arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 27 May 2015

Transcription

1 ONE DIMENSIONAL DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION: MEASUE SOLUTIONS, COOLING ATE AND SELF-SIMILA POFILE arxiv: v [math.ap] 7 May 05. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Abstract. This manuscript investigates the following aspects of the one dimensional dissipative Boltzmann equation associated to variable hard-spheres kernel: ) we show the optimal cooling rate of the model by a careful study of the system satisfied by the solution s moments, ) give existence and uniqueness of measure solutions, and 3) prove the existence of a non-trivial self-similar profile, i.e. homogeneous cooling state, after appropriate scaling of the equation. The latter issue is based on compactness tools in the set of Borel measures. More specifically, we apply a dynamical fixed point theorem on a suitable stable set, for the model dynamics, of Borel measures. Keywords. point. Boltzmann equation, self-similar solution, measure solutions, dynamical fixed Contents. Introduction.. Self-similar equation and the long time asymptotic 3.. Notations 5.3. Collision operator and definition of measure solutions 6.4. Strategy and main results 7. Cauchy theory 8.. A priori estimates on moments 8.. Cauchy theory 3. Optimal decay of the moments Lower bounds for moments Consequences on the rescaled problem 9 4. Existence of a steady solution to the rescaled problem 4.. Steady measure solutions are L steady state 4.. Proof of Theorem Numerical simulations Numerical scheme Discussion of numerical results 6 6. Conclusion and perspectives egularity propagation for inelastic Boltzmann in -D Alternative approach à la Fournier-Laurençot Uniqueness and stability of the self-similar profile The rod alignment problem by Aranson and Tsimring Extension to other collision-like problems 3 Appendix A. Cauchy theory in both the L -context and the measure setting 3 eferences 38

2 . ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS. Introduction In this document we study a standard one-dimensional dissipative Boltzmann equation associated to "variable hard potentials" interaction kernels. The model is given by t ft, x) = Qf, f)t, x), t, x) [0, ), f0, x) = f 0 x), where the dissipative Boltzmann operator Q = Q is defined as Qf, f)x) := f x ay) f x + by) y dy fx).) fx + y) y dy..) The parameters of the model satisfy > 0, a 0, ), b = a and will be fixed throughout the paper. Such a model can be seen as a generalisation of the one introduced by Ben-Naïm and Krapivsky [7] for = 0 and happens to have many applications in physics, biology and economy, see for instance the process presented in [4, 7] with application to biology. The case = 0 usually referred to as the Maxwellian interaction case is by now well understood [7] and we will focus our efforts in extending several of the results known for that case = 0) to the more general model.). Let us recall that, generally speaking, the analysis of Boltzmann-like models with Maxwellian interaction essentially renders explicit formulas that allow for a very precise analysis [, 3,, 9, 7, 7] because ) moments solve closed ODEs and, ) Fourier transform techniques are relatively simple to implement. In [7] a Brownian thermalization is added to the equation which permits a study of stationary solutions of.) for = 0. Here we are more interested in generalizing the works of [, 3,, 9, 7] that deal with the so-called self-similar profile which in the particular case of Mawellian interactions is unique and explicit. Such a self-similar profile is the unique stationary solution of the selfsimilar equation associated to.) and, by means of a suitable Fourier metric, it is possible to show in the Maxwellian case) exponential convergence of the time dependent) self-similar solution to this stationary profile, [3,, 7]. In particular, this means that solutions of.) with = 0 approach exponentially fast the "back rescaled" self-similar profile as t +. Self-similarity is a general feature of dissipative collision-like equations. Indeed, since the kinetic energy is continuously decreasing, solutions to.) converge as t towards a Dirac mass. As a consequence, one expects that a suitable time-velocity scale depending on the rate of dissipation of energy may render a better set up for the analysis. For this reason, we expect that several of the results occurring for Maxwellian interactions remain still valid for.) with > 0. The organization of the document is as follows: we finish this introductory material with general set up of the problem, including notation, scaling, relevant comments and the statement of the main results. In Section the Cauchy problem is studied. The framework will be the space of probability Borel measures. Such a framework is the natural one for equation.) as it is for kinetic models in general. In one dimensional problems, however, we will discover that it is essential to work in this space in contrast to higher dimensional models, such as viscoelastic Boltzmann models in the plane or the space where one can avoid it and work in smaller spaces such as Lebesgue s spaces [0, 3,, 7]. This last fact proves to be a major difficulty in the analysis of the model. The Cauchy problem is then based on a careful study of a priori estimates for the moments of solutions of equation.) and standard fixed point theory. In Section 3 we find the optimal rate of dissipation commonly referred as Haff s law) which follows from a careful study of a lower bound for the moments using a technique introduced in [, ]. In Section 4 we prove the existence of a non-trivial self-similar profile which is based, again, on the theory of moments and the use of a novel dynamical fixed point result on a compact stable set of Borel

3 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 3 probability measures [5]. The key remaining argument is, then, to prove that the self-similar profile - which a priori is a measure - is actually an L -function. Needless to say, such stable set is engineered out of the moment analysis of Sections & 3. In Section 5, numerical simulations are presented that illustrate the previous quantitative study of equation.8) as well as some peculiar features of the self-similar profile G. The simulations are based upon a discontinuous Galerkin DG) scheme. The paper ends with some perspectives and open problems related to.), in particular, its link to a recent kinetic model for rods alignment [4, 8]... Self-similar equation and the long time asymptotic. The weak formulation of the collision operator Q reads Q f,f ) x)ψx)dx = fx)fy) x y ) ψax + by) + ψbx + ay) ψx) ψy) dxdy for any suitable test function ψ. In particular, plugging successively ψx) = and ψx) = x into.3) shows that the above equation.) conserves mass and momentum. Namely, for any reasonable solution ft, x) to.), one has ft, x)dx = f 0 x)dx and xft, x)dx = xf 0 x)dx t 0..4) However, the second order moment is not conserved: indeed, plugging now ψx) = x into.3) one sees that Qf, f)x) x dx = a b fx)fy) x y + dxdy since ax + by + ay + bx x y = a b x y for any x, y). Therefore, for any nonnegative solution ft, x) to.), we get that the kinetic energy is non increasing d dt Et) := d ft, x) x dx = a b ft, x) ft, y) x y + dxdy 0..5) dt This is enough to prove that a non trivial stationary solution to problem.) exists. Indeed, for any x 0, the Dirac mass δ x0 is a steady measure) solution to.). For this reason one expects the large-time behavior of the system to be described by self-similar solutions. In order to capture such a self-similar behavior, it is customary to introduce the rescaling.3) V t) gst), ξ) = ft, x), ξ = V t) x.6) where V t) and st) are strictly increasing functions of time satisfying V 0) =, s0) = 0 and lim t st) =. Under such a scaling, one computes the self-similar equation as t ft, x) = V t)gs, ξ) + V t)ṡt) s gs, ξ) + ξ V t) ξ gs, ξ)) = V t) ξ ξ gs, ξ)) + V t)ṡt) s gs, ξ)) while the interaction operator turns into s=st), ξ=v t)x s=st), ξ=v t)x Q f, f ) t, x) = V t)q g, g ) st), V t)x)..7)

