Abstract
We consider a stochastic electroconvection model describing the nonlinear evolution of a surface charge density in a two-dimensional fluid with additive stochastic forcing. We prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions, we define the corresponding Markov semigroup, and we study its Feller properties. When the noise forces enough modes in phase space, we obtain the uniqueness of the smooth invariant measure for the Markov transition kernels associated with the model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Electroconvection refers to the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids under the influence of electrical charges. There are many instances of electroconvection in non-Newtonian and Newtonian fluids, including the flow of nematic and smectic suspensions subject to applied voltage. The phenomena are modeled by partial differential equations for the charges and solvent [37] which are nonlinear and nonlocal. The range of physical, chemical, engineering and biological applications is extremely wide, ranging from neuroscience [28] to batteries [39] and semiconductors [4]. Particularly interesting and relevant to this paper are the works [8, 40] which concern the dynamics of a thin smectic film in an annular region, driven by an imposed voltage at the boundary. In [6] the behavior of the system was investigated mathematically in the absence of stochastic forcing. The model was described in terms of a surface charge density q, an electric field E and a fluid velocity u. The dynamics were confined to a two dimensional domain (\({\mathbb {T}}^2\) in the present paper). The electric field E was derived from a time independent potential \(\Phi \) representing the voltage applied at the boundary and a dynamic potential \(\Lambda ^{-1}q\) due to the charge density q, via the relation
where \(\Lambda ^{-1}\) denotes the inverse of the square root of the two-dimensional periodic Laplacian \(\Lambda ~=~\sqrt{-\Delta }\). The current density due to the fluid and the electric field E is
and the charge density obeys the continuity equation
The fluid velocity u obeys the incompresible Navier–Stokes equation forced by the electrical forces qE and time independent body forces f,
where p is the fluid pressure and \(\nu \) is the kinematic viscosity.
The well-posedness and global regularity of the deterministic model (1.1)–(1.4) were obtained in [6] in bounded domains with homogeneous boundary conditions, and the long-time dynamics were investigated in [1] in the two-dimensional torus \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\).
In this paper we consider the stochastic electroconvection model corresponding to the deterministic model (1.1)–(1.4),
forced by time independent noise processes \({\tilde{g}}dW\) and gdW on \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\). For simplicity, we assume that \(\nu = 1\). We address the global well-posedness of (1.5)–(1.7), the Feller properties of the Markov semigroup associated with (1.5)–(1.7), and the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the invariant measures for the Markov transition kernels associated with the model (1.5)–(1.7).
A vast literature treats the well-posedness of stochastic partial differntial equations. Martingale type approaches [2, 3, 9, 16, 38] were established to prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the two-dimensional stochastic Navier–Stokes equations (NSE). In [34], the authors use a different approach, independent of the pathwise solutions, based on a generalization of the classical Minty-Browder local monotonicity argument [35, 36], to establish the well-posedness to the stochastic NSE in bounded and unbounded domains. Global existence and uniqueness of strong pathwise solutions were obtained as well for the two-dimensional [13, 21, 22] and three-dimensional [10, 23] stochastic primitive equations.
The stochastic electroconvection model (1.5)–(1.7) is nonlocal, nonlinear, with critical dissipation in one equation, and consequently the proof of its global well-posedness is rather technical. Under low regularity assumptions imposed on the noises (namely \(L^4\) for \({\tilde{g}}\) and \(H^1\) for g), we prove that the system (1.5)–(1.7) has unique global solutions when the deterministic initial charge density is \(L^4\) regular and the deterministic initial velocity is \(H^1\) regular. The existence of solutions is obtained by taking a viscous approximation of (1.5)–(1.7), establishing uniform bounds for the viscous solutions, and using weak convergence. The identification of the drift is highly challenging. The reason is that the nonlinearity \(q\nabla \Lambda ^{-1} q\) is not weakly continuous in the spaces we have control in. The remedy is a coercive estimate (3.17) and use of ideas from [34]. As a consequence of the existence result, we define the Markov transition kernels on \(L^4 \times H^1\) and we show that they are Feller in the norm of \(H^{-\frac{1}{2}} \times L^2\). If the noises have higher regularity (namely \(\nabla {\tilde{g}} \in L^8\) and \(\Delta g \in L^2\)), then the Markov kernels become Feller in the stronger norm of \(H^1 \times H^1\).
We also study the ergodicity of the electroconvection model (1.5)–(1.7), which provides a natural framework to understand the long-term behavior of such physical processes. The existence of an invariant measure for the stochastic NSE system was obtained in [9, 15, 17], and the ergodic theory for the stochastic NSE became the center of interest of many subsequent papers (cf. [5, 11, 12, 14, 31, 33, 35, 38] and references therein). Existence and regularity of invariant measures were obtained in [18] for the three-dimenional stochastic primitive equations. In [7], existence and uniqueness of an ergodic invariant measure was established for the 2D fractionally dissipated periodic stochastic Euler equation.
The dissipative term \(\Lambda q\) in (1.5) is critical, and this is a source of technical difficulty. When the potential \(\Phi \) vanishes, and with a low regular noise process, we use the Krylov Bogoliubov averaging procedure to prove that the stochastic model (1.5)–(1.7) has an invariant measure supported on \(H^{\frac{1}{2}} \times H^2\). If the noise processes are smooth then the invariant measures are smooth. This follows from bounds of the form
and
for \(k \ge 0\), where \(\Gamma _1 (\cdot ), \Gamma _2(\cdot )\) and \(\Gamma _{k}(\cdot )\) are some polynomials. These bounds are obtained by taking advantage of the smoothing properties of the Stokes operator and the nonlinear coupling, and employing the logarthmic strategy introduced in [18].
The question of uniqueness of invariant measures requires a deeper structural understanding of the interplay of the dynamics and stochastic perturbation. A number of approaches have been used in the recent literature ([5, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35] and references therein). In this paper we use the asymptotic coupling approach introduced in [25, 27]. The asymptotic coupling framework was used in [20] to obtain uniqueness of the invariant measures of stochastically forced Navier–Stokes equations, fractionally dissipative Euler equations and damped nonlinear wave equations. In order to show that a stochastic differential equation
with initial data \(y(0) = y_0\) has only one ergodic measure, the idea is to build a copy
where the feedback control G is such that y and \({\tilde{y}}\) are forced to approach each other, \(y(t) - {\tilde{y}}(t) \rightarrow 0\) in an appropriate norm, on the event \(\left\{ \tau = \infty \right\} \) where \(\tau \) is a stopping time such that the coupled system (1.8)–(1.9) has global solutions with initial data \({\tilde{y}}(0) = {\tilde{y}}_0\), and \({\mathbb {P}}(\tau = \infty ) > 0\). Moreover, it is required that
holds (for a.e. \(w \in \Omega \)) for some deterministic constant \(C>0\). If such a construction can be done, then (1.8) has a unique ergodic invariant measure. Finding an appropriate feedback G is typically based on splitting a Hilbert space X into the direct sum of a finite-dimensional space \(X_{low}\) and an infinite-dimensional space \(X_{high}\)
in such a way that the long time dynamics are controlled by the low frequency part in \(X_{low}\). More precisely, the property used is that if the low frequency parts of two solutions are asymptotically the same, then the high frequency parts in \(X_{high}\) are also asymptotically the same. Accordingly, two realizations of (1.8) are coupled in such a way that that their low frequency parts coincide for large time \(t > \tau \) provided that they meet at time \(t = \tau \).
