Abstract
We are interested in reaction–diffusion systems, with a conservation law, exhibiting a Hopf bifurcation at the spatial wave number \( k = 0 \). With the help of a multiple scaling perturbation ansatz a Ginzburg–Landau equation coupled to a scalar conservation law can be derived as an amplitude system for the approximate description of the dynamics of the original reaction–diffusion system near the first instability. We use the amplitude system to show the global existence of all solutions starting in a small neighborhood of the weakly unstable ground state for original systems posed on a large spatial interval with periodic boundary conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We consider reaction–diffusion systems for u with \( u(x,t) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}^d \) for \( d \ge 2 \) coupled to a diffusive conservation law for v with \( v(x,t) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), namely
where \( x \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), \( t \ge 0 \), D a diagonal diffusion matrix with entries \( d_j > 0 \) for \( j = 1,\ldots ,d \), \( d_v > 0 \) a scalar diffusion coefficient, and \( f: {{\mathbb {R}}}^d \times {{\mathbb {R}}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}^d \) and \( g: {{\mathbb {R}}}^d \rightarrow {{\mathbb {R}}}\) smooth reaction terms with
such that \( (u,v) = (0,v^*) \) is a stationary solution for any constant \( v^* \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\). As a consequence of the conservation law form the spatial integral of v is conserved in time. The fact that g only depends on u or that D is a diagonal matrix are no restrictions w.r.t. our purposes. For a detailed discussion about that see Sect. 6.
We are interested in the behavior of (1)–(2) close to the stationary solutions, w.l.o.g. for our purposes take \( (u,v) = (0,0) \). The linearization of (1)–(2) at (0, 0),
is solved by \( u(x,t) = e^{ikx + \lambda t} {\widehat{u}} \) and \( v(x,t) = e^{ikx + \lambda t} {\widehat{v}} \) where \( \lambda \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), \( {\widehat{u}} \in {{\mathbb {C}}}^d \), and \( {\widehat{v}} \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\) are determined by
We find d curves of eigenvalues \( \lambda _j = \lambda _j(k) \) ordered as \( \text {Re} \lambda _1(k) \ge \cdots \ge \text {Re} \lambda _d(k) \) for (5) and \( \lambda _0(k) = - d_v k^2 \) for (6). The associated normalized eigenvectors or normalized generalized eigenvectors are denoted by \( {\widehat{U}}_j \in {\mathbb {C}}^d\) for \( j = 0,\ldots , d \).
We assume that (1)–(2) depends on a parameter \( {\widetilde{\alpha }} \) and that for \( {\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c \) we have the following spectral situation.
(Spec) There is an \( \omega _0 > 0 \) such that \( \text {Re} \lambda _j(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} = \lambda '_j(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} = 0 \), \( \text {Re} \lambda ''_j(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} < 0 \) for \( j = 1,2 \) and \( \text {Im} \lambda _1(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} = - \text {Im} \lambda _2(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} = \omega _ 0 \). Moreover, all other eigenvalues \( \lambda _j|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} \) for \( j =1,\ldots , d \) have a negative real part. Finally, we assume that \( \partial _{{\widetilde{\alpha }}} \text {Re} \lambda _1(0)|_{{\widetilde{\alpha }} = {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c} > 0 \).
For (1)–(2) from the assumption (Spec) a spectral situation follows as sketched in Fig. 1.
Notation. In order to make the notation more intuitive in the following we use the index \( -1 \) instead of 2, i.e., for example we write \( \lambda _{-1} = \lambda _2 \).
We introduce the bifurcation parameter \(\varepsilon ^2 = {\widetilde{\alpha }} - {\widetilde{\alpha }}_c \) and insert the ansatz
with \( X = \varepsilon x \), \( T = \varepsilon ^2 t \), \( B_0(X, T ) \in {\mathbb {R}} \), and \( A_1(X, T ) \in {\mathbb {C}} \) in (1)–(2). We obtain the system of amplitude equations
with coefficients \( a_0, a_3 \in {\mathbb {C}} \), \( a_1,a_2,b_0,b_2 \in {\mathbb {R}} \), satisfying \( \text {Re} a_0 > 0 \), \( b_0 > 0 \), \( a_1 > 0 \), and \( \text {Re} a_3 > 0 \), consisting of a Ginzburg–Landau equation for \( A_1 \) coupled to a scalar conservation law for \( B_0 \). The amplitude function \( A_1 \) describes the oscillatory modes concentrated a \( k = 0 \) and \( B_0 \) the conservation law modes concentrated at \( k = 0 \).
Example 1.1
In order to make this introduction less abstract the derivation of the amplitude system will be explained for the following toy problem
with \( u_{-1} = \overline{u_1} \). Although it is not of the form of (1)–(2), it shares essential properties with (1)–(2), in particular, it has qualitatively a spectral picture as plotted in Fig. 1. We make the ansatz
with \( A_{-1} = \overline{A_1} \), etc. For the \( u_1 \)-equation we find:
For the \( u_{-1} \)-equation we find similar equations and for the v-equation we obtain:
If we eliminate the \( A_{j,0} \) and \( A_{j,2} \) by the above algebraic equations we find
with
\(\square \)
In order to establish the global existence and uniqueness for (9)–(10), in the following we assume
(Coeff) The coefficients \( a_0, \ldots , b_1 \) of (9)–(10) satisfy for the normalized System (18)–(19), subsequently computed in Remark 2.1, that \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \).
Using the same multiple scaling analysis, in [13], in case of no conservation law, i.e., in case \( v = 0 \) and without the v-equation in (1)–(2), a Ginzburg–Landau equation was derived, and it was shown that all small solutions develop in such a way that they can be approximated after a certain time by the solutions of the Ginzburg–Landau equation. The proof differs essentially from the case when the bifurcating pattern is oscillatory in space which is based on mode-filters and a detailed analysis of the mode interactions. See [15, §10] for an overview. In contrast the proof of [13] is based on normal form methods. As a consequence of the results of [13], the global existence in time of all small bifurcating solutions and the upper-semicontinuity of the rescaled original system attractor towards the associated Ginzburg–Landau attractor follows. The result of [13] applies for instance to the Brusselator, the Schnakenberg, the Gray–Scott or the Gierer-Meinhardt model, cf. [16].
It is the purpose of this paper to prove a similar global existence result for (1)–(2), i.e., in case of an additional conservation law, with the help of the amplitude system (9)–(10).
This question turns out to be very challenging for the following reason. Since \( (A_1,B_0) = (0,B^*) \), with constants \( B^* \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), is an unbounded family of stationary solutions for (9)–(10), this amplitude system does not possess an exponentially absorbing ball if posed on the real line, in contrast to a single Ginzburg–Landau equation if \( \text {Re} a_3 > 0 \). However, assuming (Coeff) an exponentially attracting ball exists in case of periodic boundary conditions, say
Then we have the existence of an absorbing ball and the global existence and uniqueness of solutions.
Theorem 1.2
Consider the amplitude system (9)–(10) with periodic boundary conditions (12) and assume that the coefficients \( a_0,\ldots , b_1 \) satisfy the condition (Coeff). Then for all \(s \in {\mathbb {N}}_{0}\) there exists a \( C_R = C_R(s) > 0 \) such that for all \( C_1 > 0 \) there exists a \( T_0=T_0(s,C_1) > 0 \) such that to a given initial condition \( (A_1(\cdot ,0),B_0(\cdot ,0)) \in H^{s+1} \times H^s \) with \( \Vert A_1(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^{s+1}} + \Vert B_0(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^s} \le C_1 \) there exists a unique global solution \( (A_1,B_0) \in C([0,\infty ), H^{s+1} \times H^s) \) such that additionally \( \Vert A_1(\cdot ,T) \Vert _{H^{s+1}} + \Vert B_0(\cdot ,T) \Vert _{H^s} \le C_R \) for all \( T \ge T_0 \).
Remark 1.3
In case of periodic boundary conditions the Sobolev space \( H^s \) can be embedded in the space \( H^s_{l,u} \) of uniformly local Sobolev functions for \( s \ge 0 \) and so in case of periodic boundary conditions, the existence of an absorbing ball in \( H^{s+1}_{l,u} \times H^s_{l,u} \) for \( (A_1,B_0) \) follows, too. For the definition of the space \( H^s_{l,u} \) see the notations on Page 8.
As already said we are interested in a similar result for the original system (1)–(2) using the existence of an exponentially attracting absorbing ball for the amplitude system (9)–(10) and the fact that all solutions of (1)–(2) develop in such a way that after a certain time they can be approximated by the solutions of the amplitude system (9)–(10).
