Abstract
We investigate a class of fractional linearly coupled Choquard systems. For the subcritical case and all critical cases, we prove the existence, nonexistence and symmetry of positive ground state solutions of systems, by using the Nehari manifold method, the Pohožaev identity and the Schwartz symmetrization rearrangements. In particular, we overcome the lack of compactness of the critical nonlinearities by using the behaviour of sufficiently small Nehari energy levels.
MSC:
35J65; 47J05; 47J30
1. Introduction
In this paper, we are interested in establishing existence and nonexistence results for the following coupled fractional, nonlinear Schrödinger systems with Choquard nonlinear terms:
where and are constants, is a parameter and is the Riesz potential, defined by
where is the gamma function.
Here, for any function in the Schwartz class, the fractional Laplacian is a nonlocal operator with defined by
where P.V. represents the Cauchy principal value on the integral and is some positive normalization constant (see [1] for details).
Our main goal here is to prove the existence of positive ground state solutions for the subcritical case and all critical cases. In the critical cases, the existence of positive ground state solutions will be related with the parameter . For the inferior or superior supercritical case, when or , we make use of a Pohožaev-type identity to prove that the system (1) does not admit a nontrivial solution.
Note that when , , , , and , system (1) is known as the Choquard–Pekar equation:
In 1954, Pekar [2] studied the quantum theory of a polaron at rest for Equation (2). In 1976, Choquard [3] used this equation as an approximation to the Hartree–Fock theory of one-component plasmas. In particular, it was studied as a self-gravitational collapse model for quantum mechanical wave functions by Penrose [4] in 1996 (see also [5]). Furthermore, in the case of , where , the existence and qualitative results of power-type nonlinearities within [6,7,8,9,10] were studied by using the variational method. In the spirit of H. Berestycki and P.L. Lions [11], under the almost necessary assumption of nonlinearity F, Moroz and Schaftingen [12] argued for the existence of a ground state solution for the nonlinear Choquard equation:
The scalar problem can, of course, be extended to the systems. Note that the following system
is the case of the system (1) with . When , the fractional Laplace operator introduced by Laskin [13] as an extension of the classical local Laplace operator in the study of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, replaces the path integral over Brownian motion with Lévy flights [14]. The operator has specific applications in a wide range of fields (see [1,10] and the references therein). In recent years, many researchers have begun to use the well-known Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality to study Choquard-type equations. Usually, is called the lower critical exponent, is the upper critical exponent in the sense of the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, and is the critical Sobolev exponent. When reaches zero, the systems (1) and (3) are reduced to the same single equation below:
In [15], we studied the existence of positive ground state solutions for a Choquard-type system (3) when and the asymptotic behavior of solutions when reaches zero (see [15], namely Theorem 1.1). Nonexistence results for the nontrivial solutions of system (3) were also obtained in the ranges and . Thus, a natural question is the following: What happens if in the subcritical case and in all critical cases? In order to answer this question, in this paper, we consider the existence result for the solutions of system (1) in the subcritical case and in all critical cases. We establish the main results of this paper in the following cases:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
“Subcritical” case, where ;
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
“Half-critical” case 1, where ;
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
“Half-critical” case 2, where ;
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
“Doubly critical” case, where ;
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
“Inferior or superior supercritical” case, where .
To the best of our knowledge, many studies on systems with Choquard terms have considered the case where in subcritical, critical or supercritical cases, whereas we study the case where p and q are not equal in a subcritical case as well as in all critical cases.
Outline of the Paper
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce some functional spaces and notations. The main results of this paper are given in Section 3. Some auxiliary results are given in Section 4, along with some basic properties of the Nehari manifold and energy functional , which play an important role in this paper. In Section 5, we obtain the existence of ground state solutions of the system (1) in the subcritical case and in all critical cases. In Section 6, we work on proving Theorem 3 using the Pohožaev identity type.
2. Functional Spaces and Notation
Throughout this paper, for any , we denote the norm of as . The Hilbert space is defined as
with the scalar product and norm given by
where
is the radial space of , defined by
with the norm.
Let
It is easy to obtain that and are equivalent norms in . We denote and . The norm of H is given by
The energy functional of (1) is
for all . Under the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, it is easy to obtain that and
for any .
In addition, is called a nontrivial solution of system (1) if and satisfies for any . A nontrivial solution of system (1) is called a positive ground state solution if , and
In order to find the positive ground state solutions of system (1), we introduce the Nehari manifold:
Under the Nehari manifold constraint, we investigate the existence of critical points of , which are defined in Equation (4). We define
3. Main Results
We now give the results for the existence of the subcritical case:
Theorem 1.
Suppose that and p, q satisfy (). Then, system (1) possesses a positive radial ground state solution with for any .
Our second main result concerns the existence of positive ground state solutions for all critical cases:
Theorem 2.
Suppose that and p, q satisfy (), () or (). Then, there exists such that system (1) has a positive radial ground state solution that holds for any and .
By using the Pohožaev identity, we can obtain the following nonexistence result:
Theorem 3.
If p, q satisfies (), then the systems in system (1) has no nontrivial solution for any .
4. Preliminary Results
First of all, we recall the fractional Sobolev embedding lemma below:
Lemma 1
(see [10]). The space is continuously embedded into for every . The space is compactly embedded in for every .
Remark 1.
In particular, if , then we have that , with the space compactly embedded into .
The following Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality will be used frequently in this paper:
Lemma 2
(see [16]). Let , and be such that
For any and , we have
where the sharp constant is
Remark 2.
