format: text

text:
# On future asymptotics of polarized Gowdy 𝕋³-models

## 1 Introduction

The cosmological spacetime model by Gowdy (1974) has experienced a great deal of attention over the last years. These models are especially interesting because they allow rigorous analytical investigations in inhomogeneous spacetimes. Various spatial topologies are allowed but – as is mostly done – we will concentrate on vacuum spacetimes with $`_+\times 𝕋^3`$-topology. A basic analytical tool for this class of spacetimes was provided by Moncrief (1981) who proved existence of global smooth solutions for the corresponding Einstein equations. Investigations concerning the singular asymptotic behaviour were subjects of interest almost exclusively. Now, we have a quite clear picture what happens in the polarized as well as the full Gowdy $`𝕋^3`$-model (see Isenberg, Moncrief (1990), Rendall (2000), Ringström (2002) and references therein). On the other hand, due to Chruściel, Isenberg and Moncrief (1990) there exist some statements about the asymptotic behaviour for large times in the case of polarized spacetimes. In this paper we prove such theorems, describing the long time asymptotics for general polarized Gowdy models and using this results to prove future completeness of any causal geodesic.

## 2 The polarized model

By definition a smooth, orientable spacetime is a cosmological model of Gowdy type if it is a maximally extended, globally hyperbolic solution of the vacuum Einstein equations having compact Cauchy surfaces and a pseudo-Riemannian metric, invariant under an effective $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ group action on these Cauchy surface. This action is generated by two spacelike Killing vector fields which are assumed to have vanishing twist constants. A Gowdy model is called polarized if the defining Killing vector fields are everywhere mutually orthogonal. By virtue of this definition we may describe a polarized Gowdy metric by the line element

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2a(t,x)}\left(\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x^2\right)+t\left(\mathrm{e}^{W(t,x)}\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{e}^{W(t,x)}\mathrm{d}z^2\right).`$ (1)
The corresponding vacuum Einstein equations are

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}W+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}W`$ (2)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}a{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}W\right)^2\right]`$ (3)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}a{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}W`$ (4)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}W\right)^2\right].`$ (5)
As in the general non-polarized case equation (3) is always satisfied as a consequence of the others. Thus, we have essentially to deal with a single linear equation of second order while function $`a`$ is the integral of the constraint equation (5).

## 3 On the asymptotics for solutions of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation

Now, we start by investigating equation (2). As in literature we will sometimes call this equation “Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation”. Following Moncrief (1981) it will be sufficient to have only functions $`W=W(t,x)`$ of a certain regularity in mind which are defined for all $`(t,x)_+\times 𝕋^1`$.

As a first result we get asymptotic homogenity for all solutions of (2). Namely, we will show that for large $`t`$ the mean value,

$`\overline{W}(t)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}W(t,x)dx,`$ (6)
will dominate while the $`x`$-dependent terms show a $`t^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ fall-off behaviour.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`W𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ be a solution of Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation (2) and $`\overline{W}`$ as decleared in (6). Then $`\overline{W}`$ solves (2), too.

Proof: For every $`t_+`$ function $`W`$ as well as its first and second derivative are continuous, hence $`𝕋^1`$-integrable and $`\overline{W}`$ is well-defined. Since $`W`$ is sufficiently smooth $`\overline{W}`$ depends on its parameter $`t_+`$ smoothly, hence $`\overline{W}𝒞^2(_+;)`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}\overline{W}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W(t,x)dx={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}W(t,x)dx.`$
Now it is easy to integrate (2)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}Wdx+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi t}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}Wdx`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}Wdx`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}\overline{W}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\overline{W}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{W}{x}}|_0^{2\pi }`$
and since the derivative of smooth periodic functions have same periods we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\overline{W}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\overline{W}`$ $`=`$ $`0\stackrel{!}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\overline{W}.`$
The general solution of (2) which does not depend on $`x`$ is

$`\overline{W}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t,`$ (7)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ may be fixed by some initial values of $`\overline{W}`$ and $`\overline{W}_t`$ at $`t_0>0`$. Due to the linearity of (2) $`\psi `$ in

$`t^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi (t,x)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`W(t,x)\overline{W}(t)`$
is unique and solves (2), too. Obviously this newly defined function $`\psi `$, $`\psi 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$, has zero mean value for every $`t_+`$

$`\overline{\psi }(t)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\psi (t,x)dx=0`$ (8)
and satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}\psi .`$ (9)
Now, in order to prove that any solution of this equation has to be bounded we need the following estimate as prerequisite. Here we have formulated the lemma in dependence of a parameters $`t_+`$, since this is the form we will need.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`f:_+\times 𝕋^1`$ be continuously differentiable and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}f(t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
for every $`t`$. Then we have for each $`(t,x)_+\times 𝕋^1:`$

$`|f(t,x)|^2`$ $``$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}f(t,x)|^2\mathrm{d}x2\pi |\left|f_x(t,.)\right||_{L^2}^2`$
Proof: The mean value theorem of integral calculus for continuous functions gives us to any $`t`$ some $`x_0𝕋^1`$ with $`f(t,x_0)=0`$. Furthermore $`|xx_0|2\pi `$ is true for each $`x𝕋^1`$. Using Schwartz’ inequality we get

$`|f(t,x)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{x_0}{\overset{x}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}f(t,\xi )d\xi \right|{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}f(t,x)\right|dx`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}1^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}f(t,x)\right|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
that is

$`|f(t,x)|^2`$ $``$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}f(t,x)\right|^2dx.`$
Now we are able to show boundedness of $`\psi `$, uniformly on every strictly positive intervall. The key element in the proof is the investigation of a certain energy functional corresponding to (9).

###### Theorem 3

To every function $`\psi 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$, satisfying both (8) and (9), there is a positive constant $`C_{t_0}`$ depending only on $`t_0>0`$, such that for every $`tt_0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$ the inequality

$`|\psi (t,x)|<C_{t_0}`$ (10)
holds.

###### Remark 1

One verifies that equation (9) has unbounded solutions, too. But none of them satisfies (8) which underlines the importance of this assumption.

Proof: Let us define the energy

$`\epsilon (t)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\left(\psi _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\psi _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)dx.`$
Our smoothness assumptions in $`\psi `$ guarantees differentiability of $`\epsilon `$ in $`_+`$. Integrating by parts and using equation (9) yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\psi _t\psi dx.`$
Since $`\frac{1}{2}(\psi _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\psi ^2)+\psi _t\psi 0`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\epsilon `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\left(\psi _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\psi ^2\right)dx.`$
Now, lemma 2 permits an estimate of the left hand side of the inequality in terms of $`\epsilon `$ itself:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\epsilon `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{t^2}}\epsilon `$
Since $`tt_0>0`$ we find

$`\epsilon (t)`$ $``$ $`\epsilon (t_0)+\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}s^2\epsilon (s)ds`$
and Gronwall’s inequality gives the uniform bound

$`\epsilon (t)`$ $``$ $`\epsilon (t_0)+\epsilon (t_0)\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi ^2}{t_0}\frac{\pi ^2}{t}}1\right)<\epsilon (t_0)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi ^2}{t_0}}.`$
Hence, the energy of an arbitrary solution is for every $`t>t_0`$ bounded and by definition non-negative. Now, up to a factor we can control the $`L^2(𝕋^1)`$-norm of $`\psi _x`$ for all $`tt_0`$ by the square root of the same constant and since $`\psi `$ satisfies all suppositions of lemma 2 a short calculation yield finally

$`|\psi (t,x)|`$ $`<`$ $`\sqrt{4\pi \epsilon (t_0)}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\pi ^2}{2t_0}}C_{t_0}`$
for all $`tt_0>0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$, hence $`C_{t_0}`$ fulfills all needs.

