This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

thanks: Philip Broadbridge, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]
Illia Donhauzer, corresponding author, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]
Andriy Olenko, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]
This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP220101680). I.Donhauzer and A.Olenko also would like to thank for partial support provided by the La Trobe SEMS CaRE grant.

Stochastic diffusion within expanding space-time

Philip Broadbridge La Trobe University,
Melbourne,
Australia,
[email protected]
   Illia Donhauzer Corresponding author,
La Trobe University,
Melbourne,
Australia,
[email protected]
   Andriy Olenko La Trobe University,
Melbourne,
Australia,
[email protected]

Abstract The paper examines stochastic diffusion within an expanding space-time framework. It starts with providing a rationale for the considered model and its motivation from cosmology where the expansion of space-time is used in modelling various phenomena. Contrary to other results in the literature, the considered in this paper general stochastic model takes into consideration the expansion of space-time. It leads to a stochastic diffusion equations with coefficients that are non-constant and evolve with the expansion factor. Then, the Cauchy problem with random initial conditions is posed and investigated. The exact solution to a stochastic diffusion equation on the expanding sphere is derived. Various probabilistic properties of the solution are studied, including its dependence structure, evolution of the angular power spectrum and local properties of the solution and its approximations by finite truncations. The paper also characterises the extremal behaviour of the random solution by establishing upper bounds on the probabilities of large deviations. Numerical studies are undertaken to illustrate the obtained theoretical results and demonstrate the evolution of the random solution.

Keywords Stochastic partial differential equation, Spherical random field, Approximation errors, Excursion probability, Cosmic microwave background

Mathematics Subject Classification 35R01 35R60 60G60 60G15 60H15 33C55 35P10 35Q85 41A25

1 Introduction

The NASA mission WMAP and the ESA (European Space Agency) mission Planck have been instrumental in collecting highly accurate cosmological data, resulting in a precise map depicting the distribution of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) [4, 5]. It is expected that new experiments, in particular, within CMB-S4 Collaboration and ESA’s Euclid mission, will provide measurements of the CMB at unprecedented precision.

The CMB spectrum indicates that since the last scattering around 380,000 years after the big bang, the universe has been transparent to electromagnetic radiation. However the universe is not transparent to charged cosmic ray particles. They are deviated by magnetic fields as they pass close to galaxies. Recent estimates of the number of galaxies in the observable universe range from 2×10122\times 10^{12} to 6×10126\times 10^{12}. In any angular aperture of observation, there will be part of at least one galaxy. Extragalactic cosmic ray particles reach the earth in a small number of showers each year. They are distinguished from local galactic cosmic rays by their high particle energy, greater than 5×1018eV5\times 10^{18}eV. This corresponds to charged particles typically arriving at more than half the speed of light. They have likely been travelling for a very long time in cosmic terms, during which they would have been deviated by a number of galaxies. This results in a long-term diffusive redistribution of matter throughout the universe.

This dynamical process is very complicated. Effective diffusion occurs partly by scattering due to magnetic fields [22] and also by motion of the magnetic field lines themselves [25]. It has also been argued that the temperature gradients formed from galaxies can effectively repel particles, enough to avoid gravitational capture [37].

Due to the long distances between galaxy clusters, scattering is intermittent, reasonably described by a fractional α\alpha-stable Lévy distribution with tail probabilities of order |x|α|x|^{-\alpha} for exceeding a large displacement, and the distribution due to a local disturbance broadening asymptotically in proportion to t1/α.t^{1/\alpha}. Such a distribution can result from a fractional super-diffusion that is of order α<2\alpha<2. Data from intra-galactic cosmic rays evidence values of α\alpha less than 0.5 [15].

The cosmological missions have yielded high resolution maps of CMB. The necessity of modelling and analysing them have recently attracted increasing attention to the theory of spherical random fields. From the mathematical point of view and for modelling purposes, a map depicting the distribution of CMB can be regarded as a single realization of a random field on a sphere of a large radius. The sphere plays a role of the underlying space and expands in time. For the Dark-energy-dominated era, the expansion factor has the exponential form [11]. This expansion impacts the stochastic diffusion and should be incorporated in a model for the evolution of CMB. Contrary to the other models in the literature, this paper takes into consideration the expansion of space-time, which leads to a stochastic diffusion equation with coefficients that are non-constant and evolve with the expansion factor.

We refer to the monograph [31] for the systematic exposition of the main results of the theory of spherical random fields. The paper [26] studied isotropic random fields on high-dimensional spheres 𝕊n\mathbb{S}^{n} and established connections between the smoothness of the covariance kernel and the decay of their angular power spectrum, derived conditions for almost sure sample continuity and sample differentiability of spherical random fields, and obtained sufficient conditions for their L2L_{2} continuity in terms of the decay of the angular power spectrum.

Another important direction of the modern theory of random fields is the exploration of extremes of random fields including fields given on manifolds, see the classical results in [38], [17], [35] and their modern generalisations. The monograph [14] examined extremes of sub-Gaussian fields while the expected Euler characteristic method developed by Adler and Taylor was demonstrated in [6]. The publication [16] provided the asymptotics of excursion probabilities for both smooth and non-smooth spherical Gaussian fields. Some inequalities for excursion probabilities for spherical sub-Gaussian random fields were obtained in [36]. Another approach utilized limit theorems for sojourn measures, see [28] and [30].

Stochastic partial differential equations (SPDE) are the main tool to model the evolution of spherical random fields over time. They have been extensively studied, see, for example, [19], [26], [34] and the references therein. Several models were recently presented in [7, 12, 13, 27] that employed stochastic hyperbolic diffusion equations and modelled various types of evolution of spherical random fields.

This article integrates the aforementioned approaches and extend them to the context of SPDEs within an expanding space-time. The equations studied in this paper differ from the mentioned SPDEs and are given as a hyperbolic diffusion on the expanding sphere. Motivated by cosmological applications, the exponential expansion is used in the considered model, which leads to a stochastic diffusion equation with non-constant coefficients.

The article also conducts the numerical analysis of the solution of the considered model. The numerical analysis section investigates the evolution of the solution of the studied SPDE over space-time, the structure of its space-time dependencies, and its extremes. The CMB intensity map from the mission Planck and its spectrum are used as initial conditions. The numerical analysis confirms and visualizes the obtained theoretical results.

The main novelties of the paper include:

  • The consideration of diffusion within an expanding space-time framework;

  • The examination of equations with non-constant coefficients dependent on the expansion factor values;

  • An exploration of both the local and asymptotic properties of the solutions and their respective approximations;

  • An analysis of excursion probabilities associated with the solutions and their approximations.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the main definitions and notations. Section 3 presents the diffusion model within an expanding time-space universe. Then, this section investigates the initial-value problem for this diffusion equation and explores the properties of the derived non-random solutions. Section 3 is dedicated to the examination of the equation with random initial conditions. The solution to the equation and its associated covariance function are derived. Section 5 investigates properties of stochastic solutions and their corresponding approximations. Sections 6 studies excursion probabilities related to the solutions and their approximations. Finally, Section 7 presents simulation studies that illustrate the properties of the solutions and the obtained results.

2 Main definitions and notations

This section reviews the main definitions and notations used in this paper and provides required background knowledge from the theory of random fields.

CC with subindices represents a generic finite positive constant. The values of constants are not necessarily the same in each appearance and may be changed depending on the expression. ||||||\cdot|| is the Euclidean norm in 3,\mathbb{R}^{3}, Leb()Leb(\cdot) stands for the Lebesgue measure on the unit sphere 𝕊2={x:x=1,x3}.\mathbb{S}^{2}=\{\textbf{{x}}:\ ||\textbf{{x}}||=1,\ \textbf{{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\}.

The notation x=(x1,x2,x3)𝕊2\textit{{x}}=(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})\in\mathbb{S}^{2} is used to define Euclidean coordinates of points, while the notation (θ,φ), 0θπ, 0φ<2π,(\theta,\varphi),\ 0\leq\theta\leq\pi,\ 0\leq\varphi<2\pi, is used for the corresponding spherical coordinates. They are related by the following transformations

x1=cosθ1,x2=sinθ1cosθ2,x3=sinθ1sinθ2.\displaystyle\begin{split}&x_{1}=\cos\theta_{1},\\ &x_{2}=\sin\theta_{1}\cos\theta_{2},\\ &x_{3}=\sin\theta_{1}\sin\theta_{2}.\end{split}

In what follows, Θ\Theta denotes the angular distance between two points with spherical coordinates (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and (θ,φ)(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}) on the unit sphere 𝕊2.\mathbb{S}^{2}.

By L2(𝕊2)L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}) we denote the Hilbert space of square integrable functions on 𝕊2\mathbb{S}^{2} with the following canonical inner product [9, Page 8]

f,gL2(𝕊2)=0π02πf(θ,φ)g(θ,φ)sinθdθdφ,f,gL2(𝕊2),\langle f,g\rangle_{L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2})}=\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}f(\theta,\varphi)g^{*}(\theta,\varphi)\sin\theta d\theta d\varphi,\ \ \ f,g\in L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}),

where g()g^{*}(\cdot) denotes a complex conjugate of g(),g(\cdot), and the induced norm

fL2(𝕊2)2=0π02π|f(θ,φ)|2sinθdθdφ.||f||^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2})}=\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}|f(\theta,\varphi)|^{2}\sin\theta d\theta d\varphi.

The spherical harmonics Ylm(θ,φ),l=0,1,,m=l,..l,Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi),\ l=0,1,...,m=-l,..l, are given as

Ylm(θ,φ)=dlmexp{imφ}Plm(cosθ),Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)=d_{lm}\exp\{im\varphi\}P_{l}^{m}(\cos\theta),

where

dlm=(1)m2l+14π(lm)!(l+m)!,d_{lm}=(-1)^{m}\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}\frac{(l-m)!}{(l+m)!}},

Plm()P_{l}^{m}(\cdot) are the associated Legendre polynomials with the indices ll and m,m, and Pl()P_{l}(\cdot) is the llth Legendre polynomial

Plm(x)=(1)m(1x2)m2dmdxmPl(x),Pl(x)=12ll!dldxl(x21)l.P_{l}^{m}(x)=(-1)^{m}(1-x^{2})^{\frac{m}{2}}\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}P_{l}(x),\ \ \ P_{l}(x)=\frac{1}{2^{l}l!}\frac{d^{l}}{dx^{l}}(x^{2}-1)^{l}.

The spherical harmonics Ylm(θ,φ),l=0,1,,m=l,..l,Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi),\ l=0,1,...,m=-l,..l, form an orthogonal basis in the Hilbert space L2(𝕊2),L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}), i.e.

Ylm,YlmL2(𝕊2)=δllδmm,\langle Y_{lm},Y_{l^{\prime}m^{\prime}}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2})}=\delta_{ll^{\prime}}\delta_{mm^{\prime}},

where δll\delta_{ll^{\prime}} is the Kronecker delta function.

