Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy

Caner Özdurak; Caner Özdurak

doi:10.3934/GF.2021017

Green Finance

2021, Volume 3, Issue 3: 337-350. doi: 10.3934/GF.2021017

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy

Caner Özdurak ^,

Financial Economics Department, Yeditepe University, İstanbul, Turkey

Received: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 27 August 2021 Published: 01 September 2021
JEL Codes: G1, G10, C32, Q4

In this study, we examine the nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies, and energy democracy. Our dataset incorporates four variables which are S & P Global Clean Energy Index (SPClean), Brent crude oil futures (Brent), CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), and NASDAQ 100 Technology Sector (DXNT) daily prices between 2009 and 2021. The novelty of our study is that we included technology development and market fear as important factors and assess their impact on clean energy investments. DCC-GARCH models are utilized to analyze the spillover impact of market fear, oil prices, and technology company stock returns to clean energy investments. According to our findings when oil prices decrease, the volatility index usually responds by increasing which means that the market is afraid of oil price surges. Renewable investments also tend to decrease in that period following the oil price trend. Moreover, a positive relationship between technology stocks and renewable energy stock returns also exists.

Keywords:

Citation: Caner Özdurak. Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy[J]. Green Finance, 2021, 3(3): 337-350. doi: 10.3934/GF.2021017

Related Papers:

[1]	Luis Caffarelli, Antoine Mellet . Random homogenization of fractional obstacle problems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2008, 3(3): 523-554. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2008.3.523
[2]	Joachim von Below, José A. Lubary . Isospectral infinite graphs and networks and infinite eigenvalue multiplicities. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4(3): 453-468. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.453
[3]	Delio Mugnolo . Gaussian estimates for a heat equation on a network. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2(1): 55-79. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.55
[4]	Caihong Gu, Yanbin Tang . Global solution to the Cauchy problem of fractional drift diffusion system with power-law nonlinearity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 109-139. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023005
[5]	Giuseppe Maria Coclite, Lorenzo di Ruvo . $H^1$ solutions for a modified Korteweg-de Vries-Burgers type equation. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(2): 724-739. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024032
[6]	Kota Kumazaki, Adrian Muntean . Local weak solvability of a moving boundary problem describing swelling along a halfline. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2019, 14(3): 445-469. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2019018
[7]	Hantaek Bae, Rafael Granero-Belinchón, Omar Lazar . On the local and global existence of solutions to 1d transport equations with nonlocal velocity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2019, 14(3): 471-487. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2019019
[8]	Debora Amadori, Stefania Ferrari, Luca Formaggia . Derivation and analysis of a fluid-dynamical model in thin and long elastic vessels. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2007, 2(1): 99-125. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2007.2.99
[9]	Markus Musch, Ulrik Skre Fjordholm, Nils Henrik Risebro . Well-posedness theory for nonlinear scalar conservation laws on networks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2022, 17(1): 101-128. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021025
[10]	Steinar Evje, Kenneth H. Karlsen . Hyperbolic-elliptic models for well-reservoir flow. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1(4): 639-673. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.639

Abstract

1. Introduction

The 3D incompressible resistive Hall-Magnetohydrodynamics system (Hall-MHD in short) is the following system of PDEs for $(u, p, B)$ :

$\begin{align} &u_{t} +u\cdot \nabla u - B\cdot \nabla B+\nabla p-\mu\Delta u = 0, \end{align}$

(1a)

$\begin{align} &B_{t} + u\cdot \nabla B -B\cdot \nabla u +{\rm{curl}}\left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B\right)\times B\right)- \nu\Delta B = 0, \end{align}$

(1b)

$\begin{align} &{\rm{div}}\; u = 0, \quad {\rm{div}}\; B = 0, \end{align}$

(1c)

where $u = (u_{1}, u_{2}, u_{3})$ is the plasma velocity field, $p$ is the pressure, and $B = (B_{1}, B_{2}, B_{3})$ is the magnetic field. $\mu$ and $\nu$ are the viscosity and the resistivity constants, respectively. The Hall-MHD is important in describing many physical phenomena [2,17,19,23,26,27,33]. In particular, the Hall MHD explains magnetic reconnection on the Sun which is very important role in acceleration plasma by converting magnetic energy into bulk kinetic energy.

The Hall-MHD recently has been studied intensively. The Hall-MHD can be derived from either two fluids model or kinetic models in a mathematically rigorous way [1]. Global weak solution, local classical solution, global solution for small data, and decay rates are established in [4,5,6]. There have been many follow-up results of these papers; see [7,8,12,13,14,15,16,18,29,30,31,32,34,35] and references therein.

1.1. The Hall equation with fractional Laplacian

We note that the Hall term ${\rm{curl}}\left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B\right)\times B\right)$ is dominant in mathematical analysis of (1) and so we only consider the Hall equations ( $(u, p) = 0$ in (1)). Also motivated by [7], we consider the Hall equation with fractional Laplacian:

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} \left(({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right)+\Lambda^{\beta}B = 0, \quad {\rm{div}}\; B = 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(2)

where we take $\nu = 1$ for simplicity. (2) is locally well-posed [7] when $\beta>1$ . But, we do not know whether (2) is locally well-posed when $\beta = 1$ :

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} \left(({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right)+\Lambda B = 0, \quad {\rm{div}}\; B = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(3)

However, we can show the existence of solutions globally in time if initial data is sufficiently small.

Theorem 1.1. Let $B_{0} \in H^{k}$ with $k>\frac{5}{2}$ and ${\rm{div}}\; B_{0} = 0$ . There exists a constant $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that if $\|B_{0}\|_{H^{k}} \leq \epsilon_{0}$ , there exists a unique global-in-time solution of (3) satisfying

$\left\|B(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}+(1-C\epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B(s)\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}ds\leq \left\|B_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}} \quad {{for\; all \; t > 0 .}}$

Moreover, $B$ decays in time

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\|\Lambda^{l}B(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \frac{C_{0}}{(1+t)^{l}}, \quad 0 < l\leq k, \end{eqnarray}$

(4)

where $C_{0}$ depends on $\|B_{0}\|_{H^{k}}$ which is expressed in (27) explicitly.

Remark 1. The decay rate (4) is consistent with the decay rates of the linear part of (3).

Remark 2. After this work was completed, the referee pointed out that the same result is proved in [37,Theorem 1.1]. Compared to the proof in [37] where they use the Littlewood-Paley decomposition, we use the standard energy energy estimates and classical commutator estimates.

As one of a minimal modification of (3) to show the existence of unique local in time solutions, we now take a logarithmic correction of (3):

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} \left(({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right)+\ln(2+\Lambda)\Lambda B = 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(5)

where the Fourier symbol of $\ln(2+\Lambda)\Lambda$ is $\ln(2+|\xi|)|\xi|$ .

