Abstract
Consider the steady Boltzmann equation with slab symmetry for a monatomic, hard sphere gas in a half space. At the boundary of the half space, it is assumed that the gas is in contact with its condensed phase. The present paper discusses the existence and uniqueness of a uniformly decaying boundary layer type solution of the Boltzmann equation in this situation, in the vicinity of the Maxwellian equilibrium with zero bulk velocity, with the same temperature as that of the condensed phase, and whose pressure is the saturating vapor pressure at the temperature of the interface. This problem has been extensively studied, first by Sone, Aoki and their collaborators, by means of careful numerical simulations. See section 2 of (Bardos et al. in J Stat Phys 124:275–300, 2006) for a very detailed presentation of these works. More recently, Liu and Yu (Arch Ration Mech Anal 209:869–997, 2013) proposed an extensive mathematical strategy to handle the problems studied numerically by Sone, Aoki and their group. The present paper offers an alternative, possibly simpler proof of one of the results discussed in Liu and Yu (2013).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The half-space problem for the steady Boltzmann equation is to find solutions \(F\equiv F(x,v)\) to the Boltzmann equation in the half-space with slab symmetry—meaning that F depends on one space variable only, henceforth denoted by \(x>0\), and on three velocity variables \(v=(v_1,v_2,v_3)\)—converging to some Maxwellian equilibrium as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \). Physically, F(x, v) represents the velocity distribution function of the molecules of a monatomic gas located at the distance x of some given plane surface, with velocity \(v\in {\mathbf {R}}^3\).
Assuming for instance that \(v_1\) is the coordinate of the velocity v in the x direction, this half-space problem is put in the form
The Boltzmann collision integral is defined as
where \(v'\) and \(v'_*\) are given in terms of v, \(v_*\) and \({\omega }\) by the formulas
For the moment, we assume that F is, say, continuous in x and rapidly decaying in v as \(|v|\rightarrow +\infty \), so that the collision integral—and all its variants considered below—make sense.
The quadratic collision integral above is polarized so as to define a symmetric bilinear operator as follows:
An important property of the Boltzmann collision integral is that it satisfies the conservation of mass, momentum and energy, i.e. the identities
for all rapidly decaying, continuous functions F, G defined on \({\mathbf {R}}^3\)—see §3.1 in [9].
The notation for Maxwellian equilibrium densities is as follows:
In the sequel, a special role is played by the centered, reduced Gaussian density \({\mathcal {M}}_{1,0,1}\), henceforth abbreviated as
We recall that the Boltzmann collision integral vanishes identically on Maxwellian distributions—see §3.2 in [9]:
With the substitution
on account of the identity \({\mathcal {B}}(M,M)=0\), the problem (1) is put in the form
where \(f\equiv f(x,\xi )\) is defined by the identity
while
As a consequence of (2),
for all rapidly decaying, continuous functions f defined on \({\mathbf {R}}^3\).
Now, for each \({\mathcal {R}}\in O_3({\mathbf {R}})\) (the group of orthogonal matrices with 3 rows and columns), one has
so that
for all continuous on \({\mathbf {R}}^3\), rapidly decaying functions F, G, f. (See §2.2.3 in [6] for a quick proof of these invariance results.)
Assume that the problem (4) with boundary condition
has a unique solution f in some class of functions that is invariant under the action of \(O_3({\mathbf {R}})\) on the velocity variable \(\xi \) (such as, for instance, the Lebesgue space \(L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+\times {\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{d}x)\)). If
then \((x,\xi )\mapsto f(x,{\mathcal {R}}\xi )\) is also a solution of (4)–(7), where
so that, by uniqueness, \(f(x,{\mathcal {R}}\xi )=f(x,\xi )\) a.e. in \(\xi \in {\mathbf {R}}^3\), for all \(x>0\). Henceforth, we restrict our attention to solutions of (4) that are even in \((\xi _2,\xi _3)\), and define
We recall that \({\mathcal {L}}\) is an unbounded, nonnegative self-adjoint Fredholm operator on \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\) with domain
(see Theorem 7.2.1 in [9]), where \(\nu \) is the collision frequency defined as
The collision frequency satisfies the inequalities
where \(\nu _+>1>\nu _->0\) designate appropriate constants—see formula (2.13) in chapter 7 of [9]. More specifically, the linearized collision operator \({\mathcal {L}}\) is of the form
where \({\mathcal {K}}\) is an integral operator, whose properties are summarized in the proposition below.
Proposition 1
The linear integral operator \({\mathcal {K}}\) is compact on \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\) and satisfies the identity \({\mathcal {K}}(\phi \circ {\mathcal {R}})=({\mathcal {K}}\phi )\circ {\mathcal {R}}\), where \({\mathcal {R}}\) is defined in (8). With the notation
the linear operator
is bounded from \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;dv)\) to \(L^{\infty ,1/2}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\), and, for each \(s\ge 0\), from \(L^{\infty ,s}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) to \(L^{\infty ,s+1}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\).
These results are stated as Theorem 7.2.4 in [9], to which we refer for a proof. That \({\mathcal {K}}\) is compact in \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\) was proved by Hilbert in 1912; that the twisted operator \(M^{1/2}{\mathcal {K}}M^{-1/2}\) is bounded from \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;\mathrm{d}\xi )\) to \(L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) and from \(L^{\infty ,s}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) to \(L^{\infty ,s+1}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) was proved by Grad in 1962.
Henceforth, we denote
An important consequence of Proposition 1 is the following weighted relative spectral gap estimate due to Bardos–Caflisch–Nicolaenko for \({\mathcal {L}}\) (see equation (2.14) in [3]): there exists \({\kappa }_0>0\) such that
where \(\varPi \) is the \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\)-orthogonal projection on \(\mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\).
In fact Proposition 1 is a consequence of the following lemma, which will be needed later.
Lemma 1
The linear integral operator \({\mathcal {K}}\) can be decomposed as
where
For \(j=1,2,3\), the operator \({\mathcal {K}}_j\) is compact on \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\) and satisfies the identity
where \({\mathcal {R}}\) is defined in (8). Moreover the linear operators
are bounded from \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;\mathrm{d}\xi )\) to \(L^{\infty ,\frac{1}{2}}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\), and from \(L^{\infty ,s}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) to \(L^{\infty ,s+1}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) for each \(s\ge 0\), and for all \(j=1,2,3\).
Furthermore,
(see Theorem 7.2.1 in [9]) where,
The family \((X_+,X_0,X_-,\xi _2,\xi _3)\) is orthonormal in \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\), and orthogonal for the bilinear form \((f,g)\mapsto {\langle }\xi _1fg{\rangle }\)—see [10] , with
Here c is the speed of sound associated to the Maxwellian distribution M, i.e.
In view of (6), the unbounded operator \({\mathcal {L}}\) on \(L^2(Mdv)\) induces an unbounded, self-adjoint Fredholm operator on \({\mathfrak {H}}\) still denoted \({\mathcal {L}}\), with domain \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\) and nullspace \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}=\hbox {Span}\{X_+,X_0,X_-\}\).
2 Main Result
Y. Sone and his collaborators have arrived at the following result by formal asymptotics or numerical experiments [1, 2, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26]. Consider the steady Boltzmann equation in (1) with boundary conditions
This boundary condition is relevant in the context of a phase transition in the kinetic theory of gases. In this case, the plane of equation \(x=0\) represents the interface separating the liquid phase (confined in the domain \(x<0\)) from the gaseous phase (in the domain \(x>0\)). The parameter \(T_w\) is the temperature of the liquid phase at the interface, and \(\rho _w\) is the density such that \(p_w{:}{=}\rho _wT_w\) is the saturation vapor pressure for the gas at the temperature \(T_w\), while \(T_\infty \) and \(p_\infty =\rho _\infty T_\infty \) are respectively the temperature and pressure far away from the interface, and u is the normal bulk velocity in the gas far away from the interface.
