text:
# Untitled Document

New Results on Primes from an Old Proof of Euler’s

by

Charles W. Neville

CWN Research

55 Maplewood Ave.

West Hartford, CT 06119, U.S.A.

cwneville@cwnresearch.com

June, 2002

Revision 1, April, 2003

Introduction.

In 1737 Leonard Euler gave what we often now think of as a new proof, based on infinite series, of Euclid’s theorem that there are infinitely many prime numbers. This work was noteworthy in many ways. It marked the first use of the methods of analysis in number theory, and it marked the first appearance of what later came to be known as the Riemann $`\zeta `$ function in mathematics.

In actual reality, Euler never presented his work as a proof of Euclid’s theorem, though that conclusion is clearly implicit in what he did. Rather, Euler derived such striking new results (for the time) as $`1/p`$ diverges, where $`p`$ ranges over the prime numbers.

Briefly, Euler considered the possibly infinite product, $`1/\left(1p^1\right)`$, where the index $`p`$ runs over all primes. He expanded the product to obtain the divergent infinite series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}1/n`$, concluded the infinite product was also divergent, and from this concluded that the infinite series $`1/p`$ also diverges. Well, if there were only finitely many primes $`p`$, the series would have to converge because finite series are ALWAYS CONVERGENT. So we, and Euler had he chosen to do so, are able to conclude that there must be infinitely many prime numbers. For those whose Latin is a bit rusty, one of the best modern descriptions of Euler’s proof and its consequences appears in chapter VII of .

This short paper uses a simple modification of Euler’s argument to obtain new results about the distribution of prime factors of sets of integers. As this last sentence is something of a mouthful, let us be more clear and specific. Consider an infinite set $`S`$ of positive integers such that $`\text{card}\{sS:sn\}Kn^{1/\alpha }`$, where $`K`$ is a constant $`>0`$. Equivalently, let $`S`$ be the range of a strictly monotone increasing positive integer valued sequence $`(s_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that $`s_n=O(n^\alpha )`$. We shall say that $`S`$ has polynomial density $`\alpha `$, even though $`\alpha `$ may not be an integer. To avoid trivially degenerate cases, we suppose that $`\alpha 1`$ and $`0S`$.

Let $`P(S)`$ be the set of prime factors of elements of $`S`$, that is let

$$P(S)=\{p:p\text{ is prime and }p|s\text{ for at least one }sS\}.$$

Let $`\pi _S(n)=\text{card}\{pP(S):pn\}`$, that is let $`\pi _S(n)`$ be the number of prime factors $`n`$ of the elements of $`S`$. Clearly $`\pi _S(n)`$ is the familiar “prime number function” $`\pi (n)`$ relativized to $`S`$. Our new results are

Theorem 1.

(a) $`_{pP(S)}p^{1/\alpha }=\mathrm{}`$.

(b) $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\pi _S(n)/n^{1+1/\alpha }=\mathrm{}`$.

(c) If $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_n<\mathrm{}`$, where $`a_n>0`$, then $`\pi _S(n)/n^{1+1/\alpha }a_n`$ infinitely often.

Corollary 1.

(a) There are infinitely many prime factors of the elements of $`S`$, that is the set $`P(S)`$ is infinite.

(b) Let $`r>1`$. Then

$`\pi _S(n)n^{1/\alpha }/(\mathrm{log}n)^r`$ infinitely often.

$`\pi _S(n)n^{1/\alpha }/\mathrm{log}n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^r`$ infinitely often.

etc.

Proof of Corollary 1.

Part (a) follows immediately from part (a) of theorem 1. As for part (b), it is equivalent to

$`\pi _S(n)/n^{1+1/\alpha }1/n(\mathrm{log}n)^r`$ infinitely often,

$`\pi _S(n)/n^{1+1/\alpha }1/n\mathrm{log}n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^r`$ infinitely often,

etc.,

and the series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}1/n(\mathrm{log}n)^r`$, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}1/n\mathrm{log}n(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)^r`$, etc. are all convergent. Use theorem 1c.

Proof of Theorem 1a.

The proof is a simple modification of Euler’s famous proof by infinite series of Euclid’s theorem on the infinitude of primes. Consider the (possibly) infinite product $`_{pP(S)}1/(1p^{1/\alpha })`$. We shall show the product diverges.

To this end, let $`N`$ be a large positive integer. Consider the partial product,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{pP(S),pN}{}1/(1p^{1/\alpha })& =\underset{pP(S),pN}{}(1+p^{1/\alpha }+p^{2/\alpha }+\mathrm{})\hfill \\ & =\underset{sS,sN}{}s^{1/\alpha }+\text{ other positive terms}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Recall that another way of writing $`S`$ is $`S=\{s_1,s_2,s_3,\mathrm{}\}`$, where $`(s_j)_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a strictly monotone increasing sequence of positive integers such that $`s_jKj^\alpha `$, where $`K>0`$ is a constant. Therefore,

$$\underset{sS,sN}{}s^{1/\alpha }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}s_j^{1/\alpha }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}K^{1/\alpha }(j^\alpha )^{1/\alpha }=K^{1/\alpha }\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}j^1.$$

(Here, $`n`$ is the largest integer such that $`s_nN`$.) Since the infinite series $`_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}j^1`$ diverges, so does the infinite product $`_{pP(S)}1/(1p^{1/\alpha })`$.

Recall the basic fact that an infinite product $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1+a_n)`$, with $`a_n0`$, diverges if and only if the infinite series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_n`$ diverges. Thus the divergence of the infinite product

$$\underset{pP(S)}{}1/(1p^{1/\alpha })$$

implies the divergence of the infinite series $`_{pP(S)}\left(1/(1p^{1/\alpha })1\right)`$. The series

$$\underset{pP(S)}{}\left(1/(1p^{1/\alpha })1\right)$$

is, as we shall show momentarily, term-by-term comparable with the series $`_{pP(S)}p^{1/\alpha }`$. Thus $`_{pP(S)}p^{1/\alpha }`$ diverges. This proves theorem 1a, provided we prove the comparability assertion.

Proof of the comparability assertion.

Note that $`p^{1/\alpha }2^{1/\alpha }`$ and apply the familiar estimates,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1+p^{1/\alpha }& <1+p^{1/\alpha }+p^{2/\alpha }+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =1/(1p^{1/\alpha })=1+p^{1/\alpha }/(1p^{1/\alpha })1+p^{1/\alpha }/(12^{1/\alpha }).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`p^{1/\alpha }<1/(1p^{1/\alpha })1p^{1/\alpha }/(12^{1/\alpha })`$, which proves the comparability assertion, and thus proves theorem 1a.

Proof of Theorem 1b.

$$\underset{pP(S)}{}p^{1/\alpha }=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}_1^Nt^{1/\alpha }𝑑\pi _S(t),$$

where the right hand side is interpreted as a Stieltjes integral.

Integrate by parts to obtain

$$\underset{pP(S)}{}p^{1/\alpha }=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[N^{1/\alpha }\pi _S(N)+(1+1/\alpha )_1^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t\right].$$

(The integration by parts is justified because the integrand $`t^{1/\alpha }`$ is continuous.) By theorem 1a, the left hand series diverges to infinity. We could immediately conclude that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}_1^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t=\mathrm{},$$

if it were not for the troublesome first term on the right, $`N^{1/\alpha }\pi _S(N)`$. To handle this term, divide the argument into two cases.

In case 1, suppose there is a constant $`K>0`$ such that $`N^{1/\alpha }\pi _S(N)<K`$ for infinitely many positive integers $`N`$, say $`N_1,N_2,N_3,\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}_1^{N_j}\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t=\mathrm{}.$$

Because $`_1^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t`$ is an increasing function of $`N`$,

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}_1^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t=\mathrm{}.$$

In case 2, suppose there is no such constant $`K`$. Then for every $`K>0`$, $`N^{1/\alpha }\pi _S(N)`$ is eventually $`>K`$. Choose any such $`K>0`$, then choose $`N_K`$ so that $`N^{1/\alpha }\pi _S(N)>K`$ for all (real) $`N>N_K`$. Use the simple estimate,

$$_{N_K}^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t>K_{N_K}^Nt^1𝑑t$$

to conclude that $`lim_N\mathrm{}_1^N\pi _S(t)t^{(1+1/\alpha )}𝑑t=\mathrm{}`$.

By the integral test (or at least by its proof),

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi _S(n)n^{(1+1/\alpha )}=\mathrm{}.$$

This completes the proof of theorem 1b.

Proof of Theorem 1c.

Theorem 1c follows immediately from theorem 1b.

Examples.

Example 1. Polynomial density is needed. Consider the non-polynomially dense set $`S=\{2^n:n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`P(S)=\{2\}`$.

Example 2. The exponent $`1/\alpha `$ is the best possible. Let $`\alpha `$ be an integer $`3`$. We shall construct a set $`S`$ consisting entirely of primes with polynomial density $`\alpha `$. This way, we shall have a good handle on $`\pi _S(n)`$ and shall easily be able to show $`\pi _S(n)`$ is asymptotically equal to $`n^{1/\alpha }`$.

First, we need to show there is a prime between $`n^\alpha `$ and $`(n+1)^\alpha `$ for all sufficiently large integers $`n`$. By a theorem of Iwaniec and Piutz, there is always a prime between $`nn^{23/42}`$ and $`n`$ \[5, p. 415\], . If we apply Iwaniec and Piutz’s theorem to $`n^\alpha `$, we see that there is always a prime between $`n^{(23/42)\alpha }`$ and $`n^\alpha `$. But, by the binomial theorem, $`(n1)^\alpha =n^\alpha R_\alpha (n)`$, where $`R_\alpha (n)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`\alpha 1`$. Since $`(23/42)\alpha <\alpha 1`$ for $`\alpha 3`$, $`n^{(23/42)}<R_\alpha (n)`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. Thus there is always a prime between $`(n1)^\alpha `$ and $`n^\alpha `$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. Consequently, there is always a prime $`p_n`$ with $`n^\alpha <p_n(n+1)^\alpha `$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$, say for all $`nN_\alpha `$.

Now consider the set $`S=\{p_n:n=N_\alpha ,N_\alpha +1,N_\alpha +2,\mathrm{}\}`$. $`S`$ has polynomial density $`\alpha `$, $`p_n`$ is asymptotically equal to $`n^\alpha `$, and $`\pi _S(n)`$ is asymptotically equal to $`n^{1/\alpha }`$. This proves the exponent $`1/\alpha `$ is the best possible in the assertions of theorem 1 and corollary 1b, at least when $`\alpha `$ is an integer $`3`$.

