text:
# The Forced Non-Linear Schrödinger Equation with a Potential on the Half-Line 2000 AMS classification 35Q40, 35Q55, and 35R30. Research partially supported by proyecto PAPIIT, IN 101902-3, DGAPA-UNAM.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we analyse in detail the initial-boundary value problem for the forced non-linear Schrödinger equation with a potential on the half-line (FNLSP),

$$i\frac{}{t}u(x,t)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}u(x,t)+V(x)u(x,t)+F(x,t,u),u(0,t)=f(t),u(x,0)=\varphi (x),$$
(1.1)
where $`F(x,t,u)`$ is a complex-valued function of $`x𝐑^+,t𝐑`$, $`u𝐂`$. The functions $`\varphi `$, $`f`$, satisfy the compatibility condition, $`\varphi (0)=f(0)`$. We solve this problem along the lines of , who studied the pure initial value problem for the non-linear Schrödinger equation on $`𝐑^n,n1`$. Note, however, that we allow for a much larger class of potentials than in . In particular, we do not need to require that $`\frac{d^2}{dx^2}V(x)`$ is bounded, as is the case in . In fact, for local solutions we have no restriction on the grow at infinity of the positive part of the potential and for global solutions very mild assumptions that allow, for example, for exponential grow. We consider potentials -that are in general time dependent- that can be decomposed as the sum of two parts. The first one is what we call $`V`$ in the FNLSP (1.1); it is independent of time but it can have singularities and it can grow at infinity. The second part is in general time dependent, but -together with its derivatives with respect to $`x`$ and $`t`$\- it has to be bounded for $`(x,t)(𝐑\times I)`$, with $`I`$ any bounded set. This second part is included in $`F`$.

We consider the following class of potentials,

$$V:=V_1+V_2\mathrm{with}V_jL_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(𝐑^+),j=1,2,V_10,\mathrm{and}\underset{x𝐑^+}{sup}_x^{x+1}|V_2(y)|𝑑y<\mathrm{}.$$
(1.2)
By $`W_{l,2},l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, we denote the standard Sobolev spaces  in $`𝐑^+`$ and by $`W_{l,2}^{(0)}`$ the completion of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^+)`$ in the norm of $`W_{l,2}`$. The functions in $`W_{l,2}^{(0)}`$ satisfy the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition at zero, $`\frac{d^j}{dx^j}u(0)=0,j=0,1,\mathrm{},l1`$. In the case $`l=0`$ we use the standard notation, $`W_{0,2}=W_{0,2}^{(0)}=L^2`$. We designate, $`q:=\sqrt{V_1}`$, and by $`D(q)`$ the domain in $`L^2`$ of the operator of multiplication by $`q`$. We denote,

$$_1^{(0)}:=W_{1,2}^{(0)}D(q)\mathrm{with}\mathrm{norm}\varphi _{_1^{(0)}}:=\mathrm{max}[\varphi _{W_{1,2}^{(0)}},q\varphi _{L^2}].$$
(1.3)
Let us denote by $`H_0`$ the self-adjoint realization of $`\frac{d^2}{dx^2}`$ with domain $`W_{2,2}W_{1,2}^{(0)}`$, i.e., the self-adjoint realization with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition at zero. We have that (see Section 2 for details) the quadratic form,

$$h(\varphi ,\psi ):=(\stackrel{´}{\psi },\stackrel{´}{\psi })+(V\varphi ,\psi ),\mathrm{with}\mathrm{domain},D(h):=_1^{(0)},$$
(1.4)
is closed and bounded below. We denote by $`H`$ the associated bounded-below, self-adjoint operator (see , ). Then, $`D(H)=\{\varphi _1^{(0)}:H_0\varphi +V\varphi L^2\}`$ and,

$$H\varphi =H_0\varphi +V\varphi ,\mathrm{for}\varphi D(H).$$
(1.5)
We designate,

$$_1:=W_{1,2}D(q)\mathrm{with}\mathrm{norm}\varphi __1:=\mathrm{max}[\varphi _{W_{1,2}},q\varphi _{L^2}],$$
(1.6)
and,

$$_2:=\{\varphi _1\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V)\varphi L^2\},$$

$$\mathrm{with}\mathrm{norm}\varphi __2:=\mathrm{max}[\varphi __1,\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V\right)\varphi _{L^2}].$$
(1.7)
In Section 2 we study the initial-boundary value problem for the FNLSP (1.1). We first construct local solutions assuming that for each fixed $`x,t`$, the non-linearity $`F(x,t,u)`$ is $`C^1`$ in the real sense as a function of $`u`$. We prove that the FNLSP (1.1) is locally well posed in $`_1`$ and in $`_2`$ and that there is continuos dependence on the initial and boundary data. In other words, the FNLSP (1.1) forms a dynamical system by generating a continuous local flow (see ). Then, we prove that if $`F`$ satisfies a sign condition and has a hamiltonian structure the solutions exist for all times. Under these conditions the continuous local flows become global continuous flows, and in this sense the spaces of initial data $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are fundamental for the FNLSP (1.1). Note that if $`V_10`$, $`_1=W_{1,2}`$. We give in Section 2 sufficient conditions on $`V`$ assuring that $`_2=W_{2,2}D(V_1)`$ and in particular if $`V_10`$, that $`_2=W_{2,2}`$.

The existence and uniqueness of global solutions in $`W_{2,2}`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) with $`V0`$ and $`F=\lambda |u|^2u`$ was proven in , and the continuous dependence on the initial value and the boundary condition in . For existence and uniqueness of global solutions with $`V0`$ and $`F=\lambda |u|^{p1}u,\lambda >0,p>3`$ see . These papers give references for the application of the FNLSP (1.1) to important physical problems. For the solution of the direct and inverse scattering problems for the FNLSP (1.1) see  and . The existence of global solutions in $`𝐑^n,n2`$, with $`V0`$ and $`F=\lambda |u|^{p1}u,1<p<\mathrm{},\lambda >0`$, was proven in . For the integrable case where (1.1) can be studied with inverse scattering transform methods see  and the references quoted there. For the Korteweg-De Vries equation in the half-line see  and . For general references in non-linear initial value problems see , ,  and .

## 2 The Initial Boundary-Value Problem

We first prepare results that we need. The Propositon below is well known. We give the simple proof for the reader’s convenience

###### PROPOSITION 2.1.

Suppose that

$$\underset{x𝐑}{sup}_x^{x+1}|V_2(y)|𝑑y<\mathrm{}.$$
(2.1)
Then, for any $`ϵ>0`$ there is a constant, $`K_ϵ`$, such that,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}|V_2(x)||\varphi (x)|^2𝑑xϵ\stackrel{´}{\varphi }_{L^2}^2+K_ϵ\varphi _{L^2}^2,\varphi W_{1,2}.$$
(2.2)
Moreover, if

$$\underset{x𝐑}{sup}_x^{x+1}|V_2(y)|^2𝑑y<\mathrm{},$$
(2.3)
for any $`ϵ>0`$ there is a constant, $`K_ϵ`$, such that,

$$V_2\varphi _{L^2}^2ϵH_0\varphi _{L^2}^2+K_ϵ\varphi _{L^2}^2,\varphi D(H_0).$$
(2.4)
Proof: If $`\varphi W_{1,2}`$, for any $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, any $`x,y[n,n+1]`$ and any $`\delta >0`$, we have that,

$$|\varphi (x)|^2|\varphi (y)|^2=2\text{Re}_y^x\varphi (z)\overline{\stackrel{´}{\varphi }(z)}𝑑z\delta _n^{n+1}|\stackrel{´}{\varphi (z)}|^2𝑑z+\frac{1}{\delta }_n^{n+1}|\varphi (z)|^2𝑑z.$$
(2.5)
By the mean value theorem we can choose $`y`$ such that, $`|\varphi (y)|^2=_n^{n+1}|\varphi (z)|^2𝑑z`$, and it follows that,

$$|\varphi (x)|^2\delta _n^{n+1}|\stackrel{´}{\varphi }|^2(z)𝑑z+\left(1+\frac{1}{\delta }\right)_n^{n+1}|\varphi (z)|^2𝑑z.$$
(2.6)
Let $`C`$ be the finite quantity in the left-hand side of (2.1). Then,

$$_n^{n+1}|V_2(x)||\varphi (x)|^2𝑑xC\delta _n^{n+1}|\stackrel{´}{\varphi }|^2(z)𝑑z+C\left(1+\frac{1}{\delta }\right)_n^{n+1}|\varphi (z)|^2𝑑z.$$
(2.7)
Taking $`\delta `$ so small that $`ϵ=\delta C`$, and adding over $`n`$ we obtain (2.2). Let us now denote by $`C`$ the finite quantity on the left-hand side of (2.3). As $`D(H_0)=W_{2,2}W_{1,2}^{(0)}`$, if follows from (2.6) that,

$$_n^{n+1}|V_2(x)|^2|\varphi (x)|^2𝑑xC\delta _n^{n+1}|\stackrel{´}{\varphi }|^2(z)𝑑z+C\left(1+\frac{1}{\delta }\right)_n^{n+1}|\varphi (z)|^2𝑑z.$$
(2.8)
Taking now $`\delta `$ so small that $`ϵ=\delta C/2`$, adding over $`n`$ and as $`\stackrel{´}{\varphi }_{L^2}^2=(H_0\varphi ,\varphi )H_0\varphi _{L^2}^2/2+\varphi _{L^2}^2/2`$, we obtain (2.4).

Assuming that (1.2) holds, the results about $`h`$ and $`H`$ stated in the introduction (see (1.4)-(1.5)) follow from (2.2) and , . Below we always assume that (2.1) is satisfied.

We study the initial boundary-value problem for the FNLSP (1.1) for $`t0`$, but by changing $`t`$ into $`t`$ and taking the complex conjugate of the solution (time reversal) we also obtain the results for $`t0`$. Let $`F(x,t,z)`$ be a complex-valued function of $`x𝐑^+,t𝐑^+,z𝐂`$. As we are not assuming analyticity of $`F`$ we consider the derivative, $`\stackrel{´}{F}`$, in the real sense. For each $`z𝐂`$, $`\stackrel{´}{F}`$ is defined as the real-linear operator on $`𝐂`$, given by,

$$\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,z)v:=\left(\frac{}{z}F(x,t,z)\right)v+\left(\frac{}{\overline{z}}F(x,t,z)\right)\overline{v},v𝐂,$$
(2.9)
with the standard notation, $`\frac{}{z}:=(1/2)\left(\frac{}{a}i\frac{}{b}\right)`$ and $`\frac{}{\overline{z}}:=(1/2)(\frac{}{a}+i\frac{}{b})`$ where $`z=a+ib`$. We denote, $`\left|\stackrel{´}{F}\right|:=\left|\frac{}{z}F\right|+\left|\frac{}{\overline{z}}F\right|`$. $`\stackrel{´}{F}`$ can be identified (when viewed as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix) with the Gateaux derivative in the real sense of the map $`z𝐂F(x,t,z)𝐂`$ for each fixed $`x,t`$. We say that for each fixed $`x,t`$, $`F`$ is $`C^1(𝐂,𝐂)`$ in the real sense if $`\frac{}{z}F(x,t,z)`$ and $`\frac{}{\overline{z}}F(x,t,z)`$ are continuous functions of $`z`$ for each fixed $`x,t`$, or equivalently if the map $`z\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,z)`$ is continuous from $`𝐂`$ into the real-linear operators in $`𝐂`$. For $`T>0`$ we denote, $`I:=[0,T]`$ if $`T<\mathrm{}`$ and $`I:=[0,\mathrm{})`$ if $`T=\mathrm{}`$.