Theorem 1.2. Let $B_{0} \in H^{k}$ with $k>\frac{5}{2}$ and ${\rm{div}}\; B_{0} = 0$ . There exists $T_\ast = T_{\ast}(\|B_{0}\|_{H^{k}})>0$ such that there exists a unique local-in-time solution of (5) satisfying

$\begin{eqnarray} \|B(t)\|_{H^{k}}\leq \ln \left(\frac{1}{e^{-\|B_{0}\|_{H^{k}}}-Ct}\right), \quad 0 < t < T^{\ast} = \frac{\exp\left(-\|B_{0}\|_{H^{k}}\right)}{C}. \end{eqnarray}$

(6)

1.2. 2D models

In this paper, we also deal with 2D models closely related to the $2\frac{1}{2}$ dimensional (3). If we take $B$ of the form

$\begin{eqnarray} B(t, x, y) = \left(-\psi_{y}(t, x, y), \psi_{x}(t, x, y), Z(t, x, y)\right), \end{eqnarray}$

(7)

we can rewrite (3) as

$\begin{align} & \psi_{t}+\Lambda\psi = [\psi, Z], \end{align}$

(8a)

$\begin{align} & Z_{t}+\Lambda Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi], \end{align}$

(8b)

where $[f, g] = \nabla f\cdot \nabla^{\perp}g = f_{x}g_{y}-f_{y}g_{x}$ . (7) is used to show a finite-time collapse to a current sheet [3,20,21,24] and is used in [10] to study regularity of stationary weak solutions.

1.2.1. Case 1

Although (8) is defined in 2D and has nice cancellation properties (18), the local well-posedness seems unreachable. But, suppose that we redistribute the power of the fractional Laplacians in (8) in such a way that (8b) has the full Laplacian and (8a) is inviscid:

$\begin{eqnarray} \psi_{t} = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t}-\Delta Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{eqnarray}$

(9)

(9) has no direct link to (2), but we may interpret (9) as the $2\frac{1}{2}$ dimensional model of the Hall equations where only $B_{3}$ has the full Laplacian in (2). In this case, we can show that (9) is locally well-posed. Let

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{E}(t) = \left\|\psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}+\left\|Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{3}}, \quad \mathcal{E}_{0} = \left\|\psi_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}+\left\|Z_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{3}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(10)

Theorem 1.3. There exists $T_{\ast} = T_{\ast}(\mathcal{E}_{0})>0$ such that there exists a unique solution of (9) satisfying

$\mathcal{E}(t)\leq \frac{\mathcal{E}_{01}}{1-Ct\mathcal{E}_{0}} \quad {{for \;all}}\; \ 0 < t\leq T_{\ast} < \frac{1}{C \mathcal{E}_{0}}.$

Moreover, we have the following blow-up criterion:

$\mathcal{E}(t)+ \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{H^{2}}ds < \infty\iff \int^{t}_{0}\left(\left\|\nabla^{2} Z(s)\right\|_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} \right)ds < \infty.$

Since there is no dissipative effect in the equation of $\psi$ in (9), we only have the local in tim result in Theorem 1.3. Among the possible conditions for the global existence, we find that adding a damping term to the equation of $\psi$ works. More precisely, we deal with the following

$\begin{eqnarray} \psi_{t}+\psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t}-\Delta Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{eqnarray}$

(11)

In this case, we can show the existence of global in time solutions with small initial data having regularity one higher than the regularity in Theorem 1.3. Moreover, we can find decay rates of $\psi$ by using the structure of equation of $\psi$ which is a damped transport equation, and this is also the reason why the same method cannot be applied to $Z$ . Let

$\begin{split} &\mathcal{F}(t) = \left\|\psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{5}}+\left\|Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}, \quad \mathcal{F}_{0} = \left\|\psi_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{5}}+\left\|Z_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}, \\ & \mathcal{N}_{1}(t) = \left\|\nabla\psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}+\left\|\nabla Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}. \end{split}$

Theorem 1.4. There exists a constant $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that if $\mathcal{F}_{0} \leq \epsilon_{0}$ , there exists a unique global-in-time solution of (11) satisfying

$\mathcal{F}(t)+(1-C \epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{N}_{1}(s)ds\leq \mathcal{F}_{0} \quad {{for\; all\; t > 0 .}}$

Moreover, $\psi$ decays exponentially in time

$\left\|\psi(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \left\|\psi_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}} e^{-t}, \quad \left\|\Lambda^{k}\psi(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \mathcal{F}^{\frac{k-1}{8}}_{0}\left\|\nabla \psi_{0}\right\|^{\frac{5-k}{4}}_{L^{2}} e^{-\frac{(5-k)(1-C\epsilon_{0})}{4}t}$

with $1\leq k<5.$

1.2.2. Case 2

As another way to redistribute the derivatives in (8), we also deal with

$\begin{eqnarray} \psi_{t}-\Delta \psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t} = [\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{eqnarray}$

(12)

Let $\mathcal{E}(t)$ and $\mathcal{E}_{0}$ be defined as before (10).

Theorem 1.5. There exists $T_{\ast}>0$ , which is depending on $\mathcal{E}_{0}$ , such that there exists a unique solution of (12) satisfying

$\mathcal{E}(t)\leq \frac{\mathcal{E}_{0}}{1-Ct\mathcal{E}_{0}} \quad {{for \;all}}\; \ 0 < t\leq T_{\ast} < \frac{1}{C \mathcal{E}_{0}}.$

Moreover, we have the following blow-up criterion

$\mathcal{E}(t)+\int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{H^{4}}ds < \infty \iff \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}ds.$

We now add a damping term to the equation of $Z$ in (12):

$\begin{eqnarray} \psi_{t}-\Delta \psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t} + Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{eqnarray}$

(13)

In this case, we can use the same regularity used in Theorem 1.5 because the dissipative effect in $\psi$ helps to control $\Delta \psi$ in the equation of $Z$ . Let $\mathcal{N}_{2}(t) = \left\|\nabla\psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{5}}+\left\|Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{3}}$ .

Theorem 1.6. There exists a constant $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that if $\mathcal{E}_{0} \leq \epsilon_{0}$ , there exists a unique global-in-time solution of (13) satisfying

$\mathcal{E}(t)+(1-C \epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{N}_{2}(s)ds\leq \mathcal{E}_{0} \quad {{for \;all \; t > 0 .}}$

Remark 3. Compared to Theorem 1.3, we only need one term in the blow-up criterion in Theorem 1.5 which is due to the dissipative effect in the equation of $\psi$ . Compared to Theorem 1.4, the proof of Theorem 1.6 is simpler, but we are not able to derive decay rates of $\psi$ and $Z$ .

2. Preliminaries

All constants will be denoted by $C$ and we follow the convention that such constants can vary from expression to expression and even between two occurrences within the same expression. And repeated indices are summed over.

