text:
# References

Evolution of Baryon Rich Quark-Gluon Plasma and radiation of Single Photons

S. V. S. Sastry, D. Dutta, A. K. Mohanty and D. K. Srivastava

Nuclear Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085, India

VECC, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700 064, India

Duke University, Dept. of Physics, Box 90305, Durham, NC 27708-0305.

Abstract

The (3+1) dimensional expansion of the quark gluon plasma (QGP) produced at finite baryon density has been studied using relativistic hydrodynamical approach. The pressure functional of the equation of state (EoS) has been determined for the interacting nuclear matter with mesons exchange. The EoS has been used to solve hydrodynamical equations using RHLLE algorithm. The space time expansion of the plasma has been studied for the cases of SPS energy and RHIC energy both at finite baryon density and for a hypothetical case of SPS energy at zero baryon density. The space-time evolution is slowed and the life times of QGP and mixed phases are shortened in the presence of finite baryon density. The space time integrated total photon yields have been estimated by convoluting the static emission rates with the space time expansion of the plasma. It has been shown that the total photon yield at zero rapidity is not significantly affected by the baryon density for SPS energy. The total photon yield is unaffected by the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal effect at SPS energy at zero baryon density, as the quark matter contribution to photon yield is less compared to hadronic matter.

Electromagnetic processes such as photons and dileptons production are important to identify the quark gluon plasma (QGP) expected to be formed in the ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions at SPS, RHIC and LHC energies . Consequent to the availability of the experimental data reported by WA98 collaboration  of single photons from Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS, these studies gained much interest in recent times. The experimental spectra however include photons coming from various sources like decays, prompt and thermal photons. Photons are produced at each stage from an expanding volume of plasma being both in QGP and hadron phases. The yields of these electromagnetic signals are quite sensitive to the space time evolution of the QGP. Assuming a first order phase transition, the plasma will expand and evolve through a QGP, mixed and hadron phases governed by the appropriate equation of state. Thermal photons are emitted at a later stage which depends on the space time evolution scenario considered consequently, the expansion dynamics determines the observed spectra. Initially, the plasma expands longitudinally, however at high energy densities and when plasma life time is large, the transverse expansion effects become significant and can not be ignored . Further, the experimental data indicates the presence of finite baryon density at freezeout temperature. The evolution becomes more complicated if the plasma is unsaturated or formed at finite baryon density. These physical conditions of the plasma affect both the basic photon production rate and also the total space time integrated photon yields. In the present work we incorporate the finite baryon density effects in both the production rates and the plasma expansion dynamics.

The photon production rates from QGP phase have been investigated in detail in -. These studies include the production rates at effective one loop and two loop levels. Further, multiple soft scatterings of the fermion during photon emission reduce the photon coherence lengths, known as Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) effect, and suppress the production rates . The photon rates from the hadron phase were estimated considering the comprehensive set of processes in , and the prompt decays were estimated in . Several groups have already reported the space-time integrated photon yield calculations for SPS, RHIC and LHC energies considering (i) various sets of equations of state, (ii) considering one or three dimensional space time expansion of plasma, (iii) with or without boost invariance, for details see .

In the following, the expansion dynamics of the plasma is determined by the EoS and the relativistic hydrodynamical equations. The conservation equations for the energy ($`E`$), momentum ($`M`$) and net baryon number ($`R`$) densities are given by,

$$_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0\text{and,}_\mu N^\mu =0$$
(1)
$$E=T^{00}=(ϵ+p)\gamma ^2p$$
(2)
$$𝐌=T^{0i}=(ϵ+p)\gamma ^2𝐯$$
(3)
$$R=N^0=nu^0=n\gamma $$
(4)
Here, $`u^\mu =\gamma (1,𝐯)`$ is the fluid velocity. In the above, $`ϵ,p,n`$ are the energy, pressure and net baryon number densities in the local rest frame of the fluid. The conservation equations for $`E,M,R`$ of Eqs. (2-4) for cylindrical geometry with the longitudinal (z-axis) boost invariance and at z=0 are as discussed in . The shock just at the QGP formation time is represented by the Riemann initial value problem. The full solution to the Riemann problem is approximated by the Godunov scheme consisting of a rarefaction wave and the contact discontinuity. This scheme approximates the Riemann shock propagation by assuming a region of constant flow between the discontinuous surfaces. Our present calculations have been performed using Relativistic HLLE (RHLLE) program to solve the hydrodynamical equations . An important input for this method is the equation of state (EoS) specifying the pressure as a functional of the energy density and the number density $`p(ϵ,n)`$. Once an EoS is specified, the hydrodynamical equations uniquely determine the expansion dynamics. We obtain the EoS for hadronic, mixed and QGP states at finite baryon density. In this study, the EoS for the QGP state is taken from bag model consisting of u,d quarks and gluons. The pressure, energy and entropy densities are given by,

$$p=\frac{37\pi ^2}{90}T^4+\frac{1}{9}(\mu T)^2+\frac{1}{162\pi ^2}\mu ^4B$$
(5)
$$p=(ϵ4B)/3;s=\frac{P}{T}|_\mu ;ϵ=Ts+\mu np$$
(6)
In above, the $`\mu `$ is the baryo chemical potential representing the finite baryon density effects. The hadronic EoS is obtained from a general class of thermodynamically self consistent equations of the interacting nuclear matter that reproduce the ground state matter properties. The present EoS includes the $`\sigma ,\omega `$ mesons interacting with nucleons and anti nucleons (i.e. masses upto 1.0 GeV) and a free gas of $`\pi ,\rho ,\eta `$ mesons. The hadron pressure ($`p_h`$), net baryon number density ($`n`$), the scalar density ($`\rho `$) and the partial pressures of baryon and mesons ($`p_N,p_i`$) are as in  given by,

$$p_h(T,\mu )=p_N+\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i+n\nu (n)_0^n\nu (n^{})𝑑n^{}\rho _s𝐒(\rho _s)+_0^{\rho _s}𝐒(\rho _s^{})𝑑\rho _{}^{}{}_{s}{}^{}$$
(7)
$$n(T,\mu )=\frac{g_N}{(2\pi ^3)}d^3k\left[f_T(E_k^{},\nu )f_T(E_k^{},\nu )\right],\text{with}\nu =\mu \nu (n)$$
(8)
$$\rho (T,\mu )=\frac{g_N}{(2\pi ^3)}d^3k\frac{M^{}}{E_k^{}}\left[f_T(E_k^{},\nu )+f_T(E_k^{},\nu )\right]$$
(9)
$$E_k^{}=\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}};M^{}=M𝐒(\rho _s);\nu (n)=C_v^2nC_d^2\rho _s;𝐒(\rho _s)=C_s^2\rho _s$$
(10)
$$p_N=T\frac{g_N}{(2\pi ^3)}d^3k[\text{ln}(1+e^{(E_k^{}\nu )/T})+\text{ln}(1+e^{(E_k^{}+\nu )/T}]$$

$$p_i(T;m_i)=T\frac{g_i}{(2\pi ^3)}d^3q\left[\text{ln}(1e^{(\sqrt{q^2+m_i^2}/T)})\right]$$
(11)
In the above, $`f_T`$ is the fermi distribution at temperature T and baryo chemical potential $`\mu `$ representing the baryon density. $`m_i`$ are the meson masses, M is the nucleon bare mass and $`g_i,g_N`$ are the meson and nucleon spin-isospin degeneracies. The energy density ($`ϵ`$) and entropy ($`s`$) are obtained using thermodynamic relations as in Eq. 6. The effective chemical potential $`\nu (n)`$ and the effective mass $`M^{}`$ are obtained using the parameters given in $`C_v^2=238.08GeV^2`$, $`C_s^2=296.05GeV^2`$, $`C_d^2=0.183`$ . The Eqs.(8,9,10) are solved self consistently . The phase boundary in $`T,\mu `$ plane, shown in Fig. 1(a), is obtained from the Gibbs conditions given by,

$$p_h=p_q,T_h=T_q,\mu _h=\mu _q$$
(12)
The mixed phase for a given ($`ϵ`$,n) is obtained from,

$$ϵ=\lambda _qϵ_q(T^{})+(1\lambda _q)ϵ_h(T^{})\text{and}n=\lambda _qn_q(T^{})+(1\lambda _q)n_h(T^{})$$
(13)
In the above, the subscripts $`\mu ,h`$ denote the qgp,hadron phases. $`\lambda _q`$ is the fraction of volume occupied by the QGP in the mixed phase. The EoS specifies the pressure as a functional of p($`ϵ`$,n) in the required region in ($`ϵ`$,n) plane as shown in the Fig. 1 (nearly same as Fig. 1 of ). Fig. 1(a) shows the transition temperature and chemical potential given by Eq. 13. The transition temperature at zero baryon density is 169.9 MeV. Fig. 1(b) shows the energy density variation and the Fig. 1(c) shows the number density variation along the curve of Fig. 1(a). Fig.1(d) shows the energy density and number density for both quark and hadron phases for $`T,\mu `$ values along the curve of Fig. 1(a). The hadron phase is the narrow strip in the semi-infinite ($`ϵ`$,n) plane as shown in Fig. 1(d) by the mixed phase above and below by the $`T=0`$ line of hadron phase. However, owing to small life times of QGP and mixed phases (10-20 fm/c), these phases occupy very small region of space time evolution diagrams which will be discussed later (Fig. 2). The $`T^{}`$ of Eq. 14 are determined using Figs. 1(b,c,a). The constants used in Fig. 1 are $`ϵ_0=0.1477\mathrm{}^3GeV^4`$ and $`n_0=0.16\mathrm{}^3GeV^3`$.

We studied the expansion dynamics at finite baryon density for two cases; case (i) for SPS energy and case (ii) for the RHIC energy. The case (iii) for SPS energy at zero baryon density is studied to compare the effects of finite baryon density. The initial energy density and the number density at time $`\tau =\tau _i`$ have been assumed to be of wounded nucleon form, as given by $`f(r)=\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}}`$ and R is the nuclear radius taken to be 6.0 fm. The formation times are taken as $`\tau _i`$=1 fm/c for SPS energy and $`\tau _i`$=0.6 fm/c for the RHIC energies respectively. The parameters for RHIC energies were taken from . The entropy (s), energy and number densities corresponding to SPS case of 158 AGeV of Pb+Pb collision is obtained by solving the simultaneous equations given by,

$$\pi R^2n_b\tau _i=\frac{dN_B}{dy}$$

$$\pi R^2s\tau _i=3.6\frac{dN}{dy}$$

We have taken $`\frac{dN_B}{dy}=80`$, and $`\frac{dN}{dy}=700`$ from the experimental data, which corresponds to a baryon density of $`n_b/n_0`$=4.5 . These space-time evolution of the plasma for the cases of SPS energy at finite baryon density is shown in Fig. 2 for different phases as indicated in the figure in various colors. The evolution of zero baryon density is also shown in Fig. 2, by thick colored lines representing the boundary of corresponding phases. The radial extension and the proper time (at z=0) are in units of nuclear radius. The outermost envelope of the hadron phase in Fig. 2 corresponds to the freeze out isotherm taken to be 120.0 MeV. The QGP phase region is almost the same for the two cases (slightly less at finite density). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that at SPS energy the baryon density decreases the life times of QGP and mixed phases of the plasma as well as the freeze out time. The transverse extension is also affected by the baryon density. Similar cases of space time evolution have been studied for RHIC energy. At RHIC energies, the life times are considerably larger together with the large transverse extension (see Fig.2 of ).

The temperature, chemical potential, constant energy density and the transverse velocity profiles in the space time, as the plasma expands, have been studied for these cases. The initial temperatures are larger in the QGP phase which in time go over to the constant temperature profiles corresponding to mixed phases. Subsequently, the temperature falls very rapidly as the plasma cools. The maximum temperatures (at r=0 for wounded nucleon form) reached are approximately 239.06 MeV, 244.25 MeV for SPS energies for the cases of with and without baryon density respectively and 348.4 MeV at RHIC energy. The average energy densities correspond to the temperatures of 214 MeV, 219.5 MeV at SPS energy for the cases of with and without baryon density. These results are comparable to those of Table 1 of .

