Time decay for the bounded mean oscillation of

solutions of the Schrödinger and wave equations

S.J. Montgomery-Smith*
University of Missouri

Abstract: Let u(x, t) be the solution of the Schrödinger or wave equation with L2
arXiv:math/9704212v2 [math.FA] 3 Dec 1999

initial data. We provide counterexamples to plausible conjectures involving the

decay in t of the BMO norm of u(t, ·). The proofs make use of random methods,
in particular, Brownian motion.

1. Introduction
Consider the wave equation:

∂t2 u(t, x) = ∆u(t, x)

u(0, x) = 0
∂t u(0, x) = f,

where t ∈ R, x ∈ Rd , and f ∈ L2 (Rd ). Let us write once and for all Bt f = u(t, ·), so that
d sin(t |ζ|) ˆ
B t f (ζ) = f (ζ). In this paper we will be discussing the endpoints of the following
|ζ|
assertion.
(Bd,p,q ): if f ∈ L2 (Rd ), then t 7→ Bt f is in Lq (R, Lp (Rd )), and there exists a constant c
independent of f such that
Z ∞ 1/q
q
kBt f kp dt ≤ c kf k2 .
−∞

If p, q ≥ 1, then by standard arguments, it is easy to show that this is equivalent to its

dual assertion. Here, as in the rest of the paper, 1/p + 1/p′ = 1/q + 1/q ′ = 1.
∗ d
R∞
(Bd,p ′ ,q ′ ): if t 7→ ft is in Lq ′ (R, Lp′ (R )), then B f dt (exists almost everywhere and)
−∞ t t
d
is in L2 (R ), and there exists a constant c independent of ft such that
Z ∞ Z ∞ 1/q ′
q′
Bt ft dt
≤c kft kp′ dt .
−∞ 2 −∞

In stating these assertions, we will always suppose that d, p and q satisfy the following
conditions: 
d 1 d
+ = − 1 


p q 2
(∗B )
p, q ≥ 2 



d ≥ 3.

* Research funded in part by N.S.F. D.M.S. 9424396.

1
Indeed the first condition can easily be shown to be necessary if (Bd,p,q ) is to hold. This
follows from considering the substitution f (x) → f (rx) for any 0 < r < ∞. (Physicists
might call this a dimensional argument.)
∗
It is known that if conditions (∗B ) hold, then assertions (Bd,p,q ) and (Bd,p′ ,q ′ ) are true

whenever p < ∞. Results of this form are commonly known as Strichartz inequalities, and
were proven in [St1] in the case p = q. The other cases follow by the same argument. The
main application of these results is to show existence and uniqueness results for non-linear
wave equations. (See [Br], [Ka], [Ke] and [Ru] for applications of this and similar results,
and references to other such results.)
The only case left is p = ∞, q = 2 and d = 3. The assertion (B3,∞,2 ) and its dual
∗
(B3,1,2 ) were shown to be false by Klainerman and Machedon [Kl].
It was then conjectured that a weaker assertion may hold, that is, (B3,BMO,2 ). The
space BMO(Rd ) has long been studied by many authors. Many results that are not true
for L∞ turn out to be true for BMO. The space BMO is slightly larger than L∞ , with a
smaller norm. There are several equivalent definitions for this space (see for example [Se]),
and for our purposes it will be convenient to define BMO in terms of its dual space, H1 ,
that is, BMO(Rd ) is the space of measurable functions f from Rd such that if g ∈ H1 (Rd ),
then f g ∈ L1 (Rd ). Furthermore, BMO is equipped with the dual norm:
Z 
kf kBMO = sup f g : kgkH1 ≤ 1 .
Rd

Thus it only remains to define H1 (Rd ). Again, the literature gives several definitions (see
for example [Se]). We will pick a definition in terms of maximal functions based upon the
heat kernel: Z
1 2
M g(x) = sup d/2
exp(− |y| /t)g(x − y) dy.
t>0 Rd (4πt)

