Absence of splash singularities for surface quasi-geostrophic sharp fronts and the Muskat problem

Absence of splash singularities for surface quasi-geostrophic sharp fronts and the Muskat problem Francisco Gancedo a and Robert M. Strain b,1 a Departamento de Análisis Matemático, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Sevilla, Spain; and b Department of Mathematics, David Rittenhouse Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 Edited by Sergiu Klainerman, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved November 14, 2013 (received for review September 19, 2013) In this paper, for both the sharp front surface quasi-geostrophic equation and the Muskat problem, we rule out the “splash singularity”blow-up scenario; in other words, we prove that the contours evolving from either of these systems cannot intersect at a single point while the free boundary remains smooth. Splash singularities have been shown to hold for the free boundary incompressible Euler equation in the form of the water waves contour evolution problem. Our result confirms the numerical simulations in earlier work, in which it was shown that the curvature blows up because the contours collapse at a point. Here, we prove that maintaining control of the curvature will remove the possibility of pointwise interphase collapse. Another conclusion that we provide is a better understanding of earlier work in which squirt singularities are ruled out; in this case, a positive volume of fluid between the contours cannot be ejected in finite time. incompressible flow | porous media We consider the following general transport evolution equation: ζtðx;tÞ+vðx;tÞ·∇ζðx;tÞ=0;x∈R2; t∈½0;∞Þ; ζðx;0Þ=ζ0ðxÞ;[1] where ζis an active scalar driven by the incompressible velocity vðx;tÞ: ∇·vðx;tÞ=0:[2] Depending upon our choice of the relation between the velocity and the scalar, we will obtain from this system both the surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) equation for sharp fronts and the Muskat problem. In this paper, we present a unified method to establish the absence of splash singularities for both of these systems in different scenarios. Specifically, we show that the dynamics of a smooth contour cannot cause an intersection at a single point. We obtain the SQG equations from systems 1and 2by expressing the velocity vin terms of a stream function v=∇⊥ψ=ð−∂x2ψ;∂x1ψÞ; where the function ψsatisfies ζ=−ð−ΔÞ1=2ψ. Here, ð−ΔÞ1=2is the Zygmund operator defined on the Fourier side by b ð−ΔÞ1=2=jξj: This may be shown to be equivalent to the condition vðx;tÞ=ð−R2ζðx;tÞ;R1ζðx;tÞÞ;[3] which relates the temperature to the velocity by means of the Riesz transforms R1and R2. The SQG system is physically important as a model of atmospheric turbulence and oceanic flows (see, e.g., refs. 1–3 and the references therein). This equation is derived in the situation of small Rossby and Ekman numbers and constant potential vorticity (4), where the scalar ζis the evolution over time of the temperature of the fluid. SQG has been the subject of many studies from different points of view. Underlying its mathematical interest are its strong analogies to the 3D Euler equations (see refs. 1 and 5 for these discussions). A very actively studied question for this system has been the formation of singularities in finite time for smooth initial data (see, e.g., refs. 6–11 and references therein). The SQG system furthermore has been used as a mathematical model in the meteorological process of frontogenesis. Here, the dynamics of hot and cold fluids are studied in the context of the formation and time evolution of weather sharp fronts in which the temperature exhibits discontinuity jumps (further information may be found in ref. 1 and the references therein). In light of this interest, Rodrigo (12) studied the case in which the initial temperature takes two different constant values on complementary domains: ζ0ðxÞ=ζ1;x∈Ω0; ζ2;x∈R2∖Ω0;[4] where