text:
# Generalised Israel Junction Conditions for a Gauss-Bonnet Brane World

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jihad Mourad and Christos Charmousis for useful and interesting discussions. This work was supported by EC network HPRN–CT–2000–00152.

## Appendix

To prove equation (10), we first use the Gauss-Codazzi equations

$$R_{pqrs}h^p{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{q}{}_{b}{}^{}h_{}^{r}{}_{c}{}^{}h_{}^{s}{}_{d}{}^{}=\widehat{R}_{abcd}+K_{bc}K_{ad}K_{ac}K_{bd}$$
(24)
$$n^aR_{aqrs}h^q{}_{b}{}^{}h_{}^{r}{}_{c}{}^{}h_{}^{s}{}_{d}{}^{}=D_dK_{bc}D_cK_{bd}$$
(25)
$$\widehat{R}_{bd}=R^a{}_{qcp}{}^{}h_{}^{c}{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{q}{}_{b}{}^{}h_{}^{p}{}_{d}{}^{}+KK_{bd}K_{bc}K^c_d$$
(26)
and contractions of them to expand $`n^aP_{abcd}`$ in terms of $`K_{ab}`$, $`n^a`$ and quantities associated with the induced metric:

$`n^aP_{abcd}=2D_{[d}K_{c]b}+2D_eK^e{}_{[d}{}^{}h_{c]b}^{}+2h_{b[d}D_{c]}K`$
$`+2\widehat{G}_{b[c}n_{d]}+2(K_b{}_{}{}^{e}Kh_b{}_{}{}^{e})K_{e[c}n_{d]}`$
$`+(K^2K_{ae}K^{ae})h_{b[c}n_{d]}.`$ (27)
The covariant derivative $`D`$ is defined by $`D_aX_{bc\mathrm{}}=h^m{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{p}{}_{b}{}^{}h_{}^{q}{}_{c}{}^{}\mathrm{}_mX_{pq\mathrm{}}`$.

To find the variation of $`S_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (6) with respect to $`g_{ab}`$, we first note that the normalisation of $`n_a`$ implies $`\delta n_a=\frac{1}{2}n_an^cn^d\delta g_{cd}`$. Thus, after a little algebra, and using the definitions of $`K_{ab}`$ and $`D_a`$, we obtain

$`h^c{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{d}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta K_{cd}=n^e_{[e}\delta g_{p]q}h^p{}_{(a}{}^{}h_{}^{q}{}_{b)}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta g^{cd}K_{c(a}h_{b)d}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{(a}\left(h^c{}_{b)}{}^{}\delta g_{ce}n^e\right)`$ (28)
and, from (26),

$`h^c{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{d}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta \widehat{R}_{cd}=D_{(a}D^e(h^c{}_{b)}{}^{}h_{}^{d}{}_{e}{}^{}\delta g_{cd})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D^eD_e(h^c{}_{a}{}^{}h_{}^{d}{}_{b}{}^{}\delta g_{cd}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_aD_b(h^{cd}\delta g_{cd}).`$ (29)
Now, with the aid of integration by parts and the relation

$`Y^{abe}_e\delta g_{ab}=D_e(Y^{abe}\delta g_{ab})+2n^c\delta g_{cd}Y^{(dp)e}K_{pe}`$
$`+\delta g^{ab}D^eY_{abe},`$ (30)
which holds for any tensor $`Y^{abe}`$ which is orthogonal to the normal $`n^c`$, the variation of the total action $`S`$ can be reduced to eq. (10). The more general case (21) can be dealt with in the same way.

The energy conservation equation (11) can be proved by using $`D^a\widehat{P}_{acdb}=0`$ and the Gauss-Codazzi equations (2426) to express the divergence of (10) in terms of bulk tensors.


format: text

text:
# Enhancement of nuclear Schiff moments and time reversal violation in atoms due to soft nuclear octupole vibrations

## I Introduction

A discovery of the static electric dipole moment (EDM) of an elementary particle, atom or atomic nucleus would reveal  the simultaneous violation of the invariance with respect to spatial inversion $`(𝒫)`$ and time reversal $`(𝒯)`$. The best limit on nucleon-nucleon interactions violating parity and time invariance ($`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd forces), as well as quark-quark $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd interactions, has been obtained from the measurement of the atomic EDM in 199Hg  calculated in Ref. . According to the Schiff theorem , the nuclear EDM is screened by atomic electrons. The EDM of an atom with closed electron subshells is induced by the nuclear Schiff moment  that is defined as a mean square radius of the dipole charge distribution with the contribution of the center-of-charge subtracted,

$$𝐒=\frac{e}{10}\left[r^2𝐫\frac{5}{3Z}r^2𝐫\right].$$
(1)
Here $`r^n\rho (𝐫)r^nd^3r`$ are the moments of the nuclear charge density operator $`\rho `$. The expectation values of the $`𝒫`$-odd vector operators $`𝐫r^2`$ and $`𝐫`$ do not vanish due to the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd contribution to the charge density while $`r^2/Z=r_{\mathrm{ch}}^2`$ is the nuclear mean square charge radius. As a consequence of the rotational invariance, the existence of the non-zero Schiff moment requires a non-zero nuclear spin $`𝐈`$,

$$𝐒=S\frac{𝐈}{I}.$$
(2)
In a search for nuclear structure mechanisms of the enhancement, it was suggested in Ref. that some actinide nuclei have a level of opposite parity and the same spin close to the ground state, and this may enhance the level mixing and the resulting nuclear EDM. In Ref.  a similar suggestion was put forward for the enhancement of the Schiff moment $`𝐒`$. It was noticed in Ref.  that, in contrast to $`𝒫`$-odd $`𝒯`$-even forces, the parity doublets present for a static pear-shaped deformation can be directly mixed by $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd forces. This mixing might be enhanced because of close intrinsic structure within the doublet and relatively small energy splitting. As shown in Refs. , nuclei with static octupole deformation may have enhanced collective Schiff moments up to $`1000`$ times larger than the Schiff moments of spherical nuclei. An additional enhancement factor appears in this case due to the large static intrinsic Schiff moment in the body-fixed frame which is proportional to the collective octupole moment.

It was suggested in Ref.  that the soft octupole vibrations observed in some regions of the nuclear chart may produce an enhancement similar to that due to static octupole deformation. This would make heavy atoms containing such nuclei with large collective Schiff moments attractive for future experiments in search for $`𝒫,𝒯`$-violation; experiments of this type are currently under progress or in preparation in several laboratories. Below we perform the estimate of the Schiff moment generated in nuclei with the soft octupole mode and show that the result is nearly the same as in the case of the static octupole deformation. We consider two simultaneously acting mechanisms, mixing of the ground state of the odd-$`A`$ nucleus with the one-phonon octupole state (“core excitation”) and mixing of the single-particle wave function of the valence unpaired nucleon with levels of opposite parity through the dynamical octupole deformation (“particle excitation”). Our analytical estimates are based on well known general properties of nuclear structure rather than on specific assumptions concerning the model parameters.

## II Collective nuclear Schiff moment

Consider a nucleus with two levels, ground state $`|\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.`$ and excited state $`|x`$, of opposite parity and close energies, $`E_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}`$ and $`E_x`$, respectively. Let $`W`$ be a $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd interaction capable of mixing these unperturbed states. Assuming that the mixing matrix elements of $`𝐒`$ and $`W`$ are real, we can write down the Schiff moment emerging in the actual mixed ground state as

$$𝐒=2\frac{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.|W|xx|𝐒|\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}{E_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}E_x}.$$
(3)
However, as it was explained in Ref. , in the case of mixing of closely lying single-particle states one should not expect a large enhancement. For example, in a simple approximate model, where the strong nuclear potential is proportional to nuclear density and the spin-orbit interaction is neglected, the matrix element $`\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.|W|x`$ contains the single-particle momentum operator and is proportional to $`(E_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}E_x)`$ so that the small energy denominator cancels out. As mentioned above, the collective Schiff moments in nuclei with static octupole deformations may be by 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger than single-particle moments in spherical nuclei.

The mechanism generating the collective Schiff moment is the following . In the “frozen” body-fixed frame the intrinsic collective Schiff moment $`S_{\mathrm{intr}}`$ can exist without any $`𝒫,𝒯`$-violation. However, in the space-fixed laboratory frame the nucleus has a certain angular momentum rather than orientation, and this makes the expectation value of the Schiff moment vanish in the case of no $`𝒫,𝒯`$-violation. Indeed, the intrinsic Schiff moment is directed along the nuclear axis, $`𝐒_{\mathrm{intr}}=S_{\mathrm{intr}}𝐞`$, and in the laboratory frame the only possible correlation $`𝐞𝐈`$ violates parity and time reversal invariance. The $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd nuclear forces mix rotational states $`|I,\pm `$ of the same spin and opposite parity and create an average orientation of the nuclear axis $`𝐞`$ along the nuclear spin $`𝐈`$,

$$e_z=2\alpha \frac{KM}{I(I+1)},$$
(4)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{I|W|I+}{E_+E_{}}$$
(5)
is the mixing amplitude of the states of opposite parity, $`K=|𝐈𝐞|`$ is the absolute value of the projection of the nuclear spin $`𝐈`$ on the nuclear axis, and $`M`$ is the spin projection onto the laboratory quantization axis. The observable Schiff moment in the laboratory frame is then related to the intrinsic moment as

$$S_z=S_{\mathrm{intr}}e_z=S_{\mathrm{intr}}\frac{2\alpha KM}{I(I+1)}.$$
(6)
To estimate the intrinsic Schiff moment, we use the standard description of the surface of an axially symmetric deformed nucleus in the body-fixed frame in terms of the multipole deformation parameters $`\beta _l`$,

$$R(\theta )=R[1+\underset{l=1}{}\beta _lY_{l0}(\theta )].$$
(7)
In order to keep the center-of-mass at the origin we have to fix $`\beta _1`$ :

$$\beta _1=3\sqrt{\frac{3}{4\pi }}\underset{l=2}{}\frac{(l+1)\beta _l\beta _{l+1}}{\sqrt{(2l+1)(2l+3)}}.$$
(8)
We assume that the center of the charge distribution coincides with the center-of-mass, so that the electric dipole moment vanishes, $`e𝐫=0`$, and hence there is no screening contribution to the Schiff moment (no second term in eq. (1)). We also assume a constant density for $`r<R(\theta )`$. The intrinsic Schiff moment $`S_{\mathrm{intr}}`$ is then

$$S_{\mathrm{intr}}=eZR^3\frac{3}{20\pi }\underset{l=2}{}\frac{(l+1)\beta _l\beta _{l+1}}{\sqrt{(2l+1)(2l+3)}}\frac{9}{20\pi \sqrt{35}}eZR^3\beta _2\beta _3,$$
(9)
where the major contribution comes from the product $`\beta _2\beta _3`$ of the static quadrupole, $`\beta _2`$, and octupole, $`\beta _3`$, deformation parameters. For $`\beta _2\beta _30.1`$ and $`Z=88`$ (Ra) we obtain $`S_{\mathrm{intr}}10e\mathrm{fm}^3`$. The estimate of the Schiff moment in the laboratory frame \[$`K=M=I`$ in Eq. (6)\] gives

$$S=S_{\mathrm{intr}}\frac{2\alpha I}{I+1}0.01\frac{I}{I+1}e\beta _2\beta _3^2ZA^{2/3}\frac{\eta G}{mr_0(E_+E_{})},$$
(10)
where $`\eta G`$ is the strength constant of the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd nuclear potential, traditionally introduced with the aid of the Fermi weak interaction constant $`G`$, $`R=r_0A^{1/3}`$, $`A`$ is the nuclear mass number, and $`r_01.2\mathrm{fm}`$ is the internucleon distance. For the isotope 225Ra, where $`E_+E_{}=55\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`I`$=1/2, this analytical estimate gives the Schiff moment $`S500`$ in units $`10^8\eta e\mathrm{fm}^3`$; for 223Ra ($`E_+E_{}=50\mathrm{keV}`$, $`I`$=3/2) $`S1000`$. The numerical calculation  gives $`S`$=300 for 225Ra, 400 for 223Ra and 1000 for 223Rn. To indicate the accuracy of the calculation we should note that the difference between the values obtained for the Woods-Saxon potential (presented above) and Nilsson potential is within a factor of 2 .

