text:
# Periodic Density Modulation Effects on a Correlated two-dimensional Composite Fermion System

## Abstract

We examine theoretically the effects caused by a periodic external potential on the correlated motion of a two-dimensional electron system under strong magnetic fields corresponding to a filling factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$. To describe the resulting complex dynamics, we adopt a composite fermion approach and we determine in a two loop approximation the density-response function $`K_{00}(𝐪,\omega )`$ and the compressibility. We show explicitly that the long-wavelength limit of $`K_{00}(𝐪,\omega )`$ exhibits substantial anisotropic behavior induced by the modulation, and that the system tends to be incompressible in a direction orthogonal to the modulation as opposed to its response along the modulation.

PACS numbers: 71.10.Pm; 72.10.-d

***email: ssakhi@aus.ac.ae

Many collective phenomena in two-dimensional electron systems (2DES)originate from the combined effect of strong correlations, high magnetic fields and low temperatures. The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is one such remarkable state of matter with fractional charges, spins and statistics as well as unprecedented order parameters. At filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$ more intriguing features arise, including a seemingly metallic dc magneto transport and a surface acoustic wave anomaly .

Over the years the wisdom that has been gained from the study of this intricate planar many-particle behavior is that casting electron-electron correlation in terms of flux attachment facilitates the comprehension of this phenomenon. In this approach an impinging magnetic field is viewed as producing vortices in the 2DES, one for each flux quantum $`\varphi _0=h/e`$. For strong magnetic fields corresponding to fractional filling of the first Landau level, there are more vortices than there are electrons. Placing more vortices onto each electron reduces considerably the Coulomb interaction, and the system becomes more tractable with a viable ground state.

Mathematically the idea of flux attachment is efficiently embodied by Chern-Simons gauge interactions. In one approach the FQHE, as seen in electron systems, is interpreted as the integer quantum Hall effect (IQHE) experienced by some quasi-particles, ‘composite fermions,’ which are the result of attaching an even number of flux quanta to each electron. In the mean field approximation, these composite fermions experience an effective magnetic field composed of the external field and the statistical magnetic part. This formulation has been analyzed in  where the response functions and collective modes were obtained. For a filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$, the average effective magnetic field vanishes, and composite fermions appear to form a fermi surface with coupling to fluctuating gauge fields. Within a random phase approximation (RPA) scheme, this case was analyzed in , showing the appearance of singularities of non-Fermi liquid nature in the electronic self-energy. Further, the large enhancement in the effective mass motivated more studies  on this $`\nu =1/2`$ compressible state. In another approach, an odd number of flux quanta is attached to each electron resulting in composite bosons. These composites reside in apparently zero magnetic field, and they Bose condense into a new ground state with an energy gap, characteristic for such Bose condensation.This energy gap guaranties the quantization of the Hall resistance and leads to a vanishing resistance. This formulation has been adopted in  where a Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg theory was analyzed.

In this paper, we explore theoretically the effects caused by a charge density modulation (CDM) on a $`\nu =1/2`$ compressible 2DES. Recently, experiments have been devised to implement these periodic density modulations on GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures . These studies show the influence of the periodic variation of the density on the dc-transport properties and the propagation of surface acoustic waves (SAW) across the modulated two-dimensional system. The SAW experiments showed features at $`\nu =1/2`$ that resemble those observed at fractional quantum Hall states . More specifically, in a direction orthogonal to the CDM, the measured ultrasound velocity shift displays unexpectedly a peak in its magnetic field spectrum. The effect is similar to the response of $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =1/3`$ Hall states, suggesting that a charge density modulation applied to a $`\nu =1/2`$ system produces a transition from a composite fermion filled fermi sea to an anisotropic state, where the fermi sea properties are preserved in one direction, but the system acts like a quantum Hall state in the orthogonal direction.

A fundamental property inherent to the flux attachment in the composite fermion picture is that a modulating charge density leads necessarily to a modulating fictitious magnetic field. Consequently, in regions with a surplus of charge carriers the statistical magnetic field overcompensates the external magnetic field (there is a superfluous fictitious flux quanta); whereas in regions with a deficit in carriers there is under compensation between the statistical magnetic field and the external field (missing fictitious flux quanta). Pictorially, along the modulation, composite fermions see as many regions with positive fluxes as many with negative fluxes; therefore, one would expect in this case a fermi surface behavior. In the orthogonal direction, however, composite fermions see always fluxes pointing in the same direction. To describe this complex dynamics, we determine, using a Lagrangian approach, the density-response function $`K_{00}(𝐪,\omega )`$, and the compressibility in the long-wavelength limit.

In our theoretical investigation we firstly address the effect of weak periodic potentials on those composite fermion states that do not display near-degeneracy. The energy shift in the states, as expected by simple perturbations, is quadratic in the imposed periodic potential. Taking account of self-energy and vertex corrections, we then obtain the compressibility, defined from the density-density correlation function. The long-wavelength limit analysis of this quantity reveals quite distinct behaviors, depending on the direction of $`𝐪`$ with respect to the modulation wave vector ($`𝐊`$).

Next, we address the case of near degenerate states, which are mostly affected by weak periodic fields since the energy shift is linear in the field. We then solve a Dyson-Schwinger-like equation, and obtain corrections to polarization tensors. The derived compressibility displays similar anisotropic behavior as in the first case; however, in the transverse direction, the effect is enhanced due to process involving nearly degenerate composite fermions states in which the net momentum changes by the modulation wave vector $`𝐊`$.

The action describing the 2DES reformulated in terms of composite fermions is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\psi ^{}\left(_\tau +ia_\tau \mu V(𝐱)\right)\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}|𝐃\psi |^2`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\eta }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }a_\mu _\nu a_\lambda }`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱𝑑𝐲\left(|\psi (𝐱,\tau )|^2\overline{\rho }\right)v(|𝐱𝐲|)\left(|\psi (𝐲,\tau )|^2\overline{\rho }\right)},`$ (3)
here $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential; $`m^{}`$ is the effective masse. $`D`$ is the usual covariant derivative which couples fermions to the sum of the external gauge field $`𝐀_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and the Chern-Simons field $`𝐚`$. Only the latter is dynamical with a Chern-Simons kinetic term; the coefficient $`\eta =1/(4\pi )`$ is chosen such that two flux quanta are attached to each electron allowing, in the mean field, a complete cancellation of the effective magnetic field. $`V(𝐱)`$ is the modulating external potential assumed to be weak. Finally, the last term in the action describes the Coulomb repulsion between the charged fermions.

The underlying idea of flux attachment is clearly seen from the constraint equation obtained by varying action (1) with respect to $`a_\tau `$,

$$|\psi |^2=\eta b,$$
(4)
where $`b`$ is the statistical magnetic field. In the mean field, the effective magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}=Bb/e`$ is zero; consequently, composite fermions form a fermi sea with residual coupling to gauge fluctuations $`\delta a_\mu `$.

To determine the response function $`K_{\mu \nu }`$, we probe the system with an electromagnetic field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$, and integrate out both fermions and gauge fluctuations $`\delta a_\mu `$, resulting in an effective action functional:

$`\mathrm{exp}(W[\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^\alpha ])={\displaystyle 𝒟\psi 𝒟\psi ^{}𝒟\delta a_\mu e^S}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\delta a_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(_\tau ϵ\left(ie\stackrel{~}{A}\delta a\right)V(𝐱)+i\delta a_\tau \right)\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\delta bv\delta bi\eta \delta a_\tau \delta b\right)}.`$ (6)
In obtaining this expression firstly, we used the constraint to simplify the quartic Coulomb interaction; secondly, we carried out the remaining fermionic integration, resulting in the familiar fermionic determinant which is then expressed as $`e^{\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}()}`$. To carry out the gauge field integration, however, we chose the coulomb gauge (natural gauge for this problem), allowing us to write $`\delta a_i(𝐪,\tau )=iϵ^{ij}(q_j/q)a(𝐪,\tau )`$; thus, the gauge propagator $`D_{ab}`$ is a $`(2,2)`$ matrix with indicies ($`a,b=0,1`$) denoting respectively the longitudinal and transverse components. To obtain the density-density response function, however, one only needs the transverse component of the gauge field since

$$K_{00}(x,\tau ;y,\tau ^{})=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega }{}e^{i\omega (\tau \tau ^{})}\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}e^{iq(xy)}(\eta ^2q^2)D_{11}(q,\omega ).$$
(7)
To second order in the weak external periodic field, the transverse gauge propagator $`D_{11}`$ that includes self-energy and vertex corrections is given by

$$D_{11}=\frac{D_{11}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{(2)}det(D^{(0)})}{1tr(D\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)})}.$$
(8)
$`D^{(0)}`$ is the matrix gauge propagator in the absence of any external potential. In a one-loop approximation and long wavelength limit, its components are

