Obstruction to Navier-Stokes blowup with cylindrical symmetry

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












5















Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?



EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.



Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

    – Alex Gavrilov
    Jan 1 at 11:44
















5















Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?



EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.



Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

    – Alex Gavrilov
    Jan 1 at 11:44














5












5








5








Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?



EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.



Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.










share|cite|improve this question
















Is there a known obstruction to cylindrically symmetric solutions (with swirl) of incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes blowing up in finite time ?



EDIT: in the whole space $mathbb R^3$, I forgot to say.



Same question for Euler (ideal fluid) flow, with everything (velocity, vorticity, pressure) vanishing at $infty$.







ap.analysis-of-pdes navier-stokes






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 1 at 10:06







Jean Duchon

















asked Dec 31 '18 at 14:37









Jean DuchonJean Duchon

2,655415




2,655415












  • You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

    – Alex Gavrilov
    Jan 1 at 11:44


















  • You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

    – Alex Gavrilov
    Jan 1 at 11:44

















You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44






You probably know about this preprint, but some readers may not [ arxiv.org/abs/1802.09936 ]

– Alex Gavrilov
Jan 1 at 11:44











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4














You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...



But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrtx^2+y^2<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.



To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.



By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

    – Jean Duchon
    Jan 1 at 10:21











  • @JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

    – Denis Serre
    Jan 1 at 20:05










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319826%2fobstruction-to-navier-stokes-blowup-with-cylindrical-symmetry%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...



But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrtx^2+y^2<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.



To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.



By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

    – Jean Duchon
    Jan 1 at 10:21











  • @JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

    – Denis Serre
    Jan 1 at 20:05















4














You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...



But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrtx^2+y^2<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.



To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.



By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

    – Jean Duchon
    Jan 1 at 10:21











  • @JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

    – Denis Serre
    Jan 1 at 20:05













4












4








4







You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...



But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrtx^2+y^2<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.



To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.



By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.






share|cite|improve this answer













You certainly know this one, but some readers could ignore it. The fact that NS iw globally well-posed in 2D is due to the so-called Ladyzhenskaia inequality
$$|f|_4^2le c|f|_2|nabla f|_2.$$
The fact that this does not hold in 3D is the reason why there is a 1M-dollars problem...



But if the flow is axisymmetric, even with swirl, and if the domain is a container between two cylinders ($0<r_0<sqrtx^2+y^2<r_1<infty$), then LI is still valid, and the solution exists, is unique and smooth whenever the initial energy is finite.



To summarize, the only major difficulty is when the domain reaches the symmetry axis.



By the way, I have proved (see my notes at the Compte Rendus in 1991 and 1999) that in absence of viscosity, that is for the Euler equation, the vorticity of such a fluid (incompressible, axisymmetric, with swirl), generically increases linearly in time. If the flow exists globally, of course.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 31 '18 at 15:31









Denis SerreDenis Serre

29.1k791196




29.1k791196












  • I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

    – Jean Duchon
    Jan 1 at 10:21











  • @JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

    – Denis Serre
    Jan 1 at 20:05

















  • I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

    – Jean Duchon
    Jan 1 at 10:21











  • @JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

    – Denis Serre
    Jan 1 at 20:05
















I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21





I couldn't acess your note of 1991, but in that of 1999, it is restricted to a domain between two cylinders, right? If so, my question extended to swirling cylindrically symmetric Euler flows remains. I personally believe blowup may occur in that setting, and a key step is the (unproven yet) existence of a stationary self-similar weak Euler solution with dissipation $cdelta$.

– Jean Duchon
Jan 1 at 10:21













@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05





@JeanDuchon. This sounds reasonnable. Yes, my result holds only when the domain is between two cylinder. It ignores the singularity at the axis.

– Denis Serre
Jan 1 at 20:05

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319826%2fobstruction-to-navier-stokes-blowup-with-cylindrical-symmetry%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?