English

The rigid Horowitz-Myers conjecture

Differential Geometry 2018-04-02 v2 General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology High Energy Physics - Theory

Abstract

The "new positive energy conjecture" Horowitz and Myers (1999) probes a possible nonsupersymmetric AdS/CFT correspondence. We consider a version formulated for complete, asymptotically Poincar\'e-Einstein Riemannian metrics (M,g)(M,g) with bounded scalar curvature Rn(n1)R\ge -n(n-1). This version then asserts that any such (M,g)(M,g) must have mass not less than the mass m0m_0 of a metric g0g_0 induced on a time-symmetric slice of a certain AdS soliton spacetime. The conjecture remains unproved, having so far resisted standard techniques. Little is known other than that the conjecture is true for metrics which are sufficiently small perturbations of g0g_0. We pose another test for the conjecture. We assume its validity and attempt to prove as a corollary the corresponding scalar curvature rigidity statement, that g0g_0 is the unique asymptotically Poincar\'e-Einstein metric with mass m=m0m=m_0 obeying Rn(n1)R\ge -n(n-1). Were a second such metric g1g_1 not isometric to g0g_0 to exist, it then may well admit perturbations of lower mass, contradicting the assumed validity of the conjecture. We find that the minimum mass metric must be static Einstein, so the problem is reduced to that of static uniqueness. When n=3n=3 the manifold is isometric to a time-symmetric slice of an AdS soliton spacetime, unless it has a non-compact horizon. En route we study the mass aspect, obtaining and generalizing known results. The mass aspect is (i) related to the holographic energy density, (ii) a weighted invariant under boundary conformal transformations when the bulk dimension is odd, and (iii) zero for negative Einstein manifolds with Einstein conformal boundary.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1602.06197,
  title  = {The rigid Horowitz-Myers conjecture},
  author = {Eric Woolgar},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06197},
  year   = {2018}
}

Comments

Statement and proof of Lemma 3.1 corrected, other minor changes

R2 v1 2026-06-22T12:53:51.211Z