Page 1
arXiv:0803.1222v3 [math.PR] 16 Aug 2008
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR THE
NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS.
GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
Abstract. This paper is based on a formulation of the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions developed by P. Constantin and the first author (arxiv:math.PR/0511067,
to appear), where the velocity field of a viscous incompressible fluid is written
as the expected value of a stochastic process. In this paper, we take N copies
of the above process (each based on independent Wiener processes), and re-
place the expected value with
Ntimes the sum over these N copies. (We
remark that our formulation requires one to keep track of N stochastic flows
of diffeomorphisms, and not just the motion of N particles.)
We prove that in two dimensions, this system of interacting diffeomor-
phisms has (time) global solutions with initial data in the space C1,αwhich
consists of differentiable functions whose first derivative is α H¨ older continuous
(see Section 3 for the precise definition). Further, we show that as N → ∞
the system converges to the solution of Navier-Stokes equations on any finite
interval [0,T]. However for fixed N, we prove that this system retains roughly
O(1
N) times its original energy as t → ∞. Hence the limit N → ∞ and T → ∞
do not commute. For general flows, we only provide a lower bound to this ef-
fect. In the special case of shear flows, we compute the behaviour as t → ∞
explicitly.
1
1. Introduction
The Navier-Stokes equations
∂tu + (u · ∇)u − ν△u + ∇p = 0
∇ · u = 0
(1.1)
(1.2)
describe the evolution of a velocity field of an incompressible fluid with kinematic
viscosity ν > 0. These equations have been used to model numerous physical
problems, for example air flow around an airplane wing, ocean currents and meteo-
rological phenomena to name a few [4,15,18]. The mathematical theory (existence
and regularity [5,14]) of these equations have been extensively studied and is still
one of the outstanding open problems in modern PDE’s [7,8].
The questions addressed in this paper are motivated by a formalism of (1.1)–
(1.2) developed in [9] (equations (2.1)–(2.2) below). This formalism essentially
superimposes Brownian motion onto particle trajectories, and then averages with
respect to the Wiener measure. In this paper, we take N independent copies of
the Wiener process and replace the expected value in the above formalism with
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 60K40, 76D05.
Key words and phrases. stochastic Lagrangian, incompressible Navier-Stokes, Monte-Carlo.
GI was partly supported by NSF grant (DMS-0707920), and thanks the mathematics de-
partment at Duke for its hospitality. JCM was partial supported by an NSF PECASE awawrd
(DMS-0449910) and a Sloan foundation fellowship.
1
Page 2
2 GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
1
Ntimes the sum over these N independent copies (see equations (2.5)–(2.6) for
the exact details). In the original formulation the random trajectory of a particle
induced by a single Brownian motion interacts with its own law. This is essentially
a self-consistent, mean-field interaction. In this paper, we replace this with N copies
or replica whose average is used to approximate the interaction with the processes
own law. This technique has been extensively used in numerical computation (e.g.
[2,17,19]). We remark that in our formulation, we are required to keep track of N
stochastic flows of diffeomorphisms, and not just the motion of N different particles,
as is the conventional approach.
We study both the behaviour as N → ∞ and t → ∞ of the system obtained. The
behaviour as N → ∞ is as expected: In two dimensions on any finite time interval
[0,T], the system converges as N → ∞ to the solution of the true Navier-Stokes
equations at rate roughly O(
√N). In three dimensions, we can only guarantee this if
we have certain apriori bounds on the solution (Theorem 4.1). These apriori bounds
are of course guaranteed for short time, but are unknown (in the 3-dimensional
setting) for long time [7,8].
1
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
100200 300400500
(a) N = 2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
100 200300400 500
(b) N = 8
Figure 1. Graph of ?ωN
t?2
L2 vs time
At first glance, the behaviour as t → ∞ for fixed N is less intuitive. For the
2-dimensional problem, Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show a graph of ?ωN
N = 2 and N = 8 respectively1. A little reflection shows that this behavior is not
completely surprising. The dissipation occurs through the averaging of different
copies of the flow. With only N copies, one can only produce dissipation of order
1/N of the original energy. It is tempting, to speak of the inability to represent
the correct interaction of small scale structures with such small number of data.
However, we can not make this precise and since each of the objects being averaged
is an entire diffeomorphism with an infinite amount of information it is unclear
what this means.
t?2
L2vs time, with
1These computations were done using a 24 × 24 mesh on the periodic box with side length
2π. The initial vorticity was randomly chosen, and normalized with ?ω0?L2 = 1. The behaviour
depicted in these two figures is however characteristic, and insensitive to changes of the mesh size,
length, or diffusion coefficient
Page 3
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES3
In Section 5 we obtain a sharp lower bound to this effect. We show (Theorem
5.2) that
E?∇ut?2
where L is a length scale. Further, we explicitly compute the t → ∞ behaviour in
the special case of shear flows and verify that our lower bound is sharp.
limsup
t→∞
L2 ?
1
NL2?u0?2
L2 ,
We remark that we considered the analogue of the system above for the one
dimensional Burgers equations. As is well known the viscous Burgers equations have
global strong solutions. However preliminary numerical simulations show that the
system above forms shocks almost surely, even for very large N. We are currently
working on understanding how to continue this system past these shocks, in a
manner analogous to the entropy solutions for the inviscid Burgers equations, and
studying its behaviour as t → ∞ and N → ∞.
We do not propose this particle system as an efficient particle method for nu-
merical computation. Though there may be special cases were it may be useful, in
general the computational cost of representing N entire diffeomorphisms is large.
Rather we see it as an interesting and novel regularization which might give useful
insight into the structure and role of dissipation in the system.
2. The particle system
In this section we construct a particle system for the Navier-Stokes equations
based on stochastic Lagrangian trajectories. We begin by describing a stochastic
Lagrangian formulation of the Navier-Stokes equations developed in [9,11].