The addition formula for the spherical harmonics states that

m=llYlm(θ,φ)Ylm(θ,φ)=2l+14πPl(cosΘ).\sum_{m=-l}^{l}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)Y^{*}_{lm}(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime})=\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}P_{l}(\cos\Theta). (1)

For any fL2(𝕊2)f\in L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}) it holds

f(θ,φ)=l=0m=llflmYlm(θ,φ),f(\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}f_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi),

where flm,l=0,1,,m=l,,l.f_{lm}\in\mathbb{C},\ l=0,1,...,\ m=-l,...,l.

A spherical random field T(θ,φ),T(\theta,\varphi), is a collection of random variables given on a common complete probability space {Ω,𝔉,P}\{\Omega,\mathfrak{F},P\} and indexed by parameters θ,φ.\theta,\varphi. In this paper, we consider real-valued spherical random fields that are continuous and twice-differentiable with probability 1.1.

By L2(Ω×𝕊2)L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}) we denote the Hilbert space of spherical random fields that have a finite norm

TL2(Ω×𝕊2)=E(0π02πT2(θ,φ)sinθdφdθ).||T||_{L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2})}=E\left(\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}T^{2}(\theta,\varphi)\sin\theta d\varphi d\theta\right).

A spherical random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) is called isotropic if its finite-dimensional distributions are invariant with respect to rotation transformations, i.e. if

P(T(x1)<a1,,T(xk)<ak)=P(T(Ax1)<a1,,T(Ax1)<ak)P(T(\textit{{x}}_{1})<a_{1},...,T(\textit{{x}}_{k})<a_{k})=P(T(A\textit{{x}}_{1})<a_{1},...,T(A\textit{{x}}_{1})<a_{k})

for any xi𝕊2,\textit{{x}}_{i}\in\mathbb{S}^{2}, ai,i=1,2,k,ka_{i}\in\mathbb{R},\ i=1,2,...k,\ k\in\mathbb{N} and any rotation matrix A.A.

An isotropic spherical random field T(θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)T(\theta,\varphi)\in L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}) allows a representation as the following Laplace series [26]

T(θ,φ)=l=0m=llalmYlm(θ,φ),T(\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi), (2)

where the convergence is in the space L2(Ω×𝕊2),L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}), i.e..

limLE(0π02π(T(θ,φ)l=0Lm=llalmYlm(θ,φ))2sinθdφdθ)=0.\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}E\left(\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\left(T(\theta,\varphi)-\sum_{l=0}^{L}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)\right)^{2}\sin\theta d\varphi d\theta\right)=0.

The random variables alm,l=0,1,,m=l,,l,a_{lm},\ l=0,1,...,\ m=-l,...,l, are given by the next stochastic integrals defined in the mean-square sense

alm=0π02πT(θ,φ)Y(θ,φ)sinθdθdφ.a_{lm}=\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}T(\theta,\varphi)Y^{*}(\theta,\varphi)\sin\theta d\theta d\varphi. (3)

Note that a spherical random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) takes a constant random value, i.e. T(θ,φ)=ξ,ξL2(Ω),θ,φ,T(\theta,\varphi)=\xi,\ \xi\in L^{2}(\Omega),\forall\theta,\varphi, with probability 1, if and only if alm=0a_{lm}=0 a.s. for l=1,2,l=1,2,... Indeed, by the properties of spherical harmonics, for T(θ,φ)=ξT(\theta,\varphi)=\xi the integrals in (3) equal to 0 a.s. for l=1,2,l=1,2,... The inverse statement is trivial due to (2).

If T(θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)T(\theta,\varphi)\in L^{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}) is a centered real-valued Gaussian random field, then it allows the representation (2), where alm,l=0,1,,m=l,,l,a_{lm},\ l=0,1,...,\ m=-l,...,l, are Gaussian random variables such that

alm=(1)mal(m),a_{lm}=(-1)^{m}a_{l(-m)},
Ealm=0,Ealmalm=δmmδllCl.Ea_{lm}=0,\ Ea_{lm}a_{l^{\prime}m^{\prime}}^{*}=\delta_{m}^{m^{\prime}}\delta_{l}^{l^{\prime}}C_{l}.

The sequence {Cl,l=0,1,}\{C_{l},l=0,1,...\} is called the angular power spectrum of the isotropic random field T(θ,φ).T(\theta,\varphi). The series (2) converges in the L2(Ω×𝕊2)L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}) sense if it holds true [26, Section 2] that

l=0Cl(2l+1)<+.\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)<+\infty. (4)

We assume that condition (4) remains valid throughout all subsequent sections of the paper.

The Bessel function of the first kind Jν(x),x0,ν,J_{\nu}(x),\ x\geq 0,\ \nu\in\mathbb{R}, is given by the following series [3, 9.1.10]

Jν(x)=(12x)νk=0(14x2)kk!Γ(ν+k+1).J_{\nu}(x)=\left(\frac{1}{2}x\right)^{\nu}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left(-\frac{1}{4}x^{2}\right)^{k}}{k!\Gamma(\nu+k+1)}.

It has a finite value at the origin if ν0\nu\geq 0 and a singularity if ν<0.\nu<0.

For a noninteger ν,\nu, the Bessel function of the second kind Yν(x),x0,Y_{\nu}(x),\ x\geq 0, is given as [3, 9.1.2]

Yν(x)=Jν(x)cos(νπ)Jν(x)sin(νπ).Y_{\nu}(x)=\frac{J_{\nu}(x)\cos(\nu\pi)-J_{-\nu}(x)}{\sin(\nu\pi)}.

The Bessel function of the second kind Yn(x),x0,Y_{n}(x),\ x\geq 0, of a positive integer order nn\in\mathbb{N} is obtained as the limit Yn(x)=limνnYν(x),Y_{n}(x)=\lim\limits_{\nu\to n}Y_{\nu}(x), see [3, 9.1.11].

3 Spherical diffusion in expanding space-time

This section provides a justification for the model and obtain certain properties of solutions to the non-random version of the considered diffusion equations.

The universe is observed to have spatial cross sections with zero curvature. The Friedmann–Lemaître–
Robertson–Walker metric (FLRW) on the sphere of radius rr is

ds2=c2dt2a2(t)(r2dθ2+r2sin2θdφ2),ds^{2}=c^{2}dt^{2}-a^{2}(t)(r^{2}d\theta^{2}+r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta d\varphi^{2}),

in the spherical space coordinates (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and the cosmic time coordinate t,t, where the term a()a(\cdot) is the expansion factor. Note that for the Dark-energy-dominated era [23, 24], the expansion factor has the exponential form of the maximally symmetric de Sitter universe, a(t)=eΛ3cta(t)=e^{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}ct} [11, 42].

The spherical diffusion is given by the following equation

1Du~t+gμνμνu~=0,\frac{1}{D}\frac{\partial\widetilde{u}}{\partial t}+g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\widetilde{u}=0, (5)

where μ\nabla_{\mu} is the covariant derivative operator and gμνg^{\mu\nu} are the elements of the contravariant metric tensor where the indices take values from 0 to 2. We also impose the following initial conditions

u~(t,θ,φ)|t=0=δ(θ,φ),u~(t,θ,φ)t|t=0=0.\widetilde{u}(t,\theta,\varphi)|_{t=0}=\delta(\theta,\varphi),\ \ \ \frac{\partial\widetilde{u}(t,\theta,\varphi)}{\partial t}{\biggl{|}}_{t=0}=0. (6)

The covariant derivatives do not commute when they act on vectors, see [10]. However, the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the sphere can be expanded unambiguously in terms of partial derivatives as

gμνμνu~=1|g|μ|g|gμννu~,g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\widetilde{u}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\partial_{\mu}\sqrt{|g|}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\widetilde{u}, (7)

where gg is the covariant metric tensor. For the above defined FLRW metric, gg is the diagonal matrix with the elements c2,r2a2(t),r2a2(t)sin2θ,c^{2},-r^{2}a^{2}(t),-r^{2}a^{2}(t)sin^{2}\theta, and the contravariant metric tensor is the inverse of g.g.

Changing to a conformal time coordinate

η=0t1a(s)𝑑s=η(1et/η),\eta=\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{a(s)}ds=\eta_{\infty}\big{(}1-e^{-t/\eta_{\infty}}\big{)},

the FLRW metric becomes

ds2=e2(η)(c2dη2r2dθ2r2sin2θdφ2),ds^{2}=e^{2}(\eta)(c^{2}d\eta^{2}-r^{2}d\theta^{2}-r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta d\varphi^{2}),

where e(η):=ηηη=a(t),η=1c3Λ,e(\eta):=\frac{\eta_{\infty}}{\eta_{\infty}-\eta}=a(t),\ \eta_{\infty}=\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}, and the covariant metric tensor gg becomes the diagonal matrix with the elements c2e2(η),r2e2(η),r2e2(η)sin2θ.c^{2}e^{2}(\eta),-r^{2}e^{2}(\eta),-r^{2}e^{2}(\eta)\sin^{2}\theta.

Using (7) and the above expression of the covariant metric tensor in terms of the conformal time, the equation (5) can be written in the following form

(e(η)D+ec2e)u~η+1c22u~η21r22u~θ21r2sin2θ2u~φ2cotθr2u~θ=0.\left(\frac{e(\eta)}{D}+\frac{e^{\prime}}{c^{2}e}\right)\frac{\partial\widetilde{u}}{\partial\eta}+\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}\widetilde{u}}{\partial\eta^{2}}-\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}\widetilde{u}}{\partial\theta^{2}}-\frac{1}{r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}\frac{\partial^{2}\widetilde{u}}{\partial\varphi^{2}}-\frac{\cot\theta}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial\widetilde{u}}{\partial\theta}=0. (8)

As for t=0t=0 it holds that η=0\eta=0 and dηdt|t=0=1,\frac{d\eta}{dt}\big{|}_{t=0}=1, the initial conditions (6) become

u~(η,θ,φ)|η=0=δ(θ,φ),u~(η,θ,φ)η|η=0=0.\widetilde{u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)|_{\eta=0}=\delta(\theta,\varphi),\ \ \ \frac{\partial\widetilde{u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)}{\partial\eta}{\biggl{|}}_{\eta=0}=0. (9)

The equation (8) is different compared to the models studied in the literature, see [7, 12, 13, 27] and the references therein. Namely, for the underlying FLRW space-time metric the coefficient of the term u~η\frac{\partial\widetilde{u}}{\partial\eta} in (8) is not constant and depends on the evolution of the expansion factor e(η).e(\eta).

Theorem 1.

The solution u~(η,θ,φ)\widetilde{u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) of the equation (8) with the initial conditions (9) is given by the following series

l=0Fl(η)m=llYlm(0)Ylm(θ,φ),\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi),

where

Fl(η)={1,l=0,(ηη)ν(K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη))),l,F_{l}(\eta)=\begin{cases}1,\ l=0,\\ (\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\big{(}K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)},\ l\in\mathbb{N},\end{cases}\ (10)
K1(l)=πzlYν1(zlη)2ην1,K2(l)=πzlJν1(zlη)2ην1,K_{1}^{(l)}=\frac{\pi z_{l}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}},\ \ \ K_{2}^{(l)}=-\frac{\pi z_{l}J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}},

zl=cl(l+1)r,z_{l}=\frac{c\sqrt{l(l+1)}}{r}, ν=c2η2D+1\nu=\frac{c^{2}\eta_{\infty}}{2D}+1 and 0 denotes a point on the unit sphere with the spherical coordinates θ=0,φ=0.\theta=0,\ \varphi=0.