The fractional Laplacian $\Lambda^{\beta} = (\sqrt{-\Delta})^{\beta}$ has the Fourier transform representation

$\widehat{\Lambda^{\beta} f}(\xi) = |\xi|^{\beta}\widehat{f}(\xi).$

For $s>0$ , $H^{s}$ is a energy space equipped with

$\|f\|_{H^{s}} = \|f\|_{L^{2}}+\|f\|_{\dot{H}^{s}}, \quad \|f\|_{\dot{H}^{s}} = \left\|\Lambda^{s}f\right\|_{L^{2}}.$

In the energy spaces, we have the following interpolations: for $s_{0}<s<s_{1}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\|f\right\|_{\dot{H}^{s}}\leq \left\|f\right\|^{\theta}_{\dot{H}^{s_{0}}}\left\|f\right\|^{1-\theta}_{\dot{H}^{s_{1}}}, \quad s = \theta s_{0}+(1-\theta)s_{1}. \end{eqnarray}$

(14)

2.1. Inequalities

We begin with two inequalities in 3D:

$\begin{align} & \left\|f\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq C\|f\|_{H^{s}}, \quad s > \frac{3}{2}, \end{align}$

(15a)

$\begin{align} & \left\|f\right\|_{L^{p}}\leq C\|f\|_{\dot{H}^{s}}, \quad \frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{s}{3}. \end{align}$

(15b)

We also provide the following inequalities in 2D

$\left\|f\right\|_{L^{4}}\leq C\left\|f\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla f\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}, \quad \left\|f\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq C\left\|f\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta f\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}$

which will be used repeatedly in the proof of Theorem 1.3, Theorem 1.4, Theorem 1.5, and Theorem 1.6. We also recall

$\left\|\nabla^{2}f\right\|_{L^{2}} = \left\|\Delta f\right\|_{L^{2}}$

which holds in any dimension.

We finally provide the Kato-Ponce commutator cstimate [22]

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} \left\|\left[\Lambda^{k}, f\right]g\right\|_{L^{2}}& = \left\|\Lambda^{k}(fg)-f\Lambda^{k}g\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C \left\|\nabla f\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Lambda^{k-1}g\right\|_{L^{2}}+C \left\|g\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Lambda^{k}f\right\|_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(16)

and the fractional Leibniz rule [11]: for $1\leq p<\infty$ and $p_{i}, q_{i} \ne 1$ ,

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\left\|\Lambda^{s}(fg)\right\|_{L^{p}} \le C\left\|\Lambda^{s}f\right\|_{L^{p_{1}}} \|g\|_{L^{q_{1}}} +C\|f\|_{L^{p_{2}}} \left\|\Lambda^{s}g\right\|_{L^{q_{2}}}, \\ & \frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{q_{1}} = \frac{1}{p_{2}}+\frac{1}{q_{2}}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(17)

2.2. Commutator

We recall the commutator $[f, g] = \nabla f\cdot \nabla^{\perp}g = f_{x}g_{y}-f_{y}g_{x}$ . Then, the commutator has the following properties:

$\begin{align} & \Delta [f, g] = [\Delta f, g] +[f, \Delta g] + 2[f_{x}, g_{x}] +2[f_{y}, g_{y}], \end{align}$

(18a)

$\begin{align} & \int f[f, g] = 0, \end{align}$

(18b)

$\begin{align} & \int f[g, h] = \int g [h, f]. \end{align}$

(18c)

3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2

3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.1

We recall (3):

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} (\left({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right)+\Lambda B = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(19)

3.1.1. Approximation

We first approximate (19) by putting $\epsilon \Delta B$ to the right-hand side of (19):

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} (\left({\rm{curl}} \;B\right)\times B)+\Lambda B = \epsilon \Delta B. \end{eqnarray}$

(20)

We then mollify (20) as follows

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\partial_{t} B^{(\epsilon)}+{\rm{curl}} \left(\mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}\left({\rm{curl}} \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon} B^{(\epsilon)}\right)\times \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon} B^{(\epsilon)}\right)+\Lambda \mathcal{J}^{2}_{\epsilon} B^{(\epsilon)} = \epsilon \mathcal{J}^{2}_{\epsilon}\Delta B^{(\epsilon)}, \\ & B^{(\epsilon)}_{0} = \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon} B_{0}, \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(21)

where $\mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}$ is the standard mollifier described in [25,Chapter 3.2]. Then, as proved in [4,Proposition 3.1], there exists a unique global-in-time solution $\left\{B^{(\epsilon)}\right\}$ of (21). Since the bounds in Section 3.1.2 are independent of $\epsilon>0$ , we can pass to the limit in a subsequence and show the existence of smooth solutions globally in time when $B_{0}\in H^{k}$ , $k>\frac{5}{2}$ , is sufficiently small as in [37,Section 3.2].

3.1.2. A priori estimates

We begin with the $L^{2}$ bound:

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(22)

We now take $\Lambda^{k}$ to (19) and take the inner product of the resulting equation with $\Lambda^{k}B$ . Then,

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = -\int\Lambda^{k}{\rm{curl}} (\left({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right) \cdot \Lambda^{k}B\\ & = \int \left(\left[\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}, B\right]\times {\rm{curl}} \;B\right)\cdot \Lambda^{k-\frac{1}{2}}{\rm{curl}} \;B\leq \left\|\left[\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}, B\right]\times {\rm{curl}} \;B\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

By (16) and (15a) with $k>\frac{5}{2}$ ,

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} \left\|\left[\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}, B\right]\times {\rm{curl}} \;B\right\|_{L^{2}}&\leq C \left\|\nabla B\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Lambda^{k-\frac{1}{2}}{\rm{curl}} \;B\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C \left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(23)

So, we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\leq C \left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(24)

By (22) and (24),

$\frac{d}{dt}\left\|B\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}+\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}\leq C \left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}.$

If $\left\|B_{0}\right\|_{H^{k}} = \epsilon_{0}$ is sufficiently small, we can derive a uniform bound

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\|B(t)\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}+(1-C\epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B(s)\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}ds\leq \left\|B_{0}\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}} \quad {{\rm{for}} \;{\rm{all}} \;t > 0 .} \end{eqnarray}$

(25)

3.1.3. Uniqueness

Let $B_{1}$ and $B_{2}$ be two solutions of (19). Then, $B = B_{1}-B_{2}$ satisfies

$\begin{eqnarray} B_{t}+\Lambda B+{\rm{curl}} \left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B_{1}\right)\times B\right) - {\rm{curl}} \left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B\right)\times B_{2}\right) = 0 \end{eqnarray}$

(26)

with $B_{0} = 0$ . We take the inner product of (26) with $B$ . By (17) with $k>\frac{5}{2}$ ,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|B\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}& = -\int \left({\rm{curl}}\left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B_{1}\right)\times B\right)\right) \cdot B\\ & = -\int \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\left(\left({\rm{curl}} \;B_{1}\right)\times B\right)\right) \cdot \Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}}{\rm{curl}} \;B\\ &\leq C\left\|\nabla B_{1}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +C\left\|\nabla \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B_{1}\right\|_{L^{6}}\|B\|_{L^{3}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C\left\|\nabla B_{1}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +C\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{5}{2}}B_{1}\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \\ &\leq C\left\|B_{1}\right\|_{H^{k}} \left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}} B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}, \end{split} \end{equation*}$

where we use (15b) to control $L^{6}$ and $L^{3}$ terms. If $C\epsilon_{0}<1$ , (25) implies $B = 0$ in $L^{2}$ which gives the uniqueness of a solution.