The energy flow in space-time while in expansion is demonstrated by the constant energy contours. These contours for the SPS cases have been compared in Fig. 3. The solid curves are with baryon density and the dashed curves are for zero density. The constant energy density values are as mentioned in the figure in units if GeV/fm3. It can be seen from the figures that the energy flow gets slower in the presence of baryon density. Similarly, the constant transverse velocity profiles for various values of $`\beta =v/c`$ have been shown for these cases in Fig. 4.

In the following we discuss the static rates for photon emission needed to calculate the total photon yields. The annihilation processes $`(q\overline{q}g\gamma )`$ and the QCD Compton $`(qgq\gamma `$, $`\overline{q}g\overline{q}\gamma )`$ processes have been considered for the thermal photon production at effective one loop level . The photon emission rates from quark matter at one loop have been taken from the Traxler et al. , and at two loop level for non zero chemical potentials as reported in . We reported the photon production rate upto two loop level for a general case of chemically unsaturated plasma at finite baryon density in . The bremsstrahlung and annihilation with scattering ($`\mathrm{𝐚𝐰𝐬}`$) processes at two loop level have been considered. At finite baryon density, the photon production at one loop level is dominated by the compton process compared to annihilation process. At two loop level, the bremsstrahlung radiation is affected whereas the $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐰𝐬}`$ process is insensitive to the baryon density presence. The bremsstrahlung radiation from quark is enhanced and from anti quark is suppressed at finite baryo chemical potential.

The photon emission rates from the hadron phase is determined by considering various meson reactions, such as $`\rho \pi \pi \gamma `$, $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$, $`\pi \pi \rho \gamma ,\omega \pi \gamma `$. The $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ estimate also includes the $`a_1`$ intermediate resonance. The numerical results of a detailed study of these decays  has been fitted by analytical expressions as a function of temperature and photon energy, as reported in . In the present work, we used these analytical formulae for the photon rate calculations. It has been shown that from temperature in the range of 100-200 MeV, these formulae reproduce quite well the numerical results from detailed calculations for the photon energies from 200 MeV and upto 5.0 GeV. The one dimensional expansion of the plasma with boost invariance has been already studied with these emission rates with and without baryon density. It was found that the finite baryon density has no effect on the total photon yields . The total photon yield integrated over the plasma space-time hyper volume at zero rapidity is given by,

$$\frac{dN}{d^2P_Tdy}=_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}\tau 𝑑\tau _0^{R_f}r𝑑r_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta \left(\frac{EdR}{d^3p}|_q+\left(\lambda \frac{EdR}{d^3p}|_q+(1\lambda )\frac{EdR}{d^3p}|_h\right)+\frac{EdR}{d^3p}|_h\right)$$
(14)
In above, the subscripts $`q`$ and $`h`$ denote the photon emission rates from QGP and hadron phases. The $`\tau _f`$ and Rf denote the freeze out (outermost) boundary shown in Fig. 2. The rates correspond to the photons emitted in a fluid rest frame. In order to compare with the experimental photon yields, the transverse velocity distributions of Fig. 4 have been used to transform the photon energy as given by $`E_\gamma =p^\mu u_\mu `$. Fig. 5 shows the photon transverse momentum rapidity density distributions at zero rapidity for the 158 A GeV SPS energy for Pb+Pb collision compared with WA98 data. The finite and zero density cases are shown in figure. As seen in figure, the finite baryon density has very little effect on the photon spectrum, though the yield seems to be reduced marginally. This result is surprising considering that the expansion dynamics is affected as shown in Fig. 2. However, at these SPS energies, the overall plasma life time is small and the expansion effects and modified emission rates due to finite chemical potential cancel each other. However, the fit to experimental data is slightly improved when the finite density is considered (see Fig. 5). The prompt contribution in the present study has been taken from . It has been noticed that the prompt estimates of  and  differ by about a factor of two together with roughly same slope in the region of 1.5-4 GeV. Therefore, if one considers the prompt contribution twice as large as given in , our calculated spectrum at finite density matches well with the experimental data. At RHIC energies, the baryon number densities are smaller and the finite density effects can be completely ignored. All these studies have been repeated for SPS case for different formation times $`\tau _i`$=1.1 fm/c,1.2 fm/c and the results are very much similar. The results for photon yields have not changed significantly with different formation times studied. The present study was partly reported in .

The photon rates from QGP phase at two loop level of  are identical to the results of Aurenche et al.  for the equilibrated plasma, corrected by a factor of four. These rates and the total photon transverse momentum distributions shown in Fig. 5 for zero baryon density donot include the LPM effects. The effective two loop contributions to photon production rate from QGP phase consisting of bremsstrahlung and $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐰𝐬}`$ processes with and without LPM effect are discussed in , especially as shown in Fig. 7 of Ref. . We have studied the consequences of photon rate inhibition due to LPM effect on the space time integrated photon yields for the case of zero density. For this purpose, we used the phenomenological expressions of  that include LPM effects. The ratio of total photon yield arising from the two loop processes with and without LPM effect been estimated and shown in Fig. 6. It has been found that the LPM effect has not changed the photon transverse momentum distribution, due to the fact that at SPS energy the quark matter contribution to photon yield is very less. The LPM effect becomes important at higher energies as the aws contribution to photon emission is more suppressed. The total quark matter contribution from one and two loop processes without LPM effects are calculated and the relative percentage contribution of one loop processes and the two loop processes have been obtained for the space-time integrated yields. It should be noted that the temperature and the chemical potential dependence has been integrated out through the space time integrations of Eq. 15 over the plasma volume. These are also shown in Fig. 6 where short dashes represent oneloop/total quark matter emission and long dashes similarly for the two loop contribution. The different color curves show the results for RHIC energy. At RHIC energies the LPM effects are important as the QM contribution is important and therefore the affects the calculated yields.

Conclusion

The effects of finite baryon density and the (3+1) dimensional expansion of the quark gluon plasma has been studied for SPS and RHIC energies. The transverse expansion has been obtained following relativistic hydrodynamical approach and the relativistic HLLE method. The equation of state for pressure functional has been obtained considering various mesons and interacting nucleons. The space time evolution of the QGP is shown to be affected by the baryon density. The radial and the temporal extension of the plasma is shorter in the presence of finite baryon density. The total plasma space time integrated photon yields have been compared for various cases in the presence of baryon density. Calculations at SPS energies with and without baryon density showed that the total photon yield is not very sensitive to the baryon density, however individual contributions to photon yields from various phases differ. The LPM effect is also found to be not affecting the photon yields for SPS energies, where as at RHIC energy this effect is important.

We acknowledge the fruitful discussions with Dr. S. Kailas.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1. Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded, connected and simply connected domain of the plane with smooth boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and, for each $`\epsilon >0`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon \epsilon \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$. We consider a family $`u^\epsilon =u^\epsilon (x,t)`$ of incompressible flows which satisfy the two-dimensional Euler equations on the exterior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$, with velocity tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ and satisfying the initial conditions (i) the initial vorticity $`\omega ^0(x)=\text{ curl }u^\epsilon (x,0)`$ is independent of $`\epsilon `$ and the support of $`\omega _0`$ does not intersect the origin and (ii) the circulation around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\epsilon `$ of the velocity $`u^\epsilon `$ is a real constant $`\gamma `$ which does not depend on $`\epsilon `$ either. Our purpose in this article is to identify the asymptotic behavior when $`\epsilon 0`$ of the sequence $`\{u^\epsilon \}`$. We will prove that for $`\gamma =0`$, $`u^\epsilon `$ converges to a flow $`u`$ satisfying the incompressible two dimensional Euler equations in the full plane with initial vorticity $`\omega ^0`$ and that, for $`\gamma 0`$, any weak limit of the sequence $`\{u^\epsilon \}`$ satisfies a modification of the Euler equations which, in the vorticity formulation, takes the aspect of an additional convection term.

In order to clarify the issues involved in this problem, let us consider that, for each fixed time, the velocity $`u`$ of the flow around a small obstacle decomposed as $`u=u_o+u_b`$, where $`u_b`$ is the background velocity, which is slowly varying with respect to the scale of the obstacle, incorporating what we imagine the flow velocity would be if the obstacle was not present, and $`u_o`$ is the correction to $`u_b`$ due to the presence of the obstacle. As the obstacle disappears towards a point $`p`$, the background flow $`u_b`$ appears as a constant flow background $`u_b(p)`$ relative to an observer on the obstacle. One can see that, when $`u_b(p)0`$, the fact that the full velocity $`u`$ is tangent to the obstacle means that $`u_o`$ has to be a large perturbation in absolute value. On the other hand, one expects the perturbation produced by the small obstacle to be sharply localized, so that $`|u_o|`$ should converge pointwise to zero away from the obstacle. The small obstacle generates large velocity gradients in a nearby region. How this effect influences the limiting process is the main point of the present work.

It is a well known fact that the ideal flow assumption is physically inappropriate to model the behavior of the flow near an obstacle, due to boundary layer effects. Hence, the whole issue of small obstacle asymptotics would be more physically meaningful if posed for the Navier-Stokes equations. The asymptotics of the ideal flow case which we present here should be regarded as a first step towards the rigorous analysis of the small obstacle problem.

Most of the work on time-dependent, incompressible exterior flow has been in the nature of well-posedness through energy methods, see . Energy estimates are global, so that it would be difficult to treat our sharply localized problem through such means. The alternative is to adopt the vortex dynamics point of view. This means understanding 2D flow in terms of the description of the dynamics of vorticity, an approach which has been very fruitful recently. The most important recent results on 2D Euler are Chemin’s Theorem, on the regularity of vortex patches, see , which is by nature a vortex dynamics result, and Delort’s Existence Theorem, see , which relies heavily on the vortex dynamics point of view.

Our interest in the small obstacle problem was motivated by the problem of confinement of vorticity. Let us examine briefly the nature of this problem and survey some of the results obtained thus far. Consider $`\omega =\omega (x,t)`$ a (classical) solution of the full plane 2D Euler equations such that $`\omega (x,0)`$ is compactly supported. The problem of confinement of vorticity is to obtain control over the growth of the diameter of the support of $`\omega (,t)`$. Current research on this subject originates with a result obtained by C. Marchioro in . He proved that the solution of the incompressible 2D Euler equations in the full plane, with bounded, nonnegative initial vorticity with support contained in the ball $`B(0;R_0)`$, will have, at time $`t`$, its support contained in a ball of radius $`R(t)=(bt+R_0^3)^{1/3}`$, for some constant $`b0`$. The state-of-the-art confinement result in the full plane has almost fourth root exponent, see . In , Marchioro addressed the problem of confinement for exterior flow. Using the techniques developed for full plane flow, Marchioro proved cubic-root confinement for the exterior of a disk and almost square root confinement for a general exterior domain. We will not get into the issue of why the confinement result is sensitive to the presence and to the geometry of the domain, but we observe that confinement is connected to the way an obstacle influences very distant particles, called far-field effects. The scaling behavior of the incompressible Euler equations makes the problem of describing the influence of a very distant obstacle for a very long time naturally associated to observing the effect of a vanishingly small nearby obstacle for some time, which is the object of this article. In this context, the influence of the precise shape of the small domain in the vortex motion is of particular interest.

From the technical standpoint, this article makes use of the techniques of weak convergence methods for the asymptotic analysis. Such methods have often been developed for proving existence of weak solutions, see for example , but they are well suited for studying singular limits in general. The basic ingredients of the present proof are a collection of a priori estimates obtained mainly through exhaustive use of explicit formulas for the Green’s function of the exterior domain and strong compactness of approximate velocities obtained by using the parametrized div-curl Theorem introduced in .

