Non-linear Schrodinger equations
Overview
The free Schrodinger equation
i ut + D u = 0
where u is a complex-valued function in R^{d+1}, describes the evolution of
a free non-relativistic quantum particle in d spatial dimensions. This equation
can be modified in many ways, notably by adding a potential or an obstacle, but
we shall be interested in non-linear perturbations such as
ut - i D u = f(u, u, Du, Du)
where D denotes spatial differentiation. In such full generality, we
refer to this equation as a derivative non-linear Schrodinger
equation (D-NLS). If the non-linearity does not contain derivatives
then we refer to this equation as a semilinear Schrodinger
equation (NLS). These equations (particularly the cubic NLS) arise as
model equations from several areas of physics.
Schrodinger
estimates
Solutions to the linear Schrodinger equation and its perturbations are
either estimated in mixed space-time norms Lqt Lrx
or Lrx Lqt, or in X^{s,b} spaces,
defined by
||
u ||s,b = || <x>s <t-|x|2>^b \hat{u} ||2.
Note that these spaces are not invariant under conjugation.
Linear space-time estimates in which the space norm is evaluated first are
known as Strichartz estimates. They are useful for
NLS without derivatives, but are much less useful for derivative
non-linearities. Other linear estimates include smoothing estimates and
maximal function estimates. The X^{s,b} spaces are used
primarily for bilinear estimates, although more
recently multilinear estimates have begun to appear.
These spaces and estimates first appear in the context of the Schrodinger
equation in [Bo1993], although the
analogous spaces for the wave equation appeared earlier [RaRe1982], [Be1983]
in the context of propogation of singularities. See also [Bo1993b], [KlMa1993].
Linear
estimates
[More references needed here!]
On R^d:
- If f is in X^{0,1/2+}, then
- (Energy estimate) f is in L¥t L2x
- (Strichartz
estimates) f is in L^{2(d+2)/d}x,t
[Sz1977].
- More generally, f is in Lqt Lrx
whenever 1/q+n/2r = n/4, r < ¥,
and q > 2.
- The endpoint q=2, r
= 2d/(d-2) is true for d³ 3 [KeTa1998]. When d=2 it fails
even in the BMO case [Mo1998],
although it still is true for radial functions [Ta2000b], [Stv-p]. In fact the estimates are true
assuming for non-radial functions some additional regularity in the
angular variable [Ta2000b],
although there is a limit as to low little regularity one can impose [MacNkrNaOz-p].
- In the radial case
there are additional weighted smoothing estimates available [Vi2001]
- When d=1 one also
has f in L4t
L¥x.
- When d=1 one can
refine the L2 assumption on the data in rather technical
ways on the Fourier side, see e.g. [VaVe2001].
- When d=1, the
L^6_{t,x} estimate has a maximizer [Kz-p2]. This maximizer is in fact given by
Gaussian beams, with a constant of 12^{-1/12} [Fc-p4]. Similarly when d=2 with the L^4
estimate, which is also given by Gaussian beams with a constant of
2^{-1/2}
- (Kato estimates)
D^{1/2} f is in L2_{x,loc}
L2t [Sl1987],
[Ve1988]
- When d=1 one can
improve this to D^{1/2} f in L¥x L2t
- (Maximal function
estimates) In all dimensions one has D^{-s} f is in L2x,loc L¥t for all s > 1/2.
- When d=1 one also
has D^{-1/4} f in L4x
L¥t.
- When d=2 one also
has D^{-1/2} f in L4x
L¥t.
The -1/2 can be raised to -1/2+1/32+e
[TaVa2000b], with the
corresponding loss in the L4 exponent dictated by
scaling. Improvements are certainly possible.
- Variants of some of
these estimates exist for manifolds, see [BuGdTz-p]
- Fixed time estimates for
free solutions:
- (Energy estimate) If f(0) is in L2, then f(t) is also in L2.
- (Decay estimate) If f(0) is in L1, then f(t) has an L¥ norm of O(t^{-d/2}).
- Interpolants between
these two are very useful for proving Strichartz estimates and obtaining
scattering.
On T:
- X^{0,3/8} embds into L4x,t
[Bo1993] (see also [HimMis2001]).
- X^{0+,1/2+} embeds into L6x,t
[Bo1993]. One cannot remove the
+ from the 0+ exponent, however it is conjectured in [Bo1993] that one might be able to embed X^{0,1/2+}
into L^{6-}x,t.
On T^d:
- When d >= 1, X^{d/4 -
1/2+,1/2+} embeds into L4x,t (this is essentially in
[Bo1993])
- The endpoint d/4 -
1/2 is probably false in every dimension.
Strichartz estimates are also available on more general manifolds, and in the presence
of a potential. Inhomogeneous
estimates are also available off
the line of duality; see [Fc-p2] for a discussion.
Bilinear
estimates
- On R2 we have the
bilinear Strichartz estimate [Bo1999]:
|| uv ||1/2+, 0 <~ || u ||1/2+,
1/2+ || v ||0+, 1/2+
|| u v ||0, -1/2+ <~ || u
||-1/2+, 1/2+ || v ||-1/2+, 1/2+
||
u v ||-1/2-, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-3/4+, 1/2+
|| v ||-3/4+, 1/2+
||
u v ||-1/2-, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-3/4+, 1/2+ || v ||-3/4+,
1/2+
||
u v ||-1/4+, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-1/4+, 1/2+
|| v ||-1/4+, 1/2+
|| u v ||-3/4-, -1/2+ <~
|| u ||-3/4+, 1/2+ || v ||-3/4+, 1/2+
|| u v ||-3/4+, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-3/4+,
1/2+ || v ||-3/4+, 1/2+
|| u v ||-1/4+, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-1/4+,
1/2+ || v ||-1/4+, 1/2+
and [BkOgPo1998]
|| u v ||_{L¥t H1/3x} <~ || u ||0,
1/2+ || v ||0, 1/2+
Also, if u has frequency |x| ~ R and v has frequency |x|
<< R then we have (see e.g. [CoKeStTkTa-p4])
|| u v ||1/2,0 <~ || u ||0, 1/2+
|| v ||0, 1/2+
and similarly for uv, uv,
uv.
- The s indices on the right cannot
be lowered, but perhaps the s indices on the left can be raised in analogy
with the R2 estimates. The analogues on T are also known
[KnPoVe1996b]:
|| u v ||-1/2-, -1/2+ <~
|| u ||-1/2+, 1/2+ || v ||-1/2+, 1/2+
|| u v ||-3/4+, -1/2+ <~ || u ||-1/2+,
1/2+ || v ||-1/2+, 1/2+
|| u v ||0, -1/2+ <~ || u ||0,
1/2+ || v ||0, 1/2+
Trilinear
estimates
- On R we have the following
refinement to the L^6 Strichartz inequality [Gr-p2]:
|| u v w ||0, 0 <~ || u ||0, 1/2+
|| v ||-1/4, 1/2+ || w ||1/4, 1/2+
Multilinear
estimates
- In R2 we have the
variant
|| u_1 ... u_n ||1/2+, 1/2+ <~ || u_1 ||1+,1/2+
... || u_n ||1+,1/2+
where each factor u_i is allowed to be conjugated if
desired. See [St1997b], [CoDeKnSt-p].
Semilinear
Schrodinger (NLS)
[Many thanks to Kenji Nakanishi with valuable help with the scattering
theory portion of this section. However, we are still missing many
references and results, e.g. on NLS blowup. - Ed.]
The semilinear Schrodinger equation is
i ut + D u + l
|u|^{p-1} u = 0
for p>1. (One can also add a potential term, which leads to many physically
interesting problems, however the field of Schrodinger operators with potential
is far too vast to even attempt to summarize here). In order to consider
this problem in Hs one needs the non-linearity to have at least s
degrees of regularity; in other words, we usually assume
p is an odd integer, or p > [s]+1.
This is a Hamiltonian flow with the Hamiltonian
H(u) = ò |Ñ
u|2/2 - l |u|^{p+1}/(p+1) dx
and symplectic form
{u, v} = Im ò u v dx.
From the phase invariance u -> exp(i q) u one also has conservation of the L2
norm. The case l > 0 is
focussing; l < 0 is defocussing.
The scaling regularity is sc = d/2 - 2/(p-1). The most
interesting values of p are the L2-critical or pseudoconformal
power p=1+4/d and the H1-critical power p=1+4/(d-2) for
d>2 (for d=1,2 there is no H1 conformal power). The power p
= 1 + 2/d is also a key exponent for the scattering theory (as this is when the
non-linearity |u|^{p-1} u has about equal strength with the decay
t^{-d/2}). The cases p=3,5 are the most natural for physical applications
since the non-linearity is then a polynomial. The cubic NLS in particular
seems to appear naturally as a model equation for many different physical
contexts, especially in dispersive, weakly non-linear perturbations of a plane
wave. For instance, it arises as a model for dilute Bose-Einstein
condensates.