Let W be a standard 2 or 3-dimensional Brownian motion, and u0some given
divergence free C2,αinitial data. Let E denote the expected value with respect
to the Wiener measure and P be the Leray-Hodge projection onto divergence free
vector fields. Consider the system of equations
√2ν dWt, (2.1)
ut= EP[(∇∗Yt)(u0◦ Yt)],
With a slight abuse of notation, we denote by Xtthe map from initial conditions
to the value at time t. Hence Xtis a stochastic flow of diffeomorphisms with X0
equal to the identity and Ytthe “spatial” inverse. In other words, Yt: Xt(x) ?→ x.
Also by ∇∗Yt we mean the transpose of the Jacobian of map Yt. Observe that
(∇∗Yt)(u0◦ Yt) can be viewed as a function of x where both the Jacobian and
the vector field u0◦ Ytto which it is applied are both evaluated at x. We impose
periodic boundary conditions on the displacement λt(y) = Xt(y) − y, and on the
Leray-Hodge projection P.
In [9,11] it was shown that the system (2.1)–(2.2) is equivalent to the Navier-
Stokes equations in the following sense: If the initial data is regular (C2,α), then the
pair X,u is a solution to the system (2.1)–(2.2) if and only if u is a (classical) solution
to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with periodic boundary conditions
and initial data u0.
We digress briefly and comment on the physical significance of (2.1)–(2.2). Note
first that equation (2.2) is algebraically equivalent to the equations
ut= −△−1∇ × ωt
ωt= E[(∇Xt)ω0] ◦ Yt
dXt(x) = ut(Xt(x))dt +
X0(x) = x,
Yt= X−1
t . (2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
Page 4
4GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
This follows by direct computation, and was shown [6] and [9] for instance. We
recall that (2.4) is the usual vorticity transport equation for the Euler equations,
and (2.3) is just the Biot-Savart formula.
Thus in particular when ν = 0, the system (2.1)–(2.2) is exactly the incompress-
ible Euler equations. Hence the system (2.1)–(2.2) essentially does the following:
We add Brownian motion to Lagrangian trajectories. Then recover the velocity u
in the same manner as for the Euler equations, but additionally average out the
noise.
We remark that the system (2.1)–(2.2) is non-linear in the sense of McKean
[20]. The drift of the flow X depends on its distribution. However in this case,
the law of X alone is not enough to compute the drift u. This is because of the
presence of the ∇∗Y term in (2.2), which requires knowledge of spatial covariances,
in addition to the law of X. In other words, one needs that law of the entire flow
of diffeomorphism and not just the law of the one-point motions.
We now motivate our particle system. For the formulation (2.1)–(2.2) above,
the natural numerical scheme would be to use the law of large numbers to compute
the expected value. Let (Wi) be a sequence of independent Wiener processes, and
consider the system
dt +√2ν dWi
(2.5)
dXi,N
t
= uN
t
?
N
?
Xi,N
t
?
(∇∗Yi,N
t,Yi,N
t
=
?
Xi,N
t
?−1
uN
t=
1
N
i=1
P
?
t
)(u0◦ Yi,N
t
)
?
(2.6)
with initial data X0(x) = x. We impose again periodic boundary conditions on the
initial data u0, the displacement λt(x) = Xt(x)−x, and the Leray-Hodge projection
P.
We remark that the algebraic equivalence of (2.2) and (2.3)–(2.4) is still valid
in this setting. Thus the system (2.5)–(2.6) could equivalently be formulated by
replacing equation (2.6) with the more familiar equations
(2.7)ωN
t =
1
N
N
?
i=1
?
(∇Xi,N
t
)ω0
?
◦ Yi,N
t
and
(2.8)uN
t = −△−1∇ × ωN
t.
Finally we clarify our previous remark, stating that the above formulation re-
quires us to keep track of N stochastic flows, and the knowledge of the one point
motions of Xi,N
t
alone is not sufficient. The standard method of obtaining a solu-
tion to the heat equation (assuming the drift u is time independent) would be to
consider the process (2.1), and read off the solution θ by
θt(a) = Eθ0◦ Xt(a)
where θ0is the given initial temperature distribution. Thus knowing the trajecto-
ries (and distribution) of the process X starting at one particular point a will be
sufficient to determine the solution θtat that point.
This however is not the case for our representation. The reason is twofold:
First, the representation (2.1)–(2.2) involves a non-local singular integral operator.
Second our representation involves composing with the spatial inverse of the flow
Page 5
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES5
Xt, and then averaging. If we for a moment ignore the non-locality of the Leray-
Hodge projection, determining utat one fixed point a one would need the law of
Yt(a), for which the knowledge of Xt(a) alone is not enough. One needs the entire
(spatial) map Xtto compute the spatial inverse Yt(a).
The above is not a serious impediment to a numerical implementation. Given an
initial mesh ∆, we first compute Xi,N
t
on this mesh. By definition of the inverse, one
knows Yi,N
t
on the (non-uniform) mesh Xi,N
and find Yi,N
t
on the mesh ∆. In two spatial dimensions, global existence and
regularity (Theorem 3.5) together with incompressibility will show that this mesh
does not degenerate in finite time.
This surprisingly is not the case for the (one dimensional) Burgers equations.
Numerical computations indicate the mesh ∆ almost surely degenerates in finite
time for non-monotone initial data, and the solution ‘shocks’ almost surely. Thus,
while the system (2.5)–(2.6) appears natural, and convergence as N → ∞ is to
be expected, caution is to be exercised. We suspect that the results (existence,
convergence, etc.) proven in this paper for the system (2.5)–(2.6) are in fact false
for the Burgers equations. This is indeed puzzling as global existence, and regularity
for the viscous Burgers equations is well known. It further underlines the fact that
the finite N approximation modifies the dissipation in a different way then other
approximation such as a spectral approximation.
t
(∆), after which one can interpolate
In the next section, we show the existence of global solutions to (2.5)–(2.6) in
two dimensions. In section 4, we show that the solution to (2.5)–(2.6) converges
to the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations as N → ∞. Finally in Section 5 we
study the behaviour of the system (2.5)–(2.6) as t → ∞ (for fixed N), and partially
explain the behaviour shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b).
