Abstract
It is known that sub-extremal black hole backgrounds do not admit a (bijective) non-degenerate scattering theory in the exterior region due to the fact that the redshift effect at the event horizon acts as an unstable blueshift mechanism in the backwards direction in time. In the extremal case, however, the redshift effect degenerates and hence yields a much milder blueshift effect when viewed in the backwards direction. In this paper, we construct a definitive (bijective) non-degenerate scattering theory for the wave equation on extremal Reissner–Nordström backgrounds. We make use of physical-space energy norms which are non-degenerate both at the event horizon and at null infinity. As an application of our theory we present a construction of a large class of smooth, exponentially decaying modes. We also derive scattering results in the black hole interior region.
Introduction
Introduction and Background
Scattering theories for the wave equation
| 1.1 |
on black hole backgrounds provide useful insights in studying the evolution of perturbations “at infinity”. In this article we construct a new scattering theory for scalar perturbations on extremal Reissner–Nordström. Our theory makes crucial use of the vanishing of the surface gravity on the event horizon and our methods extend those of the horizon instability of extremal black holes in the forward-in-time evolution. In the remainder of this section we will briefly recall scattering theories for sub-extremal backgrounds and in the next section we will provide a rough version of the main theorems.
We will first review the scattering theories of the wave equation (1.1) on Schwarzschild spacetime backgrounds. Let T denote the standard stationary Killing vector field on a Schwarzschild spacetime. Since T is globally causal in the domain of outer communications, the energy flux associated to T is non-negative definite. This property played a crucial role in the work of Dimock and Kay [26, 27] where a T-scattering theory on Schwarzschild, in the sense of Lax–Phillips [43], was developed (Fig. 1a). Subsequently, the T-scattering theory was understood by Nicolas [51], following the notion of scattering states by Friedlander [30] (Fig. 1b).
Fig. 1.
The T-scattering maps on Schwarzschild spacetime
The T-energy scattering theory on Schwarzschild applies also when the standard Schwarzschild time function t is replaced by a time function corresponding to a foliation by hypersurfaces intersecting the future event horizon and terminating at future null infinity (Fig. 2a). This is convenient since it allows one to bound energies as measured by local observers. Recall that T is timelike in the black hole exterior and null on the event horizon. For this reason, the T-energy flux across an achronal hypersurface intersecting the event horizon is positive-definite away from the horizon and degenerate at the horizon. Hence, the associated norm for the T-energy scattering theory is degenerate at the event horizon. On the other hand, it has been shown [23, 24] that Schwarzschild does not admit a non-degenerate scattering theory where the norm on the achronal hypersurface is defined in terms of the energy flux associated to a globally timelike vector field N (Fig. 2b) and the norms on the event horizon and null infinity are also defined in terms of energy flux associated with N, but with additional, arbitrarily fast polynomially decaying weights in time. This is due to the celebrated redshift effect which turns into a blueshift instability mechanism when seen from the backwards scattering point of view.
Fig. 2.
The T and N scattering maps on Schwarzschild
It is important to note that one can counter the blue-shift mechanism and define a backwards scattering map for non-degenerate high-regularity norms on an achronal hypersurface if the data on and are sufficiently regular and decay exponentially fast with sufficiently large rate (Fig. 3). A fully nonlinear version of this statement, in the context of the vacuum Einstein equations, was presented in [19].
Fig. 3.

Higher-order non-degenerate backwards scattering on Schwarzschild
As far as the Kerr family is concerned, Dafermos, Rodnianski and Shlapentokh-Rothman [23] derived a degenerate scattering theory in terms of the energy flux associated to a globally causal vector field V which is null on the event horizon and timelike in the exterior region. Similarly to the Schwarzschild case, the sub-extremal Kerr backgrounds do not admit a non-degenerate scattering theory in the exterior region. Let us also note that a T-energy scattering theory on Oppenheimer–Snyder spacetimes, describing Schwarzschild-like black holes arising from gravitational collapse, was developed in [1].
Finally we present some results regarding the black hole interior region. Luk–Oh [46] showed that the forward evolution of smooth compactly supported initial data on sub-extremal Reissner–Nordström (RN) is -singular at the Cauchy horizon (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4.

Blow-up of norm in any neighborhood of the Cauchy horizon
Similar instability results for the wave equation on Kerr interiors were presented by Luk–Sbierski [47] and independently by Dafermos–Shlapentokh-Rothman [24] (see also [29, 39, 40]). Specifically, in [24] the authors assumed trivial data on the past event horizon and arbitrary, non-trivial polynomially decaying data on past null infinity and showed that local (non-degenerate) energies blow up in a neighborhood of any point at the Cauchy horizon (Fig. 5). The interior of Schwarzschild was considered by Fournodavlos and Sbierski [28], who derived asymptotics for the wave equation at the singular boundary .
Fig. 5.

Blow-up of norm from scattering data on and
Overview of the main theorems
In this section we present a rough version of our main theorems. Theorems A and B are straightforward extensions of known results, so we will only sketch their proofs, whereas Theorems 1–6 are entirely novel results that require new techniques and whose precise statements of the theorems can be found in Sect. 4.
First of all, note that the standard stationary Killing vector field T is causal everywhere in the domain of outer communications of ERN. From this, it follows that the T-energy scattering theory in Schwarzschild can easily be extended to ERN (see Fig. 6):
Fig. 6.
The T-scattering theory for ERN
Theorem A
The T-scattering theory in Schwarzschild extends to extremal Reissner–Nordström.
Proof
Follows by applying the methods in Section 9.6 of [23] together with the decay estimates derived in [8].
In the following theorem, we show that in ERN we can in fact go beyond T-energy scattering by providing a bijective scattering theory for weighted and non-degenerate norms on ERN; see Fig. 7 for an illustration. Here, will denote a spacelike-null hypersurface intersecting and terminating at .
Fig. 7.
A non-degenerate scattering theory on ERN
Theorem 1
(Rough version of Theorem 4.1). The scattering maps defined in the black hole exterior of ERN
between weighted energy spaces on (, ) and (, ),
or
between a weighted energy space on (, ) and a non-degenerate energy space on
are bounded and bijective.
A rough schematic definition of the weighted norms on and is the following
| 1.2 |
A rough schematic definition of non-degenerate energy on is the following
| 1.3 |
Note that the norm is non-degenerate both at the event horizon and at null infinity (the latter understood in an appropriate conformal sense; see Sect. 2.4). The omitted terms involve either smaller weights or extra degenerate factors and additional angular or time derivatives. Here and denote the energy fluxes associated to the vector fields T and N and is a tangential to derivative such that . Let denote the closure of smooth compactly supported data under the corresponding norms schematically defined above.
The above theorem is in stark contrast to the sub-extremal case where the backwards evolution is singular at the event horizon (contrast Fig. 7 with Fig. 2).
By the bijective properties of Theorem 1, we can moreover conclude immediately that all scattering data along and with finite T-energy but with infinite weighted norm (as in (1.2)) will have an infinite weighted non-degenerate energy on . The above theorem however does not specify which of the horizon-localized N-energy or the weighted energy for , for some large , is infinite. The following theorem shows that there are characteristic data for which the solutions specifically have infinite horizon-localized N-energy. This immediately implies that the unweighted non-degenerate N-energy forward scattering map fails to be invertible, in other words we can find data with finite characteristic N-energies but with infinite standard (unweighted) N-energy at .
Theorem B
There exists solutions to (1.1) on ERN that are smooth away from the event horizon with finite T-energy flux along and future null infinity , such that either:
-
(i)vanishes, but satisfies
and has infinite unweighted N-energy flux along , with arbitrarily close to the horizon radius , or -
(ii)vanishes, but satisfies
and has infinite weighted N-energy flux along with arbitrarily large.
Proof
See “Appendix A”.
The following theorem concerns the scattering of initial data with higher regularity; see Fig. 8 for an illustration.
Fig. 8.
Higher-order degenerate scattering theory on ERN
Theorem 2
(Rough version of Theorem 4.2). The scattering maps defined in the black hole exterior of ERN
between weighted higher-order energy spaces on (, ) and (, )
or
between a weighted higher-order energy space on (, ) and a degenerate higher-order energy space on
are bounded and bijective.
The above theorem is of particular importance in constructing special solutions with high regularity. We next present a scattering result for the black hole interior of ERN (Fig. 9) that extends the results derived in [31].
Fig. 9.

Scattering theory in the black hole interior of ERN
Theorem 3
(Rough version of Theorem 4.3) The scattering map in the black hole interior of ERN defined between weighted energy spaces is bounded and bijective.
We will now provide a few applications of the above theorems. The first application has to do with the relation of decay along and and regularity of the data on the hypersurface (see Fig. 10).
Fig. 10.

Construction of regular solutions with polynomially decaying scattering data on ERN
Theorem 4
(Rough version of Theorem 4.4). Solutions to the wave equation (1.1) on ERN with sufficiently fast polynomial decay rates along and have finite norm in the domain of dependence of .
For a precise statement see Theorem 4.4. The above theorem relies on a time integral construction and a delicate use of Theorem 2. Contrast this result with the sub-extremal case where one needs to consider superexponential rates to overcome the (higher-order) blue-shift effect and obtain a similar regularity result in the exterior region up to and including the event horizon. A corollary of this result is the following
Theorem 5
(Rough version of Theorem 4.5). Consider smooth scattering data which are exponential in time functions with identical decay rates on and on . There exists a unique exponentially decaying smooth solution to the Eq. (1.1) which admits these data.
We refer to such solutions as mode solutions. See also Remarks 4.3 and 4.4 for a discussion about the relation between our modes solutions and the notion of quasinormal mode solutions.
Finally, we have the following application for the black hole interior of ERN.
Theorem 6
(Rough version of Theorem 4.6). Solutions to the wave equation (1.1) on ERN with finite energy norm on the hypersurface have finite norm in the black hole interior region up to and including the Cauchy horizon.
Contrast Fig. 11 with Fig. 4 in the sub-extremal case. See also Remark 4.5.
Fig. 11.

