text:
# Untitled Document

ASYMPTOTIC BEHAVIOUR OF SOLUTIONS

OF FOURTH ORDER DIRICHLET PROBLEMS

Paolo DALL’AGLIO

Abstract

The behaviour of solutions to fourth order problems is studied through the decomposition into a system of second order ones, which leads to relaxed formulations with the introduction of measure terms. This allows to solve a shape optimization problem for a simply supported thin plate.

Ref. S.I.S.S.A. 32/97/M (March 97)

1. Introduction

In this paper we study the asymptotic behaviour of solutions of fourth order elliptic problems on varying domains.

This has been widely studied in the past, in the case of second order elliptic operators (see for instance , , ). We will use such results decomposing fourth order differential equations into a system of second order ones.

Given a bounded open set $`U`$ in $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{n}`$, $`n2`$ and a function $`f\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the fourth order equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^2u=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(1.1)`$
is linked to the model for the vertical displacement $`u`$ of an thin plate, occupying a region $`U`$, simply supported on $`U`$, subjected to a load $`f`$. Simply supported means that the boundary is fixed, but that the plate is free to rotate around the tangent to $`U`$. For the general treatment of plate theory we refer to , , , , .

In particular we want to study the asymptotic behaviour of solutions when the domain varies. To this aim we will show (Proposition 3.1) that problem (1.1) is equivalent to the system of second order equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u=v\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(1.2)`$
This problem can be handled with the theorems valid in the second order case (Theorems 2.1 and 2.2), and it will be proved that if $`u_n`$ are the solutions of problems like (1.2) on a sequence of subdomains $`U_n`$ of a given bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then a subsequence of $`u_n`$ converges weakly in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to a function $`u_\mu `$ solving

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mu +\mu u_\mu =v\hfill & \\ u_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v+\mu v=f\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(1.3)`$
where $`\mu `$ is a measure.

The study will be carried on for general fourth order elliptic operators with constant coefficients and no lower order terms, that can be splitted into two second order ones.

A motivation for the study of the asymptotic behaviour of solutions of Dirichlet problems in varying domains without geometric assumptions on the domains $`U_n`$ are the so-called shape optimization problems: given a function $`j:\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ we consider the following problem

$$\underset{U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u__U(x))𝑑x,$$
$`(1.4)`$
where $`𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the family of all open subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`u__U`$ is the solution of the problem of type (1.1) in the set $`U`$.

In section 6 it will be shown that, in general, problem (1.4) does not have a solution. Hence a relaxed optimization problem will be introduced, where the set over which we minimize is the set of functions $`u_\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is a measure and $`u_\mu `$ solves the relaxed problem (1.3). This set is the closure of $`\{u__U:U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$ in $`\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. This problem will always have solution and its minimum will coincide with the infimum of integral in (1.4).

This shape optimization problem, in the second order case, was studied in , , .

2. Notations and preliminary results

Given an open subset $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{n}`$, $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ is the usual Sobolev Space, $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)`$ its dual, and $`,`$ the duality pairing. If $`U\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$, then the function

$$\stackrel{~}{u}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}u\hfill & \text{in }U\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }U\hfill \end{array}$$

is in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. From now on we will always denote, with the same symbol $`u`$, a function and its extension $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$.

In this paper we will deal with elliptic operators $`L:𝒟^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })𝒟^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of the form

$$Lu=\underset{|\alpha |=m}{}c_\alpha ^\alpha u,$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are multiindeces, and $`m`$ is the order of the operator that will be 2 or 4. In any case they will be without lower order term and with constant coefficients.

The operators will be assumed to be elliptic in the sense that

$$\underset{|\alpha |=m}{}c_\alpha \xi ^\alpha \gamma |\xi |^m,\xi \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{n},$$

where $`\gamma `$ is a real positive constant. This, in our case, is the same as

$$P(\xi )0\xi \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{n}\{0\},$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`P`$ is the polynomial $`{\displaystyle \underset{|\alpha |=m}{}}c_\alpha \xi ^\alpha `$ associated to the operator $`L`$.

In this work, differential problems are always meant to be solved in the usual weak sense. This means, for instance, that, for $`u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)$$

is an equality of linear functionals

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u,v=\underset{i}{}\underset{U}{}_iu_ivdx=f,v,$$

for any $`v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$.

As said above, the limit of a sequence of solutions of Dirichlet problems is not, in general, the solution of a problem of the same kind, but is the solution of a problem where a measure term appears. To deal with these problems we need to recall some notions.

For the notion of capacity of a set $`E\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which we will indicate by cap$`(E)`$, we refer to textbooks as  or . We shall always identify a function $`u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with its quasi-continuous representative.

Now, let $`_0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be the set of Borel measures which are zero on the sets of zero capacity.

For one such measure $`\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(U)`$ will be the space of functions such that

$$\underset{U}{}|u|^2𝑑\mu <+\mathrm{}.$$

Given a second order operator $`A={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}a_{ij}_i_j`$, with constant coefficients, for a function $`u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(U)`$ to solve the equation

$$Au+\mu u=f,$$

will mean that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{U}{}a_{ij}_ju_ivdx+\underset{U}{}uv𝑑\mu =\underset{U}{}fv𝑑x,$$
$`(2.2)`$
for all test functions in $`v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(U)`$.

It can be easily proved that the space $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(U)`$ is a Hilbert space whenever $`\mu `$ is in $`_0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and hence, by Lax-Milgram Lemma, we have existence and uniqueness of solutions for a problem of the form

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au+\mu u=f\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(U),\hfill & \end{array}$$

for any linear elliptic second order operator $`A`$.

The decomposition of a fourth order problem in a system of two second order equations allows us to study the asymptotic behaviour applying well known theorems for the second order case separately to each equation. The following results, that can be found, for instance in , , are the key points of the theory.

Theorem 2.1. Let $`A`$ be a second order elliptic operator, as described above. For every sequence $`\{\mu _n\}`$ in $`_0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists a subsequence $`\mu _{n_k}`$ such that, for every sequence $`\{g_n\}`$ in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, strongly convergent to $`g\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, we have

$$z_{n_k}z\text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

where $`z_{n_k}`$ and $`z`$ solve

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Az_{n_k}+\mu _{n_k}z_{n_k}=g_{n_k}\hfill & \\ z_{n_k}\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })L_{\mu _{n_k}}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \end{array}\{\begin{array}{cc}Az+\mu z=g\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \end{array}$$

respectively.

Theorem 2.2. For any measure $`\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists a sequence $`U_n`$ of open subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that, for any sequence $`\{g_n\}`$ in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, strongly convergent to $`g\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the solutions $`z_n`$ of the problems

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Az_n=g_n\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ z_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n)\hfill & \end{array}$$

converge weakly in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to the solution $`z`$ of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Az+\mu z=g\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

3. Decomposition of fourth order operators

Fourth order elliptic problems are studied mainly with two different kinds of boundary conditions. In the model case of the bi-laplacian, they correspond to two different physical problems regarding, as said above, the displacement of a thin plate. Problems of the type

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^2u=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \end{array}$$

correspond to having $`u={\displaystyle \frac{u}{n}}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that is to say that the plate is clamped along its boundary. The asymptotic behaviour of the solutions of such problems has been studied in .

In this work we deal with the second kind of boundary conditions, as in (1.1), and we do it decomposing the problem in a system of two second order equations.

The decomposability of the fourth order operator

$$Lu=\underset{|\alpha |=4}{}c_\alpha ^\alpha u$$

can be seen through the associated polynomial

$$P(\xi )=\underset{|\alpha |=4}{}c_\alpha \xi ^\alpha .$$

It is a simple algebraic fact that, if the polynomial can be splitted into two second degree polynomials

$$P(\xi )=Q(\xi )R(\xi ),$$

then other decompositions can be obtained only by exchanging the order or multiplying and dividing by constants. Observe that, according to (2.1), if $`P`$ is elliptic, then so are $`R`$ and $`Q`$.

We remark here that such a decomposition can always be done in the two dimensional case. In higher dimensions this is not always possible.

