text:
# On classical solutions of the Nordström-Vlasov system

## 1 Introduction

In astrophysics, systems such as galaxies or globular clusters are often modeled as a large ensemble of particles (stars) which interact only by the gravitational field which they create collectively. In such systems collisions among the particles are sufficiently rare to be neglected. Let $`𝔣=𝔣(t,x,p)0`$ denote the density of the particles in phase-space, where $`t`$ denotes time, $`x^3`$ position, and $`p^3`$ momentum. This density function satisfies the Vlasov equation—a continuity equation on phase space—coupled to the field equation(s) for the gravitational field. In the non-relativistic case this results in the Vlasov-Poisson system, in the relativistic setting one obtains the Einstein-Vlasov system. While for the former system the initial value problem is by now well understood—cf. —this is not so for the much more difficult Einstein-Vlasov system, the difficulty arising from the different nature of the field equations. We refer to  for a recent review on the latter system, cf. also . In the present paper we investigate a different relativistic model which is obtained by coupling the Vlasov equation to the Nordström scalar gravitation theory . In this theory, the gravitational effects are mediated by a scalar field $`\varphi `$, and the system reads

$$_t^2\varphi _x\varphi =e^{4\varphi }𝔣\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}},$$
(1.1)
$$_t𝔣+\widehat{p}_x𝔣\left[\left(_t\varphi +\widehat{p}_x\varphi \right)p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi \right]_p𝔣=0.$$
(1.2)
Here

$$\widehat{p}=\frac{p}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}$$

denotes the relativistic velocity of a particle with momentum $`p`$, $`p^2=|p|^2`$, and units are chosen such that the mass of each particle, the gravitational constant and the speed of light are all equal to unity. A solution $`(𝔣,\varphi )`$ of this system is interpreted as follows: The space-time is a Lorentzian manifold with a conformally flat metric which, in the coordinates $`(t,x)`$, takes the form

$$g_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\varphi }\text{diag}(1,1,1,1).$$

The particle distribution defined on the mass shell in this metric is given by

$$𝔣_{\mathrm{ph}}(t,x,p)=𝔣(t,x,e^\varphi p).$$
(1.3)
More details on the derivation of this model are given in . It should be emphasized that the system does not constitute a physically correct model. Our interest in it is motivated by the fact that while being much simpler than the “correct” relativistic model, the Einstein-Vlasov system, it still captures some of the essential features which distinguish the latter from non-relativistic models. In particular, the Nordström-Vlasov model does allow for propagation of gravitational waves, even in the spherically symmetric case. The hope is that the analysis of this model will lead to a better mathematical understanding of a whole class of nonlinear partial differential equations and eventually to a better understanding of the Einstein-Vlasov system. However, scalar fields do play a major role in modern theories of (classical and quantum) gravity, cf.  and references therein, as well as in numerical investigations of relativistic gravitational waves, .

It turns out to be convenient to rewrite the system in terms of the new unknowns $`(f,\varphi )`$, where $`f`$ is given by

$$f(t,x,p)=e^{4\varphi (t,x)}𝔣(t,x,p).$$
(1.4)
The system then takes the form

$$_t^2\varphi _x\varphi =\mu ,$$
(1.5)
$$\mu (t,x)=f(t,x,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}},$$
(1.6)
$$Sf\left[(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi \right]_pf=4fS\varphi ,$$
(1.7)
where

$$S=_t+\widehat{p}_x$$

is the free-transport operator. The function $`\mu `$ is the trace of the energy momentum tensor. In the following we refer to the system (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) as the Nordström-Vlasov system. We supply it with the initial conditions

$$f(0,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(x,p),\varphi (0,x)=\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}(x),_t\varphi (0,x)=\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}(x),x,p^3.$$
(1.8)
A system of equations which belongs to the same class of kinetic models and is used in plasma physics is the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system. For this system Glassey and Strauss proved that classical solutions to the initial value problem with regular data exist and no shocks or singularities form as long as the maximal momentum of the particles is controlled, cf. . One purpose of the present paper is to establish an analogous condition for global existence of classical solutions for the Nordström-Vlasov system. In order to state the result in a precise way, let us consider the quantity

$$𝒫(t)=sup\{|p|:0s<t,(x,p)\mathrm{supp}f(s)\},$$

the maximum momentum of the particles up to the time $`t`$; $`f(s)`$ will always be compactly supported. In addition, we need to monitor the quantity

$$𝒬(t)=sup\{|\varphi (s,x)|:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}s<t,(x,p)\mathrm{supp}f(s)\},$$

and we define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=𝒫(t)+𝒬(t)`$; for $`t=0`$ we define these quantities by what is induced by the initial data.

###### Theorem 1

Initial data $`f^{\mathrm{in}}C_c^1(^6)`$, $`\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}C_b^3(^3)`$, $`\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}C_b^2(^3)`$ with $`f^{\mathrm{in}}0`$ launch a unique classical solution $`(f,\varphi )C^1([0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[\times ^6)\times C^2([0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[\times ^3)`$ of the Nordström-Vlasov system (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) in a maximal interval of time, satisfying the initial conditions (1.8). If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_{\mathrm{max}})<\mathrm{}`$ then $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$, i.e., the solution $`(f,\varphi )`$ is global in time.

We restrict ourselves to study the Cauchy problem forward in time; the system is time-reversible. The notation on the function spaces above is standard: The index $`c`$ refers to compactly supported functions, and the index $`b`$ means that all derivatives up to the indicated order are bounded. This boundedness condition which only aims to make our estimates more transparent can be removed using the finite propagation speed which in turn follows from local conservation of energy, see below. We observe that unlike the case of  where global existence follows from a bound on $`𝒫(t)`$ alone we require a bound on $`\varphi `$ in the support of $`f`$ in addition. This will imply a bound on $`f`$; as opposed to the Vlasov-Maxwell system this bound on $`f`$ is a priori not obvious since $`f`$ is not constant along characteristics of the Vlasov equation. Note however that by (1.3) the “physical” momentum of the particles is obtained by rescaling $`p`$ by the factor $`e^\varphi `$ so that the meaning of Theorem 1 remains the same as with the analogous result for the Vlasov-Maxwell system: The occurrence of singularities in the Nordström-Vlasov system—if any—can only be due to particles which pick up arbitrarily large momentum as the system evolves.

The proof of Theorem 1 is presented in Sections 35, a key ingredient being certain representation formulas for the first and second order derivatives of $`\varphi `$ which we give in Section 4. These formulas are similar to the ones introduced by Glassey and Strauss for the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system, and we will be able to reduce many details to the case of .