Proof.

Let u~=L(θ)Z(φ)F(η)\widetilde{u}=L(\theta)Z(\varphi)F(\eta) be the solution of (8), then, after multiplying the equation by r2sin2θu~,\frac{r^{2}sin^{2}\theta}{\widetilde{u}}, one gets

r2sin2θE(η)FF+r2sin2θc2F′′Fsin2θL′′LsinθcosθLL=Z′′Z=m2,r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta E(\eta)\frac{F^{\prime}}{F}+\frac{r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}{c^{2}}\frac{F^{\prime\prime}}{F}-\sin^{2}\theta\frac{L^{\prime\prime}}{L}-\sin\theta\cos\theta\frac{L^{\prime}}{L}=\frac{Z^{\prime\prime}}{Z}=-m^{2},

where E(η)=e(η)D+ec2e,E(\eta)=\frac{e(\eta)}{D}+\frac{e^{\prime}}{c^{2}e}, and mm is a separation constant. Thus, Z(φ)=eimφZ(\varphi)=e^{im\varphi} and as it is 2π2\pi-periodic, mm must be an integer.

Now separating the independent variable θ\theta one gets

r2E(η)FF+r2c2F′′F=L′′L+cotθLLm2sin2θ=l(l+1).r^{2}E(\eta)\frac{F^{\prime}}{F}+\frac{r^{2}}{c^{2}}\frac{F^{\prime\prime}}{F}=\frac{L^{\prime\prime}}{L}+cot\theta\frac{L^{\prime}}{L}-\frac{m^{2}}{\sin^{2}\theta}=-l(l+1).

By substituting x=cosθ,x=cos\theta, this equation for θ\theta is equivalent to the next associated Legendre equation [8, page 648]

(1x2)d2Ldx22xdLdxm2L1x2+l(l+1)L=0.(1-x^{2})\frac{d^{2}L}{dx^{2}}-2x\frac{dL}{dx}-\frac{m^{2}L}{1-x^{2}}+l(l+1)L=0.

The solution of the above equation has a singularity if l.l\notin\mathbb{Z}. If l,l\in\mathbb{Z}, then the general solution is C1Plm(cosθ)+C2Qlm(cosθ),C_{1}P_{l}^{m}(cos\theta)+C_{2}Q_{l}^{m}(cos\theta), where Plm()P_{l}^{m}(\cdot) and Qlm()Q_{l}^{m}(\cdot) are the associated Legendre polynomial and the Legendre function of the second kind. As Qlm(x)Q_{l}^{m}(x) is singular at x=±1,x=\pm 1, L(θ)=Plm(cosθ).L(\theta)=P_{l}^{m}(\cos\theta).

As e(η)=ηηη,e(\eta)=\frac{\eta_{\infty}}{\eta_{\infty}-\eta}, the equation for the separated independent variable η\eta is

F′′+ηc2+DD(ηη)F+l(l+1)c2r2F=0.F^{\prime\prime}+\frac{\eta_{\infty}c^{2}+D}{D(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}F^{\prime}+\frac{l(l+1)c^{2}}{r^{2}}F=0. (11)

Let us first solve the above equation for l=0l=0 and denote the solution by F0(η).F_{0}(\eta). By denoting F0=P,F_{0}^{\prime}=P, the equation (11) is equivalent to

P+ηc2+DD(ηη)P=0,P^{\prime}+\frac{\eta_{\infty}c^{2}+D}{D(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}P=0,

from which follows that P=K1(0)(ηη)ηc2D+1,P=K_{1}^{(0)}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\frac{\eta_{\infty}c^{2}}{D}+1}, and F0=P𝑑η=K1(0)(ηη)2ν+K2(0),ν=ηc22D+1,F_{0}=\int Pd\eta=K_{1}^{(0)}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{2\nu}+K_{2}^{(0)},\ \nu=\frac{\eta_{\infty}c^{2}}{2D}+1, where the superscript (0)(0) means that the constants K1(0)K_{1}^{(0)} and K2(0)K_{2}^{(0)} correspond to the solution of (11) with l=0l=0.

Now let us solve the equation (11) for l.l\in\mathbb{N}. By setting x=ηη,x=\eta_{\infty}-\eta, one transforms (11) to

d2Fdx2+((ηc2D+2)+1)1xdFdx+l(l+1)c2r2F=0.\frac{d^{2}F}{dx^{2}}+\left(-\left(\frac{\eta_{\infty}c^{2}}{D}+2\right)+1\right)\frac{1}{x}\frac{dF}{dx}+\frac{l(l+1)c^{2}}{r^{2}}F=0.

Denote the general solution of the above equation by FlF_{l} for l.l\in\mathbb{N}. Then, by [41, page 97] one gets

Fl=(ηη)ν(K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη))).F_{l}=(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\left(K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\right).

As Ylm(θ,φ)=dlmPlm(cosθ)eimϕ,dlm=(1)m2l+14π(lm)!(l+m)!,Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)=d_{lm}P_{l}^{m}(cos\theta)e^{im\phi},\ d_{lm}=(-1)^{m}\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}\frac{(l-m)!}{(l+m)!}}, then, the general solution of (8) is

l=0Fl(η)m=lldlm1Ylm(θ,φ),\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}d_{lm}^{-1}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi), (12)

where

Fl(η)={K1(0)(ηη)2ν+K2(0),l=0,(ηη)ν(K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη))),l.F_{l}(\eta)=\begin{cases}K_{1}^{(0)}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{2\nu}+K_{2}^{(0)},\ l=0,\\ (\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\big{(}K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)},\ l\in\mathbb{N}.\end{cases}\ (13)

Due to the spherical harmonic closure relations [33, 1.17.25], the initial conditions (9) are equivalent to the following system of conditions

{dlm1Fl|η=0=Ylm(0),Fl|η=0=0,\begin{cases}d_{lm}^{-1}F_{l}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}}),\\ F_{l}^{\prime}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=0,\end{cases}\ (14)

for all l0.l\in 0\cup\mathbb{N}.

Let us consider the case l=0.l=0. The above conditions become

{(K1(0)(ηη)2ν+K2(0))|η=0=d00Y00(0),K1(0)2ν(ηη)2ν1|η=0=0.\begin{cases}\big{(}K_{1}^{(0)}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{2\nu}+K_{2}^{(0)}\big{)}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=d_{00}Y_{00}^{*}(\textbf{{0}}),\\ K_{1}^{(0)}2\nu(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{2\nu-1}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=0.\end{cases}\

One can see that K1(0)=0K_{1}^{(0)}=0 and K2(0)=d00Y00(0).K_{2}^{(0)}=d_{00}Y_{00}^{*}(\textbf{{0}}).

For ll\in\mathbb{N} the conditions (14) become

{(ηη)ν(K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη)))|η=0=dlmYlm(0),(ηη)ν(K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη))))|η=0=0.\begin{cases}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\big{(}K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=d_{lm}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}}),\\ (\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\big{(}K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)}\big{)}^{\prime}\big{|}_{\eta=0}=0.\end{cases}\

The last system is equivalent to

{A1(l)K1(l)+B1(l)K2(l)=dlmYlm(0),A2(l)K1(l)+B2(l)K2(l)=0\begin{cases}A_{1}^{(l)}K_{1}^{(l)}+B_{1}^{(l)}K_{2}^{(l)}=d_{lm}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}}),\\ A_{2}^{(l)}K_{1}^{(l)}+B_{2}^{(l)}K_{2}^{(l)}=0\end{cases}\

where

A1(l)=ηνJν(zlη),A2(l)=νην1Jν(zlη)zl2ην(Jν1(zlη)Jν+1(zlη)),A_{1}^{(l)}=\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}),\ \ \ A_{2}^{(l)}=-\nu\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-\frac{z_{l}}{2}\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}(J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-J_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})),
B1(l)=ηνYν(zlη),B2(l)=νην1Yν(zlη)zl2ην(Yν1(zlη)Yν+1(zlη)).B_{1}^{(l)}=\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}),\ \ \ B_{2}^{(l)}=-\nu\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-\frac{z_{l}}{2}\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}(Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-Y_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})).

Thus,

K1(l)=B2(l)dlmYlm(0)A1(l)B2(l)A2(l)B1(l),K2(l)=A2(l)dlmYlm(0)A1(l)B2(l)A2(l)B1(l).K_{1}^{(l)}=\frac{B_{2}^{(l)}d_{lm}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{A_{1}^{(l)}B_{2}^{(l)}-A_{2}^{(l)}B_{1}^{(l)}},\ \ K_{2}^{(l)}=-\frac{A_{2}^{(l)}d_{lm}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{A_{1}^{(l)}B_{2}^{(l)}-A_{2}^{(l)}B_{1}^{(l)}}.

After straightforward algebraic manipulations, one can see that

A1(l)B2(l)A2(l)B1(l)=zl2η2ν(Yν(zlη)(Jν1(zlη)Jν+1(zlη))A_{1}^{(l)}B_{2}^{(l)}-A_{2}^{(l)}B_{1}^{(l)}=\frac{z_{l}}{2}\eta_{\infty}^{2\nu}\bigg{(}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{(}J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-J_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{)}
Jν(zlη)(Yν1(zlη)Yν+1(zlη)))-J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{(}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-Y_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{)}\bigg{)}
=zl2η2ν((Jν+1(zlη)Yν(zlη)Jν(zlη)Yν+1(zlη))=\frac{z_{l}}{2}\eta_{\infty}^{2\nu}\bigg{(}-\big{(}J_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{)}
(Jν(zlη)Yν1(zlη)Jν1(zlη)Yν(zlη))).-\big{(}J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})\big{)}\bigg{)}.

Using the Wronskian expression W(Jν(x),Yν(x))=Jν+1(x)Yν(x)Jν(x)Yν+1(x)=2πxW(J_{\nu}(x),Y_{\nu}(x))=J_{\nu+1}(x)Y_{\nu}(x)-J_{\nu}(x)Y_{\nu+1}(x)=\frac{2}{\pi x} (see [33, 10.5]), one gets

A1(l)B2(l)A2(l)B1(l)=zl2η2ν4πηzl=2η2ν1π.A_{1}^{(l)}B_{2}^{(l)}-A_{2}^{(l)}B_{1}^{(l)}=-\frac{z_{l}}{2}\eta_{\infty}^{2\nu}\frac{4}{\pi\eta_{\infty}z_{l}}=-\frac{2\eta_{\infty}^{2\nu-1}}{\pi}.

