf{\Gamma}}_{\mu \ \nu}^{\ \alpha},$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{\Gamma}}_{\mu \ \nu}^{\ \lambda} & := \frac{1}{2} ({\mathbf{g}}^{-1})^{\lambda \sigma} \left\lbrace \partial_{\mu} {\mathbf{g}}_{\sigma \nu} + \partial_{\nu} {\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \sigma} - \partial_{\sigma} {\mathbf{g}}_{\mu \nu} \right\rbrace. \label{E:FOURCHRISTOFFEL}\end{aligned}$$ We use similar notation to denote the covariant derivative of a $\Sigma_t-$tangent tensorfield $T$ (with components $T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m}$) with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ of the Riemannian metric $g.$ The Christoffel symbols of $g,$ which we denote by $\Gamma_{j \ k}^{\ i},$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:THREECHRISTOFFEL} \Gamma_{j \ k}^{\ i} := \frac{1}{2} g^{ia} \left\lbrace \partial_j g_{ak} + \partial_k g_{ja} - \partial_a g_{jk} \right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$ Square integral norms {#SS:L2NORMS} --------------------- All of our Sobolev norms are built out of the (spatial) $L^2$ norms of scalar quantities (which may be the components of a tensorfield). If $f$ is a function defined on the hypersurface $\Sigma_t,$ then we define the standard $L^2$ norm $\big\| f \big\|_{L^2}$ over $\Sigma_t$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SOBOLEVNORMDF} \left\| f \right\|_{L^2} = \left\| f \right\|_{L^2}(t) := \left(\int_{\mathbb{T}^3} \big| f(t,x^1,x^2,x^3) \big|^2 dx \right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Above, the notation $``\int_{\mathbb{T}^3} f \, dx"$ denotes the integral of $f$ over $\mathbb{T}^3$ with respect to the measure corresponding to the volume form of the *standard Euclidean metric ${E}$* on $\mathbb{T}^3,$ which has the components ${E}_{ij} = \mbox{diag}(1,1,1)$ relative to the coordinate frame described above. Constants {#SS:RUNNINGCONSTANTS} --------- We use $C$ and $c$ to denote positive numerical constants that are free to vary from line to line. If $A$ and $B$ are two quantities, then we often write $$\begin{aligned} A \lesssim B\end{aligned}$$ to mean that "there exists a constant $C > 0$ such that $A \leq C B.$" The Einstein-Scalar Field Equations in CMC-Transported Spatial Coordinates and the Linearized Equations {#S:CMCFORMULATIONOFEINSTEIN} ======================================================================================================= In this section, we provide the standard formulation of the Einstein-scalar field equations relative to CMC-transported spatial coordinates. We then linearize the equations around a Kasner solution . Preliminary discussion ---------------------- We begin by stating some basic facts concerning this formulation of the equations. The fundamental unknowns are $g,{k},n,$ and $\phi,$ where $g$ and $n$ are as in , and ${k}$ is the second fundamental form of the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t.$ More precisely, the $\Sigma_t-$tangent type $\binom{0}{2}$ tensorfield ${k}$ is defined by requiring that following relation holds for all vectorfields $X,Y$ tangent to $\Sigma_t:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SECONDFUNDDEF} {\mathbf{g}}({\mathbf{D}}_X {\hat{\mathbf{N}}}, Y) = - {k}(X,Y),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{D}}$ is the Levi-Civita connection of ${\mathbf{g}}$ and $$\begin{aligned} {\hat{\mathbf{N}}}& := n^{-1} \partial_t\end{aligned}$$ is the future-directed normal to $\Sigma_t.$ It is a standard fact that ${k}$ is symmetric: $$\begin{aligned} {k}(X,Y) = {k}(Y,X).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\nabla$ denote the Levi-Civita connection of $g.$ The action of the spacetime connection ${\mathbf{D}}$ can be decomposed into the action of $\nabla$ and ${k}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:DDECOMP} {\mathbf{D}}_X Y = \nabla_X Y - {k}(X,Y){\hat{\mathbf{N}}}.\end{aligned}$$ \[**The mixed form of ${k}$ verifies equations with a good structure**\] \[R:ALWAYSMIXED\] When working with the components of ${k},$ *we will always write it in the mixed form ${k}_{\ j}^i := g^{ia} {k}_{aj}$ with the first index upstairs and the second one downstairs.* The reason is that the nonlinear evolution and constraint equations verified by the components ${k}_{\ j}^i$ have a more favorable structure than the corresponding equations verified by ${k}_{ij}.