The \( 2 \pi \)-spatially periodic boundary conditions for the amplitude system (9)–(10) correspond to \( 2 \pi /\varepsilon \)-spatially periodic boundary conditions for the original system (1)–(2), i.e.,
Then for these periodic boundary conditions and small \( \varepsilon > 0 \) we have the global existence and uniqueness of solutions for the original system (1)–(2).
Theorem 1.4
Consider the original system (1)–(2) with periodic boundary conditions (13) and assume that the coefficients \( a_0,\ldots , b_1 \) of the associated amplitude system (9)–(10) satisfy the condition (Coeff). Then for all \( n \ge 0 \) there exists a \( C_R > 0 \) and an \( \varepsilon _0 > 0 \) such that for all \( C_1 > 0 \) and all \( \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0) \), there exists a \( t_0 = {\mathcal {O}}(1/\varepsilon ^2)> 0 \) such that to a given initial condition \( (u(\cdot ,0),v(\cdot ,0)) \in H^{n+1} _{l,u} \times H^n_{l,u} \) with \( \Vert u(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u}} + \varepsilon ^{-1} \Vert v(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^n_{l,u}} \le C_1 \varepsilon \) there exists a unique global solution \( (u,v) \in C([0,\infty ),H^{n+1} _{l,u} \times H^n_{l,u} ) \) such that additionally \( \Vert u(\cdot ,t) \Vert _{H^{n+1} _{l,u}} + \varepsilon ^{-1} \Vert v(\cdot ,t) \Vert _{H^n_{l,u} } \le C_R \varepsilon \) for all \( t \ge t_0 \).
Remark 1.5
Hence, the global existence question can be answered positively at least for original systems with periodic boundary conditions (13) which correspond in the amplitude system (9)–(10) to periodic boundary conditions (12). Since the \( L^2 \)-norm of \( u = 1 \) on the interval \( [-\pi /\varepsilon ,\pi /\varepsilon ] \) grows as \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\sqrt{\varepsilon }) \) with \( \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 \), Sobolev spaces are not adequate for controlling the norm and so spaces have to be used where functions such as \( u= 1 \) can be bounded independently of the small perturbation parameter \( 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 \).
Remark 1.6
The three main ingredients of the global existence proof are (GL): the existence of an exponentially attracting absorbing ball of the amplitude system, (APP): an approximation result which shows that solutions of the original system (1)–(2) can be approximated on the natural \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\varepsilon ^2) \)-time scale of (9)–(10) of the amplitude system via the solutions of (9)–(10), and (ATT): an attractivity result, which shows that solutions of (1)–(2) to initial conditions of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\varepsilon ) \) develop in such a way that after an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\varepsilon ^2) \)-time scale they are of a form which allows us to approximate them afterwards by the solutions of (9)–(10).
Remark 1.7
Approximation and attractivity results have been established in [2, 7, 17] in case of a Turing pattern forming systems coupled to a conservation law. Attractivity and approximation results in case of a simultaneous Turing and a long wave Hopf bifurcation can be found in [16].
Remark 1.8
The idea is as follows. A neighborhood of the origin of the pattern forming system is mapped by the attractivity (ATT) into a set which can be described by the amplitude system. The amplitude system possesses an exponentially attracting absorbing ball (GL). Therefore, by the approximation property (APP) the original neighborhood of the pattern forming system is mapped after a certain time into itself. These a priori estimates combined with the local existence and uniqueness gives the global existence and uniqueness of solutions of the pattern forming system in a neighborhood of the weakly unstable origin.
Remark 1.9
Examples of reaction–diffusion systems (1)–(2), falling into the class of systems we are interested in, are for instance the Brusselator, the Schnakenberg, the Gray–Scott and the Gierer-Meinhardt model coupled to a conservation law coming for instance from ecology. As an example we consider the Brusselator. The system, with the spatially homogeneous trivial equilibrium as origin, is given by
with nonlinear terms
The long-wave Hopf instability occurs at the critical wave number \( k =0\) for \( b= b_{hopf}(a) = 1+ a^2 \). For more details see [16]. This system can be brought into the form (1)–(2) by introducing a variable v satisfying
with \( g(0,0) = 0 \), by replacing b by \( v + {\widetilde{b}} \), and by introducing the small bifurcation parameter \( \varepsilon ^2 = ({\widetilde{b}}-b_{hopf})/b_{hopf} \).
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we discuss the global existence and uniqueness of solutions of the amplitude system (9)–(10). The proof will be given in “Appendix D”. Section 3 contains a number of preparations, in particular we eliminate a number of oscillatory terms from (1)–(2) by so called normal form transformations. In Sect. 4 we derive the amplitude equations and define the Ginzburg–Landau manifold, the set of solutions which can be approximated by our amplitude system. In Sect. 5 we formulate the attractivity result which is proven in “Appendix B”, the approximation result which is proven in “Appendix C” and put them together to conclude on the global existence and uniqueness of solutions of the original reaction–diffusion system (1)–(2). In Sect. 6 a few further questions are discussed. Moreover, in “Appendix A” some estimates are provided which are used in the sequel.
Notation. The Sobolev space \( H^s \) is equipped with the norm \( \Vert u \Vert _{H^s} = \sum _{j= 0}^s \Vert \partial _x^j u \Vert _{L^2} \), where \( \Vert u \Vert _{L^2}^2 = \int |u(x)|^2 dx \). The space \( H^s_{l,u} \) of s-times locally uniformly weakly differentiable functions is equipped with the norm \( \Vert u \Vert _{H^s_{l,u} } = \sum _{j= 0}^s \Vert \partial _x^j u \Vert _{L^2_{l,u}} \), where \( \Vert u \Vert _{L^2_{l,u}} = \sup _{x \in {{\mathbb {R}}}} (\int _x^{x+1} |u(y)|^2 dy )^{1/2}\), cf [15, §8.3.1]. Fourier transform w.r.t. the spatial variable is denoted by \( {\mathcal {F}} \) and the inverse Fourier transform by \( {\mathcal {F}}^{-1} \). Possibly different constants which can be chosen independently of the small perturbation parameter \( 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 \) are often denoted with the same symbol C.
2 Analysis of the Amplitude System
We consider
where \( T \ge 0 \), \( X \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), \( A(X,T) \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), \( B(X,T) \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), and with coefficients having properties as specified below the Eqs. (9)–(10). We are interested in the situation of an unstable trivial solution, i.e., \( a_1 > 0 \). This is the general form of the amplitude system which appears for a long wave Hopf bifurcation in a pattern forming system with a conservation law. The system has been derived for pattern forming systems with a conservation law exhibiting a Turing instability, too, cf. [8]. In a singular limit spike solutions have been constructed in [10].
Remark 2.1
By rescaling A, B, T, and X and by possibly changing the sign of B, four of the coefficients can be eliminated. We set
We find
We first choose \( c_T \in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that \( {c_T} a_1 = 1 \). Next we set \( c_A > 0 \) such that \( c_T (\text {Re}a_3) c_A^2 = 1 \). Then we choose \( c_X > 0 \) such that \( c_T (\text {Re}a_0) c_X^{-2} = 1 \). Finally, we set \( c_B \in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that \( c_T b_1 c_A^2 c_X^{-2}c_B^{-1} = 1 \) if \( b_1 \ne 0 \). If \( b_1 = 0 \), subsequently in (19) the term \( \partial _X^2 (|A|^2) \) will be away. Defining
and dropping the tildes we finally consider
with \( \alpha > 0 \) and \( \beta , \gamma _0,\gamma _3 \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\).
Remark 2.2
Before we discuss the local and global existence of this system we have a short look at a family of special solutions. There are the X-independent time-periodic solutions \( B = b \), \( A = {\widehat{A}} e^{i \omega T}\) with \( |{\widehat{A}}|^2 = 1+ \beta b \) and \( \omega = - |{\widehat{A}}|^2 \gamma _3 \) for every b with \( 1+ \beta b > 0 \). In case \( 1+ \beta b \le 0 \) we have the stationary solutions \( B = b \) and \( A = 0 \).
Remark 2.3
Global existence for the classical Ginzburg–Landau equation on the real line, (18) in case \( \beta =0 \), can be obtained in \( C^0_b({\mathbb {R}}) \) with the maximum principle if \( \gamma _0 = \gamma _3 = 0 \). By the smoothing of the diffusion semigroup, global existence follows in all \( C^n_b \)-spaces and \( H^m_{l,u} \)-spaces for \( m > 1/2 \). An approach for general \( \gamma _0 \) and \( \gamma _3 \) is to work with weighted energies \( \int _{{\mathbb {R}}} \rho _{\delta }(X) |A(X)|^2 dX \), where \( \rho _{\delta }(X)= (1+(\delta X)^2)^{-1} \) for \( \delta > 0 \), cf. [9].