$`D_{00}^{(0)}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi /m`$ (9)
$`D_{01}^{(0)}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iq}{2m}}D_{11}(q)`$ (10)
$`D_{11}^{(0)}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\gamma \omega /q+q^2\chi _0(q)}},`$ (11)
where $`\chi _0(q)=1/(12\pi m)+(v(q)+2\pi /m)/(16\pi ^2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}`$, a $`(2,2)`$ matrix, accounts of buble diagrams, including self-energy and vertex corrections as seen in figure. In the long wavelength limit, however, one only needs the transverse component $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{(2)}`$. The relevant diagrams are depicted in figure (1); evaluating these terms, and replacing them in (4) and (5), we arrive at our first result

$$K_{00}(q)=\frac{1}{\chi _0(q)+C|U_K|^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )/q^2},$$
(12)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle formed between the directions of $`q`$ and $`K`$; $`U_K=(2\pi /m)V_K/\chi _0(K)`$, the screened external potential and $`C`$ is a constant that depends on $`K`$. The density response function shows clearly anisotropy effects brought about by the modulation. These effects become more pronounced when the interaction between electrons is short range. In fact along the modulation, and in the long wavelength limit $`K_{00}(q_{},q_{}=0)=1/\chi _0`$ indicative of a compressible behavior. Where as in the orthogonal direction $`K_{00}(q_{}=0,q_{})=q_{}^2/C|U_K|^2`$ indicative of an incompressible state. As a comparison we give here the long wavelength limit of the density response function for a state at filling factor $`\nu =1/3`$ that was derived in a Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg-like description ,$`K_{00}(q)=\kappa q^2/[q^2+4\pi ^2\kappa \rho (m\nu ^2)]`$. We have shown that to second order in the periodic field the system is more incompressible in a direction orthogonal to the modulation as opposed to its response along the modulation.

Next, we consider the contribution of near degenerate states. One needs, in this case, to calculate the contribution to the polarizations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}`$ with internal fermionic propagators accounting for degeneracy between states with momentum $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩+𝐊`$. Solving a Schwinger-Dyson-like equation in this case, one obtains:

$$G(pK,p;\omega )=\frac{(i\omega \zeta (pK))U_K(p)}{[i\omega E^+(p,K)][i\omega E^{}(p,K)]}$$
(13)
where $`\zeta (p)=p^2/(2m)ϵ_F`$, $`U_K(p_{})=U_K\sqrt{1+4p_{}^2/K^2}`$, and $`E^\pm `$ describes the dispersion relation of the two branches near a Brag plane. They are given by

$$E^\pm =ϵ(p_{})+\frac{ϵ(p_{})+ϵ(p_{}^{})}{2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{ϵ(p_{})ϵ(p_{}^{})}{2}\right)^2+|U_K(p_{})|^2},$$
(14)
with $`p_{}^{}=p_{}K`$. The contribution of these states to the polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}=\frac{1}{m^2}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(E^+(p,K))f(E^{}(p,K))}{E^+(p,K)E^{}(p,K)+i\omega }|\widehat{q}<\psi ^{(1)}|e^{i𝐪.𝐫}(i)|\psi ^{(2)}>|^2.$$
(15)
The matrix element in this equation, in the long wavelength limit, is $`<\psi ^{(1)}|e^{i𝐪.𝐫}(i)|\psi ^{(2)}>=K/2`$. When the fermi level is in a gap between the two branches $`E^\pm (p)`$, the polarization evaluates to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}=\frac{8ϵ(K/2)}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\frac{|U_K|^2}{4|U_K|^2+\omega ^2}$$
(16)
Using this result in the response function, we obtain:

$$K_{00}(q,\omega )=\frac{\eta ^2q^2}{q^2\chi _0(q)+\frac{i\gamma \omega }{q}+\frac{K^2}{e^2m\pi }\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\frac{|U_K|^2}{\omega ^2+4|U_K|^2}}$$
(17)
Similar to our previous result derived in equation (9) we note the behavior predicted by this formula is rather anisotropic especially for short range interactions between electrons.

In conclusion, we have shown that imposing a modulating charge density on the correlated motion of a two-dimensional electron system at Landau-level filling $`\nu =1/2`$ changes drastically the system’s response to probing electromagnetic fields. Substantial anisotropic behavior is shown explicitly in the calculated density response function, indicating the system is incompressible in a direction orthogonal to the modulation as opposed to its response along the modulation.


format: text

text:
# References

A Dirac-type equation for spacelike neutrinos

Tsao Chang

Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research

University of Alabama in Huntsville

Huntsville, AL 35899

Email: changt@cspar.uah.edu

Based on experimental evidences supporting the hypothesis that neutrinos might be spacelike particles, a new Dirac-type equation is proposed and a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ spacelike quantum theory is developed. The new Dirac-type equation provides a solution for the puzzle of negative mass-square of neutrinos. This equation can be written in two spinor equations coupled together via nonzero mass while respecting maximum parity violation, and it reduces to one Weyl equation in the massless limit. Some peculiar features of spacelike neutrino are discussed in this theoretical framework.

PACS number: 03.65.-w; 03.30.+p; 14.60.St

I. INTRODUCTION

A model has recently been presented to fit the cosmic ray spectrum at $`E14`$ PeV  using the hypothesis that the electron neutrino is a tachyon. This model yields a value for $`m^2(\nu _e)3eV^2`$, which is consistent with the results from recent measurements in tritium beta decay experiments \[2-4\]. Moreover, the muon neutrino also exhibits a negative mass-square . However, up to now, there is no satisfactory relativistic quantum theory to describe neutrinos as spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ tachyons.

The negative value of the neutrino mass-square simply means:

$$E^2/c^2p^2=m_\nu ^2c^2<0$$
$`(1)`$
The right-hand side in Eq.(1) can be rewritten as ($`m_s^2c^2`$), then $`m_s`$ has a positive value. The subscript $`s`$ means spacelike particle, i.e. tachyon.

Based on special relativity and known as re-interpretation rule, tachyon as a hypothetical particle was proposed by Bilaniuk et al. in the sixties \[6-8\]. For tachyons, the relation of momentum and energy is shown in Eq.(1). The negative value on the right- hand side of Eq.(1) means that $`p^2`$ is greater than $`(E/c)^2`$. The velocity of a tachyons, $`u_s`$, is greater than speed of light. The momentum and energy in terms of $`u_s`$ are as follows:

$$p=\frac{m_su_s}{\sqrt{u_s^2/c^21}},E=\frac{m_sc^2}{\sqrt{u_s^2/c^21}}$$
$`(2)`$
Any physical reference system is built by timelike particles (such as atoms, molecules etc.), which requires that a reference frame must move slower than light. On the other hand, once a tachyon is created in an interaction, its speed is always greater than the speed of light. The neutrino is the most likely candidate for a tachyon because it has left-handed spin in any reference frame . However, anti-neutrino always has right-handed spin. Considering the measured mass-square is negative for the muon neutrino, Chodos, Hauser and Kostelecky  suggested in 1985 that the muon neutrino might be a tachyon. They also suggested that one could test the tachyonic neutrino in high energy region using a strange feature of tachyon: $`E_\nu `$ could be negative in some reference frames . This feature has been further studied by Ehrlich . Therefore, it is required to construct a spacelike quantum theory for neutrinos.

The first step in this direction is usually to introduce an imaginary mass, but these efforts could not reach the point of constructing a consistent quantum theory. Some early investigations of Dirac-type equations for tachyons are listed in Ref. . An alternative approach was investigated by Chodos et al. . They examined the possibility that muon neutrino might be tachyonic fermion. A form of the lagrangian density for tachyonic neutrinos was proposed. Although they did not obtain a satisfactory quantum theory for tachyonic fermions, they suggested that more theoretical work would be needed to determine a physically acceptable theory.