$ The Einstein-scalar field equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the following proposition, we formulate the Einstein-scalar field equations - relative to CMC-transported spatial coordinates. \[**The Einstein-scalar field equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates**\] \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\] In CMC-transported spatial coordinates normalized by ${k}_{\ a}^a(t,x) \equiv - t^{-1},$ the Einstein-scalar field system consists of the following equations. The **Hamiltonian and momentum constraint equations** verified by $g_{ij}, {k}_{\ j}^i,$ and $\phi$ are respectively: $$\begin{aligned} R - {k}_{\ b}^a {k}_{\ a}^b + \underbrace{({k}_{\ a}^a)^2}_{t^{-2}} & = \overbrace{(n^{-1} \partial_t \phi)^2 + g^{ab} \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi}^{2 {\mathbf{T}}({\hat{\mathbf{N}}},{\hat{\mathbf{N}}})}, \label{E:HAMILTONIAN} \\ \nabla_a {k}_{\ i}^a - \underbrace{\nabla_i {k}_{\ a}^a}_0 & = \underbrace{- n^{-1} \partial_t \phi \nabla_i \phi}_{- {\mathbf{T}}({\hat{\mathbf{N}}},\partial_i)}. \label{E:MOMENTUM}\end{aligned}$$ The **evolution equations** verified by $g_{ij}$ and ${k}_{\ j}^i$ are: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t g_{ij} & = - 2 n g_{ia}{k}_{\ j}^a, \label{E:PARTIALTGCMC} \\ \partial_t {k}_{\ j}^i & = - g^{ia} \nabla_a \nabla_j n + n \Big\lbrace {Ric}_{\ j}^i + \underbrace{{k}_{\ a}^a}_{-t^{-1}} {k}_{\ j}^i \underbrace{- g^{ia} \nabla_a \phi \nabla_j \phi}_{- T_{\ j}^i + (1/2){I}_{\ j}^i {\mathbf{T}}} \Big\rbrace, \label{E:PARTIALTKCMC}\end{aligned}$$ where $R = {Ric}_{\ a}^a$ denotes the scalar curvature of $g_{ij},$ ${Ric}_{\ j}^i$ denotes the Ricci curvature of $g_{ij}$ (see ), ${I}_{\ j}^i = \mbox{diag}(1,1,1)$ denotes the identity transformation, and ${\mathbf{T}}:= ({\mathbf{g}}^{-1})^{\alpha \beta} {\mathbf{T}}_{\alpha \beta}$ denotes the trace of the energy-momentum tensor . The **volume form factor** $\sqrt{\mbox{\upshape det} g}$ verifies the auxiliary equation[^18] $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:VOLUMEFORMEVOLUTIONEQUATION} \partial_t \ln \left(t^{-1} \sqrt{\mbox{\upshape det} g} \right) & = \frac{n - 1}{t}.\end{aligned}$$ The **scalar field wave equation** is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SCALARFIELDCMC} \overbrace{- n^{-1} \partial_t(n^{-1} \partial_t \phi)}^{- {\mathbf{D}}_{{\hat{\mathbf{N}}}} {\mathbf{D}}_{{\hat{\mathbf{N}}}} \phi} + g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \phi & = \overbrace{\frac{1}{t} n^{-1} \partial_t \phi}^{- \mbox{\upshape tr} {k}{\mathbf{D}}_{{\hat{\mathbf{N}}}} \phi} - n^{-1} g^{ab} \nabla_a n \nabla_b \phi. \end{aligned}$$ The **elliptic lapse equation**[^19] is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:LAPSE} g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b (n - 1) & = (n - 1) \Big\lbrace R + \underbrace{({k}_{\ a}^a)^2}_{t^{-2}} - g^{ab} \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi \Big\rbrace \\ & \ \ + R - g^{ab}\nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi + \underbrace{({k}_{\ a}^a)^2 - \partial_t ({k}_{\ a}^a)}_{0}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ The CMC gauge condition and the constraints - are preserved by the flow of the remaining equations if they are verified by the data. In and throughout, $\partial_t {k}_{\ j}^i := \partial_t ({k}_{\ j}^i).$ \[**Proof of Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\]**\] It is well-known that equations - follow from ; see, for example, @rW1984\*<span>Ch. 10</span>, and note that our ${k}$ has the opposite sign convention of the one in @rW1984. It is also well-known that equations - follow from -; see, for example, @aS2010\*<span>Section 6.2</span> or @mT1997III\*<span>Section 10 of Chapter 18</span>. To derive , we take the trace of and use the CMC condition ${k}_{\ a}^a = - t^{-1}.