Dimension d
|
Scattering power 1+2/d
|
L2-critical power 1+4/d
|
H1-critical power 1+4/(d-2)
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
N/A
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
infinity
|
3
|
5/3
|
7/3
|
5
|
4
|
3/2
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
7/5
|
9/5
|
7/3
|
6
|
4/3
|
5/3
|
2
|
The pseudoconformal transformation of the Hamiltonian gives that the time
derivative of
|| (x + 2it Ñ) u ||2_2 - 8 l
t2/(p+1) || u ||_{p+1}^{p+1}
is equal to
4dtl(p-(1+4/d))/(p+1) ||u||_{p+1}^{p+1}.
This law is useful for obtaining a priori spacetime estimates on the
solution given sufficient decay in space (e.g. xu(0) in L2),
especially in the L2-critical case p=1+4/d (when the above
derivative is zero). The L2 norm of xu(0) is sometimes known
as the pseudoconformal charge.
The equation is invariant under Gallilean transformations
u(x,t) -> exp(i
(v.x/2 - |v|2 t)) u(x-vt, t).
This can be used to show ill-posedness below L2 in
the focusing case [KnPoVe-p], and also in the defocusing case
[CtCoTa-p2]. (However if the non-linearity is replaced by a non-invariant
expression such as u2, then one can
go below L2).
From scaling invariance one can obtain Morawetz inequalities, which usually
estimate quantities of the form
ò ò
|u|^{p+1}/|x| dx dt
in the defocussing case in terms of the H^{1/2} norm.
These are useful for limiting the number of times the solution can concentrate
at the origin; this is especially handy in the radially symmetric case.
In the other direction, one has LWP for s ³
0, sc [CaWe1990]; see also [Ts1987]; for the case s=1, see [GiVl1979]. In the L2-subcritical
cases one has GWP for all s³0 by L2
conservation; in all other cases one has GWP and scattering for small data in Hs,
s ³ sc. These results
apply in both the focussing and defocussing cases. At the critical
exponent one can prove Besov space refinements [Pl2000],
[Pl-p4]. This can then be used to obtain self-similar solutions, see [CaWe1998], [CaWe1998b], [RiYou1998], [MiaZg-p1], [MiaZgZgx-p],
[MiaZgZgx-p2], [Fur2001].
Now suppose we remove the regularity assumption that p is either an odd
integer or larger than [s]+1. Then some of the above results are still
known to hold:
- ? In the H^1 subcritical
case one has GWP in H^1, assuming the nonlinearity is smooth near the
origin [Ka1986]
- In R^6 one also has
Lipschitz well-posedness [BuGdTz-p5]
In the periodic setting these results are much more difficult to obtain.
On the one-dimensional torus T one has LWP for s > 0, sc if p
> 1, with the endpoint s=0 being attained when 1 <= p <= 4 [Bo1993]. In particular one has GWP in
L^2 when p < 4, or when p=4 and the data is small norm. For 6 > p ³
4 one also has GWP for random data whose Fourier coefficients decay like 1/|k|
(times a Gaussian random variable) [Bo1995c].
(For p=6 one needs to impose a smallness condition on the L2 norm or
assume defocusing; for p>6 one needs to assume defocusing).
- For the defocussing case,
one has GWP in the H1-subcritical case if the data is in H1.
To improve GWP to scattering, it seems that needs p to be L2
super-critical (i.e. p > 1 + 4/d). In this case one can obtain
scattering if the data is in L2(|x|2 dx) (since one can
then use the pseudo-conformal conservation law).
- In the d ³ 3 cases one can remove the L2(|x|2
dx) assumption [GiVl1985] (see
also [Bo1998b]) by exploiting Morawetz
identities, approximate finite speed of propagation, and strong decay
estimates (the decay of t^{-d/2} is integrable). In this case one
can even relax the H1 norm to Hs for some s<1 [CoKeStTkTa-p7].
- For d=1,2 one can
also remove the L2(|x|2 dx) assumption [Na1999c] by finding a variant of the
Morawetz identity for low dimensions, together with Bourgain's induction
on energy argument.
In the L^2-supercritical focussing case one has blowup whenever the Hamiltonian
is negative, thanks to Glassey's virial inequality
d2t
ò x2 |u|2
dx ~ H(u);
see e.g. [OgTs1991].
By scaling this implies that we have instantaneous blowup in H^s for s < s_c
in the focusing case. In the defocusing case blowup
is not known, but the H^s norm can still get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly for s < s_c [CtCoTa-p2]
Suppose we are in the L^2 subcritical case p < 1 + 2/d, with focusing
non-linearity. Then there is a unique positive radial ground state (or
soliton) for each energy E. By translation and phase shift one thus
obtains a four-dimensional manifold of ground states for each energy.
This manifold is H1-stable [Ws1985],
[Ws1986]. Below the H^1 norm, this
is not known, but polynomial upper bounds on the instability are in [CoKeStTkTa2003b]. Multisolitons are also asymptotically stable
under smooth decaying perturbations [Ya1980],
[Grf1990], [Zi1997], [RoScgSf-p], [RoScgSf-p2], provided
that p is betweeen 1+2/d and 1+4/d.
One can go beyond scattering and ask for asymptotic completeness and
existence of the wave operators. When p £
1 + 2/d this is not possible due to the poor decay in time in the non-linear term
[Bb1984], [Gs1977b], [Sr1989],
however at p = 1+2/d one can obtain modified wave operators for data with suitable
regularity, decay, and moment conditions [Oz1991],
[GiOz1993], [HaNm1998], [ShiTon2004], [HaNmShiTon2004]. In the regime
between the L2 and H1 critical powers the wave operators
are well-defined in the energy space [LnSr1978],
[GiVl1985], [Na1999c]. At the L2
critical exponent 1 + 4/d one can define wave operators assuming that we impose
an Lpx,t integrability condition on the solution or some
smallness or localization condition on the data [GiVl1979], [GiVl1985], [Bo1998]
(see also [Ts1985] for the case of finite
pseudoconformal charge). Below the L2 critical
power one can construct wave operators on certain spaces related to the
pseudo-conformal charge [CaWe1992], [GiOz1993], [GiOzVl1994], [Oz1991]; see also [GiVl1979], [Ts1985].
For Hs wave operators were also constructed in [Na2001]. However in order to construct
wave operators in spaces such as L2(|x|2 dx) (the space
of functions with finite pseudoconformal charge) it is necessary that p is
larger than or equal to the rather unusual power
1 + 8 / (sqrt(d2
+ 12d + 4) + d - 2);
see [NaOz2002] for
further discussion.
Many of the global results for Hs also hold true for L2(|x|^{2s}
dx). Heuristically this follows from the pseudo-conformal transformation,
although making this rigorous is sometimes difficult. Sample results are
in [CaWe1992], [GiOzVl1994], [Ka1995], [NkrOz1997],
[NkrOz-p]. See [NaOz2002] for further
discussion.
NLS
on manifolds and obstacles
The NLS has also been studied on non-flat manifolds. For instance, for
smooth two-dimensional compact surfaces one has LWP in H1
[BuGdTz-p3], while for smooth three-dimensional compact surfaces and p=3 one has
LWP in Hs for s>1, together with weak solutions in H1
[BuGdTz-p3]. In the special case of a sphere one has LWP in H^{d/2 + 1/2}
for d³3 and p < 5 [BuGdTz-p3].
·
For the cubic equation on two-dimensional
surfaces one has LWP in H^s for s > ½ [BuGdTz-p3]
o For
s >= 1 one has GWP [Vd1984], [OgOz1991] and regularity [BrzGa1980]
o For
s < 0 uniform ill-posedness can be obtained by adapting the argument in [BuGdTz2002] or [CtCoTa-p]
o For
the sphere, cylinder,
or torus more precise results are known
A key tool here is the development of Strichartz estimates on curved space.
For general manifolds one has all the L^q_t L^r_x Strichartz estimates (locally
in time), but with a loss of 1/q derivatives, see [BuGdTz-p3]. (This
though compares favorably to Sobolev embedding, which would require a loss of
2/q derivatives). When the manifold is flat outside of a compact set and
obeys a non-trapping condition, the optimal Strichartz estimates (locally in
time) were obtained in [StTt-p].