The uniqueness of the invariant measure of the electroconvection model (1.5)–(1.7) is obtained by constructing an appropriate feedback control and stopping time. The construction requires \(L^4\) bounds for q and \(H^2\) bounds for u, exponential martingale estimates, and the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality. The main difficulty is due to the weaker dissipation of the charge densities, and here we use ideas from [19] to estimate the feedback control.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 3, we show that the system (1.5)–(1.7) has a unique global solution provided that the initial charge density has a zero spatial average and is \(L^4\) integrable, the initial velocity is divergence-free and is weakly differentiable, and the noise is sufficiently regular. The proof is based on uniform estimates in Lebesgue spaces which are established in Appendix A. In Sect. 4, we define the semigroup associated with (1.5)–(1.7) and we prove that it is weak Feller. In the absence of potential \((\Phi = 0)\), we show in Sect. 5 the existence of an invariant measure for the Markov transition kernels associated with the electroconvection model (1.5)–(1.7) based on the Krylov-Bogoliubov averaging procedure under low regularity assumptions imposed on the noises. In Sect. 6, we prove that any invariant measure of (1.5)–(1.7) is smooth provided that the model is forced by smooth noises. Using asymptotic coupling techniques, we prove in Sect. 7 the uniqueness of the invariant measure. In Sect. 8, we address Feller properties in Sobolev norms when the noise processes are sufficiently regular. This uses uniform bounds for the pathwise solution, and these are presented in Appendix B.
2 Basic functional spaces and notations
For \(1 \le p \le \infty \), we denote by \(L^p({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\) the Lebesgue spaces of measurable periodic functions f from \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\) to \({\mathbb {R}}\) (or \({{\mathbb {R}}}^2)\) that are p-integrable on \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\), that is
if \(p \in [1, \infty )\) and
if \(p = \infty \). The \(L^2({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\) inner product is denoted by \((\cdot ,\cdot )_{L^2}\).
For \(s > 0\), we denote by \(H^s({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\) the Sobolev spaces of measurable periodic functions f from \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\) to \({\mathbb {R}}\) (or \({{\mathbb {R}}}^2)\) obeying
For a Banach space \((X, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{X})\) and \(p,q \in [1,\infty ]\), we consider the Lebesgue Banach spaces \(L^p (\Omega ; L_{loc}^q(0,\infty ; X))\) of functions f from X to \({\mathbb {R}}\) (or \({{\mathbb {R}}}^2)\) satisfying
for any \(T > 0\), with the usual convention when \(p = \infty \) or \(q = \infty \). The spaces \(L_{loc}^q (0,\infty ; X)\) and \(L^p(\Omega ; C^0(0,\infty ; X))\) are defined similarly. Here \(C^0(0, \infty ; X)\) is the space of functions f with the property that the map
is continuous for any \(f \in X\).
For \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\), the fractional Laplacian \(\Lambda ^s\) applied to a mean zero scalar function f is defined as a Fourier multiplier with symbol \(|k|^s\), that is, for f given by
we have that
Finally, the periodic Riesz transforms \(R = (R_1, R_2)\) applied to scalar functions f are defined as Fourier multipliers
and they are bounded operators on \(L^p({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\), \(1<p<\infty \). We write \(R= \nabla \Lambda ^{-1}\).
Throughout the paper, C denotes a positive universal constant, and C(a, b, c, ...) denotes a positive constant depending on a, b, c,...
3 Existence and uniqueness of solutions
Let \((\Omega , {\mathcal {F}}, {\mathbb {P}})\) be a probability space, \(\left\{ {\mathcal {F}}_s \right\} _{s \ge 0}\) be a filtration on \((\Omega , {\mathcal {F}},{\mathbb {P}})\), and \(\left\{ W_k \right\} _{k \ge 1}\) be a collection of independent, identically distributed, real-valued, standard Brownian motions relative to the filtered probability space.
We consider the stochastic electroconvection model
on \({\mathbb {T}}^2\) with initial data \(q(x,0) = q_0\) and \(u(x,0) = u_0\). The unknowns q(x, t, w), \(u(x,t,w) = (u_1(x,t,w), u_2 (x,t,w))\), and p(x, t, w) depend on three different variables: position \(x \in {\mathbb {T}}^2\), time \(t \in [0, \infty )\), and outcome \(w \in \Omega \). The body forces f and the potential \(\Phi \) depend only on the position variable x. The forces f are smooth, divergence-free and have a zero space average. The potential \(\Phi \) is assumed to be smooth. We point out that q, p and \(\Phi \) are scalar, whereas u and f are vector fields. The noise terms \({\tilde{g}} dW\) and gdW are given by
and
We assume that the scalar functions \({\tilde{g}}_l\) are mean-zero and the vector fields \(g_l\) are divergence-free for all \(l \in {\mathbb {N}}\). For \(k \ge 0\) and \(p > 0\), we denote
and
and \(g \in H^k\), \({\tilde{g}} \in H^k\), or \({\tilde{g}} \in L^p\) if the quantities (3.4), (3.5), or (3.6) are finite respectively.
In this section, we prove the existence and uniqueness of solutions of the stochastic model (3.1):
Theorem 1
Fix a stochastic basis \((\Omega , {\mathcal {F}}, {\mathbb {P}}, \left\{ {\mathcal {F}}_t \right\} _{t \ge 0}, W)\). Let \(q_0 \in L^4\) have mean zero over \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\), and let \(u_0 \in H^1\) be divergence-free. Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in L^4\), \(g \in H^1\), \(f \in L^2\), and \(\Delta \Phi \in L^4\). Then there exists a unique pair (q, u) such that q is mean-free, u is divergence-free,
Moreover, the elements (q, u) are \({\mathcal {F}}_t\) adapted and obey
for any \(\xi \in H^1\) and a.e. \(w \in \Omega \), and
for any \(v \in H^1\) and a.e. \(w \in \Omega \).
For each \(\epsilon \in (0,1]\), we let \(J_{\epsilon }\) be the standard mollifier operator and we consider the viscous approximation
with smoothed out initial data \(q_0^{\epsilon } = J_{\epsilon }q_0, u_0^{\epsilon } = J_{\epsilon }u_0.\) For each \(\epsilon \in (0,1]\), the viscous system (3.11) is forced by smooth noise processes and has local smooth solutions, a fact that can be shown using a fixed point iteration technique. These local solutions extend to global smooth solutions as they remain uniformly bounded in all Sobolev norms, a result that follows from energy-type arguments (see for instance Appendix B). In Proposition 1 below, we establish bounds, uniform in time and \(\epsilon \), for the solutions of (3.11) in Lebesgue spaces. These estimates are needed to apply the drift identification argument of [34] and prove Theorem 1.
Proposition 1
Let \(q_0 \in L^4\) have mean zero over \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\). Let \(u_0 \in H^1\) be divergence-free. Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in L^4\) and \(g \in H^1\). Then the solution \((q^{\epsilon }, u^{\epsilon })\) of (3.11) satisfies
for any \(p \ge 2\),
for any \(p \ge 4\),
for any \(p \ge 2\), and
The proof of Proposition 1 is based on several applications of Itô’s lemma and is presented in Appendix A.
Proposition 2
Suppose \(f \in L^2\) and \(\Delta \Phi \in L^4\). Let
Let \(q_1 \in L^4, q_2 \in L^2, u_1 \in H^2\) and \(u_2 \in H^1\). Then there is a positive universal constant \(C_0\) such that
holds, where
Proof
We have
\(\square \)
Integrating by parts, we have
By Hölder and Young inequalities, we have
We note that
in view of the divergence-free condition satisfied by \(u_2\), and hence
where we used Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality applied to \(u_1 - u_2\). Now, we write
and
Adding (3.24) and (3.25), four terms cancel out, namely
and
due to the divergence-free condition satisfied by \(u_2 - u_1\). We estimate
using Hölder’s inequality, the boundedness of the Riesz transforms in \(L^4\), Ladyzhenskaya’s inequality, and Young’s inequality. In view of the commutator estimate (see [1, Proposition 3])
that holds for any divergence-free \(v \in H^2\) and mean-zero \(\rho \in L^2\), we have
Here we also used that \(u_1\) is divergence-free. Collecting the bounds (3.20)–(3.30) and applying them to (3.19), we obtain
where \(K(\Phi , u_1, q_1)\) is given by (3.18). This finishes the proof of Proposition 2.