We have shown that every spatially periodic solution of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation can be cast into the form

$`W(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t+t^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi (t,x)`$
where $`\psi `$ is bounded in $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$. On the other hand for applications in the following sections we need deeper insights into the asymptotic behaviour of $`\psi `$. Using the boundedness of $`\psi `$ we can show that solutions to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}\psi `$
behave like solutions of the free wave equation in two dimensions with a remainder falling off in time.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`\psi 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ be a bounded solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}\psi ,`$ (11)
with the side condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\psi (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
for every $`t_+`$. Then there exist uniquely defined functions $`\nu 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ and $`\omega 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ as well as a constant $`C`$ depending only on the choise of $`t_0`$ such that

$`\psi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu (t,x)+\omega (t,x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\nu `$
$`|\omega (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`Ct^1`$
$`|\omega _t(t,x)|`$ $``$ $`Ct^1`$
for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`t_0>0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$.

Proof: Let

$`u`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`t+x`$
$`v`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`tx.`$
In this coordinates (11) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{uv}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{(u+v)^2}}.`$ (12)
As a consequence of this transformation some parallelogram, say $`\overline{1234}`$

$`\begin{array}{cc}(t^{(1)}t_0,\hfill & x^{(1)}x_0=u_0t_0)\hfill \\ (t^{(2)}=t_0,\hfill & x^{(2)}=x_0+2\pi )\hfill \\ (t^{(3)}=t_0+U,\hfill & x^{(3)}=x_0U)\hfill \\ (t^{(4)}=t_0+U,\hfill & x^{(4)}=x_0+2\pi U)\hfill \end{array}`$
has new vertices as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cc}(u^{(1)}u_0,\hfill & v^{(1)}v_0=2t_0u_0)\hfill \\ (u^{(2)}=u_0+2\pi ,\hfill & v^{(2)}=v_02\pi )\hfill \\ (u^{(3)}=u_0,\hfill & v^{(3)}=v_0+2U)\hfill \\ (u^{(4)}=u_0+2\pi ,\hfill & v^{(4)}=v_02\pi +2U)\hfill \end{array}`$
The periodicity in $`x`$-space is the identity

$`(u,v)`$ $``$ $`(u+2\pi n,v2\pi n)`$ (15)
for all $`n`$ and the over-all condition $`t>0`$ converts to $`u+v>0`$. Both are generally assumed in what follows. – The estimate

$`|\psi _u(u,v_2)\psi _u(u,v_1)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v_1}{\overset{v_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\psi |\mathrm{d}v}{(u+v)^2}}\stackrel{(\text{10})}{}C_{t_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+v_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+v_2}}\right)`$
yields boundedness of $`|\psi _u(u,v)|`$ for any $`u`$ while $`v\mathrm{}`$. But the same inequality also proves with $`v_2=v_1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, the existence of a finite limit $`F^{}(u)`$ for any $`u`$, hence

$`F^{}(u)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`\psi _u(u,2t_0u)+\underset{U\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u}{\overset{2t_0u+2U}{}}}\psi _{uv}(u,v)dv`$ (16)
is well-defined. Periodicity of $`F^{}(u)`$ is due to (15) along with

$`F^{}(u+2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _u(u+2\pi ,2t_0u2\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u2\pi }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (u+2\pi ,v)}{(u+2\pi +v)^2}}dv`$
$`=`$ $`\psi _u(u,2t_0u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (u+2\pi ,\stackrel{~}{v}2\pi )}{(u+\stackrel{~}{v})^2}}d\stackrel{~}{v}`$
$`=`$ $`F^{}(u).`$
Another property of $`F^{}(u)`$ is its zero mean value. To show this we transform the defining integral back to $`t`$-$`x`$-coordinates according to the scetches from the beginning of this proof. Let $`(u_0,v_0)`$, that is $`(t_0,x_0)`$, $`t_0>0`$, an arbitrary point in characteristic or space-time coordinates, respectively. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u_0+2\pi }{}}}F^{}(u)du`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u_0+2\pi }{}}}\underset{U\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u}{\overset{2t_0u+2U}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (u,v)}{4(u+v)^2}}dvdu`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\underset{U\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_0+U}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_0+t_0t}{\overset{x_0+t_0t+2\pi }{}}}\psi (t,x)dxdt=0,`$ (18)
since the term under the integral is zero for every $`t`$. A direct consequence is the periodicity of primitives. Let

$`\stackrel{~}{F}(u)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle F^{}(u)du}`$
such an (arbitrary but fixed) primitive. Then the function

$`F(u)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}(u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u_0+2\pi }{}}}\stackrel{~}{F}(u)du`$
is defined uniquely and especially

$`{\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u_0+2\pi }{}}}F(u)du`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
is always satisfied. Now, starting with the inequality

$`|\psi _v(u_2,v)\psi _v(u_1,v)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{u_1}{\overset{u_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\psi |\mathrm{d}u}{(u+v)^2}}C_{t_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_1+v}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_2+v}}\right)`$
we construct a likewise uniquely defined function $`G(v)`$, where all steps follow as above endowing $`G`$ with corresponding properties. Let us finally introduce the functions:

$`\nu (u,v)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`F(u)+G(v)`$ (20)
$`\omega (u,v)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`\psi (u,v)\nu (u,v)`$ (21)
Obviously $`\nu `$ and $`\omega `$ are uniquely defined for any fixed $`\psi `$. $`\nu `$ solves the free wave equation $`\nu _{uv}=0`$ and regarding the remainder $`\omega `$ we estimate for every $`u`$, $`v`$ subject to $`u+v>0`$

$`|\omega _u(u,v)|`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _u(u,v)\nu _u(u,v)|`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\left|\psi _u(u,v)\psi _u(u,2t_0u){\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\psi _{uv}(u,v)dv\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{v}{\overset{2t_0u}{}}}\psi _{u\stackrel{~}{v}}(u,\stackrel{~}{v})d\stackrel{~}{v}{\displaystyle \underset{2t_0u}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\psi _{uv}(u,v)dv\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{v}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (u,\stackrel{~}{v})}{(u+\stackrel{~}{v})^2}}d\stackrel{~}{v}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{4(u+v)}},`$
where the estimate follows from (10). In exactly the same way one proves

$`|\omega _v(u,v)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{4(u+v)}}.`$
Now, since

$`|\omega _t(t,x)|`$ $`=`$ $`|\omega _u(u,v)+\omega _v(u,v)|{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{2(u+v)}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{4t}}`$ (23)
$`|\omega _x(t,x)|`$ $`=`$ $`|\omega _u(u,v)\omega _v(u,v)|{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{2(u+v)}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{4t}}`$ (24)
for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`x𝕋^1`$ we have

$`||\omega _x(t,.)||_{L^2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\omega _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dx{\displaystyle \frac{\pi C_{t_0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8t^2}}.`$
Corollary 7 below proves the properties of $`\omega `$

$`\omega (t,x+2\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (t,x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\omega (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
for every $`(t,x)_+\times 𝕋^1`$. Hence all assumptions of lemma 2 are satisfied which ensures the existence of some constant $`C\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}\frac{\pi }{2}C_{t_0}>0`$ with

$`|\omega (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{t}}`$ (25)
for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`t_0>0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$.