Near \(u=0\), the set of parameters \(T_\infty /T_w\), \(p_\infty /p_w\), and u for which this problem has a solution is as represented in Fig. 1. It is a surface for \(u<0\) and a curve for \(u>0\). The solution F converges exponentially fast as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \); however, the exponential speed of convergence is not uniform on the surface S as \(u\rightarrow 0^-\), except on the extension of the curve C on the surface S. See Sect. 2 of [4], or chapter 7 of [21] for a comprehensive review of these numerical results. The role of slowly varying solutions—i.e. solutions whose exponential decay as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) is not uniform as \(u\rightarrow 0^-\)—in this problem is explained in detail on pp. 280–282 in [4]. The original papers by Y. Sone and his group, on this problem, can be found in the bibliography of [4, 20, 21]. Other parts of the set of parameters \(T_\infty /T_w\), \(p_\infty /p_w\) and u for which the half-space problem has a solution than the neighborhood of (1, 0, 1) represented above have been analyzed in detail in [5, 23, 27].
Henceforth, we assume without loss of generality that \(\rho _\infty =T_\infty =1\).
In the limit case \(u=0\), it is known that the only solution is the constant \(F=M={\mathcal {M}}_{1,0,1}\) corresponding to the point \((1/T_w,-u/c,1/p_w)=(1,0,1)\) on the figure—see [4] Sect. 5 for a proof.
In the present paper, we prove the existence of the curve C corresponding to solutions of (1)–(12) in some neighborhood of the point (1, 0, 1) converging as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) with exponential speed uniformly in u.
2.1 Statement of the Main Theorem
Consider the nonlinear half-space problem for the Boltzmann equation written in terms of the relative fluctuation of distribution function about the normalized Maxwellian M
Theorem 1
There exist \({\varepsilon }>0\), \(E>0\), \(R>0\) and \({\overline{{\gamma }}}>0\) — defined in (75), (77), (52) and (78) respectively—such that, for each boundary data \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) satisfying
(with \({\mathcal {R}}\) defined in (8)), and for each u satisfying \(0<|u|\le R\), the problem (13) has a unique solution \(f_u\) satisfying the symmetry
and the uniform decay estimate
for all \({\gamma }\) such that \(0<{\gamma }<{\overline{{\gamma }}}\) if and only if the boundary data \(f_b\) satisfies the two additional conditions,
The functions \(Y_1[u]\equiv Y_1[u](\xi )\) and \(Y_2[u]\equiv Y_2[u](\xi )\) are defined in Lemma 4, while the (nonlinear) operator \({\mathfrak {R}}_{u}\) is defined in (76).
Several remarks are in order before starting with the proof of Theorem 1.
First observe that Sone’s original problem falls in the range of application of Theorem 1. Indeed, the boundary condition (12) translates into
which is obviously even in \((\xi _2,\xi _3)\). Since \(d{\mathcal {M}}_{1,0,1}\cdot (\rho _w-1,-(u,0,0),T_w-1)\) is the real-valued functionFootnote 1 of \(\xi \in {\mathbf {R}}^3\) defined by the formula
one has
The two conditions (15) are expected to define a “submanifold of codimension 2” in the set of boundary data \(f_b\). When specialized to the three dimensional submanifold of Sone’s data (16), this “submanifold of codimension 2” is expected to be the curve described by the equations
referred to as equations (2.3) in [4], and defining the set of parameters for which a solution of the half-space problem exists in the evaporation case. As explained above, this curve is expected to extend smoothly in the condensation region if slowly decaying solutions are discarded. Unfortunately, we have not been able to check that the two equations (15) above, even when restricted to the 3 dimensional manifold of Sone’s boundary data (16), are smooth (at least \(C^1\)) and locally independent (by the implicit function theorem). We obviously expect this to be true, but this seems to involve some rather delicate properties of half-space problems for the linearized Boltzmann equation.
An a priori estimate to be found in Sect. 5 of [4] shows that the only solution of (13)–(16) with \(u=0\) is \(f_u\equiv 0\), so that \(\rho _w=T_w=1\). One can differentiate formally about this point both sides of the Boltzmann equation at \(u=0\) along the curve \(u\mapsto (\rho _w(u),T_w(u))\) defined for \(0<u<\sqrt{5/3}\) by the equations (2.3) of [4] recalled above. Denoting \(\dot{f}_0(x,\xi ){:}{=}({\partial }f_u/{\partial }u)(x,\xi )|_{u=0}\), one finds that \(\dot{f}_0\) should satisfy
where \(\rho _w'(0^+)\) and \(T'_w(0^+)\) are the right derivatives of \(\rho _w\) and \(T_w\) at \(u=0\) along the evaporation curve. The Bardos–Caflisch–Nicolaenko [3] theory of the half-space problem for the linearized Boltzmann equation implies that there exists a unique pair of real numbers \((\rho _w'(0^+),T_w'(0^+))\) for which a solution \(\dot{f}_0\) exists. This is obviously a very interesting piece of information as it provides a tangent vector at the origin to the “curve” defined by the two conditions (15) of Theorem 1 specialized to boundary data of the form (16). Unfortunately, whether \(f_u\) is differentiable in u at \(u\not =0\) is rather unclear, and we shall not discuss this issue any further.
2.2 Outline of the Paper
Our strategy for proving Theorem 1 is as follows: first we isolate the slowly varying mode near \(\rho _w=T_w=1\) and \(u=0\) on the condensation side. This leads to a generalized eigenvalue problem of the kind considered by Nicolaenko in [14, 15] (see also [8, 16]) in his construction of a weak shock profile for the nonlinear Boltzmann equation. Next we remove this slowly varying mode from the linearization of (13) by a combination of the Lyapunov–Schmidt procedure used in [8, 14, 15] to establish the existence of the shock profile as a bifurcation from the constant sonic Maxwellian, and of the penalization method of [28] for studying weakly nonlinear half-space problems. Theorem 1 is obtained by a simple fixed point argument about the solution of some conveniently selected linear problem, in whose definition both the Lyapunov–Schmidt method of [14] and the penalization method of [28] play a key role. In some sense, the paper [11] can be regarded as a precursor to this one; it extends the very clever penalization method of [28] to the case \(u=0\), but does not consider the transition from \(u>0\) (evaporation) to \(u<0\) (condensation). We also refer the interested reader to the beginning of Sect. 4, where we explain one (subtle) difference between the results obtained on weakly nonlinear half-space problems for the Boltzmann equation in [28] and the problem analyzed in the present work.
The outline of the rest of this paper is as follows: Sect. 3 provides a self-contained construction of the solution to the Nicolaenko-Thurber generalized eigenvalue problem near \(u=0\). Section 4 introduces the penalization method, and formulates the problem to be solved by a fixed point argument. Section 5 treats the linearized penalized problem, while Sect. 6 treats the (weakly) nonlinear penalized problem by a fixed point argument. Theorem 1 is obtained by removing the penalization. The main ideas used in the proof of Theorem 1 are to be found in Sects. 3–4; by contrast, Sects. 5 and 6 are mostly of a technical nature.
A detailed sketch of the proof of Theorem 1 based on the ideas and results obtained in Sects. 3 and 4 can be found in Sect. 4.3. We hope that it will help the reader to orient himself in the technical intricacies of the argument.
Before starting with the proof of Theorem 1, we should say that Theorem 1 above is not completely new or original, in the following sense. A general study of the Sone half-space problem with condensation and evaporation for the Boltzmann equation has been recently proposed by T.-P. Liu and S.-H. Yu in a remarkable paper [13]. Our Theorem 1 corresponds to cases 2 and 4 in Theorem 28 on p. 984 of [13]. Given the considerable range of cases considered in [13], the proof of Theorem 28 is just sketched. The analysis in [13] appeals to a rather formidable technical apparatus, especially to the definition and structure of the Green function for the linearized Boltzmann equation (see Sect. 2.2 of [13], referring to an earlier detailed study of these functions, cited as ref. 21 in [13]). Our goal in Theorem 1 is much more modest: to provide a completely self-contained proof for one key item in the Sone diagram, namely the evaporation and its extension to the condensation regime obtained by discarding slowly decaying solutions. We also achieve much less: for instance we do not know whether the solution \(M(1+f_u)\) of the steady Boltzmann equation obtained in Theorem 1 satisfies \(M(1+f_u)\ge 0\). This is known to be a shortcoming of the method of constructing solutions to the steady Boltzmann equation by some kind of fixed point argument about a uniform Maxwellian. At variance, all the results in [13] are based on an invariant manifold approach based on the large time behavior of the Green function for the linearized Boltzmann equation. (Incidentally, the numerical results obtained by Sone and his collaborators were also based on time-marching algorithms in the long time limit.) Since the Boltzmann equation propagates the positivity of its initial data, one way of constructing nonnegative steady solutions of the Boltzmann equation is to obtain them as the long time limit of some conveniently chosen time-dependent solutions. For this reason alone, the strategy adopted in [13] has in principle more potential than ours. On the other hand, our proof uses only elementary techniques, and we hope that the present paper could serve as an introduction to the remarkable series of works by Sone and his collaborators quoted above, and to the deep mathematical analysis in [13].
