text:
# Global existence for nonlinear wave equations with multiple speeds

## 1. Introduction

We shall be concerned with the Cauchy problem for quasilinear systems in three space dimensions of the form

(1.1)
$$_t^2u^Ic_I^2\mathrm{\Delta }u^I=C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_a_bu^K+B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K,I=1,\mathrm{},D.$$

Here we are using the convention of summing repeated indices, and $`u`$ denotes the space-time gradient, $`u=(_0u,_1u,_2u,_3u)`$, with $`_0=_t`$, and $`_j=_{x_j}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$. We shall be in the nonrelativistic case where we assume that the wave speeds $`c_k`$ are all positive but not necessarily equal.

The main difficulty in the nonrelativistic case is that one can only use a smaller group of commuting vector fields. In particular, since one cannot use the generators of the hyperbolic rotations, due to the different wave speeds, the earlier approach of Klainerman  breaks down. This is because the invariant Sobolev inequality that plays a key role in  does not hold if one uses a smaller collection of vector fields. The conformal approach of Christodoulou  also does not seem to apply to the nonrelativistic approach. Also, unlike , our techniques do not use Morawetz’s conformal vector field.

In , , , and  the (3+1)-dimensional case was handled. The null condition was first identified and shown to lead to global existence of small solutions. Without the null condition, small solutions remain smooth “almost globally” , but arbitrarily small compactly supported initial data can develop singularities in finite time .

We shall assume that the nonlinear terms satisfy a null condition. Let us first assume, for simplicity, that the wave speeds $`c_I`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{},D`$ are distinct. In this case, the null condition only involves the self-interactions of each wave family. First we require that self-interactions among the quasilinear terms satisfy the standard null condition for the various wave-speeds:

(1.2)
$$C_{abc}^{IJJ}\xi _a\xi _b\xi _c=0\text{whenever}\frac{\xi _0^2}{c_J^2}\xi _1^2\xi _2^2\xi _3^2=0,I,J=1,\mathrm{},D.$$

We shall require that the self-interacting part of the semilinear terms satisfy the standard null condition

(1.3)
$$B_{ab}^{IJJ}\xi _a\xi _b=0,\text{whenever}\frac{\xi _0^2}{c_J^2}\xi _1^2\xi _2^2\xi _3^2=0,I,J=1,\mathrm{},D.$$

If one allows repeated wave speeds, one must require that interactions of families with the same speeds satisfy a null condition. Specifically, if we let $`_p=\{I:c_I=c_{I_p},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ID\}`$, then the above null condition is extended to be

(1.4)
$$C_{abc}^{IJK}\xi _a\xi _b\xi _c=0\text{whenever}\frac{\xi _0^2}{c_{I_p}^2}\xi _1^2\xi _2^2\xi _3^2=0,(J,K)_p\times _p,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ID,$$

and

(1.5)
$$B_{ab}^{IJK}\xi _a\xi _b=0,\text{whenever}\frac{\xi _0^2}{c_{I_p}^2}\xi _1^2\xi _2^2\xi _3^2=0,(J,K)_p\times _p,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ID.$$

Since we are going to use the energy integral method, we also require that the metric perturbation terms in the system (1.1) are symmetric:

(1.6)
$$C_{abc}^{IJK}=C_{bac}^{IJK}=C_{abc}^{KJI},0a,b,c3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}I,J,KD.$$

If the symmetry condition and these null conditions hold, we shall show that (1.1) has a global solution, provided that the initial data is small.

To prove this result, we shall have to use estimates involving various vector fields. We shall use the generators of translations, $``$, the generators of Euclidean rotations $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)=x_x`$, and the scaling operator

(1.7)
$$S=t_t+r_r=x^a_a.$$

Here $`X=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(t,x)`$ denotes a point in $`^4`$. We shall denote these eight vector fields as

(1.8)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_7)=(,\mathrm{\Omega },S),$$

and we shall use the multi-index notation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha _m}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha _1},$$

if $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _m)`$, for a sequence of indices $`\alpha _i\{0,\mathrm{},7\}`$ of length $`|\alpha |=m`$.