ζ1≠ζ2. The initial data represent sharp fronts, and the interest is in their dynamics, which evolve by SQG. The transport character of Eq. 1shows that the temperature as it evolves in time should have the form ζðx;tÞ=ζ1;x∈ΩðtÞ; ζ2;x∈R2∖ΩðtÞ:[5] In this formulation, ΩðtÞis a moving domain. Then, a contour dynamics problem is obtained by considering the time evolution Significance The formation of singularities for the evolution of the interphase between fluids with different characteristics is a fundamental problem in mathematical fluid mechanics. These contour dynamics problems are given by fundamental fluid laws such as Euler’s equation, Darcy’s law, and surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) equations. This work proves that contours cannot intersect at a single point while the free boundary remains smooth—a“splash singularity”—for either the sharp front SQG equation or the Muskat problem. Splash singularities have been shown for water waves. The SQG equation has seen numerical evidence of single pointwise collapse with curvature blow-up. We prove that maintaining control of the curvature will remove the possibility of pointwise interphase collapse, confirming the numerical experiments. Author contributions: F.G. and R.M.S. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. See Commentary on page 573. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320554111 PNAS | January 14, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 2 | 635–639 MATHEMATICS SEE COMMENTARY of the free boundary ∂ΩðtÞ. For Eqs. 1–3, the SQG equation for the evolution of a sharp front is then given by xtðαÞ=ζ2−ζ1 2πZ T x′ðαÞ−x′ðβÞ jxðαÞ−xðβÞj dβ:[6] Here, the boundary is parameterized by the closed one-to-one curve xðα;tÞ: ∂ΩðtÞ=fxðα;tÞ=ðx1ðα;tÞ;x2ðα;tÞÞ:α∈½−π;π=Tg; which satisfies the chord-arc condition (see ref. 13 for a detailed derivation of the contour equation in this form). Above the subscript tand the prime notation denote the partial derivatives in time and α(or β), respectively. In [6], the time dependence is disregarded for notational simplicity. Then, fundamental questions to study are the existence of front-type solutions and the possible singularity formation in the evolution of ∂ΩðtÞ. These issues are comparable to the vortexpatch problem for the 2D Euler equations (see refs. 5 and 14), but the SQG front system is more singular (see ref. 12 for more details on this discussion). Local-in-time existence and uniqueness in this situation were proven in ref. 12 for C∞contours using Nash–Moser arguments. This tool was used because the operator involved in the contour equation is considerably singular; it loses more than one derivative (Eq. 6). In ref. 13, the result was extended within the chain of Sobolev spaces because of several cancellations. See also ref. 15 for a proof of local existence for analytic contours. In ref. 16, numerical simulations indicate the possibility of singularity formation on the free boundary. More specifically, initial data were shown in which the curvature blows up numerically because two branches of the fluid interphase collapse in a single point in a self-similar way. Therefore, this work provides an interesting stable scenario for a possible singularity formation. Recently, there has been an active interest in the study of almost sharp front-type weak solutions of the SQG equation (see ref. 17 and the references therein for more details). We next discuss the Muskat problem; this system models the physical scenario of multiple fluids with different characteristics in porous media. Specifically, we will study the dynamics of interphases between fluids that are immiscible and incompressible. To derive the equations of the Muskat problem, system 1–2is used, and we choose the velocity vðx;tÞto satisfy Darcy’s law: vðx;tÞ=−∇pðx;tÞ−ð0;ζðx;tÞÞ:[7] Above the scalar pðx;tÞis the pressure, and in this situation, ζis the scalar density. Also, the acceleration due to gravity