Assumption A

Suppose that $`F(x,t,z)`$ is a function from $`[0,\mathrm{})\times I\times 𝐂`$ into $`𝐂`$, that for each fixed $`x[0,\mathrm{}),tI`$, is $`C^1`$ in $`z`$ in the real sense. Moreover, assume that for each fixed $`t,z`$, $`F`$ is differentiable in $`x𝐑^+`$, that $`F(x,t,0)=0`$ and that for each $`R>0`$ and each bounded subset, $`I_N`$, of $`I`$, there is a constant $`C_{R,N}`$ such that,

$$\left|\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N},\text{for}x[0,\mathrm{}),tI_N,|z|R,$$
(2.10)
and,

$$\left|\left(\frac{}{x}F\right)(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N}|z|,\text{for}x[0,\mathrm{}),tI_N,|z|R.$$
(2.11)
Furthermore, if the force, $`f`$, in (1.1) is not identically zero, suppose that for each fixed $`z`$, $`F(0,t,z)`$ is differentiable in $`t`$ and

$$\left|\frac{}{t}F(0,t,z)\right|C_{R,N},tI_n,|z|R.$$
(2.12)
Assumption A allows for a large class of non-linearities. For example, the standard single-power non-linearity, $`|u|^{p1}u,p>1`$, or more generally any $`F(z)`$ that is $`C^1`$ in the real sense, are allowed. Let us denote by $`_1`$ the dual of $`_1^{(0)}`$ with the pairing given by the scalar product of $`L^2`$. Then, as the quadratic form domain of $`H`$ is $`_1^{(0)}`$, $`H`$ extends to a bounded operator from $`_1^{(0)}`$ into $`_1`$. Moreover, $`e^{itH}`$ is a bounded operator from $`_1^{(0)}`$ into $`C(I,_1^{(0)})C^1(I,_1)`$ and,

$$i\frac{}{t}e^{itH}\varphi =He^{itH}\varphi =e^{itH}H\varphi .$$
(2.13)
Suppose that $`u(x,t)C(I,_1)`$ is a solution of (1.1) where $`fC^2(I)`$. Furthermore, if $`f`$ is not identically zero, assume that $`VW_{1,2}((0,\delta ))`$ for some $`\delta >0`$. Note that the compatibility condition $`\varphi (0)=f(0)`$ has to be satisfied if there is a solution to (1.1). Denote, $`v(x,t):=u(x,t)r(x,t)`$ where $`r(x,t):=[f(t)+\frac{1}{2}x^2(V(0)f(t)+F(0,t,f(t))i\stackrel{´}{f}(t))]g(x)`$, with $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}))`$, $`g(x)=1,0x\delta /2`$ and with support contained in $`[0,\delta )`$. Then, $`v(x,t)C(I,_1^{(0)})`$ solves,

$$i\frac{}{t}v(x,t)=Hv(x,t)+F_1(x,t,v),v(0,t)=0,v(x,0)=v_0(x):=\varphi (x)r(x,0),$$
(2.14)
where,

$$F_1(x,t,v):=F(x,t,v+r)i\frac{}{t}r+V(x)r\frac{^2}{x^2}r.$$
(2.15)
Note that by the compatibility condition, $`v_0_1^{(0)}`$. Clearly, equations (1.1) and (2.14) are equivalent. By Assumption A and Sobolev’s  theorem for any $`t,N>0`$ there is a constant, $`C`$, such that, $`F_1(x,s,v)_{L^2}C`$ for all $`0st`$ and $`vW_{1,2}`$ with $`v_{W_{1,2}}N`$. Multiplying both sides of (2.13) (evaluated at $`\tau `$) by $`e^{i(t\tau )H}`$ and integrating in $`\tau `$ from zero to $`t`$ we obtain that,

$$v(t)=e^{itH}v_0+\frac{1}{i}G(v),$$
(2.16)
where we designate by $``$ the operator $`v(v):=F_1(x,t,v)`$, and

$$\left(Gf\right)(t):=_0^te^{i(t\tau )H}f(\tau )𝑑\tau ,tI.$$
(2.17)
We prove below that if $`v(t)C(I,_1^{(0)})`$ is a solution to (2.16), it is also a solution to (2.14). We denote,

$$v_1(x,t):=\frac{1}{i}_0^te^{i(t\tau )H}F_1(x,\tau ,v(x,\tau ))𝑑\tau .$$
(2.18)
It follows from Assumption A that $`F_1(x,\tau ,v)L_{\mathrm{l}oc}^{inf}(I,_1^{(0)})`$. Hence, $`v_1C(I,_1^{(0)})C^1(I,_1)`$, and

$$i\frac{}{t}v_1(t)=Hv_1(t)+F_1(x,t,v).$$
(2.19)
Equations (2.16) and (2.19) imply that (2.14) holds. This proves that (2.14) and (2.16) are equivalent. We obtain our results below by solving the integral equation (2.16).

Assumption B

Suppose that $`V`$ can be decomposed as, $`V:=V_1+V_2`$ with $`V_jL_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(𝐑^+),j=1,2,V_10`$, and $`V_2`$ satisfies (2.1). Moreover, assume that $`fC^2(I)`$, and if $`f`$ is not identically zero, suppose that $`VW_{1,2}((0,\delta ))`$ for some $`\delta >0`$.

We designate, $`:=L^{\mathrm{}}(I,_1^{(0)})`$. By Sobolev’s theorem , $`L^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐑^+\times I\right)`$ and $`v(x,t)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑^+\times I)}Cv_{}`$. Moreover, we denote, $`B:=L^{\mathrm{}}(I,L^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{´}{B}:=L^1(I,L^2)`$.

###### THEOREM 2.2.

Suppose that Assumptions A and B are satisfied. Then, for any $`\varphi _1`$ satisfying $`\varphi (0)=f(0)`$, there is a finite $`T_0T`$ such that the FNLSP (1.1) has a unique solution, $`uC([0,T_0],_1)`$ with $`u(x,0)=\varphi `$. $`T_0`$ depends only on $`\varphi __1`$.

Proof: we prove the theorem by showing that (2.16) has a unique solution $`vC([0,T_0],_1^{(0)})`$ such that, $`v(x,0)=v_0(x):=\varphi (x)r(x,0)`$. Let us take $`I=[0,T_0]`$ with $`T_0<\mathrm{}`$. Let us denote by $`\overline{}`$ the space of bounded and continuous functions from $`I`$ into $`_1^{(0)}`$. Let $`_R`$ and $`\overline{}_R`$ be, respectively, the closed ball in $``$, and in $`\overline{}`$, with center zero and radius $`R`$. Let us prove that $`_R`$ is closed in the norm of $`B`$. Suppose that $`v_n_R`$ converges to $`v`$ in the norm of $`B`$. Then, $`lim_n\mathrm{}v_n(t)v(t)_{L^2}=0`$ for a.e. $`t`$. But as $`v_n_R`$, $`v_n(t)_{_1^{(0)}}R`$ for a.e. $`t`$. In consequence $`v(t)__1R`$ for a.e. $`t`$. Moreover, there is a subsequence - denoted also $`v_n(t)`$\- such $`\frac{}{x}v_n`$ converges weakly to $`\frac{}{x}v`$ in $`L^2`$, for a.e. $`t`$, and then, $`v(x,t)=lim_n\mathrm{}v_n(x,t)=lim_n\mathrm{}_0^x\frac{}{y}v_n(y,t)𝑑y=_0^x\frac{}{y}v(y,t)𝑑y`$, and it follows that $`v(0,t)=0`$, i.e., $`v_R`$. Hence, $`_R`$ is a complete metric space in the norm of $`B`$.

We define,

$$P(v):=e^{itH}v_0+\frac{1}{i}G(v),v.$$
(2.20)
As $`D(\sqrt{H+M})=_1^{(0)}`$, for $`M`$ large enough, we have that the norm $`\sqrt{H+M}\varphi _{L^2}`$ is equivalent to the norm of $`_1^{(0)}`$. Then, by the unitarity of $`e^{itH}`$ in $`L^2`$ and as $`\sqrt{H+M}`$ commutes with $`e^{itH}`$,

$$e^{itH}v_0_{_1^{(0)}}C\sqrt{H+M}e^{itH}v_0_{L^2}Cv_0_{_1^{(0)}},$$
(2.21)
and moreover,

$$e^{itH}_{\left(_1^{(0)}\right)}C,\mathrm{for}t𝐑.$$
(2.22)
As $`VW_{1,2}((0,\delta ))`$ if $`f`$ is not identically zero, it follows from Assumption A and Sobolev’s theorem that there is a constant $`C_R`$ such that for $`v_R`$,

$$(v)_{_1^{(0)}}C_R.$$
(2.23)
Note that $`(v)(t)_1^{(0)}`$ if $`v`$. By (2.22) and (2.23), there is a constant $`C_R`$ such that,

$$G(v)_{}=\underset{t[0,T_0]}{sup}G(v)_{_1^{(0)}}C_R_0^{T_0}𝑑t(v)_{_1^{(0)}}C_RT_0,$$
(2.24)
for all $`v_R`$. By (2.21) and (2.24) we can take $`R`$ large enough and $`T_0`$ small enough (depending only on $`\varphi _{_1^{(0)}}`$) such that $`P`$ sends $`_R`$ into $`\overline{_R}`$. By Assumption A there is a constant $`C`$ such that,

$$(u)(v)_BCuv_B,u,v_R.$$
(2.25)
Then, by the unitarity of $`e^{itH}`$ in $`L^2`$,

$$P(u)P(v)_BCT_0uv_B,u,v_R.$$
(2.26)
Given $`R`$ we can take $`T_0`$ so small that $`P`$ is a contraction on the metric of $`B`$. By the contraction mapping theorem $`P(u)`$ has a unique fixed point that is the only solution to the FNLSP in $`_R`$ . If there is another solution, $`u_1C([0,T_0],_1^{(0)})`$, to (1.1), then, $`v_1:=u_1r`$ has to be a solution to (2.16), but since $`G(v_1)(t)_{_1^{(0)}}`$ can be made arbitrarily small by taking $`0tT_1,T_1T_0`$, by the same argument as above we have that $`v(t)=v_1(t),0tT_1`$, where $`T_1`$ depends only on $`\varphi __1`$. By iterating this argument we prove that $`v(t)=v_1(t),0tT_0`$.

###### THEOREM 2.3.

Suppose that Assumptions A and B are satisfied by $`V,F,f,f_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where we require that $`VW_{1,2}((0,\delta ))`$ for some $`\delta >0`$ only if the $`f_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are not all identically zero for n large enough. Then, the solution $`uC([0,T_0],_1),u(0)=\varphi ,T_0T`$, to the FNLSP (1.1) depends continuously on the initial value and on the boundary condition. In a precise way, let $`uC([0,T_0],_1)`$ be the solution to (1.1) with $`u(0)=\varphi `$, let $`\varphi _n\varphi `$ in $`_1`$ with $`\varphi _n(0)=f_n(0`$) and assume that $`f_n(t)f(t)`$ in $`C^2([0,T_0])`$. Then, for $`n`$ large enough the solution $`u_nC([0,T_0],_1)`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) with initial condition $`\varphi _n`$ and boundary condition $`f_n`$ exits for $`t[0,T_0]`$ and $`u_nu`$ in $`C([0,T_0],_1)`$.

Proof: We first prove a local version for $`T_0`$ small enough. We denote $`v_{0,n}(x):=\varphi _n(x)r_n(x,0),`$ with $`r_n(x,t):=[f_n(t)+\frac{1}{2}x^2(V(0)f_n(t)+F(0,t,f_n(t))i\stackrel{´}{f_n}(t))]g(x)`$, and,

$$P_n(v):=e^{itH}v_{0,n}+\frac{1}{i}G_n(v),v,$$
(2.27)
where we designate by $`_n`$ the operator $`v_n(v):=F_{1,n}(x,t,v(x,t))`$, with,

$$F_{1,n}(x,t,v):=F(x,t,v+r_n)i\frac{}{t}r_n(x,t)+V(x)r_n(x,t)\frac{^2}{x^2}r_n(x,t).$$
(2.28)
As in the proof of Theorem 2.2 we prove that for $`R`$ large enough and $`T_0`$ small enough all the $`P_n`$ send $`_R`$ into $`\overline{_R}`$ and are contractions in the norm of $`B`$ with a uniform contraction rate $`\sigma <1`$ independent of $`n`$. Let $`v_n`$ be the unique fixed point. Then, $`u_n:=v_n+r_nC([0,T_0],_1)`$ are the unique solutions to the FNLSP (1.1) with initial value $`\varphi _n`$ and boundary condition $`f_n`$. Furthermore,

$$v_nv_B=e^{itH}[v_{0,n}v_0]+\frac{1}{i}\left(G_n(v_n)G(v)\right)_Bv_{0,n}v_0_{L^2}+\sigma v_nv_B+$$

$$CT_0f_nf_{C^2([0,T_0])},$$
(2.29)
and it follows that $`v_nv`$ in $`B`$. Moreover, by (2.21), (2.22) and denoting, $`v_x:=\frac{}{x}v`$, and $`v_{n,x}:=\frac{}{x}v_n`$,

$$v_n(t)v(t)_{_1^{(0)}}Cv_{0,n}v_0_{_1^{(0)}}+CT_0[_n(v_n)(v)_B+D_n(v_n,v_{n,x})D_n(v_n,v_x)_B+$$

$$D_n(v_n,v_x)D(v,v_x)_B+q(_n(v_n)(v))_B],$$
(2.30)
where,

$$D(v,v_x):=\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,v+r)(v_x+\frac{}{x}r)+\left(\frac{}{x}F\right)(x,t,v+r)$$

$$i\frac{^2}{xt}r+\stackrel{´}{V}(x)r+V(x)\frac{}{x}r\frac{^3}{x^3}r,$$
(2.31)
and,

$$D_n(v_n,v_{n,x}):=\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,v_n+r_n)(v_{n,x}+\frac{}{x}r_n)+\left(\frac{}{x}F\right)(x,t,v_n+r_n)$$

$$i\frac{^2}{xt}r_n+\stackrel{´}{V}(x)r_n+V(x)\frac{}{x}r_n\frac{^3}{x^3}r_n.$$
(2.32)
Furthermore,

$$_n(v_n)(v)_B+q(_n(v_n)(v))_BC[v_nv_B+q(v_nv)_B+f_nf_{C^2([0,T_0])}].$$
(2.33)
Also,

$$D_n(v_n,v_{n,x})D_n(v_n,v_x)_BCv_{n,x}v_x_B.$$
(2.34)
But then,

$$v_nv_{C([0,T_0],_1^{(0)})}Cv_{0,n}v_0_{_1^{(0)}}+CT_0[v_n(t)v(t)_{C([0,T_0],_1^{(0)})}+f_nf_{C^2([0,T_0])}+$$

$$D_n(v_n,v_x)D(v,v_x)_B].$$
(2.35)
And it follows that for $`CT_0<1/2`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}v_nv_x_{C([0,T_0],_1^{(0)})}2C\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}[v_{0,n}v_0_{_1^{(0)}}+T_0(D_n(v_n,v_x)D(v,v_x)_B+$$

$$f_nf_{C^2([0,T_0])})]=0,$$
(2.36)
where we used that, as $`v_nv`$ in $`L^2`$ and $`v_n_{W_{1,2}^{(0)}}C`$, it follows by interpolation  that $`v_nv`$ in $`W_{s,2}^{(0)},0<s<1`$, and Sobolev’s theorem. This proves that $`u_nu`$ in $`C([0,T_0],_1)`$. In a standard way we extend the result of the theorem -step by step- to the original interval. For this purpose it is essential that the interval of existence given by Theorem 2.2 depends only on the $`_1`$ norm of $`\varphi `$.