Now, we prove Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 1
Let
and
We note that
using Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality, and
using the boundedness of the Riesz transforms in \(L^2\). In view of the bounds (3.12), (3.13) with \(p=4\), and (3.14), we deduce that \({\mathcal {F}}_1\) and \({\mathcal {F}}_2\) are uniformly bounded in
Therefore, up to subsequences \({\mathcal {F}}_1 (q^{\epsilon }, u^{\epsilon })\) and \({\mathcal {F}}_2 (q^{\epsilon }, u^{\epsilon })\) converge weakly to some functions \(F_1\) and \(F_2\), respectively, in
Moreover, up to subsequences, \(u^{\epsilon }\) converges weakly to some function u in
in view of the bound (3.15), and \(q^{\epsilon }\) converges weakly to some function q in
in view of the bounds (3.12) with \(p=2\) and (3.13) with \(p=4\).
Now we write the equations satisfied by \((q^{\epsilon }, u^{\epsilon })\) and (q, u) as
where \({\mathcal {F}}\) is as in (3.16), and
in \(L^2(\Omega ; L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ; H^{-1}({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)))\), where
We show that for almost every \(w \in \Omega \) and \(t \in [0,\infty )\), we have
in the sense of distributions.
We note that
and \((\Lambda ^{-1}q,u)\) obeys the energy equality
(see Theorem 1 in [24] or (3.31) in [34]). For a pair
such that \({\tilde{q}}\) has mean zero and \({\tilde{u}}\) is divergence-free, we define
where \(C_0\) is the constant in (3.17).
In order to show the drift identification claim (3.43), it is sufficient to show that
for all \((\Psi _1, \Psi _2) \in L^4(\Omega ; L_{loc}^4(0,\infty ; L^4({{\mathbb {T}}}^2))) \times L^2(\Omega ; L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ; H^2({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)))\) such that \(\Psi _1\) has mean zero and \(\Psi _2\) is divergence-free. Indeed, (3.48) implies that
from which we conclude that \({\mathcal {F}}(q,u) = {\mathcal {F}}_0\) in \(H^{-1} \times H^{-1}\) a.e. on \(\Omega \times [0,T]\). Accordingly, we proceed to prove (3.48).
Denoting \(\textbf{d}r(t)\) by \({\dot{r}}(t)\), we have
in view of (3.45). Consequently, and using the analogous Itô stochastic equation obeyed by \(e^{-r(t)} \left( \Vert \Lambda ^{-\frac{1}{2}}q^{\epsilon }\Vert _{L^2}^2 + \Vert u^{\epsilon }\Vert _{L^2}^2 \right) \) and the weak lower semi-continuity, we obtain
which implies that
In view of (3.17), we have
for any \(({\tilde{q}}, {\tilde{u}}) \in L^4(\Omega ; L_{loc}^4(0,\infty ; L^4)) \times L^2(\Omega ; L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ; H^2))\) such that \({\tilde{q}}\) has mean zero and \({\tilde{u}}\) is divergence-free.
Putting (3.52) and (3.53) together, we obtain
for any \(({\tilde{q}}, {\tilde{u}}) \in L^4(\Omega ; L_{loc}^4(0,\infty ; L^4)) \times L^2(\Omega ; L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ; H^2))\) such that \({\tilde{q}}\) has mean zero and \({\tilde{u}}\) is divergence-free. Letting
where \(\lambda > 0\) and \(\Psi = (\Psi _1, \Psi _2) \in L^4(\Omega ; L_{loc}^4(0,\infty ; L^4)) \times L^2(\Omega ; L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ; H^2))\), \(\Psi _1\) having mean zero and \(\Psi _2\) being divergence-free, we obtain
We divide by \(\lambda \), and then take the limit as \(\lambda \) goes to zero. We obtain (3.48) from which we conclude that \({\mathcal {F}}_0 = {\mathcal {F}} (q,u)\).
Uniqueness of solutions is obtained as for the deterministic system [1, Theorem 2]. Indeed, if we suppose the existence of two different solutions, and we write the equations obeyed by their difference, then we obtain deterministic equations which are independent of the noise. We omit further details.
Remark 1
The existence of unique pathwise solutions can be obtained by setting
and
writing the determinitic system obeyed by \((Q^{\epsilon }, U^{\epsilon })\), establishing pointwise in w bounds for \((Q^{\epsilon }, U^{\epsilon })\) in
and passing to the limit using the Aubin-Lions lemma. However, this requires higher regularity assumptions on the noise processes forcing the system (as shown in Proposition 17 below). Consequently, the identification of drift technique minimizes the regularity conditions imposed on the noises g and \({\tilde{g}}\).
Remark 2
If the ranges of \({\tilde{g}}\) and g are infinite countable and their components are time-dependent, then the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the corresponding stochastic electroconvection model are obtained on the time interval [0, T] provided that the following regularity condition
holds.
4 Electroconvection semigroup and weak feller properties
We consider the space
consisting of vectors \((\xi , v)\) where \(\xi \in H^{-\frac{1}{2}}\) is a mean-free scalar function and \(v \in L^2\) is a divergence-free vector field, and we consider the space
consisting of vectors \((\xi , v)\) where \(\xi \in L^4\) is a mean-free scalar function and \(v \in H^1\) is a divergence-free vector field. We define the norms \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}\) and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {V}}}\) by
and
respectively. For a time \(t \ge 0\) and a Borel set \(A \in {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {V}})\), we define the Markov transition kernels associated with (3.1) by
where \((q,u)(t, (q_0, u_0))\) denotes the solution of the stochastic model (3.1) with initial data \((q_0, u_0\)) at time t.
Let \({\mathcal {M}}_b({\mathcal {V}})\) be the collection of bounded real-valued Borel measurable functions on \({\mathcal {V}}\). For each \(t \ge 0\) and \(\varphi \in {\mathcal {M}}_b({\mathcal {V}})\), we define the Markovian semigroup (which will also be denoted by \(\left\{ P_t\right\} _{t \ge 0})\) by
Let \(C_{b}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\) be the space of continuous bounded real-valued functions on the space \(({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}) \), and \(C_{g}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\) be the space of real continuous functions \(\varphi \) on the space \(({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}) \), with growth
We point out that continuity of \(\varphi \) on the space \(({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\) means that if \((\xi _n,v_n) \in {\mathcal {V}}\) converges to \((\xi , v)\) in the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}\), then \(\varphi (\xi _n, v_n)\) converges to \(\varphi (\xi , v)\). The Markovian semigroup \(\left\{ P_t \right\} _{t \ge 0}\) has the following weak Feller properties:
Theorem 2
The semigroup \(\left\{ P_t \right\} _{t \ge 0}\) is Markov-Feller on \(C_b ({\mathcal {V}},\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\) and \(C_{g}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\), that is if \(\varphi \in C_b ({\mathcal {V}},\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\), then \(P_t \varphi \in C_b ({\mathcal {V}},\Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\) and if \(\varphi \in C_{g}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\), then \(P_t \varphi \in C_{g}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}).\)
In the proof of Theorem 2 presented below, we use Propositions 3 and 4.