II. A NEW DIRAC-TYPE EQUATION

In this paper, we will start with a different approach for deriving a new Dirac-type equation for spacelike neutrinos. In order to avoid introducing imaginary mass, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

$$E=(c^2p^2m_s^2c^4)^{1/2}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`m_s`$ is called proper mass. For instance, $`m_s(\nu _e)`$= 1.6 eV, if taking $`m^2(\nu _e)=2.5eV^2`$ . To follow Dirac’s approach , the Hamiltonian must be first order in the momentum operator $`\widehat{p}`$:

$$\widehat{E}=c\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p}+\beta _sm_sc^2$$
$`(4)`$
with ($`\widehat{E}=i\mathrm{}/t,\widehat{p}=i\mathrm{}`$). $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$) and $`\beta _s`$ are 4$`\times `$ 4 matrix, which are defined as

$$\alpha _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\beta _s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\sigma _i`$ is 2$`\times `$2 Pauli matrix, $`I`$ is 2$`\times `$2 unit matrix. Notice that $`\beta _s`$ is a new matrix, which is different from the one in the traditional Dirac equation. We will discuss the property of $`\beta _s`$ in a later section.

When we take the square of both sides of Eq. (4), and consider the following relations:

$$\alpha _i\alpha _j+\alpha _j\alpha _i=2\delta _{ij}$$

$$\alpha _i\beta _s+\beta _s\alpha _i=0$$

$$\beta _s^2=1$$
$`(6)`$
then the relation in Eq.(1) or Eq. (3) is reproduced. Since Eq.(3) is related to Eq. (2), this means $`\beta _s`$ is the right choice to describe neutrinos as tachyons. Notice that the relation between the matrix $`\beta _s`$ and the traditional matrix $`\beta `$ is as follows:

$$\beta _s=\beta \gamma _5,where\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right),\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(7)`$
We now study the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ the property of neutrino (or anti-neutrino) as a tachyonic fermion.

Denote the wave function as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\\ \chi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\end{array}\right)with\phi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1\\ \phi _2\end{array}\right),\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)$$

the complete form of the new Dirac-type equation, Eq. (4), becomes

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }=c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }+\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }$$
$`(8)`$
It can also be rewritten as a pair of two-component equations:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\phi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\chi +m_sc^2\chi $$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\chi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\phi m_sc^2\phi $$
$`(9)`$
From the equation (8), the continuity equation is derived:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\stackrel{}{j}=0$$
$`(10)`$
and we have Eq.(10) can be rewritten as

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{}{j}=c(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi })$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ are probability density and current; $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is the Hermitian adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ .

Considering a plane wave along the $`z`$ axis for a right-handed particle, the helicity $`H=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p})/|\stackrel{}{p}|=1`$, then Eq. (8) or (9) yields the following relation:

$$\chi =\frac{cpm_sc^2}{E}\phi $$
$`(12)`$
III. COVARIANT FORM AND EXPLICIT SOLUTIONS

The new Dirac-type equation (8) can be written in a covariant form:

$$i\mathrm{}\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }m_sc\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
$`(13)`$
Here the standard convention for the Dirac matrices are used:

$$\gamma ^0=\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& I\end{array}\right)\gamma ^i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(14)`$
For a free particle with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ in the $`z`$ direction, the plane wave can be represented by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=\psi _\sigma exp[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pzEt)]$$
$`(15)`$
where $`\psi _\sigma `$ is a four-component bispinor. Substituting this bispinor into the wave equation (8) or (13), the explicit form of two bispinors with positive-energy states are listed as follows:

$$\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _2=\psi _{(+)}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(16)`$
and other two bispinors with the negative-energy states are:

$$\psi _3=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ A\\ 0\end{array}\right),\psi _4=\psi _{()}=N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ A\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(17)`$
where the component $`A`$ and the normalization factor $`N`$ are

$$A=\frac{cpm_sc^2}{|E|},N=\sqrt{\frac{p+m_sc}{2m_sc}}$$
$`(18)`$
For $`\psi _1=\psi _{(+)}`$, the conserved current in Eq.(11) becomes:

$$\rho =\mathrm{\Psi }_1{}_{}{}^{}\gamma _{5}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\frac{|E|}{m_sc^2},j=\frac{p}{m_s}$$
$`(19)`$
Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta `$, we can obtain the following scalars:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3=1$$
$`(20a)`$
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_4\mathrm{\Psi }_4=1$$
$`(20b)`$
In addition, the pseudo scalar for each spinor satisfies:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
$`(21)`$
IV. PARITY VIOLATION FOR NEUTRINOS

In order to compare the new Dirac-type equation Eq.(7) with the two component Weyl equation in the massless limit, we now consider a linear combination of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ :

$$\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi +\chi ),\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi \chi )$$
$`(22)`$
where $`\xi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ are two-component spinor functions. In terms of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, Eq.(10) becomes

$$\rho =\xi ^{}\xi \eta ^{}\eta ,\stackrel{}{j}=c(\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi +\eta ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta )$$
$`(23)`$
Moreover, Eq.(8) can be rewritten in Weyl representation:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\xi }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi m_sc^2\eta $$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\eta }{t}=ic\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\eta +m_sc^2\xi $$
$`(24)`$
In the above equations, both $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are coupled via the mass term $`m_s`$.

For comparing Eq. (24) with the well known Weyl equation, we take a limit, $`m_s=0`$, then the first equation in Eq. (24) reduces to

$$\frac{\xi _{\overline{\nu }}}{t}=c\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi _{\overline{\nu }}$$
$`(25)`$
In addition, the second equation in Eq. (24) vanishes because $`\phi =\chi `$ when $`m_s=0`$.

Eq. (25) is the two-component Weyl equation for describing anti-neutrinos $`\overline{\nu }`$, which is related to the maximum parity violation discovered in 1956 by Lee and Yang . They pointed out that no experiment had shown parity to be a good symmetry for weak interactions. Now we see that, in terms of Eq.(24), once if neutrino has some mass, no matter how small it is, two equations should be coupled together via the mass term while still respecting maximum parity violation.

Indeed, the Weyl equation (25) is only valid for antineutrinos since a neutrino always has left-handed spin, which is opposite to antineutrino. For this purpose, we now introduce a transformation:

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\alpha }$$
$`(26)`$
It is easily seen that the anticommutation relations in Eq. (6) remain unchanged under this transformation. In terms of Eq. (26), Eq.(4) becomes

$$\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =c(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{p})\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu +\beta _sm_sc^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu $$
$`(27)`$
Furthermore, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ should be replaced by ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$) from Eq. (5-9) and Eq.(24) for describing a neutrino. Therefore, the two-component Weyl equation for massless neutrino becomes:

$$\frac{\xi _\nu }{t}=c\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi _\nu $$
$`(28)`$
In fact, the transformation (26) is associated with the CPT theorem. Some related discussions can be found in Ref..

V. REMARKS

In this paper, The hypothesis that neutrinos might be tachyons is further investigated. A spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ spacelike quantum theory is developed on the basis of the new Dirac-type equation. It provides a solution for the puzzle of negative mass-square of neutrinos.

Spacelike neutrinos have many peculiar features, which are very different from all other particles. For instance, neutrinos only have weak interactions with other particles. Neutrino has left-handed spin in any reference frame. On the other hand, anti-neutrino always has right-handed spin. This means that the speed of neutrinos must be equal to or greater than the speed of light. Otherwise, the spin direction of neutrino would be changed in some reference frames. Moreover, the energy of a tachyonic neutrino (or anti-neutrino), $`E_\nu `$, could be negative in some reference frames. We will discuss the subject of the negative energy in another paper.

The electron neutrino and the muon neutrino may have different non-zero proper masses. If taking the data from Ref., then we obtain $`m_s(\nu _e)=1.6eV`$ and $`m_s(\nu _\mu )=0.13MeV`$. In this way, we can get a natural explanation why the numbers of e-lepton and $`\mu `$-lepton are conserved respectively.

Comparing with the electron mass, the mass term of the e-neutrino in Eq.(13) is approximately close to zero. Moreover, from Eq.(21), $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ for Spacelike neutrinos. It means that the mass term in Eq.(13) may be negligible in most cases. In fact, the momentum of a neutrino is much greater than $`m_sc`$ in most measurements. For instance, let $`p_s=10m_sc=16eV/c`$, Eq.(2) yields the speed of e-neutrino: $`u_s=1.005c`$. Therefore, spacelike neutrinos behave just like the massless neutrinos. Besides, we have the coefficient $`A1`$ in Eq.(18). This similarity may also play role at the level of quantum field theory and SU(2) gauge theory.