The D’Alembertian will be the operator

(1.9)
$$\mathrm{}=\text{Diag}(\mathrm{}^1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^D),\text{with }\mathrm{}^I=_t^2c_I^2\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

We can then write (1.1) as

(1.10)
$$\mathrm{}u=N(u,^2u),$$

where

(1.11)
$$N^I(u,^2u)=C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_a_bu^K+B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K,I=1,\mathrm{},D.$$

To describe the solution space we let

$$^m(^3)=\{fL^2(^3;^D):(x_x)^\alpha fL^2,|\alpha |m\},$$

denote the weighted Sobolev space with norm

$$f_{^m(^3)}=\underset{|\alpha |m}{}(x_x)^\alpha f_{L^2(^3)}.$$

Here, $`x=(1+|x|^2)^{1/2}`$.

We can now state our global existence theorem for Minkowski space.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Assume that the nonlinear terms (1.11) satisfy (1.6) as well as the null condition (1.4) and (1.5). Then the initial value problem for (1.10) with initial data

$$u(0,)^{m1}(^3),m10,$$

satisfying

(1.12)
$$_xu(0,)_^9+_tu(0,)_^9<\epsilon ,$$

with $`\epsilon >0`$ sufficiently small, has a unique global solution satisfying $`u(t,)^m(^3)`$ for every $`t>0`$.

Sideris and Yu  proved the special case of this theorem where the semilinear terms vanished identically. Their approach differed from much of the previous work since they did not use any estimates arising from the fundamental solution of the d’Alembertian. A limitation of their approach, though, is that it only leads to good pointwise control of second and higher derivatives, and this explains why they were not able to handle equations with semilinear terms.

Our approach is more in line with the original proof of Klainerman . A key difference, though, is that our main estimates exploit the $`1/x`$ decay of solutions of the wave equation, as opposed to the $`1/t`$ decay, which is much more difficult to obtain. We are able to exploit this weaker decay because of a key pointwise estimate for solutions of the inhomogeneous wave equation that is adapted to the $`1/x`$ decay and only uses the vector fields in (1.8). This estimate was proved in an earlier joint paper with Keel and Smith , which proved almost global existence for quasilinear equations using only the above vector fields in the Minkowski space setting, as well as for the case of Minkowski space minus star-shaped spatial obstacles. In a future paper, we hope to show how the techniques from this paper can show that in the obstacle setting one has global existence for the above Dirichlet-wave equations when the null condition is satisfied. This would extend results in our earlier joint paper with Keel and Smith , and give a proof that works directly in Minkowski space, instead of relying on the conformal method.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we shall recall $`L^2`$ and pointwise estimates from  and  that will play an important role in our arguments. After that, we shall see consequences of the null condition and prove some related auxiliary estimates that are adapted to the $`L^2`$ and pointwise estimates that we shall use. Then, in the final section we shall prove Theorem 1.1.

The author would like to thank Kunio Hidano for some very helpful conversations, and Mark Keel for useful comments regarding an early draft of this paper.

## 2. Background: Pointwise estimates and $`L^2`$ estimates

As above $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }\}=\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=x_i_jx_j_i`$, $`1i<j3`$, are the Euclidean $`^3`$ rotation operators, and the scaling operator is $`S=t_t+x_x=t_t+r_r`$. Then we require the following result from .

###### Proposition 2.1.

If $`wC^4`$ and $`(_t^2\mathrm{\Delta })w=F`$ in $`[0,t]\times ^3`$, and the Cauchy data of $`w`$ are $`0`$ at $`t=0`$, then

(2.1)
$$t|w(t,x)|C_0^t_^3\underset{|\alpha |3}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha F(s,y)|\frac{dyds}{1+|y|}.$$

In  the following variant of of (2.1) was actually proved:

$$t|w(t,x)|C_0^t_^3\underset{|\alpha |2,j1}{}|S^j\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha F(s,y)|\frac{dyds}{|y|}.$$

This estimate of course implies (2.1) when $`F(s,y)=0`$ for $`|y|<1`$. One gets the estimate for the case where $`F(s,y)=0`$ for $`|y|>2`$ by applying the preceding case to a translation such as $`F(s,y_1,y_2,y_3+3)`$. (The translation introduces the constant vector fields.) Combining the two cases by a partition of unity yields (2.1) in full generality.

