text:
# Basis Generator for M-Scheme SU(3) Shell Model Calculations

## 1 Introduction

Successful models for describing energy spectra, transition strengths and other nuclear phenomena usually work well in one region of a shell but not in others. For example, the random phase approximation (RPA)  is a reasonable theory for describing properties of nuclei near closed shells but fails in mid-shell regions where deformation is the most characteristic feature due to the importance of the quadruple-quadrupole ($`QQ`$) interaction  in this domain. For near mid-shell nuclei, algebraic models based on $`SU(3)`$  work best since the basis states are then eigenstates of $`QQ`$.

Applications of a nuclear shell-model theory always involve three considerations :

* Step 1: Selection of a model space based on a simplified Hamiltonian. Frequently used approximations include the Simple Harmonic Oscillator Hamiltonian for near closed-shell nuclei and a Nilsson Hamiltonian for deformed systems.
* Step 2: Diagonalization of a realistic Hamiltonian in the model space to obtain the energy spectrum and eigenstates of the system under consideration. Important components of a realistic Hamiltonian include the $`QQ`$ and pairing ($`P`$) interactions as well as single-particle $`ll`$ and $`ls`$ terms.
* Step 3: Evaluation of electromagnetic transition strengths (E2, M1, etc.) between calculated eigenstates and a comparison with the available experimental data.

If the model Hamiltonian includes free parameters, for example, single-particle energies and/or the strength of the $`QQ`$ and $`P`$ interactions, the procedure is repeated to obtain a best overall fit to the experiment data.

The easiest to use of modern shell-model codes are based on the so-called M-scheme logic, namely, model spaces spanned by many-particle configurations (Slater determinants) with good projection of the total angular momentum . Good total angular momentum, which is a conserved symmetry due to the isotropy of space, is obtained by angular momentum projection. Codes of this type normally yield a good description of the single-particle nuclear phenomena; unfortunately, an equally good description of collective phenomena within the framework of such a theory is very difficult to achieve. On other hand, an $`SU(3)`$ based shell-model scheme is designed to give a simple interpretation of collective phenomena. An ideal scenario would incorporate both, allowing the Hamiltonian of the system to “choose” which one of the two (or an admixture) is most appropriate.

A project, code named Red Stick for Baton Rouge, is now under development at Louisiana State University. Principal authors are Jerry Draayer, Erich Ormand, Calvin Johnson, and Vesselin Gueorguiev. The goal of the project is to develop a new M-scheme shell-model code that allows the user to include $`SU(3)`$ symmetry-adapted basis states in addition to (the usual) single-particle based configurations.

In this paper we discuss the first stage of the Red Stick project – a basis generator for $`M`$-scheme $`SU(3)`$ shell-model configurations. We begin with a review of $`SU(3)`$ shell-model basics . Then we introduce an appropriate single-particle level scheme and give matrix elements of the generators of $`SU(3)`$ in that representation. Next we consider the structure of the Highest Weight State (HWS) of an $`SU(3)`$ irrep, and especially the HWS of so-called leading $`SU(3)`$ irreps. Once a HWS is known, we then go on to show how all states of that irrep can be constructed using $`SU(3)`$ step operators . States with good projection of the total angular momentum $`M_J`$ are obtained by considering the direct product $`SU(3)SU_S(2)`$. Some information about the FORTRAN code that uses these techniques will also be presented.

### 1.1 $`SU(3)`$ Basics

In this section we review group theoretical concepts that are important to the development of the theory and introduce $`SU(3)`$ conventions adopted in our discussion. We also consider the physical reduction $`SU(3)SO(3)`$ and the canonical reduction $`SU(3)U(1)SU(2)`$ with their respective labels.

First consider the so-called physical reduction $`SU(3)SO(3)`$, which yields a convenient labeling scheme for the generators of $`SU(3)`$ in terms of $`SO(3)`$ tensor operators. The commutation relations for these $`SU(3)SO(3)`$ tensor operators are given in terms of ordinary $`SO(3)`$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGC) :

$`[L_m,L_m^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(1m,1m^{}|1m+m^{})L_{m+m^{}}`$
$`[Q_m,L_m^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6}(2m,1m^{}|2m+m^{})Q_{m+m^{}}`$ (1)
$`[Q_m,Q_m^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{10}(2m,2m^{}|1m+m^{})L_{m+m^{}}`$
Within this reduction scheme, states of an $`SU(3)`$ irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ have the following labels:

* $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$$`SU(3)`$ irrep labels;
* $`l`$ – total orbital angular momentum, which corresponds to the second order Casimir operator of $`SO(3)`$;
* $`m_l`$ – projection of the angular momentum along the laboratory $`z`$-axis;
* $`k`$ – projection of the angular momentum in a body-fixed frame, which is related to multiple occurrences of $`SO(3)`$ irreps with angular momentum $`l`$ in the $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ irrep.

Unfortunately, this scheme has only one additive label, namely $`m_l`$, and in addition, there are technical difficulties associated with handling the $`k`$ label.

The labeling scheme for this project is the canonical reduction $`SU(3)U(1)SU(2)`$ where $`Q_0`$ is the $`U(1)`$ generator and the $`SU(2)`$ generators are proportional to $`L_0`$, $`Q_{+2}`$, and $`Q_2`$ . Under the action of the generators of these $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ groups, the remaining four generators of $`SU(3)`$ transform as two conjugate spin $`[\frac{1}{2}]`$ $`SU(2)`$ tensors with $`\epsilon =\pm 3`$ values for $`Q_0`$. For this scheme, states of a given $`SU(3)`$ irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ have the following labels:

* $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$$`SU(3)`$ irrep labels,
* $`\epsilon `$ – quadruple moment ($`Q_0`$),
* $`m_l`$ – projection of the orbital angular momentum ($`L_0`$),
* $`n_\rho `$ – related to the second order Casimir operator of $`SU(2)`$, which for symmetric $`(\lambda ,0)`$ irreps is simply the number of oscillator quanta in the $`(x,y)`$ plane.

This canonical reduction, $`SU(3)U(1)SU(2)`$, has two additive labels, $`\epsilon `$ ($`Q_0`$) and $`m_l`$ ($`L_0`$) and the allowed values of these labels for fixed $`SU(3)`$ irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ are given by :

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda +\mu 3(p+q)`$ (2)
$`n_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mu +(pq)`$
$`m_l`$ $`=`$ $`n_\rho 2m`$
where $`0p\lambda `$ , $`0q\mu `$ , and $`0mn_\rho .`$

## 2 Basis State Generation

The algorithm we use to generate $`SU(3)`$ symmetry adapted states with good projection of the total angular momentum is described in this section. It consists of four basic components: 1) definition of the single-particle levels and matrix elements of the $`SU(3)`$ generators for a given shell; 2) generation of the HWS of $`SU(3)SU_S(2)`$ for given number of fermions $`N`$ and spin $`S`$; 3) generation of the other $`SU(3)`$ states by applying step operators to the HWS; and 4) generation of states of good total angular momentum projection, $`M_J`$. This will be followed by a short discussion of a FORTRAN code that uses the algorithm.

### 2.1 Single-particle Levels – Ordering Scheme

Single-particle levels of the $`\eta =0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ $`(s,p,sd,\mathrm{})`$ harmonic oscillator shell belong to the symmetric $`(\eta ,0)`$ irrep of $`SU(3)`$. Because $`\mu =0`$, a typical three-dimensional representation of $`SU(3)`$ basis states, Fig.1, reduces to a special two-dimensional triangular shape ($`\epsilon `$ and $`n_\rho `$ become linearly dependent), Fig.2. Also, because $`SU(3)`$ is a compact group its irreps are finite dimensional and many-particle (fermion) configurations can be conveniently represented as binary strings with a $`1`$ or $`0`$ representing the presence or absence of a particle in the corresponding single-particle level. (The latter, together with a “sign rule” to accommodate fermion statistics, is a convenient computer native implementation of a Slater determinant representation of the basis states.)

A convenient ordering scheme (which tracks the arrows in Fig.2) is set by requiring a simple representation of many-particle configurations with maximum quadruple deformation. This objective can be achieved if the states are ordered by $`\epsilon `$ (quadruple moment) first and then by $`m_l`$ (projection of the total angular momentum).

### 2.2 Action of $`SU(3)`$ Generators on Single-particle States

To be able to apply the $`SU(3)`$ generators on many-particle configurations it suffices to know the action of these generators on the single-particle states. The eight generators of $`SU(3)`$ belong to the self-adjoint $`(1,1)`$ irrep of $`SU(3)`$. The operator structure should be chosen in the most convenient form for the application under consideration. For the present application, this choice is the same as used for the basis states, namely, the $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ reduction. The matrix elements of the $`SU(3)`$ generators can be obtained either by using an application of the appropriate Wigner-Eckert theorem or by using explicit expressions  for determining the action of the operators on the basis states. For computational purposes it is better to adopt a direct solution, one that exploits the fact that the action is on a product of single-particle levels each of which belongs to a symmetric $`(\eta ,0)`$ irrep of $`SU(3)`$. This allows the matrix elements of the $`SU(3)`$ generators to be calculated using properties of the $`SU(2)`$ only (Fig.3).

A key feature is the fact that the six non-diagonal generators of $`SU(3)`$ (recall that $`L_0`$ and $`Q_0`$ are diagonal) are rising or lowering generators of $`SU(2)`$ subgroups of $`SU(3)`$. The three $`SU(2)`$ subgroups and their respective actions are shown in Fig. 3. States that are collinear with one of the sides of the triangular shape shown on the right in the figure form an irrep of the corresponding $`SU(2)`$ subgroup.

### 2.3 Highest Weight States of $`SU(3)SU_S(2)`$ for Leading Irreps

So far we have constructed single-particle states and evaluated matrix elements of the generators of $`SU(3)`$ when they act on these states. The next step is to construct many-particle HWS of $`SU(3)SU_S(2)`$. In the chosen scheme there are seven extreme states which correspond to the vertexes of the three-dimensional diagram (Fig.1) of a general $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ irrep. We are particularly interested in the vertex that has the maximum value for the quadruple moment of the system (Fig.1). Our HWS is the state with $`\epsilon =2\lambda +\mu `$, $`n_\rho =\mu `$, and $`m_l=\mu `$. This HWS (maximum value of $`m_l`$ for maximum $`\epsilon `$) can be easily constructed by ensuring that the action of the $`SU(3)`$ rising generators annihilate it. Indeed, for such a HWS the values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ can be determined from its $`\epsilon `$ and $`m_l`$ labels.

Selecting the leading $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ irrep (HWS with maximum overall value of $`\epsilon `$) out of all possible irreps of an $`N`$ fermion system with total system spin $`S`$ is very simple within the chosen scheme. This is because the number of particles with spin up $`n_{}`$ and spin down $`n_{}`$ is uniquely determined by the solution of two linear equations:

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`n_{}+n_{}`$
$`2S`$ $`=`$ $`n_{}n_{}.`$
Where the second equation expresses the fact that we also require the state to be highest weight with respect to $`SU_S(2)`$. Further, maximizing the value of $`Q_0`$ is achieved by filling the single-particle states of the $`(\eta ,0)`$ irrep (Fig.2) from bottom to top. The chosen scheme ensures that this simple procedure gives maximum values for $`\epsilon `$ and $`m_l`$. The $`SU(3)`$ irrep labels $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ are obtained by evaluating the quadruple moment $`Q_0`$ and projection of the angular momentum $`L_0`$, as these are additive quantum numbers.

For example, in the $`sd`$–shell, there are six single-particle levels corresponding to the $`(2,0)`$ irrep of $`SU(3)`$. The HWS of the leading irrep for $`N=6`$ particles and total system spin $`S=1`$ is $`(3,3)`$ (Fig.4), whereas for $`S=0`$ the leading $`SU(3)`$ irrep is $`(6,0)`$ (Fig.5). These many-particle configurations are HWS with respect to $`SU(3)`$ as well as $`SU_S(2)`$.

### 2.4 Generating $`SU(3)`$ States with Step Operators

Once we have the HWS of $`SU(3)`$ $``$ $`SU_S(2)`$, we can generate any other state of the $`SU(3)`$ irrep $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ by applying step operators similar to those given by Hecht. By using the parameterization (2) , we can identify the corresponding step operators, Fig. 6.