According to special relativity , if there is a spacelike particle, it might travel backward in time. However, a re- interpretation rule has been introduced since the sixties \[6-8\]. Another approach is to introduce a kinematic time under a non- standard form of the Lorentz transformation \[23-27\]. Therefore, special relativity can be extended to the spacelike region, and tachyons are allowed without causality violation.

Generally speaking, the above spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ spacelike quantum theory provides a theoretical framework to study the hypothesis that neutrinos are tachyonic fermions. More measurements on the cosmic ray at the spectrum knee and more accurate tritium beta decay experiments are needed to further test the above theory.

The author is grateful to G-j. Ni and Y. Takahashi for helpful discussions.


text:
# Evolution of magnetic field curvature in the Kulsrud-Anderson dynamo theory

## Abstract

We find that in the kinematic limit the ensemble averaged square of the curvature of magnetic field lines is exponentially amplified in time by the turbulent motions in a highly conductive plasma. At the same time, the ensemble averaged curvature vector exponentially decays to zero. Thus, independently of the initial conditions, the fluctuation field becomes very curved, and the curvature vector becomes highly isotropic.

ISM: magnetic fields — MHD — turbulence — methods: analytical

It was shown by Kulsrud and Anderson (1992) that MHD turbulent dynamo action builds magnetic field energy primarily on scales smaller than the smallest turbulent eddy size (which is the viscosity scale), but still larger than the resistive scale (provided the magnetic Prandtl number is large). This result was found under assumption that the “kinematic” approximation is valid, i.e. the field is weak enough that it does not affect the turbulent motions. In this paper we calculate the evolution of magnetic field curvature within the framework of the Kulsrud-Anderson kinematic dynamo theory. Such calculations are of great interest because a rapid built up of curvature may quickly break down the kinematic approximation and change the dynamo action on very small scales considerably.

Following Kulsrud and Anderson (1992) we make the following assumptions. We use the “kinematic” approximation. We neglect resistivity (infinite magnetic Prandtl number limit). We assume that the turbulence is incompressible, homogeneous, isotropic and static, and we use zero correlation time approximation for the turbulent motions:

$`V_\alpha (t,𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle V_\alpha (t,𝐤)e^{i𝐤𝐫}d^3𝐤},`$ (1)
$`V_\alpha (t,𝐤)=0,`$ (2)
$`V_\alpha ^{}(t^{},𝐤^{})V_\beta (t,𝐤)=[J_k(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\widehat{k}_\alpha \widehat{k}_\beta )`$
$`+i\overline{J}_k\epsilon _{\alpha \gamma \beta }k_\gamma ]\delta (𝐤^{}𝐤)\delta (t^{}t).`$ (3)
Here and below $`\mathrm{}`$ means ensemble average, $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Kronecker symbol, $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the unit anti-symmetric tensor, $`\delta (t^{}t)`$ and $`\delta (𝐤^{}𝐤)`$ are the Dirac $`\delta `$-functions, $`\widehat{𝐤}=𝐤/k`$ is a unit vector, and we always assume summation over repeated indices. Functions $`J_k`$ and $`\overline{J}_k`$ are the normal and the helical parts of the turbulence, they depend only on the absolute value of $`𝐤`$. We make no assumptions about the statistics of initial magnetic field.

Using equations (1) and (3), it is straightforward to calculate the correlation tensors between velocities and their spatial derivatives, taken at the same point of space $`𝐫`$ but at different time, $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$:

$`V_\alpha (t^{},𝐫)V_\beta (t,𝐫)=(\eta _T/2\pi )\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta (t^{}t),`$
$`V_\alpha V_{\beta ;\gamma }=\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\delta (t^{}t),`$
$`V_{\alpha ;\beta }V_{\gamma ;\delta }=(\gamma /5)(5\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }\delta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta })\delta (t^{}t),`$
$`V_\alpha V_{\beta ;\gamma \delta }=V_{\alpha ;\delta }V_{\beta ;\gamma },`$
$`V_{\alpha ;\beta }V_{\gamma ;\delta \tau }=\omega \epsilon _{\alpha \gamma \eta }\delta _{\eta \beta \delta \tau }\delta (t^{}t),`$ (4)
$`V_\alpha V_{\beta ;\gamma \delta \tau }=V_{\alpha ;\tau }V_{\beta ;\gamma \delta },`$
$`V_{\alpha ;\beta \gamma }V_{\delta ;\tau \eta }=(\lambda /15)(7\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma \tau \eta }`$
$`\delta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \tau \eta })\delta (t^{}t).`$
Here and below, in order to shorten notations, spatial derivatives are assumed to be taken with respect to all indices that are listed after “$`;`$” signs, e.g. $`V_{\alpha ;\beta }=V_\alpha /x_\beta `$, $`V_{\alpha ;\beta \gamma }=^2V_\alpha /x_\beta x_\gamma `$. We have also introduced the symmetric tensors

$`\begin{array}{c}\delta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma },\hfill \\ \delta _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \tau \eta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta \tau \eta }+\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta \tau \eta }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma \tau \eta }\hfill \\ +\delta _{\alpha \tau }\delta _{\beta \gamma \delta \eta }+\delta _{\alpha \eta }\delta _{\beta \gamma \delta \tau },\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
and the constants (Kulsrud & Anderson 1992)

$`\eta _T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle J_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi k^2𝑑k},`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle k^2\overline{J}_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi k^2𝑑k},`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle k^2J_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi k^2𝑑k},`$ (9)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle k^4\overline{J}_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi k^2𝑑k},`$
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle k^4J_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi k^2𝑑k}.`$
The equation for the evolution of magnetic field $`𝐁`$ in an incompressible highly conductive fluid (Landau & Lifshitz 1983) is

$`B_\alpha /t=V_{\alpha ;\beta }B_\beta V_\beta B_{\alpha ;\beta }.`$
We use this formula to derive the equation for the evolution of the unit vector $`𝐛=𝐁/B`$ tangential to magnetic field lines:

$`b_\alpha /t=V_{\alpha ;\beta }b_\beta V_{\beta ;\gamma }b_\alpha b_\beta b_\gamma V_\beta b_{\alpha ;\beta }.`$ (10)
Now, for a given point of space we assume $`𝐛`$ is known at zero time, $`t=0`$, and we solve this equation by iterating it twice in time, similar to the calculations of Kulsrud and Anderson (1992). Considering $`t>0`$ as an expansion parameter, we have

$`𝐛(t)={}_{}{}^{0}𝐛+{}_{}{}^{1}𝐛(t)+{}_{}{}^{2}𝐛(t),`$ (11)
where $`{}_{}{}^{0}𝐛`$ is the value of $`𝐛`$ at zero time, $`{}_{}{}^{0}𝐛=𝐛(0)`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝐛(t)t`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}𝐛(t)t^2`$ are the first and the second order corrections to $`𝐛(t)`$, obtained by iterating equation (10) twice in time,

$`{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\alpha }^{}(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}\{V_{\alpha ;\beta }(t^{\prime \prime }){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}V_{\beta ;\gamma }(t^{\prime \prime }){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\gamma }^{}`$
$`V_\beta (t^{\prime \prime }){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}\}dt^{\prime \prime },`$ (12)
$`{}_{}{}^{2}b_{\alpha }^{}(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}\{V_{\alpha ;\beta }(t^{}){}_{}{}^{1}b_{\beta }^{}(t^{})V_{\beta ;\gamma }(t^{})\times `$
$`\times [{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\alpha }^{}(t^{}){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\gamma }^{}+{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\beta }^{}(t^{}){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\gamma }^{}`$
$`+{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\gamma }^{}(t^{})]V_\beta (t^{}){}_{}{}^{1}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}(t^{})\}dt^{}.`$ (13)
The ensemble averaged curvature $`𝓚(𝐛)𝐛`$, up to second order terms, is

