format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

In the absence of a fundamental understanding of physics at very high energies and, in particular, in the absence of a consistent quantum theory of gravity, there is no hope, at present, to meet an understanding of the quantum origin of the Universe in a definite way. However, in order to come nearer to this presently unattainable goal it appears desirable to develop highly simplified, but consistent models, which contain as many as possible of those features which are believed to be present in a future complete theory. Spatially homogeneous minisuperspace models obtained by dimensional reduction from (1 + 3) to (1 + 0) dimensions have, therefore, played an important role in quantum cosmology.1 On the other hand, there are several reasons for studying locally supersymmetric theories rather than non-supersymmetric ones. Four-dimensional model with local supersymmetry called supergravity (SUGRA) theory, leads to a constraint which can be thought of as square root of the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint, and it is related to it in the same way as the Dirac equation is related to the Klein-Gordon equation.2 However, due to the technical complexities, the early papers on canonical supergravity 3 make no attempt at exploting this idea, but content themselves with setting up the canonical formalism and discussing the classical constraint algebra in terms of Poisson (or Dirac) brackets.

In the case of SUGRA theories one can find one-dimensional supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SQM) models by reducing four-dimensional $`N=1`$ SUGRA coupled to supermatter.4 For this purpose it is necessary to consider the homogeneity of space, that is, the metric and the matter fields are independent of spatial coordinates, as a consequence one has a finite number of degrees of freedom. Thus, the study of the associated quantum model becomes analogous to a supersymmetric quantum mechanical problem. The hope we have in these models is that they could give us the notion of the full quantum theory of SUGRA. The supersymmetric quantum cosmological models have been intensively studied with the hope to get a consistent quantum theory for the cosmological models. However, not all the results obtained in supersymmetric quantum cosmology have their counterpart in the full theory of SUGRA. Some of these problems have already been mentioned in two extensive works.5

More recently, we have proposed a new approach to investigating the supersymmetric quantum cosmology.6 In this approach we started with the action of the spatially homogeneous minisuperspace models and proceeded with supersymmetrization. Because the starting action preserves the invariance under local time reparametrization, then the supersymmetric action must be invariant under the extended local symmetry (supersymmetry). In order to have a local $`n=2`$ supersymmetry in 6, the odd “time” parameter $`\theta `$ and its complex conjugate $`\overline{\theta }`$ were introduced. This involved introducing the superfield formulation, because superfields defined on superspace allow all the component fields in a supermultiplet to be manipulated simultaneously in a manner, that automatically preserves supersymm etry. This approach has the advantage of being simpler than the proposed models based on full SUGRA 4,5,7, and by means of this local symmetry procedure it gives the corresponding fermionic partners in a direct manner. Using the superfield procedure we have constructed the superfield action for all Bianchi-type models.8 The inclusion of the real scalar matter fields, as well as the parameter of spontaneous breaking of local supersymmetry were discussed in Ref. 9. Using the last results a normalizable wavefunction was obtained for the FRW model in Ref. 10. Although these models do not attempt to describe the real world, they keep many features occurring in four-dimensional space-time, which could really be studied in the quantum versions of simplified models.

The most physically interesting case is provided by $`n=4`$ local supersymmetry, since it can be applied to the description of the systems resulting from the “realistic” $`N=1`$, $`D=4`$ SUGRA subject to an appropriate dimensional reduction down to $`D=1`$.

In this work we extend the transformations of time reparametrization to the $`n=4`$ local supermsymetry with $`SU(2)_{local}SU(2)_{global}`$ internal symmetry for all Bianchi-type-A cosmological models, and we give a procedure for including other matter fields in a sistematic way. This paper generalizes the $`n=4`$ construction described in Ref. 11. The extension presented is desirable for two reasons: 1) supersymmetric minisuperspace models are related to full $`N=1`$, $`D=4`$ dimensional SUGRA by dimensional reduction to $`(1+0)`$ dimensions.8 By such reduction $`N=1`$, $`D=4`$ SUGRA goes over to an $`n=4`$, $`D=1`$ supersymmetric model; 2) the gravitational field should be coupled to a supersymmetric matter field, like a complex scalar field.

## II  $`n=4`$ superconformal transformations and the action

The Bianchi models are the most general homogeneous cosmologies with a 3-dimensional group of isometries. These groups are in a one-to-one correspondence with 3-dimensional Lie algebras, which were classified long time ago by Bianchi. There are nine distinct 3-dimensional Lie algebras, and consequently nine types of Bianchi cosmologies. The 3-metric for each of these models can be written in the generalized coordinates

$$ds^2=G_{\mu \nu }(q^\lambda )dq^\mu dq^\nu ,$$
(1)
where the generalized coordinates $`q^\lambda (\alpha ,\beta _+,\beta _{})`$ with $`\nu =0,1,2`$ span the minisuperspace with the metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, which we may choose as flat, making use of the fact that the metric in minisuperspace is fixed only up to an arbitrary conformal factor, written as $`\mathrm{exp}[2\omega (q)]`$. All Bianchi-types models are conformally flat, i.e. its metric takes the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }(q)=e^{2\omega (q)}G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)},$$
(2)
with $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=diag(1,1,1)`$. The inverse of this conformal factor appears in the potential of each Bianchi model,

$$U(q)=e^{2\omega (q)}U_0(q),$$
(3)
with the potential $`U_0=^{(3)}g^{(3)}R`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}g`$ is the determinant and $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R`$ is the scalar curvature of the 3-metric. The action for the Bianchi type models may be written as

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{1}{N}G_{\mu \nu }(q)\dot{q}^\mu \dot{q}^\nu +NU(q)\right\}𝑑t.$$
(4)
The lapse function $`N(t)`$ and the coordinates $`q^\mu (t)`$ depend on the time parameter $`t`$ only. The action (4) is invariant under reparametrization of $`t^{}t+a(t)`$, if the transformations of $`q^\mu `$ and $`N(t)`$ are defined as

$`\delta q^\mu (t)`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)\dot{q}^\mu ,\delta N(t)=(aN)^..`$ (5)
That is, $`q^\mu (t)`$ transforms as a scalar and $`N(t)`$ as a one-dimensional vector and its dimensionality is inverse to that of $`a(t)`$. It is easy to see, that the action (4) gives a simple one-dimensional model for the somehow interacting homogeneous “matter” field $`q^\mu `$ and gravity field $`N(t)`$. Using the superfield formalism the $`n=2`$ local SQM for cosmological models was constructed in Ref. 6,8.

In the action (4), $`U(q)`$ corresponds to the potential of each Bianchi-type models. This potential may be written as

$$U(q)=\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }\frac{\varphi }{q^\mu }\frac{\varphi }{q^\nu }=\frac{1}{2}G_{\mu \nu }m^\mu m^\nu .$$
(6)
Thanks to this relation, the hidden symmetry of the cosmological models was found (see Ref. 7). This allows to construct a corresponding SQM. However, in this case the supersymmetry is global. It is natural to demand, that any cosmological action is invariant under local transformations. For this reason the more extended symmetry must be local.

To construct the superfield action in the world-line superspace $`(t,\theta ^a,\overline{\theta }_a)`$ \[with $`t`$ being a time parameter, and $`\theta ^a`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_a=(\theta ^a)^{}`$, where $`a=1,2`$ is an $`SU(2)`$ index, being two complex Grassmann coordinates\] one introduces a real “matter” superfield $`𝐐^\mu (t,\theta ^a,\overline{\theta }_a)`$ and a world-line supereinbein $`IN(t,\theta ^a,\overline{\theta }_a)`$ which has the following properties with respect to the $`SU(2)`$ $`n=4`$ superconformal transformations of the world-line superspace 12 §§§Our conventions for spinors are as follows: $`\theta _a=\theta ^b\epsilon _{ba},\theta ^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\theta _b,\overline{\theta }_a=\overline{\theta }^b\epsilon _{ba},\overline{\theta }^a=\epsilon ^{ab}\overline{\theta }_b,\overline{\theta }_a=(\theta ^a)^{},\overline{\theta }^a=(\theta _a)^{},(\theta \theta )\theta ^a\theta _a=2\theta ^1\theta ^2,(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\overline{\theta }_a\overline{\theta }^a=(\theta \theta )^{},(\overline{\theta }\theta )\overline{\theta }_a\theta ^a,\epsilon ^{12}=\epsilon ^{21}=1,\epsilon _{12}=1`$.

$`\delta t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^aD_a\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }_a\overline{D}^a\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta \theta ^a=i\overline{D}^a\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta \overline{\theta }_a=iD_a\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (7)
$$\delta 𝐐^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{𝐐}^\mu +\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝐐^\mu i(D_a\mathrm{\Lambda })(\overline{D}^a𝐐^\mu )i(\overline{D}^a\mathrm{\Lambda })(D_a𝐐^\mu ),$$
(8)
$$\delta IN=\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{IN}\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}INi(D_a\mathrm{\Lambda })(\overline{D}^aIN)i(\overline{D}^a\mathrm{\Lambda })(D_aIN),$$
(9)
where the overdot denotes the time derivative $`d/dt`$. The transformation law (8) for the superfield $`𝐐^\mu `$ shows that this superfield is a vector superfield in the one-dimensional $`n=4`$ superspace, while the superfield $`IN𝐐^\mu `$ is a scalar.12

The superfield $`𝐐^\mu `$ obeys the quadratic constraints

$`[D_a,\overline{D}^a]𝐐^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`4m^\mu ,D^aD_a𝐐^\mu =0,\overline{D}_a\overline{D}^a𝐐^\mu =0,`$ (10)
and it is irreducible representation of $`n=4`$ supersymmetry.12 The vector $`m^\mu `$ depends on the concrete cosmological model in consideration. For example, in the case of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model $`m^\mu `$ has the form $`m=\sqrt{k}/2`$, where $`k`$ takes the value $`1,0,1`$, and the metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ has one component $`G_{00}=R`$ (see Ref. 11).