4 4. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Consequently f = ft, x) is a solution to.) if and only if g = gs, ξ) satisfies Choosing it follows that g solves ṡt)v t) s gs, ξ) + V t) V t) ) ) ξ ξ g s, ξ) = Q g, g s, ξ). V t) = + c t) and st) = log + c t), c > 0, c s gs, ξ) + c ξ ξgs, ξ)) = Q g, g ) s, ξ)..8) Thus, the argument of understanding the long time asymptotic of.) is simple: if there exists a unique steady solution G to.8), then such a steady state G should attract any solution to.8) and, back scaling to the original variables ft, x) V t)gv t)x) as t. in some suitable topology. We give in this paper a first step towards a satisfactory answer to this problem; more specifically, we address here two main questions: Question. Determine the optimal convergence rate of solutions to.) towards the Dirac mass centred in the center of mass x 0 := xf 0x)dx. The determination of this optimal convergence rate is achieved by identifying the optimal rate of convergence of the moments m k t) of ft, x) defined as m k t) := x x 0 k ft, x)dx k 0. Question. Prove the existence of a physical steady solution G L max,) ) to.8), that is a function satisfying c d ξ Gξ)) = QG, G)ξ), ξ,.9) dξ in a weak sense where c > 0 is arbitrary and, for simplicity, can be chosen as c = ). Note that equation.9) has at least two solutions for any > 0, the trivial one and the Dirac measure at zero. None of them is a relevant steady solution since both have energy zero which is a feature not satisfied by the dynamical evolution of.8) provided the initial measure is neither the trivial measure nor the Dirac measure). Similar questions have already been addressed for the 3-D Boltzmann equation for granular gases with different type of forcing terms [7, 3, 9]. For the inelastic Boltzmann equation in 3, the answer to Question is known as Haff s law proven in [7,, ] for the interesting case of hard-spheres interactions essentially the case = ). The method we adopt here is inspired by the last two references since it appears to be the most natural to the equation. Concerning Question, the existence and uniqueness the latter in a weak inelastic regime) of solutions to.9) has been established rigorously for hard-spheres interactions in [7, 8]. In the references [7, 3, 9], also [5, 0] in the context of coagulation problems, the strategy to prove the existence of solutions to problem similar to.9) is achieved through the careful study of the associated evolution equation equation.8) in our context) and an application of the following dynamic version of Tykhonov fixed point theorem see [5, Appendix A] for a proof):

5 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 5 Theorem. Dynamic fixed point theorem). Let Y be a locally convex topological vector space and Z a nonempty convex and compact subset of Y. If F t ) t 0 is a continuous semi-group on Z such that Z is invariant under the action of F t that is F t z Z for any z Z and t 0), then, there exists z o Z which is stationary under the action of F t that is F t z o = z o for any t 0). In the aforementioned references, the natural approach consists in applying Theorem. to Y = L endowed with its weak topology and consider for the subset Z a convex set which includes an upper bound for some of the moments and some L p -norm, with p >, which yield the desired compactness in Y. As a consequence, with such approach a crucial point in the analysis is to determine uniform L p -norm bounds for the self-similar evolution problem. This last particular issue, if true, appear to be quite difficult to prove in the model.8), mainly because the lack of angular averaging in the -D interaction operator Q as opposed to higher dimensional interaction operators. This problem is reminiscent of related -D interaction operators associated to coagulation fragmentation problems, for instance in Smoluchowski equation, for which propagation of L p norms is hard to establish, see [4] for details. Having this in mind, it appears to us more natural to work with measure solutions and considering then Y as a suitable space of real Borel measures endowed with the weak- topology for which the compactness will be easier to establish. Of course, the main difficulty will then be to determine that the fixed point provided by Theorem. is not the Dirac measure at zero the trivial solution is easily discarded by mass conservation). In fact, we will prove that this steady state is a L function see Theorem.5). Let us introduce some notations before entering in more details... Notations. Let us introduce the set M s ) as the Banach space of real Borel measures on with finite total variation of order s endowed with the norm s defined as µ s := x s µ dx) <, with x := + x ) x, where the positive Borel measure µ is the total variation of µ. We also set M + s ) = {µ M s ) ; µ 0}, and denote by P) the set of probability measures over. For any k 0, define the set { } P k ) = µ P) ; x k µdx) <. For any µ P k ) and any 0 p k, let us introduce the p-moment M p µ) := x p µdx). If µ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure with density f, i.e. µdx) = fx)dx, we simply denote M p f) = M p µ) for any p 0. We also define, for any k, the set } Pk {µ 0 ) = P k ) ; xµdx) = 0. In the same way, we set L k ) = L ) M k ), for any k 0. Moreover, we introduce the set L s s 0) of locally bounded Borel functions ϕ such that ϕ L s := sup ϕx) x s <. x

6 6. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS For any p and µ, ν P p ), we recall the definition of the Wasserstein distance of order p, W p µ, ν) between µ and ν by ) W p µ, ν) = inf x y p p πdx, dy), π Πµ,ν) where Πµ, ν) denotes the set of all joint probability measures π on whose marginals are µ and ν. For the peculiar case p =, we shall address the first order Wasserstein distance W µ, ν) as Kantorovich ubinstein distance, denoted d K, i.e. d K µ, ν) = W µ, ν). We refer to [33, Section 7] and [34, Chapter 6] for more details on Wasserstein distances. The Kantorovich ubinstein duality asserts that d K µ, ν) = sup ϕx)µ ν)dx) ϕ Lip ) where Lip ) denotes the set of Lipschitz functions ϕ such that ϕx) ϕy) ϕ Lip) = sup. x y x y For a given T > 0 and a given k 0, we shall indicate as C weak [0, T ], P k )) the set of continuous mappings from [0, T ] to P k ) where the latter is endowed with the weak- topology..3. Collision operator and definition of measure solutions. We extend the definition.3) to nonnegative Borel measures; namely, given µ, ν M + ), let Qµ, ν) ; ϕ := x y ϕx, y)µdx)νdy).0) for any test function ϕ C) L ) where ϕ x, y ) := ϕ ax + by ) + ϕ bx + ay ) ϕ x ) ϕ y ), x, y). A natural definition of measure solutions to.) is the following, see [5]). Definition.. Let > 0, Υ = max, ), µ 0 M + Υ ) and µ t) t 0 M + Υ ) be given. We say that µ t ) t 0 is a measure weak solution to.) associated to the initial datum µ 0 if it satisfies ) sup t 0 µ t Υ µ 0 Υ, µ t dx) = µ 0 dx) and xµ t dx) = xµ 0 dx) t > 0..) ) for any test-function ϕ C b ) := C) L ), the following hold i) the mapping t Qµ t, µ t ) ; ϕ belongs to C [0, ) ) L ) loc [0, ), ii) for any t 0 it holds t ϕx)µ t dx) = ϕx)µ 0 dx) + Q ) µ τ, µ τ ; ϕ dτ..) Notice that if µ t M + Υ ) for any t 0, then x y ϕx, y) µt dx)µ t dy) 4 ϕ µ t < for any ϕ C b ) and t 0. This shows that Qµ t, µ t ) ; ϕ is well-defined for any t 0 and any ϕ C b ). Similarly, the notion of measure solution to.9) is given in the following statement. 0