$`𝒦_\alpha (t)=b_\beta (t)b_{\alpha ;\beta }(t)={}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}`$
$`+\left[{}_{}{}^{2}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}+{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b_{\alpha }^{}_{;\beta }+{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}\right]`$
$`={}_{}{}^{0}𝒦_{\alpha }^{}+t\{(7\gamma /5){}_{}{}^{0}𝒦_{\alpha }^{}(4\gamma /5){}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta ;\beta }^{}`$
$`+\alpha \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }{}_{}{}^{0}𝒦_{\gamma ;\beta }^{}+(\eta _T/4\pi ){}_{}{}^{0}𝒦_{\alpha ;\beta \beta }^{}\}.`$ (14)
Here, we use expansion (11) to find $`𝓚(t)`$. The zero order term is $`{}_{}{}^{0}𝒦_{\alpha }^{}={}_{}{}^{0}b_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{0}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}`$, all first order terms average out according to formula (2), and the second order terms are given in brackets $`[\mathrm{}]`$ on the second line of equation (14).111 Note that we use $`{}_{}{}^{2}b_{\alpha ;\beta }^{}={}_{}{}^{2}b_{\alpha }^{}_{;\beta }`$, which follows from important identity $`(V_{\alpha ;\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _n}V_{\gamma ;\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _m})_{;\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _p}0`$. This reflects $`\delta (𝐤^{}𝐤)`$ correlation property of the turbulence, see eq. (3). Thus, ensemble averaging and taking derivatives can be exchanged for any second order quantity.  The final result for $`𝒦_\alpha (t)`$ was obtained by making use of equations (4), (12) and (13).

Introducing another ensemble averaged vector $`𝓖𝐛\mathrm{div}𝐛`$, we write the differential equations for time evolution of $`𝓚(t)`$ and $`𝓖(t)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝓚}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{7\gamma }{5}}𝓚{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma }{5}}𝓖+\alpha (\times 𝓚)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}𝓚,`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝓖}{t}}=\gamma 𝓚{\displaystyle \frac{8\gamma }{5}}𝓖+\alpha (\times 𝓖)+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}𝓖.`$ (16)
Here, the first equation directly follows from formula (14), and the second equation for the evolution of $`𝓖`$ can be found by calculations similar to the calculations that led to equation (14), i.e. by expanding $`𝓖(t)`$ up to second order terms, by making use of equations (12), (13) and of equations (4) to carry out ensemble averaging.

In a similar way, and after considerable algebra, we find the differential equations describing the evolution of the ensemble averaged square of the curvature, $`𝒦^2[(𝐛)𝐛]^2𝓚^2`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦^2}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{16\gamma }{5}}𝒦^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8\gamma }{5}}D_𝒦+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}𝒦^2+{\displaystyle \frac{12\lambda }{5}},`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_𝒦}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{7\gamma }{5}}D_𝒦{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma }{5}}D_𝒢+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}D_𝒦,`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_𝒢}{t}}=\gamma D_𝒦{\displaystyle \frac{8\gamma }{5}}D_𝒢+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}D_𝒢.`$ (19)
Here, the differential equations for ensemble averaged scalars $`D_𝒦\mathrm{div}[(𝐛)𝐛]=\mathrm{div}𝓚`$ and $`D_𝒢\mathrm{div}[𝐛\mathrm{div}𝐛]=\mathrm{div}𝓖`$ can be found by taking the divergence of equations (15) and (16) (see the first footnote on page 1).

We can drop $`\alpha (\times 𝓚)`$ and $`\alpha (\times 𝓖)`$ terms in equations (15) and (16) because the helical part of the turbulence, $`\overline{J}_k`$, is usually negligible on scales of the smallest turbulent eddy.222 E.g. in a galaxy, if the turbulence is Kolmogoroff, $`\overline{J}_kk^7`$ and $`J_kk^{13/3}`$ (Kulsrud & Anderson 1992), these smallest turbulent scales make the largest contributions to $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, see eqs. (9).  In this case equations (15)–(19) have the following solutions:

$`[\begin{array}{c}𝓚\\ 𝓖\end{array}]=𝐐_1[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}]e^{3\gamma t/5}+𝐐_2[\begin{array}{c}4\\ 5\end{array}]e^{12\gamma t/5},`$ (26)
$`[\begin{array}{c}𝒦^2\\ D_𝒦\\ D_𝒢\end{array}]=Q_3[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}]e^{16\gamma t/5}+Q_4[\begin{array}{c}8\\ 19\\ 19\end{array}]e^{3\gamma t/5}`$ (36)
$`+Q_5[\begin{array}{c}8\\ 28\\ 35\end{array}]e^{12\gamma t/5}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda }{4\gamma }}[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}]\left(e^{16\gamma t/5}1\right).`$ (43)
Here, the functions $`Q_i(t,𝐫)`$, $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$, are the solutions of the same simple diffusion equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_i}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}Q_i(t,𝐫),i=1,2,3,4,5`$ (44)
with different initial conditions:

$`𝐐_1(0,𝐫)=(1/9)\left[5𝓚4𝓖\right]_{t=0},`$
$`𝐐_2(0,𝐫)=(1/9)\left[𝓚+𝓖\right]_{t=0}.`$
$`Q_3(0,𝐫)=\left[𝒦^2+(1/133)(48D_𝒦8D_𝒢)\right]_{t=0},`$
$`Q_4(0,𝐫)=(1/171)\left[5D_𝒦+4D_𝒢\right]_{t=0},`$
$`Q_5(0,𝐫)=(1/63)\left[D_𝒦+D_𝒢\right]_{t=0},`$
We see that the ensemble averaged square of the curvature, $`𝒦^2`$, exponentially grows with rate $`16\gamma /3`$. This is even faster than the rate of magnetic field energy growth, $`2\gamma `$ (Kulsrud & Anderson 1992). At the same time, the ensemble averaged curvature vector, $`𝓚`$, exponentially decays with rate $`3\gamma /5`$. Therefore, $`𝓚`$ becomes highly isotropic. According to diffusion equation (44), we find that $`𝒦^2`$ and $`𝓚`$ become homogeneous on scales $`L`$ after a diffusion time $`4\pi L^2/\eta _T`$.

Let consider the case when the initial magnetic field is constant in space, $`𝐁=\mathrm{const}`$ and $`𝐛=\mathrm{const}`$. Then $`Q_i(t,𝐫)=0`$, $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$, and we find that $`𝒦^2=(3\lambda /4\gamma )\left(e^{16\gamma t/5}1\right)`$. Therefore, even if there is no initial curvature, the field quickly becomes very curved. The curvature first develops linearly in time, $`𝒦^212\lambda t/5`$, because of second order spatial derivatives of the turbulent velocities, represented by the “battery” term $`12\lambda /5`$ in equation (17). Second, at time $`t5/16\gamma `$ the averaged curvature reaches the smallest turbulent eddy scale size, $`l_{\mathrm{eddy}}\gamma /\lambda `$, and afterwards exponentiates rapidly.

It was recently suggested by Steven Cowley, on the basis of numerical simulations, that on scales smaller than the smallest turbulent eddy the turbulent motions can only stretch magnetic field lines. It was argued that the rapid exponential increase of the fluctuation field wavenumber $`k=(k_{}^2+k_{}^2)^{1/2}`$ found by Kulsrud and Anderson (1992) is mainly due to the increase of $`k_{}`$, the wave number perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, while the parallel wave number $`k_{}`$ stays approximately equal to the smallest eddy size, so that $`k_{}k_{}`$. The results we obtained, that the ensemble (volume) averaged curvature squared, $`𝒦^2`$, increases exponentially in time, could be consistent with the folding nature of small-scale fields. For example, the curvature could be comparable to the smallest turbulent eddy size scale over the bulk of the volume, and be enormously large over the remaining small region of the volume (Schekochihin & Cowley 2001).

The consequence of the rapid development of curvature on size scales smaller than the smallest turbulent eddy size scale is that the Lorentz force and viscosity stress on these very small scales become important before energy equipartition, between the field and the turbulence, occurs on the eddy scale. Thus, the magnetic energy at these very small scales may be suppressed at least to some extent.