The superfield $`IN`$ obeys the constraints

$`[D_a,\overline{D}^a]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{IN}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,D^aD_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{IN}}=0,\overline{D}_a\overline{D}^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{IN}}=0,`$ (11)
which are imposed in order to have a one-to-one correspondence between the number of transformation parameters and that of fields, and

$`D_a=\frac{}{\theta ^a}\frac{i}{2}\overline{\theta }_a\frac{}{t},\overline{D}^a=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }_a}\frac{i}{2}\theta ^a\frac{}{t},`$

are the supercovariant derivatives. The infinitesimal superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which appears in (7-9)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)+\theta ^a\overline{\alpha }_a(t)\overline{\theta }_a\alpha ^a(t)+\theta ^a(\sigma ^i)_a^b\overline{\theta }_bb_i(t)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\theta \theta )\overline{\theta }_a\dot{\overline{\alpha }}^a(t){\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\theta ^a\dot{\alpha }_a(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\theta \theta )(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\ddot{a}(t),`$
contains the parameters of the local time reparametrizations $`a(t)`$, local supertranslations $`\alpha (t)`$, $`\overline{\alpha }(t)`$, $`b_i(t)`$ being a local SU(2) parameter of the world-line superspace.

The constraints (10) can be explicitly solved, the solution is described by the superfield

$`𝐐^\mu (t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`q^\mu (t)+\theta ^a\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu (t)\overline{\theta }_a\lambda ^{}{}_{}{}^{a\mu }(t)+\theta ^a(\sigma _i)_a{}_{}{}^{b}\overline{\theta }_{b}^{}F^{i\mu }(t)+m^\mu (\theta \overline{\theta })`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\theta \theta )\overline{\theta }_a\dot{\overline{\lambda }}^{a\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\theta ^a\dot{\lambda }_a^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\theta \theta )(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\ddot{q}^\mu (t).`$
This superfield contains one bosonic field $`q^\mu `$ and the Grassmann-odd fermionic fields (they are four). $`\lambda ^a(t)`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_a(t)`$ are their superpartner spin degrees of freedom, and $`F_a^b=(\sigma ^i)_a^bF_i`$ are three auxiliary fields, where $`(\sigma ^i)_a^b`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are the ordinary Pauli matrices.

The constraints (11) are described by the superfield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{IN}}(t,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(t)}}+\theta ^a\overline{\psi }_a^{}(t)\overline{\theta }_a\psi ^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t)+\theta ^a(\sigma ^i)_a{}_{}{}^{b}\overline{\theta }_{b}^{}V_i^{}(t)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\theta \theta )\overline{\theta }_a\dot{\overline{\psi }}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}(t){\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\theta ^a\dot{\psi }_a^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(\theta \theta )(\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(t)}}.`$
The superfield $`IN`$ describes an $`n=4`$ world-line supergravity multiplet consisting of the einbein “graviton” $`N(t)`$, two complex “gravitinos” $`\psi ^a(t)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_a^{}(t)`$, and the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field $`V_i^{}(t)`$. The components of $`IN`$ play the role of Lagrange multipliers. Their presence mean that the dynamics of the model is subject to constraints.

The $`n=4`$ superfield action for the Bianchi-type cosmological models invariant under $`n=4`$ superconformal symmetry has the form 11,12

$$S=\frac{8}{\kappa ^2}𝑑td^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }IN^1A(IN𝐐^\mu ),$$
(18)
where $`\kappa ^2=8\pi G_N`$, $`G_N`$ is the Newtonian constant of gravity. The action (18) is the most general superfield action, which can be constructed with respect to the $`n=4`$ conformal supersymmetry. $`A(IN𝐐^\mu )`$ is an arbitrary function of the superfields $`IN𝐐^\mu `$ called superpotential. Note, that in the case of $`n=4`$ local supersymmetry it is sufficient to construct one invariant action possessing a minimal number of time derivatives, unlike of two invariants, a kinetic part and the potential one, as in the case of $`n=2`$ local supersymmetry.6

So, integrating (18) over the Grassmann coordinates $`\theta `$, $`\overline{\theta }`$ and making the following redefinition of the component fields

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`N^{3/2}\psi ^{},V_i=2N(V_i^{}+N(\psi ^{}\sigma _i\overline{\psi }^{})),\lambda ^\mu =\sqrt{N}(\lambda ^\mu q^\mu \psi ^{}),`$ (19)
$`F_i^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{N}\{F_i^\mu q^\mu V_i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N}}{2}}(\psi ^{}\sigma _i\overline{\lambda }^\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N}}{2}}(\lambda ^\mu \sigma _i\overline{\psi }^{}),\}q^\mu =Nq^\mu ,`$ (20)
one obtains the component action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}G_{\mu \nu }Dq^\mu Dq^\nu +iG_{\mu \nu }(\overline{\lambda }^\mu \stackrel{~}{D}\lambda ^\nu +\lambda ^\mu \stackrel{~}{D}\overline{\lambda }^\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{\mu \nu }F_i^\mu F^{i\nu }2\sqrt{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\lambda ^\nu (\sigma _i)\overline{\lambda }^\mu F^{i\rho }`$ (23)
$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu \nu \rho (\psi \overline{\lambda }^\mu \overline{\lambda }^\nu \lambda ^\rho +\overline{\psi }\lambda ^\mu \lambda ^\nu \overline{\lambda }^\rho )N(_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho \sigma })(\overline{\lambda }^\mu \overline{\lambda }^\nu \lambda ^\rho \lambda ^\sigma )2NG_{\mu \nu }m^\mu m^\nu `$
$`4N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{\lambda }^\mu \lambda ^\nu m^\rho +2G_{\mu \nu }m^\mu (\overline{\lambda }^\nu \psi +\overline{\psi }\lambda ^\nu )\}dt,`$
where $`Dq^\mu =\dot{q}^\mu i(\overline{\psi }\lambda ^\mu +\overline{\lambda }^\mu \psi )`$ is the supercovariant derivative, $`\stackrel{~}{D}\lambda ^\mu =D\lambda ^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu \dot{q}^\rho \lambda ^\nu `$, where $`D\lambda ^\mu =\dot{\lambda }^\mu \frac{1}{2}V\lambda ^\mu `$ is the $`SU(2)`$ covariant derivative. In order to give a geometrical form we have introduced in the action (23) the special metric

$`G_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2A}{q^\mu q^\nu }}A(q^\mu )=A(IN𝐐^\mu )|_{\theta ,\overline{\theta }=0},`$ (24)
in this case the Christoffel connection takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }(q)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^3A(q)}{q^\mu q^\nu q^\rho },$$
(25)
and the Riemann curvature tensor

$`R_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \nu \rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \nu \sigma }.`$

In the action (23) the components $`F_i`$ of the superfield $`𝐐^\mu `$ appear without derivatives and, therefore, they are non-dynamical variables. We can eliminate $`F_i`$ by means of their equation of motion. Solving the equation of motion of the auxiliary fields $`F_i`$ and substituting the solution back into Eq.(23) we obtain the component action. From the component action we derive the first-class constraints varying it with respect to $`N(t),\psi (t),\overline{\psi }(t)`$ and $`V_i(t)`$, respectively

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}G^{\mu \nu }P_\mu P_\nu +2G_{\mu \nu }m^\mu m^\nu +4D_\mu m^\nu \overline{\lambda }^\mu \lambda _\nu `$ (28)
$`R_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\overline{\lambda }^\mu \overline{\lambda }^\sigma \lambda ^\nu \lambda ^\rho R_{\sigma \rho ,\nu \mu }\overline{\lambda }^\mu \lambda ^\sigma \overline{\lambda }^\nu \lambda ^\rho `$
$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho \sigma }(\overline{\lambda }^\mu \overline{\lambda }^\nu )(\lambda ^\rho \lambda ^\sigma ),`$
$$\overline{Q}_a=\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu P_\mu 2iG_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu m^\nu +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu \overline{\lambda }^\nu \lambda ^\rho ,$$
(29)
$$Q^b=\lambda ^{b\mu }P_\mu +2iG_{\mu \nu }\lambda ^{b\mu }m^\nu +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{\lambda }^{\mu b}\lambda ^\nu \lambda ^\rho ,$$
(30)
and

$$_i=G_{\mu \nu }\lambda ^{\mu b}(\sigma _i)_b^a\overline{\lambda }_a^\nu ,$$
(31)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, $`Q^a`$ and $`\overline{Q}_a`$ are the supercharges, and $`_i`$ is the generator of $`SU(2)`$ rotations.