When instead the manifold is decaying outside of a compact set and obeys a
non-trapping condition, the Strichartz estimates (locally in time) with an
epsilon loss were obtained by Burq [Bu-p3]; in the special case of L^4
estimates on R^3, and for non-trapping asymptotically conic manifolds, the
epsilon was removed in [HslTaWun-p]
Outside of a non-trapping obstacle (with Dirichlet boundary conditions), the
known results are as follows.
- If (p-1)(d-2) < 2
then one has GWP in H^1 assuming a coercivity condition (e.g. if the
nonlinearity is defocusing) [BuGdTz-p4].
- Note there is a loss
compared with the non-obstacle theory, where one expects the condition to
be (p-1)(d-2) < 4.
- The same is true for
the endpoint d=3, p=3 if the energy is sufficiently small [BuGdTz-p4].
- If d <= 4 then
the flow map is Lipschitz [BuGdTz-p4]
- For d=2, p <= 3
this is in [BrzGa1980], [Vd1984], [OgOz1991]
- If p < 1 + 2/d then one
has GWP in L^2 [BuGdTz-p4]
- For d=3 GWP for
smooth data is in [Jor1961]
- Again, in the
non-obstacle theory one would expect p < 1 + 4/d
- if p < 1 + 1/d
then one also has strong uniqueness in the class L^2 [BuGdTz-p4]
On
a domain in R^d, with Dirichlet boundary conditions, the results are as
follows.
- Local well-posedness in H^s
for s > d/2 can be obtained by energy methods.
- In two dimensions when p
<=3, global well-posedness in the energy class (assuming energy less
than the ground state, in the p=3 focusing case) is in [BrzGa1980], [Vd1984], [OgOz1991], [Ca1989]. More precise asymptotics of a minimal
energy blowup solution in the focusing p=3 case are in [BuGdTz-p],
[Ban-p3]
- When p > 1 + 4/d blowup
can occur in the focusing case [Kav1987]
GWP
and scattering for defocusing NLS on Schwarzchild manifolds for radial data is
in [LabSf1999]
NLS
with potential
(Thanks to Remi Carles for much help with this
section. - Ed.)
One can ask what happens to the NLS when a potential is added, thus
i ut + D u + l|u|^{p-1}
u = V u
where V is real and time-independent. The behavior
depends on whether V is positive or negative, and how V grows as |x| ->
infinity. In the following results we suppose that V grows like some sort
of power of x (this can be made precise with estimates on the derivatives of V,
etc.) A particularly important case is that of the quadratic potential V
= +- |x|^2; this can be used to model a confining magnetic trap for
Bose-Einstein condensation. Most of the mathematical research has gone
into the isotropic quadatic potentials, but anisotropic ones (given by
quadratic forms other than |x|^2) are also of physical interest.
- If V is linear, i.e. V(x) =
E.x, then the potential can in fact be eliminated by a change of variables
[CarNky-p]
- If V is smooth, positive,
and has bounded derivatives up to order 2 (i.e. is quadratic or
subquadratic), then the theory is much the same as when there is no
potential - one has decay estimates, Strichartz estimates, and the usual
local and global well posedness theory (see [Fuj1979], [Fuj1980], [Oh1989])
- When V is exactly a positive
quadratic potential V = w^2 |x|^2, then one has blowup for the focusing
nonlinearity for negative energy in the L^2 supercritical or critical, H^1
subcritical case [Car2002b].
- In the L^2 critical
case one can in fact eliminate this potential by a change of variables [Car2002c]. One consequence of
this change of variables is that one can convert the usual solitary wave
solution for NLS into a solution that blows up in finite time (cf. how
the pseudoconformal transform is used to achieve a similar effect without
the potential).
- When V is exactly a negative
quadratic potential, one can prevent blowup even in the focusing case if
the potential is sufficiently strong [Car-p]. Indeed, one has a
scattering theory in this case [Car-p]
- If V grows faster than
quadratic, then there are significant problems due to the failure of
smoothness of the fundamental solution; if V is also negative, then even
the linear theory fails (for instance, the Hamiltonian need not be
essentially self-adjoint on test functions). However for positive
superquadratic potentials partial results are still possible [YaZgg2001].
Much work has also been done on the semiclassical limit of
these equations; see for instance [BroJer2000],
[Ker2002], [CarMil-p], [Car2003]. For work on standing waves
for NLS with quadratic potential, see [Fuk2001],
[Fuk2003], [FukOt2003], [FukOt2003b].
One component of the theory of NLS with potential is that of Strichartz
estimates with potential, which in turn may be derived from dispersive
estimates with potential, although it is possible to obtain Strichartz
estimates without a dispersive inequality. Both types of estimates can
only be expected to hold after first projecting to the absolutely continuous
part of the spectrum (although this is not necessary if the potential is
positive).
The situation for dispersive estimates (which imply Strichartz), and related
estimates such as local L^2 decay, and of L^p boundedness of wave operators
(which implies both the dispersive inequality and Strichartz) is as
follows. Here we consider potentials which could oscillate; relying
mostly on magnitude bounds on V rather than on symbol-type bounds.
- When d=1 one has dispersive
estimates whenever <x> V is L^1 [GbScg-p].
- For potentials such
that <x>^{3/2+} V is in L^1, this is essentially in [Wed2000]; the stronger L^p boundedness
of wave operators in this case was established in [Wed1999], [ArYa2000].
- When d=2, relatively little
is known.
- L^p boundedness of
wave operators for potentials decaying like <x>^{-6-}, assuming 0
is not a resonance nor eigenvalue, is in [Ya1999],
[JeYa2002]. The method does
not quite extend to p=1,infinity and thus does not directly imply the
dispersive estimate although it does give Strichartz estimates for 1 <
p < infinity.
- Local L^2 decay and
resolvent estimates for low frequencies for polynomially decaying
potentials are obtained in [JeNc2001]
- When d=3 one has dispersive
estimates whenever V decays like <x>^{-3-} and 0 is neither a
eigenvalue nor resonance [GbScg-p]
- For potentials which
decay like <x>^{-7-} and whose Fourier transform is in L^1, a
version of this estimate is in [JouSfSo1991]
- A related local L^2
decay estimate was obtained for exponentially decaying potentials in [Ra1978]; this was refined to
polynomially decaying potentials (e.g. <x>^{-3-}) (with additional
resolvent estimates at low frequencies) in [JeKa1980].
- L^p boundedness of
wave operators was established in [Ya1995]
for potentials decaying like <x>^{-5-} and for which 0 is neither
an eigenvalue nor a resonance.
- If 0 is a resonance one
cannot expect to obtain the optimal decay estimate; at best one can hope
for t^{-1/2} (see [JeKa1980]).
- Dispersive estimates
have also been proven for potentials whose Rollnik and global Kato norms
are both smaller than the critical value of 4pi [RoScg-p]. Indeed
their arguments partly extend to certain time-dependent potentials (e.g.
quasiperiodic potentials), once one also imposes a smallness condition on
the L^{3/2} norm of V
- If the potential is
in L^2 and has finite global Kato norm, then one has dispersive estimates
for high frequencies at least [RoScg-p].
- Strichartz estimates
have been obtained for potentials decaying like <x>^{-2-} if 0 is
neither a zero nor a resonance [RoScg-p]
- This has been
extended to potentials decaying exactly like |x|^2 and d >= 3
assuming some radial regularity and if the potential is not too negative
[BuPlStaTv-p], [BuPlStaTv-p2]; in particular one has Strichartz
estimates for potentials V = a/|x|^2, d >= 3, and a > -(n-2)^2/4
(this latter condition is necessary to avoid bound states).
- For d > 3, most of the
d=3 results should extend. For instance, the following is known.
- For potentials which
decay like <x>^{-d-4-} and whose Fourier transform is in L^1,
dispersive estimates are in [JouSfSo1991]
- Local L^2 decay and
resolvent estimates for low frequencies for polynomially decaying
potentials are obtained in [Je1980],
[Je1984].
For
finite rank perturbations of the Laplacian, where each rank one perturbation is
generated by a bump function and the bump functions are sufficiently far apart
in physical space, decay and Schrodinger estimates were obtained in [NieSf2003]. The bounds obtained grow polynomially in the
number of rank one perturbations.
Local
smoothing estimates seem to be more robust than dispersive estimates, holding
in a wider range of situations. For
instance, in R^d, any potential in L^p for p >= d/2, as well as inverse
square potentials 1/|x|^2, and linear combinations of these, have local
smoothing [RuVe1994]. Note one does not need to project away the
bound states for such estimates (as the bound states tend to already be rather
smooth). However, for p < d/2, one
can have breakdown of local smoothing (and also dispersive and Strichartz
estimates) [Duy-p]
For
time-dependent potentials, very little is known. If the potential is small and quasiperiodic
in time (or more generally, has a highly concentrated Fourier transform in
time) then dispersive and Strichartz estimates were obtained in [RoScg-p]; the
smallness is used to rule out bound states, among other things. In the important case of the charge transfer
model (the time-dependent potential that arises in the stability analysis of
multisolitons) see [Ya1980], [Grf1990], [Zi1997],
[RoScgSf-p], [RoScgSf-p2], where energy, dispersive, and Strichartz estimates
are obtained, with application to the asymptotic stability of multisolitons.