It is important to note that applying $`p`$–move or $`q`$–move step operators to states on the top surface yields other states (or zero) on that same surface. Since the states on the top surface are HWS with respect to $`SU(2)`$ in the $`SU(3)`$ $``$ $`SU(2)U(1)`$ reduction, the $`m`$–move step operator is an $`SU(2)`$ lowering operator which changes the projection of the angular momentum, $`m_l`$. The $`p`$–move and $`q`$–move step operators can be obtained by imposing the restriction that they generate only transformations within the $`SU(2)`$ HWS space. From an algebraic perspective, the $`p`$–move and the $`m`$–move operators are linear in $`SU(3)`$ generators while the $`q`$–move operator is quadratic. Nevertheless, the state generation process can be written in such a way that the $`q`$–move operator effectively reduces to a linear action. These step operators can also be obtained by a projection operator technique .

### 2.5 Generating States of Good $`M_J`$ by Lowering the Spin

Since the action of $`SU(3)`$ commutes with that of the spin, $`SU_S(2)`$, it is not difficult to achieve the final goal of states with good total angular momentum projection, $`M_J`$. Recall that we started with the HWS of $`SU(3)`$ $``$ $`SU_S(2)`$. We then introduced a procedure to generate other states of the $`SU(3)`$ irrep by applying step operators. Each of these states remains a HWS of $`SU_S(2)`$. By applying spin lowering operators to $`SU(3)`$ states with $`m_l=M_Jm_s`$, we can generate states with labels: $`N`$, $`S`$ , $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$, $`\epsilon `$, $`n_\rho `$, $`m_l`$, and $`M_J`$.

### 2.6 About the FORTRAN code

A FORTRAN code that uses the above algorithm was run on three platforms: Macintosh IIci, Power Macintosh 8500, and SUN workstation. Here we give some of the run-time characteristics of the code for shells below the $`sdg`$–shell:

* On a $`50`$ MHz Macintosh IIci with math co-processor, $`3`$ Mb of memory suffices and the longest run time for generating all states of any leading $`SU(3)`$ irrep was less than $`5`$ min.
* On a $`200`$ MHz Power Macintosh $`8500`$, $`4`$ Mb of memory was sufficient and the longest run time for generating all states of any leading $`SU(3)`$ irrep was less than $`30`$ sec.
* On a $`200`$ MHz SUN workstation the longest run time for generating all states of any leading $`SU(3)`$ irrep was less than $`15`$ sec. All states with good $`M_J`$ for any leading irrep of $`SU(3)`$ $``$ $`SU_S(2)`$ for the $`p,sd,`$ and $`pf`$ shells can be generated in less than $`20`$ min.

Beyond the $`pf`$–shell ($`\eta 4`$), the number of configurations in a single $`SU(3)`$ state may exceed $`100,000`$. The storage requirement must be pushed up accordingly. More storage is also needed because beyond the $`sdg`$–shell the number of single-particle states exceed $`16`$ ($`32`$ with the spin degree of freedom) which means more than a single word is required to represent many-particle configurations.

## 3 Summary and Discussion

An $`SU(3)`$ basis state generator for producing states with good projection of the total angular momentum, $`M_J`$, and therefore one that is suitable for integration into modern $`M`$-scheme shell-model codes, is suggested as a possible way to obtain simultaneously a description of collective and single-particle nuclear phenomena. Indeed, a basis state generator that uses the algorithm described above and generates $`SU(3)`$ states as a sum of Slater determinants (many-particle configurations) with good $`M_J`$ is available. The basis state generation procedure consists of four main components as follows:

* Symmetric irreps of $`SU(3)`$ are chosen as single-particle shell-model states,
* many-particle state is constructed as HWS of $`SU(3)`$ $``$ $`SU_S(2)`$,
* $`SU(3)`$ step operators are applied to obtain other states within an $`SU(3)`$ irrep,
* and finally, states with good $`M_J`$ are then obtained by $`SU_S(2)`$ lowering operators.

There are additional things that need to be done, especially the generation of other then leading irreps of $`SU(3)`$. This can be achieved by employing an algorithm for generating non-leading HWS that is part of an $`SU(3)`$ reduced matrix element package  or perhaps by using another more direct approach tailored to the present application. The generation of other HWS is important if one wishes to include states that are not maximally deformed in their intrinsic configuration in a calculation. For example, these will be important if the non-$`QQ`$ parts of the interaction play a significant role.

The generation of good proton-neutron $`SU(3)`$ and $`M_J`$ states can be achieved in a variety of ways. One scheme, the so-called strong coupling limit uses standard $`SU(3)`$ coupling procedures to couple the proton and neutron irreps to final irreps: proton states, $`|N^\pi `$ $`S^\pi `$ $`(\lambda ^\pi ,\mu ^\pi )`$ $`\epsilon ^\pi ,n_\rho ^\pi ,m_l^\pi ,M_J^\pi >`$, are coupled with neutron states, $`|N^\nu `$ $`S^\nu `$ $`(\lambda ^\nu ,\mu ^\nu )`$ $`\epsilon ^\nu ,n_\rho ^\nu ,m_l^\nu ,M_J^\nu >`$, to final states $`|N`$ $`S`$ $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`\epsilon ,n_\rho ,m_l,M_J>`$. Another procedure would be to extend what was done here for $`SU_S(2)`$ to $`SU(4)`$ reduced with respect to $`SU_S(2)`$ $``$ $`SU_T(2)`$, the supermultiplet scheme. The latter is not simple because the $`SU(4)`$ HWS is not the one of primary interest in nuclear physics and therefore it must be reduced, which requires procedures like those developed here for a non-canonical reduction of $`SU(4)`$.

The underlying goal is to be able to carry out shell-model calculations using $`M`$-scheme techniques with $`SU(3)`$ symmetry adapted basis states included in the basis. The $`SU(3)`$ basis state generator described here provides good start in that direction, and therefore the beginning of an symmetry adapted $`M`$-scheme code that is an integral part of our Red Stick shell-model project.


format: text

text:
# Nonlinear magnetic diffusion and magnetic helicity transport in galactic dynamos

## 1 Introduction

Spiral galaxies possess large-scale magnetic fields whose spatial scale is comparable with galactic radii (see for review Beck et al., 1996). Galactic magnetic fields mainly lie in the galactic plane and the corresponding magnetic lines are usually roughly of spiral form. This form can be substantially distorted in the presence of strong noncircular motions, e.g. in barred galaxies, see Beck et al. (1999, 2002), Moss et al.(2001).

Galactic magnetic fields are believed to originate in a galactic dynamo, driven by the joint action of the mean hydrodynamic helicity of interstellar turbulence and differential rotation. The linear stage of galactic dynamo action seems now to be well-understood, see, e.g., Ruzmaikin et al. (1988). The conventional approach to the nonlinear stage of the galactic dynamo is based on comparison of the relative intensity of three quantities participating in dynamo action, namely the differential rotation $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, turbulent diffusivity $`\eta _T`$ and $`\alpha `$-effect, each of which can be associated with a typical velocity: $`200`$ km s-1, $`10`$ km s-1 and $`1`$ km s-1 respectively. Because the typical velocity associated with $`\alpha `$ is the smallest, the mean hydrodynamic helicity is believed to be the weakest part of the self-excitation chain, and a scenario of nonlinear dynamo limitation via $`\alpha `$-quenching is the most commonly adopted.

A simple version of $`\alpha `$-quenching prescribes the mean hydrodynamic helicity to be a decreasing function of mean magnetic field strength $`𝐁`$. The critical magnetic field strength $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, at which quenching becomes significant, is estimated conventionally from equipartition with the kinetic energy of interstellar turbulence, $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}^24\pi \rho v_t^2`$. When applied to specific galaxies, this picture results in robust magnetic field models which are compatible with observations. However the picture is obviously oversimplified and various attempts to suggest a more developed version of nonlinear galactic dynamo theory have been undertaken by several authors. In particular, Vainstein and Cattaneo (1992) and Gruzinov and Diamond (1995) have claimed that in fact $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is much lower then the equipartition value, e.g. $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}=B_{\mathrm{eq}}Rm^{1/2}`$, where $`Rm`$ is the magnetic Reynolds number. In galaxies, magnetic Reynolds numbers are very large, $`Rm10^6`$ even if the ambipolar diffusivity coefficient is used, so it was claimed that dynamo action saturates at a magnetic field strength that is much lower than both the equipartition value, and also the large-scale field strengths observed in nearby spiral galaxies. This result follows from investigations that accept the idea of magnetic helicity conservation. The galactic dynamo produces a large-scale magnetic field with nonvanishing magnetic helicity, and when considering detailed magnetic helicity conservation in a given volume, the above ‘catastrophic’ estimate for $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ results.

The evolution of magnetic helicity appears however to be a more complicated process than can simply be described by a balance of magnetic helicity in a given volume, and it is necessary to take into account, as for the evolution of other conserved quantities, transport by the fluid flows including turbulent transport of magnetic helicity through the galactic boundaries and the destruction of mean magnetic helicity by turbulent diffusion. The governing equation for magnetic helicity was suggested by Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin (1982; see also the discussion by Zeldovich et al. 1983) for an isotropic turbulence, and investigated by Kleeorin et al. (1995) for stellar dynamos, and self-consistently derived by Kleeorin & Rogachevskii (1999) for an arbitrary anisotropic turbulence. A quantitative model for the flux of magnetic helicity was proposed by Kleeorin & Rogachevskii (1999) and Kleeorin et al. (2000). Note that Schmalz & Stix (1991), Covas et al. (1998) and Blackman & Brandenburg (2002) have also investigated related solar dynamo models that included a dynamical equation describing the evolution of magnetic helicity. Magnetic helicity transport through the boundary of a dynamo region is reported by Chae (2001) to be observable at the solar surface. The role of a flux of magnetic helicity in the dynamics of the mean magnetic field in accretion discs was also discussed by Vishniac & Cho (2001).

The equation governing the magnetic helicity is much more complex than the conventional parametrization used to represent $`\alpha `$-quenching. Kleeorin et al. (2000) suggested that a nonlinear galactic dynamo governed by a consistently derived equation for magnetic helicity results in a steady magnetic field comparable with the equipartition magnetic field estimate, and Kleeorin et al. (2002) demonstrated that a detailed galactic dynamo model based on the equation under discussion gives results very similar to one based on conventional $`\alpha `$-quenching. In other words, the real physical description of the nonlinear stage of galactic dynamo is quite complicated but, if we are interested in pragmatic results only, an adequate description can be found by using only a conventional $`\alpha `$-quenching.

We stress that the scenario of Kleeorin et al. (2000, 2002) does not include all possible types of nonlinear processes which can occur at the nonlinear dynamo stage (see, e.g., Brandenburg & Subramanian 2000; Brandenburg & Dobler 2001), but rather is restricted by a minimal number of processes involved in the magnetic helicity conservation. In particular, we consider transport of mean helicity of small-scale magnetic field only and note that this helicity may be transported out of the galactic disc without significant losses of large-scale magnetic field. Moreover, this picture is formulated in terms of mean-field electrodynamics, which gives a natural constraint on the description of small-scale details. When attention is focussed on these details (e.g. Brandenburg & Sokoloff 2002; Blackman & Brandenburg 2002), the mean-field description should be considered as a parametrization of the turbulence.

In the spirit of the basic ideas about the nonlinear saturation of galactic dynamos, the analysis presented by Kleeorin et al. (2000, 2002) was restricted to the evolution of $`\alpha `$ only, while a detailed simulation (e.g. Brandenburg & Sokoloff 2002) also demonstrates a quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusivity. A quantitative model for a nonlinear quenching of turbulent magnetic diffusivity has been recently suggested by Rogachevskii & Kleeorin (2001).

The aim of the present paper is to include a turbulent magnetic diffusivity quenching into the mean-field dynamo equations. This effect is expected to be quite modest. Speaking pragmatically, we do not know the turbulent magnetic diffusivity of interstellar turbulence well enough to recognize its saturation, by some dozens of percent. However, our analysis below demonstrates that the problem is not restricted by some specific variation of magnetic diffusivity coefficient. Because of nonlinear effects, the turbulent magnetic diffusion coefficients for the two basic magnetic field components, i.e. poloidal and toroidal, become different (see Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2001). Since spatial magnetic field distribution is nonuniform, a nonuniform magnetic diffusivity saturation arises, that results in new terms in the dynamo equations governing the nonlinear magnetic field evolution. In general, the situation appears to be less trivial then might be thought initially, and a quantitative analysis of a specific dynamo model becomes desirable. Below we present results of the corresponding analysis and numerical simulations.

