Arxiv:2005.10447V2 [Math.AP] 26 Jan 2021 K=2 As Neumann Data, We Take F Which Are Small in Cm+1 for ﬁxed Large M

AN INVERSE BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEM FOR A SEMILINEAR WAVE EQUATION ON LORENTZIAN MANIFOLDS PETER HINTZ, GUNTHER UHLMANN, AND JIAN ZHAI Abstract. We consider an inverse boundary value problem for a semilinear wave equation on a time-dependent Lorentzian manifold with time-like boundary. The time-dependent coefficients of the nonlinear terms can be recovered in the interior from the knowledge of the Neumann-to-Dirichlet map. Either distorted plane waves or Gaussian beams can be used to derive uniqueness. 1. Introduction Let (M; g) be a (1 + 3)-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with boundary @M, where the metric g is of signature (−; +; +; +). We assume that M = R × N where N is a manifold with boundary @N, and write the metric g as (1) g = −β(t; x0)dt2 + κ(t; x0); 0 0 1 2 3 where x = (t; x ) = (x ; x ; x ; x ) are local coordinates on M; here, β : R×N ! (0; 1) is a smooth function and κ(t; ·) is a Riemannian metric on N depending smoothly on t 2 R. The boundary @M = R × @N of M is then timelike. Let ν denote the unit outer normal vector field to @M. Assume that @M is null-convex, which means that II(V; V ) = g(rV ν; V ) ≥ 0 for all null vectors V 2 T (@M); see [18] for a discussion of this condition. We consider the semilinear wave equation on M gu(x) + H(x; u(x)) = 0; on M; (2) @νu(x) = f(x); on @M; u(t; x0) = 0; t < 0; −1=2 p jk where g = j det gj @j( j det gjg @k) is the wave operator (d'Alembertian) on (M; g). We assume that H(x; z) is smooth in z near 0 with Taylor expansion 1 X k 1 H(x; z) ∼ hk(x)z ; hk 2 C (M): arXiv:2005.10447v2 [math.AP] 26 Jan 2021 k=2 As Neumann data, we take f which are small in Cm+1 for fixed large m. The Neumann-to-Dirichlet (ND) map Λ is defined as Λf = uj@M ; where u is the solution of (2). We will investigate the inverse problem of determining hj(x), j = 2; 3;::: , from Λ. We remark that for the linear equation gu + V u = 0, the problem of recovering V from the ND map is still open in general. Stefanov and Yang [36] proved that the light ray transform of V can Date: January 27, 2021. Key words and phrases. inverse boundary value problem, semilinear equation, Lorentzian manifold. 1 2 P. HINTZ, G. UHLMANN, AND J. ZHAI be recovered from boundary measurements; however, the invertibility of the light ray transform is still unknown on general Lorentzian manifolds. We refer to [30, 14, 40] for an overview and recent results on the light ray transform. In [26], the nonlinearity was exploited to solve inverse problems for a nonlinear equation where the corresponding inverse problem is still open for linear equations. The starting point of the approach is the higher order linearization, which we shall briefly introduce here. We take boundary PN Neumann data of the form f = i=1 ifi, where i, i = 1;:::;N are small parameters. Since Λ PN is a nonlinear map, Λ( i=1 ifi) contains more information than fΛ(fi)gi=1;:::;N : indeed, useful information can be extracted from N @N X Λ ifi : @ ··· @ =···= =0 1 N 1 N i=1 This higher order linearization technique has been extensively used in the literature [37, 20, 26, 32, 24, 31, 10, 41,9, 38,6,1,5, 28, 29, 16, 22, 23, 27] The recovery of nonlinear terms from source-to-solution map was considered in [32], where the authors use the nonlinear interactions of distorted plane waves. The approach originated from [26], and has been successfully used to study inverse problems for nonlinear hyperbolic equations [32, 24, 31, 10, 41,9, 38,6]. For some similar problems, Gaussian beams are used instead of distorted plane waves [25, 15, 39]. The two approaches are actually closely related; both enable a pointwise recovery of the coefficients in the interior. In this article, we will study the above inverse boundary value problem using both distorted plane waves and Gaussian beams. The two approaches will