So, following the standard procedure of quantization of the system with bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, we introduce the canonical Poisson brackets

$`\{q^\mu ,P_\nu \}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{\lambda ^{a\mu },\pi _{(\lambda )b\nu }\}=\delta _b^a\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu ,\pi _{(\overline{\lambda })\nu }^b\}=\delta _a^b\delta _\nu ^\mu ,`$ (32)
where $`P_\mu ,\pi _{(\lambda )a\mu }`$ and $`\pi _{(\overline{\lambda })\mu }^a`$ are the momenta conjugated to $`q^\mu ,\lambda ^\mu `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^\nu `$ respectively. From the explicit form of the momenta

$$P_\mu =\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}G_{\mu \nu }\{\dot{q}^\nu i\kappa (\overline{\psi }_a\lambda ^{a\nu }\overline{\lambda }_a^\nu \psi ^a)\}$$
(33)
$`\pi _{(\lambda )a\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`iG_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }_a^\nu ,\pi _{(\overline{\lambda })\mu }^a=iG_{\mu \nu }\lambda ^{a\nu },`$ (34)
one can conclude, that the system possesses the second-class fermionic constraints

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(\lambda )a\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{(\lambda )a\mu }+iG_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }_a^\nu ,\mathrm{\Pi }_{(\overline{\lambda })\mu }^b=\pi _{(\overline{\lambda })\mu }^b+iG_{\mu \nu }\lambda ^{b\nu },`$ (35)
since

$$\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{(\overline{\lambda })\mu }^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{(\lambda )b\nu }\}=2iG_{\mu \nu }\delta _b^a.$$
(36)
Therefore, the quantization has to be done using the Dirac brackets, defined by any of two functions $`F`$ y $`G`$ as

$`\{F,G\}^{}=\{F,G\}\{F,\mathrm{\Pi }_a\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\{\mathrm{\Pi }_a,\mathrm{\Pi }_b\}}}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_b,G\}.`$As a result, we obtain the following Dirac brackets for the canonical variables

$`\{q^\mu ,P_\nu \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{\lambda ^{a\mu },\overline{\lambda }_b^\nu \}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\delta _b^aG^{\mu \nu },`$ (37)
$`\{\lambda ^{a\mu },P_\nu \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{a\rho }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu ,\{\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu ,P_\nu \}^{}=\overline{\lambda }_a^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\mu ,`$ (38)
$`\{P_\mu ,P_\nu \}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2iR_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\overline{\lambda }^\rho \lambda ^\sigma .`$ (39)
The supercharges and the Hamiltonian form the following $`n=4`$ SUSY QM algebra with respect to the introduced Dirac brackets

$`\{\overline{Q}_a,Q^b\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _a^bH_0,\{_j,_k\}^{}=ϵ_{jkl}_l,`$ (40)
$`\{_i,\overline{Q}_a\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\sigma _i)_a^c\overline{Q}_c,\{_i,Q^a\}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\sigma _i)_c^aQ^c.`$ (41)
On the quantum level we replace the Dirac brackets by (anti)commutators using the rule

$`i\{,\}^{}=\{,\}.`$one obtains the non-zero commutation relations

$`[q^\mu ,P_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{\lambda ^{a\mu },\overline{\lambda }_b^\nu \}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _b^aG^{\mu \nu }`$ (42)
$`[P_\mu ,\lambda _\nu ^a]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\lambda ^{a\rho },[P_\mu ,\overline{\lambda }_\nu ^a]=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \rho }\overline{\lambda }^{a\rho },`$ (43)
$`[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`2R_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\overline{\lambda }^\rho \lambda ^\sigma .`$ (44)
We observe that $`P_\mu `$ has properties of covariant momenta when acting on fermionic variables $`\lambda ^{a\mu }`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }_a^\mu `$. The superalgebra of the constraints generates the $`SU(2)_{local}SU(2)_{global}`$ $`n=4`$ superconformal transformations of the components of the superfields $`𝐐^\mu `$. In the quantum theory the first-class constraints (28-31) associated with the invariance of the action (15,17) become conditions on the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the Universe. Therefore, any physically allowed states must obey the quantum constraints

$`H_0\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,Q^a\mathrm{\Psi }=0,\overline{Q}_a\mathrm{\Psi }=0,_i\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (45)
The quantum generators $`H_0,Q^a,\overline{Q}_a`$ and $`_i`$ form a closed superalgebra of the $`n=4`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics

$`\{\overline{Q}_a,Q^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0\delta _a^b,[_i,_j]=iϵ_{ijk}_k,[_i,\overline{Q}_a]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _i)_a^b\overline{Q}_b,`$ (46)
$`[_i,Q^a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma _i)_b^aQ^b.`$ (47)
In order to obtain the quantum expression for the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and for the supercharges $`Q^a`$ and $`\overline{Q}_a`$ we may solve the operator ordering ambiguity, for example following the works.11,13

## III Conclusions

On the basis of the local $`n=4`$ supersymmetry the superfield action for the Bianchi-types cosmological models is formulated. It is shown, that the action (18) has the form of the localized version of $`n=4`$ supersymmetric quantum mechanics. Due to the quantum supersymmetric algebra (46), the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is of the second-order, can be replaced by the four first-order supercharge operator equations constituting its supersymmetric “square root”.

It would be very interesting to consider the interaction with matter fields and analize the spontaneous breaking of $`n=4`$ local supersymmetry. We hope, that for those more general supersymmetric cosmological models than in Ref. 10, we can find a normalizable wavefunction. The details of this study will be given elsewhere.

Acknowledgments. We are grateful to S. Odintsov, J. Socorro, H. Rosu and I. Lyanzuridi for their interest in this work and useful comments. This research was supported in part by CONACyT under the grants 2845-54E and 2845E. One of us (J.J.R.) would like to thank CONACyT for support under grant 000683.

1. C.W. Misner, in Magic Without Magic, edited by J.R. Klauder (Freeman, San Francisco, 1972).

2. C. Teitelboim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1106 (1977).

3. S. Deser, J.H. Kay and K.S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D16, 2448 (1977); E.S. Fradkin and M.A. Vasiliev, Phys. Lett. B72, 70 (1977); M. Pilati, Nucl. Phys. B132, 138 (1978); T. Jacobson, Class. Quantum Grav. 5, 923 (1988).

4. A. Macías, O. Obregón and M.P. Ryan Jr, Class. Quantum Grav. 4, 1477 (1987).

5. P.D. D’Eath, Supersymmetric Quantum Cosmology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); P.V. Moniz, Supersymmetric Quantum Cosmology, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, 4321-4382 (1996).

6. O. Obregón, J.J. Rosales and V.I. Tkach, Phys. Rev. D53, 1750 (1996).

7. R. Graham, Phys. Rev. Letters 67, 1381 (1991); E.E. Donets, M. N. Tentyukov and M. M. Tsulaia, Phys. Rev.D59, 023515 (1999).

8. V.I. Tkach, J.J. Rosales and O. Obregón, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 2349 (1996); V. I. Tkach, J. J. Rosales and J. Socorro, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 797 (1999).

9. V.I. Tkach, O. Obregón and J.J. Rosales, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 339 (1997).

10. O. Obregón, J.J. Rosales, J. Socorro and V.I. Tkach, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 2861 (1999).

11. A. Pashnev, J.J. Rosales, V.I. Tkach and M. Tsulaia, Phys. Rev.D64, 087502, (2001).

12. E. A. Ivanov, S.O. Krivonos and A. I. Pashnev, Class. Quantum Grav. 8 19 (1991); E.E. Donets, A. Pashnev, V.O. Rivelles, D. Sorokin and M. Tsulaia, Phys. Lett. B 484, 337 (2000).

13. V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini, S. Furlan and M. Roncadelli, Nucl. Phys.B 296,402 (1998); E.E. Donets, A. Pashnev, J.J. Rosales and M.M. Tsulaia, Phys. Rev.D 61, 043512-1, (2000).


text:
# Focusing of Spherical Nonlinear Pulses in ℝ¹⁺³, III. Sub and Supercritical cases

## 1. Introduction

This paper is the last of a series of three, after \[CR02\] and \[CR04\]. In these three papers, we consider the asymptotic behavior as $`\epsilon 0`$ of solutions of the initial value problem

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}𝐮^\epsilon +a|_t𝐮^\epsilon |^{p1}_t𝐮^\epsilon & =0,(t,x)[0,T]\times ^3,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐮^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\epsilon ^{J+1}U_0(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }),\hfill \\ \hfill _t𝐮^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\epsilon ^JU_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}:=_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$, $`a`$ is a complex number, $`r=|x|`$, $`r_0>0`$, and, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$. The functions $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ are real-valued, infinitely differentiable, bounded, and there is a $`z_0>0`$ so that for all $`r0`$,

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{supp}U_j(r,.)[z_0,z_0].$$

The last assumption implies that at time $`t=0`$ the solutions are families of spherical pulses supported in a $`O(\epsilon )`$ neighborhood of $`r=r_0`$. The initial data are spherically symmetric, thus in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, a caustic is formed, reduced to the focal point $`(t,x)=(r_0,0)`$. Before going further into details, we rescale our parameters as in \[CR04\]. Introduce $`\epsilon ^J𝐮^\epsilon =:u^\epsilon `$ instead of $`𝐮^\epsilon `$ so that the solutions have derivatives of order $`O(1)`$ away from the caustic. Define $`\alpha :=(p1)J`$. The initial value problem (1.1) is transformed to

(1.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{}u^\epsilon +a\epsilon ^\alpha |_tu^\epsilon |^{p1}_tu^\epsilon =0,(t,x)[0,T]\times ^3,\hfill \\ & u^\epsilon |_{t=0}=\epsilon U_0(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }),_tu^\epsilon |_{t=0}=U_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

In \[CR04\], formal arguments, inspired by the linear case $`a=0`$, led to the following distinctions, in the spirit of those computed formally in \[HK87\],

|  | $`\alpha +2>p`$ | $`\alpha +2=p`$ | $`\alpha +2<p`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\alpha >0`$ | linear caustic, | nonlinear caustic, | supercritical caustic, |
|  | linear propagation | linear propagation | linear propagation |
| $`\alpha =0`$ | linear caustic, | nonlinear caustic, | supercritical caustic, |
|  | nonlinear propagation | nonlinear propagation | nonlinear propagation |

In \[CR02\], we studied the case “linear caustic, nonlinear propagation”; we proved that nonlinear geometric optics provides a good approximation of $`_t𝐮^\epsilon `$ away from the focal point $`(t,r)=(r_0,0)`$, and that the nonlinear term is negligible near the focus. In \[CR04\], we analyzed the case “nonlinear caustic, linear propagation”. In some sense, it is the exact opposite of the previous case; the nonlinear term is negligible outside the focal point, but has a relevant influence near $`(r_0,0)`$, which is described by a nonlinear scattering operator. Moreover, this scattering operator broadens the pulses (at least if $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ are small), which leave the focus with algebraically decaying tails.

In this paper, we discuss the remaining cases of the above table. In the last three cases, we treat only the case of $`a`$ real, that is when Eq. (1.3) is dissipative or accretive (in particular, we do not treat the case of conservative equations).

