Obstruction to Navier-Stokes blowup with cylindrical symmetry
$begingroup$
Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?
EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.
Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.
ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?
EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.
Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.
ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?
EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.
Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.
ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
$endgroup$
Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?
EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.
Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.
ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes
ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
edited Jan 1 at 10:06
Jean Duchon
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37
Jean DuchonJean Duchon
2,690415
2,690415
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...
But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrt{x^2+y^2}<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.
To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.
By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319826%2fobstruction-to-navier-stokes-blowup-with-cylindrical-symmetry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...
But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrt{x^2+y^2}<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.
To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.
By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...
But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrt{x^2+y^2}<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.
To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.
By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...
But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrt{x^2+y^2}<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.
To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.
By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
$endgroup$
You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...
But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrt{x^2+y^2}<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.
To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.
By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31
Denis SerreDenis Serre
29.3k794196
29.3k794196
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.
$endgroup$
– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
$begingroup$
@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.
$endgroup$
– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319826%2fobstruction-to-navier-stokes-blowup-with-cylindrical-symmetry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]
$endgroup$
– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44