text:
# Global Strichartz estimates for solutions to the wave equation exterior to a convex obstacle

## 1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to show that certain local Strichartz estimates for solutions to the wave equation exterior to a nontrapping obstacle can be extended to estimates that are global in both space and time. In , Smith and Sogge proved this result for odd spatial dimensions $`n3`$. Here, we extend this result to all spatial dimensions $`n3`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the exterior domain in $`^n`$ to a compact obstacle and $`n3`$ is an even integer, we are looking at solutions to the following wave equation

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u(t,x)=_t^2u(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }u(t,x)=F(t,x),(t,x)\times \mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & \\ u(0,x)=f(x)\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \\ _tu(0,x)=g(x)\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \\ u(t,x)=0,x\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the complement in $`^n`$ to a compact set contained in $`\{|x|R\}`$ with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ boundary. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nontrapping in the sense that there is a $`T_R`$ such that no geodesic of length $`T_R`$ is completely contained in $`\{|x|R\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The case $`\mathrm{\Omega }=^n`$ is permitted.

We say that $`1r,s2p,q\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ are admissible if the following two estimates hold.

Local Strichartz estimates. For $`f,g,F(t,)`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$, solutions to (1.1) satisfy

(1.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}u_{L_t^pL_x^q([0,1]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{0t1}{sup}u(t,)_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{0t1}{sup}_tu(t,)_{H_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(f_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{H_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s([0,1]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right).\end{array}$$

Global Minkowski Strichartz estimates. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }=^n`$, solutions to (1.1) satisfy

(1.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}u_{L_t^pL_x^q(^{1+n})}+\underset{t}{sup}u(t,)_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}+\underset{t}{sup}_tu(t,)_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}+g_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}\right).\end{array}$$

Additionally, for technical reasons we need to assume $`2>r`$ and $`\gamma (n1)/2`$.

The global Minkowski Strichartz estimate (1.3) is a generalization of the work of Strichartz . The local Strichartz estimates (1.2) for solutions to the homogeneous ($`F=0`$) wave equation in a domain exterior to a convex obstacle were established by Smith and Sogge in . In , Smith and Sogge demonstrated that a lemma of Christ and Kiselev  (see also  for a proof) could be used to establish local estimates for solutions to the nonhomogeneous problem.

While the arguments that follow are valid in any domain exterior to a nontrapping obstacle, it is not currently known whether the local Strichartz estimates (1.2) hold if the obstacle is not convex. Related eigenfunction estimates are, however, known to fail if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a point of convexity.

We note here that $`p,q,r,s,\gamma `$ are admissible in the above sense if the obstacle is convex, $`n3`$,

$$q,s^{}<\frac{2(n1)}{n3};\frac{1}{p}+\frac{n}{q}=\frac{n}{2}\gamma =\frac{1}{r}+\frac{n}{s}2$$

$$\frac{1}{p}=\left(\frac{n1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{q}\right);\frac{1}{r^{}}=\left(\frac{n1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{s^{}}\right)$$

where $`r^{},s^{}`$ represent the conjugate exponents to $`r,s`$ respectively. In particular, notice that we have admissibility in the conformal case

$$p,q=\frac{2(n+1)}{n1};r,s=\frac{2(n+1)}{n+3};\gamma =\frac{1}{2}.$$

Additionally, we note that it is well-known (see, e.g., ) that in the homogeneous case ($`F=0`$) the Global Minkowski Strichartz estimate (1.3) holds if and only if $`n2`$, $`2p\mathrm{}`$, $`2q<\mathrm{}`$, $`\gamma =\frac{n}{2}\frac{n}{q}\frac{1}{p}`$, and

(1.4)
$$\frac{2}{p}\frac{n1}{2}\left(1\frac{2}{q}\right)$$

Thus, (1.4) provides a necessary condition for admissibility.

The main result of this paper states that for such a set of indices a similar global estimate holds for solutions to the wave equation in the exterior domain.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Suppose $`n3`$. If $`p,q,r,s,\gamma `$ are admissible and $`u`$ is a solution to the Cauchy problem (1.1), then

$$u_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right).$$

Throughout the sequel, we will focus on the case $`n4`$. The techniques herein can be modified to handle the $`n=3`$ case, but since this case was previously handled by Smith-Sogge  and since this complicates the exposition, we choose not to provide these details.

The key differences between the general case and the odd dimensional case are the lack of strong Huygens’ principle and the fact that the local energy no longer decays exponentially. Local energy decay and the homogeneous Sobolev spaces $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ will be discussed in more detail in the next section.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we will discuss the homogeneous Sobolev spaces and the local decay of energy. In the third section, we will establish our main estimates in Minkowski space. These include certain weighted Strichartz estimates for the homogeneous wave equation with compactly supported data in free space. In the fourth section, we give an alternate proof of a mixed norm estimate of Smith and Sogge  which is valid in all spatial dimensions. Finally, in Section 5, we prove Theorem (1.1).

At the final stage of preparation, we learned that N. Burq  has independently obtained the results from this paper using a slightly different method.

It is a pleasure to thank C. Sogge for his guidance and patience during this study. The author would also like to thank the referee for several helpful suggestions.

## 2. Energy Estimates

We begin here with a few notes on the homogeneous Sobolev spaces $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The homogeneous Sobolev norms, $`\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)`$, are given by

$$f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}=(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }})^\gamma f_{L^2(^n)}.$$

For functions supported on a fixed compact set, the homogeneous Sobolev space $`\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)`$ are comparable to the inhomogeneous Sobolev space $`H^\gamma (^n)`$. Moreover, for $`\gamma <\frac{n}{2}`$, the homogeneous Sobolev spaces $`\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)`$ are preserved under multiplication by smooth cutoff functions.

Fixing a smooth cutoff function $`\beta C_c^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\beta (x)1`$ for $`|x|R`$, for $`|\gamma |<n/2`$, we are able to define

$$f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}=\beta f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+(1\beta )f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a compact manifold with boundary containing $`B_R=\mathrm{\Omega }\{|x|R\}`$. In particular, notice that for functions (or distributions) supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$, we have $`f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}=f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}`$.

Functions $`f\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ satisfy the Dirichlet condition $`f|_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=0`$ (when this makes sense). With the Dirichlet condition fixed, we may define the spaces $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ in terms of eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is compact, we have an orthonormal basis of $`L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, $`\{u_j\}H_D^1(M)C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_j=\lambda _ju_j`$ where $`0<\lambda _j\mathrm{}`$. Thus, for $`\gamma 0`$, it is natural to define

$$\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})=\{vL^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}):\underset{j0}{}|\widehat{v}(j)|^2\lambda _j^\gamma <\mathrm{}\}$$

where $`\widehat{v}(j)=(v,u_j)`$. The $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ norm is given by

$$v_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}^2=\underset{j}{}|\widehat{v}(j)|^2\lambda _j^\gamma .$$

Defining $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ for $`\gamma <0`$ in terms of duality, it is not difficult to see that the above characterization for the norm also holds for negative $`\gamma `$. Additionally, we mention that

$$v_{\dot{H}_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}^2=v^{}_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}^2$$

and for $`r<s`$,

$$v_{\dot{H}_D^r(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}^2Cv_{\dot{H}_D^s(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}^2.$$

See, e.g.,  for further details. Notice that by defining $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ in this way, it builds in the necessary compatibility conditions on the data. For example, when $`\gamma 2`$, we must have that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^jf|_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=0`$ for $`2j\gamma `$.

At this point, we may define $`H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ similarly. That is, let

$$f_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}=\beta f_{H_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+(1\beta )f_{H^\gamma (^n)}.$$

Note that since $`\lambda _0>0`$, we have $`\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})=H_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Also, notice that for functions $`u`$ supported in $`|x|<R`$, $`u_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}u_{H_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}`$.

One of the key results that will allow us to establish the global estimates from the local estimates and the global Minkowski estimates is local energy decay. It is this result that requires the nontrapping assumption on the obstacle. In odd dimensions, we are able to get exponential energy decay: see Taylor , Lax-Philips , Vainberg , Morawetz-Ralston-Strauss , Strauss , and Morawetz . In even spatial dimensions, the decay is significantly less. The version that we will use in this paper is

Local energy decay. For $`n4`$ even, data $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$, $`0\gamma `$, and $`\beta (x)`$ smooth, supported in $`\{|x|R\},`$ there exist $`C<\mathrm{}`$ such that for solutions to (1.1) where $`F=0`$ the following holds

(2.1)
$$\beta u(t,)_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+\beta _tu(t,)_{H_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}C|t|^{n/2}\left(f_{H_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{H_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right).$$

This is a generalized version of the results of Melrose . Before showing how we can derive this generalized version of local energy decay, we would like to mention here the related works of Morawetz , Ralston , and Strauss .

Notice that for $`\gamma <n/2`$, the Sobolev norms in (2.1) may be replaced with the homogeneous Sobolev norms.

Proof of Equation (2.1). By density, we may, without loss of generality, assume that $`f,g`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. When $`n4`$ is even, Melrose  was able to show that a solution to the homogeneous ($`F=0`$) Cauchy problem (1.1) outside a nontrapping obstacle with data $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$ must satisfy

(2.2)
$$_{B_R}|u(t,x)|^2𝑑x+_{B_R}(_tu(t,x))^2𝑑xCt^n\left(|f|^2𝑑x+|g|^2𝑑x\right)$$

where $`B_R=\{|x|R\}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`u`$ can be controlled locally by $`_xu`$, (2.2) implies

(2.3)
$$\beta ()u(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tu(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+g_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right).$$

Since $`[\mathrm{},_t]=0`$ and $`_t`$ preserves the support of the data and the boundary condition, we have that $`u_t(t,x)`$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u_t(t,x)=0,(t,x)\times \mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \\ u_t(0,x)=g(x),\hfill & \\ _tu_t(0,x)=\mathrm{\Delta }f(x),\hfill & \\ u(t,x)=0,x\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Thus, by (2.2) and the fact that $`\mathrm{}u=0`$, we have

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta ()u_t(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()\mathrm{\Delta }& u(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & =\beta ()u_t(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()u_{tt}(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & Ct^{n/2}\left(g_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right)\hfill \\ & =Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{H_D^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+g_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, by elliptic regularity, (2.3), and the monotonicity in $`\gamma `$ of the norms $`_{H_D^\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}`$, we see that

(2.5)
$$\beta ()u(t,)_{H_D^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tu(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{H_D^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+g_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right).$$

If we look similarly at $`u_{tt},u_{ttt},`$ etc., we see that

(2.6)
$$\beta ()u(t,)_{H_D^s(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tu(t,)_{H_D^{s1}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{H_D^s(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+g_{H_D^{s1}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\right)$$

for any positive integer $`s`$. By complex interpolation and the characterization of the Sobolev spaces given above, this yields (2.1) for any $`\gamma 1`$.