Then we say that g ∈ H1 (Rd ) if M g ∈ L1 (Rd ), and set

kgkH1 = kM gk1 .
It is clear that |g| ≤ |M g| almost everywhere, and hence H1 is a subspace of L1 with larger
norm.
For definiteness, let us explicitly state the assertions involving these norms.
(B3,BMO,2 ): if f ∈ L2 (R3 ), then t 7→ Bt f is in L2 (R, BMO(R3 )), and there exists a
constant c independent of f such that
Z ∞ 1/2
2
kBt f kBMO dt ≤ c kf k2 .
−∞

This is equivalent to its dual assertion:

∗ 3
R∞
(B3,H 1 ,2
): if t →
7 f t is in L 2 (R, H 1 (R )), then B f dt is in L2 (R3 ), and there exists
−∞ t t
a constant c independent of ft such that
Z ∞ Z ∞ 1/2


Bt ft dt ≤ c
2
kft kH1 dt .

−∞ 2 −∞

2
The purpose of this paper is to provide a counterexample to assertion (B3,BMO,2 ). We will
∗
proceed by considering the dual assertion (B3,H 1 ,2
). We will be using random methods,
and so we do not provide an explicit counterexample. The tool from probability theory
we shall use is Brownian motion. We refer the reader to [Pe] for details. However the
only property of Brownian motion we shall use is that it is a randomly chosen continuous
function t 7→ bt from R to
p R such that bt − bs is a gaussian random variable with mean 0
and standard deviation |s − t|. Throughout the paper, we will use the notation EX to
denote the expected value of a random variable X.
We shall also consider the Schrödinger equation with zero potential:

∂t u(t, x) = −i∆u(t, x)
u(0, x) = f (x),

where, once again, t ∈ R, x ∈ Rd , and f ∈ L2 (Rd ). Let us write once and for all
d
At f = u(t, ·), so that A
2 ˆ
t f (ζ) = exp(i |ζ| )f (ζ). Then we get a similar assertion, with its
dual.
(Ad,p,q ): if f ∈ L2 (Rd ), then t 7→ At f is in Lq (R, Lp (Rd )), and there exists a constant c
independent of f such that
Z ∞ 1/q
q
kAt f kp dt ≤ c kf k2 .
−∞

R∞
(A∗d,p′ ,q ′ ): if t 7→ ft is in Lq ′ (R, Lp′ (Rd )), then −∞
At ft dt is in L2 (Rd ), and there exists
a constant c independent of ft such that
Z ∞ Z ∞ 1/q ′
q′

At ft dt ≤ c kft kp′ dt .

−∞ 2 −∞

In stating these assertions, we will always suppose that p, q and d satisfy the following
conditions: 
d 2 d
+ =  
p q 2
(∗A )
p, q ≥ 2 


d ≥ 2.
Once again, the first condition can be shown to be necessary.
Rather less is known about these assertions than the corresponding ones for the wave
equation. It is known [Gi] that if conditions (∗A ) hold, and q > 2, then (Ad,p,q ) holds.
However the case q = 2 seems to be open. This paper tackles one of these problems,
that is, the case when q = 2, d = 2 and p = ∞. We will demonstrate that the assertion
(A2,∞,2 ) does not hold. (We will also include an alternative proof of this fact due to Tony
Carbery and Steve Hofmann.) The problem when q = 2 and d ≥ 3 seems to be very
difficult, and at the time of writing is apparently unknown.

3
 We will also deal with the assertions involving the space BMO, again showing that
these are false.
(A2,BMO,2 ): if f ∈ L2 (R2 ), then t 7→ At f is in L2 (R, BMO(R2 )), and there exists a
constant c independent of f such that
Z ∞ 1/2
2
kAt f kBMO dt ≤ c kf k2 .
−∞

This is equivalent to its dual assertion:

R∞
(A∗2,H1 ,2 ): if t 7→ ft is in L2 (R, H1 (R2 )), then −∞ At ft dt is in L2 (R2 ), and there exists
a constant c independent of ft such that
Z ∞ Z ∞ 1/2

At ft dt
2
≤c kft kH1 dt .
−∞ 2 −∞

The author would like to acknowledge the tremendous help of many colleagues, who ex-
plained the problems, and were a source of ideas and inspiration. In particular, he would
like to mention Tony Carbery, Loukas Grafakos, Steve Hofmann, Nigel Kalton, Lev Kapi-
tansky, and Luis Vega.