Finiteness of norm in the black hole interior of ERN
Related works
A closely related topic to the scattering theories on black holes is the black hole stability problem for the forward-in-time evolution. Intense research has been done for both sub-extremal and extremal black holes in this direction. Decay results for the wave equation on the full sub-extremal Kerr family were derived in [22]. Definitive stability results of the linearized gravity system for Schwarzschild and Reissner–Nordström were presented in [20] and [35, 36], respectively. The non-linear stability of Schwarzschild in a symmetry restricted context was presented in [42]. The rigorous study of linear waves on extremal black holes was initiated by the second author in [8–12] where it was shown that scalar perturbations are unstable along the event horizon in the sense that higher-order transversal derivatives asymptotically blow up towards the future. The stronger regularity properties of scalar perturbations in the interior of extremal black hole spacetimes compared to sub-extremal black holes was derived by the third author in [31, 32]. Precise late-time asymptotics were derived in [5]. These asymptotics led to a novel observational signature of ERN [4] where it was shown that the horizon instability of ERN is in fact “observable” by observers at null infinity. For a detailed study of this signature we refer to the recent [15]. For works on extremal Kerr spacetimes we refer to the works [16, 38, 45]. Extentions of the horizon instability have been presented in various settings [3, 14, 18, 37, 50, 52, 54]. For a detailed review of scalar perturbations on extremal backgrounds we refer to [13].
Discussion on nonlinear problems
The methods developed in this article have applications beyond extremal black holes. Indeed, they may be also applied in the construction of non-degenerate scattering theories with weighted energy norms in more general asymptotically flat spacetimes without a local redshift effect at the horizon (which acts as a blueshift effect in backwards evolution). One such example would be the Minkowski spacetime; see Sect. 5. Since our methods involve weighted and non-degenerate energies, we expect them to be particularly useful for developing a scattering theory for nonlinear wave equations satisfying the classical null condition, as weighted energies need to be controlled in order to obtain global well-posedness for the (forwards) initial value problem [41]. It would be moreover interesting to explore the generalization of our methods to the setting of perturbations of Minkowski in the context of a scattering problem for the Einstein equations. See also [44] for work in this direction.
Another interesting direction to explore is the construction of dynamically extremal black holes settling down to extremal Reissner–Nordström with inverse polynomial rates from initial data along the future event horizon and future null infinity, which would involve a generalization of the backwards evolution estimates in this article to the setting of the Einstein equations. Note that the construction of dynamically extremal black holes settling down exponentially follows from an application of the methods of [19]. However, whereas it is conjectured in [19] that a scattering construction of dynamically sub-extremal black holes settling down inverse polynomially will generically result in spacetimes with a weak null singularity at the event horizon, our methods suggest that the event horizon of dynamically extremal black holes may generically be more regular (with the regularity depending on the assumed polynomial decay rate).
Overview of paper
We provide in this section an overview of the remainder of the paper.
In Sect. 2, we introduce the extremal Reissner–Nordström geometry and spacetime foliations. We also introduce the main notation used throughout the rest of the paper.
We introduce in Sect. 3 the main Hilbert spaces which appear as domains for our scattering maps.
Having introduced the main notation and Hilbert spaces, we subsequently give precise statement of the main theorems of the paper in Sect. 4.
In Sect. 5, we outline the main new ideas introduced in the present paper and we provide a sketch of the key proofs.
We construct in Sect. 6 the forwards scattering map , mapping initial data on a mixed spacelike-null hypersurface to the traces of the radiation field at the future event horizon and future null infinity. We moreover construct restrictions to this map which involve additionally higher-order, degenerate norms.
In Sect. 7, we construct the backwards evolution map , which send initial data for the radiation field at the future event horizon and future null infinity to the trace of the solution at a mixed spacelike-null hypersurface and is the inverse of . Similarly, we construct restrictions of involving higher-order, degenerate norms.
We prove in Sect. 8 additional energy estimates (in forwards and backwards time direction) that allow us to construct invertible maps that send initial data along the asymptotically flat hypersurface to the future event horizon/null infinity and past event horizon/null infinity, respectively. The composition defines the scattering map, which may be thought of as the key object in our non-degenerate scattering theory.
In Sect. 9 we construct a scattering map in a subset of the black hole interior of extremal Reissner–Nordström.
In the rest of the paper, we provide several applications of the scattering theory developed in the aforementioned sections. In Sect. 10, we apply the backwards estimates of Sect. 7 to construct arbitrarily regular solutions to (1.1) from data along future null infinity and the future event horizon. As a corollary, we construct in Sect. 11 smooth mode solutions from data at infinity and the event horizon.
Geometry and Notation
Black hole exterior
Consider the 1-parameter family of extremal Reissner-Nordström spacetimes , where is a manifold-with-boundary. In coordinates, g can be expressed as follows:
| 2.1 |
where , with the mass parameter, and are spherical coordinates on . We denote the boundary as follows . We refer to as the future event horizon. The coordinate vector field is a Killing vector field that generates the time-translation symmetry of the spacetime.
Consider , with
We moreover denote and we will also employ the notation , , and .
We can change to the coordinate chart on the manifold , in which g can be expressed as follows:
| 2.2 |
and . By employing the coordinate chart , we can moreover smoothly embed into a different manifold-with-boundary , where we denote . We refer to as the past event horizon. In these coordinates .
Finally, it will also be convenient to employ the Eddington–Finkelstein double null coordinate chart in , in which g takes the following form:
| 2.3 |
Here, .
In these coordinates . We moreover introduce the following vector field notation in coordinates:
We have that and . Note that in (v, r) coordinates, we can express:
Let
denote the induced covariant derivative on the spheres of constant (u, v). Then we denote the following rescaled covariant derivative:
![]() |
The rescaled covariant derivative
is the standard covariant derivative on the unit round sphere.
Consider the following rescaled radial coordinate on : . The metric takes the following form in coordinates:
We can then express . We can embed into the manifold-with-boundary
We denote and refer to this hypersurface as future null infinity. By considering a conformally rescaled metric
in coordinates, we can extend smoothly to so that embeds as a genuine null boundary with respect to . This interpretation, however, will not be necessary for our purposes.
Similarly, we can embed into the manifold-with-boundary
and define past null infinity as the hypersurface , which can be interpreted as a null boundary with respect to a smooth extension of .
Black hole interior
By employing coordinates it follows immediately that we can smoothly embed into the manifold , where the metric g takes on the form (2.1). We will refer to the subset as the black hole interior. By defining in , with
we can also introduce coordinates on , in which the metric takes the expression (2.2). In these coordinates, it immediately follows that we can embed into a larger manifold . Let us denote the manifold-with-boundary and the boundary
which we refer to as the inner horizon or the Cauchy horizon (the latter terminology follows from the globally hyperbolic spacetime regions considered in Sect. 2.3).
Finally, it is also useful to work in Eddington–Finkelstein double-null coordinates in , in which the metric g takes the form (2.3), with . Furthermore, as in , we have that and .1
Foliations
We introduce the function , defined as follows: and , where is a piecewise smooth non-negative function satisfying , when , with and for , with . Furthermore, in , h is smooth and satisfies .
Consider the corresponding hypersurface . Then is an ingoing null hypersurface intersecting , tangential to and is an outgoing null hypersurface, tangential to L. Furthermore, is spacelike. We denote and observe that
Without loss of generality, we can assume that (by taking appropriately large for fixed and ). We will consider the coordinate chart on .
We denote with the future and past domain of dependence, respectively, of a spacelike or mixed spacelike-null hypersurface S. Let . We can foliate as follows:
where denote the hypersurfaces induced by flowing along T, with .
Denote with the ingoing null part of and with the outgoing part.
We can extend (with respect to the coordinate chart) into the extended manifold-with-boundary by attaching the boundary :
Note that we can similarly consider where is the time-reversed analogue of (the roles of u and v reversed) that intersects and define, with respect to coordinates and the analogue of and also define .
The hypersurface naturally extends to a hypersurface in , with endpoints on and , and can be equipped with the coordinate chart .
We moreover define .
Let . We will denote with the hypersurface . Furthermore, we let
We denote furthermore
We foliate the regions , with , by outgoing null hypersurfaces that we also denote . In this setting . It is also useful to consider a foliation by ingoing null hypersurfaces .
Similarly, we foliate by ingoing hypersurfaces and outgoing hypersurfaces .
We moreover consider the following null hypersurfaces in : and . We refer to Fig. 12 for an illustration of the above foliations and hypersurfaces.
Fig. 12.

A Penrose diagrammatic representation of the four main spacetime regions (shaded) of the extremal Reissner–Nordström manifold where we derive energy estimates, together with their respective foliations
We use the following notation for the standard volume form on the unit round sphere: . Let and be the normal vector fields to and , respectively. We denote with , the induced volume forms on and respectively. On the null segments and , and are not uniquely defined, so we take the following conventions:
We moreover use the notation for the natural volume form on or . Note that in coordinates on either or , we can express:
We use the notation for the natural volume form on (corresponding to the metric ). In coordinates on , we can express:
Additional notation
Let . Suppose is compact. Then the Sobolev spaces are defined in a coordinate-independent way with respect to the following norm:
Recall that we can write in coordinates: , which is a regular vector field in . Furthermore, we can express in coordinates:
which implies that is also regular in . Hence, is a natural choice of Sobolev space with respect to the conformal metric .
If is compact, we instead define in a coordinate-independent way with respect to the following norm:
In coordinates, we can express , which is a regular vector field in . We can also express
in coordinates, which clearly is also regular . We have that is therefore a natural choice of Sobolev space with respect to .
We define the Sobolev spaces with respect to the following norm:
Let f, g be positive real-valued functions. We will make use of the notation when there exists a constant such that . We will denote when and . We will also employ the alternate notation , with f, g for positive constants, to indicate:
We use the “big O” notation and , to group functions f of r satisfying
respectively.
Energy Spaces
Main energy spaces
In this section, we will introduce the Hilbert spaces on which we will define scattering maps. Before we can do so, we will need existence and uniqueness (in the smooth category) for the Cauchy problem for (1.1) on extremal Reissner–Nordström.
Theorem 3.1
Consider . Then there exists a unique solution to (1.1) such that and .
Consider . Then there exists a unique solution to (1.1) such that and .
Consider characteristic initial data , with and . Then there exists a unique solution to (1.1) such that .
We denote with the space of smooth functions on the hypersurface , with respect to the coordinate chart introduced in Sect. 2.3. We denote with the space of smooth function on the restriction , with respect to the coordinate chart .