Remark 2.4
However, so far, both approaches described in Remark 2.3 do not give global existence for the amplitude system (18)–(19) on the real line. Weighted energy estimates gives via the linear terms \( \partial _X^2 A \) and \( \alpha \partial _X^2 B \) some exponential growth of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \). For the classical Ginzburg–Landau equation one can get rid of these growth rates with the \( - |A|^2 A \)-term which allows for a point-wise estimate
However, there is no counterpart in (18)–(19) which can stop the growth of the weighted B-variable.
We help ourselves by considering the amplitude system (18)–(19) with periodic boundary conditions. \( 2 \pi \)-periodicity for (16)–(17) corresponds to L-periodicity for (18)–(19) with \( L = 2\pi \sqrt{a_1/a_0}\).
Remark 2.5
In case of periodic boundary conditions, the mean value of B is conserved in time. However, we could always further assume that the mean value b of B vanishes. If this would not be the case, we could set \( B = b + {\widetilde{B}} \), with \( {\widetilde{B}} \) having a vanishing mean value. Then we would obtain
Hence, by redefining the coefficient \( a_1 \) we could always come to a system, for which the mean value of B vanishes for all \( T \ge 0 \).
The choice of periodic boundary conditions allows us to use classical energy estimates without weights. In case \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \) we have the following global existence result.
Theorem 2.6
Assume that \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \) holds. Fix \( s \ge 0 \), \( L > 0 \) and consider (18)–(19) with L-periodic boundary conditions. Then there exists a \( C_2 > 0 \) such that for all \( C_1 > 0 \) there exists a \( T_0 > 0 \) such that the following holds. For initial conditions \( (A(\cdot ,0),B(\cdot ,0)) \in H^{s+1} \times H^s \) with \( \int _0^L B(X,0) dX = 0 \) and
the associated unique global solution \( (A,B) \in C([0,\infty ), H^{s+1} \times H^s ) \) satisfies
for all \( T \ge T_0 \).
Proof
See “Appendix D”. \(\square \)
3 Some Preparations
All operators appearing in the following are so called multipliers. A linear operator M is called multiplier if there exists a function \( {\widehat{M}}:{{\mathbb {R}}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb {C}}}\) such that \( M u = {\mathcal {F}}^{-1} ({\widehat{M}} {\mathcal {F}} u ) \), i.e., if the associated operator is a multiplication operator in Fourier space. Typical examples are differential operators, semigroups, or mode-filters, but also the normal form transformations at the end of this section can be interpreted as multilinear multipliers.
3.1 The Mode-Filters
For estimating the different parts of the solutions we use so called mode-filters. Since we work in \( H^n_{l,u} \)-spaces we cannot use cut-off functions in Fourier space to extract certain modes from the solutions. The associated operators in \( H^n_{l,u} \) would not be smooth and so we take a \( {\widehat{\chi }} \in C_0^{\infty } \) with
for a \( {\widetilde{\delta }} > 0 \) sufficiently small but independent of the small perturbation parameter \( 0 < \varepsilon ^2 \ll 1 \). For extracting the modes around the Fourier wave number \( k= 0 \) we define a mode-filter \( E_0 \) by
This operator can be estimated as follows.
Lemma 3.1
For every \( m \in {\mathbb {N}}_0 \) the operator \( E_0 \) is a bounded operator from \( L^2_{l,u} \) to \( H^m_{l,u} \), in detail, there exist constants \( C_{m} \) such that \( \Vert E_0 \Vert _{L^2_{l,u} \rightarrow H^m_{l,u} } \le C_{m} \).
Proof
We use multiplier theory in \( H^m_{l,u} \)-spaces, cf. [15, §8.3.1]. We have
with \( {\widehat{M}}(k) = (1+k^2)^{m/2} {\widehat{\chi }}(k) \). \(\square \)
3.2 The Normal Form Transformation
For the subsequent analysis we need a separation of the u-modes into exponentially damped \( (j=3,\ldots ,d) \) and critical modes \( (j=\pm 1) \). In order to do so, we let
where \( {\tilde{\Lambda }}_u = {\mathcal {F}} \Lambda _u {\mathcal {F}}^{-1}\), with \( \Lambda _u \) defined in (3), and where \( \Gamma _{\pm 1} \) is a closed curve surrounding the single eigenvalue \( \lambda _{\pm 1}|_{\varepsilon = 0,k=0}= \pm i \omega _0 \) anti-clockwise. By the assumption (Spec) the projections \( {\tilde{P}}_j \) can be defined for wave numbers in a neighborhood \( U_\rho (0) \) for a \( \rho > 0 \) and so we set
choosing \({\widetilde{\delta }} < \rho /2 \) in (21). Moreover, we define scalar-valued projections \( {\tilde{p}}_{\pm 1} \) by
and \( e_{\pm 1} = E_0 {\tilde{p}}_{\pm 1} \). With these operators we separate our linearized system (3)–(4) in critical and exponentially damped modes.
Then, in Fourier space, we write
with \( {\widehat{c}}_{\pm 1}(k,t) \in {{\mathbb {C}}}\), and define \( c_{\pm 1} \) and \( u_s \) to be solutions of
with the additional assumption that the Fourier support of \( c_{\pm 1} \) is contained in the Fourier support of \( E_0 \). Moreover, we assume that \( {\widehat{u}}_s(k) \) projected on \( \text {span}\{{\widehat{U}}_1(k), {\widehat{U}}_{-1}(k) \} \) vanishes for \( |k| \le 0.45 {\widetilde{\delta }} \). In (222324)–(25) the linear operator \( \Lambda _s \) is the restriction of \( \Lambda _u \) to the \( u_s \)-variable and
Since \( c_{-1} = \overline{c_1} \) we do not explicitly denote the appearance of \( c_{-1} \) in various places.
Since \( c_{1} \) approximately oscillates as \( e^{ i \omega _0 t} \) all quadratic combinations of \( c_{1} \) and \( c_{-1} \) can be eliminated from the \( c_{1} \)-equations by a near identity change of variables
A similar statement holds for the \( c_{-1} \)-equation. For details see the subsequent Remark 3.3.
Remark 3.2
In a similar way terms \( v c_{\pm 1}\) in the v-equation could be eliminated in case of a more general nonlinearity in the v-equation.
After the transform we have a system of the form
with
Detailed estimates about this transformation and the nonlinear terms are given below when needed.
Remark 3.3
In lowest order the equation for \( c_{1} \) is of the form
where in Fourier space the \( N_{i,j} \) have a representation
with kernel functions \( {\widehat{n}}_{i,j}: {{\mathbb {R}}}^3 \rightarrow {{\mathbb {C}}}\). The quadratic terms can be eliminated by a transform
where in Fourier space the \( B_{i,j} \) have a representation
The kernels \( {\widehat{b}}_{i,j}(k,k-m,m) \) are solutions of
which are well-defined and bounded since
for all \( j_1,j_2,j_3 \in \{-1,1\} \). For more details see [15, §11] or [13, §4].
Remark 3.4
After the transform we have a system of the form
where in Fourier space the \( N_{i,j,k} \) have a similar representation as above. Except of \( N_{1,1,-1} \) the three other terms are non-resonant such that these can be eliminated by a second transformation.
Example 3.5
Applying the normal form transformation to the system from Example 1.1 yields a system of the form
with \( \gamma _3 \) given by (11).
4 The Ginzburg–Landau Manifold
The notation Ginzburg–Landau manifold or Ginzburg–Landau set, cf. [4], was chosen to describe the set of initial conditions of the original system (1)–(2) which can be described by the Ginzburg–Landau approximation. In the non-conservation law case it was shown that this set is attractive, cf. [1, 4, 12]. In the conservation law case a first result was established in [2]. We will come back to this in Sect. B. It is the purpose of this section to derive the amplitude system, to compute a higher order approximation and to define what we will mean by Ginzburg–Landau manifold.
For possible future applications, similar to [9, 14], we introduce a new perturbation parameter \( \delta \) with \( 0 < \varepsilon \le \delta \ll 1 \) and distinguish this parameter from the bifurcation parameter \( 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 \).
4.1 Derivation of the Amplitude System
Our starting point for the derivation of the amplitude system is System (222324)–(25) which we write as
The so called residuals \(\text {Res}_1 \), \(\text {Res}_s \), and \(\text {Res}_v \) contain all terms which remain after inserting an approximation into System (222324)–(25).