7 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 7 Definition.3. A measure µ Pmax,) 0 ) is a solution to.9) if ξφ ξ)µdξ) = ξ η φ aξ + bη) + φ aη + bξ) φξ) φη) ) µdξ) µdη).3) for any φ Cb ) where φ stands for the derivative of φ. Notice that, by assuming µ 0 =, we naturally discard the trivial solution G = 0 to.9)..4. Strategy and main results. Fix > 0, Υ = max, ). Thanks to the conservative properties.), we shall assume in the sequel, and without any loss of generality, that the initial datum µ 0 M + Υ ) is such that µ 0 dx) = and xµ 0 dx) = 0, i.e. µ 0 P 0 Υ ). This implies that any weak measure solution µ t) t 0 to.) associated to µ 0 is such that µ t P 0 Υ) t 0. Theorem.4. Let µ 0 PΥ 0 ) be given initial datum. Then, there exists a measure weak solution µ t ) t 0 to.) associated to µ 0 in the sense of Definition.. Moreover, µ t dx) = µ 0 dx) =, xµ t dx) = xµ 0 dx) = 0, and x Υ µ t dx) x Υ µ 0 dx) t 0. Moreover, if µ 0 k 0 P0 k ) then µ t) t k 0 P0 k ). If additionally there exists ε > 0 such that expε x )µ 0 dx) <,.4) then, such a measure weak solution is unique. Furthermore, if µ 0 is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, i.e. µ 0 dx) = f 0 x)dx with f 0 L Υ ) then µ t is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure for any t 0. That is, there exists f t ) t 0 L Υ ) such that µ tdx) = f t x)dx for any t 0. We prove Theorem.4 following a strategy introduced in [5]-[] for the case of Boltzmann equation with hard potentials with or without cut-off). The program consists essentially in the following steps. ) Establish a priori estimates for measure weak solutions to.) concerning the creation and propagation of algebraic moments, ) construct measure weak solutions to.) by approximation of L -solutions. Step ) helps proving that such approximating sequence converges in the weak- topology. Finally, 3) for the uniqueness of measure weak solution we adopt a strategy developed in [] and based upon suitable Log-Lipschitz estimates for the Kantorovich ubinstein distance between two solutions of.). As far as Question is concerned, we establish the optimal decay of the moments of the solutions to.) by a suitable comparison of ODEs. Such techniques are natural and have been applied to the study of Haff s law for 3-D granular Boltzmann equation in []. The main difficulty is to provide optimal lower bounds for the moments, see Propositions 3.3 & 3.4. Essentially, we obtain that m k t) = x k µ t dx) C k t k as t,

8 8. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS see Theorem 3.5 for a more precise statement. Such a decay immediately translates into convergence of µ t towards δ 0 in the Wasserstein topology. egarding Question, once the fixed point Theorem. is at hand, the key step is to engineer a suitable stable compact set Z. Compactness is easily achieved in Y = P max,) ) endowed with weak- topolgy; only uniformly boundedness of some moments suffices. However, Y must overrule the possibility that the fixed point will be a plain Dirac mass located at zero. This is closely related to the sharp lower bound found for the moments in Question. In such a situation, a serie of simple observations on the regularity of the solution to.3) proves that such a steady state is actually a L -function. Namely, one of the most important step in our strategy is the following observation: Theorem.5. Any steady measure solution µ Pmax,) 0 ) to.9) such that m := ξ µdξ) > 0.5) is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure over, i.e. nonnegative G L max,) ) such that µdξ) = Gξ)dξ. there exists some In other words, any solution to.9) lying in Pmax,) 0 ) different from a Dirac mass must be a regular measure. This leads to our main result: Theorem.6. For any > 0, there exists G L max,) ) which is a steady solution to.9) in the weak sense.. Cauchy theory We are first concerned with the Cauchy theory for problem.) and we begin with studying a priori estimates for weak measure solutions to.). Let us fix > 0 and set Υ = max, )... A priori estimates on moments. We first state the following general properties of weak measure solutions to.) which have sufficiently enough bounded moments. Proposition.. Let µ 0 M + Υ ) and let µ t) t 0 be any weak measure solution to.) associated to µ 0. Given k 0, assume there exists p > k + such that Then, the following hold: sup µ t p <, T > δ > 0..) δ<t<t ) For any ϕ L k ) C), the mapping t 0 Qµ t, µ t ) ; ϕ is continuous in 0, ). ) For any ϕ L k ) C) it holds that d ϕx)µ t dx) = Qµ t, µ t ) ; ϕ t 0..) dt The proof of Proposition. will need the following preliminary lemma see [5, Proposition.] for a complete proof).

9 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 9 Lemma.. Let µ n ) n N be a sequence from M + Υ ) that converges weakly- to some µ ). We assume that for some p > 0 it holds M + Υ Then, for any ψ C ) satisfying sup µ n p <. n N lim x + y + lim ψx, y) µ n dx) µ n dy) = n + ψx, y) x p = 0, one has + y p ψx, y) µdx) µdy). Proof of Proposition.. Let k 0 and ϕ L k ) C) be given. Choose χ C ) such that χ with χx) = 0 if x and χx) = for x and set for any n N, ϕ n x) = ϕx)χ x n). It follows that ϕn C c ) C b ) for any n with ϕ n x) ϕx) for any x as n. Consequently, ϕ n x, y) ϕx, y) for any x, y) as n. Now, since ϕ n C b ) for any n N, one deduces from.) that t ϕ n x)µ t dx) = ϕ n x)µ t dx) + Qµ τ, µ τ ) ; ϕ n dτ t > t > 0, n. t Notice that ϕ n L k ϕ L k <. Thus, there is C > 0 such that for any n N, any x, y), ϕx, y) C x k + y k) and ϕ n x, y) C x k + y k),.3) where the constant C depends only on ϕ and a). Using the dominated convergence theorem together with.), one deduces that t Qµ τ,µ τ ) ; ϕ n dτ = t dτ x y ϕ n x, y)µ τ dx)µ τ dy) t t t t dτ x y ϕx, y)µ τ dx)µ τ dy) = Qµ τ, µ τ ) ; ϕ dτ, n t t so, the identity t ϕx)µ t dx) = ϕx)µ t dx) + Qµ τ, µ τ ) ; ϕ dτ t > t > 0,.4) t holds true. It follows from.3) that Qµ τ, µ τ ) ; ϕ C x y x k + y k) µ τ dx)µ τ dy) C µ τ k+ τ > 0. Combining this with.4), one sees that, for any T > δ > 0, ϕx)µ t dx) ϕx)µ t dx) C t t sup µ τ k+ t, t [δ, T ]. δ τ T In particular, under assumption.), the mapping t ϕx)µ t dx) is continuous over 0, ). This shows that, for any t > 0 and sequence t n ) n [t/, 3t/] with lim n t n = t, the sequence µ tn ) n converges weakly- towards µ t. In addition, since ϕ L k ) and p > k+ one concludes that x y ϕx, y) lim x + y x p + y p = 0.