From which it follows that

K1(l)=πdlm(νYν(zlη)+zlη2(Yν1(zlη)Yν+1(zlη)))Ylm(0)2ην,K_{1}^{(l)}=\frac{\pi d_{lm}\bigg{(}\nu Y_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})+\frac{z_{l}\eta_{\infty}}{2}(Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-Y_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}))\bigg{)}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}},
K2(l)=πdlm(νJν(zlη)+zlη2(Jν1(zlη)Jν+1(zlη)))Ylm(0)2ην.K_{2}^{(l)}=-\frac{\pi d_{lm}\bigg{(}\nu J_{\nu}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})+\frac{z_{l}\eta_{\infty}}{2}(J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})-J_{\nu+1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}))\bigg{)}Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}}.

By subsequently applying the identities Yν(x)=12(Yν1(x)Yν+1(x))Y_{\nu}^{\prime}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(Y_{\nu-1}(x)-Y_{\nu+1}(x)) and xYν(x)=xYν1(x)νYν(x)xY_{\nu}^{\prime}(x)=xY_{\nu-1}(x)-\nu Y_{\nu}(x), one gets νYν(x)+x2(Yν1(x)Yν+1(x))=xYν1(x).\nu Y_{\nu}(x)+\frac{x}{2}(Y_{\nu-1}(x)-Y_{\nu+1}(x))=xY_{\nu-1}(x). Thus,

K1(l)=πdlmzlYν1(zlη)Ylm(0)2ην1,K_{1}^{(l)}=\frac{\pi d_{lm}z_{l}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}},

Analogous transformations for the functions Jν()J_{\nu}(\cdot) lead to

K2(l)=πdlmzlJν1(zlη)Ylm(0)2ην1.K_{2}^{(l)}=-\frac{\pi d_{lm}z_{l}J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{lm}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}}.

By putting the above constants into (13) and (12), one finishes the proof of the theorem.∎

The following results derive some properties of the functions Fl(η),F_{l}(\eta), which will be used later.

Lemma 1.

For a fixed η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) and any constant a>1a>1 the following asymptotic behaviour holds true

Ya1(zlη)Ja(zl(ηη))Ja1(zlη)Ya(zl(ηη))=2cos(zlη)πzlη(ηη)+Oη(zl2),Y_{a-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})J_{a}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))-J_{a-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{a}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))=\frac{2\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{\pi z_{l}\sqrt{\eta_{\infty}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-2}), (15)

as l,l\to\infty, where the terms Oη(zl2)O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-2}) may depend on η.\eta.

Proof.

For the Bessel’s function of the first kind Ja(x)J_{a}(x) with a12a\geq-\frac{1}{2} the following holds true uniformly in x0x\geq 0

|Ja(x)(2πx)12cos(x12aπ14π)|dax32,\left|J_{a}(x)-\left(\frac{2}{\pi x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\cos\left(x-\frac{1}{2}a\pi-\frac{1}{4}\pi\right)\right|\leq\frac{d_{a}}{x^{\frac{3}{2}}},

where dad_{a} is a constant depending on a,a, see [32, Theorem 4.1].

An approximation for Yν(x)Y_{\nu}(x) follows from the analogous estimates and the relationship [41, Section 3.6]

Ya(x)=Ha(1)(x)Ha(2)(x)2i,Y_{a}(x)=\frac{H_{a}^{(1)}(x)-H_{a}^{(2)}(x)}{2i},

where Ha(1)(x)H_{a}^{(1)}(x) and Ha(2)(x)H_{a}^{(2)}(x) are the Hankel functions of the first and second kind respectively. A straightforward modification of the proof of [32, Theorem 4.1] gives that, uniformly in x2,x\geq 2, for the Bessel’s function of the second kind Ya(x),Y_{a}(x), a1/2,a\geq-{1}/{2}, it holds true

|Ya(x)(2πx)12sin(x12aπ14π)|dax32.\left|Y_{a}(x)-\left(\frac{2}{\pi x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\sin\left(x-\frac{1}{2}a\pi-\frac{1}{4}\pi\right)\right|\leq\frac{d_{a}}{x^{\frac{3}{2}}}. (16)

Thus, left-hand side of (15) is asymptotically equal to

2πzlη(ηη)(sin(zlη(a1)π2π4)cos(zl(ηη)aπ2π4)\frac{2}{\pi z_{l}\sqrt{\eta_{\infty}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}}\left(\sin\left(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}-\frac{(a-1)\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\cos\left(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right.
cos(zlη(a1)π2π4)sin(zl(ηη)aπ2π4))+Oη(zl2)\left.-\cos\left(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}-\frac{(a-1)\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\sin\left(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right)+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-2})
=2πzlη(ηη)(cos(zlηaπ2π4)cos(zl(ηη)aπ2π4)=\frac{2}{\pi z_{l}\sqrt{\eta_{\infty}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}}\left(\cos\left(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\cos\left(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right.
+sin(zlηaπ2π4)sin(zl(ηη)aπ2π4))+Oη(zl2)\left.+\sin\left(z_{l}\eta_{\infty}-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\sin\left(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)-\frac{a\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right)+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-2})
=2cos(zlη)πzlη(ηη)+Oη(zl2).=\frac{2\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{\pi z_{l}\sqrt{\eta_{\infty}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)}}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-2}).

Lemma 2.

For a fixed η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) the following asymptotic behaviour holds true

Fl(η)=cos(zlη)eν1/2(η)+Oη(zl1),l,F_{l}(\eta)=\frac{\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{e^{\nu-1/2}(\eta)}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1}),\ \ \ l\to\infty,

where the terms Oη(zl1)O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1}) may depend on η.\eta.

Proof.

Let us consider separately the following expression

K1(l)Jν(zl(ηη))+K2(l)Yν(zl(ηη))K_{1}^{(l)}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))+K_{2}^{(l)}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))
=πzl2ην1(Yν1(zlη)Jν(zl(ηη))Jν1(zlη)Yν(zl(ηη))).=\frac{\pi z_{l}}{2\eta_{\infty}^{\nu-1}}(Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))-J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))).

According to Lemma 1 the above expression equals to

e(η)cos(zlη)ην+Oη(zl1).\frac{\sqrt{e(\eta)}\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1}).

Thus,

Fl(η)=(ηη)νe(η)cos(zlη)ην+Oη(zl1)=(ηηη)νcos(zlη)e(η)+Oη(zl1)F_{l}(\eta)=\frac{(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}\sqrt{e(\eta)}\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{\eta_{\infty}^{\nu}}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1})=\left(\frac{\eta_{\infty}-\eta}{\eta_{\infty}}\right)^{\nu}\cos(z_{l}\eta)\sqrt{e(\eta)}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1})
=cos(zlη)eν1/2(η)+Oη(zl1).=\frac{\cos(z_{l}\eta)}{e^{\nu-1/2}(\eta)}+O_{\eta}(z_{l}^{-1}).

Lemma 3.

The functions Fl(η)F_{l}(\eta) are uniformly bounded on η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) and l=0,1,.\ l=0,1,...\ .

Proof.

Note that ν>1.\nu>1. First, let us consider the absolute value of the first summand in (10)

|zl(ηη)νYν1(zlη)Jν(zl(ηη))|.|z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|.

It is bounded by some constant CC for all values of η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) and l.l. Indeed, |(zl(ηη))12Jν(zl(ηη))|<C,|(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|<C, as |xJν(x)|,x[0,),|\sqrt{x}J_{\nu}(x)|,x\in[0,\infty), is a bounded function [32]. The terms |zl12Yν1(zlη)||z_{l}^{\frac{1}{2}}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})| are uniformly bounded for all ll as the function xYν(x)\sqrt{x}Y_{\nu}(x) is bounded on [C,][C,\infty] for any fixed C>0.C>0. The later boundedness follows from the continuity of xYν(x)\sqrt{x}Y_{\nu}(x) on [C,][C,\infty] and the inequality (16).

The absolute value of the second summand in (10) can be estimated as

|zl(ηη)νJν1(zlη)Yν(zl(ηη))|C|zl12(ηη)νYν(zl(ηη))|,|z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|\leq C|z_{l}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|, (17)

which is obtained by using the boundedness of the function |xJν(x)|,x[0,).|\sqrt{x}J_{\nu}(x)|,\ x\in[0,\infty). The boundedness of the function on the right-hand side of (17) follows from the asymptotic behaviour Yν(x)Cxν,Y_{\nu}(x)\sim\frac{C}{x^{\nu}}, x0,x\to 0, see [3, 9.1.11], (16) and the continuity of the function Yν(x)Y_{\nu}(x) on the interval x[C,).x\in[C,\infty).

4 Solution for stochastic spherical diffusion equation

In this section we consider the case of equations from Section 3 with the initial conditions determined by an isotropic Gaussian random field.

Namely, we consider the following initial condition and its spherical harmonics expansion

u(η,θ,φ)|η=0=T(θ,φ)=l=0m=llalmYlm(θ,φ),{u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)|_{\eta=0}=T(\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi), (18)
u(η,θ,φ)η|η=0=0,\frac{\partial{u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)}{\partial\eta}{\biggl{|}}_{\eta=0}=0, (19)

where alm,m=l,,l,l0,a_{lm},\ m=-l,...,l,\ l\geq 0, are Gaussian random variables. Without lost of generality, we assume that the random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) is centered ET(θ,φ)=0.ET(\theta,\varphi)=0.

Lemma 4.

If the angular power spectrum {Cl,l=0,1,}\{C_{l},l=0,1,...\} of the Gaussian isotropic random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) satisfies the condition

l=1Cll10(2l+1)<+,\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{10}(2l+1)<+\infty, (20)

then T(θ,φ)C2(𝕊2)T(\theta,\varphi)\in C^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}) a.s.

Proof.

It follows from (1) that

Cov(T(θ,φ),T(θ,φ))=l=0Clm=llYlm(θ,φ)Ylm(θ,φ)Cov(T(\theta,\varphi),T(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)Y^{*}_{lm}(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime})
=(4π)1l=0Cl(2l+1)Pl(cosΘ).=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)P_{l}(\cos\Theta).

Therefore, the statement of the lemma directly follows from [16, Lemma 3.3].∎

Lemma 4 provides the sufficient conditions for the random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) to be a.s. twice continuously differentiable with respect to θ,φ.\theta,\varphi. In the following results we assume that T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) is a.s. twice continuously differentiable or that the conditions of Lemma 4 hold true.

Lemma 5.

Let KT(Θ)K_{T}(\Theta) be a covariance function of an isotropic a.s. continuous Gaussian random field T(θ,φ).T(\theta,\varphi). There exists Θ>0\Theta^{\prime}>0 such KT(Θ)=KT(0),K_{T}(\Theta)=K_{T}(0), for all ΘΘ,\Theta\leq\Theta^{\prime}, if and only if T(θ,φ)=ξ,ξL2(Ω),T(\theta,\varphi)=\xi,\ \xi\in L^{2}(\Omega), for all θ\theta and φ,\varphi, with probability 1.

Proof.

As the sufficiency is straightforward, let us proceed with the necessity.

Note that for any two spherical points (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and (θ,φ)(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}) at the angular distance Θ,\Theta, it holds

E(T(θ,φ)T(θ,φ))2=2(KT(0)KT(Θ))=0,E(T(\theta,\varphi)-T(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))^{2}=2(K_{T}(0)-K_{T}(\Theta))=0,

which implies that T(θ,φ)=T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi)=T(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}) with probability 1. Due to the isotropy of the random field T(θ,φ)T(\theta,\varphi) it is also true for any spherical points. ∎

Theorem 2.