For the derivation of the amplitude system, cf. Example 1.1, we need an ansatz
with \( X = \delta x \) and \( T = \delta ^2 t \). By equating the coefficients in front of \( \delta ^2 e^{in\omega _0 t} \), with \( n = 0, \pm 2 \), to zero, we find \( A_{j,2}, A_{j,0}, A_{j,-2} \) for \( j = -1,1,s \) as solutions of equations of the form
with coefficients \( \gamma _{j,i} \). The \( A_1 \), \( A_{-1} \), and \( B_0 \) satisfy a system of the form
Eliminating the \( A_{j,2}, A_{j,0}, A_{j,-2} \) for \( j = -1,1,s \) through the above equations gives the amplitude system
similar to (9)–(10). We formally have
for this approximation. In the residual of the \( c_1 \)-equation we have for instance a term \( \delta ^3 A_1^3 e^{3 i \omega _0 t} \) and in the residual of the v-equation we have for instance a term \( \delta ^4 \partial _X^2 (A_1^2) e^{2 i \omega _0 t} \).
In order to show that the amplitude system (29)–(30) makes correct predictions about the original system (1)–(2) we establish subsequently the approximation Theorem 5.3.
4.2 Construction of a Higher Order Approximation
In order to obtain a more precise approximation we add higher order terms to the previous approximation. We insert
with
where N, \( M_1(N,m) \), \( M_s(N,m) \), and \( M_v(N,m) \) are sufficiently large numbers such that
for a given \( \theta \in {\mathbb {N}}\) and where
The associated approximation is then denoted with \( \Psi _\theta \).
The coefficient functions are determined as follows. The functions \( A_{+,1,0} \), \( A_{-,-1,0} \), and \( B_{0,0} \) satisfy the amplitude system from above. The \( A_{+,1,n} \), \( A_{-,-1,n} \), and \( B_{0,n} \) for \( n \ge 1 \) satisfy linearisations of the amplitude system from above with some inhomogeneous terms which in the end depend on terms \( A_{+,1,j} \), \( A_{-,-1,j} \), and \( B_{0,j} \) for \( 0 \le j \le n-1 \). All other \( A_{+,m,n} \), \( A_{-,m,n} \), \( A_{s,m,n} \), and \( B_{m,n} \) satisfy algebraic equations and can be computed in terms of the \( A_{+,1,j} \), \( A_{-,-1,j} \), and \( B_{0,j} \) for \( 0 \le j \le n \).
The solutions of this system are uniquely determined by the set of initial conditions \( A_{+,1,j}|_{T=0} \), \( A_{-,-1,j}|_{T=0} \), and \( B_{0,j}|_{T=0} \) for \( 0 \le j \le n \).
Definition 4.1
For initial conditions
and
determined by the construction in “Appendix B.4” for \( 1 \le j \le n \) and \( (A_1,B_0) \) satisfying (29)–(30) we call the set of approximate solutions
for the original system (1)–(2) the Ginzburg–Landau manifold, where \( \Psi _\theta \) is the associated higher order approximation defined above.
5 The Global Existence and Uniqueness Result
Throughout the rest of this paper we replace the boundary conditions (13) by the boundary conditions
with \( 0 < \varepsilon \le \delta \ll 1 \) and set later on \( \delta = \varepsilon \).
Remark 5.1
There is local existence and uniqueness of (mild) solutions
of (1)–(2) for initial conditions \( (u_0,v_0) \in H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) if \( n \ge 0 \) where the existence time \( t_0 > 0 \) only depends on \( \Vert u_0 \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} } + \Vert v_0 \Vert _{H^{n}_{l,u} } \). This can be established with the standard fixed point argument for semilinear parabolic equations, cf. [5]. For \( n \ge 0 \) the right-hand side of the variation of constant formula associated to (1)–(2) is a contraction in a ball in \( C([0,t_0], H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u}) \) for \( t_0 > 0 \) sufficiently small using that the nonlinear terms \( (f(u,v),\partial _x g(u)) \) are smooth mappings from \( H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) to \( H^{n}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) and that the linear semigroups \( (e^{D \partial _x^2 t}, e^{d_v \partial _x^2 t} \partial _x) \) map \( H^{n}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) to \( H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) with an integrable singularity \( t^{-1/2} \).
Hence, for establishing the global existence and uniqueness of (mild) solutions we need to bound the solutions in \( H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \), i.e., if we establish an a priori bound
where \( C_3 \) is a constant only depending on \( \Vert u_0 \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} } + \Vert v_0 \Vert _{H^{n}_{l,u} } \), then the local existence and uniqueness theorem can be applied again and again and the local solutions can be continued to global solutions
The necessary a-priori estimates (32) for (1)–(2) can be obtained in a sufficiently small \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta )\)-neighborhood of the weakly unstable origin with the help of an attractivity and approximation result for the Ginzburg–Landau manifold and the existence of an absorbing ball for the amplitude system.
The attractivity theorem is as follows
Theorem 5.2
For all \( R_0 > 0 \), \( n \ge 0 \), and all \( \theta \in {\mathbb {N}}_0 \) the following holds. Consider (1)–(2) with initial conditions \( (u_0,v_0) \in H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u}\) satisfying
Then there exists a time \( T_1 \in (0,1) \), a \( \delta _1 > 0 \), an \( R_1 > 0 \) and a \( C_1 > 0 \), all only depending on \( R_0 \), \( \theta \), and n, such that for all \( \delta \in (0, \delta _1) \), all \( \varepsilon \in (0,\delta ] \), and all \( m>1/2 \) there are \( (A_1(\cdot ,0),B_0(\cdot ,0)) \in H^{m+1}_{l,u} \times H^{m}_{l,u}\) with
such that the solution (u, v) , with the initial conditions \( (u_0,v_0) \), satisfies at a time \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) that
Proof
See “Appendix B”. \(\square \)
The dynamics on the Ginzburg–Landau manifold is determined by the amplitude system (29)–(30). Although the Ginzburg–Landau manifold, constructed above, is not invariant under the flow of the original system (1)–(2), it is a good approximation of the flow near the Ginzburg–Landau manifold. This is documented in the following approximation theorem.
Theorem 5.3
For all \(R_2,T_0,C_2 > 0 \), \( n \ge 0 \) and all \( \theta \in {\mathbb {N}}_0 \) there exists \( C_3,\delta _0 >0 \) and \( m \ge 0 \) such that for all \( 0 \le \varepsilon \le \delta \le \delta _0 \) the following holds: Let \( (A_1,B_0) \) be a solution of (29)–(30) with
with initial conditions \( (A_1,B_0)|_{T=0} = (A_1(\cdot ,0),B_0(\cdot ,0)) \), and \( (u_0,v_0) \in H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) with
Then there exists a solution (u, v) of (1)–(2) with initial condition \( (u,v)|_{t=0} = (u_0,v_0) \) and
Proof
See “Appendix C”. \(\square \)
Now we have all ingredients for establishing a global existence result through some a-priori bound (32). For \( \theta \ge 3 \) the following holds:
-
(a)
We start with the attractivity, cf. Theorem 5.2. For a sufficiently large \( R_0 > 0 \) we obtain \( R_1 > 0 \), \( T_1 > 0 \), and \( A_1(\cdot ,0) \) and \( B_0(\cdot ,0) \) with
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert A_1(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^{m+1}_{l,u} } + \Vert B_0(\cdot ,0) \Vert _{H^{m}_{l,u} } \le R_1 \end{aligned}$$such that the solution (u, v) , with the initial conditions \( (u_0,v_0) \), satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert (u,\delta ^{-1} v)|_{t = T_1/\delta ^2} - (\Psi _{\theta ,u}, \Psi _{\theta ,v})(A_1(\cdot ,0),B_0(\cdot ,0)) \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} } \le C \delta ^\theta \end{aligned}$$for \( \delta > 0 \) sufficiently small.
-
(b)
According to Theorem 1.2 and Remark 1.3, in case of periodic boundary conditions (12), the amplitude system (29)–(30) possesses an absorbing ball of radius \( C_R \) in \( H^{m+1}_{l,u} \times H^{m}_{l,u} \). Solutions of (29)–(30) starting in the ball of the above radius \( R_1 \) need a time \( T_0 \) to come to the absorbing ball of radius \( C_R \).