Let us introduce the stress-energy tensor of (1.1), defined as follows with respect to a coordinate basis:
Given a vector field X on , we define the corresponding X-energy current as follows:
We will denote the radiation field of as follows:
We define the following energy space
Definition 3.1
Define the norm as follows: let , then
where denotes the (unique) smooth local extension of in that satisfies and and solves (1.1) (see Theorem 3.1), so that all derivatives of above can be expressed solely in terms of derivatives of and .
We also define the norm on as follows:
We denote with and the completions of with respect to the norms and , respectively. Note that, by construction,
Definition 3.2
Define the norm as follows: let , then
where denotes the (unique) smooth local extension of to that satisfies and and solves (1.1) (see Theorem 3.1), so that all derivatives of above can be expressed solely in terms of derivatives of and .
We also define the norm on as follows:
![]() |
We denote with and the completions of with respect to the norms and , respectively. Note that, by construction,
We denote with and the spaces of smooth, compactly supported functions on and , respectively.
Definition 3.3
Let . Define the norms and as follows: let , then
We also define the norms and as follows: let , then
![]() |
Then we denote with and the completions of with respect to the product norms associated to and , respectively.
Note that
Definition 3.4
Define the norms and on respectively and as follows: let , then
with respect to the coordinate charts .
We also define the norms and on respectively and as follows: let , then
Then we denote with and the completions of with respect to the product norms associated to and , and and ,respectively.
Note that
Degenerate higher-order energy spaces
In this section, we will introduce analogues of the Hilbert spaces introduced in Sect. 3.1, but with norms depending on degenerate higher-order derivatives.
Definition 3.5
Define the norm as follows: let , then
We denote with the completion of with respect to the norm .
Definition 3.6
Define the norm as follows: let , then
![]() |
where denotes the smooth extension of to that satisfies and and solves (1.1) (see Theorem 3.1), so that all derivatives of above can be expressed solely in terms of derivatives of and .
We denote with the completion of with respect to the norm .
Definition 3.7
Let and . Define the higher-order norms and as follows: let , then
Then we denote with the completion of with respect to the norms and .
Note that for all ,
Definition 3.8
Let . Define the higher-order norms and , as follows: let , then
![]() |
with respect to the coordinate charts .
Then we denote with the completion of with respect to the norms and .
Black hole interior energy spaces
In this section, we introduce additional energy spaces that play a role in a non-degenerate scattering theory for the extremal Reissner–Nordström black hole interior.
Definition 3.9
Let and . Define the norms and as follows: let and , then
![]() |
Then we denote with and the completions of and with respect to the norms and , respectively.
Definition 3.10
Let and . Define the norms and as follows: let and , then
![]() |
Then we denote with and the completions of and with respect to the norms and , respectively.
Main Theorems
In this section, we give precise statements of the results proved in this paper. We refer to Sects. 2 and 3 for an introduction to the notation and definitions of the objects appearing in the statements of the theorems.
Non-degenerate scattering theory results
We first state the main theorems that establish a non-degenerate scattering theory in extremal Reissner–Nordström.
Theorem 4.1
The following linear maps
with , , are well-defined. Here, denotes the unique solution to (1.1) with initial data in accordance with statements 2. and 3. of Theorem 3.1.
Furthermore, their unique extensions
are bijective and bounded linear operators, and
is also a bijective bounded linear operator.
We refer to the maps and as a forwards evolution maps, and and backwards evolution maps and as the scattering map.
Remark 4.1
An analogous result holds with respect to the degenerate energy spaces , , , , and . This follows easily from an analogue of Proposition 9.6.1 in [23] applied to the setting of extremal Reissner–Nordström; see also Sects. 6.5, 7.4 and 8.3. They advantage of Theorem 4.1 is the use of non-degenerate and weighted energy norms that also appear when proving global uniform boundedness and decay estimates for solutions to (1.1).
The following theorem extends Theorem 4.1 by considering degenerate and weighted higher-order energy spaces.
Theorem 4.2
Let . We can restrict the codomains of the linear maps and defined in Theorem 4.1, to arrive at
which are well-defined.
Furthermore, the unique extensions
are bijective and bounded linear operators and
is also a bijective bounded linear operator.
Both Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 follow by combining Propositions 6.16 and 7.11, Corollary 7.12 and Propositions 8.11 and 8.14.
We additionally construct a scattering map restricted to the black hole interior.
Theorem 4.3
Let with suitably large. The following linear map:
with
is well-defined, with denoting the unique solution to (1.1) with initial data in accordance with statement 3. of Theorem 3.1.
Furthermore, uniquely as a bijective, bounded linear operator:
Applications
In this section, we state some applications of the non-degenerate scattering theory of Sect. 4.1.
In Theorem 4.4 below, we show that we can obtain unique solutions to (1.1) with arbitrary high Sobolev regularity (with respect to the differentiable structure on ) from suitably regular and polynomially decaying scattering data on and in an -integrated sense.
Theorem 4.4
Let and let . Assume that and . Define the integral functions as follows:
and assume moreover that
| 4.1 |
Then there exists a unique corresponding solution to (1.1) that satisfies , and
Remark 4.2
Theorem 4.4 illustrates a stark difference in the setting of extremal Reissner–Nordström with the sub-extremal setting, where generic polynomially decaying data along the future event horizon and future null infinity (with an arbitrarily fast decay rate) lead to blow-up of the non-degenerate energy along ; see [23, 24].
As a corollary of Theorem 4.4, we can moreover construct smooth solutions and in particular smooth solutions with an exact exponential time dependence.
Theorem 4.5
Let and assume that and all derivatives up to any order decay superpolynomially in v and u, respectively.
-
(i)
Then there exists a corresponding smooth solution to (1.1) on such that can moreover be smoothly extended to with respect to the differentiable structure on .
-
(ii)Assume additionally that and for , with such that . Then we can express
with and
We refer to as mode solutions.
Theorem 4.5 (i) follows from Corollary 11.1 and Theorem 4.5 (ii) follows from Proposition 11.2.
Remark 4.3
Note that in order for an analogous result to Theorem 4.5 (i) to hold in sub-extremal Reissner–Nordström, one needs to consider scattering data that are superexponentially decaying, and hence it cannot be used to prove the analogue of Theorem 4.5 (ii). Nevertheless, the existence of a more restricted class of smooth solutions that behave exponentially in time with arbitrary such that in sub-extremal Reissner–Nordström can be established by restricting to fixed spherical harmonics and applying standard asymptotic ODE analysis.
Remark 4.4
One can apply the results of [5] to show that the time translations acting on -based Sobolev spaces
with the solution to (1.1) associated to , form a continuous semi-group, such that , with the corresponding densely defined infinitesimal generator that formally agrees with T:
The results of [55] imply that, in the setting of asymptotically de Sitter or anti de Sitter spacetimes, quasi-normal modes or resonances are smooth mode solutions that can be interpreted as eigenfunctions of and the corresponding frequencies form a discrete set in the complex plane (cf. the normal modes and frequencies of an idealised vibrating string or membrane).
The smooth mode solutions of Theorem 4.5 (ii) (and those obtained in the sub-extremal setting by ODE arguments as sketched in Remark 4.3) form an obstruction to extending this interpretation to the asymptotically flat setting. Indeed, all the mode solutions of Theorem 4.5 (ii) are eigenfunctions of but the corresponding set of frequencies , which is the entire open lower-half complex plane, is certainly not discrete. In order to maintain the viewpoint of [55], one has to consider smaller function spaces that exclude the smooth mode solutions of Theorem 4.5 (ii); see [34].
Theorem 4.6
Let be suitably large. Then there exists a constant such that we can estimate in the black hole interior:
Remark 4.5
Theorem 4.6 addresses the question of whether in the black hole interior of extremal Reissner–Nordström for localized, low regularity initial data, which was raised as an open problem in [25]. For smooth and localized data, this statement follows from [5, 31]. Indeed, Theorem 4.6 demonstrates that boundedness of a non-degenerate energy with weights that grow in r (together with boundedness of energies involving additional derivatives that are tangential to the event horizon) is sufficient to establish .
Theorem 4.6 can straightforwardly be extended to the setting of extremal Reissner–Nordström–de Sitter black holes, where there is no need to include r-weights in the non-degenerate energy norm that is sufficient to establish . See also [2] for the results in the interior of extremal Reissner–Nordström–de Sitter.
Overview of Techniques and Key Ideas
In this section, we provide an overview of the main techniques that are used in the proofs of the theorems stated in Sect. 4. We will highlight the key new ideas and estimates that are introduced in this paper.
The proof of the main theorems Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2 can roughly be split into four parts:
- 1.)
Showing that the linear maps , and , that appear in Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2 are well-defined when considering as a domain spaces of either smooth or smooth and compactly supported functions.
- 2.)
Proving uniform boundedness properties of these linear maps with respect to weighted Sobolev norms. This allows one to immediately extend the linear maps to the completions of the spaces of smooth (and compactly) supported functions with respect to appropriately weighted Sobolev norms.
- 3.)
Constructing the linear maps and .
- 4.)
Constructing (independently from above).
The heart of this paper consists of establishing 2.) and 3.) by proving uniform estimates for smooth (and compactly supported) data along , and . An overview of the corresponding estimates and techniques leading to 2.) is given in Sects. 5.1–5.3. Part 3.) follows by complementing these estimates with additional estimates in near the past limit points of and , which is briefly discussed in Sect. 5.4. We briefly discuss the black hole interior estimates involved in 4.) in Sect. 5.5.
Part 1.) follows from local estimates combined with soft global statements that have already been established in the literature. We give an overview of the logic of the arguments in this section.
The forwards map
is well-defined by global existence and uniqueness for (1.1) combined with the finiteness (and decay) of the radiation field , see for example the results in [5, 8, 9].
In order to show that the backwards map2
is well-defined, we first need to make sense of the notion of prescribing initial data “at infinity”; that is to say, we need to show as a preliminary step that we can associate to each pair a unique solution to (1.1), such that and . This may be viewed as a semi-global problem. We construct as the limit of a sequence of solutions arising from a sequence of local initial value problems with fixed initial data imposed on the null hypersurfaces and trivial data on , such that as . A very similar procedure was carried out in the physical space construction of scattering maps on Schwarzschild in Proposition 9.6.1 in [23].3 One could alternatively interpret as a genuine null hypersurface with respect to the conformally rescaled metric , which turns the semi-global problem into a local problem.