2. Solutions of the Schrödinger equation

We will start by considering the Schrödinger equation, because the techniques are simpler.
Our first result will be eclipsed by Theorem 2, given later. However, we will prove the
following result because the method of the proof is simpler, and illustrates the main ideas
that will be used. Because this will not be a definitive result, we will not be completely
rigorous.
Throughout this section, we will make great use of the fact that if fˆ(ζ) = exp(−α |ζ| )
2
2
(ζ ∈ R2 ), where α is a complex number with Re(α) > 0, then f (x) = (4πα)−1 exp(− |x| /α).
If one is considering tempered distributions, the result remains true if Re(α) = 0.
Theorem 1. Assertion (A2,∞,2 ) is not true.
In fact, what we will do is to show that assertion (A∗2,1,2 ) is not true. Our counterex-
R∞ 2
ample is ft (x) = αt δ(x − pt ), where −∞ |αt | dt = 1, pt ∈ R2 will be chosen later, and δ is
the Dirac delta function on R2 . Of course, δ is not a function, and thus is not in L1 (R2 ).
However, we will sacrifice rigor for the sake of clarity. A more rigorous argument may
2
be formed by setting δ̂(ζ) = exp(− |ζ| ), and following the argument used in the proof of
Theorem 2.
Note that if t ∈ R, and p, q ∈ R2 , then
Z Z
2
(At δ)(x − p)δ(x − q) dx = exp(it |ζ| ) exp(ip · ζ) exp(−iq · ζ) dζ
R2 R2
!
2
1 |p − q|
=− exp .
4πit it

4
Then
Z ∞ 2 Z Z ∞ Z ∞


At ft dt = At ft (x) dt As fs (x) ds dx

−∞ 2 R2 −∞ −∞
Z ∞Z ∞Z
= (At−s ft )(x)fs (x) dx ds dt
−∞ −∞ R2
Z ∞Z ∞ !
2
αt ᾱs |pt − ps |
=− exp ds dt.
−∞ −∞ 4πi(t − s) i(t − s)

√
Now we let pt = ( θbt , 0), where θ is chosen so that if γ is a gaussian random variable
with mean 0 and standard deviation 1, then a = E(sin(θγ 2 ) 6= 0. Thus
!
2
|pt − ps |
E sin = E sin(sgn(t − s)θγ 2) = a sgn(t − s).
(t − s)

Then, if αt is real,
Z 2 Z Z !
∞ ∞ ∞ 2
αt αs |pt − ps |
− Re E
At ft dt
= E sin ds dt
−∞ 2 −∞ −∞ 4πi(t − s) (t − s)
Z ∞Z ∞
αt αs
=a ds dt.
−∞ −∞ 4πi |t − s|

Taking αt = 1 if |t| ≤ 1, and 0 otherwise, we obtain an unbounded integral, and hence the
desired counterexample.

We will also give a different proof of this last result due to Tony Carbery and Steve
Hofmann. This proof was found shortly after the one just given, and is reproduced here
with their permission. Again, we are sacrificing some rigor √ to obtain clarity. The starting
point is the same, except that we shall take ft (x) = δ(x − rpt ) for t ∈ I, and 0 otherwise,
where I is any interval. We shall suppose that pt is any path in Lip1/2 , with kpkLip1/2 = 1,
and that r ∈ R. Then it is sufficient to find a counterexample to the following assertion.
For every r ∈ R and interval I we have
Z Z ! 
 1 r |pt − ps |
2 
 
 exp ds dt ≤ |I| .
 I I 4πi(t − s) i(t − s) 