3. Global existence of the particle system in two dimensions.
In this section we prove that the particle system (2.5)–(2.6) has global solutions
in two dimensions. Once we are guaranteed global in time solutions, we are able
to study the behaviour as t → ∞, which we do in Section 5. We remark also that
as a consequence of Theorem 3.5 (proved here), our convergence result as N → ∞
(Theorem 4.1) applies on any finite time interval [0,T] in the two dimensional
situation.
We first establish some notational convention: We let L > 0 be a length scale,
and assume work with the spatial domain is [0,L]d, where d ? 2 is the spatial
dimension. We define the non-dimensional Lpand H¨ older norms by
?u?Lp =
?
1
Ld
?
sup
[0,L]d|u|p
?1
p
?u?L∞ =
x∈[0,L]d|u(x)|
|u(x) − u(y)|
|x − y|α
Lk|Dmu|α+
|u|α= Lα
sup
x?=y∈[0,L]d
?u?k,α=
?
|m|=k
?
|m|<k
L|m|?Dmu?L∞
Page 6
6 GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
We denote the H¨ older space Ck,αand Lebesgue space Lpto be the space of functions
u which are periodic on [0,L]dwith ?u?k,α< ∞ and ?u?Lp< ∞ respectively.
Let W1,...,WNbe N independent (2 dimensional) Wiener processes, with fil-
tration Ft.
Proposition 3.1. Let t0? 0, and u1
functions such that the norms ?ui
T = T(α,?u1
?t
1
N
i=1
has a solution on the interval [t0,T].
U(α,?ui
(3.3) sup
t∈[t0,T]
almost surely. Consequently, u ∈ C([t0,T],C1,α), and ?u?1,α? U.
Proposition 3.1 is proved in Appendix A
Definition 3.2. We call Xi, u in Proposition 3.1 the solution of the system (3.1)−
−(3.2) with initial data u1
The functions Xi,Yiare not periodic themselves, but have periodic displace-
ments: Namely, if we define
λi
(3.4)
t0,...,uN
t0?1,αare almost surely bounded. Then there exist
t0?1,α) such that the system
t0,s(x))ds +√2ν(Wi
t0be Ft0-measurable, periodic mean 0
t0?1,α,...,?uN
Xi
t0,t(x) = x +
t0
us(Xi
t− Wi
t0),Yi
t0,t= (Xi
t0,t)−1
(3.1)
ut(x) =
N
?
P?(∇∗Yi
t0,t)(ui
t0◦ Yi
t0,t)?(x)
Further there exists deterministic U =
(3.2)
t0?1,α) such that
??P?(∇∗Yi
t0,t)ui
t0◦ Yi
t0,t
???
1,α? U
t0,...,uN
t0.
t(y) = Xi
t(x) = Yi
t(y) − y
t(x) − x ,µi
(3.5)
then µi,λiare periodic.
We remark that if t0 = 0 and the ωi
(3.2) reduces to (2.5)–(2.6). However when formulated as above, solutions can be
continued past time T by restarting the flows Xi, as in the Lemma below.
Lemma 3.3. Say t0 < t1 < t2, and Xi
initial data ui
t0. For any t > t0define
ui
t0’s are all equal, then the system (3.1)–
t0,s, us solve (3.1)–(3.2) on [t0,t2], with
t= P?(∇∗Yi
t0,t)ui
t0◦ Yi
t0,t
?.
Let˜ Xi
we have ˜ ui
t1,s, ˜ ussolve (3.1)–(3.2) on [t1,t2] with initial data ui
s= ui
Xi
almost surely.
t1. Then for all s ∈ [t1,t2]
sand
t0,s=˜ Xi
t1,s◦ Xi
t0,t1
Proof. The proof is identical to the proof of Proposition 3.3.1 in [11], and we do
not provide it here.
?
For the remainder of this section, we assume without loss of generality that
t0= 0 (we allow of course F0to be non-trivial). For ease of notation, we use Xs
to denote X0,s. We now prove that the system (3.1)–(3.2) has global solutions in
two dimensions. This essentially follows from a Beale-Kato-Majda type condition
[1], and the two dimensional vorticity transport.
Page 7
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES7
Lemma 3.4. If u is divergence free and periodic in Rd, then for any α ∈ (0,1),
there exists a constant c = c(α,d) such that
?∇u?L∞ ? c?ω?L∞
?
1 + ln+
?
|ω|α
?ω?L∞
??
where ω = ∇ × u.
The lemma is a standard fact about singular integral operators, and we provide
a proof in Appendix B for completeness.
Theorem 3.5. In 2 dimensions, the system (3.1)–(3.2) has time global solutions
provided the initial data u1
almost surely. In particular we have global solutions to (3.1)–(3.2) in two dimen-
sions, if u1
0= u0is deterministic, H¨ older 1 + α and periodic.
0,...uN
0is periodic, F0-measurable with ?ui
0?1,αbounded
0= ··· = uN
Proof. Taking the curl of (3.2) gives the familiar Cauchy formula [6,9,10]
(3.6)ωt=
1
N
N
?
i=1
?(∇Xi
t)ωi
0
?◦ Yi
t,
where ωt= ∇ × ut. In two dimensions reduces to
(3.7)ωt=
1
N
N
?
i=1
ωi
0◦ Yi
t.