So assume that

$$Lu=\underset{|\alpha |=4}{}c_\alpha ^\alpha =\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_{ij}_j_i\left(\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{kl}_k_l\right)u=BAu.$$

Proposition 3.1. Let $`U`$ be a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`A={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_{ij}_j_i`$, $`B={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{n}{}}}b_{ij}_j_i`$ be second order elliptic operators with constant coefficients. Let $`f\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)`$. The following three problems are equivalent:

$$(i)\{\begin{array}{cc}BAu=f\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ Au\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \end{array}(ii)\{\begin{array}{cc}u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U):Au\mathrm{L}^2(U)\hfill & \\ _UAuB\phi 𝑑x=f,\phi \hfill & \\ \phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U):B\phi \mathrm{L}^2(U)\hfill & \end{array}(iii)\{\begin{array}{cc}Au=v\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ Bv=f\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(3.1)`$
Proof. $`(i)(ii)`$. The equality $`BAu,\phi =f,\phi `$ holds in particular for any $`\phi `$ in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ such that $`B\phi \mathrm{L}^2(U)`$. Since $`B`$ is symmetric and $`Au\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ we get

$$\underset{U}{}AuB\phi 𝑑x=B\phi ,Au=BAu,\phi =f,\phi $$

$`(ii)(iii)`$. Let $`v`$ be solution of

$$v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U),Bv,\phi =f,\phi \phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U).$$

Then

$$B\phi ,v=f,\phi $$

and if, in particular, $`\phi `$ is such that $`B\phi \mathrm{L}^2(U)`$, we get

$$\underset{U}{}vB\phi 𝑑x=f,\phi ,$$

which, subtracted to the equation in $`(ii)`$ gives

$$\underset{U}{}(Auv)B\phi 𝑑x=0.$$

Observe now that, thanks to Lax-Milgram theorem, every function in $`\mathrm{L}^2(U)`$ can be written as $`B\phi `$, with $`\phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$, so we obtain

$$\underset{U}{}(Auv)z𝑑x=0,z\mathrm{L}^2(U).$$

Taking $`z=Auv`$, we get that $`Auv_{\mathrm{L}^2(U)}^2=0`$, hence $`Au=v`$, and $`u`$ solves problem $`(iii)`$.

$`(iii)(ii)`$. If $`u`$ is a solution of $`(iii)`$ then

$$Bv,\phi =f,\phi \phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U).$$

and if, in particular, $`B\phi \mathrm{L}^2(U)`$ we have

$$\underset{U}{}vB\phi 𝑑x=f,\phi .$$

Since now $`Au=v`$ we have

$$\underset{U}{}AuB\phi 𝑑x=f,\phi ,$$

for every $`\phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ with $`B\phi \mathrm{L}^2(U)`$, hence $`u`$ solves $`(ii)`$.

$`(ii)(i)`$. We have already proved that from $`(ii)`$ it follows that $`Au\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$, hence $`BAu\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)`$, and so

$$f,\phi =\underset{U}{}AuB\phi 𝑑x=B\phi ,Au=BAu,\phi ;$$

that is, $`BAu=f`$ in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)`$

Remark 3.2.  The equivalence af these problems gives for free existence and uniqueness, since this is true for problem $`(iii)`$ thanks to the observation made in section 2. This is not obvious for problem $`(ii)`$ because the spaces of solution and of test functions are different.

Remark 3.3. Notice that if the boundary of $`U`$ is regular, then by regularity theorems, $`Au\mathrm{L}^2(U)`$ implies that $`u`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{H}^2(U)`$. The same is true for the test functions $`\phi `$. So the problem(3.1)$`(ii)`$ becomes:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{H}^2(U)\hfill & \\ _UAuB\phi 𝑑x=f,\phi \hfill & \\ \phi \mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\mathrm{H}^2(U).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Remark 3.4.  It is important to remark that the boundary conditions in the equivalent problems (3.1)$`(i)(ii)(iii)`$ depend on the choice of the decomposition $`L=BA`$.

If we have two decompositions, in the sense that

$$L\phi =B_1A_1\phi =B_2A_2\phi ,\phi 𝒟^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

then the boundary conditions in (3.1)$`(i)`$ are different. Hence also the other problems $`(ii)`$ and $`(iii)`$ differ. Had we chosen the Dirichlet boundary conditions, that is seeking $`u\mathrm{H}_0^2(U)`$, all decompositions would have given the same solution. But in this case what makes the difference is the boundary condition, as can be seen with the following example.

Example 3.5.  The operator

$$Lu:=u_{xxxx}+2u_{yyyy}+3u_{xxyy}$$

can be written, for instance, as the product of

$$Au=\mathrm{\Delta }u\text{ and }Bu=\mathrm{\Delta }u+u_{yy}.$$

But the integral in equation (3.1)$`(ii)`$ will be different according to which operator we will apply first:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }AuBv𝑑x=(u_{xx}v_{xx}+2u_{yy}v_{yy}+2u_{xx}v_{yy}+u_{yy}v_{xx})𝑑x,\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }BuAv𝑑x=(u_{xx}v_{xx}+2u_{yy}v_{yy}+u_{xx}v_{yy}+2u_{yy}v_{xx})𝑑x.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Computations show that these two integrals differ by a term on the boundary, which would vanish if functions where in $`\mathrm{H}_0^2(U)`$.

4. The asymptotic behaviour

We come now to examine problem (3.1)$`(i)`$ when we have a sequence of domains $`U_n`$ all contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`f`$ be in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (this implies it is also in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)`$ for any $`U_n`$) and consider always functions of $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n)`$ trivially extended to the whole of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As proved in Proposition 3.1, we can study directly

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au_n=v_n\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ u_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n)\hfill & \\ Bv_n=f\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ v_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$
We first consider the second equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Bv_n=f\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ v_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n).\hfill & \end{array}$$

From Theorem 2.1 we know that there exist a subsequence, which we still call $`U_n`$, and a measure $`\mu _B`$, depending on the sequence $`U_n`$, on the operator $`B`$, but not on $`f`$, such that

$$v_nv\text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

and $`v`$ solves

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Bv+\mu _Bv=f\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
in the sense specified in (2.2).

We can now apply Theorem 2.1 to the problem in $`u`$

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au_n=v_n\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ u_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n),\hfill & \end{array}$$

taking as $`U_n`$ only those in the subsequence obtained for $`B`$. Again there exists a subsequence, which we still call $`U_n`$, and a measure $`\mu _A`$, depending on the sequence $`U_n`$, on the operator $`A`$, but not on the sequence $`v_n`$, such that

$$u_nu\text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

and $`u`$ solves

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au+\mu _Au=v\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.3)`$
This allows us to conclude that, if $`u_n`$ are the solutions of system (4.1) then, up to a subsequence,

$$u_nu\text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

and $`u`$ is the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au+\mu _Au=v\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ Bv+\mu _Bv=f\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(4.4)`$
5. The single equation formulation

The goal of this section is to write problem (4.4) as a single equation of the form

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(Au+\mu _Au)(B\phi +\mu _B\phi )𝑑x=f,\phi .$$

Of course $`Au+\mu _Au`$ alone doesn’t make sense, because it has to be understood in the sense explained in chapter 2. What we will do now, is hence to define suitable function spaces, which will play the role of $`\{z\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }):Az\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$ and $`\{w\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }):Bw\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$ and operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}`$ which give meaning to the integral

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi 𝑑x.$$

The construction of such operators will be done only relatively to operator $`A`$, being the one relative to $`B`$ perfectly analogous.

Consider the operator

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_A:& \mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill \\ & zw\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`w`$ is the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Aw+\mu _Aw=z\hfill & \\ w\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega });\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(5.1)`$
so that we have $`u=R_Av`$ (and $`v=R_Bf`$).

Define now the space

$$V_A(\mathrm{\Omega }):=\{w\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }):z\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{ s.t. }w=R_Az\}.$$

Let us prove that the function $`z`$ is unique, for each $`w`$.

Assume, by contradiction, that there exist two $`z_1,z_2\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`w=R_Az_1=R_Az_2`$. From the equation we have

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(z_1z_2)\psi 𝑑x=0,\psi \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Since $`z_1z_2\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we get

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(z_1z_2)^2𝑑x=z_1z_2_{\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2=0$$

and we conclude that $`z_1=z_2`$.