The author is very grateful to Russell Kulsrud for suggesting this problem and for many interesting and extremely fruitful discussions of it. The author would like to thank Alexander Schekochihin and Steven Cowley for extensive discussions of the problem and for insightful comments. The author is especially grateful to Bruce Draine for financial support under NSF grant AST-9988126.


text:
# Stability and attractivity for a class of dissipative phenomena

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we study a large class of initial-boundary-value problems of the form

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon u_{xxt}+u_{tt}c^2u_{xx}=f(x,t,u,u_x,u_{xx},u_t),x]0,1[,t>t_0,\hfill \\ u(0,t)=0,u(1,t)=0\hfill \end{array}$$

($`t_00`$, $`\epsilon ,c`$ positive constants), with initial conditions

(1.2)
$$u(x,t_0)=u_0(x),u_t(x,t_0)=u_1(x).$$

Many papers  have been devoted to the analysis of the operator $`L=\epsilon _{xxt}+_{tt}c^2_{xx}`$, which plays a significant role because it characterizes noteworthy dissipative phenomena. When $`f=b\mathrm{sin}uau_t+F(x,t)`$, where $`a,b`$ are positive constants, we deal with the perturbed Sine-Gordon equation related to the classical Josephson effect in the Theory of Superconductors . On the other hand it is well known  that equation (1.1)1 describes the evolution of the displacement $`u(x,t)`$ of the section of a rod from its rest position $`x`$ in a Voigt material when an external force $`f`$ is applied; in this case $`c^2=E/\rho `$, $`\epsilon =1/(\rho \mu )`$, where $`\rho `$ is the (constant) linear density of the rod at rest, and $`E,\mu `$ are respectively the elastic and viscous constants of the rod, which enter the stress-strain relation $`\sigma =E\nu +_t\nu /\mu `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the stress, $`\nu `$ is the strain.

Now we suppose that (1.1) admits the null solution $`u(x,t)0`$ and look for new conditions for the stability and attractivity of the latter, so as to improve some results found in . As done there, the distance between the null and a nonnull solution $`u(x,t)`$ of the problem (1.1)-(1.2) is introduced as the functional $`d(u,u_t)`$, where for any $`(\phi ,\psi )C_0^2([0,1])\times C_0([0,1])`$ we define

(1.3)
$$d^2(\phi ,\psi )=_0^1(\phi ^2+\phi _x^2+\phi _{xx}^2+\psi ^2)𝑑x.$$

The notions of stability, attractivity and exponential-asymptotic stability are formulated using this distance. Imposing the condition that $`\phi ,\psi `$ vanish in $`0,1`$ one easily derives that $`|\phi (x)|,|\phi _x(x)|d(\phi ,\psi )`$ for any $`x`$; therefore a convergence in the norm $`d`$ implies also a uniform pointwise convergence of $`\phi ,\phi _x`$.

Using the Liapunov second method, we first obtain some preliminary results involving a class of auxiliary functionals depending on a parameter we will choose according to the examined problem. Supposing the forcing term satisfies suitable conditions, we get a theorem of exponential stability. The assumptions we shall make at the beginning of Section 3 will make the cancellation of the term $`c^2u_{xx}`$ by $`f`$ impossible (this guarantees that the nature of the problem cannot be changed by the choice of $`f`$). We emphasize that these new hypotheses are now less restrictive because they allow the forcing term $`f`$ to be in a certain sense unbounded as a function of $`t`$. Moreover, this result holds with respect to a metric stronger than $`d`$, which can be introduced when the solutions are more regular. After that, we consider the case that $`f`$ is specialized as a sum of a non-analytic term depending only on $`u`$ and of $`u_t`$ times a bounded function. Suitably modifying the above mentioned auxiliary functionals, a theorem of asymptotic stability in the large is obtained. For each theorem we give an example of an application.

## 2 Preliminaries

We shall say that the null solution is

* uniformly stable if for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a $`\delta (\epsilon )]0,\epsilon [`$ such that for any $`t_0J=[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ the inequality $`d(u_0,u_1)<\delta `$ implies $`d(u,u_t)<\epsilon `$ for any $`tt_0`$;
* attractive if for any $`t_0`$ there exist a $`\sigma (t_0)>0`$ such that the inequality $`d(u_0,u_1)<\sigma `$ implies $`d(u,u_t)0`$ as $`t+\mathrm{}`$; in particular attractive in the large if $`\sigma (t_0)=+\mathrm{}`$ for any $`t_0`$;
* uniformly asymptotically stable (in the large) if it is uniformly stable and attractive (in the large);
* exponential-asymptotically stable if there exist constants $`C,D(t_0),\delta ^{}(t_0)>0`$ such that $`d(u_0,u_1)<\delta ^{}`$ implies $`d(u,u_t)<Dd(u_0,u_1)e^{C(tt_0)}`$ for any $`tt_0`$.

As shown in , a set of sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the problem (1.1-1.2) in the time interval $`[0,T]`$ is the following:

(2.1) $`f(x,t,u,p,q,r)`$ is defined and continuous on the set
$$\{(x,t,u,p,q,r)|0x1,0tT,\mathrm{}<u,p,q,r<+\mathrm{},T>0\};$$

(2.2)  there exists a constant $`\mu >0`$ such that
$$|f(x,t,u_1,p_1,q_1,r_1)f(x,t,u_2,p_2,q_2,r_2)|$$

$$\mu \{|u_1u_2|+|p_1p_2|+|q_1q_2|+|r_1r_2|\};$$

(2.3)
$$u_0,u_0^{},u_0^{^{\prime \prime }},u_1\text{continuous on}0x1$$

$$\text{and such that}u_0(0)=u_0(1)=u_1(0)=u_1(1)=0.$$

We shall assume that they are all fulfilled for the class of problems considered in Section 3. The function $`f`$ considered in Section 4 does not satisfy condition (2.2), but however we are able to obtain the stability properties of the null solution.

To prove our theorems we shall use the Liapunov direct method. We introduce the Liapunov functional

(2.4)
$$V(\phi ,\psi )=\frac{1}{2}_0^1\{(\epsilon \phi _{xx}\psi )^2+\gamma \psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2\}𝑑x,$$

where $`\gamma `$ is an arbitrary positive constant. It turns out that

$$V\frac{1}{2}_0^1\{\epsilon ^2\phi _{xx}^2+\psi ^2+\epsilon \phi _{xx}^2+\epsilon \psi ^2+\gamma \psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2\}𝑑x.$$

Setting

(2.5)
$$c_2^2=\mathrm{max}\{c^2(1+\gamma )/2,\epsilon (1+\epsilon )/2,(1+\epsilon +\gamma )/2\},$$

we thus derive

(2.6)
$$V(\phi ,\psi )c_2^2d^2(\phi ,\psi ).$$

Moreover, it is known that

(2.7)
$$\phi (0)=0_0^1\phi _x^2(x)𝑑x_0^1\phi ^2(x)𝑑x,$$

and

(2.8)
$$\phi (0)=0,\phi (1)=0_0^1\phi _{xx}^2(x)𝑑x_0^1\phi _x^2(x)𝑑x.$$

Using (2.7),(2.8) and an argument employed in , we get

(2.9)
$$V(\phi ,\psi )c_1^2d^2(\phi ,\psi ).$$

where

(2.10)
$$c_1^2=\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon ^2/16,c^2(1+\gamma )/2,(\gamma 1/2)/2\},(\gamma >1/2),$$

Therefore, from (2.6) and (2.9) we find

(2.11)
$$\frac{V}{c_2^2}d^2\frac{V}{c_1^2}.$$

On the other hand, choosing $`\gamma =1`$ in (2.4) it turns out

(2.12) $`\dot{V}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon c^2}{2}}u_{xx}^2\epsilon u_{xt}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}u_t^2{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}(cu_{xx}+f/c)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}(u_t2f/\epsilon )^2+Af^2\}dx`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon c^2}{6}}\left(u^2+u_x^2+u_{xx}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}u_t^2+Af^2\right\}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`c_3^2d^2(u,u_t)+{\displaystyle _0^1}Af^2𝑑x`$
where we have set

(2.13)
$$A:=(\epsilon /2c^2)+2/\epsilon ,c_3^2:=\mathrm{min}\{\frac{\epsilon c^2}{6},\frac{\epsilon }{2}\},$$

and we have used (2.7), (2.8). In the sequel we shall set also $`p:=c_3^2/c_2^2`$.

## 3 Stability and attraction region for (1.1)

We introduce the following

Hypothesis 1\- Assume that

(3.1)
$$A_0^1f^2𝑑x\widehat{g}(t,d^2)c_1^2d^2$$

where $`f`$ is the function of $`(\text{1.1})`$ and $`\widehat{g}(t,\eta )`$ ($`t>t_0,\eta >0`$) is continuous, nonnegative, non-decreasing in $`\eta `$ and such that the limit

(3.2)
$$\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_0^t\widehat{g}(\tau ,\eta /c_1^2)𝑑\tau }{t}=:q(\eta )$$

defines a continuous, non-decreasing function $`q:\eta JJ`$ with $`q(0)<p`$.