As we shall see shortly, this remains true when $`\alpha =1`$. Furthermore, the exponent $`1/\alpha `$ is probably the best possible for $`\alpha =2`$, as it is widely believed, though still unproven, that for every integer $`n2`$, there is a prime $`p_n`$ between $`n^2`$ and $`(n+1)^2`$ \[5, p. 19\].

Example 3. The $`\mathrm{log}n`$ denominator (though possibly not the exponent $`r`$) is needed. Let $`S`$ be the set of positive integers. Then $`S`$ has polynomial density 1, and $`\pi _S(n)=\pi (n)`$. By Tschebyshev’s inequalities,

$$mn/\mathrm{log}n\pi (n)Mn/\mathrm{log}n$$

for all $`n2`$, where $`m`$ and $`M`$ are suitably chosen constants.

This example also shows that the exponent $`1/\alpha `$ is the best possible for $`\alpha =1`$.

Example 4. Furstenberg’s proof and Gotchev’s theorem. Again let $`S`$ be the set of positive integers. Furstenberg (and later Golomb) gave elegant topological proofs of Euclid’s theorem that $`P(S)`$ is infinite , . This work has been extended in various directions, for example to the setting of abstract ideal theory (see  and ). Furstenberg’s proof is also provides an important beginning example in the theory of profinite groups \[11, p. 476\]

Gotchev recently extended Furstenberg’s work and gave a topological proof that $`P(S)`$ is infinite if $`S`$ is the integer range of a polynomial $`Q`$ of degree $`\alpha 1`$ with integer coefficients . In other words, if $`S=\{|Q(n)|:n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$, Gotchev proved by topological means that $`P(S)`$ is infinite. As $`S`$ is a set of polynomial density $`\alpha `$, corollary 1a is Gotchev’s theorem in this case, and corollary 1b is a quantitative version of Gotchev’s theorem.

We should note that Gotchev’s theorem seems to be a folk theorem, probably rediscovered many times before Gotchev stated it. But the topological proof is definitely due to Gotchev.

Example 5. Sets of polynomial density $`\alpha `$ are much more general than ranges of polynomials. In fact, they may even be non-computable. For example, let $`T(n),n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ be your favorite (computable) enumeration of Turing machines, let $`k(n)=1`$ if $`T(n)`$ does not halt, and let $`k(n)=2`$ otherwise. Let $`S=\{3n+k(n):n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`S`$ is a non-computable set of polynomial density 1.

Although we know practically nothing about $`S`$ because it is not computable, we do know by corollary 1a that its set of prime factors is infinite, and we do have quantitative information about the distribution $`P(S)`$ by theorem 1.

Example 6. One might think that the complement of a set too sparse to be of polynomial density $`\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha `$ must be a set of polynomial density 1. An interesting counter example due to Joshua Zelinsky  shows that this is not true. Zelinsky’s idea is to consider sets with very large gaps, that is highly lacunary sets.

To be specific, let $`S_n=\{n:2^{2^n}n<2^{2^{n+1}}\}`$, and let $`S=_{n\text{ odd}}S_n`$. Then $`S`$ has a gap between $`2^{2^n}`$ and $`2^{2^{n+1}}1`$ for each even $`n`$, and the complement of $`S`$ has a gap between $`2^{2^n}`$ and $`2^{2^{n+1}}1`$ for each odd $`n`$ Thus neither $`S`$ nor its complement is of polynomial density $`\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha `$.

Remarks.

Remark 1. Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions states that if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are relatively prime integers, and $`S=\{an+b:n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$, then $`S`$ contains infinitely many primes \[8, chapter VII\]. This is much stronger than the assertion of Gotchev’s theorem, and corollary 1a, that $`P(S)`$ is infinite. In general, it seems to be much more difficult to show that a set contains infinitely many primes than it is to show that a set has infinitely many prime factors.

An extremely interesting challenge would be to give a simple, fairly elementary proof of Dirichlet’s theorem, perhaps using the ideas of this paper, or perhaps using the topological ideas of Furstenberg, Golomb and Gotchev \[11, p. 476\]. It turns out that if one could show that an arithmetic progression with $`a`$ and $`b`$ relatively prime contains one prime, then it contains infinitely many primes , \[14, p. 124\].

Remark 2. Buniakowski conjectured in 1857 that if $`Q`$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients, if $`S=\{|Q(n)|:n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$, and if there is no common factor of all the elements of $`S`$, then $`S`$ contains infinitely many primes . The Buniakowski conjecture is one of the great unsolved questions of number theory \[10, p. 323\], \[12, p. 452\], see also \[14, p. 127 ff.\]. (In fact, it is even unknown if there are infinitely many primes of the form $`n^2+1`$ \[5, p. 19\].) Once again, this illustrates how assertions about the existence of primes in sets seem to be far more deeper that assertions about the distribution of prime factors.

Open Questions.

Question 1. Is there an example for $`\alpha >1`$ where both the exponent $`1/\alpha `$ and the denominator $`\mathrm{log}n`$ appear at the same time? Of course, there is such an example for $`\alpha =1`$; simply let $`S`$ be the set of positive integers and use Tschebyshev’s inequalities.

Question 2. There cannot be a prime number theorem for $`P(S)`$, or even a pair of Tschebyshev inequalities (see example 2). But can corollary 1b be improved to a one-sided Tschebyshev inequality? In other words, for every set $`S`$ of polynomial density $`\alpha `$, is it true that

$$m_Sn^{1/\alpha }/\mathrm{log}n\pi _S(n),$$

for all $`n2`$ and some suitably chosen constant $`m_S>0`$ (depending on $`S`$)?

References.

1. V. Buniakowski, Sur les diviseurs numériques invariables des fonctions rationnelles entrières, Acad. Sci. Pétersbourg Mem. 6 sci. math. et phys. 6 (1857), 305-329.

2. H. Furstenberg, On the infinitude of primes, Amer. Math. Monthly 62 (1955), 353.

3. S. W. Golomb, A connected topology for the integers, Amer. Math. Monthly 66 (1959), 663-665.

4. I. Gotchev, On the Infinitude of Prime Divisors of the Range of a Non-constant Polynomial, to appear.

5. G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.

6. V. Hanly, Solution to problem E1218, Amer. Math. Monthly 64 (1957), 742.

7. Iwaniec and Piutz, Monatshefte f. Math. 98 (1984), 115-143.

8. A. Knapp, Elliptic Curves, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.

9. J. Knopfmacher and S. Porubsky, Topologies related to arithmetical properties of integral domains, Expositiones Mathematicae 15(2) (1997), 131-148.

10. S. Lang, Algebra, 3rd ed., Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1993.

11. A. Lubotzky (Reviewer), Profinite groups by J. S. Wilson, Profinite groups by L. Ribes and P. Zalesskii, Analytic pro-p groups by J. D. Dixon, M. P. F. du Satoy, A. Mann and D. Segal, New horizons in pro-p groups by M. du Satoy, D. Segal and A. Shalev (eds.), Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 38(4) (2001), 475-479. Erratum, 39(2) (2002), 299.

12. M. Ram Murty, Prime numbers and irreducible polynomials, Amer. Math. Monthly 109(5) (2002), 452-458.

13. S. Porubsky, Arithmetically related ideal topologies and the infinitude of primes, Questiones Mathematicae 24 (2001).

14. W. Sierpinsky, Elementary Theory of Numbers, Warszawa, Panstwowe Wydawn. Naukowe, 1964.

15. J. Zelinsky, private communication.


format: text

text:
# Algebraic approach to quantum black holes: logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy

## I Introduction

The flurry of activity on the theory of black holes in general relativity illuminated a very deep and fundamental relationship between gravitation, thermodynamics and quantum theory . The bedrock of this connection is the notion of back hole entropy . Bekenstein’s identification of the horizon area with black hole entropy has provided a criterion for the success of any candidate quantum theory of gravity. Today we are presented with several generic quantum gravity theories (superstring and D-brane theory , loop quantum gravity , canonical quantum gravity ) all of which reproduce the black hole entropy from a microscopic counting of states. Despite this success, there is as yet no generally accepted theory of quantum gravity; other conditions are needed to provide further tests on theories which purport to represent quantum gravity.

In  it is shown that a sufficient condition for establishing the identification $`S_{BH}A`$ is that the complete system, black hole-Hawking radiation, can be characterized by classical thermodynamics. Furthermore, it is shown (assuming the first law of black holes mechanics) that any nonlinear correction to the black hole entropy must be quantum mechanical in nature. For example, in a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, the dimensionless function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T(M/Q)_T`$ (which can be interpreted as the electric potential on the horizon when the black hole is in equilibrium with a surrounding heat bath) can be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ where the leading term $`O(\mathrm{}^0)`$ is taken to be classical. It is shown in  that higher order terms in $`\mathrm{}`$ appear if and only if $`S^{\prime \prime }(A)0`$, where $`S(A)`$ is the entropy of the black hole and $`A`$ is the horizon surface area. Therefore, the leading order corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (if they exist) will provide a further insight in the description of quantum effects in black holes.

Very recently, several authors made an attempt in this direction. For example, Kaul and Majumdar  (see also ) have calculated the lowest order corrections to the Bekenstein Hawking entropy in a particular formulation of quantum loop gravity . In this approach, the black hole horizon is treated as a boundary spacetime which is quantized within the “quantum geometry” program. They have found a $`3/2\mathrm{log}A`$ correction term to the black hole entropy. Carlip  has found exactly the same correction term for the BTZ black hole by using the corrected version of the asymptotic Cardy formula. He has also shown that similar logarithmic corrections appear in all black holes whose microscopic degrees of freedom are described by an underlying conformal field theory. Recently, Das, Majumdar and Bhaduri  have computed the leading order corrections to the entropy of any thermodynamic system due to small statistical fluctuations around equilibrium. These corrections also turn out to be logarithmic in the horizon area when applied to black holes, and equal to $`3/2\mathrm{log}A`$ when applied to the BTZ black hole. More recently, Gupta et al obtain the same correction term by using a scalar field as a simple probe of the background geometry of a massive Schwarzschild black hole. Here, we shall obtain exactly the same logarithmic correction by using a simple heuristic scheme, and also by exploiting the algebraic approach . We further argue that positive logarithmic corrections might also be required in the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy if the horizon area fluctuations are included. This may shed some light on why other authors  have obtained logarithmic corrections with different coefficients.

