Semilinear NLW: Difference between revisions
(→Necessary conditions for [[LWP]]: restructured) |
(→Necessary conditions for [[LWP]]: Typos) |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<center><math>s_{conf} = (d+1)/4 - 1/(p-1)</math></center> | <center><math>s_{conf} = (d+1)/4 - 1/(p-1)</math></center> | ||
in the focusing case; the defocusing case is still open. In the <math>H^{1/2}</math>-critical power or below, this condition is stronger than the scaling requirement. | in the focusing case; the defocusing case is still open. In the | ||
<math>H^{1/2}</math>-critical power or below, this condition is | |||
stronger than the scaling requirement. | |||
** When <math>d \geq 2</math> and 1 < p < p_{H^{1/2}} with the focusing sign, [[blowup]] is known to occur when a certain [[Lyapunov functional]] is negative, and the rate of blowup is [[self-similar]] [[MeZaa2003]]; earlier results are in [[AntMe2001]], [[CafFri1986]], [[Al1995]], [[KiLit1993]], [[KiLit1993b]]. | ** When <math>d \geq 2</math> and 1 < p < p_{H^{1/2}} with the focusing sign, [[blowup]] is known to occur when a certain [[Lyapunov functional]] is negative, and the rate of blowup is [[self-similar]] [[MeZaa2003]]; earlier results are in [[AntMe2001]], [[CafFri1986]], [[Al1995]], [[KiLit1993]], [[KiLit1993b]]. | ||
Line 112: | Line 114: | ||
*** By using standard Strichartz estimates this was proven with (*) replaced by | *** By using standard Strichartz estimates this was proven with (*) replaced by | ||
<center><math>p ((d+1)/4-s) \leq (d+1)/2d ( (d+3)/2 - s)</math>; (**)</center> | <center><math>p ((d+1)/4-s) \leq (d+1)/2d ( (d+3)/2 - s)</math>; | ||
(**)</center> | |||
see [[KeTa1998]] for the double endpoint when (**) holds with equality and s=s_{conf}, and [[LbSo1995]] for all other cases. A slightly weaker result also appears in [[Kp1993]]. | see [[KeTa1998]] for the double endpoint when (**) holds with equality and s=s_{conf}, and [[LbSo1995]] for all other cases. A slightly weaker result also appears in [[Kp1993]]. | ||
Line 122: | Line 125: | ||
* <math>d=3, p = 3, s > 3/4</math> [[KnPoVe-p2]] | * <math>d=3, p = 3, s > 3/4</math> [[KnPoVe-p2]] | ||
* <math>d=3, 3 \leq p < 5, s > [4(p-1) + (5-p)(3p-3-4)]/[2(p-1)(7-p)]</math> [[MiaZgFg-p]] | * <math>d=3, 3 \leq p < 5, s > [4(p-1) + (5-p)(3p-3-4)]/[2(p-1)(7-p)]</math> [[MiaZgFg-p]] | ||
* <math>d=3, 2 < p < 3, or n\geq4, (d+1)^2/((d-1)^2+4) \leq p < (d-1)/(d-3)</math>, and | * <math>d=3, 2 < p < 3, or n\geq4, (d+1)^2/((d-1)^2+4) \leq p < | ||
(d-1)/(d-3)</math>, and | |||
<center><math>s > [2(p-1)^2 - (d+2-p(d-2))(d+1-p(d-1))] / [2(p-1)(d+1-p(d-3))]</math></center> | <center><math>s > [2(p-1)^2 - (d+2-p(d-2))(d+1-p(d-1))] / | ||
[2(p-1)(d+1-p(d-3))]</math></center> | |||
[MiaZgFg-p]. Note that this is the range of p for which s_conf obeys both the scaling condition <math>s_{conf} > s_c</math> and the condition (**). | [MiaZgFg-p]. Note that this is the range of p for which s_conf obeys both the scaling condition <math>s_{conf} > s_c</math> and the condition (**). | ||
* <math>d=2, 3 \leq p \leq 5, s > (p-2)/(p-1)</math> [[Fo-p]]; this is for the NLW instead of NLKG. | * <math>d=2, 3 \leq p \leq 5, s > (p-2)/(p-1)</math> [[Fo-p]]; this is | ||
* <math>d=2, p > 5, s > (p-1)/p</math> [[Fo-p]]; this is for the NLW instead of NLKG. | for the NLW instead of NLKG. | ||
* <math>d=2, p > 5, s > (p-1)/p</math> [[Fo-p]]; this is for the NLW | |||
instead of NLKG. | |||
GWP and blowup has also been studied for the NLW with a conformal factor | GWP and blowup has also been studied for the NLW with a conformal factor | ||
<center><math>\Box u = (t^2 + (1 - (t^2-x^2)/4)^2)^{-(d-1)p/4 + (d+3)/4} |u|^p</math>;</center> | <center><math>\Box u = (t^2 + (1 - (t^2-x^2)/4)^2)^{-(d-1)p/4 + | ||
(d+3)/4} |u|^p</math>;</center> | |||
the significance of this factor is that it behaves well under conformal compactification. See [[Aa2002]], [[BcKkZz2002]], [[Gue2003]] for some recent results. | the significance of this factor is that it behaves well under conformal compactification. See [[Aa2002]], [[BcKkZz2002]], [[Gue2003]] for some recent results. |
Revision as of 13:59, 16 January 2007
Semilinear wave equations
[Note: Many references needed here!]