## 2 The mean-field equations

The mean-field dynamo equation (e.g. Krause & Rädler 1980) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}=\times (V\times B+\eta \times ),`$ (1)
where $`𝐕`$ is a mean velocity (e.g., the differential rotation), $`\eta `$ is the magnetic diffusion due to the electrical conductivity of fluid together with ambipolar diffusion, $`=𝐮\times 𝐛`$ is the mean electromotive force, $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐛`$ are fluctuations of the velocity and magnetic field, respectively, angular brackets denote averaging over an ensemble of fluctuations. When a small-scale background turbulence (i.e. turbulence with a zero mean magnetic field) is isotropic and the energy of small-scale magnetic fluctuations of the background turbulence is much smaller than that of the kinetic energy, the mean electromotive force is given by

$`_i=\alpha _{ij}(B)B_j+(V^{\mathrm{eff}}(B)\times B)_i\eta _{ij}(B)(\times B)_j,`$ (2)
where

$`\eta _{ij}(B)`$ $`=`$ $`[\eta _A(B)\eta _\beta (B)]\delta _{ij}+\eta _\beta (B)B_{ij},`$ (3)
$`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _V(B){\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{B^2}},`$ (4)
(see Rogachevskii & Kleeorin, 2001), $`B_{ij}=B_iB_j/B^2,`$ $`\alpha _{ij}(B)=\alpha (B)\delta _{ij},`$ $`\eta _V(B)=\eta _A(B)\eta _B(B)\eta _\beta (B)`$ and $`\alpha (B)`$, $`\eta _A(B),`$ $`\eta _B(B)`$, $`\eta _\beta (B)`$ are determined by Eqs. (8), (11), (12) and (14), respectively.

### 2.1 The local thin-disc dynamo problem

We begin by considering the simplest local disc dynamo problem. Using cylindrical polar coordinates $`r,\varphi ,z`$, from Eqs. (1)-(4) we obtain the equations for the mean radial field $`B_r=R_\alpha b_r`$ and toroidal field $`B_\varphi `$ for the local thin-disc axisymmetric $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$-dynamo problem as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_r}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha (B)B_\varphi )^{}+(\eta _A(B)b_r^{})^{}(V_A(B)b_r)^{},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_\varphi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`Db_r+(\eta _B(B)B_\varphi ^{})^{}`$ (6)
(Ruzmaikin et al. 1988, Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2001). Here a prime denotes $`/z,`$ $`\alpha (B)`$ is the total nonlinear $`\alpha `$ effect, $`\eta _A(B)`$ and $`\eta _B(B)`$ are the nonlinear turbulent magnetic diffusion coefficients of poloidal and toroidal mean magnetic fields, and the nonlinear function $`V_A(B)[\eta _A(B)\eta _B(B)](\mathrm{ln}B)^{}`$, with $`B=|B|.`$ These nonlinearities are specified and discussed in the next Section.

We adopt here the standard dimensionless form of the galactic dynamo equations from Ruzmaikin et al. (1988); in particular, length is measured in units of the disc thickness $`h`$, time in units of $`h^2/\eta _T`$ and $`B`$ is measured in units of the equipartition energy $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}=\sqrt{4\pi \rho }u_{}`$, $`\alpha `$ is measured in units of $`\alpha _{}`$ (the maximum value of the hydrodynamic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect), the nonlinear turbulent magnetic diffusion coefficients $`\eta _A(B)`$ and $`\eta _B(B)`$ are measured in units of $`\eta _T`$. We define $`R_\alpha =h\alpha _{}/\eta _T,`$ $`R_\omega =r(d\mathrm{\Omega }/dr)h^2/\eta _T`$, and the dynamo number $`D=R_\omega R_\alpha `$, where $`l`$ is the maximum scale of the turbulent motions, $`Rm=lu_{}/\eta `$ is the magnetic Reynolds number. Also $`u_{}`$ is the characteristic turbulent velocity at the scale $`l`$, $`\rho `$ is the gas density, and the characteristic value of the turbulent magnetic diffusivity $`\eta _T=lu_{}/3`$.

Throughout this paper, unless otherwise stated, we measure magnetic field in units of the equipartition value. Here we assumed that the background turbulence (i.e., the turbulence with a zero mean magnetic field) is isotropic and has only velocity fluctuations, even though a nonzero mean magnetic field can be expected to produce an anisotropy of turbulence from the generated magnetic fluctuations.

## 3 The nonlinearities

### 3.1 The nonlinear $`\alpha `$ effect

The total nonlinear $`\alpha `$ effect is given by

$`\alpha (B)=\alpha ^v+\alpha ^m,`$ (7)
where $`\alpha ^v`$ is the hydrodynamic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect, and $`\alpha ^m`$ is the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect. These quantities are determined by the corresponding helicities and quenching functions, $`\varphi _v(B)`$ and $`\varphi _m(B).`$ In particular, $`\alpha ^v=\chi ^v\varphi _v(B),`$ $`\alpha ^m=\chi ^c(B)\varphi _m(B)`$ and $`\chi ^v=(\tau /3)u(\times u),`$ $`\chi ^c(\tau /12\pi \rho )b(\times b)`$ is related with current helicity, where $`\tau `$ is the correlation time of turbulent velocity field and $`u(\times u)`$ is the hydrodynamic helicity. Thus,

$`\alpha (B)=\chi ^v\varphi _v(B)+\chi ^c(B)\varphi _m(B),`$ (8)
where the quenching functions $`\varphi _v(B)`$ and $`\varphi _m(B)`$ are given by

$`\varphi _v(B)`$ $`=`$ $`(1/7)[4\varphi _m(B)+3L(\sqrt{8}B)],`$ (9)
$`\varphi _m(B)`$ $`=`$ $`(3/\beta ^2)(1\mathrm{arctan}(\beta )/\beta )`$ (10)
(see Rogachevskii & Kleeorin, 2000), where $`\beta =\sqrt{8}B`$ and $`L(\beta )=12\beta ^2+2\beta ^4\mathrm{ln}(1+\beta ^2).`$ Thus $`\varphi _v(B)=2/\beta ^2`$ and $`\varphi _m(B)=3/\beta ^2`$ for $`\beta 1;`$ and $`\varphi _v(B)=1(6/5)\beta ^2`$ and $`\varphi _m(B)=1(3/5)\beta ^2`$ for $`\beta 1.`$ The function $`\chi ^c(B)`$ entering the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect is determined by the dynamical equation (15). Here $`\chi ^v`$ and $`\chi ^c`$ are measured in units of $`\alpha _{}`$.

The function $`\varphi _v(B)`$ describes conventional quenching of the $`\alpha `$ effect. A simple form of such a quenching, $`\varphi _v=1/(1+B^2),`$ was introduced long ago (see, e.g., Iroshnikov, 1970). The splitting of the total $`\alpha `$ effect into the hydrodynamic ($`\alpha ^v`$) and magnetic ($`\alpha ^m`$) parts was first suggested by Frisch et al. (1975). The magnetic part $`\alpha ^m`$ includes two types of nonlinearity: the algebraic quenching described by the function $`\varphi _m(B)`$ (see e.g. Field et al. 1999; Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2000, 2001) and the dynamic nonlinearity which is determined by Eq. (15).

### 3.2 Nonlinear turbulent magnetic diffusion coefficients of the toroidal and poloidal mean magnetic fields

The nonlinear turbulent magnetic diffusion coefficients of poloidal and toroidal mean magnetic fields $`\eta _A(B)`$ and $`\eta _B(B)`$, and the nonlinear function $`V_A(B)[\eta _A(B)\eta _B(B)](\mathrm{ln}B)^{}`$ are given in dimensionless form by

$`\eta _A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\sqrt{2}\beta )+(1/2)A_2(\beta ),`$ (11)
$`\eta _B(B)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\sqrt{2}\beta )(1/2)A_2(\beta )+A_2(\sqrt{2}\beta )`$ (12)
$`+(\beta /\sqrt{2})\mathrm{\Psi }(\sqrt{2}\beta ),`$
$`V_A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`[A_2(\beta )A_2(\sqrt{2}\beta )`$ (13)
$`(\beta /\sqrt{2})\mathrm{\Psi }(\sqrt{2}\beta )](\mathrm{ln}B)^{},`$
(see Rogachevskii & Kleeorin, 2001), where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=(d/dx)[A_1(x)+(1/2)A_2(x)],`$ and

$`\eta _\beta (B)=(1/2)A_2(\beta ).`$ (14)
The functions $`A_1(\beta )`$ and $`A_2(\beta )`$ are given by

$`A_1(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}\beta }{\beta }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{7\beta ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{14}}L(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{5}{7\beta ^2}}\right],`$
$`A_2(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}\beta }{\beta }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7\beta ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{7}}L(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{15}{7\beta ^2}}\right].`$
When $`\beta 1`$ these functions are given approximately by

$`A_1(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`1(2/5)\beta ^2,A_2(\beta )=(4/5)\beta ^2,`$
and for $`\beta 1`$ they are given by

$`A_1(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`3\pi /5\beta 4/5\beta ^2,A_2(\beta )=3\pi /5\beta +14/5\beta ^2.`$
The asymptotic formulas for the functions $`\eta _A(B),`$ $`\eta _B(B)`$ and $`V_A(B)`$ for $`\beta 1`$ are

$`\eta _A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`1(6/5)\beta ^2,\eta _B(B)=1(18/5)\beta ^2,`$
$`V_A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`(12/5)\beta ^2(\mathrm{ln}B)^{},`$
and for $`\beta 1`$

$`\eta _A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{10\beta }}(\sqrt{2}1),`$
$`\eta _B(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{20\beta }}(2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}),`$
$`V_A(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{5\beta }}(1{\displaystyle \frac{5\sqrt{2}}{8}})(\mathrm{ln}B)^{}.`$
The quenching of the $`\alpha `$ effect and the turbulent magnetic diffusion are caused by the direct and indirect modification of the electromotive force by the mean magnetic field. The indirect modification of the electromotive force is caused by the effect of the mean magnetic field on the velocity fluctuations (described by the tensors $`u_iu_j`$) and on the magnetic fluctuations (determined by the tensor $`b_ib_j),`$ while the direct modification is due to the effect of the mean magnetic field on the cross-helicity tensor $`u_ib_j`$ (see, e.g., Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2000, 2001).

### 3.3 The dynamical equation for the function $`\chi ^c(B)`$

The function $`\chi ^c(B)`$ entering the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect is determined by the dynamical equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{l}}\right)^2[+][𝒱\chi ^𝒸`$ (15)
$`\kappa \chi ^c]\chi ^c/T,`$
where $`F=C\chi ^v\varphi _v(B)B^2\eta _A(B)(\rho )/\rho `$ is the nonadvective flux of the magnetic helicity which serves as an additional nonlinear source in the equation for $`\chi ^c`$, $`V\chi ^c`$ is the advective flux of the magnetic helicity and $`\kappa \chi ^c`$ is the diffusive flux of the magnetic helicity (see Kleeorin & Rogachevskii, 1999; Kleeorin et al. 2000; 2002), $`V=e_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }r`$ is the differential rotation, and $`T=(1/3)(l/h)^2Rm`$. Eq. (15) was obtained using arguments based on the magnetic helicity conservation law (see Kleeorin & Rogachevskii, 1999). The function $`\chi ^c`$ is proportional to the magnetic helicity, $`\chi ^c=\chi ^m/(18\pi \eta _T\rho )`$ (see e.g. Kleeorin & Rogachevskii, 1999), where $`\chi ^m=ab`$ is the magnetic helicity and $`a`$ is the vector potential of small-scale magnetic field. Here we assume that the helical part of the vector potential $`a`$ is a locally isotropic and homogeneous random field, which is a natural gauge condition used in our approach. Thus, Eq. (15) describes the evolution of magnetic helicity, i.e. its production, dissipation and transport.

The turbulent diffusion of the magnetic helicity $`\kappa `$ plays an important role and can be interpreted as follows. The random flows existing in the interstellar medium consist of a combination of small-scale motions, which are affected by magnetic forces resulting in a steady-state of the dynamo, and a microturbulence which is supported by a strong random driver (supernovae explosions) which can be considered as independent of the galactic magnetic field. The large-scale magnetic field is smoothed over both kinds of turbulent fluctuations, while the small-scale magnetic field is smoothed over microturbulent fluctuations only. It is the smoothing over the microturbulent fluctuations that gives the coefficient $`\kappa `$.