and the viscosity of the fluid are set to unity to simplify the notation. Then, system 1–2turns out to be the conservation of mass, which together with [7] yields the incompressible porous media (IPM) equation (18–20). By considering a solution of the form 5, the interphase ∂ΩðtÞis a free boundary, and it describes the density jump between each fluid. The evolution equation is given by xtðαÞ=ζ2−ζ1 2πZðx1ðαÞ−x1ðβÞÞx′ðαÞ−x′ðβÞ jxðαÞ−xðβÞj2dβ[8] (see ref. 21 for the whole derivation). Above, α;β∈Tfor closed contours and α;β∈Rfor the asymptotically flat case when xðα;tÞ−ðα;0Þ→0asα→∞. Further, α;β∈Rfor periodic curves in the x1direction when xðα+ð2π;0Þ;tÞ=xðα;tÞ. The integral in [8] is understood as a principal value when that is necessary. The Muskat problem is a classical well-established problem (22). It has been highly studied, particularly because of strong similarities to the contour dynamics of fluids in Hele-Shaw cells (23). For both these completely different physical scenarios, it therefore is possible to reach similar conclusions. These problems may be studied in the situation of fluids with different viscosities (24) and with surface tension effects (25). Notice that formulation 8above describes the case in which the viscosities and pressures are equal across the interphase (and [8] is in the situation with no surface tension). The Muskat problem has been shown to exhibit instabilities and ill-posedness in several situations (see, for instance, refs. 18, 20, 24, and 25). For the situation we are studying in this paper, e.g., the contour evolution system ([8]), the instabilities in the system will appear when the heavy fluid lies on top of the light one (26). When the light fluid lies above the heavy fluid, this is called the stable scenario, and in this case, the system has been shown to be well-posed (26). More generally, for the Muskat problem, the well-posedness condition amounts to the positivity of the difference of the gradient of the pressure jump at the interphase in Darcy’s law ([7]) (27). This condition must hold for the initial data in order for the system to be well-posed (28). It is known in the literature as the Rayleigh–Taylor sign condition (23, 29). The stable framework gives rise to global-existence results for initial data with small norms (24, 25, 30, 31). On the other hand, global existence may be false for certain scenarios with large initial data. In ref. 21, it was proven that initial data exist in the stable regime for Eq. 8such that the solution turns to the unstable regime in finite time. This interface initially is a smooth stable graph (with the heavier fluid below), but later it enters into an unstable regime. In other words, the interphase is transformed into a nongraph in finite time: when this happens, we say the interphase “turns over.”The particular significance of a turnover is that the Rayleigh–Taylor condition breaks down. At some branch in the interphase, it is possible to localize the heavy fluid on top of the lighter one. Then later, the regularity of the contour breaks down (32), i.e., the Muskat problem develops a singularity in finite time starting from regular stable initial data. We briefly discuss the 2D water waves problem, which is another incompressible fluid interphase dynamics equation. This system can be given by [1]–[2] together with the 2D density variable Euler equations: ζðx;tÞðvt+v·∇vÞðx;tÞ=−∇pðx;tÞ−ð0;ζðx;tÞÞ:[9] We have solutions to this system in the form of [5], which establishes the evolution of a free boundary given by air, ζ1=0, and water, ζ2=1, governed by the gravity force. The velocity is assumed to be rotationally free on each side of ∂ΩðtÞbut concentrated on the moving interphase as a delta distribution: ∇⊥·vðx;tÞ=ωðα;tÞδðx=xðα;tÞÞ:[10] There is a large body of mathematical literature on the 2D water waves problem (see ref. 29 and the references therein). This system has been shown to be well-posed if the Rayleigh–Taylor