So we have defined

$$V_A(\mathrm{\Omega })=R_A\left(\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\right)$$

and on its image $`R_A`$ is one-to-one. So, on the space $`V_A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the inverse operator can be defined:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _C}:& V_A(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill \\ & wz\text{ s.t. }w=R_Az\hfill \end{array}$$

Observe now that the operator $`R_A`$ is symmetric, that is:

$$h,R_Ag=g,R_Ah,$$

for any $`h\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`g\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

We are now able to write system (4.4) as a single equation. We have $`v=R_Bf`$ and $`u=R_Av`$, so that $`uV_A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. For any $`\phi V_B(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there exists a unique $`z\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`\phi =R_Bz`$. Hence,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f,\phi & =f,R_Bz=z,R_Bf=z,v\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}$$

Last equality holds because both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u`$ are in $`\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Hence we can conclude that the function $`u`$, solution of (4.4), also solves

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}uV_A(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ _\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u𝑑x=f,\phi \hfill & \\ \phi V_B(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

It is easily seen that also the converse holds. Let $`v`$ be a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Bv+\mu _Bv=f\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega });\hfill & \end{array}$$

then, by the definition, $`v=R_Bf`$. Hence, taken any $`z\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, we set $`\phi :=R_Bz`$, and we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v,z=& R_Bf,z=f,R_Bz=f,\phi \hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u,z.\hfill \end{array}$$

Taking then $`z=v\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u`$, we obtain

$$v\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u_{_{\mathrm{L}^2}}^2=0,$$

so

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u=v,$$

that is, by the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}`$,

$$u=R_Av,$$

hence $`u`$ solves (4.4).

All this can be summarized in the following

Theorem 5.1. A function $`u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}uV_A(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ _\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}u𝑑x=f,\phi \hfill & \\ \phi V_B(\mathrm{\Omega }),\hfill & \end{array}$$

if and only if it solves

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}Au+\mu _Au=v\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _A}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ Bv+\mu _Bv=f\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_{\mu _B}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

It is importat to remark that the road back to the equivalence with a fourth order problem stops here. This is because, in general, the image of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _A}`$ is not contained in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu _B}`$, even if $`A=B`$ and the two measures coincide.

6. The optimization problem

Let us consider now the optimization problem (1.4).

Let $`f`$ be a function in $`\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and let $`j:\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ satisfy the standard Carathéodory conditions and be such that

$$|j(x,s)|b(x)+\beta |s|^p,\text{ for a.e. }x\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ and }s\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R},$$
$`(6.1)`$
with $`bL^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\beta \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ and $`1p<2^{}`$, where $`2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2n}{n2}}`$ is the Sobolev exponent.

We want to study

$$\underset{U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u__U(x))𝑑x,$$
$`(6.2)`$
where $`𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the family of all open subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`u__U`$ is the solution, trivially extended in $`\mathrm{\Omega }U`$, of the problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^2u=f\mathrm{in}\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ u\mathrm{H}_0^1(U).\hfill & \end{array}$$

In general problem (6.2) does not have solution, in the sense that the infimum is not attained on the set $`\{u__U:U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$. This can be seen with the following example.

Example 6.1. Consider the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{n}`$ with smooth boundary. Consider a function

$$wC^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}),\text{ s.t. }w>0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega },w=0\text{ and }\mathrm{\Delta }w=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Omega }$$

and set

$$z:=\mathrm{\Delta }w+w,f:=\mathrm{\Delta }z+z.$$
$`(6.3)`$
Consider now

$$j(x,s)=\left(sw(x)\right)^2,$$

so that the integral

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\left(u(x)w(x)\right)^2𝑑x$$
$`(6.4)`$
takes the value zero if and only if $`u=w`$ a.e. It will turn out from the theory (see equation (6.7)) that zero is in fact the infimum of the functional over all solutionds of Dirichlet problems on subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We prove now that, with this choice of $`f`$, $`w`$ can not be the solution of the problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^2u__U=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }u__U\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ u__U\mathrm{H}_0^1(U),\hfill & \end{array}$$

for any $`U\mathrm{\Omega }`$, or, equivalently (thanks to Proposition 3.1), of system

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u__U=v\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ u__U\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U)\hfill & \\ v\mathrm{H}_0^1(U).\hfill & \end{array}$$

First consider the case when $`\mathrm{cap}(\mathrm{\Omega }U)=0`$. Then the spaces $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)`$ coincide (see for instance Theorem 4.5 in ), and the problem in $`U`$ is the same as the problem in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We show that $`wu_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. From (6.3) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^2w\mathrm{\Delta }w& =\mathrm{\Delta }z\hfill \\ & =fz\hfill \\ & =f+\mathrm{\Delta }ww.\hfill \end{array}$$

So $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2w=f+2\mathrm{\Delta }ww`$, and hence $`w`$ can be such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2w=f`$ only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }w={\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}`$ but this is impossible because, by the maximum principle, $`w`$ should be negative, while we have choosen it strictly positive.

The second case is when $`\mathrm{cap}(\mathrm{\Omega }U)>0`$. If this happens $`u__U`$ has to be zero in $`\mathrm{\Omega }U`$, so that $`u__Uw`$ on a set of non-zero capacity. But for functions in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to be equal Lebesgue-a.e. is the same as cap-a.e., hence $`u__U`$ can not be a minimizer for (6.4).

The example shows then, that to be able to solve always our optimization problem, it is convenient to seek our minima in the larger set $`M:=\{u_\mu :\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$, which is the closure of $`N:=\{u__U:U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })\}`$ in the weak topology of $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. In other words we introduce the relaxed optimization problem

$$\underset{\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\mu (x))𝑑x,$$
$`(6.5)`$
where $`u_\mu `$ denotes the solution fo the relaxed problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mu +u_\mu \mu =v_\mu \hfill & \\ u_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v_\mu +v_\mu \mu =f\hfill & \\ v_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(6.6)`$
and each equation is meant in the sense of formula (2.2).

In order to see that solving the new problem (6.5) gives the complete solution to problem (6.2), we have to show two things: that (6.5) has a solution and that

$$\underset{\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\mu (x))𝑑x=\underset{U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })}{inf}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u__U(x))𝑑x.$$
$`(6.7)`$
As for the first thing, we need to show that the set $`M`$ is closed in the weak topology of $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. So consider minimizing sequence $`\mu _n`$ and let $`u_{\mu _n}`$ be the solutions of the systems

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{\mu _n}+u_{\mu _n}\mu _n=v_{\mu _n}\hfill & \\ u_{\mu _n}\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })L_{\mu _n}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mu _n}+v_{\mu _n}\mu _n=f\hfill & \\ v_{\mu _n}\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })L_{\mu _n}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Applying Theorem 2.1 to the second equation we have that there exist a subsequence, called for simplicity $`\mu _n`$, and a measure $`\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`v_{\mu _n}v_\mu `$ weakly in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }v_\mu +v_\mu \mu =f\hfill & \\ v_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Applying again Theorem 2.1 to the first equation (only those corresponding to the subsequence), we obtain that

$$u_{\mu _n}u_\mu \text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

and $`u_\mu `$ is the solution of (6.6).

Hence $`u_\mu `$ is admissible and, by the minimizing property of the sequence $`\{\mu _n\}`$,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\mu (x))𝑑x=\underset{\nu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\nu (x))𝑑x.$$

On the other hand observe that every problem of the form

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }z=w\hfill & \\ z\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }w=g\hfill & \\ w\mathrm{H}_0^1(U)\hfill & \end{array}$$

can be viewed as a relaxed problem with the measure

$$\mu ^U(B):=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }BU\text{ has capacity zero}\hfill \\ +\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

since this holds for second order problems as can be seen, for instance, in .

This ensures us that problem (6.5) is indeed an extension of (6.2), in the sense that $`NM`$, so that

$$\underset{\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\mu (x))𝑑x\underset{U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })}{inf}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u__U(x))𝑑x.$$

To prove the inverse inequality we need the following

Lemma 6.2. Let $`\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then there exists a sequence $`U_n`$ of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$u_{_{U_n}}u_\mu \text{ weakly in }\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

where $`u_{_{U_n}}`$ and $`u_\mu `$ solve respectively

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{_{U_n}}=v_n\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ u_{_{U_n}}\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v_n=f\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ v_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n)\hfill & \end{array}\text{ and }\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mu +u_\mu \mu =v_\mu \hfill & \\ u_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }v_\mu +v_\mu \mu =f\hfill & \\ v_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Proof. We know, from Theorem 2.2, that given $`\mu `$, we have a sequence of sets $`U_n`$ such that, for every $`g\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, if

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }z_n=g\text{ in }\mathrm{H}^{\text{-}1}(U_n)\hfill & \\ z_n\mathrm{H}_0^1(U_n).\hfill & \end{array}$$

then the sequence $`z_n`$ tends weakly in $`\mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to $`z_\mu `$, solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }z_\mu +v_\mu \mu =g\hfill & \\ z_\mu \mathrm{H}_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{L}_\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Since the sequence $`U_n`$ depends only on the operator and not on the right hand side the same sequence of sets suits for the problem in $`u`$. Hence $`u_{_{U_n}}`$ converge to $`u_\mu `$ solution of the second system.