For galaxies the relaxation term $`\chi ^c/T`$ is very small and can be dropped in spite of the fact the small yet finite magnetic diffusion is required for the reconnection of magnetic field lines. For example, we will show below that the magnetic Reynolds number, $`Rm,`$ does not enter into the steady state solution of Eq. (15) in the limit of very large $`Rm`$, because of the effect of the magnetic helicity flux. In particular, keeping the term $`\chi ^c/T`$ we obtain from Eq. (15) that in a steady state

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _v+\tau _{}Rm\varphi _m(B)[B(\times B)\mathrm{div}F_t]}{1+\tau _{}Rm\varphi _m(B)B^2}},`$ (16)
where $`\tau _{}=l/u_{}`$ and $`F_t=F+V\chi ^c\kappa \chi ^c`$ is the total flux of the magnetic helicity. In the limit of very large $`Rm,`$ Eq. (16) reads

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{B(\times B)\mathrm{div}F_t}{B^2}}.`$ (17)
This implies that in this limit the total $`\alpha `$ is independent of the magnetic Reynolds number.

In the local approximation Eq. (15) reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{l}}\right)^2[\eta _A(B)(B_\varphi b_r^{}B_\varphi ^{}b_r)\alpha (B)B^2`$ (18)
$`+C{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}(|\chi ^v(z)|\varphi _v(B)B^2\eta _A(B))]+(\kappa (\chi ^c)^{})^{}.`$
Here we do not take into account any inhomogeneity of the turbulent magnetic diffusion at $`𝐁=0`$. The turbulent magnetic diffusion is inhomogeneous due to inhomogeneity of the mean magnetic field $`𝐁`$.

The turbulent magnetic diffusion $`\kappa `$ of the magnetic helicity (and the function $`\chi ^c)`$ can depend on the mean magnetic field. The nonlinear quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusion of the magnetic helicity is given by $`\varphi _\kappa (B)`$,

$`\varphi _\kappa (B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+A_1(\sqrt{2}\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_2(\sqrt{2}\beta )\right].`$ (19)
For $`\beta 1`$ we have approximately

$`\varphi _\kappa (B)=1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\beta ^2,`$
and for $`\beta 1`$ we have

$`\varphi _\kappa (B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{10\sqrt{2}\beta }}\right).`$
The turbulent magnetic diffusion $`\kappa (B)`$ of the magnetic helicity is determined by the tensor $`\tau u_iu_j.`$ Thus, Eqs (8), (11)–(13) and (18) contain the main nonlinearities.

## 4 Equilibrium states of the local dynamo model

### 4.1 Asymptotic expansions and an equilibrium solution

We now present asymptotic expansions for a galactic dynamo model determined by Eqs. (5), (6) and (18). For the $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$-dynamo $`BB_\varphi .`$ This assumption is justified if $`|D|R_\alpha ,`$ i.e. $`|R_\omega |1.`$ In a steady-state for fields of even parity with respect to the disc plane, Eqs. (5), (6) and (18) with $`\kappa =0`$ gives

$`[\eta _B(B)B^{}]^2+2CD\varphi _v(B)\eta _A(B)B^2|\chi ^v(z)|=0.`$ (20)
The solution of Eq. (20) for negative $`D`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle _0^B}G(\stackrel{~}{B})𝑑\stackrel{~}{B}=\sqrt{2C|D|}{\displaystyle _{|z|}^1}\sqrt{|\chi ^v(\stackrel{~}{z})|}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z},`$ (21)
where $`G(B)=\eta _B(B)/[\varphi _v(B)\eta _A(B)B^2]^{1/2}.`$ For an arbitrary profile $`|\chi ^v(z)|`$, negative dynamo number $`D`$ and for $`B1/\sqrt{8},`$ there is an explicit steady solution of this equation with the boundary conditions $`B_\varphi (z=1)=0`$ and $`B_\varphi ^{}(z=0)=0`$,

$`B(z)(2/5)C|D|\left({\displaystyle _{|z|}^1}\sqrt{|\chi ^v(\stackrel{~}{z})|}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}\right)^2,`$ (22)
where $`z`$ is measured in the units of $`h,`$ and we have used that for $`B1/\sqrt{8}`$ we have $`\eta _A(B)2/5\beta ,`$ $`\eta _B(B)3/5\beta ,`$ $`\varphi _v(B)2/\beta ^2.`$ Here $`\beta =\sqrt{8}B.`$ In a steady state $`b_r(z)=(\eta _B(B)B^{})^{}/|D|.`$ For the specific choice of the profile $`|\chi ^v(z)|=\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi z/2)`$ we obtain

$`B_\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C|D|B_{\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi z}{2}}\right),`$ (23)
$`B_r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|R_\omega |}}B_{\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi z}{2}}\right),`$ (24)
where we have now restored the dimensional factor $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}.`$ The boundary conditions for $`B_r`$ are $`B_r(z=1)=0`$ and $`B_r^{}(z=0)=0.`$ Note, however, that our asymptotic analysis performed for $`B1/\sqrt{8}`$ is not valid in the vicinity of the point $`z=1`$ because $`B(z=1)=0`$.

### 4.2 Numerical solutions for the one-dimensional model

We found solutions of Eqs. (5), (6) and (18) by step by step integration, from arbitrarily chosen initial conditions. Various properties of the solutions for the mean magnetic field and the z-profiles of the main nonlinearities – the $`\alpha `$–effect, turbulent magnetic diffusion of the toroidal and poloidal fields – are illustrated in Figs. 1 – 6. It can be seen clearly that the field strength ($`|B_\varphi |`$) is typically of order 1 (equipartition), and increases with $`|D|`$.

New features were found in comparison with the results of Kleeorin et al. (2002), where the quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusion was not taken into account. In particular, the maximum of the toroidal magnetic field for $`|D|>40`$ is not located at $`z=0`$ but is shifted to $`z0.5h`$ (see Figs. 1a and 3a). The equipartition toroidal field is attained for smaller values of the dynamo numbers and parameter $`C`$ than in the model studied by Kleeorin et al (2002). The reason is that the asymptotic behavior of the steady-state solution is different in these two cases: in the present study $`B_\varphi C|D|B_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ (see Eq. (23)) whereas when the quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusion vanishes we have $`B_\varphi \sqrt{C|D|}B_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ (see Eq. (18) in Kleeorin et al., 2002). Note that for galaxies reasonable estimates are $`|D|1030`$, $`|C|0.1`$ and $`\kappa 0.30.5.`$ With these parameters the present model gives toroidal field strengths of about the equipartition value.

Fig. 2c demonstrates the change of sign of the effective drift velocity with $`z,`$ so that in one part of the disc it is diamagnetic, and in the other it is paramagnetic. A diamagnetic velocity implies that the field is pushed out from regions with stronger mean magnetic field, while a paramagnetic velocity causes the magnetic field to be concentrated in regions with stronger field.

Fig. 6 shows the solutions for different values of the turbulent diffusion $`\kappa `$ of the magnetic helicity. It is apparent from Fig. 6 that the magnitude of the saturated toroidal magnetic field increases with $`\kappa .`$ The reason is clear; the increase of this parameter increases the flux of the magnetic helicity, and causes a decrease of the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$–effect, thus increasing the total $`\alpha `$–effect.

When comparing the numerical and asymptotic solutions we need to take into account that the asymptotic solution (23)–(24) was obtained only for $`\kappa =0.`$ Thus such a comparison can only be performed for very small values of $`\kappa .`$ If we compare the field $`B_\varphi `$ at $`z=0`$ for, e.g., $`C=0.1`$ and $`\kappa =0.05`$ we find that the difference between the asymptotic and numerical solutions is about 15 percent when $`D=100.`$ The novel feature, the maximum of the toroidal field $`B_\varphi `$ at $`z>0`$ rather than $`z=0`$, appears in the numerical solutions for $`\kappa 0.1`$, and is not described in the framework of the above asymptotic analysis. Note also that a discrepancy between the numerical and asymptotic solutions is perhaps not so surprising even for large values of $`|D|`$, as relation (24) diverges near $`z=1.`$

In order to separate the study of the algebraic and dynamic nonlinearities we define a function $`D_V(B)/D=\varphi _v(B)/[\eta _A(B)\eta _B(B)]`$, using only the hydrodynamic part of the $`\alpha `$ effect. Thus, for $`B1/\sqrt{8}`$ the function $`D_V(B)/D`$ is a nonzero constant, because then $`\eta _A(B)2/5\beta ,`$ $`\eta _B(B)3/5\beta ,`$ $`\varphi _v(B)2/\beta ^2`$, with $`\beta =\sqrt{8}B.`$ The saturation of the growth of the mean magnetic field in the case with only an algebraic nonlinearity present can be achieved when the derivative of the function $`dD_V(B)/dB<0.`$ Thus, taking into account quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusion we find that the algebraic nonlinearity alone (i.e. quenching of both the $`\alpha `$ effect and turbulent magnetic diffusion) cannot saturate the growth of the mean magnetic field because $`dD_V(B)/dB0`$ for $`B1/\sqrt{8}`$.

We will show here that the combined effect of the algebraic and dynamic nonlinearities limits the growth of the mean magnetic field. The dynamic nonlinearity is determined by the evolutionary equation (18) for $`\chi ^c`$. We introduce the parameter $`D_N(B)/D=\alpha (B)/[\alpha (B=0)\eta _A(B)\eta _B(B)]`$ which characterizes both the algebraic and dynamic nonlinearities, while the parameter $`D_V(B)/D`$ characterizes only the algebraic nonlinearity. The saturation of the growth of the mean magnetic field is achieved when the derivative of the nonlinear dynamo number satisfies $`dD_N(B)/dB<0.`$ We see in Fig. 7 that this condition is satisfied. However, we see also that $`dD_V(B)/dB>0.`$ This implies that the algebraic nonlinearity alone (i.e. quenching of both the $`\alpha `$ effect and turbulent magnetic diffusion) cannot saturate the growth of the mean magnetic field. The same follows from the above asymptotic analysis.

## 5 Simple models with radial extent

Detailed numerical modelling of galactic dynamos is quite a complicated numerical problem. Dynamo models with conventional $`\alpha `$-quenching are however very robust and allow drastic simplifications that nevertheless reproduce adequately the basic features of galactic magnetic field structure as reflected in the observational data. The aim of this section is to discuss to what extent these simplified models are comparable with the quenching discussed above.

The basic no-$`z`$ dynamo model for disc galaxies has proved to be a useful tool for studying dynamo action in these objects, and is described in Moss (1995). Here we also include the tuning suggested by Phillips (2001), namely the multiplication by factors $`f=\pi ^2/4`$ of the terms representing the $`z`$-diffusion of $`B_r`$ and $`B_\varphi `$. The no-$`z`$ model differs from the local model of Sect. 2.1 in that it describes magnetic fields over the entire radial range, $`0rR`$, but all explicit dependence on the vertical coordinate $`z`$ has been removed, with the first-order $`z`$-derivatives being replaced by $`1/h`$ and the second-order $`z`$-derivatives being replaced by $`f/h^2`$. The field components $`B_r`$, $`B_\varphi `$ appearing in the no-$`z`$ equations can either be thought of as representing mid-plane values, or as some sort of vertical average of values through the disc.