Now we apply an idea from [Co]. Pick F ∈ C0∞ (R) such that F (ρ) = ρ for |ρ| ≤ 1. Then

Z !
2 ∞ 2
|pt − ps | r |pt − ps |
= F̂ (−r) exp dr,
t−s −∞ i(t − s)

5
and so combining the last two displayed equations, and rearranging the integrals, we see
that Z Z  Z ∞
 |pt − ps |
2 
 
 ds dt ≤ |I| |F̂ (r)| dr ≤ C |I| ,
 I I 4π(t − s)2  −∞

where C is some universal constant. But by a result of Strichartz [St2], we have that if
D1/2 p ∈ BMO, then
Z Z 2
1 |pt − ps |
sup ds dt ≈ kD1/2 pkBMO .
I |I| I I (t − s)2

Here Dd 1/2 p(τ ) = |τ |1/2 p̂(τ ). Hence we have our counterexample by picking p with

kpkLip1/2 = 1, and kD1/2 pkBMO arbitrarily large.

Now we will improve this result. In the arguments that follow, the reader may feel
uncomfortable with the cavalier and implicit use of Fubini’s Theorem. The use of Fubini’s
Theorem requires all the integrals to be absolutely convergent, and this is not the case, as
it is exactly the opposite that we are trying to show. For this reason, the proofs should
really be seen as proofs by contradiction, that is, the reader should suppose initially that
the assertions stated in the theorems are true.
Theorem 2. Assertion (A2,BMO,2 ) is not true.
Once again, we provide a counterexample to the dual assertion (A∗2,H1 ,2 ). In this case,
R∞ 2
our counterexample will be ft (x) = αt g(x − pt ), where −∞ |αt | dt = 1, pt ∈ R2 will be
2 2
chosen later, and ĝ(ζ) = |ζ| exp(− |ζ| ).
Let us first show that g ∈ H1 (R2 ). Using Fourier transforms, we see that
Z
1 2
M g(x) = sup exp(− |x − y| /t)g(y) dy
t>0 4πt R2
!
2 2
4(1 + t) − 2 |x| |x|
= sup exp −
t>0 4π(1 + t)3 1+t
1
= O( 2 ),
1 + |x|

which is in L1 (R2 ).
Note also that for t ∈ R and p, q ∈ R2
Z
(At g)(x − p)g(x − q) dx
R2
Z
4 2
= |ζ| exp((−2 + it) |ζ| ) exp(ζ · (q − p)) dζ
R2
!
1 |x|
2 

= ∆2 exp 
4π(2 − it) −2 + it x=q−p

6
 !
2
1 2 |q − p|
= 3
P (|q − p| /(−2 + it)) exp
4π(2 − it) −2 + it
!
2 2
1 2 2 |q − p| it |q − p|
= 3
P (|q − p| /(−2 + it)) exp − 2
− ,
4π(2 − it) 4+t 4 + t2

where P (t) = 16t2 − 64t + 32.

Hence Z ∞ 2 Z ∞ Z ∞

A f dt = αt ᾱs K(t, s) ds dt,
t t
−∞ 2 −∞ −∞

where

1 2
K(t, s) = P (|pt − ps | /(−2 + i(t − s)))×
4π(2 − i(t − s))3
!
2 2
2 |pt − ps | i(t − s) |pt − ps |
exp − − .
4 + (t − s)2 4 + (t − s)2

√
Now we will choose pt = (t, θbt ), where bt and θ are defined as in the previous section.
In order to demonstrate that we have a counterexample, we need to show that E(K(t, s))
is not the kernel of bounded operator from L2 (R) → L2 (R).
p We shall be interested in the behavior of E(K(t, s)) as t − s → ±∞. Let bt − bs =
|t − s|γ, where γ is a gaussian random variable with mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
Denote hti = 1 + |t|.
First see that