The remainder of this paper is divided into five sections. In the second section, included mostly for completeness’ sake and for fixing notation, we collect information on classical potential theory for the Laplacian in an exterior domain and on holomorphic maps as required to write explicit formulas for the Green’s function in terms of the Riemann map associated to the obstacle. In the third section we formulate precisely the exterior flow problem and the problem of small obstacle asymptotics. In the fourth section we derive the collection of a priori estimates required for the passage to the limit, identifying a collection of quantities that remain under control in the small obstacle asymptotics. We prove our main result in the fifth section, identifying the PDE in the full plane satisfied by the limit flow. In the sixth and last section we collect our conclusions and point the way for future investigation on this problem.

## 2. The Laplacian in an exterior domain

The purpose of this section is to collect a number of facts associated to classical potential theory for the Laplacian on an exterior domain in the plane. We claim no originality on these results, although the explicit form in which they are presented is not the one commonly found in the literature. We include a thorough discussion here for the sake of completeness.

### 2.1. Conformal maps

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded, open, simply connected subset of the plane, whose boundary, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Jordan curve. We will denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the unbounded connected component of $`^2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c=\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$. Let $`D=B(0;1)`$, $`S=D`$.

In what follows we identify $`^2`$ with the complex plane $``$. We begin by constructing a smooth biholomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\{x^2||x|>1\}\text{ int }D^c`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\text{ int }\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ be as above. There exists a smooth biholomorphism $`T:\mathrm{\Pi }\text{ int }D^c`$, extending smoothly up to the boundary, mapping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`S`$. Furthermore, there exists a nonzero real number $`\beta `$ and a bounded holomorphic function $`h:\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that:

(2.1)
$$T(z)=\beta z+h(z).$$

Additionally,

(2.2)
$$h^{}(z)=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{|z|^2}\right),\text{ as }|z|\mathrm{}.$$

###### Proof.

We may assume without loss of generality that $`B(0;1)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If this were not the case then suitable dilation and translation would make it so.

For $`z\mathrm{\Pi }`$, consider the holomorphic map given by $`zI(z)=1/z`$ and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, the image of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively, under this map. There exists a biholomorphism $``$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\{0\}`$ to $`B(0;1)`$ given by the Riemann Mapping Theorem, mapping $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ to $`S`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was assumed to be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Jordan curve so is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, hence $``$ and its inverse $`^1`$ have continuous extensions up to the boundary, along with all their derivatives (see ). We choose the Riemann mapping $``$ such that $`(0)=0`$ and we define $`T`$ to be given by the compositions: $`T=II`$. It is easy to see that $`T`$ is a biholomorphism, continuous up to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, along with all of its derivatives.

Consider the function $`f`$ defined by

$$(z)=zf(z),z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$

This is a holomorphic function on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which cannot vanish at $`0`$ since $``$ is a bijection. By the same token, $`f`$ cannot vanish anywhere else in the closure of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. It follows that $`1/f(z)`$ is also a holomorphic function. Hence we can write $`1/f(z)=\beta +zg(z)`$, with $`g`$ a holomorphic function and $`\beta =1/f(0)`$. We find $`g(z)=(f(z)f(0))/f(0)(z)`$, which can be seen to be bounded since $`z=0`$ is a zero of order $`1`$ for $``$ and $`f`$ is bounded.

Thus we obtain

$$T(z)=1/(1/z)=z(\beta +(1/z)g(1/z))=\beta z+g(1/z).$$

The desired function $`h`$ is given by $`h(z)=g(1/z)`$. We may assume without loss of generality that $`\beta `$ is real by multiplying the function $`T`$ constructed above by $`\overline{\beta }/|\beta |`$ if necessary, which does not change the desired properties. Finally, we observe that

$$h^{}(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}g^{}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right),$$

and, by construction, $`g^{}`$ is a holomorphic function in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, bounded in the closure. ∎

###### Remark 2.1.

It follows by construction of $`T`$ that

$$T^{}(z)=^{}(1/z)/(f(1/z))^2,$$

which can be easily seen to be bounded from above and below. Therefore, if we make the canonical identification of $`^2`$ with $``$, writing $`z=x_1+ix_2`$ for the point $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$, then, if $`DT`$ stands for the Jacobian matrix associated to $`T^{}`$, there exist a positive constant $`C`$ such that

(2.3)
$$DT_L^{\mathrm{}}C\text{ and }DT^1_L^{\mathrm{}}C.$$

### 2.2. Explicit formulas for the Green’s function

Here we will obtain an explicit formula for the Green’s function of the Laplacian in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in terms of the conformal mapping above. We denote this Green’s function by $`G_\mathrm{\Pi }=G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)`$; we must have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_yG_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=\delta (yx)`$, $`G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=0`$ for $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=G_\mathrm{\Pi }(y,x)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }=B(0;1)`$ and if we write $`x^{}=x/|x|^2`$ then there is a unique Green’s function which can be written explicitly as

$$G_{D^c}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{|xy|}{|xy^{}||y|}.$$

It is easy to verify that if $`x_0(B(0;1))^c`$ and $`h`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=\delta (xx_0)`$ in a neighborhood of $`x_0`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{h}hT`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{h}=\delta (yT^1(x_0))`$ in a neighborhood of $`T^1(x_0)`$. We use this fact on $`G`$ to write:

(2.4)
$$G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{|T(x)T(y)|}{|T(x)(T(y))^{}||T(y)|}.$$

We will concern ourselves mostly with first order derivatives of the Green’s function, which we will introduce through the notation $`K_\mathrm{\Pi }=K_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)_x^{}G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)`$. The explicit formula for $`K_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is given by

(2.5)
$$K_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=\frac{((T(x)T(y))DT(x))^{}}{2\pi |T(x)T(y)|^2}\frac{((T(x)(T(y))^{})DT(x))^{}}{2\pi |T(x)(T(y))^{}|^2}.$$

Note that $`K_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)=DT^t(x)K_{D^c}(T(x),T(y))`$.

We require information on far-field behavior of $`K_\mathrm{\Pi }`$. We will use several times the following general relation:

(2.6)
$$\left|\frac{a}{|a|^2}\frac{b}{|b|^2}\right|=\frac{|ab|}{|a||b|}$$

which can be readily checked by squaring both sides.

We now find from the estimates (2.3), (2.5) and (2.6), that

$$|K_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)|C\frac{|T(y)(T(y))^{}|}{|T(x)T(y)||T(x)(T(y))^{}|}.$$

For $`fC_c^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$, we introduce the notation

(2.7)
$$K_\mathrm{\Pi }[f]=K_\mathrm{\Pi }[f](x)_\mathrm{\Pi }K_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)f(y)𝑑y.$$

It is easy to see that the pointwise estimate for $`K_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ above, yields, for large $`|x|`$, the estimate:

(2.8)
$$|K_\mathrm{\Pi }[f]|(x)\frac{C}{|x|^2},$$

where the constant $`C>0`$ depends on the size of the support of $`f`$. In the last inequality we have used the explicit formula for the biholomorphism $`T`$ (2.1).

###### Lemma 2.2.

The vector field $`u=K_\mathrm{\Pi }[f]`$ is a solution to the elliptic system:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\text{div }u=0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\hfill \\ \text{curl }u=f\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\hfill \\ u\widehat{n}=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \\ lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|u|=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof of this Lemma is straightforward.

### 2.3. Harmonic Vector Fields

The standard version of Hodge’s Theorem is proved for compact manifolds, see , with a natural extension to compact manifolds with boundary. Extending Hodge’s Theory to noncompact manifolds is a difficult problem, see  for a broad overview. There is a lot of special structure for the exterior domain, specifically the complex structure, which allows us to prove an elementary extension of Hodge’s Theorem to this particular case. It is no surprise that this extension is valid, moreover, such a fact has been extensively used in the literature. As before, we include a complete discussion here because we will require the very explicit treatment involved for the remainder of this article.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded, open subset of $`^2`$ whose boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth Jordan curve and let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\text{ int }\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$. We will denote by $`\widehat{n}`$ the unit normal exterior to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In what follows all contour integrals are taken in the counter-clockwise sense, so that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }F\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }F\widehat{n}^{}𝑑s`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

There exists a unique classical solution $`H=H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of the problem

(2.9)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\text{div }H=0,\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi },\hfill \\ \text{curl }H=0,\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi },\hfill \\ H\widehat{n}=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \\ |H|0\text{ as }x\mathrm{},\hfill \\ _\mathrm{\Gamma }H\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }=𝒪(1/|x|)`$ when $`|x|\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

We will start by proving uniqueness. Let us assume there are two solutions $`H_1,H_2`$ and consider their difference $`H=H_1H_2`$. Since the problem is linear $`H`$ is a harmonic vector field with zero circulation. We must show that $`H`$ vanishes identically. Let us begin by estimating $`H`$ at infinity. We will use the canonical identification of $`^2`$ with $``$, writing $`z=x_1+ix_2`$ instead of $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$. First note that $`H=O(|x|^1)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. To see this consider the holomorphic function $`f=f(z)=\overline{H}(1/z)`$. The singularity at $`z=0`$ is clearly removable and hence $`f`$ is holomorphic in a neighborhood of the origin. Furthermore $`f(0)=0`$, which implies that $`f(z)/z`$ is also holomorphic in a neighborhood of $`0`$. Thus we have shown the desired behavior at infinity. Next, note that, after an easy calculation we find, for any real vector field $`L`$,

(2.10)
$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{L}𝑑z=_\mathrm{\Gamma }L\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}i_\mathrm{\Gamma }L\widehat{n}𝑑s.$$

Using this identity for $`H`$ we conclude that the contour integral of $`\overline{H}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanishes. Since $`\overline{H}`$ is holomorphic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$, its contour integral on any closed curve enclosing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes as well. Let us consider the Taylor expansion of $`f=f(z)`$ at $`z=0`$, $`f(z)=cz+O(z^2)`$. Fix $`\epsilon >0`$ suitably small. We have that:

$$2\pi ic=_{|z|=\epsilon }\frac{f(z)}{z^2}𝑑z=_{|w|=\epsilon ^1}\overline{H}(w)𝑑w=0.$$

From this we conclude that actually $`H=O(|x|^2)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$.

Next we observe that, since $`H`$ is curl-free and has zero circulation, there exists a function $`\phi `$ such that $`H=\phi `$. This function is constructed by integrating along arbitrary paths. From the behavior of $`H`$ at infinity and the construction of $`\phi `$ we have that $`|\phi (x)|=O(|x|^1)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$.

Let us now use the estimates gathered above to show that $`H0`$. We integrate:

$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }^c}|H|^2𝑑x=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}_{B(0;R)\mathrm{\Omega }}|H|^2𝑑x=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}_{B(0;R)\mathrm{\Omega }}H\phi dx=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}_{|x|=R}\phi H\frac{x}{R}𝑑s,$$

by integration by parts and using the fact that $`H`$ is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This limit vanishes because of the behavior of $`\phi `$ and $`H`$ at infinity. Thus we conclude that $`H`$ is identically zero in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$.

We now obtain the existence of a classical solution. Let $`T`$ be the biholomorphic mapping from Lemma 2.1. Let $`\psi =\psi (z)=\mathrm{log}|T(z)|`$ for $`z\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$. Since the logarithm is a harmonic function in $`B(0;1)^c`$ and $`T`$ is analytic in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ it follows that $`\psi `$ is a harmonic function of $`x`$. Furthermore $`\psi 0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Define $`U^{}\psi =(_{x_2}\psi ,_{x_1}\psi )`$. It can be easily checked that $`U`$ satisfies all but one of the conditions in system (2.9), namely the condition on circulation on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`U`$ is not identically zero it follows from the uniqueness part of the proof that

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }U\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}=c0,$$

and hence we may take $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }=U/c`$.