3.1.4. Decay rates

By (14), it is enough to derive the decay rate with $k = l$ to show (4). Since

$\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{\frac{2k+1}{k}}_{L^{2}}\leq \left\|B\right\|^{\frac{1}{k}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq \left\|B_{0}\right\|^{\frac{1}{k}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}$

by (14) and (22), we create the following ODE from (24)

$\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1-C\epsilon_{0}}{\left\|B_{0}\right\|^{\frac{1}{k}}_{L^{2}}}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{\frac{2k+1}{k}}_{L^{2}}\leq 0.$

By solving this ODE, we find the following decay rate

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\|\Lambda^{k}B(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \frac{\left((2k)^k \left\|B_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}}\right)}{\left(2k \left\|B_{0}\right\|^{\frac{1}{k}}_{L^{2}} +(1-C\epsilon_{0})\left\|\Lambda^{k}B_{0}\right\|^{\frac{1}{k}}_{L^{2}}t\right)^k}. \end{eqnarray}$

(27)

3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

We recall (5):

$B_{t}+{\rm{curl}} \left(({\rm{curl}} \;B)\times B\right)+\ln(2+\Lambda)\Lambda B = 0,$

The the uniqueness part of Theorem 1.2 is the same as that of Theorem 1.1 and we only derive a priori bounds. Let

$\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{s}f\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \left(\ln(2+|\xi|)\right)|\xi|^{2s}\left|\widehat{f}(\xi)\right|^{2}d\xi.$

We begin with the $L^{2}$ bound:

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(28)

Following the computations in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we also have

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\leq C \left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}}\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(29)

For each $N\in \mathbb{N}$ , we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\left\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int_{|\xi|\leq 2^{N}} |\xi|^{2k+1}\left|\widehat{B}(\xi)\right|^{2}d\xi+\int_{|\xi|\ge 2^{N}} |\xi|^{2k+1}\left|\widehat{B}(\xi)\right|^{2}d\xi\\ &\leq 2^{N}\int_{|\xi|\leq 2^{N}} |\xi|^{2k}\left|\widehat{B}(\xi)\right|^{2}d\xi+\frac{1}{\ln(2+2^{N})}\int_{|\xi|\ge 2^{N}} \ln(2+|\xi|)|\xi|^{2k+1}\left|\widehat{B}(\xi)\right|^{2}d\xi\\ &\leq 2^{N}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{\ln(2+2^{N})}\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

So, (29) is replaced by

$\begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \\ &\leq C 2^{N}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\|B\|_{H^{k}} + \frac{C\|B\|_{H^{k}}}{\ln(2+2^{N})}\left\|\sqrt{\ln(2+\Lambda)}\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}+k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

We now choose $N>0$ such that

$\frac{1}{2}\ln(2+2^{N}) < C\left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}} < \ln(2+2^{N})$

and so $N \sim \|B\|_{H^{k}}$ . Then, (29) is reduced to

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \exp\left(\|B\|_{H^{k}}\right)\|B\|_{H^{k}} \left\|\Lambda^{k}B\right\|_{L^{2}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(30)

By (28) and (30), we obtain

$\frac{d}{dt}\left\|B\right\|^{2}_{H^{k}}\leq C \exp\left(\|B\|_{H^{k}}\right)\|B\|^{2}_{H^{k}}$

and so we have

$\frac{d}{dt}\left\|B\right\|_{H^{k}}\leq C \exp\left(\|B\|_{H^{k}}\right)\|B\|_{H^{k}} \leq C \exp\left(\|B\|_{H^{k}}\right).$

By solving this ODE, we can derive (6).

4. Proof of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4

4.1. Proof of Theorem 1.3

We recall (9):

$\begin{align} & \psi_{t} = [\psi, Z], \end{align}$

(31a)

$\begin{align} & Z_{t}-\Delta Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{align}$

(31b)

4.1.1. Approximation

We first approximate (31a) by putting $\epsilon \Delta \psi$ to the right-hand side and mollify the resulting equations as (21). Then, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\partial_{t}\psi^{(\epsilon)} = \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}[\mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}\psi^{(\epsilon)}, \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}Z^{(\epsilon)}]+\epsilon \mathcal{J}^{2}_{\epsilon}\Delta \psi^{(\epsilon)}, \\ & \partial_{t}Z^{(\epsilon)}-\Delta \mathcal{J}^{2}_{\epsilon}Z^{(\epsilon)} = \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}[\Delta \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}\psi^{(\epsilon)}, \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}\psi^{(\epsilon)}] \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(32)

with $\psi^{(\epsilon)}_{0} = \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}\psi_{0}$ and $Z^{(\epsilon)}_{0} = \mathcal{J}_{\epsilon}Z_{0}$ . Since (32) is defined in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ , the proof of the existence of a unique global-in-time solution of (32) is relatively easier than the one to (21). Moreover, the bounds in Section 4.1.2 are independent of $\epsilon>0$ and so we can pass to the limit in a subsequence and show the existence of smooth solutions locally in time when $\psi_{0}\in H^{4}$ and $Z_{0}\in H^{3}$ .

4.1.2. A priori estimates

We first note that

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \psi[\psi, Z] = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(33)

We next multiply (31a) by $-\Delta \psi$ , (31b) by $Z$ , and integrate over $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ . By (18c),

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right) + \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \left(-\Delta \psi[\psi, Z]+Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\right) = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(34)

We also multiply (31a) by $\Delta^{4} \psi$ , (31b) by $-\Delta^{3} Z$ and integrate over $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ . Then,

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} & = \int \Delta^{4} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta^{3} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = \mathcal{R}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(35)

We now compute the right-hand side of (35). By (18a), (18b), and (18c),

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mathcal{R}& = 2\int\Delta^{2}\psi[\Delta \psi, \Delta Z]+4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\psi_{x}, \Delta Z_{x}]+4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\psi_{y}, \Delta Z_{y}]\\ & +4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\Delta\psi_{x}, Z_{x}]+4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\Delta \psi_{y}, Z_{y}]+4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\psi_{xx}, Z_{xx}]\\ &+8\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\psi_{xy}, Z_{xy}]+4\int \Delta^{2} \psi[\psi_{yy}, Z_{yy}]-2\int\Delta^{2}Z[\Delta \psi_{x}, \psi_{x}]\\ &-2\int\Delta^{2}Z[\Delta \psi_{y}, \psi_{y}]. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(36)