The values we obtained are several hundred times larger than the Schiff moment of a spherical nucleus like Hg ($`S=1.4`$). An additional enhancement of the atomic EDM appears due to the greater nuclear charge in Ra and Rn and close atomic states of opposite parity . Accurate atomic calculations of the EDM for atoms of Hg, Xe, Ra, Rn, and Pu have been performed in Ref. .

$`𝒯`$ and $`𝒫`$-odd nuclear forces can also produce enhanced collective magnetic quadrupole  and octupole  moments. Although these moments cannot induce the EDM in the ground state of the closed-shell atoms like Xe, Hg, Rn and Ra, they can contribute to the EDM of metastable excited states or of the ground states in open-shell atoms.

Note that the Schiff moment $`S`$ in Eq. (10) is proportional to the squared octupole deformation parameter $`\beta _3^2`$. According to , in nuclei with a soft octupole vibration mode the dynamical octupole deformation is of the order of $`\beta _3^2(0.1)^2`$, i.e. the same as the static octupole deformation in pear-shaped nuclei. This means that a number of heavy nuclei can have large collective Schiff moments of dynamical origin. A calculation of these moments is the main subject of the present paper.

## III Schiff moment produced by soft octupole vibrations

A fully microscopic calculation of the Schiff moment in odd-$`A`$ actinides, even with the aid of simplifying models, such as the particle-plus-rotor model , is very complicated, requires also the solution of the random phase approximation for the soft octupole mode in adjacent even-even isotopes and contains many uncertainties in the choice of the parameters. For our purpose of estimating the magnitude of the effect we use below simple analytical arguments.

The intrinsic nuclear octupole moment in the body-fixed frame is given by

$$O_{\mathrm{intr}}=e\rho r^3Y_{30}d^3r\frac{3}{4\pi }eZR^3\beta _3.$$
(11)
The intrinsic Schiff moment $`S_{\mathrm{intr}}`$, Eq. (9), is then

$$S_{\mathrm{intr}}=\frac{3}{5\sqrt{35}}O_{\mathrm{intr}}\beta _2.$$
(12)
This relation allows us to approximately express the matrix elements of the Schiff moment operator in odd-$`A`$ nuclei with static axially symmetric quadrupole deformation $`\beta _2`$ in terms of the matrix elements of the octupole operator which can be extracted from the observed probabilities of the octupole transitions in an even-even neighbor. In a similar way, as a characteristic of the effective dynamic deformation parameter $`\beta _3`$ in a soft nucleus, it is convenient to use the r.m.s. value extracted from the reduced octupole transition probability B(E3) ,

$$\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{E3})_{03}=|1|O_{\mathrm{intr}}|0|^2\left(\frac{3}{4\pi }eZR^3\right)^2\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}}^2$$
(13)
Here $`|1`$ is a low-lying collective (“one-phonon”) octupole excited state.

To find the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd Schiff moment (3) we need to know the matrix elements of the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd nucleon-nucleon interaction. To the first order in the velocities $`p/m`$, the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd interaction can be presented as

$$\widehat{W}_{ab}=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2m}\left((\eta _{ab}𝝈_a\eta _{ba}𝝈_b)\mathbf{}_a\delta (𝐫_a𝐫_b)+\eta _{ab}^{}\left[𝝈_a\times 𝝈_b\right]\{(𝐩_a𝐩_b),\delta (𝐫_a𝐫_b)\}\right),$$
(14)
where $`\{,\}`$ is an anticommutator, $`G`$ is the Fermi constant of the weak interaction, $`m`$ is the nucleon mass, and $`𝝈`$a,b, $`𝐫_{a,b}`$, and $`𝐩_{a,b}`$ are the spins, coordinates, and momenta, respectively, of the interacting nucleons $`a`$ and $`b`$. The dimensionless constants $`\eta _{ab}`$ and $`\eta _{ab}^{}`$ characterize the strength of the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd nuclear forces; experiments on measurement of the EDMs are aimed at extracting the values of these constants.

In the context of our problem one can envisage two efficient mechanisms generating the observable $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd effects. Firstly, the octupole component of the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd field produced by the valence nucleon can excite the soft octupole excitation in the core. For brevity we will call this mechanism “core excitation”. The second mechanism suggested in Ref. , “particle excitation”, results from the dynamic octupole deformation of the nuclear mean field that mixes the opposite parity orbitals of the valence nucleon and leads to a non-vanishing expectation value of the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd interaction in the fixed-body frame. As we will show, the value of the Schiff moment induced by the second mechanism is practically identical to that obtained earlier in Refs.  for the case of static octupole deformation. We start with the estimate for the first mechanism.

### A Core excitation

.

Let us consider the interaction $`W_{ab}`$ between the valence nucleon $`b`$ and the even-even core containing paired nucleons $`a`$. Under the assumption that the collective octupole excitation does not involve spins of the individual core nucleons, we will keep only the terms that do not contain spin operators $`𝝈`$a being related to the spin current of the external nucleon. Using the contact nature of the interaction (14) and taking the matrix element over the state $`\psi _b`$ of the external nucleon $`b`$ we can present the operator acting onto the core nucleons in the following form:

$$\widehat{W}_a=\frac{G\eta _{ba}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2m}\left(\mathbf{}_a\psi _b^{}(𝐫_a)𝝈_b\psi _b(𝐫_a)\right).$$
(15)
The operator $`\widehat{W}_a`$ contains the octupole component proportional to the operator $`\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}=r^3Y_{30}`$ and responsible for the collective excitation. To extract this component, we project out the octupole operator in the intrinsic frame,

$$\widehat{W}_a=C_a\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
where the amplitude of this component, the contribution of a core nucleon $`a`$ to the octupole mode, is

$$C_a=\frac{\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{W}_a}{\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}_R}.$$
(17)
Here we omitted the electric charge $`e`$ from the definition of the octupole operator $`\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}`$ since we assume that it acts both on protons and neutrons (an isoscalar octupole mode). In the collective transition to the excited octupole state the matrix element of the octupole operator $`\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}`$ is enhanced. Therefore, we assume that we can neglect all terms in the expansion (16) except for the one written down explicitly.

For calculating the projection constant $`C`$ we assume that the amplitude of the octupole vibrations is small compared to the nuclear radius so that the operator $`\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}=r^3Y_{30}`$ is acting effectively only within the nucleus, $`\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}=0`$ for $`r>R+\delta `$ where $`\delta R`$ is some small distance. This allows us to introduce the normalized “octupole” state $`\mathrm{const}r^3Y_{30}`$ and consistently define the projection procedure. In this case

$$\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}_R=_0^Rr^6Y_{30}^2d^3r=R^9/9,$$
(18)
and

$$\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{W}_a=\frac{G\eta _{ba}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{2m}\mathrm{\Psi }_b^+(𝐫)𝝈\mathrm{\Psi }_b(𝐫)\left(\mathbf{}r^3Y_{30}\right)d^3r=\frac{9\sqrt{7}}{40\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{G\eta _{ba}}{m}R^2F.$$
(19)
Here we introduced the expectation value over the orbital of the external nucleon,

$$F=\frac{r^2(5n_z^2\sigma _z\sigma _z+2n_z(𝝈𝐧))}{(3/5)R^2},$$
(20)
where $`𝐧=𝐫/r`$ is the unit vector, $`n_z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Note that $`r^23R^2/5`$, therefore $`F1`$. In the case of 223,225Ra, assuming that the unpaired neutron is in the (asymptotic) Nilsson orbital $`1/2[631]`$ with $`\sigma _z`$=+1 or $`1`$, we would get $`|F|0.3`$. For a pure $`ls`$-state $`|lm\pm `$ with $`m_l=m,s_z=\pm (1/2)`$, this factor is given by

$$lm\pm |F|lm\pm =\pm 2\frac{l(l+1)3m^2}{(2l+3)(2l1)}\frac{r^2}{(3/5)R^2}.$$
(21)
Here the angular factor in front of $`r^2/(3R^2/5)`$ changes for even $`l`$ from 4/7 to 1/2 if $`m=0`$ and from -2/7 to -1/2 if $`m=1`$. For the realistic Nilsson wave functions with the quadrupole deformation around 0.15 or 0.2, the spin-orbital coupling is important, and the wave function of the valence neutron is a superposition of several spherical orbitals $`|l,m1/2,\pm 1/2`$. For example, the orbital $`1/2[631]`$ has 7 main components $`|Nlms_z`$ of comparable magnitude, where $`N`$ is the major oscillator quantum number,

$$|1/2[631]\underset{l=0,2,4,6}{}a_l|6l\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1}/2+\underset{l=2,4,6}{}b_l|6l11/2.$$
(22)
Although the last item in the numerator of the expression (20) contains the matrix elements with $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_z=\pm 1`$ and is sensitive to the interference of the $`\sigma _z=\pm `$ components that might be constructive or destructive, the quantity $`|F|`$ is typically between 0.1 and 0.6. For the specific values of the parameters $`a_l`$ and $`b_l`$ corresponding to the Nillson wave function 1/2 at $`\beta _2=0.21`$, we come to $`F=0.32`$, very close to the asymptotic estimate.

Combining the equations above we obtain the effective “octupole” $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd operator

$$\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{oct}}=\frac{\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{W}_a}{\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}|\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}_R}\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}=\frac{81}{40}\sqrt{\frac{7}{2\pi }}\frac{G\eta _{ba}F}{mR^7}\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{intr}}.$$
(23)
Using Eq. (13) for the proton induced transition and summing over proton and neutron contributions to the octupole excitation $`|\mathrm{oct}`$, we obtain the expression for the weak matrix element in the body-fixed frame,

$$\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.|W|\mathrm{oct}=\frac{81}{40}\sqrt{\frac{7}{2\pi }}\frac{G\eta _bF}{mR^7}AR^3\frac{3}{4\pi }\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}},$$
(24)
where $`\eta _b=\frac{Z}{A}\eta _{bp}+\frac{N}{A}\eta _{bn}`$, $`b=n`$ for the external neutron or $`b=p`$ for the external proton.

The transition from the body-fixed frame to the laboratory frame for the vector Schiff moment gives, as in Eq. (4), an extra factor $`KM/I(I+1)`$ that, for the ground nuclear state, $`K=M=I`$, is equal to $`I/(I+1)`$. Collecting all factors we obtain the Schiff moment due to the octupole collective vibrations:

$$𝐒=\frac{2I}{I+1}\frac{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.|W|\mathrm{oct}\mathrm{oct}|𝐒|\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}{\mathrm{\Delta }E},$$
(25)
$$S=0.025F\frac{I}{I+1}e\beta _2(\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}})^2ZA^{2/3}\frac{\eta _bG}{mr_0\mathrm{\Delta }E},$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}E_{\mathrm{oct}}`$, or, in appropriate numerical units,

$$S=\frac{Z}{94}\left(\frac{A}{230}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\beta _2}{0.2}\left(\frac{\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}}}{0.1}\right)^2\frac{(5/3)r^2}{R^2}\frac{50\mathrm{keV}}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{I}{I+1}F(5650\times 10^8)e\eta \mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(27)
The ratio of this dynamical (vibrational) octupole contribution $`S_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ to the static octupole contribution $`S_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ in the deformed case (10) is equal to

$$\frac{S_{\mathrm{soft}}}{S_{\mathrm{stat}}}=2.5F\frac{(\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}})^2}{(\beta _3^{\mathrm{stat}})^2}\frac{(\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}})^2}{(\beta _3^{\mathrm{stat}})^2}.$$
(28)
This means that the dynamical deformation due to low-frequency octupole vibrations produces nearly the same effect as the static octupole deformation.

When doing numerical estimates we may assume $`\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}}=\beta _3^{\mathrm{stat}}=0.1`$ . This gives numerical values (in the units of $`10^8\eta e\mathrm{fm}^3`$) for the Schiff moments of 223Ra and 225Ra, $`S=700`$ and 400, correspondingly; $`S=1000`$  for 223Rn; and in the interval 100 - 1000 for 223Fr, 225Ac and other nuclei with the low octupole mode, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<100`$ keV, i.e. close to the values  obtained in the numerical calculations for the static octupole deformation. However, our value for 239Pu, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=470`$keV, is $`S`$ 80, or even smaller if we take into account that in the ground state of a harmonic oscillator the vibrational amplitude is proportional to $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ so that $`\beta ^21/\omega `$ as it is approximately the case for both quadrupole and octupole low-lying vibrations in nuclei . This result is much smaller than the estimates $`S`$(Pu)=300$`S`$(Hg) $`420`$ presented in Ref. .