$ The preservation of the gauge condition and constraints is a standard result that can be derived from a straightforward modification of the argument presented in @lAvM2003\*<span>Theorem 4.2</span>. Linearized quantities --------------------- In deriving the $L^2$ approximate monotonicity, we work with the linearized quantities defined just below in Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\]. In the definition, $g$ denotes the $3$ metric from Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\], ${\mathring{g}}$ denotes the $3$ metric corresponding to the Kasner solution , and similarly for the other quantities. \[**Linearly small quantities**\] \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\] We define (for $a,b,i,j = 1,2,3$ and $\alpha = 0,1,2,3$) $$\begin{aligned} {h}_{ij} & := g_{ij} - {\mathring{g}}_{ij}, \\ {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ i}}} & := \frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ic} \left\lbrace \partial_a {h}_{cb} + \partial_b {h}_{ac} - \partial_c {h}_{ab} \right\rbrace, \\ {{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu R}}& := - \frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_e \partial_f {h}_{ab} + ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_a {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{e \ f}^{\ a}}}, \label{E:SCALARCURVATURERENORMALIZED} \\ {{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu Ric_{\ j}^{i}}} & := - \frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ia} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_e \partial_f {h}_{ja} + \frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_j {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{e \ f}^{\ i}}} + \frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ia} {\mathring{g}}_{jb} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_a {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{e \ f}^{\ b}}}, \label{E:RICRENORMALIZED} \\ {K}_{\ j}^i & := t {k}_{\ j}^i - t {\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i, \label{E:SECONDFUNDRENORMALZIZED} \\ \partial_{\alpha} {\varphi}& := \partial_{\alpha} \phi - \partial_{\alpha} {\mathring{\phi}}, \\ {\upnu}& := n - 1.\end{aligned}$$ \[**Justification of Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\]**\] The main point is that for solutions to the nonlinear equations that are near the Kasner solution , all of the quantities defined in Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\] are linearly small. It is convenient to work with the following time-rescaled Kasner tensorfields, which have constant-valued components. \[**Time-rescaled mixed second fundamental form of the Kasner solution**\] We define (for $i,j=1,2,3$) $$\begin{aligned} {\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^i & := t {\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i, \label{E:BIGSecondFundKasner} \\ {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ j}^i & := t {\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i + \frac{1}{3} {I}_{\ j}^i, \label{E:TRACEFREEPARTBIGSecondFundKasner} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathring{k}}_{\ j}^i = -\frac{1}{2} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ia} \partial_t {\mathring{g}}_{aj}$ is the mixed second fundamental form of the Kasner solution and ${I}_{\ j}^i := \mbox{diag}(1,1,1)$ is the identity transformation. \[R:TRACEFREEPART\] Above and throughout, $\hat{T}$ denotes the trace-free part of the $\Sigma_t-$tangent tenor $T.$ Note that it follows from definition and the CMC condition ${k}_{\ a}^a(t,x) \equiv - t^{-1}$ that ${K}= \hat{{K}}.$ In the next proposition, we linearize the equations of Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\] around a fixed Kasner solution . That is, we derive equations for the linearly small quantities $({h},{K},{\varphi},{\upnu})$ by expanding, in the nonlinear equations of Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\], the nonlinear quantities as the corresponding Kasner quantities plus the linearly small quantities of Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\] and discarding all quadratic and higher-order terms. \[**The linearized Einstein-scalar field equations in CMC-transported spatial coordinates**\] \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\] Consider the equations of Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\] linearized around the Kasner solution . The linearized equations in the unknowns $({h},{K},{\varphi},{\upnu})$ take the following form (see Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\] for the definitions of some of the quantities). The **linearized constant mean curvature condition** is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:CMCMODEL} {K}_{\ a}^a & = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The **linearized versions of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraint equations** - are: $$\begin{aligned} t^2 {{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu R}}- 2 {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ b}^a {K}_{\ a}^b - 2 A t \partial_t {\varphi}+ 