Finally we address the asymptotic behavior of $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ at infinity. Recall that, in the beginning of the proof of uniqueness above, we showed that the difference of two solutions behaved like $`O(|x|^1)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. The argument we gave did not depend on the circulation of the difference $`H`$. Therefore the same argument can be used with $`H_1=H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`H_2=0`$ to show the desired behavior for $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$. ∎

By construction the harmonic vector field $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ above is given by

$$H_\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=C^{}\mathrm{log}|T(x)|,$$

for some constant $`C`$. We argue that $`C=1/2\pi `$. Indeed, it is an easy calculation to prove that

$$\overline{H}_\mathrm{\Pi }(z)=Ci(\mathrm{log}T)^{}(z)=Ci\frac{T^{}(z)}{T(z)}.$$

Using (2.10) together with the fact that $`H_\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we find:

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }H_\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{H}_\mathrm{\Pi }𝑑z=C_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{T^{}(z)}{iT(z)}𝑑z=C_S\frac{dw}{iw}=2\pi C,$$

so that we must have $`C=1/2\pi `$ in order to satisfy the last condition of system (2.9). Throughout the remainder of this paper we set

(2.11)
$$H_\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }^{}\mathrm{log}|T(x)|=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{(T(x)DT(x))^{}}{|T(x)|^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{DT^t(x)(T(x))^{}}{|T(x)|^2}.$$

## 3. Flow in an exterior domain

The purpose of this section is to formulate precisely the small obstacle limit.

### 3.1. The initial-boundary value problem

We begin by formulating precisely the initial-boundary value problem for incompressible ideal fluid flow in an exterior domain. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be, as before, a smooth Jordan curve in the plane, dividing it into a bounded connected component, which we call $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and an unbounded connected component denoted $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. For $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, denote by $`\widehat{n}(x)`$ the exterior normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$ at $`x`$, as before.

Let $`u=u(x,t)=(u_1(x_1,x_2,t),u_2(x_1,x_2,t))`$ be the velocity of an incompressible, ideal fluid in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$. We assume that $`u`$ is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`u0`$ when $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. The evolution of such a flow is governed by the Euler equations. We write the initial-boundary value problem as:

(3.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}u_t+uu=p\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times (0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \text{div }u=0\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ u\widehat{n}=0\hfill & \text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|u|=0\hfill & \text{ for }t[0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ u(x,0)=u_0(x)\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }^c,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`p=p(x,t)`$ is the scalar pressure. If $`u_0`$ is sufficiently smooth, global well-posedness of this problem was proved by K. Kikuchi in .

Let $`\omega =\text{curl }u`$ be the vorticity associated to this flow. In order to write a vorticity formulation of problem (3.1) we must be able to recover velocity from vorticity. The coupling of velocity and vorticity is given by the elliptic system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\text{div }u=0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \text{curl }u=\omega \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ u\widehat{n}=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|u|=0\text{ for }t[0,\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

In view of Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.1 this system has a unique solution up to a harmonic vector field, given by $`u=u(x,t)=K_\mathrm{\Pi }[\omega (,t)](x)+\alpha H_\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, for some time-dependent function $`\alpha =\alpha (t)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`u`$ is a smooth solution of (3.1) then $`\alpha `$ is constant in time.

###### Proof.

We introduce the stream function $`\psi =\psi (x,t)`$ given by:

(3.2)
$$\psi (x,t)G_\mathrm{\Pi }[\omega ](x,t)=_\mathrm{\Pi }G_\mathrm{\Pi }(x,y)\omega (y,t)𝑑y.$$

Next, we observe that, by Kelvin’s Circulation Theorem, the circulation of $`u`$ around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is constant in time. Hence we have:

$$\gamma =_\mathrm{\Gamma }u𝐝s=_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\psi 𝐝s+\alpha (t)_\mathrm{\Gamma }H_\mathrm{\Pi }𝐝s=\alpha (t)_\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \widehat{n}ds.$$

Integrating by parts we find:

$$\gamma =\alpha (t)\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_{B(0;R)\mathrm{\Omega }}\omega 𝑑x_{B(0;R)}\psi \frac{x}{R}ds\right)=\alpha (t)_\mathrm{\Pi }\omega 𝑑x,$$

using (2.8). Hence, since mass of vorticity is conserved,

$$\alpha (t)\gamma +_\mathrm{\Pi }\text{ curl }u_0𝑑x.$$

Finally, we can now write the vorticity formulation of this problem as:

(3.3)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _t+u\omega =0,\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times (0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ u=K_\mathrm{\Pi }[\omega ]+\alpha H_\mathrm{\Pi },\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \omega (x,0)=\text{curl }u_0(x),\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 3.2. The evanescent obstacle

In this subsection we will formulate a family of problems, parametrized by the size of the obstacle, in order to identify the asymptotic limit under consideration. Fix $`\omega _0=\omega _0(x)C_c^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$ and assume that the origin does not belong to the support of $`\omega _0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in the plane satisfying the hypothesis of Lemma 2.1. We will consider the family of rescaled domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon \epsilon \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and we note that there exists $`\epsilon _0`$ such that, for all $`0<\epsilon \epsilon _0`$, the support of $`\omega _0`$ does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon =\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon =\text{ int }\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^c`$. We denote the harmonic vector field given by Proposition 2.1 by $`H^\epsilon =H_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }`$. We also denote the Green’s function for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ by $`G^\epsilon `$ and the corresponding kernel (and integral operator) $`K^\epsilon =^{}G^\epsilon `$.

Consider the system $`(E_\epsilon )`$ given below:

$$(E_\epsilon )\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _t^\epsilon +u^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon =0,\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon \times (0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ u^\epsilon =K^\epsilon [\omega ^\epsilon ]+\alpha H^\epsilon ,\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon \times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \omega ^\epsilon (x,0)=\omega _0(x),\hfill & \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon .\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows from the work of Kikuchi  that, for any $`\epsilon >0`$, if $`\omega _0`$ is sufficiently smooth then this system has a unique smooth solution.

In fact, Kikuchi’s result asserts existence for the velocity formulation of $`(E_\epsilon )`$, which means that there exists a pressure $`p^\epsilon `$ such that $`u^\epsilon `$ and $`p^\epsilon `$ are a solution of problem (3.1) in the domain $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ with initial velocity

(3.4)
$$u_0^\epsilon =K^\epsilon [\omega _0]+\alpha H^\epsilon .$$

Consider $`T`$ the biholomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to $`\text{ int }D^c`$ constructed in Lemma 2.1. Observe that $`T^\epsilon (z)T(z/\epsilon )`$ defines a biholomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ and $`\text{ int }D^c`$, which extends smoothly up to the boundary and which maps $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ to $`S`$. We can use $`T^\epsilon `$ to write explicit formulas for $`K^\epsilon `$ and $`H^\epsilon `$, by recalling (2.5) and (2.11). We have

(3.5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K^\epsilon & =\frac{1}{\epsilon }K_\mathrm{\Pi }(\frac{x}{\epsilon },\frac{y}{\epsilon })\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2\pi \epsilon }DT^t(x/\epsilon )\left(\frac{((T(x/\epsilon )T(y/\epsilon )))^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )T(y/\epsilon )|^2}\frac{((T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{}))^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{}|^2}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

and

(3.6)
$$H^\epsilon =\frac{1}{\epsilon }H_\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\frac{x}{\epsilon }\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi \epsilon }DT^t(x/\epsilon )\left(\frac{(T(x/\epsilon ))^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )|^2}\right).$$

We will require information on the behavior of $`H^\epsilon `$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. One easy observation on that regard is the fact that for any $`R>0`$, there exists $`C=C(R)>0`$ such that

(3.7)
$$H^\epsilon _{L^1(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon B(0;R))}C,$$

uniformly in $`\epsilon `$. Indeed,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon B(0;R)}}|H^\epsilon |𝑑x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{C}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon B(0;R)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(DT^t(x/\epsilon )(T(x/\epsilon ))^{})}{|T(x/\epsilon )|^2}}\right|𝑑x`$
$`{\displaystyle _{1|y|C(R)/\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}\epsilon ^2|det(DT^1)(y)|𝑑y,`$
where we used the change of variables $`y=T(x/\epsilon )`$, we used (2.3) and $`C(R)`$ is a suitable constant computed using the expression for $`T`$ from Lemma 2.1. From this last expression, estimate (3.7) follows easily.

## 4. A priori estimates

In this section we will prove the a priori estimates on $`u^\epsilon `$ and $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ which are required to identify their asymptotic behavior.

### 4.1. Velocity estimate

The key ingredients on the rigorous treatment of weak solutions for the incompressible Euler equations are usually the energy estimate on velocity and estimates on vorticity based on the fact that the vorticity is rearranged by incompressible flow, i.e. the distribution function of vorticity is a constant of motion. There are numerous instances of this observation, and we refer the reader to  for a systematic discussion. For the problem in hand, the usual rearrangement estimates on vorticity hold for the sequence $`\omega ^\epsilon `$, due to the transport nature of equation $`(E_\epsilon )`$. For $`\epsilon `$ small enough, so that the support of $`\omega _0`$ is compactly contained on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ we have the a priori bounds

(4.1)
$$\omega ^\epsilon (,t)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon )}=\omega _0_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^2)}\text{ and }\omega ^\epsilon (,t)_{L^1(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon )}=\omega _0_{L^1(^2)}$$

On the other hand, we are not able to use the energy estimate in the usual way. In order to explain what is at play here, let us illustrate the behavior of the velocity as $`\epsilon 0`$ with an explicit example.

Example: Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon =B(0;\epsilon )`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon =\{|x|>\epsilon \}`$. We consider the vorticity

$$\omega =\omega (x)\{\begin{array}{c}1\text{ if }1|x|2\hfill \\ 0\text{ otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

which is a stationary solution of $`(E_\epsilon )`$ for any $`\epsilon <1`$.

The finite energy part of the associated velocity is $`v^\epsilon K^\epsilon [\omega ]`$, which, after straightforward calculations gives

$$v^\epsilon (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3}{2}\frac{x^{}}{|x|^2}\hfill & \text{ if }\epsilon |x|<1\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{3}{2}\frac{x^{}}{|x|^2}+\frac{x^{}}{2}\left(\frac{|x|^21}{|x|^2}\right)\hfill & \text{ if }1|x|<2\hfill \\ & \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }|x|2\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly, there is (logarithmic) local blow-up of the kinetic energy as $`\epsilon 0`$. The harmonic vector field associated to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ is the restriction of $`H(x)=x^{}/2\pi |x|^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$, so that the full velocity is $`u^\epsilon =v^\epsilon +\alpha H`$. If we want to single out a locally uniformly square integrable portion of $`u^\epsilon `$ for estimating we must add a well chosen part of $`\alpha H`$ to $`v^\epsilon `$. We consider $`u^\epsilon =(v^\epsilon +3\pi H)+(\alpha 3\pi )H`$. Neither part of this decomposition is square-integrable at infinity, but $`v^\epsilon +3\pi H`$ is not only uniformly bounded in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2`$ but it is actually uniformly bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$. We observe that $`3\pi =\omega (x)𝑑x`$. The purpose of this subsection is to prove that something similar holds in general.