The
nonlinear interactions between the bound states of a Schrodinger operator with
potential (which have no dispersion or decay properties in time) and the
absolutely continuous portion of the spectrum (where one expects dispersion and
Strichartz estimates) is not well understood.
A preliminary result in this direction is in [GusNaTsa-p], which shows
in R^3 that if there is only one bound state, and Strichartz estimates hold in
the remaining portion of the spectrum, and the non-linearity does not have too
high or too low a power (say 4/3 <= p <= 4, or a Hartree-type
nonlinearity) then every small H^1 solution will asymptotically decouple into a
dispersive part evolving like the linear flow (with potential), plus a
nonlinear bound state, with the energy and phase of this bound state eventually
stabilizing at a constant. In [SfWs-p]
the interaction of a ground state and an excited state is studied, with the
generic behavior consisting of collapse to the ground state plus radiation.
Unique continuation
A
question arising by analogy from the theory of unique continuation in elliptic
equations, and also in control theory, is the following: if u is a solution to
a nonlinear Schrodinger equation, and u(t_0) and u(t_1) is specified on a
domain D at two different times t_0, t_1, does this uniquely specify the
solution everywhere at all other intermediate times?
- For the 1D cubic NLS, with
D equal to a half-line, and u assumed to vanish on D, this is in [Zg1997].
- For general NLS with
analytic non-linearity, and with u assumed compactly supported, this is in
[Bo1997b].
- For D the complement of a
convex cone, and arbitrary NLS of polynomial growth with a bounded
potential term, this is in [KnPoVe2003]
- For D in a half-plane, and
allowing potentials in various Lebesgue spaces, this is in [IonKn-p]
- A local unique continuation
theorem (asserting that a non-zero solution cannot vanish on an open set)
is in [Isk1993]
Quadratic NLS on R
- Scaling is sc =
-3/2.
- For any quadratic
non-linearity one can obtain LWP for s ³
0 [CaWe1990], [Ts1987].
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u or u u type then one can push LWP to
s > -3/4. [KnPoVe1996b].
- This can be improved
to the Besov space B^{-3/4}_{2,1} [MurTao-p]. The X^{s,b} bilinear
estimates fail for H^{-3/4} [NaTkTs2001].
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u type then one can push LWP to s > -1/4.
[KnPoVe1996b].
- Since these equations do not
have L2 conservation it is not clear whether there is any
reasonable GWP result, except possibly for very small data.
- If the non-linearity is |u|u
then there is GWP in L2 thanks to L2 conservation,
and ill-posedness below L2 by Gallilean invariance
considerations in both the focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2]
cases.
Quadratic NLS on T
- For any quadratic
non-linearity one can obtain LWP for s ³
0 [Bo1993]. In the Hamiltonian
case (|u| u) this is sharp by Gallilean invariance considerations
[KnPoVe-p]
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u or u u type then one can push LWP to
s > -1/2. [KnPoVe1996b].
- In the Hamiltonian case (a
non-linearity of type |u| u) we have GWP for s ³ 0 by L2 conservation. In the other cases
it is not clear whether there is any reasonable GWP result, except
possibly for very small data.
Quadratic NLS on R2
- Scaling is sc =
-1.
- For any quadratic
non-linearity one can obtain LWP for s ³
0 [CaWe1990], [Ts1987].
- In the Hamiltonian
case (|u| u) this is sharp by Gallilean invariance considerations
[KnPoVe-p]
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u or u u type then one can push LWP to
s > -3/4. [St1997], [CoDeKnSt-p].
- This can be improved
to the Besov space B^{-3/4}_{2,1} [MurTao-p].
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u type then one can push LWP to s > -1/4.
[Ta-p2].
- In the Hamiltonian case (a
non-linearity of type |u| u) we have GWP for s ³ 0 by L2 conservation. In the other cases
it is not clear whether there is any reasonable GWP result, except
possibly for very small data.
- Below L^2 we have
ill-posedness by Gallilean invariance considerations in both the
focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2] cases.
Quadratic NLS on T2
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u type then one can obtain LWP for s
> -1/2 [Gr-p2]
Quadratic NLS on R3
- Scaling is sc =
-1/2.
- For any quadratic
non-linearity one can obtain LWP for s ³
0 [CaWe1990], [Ts1987].
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u or u u type then one can push LWP to
s > -1/2. [St1997], [CoDeKnSt-p].
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u type then one can push LWP to s > -1/4.
[Ta-p2].
- In the Hamiltonian case (a
non-linearity of type |u| u) we have GWP for s ³ 0 by L2 conservation. In the other cases
it is not clear whether there is any reasonable GWP result, except
possibly for very small data.
- Below L^2 we have
ill-posedness by Gallilean invariance considerations in both the
focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2] cases.
Quadratic NLS on T3
- If the quadratic
non-linearity is of u u type then one can obtain LWP for s
> -3/10 [Gr-p2]
Cubic NLS on R
- Scaling is sc =
-1/2.
- LWP for s ³ 0 [Ts1987],
[CaWe1990] (see also [GiVl1985]).
- This is sharp for
reasons of Gallilean invariance and for soliton solutions in the focussing
case [KnPoVe-p]
- The result is also
sharp in the defocussing case [CtCoTa-p], due to Gallilean invariance
and the asymptotic solutions in [Oz1991].
- Below s ³0 the solution map was known to be
not C2 in [Bo1993]
- For initial data
equal to a delta function there are serious problems with existence and
uniqueness [KnPoVe-p].
- However, there exist
Gallilean invariant spaces which scale below L2 for which one
has LWP. They are defined in terms of the Fourier transform [VaVe2001]. For instance one has
LWP for data whose Fourier transform decays like |x|^{-1/6-}. Ideally one would like to replace this
with |x|^{0-}.
- GWP for s ³ 0 thanks to L2 conservation
- GWP can be pushed
below to certain of the Gallilean spaces in [VaVe-p]. For instance
one has GWP when the Fourier transform of the data decays like |x|^{-5/12-}. Ideally one would
like to replace this with 0-.
- If the cubic non-linearity
is of u u u or u u u type (as opposed to the usual
|u|2 u type) then one can obtain LWP for s > -5/12 [Gr-p2]. If the nonlinearity is of u
u u type then one has LWP for s > -2/5 [Gr-p2].
- Remark: This
equation is sometimes known as the Zakharov-Shabat equation and is
completely integrable (see e.g. [AbKauNeSe1974];
all higher order integer Sobolev norms stay bounded. Growth of
fractional norms might be interesting, though.
- In the focusing case there
are soliton and multisoliton solutions, however the defocusing case does
not admit such solutions.
- In the focussing case there
is a unique positive radial ground state for each energy E. By
translation and phase shift one thus obtains a four-dimensional manifold
of ground states (aka solitons) for each energy. This manifold is H1-stable
[Ws1985], [Ws1986]. Below the energy norm
orbital stability is not known, however there are polynomial bounds on the
instability [CoKeStTkTa2003b].
- This equation is related to
the evolution of vortex filaments under the localized induction
approximation, via the Hasimoto transformation, see e.g. [Hm1972]
- Solutions do not scatter to
free Schrodinger solutions. In the focussing case this can be easily
seen from the existence of solitons. But even in the defocussing
case wave operators do not exist, and must be replaced by modified wave
operators [Oz1991], see also
[CtCoTa-p]. For small, decaying data one also has asymptotic
completeness [HaNm1998].
- For large Schwartz
data, these asymptotics can be obtained by inverse scattering methods [ZkMan1976], [SeAb1976], [No1980], [DfZx1994]
- For large real
analytic data, these asymptotics were obtained in [GiVl2001]
- Refinements to the
convergence and regularity of the modified wave operators was obtained in
[Car2001]
- On the half line R^+,
global well-posedness in H^2 was established in [CrrBu.1991], [Bu.1992]
- On the interval, the
inverse scattering method was applied to generate solutions in [GriSan-p].
Cubic NLS on T
- LWP for s³0 [Bo1993].
- For s<0 one has
failure of uniform local well-posedness [CtCoTa-p], [BuGdTz-p]. In fact, the solution map is not even
continuous from H^s to H^sigma for any sigma, even for small times and
small data [CtCoTa-p3].
