Before performing the divcurl decomposition for the energy estimates, we need to establish the analog of Lemma
2.2 in the present case, so that Lemma 2.3 and its Corollary 2.4 hold.
Lemma 3.8
Let
$(\rho ,v)$
be a solution to
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
. Then, the total momentum
$\int \rho (t,x)v(t,x)dx$
does not depend on time.
Proof. We proceed similarly as in the proof of Lemma 2.2 . We need to establish that
$${\int}_{{\mathbb{T}}^{d}}\rho (t,x)(\nabla \psi (t,x)x)dx\equiv 0.$$
For this we use Definition 3.2 . For
$f\left(x\right)=\nabla \psi \left(x\right)x$
, we have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\int}_{{\mathbb{T}}^{d}}\rho f& =& {\int}_{{\mathbb{T}}^{d}}f(\nabla \hat{\phi})\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{{\mathbb{T}}^{d}}\nabla \psi (\nabla \phi )\nabla \phi \end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& {\int}_{{\mathbb{T}}^{d}}x\nabla \phi \end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& =& 0,\end{array}$$  
where we have used at the third line that, for
$\psi ,\phi $
Legendre transform of each other,
$\nabla \psi (\nabla \phi )=id$
, and at the last line that
$\phi x{}^{2}/2$
is periodic.
$\square $
Hence we have shown that one can retrieve
$v$
from the initial value of
$\int \rho v$
, and
$\nabla \cdot v,\text{curl}v$
.
General framework We perform the same divcurl decomposition as in the EulerPoisson case.
We then express the difference between the solution of
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
and the limiting solution : either the solution of
$\left(E\right)$
or the solution of
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
. After having applied a proper scaling to this difference, our solution is now described by a vector
$\mathbf{u}$
whose first component (that can be a vector if
$d=3$
) is the rescaled vorticity, and whose last two components are a rescaled divergence and rescaled density fluctuation. For this perturbation we will obtain
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+{\sum}_{i}{v}^{i}{\partial}_{i}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+{R}^{\epsilon}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}={Q}^{\epsilon}\left({\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}\right),\end{array}$$  
where we still use
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{R}^{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\epsilon}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\epsilon}& 0\end{array}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
For the source term
${Q}^{\epsilon}$
, we have
$\parallel {Q}^{\epsilon}\parallel \le C(1+\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}+{\delta}_{\epsilon}\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}})$
where
${\delta}_{\epsilon}$
goes to 0 when
$\epsilon $
goes to 0, and the constant
$C$
depends on the regularity of the limiting field.
Regularity of the limiting field The form of the source term will vary under the circumstances, but the general idea is that in order to bound
${Q}^{\epsilon}$
in
${H}^{s}$
, we will need the limiting velocity to be bounded in
${H}^{s+2}$
and the limiting density to be bounded in
${H}^{s+1}$
. Remember that the
${H}^{s}$
norm of
$\mathbf{u}$
controls the norm of
$(\rho ,v)$
in
${H}^{s}\times {H}^{s+1}$
, thus the limiting field must have one more derivative bounded than the order of the energy estimate.
A Gronwall’s lemma then yields a control on the perturbation that holds on a range of time
$[0,{T}_{\epsilon}]$
, where
${T}_{\epsilon}\to T$
,
$T$
being the time of existence of a smooth solution for the limiting equation.