Taking H¨ older norms gives
(3.8)?ωt?α?
c
N
N
?
i=1
??ωi
0
??
α(1 +??∇Yi??α
L∞) a.s.
Now differentiating (3.1) gives
∇Xi
t= I +
?t
0
(∇us◦ Xi
s)∇Xi
sdsa.s.
Taking the L∞norm, and applying Gronwall’s Lemma shows
??∇Xi
t
??
L∞ ? exp
?
c
?t
0
?∇us?L∞ ds
?
a.s.
Recall ∇ · u = 0, and hence det(∇Xi) = 1 almost surely. Thus the entries of ∇Y
are a polynomial (of degree 1) in the entries of ∇X. This immediately gives
??∇Yi
almost surely. Combining this with (3.8) gives us the apriori bound
N
?
Applying Lemma 3.4 gives us
?
?
N
i=1
(3.9)
t
??
L∞ ? exp
?
c
?t
0
?∇us?L∞ ds
?
(3.10)?ωt?α?
c
N
i=1
??ωi
0
??
αexp
?
c
?t
0
?∇us?L∞ ds
?
?∇u?L∞ ? c?ω?L∞
1 + ln+
?
?
|ω|α
?ω?L∞
??
|ω|α
? c?ω?L∞
1 + ln+
1
?N
??ωi
0
??
L∞
?
+ ln+
?
1
N
?N
i=1
?ω?L∞
??ωi
0
??
L∞
??
Page 8
8GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
Note that the function xln+ 1
bounded above by some constant c0. For the remainder of the proof, we let c0=
c0(?ωi
to line. Thus
?
xis bounded, so the last term on the right can be
0?α,α) denote a constant (with dimensions that of ω) which changes from line
?∇ut?L∞ ? c0+ c?ωt?L∞
1 + ln+
?
|ωt|α
1
N
?N
i=1
??ωi
0
??
L∞
??
? c0+ c?ωt?L∞
?
1 +
?t
0
?∇us?L∞ ds
?
and hence
?∇ut?L∞
?
1 +
?t
0
?∇us?L∞ ds
?−1
? c0+ c?ωt?L∞ .
Integrating gives us the apriori bound
?t
(3.11)
0
?∇ut?L∞ ? exp
?
c0t + c
?t
0
?ωt?L∞
?
− 1
? c0tec0t
since (3.7) implies ?ωt?L∞?
Now if we set ωi
1
N
??ωi
??
0?L∞.
t= ωi
0◦ Yi
t, then (3.9) and the apriori bound (3.11) gives
??ωi
α? c??ωi
t?1,α, which in conjunction with local existence (Proposition
3.1), and Lemma 3.3 concludes the proof.
(3.12)
t
α?
??ωi
??
0
??
αexp?c0tec0t?
If ui
tis as in Lemma 3.3, then (3.12) shows
(3.13)
??∇ui
gives a bound on ?ui
t
??
t
α? c?ω0?αexp?c0tec0t?.
Since the mean velocity is a conserved quantity, a bound on ?∇ui
t?αimmediately
?
4. Convergence as N → ∞
In this section, we fix a time interval [0,T], and show that the particle system
(2.5)–(2.6) converges to the solution to the Navier-Stokes equations as N → ∞.
The rate of convergence is O(
√N), which is comparable to the convergence rate of
the random vortex method [3,16]. As mentioned earlier, the system is intrinsically
non-local, and propagation of chaos [20] type estimates are not easy to obtain.
Consequently convergence results based on spatially averaged norms are easier to
obtain, and we present one such result in this section, under assumptions which are
immediately guaranteed by local existence.
1
Theorem 4.1. For each i,N, let Xi,N, uNbe a solution to the particle system
(2.5)–(2.6) with initial data u0 on some time interval [0,T]. Let u be a solution
to the Navier-Stokes equations (with the same initial data) on the interval [0,T].
Suppose U is such that
sup
t∈[0,T]?∇ut?L2 ?U
L
andsup
t∈[0,T]
???∇ui,N
??
t
???
L2?U
L
a.s.
Then (uN) → u in the following sense:
lim
N→∞
sup
t∈[0,T]
E??uN
t− ut
L2 = 0
Page 9
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES9
We remark that given C1,αinitial data, local existence (Proposition 3.1) guaran-
tees that the conditions of this theorem are satisfied on some small interval [0,T]. In
two dimensions, Theorem 3.5 shows that the conditions of this theorem are satisfied
on any interval finite [0,T].
The proof will follow almost immediately from the following Lemma.
Lemma 4.2. Let ui,N
ui,Nsatisfies the SPDE
t
= P[(∇∗Yi,N
t
)u0◦Yi,N
t
] be the ithsummand in (2.6). Then
(4.1) dui,N
t
+
?
(uN
t· ∇)ui,N
t
− ν△ui,N
t
+ (∇∗uN
t)ui,N
t
+ ∇pi,N
t
?
dt+
+
√2ν∇ui,N
t
dWi
t= 0
and uNsatisfies the SPDE
(4.2) duN
t+?(uN
t· ∇)uN
t− ν△uN
t+ ∇pN
t
?dt +
√2ν
N
N
?
i=1
∇ui,N
t
dWi
t= 0
Remark. We draw attention to the fact that the pressure term in (4.2) has bounded
variation in time.
Proof. We first recall a fact from [9,11] (see also [12]). If X is the stochastic flow
dXt= utdt +√2ν dWt
and Yt = X−1
t
is the spatial inverse. Then the process θt = f(Yt) satisfies the
SPDE
dθt+ (ut· ∇)θtdt − ν△θtdt +√2ν∇θtdWt= 0
This immediately shows that Yi,N
t
and vi,N
(4.3). For notational convenience, we momentarily drop the N as a superscript and
use the notation vi,jto denote the jthcomponent of vi.