2
P (|pt − ps | /(−2 + i(t − s))) = −16(t − s)2 + O(γ 4 ht − si).

Also, there exists a constant c1 such that

!
2
2 |pt − ps |
exp − = exp(−(2 + O(γ 2 ht − si−1 )) = exp(−2) + O(exp(c1 γ 2 ht − si−1 ) − 1).
4 + (t − s)2

Furthermore,

2
(t − s) |pt − ps |
= (t − s) + sgn(t − s)θγ 2 + O(γ 2 ht − si−1 ),
4 + (t − s)2

and hence there is a constant c2 such that

!
2
(t − s) |pt − ps |
exp −i = exp(i(s − t + sgn(s − t)θγ 2 )) + O(exp(c2 γ 2 ht − si−1 ) − 1).
4 + (t − s)2

7
Therefore, for some constant c3 ,

−16 exp(−2)(t − s)2

K(t, s) = exp(i(s − t)) exp(i sgn(s − t)θγ 2 )
4π(−2 + i(t − s))3


+ O γ 4 ht − si−3 + ht − si−2 (exp(c3 γ 2 ht − si−1 ) − 1) .

Hence

−16 exp(−2)(t − s)2

E(K(t, s)) = exp(i(s − t))(a1 + ia2 sgn(s − t)) + O(ht − si−3 ),
4π(2 − i(t − s))3
√
where a1 + ia2 = E(exp(iθγ 2 )). By considering the examples αt = exp(it)/ N if |t| ≤ N ,
and 0 otherwise, and letting N → ∞, it may be readily seen that E(K(t, s)) is not the
kernel of a bounded map from L2 (R) → L2 (R), and the desired counterexample has been
obtained.

We will now present a second proof of the same result. This proof goes via the Fourier
transform. Although this proof is less intuitive, it also has less technical difficulties. To
recap, it is sufficient
R ∞ to find a counterexample to the following statement: there is a constant
2
c such that if −∞ |αt | dt ≤ 1, and if g ∈ H1 (R2 ), then for any path pt ∈ R2 , we have
that Z ∞Z ∞
K(s, t)αtᾱs ds dt ≤ c,
−∞ −∞

where
Z
K(s, t) = (At−s g)(x − pt )g(x − ps ) dx ds dt
R2
Z
2 2
= exp(i(t − s) |ζ| + i(ps − pt ) · ζ) |ĝ(ζ)| dζ.
R2

That is, we are asking whether K(s, t) is the kernel of a bounded operator from L2 (R) to
L2 (R).
We take pt = (t, bt ), where bt is Brownian motion. It is sufficient to show that
E(K(s, t)) is not the kernel of a bounded operator on L2 (R2 ). Note that if γ is a gaussian
random variable with mean 1 and standard deviation 0, then E(exp(iγ)) = exp(−t2 /2).
Hence E(K(s, t)) = L(t − s), where
Z
2 2
L(t) = exp(it |ζ| − itζ1 − |t| ζ22 /2) |ĝ(ζ)| dζ.
R2

But L(t − s) fails to be the kernel of a bounded operator on L2 (R) if and only if L̂(ω) fails
to be bounded almost everywhere. Furthermore
Z
2
L̂(ω) = k(ω, ζ) |g(ζ)| dζ,
R2

8
where k(·, ζ) = k1 (·, ζ) ∗ k2 (·, ζ) with
2
k1 (ω, ζ) = δ(ω + |ζ| − ζ1 )

and
4ζ22
k2 (ω, ζ) = ,
4ω 2 + ζ24
that is,
4ζ22
k(ω, ζ) = 2 .
4(ω + |ζ| − ζ1 )2 + ζ24
Clearly k enjoys enough continuity properties so that it is sufficient to show that L̂(ω) is
unbounded for ω = 1/4. So
4ζ22 ζ22
k(1/4, ζ) = ≥ 4.
4((ζ1 − 1/2)2 + ζ22 )2 + ζ24 2 |ζ − (1/2, 0)|
It is clear that k(1/4, ζ) has an L1 (R2 ) singularity at (1/2, 0), and hence taking ĝ(ζ) =
2 2
|ζ| exp(− |ζ| ), we see that L̂(1/4) is unbounded.