Among the simplest questions which can be asked, and which can also provide conditions on a quantum theory of gravity, is what is the nature of the energy spectrum of a black hole. The remarkable observation that the horizon area behaves as a classical adiabatic invariant  provided the first clue in this direction. In the spirit of Ehrenfest principle, Bekenstein  conjectured that the horizon area of a non extermal quantum black hole has a discrete eigenvalue spectrum. He also conjectured that the spacing between area eigenvalues is uniform  since the assimilation of a quantum particle into a Kerr-Newman black hole carries a minimal “cost” $`\mathrm{}`$ of area increase, which does not depend on the black hole parameters. The discrete nature of the eigenvalue spectrum for the horizon area is also supported by the loop quantum gravity , but this last theory suggests a rather complicated eigenvalue spacing. If the area spectrum is equally spaced, the classical relation $`A=16\pi M^2`$ ($`c=G=1`$) for a Schwarzschild black hole implies the mass spectrum $`M\sqrt{\mathrm{}n}`$ for it, where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. This type of spectrum has subsequently been obtained by many authors (see the list in  and Ref. ).

The heuristic approach mentioned above is far from giving a complete description of quantum effects in black holes. In order to illuminate the inner structure of a black hole, an algebraic approach to black hole quantization has been developed . Analogously to quantum loop gravity , in this approach one seeks to determine the spectra of relevant observables in the theory by their algebra. However, in the algebraic approach it is assumed that each separate black hole state, which one assumes comes from a discrete set, is created from a “black hole vacuum” $`|vac`$ by a certain “creation” operator:

$$|n,s=\widehat{R}_{ns}|vac.$$
(1)
Here $`|n,s`$ is a one (non-rotating and neutral) black hole state with area $`a_n`$; $`s=0,\mathrm{},g_n1`$ distinguishes between different states with the same area, where $`g_n`$ is the degeneracy of the said states. It was shown in  that the algebra of the various $`\widehat{R}`$ operators together with the horizon area observable (in  the angular momentum and charge observables are also included) implies that the spectrum of $`\widehat{A}`$ is equally spaced:

$$a_n=a_0n;n=1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`a_0`$ is a positive constant proportional to $`\mathrm{}`$.

More recently , the $`\widehat{R}`$ operators where constructed from a small number of more fundamental “building blocks” out of which the whole algebra follows. It was assumed for simplicity that the first area level has two independent quantum states, say $`|1,0`$ and $`|1,1`$, so that the corresponding two building blocks for these states are given by:

$$\widehat{a}\widehat{R}_{11}\mathrm{and}\widehat{b}\widehat{R}_{12}.$$
(3)
It was shown that if one builds the $`\widehat{R}`$ operators as products involving only these two non-commuting operators, the degeneracy of the area levels is given by the exponential law $`g_n=2^n`$. This was the first time that a formal proof has been given for this law.

The exponential law $`g_n=k^n`$ ($`k=2,3,\mathrm{}`$) was first proposed by Mukhanov  (see also Ref. ) where it was assumed that the entropy of the black hole corresponds to the degeneracy of the area levels Eq. (2). Since then quite a few heuristic ways of understanding the exponential growth of degeneracy have been proposed . One of the simplest views to get the quantization law Eq. (2) suggests that the horizon may be regarded as parceled into $`n`$ patches of area $`a_0`$. If each can exists in $`k`$ different quantum states, then the law $`g=k^n`$ is immediate . However, as we shall see here, if one includes the hyperspin or the global quantum number of these patches, the exponential law (for $`k=2`$) is replaced by

$$g_n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n/2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n/2+1}\right)\frac{2^n}{n^{3/2}}$$
(4)
for $`n1`$. We shall obtain this result also in a more formal way using the algebraic approach where the hyperspin appears as the generator of the symmetry between the two building blocks in Eq. (3). Furthermore, in the Appendix, we start with $`k=3`$ (equivalent to three building blocks) and find in this case that $`g_n\frac{3^n}{n^2}`$ which corresponds to a $`2\mathrm{log}n`$ correction term. We shall mention here, that by using a holographic point of view, Das, Kaul and Majumdar  have obtained the same result. However, in their formalism the left hand side of Eq. (4) is replaced by the number of $`SU(2)`$ singlet states contributing to the entropy of an isolated horizon (which is described by the boundary degrees of freedom of a three dimensional Chern Simons theory), and $`n`$ is replaced by the number of vertices of the network.

The physical interpretation of the building blocks $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ may be elucidated by comparison with other approaches. It was shown  that the algebraic approach and the approach involving quantization on a reduced phase space  are similar. However, it is still not clear how the degeneracy appears in the later approach. Here, we shall argue that one of the building blocks is associated with the boundary at infinity through the ADM mass $`M`$ and its conjugate $`P_M`$ (the time separation at special infinity), and the other with the boundary at the horizon via $`A`$ and its conjugate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (the “opening angle”, see Ref. ()). This also gives an argument for setting $`k=2`$.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we develop a heuristic approach to calculate the $`3/2`$ logarithmic correction term. In Sec. III, we provide a physical interpretation to the building blocks, by a comparison with the reduced phase space approach. In Sec. IV, the hyperspin is defined within the algebraic approach, and the degeneracy of the area levels in the hyperspin representation is obtained. We conclude with a discussion (Sec. V). The Appendix generalizes the results to the case of three building blocks.

## II Heuristic scheme and logarithmic corrections

Since any correction to the black hole entropy formula, $`S_{\mathrm{bh}}=\eta A`$, must be quantum mechanical in nature , the leading order corrections to the black hole entropy (if they exist) will provide a further insight into the interplay between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Furthermore, as one reduces the size of the black hole, these corrections may play an important role and even change completely the semi-classical description.

In previous work , we have found a positive logarithmic correction $`1/2\mathrm{log}A`$ to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy by considering the Schwarzschild black hole as a grand canonical ensemble, with the Hamiltonian (the ADM mass) and the horizon surface area, separately, as observable parameters. Also Kastrup , Mäkelä and Repo  and Obregon, Sabido and Tkach  obtained exactly the same positive correction. More recently, Major and Setter  obtained the correction term $`\mathrm{log}A`$ using a model which is motivated by the formulation of geometry in loop quantum gravity (they also describe the black hole in terms of a grand canonical ensemble). All these approaches predict positive corrections due to the area fluctuations. The area fluctuations increase the uncertainty, and therefore, the number of microstates which describe the black hole. However, the logarithmic corrections which correspond to corrections in the degeneracy $`g(n)=k^n`$ are not positive. We shall give now a simple heuristic argument, based on the equally spaced area spectrum, which yields the correction term $`3/2\mathrm{log}A`$ (in section 4 we shall derive this result from the algebraic approach). This term was obtained by several authors  using a variety of techniques.

In several models of black holes, it is assumed that the black hole consists of elementary components contributing additively to its area. In quantum loop gravity, these components are described by the Wilson lines of the Ashtekar’s connection $`A_\mu ^a`$ (see for example Ref. ). In $`M`$-theory , the components are described by the $`D_0`$-branes. Here, we consider the equally spaced area spectrum, where the horizon may be regarded as parceled into $`n`$ patches (components) of area $`a_0`$. In this heuristic view, these patches are localized. Thus, it is assumed that each cell has the same number of quantum states due to rotational symmetry. For simplicity, we assume that each cell can exist in 2 different quantum states.

Since the elementary components (the patches) can exist in two states, in quantum mechanics they can be described by $`1/2`$-spin entities. These are here called “hyperspins” to distinguish them from spin; i.e. the $`1/2`$-hyperspin which is associated with each patch describes its two different quantum states. The $`1/2`$-hyperspin observable associated with the $`i`$’th patch is denoted by $`\stackrel{}{𝐡}^{(i)}(\widehat{h}_1^{(i)},\widehat{h}_2^{(i)},\widehat{h}_3^{(i)})`$ where the total hyperspin of a black hole with area $`A=a_0n`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{𝒥}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\stackrel{}{𝐡}^{(i)}.$$
(5)
Since $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}`$ represents a macroscopic feature of the black hole, it should have played an important role also in the classical description. However, according to Wheeler’s no-hair principle, the Schwarzschild black hole is parametrized only by its mass. This leaves us no choice but to set the total hyperspin of the Schwarzschild black hole to zero. Furthermore, by analogy with a system of 1/2-spin particles, it seems reasonable that the energy (mass) should depend on $`𝒥`$. If so, the relation $`A=16\pi M^2`$ holds true only in the classical limit where $`𝒥=0`$. This motivates the idea that the Schwarzschild black hole should be considered as a grand canonical ensemble .

The number of microstates with area $`A=a_0n`$ is $`g(n)=2^n`$. This follows from the two quantum states each cell can exist in. However, the number of microstates $`g(n,𝒥=0)`$ with area $`A=a_0n`$ and zero hyperspin $`𝒥=0`$ is smaller. A simple calculation (see section IV) shows that

$$g(n,𝒥=0)=\frac{1}{1+1/2n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1/2n}\right).$$
(6)
Note that $`n`$ must be even since $`𝒥=0`$. Using Stirling’s formula, we find in the classical limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ that

$$g(n,𝒥=0)2^n/n^{3/2}.$$
(7)
This yields a correction term $`3/2\mathrm{log}n`$ to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Moreover, Eq. (6) shows clearly that as one reduces the size of the black hole, the semi-classical description is completely changed. For example, an elementary black hole with area $`A=2a_0`$ has zero entropy.

In conclusion, logarithmic corrections to the black hole entropy may be classified into two types: positive corrections, which appear due to the area fluctuations, and negative corrections, which appear as a result of corrections to the number of microstates that describe a black hole with a definite horizon area.

## III A physical interpretation of the building blocks

In previous work , it was suggested that the algebra of black holes observables, can be constructed from two basic operators (building blocks) $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$, satisfying the following commutation relation:

$`[\widehat{A},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\widehat{a},[\widehat{A},\widehat{b}]=a_0\widehat{b}`$ (8)
$`[\widehat{a}^{},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{b}]=1+\alpha \widehat{A}1+w\widehat{N}`$ (9)
$`[\widehat{a}^{},\widehat{b}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{a}]=0`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{N}\widehat{A}/a_0`$ is a dimenssionless number operator. The commutation relation between $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ may be complicated but it does not matter for our analysis because the degeneracy is determined by relations (8-10) only. It was shown that this algebra leads to exactly $`2^n`$ independent states with the same area eigenvalue $`a_0n`$. This degeneracy corresponds to the entropy of the black hole; in the next section the logarithmic correction term $`3/2\mathrm{ln}n`$ will be obtained.