So, we find that the number of derivatives acting on $(\psi, \psi, Z)$ are $(4, 4, 2)$ , $(3, 4, 3)$ , and $(4, 2, 4)$ up to multiplicative constants. Hence,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} & \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\int \left|\nabla^{4}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{4}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{2} Z\right|+ C\int \left|\nabla^{3}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{4}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{3} Z\right|+ C\int \left|\nabla^{4}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{2}\psi\right| \left|\nabla^{4} Z\right|\\ & \leq C\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}+ C\left\|\nabla^{3}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}} \left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{3} Z\right\|_{L^{4}}\\ &+ C\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}+ C\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla\Delta\psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &+C\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\delta \left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} \leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{4}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}, \end{split} \end{equation*}$

where we use

$\begin{split} \left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}&\leq C \left\|\Delta Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq C \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{\frac{2}{3}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{2}}\\&\leq C \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split}$

with $\delta$ satisfying $4C\delta = 1$ . So, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(37)

By (33), (34), and (37), we derive $\mathcal{E}' \leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}$ from which we deduce

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{E}(t)\leq \frac{\mathcal{E}_{0}}{1-Ct\mathcal{E}_{0}} \quad {{\rm{for}}\; {\rm{all}}} \;\ 0 < t\leq T_{\ast} < \frac{1}{C \mathcal{E}_{0}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(38)

4.1.3. Uniqueness

Let $(\psi_{1}, Z_{1})$ and $(\psi_{2}, Z_{2})$ be two solutions of (31) and let $\psi = \psi_{1}-\psi_{2}$ and $Z = Z_{1}-Z_{2}$ . Then, $(\psi, Z)$ satisfies the following equations:

$\psi_{t} = [\psi, Z_{1}]+[\psi_{2}, Z], \quad Z_{t}-\Delta Z = [\Delta\psi, \psi_{1}]+[\Delta\psi_{2}, \psi]$

with $\psi(0, x) = Z(0, x) = 0$ . For these equations, we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)+ \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & = -\int \Delta \psi [\psi, Z_{1}]-\int \Delta \psi [\psi_{2}, Z]+\int Z [\Delta\psi, \psi_{1}]+\int Z[\Delta\psi_{2}, \psi]\\ & = \text{(I)+(II)+(III)+(IV)}. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

The first term is bounded using the definition of $[f, g]$ and ${\rm{div}}\; \nabla^{\perp}Z_{1} = 0$ :

$\text{(I)} = \int \left(\nabla^{\perp}Z_{1}\cdot \nabla \psi\right) \Delta \psi = -\int \left(\nabla^{\perp}\partial_{l}Z_{1}\cdot \nabla \psi\right) \partial_{l} \psi\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}Z_{1}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}.$

We next bound $\text{(II)+(III)}$ as

$\begin{split} \text{(II)+(III)}& = -\int Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \\ &\leq C \left(\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{4}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

The last term is bounded as

$\text{(IV)}\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{4}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}.$

So, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)\\ &\leq C\left( \left\|\nabla^{2}Z_{1}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right). \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(39)

By (38), $\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}$ is integrable in time. Integrating (34) and (35) in time, we have

$\int^{t}_{0}\left(\left\|\nabla Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta^{2} Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)ds < \infty \quad {{\rm{for}}} \; 0 < t\leq \frac{T_{\ast}}{2}$

which gives the integrability of the first term in the parentheses on the right-hand side of (39). By repeating the same argument one more time, we have the uniqueness up to $T_{\ast}$ .

4.1.4. Blow-up criterion

Let

$\mathcal{B}(s) = \left\|\nabla^{2}Z(s)\right\|_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} .$

We first deal with

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \Delta^{2} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = 2\int \Delta \psi[\psi_{x}, Z_{x}]+2\int \Delta \psi[\psi_{y}, Z_{y}]\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\| \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split}$

and so we have

$\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\| \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}.$

This implies

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\left\|\Delta \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{}}+ \left\|\nabla Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int^{t}_{0}\left\| \Delta Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} ds < \infty \\ &\iff \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla^{2}Z(s)\right\|_{L^{\infty}}ds < \infty. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(40)

We also deal with

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = -\int \Delta^{3} \psi [\psi, Z] +\int\Delta^{2} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = -\int \Delta^{2}\psi [\Delta \psi, Z] -2\int \Delta^{2}\psi \left([\psi_{x}, Z_{x}]+[\psi_{y}, Z_{y}]\right) \\ &- 2\int \Delta\psi \left([\psi_{x}, \Delta Z_{x}]+[\psi_{y}, \Delta Z_{y}]\right) = \text{(I)+(II)+(III)}. \end{split}$

As in Section 4.1.3,

$\begin{eqnarray} \text{(I)} = \int \left(\nabla \nabla^{\perp}Z\cdot \nabla \Delta \psi\right)\cdot \nabla \Delta\psi \leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(41)

We next estimate $\text{(II)}+\text{(III)}$ :

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\text{(II)}+\text{(III)} = -4\int \Delta\psi \left([\Delta \psi_{y}, Z_{y}]+[\psi_{y}, \Delta Z_{y}]+[\psi_{xy}, Z_{xy}]+ [\psi_{yy}, Z_{yy}]\right)\\ &\leq C\int \left|\nabla^{2}Z\right| \left|\nabla^{3}\psi \right|^{2}+C\int \left|\nabla^{2}\psi \right| \left|\nabla^{3}\psi \right|\left|\nabla^{3}Z\right|\\ &\leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\nabla \Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\nabla \Delta Z \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(42)

By (41) and (42), we have

$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right) +\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\leq C\left(\left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} \right)\left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}$

which implies

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\|\nabla \Delta \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int^{t}_{0} \left\|\nabla \Delta Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}ds < \infty \iff \int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{B}(s)ds < \infty. \end{eqnarray}$

(43)

We finally deal with

$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \Delta^{4} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta^{3} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi] = \mathcal{R}$

with the same $\mathcal{R}$ in (36). So, we have

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \\ &+C\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla\Delta \psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C\left(\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\right)\left\|\Delta^{2} \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation*}$

which gives

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C\left(\mathcal{B}(s)+\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\right)\left\|\Delta^{2} \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(44)

By (40) and (43), (44) implies

$\left\|\Delta^{2} \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla \Delta Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int^{t}_{0} \left\|\Delta ^{2}Z(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}ds < \infty \iff \int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{B}(s)ds < \infty.$

4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.4

We recall (11):

$\psi_{t}+\psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t}-\Delta Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi]$

Since the uniqueness is already proved in Section 4.1.3 even without the damping term, we only focus on the a priori bounds and the decay rates.