condition is satisfied initially (33). Recent global-in-time results exist for small initial data (see refs. 34–36 and the references therein). On the other hand, for large initial data with an “overturning shape,” the system develops finite time splash singularities (37–39). More precisely, there is a family of initial data satisfying the chord-arc condition such that the interface xðα;tÞfrom the solution of the system [1],[2],[5],[9],and[10] satisfying ζ1=0 touches itself at asinglepointattimets>0 while xðα;tsÞis smooth. In particular, the curvature is finite. We also would like to mention recent developments by C. Fefferman, A. D. Ionescu, and V. Lie (40) on the absence of splash singularities for two incompressible fluids. With the results below, we prove that to have a pointwise collapse, the second derivative and therefore the curvature, must blow up. Splash singularities turn out to be false for the SQG sharp fronts and the Muskat problem. This phenomenon was 636 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320554111 Gancedo and Strain observed numerically in ref. 16, in which computer solutions of the SQG sharp front system exhibit a pointwise collapse and the curvature blows up at the same finite time. We also improve the result in ref. 41, in which it is shown that a positive volume of fluid between the contours cannot be ejected in finite time. That result is proved by showing that the velocity is bounded (8) for the Muskat problem for smooth contours. The velocity may be related to the density using singular integral operators with even kernels ([7]). Then, the fact that ζis given by a step function ([5]) allows one to show that vis in L∞. A cancellation used to establish that vis bounded was obtained previously by Bertozzi and Constantin (14). They applied it to the 2D vortex-patch problem to prove global regularity. The present work contributes the information that the level set cannot collapse even pointwise. The pointwise collapse of smooth level sets, and therefore splash singularities, for regular solutions of SQG, IPM, and general active scalar equations has been studied extensively (see e.g., refs. 8 and 10). Although for initial data that are not necessarily a sharp front ([4]), the situation might be a priori less singular, and the problem is still open. We will explain the proof of our results first for the multiphase Muskat problem. Our reasoning is twofold. First, the Muskat scenario we present is well posed (41), and there are no Rayleigh– Taylor instabilities (42). Second, the proof in this case will appear more clearly. We will consider fluids that have three different constant values for the density: ζðx1;x2;tÞ=8 < : ζ1in fx2>fðx1;tÞg; ζ2in ffðx1;tÞ>x2>gðx1;tÞg; ζ3in fgðx1;tÞ>x2g; where we suppose that fðx1;tÞ>gðx1;tÞand that the two dynamic surfaces, which are defined by x2=fðx1;tÞand x2=gðx1;tÞ, can be parameterized as a graph at time t=0. The constant densities satisfy ζ1<ζ2<ζ3:[11] This keeps us in the stable situation. Furthermore, we work in the situation in which lim x1→∞fðx1;tÞ=f∞>g∞=lim x1→∞gðx1;tÞ: Then, our result may be stated as follows: Theorem 1. Suppose the free boundaries fðα;tÞand gðα;tÞare smooth for α∈Rand t∈½0;TÞwith T >0arbitrary. Define the distance: 0<SðtÞ=min α∈Rðfðα;tÞ−gðα;tÞÞ  minff∞−g∞;1g:[12] Then, the following uniform lower bound for t ∈½0;TÞholds: SðtÞ≥explnðSð0ÞÞexpZt 0 Cðf;gÞðsÞds:[13] Here, Cðf;gÞis a smooth function of f″L∞+g″L∞and jjfjjL∞+ jjgjjL∞,which is defined in [17] below. After proving Theorem 1, we will extend these results to the SQG sharp front system based on the previous approach used for the Muskat problem. Theorem 2. Consider a smooth curve xðα;tÞthat is a solution to the sharp front SQG system for t ∈½0;TÞwith T >0arbitrary.Let SðtÞ>0be defined as the minimum distance between two different branches of the interphase that are approaching each other as t→T+.Then, SðtÞis bounded below by an explicitly computable positive