10 0. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Thus, it readily follows from Lemma. that lim x y n ϕx, y)µ tn dx)µ tn dy) = x y ϕx, y) µ t dx)µ t dy)..5) Henceforth, the mapping t Qµ t, µ t ), ϕ is continuous over 0, ) proving point ). Point ) follows then directly from.4). Moments estimates of the collision operator are given by the following: Proposition.3. Let µ Pk+ 0 ) with k. Then Qµ, µ) ; k a k b k) M k+ µ) 0..6a) In particular, and, if k > Qµ, µ) ; k Qµ, µ) ; k a k b k) M k µ) + k,.6b) a k b k) M µ) k Mk µ) + k..6c) Proof. We apply the weak form.0) to ϕx) = x k. Using the elementary inequality x k + y k ax + by k ay + bx k a k b k) x y k.7) valid for any x, y) and k with equality sign whenever k = ), and noticing that a k b k is nonnegative for any k and any a 0, ) we have Qµ, µ) ; k a k b k) x y +k µdx)µdy)..8) Since µ Pk+ 0 ) and the mapping [0, ) r r+k is convex, one deduces from Jensen s inequality that x y +k µdx)µdy) x k+ µdx), from which inequality.8) yields.6a). Using again Jensen s inequality we get also that M k+ µ) M k µ) + k which proves.6b). Finally, according to Hölder inequality and.6c) is deduced from.6a). M k+ µ) M k µ) + k M µ) k k >, One deduces from the above estimate suitable upper bounds for the moments of solution to.): Proposition.4. Let µ 0 PΥ 0 ) be a given initial datum and µ t) t 0 be a measure weak solution to.) associated to µ 0. Then, the following holds ) If µ t ) t 0 Pp 0 ) with p > k + for some k, then, t 0 M k µ t ) is decreasing with M k µ t ) M k µ 0 ) + a k b k) ) M k µ 0 ) k k t t 0..9) k In particular, sup t 0 M k µ t ) <.

11 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D ) If for some k > and p > k +, sup t δ µ t p < for any δ > 0, then M k µ t ) C k ) µ 0 Υ min { t k, t k } t > 0,.0) where C k ) > 0 is a positive constant depending only on k >, and a. Proof. For the proof of.9), apply.) with ϕx) = x k and note that using.6b) d dt M kµ t ) a k b k) M k µ t ) + k t 0. This directly implies the point ) of Proposition.4. To prove estimate.0) for short time observe that applying.) to ϕx) = x k and using.6c), one gets d dt M kµ t ) a k b k) M µ t ) k Mk µ t ) + k t > 0, and, since by definition of measure weak solution it holds M µ t ) µ 0 Υ for any t 0, one deduces that d dt M kµ t ) a k b k) µ 0 k Υ M k µ t ) + k t > 0. This inequality leads to estimate.0) with constant C k ) = long time decay follows applying.9) for t δ. k ) a k b k)) k. The emark.5. It is not difficult to prove that the conclusions of the previous two propositions hold for general measure µ 0 M + Υ ) with µ 0 0 = ϱ 0 and xµ 0 dx) = 0. In such a case, the constant C k ) depends also continuously on ϱ. Introduce the class P exp, ) of probability measures with exponential tails of order, { } P exp, ) = µ P) ; ε > 0 such that expε x )µdx) <..) We have the following: Theorem.6. Let µ 0 PΥ 0 ) be an initial datum and µ t) t be a measure weak solution to.) associated to µ 0. If µ 0 P exp, ) and if µ t ) t k 0 P0 k ), then, there exists α > 0 and C > 0 such that expα x )µ t dx) C..) sup t 0 Proof. Since µ 0 P exp, ), there exists α > 0 and C 0 > 0 such that expα x )µ 0 dx) C 0. Let us denote by p 0 the integer such that p 0 Υ and p 0 ) < Υ. Thus, for 0 p p 0 and t 0, M p µ t ) µ t Υ µ 0 Υ. For p p 0 and t 0, one deduces from.6a) that M p µ t ) M p µ 0 ).

12 . ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Thus, for any t 0 and any n > p 0 n M p µ t ) αp p p! µ 0 α p n 0 Υ p! + M p µ 0 ) αp p! µ 0 Υ expα) + C 0. p=0 p=0 p=p 0 Letting n + we get.)... Cauchy theory. The main ingredients of the proof of Theorem.4 are Propositions.7 and.8. The details of the proof can be found in Appendix A. Namely, by studying first the Cauchy problem for L initial data and then introducing suitable approximation we can construct weak measure solutions to.) leading the following existence result: Proposition.7. For any µ 0 P 0 Υ ), µ 0 δ 0, there exists a measure weak solution µ t ) t 0 P 0 Υ ) associated to µ 0 and such that sup µ t Υ µ 0 Υ and sup µ t s < t 0 > 0, s > Υ. t 0 t t 0 Moreover, if µ 0 k 0 P0 k ), then µ t) t 0 k 0 P0 k ). To achieve the proof of Theorem.4, it remains only to prove the uniqueness of the solution. It seems difficult here to adapt the strategy of [5] for which the conservation of energy played a crucial role. For this reason, we rather follow the approach of [] which requires the exponential tail estimate.4). The main step towards uniqueness is the following Log-Lipschitz estimate for the Kantorovich-ubinstein distance. Proposition.8. Let µ 0 and ν 0 be two probability measures in P 0 ) satisfying.4) i.e., there exists ε > 0 such that exp ε x ) µ 0 dx) + exp ε x ) ν 0 dx) <. Let then µ t ) t 0 and ν t ) t 0 be two measure weak solutions to.) associated respectively to the initial data µ 0 and ν 0. There exists K ε > 0 such that, for any T > 0, d K µ t, ν t ) d K µ 0, ν 0 ).3) t + K ε C T ε) d K µ s, ν s ) + log dk µ s, ν s ) ) ds t [0, T ], 0 where C T ε) = sup exp ε x ) µ t + ν t ) dx) <. t [0,T ] Proof of Theorem.4. Given Proposition.7, to prove Theorem.4 it suffices to show the uniqueness of measure weak solutions to.). Let µ 0 be a probability measure in PΥ 0 ) satisfying.4) and let µ t ) t 0 and ν t ) t 0 be two measure weak solutions to.) associated to µ 0. From Proposition.8, given T > 0 there exists a finite positive constant K T such that t d K µ t, ν t ) K T Φd K µ s, ν s ))ds t [0, T ], 0 with Φr) = r + log r ) for any r > 0. Since Φ satisfies the so-called Osgood condition 0 dr Φr) =,.4) then, a nonlinear version of Gronwall Lemma see for instance [6, Lemma 3.4, p. 5]) asserts that d K µ t, ν t ) = 0 for any t [0, T ]. Since T > 0 is arbitrary, this proves the uniqueness.

