Ground state of the mass-critical inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger functional
Introduction
We consider the mass-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation with and a given continuous function .
When is a constant (the homogeneous case), (1) boils down to the usual nonlinear Schrödinger equation studied extensively in the literature of dispersive partial differential equations (see e.g. [17]). In particular, in dimensions it comes from the famous Gross-Pitaevskii theory describing the Bose-Einstein condensation in quantum Bose gases [3], [15]. In the homogeneous case, it is well-known that if the power of nonlinearity q is replaced by any power smaller than , then the (homogeneous) equation (1) is globally well-posed for any initial datum in . On the other hand, if and , then the global well-posedness is only guaranteed if the mass of the initial datum is smaller than a critical value, namely where Q is the unique radial positive solution to the equation (6). For this reason, the case is called mass-critical. Moreover, if and then even if is very smooth, it is possible that the solution to (1) blows up in finite time, namely the solution exists in an interval and the kinetic energy is unbounded at the critical time: In fact, all possibilities of such blow-up solutions (called minimal-mass blow-up solutions) have been characterized in the seminal paper of Merle [11].
The non-constant potential k (the inhomogeneous case) corresponds to a inhomogeneous interacting effect and it arises naturally in nonlinear optics for the propagation of laser beams. Mathematically, this case is interesting as it breaks the large group of symmetries of the homogeneous case. The study of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with inhomogeneous nonlinearity was initiated by Merle [12] where he obtained a sufficient condition for the nonexistence of minimal mass blow-up solutions. On the other hand, minimal mass blow-up solutions exist if k is sufficiently smooth and flat around its minima; see Banica-Carles-Duyckaerts [1] and Krieger-Schlag [5]. In dimensions, the full classification of minimal mass blow-up solutions in the inhomogeneous case was solved by Raphael-Szeftel [16].
In the present paper, we are interested in the ground state solution of (1). To be precise, we will study the variational problem associated to the nonlinear Schrödinger functional By the standard techniques from calculus of variations, any minimizer of in (3) is a solution to the stationary nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a constant (which is the Lagrange multiplier associated to the mass constraint ). Consequently, is a solitary plane-wave solution to the time-dependent problem (1).
Similarly to time-dependent problem studied in [12], [1], [5], [16], a critical feature of the ground state problem (3) appears when crosses the threshold which is the optimal constant in the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality: This inequality has been well studied in [2], [18], [10], [6]. It is known that (5) has a unique optimizer Q up to translations and dilations. In fact, Q is the unique radial positive solution to the equation
Our first result concerns the existence and nonexistence of minimizers of the variational problem in (3). Theorem 1 Existence and nonexistence of minimizers Assume that . (Subcritical case: existence.) If and then and it has a minimizer. (Subcritical case: nonexistence.) If and then and it has no minimizer. (Critical case.) If for some and then and it has no minimizer except the case . (Supercritical case.) If , then .
Remark 2 In the subcritical case , it is remarkable that the growth of as really matters the existence of minimizers. Note that in the integrability condition (7) holds if Thus the existence condition (7) in (i) and the nonexistence condition (8) in (ii) are mostly the complement to each other.
Remark 3 In the critical case , the condition (9) means that k is flat enough around its minimum point . If , then (9) is equivalent to the degeneracy condition where is the Hessian matrix of k. On the other hand, the opposite condition to (9) that was assumed by Merle [12] when he proved the nonexistence of minimal mass blow-up solutions for the time-dependent problem. In fact, (10) implies the local integrability of (note that if is integrable, then by following the proof of Theorem 1 (i) we can prove that ; see Remark 5). However, (10) never happens if . From our analysis, the case is still missing, and it is indeed related to an open question in [12, Remark after Prop. 5.4, page 76]. The difficult case (11) has been studied by Raphael-Szeftel [16] in the context of minimal mass blow-up solutions in , but it is not clear to us how to transfer their techniques to the ground state problem in the present paper.
Next, we concentrate on the existence case (i) in Theorem 1, and analyze the blow-up behavior when tends to . To make the analysis rigorous, we need to impose some explicit behavior of k around its minima.
Assumption for the blow-up result. For the following blow-up theorem, we will assume that with a fixed function satisfying:
- (i)
and K has finite minima .
- (ii)
For any j, there exists such that
- (iii)
is integrable away from , namely for any ,
Theorem 4 Blow-up profile We consider the variational problem (3) with , where K satisfies the above conditions with . Let with Q be the unique positive radial solution to (6). Then we have Moreover, if is a minimizer for , then for any sequence , there exist a subsequence and an element (the set of flattest minima of k) such that up to a phase strongly in , where b is the optimizer for the right side of (12): Moreover, if Z has a unique element, then (13) holds true for the whole family .
As we will see from the proof of Theorem 4, when , although the ground state energy tends to 0 as by (12), the kinetic energy tends to infinity as (see (22) below). This blow-up phenomenon is analogous to (2) in the time-dependent problem. Actually, we are able to provide exact details of the blow-up phenomenon by (12).
On one hand, our study can be seen as a complement of the previous works in the time-dependent problem [12], [5], [1], [16]. On the other hand, the ground state problem is different and has its own difficulty. In the time-dependent problem, the energy functional is a constant in time, and the main interest is the blow-up behavior at the critical time. In this case, the a-priori information on the initial datum and the blow-up time is crucial for the analysis. In our problem, the energy functional has to be minimized under appropriate constraints, and the main interest is the blow-up behavior at the local minimum of the inhomogeneous function . We have to work on the full functional space where the minimization problem is formulated, and hence we are not granted any a-priori information on the ground states and the ground state energy. In particular, our results can not be obtained by following the techniques in the time-dependent problem.
In the following we will prove Theorem 1 in Section 2 and prove Theorem 4 in Section 3. The proof of Theorem 1 is based on the concentration-compactness method of Lions [8], [9]. The proof of Theorem 4 is obtained by a concentration argument, inspired from the paper of Guo-Seiringer [4] who studied the blow-up profile of the Bose-Einstein condensation in 2D with the homogeneous nonlinearity () and a trapping potential with (see also [13] for a related result with attractive external potentials). Here our main task is to deal with the inhomogeneous nonlinearity, which makes the analysis both complicated and interesting in several places.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank a referee for helpful suggestions.
Section snippets
Existence and nonexistence of minimizers
Proof of Theorem 1 (i) By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality (5), for all with we have Since , we deduce that . Moreover, if is a minimizing sequence for , then is bounded in . By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, up to a subsequence, we can assume that weakly in . Let us prove that strongly in . First, since weakly in , Sobolev's
Blow-up analysis
Proof of Theorem 4 Step 1: Energy upper bound. This is done similarly as in the proof of Theorem 1. Without loss of generality let us assume that . Then for any , there exists such that Then by the variational principle, for any , supported on with we have Now we choose a trial function u. Let be the (normalized) optimizer of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality (5). Take a smooth
References (18)
The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case: Part 1
Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré
(1984)The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case: Part 2
Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré
(1984)- et al.
Minimal blow-up solutions to the mass-critical inhomogeneous focusing NLS equation
Commun. Partial Differ. Equ.
(2011) - et al.
Symmetry of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations in
Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems
Nuovo Cimento
(1961)- et al.
On the mass concentration for Bose-Einstein condensates with attractive interactions
Lett. Math. Phys.
(2014) - et al.
Non-generic blow-up solutions for the critical focusing NLS in 1D
J. Eur. Math. Soc.
(2009) Uniqueness of positive solutions of
Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.
(1989)- et al.
Analysis
(2001)