2 A^2 {\upnu}& = 0, \label{E:LINEARIZEDLHAMILTONIAN} \\ \partial_a {K}_{\ i}^a & = - A \partial_i {\varphi}- {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ a}}} {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ i}^b + {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ i}^{\ b}}} {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ b}^a, \label{E:LINEARIZEDMOMENTUM} \\ ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} \partial_a {K}_{\ b}^i & = - A ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ia} \partial_a {\varphi}- ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ c}^{\ i}}} {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ b}^c + ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} {{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ c}}} {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ c}^i, \label{E:LINEARIZEDSECONDMOMENTUM}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $0 \leq A \leq \sqrt{2/3}$ is defined by . The **linearized version of the lapse equation** can be expressed in either of the following two forms: $$\begin{aligned} 2 A t \partial_t {\varphi}+ 2 {\widehat{\mathring{K}}}_{\ b}^a {K}_{\ a}^b & = t^2 ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} \partial_a \partial_b {\upnu}+ (2 A^2 - 1) {\upnu}, \label{E:LINEARIZEDLAPSE} \\ t^2 ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} \partial_a \partial_b {\upnu}- {\upnu}& = t^2 {{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu R}}. \label{E:LINEARIZEDLAPSELOWER} \end{aligned}$$ Equation can be used to show that is equivalent to . The **linearized versions of the metric evolution equations** - are: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t {h}_{ij} & = -2 t^{-1} {\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^a {h}_{ia} - 2 t^{-1} {\mathring{g}}_{ia} {K}_{\ j}^a - 2 t^{-1} {\mathring{g}}_{ia} {\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^a {\upnu}, \label{E:LINEARIZEDGEVOLUTION} \\ \partial_t {K}_{\ j}^i & = - t ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ia} \partial_a \partial_j {\upnu}- t^{-1} {\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^i {\upnu}+ t {{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu Ric_{\ j}^{i}}}. \label{E:LINEARIZEDKEVOLUTION}\end{aligned}$$ The **linearized version of the scalar field wave equation** is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SCALARFIELDWAVEDECOMPOSED} - \partial_t (t \partial_t {\varphi}) + t ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} \partial_a \partial_b {\varphi}& = - A \partial_t {\upnu}+ A t^{-1} {\upnu}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation is the linearized version of $\nabla_a {k}_{\ i}^a = - n^{-1} \partial_t \phi \nabla_i \phi,$ while equation is the linearized version of $\nabla^a {k}_{\ a}^i = - n^{-1} \partial_t \phi \nabla_i \phi.$ We use both of these equations when deriving estimates. \[**Propagation of $L^2$ regularity**\] In deriving the equations of Prop. \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\], we have linearized a version of the Einstein-scalar field system written relative to a dynamic system of coordinates that is adapted to the nonlinear flow. It is for this reason that the energy identities for the linearized equations, which we derive below in Propositions \[P:ENERGYESTIMATELAPSEANDSCALARFIELD\] and \[P:LINEARIZEDMETRICENERGYESTIMATE\], should be viewed as providing relevant information about the $L^2$ regularity of the nonlinear solution. In particular, the proofs of these propositions can be modified in a straightforward fashion to yield a coercive energy identity for the nonlinear equations. \[Proof of Prop. \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\]\] In the equations of Prop. \[P:EINSTEINSFCMC\], we expand the $3$ metric $g$ as an order $0$ term and a linearly small term as: $g_{ij} = {\mathring{g}}_{ij} + {h}_{ij},$ and similarly for $(t {k}_{\ j}^i,\phi,n).$ We then discard all quadratic and higher-order terms, which yields the proposition. We remark that it is straightforward to see that in Def. \[D:LINEARIZEDVARIABLES\], ${{^{(h)} \mkern-2mu \Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ i}}}$ is the linearization of the Christoffel symbol $\Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ i}$ (see ) around the Kasner solution, and similarly for ${{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu Ric_{\ j}^{i}}}$ and ${{^{(h)} \mkern-4mu R}}.