The existence and uniqueness in the definition of function $`\nu `$ allow us to introduce the following term.

###### Definition 1

The function $`\nu `$ is called the $`\psi `$-associated solution of the free wave equation, if $`\psi 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ solves

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}\psi `$
with the side condition

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\psi (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
for every $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\nu 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ is defined as in equation (20).

Here follows a series of corollaries establishing properties of $`\nu `$ as well as $`\omega `$ which were used in the previous proof or are of frequent use in the sections below.

###### Corollary 5

Let $`\nu `$ be the $`\psi `$-associated solution of the free wave equation and $`t_0>0`$. Then there exists a positive constant $`C`$, such that for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`x𝕋^1`$ the functions $`\nu `$, $`\nu _t`$ and $`\nu _x`$ are bounded:

$`\underset{x𝕋^1}{\underset{tt_0>0}{\mathrm{m}ax}}\{|\nu (t,x)|,|\nu _t(t,x)|,|\nu _x(t,x)|\}`$ $`<`$ $`C`$ (26)
Further, for all $`n`$ are:

$`\nu (t,x+2\pi n)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu (t,x)=\nu (t+2\pi n,x)`$ (27)
$`\nu _t(t+2\pi n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _t(t,x)`$ (28)
$`\nu _x(t+2\pi n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _x(t,x)`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\nu (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (30)
Proof:

(26)By definition it is $`\nu (u,v)=F(u)+G(v)`$. $`F`$ is periodic with vanishing mean value. W.l.o.g. is $`F(u_0)=0`$, $`\psi _u(u,v_{\mathrm{}})\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}\underset{v\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{l}im}\psi _u(u,v)`$. Then

$`F(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u}{}}}F^{}(\stackrel{~}{u})d\stackrel{~}{u}={\displaystyle \underset{u_0}{\overset{u}{}}}\psi _{\stackrel{~}{u}}(\stackrel{~}{u},v_{\mathrm{}})d\stackrel{~}{u}=\psi (u,v_{\mathrm{}})\psi (u_0,v_{\mathrm{}}).`$
Theorem 3 shows boundedness of $`\psi `$ (uniformly in the considered domain). The same is true for $`G`$. Finally, boundedness of $`|\nu _t(t,x)|`$ and $`|\nu _x(t,x)|`$ is a consequence of $`|F^{}(u)|`$ and $`|G^{}(v)|`$ boundedness established during the proof of theorem 4.

(27)With (19) we have

$`\nu (t+2\pi n,x)`$ $`=`$ $`F(t+2\pi n+x)+G(t+2\pi nx)`$
$`=`$ $`F(t+x)+G(tx)=\nu (t,x)`$
and analogously

$`\nu (t,x+2\pi n)`$ $`=`$ $`F(t+x+2\pi n)+G(tx2\pi n)`$
$`=`$ $`\nu (t,x).`$
(28)Is a direct consequence of (27).

(29)Follows directly from (27).

(30)Property (19) and correspondingly for $`G`$ yield:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\nu (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t}{\overset{t+2\pi }{}}}\nu (u,2tu)du`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t}{\overset{t+2\pi }{}}}\left(F(u)+G(2tu)\right)du`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t}{\overset{t+2\pi }{}}}F(u)du+{\displaystyle \underset{t2\pi }{\overset{t}{}}}G(v)dv=0`$
###### Corollary 6

Let $`\nu `$ be the $`\psi `$-associated solution of the free wave equation. Then the following are equivalent:

$`\psi (t,x)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (31)
$`F(t+x)`$ $``$ $`0\text{and}G(tx)0`$ (32)
$`\nu (t,x)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (33)
Proof:

(31) $``$ (32):$`F`$ is constant due to (16), from (19) follows the statement with respect to $`F`$; analogously for $`G`$.

(32) $``$ (33):($``$) is due to (20) and ($``$) due to (20) and (19).

(33) $``$ (31):It is $`\psi (t,x)=\omega (t,x)`$. The estimate (24) reads here in a first step

$`|\psi _x(t,x)|_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{4t}}`$
and according to lemma 2

$`|\psi (t,x)|_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi C_{t_0}}{2t}}.`$
Now, this improved estimate can be used iteratively in (22), leading to an $`n`$-th order estimate

$`|\psi (t,x)|_n`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{C_{t_0}}{n!}}t^n`$
for every $`x𝕋^1`$ and every $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$. Due to (23) the same estimate is valid for $`\psi _t`$. Consequently exists to any $`\epsilon >0`$ an $`n_0`$, such that

$`|\psi (t_0,x)|_n`$ $`<`$ $`\epsilon `$
$`|\psi _t(t_0,x)|_n`$ $`<`$ $`\epsilon `$
for all $`x𝕋^1`$ and all $`nn_0`$, that is $`\psi (t_0,x)=\psi _t(t_0,x)=0`$. Due to the uniqueness of its solutions $`\psi `$ is the trivial solution of (11).

###### Corollary 7

Let $`\nu `$ be the $`\psi `$-associated solution of the free wave equation, $`\omega \underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}\psi \nu `$ and $`t_0>0`$. Then there exists a positive constant $`C`$, such that for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`x𝕋^1`$ and $`n`$:

$`|\omega (t,x)|`$ $`<`$ $`C`$ (34)
$`\omega (t,x+2\pi n)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (t,x)`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\omega (t,x)dx`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (36)
Proof: All properties are direct consequences from the definition of $`\omega `$, the corresponding properties of $`\psi `$ along with corollary 5 above.

###### Corollary 8

Let $`\nu `$ be the $`\psi `$-associated solution of the free wave equation and $`\omega \underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}\psi \nu `$. Then the following is equivalent:

$`\psi (t,x)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (37)
$`\omega (t,x)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (38)
Proof:

(37) $``$ (38):With corollary 6 is $`\nu 0`$.

(38) $``$ (37):It is $`\psi \nu `$. Since

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t^2}}\psi \stackrel{!}{}0`$
the statement follows.

Now we summarize the most important features in the asymptotic behaviour of the metric function $`W`$. Here we use as remainder $`\varkappa \underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}t^{\frac{1}{2}}\omega `$.

###### Corollary 9

Let $`W𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1)`$ be a real-valued solution of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}W(t,x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W(t,x){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}W(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Then there exists uniquely defined, bounded, real-valued functions $`\nu 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1)`$ and $`\varkappa 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1)`$, constants $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, and a positive constant $`C_{t_0}`$ such that

$`W(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t+t^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu (t,x)+\varkappa (t,x)`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\nu (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\nu (t,x)`$ (40)
and

$`|\varkappa (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C_{t_0}t^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (41)
$`|\varkappa _t(t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C_{t_0}t^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (42)
$`|\varkappa _x(t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C_{t_0}t^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (43)
for all $`tt_0>0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$.

Proof.  We have already shown (39) and (40), explicitly. But on the other hand estimates (41), (42) and (43) follow directly from the above definition of $`\varkappa `$ together with (25), (23) and (24), respectively.