For the no-z model in the axisymmetric case the mean-field dynamo equations take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_\varphi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`f\eta _B\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)B_\varphi `$ (25)
$`+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left[\eta _B\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_\varphi )\right]`$
$`+R_\omega B_rr{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{r}}+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left[\eta _V\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{B}{r}}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_r}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`R_\alpha \alpha B_\varphi [(f+1)\eta _A\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)`$ (26)
$`\eta _B\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)]B_r+\lambda ^2\eta _A({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\left){\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_r))`$
$`\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{V}_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_r).`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (r)}}\{4\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{l}}\right)^2[C\chi ^v\eta _A\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)\varphi _v\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)B^2`$ (27)
$`\alpha B^2]\kappa \chi ^c+{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda ^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(\kappa r{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{r}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda ^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left[r\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^1\chi ^v\eta _A\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)\varphi _v\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)B^2\right]`$
$`+4\lambda ^2\eta _A\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)S\},`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_A`$ $`=`$ $`[\eta _A\eta _B]{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{\rho }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}A_2(\beta ),`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_r){\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_\varphi )+B_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rB_r)\right),`$
and $`\lambda =h/R`$ is the aspect ratio, $`R_\alpha =\lambda \alpha _0h/\eta _0,`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^1=|_r\rho |/\rho `$ and $`\eta _0`$ is the maximum (unquenched) value of $`\eta `$. The quenching functions $`\varphi _v`$, $`\varphi _m`$, $`\eta _A`$, $`\eta _B`$ and $`\eta _V`$ contain in their arguments the factor $`1/\sqrt{\rho }`$ because they are based on local equipartition at radius $`r`$. To determine the magnetic field distribution along the radius we use a Brandt rotation law, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/[1+(r/r_\omega )^2]^{1/2}`$ with $`r_\omega =0.2,`$ and the radial density profile $`\rho (r)=\mathrm{exp}[(r/r_\rho )^2]`$ with $`r_\rho =0.5`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =2r/r_\rho ^2.`$ We also set $`\chi ^v(r)=1.`$

When comparing the no-$`z`$ model with the local thin-disc model studied in the earlier parts of this paper, note that in the local thin-disc model, $`R_\omega =rh^2\eta _T^1d\mathrm{\Omega }/dr<0`$. By the nature of the model, $`rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr`$ is the value at a chosen radius in the disc, and $`r`$ does not further occur explicitly in the analysis. However the no-$`z`$ model is global with respect to radius, and the value of $`rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr`$ varies through the disc, from zero at $`r=0`$ to some maximum absolute value; for the Brandt rotation law this value is $`0.31\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ at $`r=\sqrt{2/3}r_\omega `$. For the no-$`z`$ model the global definition is $`R_\omega =R_\omega (\mathrm{no}z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2/\eta _T>0`$. Less importantly, there are also small differences, of order 25%, in the effective values of $`R_\alpha `$ occurring in the two approximations, even though the formal definitions are the same – see Phillips (2001).

We investigated solutions to these no-$`z`$ equations for a range of parameter values. However we were unable to obtain satisfactory convergence to finite solutions without including a contribution to the diffusivity that was not quenched. Our feeling is that the simplest form of the no-$`z`$ formalism may not be sufficiently robust to allow inclusion of the full $`\eta `$-quenching formalism described above. This is in sharp contrast to the situation without the inclusion of $`\eta `$-quenching (Kleeorin et al. 2002), when satisfactory solutions with approximately equipartition strength fields were readily obtained.

However, given the evidently satisfactory behavior of the local model presented in Sect. 4, it is apparent that extension to the radial range $`0rR`$ in the manner described by Ruzmaikin et al. (1988, Ch. 7) would present no difficulties in principle, nor new features.

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we present a more detailed description of a nonlinear galactic dynamo, that includes quenching of the turbulent diffusivity of the magnetic field in addition to the effects considered in our previous paper (Kleeorin et al. 2002). We find that as far as the model leads to results that are comparable with observations, these results are similar to those obtained from conventional galactic dynamo models, with large-scale magnetic fields typically of equipartition strength, and with plausible values of the pitch angles. We confirm the conclusion of Kleeorin et al. (2002) that from a pragmatic point of view conventional models of nonlinear galactic dynamos are quite adequate to reproduce the directly observable manifestations of galactic dynamo action.

Our approach is based on first principles as far as is possible in the framework of mean-field dynamo theory, and results in the conclusion that the self-consistent form of dynamo saturation is much more complicated than is suggested in conventional models for a galactic dynamo. We demonstrate the important role of two types of nonlinearity (algebraic and dynamic) in the mean-field galactic dynamo. The algebraic nonlinearity is determined by a nonlinear dependence of the mean electromotive force on the mean magnetic field. The dynamic nonlinearity is determined by a differential equation for the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$-effect. This equation is a consequence of the conservation of the total magnetic helicity. We have taken into account the algebraic quenching of both the $`\alpha `$ effect and the turbulent magnetic diffusion, and also dynamic nonlinearities (see e.g. Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 1999, 2000, 2001). Since the quenching of the $`\alpha `$ effect and the turbulent magnetic diffusion have the same origin (i.e. the direct and indirect modification of the electromotive force by the mean magnetic field), they cannot in general be taken into account separately. This implies there is no reason to include $`\alpha `$ quenching and to ignore the quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusion, or vice versa.

We have also verified that the algebraic nonlinearity alone (i.e. quenching of both the $`\alpha `$ effect and turbulent magnetic diffusion) cannot saturate the growth of the mean magnetic field. The situation changes when the dynamic nonlinearity is taken into account. The crucial point is that the dynamic equation for the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$-effect (i.e. the dynamic nonlinearity) includes the flux of magnetic helicity. Without this flux, the total magnetic helicity is conserved locally and the strength of the saturated mean magnetic field is very small compared to the equipartition strength. The inclusion of a magnetic helicity flux means that the total magnetic helicity is not conserved locally because the magnetic helicity of small-scale magnetic fluctuations is redistributed by the helicity flux. In this case an integral of the total magnetic helicity over the disc is conserved. The equilibrium state is given by a balance between magnetic helicity production and magnetic helicity transport (see Kleeorin et al. 2002). Thus, the combined effect of algebraic and dynamic nonlinearities limit the growth of the mean magnetic field and results in an equilibrium strength of the mean magnetic field which is of order that of the equipartition field, in agreement with observations of galactic magnetic fields.

We find, perhaps quite naturally, that when including new physically significant effects we obtain less robust models. The limitations of simulations with such models are connected not only with purely numerical problems, which are however more severe than for conventional galactic dynamo simulations. In order to reproduce the detailed evolution of helicity and turbulent diffusivity there is the necessity for a deeper description of the real multiphase structure of the interstellar medium, and the physical processes that result in the development of helical interstellar turbulence, than the standard description used in present-day models. Of course, the corresponding development of mean-field dynamo theory required to achieve this goal is far beyond the scope of this paper. We stress that direct numerical simulations of interstellar turbulence (see e.g. Korpi et al. 1999), followed by estimations of the appropriate mean-field dynamo control parameters, are very desirable and even essential in this context.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support from NATO under grant PST.CLG 974737, RFBR under grant 01-02-16158 and the INTAS Program Foundation under grant 99-348 is acknowledged. DS is grateful to a special fund for visiting senior scientists of the Faculty of Engineering of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and to the Royal Society, London, for financial support during his visits to Israel and the UK respectively.


text:
# Failure of a Stability Conjecture in General Relativity

## I Introduction

Some time ago Helliwell and Konkowski (HK) , developed a Cauchy horizon (CH) stability conjecture that uses test fields to predict the instability and type of the singularity that forms. Then a complete non-linear back reaction calculation would show that this type of singularity occurs. The CH stability conjecture due to HK is defined as follows.

###### Conjecture 1

For all maximally extended spacetimes with CH, the backreaction due to a field (whose test stress-energy tensor is $`T_{\mu \nu }`$) will affect the horizon in one of the following manners. a)If $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ and any null dust density $`\rho `$ are finite, and if the stress energy tensor $`T_{ab}`$ in all parallel propagated orthonormal (PPON) frames is finite, then the CH remains non-singular. b)If $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ and any null dust density $`\rho `$ are finite, but $`T_{ab}`$ diverges in some PPON frames, then a non scalar curvature (NSC) singularity will be formed at the CH. c)If $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ and any null dust density $`\rho `$ diverges, then an scalar curvature (SC) singularity will be formed at the CH.

In ref. (and references therein) the stability conjecture has been tested for several spacetimes. Among others the exceptional case occurs in the Bell-Szekeres (BS)  spacetime which describes the collision of two constant profile electromagnetic (em) waves that results in a non-singular interaction region. It was shown that, when an impacting test em field is added to one of the incoming regions of the BS spacetime, the conjecture predicts a non scalar curvature singularity (NSCS). However, the exact solution due to BS possesses a CH in the region of interaction and quasiregular singularities at the null boundaries. To our knowledge, this was a single example shown by HK to signal the failure of this conjecture.
In this paper, we further test the validity of this conjecture in the interaction region of colliding plane wave (CPW) spacetimes admitting two hypersurface non-orthogonal Killing vectors. For this purpose, we use the cross-polarized BS (CPBS)  solution and the outcome of the conjecture is compared with an exact back reaction solution. Our analysis verifies the failure of the conjecture in predicting the type of the singularity for this case too.
The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we review the CPBS solution and as a requirement of the conjecture we insert oppositely moving test null dust in the interaction region of CPBS spacetime. In section III, we present an exact back-reaction geometry that represents the collision of null shells (or impulsive dusts) coupled with CPBS spacetime. The paper is concluded with a conclusion in section IV.

## II Test Null-Dust in the Space of CPBS Spacetime

The metric that describes collision of em waves with the cross polarization was found to be

$$ds^2=F\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right)\mathrm{\Delta }Fdy^2\frac{\delta }{F}(dxq\tau dy)^2$$
(1)
In this representation of the metric our notations are

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)`$ (2)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(aubv)`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`1\tau ^2`$ (4)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`1\sigma ^2`$ (5)
$`2F`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+q^2}(1+\sigma ^2)+1\sigma ^2`$ (6)
in which $`0q1`$ is a constant measuring the second polarization, $`(a,b)`$ are constants of energy and $`(u,v)`$ stand for the usual null coordinates. It can be seen easily that for $`q=0`$ the metric reduces to BS. Unlike the BS metric ,however, this is conformally non-flat for $`(u>0,v>0)`$, where the conformal curvature is generated by the cross polarization. As a matter of fact this solution is a minimal extension of the BS metric. A completely different generalization of the BS solution with second polarization was given by Chandrasekhar-Xanthopoulos . Their solution, however, employs an Ehlers transformation and involves two essential parameters which is therefore different from ours. Both solutions form CH in the interaction region.
Our main interest here is to test HK stability conjecture in the CPBS spacetimes. In doing this, we insert oppositely moving test null dusts in the CPBS spacetime. For simplicity we consider two different cases, the $`x=constant`$ and $`y=constant`$ projections of the spacetime.
We have in the first case ($`x=constant`$),

$$ds^2=\frac{e^M}{2ab}\left(dt^2dz^2\right)e^{UV}coshWdy^2$$
(7)
where we have used the coordinates $`(t,z)`$ according to

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`au+bv`$ (8)
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`aubv`$ (9)
The energy-momentum tensor for two oppositely moving null dusts can be chosen as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\rho _ll_\mu l_\nu +\rho _nn_\mu n_\nu $$
(10)
where $`\rho _l`$ and $`\rho _n`$ are the finite energy densities of the dusts. The null propagation directions $`l_\mu `$ and $`n_\mu `$ are

$`l_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(a_0,0,a_2,a_3)`$
$`n_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(a_0,0,a_2,a_3)`$
with

$`a_2=k_2=\text{constant}a_3={\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{2ab}}=\text{constant}`$

$`a_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ab}}\left(k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2abk_2^2}{coshW}}e^{U+VM}\right)^{1/2}`$We observe from (1) that

$$\frac{e^{U+V}}{coshW}=\frac{F}{\mathrm{\Delta }F^2+\delta q^2\tau ^2}$$
(11)
which is finite for $`q0`$. Following the requirement of the conjecture, we find the trace and scalar of the energy-momentum as

$`T_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
$`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2\rho _l\rho _n\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2e^M}{ab}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_2^2e^{U+V}}{coshW}}\right)^2=\text{finite}`$ (13)
The scalar $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ reveals that as $`\tau 1`$ it does not diverge and remains finite. Note that for a linear polarization (i.e. $`q=0`$ ), the scalar $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$ diverges as the horizon is approached indicating SCS. This particular case overlaps with the work of HK in ref. . In our case, we use a non-linearly polarized metric and the outcome conflicts with the result of HK.
Next we consider the energy-momentum tensor in the parallel-propagated orthonormal frame (PPON). Such frame vectors are

$`e_{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{2ab}e^{M/2},0,0,0)`$ (14)
$`e_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,e^{\frac{UV}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}W/2,e^{\frac{U+V}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}W/2,0)`$ (15)
$`e_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,e^{\frac{UV}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}W/2,e^{\frac{U+V}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}W/2,0)`$ (16)
$`e_{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,\sqrt{2ab}e^{M/2})`$ (17)
and the energy momentum tensor in this frame is given by

$$T_{(ab)}=e_{(a)}^\mu e_{(b)}^\nu T_{\mu \nu }$$
(18)
Then the non-zero components of $`T_{(ab)}`$ are;