Returning to the general sequence $`\omega ^\epsilon ,u^\epsilon `$, assume again that $`\epsilon `$ is small enough so that the support of $`\omega _0`$ is compactly contained in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$. We introduce

$$m_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x=_^2\omega _0𝑑x.$$

Introduce also

$$v^\epsilon K^\epsilon [\omega ^\epsilon ]+mH^\epsilon ,$$

so that $`u^\epsilon =v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon `$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

There exists a constant $`C>0`$ that depends only on the shape of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$v^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon )}C\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\omega ^\epsilon _{L^1}^{1/2}.$$

###### Proof.

We write $`v^\epsilon (x,t)=_1+_2`$ explicitly using (3.5) and (3.6) with

$$_1=\frac{1}{2\pi \epsilon }DT^t(x/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\frac{(T(x/\epsilon )T(y/\epsilon ))^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )T(y/\epsilon )|^2}\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y,$$

and

$$_2=\frac{1}{2\pi \epsilon }DT^t(x/\epsilon )_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\left(\frac{(T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{})^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{}|^2}+\frac{T(x/\epsilon )^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )|^2}\right)\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y.$$

We begin by estimating $`_1`$. Using (2.3) we get

$$|_1|\frac{C}{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\frac{1}{|T(x/\epsilon )T(y/\epsilon )|}|\omega ^\epsilon |(y,t)𝑑y.$$

Let $`J=J(\xi )|det(DT^1)(\xi )|`$ and $`z=\epsilon T(x/\epsilon )`$. Then, making the change of variables $`\eta =\epsilon T(y/\epsilon )`$, we find

(4.2)
$$|_1|C_{|\eta |\epsilon }\frac{1}{|z\eta |}|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )𝑑\eta .$$

Next, we introduce

(4.3)
$$f^\epsilon (\eta ,t)=|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )\chi _{|\eta |\epsilon },$$

where $`\chi _E`$ is the characteristic function of the set $`E`$. We change variables back and we get:

(4.4)
$$f^\epsilon (,t)_{L^1(^2)}=\omega ^\epsilon (,t)_{L^1(^2)},$$

and, since by (2.3) $`J`$ is bounded, we find that

(4.5)
$$f^\epsilon (,t)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^2)}C\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}.$$

We deduce from (4.2) and (4.3) that

(4.6)
$$|_1|C_^2\frac{1}{|z\eta |}f^\epsilon (\eta ,t)𝑑\eta Cf^\epsilon _{L^1}^{1/2}f^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}.$$

This last inequality is Lemma 2.1 in . According to (4.4) and (4.5) this concludes the estimate for $`_1`$.

Let us now estimate $`_2`$. Using again (2.3) we find

$$|_2|\frac{C}{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\left|\frac{T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{}}{|T(x/\epsilon )(T(y/\epsilon ))^{}|^2}\frac{T(x/\epsilon )}{|T(x/\epsilon )|^2}\right||\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)|𝑑y.$$

Again we consider $`J=J(\xi )|det(DT^1)(\xi )|`$ and $`z=\epsilon T(x/\epsilon )`$ and we make the same change of variables $`\eta =\epsilon T(y/\epsilon )`$. Using (2.6) this yields

$`|_2|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _{|\eta |\epsilon }}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z/\epsilon \epsilon \eta ^{}}{|z/\epsilon \epsilon \eta ^{}|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z/\epsilon }{|z/\epsilon |^2}}\right||\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )𝑑\eta `$
$`C{\displaystyle _{|\eta |\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2|\eta ^{}|}{|z||z\epsilon ^2\eta ^{}|}}|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )𝑑\eta .`$
As $`z=\epsilon T(x/\epsilon )`$ and the image of $`T`$ is the exterior of the unit disk, it follows that $`|z|\epsilon `$. Hence,

$$|_2|C_{|\eta |\epsilon }\frac{\epsilon |\eta ^{}|}{|z\epsilon ^2\eta ^{}|}|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )𝑑\eta .$$

We again change variables in the integral above, writing $`\theta =\epsilon \eta ^{}`$. Then we have:

$$|_2|C_{|\theta |1}\frac{|\theta |}{|z\epsilon \theta |}|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\theta ^{}),t)|J(\theta ^{})\frac{\epsilon ^2}{|\theta |^4}𝑑\theta $$

$$=C\left(_{|\theta |1/2}+_{1/2|\theta |1}\right)C(_{21}+_{22}).$$

First we estimate $`_{21}`$. For $`|\theta |1/2`$ we have that $`|z\epsilon \theta |\epsilon /2`$, so that

$$\begin{array}{c}|_{21}|_{|\theta |1/2}2\epsilon |\theta ||\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\theta ^{}),t)|J(\theta ^{})\frac{d\theta }{|\theta |^4}=\hfill \\ \hfill =2_{|\eta |2\epsilon }\frac{|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\eta /\epsilon ),t)|J(\eta /\epsilon )}{|\eta |}𝑑\eta 2_^2\frac{f^\epsilon (\eta ,t)}{|\eta |}𝑑\eta ,\end{array}$$

where $`f^\epsilon `$ was introduced in (4.3). Hence, it follows from (4.4), (4.5) and (4.6) with $`z=0`$ that $`|_{21}|C\omega ^\epsilon _{L^1}^{1/2}\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}`$.

Finally, we estimate $`_{22}`$. Let

$$g^\epsilon (\theta ,t)=|\omega ^\epsilon (\epsilon T^1(\theta ^{}),t)|J(\theta ^{})\frac{\epsilon ^2}{|\theta |^4}$$

so that

(4.7)
$$_{22}=_{1/2|\theta |1}\frac{|\theta |}{|z\epsilon \theta |}g^\epsilon (\theta ,t)𝑑\theta .$$

As above, we deduce by changing variables back that

(4.8)
$$g^\epsilon _{L^1(1/2|\theta |1)}\omega ^\epsilon _{L^1}.$$

Also, it is trivial to see that

(4.9)
$$g^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(1/2|\theta |1)}\epsilon ^2\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}.$$

By factoring out $`\epsilon `$ in the denominator we can re-write (4.7) and use Lemma 2.1 in  to deduce that:

$$|_{22}|=\frac{1}{\epsilon }_{1/2|\theta |1}\frac{|\theta |}{|(z/\epsilon )\theta |}g^\epsilon (\theta ,t)𝑑\theta \frac{C}{\epsilon }g^\epsilon _{L^1(1/2|\theta |1)}^{1/2}g^\epsilon _{L^{\mathrm{}}(1/2|\theta |1)}^{1/2}$$

$$C\omega ^\epsilon _{L^1}^{1/2}\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2},$$

where we have used relations (4.8) and (4.9) in the last inequality. This concludes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 4.1.

It follows from (4.1) that the estimate for $`v^\epsilon `$ in Theorem 4.1 is uniform in $`\epsilon `$ and $`t`$.

### 4.2. Harmonic vector fields and the cutoff function

The other estimates we require in order to study the asymptotic problem involve derivatives of velocity. Before we begin examining these estimates we must address the issue that $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ and $`u^\epsilon `$ are defined on an $`\epsilon `$-dependent domain, and if we want to explore their asymptotics, and, to use standard functional analysis reasoning, we must make sure they are all in the same function space. We will introduce a suitable $`\epsilon `$-dependent cutoff function for a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$ which, for reasons which will become clear in the next section, is adapted to the geometry of the domains.

Let $`\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}()`$ a cutoff function with the properties that $`0\varphi 1`$, $`\varphi `$ is monotone increasing, $`\varphi (s)=1`$ if $`s2`$ and $`\varphi (s)0`$ is $`s1+a`$, for some $`0<a<1`$. For $`x\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$, set

$$\varphi ^\epsilon =\varphi ^\epsilon (x)=\varphi (|T^\epsilon (x)|)=\varphi (|T(x/\epsilon )|),$$

and $`\varphi ^\epsilon (x)=0`$ for $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon }`$. Clearly $`\varphi ^\epsilon C^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$, vanishing on a neighborhood of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon }`$. We require some properties of $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$, which we collect in the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1.

The cutoff $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$ defined above has the following properties:

1. if $`H^\epsilon `$ is the harmonic vector field for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ then $`H^\epsilon \varphi ^\epsilon 0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$,
2. there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`|\varphi ^\epsilon |C/\epsilon `$,
3. there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that the Lebesgue measure of the the support of $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$ is bounded by $`C\epsilon ^2`$.

In particular, $`\varphi ^\epsilon _{L^1(^2)}0`$ and $`\varphi ^\epsilon _{L^2(^2)}`$ is bounded as $`\epsilon 0`$.

###### Proof.

First we observe that

$$H^\epsilon (x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }^{}\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (x)|=\frac{1}{2\pi |T^\epsilon (x)|}^{}|T^\epsilon |(x),$$

and

$$\varphi ^\epsilon =\varphi ^{}(|T^\epsilon (x)|)|T^\epsilon |(x),$$

so that the first assertion follows.

Next we compute

$$|\varphi ^\epsilon (x)|C\left|\frac{T^\epsilon (x)}{|T^\epsilon (x)|}DT^\epsilon (x)\right|\frac{C}{\epsilon },$$

by (2.3) and since $`DT^\epsilon (x)=(1/\epsilon )DT(x/\epsilon )`$.

Finally, the support of $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$ is included in the set $`\{x\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon |\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+a|T^\epsilon (x)|2\}`$. The Lebesgue measure of this set can be estimated by:

$$_{1+a|T^\epsilon (x)|2}𝑑x=_{1+a|T(y)|2}\epsilon ^2𝑑y=C\epsilon ^2.$$

We will use the cutoff $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$ to uniformize the domains under consideration. All the functions and vector fields defined in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon `$ are hereafter to be extended arbitrarily to the full plane (for instance by assigning zero value inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon `$). We will only be working with these extensions multiplied by $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$, which makes the extension chosen irrelevant.

We require more detailed information on the asymptotic behavior of $`H^\epsilon `$ than what was provided by observation (3.7). This information is encoded in the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`Hx^{}/2\pi |x|^2`$ denote the basic harmonic vector field on $`^2\{0\}`$ and fix $`R>0`$. Then,

$$\varphi ^\epsilon H^\epsilon H,$$

strongly in $`L^1(B(0;R))`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$.

###### Proof.

We estimate directly:

$$_{|x|R}|\varphi ^\epsilon H^\epsilon H|𝑑x_{\{|x|R\}\{|T^\epsilon (x)|2\}}|\varphi ^\epsilon H^\epsilon H|𝑑x+_{1+a|T^\epsilon (x)|2}|\varphi ^\epsilon H^\epsilon |𝑑x$$

$$+_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon \{|T^\epsilon (x)|2\}}|H|𝑑x_1+_2+_3.$$

We begin by noting that $`_30`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$ because the function $`|H|`$ is locally integrable and the Lebesgue measure of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon \{|T^\epsilon (x)|2\}`$ tends to zero, since it is contained in a ball centered at the origin, with vanishing radius. Next we estimate $`_2`$:

$$|_2|_{1+a|T^\epsilon (x)|2}|H^\epsilon |𝑑x=\epsilon _{1+a|T(y)|2}|H_\mathrm{\Pi }(y)|𝑑y,$$

which clearly vanishes as $`\epsilon 0`$. Above we have changed variables to $`y=x/\epsilon `$ and we used the scaling of $`H^\epsilon `$ from (3.6).

Lastly we address $`_1`$. We find:

$`|_1|`$ $`=\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}|H_\mathrm{\Pi }(y)H(y)|𝑑y`$
$`=\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{DT^t(y)T(y)^{}}{2\pi |T(y)|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{}}{2\pi |y|^2}}\right|𝑑y.`$
Now we will use the expression for $`T`$ from Lemma 2.1, $`T(y)=\beta y+h(y)`$, with $`\beta `$, $`\beta 0`$, $`h`$ a holomorphic, bounded function whose derivative $`|Dh(y)|C/|y|^2`$ for some $`C>0`$. We then find:

$`|_1|`$ $`=C\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta 𝐈+Dh^t(y))(\beta y+h(y))^{}}{|\beta y+h(y)|^2}}\beta 𝐈{\displaystyle \frac{\beta y^{}}{|\beta y|^2}}\right|𝑑y`$
$`C\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(Dh^t(y))(\beta y+h(y))^{}}{|\beta y+h(y)|^2}}\right|𝑑y`$
$`+C\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}\left|\beta 𝐈\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\beta y+h(y))^{}}{|\beta y+h(y)|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta y^{}}{|\beta y|^2}}\right)\right|𝑑y`$
$`C\epsilon {\displaystyle _{|T(y)|2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^3}}𝑑y+C\epsilon {\displaystyle _{\{|y|R/\epsilon \}\{|T(y)|2\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|h(y)|}{|y||\beta y+h(y)|}}𝑑y,`$
using (2.6) in the second integral,
$`C(\epsilon +\epsilon \mathrm{log}(R/\epsilon )),`$
which vanishes as $`\epsilon 0`$, as we wished. ∎

### 4.3. Temporal estimates

The standard way to derive temporal estimates from spatial regularity is to use the PDE directly. In our problem this is easy to do for vorticity, i.e., system $`(E_\epsilon )`$ and Theorem 4.1 imply that, for any $`T>0`$, $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];W_{\text{loc}}^{1,1}(^2))`$. Indeed,

$$\omega _t^\epsilon =\text{ div }((v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon )\omega ^\epsilon ),$$

with $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ and $`v^\epsilon `$ bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`H^\epsilon `$ bounded in $`L_{\text{loc}}^1`$, see (3.7). However, we require temporal information on velocity, which is more difficult to obtain, because of the presence of the pressure in the velocity equation. Obtaining such estimates is precisely the subject of the article . The specific case of the exterior domain was not discussed in that paper, so we will adapt the technique used there to the present situation.