The first case, “linear caustic, linear propagation”, suggests that the nonlinear term is everywhere negligible; we prove that this is so. In the last three cases, we assume that the coupling constant $`a`$ is real. For the “supercritical caustic” cases, strong nonlinear effects are expected near the focal point. We prove that when the equation is dissipative ($`a>0`$), then the dissipation is so strong near the focus that the pulses are absorbed. This result is the pulse analogue of \[JMR95\] and \[JMR00\], which proved absorption in the case of wave trains (the initial profiles $`U_j`$ are assumed to be periodic with respect to their last variable instead of compactly supported). More precisely, in \[JMR95\] and \[JMR00\], it is proved that the exact solution $`u^\epsilon `$ of the dissipative ($`a>0`$) wave equation (1.1) with $`J=0`$, is approximated as follows,

$$_tu^\epsilon (t,x)\underset{\epsilon 0}{}_t\underset{¯}{u}(t,x)+U_{}(t,x,\frac{t+|x|}{\epsilon })+U_+(t,x,\frac{t|x|}{\epsilon }),$$

where the profiles $`U_\pm `$ are periodic with respect to their last variable, with mean value zero. The absorption of oscillations is given by $`U_\pm 0`$ past the caustic. Thus, only the average term remains, included in $`_t\underset{¯}{u}`$. For an almost periodic function, the notion of average is given by

$$\underset{¯}{f}=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2T}_T^Tf(\theta )𝑑\theta .$$

When $`f`$ is compactly supported, the above limit is zero, and pulses formally have mean value zero. Thus, the absorption of pulses is the formal analogue of the absorption of oscillations.

Our present framework makes it possible to analyze very precisely the corresponding phenomenon for pulses; they are absorbed when approaching the caustic, that is even *before reaching it*. We prove that this phenomenon occurs for the last three cases of the table, “supercritical caustic, linear/nonlinear propagation” and “nonlinear caustic, nonlinear propagation”.

The present paper along with \[CR02\] and \[CR04\] prove that the distinctions derived formally in \[CR04\] and recalled in the above tables are correct. Let us give an interpretation of these results when the nonlinearity is fixed, and when one modulates the amplitude of the initial data in (1.1). Consider a fixed $`p>2`$, and modify the value of $`J`$. For a unified, complete, presentation, we assume that the equation is dissipative, $`a>0`$.

* If $`J>\frac{p2}{p1}`$, then the pulse is not affected by the nonlinearity at leading order. It remains too small to ignite the nonlinearity.
* If $`J=\frac{p2}{p1}`$, then the nonlinear term is negligible away from the focus, but the caustic crossing, described by a scattering operator, has enlarged the support of the pulse, and decreased its amplitude. The pulse is too small to see the nonlinearity outside the focal point, but the amplification near the caustic makes the nonlinear term relevant there.
* If $`J<\frac{p2}{p1}`$, then the pulse is absorbed at the focus. It is sufficiently big to make the nonlinear effects so strong that the dissipation is complete before the focus.

When $`p=2`$, the nonlinear term is negligible if $`J>0`$, and if $`J=0`$, the pulses are absorbed. If $`1<p<2`$, the same method would prove that the nonlinear term is negligible if $`J>0`$, and the case $`J=0`$ was treated in \[CR02\].

Before stating precisely our results, we make a change of unknown, as in \[CR02\] and \[CR04\]. Since the initial data are spherical, so is the solution. With the usual abuse of notation,

$$u^\epsilon (t,x)=u^\epsilon (t,|x|),u^\epsilon (t,|x|)C_{\mathrm{even}\mathrm{in}r}^{\mathrm{}}(_t\times _r).$$

Introduce $`v^\epsilon :=(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )`$ where

(1.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{u}^\epsilon (t,r):=ru^\epsilon (t,r),v_{}^\epsilon :=(_t\pm _r)\stackrel{~}{u}^\epsilon ,v_{}^\epsilon C^{\mathrm{}}(_t\times _r).$$

Then (1.3) becomes

(1.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& (_t\pm _r)v_\pm ^\epsilon =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ),g(y):=a2^p|y|^{p1}y,\hfill \\ & (v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )|_{r=0}=0,\hfill \\ & v_{}^\epsilon |_{t=0}=P_{}(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon })\pm \epsilon P_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{}(r,z)& :=rU_1(r,z)\pm r_zU_0(r,z),\hfill \\ \hfill P_1(r,z)& :=U_0(r,z)+r_rU_0(r,z).\hfill \end{array}$$

We prove asymptotics for $`v^\epsilon `$; asymptotics for $`_tu^\epsilon `$ are deduced by (1.4),

$$_tu^\epsilon (t,r)=\frac{v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon }{2r}.$$

For the sub-critical case, introduce the solution of the linear equation

(1.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill \left((v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}+(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}\right)|_{r=0}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill (v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}|_{t=0}& =P_{}(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is given explicitly by the formulae,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)& =P_{}(r+t,\frac{r+tr_0}{\epsilon }),\hfill \\ \hfill (v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)& =P_+(rt,\frac{rtr_0}{\epsilon })P_{}(tr,\frac{trr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

The pulse $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}`$ corresponds to an incoming wave, and $`(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is the sum of two outgoing waves, one from $`P_+`$, and the other from the focusing of the incoming wave.

###### Theorem 1.1 (Sub-critical case).

Assume that $`\alpha >\mathrm{max}(0,p2)`$.
$``$ If $`\alpha >p2>0`$, then there exists $`\epsilon _0>0`$ such that for any $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon _0]`$, (1.5) has a unique, global, solution $`v^\epsilon C^1([0,\mathrm{}[\times _+)`$. Moreover, the following asymptotics holds in $`L^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times _+)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)& =(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)+O\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{min}(1,\alpha +2p)}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)& =\epsilon _t(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)+O\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{min}(1,\alpha +2p)}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$ If $`\alpha >0`$ and $`1<p2`$, let $`T>0`$. Then there exists $`\epsilon (T)>0`$ such that for any $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (T)]`$, (1.5) has a unique solution $`v^\epsilon C^1([0,T]\times _+)`$. Moreover, the following asymptotics holds in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times _+)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)& =(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)+O\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{min}(1,\alpha )}\right)\left(O\left(\epsilon +\epsilon ^\alpha |\mathrm{log}\epsilon |\right)\text{ if }p=2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)& =\epsilon _t(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)+O\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{min}(1,\alpha )}\right)\left(O\left(\epsilon +\epsilon ^\alpha |\mathrm{log}\epsilon |\right)\text{ if }p=2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 1.2 (Super-critical case).

Assume that $`0\alpha <p2`$ or $`\alpha =0=p2`$.
$``$ If the equation is dissipative, $`a>0`$, the pulses are absorbed before reaching the focus. If $`Tr_0`$,

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; sup}\left(v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0rT)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0rT)}\right)=0.$$

More precisely, for $`\lambda >0`$, define $`T(\lambda ,\epsilon )`$ as follows; if $`0\alpha <p2`$, then $`T(\lambda ,\epsilon ):=r_0z_0\epsilon \lambda \epsilon ^{\alpha /(p2)}`$, and if $`\alpha =0=p2`$, then $`T(\lambda ,\epsilon ):=r_0z_0\epsilon \lambda `$. For any $`T=T(\epsilon )T(\lambda ,\epsilon )`$,

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; sup}\left(v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0rT)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0rT)}\right)=0.$$

$``$ If the equation is accretive, $`a<0`$, there exists $`T^{}r_0`$ such that the family $`(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )`$ is not bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T^{}]\times _+)^2`$.

###### Remark.

For $`0<\epsilon 1`$ and $`\lambda `$ positive, $`T(\lambda ,\epsilon )<r_0z_0\epsilon `$, so the first part of the theorem shows that the absorption mechanism takes place before the incoming wave reaches the focus. Indeed, the pulses are initially supported in $`\{|rr_0|z_0\epsilon \}`$, so by finite speed of propagation, they do not reach the origin before $`t=r_0z_0\epsilon `$ (see Fig. 1).

Notice that in the dissipative case, our estimates are in $`\{tr\}`$, which includes the focusing region, and its domain of influence. The key to the proof of Theorem 1.2 is to construct and approximate solution which is more accurate than the approximation of nonlinear geometric optics and which permits us to penetrate with high accuracy to small distances from the focal point $`r=0`$.

###### Remark.

If we considered wave trains, that is $`U_j(r,.)`$ periodic instead of compactly supported, Theorem 1.1 would still hold. The proof we give works in both cases. On the other hand, the proof of Theorem 1.2 relies on the compact support assumption. We construct approximate solutions that solve ordinary differential equations along the rays of geometrical optics (see Sect. 5), and can be computed explicitly. In the dissipative case, these approximate solutions are absorbed before they stop being good approximations, proving thereby the absorption of the exact solution. In the case of wave trains, the computation of the counterpart of these approximations is a project for the future.

###### Remark.

As we mentioned above, in the supercritical cases, our framework is restricted. We assume that the coupling constant $`a`$ is real, while we do not make this assumption in Theorem 1.1. It would be interesting to know what happens when, for instance, $`a`$ is pure imaginary; no absorption can happen, for the equation in that case is conservative. A partial answer is given in \[CL03\], in the case $`\alpha =0=p2`$, on a system which is a simplified model for (1.3): an arbitrary phase shift appears, varying like $`\mathrm{log}\epsilon `$. In the supercritical framework, $`\alpha =0`$ and $`p>2`$, one may expect even more pathological behaviors.

In Section 2, we prove two stability results. In Section 3, we discuss existence results, and establish estimates for the sub-critical case. Theorem 1.1 is proved in Section 4, and Theorem 1.2 is proved in Section 5.

The results of Theorem 1.2 were announced in \[CR01\].

## 2. General stability results

In this section, we state two general approximation arguments. The first one will allow us to prove Theorem 1.1 and the second one, Theorem 1.2. Our first result is an easy estimate, proved in \[CR04\].

###### Definition 2.1.

For $`t>0`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t`$) the set of all speed minus one (resp. plus one) characteristics connecting points on the initial line $`\{t=0\}`$ to points at time $`t`$. We also denote $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^t=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t`$.