3 The Nicolaenko–Thurber Generalized Eigenvalue Problem
The generalized eigenvalue problem considered here is to find \(\tau _u\in {\mathbf {R}}\) and a generalized eigenfunction \(\phi _u\in {\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\) satisfying
for each \(u\in {\mathbf {R}}\) near 0.
This problem was considered by Nicolaenko and Thurber in [16] for u near c—see Corollary 3.10 in [16].Footnote 2 It is the key to the construction of a weak shock profile for the Boltzmann equation [14, 15]. (An approximate variant of (17) for u near c is considered in [8] for molecular interactions softer than hard spheres.)
Proposition 2
There exists \(r>0\), a real-analytic function
and a real-analytic map
that is a solution to (17) for each \(u\in (-r,r)\) and satisfies
In other words,
with
Furthermore, there exists a positive constant \(C_s\) for each \(s\ge 0\) such that \(\phi _u\) satisfies
for all \(s\ge 0\), uniformly in \(u\in (-r,r)\).
The following observation is one of the key ingredients in the present paper: the function \((x,\xi )\mapsto e^{-\tau _ux}\phi _u(\xi )\) is a solution of the steady linearized Boltzmann equation, i.e.
Since \(\tau _u\simeq u{\dot{\tau }}_0\) as \(u\rightarrow 0\) with \({\dot{\tau }}_0<0\), one has
In other words, \(f_u\) grows exponentially fast as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) if \(u>0\) (evaporation) and decays exponentially fast to 0 as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) for \(u<0\) (condensation). In the latter case, the exponential speed of convergence of \(f_u\) is \(|{\dot{\tau }}_0||u|\), which is not uniform as \(u\rightarrow 0^-\). The transition from the curve C to the surface S when crossing the plane \(u=0\) on Figure 1—which represents the transition from evaporation to condensation—corresponds to the presence of an additional degree of freedom in the set of solutions. At the level of the linearized equation, this additional degree of freedom comes from the mode \(f_u(x,\xi )\), which decays to 0 as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \), albeit not uniformly as \(u\rightarrow 0^-\), if and only if \(u<0\). The extension of the curve C on the surface S is defined by the fact that solutions to the boundary layer equation (4) decaying exponentially fast as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) uniformly in \(u\rightarrow 0^-\) do not contain the \(f_u\) mode.
One can arrive at the statement of Proposition 2 by adapting the arguments in [16]—especially Theorems 3.7 and 3.9, and Corollaries 3.8 and 3.10, together with Appendices B and D there. Their discussion is based on a careful analysis of the zeros of a certain Fredholm determinant—in fact, of the perturbation of the identity by a certain finite rank operator—that can be seen as the dispersion relation for the linearized Boltzmann equation. For the sake of being self-contained, we give a (perhaps?) more direct, complete proof of Proposition 2 below.
Proof
Consider for each \(z\in {\mathbf {C}}\) the family \(T(z)={\mathcal {L}}-z\xi _1\) of unbounded operators on \({\mathfrak {H}}\). In view of (9), T(z) is a holomorphic family of unbounded operators with domain \(\mathrm {Dom}T(z)={\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\) whenever \(|z|<\nu _-\), in the sense of the definition on p. 366 in [12]. (Defining the operator \(U:\,f\mapsto \frac{1}{1+|\xi |}f\), we see that U is a one-to-one mapping of \({\mathfrak {H}}\) to \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\) and that \(z\mapsto T(z)U\) is a holomorphic map defined for all z such that \(|z|<\nu _-\) with values in the algebra of bounded operators on \({\mathfrak {H}}\).)
The family T(z) is self-adjoint on \({\mathfrak {H}}\) in the sense of the definition on p. 386 in [12], since \({\mathcal {L}}\) is self-adjoint on \({\mathfrak {H}}\) and
In addition, \(\lambda =0\) is an isolated 3-fold eigenvalue of \(T(0)={\mathcal {L}}\), corresponding to the 3-dimensional nullspace \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\) (see Theorem 7.2.5 in [9]). As explained on p. 386 in [12], there exist 3 real-analytic functions \(z\mapsto \lambda _+(z),\lambda _0(z),\lambda _-(z)\) defined for z real near 0 and 3 real-analytic maps \(z\mapsto \phi ^+_z,\phi ^0_z,\phi ^-_z\) defined for z real near 0 with values in \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\) such that, for each real z near 0,
and
while
For \(z=0\), one has
Next we differentiate twice in z the identities
Denoting by \(\dot{}\) the derivation with respect to z and dropping the ± or 0 indices (or exponents) for simplicity, we obtain successively
and
Setting \(z=0\) in (20) leads to
Since \(\phi _0\in {\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\) and \((\xi _1+{\dot{\lambda }}(0))\phi _0\perp {\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\), we conclude that
(Indeed, in the basis \(\{X_+,X_0,X_-\}\), the matrix of the quadratic form defined on \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\) by \(\phi \mapsto {\langle }(\xi _1+u)\phi ^2{\rangle }\) is
this matrix is degenerate if and only if there exists \(\phi \in {\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\setminus \{0\}\) such that \((\xi _1+u)\phi \perp {\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\), which happens only if \(u=\pm c\) or \(u=0\): see [10].)
Furthermore
and since \((\phi ^+_0,\phi ^0_0,\phi ^-_0)\) is an orthonormal system in \({\mathfrak {H}}\), each one of the three cases above occurs for exactly one of the branches \(\lambda _+(z),\lambda _0(z),\lambda _-(z)\).
Henceforth, we label these eigenvalues so that \({\dot{\lambda }}_\pm (0)=\pm c\) and \({\dot{\lambda }}_0(0)=0\) and concentrate on the branch \(\lambda _0(z)\). In particular, up to a change in orientation, one has \(\phi ^0_0=X_0\) and
This being done, setting \(z=0\) in (21), we arrive at the identity
Taking the inner product of both sides of this identity with \(\phi ^0_0\), we see that
Since \(\phi ^0_0=X_0\in \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\) and \({\mathcal {L}}\) is self-adjoint
In view of (22), one has
since \({\dot{\phi }}^0_0\notin \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\)—otherwise \({\mathcal {L}}{\dot{\phi }}^0_0=\xi _1\phi ^0_0=\xi _1X_0=0\) which is obviously impossible. Therefore
To summarize, we have obtained real-analytic maps \(z\mapsto \lambda _0(z)\) and \(z\mapsto \phi ^0_z\) such that
while
for all z real near 0.
Set \(u(z){:}{=}\lambda _0(z)/z\); since \(\lambda _0(0)={\dot{\lambda }}_0(0)=0\) while \(\ddot{\lambda }_0(0)<0\), the function u is real-analytic near 0 and satisfies
By the open mapping theorem (see Rudin [17], Theorem 10.32), \(z\mapsto u(z)\) extends into a biholomorphic map between two open neighborhoods of the origin that preserves the real axis. Denoting by \(u\mapsto z(u)\) its inverse, one has \(\lambda _0(z(u))=uz(u)\) and we recast (24) in the form
For u real sufficiently near 0, one has
Then, returning to Hilbert’s decomposition (10) of the linearized operator \({\mathcal {L}}\), we see that
for all u near 0. By definition, \(\Vert \phi ^0_{z(u)}\Vert _{{\mathfrak {H}}}=1\); since \({\mathcal {K}}\) is a bounded operator on \({\mathfrak {H}}\), the identity above implies thatFootnote 3
By Proposition 1, we improve this result and arrive at the bound of the form
for all \(s\ge 0\), uniformly in u near 0.