$ We have obtained latter two linearizations from the standard expression $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:LITTLEGRICCIONEUP} {Ric}_{\ j}^i = g^{ic} \partial_a \Gamma_{c \ j}^{\ a} - g^{ic} \partial_c \Gamma_{j \ a}^{\ a} + g^{ic} \Gamma_{a \ b}^{\ a} \Gamma_{c \ j}^{\ b} - g^{ic} \Gamma_{c \ b}^{\ a} \Gamma_{a \ j}^{\ b} \end{aligned}$$ for the Ricci curvature of $g$ in terms of its Christoffel symbols and the definition $R := {Ric}_{\ a}^a.$ Norms and Energies {#S:NORMSANDENERGIES} ================== In this short section, we define the norms and energies that play a role in our analysis. Pointwise norms --------------- We will use the following two norms. \[**Pointwise norms**\] \[D:POINTWISENORMS\] Let $T$ be a type $\binom{m}{n}$ $\Sigma_t-$tangent tensor with components $T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m}.$ Then $|T|_{Frame}$ denotes a norm of the *components* of $T:$ $$\begin{aligned} |T|_{Frame}^2 := \sum_{a_1 = 1}^3 \cdots \sum_{a_m = 1}^3 \sum_{b_1 = 1}^3 \sum_{b_n = 1}^3 \left|T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m} \right|^2. \end{aligned}$$ $|T|_{{\mathring{g}}}$ denotes the ${\mathring{g}}-$norm of $T,$ where ${\mathring{g}}$ is the background Kasner metric: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:NEWGNORM} |T|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 := {\mathring{g}}_{a_1 a_1'} \cdots {\mathring{g}}_{a_m a_m'} ({\mathring{g}}^{-1})^{b_1 b_1'} \cdots ({\mathring{g}}^{-1})^{b_n b_n'} T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m} T_{b_1' \cdots b_n'}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1' \cdots a_m'}. \end{aligned}$$ Sobolev norms ------------- We will use the following two Sobolev norms. The norms $\| \cdot \|_{H_{{\mathring{g}}}^M}$ are "more geometric" and naturally arise in our energy estimates. The norms $\| \cdot \|_{H_{Frame}^M}$ involve components relative to the transported coordinate frame; we use them when we derive improved estimates for the lower-order derivatives of the solution by analyzing their frame components. \[**Sobolev norms**\] \[D:SOBOLEVNORMS\] Let $T$ be a type $\binom{m}{n}$ $\Sigma_t-$tangent tensor with components $T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m}.$ We define $$\begin{aligned} \| T \|_{H_{Frame}^M} = \| T \|_{H_{Frame}^M}(t) & := \sum_{|\vec{I}| \leq M} \left\| \left|\partial_{\vec{I}} T (t,\cdot) \right|_{Frame} \right \|_{L^2}, \\ \| T \|_{H_{{\mathring{g}}}^M} = \| T \|_{H_{{\mathring{g}}}^M}(t) & := \sum_{|\vec{I}| \leq M} \left\| \left|\partial_{\vec{I}} T (t,\cdot) \right|_{{\mathring{g}}} \right \|_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\| f \right\|_{L^2}$ is defined in , $\vec{I}$ denotes a spatial coordinate derivative multi-index (see Sect. \[SS:COORDINATES\]), and $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:PARTIALIT} (\partial_{\vec{I}} T)_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m} := \partial_{\vec{I}} (T_{b_1 \cdots b_n}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a_1 \cdots a_m}).\end{aligned}$$ We often use the notation $\| T \|_{L^2}$ in place of $\| T \|_{H_{Frame}^0}$ and the notation $\| T \|_{L_{{\mathring{g}}}^2}$ in place of $\| T \|_{H_{{\mathring{g}}}^0}.$ \[**Solution norms**\] \[D:NORMS\] The specific norms relevant for the solutions of interest are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);M}}(t) & := \left\| {K}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^M} + \| \partial {h}\|_{H_{Frame}^M} + \left\| t \partial_t {\varphi}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^M} + t^{2/3} \| \partial {\varphi}\|_{H_{Frame}^M} + \sum_{p=0}^2 t^{(2/3)p} \left\| {\upnu}\right\|_{H^{M+p}}. \label{E:HIGHNORM} \end{aligned}$$ Energies -------- The monotonicity inequalities involve the following energies for the linearized variables. \[**Energies**\] \[D:ENERGIES\] For $t \in (0,1],$ we define $$\begin{aligned} \mathscr{E}_{(Metric)}^2[{K}, \partial {h}](t) &:= \int_{\Sigma_t} |{K}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 + \frac{1}{4} |t \partial {h}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx, \label{E:MODELMETRICENERGY} \\ \mathscr{E}_{(Scalar)}^2[\partial_t {\varphi},\partial {\varphi}](t) & := \int_{\Sigma_t} (t \partial_t {\varphi})^2 + |t \partial {\varphi}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx, \label{E:MODELSCALARFIELDENERGY} \\ \mathscr{E}_{(\partial Lapse)}^2[\partial {\upnu}](t) & := \int_{\Sigma_t} |t \partial {\upnu}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx, \label{E:LINEARIZEDPARTIALLAPSEENERGY} \\ \mathscr{E}_{(Lapse)}^2[{\upnu}](t) & := \int_{\Sigma_t} {\upnu}^2 \, dx, \label{E:LINEARIZEDLAPSEENERGY} \\ \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}}^2 [{K}, \partial {h}, \partial_t {\varphi}, \partial {\varphi},\partial {\upnu}, {\upnu}](t) & := {\theta}\mathscr{E}_{(Metric)}^2[{K}, \partial {h}](t) + \mathscr{E}_{(Scalar)}^2[\partial_t {\varphi},\partial {\varphi}](t) \label{E:TOTALENERGY} \\ & \ \ + \mathscr{E}_{(\partial Lapse)}^2[\partial {\upnu}](t) + \mathscr{E}_{(Lapse)}^2[{\upnu}](t). \notag\end{aligned}$$ Above, ${\theta}$ is a small positive constant that we choose below in order to exhibit the desired monotonicity. We will also use the following up-to-order $M$ energy: $$\begin{aligned} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta};M}^2(t) & := \sum_{|\vec{I}| \leq M} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}}^2 [\partial_{\vec{I}} {K}, \partial \partial_{\vec{I}} {h}, \partial_t \partial_{\vec{I}} {\varphi}, \partial \partial_{\vec{I}} {\varphi},\partial \partial_{\vec{I}} {\upnu}, \partial_{\vec{I}}{\upnu}](t). \label{E:TOPORDERENERGY}\end{aligned}$$ In Lemma \[L:ENERGYNORMCOMPARISON\], we compare the strength of the energies to the strength of the norms. The analysis is straightforward and amounts to tracking powers of $t.$ We first provide the following lemma, whose simple proof we omit. \[**Basic properties of the spatial part of the Kasner metric**\] \[L:KASNERMETRIC\] Let ${\upkappa}\geq 0$ be as defined in . The components of ${\mathring{g}}$ and ${\mathring{g}}^{-1}$ verify the following estimates for $(t,x) \in (0,1] \times \mathbb{T}^3,$ ($i,j=1,2,3$): $$\begin{aligned} |{\mathring{g}}_{ij}| & \leq t^{2/3 - 2 {\upkappa}}, \label{E:GKASNERBASICESTIMATE} \\ |({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ij}| & \leq t^{-2/3 - 2 {\upkappa}}, \label{E:GINVERSEKASNERBASICESTIMATE}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\upkappa}$ is defined in . Furthermore, the $3 \times 3$ matrices ${\mathring{g}}_{ij}$ and $({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ij}$ have the following positive definiteness properties: $$\begin{aligned} t^{2/3 + 2 {\upkappa}} \delta_{ab} X^a X^b & \leq {\mathring{g}}_{ab} X^a X^b \leq t^{2/3 - 2 {\upkappa}} \delta_{ab} X^a X^b, && \forall X \in \mathbb{R}^3, \label{E:KASNERMETRICPOSITIVITY} \\ t^{-2/3 + 2 {\upkappa}} \delta^{ab} \xi_a \xi_b & \leq ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ab} \xi_a \xi_b \leq t^{- 2/3 - 2 {\upkappa}} \delta^{ab} \xi_a \xi_b, && \forall \xi \in \mathbb{R}^3, \label{E:INVERSEKASNERMETRICPOSITIVITY} \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{ab}$ and $\delta^{ab}$ are standard Kronecker deltas. Furthermore, the Kasner metric ${\mathring{g}}$ defined in verifies $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:KASNERTIMEDERIVATIVEIDENTITIES} \partial_t {\mathring{g}}_{ij} = - 2 t^{-1} {\mathring{g}}_{ia} {\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^a, \qquad \partial_t ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ij} = 2 t^{-1} ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ja} {\mathring{K}}_{\ a}^i,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathring{K}}_{\ j}^i = \mbox{diag}(-q_1,-q_2,-q_3).$ Before comparing the strength of the energies and the norms, we first provide the following simple elliptic estimate, which allows us to recover estimates for the top-order derivatives of the linearized lapse. \[**Top-order estimate for** ${\upnu}$\] \[L:TOPORDERLAPSEINTEGRATIONBYPARTSINEQUALITY\] If ${\upnu}$ verifies equation , then the following[^20] elliptic inequality holds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:TOPORDERLAPSEINTEGRATIONBYPARTSINEQUALITY} t^2 \| \partial^2 {\upnu}\|_{L_{{\mathring{g}}}^2} & \lesssim |(2 A^2 - 1)| \| {\upnu}\|_{L^2} + 2 A \| t \partial_t {\varphi}\|_{L^2} + 2 |{\widehat{\mathring{K}}}|_{{\mathring{g}}} \| {K}\|_{L_{{\mathring{g}}}^2}. \end{aligned}$$ We multiply equation by $t^2 ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_e \partial_f {\upnu},$ integrate by parts, and use the Cauchy-Schwarz and arithmetic-geometric mean inequalities as well as the simple estimate $ \| ({\mathring{g}^{-1}})^{ef} \partial_e \partial_f {\upnu}\|_{L^2} \lesssim \| \partial^2 {\upnu}\|_{L_{{\mathring{g}}}^2} . $ \[**Energy-norm comparison lemma**\] \[L:ENERGYNORMCOMPARISON\] Let $N \geq 0$ be an integer and let ${\upkappa}\geq 0$ be as defined in . Under the assumptions of Lemma \[L:TOPORDERLAPSEINTEGRATIONBYPARTSINEQUALITY\], there exist constants[^21] $C, c > 0$ depending on ${\theta}$ such that the following comparison estimates hold for the norm and the total energy on the interval $t \in (0,1]:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:ENERGYNORMCOMPARISON} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta};N}(t) & \leq C t^{-c {\upkappa}} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(t), \\ {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(t) & \leq C t^{-c {\upkappa}} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta};N}(t). \label{E:NORMENERGYCOMPARISON}\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[L:ENERGYNORMCOMPARISON\] follows easily from Lemma \[L:KASNERMETRIC\], Lemma \[L:TOPORDERLAPSEINTEGRATIONBYPARTSINEQUALITY\] (which allows us to bound the top-order linearized lapse term $t^{4/3} \left\| {\upnu}\right\|_{H^{N+2}}$ from in terms of the remaining terms), and the definitions of the quantities involved. The Two Linearized Stability Theorems {#E:TWOMAINCMCTHEOREMS} ===================================== In this section, we state and prove our two main theorems, which collectively provide our stability results for solutions to the linearized equations of Prop. \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\]. Statement of the two theorems ----------------------------- We first state our main approximate $L^2$ monotonicity theorem. \[**Approximate $L^2$ monotonicity for solutions to the linearized equations**\] \[T:L2MONTONICITY\] There exist a small constant ${\theta}_* > 0$ and constants $C,c > 0$ such that if ${\upkappa}\geq 0$ is sufficiently small (see definition \[E:TRACEFREEPARAMETER\]) and ${\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);0}}(1) < \infty$ (see definition ), then solutions to the linearized equations of Prop. \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\] verify the following inequality for $t \in (0,1],$ where $\mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*}$ is defined by : \[T:L2MONOTONICITY\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:SECONDMODELENERGYGRONWALLREADY} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*}^2 [{K}, \partial {h}, \partial_t {\varphi}, \partial {\varphi},\partial {\upnu}, {\upnu}](t) & \leq C \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*}^2 [{K}, \partial {h}, \partial_t {\varphi}, \partial {\varphi},\partial {\upnu}, {\upnu}](1) \\ & \ \ \underbrace{- \frac{1}{6} {\theta}_* \int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \int_{\Sigma_s} |s \partial {h}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx \, ds}_{ \mbox{past-favorable sign}} \underbrace{- \frac{1}{6} \int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \int_{\Sigma_s} |s \partial {\varphi}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx \, ds}_{ \mbox{past-favorable sign}} \notag \\ & \ \ \underbrace{- \frac{1}{6} \int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \int_{\Sigma_s} |s \partial {\upnu}|_{{\mathring{g}}}^2 \, dx \, ds}_{ \mbox{past-favorable sign}} \underbrace{- \frac{1}{2} \int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \int_{\Sigma_s} {\upnu}^2 \, dx \, ds}_{ \mbox{past-favorable sign}} \notag \\ & \ \ + \underbrace{c {\upkappa}\int_{s=t}^1 s^{-1} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*}^2 [{K}, \partial {h}, \partial_t {\varphi}, \partial {\varphi},\partial {\upnu}, {\upnu}](s) \, ds}_{\mbox{error integral that can create energy growth}}. \notag \end{aligned}$$ In addition, if $N \geq 0$ is an integer and ${\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) < \infty$ (see definition ), then the total energy verifies the following inequality for $t \in (0,1]:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:ORDERNTOTALENERGYGRONWALLED} \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*;N}(t) & \leq C \mathscr{E}_{(Total);{\theta}_*;N}(1) t^{- c {\upkappa}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $N \geq 0$ is an integer and ${\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) < \infty,$ then the total solution norm verifies the following inequality for $t \in (0,1]:$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{E:HIGHNORMBOUND} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(t) & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{- c {\upkappa}}.