For a characteristic $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^t`$, we use the convention that

$$_\gamma f$$

stands for the integral of $`f`$ along $`\gamma `$, parameterized by the time variable,

$$_\gamma f=_0^tf(s,r(s))𝑑s,$$

where $`(s,r(s))_{s[0,t]}`$ is a parametrization of $`\gamma `$. In particular, if $`f`$ is nonnegative, then so is the above integral.

###### Lemma 2.2 (\[CR04\], Lemma 2.1).

Suppose that $`w`$ and $`f=(f_+,f_{})`$ are bounded continuous functions on $`[0,T]\times [0,\mathrm{}[`$ satisfying in the sense of distributions

$$(_t\pm _r)w_\pm =f_\pm ,w_+(t,0)+w_{}(t,0)=0,\mathrm{for}0tT.$$

Denote by

$$M_\pm (t):=w_\pm (t)_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}[)}.$$

Then for $`0tT`$ one has

$$M_\pm (t)\mathrm{max}\{M_+(0),M_{}(0)\}+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|f_{}|+\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|f_+|.$$

To prove Theorem 1.2, we use a result in the spirit of Gronwall’s lemma. The assumption $`0<T<\delta `$ guarantees that the support of the solution does not touch $`\{r=0\}`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

Suppose that $`0<T<\delta `$, and $`w=(w_{},w_+)CL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times _+)`$ satisfies

(2.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)w_\pm & =f_\pm (t,r)(w_{}+w_+)+S_\pm ,\hfill \\ \hfill w_{\pm t=0}& =w_{0\pm },\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\mathrm{supp}w_{0\pm }[\delta ,+\mathrm{}[`$. Suppose that

(2.2)
$$C_1=C_1(f):=_0^T\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}|f_{}|dt+_0^T\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}|f_+|dt<\mathrm{}.$$

Then

$$\underset{0tT}{sup}w_\pm (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}C_2\underset{\pm }{}\left(w_{0\pm }_L^{\mathrm{}}+\underset{\gamma _\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^T}{sup}_{\gamma _\pm }|S_\pm |\right),$$

with $`C_2=\mathrm{max}(C_1e^{2C_1},C_1^2e^{3C_1})`$.

Warning. Note that in hypothesis (2.2), the supremum is inside the integral. The estimate would not be true with the supremum outside.

###### Proof.

Let $`(t,r)[0,T]\times ]0,\mathrm{}[`$, and denote $`\gamma _{}=\gamma _{}(t,r)`$ the characteristic from $`(0,t+r)`$ to $`(t,r)`$. Duhamel’s principle for $`w_{}`$ reads

$$w_{}(t,r)=w_0(t+r)+_\gamma _{}f_{}\times (w_{}+w_+)+_\gamma _{}S_{}.$$

Gronwall lemma, along with assumption (2.2), yields, for any $`t[0,T]`$,

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_{}(t)_L^{\mathrm{}}& e^{C_1}(w_0_L^{\mathrm{}}+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|f_{}.w_+|+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|S_{}|)\hfill \\ \hfill & e^{C_1}\left(w_0_L^{\mathrm{}}+C_1\underset{0st}{sup}w_+(s)_L^{\mathrm{}}+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|S_{}|\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly,

(2.4)
$$w_+(t)_L^{\mathrm{}}e^{C_1}(w_{0+}_L^{\mathrm{}}+\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|f_+.w_{}|+\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|S_+|).$$

For the $`w_{}`$ integrals on the right in (2.4), use estimate (2.3) to find

$$_{\gamma _\pm }|f_\pm w_{}|_{\gamma _\pm }|f_\pm |e^{C_1}\left(w_{}(0)+C_1\underset{0\tau s}{\mathrm{max}}w_+(\tau )+\underset{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^s}{sup}_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{}}|S_{}|\right)𝑑s,$$

where $`\gamma _\pm `$ is parameterized by the time $`s[0,t]`$. Introduce

$$𝐦_\pm (t):=\underset{0st}{sup}w_\pm (s),$$

and take the supremum on $`r`$ in (2.4) to obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_+(t)C_1& e^{C_1}(\underset{\pm }{}(w_\pm (0)+\underset{\gamma _\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^t}{sup}_{\gamma _\pm }|S_\pm |)+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|f_+(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|f_{}(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds).\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐦_+(t)C_1& e^{C_1}(\underset{\pm }{}(w_\pm (0)+\underset{\gamma _\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^t}{sup}_{\gamma _\pm }|S_\pm |)+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|f_+(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}_\gamma _{}|f_{}(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds)\hfill \\ \hfill C_1& e^{C_1}(\underset{\pm }{}(w_\pm (0)+\underset{\gamma _\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^t}{sup}_{\gamma _\pm }|S_\pm |)+\hfill \\ & +_0^t\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}|f_+(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds+_0^t\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}|f_{}(s,r)|𝐦_+(s)ds).\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying Gronwall’s lemma, using assumption (2.2), yields

$$𝐦_+(T)C_1e^{2C_1}\left(w_+(0)+w_{}(0)+\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^T}{sup}_\gamma _{}|S_{}|+\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^T}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|S_+|\right).$$

This inequality, along with (2.3), proves the proposition. ∎

The following example contains the core of the proof of Th. 1.2.

###### Example 2.4.

Consider the case

$$f_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)=\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}|\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon (t,r)|^{p1},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon `$ solves an initial value problem of the form (compare with (5.1) below),

$$(_t_r)\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon =F^\epsilon \left(\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon \right),\stackrel{~}{v}_{t=0}^\epsilon =P_{}(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).$$

Recall that $`\mathrm{supp}P_{}(r,.)[z_0,z_0]`$. For $`w_{0_\pm }^\epsilon `$, consider pulses with the same support as $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{t=0}^\epsilon `$. Then by finite speed of propagation, we can take $`\delta ^\epsilon =r_0z_0\epsilon `$ in Prop. 2.3. For $`0<\underset{¯}{t}<\delta ^\epsilon `$, the maximum of $`f_\pm ^\epsilon `$ at time $`\underset{¯}{t}`$ is estimated by

$$\epsilon ^\alpha \underset{¯}{r}^{1p}\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(0t\underset{¯}{t})}^{p1},$$

where $`\underset{¯}{r}`$ is such that $`\underset{¯}{r}+\underset{¯}{t}=\delta ^\epsilon =r_0z_0\epsilon `$. Therefore we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _0^{\underset{¯}{t}}\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^t}{sup}|f_{}^\epsilon |dt+_0^{\underset{¯}{t}}\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^t}{sup}|f_+^\epsilon |dt& 2\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(0t\underset{¯}{t})}^{p1}_0^{\underset{¯}{t}}\epsilon ^\alpha (\delta ^\epsilon t)^{1p}𝑑t\hfill \\ & C_p\epsilon ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(0t\underset{¯}{t})}^{p1}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\delta ^\epsilon \underset{¯}{t})^{2p}& \text{ if }p>2,\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{log}(\delta ^\epsilon \underset{¯}{t})|& \text{ if }p=2.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, when $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{}^\epsilon `$ remains bounded and $`T^\epsilon `$ is chosen so that $`\epsilon ^\alpha (\delta ^\epsilon T^\epsilon )^{2p}`$ (resp. $`\epsilon ^\alpha |\mathrm{log}(\delta ^\epsilon T^\epsilon )|`$ if $`p=2`$) is bounded independent of $`\epsilon `$, then we can use Prop. 2.3. This is the case in particular if $`T^\epsilon =T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$ defined in Th. 1.2.

## 3. Existence results

In this section, we prove two kinds of results concerning the existence of solutions to (1.5); local existence in $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ before the wave meets the boundary $`\{r=0\}`$, and global existence in $`W^{1,\mathrm{}}`$ when the boundary condition has to be taken into account. The reason appears in Th. 1.1 and 1.2; in Th. 1.2, the phenomena we want to prove occur *before* the pulses reach the boundary, while Th. 1.1 includes the caustic crossing.

In the first case, we are interested in a problem

(3.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& (_t\pm _r)v_\pm ^\epsilon =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ),r>0,\hfill \\ & v_{}^\epsilon |_{t=0}=v_0^\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{supp}v_0^\epsilon [\delta ^\epsilon ,+\mathrm{}[`$ for some $`\delta ^\epsilon >0`$, and $`v_0^\epsilon L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)`$. Then by finite speed of propagation, the term $`r^{1p}`$ is harmless at least up to time $`\delta ^\epsilon `$. In that case, local in time existence of solutions to (3.1) is easy.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Fix $`\alpha 0`$, $`p>1`$. Let $`v_0^\epsilon L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)`$ such that $`\mathrm{supp}v_0^\epsilon [\delta ^\epsilon ,+\mathrm{}[`$ for some $`\delta ^\epsilon >0`$. Then there exists $`T^\epsilon `$, with $`0<T^\epsilon <\delta ^\epsilon `$, and a unique solution $`(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )L^{\mathrm{}}C([0,T^\epsilon ]\times _+)^2`$ to the initial value problem (3.1).