The work  also claims that the contribution of the octupole vibration to the 199Hg Schiff moment is about half of its shell model value. Strictly speaking, our formula is not applicable for this case since 199Hg, probably, has no quadrupole deformation. However, for an estimate we can take $`\beta _2=0.1`$ assuming that a similar contribution may appear due to an interaction with soft quadrupole vibrations. Now we can make a comparison between 225Ra and 199Hg which both have $`I=1/2`$. The octupole transition energy in 199Hg is 3000 keV . Therefore, in the case of 199Hg we lose one-two orders of magnitude due to the octupole deformation \[if $`\beta _3^2(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^1`$\] and one-two orders of magnitude due to the energy denominator that is sixty times greater than in 223,225Ra. This gives the octupole contribution to the 199Hg Schiff moment about $`4000.0010.4`$. The shell-model contribution is $`1.4`$. This estimate shows that the octupole contribution should not produce any dramatic changes in the 199Hg Schiff moment (in fact, this conclusion agrees with that of Ref. ).

### B Particle excitation

In the previous consideration the orbital of the valence nucleon in the mean field of a normal quadrupole deformation was fixed. In order to estimate the contribution of the abovementioned second mechanism related to the mixing of single-particle orbitals by the octupole mode, we assume that the octupole component of the strong nuclear Hamiltonian can be estimated in terms of octupole-octupole forces  as $`\beta _3V_3`$, where $`\beta _3`$ acts on the core variables exciting octupole vibrations while $`V_3=f(r)Y_{30}`$ is the perturbation acting on the valence nucleons. For the small amplitude $`\beta _3`$, $`f(r)`$ is proportional to the derivative of the mean nuclear potential. As pointed out in Ref. , this interaction mixes the ground state $`|\lambda ;0`$ of an odd-$`A`$ nucleus (a valence particle on a single-particle orbital $`\lambda `$ and the even-even core in the ground state) with the excited states $`|\nu ;1`$ that contain a particle in an orbital $`\nu `$ of opposite parity and a phonon of the octupole mode. To the first order in this mixing, the new ground state is

$$|\stackrel{~}{0}=|\lambda ;0+\underset{\nu }{}c_\nu |\nu ,1.$$
(29)
The admixture coefficients are given by

$$c_\nu =\frac{1|\beta _3|0(V_3)_{\nu \lambda }}{ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\nu \mathrm{}\omega },$$
(30)
where $`ϵ_\lambda `$ and $`ϵ_\nu `$ are single-particle energies whereas $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is energy of the octupole core excitation. Similarly, the unperturbed one-phonon state $`|\lambda ;1`$ also acquires new components being converted into

$$|\stackrel{~}{1}=|\lambda ;1+\underset{\nu }{}c_\nu ^{}|\nu ;0,$$
(31)
where

$$c_\nu ^{}=\frac{0|\beta _3|1(V_3)_{\nu \lambda }}{ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\nu +\mathrm{}\omega },$$
(32)
and we omit the two-phonon admixtures irrelevant for our purpose.

The states $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{1}`$ can be mixed by the effective $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd potential $`W`$ averaged, in distinction to the previous case of Eq. (15), over the core nucleons. For a conventional definition of angular wave functions, the matrix elements of $`\beta _3,V_3`$ and $`W`$ are real, and the mixing matrix element is

$$\stackrel{~}{0}|W|\stackrel{~}{1}=1|\beta _3|0\underset{\nu }{}\frac{2(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\nu )}{(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\nu )^2+(\mathrm{}\omega )^2}W_{\lambda \nu }(V_3)_{\nu \lambda }1|\beta _3|0\stackrel{~}{0}|W_0|\stackrel{~}{0}.$$
(33)
where the single-particle matrix elements can be renormalized by the pairing correlations. In the limit of a soft octupole mode, when $`(\mathrm{}\omega )^2`$ is small compared to the typical single-particle energy intervals $`(ϵ_\lambda ϵ_\nu )^2`$ between the orbitals of opposite parity, the latter expression coincides with the result for the static octupole deformation found in Ref. . This leads to a conclusion that the second mechanism in the presence of the soft octupole mode provides the Schiff moment

$$S_2\frac{2I}{I+1}\frac{|1|\beta _3|0|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{9}{20\pi \sqrt{35}}eZR^3\beta _2\stackrel{~}{0}|W_0|\stackrel{~}{0}$$
(34)
that can be described by Eq. (10), derived for the static octupole contribution, with the replacement of $`(\beta _3^{\mathrm{stat}})^2`$ by $`(\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}})^2=|1|\beta _3|0|^2`$. It is easy to explain this result. For an adiabatically slow vibrational motion, we can calculate the weak and Schiff moment matrix elements at a fixed value of $`\beta _3`$ and then average over $`\beta _3`$. This conclusion holds for the first mechanism as well. Indeed, keeping the linear in $`\beta _3`$ terms, we can present the effective $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd potential $`W`$ averaged over the core nucleons as $`W=W_0+\beta _3W_3`$. This leads to the following contribution of the octupole weak field

$$S_2\frac{2I}{I+1}\frac{|1|\beta _3|0|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{9}{20\pi \sqrt{35}}eZR^3\beta _20|W_3|0$$
(35)
Here the expectation value is taken over the ground state $`\lambda `$ of the valence nucleon ($`0|W_3|0=\lambda |W_3|\lambda `$). Again, the replacement of $`(\beta _3^{\mathrm{rms}})^2=|1|\beta _3|0|^2`$ by $`(\beta _3^{\mathrm{stat}})^2`$ reduces the dynamical problem to the static one. The final result for the first mechanism contribution was given in eq. (26).

## IV From nuclear Schiff moment to atomic EDM

Finally, we should calculate the atomic electric dipole moments induced by the nuclear Schiff moments.

The atomic EDM is generated by the $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd part of the nuclear electrostatic potential $`\phi (𝐫)`$. The potential produced by the point-like Schiff moment is usually presented in the form  proportional to the gradient of the delta-function at the origin,

$$\phi (𝐫)=4\pi 𝐒\mathbf{}\delta (𝐫).$$
(36)
The natural generalization of the Schiff moment potential for a finite-size nucleus is

$$\phi (𝐫)=3(𝐒𝐫)\frac{n(r)}{B},$$
(37)
where $`B=n(r)r^4𝑑rR^5/5`$, $`R`$ is the nuclear radius, and $`n(r)`$ is a smooth function which is $`1`$ for $`r<R\delta `$ and $`0`$ for $`r>R+\delta `$ while $`\delta R`$ is some small distance; $`n(r)`$ can be taken as proportional to the nuclear density. The potential (37) corresponds to a constant electric field $`𝓔`$ inside the nucleus that is directed along the nuclear spin, $`𝓔`$ $`𝐈`$. The interaction $`e\phi `$ mixes electron orbitals of opposite parity and produces EDMs in atoms.

In Ref.  we have performed atomic calculations of the coefficients $`k`$ that define the atomic EDM $`d`$ in terms of the Schiff moments,

$$d=k10^{17}\left(\frac{S}{e\mathrm{fm}^3}\right)e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(38)
The factors $`k`$ rapidly grow with the nuclear charge that leads to an additional enhancement in Ra, $`k=8.5`$, and Rn, $`k=3.3`$, in comparison with the lighter electronic analogues, Hg, $`k=2.8`$, and Xe, $`k=0.38`$.

We have estimated above the individual contributions of two possible mechanisms for the enhancement of original $`𝒫,𝒯`$\- odd interactions $`W`$ by nuclear soft octupole degrees of freedom. The virtual core excitation and the mixing of single-particle states work in fact together and lead to the resulting enhancements of the same order of magnitude. In principle they may involve different parts of the interaction $`W`$. The detailed calculation of the total result is subject to many uncertainties both on the fundamental and nuclear structure levels; this should be studied separately. However, there is no physical reason for expecting their strong cancellation. As we have seen in the consideration of the core excitation mechanism, the exact magnitude of the resulting Schiff moment is quite sensitive to the details of the valence single-particle wave function in the presence of spin-orbit coupling, whereas the second mechanism is determined mainly by the intruder orbits of opposite parity. With no accidental cancellation, the resulting Schiff moment will be of the same order of magnitude as each of the contributions. Taking some conservative “minimal” values of the Schiff moments for the different methods of calculations (static analytical, static numerical, soft analytical) we obtain the values of the atomic electric dipole moments given in the Table.

| Nucleus | $`S,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\eta _ne\mathrm{fm}^3`$ | $`d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{25}e\mathrm{cm}\eta _n`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 225Ra | 300 | 2500 |
| 223Ra | 400 | 3400 |
| 223Rn | 1000 | 3300 |

This may be compared with typical values of the induced dipole moment predicted for spherical nuclei, $`d=4`$ and $`d=0.7`$ for 199Hg and 129Xe, respectively.

To conclude, we made analytical estimates for the nuclear Schiff moment in nuclei known as soft with respect to the octupole excitation mode. We found a strong enhancement of the average magnitude close to what was found for nuclei having static octupole deformation. There are several factors which contribute to this enhancement. Mainly, they are small energy interval between the opposite parity states and large amplitude of vibrations in the case of the soft octupole mode. Effectively, the enhancement factor can be presented as const$`\times (E/\mathrm{}\omega )^2`$, where $`E`$ is the intershell distance in spherical nuclei, $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the octupole mode and const$`0.1`$. The value of the Schiff moment is typically $`10^2÷10^3`$ in units of $`10^8\eta e\mathrm{fm}^3`$; it leads to the prediction of the enhancement of the atomic EDM on the level of $`10^3`$ as compared to spherical nuclei.

A related idea should be explored in the future: it is known that some nuclei are soft with respect to both quadrupole and octupole modes, see for example recent predictions for radioactive nuclei along the $`N=Z`$ line . The light isotopes of Rn and Ra are spherical but with a soft quadrupole mode and therefore large amplitude of quadrupole vibrations. The spectra of these nuclei display long quasivibrational bands based on the ground state and on the octupole phonon, with positive and negative parity, respectively. These bands are connected via low-energy electric dipole transitions. This situation seems to be favorable for the enhancement of $`𝒫,𝒯`$-odd effects.
The authors are thankful to the Institute of Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, where this work was started, for hospitality and support. The discussions with A. Dieperink, O. Scholten and J. Engel are gratefully acknowledged. V.Z. acknowledges support from the NSF grant PHY-0070911. V.F. acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council. He is also grateful to the Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where part of this work has been done.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we study the large time behavior of solutions $`u=u(x,t)`$ $`(xIR^n,t>0)`$ to the Cauchy problem for the nonlinear convection-diffusion equation

(1.1) $`u_t\mathrm{\Delta }u+a(u|u|^{q1})=0,`$
(1.2) $`u(x,0)=u_0(x),`$
where $`q>1`$ and the vector $`aIR^n`$ are fixed. The assumptions $`u_0L^1(IR^n)`$ and $`_{IR^n}u_0(x)𝑑x=0`$ will also be required.

The typical nonlinear term occurring in hydrodynamics in the one-dimensional case has the form $`uu_x=(u^2/2)_x`$ (as in the case of the viscous Burgers equation). The most obvious generalization of this nonlinearity consists in replacing the square by a power $`u^q`$ where $`q`$ is a positive integer. Here, however, we intend to observe a more subtle interaction of the nonlinearity with dissipation, consequently, we need to consider a continuous range of parameters $`q`$. The problem then appears with the definition of $`u^q`$ for negative $`u`$ and for non-integer $`q`$. In order to avoid this difficulty, we chose the nonlinear term of the from $`a(u|u|^{q1})`$. This was done only to shorten notation in this report. Note that, in fact, the following property of the nonlinearity will be essential throughout this work:

* the nonlinear term in $`(\text{1.1})`$ has the form $`f(u)`$ where the $`C^1`$-vector function $`f`$ satisfies $`|f(u)|C|u|^q,`$ $`|f^{}(u)|C|u|^{q1}`$ for every $`uIR`$, $`q>1`$, and a constant $`C`$. Moreover, if the balanced case is considered (i.e. $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$), the limits

$$\underset{u0^{}}{lim}f(u)/|u|^q,\text{and}\underset{u0^+}{lim}f(u)/|u|^q$$

should exist and the both should be different from 0.