An interesting mathematical feature of the Nordström-Vlasov system is that if we change the sign in the right hand side of (1.5) then solutions blow up in finite time for a large class of initial data:

###### Theorem 2

Consider the system obtained by coupling (1.6), (1.7) to the equation

$$_t^2\varphi _x\varphi =\mu $$

instead of (1.5). Then the assertion of Theorem 1 remains valid. If the initial data are homogeneous (i.e. independent of $`x`$) in a ball $`B_R(0)=\{x^3:|x|R\}`$ for some $`R>0`$ and if

$$R^2\mu (0,0)2,\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}(0)\sqrt{2\mu (0,0)},$$

then $`T_{\mathrm{max}}R`$.

This result will be shown in Section 6. It is interesting because the blow-up results from the nonlinearity in the original field equation, which has only been hidden by rewriting the system in the form (1.5), (1.6), (1.7), and which is a feature that distinguishes this system from the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system where the field equations by themselves are linear.

Solutions of the Nordström-Vlasov system preserve energy, which is positive definite in the situation of Theorem 1 but indefinite in the situation of Theorem 2. For the three dimensional system considered so far we are not going make use of conservation of energy. However, in the last section we will show that conservation of energy can be used to prove global existence of classical solutions to the one dimensional version of the system:

$$_t^2\varphi _x^2\varphi =\mu ,$$
(1.9)
$$\mu (t,x)=f(t,x,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}},$$
(1.10)
$$Sf\left[(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi \right]_pf=2fS\varphi ,$$
(1.11)
where now $`x,p`$. The right hand side of the Vlasov equation modified so as to retain conservation of energy, cf. the next section. Again, the sign in the field equation turns out to be important. While the blow-up result of Theorem 2 also holds in other dimensions we have the following global existence result for the “correct” sign:

###### Theorem 3

Initial data $`f^{\mathrm{in}}C_c^1(^2)`$, $`\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}C_b^2()`$, $`\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}C_b^1()`$ with $`f^{\mathrm{in}}0`$ launch a unique global classical solution $`(f,\varphi )C^1([0,\mathrm{}[\times ^2)\times C^2([0,\mathrm{}[\times )`$ of the system (1.9), (1.10), (1.11).

## 2 General properties of the Nordström-Vlasov system in $`N`$ spatial dimensions

In this section we collect some general properties of the system under consideration. Some of these will be important in the sequel while others are included for reasons of general interest. Since in Section 7 we consider the one dimensional version of the Nordström-Vlasov system, we discuss here the generalization to the case of $`N`$ spatial dimensions, $`N1`$. This generalization is defined as the system obtained by adapting the derivation of  to the case in which the space-time is a $`1+N`$ dimensional Lorentzian manifold. This assumption affects the argument of  in a non-trivial way only in two points. Firstly, the modulus of the determinant of the physical metric, denoted by $`𝔤`$ in , changes into $`𝔤=\mathrm{exp}[2(1+N)\varphi )]`$. Secondly, the rescaling law which relates the stress-energy tensor in the physical and unphysical frames becomes, using the notation of , $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{exp}[(N+3)\varphi ]T^{\mu \nu }`$. The latter identity follows by the definition of the stress-energy tensor, which is independent of the frame and of the dimension, as the variation with respect to the metric of the matter action. With these modifications one can show that the generalization of (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) in $`1+N`$ dimensions is obtained by taking $`t`$, $`x^N`$, $`p^N`$ and replacing the Vlasov equation (1.7) by

$$Sf\left[(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi \right]_pf=(1+N)fS\varphi .$$
(2.1)
The resulting system reduces to (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) in the case $`N=3`$ and to (1.9), (1.10), (1.11) for $`N=1`$.

An important tool in the sequel are the characteristics of the Vlasov equation. Let $`(X,P)(s)=(X,P)(s,t,x,p)`$ denote the solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{ds}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}},`$ (2.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{ds}}`$ $`=`$ $`(S\varphi )(s,x,p)p{\displaystyle \frac{_x\varphi (s,x)}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}},`$ (2.3)
with initial condition

$$(X,P)(t,t,x,p)=(x,p).$$
(2.4)
Integrating (2.1) along characteristics we obtain

$$f(t,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(X(0),P(0))+(1+N)_0^t(fS\varphi )(\tau ,X(\tau ),P(\tau ))𝑑\tau .$$
(2.5)
Moreover (2.1) can be rewritten as

$$S(e^{(1+N)\varphi }f)\left[(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi \right]_p(e^{(1+N)\varphi }f)=0,$$
(2.6)
showing that the function $`e^{(1+N)\varphi }f`$ is constant along solutions of (2.2), (2.3) (which of course are the characteristics of (2.6) as well), and hence the function $`f`$ can be also represented as follows:

$$f(t,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(X(0),P(0))\mathrm{exp}\left[(1+N)\varphi (t,x)(1+N)\varphi ^{\mathrm{in}}(X(0))\right].$$
(2.7)
By (2.5), the function $`\zeta (s)=f(s,X(s),P(s))`$ solves the differential equation $`\dot{\zeta }=(1+N)\dot{\eta }(s)\zeta `$, with $`\eta (s)=\varphi (s,X(s))`$. Integration of this equation yields (2.7). The latter equation shows that the compact support property of $`f(t)`$ which is assumed initially propagates.

It should be noted that the characteristic flow is not measure preserving on $`^{2N}`$. Indeed, the fact that the $`(x,p)`$-divergence of the right hand side of (2.2), (2.3) equals $`NS\varphi `$ implies that

$$det\frac{(X,P)}{(x,p)}(0,t,x,p)=\mathrm{exp}\left[N\varphi (t,x)N\varphi ^{\mathrm{in}}(X(0,t,x,p))\right],$$

which together with (2.7) implies conservation of rest-mass:

$$f(t,x,p)e^{\varphi (t,x)}𝑑x𝑑p=\text{const}.$$

The Nordström-Vlasov system also satisfies an energy conservation law. In the formulation of the system used here, the energy density is defined by

$$e(t,x)=\sqrt{1+p^2}f(t,x,p)𝑑p+\frac{1}{2}(_t\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(_x\varphi )^2,$$

and the momentum density by

$$𝔭(t,x)=pf(t,x,p)𝑑p_t\varphi _x\varphi .$$

It is easy to check that local energy conservation holds,

$$_te+_x𝔭=0,$$

which upon integration leads to conservation of the total energy:

$$\sqrt{1+p^2}f(t,x,p)𝑑p𝑑x+\frac{1}{2}\left[(_t\varphi )^2+(_x\varphi )^2\right](t,x)𝑑x=\text{const.}$$

We note that the definition of energy and rest mass is independent of the dimension. Moreover, the total energy is positive definite. However, the sign in front of the field energy is reversed for the “repulsive” case considered in Theorem 2, and so the total energy is no longer positive definite in that case.

