Advertisement

The European Physical Journal D

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 33–38 | Cite as

Non-local defect interaction in one-dimension: weak versus strong non-locality

  • D. EscaffEmail author
Article

Abstract.

Defect interaction (kink-antikink interaction) is studied for a prototypical model for non-local interaction. Mathematically, it is a bistable integrodifferential model, where the non-local interaction is performed due to an integral kernel. The system is able to establish domains where it is in one of its two equilibria, separated by defects. It is shown that the defect interaction depends on the asymptotical behavior of the integral kernel. In the weak non-local regime, when the integral kernel decays faster than an exponential at infinitum, the defect interaction is exponentially weak. Hence, this case is qualitatively similar to the local one. On the other hand, in the strong non-local regime, when the integral kernel decays slower than an exponential at infinitum, the defect interaction is ruled by the asymptotical behavior of the integral kernel. In this case, the defect interaction is stronger, and could be characterized, for instance, by a power law. The effect of this transition (from the weak to strong non-locality) on the domain dynamics is discussed.

Keywords

Direct Numerical Simulation Gaussian Kernel Spatial Discretization Integral Kernel Heteroclinic Orbit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M.A. Fuentes, M.N. Kuperman, V.M. Kenkre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 158104 (2003) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Hernandez-Garcia, C. Lopez, Phys. Rev. E 70, 016216 (2004) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.G. Clerc, D. Escaff, V.M. Kenkre, Phys. Rev. E 72, 056217 (2005) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Escaff, Int. J. Bifur. Chaos 19, 3509 (2009) CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.A. Fisher, Ann. Eugenics 7, 335 (1937)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Kolmogorov, I. Petrovsky, N. Piskunov, Bull. Univ. Moscow Ser. Int. A 1, 1 (1937)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.D. Murray, Mathematical Biology (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003), Vol. 2, pp. 614–660Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.D. Holm, L.O. Nraigh, C. Tronci, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036211 (2008) CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Calisto, M. Clerc, R. Rojas, E. Tirapegui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3805 (2000) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.J. Bray, Adv. Phys. 51, 481 (2002)CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.A. Malomed, A.A. Nepomnyashchy, Phys. Rev. A 42, 6009 (1990) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences, SIF, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Complex Systems Group, Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Aplicadas, Universidad de los AndesSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations