Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Riemannian Penrose Inequality for higher dimensions

  1. Dec 27, 2015 #1
    I am reading the proof of the Riemannian Penrose Inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_Penrose_inequality) by Huisken and Ilmamen in "The Inverse Mean Curvature Flow and the Riemannian Penrose Inequality" and I was wondering why they restrict their proof to the dimension ##n=3##.

    I thought it might be because of the definition of the Geroch-Hawking mass, or the monotonicity of such a mass, and I was told that it works only in dimension ##n=3## because the Geroch-Hawking mass monotonicity formula relies on the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem. But the latter can be generalized to higher dimensions (for an even dimension), right (wikipedia: Generalized Gauss-Bonnet Theorem)?

    Then which argument restricts their proof to ##n=3##?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 27, 2015 #2

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It seems unlikely to make sense for n=2, since the motivation had to do with black holes, which don't exist in 2+1 dimensions.

    It may be that it holds for n>3, but with a trivial change in the geometrical factor of ##16\pi##. Have you tried working out the case of the 4+1-dimensional Schwarzschild spacetime?
     
  4. Dec 28, 2015 #3
    Thank you for your answer! The proof was generalized to higher dimensions, up to ##n=8## by Bray. But my question is about the Huisken and Ilmanen proof. I know there proof was restricted to dimension ##n=3## due to an argument linked to the Geroch monotonicity. I think it is linked to the fact that the Euler characteristic has to be less or equal than 2. Is that something that is valid only in dimension 3 ? Perhaps coming from the Hawking topology Theorem ? I am still looking into this !
     
  5. Dec 28, 2015 #4
    There's a black hole solution in 3 dimensions (it does require a negative cosmological constant) http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9204099
     
  6. Dec 28, 2015 #5

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But that wouldn't be asymptotically flat, would it?
     
  7. Dec 28, 2015 #6
    No, but I was only addressing the existence of 3-D black holes, not the inequality
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Riemannian Penrose Inequality for higher dimensions
  1. Higher dimensions (Replies: 7)

Loading...