The contents of this section will be applied for $`N=1`$ in Section 7 and for $`N=3`$ in the rest of the paper without further comment.

## 3 Preliminary estimates

We fix some notation. The usual $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$-norm is denoted by $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ is the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$-norm of the argument and its derivatives up to order $`k`$. Moreover,

$`Df(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`sup\{|_{x_i}f(t,x,p)|,|_{p_i}f(t,x,p)|:(x,p)^6,i=1,2,3\},`$
$`D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`sup\{|_t\varphi (t,x)|,|_{x_i}\varphi (t,x)|:x^3,i=1,2,3\},`$
$`D^2\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`sup\{|_t^2\varphi (t,x)|,|_t_{x_i}\varphi (t,x)|,|_{x_i}_{x_j}\varphi (t,x)|:x^3,i,j=1,2,3\}.`$
We shall use similar definitions for the one dimensional case in Section 7. Numerical constants are denoted by $`c`$ and may change from line to line. Constants depending on the initial data are denoted by $`C,C_0,C_1,\mathrm{}`$, dependence on the length of some time interval is denoted by $`C_T`$. Since $`f^{\mathrm{in}}`$ has compact support

$$P_0=sup\{|p|:(x,p)\mathrm{supp}f^{\mathrm{in}}\}<\mathrm{};$$

without loss of generality we may assume that $`P_01`$ and hence $`𝒫(t)1`$ for all $`t`$, otherwise we add 1 to both quantities.

We prove a few preliminary estimates which will be used in the proof of Theorem 1. By solution we always mean a solution of the Nordström-Vlasov system (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) with the regularity and initial data as specified in Theorem 1.

###### Lemma 1

For any solution defined on some interval $`[0,T[`$,

$$f(t)_{\mathrm{}}f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}+4_0^tD\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}d\tau ,t[0,T[.$$

If $`𝒬(T)<\mathrm{}`$ then

$$sup\{f(t)_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t<T\}<\mathrm{}.$$

Proof:  The estimates are immediate by (2.5) and (2.7). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

For any solution defined on some interval $`[0,T[`$,

$$\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}(1+t)[C_0+c_0^tf(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^2d\tau ],t[0,T[,$$

where $`C_0=c(\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}_{1,\mathrm{}}+\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}})`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)<\mathrm{}`$ then

$$sup\{\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t<T\}<\mathrm{},$$

i.e., $`\varphi `$ is bounded everywhere and not just on the $`x`$-support of $`f`$.

Proof: By Kirchhoff’s formula,

$$\varphi (t,x)=\varphi _0(t,x)_{|xy|t}f(t|xy|,y,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}\frac{dy}{|xy|}.$$
(3.1)
The first term is the solution of the homogeneous wave equation with data $`(\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}},\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}})`$ and is estimated by

$$\varphi _0(t)_{\mathrm{}}c(1+t)(\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}_{1,\mathrm{}}+\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}})=C_0(1+t).$$

The second term is estimated by

$`{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t\tau }}{\displaystyle _{|p|𝒫(\tau )}}f(\tau ,y,p){\displaystyle \frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}}𝑑S_y{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{t\tau }}`$
$`c{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^2𝑑\tau c(1+t){\displaystyle _0^t}f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^2𝑑\tau .`$
Together with Lemma 1 this completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3

The function $`𝒫`$ satisfies the estimate

$$𝒫(t)P_0+2_0^tD\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}(1+𝒫(\tau ))𝑑\tau .$$

Proof: This follows by integrating (2.3) and observing that the right hand side

$$(_t\varphi (\tau ,x)+\widehat{p}_x\varphi (\tau ,x))p(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi (\tau ,x)$$

of that equation is estimated by $`2D\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}(1+|p|)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

To conclude this section we estimate the derivatives of the characteristics with respect to their initial data in terms of the derivatives of $`\varphi `$.

###### Lemma 4

Assume that $`𝒫(T)<\mathrm{}`$. Then for all $`t[0,T[`$ and $`x,p^3`$,

$$|_{(x,p)}(X,P)(0,t,x,p)|C_T\mathrm{exp}\left[C_T_0^t\left(1+D\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}+D^2\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}\right)𝑑\tau \right].$$

Proof: Differentiating (2.2) and (2.3) with respect to $`x_i`$ and integrating we obtain

$`_{x_i}X_j(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle _t^s}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_k}{p_j}}(P(\tau ))_{x_i}P_k(\tau )d\tau ,`$
$`_{x_i}P_j(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^s}\left[(S_{x_k}\varphi )p_j+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_{x_k}_{x_j}\varphi \right](\tau ,X(\tau ),P(\tau ))_{x_i}X_k(\tau )d\tau `$
$`{\displaystyle _t^s}\left[(S\varphi )\delta _{jk}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_k}{p_j}}p_l_{x_l}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_k_{x_j}\varphi }{1+p^2}}\right](\tau ,X(\tau ),P(\tau ))_{x_i}P_k(\tau )d\tau ,`$
summation over repeated indexes being understood. Now

$$\frac{\widehat{p}_k}{p_j}=\frac{(1+p^2)\delta _{jk}p_jp_k}{(1+p^2)^{3/2}}.$$

By assumption, $`P(\tau )C_T`$, and so we get, for $`st`$,

$`|_xX(s)|`$ $``$ $`c+{\displaystyle _s^t}|_xP(\tau )|𝑑\tau ,`$
$`|_xP(s)|`$ $``$ $`C_T{\displaystyle _s^t}\left(D\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}+D^2\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}\right)(|_xX(\tau )|+|_xP(\tau )|)𝑑\tau .`$
If we add these estimates and use Gronwall’s inequality we obtain the assertion for the $`x`$-derivatives, and the argument for the $`p`$-derivatives is analogous. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Representation and estimates for $`D\varphi `$ and $`D^2\varphi `$

Let us first recall the structure of the integral representation for the electromagnetic field $`(E,B)`$ in the case of the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system, cf. \[4, Thm. 3\]:

$`E(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`E_D(t,x){\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^E(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$ (4.1)
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{a}^E(\omega ,p)(Sf)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}},`$
$`B(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`B_D(t,x){\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^B(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$ (4.2)
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{a}^B(\omega ,p)(Sf)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}.`$
Here $`\omega =(yx)/|xy|`$, $`E_D,B_D`$ are integrals of the initial data and the kernels are given by

$`a^E(\omega ,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\widehat{p}}{(1+p^2)(1+\omega \widehat{p})^2}},\stackrel{~}{a}^E(\omega ,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\widehat{p}}{1+\omega \widehat{p}}},`$
$`a^B(\omega ,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega \widehat{p}}{(1+p^2)(1+\omega \widehat{p})^2}},\stackrel{~}{a}^B(\omega ,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega \widehat{p}}{1+\omega \widehat{p}}}.`$
In the next two propositions we show that the derivatives of $`\varphi `$ satisfy very similar integral representations.