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2e^{U+V}}{\mathrm{cosh}W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2e^M}{2ab}}\right]\left(\rho _l+\rho _n\right)`$ (19)
$`T_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{10}=\left\{k_2^2\left(\mathrm{cosh}W1\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2e^{2(U+V)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2e^{U+V+M}}{4ab}}\right]\right\}^{1/2}\left(\rho _l\rho _n\right)`$ (20)
$`T_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{20}=\left\{k_2^2\left(\mathrm{cosh}W+1\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2e^{2(U+V)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}W}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2e^{U+V+M}}{4ab}}\right]\right\}^{1/2}\left(\rho _l\rho _n\right)`$ (21)
$`T_{03}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{30}={\displaystyle \frac{k_1e^M}{2ab}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2abk_2^2e^{U+VM}}{\mathrm{cosh}W}}+k_1^2\right]^{1/2}\left(\rho _l\rho _n\right)`$ (22)
$`T_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2e^{U+V}}{2}}\left(\mathrm{cosh}W1\right)\left(\rho _l+\rho _n\right)`$ (23)
$`T_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{31}={\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{\sqrt{2ab}}}e^{(U+V+M)/2}\mathrm{sinh}W/2\left(\rho _l+\rho _n\right)`$ (24)
$`T_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{\sqrt{2ab}}}e^{(U+V+M)/2}\mathrm{cosh}W/2\left(\rho _l\rho _n\right)`$ (25)
$`T_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2e^M}{2ab}}\left(\rho _l+\rho _n\right)`$ (26)
Careful analysis of these components shows that some components like ( $`T_{01},T_{02},T_{11},T_{13},T_{23}`$ ) diverge as $`\tau 1`$ . Consequently the conjecture predicts that the CH is unstable and transforms into an NSCS.
By a similar procedure we investigate the $`y=constant`$ projection of the spacetime and obtain that none of the energy- momentum scalars diverges in the interaction region.

## III The Geometry of Null Shells with CPW.

In this section we present an exact back-reaction solution of two colliding null shells ( or impulsive dusts) coupled with the CPBS spacetime. The combined metric of CPBS and colliding shells can be represented by

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\varphi ^2}ds_{CPBS}^2$$
(27)
where $`\varphi =1+\alpha u\theta (u)+\beta v\theta (v)`$ with $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ positive constants. This amounts to the substitutions

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`M_0+2\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$ (28)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`U_0+2\mathrm{ln}\varphi `$ (29)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_0`$ (30)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`W_0`$ (31)
where $`(M_0,U_0,V_0,W_0)`$ correspond to the metric functions of the CPBS solution. Under these substitutions the scale invariant Weyl scalars remain invariant ( or at most multiplied by a conformal factor ) because $`MU=M_0U_0`$ is the combination that arise in those scalars. The scalar curvature, however, which was zero in the case of CPBS now arises as nonzero. The Weyl and Maxwell scalars of the new solution are given in the Appendix.
It is clearly seen that, the scalar curvature diverges as $`\tau 1`$ ( or equivalently $`au+bv\pi /2`$). It is further seen by choosing $`\beta =0`$, that even a single shell gives rise to a divergent back reaction by the spacetime. The horizon, in effect, is unstable and transforms into a SCS in the presence of colliding shells or even a single propagating null shell.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we have tested the HK stability conjecture in the CPBS spacetime. Similar analysis was done by HK for the BS spacetime (linear polarization). However they were unable to compare their results with an exact back-reaction solution. We confirm their results by taking the limit as $`q0`$. The line element (1) reduces to the BS and the expression (6) that appears in equation (7) diverges on the horizon ( $`\tau =1`$) indicating an SCS. For a linearly polarized metric (which is BS ) the conjecture finds correctly the nature of the singularity. But for non-colinear polarization (which is the CPBS ) the conjecture predicts a NSCS. whereas the exact back-reaction solution indicates SCS. Therefore, the HK stability conjecture fails to predict the correct nature of the singularity in the non-colinear metrics. Recently, we have also shown  that, the inner horizon of Kerr-Newman black hole, displays a double character with respect to different perturbing potentials. In the case of null dust we have shown that the inner horizon is transformed into a spacelike SCS, however, the inclusion of particular scalar fields creates null singularities on the inner horizon of Kerr-Newman black hole. All of these outcomes are supported with exact back-reaction solutions.
Our overall impression about the conjecture is that it can be used to check the instability of the CHs, but is not reliable in determining the type of the singularity.

## Appendix: <br>The Weyl and Maxwell Scalars

The non-zero Weyl and Maxwell scalars for the collision of null shells in the background of CPBS spacetime are found as follows.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_2)_{(CPBS)}`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_4)_{(CPBS)}`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_0)_{(CPBS)}`$ (36)
$`4\varphi e^M\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`[(a\beta +\alpha b)\mathrm{tan}(au+bv)`$ (40)
$`+(a\beta \alpha b)\mathrm{tan}(aubv)]\theta (u)\theta (v)`$
$`4\varphi e^M\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`[(a\beta +\alpha b)\mathrm{tan}(au+bv)+(a\beta \alpha b)\mathrm{tan}(aubv)`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha \beta }{\varphi }}]\theta (u)\theta (v)`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{22})_{CPBS}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^M}{\varphi }}\right)[\delta (u)`$ (48)
$`\theta (u)(a\mathrm{\Pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{(1u^2)(1v^2)}})]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{00})_{CPBS}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta e^M}{\varphi }}\right)[\delta (v)`$ (53)
$`+\theta (v)(b\mathrm{\Pi }{\displaystyle \frac{v}{(1u^2)(1v^2)}})]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{02})_{CPBS}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^M}{4FY\varphi }}\right)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\alpha Q\theta (u)+\beta P\theta (v))`$ (57)
$`+iq(\alpha L\theta (u)+\beta K\theta (v))]`$
where

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`1+\alpha u\theta (u)+\beta v\theta (v)`$
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`b[2q^2\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)F^2(\mathrm{tan}(aubv)+\mathrm{tan}(au+bv))`$
$`2F\mathrm{cos}(aubv)\mathrm{sin}(aubv)(\sqrt{1+q^2}1)]`$
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`a[2q^2\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)+F^2(\mathrm{tan}(aubv)\mathrm{tan}(au+bv))`$
$`+2F\mathrm{cos}(aubv)\mathrm{sin}(aubv)(\sqrt{1+q^2}1)]`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{F^2}}\mathrm{tan}(au+bv)\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)\right)^{1/2}`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(aubv)}{\mathrm{cos}(au+bv)}}+\mathrm{sin}2au`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(\sqrt{1+q^2}1\right)\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)\mathrm{tan}(aubv)}{F}}]`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(aubv)}{\mathrm{cos}(au+bv)}}+\mathrm{sin}2bv`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(\sqrt{1+q^2}1\right)\mathrm{sin}(au+bv)\mathrm{cos}(aubv)\mathrm{tan}(aubv)}{F}}]`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{1+q^2}1\right)\mathrm{sin}(2au2bv)}{\sqrt{1+q^2}+1+\left(\sqrt{1+q^2}1\right)\mathrm{sin}^2(aubv)}}`$
and the subscript (CPBS) refers to the expressions given in ref. .


text:
# On analyticity of incompressible viscid fluid flow in n-dimensional torus

## 1 Introduction

The regularity problems for NSE with the condition of incompressibility have been studied by many authors. For instance, J. Serrin  showed that under rather moderate assumptions, weak solutions are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the space variables in the case of a conservative external force. On the other hand, it was shown (Masuda) ,  that if external force is analytic in spatial variables and $`t`$, then srong solutions satisfying the zero Dirichlet boundary condition are also analytic in the spatial variables and $`t`$. C. Kahane  showed that solutions of NSE (with the incompressibility assumption and without any boundary condition) is analytic in spatial variable in the case of a conservative external force.

Note that if external force and initial data are analytic in all variables the existence of analytic solutions in all variables can be derived from the result announced in the end of the paper .

In the present paper we establish the existence of analytic (in all variables) solutions under very irregular initial conditions and obtain a global expansion of the solution into a series.

The problem is studied in the case of periodical boundary conditions.

The author wishes to thank A. L. Skubachevskiǐ and V. A. Solonnikov for useful discussions.

## 2 Main theorem

Consider the Navier-Stokes equation with initial data and the condition of incompressibility of a fluid:

$`\text{v}_t+(\text{v},)\text{v}`$ $`=p+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\text{v},`$ (2.1)
divv $`=0,`$ (2.2)
$`\text{v}_{t=0}`$ $`=\widehat{\text{v}}(x),`$ (2.3)
where by $`\text{v}=(v^1(t,x),\mathrm{},v^n(t,x))`$ we denote a vector-function, $`p(t,x)`$ is a scalar function and $`\nu `$ is a positive constant. Differential operators are defined in the usual way: $`_j=/x_j`$,

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill p& =& (_1p,\mathrm{},_np),\hfill & \hfill \text{div}\text{v}& =& _{k=1}^n_kv^k,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }f& =& \text{div}f,\hfill & \hfill (\text{v},)f& =& _{k=1}^nv^k_kf.\hfill \end{array}$$

Application of any scalar operator to a vector-function implies that this operator applies to each component of the vector-function.

Note that the function $`p`$ is taken in problem (2.1)-(2.2) such that the substitution $`pp+c(t)`$ ($`c(t)`$ is an arbitrary function) does not change the equations. So we will find the function $`p`$ just up to an additional function of $`t`$. Let $`k,x^n`$, introduce some notations:

$$(k,x)=k_1x_1+\mathrm{}+k_nx_n,|x|=|x_1|+\mathrm{}+|x_n|,i^2=1.$$

Sometimes we will use the Euclidian norm: $`|x|_e^2=|x_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|x_n|^2`$, and the norm $`|x|_m=\mathrm{max}_k|x_k|`$. As it is well known there is a constant $`\underset{¯}{c}`$ such that $`\underset{¯}{c}|x||x|_e|x|`$.

Let $`𝕋^n=^n/(2\pi )^n`$ be an $`n`$dimensional torus. Define sets

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(T)=`$ $`\{(t,x)0<|\text{Im}t|<\text{Re}t<T,0<{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\nu \underset{¯}{c}}}|\text{Im}x|_m<r<\text{Re}t,`$
$`\text{Re}x𝕋^n\},`$
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0<r<T}{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(T).`$
For $`s`$ define a space:

$$_s=\{f(x)=\underset{k^n}{}f_ke^{i(k,x)}f_s=\underset{k^n}{}|f_k||k|^s<\mathrm{}\}.$$

An element $`f`$ of the space $`_s`$ is a distribution which value of a function $`\phi (x)C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^n)`$ is

$$(f,\phi )=\underset{k^n}{}f_k\underset{𝕋^n}{}e^{i(k,x)}\phi (x)𝑑x.$$

In case of positive integers $`s`$ the spaces $`_s`$ coincides with the Sobolev spaces with the same subscripts .

We assume that the initial vector field $`\widehat{\text{v}}(x)`$ belongs to the space $`_s`$ and $`\text{div}\widehat{\text{v}}(x)=0.`$

Denote by $`𝒪(D)`$ the space of holomorphic functions in a domain $`D`$. Let

$$U_{\underset{¯}{t},T}(\alpha )=\{t0<\underset{¯}{t}<\alpha |\text{Im}t|<\text{Re}t<T\}.$$

###### Theorem 1

1. There is a positive constant $`T`$ such that initial problem (2.1)-(2.3) has an unique solution $`(p(t,x),\text{v}(t,x))`$ in the space $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$.

The solution expands to a series:

$$𝐯(t,x)=\underset{k^n}{}𝐯_k(t)e^{i(k,x)t|k|_e\nu /2},$$

where the functions $`𝐯_k`$ belongs to the set $`𝒪(U_{\underset{¯}{t},T}(\alpha ))`$ for any $`\underset{¯}{t}<T`$ and $`\alpha >1`$, the series

$$\underset{k^n}{}|𝐯_k(t)||k|^s$$

uniformly converges in $`\overline{U_{\underset{¯}{t},T}(\alpha )}`$ for any $`\underset{¯}{t}<T`$ and $`\alpha >1`$.