Now we set wi
tand apply Itˆ o’s formula:
(4.3)
t
= u0◦ Yi,N
t
both satisfy the SPDE
t= (∇∗Yi
= d(∂jYi
t)vi
dwi,j
tt) · vi
t) ·?−(ut· ∇)vi
+ vi
−√2νvi
=?−(ut· ∇)wi
t+ (∂jYi
t) · dvi
t+ ν△vi
t− (ut· ∇)∂jYi
t·?∇∂jYi
t+ d
?
∂jYi,k
t
√2ν∂jYi
,vi,k
t
?
t·?∇vi
∂lvi,k
t
dt
?dt −
+ ∇qi,N
= (∂jYi
t
?dt −
tdWi
?dt−
t
?+
t·?−((∂jut) · ∇)Yi
t+ ν△∂jYi
t
tdWi
t
?+ 2ν∂2
jlYi,k
t
t+ ν△wi
t− (∇∗ut) · wi
t
√2ν∇wi
tdWi
t
Restoring the dependence on N to our notation, since ui,N= Pwi,Nwe know that
ui,N
t
= wi,N
tt
for some function qi,N
t
. Thus
dui,N
t
= dwi,N
t
+ d(∇qi,N
t· ∇)wi,N
−(uN
+
?
t
)
=
?
?
−(uN
t
+ ν△wi,N
+ ν△ui,N
t
− (∇∗uN
− (∇∗uN
) + ν△(∇qi,N
t)wi,N
t
?
dt −
dt −
t)(∇qi,N
√2ν∇wi,N
√2ν∇ui,N
t
dWi
t
=
t· ∇)ui,N
−(uN
ttt)ui,N
t
?
t
dWi
t+
t· ∇)(∇qi,N
tt
) − (∇∗uN
t
)
?
dt−
Page 10
10GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
−
√2ν∇(∇qi,N
by
t
)dWi
t+ d(∇qi,N
t
).
If we define Pi,N
t
Pi,N
t
=
?t
0
?(uN
s· ∇)qi,N
s
− ν△qi,N
s
?ds +
?t
0
√2ν∇qi,N
s
· dWi
s+ qi,N
t
then we have
(4.4) dui,N
t
+
?
(uN
t· ∇)ui,N
t
− ν△ui,N
t
+ (∇∗uN
t)ui,N
t
?
dt
+ d(∇Pi,N
t
) +
√2ν∇ui,N
t
dWi
t= 0.
Notice that ui,Nis divergence free by definition, and thus ∇ui,NdWiis also diver-
gence free. Thus d(∇Pi,N), the only other term with possibly non-zero quadratic
variation, must have a divergence free martingale part. Since the martingale part
of d(∇Pi,N) is also a gradient, it must be 0. Thus
d(∇Pi,N
for some function pi,N
t
, which proves (4.1).
The identity (4.2) now follows by summing (4.1) in i, dividing by N, and defining
pN
t by
t
) = ∇pi,N
t
dt
pN
t=1
2∇??uN
t
??2+1
N
N
?
i=1
pi,N
t
?
Proof of Theorem 4.1. Let u be a solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, with
initial data u0, and set vN= uN− u. Then vNsatisfies the SPDE
dvN
t+ (vN
t· ∇)utdt + (ut· ∇)vN
tdt − ν△vN
tdt + ∇(pN
t− pt)dt+
√2ν
N
i=1
+
N
?
∇ui,N
t
dWi
t= 0,
where p is the pressure in the Navier-Stokes equations, and pNthe pressure term
in (4.2).
Thus by Itˆ o’s formula,
1
2d??vN
t
??2
L2 +?vN
t,(vN
t· ∇)ut
?dt + ν??∇vN
+2ν
N
i=1
t
??2
t
L2 dt+
N
?
vN
t· (∇ui,N
dWi,k
t ) =
ν
N2
N
?
i=1
???∇ui,N
t
???
2
L2dt.
Here the notation (f,g) denotes the L2innerproduct of f and g. Taking expected
values gives us
1
2∂tE??vN
??2
concluding the proof.
t
??2
L2 ?U
LE??vN??2
L2 ?2νU2
L2Nte
L2 +νU2
NL2
and by Gronwall’s lemma we have
E??vN
t
Ut
L
?
Page 11
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES11
5. Convergence as t → ∞
In this section, we fix N, and consider the behaviour of the system (2.5)–(2.6)
as t → ∞. We show that the system (2.5)–(2.6) does not dissipate all its energy as
t → ∞. Roughly speaking we show
limsup
t→∞
with constants independent of viscosity. This is in contrast to the true (unforced)
Navier-Stokes equations, which dissipate all of its energy as t → ∞ (provided of
course the solutions are defined globally in time).
In general we are unable to compute exact asymptotic behaviour of the system
(2.5)–(2.6) as t → ∞. But in the special case of shear flows, we compute this
exactly, and show that the system eventually converges to a constant, retaining
exactly
Ntimes its initial energy.
For the remainder of this section, we pick a fixed N ∈ N and for notational conve-
nience we omit the superscript N. We begin by computing exactly the asymptotic
behaviour of the system (2.5)–(2.6) in the special case of shear flows.
E?∇ut?2
L2 ? O?1
N
?,
1
Proposition 5.1. Suppose the initial data u0(x) = (φ0(x2),0) for some C1,αpe-
riodic function φ. If u is the velocity field that solves the system (2.5)–(2.6) with
initial data u0, then
(5.1)lim
t→∞Eωt(x)2=
1
N?ω0?2
L2
where ω = ∇ × u is the vorticity.
Proof. Let Xi, Yibe the flows in the system (2.5)–(2.6), and as before define uito
be the ithsummand in (2.6), and ωi= ω0◦ Yi.