###### REMARK 2.4.

Suppose that Assumptions A and B are satisfied with $`I=[0,\mathrm{})`$. Let $`T_m`$ be the maximal time such that the solution, $`u`$, given by Theorem 2.2 can be extended to a solution $`uC([0,T_m),_1)`$, to the FNLSP (1.1) with $`u(0)=\varphi `$. Then if $`T_m`$ is finite we necessarily have that $`lim_{tT_m}u(t)__1=\mathrm{}`$. In other words, the solution exists for all times unless it blows up in the $`_1`$ norm for some finite time. This result follows from Theorem 2.2, because if $`u(t)__1`$ remains bounded as $`tT_m`$ we can extend the solution $`u`$ continuously to $`T_m+ϵ`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$, contradicting the definition of $`T_m`$. Theorem 2.2 implies also that the FNLSP (1.1) has a unique solution, $`uC(I,_1)`$, with $`u(0)=\varphi `$. For, suppose that there is another solution, $`vC(I,_1)`$, of this problem. Then, by Theorem 2.2 $`u(t)=v(t)`$, for $`tI_0:=[0,T_0],0<T_0T`$. Let $`I_m:=[0,T_m)I`$ be the maximal interval such that $`u(t)=v(t),tI_m`$. Then, if $`T<\mathrm{},T_m=T`$ -note that by continuity this implies that $`u(T)=v(T)`$\- and if $`T=\mathrm{},T_m=\mathrm{}`$. If $`T<\mathrm{}`$ this follows because by Theorem 2.2 if $`T_m<\mathrm{}`$, $`u(t)=v(t)`$ for $`tT_m+ϵ`$, for some $`ϵ>0`$, contradicting the definition of $`T_m`$. By the same argument if $`T=\mathrm{}`$, $`T_m`$ can not be finite.

We now consider solutions in $`_2`$.

###### THEOREM 2.5.

Suppose that Assumptions A and B are satisfied. Furthermore, assume that for each fixed $`x,z`$, $`F(x,t,z)`$ is differentiable in $`t`$ and,

$$\left|\left(\frac{}{t}F\right)(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N}|z|,\text{for}x[0,\mathrm{}),tI_N,|z|R.$$
(2.37)
Then, for any $`\varphi _2`$ with $`\varphi (0)=f(0)`$ there is a finite $`T_0T`$ such that the FNLSP (1.1) has a unique solution $`uC([0,T_0],_2)`$ with $`u(x,0)=\varphi `$. $`T_0`$ depends only on $`\varphi __2`$.

Proof: We designate,

$$_2^{(0)}:=\{\varphi _2:\varphi (0)=0\},\mathrm{and}𝒩:=\{vL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0],_2^{(0)}):\frac{}{t}v(t)B\},$$
(2.38)
with norm

$$v_𝒩:=\mathrm{max}[v_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0],_2^{(0)})},\frac{}{t}v_B].$$
(2.39)
We define $`\overline{𝒩}`$ as in (2.38) but replacing $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ with continuous. Note that if $`vB`$ and $`\frac{}{t}v(t)\stackrel{´}{B}`$, it follows that $`v(t)`$ is a absolutely continuous function of $`t[0,T_0]`$, with values in $`L^2`$. In consequence, $`v(0)L^2`$ exists and,

$$v(0)_{L^2}v_B.$$
(2.40)
We use the designation,

$$𝒩_R:=\{v𝒩:v_𝒩R,\text{and}v(0)=v_0\}.$$
(2.41)
We first prove that $`𝒩_R`$ is a complete metric space in the norm of $`B`$. It is enough to prove that it is a closed subset of $`B`$. Supose that $`v_n𝒩_R`$ converges to $`vB`$ in the norm of $`B`$. We have to prove that $`v𝒩_R`$. We have that $`lim_n\mathrm{}v_n(t)v(t)_{L^2}=0,\text{for a.e.}t`$. But as $`v_n𝒩_R`$, $`v_n(t)_𝒩R`$ for a.e. $`t`$. In consequence, $`\mathrm{max}[[v_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0],_2)},\frac{}{t}v_B]R`$ for a.e. $`t`$. We prove that $`v(0,t)=0`$ as in the proof of Theorem 2.2. Moreover, we have that (eventually passing to a subsequence) $`\frac{}{t}v_n\frac{}{t}v`$ weakly. Then, as $`v_n(t)=v_0+_0^t\frac{}{s}v_n(s)𝑑s`$, we obtain that $`v(0)=v_0`$. Hence, $`v𝒩_R`$.

Let $`P`$ be defined as in (2.20). Let us prove that we can take $`R`$ so large and $`T_0`$ so small (depending only on $`\varphi __2`$) that $`P`$ sends $`𝒩_R`$ into $`\overline{𝒩_R}`$. As $`D(H)=_2^{(0)}`$, and since $`H`$ commutes with $`e^{itH}`$ and $`i\frac{}{t}e^{itH}\varphi =He^{itH}\varphi `$, $`e^{itH}`$ is bounded from $`_2^{(0)}`$ into $`\overline{𝒩}`$ with operator norm independent of $`T_0`$. Furthermore, suppose that $`wB`$ and that $`\frac{}{t}w(t)\stackrel{´}{B}`$, with $`w(0)=\psi L^2`$. Then,

$$\frac{}{t}Gw=G\frac{}{t}w+e^{itH}\psi .$$
(2.42)
We write, $`Gw=e^{itH}w_1(t)`$, with $`w_1(t):=_0^te^{i\tau H}w(\tau )𝑑\tau `$. Then,

$$\frac{}{s}e^{isH}w_1(t)|_{s=0}=e^{itH}w(t)\psi _0^te^{i\tau H}\stackrel{´}{w}(\tau )𝑑\tau .$$
(2.43)
As the right-hand side of (2.43) belongs to $`L^2`$ for a.e. $`t`$, it follows that $`w_1(t)D(H)=_2^{(0)}`$ for a.e. $`t`$. Then, $`Gw=e^{itH}w_1(t)_2^{(0)}`$ for a.e. $`t`$, and

$$HGw=i\frac{}{t}Gwiw.$$
(2.44)
By (2.42) and (2.44) $`Gw𝒩`$ and,

$$Gw_𝒩C\left[w_B+\frac{}{t}w_{\stackrel{´}{B}}\right].$$
(2.45)
For $`v𝒩_R`$ we write

$$P(v)=e^{itH}v_0\frac{1}{i}G(v_0)+\frac{1}{i}G[(v)(v_0)].$$
(2.46)
We take $`R`$ so large and $`T_0`$ so small that $`e^{itH}v_0\frac{1}{i}G(v_0)_𝒩R/2`$. Here we take $`w=(v_0)`$ in the estimates above. We now put $`w(t):=(v)(t)(v_0)`$. By Assumption A, $`wB`$ and $`\frac{}{t}w\stackrel{´}{B}`$. Then, as $`w(0)=0`$, by (2.45) given $`R`$ we can take $`T_0`$ so small that,

$$\frac{1}{i}G[(v)(v_0)]_{𝒩_R}\frac{R}{2}.$$
(2.47)
With this choice of $`R`$ and $`T_0`$, $`P`$ sends $`𝒩_R`$ into $`\overline{𝒩}_R`$. We already know -see the proof of Theorem 2.2- that $`P`$ is a contraction in the norm of $`B`$. The unique fixed point is the only solution to the FNLSP (1.1) in $`\overline{𝒩}_R`$. We complete the proof of the theorem as in the proof of Theorem 2.2.

###### THEOREM 2.6.

Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.5 are satisfied for $`V,F,f,f_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where we require that $`VW_{1,2}((0,\delta ))`$ for some $`\delta >0`$ only if the $`f_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are not all identically zero for n large enough. Moreover, assume that for each fixed $`x,t`$, $`(\frac{}{t}F)(x,t,z)`$ is $`C^1`$ in the real sense and that,

$$\left|\left(\stackrel{´}{\frac{}{t}F}\right)(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N}\mathrm{for}x[0,\mathrm{}),tI_N,|z|R.$$
(2.48)
Note that (2.48) implies (2.37). Then, the solution $`uC([0,T_0],_2),u(0)=\varphi ,T_0T`$, to the FNLSP (1.1) depends continuously on the initial value and on the boundary condition. In a precise way, let $`uC([0,T_0],_2)`$ be the solution to the FNLSP (1.1) with $`u(0)=\varphi `$. Let $`\varphi _n\varphi `$ in $`_2`$ satisfy, $`\varphi _n(0)=f_n(0)`$ and assume that $`f,f_nC^3`$ and that $`f_n(t)f(t)`$ in $`C^3([0,T_0])`$. Moreover, if all the $`f_n`$ are not identically zero for $`n`$ large enough, suppose that $`\frac{^2}{t^2}F(0,t,z),\frac{^2}{tz}F(0,t,z)`$ and $`\stackrel{´}{\stackrel{´}{F}}(0,t,z)`$ are continuous in $`z`$, uniformly in $`t`$. Then, for $`n`$ large enough the solution $`u_nC([0,T_0],_2)`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) with initial value $`\varphi _n`$ and boundary condition $`f_n`$ exists for $`t[0,T_0]`$ and $`u_nu`$ in $`C([0,T_0],_2)`$.

Proof: As in the proof of Theorem 2.3 it is enough to prove a local version for $`T_0`$ small enough. We define $`v_{0,n}`$ and $`P_n`$ as in the proof of Theorem 2.3. As in the proof of Theorem 2.5 we prove that for $`R`$ large enough and $`T_0`$ small enough all the $`P_n`$ send $`𝒩_R`$ (where we now require that $`v(0)=v_{0,n}`$) into $`\overline{𝒩_R}`$ and are contractions in the norm of $`B`$ with a uniform contraction rate $`\sigma <1`$ independent of $`n`$. Let $`v_n`$ be the unique fixed point. Then, $`u_n:=v_n+r_nC([0,T_0],_2)`$ are the unique solutions to the FNLSP (1.1) with initial value $`\varphi _n`$ and boundary condition $`f_n`$. Furthermore,

$$v_nv_B=e^{itH}[v_{0,n}v_0]+\frac{1}{i}\left(G_n(v_n)G(v)\right)_Bv_{0,n}v_0_{L^2}+\sigma v_nv_B+$$

$$CT_0f_nf_{C^2([0,T_0])}.$$
(2.49)
In consequence, $`v_nv`$ in $`B`$. By taking the derivative of (2.16) with respect to $`t`$ we obtain that,

$$i\frac{}{t}v=e^{itH}[Hv_0+(v_0)]+GE,$$
(2.50)
where,

$$E(v,\frac{}{t}v):=\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,v+r)\left(\frac{}{t}v+\frac{}{t}r\right)+\left(\frac{}{t}F\right)(x,t,v+r)i\frac{^2}{t^2}r+$$

$$\frac{}{t}rV(x)\frac{^3}{tx^2}r.$$
(2.51)
We similarly prove that $`\frac{}{t}v_n`$ satisfies,

$$i\frac{}{t}v_n=e^{itH}[Hv_{0,n}+_n(v_{0,n})]+GE_n,$$
(2.52)
with,

$$E_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v_n):=\stackrel{´}{F}(x,t,v_n+r_n)\left(\frac{}{t}v_n+\frac{}{t}r_n\right)+\left(\frac{}{t}F\right)(x,t,v_n+r_n)i\frac{^2}{t^2}r_n+$$

$$\frac{}{t}r_nV(x)\frac{^3}{tx^2}r_n.$$
(2.53)
By (2.50) and (2.52),

$$i\frac{}{t}v_n(t)i\frac{}{t}v(t)=e^{itH}[Hv_{0,n}+_n(v_{0,n})Hv_0(v_0)]+GE_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v_n)GE_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v)+$$

$$GE_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v)GE(v,\frac{}{t}v).$$
(2.54)
Furthermore,

$$G\left[E_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v_n)E_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v)\right]_BCT_0\frac{}{t}v_n\frac{}{t}v_B.$$
(2.55)
Hence, by (2.54) and (2.55) if $`CT_0<1/2`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{}{t}v_n\frac{}{t}v_B2\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}[Hv_{0,n}+_n(v_{0,n})Hv_0(v_0)_{L^2}+G[E_n(v_n,\frac{}{t}v)$$

$$E(v,\frac{}{t}v)]_B]=0,$$
(2.56)
where we used that as $`v_nv`$ in $`L^2`$ and $`v_n_{W_{1,2}^{(0)}}C`$, it follows by interpolation  that $`v_nv`$ in $`W_{s,2},0<s<1`$, and Sobolev’s theorem. Then, by the FNLSP (1.1) $`Hv_nHv`$ in $`L^2`$, and since $`v_nv`$ in $`L^2`$, we have that $`v_nv`$ in the norm of $`_1^{(0)}=D\left(\sqrt{H+M}\right)`$. It follows that $`v_n`$ converges to $`v`$ in the norm of $`_2^{(0)}`$, and then $`u_nu`$ in $`C([0,T_0],_2)`$. In a standard way we extend the result of the theorem -step by step- to the original interval. For this purpose it is essential that the interval of existence given by Theorem 2.5 depends only on the $`_2`$ norm of $`\varphi `$.

###### REMARK 2.7.

We prove as in Remark 2.4 that if $`I=[0,\mathrm{})`$ the solution in $`_2`$ exits for all times unless it blows up in the $`_2`$ norm for some finite time, and that Theorem 2.5 implies that the FNLSP (1.1) has a unique solution $`uC(I,_2)`$, with $`u(0)=\varphi _2`$.

If the assumptions of Theorem 2.5 are satisfied, for any $`\varphi _2`$ the FNLSP (1.1) has a unique solution in $`_1`$ and a unique solution in $`_2`$ both with $`u(0)=\varphi `$. In the proposition below we prove that it is impossible that the $`_2`$ solution blows up before the $`_1`$ solution does.

###### PROPOSITION 2.8.

(Regularity) Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.5 are satisfied. Let $`uC([0,T],_1)`$ be a solution to the FNLSP (1.1)with $`u(0)=\varphi _2`$. Then $`uC([0,T],_2)`$.

Proof: By Theorem 2.5 there is $`T_mT`$ such that $`u(t)C([0,T_m],_2)`$ and $`\frac{}{t}uC([0,T_m],L^2)`$. Furthermore, $`\frac{}{t}v`$ is a solution of the real-linear equation (where $`v`$ is now fixed) (2.50). Applying the contraction mapping theorem - step by step- to this equation we prove that $`\frac{}{t}vC([0,T],L^2)`$, and then, it follows from equation (2.14) that $`u=v+rC([0,T],_2)`$.

We impose now further restrictions on $`F`$ that will allow us to derive an a-priori bound on the $`_1`$ norm of the solutions, and then, by Remark 2.4 that the solutions exist for all times. We say that $`F`$ satisfies the sign condition if

$$\text{Im}\overline{z}F(x,t,z)=0,x,t𝐑^+,z𝐂,$$
(2.57)
and we say that there is a hamiltonian structure if there is a function $`h(x,t,z)`$, such that for each fixed $`x,t𝐑^+`$, $`h`$ is in $`C^2(𝐂,𝐑)`$ in the real sense, $`h(x,t,0)=0`$ and,

$$F(x,t,z)=2\frac{}{\overline{z}}h(x,t,z).$$
(2.58)
If Assumption A is satisfied we have that,

$$\left|h(x,t,z)\right|+\left|\left(\frac{}{x}h\right)(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N}|z|^2,\text{for}x[0,\mathrm{}),tI_N,|z|R.$$
(2.59)
Remark that as $`h(x,t,0)=0`$, equation (2.37) implies that $`h(x,t,z)`$ is differentiable in $`t`$, and that for each $`R>0`$ and each bounded subset, $`I_N`$, of $`I`$, there is a constant $`C_{R,N}`$ such that,

$$\left|\left(\frac{}{t}h\right)(x,t,z)\right|C_{R,N}|z|^2,\text{for}x𝐑^+,tI_N,|z|R.$$
(2.60)
Note that if (2.58) is satisfied, then, (2.57) is true if and only if $`h`$ depends only on $`|z|`$, i.e., if $`h(x,t,z)=h(x,t,|z|)`$ .

Below we always assume that $`_2W_{2,2}`$.

For any solution $`uC(I,_2)`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) the following identities hold. If (2.57) is satisfied,

$$\frac{d}{dt}u(t)_{L^2}^2=2\text{Im}P(t)\overline{f(t)},$$
(2.61)
where we denote, $`P(t):=(\frac{}{x}u)(0,t)`$. Observe that in the case where there is no external force, $`f0`$, this is the conservation of the $`L^2`$ norm. Moreover, let $`W(t)`$ be the Hamiltonian,

$$W(t):=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{x}u(t)_{L^2}^2+_{𝐑^+}\left(\frac{1}{2}V(x)|u(x,t)|^2+h(x,t,u)\right)𝑑x.$$
(2.62)
Then, if (2.58) is true,

$$\frac{d}{dt}W(t)=\text{Re}\stackrel{´}{f}(t)\overline{P(t)}+_{𝐑+}\left(\frac{}{t}h\right)(x,t,u)𝑑x.$$
(2.63)
In the case where there is no external force and $`h`$ is independent of time this identity is the conservation of energy. Furthermore, if (2.58) is satisfied,

$$\frac{d}{dt}(u,u_x)=i|P(t)|^2+2ih(0,t,f(t))f(t)\overline{\stackrel{´}{f}(t)}2i\text{Re}(Vu,u_x)+2i_{𝐑^+}\left(\frac{}{x}h\right)(x,t,u)𝑑x.$$
(2.64)
Note that if $`V`$ is differentiable,

$$2\text{Re}(Vu,u_x)=V(0)|f(0)|^2+_{𝐑^+}\stackrel{´}{V}(x)|u(x,t)|^2𝑑x.$$
(2.65)
The identity (2.64) is analogous to the conservation of momentum in the pure initial value problem in $`𝐑`$, c.f., . Remark, however, that even in the case without external force and with potential, $`V`$, and $`\frac{}{x}h(x,t,u)`$ both identically zero it is not a conservation law. This is to be expected because our problem is not translation invariant. The identities (2.61), (2.63) and(2.64) where proven in the case $`V0`$ and with $`F`$ a single power, $`F=\lambda |u|^{p1}u`$ in  and  (see also  for the multidimensional case) for suitable smooth solutions. For the reader’s convenience, we briefly give below the details that show that the proof extends to our case, and that it holds for solutions $`uC(I,_2)`$. As $`u(t)W_{2,2},lim_x\mathrm{}u(x,t)=lim_x\mathrm{}\frac{}{x}u(x,t)=0`$. Then, by (1.1), (2.57) and integrating by parts,

$$\frac{d}{dt}u(t)_{L^2}^2=2\text{Re}(\frac{}{t}u(t),u(t))=2\text{Im}(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}u(t),u(t))=2\text{Im}\overline{u(0,t)}\frac{}{x}u(0,t),$$
(2.66)
and (2.61) holds. Moreover, denoting $`u_x:=\frac{}{x}u`$ and $`u_{xx}=\frac{^2}{x^2}u`$, we have that,

$$\frac{}{t}\frac{1}{2}(u_x(t),u_x(t))=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{1}{2\delta }\left[(u_x(t+\delta )u_x(t),u_x(t+\delta ))+(u_x(t),u_x(t+\delta )u_x(t))\right]=$$

$$\text{Re}(\frac{}{t}u(t),u_{xx}(t))\text{Re}\stackrel{´}{f}(t)\overline{P(t)},$$
(2.67)
where we integrated by parts before taking the limit $`\delta 0`$.

Hence, by (1.1) and (2.58),

$$\frac{d}{dt}W(t)=\text{Re}(\frac{}{t}u(t),i\frac{}{t}u(t))\text{Re}\stackrel{´}{f}(t)\overline{P(t)}+_{𝐑+}\left(\frac{}{t}h\right)(x,t,u)𝑑x=$$

$$\text{Re}\stackrel{´}{f}(t)\overline{P(t)}+_{𝐑+}\left(\frac{}{t}h\right)(x,t,u)𝑑x,$$
(2.68)
and (2.63) holds. Finally, integrating by parts, and using (1.1),

$$\frac{d}{dt}(u,u_x)=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{1}{\delta }\left[(u(t+\delta )u(t),u_x(t+\delta ))+(u(t),u_x(t+\delta )u_x(t))\right]=2i\text{Im}(\frac{}{t}u(t),u_x)f(t)\overline{\stackrel{´}{f}(t)}=$$

$$2i\text{Re}(Hu+F(x,t,u),u_x)f(t)\overline{\stackrel{´}{f}(t)}=i|P(t)|^2+2ih(0,t,f(t))f(t)\overline{\stackrel{´}{f}(t)}$$

$$2i\text{Re}(Vu,u_x)+2i_{𝐑^+}\left(\frac{}{x}h\right)(x,t,u)𝑑x,$$
(2.69)
and (2.64) holds. For any function $`f`$ we denote by $`f_+`$ its positive part and by $`f_{}`$ its negative part, i.e., $`f=f_+f_{},f_\pm 0`$. Below we denote by $`\stackrel{´}{V}`$ the derivative of $`V`$ in distribution sense.

###### THEOREM 2.9.

Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.5 are satisfied with $`I=[0,\mathrm{})`$, that $`_2W_{2,2}`$ and that $`\stackrel{´}{V}`$ is a function with,

$$(\stackrel{´}{V})_+CV_1+Q,\mathrm{and}(\stackrel{´}{V})_{}L_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(𝐑^+),$$
(2.70)
where $`Q`$ satisfies (2.1). Furthermore, assume that (2.57), and (2.58) hold, where for each fixed $`x,t𝐑^+`$, $`h`$ is in $`C^2(𝐂,𝐑)`$, in the real sense, and $`h(x,t,0)=0`$. Moreover, assume that for each bounded subset $`I_N`$ of $`I`$ there is a constant $`C_N`$ such that,

$$\left(\frac{}{x}h\right)_+(x,t,z)C_N|z|^2,\mathrm{for}x𝐑^+,tI_N,z𝐂,$$
(2.71)
and that for some $`1<p3`$,

$$\left(\frac{}{t}h\right)_+(x,t,z)C_N\left(|z|^2+|z|^{p+1}\right),\mathrm{for}x𝐑^+,tI_N,z𝐂,$$
(2.72)
and,

$$h(x,t,z)C_N(|z|^2+|z|^{p+1}),\mathrm{for}x𝐑^+,tI_N,z𝐂.$$
(2.73)
Then, the solutions in $`_1`$ and in $`_2`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) given, respectively, by Theorems 2.2 and 2.5 exist for all time $`t[0,\mathrm{})`$.

Proof: In view of Remark 2.4 and of Proposition 2.8 it is enough to prove that for any finite time interval $`[0,T)`$, the solution $`uC([0,T),_1)`$ remains bounded in the norm of $`_1`$, as $`tT`$. Suppose first that the solution $`uC([0,T),_2)`$. For $`0t_1t<T`$ we denote, $`a(t):=(_{t_1}^t|P(\tau )|^2𝑑\tau )^{1/2}`$. In the estimates below we designate by $`C_T`$ any constant that depends only on $`T`$ and $`f`$, and by $`C_{T,1}`$ any constant that depends on $`T`$, $`f`$, and on the norm $`u(t_1)__1`$. We denote,

$$b(\varphi ):=\mathrm{max}[\stackrel{´}{\varphi }_{L^2},q\varphi _{L^2}].$$
(2.74)
By (2.61)

$$u(t)_{L^2}^2u(t_1)_{L^2}^2+C_Ta(t),t_1t<T.$$
(2.75)
We denote,

$$\alpha (t):=\underset{t_1st}{sup}b(u(s)).$$
(2.76)
Integrating (2.64) from $`t_1`$ to $`t`$, using (2.2), (2.65), (2.70), (2.71), (2.75) and the estimate $`|(u,u_x)|1/2u_{L^2}^2+1/2u_x_{L^2}^2`$, we prove that,

$$a(t)C_T\alpha (t)+C_{T,1},t[t_1,T),$$
(2.77)
where we used that $`a(t)`$ is a non-decreasing function. Integrating again (2.64) from $`t_1`$ to $`t`$, using now (2.2), (2.65), (2.70), (2.71), (2.75), (2.77) and as $`|(u,u_x)|u_{L^2}u_x_{L^2}`$ we obtain that,

$$a(t)\sqrt{u(t)_{L^2}u_x(t)_{L^2}}+C_{T,1}+C_T(Tt_1)\sqrt{\alpha (t)},t_1t<T.$$
(2.78)
We denote, $`g(t_1,t):=(_{t_1}^t|f(\tau )|^2𝑑\tau )^{1/2}`$. Now we integrate (2.61) from $`t_1`$ to $`t`$, and using (2.78) we prove that,

$$u(t)_{L^2}^2u(t_1)_{L^2}^2+2g(t_1,t)\left[\sqrt{u(t)_{L^2}u_x(t)_{L^2}}+C_{T,1}+C_T(Tt_1)\sqrt{\alpha (t)}\right],t_1t<T.$$
(2.79)
By (2.79) for some constant $`C`$,

$$u(t)_{L^2}^2C\left[u(t_1)_{L^2}^{8/3}+2^{4/3}(g(t_1,t))^{4/3}\left(u_x(t)_{L^2}^{2/3}+C_T(Tt_1)^{4/3}\alpha (t)^{2/3}+C_{T,1}\right)\right]+1,t_1t<T.$$
(2.80)
Here we consider first the case, $`u(t)_{L^2}1`$, where the estimate is trivial, and then the case $`u(t)_{L^2}1`$. For any $`1p<5`$ there is a constant $`C`$ such that for any $`uW_{1,2}`$ and any $`ϵ>0`$,

$$u_{L^{p+1}}^{p+1}Cϵu_x_{L^2}^2+\frac{C}{ϵ^{(\nu 1)/2}}u_{L^2}^{2\nu },$$
(2.81)
where $`\nu :=1+\frac{2(p1)}{5p}`$. We give the proof of (2.81) below. Integrating (2.63) from $`t_1`$ to $`t`$ , and by (2.2) with $`ϵ=1/4`$, (2.72), (2.73), (2.75), (2.77), (2.80), (2.81) and as $`\nu 3`$,

$$\frac{1}{4}b(u(t))^2W(t_1)+C_{T,1}+C_T\alpha (t)+C_T(Tt_1)[ϵ\alpha (t)^2+\frac{1}{ϵ^{(\nu 1)/2}}(C_{T,1}+$$

$$g(t_1,t)^{4\nu /3}\alpha (t)^2)],t_1t<T.$$
(2.82)
Pick any $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that, $`C_TT[ϵ+\frac{1}{ϵ^{(\nu 1)/2}}f_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T])}^{4\nu /3}\mathrm{\Delta }^{2\nu /3}1/8.`$ Then, by (2.82),

$$\alpha (t)^28\left\{W(t_1)+C_{T,1}+C_T\alpha (t)+\frac{C_{T,1}}{ϵ^{(\nu 1)/2}}\right\},t_1t<\mathrm{min}[t_1+\mathrm{\Delta },T].$$
(2.83)
As by Theorem 2.3 and Proposition 2.8 we can approximate solutions in $`_1`$ by solutions in $`_2`$, equations (2.79), (2.80), (2.82) and (2.83) hold also if $`uC([0,T),_1)`$.