- GWP for s ³ 0 thanks to L2 conservation
[Bo1993].
- One also has GWP for
random data whose Fourier coefficients decay like 1/|k| (times a Gaussian
random variable) [Bo1995c].
Indeed one has an invariant measure.
- If the cubic non-linearity
is of u u u type (instead of |u|2 u) then
one can obtain LWP for s > -1/3 [Gr-p2]
- Remark: This equation
is completely integrable [AbMa.1981];
all higher order integer Sobolev norms stay bounded. Growth of
fractional norms might be interesting, though.
- Methods of inverse
scattering have also been successfully applied to cubic NLS on an interval
[FsIt-p]
Cubic NLS on R2
- Scaling is sc =
0, thus this is an L^2 critical NLS.
- LWP for s ³ 0 [CaWe1990].
- For s=0 the time of
existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- LWP has also been
obtained in Besov spaces [Pl2000],
[Pl-p] and Fourier-Lorentz spaces [CaVeVi-p] at the scaling of L2.
This is also connected with the construction of self-similar solutions to
NLS (which are generally not in the usual Sobolev spaces globally in
space).
- Below L^2 we have
ill-posedness by Gallilean invariance considerations in both the
focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2] cases.
- GWP for s>4/7 in the
defocussing case [CoKeStTkTa2002]
- For s>3/5 this
was shown in [Bo1998].
- For s>2/3 this
was shown in [Bo1998], [Bo1999].
- For s³ 1 this follows from Hamiltonian
conservation.
- For small L2
data one has GWP and scattering for any cubic nonlinearity (not
necessarily defocussing or Hamiltonian). More precisely, one has
global well-posedness whenever the data has an L2 norm
strictly smaller than the ground state Q [Me1993].
If the L2 norm is exactly equal to that of Q then one has blow-up
if and only if the data is a pseudo-conformal transformation of the
ground state [Me1993], [Me1992]. In particular, the
ground state is unstable.
- Scattering is known
whenever the solution is sufficiently small in L^2 norm, or more
generally whenever the solution is L4 in spacetime. Presumably one in fact has scattering
whenever the mass is strictly smaller than the ground state, though this
has not yet been established.
- The s>4/7 result
is probably improvable by correction term methods.
- Remark: s=1/2 is the
least regularity for which the non-linear part of the solution has finite
energy (Bourgain, private communication).
- Question: What
happens for large L2 data? It is known that the only way
GWP can fail at L2 is if the L2 norm concentrates [Bo1998]. Blowup examples with
multiple blowup points are known, either simultaneously [Me1992] or non-simultaneously [BoWg1997]. It is conjectured
that the amount of energy which can go into blowup points is
quantized. The H^1 norm in these examples blows up like
|t|^{-1}. It is conjectured that slower blow-up examples exist, in
particular numerics suggest a blowup rate of |t|^{-1/2} (log
log|t|)^{1/2} [LanPapSucSup1988];
interestingly, however, if we perturb NLS to the Zakharov system then one can only have
blowup rates of |t|^{-1}.
- Remark: This
equation is pseudo-conformally invariant. Heuristically, GWP results
in Hs transfer to GWP and scattering results in L2(|x|2s)
thanks to the pseudo-conformal transformation. Thus for instance GWP
and scattering occurs this weighted space for s>2/3 (the corresponding
statement for, say, s > 4/7 has not yet been checked).
- In the periodic case the
H^k norm grows like O(t^{2(k-1)+}) as long as the H1 norm stays
bounded. In the non-periodic case it is O(t^{(k-1)+}) [St1997], [St1997b]; this was improved to t^{2/3
(k-1)+} in [CoDeKnSt-p], and also
generalized to higher order multilinearity. A preliminary
analysis suggests that the I-method can push the growth bounds down to
t^{(k-1)+/2}.
- Question: Is there
scattering in the cubic defocussing case, in L2 or H1?
(certainly not in the focussing case thanks to solitons). This
problem seems of comparable difficulty to the GWP problem for large L2
data (indeed, the pseudo-conformal transformation morally links the two
problems).
- For powers slightly
higher than cubic, the answer is yes [Na1999c],
and indeed we have bounded H^k norms in this case [Bourgain?].
- If the data has
sufficient decay then one has scattering. For instance if xu(0) is
in L2 [Ts1985].
This was improved to x^{2/3+} u(0) in L2 in [Bo1998], [Bo1999]; the above results on GWP will
probably also extend to scattering.
- This equation has also been
studied on bounded domains, see [BuGdTz-p]. Sample results: blowup
solutions exist close to the ground state, with a blowup rate of (T-t)-1.
If the domain is a disk then uniform LWP fails for 1/5 < s < 1/3,
while for a square one has LWP for all s>0. In general domains
one has LWP for s>2.
Cubic NLS on RxT and T2
- Scaling is sc =
0.
- For RxT one has LWP for s³0 [TkTz-p2].
- For TxT one has LWP for
s>0 [Bo1993].
- In the defocussing case one
has GWP for s³1 in both cases by
Hamiltonian conservation.
- On T x T one can
improve this to s > 2/3 by the I-method by De Silva, Pavlovic,
Staffilani, and Tzirakis (and also in an unpublished work of Bourgain).
- In the focusing case on TxT
one has blowup for data close to the ground state, with a blowup rate of
(T-t)-1 [BuGdTz-p]
- If instead one considers the
sphere S2 then uniform local well-posedness fails for 3/20 <
s < 1/4 [BuGdTz2002], [Ban-p],
but holds for s>1/4 [BuGdTz-p7].
- For s > ½ this is
in [BuGdTz-p3].
- These results for the
sphere can mostly be generalized to other Zoll manifolds.
Cubic NLS on R3
- Scaling is sc =
1/2.
- LWP for s ³ 1/2 [CaWe1990].
- For s=1/2 the time of
existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- For s<1/2 we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- For s > 1/2 there
is unconditional well-posedness [FurPlTer2001]
- For s >= 2/3 this
is in [Ka1995].
- GWP and scattering for s
> 4/5 in the defocussing case [CoKeStTkTa-p8]
- For s > 5/6 GWP is
in [CoKeStTkTa2002]
- For s>11/13 GWP is
in [Bo1999]
- For radial data and s
> 5/7 GWP and scattering is in s>5/7 [Bo1998b], [Bo1999].
- For s³ 1 this follows from Hamiltonian
conservation. One also has scattering in this case [GiVl1985].
- For small H^{1/2}
data one has GWP and scattering for any cubic nonlinearity (not
necessarily defocussing or Hamiltonian). More generally one has
scattering whenever the solution is L5 in spacetime.
- In the focusing case
one has blowup whenever the energy is negative [Gs1977], [OgTs1991], and in particular one has
blowup arbitrarily close to the ground state [BerCa1981], [SaSr1985]. If however the energy remains bounded
(which is automatic in the defocusing case) then one has at most
polynomial growth of high Sobolev norms, with the local higher Sobolev
norms H^s_loc remaining bounded for all time [Bo1996c], [Bo1998b]. Also in the focusing radial case with
bounded energy, the solution becomes asymptotically smooth and spatially
decaying away from the origin, once one strips out the radiation
component [Ta-p7]
Cubic NLS on T3
- Scaling is sc =
1/2.
- LWP is known for s >1/2
[Bo1993].
Cubic NLS on R4
- Scaling is sc =
1.
- LWP is known for s ³ 1 [CaWe1990].
- For s=1 the time of
existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- For s<1 we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP and scattering for s³1 in the radial case [Bo1999]. A major obstacle is that
the Morawetz estimate only gives L4-type spacetime control
rather than L6.
- For small non-radial
H1 data one has GWP and scattering. In fact one has
scattering whenever the solution has a bounded L6 norm in
spacetime.
The large data non-radial case is still open, and very interesting. The
main difficulty is infinite speed of propagation and the possibility that the H1
norm could concentrate at several different places simultaneously.
Cubic NLS on T4
- Scaling is sc =
1.
- LWP is known for s ³ 2 [Bo1993d].
Cubic NLS on S6
- Scaling is sc =
2.
- Uniform LWP holds in Hs
for s > 5/2 [BuGdTz-p3].
- Uniform LWP fails in the
energy class H1 [BuGdTz-p2]; indeed we have this failure for
any NLS on S^6, even ones for which the energy is subcritical. This
is in contrast to the Euclidean case, where one has LWP for powers p <
2.
Quartic NLS on R
- Scaling is sc =
-1/6.
- For any quartic non-linearity
one can obtain LWP for s ³ 0 [CaWe1990]
- Below L^2 we have
ill-posedness by Gallilean invariance considerations in both the
focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2] cases.