\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[T:L2MONTONICITY\] should be viewed as relevant for estimating the high derivatives in the nonlinear problem, while Theorem \[T:CONVERGENCE\] should be viewed as relevant for estimating the low derivatives; see Sect. \[S:NONLINEARPROBLEM\]. The proof of Theorem \[T:L2MONTONICITY\] essentially amounts to combining an intricate collection of integration by parts identities in the right way. Certain aspects of our proof somewhat remind us of arguments used in @rB1986, in which Bartnik gave a new proof of the positive mass theorem of Schoen-Yau [@rSstY1979; @rSstY1981] and Witten @eW1981. His proof was simpler than the previous proofs but was valid only under the assumption that the metric is near-Euclidean and required the use of spatial harmonic coordinates. Like our proof, his involved expressing the scalar curvature of the $3-$metric in terms of Christoffel symbols, integrating with respect to the measure corresponding to the Euclidean metric, and absorbing all of the unsigned quadratic terms into favorably signed quadratic terms (whose coefficients happened to be sufficiently large). The next theorem shows that the lower-order derivatives of the linearized solution enjoy improved estimates in $t$ and that certain components converge as $t \downarrow 0.$ As we outline in Sect. \[S:NONLINEARPROBLEM\], the improved behavior is essential for proving the nonlinear stable blow-up results of @iRjS2014b. The proof of the theorem is based on revisiting the linearized equations and treating them as transport equations at the lower-order levels. Elliptic estimates for the lapse also play a role. The main difficulty is finding a suitable order in which to prove the estimates. In essence, this amounts to finding effective dynamic decoupling in the equations. \[**Improved estimates for the lower derivatives and convergence**\] \[T:CONVERGENCE\] There exist constants $C,c > 0$ such that if $N \geq 2$ is an integer, $\left\| {h}\right\|_{L_{Frame}^2}(1), {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) < \infty$ (see definition ), and ${\upkappa}> 0$ is sufficiently small (see definition \[E:TRACEFREEPARAMETER\]), then solutions to the linearized equations of Prop. \[P:LINEARIZEDCMCEQUATIONS\] verify the following estimates for $t \in (0,1]:$ $$\begin{aligned} \left\| \partial_t {K}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^{N-1}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{-1/3 - c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:PARTIALTSECONDFUNDHNMINUSONE} \\ \left\| {K}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^{N-1}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1), \label{E:SECONDFUNDHNMINUSONE} \\ \left\| {h}\right\|_{L_{Frame}^2} & \leq C \left\lbrace \left\| {h}\right\|_{L_{Frame}^2}(1) + \frac{1}{{\upkappa}} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) \right\rbrace t^{2/3 - c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:METRICRENORMALIZEDL2} \\ \left\| \partial {h}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^{N-1}} & \leq \frac{C}{{\upkappa}} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{2/3 - c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:PARTIALMETRICRENORMALIZEDHNMINUSTWO} \\ \left\| \partial_t (t \partial_t {\varphi}- A {\upnu}) \right\|_{H^{N-1}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{- 1/3 - c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:PARTIALTTPARTIALTPHIMINUSLAPSEHNMINUSONE} \\ \left\| t \partial_t {\varphi}\right\|_{H^{N-1}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1), \label{E:PARTIALTPHIHNMINUSONE} \\ \left\| \partial {\varphi}\right\|_{H_{Frame}^{N-2}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) \left\lbrace 1 + |\ln(t)| \right\rbrace, \label{E:PARTIALPHIHNMINUSTWO} \\ \left\| {\upnu}\right\|_{H^N} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{- c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:PARTIALLAPSEHNMINUSONEESTIMATE} \\ \left\| {\upnu}\right\|_{H^{N-1}} & \leq C {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{2/3 - c {\upkappa}}, \label{E:LAPSEHNMINUSONEESTIMATE} \\ \left\| {\upnu}\right\|_{H^{N-2}} & \leq \frac{C}{{\upkappa}} {\mathscr{H}_{(Frame);N}}(1) t^{4/3 - c {\upkappa}}. \label{E:LAPSEHNMINUSTWOESTIMATE}\end{aligned}$$ <span>.</span> There a
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1407'}