First note that the SPDE’s for uiand u (equations (4.1) and (4.2)) are all
translation invariant. Thus since the initial data is independent of x1, the same
must be true for all time. Since ui, u are divergence free, the second coordinate
must necessarily be 0, and the form of the initial data is preserved. Namely,
ut(x) = (φt(x2),0) andui
t(x) = (φi
t(x2),0)
for some C([0,∞),C1,α) periodic functions φi,φ.
Now the definition of Xishows that
Xi
t(y) =
?y1+ λi,1
t(y2)
y2+√2νWi,2
t
?
and hence
Yi
t(x) =
?x1+ µi,1
t(x2)
x2−√2νWi,2
t
?
.
Recall λi, µiare as in (3.4), (3.5), and here the notation λi,1to denotes the first
coordinate of λi. This immediately shows
ωi
t(x) = ω0◦ Yi
= −∂2φ0(x2−
t(x)
√2νWi,2
t )
where Wi,2again denotes the second coordinate of the Brownian motion Wi.
Page 12
12 GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
Now using standard mixing properties of Brownian motion [13, Section 1.3], (or
explicitly computing in this case) we know that for every x ∈ [0,L]2
(5.2)lim
t→∞E
and
?
= lim
t→∞
?
L2
= 0 (5.3)
t→∞Eωi
t(x)2= lim
?
−∂2φ0(x2−
√2νWi,2
t )
?2
= ?ω0?2
L2
lim
t→∞Eωi
t(x)ωj
t(x) = lim
t→∞E
∂2φ0(x2−
E∂2φ0(x2−√2νWi,2
√2νWi,2
t )∂2φ0(x2−
? ?
√2νWj,2
t )
?
t )
?
t )
E∂2φ0(x2−√2νWj,2
?
=
1
?
[0,L]2∂2φ0
?2
when i ?= j.
Now by two dimensional Cauchy formula (3.7)
ωt=
1
N
N
?
i=1
ω0◦ Yi
t.
(since in our case, ω1
0= ··· = ωN
1
N2
i=1
0= ω0). Thus
(5.4)
Eωt(x)2=
N
?
Eω0◦ Yi
t(x)2+
2
N2
N
?
i=2
i−1
?
j=1
Eω0◦ Yi
t(x)ω0◦ Yj
t(x)
and using (5.2) and (5.3) the proof is complete.
?
We remark that all we need for (5.1) to hold is the identities (5.2) and (5.3).
Equality (5.2) is guaranteed provided reasonable ergodic properties of the flow Xi
are known. Equality (5.3) is guaranteed provided the flows Xi
decorrelate.
While we are unable to guarantee these properties for a more general class of
flows, we conclude this section by proving a weaker version of (5.1) for two dimen-
sional flows with general initial data.
Theorem 5.2. Let Xi,u be a solution to the system (2.5)–(2.6) with (spatial)
mean zero initial data u0∈ C1,αand periodic boundary conditions. Suppose further
u ∈ C([0,∞),C1,α). Then
(5.5) limsup
t→∞
Note that the assumption u ∈ C([0,∞),C1,α) is satisfied in the two dimensional
situation with C1,αinitial data (Theorem 3.5). The proof we provide below will
also work in the three dimensional situation, as long as global existence and well-
posedness of (2.5)–(2.6) is known.
As is standard with the Navier-Stokes equations, the condition that u0is (spa-
tially) mean zero is not a restriction. By changing coordinates to a frame moving
with the mean of the initial velocity, we can arrange that the initial data (in the
new frame) has spatial mean 0.
Finally we remark that the lower bound in inequality (5.5) is sharp, since in the
special case of shear flows we have the equality (5.1). However we are unable to
obtain a bound on liminf E?∇ut?2
t
tand Xj
teventually
E?∇ut?2
L2 ?
1
NL2?u0?2
L2
L2.
Page 13
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES13
Proof of Theorem 5.2. As before let ui
and Itˆ o’s formula we have
t= P?(∇∗Yi
t)u0◦ Yi
t
?. Using Lemma 4.2
(5.6)
1
2d??ui??2+ ui·?(u · ∇)ui− ν△ui+ (∇∗u)ui+ ∇pi?dt+
Note that
?
Thus integrating (5.6) in space, and using the fact that uiis divergence free gives
+√2νui· (∇uidWi) = ν??∇ui??2dt
((∇u)ui) · ui=ui· ((∇∗u)ui) =
??
ui· (u · ∇)ui= 0
d??ui??2
L2 = 0
and hence ?ui
Now suppose that for some ε > 0, there exists t0such that for all t > t0
t?L2 = ?ui
0?L2 almost surely.
E?∇ut?2
L2 ?
1
NL2?u0?2
L2 − ε.
Using Itˆ o’s formula and (4.2) gives
1
2d|u|2+ u · [(u · ∇)u − ν△u + ∇p] dt +
√2ν
N
N
?
i=1
u · (∇uidWi)
=
ν
N2
N
?
i=1
??∇ui??2dt
Integrating in space, and taking expected values gives
1
2ν∂tE?ut?2
L2 = E
?
1
N2
N
?
i=1
??∇ui
N
?
?u0?2
t
??2
??2
L2 − E?∇ut?2
L2 − ?∇ut?2
L2
?
? E
?
1
N2L2
i=1
??ui
t
L2 − ?∇ut?2
L2
?
=
1
N2L2
N
?
i=1
L2
=
1
NL2?u0?2
? ε
L2 − E?∇ut?2
L2
for t ? t0. Here we used the Poincar´ e inequality to obtain the second inequality
above. Note that we have assumed that the initial data has (spatial) mean 0. Since
the (spatial) mean is conserved by the system (2.5)–(2.6), utalso has (spatial) mean
zero, and our application of the Poincar´ e inequality is valid.
Now, the above inequality immediately implies E?ut?2
as t → ∞. This is a contradiction because
?????