3. Solutions of the wave equation

This section is devoted to the following result.
Theorem 3. Assertion (B3,BMO,2 ) is not true.
∗
We will show that assertion (B3,H 1 ,2
) is not true. The methods will be essentially the
same as in the previous proofs, but the details will be more difficult, and so we will break
it into steps.
To start, let us define an operator on a dense subspace of L2 (R3 ) for each t ∈ R given
by
d cos(t |ζ|) ˆ
C t f (ζ) = 2 f (ζ).
|ζ|
Let us also set
1
Kt (x) = I|x|≥|t| (x ∈ R3 ).
4π |x|
Lemma 4. If f ∈ L1 (R3 ) ∩ L2 (R3 ), and t 6= 0, then
Z
Ct f (x) = Kt (x − y)f (y) dy,
R3

and the operator norm of Ct from L1 (R3 ) to L1 (R3 ) is (4π |t|)−1 .

To show this when f is C ∞ with compact support, it is sufficient to show that K̂t =
2
cos(t |ζ|)/ |ζ| (as tempered distributions). Then by Young’s convolution formula, as an
operator from L1 (R3 ) to L1 (R3 ), the operator norm of Ct is given by
1
kCt k = kKt k∞ = .
4π |t|

9
It is clear that K̂t (ζ) depends only upon t and |ζ|. So without loss of generality, we may
suppose that ζ = (ζ1 , 0, 0), where ζ1 = |ζ|. In performing
√ the following integral,
√ we will use
the following change of variables: x1 = u, x2 = v − u cos(θ), and x3 = v − u2 sin(θ).
2 2 2

Thus the Jacobian ∂(x1 , x2 , x3 )/∂(u, v, θ) = v = |x|. Then

Z
exp(−ix · ζ)
K̂t (ζ) = dx
|x|≥|t| 4π |x|
Z ∞ Z v Z 2π
1
= cos(u |ζ|) dθ dv du
4π v=|t| u=−v 0
cos(t |ζ|)
= 2 .
|ζ|
In the last line we have used the assertion that limR→∞ cos(R |ζ|) = 0, which is true in
the space of tempered distributions.
Corollary 5. If f ∈ L2 (R3 ) is bounded with compact support, and s, t ∈ R, then
Z
Cs+t f (x) − Cs−t f (x) Ks+t (x − y) − Ks−t (x − y)
Bs Bt f (x) = = f (y) dy.
2 R3 2
This follows because sin(t |ζ|) sin(s |ζ|) = 21 (cos((s + t) |ζ|) − cos((s − t) |ζ|)).
Lemma 6. There is a universal constant c such that if t 7→ ft is in L2 (R, L1 (R3 )), then
Z ∞Z ∞Z Z Z ∞
2
Ks+t (x − y)ft (x)fs (y) dy dx dt ds ≤ c kft k1 dt.
0 0 R3 R3 0
The proof of this result depends upon the boundedness of the Hardy operators defined
on L2 ([0, ∞)):
Z
1 t
Hα(t) = α(s) ds
t 0
Z ∞
∗ α(s)
H α(t) = ds.
t s
If α ∈ L2 ([0, ∞)), then both Hα and H ∗ α are in L2 ([0, ∞)), with kHαk2 , kH ∗ αk2 ≤
2 kαk2 . The result for H may be found in [Ha], and the result for H ∗ follows because H ∗
is the adjoint operator to H.
Next, by Lemma 4, if s, t > 0
Z Z
1
Ks+t (x − y)ft (x)fs (y) dy dx ≤ kft k1 kfs k1 .
R3 R3 4π(s + t)
Thus, setting α(t) = kft k1 , we see that
Z ∞Z ∞Z Z
Ks+t (x − y)ft (x)fs (y) dy dx dt ds
0 0 R3 R3
Z ∞
1
≤ (Hα(t) + H ∗ α(t))α(t) dt
4π 0
1 2
≤ kαk2 .
π
10
 Now we will consider the following assertion.
(C): There is a universal constant c such that if t 7→ ft is in L2 (R, H1 (R3 )), then
Z ∞Z ∞Z Z Z ∞
2
Ks−t (x − y)ft (x)fs (y) dy dx dt ds ≤ c kft kH1 dt.
−∞ −∞ R3 R3 −∞