## 4 On the integration of constraints

As mentioned in the beginning part of this paper a special feature of Gowdy’s model is the decoupling of the dynamical quantity $`a`$. Furthermore, it is well-known that the momentum constraint

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}W`$ (44)
is conserved along $`t`$ developments; that means it is satisfied always if it is satisfied initially.

With this remark in mind we will investigate now the Hamiltonian constraint

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}W\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}W\right)^2\right]`$ (45)
exclusively.

### Spatially homogeneous spacetimes

According to (7) we find as the general solution of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation in spatially homogeneous spacetimes

$`W(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \mathrm{ln}t+\gamma .`$
The constraint (45) reads

$`a_t(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\beta ^21)t^1,`$
leading to

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\beta ^21)\mathrm{ln}t+\zeta `$ (46)
as solution where the arbitrary constant $`\zeta `$ has to be specialized by an initial condition for $`a`$.

### Not spatially homogeneous spacetimes

The exceptional position of spatially homogeneous among the polarized Gowdy spacetimes is a consequence of the following consideration.

###### Theorem 10

Let $`W𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ be a solution of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation. Then there is a positive constant $`C`$, such that

$`|a_t(t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C`$
for all $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$.

Proof: With corollary 9 we have

$`W(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t+t^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu (t,x)+\varkappa (t,x)`$
with corresponding properties of $`\nu `$ and estimates for the remainder $`\varkappa `$; therefore

$`a_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta \nu _t`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t^1\left(\beta ^21+2\nu _t\left(t^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)+2\nu _xt^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _x\right)`$
$`+𝒪(t^{\frac{3}{2}}).`$
The statement follows from corollaries 5 and 9.

###### Remark 2

The above equation (47) already reflects the qualitatively different asymptotic behaviour in the metric function $`a`$ depending on the spatial homogenity or not spatial homogenity of the underlying model. This is so because corollary 6 along with corollary 8 states that a polarized Gowdy spacetime is spatially homogeneous if and only if

$`\psi 0`$ $``$ $`\nu 0\varkappa 0.`$
Since the asymptotics in spatially homogeneous models has been completely investigated we will in what follows w.l.o.g. assume that $`\nu _t=\nu _x=0`$ is valid not everywhere.

###### Theorem 11

Let $`a𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ be a solution of equation (45) and $`_xa=0`$ not everywhere. Then there exist positive constants $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`C`$ along with a uniquely determined function $`\delta 𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ such that

$`a(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\nu }t+\delta (t,x)`$
with

$`|\delta (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C(1+t^{\frac{1}{2}})`$
for every $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`t_0>0`$ and every $`x𝕋^1`$.

Proof: Since $`a`$ is continously differentiable, there is in $`_+\times 𝕋^1`$ an open domain with $`a_x0`$ hence $`\nu _x0`$. Consequently

$`\overline{\nu }`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_0+2\pi }{}}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})dt`$ (48)
is a positive constant since it is also $`x`$-independent due to $`\nu _{tt}=\nu _{xx}`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}}\overline{\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_0+2\pi }}(\nu _t\nu _{tx}+\nu _x\nu _{xx})dt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_0+2\pi }}\nu _x(\nu _{tt}+\nu _{xx})dt+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\nu _t\nu _x|_{t_0}^{t_0+2\pi }=0.`$
Let be further

$`\delta _t(t,x)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`\overline{\nu }+a_t(t,x)`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}\beta \nu _t`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t^1\left(\beta ^21+2\nu _t\left(t^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)+2\nu _xt^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _x\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{3}{2}}\beta \left(t^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t^2\left[\left(t^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu \right)^2+\left(t^{\frac{3}{2}}\varkappa _x\right)^2\right]`$
which is uniquely determined for every fixed solution $`W`$ of the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation. So we have

$`\delta (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (t_0,x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}\left(\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)d\tau \overline{\nu }(tt_0)+𝒪(t^{\frac{1}{2}}).`$
Now we consider the second and third term of the right hand side using (48) in detail:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}\left(\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)d\tau \overline{\nu }(tt_0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_0+2\pi }{}}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})dt\right]d\tau `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_0+2\pi \left[\frac{tt_0}{2\pi }\right]}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})dt{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\frac{tt_0}{2\pi }\right]}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_0+2\pi }{}}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{t_0+2\pi \left[\frac{tt_0}{2\pi }\right]}^t}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_0+2\pi }{}}}(\nu _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})dt\right]d\tau `$
Here as usual $`[n]`$ is the largest integer not greater then $`n`$. Now, due to periodicity the first two terms cancel each other. The integrand of the third is bounded, the domain of integration less then $`2\pi `$ so it is

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\nu _{\tau }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\overline{\nu }\right]d\tau \right|`$ $``$ $`2\pi C`$
and finally

$`|\delta (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C(1+t^{\frac{1}{2}})`$
for a positive constant $`C`$, all $`x𝕋^1`$ and every $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`t_0>0`$.

All results concerning the integration of constrains are summarized by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 12

Let $`W𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ be a solution of $`W_{tt}+t^1W_tW_{xx}=0`$. Then any solution $`a𝒞^2(_+\times 𝕋^1;)`$ of

$`a_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}t(W_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+W_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
may be cast for all $`tt_0>0`$ and all $`x𝕋^1`$ into the form

$`a(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}(\beta ^21)\mathrm{ln}t+\zeta ,\hfill & \text{if }_xa(t,x)0\hfill \\ \overline{\nu }t+\delta (t,x),\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (51)
where $`\overline{\nu }`$ is a positive, $`\zeta `$ an arbitrary constant and $`\delta `$ satisfies the inequalities

$`|\delta (t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C(1+t^{\frac{1}{2}})`$
$`|\delta _t(t,x)|`$ $``$ $`C`$
with another positive constante $`C`$.

## 5 On geodesic completeness in polarized Gowdy spacetimes

In contrast to the analytical treatments in the first part of this paper we will now investigate some open geometrical questions in polarized Gowdy spacetimes.

Isenberg and Moncrief (1990) established important results with respect to the singular behaviour in this class of spacetimes. However, the question concerning possible singularities in its future development remained open (at least for the case with spatial $`𝕋^3`$-topology) and shall be the subject of this section. As usual we will identify the term “singularity” with the term “existence of an uncomplete non-spacelike geodesic” and use the basic concepts and relations of the theory of Lorentzian manifolds and causality without repeating all its definitions. However, for convenience we will summarize some facts for short.

Future will always mean the expanding direction of the universe.

In local coordinates $`(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)`$ the geodesic equation reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau ^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^j}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^k}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`0,i,j,k=0,\mathrm{},3`$ (52)
Among the properties of affinly parametrized geodesics $`𝔵`$ the following are of special importance:

1.) The tangent vector is normalized

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^i}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^j}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ,`$ (53)
where $`\epsilon =0`$, if the geodesic is null and $`\epsilon =1`$, if it is timelike.

2.) The scalar product of any Killing vectorfield $`X`$ and the geodesic tangent is constant along the curve; in coordinates:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}g_{ij}X_{𝔵}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x^j}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (54)
Gowdy spacetimes are known to be maximally extended, globally hyperbolic regions which permit foliations by $`(t=\mathrm{c}onst)`$-hypersurfaces. Consequently, any nonspacelike curve intersects every such hypersurface exactly once. This is important in view of the possibility to take $`t\mathrm{}`$ limits along an arbitrary nonspacelike curve. Furthermore, according to our choise of orientation it is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (55)
if $`\tau `$ is as before the parameter of the future directed curve.