Recent publications developed versatile functional analytic tools to study the long time behavior of solutions of this initial value problem.

Concerning the decay of solutions of (1.1)-(1.2) and, more generally, of scalar parabolic conservation laws of the form $`u_t\mathrm{\Delta }u+f(u)=0`$ with integrable initial conditions, Schonbek  was the first who proved that the $`L^2`$-norm tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ with the rate $`t^{n/4}`$. To deal with this problem, she introduced the so-called Fourier splitting method. The results from  were extended in the later work , where the decay of solutions in $`L^p(IR^n)`$, ($`1p\mathrm{}`$) was obtained, again, by a method based on the Fourier splitting technique. It was emphasized in  that the decay rates are the same as for the underlying linear equations.

Next, Escobedo and Zuazua  proved decay estimates of the $`L^p`$-norms of solutions by a different method under more general assumptions on nonlinearity and under less restrictive assumptions on initial data. Finally, by the use of the logarithmic Sobolev inequality, Carlen and Loss  showed that solutions of viscous conservation laws satisfy

$$u(,t)_pCt^{(n/2)(1/r1/p)}u_0_r$$

for each $`1rp\mathrm{}`$, all $`t>0`$, and a numerical constant $`C>0`$ depending on $`p`$ and $`q`$, only. Here, we would also like to recall results on algebraic decay rates of solution to systems of parabolic conservation laws, obtained by Kawashima , Hopf and Zumbrun , Jeffrey and Zhao , and Schonbek and Süli . Smallness assumptions on initial conditions were often imposed in those papers.

The first term of the asymptotic expansion was studied as the next step in analysis of the long time behavior of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2). Assuming that $`u_0L^1(IR^n)`$, roughly speaking, these results, cf. e.g. , fall into three cases:

* Case I: $`q>1+1/n`$, when the asymptotics is linear, i.e.

(1.3)
$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)}u(,t)MG(,t)_p0\text{as }t\mathrm{},$$

where $`M=_{IR^n}u_0(x)𝑑x`$, $`G(x,t)=(4\pi t)^{n/2}\mathrm{exp}(|x|^2/(4t))`$ is the fundamental solution of the heat equation. Hence, this case can be classified as weakly nonlinear, since in this situation the linear diffusion prevails and the nonlinearity is asymptotically negligible.
* Case II: $`q=1+1/n`$, when

(1.4)
$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)}u(,t)U_M(,t)_p0\text{as }t\mathrm{},$$

where $`U_M(x,t)=t^{n/2}U_M(xt^{1/2},1)`$ is the self-similar solution of (1.1) with $`u_0(x)=M\delta _0`$. Here, diffusion and the convection are balanced, and the asymptotics is determined by a special solution of a nonlinear equation.
* Case III: $`1<q<1+1/n`$, when the convection points in the $`x_n`$-direction (i.e. $`a=(0,\mathrm{},0,1)`$). Here

(1.5)
$$t^{(n+1)(11/p)/(2q)}u(,t)U_M(,t)_p0\text{as }t\mathrm{},$$

holds, where $`U_M`$ is a particular self-similar solution of the partly viscous conservation law $`U_t\mathrm{\Delta }_yU+\frac{}{x_n}(U|U|^{q1})=0`$ such that $`u_0(x)=M\delta _0`$ in the sense of measures. Here $`x=(y,x_n)`$, $`y=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1})`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y=_{j=1}^{n1}\frac{^2}{x_j^2}`$. Hence, the asymptotics of solutions is determined by solutions of an equation with strong convection and partial dissipation.

Finally, we recall that, in the weakly nonlinear case, Zuazua  found, for solutions to (1.1)-(1.2), the second order term in the asymptotic expansion as $`t\mathrm{}`$. He observed that asymptotic behavior of the solution differs depending if $`q`$ satisfies $`1+1/n<q<1+2/n`$, $`q=1+2/n`$, or $`q>1+2/n`$. Analogous results for Lévy conservation laws were obtained in , and for convection-diffusion equations with dispersive effects in . Related results on the stability in $`L^1(IR^n)`$ of traveling waves (or shock waves) in scalar viscous conservation laws can be found in the papers by Serre  and Freistühler and Serre . Some results on the $`L^1`$-stability of the zero solution of degenerate convection-diffusion equations can be found in the article by Feireisl and Laurençot .

Here, we assume that $`M=_{IR^n}u_0(x)𝑑x=_{IR^n}u(x,t)𝑑x=0`$, thus the corresponding self-similar intermediate asymptotics in (1.3)-(1.5) are equal to 0 for every $`q>1`$. Moreover, for $`p=1`$ the asymptotic formulae in (1.3)-(1.5) say nothing else but $`u(,t)_10`$ as $`t\mathrm{}.`$

The goal of this paper is to find self-similar asymptotics in $`L^p(IR^n)`$ of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`M=0`$ imposing additional conditions on the initial data. We assume that $`u_0`$ satisfies $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{\beta /2}`$ for some $`\beta (0,1)`$, all $`t>0`$, and $`C`$ independent of $`t`$. Such a decay estimate of solutions to the linear heat equation is optimal for a large class of initial conditions (cf. Propositions 2.1 and 3.1 below). Under these assumptions, we improve the known algebraic decay rates of the solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) in the $`L^p`$-norms for every $`1p\mathrm{}`$. In addition, if the initial data are sufficiently small, we discover the new critical exponent $`q^{}=1+1/(n+\beta )`$ such that

* for $`q>q^{}`$ the asymptotics of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) is linear and described by self-similar solutions to the heat equation (cf. Corollaries 2.2 and 3.1, below);
* $`q=q^{}`$ corresponds to the balanced case, and the asymptotics of solutions corresponding to suitable small initial conditions is described by a new class of self-similar solutions to the nonlinear equation (1.1) (cf. Theorem 2.3 and the discussion in Section 5.).

In the next section of this paper, we briefly present the main results. The results corresponding to the case $`q>q^{}`$ are contained in Section 3. Section 4 considers the case when the exponent $`q=q^{}`$ is critical. In Section 5, we explain how to derive, from our general theorems, self-similar solutions to the nonlinear equation (1.1) and how to study large time asymptotics of general solutions. In the last section, we discuss possible applications of our ideas to other equations such as the Navier-Stokes equations, the KdV-Burgers equation, and the BBM-Burgers equation.

Notation. The notation to be used is mostly standard. For $`1p\mathrm{}`$, the $`L^p`$-norm of a Lebesgue measurable real-valued function defined on $`IR^n`$ is denoted by $`v_p`$. We will always denote by $`_𝒳`$ the norm of any other Banach space $`𝒳`$ used in this paper.

If $`k`$ is a nonnegative integer, $`W^{k,p}(IR^n)`$ will be the Sobolev space consisting of functions in $`L^p(IR^n)`$ whose generalized derivatives up to order $`k`$ belong to $`L^p(IR^n)`$.

The Fourier transform of $`v`$ is defined as $`\widehat{v}(\xi )(2\pi )^{n/2}_{IR^n}e^{ix\xi }v(x)𝑑x`$.

Given a multi-index $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$, we denote $`^\gamma =^{|\gamma |}/_{x_1}^{\gamma _1}\mathrm{}_{x_n}^{\gamma _n}`$. On the other hand, for $`\beta >0`$, the operator $`D^\beta `$ is defined via the Fourier transform as $`\widehat{(D^\beta w)}(\xi )=|\xi |^\beta |\widehat{w}(\xi )`$.

The letter $`C`$ will denote generic positive constants, which do not depend on $`t`$ and may vary from line to line during computations.

## 2 Main results and comments

We recall that for every $`u_0L^1(IR^n)`$, the Cauchy problem (1.1)-(1.2) has a unique solution in $`C([0,\mathrm{});L^1(IR^n))`$ satisfying

$$uC((0,\mathrm{});W^{2,p}(IR^n))C^1((0,\mathrm{}),L^p(IR^n))$$

for all $`p(1,\mathrm{})`$. The proof is based on a standard iteration procedure involving the integral representation of solutions of (1.1)-(1.2)

(2.1)
$$u(t)=e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_0^tae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )𝑑\tau $$

(see, e.g.  for details). Here, $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ is the solution to the linear heat equation given by the convolution of the initial datum $`u_0`$ with the Gauss-Weierstrass kernel $`G(x,t)=(4\pi t)^{n/2}\mathrm{exp}(|x|^2/(4t))`$. Formula (2.1) will be one of the main tools used in the analysis of the long time behavior of solutions.

Let us also recall that sufficiently regular solutions of (1.1)-(1.2) satisfy the estimate

(2.2)
$$u(,t)_pC(p,r)t^{(n/2)(1/r1/p)}u_0_r$$

for all $`1rp\mathrm{}`$, all $`t>0`$, and a constant $`C(p,r)`$ depending on $`p`$ and $`r`$, only. Inequalities (2.2) are due to Carlen and Loss \[9, Theorem 1\]. We also refer the reader to  where counterparts of (2.2) were proved for more general equations: so-called Lévy conservation laws.

Section 3 contains the analysis of the large time asymptotics of solutions to the linear heat equation. Easy calculations show that for every $`u_0L^1(IR^n)`$ such that $`_{IR^n}u_0(x)𝑑x=0`$ we have $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_10`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. The following proposition asserts the existence of a large class of initial conditions for which the large time behavior of $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ is self-similar. Here, we need the notion of the Riesz potential $`I_\beta `$ and the fractional derivative $`D^\beta `$ defined in the Fourier variables as

(2.3)
$$\widehat{(I_\beta w)}(\xi )=\frac{\widehat{w}(\xi )}{|\xi |^\beta }\text{and}\widehat{(D^\beta w)}(\xi )=|\xi |^\beta \widehat{w}(\xi ).$$

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`\beta >0`$ and $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{}.,\gamma _n)`$ be a multi-index with $`\gamma _i0`$. Assume that $`I_\beta u_0L^1(IR^n)`$. Denote

(2.4)
$$A=\underset{|\xi |0}{lim}\frac{\widehat{u}_0(\xi )}{|\xi |^\beta }=_{IR^n}(I_\beta u_0)(x)𝑑x.$$

Then

(2.5)
$$^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{\beta /2|\gamma |/2}I_\beta u_0_1$$

for all $`t>0`$ and $`C=C(\beta ,\gamma )`$ independent of $`t`$ and $`u_0`$; moreover,

(2.6)
$$t^{\beta /2+|\gamma |/2}^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0()A^\gamma D^\beta G(,t)_10$$

as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

Let us emphasize that we do not assume that $`\beta <1`$ in Proposition 2.1. This condition only becomes necessary when the convection term is present. Here, we also refer the reader to Proposition 3.1 where self-similar asymptotics of the heat semigroup is studied under more general assumptions on initial data.

In our first theorem on the large time behavior of solutions to the nonlinear problem (1.1)-(1.2), we assume the decay of $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$ with a given rate and we prove that the same decay estimate holds true for solutions to (1.1)-(1.2).

###### Theorem 2.1

Fix $`0<\beta <1`$. Assume that $`u_0L^1(IR^n)L^q(IR^n)`$ satisfies the inequality

(2.7)
$$e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{\beta /2}$$

for all $`t>0`$ and a constant $`C`$ independent of $`t`$. Let $`u`$ be the solution to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`u_0`$ as the initial datum. If $`q>1+1/n`$, then there exists a constant $`C`$ such that

(2.8)
$$u(,t)_1C(1+t)^{\beta /2}$$

for all $`t>0`$. The estimate (2.8) holds also true for $`1+1/(n+\beta )q1+1/n`$, with $`0<\beta <1`$, provided $`u_0L^1(IR^n)L^{\mathrm{}}(IR^n)`$ and $`sup_{t>0}t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$ is sufficiently small.