We now work to obtain (2.1) with $`\gamma <1`$. To do so, let $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ be the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{g}(x)=g(x),\hfill & \text{in }\{|x|R\}\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{g}(x)=0,\hfill & \text{on }\{|x|=R\}\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Fix a smooth cutoff function $`\chi (x)`$ with $`\chi (x)1`$ on $`\text{supp }g`$ and $`\text{supp }\chi \{|x|<R\}`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\chi \stackrel{~}{g})=g+\psi $$

where $`\psi C_c^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and by elliptic regularity,

(2.7)
$$\psi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}Cg_{H_D^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}.$$

If $`v`$ is the solution to

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}v(t,x)=0\hfill & \\ v(0,x)=\chi (x)\stackrel{~}{g}(x)\hfill & \\ _tv(0,x)=f(x)\hfill & \\ v(t,x)=0,x\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & \end{array}$$

since $`[\mathrm{},_t]=0`$, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}_tv(t,x)=0\hfill & \\ _tv(0,x)=f(x)\hfill & \\ _t^2v(0,x)=\mathrm{\Delta }(\chi (x)\stackrel{~}{g}(x))\hfill & \\ _tv(t,x)=0,x\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Thus, by (2.2) and (2.7), we have

(2.8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta ()_tv(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()& _t^2v(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & C\beta ()\mathrm{\Delta }v(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tv(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & C\beta ()v(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tv(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & Ct^{n/2}\left(\chi (x)\stackrel{~}{g}(x)_{H_D^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}+f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)\hfill \\ & Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{H_D^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`u_tv`$ also solves a homogeneous wave equation with $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ data

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}(u_tv)=0\hfill & \\ (u_tv)(0,)=0\hfill & \\ (_tu_t^2v)(0,)=\psi \hfill & \\ (u_tv)(t,x)=0,\text{for }x\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill & \end{array}$$

we have

(2.9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta ()(u_tv)(t,)& _{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()(_tu_t^2v)(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & \beta ()(u_tv)(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()(_tu_t^2v)(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\hfill \\ & Ct^{n/2}\psi _{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ & Ct^{n/2}g_{H_D^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining (2.8) and (2.9), it follows easily that

(2.10)
$$\beta ()u(t,)_{L^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\beta ()_tu(t,)_{H_D^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Ct^{n/2}\left(f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{H_D^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right).$$

Finally, if we interpolate with (2.3), we see that we obtain (2.1) for $`0\gamma 1`$ which completes the proof. ∎

## 3. Weighted Minkowski Estimates

In this section we show that weighted versions of the Minkowski Strichartz estimates for solutions to the homogeneous wave equation can be obtained when the initial data are compactly supported. Specifically, we are looking at the homogeneous free wave equation

(3.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}w(t,x)=_t^2w(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }w(t,x)=0,(t,x)\times ^n,\hfill & \\ w(0,x)=f(x)H^\gamma (^n),\hfill & \\ _tw(0,x)=g(x)H^{\gamma 1}(^n).\hfill & \end{array}$$

where the Cauchy data $`f,g`$ are supported in $`\{x^n:|x|<R\}`$.

We begin by showing that one can obtain weighted versions of the energy inequality. Here we need only slightly modify the arguments of Hörmander  (Lemma 6.3.5, p. 101) and Lax-Philips  (Appendix 3).

###### Lemma 3.1.

Suppose that $`n3`$. Let $`w(t,x)`$ be a solution to the homogeneous Minkowski wave equation (3.1) with smooth initial data $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$. Then, the following estimate holds

$$(t|x|)^2\left(\left|_xw(t,x)\right|^2+(_tw(t,x))^2\right)𝑑xC_R\left(\left|f\right|^2+|g|^2dx\right)$$

Proof. It is not difficult to check that

$$\text{div}_xp+_tq=N(w)\mathrm{}w$$

where

$`N(w)`$ $`=4t(xw)+2(r^2+t^2)w_t+2(n1)tw`$
$`p`$ $`=2tw_t^2x4t(xw)w+2t\left|w\right|^2x`$
$`2(r^2+t^2)w_tw2(n1)tww`$
$`q`$ $`=4t(xw)w_t+(r^2+t^2)\left(\left|w\right|^2+w_t^2\right)+2(n1)tww_t(n1)w^2.`$
If we integrate over a cylinder $`[0,T]\times \{x^n:|x|\overline{R}\}`$ for $`\overline{R}`$ sufficiently large, Huygens’ principle and the divergence theorem gives us that:

(3.2)
$$_{t=T}q𝑑x_{t=0}q𝑑x=0.$$

Here, since the initial data are compactly supported, we have

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{t=0}q𝑑x& =_{t=0}r^2\left(\left|_xw(0,x)\right|^2+w_t(0,x)^2\right)(n1)w(0,x)^2dx\hfill \\ & C_R\left(\left|f\right|^2+|g|^2dx\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, let us introduce the standard invariant vector fields

$$Z_0=t_t+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_j_j,Z_{0k}=t_k+x_k_t,Z_{jk}=x_k_jx_j_k$$

for $`j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Notice that

(3.4)
$$_{t=T}q𝑑x=_{t=T}\left(\left|Z_0w\right|^2+\underset{0j<kn}{}\left|Z_{jk}w\right|^2+2(n1)tww_t(n1)w^2\right)𝑑x$$

Applying Lemma 6.3.5 of Hörmander  (p. 101), we see that (3.2)-(3.4) yield

(3.5)
$$Z_0w(t,)_{L^2(^n)}^2+\underset{j<k}{}Z_{jk}w(t,)_{L^2(^n)}^2C_R\left(\left|f\right|^2+|g|^2dx\right).$$

Thus, we see that in order to complete the proof, it suffices to show that

$$(tr)^2\left(w_t^2+\left|w\right|^2\right)𝑑xZ_0w_{L^2(^n)}^2+\underset{0j<kn}{}Z_{jk}w_{L^2(^n)}^2.$$

Since the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives us that $`\left|w\right|w_r`$ and since $`4trw_tw_r2tr(w_t^2+w_r^2)`$, we have

$`Z_0w_{L^2(^n)}^2+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0j<kn}{}}Z_{jk}w_{L^2(^n)}^2={\displaystyle (t^2+r^2)\left(w_t^2+\left|w\right|^2\right)}+4trw_tw_rdx`$
$`={\displaystyle (tr)^2\left(w_t^2+\left|w\right|^2\right)}+2trw_t^2+2tr\left|w\right|^2+4trw_tw_r`$
$`{\displaystyle (tr)^2\left(w_t^2+\left|w\right|^2\right)}`$
as desired. ∎

Next, we look at the weighted analog of the dispersive inequality when the initial data have compact supports.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose $`n2`$. Let $`w`$ be a solution to the homogeneous Minkowski wave equation (3.1) with initial data $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$. Then, we have

(3.6)
$$(|t||x|)^{(n1)/2}w(t,x)_{L_x^{\mathrm{}}(\{|t||x|2R\})}\frac{C_R}{|t|^{(n1)/2}}\left(f_{L^2(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right),$$

(3.7)
$$(|t||x|)^{(n+1)/2}_tw(t,x)_{L_x^{\mathrm{}}(\{|t||x|2R\})}\frac{C_R}{|t|^{(n1)/2}}\left(f_{L^2(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right).$$

Additionally, for any $`n4`$,

(3.8)
$$(|t||x|)^\theta w(t,x)_{L_x^2(\{|t||x|2R\})}C_{R,\theta }\left(f_{L^2(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right)$$

for any $`\theta <1`$.

We note that (3.8) holds for any $`\theta <1/2`$ when $`n=3`$. This is sufficient to yield the results in the sequel for $`q>2`$. Since, however, the $`n=3`$ case was handled by Smith and Sogge  and since this would complicate the argument, we choose not to provide the details here.

Proof. By scaling, we may assume that $`R=1`$. For simplicity, we will demonstrate the result for $`t>0`$.

Begin by writing $`w=w_1+w_2`$, where $`w_1`$ is a solution of the homogeneous Minkowski wave equation (3.1) with Cauchy data $`(w,w_t)|_{t=0}=(f,0)`$ and $`w_2`$ is a solution of the Minkowski wave equation (3.1) with Cauchy data $`(w,w_t)|_{t=0}=(0,g)`$. It will, thus, suffice to show that the estimate holds for $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ separately. Since the arguments are the same for each piece, we will restrict our attention to showing that the estimate holds for $`w_2`$, the more technical piece.

From equations (5.43) and (5.48) of  (p. 222), we have that

(3.9)
$$w_2(t,x)=R(t,)g$$

where

(3.10)
$$R(t,x)=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}c_n\mathrm{Im}(|\mathrm{x}|^2(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\epsilon )^2)^{(\mathrm{n}1)/2}.$$

Thus, since $`g`$ is supported in $`\{|x|<1\}`$, we can apply the Schwarz inequality to see

$$|w(t,x)|C\left(_{|y|1}|R(t,xy)|^2𝑑y\right)^{1/2}g_{L^2(^n)}C_n\underset{|y|1}{sup}|R(t,xy)|g_{L^2(^n)}.$$

Since $`|x||t|2`$ and $`|y|1`$, we have that $`t^2|xy|^2t^2|x|^2`$. Thus, by (3.10), we have

$$\underset{|y|1}{sup}|R(t,xy)|C|t|^{(n1)/2}(|t||x|)^{(n1)/2}$$

which completes the proof of (3.6). Since it is easy to see

$$\underset{|y|1}{sup}|_tR(t,xy)|C|t|^{(n1)/2}(|t||x|)^{(n+1)/2},$$

we also get (3.7).