13 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 3 The existence and uniqueness of weak measure solution to.) allows to define a semiflow S t ) t 0 on P exp, ), recall.)). Namely, Theorem.4 together with Theorem.6 assert that, for any µ 0 P exp, ) P 0 ), there exists a unique weak measure solution µ t ) t 0 to.) with µ t P exp, ) for any t 0 and we shall denote µ t := S t µ 0 ) t 0. Then, the semiflow S t is a well-defined nonlinear mapping from P exp, ) P 0 ) into itself. Moreover, by definition of weak solution, the mapping t S t µ 0 ) belongs to C weak [0, ), P )). One has the following weak continuity result for the semiflow. Proposition.9. The semiflow S t ) t 0 is weakly continuous on P ) in the following sense. Let µ n ) n PΥ 0 ) be a sequence such that there exists ε > 0 satisfying expε x )µ n dx) <..5) sup n N If µ n ) n converges to some µ PΥ 0 ) in the weak- topology, then for any t 0, S t µ n ) S t µ) in the weak- topology as n. Proof. The proof is based upon the stability result established in Proposition.8. Namely, because µ n ) n converges in the weak- topology to µ PΥ 0 ), one deduces from.5) that expε x )µdx) <, which means that all µ n and µ share the same exponential tail estimate with some common ε > 0. Then, for any T > 0 one deduces from.3) that d K S t µ n ), S t µ)) d K µ n, µ) + Kε) C T ε) t 0 Φ d K S s µ n ), S s µ)) ds t [0, T ], n N, for some universal positive constant Kε) and C T ε) = sup sup expε x ) S t µ n ) + S t µ)) dx) < n N t [0,T ] according to Theorem.6. Here above, Φr) = r + log r ) satisfies the Osgood condition.4), thus, using again a nonlinear version of Gronwall Lemma [6, Lemma 3.4] we deduce from this estimate that where Ψ d K µ n, µ) ) Ψ d K S t µ n ), S t µ)) ) Kε) C T ε) t Ψx) = x dr Φr) x 0. t [0, T ], n N Taking now the limit n, since d K metrizes the weak- topology of P ) it follows that lim n d K µ n, µ) = 0. Furthermore, recalling that Ψ0) = one concludes that lim Ψ d K St µ n ), S t µ) )) =. n That is, lim n d K St µ n ), S t µ) ) = 0 which proves the result.

14 4. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS 3. Optimal decay of the moments We now prove that the upper bounds obtained for the moments of solutions to.) in Proposition.4 are actually optimal. 3.. Lower bounds for moments. We begin with the case 0, ]: Proposition 3.. Fix 0, ] and let µ 0 P 0) be an initial datum and µ t) t 0 be a measure weak solution to.) associated to µ 0. Then, there exists K > 0 depending only on a and such that M µ 0 ) M µ t ) t 0. 3.) + K M µ 0 )t Thus, M µ t ) M µ 0 ) ) + K M µ 0 )t t 0. 3.) Proof. For 0, ] the following elementary inequality holds B x, y) = ax + by + ay + bx x y ) x y C x y x, y, 3.3) for some positive constant C > 0 explicit depending only on a and. Using.) and the weak form.0) with ϕx) = x L ) C), we get that d dt M µ t ) = B x, y)µ t dx)µ t dy) C x y µ t dx)µ t dy) from which it follows that d dt M µ t ) C M µ t ) t 0. This inequality, after integration, yields 3.) with K = C. Inequality 3.) follows from the fact that according to Hölder inequality while µ t 0 = µ 0 0 = for any t 0. M µ t ) M µ t ) µt 0, The remaining case > is more involved. In this case, inequality 3.3) no longer holds and we need the following result. Lemma 3.. Fix >. For any p > and µ P 0 p+) it holds that where β p a) = max{a p, b p } and p µ) = β p a) Moreover, for k 0, ] Qµ, µ) ; p β p a) ) M p+ µ) + p µ), 3.4) [ p+ ] k= p k The constant C,k depends only on and k. ) ) M k+ µ) M p k µ) + M k µ) M p k+ µ). Qµ, µ) ; k C,k M µ) M k µ). 3.5)

15 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 5 Proof. Let us begin with inequality 3.4). We first notice the following elementary inequality, valid for any p > 0, ax + by p + ay + bx p β p a) x + y ) p β p a) x + y ) p x, y), 3.6) where k β k a) is decreasing with β a) = and lim k β k a) = 0 recall that max{a, b} < ). We use then the following useful result given in [4, Lemma ] for estimation of the binomial for fractional powers. For any p, if k p denotes the integer part of p+, the following inequality holds for any u, v +, k ) p p ) u + v u p v p p u k k v p k + u p k v k), 3.7) where the binomial coefficients are defined as ) { p pp ) p k+) = k! for k k for k = 0. Therefore, for any p >, one gets k= ax + by p + ay + bx p x p y p β p a) ) x p + y p) k p ) p x + β p a) k k y p k + x p k y k). Therefore, using.0) we get Qµ, µ) ; p βp a) ) x p + y p ) x y µdx)µdy) + k β p ) p pa) x y k x k y p k + x p k y k) µdx)µdy). k= Furthermore, since > using Jensen s inequality and the fact that µ P 0 ), one obtains x p + y p ) x y µdx)µdy) M p+ µ). Consequently, Qµ, µ) ; p β p a) ) M p+ µ) + k β p ) p pa) x y k x k y p k + x p k y k) µdx)µdy). k= For the remainder term, one uses the inequality x y x + y ) to get that x y x k y p k + x p k y k) µdx)µdy) k= M k+ µ) M p k µ) + M k µ) M p k+ µ) ), which proves 3.4). The proof of 3.5) relies on inequality 3.3). Indeed, for any µ and any k 0, ) one has Qµ, µ) ; k = ax + by k + ay + bx k x k y k) x y µdx)µdy).