The physical interpretation of the building blocks $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ may be found by comparison with other approaches. For example, in  it was shown that the algebraic approach and the approach involving quantization on a reduced phase space of collective coordinates of a black hole are similar. In the reduced phase space approach , one starts, still classically, with an effective action of the form

$$I=𝑑t\left(P_M\dot{M}H(M)\right)$$
(11)
where $`M`$ is the mass and $`P_M`$ its conjugate momentum (here we consider non-rotating, neutral black holes). The conjugate momentum $`P_M`$ has the interpretation of the difference between the Schwarzschild times at left and right infinities  and, according to Euclidean quantum gravity , it is periodic with a period which is inverse the Hawking temperature $`T_H`$. The canonical transformation

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`2M\mathrm{cos}(2\pi P_MT_H/\mathrm{})`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_X`$ $`=`$ $`2M\mathrm{sin}(2\pi P_MT_H/\mathrm{})`$ (13)
implies that the horizon area $`A=16\pi M^2`$ can be written in the form $`A=4\pi (X^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_X^2)`$. Thus, after quantization ($`X\widehat{X},\mathrm{\Pi }_X\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_X`$ where $`[\widehat{X},\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_X]=i\mathrm{}`$) the area observable exhibits an equally spaced area spectrum. Another way to obtain this result, is to perform the canonical transformation

$$(M,P_M)(A/8\pi ,\mathrm{\Theta })$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }\kappa P_M`$ and $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity. Note that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has periodicity of $`2\pi `$ and that it is the canonical conjugate of $`A/8\pi `$. Thus, after quantization $`A/8\pi `$ is represented by a number operator.

One can identify one of the building blocks, say $`\widehat{a}`$, with the creation operator $`1/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}(\widehat{X}i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_X)`$. However, how is the other building block included? In other words, where is the black hole entropy in all this? It was suggested in  to include another operator representing the internal degrees of freedom (similar to the “secret” operator described in ). In the following, we present another way to include the second building block.

Carlip and Teitelboim  have shown that the standard (Euclidean) action principle for the gravitational field implies that for spacetimes with black hole topology, the opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ at the horizon and the horizon area $`A/8\pi `$ are canonical conjugates. They have argued that the boundary term at the horizon, $`A\delta \mathrm{\Theta }`$, should supplement the canonical action just as the boundary term at infinity, $`M\delta T`$, does ($`TP_M`$, the time separation at spatial infinity, is the canonical conjugate to the ADM mass). Classically, $`A=16\pi M^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\kappa P_M`$ (see the last paragraph of this section); however, the above argument motivates us to consider (initially) $`M,P_M,A/8\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as if they were four independent parameters. Only at the end, after quantization, do we impose the classical relation. This technique has appeared also in our grand canonical approach . Adding to Eq. (13) the canonical transformation $`Y=\sqrt{A/4\pi }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_Y=\sqrt{A/4\pi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$, implies that

$`16\pi M^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (X^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_X^2)`$ (15)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (Y^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_Y^2).`$ (16)
Thus, after quantization, the two “building blocks” $`\widehat{a}1/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}(\widehat{X}i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_X)`$ and $`\widehat{b}1/\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}(\widehat{Y}i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_Y)`$ raise $`16\pi \widehat{M}^2`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$, respectively, by one unit. Since $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{M}`$ are considered independent, so are $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{Y}`$, and thus $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{b}]=0`$. However, since classically $`A`$ and $`M`$ are not independent, one must impose a certain condition relating $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{M}`$ (this is analogous to the requirement of zero hyperspin). After imposing this condition $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ no longer commute, in harmony with the algebraic approach . In this way we have obtained two building blocks: one is associated with the boundary at infinity through $`M`$ and $`P_M`$, and the other with the boundary at the horizon via $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Thus, by a comparison with the reduced phase space approach, we have found that there are exactly two building blocks, i.e. $`k=2`$.

It is interesting to note that the “opening angle” defined classically by Carlip and Teitelboim is related to $`M`$ and $`P_M`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\kappa P_M`$ <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*In Eq.( 14) $`\kappa P_M`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$; here we show that it is actually the “opening angle” defined by Teitelboim and collaborators. This follows from

$$1=\frac{1}{8\pi }\{A,\mathrm{\Theta }\}_{M,P_M}\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(\frac{A}{M}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{P_M}\frac{A}{P_M}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{M}\right),$$
(17)
where the Poisson brackets are taken with respect to the canonical coordinates $`(M,P_M)`$. Now, since $`A=16\pi M^2`$ is independent of $`P_M`$, Eq. (17) implies that $`\mathrm{\Theta }/P_M=8\pi M/A=\kappa `$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\kappa P_M`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has a period $`2\pi `$, the Euclidean time $`P_M`$ has a period $`2\pi /\kappa `$. In this way we derive the Hawking temperature, which according to finite temperature quantum field theory is equal to $`\mathrm{}`$ divided by the Euclidean period $`2\pi /\kappa `$.

## IV The hyperspin within the algebraic approach

In previous work , it was shown that the algebra of the two building blocks (see Eq. (8-10)) leads to $`2^n`$-fold degeneracy of the $`n`$-th area level. Thus, states with the same area eigenvalue $`na_0`$ could be represented in a binary form:

$$|x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n\widehat{x}_1\widehat{x}_2\mathrm{}\widehat{x}_n|\mathrm{vac}$$
(18)
where $`x_i=0\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ and correspondingly $`\widehat{x}_i`$ is either $`\widehat{a}`$ or $`\widehat{b}`$ ($`i=1,2,..,n`$). As we shall see in the following, not all the states in Eq. (18) correspond to zero hyperspin.

The commutation relations in Eq. (8-10) are invariant under the transformation:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}& u_{12}\\ u_{21}& u_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\end{array}\right)𝐮\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $`𝐮U(2)`$ is a 2-dimensional unitary matrix (here boldface indicates matrices). The group $`U(2)`$ can be written as a direct product of $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$, i.e. $`U(2)=U(1)\times SU(2)`$. It follows from Eq. (8) that

$`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{N})\widehat{a}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{N})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\widehat{a}`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{N})\widehat{b}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{N})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\widehat{b}.`$ (21)
Hence, the generator of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is the area operator $`\widehat{N}`$ itself. We shall denote the generators of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry by $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}=(\widehat{𝒥}_1,\widehat{𝒥}_2,\widehat{𝒥}_3)`$ and we shall call $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}`$ the (total) $`hyperspin`$ of the black hole. Thus, the hyperspin arise as a result of the symmetry between the two building blocks $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$. Since the hyperspin generates the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry,

$$[\widehat{𝒥}_i,\widehat{𝒥}_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{𝒥}_k.$$
(22)
The commutation relations between $`\widehat{𝒥}_k`$ $`(k=1,2,3)`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ (or $`\widehat{b}`$), can be deduced from the definition of $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}`$ as the generators of the symmetry group. That is,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒥}_k)\widehat{a}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒥}_k)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒥}_k)\widehat{b}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒥}_k)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \sigma _k)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
where $`\{\sigma _k\}`$ are the three Pauli matrices. Now, taking the derivative with respect to $`\theta `$ in both sides of Eq. (23), and then setting $`\theta =0`$ we find that:

$`[\widehat{𝒥}_1,\widehat{a}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{b},[\widehat{𝒥}_1,\widehat{b}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{a}`$ (24)
$`[\widehat{𝒥}_2,\widehat{a}]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{b},[\widehat{𝒥}_2,\widehat{b}]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{a}`$ (25)
$`[\widehat{𝒥}_3,\widehat{a}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{a},[\widehat{𝒥}_3,\widehat{b}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{b}.`$ (26)
These commutation relations determine the hyperspin uniquely. For example, the third component of the hyper-spin measure the difference between the number of $`a`$’s and the number of $`b`$’s divided by two; i.e.

$$\widehat{𝒥}_3=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{N}_a\widehat{N}_b),$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{N}_a\widehat{N}\widehat{N}_b`$ and $`\widehat{N}_b`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{N}_b|x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i\right)|x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n.$$
(28)
### A The hyperspin representation

The $`2^n`$ states defined in Eq. (18) span the Hilbert space of all states representing a black hole with an area $`a_0n`$. Here we would like to classify these states according to their hyperspin. Henceforth the states in the hyperspin representation will be denoted by $`|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s`$. Eq. (22) implies that $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒥_3`$ must be integers or half integers. Further, according to Eq. (27) the maximum possible value of $`𝒥_3`$ (and therefore of $`𝒥`$) is $`n/2`$. Thus, $`𝒥=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ (if $`n`$ is even) or $`𝒥=1/2,3/2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ (if $`n`$ is odd) and $`𝒥_3=𝒥,𝒥+1,\mathrm{},𝒥`$. The quantum number $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)1`$ distinguishes between states with the same area and the same hyperspin; $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ is the number of independent states with the same area level and the same hyperspin (later we shall see that $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ does not actually depend on $`𝒥_3`$). Thus, the set of states $`\{|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s\}`$ represents an orthonormal basis for the black hole Hilbert space.

We shall mention here that Eq. (27) also implies that for a given $`𝒥`$ the minimum $`n`$ is $`2𝒥`$. Therefore, the area spectrum can be written as

$$A_{l,𝒥}=a_0(l+2𝒥),$$
(29)
where $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. However, since the hyperspin of a black hole which was formed by a gravitational collapse is zero (see Sec. II and Sec. V) this spectrum coincide with Eq. (2).

The $`n=0`$ area level (the vacuum state $`|vac`$) has zero hyperspin and it is denoted here by $`|0,0,0,0`$. The $`n=1`$ area level has two independent states: $`|1,1/2,1/2,1|0\widehat{a}|vac`$ and $`|1,1/2,1/2,1|1\widehat{b}|vac`$.

The $`n=2`$ area level has 4 independent (orthonormal) states. One state with zero hyperspin and three with $`𝒥=1`$:

$`|2,1,1,1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2+w}}}|11`$ (30)
$`|2,1,0,1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4+2w}}}(|01+|10)`$ (31)
$`|2,1,1,1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2+w}}}|00`$ (32)
$`|2,0,0,1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2w}}}(|01|10).`$ (33)
Note that $`s=1`$ in all the states in Eq. (33) since $`g(n=2,𝒥,𝒥_3)=1`$ for all $`𝒥=0,1`$ $`𝒥_3=1,0,1`$. However, this is no longer true for $`n>2`$. For example, using the commutation relations (26), it can be shown that the two independent states $`|010|001`$ and $`|100|010`$ both have $`n=3,𝒥=1/2`$ and $`𝒥_3=1/2`$. We shall turn now to calculate explicitly the number of independent states with the same $`n`$ and $`𝒥`$.