be discussed and compared in the last section. To state our main result, recall that a smooth curve µ :(a; b) ! M is causal if g(_µ(s); µ_ (s)) ≤ 0 andµ _ (s) 6= 0 for all s 2 (a; b). Given p; q 2 M, we write p ≤ q if p = q or p can be joined to q by a future directed causal curve. We say p < q if p ≤ q and p 6= q. We denote the causal future of p 2 M by J +(p) = fq 2 M : p ≤ qg and the causal past of q 2 M by J −(q) = fp 2 M : p ≤ qg. We shall restrict the ND map to (0;T ) × @N, and correspondingly work in [ + − U = J (p) \ J (q): p;q2(0;T )×@N Theorem 1. Consider the semilinear wave equations (j) gu(x) + H (x; u(x)) = 0; j = 1; 2: Assume H(j)(x; z) are smooth in z near 0 and have a Taylor expansion1 1 (j) X (j) k (j) 1 H (x; z) ∼ hk (x)z ; hk 2 C (U): k=2 (j) Assume that null geodesics in U do not have cut points. If the Neumann-to-Dirichlet maps Λ acting on C6([0;T ] × @N) are equal, Λ(1) = Λ(2), then (1) (2) hk (x) = hk (x); x 2 U; k ≥ 2: 1 (j) 1 @k (j) The notation means that hk (x) = k! @zk H (x; 0). AN IBVP FOR A SEMILINEAR WAVE EQUATION 3 The strategy of the proof is to send in distorted plane waves (or Gaussian beams) from outside the manifold M (within a small extension Mf) and analyze contributions to the ND map from nonlinear interactions in the interior of M as well as from subsequent reflections at the boundary @M of M. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section2, we establish the well-posedness of the initial boundary value problem (2) for small boundary data. In Section3, we use the nonlinear interaction of distorted plane waves to prove the main theorem. In Section4, we give another proof of the main theorem using Gaussian beam solutions, assuming h2 is already known. Finally, the two approaches will be compared and discussed in Section5. 2. Well-posedness for small boundary data We establish well-posedness of the initial boundary value problem (2) in this section with small boundary value f. m+1 Fix m ≥ 5. We assume f 2 C ([0;T ] × @N) and kfkCm+1([0;T ]×@N) ≤ 0 for a small number @`f 0 > 0. Assume also that f satisfies the compatibility condition @t` = 0 at ft = 0g for any m+1 ` = 0; 1; : : : ; m − 1. We can find a function h 2 C ([0;T ] × N) such that @νhj[0;T ]×@N = f and khkCm+1([0;T ]×N) ≤ CkfkCm+1([0;T ]×@N): Let ue = u − h, where u solves the initial boundary value problem (2). Then ue satisfies the equation gue = F (x; u;e h) := −gh − H(x; ue + h); @ue supplemented with the boundary condition @νue = 0 on (0;T )×@N and initial conditions ue = @t = 0 at f0g × N. The above equation can be written in the form gue = F (x; u;e h); in (0;T ) × @N; (3) @νue = 0; on (0;T ) × @N; @u u = e = 0; on t = 0: e @t This equation is of the form [8, equation (5.12)]. For R > 0, define Z(R; T ) as the set of all functions w satisfying m m \ k;1 m−k 2 X k 2 2 w 2 W ([0;T ]; H (N)); kwkZ := sup k@t w(t)kHm−k ≤ R : k=0 t2[0;T ] k=0 We can write F (x; u;e h) = F (x; h) + G(x; u;e h)ue where F = −gh − H(x; h) and Z 1 G(x; u;e h) = − @zH(x; h + τue)dτ: 0 We can write F (x; h) = F (t; y; h) using the notation x = (t; y). Since H(x; z) is smooth in z, we have m−1 m−1 X k X k 0 sup k@t F (t; ·; h)kHm−k−1 ≤ C sup k@t F (t; ·; h)kCm−k−1 ≤ C 0: t2[0;T ] k=0 t2[0;T ] k=0 Moreover, @zH(x; z) vanishes linearly in z, hence we have m \ k;1 m−k 0 G(x; u;e h) 2 W ([0;T ]; H (N)); kG(x; u;e h)kZ ≤ C(khkZ + kuekZ ) ≤ C (0 + kuekZ ) k=0 4 P. HINTZ, G. UHLMANN, AND J. ZHAI for ue 2 Z(ρ0;T ) with ρ0 small enough. Given we 2 Z(ρ0;T ), consider first the linear initial boundary value problem gue − G(x; w;e h)we = F (x; h); t 2 (0;T ); (4) @νue = 0; t 2 (0;T ); @u u(0) = e(0) = 0: e @t Tm k m−k By [8, Theorem 3.1], there exists a unique solution ue 2 k=0 C ([0;T ]; H (N)) to (4), and it satisfies the estimate 2 KT kuekZ ≤ C(0 + 0kwekZ + kwekZ )e ; where C; K are positive constants depending on the coefficients of the equation. Denote T to be the map which maps we 2 Z(ρ0;T ) to the solution ue of (4).

Load more