Recall the definition of the stream function (3.2) and introduce the analogous family of stream functions given by $`\psi ^\epsilon G^\epsilon [\omega ^\epsilon ].`$

###### Proposition 4.1.

For each $`R,T>0`$ there exists a constant $`C=C(R,T)>0`$ such that

$$\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\phi (x)\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)𝑑x\right|C\phi _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\phi _{L^1}^{1/2},$$

for every $`\phi `$ in $`C_0(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon )`$ with support contained in $`B(0;R)`$ and all $`0tT`$.

###### Proof.

First we observe that there exists $`R>0`$ such that $`\omega ^\epsilon (,t)`$ has support contained in the ball $`B(0;R)`$ for all $`0tT`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. To see this, first let $`R_0`$ be such that $`B(0;R_0)`$ contains the support of $`\omega _0`$ and note that equation $`(E_\epsilon )`$ means that $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ is transported by the velocity field $`u^\epsilon =v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon `$, with $`v^\epsilon `$ uniformly bounded by a constant $`C`$ independent of $`\epsilon `$ and $`t`$ and $`H^\epsilon `$ is bounded by another constant $`C`$, also independent of $`\epsilon `$, outside of $`B(0;R_0)`$. Hence the support of $`\omega ^\epsilon (,t)`$ is contained in $`B(0,R_0+2Ct)`$, and taking $`R=R_0+2CT`$ will work. Additionally, $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ is also compactly supported in the same ball. We differentiate the definition of the stream function and write:

$$\psi _t^\epsilon =G^\epsilon [\omega _t^\epsilon ].$$

This means that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _t^\epsilon =\omega _t^\epsilon \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon ,\text{ and }\psi _t^\epsilon =0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon .$$

We require information on the behavior of $`\psi _t^\epsilon `$ near infinity, which can be readily obtained from the compactness of the support of $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ and the explicit expression for $`G^\epsilon `$, given by (2.4), substituting $`T`$ by $`T^\epsilon `$. We obtain that, for each fixed $`\epsilon `$,

(4.10)
$$\left|\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)L[\omega _t^\epsilon (,t)](x)\right|=𝒪(1/|x|),\text{ when }|x|\mathrm{},$$

with, the functional $`L`$ defined by

$$\zeta L[\zeta ]\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (y)|\zeta (y)𝑑y,$$

for any test function $`\zeta `$.

Additionally, by (2.8), we have that

(4.11)
$$|\psi _t^\epsilon |=𝒪(1/|x|^2),\text{ when }|x|\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`\phi `$ be a fixed test function in $`C_0(\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon )`$ with support contained in $`B(0;R)`$. Let $`M=_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\phi (x)𝑑x`$. Define

$$\eta G^\epsilon [\phi ]+\frac{M}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon |.$$

Then $`\eta `$ satisfies the following properties:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\phi \text{ in }\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon \text{}\eta =0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon ,$$

(4.12)
$$\eta (x)=\frac{M}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (x)|+L[\phi ]+𝒪(1/|x|),\text{ when }|x|\mathrm{},$$

and

(4.13)
$$|\eta |=\frac{M}{2\pi }(\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon |)+𝒪(1/|x|^2),\text{ when }|x|\mathrm{}.$$

Then we have:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\phi (x)\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)𝑑x\right|=\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (x)\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)𝑑x\right|=\hfill \\ \hfill =\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\eta (x)\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)𝑑x+_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }(\psi _t^\epsilon \eta \eta \psi _t^\epsilon )\widehat{n}𝑑s\right||+𝒥|,\end{array}$$

where the boundary terms include the terms at infinity. Looking at the boundary terms expressed in $`𝒥`$, we see that the terms integrated on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ vanish, whereas from the asymptotic formulas (4.10 \- 4.13) the terms at infinity are bounded, in such a way that we arrive at:

(4.14)
$$|𝒥|CML[\omega _t^\epsilon ]C\phi _{L^1}|L[\omega _t^\epsilon ]|.$$

We claim that $`|L[\omega _t^\epsilon ]|`$ is bounded, uniformly in $`0tT`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. To see that we use $`(E_\epsilon )`$ in the following way

$`|L[\omega _t^\epsilon ]|`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }}(\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (y)|)u^\epsilon (y,t)\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y\right|`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }}(\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (y)|)u^\epsilon (y,t)\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y\right|`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }}(\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon (y)|)(v^\epsilon (y,t)+(\alpha m)H^\epsilon (y))\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y\right|.`$
By (2.11) and (3.6), one way of expressing the harmonic vector field $`H^\epsilon `$ is as

$$H^\epsilon =\frac{1}{2\pi }^{}\mathrm{log}|T^\epsilon |,$$

so that the dangerous term in the integral above disappears, leaving:

$$\begin{array}{c}|L[\omega _t^\epsilon ]|=\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }(H^\epsilon (y))^{}v^\epsilon (y,t)\omega ^\epsilon (y,t)𝑑y\right|H^\epsilon _{L^1(B(0;R))}v^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \\ \hfill CH^\epsilon _{L^1(B(0;R))}\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}C,\end{array}$$

by Theorem 4.1, (3.7) and (4.1). Together with (4.14), this means that

$$|𝒥|C\phi _{L^1}C\phi _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\phi _{L^1}^{1/2},$$

since the support of $`\phi `$ is contained in $`B(0;R)`$. We are left with estimating $`||`$.

We have:

$$\begin{array}{c}||=\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\eta (x)\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _t^\epsilon (x,t)𝑑x\right|=\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\eta (x)u^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon dx\right|\hfill \\ \hfill =\left|_{\mathrm{\Pi }_\epsilon }\eta (x)(v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon )\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x\right|,\end{array}$$

with no boundary terms because $`u^\epsilon `$ is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ and $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ has compact support. Thus,

$$||\eta _L^{\mathrm{}}(v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon )\omega ^\epsilon _{L^1(B(0;R))}C\eta _L^{\mathrm{}},$$

again using Theorem 4.1, (3.7) and (4.1).

Finally, note that, by the definition of $`\eta `$, we find that

$$^{}\eta =K^\epsilon [\phi ]+MH^\epsilon ,$$

with $`M=\phi `$. Thus, we use Theorem 4.1, with $`\phi `$ in place of $`\omega ^\epsilon `$, to conclude that:

$$\eta _L^{\mathrm{}}C\phi _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\phi _{L^1}^{1/2}.$$

Putting together the estimates for $`||`$ and $`|𝒥|`$ concludes the proof. ∎

We write the conclusion of this Proposition more explicitly in terms of temporal estimates for the quantities of interest in the Corollary below. Recall $`\varphi ^\epsilon `$ the cutoff function from the previous section and consider $`\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon `$, $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon `$ and $`\varphi ^\epsilon \psi ^\epsilon `$ as functions (or vector fields) defined in the full plane.

###### Corollary 4.1.

Let $`R,T>0`$. Then there exists a constant $`C=C(R,T)>0`$ such that

(4.15)
$$(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )_t(,t)_{H^3(B(0;R))}C,$$

for all $`\epsilon `$ and $`0tT`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\zeta H_0^3(B(0;R))\times H_0^3(B(0;R))`$. Then, as $`v_t^\epsilon =^{}\psi _t^\epsilon `$,

$`|\zeta ,(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )_t(,t)|`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \zeta \varphi ^\epsilon v_t^\epsilon (,t)}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \text{ curl }(\zeta \varphi ^\epsilon )\psi _t^\epsilon (,t)}\right|`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle \text{ curl }(\zeta )\varphi ^\epsilon \psi _t^\epsilon (,t)}+{\displaystyle \zeta ^{}\varphi ^\epsilon \psi _t^\epsilon (,t)}\right|`$
$`C\varphi ^\epsilon \text{ curl }\zeta _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\varphi ^\epsilon \text{ curl }\zeta _{L^1}^{1/2}+C\zeta \varphi ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}\zeta \varphi ^\epsilon _{L^1}^{1/2},`$
by Proposition 4.1 used first with $`\phi =\varphi ^\epsilon \text{ curl }\zeta `$ and then with $`\phi =\zeta ^{}\varphi ^\epsilon `$,
$`C(\text{ curl }\zeta _L^{\mathrm{}}+\zeta _L^{\mathrm{}}),`$
since $`\varphi ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}C/\epsilon `$ and $`\varphi ^\epsilon _{L^1}C\epsilon `$, as proved in Lemma 4.1, items 2 and 3,
$`C\zeta _{H^3(B(0;R))},`$
again by the Sobolev embedding theorem. This gives (4.15). ∎

## 5. Passing to the limit

In this section we will use the estimates developed in the previous section to obtain limit equations describing the behavior of the flow obtained in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$.

### 5.1. Strong compactness in velocity

We will use a parametrized version of Tartar and Murat’s Div-Curl Lemma to derive strong compactness in $`L^2`$ for the sequence of velocities $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon `$. We will include here the precise statement of this version of the Div-Curl Lemma, whose proof can be found in .

###### Lemma 5.1.

Fix $`T>0`$ and let $`\{F^\epsilon (,t)\}`$ and $`\{G^\epsilon (,t)\}`$ be vector fields on $`^n`$ for $`0tT`$. Suppose that:

1. both $`F^\epsilon F`$ and $`G^\epsilon G`$ weak-$``$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];L_{\text{loc}}^2(^n;^n))`$ and also strongly in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1(^n;^n))`$;
2. $`\{\text{div }F^\epsilon \}`$ is precompact in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1(^n))`$;
3. $`\{\text{curl }G^\epsilon \}`$ is precompact in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1(^n;𝔸^n))`$.

Then $`F^\epsilon G^\epsilon FG`$ in $`𝒟^{}([0,T]\times ^n)`$.