### B Degeneracy in the hyperspin representation

First, we shall show that $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ is not a function of $`𝒥_3`$. In order to prove that, consider the $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ independent states

$$\{|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s\}_{s=0,1,\mathrm{},g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)1}$$

. As mentioned above, states with different $`s`$ are orthogonal. If $`𝒥_3\pm 𝒥`$ then $`\widehat{𝒥}_\pm |n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s0`$ for all $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)1`$ , where $`\widehat{𝒥}_\pm \widehat{𝒥}_1\pm i\widehat{𝒥}_2`$. Now, the third component of the hyperspin of all the $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ states

$$\{\widehat{𝒥}_+|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s\}_{s=0,1,\mathrm{},g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)1}$$

is $`𝒥_3+1`$. Furthermore, these states are also orthogonal because

$`n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s^{}|\widehat{𝒥}_+^{}\widehat{𝒥}_+|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s`$ $`=`$ $`n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s^{}|(\widehat{𝒥}^2\widehat{𝒥}_3^2\widehat{𝒥}_3)|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`(𝒥(𝒥+1)𝒥_3^2𝒥_3)n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s^{}|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s=0`$ (35)
for $`ss^{}`$. In the same way it can be shown that the $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)`$ states $`\{\widehat{𝒥}_{}|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,s\}`$ are all orthogonal with $`𝒥_31`$. Hence, $`g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3)=g(n,𝒥,𝒥_3+1)=g(n,𝒥,𝒥_31)g(n,𝒥)`$. Note that $`g(n,𝒥)`$ counts the number of states with the same $`n`$, $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒥_3`$, even though it does not depend on $`𝒥_3`$.

According to Eq. (27)

$$N_b=\frac{1}{2}n𝒥_3$$
(36)
because $`N_a+N_b=n`$. Thus, the number of independent states with the same area $`n`$ and the same $`𝒥_3`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{N_b}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n/2𝒥_3}\right)`$. For example, the maximum value of $`𝒥_3`$ is $`n/2`$, and in this case $`N_a=n`$ and $`N_b=0`$. Thus, there is only one independent state with area $`n`$ and with $`𝒥_3=n/2`$; that is the state $`|00\mathrm{}0`$. This implies that $`g(n,𝒥=n/2)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{0}\right)=1`$ because $`g(n,𝒥=n/2)g(n,𝒥=n/2,𝒥_3)`$ is independent of $`𝒥_3`$ and for $`𝒥=n/2`$ we can set (for convenience) $`𝒥_3=n/2`$.

The number of states with $`𝒥_3=n/21`$ ($`N_b=1`$) is equal to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)`$. Now, $`g(n,𝒥=n/2)`$ is the number of states with $`𝒥=n/2`$ and a particular $`𝒥_3`$; in particular it is also the number states with $`𝒥=n/2`$ and $`𝒥_3=n/21`$ (remember that $`g(n,𝒥=n/2)g(n,𝒥=n/2,𝒥_3)`$ for any $`𝒥_3`$). Therefore,

$$g(n,𝒥=n/21)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)g(n,𝒥=n/2)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{0}\right).$$
(37)
Similarly, in order to obtain $`g(n,𝒥=n/22)`$, we have to subtract from the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ states with the same $`𝒥_3=n/22`$ the number of states with $`𝒥=n/21`$ and $`𝒥=n/2`$. That is,

$`g(n,𝒥=n/22)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}}\right)g(n,𝒥=n/21)g(n,𝒥=n/2)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{0}}\right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{0}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{1}}\right),`$ (39)
Continuing in the same way, we find that

$$g(n,𝒥)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n/2𝒥}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{n/2(𝒥+1)}\right)=\frac{2𝒥+1}{m+𝒥+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2m}{m+𝒥}\right),$$
(40)
where $`mn/2`$. Note that by setting the hyperspin to zero Eq. (6) is obtained. In the Appendix we generalize Eq. (40) assuming the algebra is constructed from three building blocks.

The requirement that $`𝒥=0`$ implies that the states describing the black hole have a definite “parity”. In our algebra, the operator $`\widehat{p}`$ that exchanges the two building blocks is called the parity operator:

$$\widehat{p}|x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=|\overline{x}_1\overline{x}_2\mathrm{}\overline{x}_n,$$
(41)
where $`\overline{x}_i=1x_i`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$). It can be shown the the parity operator commutes with $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}^2`$ but anticommutes with $`\widehat{𝒥}_3`$. Therefore, the only states with definite $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒥_3`$ that have a definite parity are states with zero hyperspin. Also in the framework of the canonical quantization of a Schwarzschild black hole  it was shown that the relevant quantum states that exhibit the equally spaced area spectrum have a definite parity. Hence, imposing on the quantum states the requirement of a definite parity is translated in our approach as the requirement that the hyperspin is zero.

## V Discussion

Most (and perhaps all) of the observables in physics, such as momentum, angular momentum and energy arise from some symmetry transformations. The hyperspin defined in the previous sections is also derived in the same manner. In the algebra addressed in the previous paper , we have used two building blocks $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$. The symmetry between $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ implies the existence of the hyperspin. In harmony with the heuristic approach it is an observable which represents a global quantum number of the black hole.

In our algebra we have obtained the “maximum” symmetry between the two building blocks; i.e. $`U(2)`$ symmetry. We cannot obtain a larger group because there are only two building blocks. In the Appendix, we discuss the algebra of three building blocks, which, therefore, has a larger symmetry. It is very natural that in the construction of an algebra describing the inner structure of a black hole some other global quantum numbers will appear. The question is then, how can it live in peace with the “no hair” principles?

The only way to resolve this issue is to set the hyperspin to zero. Since we consider here a neutral non-rotating black hole, the hyperspin cannot represent the angular momentum (or charge) of the black hole. Further, the entropy will not be a function just of the horizon area if one considers the hyperspin as the angular momentum. Similar arguments imply that the hyperspin cannot represent quantum numbers like charm or strangeness of ordinary matter; otherwise it must be very small to be compatible with the classical limit. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the hyperspin represents a quantum number which does not exist in ordinary matter. The conservation of the hyperspin then implies that a black hole which was formed by a gravitational collapse of ordinary matter must have zero hyperspin.

Hawking showed very convincingly that at the semi-classical level, where the gravitational field is treated classically but the matter fields exterior to the black hole are quantized, black holes radiate all kinds of particles with spectrum of a black body. If these particles do not possess hyperspin, but the black hole does, the Hawking radiation must cease at the point when the horizon area becomes equal to the hyperspin (see Eq. (29)). Thus, eternal black holes which do not radiate can have $`𝒥1`$. Of course, this hyperspin can not be measured by an observer outside the black hole.

We conclude that the hyperspin cannot represents a quantum number of ordinary matter. Instead, it might represent a global feature of the $`D_0`$-branes in $`M`$-theory, the Wilson lines in the Ashtekar approach, or a quantum number attached to the patches described in the heuristic approach.

## VI Acknowledgments

I would like to thank J. Bekenstein for his guidance and support. This research was partly supported by grant No. 129/00-1 of the Israel Science Foundation and by a Clore Foundation fellowship. The author is also grateful for the Killam Trust for its financial support.

## A The algebra of three building blocks

The algebra of two building blocks (8)-(10) can be generalized to that with three building blocks. Adding another building block, say $`\widehat{c}`$, one must assume the following commutation relations:

$`(1)[\widehat{A},\widehat{c}]`$ $`=`$ $`a_0\widehat{c}`$ (A1)
$`(2)[\widehat{c}^{},\widehat{c}]`$ $`=`$ $`1+w\widehat{N}`$ (A2)
$`(3)[\widehat{c}^{},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{c}^{},\widehat{b}]=0`$ (A3)
These commutation relations follows from the same arguments that led to Eq. (8-10) (see ), and together with Eq. (8-10) constitute the totality algebra of three building blocks. The algebra is invariant under the transformation:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\\ \widehat{c}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}v_{11}& v_{12}& v_{13}\\ v_{21}& v_{22}& v_{23}\\ v_{31}& v_{32}& v_{33}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\\ \widehat{c}\end{array}\right)𝐯\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\\ \widehat{c}\end{array}\right),$$
(A4)
where $`𝐯U(3)U(1)\times SU(3)`$ is a 3-dimensional unitary matrix. The generator of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is the area operator $`\widehat{N}`$ itself.

The group $`SU(3)`$ has 8 generators which are denoted here by $`\widehat{𝒢}_k`$ $`(k=1,2,\mathrm{},8)`$ (a basis of the $`SU(3)`$-Lie algebra generalizing the Pauli matrices is given by the 8 Gell-Mann matrices ). The commutation relations between $`\widehat{𝒢}_k`$ $`(k=1,2,\mathrm{},8)`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ (or $`\widehat{b}`$), can be deduced from

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\widehat{a}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\widehat{b}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\\ \mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\widehat{c}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \widehat{𝒢}_k)\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \lambda _k)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}\\ \widehat{b}\\ \widehat{c}\end{array}\right),$$
(A5)
where $`2\{\lambda _k\}`$ are the eight Gell-Mann matrices that generalizing the Pauli matrices . The first three generators $`𝒢_1`$, $`𝒢_2`$ and $`𝒢_3`$ satisfy the same commutation relations given in Eq. (26) if one replace $`𝒥_k`$ by $`𝒢_k`$ for $`k=1,2,3`$. Therefore, we shall identify the first three generators with the hyperspin, i.e. $`𝒢_k𝒥_k`$ for $`k=1,2,3`$. In addition, from Eq. (A5) it follows that the third building block $`\widehat{c}`$ commutes with the hyperspin ($`[\widehat{c},\stackrel{}{𝒥}]=0`$).

Further, Eq. (A5) implies that the eight generator $`𝒢_8\widehat{Y}`$ (similar to the hypercharge in the standard model) commutes with the hyperspin and satisfies the commutation relations:

$$[\widehat{Y},\widehat{a}]=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\widehat{a},[\widehat{Y},\widehat{b}]=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\widehat{b}\mathrm{and}[\widehat{Y},\widehat{c}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\widehat{c}.$$
(A6)
That is, $`\widehat{Y}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(\widehat{N}_a+\widehat{N}_b2\widehat{N}_c)`$.