###### Proposition 1

The time derivative of $`\varphi `$ satisfies the representation formula

$`_t\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`_t\varphi _0(t,x)t^1{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\mathrm{in}}(y,p)}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}𝑑S_y}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle b^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)f(S\varphi )(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle c^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)_x\varphi f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}},`$
where the kernels are given by

$`a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega +\widehat{p})\widehat{p}}{\sqrt{1+p^2}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^2}}=a^E(\omega ,p)p,`$
$`b^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega +\widehat{p})^2}{\sqrt{1+p^2}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^2}},`$
$`c^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +\widehat{p}}{(1+p^2)^{3/2}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^2}}.`$
They satisfy the estimates

$$|a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)|c(1+p^2),|b^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)|c\sqrt{1+p^2},|c^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)|c.$$

Proof: The claim is proved by a calculation similar to the one in \[4, Thm. 3\]. We give only some of the details. By (3.1),

$`_t\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`_t\varphi _0t^1{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t}}{\displaystyle f^{\mathrm{in}}(y,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}𝑑S_y}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle _tf(t|xy|,y,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}\frac{dy}{|xy|}}.`$
In the last integral we use the identity

$`(_tg)(t|xy|,y,p)=(1+\omega \widehat{p})^1`$ $`[`$ $`(Sg)(t|xy|,y,p)`$ (4.3)
$`\widehat{p}_y[g(t|xy|,y,p)]],`$
which holds for every $`C^1`$ function $`g=g(t,x,p)`$, and integrate by parts in $`y`$ to obtain

$`_t\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`_t\varphi _0(t,x)t^1{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\mathrm{in}}(y,p)}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}𝑑S_y}`$ (4.4)
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{a}^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)(Sf)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\varphi _t}=(1+p^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^1`$. Hence we see that the function $`_t\varphi `$ has been written in the form (4.1) with $`a^E`$ replaced by $`a^{\varphi _t}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^E`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\varphi _t}`$. To complete the proof we observe that by the Vlasov equation (1.7), $`Sf=F(t,x,p)_pf+4fS\varphi `$ where $`F(t,x,p)=(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi `$ is the force term in the Vlasov equation. Substituting into the last integral of (4.4) and integrating by parts in $`p`$ the representation formula for $`_t\varphi `$ is obtained after a straightforward calculation. For the bounds on the kernels we use the estimates

$$1+\omega \widehat{p}\frac{1+|\omega p|^2}{2(1+p^2)},|\omega +\widehat{p}|^22(1+\omega \widehat{p}),$$
(4.5)
cf. \[5, Lemma 1\]. Thus for example,

$$|c^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)|c(1+p^2)^{3/2}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^{3/2}c(1+p^2)^{3/2}\left(\frac{1+p^2}{1+|p\omega |^2}\right)^{3/2}c,$$

estimates for the other kernels being similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2

The spatial derivatives of $`\varphi `$ satisfy the representation formula

$`_{x_i}\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`_{x_i}\varphi _0(t,x)t^1{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega \widehat{p})}{1+\omega \widehat{p}}\omega _if^{\mathrm{in}}(y,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}𝑑S_y}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a_i^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle b_i^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)(fS\varphi )(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle c_i^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)_x\varphi f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}},`$
where the kernels are given by

$$a^{\varphi _x}=\sqrt{1+p^2}[a^E\widehat{p}a^B],b^{\varphi _x}=b^{\varphi _t}\omega ,c_i^{\varphi _x}=\omega _ic^{\varphi _t},i=1,2,3.$$

They satisfy the estimates

$$|a^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)|c(1+p^2),|b^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)|c\sqrt{1+p^2},|c_i^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)|c.$$

Proof:  The only difference to the proof of Proposition 1 is that now the identity

$`(_{y_i}g)(t|xy|,y,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _i(1+\omega \widehat{p})^1(Sg)(t|xy|,y,p)`$ (4.6)
$`+\left(\delta _{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _i\widehat{p}_k}{1+\omega \widehat{p}}}\right)_{y_k}[g(t|xy|,y,p)]`$
is used instead of (4.3). Thus the analogue of (4.4) in this case is

$`_x\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`(_x\varphi )_D{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{a}^{\varphi _x}(\omega ,p)(Sf)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}},`$
where $`(_x\varphi )_D`$ is the data term and $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\varphi _x}=(1+p^2)^{1/2}(1+\omega \widehat{p})^1\omega `$. Since $`a^E`$ and $`a^B`$ are bounded by $`c\sqrt{1+p^2}`$ (cf. ) the estimates on the kernels follow. $`\mathrm{}`$

We use the above representation formulas to estimate the first order derivatives of $`\varphi `$.

###### Lemma 5

For any solution on some time interval $`[0,T[`$,

$$D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}(1+t)[C_1+c_0^t(1+D\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}})f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^5d\tau ],t[0,T[,$$

where $`C_1=cP_0^4(1+f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}+\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}_{2,\mathrm{}}+\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}_{1,\mathrm{}})`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)<\mathrm{}`$ then

$$sup\{D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t<T\}<\mathrm{}.$$

Proof: By Proposition 1, $`_t\varphi `$ is the sum of five terms which we denote by $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_5`$. The first term is estimated as

$$|I_1|c(\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}_{2,\mathrm{}}+\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}_{1,\mathrm{}})(1+t).$$

For the second term we use (4.5) to obtain

$$|I_2|c(1+t)f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}_{|p|P_0}\sqrt{1+p^2}𝑑pcP_0^4f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}(1+t);$$

recall that $`P_01`$. For $`I_3`$ we have, using the bounds on the kernels in Proposition 1,