-
(c)
We have to make sure that the original ball \( R_0 \delta \) for the original reaction–diffusion system (1)–(2) is so big that the Ginzburg–Landau embedding of the absorbing ball for the amplitude system (29)–(30) of radius \( C_R \) is contained in this ball. In detail, for \(A_1 \) and \( B_0 \) satisfying
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert A_1(\cdot ,T_0) \Vert _{H^{m+1}_{l,u} } + \Vert B_0(\cdot ,T_0) \Vert _{H^{m}_{l,u} } \le C_R \end{aligned}$$we need that the starting radius \( R_0 \) is so big that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert ( \Psi _{\theta ,u}, \Psi _{\theta ,v})(A_1,B_0)(\cdot ,T_0/\delta ^2) \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} } \le R_0 \delta /2. \end{aligned}$$ -
(d)
Finally we use the approximation property, i.e., that the amplitude systems (29)–(30) makes correct predictions about the dynamics of the original system, cf. Theorem 5.3. Then the triangle inequality guarantees that
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \Vert (u,\delta ^{-1} v)|_{(T_1+T_0)/\delta ^2} \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} } \\{} & {} \quad \le \Vert (\Psi _{\theta ,u}, \Psi _{\theta ,v})(A_1,B_0)(\cdot ,T_0/\delta ^2) \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u}} \\{} & {} \qquad + \sup _{0 \le t \le T_0/\delta ^2} \Vert (u,\delta ^{-1} v)(\cdot ,T_1/\delta ^2 + t) - ( \Psi _{\theta ,u}, \Psi _{\theta ,v})(A_1,B_0)(\cdot ,t) \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u}} \\{} & {} \quad \le R_0 \delta /2 + C_3 \delta ^\theta \le 3 R_0 \delta /4 \end{aligned}$$for \( \delta > 0 \) sufficiently small. Thus, after a time \( (T_1+T_0)/\delta ^2\) the flow of the original reaction–diffusion system (1)–(2) has mapped the rescaled initial ball of radius \( R_0 \delta \) into the smaller rescaled ball of radius \( 3 R_0 \delta /4 \). Since the magnitude of the solution (u, v) is also controlled between \( t = 0 \) and \( t = (T_1+T_0)/\delta ^2\) by our estimates, we established an a priori bound (32). Thus, with the above arguments the global existence and uniqueness of the solutions of (1)–(2) follows for \( \delta > 0 \) sufficiently small.
Remark 5.4
We remark that from a technical point of view, in contrast to previous approaches, we moved the first step of the approximation result as stated [9, 11, 14] to the attractivity result. This allows us to combine the attractivity and approximation result more easily.
6 Discussion
Before we give proofs of the attractivity theorem 5.2, the approximation theorem 5.3, and of Theorem 2.6 we would like to close the paper by discussing two other points, namely the restriction to a nonlinearity \( g = g(u) \) and the global existence question in case that the periodic boundary conditions (12) and (13) are dropped.
Remark 6.1
For us, (1)–(2) is a toy model which already contains many features which are relevant for the global existence question addressed in this paper. The major restriction of our model (1)–(2) seems to be the assumption that \(g(u) = {\mathcal {O}}(|u|^2) \) only depends on u. However, an additional dependence on v without further smoothing would lead to a quasilinear system and to functional analytic difficulties having to do with the quasilinearity of such a system, but not with the question addressed in this paper. Alternatively, instead of (2), one could consider the following semilinear toy problems
with \(g(u,v) = {\mathcal {O}}(|u|^2+ |v|^2) \). Since we are not interested in the sideband unstable situation in the v-equation at the wave number \( k = 0 \), cf. [3], in these alternative models for notational simplicity we would assume \(g(u,v) = {\mathcal {O}}(|u|^2+ |v|^2)) \) instead of \(g(u,v) = {\mathcal {O}}(|u|^2+|v|) \). It is essential to remark that, w.r.t. the scaling used above, a term \( |v|^2 \) is of higher order than a term \( |u|^2 \) and will not appear in the amplitude system (29)–(30). In hydrodynamical applications the quasilinearity of the problem often cannot be avoided, cf. [18]. Global existence by the above approach is a problem which is unsolved in quasilinear situations even without a conservation law so far.
Remark 6.2
In this remark we would like to discuss a few observations about the global existence problem if the periodic boundary conditions (12) and (13) are dropped. We consider the situation when in lowest order in (9)–(10) the B-equation decouples from the A-equation, i.e., \( b_1 = 0 \). In this case the amplitude system in normal form is given by
By the maximum principle B stays bounded and for A a uniform bound in time can be established with the weighted energy method explained in Remark 2.3. Hence, the solutions of the amplitude system exist globally in time and stay uniformly bounded. However, due to the B-equation the system does not possess an absorbing ball.
Adding the higher oder terms to the B-equation gives a system of the form
With the variation of constant formula we obtain
and using the estimate
we expect
for a \( \vartheta > 0 \) arbitrarily small, but fixed. Hence, in the A-equation the term AB can grow as \( {\mathcal {O}}(\varepsilon T^{\vartheta } ) A \). It can be expected that it can be balanced with the \( - A |A|^2 \)-term as long \( \varepsilon T^{\vartheta } \le {\mathcal {O}}(1) \), i.e. for \( T \le {\mathcal {O}}(\varepsilon ^{-1/\vartheta }) \), i.e., on arbitrary long, but fixed, time scales w.r.t. \( \varepsilon \). With more advanced estimates we even would obtain
respectively \( T \le {\mathcal {O}}(\exp (1/\varepsilon )) \). It will be the subject of future research to make these arguments rigorous by iterating the attractivity and approximation result for a growing sequence of perturbation parameters \( \delta \). Note that an iteration, as used in [9, 14] with a sequence of suitable chosen \( \delta _j \)s, is not possible in case of periodic boundary conditions.
References
Bollerman, P., van Harten, A., Schneider, G.: On the justification of the Ginzburg–Landau approximation. In: Nonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation in the Natural Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, July 4–7, 1994, pp. 20–36. Longman, Harlow; Wiley, New York (1995)
Düll, W.-P., Kashani, K.S., Schneider, G., Zimmermann, D.: Attractivity of the Ginzburg–Landau mode distribution for a pattern forming system with marginally stable long modes. J. Differ. Equ. 261(1), 319–339 (2016)
Eckhaus, W.: Studies in Non-Linear Stability Theory. Springer Tracts in Natural Philosophy, vol. 6 (1965)
Eckhaus, W.: The Ginzburg–Landau equation is an attractor. J. Nonlinear Sci. 3, 329–348 (1993)
Henry, D.: Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 840 (1981)
Hilder, B.: Modulating traveling fronts in a dispersive Swift–Hohenberg equation coupled to an additional conservation law. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 513(2), 37 (2022)
Häcker, T., Schneider, G., Zimmermann, D.: Justification of the Ginzburg–Landau approximation in case of marginally stable long waves. J. Nonlinear Sci. 21(1), 93–113 (2011)
Matthews, P.C., Cox, S.M.: Pattern formation with a conservation law. Nonlinearity 13(4), 1293–1320 (2000)
Mielke, A., Schneider, G.: Attractors for modulation equations on unbounded domains—existence and comparison. Nonlinearity 8(5), 743–768 (1995)
Norbury, J., Wei, J., Winter, M.: Existence and stability of singular patterns in a Ginzburg–Landau equation coupled with a mean field. Nonlinearity 15(6), 2077–2096 (2002)
Schneider, G.: Global existence via Ginzburg–Landau formalism and pseudo-orbits of Ginzburg-Landau approximations. Commun. Math. Phys. 164, 157–179 (1994)
Schneider, G.: Analyticity of Ginzburg–Landau modes. J. Differ. Equ. 121, 233–257 (1995)
Schneider, G.: Hopf bifurcation in spatially extended reaction–diffusion systems. J. Nonlinear Sci. 8(1), 17–41 (1998)
Schneider, G.: Global existence results in pattern forming systems—applications to 3D Navier–Stokes problems. J. Math. Pures Appl. IX 78, 265–312 (1999)
Schneider, G., Uecker, H.: Nonlinear PDEs. A Dynamical Systems Approach, volume 182 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society (AMS), Providence (2017)
Schneider, G., Winter, M.: The amplitude system for a simultaneous short-wave Turing and long-wave Hopf instability. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 15(9), 2657–2672 (2022)
Schneider, G., Zimmermann, D.: Justification of the Ginzburg–Landau approximation for an instability as it appears for Marangoni convection. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 36(9), 1003–1013 (2013)
Zimmermann, D.: Justification of an approximation equation for the Benard–Marangoni Problem. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Stuttgart, Fakultät Mathematik und Physik, Stuttgart (2014)
Acknowledgements
The paper is partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG under the grant Schn520/10.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
The Analytic Set-Up
This section contains a few preparations for the subsequent proofs of the attractivity and approximation result.