Suppose now that we are given a solution $`uC([0,T_m),_1)`$ to the FNLSP (1.1) where $`T_m`$ is the maximal time of existence. Then, we must have $`T_m=\mathrm{}`$, because if $`T_m<\mathrm{}`$ we can take $`t_1=T_m\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and then by (2.75), (2.77) and (2.83),

$$u(t)__1C_{T,1},\mathrm{for}T_m\mathrm{\Delta }t<T_m,$$
(2.84)
and by Remark 2.4 we can continue $`u(t)`$ to $`t>T_m`$, in contradiction with the definition of $`T_m`$.

We now prove (2.81). By the Sobolev-Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality

$$u_{p+1}^{p+1}Cu_x_{L^2}^{a(p+1)}u_{L^2}^{(p+1)(1a)},a:=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{p+1}.$$
(2.85)
Inequality (2.85) is stated in  for $`uC_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑)`$, but by continuity it applies to $`uW_{1,2}(𝐑)`$ and extending $`uW_{1,2}`$ as an even function in $`W_{1,2}(𝐑)`$ it also holds for $`uW_{1,2}`$. Denote, $`k:=\frac{5p}{4}`$. Then, by (2.85),

$$u_{p+1}^{p+1}Cu_x_{L^2}^{2(1k)}u_{L^2}^{2\nu k}Cϵu_x_{L^2}^2+\frac{C}{ϵ^{(\nu 1)/2}}u_{L^2}^{2\nu },$$
(2.86)
where we used the inequality, $`a^{1k}b^kϵa+\frac{1}{ϵ^{(1/k1)}}b,a,b0,ϵ>0,0<k1.`$

###### REMARK 2.10.

In the case where $`f0`$ we prove that the solutions are global under weaker assumptions because we do not need to use identity (2.64). Suppose that assumptions A and B are satisfied with $`I=[0,\mathrm{})`$, and with $`f0`$, that (2.37), (2.57), and (2.58) hold, where for each fixed $`x,t𝐑^+`$, $`h`$ is in $`C^2(𝐂,𝐑)`$ in the real sense, and $`h(x,t,0)=0`$. Moreover, assume that $`_2^{(0)}W_{2,2}`$, that (2.72) and (2.73) hold with $`1<p<5`$. Then, the conclusions of Theorem 2.9 are true. The proof is much simpler now because by (2.61) $`u(t)C`$, and then by (2.63), (2.72), (2.73) and (2.81), $`b(u(t))C`$. We complete the proof as in Theorem 2.9.

###### REMARK 2.11.

Recall that our results in local solutions given in Theorems 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6, in Remarks 2.4, 2.7 and in Proposition 2.8 hold without any restriction on the grow of $`V_1`$ at infinity. Our results in global solutions given in Theorem 2.9 and in Remark 2.10 require that $`_2W_{2,2}`$. We give now a sufficient condition for this to hold. We denote by $`\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}`$ the set of all continuous and bounded functions, $`f`$, defined on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ that are globally Lipschitz, i.e. such that,

$$\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}(f):=\underset{x,y[0,\mathrm{}),xy}{sup}\frac{\left|f(x)f(y)\right|}{|xy|}<\mathrm{}.$$
(2.87)
Note that if $`f\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}`$ then $`f`$ is differentiable for a.e. $`x`$ with $`\stackrel{´}{f}L^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}(f):=\stackrel{´}{f}_L^{\mathrm{}}`$. Suppose as above that $`V=V_1+V_2,V_jL_{\mathrm{l}oc}^1(𝐑^+),j=1,2,V_10`$ and $`V_2`$ satisfies (2.3). Remark that, eventually adding $`1`$ to $`V_1`$ and substracting it from $`V_2`$, we can assume that $`V_11`$. Suppose that $`g:=(V_1)^{1/2}\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}`$. For $`c>0`$ denote $`g_c:=(V_1+c)^{1/2}`$. Observe that, $`\stackrel{´}{g}_c:=(1+cV_1^1)^{3/2}\stackrel{´}{g}`$. Then, $`g_c\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}(g_c)`$ decreases monotonically as $`c\mathrm{}`$. It follows from Theorem 7.1 of  (this paper considers the case in the whole line, but the proof in our case is the same) that if $`lim_c\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑝}g_c<1`$, then $`H_1:=H_0+V_1`$ is selfadjoint in the domain, $`D(H_1)=W_{2,2}W_{1,2}^{(0)}D(V_1)`$ . Hence, by (2.4) and Kato-Rellich’s theorem, $`D(H)=W_{2,2}W_{1,2}^{(0)}D(V_1)`$. Assume moreover, that $`V_1L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{}))`$. Let us take any $`hC_0^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}))`$, satisfying $`h(x)=1,0x1`$. We decompose any $`\varphi _2`$ as $`\varphi =\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$, with $`\varphi _1:=\varphi \varphi (0)h,\varphi _2:=\varphi (0)h`$. Then, under the assumptions above, $`\varphi _2\varphi _1D(H)`$, and it follows that in this case $`_2=W_{2,2}D(V_1)`$. Note that $`V_1`$ can be any positive polinomial, $`p(x)`$, or $`\mathrm{exp}p(x),\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{exp}p(x),\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, (2.70) is satisfied, for example, if $`V_1`$ any positive polynomial, or $`V_1=e^x`$, and $`(\stackrel{´}{V_2})_+`$ fulfills (2.1). Finally, note that in the case of Remark 2.10 where the force is identically zero we do not need that $`V_1L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{}))`$. In this case we can admit, for example, $`V_1=\frac{1}{x^k},0<x1,V_1=1,x1,k2`$ (for the case k=2 see Example 7.4 of ).


format: text

text:
# Interaction effects on counting statistics and the transmission distribution

(April 2003)

## Abstract

We investigate the effect of weak interactions on the full counting statistics of charge transfer through an arbitrary mesoscopic conductor. We show that the main effect can be incorporated into an energy dependence of the transmission eigenvalues and study this dependence in a non-perturbative approach. An unexpected result is that all mesoscopic conductors behave at low energies like either a single or a double tunnel junction, which divides them into two broad classes.

It has been shown that at low energy scales the relevant part of the electron-electron interaction in mesoscopic conductors comes from their electromagnetic environment OldNazarovIngold . The resulting dynamical Coulomb blockade has been thoroughly investigated for tunnel junctions Dev90 . The measure of the interaction strength is the external impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ at the frequency scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{max}(eV,k_BT)`$ determined by either the voltage $`V`$ at the conductor or its temperature $`T`$. If $`zG_QZ(\mathrm{\Omega })1`$ (with the conductance quantum $`G_Q=e^2/2\pi \mathrm{}`$) the interaction is weak, otherwise Coulomb effects strongly suppress electron transport.

A tunnel junction is the simplest mesoscopic conductor. An arbitrary mesoscopic conductor in the absence of interactions is characterized by its scattering matrix or, most conveniently, by a set of transmission eigenvalues $`T_n`$ Bee98 . This Landauer-Büttiker approach to mesoscopic transport can be extended to access the full counting statistics (FCS) of charge transfer Lev93 . The FCS contains not only the average current but also current noise and all higher moments of current correlations in a compact and elegant form.

Interaction effects on general mesoscopic conductors are difficult to quantify for arbitrary $`z`$. For $`z1`$, one can employ perturbation theory to first order in $`z`$ OldNazarov2 . Recent work Zai01 ; Yey01  associates the resulting interaction correction to the conductance with shot noise properties of the conductor. The interaction correction to noise is associated with the third cumulant of charge transfer Gal02 . This motivates us to study the interaction correction to all cumulants of charge transfer, i.e. to the FCS. The recent experiment Cro02  addresses the correction to the conductance at arbitrary transmission.

A tunnel junction in the presence of an electromagnetic environment exhibits an anomalous power-law I-V characteristic, $`I(V)V^{2z+1}`$. The same power law behavior is typical for tunnel contacts between one-dimensional interacting electron systems, the so-called Luttinger liquids Kan92 . It has also been found for contacts with arbitrary transmission between single-channel conductors in the limit of weak interactions Mat93 . In this case, the interactions have been found to renormalize the transmission.

In this Letter we study the effects of weak interactions $`z1`$ on the FCS of a phase coherent multi-channel conductor. In the energy range below the Thouless energy that we restrict our analysis to, its transmission probabilities $`T_n`$ are energy independent in the absence of interactions. We first analyze the interaction correction to first order in $`z`$. We identify an elastic and an inelastic contribution. The elastic contribution comes with a logarithmic factor that diverges at low energies suggesting that even weak interactions can suppress electron transport at sufficiently low energies. To quantify this we sum up interaction corrections to the FCS of all orders in $`z`$ by a renormalization group analysis. We show that the result is best understood as a renormalization of the transmission eigenvalues similar to that proposed in Mat93 . The renormalization brings about an energy dependence of the transmission eigenvalues according to the flow equation

$$\frac{dT_n(E)}{d\mathrm{ln}E}=2zT_n(E)[1T_n(E)].$$
(1)
To calculate transport properties in the presence of interactions, one evaluates $`T_n(E)`$ at the energy $`E\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

With relation (1) we explore the effect of interactions on the distributions of transmission probabilities for various types of mesoscopic conductors. In general, their conductance $`G`$ and their noise properties display a complicated behavior at $`z|\mathrm{ln}E|1`$ that depends on details of the conductor. However, in the limit of very low energies $`z|\mathrm{ln}E|1`$ we find only two possible scenarios. The first one is that the conductor behaves like a single tunnel junction with $`G(V)V^{2z}`$. In the other scenario, the transmission distribution approaches that of a symmetric double tunnel junction. The conductance scales then as $`G(V)V^z`$. Any given conductor follows one of the two scenarios. This divides all mesoscopic conductors into two broad classes.

We start out by evaluating the interaction correction to the FCS to first order in $`z`$. We analyze a simple circuit that consists of a mesoscopic conductor in series with an external resistor $`Z(\omega )`$ biased with a voltage source $`V`$ (Fig. 1). For this we employ a non-equilibrium Keldysh action technique art6 .

Within this approach, one represents the generating function $`(\chi )`$ of current fluctuations in the circuit as a path integral over the fields $`\varphi ^\pm (t)`$ defined on the time interval $`[0,\tau ]`$, that represent the fluctuating voltage in the node shared by mesoscopic conductor and external resistor. The path integral representation of $`(\chi )`$ reads

$`(\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\varphi ^+𝒟\varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}\{i𝒮_\mathrm{c}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$ (2)
$`i𝒮_{\mathrm{env}}[\mathrm{\Phi }+\chi /2\varphi ^+,\mathrm{\Phi }\chi /2\varphi ^{}]\}`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Phi }(t)/dteV`$. Derivatives of $`(\chi )`$ with respect to $`\chi `$ at $`\chi =0`$ give the moments of the charge transferred through the circuit during a time interval of length $`\tau `$. The Keldysh action is a sum of two terms $`𝒮_{\mathrm{env}}`$ and $`𝒮_\mathrm{c}`$ describing the environment and the mesoscopic conductor respectively.

We assume a linear electromagnetic environment that can be fully characterized by its impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ and its temperature $`T`$. Its action is bilinear in $`\varphi ^\pm `$,

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{env}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }dt{\displaystyle _0^\tau }dt^{}[\varphi ^+(t)A^{++}(tt^{})\varphi ^+(t^{})`$
$`+\varphi ^+(t)A^+(tt^{})\varphi ^{}(t^{})+\varphi ^{}(t)A^{}(tt^{})\varphi ^{}(t^{})]`$
with

$`A^{++}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega [z^1(\omega )+2N(\omega )\mathrm{Re}z^1(\omega )]`$
$`A^+(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`4i\omega N(\omega )\mathrm{Re}z^1(\omega )`$
$`A^{}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`[A^{++}(\omega )]^{}.`$ (3)
Here, $`N(\omega )\left\{\mathrm{exp}[\omega /k_BT]1\right\}^1`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function and $`z(\omega )=G_QZ(\omega )`$ the dimensionless frequency-dependent impedance.