$`|I_3|`$ $``$ $`c{\displaystyle _0^t}𝒫(\tau )^2{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t\tau }}{\displaystyle _{|p|𝒫(\tau )}}f(\tau ,y,p)𝑑p𝑑S_y{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{(t\tau )^2}}`$
$``$ $`c{\displaystyle _0^t}f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^5𝑑\tau .`$
Likewise we obtain

$`|I_4|`$ $``$ $`c(1+t){\displaystyle _0^t}D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^4𝑑\tau ,`$
$`|I_5|`$ $``$ $`c(1+t){\displaystyle _0^t}D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫(\tau )^3𝑑\tau .`$
To complete the proof we add these estimates and repeat the same argument for $`_x\varphi `$. The bound on $`D\varphi `$ follows from Gronwall’s inequality together with Lemma 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

If we differentiate (2.7) and use the estimates from Lemmas 4 and 5 we immediately obtain:

###### Corollary 1

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$Df(t)_{\mathrm{}}C_T\mathrm{exp}\left[C_T_0^t(1+D^2\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}})d\tau \right],t[0,T[.$$

Next we derive the integral representations and the necessary estimates for the second order derivatives of $`\varphi `$.

###### Proposition 3

The function $`_t^2\varphi `$ can be represented by the formula

$`_t^2\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`(_t^2\varphi )_D+{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)f(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle b^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)(Sf)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle c^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)(S^2f)(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}`$
$`=`$ $`(_t^2\varphi )_D+(_t^2\varphi )_{\mathrm{sing}}+(_t^2\varphi )_S+(_t^2\varphi )_{S^2},`$
where $`(_t^2\varphi )_D`$ contains only integrals of derivatives of the initial data and the kernels are smooth. Moreover, the kernel $`a^{\varphi _{tt}}`$ of the most singular integral $`(_t^2\varphi )_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ has zero $`\omega `$-average:

$$_{|\omega |=1}a^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)𝑑S_\omega =0,p^3;$$

observe the principal value of the spatial integral in $`(_t^2\varphi )_{\mathrm{sing}}`$. Similar representations with kernels having the same properties hold for the other second order derivatives of $`\varphi `$. In particular, in each case the kernel of the most singular integral has zero $`\omega `$-average.

Sketch of the proof: The representation for $`_t^2\varphi `$ is obtained from (4.4) in the same way as Glassey and Strauss derive the representation for the gradient of the electromagnetic field from (4.1)–(4.2) cf. \[4, Thms. 4,5\]. Each term in (4.4) is differentiated with respect to $`t`$ and then (4.3) is used with $`g=f`$ and $`g=Sf`$. Integration by parts leads to the formula for $`_t^2\varphi `$ after a straightforward calculation. The proof of the averaging property for $`a^{\varphi _{tt}}`$ can be reduced to the case of  using the relation between the kernels for the Nordström-Vlasov system and those for the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system which we noted in Propositions 1 and 2. The crucial point is that to get from $`a^E`$ and $`a^B`$ to $`a^{\varphi _t}`$ or $`a^{\varphi _x}`$ we need to multiply by terms depending only on $`p`$. For example, in the case of $`_t^2\varphi `$ the most singular integral is obtained by differentiating in time the third term in the right hand side of (4.4), substituting (4.3) and then integrating by parts in $`y`$. Hence the resulting kernel is

$`a^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`|xy|^3\widehat{p}_y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})|xy|^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`|xy|^3\sqrt{1+p^2}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_i^E(\omega ,p)}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})|xy|^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`|xy|^3{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _i+\widehat{p}_i}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})^3|xy|^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+p^2}\widehat{p}\stackrel{~}{a}(\omega ,p),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\omega ,p)`$ is the kernel which appears in (44) of . Thus the averaging property for $`a^{\varphi _{tt}}`$ follows from (43) of . The analogous argument applies to the other second order derivatives. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 6

Under the assumption $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)<\mathrm{}`$, a classical solution on the time interval $`[0,T[`$ satisfies the estimate

$$D^2\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}C_T[1+\mathrm{ln}^{}\underset{0\tau t}{sup}Df(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}+_0^tD^2\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}d\tau ],t[0,T[,$$

where

$$\mathrm{ln}^{}s=\{\begin{array}{cc}s& \text{ for }s1\hfill \\ 1+\mathrm{ln}s& \text{ for }s1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining this with Corollary 1 and using Gronwall’s inequality implies

$$sup\{D^2\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t<T\}<\mathrm{}.$$

Sketch of the proof: The proof is similar to \[4, Lemma 6\] and is outlined only for $`_t^2\varphi `$. The data term in Proposition 3 is estimated in terms of the appropriate norms of the initial data. The second term, i.e., the most singular integral, is estimated using the averaging property of its kernel as follows, cf. also (59)–(63) of :

$`|(_t^2\varphi )_{\mathrm{sing}}(t,x)|C_T{\displaystyle _0^{td}}(t\tau )^1f(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau `$
$`+{\displaystyle _{td}^t}{\displaystyle _{|\omega |=1}}{\displaystyle \left|a^{\varphi _{tt}}(\omega ,p)\frac{f(t\tau ,x+\tau \omega ,p)f(t\tau ,x,p)}{\tau }\right|𝑑p𝑑S_\omega 𝑑\tau }`$
$`C_T\mathrm{ln}(t/d)+C_T\underset{0\tau t}{sup}Df(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}d`$
which holds for any $`0<dt<T`$. Let $`\sigma =sup_{0\tau t}Df(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`\sigma 1`$ choose $`d=t`$, else choose $`d=\mathrm{min}\{\sigma ^1,t\}`$. Then

$$|(_t^2\varphi )_{\mathrm{sing}}(t,x)|C_T\left[1+\mathrm{ln}^{}\underset{0\tau t}{sup}Df(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}\right].$$

For $`(_t^2\varphi )_S`$ we express $`Sf`$ by (1.7) and integrate by parts in $`p`$. By the assumed bound on $`𝒫`$ the resulting kernels are bounded on the support of $`f`$. Since the resulting expression contains only terms in $`f`$ and first order derivatives of $`\varphi `$ which are bounded according to Lemmas 1 and 5 we obtain the bound on $`|(_t^2\varphi )_S|`$. To estimate $`(_t^2\varphi )_{S^2}`$ we expand $`S^2f`$ using the Vlasov equation:

$`S^2f`$ $`=`$ $`4S[fS\varphi ]+S[((S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi )_pf]`$
$`=`$ $`4fS^2\varphi +4(S\varphi )(Sf)+(S^2\varphi )p_pf+(1+p^2)^{1/2}(S_x\varphi )_pf`$
$`+F(t,x,p)_p(Sf)F_k{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_k}{p_j}}_{x_j}f.`$
After substituting this expression into $`(_t^2\varphi )_{S^2}`$ we remove the $`p`$-gradients by integration by parts. Then we use (4.6) to express $`_{x_j}f`$ and expand $`Sf`$ using the Vlasov equation. We end up with an expression which contains only first order $`p`$-derivatives of $`f`$, second order derivatives of $`\varphi `$ and the perfect derivative $`_y[f(t|xy|,y,p)]`$. Integrating the corresponding terms by parts in $`p`$ and $`y`$ and using Lemmas 1 and 5 again we get the estimate

$$|(_t^2\varphi )_{S^2}(t,x)|C_T\left[1+_0^tD^2\varphi (\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \right].$$

Summing up the various estimates and using the same argument for all second order derivatives proves the first estimate of the lemma. The second one then follows via Corollary 1 and Gronwall’s inequality. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Proof of Theorem 1

Let us start by proving that the initial data (1.8) with the regularity specified in the theorem launch a unique solution in some local time interval. For this purpose, we define an approximation sequence $`(f^{(n)},\varphi ^{(n)})`$ in the following way: For $`n=0`$ we set $`f^{(0)}(t,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(x,p)`$ and $`\varphi ^{(0)}(t,x)=\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}(x)`$. If $`(f^{(n1)},\varphi ^{(n1)})`$ is already defined, we define the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ iterate as the solution of the system

$$Sf^{(n)}[(S\varphi ^{(n1)})p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi ^{(n1)}]_pf^{(n)}=4f^{(n)}S\varphi ^{(n1)},$$

$$_t^2\varphi ^{(n)}\mathrm{\Delta }_x\varphi ^{(n)}=f^{(n)}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}},$$

with initial data

$$f^{(n)}(0,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(x,p),\varphi ^{(n)}(0,x)=\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}(x),_t\varphi ^{(n)}(0,x)=\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}(x).$$

We also define

$$𝒫^{(n)}(t)=sup\{|p|:0s<t,(x,p)\mathrm{supp}f^{(n)}(s)\}$$

and $`f_{n,m}=f^{(n)}f^{(m)},\varphi _{n,m}=\varphi ^{(n)}\varphi ^{(m)}`$. Local existence of a classical solution will follow from

###### Proposition 4

For all $`n`$, $`f^{(n)}C^1([0,\mathrm{}[\times ^6),\varphi ^{(n)}C^2([0,\mathrm{}[\times ^3)`$. There exists a time $`T_{}>0`$ and a continuous function $`z:[0,T_{}[[0,\mathrm{}[`$ such that

$$𝒫^{(n)}(t)+f^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+D\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}z(t),t[0,T_{}[,n.$$

Moreover

$$f_{n,m}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+\varphi _{n,m}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+D\varphi _{n,m}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+Df_{n,m}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+D^2\varphi _{n,m}(t)_{\mathrm{}}0,$$

as $`n,m\mathrm{}`$, uniformly on any compact time interval $`[0,T][0,T_{}[`$.

Proof: We adapt the estimates proved above for solutions of the Nordström-Vlasov system to the approximation sequence $`(f^{(n)},\varphi ^{(n)})`$. First we notice that the functions $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$, $`_t\varphi ^{(n)}`$ and $`_x\varphi ^{(n)}`$ have integral representations analogous to the ones proved for the solution:

$$\varphi ^{(n)}(t,x)=\varphi _0(t,x)_{|xy|t}f^{(n)}(t|xy|,y,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}\frac{dy}{|xy|},$$
(5.1)
$`_t\varphi ^{(n)}(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`_t\varphi _0(t,x)t^1{\displaystyle _{|xy|=t}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{\mathrm{in}}(y,p)}{(1+\omega \widehat{p})}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}𝑑S_y}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle a^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)f^{(n)}(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle b^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)[(S\varphi ^{(n1)})f^{(n)}](t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{|xy|t}}{\displaystyle c^{\varphi _t}(\omega ,p)_x\varphi ^{(n1)}f^{(n)}(t|xy|,y,p)𝑑p\frac{dy}{|xy|}}`$
and similarly for $`_x\varphi ^{(n)}`$. Moreover, if we denote by $`(X_n,P_n)`$ the solution of (2.2)–(2.4) with $`\varphi `$ replaced by $`\varphi ^{(n1)}`$ then we have, as in (2.5) and (2.7),

$`f^{(n)}(t,x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\mathrm{in}}(X_n(0),P_n(0))+4{\displaystyle _0^t}[f^{(n)}S\varphi ^{(n1)}](\tau ,X_n(\tau ),P_n(\tau ))𝑑\tau ,`$
$`f^{(n)}(t,x,p)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{\mathrm{in}}(X_n(0),P_n(0))\mathrm{exp}\left\{4\varphi ^{(n1)}(t,x)4\varphi ^{\mathrm{in}}(X_n(0))\right\}.`$
Thus the analogues of the estimates in Lemmas 2 and 5 read

$`\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`C_0(1+t)+c(1+t){\displaystyle _0^t}f^{(n)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫^{(n)}(\tau )^2𝑑\tau ,`$
$`D\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`C_1(1+t)`$
$`+c(1+t){\displaystyle _0^t}(1+D\varphi ^{(n1)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}})f^{(n)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝒫^{(n)}(\tau )^5𝑑\tau `$
and hold for all $`t0`$. The analogue of the first estimate in Lemma 1 is

$$f^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}+4_0^tD\varphi ^{(n1)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}f^{(n)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau .$$

Finally, as in Lemma 3,

$$𝒫^{(n)}(t)P_0+2_0^tD\varphi ^{(n1)}(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}(1+𝒫^{(n)}(\tau ))𝑑\tau .$$

Let us define

$$Q_n(t)=𝒫^{(n)}(t)+f^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}+D\varphi ^{(n)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Combining the previous estimates we obtain the inequality

$$Q_n(t)C+C_0^tQ_{n1}(\tau )Q_n(\tau )^6𝑑\tau ,t[0,1],$$

where

$$C=\mathrm{max}\{4,2C_0,2C_1\}P_0^4\left(1+P_0+f^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mathrm{}}+\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}_{2,\mathrm{}}+\varphi _1^{\mathrm{in}}_{1,\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(5.2)
It is then straightforward to show by induction that

$$Q_n(t)z(t),t[0,T_{}[,n,$$

where $`z`$ is the maximal solution of

$$\dot{z}=Cz^7,z(0)=C,$$

which exists up to time $`T_{}=C^7/6<1`$. Since $`𝒫^{(n)}`$ is bounded, the regularity of the approximation sequence follows by (5.1) and the induction hypothesis.