4.2.1. A priori estimates

We first have

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0, \\ &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right) +\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(45)

We now consider the highest order part:

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right)+\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \\ & = -\int \Delta^{5} \psi [\psi, Z] +\int\Delta^{4} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]. \end{split}$

We compute the right-hand side of this. By (18a), (18b), and (18c),

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &-\int \Delta^{5} \psi [\psi, Z] +\int\Delta^{4} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = 2\int \Delta^{3}Z\left[\Delta \psi_{x}, \psi_{x}\right]+2\int \Delta^{3}Z\left[\Delta \psi_{y}, \psi_{y}\right]+2\int \Delta^{2}Z\left[\Delta^{2} \psi_{x}, \psi_{x}\right]\\ &+2\int \Delta^{2}Z\left[\Delta^{2} \psi_{y}, \psi_{y}\right] +2\int \Delta Z\left[\Delta^{2} \psi_{x}, \Delta\psi_{x}\right]+2\int \Delta Z\left[\Delta^{2} \psi_{y}, \Delta\psi_{y}\right] \\ &-\int \Delta^{3}\psi[\Delta\psi, \Delta Z]-2\int\Delta^{3}\psi[\Delta \psi_{x}, Z_{x}] -2\int\Delta^{3}\psi[\Delta \psi_{y}, Z_{y}] -2\int\Delta^{3}\psi[ \psi_{x}, \Delta Z_{x}] \\ &-2\int\Delta^{3}\psi[ \psi_{y}, \Delta Z_{y}] -2\int\Delta^{4}\psi[ \psi_{x}, Z_{x}] -2\int\Delta^{4}\psi[ \psi_{y}, Z_{y}] -\int \Delta^{3}\psi[\Delta^{2}\psi, Z]. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(46)

We now count the number of derivatives hitting on $(Z, \psi, \psi)$ using the integration by parts and (18b) and (18c) up to multiplicative constants. Except for the last integral, we have

$\begin{split} &(6, 2, 4) \mapsto (5, 2, 5), \ (5, 3, 4)\, \quad (4, 2, 6) \mapsto (5, 5, 2), \ (4, 3, 5)\\ &(2, 2, 8) \mapsto (3, 2, 7) \mapsto (4, 2, 6), \ (3, 3, 6) \mapsto (5, 5, 2), \ (4, 3, 5)\\ & (2, 4, 6) \mapsto (2, 5, 5), \ (3, 4, 5). \end{split}$

The last integral is

$\int \left(\nabla^{\perp}Z\cdot \nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right)\Delta^{3}\psi = -\int \left(\nabla^{\perp}\partial_{l}Z\cdot \nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right)\partial_{l}\Delta^{2}\psi$

and so this gives $(2, 5, 5)$ . So, the combinations of the numbers of derivatives taken on $(Z, \psi, \psi)$ are

$(2, 5, 5), \ (3, 4, 5), \ (4, 3, 5), \ (5, 2, 5), \ (5, 3, 4).$

The first and the fourth cases are bounded by

$\begin{split} &C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{6}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}, \\ & C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{4}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

The second case is bounded by

$\begin{split} &C\left\|\nabla^{3}Z\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla^{4}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{6}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

The third case is bounded by

$\begin{split} &C\left\|\nabla^{4}Z\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla^{3}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq C\left\|\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{6}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

The last one is bounded by

$\begin{split} &C\left\|\nabla^{3}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla^{4}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq C\left\|\nabla\Delta \psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \leq C\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{4}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

So, we obtain

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right)+\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &+C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation}$

(47)

By (45) and (47),

$\mathcal{F}'(t)+\mathcal{N}_{1}(t)\leq C \left(\mathcal{F}(t)+\mathcal{F}^{2}(t)\right)\mathcal{N}_{1}(t).$

So, if $\mathcal{F}_{0} = \epsilon_{0}$ is sufficiently small, we obtain

$\label{A priori damping dd} \mathcal{F}(t)+(1-C \epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{N}_{1}(s)ds\leq \mathcal{F}_{0} \quad {{\rm{for}} \;{\rm{all}} \;t > 0 .}$

4.2.2. Decay rates

From (45), $\left\|\psi(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \left\|\psi_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}} e^{-t}$ . Since

$\begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}& = -\int \Delta \psi[\psi, Z] = \int \left(\nabla^{\perp}Z\cdot \nabla \psi\right)\Delta \psi\\ & = -\int \left(\partial_{l}\nabla^{\perp}Z\cdot \nabla \psi\right)\partial_{l} \psi\\ &\leq \left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C\epsilon_{0}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}, \end{split}$

we have

$\left\|\nabla \psi(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \left\|\nabla \psi_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}} e^{-(1-C\epsilon_{0})t}.$

By using (14), we also obtain

$\left\|\Lambda^{k}\psi(t)\right\|_{L^{2}}\leq \mathcal{F}^{\frac{k-1}{8}}_{0}\left\|\nabla \psi_{0}\right\|^{\frac{5-k}{4}}_{L^{2}} e^{-\frac{(5-k)(1-C\epsilon_{0})}{4}t}, \quad 1\leq k < 5.$

5. Proof of Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.6

5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.5

We recall (12):

$\psi_{t}-\Delta \psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t} = [\Delta \psi, \psi].$

By applying the same approximation and mollification methods in Section 4.1.1, we can show the existence of smooth solutions locally in time when $\psi_{0}\in H^{4}$ and $Z_{0}\in H^{3}$ .

5.1.1. A priori estimates

We first have

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left\|\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0, \\ & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right) + \left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = 0. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(48)

We next deal with

$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \Delta^{4} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta^{3} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi] = \mathcal{R}$

with the same $\mathcal{R}$ in (36). In this case, we choose the the number of derivatives acting on $(\psi, \psi, Z)$ different from Section 4.1.2, which are given by $(3, 5, 2)$ , $(2, 5, 3)$ , and $(4, 4, 2)$ after several integration by parts. Hence, we have

and so we have the following bound

$\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}. \end{eqnarray}$

(49)

By (48) and (49), we derive $\mathcal{E}' \leq C \mathcal{E}^{2}$ from which we deduce

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{E}(t)\leq \frac{\mathcal{E}_{0}}{1-Ct\mathcal{E}_{0}} \quad {{\rm{for}}\; {\rm{all}}} \;\ 0 < t\leq T_{\ast} < \frac{1}{C \mathcal{E}_{0}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(50)

5.1.2. Uniqueness

Let $(\psi_{1}, Z_{1})$ and $(\psi_{2}, Z_{2})$ be two solutions and let $\psi = \psi_{1}-\psi_{2}$ and $Z = Z_{1}-Z_{2}$ . As in Section 4.1.3

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)+ \left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & = -\int \Delta \psi [\psi, Z_{1}]-\int \Delta \psi [\psi_{2}, Z]+\int Z [\Delta\psi, \psi_{1}]+\int Z[\Delta\psi_{2}, \psi]\\ & = \text{(I)+(II)+(III)+(IV)}. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