Since, by the hypothesis (6.1), the operator $`u{\displaystyle j(x,u)𝑑x}`$ is continuous in the strong topology of $`\mathrm{L}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (see  Theorem 4.1), the density result enables us to conclude that

$$\underset{\mu _0(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_\mu (x))𝑑x=\underset{U𝒰(\mathrm{\Omega })}{inf}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}j(x,u_A(x))𝑑x.$$

This ensures us also that every solution of a relaxed system can be approximated by solutions of fourth order problems.

Remark 6.3. We remark here that the model case of the bi-laplacian can be extended without changes in the proofs to the case of a fourth order elliptic operator with constat coefficients $`L`$ such that

$$Lu=C^2u,$$

where $`C`$ is a second order elliptic operator with constant coefficients.

References

 ATTOUCH H.: Variational converence for functions and operators. Pitman, Boston, 1984

 BUTTAZZO G., DAL MASO G.: Shape optimization for Dirichlet Problems: Relaxed Formulation and Optimality Conditions. Appl. Math. Optim.  23 (1991), 17-49.

 CHIPOT M., DAL MASO G.: Relaxed shape optimization: thecase of nonnegative data for the Dirichlet problem. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 1 (1992), 47-81.

 CIARLET P.G.: The finite element method for elliptic problems. Studies in mathematics and its applications. North Holland, New York, 1978

 CIARLET P.G.: Plates and junctions in elastic multi-structures. An asymptotic analysis. Masson, paris, 1990

 CIORANESCU D., MURAT F.: Un terme étrange venu d’ailleurs I and II. In Nonlinear partial differential equations and their applications. Pitman research notes in mathematics; n. 60, 98-138; n. 70, 154-178.

 DAL MASO G., GARRONI A.: New results on the asymptotic behaviour of Dirichlet problems in perforated domains. Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 3 (1994), 373-407.

 DAL MASO G., MALUSA A.: Approximation of relaxed Dirichlet problems by boundary value problems in perforated domains. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 125A (1995), 99-114.

 DAL MASO G., MOSCO U.: Wiener’s criterion and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-convergence. Appl. Math. Optim. 15 (1987), 15-63.

 DAL MASO G., PADERNI G.: Variational inequalities for the biharmonic operator with variable coefficients. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 103 (1988), 203-227.

 DUVAUT G., LIONS J.-L.: Inequalities in mechanics and physics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976

 EVANS L.C., GARIEPY R.F.: Measure theory and fine properties of functions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992

 HEINONEN J., KILPELÄINEN T., MARTIO O.: Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993

 LAGNESE J.E., LIONS J.-L.: Modelling analysis and control of thin plates. Masson, Paris, 1988

 LANDAU L., LIFSHITZ E.: Theory of elasticity. Course of theoretical physics. Pergamon Press, 1975


format: text

text:
# Effect of differences in proton and neutron density distributions on fission barriers

## Abstract

The neutron and proton density distributions obtained in constrained Hartree–Fock–Bogolyubov calculations with the Gogny force along the fission paths of 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu are analyzed. Significant differences in the multipole deformations of neutron and proton densities are found. The effect on potential energy surfaces and on barrier heights of an additional constraint imposing similar spatial distributions to neutrons and protons, as assumed in macroscopic–microscopic models, is studied.

PACS numbers : 21.10.Dr,21.10.Ft,21.10.Gv, 24.75.+i, 25.85.Ca

Keywords: self-consistent theory, even-even nuclei, fission barriers

Experimental analyses of, e.g. electron and $`\alpha `$–particle scattering, pionic atoms, anihilation of antiprotons show that, in most nuclei, neutrons and protons have close but different r.m.s. radii . The main reasons for this difference are unequal numbers of neutrons and protons, and the Coulomb interaction between protons.

In the last twenty-five years, fully microscopic approaches employing parameterized forms of the effective interaction between nucleons within a formalism of the Hartree-Fock type have been developed, which usually reproduce experimental proton and neutron r.m.s. radii and their difference in a satisfactory way . Corrections coming from oscillations of the mean-field in principle have to be added, which slightly increase nucleon radii. However, they often may be neglected, except in a few closed shell nuclei and in nuclei exhibiting shape coexistence .

Experimental r.m.s. charge radii and isotopic shifts are also successfully reproduced by macroscopic–microscopic methods based on the liquid drop model and the Strutinsky shell correction technique . Contrary to microscopic approaches, the proton and neutron mean-fields are not self-consistently determined, but taken as local potentials of prescribed forms – Nilsson or Saxon–Woods –, with identical spatial deformations.

In deformed nuclei, neutron and proton nuclear density distributions are expected to have not only different radii, but also different shapes, i.e. different quadrupole and higher multipole deformations. In Ref. , an analysis of theoretical densities based on a surface multipole moment expansion showed that significant differences between neutron and proton deformations often occur.

The aim of the present investigation is to check how large the differences between neutron and proton multipole deformations along paths to fission are, and to what extent fission barriers depend on such differences. This study is based on the constrained Hartree–Fock–Bogolyubov (HFB) approach with the Gogny effective interaction which has been extensively used several years ago to describe actinide fission . Four well-known actinide nuclei, 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu are considered.

Moments of the multipole components of the neutron and proton densities are first calculated as functions of quadrupole deformation using the method described in the next Section. In a second step, a constraint is introduced in the self-consistent calculation in order to impose identical spatial distributions to neutrons and protons. The resulting effect on the shape and height of fission barriers can be viewed as an estimate of the influence of the assumption usually made in macroscopic-microscopic Strutinsky type models (see e.g. ), that the neutron and proton potentials have the same multipole deformations.

The constrained HFB calculations have been performed following the method described in Ref.. Axial symmetry of the nuclear shapes has been assumed. Nuclear deformation along fission paths has been generated by means of a linear constraint on the nuclear mass quadrupole moment $`\widehat{Q}_{20}=_{i=1}^Ar_i^2P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i)`$. The two-body effective nucleon-nucleon interaction has been taken in the form proposed by Gogny , with the set of parameters D1S  adopted since 1983. Let us recall that this finite range effective force has been proved to give a very satisfactory ab initio description of the average field and pairing correlations in nuclei, and also of actinide fission barriers.

Generalized multipole moments $`Q_\lambda ^k`$ of the self-consistent density distributions $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ are defined by the following integrals:

$$Q_\lambda ^k=r^kP_\lambda (\mathrm{cos}\theta )\rho (\stackrel{}{r})d^3\stackrel{}{r}$$
(1)
where $`P_\lambda `$ is a Legendre polynomial of order $`\lambda `$. The average $`\beta `$–deformation of multipole $`\lambda `$ can be taken proportional to the ratio of the moment $`Q_\lambda ^k`$ to the monopole moment $`Q_0^k`$:

$$\beta _\lambda (k)=\frac{\sqrt{4\pi (2\lambda +1)}}{k+3}\frac{Q_\lambda ^k}{Q_0^k}.$$
(2)
This definition yields deformation parameters close to the $`\beta _\lambda `$ commonly used to define the shape of the nuclear surface in the liquid drop model :

$$R(\theta ,\varphi )=R_0(\{\beta _\lambda \})\left(1+\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{m}{}}\beta _\lambda Y_{\lambda 0}(\theta ,\varphi )\right).$$
(3)
In particular, for small deviations from the sphere and for a uniform density distribution :

$$\beta _\lambda (k)=\beta _\lambda ,$$
(4)
for any value of $`k`$ in Eq. (1).