Proposition 3
(Continuity) Let \((q_0^1, u_0^1)\) and \((q_0^2, u_0^2)\) be in \({\mathcal {V}}\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in L^4\) and \(g \in H^1\). Then the corresponding solutions \((q_1, u_1)\) and \((q_2, u_2)\) obey
with probability 1, where
is well-defined and finite almost surely.
Proof
We write the equations obeyed by the differences \(q_1 - q_2\) and \(u_1 - u_2\), and we take their \(L^2\) inner product with \(\Lambda ^{-1}(q_1-q_2)\) and \(u_1 - u_2\) respectively. We add the resulting energy equalities and we obtain
where \({\mathcal {F}}\) is given by (3.16). In view of (3.17), we have
where \(r(t, q_1, u_1)\) is given by (3.47). Multiplying by the integrating factor \(e^{-\int _{0}^{t} r(s) ds}\) and integrating in time from 0 to t give (4.8). \(\square \)
Proposition 4
Let \((q_0, u_0) \in {\mathcal {V}}\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in L^4\) and \(g \in H^1\). Then the unique solution (q, u) of (3.1) obeys
Proof
By Itô’s lemma, we have
and
We add the equations (4.13) and (4.14). Integrating by parts, we have
and using the cancellation
we obtain the differential equation
From (4.17), we arrive at the differential inequality
Letting
we obtain
Integrating in time from 0 to t, taking the supremum over [0, T], applying the expectation \(\textbf{E}\) in w, and using suitable martingale estimates, we obtain (4.12). This completes the proof of Proposition 4. \(\square \)
Now we prove Theorem 2:
Proof of Theorem 2
Fix \(\varphi \in C_g({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\). Suppose \((\xi _n, v_n)\) converges to \((\xi , v)\) in \(({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\), that is
In view of the continuity property given in Proposition 3, we have
and
Since \(\varphi \) is continuous on \(({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\), we conclude that
and hence
by the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, which can be applied due to the growth condition (4.7), the bound (4.12), and the convergence (4.21) yielding the boundedness of the sequence of initial datum \((\xi _n, v_n)\) in the \({\mathcal {H}}\)-norm. This shows that \(\left\{ P_t\right\} _{t \ge 0}\) is Feller on \(C_{g}({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\). Similarly, \(\left\{ P_t\right\} _{t \ge 0}\) is Feller on \(C_b({\mathcal {V}}, \Vert \cdot \Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}})\). This ends the proof of Theorem 2. \(\square \)
5 Existence and regularity of invariant measures in the absence of potential
In this section, we consider the electroconvection system
in \({\mathbb {T}}^2 \times [0, \infty ) \times \Omega \) where the potential \(\Phi =0\). We note that the system (5.1) is in the mean-zero frame: if the initial charge density and velocity are assumed to have a zero spatial average, then the solution (q, u) will have mean zero over \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\) for all positive times \(t \ge 0\).
Let \({\dot{L}}^p\) and \({\dot{H}}^s\) be the spaces of \(L^p\) and \(H^s\) functions with zero spatial averages respectively. Let H and V be the spaces of \(L^2\) and \(H^1\) functions that are divergence-free and mean zero respectively. Let
and
with
and
respectively. We note that \(\dot{{\mathcal {V}}}\) is compactly embedded in \(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\). We define the operator \({\mathcal {A}}\) on \({\mathcal {D}}({\mathcal {A}}) = {\dot{H}}^2 \times (H^2 \cap H)\) by
where P is the Leray-Hodge projector. There is an orthonormal basis of \(L^2 \times H\) consisting of eigenfunctions \(\left\{ (e_k, b_k) \right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\) of \({\mathcal {A}}\), such that
where the sequence of eigenvalues \(\left\{ \lambda _k\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\) of \({\mathcal {A}}\) counted with multiplicity is nondecreasing and diverges to \(\infty \). Asymptotically, \(\lambda _k \ge ck\) for \(k \ge 1\). Let \({\mathcal {P}}_N\) and \({\mathcal {Q}}_N\) be the orthogonal projections of \(\mathcal {{\dot{H}}}\) onto the space spanned by the first N eigenfunctions of \({\mathcal {A}}\), \((e_k, b_k)\) corresponding to eigenvalues \(\lambda _k\), and its orthogonal complement respectively. We have the inequality
which holds for all \(N\ge 1\).
The Markov transition kernels \(\left\{ P_t \right\} _{t \ge 0}\) associated with the electroconvection model (5.1),
are defined on \(\dot{{\mathcal {V}}}\) and are \(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\)-Feller as shown in Theorem 2. Here we establish the existence of invariant measures for the Markov transition kernels \(\left\{ P_t\right\} _{t \ge 0}\).
Theorem 3
Suppose that \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). There exists an invariant measure \(\mu \) for the Markov transition kernels associated with (5.1). Moreover
for any invariant measure \(\mu \) of (5.1), where C is positive constant depending only on \(\Vert f\Vert _{L^2}\), \(\Vert g\Vert _{H^1}\), and \(\Vert {\tilde{g}}\Vert _{L^4}\).
The proof of Theorem 3 uses the following auxiliary propositions and is presented at the end of this section. All the estimates can be done rigorously by taking a viscous system approximating (5.1), deriving the bounds for the mollified solution, and then inheriting them to the solution of (5.1) using the lower semi-continuity of the norms. We present formal proofs, omitting the approximation.
Proposition 5
Let \(q_0 \in {\dot{H}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\) and \(u_0 \in H\). Suppose \(g \in L^2\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The sum of the \(H^{-\frac{1}{2}}\) norm of q and \(L^2\) norm of u obeys the energy equality
(cf. (4.13)–(4.17) above) which gives the differential inequality
where we used the Poincaré inequality to bound \(L^2\) norm of the mean-free vector u by the \(L^2\) norm of its first order derivative. We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). We obtain the desired bound (5.11). \(\square \)
Proposition 6
Let \(q_0 \in {\dot{L}}^2\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^2\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The \(L^2\) norm of q evolves according to
where we used the cancellation \((u \cdot \nabla q, q)_{L^2} = 0\). We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). We obtain (5.14). \(\square \)
Proposition 7
Let \(p \ge 4\). Let \(q_0 \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The p-th power of the \(L^4\) norm of q obeys the energy inequality
Integrating in time from 0 to t and applying \(\textbf{E}\), we obtain the desired bound (5.16). \(\square \)
Proposition 8
Let \(u_0 \in V\) and \(q_0 \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Suppose \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The \(L^2\) norm of \(\nabla u\) obeys
Here we used the identity
that holds in the two-dimensional periodic setting on \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\). In view of the boundedness of the Riesz transforms on \(L^4\), we have
Consequently, an application of Young’s inequality yields
Integrating in time from 0 to t and applying \(\textbf{E}\), we obtain
In view of the bound (5.16) applied with \(p=4\), we obtain (5.18). \(\square \)
Proposition 9
Suppose \(g \in V\), \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^{4}\), and \(f \in \dot{L^2}\). For \(A \in {\mathcal {B}}({\mathcal {V}})\), let
Then \(\left\{ \nu _T \right\} \) is tight in \(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\) for \(u_0 = q_0 = 0\).
Proof
Suppose \(u_0 = q_0 = 0\). Let \(\rho > 0\), and let \(B_{\rho }\) be the ball of radius \(\rho \) in \({\dot{L}}^2 \times V\) (which is compact in \(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\)). By Chebyshev’s inequality,
as \(\rho \rightarrow \infty \) in view of the bound (5.11) that is linear in T. Therefore, the family \(\left\{ \nu _T \right\} \) is tight in \(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\), ending the proof of Proposition 9. \(\square \)
Now we prove Theorem 3.