When the incoming wave $`v_{}^\epsilon `$ reaches the origin $`\{r=0\}`$, a boundary condition is needed in order to solve the above system. We are interested in that given in (1.5), that is

$$(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )|_{r=0}=0.$$

Consider the mixed problem

(3.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& (_t\pm _r)v_\pm ^\epsilon =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ),r>0,\hfill \\ & (v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )|_{r=0}=0,\hfill \\ & v_{}^\epsilon |_{t=0}=v_0^\epsilon .\hfill \end{array}$$

The boundary condition compensates the singularity $`r^{1p}`$ when $`r`$ gets close to zero. Indeed, Taylor’s formula yields, for $`C^1`$ solutions,

$$(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )(t,r)=r_r(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )(t,r)+o(r),\text{ as }r0.$$

Now from the differential equation, we also have

$$_r(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )=_t(v_{}^\epsilon v_+^\epsilon ),$$

so if we know that the time derivatives of $`v^\epsilon `$ remain bounded, then the singularity $`r^{1p}`$ is compensated. We have precisely,

(3.3)
$$|(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )(t,r)|\frac{4r}{r+\epsilon }\left(|v_{}^\epsilon |+|v_+^\epsilon |+|\epsilon _tv_{}^\epsilon |+|\epsilon _tv_+^\epsilon |\right)(t,r),t,r0.$$

This is the strategy we used in \[CR04\], Proposition 3.4, to prove local existence, in the case $`p>2`$. Notice that at this stage, the dependence upon $`\epsilon `$ is unimportant, and that $`p>1`$ suffices for local existence.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Fix $`\alpha 0`$, $`p>1`$. Let $`v_0^\epsilon W^{1,\mathrm{}}(_+)`$ such that

(3.4)
$$v_0^\epsilon (0)+v_{0+}^\epsilon (0)=0,\text{ and }_rv_0^\epsilon (0)_rv_{0+}^\epsilon (0)=0,$$

then there exists $`T^\epsilon >0`$ and a unique solution $`(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )C^1W^{1,\mathrm{}}([0,T^\epsilon ]\times _+)^2`$ of (3.2).

As recalled in the beginning of this section, such a result will be needed only in the proof of Theorem 1.1, and not in the proof of Theorem 1.2. From now on in this section, we assume $`\alpha >\mathrm{max}(0,p2)`$. In \[CR04\], we also proved that the solutions of (3.2) with $`\epsilon =1`$ and $`p>2`$ are global provided that the initial data $`v_{0\pm }`$ are sufficiently small.

###### Proposition 3.3 (\[CR04\], Proposition 3.5).

Fix $`\alpha 0`$, $`p>2`$. There are constants $`K_1`$ and $`K_1^{}>0`$ so that for all initial data $`\psi _0C^1([0,\mathrm{}))`$ satisfying

$$\psi _0,_r\psi _0_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}[)}K_1,$$

and the compatibility conditions

$$\psi _{0+}(0)+\psi _0(0)=0,\mathrm{and}_r\psi _{0+}(0)_r\psi _0(0)=0,$$

there is a unique solution $`\psi C^1([\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]\times [0,\mathrm{}[)`$ of

(3.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& (_t\pm _r)\psi _\pm =r^{1p}g(\psi _{}+\psi _+),\hfill \\ & \psi _{}(t,0)+\psi _+(t,0)=0,\hfill \\ & \psi _{}|_{t=0}=\psi _0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In addition,

$$\psi ,_t\psi _{L^{\mathrm{}}([\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]\times [0,\mathrm{}[)}K_1^{}\psi _0,_r\psi _0_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}[)}.$$

The idea is then to find a scaling such that we can use the above proposition to prove global existence for (1.5) when $`\alpha >p2>0`$, along with useful estimates. Try

(3.6)
$$v_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r)=\epsilon ^\gamma \psi _\pm ^\epsilon (\tau ,\rho )|_{\tau ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{t}{\epsilon }},\rho ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{r}{\epsilon }}},\psi _\pm ^\epsilon (\tau ,\rho )=\epsilon ^\gamma v_\pm ^\epsilon (\epsilon \tau ,\epsilon \rho ).$$

Then $`\psi _\pm ^\epsilon `$ solve the differential equations,

$$(_\tau \pm _\rho )\psi _\pm ^\epsilon =\epsilon ^\alpha (\epsilon \rho )^{1p}\epsilon ^{(p1)\gamma }g(\psi _{}^\epsilon +\psi _+^\epsilon ).$$

Choose $`\gamma `$ so that the powers of $`\epsilon `$ cancel,

$$\alpha +1p+(p1)\gamma =0\gamma =1\frac{\alpha }{p1}.$$

Since $`\gamma `$ is negative,

$$\psi _\pm ^\epsilon (0)_{L_\rho ^{\mathrm{}}},_\tau \psi _\pm ^\epsilon (0)_{L_\rho ^{\mathrm{}}}\underset{\epsilon 0}{}0,$$

so we can apply Prop. 3.3, for $`\epsilon `$ sufficiently small. Moreover, it provides $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimates for $`v_\pm ^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon `$. We deduce that $`_rv_\pm ^\epsilon L^{\mathrm{}}`$ from the differential equations and (3.3).

###### Corollary 3.4.

Assume $`\alpha >p2>0`$. Then there exists $`\epsilon _0>0`$ such that for $`0<\epsilon \epsilon _0`$, (1.5) has a unique solution $`(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )C^1W^{1,\mathrm{}}(_+\times _+)^2`$. Moreover, there exists $`C`$ such that for any $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon _0]`$,

$$v_\pm ^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times _+)}C.$$

We now have to prove global existence when $`1<p2`$ and $`\alpha >0`$. Since local existence is known (Lemma 3.2), global existence is a consequence of *a priori* estimates, which follow from (3.3) and Lemma 2.2. Define

$$𝐦_\pm ^\epsilon (t)=\underset{0st}{sup}\left(v_\pm ^\epsilon (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}+\epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}\right).$$

By assumption, $`𝐦_\pm ^\epsilon (0)`$ are bounded independent of $`\epsilon ]0,1]`$. Lemma 2.2 and (3.3) yield, for $`T>0`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)& C\left(𝐦_{}^\epsilon (0)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (0)+h_p(\epsilon ,T)\left(𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)\right)^p\right)\hfill \\ & C_0+C\left(h_p(\epsilon ,T)\left(𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)\right)^p\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

with

$$h_p(\epsilon ,T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon ^\alpha T^{2p},& \text{ if }1<p<2,\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon ^\alpha \mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{T}{\epsilon }\right),& \text{ if }p=2.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, for fixed $`T>0`$, $`h_p(\epsilon ,T)0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. Therefore, for any $`T>0`$, there exists $`\epsilon (T)>0`$ such that for any $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (T)]`$, $`v^\epsilon `$ exists and,

$$𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)4C_0.$$

If $`𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)4C_0`$, it follows that

$$𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)C_0+Ch_p(\epsilon ,T)(4C_0)^p,$$

and therefore for $`0<\epsilon \epsilon (T)`$,

$$𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)2C_0$$

This proves that in fact $`𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)<4C_0`$ since if that were not true, there would be a first $`T_{}`$ where $`𝐦_{}^\epsilon (T)+𝐦_+^\epsilon (T)=4C_0`$, and at that value of $`T`$ the above estimate leads to the contradiction $`4C_0<2C_0`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Assume that $`\alpha >0`$ and $`1<p2`$. Let $`T>0`$. Then there exists $`\epsilon (T)>0`$ such that for $`0<\epsilon \epsilon (T)`$, (1.5) has a unique solution

$$(v_{}^\epsilon ,v_+^\epsilon )C^1W^{1,\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times _+)^2.$$

Moreover, there exists $`C`$ such that for any $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (T)]`$,

$$v_\pm ^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times _+)}C.$$

## 4. The subcritical case

Now Theorem 1.1 is a straightforward consequence of Lemma 2.2, Corollary 3.4 and Proposition 3.5. In the statement of Theorem 1.1, we distinguished three cases; $`p>2`$, $`p=2`$ and $`1<p<2`$. The distinction $`p\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}2`$ appeared in the previous section, in Corollary 3.4 and Proposition 3.5. It corresponds to the question of the integrability at infinity of the mapping $`rr^{1p}`$. The further distinction $`p=2`$ corresponds to the local integrability of this mapping.

Define the remainder $`w_\pm ^\epsilon =v_\pm ^\epsilon (v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}`$. It solves the mixed problem,

(4.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)w_\pm ^\epsilon & =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ),\hfill \\ \hfill (w_{}^\epsilon +w_+^\epsilon )|_{r=0}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill w_{}^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\pm \epsilon P_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }),\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`I`$ be an interval of the form $`[0,T[`$, with $`T_+\{+\mathrm{}\}`$. From Lemma 2.2, we have

$$w_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(I\times _+)}2\epsilon P_1_L^{\mathrm{}}+2\underset{tI}{sup}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^t}{sup}_\gamma \epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ).$$

Using (3.3), we also have,

(4.2)
$$w_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(I\times _+)}C\epsilon +C\left(\underset{tI}{sup}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^t}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{(r+\epsilon )^{p1}}\right)v^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(I\times _+)}^p.$$

Differentiating (4.1) with respect to time yields, using the differential equation (4.1) to find the initial data,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)\epsilon \mathrm{\_}dw_\pm ^\epsilon & =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g^{}(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )\epsilon _t(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon ),\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _t(w_{}^\epsilon +w_+^\epsilon )|_{r=0}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon _tw_{}^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\epsilon (\epsilon _rP_1+_zP_1)(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon })+\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )|_{t=0},\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the initial data for $`v_\pm ^\epsilon `$ are supported in $`|rr_0|z_0\epsilon `$, the term $`r^{1p}`$ in the initial data for $`\epsilon _tw_{}^\epsilon `$ is harmless regarding to $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimates. From Lemma 2.2 and (3.3), we have,

$$\epsilon _tw_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(I\times _+)}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{min}(1,\alpha )}+\left(\underset{tI}{sup}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^t}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{(r+\epsilon )^{p1}}\right)v^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(I\times _+)}^p.$$

The case $`p>2`$. Assume $`\alpha >p2>0`$. Then we have

$$\underset{t0}{sup}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^t}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{(r+\epsilon )^{p1}}C\epsilon ^{\alpha +2p},$$

and from Corollary 3.4, there exists $`\epsilon _0`$ such that if $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon _0]`$, $`v^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+\times _+)}`$ is bounded. This proves the first part of Theorem 1.1.