Let us first demonstrate that the failure of assertion (C) implies the failure of assertion
(B3,H1 ,2 ). Let us suppose that we have a sequence t 7→ ft in L2 (R, H1 (R3 )) such that
Z ∞Z ∞Z Z
I= Ks−t (x − y)ft (x)fs (y) dy dx dt ds
−∞ −∞ R3 R3

is unbounded. We may split the integral up into four pieces:

I = I1 + I2 + I3 + I4
Z ∞Z ∞ Z 0 Z ∞ Z ∞ Z 0 Z 0 Z 0
= . . . dt ds + . . . dt ds + . . . dt ds + . . . dt ds.
0 0 −∞ 0 0 −∞ −∞ −∞

By Lemma 6, we know that I2 and I3 are bounded. Therefore one of I1 or I4 is unbounded,

and without loss of generality we may suppose that I1 is unbounded. So without loss of
generality, we may suppose that ft = 0 if t < 0.
Now, multiplying out, and applying Corollary 5, we see that
Z ∞ 2 Z ∞ 2

B f dt = B f dt
t t t t
−∞ 2 0 2
Z ∞ Z ∞ Z Z
Ks+t (x − y) − Ks−t (x − y)
= ft (x)fs (y) dy dx dt ds.
0 0 R3 R3 2

Again, by Lemma 6, the last integral differs from I1 /2 by a bounded amount, and we have
produced the desired counterexample.

All that remains to be shown is the following.

Lemma 7. Assertion (C) is false.
R∞ 2
Our counterexample will be ft (x) = αt g(x − pt ), where 0 |αt | dt = 1, and pt =
(t, bt , b′t ). The function g ∈ H1 (R3 ) will be selected later. Here bt and b′t are two indepen-
dent Brownian motions. We will show that
Z ∞ Z ∞ Z Z 
J =E Ks−t (x − y)αt ᾱs g(x − pt )g(x − ps ) dy dx dt ds
−∞ −∞ R3 R3

cannot be universally bounded. This quantity is more easily computed using the Fourier
transform:
Z ∞Z ∞ Z !
cos((t − s) |ζ|) 2
J =E αt ᾱs 2 exp(i(ps − pt ) · ζ) |ĝ(ζ)| dζ dt ds .
−∞ −∞ R 3 |ζ|

11
Notice that

E(exp(i(ps − pt )) = exp(i(s − t)ζ1 )E(exp(i(bs − bt )ζ2 ) + i(b′s − b′t )ζ3 )

= exp(i(s − t)ζ1 ) exp(− |s − t| (ζ22 + ζ32 )/2).

Hence Z ∞ Z ∞
J= L(s − t)αt ᾱs dt ds,
−∞ −∞

where Z
cos(t |ζ|) 2
L(t) = 2 exp(itζ1 ) exp(− |t| (ζ22 + ζ32 )/2) |ĝ(ζ)| dζ.
R3 |ζ|
Saying that J is bounded for all αt in L2 (R) is equivalent to saying that convolving with
L gives a bounded operator on L2 (R). But this is equivalent to L̂ being in L∞ (R). Now
Z
2 2
L̂(ω) = k(ω, ζ) |ĝ(ζ)| / |ζ| dζ,
R3

where k(·, ζ) = h1 (·, ζ) ∗ h2 (·, ζ) ∗ h3 (·, ζ) with

δ(ω + |ζ|) + δ(ω − |ζ|)

h1 (ω, ζ) =
2
h2 (ω, ζ) = δ(ω − ζ1 )
4(ζ22 + ζ32 )
h3 (ω, ζ) = .
4ω 2 + (ζ22 + ζ32 )2