We will use the Div-Curl Lemma with $`F^\epsilon =G^\epsilon =\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon `$. We begin by observing that by Theorem 4.1 we know that $`\{\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon \}`$ is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times ^2)`$, which is contained in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];L_{\text{loc}}^2(^2))`$. By Corollary 4.1, $`\{(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )_t\}`$ is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^3)`$, so that the sequence $`\{\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon \}`$ is equicontinuous from $`[0,T]`$ to $`H_{\text{loc}}^3`$. Recall that $`L_{\text{loc}}^2`$ is compactly embedded into $`H_{\text{loc}}^3`$, so that we can use the Aubin-Lions Lemma (see ) to conclude that $`\{\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon \}`$ is precompact in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1)`$. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we conclude that there exists $`vC([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1)L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times ^2)`$ such that

(5.1)
$$\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon v$$

strongly in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1)`$ and weak-$``$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];L_{\text{loc}}^2)`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

We have that $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon v`$ strongly in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2([0,T]\times ^2)`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to verify the remaining hypothesis of the Div-Curl Lemma, i.e. that $`\text{div }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )`$ and $`\text{curl }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )`$ are precompact in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1)`$. First note that, by Corollary 4.1, both $`(\text{div }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon ))_t=\text{div }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )_t`$ and $`(\text{curl }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon ))_t=\text{curl }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )_t`$ are bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^4)`$. Also, we have that

$$\text{div }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )=v^\epsilon \varphi ^\epsilon ,$$

which, by Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.1 is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];L^2)`$, and

$$\text{curl }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )=v^\epsilon ^{}\varphi ^\epsilon +\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon ,$$

which, by Lemma 4.1, Theorem 4.1 and (4.1) is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];L^2)`$. Since $`L^2`$ is compactly embedded in $`H_{\text{loc}}^1`$, once again using the Aubin-Lions Lemma, we conclude that both the divergence and the curl are precompact in $`C([0,T];H_{\text{loc}}^1)`$. By Lemma 5.1, we infer that

$$|\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon |^2|v|^2\text{ in }𝒟^{},$$

which in turn implies that $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon `$ converges strongly to $`v`$ in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2`$, as we wished. ∎

### 5.2. The asymptotic vorticity equation

We begin by observing that the sequence $`\{\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon \}`$ is bounded in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times ^2)`$, so that, passing to a subsequence if necessary, we have that

(5.2)
$$\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon \omega ,\text{ weak}L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T]\times ^2).$$

We are already in possession of a limit velocity

(5.3)
$$u=v+(\alpha m)H,$$

where $`v`$ is the strong limit of $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon `$ from the previous subsection and $`H`$ is the strong limit of $`\varphi ^\epsilon H^\epsilon `$, introduced in Lemma 4.2. The purpose of this section is to prove that $`\omega `$ and $`u`$ satisfy, in an appropriate weak sense, the system:

(5.4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _t+u\omega =0,\hfill & \text{ in }^2\times (0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \text{div }u=0\text{ and }\text{ curl }u=\omega +(\alpha m)\delta ,\hfill & \text{ in }^2\times [0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ |u|0,\hfill & \text{ as }|x|\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \omega (x,0)=\omega _0(x),\hfill & \text{ in }^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Above, $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta centered at the origin.

###### Definition 5.1.

The pair $`(u,\omega )`$, with $`u`$ a vector field in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{});L_{\text{loc}}^1(^2))`$ and $`\omega L^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{});L^{\mathrm{}}(^2))`$ is a weak solution of system (5.4) if

1. For any test function $`\phi C_c^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{})\times ^2)`$ we have:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi _t\omega 𝑑x𝑑t+_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi u\omega dxdt+_^2\phi (x,0)\omega _0(x)𝑑x=0,$$
2. we have $`\text{ div }u=0`$ and $`\text{ curl }u=\omega +(\alpha m)\delta `$ in the sense of distributions, with $`|u|0`$ at infinity.

When $`\alpha =m`$ the definition above reduces to the standard definition of weak solution for the vorticity formulation of the incompressible 2D Euler equations. We now state and prove the main result in this article.

###### Theorem 5.2.

The pair $`(u,\omega )`$ given by (5.3) and (5.2) is a weak solution of the system (5.4).

###### Proof.

We will begin by verifying that $`(u,\omega )`$ satisfy the linear elliptic system corresponding to the second condition in Definition 5.1. Recall that $`u^\epsilon =v^\epsilon +(\alpha m)H^\epsilon `$. First observe that $`\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon u`$ strongly in $`L_{\text{loc}}^1`$, by Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 5.1. Hence, by Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.1,

$$\text{div }u=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{ div }(\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon )=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}v^\epsilon \varphi ^\epsilon =0,$$

where the limits were taken in the sense of distributions. Similarly, we use that $`\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon v`$ strongly in $`L_{\text{loc}}^2`$, so that

$$\text{curl }v=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\text{ curl }(\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon +v^\epsilon ^{}\varphi ^\epsilon =\omega ,$$

in the sense of distributions. Hence,

$$\text{curl }u=\text{curl }v+(\alpha m)\text{curl }H=\omega +(\alpha m)\delta .$$

The velocity $`u`$ satisfies the condition $`|u|0`$ at infinity because the convergence of $`\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon `$ to $`u`$ is uniform outside a ball containing the origin, as can be checked directly by the explicit expressions for $`K^\epsilon [\omega ^\epsilon ]`$ and $`H^\epsilon `$, using the uniform compact support of $`\omega ^\epsilon `$.

Next, we introduce an auxiliary nonlinear functional $`I_\epsilon `$. Given any test function $`\phi C_c^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{})\times ^2)`$ let:

$$I_\epsilon [\phi ]_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi _t(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x𝑑t+_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi (\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon )(\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon )𝑑x𝑑t.$$

Fix $`\phi C_c^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{})\times ^2)`$. The proof that $`(u,\omega )`$ is a weak solution proceeds in two steps. First we will show that

$$I_\epsilon [\phi ]+_^2\phi (x,0)\omega _0(x)𝑑x0,$$

when $`\epsilon 0`$. The second step consists of showing that

$$I_\epsilon [\phi ]_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi _t\omega 𝑑x𝑑t+_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi u\omega dxdt,$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$. Clearly these two steps complete the proof.

We address the first step. As $`u^\epsilon `$ and $`\omega ^\epsilon `$ satisfy $`(E_\epsilon )`$, it can be easily seen that

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2\phi _t(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x𝑑t\hfill \\ \hfill =_0^{\mathrm{}}_^2(\phi (\varphi ^\epsilon )^2)u^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x𝑑t_^2\phi (x,0)(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2(x)\omega _0(x)𝑑x.\end{array}$$

Thus we compute:

$`I_\epsilon [\phi ]`$ $`=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _^2}\phi \varphi ^\epsilon (\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon )\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x𝑑t{\displaystyle _^2}\phi (x,0)(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2(x)\omega _0(x)𝑑x`$
$`=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _^2}\phi \varphi ^\epsilon (\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon )\omega ^\epsilon 𝑑x𝑑t{\displaystyle _^2}\phi (x,0)(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2(x)\omega _0(x)𝑑x,`$
since $`H^\epsilon \varphi ^\epsilon =0`$, by Lemma 4.1. It is easily seen that

$$\left|I_\epsilon [\phi ]+_^2\phi (x,0)(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2(x)\omega _0(x)𝑑x\right|\omega ^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}\varphi ^\epsilon v^\epsilon _L^{\mathrm{}}\phi \varphi ^\epsilon _{L^1}0,$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$, by (4.1), Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 4.1. On the other hand, since the support of $`\omega _0`$ does not contain the origin, it follows that for all $`\epsilon `$ sufficiently small, $`(\varphi ^\epsilon )^2\omega _0=\omega _0`$. This concludes the first step.

For the second step we begin by noting that the linear term offers no difficulty. The nonlinear term consists of the weak-strong pair vorticity-velocity, with the vorticity $`\varphi ^\epsilon \omega ^\epsilon `$ converging in the weak-$``$ topology of $`L^{\mathrm{}}((0,\mathrm{})\times ^2)`$ to $`\omega `$ and the localized velocity $`\phi (\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon )`$ converging in the strong topology of $`L^1((0,\mathrm{})\times ^2)`$ to $`u`$. This concludes the second step. ∎

If $`\alpha =m`$ the whole sequence $`\varphi ^\epsilon u^\epsilon `$ converges to $`u`$, without needing to pass to a subsequence, due to the uniqueness portion of Yudovich’s Theorem, see . Indeed, our argument shows that for any sequence $`\omega _k0`$, there exists a subsequence $`\omega _{k_j}`$ such that $`\omega ^{\epsilon _{k_j}}\omega `$ and that $`\omega `$ is a weak solution of 2D Euler in the full plane with $`\omega _0`$ as initial data. By Yudovich’s Theorem, $`\omega `$ is uniquely determined, so that any accumulation point of the precompact sequence $`\omega ^{\epsilon _k}`$ is precisely equal to $`\omega `$. This implies that the whole sequence $`\omega ^{\epsilon _k}`$ converges to $`\omega `$, and, as this subsequence was arbitrary, our contention follows.

If $`\alpha m`$, Theorem 5.2 implies existence of a weak solution for the limit equation (5.4), which is, roughly speaking, the usual Euler equation with an embedded point vortex background. Also, its restriction to $`^2\{0\}`$ is the standard Euler equation (see relation (5.8)). The more physically meaningful presentation of the incompressible 2D Euler equations is the velocity form. Clearly, if $`\alpha =m`$, the limit flow satisfies the usual velocity form of the incompressible Euler equations, but if $`\alpha m`$ it is not entirely clear what form the asymptotic balance of momentum equations should take. We clarify this issue in the next subsection.

### 5.3. The asymptotic velocity equation

We have obtained a satisfactory description of the small obstacle limit expressed in terms of vortex dynamics. The purpose of this last subsection is to obtain a description of the limit behavior expressed in terms of flow velocity. We will avoid introducing explicitly the weak forms of the velocity equation, keeping the discussion less technical than before. More specifically, our purpose is to determine the specific form of the momentum equations in the small obstacle asymptotics, in the case $`\alpha m`$. The main difficulty is making sense of the term $`HH`$. We will present several equivalent forms for the limit equation (5.4). Recall that

$$H=\frac{x^{}}{2\pi |x|^2}.$$

First we note that (5.4) can be re-written as:

(5.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \omega _t+\mathrm{div}(v\omega )+(\alpha m)\mathrm{div}(H\omega )& =0\hfill \\ \hfill v& =K[\omega ]\hfill \\ \hfill \omega (x,0)& =\omega _0(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

which is clearly well defined in the sense of distributions. This can be easily seen to be equivalent to (5.4) since one has that $`\mathrm{div}H=0`$ and $`\mathrm{curl}H=\delta `$ in the sense of $`𝒟^{}(^2)`$. Writing (5.4) in this way will lead to a weak formulation for the velocity equation. More precisely, we next show that if (5.5) holds, then we have the following equation for $`v`$

(5.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_t+vv+(\alpha m)\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)(\alpha m)v(0)^{}\delta & =p\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{div}v& =0\hfill \\ \hfill v(x,0)& =K[\omega _0].\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to prove the equivalence of (5.5) and (5.6) it is sufficient to show that

(5.7)
$$\mathrm{curl}\left[\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)v(0)^{}\delta \right]=\mathrm{div}(H\mathrm{curl}v)$$

for all divergence free vector fields $`v`$ belonging to the space $`W_{\text{loc}}^{1,p}`$ for some $`p>2`$. Indeed, if (5.7) holds then we get for $`\omega =\mathrm{curl}v`$

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{curl}p=\mathrm{curl}\left[v_t+vv+(\alpha m)\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)(\alpha m)v(0)^{}\delta \right]`$
$`=\mathrm{curl}(v_t+vv)+(\alpha m)\mathrm{curl}\left[\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)v(0)^{}\delta \right]`$
$`=\omega _t+v\omega +(\alpha m)\mathrm{div}(H\omega )`$
so relation (5.5) holds true. And vice versa, if (5.5) holds then we deduce that the left hand side of (5.6) has zero curl so it must be a gradient.

We now prove (5.7) under the hypothesis that $`\mathrm{div}v=0`$ and $`vW_{\text{loc}}^{1,p}`$, $`p>2`$. First note that $`H\mathrm{curl}v`$ is well defined since $`\mathrm{curl}vL_{\text{loc}}^p`$ and $`HL_{\text{loc}}^q`$ for all $`q<2`$. Moreover, since $`W_{\text{loc}}^{1,p}𝒞^0`$, $`v(0)`$ is well defined, too. Next, it suffices to prove (5.7) for smooth $`v`$ since we can pass to the limit on a sequence of smooth approximations of $`v`$ that converge strongly in $`W_{\text{loc}}^{1,p}`$ and $`𝒞^0`$. Now, it is trivial to check that, for a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`A`$ with coefficients distributions, the following identity holds

$$\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}A=\mathrm{div}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{curl}C_1\\ \mathrm{curl}C_2\end{array}\right)$$

where $`C_i`$ denotes the $`i`$-th column of $`A`$. For smooth $`v`$, we now deduce that

$`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)`$ $`=\mathrm{div}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{curl}(vH_1)+\mathrm{curl}(Hv_1)\\ \mathrm{curl}(vH_2)+\mathrm{curl}(Hv_2)\end{array}\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{div}\left(H\mathrm{curl}v+v^{}H+v\mathrm{curl}H+H^{}v\right).`$
It is a simple computation to check that

$$\mathrm{div}(v^{}H+H^{}v)=v^{}\mathrm{div}H+H^{}\mathrm{div}v+\mathrm{curl}v\mathrm{div}H+\mathrm{curl}H\mathrm{div}v.$$

We therefore get the following general formula

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)=\mathrm{div}(H\mathrm{curl}v+v\mathrm{curl}H)+v^{}\mathrm{div}H\hfill \\ \hfill +H^{}\mathrm{div}v+\mathrm{curl}v\mathrm{div}H+\mathrm{curl}H\mathrm{div}v.\end{array}$$

Taking into account that $`\mathrm{div}v=\mathrm{div}H=0`$ and $`\mathrm{curl}H=\delta `$ we infer that

$`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}(vH+Hv)`$ $`=\mathrm{div}(H\mathrm{curl}v+v\delta )`$
$`=\mathrm{div}(H\mathrm{curl}v)+\mathrm{div}\left[v(0)\delta \right]`$
$`=\mathrm{div}(H\mathrm{curl}v)+\mathrm{curl}\left[v(0)^{}\delta \right].`$
Relation (5.7) now follows and so does the formulation (5.6).