In addition to the pointwise estimate (2.1), we also require an $`L_t^2L_x^2`$ estimate that is a simple consequences of the energy inequality and Huygen’s principle.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Suppose that $`v`$ solves the wave equation $`(_t^2\mathrm{\Delta })v=G`$ in $`_+\times ^3`$. Then there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that

(2.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}(1+r)^1v^{}_{L^2(\{(s,x):\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}st\})}+(1+r)^2v_{L^2(\{(s,x):\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}st\})}\hfill \\ \hfill Cv^{}(0,)_2+C_0^tG(s,)_{L^2(^3)}𝑑s.\end{array}$$

Here, and in what follows, $`v^{}`$ denotes the space-time gradient of $`v`$, i.e., $`v^{}=(_tv,_xv)`$.

In addition to this $`L_t^2L_x^2`$ estimate we shall also of course need the standard energy estimates for solutions of perturbed wave equations

(2.3)
$$(_t^2c_I^2\mathrm{\Delta })u^I+\underset{K=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{0j,k3}{}\gamma ^{IK,jk}_j_ku^K=F^I,I=1,\mathrm{},D,$$

which satisfy the symmetry conditions

(2.4)
$$\gamma ^{IK,jk}=\gamma ^{IK,kj}=\gamma ^{KI,jk},0j,k3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}I,KD.$$

The associated energy form then is $`e_0=_{I=1}^De^I,`$ where

(2.5)
$$e^I(u,t)=(_0u^I)^2+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}c_I^2(_ku^I)^2+2\underset{J=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma ^{IJ,0k}_0u^I_ku^J\underset{J=1}{\overset{D}{}}\gamma ^{IJ,jk}_ju^I_ku^J.$$

If we assume that

(2.6)
$$\underset{I,J=1}{\overset{D}{}}\underset{j,k=0}{\overset{3}{}}|\gamma ^{IJ,jk}|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}(1,c_I^2),$$

it follows that

(2.7)
$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}(1,c_I^2)|_{t,x}u|^2e(u).$$

If we let $`E(u,t)^2=_^3e(u,t)𝑑x`$ be the associated energy, then, assuming (2.4) and (2.6), we also have the energy inequality

(2.8)
$$_tE(u,t)CF(t,)_2+CE(u,t)\underset{\begin{array}{c}0j,k,l3\\ 1I,KD\end{array}}{}_l\gamma ^{IK,jk}(t,)_{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`C`$ is an absolute constant (only depending on the wave speeds $`c_I`$).

If we use the following commutator relations $`[\mathrm{},Z]=0`$, when $`\{Z\}=\{_j,\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\}`$, and $`[\mathrm{},S]=2\mathrm{}`$, where, as above, $`S`$ is the scaling vector field, we see that this implies

(2.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |M}{}_tE(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t)C\underset{|\alpha |M}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha F(t,)_2+\underset{\begin{array}{c}|\alpha |M\\ I,K,j,k\end{array}}{}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\gamma ^{IK,jk}_j_k]u(t,)_2\hfill \\ \hfill +C\underset{|\alpha |M}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t)\underset{\begin{array}{c}0j,k,l3\\ 1I,KD\end{array}}{}_l\gamma ^{IK,jk}(t,)_{\mathrm{}},\end{array}$$

## 3. Null form bounds and auxiliary estimates

Here we shall prove simple bounds for the null forms. They must involve the weight $`c_ktr`$ due to the fact that we are not using the generators of Lorentz rotations.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Suppose that the nonlinear form $`N(u,^2u)`$ satisfies the null condition (1.2)-(1.3). Then

(3.1)
$$|C_{abc}^{IJJ}_cu_a_bv|Cr^1\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }u||^2v|+|u||\mathrm{\Gamma }v|\right)+C\frac{c_Jtr}{t+r}|u||^2v|.$$

Also,

(3.2)
$$|B_{ab}^{IJJ}_au_bv|Cr^1\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }u||v|+|u||\mathrm{\Gamma }v|\right)+C\frac{c_Jtr}{t+r}|u||v|.$$