For (3.8), we again use (3.9) and (3.10) to see that

$$\begin{array}{c}(|t||x|)^\theta w(t,x)_{L_x^2(\{|t||x|2\})}\hfill \\ \hfill C(t|x|)^\theta \frac{1}{(t^2|xy|^2)^{(n1)/2}}g(y)𝑑y_{L^2(\{t|x|2\})}.\end{array}$$

Since $`|y|1`$ and $`t|x|2`$, we have that the right hand side is controlled by

$$C\frac{1}{(t+|xy|)^{(n1)/2}(t|xy|)^{((n1)/2)\theta }}g(y)𝑑y_{L^2(\{t|x|2\})}.$$

By Young’s inequality, this is dominated by

$$C\frac{1}{(t+|x|)^{(n1)/2}}\frac{1}{(t|x|)^{((n1)/2)\theta }}_{L^2(\{t|x|1\})}g_1.$$

Since $`g`$ is compactly supported, by the Schwarz inequality, we have that $`g_1Cg_2`$. We thus want to examine the $`L^2`$ norm of the kernal above. Writing this in polar coordinates, we see that the square of this norm is bounded by

$$_0^{t1}_{S^{n1}}\frac{1}{(t\rho )^{n12\theta }}𝑑\sigma (\omega )𝑑\rho .$$

This establishes (3.8) since this integral is bounded independent of $`t`$ for $`n4`$ and any $`\theta <1`$. ∎

From the previous three lemmas, we are able to derive a weighted Strichartz estimate for solutions to the Minkowski wave equation with compactly supported initial data.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Suppose $`n4`$ and $`p,q,\gamma `$ are admissible. Let $`w`$ be a solution to the homogeneous Minkowski wave equation (3.1) with Cauchy data $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|R\}`$. Then, for any $`\theta <1`$, we have the following estimate:

$$(|t||x|)^\theta w(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(^{1+n})}C_R\left(f_{H^\gamma (^n)}+g_{H^{\gamma 1}(^n)}\right).$$

Proof. By the Global Minkowski Strichartz estimate (1.3) and finite propogation speed, it will suffice to show the estimate in the case $`|t||x|2R`$. We will, also, stick to the case $`t0`$. Let $`S_t=\{x:t|x|2R\}`$.

By Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2, we have:

$`(t|x|)^\theta _tw(t,x)_{L_x^2(S_t)}`$ $`C\left(f_{H^1(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right)`$
$`(t|x|)^\theta _tw(t,x)_{L_x^{\mathrm{}}(S_t)}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{t^{(n1)/2}}}\left(f_{H^1(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right).`$
In the second inequality, we have used the monotonicity in $`\gamma `$ of $`H^\gamma `$. By Riesz-Thorin interpolation, we have

$$(t|x|)^\theta _tw(t,x)_{L_x^q(S_t)}C\left(\frac{1}{t^{(n1)/2}}\right)^{\left(1\frac{2}{q}\right)}\left(f_{H^1(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right).$$

Since by (1.4)

$$p\frac{n1}{2}\left(1\frac{2}{q}\right)>\frac{p}{2}\left(\frac{n1}{2}\left(1\frac{2}{q}\right)\right)1,$$

we see that taking the $`L_t^p`$ norm of both sides yields

(3.11)
$$(t|x|)^\theta _tw(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\{t2R\}\times S_t)}C\left(f_{H^1(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right)$$

for $`n3`$.

Similarly, we may interpolate between (3.6) and (3.8) to see that

(3.12)
$$(t|x|)^\theta w(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\{t2R\}\times S_t)}C\left(f_{L^2(^n)}+g_{L^2(^n)}\right)$$

for $`n4`$.

If we now argue as we did in obtaining (2.10) from (2.3), we see that (3.11) and (3.12) yield

(3.13)
$$(t|x|)^\theta w(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\{t2R\}\times S_t)}C\left(f_{L^2(^n)}+g_{\dot{H}^1(^n)}\right).$$

The result, then, follows from the monotonicity of the Sobolev norms. ∎

## 4. Mixed Estimates in Minkowski Space

In this section, as in Smith and Sogge , we collect a couple of results that follow from the fact that

(4.1)
$$\underset{\xi }{sup}|\xi |^{2\gamma }[\left|\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )\right|\delta (\tau |\eta |)d\eta ]C_{n,\gamma ,\beta }\tau ^{2\gamma }$$

if $`\beta `$ is a smooth function supported in $`\{|x|1\}`$ and $`0\gamma \frac{n1}{2}`$.

The first of these results is Lemma 2.2 of .

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`\beta `$ be a smooth function supported in $`\{|x|1\}`$. Suppose $`0\gamma \frac{n1}{2}`$. Then

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\beta ()e^{it\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}f()_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2𝑑tC_{n,\gamma ,\beta }f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2$$

The second result is an analog of a result in  that was shown in odd spatial dimensions. Here we require a different argument that does not rely on sharp Huygens’ principle.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`w`$ be a solution to the Cauchy problem for the Minkowski wave equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}w(t,x)=_t^2w(t,x)\mathrm{\Delta }w(t,x)=F(t,x),(t,x)\times ^n,\hfill & \\ w(0,x)=f(x),\hfill & \\ _tw(0,x)=g(x).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Suppose that the global Minkowski Strichartz estimate $`(1.3)`$ holds, that $`0\gamma \frac{n1}{2}`$, and that $`r<2`$. Then, for $`\beta `$ a smooth function supported in $`\{|x|1\}`$, we have

$$\underset{|\alpha |1}{sup}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\beta ()_x^\alpha w(t,)_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}^2𝑑tC\left(f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}+g_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}\right)^2.$$

Proof. If $`F=0`$, the result follows from Lemma 4.1. Thus, it will suffice to show that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\beta ()w(t,)_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2𝑑tCF_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}^2$$

when the initial data $`f,g`$ are assumed to vanish.

We begin by establishing that

$$TF(t,x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma \beta ()\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}F(s,)𝑑s$$

is bounded from $`L_t^rL_x^s(_+^{1+n})`$ to $`L_t^2L_x^2(^{1+n})`$. In other words, we want to show that

(4.2)
$$\beta ()\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}F(s,)𝑑x_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2𝑑tCF_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}^2$$

when $`F`$ is assumed to vanish for $`t<0`$.

By Strichartz estimate (1.3), we have

(4.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{|\eta |^{2\gamma }}{|\eta |^2}|\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )|^2𝑑\eta & =\frac{|\eta |^{2\gamma }}{|\eta |^2}\left|e^{is|\eta |}\widehat{F}(s,\eta )𝑑s\right|^2𝑑\eta \hfill \\ & \underset{t}{sup}|\eta |^{2\gamma }\left|_0^t\frac{e^{i(ts)|\eta |}}{|\eta |}\widehat{F}(s,\eta )𝑑s\right|^2𝑑\eta \hfill \\ & \underset{t}{sup}\left(w(t,)_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2+_tw(t,)_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}^2\right)\hfill \\ & CF_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}^2\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ denotes the space-time Fourier transform of $`F`$.

By Plancherel’s theorem in $`t,x`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta ()\frac{e^{i(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}F(s,)𝑑s_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2𝑑t=\hfill \\ \hfill _0^{\mathrm{}}|\xi |^{2\gamma }\left|\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )\delta (\tau |\eta |)\frac{1}{|\eta |}\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )𝑑\eta \right|^2𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau .\end{array}$$

By the Schwarz inequality in $`\eta `$, this can be bounded by

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}|\xi |^{2\gamma }\left(|\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )|\delta (\tau |\eta |)𝑑\eta \right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(|\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )|\delta (\tau |\eta |)\frac{1}{|\eta |^2}|\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )|^2𝑑\eta \right)d\xi d\tau .\end{array}$$

Applying (4.1), (4.3), and Young’s inequality, we see that

$`{\displaystyle }\beta ()`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}F(s,)ds^2_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}dt`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \tau ^{2\gamma }|\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )|\delta (\tau |\eta |)\frac{1}{|\eta |^2}|\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )|^2𝑑\eta 𝑑\xi 𝑑\tau }`$
$`={\displaystyle |\widehat{\beta }(\xi \eta )|\frac{|\eta |^{2\gamma }}{|\eta |^2}|\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )|^2𝑑\eta 𝑑\xi }`$
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{|\eta |^{2\gamma }}{|\eta |^2}|\stackrel{~}{F}(|\eta |,\eta )|^2𝑑\eta }`$
$`CF_{L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})}^2.`$
By a similar argument, we can show that the same bound holds for

$$\beta ()\frac{e^{i(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}F(s,)𝑑s_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}^2𝑑t$$

which establishes (4.2). By duality, this is equivalent to having

$$T^{}F:L_t^2L_x^2(^{1+n})L_t^r^{}L_x^s^{}(^{1+n})$$

bounded, where

$$T^{}F=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(st)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ()\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma F(s,)𝑑s.$$

We wanted to show, instead, that

$$WF:L_t^rL_x^s(^{1+n})L_t^2L_x^2(^{1+n})$$

is bounded, where

$$WF(t,x)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma \beta ()_0^t\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ts)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}F(s,)𝑑s.$$

By duality, this is equivalent to showing that

$$W^{}F:L_t^2L_x^2(^{1+n})L_t^r^{}L_x^s^{}(^{1+n})$$

where

$$W^{}F(t,x)=_t^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(st)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ()\mathrm{\Lambda }^\gamma F(s,)𝑑s.$$