The case $`p=2`$. When $`\alpha >p2=0`$, then from Prop.3.5, for every $`T>0`$, there exists $`\epsilon (T)`$ such that if $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (T)]`$, $`v^\epsilon ,\epsilon _tv^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T[\times _+)}`$ remains bounded. Moreover, for any fixed $`T>0`$, we have

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^T}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{r+\epsilon }C\epsilon ^\alpha \mathrm{log}\frac{T}{\epsilon }.$$

The case $`1<p<2`$. When $`\alpha >0`$ and $`1<p<2`$, then the only difference with the previous case is that the mapping $`rr^{1p}`$ is locally integrable, hence the bound

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^T}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{(r+\epsilon )^{p1}}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^T}{sup}_\gamma \frac{\epsilon ^\alpha }{r^{p1}}C\epsilon ^\alpha T^{2p}.$$

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.∎

## 5. The supercritical case

We conclude by proving Theorem 1.2, using Proposition 2.3.

Before going into details, we explain how to construct the approximate solutions that lead to the result. Assume for instance that $`\alpha >0`$ and, since we are in a supercritical case, $`p2>\alpha `$. The hypothesis $`\alpha >0`$ suggests that the nonlinear term in (1.5) is negligible when $`r`$ is not too small. This is the outline of the proof of Theorem 1.1, and we could prove this way that $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is a good approximation for $`v_\pm ^\epsilon `$ at least for $`r_0t\epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}`$. This boundary layer is larger than in the critical case $`\alpha =p2>0`$ studied in \[CR04\], and nonlinear effects possibly occur sooner. Considering the case $`\alpha =0`$ gives us a further hint. We proved in \[CR02\] that a good approximation at leading order was given by

$$(_t\pm _r)(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}=r^{1p}g\left((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}\right),$$

that is, solutions of ordinary differential equations along the rays of geometrical optics. A natural generalization of this approach to the case $`\alpha 0`$ leads to

(5.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& (_t\pm _r)(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}=\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}g((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}),(t,r)([0,r_0z_0\epsilon [\times _+^{}),\hfill \\ & (v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}|_{t=0}=P_\pm (r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

We consider the region $`t<r_0z_0\epsilon `$ so that no boundary condition is needed on $`\{r=0\}`$, since the compact support of $`P_\pm `$ and the finite speed of propagation make $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ zero in the region $`\{r+t<r_0z_0\epsilon \}`$ (see Figure 1).

Introduce the function $`F_p`$, defined for $`yx>0`$ by,

$$F_p(x,y)=_x^y\frac{ds}{s^{p1}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{1}{p2}(x^{2p}y^{2p}),\text{ if }p>2,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{log}\frac{y}{x},\text{ if }p=2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then (5.1) can be solved explicitly,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(t,r)& =\frac{P_{}(r+t,z)}{\left(1+a2^p(p1)\epsilon ^\alpha F_p(r,r+t)|P_{}(r+t,z)|^{p1}\right)^{\frac{1}{p1}}}|_{z={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{r+tr_0}{\epsilon }}},\hfill \\ \hfill (v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(t,r)& =\frac{P_+(rt,z)}{\left(1+a2^p(p1)\epsilon ^\alpha F_p(rt,r)|P_+(rt,z)|^{p1}\right)^{\frac{1}{p1}}}|_{z={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{rtr_0}{\epsilon }}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We have,

$$\mathrm{supp}(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}=\{|r+tr_0|z_0\epsilon \},\mathrm{supp}(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}=\{|rtr_0|z_0\epsilon \}.$$

Since for any $`y>0`$ and any $`p2`$, $`F_p(x,y)\underset{x0}{}+\mathrm{}`$, the sign of $`a`$ is crucial.

* If $`a>0`$ (dissipative case), then $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ tends to zero before reaching the focus.
* If $`a<0`$ (accretive case), then both $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ and $`(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ blow up in finite time.

In the accretive case, $`(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ may blow up at time $`T^{}<r_0`$, that is, before any focusing. To avoid useless distinctions, we assume $`P_+0`$, so that the only “interesting” phenomena occur when $`t`$ approaches $`r_0`$.

The explicit formulae show that when $`p>2`$, for $`\epsilon ^\alpha r^{2p}1`$,

$$(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(t,r)=(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}(t,r)+O(\epsilon ^\alpha r^{2p}).$$

Assume first $`p2>\alpha 0`$. Let $`\lambda >0`$. We prove that $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ gives a good approximation of the exact solution in the region $`r\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}`$ before the focus. Notice that in this region, $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ and $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{free}}`$ have ceased to be close to each other; the nonlinear effects are significant. By finite propagation speed, this area is defined by

$$tr_0\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}z_0\epsilon =T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }.$$

We prove that $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ remains a good approximation of the exact solution up to time $`T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Assume $`p2>\alpha 0`$, and let $`\lambda >0`$. Then $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ is a good approximation of the exact solution at least for $`t[0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }]`$,

$$v_\pm ^\epsilon (v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }]\times _+)}=O\left(\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}\right)\left(O(\epsilon )\text{ if }p=2\right).$$

###### Proof of Proposition 5.1.

The proof relies on Proposition 2.3, which we apply as in Example 2.4.

By finite propagation speed, both the exact and approximate solution are zero in the region

$$\left\{(t,r)[0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }]\times _+;r+tT_{\lambda ,\epsilon }\right\}.$$

Define the remainder $`w_\pm ^\epsilon =v_\pm ^\epsilon (v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$. Before rays reach the boundary $`\{r=0\}`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)w_\pm ^\epsilon & =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}\left(g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )g((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})\right),\hfill \\ \hfill w_\pm ^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\epsilon P_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to apply Proposition 2.3, write the right hand side as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}\left(g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )g((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})\right)=& \epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}(g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )g((v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}+(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})\hfill \\ & +g((v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}+(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})g((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})).\hfill \end{array}$$

Using Taylor’s Theorem, the first term satisfies

$$\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}\left(g(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )g((v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}+(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})\right)=\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}(w_{}^\epsilon +w_+^\epsilon )f^\epsilon (t,r),$$

where $`f^\epsilon `$ is uniformly bounded on any set on which the families $`v^\epsilon `$ and $`(v^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ are uniformly bounded. The point now is that this term has exactly the properties mentioned in Example 2.4; in particular, the assumptions of Proposition 2.3 are satisfied up to time $`T=T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$.

Define the source term

$$S_\pm ^\epsilon (t,r):=\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}\left(g((v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}+(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})g((v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}})\right).$$

Then $`\mathrm{supp}S_\pm ^\epsilon \mathrm{supp}(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ , and

(5.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_t\pm _r)w_\pm ^\epsilon & =\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}f^\epsilon (t,r)(w_{}^\epsilon +w_+^\epsilon )+S_\pm ^\epsilon ,\hfill \\ \hfill w_\pm ^\epsilon |_{t=0}& =\epsilon P_1(r,\frac{rr_0}{\epsilon }).\hfill \end{array}$$

From the explicit expression of $`(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$, we see that for any fixed $`\lambda >0`$, there exists $`C_\lambda >0`$ independent of $`\epsilon `$ such that

(5.3)
$$(v_\pm ^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }]\times _+)}C_\lambda .$$

We shall prove that there is $`\epsilon (\lambda )>0`$, so that for $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (\lambda )]`$,

(5.4)
$$w_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }]\times _+)}C_\lambda \epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}\left(C_\lambda \epsilon \text{ if }p=2\right).$$

This implies the error estimate of Proposition 5.1. For the sake of readability, we will omit the distinction $`p=2`$, and keep the notation $`\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}`$, with an obvious convention.

From Lemma 3.1, $`v^\epsilon `$, hence $`w^\epsilon `$, is defined, bounded and continuous, locally in time. At time $`t=0`$, it is of order $`\epsilon `$, so there exists $`t^\epsilon >0`$ such that

$$w_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,t^\epsilon ]\times _+)}<2\epsilon P_1_L^{\mathrm{}},$$

and we have, possibly increasing the value of $`C_\lambda `$,

$$w_\pm ^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,t^\epsilon ]\times _+)}C_\lambda \epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}.$$

So long as $`w_\pm ^\epsilon `$ is pointwise bounded by $`2C_\lambda `$, $`f^\epsilon `$ remains uniformly bounded. As noticed in Example 2.4, there exists $`C_2(\lambda )`$ such that

$$_0^{T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }}\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^t}{sup}\epsilon ^\alpha r^{1p}\left|f^\epsilon \right|dtC_2(\lambda ).$$

Now consider the source terms. On $`\mathrm{supp}(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ (of size $`2z_0\epsilon `$, and transverse to any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{T(\lambda ,\epsilon )}`$), $`r>r_0/2`$, therefore the singular term $`r^{1p}`$ is bounded and

$$\underset{\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{T(\lambda ,\epsilon )}}{sup}_\gamma _{}|S_{}^\epsilon |C\epsilon ^{1+\alpha }.$$

More delicate is the treatment of $`S_+^\epsilon `$. Because $`\mathrm{supp}(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ is of size $`2z_0\epsilon `$ and transverse to any $`\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{T(\lambda ,\epsilon )}`$, one has

$$\underset{\gamma _+\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{T(\lambda ,\epsilon )}}{sup}_{\gamma _+}|S_+^\epsilon |C\epsilon ^\alpha _{\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}}^{\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}+2z_0\epsilon }r^{1p}𝑑r=C\epsilon ^\alpha F_p(\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}},\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}+2z_0\epsilon ).$$

If $`p>2`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (p2)\epsilon ^\alpha F_p(\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}},\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}+2z_0\epsilon )=& \epsilon ^\alpha \left(\left(\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}\right)^{2p}\left(\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{\alpha }{p2}}+2z_0\epsilon \right)^{2p}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \lambda ^{2p}\left(1\left(1+\frac{2z_0}{\lambda }\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}\right)^{2p}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& O\left(\lambda ^{1p}\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The case $`p=2`$ yields the same estimate. From Proposition 2.3, $`w_\pm ^\epsilon `$ remains pointwise bounded by $`2C_\lambda `$ for $`t[0,T(\lambda ,\epsilon )]`$, for $`\epsilon ]0,\epsilon (\lambda )]`$. This yields (5.4), and completes the proof of Proposition 5.1. ∎

Proposition 5.1 describes the behavior of the exact solution $`v^\epsilon `$ up to time $`T(\lambda ,\epsilon )`$. The outline of the end of the proof in the dissipative case is as follows. At time $`t=T(\lambda ,\epsilon )`$, the approximate solution $`(v^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ is of order $`\lambda ^{(p2)/(p1)}`$ if $`p>2`$ ($`1/|\mathrm{log}\lambda |`$ if $`p=2`$). Letting $`\epsilon `$ go to zero, with $`\lambda `$ sufficiently small, shows that $`v^\epsilon `$ becomes arbitrarily small when approaching the focal point. Since the equation is dissipative, this means that $`v^\epsilon `$ is absorbed. The end of the proof of Theorem 1.2 relies on energy estimates. For $`q1`$, define

$$g_{q1}(s):=\frac{d}{ds}|s|^q=q|s|^{q1}\mathrm{sgn}s.$$

Then $`g_q`$ is a non-increasing odd function of $`s`$ which is homogeneous of degree $`q`$.