Now we can start with the investigations. Since the asymptotic expansion of polarized Gowdy spacetimes is quite different depending on the spatial homogenity/inhomogenity of the model it is necessary to split the proofs accordingly.

### Geodesics in spatially homogeneous, polarized spacetimes

Spatially homogeneous, polarized spacetimes correspond to exactly solvable Einstein equations. We had found (7) and (46),

$`W(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t`$ (56)
$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\beta ^21)\mathrm{ln}t,`$ (57)
with constants $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\zeta `$. We need the following estimate to prove geodesic completeness in such models.

###### Lemma 13

Let $`\left(_+\times 𝕋^3,g=\mathrm{d}iag(g_{00},g_{11},g_{22},g_{33})\right)`$ be a spatially homogeneous solution of Einstein’s field equation for the polarized Gowdy model. Then there exist a constant $`C_\beta `$, such that the Christoffel symbols satisfy for every $`t[t_0,\mathrm{})`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0(t)`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}C_\beta t^1g_{11}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0(t)`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}C_\beta t^1g_{22}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0(t)`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}C_\beta t^1g_{33}`$
Proof: The following section 6 contains the relevant Christoffel symbols. Using (56) and (57) we find:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}_tg_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^21)t^1g_{11}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}_tg_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}(\beta +1)t^1g_{22}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}_tg_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}(\beta +1)t^1g_{33}`$
The constant $`C_\beta `$,

$`C_\beta `$ $`\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^2+3),`$ (58)
proves the statement. Observe that $`C_\beta <0`$.

###### Theorem 14

Every inextendable, future directed, nonspacelike geodesic in an arbitrary but spatially homogeneous, polarized Gowdy manifold is in its future direction complete.

Proof: It is sufficient to regard the $`t`$-component of an arbitrary nonspacelike geodesic with affin parameter $`\tau `$. Due to the assumed homogenity not all of the symbols in section 6 are different from zero. More precisely, the $`0`$-component of (52) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2t}{\mathrm{d}\tau ^2}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The causal character of the curve and the choise of time orientation imply (55) and further

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^1=`$ (59)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right].`$
Now, using lemma 13 we can estimate the symbols and get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2>`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{00}C_\beta t^1\left[g_{11}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{22}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{33}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right].`$
On the other hand we have (53)

$`g_{11}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{22}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{33}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon g_{00}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$
$`<`$ $`g_{00}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$
where $`\epsilon \{0,1\}`$ so we get finally ($`C_\beta <0`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_\beta t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2.`$
Using (59) as well as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0=\frac{1}{4}(\beta 1)t^1`$ and (58)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^1`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^21)+C_\beta \right]t^1=t^1`$
we get an suitable estimate. Integrating twice the result is

$`\tau (t)`$ $`>`$ $`\tau (t_0)+C\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}`$
for some positive $`C`$. Obviously, by taking $`t\mathrm{}`$ we have proved that $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ holds along any nonspacelike geodesic.

### Geodesics in not spatially homogeneous, polarized spacetimes

In the case under consideration the components of Gowdy metric are not everywhere $`x`$-independent and consequently, the solutions of Einstein equations are not known explicitly. Due to limitation on asymptotic behaviour as well as the more complex form of geodesic equation proofs are more technical here.

We begin by poving some estimates:

###### Lemma 15

Let $`t_0>0`$ and $`W:_+\times 𝕋^1`$ some smooth solution of $`W_{tt}+t^1W_tW_{xx}=0`$, $`W_x/0`$. Then there is a positive constant $`C`$, such that for all $`t>t_0`$

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}W_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right|`$ $``$ $`Ct^1`$
holds.

Proof: For $`t`$ sufficiently large we know according to corollary 9 $`W`$ is of the form

$`W(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma +\beta \mathrm{ln}t+t^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\nu (t,x)+\omega (t,x)\right).`$ (60)
Theorem 3 proved boundedness of $`\nu +\omega `$ while its partial derivatives are bounded by theorem 4, hence the lemma.

###### Lemma 16

For any polarized Gowdy spacetime model there is a constant $`C_1`$ and a positive constant $`C`$, such that

$`|g_{ab}|+|_tg_{ab}|+|g^{ab}|+|_tg^{ab}|`$ $``$ $`Ct^{C_1}`$
where $`a,b\{2,3\}`$ and $`t_0<t<\mathrm{}`$.

Proof: (60) shows logarithmic growth of $`W`$ if $`\beta 0`$, consequently the metric coefficients $`g_{ab}`$, its inverses and derivatives can increase at most with power $`\beta +1`$. So a constant $`C_1\underset{\mathrm{D}f}{=}|\beta |+1`$ will be sufficient for our needs.

###### Theorem 17

Every inextendable, future directed, nonspacelike geodesic in an arbitrary but not spatially homogeneous, polarized Gowdy manifold is in its future direction complete.

Proof: Let $`𝔵=(t,x,y,z)`$ be the components of some arbitrary nonspacelike geodesic in local coordinates, having affin parameter $`\tau `$ and taking values in an likewise arbitrary, polarized (not spatially homogeneous) Gowdy manifold. As before it will sufficient to restrict considerations on the $`t`$-component. Here it holds:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2t}{\mathrm{d}\tau ^2}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ (61)
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$
Again, Christoffel symbols are taken from section 6. Using constraints (45) and (44) we get:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t\left(W_t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}+W_x{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{4}}(W_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}W_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$
The first term on the right hand side is nonnegative and will be neglected. Using condition (53) in the form

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g^{00}\left[\epsilon +g_{22}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{33}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$
where as before $`\epsilon \{0,1\}`$ depending on causal character of geodesic, we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{4}}(W_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}W_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right]g^{00}\left[\epsilon +g_{22}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{33}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right].`$
This estimate yield for the factor ($`2t^1`$) of geodesic equation (61)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\left[t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$ (62)
$`g^{00}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}W_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right]\left[\epsilon +g_{22}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+g_{33}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$
$`+g^{00}\left[_tg_{22}t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2+_tg_{33}t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right],`$
where we have used (55).

Due to (54) the scalar products $`g(\dot{𝔵},)`$ in

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[g^{22}g(\dot{𝔵},{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}})\right]^2`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[g^{33}g(\dot{𝔵},{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}})\right]^2`$
are constant along the geodesic. Thanks to lemmas 15 and 16 we can estimate all brackets on the right hand side of the inequality (62) by an $`𝒪(t^C)`$-term, where the constant $`C`$ only depends on the model parameter $`\beta `$ under consideration. Furthermore, due to (51) it holds $`g^{00}𝒪(\mathrm{e}^{2\overline{\nu }t})`$, $`\overline{\nu }>0`$, $`g^{00}`$ will dominate the development on the right hand side. Consequently there are positive constants $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\left[t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2\right]`$ $``$ $`C_1\mathrm{e}^{C_2t}`$
and furthermore some positive constant $`C_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, such that for sufficiently large $`t`$ it holds

$`t^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`C_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
and a final integration gives

$`\tau (t)`$ $``$ $`\tau (t_1)+2C_3\left(\sqrt{t}\sqrt{t_1}\right),`$
which proves $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$.

We summarize as follows:

###### Corollary 18

Every inextendable, future directed, nonspacelike geodesic in an arbitrary polarized Gowdy manifold is in its future direction complete.