Proof of Theorem 3
We adapt the notation \(\omega = (q,u)\) and write solutions as \(\omega (t, \omega _0)\). From the weak Feller property obtained in Theorem 2, the tightness of the time-averaged measures obtained in Proposition 9, and the Krylov-Bogoliubov averaging procedure, we conclude that there exists a probability measure \(\mu \) satisfying
for any \(T > 0\) and any \(\varphi \in C_b(\mathcal {{\dot{H}}})\). Now we study the regularity of \(\mu \) and we prove (5.10). For \(n \ge 1\), we let \({\mathcal {P}}_n\) be the projection onto the space spanned by the first n eigenfunctions of \(-\Delta \). For \(n \ge 1, M>0, \omega = (q,u) \in \dot{{\mathcal {H}}}\), we let
and we note that \(\Psi _{n,M} \in C_b(\dot{{\mathcal {H}}})\). In view of (5.11), we estimate
for any \(T > 0\). Let \(B_{\dot{{\mathcal {H}}}}(\rho )\) be the ball
Then, using invariance, we have
We choose \(\rho \) large enough so that
and then we choose T large enough so that
and we get
By Fatou’s lemma, we have
and by the Monotone Convergence Theorem, we obtain
Therefore, the invariant measure \(\mu \) is supported on \({\mathcal {X}}_2 = {\dot{L}}^2 \times V\). Next we upgrade the regularity of the measure \(\mu \). For \(\omega = (q, u) \in {\mathcal {X}}_2\), we define
In view of the bounds (5.11) and (5.14), we have
for any \(T > 0\). Letting \(B_{{\mathcal {X}}_2}(\rho )\) be the ball
we use (5.37) and invariance to obtain
We choose \(\rho \) large enough and T large enough so that
By Fatou’s lemma and the Monotone Convergence Theorem, we obtain
Therefore, the invariant measure \(\mu \) is supported on \({\mathcal {X}}_3 = {\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \times V\). Finally, for \(\omega = (q, u) \in {\mathcal {X}}_3\), we define
In view of the bounds (5.14) and (5.18), we have
for any \(T > 0\). We let \(B_{{\mathcal {X}}_3}(\rho )\) be the ball
Using the bound (5.37), invariance, and the continuous embedding of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}\) in \(L^4\), we obtain
We choose \(\rho \) large enough and T large enough so that
Therefore, the invariant measure \(\mu \) is supported on \({\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \times (H^2 \cap V)\). This ends the proof of Theorem 3. \(\square \)
6 Higher regularity of invariant measures
In this section, we prove that any invariant measure of (5.1) is more regular than \({\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \times (H^2 \cap V)\).
Theorem 4
Suppose g and \({\tilde{g}}\) are smooth. If \(\mu \) is an invariant measure of (5.1), then \(\mu \) is smooth and satisfies
for any \(k \ge 0\).
The proof of Theorem 4 is based on the following auxilliary propositions and is presented at the end of this section.
Proposition 10
Let \(u_0 \in V\) and \(q_0 \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Suppose \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Let \(p \ge 4\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The \(L^2\) norm of \(\nabla u\) evolves according to the stochastic energy equality
Consequently, the p-th power of \(\Vert \nabla u\Vert _{L^2}\) obeys
In view of the Poincaré inequality, we obtain
We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). In view of the bound (5.16), we obtain (6.2). \(\square \)
Proposition 11
Let \(u_0 \in V\) and \(q_0 \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Suppose \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The stochastic process \(\Vert \nabla u\Vert _{L^2}^4 \Vert q\Vert _{L^4}^4\) obeys
The 4-th power of the \(L^2\) norm of \(\nabla u\) evolves according to
whereas the 4-th power of the \(L^4\) norm of q evolves according to
Consequently, the product \(\Vert \nabla u\Vert _{L^2}^4 \Vert q\Vert _{L^4}^4\) satisfies the energy equality
which yields the energy inequality
Here, we used the nonlinear Poincaré inequality for the fractional Laplacian in \(L^4\) applied to the mean zero function q (see [1, 7])
By the Cauchy–Schwartz inequality, Young’s inequality and the Poincaré inequality applied to the mean zero function \(\nabla u\), we estimate
The boundedness of the Riesz transforms on \(L^4\) yields
We bound
and
using Young’s inequality. Finally, we estimate
Putting (6.11)–(6.17) together, we obtain the differential inequality
We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). The bound (5.16) applied with \(p=4\) and \(p=12\) together with the bound (6.2) gives the desired estimate (6.6). \(\square \)
Proposition 12
Let \(u_0 \in V\) and \(q_0 \in {\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\). Suppose \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\). Then
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The \({\dot{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\) norm of q obeys
For each \(t \ge 0\), let
and
By Itô’s lemma, we have
The nonlinear term is estimated using commutator estimates (see [1, Proposition 3])
hence
After applying Young’s inequality, we obtain
Next, we integrate in time from 0 to t, apply \(\textbf{E}\), and obtain
Therefore,
In view of the bounds (5.14) and (5.18), we obtain (6.19), completing the proof.
\(\square \)
Proposition 13
Let \(u_0 \in V\) and \(q_0 \in {\dot{H}}^1\). Suppose \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^1\). Then
holds for any \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
By Itô’s lemma, we have
In order to estimate the nonlinear term, we integrate by parts, use the divergence-free property \(\nabla \cdot u=0\), to obtain
We bound
in view of Hölder’s inequality with exponents 4, 8/3, 8/3, the interpolation estimate [1, Proposition 2]
and Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality. We obtain
Hence, an application of Young’s inequality yields
We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). In view of (6.2) and (6.6), we obtain (6.29). \(\square \)
Proposition 14
Let \(k \ge 0\). Let \(q_0 \in {\dot{H}}^{k+1}\) and \(u_0 \in H^{k+2} \cap H\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^{k+1}\) and \(g \in H^{k+2} \cap H\). If the estimate
holds for all \(t \ge 0\), then the following estimate
holds for all \(t \ge 0\).
Proof
The Itô lemma yields
and
Let
and
Then the stochastic process X evolves according to
An application of Itô’s lemma gives the stochastic energy equality
from which we obtain the following differential inequality
In view of the commutator estimate
that holds for any \(s > 0\), \(p \in (1, \infty )\), \(p_2, p_3 \in (1,\infty )\), \(\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} = \frac{1}{p_3} + \frac{1}{p_4}\), and all appropriately smooth functions F and G (see [1, Lemma A.1]), we estimate
Here, we used the continuous Sobolev embedding of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}\) in \(L^4\). In view of the fractional product estimate
that holds for any \(s > 0\), \(p \in (1, \infty )\), \(p_2, p_3 \in (1,\infty )\), \(\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} = \frac{1}{p_3} + \frac{1}{p_4}\), and all appropriately smooth functions F and G (see [33, Lemma A.1]), we estimate
after integrating by parts, using the continuous Sobolev embedding of \(H^{\frac{3}{2}}\) in \(L^{\infty }\), and using the boundedness of the Riesz transform on \(H^{\frac{3}{2}}\). As for the nonlinear term in u, we integrate by parts, apply the commutator estimate (6.47), use the continuous embedding of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}\) in \(L^4\), and estimate
Therefore, we obtain the inequality
which boils down to
after application of Young’s inequality. We integrate in time from 0 to t and we apply \(\textbf{E}\). Using the bounds (5.18) and (6.29), and applying Young’s inequality, we conclude that
for all \(t \ge 0\). Bounding similarly to (6.28), we have
Since
we have
and so
Therefore,
In view of (6.36), we obtain (6.37). \(\square \)
We end this section by proving Theorem 4.