Remark 2.1. The assumption (2.7) means that $`u_0`$ belongs to the homogeneous Besov space $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ (cf. (2.11), below) which will play an important role in the analysis of the balanced case $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The approach formulated in Theorem 2.1, saying that the decay estimates imposed on the heat semigroup lead to the analogous estimates of solutions to a nonlinear problem, appears in several recent papers. Here, we would like only to recall (the list is by no mean exhaustive) the works on the Navier-Stokes system by Schonbek  and Wiegner  where the $`L^2`$-decay of solutions was studied as well as by Miyakawa  where decay of the $`L^1`$-norm and $`^p`$-norms (the Hardy spaces) of weak solutions was shown. Moreover, our results extend essentially the recent paper by Schonbek and Süli  where general conservation laws were considered.

If we combine the decay from (2.8) with inequalities (2.2), we obtain the improved $`L^p`$-decay of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2). Moreover, applying such estimates to (2.1) we find the asymptotics of solutions for $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$. The following corollary contains these results.

###### Corollary 2.1

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, for every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$ and $`\beta (0,1)`$, there exists $`C=C(u_0,p)`$ independent of $`t`$ such that

(2.9)
$$u(,t)_pC(1+t)^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}$$

for all $`t>0`$. Moreover, for $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$ and for every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$ it follows

(2.10)
$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)+\beta /2}u(,t)e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0()_p0\text{as}t\mathrm{}.$$

A slightly stronger version of this corollary is formulated and proved in the next section (cf. Corollary 3.1, below). Here, we only emphasize that combining (2.10) with Proposition 2.1 we obtain that the large time behavior of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`q>1+1/n`$ (or, if the data are sufficiently small, for $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$) is described by special self-similar solutions to the heat equation. This is worth stating more precisely.

###### Corollary 2.2

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 2.1 (or Proposition 3.1 with $`\mathrm{}(\xi )=|\xi |^\beta `$, see Section 3) the solution to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$ satisfies

$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)+\beta /2}u(,t)AD^\beta G(,t)_p0\text{as}t\mathrm{}.$$

Our next results, studied in Section 4, correspond to the balanced case

$$q=q^{}=1+\frac{1}{n+\beta }$$

for some fixed $`0<\beta <1`$. We will work in the homogeneous Besov space $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ defined by

$$_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}=\{v𝒮^{}(IR^n):v_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}<\mathrm{}\},$$

where $`𝒮^{}(IR^n)`$ is the space of tempered distributions and the norm is given by

(2.11)
$$v_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\beta /2}e^{s\mathrm{\Delta }}v_1.$$

The standard way of defining norms in Besov spaces is based on the Paley-Littlewood dyadic decomposition. The choice of the equivalent norm (2.11) allows us to simplify several calculations. Recall here that Proposition 2.1 describes a large subset in $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ of initial conditions $`u_0`$.

Section 4 contains the proofs of two main theorems. The first one provides a construction of global-in-time solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$ and suitably small initial data in the space $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$. The second theorem gives asymptotic stability of solutions in the balanced case. The precise statement of the theorems is the following.

###### Theorem 2.2

Fix $`\beta (0,1)`$ and put $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$. There is $`\epsilon >0`$ such that for each $`u_0_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ satisfying $`u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}<\epsilon `$ there exists a solution of (1.1)-(1.2) for all $`t0`$ in the space

$`𝒳`$ $``$ $`𝒞([0,\mathrm{}):_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}})`$
$`\{u:(0,\mathrm{})L^q(IR^n):\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(t)_q<\mathrm{}\}.`$
This is the unique solution satisfying the condition

$$\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(t)_q2\epsilon .$$

###### Theorem 2.3

Let the assumptions from Theorem 2.2 hold true. Assume that $`u`$ and $`v`$ are two solutions of (1.1)-(1.2) constructed in Theorem 2.2 corresponding to the initial data $`u_0,v_0_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. Suppose that

(2.12)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_1=0.$$

Choosing $`\epsilon >0`$ in Theorem 2.2 sufficiently small, we have

(2.13)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{(n/2)(11/p)+\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_p=0$$

for every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$.

In Section 5, we show how to use Theorem 2.2 in order to obtain self-similar solutions to equation (1.1) with the critical exponent $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$. Moreover, we explain the role of self-similar solutions in the large time asymptotics of other solutions to (1.1)-(1.2).

## 3 Asymptotics of solutions for $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$

As noted in Section 2, the first problem is to find a class of data that will insure the decay of solutions to the heat equation in $`L^1(IR^n)`$. This is obtained in Proposition 2.1, where this class of data is shown to be constituted by functions such that their convolutions with Riesz potentials lie in $`L^1(IR^n)`$. Now, we establish Proposition 2.1.

Proof of Proposition 2.1. Let us note that the limit in (2.4) exists, since $`\widehat{u}_0(\xi )/|\xi |^\beta `$ is continuous as the Fourier transform of an integrable function $`I_\beta u_0`$.

First, we prove that $`^\gamma D^\beta G(,1)L^1(IR^n)`$. Obviously, $`^\gamma D^\beta G(,1)`$ is bounded and continuous because its Fourier transform $`(i\xi )^\gamma |\xi |^\beta e^{|\xi |^2}`$ is integrable. Moreover, it follows from \[35, Ch. 5, Lemma 2\] that for every $`\beta >0`$ there exists a finite measure $`\mu _\beta `$ on $`IR^n`$ given by

$$\widehat{\mu }_\beta (\xi )=\frac{|\xi |^\beta }{(1+|\xi |^2)^{\beta /2}}.$$

Hence, $`^\gamma D^\beta G(,1)=\mu _\beta K_{\beta ,\gamma }`$ where the function $`K_{\beta ,\gamma }`$ is defined via the Fourier transform as $`\widehat{K}_{\beta ,\gamma }(\xi )=(i\xi )^\gamma (1+|\xi |^2)^{\beta /2}e^{|\xi |^2}`$. It is easy to prove that $`K_{\beta ,\gamma }𝒮(IR^n)`$ (the Schwartz class of rapidly decreasing smooth function), and this implies the integrabilty of $`^\gamma D^\beta G(,1)`$ for every multi-index $`\gamma `$.

Now, the change of variables yields that $`^\gamma D^\beta G(x,t)`$ has the self-similar form:

(3.1)
$$^\gamma D^\beta G(x,t)=t^{n/2\beta /2|\gamma |/2}(^\gamma D^\beta G)(x/\sqrt{t},1)$$

for all $`xIR^n`$ and $`t>0`$.

To prove (2.5), use the Young inequality for the convolution, and thus by (3.1) it follows

$`^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$ $`=`$ $`^\gamma D^\beta G(t)I_\beta u_0_1`$
$``$ $`^\gamma D^\beta G(,t)_1I_\beta u_0_1`$
$``$ $`t^{\beta /2|\gamma |/2}^\gamma D^\beta G(,1)_1I_\beta u_0_1`$
for all $`t>0`$.

For the proof of (2.6), observe that the change of variables $`z=x/\sqrt{t}`$ combined with (3.1) leads to the following expression

$`t^{\beta /2+|\gamma |/2}^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0()A^\gamma D^\beta G(,t)_1`$
(3.2) $`=t^{\beta /2+|\gamma |/2}{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}\left|{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}\left[^\gamma D^\beta G(xy,t)^\gamma D^\beta G(x,t)\right]I_\beta u_0(y)𝑑y\right|𝑑x`$
$`{\displaystyle _{IR^n\times IR^n}|I_\beta u_0(y)|\left|(^\gamma D^\beta G)(zy/\sqrt{t},1)(^\gamma D^\beta G)(z,1)\right|𝑑y𝑑z}`$
From the first part of this proof, the function $`^\gamma D^\beta G(z,1)`$ is continuous, hence the integrand on the right hand side of (3.2) tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ for all $`y,zIR^n`$. Denote

$$𝒜(z,y,t)(^\gamma D^\beta G)(zy/\sqrt{t},1)(^\gamma D^\beta G)(z,1).$$

To apply the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem to the integral on the right hand side of (3.2), it is necessary to show that there exists $`FL^1(IR^n)`$ independent of $`yIR^n`$ and $`t1`$, such that

(3.3)
$$|𝒜(z,y,t)|F(z)$$

for all $`z,yIR^n`$ and $`t1`$. Note that

$$𝒜(z,y,t)=_{R^n}|\xi |^\beta (i\xi )^\gamma \left[e^{iy/\sqrt{t}}1\right]e^{|\xi |^2}e^{iz\xi }𝑑\xi .$$

Moreover, the symbol $`b(\xi ,y,t)(1+|\xi |^2)^{\beta /2}(i\xi )^\gamma \left[e^{iy/\sqrt{t}}1\right]e^{|\xi |^2}`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function of $`(\xi ,y)IR^n\times IR^n`$, and satisfies the differential inequalities

$$|_\xi ^\alpha _y^\gamma b(\xi ,y,t)|C(\alpha ,\gamma ,N)(1+|\xi |)^{N\alpha }$$

for all multi-indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, all $`NIN`$, and $`C(\alpha ,\gamma ,N)`$ independent of $`\xi ,yIR^n`$ and $`t1`$. By \[36, Ch. VI, Sec. 4, Prop. 1\], the (inverse) Fourier transform with respect to $`\xi `$ of $`b(\xi ,y,t)`$ satisfies the estimate

$$|_\xi ^1b(,y,t)(z)|C(1+|z|)^N$$

for all $`NIN`$, and a constant $`C=C(N)`$ independent of $`z,yIR^n`$ and $`t1`$.

Finally, the use of the measure $`\mu _\beta `$ from the first part of this proof combined with standard properties of the Fourier transform and the convolution lead to the representation $`𝒜(,y,t)=\mu _\beta _\xi ^1b(,y,t).`$ Hence, (3.3) holds true for the function $`F(z)=C[\mu _\beta (1+||^N)](z)`$ with any $`N>n`$. This completes the proof of Proposition 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

We recall that, in , Miyakawa obtained the $`L^1`$-decay of $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ provided the $`|x|^\beta `$-momentum of the data is bounded. Below, we will show that our assumptions is weaker than the one assumed by Miyakawa.

Remark 3.2. The $`L^1`$-decay of solutions to the linear heat equation formulated in (2.5) was proved by Miyakawa  under the assumptions

(3.4) $`u_0L^1(IR^n),{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}u_0(x)𝑑x=0,{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}|x|^\beta |u_0(x)|𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$
for some $`0<\beta <1`$. To show that our assumption $`I_\beta u_0L^1(IR^n)`$ is weaker than (3.4) it suffices to establish the inequality

(3.5)
$$I_\beta u_0_1C_{IR^n}|x|^\beta |u_0(x)|𝑑x$$

valid for every $`u_0`$ satisfying (3.4) with $`\beta (0,1)`$. Let us sketch the proof of (3.5), however, it does not play any role in our considerations, below. It is well known that $`(I_\beta u_0)(x)=C(\beta ,n)_{IR^n}|xy|^{\beta n}u_0(y)𝑑y`$ (in fact, this representation holds true for every $`\beta (0,n)`$). Hence, using the assumption $`_{IR^n}u_0(y)𝑑y=0`$ and changing the order of integration yield

$$I_\beta u_0_1C(\beta ,n)_{IR^n}\left(_{IR^n}\left|\frac{1}{|xy|^{n\beta }}\frac{1}{|x|^{n\beta }}\right|𝑑x\right)|u_0(y)|𝑑y.$$

Next, note that the integral with respect to $`x`$ in the inequality above is finite for every $`yIR^n`$, because its integrand $`||xy|^{\beta n}|x|^{\beta n}|`$ is locally integrable and behaves like $`|x|^{\beta 1n}`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ (here, the assumption $`\beta (0,1)`$ is crucial). Hence, by the change of variables, it follows that

$$_{IR^n}\left|\frac{1}{|xy|^{n\beta }}\frac{1}{|x|^{n\beta }}\right|𝑑x=|y|^\beta _{IR^n}\left|\frac{1}{|\omega y/|y||^{n\beta }}\frac{1}{|\omega |^{n\beta }}\right|𝑑\omega .$$

Since $`sup_{yIR^n\{0\}}_{IR^n}||\omega y/|y||^{\beta n}|\omega |^{\beta n}|𝑑\omega <\mathrm{}`$ (the proof of this elementary fact is omitted), we obtain (3.5). $`\mathrm{}`$