We can define $`3^n`$ states with the same area just as in Eq. (33), except that now $`x_i`$ can have the values $`1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ or $`1`$ and correspondingly $`\widehat{x}_i`$ is either $`\widehat{a}`$, $`\widehat{b}`$ or $`\widehat{c}`$. It can be shown that all the $`3^n`$ states are independent (for two building blocks see the proof in ). Now, since $`\widehat{N}`$, $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}^2`$, $`\widehat{𝒥}_3`$ and $`\widehat{Y}`$ all commute with each other, we can write the $`3^n`$ black hole states in the form $`|n,𝒥,𝒥_3,Y,s`$, where $`𝒥=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ (if $`n`$ is even) or $`𝒥=1/2,3/2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ (if $`n`$ is odd), $`𝒥_3=𝒥,𝒥+1,\mathrm{},𝒥`$, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\sqrt{3}Y=n,n+3,n+6,\mathrm{},2n`$ and $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},g(n,𝒥,Y)1`$ where $`g(n,𝒥,Y)`$ is the number of states with the same area, hyperspin $`𝒥,𝒥_3`$ and “hypercharge” $`Y`$.

By using the same technique that led to Eq. (40), one can show that

$$g(n,𝒥,Y)=\frac{2𝒥+1}{\eta +y+𝒥+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3\eta }{\eta +y𝒥}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2\eta y+𝒥}{\eta 2y}\right),$$
(A7)
where $`\eta n/3`$ and $`yY/\sqrt{3}`$. Now, since the hyperspin $`𝒥`$ and also $`Y`$ are zero (see Sec. V), the degeneracy of the $`n`$th area level is given by:

$$g(n)=\frac{1}{1+\eta }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3\eta }{\eta }\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2\eta }{\eta }\right),$$
(A8)
where we set $`𝒥=Y=0`$ in Eq. (A7). Using Stirling’s formula, in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$

$$g(n)\frac{3^n}{n^2}.$$
(A9)
Hence, in the case of three building blocks the leading correction term to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is $`2\mathrm{ln}n`$.


text:
# The speed of light need not be constant

## Abstract

Recent observations of the fine structure of spectral lines in the early universe have been interpreted as a variation of the fine structure constant. From the assumed validity of Maxwell equations in general relativity and well known experimental facts, it is proved that $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are absolute constants. On the other hand, the speed of light need not be constant.

There have recently been indications that the fine structure of spectral lines in the early universe differs from its usual properties . This has been interpreted as a slow change in the fine structure constant over cosmological times, and there is a lively controversy  whether this is due to variations of $`e`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, or $`c`$. In this note it is proved, from the validity of Maxwell equations in general relativity and well known experimental facts, that $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are absolute constants. On the other hand, the speed of light need not be constant.

It is often stated that the speed of light is exactly 299 792 458 m/sec , owing to a 1983 decision of Comité International des Poids et Mesures on how to define the unit of length “meter” . However, this administrative decision raises serious issues . Such a way of defining length implies that there must be synchronized clocks at the extremities of the measured object in order to determine the corresponding time interval. Synchronization is best performed by light signals  so that we effectively have a circular definition. Einstein himself wrote, after the first equation of his historic paper, “we assume that this definition of synchronization is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points.” Contradictions naturally appear in non-inertial coordinate systems. For example, if we are serious in measuring distance by means of the elapsed time for light signals, then the circumference of the Earth at the equator is 123.9m longer if measured eastward than if measured westward .

Genuine gravitional fields cause even more difficulties. Again quoting Einstein : “the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.” Serious practical difficulties indeed have to be overcome for setting the global positioning system (GPS) . In summary, the legal value of $`c`$ is not in general the actual speed of electromagnetic signals. The only meaning of this exact, invariant, official speed of light is to serve for writing Lorentz transformations, if there is any need of them.

Let us briefly examine some alternatives. Can $`\mathrm{}`$ change? Planck’s constant is more than just a conversion factor between Joules and Hertz. Quantum systems are not localized, they are pervasive. In particular, entangled systems may be spread over arbitrary distances. A value of $`\mathrm{}`$ varying in spacetime would necessitate a complete revision of quantum theory. Can the electric charge vary? It is a historical accident that Coulomb’s law of force between macroscopic charges was discovered before it was known that the electric charges of all particles are integral multiples of $`e`$ (or $`e/3`$ if we include quarks). This indicates that we should define $`e=1`$ as the unit of charge (this is a natural unit, not a conversion factor). A more formal proof of constancy will be given below.

We must therefore have a closer look at $`c`$. It cannot be a mundane conversion factor. Time is not a fourth dimension of space. Relativistic transformations never change the nature of timelike and spacelike intervals; important information is lost if we ignore the difference. Likewise, in the gravity field of the Earth, the vertical and horizontal directions are not equivalent. Airlines measure them in feet and miles, respectively. The use of different length units may be advantageous in dimensional analysis: it is easily seen that a trajectory with initial velocities $`(v_x,v_h)`$ must be a parabola $`h=av_h(x/v_x)+bg(x/v_x)^2`$. (A complete dynamical calculation gives $`a=1`$ and $`b=1/2`$.)

In general relativity, all four coordinates may have different dimensions and the constant $`c`$ does not appear at all in the fundamental equations (it may appear in particular solutions, once sources that are not generally covariant have been specified with arbitrary units). In the early universe, where background radiation cannot be ignored, Lorentz invariance does not hold. There is a preferred frame. It is then plausible that, in such an environment, the “vacuum” behaves as a dielectric medium where the speed of light is different from its ideal value .

In this paper, I shall not use the full machinery of general relativity, but only the invariance of the fundamental equations under arbitrary nonlinear coordinate transformations. Einstein’s gravitational equations are not used, Newton’s constant $`G`$ does not appear, so that Planck units, whatever they mean, are not involved. The only assumption is the validity of Maxwell’s equations

$$F_{\mu \nu ,\rho }+F_{\nu \rho ,\mu }+F_{\rho \mu ,\nu }=0,$$
(1)
and

$$^{\mu \nu }{}_{,\nu }{}^{}=𝒥^\mu ,$$
(2)
where the covariant antisymmetric tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ corresponds to the field components usually called E and B, and the contravariant antisymmetric tensor density $`^{\mu \nu }`$ corresponds to D and H. Commas denote partial derivatives (not covariant derivatives) and $`𝒥^\mu `$ is a vector density. The existence of a metric is not needed for the above form of Maxwell’s equations. Lorentz invariance is irrelevant to them. The metric appears only in the relation between $`F`$ and $``$ which is, in vacuo,

$$^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \rho }g^{\nu \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }.$$
(3)
This form of Maxwell equations was first written by Einstein . Later, they were again derived by Weyl  and Brillouin  who systematically developed the notion of densities and capacities. It has even been proposed to consider $`F`$ and $``$ as the fundamental fields, and the metric, defined by Eq. (3), as a derived quantity .

An apparent difficulty, which will actually turn into a powerful tool, is the fact that spacetime coordinates may have different dimensions (time, length, angles, and so on). Then likewise the components of $`F`$ have different dimensions, and also those of $``$. The notion of absolute dimension of a tensor was introduced by Schouten  and Post . As a simple example, consider the electric charge

$$Q=𝒥^\mu 𝑑S_\mu ,$$
(4)
where $`dS_\mu `$ is an element of a three-dimensional hypersurface, such as $`dxdydz`$ or $`drd\theta d\varphi `$. Therefore $`dS_\mu `$ transforms as a covariant vector capacity, so that $`Q`$ is invariant under arbitrary coordinate dimensions, and we say that the absolute dimension of $`𝒥`$ is \[Q\]. It is also the absolute dimension of $``$, owing to Eq. (2). It follows that the electronic charge $`e`$ is invariant, as we already found by a more intuitive reasoning.

As we have seen, dimensional analysis is an important tool for studying nature and deriving useful results. Dimensional analysis also applies to absolute dimensions: they must be the same on both sides of any equation. Consider now Eq. (1). It states that there are no magnetic charges and guarantees the local existence of a covariant vector field $`A_\mu `$ such that

$$F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\mu ,\nu }A_{\nu ,\mu }.$$
(5)
For any given closed path, the value of the magnetic flux,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=A_\mu 𝑑x^\mu ,$$
(6)
is a scalar (i.e., it is invariant under any coordinate transformations). It follows that the absolute dimension of $`F`$ is that of magnetic flux, namely \[action/charge\]. Now, it is experimentally known that in some superconductors , flux appears in integral multiples of $`h/2e`$. This is the natural unit of flux, just as $`e`$ is the natural unit of charge. It follows that $`\mathrm{}`$ is an absolute constant, in agreement with the intuitive argument presented above.

There is no similar argument for the constancy of $`c`$ (or for mass ratios of elementary particles, and other important “constants”). It is plausible that in the early universe, when matter and radiation were much more concentrated than today, atomic energy levels were different from those of truly isolated atoms, in a way analogous to the chemical shift of nuclear energy levels in the Mössbauer effect . However this phenomenon is not yet understood, and more work, theoretical and experimental, is needed. We may then hope that more precise observations on the fine structure of spectral lines will give information on the properties of the cosmic environment in early universe.

I am grateful to Friedrich Hehl and Rafael Porto for many helpful comments on my preceding communication . This work was supported by the Gerard Swope Fund and the Fund for Promotion of Research.


text:
# A remark on Global existence for small initial data of the minimal surface equation in Minkowskian space time

## 1.Introduction

We show that the nonlinear wave equation corresponding to the minimal surface equation in Minkowski space time

$$\frac{}{t}\frac{\varphi _t}{\sqrt{1+|_x\varphi |^2\varphi _t^2}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{}{x^i}\frac{\varphi _i}{\sqrt{1+|_x\varphi |^2\varphi _t^2}}=0$$
$`1.1`$
where $`\varphi _i=\varphi /x^i`$, $`\varphi _t=\varphi /t`$, has global solutions for sufficiently small initial data:

$$\varphi |_{t=0}=\epsilon f,\varphi _t|_{t=0}=\epsilon g$$
$`1.2`$
$`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. (1.1)-(1.2) has for fixed $`f`$ and $`g`$ a solution for all $`t0`$ if $`\epsilon >0`$ is sufficiently small. This is an interesting model in Lorentzian geometry proposed to me by Hamilton\[Ha1\]. It is also the equation for a membrane, in field theory, see Hoppe\[Ho1\]. Also Huisken and Struwe\[HS1\] have some recent results related to local existence for (1.1).