Proof of Lemma 3.1: Since $`_x=\frac{x}{r}_r\frac{x}{r^2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. So, if we introduce the two operators $`D^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_t\pm c_J_r)`$ and the null vectors $`Y^\pm =(1,\pm x/c_Jr)`$ associated to the wave speed $`c_J`$, we have

$$(_t,_x)=(Y^{}D^{}+Y^+D^+)(0,\frac{x}{c_Jr^2}\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Since we can write

$$D^+=\frac{c_J}{c_Jt+r}S\frac{c_Jtr}{c_Jt+r}D^{},$$

the preceding formula can be rewritten as

$$=Y^{}D^{}\frac{c_Jtr}{c_Jt+r}Y^+D^{}+\frac{c_J}{c_Jt+r}Y^+S(0,\frac{x}{c_Jr^2}\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Consequently,

$$=Y^{}D^{}+R,$$

where

$$|Ru|Cr^1|\mathrm{\Gamma }u|+\frac{c_Jtr}{t+r}|u|.$$

Therefore, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{abc}^{IJJ}_cu_a_bv=C_{abc}^{IJJ}(Y_a^{}Y_b^{}Y_c^{}D^{}u(D^{})^2v\hfill \\ \hfill +R_cu_{ab}v+Y_c^{}D^{}uR_a_bv+Y_c^{}D^{}uY_a^{}D^{}R_bv).\end{array}$$

Note that $`(Y_0^{})^2/c_J^2(Y_1^{})^2(Y_2^{})^2(Y_3^{})^2=0`$, therefore by (1.4) the first term in the right of the last equation must vanish. Therefore, the bounds for $`R`$ lead to (3.1). The proof of (3.2) is similar. ∎

Since we shall be proving estimates for scalar functions in the rest of this section, let us abuse notation a bit by letting $`\mathrm{}=_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ here.

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $`hC_0^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times ^3)`$ then

(3.3)
$$trh^{}(t,)_2C\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha h^{}(t,)_2+Ct+r\mathrm{}h(t,)_2.$$

Also, if $`0<\delta <1/2`$ is fixed then

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}h^{}(t,)_{L^6(|x|[(1\delta )t,(1+\delta )t])}\hfill \\ \hfill Ct^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha h^{}(t,)_2+Ct+r\mathrm{}h(t,)_2\right).\end{array}$$

Proof of Lemma 3.2: Inequality (3.4) is a consequence of (3.3) since

$$h^{}(t,)_{L^6(|x|[(1\delta )t,(1+\delta )t])}Ch^{}(t,)_{L^2(|x|[(12\delta )t,(1+2\delta )t])}+Ct^1h^{}(t,)_2.$$

Inequality (3.3) is essentially in  (see Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 3.1 in ). The first step is to notice that one has the elementary pointwise estimate

$$tr\left(|_th(t,x)|+|\mathrm{\Delta }h(t,x)|\right)C\underset{|\alpha |1}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha h(t,x)|+Ct+r|\mathrm{}h(t,x)|,$$

which leads to the $`L^2`$ bounds

$$tr(|_th(t,)|+|\mathrm{\Delta }h(t,)|)_2C\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha h^{}(t,)_2+Ct+r\mathrm{}h(t,)_2.$$

Therefore, to finish, we need to see that

(3.5)
$$tr_x^2h(t,)_2C\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha h^{}(t,)_2+Ct+r\mathrm{}h(t,)_2.$$

To see this, we note that if we sum over $`1i,j3`$ and integrate by parts twice we have

$$\begin{array}{c}_^3tr^2\underset{i,j}{}|_i_jh|^2dx=_^3tr^2|\mathrm{\Delta }h|^2𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i,j}{}\left(_^3\left[(_itr^2)(_ju)\overline{(_i_jh)}(_jtr^2)(_jh)\overline{(_i^2h)}\right]𝑑x\right).\end{array}$$

The first term on the right has already been shown to be dominated by the right side of (3.3), and since an application of Schwarz’s inequality shows that the second term is dominated by

$$\left(_^3tr^2\underset{i,j}{}|_i_jh|^2dx\right)^{1/2}h^{}(t,)_2,$$

we conclude that (3.5) must hold, which finishes the proof. ∎

The following result will be useful for dealing with waves interacting at different speeds.