Proof of Theorem 4
Suppose \(\mu \) is an invariant measure of (5.1). By Theorem 3, \(\mu \) is supported on \(H^{\frac{1}{2}} \times (H^2 \cap H)\). In view of the bounds (6.19) and (6.29), and repeating the same argument used to prove Theorem 3, we conclude that \(\mu \) is supported on \(H^{\frac{3}{2}} \times (H^2 \cap H)\). Now we bootstrap using Proposition 14 and we deduce that \(\mu \) is supported on \(H^{k + \frac{3}{2}} \times H^{k+3}\) for any \(k \ge 0\). This shows that \(\mu \) is smooth and completes the proof of Theorem 4. \(\square \)
7 Uniqueness of invariant measures
In this section, we prove that (5.1) has a unique ergodic invariant measure provided that the ranges of \({\tilde{g}}\) and g are large enough in phase space. Uniqueness is obtained by employing asymptotic coupling arguments from [20].
Theorem 5
Suppose that \(g \in V\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{L}}^4\). There exists \(N = N(f, g, {\tilde{g}})\) such that if \({\mathcal {P}}_N \mathcal {{\dot{H}}} \subset range({\tilde{g}}, g)\), then (5.1) has a unique ergodic invariant measure.
In order to prove Theorem 5, we need the following proposition:
Proposition 15
Let \(R > 0\). Then there exist positive universal constants c and C such that the estimates
and
hold.
Proof
We integrate in time from 0 to t the differential inequality
(see (5.19)) and take the supremum over \(t \ge 0\) to obtain
Exponential martingale inequalities [20, (3.4)] imply
Therefore (7.1) is established. The derivation of (7.2) is based on ideas from [19]. Indeed, the \(L^4\) norm of q evolves according to
(see (5.17)). By the Poincaré inequality for the fractional Laplacian in \(L^4\), we have
Thus, we obtain the differential inequality
We integrate from 0 to t, and take the supremum over \(t\ge 0\). We obtain
which implies
for any \(R > 0\), where M(t) is the martingale term
We have
and
where
Using the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality (see Theorem 5.2.4 in [9])
where [M](t) is the quadratic variation
we obtain
Here we used the estimate (5.16) applied for \(p=12\). Therefore,
in view of the Chebyshev’s inequality. This gives (7.2) ending the proof of Proposition 15. \(\square \)
Finally, we prove the uniqueness result:
Proof of Theorem 5
Fix \((q_0, u_0)\) and \((Q_0, U_0)\) in \(\dot{{\mathcal {V}}}\). Our aim is to establish the conditions for the asymptotic coupling framework presented in Section 2.4 of [20]. To this end, we consider (q, u) solving (5.1) with \((q(0), u(0)) = (q_0,u_0)\), and (Q, U) solving
with \((Q(0), U(0)) = (Q_0, U_0)\), where
and K, N and \(\lambda \) are positive constants to be determined later.
By Girsanov’s theorem [20, Theorem 2.2], the law of (Q, U) is absolutely continuous with respect to the solution \((q,u)(\cdot , (Q_0,U_0))\) of (5.1) corresponding to \((Q_0, U_0)\) for any choices of \(\lambda >0\) and \(K>0\). Consequently, the uniqueness of the invariant measure follows from an application of Corollary 2.1 in [20], provided that we can find some positive constants \(\lambda \) and K such that \((q,u) - (Q,u) \rightarrow 0\) in the norm of \(\mathcal {{\dot{H}}}\) on a set of positive measure.
Let
Then \((\xi , v)\) obeys
Let \(\omega = ( \xi , v)\). Taking the \(L^2\) inner product of (7.22) with \((\Lambda ^{-1} \xi , v)\), we obtain the differential inequality
where we used the cancellations
and
We estimate
and
using Hölder’s inequality, Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality, Young’s inequality, the boundedness of the Riesz transform on \(L^4\), and the commutator estimate (3.29). This yields the differential inequality
For a fixed integer N, we have
for \(\lambda \ge \lambda _{N+1}^{\frac{1}{2}}\) in view of the inequality (5.8). Hence
Integrating in time, we obtain
for any \(t \in [0, \tau _K]\). For \(R \ge 0\), we consider the sets
and
By Proposition 15, we have \({\mathbb {P}}(E_R \cap F_R) > 0\) when R is sufficiently large. Indeed,
when R is large. Consequently, on \(E_R \cap F_R\) and for \(t \in [0,\tau _K]\), we have
We choose an integer \(N = N(f, g, {\tilde{g}})\) large enough so that
yielding
on \(E_R \cap F_R\) and for \(t \in [0,\tau _K]\). Finally, we choose K large enough such that \(E_R \cap F_R \subset \left\{ \tau _K = \infty \right\} \) and we conclude that on the nontrivial set \(E_R \cap F_R \)
in \(\mathcal {{\dot{H}}}\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty \). This completes the proof of Theorem 5. \(\square \)
8 Feller property in the \(H^1\) norm
We consider the space
with norm
In this section, we show that the transition kernels associated with (5.1) are Feller in the norm of \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\).
Theorem 6
Suppose that \(g \in \cap H^2 \cap H\) and \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^1\) such that \(\nabla {\tilde{g}} \in L^8\). Then the semigroup \(\left\{ {\tilde{P}}_t \right\} _{t \ge 0}\) is Markov-Feller on \(C_b (\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}).\)
We need the following propositions.
Proposition 16
(Continuity in \({\tilde{V}}\)) Let \((q_0^1, u_0^1)\) and \((q_0^2, u_0^2)\) be in \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\). Suppose \({\tilde{g}} \in {\dot{H}}^{1}\) and \(g \in V\). Then the corresponding solutions \((q_1, u_1)\) and \((q_2, u_2)\) obey
with probability 1, where
is well-defined and finite almost surely.
Proof
Let \(q = q_1 - q_2\) and \(u = u_1 - u_2\). The norm \(\Vert \nabla q\Vert _{L^2}\) satisfies the energy inequality
where we integrated by parts and used the divergence-free condition of \(u_2\) and u. Applying Young’s inequality and using the continuous embedding of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}\) in \(L^4\), we obtain
On other hand, the norm \(\Vert \nabla u\Vert _{L^2}\) obeys
hence
Adding (8.6) and (8.8), we get
which gives (8.3). \(\square \)
Proposition 17
Suppose \(\nabla {\tilde{g}} \in L^8\) and \(\Delta g \in L^2\). Let \((q_0, u_0) \in \mathcal {{\dot{V}}}\) and \(T > 0\). Then the solution (q, u) to the system (5.1) is uniformly bounded (almost surely) in
by some constant depending only on \(g, {\tilde{g}}, f, \Vert \nabla u_0\Vert _{L^2}\) and \(\Vert q_0\Vert _{L^4}\). Consequently, if \((\xi _n, v_n) \in \mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\) is a sequence of initial datum such that \(\left\{ (\xi _n, v_n)\right\} _{n=1}^{\infty }\) converges to \((\xi , v)\) in \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\), then
almost surely.
The proof of Proposition 17 is presented in Appendix B.
Now we prove Theorem 6:
Proof of Theorem 6
Fix \(\varphi \in C_b(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}})\). Suppose \((\xi _n, v_n)\) converges to \((\xi , v)\) in \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\), that is
In view of the continuity in \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\) given by (8.3), we have
where
and
In view of (5.18) and (6.29), we have the finiteness of K(t) for almost every \(w \in \Omega \). In view of (8.11), we have
for almost every \(w \in \Omega \). This implies that
Since \(\varphi \) is continuous on \(\mathcal {{\tilde{V}}}\), we conclude that
and hence
due to the boundedness of \(\varphi \). This completes the proof of Theorem 6.\(\square \)
Data availability
The research does not have any associated data.