The following equalities hold:

$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{|k|}}{^{k_1}x_1\mathrm{}^{k_n}x_n}}\text{v}(t,x){\displaystyle \frac{^{|k|}}{^{k_1}x_1\mathrm{}^{k_n}x_n}}\widehat{\text{v}}(x)_{s|k|}`$ $`=0,`$ (2.4)
$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^{|k|}}{^{k_1}x_1\mathrm{}^{k_n}x_n}}p(t,x){\displaystyle \frac{^{|k|}}{^{k_1}x_1\mathrm{}^{k_n}x_n}}\widehat{p}(x)_{s|k|}`$ $`=0,`$
where $`\widehat{p}(x)_s`$ and the vector $`k`$ consists of non-negative integers.
2. There exists positive constant $`\mu `$ such that if $`\widehat{𝐯}_s\mu `$ then the first part of this theorem remains valid for $`T=\mathrm{}`$.

Note that $`𝐯_0`$ actually does not depend on $`t`$ . As a simple corollary of the second part of the theorem we obtain

###### Proposition 2.1

For any $`t\overline{U_{\underset{¯}{t},\mathrm{}}(\alpha )}`$ we have

$$\underset{x𝕋^n}{\mathrm{max}}|𝐯(t,x)𝐯_0|ce^{\frac{\nu \mathrm{Re}t}{2}},$$

positive constant $`c`$ depends only on $`\underset{¯}{t}`$ and $`\alpha `$.

Before approaching to a proof of the theorem we must develop some technique tools.

## 3 Definitions and technique tools

We will denote inessential constants by $`c,C`$ or by these letters with subscripts.

Provide the space $`𝒪(D)`$ by a collection of norms: let $`u𝒪(D)`$ and $`K`$ is a compact subset of $`D`$ then $`u_K=sup_{zK}|u(z)|`$. These norms make the space $`𝒪(D)`$ a seminormed space. A sequence $`u_k𝒪(D)`$ converges to $`u𝒪(D)`$ if for any compact $`K`$ we have $`u_ku_K0`$ when $`k\mathrm{}`$. This kind of convergence is referred to as compact convergence.

The compact convergence in the space $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ follows from the convergence with respect to the norms $`_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(T)}`$. Indeed, every compact subset of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)`$ can be covered by finite collection $`\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{r_i}(T)\}_{i=1\mathrm{}m}`$.

We say that a subset $`M`$ of $`𝒪(D)`$ is bounded if for any compact $`K`$ there is a constant $`C_K`$ such that for any $`u`$ of $`M`$ we have $`u_KC_K`$.

###### Theorem 2 (Montel)

If $`M`$ is a closed and bounded subset of $`𝒪(D)`$ then it is a compact.

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ a subset of $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ that consists of functions $`u`$ with zero mean value: $`_{𝕋^n}u(t,x)𝑑x=0`$.

The Laplace operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ is invertible: there exists a bounded operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1:\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$. If

$$u(t,x)=\underset{k^n\backslash \{0\}}{}u_k(t)e^{i(k,x)}$$

is the Fourier expansion of $`u`$ then an explicit form of this operator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1u(t,x)=\underset{k^n\backslash \{0\}}{}\frac{u_k(t)}{|k|_e^2}e^{i(k,x)}.$$
(3.1)
Let $`D`$ be an open subset of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)`$ and compact $`K`$ belongs to $`D`$. Then formula (3.1) involves an estimate:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1u_Kc_{K,D}u_D,$$

where $`c_{K,D}`$ is a positive constant.

Define a set of linear operators $`S^t:𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ by the formula:

$$S^tu(t,x)=\underset{k^n}{}u_k(t)e^{i(k,x)\nu |k|_e^2t},$$

where $`\nu `$ is the same constant that is in equation (2.1).

Operators $`\{S^t\}`$ are bounded:

$`S^tu_K`$ $`c_{K,D}u_D.`$ (3.2)
Compact $`K`$ is in domain $`D`$, constant $`c_{K,D}`$ is positive.

Consider an initial problem for the equation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill u_t& =& \nu \mathrm{\Delta }u+f(t,x),\hfill \\ \hfill u_{t=0}& =& \widehat{u}(x)_s.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
The function $`f`$ belongs to the space $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ and $`f(0,x)_s`$, furthermore $`f(t,x)f(0,x)_s0`$ when $`t`$ vanishes.

It is easy to check that problem (3.3) has the unique solution $`u(t,x)𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$ that is periodical in $`x`$ and it presents in a form:

$$u(t,x)=S^t\widehat{u}+\underset{L(t)}{}S^{t\tau }f(\tau ,x)𝑑\tau ,$$
(3.4)
where a contour $`L(t)`$ is constructed as follows:

$$L(t)=\{s+i\frac{\text{Im}t}{\text{Re}t}s0s\text{Re}t\}.$$

### 3.1 Majorant functions

Let

$`v(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^n}{}}v_k(t)e^{i(k,x)}𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)),`$
$`V(\tau ,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^n}{}}V_k(\tau )e^{i(k,x)}C(I_T,_s),`$
$`I_T=[0,T].`$
A notation $`vV`$ means that $`|v_k(t)|V_k(\text{Re}t)`$ holds for all admissible $`t`$ and $`k^n`$.

If $`u,U`$ are vector-functions then a relation $`uU`$ means that each component of the vector $`U`$ majorates corresponding component of the vector $`u`$.

Define the following operators:

$$Du=\underset{k^n}{}|k|u_ke^{i(k,x)},\mathrm{\Lambda }^tu=\underset{k^n}{}u_ke^{i(k,x)|k|_et\nu /2}.$$

Enumerate main properties of the operation ”$``$”. Let $`u(t,x)U(\tau ,x)`$ and $`v(t,x)V(\tau ,x)`$ then:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill u+v& & U+V,\hfill & \hfill uv& & UV,\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda u& & |\lambda |U,\hfill & \hfill \underset{L(t)}{}u(s,x)𝑑s& & 2\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{Re}t}{}}U(s,x)𝑑s,\hfill \\ \hfill _lu& & DU,\hfill & \hfill S^tu& & U,\hfill \\ \hfill D(uv)& & UDV+VDU,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^1u& & U.\hfill \end{array}$$

In these formulas we imply: $`\lambda `$.

Another property of ”$``$” is as follows: there exists some positive constant $`c`$ such that an estimate

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1_j_lucU$$
(3.5)
holds for all functions $`uU`$. Indeed, expanding the left- and the right-hand side of (3.5) to Fourier series by formula (3.1) we see that the estimate follows from inequality:

$$|k_jk_l|c|k|_e^2,k^n.$$

Consider maps

$$f:𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)),F:C(I_T,_s)C(I_T,_s).$$

We say that the map $`F`$ majorates the map $`f`$ (denote by $`fF`$) if for any functions $`u,U`$ the relation $`uU`$ involves $`f(u)F(U)`$.

### 3.2 Existence Lemma

Let $`L_2(I_T,_s)`$ be a space of maps $`f`$ from $`I_T`$ to $`_s`$ that have square integrable norm: $`f(t,)_s^2L_2(I_T)`$. The norm in $`L_2(I_T,_s)`$ is defined as usual:

$$(f_s^L)^2=_0^Tf(t,)_s^2𝑑t.$$

Let $`u(x)=_{k^n}u_ke^{i(k,x)}_s`$. Define a semigroup $`\{P_\rho ^\lambda \}_{\lambda 0}`$ by the formula:

$$P_\rho ^\lambda u=\underset{k^n}{}u_ke^{i(k,x)\lambda |k|_e^2\rho },\rho >0.$$

Define a map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)=_0^tP_\rho ^{t\xi }D(u(\xi ,x)v(\xi ,x))𝑑\xi .$$

###### Lemma 3.1

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes the space $`L_2(I_T,_s)\times L_2(I_T,_s)`$ to the space $`L_2(I_T,_s),`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)_s^Lcu_s^Lv_s^L,$$
(3.6)
a positive constant $`c`$ does not depend on $`u,v`$.

Proof. The Lemma follows from the following chain of estimates:

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)_s^L)^2`$ $`=`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(u(\xi ,x)v(\xi ,x))𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^T}dt{\displaystyle _0^t}d\xi {\displaystyle _0^t}d\eta P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv(\xi ,)_sP_\rho ^{t\eta }D(uv(\eta ,)_s`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _0^\xi }𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _\xi ^T}𝑑t+{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _0^\eta }𝑑\xi {\displaystyle _\eta ^T}𝑑t\right)`$
$`P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv(\xi ,)_sP_\rho ^{t\eta }D(uv(\eta ,)_s`$
$`c\left({\displaystyle _0^T}uv(\xi ,)_s𝑑\xi \right)^2c(u_s^L)^2(v_s^L)^2.`$
The positive constant $`c`$ is taken as follows: $`(|k|_e^2+|j|_e^2)c|k||j|.`$

The last inequality is the Hölder inequality. To obtain the inequality before the last one, we termwise integrate the series which the norms are. Admissibility of this chain of estimates follows from the standard theorems of analysis.

Lemma is proved.

Recall that the Sobolev space $`W_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ defines as a completion of the space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(I_T,_s)`$ with respect to the norm

$$u_s^W=\mathrm{max}\{u_s^L,u_t_s^L\}.$$

Define by $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ a subspace of $`W_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ that consists of such a type functions $`u(0,x)=0`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes the space $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2^1(I_T,_s)\times \stackrel{~}{W}_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ to the space $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2^1(I_T,_s),`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)_s^Wcu_s^Wv_s^W,$$
(3.7)
a positive constant $`c`$ does not depend on $`u,v`$.

Proof. Note that

$$\frac{dP_\rho ^{t\xi }}{dt}=\frac{dP_\rho ^{t\xi }}{d\xi }.$$

Using this formula we derive:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_t(u,v)`$ $`=D(uv){\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_\rho ^{t\xi }}{d\xi }}D(uv(\xi ,x))𝑑\xi `$
$`=D(uv)P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv)_0^t+{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv(\xi ,x))_\xi 𝑑\xi `$
$`=P_\rho ^tD(uv)+{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv(\xi ,x))_\xi 𝑑\xi .`$
Prepare calculations:

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_t(u,v)_s^L)^2`$ $`=`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^T}P_\rho ^tD(uv)(t,)+{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv)_\xi (\xi ,)𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^T}P_\rho ^tD(uv)(t,)_s^2𝑑t`$
$`+2{\displaystyle _0^T}P_\rho ^tD(uv)(t,)_s^2𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv)_\xi (\xi ,)𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑t`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv)_\xi (\xi ,)𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑t.`$
The last term in this formula estimates by Lemma 3.1:

$$_0^T_0^tP_\rho ^{t\xi }D(uv)_\xi (\xi ,)𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑tc(u_s^W)^2(v_s^W)^2.$$

To estimate another term note that

$$uv(t,x)=_0^t(uv)_\xi 𝑑\xi ,$$

thus we have

$`{\displaystyle _0^T}P_\rho ^tD(uv)(t,)_s^2𝑑t`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^t}P_\rho ^tD(uv)_\xi (\xi ,)𝑑\xi _s^2𝑑t`$
$`c(u_s^W)^2(v_s^W)^2.`$
Last estimate obtains in the same way that Lemma 3.1 does.

Lemma is proved.

###### Lemma 3.3

For all positive constants $`a,\rho `$ and for every function $`\widehat{V}_s`$ there is a positive constant $`T`$ such that the equation

$$V(t,x)=\widehat{V}(x)+a_0^tP_\rho ^{t\xi }D(V^2)(\xi ,x)𝑑\xi ,\widehat{V}_s,$$
(3.8)
has an unique solution $`V(t,x)C(I_T,_s)`$.

For any sufficiently small $`a`$ the previous assertion remains valid for $`T=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Since the space $`W_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ continuously embeds in $`C(I_T,_s)`$ (by the Sobolev embedding theorem) it sufficient to prove that equation (3.8) has a solution in $`W_2^1(I_T,_s)`$.

After a change of variable: $`VU=V\widehat{V}`$ equation (3.8) takes the form:

$$U=F(U)=a_0^tP_\rho ^{t\xi }D(U^2+2U\widehat{V}+\widehat{V}^2)(\xi ,x)𝑑\xi .$$

By Lemma 3.2 the operator $`F`$ is contracting in the space $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2^1(I_T,_s)`$ for sufficiently small $`T`$.