## 6 Nonvanishing Christoffel symbols in polarized Gowdy spacetimes

In polarized Gowdy models the nonvanishing components of the metric tensor are

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2a}g_{22}=t\mathrm{e}^W`$
$`g_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2a}g_{33}=t\mathrm{e}^W`$
where $`a=a(t,x)`$, $`W=W(t,x)`$, so up to symmetry the only nonvanishing symbols are

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{00}_tg_{00}& =& a_t\hfill & & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{00}_tg_{11}& =& a_t\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{00}_xg_{00}& =& a_x\hfill & & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^1\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{11}_tg_{11}& =& a_t\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^1\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{11}_xg_{00}& =& a_x\hfill & & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^1\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{11}_xg_{11}& =& a_x\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^0\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{00}_tg_{22}& =& \frac{1}{2}g^{00}(t^1+W_t)g_{22}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}^2\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{22}_tg_{22}& =& \frac{1}{2}(t^1+W_t)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^1\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{11}_xg_{22}& =& \frac{1}{2}g^{11}W_xg_{22}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^2\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{22}_xg_{22}& =& \frac{1}{2}W_x\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^0\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{00}_tg_{33}& =& \frac{1}{2}g^{00}(t^1W_t)g_{33}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{03}^3\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{33}_tg_{33}& =& \frac{1}{2}(t^1W_t)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^1\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{11}_xg_{33}& =& \frac{1}{2}g^{11}W_xg_{33}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^3\hfill & =& \hfill \frac{1}{2}g^{33}_xg_{33}& =& \frac{1}{2}W_x\hfill \end{array}`$
## Acknowledgement

I am indebted to A.D. Rendall for suggesting me this problem and for useful discussions.

## Literature

Chruściel, P.T., J. Isenberg and V. Moncrief (1990) Strong cosmic censorship in polarised Gowdy spacetimes, Class. Quant. Grav., 7: 1671-1680.

Gowdy R.H. (1974) Vacuum spacetimes with two-parameter spacelike isometry groups and compact invariant hypersurfaces: topology and boundary conditions, Ann. Phys., 83: 203-241.

Isenberg, J. and V. Moncrief (1990) Asymptotic behavior of the gravitational field and the nature of singularities in Gowdy spacetimes, Ann. Phys., 199: 84-122.

Moncrief, V. (1981) Global properties of Gowdy spacetimes with $`𝕋^3\times `$ topology, Ann. Phys., 132: 87-107.

Rendall, A.D. (2000) Fuchsian analysis of singularities in Gowdy spacetimes beyond analyticity, Class. Quant. Grav., 17: 3305-3316.

Ringström, H. (2002) On Gowdy vacuum spacetimes, preprint, gr-qc/0204044.


text:
# Exact Solutions of Domain Wall and Spiral Ground States in Hubbard Models

## Abstract

We construct a set of exact ground states with a localized ferromagnetic domain wall and an extended spiral structure in a deformed flat-band Hubbard model. In the case of quarter filling, we show the uniqueness of the ground state with a fixed magnetization. We discuss a more realistic situation given by a band-bending perturbation, which can stabilize these curious structures. We study a conduction electron scattered by the domain wall and the spiral spins.

ferromagnetic domain wall, spiral state, flat-band Hubbard model, exact solution, quantum effect

Domain wall and spiral structures in ferromagnetic systems are interesting structures. Generally a domain wall is localized stably between two ferromagnetic domains. In this case, the ferromagnetic order is preserved within one domain, and the translational symmetry is spontaneously broken. Domain structures are believed to appear universally in ferromagnetic systems with an energy gap and with a finite correlation length. On the other hand, spiral structures appear in special situations. Such structures are extended over the entire space, and sometimes destroy ferromagnetic order. In this letter, we construct a set of exact ground states in a class of Hubbard-like models with coexisting domain wall and spiral structures, which have never been found in other models. Some remarkable results for ferromagnetic ground states have been obtained in a class of Hubbard models recently. Mielke and Tasaki showed independently that the ground state gives saturated ferromagnetism in a many-electron model on a lattice with special properties, which is called the flat-band Hubbard model Mielke ; T0 . Tasaki also proved the stability of the ferromagnetism against a perturbation which bends the electron band T . Tanaka and Ueda have shown this stability for a two-dimensional model in Mielke’s class TU . If domain wall structures are universal, then a domain wall solution within this framework should give us some important physical insight into theories of many-electron systems. Here, we construct such a solution. We deform a flat-band Hubbard model by introducing a complex anisotropy parameter $`q`$. The SU(2) spin rotation symmetry in the original flat-band model is reduced to U(1) in our deformed model. This anisotropy $`|q|1`$ leads to a localized domain wall with a finite width and a complex $`q`$ leads to an extended spiral state. We study the stability of the domain wall ground states against a band-bending perturbation using a variational argument. We prove that for $`|q|1`$, the energy expectation value of a state with a domain wall centered near the origin becomes lower than the eigenvalue of the saturated ferromagnetic eigenstate, unlike the SU(2) invariant model. We discuss similarities of the wall solution and differences between the domain wall solution of our model and domain walls in pure quantum spin systems. Alcaraz, Salinas and Wreszinski constructed a set of exact ground states with two domains in the XXZ model with a critical boundary field in arbitrary dimensions for an arbitrary spin ASW . They showed that the degeneracy of the ground states corresponding to the location of a domain wall center is identical to that of the ground states in the SU(2) invariant model. In their solution, the domain wall is localized at an arbitrary surface with a finite width depending on the Ising anisotropy parameter $`(q+q^1)/2>1`$. We will see that the domain wall ground state in our electron model has the same degeneracy as that in the XXZ model and the same localization property in a certain parameter regime. On the other hand, for complex $`q`$, our model differs from the XXZ quantum spin model which has no spiral ground state. Finally, we study from a microscopic viewpoint the scattering of a conduction electron by the domain wall and spiral spins.

Here, we consider a one-dimensional lattice with a site index $`x=L1,\mathrm{},L+1`$, where $`x`$ is an integer and $`L`$ is an odd integer. Electron operators on the lattice satisfy the anticommutation relation

$$\{c_{x\sigma },c_{y\tau }^{}\}=\delta _{\sigma \tau }\delta _{xy},\sigma ,\tau =,.$$

We define the following electron operators for even site $`x`$ with a complex number $`q`$ and a real number $`\lambda >0`$

$`a_{x1}(q^{1/4})^{}c_{x2}+\lambda c_{x1}(q^{1/4})^{}c_x,`$
$`a_{x1}(q^{1/4})^{}c_{x2}+\lambda c_{x1}(q^{1/4})^{}c_x,`$
$`d_xq^{1/4}c_{x1}+\lambda c_x+q^{1/4}c_{x+1},`$
$`d_xq^{1/4}c_{x1}+\lambda c_x+q^{1/4}c_{x+1},`$ (1)
$`n_xc_x^{}c_x,n_xc_x^{}c_x,n_xn_x+n_x.`$ (2)
The operators $`a_{x\sigma }`$ and $`d_{y\tau }^{}`$ are always anticommuting

$$\{a_{x\sigma },d_{y\tau }^{}\}=0,x=\mathrm{odd},y=\mathrm{even},\sigma ,\tau =,.$$
(3)
The Hamiltonian is written in terms of the above operators as

$`H=H_{\mathrm{hop}}+H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ (4)
$`H_{\mathrm{hop}}=t{\displaystyle \underset{x=\mathrm{even}}{}}(d_x^{}d_x+d_x^{}d_x)={\displaystyle \underset{x,y,\sigma }{}}t_{xy}^\sigma c_{x\sigma }^{}c_{y\sigma }`$ (5)
$`H_{\mathrm{int}}=U{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}n_xn_x,`$ (6)
with a repulsive coupling constant $`U>0`$ and a hopping parameter $`t>0`$. The anticommutativity and the absence of $`a_{x\sigma }`$ in $`H_{\mathrm{hop}}`$ give a band flatness of the electrons created by $`a_{x\sigma }^{}`$. Here we use an open-boundary condition under which there are no degrees of freedom at the edge sites $`x=L2`$ and $`x=L+2`$, namely $`c_{L2\sigma }=0=c_{L+2\sigma }`$. The hopping amplitudes on a unit cell defined by $`H_{\mathrm{hop}}`$ are depicted in Fig. 1.