The action $`𝒮_\mathrm{c}`$ of the mesoscopic conductor can be expressed in terms of Keldysh Green functions $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_{R,L}`$ (the ”check” denotes $`2\times 2`$ matrices in Keldysh space) of electrons in the two reservoirs adjacent to the conductor Naz99 . It takes the form of a trace over frequency and Keldysh indices,

$`𝒮_\mathrm{c}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{4}}\left(\{\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_\mathrm{L},\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_\mathrm{R}\}2\right)\right]`$ (4)
and depends on the set of transmission eigenvalues $`T_n`$ that characterizes the conductor. The fields $`\varphi ^\pm (t)`$ enter the expression as a gauge transform of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}`$ in one of the reservoirs,

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_\mathrm{R}=\stackrel{ˇ}{G}^{\mathrm{res}}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{ˇ}{G}_\mathrm{L}(t,t^{})=`$
$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi ^+(t)}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi ^{}(t)}\end{array}\right]\stackrel{ˇ}{G}^{\mathrm{res}}(tt^{})\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi ^+(t^{})}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi ^{}(t^{})}\end{array}\right].`$ (9)
$`G^{\mathrm{res}}`$ is the equilibrium Keldysh Green function

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{G}^{\mathrm{res}}(ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}12f(ϵ)& 2f(ϵ)\\ 2[1f(ϵ)]& 2f(ϵ)1\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
$`f(ϵ)`$ being the equilibrium electron distribution function.

This defines our model that is valid for any external impedance but is hardly tractable in the general case. We proceed with perturbation theory in $`z`$ assuming that $`z1`$. To zeroth order in $`z`$ the fields $`\varphi ^\pm (t)`$ do not fluctuate and are fixed to $`eVt\pm \chi /2`$. Substituting this into Eq. (4) we recover Levitov’s formula for non-interacting electrons,

$`\mathrm{ln}^{(0)}(\chi )i\tau 𝒮^{(0)}\left(\chi \right)=\tau {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{ln}\{1`$
$`+T_n[(e^{i\chi }1)f_\mathrm{L}(1f_\mathrm{R})+(e^{i\chi }1)f_\mathrm{R}(1f_\mathrm{L})]\}`$
($`f_Rf`$ and $`f_L(ϵ)f(ϵeV)`$). Interaction effects manifest themselves at higher orders in $`z`$. To assess the first order correction, we expand the non-linear $`𝒮_\mathrm{c}`$ to second order in the fluctuating fields $`\varphi ^\pm (t)`$. We integrate it over $`\varphi ^\pm `$ with the weight given by $`𝒮_{\mathrm{env}}`$. The expression for the correction can be presented as z0

$`\mathrm{ln}^{(1)}(\chi )=i\tau {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}z(\omega )}{\omega }}\{[2N(\omega )+1]𝒮_{\mathrm{el}}^{(1)}(\chi )`$
$`+N(\omega )𝒮_{\mathrm{in}}^{(1)}(\omega ,\chi )+[N(\omega )+1]𝒮_{\mathrm{in}}^{(1)}(\omega ,\chi )\}.`$
The three terms in square brackets correspond to elastic electron transfer, inelastic transfer with absorption of energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ from the environment, and inelastic electron transfer with emission of this energy respectively. It is crucial to note that inelastic processes can only occur at frequencies $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and that their contribution to the integral is thus restricted to this frequency range. In contrast, elastic contributions come primarily from frequencies exceeding the scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`z=\mathrm{const}(\omega )`$ for $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the elastic correction diverges logarithmically, its magnitude being $`z\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This suggests that i. the elastic correction is more important than the inelastic one and ii. a small value of $`z`$ can be compensated for by a large logarithm, indicating the breakdown of perturbation theory. The upper cut-off energy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set either by the inverse $`RC`$-time of the environment circuit or the Thouless energy of the electrons in the mesoscopic conductor.

The concrete expression for $`𝒮_{\mathrm{in}}^{(1)}`$ reads

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{in}}^{(1)}(\omega ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon }{2\pi }}\{D_nD_n^+[T_n(f_Lf_L^+)`$ (16)
$`+2T_n(e^{i\chi }1)f_L(1f_R^+)`$
$`+2T_n^2(\mathrm{cos}\chi 1)f_L(1f_L^+)(f_R^+f_R)]`$
$`+T_nD_n+(1D_n)(1D_n^+)\}`$
$`+\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{L}& \\ \chi \chi & \end{array}\right\},`$
where we have introduced the functions

$`D_n`$ $`=`$ $`\{1+T_n[f_L(1f_R)(e^{i\chi }1)`$ (17)
$`+f_R(1f_L)(e^{i\chi }1)]\}^1`$
and the notation

$$f^+(\epsilon )=f(\epsilon +\omega ),D_n^+(\epsilon )=D_n(\epsilon +\omega ).$$
(18)
We do not analyze $`𝒮_{\mathrm{in}}^{(1)}`$ further in this Letter and instead turn to the analysis of the elastic correction.

It is important that the explicit form of the elastic correction can be presented as

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\delta T_n{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮^{(0)}}{T_n}}`$
$`\mathrm{with}\delta T_n`$ $`=`$ $`2T_n(1T_n).`$ (19)
This suggests that the main effect of interactions is to change the transmission coefficients $`T_n`$. It also suggests that we can go beyond perturbation theory by a renormalization group analysis that involves the $`T_n`$ only. In such an analysis one concentrates at each renormalization step on the ”fast” components of $`\varphi ^\pm `$ with frequencies in a narrow interval $`\delta \omega `$ around the running cut-off frequency $`E`$. Integrating out these fields one obtains a new action for the ”slow” fields. Subsequently one reduces $`E`$ by $`\delta \omega `$ and repeats the procedure until the running cut-off approaches $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We find that at each step of renormalization the action indeed retains the form given by Eq. (4) and only the $`T_n`$ change, provided $`z\mathrm{min}\{1,G_Q/G\}`$. The resulting energy dependence of the $`T_n`$ obeys Eq. (1). The strict proof of this involves manipulations on the action (4) with time dependent arguments $`\varphi ^\pm (t)`$. It is very technical and we do not give it here. The approximations that we make in this renormalization procedure amount to a summation of the leading logarithms in every order of the perturbation series.

In the rest of the Letter we analyze the consequences of Eq. (1) for various mesoscopic conductors. Equation (1) can be explicitly integrated to obtain

$$T_n(E)=\frac{\xi T_n^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{1T_n^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(1\xi \right)},\xi \left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2z}$$
(20)
in terms of the ”high energy” (non-interacting) transmission eigenvalues $`T^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A mesoscopic conductor containing many transport channels is most conveniently characterized by the distribution $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ of its transmission eigenvalues general . It follows from Eq. (20) that the effective transmission distribution at the energy scale $`E`$ reads

$$\rho _E(T)=\frac{\xi }{[\xi +T(1\xi )]^2}\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{T}{\xi +T(1\xi )}\right).$$
(21)
We now analyze its low energy limit $`\xi 0`$. Any given transmission eigenvalue will approach zero in this limit. Seemingly this implies that for any conductor the transmission distribution approaches that of a tunnel junction, so that all $`T_n1`$. The overall conductance would be proportional to $`\xi `$ in accordance with Ref. OldNazarov2 .

Indeed, this is one of the possible scenarios. A remarkable exception is the case that the non-interacting $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has an inverse square-root singularity at $`T1`$. Many mesoscopic conductors display this feature, most importantly diffusive ones general . In this case, the low-energy transmission distribution approaches a limiting function

$$\rho _{}(T)\sqrt{\frac{\xi }{T^3(1T)}}.$$
(22)
The conductance scales like $`\xi ^{1/2}`$. $`\rho _{}`$ is known to be the transmission distribution of a double tunnel junction: two identical tunnel junctions in series Melsen . Indeed, one checks that for a double tunnel junction the form of the transmission distribution is unaffected by interactions. This sets an alternative low-energy scenario. We are not aware of transmission distributions that would give rise to other scenarios.

We believe that this is an important general result in the theory of quantum transport and suggest now a qualitative explanation. The statement is that the conductance of a phase-coherent conductor at low voltage and temperature $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ asymptotically obeys a power law with an exponent that generically takes two values,

$$G\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2z},\mathrm{or}G\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^z.$$
(23)
For tunneling electrons the exponent is $`2z`$. An electron traverses the conductor in a single leap. The second possible exponent $`z`$ has been discussed in the literature as well, in connection with resonant tunneling through a double tunnel barrier in the presence of interactions Kan92 . This resonant tunneling takes place via intermediate discrete states contained between the two tunnel barriers. The halved exponent $`\alpha =z`$ occurs in the regime of the so-called successive electron tunneling. In this case, the electron first jumps over one of the barriers ending up in a discrete state. Only in a second jump over the second barrier the charge transfer is completed. Since it takes two jumps to transfer a charge, the electron feels only half the counter voltage due to interactions with electrons in the environmental impedance $`Z`$ at each hop. Consequently, the exponent at each jump takes half the value for direct tunneling. Our results strongly suggest that this transport mechanism is not restricted to resonant tunneling systems, or, in other words, that resonant tunneling can occur in systems of a more generic nature than generally believed. As far as transport is concerned, a mesoscopic conductor is characterized by its scattering matrix regardless of the details of its inner structure. In this approach it is not even obvious that the conductor can accommodate discrete states. Nevertheless, the transmission distribution of this scattering matrix does depend on the internal structure of the conductor. The inverse square root singularity of this distribution at $`T1`$ for a double tunnel barrier is due to the formation of Fabry-Perot resonances between the two barriers. Probably similar resonances are at the origin of the same singularity for more complicated mesoscopic conductors with multiple scattering. They are then the intermediate discrete states that give rise to the modified scaling of the conductance in presence of interactions. One may speculate that in diffusive conductors these resonances are the so-called ”nearly localized states” found in Khm95 .

From equation (20) one concludes that the resonant tunneling scaling holds only if $`G(E)G_Q`$ so that many transport channels contribute to the conductance. At sufficiently small energies, $`G(E)`$ becomes of the order of $`G_Q`$. All transmission eigenvalues are then small and the conductance crosses over to the tunneling scaling.

With Eqs. (20) and (21) we can evaluate the transmissions and the FCS in the intermediate regime $`\xi 1`$. Fig. 2 shows the results for the first three cumulants of charge transfer $`C_n`$ for several types of conductors whose non-interacting transmission distributions $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ are known. Apart from the tunnel contact all these conductors approach the resonant tunneling scaling with noise properties of a double tunnel barrier at very small bias voltage ($`\xi 1`$).

We remark, that Eq. (Interaction effects on counting statistics and the transmission distribution) generalizes the statements made in Yey01 ; Gal02 : At zero temperature, the interaction correction to the n-th cumulant of transferred charge is proportional to the (n+1)-th cumulant.

To conclude, we have investigated the effects of interactions on the FCS of a Landauer-Büttiker conductor and found that their main effect can be incorporated into an energy dependence of the transmission eigenvalues. For an arbitrary conductor, the conductance in the low-energy limit obeys one of two generic scaling laws.

The authors acknowledge useful discussions with C. W. J. Beenakker, K. B. Efetov, D. Esteve, L. I. Glazman, L. S. Levitov, and A. D. Zaikin. This work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM.


text:
# An inverse approach to Einstein’s equations for non-conducting fluids

## I Introduction

The usual procedure for finding exact solutions of Einstein’s equations involves writing down a phenomenological energy-momentum tensor, often a perfect fluid, in a set of coordinates, frequently comoving, so that the field equations can be integrated, often with the aide of simplifying assumptions kshm  krasinski . In view of the difficulty of solving Einstein’s equations, inverse problems are important solutions . An inverse problem of interest (not involving the classification problem for the Ricci tensor class  explicitly) may be stated thus: Given a spacetime $`(,𝐠)`$ with manifold $``$ and Lorentzian metric $`𝐠`$, what, if any, fluid flow could generate $`(,𝐠)`$ via Einstein’s equations? This question is explored here for the case of type $`B_1`$ warped product spacetimes (see below). The problem is of interest since, as is shown, the flow (velocity field) is uniquely determined subject to a zero flux condition. With the flow determined, physical parameters, subject to a fluid decomposition that includes anisotropic pressure and shear viscosity, can be extracted directly from the metric irrespective of coordinates. The framework developed in this paper allows the study of exact solutions in any frame without transformations. Surprisingly little work has been done in non-comoving frames com . The invariant procedure developed is algorithmic and suited to computer algebra projects such as GRDB computer  where, given a metric, one might like to know if it is necessarily, for example, a perfect fluid, or on the contrary, incompatible with a perfect fluid. The paper is organized as follows: In section II, we explore the zero flux condition and in section III we derive explicit forms of the velocity field for canonical coordinate types. In section IV we explore the phenomenology of the non-conducting fluid source showing that degenerate cases exist. Examples that illustrate the power of the results obtained are given in section V. Section VI is a summary.