Furthermore
Since \(z(u)=2u/\ddot{\lambda }_0(0)+O(u^2)\), we conclude that \(u\mapsto {\langle }(\xi _1+u)(\phi ^0_{z(u)})^2{\rangle }\) is a real-analytic function defined near \(u=0\), satisfying
Finally, setting \(\tau _u{:}{=}z(u)\) and
we arrive at the statement of Proposition 2. \(\square \)
Remarks
-
(1)
The analogue of Proposition 2 in the case where \({\dot{\lambda }}(0)=c\) is precisely what is discussed in Corollary 3.10 of [16]. The idea of reducing the generalized eigenvalue problem (17) to a standard eigenvalue problem for the self-adjoint family T(z), i.e. of considering \(u\tau _u\) as a function of \(\tau _u\) near the origin, is somewhat reminiscent of the identity (20) in [16].
-
(2)
For inverse power law, cutoff potentials softer than hard spheres, one has
$$\begin{aligned} \nu _-(1+|\xi |)^{\alpha }\le \nu (|\xi |)\le \nu _+(1+|\xi |)^{\alpha }\quad \text { for some }{\alpha }<1\,. \end{aligned}$$In that case, the operator \(T(z)={\mathcal {L}}-z\xi _1\) is not a holomorphic family on \({\mathfrak {H}}\), since
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm {Dom}T(z)=\frac{1}{(1+|\xi |)^{\alpha }(1+|\xi _1|)^{1-{\alpha }}}{\mathfrak {H}}\quad \text { for }z\not =0\,, \end{aligned}$$while
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm {Dom}T(0)=\frac{1}{(1+|\xi |)^{\alpha }}{\mathfrak {H}}\,. \end{aligned}$$The argument used in the proof of Proposition 2 fails for such potentials, which is the reason why Caflisch and Nicolaenko [8] consider an approximate variant of the generalized eigenvalue problem instead of (17).
4 The Penalized Problem
Our strategy for solving the nonlinear half-space problem (4) near \(u=0\)—i.e. near the transition from evaporation to condensation at the interface \(x=0\)—is as follows:
Considered the nonhomogeneous, linear half-space problem
where
All solutions f to this problem considered below are assumed to be even in \((\xi _2,\xi _3)\):
Assume for now that we can prove existence and uniqueness of a solution \(f={\mathcal {F}}_u[f_b,Q]\) to (25) provided that \(f_b\) and Q satisfy some compatibility conditions, which we denote symbolically as \({\mathcal {C}}_u[f_b,Q]=0\). An obvious strategy is to seek the solution f of (4) with boundary condition (7) as a fixed point of the map \(f\mapsto {\mathcal {F}}_u[f_b,{\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)]\) in some neighborhood of \(f=0\).
There are two main difficulties in this approach. First, the nonlinear solution f should satisfy the compatibility conditions \({\mathcal {C}}_u[f_b,{\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)]=0\); these compatibility conditions are not explicit since they involve \({\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)\), and yet satisfying these compatibility conditions is necessary in order to be able to define \({\mathcal {F}}_u[f_b,{\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)]\) in the first place.
A second difficulty lies with the solution of the linearized problem (25) itself. Since \({\mathcal {Q}}\) is a quadratic operator, one can indeed expect that the nonlinear operator \(f\mapsto {\mathcal {F}}_u[f_b,{\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)]\) will be a strict contraction in a closed ball centered at the origin with small enough positive radius \(R_u\), say in some space of the type \(M^{-1/2}L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+;L^{\infty ,s}({\mathbf {R}}^3))\) for large enough s. In other words, solving the linearized problem (25) in some appropriate setting is the key step. Once this is done, handling the nonlinearity should not involve intractable, additional difficulties.
In fact, the work of Ukai–Yang–Yu [28] solves precisely both these difficulties. Unfortunately, their result is not enough for the purpose of studying the transition from evaporation to condensation, for the following reason.
Indeed, one faces the following problem: the radius \(R_u\) of the closed ball centered at the origin on which one can apply the fixed point theorem to the nonlinear operator \(f\mapsto {\mathcal {F}}_u[f_b,{\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)]\) might be so small that
In other words,
as \(u\rightarrow 0\), and it might happen that \(R_u<|u|\Vert \,|\xi |{\mathcal {M}}_{1,0,1}\Vert _{L^\infty }\) for all \(u\not =0\).
The main ingredient needed to understand the transition from evaporation to condensation in the context of the half-space problem (1) is therefore to obtain for the operator \({\mathcal {F}}_u\)—and for the radius \(R_u\)—an estimate that is uniform in u as \(u\rightarrow 0\).
With the generalized eigenfunction \(\phi _u\) constructed in the previous section, we have constructed a special solution (18) of the linearized steady Boltzmann equation, and this solution is a slowly varying function of x for \(|u|\ll 1\) (slowly exponentially increasing for \(0<u\ll 1\) and slowly exponentially decaying for \(0<-u\ll 1\)), according to (19). Solutions of this type must be discarded in order to obtain the desired uniform bounds as u crosses the value 0 (i.e. the transition between evaporation and condensation).
Discarding slowly varying modes in solutions to the steady linearized Boltzmann equation (25) is achieved by a procedure similar to the Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction used in the context of bifurcation theory.
4.1 The Lyapunov–Schmidt Method
We denote by \(\varPi _+\) the \({\mathfrak {H}}\)-orthogonal projection on \({\mathbf {R}}X_+\), i.e.
and likewise, by \(\varPi \) the \({\mathfrak {H}}\)-orthogonal projection on \(\text {Span}\{X_+,X_0,X_-\}\), i.e.
Moreover, we introduce, for all \(u\in (-r,0)\cup (0,r)\) as in Proposition 2, the operators \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) and \({\mathbf {P}}_u\) defined by
where
Since \(u\mapsto \tau _u\) and \(u\mapsto \phi _u\) are real-analytic on \((-r,r)\) with \(\tau _0=0\), and since \(\psi _u{:}{=}(\phi _u-\phi _0)/u\), the function \(u\mapsto \psi _u\) is also real-analytic on \((-r,r)\) with values in \(\mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\).
Lemma 2
The linear operators \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) and \({\mathbf {P}}_u\) are rank-1 projections defined on \({\mathfrak {H}}\), satisfying
and
Besides
Proof
The first property follows from a straightforward computation.
For each \(f\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\), one has
where the penultimate equality follows from assuming that \({\langle }(\xi _1+u)fX_0{\rangle }=0\), since \(\phi _0=X_0\).
Since \(\tau _u\not =0\) whenever \(0<|u|<r\), one has
and this obviously entails the last property.
Finally, we check that \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) and \({\mathbf {P}}_u\) are projections:
and we conclude since
Indeed,
in view of the third property in the proposition, since \(\phi _0\in \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\). \(\square \)
The projection \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) is a deformation of the projection \({\mathbf {p}}\) used in [11] to study the half-space problem (1) in the case \(u=0\). The role of \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) and \({\mathbf {P}}_u\) is reminiscent of the Lyapunov–Schmidt method used by Nicolaenko–Thurber [16] to analyze the shock profile problem for the Boltzmann equation.
The observations that follow explain the origin of the penalization method used in the construction of the solution to (4).
Lemma 3
Assume that \(0<|u|<r\). Let Q satisfy (26) and f be a solution to (25) such that (27) holds. Assume that the source term satisfies
and that
Then
-
(a)
the function f satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} {\langle }(\xi _1+u)fX_+{\rangle }={\langle }(\xi _1+u)fX_0{\rangle }={\langle }(\xi _1+u)fX_-{\rangle }=0\,,\quad x\ge 0\,; \end{aligned}$$ -
(b)
one has
$$\begin{aligned} (\xi _1+u){\mathbf {p}}_uf(x,\xi )=-\int _0^\infty e^{\tau _uz}{\mathbf {P}}_uQ(x+z,\xi )\mathrm{d}z\,,\quad x\ge 0\,. \end{aligned}$$In particular
$$\begin{aligned} {\langle }(\xi _1+u)\psi _uf{\rangle }(0)+\int _0^\infty e^{\tau _uy}{\langle }\psi _uQ{\rangle }(y)\mathrm{d}y=0\,. \end{aligned}$$(33)
The content of Lemma 3 can be understood as follows: the exponential decay condition (32) is uniform as \(|u|\rightarrow 0\). In particular, imposing \({\gamma }>\max (\tau _u,0)\) eliminates the slowly varying solution (18) in view of (19). In other words, the uniform exponential decay condition (32) implies the additional equality (33). While (33) is satisfied automatically for \(0<u\ll 1\) (i.e. in the evaporation case), it is used to eliminate a slowly varying component of the solution of the form
This observation is at the heart of our analysis.