The solution u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) of the initial random value problem (8), (18), (19) is given by the following random series

u(η,θ,φ)=l=0Fl(η)m=llalmYlm(θ,φ).u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi). (21)

The covariance function of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is given by

Cov(u(η,θ,φ),u(η,θ,φ))=(4π)1l=0Cl(2l+1)Fl(η)Fl(η)Pl(cosΘ),Cov(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi),u(\eta^{\prime},\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F_{l}(\eta)F_{l}(\eta^{\prime})P_{l}(\cos\Theta), (22)

where η,η[0,η),θ,θ[0,π],φ,φ[0,2π),\eta,\eta^{\prime}\in[0,\eta_{\infty}),\ \theta,\theta^{\prime}\in[0,\pi],\ \varphi,\varphi^{\prime}\in[0,2\pi), Pl()P_{l}(\cdot) is the llth Legendre polynomial, and Θ\Theta is the angular distance between the points (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and (θ,φ).(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}).

Remark 1.

The convergence of the series in (21) is understood in the L2(Ω×𝕊2)L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}) sense, that is

limLE(0π02π(u(η,θ,φ)l=0LFl(η)m=llalmYlm(θ,φ))2sinθdφdθ)=0.\lim\limits_{L\to\infty}E\left(\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}\left(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-\sum_{l=0}^{L}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)\right)^{2}\sin\theta d\varphi d\theta\right)=0.

However, the series in (21) also converges almost surely, see [26, Section 2].

Proof.

The solution of the initial value problem (8), (18), (19) is a spherical convolution of the function u~()\widetilde{u}(\cdot) obtained in Theorem 1 and the random field T(θ,φ),T(\theta,\varphi), provided that the corresponding Laplace series converges in the Hilbert space L2(Ω×𝕊2).L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}).

Let the two functions f1()f_{1}(\cdot) and f2()f_{2}(\cdot) on the sphere 𝕊2\mathbb{S}^{2} belong to the space L2(𝕊2)L_{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}) and have the Fourier-Laplace coefficients

alm(i)=𝕊2fi(θ,φ)Ylm(θ,φ)sinθdθdφ,i=1,2.a^{(i)}_{lm}=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{2}}f_{i}(\theta,\varphi)Y_{lm}^{*}(\theta,\varphi)\sin\theta d\theta d\varphi,\ \ i=1,2.

The non-commutative spherical convolution of f1()f_{1}(\cdot) and f2()f_{2}(\cdot) is defined as the Laplace series (see [18])

[f1f2](θ,φ)=l=0m=llalmYlm(θ,φ)[f_{1}*f_{2}](\theta,\varphi)=\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}^{*}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi) (23)

with the Fourier-Laplace coefficients given by

alm=4π2l+1alm(1)al0(2),a_{lm}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1}}a_{lm}^{(1)}a_{l0}^{(2)},

provided that the series in (23) converges in the corresponding Hilbert space.

Thus, the random solution u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) of equation (8) with the initial conditions (18) and (19) can be written as a spherical random field with the following Laplace series representation

u(η,θ,φ)=[Tu](θ,φ)=l=0Fl(η)m=ll4π2l+1almYl0(0)Ylm(θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=[T*u](\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2l+1}}a_{lm}Y_{l0}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)
=l=0Fl(η)m=llalmYlm(θ,φ).=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi).

In the above series, the identity Yl0(0)=2l+14πY_{l0}^{*}(\textbf{{0}})=\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}} was applied to simplify the expression. By Lemma 3 and condition (20) the above series converges in L2(Ω×𝕊2).L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}).

By applying the addition formula (1) for the spherical harmonics, one obtains the covariance function of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) in the form

Cov(u(η,θ,φ),u(η,θ,φ))=l=0ClFl(η)Fl(η)m=llYlm(θ,φ)Ylm(θ,φ)Cov(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi),u(\eta^{\prime},\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}F_{l}(\eta)F_{l}(\eta^{\prime})\sum_{m=-l}^{l}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)Y^{*}_{lm}(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime})
=(4π)1l=0Cl(2l+1)Fl(η)Fl(η)Pl(cosΘ).=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F_{l}(\eta)F_{l}(\eta^{\prime})P_{l}(\cos\Theta).

As |Pl(cos(Θ))|1,|P_{l}(\cos(\Theta))|\leq 1, as l,l\to\infty, it follows from (4) and Lemma 3 that the above series is convergent. ∎

5 Properties of stochastic solutions and their approximations

This section investigates time-smoothness properties of the solution and truncation errors of its approximation.

For L,L\in\mathbb{N}, the following truncated series are used to approximate the solution of the random initial value problem in Theorem 2

uL(η,θ,φ)=l=0LFl(η)m=llalmYlm(θ,φ).u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{L}F_{l}(\eta)\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi). (24)

The next result provides the upper bounds for the corresponding approximation error.

Theorem 3.

Let u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) be the solution of the initial value problem (8), (18), (19) and uL(η,θ,φ)u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) be its approximation. Then, for η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) the following bound for the truncation error holds true

u(η,θ,φ)uL(η,θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)C(l=L+1Cl(2l+1))1/2,\left|\left|u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\right|\right|_{L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2})}\leq C\left(\sum_{l=L+1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)\right)^{1/2},

where the constant CC does not depend on η.\eta.

Proof.

The truncation error field u^L(η,θ,φ)=u(η,θ,φ)uL(η,θ,φ),L,\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi),\ L\in\mathbb{N}, is a centered Gaussian random field, i.e. Eu^L(η,θ,φ)=0E\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=0 for all L,θ[0,π],φ[0,2π),L\in\mathbb{N},\ \theta\in[0,\pi],\ \varphi\in[0,2\pi), and η[0,η).\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}). It follows from (21), (24) and the orthogonality of {alm}\{a_{lm}\} that

u(η,θ,φ)uL(η,θ,φ)L2(Ω×S2)2=0π02πE(l=L+1Fl(η)m=llalmYlm(θ,φ))2sinθdφdθ.\left|\left|u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\right|\right|^{2}_{L_{2}(\Omega\times S^{2})}=\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}E\bigg{(}\sum\limits_{l=L+1}^{\infty}F_{l}(\eta)\sum\limits_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi)\bigg{)}^{2}\sin\theta d\varphi d\theta.

Then, due to the addition theorem for the spherical harmonics

u(η,θ,φ)uL(η,θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)2=Cl=L+1Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η).||u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)||^{2}_{L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2})}=C\sum_{l=L+1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F_{l}^{2}(\eta).

The statement of the theorem follows from Lemma 3.

Theorem 4.

Let u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) be the solution of the initial value problem (8), (18), (19). If

l=1Cll3<+,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{3}<+\infty,

then for each η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) and h(0,ηη)h\in(0,\eta_{\infty}-\eta)

u(η+h,θ,φ)u(η,θ,φ)L2(𝕊2×Ω)Ch,||u(\eta+h,\theta,\varphi)-u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)||_{L_{2}(\mathbb{S}^{2}\times\Omega)}\leq Ch,

where the constant CC does not depend on η.\eta.

Proof.

For h<ηη,h<\eta_{\infty}-\eta, let us consider

u(η+h,θ,φ)u(η,θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)2=l=1Cl(2l+1)(Fl(η+h)Fl(η))2.||u(\eta+h,\theta,\varphi)-u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)||^{2}_{L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2})}=\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)(F_{l}(\eta+h)-F_{l}(\eta))^{2}.

By (10) and applying the Cauchy inequality, one obtains that

u(η+h,θ,φ)u(η,θ,φ)L2(Ω×𝕊2)2Cl=1Cl(2l+1)(Al2(η,h)+Bl2(η,h)),||u(\eta+h,\theta,\varphi)-u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)||^{2}_{L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2})}\leq C\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)(A^{2}_{l}(\eta,h)+B^{2}_{l}(\eta,h)),

where

Al(η,h):=K1(l)(η(η+h))νJν(zl(η(η+h)))(ηη)νJν(zl(ηη)))A_{l}(\eta,h):=K_{1}^{(l)}\big{(}\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h))^{\nu}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}J_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)}

and

Bl(η,h):=K2(l)(η(η+h))νYν(zl(η(η+h)))(ηη)νYν(zl(ηη))).B_{l}(\eta,h):=K_{2}^{(l)}\big{(}\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h))^{\nu}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)^{\nu}Y_{\nu}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))\big{)}.

First, let us estimate |Al(η,h)|.|A_{l}(\eta,h)|. Let f(x):=xνJν(x),f(x):=x^{\nu}J_{\nu}(x), then

Al(η,h)=K1(l)zlν(f(zl(η(η+h)))f(zl(ηη))).A_{l}(\eta,h)=K_{1}^{(l)}{z_{l}^{-\nu}}(f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))).

By the mean value theorem

|f(zl(η(η+h)))f(zl(ηη))|zlhmaxx|(xνJν(x))|,|f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|\leq z_{l}h\max_{x}|(x^{\nu}J_{\nu}(x))^{\prime}|,

where the maximum is taken over the interval [zl(η(η+h)),zl(ηη)].[z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)),z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta)]. As (xνJν(x))=xνJν1(x),(x^{\nu}J_{\nu}(x))^{\prime}=x^{\nu}J_{\nu-1}(x), one obtains

zlν|f(zl(η(η+h)))f(zl(ηη))|hzlν+1{z_{l}^{-\nu}}|f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-f(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|\leq{h}z_{l}^{-\nu+1}
×maxα[0,h]|(zl(η(η+α)))νJν1(zl(η(η+α)))|.\times\max_{\alpha\in[0,h]}|(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+\alpha)))^{\nu}J_{\nu-1}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+\alpha)))|.

As xJν(x)\sqrt{x}J_{\nu}(x) is a bounded function on [0,)[0,\infty) and ν>1,\nu>1, the next upper bound holds true

|Al(η,h)||K1(l)|Chzlν+1maxα[0,h](zl(η(η+α)))ν12C|K1(l)|hzl.|A_{l}(\eta,h)|\leq|K_{1}^{(l)}|C{h}z_{l}^{-\nu+1}\max_{\alpha\in[0,h]}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+\alpha)))^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\leq C|K_{1}^{(l)}|h\sqrt{z_{l}}.