- If the quartic non-linearity
is of u u u u type then one can obtain LWP for
s > -1/6. For |u|4 one has LWP for s > -1/8, while
for the other three types u4, u u u u, or u uuu
one has LWP for s > -1/6 [Gr-p2].
- In the Hamiltonian case (a
non-linearity of type |u|^3 u) we have GWP for s ³ 0 by L2 conservation. In the other cases
it is not clear whether there is any reasonable GWP result, except
possibly for very small data.
Quartic NLS on T
- For any quartic
non-linearity one has LWP for s>0 [Bo1993].
- If the quartic
non-linearity is of u u u u type then one can
obtain LWP for s > -1/6 [Gr-p2].
- If the nonlinearity is of
|u|3 u type one has GWP for random data whose Fourier
coefficients decay like 1/|k| (times a Gaussian random variable) [Bo1995c]. Indeed one has an
invariant measure.
Quartic NLS on R^2
- Scaling is sc =
1/3.
- For any quartic non-linearity
one can obtain LWP for s ³ sc
[CaWe1990].
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- In the Hamiltonian case (a
non-linearity of type |u|^3 u) we have GWP for s ³ 1 [Ka1986].
- This has been
improved to s > 1-e in [CoKeStTkTa2003c] in the
defocusing Hamiltonian case. This result can of course be improved
further.
- Scattering in the
energy space [Na1999c] in the
defocusing Hamiltonian case.
- One also has GWP and
scattering for small H^{1/3} data for any quintic non-linearity.
Quintic NLS on R
- This equation may be viewed
as a simpler version of cubic DNLS, and is
always at least as well-behaved. It has been proposed as a modifiation
of the Gross-Pitaevski approximation for low-dimesional Bose liquids [KolNewStrQi2000]
- Scaling is sc =
0, thus this is an L^2 critical NLS.
- LWP is known for s ³ 0 [CaWe1990],
[Ts1987].
- For s=0 the time of
existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- Below L^2 we have
ill-posedness by Gallilean invariance considerations in both the
focusing [KnPoVe-p] and defocusing [CtCoTa-p2] cases.
- GWP for s>4/9 in the
defocussing case [Tzi-p]
- For s>1/2 this is
in [CoKeStTkTa-p6]
- For s>2/3 this is
in [CoKeStTkTa-p4].
- For s > 32/33
this is implicit in [Tk-p].
- For s³ 1 this follows from LWP and
Hamiltonian conservation.
- One has GWP and
scattering for small L2 data for any quintic
non-linearity. The corresponding problem for large L2
data and defocussing nonlinearity is very interesting, but probably very
difficult, perhaps only marginally easier than the corresponding problem
for the 2D cubic NLS. It would
suffice to show that the solution has a bounded L6 norm in
spacetime.
- Explicit blowup
solutions (with large L2 norm) are known in the focussing case
[BirKnPoSvVe1996]. The
blowup rate in H1 is t-1 in these solutions.
This is not the optimal blowup rate; in fact an example has been
constructed where the blowup rate is |t|^{-1/2} (log
log|t|)^{1/2}[Per-p]. Furthermore, one always this blowup behavior
(or possibly slower, though one must still blow up by at least
|t|^{-1/2}) whenever the energy is negative [MeRap-p], [MeRap-p2], and
one either assumes that the mass is close to the critical mass or that xu
is in L^2.
- One can modify the
explicit solutions from [BirKnPoSvVe1996]
and in fact create solutions which blow up at any collection of
specified points in spacetime [BoWg1997],
[Nw1998].
- Remark: This
equation is pseudo-conformally invariant. GWP results in Hs
automatically transfer to GWP and scattering results in L2(|x|s)
thanks to the pseudo-conformal transformation.
- Solitons are H1-unstable.
Quintic NLS on T
- This equation may be viewed
as a simpler version of cubic DNLS, and is always at least as
well-behaved.
- Scaling is sc =
0.
- LWP is known for s > 0 [Bo1993].
- For s < 0 the
solution map is not uniformly continuous from C^k to C^{-k} for any k
[CtCoTa-p3].
- GWP is known in the
defocusing case for s > 4/9 (De Silva, Pavlovic, Staffilani, Tzirakis)
- For s > 2/3 this is commented upon in [Bo-p2] and is
a minor modification of [CoKeStTkTa-p].
- For s >= 1 one
has GWP in the defocusing case, or in the focusing case with small L^2 norm,
by Hamiltonian conservation.
- In the defocusing
case one has GWP for random data whose Fourier coefficients decay like
1/|k| (times a Gaussian random variable) [Bo1995c]; this is roughly of the
regularity of H^{1/2}. Indeed one has an invariant measure.
In the focusing case the same result holds assuming the L2
norm is sufficiently small.
Quintic NLS on R2
- Scaling is sc =
1/2.
- LWP is known for s ³ 1/2 [CaWe1990].
- For s=1/2 the time
of existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous blowup
from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP for s ³ 1 by Hamiltonian conservation.
- This has been
improved to s > 1-e in [CoKeStTkTa2003b]. This
result can of course be improved further.
- Scattering in the
energy space [Na1999c]
- One also has GWP and
scattering for small H^{1/2} data for any quintic non-linearity.
Quintic NLS on R3
- Scaling is sc =
1.
- LWP is known for s ³ 1 [CaWe1990].
- For s=1 the time of
existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the norm.
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP and scattering for s³1 in the defocusing case [CoKeStTkTa-p]
- For radial data this
is in [Bo-p], [Bo1999].
- Blowup can occur in
the focussing case from Glassey's virial identity.
Septic NLS on R
- Scaling is sc =
1/6.
- LWP is known for s ³ sc [CaWe1990].
- For s=sc
the time of existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the
norm.
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP for s ³ 1 by Hamiltonian conservation.
- This has been
improved to s > 1-e in [CoKeStTkTa2003b] in the
defocusing case. This result can of course be improved further.
- Scattering in the
energy space [Na1999c]
- One also has GWP and
scattering for small H^{sc} data for any septic non-linearity.
Septic NLS on R^2
- Scaling is sc =
2/3.
- LWP is known for s ³ sc [CaWe1990].
- For s=sc
the time of existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the
norm.
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous
blowup from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP for s ³ 1 by Hamiltonian conservation.
- This has been
improved to s > 1-e in [CoKeStTkTa2003b] in the
defocusing case. This result can of course be improved further.
- Scattering in the
energy space [Na1999c]
- One also has GWP and
scattering for small H^{sc} data for any septic non-linearity.
Septic NLS on R^3
- Scaling is sc =
7/6.
- LWP is known for s ³ sc [CaWe1990].
- For s=sc
the time of existence depends on the profile of the data as well as the
norm.
- For s<s_c we have
ill-posedness, indeed the H^s norm can get arbitrarily large arbitrarily
quickly [CtCoTa-p2]. In the focusing case we have instantaneous blowup
from the virial identity and scaling.
- GWP and scattering for
small data by Strichartz estimates [CaWe1990].
- For large data one
has blowup in the focusing case by the virial identity; in particular one
has ill-posedness in the energy space.
- It is not known (and
would be extremely interesting to find out!) what is going on in the
defocusing case; for instance, is there blowup from smooth data?
Even for radial data nothing seems to be known. This may be viewed
as an extremely simplified model problem for the global regularity issue
for Navier-Stokes.
L^2 critical NLS on R^d
The L^2 critical situation sc = 0 occurs when p = 1 + 4/d.
Note that the power non-linearity is smooth in dimensions d=1 (quintic NLS) and d=2 (cubic
NLS). One always has GWP and scattering in L^2 for small data (see [GiVl1978], [GiVl1979], [CaWe1990]; the more precise statement in
the focusing case that GWP holds when the mass is strictly less than the ground
state mass is in [Ws1983]); in the large
data defocusing case, GWP is known in H^1 (and slightly below) but is only
conjectured in L^2. No scattering result is known for large data, even in
the radial smooth case.
In the focusing case, there is blowup for large L^2 data, as can be seen by
applying the pseudoconformal transformation to the ground state solution.
Up to the usual symmetries of the equation, this is the unique minimal mass
blowup solution [Me1993]. This
solution blows up in H^1 like |t|^{-1} as t -> 0-. However, numerics
suggest that there should be solutions that exhibit the much slower
blowup |t|^{-1/2} (log log|t|)^{1/2} [LanPapSucSup1988]; furthermore,
this blowup is stable under perturbations in the energy space [MeRap-p], at
least when the mass is close to the critical mass. Note that
scaling shows that blowup cannot be any slower than |t|^{-1/2}.