Proof
Any solution of (25) satisfies
Besides,
so that statement (a) holds.
Now for (b). For \(0<|u|<r\), applying the first and second identities in Lemma 2 shows that
since \((\xi _1+u)f\perp \mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\). Besides
so that
or, equivalently
For u small enough, one has \(\tau _u<{\gamma }\), so that
At this point, we study separately the cases \(u>0\) and \(u<0\).
Step 1. If \(0<u<r\), then \(\tau _u<0\), so that
i.e.
Then
so that
Step 2. If \(-r<u<0\), then \(\tau _u>0\), so that
Since
one has
Therefore, if \(-r<u<0\), in general
Since \(\tau _u\sim {\dot{\tau }}_0u\) as \(u\rightarrow 0\), this exponential decay is not uniform in u near \(u=0\), unless
in which case
and this is precisely statement (b) in Lemma 3. \(\square \)
Thus we seek solutions f of (25) in the form
where g satisfies
while
Observe that the condition \({\langle }(\xi _1+u)\psi _ug{\rangle }=0\) is equivalent to the fact that \({\mathbf {p}}_ug=0\), so that
Notice also that
since \({\langle }(\xi _1+u)\psi _ug{\rangle }(0)=0\) and
In other words, the function f defined as in (35) satisfies indeed the uniform exponential decay condition (33).
4.2 The Ukai–Yang–Yu Penalization Method
The formulation (36) is precisely the one for which we use a penalization method to set up the fixed point argument described at the beginning of the present section. Indeed, any solution \(g\in L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+;{\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}})\) to (36) satisfies
Since we have assumed that \(g(x,\cdot )\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathfrak {H}}\) as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \), one has
Likewise,
Therefore, if g is a solution of (36) such that \(x\mapsto e^{\gamma x}g(x,\cdot )\) belongs to \(L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+;{\mathfrak {H}})\), then
is a solution of the penalized problem
where the penalized linearized collision operator is defined by
for all \({\alpha },{\beta }>0\).
Conversely, we should seek under which condition(s) a solution of the penalized problem (39) with appropriately chosen \({\alpha },{\beta }\) defines a solution of the original problem (36) via (38). This is explained in the next lemma.
Lemma 4
For \(0<|u|<r\), let
There exists \(0<r'\le r\) such that, whenever \(0<|u|<r'\), the matrix \({\mathcal {A}}_u\) has 3 distinct eigenvalues
such that
Let \((l_1(u),l_2(u),l_3(u))\) be a real-analytic basis of left eigenvectors of \({\mathcal {A}}_u\) defined for \(0<|u|<r'\), such that
Set
Then, if \(g_{u,{\gamma }}\) satisfies (39) with
one has
Proof
A straightforward computation shows that
Setting
we see that
Since the function \(u\mapsto \psi _u\) is real-analytic on \((-r,r)\) with values in \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\), the matrix field \(u\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}_u\) is real-analytic on \((-r,r)\). Besides
with characteristic polynomial \(({\alpha }-\lambda )(\lambda ^2-{\beta }{\langle }\psi _0X_0{\rangle }\lambda +{\dot{\tau }}_0{\beta })\). Since \({\beta }>0\) while \({\dot{\tau }}_0<0\), the matrix \({\mathcal {A}}_0\) has 3 simple eigenvalues, two of which, including \({\alpha }\), are positive, while one is negative.
By a standard analytic perturbation argument, we therefore obtain 3 eigenvalues \(\lambda _1(u),\lambda _2(u),\lambda _3(u)\) for \({\mathcal {A}}_u\) that are real-analytic functions of u defined on some neighborhood of the origin, and satisfy the inequalities mentioned in the statement of the lemma. The existence of left eigenvectors \(l_1(u),l_2(u),l_3(u)\) of \({\mathcal {A}}_u\) that are real-analytic functions of u defined in some neighborhood of 0 follows from the same argument—see for instance chapter II, §1 in [12].
Choose \({\gamma }\) such that
Taking the inner product of each side of (41) with \(l_1(u)\), \(l_2(u)\) and \(l_3(u)\), we see that
Since
we conclude that \(x\mapsto (A_+,A_0,B)(x)\cdot l_3(u)\) is bounded on \({\mathbf {R}}_+\), which implies that
Therefore
in which case \(g(x,\xi )=e^{-{\gamma }x}g_{u,{\gamma }}(x,\xi )\) is a solution of the original half-space problem (36). Obviously, these conditions can be recast as in the statement of the lemma. \(\square \)
4.3 Outline of the Proof of Theorem 1
We conclude with a summary of what has been achieved in sections 3 and 4 , and an outline of what remains to be done in the proof of Theorem 1. This subsection should be used as a roadmap to the proof of Theorem 1. Consider the problem
with the boundary condition
For simplicity, we assume that \(f_b\) is even in \((\xi _2,\xi _3)\) and look for solutions f to (42) which are also even in \((\xi _2,\xi _3)\).
4.3.1 Step 1: eliminating the slowly varying mode
Assume that the function \(u\mapsto f_u\equiv f_u(x,\xi )\) is a family of solutions to (42) defined for \(0<|u|\ll 1\), satisfying the uniform bound (32) with \({\gamma }>\max (\tau _u,0)\). The function \(\phi _u\equiv \phi _u(\xi )\) is the solution of the Nicolaenko-Thurber generalized eigenvalue problem (17) constructed in Proposition 2, and \(\tau _u\) is the corresponding generalized eigenvalue.
According to Lemma 3, treating \(Q{:}{=}{\mathcal Q}(f_u,f_u)\) as a source term which satisfies (26), we conclude that \(f_u\) must satisfy all the conditions in statements (a)–(b) of that lemma. Thus, we isolate the component of the solution \(f_u\) proportional to \(\phi _u(\xi )\) by means of the Lyapunov–Schmidt projections \({\mathbf {p}}_u\) and \({\mathbf {P}}_u\) constructed in Lemma 2. In other words, we seek \(f_u\) in the form
where \(g_u\) satisfies
while
with
Thus, we have transformed the original problem (42) into (44)–(45)–(46), for which the uniform exponential decay condition (32) with \({\gamma }>|\tau _u|\) for all \(0<|u|\ll 1\) is automatically satisfied. This procedure automatically discards the slowly varying component (34) in the solution \(f_u\). Notice that this part of the argument bears on the qualitative asymptotic properties of the solution \(f_u\) and is therefore common to all mathematical methods by which this solution is constructed.
4.3.2 Step 2: the penalization and fixed point methods
Next, we forget about the original problem (42), and seek to solve the coupled system (45)–(46) by a fixed point argument, iterating on the source term (47) in an asymptotic regime where both \(|g_u|\ll 1\) and \(|h_u|\ll 1\) in some appropriate sense. The key point is obviously to prove that the size of the (small) ball centered at the origin of the function space on which the fixed point theorem is applied is independent of \(|u|\ll 1\).
Thus, we are left with the task of “inverting” the operator
With the absorbing boundary condition \(g(0,\xi )=0\) for \(\xi _1+u>0\), the advection operator \((\xi _1+u){\partial }_x\) is \(L^2(M\mathrm{d}\xi \mathrm{d}x)\)-dissipative, but only the linearized operator \({\mathcal {L}}\) contributes to the spectral gap of this operator, according to (11). Unfortunately, the Bardos–Caflisch–Nicolaenko weighted inequality (11) provides a spectral gap only relatively to \(\mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}}\), and this is not sufficient to invert the operator (48).
One way to get around this is to apply the Ukai–Yang–Yu penalization method. The key idea in this method is to replace the linearized collision integral \({\mathcal {L}}\) with its penalized variant
One can prove that, for \(0<{\alpha },{\beta },{\gamma }\ll 1\), the operator \({\mathcal {L}}^p_u\) satisfies a full spectral gap inequality, and that this spectral gap is independent of u: see Proposition 3 below.