What makes the proof go through also in the physically important case of two space dimensions ($`\varphi `$ itself corresponds to the third space dimension) is that the nonlinear terms satisfies the so called ”null condition” of Christodoulou\[C1\] and Klainerman\[K2, K4\]. The purpose of this note is to present two simple proofs making use of the extra symmetries of the equation. The first proof uses a version of the method of \[K2\], that works also in two space dimensions. For equations in divergence form we can get a good $`L^2`$ estimate for the solution itself, see \[L1\], that replaces the conformal energy estimate used in \[K2\]. The second proof uses a simplified version \[C2\] of the method of \[C1\] and it works also in one space dimension due to that the equation satisfies a ”double null condition”, see (1.5). The first proof does not work in the case of one space dimension but it has the advantage that it does not require compact support of initial data but merely some decay at infinity.

Let

$$\mathrm{}=_t^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_i^2,\text{and}Q_{00}(\varphi ,\psi )=\varphi _t\psi _t\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\varphi _i\psi _i$$
$`1.3`$
be a null form. We can write (1.1) as a wave equation with a right hand side in divergence form

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =_t\left(\varphi _tF(Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_i\left(\varphi _iF(Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))\right),$$
$`1.4`$
where $`F(Q)=1+1/\sqrt{1Q}`$. We can alternatively write it with null forms

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{Q_{00}(\varphi ,Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))}{2(1Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))}$$
$`1.5`$
The idea behind the proofs is that we expect solutions of the nonlinear wave equation to decay like solutions of the linear homogeneous wave equation $`\mathrm{}\varphi =0`$, i.e. $`|^\alpha \varphi |C\epsilon (1+t)^{(n1)/2}`$. This will make the right hand sides of the nonlinear wave equations small for large $`t`$ and hence these equations will be close to the homogeneous case so we can close the argument. What makes the proof go through in the lower dimensional case is that for a null form there is an additional cancellation which leads to an additional decay of a factor of $`(1+t)^1`$: $`|^\alpha Q(\varphi ,\varphi )|C\epsilon ^2(1+t)^{(n1)1}`$.

## 2. The proof using vector fields

The idea of this argument is to exploit that solutions of linear wave equations $`\mathrm{}v=0`$ satisfies the decay estimate, see e.g. \[Hö2\],

$$|v(t,x)|C(f,g)\epsilon (1+t+|x|)^{(n1)/2}(1+|t|x||)^{(n1)/2},$$
$`2.1`$
where $`C(f,g)`$ is a constant depending on some weighted Sobolev norm of initial data $`(f,g)`$. We will use vector fields to obtain this kind of decay. For $`(t,x)^{1+n}`$ denote $`_t`$ by $`_0`$ and $`_{x_j}`$ by $`_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}=\lambda _jx_j_k\lambda _kx_k_j,\text{for}ij,\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}x_j_j$$
$`2.2`$
where $`\lambda =(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ and $`x_0=t`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}`$, for $`(j,k)(0,0)`$ are the vector fields associated with the Lorentz group that all commute with $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}`$ is the scaling vector fields whose commutator is $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00},\mathrm{}]=2\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will symbolically stand for any of the vector fields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ or $`_j`$, $`i,j=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ and we will write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^I`$ for a product of $`|I|`$ of such vector fields. We note that $`[_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}]`$ is either $`0`$ or else equal to $`\pm _l`$ for some $`l`$. The operators $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}\}`$ span the tangent space at every point where $`t|x|`$. But when $`t=|x|`$ they only span the tangent space of the cone $`t=|x|`$, so we have, see \[K1, 2\], \[Hö1, 2\] or \[L1\];

$$|\varphi |C(|t|x||)^1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\varphi |,|\varphi |C(t+|x|)^1\left(|x||_t\varphi |+|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\varphi |\right),$$
$`2.3`$
where $`|w|^2=_0^n|_jw|^2`$. Now we also need to calculate the commutator of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a null form $`Q`$. However in these commutators other null forms than (1.3) will come up. For $`0i,jn`$ and $`ij`$ let

$$Q_{ij}(\varphi ,\psi )=(_i\varphi )_j\psi (_j\varphi )_i\psi ,$$
$`2.4`$
Let $`Q`$ symbolically stand for any of the null forms (1.3) or (2.4). Then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }Q(\varphi ,\psi )=Q(\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi ,\psi )+Q(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )+a_{ij}Q_{ij}(\varphi ,\psi )$$
$`2.5`$
for some constants $`a_{ij}`$. For a null form we have better decay close to the light cone, see\[K1, 2\]

$$|Q(\varphi ,\psi )|C(1+|t|+|x|)^1\left(|\varphi ||\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi |+|\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi ||\psi |\right)$$
$`2.6`$
where here $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi |^2=_{|I|=1}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi |^2`$. The decay of $`\varphi `$ will be obtained from that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi `$ also satisfies nonlinear wave equations of the same form. Applying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^I`$ to (1.4) we get

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi =\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}_j\left(\underset{\frac{}{k3,|I_1|+\mathrm{}+|I_k||I||I_i||I|/2,i<k,|I_k||I|}}{}F_{jki_1\mathrm{}i_kI_1\mathrm{}I_k}(Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))(_{i_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1}\varphi )(_{i_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_2}\varphi )\mathrm{}(_{i_k}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_k}\varphi )\right)$$
$`2.7`$
Similarly, from (1.5) we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi +\frac{Q_{00}(\varphi ,Q_{00}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi ))}{1+Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi )}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\frac{}{k3,|I_1|+\mathrm{}+|I_k||I|+1},}{}\\ \hfill |I_i|(|I|+1)/2,i<k,|I_k||I|G_{ki_1\mathrm{}i_kI_1\mathrm{}I_k}(Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))(_{i_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1}\varphi )(_{i_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_2}\varphi )\mathrm{}(_{i_k}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_k}\varphi )\end{array}$$
$`2.8`$
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi \hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\frac{}{k3,|I_1|+\mathrm{}+|I_k||I|}}{}H_{I_1\mathrm{}I_k}^{ki_0\mathrm{}i_k}(Q_{00}(\varphi ,\varphi ))Q_{i_0i_1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_1}\varphi ,Q_{i_2j_3}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_2}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_3}\varphi ))Q_{i_4i_5}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_4}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_5}\varphi )\mathrm{}Q_{i_{k1}i_k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_{k1}}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_k}\varphi )\end{array}$$
$`2.9`$
where $`k`$ is odd and if $`k=3`$ then this is to be interpreted as that the factor $`Q_{i_4i_5}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_4}\varphi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{I_5}\varphi )`$ is absent.

The proof will use the energy inequality applied to derivatives of the solution and some decay estimates. The energy inequality, see \[K3\] or \[Hö2\], for a solution of

$$\text{ }\text{  }\text{ }w+\underset{j,k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma ^{jk}(t,x)_j_kw=F,|\gamma |=|\gamma ^{jk}|\frac{1}{2}$$
$`2.10`$
says that

$$w(t,)_{L^2}2\mathrm{exp}(_0^t2|\gamma ^{}(\tau )|𝑑\tau )w(0,)||_{L^2}+2_0^t\mathrm{exp}(_s^t2|\gamma ^{}(\tau )|𝑑\tau )F(s,)_{L^2}𝑑s,$$
$`2.11`$
where $`|\gamma ^{}(t)|=_{i,j,k}sup|_i\gamma ^{jk}(t,)|`$. It was not stated exactly like this in \[Hö2\] but (2.11) follows from the proof of the version there. As a consequence of the energy inequality we also have the following estimate: If

$$\text{ }\text{  }\text{ }w=\underset{0}{\overset{n}{}}_jF_j,w|_{t=0}=\epsilon f,w_t|_{t=0}=\epsilon g$$
$`2.12`$
then

$$w(t,)_{L^2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}_0^tF_j(s,)_{L^2}𝑑s+C(f,g,F_0(0,))m(t)\epsilon $$
$`2.13`$
where $`m(t)=1`$ if $`n3`$, $`m(t)=\mathrm{log}(2+t)`$ if $`n=2`$ and $`C(f,g,F_0(0,))`$ stands for some constant depending on some weighted Sobolev norm of initial data $`f`$ and $`g`$. The proof is a trick used in \[L1\]; if $`\mathrm{}v_j=F_j`$ then $`\mathrm{}(w_jv_j)=0`$ so $`w(t,)_{L^2}`$ is bounded by $`v_j(t,)_{L^2}`$, which can be estimate by the energy inequality (2.11), plus the norm for a solution of a linear homogeneous equation, which can be obtained from e.g. (2.1). We will also need an $`L^1L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimate of Hörmander\[Hö1\], (see also Klainerman\[K1, 2\] for an earlier version and \[L1\] for a simple proof): The solution $`w`$ of

$$\text{ }\text{  }\text{ }w=F,w|_{t=0}=\epsilon f,w_t|_{t=0}=\epsilon g$$
$`2.14`$
satisfies

$$|w(t,x)|C(1+t+|x|)^{(n1)/2}(\underset{|I|n1}{}_0^t||(\mathrm{\Gamma }^IF)(s,)/(1+s+||)^{(n1)/2}||_{L^1}ds+C(f,g)\epsilon )$$
$`2.15`$
Here the estimate for the linear homogeneous part, the second term, is (2.1). Whereas the proof of the energy inequality is merely integration by parts the proofs of the decay estimates (2.15) and (2.1) requires a detailed analysis of the fundamental solution or stationary phase.