-
(i)
It turns out to be advantageous that all variables in (2627)–(28) have the same regularity, i.e., we introduce the new variable \( {\check{v}} \) by
$$\begin{aligned} v = \langle \partial _x \rangle {\check{v}} = (1-\partial _x^2)^{1/2} {\check{v}} \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\check{u}}_1= & {} \lambda _1 {\check{u}}_1 + {\check{f}}_{1,n}({\check{u}}_1,u_s,{\check{v}} ), \end{aligned}$$(35)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t u_s= & {} \Lambda _s u_s +{\check{f}}_{s,1}({\check{u}}_1,u_s,{\check{v}} ),\end{aligned}$$(36)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\check{v}}= & {} \Lambda _v {\check{v}} + \partial _x^2 {\check{g}}_1({\check{u}}_1,u_s), \end{aligned}$$(37)with
$$\begin{aligned} {\check{f}}_{1,n}({\check{u}}_1,u_s,{\check{v}} )= & {} {\check{f}}_1({\check{u}}_1,u_s,\langle \partial _x \rangle {\check{v}} ) \\= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(|{\check{u}}_1|^3+ |{\check{u}}_1||u_s| + |u_s|^2+(|{\check{u}}_1|+|u_s|) |{\check{v}}|), \\ {\check{f}}_{s,n}({\check{u}}_1,u_s,{\check{v}} )= & {} {\check{f}}_s({\check{u}}_1,u_s,\langle \partial _x \rangle {\check{v}}) \\ {}= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(|{\check{u}}_1|^2+ |u_s|^2+(|{\check{u}}_1|+|u_s|) |{\check{v}} |),\\ {\check{g}}_1({\check{u}}_1,u_s)= & {} \langle \partial _x \rangle ^{-1} {\check{g}}({\check{u}}_1,u_s) \\= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(|{\check{u}}_1|^2+ |u_s|^2). \end{aligned}$$As a consequence, the nonlinearities \( {\check{f}}_{s,n} \) and \( \partial _x^2 {\check{g}}_1 \) are smooth mappings from \( H^{s+1}_{l,u} \) to \( H^{s}_{l,u} \). The mapping \( {\check{f}}_{1,n} \) is arbitrarily smooth due to its compact support in Fourier space.
-
(ii)
We introduce the scaling operator
$$\begin{aligned} (S_{\delta } u)(x) = u(\delta x) \end{aligned}$$and the scaled spaces \( H^{s,\delta }_{l,u} = H^{s}_{l,u} \) equipped with the norm
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u \Vert _{H^{s,\delta }_{l,u} } = \Vert S_{1/\delta } u \Vert _{H^{s}_{l,u} } \end{aligned}$$ -
(iii)
Before we start with estimating the linear semigroups we define the \( H^s_{l,u} \)-norm for \( s \in (0,1) \) by
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u \Vert _{H^s_{l,u}} = \Vert u \Vert _{L^2_{l,u}} + \Vert \partial _x \langle \partial _x \rangle ^{s-1} u \Vert _{L^2_{l,u}}, \qquad (s \in (0,1)). \end{aligned}$$For \( n \in {{\mathbb {N}}}_0 \) and \( s \in (0,1) \) we set
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u \Vert _{H^{n+s}_{l,u}} = \Vert u \Vert _{H^{n}_{l,u}} + \Vert \partial _x^n u \Vert _{H^{s}_{l,u}}. \end{aligned}$$
We need
Lemma A.1
For \( s,r \ge 0 \) there exists a \( \sigma > 0 \), a \( C \ge 1 \) such that for \( 0 < \varepsilon \le \delta \le 1 \) and all \( t \ge 0 \) the following estimates hold:
Proof
These estimates have been established in a number of papers, cf. [15, §10]. \(\square \)
Remark A.2
We refrain from recalling a complete proof of Lemma A.1. It is based on estimates like
for \( n \in {\mathbb {N}}_0 \) and on estimates like \( {\widehat{\lambda }}_1(k) \le - \alpha k^2 \) for an \( \alpha > 0 \). For real-valued \( n \ge 0 \) with \( n = n_0 + s \) with \( n_0 \in {{\mathbb {N}}}\) and \( s \in [0,1) \) we use
Proof of the Attractivity Theorem 5.2
In order to prove the attractivity result we have to show that the solution (u, v) of (1)–(2) to a small, but otherwise arbitrary initial condition \( (u_0,v_0) \in H^{n+1}_{l,u} \times H^{n}_{l,u} \) develops in such a way that after a certain time it can be written in the form stated in (7)–(8), i.e., after that time we must be able to extract functions \( A_1 \) and \( B_0 \) which are functions of the long spatial variable \( X = \delta x \). For the derivation of the amplitude system (29)–(30) we make a Taylor expansion w.r.t. the small perturbation parameter \( \delta \), with \( 0 < \varepsilon \le \delta \ll 1 \), and among other things we use that \( \partial _x^m A_1(\delta x) = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^m) \) and \( \partial _x^m B_0(\delta x) = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^m) \). In the end this means that we have to prove estimates such as \( \partial _x^m ( (E_1 u(\cdot ,t)) ) = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^{m+1}) \) and \( \partial _x^m (E_0 v(\cdot ,t)) = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^{m+2}) \) for \( t > 0 \) sufficiently large with initial conditions of (1)–(2) satisfying the estimates assumed in Theorem 5.2.
Remark B.1
By looking at the Fourier representation of the linearized problem we see that the u-solution and the v-solution are exponentially damped for all wave numbers except around \( k = 0\) where in physical space the solutions are of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \). By nonlinear interaction no other modes of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \) are created.
1.1 The First Attractivity Step
We consider (1)–(2) after applying the normal form transformation from Sect. 3.2, i.e., in the following we consider (3536)–(37).
-
(1)
We start with solutions of order \( {\check{u}}_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \), \( u_s = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \) and \( {\check{v}} = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \). Setting \( {\check{u}}_1 = \delta {\widetilde{u}}_1 \), \( u_s = \delta {\widetilde{u}}_s \), and \( {\check{v}} = \delta ^2 {\widetilde{v}} \) gives
$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{u}}_1= & {} \lambda _1 {\widetilde{u}}_1 + {\widetilde{f}}_1({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}}), \end{aligned}$$(38)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{u}}_s= & {} \Lambda _s {\widetilde{u}}_s +{\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}}),\end{aligned}$$(39)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{v}}= & {} \Lambda _v {\widetilde{v}} + \partial _x^2 {\widetilde{g}}({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s), \end{aligned}$$(40)with
$$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde{f}}_1({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2 |{\widetilde{u}}_1|^3+ \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_1||{\widetilde{u}}_s| + \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2+ \delta ^2 (|{\widetilde{u}}_1|+|{\widetilde{u}}_s|) |{\widetilde{v}}|), \\ {\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(\delta |{\widetilde{u}}_1|^2+ \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2+\delta ^2 (|{\widetilde{u}}_1|+ |{\widetilde{u}}_s|) |{\widetilde{v}}|),\\ {\widetilde{g}}({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s)= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(|{\widetilde{u}}_1|^2+ |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2). \end{aligned}$$Considering the variation of constant formula
$$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde{u}}_s(t) = e^{\Lambda _s t} {\widetilde{u}}_s(0) + \int _0^t e^{\Lambda _s(t-\tau )} {\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})(\tau ) d\tau , \end{aligned}$$it is easy to see that \( u_s = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \) for instance for \( t = 1/\delta ^{1/4} \) using the exponential decay \( \Vert e^{\Lambda _s t} \Vert _{H^{n+1}_{l,u} \rightarrow H^{n+1}_{l,u}} \le C e^{- \sigma t} \) for a \( \sigma > 0 \) independent of \( 0 < \varepsilon \le \delta \ll 1 \) under the assumption that \( {\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})= {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \) for \( t \in [0,1/\delta ^{1/4}] \). However, since there is no \( \delta ^{1/4} \) in front of the nonlinear terms in the \( {\widetilde{v}} \)-equation we cannot guarantee that \( {\widetilde{v}}= {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = \delta ^{-1/4} \). In order to guarantee this, some extra work has to be done. Since the argument follows the arguments of next (more complicated) step 2) we assume for a moment that we have proved \( {\check{u}}_c = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \), \( u_s = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \) and \( v = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \) for \( t = 1/\delta ^{1/4} \) and close the gap in the proof in Remark B.2 after completing step 2).