Convergence to Euler, two dimensional case Doing the same change of variables as in the proof of Theorem 2.1
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \nabla \cdot v=\epsilon {\beta}_{1},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \rho =1+{\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \text{curl}v=\omega =\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1},\end{array}$$  
we obtain:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}(\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})+v\cdot \nabla (\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})=(\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})\epsilon \beta ,\end{array}$$ 
(44)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}\epsilon {\beta}_{1}+v\cdot \nabla \epsilon {\beta}_{1}+2\epsilon {\partial}_{i}{\overline{v}}^{j}{\partial}_{j}{v}_{1}^{i}+\epsilon {\partial}_{i}{v}_{1}^{j}{\partial}_{j}{v}_{1}^{i}=\frac{\Delta \psi d}{{\epsilon}^{2}}{\partial}_{i}{\overline{v}}^{j}{\partial}_{j}{\overline{v}}^{i},\end{array}$$ 
(45)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}{\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1}+v\cdot \nabla {\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1}=(1+{\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1})\epsilon {\beta}_{1}.\end{array}$$ 
(46)

Now we define
$\Xi $
by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\Delta \psi d={\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1}+{\epsilon}^{4}\Xi ,& & \end{array}$$  
and from Theorem 3.4 inequality ( 33 ), we have, if
$s\ge 2$
,
$\parallel \Xi {\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}\le C\parallel {\rho}_{1}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{2}$
. The system can here be written in the following way:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+{\sum}_{i}{v}^{i}{\partial}_{i}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+{R}^{\epsilon}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}={S}^{\epsilon}\left({\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}\right)+{V}^{\epsilon},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}\left(0\right)={\mathbf{u}}_{0}^{\epsilon},\end{array}$$  
still with
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{c}{\omega}_{1}\\ {\beta}_{1}\\ {\stackrel{~}{\rho}}_{1}\end{array}\right),{R}^{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{\epsilon}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\epsilon}& 0\end{array}\right),& & \end{array}$$  
with the same
${S}^{\epsilon}$
as in the EulerPoisson case,
${\stackrel{~}{\rho}}_{1}={\rho}_{1}\Delta p$
, and with
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{V}^{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \epsilon \Xi \\ 0\end{array}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
We have
$\parallel {V}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}\le C\epsilon (1+\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{2})$
, for
$s$
large enough. Then the energy estimates are the same as in the first proof, the solution
${\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}$
satisfying a control of the form:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d}{dt}\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{2}\le C\left(1+\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{2}+\epsilon \parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{3}\right)& & \end{array}$$  
and the same conclusion holds true. Then from Corollary 2.4 ,
$v\overline{v},\rho 1$
can be retrieved from
${\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}$
, and we obtain the expected conclusion.
$\square $
Convergence to Euler, three dimensional case In the 3d case, equation ( 44 ) should be replaced by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\partial}_{t}(\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})+v\cdot \nabla (\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})=(\overline{\omega}+\epsilon {\omega}_{1})\epsilon \beta \omega \cdot \nabla v.& & \end{array}$$  
Note that the vorticity equation is the same as in the EulerPoisson case. This change would not affect the energy estimates.
Higher order approximation Here we prove that the the EulerPoisson system and the EulerMongeAmpere system are closer as
$\epsilon $
goes to 0 than EulerPoisson and Euler. We fix
$s\ge {s}_{0}=[d/2]+2$
. For
${\overline{v}}_{0}$
a
${H}^{s+2}$
smooth divergencefree vector field, we consider
$(\overline{v},p)$
a solution of the Euler incompressible system ( 8 ) such that
$\overline{v}\in {L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,T],{H}^{s+2}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
for some
$T>0$
. We consider also a sequence
$({v}_{ep}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{ep}^{\epsilon})$
of solutions of the
$\left(E{P}_{\epsilon}\right)$
system with initial data
$({v}_{ep,0}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{ep,0}^{\epsilon})$
(with
$\int {\rho}_{0}^{\epsilon}=1$
) such that
${\epsilon}^{1}({v}_{ep}^{\epsilon}\overline{v}),{\epsilon}^{2}({\rho}_{ep}^{\epsilon}1)$
is bounded in
${L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}^{\prime}],{H}^{s+1}\times {H}^{s}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
, for any
$0<{T}^{\prime}<T$
, if
$\epsilon $
is small enough. Thanks to Theorem 2.1 , and from the regularity assumption made on
$\overline{v}$
, such a sequence exists for any sequence of well prepared initial data.