This spectral gap estimate provides in turn a uniform in \(|u|\ll 1\) bound for the norm of the inverse of \(g\mapsto (\xi _1+u){\partial }_xg+{\mathcal {L}}^p_ug\), first on \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}_+;{\mathfrak {H}})\) (see Proposition 4 below), then in \(L^2(M\mathrm{d}\xi ;L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+))\), and finally in the weighted space \((1+|\xi |)^{-3}M(\xi )^{-1/2}L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+\times {\mathbf {R}}^3)\) (see Proposition 5 below). Improving the Lebesgue exponent from 2 to \(+\infty \) in both the x and \(\xi \) variables is done first by using the integral equation formulation of the inverse of the linear operator
which implies the pointwise inequality (65), and then by using Grad’s inequalities reported in Proposition 1.
At this point, the stage is set for a straightforward application of the fixed point theorem leading to Proposition 6, which provides the existence and uniqueness of a solution \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) to the nonlinear penalized problem
for all boundary data \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) even in \(\xi _2,\xi _3\) such that \(\sqrt{M}f_b\) is small enough in \(L^{\infty ,3}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\).
4.3.3 Step 3: conclusion
However, the equation (50) does not coincide exactly with the original problem to be solved, i.e. (45)–(46)–(47). The difference is twofold: first, if \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) is a solution to (50), then \(g_u(x,\xi )=e^{-{\gamma }x}g_{u,{\gamma }}(x,\xi )\) and \(h_u(x)=e^{-{\gamma }x}h_{u,{\gamma }}(x)\) satisfy a system of equations analogous to (45)–(46), but with the linearized collision integral \({\mathcal {L}}\) replaced by
Another important difference is that existence and uniqueness of \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) holds for an open set of boundary conditions \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) even in \(\xi _2,\xi _3\). No compatibility condition such as (15) appears at this stage.
One concludes by observing that the functions \(g_u(x,\xi )=e^{-{\gamma }x}g_{u,{\gamma }}(x,\xi )\) and \(h_u(x)=e^{-{\gamma }x}h_{u,{\gamma }}(x)\) solve the original problem (45)–(46) provided that the extra terms \({\alpha }\varPi _+((\xi _1+u)g_u)\) and \({\beta }{\mathbf {p}}_ug_u\) entering the definition of \({\tilde{{\mathcal {L}}}}\) vanish identically. By uniqueness in Proposition 6, imposing that
results in two constraints on the boundary data \(f_b\), which are exactly the conditions (15) in Theorem 1: see Lemma 4 and section 6.2. With this last observation, the proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
5 Resolution of the Penalized Linear Problem
5.1 The Penalized Linearized Collision Integral
Proposition 3
There exists \(R>0\) defined in (52), \(\nu ^*>0\) defined in (54), and \(\varGamma \) defined in (57), such that
for each u such that \(|u|\le R\), provided that
The penalized linearized collision integral \({\mathcal {L}}^p_u\) is an important feature of our analysis. In addition to the penalization idea coming from [28], it finds its origin in the Caflisch-Nicolaenko analysis of weak shock profiles for the Boltzmann equation; see for instance the operator M appearing in Proposition 3.3 (i) in [8].Footnote 4
Proof
An important tool in the proof is the weighted relative spectral gap estimate (11) for \({\mathcal {L}}\), due to Bardos–Caflisch–Nicolaenko [3]. Write
Then
Since \((\xi _1+u)\phi _u\) and \(\xi _1X_0\in \mathrm {Im}{\mathcal {L}}=(\mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {L}})^\bot \), one has
Hence
with
Note that
Observe that
with
In particular
Assume that
with \(r'\) chosen as in Lemma 4, and pick
Then
since \(0<c-1=\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}-1<1\), where
On the other hand,
so that, provided that u satisfies (52) while \({\alpha },{\beta },{\gamma }\) satisfy (53), one has
if
Finally
Thus, if u satisfies (52), and \({\alpha },{\beta },{\gamma }\) are chosen as in (53), (55) and if
one has
Therefore, the inequality in the proposition follows from the following choice of \(\varGamma \):
where \({\kappa }_0\) is the Bardos–Caflisch–Nicolaenko spectral gap in (11). Obviously
since the map \(u\mapsto \psi _u\) is real-analytic on \((-r,r)\) with values in \({\mathfrak {H}}\cap \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\). \(\square \)
5.2 The \(L^2\) Theory
Consider the unbounded operator defined on the Hilbert space \({\mathcal {H}}=L^2({\mathbf {R}}_+;{\mathfrak {H}})\) by
whose adjoint is
where
Following the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [11], we arrive at the following statements.
Lemma 5
Let \(R>0\) be defined by (52), and let \({\alpha }={\beta }=2{\gamma }>0\) satisfy
with \(\varGamma \) defined in (57). Then there exists \({\kappa }\equiv {\kappa }(R,\nu _-,{\gamma })>0\) such that
uniformly in \(|u|\le R\). In particular \(\mathrm {Ker}{\mathcal {T}}_u=\{0\}\) and \(\mathrm {Im}{\mathcal {T}}_u={\mathfrak {H}}\) whenever \(|u|\le R\).
Proof
We briefly recall the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [11] for the sake of completeness.
If \(g\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\), one has in particular
so that there exists \(L_n\rightarrow \infty \) such that \({\langle }(\xi _1+u)g^2{\rangle }(L_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Thus
and letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \), one arrives at
Notice that
for \(g\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\) because of the boundary condition at \(x=0\) included in the definition of the domain \(\mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\). Hence
Next
so that
with
Given \(S\in {\mathcal {H}}\), solve for \(h\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\) the equation
Since \(h\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\) it satisfies the boundary condition \(h(0,\xi )=0\) for \(\xi _1>-u\), so that
and hence
On the other hand, since \(h\in {\mathcal {H}}\), there exists a sequence \(x_n\rightarrow \infty \) such that \({\langle }h(x_n,\cdot )^2{\rangle }\rightarrow 0\), so that
and hence
Therefore
with
For future use, we compute, for all \(p\ge 1\),
Then we conclude from Young’s convolution inequality and (61) with \(p=1\) that
for \(|u|\le R\), and hence
Applying this to
and using the bound (58) shows that
This obviously implies the first inequality in the lemma with
The analogous inequality for the adjoint operator \({\mathcal {T}}_u^*\) is obtained similarly.
Now the first inequality obviously implies that
The second inequality implies that \(\mathrm {Im}{\mathcal {T}}_u={\mathcal {H}}\), according to Theorem 2.20 in [7].
\(\square \)
A straightforward application of Lemma 5 is the following existence and uniqueness result.
Proposition 4
Let \(R>0\) be defined by (52), set \({\alpha }={\beta }=2{\gamma }>0\) assuming \(0<{\gamma }\le \min (\varGamma ,\frac{1}{2}\nu _-)\), where \(\varGamma \) is defined in (57), and let \({\kappa }\equiv {\kappa }(R,\nu _-,{\gamma })>0\) be given by (62).
Let Q satisfy \(e^{{\gamma }x}Q\in {\mathcal {H}}\), while \(\nu g_b\in {\mathfrak {H}}\). Then, for each \(|u|<R\), there exists a unique solution \(g_{u,{\gamma }}\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\) of the linearized penalized problem
Moreover, this solution satisfies the estimate
uniformly in \(|u|\le R\).
Proof
Set
Then \(h\in \mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {T}}_u\) if and only if
in which case
if and only if g is a solution to the problem (63). (We use systematically the classical notation \(z^+=\max (z,0)\).) The right hand side is recast as
and estimated as follows:
One concludes with the first inequality in Lemma 5. \(\square \)
5.3 The \(L^\infty \) Theory
5.3.1 From \({\mathcal {H}}\) to \(L^2(M\mathrm{d}\xi ;L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+))\)
We recall that the linearized collision operator \({\mathcal {L}}\) is split as \({\mathcal {L}}=\nu -{\mathcal {K}}\), where \({\mathcal {K}}\) is compact on \(L^2({\mathbf {R}}^3;M\mathrm{d}\xi )\) (Hilbert’s decomposition). With the notation
the solution of (63) in \({\mathfrak {H}}\) satisfies
where \({\mathcal {K}}^p_u=\nu -{\mathcal {L}}^p_u\). In particular
Hence
where the function G has been defined in (60).
Lemma 6
One has
Moreover, for each \({\varepsilon }>0\), one has
Proof
The two first inequalities follow from Young’s convolution inequality and the computation of the \(L^p\) norms of G in (61) with \(p=1\) and \(p=2\).