The self-similar asymptotics of $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ in $`L^p(IR^n)`$ with $`p[2,\mathrm{}]`$ can be derived under weaker assumptions on $`u_0`$. This is stated in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}(\xi )`$ denote a function homogeneous of degree $`\beta >0`$. Assume that $`u_0`$ satisfies

(3.6)
$$\underset{\xi IR^n\{0\}}{sup}\frac{\widehat{u}_0(\xi )}{\mathrm{}(\xi )}<\mathrm{}\text{and}\underset{|\xi |0}{lim}\frac{\widehat{u}_0(\xi )}{\mathrm{}(\xi )}=A$$

for some $`AIR`$. Denote by $``$ the Fourier multiplier operator defined via the formula $`\widehat{v}(\xi )=\mathrm{}(\xi )\widehat{v}(\xi ).`$ Under these assumptions, for every $`p[2,\mathrm{}]`$ and for every multi-index $`\gamma `$, it follows

$$t^{n(11/p)/2+\beta /2+|\gamma |/2}^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0A^\gamma G(t)_p0\text{as}t\mathrm{}.$$

Proof. The main tool here is the Hausdorff–Young inequality

(3.7)
$$\widehat{v}_pCv_q,$$

valid for every $`1q2p\mathrm{}`$ such that $`1/p+1/q=1`$. Hence, (3.7), the change of variables $`\xi t^{1/2}=\omega `$, and the homogeneity of $`\mathrm{}`$ yield

$`^\gamma e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0A^\gamma G(t)_p^q`$
$`C{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}\left|(i\xi )^\gamma e^{t|\xi |^2}\mathrm{}(\xi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}_0(\xi )A\mathrm{}(\xi )}{\mathrm{}(\xi )}}\right)\right|^q𝑑\xi `$
$`=Ct^{n/2(\beta /2+|\gamma |/2)q}{\displaystyle _{IR^n}}\left|(i\omega )^\gamma e^{|\omega |^2}\mathrm{}(\omega )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}_0(\omega /t^{1/2})}{\mathrm{}(\omega /t^{1/2})}}A\right)\right|^q𝑑\xi .`$
Now, the assumptions on $`u_0`$ in (3.6) allow us to apply the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem in order to prove that the integral on the right hand side tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 3.3. The conditions formulated in (3.6) appear in a natural way if Hardy spaces are considered. Let us recall that a tempered distribution $`v`$ belongs to the Hardy space $`^p`$ on $`IR^n`$ for some $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`v^+=sup_{t>0}|(\varphi _tv)|L^p(IR^n),`$ where $`\varphi _t(x)=t^n\varphi (x/t)`$ with $`\varphi 𝒮(IR^n)`$ such that $`_{IR^n}\varphi (x)\text{ d}x=1`$. We refer the reader to  where several properties of Hardy spaces are derived. We recall that $`^1`$ is a Banach space strictly contained in $`L^1(IR^n)`$ and that $`L^p(IR^n)=^p`$ for $`p>1`$ with equivalent norms. Suppose now that $`p1`$ and $`u_0^p`$. It is known (cf. \[36, Chapter III, §5.4\]) that the Fourier transform $`\widehat{u}_0`$ is continuous on $`IR^n`$ and $`|\widehat{u}_0(\xi )|C|\xi |^{n(1/p1)}u_0_^p`$ for all $`\xi IR^n`$. Moreover, near the origin, this can be refined to $`lim_{\xi 0}\widehat{u}_0(\xi )|\xi |^{n(1/p1)}=0.`$ Hence, assumptions (3.6) are satisfied with $`\mathrm{}(\xi )=|\xi |^\beta `$, $`\beta (0,1)`$, and $`A=0`$, if e.g. $`u_0^{n/(n+\beta )}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2.1 is the main decay theorem proved in this section. It ensures that the $`L^1`$-norm of solutions to the convection-diffusion equation decay at the rate $`t^{\beta /2}`$ provided their initial data are such that the corresponding solutions to the heat equation decay at the same rate.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. The proof of this theorem relays on a systematic combination of the integral equation (2.1) with inequality (2.2). Note that since $`u_0L^1(IR^n)L^q(IR^n)`$, by (2.2), it follows that

(3.8)
$$u(,t)_q^qC(u_0_1,u_0_q)(1+t)^{(n/2)(q1)}$$

for all $`t0`$. Hence, computing the $`L^1`$-norm of (2.1), using the assumption on $`u_0`$, and (3.8) yield

(3.9) $`u(,t)_1`$ $``$ $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1+{\displaystyle _0^t}aG(,t\tau )_1u(,t)_q^q𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`Ct^{\beta /2}+C{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{1/2}(1+\tau )^{(n/2)(q1)}𝑑\tau `$
(3.13) $``$ $`Ct^{\beta /2}+C\{\begin{array}{cc}t^{1/2(n/2)(q1)},\text{for}\hfill & q(1+\frac{1}{n},1+\frac{2}{n});\\ t^{1/2}\mathrm{log}(e+t),\text{for}\hfill & q=1+\frac{2}{n};\\ t^{1/2},\text{for}\hfill & q>1+\frac{2}{n}.\end{array}`$
For $`q1+(\beta +1)/n`$, estimate (2.8) follows immediately from (3.9), since $`1/2<\beta /2`$ and $`1/2(n/2)(q1)\beta /2`$ for this range of $`q`$.

Next, consider $`1+1/n<q<1+(\beta +1)/n`$. A simple calculation shows that $`\alpha =(1/2(n/2)(q1))`$ satisfies $`0<\alpha <\beta /2`$. Moreover, it follows from (3.9) that

(3.14)
$$u(,t)_1C(1+t)^\alpha .$$

Combining inequality (2.2) with (3.14) yields the improved decay of the $`L^q`$-norm

$`u(,t)_q`$ $``$ $`C(1+t/2)^{(n/2)(11/q)}u(,t/2)_1`$
$``$ $`C(1+t)^{(n/2)(11/q)\alpha }.`$
Hence, repeating the calculations from (3.9), using (3) instead of (3.8), gives

(3.16)
$$u(,t)_1Ct^{\beta /2}+_0^t(t\tau )^{1/2}(1+\tau )^{(n/2)(q1)q\alpha }𝑑\tau .$$

If $`(n/2)(q1)q\alpha 1`$, the integral on the right hand side of (3.16) tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ faster than $`t^{\beta /2}`$ and this ends the proof. On the other hand, if $`(n/2)(q1)q\alpha >1`$, by the definition of $`\alpha `$, it follows from (3.16) that

$$u(,t)_1Ct^{\beta /2}+Ct^{\alpha (q+1)}.$$

Hence, if $`\alpha (q+1)\beta /2`$, the proof is complete. If, on the contrary $`\alpha (q+1)>\beta /2`$, we have the new estimate

$$u(,t)_1C(1+t)^{\alpha (q+1)},$$

which we use as in (3) (with $`\alpha `$ replaced by $`\alpha (q+1)`$) to get an improved decay of the $`L^q`$-norm: $`u(,t)_qC(1+t)^{(n/2)(11/q)\alpha (q+1)}`$. Consequently, a finite number of repetitions of the above steps yields (2.8).

Finally, let us prove (2.8) for $`1+1/(n+\beta )q1+1/n`$ under the assumption that $`sup_{t>0}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$ is sufficiently small. For simplicity of notation, we put

$$q=q^{}=1+\frac{1}{n+\beta },$$

and we use systematically the following inequality (obtained from the Hölder inequality and from (2.2))

(3.17)
$$u(,t)_q^qu(,t)_q^{}^q^{}u(,t)_{\mathrm{}}^{qq^{}}C(u_0_{\mathrm{}})u(,t)_q^{}^q^{}$$

for all $`t>0`$. To proceed, we also define the auxiliary nonnegative continuous function

$$g(t)\underset{0\tau t}{sup}\left(\tau ^{\beta /2}u(,\tau )_1\right)+\underset{0\tau t}{sup}\left(\tau ^{(1/2+\beta /2)/q^{}}u(,\tau )_q^{}\right).$$

Now, computing the $`L^1`$-norm of the integral equation (2.1) and using (3.17) yield

$`t^{\beta /2}u(,t)_1`$ $``$ $`t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1+Ct^{\beta /2}{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{1/2}u(,\tau )_q^{}^q^{}𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$
$`+g^q^{}(t)Ct^{\beta /2}{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{1/2}\tau ^{1/2\beta /2}𝑑\tau `$
for all $`t>0`$. An elementary calculation shows that the quantity

$$t^{\beta /2}_0^t(t\tau )^{1/2}\tau ^{1/2\beta /2}𝑑\tau $$

is finite for every $`t>0`$ (since $`0<\beta <1`$) and independent of $`t`$. A similar reasoning gives

$`u(,t)_q^{}`$ $``$ $`(t/2)^{(n/2)(11/q^{})}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$
$`+g^q^{}(t)C{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/q^{})1/2}\tau ^{1/2\beta /2}𝑑\tau .`$
Note that $`(n/2)(11/q^{})\beta /2=(1/2+\beta /2)/q^{}`$. Moreover, the quantity

$$t^{(1/2+\beta /2)/q^{}}_0^t(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/q^{})1/2}\tau ^{1/2\beta /2}𝑑\tau $$

is finite (since $`(n/2)(11/q^{})1/2>1`$) and independent of $`t`$ (by the change of variables).

Combining inequalities (3) and (3) yields

(3.20)
$$g(t)C_1\underset{0\tau }{sup}\tau ^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1+C_2g^q^{}(t)$$

for all $`t0`$ and constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ independent of $`t`$.

Finally, let

$$F(y)=A+C_2y^q^{}y\text{where}A=C_1\underset{0\tau }{sup}\tau ^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1$$

and where $`q^{}>1`$. If $`A>0`$ is sufficiently small, there exists $`y_0>0`$ such that $`F(y_0)=0`$ and $`F(y)>0`$ if $`y[0,y_0)`$. Moreover, it follows from (3.20) that $`F(g(t))0`$. Since $`g(t)`$ is a nonnegative, continuous function such that $`g(0)=0`$, we deduce that $`g(t)[0,y_0)`$ for all $`t0`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence of Theorem 2.1 we get Corollary 2.1. Actually, here we prove its slightly stronger version.

###### Corollary 3.1

Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, for every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$ and $`\beta (0,1)`$ there exists $`C=C(u_0,p)`$ independent of $`t`$ such that

(3.21)
$$u(,t)_pC(1+t)^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}$$

for all $`t>0`$, and

(3.26) $`u(,t)e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0()_p`$
$``$ $`C\{\begin{array}{cc}t^{(n/2)(q1/p)(\beta q1)/2}\text{for}\hfill & q(1+\frac{1}{n+\beta },\frac{n+2}{n+\beta }),\\ t^{(n/2)(11/p)1/2}\mathrm{log}(e+t)\text{for}\hfill & q=\frac{n+2}{n+\beta },\\ t^{(n/2)(11/p)1/2}\text{for}\hfill & q>\frac{n+2}{n+\beta }\end{array}`$
for all $`t1`$.

Proof. Inequality (3.21) is obtained combining (2.2) with (2.8) as in (3) where $`q`$ is replaced by $`p`$ and $`\alpha `$ by $`\beta /2`$.

In view of the integral equation (2.1), to prove (LABEL:ue-Lp) it suffices to estimate the $`L^p`$-norm of the second term on the right hand side of (2.1). Here, split the integration range with respect to $`\tau `$ into $`[0,t/2][t/2,t]`$ and study each term separately as follows. Using the Young inequality for the convolution and (3.21) yields

$`{\displaystyle _0^{t/2}}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )_p𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{t/2}}aG(,t\tau )_pu(,\tau )_q^q𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle _0^{t/2}}(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/p)1/2}(1+\tau )^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}𝑑\tau `$
(3.31) $``$ $`C\{\begin{array}{cc}t^{(n/2)(q1/p)(\beta q1)/2}\text{for}\hfill & q(1+\frac{1}{n+\beta },\frac{n+2}{n+\beta }),\\ t^{(n/2)(11/p)1/2}\mathrm{log}(e+t)\text{for}\hfill & q=\frac{n+2}{n+\beta },\\ t^{(n/2)(11/p)1/2}\text{for}\hfill & q>\frac{n+2}{n+\beta }\end{array}`$
for all $`t>0`$.