This, however, follows from (4.2) after an application of the following lemma of Christ and Kiselev  (see also ). ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be Banach spaces and assume that $`K(t,s)`$ is a continuous function taking its values in $`B(X,Y)`$, the space of bounded linear mappings from $`X`$ to $`Y`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{}a<b\mathrm{}`$ and $`1p<q\mathrm{}`$. Set

$$Tf(t)=_a^bK(t,s)f(s)𝑑s$$

and

$$Wf(t)=_a^tK(t,s)f(s)𝑑s.$$

Suppose that

$$Tf_{L^q([a,b],Y)}Cf_{L^p([a,b],X)}.$$

Then,

$$Wf_{L^q([a,b],Y)}Cf_{L^p([a,b],X)}.$$

## 5. Strichartz Estimates in the Exterior Domain

By scaling, we may take $`R=\frac{1}{2}`$ in the sequel. We begin by proving a weighted version of Theorem 1.1 when the data and forcing terms are compactly supported.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Suppose $`n4`$, and suppose $`u`$ is a solution to the Cauchy problem (1.1) with the forcing term $`F`$ replaced by $`F+G`$, where $`F,G`$ are supported in $`\{|t|1\}\times \{|x|1\}`$ and the initial data $`f,g`$ are supported in $`\{|x|1\}`$. Then, for admissible $`p,q,r,s,\gamma `$, there exist a positive, finite constant $`C`$ so that the following estimate holds:

$$\begin{array}{c}(|t||x|+2)^\theta u(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}+G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑t\right).\end{array}$$

for any $`\theta <1`$.

Proof: We will establish the result for $`t0`$. We begin this proof in the same manner as in Smith-Sogge . Start by observing that by (1.2) and Duhamel’s principle, the result holds for $`t[0,1]`$ and by (1.2)

(5.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}u(1,)_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+_tu(1,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}+G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑t\right).\end{array}$$

By considering $`t1`$, finite propagation speed and support considerations allow us to take $`F=G=0`$ with $`f,g`$ supported in $`\{|x|2\}`$.

We now fix a smooth $`\beta `$ with $`\beta (x)=1`$ for $`|x|\frac{1}{2}`$, and $`\beta (x)=0`$ for $`|x|1`$. We, then, write $`u`$ as $`u=\beta u+(1\beta )u`$ and will examine these pieces separately.

We begin by looking at $`\beta u`$. Notice that

$$\mathrm{}(\beta u)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_j(x)_{x_j}u+c(x)u\stackrel{~}{G}(t,x)$$

where $`b_j,c`$ are supported in $`\frac{1}{2}|x|1`$. Since $`|t||x||t|`$, it will suffice to show

$$(t+2)^\theta \beta (x)u(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q([1,\mathrm{})\times \mathrm{\Omega })}C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right).$$

By the local Strichartz estimate (1.2), Duhamel’s principle, and local energy decay (2.1), we have

$`(t+2)^\theta `$ $`\beta (x)u(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q([1,\mathrm{})\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^p`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(j+3)^{p\theta }\beta (x)u(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q([j,j+1]\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^p`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(j+3)^{p\theta }(\beta ()u(j,)_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+\beta ()_tu(j,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _j^{j+1}}\stackrel{~}{G}(s,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}ds)^p`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(j+3)^{p\theta }}{(j+3)^{p(n/2)}}}\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)^p`$
$`=C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)^p`$
so long as $`\frac{n}{2}\theta >\frac{1}{p}`$. For $`n4`$, since $`p2`$, we have the above inequality provided $`\theta <\frac{n1}{2}`$.

For the $`v(t,x)=(1\beta )(x)u(t,x)`$ piece, we have that $`v`$ satisfies the Minkowski wave equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}v(t,x)=\stackrel{~}{G}(t,x)\hfill & \\ v(0,x)=(1\beta )(x)f(x)\hfill & \\ _tv(0,x)=(1\beta )(x)g(x).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Write $`v=v_0+v_1`$ where $`v_0`$ solves the homogeneous wave equation with the same Cauchy data as $`v`$ and $`v_1`$ solves the inhomogeneous wave equation with vanishing Cauchy data. Then, by Theorem 3.3, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}(t|x|+2)^\theta (1\beta )(x)u(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left((1\beta )(x)f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (^n)}+(1\beta )(x)g(x)_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}\right)\\ \hfill +(t|x|+2)^\theta v_1(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

When $`n4`$, we can handle the last piece easily using local energy decay. By Duhamel’s principle, write

$$(t|x|+2)^\theta v_1(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}=(t|x|+2)^\theta _0^tv_1(s;ts,x)𝑑s_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}$$

where $`v_1(s;,)`$ solves

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}v_1(s;t,x)=0\hfill & \\ v_1(s;0,x)=0\hfill & \\ _tv_1(s;0,x)=\stackrel{~}{G}(s,x).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Applying Minkowski’s integral inequality, we have

$$(t|x|+2)^\theta v_1(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}Cs^\theta (ts|x|+2)^\theta v_1(s;ts,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑s.$$

Thus, by Theorem 3.3, the right side is bounded by

$$s^\theta \stackrel{~}{G}(s,)_{\dot{H}^{\gamma 1}(^n)}𝑑s.$$

Finally, by local energy decay (2.1), we have that this is bounded by

$$Cs^{\theta \frac{n}{2}}\left(f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)𝑑sC\left(f_{\dot{H}^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\right)$$

for $`\theta <1`$.

We are now ready to prove the main theorem.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. By the previous lemma, it will suffice to show the result when $`f`$ and $`g`$ vanish for $`\{|x|1\}`$.

We begin by decomposing $`u`$ into

$$u(t,x)=u_0(t,x)v(t,x)$$

where $`u_0`$ solves the Minkowski wave equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}u_0(t,x)=F(t,x)\hfill & \\ u_0(0,x)=f(x)\hfill & \\ _tu_0(0,x)=g(x).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`F`$ is assumed to be $`0`$ on $`^n\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We now fix a smooth compactly supported $`\beta `$ such that $`\beta (x)=1`$ for $`|x|1/2`$ and $`\beta (x)=0`$ for $`x1`$. Then, further decompose $`u`$ into

$$u(t,x)=u_0(t,x)v(t,x)=(1\beta )(x)u_0(t,x)+(\beta (x)u_0(t,x)v(t,x)).$$

By the Global Minkowski Strichartz estimate (1.3), $`(1\beta )(x)u_0(t,x)`$ satisfies the desired estimate. Thus, we may focus on $`\beta (x)u_0(t,x)v(t,x)`$.

We have that $`\beta (x)u_0(t,x)v(t,x)`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{}(\beta (x)u_0(t,x)v(t,x))=\beta (x)F(t,x)+G(t,x)$$

with zero Cauchy data (since we are assuming that $`f,g`$ vanish for $`|x|1`$). Here

$$G(t,x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_j(x)_{x_j}u_0(t,x)+c(x)u_0(t,x).$$

where $`b_j,c`$ vanish for $`|x|1`$. By Lemma 4.2,

(5.2)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right)^2$$

Let

$`F_j(t,x)`$ $`=\chi _{[j,j+1]}(t)F(t,x)`$
$`G_j(t,x)`$ $`=\chi _{[j,j+1]}(t)G(t,x),`$
and write (for $`t>0`$)

$$\beta u_0v=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_j(t,x)$$

where $`u_j(t,x)`$ is the forward solution to

$$\mathrm{}u_j(t,x)=\beta (x)F_j(t,x)+G_j(t,x)$$

with zero Cauchy data.

Thus, by Lemma 5.1, we have

(5.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}(tj|x|+2)^\theta u_j(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill C\left(F_j(t,x)_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}+_j^{j+1}G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑t\right).\end{array}$$

Since $`u_j`$ is supported in the region $`tj|x|+21`$, an application of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality yields

$`|\beta (x)`$ $`u_0(t,x)v(t,x)|{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|u_j(t,x)|`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(tj|x|+2)^{2\theta }\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[(tj|x|+2)^\theta u_j(t,x)]^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$`C\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[(tj|x|+2)^\theta u_j(t,x)]^2\right)^{1/2}`$
since we can choose $`\theta >1/2`$.

Since $`1r,s2p,q`$, Minkowski’s integral inequality, (5.2), and (5.3) yield

$`\beta (x)u_0(t,x)`$ $`v(t,x)_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(tj|x|+2)^\theta u_j_{L_t^pL_x^q(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_j_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^2+C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _j^{j+1}}G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}𝑑t\right)^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F_j_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^2+C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle _j^{j+1}}G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2𝑑t\right)`$
$`CF_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}^2+C{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}G(t,)_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2𝑑t`$
$`C\left(f_{\dot{H}_D^\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega })}+g_{\dot{H}_D^{\gamma 1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+F_{L_t^rL_x^s(\times \mathrm{\Omega })}\right)^2`$
as desired. ∎


format: text

text:
# Coupling parameters and the form of the potential via Noether symmetry

## 1 Introduction

The importance of ‘Scalar Tensor Theory of Gravity’ is that both the

gravitational and the cosmological constants result from a single scalar field which is somehow coupled with the curvature scalar. Both these so-called constants are time dependent, dynamical quantities in the theory. Further, different unification schemes of fundamental interactions based on supergravity and superstring theories lead to scalar tensor theory of gravity in the weak energy limit . The theory is also supposed to produce successful phase transition and help to solve the problems regarding graceful exit and the density perturbations .