Semilinear wave equations (NLW) and semi-linear Klein-Gordon equations (NLKG) take the form
respectively where is a function only of and not of its derivatives, which vanishes to more than first order.
Typically is a power type nonlinearity. If is the gradient of some function , then we have a conserved Hamiltonian
For NLKG there is an additional term of in the integrand, which is useful for controlling the low frequencies of . If V is positive definite then we call the NLW defocusing; if is negative definite we call the NLW focusing.
To analyze these equations in we need the non-linearity to be sufficiently smooth. More precisely, we will always assume either that is smooth, or that is a p^th-power type non-linearity with .
The scaling regularity is . Notable powers of include the -critical power , the -critical or conformal power p_{H^{1/2}} = 1 + 4/(d-1), and the -critical power .
Dimension d |
Strauss exponent (NLKG) |
-critical exponent |
Strauss exponent (NLW) |
H^{1/2}-critical exponent |
H^1-critical exponent |
1 |
3.56155... |
5 |
infinity |
infinity |
N/A |
2 |
2.41421... |
3 |
3.56155... |
5 |
infinity |
3 |
2 |
2.33333... |
2.41421... |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1.78078... |
2 |
2 |
2.33333... |
3 |
Necessary conditions for LWP
The following necessary conditions for LWP are known.
- Firstly, for focussing NLW/NLKG one has blowup in finite time for large data, as can be seen by the ODE method. One can scale this and obtain ill-posedness for any focussing NLW/NLKG in the supercritical regime s < s_c; this has been extended to the defocusing case in CtCoTa-p2. By using Lorentz scaling instead of isotropic scaling one can also obtain ill-posedness whenever s is below the conformal regularity
in the focusing case; the defocusing case is still open. In the -critical power or below, this condition is stronger than the scaling requirement.
- When and 1 < p < p_{H^{1/2}} with the focusing sign, blowup is known to occur when a certain Lyapunov functional is negative, and the rate of blowup is self-similar MeZaa2003; earlier results are in AntMe2001, CafFri1986, Al1995, KiLit1993, KiLit1993b.
To make sense of the non-linearity in the sense of distributions we need s \geq 0 (indeed we have illposedness below this regularity by a high-to-low cascade, see CtCoTa-p2). In the one-dimensional case one also needs the condition to keep the non-linearity integrable, because there is no Strichartz smoothing to exploit.
- Finally, in three dimensions one has ill-posedness when and Lb1993.
- In dimensions d\leq3 the above necessary conditions are also sufficient for LWP.
- For d>4 sufficiency is only known assuming the condition
(*)
and excluding the double endpoint when (*) holds with equality and s=s_{conf} Ta1999. The main tool is two-scale Strichartz estimates.
- By using standard Strichartz estimates this was proven with (*) replaced by
see KeTa1998 for the double endpoint when (**) holds with equality and s=s_{conf}, and LbSo1995 for all other cases. A slightly weaker result also appears in Kp1993.
GWP and scattering for NLW is known for data with small norm when is at or above the -critical power (and this has been extended to Besov spaces; see Pl-p4. This can be used to obtain self-similar solutions, see [MiaZg-p2]). One also has GWP in in the defocussing case when p is at or below the -critical power. (At the critical power this result is due to Gl1992; see also SaSw1994. For radial data this was shown in Sw1988.) For more scattering results, see below.
For the defocussing NLKG, GWP in , , is known in the following cases:
[MiaZgFg-p]. Note that this is the range of p for which s_conf obeys both the scaling condition and the condition (**).
- Fo-p; this is
for the NLW instead of NLKG.
- Fo-p; this is for the NLW
instead of NLKG.
GWP and blowup has also been studied for the NLW with a conformal factor
the significance of this factor is that it behaves well under conformal compactification. See Aa2002, BcKkZz2002, Gue2003 for some recent results.
A substantial scattering theory for NLW and NLKG is known.
The non-relativistic limit of NLKG has attracted a fair amount of research.
Specific semilinear wave equations
- Sine-Gordon
- Quadratic NLW/NLKG
- Cubic NLW/NLKG (on R, on R^2, on R^3, and on R^4)
- Quartic NLW/NLKG
- Quintic NLW/NLKG (on R, on R^2, and on R^3)
- Septic NLW/NLKG (on R, on R^2, and on R^3)