Backwards r-weighted estimates
We introduce time-reversed analogues of the -weighted estimates of Dafermos–Rodnianski [21] and the -weighted estimates of [5]. We first illustrate key aspects of these estimates in the setting of the standard wave equation on Minkowski. We can foliate the causal future of a null cone in Minkowski by outgoing spherical null cones , with t, r the standard spherical Minkowski coordinates and . Let us denote and . We consider smooth, compactly supported initial data on , with such that vanishes along .
The -weighted estimates applied backwards in time with and give
![]() |
for .
In contrast with the usual forwards -weighted estimates, the spacetime integrals on the right-hand sides above have a bad sign. Hence, in order to obtain control of r-weighted energies along , we need to start by controlling
Note that standard -energy conservation implies that for any :
| 5.1 |
Hence, using that is vanishing along , we can integrate the above equation in to obtain
We can integrate by parts to convert one u-integration into an additional u weight:
| 5.2 |
By applying both the and estimates above, and integrating by parts once more along as in (5.2), we obtain:
| 5.3 |
Comparing (5.3) with (5.1) with , we see that we can obtain stronger, weighted uniform control along , provided we control an appropriately weighted energy along . One may compare this to the (modified) energy estimate obtained by using the Morawetz conformal vector field , which is the generator of the inverted time translation conformal symmetries, as a vector field multiplier instead of [48]; see also Sect. 5.4.
The main difference in the setting of extremal Reissner–Nordström is that the -estimates above only apply in the spacetime region where , with suitably large, and they have to be complemented by an analogous hierarchy of weighted estimates in a region near , i.e. with sufficiently small. Roughly speaking, the analogue of the weighted energy near corresponds to the restriction of the following non-degenerate energy (in (v, r) coordinates):
where N is a timelike vector field in .
It is in controlling the non-degenerate energy in the backwards direction that we make essential use of the extremality of extremal Reissner–Nordström or the degeneracy of the event horizon. Indeed, if we were to consider instead sub-extremal Reissner–Nordström, we would fail to obtain control of a non-degenerate energy near with polynomially decaying data along due to the blueshift effect (the time reversed redshift effect); see [23, 24].4
In order to control the boundary terms arising from restricting the r-weighted estimates near and , we apply the Morawetz estimate derived in [8] in the backwards direction. Note that the presence of trapped null geodesics along the photon sphere at does not lead to a loss of derivatives in the analogue of (5.3). This is because the backwards estimates, in contrast with the forwards estimates (see Sect. 5.2), do not require an application of a Morawetz estimate with non-degenerate control at the photon sphere.
Forwards r-weighted estimates revisited
We consider again the setting of Minkowski to illustrate the main ideas. In order to construct a bijection from an r-weighted energy space on to a u-weighted energy space on , we need to complement the backwards estimate (5.3) with the following forwards estimate:
| 5.4 |
Note that a standard application of the -weighted estimates (combined with energy conservation (5.1) and a Morawetz estimate), see [21], is the following energy decay statement:
One can apply this estimate along a suitable dyadic sequence and combine it with energy conservation (5.1) to arrive at the estimate
with . In order to take , we instead revisit the -estimates and, rather than deriving energy decay along , we observe that the -estimates (together with (5.1) and a Morawetz estimate) provide directly control over
After integrating by parts twice in u as in (5.2), we arrive at (5.4).
We arrive at an analogous estimate to (5.4) in the extremal Reissner–Nordström setting by following the same ideas, both near and near . The main difference is that whenever we apply a Morawetz estimate, we lose a derivative because of the trapping of null geodesics, which we have to take into account when defining the appropriate energy spaces.
Higher-order energies and time integrals
Given suitably regular and suitably decaying scattering data on and , we can apply Theorem 4.1 to construct a corresponding solution (with respect the differentiable structure on ) to (1.1) such that approaches the scattering data as or .
In the setting of (1.1) on Minkowski with coordinates , where (so that as and as ), we similarly have that for any . In order to show that moreover , we first consider . By rearranging and rescaling (1.1) in Minkowski, we have that in (u, x) coordinates:
with . So, we obtain that
if we can show that
Since
commutes with the operator , both in Minkowski and in extremal Reissner–Nordström, we can immediately obtain
from Theorem 4.1 (or its Minkowski analogue). Moreover, follows from bounding uniformly in u the integral:
Hence, we have to establish control over improved r-weighted energies where is replaced by and . Analogous improved r-weighted energies have appeared previously in the setting of forwards estimates in [5, 7, 53], see also the related energies in [49]. The backwards analogues of the corresponding improved r-weighted estimates form the core of the proof of Theorem 4.2.
To pass from to , we apply the above estimates to solutions to (1.1), such that . Such solutions can easily be constructed by considering initial scattering data that are time integrals of the scattering data in v and in u, assuming moreover that and vanish as and , respectively.
In fact, we can show by an extension of the arguments above that for all , assuming suitably regular and decaying data along and , so we can conclude that , provided the scattering data decays suitably fast in time. In order to obtain more regularity, we need faster polynomial decay along . This is the content of Theorem 4.4. By considering smooth and superpolynomially decaying data along and applying standard Sobolev inequalities, we can in fact take n arbitrarily high and show that ; see Theorem 4.5.
Note that time integrals also play an important role in [5, 6] for spherical symmetric solutions. In that setting, one needs to solve an elliptic PDE (which reduces to an ODE in spherical symmetry) to construct , which is contrast with the backwards problem, where the construction is much simpler because we can integrate the scattering data in time to obtain data leading to .
Estimates near spacelike infinity
The backwards and forwards estimates sketched in Sects. 5.1 and 5.2 allow us to construct a bijection between weighted energy spaces on and . In order to construct the bijection between energy spaces on and we need to additionally construct a bijection between appropriate energy spaces on and . Without loss of generality, we can pick so that
and we are left with only proving energy estimates in the regions and , see Sect. 2.3 and Fig. 12.
While r-weighted estimates are still suitable in the forwards direction in and , they are not suitable in the backwards direction. We therefore consider energy estimates for the radiation field with the vector field multiplier , both in and in order to arrive at the analogue of the estimate. In Minkowski space, K corresponds to the generator of a conformal symmetry, the inverted time translations. It is a Killing vector field of the rescaled metric , where m is the Minkowski metric. Hence, K may be thought of as the analogue of when considering instead of and instead of m. In particular, when considering K as a vector field multiplier in a spacetime region of Minkowski, one can obtain a weighted energy conservation law for . Since r is large in in extremal Reissner–Nordström, K may be thought of as an “approximate Killing vector field” of the rescaled metric .
Another useful property of K is that it is invariant under the Couch–Torrence conformal symmetry [17] that maps to . It therefore plays the same role when used as a vector field multiplier for the radiation field in as it does in .
In order to obtain the analogue of the -weighted estimate with for , we apply instead the vector field multiplier in and in .
We construct
by first observing that the spacetime is invariant under the map , so the above discussion on can be applied to associate to each pair a solution such that lie in a suitable energy space. We show that in fact , so we can apply (the extension of) to obtain a pair of radiation fields .
Scattering and regularity in black hole interiors
We derive estimates for the radiation field in using once again the vector field . Recall from Sect. 5.4 that the favourable properties of K as a vector field multiplier are related to its role as an approximate conformal symmetry generator near infinity and its invariance under the Couch–Torrence conformal symmetry. The equation for the radiation field takes the same form in and near if one considers the standard Eddington–Finkelstein double-null coordinates in and in . Therefore, K (now defined with respect to (u, v) coordinates in ) remains useful in the black hole interior. The usefulness of K in the interior of extremal black holes was already observed in [31–33].
The Forwards Evolution Map
In this section, we present the energy estimates in the forwards time direction that are relevant for defining the forwards evolution map (see Sect. 6.5).
Preliminary estimates
We make use of the following Hardy inequalities:
Lemma 6.1
(Hardy inequalities). Let and let be a function with . Then
| 6.1 |
| 6.2 |
Proof
See the proof of Lemma 2.2 in [7].
We define the angular momentum operators , with , as follows:
We denote for
We now state the following standard inequalities on :
Lemma 6.2
(Angular momentum operator inequalities). Let be a function. Then we can estimate
| 6.3 |
| 6.4 |
Lemma 6.3
(Degenerate energy conservation). Let be a smooth solution to (1.1). Then
![]() |
and
Proof
Radiation field at null infinity
We now recall some regularity properties of the radiation field at null infinity, which do not immediately follow from Theorem 3.1, and are derived in [5].
Lemma 6.4
Let be a smooth solution to (1.1). Then for all , we have that
| 6.5 |
Proof
By (1.1) we obtain the following equation for :
| 6.6 |
which implies (6.5) with . We obtain by induction.
Proposition 6.5
Let . Then for all and ,
In particular, the limit
exists for all and defines a smooth function on .
Proof
The case follows from Section 3 of [7] by using (6.6). We obtain the case via an induction argument, where in the induction step we simply repeat the argument for using instead the commuted equation (6.5). See also Proposition 6.2 of [5].
Forwards energy estimates
The two main ingredients for establishing energy decay estimates forwards in time are Morawetz estimates away from and (Theorem 6.6 below) and hierarchies of - and -weighted estimates in a neighbourhood of the event horizon and future null infinity (Theorem 6.7 below).
Theorem 6.6
(Morawetz/integrated local energy decay estimate, [8]). Let and , then for all and there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
6.7 |
Furthermore, we have that for any :
| 6.8 |
Theorem 6.7
Let be a solution to (1.1) arising from initial data . Let and , then we can estimate for all :
![]() |
6.9 |
Proof
See Proposition 7.6 of [5].
By combining Theorems 6.6 and 6.7 with Lemma 6.3 and applying the mean-value theorem along a dyadic sequence of times (“the pigeonhole principle”), one can obtain energy decay in time along the foliation ; see for example [8, 9] and [5] for an application of this procedure in extremal Reissner–Nordström.
In the present article, however, we will not apply the mean-value theorem, bur rather derive uniform boundedness estimates for various time-integrated energies on the left-hand side (see Proposition 6.8). We will then use these time-integrated energy estimates to obtain estimates for energy fluxes along and with growing time weights inside the integrals (Corollary 6.10).
Proposition 6.8
There exists a constant such that
| 6.10 |
and
![]() |
6.11 |
Proof
Note first of all that for all
| 6.12 |
where in the final inequality we applied Lemma 6.1 and (6.7), using that attains a finite limit at , by Proposition 6.5.