16 6. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Now, by virtue of 3.3) with k 0, ) instead of ax + by k + ay + bx k x k y k) x y k C k x k y k x, y, for some positive constant C k > 0 explicit and depending only on a and k. Therefore, Qµ, µ) ; k C k x k y k x y k µdx)µdy). Using that x y k max{, k } x k + y k ) we get Qµ, µ) ; k max{, k } C k x k y k x k + y k) µdx)µdy) = max{, k } C k M µ)m k µ) which gives the proof with C,k = max{, k } C k. As a consequence, the following proposition. Proposition 3.3. For any > and s 0, ] it follows that with A s any constant such that M s+ µ t ) A s M s µ t ) + s t 0, 3.8) A s max { C,s, and C,s is a constant depending only on and s. } M s+ µ 0 ), 3.9) M + s s µ 0 ) Proof. Define Xt) := M s+ µ t ) A M s µ t ) + s where the constant A will be conveniently chosen later on. Since + s > and s 0, ] we can use Lemma 3. to conclude that d dt Xt) = d dt M s+µ t ) A + ) M s µ t ) d s s dt M sµ t ) β s+ a)) M s+ µ t ) + s+ µ t ) + A C,s + ) M s µ t ) + s M µ t ). 3.0) s [ ] [ ] Let us observe that for such a choice of s and, one has s++ < s+ and for k s++, a simple use of Hölder and Young s inequalities leads to, for any ɛ > 0, M k+ µ t ) M s+ k µ t ) M s+ µ t ) k+ s+ M s+ µ t ) s+ k s+ ɛ M s+ µ t ) + K s,,ɛ M s+ µ t ) s+ s+ with K s,,ɛ > 0 a constant depending only on s, and ɛ. Similar interpolation holds for the terms of the form M k µ t ) M s+ k µ t ) appearing in s+ µ t ). As a consequence, for any ɛ > 0, we have s+ µ t ) ɛ K s, M s+ µ t ) + K s, K s,,ɛ M s+ µ t ) s+ s+, 3.) where K s, > 0 is a constant depending only on s and. Choose ɛ = ɛ) > 0 such that K s, ɛ β s+ a) we obtain from estimates 3.0) and 3.) that there are constants K = K s, ) and K = K s, ) such that d dt Xt) β s+a)) M s+ µ t ) + A K M s µ t ) + s + s M s+ µ t ) s + K M s+ µ t ) s+ s+, 3.)

17 where we also used the interpolation DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 7 M µ t ) M s µ t ) s M s+ µ t ) s. As a final step, notice that M s+ µ t ) M s+ µ t ). 3.3) M s µ t ) Therefore, including 3.3) in 3.) one finally concludes that d dt Xt) β s+a)) M s+ µ t ) M s µ t ) + A K M s µ t ) + s + s M s+ µ t ) s + K M s+ µ t ) s+ s+. 3.4) Now, choosing A > 0 such that X0) < 0, if there exists t 0 > 0 for which Xt 0 ) = 0, then estimate 3.4) implies that d dt Xt 0) ) β s+a)) A + K A s + K A + s+ M s µ t0 ) + s. 3.5) Then, choosing A = A, s) sufficiently large such that the term in parenthesis in 3.5) is negative we conclude that X t 0 ) 0. This shows that, for such a choice of A, Xt) 0 for any t 0. Using Proposition 3.3 the desired lower bound is obtained. Proposition 3.4. For any > and s 0, ] one has M s µ t ) + C,s A s s M s µ 0 ) s M sµ 0 ) s t ) s where C,s depends only on and s and A s is given by 3.9). Moreover, it holds M k µ t ) M s µ 0 ) k s + C,s A s s s M sµ 0 ) s t ) k Proof. Using Lemma 3. and inequality 3.8), since s 0, ) one gets d dt M sµ t ) = Qµ t, µ t ) ; s C,s M s µ t ) M µ t ), 3.6), k >, s 0, ] and t ) C,s M s µ t ) + s M s+ µ t ) s where, for the second estimate, we used the inequality s M µ t ) Ms µ t ) M s s+ µ t). Integration of this differential inequality leads to M s µ t ) The second part of the result follows from valid for any k >. + C,s A s s M s µ 0 ) M s µ t ) M s k k µ t ) M 0 µ t ) s k C,s A s s M s µ t ) + s, s M sµ 0 ) s t ) s. = M s k k µ t),

18 8. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS We can now completely characterize the decay of any moments of the weak measure solution µ t ) t 0 associated to µ 0. Namely, Theorem 3.5. Let k and µ 0 P 0 k+ ) be given. Denote by µ t) t 0 a measure weak solution to.) associated to the initial datum µ 0. Then, ) When 0, ], there exists some universal constant K > 0 not depending on µ 0 ) such that for any p and for any p [, k] M µ 0 ) p + K M µ 0 ) t ) p M p µ 0 ) M p µ t ) + p ap b p ) M p µ 0 ) p t In particular, if µ 0 P exp, ) then 3.8b) holds true for any p. ) When >, for any p >, and for any p [, k] M µ 0 ) p + C, A M µ 0 ) t M p µ t ) t 0, 3.8a) ) p M p µ 0 ) M p µ t ) + p ap b p ) M p µ 0 ) p t where C, and A are defined in Proposition 3.4. ) p t b) M p µ t ) t 0, 3.9a) ) p t 0, 3.9b) Proof. The upper bounds in 3.8b) and 3.9b) have been established in Proposition.4. For the lower bound, whenever 0, ), one simply uses Jensen s inequality to get M p µ t ) M µ t ) p t 0, p, and, then conclude thanks to equation 3.). For >, the lower bound is just 3.7) with s =. Corollary 3.6. Fix > 0 and let µ 0 P 0 ) P exp, ) be an initial datum. Then, for any p, the unique measure weak solution µ t ) t 0 is converging as t towards δ 0 in the weak- topology of P p ) with the explicit rate W p µ t, δ 0 ) + C t ) as t, for some positive constant C depending on µ 0. Proof. The result is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.5 since W p µ t, δ 0 ) p = x p µ t dx) = M p µ t ) t 0, and W p metrizes P p ) see [34, Theorem 6.9]).

19 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D Consequences on the rescaled problem. Given µ 0 PΥ 0 ) satisfying.4) and let µ t ) t 0 denotes the unique weak measure solution to.) associated to µ 0. ecall from Section the definitions of the rescaling functions V t) := + c t) and st) := log + c t), c > 0). c For simplicity, in all the sequel, we shall assume c =. The inverse mappings are defined as i.e. Vs) = exps) ts) = exp s) st) = s ts) = t and V ts) ) = Vs) t, s 0. In this way we may define, for any s 0, the measure ν s as the image of µ ts) under the transformation x Vs)x ν s dξ) = Vs)#µ ts) ) dξ) s 0, where # stands for the push-forward operation on measures, φξ)ν s dξ) = φvs)x)µ ts) dx) φ C b ), s ) Notice that, whenever µ t is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure over with µ t dx) = ft, x)dx, the measure ν s is also absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure over with ν s dξ) = gs, ξ)dξ where gs, ξ) = Vs) f ts), Vs) ξ ) ξ, s 0, which is nothing but.6). Such a definition of ν s allows to define the semi-flow F s ) s 0 which given any initial datum µ 0 P 0 ) satisfying.4) associates F s µ 0 ) = ν s = Vs)#S ts) µ 0 ) s 0, where S t ) t 0 is the semi-flow associated to equation.). The decay of the moments given by Theorem 3.5 readily translates into the following result. Theorem 3.7. Let > 0 and let µ 0 P 0 ) P exp, ) be a given initial datum. Denote by F s µ 0 ) = ν s for any s 0. Then, ) When 0, ], there exists some universal constant K > 0 not depending on µ 0 ) such that for any p { ) p } min M µ 0 ) p ; M p ν s ) s 0, 3.a) K and for any p, ) When >, for any p > { M p ν s ) max M p µ 0 ) ; { min M µ 0 ) p ; C, A p a p b p p }, ) p } s 0. 3.b) M p ν s ) s 0, 3.a)