Brans-Dicke , being motivated to incorporate Mach’s Principle in general theory of relativity, were the first to present a simple form of the scalar tensor theory of gravity by means of a constant coupling parameter $`w`$. However, the experimental constraints on $`w`$, resulting from some classical tests of gravitation , naturally requires that $`w`$

should be a function of the scalar field $`\varphi `$, rather than a constant. The theory was thereafter generalized by Nordtvedt and Wagoner  to entertain arbitrary self interaction of the scalar field in addition to the dynamical coupling with gravity. The importance of the theory was increased by the work of Mathiazhagan and

Johri , where they proposed a revised model of the inflationary Universe under the framework of Brans-Dicke theory .A different form of scalar tensor theory was proposed by Zee  incorporating the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In that theory, which is known as the ‘Induced Theory of Gravity’, the form of the coupling with the scalar field with gravity is chosen as $`ϵ\varphi ^2`$ , where $`ϵ`$ is a dimensionless constant. Though it was suggested that the same symmetry breaking mechanism is responsible for breaking a unified gauge theory into the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions, yet such theory never goes over asymptotically to th e standard FRW model. Rather, it is much better to choose the non-minimally coupled theory in its standard form, which again arises as the low energy effective action of different string theories . In such theory, the coupling of the scalar field with gravity is taken as $`(1\zeta \varphi ^2)`$, where $`\zeta `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. It is apparent that if $`\varphi `$ admits

a solution that dies out with the cosmological evolution, the theory leads to the standard model with a minimally coupled scalar field.

All these Brans-Dicke, induced and non-minimally coupled theories of gravity are special cases of ‘Scalar Tensor Theory of Gravity’, which can be cast in such a general form that it even includes the Einstein-Hilbert action for a minimally coupled scalar field as a special case. The most general form of such a scalar tensor theory of gravity is

$$A=d^4x\sqrt{g}(f(\varphi )R\frac{w(\varphi )}{\varphi }\varphi ,_\mu \varphi ^,{}_{}{}^{\mu }V(\varphi )).$$
(1)
This form is the most general one, since for $`f(\varphi )=\varphi `$, it reduces to the Brans-Dicke form, for $`f(\varphi )=ϵ\varphi ^2`$, it takes the form of the induced theory of gravity, for $`f(\varphi )=1\zeta \varphi ^2`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, it is of the form of standard non-minimally coupled scalar field theory, for $`f(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{6}}`$ and $`w(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}`$, the conformally coupled theory can be obtained. Finally, for $`f(\varphi )=1/2`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{w(\varphi )}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ , it reduces to the form of Einstein-Hilbert action minimally coupled with a scalar field.

Essentially the form of the coupling parameters $`f(\varphi )`$, $`w(\varphi )`$

and the form of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ are not known a-priori and can not be obtained from the field equations. A new approach was initiated by de Ritis and coworkers (,  and the references therein) to find the forms of these parameters by demanding

that the Lagrangian admits Noether symmetry. As well known, the Noether theorem states that if there exists a vector field $`X`$, such that the Lie derivative of a given Lagrangian vanishes, then $`X`$ is a symmetry for the dynamics and generates a conserved current. The scheme was later carried out by Modak, Kamilya and Biswas  to find the form of $`w(\varphi )`$. However, until very recently, none considered the most general form of the action (1) that we are talking

of to get solution of the Einstein field Eqns. In  Fay studies the exsistence of symmetries for this action. Our results are more general, as we find exact solutions when possible. Moreover, in the following paragraphs we discuss the importance of considering such

a general form of the action .

It was a general belief that all the dynamical symmetries of a Lagrangian can be extracted by the application of Noether theorem. That it is not so has only recently been shown in a couple of publications by Sanyal and Modak  and Sanyal , (for a general discussion see ). It has been observed in  that in the Robertson-Walker metric the Noether symmetry makes the Lagrangian density (1) degenerate, if one looks for $`f(\varphi )`$ in closed form. Moreover, the forms of $`f(\varphi )`$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ thus obtained do not satisfy the field equations for $`k=\pm 1`$. This very strange situation that Noether symmetry does not satisfy the field equations has never been experienced before. However, if $`k=0`$, there is no such trouble. Field equations are well satisfied, degeneracy only leads to a constraint that has been analyzed and solutions to the field equations are found. The same work in the Kantowski-Sachs metric again reveals that the Lagrangian has to be degenerate, but here also the field equations are satisfied. Degeneracy has it’s usual feature that leads to a constraint, which can be analyzed, and solutions are obtained. It is thus clear that the very strange situation that we came across in the FRW metric for $`k=\pm 1`$ has nothing to do with degeneracy, but the reason of such outcome is still not known and

should be studied in order to understand Noether symmetry better. Moreover such degeneracy leads to the very unpleasant consequence of leading to

negative Newton’s gravitational constant.

Surprisingly enough, it was possible to explore some other type of symmetry in both the situations  and , which has nothing to do with Noether symmetry, and which does not make the Lagrangian to be degenerate. Such a situation when the symmetries are hidden and can not be explored by Noether theorem is rather new and demands that symmetries of a system should be studied thoroughly.

In the following section, we find the field equations for action (1). We shall also find a couple of equations from the field equations, one of

which is found to be elegant in finding the Noether conserved current. The importantce of the other equation is to study other forms of symmetry,

which can not be found by the application of Noether theorem. In Sec. 3, we apply Noether theorem and find the solutions of the equations thus produced. As already mentioned, it requires to make additional assumptions to obtain explicit solutions of the equations, which we do in Sec. 4. In this section we study the situation case by case, find the conserved current, express the Lagrangian in terms of the cyclic co-ordinates and find explicit solutions of the field equations. Sec. 5, is devoted to explore other forms of symmetries. In Sec. 6, we produce corresponding

results in the homogeneous, but anisotropic cosmological model, taking

Kantowski-Sachs metric as our starting point. Concluding remarks are made in Sec. 7.

## 2 Action and Field Equations

Our starting point, as already mentioned in the introduction , is the most general form of the scalar tensor theory of gravity, given by the

action (1). In ,  it is shown that,

by a suitable redefinition of the scalar field, it is possible to bring this action in the form of a general nonminimally coupled action. Thus it may appear that this kind of generalization is useless. The simplest way to justify it is by means of an example, which will be discussed in Sec.4, Case 2.

In the Robertson-Walker metric the Ricci scalar is $`R=6(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2})`$. In view of which the action takes the following form

$$A=\left(6a^2\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }f^{}6fa\dot{a^2}+6kfa+\frac{w}{\varphi }a^3\dot{\varphi }^2a^3V\right)𝑑t$$
(2)
It should be noted that the Lagrangian turns out to be degenerate if the Hessian determinant $`W=\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{^2L}{\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}=0`$. For the action (2) it is $`W=12a^4(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi })`$. Therefore the Lagrangian under consideration is degenerate under the condition

$$3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi }=0.$$
(3)
The field equations are

$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{f^{}}{f}\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f}\dot{\varphi ^2}+\frac{w\dot{\varphi ^2}}{2f\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}f^{}\dot{\varphi }}{af}+\frac{\dot{a^2}}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{V}{2f}=0$$
(4)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\frac{w\ddot{\varphi }}{3f^{}\varphi }+\left(\frac{w}{\varphi ^2}\frac{w^{}}{\varphi }\right)\frac{\dot{\varphi ^2}}{6f^{}}+\frac{\dot{a^2}}{a^2}\frac{w\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{f^{}a\varphi }+\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{V^{}}{6f^{}}=0$$
(5)
$$\frac{\dot{a^2}}{a^2}\frac{w}{6f}\frac{\dot{\varphi ^2}}{\varphi }+\frac{f^{}\dot{a}}{fa}\dot{\varphi }+\frac{k}{a^2}\frac{V}{6f}=0,$$
(6)
where, dot stands for derivative with respect to time and prime represents derivative with respect to $`\varphi `$. Eqn. (6) is a first integral, which is obtained by the so-called “Energy function” of Lagrangian (2). As we are considering the case of pure scalar field, without matter, we have to set $`E_L=0`$. The case with matter can be treated also, but we will do this in the future. Interesting results are given in .

By simple algebraic manipulations, it is possible to recast these equations in a form which allows to find more general symmetries, discussed in Sec. 5.

$`\sqrt{\left(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2wf}{\varphi }}\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\sqrt{3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2wf}{\varphi }}}a^3\dot{\varphi }\right)+a^3f^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{V}{f^2}}\right)^{}=0`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{3\varphi f^{}}}\right)\ddot{\varphi }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2f\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{w}{6f^{}\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{6f^{}\varphi }}\right)\dot{\varphi ^2}+`$ (8)
$`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{f^{}\varphi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{6f^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2f}}=0.`$
## 3 Application of Noether theorem

As already mentioned in Sec. 1, Noether theorem states that, if there exists a vector field $`X`$, for which the Lie derivative of a given Lagrangian $`L`$ vanishes i.e. $`_XL=0`$, the Lagrangian admits a Noether symmetry and thus yields a conserved current. In the Lagrangian under consideration the configuration space is $`M=(a,\varphi )`$ and the corresponding tangent space is $`TM=(a,\varphi ,\dot{a},\dot{\varphi })`$. Hence the generic infinitesimal generator of the Noether symmetry is

$$X=\alpha \frac{}{a}+\beta \frac{}{\varphi }+\dot{\alpha }\frac{}{\dot{a}}+\dot{\beta }\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }},$$
(9)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are both functions of $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ and

$$\dot{\alpha }\frac{\alpha }{a}\dot{a}+\frac{\alpha }{\varphi }\dot{\varphi };\dot{\beta }\frac{\beta }{a}\dot{a}+\frac{\beta }{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }.$$
(10)
The Cartan one form is

$$\theta _L=\frac{L}{\dot{a}}da+\frac{L}{\dot{\varphi }}d\varphi .$$
(11)
The constant of motion $`Q=i_X\theta _L`$ is given by

$$Q=\alpha (a,\varphi )\frac{L}{\dot{a}}+\beta (a,\varphi )\frac{L}{\dot{\varphi }}.$$
(12)
If $`X`$ is found, it is then possible to find a change of variables $`u(a,\varphi )`$ , $`v(a,\varphi )`$, such that

$$i_Xdu=1;i_Xdv=0.$$
(13)
When the Lagrangian is expressed in the new variables, $`u`$ turns out to be cyclic. The conserved current assumes a very simple form and we obtain often exact integration.