-
(2)
We start (3536)–(37) again, but now for initial conditions \( {\check{u}}_c = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \), \( u_s = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \), and \( v = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \). Setting \( {\check{u}}_1 = \delta {\widetilde{u}}_1 \), \( u_s = \delta ^2 {\widetilde{u}}_s \) and \( v = \delta ^2 {\widetilde{v}} \). We find now
$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{u}}_1= & {} \lambda _1 {\widetilde{u}}_1 + {\widetilde{f}}_1({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}}), \end{aligned}$$(41)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{u}}_s= & {} \Lambda _s {\widetilde{u}}_s +{\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}}),\end{aligned}$$(42)$$\begin{aligned} \partial _t {\widetilde{v}}= & {} \Lambda _v {\widetilde{v}} + \partial _x^2 {\widetilde{g}}({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s), \end{aligned}$$(43)with
$$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde{f}}_1({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2 |{\widetilde{u}}_1|^3+ \delta ^2 |{\widetilde{u}}_1||{\widetilde{u}}_s| + \delta ^3 |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2+ \delta ^2 (|{\widetilde{u}}_1|+ \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_s|) |{\widetilde{v}}|), \\ {\widetilde{f}}_s({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s,{\widetilde{v}})= & {} {\mathcal {O}}( |{\widetilde{u}}_1|^2+ \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_1||{\widetilde{u}}_s| + \delta ^2 |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2+\delta (|{\widetilde{u}}_1|+\delta |{\widetilde{u}}_s|) |{\widetilde{v}}|),\\ {\widetilde{g}}({\widetilde{u}}_1,{\widetilde{u}}_s)= & {} {\mathcal {O}}(|{\widetilde{u}}_1|^2 + \delta |{\widetilde{u}}_1||{\widetilde{u}}_s| +\delta ^2 |{\widetilde{u}}_s|^2). \end{aligned}$$
Since attractivity happens on an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale we have to control the solutions of the last system on this long time scale. The first equation is not a problem since in front of all nonlinear terms there is a factor \( \delta ^2 \). In the second equation there is linear exponential damping which allows us to control all nonlinear terms in this equation. The main difficulty to control the solutions on the long \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale is the missing \( \delta ^2 \) in front of the nonlinear terms in the third equation. In order to get this missing \( \delta ^2 \) we need that \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) is two times differentiable w.r.t. the long space variable X. In detail, we need that these derivatives are \( {\mathcal {O}}(1)\)-bounded. However, this is a problem since this exactly what we are going to prove and what is not true for \( t = 0 \).
(a) We proceed as follows to get rid of this problem. We consider the variation of constant formula
For this system we are now going to establish a priori estimates which in combination with the local existence and uniqueness theorem will guarantee the long time existence of solutions on the long \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale.
We set
and
Moreover, we need the quantity
Before we start, we remark that all \( H^s_{l,u} \)-norms for \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) are equivalent due to the compact support of \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) in Fourier space.
(i) We estimate
where we used the semigroup estimate from Lemma A.1 and the bound on \( {\widetilde{f}}_1 \) after (43).
(ii) Next we find
where we used the semigroup estimate from Lemma A.1 with \( r = 1 \) and again the bound on \( {\widetilde{f}}_1 \) after (43).
(iii) For the exponentially damped part we use that
uniformly in \( t \ge 0 \), and the bound on \( {\widetilde{f}}_s \) after (43), and so we find
(iv) The estimates for the \( {\widetilde{v}} \)-variable are obtained from
where the semigroup term is estimated with Lemma A.1 with \( r = 1 \), where we used that all \( H^s_{l,u} \)-norms for \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) are equivalent due to its compact support in Fourier space, and where we used estimates like
(v) Taking the \( \sup \) w.r.t. t on the left-hand side gives the inequalities
For \( \delta > 0 \) and \( T > 0 \) sufficiently small the last two inequalities allow to estimate \( S_{s,0}(t) \) and \( S_{v,0}(t) \) in terms of \( S_{s,0}(0) \), \( S_{v,0}(0) \), \( S_{c,0}(t) \), and \( S_{c,1}(t) \). Replacing then \( S_{s,0}(t) \) and \( S_{v,0}(t) \) in the first two inequalities by these estimates and choosing \( \delta _0 > 0 \) and \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) sufficiently small, gives the existence of a \( C_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) with
for all \( t \in [0,T_1/\delta ^2] \) and \( \delta \in (0,\delta _0) \).
Remark B.2
It remains to close Step 1), i.e., we have to prove that \( {\check{u}}_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \), \( u_s = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ) \) and \( {\check{v}} = {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \) tor \( t \in [0,1/\delta ^{1/4}] \). In order to do so, we follow the argument in Step 2) but now with \( u_s = \delta {\widetilde{u}}_s \) instead of \( u_s = \delta ^2 {\widetilde{u}}_s \). Moreover, we set
and
With exactly the same calculations as in 2) we end up with the inequalities
The last inequality allows to estimate \( S_{v,0}(t) \) in terms of \( S_{v,0}(0) \), \( S_{u,0}(t) \), and \( S_{u,1}(t) \). Replacing then \( S_{v,0}(t) \) in the first two inequalities by this estimate and then choosing \( \delta _0 > 0 \) sufficiently small, gives the existence of a \( C_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) with
for all \( t \in [0,1/\delta ^{1/4}] \) and \( \delta \in (0,\delta _0) \).
1.2 The Second Attractivity Step
Our estimates from the first attractivity step also guarantee that the solutions \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \), \( {\widetilde{u}}_s \), and \( {\widetilde{v}} \) of (2627)–(28) are \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-bounded in \( H^{1,\delta }_{l,u} \), \( H^{n+1}_{l,u} \), and \( H^{n+1}_{l,u} \), respectively, on time intervals of length \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \), for instance considering (45) for \( t \in [T_1/(2\delta ^2),T_1/\delta ^2]\).
In the next step we prove that under these assumptions \( {\widetilde{u}}_s \) and \( {\widetilde{v}} \) will be in \( H^{1/2,\delta }_{l,u} \) after an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale. Since we have the existence and uniqueness of solutions it is sufficient to establish the bounds on this long time interval.
(i) We split
with
and find for \( t \le T_1/\delta ^2 \) with \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) that
which is \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \).
(ii) Similarly, we find for \( t \le T_1/\delta ^2 \) with \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) that
which is \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \).
1.3 The Attractivity Induction Steps
Our estimates from the first two attractivity steps so far guarantee that the solutions \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \), \( {\widetilde{u}}_s \), and \( {\widetilde{v}} \) of (2627)–(28) are \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-bounded in \( H^{1,\delta }_{l,u} \), \( H^{1/2,\delta }_{l,u} \cap H^{n+1}_{l,u} \), and \( H^{1/2,\delta }_{l,u} \cap H^{n+1}_{l,u} \), respectively, on time intervals of length \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \).
In the next step we prove that under these assumptions \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) will be in \( H^{3/2,\delta }_{l,u} \) after an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale. After this we show that this implies that \( {\widetilde{u}}_s \) and \( {\widetilde{v}} \) will be in \( H^{1,\delta }_{l,u} \) after an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale. In the next step we show that \( {\widetilde{u}}_1 \) will be in \( H^{2,\delta }_{l,u} \) after an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale, etc. We will do this by induction. Again it is sufficient to establish the bounds.
(i) In the first step we assume that
and
are finite and of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \). We find for \( t \le T_1/\delta ^2 \) with \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) that
which is \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) and so \( {\widetilde{u}}_1(t) \in H^{m+1/2,\delta }_{l,u} \) for \( t = {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \).
(ii) In the second induction step we assume that \( U_{m+1/2,c}(t) \), \( U_{m-1/2,s}(t) \), and \( U_{m-1/2,v}(t) \) are finite and of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \). We find for \( t \le T_1/\delta ^2 \) with \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) that
which is \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) and so \( {\widetilde{u}}_s(t) \in H^{m,\delta }_{l,u} \) for \( t = {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \).
(iii) In the second part of the second induction step we assume again that \( U_{m+1/2,c}(t) \), \( U_{m-1/2,s}(t) \), and \( U_{m-1/2,v}(t) \) are finite and of order \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \). We find for \( t \le T_1/\delta ^2 \) with \( T_1 = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) that
which is \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) and so \( {\widetilde{v}}(t) \in H^{m,\delta }_{l,u} \) for \( t = {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \).
1.4 Attractivity of the Ginzburg–Landau Manifold
In the first step we proved that the solutions of (222324)–(25) develop in such a way that for arbitrary large but fixed m we have
Then, we set
where \( \psi _{1} \), \( \psi _{-1} \), \( \psi _s \), and \( \psi _v \) were defined in Sect. 4.2. In the following we explain how to choose the \( A_{\pm ,m,n} \), \( A_{s,m,n} \), and \( B_{m,n} \) initially such that in the end the \( \delta ^2 R_{\pm 1,1} \), \( \delta ^2 R_{s,1} \), and \( \delta ^3 R_{v,1} \) will become smaller and smaller.