In Fig. 1, the fission barriers of 232Th, 236U, 238U, and 240Pu are plotted as functions of the mean value of the nucleus mass quadrupole moment $`\widehat{Q}_{20}`$. The solid line corresponds to left-right reflection symmetric nuclear shapes, while the dashed line represents the more general asymmetric case. As expected, fission barriers including asymmetric shapes are lower in these nuclei beyond the isomeric minimum. HFB energies along the fission paths have been corrected in the usual way  from the spurious zero-point energies associated with the fluctuations of the center of mass position, of the angular orientation and of the quadrupole deformation of the HFB states. Both one-body and two-body center of mass corrections have been computed. Let us mention that the lowering of the first hump of barriers due to triaxial instability is not included in the curves of Fig. 1.

The multipole deformation parameters: quadrupole $`\beta _2`$, octupole $`\beta _3`$ and hexadecapole $`\beta _4`$ defined by Eq. (2) have been evaluated along the different fission barriers of Fig. 1. As an example, the multipole deformations of the total nuclear density along the symmetric and asymmetric barriers of 232Th are plotted in the upper-left part of Fig. 2. In this analysis the surface multipole moment, i.e. $`k=2`$, has been chosen. Deformations obtained with $`k=4`$ are not shown as they are close to those computed with $`k=2`$.

Inserting neutron (resp. proton) density distributions into formula (1) allows one to get information about the neutron (resp. proton) multipole deformations. The other three diagrams in Fig. 2. display the differences $`\beta _\lambda ^n\beta _\lambda ^p`$ between neutron and proton deformations in 232Th. One observes that they strongly depend on deformation and are always negative for prolate deformations. Large values are obtained beyond the second minimum of the fission barrier, especially for octupole and hexadecapole deformations. There, the relative neutron-proton deformation difference $`|\beta _\lambda ^n\beta _\lambda ^p|/\beta _\lambda `$ reaches 4% in the quadrupole case, and exceeds 10% for $`\lambda =3`$ and $`4`$.

The above neutron-proton differences exhibit a similar behavior in 236U, 238U and 240Pu, although their magnitudes are not as large as in 232Th. As in the latter nucleus, the largest numbers are obtained for octupole and hexadecapole deformations. From these results one can conclude that the rearrangement of the nuclear structure along fission paths leads to an increase of the difference between neutron and proton deformations, the proton multipole deformations becoming significantly larger than neutron ones beyond the fission isomer potential minimum.

In order to estimate the influence on fission barriers of the differences found between the neutron and proton spatial distributions, the HFB calculations have been performed again, adding a new constraint ensuring that all multipole deformations $`\beta _\lambda (n)`$ of protons and neutrons are equal. This has been done by imposing, at each iteration of the HFB procedure, that the neutron and proton density matrices are proportional to each other:

$$\rho _n=\frac{N}{Z}\rho _p$$
(5)
No such condition has been imposed on the neutron and proton pairing tensors.

As expected within a variational framework, the HFB energies computed with the additional constraint are found higher than those computed without this subsidiary condition. The differences $`\delta E_{\mathrm{den}}`$ between the HFB energies computed with and without the additional constraint along the fission paths of 232Th, 236-238U and 240Pu are plotted in Fig. 3. As in Figs. 1 and 2, the solid lines represent the fission paths for reflection symmetric nuclear shapes, while the dashed lines correspond to reflection asymmetric ones. One can see that the $`\delta E_{\mathrm{den}}`$ differences are approximately 1.5 MeV on the average in 240Pu and 236-238U, with fluctuations having an amplitude of the order of 1 MeV. In 232Th, the average energy difference is slightly smaller, while stronger oscillations can be observed.

As a consequence, imposing condition (5) leads, in some cases, to an increase of fission barrier heights of $``$1 MeV. This can be seen in Fig. 4, where the fission barriers computed with (dashed line) and without (solid line) constraint (5) are plotted. Here, only the barriers corresponding to reflection asymmetric shapes are displayed. In order to better compare the two calculations, the dashed curves are shifted downward in order that the ground state minima in the dashed and solid curves coincide. One observes that, in spite of this shift, constraint (5) almost always leads to an increase of the heights of the barrier maxima and of the isomeric secondary minima. The biggest change occurs in 238U, where the height of the first barrier increases by 1 MeV. A smaller but sizable ($``$ .4 – .7 MeV) increase of first barrier heights of the other three nuclei can be seen. In all nuclei except 240Pu, similar increases are obtained for second barriers and isomer well energies. In addition, the shape of the second barrier is slightly altered in 232Th and, to a lesser extent, in the other three nuclei.

In order to better illustrate the consequences of these barrier increases, their influence on spontaneous fission lifetimes has been estimated. Barrier penetration factors have been calculated using the WKB approximation, with collective inertia parameters computed from the method given in Ref.. As a result, constaint (5) leads to spontaneous fission lifetimes increased by factors 9.8, 6.6, 22.4 and 2 in 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu, respectively.

This work shows that the multipole deformations of the proton and neutron density distributions of fissioning nuclei are far from being equal. The relative difference between them often exceeds 10% and undergoes large variations. This means that the thickness of the neutron skin does not remain constant as the fissioning nucleus elongates. The effect on the nuclear binding energy of these deformation differences is found to be approximately 1.5 MeV, with fluctuations of the order of 1 MeV. Clearly, these numbers are not negligible compared to typical fission barrier heights.

As mentioned earlier, macroscopic-microscopic calculations of potential energy surfaces of fissioning nuclei assume equal deformations of protons and neutron distributions. In view of the above results, one is tempted to infer that these calculations predict fission barriers that are systematically $``$ 1 MeV too high. One must note that only the fluctuating part of $`\delta E_{\mathrm{den}}`$ can actually influence barrier heights calculated with the macroscopic-microscopic approach, since the average value of this difference can be taken into account in the fitting of the parameters of the macroscopic (e.g. liquid drop) model. Still, as shown above, neglecting neutron-proton deformation differences can induce an overestimation of spontaneous fission lifetimes by several orders of magnitude in heavy and superheavy nuclei.

This result suggests that it might be useful to generalize the currently used macroscopic-microscopic approaches in order to allow protons and neutrons to have different multipole deformations. One could start from the energy prescription :

$$E_{\mathrm{Strut}}(\{\beta _\lambda ^p\},\{\beta _\lambda ^n\})=E_{\mathrm{macr}}(\{\beta _\lambda ^p\},\{\beta _\lambda ^n\})+\delta E_{\mathrm{micr}}^p(\{\beta _\lambda ^p\})+\delta E_{\mathrm{micr}}^n(\{\beta _\lambda ^n\})$$
(6)
where both the macroscopic and and microscopic components depend on proton and neutron deformations. Then, performing a minimization with respect to e.g., the neutron multipole deformations while keeping proton deformations as independent variables, should give a more realistic description of potential energy surfaces. Details of such a method as, for instance, the way to generalize macroscopic models in order to include different deformations for protons and neutrons, are left for future study.

This work is partially financed by the Polish Committee of Scientific Research under Contract No. 2 P03B 011 12.

Figure captions

1. Fission barriers of 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu obtained with the HFB method and the Gogny effective interaction. They are drawn as functions of the nucleus total (mass) quadrupole moments. Center of mass, rotational and vibrational corrections are included, as explained in the text. The solid lines represent the fission barriers for reflection symmetric shapes, while the dashed lines correspond to asymmetric fission.
2. Multipole deformations $`\beta _\lambda ,\lambda =`$2,3,4 of the 232Th density (upper left), and the differences $`\beta _\lambda ^n\beta _\lambda ^p`$ between neutron and proton multipole deformations for symmetric (solid curves) and asymmetric (dashed curves) fission of 232Th, as functions of the total quadrupole moment.
3. Differences between the fission barriers obtained with and without constraint (5) imposing equal deformations to neutrons and protons, in 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu.
4. Fission barriers for the asymmetric fission of 232Th, 236U, 238U and 240Pu, obtained with (dashed curves) and without (solid curves) constraint (5) imposing equal deformations to neutrons and protons. The dashed curves are shifted downward in order that ground state minima coincide.


text:
# References

Strange quark matter in cosmic ray flux and exotic events
Shibaji Banerjee$,†, Sanjay K. Ghosh$,¶,111Present address: Theory Group, TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada, Amal Mazumdar$,‡,222Permanent address : Fachbereich Physik, Philipps Universität Marburg, D-35032 Marburg, Germany,

Sibaji Raha$,§,333Corresponding author and Debapriyo Syam.