###### Corollary 3.3.

Fix $`c_1,c_2>0`$ satisfying $`c_1c_2`$. Then if $`u,vC_0^{\mathrm{}}(\times ^3)`$,

(3.6) $`{\displaystyle _^3}|`$ $`u^{\prime \prime }(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|x^1dx`$
$`Ct^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r(_t^2c_1^2\mathrm{\Delta })u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}(t,)_2`$
$`+Ct^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r(_t^2c_1^2\mathrm{\Delta })u(t,)_2\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha v^{}(t,)_2+t+r(_t^2c_2^2\mathrm{\Delta })v(t,)_2\right)`$
Proof: Let $`2\delta <|c_1c_2|`$. Then if we use Schwarz’s inequality and (3.3) we see that we can bound

$$_{|c_1tr|>\delta t}|u^{\prime \prime }(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|x^1𝑑x$$

by the first term in the right side of (3.6).

For the next step we split the remaining region where $`|rc_1t|\delta t`$ into the annuli, $`A_j`$, where $`c_1tr[2^j,2^{j+1})`$, $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Assuming that $`A_j\{x:|rc_1t|\delta t\}\mathrm{}`$, we can use Hölder’s inequality to find that

$$\begin{array}{c}_{c_1tr[2^j,2^{j+1})}|u^{\prime \prime }(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|x^1𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill Ct^{1/3}2^{j/3}u^{\prime \prime }(t,)_{L^2(c_1tr(2^j,2^{j+1}))}v^{}(t,)_{L^6(c_1tr(2^j,2^{j+1}))}.\end{array}$$

Since $`2\delta <|c_1c_2|`$, on the set where $`|rc_1t|\delta t`$ we have the lower bound $`|rc_2t|\delta t`$. Therefore, we can apply (3.3) and (3.4) to see that the right side is bounded by $`2^{2j/3}`$ times the second term in the right side of (3.6), which, after summing over $`j`$, implies that when we restrict the integration in the left side of (3.6) to the the set where $`|rc_1t|\delta t`$ the resulting expression is dominated by the second term in the right of (3.6). Therefore, after summing over $`j`$, we also have control of the analog of (3.6) where the integration is over the region where $`|c_1tr|\delta `$, which completes the proof. ∎

To handle same-speed interactions, we shall need the following similar result.

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`u,vC_0^{\mathrm{}}(\times ^3)`$. Then,

(3.7) $`{\displaystyle _^3}x^2`$ $`|^2u(t,x)||v(t,x)|dx`$
$`Ct^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^2v_2`$
$`+Ct^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)v^{}_2.`$
(3.8) $`{\displaystyle _^3}x^2|u^{}(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|𝑑x`$
$`C\mathrm{log}(2+t)t^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}_2`$
$`+Ct^2u^{}(t,)_2v^{}(t,)_2.`$
(3.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}_^3\frac{tr}{t+r}|^2u(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|x^1𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill Ct^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}(t,)_2.\end{array}$$

Proof of Corollary 3.4: To prove (3.7) we first notice that by using Schwarz’s inequality and (3.3) we get that

$$\begin{array}{c}_{|x|[t/2,3t/2]}x^2|^2u(t,x)||v(t,x)|𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill Ct^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^2v_2.\end{array}$$

If we use (3.3) and argue as in the proof of Corollary 3.3 we can estimate the integral over $`|x|[t/2,3t/2]`$. We do so by noting that for $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the integral over $`\{x:|x|[t/2,3t/2]\}\{x:tr[2^j,2^{j+1})\}`$ is dominated by

$$t^22^j\left(\underset{|\alpha |2}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)t^{2/3}2^{j/3}v(t,)_6.$$

We conclude that the integral over the region where $`|x|[t/2,3t/2]`$ is dominated by the other term in the right side of (3.7) after summing over $`j`$ and applying Sobolev’s theorem.