## II Zero Flux

We consider warped product spacetimes of class $`B_1`$ santo ; carot . These can be written in the form

$$ds_{}^2=ds_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}^2(x^1,x^2)+C(x^\alpha )ds_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}^2(x^3,x^4)$$
(1)
where $`C(x^\alpha )=r(x^1,x^2)^2w(x^3,x^4)^2`$, $`sig(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)=0`$ and $`sig(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)=2ϵ`$ $`(ϵ=\pm 1)`$. Although very special, these spaces include many of interest, for example, *all* spherical, plane, and hyperbolic spacetimes. We write

$$ds_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}^2=a(dx^1)^2+2bdx^1dx^2+c(dx^2)^2,$$
(2)
with $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ functions of $`(x^1,x^2)`$ only. A congruence of unit timelike vectors (a “flow” in what follows) $`u^\alpha =(u^1,u^2,0,0)`$ have an associated unit normal field $`n^\alpha `$ (in the tangent space of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$) satisfying $`n_\alpha u^\alpha =0,n_\alpha n^\alpha =1`$ notation . It follows that $`n_\alpha =\psi (x^1,x^2)(u^2,u^1,0,0)`$ ($`\psi `$ a normalization factor). The timelike condition on $`u^\alpha `$ is

$$1=a(u^1)^2+2bu^1u^2+c(u^2)^2$$
(3)
and $`(,𝐠)`$ is time orientated by the restriction

$$u^1>0.$$
(4)
The condition

$$G_\alpha ^\beta u^\alpha n_\beta =0,$$
(5)
where $`G_\alpha ^\beta `$ is the Einstein tensor, can be written as

$$Au^1u^2B(u^1)^2+C(u^2)^2=0,$$
(6)
where

$$AG_1^1G_2^2,BG_1^2,CG_2^1.$$
(7)
Condition (5) is the defining criterion for the flows considered here. In general, $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are functions of $`x^1`$ through $`x^4`$, assumed not to vanish simultaneously. Equations (3), (4) and (6) determine the flow uniquely. The flow need not exist. For example, if $`A=C=0`$ and $`B0`$ then there exists no such flow. The assumption of “comoving coordinates” ($`u^2=0`$ in the present notation) imposes restrictions on the coordinatization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, but it is already clear from (6) that the existence of such a flow requires $`B=0`$.

## III $`u^\alpha `$ for Canonical Representations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$

There are four distinct canonical types of coordinates (not specific coordinates) that can be used to represent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$. In what follows we write out $`u^\alpha `$ in each of these cases. We do not write out quantities that follow algorithmically from $`u^\alpha `$.

### III.1 Kruskal-Szekeres ($`a=c=0`$)

The distinguishing characteristic here is

$$A=0.$$
(8)
We can always choose $`b<0`$ so that

$$u^2=\frac{1}{2bu^1}>0,$$
(9)
and so it follows from (6) that

$$u^1=\sqrt[4]{\frac{C}{4Bb^2}}.$$
(10)
### III.2 Diagonal ($`b=0`$)

Here $`a<0`$, $`c>0`$ and

$$Bc=Ca.$$
(11)
With

$$𝒟A^2a+4B^2c$$
(12)
it follows that $`Da>0`$,

$$u^1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{a}+\sqrt{\frac{A^2}{𝒟a}})},$$
(13)
and

$$(u^2)^2=\frac{1}{2c}(1+\sqrt{\frac{A^2a^2}{𝒟a}}).$$
(14)
The requirement of “comoving” coordinates is $`u^2=0B=C=0`$.

### III.3 Bondi ($`c=0`$ or $`a=0`$)

It is sufficient to consider the case $`c=0`$. Now $`b0`$ and for $`b>0`$ $`x^1`$ is an “advanced” time and for $`b<0`$ $`x^1`$ is a “retarded” time. Now

$$Ab=Ca.$$
(15)
With

$$Aa^2+4Bab$$
(16)
it follows that $`sign()=sign(A)`$,

$$u^1=\sqrt[4]{\frac{A}{}},$$
(17)
and

$$u^2=\frac{1}{2b}(\sqrt[4]{\frac{}{A}})(1+a\sqrt{\frac{A}{}}).$$
(18)
The condition of “comoving” coordinates $`u^2=0`$ requires $`a<0`$ and $`B=0`$. Conversely, if $`B=0`$ then $`u^2=0`$ for $`a<0`$ and $`u^2=\sqrt{a}/b`$ for $`a>0`$.

### III.4 $`a0`$, $`b0`$ and $`c0`$

With

$$A^2c2AbC+2CBc+2C^2a$$
(19)
and

$$𝒮2AbcB2AbCa+B^2c^24BCb^2+2BcCa+C^2a^2+caA^2,$$
(20)
it follows that

$$(u^1)^2=\frac{+sign(b)\sqrt{^24𝒮C^2}}{2𝒮}$$
(21)
and

$$u^2=\frac{bu^1+sign(b)\sqrt{(bu^1)^2c(a(u^1)^2+1)}}{c}.$$
(22)
The condition of “comoving” coordinates $`u^2=0`$ requires the same conditions as in the previous case.

## IV Phenomenology

The discussion in this section requires no specification of coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$.

### IV.1 Decomposition

Whereas condition (5) determines the flow on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, it is of interest to know when the flow reduces to that of a perfect fluid (isotropic pressure (including bulk stress) and zero shear stress), or conversely, to be able to state that a given spacetime can not be compatible with a perfect fluid source. The familiar case is entirely obvious: If the Einstein tensor is diagonal with three equal components, then the metric is consistent with a perfect fluid in comoving coordinates. Such a circumstance is, however, a property of the spacetime and the coordinates in which it is exhibited, more general cases are explored in this section. With $`u^\alpha `$ known, it is possible to reconstruct phenomenological parameters associated with a decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor directly from the metric. This decomposition is not always unique.

A phenomenological fluid interpretation of (5), by way of Einstein’s equations, follows from the well known Eckart relation ecart  which gives

$$8\pi \kappa n^\alpha (_\alpha \text{T}+\text{T}u^\beta _\beta u_\alpha )=0$$
(23)
where $`\kappa `$ is the thermal conductivity and $`T`$ the temperature profile. The flows considered here can therefore be considered non-conducting ($`\kappa =0`$) setting aside contrived functions $`T`$. The energy-momentum tensor is decomposed here in the form flow

$$T_\beta ^\alpha =\rho u^\alpha u_\beta +p_1n^\alpha n_\beta +p_2\delta _\beta ^\alpha +p_2(u^\alpha u_\beta n^\alpha n_\beta )2\eta \sigma _\beta ^\alpha ,$$
(24)
where $`\sigma _\beta ^\alpha `$ is the shear associated with $`u^\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ the phenomenological shear viscosity. It follows from (1) that $`G_3^3=G_4^4`$ for the spacetimes considered in this paper. With $`G_3^3=G_4^4`$ it follows from (24) that either $`\sigma _3^3=\sigma _4^4`$ or we must set $`\eta 0`$. Note that (24) distinguishes the shear stress from an anisotropic pressure. These are sometimes combined. For example, in the comoving frame in a spherically symmetric spacetime, it follows that $`T_\beta ^\alpha =diag(\rho ,P1,P2,P2)`$ where $`P1=p_12\eta \sigma _2^2`$ and $`P2=p_22\eta \sigma _3^3`$. Such a combination is not, in general, possible outside the comoving frame. Since anisotropic pressures do not arise solely due to shear stresses (e.g. in a static spherically symmetric spacetime, $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ but $`p_1p_2`$ in general), the full decomposition (24) is used here.

### IV.2 Systems of Equations

We set up systems of equations to be solved simultaneously for the functions $`(\rho ,p_1,p_2,\eta )`$ in terms of scalars that follow algorithmically from the metric. It is not possible to build more than three independent equations in an attempt to solve for $`(\rho ,p_1,p_2,\eta )`$ since, with (5), there are only three independent scalars that can be constructed from the set $`(G_\alpha ^\beta ,u^\alpha ,n_\alpha )`$ santo .

#### IV.2.1 General Spacetimes

To proceed in a manifestly invariant way we construct scalars from the set $`(G_\alpha ^\beta ,u^\alpha ,n_\alpha )`$ that are linear in $`G_\alpha ^\beta `$. These are: $`G_\alpha ^\beta u^\alpha n_\beta `$ (used in condition (5)), $`G_\alpha ^\beta u^\alpha u_\beta `$, $`G_\alpha ^\beta n^\alpha n_\beta `$ and $`G_\alpha ^\alpha G`$. With (24) it follows that

$$G=8\pi (\rho +p_1+2p_2),$$
(25)
and

$$G_\alpha ^\beta u^\alpha u_\beta G1=8\pi \rho .$$
(26)
In all cases we take (26) as the definition of $`\rho `$. Further,

$$G_\alpha ^\beta n^\alpha n_\beta G2=8\pi (p_12\eta \mathrm{\Delta })$$
(27)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _\alpha ^\beta n^\alpha n_\beta .$$
(28)
Rearrangement of (25), (26) and (27) gives

$$48\pi \eta \mathrm{\Delta }=G+G13G2+16\pi P$$
(29)
where $`Pp_1p_2`$. If $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ or $`\eta 0`$ or $`P0`$ then (25), (26) and (27) form a complete set of equations. More generally, however, if we attempt to solve for the complete set of parameters $`(\rho ,p_1,p_2,\eta )`$ four equations are needed components . For the class of spacetimes considered here, it was shown in santo  that higher-order invariants are not independent from the linear ones. Therefore, use of higher-order invariants will not break the degeneracy but merely generate new syzygies (algebraic identities amongst invariantly defined quantities).

#### IV.2.2 Restricted Spacetimes

From (24) and Einstein’s equations it follows that for the spacetimes $`(,𝐠)`$ considered here

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_2^1\stackrel{~}{G}_1^2(\stackrel{~}{G}_1^1\stackrel{~}{G}_3^3)(\stackrel{~}{G}_2^2\stackrel{~}{G}_3^3)\stackrel{~}{G5}=(8\pi )^2P(\rho +p_2),$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_\beta ^\alpha =G_\beta ^\alpha +16\pi \eta \sigma _\beta ^\alpha `$. Although (30) holds in every $`(,𝐠)`$ without specific coordinates specified on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, it is not manifestly invariant. Use of (30) merely generates further (restricted) syzygies.

### IV.3 Linear cases

#### IV.3.1 $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$

If $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ and $`\rho +p_20`$ then equation (30) with $`P=0`$ gives the Walker’s pressure isotropy condition walker

$$G_2^1G_1^2=(G_1^1G_3^3)(G_2^2G_3^3)$$
(31)
which is here a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid. A manifestly invariant condition follows from (25), (26) and (27) which give

$$p_1=\frac{G2}{8\pi },$$
(32)
and

$$p_2=\frac{G+G1G2}{16\pi }.$$
(33)
Clearly

$$G+G1=3G2$$
(34)
is a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid including the exceptional case $`G+3G1=G2`$ not covered by (31). Equation (34) is not sensitive to the presence of a cosmological constant term in the Einstein field equations and plays a central role in what follows alternate

In all of what now follows up to section V we assume $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta 0`$.

#### IV.3.2 $`\eta 0`$

The decomposition (24) is consistent with some spacetimes if and only if $`\eta 0`$. Some examples of this are shown in section V. If $`\eta 0`$ then equations (32), (33) and (34) hold as in the previous case.

#### IV.3.3 $`p_1=p_2p,\mathrm{\Delta }0`$

Equations (25), (26) and (27) now give

$$p=\frac{G+G1}{24\pi }$$
(35)
and

$$\eta =\frac{G+G13G2}{48\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(36)
so that (34) is once again a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid. The case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ is equivalent to the case $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$.

#### IV.3.4 $`p_1p_2,\mathrm{\Delta }0`$

Equations (25), (26) and (27) now give

$$p1=\frac{G2}{8\pi }+2\eta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
(37)
and

$$p2=\frac{G+G1G2}{16\pi }\eta \mathrm{\Delta },$$
(38)
where $`\eta `$ is arbitrary. If we set $`\eta 0`$ then the condition (34) is a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid. For other choices of $`\eta `$ the fluid is imperfect.