20 0. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS and for any p { M p ν s ) max M p µ 0 ) ; p a p b p where C, and A are defined in the above Proposition 3.4. Proof. The proof follows simply from the fact that M p ν s ) = Vs) p M p µ ts) ) s 0, ) p } s 0, 3.b) where µ t ) t is the weak measure solution to.) associated to µ 0. Then, according to Theorem 3.5 and using that expp s) = + ts) ) p/, we see that for 0, ] it holds ) p M µ 0 ) + ts)) + ts) Mp ν s ) M p µ 0 ) + K M µ 0 ) ts) + p ap b p ) M p µ 0 ) p ts) where the lower bound is valid for any p while the upper bound is valid for any p. Since min, A +At B ) +Bt max, A B ) for any A, B, t 0 we get the conclusion. We proceed in the same way for >. An important consequence of the above decay is the following proposition. Proposition 3.8. Let µ 0 k 0 Pk 0 ) be a given initial condition. Assume that where M p := ) p, M p µ 0 ) M p p max, ), 3.3) p a p b p ) p p max, ). Then, µ 0 P exp, ) and there exists an explicit α > 0 and C = Cα) > 0 such that expα ξ ) ν s dξ) C, where ν s = F s µ 0 ) for any s 0. sup s 0 Proof. Let us first prove that µ 0 P exp, ). Notice that for any z > 0 expz ξ )µ 0 dξ) = M p µ 0 ) zp p!. Let us denote by p 0 the integer such that p 0 max, ) and p 0 ) < max, ). Using Stirling formula together with the fact that lim p a p b p ) =, one can check that there exists some explicit α > 0 such that the series M zp p p! p=p 0 converges for any 0 z α which gives the result. Now, we may define ν s = F s µ 0 ) for any s 0. As previously, for any z > 0 expz ξ )ν s dξ) = M p ν s ) zp p!, p=0 p=0

21 and we deduce from Theorem 3.7 that The conclusion follows. DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D M p ν s ) M p p max, ), s 0. emark 3.9. We do not need to derive the equation satisfied by ν s since we are interested only in the fixed point of the semiflow. However, using the fact that S t µ 0 ) actually provides a strong solution to.), using the chain rule it follows that s s φξ)ν s dξ) = φξ)µ 0 dξ) + dτ ξφ ξ)ν τ dξ) + Q ν τ, ν τ ) ; φ dτ s 0, for any φ C b ) and where φ stands for the derivative of φ ) The link between solution to.3) and the semiflow F s ) s 0 is established by the following lemma. Lemma 3.0. Any fixed point µ P 0 ) P exp, ) of the semi-flow F s ) s 0 is a solution to.3). Proof. Let µ be a fixed point of the semi-flow F s ) s, that is, F s µ) = µ for any s 0. Then, according to 3.0), for any φ C b ) φξ)µdξ) = φvs)x)µ ts) dx) s 0, where µ ts) = S ts) µ). In particular, choosing s = st) φξ)µdξ) = φv t)x)µ t dx) t 0. Applying the above to φ V t) ) instead of φ, one obtains φ V t) ξ ) µdξ) = φx)µ t dx) t 0. Computing the derivative with respect to t and assuming φ Cb ), we get d V t) dt ) ξφ V t) ξ ) µdξ) = Qµ t, µ t ) ; φ t 0. Using the definition of V t) it finally follows that + t ) ξφ V t) ξ ) µdξ) = Qµ t, µ t ) ; φ t 0. Taking in particular t = 0 it follows that µ satisfies.3). 4. Existence of a steady solution to the rescaled problem 4.. Steady measure solutions are L steady state. In this section we prove Theorem.5, that is, we prove that steady measure solutions to.9) are in fact L functions provided no mass concentration happens at the origin. The argument is based on the next two propositions. Proposition 4.. Let µ P 0 max,) ) be a steady solution to.9). Then, there exists H L ) such that ξ µdξ) = Hξ)dξ.

22 . ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS Proof. Introduce the distribution βξ) := ξµdξ) which, of course, is defined by the identity βξ)ψξ)dξ = ξψξ)µdξ) for any ψ Cc ). One sees from.3) that β satisfies d βξ) = Qµ, µ) 4.) dξ in the sense of distributions. Since µ Pmax,) 0 ), it follows that Q± µ, µ) belongs to M + ). Therefore, as a solution to 4.), the measure β is a distribution whose derivative belongs to M). It follows from [9, Theorem 6.77] that β BV loc ) where BV ) denotes the space of functions with bounded variations. This implies that the measure β is absolutely continuous. In particular, there exists H L ) such that βdξ) = Hξ)dξ. This proves the result. Proposition 4.. Let µ P 0 max,) ) be a steady solution to.9). Then, there exist κ 0 0 and G L max,) ) nonnegative such that where δ 0 is the Dirac mass in 0. µdξ) = Gξ)dξ + κ 0 δ 0 dξ) Proof. Let us denote by B) the set of Borel subsets of. According to Lebesgue decomposition Theorem [3, Theorem 8..3] there exists G L ) nonnegative and a measure µ s such that µdξ) = Gξ)dξ + µ s dξ) where the measure µ s is singular to the Lebesgue measure over. More specifically, there is Γ B) with zero Lebesgue measure such that µ s \Γ) = 0. The proof of the Lemma consists then in proving that µ s is supported in {0}, i.e. Γ = {0}. This comes directly from Proposition 4.. Indeed, by uniqueness of the Lebesgue decomposition, one has ξµdξ) = ξgξ)dξ + ξµ s dξ) = Hξ)dξ, with H L ), so that ξµ s dξ) = 0. This implies that µ s \ δ; δ)) = 0 for any δ > 0 and therefore that µ s is supported in {0}. Notice that, since µ Pmax,) 0 ) one has G L max,) ). Proof of Theorem.5. With the notations of Proposition 4., our aim is to show that κ 0 = 0. Plugging the decomposition obtained in Proposition 4. in the weak formulation.3), we get ξφ ξ)gξ)dξ = QG, G)ξ)φξ)dξ + κ 0 ξ ) φ a ξ) + φ b ξ) φξ) φ0) Gξ)dξ, where we used that Qδ 0, δ 0 ) = 0 = ξφ ξ)δ 0 dξ). ecall the hypothesis m = ξ Gξ)dξ > 0, 4.) from which the above can be reformulated as κ 0 m φ0) = QG, G)ξ)φξ)dξ + ξφ ξ)gξ)dξ + κ 0 ξ ) φ a ξ) + φ b ξ) φξ) Gξ)dξ