A similar calculation gives

$`{\displaystyle _{t/2}^t}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )_p𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{t/2}^t}(t\tau )^{1/2}u(,\tau )_{pq}^q𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle _{t/2}^t}(t\tau )^{1/2}(1+\tau )^{(n/2)(q1/p)\beta q/2}𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`Ct^{(n/2)(q1/p)(\beta q1)/2}`$
for all $`t>0`$.

Finally, to obtain (LABEL:ue-Lp), combine (3) and (3) (note that

$$(n/2(q1/p)(\beta q1)/2(n/2)(11/p)1/2$$

for $`q(n+2)/(n+\beta )`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Corollary 2.2. As pointed out in Section 2, it follows from Corollary 3.1 that

(3.33)
$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)+\beta /2}u(,t)e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0()_p0\text{as}t\mathrm{},$$

for each $`q>1+1/(n+\beta )`$ and every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$. Thus (3.33) combined with Propositions 2.1 and 3.1 yields Corollary 2.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

A few remarks are in order.

Remark 3.4. If the nonlinear term in (1.1) has the form $`f(u)`$ and the function $`f`$ is sufficiently regular at zero, it is possible to improve the conclusion of Corollary 2.2 to

$$t^{(n/2)(11/p)+(\beta +|\gamma |)/2}^\gamma u(,t)A^\gamma D^\beta G(,t)_p0\text{as}t\mathrm{}$$

for the multi-index $`\gamma `$ depending on the regularity of $`f`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 3.5. Consider Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 in the context of the viscous Burgers equation

(3.34)
$$u_tu_{xx}+(u^2/2)_x=0,u(x,0)=u_0(x),xIR.$$

This is problem (1.1)-(1.2) with $`n=1`$, $`q=2`$, and $`a=1/2`$. It is well-known (cf. e.g. ) that the large time behavior of solutions to this equation supplemented with the integrable initial condition is described by so-called nonlinear diffusion waves (cf. (1.4), above). If, however, it is assumed that $`u_0`$ satisfies the conditions from Proposition 2.1 with some $`0<\beta <1`$, and if, moreover, $`sup_{t>0}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1`$ is sufficiently small, the asymptotics for large $`t`$ of solutions to the Burgers equation is given by the self-similar solutions $`AD^\beta G(x,t)`$ to the heat equation.

For completeness of the exposition, we analyze problem (3.34) in more detail. Using the Hopf-Cole transformation one obtains the solution of (3.34) of the following form

(3.35)
$$u(x,t)=\frac{(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_0)_x(x)}{(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_0)(x)}$$

where as usual $`w_0(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{\mathrm{}}^xu_0(y)𝑑y\right)`$. Supposing that $`u_0L^1(IR)`$, $`_{IR}u_0(x)𝑑x=0`$, and $`u_0`$ satisfies the Miyakawa moment condition

(3.36)
$$_{R^n}|x|^\beta |u_0(x)|𝑑x<\mathrm{},$$

it is easy to show directly from the explicit formula (3.35) that the $`L^1`$-norm of $`u(,t)`$ decays at the rate $`t^{\beta /2}`$. Indeed, first note that the denominator is the solution to the heat equation with the datum $`w_0`$ and is bounded from below by $`\mathrm{exp}(u_0_1)`$. Thus, it is only necessary to bound the numerator

$`\left(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_0\right)_x(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{IR}}G(xy,t)(w_0)_y(y)𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{IR}}G(xy,t)u_0(y)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^y}u_0(z)𝑑z\right)𝑑y.`$
Obviously, $`(w_0)_yL^1(IR)`$ and $`_{IR}|y|^\beta |(w_0)_y(y)|𝑑y<\mathrm{}`$, since $`u_0`$ has these properties and $`\mathrm{exp}\left(_{\mathrm{}}^yu_0(z)𝑑z\right)`$ is a bounded function. Let us skip an easy proof that $`_{IR}(w_0)_y(y)𝑑y=0`$. Consequently, $`(w_0)_y`$ satisfies the Miyakawa conditions, so the $`L^1`$-norms of solutions to (3.34) decay with the rate $`t^{\beta /2}`$. Finally, repeating the calculations from the proof of Corollary 3.1 yields that the large time behavior of solutions to (3.34) is described by $`AD^\beta G(,t)`$. Note that here non-smallness assumptions on $`u_0`$ have been imposed unlike it was done in Theorem 2.1 in the case $`1+1/(n+\beta )q1+1/n`$. This example suggests that such an assumption in Theorem 2.1 is not necessary, however, the proof of a stronger version requires new ideas. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 3.6. In this paper, we limit ourselves to the case $`\beta (0,1)`$. We expect a completely different large time behavior of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) in $`\beta 1`$ for the following reason. Suppose that

(3.37)
$$u_0L^1(IR^n,(1+|x|)dx)\text{and}_{IR^n}u_0(x)𝑑x=0.$$

It is proved in  that $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{1/2}u_0_{L^1(IR^n,|x|dx)}`$ for all $`t>0`$ and a constant $`C`$; moreover,

$$t^{1/2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_{IR^n}xu_0(x)𝑑xG(x,t)_10\text{as}t\mathrm{}.$$

Now, using the second order asymptotic expansion by Zuazua  (cf. also  for analogous results with more general diffusion operators and less regular initial conditions) of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) with $`q>1+2/n`$, we obtain that the quantity

$$t^{1/2}u(,t)\left(_{IR^n}xu_0(x)𝑑xa_0^{\mathrm{}}_{IR^n}(u|u|^{q1})(x,\tau )𝑑x𝑑\tau \right)G(x,t)_1$$

tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$. This asymptotic result shows that the large time behavior of solutions with the initial data satisfying (3.37) can be classified as weakly nonlinear in the sense of Zuazua . Here, however, the first term of the asymptotics comes linearly from the heat kernel, but has a nonlinear dependence on the solution through a multiplicative factor (as noted by Zuazua in , it is an open question if this factor is different from zero). Hence, assuming that $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{\beta /2}`$ for some $`\beta 1`$ one should expect asymptotic expansions of solutions completely different from that in Corollary 2.2, specifically of the form just described. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Nonlinear asymptotics

The following two lemmata give the crucial steps to yield the necessary estimates of the integral equation (2.1).

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`aIR^n`$ be a fixed constant vector. There exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that for every $`wL^1(IR^n)`$ we have

(4.1)
$$ae^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}Ct^{(\beta 1)/2}w_1$$

for all $`t>0`$.

Proof. Using the definition of the norm in $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ and properties of the heat semigroup yields

$`ae^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\beta /2}e^{s\mathrm{\Delta }}ae^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}w_1`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\beta /2}ae^{(t+s)\mathrm{\Delta }}w_1`$
$``$ $`Cw_1\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\beta /2}(t+s)^{1/2}`$
for all $`t>0`$. Now, a direct calculation shows that $`sup_{s>0}s^{\beta /2}(t+s)^{1/2}=C(\beta )t^{(\beta 1)/2}`$ with $`C(\beta )`$ independent of $`t`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.2

Assume that $`v_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$. Then for each $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$ there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that

$$e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}v_pCt^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}v_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}$$

for all $`t>0`$.

Proof. Standard properties of the heat semigroup $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and the definition of the norm in $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ give

$$e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}v_pC(t/2)^{(n/2)(11/p)}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}v_1Ct^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}v_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}.$$

for all $`t>0`$ and a constant $`C`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are ready to prove the existence Theorem 2.2 in the critical case $`q^{}`$.

Proof of Theorem 2.2. Our reasoning is similar to that in . Moreover, the calculations below resemble those in the proof of Theorem 2.1 with $`1+1/(n+\beta )q1+1/n`$, thus we shall be brief in details. Recall that in this section we consider

$$q=q^{}=1+\frac{1}{n+\beta }$$

which is equivalent to

$$\frac{n}{2}\left(1\frac{1}{q}\right)+\frac{\beta }{2}=\frac{1}{q}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\beta }{2}\right).$$

Equip the space $`𝒳`$ with the norm

$$u_𝒳=\mathrm{max}\{\underset{t>0}{sup}u(t)_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}},\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(t)_q\}.$$

We will show that the nonlinear operator

(4.2)
$$𝒩(u)(t)e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_0^tae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )𝑑\tau $$

is a contraction on the box

$$B_{R,\epsilon }=\{u𝒳:u(t)_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}R\text{and}\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(t)_q2\epsilon \}$$

for sufficiently large $`R>0`$ and a suitably small $`\epsilon >0`$. This will be guaranteed provided the following estimates can be shown to hold

(4.3) $`𝒩(u)(t)_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$ $``$ $`u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}+C\epsilon ^q,`$
(4.4) $`t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}𝒩(u)(t)_q`$ $``$ $`Cu_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}+C\epsilon ^q,`$
and

(4.5) $`𝒩(u)(t)𝒩(v)(t)_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{q1}\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_q`$
(4.6) $`t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}𝒩(u)(t)𝒩(v)(t)_q`$
$`C\epsilon ^{q1}\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_q.`$
with constants $`C`$ independent of $`u`$ and $`t`$.

For the proof of (4.3) observe that $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$. Hence computing the $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$-norm of (4.2) for $`uB_{R,\epsilon }`$ and applying Lemma 4.1 we obtain

$`𝒩(u)(t)_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$ $``$ $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle _0^t}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}+C{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{(\beta 1)/2}u(\tau )_q^q𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}+C\epsilon ^q{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{(\beta 1)/2}\tau ^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}𝑑\tau .`$
Note now that the assumptions $`\beta (0,1)`$ and $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$ guarantee that the integral on the right hand side is finite for any $`t>0`$. Moreover, since $`(\beta 1)/2n(q1)/2\beta q/2+1=0`$, it follows that this integral is independent of $`t`$. Hence, estimate (4.3) holds true.

The proof of (4.4) is similar. It involves Lemma 4.2 as follows

$`𝒩(u)(t)_q`$ $``$ $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_q+{\displaystyle _0^t}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}(u|u|^{q1})(\tau )_q𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`Ct^{(n/2)(11/q)\beta /2}u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$
$`+C\epsilon ^q{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/q)1/2}\tau ^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}𝑑\tau .`$
In this case, the conditions on $`\beta ,q`$ imply again that the integral on the right hand side is finite for every $`t>0`$. In fact, by a change of variables, it equals $`Ct^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}`$ for a constant $`C>0`$. Hence (4.4) is proved.

The proofs of (4.5) and (4.6) are completely analogous. The only difference consists in using elementary inequality

(4.8)
$$u|u|^{q1}v|v|^{q1}_1Cuv_q\left(u_q^{q1}+v_q^{q1}\right)$$

valid for all $`u,vL^q(IR^n)`$.

Finally, it follows from (4.3)–(4.6) that $`𝒩:B_{R,\epsilon }B_{R,\epsilon }`$ is a contraction for $`R>2u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$ and a suitably small $`\epsilon >0`$. Hence the sequence defined as $`u_0(t)=e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0`$ and $`u_{n+1}(t)=𝒩(u_n(t))`$ converges to a unique (in $`B_{R,\epsilon }`$) global-in-time solution to (1.1)-(1.2) provided $`u_0(t)B_{R,\epsilon }`$, i.e. $`u_0_{_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$ is sufficiently small (cf. Lemma 4.2). $`\mathrm{}`$

The proof of Theorem 2.3 requires the following result from \[22, Lemma 6.1\].

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`wL^1(0,1)`$, $`w0`$, and $`_0^1w(x)𝑑x<1`$. Assume that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two nonnegative, bounded functions such that

(4.9)
$$f(t)g(t)+_0^1w(\tau )f(\tau t)𝑑\tau .$$

Then $`lim_t\mathrm{}g(t)=0`$ implies $`lim_t\mathrm{}f(t)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next task is to prove the stability Theorem 2.3.