The assumption that $`\widehat{g}(t,\eta )`$ is non-decreasing in $`\eta `$ is no real loss of generality; if originally this is not the case, we just need to replace $`\widehat{g}(t,\eta )`$ by $`\underset{0\theta \eta }{\mathrm{max}}\widehat{g}(t,\theta )`$ to fulfill this condition.

###### Theorem 1

Under these assumptions the null solution of the problem (1.1) is exponential-asymptotically stable and the region of attraction related to the initial time $`t_0`$ includes the set

$$d(u_0,u_1)<\left[\underset{r]0,\overline{r}[}{sup}\frac{r}{c_2^2}e^{M(t_0,r)}\right]^{1/2},$$

where $`\overline{r}`$ and $`M(t_0,r)`$ are defined by (3.6) and (3.9).

Proof. From (2.12), using (3.1), (2.11) and the monotonicity in $`\eta `$ of $`g(t,\eta ):=\widehat{g}(t,\frac{\eta }{c_1^2})`$, we find

$`\dot{V}(u,u_t)`$ $``$ $`c_3d^2+\widehat{g}(t,d^2)c_1^2d^2`$
$``$ $`[p+g(t,V)]V.`$
By the “comparison principle” (Lemma 24.3 of ) $`V`$ is bound from above

(3.3)
$$0V(t)y(t),tt_0$$

by the solution $`y(t)`$ of the Cauchy problem

(3.4)
$$\dot{y}=[p+g(t,y)]y,y(t_0)=y_0V(t_0)>0.$$

We therefore study the latter. Problem (3.4) is equivalent to the integral equation

(3.5)
$$y(t)=y_0e^{p(tt_0)+_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,y(\tau ))𝑑\tau }.$$

Let

(3.6)
$$\overline{r}:=sup\{\rho 0|q(\rho )<p\}.$$

The inequality $`q(0)<p`$ implies $`\overline{r}>0`$. Chosen a $`r]0,\overline{r}[`$, for any $`\eta r`$ and $`t_0J`$ condition (3.2) implies

$`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,\eta )𝑑\tau }{tt_0}}`$ $``$ $`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,r)𝑑\tau }{tt_0}}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_0^tg(\tau ,r)𝑑\tau _0^{t_0}g(\tau ,r)𝑑\tau }{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{tt_0}}=q(r),`$
and therefore $`\sigma >0`$ $`t^{}(\sigma ,r,t_0)>t_0`$ such that $`t>t^{}`$

$$\frac{_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,\eta )𝑑\tau }{tt_0}<q(r)+\sigma .$$

Choosing $`\sigma \frac{pq(r)}{2}`$ and, denoting by $`t_0^{}(r,t_0)`$ the corresponding value of $`t^{}(\sigma (r),r,t_0)`$, we find that for any $`t>t_0^{}`$, $`\eta r`$

$$\frac{_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,\eta )𝑑\tau }{tt_0}<q(r)+\sigma =\frac{p+q(r)}{2},$$

whence

(3.7)
$$p(tt_0)+_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,\eta )𝑑\tau <\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0).$$

On the other hand, as $`q(r)>0`$, for $`t]t_0,t_0^{}]`$ and $`\eta r`$

(3.8)
$$p(tt_0)+_{t_0}^t𝑑\tau g(\tau ,\eta )<\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)+M(t_0,r),$$

where we have set

(3.9)
$$M(t_0,r):=\mathrm{max}\{0,\underset{t_0tt_0^{}}{\mathrm{max}}\left[\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)+_{t_0}^tg(\tau ,r)𝑑\tau \right]\}$$

Looking back at (3.7) we realize that (3.8) actually holds for any $`t>t_0`$, because by definition $`M(t_0,r)0`$. Therefore, given any $`t>t_0`$, if the solution of (3.4) satisfies $`y(\tau )r`$ for any $`\tau [t_0,t[`$ then (3.5) and (3.8) imply

(3.10)
$$y(t)<y_0e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)}.$$

Now it is easy to show first that, indeed,

(3.11)
$$0<y_0<re^{M(t_0,r)}y(t)<rtt_0.$$

In fact, if per absurdum there existed $`t_1>t_0`$ such that

(3.12) $`y(\tau ;t_0,y_0)<r\text{for }t_0\tau <t_1`$
(3.13) $`y(t_1;t_0,y_0)=r`$
then (3.10), (3.12) would imply

$$y(t_1)<y_0e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(t_1t_0)}<re^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(t_1t_0)}<r,$$

against (3.13). Having proved the bound (3.11), now we can immediately improve it. We can reconsider the first part of the previous inequality chain based on (3.10) for any $`t>t_0`$

$$y(t)<y_0e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)}$$

and thus find the implication

(3.14)
$$0<y_0<re^{M(t_0,r)}y(t)<y_0e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)}$$

for any $`t>t_0`$. Now (3.3), (3.14) imply

$$V(t)<V(t_0)e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)},$$

provided $`V(t_0)<re^{M(t_0,r)}`$. With the short-hand notation $`d^2(t)d^2(u,u_t)`$, we thus find that the assumption

(3.15)
$$d^2(t_0)<r\frac{e^{M(t_0,r)}}{c_2^2}$$

implies, because of (2.9) and (2.6),

(3.16)
$$d^2(t)<d^2(t_0)\frac{c_2^2}{c_1^2}e^{M(t_0,r)}e^{\frac{pq(r)}{2}(tt_0)},$$

i.e. the exponential-asymptotical stability. Finally, from (3.15) we derive the attraction region includes the set

(3.17)
$$d^2(u_0,u_1)<\underset{r]0,\overline{r}[}{sup}\frac{r}{c_2^2}e^{M(t_0,r)}.$$

Remark 1. This is an alternative to Theorem 3.2 B) of , which gives sufficient conditions for the exponential-asymptotical stability of the null solution. The hypothesis (3.1) considered here is much weaker than the one considered there, where it was required that there exists a positive constant $`M`$ such that

$$f^2(x,t,\phi ,\phi _x,\phi _{xx},\psi )M(\phi ^2+\phi _x^2+\phi _{xx}^2+\psi ^2),$$

in that $`f`$ may well be an unbounded function of $`t`$ and nonetheless fulfill (3.1). This is the case for the following

Example 1. Let $`f=b(t)\mathrm{sin}\phi `$, with a function $`b(t)`$ such that the limit $`lim_{t+\mathrm{}}(_0^tb^2(\tau )𝑑\tau )/t`$ be finite and smaller than $`p`$; then we can set $`\widehat{g}(t,\eta )b^2(t)`$. For instance we could take $`b^2`$ a continuous function that vanishes everywhere except in intervals centered at equally spaced points, where it takes linearly increasing maxima but keeps the integral constant, e.g.

(3.18)
$$b^2(t)=b_0\{\begin{array}{cc}n^2(tn+1/n)\hfill & \text{if}t[n1/n,n],\hfill \\ nn^2(tn)\hfill & \text{if}t]n,n+1/n],\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`b_0<p`$ and $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$.

Remark 2. Under the assumption that the problem (1.1), (1.2) admits solutions $`u(x,t)`$ having also continuous derivative $`u_{xtt}`$, then one can replace (1.3) by the metric

(3.19)
$$d_1^2(\phi ,\psi )=d^2(\phi ,\psi )+_0^1\psi _x^2𝑑x,$$

(2.4) by the functional

(3.20)
$$V_1(\phi ,\psi )=V(\phi ,\psi )+\frac{\epsilon }{2}_0^1\{\epsilon \psi _x^22c^2\psi \phi _{xx}\}𝑑x$$

and verify that Theorem 1 holds with respect to the metric $`d_1`$.

## 4 Stability and attractivity for a non-analytic forcing term

We now specialize the function $`f`$ of (1.1) as $`f=F(u)a(x,t,u,u_x,u_t,u_{xx})u_t`$, where $`FC()`$ and $`aC(]0,1[\times [0,+\mathrm{}[\times ^4)`$, and examine the particular problem

(4.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}Lu=F(u)a(x,t,u,u_x,u_t,u_{xx})u_t,x]0,1[,t>t_0\hfill \\ u(0,t)=0,u(1,t)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

with initial conditions (1.2). We shall use use the modified Liapunov functional

$`W(\phi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(\epsilon \phi _{xx}\psi )^2+\gamma \psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2\}dx\}`$
$`(1+\gamma ){\displaystyle _0^1}\left({\displaystyle _0^{\phi (x)}}F(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑x`$
where $`\gamma >1/2`$ for the moment is an unspecified parameter.

