Paper detail

Proof of a McKean conjecture on the rate of convergence of Boltzmann-equation solutions

The present work provides a definitive answer to the problem of quantifying relaxation to equilibrium of the solution to the spatially homogeneous Boltzmann equation for Maxwellian molecules. The beginning of the story dates back to a pioneering work by Hilbert, who first formalized the concept of linearization of the collision operator and pointed out the importance of its eigenvalues with respect to a certain asymptotic behavior of the Boltzmann equation. Under really mild conditions on initial data - close to being necessary - and a weak, physically consistent, angular cutoff hypothesis, our main result (Theorem 1.1) contains the first precise statement that the total variation distance between the solution and the limiting Maxwellian distribution admits an upper bound of the form C e^{Lambda_b t}, Lambda_b being the least negative of the aforesaid eigenvalues and C a constant which depends only on a few simple numerical characteristics (e.g. moments) of the initial datum. The validity of this quantification was conjectured, about fifty years ago, in a paper by Henry P. McKean but, in spite of several attempts, the best answer known up to now consists in a bound with a rate which can be made arbitrarily close to Lambda_b, to the cost of the "explosion" of the constant C. Moreover, its deduction is subject to restrictive hypotheses on the initial datum, besides the Grad angular cutoff condition. As to the proof of our results, we have taken as point of reference an analogy between the problem of convergence to equilibrium and the central limit theorem of probability theory, highlighted by McKean. Our work represents in fact a confirmation of this analogy, since the techniques we develop here crucially rely on certain formulations of the central limit theorem.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.