For each \({\varepsilon }>0\), write
where
Then
while
\(\square \)
Therefore, we deduce from (65) and Lemma 6 that
Denote by \(k_j\) the integral kernel of the operator \({\mathcal {K}}_j\) in Lemma 1 for all \(j=1,2,3\), and set
Denote by \({\tilde{{\mathcal {K}}}}\) and \({\tilde{{\mathcal {K}}}}^p_u\) the integral operator with kernels \({\tilde{k}}\) and \({\tilde{k}}^p_u\):
and set
Then, for each \(\xi \in {\mathbf {R}}^3\), one has
so that
Hence, Lemma 6 and (65) imply that
At this point, we use the following lemma.
Lemma 7
For all \({\alpha },{\beta }\in {\mathbf {R}}\) there exists \(K_*[{\alpha },{\beta }]>0\), and for each \(s\ge 0\), there exists \(K_s\equiv K_s[{\alpha },{\beta }]>0\) such that
together with
and
Proof
Since
one has
and
Observe that
since the map \(u\mapsto \psi _u\) is real-analytic on \((-r,r)\) with values in \(\mathrm {Dom}{\mathcal {L}}\). One concludes with Propositions 1 and 2 , using especially the bound
established in Proposition 1. \(\square \)
Hence
with
Henceforth, it will be convenient to use the notation
Thus
Thus, Lemma 7 and (66) imply that
Choosing
leads to the inequality
5.3.2 From \(L^2(M\mathrm{d}\xi ;L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+))\) to \(L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+\times {\mathbf {R}}^3)\)
We next return to the inequality (65). Obviously
Then, the first inequality in Lemma 6 implies that
By the second inequality in Lemma 7, one has
On the other hand, the third inequality in Lemma 7 implies that
for each \(s\ge 1\).
Applying this inequality with \(s=3\) and the previous inequality leads to the following statement, which summarizes our treatment of the penalized, linearized half-space problem. From the technical point of view, the proposition below is the core of our analysis.
Proposition 5
Let \(R>0\) be given by (52), and \({\alpha }={\beta }=2{\gamma }\) with
and \(\varGamma \) defined by (57). Let \(Q\in {\mathcal {H}}\) and \(g_b\in {\mathfrak {H}}\) satisfy
with \(\delta >0\), and
Then the solution \(g_{u,{\gamma }}\) of (63) (whose existence and uniqueness is established in Proposition 4) satisfies the estimate
uniformly in \(|u|\le R\), for some constant
Proof
Recall that
Hence
With (68), this inequality becomes
Next we inject in the right hand side of this inequality the bound on \(\Vert g_{u,{\gamma }}\Vert _{{\mathcal {H}}}\) obtained in (64), together with the bound for \({\tilde{Q}}\) obtained above. Since we have chosen \({\alpha }={\beta }=2{\gamma }\), one finds that
where \({\kappa }\) is given by (62). This implies the announced estimate with L given by
\(\square \)
6 Solving the Nonlinear Problem
6.1 The Penalized Nonlinear Problem
Given a boundary data \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) satisfying the condition
consider the following penalized, nonlinear half-space problem
In this section, we seek to solve the problem (72) by a fixed point argument assuming that the boundary data \(f_b\) is small in \(L^{\infty ,3}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\). Throughout this section, we assume that \(R>0\) is given by (52), and that \({\alpha }={\beta }=2{\gamma }\) with
and \(\varGamma \) defined by (57).
Proposition 6
There exists \({\varepsilon }>0\) defined in (75) such that, for each boundary data \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) satisfying
(with \({\mathcal {R}}\) defined in (8)), the problem (72) has a unique solution \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) satisfying the symmetry
and the estimate
where L is given by (71).
We first recall a classical result on the twisted collision integral \({\mathcal {Q}}\).
Proposition 7
For each \(s\ge 1\), there exists \(Q_s>0\) such that
for all \(f,g\in L^{\infty ,s}({\mathbf {R}}^3)\).
This inequality is due to Grad; see Lemma 7.2.6 in [9] for a proof.
Proof
(of Proposition 6) Set
which is a Banach space for the norm
Given \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\in {\mathcal {X}}\), solve for \(({\tilde{g}}_{u,{\gamma }},{\tilde{h}}_{u,{\gamma }})\) the half-space problem
and call
the solution map so defined.
Applying Proposition 7 shows that
Hence
On the other hand, we apply Proposition 5 with \({\delta }={\gamma }\) and
Then
while
The bound on the solution to the penalized linearized problem in Proposition 5, together with the estimate (73) for \(\Vert h_{u,{\gamma }}\Vert _{L^\infty ({\mathbf {R}}_+)}\), implies that
which we put in the form
with
Pick \({\varepsilon }>0\) small enough so that
and assume that
If \(\Vert (g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\Vert _{\mathcal {X}}\le 2L{\varepsilon }\), one has
so that the solution map \({\mathcal {S}}_{u,{\gamma }}\) satisfies
Let \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) and \((g'_{u,{\gamma }},h'_{u,{\gamma }})\in \overline{B_{\mathcal {X}}(0,2L{\varepsilon })}\). We seek to bound
in terms of
One has
First, we deduce from Proposition 7 that
With this estimate, we bound \({\tilde{h}}_{u,{\gamma }}-{\tilde{h}}_{u,{\gamma }}\) as follows:
Finally, we apply Proposition 5 with \({\delta }={\gamma }\) and
Thus
while
Hence, the bound in Proposition 5 implies that
The inequality above implies that the solution map \({\mathcal {S}}_{u,{\gamma }}\) satisfies
for all \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) and \((g'_{u,{\gamma }},h'_{u,{\gamma }})\in \overline{B_{\mathcal {X}}(0,2L{\varepsilon })}\). Since \(0<{\varepsilon }<1/4L\varLambda \), this implies that \({\mathcal {S}}_{u,{\gamma }}\) is a strict contraction on \(\overline{B_{\mathcal {X}}(0,2L{\varepsilon })}\), which is a complete metric space (as a closed subset of the Banach space \({\mathcal {X}}\)). By the fixed point theorem, we conclude that there exists a unique \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\in \overline{B_{\mathcal {X}}(0,2L{\varepsilon })}\) such that
In other words, there exists a unique \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) which is a solution of the problem (72) in \(\overline{B_{\mathcal {X}}(0,2L{\varepsilon })}\). \(\square \)
6.2 Removing the Penalization
Let \(f_b\equiv f_b(\xi )\) satisfy
(with \({\mathcal {R}}\) as in (8)), and let \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) be the unique solution to (72) given by Proposition 6. Define
By Lemma 4,
In that case, denoting
and
we see that
while
In other words, \(f_u\) satisfies (13) together with the bound (14) with
(Notice that \(g_{u,{\gamma }}(0,\xi )=g_u(0,\xi )\), so that the operator \({\mathfrak {R}}_u\) in (76) is indeed independent of \({\gamma }\).)
This estimate holds for all u satisfying \(|u|\le R\) where R is defined in (52), and all \({\gamma }\in (0,{\overline{{\gamma }}})\), where
where \(\varGamma \) is defined in (57), while \(\lambda _2(u)\) is defined in Lemma 4. The constants L and \({\varepsilon }\) are defined in (71) and (75) respectively.
Conversely, if \(f_u\) is a solution to the nonlinear half-space problem satisfying the uniform exponential decay condition (14) for all u satisfying \(|u|\le R\) and all \({\gamma }\in (0,{\overline{{\gamma }}})\), we deduce from Lemma 3 that \(g_u{:}{=}(I-{\mathbf {p}}_u)f_u\) and \(h_u{:}{=}{\langle }(\xi _1+u)\psi _uf_u{\rangle }\) satisfy (36) and (37) respectively, with \(Q={\mathcal {Q}}(f,f)\), while \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) defined by the formulas
must satisfy the penalized nonlinear half-space problem (72).