###### Theorem 2

The null solution of the problem (4.1) is uniformly asymptotically stable in the large under the following assumptions:

(4.3) there exist $`\tau [0,1[`$ and $`D>0`$ such that, for any $`\phi ,\psi `$
$`0{\displaystyle _0^1}\left({\displaystyle _0^{\phi (x)}}F(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\gamma +1}}d^{\tau +1}(\phi ,\psi );`$
(4.4) $`{\displaystyle _0^1}F(\phi (x))\phi _{xx}(x)𝑑x0\text{for any }\phi C_o^2([0,1]);`$
(4.5) $`\text{the function }a\text{ satisfies }infa>\epsilon ,supa<+\mathrm{}.`$
Proof. Reasoning as in section 3.4 of reference , we get

(4.6) $`W(\phi ,\psi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(\epsilon \phi _{xx}\psi )^2+\gamma \psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2\}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(\epsilon \phi _{xx}2\psi )^2/4+(\epsilon \phi _{xx}\psi )^2/2+(\gamma 1/2)\psi ^2`$
$`+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2+\epsilon ^2\phi _{xx}^2/4\}dx`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(\gamma 1/2)\psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )\phi _x^2+\epsilon ^2\phi _{xx}^2/4\}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(\gamma 1/2)\psi ^2+c^2(1+\gamma )(\phi ^2+\phi _x^2)/2+\epsilon ^2\phi _{xx}^2/4\}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`k_1d^2(\phi ,\psi ),`$
where

(4.7)
$$k_1:=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}\{\gamma \frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon ^2}{4},\frac{c^2(1+\gamma )}{2}\}.$$

Moreover, taking the derivative of $`W`$ and reasoning as we have done for (2.12), we obtain

$$\dot{W}(u,u_t)=_0^1\{c^2\epsilon u_{xx}^2+\epsilon \gamma u_{xt}^2+a(1+\gamma )u_t^2+\epsilon F(u)u_{xx}\epsilon au_{xx}u_t\}𝑑x.$$

From this, considering inequalities (2.7), (2.8) it follows

$`\dot{W}(u,u_t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(3/4)c^2\epsilon u_{xx}^2+[\epsilon \gamma +a(1+\gamma \epsilon a/c^2)]u_t^2+`$
$`\epsilon F(u)u_{xx}+\epsilon [(c/2)u_{xx}(a/c)u_t]^2\}dx.`$
Because of (4.4), the third and fourth terms at the right-hand side are nonnegative and therefore by (2.7), (2.8)

$`\dot{W}(u,u_t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\{(3/4)c^2\epsilon u_{xx}^2+[\epsilon \gamma +a(1+\gamma \epsilon a/c^2)]u_t^2\}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\{c^2/4\epsilon (u_{xx}^2+u_x^2+u^2)+[\epsilon \gamma +a(1+\gamma \epsilon a/c^2)]u_t^2\}𝑑x.`$
Owing to (4.5) we choose

$$\gamma =[1+sup\left|a(a\epsilon /c^21)\right|]/(\epsilon +infa)+\frac{1}{2},$$

so that the coefficient of $`u_t^2`$ at the right-hand side becomes $`1`$ and we find

(4.9)
$$\dot{W}(u,u_t)k_3d^2(u,u_t),$$

where $`k_3:=\mathrm{min}\{c^2/4\epsilon ,1\}`$.

Finally, taking into account formula (4), assumption (4.3), and noting that $`(\epsilon \phi _{xx}\psi )^2\epsilon ^2\phi _{xx}^2+\psi ^2+\epsilon (\phi _{xx}^2+\psi ^2)`$, it follows

(4.10)
$$W(\phi ,\psi )c_2^2d^2(\phi ,\psi )+Dd^{\tau +1}(\phi ,\psi ).$$

Hence we find

(4.11)
$$d^2\mathrm{min}\{\frac{W}{2c_2^2},\left(\frac{W}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}}\},$$

which considered in (4.9) gives

(4.12)
$$\dot{W}(u,u_t)k_3\mathrm{min}\{\frac{W}{2c_2^2},\left(\frac{W}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}}\}0.$$

The right-hand side is smaller than zero for any nonnull choice of the initial conditions, what we shall assume in the sequel. By (4.12) $`W`$ is a decreasing function of $`t`$. This implies in particular that $`W(t)<W(t_0)`$ for $`t>t_0`$, whence, by (4.6), (4.10),

(4.13)
$$d^2(t)\frac{W(t)}{k_1}<\frac{W(t_0)}{k_1}2\mathrm{max}\{c_2^2d^2(t_0),Dd^{\tau +1}(t_0)\},$$

implying the uniform stability of the null solution.

We now show that for any choice of the initial conditions $`W`$ decreases to zero (at least) as a power of $`t`$ for $`t+\mathrm{}`$. If at $`t=t_0`$

(4.14)
$$\frac{W}{2c_2^2}\left(\frac{W}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}},$$

then, by the monotonicity of $`W(t)`$, for all $`tt_0`$ this will be true and (4.12) will become

(4.15)
$$\dot{W}(u,u_t)k_3\left(\frac{W}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}};$$

by the comparison principle it will follow

$$W(t)y(t),$$

where $`y(t)`$ is the solution of the Cauchy problem

$$\dot{y}(t)=k_3\left(\frac{y}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}},y(t_0)=W(t_0),$$

namely

(4.16)
$$W(t)y(t)=\frac{1}{[W(t_0)+E(tt_0)]^{\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }}},$$

where $`E:=\frac{k_3}{(2D)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}}}\frac{1\tau }{1+\tau }>0`$. Clearly $`y(t)`$ is decreasing and goes to zero as $`1/t^{\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }}`$ when $`t+\mathrm{}`$. Recalling (4.6), we find

(4.17)
$$d^2(t)\frac{W(t)}{k_1}\frac{1}{k_1[W(t_0)+E(tt_0)]^{\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }}}$$

for $`tt_0`$, implying the attractivity of the null solution in this case. If on the contrary

$$\frac{W(t_0)}{2c_2^2}<\left(\frac{W(t_0)}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}},$$

(4.12) will imply for some time

$$\dot{W}(u,u_t)k_3W$$

and by the comparison principle an (at least) exponential decrease of $`W`$. Hence there will exist a $`T>t_0`$ such that

$$\frac{W(T)}{2c_2^2}=\left(\frac{W(T)}{2D}\right)^{\frac{2}{\tau +1}},$$

after which (4.12) will take again the form (4.15) and thus imply

(4.18)
$$d^2(t)\frac{W(t)}{k_1}\frac{1}{k_1[W(T)+E(tT)]^{\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }}}$$

for $`tT`$. This implies the attractivity in the large of the null solution.

Example 2. An example of a forcing term fulfilling the conditions (4.3), (4.4) is the non-analytic one

(4.19)
$$F(u)=k\text{sign}(u)|u|^\tau 0<\tau 1,k=\text{const}>0.$$

In fact, in this case (4.3) is fulfilled since

$$_0^1\left(_0^{\phi (x)}F(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑x=\frac{k}{\tau +1}_0^1|\phi (x)|^{\tau +1}𝑑x0,$$

and, by Schwarz inequality and (2.7), (2.8)

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}|u|^{\tau +1}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle _0^1}u^2𝑑x\right)^{\frac{\tau +1}{2}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^1}(u^2+u_x^2+u_{xx}^2)𝑑x\right)^{\frac{\tau +1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3^{\frac{\tau +1}{2}}}}d^{\tau +1}(u,u_t);`$
(4.4) is fulfilled since, integrating by parts,

$$_0^1F(u)u_{xx}(x)𝑑x=k_0^1\text{sign}(u)|u|^\tau u_{xx}(x)𝑑x=\tau k_0^1\frac{u_x^2}{|u|^{1\tau }}0.$$

Remark 3. This result should be compared with Thm 3.3. in reference : the claim is the same, but the hypotheses are adapted to cover the case of a non-analytic forcing term.