In any time interval $`[0,T][0,T_{}[`$ and for any iterate, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ is bounded by a constant $`C_T`$. By Corollary 1 and Lemma 6 applied to the iterates we obtain uniform bounds on the first order derivatives of $`f^{(n)}`$ and the second order derivatives of $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$ on $`[0,T]`$. The Cauchy property for $`f^{(n)}`$ and for $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$ and its first order derivatives is then easily deduced by deriving a Gronwall inequality for $`f_{n,m}`$. The Cauchy property for the next level of derivatives is less simple, and we refer to the analogous arguments for the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system, cf. \[4, pp. 82–85\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

To prove uniqueness of local solutions let $`(f_1,\varphi _1)`$ and $`(f_2,\varphi _2)`$ denote two solutions with the same initial data which exist on some common time interval $`[0,T]`$ and let $`g=f_1f_2`$, $`\psi =\varphi _1\varphi _2`$. For brevity we also let $`\lambda (t)=g(t)_{\mathrm{}}+D\psi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using the Vlasov equation we obtain

$`Sg[(S\varphi _1)p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi _1]_pg`$
$`=4gS\varphi _1+[(S\psi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\psi ]_pf_2+4f_2S\psi .`$
The right hand side of this equation is estimated in modulus by $`C_T\lambda (t)`$. Hence integration along characteristics implies

$$g(t)_{\mathrm{}}C_T_0^t\lambda (s)𝑑s.$$

Taking the difference of the representation formulas for the derivatives of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ and estimating as in Lemma 5 we obtain

$$D\psi (t)_{\mathrm{}}C_T_0^t\lambda (s)𝑑s.$$

By the previous two estimates $`\lambda =0`$ on $`[0,T]`$, and uniqueness is established.

Assume now that the local solution has been extended to a maximal time interval $`[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$, and assume further that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T_{\mathrm{max}})<\mathrm{}`$. To complete the proof of Theorem 1 we have to show that $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$. Assume that $`T_{\mathrm{max}}<\mathrm{}`$. Then due to Lemmas 1, 2, 5, and 6 the quantities $`𝒫(t)`$, $`f(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`D^2\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ are uniformly bounded on $`[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$. For any $`t_0[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$ we consider the Cauchy problem for the Nordström-Vlasov system with $`f(t_0),\varphi (t_0),_t\varphi (t_0)`$ prescribed as data at time $`t_0`$; let us ignore for the moment the problem that these data do not have the regularity required in our local existence result. By the same arguments as in Proposition 4 we conclude that this Cauchy problem has a local classical solution in an interval $`[t_0,t_0+\delta [`$ where $`\delta >0`$ can be chosen independently of $`t_0`$. To see the latter observe that all the quantities which entered the definition of the local existence time $`T_{}`$, cf. (5.2), are now uniformly bounded on $`[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$. Hence, if we take $`t_0`$ sufficiently close to $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the solution $`(f,\varphi )`$ can be extended beyond the time $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, which is a contradiction to its maximality. Thus we have shown that the bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ implies that the maximal solution is global.

To complete the proof let us deal with the technical catch that $`f(t_0),\varphi (t_0),_t\varphi (t_0)`$ do not have the regularity required for our local existence result. Instead of using Proposition 4 directly we define a new sequence of iterates as follows: For $`(f^{(0)},\varphi ^{(0)})`$ we take a global extension of $`(f,\varphi )_{|[0,t_0]}`$ with the same regularity as required of the solution and with $`f^{(0)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi ^{(0)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`D\varphi ^{(0)}(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ uniformly bounded in $`t`$. Given the $`(n1)^{\mathrm{st}}`$ iterate we define the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ iterate exactly as before. In particular, all these iterates coincide with the solution on the time interval $`[0,t_0]`$, and the term $`\varphi _0`$ in (3.1), which is the one in which the “loss of derivative” problem arises, is the one determined by the field data at $`t=0`$. It is now straightforward to repeat all the estimates for these new iterates and to show that they converge to a solution on a time interval $`[0,t_0+\delta ]`$ where $`\delta `$ can be bounded away from zero if the quantities entering the definition of $`T_{}`$ in Proposition 4 are bounded away from infinity, cf. (5.2). To put it shortly: Data obtained by evaluating a classical solution at some time $`t_0`$ are admissible data for the local existence result.

## 6 Proof of Theorem 2

The proof of Theorem 1 is not affected by changing the sign of the right hand side of (1.5) and so the Cauchy problem for the “repulsive” Nordström-Vlasov system has a unique classical solution on a maximal interval of time $`[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$. Let us give data which are homogeneous in the ball $`B_R(0)`$ and assume that $`T_{\mathrm{max}}>R`$. Then the solution remains homogeneous in the cone

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(R)=\{(t,x):|x|Rt,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}tR\}.$$

This property can easily be understood as a consequence of finite propagation speed, but for the sake of completeness we give a proof of this claim. We use the approximation sequence which we define as in the proof of Theorem 1, but with the sign of the second term in (5.1) reversed. The pair $`(f^{(0)},\varphi ^{(0)})`$ is homogeneous in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ by definition. Assume this is true at step $`n1`$. If $`(t,x)\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$, then $`(s,X_n(s))`$ will be contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ for all $`st`$. Hence

$$\frac{dP_n}{ds}=_s\varphi ^{(n1)}(s,0)P_n,(t,x)\mathrm{\Omega }(R),st.$$

Integrating this equation we obtain

$$P_n(s)=p\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi ^{(n1)}(t,0)\varphi ^{(n1)}(s,0)\right)$$

and so $`P_n(0)=p\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi ^{(n1)}(t,0)\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}(0)\right)`$. Hence

$$f^{(n)}(t,x,p)=f^{\mathrm{in}}(0,P_n(0))\mathrm{exp}(4\varphi ^{(n1)}(t,0)4\varphi _0^{\mathrm{in}}(0)),(t,x)\mathrm{\Omega }(R)$$

and so $`f^{(n)}`$ is homogeneous on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$. By the Kirchhoff formula (5.1) with the plus sign between the two terms this is true for $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$ as well. Since the solution $`(f,\varphi )`$ arises as a uniform limit of the iterative sequence on some time interval we conclude that it is homogeneous in the truncated cone $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T(R)=\{(t,x):|x|Rs,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}sT\}`$ for some $`0<TR`$. Choose $`\stackrel{~}{T}R`$ maximal such that the solution is homogeneous on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{T}}(R)`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{T}<R`$ then we could construct the approximation sequence with data $`f(\stackrel{~}{T})`$, $`\varphi (\stackrel{~}{T})`$, $`_t\varphi (\stackrel{~}{T})`$ at time $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$, which are homogeneous on the ball $`|x|R\stackrel{~}{T}`$, and we would be able to prove homogeneity of the solution in the truncated cone $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{T}+\delta }(R)`$ for some $`\delta >0`$ which is a contradiction to the maximality of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$.