function that goes to zero double-exponentially fast for t traveling to infinity. Finally, at the end of this paper, we will show additional scenarios in which our result will hold, such as the multiphase SQG system. For Muskat, we also consider the cases of closed contours and overturning shaped interphases, although in those situations, Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities appear and the interphases have to be analytic for there to be bona fide solutions (32). The Multiphase Muskat Problem The contour equation for the multiphase Muskat problem may be written as ftðαÞ=Z Rζ21Kðf;fÞ+ζ32Kðf;gÞðα;βÞdβ; gtðαÞ=Z Rζ32Kðg;gÞ+ζ21Kðg;fÞðα;βÞdβ; [14] where ζ21 = defðζ2−ζ1Þ=ð2πÞ,ζ32 = defðζ3−ζ2Þ=ð2πÞ, Kðf;gÞðα;βÞ= βδβf′;g′ðαÞ β2+δβðf;gÞðαÞ2; δβðf;gÞðαÞ=fðαÞ−gðα−βÞ; and for simplicity we denote δβfðαÞ=fðαÞ−fðα−βÞ: We remark that it is possible to recover [8] by taking ζ32 = gðαÞ=0 and xðα;tÞ=ðα;fðα;tÞÞ (see ref. 41 for a detailed derivation of this equation). We next check the evolution of [12] and denote αt∈Rsuch that SðtÞ=fðαt;tÞ−gðαt;tÞ. We use the Rademacher theorem to obtain that SðtÞis differentiable almost everywhere and that StðtÞ= ftðαt;tÞ−gtðαt;tÞ(see refs. 43 and 44 for the whole argument). We plug this identity into [14] to split the integration regions as StðtÞ=Z jβj<SðtÞ dβ+Z SðtÞ<jβj<1 dβ+Z jβj>1 dβ =I+II +III: For the first integral, we bound the kernels Kin absolute value using the crucial identity f′ðαt;tÞ=g′ðαt;tÞ to find I≤2ζ21f″L∞+ζ32g″L∞Z jβj<SðtÞ 1dβ; and therefore we obtain I≤Cf″L∞+g″L∞SðtÞ: For the second integral, we further split II =ζ21II1+ζ32II2.We will show how to deal with II1and observe that II2is analogous. Notice that we have II1=Z SðtÞ<jβj<1 βδβf′ðαtÞhδβðg;fÞðαtÞ2−δβfðαtÞ2i Dðg;f;βÞdβ;[15] where the denominator is given by Gancedo and Strain PNAS | January 14, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 2 | 637 MATHEMATICS SEE COMMENTARY Dðg;f;βÞ= defhβ2+δβfðαtÞ2ihβ2+δβðg;fÞðαtÞ2i: We further split II1=−Z SðtÞ<jβj<1 βδβf′ðαtÞSðtÞδβðg;fÞðαtÞ Dðg;f;βÞdβ −Z SðtÞ<jβj<1 βδβf′ðαtÞSðtÞδβfðαtÞ Dðg;f;βÞdβ [16] to obtain II1≤2f″L∞SðtÞZ SðtÞ<jβj<1 jβj−1dβ: The last calculation yields II1≤−2f″L∞SðtÞln SðtÞ: The term II2can be estimated similarly, and we obtain II ≤−Cf″L∞+g″L∞SðtÞln SðtÞ: For the last term III, we arrange the terms as in [16] to find III ≤Cðf;gÞSðtÞZ jβj>1 jβj−2dβ; with Cðf;gÞ=Cf″L∞+g″L∞ðjj fjjL∞+jjgjjL∞+1Þ:[17] Collecting all the previous estimates, we obtain that StðtÞ≥Cðf;gÞSðtÞln SðtÞ: A further time integration yields [13]. Notice that lnðSð0ÞÞ <0. Thus, SðtÞcannot go to zero in finite time. SQG Sharp Front For the SQG sharp front equation, we choose the parameterization for the contour equation that yields the equation xtðαÞ=Z T δβx′ðαÞ δβxðαÞdβ;[18] where we take ζ2−ζ1=2πfor the sake of simplicity. We now assume without loss of generality that the pointwise approaching “splash”is going to take place in a small ball Bof radius e0=2 and center ð0;0Þ. The two branches of the interfaces will be approaching horizontally so that they are represented by ðα;fðα;tÞÞ and ðα;gðα;tÞÞ inside 2Bwith f>g. We then find for the chart xðαÞ=ðα;fðαÞÞ for α∈ð−e0;e0Þthe equation ftðαÞ=Ze0 −e0 δβf′ðαÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi β2+δβfðαÞ2 qdβ +Z−e0 e0 δβf′;g′ðαÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi β2+δβðf;gÞðαÞ2 qdβ+RðfÞ; where RðfÞis the remainder in the integral equation in the second component in [18]. For the chart xðαÞ=ðα;gðαÞÞ,we similarly have gtðαÞ=Ze0 −e0 δβg′;f′ðαÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi β2+δβðg;fÞðαÞ2 qdβ +Z−e0 e0 δβg′ðαÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi β2+δβgðαÞ2 qdβ+RðgÞ; and RðgÞis again the remainder given by [18]. We now define as before SðtÞ= def min ½−e0;e0ðfðα;tÞ−gðα;tÞÞ =fðαt;tÞ−gðαt;tÞ; with αt∈ð−e0=2;e0=2Þ. We proceed as in the previous section to follow StðtÞfor almost every t. We find that the integrals above may be handled similarly, except