$ Physics Department, Bose Institute, 93/1, A.P.C. Road, Calcutta 700009, India
Physics Department, Presidency College, 86/1, College Street, Calcutta 700073, India
Electronic address : phys@bosemain.boseinst.ernet.in
Electronic address : sanjay@triumf.ca
Electronic address : mazumdar@mailer.uni-marburg.de
§ Electronic address : sibaji@bosemain.boseinst.ernet.in

## Abstract

There have been several reports of exotic nuclear fragments, with highly unusual charge to mass ratio, in cosmic ray experiments. Although there exist experimental uncertainties which make them, at best, only candidate ”exotic” events, it is important to understand what they could be, if they are eventually confirmed. Among other possible explanations, some authors have interpreted them to be lumps of strange quark matter (strangelets). A major problem with such an interpretation is that to reach the earth’s surface, they must possess an unusually high penetrability through the terrestrial atmosphere. We show that a recently proposed mechanism for the propagation of strangelets through the earth’s atmosphere, together with a proper account of charge capture and ionisation loss, would solve this problem. We also argue that this could lead to viable strategies for definitive detection of strange quark matter in cosmic ray flux using a ground based large area array of passive detectors.

There exists a proposal in the literature  that strange quark matter (SQM), consisting of approximately equal numbers of up, down and strange quarks, represents the true ground state of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the underlying theory of strong interaction physics. The characteristic feature of stable (or metastable) small lumps of SQM would be very abnormal electric charge ($`Z`$) to mass ($`A`$) ratio ( $`Z/A1`$). The existence of such objects had also been postulated earlier by other authors (see, eg ), but the seminal work of Witten  provided the theoretical basis for the study of SQM within the framework of QCD. It has since been argued in the literature that a definitive confirmation of the existence of stable (or metastable) lumps of SQM (referred to in the following as strangelets) can shed light on some of the most intriguing aspects of present day physics and astrophysics, like the cosmological dark matter problem , cosmological QCD phase transition or abundance of strange stars.

There have indeed been several reports of events with $`A`$ 350 - 500 and $`Z`$ 10 - 20 in cosmic ray experiments , the so-called exotic cosmic ray events. Although these observations come from different groups, the existence of such objects cannot yet be taken as confirmed, due to various experimental uncertainties like switch between gondolas, ambiguities associated with the calibration of Cerenkov counter output, detector noises, dead time etc, in the different experiments444We thank the referee for emphasizing this point to us.. These events, thus, are, at best, candidate events. Nonetheless, it is an important task to understand what these objects, if they are eventually confirmed, could be and several authors have put forward various suggestions as to the nature of these exotic objects. An essential feature of these objects appears to be their unusual penetrability through the terrestrial atmosphere, allowing them to reach mountain altitudes. To account for such stability, although in the light of a different cosmic ray event called the ”Centauro event” found in the Brazil-Japan collaboration experiment at Mt. Chacaltaya , Bjorken and McLerran  assumed, following De Rújula, Giles and Jaffe , the liberation of a fractionally charged free massive quark which would absorb a large number of nucleons and constitute a metastable blob of superdense quark matter. Chin and Kerman  proposed the existence of metastable multiquark states of large strangeness within the framework of the MIT bag model . All such scenarios can be mostly accommodated within the premise of Witten’s conjecture of SQM as the true ground state of QCD. However, the fraction of such heavy objects (A $``$ 300 - 500) in the primary cosmic ray flux may be exceedingly small.

It should be mentioned at this juncture that only strangelets with very large $`A`$ were initially thought to be favourable in the context of stability. Indeed, De Rújula and Glashow  considered the possibility of detecting large lumps of SQM, called ”nuclearites”, of $`A<`$ 1015 and $`Z`$ ”well beyond any published periodic table”. Recent calculations, however, have shown that also small strangelets with $`A`$ = 6, 18, 24, 42, 54, 60, 84, 102 etc are possible stable configurations, due to an underlying shell-like structure . The flux of such objects in cosmic rays could thus be sizable enough to be looked for, at least in large area detectors, hence ground based experiments. It is thus imperative to know if these strangelets can traverse the earth’s atmosphere and reach the surface. Moreover, the candidate events ($`A`$ 350 - 500 and $`Z`$ 10 -20) have vastly different charge-to-mass ratios than those referred to above. It needs to be investigated whether these are related in any manner.

Recently, a dynamical scenario for the propagation of strangelets through the earth’s atmosphere has been worked out , where the stability of SQM plays a very important role. In particular, the propagation of strangelets through the earth’s atmosphere has been described by the differential equation

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{g}+\frac{q}{m_s}(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B})\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{m_s}\frac{dm_s}{dt}$$
(1)
where a strangelet of low mass ($`A`$ = 64 amu) and charge ($`Z`$ = 2 units) enters the upper layer of the atmosphere ($``$ 25 km from the sea level, above which the density of the atmosphere is negligibly small). The speed of the strangelet at that altitude has to be $`0.2c`$ ($`c`$ being the velocity of light), for a geomagnetic latitude of $`30^oN`$, in order to overcome the geomagnetic barrier. While the first two terms in equation (1) have obvious significance, the third term accounts for the deceleration of the strangelet due to its peculiar interaction with the air molecules; strangelets can readily absorb matter and become more strongly bound, unlike the normal nuclear fragments which tend to break up . Using straightforward geometrical considerations, it has been shown  that the strangelet grows from $`A`$ = 64 amu to $`A`$ 340 amu by the time it reaches an altitude of $``$ 3.5 km, the altitude of a typical mountain peak with adequate accessibility for setting up a large detector array. This remarkable possibility makes it imperative to explore the consequences of this novel mechanism with greater care, especially taking proper account of not only accretion of mass but also that of charge as well as the dissipation of energy due to ionisation loss.

Thus the operative equation (1) becomes modified to

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{g}+\frac{q}{m_s}(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B})\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{m_s}\left(\frac{dm_{sn}}{dt}+\frac{dm_{sp}}{dt}\right)\frac{f(v)}{\sqrt{3}m_s}\widehat{v}$$
(2)
where $`\frac{dm_{sn}}{dt}`$ $`\left(\frac{dm_{sp}}{dt}\right)`$ denotes the accretion to the strangelet due to its interaction with neutrons (protons) of the air (primarily $`N_2`$ molecules). It should be noted that absorption of neutrons would lead only to mass increase while that of protons would increase both mass and charge of the strangelets. In equation 2, $`\frac{dm_{sn}}{dt}`$ is related to ($`\frac{dm_{sp}}{dt}`$) by the following relation,

$$\frac{dm_{sp}}{dt}=\frac{\sigma _p}{\sigma _n}\frac{dm_{sn}}{dt}f_{pn}\frac{dm_{sn}}{dt}$$
(3)
where $`\sigma _n`$ and $`\sigma _p`$ represent the cross sections for the absorption of the neutron and the proton, respectively, by the strangelet. Thus, $`f_{pn}`$ determines the relative probability for a proton to undergo the above process vis-a-vis a neutron, and is less than one, on account of the coulomb barrier present at the surface of the strangelet. The factor $`f(v)`$ represents the rate of energy loss due to ionisation of the surrounding medium by the positively charged strangelet . The rate of absorption of protons by the strangelet, given by eq.(3), determines the rate of change in the charge $`q`$ of the strangelet.

The set of equations is solved numerically, using the 4th order Runge-Kutta method. The results are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. As can be readily seen from Fig. 1, the initial strangelet of $`A`$ = 64 and $`Z`$ = 2 evolves into a state of $`A`$ 455 and $`Z`$ 14, very similar to what have been reported in the literature.

Special attention should be paid to Fig. 2. It is found that ionisation loss leads to a considerable dissipation of energy and consequent slowdown. It is however most interesting to note that at altitudes $``$ 3.5 km from the sea level, the strangelet has a velocity of the order of 0.0063c, corresponding to a total energy of $``$ 8.5 MeV. For the present scenario, this energy (which corresponds to $`dE/dx`$ 2.35 MeV/mg/cm2 in the passive solid state nuclear track detector CR-39), although very small, is just above the threshold of detection with CR-39, for which $`dE/dx|_{critical}`$ turns out to be around 1 MeV/mg/cm2.