Similarly, we have that
| 6.13 |
We combine (6.12) and (6.13) together with (6.8) to obtain the estimate:
![]() |
We now apply (6.9) with and to obtain:
| 6.14 |
By Lemma 6.3 and (6.14), we immediately obtain also
| 6.15 |
We integrate once more in and apply (6.9) with and to obtain (6.10). Equation (6.11) follows from (6.10) by applying Lemma 6.3 applied in the region , together with (6.9) with and .
The following simple lemma is crucial in order to bound energy norms along and with time-weights inside the integrals.
Lemma 6.9
Let . Let such that . Then
| 6.16 |
Proof
We integrate the left-hand side of (6.16) by parts to obtain
Note that for :
and hence,
We then keep integrating by parts to arrive (6.16), using that
Corollary 6.10
There exists a constant such that
![]() |
6.17 |
Proof
First of all, by Theorem 5.1 from [5] it follows that for the following qualitative statements hold:5
We can therefore apply Proposition 6.8 together with Lemma 6.9 with to obtain the desired estimate for the term. The estimate follows by replacing with and applying (6.15) and Lemma 6.9 with . Finally, we obtain the estimate by replacing with and applying Lemma 6.3.
We will complement (6.17) in Corollary 6.10 with an estimate involving additional angular derivatives. The motivation for this comes from the energy estimates in Sect. 8.1.
Corollary 6.11
There exists a constant such that
![]() |
Proof
We apply (6.17) and add the Lemma 6.3 estimate applied to , where .
Higher-order estimates
In this section we will derive the analogue of Corollary 6.10 for with , but with stronger growing weights in u and v on the left-hand side (depending on n).
Proposition 6.12
Let . Then, there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
6.18 |
Proof
We will derive (6.18) by induction. Observe that the case follows immediately from (6.8). Now, suppose (6.18) holds for all . Then, by replacing with (using that T commutes with the wave operator ) and setting , we have that
Now, we apply the following identities
| 6.19 |
| 6.20 |
and we integrate once more in to obtain:
![]() |
where we moreover applied Lemma 6.1 (together with a standard averaging argument near the boundaries) and Theorem 6.6 to control the lowest order derivative terms on the right-hand sides of (6.19) and (6.20).
Now, apply (6.9) with and when and and when , together with Lemma 6.2, to obtain
Subsequently, apply (6.9) again, with and when and and when .
Finally, since we are integrating two more times in compared to the estimate, we can also include on the left-hand side of the above estimate the terms
to obtain (6.18) with .
Corollary 6.13
Let . Then, there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
6.21 |
Proof
We apply (6.18), with n replaced by and replaced by with and suitably chosen, and combine it with Lemma 6.3, Lemma 6.9 to derive (6.21). The decay of and that is required in order to be able to apply Lemma 6.9 follows from Theorem 5.1 of [5].
We will complement (6.21) in Corollary 6.13 with an estimate involving additional angular derivatives. The motivation for this comes from the energy estimates in Sect. 8.2.
Corollary 6.14
Let . Then, there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
6.22 |
Construction of the forwards evolution map
In this section, we will use the uniform estimates derived in Sects. 6.3 and 6.4 in order to construct the forward evolution map between suitable weighted energy spaces.
Proposition 6.15
Let . Then the corresponding solution to (1.1) satisfies
and furthermore,
Proof
Definition 6.1
Define the forwards evolution map as the following linear operator:
where is the unique solution to (1.1) with . Then extends uniquely to a linear bounded operator:
Proposition 6.16
Let . Then is a bounded linear operator from to , which can uniquely be extended as as a bounded linear operator
We moreover have that .
Proof
First of all, we assume that . We apply Proposition 6.12 to obtain estimates for the corresponding solution . By [5], it follows in particular that and for all . Furthermore, by Corollary 6.13, we have that there exists a constant such that
Then, by Lemma B.1 it follows that , so . Then by a standard functional analytic argument, extends uniquely to the completion and the extension also satisfies .
The Backwards Evolution Map
In this section we will construct a map from suitably weighted energy spaces on and to suitably weighted energy spaces on . The construction will proceed in two steps. As a first step, we construct in Sect. 7.1 a map with the domain . In other words, we establish semi-global existence and uniqueness for the backwards scattering initial value problem.
In the second step, this will be promoted to global existence and uniqueness in Sect. 7.4 by using the global, uniform weighted energy estimates of Sect. 7.2 that are valid on the completion of with respect to the associated energy norms.
Initial value problem with compactly supported scattering data
In this section we will associate to a pair a unique solution to (1.1) in such that and . This association is central to the definition of the backwards evolution map (see Definition 7.1).
Proposition 7.1
Let and and define and . Let such that and . Denote also with a smooth extension to of such that vanishes in a neighbourhood of . Denote with , with , the unique smooth solution to (1.1) in such that:
with V suitably large such that ; see also Fig. 13.
- (Semi-global existence) There exists a with the following property: let and , then there exists a strictly increasing sequence function , such that:
In particular, . Furthermore,
and for any
7.1 - (Uniqueness) If is another solution to (1.1) that satisfies
then .
Fig. 13.

A Penrose diagrammatic representation of the spacetime regions in consideration in Proposition 7.1
Remark 7.1
A variant of Proposition 7.1 was established in Proposition 9.1.4 of [23] in the setting of sub-extremal Kerr. Note however that Proposition 7.1 establishes in addition qualitative bounds on the radiation field and weighted higher-order derivatives thereof in the form of the inequality (7.1), which will be necessary in the backwards-in-time estimates of Sect. 7.2.
Proof of Proposition 7.1
Observe first of all that is well-defined by local existence and uniqueness with smooth initial data on .
Apply the divergence theorem with in the region bounded to the past by and and to the future by and to obtain:
which is equivalent to
By applying the fundamental theorem of calculus in u, integrating from to , together with Cauchy–Schwarz, we therefore obtain
where we used that , from which it follows that
| 7.2 |
Now, we can use (7.2) and (6.5) with together with the fundamental theorem of calculus in the u-direction to obtain
Similarly, we can use (6.5) and Lemma 6.2 in a simple induction argument to conclude that for all we have in :
We can immediately apply the above argument to and for any , , together with a standard Sobolev inequality on to obtain the following i-independent estimate: for all and , there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
7.3 |
We obtain a similar estimate in the region by reversing the roles of u and v (integrating in the v-direction) and replacing r by :
| 7.4 |
Given arbitrarily large and , we have by (7.3) and (7.4) that for such that , is uniformly bounded in i for all with respect to the norm on with respect to the differentiable structure on and therefore, by Arzelà–Ascoli, there exists a subsequence , with a strictly increasing function, such that moreover is a subsequence of for all , and converges in , for any , to the smooth function on .6
We can extend the domain of to as follows: we replace above with , applying Arzelà–Ascoli to the subsequence (starting from k suitably large) in the corresponding larger spacetime region and passing to a further subsequence. By uniqueness of limits, the resulting limit, which we note by has to agree with when .
The above convergence moreover implies that , with , and
We also have by (7.3) that for any , there exist a and , such that for all and in the region :
for all and . Hence,
We can analogously use (7.3) to obtain for all :
Furthermore, by replacing by we can conclude that with respect to the differentiable structure in , the restriction is a smooth function on , satisfying . We can therefore conclude 1.) of the proposition.
Now suppose is another smooth solution to , such that
By a global T-energy estimate, we have that
so , which concludes 2.) of the proposition.
Backwards energy estimates
In this section, we will derive estimates for the solutions to (1.1) constructed in Proposition 7.1 that are uniform in . This is crucial for constructing solutions with scattering data that is not compactly suppported.
The main tool we will develop is this section is a hierarchy of r-weighted estimates in the backwards time direction. However, we will first state a backwards Morawetz estimate that follows immediately from the results in [8], i.e. an analogue of Theorem 6.6 in the backwards time direction.
In this section, we will always assume that is a solution to (1.1) arising from smooth and compactly supported scattering data , as in Proposition (7.1), i.e. let such that and .
Proposition 7.2
(Backwards Morawetz/integrated local energy decay estimate, [8]). Let
and , then for all and there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
7.5 |
Proof
The proof of (7.5) follows directly from the Morawetz estimates established in [8].
In the propositions below, we derive the “backwards analogues” of the hierarchies from Proposition 6.7.
Proposition 7.3
Let , then there exists a constant , such that for all :
![]() |
7.6 |
Proof
Recall that satisfies the equation:
| 7.7 |
Therefore,
![]() |
By reordering the terms, we therefore obtain:
| 7.8 |
Let denote a cut-off function and consider .
We integrate both sides of (7.8) in spacetime to obtain:
![]() |
7.9 |
where we applied Lemma 6.1 and (7.5) to arrive at the inequality above. See also the derivations in the proof of Lemma 6.3 in [5] in the special case .
We can repeat the above steps in the region where by reversing the roles of L and and replacing with ; see the proof of Lemma 6.3 in [5] for more details.
We subsequently apply Proposition 7.3 to arrive at uniform weighted energy estimates along .
Proposition 7.4
Then there exists a constant , such that
| 7.10 |
We moreover have that
![]() |
7.11 |
Proof
By applying Lemmas 6.1 and 6.3, it follows that
![]() |
7.12 |
We now apply (7.6) with , together with (7.12) to conclude that
Next, apply (7.6) with to obtain
![]() |
We apply Lemma 6.9 to rewrite the right-hand side above to arrive at:
![]() |
7.13 |
which leads to (7.10) when we take .
By applying the above estimates to and we moreover obtain:
We conclude the proof by combining the above proposition with Lemma 6.3 to obtain
![]() |
Remark 7.2
Note that in contrast with the estimates in Proposition 6.8, there is no loss of derivatives (caused by the application of (6.8)) on the right-hand side of (7.10).
We will complement (7.14) in Proposition 7.4 with an estimate involving additional angular derivatives. The motivation for this comes from the energy estimates in Sect. 8.1.
Corollary 7.5
Then there exists a constant , such that
![]() |
7.14 |
Proof
Higher-order estimates
By commuting (7.7) with , we arrive at
| 7.15 |
Similarly, we can commute (7.7) with to obtain:
| 7.16 |
Proposition 7.6
Fix . Let , then we can estimate for all :
![]() |
7.17 |
![]() |
7.18 |
Proof
The proof is a straightforward generalisation of the proof of Proposition 7.3: we repeat the steps in the proof of Proposition 7.3, but we replace with either (when ) or (when ), and we use (7.15) and (7.16).