L2becomes arbitrarily large
?ut?L2 =
1
N
N
?
i=1
ui
t
?????
L2
?
1
N
N
?
i=1
??ui
t
??
L2 = ?u0?L2
holds almost surely.
?
Page 14
14GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
Appendix A. Local existence.
In this appendix we provide the proof of Proposition 3.1. A similar proof ap-
peared in [10] (see also [6]), and the proof provided here is based on similar ideas.
We present the proof here because we require local existence for C1,αinitial data
(the proof in [10] used C2,α), and to ensure that bounds and existence time therein
are independent of N.
Without loss, we assume t0= 0, and u1
a large constant and T a small time, both of which will be specified later.
Define U = U(T,U) be the set of all time continuous Ft-adapted C1,αvalued
divergence free and spatially periodic processes u such that
0, ..., uN
0to be F0measurable. Let U be
u0=
1
N
N
?
i=1
ui
0
and sup
t∈[0,T]
?ut?1,α? U
hold almost surely. Also, we define M = M(T) to be the set of all time continuous
Ft-adapted C1,αvalued spatially periodic processes µ such that
µ0= 0and sup
t∈[0,T]
hold almost surely.
Now given u ∈ U let Xi,ube the flow solving the SDE
dXi,u
t
= ut(Xi,u
with initial data Xi,u
?∇µt?α?1
2
t )dt +
√2ν dWi
t
0(y) = y. As before, define Yi,u
λi,u
µi,u
t
= (Xi,u
t )−1, and define
t (y) = Xi,u
t(x) = Yi,u
t (y) − y
(x) − x
t
to be the Eulerian and Lagrangian displacements respectively.
Finally define the (non-linear) operator W by
1
N
W(u)t=
N
?
i=1
P
??
∇∗Yi,u
t
? ?
ui
0◦ Yi,u
t
??
Clearly a fixed point of W will produce a solution to the system (3.1)–(3.2). Thus
the proof will be complete if we show that for an appropriate choice of T and U,
W maps U into itself, and is a contraction with respect to the weaker norm
?u?U= sup
t∈[0,T]?ut?α
We first show W maps U into itself, using the two lemmas below.
Lemma A.1. There exists c = c(α) such that
?W(u)?1,α? c
?
max
1?i?N
?1 +??∇µi,u??
α
?2+α?1
N
N
?
i=1
??ui
0
??
1,α
a.s.
Proof. First recall P vanishes on gradients. Thus
(A.1)
P[(∇∗Y )v] = −P[(∇∗v)Y ].
Now
∂iP[(∇∗Y )v] = P[(∇∗Y )∂iv + (∇∗∂iY )v]
Page 15
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES15
= P[(∇∗Y )∂iv − (∇∗v)∂iY ]
where we used (A.1) for the second term. Note that the right hand side involves only
first order derivatives. Since P is a standard Calder´ on-Zygmund singular integral
operator, which is bounded on H¨ older spaces, we obtain the estimate
?P[(∇∗Y )v]?1,α? c?∇∗Y ?α?v?1,α
for some constant c = c(α).
Applying this estimate to W, we have
(A.2) ?W(u)t?1,α?
c
N
N
?
i=1
???∇∗Yi,u
t
???
α
???ui
0◦ Yi,u
t
???
1,α
a.s.
from which the Lemma follows.
?
Lemma A.2. There exists T = T(U,α) such that λi,u,µi,u∈ M(T).
We note that the diffusion coefficient is spatially constant, and thus we get the
desired (almost sure) control on ∇λ. Since ∇ · u = 0, det(∇Xi,u) = 1, giving the
desired control on ∇µ. The details are standard, and we do not provide the them
here (see for instance [10,13]).
Now choosing U = c(3
Lemma A.1 shows that W maps U(U,T) into itself. Note that each summand on
the right of (A.2) is bounded by U, which will prove the bound (3.3). Further,
given a uniform (in i) bound on ?ui
of N.
It remains to show that W is a contraction. By definition of W we have
1
N
i=1
2)2+α 1
N
??ui
0?1,α, and then choosing T as in Lemma A.2,
0?1,α, our choice of U can be made independent
W(u)t− W(v)t=
N
?
N
?
+1
P
?
(∇∗Yi,u
t
)ui
0◦ Yi,u
t
− (∇∗Yi,v
t
)ui
0◦ Yi,v
t
?
=
1
N
i=1
P
?
(∇∗Yi,u
t
)
?
ui
0◦ Yi,u
t
− ui
0◦ Yi,v
t
??
+
N
N
?
?
N
?
i=1
P
??
∇∗Yi,u
t
− ∇∗Yi,v
t
?
ui
0◦ Yi,v
t
?
=
1
N
N
?
−1
i=1
P
(∇∗Yi,u
t
)
?
ui
0◦ Yi,u
t
− ui
0◦ Yi,v
t
??
−
N
i=1
P
?
∇∗(ui
0◦ Yi,v
t
)
?
Yi,u
t
− Yi,v
t
??
where we used the identity (A.1) to obtain the last equality. Now we recall that
µi,u,µi,v∈ M, and take Cαnorms. This gives
c
LN
i=1
Now from the definition of Yi,uand Yi,vwe have
?t
(A.3) ?W(u)t− W(v)t?α?
N
?
??ui
0
??
1,α
???Yi,u
t
− Yi,v
t
???
α
a.s.
Yi,u
t
− Yi,v
t
=
0
?us(Yi,u
s
) − vs(Yi,v
s )?ds.
Page 16
16 GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
Taking Cαnorms, and applying Gronwall’s inequality, and absorbing the exponen-
tial in time factor into the constant c gives
?t
Returning to (A.3) we have
???Yi,u
t
− Yi,v
t
???
α? c
0
?us− vs?αds a.s.