The experimental verification of SQM in cosmic ray flux (and the mechanism of their propagation through the earth’s atmosphere) is thus possible with a suitable ground based detector set up at high altitudes of about 3 to 5 km. At such altitudes, the predicted energy range of the resulting penetrating particles with mass $`M`$ between 300 and 400 and $`Z`$ between 10 and 15 should lie between 5 to 50 MeV. (This estimate corresponds to an averaging over all angles of incidence at the top of the atmosphere, taken to be 25 km here, as mentioned above. The estimate of flux would be strongly affected by the angle of incidence; this is currently under investigation.) A suitable locality for such observations at an altitude of about 3.5 km above the sea level has been identified at Sandakphu, in the middle ranges of the eastern Himalayas, with adequate accessibility and climatic conditions. Continuous exposure for months or years at a stretch of a detector assembly with stacks of SSNTDs like CR-39, covering a total area of about 400 m2, is planned there. (The number of events due to strangelets may be as few as 5 - 10 per 100 m2 per year, according to our approximate estimates.) The major considerations in this respect are cost, structural simplicity, and long time stability of the detection sensitivity against temperature fluctuations of several tens of Celsius degrees between summer and winter months and the ruggedness of the passive detectors. Regarding all these aspects, commercially available CR-39 appears to be the most suitable choice, which has been shown in NASA SKYLAB experiments  to be capable of detecting heavy ions with energies upto 43 MeV/u. The signatures produced in such detectors in terms of mass, charge and energy of detectable strangelets can be evaluated in the expected $`dE/dx`$ range by measurements of track dimensions. For this purpose, additional calibration experiments, exposing CR-39 samples to heavy ions with variable charge states at almost similar energy ranges, are necessary which can be made at several existing heavy ion accelerator facilities. With efficient etching and automated track measurements, backgrounds of low energy secondary radiation with lower charge or mass are not expected to pose any serious problems. Due to specific inherent technical problems like ”fading” of thermoluminescent materials over a long interval of time, they do not seem to be practical in our experimental conditions. CR-39 has an additional advantage over the other types of passive semi-conductor detectors using co-polymers like SR6, CN85 or Lexan; a large amount of characteristic experimental data are already available for CR-39 in the existing literature. As alternatives, Mica or Overhead Transparency Foils may also be considered and calibration experiments using these materials will be conducted at accelerator facilities to judge their suitability. Other active detectors and devices do not appear to be suitable for installation at proposed mountain heights for stand alone operation over long periods and are therefore not being considered at present.

We thus conclude by arguing that detection of strangelets in the cosmic ray flux is quite possible, using ground based large area passive detectors at mountain altitudes.

Acknowledgment : The works of SB and SKG were supported in part by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Figure Caption :
Figure 1. The variation of mass $`m_s`$ (in amu) and charge $`q`$ of the strangelet with altitude (in km).

Figure 2. The variation of energy $`E`$ (in MeV) and velocity $`\beta `$ with altitude (in km). The inset shows a zoomed view of the graphs for altitude between 5 to 3 km.


text:
# No diffuse H2 in the metal deficient galaxy I Zw 18

## 1 Introduction

I Zw 18 (Mkn 116) is a dwarf blue compact galaxy presently experiencing a strong burst of star formation which has produced a pair of bright H II regions. This galaxy has the smallest known abundance of heavy elements as derived from the ionized gaseous component. Its oxygen abundance is only $``$ 1/50 of that of the Sun. The distribution and kinematics of neutral hydrogen derived from aperture synthesis observations have been discussed in several works. These works have derived H i masses in the range $`3`$$`7\times 10^7`$M and dynamical masses in the range $`3`$$`9\times 10^8`$M (Lequeux & Viallefond 1980; Viallefond et al. 1987; van Zee et al. 1998). Van Zee et al. (1998) have emphasized the complexity of the H i velocity fields, while Martin (1996) and Petrosian et al. (1997) have discussed the ionized component. It has been suggested that objects with localized massive star formation surrounded by large H i envelopes might contain a significant reservoir of molecular hydrogen. Such material could represent a significant fraction of the dark matter (Lequeux & Viallefond 1980). Attempts to detect CO in H II galaxies have so far been unsuccessful (Combes 1986; Young et al. 1986; Arnault et al. 1988; Sage et al. 1992; Israël et al. 1995; Gondhalekar et al. 1998). This lack of detection does not necessarily imply a lack of H2: the CO excitation could be lower than for molecular clouds in our Galaxy or CO might be more photodissociated than H2; but perhaps most importantly, C and O are highly underabundant in these metal deficient galaxies. The lack of detectable molecular material also has other important implications for galaxies like I Zw 18. Given the chemically unevolved nature of I Zw 18 and its lack of organized gas dynamics and/or spiral arms, it is unclear where and how this galaxy formed the molecular gas thought to be required to form the current generation of young stars.

Therefore, we observed I Zw 18 with the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE, Moos et al. 2000) with the aim of detecting cold molecular hydrogen lines in absorption against the stellar continuum of blue massive stellar clusters. In Sect. 2 we describe the observations and the data analysis, the results are discussed in Sect. 3

## 2 Data analysis

I Zw 18 has been observed for 31600 seconds on November 28, 1999 with FUSE through the two LiF channels ($``$ 980 to 1187 Å). The large entrance aperture (30″x 30″) has been used, fully covering the galaxy. The data have been processed with the pipeline version 1.5. The spectral resolution is defined by both the instrument and the size of the galaxy (10″). We find a resolution of about $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 10000`$ with a S/N ratio of $`10`$ per resolution element.

Many absorption lines are clearly detected. They correspond to three main components at different radial velocities: $`260`$ km s-1, $`100`$ km s-1, and $`650`$ km s-1. These can easily be identified respectively with the known high velocity cloud at $`160`$ km s-1, the clouds within the Galaxy expected at low radial velocity, and I Zw 18 itself with a redshift of $`750`$ km s-1. We thus conclude that there is a systematic wavelength shift in the whole spectrum corresponding to a blueshift of about 100 km s-1. This systematic wavelength shift can be explained by the preliminary wavelength calibration of FUSE and by the position of the target possibly off the center of the slit. All the velocities quoted below refer to the observed velocities corrected by this systematic effect assumed to be exactly 100 km s-1.

The high velocity cloud at $`160`$km s-1 is detected in C ii, Cr ii, Fe ii, and Si ii lines. The second component identified with galactic clouds shows absorption lines not only from atoms and ions (e.g., C ii, O i, Fe ii and Si ii) but also from molecular hydrogen. Lines from H2 at levels up to at least J=5 are detected. This is the only component showing the presence of these electronic transitions of H2. This component shows a complex structure, suggesting the presence of several interstellar clouds separated by up to 20 km s-1, and will not be detailed further. Finally the third component detected at 750 km s-1 is seen in Ar i, N i, Fe ii, and Si ii (Fig. 1).

In addition to these three main components, a complex structure is observed around 1032 Å and 1037 Å . This corresponds to the presence of O vi lines with radial velocities between $`100`$ km s-1 and $`+150`$ km s-1 originating in the galactic halo.

No line from H2 is observed at the radial velocity of I Zw 18 (Fig. 2). We calculated the upper limits of the H2 column densities assuming an intrinsic width of the lines of $`b=18`$ km s-1 (van Zee et al. 1998). The limits have been estimated by calculating the difference between a simulated spectrum and the observed spectrum in 9 Lyman bands (0-0 to 8-0) and calculating the corresponding increase of the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit to the spectrum. The upper limits quoted in Table 1 give an increase of the $`\chi ^2`$ larger than 100, corresponding to a non detection at the $`10\sigma `$ level. These limits are thus very conservative and correspond to a total column density $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}(\mathrm{H}_2)10^{15}`$ cm-2. A different intrinsic width of the lines would not change the result significantly.

The H i Lyman $`\beta `$ line is strongly perturbed by the airglow lines. However using only the blue wing of the absorption line and assuming that this wing is due to the H i of I Zw 18 at 750 km s-1, it is possible to obtain an estimate of the H i column density. We find N(H i)$`2.1\times 10^{21}`$cm-2. This value is consistent with N(H i)$`3.5\times 10^{21}`$cm-2 obtained with HST with a narrow slit (Kunth et al. 1994) and the peak column density of $`3.0\times 10^{21}`$cm-2 obtained with observations of the 21 cm emission line. Assuming a constant N(H2)/N(H i) ratio across the whole galaxy, we can scale the upper limit on H2 column density to a limit for the total mass of diffuse H2, yielding $`M_{\mathrm{H}_2}30`$M.