Proposition 7.7
Let and let be a solution to (1.1) such that and for some . Then there exists a constant such that
![]() |
7.19 |
Proof
We first consider the case. Note that by (7.6) with and :
![]() |
7.20 |
Now, we apply (7.6) with and :
By replacing on the left-hand side of (7.20) with and applying Proposition 7.4 to , we therefore obtain:
![]() |
where we applied Proposition 7.4 and Lemma 6.9 to arrive at the final inequality.
The general n case now follows easily via an inductive argument, where we apply (7.6) with and and .
Proposition 7.7 combined with Lemma 6.3 immediately implies the following:
Corollary 7.8
Let . Then there exists a constant such that
![]() |
7.21 |
We will complement (7.21) in Corollary 7.8 with an estimate involving additional angular derivatives. The motivation for this comes from the energy estimates in Sect. 8.2.
Corollary 7.9
Let . Then there exists a constant such that
![]() |
7.22 |
Construction of the backwards evolution map
In this section, we apply the uniform estimates derived in Sects. 7.2 and 7.3 to construct the backwards evolution maps on appropriate energy spaces.
Proposition 7.10
Let , then the corresponding solution to (1.1) satisfies
and
Proof
From Proposition 7.1 it follows that and . The remaining statment follows from Lemma 6.3.
Using Proposition 7.10, together with the standard general construction of the unique extensions of bounded linear operators to the completion of their domains, we can define the backwards evolution map as follows:
Definition 7.1
The backwards evolution map is the map , such that
where is the unique solution to with . The map uniquely extends to a unitary linear operator, which we will also denote with :
In the proposition below, we show that we can consider restriction of to suitably weighted energy spaces.
Proposition 7.11
Let . The backwards evolution map is a bounded linear operator from to , which can uniquely be extended as as the bounded linear operator
We moreover have that .
Proof
By Proposition 7.1 it follows that the solution corresponding to satisfies and . By Corollary 7.8 it follows moreover that
so . We can infer that, in particular, . The map extends uniquely to the completion and satisfies .
Corollary 7.12
The map is a bijection with inverse and for each , the restrictions are also bijections with inverses .
Proof
Let , then the corresponding solution to (1.1) satisfies and , and hence is well-defined and . We conclude that on a dense subset. By boundedness of we can conclude that on the full domain. Hence, must be surjective and in fact bijective (we have already established injectivity). It immediately follows then that . The above argument can also be applied to and .
The Scattering Map
The aim of this section is to extend the estimates of Sects. 6 and 7 from the hypersurface to the hypersurface . This will allow us to construct the scattering map , a bijective map between (time-weighted) energy spaces on and . The estimates in this section will therefore concern the “triangular” regions bounded to the future by the null hypersurfaces and and to the past by .
Weighted energy estimates near spacelike infinity
In the proposition below we derive energy estimates with respect to the vector field multiplier , which is commonly referred to as the Morawetz conformal vector field.7 The main purpose of K is to derive backwards energy estimates along with r-weighted initial data along and which are analogous to the r-weighted boundary terms in the estimates in Proposition 7.3 with .
Proposition 8.1
Let , with arbitrarily large. There exist constants , such that
| 8.1 |
| 8.2 |
Proof
By (6.6) it follows that
After integrating by parts on , we therefore obtain:
| 8.3 |
We first consider estimates in the backwards time direction. We integrate (8.3) in spacetime and we use the following identity:
| 8.4 |
to estimate
![]() |
8.5 |
Using that in the integration region, we can further estimate:
![]() |
for arbitrarily small given suitably large (and in the integration region). Note that we can absorb the very right-hand side above into the left-hand side of (8.5) when is suitably small.
We apply Young’s inequality to estimate
We absorb the spacetime integral of and to the left-hand side of (8.5), using that r is suitably large and in the integration region. In order to absorb the term, we first observe that by assumption, we are considering such that is well-defined and is compactly supported in , so
Therefore, by Cauchy–Schwarz, we can estimate
Furthermore, similarly we have that
Hence,
so we can estimate:
with suitably small given suitably large. As a result, we obtain
![]() |
8.6 |
We integrate (8.3) and apply (8.6) to obtain:
![]() |
Analogously, we have that
| 8.7 |
and
| 8.8 |
so that we can estimate
![]() |
8.9 |
Using that , we estimate further:
![]() |
for arbitrarily small given suitably small. Note that we can absorb the very right-hand side above into the left-hand side of (8.9) when is suitably small.
We apply Young’s inequality to estimate
and absorb the corresponding spacetime integral to the left-hand side of (8.9), using that
which follows from Cauchy–Schwarz combined with the assumption that for . We are left with
![]() |
8.10 |
and hence,
![]() |
We now consider the forwards time direction. First of all, we are assuming compact support on , so for suitably large, we have that vanishes along , , and , by the domain of dependence property of the wave equation.
We then apply the estimates (8.6) and (8.10) to obtain:
![]() |
for a suitably small positive constant .
We complement Proposition 8.1 with estimates involving lower weights in r, u and v, applied to rather than . The r-weighted energies along and appearing in the proposition below appear as energy flux terms in Proposition 7.3 with .
Proposition 8.2
Let , with arbitrarily large. There exists constants
, such that
![]() |
8.11 |
![]() |
8.12 |
Remark 8.1
The energy estimates (8.11) and (8.12) are associated to the vector field multiplier near infinity and near the horizon. In contrast with the vector field K that plays a role in Proposition 8.1, Y does not correspond to a (conformal) symmetry generator in Minkowski.
Proof of Proposition 8.2
First of all, we have immediately that by Lemma 6.3 and [Hardy]
| 8.13 |
| 8.14 |
We can moreover replace with in the above estimates, with , due to the commutation properties of and .
By (6.6) it follows that
After integrating by parts on , we therefore obtain:
![]() |
8.15 |
Note that
Hence, after integrating (8.15) in spacetime, the
term on the right-hand side will have a good sign if we consider forwards-in-time estimates and a bad sign if we consider backwards-in-time estimates.
In the backwards-in-time case, we use that and and in the integration region, together with Lemma 6.2 to estimate:
![]() |
where we arrived at the last inequality by applying Lemma 6.3. Note that in this step we needed to use that our solution to (1.1) a time derivative, i.e. it is of the form !
We moreover apply Young’s inequality to estimate
We can absorb the spacetime integrals of the terms on the very right-hand side into the following flux terms:
![]() |
and
Integrating the identity (8.15) in u and v and applying the above estimates therefore gives the following inequality:
![]() |
8.16 |
and hence, using (8.15) and the above estimate once more, now in combination with (8.16), we arrive at
![]() |
We repeat the above arguments near by considering
and reversing the roles of u and v and L and , in order to obtain the near-horizon estimate in the backwards time direction. We omit further details of this step.
Now, we consider the forwards time direction. By repeating the arguments above in the forwards time direction, using that the and are initially compactly supported and taking and appropriately large, we obtain moreover that
![]() |
Note that, in contrast with the backwards-in-time estimates, there is no need for an additional angular derivative in the T-energy term on the right hand side. The analogous estimate near proceeds by repeating the above arguments, interchanging the roles of u and v and replacing r by .
Corollary 8.3
Let , with arbitrarily large. There exists constants , such that
![]() |
8.17 |
![]() |
8.18 |
Proof
We combine (8.14), (8.14) (and apply it to ), Proposition 8.1 and Proposition 8.2. We moreover apply Lemma 6.2.
Higher-order estimates
The aim of this section is to derive analogues of the estimates in Proposition 8.1 for higher-order derivatives of (with additional growing weights). The key vector field that plays a role in this step is . This vector field is also called the scaling vector field because it generates the scaling conformal symmetry in Minkowski. Even though the exact symmetry property is lost in extremal Reissner–Nordström, we will see below that the vector field still has favourable commutation properties with the operator .
Lemma 8.4
Let and . Then
| 8.19 |
| 8.20 |
Proof
We will derive (8.19) and (8.20) inductively. Note that (8.19) and (8.20) hold for by (6.6). Now assume (8.19) and (8.20) hold for with .
Note first of all that for an arbitrary function f:
For any we have that:
Furthermore, we can expand
Hence,
and we obtain, using the above observations and applying (8.19) with :
![]() |
Hence, we can conclude that (8.19) must hold for all . It follows analogously that (8.20) must hold for all .
Since the vector field S does not commute with , we do not immediately obtain Lemma 6.3 for replacing , with . However, we show in Proposition 8.5 that, when considering instead of , an equivalent energy boundedness statement holds.
Proposition 8.5
Let . There exists constants , such that
| 8.21 |
| 8.22 |
Proof
We establish the estimate (8.21) inductively. We prove the case first and then assume that (8.21) holds for in order to prove the case. We will in fact do both of these steps at the same time in the argument below. By Lemma 8.4, we have that
![]() |
8.23 |
Furthermore,
We subsequently integrate both sides of (8.23) in u, v and and we apply Young’s inequality to absorb all the spacetime integrals either into the corresponding boundary integrals as in the proof of Proposition 8.1, or (if ) also into the left-hand sides of the estimates contained in (8.21) with .
Proposition 8.6
Let . There exists constants , such that
![]() |
8.24 |
![]() |
8.25 |
Proof
We can apply the same arguments as in Proposition 8.1, replacing by , with and applying the more general equations (8.19) and (8.20) instead of (6.6) to obtain:
![]() |
We conclude the proof by rewriting in terms of u and v derivatives and we moreover apply Lemma 8.4 to rewrite all mixed u and v derivatives. Furthermore, we apply Lemma 6.2 to replace the angular derivatives by derivatives of the form .
Proposition 8.7
Let . Then there exists constants , such that
![]() |
8.26 |
![]() |
8.27 |
Proof
We repeat the arguments in the proof of Proposition 8.2, applying the equations in Lemma 8.4 that introduce additional terms, which can be absorbed straightforwardly. Furthermore, rather than using Lemma 6.3, we apply Proposition 8.5 where necessary. We then obtain:
![]() |
We conclude the proof by replacing the derivatives by u and v derivatives with weights in |u| and |v|, and moreover applying Lemma 8.4 to rewrite all mixed u and v derivatives in terms of pure u or v derivatives, angular derivatives and lower-order derivatives.