If we demand the existence of Noether symmetry $`_XL=0`$, we get the following equations,

$$\alpha +2a\frac{\alpha }{a}+a^2\frac{\beta }{a}\frac{f^{}}{f}+a\beta \frac{f^{}}{f}=0$$
(14)
$$3\alpha \varphi a\beta +2a\varphi \frac{\beta }{\varphi }+a\varphi \beta \frac{w^{}}{w}6\frac{\varphi ^2f^{}}{w}\frac{\alpha }{\varphi }=0$$
(15)
$$\left(2\alpha +a\frac{\alpha }{a}+a\frac{\beta }{\varphi }\right)f^{}+af^{\prime \prime }\beta +2f\frac{\alpha }{\varphi }\frac{wa^2}{3\varphi }\frac{\beta }{a}=0$$
(16)
$$6kf\left(\alpha +a\beta \frac{f^{}}{f}\right)=a^2V\left(3\alpha +\frac{V^{}}{V}a\beta \right)$$
(17)
We have now to look for conditions on the integrability of this set of

equations. We obtain restrictions on the form of $`f`$, $`w`$ and $`V`$, but large freedom of choice will be left, so that all the interesting cases are captured. Due to the very complicate situation we limit to the case when $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are separable (and non null), i.e.

$$\alpha (a,\varphi )=A_1(a)B_1(\varphi ),\beta (a,\varphi )=A_2(a)B_2(\varphi ).$$
(18)
We are thus well aware of the possibility of loosing some solutions (see Sec. 5). We decided also to consider only the case $`k0`$, which is not well treated in the literature, with the exception of case 6 in Sec. 5. With these assumptions, we show in Appendix that the conditions for integration are

$`A_1={\displaystyle \frac{cl}{a}};A_2={\displaystyle \frac{l}{a^2}};V=V_0f^3;{\displaystyle \frac{B_1^{}}{B_1}}f^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2w}{3\varphi }};`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_2f^{}}{B_1f}}=c;3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2w}{\varphi }}f=n{\displaystyle \frac{wf^3}{\varphi }},`$
where, $`c,l,n,V_0`$ are all arbitrary constants.

## 4 Solutions under different assumptions

In this section, we make reasonable assumptions on the form of $`f`$ or $`w`$, in order to find the solutions of Eqns. (14-17), The transformation of variables (13) and the new form of the Lagrangian, which turns out to be surprising simple. The conserved current and the $`E_L`$ function give now first order differential equations, which can be exactly solved, in principle.

Case 1. Let us consider the a general nonminimally coupled case (that is: $`w=\frac{\varphi }{2}`$), like in . We get in view, of equation (3),

$$3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f=\frac{n}{2}f^3.$$
(20)
This gives an elliptic integral, which can be solved for $`f`$ in closed form only under the assumption $`n=0`$, for which the Lagrangian turns out to be degenerate. The solution is $`f=(\varphi \varphi _0)^2/12`$, which means that the Newtonian gravitational constant turns out to be negative. More strikingly, the solutions obtained do not satisfy the field equations, as one can easily verify from Eqn. (7) . It is still not clear how to interpret such a situation. It is definitely not due to the degeneracy of the Lagrangian, since the similar situation in the Kantowsky-Sachs metric  is found to behave properly. This is the situation we came acrooss in  and so we leave this case at this stage.

Case 2.

Let us now consider a general Brans-Dicke theory (that is $`f=\varphi `$).

Under this condition and in view of Eqn. (3 ), we obtain the following solutions

$$V=V_0\varphi ^3,w=\frac{3}{n\varphi ^22},n0,$$
(21)
together with

$$B_1=B_0\frac{\sqrt{n\varphi ^22}}{\varphi },B_2=cB_0\sqrt{n\varphi ^22},$$
(22)
where, $`B_0`$ is a constant. Hence $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are obtained as,

$$\alpha =C\frac{\sqrt{n\varphi ^22}}{a\varphi },\beta =C\frac{\sqrt{n\varphi ^22}}{a^2},$$
(23)
where $`C=clB_o`$ is yet another constant. The conserved current turns out to be,

$$Q=a\sqrt{n\varphi ^22}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{n\varphi ^21}{n\varphi ^22}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)$$
(24)
It can be verified that such a conserved current follows from Eqn. (2), upon substituting the values of $`f`$, $`w`$ and $`V`$. The form of $`w`$ we have obtained in this process has an excellent feature. Initially when $`\varphi `$ is large, as should be the case, $`w`$ is small, finally when $`\varphi `$ falls off, $`w`$ becomes large enough leading to ordinary G.R.T.

Let us now perform the change of variables to obtain the corresponding

cyclic coordinates. We need a particular solution of Eqn. (13). We find

$$u=\frac{a\varphi ^2}{2}\sqrt{n\varphi ^22};v=a\varphi ,$$
(25)
which can be inverted by

$$a^2=\frac{nv^44u^2}{2v^2};\varphi ^2=\frac{2v^4}{nv^44u^2}.$$
(26)
Being always $`a>0`$, the Jacobian of transformation does not give any

problems, and the same will be for all the cases below. Under this transformation, the Lagrangian takes the nice form

$$L=\frac{3\dot{u}^2}{v}3nv\dot{v}^2+6kvV_0v^3.$$
(27)
As announced, $`u`$ is cyclic. The conserved current gives

$$Q=\frac{L}{\dot{u}}=\frac{6\dot{u}}{v}.$$
(28)
We use now the condition $`E_L=0`$ to find $`v`$

$$(\frac{Q^2}{12}6k)+V_0v^2=3n\dot{v}^2,$$
(29)
which can be integrated. Setting $`F=6kQ^2/12`$, we get

$$v=\frac{e^{\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{3n}}t}+4Fe^{\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{3n}}t}}{4\sqrt{V_0}},$$
(30)
and

$$u=\frac{\sqrt{3}Q}{24V_0}\left(e^{\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{3n}}t}4Fe^{\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{3n}}t}\right)+u_0.$$
(31)
Here and below we set to zero the integration constant for the origin of time. The condition $`E_L=0`$ fixes another one, so that we are left with two ($`A`$ and $`u_0`$). The expression of $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ is rather involved and we do not write it explicitly. It is interesting anyway to show the behavior at large times. It is

$$a(t\mathrm{})e^{\sqrt{V_0}t};\varphi (\mathrm{})=const.$$
(32)
We see that we have inflationary asymptotic behavior and that $`\varphi `$ (and then $`w`$) goes to a constant.

Let us observe finally that, as said before, it would be possible, with a transformation of $`\varphi `$, to bring this case to the above one. Being $`n0`$ we arrive to the nondegenerate case, so that $`f`$ is not in closed form. Actually the transformation itself is not obtained in closed form. We see thus that, although the two situations are mathematically equivalent, we would pass from a solvable and physically significant situation to a totally unmanageable one, from both points of view.

Case 3.

Let us consider the induced theory of gravity by choosing $`f=ϵ\varphi ^2`$, $`ϵ`$ being the coupling constant. Under this choice, Eqn. (3) gives

$$V=V_0\varphi ^6;w=\frac{12ϵ\varphi }{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}$$
(33)
along with

$$B_1=\frac{q\sqrt{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}}{ϵ\sqrt{n}\varphi ^2};B_2=\frac{cq\sqrt{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}}{2ϵ\sqrt{n}\varphi },$$
(34)
where, $`c,q`$ are constants. As a result we find

$$\alpha =\frac{N\sqrt{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}}{a\varphi ^2};\beta =\frac{N\sqrt{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}}{2a^2\varphi },$$
(35)
where, $`N={\displaystyle \frac{clq}{ϵ\sqrt{n}}}`$ is a constant,

which we can set to unity. The conserved current turns out to be

$$Q=a\sqrt{nϵ^2\varphi ^42}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+2\frac{\dot{\varphi }\left(nϵ^2\varphi ^41\right)}{\varphi \left(nϵ^2\varphi ^42\right)}\right).$$
(36)
Here again we observe that the conserved current follows from equation (2), upon substituting the forms of $`f,w`$ and $`V`$ in it. Further the form of $`w`$ here also has got the same excellent feature as in the

previous case.

We find now the transformed Lagrangian. As the procedure strictly follows the above one, we make here and below some shortening. The transformation is

$$a^2=\frac{ϵ^2nv^84u^2}{2v^2};\varphi ^2=\frac{\sqrt{2}v^4}{\sqrt{ϵ^2nv^84u^2}},$$
(37)
and the transformed Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{3ϵ\dot{u}^2}{v^2}12ϵ^3nv^4\dot{v}^2+6ϵkv^2V_0v^6.$$
(38)
Let us set $`F=Q^272ϵ^2k`$, $`G=12ϵV_0`$, $`H=12ϵ^2\sqrt{n}`$. We get

$$v=\frac{\sqrt{e^{\frac{2\sqrt{G}t}{H}}4Fe^{\frac{2\sqrt{G}t}{H}}}}{2G^{1/4}};u=\frac{Q}{48ϵG}(e^{\frac{2\sqrt{G}t}{H}}+4Fe^{\frac{2\sqrt{G}t}{H}}).$$
(39)
Again we obtain, for large $`t`$, that $`a`$ approaches to an exponential and $`\varphi `$ to a constant.

Case 4.

Let us now consider the theory of a scalar field being nonminimally coupled with gravity, by choosing $`f=1\zeta \varphi ^2`$. As a result, we get,

$$V=V_0(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^3,w=\frac{12\zeta ^2\varphi ^3}{(1\zeta \varphi ^2)[n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22]},$$
(40)
and

$$B_1=\frac{\sqrt{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22}}{\sqrt{2}(1\zeta \varphi ^2)},B_2=\frac{c}{2\sqrt{2}\zeta }\frac{\sqrt{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22}}{\varphi }.$$
(41)
Hence we obtain

$$\alpha =\frac{cl}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\sqrt{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22}}{a(1\zeta \varphi ^2)},\beta =\frac{cl}{2\sqrt{2}\zeta }\frac{\sqrt{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22}}{a^2\varphi }$$
(42)
Finally, we obtain the conserved current as,

$$Q=\sqrt{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22}\left(\dot{a}2\zeta \frac{n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^21}{(1\zeta \varphi ^2)(n(1\zeta \varphi ^2)^22)}a\varphi \dot{\varphi }\right).$$
(43)
A little algebraic calculations shows that here also one can generate the above conserved current simply from the first integral of equation (2), upon substituting $`f,f^{}f^{\prime \prime },w,w^{}`$ and $`V`$ from solutions (40).