The first term three terms are bounded as

$\begin{split} \text{(I)}&\leq \left\|\nabla Z_{1}\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \leq C\left\|\nabla Z_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}, \\ \text{(II)+(III)}& = -\int Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\leq C \left\|\nabla Z\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \\ &\leq C \left(\left\|\nabla Z_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla Z_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split}$

The last term is bounded as

$\begin{split} \text{(IV)}&\leq C \left\|\nabla^{3}\psi_{2}\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \leq C \left\|\nabla^{3}\psi_{2}\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \\ & \leq C \left\|\nabla^{3}\psi_{2}\right\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{\frac{2}{3}}_{L^{2}}\left\|Z\right\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \left\|\nabla^{3}\psi_{2}\right\|^{4}_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &+ C \left\|Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C \left\|\nabla\Delta \psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ C \left\|Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

So, we have

$\begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)\\&\leq C\left(\left\|\nabla Z_{1}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\nabla Z_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} +\left\|\nabla\Delta \psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi_{2}\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)\left(\left\|\nabla \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ \|Z\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right). \end{split}$

By (50), the terms in the parentheses are integrable up to $\frac{T_{\ast}}{2}$ . By repeating the same argument one more time, we have the uniqueness up to $T_{\ast}$ .

5.1.3. Blow-up criterion

To derive the blow-up criterion, we first bound

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = \int \Delta^{2} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = 2\int \Delta \psi[\psi_{x}, Z_{x}]+2\int \Delta \psi[\psi_{y}, Z_{y}]\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split}$

and so we have

$\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \leq C \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}.$

This implies

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\left\|\Delta \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{}}+ \left\|\nabla Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int^{t}_{0}\left\| \nabla \Delta \psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} ds < \infty\\& \iff \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}ds < \infty \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(51)

We also take

$\begin{split} &\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\nabla \Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\| \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} = -\int \Delta^{3} \psi [\psi, Z] +\int\Delta^{2} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi]\\ & = -\int \Delta^{2}\psi [\Delta \psi, Z] -2\int \Delta^{2}\psi \left([\psi_{x}, Z_{x}]+[\psi_{y}, Z_{y}]\right) \\&\qquad- 2\int \Delta\psi \left([\psi_{x}, \Delta Z_{x}]+[\psi_{y}, \Delta Z_{y}]\right)\\ & = \text{(I)+(II)+(III)}. \end{split}$

By using the computation in (41),

$\begin{split} \text{(I)}& = \int \left(\nabla \nabla^{\perp}Z\cdot \nabla \Delta \psi\right)\cdot \nabla \Delta\psi \leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{3}\psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{4}} \\ &\leq C\left\|\nabla^{2}Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{6}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split}$

We next estimate $\text{(II)}+\text{(III)}$ using (42):

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \text{(II)}+\text{(III)}&\leq C\int \left|\nabla^{2}Z\right| \left|\nabla^{3}\psi \right|^{2}+C\int \left|\nabla^{2}\psi \right| \left|\nabla^{4}\psi \right|\left|\nabla^{2}Z\right|\\ &\leq C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\Delta Z \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{3}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation*}$

So, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt}\left(\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right) +\left\|\Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\&\leq C\left(\left\|\nabla\Delta \psi \right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(52)

By (51), (52) implies

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{split} &\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int \left\|\Delta^{2} \psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}ds < \infty \\ &\iff \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}ds < \infty. \end{split} \end{eqnarray}$

(53)

We finally deal with

where we count the number of derivatives acting on $(\psi, \psi, Z)$ in (46) as $(3, 5, 2)$ , $(2, 5, 3)$ , and $(4, 4, 2)$ . Then, we obtain

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} &\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\&\qquad+ C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla^{3}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{4}}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+ C\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &+C\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation*}$

and so we have

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ &\leq C\left(\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +C\left(\left\|\nabla \Delta \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\right)\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation}$

(54)

By (51) and (53), (54) implies

$\label{BW 5}\begin{split} &\left\|\Delta^{2} \psi(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla \Delta Z(t)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\int^{t}_{0} \left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} \psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}ds < \infty\\& \iff \int^{t}_{0}\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi(s)\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}ds < \infty. \end{split}$

5.2. Proof of Theorem 1.6

We recall (13):

$\psi_{t}-\Delta \psi = [\psi, Z], \quad Z_{t}+Z = [\Delta \psi, \psi].$

Since the uniqueness is already proved in Section 5.1.2 even without the damping term, we only focus on the a priori bounds.

We first have

(55)

We also have

$\begin{split} \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) &+\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \\ & = \int \Delta^{4} \psi [\psi, Z] -\int\Delta^{3} Z[\Delta \psi, \psi] = \mathcal{R} \end{split}$

with the same $\mathcal{R}$ in (36). In this case, we also choose the the number of derivatives acting on $(\psi, \psi, Z)$ as $(3, 5, 2)$ , $(2, 5, 3)$ , and $(4, 4, 2)$ . Hence,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} & \frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C \left\|\nabla^{2} Z\right\|_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{4}} + C\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &+ C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|_{L^{4}}\left\|\nabla^{3}\psi\right\|_{L^{4}} \left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{2}} \\ & \leq C \left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla \Delta\psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}+C\left\|\nabla \Delta Z\right\|_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|_{L^{\infty}} \left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}\\ &+ C\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{2}} \left\|\nabla \Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{\frac{3}{2}}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left(\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\&\qquad +\frac{1}{2} \left\|\nabla \Delta^{2} \psi\right\|_{L^{2}}. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

So, we obtain

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} &\frac{d}{dt} \left(\left\|\Delta^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \right) +\left\|\nabla\Delta^{2} \psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} +\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left(\left\|\nabla Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\nabla \Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}\left\|\Delta\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+\left\|\nabla^{2}\psi\right\|^{2}_{L^{\infty}}\right)\left\|\nabla\Delta Z\right\|^{2}_{L^{2}} \end{split} \end{equation}$

(56)

By (55) and (56),

$\mathcal{E}'(t)+\mathcal{N}_{2}(t)\leq C \left(\mathcal{E}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{2}(t)\right)\mathcal{N}_{2}(t).$

So, if $\mathcal{E}_{0} = \epsilon_{0}$ is sufficiently small, we obtain

$\mathcal{E}(t)+(1-C \epsilon_{0})\int^{t}_{0}\mathcal{N}_{2}(s)ds\leq \mathcal{E}_{0} \quad {\rm{for}}\; {\rm{all}}\; t > 0 .$

Acknowledgments

H.B. was supported by NRF-2018R1D1A1B07049015. H. B. acknowledges the Referee for his/her valuable comments that highly improve the manuscript.