To prove (3.8) we note that it suffices to show that

$$\begin{array}{c}_{|x|<(t+1)/2}x^2|u^{}(t,x)||v^{}(t,x)|𝑑x\hfill \\ \hfill C\mathrm{log}(2+t)t^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}_2,\end{array}$$

since clearly the integral over $`|x|>(t+1)/2`$ is dominated by the second term in the right side of (3.8). However, if we use Hölder’s inequality and (3.4), we see that the integral over $`|x|<(t+1)/2`$ is dominated by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{log}(2+t)u^{}(t,)_{L^6(|x|<(t+1)/2)}x^1v^{}_2\hfill \\ \hfill C\mathrm{log}(2+t)t^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}_2,\end{array}$$

which handles the remaining part of (3.8).

To prove (3.9) we just use Schwarz’s inequality and (3.3) to see that its left side is dominated by

$$\begin{array}{c}t^1tr^2u(t,)_2x^1v^{}(t,)_2\hfill \\ \hfill Ct^1\left(\underset{|\alpha |1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_2+t+r\mathrm{}u(t,)_2\right)x^1v^{}(t,)_2,\end{array}$$

which completes the proof. ∎

We shall also need the following simple result.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`u,vC_0^{\mathrm{}}(\times ^3)`$. Then,

(3.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}t+ru(t,)v(t,)_{L^2(^3)}Cu(t,)_{L^2(^3)}tv(t,)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^3)}\hfill \\ \hfill +Cu(t,)_{L^2(^3)}\underset{|\alpha |+|\beta |2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha _x^\beta v(t,)_{L^2(^3)}.\end{array}$$

The proof is simple. We first note that if we replace $`t+r`$ by $`t`$ in the left side of (3.10) the resulting quantity is dominated by the first term in the right side of (3.10). So to finish the proof, it would suffice to show that

$$ru(t,)v(t,)_{L^2(^3)}Cu(t,)_{L^2(^3)}\underset{|\alpha |+|\beta |2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha _x^\beta v(t,)_{L^2(^3)}.$$

Since $`|v(t,x)|C_{|\beta |2}_x^\beta v(t,)_2`$, we can prove the analog of this estimate where the norm in the left is taken over $`|x|2`$. The $`L^2`$ bound over the region $`|x|>2`$ follows from the following Sobolev estimate for $`_+\times S^2`$

$$|v(t,r\omega )|C\underset{|\alpha |+j2}{}\left(_{|r\rho |1}_{S^2}|\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha _\rho ^jv(t,\rho \omega )|^2𝑑\omega 𝑑\rho \right)^{1/2},$$

since, when expressed in polar coordinates, the standard volume form on $`^3`$ is $`4\pi \rho ^2d\rho d\omega `$.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

We shall assume that the data satisfies the smallness condition (1.12). We then wish to show that (1.10) has a global solution if the null condition (1.4)-(1.5) holds. For simplicity, we shall assume that the wave speeds $`c_I`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{},D`$, are distinct. A simple modification of the arguments to follow handles the general case where this assumption is removed.

To proceed, we shall need to use a standard local existence theorem:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose that $`f`$ and $`g`$ as above satisfy (1.12). Suppose also that the symmetry condition (1.6) holds. Then there is a $`T>0`$ so that the initial value problem (1.10) with initial data has a $`C^2`$ solution satisfying

(4.1)
$$uL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];H^{10}(^3))C^{0,1}([0,T];H^9(^3)).$$

The supremum of all such $`T`$ is equal to the supremum of all $`T`$ such that the initial value problem has a $`C^2`$ solution with $`^\alpha u`$ bounded for $`|\alpha |2`$.

This result is essentially Theorem 6.4.11 in . The latter result, though, is just for scalar wave equations; however, the same proof, which is based on energy inequalities, yields Theorem 4.1 since we are assuming that the symmetry condition (1.6) and thus one can use the energy-integral method exactly as in .

We now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.1. We let $`\epsilon >0`$ be as in (1.12), and assume that we already have a $`C^2`$ solution of our equation for $`0tT`$ such that for such $`t`$ and small $`\epsilon `$

(4.2)
$$(1+|t|)\underset{|\alpha |4}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,x)|A_0\epsilon $$

(4.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{|\alpha |9}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(t,)_{L^2(^3)}+\underset{|\alpha |8}{}x^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}_{L^2(\{(s,x)[0,t]\times ^3\})}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{|\alpha |8}{}x^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u_{L^2(\{(s,x)[0,t]\times ^3\})}A_1\epsilon (1+t)^{A_2\epsilon }\underset{|\alpha |9}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(0,)_2.\end{array}$$

Clearly both estimates are valid if $`T`$ is small.