Let us discuss the symmetry of this Hamiltonian. The first important symmetry is U(1) symmetry. The Hamiltonian commutes with the total magnetization $`S^{(3)}`$, where we define $`S^{(j)}_xS_x^{(j)}`$ and $`S_x^{(j)}\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha ,\beta =,}c_{x\alpha }^{}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^{(j)}c_{x\beta }`$, where $`\sigma ^{(j)}`$ $`(j=1,2,3)`$ are the Pauli matrices. In the limit $`q1`$, this symmetry is enhanced to the SU(2) symmetry. In this limit, this model becomes the original flat-band Hubbard model given by Tasaki T0 ; T . The second important symmetry is defined by a product of a parity $`P`$ and a spin rotation

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }^1=`$ $`P\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}\pi S^{(1)}\right)`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }c_{x\sigma }\mathrm{\Pi }=c_{x\sigma },`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }c_{x\sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Pi }=c_{x\sigma }^{},`$
Note the following transformation of the total magnetization $`\mathrm{\Pi }S^{(3)}\mathrm{\Pi }=S^{(3)}.`$ An energy eigenstate with the total magnetization $`M`$ is transformed by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ into another eigenstate with the total magnetization $`M`$, which belongs to the same energy eigenvalue.

Now we construct ground states in the quarter-filled case, where the uniqueness of the ground state can be shown. Since each term in the Hamiltonian is positive semi-definite $`H_{\mathrm{hop}}0`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{int}}0`$, an eigenstate with a zero-energy eigenvalue is a ground state. An arbitrary state created only by $`a_x^{}`$ is a zero-energy states because of its anticommutativity (3) with $`d_x`$ and no double occupancy, and thus this polarized state

$$|\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up}=\underset{x=\mathrm{odd}}{}a_x^{}|\mathrm{vac},$$
(8)
is a ground state. To create ground states with other magnetization, first we should take into account a condition of no double occupancy at odd sites. A state created by $`a_{x\sigma }^{}`$ under this condition is written in the following summation over all spin configurations with an arbitrary fixed magnetization $`_x\sigma _x=M`$

$$|M=\underset{\sigma _L+\mathrm{}+\sigma _L=M}{}\psi (\sigma _L,\mathrm{},\sigma _L)\underset{x=\mathrm{odd}}{}a_{x\sigma _x}^{}|\mathrm{vac}.$$

The condition of no double occupancy on the state $`|M`$ at even sites yields

$$\psi (\mathrm{},,,\mathrm{})=q\psi (\mathrm{},,,\mathrm{}).$$

This relation implies the uniqueness of the ground state with a fixed total magnetization, since two arbitrary spin configurations can be related by the successive exchanges of two nearest neighbor spins. Therefore the degeneracy of those ground states is exactly the same as that in the SU(2) symmetric model, as in the domain wall solution in quantum spin systems ASW .

To explore the nature of the ground state, we write it in a more explicit way. The following superposition over the states with different magnetizations can be a ground state

$$|z\underset{M}{}z^{LM}|M>=\underset{x=\mathrm{odd}}{}(a_x^{}+zq^{\frac{x}{2}}a_x^{})|\mathrm{vac},,$$
(9)
where $`z`$ is an arbitrary complex number. This state can be regarded as a generating function for a ground state with an arbitrary magnetization.

The expectation values of the spin operators at site $`x`$ in this ground state are

$`S_x^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{n_x}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{zq^{\frac{x}{2}}+(zq^{\frac{x}{2}})^{}}{1+|z^2q^x|}}`$
$`S_x^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{n_x}{2\mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \frac{zq^{\frac{x}{2}}(zq^{\frac{x}{2}})^{}}{1+|z^2q^x|}}`$
$`S_x^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{n_x}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1|z^2q^x|}{1+|z^2q^x|}},`$ (10)
where the expectation value of an operator $`𝒪`$ is defined by $`𝒪z|𝒪|z/z|z`$. As discussed in the XXZ models KN1 ; KN2 ; M ; KNS , the two domains are distinguished by the sign of the local order parameter $`S_x^{(3)}`$. The domain wall center is defined by the zeros of $`S_x^{(3)}`$ which is located at $`x=2\mathrm{log}_{|q|}|z|`$. The function $`\frac{1}{2}n_x|S_x^{(3)}|`$ decays exponentially from the center, if $`n_x0`$. The domain wall width $`1/\mathrm{log}|q|`$ is defined by its decay length. A profile of the domain wall in a typical example is depicted in Fig.2. For the complex $`q=|q|e^{\mathrm{i}\theta }`$, one can see the spiral structure with a pitch angle $`\theta `$. The vector $`\stackrel{}{S}_x`$ is rotated with angle $`\theta x`$ around the third spin axis depending on the site $`x`$. Note that this spiral structure of the ground state does not exist in the XXZ model. Though the complex anisotropy parameter $`q=e^{\mathrm{i}\theta }`$ is possible in the XXZ Hamiltonian, the spiral state is no longer the ground state and the corresponding model is described in the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid without ferromagnetic order. The translational symmetry in the infinite volume limit is broken by the domain wall or the spiral structure for finite $`\mathrm{log}|z|`$. Both symmetries generated by $`S^{(3)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are broken spontaneously as well.

Now, we evaluate the function $`n_x`$ to see the practical form of $`\stackrel{}{S}_x`$ given by eq. (10). First we consider a simple case of the large $`\lambda `$ limit. This limit implies that there is no overlapping of the electrons at each even site, thus

$$n_x=1O(\lambda ^2),x=\mathrm{odd},n_x=O(\lambda ^2),x=\mathrm{even}.$$
(11)
The localization property of the ground state in this case is the same as in the XXZ model. To treat a general case, we introduce the following normalization function

$$A(x_0,x,\zeta )\underset{y=x_0}{\overset{x}{}}(a_y^{}+|q|^{\frac{\zeta }{2}}q^{\frac{y}{2}}a_y^{})|\mathrm{vac}^2,$$
(12)
where we employ $`z`$ as a real number and use a parameterization $`z^2=|q|^\zeta `$ for $`|q|>1`$. Note $`A(L,L,\zeta )=z|z`$. This normalization function obeys the recursion relation