For Bl(η,h),B_{l}(\eta,h), by setting g(η):=xνYν(x)g(\eta):=x^{\nu}Y_{\nu}(x) and using analogous calculations one obtains that

Bl(η,h)zlν|K2(l)||g(zl(η(η+h)))g(zl(ηη))|hzlν+1|K2(l)|B_{l}(\eta,h)\leq{z_{l}^{-\nu}}|K_{2}^{(l)}|\cdot|g(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+h)))-g(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-\eta))|\leq{h}{z_{l}^{-\nu+1}}|K_{2}^{(l)}|
×maxα[0,h]|(zl(η(η+α)))νYν1(zl(η(η+α)))|hzlν+1|K2(l)|maxx[0,zlη]|xνYν1(x)|\times\max_{\alpha\in[0,h]}|(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+\alpha)))^{\nu}Y_{\nu-1}(z_{l}(\eta_{\infty}-(\eta+\alpha)))|\leq{h}{z_{l}^{-\nu+1}}|K_{2}^{(l)}|\max_{x\in[0,z_{l}\eta_{\infty}]}|x^{\nu}Y_{\nu-1}(x)|
Chzlν+1|K2(l)|(zlη)ν12C|K2(l)|hzl12,\leq C{h}{z_{l}^{-\nu+1}}|K_{2}^{(l)}|(z_{l}\eta_{\infty})^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}}\leq C|K_{2}^{(l)}|hz_{l}^{\frac{1}{2}},

as |xνYν1(x)||x^{\nu}Y_{\nu-1}(x)| is bounded on [0,A],A>0,[0,A],\ A>0, and |xνYν1(x)|Cxν12|x^{\nu}Y_{\nu-1}(x)|\leq Cx^{\nu-\frac{1}{2}} when xA.x\geq A.

Using the asymptotics of the functions Jν()J_{\nu}(\cdot) and Yν(),Y_{\nu}(\cdot), it is straightforward to verify that the constants K1(l)K_{1}^{(l)} and K1(2)K_{1}^{(2)} are bounded as |K1(l)|Czl|K_{1}^{(l)}|\leq C\sqrt{z_{l}} and |K2(l)|Czl|K_{2}^{(l)}|\leq C\sqrt{z_{l}} for all ll. Thus, Al2(η,h)Ch2zl2Ch2l2.A^{2}_{l}(\eta,h)\leq Ch^{2}z^{2}_{l}\sim Ch^{2}l^{2}. Analogously, Bl2(η,h)Ch2zl2Ch2l2B^{2}_{l}(\eta,h)\leq Ch^{2}z^{2}_{l}\sim Ch^{2}l^{2} which, by the assumption (4), implies the statement of the theorem. ∎

6 On excursion probabilities

This section studies the excursion probabilities for the random solution obtained in section 4. The main approach used in this section is based on the metric entropy theory. This section also studies errors of approximations of extremes of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) by extremes of the truncated field uL(η,θ,φ).u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi). The approximation uL(η,θ,φ)u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) converges to u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) in the space L2(Ω×𝕊2),L_{2}(\Omega\times\mathbb{S}^{2}), as L.L\to\infty. However, in general, this type of convergence does not imply that the extremes of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) can be effectively approximated using the extremes of uL(η,θ,φ).u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi). This section obtains estimates of probabilities of large deviations between the extremes of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) and uL(η,θ,φ).u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi).

We first provide some results that will be used later to study properties of the distributions of extremes. In what follows TT is a subset of n.\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Theorem 5 ([6, Theorem 2.1.1.]).

Let ξ(x),xT,\xi(x),\ x\in T, be a centered a.s. bounded Gaussian field, then for y0y\geq 0

P(supxTξ(x)EsupxTξ(x)y)exp(y22σT2),P\left(\sup\limits_{x\in T}\xi(x)-E\sup\limits_{x\in T}\xi(x)\geq y\right)\leq\exp\left({-\frac{y^{2}}{2\sigma_{T}^{2}}}\right),

where σT2:=supxTEξ2(x),\sigma_{T}^{2}:=\sup\limits_{x\in T}E\xi^{2}(x), or, equivalently,

P(supxTξ(x)y)exp((yE(supxTξ(x)))22σT2)P\left(\sup\limits_{x\in T}\xi(x)\geq y\right)\leq\exp\left({-\frac{\left(y-E(\sup_{x\in T}\xi(x))\right)^{2}}{2\sigma_{T}^{2}}}\right)

for yEsupxTξ(x).y\geq E\sup\limits_{x\in T}\xi(x).

Let us recall some results from the metric entropy theory. The canonical metric generated by ξ(x),xT,\xi(x),\ x\in T, is

d(s,t)=(E(ξ(s)ξ(t))2)12,s,tT.d(s,t)=\left(E(\xi(s)-\xi(t))^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},\ \ \ s,t\in T.

Let B(t,ε):={sT:d(t,s)ε}B(t,\varepsilon):=\{s\in T:d(t,s)\leq\varepsilon\} be a ball in TT with the center at tTt\in T and the radius ε.\varepsilon. Then, the following Fernique’s inequality holds true [39, Theorem 2.5.]

EsupxTξ(x)KinfμsupxT0diam(T)log(1μ(B(x,ε)))𝑑ε,E\sup\limits_{x\in T}\xi(x)\leq K\inf\limits_{\mu}\sup\limits_{x\in T}\int_{0}^{{\rm diam}(T)}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{1}{\mu(B(x,\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon,

where μ\mu is a probability measure on T,T, diam(T){\rm diam}(T) is the diameter of TT in the metric d()d(\cdot), and KK is a universal constant [40]. We will use this inequality to estimate Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ).E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi). In the following results η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) is fixed.

By (22), the canonical pseudometric generated by u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) on the sphere is

dη(Θ):=(E(u(η,θ,φ)u(η,θ,φ))2)12=2(Eu2(η,θ,φ)cov(u(η,θ,φ),u(η,θ,φ)))12d_{\eta}(\Theta):=\left(E(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u(\eta,\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{2}\left(Eu^{2}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-cov(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi),u(\eta,\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
=(2π)1(l=0Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η)(1Pl(cos(Θ))))12,=(\sqrt{2\pi})^{-1}\left(\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F_{l}^{2}(\eta)(1-P_{l}(\cos(\Theta)))\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}, (25)

where Θ\Theta is the angular distance between the points (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and (θ,φ).(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}).

Let us define ”balls on the sphere” in terms of the above pseudometric dη()d_{\eta}(\cdot)

Bη((θ,φ),ε)={(θ,φ):dη(Θ)ε}.B_{\eta}((\theta,\varphi),\varepsilon)=\{(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}):d_{\eta}(\Theta)\leq\varepsilon\}.

Let us also introduce the function

gη(ε)=inf{Θ:dη(Θ)ε}.g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)=\inf\{\Theta:\ d_{\eta}(\Theta)\geq\varepsilon\}. (26)

For the simplicity of the exposition, let us denote the covariance function of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) by

Kη(Θ):=Cov(u(η,θ,φ),u(η,θ,φ))=(4π)1l=0Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η)Pl(cosΘ),K_{\eta}(\Theta):=Cov(u(\eta,\theta,\varphi),u(\eta,\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}))=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F^{2}_{l}(\eta)P_{l}(\cos\Theta),

where Θ\Theta is the angular distance between the points (θ,φ)(\theta,\varphi) and (θ,φ).(\theta^{\prime},\varphi^{\prime}). Note, that by (25) Kη(Θ)K_{\eta}(\Theta) and dη(Θ)d_{\eta}(\Theta) are linked by the formula

Kη(0)Kη(Θ)=12dη2(Θ).K_{\eta}(0)-K_{\eta}(\Theta)=\frac{1}{2}d_{\eta}^{2}(\Theta).
Theorem 6.

Let u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) be the solution of the initial value problem (8), (18), (19). If

l=0Cll1+β<+\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{1+\beta}<+\infty (27)

with β(0,2],\beta\in(0,2], then

Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ)K0Rlog(21cos(gη(ε)))𝑑ε,E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\leq K\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon, (28)

where R=maxΘ[0,π]dη(Θ),R=\max_{\Theta\in[0,\pi]}d_{\eta}(\Theta), and the integral in (28) is finite.

Proof.

By applying Fernique’s inequality, it follows that

Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ)Kinfμsupθ,φ0Rlog(1μ(Bη((θ,φ),ε)))𝑑ε.E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\leq K\inf\limits_{\mu}\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}\int_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{1}{\mu(B_{\eta}((\theta,\varphi),\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon.

The selection of μ\mu as the normalised uniform distribution on the sphere results in the upper bound

Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ)Ksupθ,φ0Rlog(Leb(𝕊2)Leb(Bη((θ,φ),ε)))𝑑ε.E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\leq K\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}\int_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{Leb(\mathbb{S}^{2})}{Leb(B_{\eta}((\theta,\varphi),\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon.

As u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is an isotropic field, Leb(Bη((θ,φ),ε))Leb(B_{\eta}((\theta,\varphi),\varepsilon)) is the same for all θ,φ\theta,\varphi and can be replaced with Leb(Bη(0,ε))Leb(B_{\eta}(\textbf{{0}},\varepsilon)). Note that Bη(0,ε)B_{\eta}(\textbf{{0}},\varepsilon) is not necessarily a spherical cap as dη(Θ)d_{\eta}(\Theta) is not necessarily strictly increasing in Θ\Theta. However, Bη(0,ε)B_{\eta}(\textbf{{0}},\varepsilon) always contains a non-degenerate (not reduced to a single point) spherical cap. Indeed, u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is L2L_{2}-continuous with respect to θ\theta and ϕ\phi due to condition (27), see [26, Lemma 4.3]. Then, its decomposition (21) into spherical harmonics has the coefficients almFl(η),l=1,2,,a_{lm}F_{l}(\eta),\ l=1,2,..., that are non-zero with probability 1, see Lemma 3. Hence, u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is not a constant random variable over a set of θ\theta and ϕ\phi and it follows from Lemma 5 that the spherical cap is non-degenerate.

The value of gη(ε)[0,π]g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)\in[0,\pi] is the polar angle of the largest such cap. From the comparison of the corresponding areas it follows that Leb(Bη(0,ε))2π(1cos(gη(ε))Leb(B_{\eta}(\textbf{{0}},\varepsilon))\geq 2\pi(1-\cos(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)) and

Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ)K0Rlog(21cos(gη(ε)))𝑑ε.E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\leq K\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon.

Now let us provide mild conditions that guarantee the convergence of the above integral for any fixed η[0,η).\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}).

The Gaussian random field u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is a.s. continuous and isotropic and the corresponding spherical cap is non-degenerated. Due to Lemma 5, the continuous covariance function Kη(Θ)K_{\eta}(\Theta) is non-constant in any neighbourhood of the origin. Thus, by the definitions (25) and (26) gη(ε)0,g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)\to 0, when ε0.\varepsilon\to 0.

From 1cos(x)x2/2,1-\cos(x)\sim x^{2}/2, x0,x\to 0, it follows that

limx0log(21cos(x))log(x)=limx0log(4x2)log(x)=2\lim\limits_{x\to 0}\frac{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(x)}\right)}{-\log(x)}=\lim\limits_{x\to 0}\frac{\log\left(\frac{4}{x^{2}}\right)}{-\log(x)}=2

and

log(21cos(gη(ε)))2log(gη(ε)),ε0,\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)\sim-2\log(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)),\ \ \ \varepsilon\to 0,

which means that the integral in (28)\eqref{estim} is finite if and only if

0Rlog(gη(ε))𝑑ε<.\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{-\log(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))}d\varepsilon<\infty.