We would now like to give a formulation in terms of $`u`$ only. Simply replacing $`v`$ by $`u(\alpha m)H`$ in (5.6) is not very enlightening. On the other hand, $`u`$ is not $`L_{\text{loc}}^2`$ since $`HL_{\text{loc}}^2`$. Therefore, a formulation which makes use of $`uu`$ cannot be made rigorous. Nevertheless, it is still desirable to obtain such a formulation in order to clarify which form the limit equation for the velocity takes.

We will proceed as follows. First note that

$$uu=vv+(\alpha m)(vH+Hv)+(\alpha m)^2HH.$$

All these terms except $`HH`$ are well defined. In order to give a sense to $`uu`$ up to 0 we will simply extend $`HH`$ up to 0 by its finite part $`\mathrm{Pf}(HH)`$ that we define as follows.

###### Definition 5.2.

Let $`g`$ be a function which is homogeneous of degree $`2`$ and of class $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`^2\{0\}`$. The finite part of $`g`$ is the following distribution on $`^2`$:

$$𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(^2)\phi \mathrm{Pf}g,\phi =\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}(\underset{|x|>\epsilon }{}g\phi \phi (0)\underset{\epsilon <|x|<\lambda }{}g).$$

###### Remark 5.1.

This definition depends on the choice of the positive parameter $`\lambda `$ that we fix once and for all.

We claim that if we extend $`uu`$ to a distribution of $`𝒟^{}(^2)`$ by

$$uu=vv+(\alpha m)(vH+Hv)+(\alpha m)^2\mathrm{Pf}(HH)$$

then the limit velocity $`u`$ verifies the following PDE

(5.8)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u_t+\mathrm{div}(uu)& =p+(\alpha m)v(0)^{}\delta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{div}u& =0\hfill \\ \hfill u(x,0)& =K[\omega _0]+(\alpha m)H.\hfill \end{array}$$

This clearly follows from (5.6) if we are able to prove that $`\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH)`$ is a gradient. We now show that $`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH)=0`$ in $`𝒟^{}(^2)`$; this clearly implies that $`\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH)`$ is a gradient. Let $`\phi 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$ be a test function. By definition

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH),\phi =\mathrm{Pf}(HH),^{}\phi \hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left(\underset{|x|>\epsilon }{}(HH)(^{}\phi )^{}\phi (0)\underset{\epsilon <|x|<\lambda }{}HH\right).\end{array}$$

A simple calculation shows that $`\underset{\epsilon <|x|<\lambda }{}HH`$ is a matrix proportional to the identity while $`^{}\phi (0)`$ is a trace free matrix. Therefore

$$^{}\phi (0)\underset{\epsilon <|x|<\lambda }{}HH=0.$$

It is easy to check that, for $`x0`$,

$$\mathrm{div}(HH)=\frac{x}{4\pi ^2|x|^4}=\left(\frac{1}{8\pi ^2|x|^2}\right).$$

Next, we integrate by parts and use Stokes formula to deduce that

$`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH),\phi `$ $`=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \underset{|x|>\epsilon }{}}\mathrm{div}(HH)^{}\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \underset{|x|=\epsilon }{}}(HH)(x^{}\phi )\right)`$
$`=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \underset{|x|=\epsilon }{}}\mathrm{div}(HH)x^{}\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \underset{|x|=\epsilon }{}}(HH)(x^{}\phi )\right),`$
where we have used that, for $`x0`$, $`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}(HH)=0`$. On the right-hand side, the first term vanishes since $`\mathrm{div}(HH)`$ is proportional to $`x`$, that is orthogonal to $`x^{}`$. The second term also vanishes since

$$(HH)(x^{}\phi )=(Hx)(H^{}\phi )=\frac{1}{2\pi |x|^2}(x^{}x)(H^{}\phi )=0.$$

This concludes the proof of the relation $`\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH)=0`$. Finally, we observe in passing that

$$\mathrm{div}\mathrm{Pf}(HH)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{Pf}\frac{1}{|x|^2}+\pi \delta \right).$$

## 6. Final remarks and conclusion

The results we have proved here are not very surprising after the nature of the harmonic part of the flow has been clarified. In fact, a good illustration of the results obtained can be explicitly computed if one considers the limit flow associated to the motion of a single point vortex in the exterior of a disk of vanishing radius. To be precise, consider the motion of a single point vortex of strength $`m>0`$ in the exterior of the disk $`B(0;r)`$, $`r<1`$, initially located at $`(1,0)`$. Let $`P_r=P_r(t)`$ denote the trajectory of this point vortex, which will remain on the circle of radius $`1`$ around the origin, moving with constant angular velocity. At each fixed time the velocity field can be computed using the method of images as:

$$u_r(x,t)=\frac{m}{2\pi }\frac{(xP_r(t))^{}}{|xP_r(t)|^2}\frac{m}{2\pi }\frac{(xr^2P_r(t))^{}}{|xr^2P_r(t)|^2}+\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{x^{}}{|x|^2}.$$

This flow is equivalent to flow in the full plane associated with three point vortices: the original one at $`P_r(t)`$, the image point vortex at $`r^2P_r(t)`$, with strength $`m`$ and a point vortex of arbitrary strength $`\alpha `$ at the center of disk. The location of the image vortex is the inversion, with respect to the disk of radius $`r`$, of the location of the original vortex. The point vortex of arbitrary strength at the center is associated with the choice of the harmonic part of the flow. Curiously, when the method of images for flow in the exterior of a disk was discussed in , Saffman simply assumed that $`\alpha =m`$ was the correct choice of harmonic part. In the case $`\alpha =m`$, we have that

$$P_r(t)=(\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{mr^2t}{2\pi (1r^2)}\right),\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{mr^2t}{2\pi (1r^2)}\right)),$$

so it is easy to verify that the angular velocity of $`P_r(t)`$ vanishes as the radius of the disk vanishes, so that $`P_r(t)`$ converges pointwise in time to $`P_r(0)=(1,0)`$. Furthermore it can be readily checked that the velocity fields $`u_r`$ converge to the velocity field due to a single point vortex in full plane flow as $`r0`$ if and only if $`\alpha =m`$. In short, what we accomplished in this paper is to verify that the evanescent obstacle exterior flow, for a general domain geometry and general vorticity, behaves exactly like the corresponding limit of point vortex flow in the exterior of a vanishing disk.

Fig. 1 Curves $`X_r(\mathrm{\Sigma },T)`$ for $`T=2`$ and $`r=0`$; $`0.025`$; $`0.05`$; $`0.1`$.

One interesting feature of the limit process in the case $`\alpha =m`$ is that, although both the approximating and the limit flows are smooth, the particle trajectories do not converge uniformly. To see that, we use the illustration described above. Set $`m=1=\alpha `$ and let $`X_r=X_r(Q,t)`$ denote the particle trajectory under the flow $`u_r`$, starting at the Lagrangian marker $`Q`$, and let $`X_0=X_0(Q,t)`$ denote the particle trajectory under the limit flow. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{|x|=1/4\}`$ and assume $`r<1/4`$. Clearly, for any $`t>0`$, $`X_r(\mathrm{\Sigma },t)`$ and $`X_0(\mathrm{\Sigma },t)`$ are smooth Jordan curves in the plane. It can be checked that there exists $`T>0`$ such that the origin lies outside $`X_0(\mathrm{\Sigma },T)`$. Fix such a time $`T>0`$. On one hand one expects to have $`X_r(\mathrm{\Sigma },T)`$ converging to $`X_0(\mathrm{\Sigma },T)`$ as $`r0`$. On the other hand, the origin lies in the interior of $`X_r(\mathrm{\Sigma },T)`$ for all $`r>0`$, as the flow has to remain in the exterior of $`B(0;r)`$, see Figure 1. This means that the convergence as $`r0`$ of the maps $`QX_r(Q,T)`$ to the limit map $`X_0(Q,T)`$ cannot be uniform, even in the compact parts of their common domain.

Below we add two additional remarks concerning the results we have obtained.

1. In the case $`\gamma =\alpha m0`$, one may ask why fix the circulation $`\gamma `$ around the small obstacle, since this implies very large, maybe unphysical velocities at the boundary of the obstacle, and not consider it some appropriate function of $`\epsilon `$, perhaps vanishing when $`\epsilon 0`$. In fact, $`\gamma `$ plays the role of a passive parameter in the argument we have presented, so there would be no change in the argument if we consider $`\gamma `$ to be a function of $`\epsilon `$. The limit flow would depend on $`\gamma (\epsilon )`$ only through its limit when $`\epsilon 0`$ in precisely the same manner as presented.
2. For the sake of simplicity, we have presented our argument for smooth, compactly supported initial vorticities, but the argument can be easily performed for compactly supported vorticities in $`L^p`$, $`p>2`$. The argument does not work for $`p2`$ because there are serious difficulties in making sense of the term $`H\omega `$ in that case, and the value $`v(0)`$, which appears in the limit velocity (5.8), also becomes ambiguous. The case $`p2`$ is thus an interesting open problem.

Let us point out some of the natural questions raised by the research presented here. First, an analogous question can be asked with regard to the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, and this is the subject of current investigation by the authors. For incompressible 3D Euler, the problem initially becomes proving that a smooth solution exists for a time that is independent of the size of the domain, something we did not investigate, but that appears to be difficult. Of course, the most interesting situation is the same limit for 3D Navier-Stokes, but it makes sense to work out the 2D equations first. Once the viscous problem has been understood, one may ask about the interaction of the small obstacle and small viscosity limits, which in two dimensions is a simplification of the classical open problem of convergence of Navier-Stokes solutions to Euler solutions in the presence of boundaries, see  for an account of the state-of-the-art of this problem. Another natural question is to understand the same limit with more than one obstacle, with perhaps only some of the obstacles vanishing. Finally, it would be interesting to obtain a description of the leading order correction associated to the evanescent obstacle, in the case $`\alpha =m`$, with respect to the unperturbed full plane problem.

Acknowledgment: This research has been supported in part by the UNICAMP Differential Equations PRONEX, FAPESP grant # 00/02097-1 and FAEP grant # 0285/01. The authors would like to thank Prof. Paulo Cordaro, for calling our attention to the reference . We would also like to thank the generous hospitality of the Univ. de Rennes I and of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Dragoş Iftimie
IRMAR, Université de Rennes I,
Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes, France
E-mail address: iftimie@maths.univ-rennes1.fr

Milton C. Lopes Filho
Departamento de Matematica, IMECC-UNICAMP.
Caixa Postal 6065, Campinas, SP 13083-970, Brasil
E-mail address: mlopes@ime.unicamp.br

Helena J. Nussenzveig Lopes
Departamento de Matematica, IMECC-UNICAMP.
Caixa Postal 6065, Campinas, SP 13083-970, Brasil
E-mail address: hlopes@ime.unicamp.br