Thus
k1 (ω, ζ) + k2 (ω, ζ)
k(ω, ζ) = ,
2
where
4(ζ22 + ζ32 )
k1 (ω, ζ) = ,
4(ω − ζ1 + |ζ|)2 + (ζ22 + ζ32 )2
and
4(ζ22 + ζ32 )
k2 (ω, ζ) = .
4(ω − ζ1 − |ζ|)2 + (ζ22 + ζ32 )2
Since all the expressions involved are positive, we will have found a counterexample if we
can show that Z
 
k1 (0, ζ) |ĝ(ζ)| / ζ 2  dζ = ∞,
2

where U is any subset of R3 . We will take

q
U = {ζ : ζ22 + ζ32 ≤ ζ1 ≤ 1},

12
and
(
1 if 0 < x1 ≤ 1 and −1 ≤ x2 , x3 ≤ 1
g(x) = −1 if −1 ≤ x1 < 0 and −1 ≤ x2 , x3 ≤ 1
0 otherwise,
so that
8(1 − cos(ζ1 )) sin(ζ2 ) sin(ζ3 )
ĝ(ζ) = .
ζ1 ζ2 ζ3
2 2
In this case, we see that |ĝ(ζ)| / |ζ| is bounded from below by a positive number on U .
Therefore, we need to show that
Z
k1 (0, ζ) dζ = ∞.
U

To do this, let uspcompute the integral using cylindrical coordinates, that is, we will write
z = ζ1 , and r = ζ22 + ζ32 . Then we see that the last integral is

Z 1 Z z
4r 2
√ 2πr dr dz.
z=0 r=0 4( z 2 + r 2 − z)2 + r 4

But in U ,
p
z 2 + r 2 − z ≤ r 2 /z,

and hence
4r 2 4z 2
√ ≥ 2 .
4( z 2 + r 2 − z)2 + r 4 r (4 + z 2 )

Hence the integral in question becomes bounded below by

Z 1 Z z
8πz 2
dr dz,
z=0 r=0 r(4 + z 2 )

and this is easily seen to be infinite.

13
4. References
There is an extensive literature on the positive results, and we do not desire to give a
complete list. Instead, we refer the reader to the papers chosen principally because they
are recent, and provide many references on past work.

Br Ph. Brenner, On Lp –Lp′ estimates for the wave equation, Math Z., 145, (1975), 251–
254.
Co R.R. Coifman, G. David and Y. Meyer, La solution des conjecture de Calderón, Ad-
vances in Math., 48, (1983), 144–148.
Gi J. Ginibre and G. Velo, Scattering theory in the energy space for a class of non-linear
Schrödinger equations, J. Math. Pure Appl., 64, (1985), 363–401.
Ha G.H. Hardy, J.E. Littlewood and G. Pólya, Inequalities, (2nd. Ed.), Cambridge Uni-
versity Press (1952).
Ka L. Kapitanski, Global and unique weak solutions of nonlinear wave equations, Math.
Research Papers, 1, (1994), 211–223.
Ke C.E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega, On the IVP for nonlinear Schrödinger equations,
Contemp. Math., 180, (1995), 353–367.
Kl S. Klainerman and M. Machedon, Space time estimates for null forms and the local
existence theorem, Communications of Pure and Applied Math., 46, (1993), 1221–
1268.
Pe K.E. Peterson, Brownian Motion, Hardy Spaces and Bounded Mean Oscillation, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1977.
Ru A. Ruiz and L. Vega, Local regularity of solutions to wave equations with time-
dependent potentials, Duke Math. J., 76, (1994), 913–940.
Se E.M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis, Princeton University Press, 1993.
St1 R.S. Strichartz, A priori estimates for the wave equation and some applications, J.
Funct. Anal., 5, (1970), 218–235.
St2 R.S. Strichartz, BMO and Sobolev spaces, Indiana U. Math. J., 29, (1980), 539-558.

S.J. Montgomery-Smith
Mathematics Department
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
E-mail: stephen@math.missouri.edu

14