23 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 3 for any φ Cb ). Notice that the above identity can be rewritten as κ 0 φ0)m = Aξ)φξ) + Bξ)φ ξ) ) dξ 4.3) for some L -functions Aξ) = QG, G)ξ) + κ 0 a ε ξ a G ) ξ + κ 0 a b ξ b G ) ξ κ 0 ξ Gξ) b and Bξ) = ξgξ). Let φ be a smooth function with support in, ) and satisfying φ0) =. For any ε > 0, φ ε) belongs to C b ), one can apply 4.3) to get ε ) ξ κ 0 m = Aξ)φ + Gξ) ξ )) ξ ε ε φ dξ. ε Hence, ε ε 0 κ 0 m φ L Aξ) dξ + sup ξ φ ξ) Gξ)dξ. ε ξ ε Letting ε 0, one obtains κ 0 m = 0, thus, using hypothesis 4.) we must have κ 0 = Proof of Theorem.6. We have all the previous machinery at hand to prove the existence of physical solutions to.9) in the sense of Definition.3 employing the dynamic fixed point Theorem.. Let us distinguish here two cases: ) First, assume that 0, ]. Setting Y to be the space M) endowed with the weak- topology, we introduce the nonempty closed convex set { Z := µ P 0 ) such that ξ µdξ) }, and ξ p µdξ) M p p K where M p was defined in Proposition 3.8 and K > 0 is the positive constant given in Theorem 3.7. This set is a compact subset of Y thanks to the uniform moment estimates recall that Y is endowed with the weak- topology). Moreover, according to Proposition 3.8, there exists α > 0 and Cα) > 0 such that, for any µ Z, expα ξ ) µdξ) Cα) <. Thus, µ P exp, ). Therefore, using Theorem.4, S t µ)) t 0 and, consequently, F s µ)) s 0 are well-defined. Setting ν s = F s µ), it follows from Theorem 3.7 that ξ p ν s dξ) M p p, s 0. Using the lower bound in 3.8a), we deduce that ξ ν s dξ) s 0. K This shows that ν s Z for any s 0, i.e. F s Z) Z for all s 0. Moreover, one deduces directly from Proposition.9 that F s ) s is continuous over Z. As a consequence, it is possible to apply Theorem. to deduce the existence of a measure µ Z such that F s µ) = µ, a steady measure solution to.9) in the sense of Definition.3. Finally, since µ Z, its moment of order is bounded away from zero and by Theorem.5, µ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. This proves the result in the case 0, ].

24 4. ALONSO, V. BAGLAND, Y. CHENG & B. LODS ) Assume now > and let Υ = max, ). Then, consider Y to be the space M) endowed with the weak- topology and we introduce the nonempty closed convex set { } Z := µ P 0 ) such that ξ p µdξ) M p p Υ, and ξ µdξ) l for some positive constant l to be determined. In fact, we prove that there exists l = l) sufficiently small such that Z is invariant under the semi-flow F s ) s 0. Indeed, according to 3.a), for any l > 0 if µ 0 is such that M µ 0 ) l, then M Fs µ 0 ) ) { } min l ; s 0, C, A where C, > 0 is some { positive universal } constant. And, according to 3.9), A is any real M + µ 0 ) number larger than max C, ; M µ 0 ) +, where C, is another universal positive constant. In particular, choosing l small enough such that M + l + C,, it is possible to pick A := M + l +, where we recall that, since µ 0 Z and + max{, }, one has M + µ 0 ) M +. In such a case, one gets We set l C, M + { min l ; C, A in order to get { min l ; } = min { l ; ) } = l, l C, M + C, A and M F s µ 0 )) l for any s 0. Arguing as in the case 0, ], this shows that F s Z) Z for any s 0 and, there exists a steady measure µ which is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. 5. Numerical simulations This section contains numerical simulations for the rescaled equation s gs, ξ) a + b ) ξ ξ gs, ξ) ) = Qg, g)s, ξ), s 0, ξ 5.) where Qg, g) has been previously defined in.) and.3). We recall that such a model has been studied in [7, 9] in the case of = 0 and it admits a unique steady state M ξ) = ) π + ξ, 5.) such that M ξ) ξ ξ dξ = 0. }.

25 DISSIPATIVE BOLTZMANN EQUATION IN -D 5 We will use the numerical solutions of 5.) to verify the properties of our models for general values of. We shall consider here initial datum g 0 ξ) = g0, ξ) which shares the same first moments of M i.e. g 0 ξ) ξ ξ dξ = ) The coefficient c = a +b ) = ab > 0 in equation 5.) is the only one that gives stationary self-similar profile with finite energy in the case = 0, see [7]. In contrast, as already noticed, the case > 0 accepts any arbitrary positive coefficient in the equation, thus, we will perform all numerical simulations with such coefficient for comparison purposes. ecall that in our previous analysis we choose this coefficient to be. 5.. Numerical scheme. To compute the solution, we have to make a technical assumption which is the truncation of into a finite domain Ω = [ L, L]. When L is chosen large enough so that g is machine zero at ξ = ±L, this will not affect the quality of the solutions. Then, we use a discrete mesh consisting of N cells as follows: L = ξ < ξ 3 <... < ξ N+ = L. We denote cell I j = ) ξ j, ξ j+, with cell center ξj = ) ξj + ξ j+ and length ξj = ξ j+ ξ j. The scheme we use is the discontinuous Galerkin DG) method [8], which has excellent conservation properties. The DG schemes employ the approximation space defined by V k h = {v h : v h Ij P k I j ), j N}, where P k I j ) denotes all polynomials of degree at most k on I j, and look for the numerical solution g h Vh k, such that s g h s, ξ) v h ξ) dξ + a + b ) ξ g h s, ξ) ξ v h ξ) dξ I j I j + a + b ) ) ξg h v + h ) j ξg h v h ) j+ = Qg h, g h )s, ξ) v h ξ) dξ, j =,..., N 5.4) I j holds true for any v h Vh k. In 5.4), ξg h is the upwind numerical flux { ξg ξg h = h s, ξ) if ξ 0 s, ξ) if ξ < 0, ξg + h where g h, g+ h denote the left and right limits of g h at the cell interface. Equation 5.4) is in fact an ordinary differential equation for the coefficients of g h s, ξ). The system can then be solved by a standard ODE integrator, and in this paper we use the third order TVD-unge-Kutta methods [30] to evolve this method-of-lines ODE. Notice that the implementation of the collision term in 5.4) is done by recalling.3), and we only need to calculate it for all the basis functions in Vh k. This is done before the time evolution starts to save computational cost. The DG method described above when k i.e. we use a scheme with at least piecewise linear polynomial space) will preserve mass and momentum up to discretization error from the Although we have no rigorous proof that the tails of g will decay, at least, as fast as Ae a ξ, this is expected. For dimensions d >, this is a well known fact for the elastic and inelastic Boltzmann equations.