And since \((g_{u,{\gamma }},h_{u,{\gamma }})\) is a solution of (72) of the form (79) with \(f_u(x,\xi )\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathfrak {H}}\) as \(x\rightarrow \infty \), one has
(because \({\langle }(\xi _1+u)X_+g_u{\rangle }\) is constant and \(g_u(x,\cdot )\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathfrak {H}}\) as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \)), and
(because \(g_{u,{\gamma }}(x,\xi )=e^{{\gamma }x}(I-{\mathbf {p}}_u)f_u(x,\xi )\)). Applying Lemma 4 shows that \(g_{u,{\gamma }}\) must therefore satisfy the conditions
or in other words,
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
Change history
22 March 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-021-01644-5
Notes
If \(\varPhi :\,{\varOmega }\ni (y_1,\ldots ,y_n)\mapsto \varPhi (y_1,\ldots ,y_n)\in E\) is a differentiable function from the domain \({\varOmega }\subset {\mathbf {R}}^n\) with values in the Banach space E, the notation \(d\varPhi ({\bar{y}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{y}}_n)\cdot ({\delta }y_1,\ldots ,{\delta }y_n)\in E\) designates the differential of \(\varPhi \) at the point \(({\bar{y}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{y}}_n)\in {\varOmega }\) evaluated on the “tangent vector \(({\delta }y_1,\ldots ,{\delta }y_n)\) to the domain \({\varOmega }\) at the point \(({\bar{y}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{y}}_n)\)”, i.e. on the vector \(({\delta }y_1,\ldots ,{\delta }y_n)\) of increments of the variables \(y_1,\ldots ,y_n\) starting from \({\bar{y}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{y}}_n\). Here \((\rho ,u,T)\mapsto {\mathcal {M}}_{\rho ,u,T}\) maps \({\varOmega }{:}{=}\{(\rho ,u,T)\in {\mathbf {R}}\times {\mathbf {R}}^3\times {\mathbf {R}}\text { s.t. }\rho>0\text { and }T>0\}\) to the space \(C_b({\mathbf {R}}^3)\) of bounded continuous functions of the variable \(\xi \in {\mathbf {R}}^3\), equipped with the \(L^\infty \) norm.
The possibility of extending Corollary 3.10 of [16] to the case where \(|u|\ll 1\) was mentioned to the second author by B. Nicolaenko in 1999.
We denote by B(X, Y) the space of bounded linear operators from the Banach space X to the Banach space Y, and set \(B(X){:}{=}B(X,X)\).
We are grateful to C. Schmeiser for this remark.
References
Aoki, K., Nishino, K., Sone, Y., Sugimoto, H.: Numerical analysis of steady flows of a gas condensing on or evaporating from its plane condensed phase on the basis of kinetic theory: effect of gas motion along the condensed phase. Phys. Fluids A 3, 2260–2275, 1991
Aoki, K., Sone, Y., Yamada, T.: Numerical analysis of gas flows condensing on its plane condensed phase on the basis of kinetic theory. Phys. Fluids A 2, 1867–1878, 1990
Bardos, C., Caflisch, R.E., Nicolaenko, B.: The Milne and Kramers problems for the Boltzmann equation of a hard sphere gas. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 39, 323–352, 1986
Bardos, C., Golse, F., Sone, Y.: Half-space problems for the Boltzmann equation: a survey. J. Stat. Phys. 124, 275–300, 2006
Bobylev, A.V., Grzhibovskis, R., Heinz, A.: Entropy inequalities for evaporation/condensation problem in rarefied gas. J. Stat. Phys. 102, 1156–1176, 2001
Bouchut, F., Golse, F., Pulvirenti, M.: Kinetic Equations and Asymptotic Theory. Gauthiers-Villars, Editions Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier, Paris, North Holland, Amsterdam 2000
Brezis, H.: Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York 2011
Caflisch, R.E., Nicolaenko, B.: Shock profile solutions of the Boltzmann equation. Commun. Math. Phys. 86, 161–194, 1982
Cercignani, C., Illner, R., Pulvirenti, M.: The Mathematical Theory of Dilute Gases. Springer, New York 1994
Coron, F., Golse, F., Sulem, C.: A classification of well-posed kinetic layer problems. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 41, 409–435, 1988
Golse, F.: Analysis of the boundary layer equation in the kinetic theory of gases. Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sinica 3, 211–242, 2008
Kato, T.: Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators. Springer, Berlin 1980
Liu, T.-P., Yu, S.-H.: Invariant manifolds for steady Boltzmann flows and applications. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 209, 869–997, 2013
Nicolaenko, B.: Shock wave solutions of the Boltzmann equation as a nonlinear bifurcation problem from the essential spectrum. Théories cinétiques classiques et relativistes (Colloq. Internat. CNRS, No. 236, Paris, 1974). CNRS, Paris, 127–150, 1975
Nicolaenko, B.: A general class of nonlinear bifurcation problems from a point in the essential spectrum. Application to shock wave solutions of kinetic equations. Applications of bifurcation theory” (Proc. Advanced Sem., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 1976), 333–357. Publ. Math. Res. Center Univ. Wisconsin, 38, Academic Press, New York-London, 1977
Nicolaenko, B., Thurber, J.K.: Weak shock and bifurcating solutions of the non-linear Boltzmann equation. J. de Mécanique 14, 305–338, 1975
Rudin, W.: Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd edn. Mc Graw Hill Inc, Singapore 1987
Sone, Y.: Kinetic theory of evaporation and condensation—linear and nonlinear problems. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 45, 315–320, 1978
Sone, Y.: Kinetic theoretical studies of the half-space problem of evaporation and condensation. Transp. Theory Stat. Phys. 29, 227–260, 2000
Sone, Y.: Kinetic Theory and Fluid Dynamics. Birkhäuser, Boston 2002
Sone, Y.: Molecular Gas Dynamics, Theory, Techniques and Applications. Birkhäuser, Boston 2007
Sone, Y., Aoki, K., Yamashita, I.: A study of unsteady strong condensation on a plane condensed phase with special interest in formation of steady profile. In: Boffi, V., Cercignani, C. (eds.) Rarefied Gas Dynamics, vol. II, pp. 323–333. Teubner, Stuttgart 1986
Sone, Y., Golse, F., Ohwada, T., Doi, T.: Analytical study of transonic flows of a gas condensing onto its plane condensed phase on the basis of kinetic theory. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 17, 277–306, 1998
Sone, Y., Ohwada, T., Aoki, K.: Evaporation and condensation on a plane condensed phase: numerical analysis of the linearized Boltzmann equation for hard-sphere molecules. Phys. Fluids A 1, 1398–1405, 1989
Sone, Y., Onishi, Y.: Kinetic theory of evaporation and condensation. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 35, 1773–1776, 1973
Sone, Y., Sugimoto, H.: Strong evaporation from a plane condensed phase. In: Meier, G.E.A., Thompson, P.A. (eds.) Adiabatic Waves in Liquid-Vapor Systems, pp. 293–304. Springer, Berlin 1990
Sone, Y., Takata, S., Golse, F.: Notes on the boundary conditions for fluid-dynamic equations on the interface of a gas and its condensed phase. Phys. Fluids 13, 324–334, 2001
Ukai, S., Yang, T., Yu, S.-H.: Nonlinear boundary layers of the Boltzmann equation I: existence. Commun. Math. Phys. 236, 373–393, 2003
Acknowledgements
This paper has been a long standing project, and we are grateful to several colleagues, whose works have been a source of inspiration and encouragement to us. Profs. Y. Sone and K. Aoki patiently explained to us the very intricate details of rarefied gas flows with evaporation and condensation in a half-space on the basis of their pioneering numerical work on the subject. The corresponding theoretical study in [13] was presented in a course given by Prof. T.-P. Liu at Academia Sinica in Taipei in 2009. The second author learned the penalization method used here from a talk by the late Prof. S. Ukai in Stanford in 2001, and was introduced to the generalized eigenvalue problem by the late Prof. B. Nicolaenko in Phoenix in 1999. Niclas Bernhoff’s visits to Paris, where most of this collaboration took place, were supported by the French Institute in Sweden (FRÖ program) in September 2016, and by SVeFUM in October 2017 and May 2019. François Golse also acknowledges Prof. S. Takata’s hospitality in 2018 in Kyoto University, where this project was finalized.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Karlstad University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by T.-P. Liu.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: Due to a typesetting mistake, on page 75, fifth line below equation (48) the same has been referenced as (49).
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
Bernhoff, N., Golse, F. On the Boundary Layer Equations with Phase Transition in the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Arch Rational Mech Anal 240, 51–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-021-01608-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-021-01608-9