The above holds true if there is α>1\alpha>-1 and ε0>0,\varepsilon_{0}>0, such that for all εε0\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_{0} it holds log(gη(ε))<Cε2α,-\log(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))<C\varepsilon^{2\alpha}, which gives gη(ε)>exp(Cε2α).g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)>\exp({-C\varepsilon^{2\alpha}}). Then, it follows from the definition (26) of gη(ε)g_{\eta}(\varepsilon) that dη(exp(Cε2α))<ε.d_{\eta}(\exp({-C\varepsilon^{2\alpha}}))<\varepsilon. Denoting Θ=exp(Cε2α)\Theta=\exp({-C\varepsilon^{2\alpha}}) we get that for β=1/α(1,)\beta=-{1}/{\alpha}\in({1},\infty) and all small enough Θ\Theta it holds

dη(Θ)<C(logΘ)β/2.d_{\eta}(\Theta)<\frac{C}{(-\log\Theta)^{\beta/2}}.

and

Kη(0)Kη(Θ)=12dη2(Θ)<C(lnΘ)β.K_{\eta}(0)-K_{\eta}(\Theta)=\frac{1}{2}d_{\eta}^{2}(\Theta)<\frac{C}{(-\ln\Theta)^{\beta}}.

As log(1/Θ)1/Θ\log(1/\Theta)\leq 1/\Theta for sufficiently small Θ,\Theta, the later inequality is satisfied if

Kη(0)Kη(Θ)CΘβ.K_{\eta}(0)-K_{\eta}(\Theta)\leq C\Theta^{\beta}. (29)

Note, that by [26, Lemma 4.2] the inequality (29) holds true if l=0Cll1+β<\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{1+\beta}<\infty and β2,\beta\leq 2, which finishes the proof of the theorem. ∎

Now we are ready to state the main results of this section.

Theorem 7.

For each fixed η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) the following estimate holds true

P(supθ,φu(η,θ,φ)>x)exp((xE(supθ,φu(η,θ,φ)))22ση2),P\left(\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)>x\right)\leq\exp\left(-\frac{\left(x-E(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi))\right)^{2}}{2\sigma_{\eta}^{2}}\right),

where ση2=(4π)1l=0Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η).\sigma_{\eta}^{2}=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F^{2}_{l}(\eta).

If

l=0Cll1+β<+\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{1+\beta}<+\infty

with β(0,2],\beta\in(0,2], then

P(supθ,φu(η,θ,φ)>x)exp((xK1)22ση,L2)P\left(\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi)>x\right)\leq\exp\left(-\frac{\left(x-K_{1}\right)^{2}}{2\sigma_{\eta,L}^{2}}\right)

for x>K1:=K0Rlog(21cos(gη(ε)))𝑑ε,x>K_{1}:=K\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon, where the latter integral is finite.

Proof.

The statement is a direct corollary of Theorems 5 and 6 as the application of the estimate for Esupθ,φu(η,θ,φ)E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) given by (28) can only increase the upper bound when x>K1.x>K_{1}.

Now, let us estimate of probabilities of large deviations between extremes of the solution field u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) and its approximation uL(η,θ,φ).u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi). The truncation error field u^L(η,θ,φ)=u(η,θ,φ)uL(η,θ,φ),L,\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)={u}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)-u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi),\ L\in\mathbb{N}, is a centered Gaussian random field. Analogously to the considered results, it generates the canonic pseudometric dL,η(Θ)d_{L,\eta}(\Theta) on 𝕊2\mathbb{S}^{2} and the function gL,η(ε)g_{L,\eta}(\varepsilon) is associated to dL,η(),d_{L,\eta}(\cdot), which is given by gL,η(ε):=min{Θ:dL,η(Θ)ε}.g_{L,\eta}(\varepsilon):=\min\{\Theta:d_{L,\eta}(\Theta)\geq\varepsilon\}. Analogously to the previous results one obtains:

Corollary 1.

For each fixed η[0,η)\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}) the following estimate holds true

P(supθ,φ|u^L(η,θ,φ)|>x)2exp((xE(supθ,φu^L(η,θ,φ)))22ση,L2)P\left(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}|\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)|>x\right)\leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{\left(x-E\left(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\right)\right)^{2}}{2\sigma_{\eta,L}^{2}}\right) (30)

where ση,L2=(4π)1l=L+1Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η).\sigma_{\eta,L}^{2}=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=L+1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F^{2}_{l}(\eta).

If there exists β(0,2],\beta\in(0,2], such that

l=0Cll1+β<+,\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty}C_{l}l^{1+\beta}<+\infty, (31)

then

P(supθ,φ|u^L(η,θ,φ)|>x)2exp((xK2)22ση,L2)P\left(\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}|\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)|>x\right)\leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{\left(x-K_{2}\right)^{2}}{2\sigma_{\eta,L}^{2}}\right)

for x>K2:=K0Rlog(21cos(gL,η(ε)))𝑑ε,x>K_{2}:=K\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{L,\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon, where the latter integral is finite.

Proof.

As the random field u^L(η,θ,φ)\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is centered Gaussian, it holds for x>0x>0 that

P(supθ,φ|u^L(η,θ,φ)|>x)2P(supθ,φu^L(η,θ,φ)>x).P\left(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}|\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)|>x\right)\leq 2P\left(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)>x\right).

By

Eu^L2(η,θ,φ)=(4π)1l=L+1Cl(2l+1)Fl2(η),E\widehat{u}^{2}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)=(4\pi)^{-1}\sum_{l=L+1}^{\infty}C_{l}(2l+1)F^{2}_{l}(\eta),

the inequality in (30) is a direct corollary of Theorem 5.

The random field u^L(η,θ,φ)\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is L2L_{2}-continuous in θ\theta and φ\varphi by condition (31). By applying Fernique’s inequality with the normalized uniform distribution μ\mu one obtains

Esupθ,φu^L(η,θ,φ)K0Rlog(21cos(gL,η(ε)))𝑑ε.E\sup\limits_{\theta,\varphi}\widehat{u}_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi)\leq K\int\limits_{0}^{R}\sqrt{\log\left(\frac{2}{1-\cos(g_{L,\eta}(\varepsilon))}\right)}d\varepsilon.

The convergence of the above integral can be shown by using steps analogous to the proof of Theorem 6. The application of the above estimate to (30) completes the proof. ∎

7 Numerical studies

This section presents numerical studies of the solution u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) of the initial value problem (8), (18) and (19) and its truncated approximation uL(η,θ,φ)u_{L}(\eta,\theta,\varphi) from Section 5.

Numerical computations were performed using the software R version 4.3.1 and Python version 3.11.5. The HEALPix representation (http://healpix.sourceforge.net) and the Python package ”healpy” were used for computations. The Python package ”pyshtools” was used to simulate spherical random fields. The R package ”rcosmo”, see [20] and [21], was used for visualisations. The R and Python code are freely available in the folder ”Research materials” from the website https://sites.google.com/site/olenkoandriy/. For the numerical studies, we use a map of CMB intensities obtained by the ESA mission Planck, these data are available in [1] as well as its angular power spectrum in [2].

7.1 Functions Fl(η)F_{l}(\eta)

The evolution in time of the solution u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) is governed by the functions Fl(η),F_{l}(\eta), η[0,η),\eta\in[0,\eta_{\infty}), l=0,1,2,,l=0,1,2,..., given by (10). These functions are also the multiplication factors defining the change of the angular power spectrum of the solution with time η\eta. Lemma 2 showed that for a fixed η\eta the multiplication factors have a wave structure for large l.l. Figure 1(a) depicts multiplication factors Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) as functions of the argument ll for the fixed time moments η=0.001\eta=0.001 and η=0.002.\eta=0.002. One can see that Fη(l),F_{\eta}(l), as the functions of the argument l,l, form waves whose periods decrease in time. On the other hand, Figure 1(b) displays Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) as functions of the argument η\eta for the fixed values of indices l=3l=3 and l=10.l=10. In this case, the functions Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) form waves whose amplitudes decrease as they propagate. Figure 1(b) also demonstrates that their periods decrease with l.l.

Refer to caption
(a) Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) as functions of ll for fixed η=0.001\eta=0.001 and η=0.002\eta=0.002
Refer to caption
(b) Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) as functions of η\eta for fixed l=3l=3 and l=10l=10
Figure 1: Fη(l)F_{\eta}(l) as functions of arguments ll and η\eta

7.2 Initial condition

In this section numerical studies of the solution of the initial value problem (8), (18) and (19) use the initial condition field consisting of the measurements of CMB intensities. From the mathematical point of view, these values of the CMB intensities form a single realization of a spherical isotropic Gaussian random field. Thus, its spherical harmonics representation (2) can be derived. The Python’s package ”healpy” was used to numerically calculate values of the coefficients alma_{lm} from the map of CMB intensities. In the following numerical examples the values alma_{lm} for l=0,1,,2500,l=0,1,...,2500, and m=l,,lm=-l,...,l and the corresponding initial condition u(0,θ,φ)=l=02500m=llalmYlm(θ,φ)u(0,\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^{2500}\sum_{m=-l}^{l}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\varphi) were used.

7.3 Evolution of the solution

This section provides numerical simulations for the evolution in space and time according to the model (8), (18) and (19), studies spatio-temporal dependencies, evolution of the angular spectrum, and the behaviour of the corresponding extremes. For illustrative purposes, the constants c,D,r,ηc,D,r,\eta_{\infty} were set equal to 1.1.

The structure of the CMB data is quite complex with various hot and cold areas located close to each other. Figure 2(a) shows the map of CMB, used as the initial condition for the considered problem (8) (18), and (19). The representation (21) was used to obtain the solution u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) for η=0.001.\eta=0.001. From the visualisation of u(0.001,θ,φ)u(0.001,\theta,\varphi) in Figure 2(b), one can see that the solution becomes smoother and large deviations (both positive and negative) from the overall mean are decreasing in time.

Refer to caption
(a) Case of η=0\eta=0
Refer to caption
(b) Case of η=0.001\eta=0.001
Figure 2: Realizations of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi).
Refer to caption
(a) Spatial correlations for η=0\eta=0 and η=0.001\eta=0.001
Refer to caption
(b) Difference between correlations in Fig 3(a)
Refer to caption
(c) Coefficients alma_{lm} for η=0\eta=0
Refer to caption
(d) Coefficients alma_{lm} for η=0.001\eta=0.001
Figure 3: Spatial dependencies and coefficients alma_{lm} for η=0\eta=0 and η=0.001.\eta=0.001.

Figure 3(a) demonstrates how spatial dependencies change with increasing angular distance between spherical locations. The spatial correlation function decreases rapidly with the increase of the angular distance Θ.\Theta. Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the change of spatial correlations for η=0\eta=0 and η=0.001.\eta=0.001.