Proof of Theorem 2.3. The subtraction of equation (2.1) for $`v`$ from the analogous expression for $`u`$ leads to the following identity

(4.10) $`u(t)v(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(u|u|^{q1}v|v|^{q1}\right)(\tau )𝑑\tau .`$
Repeating the reasoning from the proof of (4.4) involving inequality (4.8) gives

$`u(,t)v(,t)_q`$
$``$ $`Ct^{(n/2)(11/q)\beta /2}\left((t/2)^{\beta /2}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_1\right)`$
$`+C{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/q)1/2}u(,\tau )v(,\tau )_q`$
$`\times \left(u(,\tau )_q^{q1}+v(,\tau )_q^{q1}\right)d\tau .`$
By Theorem 2.2, the both quantities

$$\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(,t)_q\text{and}\underset{t>0}{sup}t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}v(,t)_q$$

are bounded by $`2\epsilon `$. Hence, multiplying (4) by $`t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}`$, putting

(4.12)
$$f(t)=t^{(n/2)(11/q)+\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_q,$$

and changing variable $`\tau =ts`$, we get

(4.13) $`f(t)`$ $``$ $`C(t/2)^{\beta /2}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_1`$
$`+2C\epsilon ^{q1}{\displaystyle _0^1}(1s)^{(n/2)(11/q)1/2}s^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}f(ts)𝑑s.`$
Since $`(1s)^{(n/2)(11/q)1/2}s^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}L^1(0,1)`$ (cf. comments following inequalities (4)), we may apply Lemma 4.3 obtaining $`f(t)0`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ for sufficiently small $`\epsilon >0`$. This proves (2.13) for $`p=q`$.

Next, we prove (2.13) for $`p=1`$. Computing the $`L^1`$-norm of (4.10) and repeating the calculations from (4) and (4.13) yield

$`t^{\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_1`$ $``$ $`t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_1`$
$`+C{\displaystyle _0^1}(1s)^{1/2}s^{(n/2)(q1)\beta q/2}f(ts)𝑑s,`$
where $`f`$, defined in (4.12), is a bounded function satisfying $`lim_t\mathrm{}f(t)=0`$, by the first part of this proof. Hence (2.12) and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem give

(4.14)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{\beta /2}u(,t)v(,t)_1=0.$$

The next stage of the proof deals with (2.13) for all $`p(1,\mathrm{})`$. The calculations from (3) show that $`u(,t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`v(,t)_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be both bounded by $`Ct^{n/2\beta /2}`$ for all $`t>0`$ and a constant $`C`$ independent of $`t`$. Hence, by the Hölder inequality and (4.14) it follows that

$`u(,t)v(,t)_p`$ $``$ $`Cu(,t)v(,t)_1^{1/p}`$
$`\times \left(u(,t)_{\mathrm{}}^{11/p}+v(,t)_{\mathrm{}}^{11/p}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`o\left(t^{(n/2)(11/p)\beta /2}\right)\text{as}t\mathrm{},`$
where we used the following inequality

(4.15)
$$\left|g|g|^{q1}h|h|^{q1}\right|\frac{q}{2}|gh|\left(|g|^{q1}+|h|^{q1}\right)$$

valid for all $`g,hIR`$ and $`q>1`$.

Finally, the proof of (2.13) for $`p=\mathrm{}`$ involves equation (4.10) and (2.13) proved already for all $`p[1,\mathrm{})`$. Standard $`L^pL^q`$ estimates of the of the heat semigroup imply that

$`t^{n/2+\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`Ct^{n/2+\beta /2}(t/2)^{n/2}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_1`$
$`=`$ $`C(t/2)^{\beta /2}e^{(t/2)\mathrm{\Delta }}(u_0v_0)_10`$
as $`t\mathrm{}`$ by assumption (2.12).

To study the second term on the right hand side of (4.10), the integration range with respect to $`\tau `$ is decomposed into $`[0,t]=[0,t/2][t/2,t]`$.

Combining inequality (4.15) with estimates of the heat semi-group and the Hölder inequality yields

$`ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(u|u|^{q1}v|v|^{q1}\right)(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}`$
(4.16) $`C(t\tau )^{n/21/2}u(\tau )v(\tau )_1\left(u(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}^{q1}+v(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}^{q1}\right)`$
$`C(t\tau )^{n/21/2}\tau ^{\beta /2(n+\beta )(q1)/2}f_1(\tau ),`$
where $`C`$ is independent of $`t`$ and $`\tau `$, and $`f_1(\tau )=\tau ^{\beta /2}u(\tau )v(\tau )_1`$ is the bounded function which tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ by (2.13) for $`p=1`$.

Moreover, choosing $`1/r+1/z=1`$, similar calculations lead to

$`ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(u|u|^{q1}v|v|^{q1}\right)(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}`$
(4.17) $`C(t\tau )^{(n/2)(11/z)1/2}\tau ^{(n/2)(11/r)\beta /2(n+\beta )(q1)/2}f_r(\tau )`$
where $`f_r(\tau )=\tau ^{(n/2)(11/r)+\beta /2}u(\tau )v(\tau )_r`$ also tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ by (2.13). Hence, by the change of variables $`\tau =ts`$, it follows from (4.16) that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{t/2}}ae^{(t\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(u|u|^{q1}v|v|^{q1}\right)(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`Ct^{n/2\beta /2}{\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}(1s)^{n/21/2}s^{\beta /2(n+\beta )(q1)/2}f_1(st)𝑑s.`$
The integral on the right hand side is finite (recall that $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$), because

$$\frac{\beta }{2}\frac{(n+\beta )(q1)}{2}=\frac{\beta +1}{2}>1\text{for }\beta (0,1).$$

This integral tends to 0 as $`t\mathrm{}`$ by the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem.

The case of the integral $`_{t/2}^t\mathrm{}𝑑\tau `$ involves inequality (4.17) with $`z>1`$ chosen such that $`(n/2)(11/z)1/2>1`$. The proof here is analogous as in the last case and as such will be omitted. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.3.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Balance case: self-similar solutions

In this section, we continue our analysis on the asymptotic behaviour of solutions of (1.1) when $`q`$ is the critical exponent $`q=q^{}=1+1/(n+\beta )`$. Here, we would like to explain how Theorem 2.2 ensures the existence of a new class of self-similar solutions to (1.1) and how Theorem 2.3 shows that there is a large class of solutions whose asymptotic behaviour in $`L^p(IR^n)`$ corresponds to self-similar solutions.

Elementary calculations show that if $`u(x,t)`$ is a solution to the equation

(5.1)
$$u_t\mathrm{\Delta }u+a(u|u|^{1/(n+\beta )})=0,$$

then so is $`\lambda ^{n+\beta }u(\lambda x,\lambda ^2t)`$ for every $`\lambda >0`$. Self-similar solutions should satisfy the equality $`u(x,t)=\lambda ^{n+\beta }u(\lambda x,\lambda ^2t)`$, hence choosing $`\lambda =\lambda (t)=1/\sqrt{t}`$ yields a self-similar form

(5.2)
$$u(x,t)=t^{\frac{n+\beta }{2}}U\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}\right),$$

where $`U(x)=u(x,1)`$, $`xIR^n`$, and $`t>0`$. Substituting $`u(x,t)`$ defined in (5.2) to equation (5.1) we shows the function $`U=U(x)`$ satisfies the elliptic equation

(5.3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }U\frac{1}{2}xU=\frac{n+\beta }{2}U+a(U|U|^{1/(n+\beta )})=0.$$

We believe that one can obtain solutions to (5.3) using ideas similar to those developed in . In that paper, Aguirre, Escobedo and Zuazua establish a priori estimates and existence of solutions to the system

(5.4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }f\frac{1}{2}xf=\frac{n}{2}f+a\mathrm{\Psi }(f)=0.$$

The main difference between our case and (5.4) is that their coefficient for $`f`$ is exactly $`n/2`$ which is the first eigenvalue of $`L=\mathrm{\Delta }f\frac{1}{2}xf`$.

In our paper, however, we propose a completely different construction of self-similar solutions, based on the Cannone method . Let us formulate this result.

###### Theorem 5.1

Assume that $`u_0_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ is a homogeneous distribution of degree $`n\beta `$. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.2, the constructed solution to (1.1)-(1.2) is self-similar; hence, of the form (5.2).

The proof of this theorem follows the standard reasoning (cf. e.g. \[7, Section 3\] and ) and is based on the uniqueness result from Theorem 2.2. Let us skip other details. Here, we only mention that the fractional derivative of order $`\beta `$ of the Dirac delta $`D^\beta \delta _0`$ belongs to $`_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$. Indeed, this follows from the definitions of $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\delta _0`$, since $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}D^\beta \delta _0=D^\beta G(,t)`$ (cf. the proof of Proposition 2.1). Hence, the self-similar form of $`D^\beta G(x,t)`$ (see (3.1)) yields $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}D^\beta \delta _0_1=t^{\beta /2}D^\beta G(,1)_1.`$ Finally, note that the tempered distribution $`D^\beta \delta _0`$ is homogeneous of degree $`n\beta `$. Consequently, Theorem 5.1 implies that every solution to (1.1)-(1.2) corresponding to $`AD^\beta \delta _0`$ with sufficiently small $`|A|`$ is self-similar.

Now, let $`t^{(n+\beta )/2}U_A(x/\sqrt{t})`$ denote the self-similar solution corresponding to the initial datum $`u_0=AD^\beta \delta _0`$ for some $`AIR`$. In the following theorem, we show that $`U_A`$ describes the asymptotic behavior of a large class of solutions to (1.1)-(1.2).

###### Theorem 5.2

Let the assumptions from Theorem 2.3 hold true. Assume that $`v`$ is the solution of (1.1)-(1.2) constructed in Theorem 2.2 corresponding to the initial data $`v_0_1^{\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`t^{(n+\beta )/2}U_A(x/\sqrt{t})`$ be the self-similar solution corresponding to the initial datum $`u_0=AD^\beta \delta _0`$ for sufficiently small $`|A|`$. Suppose that

(5.5)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{\beta /2}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}v_0AD^\beta G(,t)_1=0.$$

Choosing $`\epsilon >0`$ in Theorem 2.2 sufficiently small, we have

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{(n/2)(11/p)+\beta /2}v(,t)t^{(n+\beta )/2}U_A(/\sqrt{t})_p=0$$

for every $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$.

This theorem is a direct corollary of Theorem 2.3. Recall only that, by Proposition 2.1, the limit relation in (5.5) holds true if, in particular, $`I_\beta v_0L^1(IR^n)`$. In this case, $`A=_{IR^n}I_\beta v_0(x)𝑑x`$.

Let us compare Theorem 5.2 with its counterpart proved by Escobedo and Zuazua in , and recalled already in Introduction, formula (1.4). When $`u_0=M0`$ and $`q=1+1/n`$, equation (1.1) has a one-parameter family of self-similar solutions parameterized by $`M`$. Moreover, $`U_M`$ describes the large time asymptotics of all solutions with mass $`M`$. Note that for every $`u_0L^1(IR^n)`$, the condition $`u_0=M`$ is equivalent to

$$e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0MG(,t)_10\text{as}t\mathrm{}.$$

In our case, when $`M=0`$, the set of self-similar solutions to (1.1) with $`q=1+1/(n+\beta )`$ is more complicated, however, relation (5.5) (or, more generally, (2.12)) still allows us to identify solutions to (1.1)-(1.2) with the given self-similar large time behavior.

## 6 Conclusions

The ideas developed in this paper can be applied to other types of equations. As the first example, let us look at the Navier-Stokes equations for the incompressible fluid

$`u_t\mathrm{\Delta }u+uu+p`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\text{div}u`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`u(,0)`$ $`=`$ $`u_0.`$
It well-known (see e.g. ) that any integrable solenoidal smooth vector field $`u_0`$ (i.e. $`\text{div}u_00`$) satisfies $`u_0=0`$. This fact motivated Miyakawa to study in  the $`L^2`$-decay of solutions to the Navier-Stokes system endowed with integrable initial conditions satisfying $`e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}u_0_1Ct^{\beta /2}`$ for some $`0<\beta <1`$, a constant $`C`$, and all $`t>0`$. We believe that our methods will offer some improvements to the Miyakawa results.

We also expect that it will be possible to improve asymptotic expansions of solutions to the Korteweg-de Vries-Burgers equation as well as to the Benjamin-Bona-Mahony-Burgers equation obtained recently in . Some preliminary progress in this direction was already done by M. Mei in .

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to express their thanks to the anonymous referee for several very helpful comments and suggestions. As a result, the authors were able to write an improved and more organized version of their paper. Part of this research was done while G.K. was invited to Department of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Cruz, in September 1999. During the preparation of the paper, G.K. was partially supported by the Foundation for Polish Science. Grant support from KBN 0050/P03/2000/18 is also gratefully acknowledged.