We start with \( A_{+,1,0}|_{T=0} = \delta ^{-1} c_1|_{t = T_1/\delta ^2} \), \( A_{-,1,0}|_{T=0} = \delta ^{-1} c_{-1}|_{t = T_1/\delta ^2} \), \( A_{s,0}|_{T=0} = \delta ^{-2} u_{s}|_{t = T_1/\delta ^2} \), and \( B_{0,0}|_{T=0} = \delta ^{-2} E_0 v|_{t = T_1/\delta ^2} \). We choose the other \( A_{\pm ,m,n} \), \( A_{s,m,n} \), and \( B_{m,n} \) as in Sect. 4.2. However, by this choice we cannot guarantee that the remaining parts of the solution \( \delta ^2 R_{1,1} \), \( \delta ^2 R_{-1,1} \), \( \delta ^2 R_{s,1} \), and \( \delta ^3 R_{v,1} \) are smaller than the displayed orders w.r.t. \( \delta \).
These estimates can be improved by the following procedure. For \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) we have
We set
By this choice and the construction of the improved approximation in Sect. 4.2 we obtain initial conditions for \( \delta ^2 A_{+,2,0}(\delta x,0) \), \( \delta ^2 A_{+,0,0}(\delta x,0) \), and \( \delta ^2 A_{+,-2,0}(\delta x,0) \). Therefore, for a cancelation of the \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^2) \)-terms we set
Similarly, by the choice of \( A_{+,1,0}(\delta x,0) \) and \( B_{0,0}(\delta x,0) \) higher order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^{m+2}) \)-terms are determined. The \( A_{+,1,m}(\delta x,0) \) can then be used to adjust the initial conditions at order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^{m+2}) \).
Next we consider the B-equation. There we have
We set
By this choice, the choice of \( A_{+,1,0}(\delta x,0) \), and the construction of the improved approximation in Sect. 4.2 we obtain initial conditions for \( \delta ^4 B_{2,0}(\delta x) \), \( \delta ^4 B_{-2,0}(\delta x) \), etc.. The \( B_{0,m}(\delta x) \) can then be used to adjust the initial conditions at order \( {\mathcal {O}}(\delta ^{m+2}) \).
Finally, we come to the \( u_s \)-equation. We have for \( t = T_1/\delta ^2 \) that
By the choice of \( A_{+,1,0}(\delta x,0) \) and \( B_{0,0}(\delta x,0) \) the \( A_{s,2,0}(\delta x,0) \), \( A_{s,0,0}(\delta x,0) \), and \( A_{s,-2,0}(\delta x,0) \) are determined. However, in general there is a mismatch between the solution on the left-hand side and the approximation terms on the right-hand side and so we need an initial correction \( \delta ^2 R_{s,0}(\delta x,0) \) on the right-hand side. Since the linear semigroup \( e^{\Lambda _s t} \) decays with some exponential rate the variation of constant formula immediately yields
Then we can go on and adjust the next order initial conditions in the \( c_1 \)- and v-equation. An iteration of this procedure finally yields the statement of Theorem 5.2.
Proof of the Approximation Theorem 5.3
We consider (1)–(2) after diagonalization and application of the normal form transformation from Sect. 3.2, i.e., we consider (2627)–(28). We introduce the error functions by
where \( (\delta {\check{\Psi }}_{\pm 1},\delta ^{2} \Psi _s,\delta ^{2} \Psi _v) \) are the components of the Ginzburg–Landau approximation for (2627)–(28). We look for an \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-bound for
on the long \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale.
Remark C.1
This choice of norms allows us to use the \( \partial _x^2 \) in front of nonlinearity in the v-equation as follows. One \( \partial _x \) is transformed into a \( \delta \) by using the smoothing of the linear semigroup, i.e.,
where \( T = \delta ^2 t \). The second \( \partial _x \) is transformed into a \( \delta \) by using the estimate
Thus, in sum we obtain a factor \( \delta ^2 \) which allows us to bound the solutions on the long \( {\mathcal {O}}(1/\delta ^2) \)-time scale.
Inserting the ansatz (46) into (2627)–(28) and applying the variation of constant formula gives for the error \( (R_1, R_s,R_v) \) that
with
where \( {\tilde{R}}= {\tilde{R}}(t) \) is defined by
and where \( C_\textrm{Res} \) stands for the \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-constants coming from the residual terms.
In the following \( C_\textrm{IR} \) denotes \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-constants which are obtained when integrating the residual terms or \( {\mathcal {O}}(1) \)-constants coming from the initial conditions. We obtain
using Lemma A.1. Next we introduce
We immediately obtain
where
For \( C \delta (1 +(q(t)+q_s(t))) \le 1/2 \) this yields \( q_s(t) \le C (q(t) + C_\textrm{IR}) \) and then as a consequence
Adding these two inequalities yields
if \( \delta q(\tau ) \le 1 \). With \( T = \delta ^2 t \) and \( {\tilde{q}}(T) = q(t) \) this can be written as
Since this equation is independent of \( \delta \), Gronwall’s inequality immediately yields the existence of a constant \( M_q = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) such that
or equivalently
Then
Choosing \( \delta _0 > 0 \) so small that \( \delta _0 M_q \le 1 \) and \( C \delta _0 (1+ M_q+ M_s) \le 1/2 \) we proved the error estimates stated in Theorem 5.3. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 2.6
In the following \( L = {\mathcal {O}}(1) \) is fixed. Therefore, it is not a problem that the subsequent estimates depend very badly on L for \( L \rightarrow \infty \). For B, with vanishing mean value, we have Poincaré’s inequality
where \( \partial _X^{-1} B \) is defined via its Fourier transform \( {\widehat{B}}(k)/ik \) using \( {\widehat{B}}(0) = 0 \). Since \( \text {Re} \int _0^L i \gamma _0 |\partial _X A|^2 dX = 0 \) and \( \text {Re} \int _0^L i \gamma _3 |A|^4 dX = 0 \) we find
In case \( \beta > 0 \) we estimate
where we have used (48). Thus, we find
For estimating the higher order derivatives we keep some of the negative terms in the above calculations. Doing so, we also find
Next we compute
We add \( \gamma \) times the inequality (49) to the last inequality. and use that we already know that \( \int _0^L |A|^2 dX \) and \( \int _0^L |\partial _X^{-1} B|^2 dX \) are bounded. On the right hand side of the new inequality for \( \gamma > 1 \) we have the negative terms
which we use to estimate the remaining non-negative terms on the right hand side of the new inequality.
Using Young’s inequality, an interpolation inequality for \( \Vert \partial _X A \Vert _{C^0_b}^2 \), that \( \int _0^L |A|^2 dX \le C \) and \( \int _0^L |\partial _X^{-1} B|^2 dX \le C \) for a \( C > 0 \) uniformly in time, we estimate for every \( \delta > 0 \) that
Therefore, by choosing \( \gamma \) sufficiently large, in case of periodic boundary conditions, we have established a-priori estimates for \( A \in H^1 \) and \( B \in L^2 \). Since we also have local existence and uniqueness in these spaces for (18)–(19) global existence in \( H^1 \times L^2 \) follows, too. The global existence for \( A \in H^{s+1} \) and \( B \in H^s \) follows by using the smoothing properties of the diffusion semigroup.
In case \( \beta \le 0 \) with \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \) we proceed similarly. However, there is no cancelation and so we compute
under the assumption that we can establish an estimate
for an \( r \in (0,1] \). If we have established such an estimate we can proceed as above to establish the global existence of solutions However, the constant \( C_{\infty ,0} \) has to be modified since we no longer have \( r = 1 \). A simple calculation shows that the required estimate (50) can be established for \( \alpha \), \( \beta \) satisfying \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \) if \( r > 0 \) is chosen sufficiently small and \( q = 2 \alpha + \beta \). We refrain from optimizing the bound around \( \beta = 0 \). \(\square \)
Remark D.1
In case of periodic boundary conditions the \( H^s \)-space can be embedded in \( H^s_{l,u} \). Together with the smoothing in case of periodic boundary conditions we have established the existence of an absorbing ball for spatially periodic \( A \in H^{s+1}_{l,u} \) and \( B \in H^s_{l,u} \), too.
Remark D.2
Dropping the periodic boundary conditions for the problem on the real line the global existence question remains an open problem.
Remark D.3
We expect that the condition \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \) is sharp. The reason is as follows. In case \( \gamma _0 = \gamma _3 = 0 \) stationary solutions can be obtained by a simple integration of the conservation law (19) giving \( \alpha B = - |A|^2 + b \), where \( b \in {{\mathbb {R}}}\) is an arbitrary constant. Inserting this into (18) yields
Hence, the coefficient in front of the effective nonlinear terms is only negative for \( 1+ \alpha ^{-1} \beta > 0 \). See also [6].
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
Gauss, N., Logioti, A., Schneider, G. et al. Global Existence for Long Wave Hopf Unstable Spatially Extended Systems with a Conservation Law. J Dyn Diff Equat (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-024-10380-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-024-10380-9