Figures 3(c) and 3(d) plot values of the spherical harmonic coefficients alma_{lm} of the realizations in Figure 2 for levels up to 200. It is evident from large levels l,l, that for η=0.001\eta=0.001 the coefficients alma_{lm} became smaller compared to the corresponding coefficients for the case η=0.\eta=0. The plots suggest that the magnitudes of the coefficients alma_{lm} are decreasing with η.\eta.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Angular spectra of u(η,θ,φ)u(\eta,\theta,\varphi) for η=0\eta=0 and η=0.001\eta=0.001

We also employed the angular power spectrum ClC_{l} of CMB provided by ESA [2]. It is depicted in Figure 4 when η=0\eta=0. Then, the spherical angular power spectrum for the case of η=0.001\eta=0.001 was computed. The plots of spherical angular power spectra for η=0\eta=0 and η=0.001\eta=0.001 show that they remain almost identical for small values of ll and flatten out when ll and η\eta increase. This observation aligns with the obtained theoretical findings and cosmological theories positing that higher multipoles undergo more rapid changes.

To illustrate the structure of space-time dependencies, we also produced a 3D-plot showing normalized covariances (divided by Eu2(0,0,0))Eu^{2}(0,0,0)) as a function of angular distance Θ\Theta and time η.\eta. In Figure 5, when Θ\Theta and η\eta increase, the normalized covariance function rapidly decreases for small values of Θ\Theta and η\eta in both space and time; whereas, for other values, the decay of covariances is rather slow. One can see that the variance of the solution Eu2(η,0,0)Eu^{2}(\eta,0,0) is decaying with η\eta rapidly for small values of η.\eta.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Spatio-temporal covariances of u(η,θ,φ).u(\eta,\theta,\varphi).

7.4 Excursion probabilities

To analyse the excursion probabilities we used the solutions with the initial value field possessing the power spectrum shown in Figure 4 for the case η=0.\eta=0. By setting the value η=0.001\eta=0.001 and by using the relationships (25) and (26), one can compute the canonical pseudometric d0.001(Θ)d_{0.001}(\Theta) generated by u(0.001,θ,φ)u(0.001,\theta,\varphi) on the sphere, along with the associated function g0.001(ε).g_{0.001}(\varepsilon). The results of these computations are illustrated in Figure 6. The plots demonstrate a rapid increase of the function d0.001(Θ)d_{0.001}(\Theta) in the neighbourhood of the origin. This observed behaviour of the canonical pseudometric can be attributed to the rapid change of the spatial covariance function K0.001(Θ)K_{0.001}(\Theta) at the origin, see Figure 3(a) and consult (25) on their relations.

Refer to caption
(a) Canonical pseudometric dη(Θ)d_{\eta}(\Theta)
Refer to caption
(b) The function gη(ε)g_{\eta}(\varepsilon)
Figure 6: Canonical pseudometric dη(Θ)d_{\eta}(\Theta) and the function gη(ε)g_{\eta}(\varepsilon) for η=0.001\eta=0.001.

By using the Python package ”pyshtools” and the values ClC_{l} of the angular power spectrum provided by ESA, we simulate 300 realizations of spherical Gaussian random fields. Then, those realizations were used as the initial conditions for the problem (8), (18), and (19). By decomposing each of these 300 realizations into a series of spherical harmonics and by applying the formula (21) with η=0.001\eta=0.001, we obtained 300 realizations of the solution for η=0.001.\eta=0.001.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Sample distribution of supθ,φu(0.001,θ,φ)\sup_{\theta,\varphi}u(0.001,\theta,\varphi).
Refer to caption
Figure 8: Sample probabilities P(supθ,φu(0.001,θ,φ)>x)P(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}u(0.001,\theta,\varphi)>x) and theoretical bounds.

Figure 7 shows the sample distribution of supθ,φu(0.001,θ,φ)\sup_{\theta,\varphi}u(0.001,\theta,\varphi) obtained by using the realizations of the solution. It is known that the distribution of the supremum of a Gaussian process on an interval is positively skewed as its median is less than or equal to its mean, see [29, Section 12]. The similar behaviour for the case of spherical Gaussian random fields is observed in Figure 7. Figure 8 provides the estimated excursion probabilities P(supθ,φu(0.001,θ,φ)>x)P(\sup_{\theta,\varphi}u(0.001,\theta,\varphi)>x) and the corresponding upper bound given in Theorem 7. The observed pattern is analogous for this type of estimators. For small values of x,x, the upper bound appears conservative, however, it rapidly approaches the excursion probability as xx increases. Figure 8 illustrates the areas for potential improving of this bound.

8 Conclusions and future work

The paper investigated spherical diffusion within an expanding space-time framework. It derived solutions to the deterministic and stochastic diffusion equations, specifically focusing on the exponential growth case. The findings offer insights into the asymptotic and local characteristics of the solutions. Additionally, the paper explored the extremal properties of these solutions. Given the validity of Borell-TIS and Fernique’s inequalities for general sets, a similar methodology can be employed to investigate extremes of solutions on more complex manifolds. Applications of the theoretical findings were demonstrated through simulation studies by modelling evolutionary scenarios and examining properties of the obtained estimates with the CMB intensities as the initial condition. In future research, it would be interesting to further study properties of this model and the corresponding solutions and to extend the developed approach to other SPDEs.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of the paper.
Funding This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP220101680). I.Donhauzer and and A.Olenko also would like to thank for partial support provided by the La Trobe SEMS CaRE grant.

References

  • [1] http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/all-sky-maps/maps/component-maps/cmb/COM_CMB_IQU-smica_1024_R2.02_full.fits.
  • [2] https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/Planck/release_2/ancillary-data/previews/ps_index.html.
  • [3] M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. US Government printing office, Washington, 1968.
  • [4] R. Adam, P. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Alves, F. Argüeso, M. Arnaud, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, et al. Planck 2015 results-I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A1, 2016.
  • [5] P. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, P. Aluri, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. Barreiro, et al. Planck 2015 results-XVI. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A16, 2016.
  • [6] R. Adler and J. Taylor. Random Fields and Geometry. Springer, New York, 2007.
  • [7] V. Anh, P. Broadbridge, A. Olenko, and Y. Wang. On approximation for fractional stochastic partial differential equations on the sphere. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 32:2585–2603, 2018.
  • [8] G. Arfken and H. Weber. Mathematical Methods for Physicists. Academic Press, New York, 1972.
  • [9] K. Atkinson and W. Han. Spherical Harmonics and Approximations on the Unit Sphere: An Introduction. Springer Science, New York, 2012.
  • [10] P. Broadbridge, S. Becirevic, and D. Hoxley. Non-Particulate Quantum States of the Electromagnetic Field in Expanding Space-Time. IntechOpen, 2023.
  • [11] P. Broadbridge and K. Deutscher. Solution of non-autonomous Schrödinger equation for quantized de Sitter Klein-Gordon oscillator modes undergoing attraction-repulsion transition. Symmetry, 12(6):943, 2020.
  • [12] P. Broadbridge, A. D. Kolesnik, N. Leonenko, and A. Olenko. Random spherical hyperbolic diffusion. J. Stat. Phys., 177:889–916, 2019.
  • [13] P. Broadbridge, A. D. Kolesnik, N. Leonenko, A. Olenko, and D. Omari. Spherically restricted random hyperbolic diffusion. Entropy, 22(2):217, 2020.
  • [14] V. Buldygin and Y. Kozachenko. Metric Characterization of Random Variables and Random Processes. American Mathematical Soc., Providence, 2000.
  • [15] S. Buonocore and M. Sen. Anomalous diffusion of cosmic rays: A geometric approach. AIP Adv., 11(5):055221.
  • [16] D. Cheng and Y. Xiao. Excursion probability of Gaussian random fields on sphere. Bernoulli, 22(2):1113–1130, 2016.
  • [17] R. Dudley. The sizes of compact subsets of Hilbert space and continuity of Gaussian processes. J. Funct. Anal., 1(3):290–330, 1967.
  • [18] J. Dunkel and P. Hänggi. Relativistic Brownian motion. Phys. Rep., 471(1):1–73, 2009.
  • [19] M. D’Ovidio. Coordinates changed random fields on the sphere. Journal of Statistical Physics, 154:1153–1176, 2014.
  • [20] D. Fryer, M. Li, and A. Olenko. rcosmo: R package for analysis of spherical, HEALPix and cosmological data. R J., 12(1):206–225, 2020.
  • [21] D. Fryer, A. Olenko, M. Li, and Y. Wang. rcosmo: Cosmic microwave background data analysis. R package version 1.1.3. Available at CRAN, 2021.
  • [22] J. Han. Observing interstellar and intergalactic magnetic fields. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 55:111–157, 2017.
  • [23] J. Hill. On the formal origins of dark energy. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 69(5):133, 2018.
  • [24] J. Hill. Some further comments on special relativity and dark energy. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 70(1):5, 2019.
  • [25] J. Jokipii and E. Parker. Stochastic aspects of magnetic lines of force with application to cosmic-ray propagation. Astrophys. J., 155:777–799, 1969.
  • [26] A. Lang and C. Schwab. Isotropic Gaussian random fields on the sphere: regularity, fast simulation and stochastic partial differential equations. Ann. Appl. Probab., 25:3047–3094, 2015.
  • [27] N. Leonenko, A. Olenko, and J. Vaz. On fractional spherically restricted hyperbolic diffusion random field. arXiv: 2310.03933, 2023.
  • [28] N. Leonenko and M. Ruiz-Medina. Sojourn functionals for spatiotemporal Gaussian random fields with long memory. J. Appl. Probab., 60(1):148–165, 2023.
  • [29] M. Lifshits. Gaussian Random Functions. Springer, Dordrecht, 1995.
  • [30] V. Makogin and E. Spodarev. Limit theorems for excursion sets of subordinated Gaussian random fields with long-range dependence. Stochastics, 94(1):111–142, 2022.
  • [31] D. Marinucci and G. Peccati. Random Fields on the Sphere: Representation, Limit Theorems and Cosmological Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  • [32] A. Olenko. Upper bound on x\sqrt{x}Jν(x){J}_{\nu}(x) and its applications. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct., 17(6):455–467, 2006.
  • [33] F. Olver, A. O. Daalhuis, D. Lozier, B. Schneider, R. Boisvert, C. Clark, B. S. B. Mille and, H. Cohl, and M. McClain, eds. NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, 2020. http://dlmf.nist.gov/.
  • [34] E. Orsingher. Stochastic motions on the 3-sphere governed by wave and heat equations. J. Appl. Probab., 24(2):315–327, 1987.
  • [35] V. Piterbarg. Asymptotic Methods in the Theory of Gaussian Processes and Fields. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1996.
  • [36] L. Sakhno. Estimates for distributions of suprema of spherical random fields. Stat. Optim. Inf. Comput., 11(2):186–195, 2023.
  • [37] P. Shtykovskiy and M. Gilfanov. Thermal diffusion in the intergalactic medium of clusters of galaxies. Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc., 401(2):1360–1368, 2010.
  • [38] M. Talagrand. Sharper Bounds for Gaussian and Empirical Processes. Ann. Probab., 22(1):28 – 76, 1994.
  • [39] M. Talagrand. Majorizing measures: the generic chaining. Ann. Probab., 24(3):1049–1103, 1996.
  • [40] M. Talagrand. Upper and Lower Bounds for Stochastic Processes. Springer, 2014.
  • [41] G. Watson. A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions. Cambridge University Press, 1944.
  • [42] S. Weinberg. Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2008.