Again, we can find a transformation

$$a^2=\frac{ne^{2v}4u^2e^{2v}}{2};\varphi ^2=\frac{1}{\zeta }(1\sqrt{\frac{2}{ne^{2v}4u^2e^{2v}}}),$$
(44)
with a new Lagrangian

$$L=3e^v\dot{u}^23e^{3v}\dot{v}^2+6kvV_0e^{3v},$$
(45)
and solutions

$$v=\mathrm{log}(e^{2\lambda t}4F)\lambda t;u=\frac{Q\sqrt{3n}}{4V_0}(e^{\lambda t}+4Fe^{\lambda t})+u_0$$
(46)
where $`B`$ is the conserved current, $`u_0`$ is an integration constant and $`F=3B^26k`$, $`\lambda =\sqrt{V_0/3n}`$.

Asymptotic behaviors of $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the same as before.

Case 5

Let $`\frac{wn}{\varphi }f^3`$=costant=q. Upon imposing this assumption, following results emerge in view of equation (3).

$$f=m\sqrt{1+ϵ\varphi ^2},V=V_0(1+ϵ\varphi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}},w=\frac{3}{2}ϵm\frac{\varphi }{(1+ϵ\varphi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}},$$
(47)
where, $`m=\sqrt{\frac{2}{n}}`$ and $`ϵ=\frac{qn}{6}`$. $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are given by,

$$B_1=\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{1+ϵ\varphi ^2}},B_2=\frac{c}{ϵ}\sqrt{1+ϵ\varphi ^2}.$$
(48)
Hence, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ take the following form,

$$\alpha =\frac{cl}{a}(\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{1+ϵ\varphi ^2}}),\beta =\frac{cl}{ϵa^2}\sqrt{1+ϵ\varphi ^2}.$$
(49)
Finally, the conserved current turns out to be,

$$Q=a\varphi \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{2ϵ\varphi ^2+1}{2(1+ϵ\varphi ^2)}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right).$$
(50)
As before it is quite trivial to show that the first integral of equation ( 2), upon substituting f, $`f^{}`$, $`f^{\prime \prime }`$, V, w, $`w^{}`$ form solution (47) in it, leads to the above conserved current .

The transformation is

$$a^2=e^{2ϵv}\frac{u^2}{v}e^{2ϵv};\varphi ^2=\frac{u^2}{ϵ^2\left(e^{4ϵv}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{ϵ}}\right)},$$
(51)
so that the Lagrangian is

$$L=\frac{3m}{2ϵ}e^{ϵv}\dot{u}^26mϵ^2e^{3ϵv}\dot{v}^2+6kme^{ϵv}V_0e^{3ϵv},$$
(52)
with solutions

$$v=\frac{1}{ϵ}\mathrm{log}(e^{2\lambda t}4F);u=\frac{HQ}{3m\sqrt{G}}(e^{\lambda t}+4Fe^{\lambda t})+u_0,$$
(53)
where $`u_0`$ is an integration constant and $`F=ϵQ^236km^2`$, $`G=6mV_0`$, $`H=6ϵm`$.

Case 6

Let, $`f=constant=f_0>0`$ (in order to have positive Newton constant.)
Under this situation Eqns. (14-17) can be solved only for the vanishing curvature constant, i.e., for $`k=0`$. The method of separation of variables yields,

$$A_1=\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{a}};A_2=\frac{2c_2}{3a^{\frac{3}{2}}},$$
(54)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants. Further, following differential equations are obtained, viz.

$$\frac{V^{}}{V}=\frac{9c_1B_1}{2c_2B_2};\frac{B_1^{}}{B_2}=\frac{c_2w}{2fc_1\varphi };B_22\varphi B_2^{}\frac{w^{}}{w}\varphi B_2+\frac{9c_1}{2c_2}B_1\varphi =0.$$
(55)
One equation is lost in the process and we have thus to impose yet another assumption.

Subcase 1:

Let $`V=m^2\varphi ^2`$.

Under this assumption we get

$$w=\frac{8f_0\varphi }{3\varphi ^2+n}$$
(56)
It is better to treat separately the cases $`n=0`$ and $`n0`$.

Subcase 1a : $`n=0`$

In this case we have

$$\alpha =\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{a}};\beta =\frac{3\varphi ^2}{2a^{3/2}},$$
(57)
and the transformation is

$$a^3=3uv;\varphi ^2=\frac{v}{3u}.$$
(58)
The transformed Lagrangian is

$$L=m^2v^28f_0\dot{u}\dot{v}.$$
(59)
The solutions are very simple and we can give directly $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$

$$a=a_0t^{4/3};\varphi =\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{mt}.$$
(60)
Subcase 1b: $`n0`$

We get now

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{n+3\varphi ^2}{a}};\beta =\frac{3\varphi \sqrt{n+3\varphi ^2}}{2a^{3/2}},$$
(61)
with transformation

$$a^3=\frac{9n^2u^212v^2}{4n};\varphi ^2=\frac{4nv^2}{9n^2u^212v^2},$$
(62)
and new Lagrangian

$$L=6f_0n\dot{u}^2\frac{8f_0}{n}\dot{v}^2+m^2v^2,$$
(63)
with solutions

$$a^3=a_0(t^2\frac{8f_0}{nm^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\omega t);\varphi ^2=\frac{8f_0}{3m^2n}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t)}{t^2\frac{8f_0}{m^2n}\mathrm{sin}^2\omega t},$$
(64)
where $`a_0`$ is an integration constant and $`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{8f_0}{m^2n}}`$. Tis case differs from the others, as the asymptotic behaviour of $`a(t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$ is not inflationary; in fact we have that $`a(t\mathrm{})t^{2/3}`$, and $`\varphi (t\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t\right)}{t}}`$.

Subcase 2:
$`V=V_0\left(A\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\lambda \varphi }{2})+B\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\lambda \varphi }{2})\right)^2`$ , with $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2M}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}`$, and $`M^2=(8\pi G)^1`$.

This case has been extensively treated in (, , ), so that we refer to them for the details.

Subcase 3: $`V=V_0`$ This case has been treated in () and admit as conserved current:

$$Q=a^3\varphi .$$
(65)
## 5 Existence of other symmetries

In the previous section it has been observed that for the existence of Noether symmetry of the action (2) in the Robertson-Walker space time for $`k=\pm 1`$, $`V`$ is proportional to $`f^3`$. In this section we shall explore other possible symmetries of the theory, which could not be obtained by the application of Noether theorem. For this purpose we call upon equation (7) and note that for $`V(\varphi )`$ proportional to $`f^2(\varphi )`$, i.e.

$$V(\varphi )=V_0f^2(\varphi )$$
(66)
where, $`V_0`$ is a constant, we obtain two possibilities. The first one is,

$$Q=(3f^2+\frac{2w}{\varphi }f)^{\frac{1}{2}}a^3\dot{\varphi }=constant.$$
(67)
This is a very interesting result. It shows that symmetry exists even for $`V`$ proportional to $`f^2`$, and holds for arbitrary $`f`$ (hence $`V`$ and $`\varphi `$), which could not be explored by previous treatment. This interesting result was pointed out in a couple of recent publications  and . This conserved charge exists even for $`V=0`$.

There of course exists yet another possibility, viz.

$$3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{2wf}{\varphi }=0$$
(68)
It has been pointed out right at the beginning that, under this condition, the Hessian determinant vanishes; as a result the Lagrangian becomes degenerate. Further, this equation is satisfied at the cost of making either $`f`$ (and hence Newton’s gravitational constant) negative, which is of course unphysical, or the Brans-Dicke coupling parameter $`w`$ negative, which leads to all time acceleration of the Universe. Further, in view of equations (66) and (67) we find that equation (8) leads to,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(2\dot{a}+\frac{f^{}}{f}a\dot{\varphi }\right)=\frac{1}{3}V_0af.$$
(69)
This means that there exists no conserved current in general in such a situation other than for $`V=0`$.

In Sec. 3 we have underlined that, due to the choice (18) there is the possibility that conditions (19) do not cover all the possible Noether symmetries. Therefore we briefly show that the symmetry defined in Eqn. (67) is indeed not of Noether type. To this goal we rewrite the current (67) in the following way:

$$Q=G(\varphi )a^3\dot{\varphi },$$
(70)
where $`G(\varphi )=\sqrt{3(f^{^{}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2wf}{\varphi }}}`$. If Eqn. (70) is a Noether current, then there exists a vector field $`X`$ (the generator) on $`TQ`$

$$X=\alpha (a,\varphi )\frac{}{a}+\beta (a,\varphi )\frac{}{\varphi }+\dot{\alpha }(a,\varphi )\frac{}{\dot{a}}+\dot{\beta }(a,\varphi )\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }},$$

such that $`i_X\theta _L=Q`$.Thus

$$i_X\theta _L=(6a^2f^{^{}}\alpha +2\beta \frac{w}{\varphi }a^312fa\alpha \dot{a}))G(\varphi )a^3\dot{\varphi },$$
(71)
which implies $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2w}}G(\varphi )`$. Substituting into Eqns (14-17) gives inconstistency, unless $`f=constant`$. Only in this case we have a Noether symmetry with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2w}}G(\varphi )`$.