Theorem 3.9
Let
$s\in \mathbb{N}$
with
$s\ge [d/2]+2$
. Let
$\overline{v},{v}_{ep}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{ep}^{\epsilon}$
be as above. Let
$({v}_{0}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{0}^{\epsilon})$
be a sequence of initial data such that
$\left({\epsilon}^{2}({v}_{0}^{\epsilon}{v}_{ep,0}^{\epsilon}),{\epsilon}^{3}({\rho}_{0}^{\epsilon}{\rho}_{ep,0}^{\epsilon})\right)$
is bounded in
${H}^{s}\times {H}^{s1}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)$
.
Then there exists a sequence
$({v}^{\epsilon},{\rho}^{\epsilon})$
of solutions to
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
with initial data
$({v}_{0}^{\epsilon},{\rho}_{0}^{\epsilon})$
, belonging to
${L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}_{\epsilon}],{H}^{s}\times {H}^{s1}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
, with
${liminf}_{\epsilon \to 0}{T}_{\epsilon}\ge T$
. Moreover for any
${T}^{\prime}<T$
and
$\epsilon $
small enough, the sequence
$\left({\epsilon}^{2}({v}^{\epsilon}{v}_{ep}^{\epsilon}),{\epsilon}^{3}({\rho}^{\epsilon}{\rho}_{ep}^{\epsilon})\right)$
is bounded in
${L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}^{\prime}],{H}^{s}\times {H}^{s1}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
.
Remark. We see here that the difference between solutions of
$\left(E{P}_{\epsilon}\right)$
and
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
is of order
${\epsilon}^{3}$
for the density and of order
${\epsilon}^{2}$
for the velocity whereas the difference between solutions of
$\left(E{P}_{\epsilon}\right)$
(or
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
) and Euler was of order
${\epsilon}^{2}$
for the density and of order
$\epsilon $
for the velocity.
Proof. We give the proof when
$d=2$
, the proof would be the same when
$d=3$
, just with more terms. We introduce
$({v}_{ep},{\rho}_{ep}=1+{\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1})$
solution to
$\left(E{P}_{\epsilon}\right)$
, and
$({\beta}_{ep},{\omega}_{ep})=(\nabla \cdot {v}_{ep},\nabla \times {v}_{ep})$
. Then we set
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & v={v}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{v}_{2},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \nabla \cdot v={\beta}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \rho ={\rho}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{3}{\rho}_{2},\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \text{curl}v=\omega ={\omega}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\omega}_{2}.\end{array}$$  
The system
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
now reads:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}({\omega}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\omega}_{2})+v\cdot \nabla ({\omega}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\omega}_{2})=({\omega}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\omega}_{2})({\beta}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2}),\end{array}$$ 
(47)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}({\beta}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2})+v\cdot \nabla ({\beta}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2})+\nabla ({v}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{v}_{2}):\nabla ({v}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{v}_{2})=\frac{\Delta \psi d}{{\epsilon}^{2}},\end{array}$$ 
(48)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & {\partial}_{t}({\rho}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{3}{\rho}_{2})+v\cdot \nabla ({\rho}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{3}{\rho}_{2})=({\rho}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{3}{\rho}_{2})({\beta}_{ep}+{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2}).\end{array}$$ 
(49)

We still define
$\Xi $
by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\Delta \psi d=\rho 1+{\epsilon}^{4}\Xi ,& & \end{array}$$  
and from Theorem 3.4 we will have
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\parallel \Xi {\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}\le C{\epsilon}^{4}\parallel \rho 1{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}^{2}\le C(\parallel {\rho}_{1}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}^{2}+{\epsilon}^{2}\parallel {\rho}_{2}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}^{2}),& & \end{array}$$  
(we use the notation
${\rho}_{ep}=1+{\epsilon}^{2}{\rho}_{1}$
).