The virial identity shows that blowup must occur when the energy is negative
(which can only occur when the mass exceeds the ground state mass). Strictly speaking, the virial identity
requires some decay on u – namely that x u lies in L^2, however this
restriction can be relaxed ([OgTs1991],
[Nw1999],
[GgMe1995].
In one dimension d=1, the above blowup rate of
|t|^{-1/2} (log log|t|)^{1/2} has in fact been achieved [Per-p]. Furthermore,
one always this blowup behavior (or possibly slower, though one must still blow
up by at least |t|^{-1/2}) whenever the energy is negative [MeRap-p],
[MeRap-p2], and one either assumes that the mass is close to the critical mass
or that xu is in L^2. When the energy is zero, and one is not a ground
state, then one has blowup like |t|^{-1/2} (log log |t|)^{1/2} in at least one
direction of time (t -> +infinity or t -> -infinity) [MeRap-p],
[MeRap-p2]. These results extend to
higher dimensions as soon as a certain (plausible) spectral condition on the
ground state is verified.
The exact nature of the blowup set is not yet fully understood, but there
are some partial results. It appears
that the generic rate of blowup is |t|^{-1/2} (log log|t|)^{1/2}; the
exceptional rate of |t|^{-1} can occur for the self-similar solutions and also
for larger solutions [BoWg1997], but
this seems to be very rare compared to the |t|^{-1/2} (log log|t|)^{1/2} blowup
solutions (which are open in H^1 close to the critical mass [MeRap-p]). In fact close to the critical mass, there is
a dichotomy, in that the blowup (if it occurs) is either |t|^{-1} or faster, or
|t|^{-1/2} (log log |t|)^{1/2} or slower [MeRap-p], [MeRap-p2]. Also, near the blowup points the solution
should have asymptotically zero energy [Nw1999]
and exhibit mass concentration [Nw1992].
Conditions on the linearizability of this equation when the dispersion and
nonlinearity are both sent to zero at controlled rates has been established in
d=1,2 in [CarKer-p] (and in the L^2-supercritical case in [CarFerGal-p]. A key role is played by the size of the
linear solution in the relevant Strichartz space.
Higher order NLS
(More discussion later... Ed.)
One can study higher-order NLS equations in which the
Laplacian is replaced by a higher power.
One class of such examples comes from the
infinite hierarchy of commuting flows arising from the 1D cubic NLS.
Another is the nonlinear
Schrodinger-Airy equation.
Derivative non-linear Schrodinger
By derivative non-linear Schrodinger (D-NLS) we refer to equations of the
form
ut - i D u = f(u, u, Du, Du)
where f is an analytic function of u, its spatial derivatives Du, and their complex
conjugates which vanishes to at least second order at the origin. We
often assume the natural gauge invariance condition
f(exp(i q) u, exp(-i q) u,
exp(i q) Du, exp(-i q) Du) = exp(i q) f(u, u, Du, Du).
The main new difficulty here is the loss of regularity of one derivative in
the non-linearity, which causes standard techniques such as the energy method
to fail (since the energy estimate does not recover any regularity in the case
of the Schrodinger equation). However, there are other estimates which
can recover a full derivative for the inhomogeneous Schrodinger equation
providing there is sufficient decay in space, and so one can still obtain
well-posedness results for sufficiently smooth and regular data. In the
analytic category some existence results can be found in [SnTl1985], [Ha1990].
An alternative strategy is to apply a suitable transformation in order to
place the non-linearity in a good form. For instance, a term such as u
Du is preferable to u Du (the Fourier transform is less likely to stay
near the upper paraboloid, and these terms are more likely to disappear in
energy estimates). One can often "gauge transform" the equation
(in a manner dependent on the solution u) so that all bad terms are
eliminated. In one dimension this can be done by fairly elementary
methods (e.g. the method of integrating factors), but in higher dimensions one
must use some pseudo-differential calculus.
In order to quantify the decay properties needed, we define H^{s,m} denote
the space of all functions u for which <x>^m Ds u is in L2;
thus s measures regularity and m measures decay. It is a well-known fact
that the Schrodinger equation trades decay for regularity; for instance, data
in H^{m,m'} instantly evolves to a solution locally in H^{m+m'} for the free
Schrodinger equation and m, m' ³ 0.
- If m ³ [d/2] + 4 is an integer then one has
LWP in H^m \cap H^{m-2,2} [Ci1999];
see also [Ci1996], [Ci1995], [Ci1994].
- If f is cubic or
better then one can improve this to LWP in H^m [Ci1999]. Furthermore, if one also
has gauge invariance then data in H^{m,m'} evolves to a solution in
H^{m+m'} for all non-zero times and all positive integers m' [Ci1999].
- If d=1 and f is
cubic or better then one has LWP in H3 [HaOz1994b].
- For special types
of cubic non-linearity one can in fact get GWP for small data in H^{0,4}
\cap H^{4,0} [Oz1996].
- LWP in Hs
\cap H^{0,m} for small data for sufficiently large s, m was shown in [KnPoVe1993c]. The solution
was also shown to have s+1/2 derivatives in L2_{t,x,loc}.
- If f is cubic or
better one can take m=0 [KnPoVe1993c].
- If f is quartic or
better then one has GWP for small data in Hs. [KnPoVe1995]
- For large data one
still has LWP for sufficiently large s, m [Ci1995], [Ci1994].
If the non-linearity consists mostly of the conjugate wave u, then one
can do much better. For instance [Gr-p], when f = (Du)^k one can
obtain LWP when s > sc = d/2 + 1 - 1/(k-1), s³1, and k ³
2 is an integer; similarly when f = D(u^k) one has LWP when s > sc
= d/2 - 1/(k-1), s ³0, and k ³ 2 is an integer. In particular one
has GWP in L2 when d=1 and f = i(u2)x
and GWP in H1 when d=1 and f = i({u}x)2.
These results apply in both the periodic and non-periodic setting.
Non-linearities such as t^{-\alpha} |ux|2 in one
dimension have been studied in [HaNm2001b],
with some asymptotic behaviour obtained.
In d=2 one has GWP for small data when the nonlinearities are of the form u
Du + u Du [De2002].
Schrodinger maps
[Many thanks to Andrea Nahmod for help with this section - Ed.]
Schrodinger maps are to the Schrodinger equation as wave
maps are to the wave equation; they are the natural Schrodinger equation
when the target space is a complex manifold (such as the sphere S2
or hyperbolic space H2). They have the form
iut + D u = Gamma(u)( Du, Du )
where Gamma(u) is the second fundamental form. This is the same as the
harmonic map heat flow but with an additional "i" in front of the ut.
When the target is S2, this equation arises naturally from the
Landau-Lifschitz equation for a macroscopic ferromagnetic continuum, see e.g. [SucSupBds1986]; in this case the
equation has the alternate form ut = u x D u, where x is the cross product, and is sometimes known as the
Heisenberg model; similar models exist when the target is generalized from a
sphere S2 to a Hermitian symmetric space (see e.g. [TeUh-p]).
The Schrodinger map equation is also related to the Ishimori equation [Im1984] (see [KnPoVe2000] for some recent results on
this equation)
In one dimension local well posedness is known for smooth data by the general theory of derivative nonlinear Schrodinger equations,
however this is not yet established in higher dimensions. Assuming this
regularity result, there is a gauge transformation (obtained by differentiating
the equation, and placing the resulting connection structure in the Coulomb
gauge) which creates a null structure in the non-linearity. Roughly
speaking, the equation now looks like
ivt + D v = Dv D-1(v v) + D-1(v
v) D-1(v v) v + v3
where v := Du. The cubic term Dv D-1(v v) has a null
structure so that orthogonal interactions (which normally cause the most
trouble with derivative
Schrodinger problems) are suppressed.
For certain special targets (e.g. complex Grassmannians) and with n=1, the
Schrodinger flow is a completely integrable bi-Hamiltonian system
[TeUh-p]. In the case of n=1 when the
target is the sphere S2, the equation is equivalent to the cubic NLS [ZkTkh1979],
[Di1999].
As with wave maps, the scaling regularity is
H^{n/2}.
- In one dimension one has
global existence in the energy norm [CgSaUh2000]
when the target is a compact Riemann surface; it is conjectured that this
is also true for general compact Kahler manifolds.
- When the target is a
complex compact Grassmannian, this is in [TeUh-p].
- In the periodic case
one has local existence and uniqueness of smooth solutions, with global
existence if the target is compact with constant sectional curvature [DiWgy1998]. The constant
curvature assumption was relaxed to non-positive curvature (or Hermitian
locally symmetric) in [PaWghWgy2000].
It is conjectured that one should have a global flow whenever the target
is compact Kahler [Di2002].