Hence the solution $`(f,\varphi )`$ is homogeneous on the cone $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R(R)=\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$. If by abuse of notation we denote this spatially homogeneous solution on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ by $`f=f(t,p),\varphi =\varphi (t)`$ then this pair satisfies the equations

$$\ddot{\varphi }=\mu ,$$
(6.1)
$$\mu (t)=f(t,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}$$
(6.2)
$$_tf\dot{\varphi }p_pf=4\dot{\varphi }f,$$
(6.3)
for all $`t[0,R]`$, where $`=d/dt`$. Hence $`\ddot{\varphi }0`$, and since $`\dot{\varphi }(0)>0`$, $`\varphi `$ is increasing. Moreover

$$\dot{\mu }=\dot{\varphi }(p_pf+4f)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}=\dot{\varphi }f\frac{1+2p^2}{(1+p^2)^{3/2}}𝑑p\dot{\varphi }\mu .$$

Integrating this inequality we obtain $`\mu (t)\mu (0)e^{\varphi (t)\varphi (0)}`$. Hence by (6.1), $`\ddot{\varphi }\mu (0)e^{\varphi \varphi (0)}`$, and

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[(\dot{\varphi })^22\mu (0)e^{\varphi (0)}e^\varphi \right]0.$$

By our assumptions in Theorem 2 the term in square brackets is non-negative at time $`t=0`$. Hence $`(\dot{\varphi }(t))^22\mu (0)e^{\varphi (0)}e^{\varphi (t)}0`$ for all $`t[0,R]`$. Setting $`\lambda =2\mu (0)e^{\varphi (0)}`$, the latter inequality entails

$$2\frac{d}{dt}(e^{\varphi /2})\sqrt{\lambda },$$

which implies

$$e^{\varphi (t)/2}e^{\varphi (0)/2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\lambda }t,t[0,R].$$

Since by our assumptions in Theorem 2 the right hand side of this inequality is not positive for $`t=R`$ this is a contradiction. Hence the length of the maximal existence interval cannot be larger that $`R`$, and the proof of Theorem 2 is complete.

## 7 The one dimensional case

In this final section we study the one dimensional system (1.9), (1.10), (1.11), in particular, $`x,p`$ and all integrals are one dimensional. We integrate the one dimensional wave equation (1.9) along its characteristics to obtain

$`_t\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(_t\varphi +_x\varphi )(0,x+t)+(_t\varphi _x\varphi )(0,xt)\right]`$ (7.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}\left[\mu (s,x+st)\mu (s,xs+t)\right]𝑑s,`$
$`_x\varphi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(_t\varphi +_x\varphi )(0,x+t)(_t\varphi _x\varphi )(0,xt)\right]`$ (7.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}\left[\mu (s,x+st)\mu (s,xs+t)\right]𝑑s.`$
Using these and the resulting formulas for $`\varphi `$ itself and its second order derivatives instead of the representation formulas in Section 4 it is straight forward to show that initial data of the regularity stated in Theorem 3 launch a classical solution on some maximal time interval $`[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$ if $`\varphi `$ and the momenta in the support of $`f`$ remain bounded, i.e., the analogue of Theorem 1 holds. The only point that needs to be checked here is that a bound on $`𝒫(t)`$, $`f(t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ implies a bound on the second order derivatives of $`\varphi `$, i.e., the analogue of Lemma 6 holds. The crucial terms to estimate if one for example takes another time derivative in (7.1) are of the form

$$_0^t(_xf)(s,x+st,p)\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}$$
(7.3)
To get rid of the derivative on $`f`$ we use the relation

$`(_xf)(s,x+st,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\widehat{p}}}`$ $`[`$ $`_p\left([(S\varphi )p+(1+p^2)^{1/2}_x\varphi ]f\right)(s,x+st,p)`$
$`+(S\varphi f)(s,x+st,p)_s[f(s,x+st,p)]]`$
which follows from the Vlasov equation (1.11). Upon substitution into (7.3) we can integrate by parts with respect to $`p`$ and $`s`$ respectively. The resulting terms will contain only first order derivatives of $`\varphi `$, no derivatives of $`f`$, and kernels which are bounded as long as $`p`$ is bounded away from infinity.

Assume now that $`T_{\mathrm{max}}<\mathrm{}`$. Then conservation of energy implies that $`\varphi `$ remains bounded on the $`x`$-support of $`f`$. To see this, note that for $`R_0>0`$ sufficiently large, $`f(t,x,p)=0`$ for $`|x|>R_0+t`$ , and hence we can change $`\varphi `$ outside this forward lightcone without affecting the solution inside. Together with the bound on the spatial integral of $`_x\varphi `$ coming from conservation of energy this implies a bound on $`\varphi `$ on the $`x`$-support of $`f`$. By (2.7) this in turn implies a bound on $`f`$ as well; $`e^{2\varphi }f`$ is constant along characteristics, cf. (2.6). Therefore,

$$\mu (t)_{\mathrm{}}2f(t)_{\mathrm{}}_0^{𝒫(t)}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1+p^2}}C\mathrm{ln}(1+𝒫(t))$$

with $`C>0`$ independent of $`t`$. Combining this with the representation formulas (7.1) and (7.2) implies

$$D\varphi (t)_{\mathrm{}}C\left[1+\mathrm{ln}(1+𝒫(t))\right].$$

Using this estimate in (2.3) of the characteristic system and integrating we obtain the inequality

$$𝒫(t)P_0+C_0^t(1+𝒫(\tau ))\mathrm{ln}(1+𝒫(\tau ))𝑑\tau $$

which holds for all $`t[0,T_{\mathrm{max}}[`$ with some constant $`C>0`$ which does not depend on $`t`$. Since by assumption $`T_{\mathrm{max}}<\mathrm{}`$ this implies that $`𝒫`$ is bounded as well which is a contradiction. Hence $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$.

Acknowledgments: S. C. acknowledges support by the European HYKE network (contract HPRN-CT-2002-00282), G. R. acknowledges support by the Wittgenstein 2000 Award of P. A. Markowich.