### IV.4 Non-uniqueness of the source

In the last case above, it is not possible to solve for a unique set $`(\rho ,p_1,p_2,\eta )`$ as only three invariants are independent for the type of spacetimes considered in this paper. Another way to see this directly is to observe that substitution of the expressions for $`\rho `$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ as given by (26), (37) and (38) into the energy-momentum tensor (24) and multiplication by $`8\pi `$ reproduces the Einstein tensor lake2002a . This of course all derives from the fact that in a canonical frame there are at most three independent components of the Einstein tensor for the spacetimes considered. As we show in section V, the application of the framework to some given spacetimes known to represent perfect fluid solutions but where $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ shows that there are other imperfect fluid sources possible. This is always the case when the perfect fluid condition (34) holds and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. For $`\eta 0`$ the fluid is perfect, for other choices of $`\eta `$ the fluid is imperfect. For example, the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi metric (“dust”) is given by lemaitre krasinski

$$ds_{}^2=(dt)^2+\frac{(R^{^{}}(t,r))^2(dr)^2}{1+f(r)}+R(t,r)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(39)
along with the constraints

$$\dot{R}(t,r)=\sqrt{2\frac{m(r)}{R(t,r)}+f(r)},$$
(40)
$$\ddot{R}(t,r)=\frac{m(r)}{R^2(t,r)},$$
(41)
$$\ddot{R}^{^{}}(t,r)=\frac{m^{^{}}(r)}{R^2(t,r)}+2\frac{m(r)R^{^{}}(t,r)}{R^3(t,r)},$$
(42)
and

$$\dot{R}^{^{}}(t,r)=\frac{2m^{^{}}(r)R(r,t)2m(r)R^{^{}}(r,t)+f^{^{}}(r)R^2(r,t)}{2R(r,t)\sqrt{(2m(r)+f(r)R(r,t))R(r,t)}},$$
(43)
where $`{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{}{r}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{.}\frac{}{t}`$. Condition (34) holds so the source is consistent with (but not necessarily) a perfect fluid, in fact simply dust (since $`G2=0=G+G1`$) with

$$\rho =\frac{m^{^{}}(r)}{4\pi R^2(r,t)R^{^{}}(r,t)}.$$
(44)
The metric (39) (with the given constraints) is also consistent with an imperfect fluid with $`p_1=2\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`p_2=\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\eta `$ arbitrary and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{2m^{^{}}(r,t)R(r,t)+6m(r)R^{^{}}(r,t)f^{^{}}(r)R^2(r,t)+2R^{^{}}(r,t)f(r)R(r,t)}{3R^{^{}}(r,t))R^{3/2}(r,t)\sqrt{2m(r)+f(r)R(r,t)}}}`$ (45)
as is easily verified. The fact that the Lemaître metric need not be considered as dust is not a new result tolmans . Here, the degenerate case ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$) is shown to be generic.

## V Examples

We provide here examples in various coordinate types in order to illustrate the results obtained.

### V.1 Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates

Aside from the Kruskal-Szekeres metric, little use has been made of double null coordinates. The example used here is the Einstein-de Sitter universe laapois

$$ds_{}^2=𝒞^2(u+v)^4(dudv+\frac{(uv)^2}{4}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(46)
where $`𝒞`$ is a constant and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the metric of a unit sphere. It follows that $`u^\alpha =\frac{1}{𝒞(u+v)^2}(1,1,0,0)`$, $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ and (34) holds so that the fluid is necessarily perfect (in fact simply dust since $`G2=0=G+G1`$).

### V.2 Bondi coordinates

The Bondi metric bondip

$$ds_{}^2=c^2(w,r)f(w,r)(dw)^2\pm 2c(w,r)dwdr+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(47)
in advanced ($`+`$) or retarded ($``$) $`w`$ has $`A=C=0,B0`$ for $`\frac{c}{r}=0`$ and $`\frac{f}{w}0`$ and so there is no non-conducting fluid source of (47) under these conditions. The Vaidya metric vaidya  (corresponding to a null flux) provides a familiar example. The metric davidson

$$ds_{}^2=2H(u,r)(du)^22dudr+ur^{2n}((dx)^2+(dy)^2),$$
(48)
where $`H(u,r)=(r/u+kr^mu^{(2m)/(m1)})/2>0`$ and $`n=m(m1)/2`$ is necessarily comoving. Moreover, $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta 0`$ and (34) holds so the source is consistent with (but not necessarily) a perfect fluid. If we set $`\eta 0`$ then the fluid is perfect but for other choices of $`\eta `$ the fluid is imperfect.

### V.3 Comoving diagonal coordinates

The next examples are in diagonal coordinates and have $`B=C=0`$ so that $`u^\alpha `$ is necessarily comoving.

#### V.3.1 $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$

The Robertson-Walker metric

$$ds_{}^2=(dt)^2+\frac{a(t)^2(dr)^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(49)
gives $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ and (34) holds. It follows that the fluid is necessarily perfect rwalt . Equations (26) and (27) reproduce Friedmann’s equations. In contrast, the Kantowski-Sachs metric ksm

$$ds_{}^2=(dt)^2+\frac{a(t)^2(dr)^2}{1kr^2}+d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(50)
gives $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ but (34) never holds. It follows that the fluid can never be perfect. For the general spherical static metric

$$ds_{}^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}(dt)^2+\frac{(dr)^2}{12m(r)/r}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(51)
whereas $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$, (34) does not in general hold. The fluid has anisotropic pressure, the perfect fluid being a special case delake . The metric mitsen

$$ds_{}^2=(dt)^2+R(t)^2((dr)^2+sin(r)^2(dz)^2+f(r)^2(d\varphi )^2)$$
(52)
with the constraint $`2R\ddot{R}+(\dot{R})^2+1=0`$ where $`{}_{}{}^{.}\frac{}{t}`$ has $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =G_\varphi ^\varphi =0`$. The condition $`G_z^z=0`$ gives $`f(r)=cos(r+A)`$ where $`A`$ is constant. Condition (34) does not in general hold. Rather, $`p_2=0`$ but $`p_1=0`$ only for $`A=0`$.

#### V.3.2 $`\eta 0`$

The metric ds

$`ds_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`S(t)^{2m}C(x)^{2m2}((dt)^2+(dx)^2)`$ (53)
$`+S(t)C(x)^\alpha (T(t)^n(dy)^2+T(t)^n(dz)^2)`$
has $`G_x^x=G_y^y=G_z^z`$ and so is obviously a perfect fluid in comoving coordinates. However, $`\sigma _y^y\sigma _z^z`$ and so the decomposition (24) holds only for $`\eta =0`$. Condition (34) holds in agreement with the obvious.

### V.4 Non-comoving diagonal coordinates

Few examples are available in non-comoving coordinates. From the pioneering work of McVittie and Wiltshire com  we note for example, that their solution (6.12)

$$ds_{}^2=e^{2\beta (z)}((dt)^2+(d\xi )^2+\xi ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(54)
where $`z=ϵ(\xi ^2t^2)/\xi _0^2`$, and $`\beta (z)`$ is an undetermined function of z with $`\beta _{zz}\beta _z^20`$, has $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta =0`$ and the condition (34) holds so the source is necessarily a perfect fluid. Their solution (7.20)

$$ds_{}^2=exp(Ae^{z/L}+Bz/l2ϵLt)((dt)^2+(d\omega )^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(55)
where $`z=\omega +ϵt`$, $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ and $`A,B`$ and $`L`$ are constants, has $`\sigma _\alpha ^\beta 0`$. Condition (34) holds so the source is consistent with a perfect fluid (if $`\eta 0`$). Their solutions (6.21) and (8.11) also have shear and (34) holds so the solutions are compatible with a perfect fluid source. As with the Davidson metric (48), McVittie and Wiltshire solutions (6.21), (7.20) and (8.11) are also consistent with an imperfect fluid with $`\eta 0`$.

From the more recent work of Senovilla and Vera com , for example, their solution (40)

$`ds_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(dt)^2+(dx)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{cos^{1+2\nu }(\mu x)}{cosh^{2\nu 1}(\mu t)}}(dy)^2`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{cos^{12\nu }(\mu x)}{cosh^{2\nu 1}(\mu t)}}(dz)^2`$
has $`G_y^y=G_z^z`$ but $`\sigma _y^y\sigma _z^z`$ and so the metric (56) is consistent with the decomposition (24) only for $`\eta 0`$ (the same holds for their solutions (38) and (41)). Equation (34) holds and so the metric (56) necessarily represents a perfect fluid.

## VI Summary

It has been shown that a flow (timelike congruence $`u^\alpha `$) in any type $`B_1`$ warped product spacetime is uniquely and algorithmically determined by the condition of zero flux ($`G_\alpha ^\beta u^\alpha n_\beta =0`$). Explicit forms of $`u^\alpha `$ have been written out for canonical representations. With $`u^\alpha `$ known, a phenomenological interpretation of the spacetime $`(,𝐠)`$ in terms of a non-conducting fluid follows. The following cases are delineated

* i. If $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ then the condition (34) is a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid.
* ii. If $`p_1p_2p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ then $`p`$ is given by (35) and $`\eta `$ is given by (36). The condition (34) is a necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect fluid.
* iii. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ then $`p_1`$ is given by (37) and $`p_2`$ is given by (38) and $`\eta `$ is a freely specified function. This is a generic degenerate case. If condition (34) holds then the fluid is compatible with a perfect fluid source. If $`\eta 0`$ the fluid is perfect. For other choices of $`\eta `$ the fluid is imperfect.

Furthermore, the derived covariant perfect fluid condition can be used to study exact solutions of Einstein’s equations as well as deriving new families of solutions lake2002b . Examples, in various coordinates, including spacetimes with and without unique interpretations have been provided. The procedure developed has been implemented in a computer algebra program described in the appendix.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the referee for useful comments. This work was supported by a grant (to KL) from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and an NSERC PDF Fellowship (to MI). Portions of this work were made possible by use of GRTensorII grt .

## Appendix A GRSource, a computer algebra program

GRSource grs  runs under the system GRTensorII which in turn runs under the system Maple. The program is called with a spacetime metric name as an input. GRSource calculates the velocity field and related physical quantities. Moreover, it performs an algorithmic analysis on the nature of the fluid. The results of the evaluated quantities are displayed, followed by a summary report on the analysis of the possible fluid sources for the input spacetime. An example follows:

$`>`$ restart; We start a GRTensorII and GRSource session

$`>`$ grtw();

GRTensorII Version 1.80-pre2 (R6)

Developed by Peter Musgrave, Denis Pollney and Kayll Lake

Copyright 1994-2003 by the authors.

Latest version available from: http://grtensor.org

GRSource Package Version 1.00

Developed by Mustapha Ishak and Kayll Lake, (c) 2002-2003

Help available via ?grsource

Usage: Load a metric and enter the command source(metricname);

$`>`$ qload(kantosachs);

$$\mathrm{𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡}\mathrm{𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒}=\mathrm{𝑘𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑠}$$

$$\mathrm{𝐹𝑜𝑟}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑘𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑠}\mathrm{𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒}:$$

$$\mathrm{𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠}:\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{𝑢𝑝})$$

$$x^a=[r,\theta ,\varphi ,t]$$

$$\mathrm{𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒}=2$$

$$\mathrm{𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒}\mathrm{𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡}:\mathrm{𝑑𝑠}^\mathit{2}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑑𝑠}^2=\frac{\mathrm{a}(t)^2dr^\mathit{2}}{1Kr^2}+\mathrm{a}(t)^2d\theta ^\mathit{2}+\mathrm{a}(t)^2\mathrm{sin}(\theta )^2d\varphi ^\mathit{2}dt^\mathit{2}$$

$$\mathrm{𝐾𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑠𝑘𝑖}\mathrm{𝑆𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑠}\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐},J.\mathrm{𝑀𝑎𝑡ℎ}.\mathrm{𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑠}\mathit{.\; 7},\mathit{443}(\mathit{1966})$$

$`>`$ source(kantosachs);

A general velocity field will be generated automatically from the metric.

Please answer the following or enter exit anytime to stop the session.

Enter the timelike or null coordinate, for example: t; $`>`$ t;

Enter the spacelike or null coordinate, for example: r; $`>`$ r;

Enter the spacelike coordinate, for example: theta; $`>`$ theta;

Enter the spacelike coordinate, for example: phi; $`>`$ phi;

$$\mathrm{𝐹𝑜𝑟}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑘𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑠}\mathrm{𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒}:$$

$$u^a=[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]$$

$$\mathrm{𝑢𝑆𝑞}=1$$

$$\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑥}=\mathrm{𝐴𝑙𝑙}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠}\mathrm{𝑎𝑟𝑒}\mathrm{𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟}^a{}_{b}{}^{}=\mathrm{𝐴𝑙𝑙}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠}\mathrm{𝑎𝑟𝑒}\mathrm{𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜}$$

$$\mathrm{𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟}:\mathrm{𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑠𝑐}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑎}[u]=3\frac{\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{a}(t)}{\mathrm{a}(t)}$$

$$\mathrm{𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎}=\mathrm{𝐴𝑙𝑙}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠}\mathrm{𝑎𝑟𝑒}\mathrm{𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑟ℎ𝑜}=\frac{1}{8}\frac{3(\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{a}(t))^2+1}{\mathrm{a}(t)^2\pi }$$

$$\mathit{p1}=\frac{1}{8}\frac{(\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{a}(t))^2+2\mathrm{a}(t)(\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\mathrm{a}(t))+1}{\mathrm{a}(t)^2\pi }$$

$$\mathit{p2}=\frac{1}{8}\frac{(\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{a}(t))^2+2\mathrm{a}(t)(\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\mathrm{a}(t))}{\mathrm{a}(t)^2\pi }$$

$$\mathrm{𝑃𝐹𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}=2\frac{1}{\mathrm{a}(t)^2}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡}:$$

$$\mathrm{𝑒𝑡𝑎}\mathrm{𝐷𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎}=\mathit{0}\mathrm{𝑏𝑢𝑡}\mathrm{𝑃𝐹𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑤𝑎𝑠}\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑡}\mathrm{𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑}\mathrm{𝑡𝑜}\mathrm{𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜},$$

$$\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑}\mathrm{ℎ𝑎𝑠}\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐}\mathrm{𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒}.$$

$$\mathrm{𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟}\mathrm{𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠}\mathrm{𝑐𝑎𝑛}\mathrm{𝑏𝑒}\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑}\mathrm{𝑡𝑜}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠}\mathrm{𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑}$$

$$\mathrm{𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟}()\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑦}().$$