Due to the fact that this symmetry is generally not of Noether type, we cannot find cyclic variables and the treatment is more difficult. We discuss an interesting general feature of the solution and some very particular cases. From the expression of the conserved current, it is possible to extract $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and insert it into $`E_L`$. Now from $`E_L=0`$ we obtain $`\dot{a}`$. If we derive $`E_L`$ w.r.t. time and use again the expression of $`\dot{a}`$, we obtain an interesting expression for $`\ddot{a}`$

$$\ddot{a}=\frac{2w(na^6f^3+Q^2)+3na^6\varphi f^2(f^{})^2)}{6fa^5(2fw+3\varphi (f)^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}>0,$$
(72)
which shows that all the evolution is inflationary. In particular, when $`f`$ is constant, we get the very simple form

$$\ddot{a}=\frac{f_0na}{6}+\frac{N^2}{6f_0^2a^5},$$
(73)
which shows that there are two regimes, with a late time exponential behavior. As we said this case is indeed a special Noether symmetry. In order to treat it like the ones above, however, we should specify the function $`w`$. If $`{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, we obtain a minimally coupled field with constant potential and the conserved current is just $`a^3\dot{\varphi }`$. As said above, this case was treated in (). Other choices of do not to seem to be of particular physical interest. It is in any case interesting that Eqn. (73) holds independently of $`w`$.

In some special cases it is possible to use the current (67) to find particular solutions of the Einstein equations. As an example we can consider the case $`f=\varphi `$, $`w={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}`$. Thus the Eqn. (67) becomes

$$Q=\sqrt{3+\varphi }a^3\dot{\varphi }.$$
(74)
We can obtain a solution imposing that $`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{a^2}}`$, so that

$$\dot{a}=\frac{|Q|}{2}\frac{a}{\sqrt{3a^2+1}},$$
(75)
where $`G=\left|N\right|`$.With this choice the Eqn. (72) becomes:

$$\ddot{a}=\frac{(n\varphi _0+Q^2)+3na^2\varphi _0^2}{a(3a^2+1)}.$$
(76)
In order that the Eqs. (75) and (76) are compatible the following condition is required: $`|Q|={\displaystyle \frac{2(6kn\varphi _0)\varphi _0}{\sqrt{2\varphi _0}}}`$. Then Eqn. (75)can be solved and inverted in terms of elliptical integrals: in the following we show the asymptotic behaviors

$`a(t0)t`$ (77)
$`\varphi (t0)t^2`$ (78)
and

$`a(t\mathrm{})t`$ (79)
$`\varphi (t\mathrm{})t^2.`$ (80)
## 6 Corresponding results in Kantowski-Sachs metric

We start with the same action (1). The Ricci scalar is now $`{}_{}{}^{4}R=2(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+2\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}+2\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}+\frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}+\frac{1}{b^2})`$. Hence the action, apart from a total derivative term, is

$$A=4\pi [4f^{}ab\dot{b}\dot{\varphi }2f^{}b^2\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }4fb\dot{a}\dot{b}2fa\dot{b}^2+ab^2\frac{w}{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2+2faab^2V(\varphi )]𝑑t.$$
(81)
The Hessian determinant is $`32^2\pi ^3fab^4(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2f\frac{w}{\varphi })`$. So the Lagrangian is degenerate under the condition $`3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2f\frac{w}{\varphi }=0`$. The field equations are,

$$2\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}+\frac{f^{}}{f}\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f}\dot{\varphi }^2+2\frac{f^{}\dot{b}}{fb}\dot{\varphi }+\frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}+\frac{w\dot{\varphi }^2}{2f\varphi }+\frac{1}{b^2}\frac{V(\varphi )}{2f}=0$$
(82)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}+\frac{f^{}}{f}\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}+\frac{\dot{a}f^{}}{af}\dot{\varphi }+\frac{\dot{b}f^{}}{bf}\dot{\varphi }+\left(\frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f}+\frac{w}{2f\varphi }\right)\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{V(\varphi )}{2f}=0$$
(83)
$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+2\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}\frac{w\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}+\frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}+\frac{(ww^{}\varphi )\dot{\varphi }^2}{2f^{}\varphi ^2}2\frac{w\dot{b}\dot{\varphi }}{f^{}b\varphi }\frac{w\dot{a}\dot{\varphi }}{f^{}a\varphi }+\frac{1}{b^2}\frac{V^{}}{2f^{}}=0$$
(84)
$$\frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}+2\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}+\frac{f^{}\dot{a}}{fa}\dot{\varphi }+2\frac{f^{}\dot{b}}{fb}\dot{\varphi }\frac{w}{2f\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{b^2}\frac{V(\varphi )}{2f}=0$$
(85)
In view of the above field equations one can construct yet another important equation, viz.,

$$\sqrt{(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi })}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\sqrt{(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi })}ab^2\dot{\varphi }\right)+ab^2f^3(\frac{V}{f^2})^{}=0$$
(86)
Now the detailed calculation reveals that Noether symmetry in this situation exists at the price of making the Lagrangian degenerate. There is nothing wrong for a Lagrangian to be degenerate. We have shown earlier ,  how to deal with such Lagrangians. However, this degeneracy indicates that either of $`f`$ or $`w`$ has to be negative, which is nasty. It thus appears that Noether theorem does not reveals any physically reasonable form of the coupling parameters. Nevertheless it can be shown as before that there exists other conserved currents which can be explored from the field equations but not from the consideration of Noether theorem.

In equation (84) if one considers $`V(\varphi )`$ proportional to $`f(\varphi )^2`$ then last term vanishes. Hence one can choose either $`\sqrt{(3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi })}=0`$, which is the outcome of Noether symmetry, or

$$Q=ab^2\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{3f^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{wf}{\varphi }}=conserved.$$
(87)
This has the same form of the conserved current (66).

## 7 Concluding remarks

Once again, the Noether symmetry approach revealed a powerful tool in the study of scalar tensor theories.

We have studied the more general possible action in the case of a pure scalar field domination.

The first result is that asymptotic inflationary behaviour is always obtained. A second important result is the possibility of symmetries of more general type; a feature which is, to our knowledge, completely inexplored in this kind of problems. There is of course room for deeper investigation on this point.

A third improvement lies in the consideration that the action (1), more general of the one trated in , gives indeed new possibilities, despite the mathematical equivalence of the two cases.
Some open problems were also discussed: there is the clearly need of more investigation on degenerate cases; also the treatment in the presence of perfect fluid is important in view of applications to recent observations (for a recent treatment in the minimal coupling case see . But most of all a good understanding of the physical meaning of Noether symmetries in this context would be the greatest hit.

## 8 Appendix

In this section we want at least sketch the calculation, leading to the Eqs. (3) starting from the $`\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔}`$ hypothesis in Eqn. (18). In order to perform this let us start from the Eqn. ( 14) and divide by $`B_1`$, obtaining:

$$\frac{A_1+2aA_{1,a}B_1}{a(A_2+2aA_{2,a})}=\frac{B_2}{B_1}\frac{f^{^{}}}{f}=C_1,$$
(88)
where we assume $`(A_2+2aA_{2,a})0`$. The case $`(A_2+2aA_{2,a})=0`$ will be discussed later. From the Eqn. (15) we obtain

$$a\frac{A_2}{A_1}=3\varphi \left(\frac{B_12\varphi \frac{f^{^{}}}{w}B_1^{^{}}}{B_22\varphi B_2^{^{}}\varphi \frac{w^{^{}}}{w}B_2}\right)=C_2$$
(89)
where we assume that $`B_22\varphi B_2^{^{}}\varphi \frac{w^{^{}}}{w}B_20`$. Using the Eqs. (88) and (89), we can replace $`A_2`$ and $`B_2`$ in Eqn. (17), obtaining the following relation:

$$6kf\left(1+C_1C_2\right)=a^2V\left(3+C_1C_2\frac{V^{^{}}}{V}\frac{f}{f^{^{}}}\right),$$
(90)
which, for $`k0`$ implies that:

$`C_1C_2`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (91)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_0f^3.`$ (92)
In order to obtain $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, let us set $`C_1=c=\frac{1}{C_2}`$ , and replace in the Eqn. (88) and (89), so that

$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{a^2}}`$ (93)
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{cl}{a}}.`$ (94)
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{f}{f^{^{}}}}B_1`$ (95)
Finally, using the Eqn. (16) and (89) we obtain the last two equations in (3):

$`B_1^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\varphi f^{^{}}}}B_1,`$ (96)
$`3f_{}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{2}+2{\displaystyle \frac{w}{\varphi }}f=n{\displaystyle \frac{wf^3}{\varphi }}.`$ (97)
We note that the Eqns (93–95) imply the following general relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$$\alpha =a\beta \frac{f^{^{}}}{f}.$$
(98)
Since the Eqn (17) this implies that both the sides in the 17 vanishes separately , as was supposed a priori in . Let us go back to dismiss the assumptions put forward above in the calculations, that is $`(A_2+2aA_{2,a})0`$ and $`B_22\varphi B_2^{^{}}\varphi \frac{w^{^{}}}{w}B_20`$. If $`(A_2+2aA_{2,a})=0`$, then also $`(A_1+2aA_{1,a})=0`$, so that

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{a}}}`$ (99)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{a}},`$ (100)
while $`B_2\frac{f^{^{}}}{f}`$ and $`B_2`$ remain arbitrary (but $`0`$). However such solutions are incompatible with the Eqn. (15) unless $`a=0`$, which is a unphysical trivial solution. Consider now the case $`B_22\varphi B_2^{^{}}\varphi \frac{w^{^{}}}{w}B_2=0`$, which implies that $`B_12\varphi \frac{f^{^{}}}{w}B_1^{^{}}=0`$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_1^{^{}}}{B_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2\varphi f^{^{}}}}`$ (101)
$`B_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b\varphi }{w}}.`$ (102)
Such equations are incompatible with Eqn. (16), unless one reduces to the degenerate case

$$3f_{}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\frac{w}{\varphi }f=0.$$

## Acknowledgment

This work has been carried out during the visits of A.K. Sanyal to I.C.T.P. and to University ”Federico II”, Naples, Italy. Thanks are due to both the Institutions and to P.R.I.N. ”SINTESI” for their support and hospitality.