$`A(x_0,x,\zeta )=`$ $`ϵ(1+|q^{x\zeta }|)A(x_0,x2,\zeta )`$
$`(1+|q^{x\zeta 1}|)^2A(x_0,x4,\zeta ),`$ (13)
where $`ϵ\lambda ^2+|q|^{1/2}+|q|^{1/2}`$. We can extract the main $`x`$ dependent part out of $`A(x_0,x,\zeta )`$ as follows

$$A(x_0,x,\zeta )=B(x_0,x,\zeta )r^{\frac{xx_0+2}{2}}\underset{y=x_0}{\overset{x}{}}(1+|q^{y\zeta }|),$$
(14)
where $`r(ϵ+\sqrt{ϵ^24})/2`$. The convergence of the quotient $`B(L,x,\zeta )`$ in the infinite volume limit is proved rigorously on the basis of the recursion relation for $`B(L,x,\zeta )`$ derived from the recursion relation (13) HI . The one point function is represented in terms of the normalization function

$$n_x=\frac{\lambda ^2}{r}\frac{B(L,x2,\zeta )B(x+2,L,\zeta )}{B(L,L,\zeta )},$$

for odd $`x`$. The expression for even $`x`$ is also easily obtained as a closed but complicated form. We have bounds $`ln_xu`$ with some positive constants $`l`$ and $`u`$ less than 1. Therefore, these bounds and eq. (10) guarantee the unique domain wall center at $`x=\zeta `$. The numerical solution of the recursion relation for $`B(L,x,\zeta )`$ is useful for seeing the profile of the domain wall practically. The spin one point function for $`S_x^{(3)}`$ is depicted in Fig.2.

Now, we study the stability of the domain wall and the spiral structure of the ground state against a band bending perturbation in a variational argument. To bend the lower flat band, we consider the following perturbation

$$H_{\mathrm{hop}}^{}=s\underset{x,\sigma }{}a_{x\sigma }^{}a_{x\sigma },$$
(15)
with a positive small constant $`s`$. As has been rigorously proved for $`q=1`$ by Tasaki T , the all-spin-up state (8) is preserved as a ground state for sufficiently small $`s/t`$ and $`s/U`$. Here, we consider the problem also in this limit. The all-spin-up state (8) is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`H=H_{\mathrm{hop}}+H_{\mathrm{int}}+H_{\mathrm{hop}}^{}`$ still

$$H|\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up}=E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})|\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up},$$

where $`E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})=(L+1)sϵ`$. If $`|q|1`$, other domain wall states (9) are not eigenstates, and the energy expectation values are lower than this energy eigenvalue $`E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})`$. First, we consider the case of $`|q|1`$. In the large $`t`$ and large $`U`$ limit, the energy expectation value is written in terms of the normalization functions

$$E(\zeta )\frac{z|H|z}{z|z}=E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})s\underset{x=L}{\overset{L}{}}g(x,\zeta ),$$
(16)
where $`x`$ is summed over odd integers and

$`g(x,\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{(|q|^{\frac{1}{2}}|q|^{\frac{1}{2}})^2B(L,x4,\zeta )}{r^2(|q^{\frac{x\zeta 2}{2}}|+|q^{\frac{x\zeta 2}{2}}|)B(L,L,\zeta )}}`$ (17)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵB(x+2,L,\zeta )}{|q^{\frac{x\zeta }{2}}|+|q^{\frac{x\zeta }{2}}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{(|q|^{\frac{1}{2}}+|q|^{\frac{1}{2}})^2B(x+4,L,\zeta )}{r(|q^{\frac{x\zeta +2}{2}}|+|q^{\frac{x\zeta +2}{2}}|)}}\right].`$
Let us compare the energy expectation values of two solutions with different domain wall centers, namely,$`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta +2`$. The analysis of the recursion relation in HI  enables us to estimate $`B(L,x,\zeta )`$, then the energy difference of two nearest neighbor domain walls with a finite distance $`\zeta =O(1)`$ from the origin is

$$|E(\zeta +2)E(\zeta )|=O(L|q|^Ls).$$

The energy cost by the finite shift of the domain wall center might vanish in the infinite volume limit. If this is true, the domain wall solution with an arbitrary center is stable against the perturbation $`H_{\mathrm{hop}}^{}`$. The degeneracy corresponding to the location of the domain wall center may be preserved in the infinite volume limit. On the other hand the energy difference between the all-spin-up state and the state with a domain wall at $`\zeta =L+1`$ is

$$E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})E(L+1)=O(s).$$

The energy eigenvalue of the all-spin-up state is larger than the domain wall state with order $`1`$. Since the energy of the true ground state is lower than the expectation value of the trial state, the all-spin-up state is no longer a ground state unlike the SU(2) invariant model. Therefore, in this variational argument, we conjecture that the localized domain wall structure is stable against this band-bending perturbation. On the other hand, for $`|q|=1`$, all the states $`|z`$ are still exact eigenstates and are still degenerate to the eigenvalue $`E(\mathrm{all}\mathrm{up})`$. Therefore, the stability of the ground states can be proved in the same way as that given by Tasaki T .

Next, we consider the behavior of one electron added to the quarter filled ground state $`|z`$ with a domain wall or a spiral structure,

$$|\psi \underset{x,\sigma }{}\psi _{x\sigma }c_{x\sigma }^{}|z$$
(18)
According to a variational principle, we find the trial wave function $`\psi _{x\sigma }`$ to optimize the following variational functional

$``$ $`\psi |H|\psi ={\displaystyle }_{x,y}t^\sigma _{xy}\psi _{x\sigma }^{}\psi _{y\sigma }`$
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{|z^2q^x|}{1+|z^2q^x|}}\psi _x^{}\psi _x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|z^2q^x|}}\psi _x^{}\psi _x`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{zq^{\frac{x}{2}}}{1+|z^2q^x|}}\psi _x^{}\psi _x{\displaystyle \frac{(zq^{\frac{x}{2}})^{}}{1+|z^2q^x|}}\psi _x^{}\psi _x)n_x.`$ (19)
In our model, the scattering of conduction electrons by the domain wall or spiral spins of the lower band has been given already as a well-defined problem. By optimizing this effective energy function under a normalization constraint $`\psi |\psi =1`$, we obtain a two-component Schrödinger equation. At large $`\lambda `$ or for $`|q|=1`$, the $`n_x`$ becomes periodic for the lattice unit cells. In particular, at large $`\lambda `$, eq. (11) implies that a localized spin sits at an odd site and the conduction electron hops mainly on even sites at large $`U`$. The normalization constraint becomes local in this limit and the hopping term gives a conventional kinetic term in continuum approximation, and the equation for real $`q>1`$ becomes that for a conduction electron on the Kondo lattice coupled to the XXZ model obtained by Yamanaka and Koma YK . The model on the Kondo lattice is realized under special conditions in our model.

In this letter, we construct a set of exact ground states with a ferromagnetic domain wall and a spiral structure in a deformed flat-band Hubbard model. Some results obtained here can be extended to higher dimensional models, as discussed in the original flat-band Hubbard model T0 . After the construction of the domain wall ground state in the XXZ model ASW , interesting properties of excitations were discovered KN1 ; KN2 ; M ; KNS . In particular, singular low-lying excitations localized near the domain wall were discussed in arbitrary dimensions M ; KNS . We can expect similar properties of excitations above the domain wall in our electron model as well.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to C. Nayak and A. Tanaka for carefully reading the manuscript and kind suggestions. They would like to thank T. Koma, B. Nachtergaele, H. Tasaki and M. Yamanaka for helpful comments.