- In two dimensions there are
results in both the radial/equivariant and general cases.
- With radial or
equivariant data one has global existence in the energy norm for small
energy [CgSaUh2000], assuming
high regularity LWP as mentioned above.
- The large energy
case may be settled in [CkGr-p], although the status of this paper is
currently unclear (as of Feb 2003).
- In the general case one
has LWP in Hs for s > 2 [NdStvUh2003] (plus later errata),
at least when the target manifold is the sphere S2. It
would be interesting to extend this to lower regularities, and eventually
to the critical H1 case. (Here regularity is stated in
terms of u rather than the derivatives v).
- When the target is S2
there are global weak solutions [KnPoVe1993c],
[HaHr-p], and local existence for smooth solutions [SucSupBds1986].
- When the target is
H^2 one can have blowup in finite time [Di-p]. Similarly for higher dimensions.
- In general dimensions one
has LWP in Hs for s > n/2+1 [DiWgy2001]
Some further discussion on this equation can be found in the
survey [Di2002].
Cubic DNLS on R
Suppose the non-linearity has the form f = i (u u u)x.
Then:
- Scaling is sc =
0.
- LWP for s ³ 1/2 [Tk-p].
- This is sharp in the
C0 uniform sense [BiLi-p] (see also [Tk-p] for failure of analytic
well-posedness below 1/2).
- For s ³ 1 this was proven in [HaOz1994].
- GWP for s>1/2 and small
L2 norm [CoKeStTkTa2002b].
The s=1/2 case remains open.
- for s>2/3 and
small L2 norm this was proven in [CoKeStTkTa2001b].
- For s > 32/33
with small L2 norm this was proven in [Tk-p].
- For s ³ 1 and small L2 norm this
was proven in [HaOz1994].
One can also handle certain pure power additional terms [Oz1996].
- The small L2
norm condition is required in order to gauge transform the problem; see [HaOz1993], [Oz1996].
- Solutions do not scatter to
free Schrodinger solutions. In the focussing case this can be easily
seen from the existence of solitons. But even in the defocussing
case wave operators do not exist, and must be replaced by modified wave
operators (constructed in [HaOz1994]
for small data).
This equation has the same scaling as the quintic NLS, and there is a certain gauge
invariance which unifies the two (together with an additional nonlinear term u ux
u).
For non-linearities of the form f = a (u u)x u + b (u u)x
ux one can obtain GWP for small data [KyTs1995] for arbitrary complex constants
a, b. See also [Ts1994].
Hartree
equation
[Sketchy! More to come later. Contributions are of course very
welcome and will be acknowledged. - Ed.]
The Hartree equation is of the form
i ut + D u = V(u) u
where
V(u) = +
|x|^{-n} * |u|2
and 0 < n < d. It can
thus be thought of as a non-local cubic Schrodinger equation; the cubic NLS is
in some sense a limit of this equation as n
-> n (perhaps after suitable normalization of the kernel |x|^{-n}, which would otherwise blow up). The
analysis divides into the short-range case n > 1, the long-range case 0 < n < 1, and the borderline (or critical)
case n=1. Generally speaking,
the smaller values of n are the hardest
to analyze. The + sign corresponds to defocusing nonlinearity, the - sign
corresopnds to focusing.
The H1 critical value of n
is 4, in particular the equation is always subcritical in four or fewer
dimensions. For n<4 one has
global existence of energy solutions. For n=4
this is only known for small energy.
In the short-range case one has scattering to solutions of the free
Schrodinger equations under suitable assumptions on the data. However
this is not true in the other two cases [HaTs1987].
For instance, in the borderline case, at large times t the solution usually
resembles a free solution with initial data y,
twisted by a Fourier multiplier with symbol exp(i V(hat{y}) ln t). (This can be seen formally by applying the
pseudo-conformal transformation, discarding the Laplacian term, and solving the
resulting ODE [GiOz1993]). This creates
modified wave operators instead of ordinary wave operators. A similar thing
happens when 1/2 < n < 1 but ln t
must be replaced by t^{n-1}/(n-1).
The existence and mapping properties of these operators is only partly
known:
- When n > 2 and n=1, the wave operators map \hat{Hs} to \hat{Hs}
for s > 1/2 and are continuous and open [Nak-p3] (see also [GiOz1993])
- For n>1 and n > 1 this is in [NwOz1992]
- In the defocusing
case, all solutions in suitable spaces have asymptotic states in L2,
and one has asymptotic completeness when n
> 4/3 [HaTs1987].
- For n < 1, n ³3, and 1 - n/2
< s < 1 this is in [Nak-p4]
- In the Gevrey and
real analytic categories there are some large data results in [GiVl2000], [GiVl2000b], [GiVl2001], covering the cases n< 1 and n >
1.
- For small decaying
data one has some invertibility of the wave operators [HaNm1998]
Maxwell-Schrodinger system in R3
This system is a partially non-relativistic analogue of the Maxwell-Klein-Gordon system., coupling a U(1)
connection Aa with a complex
scalar field u. The Lagrangian density is
\int Fab Fab
+ 2 Im u D0 u - Dj u Dj u
giving rise to the system of PDE
i ut = Dj
u Dj u/2 + A0 u
da Fab = Jb
where the current density Jb is given by
J0 = |u|^2; Jj = - Im u
Dj u
As with the MKG system, there is a gauge invariance for the connection; one
can place A in the Lorentz, Coulomb, or Temporal gauges (other choices are of
course possible).
Let us place u in H^s, and A in H^sigma x H^{sigma-1}. The lack of
scale invariance makes it difficult to exactly state what the critical
regularity would be, but it seems to be s = sigma = 1/2.
- In the Lorentz and Temporal
gauges, one has LWP for s >= 5/3 and s-1 <= sigma <= s+1,
(5s-2)/3 [NkrWad-p]
- For smooth data
(s=sigma > 5/2) in the Lorentz gauge this is in [NkTs1986] (this result works in all
dimensions)
- Global weak solutions are
known in the energy class (s=sigma=1) in the Lorentz and Coulomb gauges [GuoNkSr1996]. GWP is still
open however.
- Modified wave operators
have been constructed in the Coulomb gauge in the case of vanishing
magnetic field in [GiVl-p3], [GiVl-p5]. No smallness condition is
needed on the data at infinity.
- A similar result for
small data is in [Ts1993]
- In one dimension, GWP in
the energy class is known [Ts1995]
- In two dimensions, GWP for
smooth solutions is known [TsNk1985]
Quasilinear NLS (QNLS)
These
are general equations of the form
u_t = i a(x,t,u,Du) D^2 u + b_1(x,t,u,Du) Du +
b_2(x,t,u,Du) Du + first order terms,
where
a, b_1, b_2, and the lower order terms are smooth functions of all
variables. These general systems arise
in certain physical models (see e.g. [BdHaSau1997]). Also under certain conditions they can be
derived from fully nonlinear Schrodinger equations by differentiating the
equation.
In
order to qualify as a quasilinear NLS, we require that the quadratic form a is
real and elliptic. It is also natural to
assume that the metric structure induced by a obeys a non-trapping condition
(all geodesics eventually reach spatial infinity), as this is what is necessary
for the optimal local smoothing estimate to occur. For a similar reason it is useful to assume
that the magnetic field b_1 (or more precisely, the imaginary part of this
field) is uniformly integrable along lines in space in the time independent
case (for the time dependent case the criterion involves the bicharacteristic
flow and is more complicated, see [Ic1984]);
without this condition even the linear equation can be ill-posed.
A model example of QNLS is the equation
u_t = i (Delta – V(x)) u
– 2iu h’(|u|^2) Delta h(|u|^2) + i u g(|u|^2)
for smooth functions h,g.
·
When V=0 local existence for small data is known
in H^6(R^n) for n=1,2,3 [BdHaSau1997]
o Under
certain conditions on the initial data the LWP can be extended to GWP for n=2,3
[BdHaSau1997].
o For
large data, LWP is known in H^s(R^n) for any n and any sufficiently large s
> s(n) [Col2002]
·
For suitable choices of V LWP is also known for
H^infty(R^n) for any n [Pop2001]; this
uses the Nash-Moser iteration method.
In one dimension, the fully nonlinear Schrodinger equation has LWP in
H^infty(R^n) assuming a cubic nonlinearity [Pop2001b]. Other LWP results for the one-dimensional
QNLS have been obtained by [LimPo-p] using gauge transform arguments.
In general dimension, LWP for data in H^{s,2} for sufficiently large s has
been obtained in [KnPoVe-p] assuming non-trapping, and asymptotic flatness of
the metric a and of the magnetic field Im b_1 (both decaying like 1/|x|^2 or
better up to derivatives of second order).