We then let $`A_0`$ be so large that (4.2) holds with $`A_0`$ replaced by $`A_0/3`$ if $`u`$ is replaced by the solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}u_0=0`$ with Cauchy data $`(f,g)`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is as in (1.9). We shall then prove for $`\epsilon `$ smaller than some number depending on $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ that

i) (4.2) is valid with $`A_0`$ replaced by $`A_0/2`$;

ii) (4.3) is a consequence of (4.2) for suitable $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$.
By the local existence theorem it will follow that a solution exists for all $`t0`$ if $`\epsilon `$ is small enough.

Proof of i): Since the Cauchy data of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u_0`$ is $`O(\epsilon ^2)`$, it suffices by Proposition 2.1 to prove that for small $`\epsilon `$

$$\underset{|\alpha |4}{}\underset{|\beta |3}{}_{0<s<T}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,y)|\frac{dyds}{1+|y|}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Using the commutativity relations of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, we can write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}`$ as a sum of terms of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma \mathrm{}u^{}`$ with $`|\sigma ||\alpha |+|\beta |7`$. Therefore, it suffices to prove that

(4.4)
$$\underset{|\alpha |7}{}_{0<s<T}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{}u^{}(s,y)|\frac{dyds}{1+|y|}C\epsilon ^2.$$

To do so we note that the $`I`$-th component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{}u^{}`$, $`|\alpha |7`$ is a linear combination of terms of the form

(4.5)
$$\underset{a,b,c=0}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \left(C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_a_bu^K\right)+\underset{a,b=0}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \left(B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K\right),|\alpha |7.$$

Let us first handle the contribution to (4.4) of the terms in (4.5) with $`JK`$. If we use Corollary 3.3, we find that if we fix $`s(0,T)`$ then for $`JK`$ and $`|\alpha |7`$ we have

(4.6) $`{\displaystyle _^3}`$ $`\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_a_bu^K)(s,y)|+|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K)|\right){\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1+|y|}}`$
$`Cs^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}r^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2`$
$`+Cs^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_K^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^K(s,)_2\right).`$
Note that

$$|(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|C\underset{|\beta |4}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta u^{}(s,y)|\underset{|\beta |9}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta u^{}(s,y)|,|\alpha |8.$$

Therefore, if we use Lemma 3.5 and our assumptions (4.2)-(4.3) we conclude that

$$\underset{|\alpha |8}{}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2C\epsilon ^2s^{2A_2\epsilon }.$$

Because of this, if we use (4.2)-(4.3) again, we find that the left side of (4.6) is dominated by

$$C\epsilon s^{1+2A_2\epsilon }\underset{|\alpha |8}{}x^1u^{}(s,)_2+C\epsilon ^2s^{4/3+2A_2\epsilon },$$

which means that when $`JK`$

(4.7) $`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |7}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{0<s<T}}\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_a_bu^K)(s,y)|+|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K)|\right){\displaystyle \frac{dyds}{1+|y|}}`$
$`C{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(\epsilon s^{1+2A_2\epsilon }{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}r^1u^{}(s,)_2+\epsilon ^2s^{4/3+2A_2\epsilon }\right)𝑑s`$
$`C_\delta \epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s^{\frac{1}{2}+2A_2\epsilon +\delta }r^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}_{L^2(\{(s,x)[0,t]\times ^3\})}+C\epsilon ^2,\delta >0,`$
using the Schwarz inequality in the last step. If we assume that $`\epsilon `$ and $`\delta `$ are small enough $`\frac{1}{2}3A_2\epsilon \delta >0`$ then we can bound the first term in the right by $`C\epsilon ^2`$ as well by using (4.3). One first controls the $`L^2`$ norms when $`s`$ lies in a dyadic subinterval of $`[0,t]`$ and then sums.

We therefore conclude that the terms in (4.5) with $`JK`$ satisfy the bounds in (4.4). So to finish we have to consider the terms with $`J=K`$, in which case we shall need to use the null condition.