Corollary 8.8
Let . Then there exists constants , such that
![]() |
8.28 |
and
![]() |
8.29 |
Proof
Follows immediately after combining the results of Propositions 8.6 and 8.7.
By commuting additionally with T and applying Lemma 6.3, we arrive at energy estimates along and (rather than and ) with the same weights and number of derivatives as the energy fluxes that appear in Corollaries 6.13 and 7.8.
Corollary 8.9
Let . Then there exists constants , such that
![]() |
8.30 |
and
![]() |
8.31 |
Construction of the scattering map
In this section we will construct the scattering map, which is a map from energy spaces on and to energy spaces on and . First, we need to define what we mean by the solution to (1.1) in arising from scattering data along .
We introduce the following hypersurface: let , then
Definition 8.1
Let and define the solutions as the unique smooth solutions to (1.1) corresponding to scattering data in accordance with Proposition 7.1. Then, by uniqueness,
so we can define the function as follows: let , then there exists an such that . Let
It follows immediately that is a uniquely determined smooth solution to (1.1), such that and .
Proposition 8.10
Let . Then the corresponding solution to (1.1) satisfies
and furthermore, the following identity holds
Proof
Follows from Lemma 6.3 and Proposition 6.15 (combined with an analogue of Proposition 6.15 in the past-direction, making use of the time-symmetry of the spacetime).
Definition 8.2
Define the evolution maps as the following linear operator:
where is the unique solution to (1.1) with . Then extends uniquely to a linear bounded operator, also denoted :
Proposition 8.11
Let . Then for all
| 8.32 |
and can uniquely be extended as as the following bounded linear operator
We moreover have that .
Proof
Without loss of generality, we restrict our considerations to . We choose so that
Let denote the solution to (1.1) corresponding to initial data . We apply Corollary 8.9 to conclude that
We then apply the bounded operator from Corollary 6.16 to arrive at (8.32). The extension property follows immediately from the uniform boundedness of with respect to the desired norms.
Proposition 8.12
Let . Then the corresponding solution according to Definition 8.1 satisfies as and and
Proof
By applying the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have that for suitably large
so as . By considering with suitably large, we can conclude analogously that as and .
The energy conservation statement simply follows from applying Lemma 6.3.
Definition 8.3
Define the backwards evolution maps as the following linear operator:
where is the corresponding unique solution to (1.1) as defined in Definition 8.1. Then extends uniquely to a linear bounded operator, also denoted :
Proposition 8.13
The linear operator is bijective with .
Proof
Follows by the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 7.12.
Proposition 8.14
Let . Then for all
| 8.33 |
and can uniquely be extended as as the following bounded linear operator
We moreover have that and .
Proof
Without loss of generality, we consider . We choose so that
We apply from Proposition 7.11 to conclude that the corresponding to initial data satisfies
Hence, we can apply Corollary 8.9 to obtain (8.33). The extension property then follows from the uniformity of all estimates involved. The inversion follows by repeating the arguments in the proof of Proposition 7.12.
Definition 8.4
We define the scattering matrix as the following bounded linear operator:
Let . Then we define the restricted scattering matrix as the following bounded linear operator:
Scattering in the Black Hole Interior
In this section, we obtain some additional estimates in the black hole interior, which allow use to construct a non-degenerate interior scattering map.
Proposition 9.1
Let with suitably large. Then there exist constants such that
| 9.1 |
Proof
Observe first that (8.7) and (8.9) hold also in , with respect to the Eddington–Finkelstein double-null coordinates (u, v). Hence, we can estimate, for arising from data along and :
![]() |
9.2 |
Using that in , we can absorb the last two integrals on the right-hand side into the left-hand side for suitably large, in order to obtain
![]() |
From the above estimate it moreover follows that for any increasing sequence we can bound for any :
![]() |
So we can conclude that
is a Cauchy sequence, so it must converge as . Furthermore, the limit is independent of the choice of sequence. Hence,
is well-defined.
Similarly, if we take to arise from data along and , we can apply (8.7) and (8.9) to show that
![]() |
and it follows analogously that
![]() |
is well-defined.
The estimate (9.1) then follows by combining the above estimates.
Proposition 9.2
Let with suitably large. Let be defined as follows:
Then extends uniquely as a bijective, bounded linear operator:
Proof
The construction of and its inverse, on a domain of smooth, compactly supported functions, follow immediately from the estimates in the proof of Proposition 9.1, where (in the forwards direction) and (in the backwards direction) can understood in a limiting sense, as in Proposition 9.1, and it follows that and by the fundamental theorem of calculus:
and (a straightforward variation of) 2.) of Lemma B.1. The extendibility follows moreover from the uniformity of the estimates in Proposition 9.1.
Corollary 9.3
Let with suitably large. Let , with arbitrarily large. Then there exist a constant such that we can estimate with respect to (u, r) coordinates:
![]() |
9.3 |
Furthermore,
![]() |
9.4 |
Proof
We use that , together with
and we apply the estimates of Proposition 9.1, replacing with , , to arrive at (9.3). We obtain (9.4) by appealing additionally to Corollary 6.10.
Remark 9.1
One can easily extend the estimate in Corollary 9.3 to smaller values of (provided in the spacetime region under consideration), by applying a standard Grönwall inequality.
Application 1: Regularity at the Event Horizon and Null Infinity
As an application of the maps constructed in Proposition 7.11, we can show that we can associate arbitrarily regular solutions to suitably polynomially decaying scattering data along and . First of all, we will show that by considering , rather than , we obtain higher-regularity near and .
Before we address these regularity properties, we will relate the differential operators and to and .
Lemma 10.1
Let be a solution to (1.1). Then we can express for all :
and
Proof
The identities can be obtained inductively by applying (7.7) and commuting with and . See Lemma 6.1 in [5] for more details.
Proposition 10.2
Let be a solution to (1.1). For all we have that:
| 10.1 |
and
| 10.2 |
Proof
We will do a proof by induction. We have that (10.1) and (10.2) hold for . Suppose (10.1) and (10.2) hold for . We will show below that (10.1) and (10.2) also hold for .
Writing , we can express
and apply Lemma 10.1 to obtain
Now, we take apply (10.1) for (taking appropriate derivatives on both sides of the equation) to obtain:
![]() |
We apply an analogous argument, using that , to also conclude that (10.2) holds for .
Proposition 10.3
Let . Suppose that . Then we have that the corresponding solution to (1.1) satisfies
Proof
By Proposition 7.11, we have that . Hence,
We subsequently apply Proposition 10.2 to obtain in (v, r) coordinates:
We conclude the proof by integrating the above norm locally in .
Definition 10.1
Consider such that
Then we define the time-integrals and of and as follows:
Let and and suppose that and . Then we define the n-th order time-integrals and of and inductively as follows:
with and .
Lemma 10.4
Let and let . Assume that and for some and assume moreover that
| 10.3 |
Then
with the solution associated to and the solution associated to .
Proof
By (10.3), we can conclude that
Hence, by uniqueness of given , we conclude that
Proposition 10.5
Let and let . Assume that and for some and assume moreover that
| 10.4 |
Then
Proof
By the assumptions on the limiting behaviour of and , together with (10.4), we can apply Proposition B.1 to conclude that . Then we can apply Proposition 10.3 together with Lemma 10.4 to conclude the proof.
Application 2: A Scattering Construction of Smooth Solutions
We make use of the results in Sect. 10 to construct smooth solutions from scattering data.
Corollary 11.1
Let such that
for all , and . Then
Proof
By the initial data assumptions, we have that and are well-defined and satisfy (10.4) for all . Hence we arrive at the desired statement by applying Proposition 10.5 together with standard Sobolev embeddings.
Corollary 11.1 allows us to construct smooth “mode solutions” with an arbitrary frequency with postitive imaginary part:
Proposition 11.2
Let with . Let and for . Then there exists a unique smooth solution to (1.1) on , such that
with and
Proof
The initial data satisfy the assumptions of Corollary 11.1, so we have that and
Furthermore, the specific choice of ensures that
Hence, by uniqueness of the associated solution to (1.1), linearity and Lemma 10.4, we have that so for some .
Acknowledgements
The second author (S.A.) acknowledges support through NSERC grant 502581, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship in Mathematics and the Connaught Fellowship 503071.
Proof of Theorem B
We consider first (i). The argument consists of an application of the propositions proved in Section 6 of [24], which apply directly to the setting of ERN provided the following key assumptions are verified:
We can associate to smooth radiation fields and in a corresponding unique solution to (1.1) that is smooth away from and has finite T-energy along and .
If we consider spherically symmetric, smooth, compactly supported and vanishing , then must be non-vanishing on .
Assumption 1) holds in ERN by Theorem A, together with commutation with T and standard elliptic estimates.
In order to verify that assumption 2) also holds, we first conclude by a domain of dependence argument that the solution is vanishing in the region for sufficiently large , where depends on the size of the support of .
Now suppose is vanishing along . Consider the following identity for :
which follows immediately from (1.1) and spherical symmetry of . Integrating the above equation in the rectangle , with and arbitrary, we obtain:
Since is bounded, we can apply a Grönwall inequality (see for example Lemma 4.1 of [31]) to conclude that: for all and
Since vanishes along and vanishes along , we can conclude that must vanish in and therefore in the full spacetime. This is a contradiction, since has non-trivial support on . Hence, assumption 2) is indeed verified.
Then, we can apply Proposition 6.1 of [24] with , to construct smooth, spherically symmetric data along with a polynomial tail that propagates to the past event horizon , and then apply T-energy conservation to further propagate to in order to conclude that the corresponding solution to (1.1) has infinite N-energy flux in a neighbourhood of .
The argument above can be applied mutatis mutandis by reversing the role of and above to prove (ii).
Basic Estimates
Lemma B.1
Let .
- We have that if
and , . - Let . Then if
and , .
Proof
We will prove 2.). The proof of 1.) proceeds very similarly. Without loss of generality, we can restrict to f. The estimates for g proceed entirely analogously. We introduce a smooth cut-off such that for all and for all . Then . Rescale by defining , with , as follows: . Then for all and hence .
Now, define , then . Furthermore, by applying the Leibniz rule successively and using that for , we obtain
![]() |
and
Note that since as , we can estimate
so
Hence, as and we can conclude that f lies in the completion of with respect to the norm .
