On the behavior of quasi-local mass at the infinity along nearly round surfaces

Let H_0 be the mean curvature of the isometric embedding image of (\Sigma_r, g) in \Bbb R^3. Then by Theorem 4, we have

Then, by the same arguments as that at page 11 in [FST], we claim that

In fact, let K=\frac{1}{r^2 _0}+\bar{K}, by one of the Minkowski integral formulae [KLBG, Lemma 6.2.9], we have

where V(r) is the volume of the interior of the surface X_r(\Sigma_r) in \Bbb R^3. Here and in the sequel, {\rm Area}(\Sigma_r) is the area of (\Sigma, g). On the other hand, by the above estimate we know that H_0=\frac2r+H_1 with H_1=O\left(r^{-1-\tau}\right) and by another Minkowski integral formula we have

which implies

The claim follows from (Proof) and (Proof). From the claim and (?) we get

By the definition, we see that

where {\rm Area}_0(\Sigma_r) is the area of \Sigma_r with respect to induce metric from \hat g. We also have

By Lemma 2.7 we have

Combining these things together we get

Set \hat X =y-\overrightarrow{a}. It is an isometric embedding of (\Sigma_r, \hat g) into \Bbb R ^3. By Proposition 3.2, we see that

where \hat K is the Gauss curvature of \Sigma_r in (M \setminus K, \hat g). Using the same arguments as that at page 11 in [FST] to (\Sigma, \hat g) we get

By Corollary 2.9 and Proposition 3.2 we see that

Thus we have

The first term in the right hand side of the above equality is the ADM mass of (M,g). Thus, we finish to prove Theorem 1.

By Lemma 2.10 and (?) we have

Note that

Combining above equalities with Lemma 2.7, we get

Hence,

where we have used estimate

in the last equality. On the other hand, we have

By the Gauss-Bonnet formula, we get

From Proposition 3.2 we see that

Combining these formulas we obtain

Thus, we finish to prove the Theorem.

It suffices to show the lower bound of the area. Since g is an AF metric, without loss of generality we may assume g and \hat g are equivalent on M\setminus K. Here and in the sequel, \hat g is background Euclidean metric on M\setminus K. Thus, we only need to show {\rm Area} (\Sigma_r, \hat g)\geq C r^2, where {\rm Area} (\Sigma_r, \hat g) is the area of \Sigma_r with respect to metric \hat g. From the second assumption of nearly round sphere surfaces, we know that the standard sphere with radius \frac{r}{2}, denoted by \mathbb{S}^2 _{\frac{r}{2}}, is in the domain enclosed by \Sigma_r. Let \Omega be the domain enclosed by \Sigma_r and \mathbb{S}^2 _{\frac{r}{2}}, X=(X^1, X^2, X^3) be the Euclidean coordinates. In view of

we have

where n is the outward unit normal vector of on one part of the boundary of \Omega, \Sigma_r and -n is the outward unit normal vector of on another part of the boundary of \Omega, \mathbb{S}^2 _{\frac{r}{2}}. Therefore, we see that

This finishes the proof of the Lemma.

Let e_0, e_1 and e_2 be the orthonormall frame of (M,g) at any fixed point of \Sigma_r, e_1 and e_2 be the tangential vectors of \Sigma_r. Let \nabla_k A_{ij} be the components of \nabla A, then by a direct computation for 1\leq i, j, k \leq 2, we have

where

Here w_i = R_{0kil}\bar g^{kl} and \bar g_{ij} is the induced metric on \Sigma_r. By the Codazzi equations, we have

and

thus combining these equalities we have

where C is a constant. Thus, we see that

Combining this with the first assumption of nearly round sphere surfaces we have

Due to the assumption {\rm diam} (\Sigma_r) \leq C r, we see that for any x\in \Sigma_r we have

Here x_0 is a fixed point on \Sigma_r. Setting

we have

We now claim that there is a constant C> 1 independent of r with

Indeed, due to the assumption |\overset\circ A| \leq C r^{-1-\tau} and the Gauss equations, we have

where K is the Gauss curvature of \Sigma_r with respect to the metric induced from g. Then by the Gauss-Bonnet formula we get

Together with Lemma 2.4, it follows that the claim is true. Note that A_{ij}=\overset\circ A_{ij} +\frac{H}{2}\bar{g}_{ij}, where \bar{g}_{ij} is the metric on \Sigma_r induced from g. The first assumption and the claim imply

which finishes the proof of the lemma.

By the definition of \rho, on \Sigma_r we have

where v is the outward unit normal vector of \Sigma_r. Again, a direct computations gives

Hence, we have

and

Similarly we have

Combining these formulas together, we have

Let \hat \nabla be the covariant derivatives with respect to \hat g, then by a direct computation gives

By Lemma 2.6 and direct computations, we have

where C is a positive constant independent of r, and hence

Hence it suffices to show the second part estimate of the corollary is true. Let p be any point of \Sigma_r, e_1 and e_2 be the orthonormal frame at p with \bar D_{e_i} e_j =0, 1\leq i, j\leq 2. Let X_i, 1\leq i\leq 3, be one of e_k. Then, at p, we have

Here we assume X_i =X_i ^k \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}. Since \rho is Euclidean distance to \Sigma_r, we have

Thus,

where C is a constant independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. Note that Corollary 2.8 was used in the last equality.