Setting
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{c}{\omega}_{2}\\ {\beta}_{2}\\ {\rho}_{2}\end{array}\right),& & \end{array}$$  
we obtain that
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{\partial}_{t}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+v\cdot \nabla {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}+{R}^{\epsilon}{\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}={T}_{\epsilon},& & \end{array}$$  
with
${R}^{\epsilon}$
as before and
${T}_{\epsilon}$
defined by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}{T}_{\epsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{c}{v}_{2}\cdot \nabla {w}_{ep}{\beta}_{ep}{\omega}_{2}{\beta}_{2}{\omega}_{ep}{\epsilon}^{2}{\omega}_{2}{\beta}_{2}\\ {v}_{2}\cdot \nabla {\beta}_{ep}2\nabla {v}_{ep}:\nabla {v}_{2}{\epsilon}^{2}\nabla {v}_{2}:\nabla {v}_{2}+\Xi \\ \epsilon {v}_{2}\cdot \nabla {\rho}_{1}{\beta}_{ep}{\rho}_{2}\epsilon {\beta}_{2}{\rho}_{1}{\epsilon}^{2}{\beta}_{2}{\rho}_{2}\end{array}\right).& & \end{array}$$  
Using again Proposition 2.6 as in Lemma 2.5 we obtain that, for
$s>d/2$
,
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\parallel {T}_{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}\le {C}_{s}(1+\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}+\epsilon \parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}\left({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\right)}^{2}),& & \end{array}$$  
where the constant
${C}_{s}$
is controlled by
$\parallel {v}_{ep}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s+2}},\parallel {\rho}_{1}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s+1}}$
(still with
${\rho}_{1}={\epsilon}^{2}({\rho}_{ep}1)$
). From Theorem 2.1 these quantities are controlled for
$0\le t\le {T}^{\prime}<T$
,
$T$
being the time on which the solution of
$\left(E\right)$
is smooth. Hence we have by Gronwall’s lemma a bound on
$\parallel {\mathbf{u}}^{\epsilon}{\parallel}_{{L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}^{\prime}],{H}^{s})}$
.
Arguing as in the previous proofs, and using Corollary
2.4 , we obtain that
$({v}_{2},{\rho}_{2})$
remains bounded in
${L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}^{\prime \prime}],{H}^{s+1}\times {H}^{s}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
for any
${T}^{\prime \prime}<{T}^{\prime}$
and for
$\epsilon <{\epsilon}_{0}$
small enough. It follows that
$\left({\epsilon}^{2}\right({v}_{ep}{v}_{ema}),{\epsilon}^{3}({\rho}_{ep}{\rho}_{ema}\left)\right)$
remains bounded in
${L}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,{T}^{\prime \prime}],{H}^{s}\times {H}^{s1}({\mathbb{T}}^{d}\left)\right)$
. This achieves the proof of Theorem 3.9 .
$\square $
3.4 Nonprepared initial data
In this case, we obtain exactly the same result as for EulerPoisson, using the same techniques.
We follow closely section 2.3, and we only have to estimate the additional source term that will appear in the equation followed by
${\beta}_{1}$
, due to the MongeAmpere coupling. We recall that
$det{D}^{2}\psi =\rho $
, and we will have to estimate the difference
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{{\epsilon}^{2}}\left[(\Delta \psi d)(\rho 1)\right]& & \end{array}$$  
in
${H}^{s}$
when we know that
${\epsilon}^{1}(\rho 1)$
is bounded in
${H}^{s}$
. Thanks to Theorem 3.4 , we conclude that for
$s\ge 2$
this term is controlled by
$\parallel {\epsilon}^{1}(\rho 1){\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}^{2}=\parallel {\rho}_{1}{\parallel}_{{H}^{s}}$
. Hence the energy estimate can be handled similarly just with an additional term, and the conclusion remains true.
Theorem 3.10
The Theorem 2.7 holds also when replacing the
$\left(E{P}_{\epsilon}\right)$
system by the
$\left(EM{A}_{\epsilon}\right)$
system.
$\square $
Gregoire Loeper EPFL, SBIMA 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland gregoire.loeper@epfl.ch