On the initial value problem for the wave equation in Friedmann–Robertson–Walker space–times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The propagator W ( t 0 , t 1 )( g , h ) for the wave equation in a given space–time takes initial data ( g ( x ), h ( x )) on a Cauchy surface {( t , x ) : t = t 0 } and evaluates the solution ( u ( t 1 , x ),∂ t u ( t 1 , x )) at other times t 1 . The Friedmann–Robertson–Walker space–times are defined for t 0 , t 1 >0, whereas for t 0 →0, there is a metric singularity. There is a spherical means representation for the general solution of the wave equation with the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker background metric in the three spatial dimensional cases of curvature K =0 and K =−1 given by S. Klainerman and P. Sarnak. We derive from the expression of their representation three results about the wave propagator for the Cauchy problem in these space–times. First, we give an elementary proof of the sharp rate of time decay of solutions with compactly supported data. Second, we observe that the sharp Huygens principle is not satisfied by solutions, unlike in the case of three-dimensional Minkowski space–time (the usual Huygens principle of finite propagation speed is satisfied, of course). Third, we show that for 0< t 0 < t the limit, lim t 0 → 0 + W ( t 0 , t ) ( g , h ) = W ( 0 , t ) ( g ) exists, it is independent of h ( x ), and for all reasonable initial data g ( x ), it gives rise to a well-defined solution for all t >0 emanating from the space–time singularity at t =0. Under reflection t →− t , the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker metric gives a space–time metric for t <0 with a singular future at t =0, and the same solution formulae hold. We thus have constructed solutions u ( t , x ) of the wave equation in Friedmann–Robertson–Walker space–times which exist for all − ∞ < t < 0 and 0 < t < + ∞ , where in conformally regularized coordinates, these solutions are continuous through the singularity t =0 of space–time, taking on specified data u (0,⋅)= g (⋅) at the singular time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".