?W(u)t− W(v)t?α?ct
Lsup
s?t?us− vs?α
1
N
N
?
i=1
??ui
0
??
1,α
a.s.
Choosing t small enough one can ensure W is a contraction mapping. A standard
iteration now shows the existence of a fixed point of W, concluding the proof of
Proposition 3.1.
Appendix B. Logarithmic L∞bound on singular integral operators.
In this appendix we provide a proof of Lemma 3.4. We restate it here for the
readers convenience.
Lemma (3.4). If u is divergence free and periodic in Rd, then for any α ∈ (0,1),
there exists a constant c = c(α,d) such that
?∇u?L∞ ? c?ω?L∞
?
1 + ln+
?
|ω|α
?ω?L∞
??
where ω = ∇ × u.
Proof. Let K be a standard Calder´ on-Zygmund periodic kernel, and we define the
operator T by
Tf = K ∗ f
then we will prove that
(B.1)?Tf?L∞ ? c?f?L∞
?
1 + ln+
?
|f|α
?f?L∞
??
This immediately implies Lemma 3.4 because we know ∇u = −∇(△−1)∇×ω, and
−∇(△−1)∇× is a Calder´ on-Zygmund type singular integral operator.
Now we prove (B.1). We assume for convenience that all functions are periodic
on the cube [0,1]d. We also recall that the kernel K satisfies the properties
(1) K(y) ? c|y|−dwhen |y| ?1
(2)
?
Pick any ε ∈ (0,1
?
?
Using property 1 about K, we bound the second integral by
?????
2.
|y|=rK(y)dσ(y) = 0 for any r ∈ (0,1
2). Then
2).
Tf(x) =
[0,1]dK(y)f(x − y)dy
?
|y|<ε
K(y)f(x − y)dy +
?
|y|?ε
K(y)f(x − y)dy(B.2)
?
|y|?ε
K(y)f(x − y)dy
?????? c?f?L∞
?1
r=ε
1
rdrd−1dr
? c?f?L∞ ln?1
ε
?
Page 17
A STOCHASTIC-LAGRANGIAN PARTICLE SYSTEM FOR NAVIER-STOKES17
Using property 2 about K, we bound the first integral in (B.2) by
?????
?
|y|<ε
K(y)f(x − y)dy
?????=
? c|f|α
= c|f|αεα
?????
?
|y|<ε
K(y)(f(x − y) − f(x))dy
?????
?
|y|<ε
|y|α−ddy
Combining estimates we have
?Tf?L∞ ? c?εα|f|α+ ?f?L∞ ln?1
?
ε
??
Choosing
ε = min
1
2,
??f?L∞
|f|α
?1/α?
finishes the proof.
?
References
[1]J. T. Beale, T. Kato, and A. Majda, Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the
3-D Euler equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 94 (1984), no. 1, 61–66.
P. Br´ emaud, Markov chains, Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol. 31, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1999. Gibbs fields, Monte Carlo simulation, and queues.
A. J. Chorin, Numerical study of slightly viscous flow, J. Fluid Mech. 57 (1973), no. 4,
785–796.
A. J. Chorin and J. E. Marsden, A mathematical introduction to fluid mechanics, 3rd ed.,
Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol. 4, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
P. Constantin and C. Foias, Navier-Stokes equations, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1988.
P. Constantin, An Eulerian-Lagrangian approach for incompressible fluids: local theory, J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), no. 2, 263–278 (electronic).
P. Constantin, Some open problems and research directions in the mathematical study of fluid
dynamics, Mathematics unlimited—2001 and beyond, Springer, Berlin, 2001, pp. 353–360.
C. L. Fefferman, Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation, The millennium
prize problems, Clay Math. Inst., Cambridge, MA, 2006, pp. 57–67.
P. Constantin and G. Iyer, A stochastic Lagrangian representation of the 3-dimensional in-
compressible Navier-Stokes equations., Comm. Pure Appl. Math. (2006), To appear, available
at arXiv:math.PR/0511067.
[10] G. Iyer, A stochastic perturbation of inviscid flows, Comm. Math. Phys. 266 (2006), no. 3,
631–645, available at arXiv:math.AP/0505066.
[11] G. Iyer, A stochastic Lagrangian formulation of the Navier-Stokes and related transport
equations., Ph. D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 2006.
[12] N. V. Krylov and B. L. Rozovski˘ ı, Stochastic partial differential equations and diffusion
processes, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 37 (1982), no. 6(228), 75–95 (Russian).
[13] H. Kunita, Stochastic flows and stochastic differential equations, Cambridge Studies in Ad-
vanced Mathematics, vol. 24, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. Reprint of the
1990 original.
[14] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya, The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flow, Second Eng-
lish edition, revised and enlarged. Translated from the Russian by Richard A. Silverman and
John Chu. Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 2, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers,
New York, 1969.
[15] H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics, 6th ed., Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1993. With a foreword by R. A. Caflisch [Russel E. Caflisch].
[16] D.-G. Long, Convergence of the random vortex method in two dimensions, J. Amer. Math.
Soc. 1 (1988), no. 4, 779–804.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Page 18
18GAUTAM IYER AND JONATHAN MATTINGLY
[17] N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, The Monte Carlo method, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 44 (1949),
335–341.
[18] J. Pedlosky, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1982.
[19] C. P. Robert and G. Casella, Monte Carlo statistical methods, 2nd ed., Springer Texts in
Statistics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004.
[20] A.-S. Sznitman, Topics in propagation of chaos,´Ecole d’´Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour
XIX—1989, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1464, Springer, Berlin, 1991, pp. 165–251.
Department of Mathematics, Stanford University
E-mail address: gi1242@stanford.edu
Department of Mathematics, Duke University
E-mail address: jonm@math.duke.edu
Download full-text