References
Abdo, E., Ignatova, M.: Long time dynamics of a model of electroconvection. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 374, 5849–5875 (2021)
Bensoussan, A.: Stochastic Navier–Stokes equations. Acta Appl. Math. 38, 267–304 (1995)
Bensoussan, A., Temam, R.: Equations stochastique du type Navier–Stokes. J. Funct. Anal. 13, 195–222 (1973)
Biler, P., Hebisch, W., Naszieja, T.: The Debye system: existence and large time behavior of solutions. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl. 23, 1189–1209 (1994)
Bricmont, J., Kupiainen, A., Lefevere, R.: Exponential mixing of the 2D stochastic Navier–Stokes dynamics. Commun. Math. Phys. 230(1), 87–132 (2002)
Constantin, P., Elgindi, T., Ignatova, M., Vicol, V.: On some electroconvection models. J. Nonlinear Sci. 27, 197–211 (2017)
Constantin, P., Glatt-Holtz, N., Vicol, V.: Unique ergodicity for fractionally dissipated, stochastically forced 2D Euler equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 330, 819–857 (2014)
Daya, Z.A., Deyirmenjian, V.B., Morris, S.W., de Bruyn, J.R.: Annular electroconvection with shear. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 964–967 (1998)
Da Prato, G., Zabczyk, J.: Ergodicity for Infinite Dimensional Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)
Debussche, A., Glatt-Holtz, N., Temam, R., Ziane, M.: Global existence and regularity for the 3d stochastic primitive equations of the ocean and atmosphere with multiplicative white noise. Nonlinearity 25(7), 2093 (2012)
Dong, Z., Xie, Y.: Global solutions of stochastic 2D Navier–Stokes equations with Lévy noise. Sci. China Ser. A Math. 52, 1497–1524 (2009)
Eckmann, J.-P., Hairer, M.: Uniqueness of the invariant measure for a stochastic PDE driven by degenerate noise. Commun. Math. Phys. 219(3), 523–565 (2001)
Ewald, B., Petcu, M., Temam, R.: Stochastic solutions of the two-dimensional primitive equations of the ocean and atmosphere with an additive noise. Anal. Appl. (Singap.) 5(2), 183–198 (2007)
Ferrario, B.: Stochastic Navier–Stokes equations: analysis of the noise to have a unique invariant measure. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 4(177), 331–47 (1999)
Flandoli, F.: Dissipativity and invariant measures for stochastic Navier–Stokes equations. NoDEA 1, 403–423 (1994)
Flandoli, F., Gatarek, D.: Martingale and stationary solutions for the stochastic Navier–Stokes equation. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 102, 367–391 (1995)
Flandoli, F., Maslowski, B.: Ergodicity of the 2-d Navier–Stokes equation under random perturbations. Commun. Math. Phys. 172(1), 119–141 (1995)
Glatt-Holtz, N., Kukavica, I., Vicol, V., Ziane, M.: Existence and regularity of invariant measures for the three dimensional stochastic primitive equations. J. Math. Phys. 55(5), 051504 (2014)
Glatt-Holtz, N., Martinez, V., Richard, G.: On the long-time statistical behavior of smooth solutions of the weakly damped, stochastically-driven KdV equation. arXiv.org/abs/2103.12942 (2021)
Glatt-Holtz, N., Mattingly, J.C., Richards, G.: On unique ergodicity in nonlinear stochastic partial differential equations. J. Stat. Phys. 166, 618–649 (2017)
Glatt-Holtz, N., Temam, R.: Pathwise solutions of the 2-d stochastic primitive equations. Appl. Math. Optim. 63(3), 401–433 (2011)
Glatt-Holtz, N., Ziane, M.: The stochastic primitive equations in two space dimensions with multiplicative noise. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 10(4), 801–822 (2008)
Guo, B., Huang, D.: 3D stochastic primitive equations of the large-scale ocean: global well-posedness and attractors. Commun. Math. Phys. 286(2), 697–723 (2009)
Gyongy, I., Krylov, N.V.: On stochastic equations with respect to semi-martingales: Itô formula in Banach spaces. Stochastics 6, 153–173 (1982)
Hairer, M.: Exponential mixing properties of stochastic PDEs through asymptotic coupling. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 124, 345–380 (2002)
Hairer, M., Mattingly, J.C.: A theory of hypoellipticity and unique ergodicity for semilinear stochastic PDEs. Electron. J. Probab. 16(23), 658–738 (2011)
Hairer, M., Mattingly, J.C., Scheutzow, M.: Asymptotic coupling and a general form of Harris’ theorem with applications to stochastic delay equations. Probab. Theory Related Fields 149(1–2), 223–259 (2011)
Jasielec, J.J.: Electrodiffusion phenomena in neuroscience and the Nernst–Planck–Poisson equations. Electrochem 2, 197–215 (2021)
Kuksin, S., Shirikyan, A.: A coupling approach to randomly forced nonlinear PDE’s. I. Commun. Math. Phys. 221(2), 351–366 (2001)
Kuksin, S., Shirikyan, A.: Coupling approach to white-forced nonlinear PDEs. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 81(6), 567–602 (2002)
Mattingly, J.C.: Ergodicity of 2d Navier–Stokes equations with random forcing and large viscosity. Commun. Math. Phys. 206(2), 273–288 (1999)
Mattingly, J.C.: Exponential convergence for the stochastically forced Navier–Stokes equations and other partially dissipative dynamics. Commun. Math. Phys. 230(3), 421–462 (2002)
Mattingly, J.C.: On recent progress for the stochastic Navier Stokes equations, In: Journées “Equations aux Dérivées Partielles”, p. Exp. No. XI, 52. Univ. Nantes, Nantes (2003)
Menaldi, J.L., Sritharan, S.S.: Stochastic 2-D Navier–Stokes Equation. Appl. Math. Optim. 46, 31–53 (2002)
Minty, G.: Monotone (nonlinear) operators in Hilbert spaces. Duke Math. J. 29, 341–346 (1962)
Pardoux, E.: Stochastic partial differential equations and filtering of diffusion processes. Stochastics 6, 127–167 (1979)
Rubinstein, I.: Electro-Diffusion of Ions. SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics. SIAM, Philadelphia (1990)
Sritharan, S.S.: Deterministic and Stochastic control of Navier–Stokes equation with linear, monotone and hyper viscosities. Appl. Math. Optim. 41, 255–308 (2000)
Tan, J., Ryan, E.M.: Computational study of electro-convection effects on dendrite growth in batteries. J. Power Sources 323, 67–77 (2016)
Tsai, P., Daya, Z.A., Deyirmenjian, V.B., Morris, S.W.: Direct numerical simulation of supercritical annular electroconvection. Phys. Rev. E 76, 1–11 (2007)
Weinan, E. et al.: Gibbsian dynamics and ergodicity for the stochastically forced Navier–Stokes equation. Commun. Math. Phys. 224(1), 83–106 (2001). Dedicated to Joel L. Lebowitz
Funding
The research of N.E.G.H. was partially supported by NSF-DMS-1816551, NSF-DMS-2108790. The research of M.I. was partially supported by NSF-DMS-2204614.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors all contributed equally to mathematical formulation and writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no Conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Uniform bounds in lebesgue spaces
In this Appendix, we prove Proposition 1. For simplicity, we ignore the viscous term \(-\epsilon \Delta q^{\epsilon }\) in (3.1) because it does not have any major contribution in estimating the solutions of the mollified system (3.11) and vanishes as we take the limit \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\). We also drop the \(\epsilon \) superscript.