Lemma B.2
Let .
- Then if
and . - Let . Then if
and .
Proof
We will prove 2.). The proof of 1.) proceeds very similarly. The proof proceeds analogously to the proof of Lemma B.1. We first introduce a cut-off such that for all , with , and for all . Then we define as follows: . Observe that . Define and , then .
Furthermore, if denotes the solution corresponding to the initial data (f, g), we can estimate
![]() |
Furthermore, using that ,
Hence, as , so (f, g) are in the completion of with respect to the norm .
Footnotes
The positivity of L(r) in illustrates the following characteristic property of extremal Reissner–Nordström black holes: the spheres foliating the black hole interior are not trapped.
We use the notation to indicated the backwards map, but we still have to show that this map is indeed a two-sided inverse of .
In contrast with [dafrodshl], we take the limit with respect to norms of the weighted quantities with .
In this case, one may however assume sufficiently fast exponentially decay along to beat the blueshift effect and obtain boundedness of the non-degenerate energy, see [19].
In fact, Theorem 5.1 from [5] provides much stronger, quantitative time-decay estimates, but we do not require those here.
This formulation of Arzelà–Ascoli, involving -norms, follows straightforwardly by applying the usual formulation (involving convergence with respect to the -norm) successively to derivatives of , using uniform boundedness of all derivatives of , and taking a further subsequence for each successive derivative. One can further apply a diagonal argument to extract a single subsequence of converging with respect to all norms to , but we omit this step.
The geometric significance of K is that it generates the inverted translation conformal symmetry on the Minkowski spacetime.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Yannis Angelopoulos, Email: yannis@caltech.edu.
Stefanos Aretakis, Email: aretakis@math.toronto.edu.
Dejan Gajic, Email: D.Gajic@dpmms.cam.ac.uk.
References
- 1.Alford, F.: The Scattering Map on Oppenheimer–Snyder Spacetime. arXiv:1910.02752 (2019)
- 2.Almakroudi, A.: Boundedness of linear waves on the Interior of Extremal Reissner–Nordström–de Sitter Black Holes. MSc. Thesis, Imperial College London (2017)
- 3.Angelopoulos Y, Aretakis S, Gajic D. The trapping effect on degenerate horizons. Annales Henri Poincaré. 2017;18(5):1593–1633. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Angelopoulos Y, Aretakis S, Gajic D. Horizon hair of extremal black holes and measurements at null infinity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018;121(13):131102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.131102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Angelopoulos, Y., Aretakis, S., Gajic, D.: Late-time asymptotics for the wave equation on extremal Reissner–Nordström backgrounds. arXiv:1807.03802 (2018) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 6.Angelopoulos Y, Aretakis S, Gajic D. Late-time asymptotics for the wave equation on spherically symmetric, stationary backgrounds. Adv. Math. 2018;323:529–621. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Angelopoulos Y, Aretakis S, Gajic D. A vector field approach to almost-sharp decay for the wave equation on spherically symmetric, stationary spacetimes. Ann. PDE. 2018;4(2):15. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Aretakis S. Stability and instability of extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole spacetimes for linear scalar perturbations I. Commun. Math. Phys. 2011;307:17–63. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Aretakis S. Stability and instability of extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole spacetimes for linear scalar perturbations II. Ann. Henri Poincaré. 2011;12:1491–1538. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Aretakis S. Decay of axisymmetric solutions of the wave equation on extreme Kerr backgrounds. J. Funct. Anal. 2012;263:2770–2831. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Aretakis S. A note on instabilities of extremal black holes from afar. Class. Quantum Grav. 2013;30:095010. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Aretakis S. Horizon instability of extremal black holes. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2015;19:507–530. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Aretakis S. Dynamics of Extremal Black Holes. Berlin: Springer; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Burko LM, Khanna G. Linearized stability of extreme black holes. Phys. Rev. D. 2018;97:061502. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Burko, L.M., Khanna, G., Sabharwal, S.: (Transient) Scalar Hair for (Nearly) Extreme Black Holes. arXiv:1906.03116 (2019)
- 16.Casals M, Gralla SE, Zimmerman P. Horizon instability of extremal Kerr black holes: Nonaxisymmetric modes and enhanced growth rate. Phys. Rev. D. 2016;94:064003. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Couch W, Torrence R. Conformal invariance under spatial inversion of extreme Reissner–Nordström black holes. Gen. Rel. Grav. 1984;16:789–792. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cvetic M, Satz A. General relation between Aretakis charge and Newman–Penrose charge. Phys. Rev. D. 2018;98:124035. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dafermos, M., Holzegel, G., Rodnianski, I.: A scattering theory construction of dynamical vacuum black holes. arXiv:1306.5364 (2013)
- 20.Dafermos M, Holzegel G, Rodnianski I. The linear stability of the Schwarzschild solution to gravitational perturbations. Acta Math. 2019;222:1–214. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Dafermos, M., Rodnianski, I.: A new physical-space approach to decay for the wave equation with applications to black hole spacetimes. XVIth International Congress on Mathematical Physics, pp. 421–432 (2010)
- 22.Dafermos M, Rodnianski I, Shlapentokh-Rothman Y. Decay for solutions of the wave equation on Kerr exterior spacetimes III: The full subextremal case . Ann. Math. 2016;183:787–913. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dafermos M, Rodnianski I, Shlapentokh-Rothman Y. A scattering theory for the wave equation on Kerr black hole exteriors. Ann. Sci. éc. Norm. Supér. 2018;51(2):371–486. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dafermos M, Shlapentokh-Rothman Y. Time-translation invariance of scattering maps and blue-shift instabilities on Kerr black hole spacetimes. Commun. Math. Phys. 2016;350:985–1016. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dafermos M, Shlapentokh-Rothman Y. Rough initial data and the strength of the blue-shift instability on cosmological black holes with . Class. Quantum Gravity. 2018;35(19):195010. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Dimock J, Kay BS. Classical and quantum scattering theory for linear scalar fields on the Schwarzschild metric 2. J. Math. Phys. 1986;27:2520–2525. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Dimock J, Kay BS. Classical and quantum scattering theory for linear scalar fields on the Schwarzschild metric 1. Ann. Phys. 1987;175:366–426. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fournodavlos, G., Sbierski, J.: Generic blow-up results for the wave equation in the interior of a Schwarzschild black hole. Arch. Rational. Mech. Anal. (2019)
- 29.Franzen A. Boundedness of massless scalar waves on Reissner–Nordström interior backgrounds. Commun. Math. Phys. 2014;343:601–650. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Friedlander FG. Radiation fields and hyperbolic scattering theory. Mat. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1980;88:483–515. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Gajic D. Linear waves in the interior of extremal black holes I. Commun. Math. Phys. 2017;353:717–770. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gajic D. Linear waves in the interior of extremal black holes II. Annales Henri Poincaré. 2017;18:4005–4081. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Gajic D, Luk J. The interior of dynamical extremal black holes in spherical symmetry. Pure Appl. Anal. 2019;1(2):263–326. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Gajic, D., Warnick, C.: Quasinormal modes in extremal Reissner–Nordström spacetimes. arXiv:1910.08479 (2019)
- 35.Giorgi, E.: The linear stability of Reissner–Nordström spacetime for small charge. arXiv:1904.04926 (2019)
- 36.Giorgi, E.: The linear stability of Reissner–Nordström spacetime: the full subextremal range. arXiv:1910.05630 (2019)
- 37.Godazgar H, Godazgar M, Pope CN. Aretakis charges and asymptotic null infinity. Phys. Rev. D. 2017;96:084055. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hadar S, Reall HS. Is there a breakdown of effective field theory at the horizon of an extremal black hole? J. High Energy Phys. 2017;2017(12):62. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hintz P. Boundedness and decay of scalar waves at the cauchy horizon of the kerr spacetime. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici. 2017;92(4):7:801–837. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kehle C, Shlapentokh-Rothman Y. A scattering theory for linear waves on the interior of Reissner-Nordström black holes. Annales Henri Poincaré. 2019;20(5):1583–1650. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Klainerman, S.: The null condition and global existence to nonlinear wave equations. Lectures in App. Math. pp. 293–326 (1986)
- 42.Klainerman, S., Szeftel, J.: Global Nonlinear Stability of Schwarzschild Spacetime under Polarized Perturbations. arXiv:1711.07597 (2017)
- 43.Lax PD, Phillips RS. Scattering Theory. Cambridge: Academic press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lindblad, H., Schlue, V.: Scattering from infinity for semilinear models of Einstein’s equations satisfying the weak null condition. arXiv:1711.00822 (2017)
- 45.Lucietti J, Murata K, Reall HS, Tanahashi N. On the horizon instability of an extreme Reissner–Nordström black hole. JHEP. 2013;1303:035. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Luk J, Oh S-J. Proof of linear instability of the Reissner–Nordström Cauchy horizon under scalar perturbations. Duke Math. J. 2017;166(3):437–493. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Luk J, Sbierski J. Instability results for the wave equation in the interior of Kerr black holes. J. Funct. Anal. 2016;271(7):1948–1995. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Morawetz CS. The limiting amplitude principle. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1962;15:349–361. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Moschidis G. The -weighted energy method of Dafermos and Rodnianski in general asymptotically flat spacetimes and applications. Ann. PDE. 2016;2:6. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Murata K, Reall HS, Tanahashi N. What happens at the horizon(s) of an extreme black hole? Class. Quantum Grav. 2013;30:235007. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Nicolas JP. Conformal scattering on the Schwarzschild metric. Annales de l’Institut Fourier. 2016;66(3):1175–1216. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Ori, A.: Late-time tails in extremal Reissner–Nordström spacetime. arXiv:1305.1564 (2013)
- 53.Schlue V. Decay of linear waves on higher-dimensional Schwarzschild black holes. Anal. PDE. 2013;6(3):515–600. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Sela O. Late-time decay of perturbations outside extremal charged black hole. Phys. Rev. D. 2016;93:024054. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Warnick CM. On Quasinormal Modes of Asymptotically Anti-de Sitter Black Holes. Commun. Math. Phys. 2015;333(2):959–1035. [Google Scholar]



















































