for RðfÞand RðgÞ. For these remainder terms, we can choose e0small enough so that RðfÞ− RðgÞ=OðSðtÞÞ. In fact, jRðfÞj ≤x″L∞ cCA Z T∖½−e0;e0 dβ; where cCA >0 is the chord-arc constant of the curve outside the ball B: δβxðαÞ≥cCAjβj; α∈½−e0=2;e0=2; β∈T∖½−e0;e0: The analogous estimate for RðgÞfollows similarly. We thus can obtain StðtÞ≥CðxÞSðtÞln SðtÞ; where CðxÞ=Cx″L∞;cCA;e0. We therefore again control the size of SðtÞfrom below by double-exponential time decay. Additional Scenarios for Muskat and SQG This analysis also works for the multiphase SQG sharp front system. In that case, the equations for the 2π-periodic contours fðα;tÞand gðα;tÞare given by ftðαÞ=Z Tζ21Σðf;fÞ+ζ32Σðf;gÞðα;βÞdβ; gtðαÞ=Z Tζ32Σðg;gÞ+ζ21Σðg;fÞðα;βÞdβ: Above, ζ21 =ðζ2−ζ1Þ=ð2πÞand ζ32 =ðζ3−ζ2Þ=ð2πÞwith no order needed in the size of ζ1,ζ2,andζ3as in [11], because there are no instabilities for SQG. The kernel Σðf;gÞðα;βÞ behaves like Σðf;gÞðα;βÞ=δβf′;g′ðαÞ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi β2+δβðf;gÞðαÞ2 q for βclose to 0 and fðαÞclose to gðα−βÞ. Hence, the same approach as described previously for SQG follows. We end by proposing two additional scenarios. These are closed and overturning shaped contours for the Muskat equation ([8]). In those cases, the same results can be shown as for the 638 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320554111 Gancedo and Strain SQG sharp fronts. However, because of the Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities, the solutions to the interphase equations have to be analytic to make rigorous mathematical sense (21). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. F.G. was partially supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación Grant MTM2011-26696 and the Ramón y Cajal program (Spain). R.M.S. was partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-1200747 and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship. 1. Constantin P, Majda AJ, Tabak E (1994) Formation of strong fronts in the 2D quasigeostrophic thermal active scalar. Nonlinearity 7:1495–1533. 2. Held I, Pierrehumbert R, Garner S, Swanson K (1995) Surface quasi-geostrophic dynamics. J Fluid Mech 282:1–20. 3. Constantin P, Nie Q, Schorghofer N (1998) Nonsingular surface quasi-geostrophic flow. Phys Lett A 241:168–172. 4. Gill AE (1982) Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics (Academic, New York). 5. Majda AJ, Bertozzi A (2002) Vorticity and Incompressible Flow (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). 6. Ohkitani K, Yamada M (1997) Inviscid and inviscid-limit behavior of a surface quasigeostrophic Flow. Phys Fluids 9:876–882. 7. Córdoba D (1998) Nonexistence of simple hyperbolic blow-up for the quasi-geostrophic equation. Ann Math 148:1135–1152. 8. Córdoba D, Fefferman D (2002) Scalars convected by a two-dimensional incompressible flow. Commun Pure Appl Math 55:255–260. 9. Deng J, Hou TY, Li R, Yu X (2006) Level set dynamics and the non-blowup of the 2D quasi-geostrophic equation. Methods Appl Anal 13:157–180. 10. Chae D, Constantin P, Wu J (2012) Deformation and symmetry in the inviscid SQG and the 3D Euler equations. J Nonlinear Sci 22:665–688. 11. Constantin P, Lai MC, Sharma R, Tseng YH, Wu J (2012) New numerical results for the surface quasigeostrophic equation. J Sci Comput 50:1–28. 12. Rodrigo JL (2005) On the evolution of sharp fronts for the quasi-geostrophic equation. Commun Pure Appl Math 58:0821–0866. 13. Gancedo F (2008) Existence for the α-patch model and the QG sharp front in Sobolev spaces. Adv Math 217:2569–2598. 14. Bertozzi AL, Constantin P (1993) Global regularity for vortex patches. Commun Math Phys 152:19–28. 15. Fefferman C, Rodrigo JL (2011) Analytic sharp fronts for the surface quasi-geostrophic equation. Commun Math Phys 303:261–288. 16. Córdoba D, Fontelos MA, Mancho AM, Rodrigo JL (2005) Evidence of singularities for a family of contour dynamics equations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(17):5949–5952. 