References

[1]	Adams S, Acheampong A (2019) Reducing Carbon Emissions: The Role of Renewable Energy and Democracy. J Clean Prod 240: 118245.
[2]	Alhassan S, Alade SA (2017) Income and Democracy in Sub-Sahara Africa. J Econ Sust Dev 8: 67-73.
[3]	Alola AA, Bekun VF, Sarkodie AS (2019) Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 685: 702-709. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
[4]	Barrett S, Graddy K (2000) Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environ Dev Econ 5: 433-456. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X00000267
[5]	Becker S, Kunze C (2014) Transcending community energy: collective and politically motivated projects in renewable energy (CPE) across Europe. People Place Policy 8: 180-191.
[6]	Bollerslev T (1986) Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity. J Econometrics 31: 307-327. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
[7]	Bondia R, Ghosh S, Kanjilal K (2016) International Crude Oil Prices and the Stock Prices of Clean Energy and Technology Companies: Evidence from Non-linear Cointegration Tests with Unknown Structural Breaks. Energy 101: 558-565. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.031
[8]	Burke M, Stephens CJ (2018) Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res Social Sci 35: 78-93. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.018
[9]	Corbet S, Goodell WJ, Günay S (2020) Co-movements and spillovers of oil and renewable firms under extreme conditions: new evidence from negative WTI prices during COVID-19. Energy Econ 92: 104978.
[10]	Diebold FX, Yilmaz K (2012) Better to Give than to Receive: Predictive Directional Measurement of Volatility Spillovers. Int J Forecasting 28: 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
[11]	Dutta A (2017) Oil Price Uncertainty and Clean Energy Stock Returns: New Evidence from Crude Oil Volatility Index. J Clean Prod 164: 1157-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.050
[12]	Engle R (1982) Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica 50: 987-1007. doi: 10.2307/1912773
[13]	Engle R, Ng KV (1993) Measuring and Testing the Impact of News on Volatility. J Financ 48: 1749-1778. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05127.x
[14]	Farzin YH, Bond CA (2006) Democracy and Environmental Quality. J Dev Econ 81: 213-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.04.003
[15]	Ferrer R, Shahzad SJH, López R, et al. (2018) Time and Frequency Dynamics of Connectedness Between Renewable Energy Stocks and Crude Oil Prices. Energy Econ 76: 1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.09.022
[16]	Inchauspe J, Ripple RD, Trück S (2015) The Dynamics of Returns on Renewable Energy Companies: A State-Space Approach. Energy Econ 48: 325-335. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.11.013
[17]	Kumar S, Managi S, Matsuda A (2012) Stock Prices of Clean Energy Firms, Oil and Carbon Markets: A Vector Autoregressive Analysis. Energy Econ 34: 215-226. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.03.002
[18]	Lv Z (2017) The effect of democracy on CO₂ emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter? Renew Sust Energy Rev 72: 900-906.
[19]	Maji IK (2015) Does Clean Energy Contribute to Economic Growth? Evidence from Nigeria. Energy Rep 1: 145-150. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2015.06.001
[20]	Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Thanh SD (2019) Economic Integration and CO₂ Emissions: Evidence from Emerging Economies. Climate Dev 12: 369-384. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1630350
[21]	Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Thanh SD (2018) The ambivalent role of institutions in the CO₂ Emissions: The case of Emerging Countries. Int J Energy Econ Policy 8: 7-17.
[22]	Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Dinh TS, Bensemann J, et al. (2019) Global Emissions: A New Contribution from the Shadow Economy. Int J Energy Econ Policy 9: 320-337.
[23]	Nguyen C, Ha-Le T, Schinckus C, et al. (2020) Determinants of agricultural emissions: panel data evidence from a global sample. Environ Dev Econ 26: 109-130. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X20000315
[24]	Omri A, Mabrouk NB, Sassi-Tmar A (2015) Modeling the Causal Linkages Between Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy and Economic Growth in Developed and Developing Countries. Working Papers 2015-623, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
[25]	Reboredo JC (2015) Is There Dependence and Systemic Risk Between Oil and Renewable Energy Stock Prices? Energy Econ 48: 32-45.
[26]	Roberts JT, Parks BC (2007) Fueling Injustice: Globalization, Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Climate Change. Globalizations 4: 193-210.
[27]	Sadorsky P (2012) Correlations and Volatility Spillovers Between Oil Prices and the Stock Prices of Clean Energy and Technology Companies. Energy Econ 34: 248-255. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.03.006
[28]	Symitsi E, Chalvatzis KJ (2019) The economic value of Bitcoin: A portfolio analysis of currencies, gold, oil and stocks. Res Int Bus Financ 48: 97-110. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.12.001
[29]	Szulecki K, Overland I (2018) Energy democracy as a process, an outcome a goal: A conceptual review. Energy Res Social Sci 69: 101768.
[30]	Torras M, Boyce KJ (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecol Econ 25: 147-160. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00177-8
[31]	Ulusoy V, Özdurak C (2018) The Impact of Oil Price Volatility to Oil and Gas Company Stock Returns and Emerging Economies. Int J Energy Econ Policy Econ J 8: 144-158.
[32]	Usman O, Iortile IB, Ike NG (2020) Enhancing sustainable electricity consumption in a large ecological reserve-based country: the role of democracy, ecological footprint, economic growth, and globalisation in Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 13370-13383. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-07815-3
[33]	Usman O, Olanipekun OI, Iorember TP, et al. (2020) Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 8334-8349. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06687-6

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Green Finance

5.5 9.6

Metrics

Article views(3252) PDF downloads(173) Cited by(21)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Green Finance

Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. The Hall equation with fractional Laplacian

1.2. 2D models

1.2.1. Case 1

1.2.2. Case 2

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Inequalities

2.2. Commutator

3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2

3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.1

3.1.1. Approximation

3.1.2. A priori estimates

3.1.3. Uniqueness

3.1.4. Decay rates

3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

4. Proof of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4

4.1. Proof of Theorem 1.3

4.1.1. Approximation

4.1.2. A priori estimates

4.1.3. Uniqueness

4.1.4. Blow-up criterion

4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.4

4.2.1. A priori estimates

4.2.2. Decay rates

5. Proof of Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.6

5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.5

5.1.1. A priori estimates

5.1.2. Uniqueness

5.1.3. Blow-up criterion

5.2. Proof of Theorem 1.6

Acknowledgments

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. The Hall equation with fractional Laplacian

1.2. 2D models

1.2.1. Case 1

1.2.2. Case 2

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Inequalities

2.2. Commutator

3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2

3.1. Proof of Theorem 1.1

3.1.1. Approximation

3.1.2. A priori estimates

3.1.3. Uniqueness

3.1.4. Decay rates

3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.2

4. Proof of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4

4.1. Proof of Theorem 1.3

4.1.1. Approximation

4.1.2. A priori estimates

4.1.3. Uniqueness

4.1.4. Blow-up criterion

4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.4

4.2.1. A priori estimates

4.2.2. Decay rates

5. Proof of Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.6

5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.5

5.1.1. A priori estimates

5.1.2. Uniqueness

5.1.3. Blow-up criterion

5.2. Proof of Theorem 1.6

Acknowledgments