The proof is divided into 7 main steps.
Step 1
We prove that the estimate (3.12) holds when \(p=2\).
Proof of Step 1.
By Itô’s lemma, we have
We integrate in the space variable over \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\). In view of the divergence-free condition obeyed by u, the nonlinear term vanishes, that is
which yields the energy equality
We estimate
using the Hölder and Young inequalities. We obtain the differential inequality
Integrating in time from 0 to t, we get
We take the supremum over all \(t \in [0,T]\),
Now we apply the expectation \(\textbf{E}\). In view of the martingale estimate (see Theorem 5.2.4 in [9]),
we have
This gives (3.12) when \(p = 2\). \(\square \)
Step 2
We prove that the estimate (3.12) holds for any \(p \in [4, \infty )\).
Proof of Step 2
Applying Itô’s lemma to the process \(F(X_t (w))\) where \(X_t(w) = \Vert q(t,w)\Vert _{L^2}^2\) obeys (A.3) and \(F(\xi ) = \xi ^{\frac{p}{2}}\), we derive the energy equality
which yields the differential inequality
In view of the bound
we have
where we used Young’s inequality to estimate
and
Integrating in time (A.13) from 0 to t and taking the supremum over [0, T], we obtain
We estimate
and we obtain (3.12). \(\square \)
Step 3
We show that the velocity u obeys
Proof of Step 3
We apply Itô’s lemma pointwise in x and we obtain the energy equality
which implies
where we used the cancellation
due to the divergence-free condition satisfied by u. By Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality
and the boundedness of the Riesz transforms in \(L^4\), we estimate
We also estimate
and
using Hölder’s inequality followed by Young’s inequality. We obtain the differential inequality
hence
for all \(s \in [0,t]\). Integrating in time from 0 to t, we obtain
We take the supremum in time over [0, T] and apply \(\textbf{E}\). Using the continuous Sobolev embedding
and (3.12) with \(p=4\), we have
for all \(t \in [0,T]\). From (3.12) with \(p=2\), we have
for all \(t \in [0,T]\). We estimate
and we obtain (A.18). \(\square \)
Step 4
We prove that (3.13) holds for \(p=4\).
Proof of Step 4
By Itô’s lemma, we have
Integrating in the space over \({{\mathbb {T}}}^2\), we obtain the energy equality
We note that
due to the divergence-free condition for u. By the nonlinear Poincaré inequality for the fractional Laplacian in \(L^4\) applied to the mean zero function q, we have
Using Hölder’s inequality with exponents 4, 4/3 and Young’s inequality with exponents 4, 4/3, we get
We also bound
using Hölder and Young inequalities. Putting (A.34)–(A.38) together, we obtain the differential inequality
Consequently,
for all \(t \in [0,T]\). We take the supremum over [0, T] and then we apply \(\textbf{E}\). We estimate
and we obtain (3.13) for \(p=4\). \(\square \)
Step 5
We prove (3.13) for any \(p \ge 8\).
Proof of Step 5
The stochastic energy equality
holds for any \(p \ge 8\). By Hölder’s inequality with exponents 4/3, 4 and Young’s inequality with exponents \(p/(p-2), p/2\), we have
We obtain
Integrating (A.44) in time from 0 to t, taking the supremum over [0, T], applying \(\textbf{E}\), and estimating
we obtain (3.13).
Step 6
We show that (3.14) holds.
Proof of Step 6
We derive the stochastic energy equality
By Young’s inequality with exponents \(p/(p-2)\) and p/2,
and
Similarly, using Young’s inequality with exponents \(p/(p-1)\) and p,
and
By Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality and the boundedness of the Riesz transforms in \(L^4({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\), we have
This yields the differential inequality
and thus
We integrate in time from 0 to t, take the supremum over [0, T], and apply E. We obtain
We estimate
Putting (A.54) and (A.55) together, and using (3.12) and (3.13), we obtain (3.14). \(\square \)
Step 7
We prove that (3.15) holds.
Proof of Step 7
We write the equation satisfied by \(\nabla u\), apply Itô’s lemma, and integrate in the space variable. We obtain the energy equality
The nonlinear term for the velocity vanishes, that is
and using Hölder’s inequality, we obtain
An application of Young’s inequality yields the differential inequality
We integrate (A.59) in time from 0 to t, take the supremum in time, and then apply \(\textbf{E}\). We obtain
We estimate the martingale term
Putting (A.60) and (A.61) together, and using (3.12) with \(p=2\) and (3.13) with \(p=4\), we get (3.15). \(\square \)
Pathwise uniform bounds for the solutions
In this section, we prove Proposition 17. We let (q, u) be the solution to (5.1) corresponding to the initial data \((q_0, u_0)\). Let
and
We set
and
and we note that (Q, U) obeys the deterministic system
where we used the divergence-free condition imposed on g.
Step 1. Bounds for the velocity in \(L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ;H^1({{\mathbb {T}}}^2))\).
We take the \(L^2\) inner product of the Q equation with Q, and we obtain
We estimate the nonlinear term
using Hölder’s inequality, Ladyzhenskaya’s interpolation inequality applied to the mean zero function U, the continuous Sobolev embedding \(H^{\frac{1}{2}} \subset L^4\), and Young’s inequality.
This yields the differential inequality
Now we take the \(L^2\) inner product of the Q equation with \(\Lambda ^{-1}Q\) and we get
Integrating by parts and using the divergence-free condition obeyed by \(U + \phi \), we can rewrite the nonlinear term as
and we estimate
where we have used the boundedness of the Riesz transforms on \(L^p({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\) for \(p \in (1, \infty )\). We obtain
Finally, we take the \(L^2\) inner product of the equation obeyed by U with U and we obtain
We integrate by parts the nonlinear term. Using the fact that \(U+ \phi \) is divergence-free, we have
This yields the differential inequality
We add (B.8), (B.12) and (B.15). Setting
we get
where A(t) and B(t) are some positive constants depending on \(\phi , {\tilde{\phi }}\) and f. This implies
Integrating in time from 0 to t, we obtain the bound
for all \(t \ge 0\).
Step 2. Bounds for the charge density in \(L_{loc}^{\infty }(0, \infty ; L^4({{\mathbb {T}}}^2))\). We take the \(L^2\) inner product of the Q equation with \((Q)^3\). Using the Poincaré inequality for the fractional Laplacian, we get the deterministic differential inequality
In view of the continuous Sobolev embedding of \(H^1({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\) in \(L^8({{\mathbb {T}}}^2)\), we bound the nonlinear term
hence
which yields
Integrating in time from 0 to t and using the boundedness of \(\nabla U\) in \(L_{loc}^2(0, \infty ;\) \( L^2({{\mathbb {T}}}^2))\) derived in Step 1, we obtain uniform in bounds for the \(L^4\) norm of Q.
Step 3. Bounds for the velocity in \(L_{loc}^2(0,\infty ;H^2({{\mathbb {T}}}^2))\). Taking the \(L^2\) inner product of the equation obeyed by U with \(-\Delta U\), we get
Since the trace of \(M^TM^2\) vanishes for any two-by-two traceless matrix M, we have
We obtain
We integrate in time from 0 to t and we use the bounds derived in Step 1 and Step 2 to obtain uniform bounds for \(\Vert \nabla U\Vert _{L^2}\) and \(\int _{0}^{t}\Vert \Delta U\Vert _{L^2}^2 ds\).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abdo, E., Glatt-Holtz, N. & Ignatova, M. Unique ergodicity in stochastic electroconvection. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 31, 65 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-024-00954-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-024-00954-3