We first estimate the contribution of the quasilinear terms satisfying the null condition. If we use Lemma 3.1 we conclude that

(4.8) $`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |7}{}}(|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (C_{abc}^{IJJ}_c`$ $`u^J_a_bu^J)|+|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \left(B_{ab}^{IJJ}_au^J_bu^J\right)|)`$
$`Cr^1\left[{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J|{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J|+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J|^2\right]`$
$`+C{\displaystyle \frac{c_Jsr}{s+r}}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J|{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J|.`$
If we use (3.7) we can handle the first term on the right. Indeed,

(4.9) $`{\displaystyle _^3}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{(1+|y|)^2}}`$
$`Cs^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u(s,)_2`$
$`+Cs^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2.`$
Using (3.8) we can bound the second term in the right side of (4.8):

(4.10) $`{\displaystyle _^3}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{(1+|y|)^2}}`$
$`C\mathrm{log}(2+s)s^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}r^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2`$
$`+Cs^2{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2^2.`$
And, similarly, if we use (3.9) we can estimate the last term in (4.8):

(4.11) $`{\displaystyle _^3}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_Jsr}{s+r}}{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,y)|{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{1+|y|}}`$
$`Cs^1\left({\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |9}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2+{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}s+r(_t^2c_J^2\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^J(s,)_2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |8}{}}r^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2.`$
If we combine (4.8)-(4.11), then the arguments used to prove (4.7) yield

$$\underset{|\alpha |7}{}_{0<s<T}\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (C_{abc}^{IJJ}_cu^J_a_bu^J)|+|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (B^{JJ}_au^J_bu^J)|\right)\frac{dyds}{1+|y|}C\epsilon ^2,$$

as desired. This, along with (4.7) yields (4.4). Therefore, we have completed step i) of the proof.

Proof of ii): We need to apply (2.9) with $`M=9`$, and

$`F^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{J,K}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K`$
$`\gamma ^{IK,ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{c}{}}C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J.`$
We then have (2.6), assuming that $`\epsilon `$ in (4.2) is small. Since

$$\underset{|\alpha |9}{}\left(|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha F|+|[\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\gamma ^{IK,ab}_a_b]u|\right)\underset{|\alpha |4}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}|\underset{|\alpha |9}{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}|,$$

we conclude from (4.2) that the first two terms in the right side of (2.9) are

$$C\epsilon (1+t)^1\underset{|\alpha |9}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t).$$

Since (4.2) also implies that this must be the case for the last term in (2.9), we conclude that (4.2) implies that

$$\underset{|\alpha |9}{}_tE(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t)C\epsilon (1+t)^1\underset{|\alpha |9}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t),$$

and hence that

$$\underset{|\alpha |9}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,t)(1+t)^{C\epsilon }\underset{|\alpha |9}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u,0).$$

This implies that the first term in (4.3) satisfies the desired bounds.

If we take

$$G^I=\underset{J,K}{}\underset{a,b}{}B_{ab}^{IJK}_au^J_bu^K+\underset{J,K}{}\underset{a,b,c}{}C_{abc}^{IJK}_cu^J_{ab}u^K,$$

then we can apply Proposition 2.2 to bound the other two terms in the left side of (4.3). Indeed, they are controlled by

$$\underset{|\alpha |8}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(0,)_2+_0^t\underset{|\alpha |8}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha G(s,)_2ds.$$

We can control the last term if we use (4.2) and the fact that we have shown that the first term in (4.3) is under control. By doing this we get

$$\underset{|\alpha |8}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha G(s,)_2C\underset{|\alpha |4}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_{\mathrm{}}\underset{|\alpha |9}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha u^{}(s,)_2C^{}A_0\epsilon ^2s^{1+A_2\epsilon }.$$

Therefore

$$_0^t\underset{|\alpha |8}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha G(s,)_2dsC^{}A_0\epsilon ^2_0^ts^{1+A_2\epsilon }𝑑s\frac{C^{}A_0}{A_2}\epsilon (1+t)^{A_2\epsilon }.$$

Since this give the desired bounds for the remaining terms in (4.3) if $`A_2`$ is large enough, the proof is complete. ∎