17. Fefferman C, Rodrigo JL (2012) Almost sharp fronts for SQG: The limit equations. Commun Math Phys 313:131–153. 18. Otto F (1999) Evolution of microstructure in unstable porous media flow: A relaxational approach. Commun Pure Appl Math 52:873–915. 19. Córdoba D, Gancedo F, Orive R (2007) Analytical behavior of 2D incompressible flow in porous media. J Math Phys 48(066206):1–19. 20. Székelyhidi L, Jr. (2012) Relaxation of the incompressible porous media equation. Ann Sci Éc Norm Supér 45:491–509. 21. Castro A, Córdoba D, Fefferman C, Gancedo F, López-Fernández M (2012) Rayleigh- Taylor breakdown for the Muskat problem with applications to water waves. Ann Math 175:909–948. 22. Muskat M (1934) Two fluid systems in porous media. The encroachment of water into an oil sand. Physics 5:250–264. 23. Saffman PG, Taylor G (1958) The penetration of a fluid into a porous medium or Hele- Shaw cell containing a more viscous liquid. Proc R Soc Lond 245:312–329. 24. Siegel M, Caflisch R, Howison S (2004) Global existence, singular solutions, and illposedness for the Muskat problem. Commun Pure Appl Math 57:1374–1411. 25. Escher J, Matioc BV (2011) On the parabolicity of the Muskat problem: Well-posed- ness, fingering, and stability results. Z Anal Anwend 30:193–218. 26. Córdoba D, Gancedo F (2007) Contour dynamics of incompressible 3-D fluids in a porous medium with different densities. Commun Math Phys 273:445–471. 27. Ambrose DM (2004) Well-posedness of two-phase Hele-Shaw flow without surface tension. Eur J Appl Math 15:597–607. 28. Córdoba A, Córdoba D, Gancedo F (2011) Interface evolution: The Hele-Shaw and Muskat problems. Ann Math 173:477–542. 29. Lannes D (2013) The Water Waves Problem: Mathematical Analysis and Asymptotics (American Mathematical Society, Washington, DC). 30. Constantin P, Córdoba D, Gancedo F, Strain RM (2013) On the global existence for the Muskat problem. J Eur Math Soc 15:201–227. 31. Beck T, Sosoe P, Wong P (2014) Duchon-Robert solutions for the Rayleigh-Taylor and Muskat problems. J Differ Equ 256:206–222. 32. Castro A, Córdoba D, Fefferman C, Gancedo F (2013) Breakdown of smoothness for the Muskat problem. Arch Ration Mech Anal 208:805–909. 33. Wu S (1997) Well-posedness in Sobolev spaces of the full water wave problem in 2-D. Invent Math 130:39–72. 34. Wu S (2009) Almost global wellposedness of the 2-D full water wave problem. Invent Math 177:45–135. 35. Ionescu AD, Pusateri F (2013) Global solutions for the gravity water waves system in 2d. ArXiv:1303.5357. 36. Alazard T, Delort JM (2013) Global solutions and asymptotic behavior for two dimensional gravity water waves. ArXiv:1305.4090. 37. Castro A, Córdoba D, Fefferman CL, Gancedo F, Gómez-Serrano J (2012) Splash singularity for water waves. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(3):733–738. 38. Castro A, Córdoba D, Fefferman D, Gancedo F, Gómez-Serrano J (2013) Finite time singularities for the free boundary incompressible Euler equations. Ann Math 178: 1061–1134. 39. Coutand D, Shkoller S (2012) On the finite-time splash and splat singularities for the 3-D free-surface Euler equations. arXiv:1201.4919. 40. Fefferman C, Ionescu AD, Lie V (2013) On the absence of “splash”singularities in the case of two-fluid interfaces. ArXiv:1312.2917. 41. Córdoba D, Gancedo F (2010) Absence of squirt singularities for the multi-phase Muskat problem. Commun Math Phys 299:561–575. 42. Escher J, Matioc AV, Matioc BV (2012) A generalized Rayleigh-Taylor condition for the Muskat problem. Nonlinearity 25:73–92. 43. Constantin A, Escher J (1998) Wave breaking for nonlinear nonlocal shallow water equations. Acta Math 181:229–243. 44. Córdoba A, Córdoba D (2003) A pointwise estimate for fractionary derivatives with applications to partial differential equations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(26): 15316–15317. Gancedo and Strain PNAS | January 14, 2014 | vol. 111 | no. 2 | 639 MATHEMATICS SEE COMMENTARY