If $`a`$ is sufficiently small the operator $`F`$ is also contracting.

Lemma is proved.

## 4 Proof of theorem 1

We shall prove Theorem 1 by the Majorant functions method. Namely, system (2.1)-(2.3) will be changed by another so called majorant equation. Then we shall prove a theorem of existence for the majorant equation and show that it involves the existence theorem for original system.

The majorant functions method was originated by Cauchy and Weierstrass and applied by Kovalevskaya to prove an existence of analytic solutions in initial problems for PDE. Further studies and applications of this technique contains in ,,.

### 4.1 The existence

Now prove the first part of the theorem, the second one turns in the same way with respect to the last assertion of Lemma 3.3.

Following standard procedure we take operator div from the right- and the left-hand sides of equation (2.1). Using equation (2.2) we get $`_i_j(v^iv^j)=\mathrm{\Delta }p,`$ where we summarize by the repeated subscripts. So,

$$p=\mathrm{\Delta }^1_i_j(v^iv^j).$$
(4.1)
Substituting this formula to equation (2.1) we obtain the following problem:

$`(v^k)_t`$ $`=A_l^k_j(v^jv^l)+\nu \mathrm{\Delta }v^k,A_l^k=(\mathrm{\Delta }^1_k_l\delta _{kl}),`$ (4.2)
$`v^k_{t=0}`$ $`=\widehat{v}^k,`$
where $`\delta _{kl}=1`$ for $`k=l`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

Operator $`A_l^k`$ is bounded:

$`A_l^ku_K`$ $`c_{K,D}u_D,`$ (4.3)
Compact $`K`$ belongs to the domain $`D`$, constant $`c_{K,D}`$ is positive.

According to formula (3.4) we present equation (4.2) in the form:

$`(v^k)(t,x)`$ $`=G^k(𝐯)=S^t\widehat{v}^k(x)+{\displaystyle _{L(t)}}S^{t\xi }A_l^k_j(v^jv^l)(\xi ,x)d\xi ,`$ (4.4)
$`G(𝐯)`$ $`=(G^1,\mathrm{},G^n).`$
###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`\widehat{v}^k\widehat{V}`$. There exist positive constants $`\rho ,a`$ such that if $`V(t,x)`$ is the solution of equation (3.8) corresponding to these constants then the map $`G`$ takes a set

$$W=\{u𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))u\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{Re}t}V,\mathrm{div}u=0\}$$

into itself.

Proof. It easy to check that the map $`G`$ takes a solenoidal vector-field to a solenoidal vector-field.

Choose the constant $`a`$ such that if

$$v^k\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{Re}t}V$$

then

$$G^k(𝐯)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{Re}t}\widehat{V}+a_0^{\mathrm{Re}t}S^{\mathrm{Re}t\xi }D(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\xi V)^2𝑑\xi .$$

Choose the constant $`\rho `$ such that the estimate holds:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\tau \widehat{V}+a_0^\tau S^{\tau \xi }D(\mathrm{\Lambda }^\xi V)^2𝑑\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }^\tau \left(\widehat{V}+a_0^\tau P_\rho ^{\tau \xi }D(V)^2𝑑\xi \right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\tau V.$$

Lemma is proved.

###### Lemma 4.2

The set $`W`$ is convex and it is compact in $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$.

Proof. The convexity is obvious.

According to the Montel theorem it sufficient to prove that the set $`W`$ is bounded. For $`(t,x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(T)`$ we have

$`|v^k(t,x)|`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j^n}{}}v_j^k(t)e^{i(j,x)}\right|{\displaystyle \underset{j^n}{}}|v_j^k(t)|e^{|j|r/\alpha }`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^n}{}}V_j(\text{Re}t)e^{\frac{\nu }{2}|j|_e\mathrm{Re}t+|j|r/\alpha }{\displaystyle \underset{j^n}{}}V_j(\text{Re}t)e^{\frac{\nu }{2}|j|_er+|j|r/\alpha },`$
where

$$\alpha =\frac{3}{\nu \underset{¯}{c}}.$$

Thus

$$v^k_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_r(T)}\underset{tI_T}{sup}\underset{j^n}{}V_j(\text{Re}t)e^{\frac{\nu }{2}|j|_er+|j|r/\alpha }.$$
(4.5)
The right-hand side of estimate (4.5) is bounded for all admissible $`r`$. It follows from the fact that $`VC(I_T,_s).`$

Lemma is proved.

The map $`G`$ is continues with respect to the seminormed topology in $`𝒪(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T))`$. Thus according to the Theorem 3 and Lemma 4.2 it has a fixed point $`𝐯(t,x)W`$. This fixed point is solution of equations (2.1), (2.2) for $`(t,x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(T)`$.

Let us show that the vector-field $`𝐯(t,x)`$ satisfies the conditions (2.4). (We check these equalities just for $`k=0`$. The others turns out in analogous way.)

So,

$$v^k(t,)\widehat{v}^k_s_{L(t)}S^{t\xi }A_l^k_j(v^jv^l)(\xi ,x)d\xi _s+\widehat{v}^kS^t\widehat{v}^k_s.$$

The second term in this formula obviously vanishes when $`t0`$. The first one estimates in the following way:

$`{\displaystyle _{L(t)}}S^{t\xi }A_l^k_j(v^jv^l)(\xi ,x)d\xi _sa{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{Re}t}}P_\rho ^{\mathrm{Re}t\xi }D(V)^2(\xi ,x)𝑑\xi _s0,`$
$`t0.`$
The existence is proved.

### 4.2 The Uniqueness

Let $`𝕋_r^n=\{x^n\text{Re}x𝕋^n,|\text{Im}x|_m<r\}`$ be a complex neighborhood of the torus. Let $`u=_{k^n}u_ke^{i(k,x)}𝒪(𝕋_r^n)`$, consider a norm $`u_r^{}^{}=_{k^n}|u_k|e^{|k|r^{}},r^{}<r.`$

This norm satisfies to the Cauchy inequality:

$$u_r^{}\frac{c}{\delta }u_{r+\delta }^{}.$$

In this section we consider only real value of variable $`t`$.

We prove that problem (4.2) has an unique solution. Assume the converse. Let $`v^j(t,x)`$ and $`u^j(t,x)`$ be a different solutions of this problem for $`t`$ greater than some positive constant $`\widehat{t}`$:

$$K=\underset{\widehat{t}tT}{sup}v^j(t,x)u^j(t,x)_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{}>0,\alpha \stackrel{~}{r}<\widehat{t}.$$

###### Lemma 4.3

There is a constant $`C`$ such that for all positive integers $`k`$ we have

$$v^j(t,x)u^j(t,x)_r^{}K\left(\frac{Ce(t\widehat{t})}{\stackrel{~}{r}r}\right)^k,r<\stackrel{~}{r}.$$
(4.6)
Tending $`k\mathrm{}`$ in (4.6) we obtain

$$u^jv^j_r^{}=0,\mathrm{for}\widehat{t}t<\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}r}{Ce}+\widehat{t}.$$

This contradiction proves the uniqueness.

Proof of Lemma 4.3 By formula (4.4) we get

$$u^mv^m=_{\widehat{t}}^tS^{ts}A_l^m_j(v^jv^lu^ju^l)ds.$$

So for $`k=1`$ formula (4.6) follows from the Cauchy inequality and formulas (3.2), (4.3):

$$u^jv^j_r^{}\frac{C}{\stackrel{~}{r}r}u^jv^j_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{}$$

Suppose it is valid for $`k`$ and prove it for $`k+1`$.

For $`r<r^{}<\stackrel{~}{r}`$ we have

$`u^jv^j_r^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{t}}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r^{}r}}u^jv^j_r^{}^{}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \frac{CK}{r^{}r}}{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{t}}{\overset{t}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Ce\tau }{\stackrel{~}{r}r^{}}}\right)^k𝑑\tau `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{CK(Me)^k(t\widehat{t})^{k+1}}{(r^{}r)(\stackrel{~}{r}r^{})^k(k+1)}}|_{r^{}=r+\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}r}{k+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Ce(t\widehat{t})}{\stackrel{~}{r}r}}\right)^{k+1}K.`$
Lemma is proved.

## 5 Generalized Schauder’s fixed point theorem

Let $`(L,\{_\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }})`$ be a seminormed space. A basis of topology in $`L`$ is given by the balls:

$$B_\tau (\widehat{x},r)=\{xLx\widehat{x}_\tau <r\}.$$

And let there exists $`\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`_\omega ^{}`$ is a norm. Compact set $`KL`$ is convex.

Consider a continuous map $`f:KK`$.

###### Theorem 3 (Generalized Schauder’s theorem)

There exists a point $`\widehat{x}K`$ such that $`f(\widehat{x})=\widehat{x}`$.

This result is well known. It is a special case of theorem from . Nevertheless for completeness of exposition we present direct and simple proof.

Recall the original formulation of Schauder’s theorem . Let $`(L,)`$ be a Banach space and $`KL`$ be a convex compact set. Then a continuous map $`f:KK`$ has a fixed point $`\widehat{x}K`$.

Note that though this formulation include completeness of the space, actually this condition is not necessarily. The point is that the prove of this theorem (see ) considers the map $`f`$ only on the compact $`K`$ but any compact set is complete and can be embedded to a completion of the space $`L`$.

### 5.1 Proof of Theorem 3

Let $`(E,\{\rho _\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }})`$ and $`(F,\{d_\sigma \}_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ are semimetric spaces and there exist $`\omega ^{},\sigma ^{}`$ such that the semimetricsis $`\rho _\omega ^{}`$ and $`d_\sigma ^{}`$ are metricsis.

Consider a compact (with respect to the semimetric topology) $`K(E,\{\rho _\omega \}_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }})`$ and a map $`f:EF`$.

###### Lemma 5.1

If the map $`f:EF`$ is continuous on $`K`$ with respect to the semimetric topology then it is continuous on $`K`$ as a map of the metric space $`(E,\rho _\omega ^{})`$ to the metric space $`(F,d_\sigma ^{})`$.

Proof. Let $`\{x_n\}K`$ be a sequence such that $`\rho _\omega ^{}(x_n,a)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ where $`aK`$ and we put $`y_n=f(x_n)`$. So we must prove that $`d_\sigma ^{}(y_n,b)0`$ where $`b=f(a)`$.

Assume the converse. Then there exists a subsequence $`\{y_n^{}\}\{y_n\}`$ such that $`d_\sigma ^{}(y_n^{},b)c>0`$. A set $`\widehat{K}=f(K)`$ is compact as an image of a compact set under a continuous map and $`\{y_n^{}\}\widehat{K}`$. Thus, there exists a subsequence $`\{y_n^{\prime \prime }\}\{y_n^{}\}`$ such that

$$d_\sigma (y_n^{\prime \prime },\beta )0,\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma },\beta b.$$
(5.1)
Let $`\{x_n^{\prime \prime }\}\{x_n\}`$ be a sequence such that $`y_n^{\prime \prime }=f(x_n^{\prime \prime })`$. Consider a subsequence $`\{x_n^{\prime \prime \prime }\}\{x_n^{\prime \prime }\}`$ that converges with respect to the semimetric topology: $`\rho _\omega (x_n^{\prime \prime \prime },a)0`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`y_n^{\prime \prime \prime }=f(x_n^{\prime \prime \prime })`$. Note that $`\{y_n^{\prime \prime \prime }\}\{y_n^{\prime \prime }\}`$.

Since $`f`$ is continuous we have $`d_\sigma (y_n^{\prime \prime \prime },b)0`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. On the other hand we have (5.1). This contradiction proves the Lemma.

Lemma is proved.

Theorem 3 almost directly follows from original Schauder’s theorem and Lemma 5.1. Indeed, by Lemma 5.1 the map $`f`$ is continuous on $`K`$ with respect to the norm $`_\omega ^{}`$. By $`\overline{L}`$ denote a completion of $`L`$ with respect to the same norm.

It is easy to check that the compactness of the set $`K`$ with respect to the seminormed topology involves the compactness of $`K`$ with respect to the norm $`_\omega ^{}`$. So we obtain the continuous map $`f:KK`$ where $`K`$ is a convex compact set in the Banach space $`\overline{L}`$.

By original Schauder’s theorem we get the fixed point $`\widehat{x}`$.

Theorem 3 is proved.