Let $`N2n+1`$ and $`\delta =0`$, if $`n3`$, and $`0<\delta <1/2`$ fixed,if $`n=2`$. We will now prove that

$`M_1(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{|I|N}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi (t,)_{L_2}K\epsilon (1+t)^\delta ,`$ $`2.16`$$`2.17`$$`2.18`$$`2.19`$
$`M_2(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{|I|N}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^I\varphi (t,)_{L_2}K\epsilon (1+t)^\delta ,`$
$`N_1(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{|J|(N+1)/2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^J\varphi (t,)_L^{\mathrm{}}K\epsilon (1+t)^{(n1)/2},`$
$`N_2(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{|J|(N+1)/2+1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^J\varphi (t,)_L^{\mathrm{}}K\epsilon (1+t)^{(n1)/2},`$
if $`K`$ is sufficiently large and $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small. We observe that the bound for $`N_1`$ is a consequence of the bound for $`N_2`$ since in particular we can take one factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$. (2.11) applied to (2.8) gives

$$M_1(t)C\epsilon \mathrm{exp}(_0^tN_1(\tau )^2𝑑\tau )+_0^t\mathrm{exp}(_s^tN_1(\tau )^2𝑑\tau )C(N_1(s))N_1(s)^2M_1(s)𝑑s$$
$`2.20`$
and (2.13) applied to (2.7) gives

$$M_2(t)C\left(C(f,g)m(t)\epsilon +_0^tC(N_1(s))N_1(s)^2M_1(s)𝑑s\right)$$
$`2.21`$
Finally, (2.15) applied to (2.9) using (2.6) and Cauchy Schwartz inequality gives

$$N_2(t)C(1+t)^{(n1)/2}\left(C(f,g)\epsilon +_0^t\frac{(N_1(s)+N_2(s))}{(1+s)^{(n1)/2+1}}(M_1(s)+M_2(s))^2𝑑s\right)$$
$`2.22`$
if $`(N+1)/2+1+n1N`$, i.e. $`N2n+1`$. What will make the argument work also for $`n=2`$ is that the null condition gave an extra power of $`(1+s)^1`$ in the integral (2.22). In fact because we have a double null condition we actually have one more power but we have no use of this here. The rest of the argument is now by continuity. We know that (2.16)-(2.19) are true for $`t=0`$ if $`K`$ is large enough and we know from the local existence theorem for hyperbolic equations, see e.g. \[Hö2\], that these quantities are continuous as long as they are bounded. We now assume that $`T_1`$ is the largest number such that (2.16)-(2.19) are true for $`tT_1`$ and show that these bounds together with (2.20)-(2.22) implies stronger bounds if $`K`$ is sufficiently large and $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small. Hence by continuity we conclude that the bounds (2.16)-(2.19) must hold for $`tT_2`$ where $`T_2>T_1`$, contradicting the maximality of $`T_1`$. To simplify notation, let us now only deal with the most sensitive case $`n=2`$. Then

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(_s^tN_1(\tau )^2𝑑\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(K^2\epsilon ^2_s^t(1+\tau )^1𝑑\tau \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(K^2\epsilon ^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+t}{1+s}\right)\right)=\left(\frac{1+t}{1+s}\right)^{K^2\epsilon ^2}$$
$`2.23`$
so it follows from (2.20):

$$M_1(t)C\epsilon (1+t)^{K^2\epsilon ^2}+_0^tC\epsilon ^3K^3\left(\frac{1+t}{1+s}\right)^{K^2\epsilon ^2}(1+s)^{\delta 1}𝑑sK\epsilon (1+t)^\delta /2$$
$`2.24`$
if $`K`$ is sufficiently large and $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small. Similarly, from (2.21) we get

$$M_2(t)C\epsilon \mathrm{log}(2+t)+_0^tK^3\epsilon ^3(1+s)^{\delta 1}𝑑sK\epsilon (1+t)^\delta /2$$
$`2.25`$
if $`K`$ is sufficiently large and $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small. Finally from (2.22) we get

$$N_2(t)C(1+t)^{1/2}\left(\epsilon +_0^tK^3\epsilon ^3(1+s)^{2\delta 2}𝑑s\right)K\epsilon (1+t)^{1/2}/2$$
$`2.26`$
if $`K`$ is sufficiently large and $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small since $`0<\delta <1/2`$. This concludes the proof.

## 3. The proof using conformal inversion

We will reduce the global problem to a local problem, for which small data existence is known, using a conformal inversion or Kelvin transform. Let $`\kappa :^{1+n}(s,y)(t,x)^{1+n}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ be defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi \kappa \rho ^\alpha ,x^i=\kappa ^i(s,y)=y^i/\rho ,\rho =s^2|y|^2,\alpha =\frac{n1}{2},$$
$`3.1`$
where $`x^0=t`$ and $`y^0=s`$. Let $`m_{ij}=m^{ij}`$ be the Minkowski metric $`m_{00}=1`$, $`m_{ii}=1`$ if $`j1`$ and $`m_{ij}=0`$ if $`ij`$. Then $`_i\kappa ^k=\delta _i^k/\rho 2y^jy^km_{ij}/\rho ^2`$. If the metric in the $`x`$ coordinates is $`m_{ij}`$ then the pull-back metric in the $`y`$ coordinates is given by

$$g_{ij}=m_{kl}(_i\kappa ^k)_j\kappa ^l=m_{ij}/\rho ^2,g^{ij}=m^{ij}\rho ^2$$
$`3.2`$
Then the norm is invariant: $`g^{ij}(_i\varphi \kappa )_j\psi \kappa =m^{ij}\varphi _i\kappa \psi _j\kappa `$ where $`_i\varphi \kappa =\varphi \kappa /y^i`$ and $`\varphi _i=\varphi /x^i`$, i.e. if $`Q_{00}`$ is the null form (1.3) then

$$Q_{00}(\varphi ,\psi )\kappa =\rho ^2Q_{00}(\varphi \kappa ,\psi \kappa ).$$
$`3.3`$
Expressing $`\mathrm{}`$ in the $`y`$ coordinates we get

$$(\mathrm{}\varphi )\kappa =\mathrm{}_g(\varphi \kappa )=(detg)^{1/2}_i\left(g^{ij}(detg)^{1/2}_j\varphi \kappa \right)=\rho ^{n+1}m^{ij}_i\left(\rho ^{(n1)}_j\varphi \kappa \right)$$
$`3.4`$
Since the operator $`\mathrm{}_g(n1)R/4n`$, where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, is conformally covariant and the scalar curvature in both cases vanishes, we obtain

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\rho ^{\alpha 2}(\mathrm{}\varphi )\kappa $$
$`3.5`$
This is also follows from (3.4) by an easy calculation using that $`\mathrm{}\rho ^\alpha =0`$. Hence by (1.5), (3.5) and (3.3)

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\rho ^\alpha \frac{Q_{00}(\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^2Q_{00}(\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi }))}{1\rho ^2Q_{00}(\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi })}$$
$`3.6`$
Since $`m^{ij}(_i\stackrel{~}{\psi })_j\rho =2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}=s_s+y^i_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\rho =2\rho `$ we obtain

$$Q_{00}(\rho ^\beta \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^\gamma \stackrel{~}{\psi })=\rho ^{\beta +\gamma 1}\left(\rho Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\psi })+2\beta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\psi })+2\gamma \stackrel{~}{\psi }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+4\gamma \beta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\psi }\right),$$
$`3.7`$
Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=2Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })2Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$. Using (3.7) twice we see that we can factor out $`\rho ^{3\alpha }`$ from $`Q_{00}(\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^2Q_{00}(\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi },\rho ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi }))`$ so (3.6) has the general form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\rho ^{2\alpha }\frac{\rho ^2Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi }))+\rho c_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\rho c_2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{1\rho ^{2\alpha }\left(\rho ^2Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+4\alpha \rho (\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right)}\hfill \\ \hfill +\rho ^{2\alpha }\frac{\rho (c_3\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+c_4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(c_5\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2+c_6\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+c_7(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2)}{1\rho ^{2\alpha }\left(\rho ^2Q_{00}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+4\alpha \rho (\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right)}\end{array}$$
$`3.8`$
for some constants $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_7`$. We can write this as

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\rho ^{n1}\left(\rho B^{ij}(s,y,\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })_i_j\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+T(s,y,\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right),\rho =s^2|y|^2,$$
$`3.9`$
where $`B^{ij}`$ and $`T`$ are smooth functions of $`(s,y)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$ vanishing to second respectively third order at $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=(0,0)`$; $`|B^{ij}(s,y,\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })|C(|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|+|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|)^2`$ and $`|T(s,y,\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\varphi })|C(|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|+|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|)^3`$. The importance of (3.9) is that it is nonsingular at $`\rho =0`$.

Having derived the transformation of the equation let us explain in what region it is applied. The transformation $`\kappa `$ maps the interior of the forward light cone $`\{(s,y);s>|y|\}`$ onto itself $`\{(t,x);t>|x|\}`$ and the boundary $`\{(s,y);s=|y|\}`$ to infinity. Its inverse $`\kappa ^1(t,x)=(t/(t^2|x|^2),x/(t^2|x|^2))=(s,y)`$ maps forward light cones $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\{(t,x);t|x|c>0\}`$ into backward light cones $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c=\{(s,y);s+|y|1/c,s|y|0\}`$ intersected with $`\{(s,y);s|y|\}`$. The inverse is smooth on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ since $`t^2|x|^2c^2>0`$ there. Note also that hyper planes $`\stackrel{~}{}_b=\{(s,y);s=1/2b,|y|1/2b\}`$ are transformed to hyperboloids $`_b=\{(t,x);(tb)^2|x|^2=b^2\}`$. We will now use this transformation in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ which by the inverse is mapped to the compact region $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c`$ where we can use the standard local existence theorem for (3.9) to, after transforming back, obtain a global solution of our original equation (1.5) in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. Let us now explain how we can reduce it to a problem in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. First by scaling, $`\varphi _a(t,x)=\varphi (at,ax)/a`$ is a solution of (1.5) if $`\varphi `$ is, so we may assume that data (1.2) are supported in the set $`\{x;|x|1\}`$. Secondly, we can translate the solution in the time direction so initial conditions are attained when $`t=a>1`$. By the local existence theorem we have, if initial data when $`t=a`$ are sufficiently small, a solution $`\varphi `$ to (1.5), for $`|ta|a`$, and it is as small as we wish there. Furthermore, by Huygens’ principle the solution vanishes outside the forward light cone $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a1}`$, for $`ta`$. We now want to show that the solution $`\varphi `$ of (1.5) extends to a solution in all of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a1}`$ for $`ta`$ by showing that we have a local solution $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ of (3.9) in the compact set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{a1}`$. We will now describe how to obtain initial conditions for (3.9). We pick a particular hyperboloid $`_b`$, where $`b=(a1/a)/2>0`$, that intersects with the plane $`t=a`$ exactly when $`|x|=1`$, and that is transformed by the inverse of $`\kappa `$ to the plane $`\stackrel{~}{}_b`$. The intersection of $`_b`$ with the support of $`\varphi `$, $`_b^1=\{(t,x)_b;|x|1\}`$, is contained it the forward light cone $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a1}`$ intersected with the set where $`ta`$. Hence we have a smooth solution $`\varphi `$ on $`_b^1`$ which is as small as we wish there and which vanishes on $`_b_b^1`$. It follows that $`\varphi `$ and its derivatives restricted to $`_b`$ are transformed onto smooth initial conditions for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}_b`$, which are as small as we wish. The local existence theorem with these initial conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{}_b`$ gives us a smooth solution $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ of (3.9) in $`\{(s,y);s1/2b,s|y|\}`$ and hence in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{a1}`$ for $`s1/2b`$, if initial conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{}_b`$ are sufficiently small. Transforming back gives us a global smooth solution $`\varphi `$ of (1.5) in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{a1}`$ and hence for all $`ta`$. This concludes the proof.

### Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Demetri Christodoulou, Richard Hamilton and Jim Isenberg for stimulating discussions.