Due to the asymptotically flatness of manifold (M,g), by Lemma (2.5) and Corollary (?) we have

where C is a positive constant independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. In order to get the estimates of the remaining part, we need to estimate covariant derivatives of X_i at p first. Note that by Lemma 2.6, we see that there is a constant C which is independent of r and with

On the other hand, by the fundamental equations of the surface, for i=1, 2, we have

where \nabla, \bar \nabla is covariant derivatives with respect to metric g and its induced metric on \Sigma_r respectively. By a direct computations, it is not difficult to see that

where C is a positive universal constant independent of r. Hence, by the choice of X_i and decay of |A-\hat A|, we get

at p, where C is a constant independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. Together this with decay of |\bar\nabla A| and the equality

i, j= 1, 2, we get

where C is a constant independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. By the choice of X_i, we have for i=1, 2,

at p, and hence

at p which implies

for a constant C independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. Combining the above estimates, we have

at p for some universal constant independent of r and p and the orthonormal frames that we choose. Since p is arbitrary, we complete to prove the corollary.

We first note that on \Sigma we have

where \Delta_0 is Laplacian with respect to \Bbb R^3. The unit normal vector of \Sigma_r in \Bbb R^3 is \nabla_0 \rho =\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x^i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}, denoted by \hat v. Let \{e_1, e_2, v\} be the orthonormal frame in (M\setminus K, g) and \{e_1, e_2\} the tangential vector of \Sigma. We have

and

On the other hand, it is clear that

where, T is the tangential part of \hat v on \Sigma_r and \langle, \rangle_g is the inner product with respect to the metric g. Thus we have

Since \hat v (\rho)=1 on \Sigma_r, we get

It is easy to see that

and

Hence, we have

Since v is the unit norm vector along \Sigma_r, it is clear that \langle \nabla_v v, v \rangle_g =0, which implies \nabla_v v is a tangential vector on \Sigma_r. Therefore, we get

Combining these facts we obtain

and

Now we compute the second term in (Proof).

where

and

Putting these things together, we get

From

and

we get

Thus, we have

On the other hand, by the definition of Laplacian operator we have

Noticing that

and

we get

The key point of the proof of above theorem is to show that there is a conformal transformation \Psi_1 of the standard unit sphere with

where C_1 is a constant only depending on \alpha. Once (Proof) is verified then by the arguments in P353 of [Nr], we see that the conclusion of Theorem is true. Due to the Uniformization Theorem, we see that there is conformal differmorphism \Phi: (\mathbf{S}^2, g_0)\mapsto (\mathbf{S}^2, g) with \Phi^* (g) = e^{2u} g_0 and

Without loss of generality, we may assume for 1\leq i \leq 3

where x_i, 1\leq i \leq 3, is the coordinate function of the standard sphere in \mathbb{R}^3, integral is taken on the standard sphere (\mathbf{S}^2 , g_0). Otherwise, by Lemma 2, part 3 in [Ch] we can find a conformal transformation \Phi_1: (\mathbf{S}^2, g_0)\mapsto(\mathbf{S}^2, g_0) so that u\circ\Phi_1 satisfying (?), and (?). Due to a' in the proof of Theorem 1, Part 7 in [Ch], we know that there a constant C only depending on w and W (here 0<w\leq K \leq W) and with

We now claim that for any \eta>0, there is \delta=\delta(\eta) so that

provided |K-1|_{C^0 (\mathbf{S}^2)}\leq \delta.

Suppose the claim fails, then we may find a constant \eta_0 >0, and a sequence of K_j and u_j satisfying (?) and (?), and |K_j -1| tends to zero while |u_j|_{C^0 (\mathbf{S}^2)}\geq \eta_0. By (?) and the standard estimates in elliptic PDE, we may take a subsequence still denoted by u_j which converges to u_\infty in the sense of C^1(\mathbf{S}^2), and u_\infty satisfying (?) and

By this we see that u_\infty =0 which is contradiction to the choice of u_j. Thus, claim is true.

Let

with

where

for 1\leq 1\leq 3. Taking integral on (?) on (\mathbf{S}^2 , g_0), we get

Together this with the assumption of K, we get

Here and in the sequel, C is always a constant independent of u. Let

By equation (?) and the definition of u_2, we get

from which we have

From the definition of u_2 we see that

where C is a positive universal constant independent of u. By (?) we get

Combining (?), (?), (?) and (?) we obtain

On the other hand, by the (?) and direct computations we obtain, for each i,

which implies

All the constants C above are independent of u. Putting this estimate with (?), (?), and (?), we get

Together this with (?), we get

which implies

for some \alpha>0, here C is a constant that only depends on \alpha and is independent of u. Then by the Schauder theory in partial differential equations, we get

Thus, we see that

where C_1 is a constant depending only on \alpha. It implies the conclusion of the Theorem is true. Thus, we finish to prove the Theorem.

By Theorem 3, we see that the statement of the theorem is true for i\circ \Psi^{-1}_1 (\mathbf{S}^2) in \mathbb{R}^3. It is also true for the case of i (\mathbf{S}^2), for the support function X\cdot n and the mean curvature H_0 are independent of a parametrization of the domain manifold.

By the assumption on A and \bar\nabla A, we see that

and

Then by a rescaling, we see that the resulting surface satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 3. Then combining Theorem 3 with direct computations we get the conclusion.