In (1.5), multiply the equation satisfied by $`v_{}^\epsilon `$ by $`g_{q1}(v_{}^\epsilon )`$, and the equation satisfied by $`v_+^\epsilon `$ by $`g_{q1}(v_+^\epsilon )`$. Summing yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)& +_r(|v_+^\epsilon |^q|v_{}^\epsilon |^q)=\hfill \\ & a2^pr^{1p}\left(g_{q1}(v_{}^\epsilon )+g_{q1}(v_+^\epsilon )\right)g_p(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )/(p+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

The signs of both $`g_{q1}(v_{}^\epsilon )+g_{q1}(v_+^\epsilon )`$ and $`g_p(v_{}^\epsilon +v_+^\epsilon )`$ are equal to the sign of the larger of $`v_\pm ^\epsilon `$. Therefore, when $`a>0`$ (dissipative case),

(5.5)
$$_t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)_r(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q|v_+^\epsilon |^q)0.$$

For a fixed $`t>0`$, integrate this inequality from $`r=0`$ to $`r=t`$. Recall that when $`r=0`$, we have $`|v_{}^\epsilon |=|v_+^\epsilon |`$, so this yields

$$_0^t_t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)dr|v_{}^\epsilon |^q(t,t)+|v_+^\epsilon |^q(t,t)0.$$

Therefore,

(5.6)
$$_t_0^t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)𝑑r2|v_{}^\epsilon |^q(t,t).$$

Let $`\lambda >0`$. From Proposition 5.1, for $`0tT_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$,

$$|v_{}^\epsilon |^q(t,t)=|(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}|^q(t,t)+O\left(\epsilon ^{q\left(1\frac{\alpha }{p2}\right)}\right).$$

For $`t>\frac{r_0+z_0\epsilon }{2}`$, $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(t,t)=0`$ and

$$|v_{}^\epsilon |^q(t,t)=O\left(\epsilon ^{q\left(1\frac{\alpha }{p2}\right)}\right).$$

Let $`T>T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$ and integrate (5.6) between $`t=T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$ and $`t=T`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(0,T)}^q+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(0,T)}^q& v_{}^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}^q+v_+^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}^q\hfill \\ & +C(\lambda )^qT\epsilon ^{q\left(1\frac{\alpha }{p2}\right)},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(0,T)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(0,T)}& v_{}^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}+v_+^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}\hfill \\ & +C(\lambda )T^{1/q}\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Letting $`q\mathrm{}`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}& v_{}^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}+v_+^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}\hfill \\ & +C(\lambda )\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using Proposition 5.1 again, and the fact that $`\mathrm{supp}(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}\{|rtr_0|z_0\epsilon \}`$, we also have

$$v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}+C(\lambda )\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}.$$

From the explicit expression for $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$,

(5.7)
$$(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })}C\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda ^{\frac{p2}{p1}},& \text{ if }p>2,\hfill \\ \hfill 1/|\mathrm{log}\lambda |,& \text{ if }p=2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`C`$ does not depend on $`\lambda `$. Thus if $`p>2`$,

$$v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}C\lambda ^{\frac{p2}{p1}}+C(\lambda )\epsilon ^{1\frac{\alpha }{p2}}.$$

Therefore, for any $`Tr_0`$, and any $`\lambda >0`$,

(5.8)
$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; sup}\left(v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(0,T)}\right)C\lambda ^{\frac{p2}{p1}}.$$

Letting $`\lambda 0`$ yields the first part of Theorem 1.2 for $`p>2`$. The case $`p=2`$ is straightforward.

When the equation is accretive ($`a<0`$), the energy estimate (5.5) becomes

(5.9)
$$_t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)_r(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)0.$$

Since we assumed $`P_+0`$, $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ blows up in finite time, while $`(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ does not. The mechanism occurs quite the same way as the cancellation of $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ in the dissipative case. For a fixed $`t>0`$, integrating (5.9) between $`r=0`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$ yields, by finite speed of propagation,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}_t(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)dr=_t_0^{\mathrm{}}(|v_{}^\epsilon |^q+|v_+^\epsilon |^q)(t,r)𝑑r0.$$

Let $`r_0>T>T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$ and integrate the above inequality between $`t=T_{\lambda ,\epsilon }`$ and $`t=T`$.

$$v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(_+)}^q+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^q(_+)}^qv_{}^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(_+)}^q+v_+^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^q(_+)}^q.$$

Letting $`q\mathrm{}`$ yields,

$$v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}v_{}^\epsilon (T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}.$$

From Proposition 5.1, it follows

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; inf}\left(v_{}^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}+v_+^\epsilon (T)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}\right)\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; inf}(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}(T_{\lambda ,\epsilon })_{L^{\mathrm{}}(_+)}.$$

Letting $`\lambda 0`$ yields the last part of Theorem 1.2 with $`T^{}=r_0`$, using the explicit form of $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$. As we already mentioned, the result may hold with $`T^{}<r_0`$ if $`(v_+^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$ blows up before $`(v_{}^\epsilon )_{\mathrm{app}}`$, in which case the proof is essentially as above.


text:
# Erratum: Next-to-leading order supersymmetric QCD predictions for associated production of gauginos and gluinos [Phys. Rev. D 62, 095014 (2000)]

preprint: hep-ph/0212306

Within the curly brackets of Eq. (C1), a term $`\pi ^2/4`$ from the expansion of the relative factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(12ϵ)`$ between the virtual (Eq. (21)) and the soft corrections (Eq. (28)) should be included. Equation (C1) then reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{\sigma }^S}{dt_2du_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{\sigma }^B}{dt_2du_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}\right)\{\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_2t_2sm_2^2}{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_1^2\delta ^2}}\right)+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}{sm_1^2}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_1^2\delta ^2}}\right)`$ (C1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}{sm_1^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}\}.`$
Correct inclusion of the missing term changes the NLO cross sections and their renormalization and factorization scale dependences. As examples, Figs. 16 and 17 should be replaced by Fig. 1 below. The corrected

results agree with those in Ref. Spira:2002rd , if CTEQ5M parton densities Lai:1999wy  are used along with the two-loop expression for $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}=226`$ MeV.

Our implementation of the intermediate on-shell squark subtraction in Eq. (41) differs from that in Ref. Spira:2002rd . While in Ref. resonance contributions are subtracted strictly on-shell, small off-shell contributions from phase space are included in our subtraction procedure. The differences are insignificant quantitatively in this case.

Specific predictions for the Tevatron and LHC will be provided on request request . For example, we show in Fig. 2 the predicted total cross sections at the current Tevatron center-of-mass energy of

$`\sqrt{S}=1.96`$ TeV for all six $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ channels in the SUGRA model as functions of the mass of the gluino (left) and for a gluino with mass 30 GeV as functions of $`m_{1/2}`$ (right). In Fig. 2, we use CTEQ6M (NLO) and CTEQ6L (LO) parton densities Pumplin:2002vw  and the two-loop expression for $`\alpha _s`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}=226`$ MeV (LO and NLO).

Finally, we take the opportunity to correct two typographical errors in the published version of Ref. Berger:2000iu . In Eq. (C2), the arguments of the squared and the last logarithm were interchanged. The correct form is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{\sigma }^S}{dt_2du_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{\sigma }^B}{dt_2du_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_C\alpha _S}{2\pi }}\right)\{2+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_2t_2sm_2^2}{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}{sm_1^2}}\right)`$ (C2)
$`+[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t_2)(s+u_2)}{sm_1^2}}\right)1]\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_1^2\delta ^2}}\right)\}.`$
In Eq. (D2), $`+`$-signs were omitted between the two large brackets in the third line and the first two fractions in the fourth line. The correct form is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\widehat{\sigma }_1^g}{ds_4dt_2du_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S\widehat{\alpha }_S\delta (s+t_2+u_1s_4)}{36\pi s^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2(s_4+m_1^2)}{s_4^2}}\right)`$
$`\times \{\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_4^22s_4(s+u_2)+2(s+u_2)^2}{s_4(s+u_2)}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{X_tt_2}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{q}_t}^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_{tu}sm_1m_2}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{q}_t}^2)[(\mathrm{\Delta }_ust_2)(s+u_2)+ss_4]}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{X_uu_2[s_4u_2u_1(s+u_2)]}{[(\mathrm{\Delta }_ust_2)(s+u_2)+ss_4]^2}})+({\displaystyle \frac{s_4^22s_4(s+t_2)+2(s+t_2)^2}{s_4(s+t_2)}})`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{X_tt_2[s_4t_2t_1(s+t_2)]}{[(\mathrm{\Delta }_tsu_2)(s+t_2)+ss_4]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_{tu}sm_1m_2}{(um_{\stackrel{~}{q}_u}^2)[(\mathrm{\Delta }_tsu_2)(s+t_2)+ss_4]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{X_uu_2}{(um_{\stackrel{~}{q}_u}^2)^2}})\}.`$