Other lines of atoms and ions are observed in the I Zw 18 system at 750 km s-1. For instance, lines of Ar i, N i, Fe ii, and Si ii are clearly detected. Neither O vi, nor the electronic transitions of CO are detected at the I Zw 18 radial velocity. The lack of CO absorption lines is not surprising since, contrary to diffuse H2, CO should be confined in very dense clouds opaque to UV sources. The problem of O vi will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

## 3 Discussion

The interpretation of the lack of absorption lines of H2 in the spectrum of I Zw 18 deserves a detailed discussion. Note first that FUSE gives access to the average absorption over the full body of I Zw 18, providing $`10^3`$ lines of sight to stars emitting in the far–UV and gathered in a central region approximately $`10\mathrm{}`$ wide. Some of these stars are resolved by the HST (Dufour et al. 1996). Our observations are not sensitive to dense molecular clouds since: i) dust, even in minute amounts will hide the background stars in the far–UV. ii) even if such clouds were transparent to UV photons, H2 absorption lines would not be detected at our S/N ratio unless the covering fraction is larger than $`10\%`$. On the other hand, our observations are very sensitive to diffuse H2. Its absence is very unusual. Indeed in our Galaxy, H2 is strongly detected for H i column densities larger than a few $`10^{20}`$ cm-2, and is often detected for lower N(H i) (Dixon et al. 1998). With 2N(H2)/N(H i)$`10^6`$ and H i column density as high as N(H i)$`2\times 10^{21}`$cm-2, our observation is placed in the extreme bottom right corner of Fig. 5 of Dixon et al. (1998) representing the fraction of molecular hydrogen versus N(H i). Such an extreme situation has never been observed within a galaxy. Even the Magellanic Clouds, with sub-solar metallicities and high far–UV radiation fields, show detectable H2 along sightlines with lower H i column densities (e.g., Friedman et al. 2000, Shull et al. 2000). We also would like to stress that this result raises an interesting similarity with what is observed in the damped Ly$`\alpha `$ systems in QSO lines of sight at higher redshift. Despite their high levels of H i, having low metalicity, low dust content and high UV environment, they also present no detectable H2 (Black et al. 1987).

We now show that the lack of H2 in the diffuse ISM of I Zw 18 is a consequence of the low abundance of grains, of the high ultraviolet flux and of the low atomic density in the H i cloud surrounding I Zw 18.

There are two possible mechanisms for the formation of H2 in the H i cloud: formation via H- (see e.g. Jenkins & Peimbert 1997), or combination of two H atoms on a dust grain (Hollenbach & Salpeter 1971). A third mechanism involving the production of H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ by radiative association of H and H+ is very inefficient in the present case since the reaction is slow and will not be considered further. The first mechanism for H2 formation starts with the formation of a negative ion, $`\mathrm{H}+e\mathrm{H}^{}+h\nu ,`$ with a rate $`1.0\times 10^{15}`$ $`T_3`$ exp$`(T_3/7)`$ cm3 s-1, $`T_3`$ being the temperature in units of 103 K (Jenkins & Peimbert 1997). This is followed by the faster associative detachment reaction H- \+ H $``$ H2 \+ $`e`$. The electrons come mainly from the photoionization of carbon: $`n_e=`$(C/H) $`n`$(H). We assume that the abundance of carbon in the H i cloud is the same as in the H II region: C/H = $`3.5\times 10^6`$ (Garnett et al. 1997). The rate of formation is then as low as $`10^{20}n(\mathrm{H})^2`$ cm3s-1 at a temperature of 104 K, the most favorable case, so that the mechanism is very inefficient unless the medium contains clumps with very high densities.

The formation of H2 on grains is a more efficient mechanism if the dust is cold enough for the H atoms to stick and remain on the grain surface long enough to combine. To estimate the grain temperature, we examine what happens at the edge of the H i cloud of I Zw 18, where the UV flux which photodissociates H2 is minimal. The angular radius of the H i cloud is approximately 30″ from the VLA map of van Zee et al. (1998), corresponding to a radius $`R_0`$ = 1.7 kpc at the distance of I Zw 18, taken as 11.5 Mpc from its radial velocity of 750 km s-1 ($`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1). The radiation flux from the ionizing stars of I Zw 18 around 1000 Å measured by FUSE or extrapolated from IUE observations is about $`3\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1. Correcting for the Galactic extinction ($`E(BV)=0.04`$ mag., Kunth et al. 1994), we obtain a UV flux at the Earth of approximately $`4.5\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1. This yields at $`R_0`$ a flux $`F_{1000}2\times 10^6`$ erg s-1 cm-2 Å-1. We finally find the grain temperature at $`R_0`$ by solving the temperature equilibrium equation $`\pi a^2Q_a(\lambda )F_\lambda 𝑑\lambda =4\pi a^2Q_a(\lambda )\pi B_\lambda (T)𝑑\lambda ,`$ where $`a`$ is the radius of the grain assumed to be spherical, $`Q_a(\lambda )`$ its absorption efficiency, $`F_\lambda `$ the incoming UV flux and $`B_\lambda (T)`$ the Planck function at the temperature T of the grain. As any kind of grain is strongly absorbing in the far-UV which dominates strongly the radiation field, we take $`Q_a1`$ in the left side of the equation. In the far-IR where the grains emit, we take $`Q_a(\lambda )0.1(\lambda /100\mu \mathrm{m})^2(a/0.1\mu \mathrm{m})`$ (Draine & Lee 1984). It is then possible to solve the temperature equation analytically, finding at $`R_0:`$ $`T15.5(a/0.1\mu \mathrm{m})^{1/6}\mathrm{K}.`$ This grain temperature is close to that in the diffuse Galactic interstellar medium and allows the formation of H2. However $`T`$ increases as $`R^{1/3}`$ closer to I Zw 18 and H2 cannot form on grains in the inner parts of the H i cloud.

In the steady state, the molecular hydrogen is also destroyed through absorption in the Lyman bands, and the resulting H2 column density can be estimated. We can take for the formation rate on grains $``$ the canonical Galactic value of $`10^{17}n(\mathrm{H})^2`$ cm3 s-1 (Hollenbach & Salpeter 1971) divided by 50 since the dust-to-gas ratio is less than 1/50 of the Galactic value (Kunth et al. 1994). In the present case where the H2 electronic bands are optically thin the fraction of molecular hydrogen $`f(\mathrm{H}_2)=2n(\mathrm{H}_2)/[2n(\mathrm{H}_2)+n(\mathrm{H})]`$ is (Jura 1974)

$$f(\mathrm{H}_2)=2n(\mathrm{H})/I,$$
(1)
where $`I`$ is a photodissociation rate. Jura (1974) has calculated $`I`$ for different cases and we simply use his estimate close to the O9.5V star $`\zeta `$ Oph, scaled to $`F_{1000}`$, the flux at 1000 Å at the radius $`R_0`$ of I Zw 18. We will assume that the cloud is spherical and uniform, in which case its density is $`n(\mathrm{H})=N(\mathrm{HI})/R_0`$ = 0.4 atom cm-3, $`N(\mathrm{HI})`$ being the column density we measure in front of I Zw 18. We obtain $`f(\mathrm{H}_2)2\times 10^9`$. The abundance of H2 is still smaller closer to I Zw 18 since the UV flux is accordingly larger. Thus the calculated column density of H2 is

$$N(\mathrm{H}_2)1\times 10^9N(\mathrm{HI})2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{mol}.\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(2)
less than the observed upper limit by more than two orders of magnitude.

We thus conclude that our observation shows that the diffuse ISM surrounding I Zw 18 cannot be very inhomogeneous at large scales, otherwise H2 would have been observed. However it cannot be excluded that this medium contains molecular clouds and in particular the kind of very dense, discrete molecular clumps proposed by Pfenniger et al. (1994) to account for the dark matter in our Galaxy. These clumps would escape detection since the associated absorption would be observed only in front of stars which, although very numerous, have a very small total surface coverage. However the suggestion of Lequeux & Viallefond (1980) that the dark matter seen dynamically in I Zw 18 is made of widespread diffuse molecular hydrogen is no longer tenable after the present observations.

Acknowledgments. This work is based on data obtained for the Guaranteed Time Team by the NASA-CNES-CSA FUSE mission operated by the Johns Hopkins University. Financial support to U.S. participants has been provided by NASA contract NAS5-32985. We thank E. Roueff for providing H2 transition data in electronic format.