If and , then
Next, we present the results that are crucial in the proof of this paper:
Lemma 3
(see [17]). Assume that , and . Let be a sequence satisfying that weakly in as . Then, we have
Lemma 4
(see [18]). Let f, g and h be three non-negative Lebesgue measurable functions on . Let
Then, we obtain
where , and denote the symmetric radial decreasing rearrangement of f, g and h.
Next, we introduce the basic properties of the Nehari manifold and :
Lemma 5.
For all fixed values where , let . The following assertions hold:
- (1)
- There exists such that for any ;
- (2)
- ;
- (3)
- is a manifold;
- (4)
- If is a critical point of on , then , and is a critical point of .
Proof.
- (1)
- According to the definition of , using the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality in Equation (6) and Lemma 1, for any , we havewhere denotes the fractional Sobolev embedding constant and does not depend on u or v. Hence, we can deduce thatSince , then , and we obtain (1).
- (2)
- For any , we have thatWithout loss of generality, we may assume that , and the case where can be proven similarly. Since , it follows from (1) thatwhich implies and is coercive on .
- (3)
- Consider the functional defined byObviously, . If , then we haveHere, we also assume that , and the case where can be proven similarly. By combining (1) with , we see thatHence, is a manifold.
- (4)
- If is a critical point of on , then is a solution to the optimization problemUnder Lagrange multiplier theory, we know that there exists a constant such that . Thus, we find
□
Lemma 6.
Let and . For any , there exists a unique such that
Proof.
For a fixed , let the function be defined as . It is easy to see that . Notice that if and only if is a positive critical point of . Since , we have
for all . Moreover, and
Thus, when is sufficiently large, we conclude that . On the other hand, through Lemma 1, Equation (6) and , we obtain that
provided that is sufficiently small, where and denote the fractional Sobolev embedding constants. Thus, by combining , we find that has its maximum points in . Suppose the maximum points of are not unique (i.e., there exists , with such that ), since every critical point of satisfies
which implies that
Thus, , and we find a contradiction. □
Lemma 7.
If , then as .
Proof.
Since as , we deduce that as . □
Lemma 8.
Let . For a given , there exists such that , which holds for all .
Proof.
Under Lemma 6, if , then there exists such that . Hence, we have
By combining Lemma 7 and Equation (11), we have that as . Thus, there exists such that
for all . □
Lemma 9
(see [17]). If we let , then
where θ, satisfying and , denotes the optimal constant depending only on α, N and s.
Lemma 10.
Let be the constant defined by
where is the critical index in the sense of the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, in which .
Proof.
Notice that if we let , then under the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality in Equation (5), we obtain
where and . If we let , then we have that and
where
In light of Lemma 9, we have
Hence, under the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality in Equation (13), we can see that
The proof is thereby complete. □
Lemma 11.
Let be the constant defined by
Then, .
Proof.
The proof is similar to that for Lemma 10, and thus we omitted it here. □
5. Ground State Solutions
First, we investigate the existence of positive ground state solutions in the subcritical case.
Proof of Theorem 1.
The proof of Theorem 1 can be given by modifying the proof of Theorem 1.1 in [15]. Since we consider the case where in this paper, our proof for the existence of a positive radial ground state solution in the subcritical case differs in two places from the proof of Theorem 1.1 in [15]. One is that if is a minimizing sequence for , specifically such that , then we claim that there exists such that . Here, we consider only the case where . In fact, the case where can be proven in a similar fashion. By contradiction, assume that , and we find that
Hence, we have
Since , we have that . This is a contradiction, and thus .
Next, similar to the proof in [15], we can also prove that the minimizing sequence is bounded, non-negative and radial and that there exists with and such that up to the subsequences, weakly in H. In light of Lemma 3, we have that or . By combining Lemma 3 and the Fatou lemma, we obtain
Under Lemma 6, there is such that . We claim that . The proof about the claim here is different from that in [15]. By contradiction, assume that . Due to , we obtain
Thus, we have
which is a contradiction. Similar to the proof of Theorem 1.1 in [15], we can obtain that and is a positive and radial ground state solution of system (1). □
Next, we consider the existence of positive ground state solutions in the all critical cases.
Proof of Theorem 2.
By using Ekeland’s variational principle (see [19]), we can obtain a minimizing sequence of satisfying
Since is coercive on , we have that is bounded in H. In light of Lemma 6, there exists such that . Thus, we have
Therefore, we can assume that and . Let and denote the symmetric decreasing rearrangement of and , respectively. Under Lemma 4 with , and , we have
Similarly, we obtain
In addition, the following is well known (see Theorem 3 in [20]):
Under the Hardy–Littlewood inequality and Riesz rearrangement inequality (see [20]), we have
Therefore, we can further assume that . Since is bounded in H, there exists where and such that up to the subsequences, weakly in H. Moreover, we can also assume that , almost everywhere in and the minimizing sequence is bounded in . In fact, since max , by taking with max , we deduce that
Thus, up to a subsequence, weakly in .
Through the standard density arguments, . If , then and . Furthermore, according to Fatou’s lemma, we can obtain
This implies that is a non-negative radial ground state solution to the system (1). Since system (1) has no semi-trivial solution, and in particular are not solutions to system (1). We deduce that is a positive and radial ground state solution of system (1).
Next, we prove that when is sufficiently close to N. We divide the remainder of the proof into three cases:
- Case 1.
- Suppose that p, q satisfies (). We can further assume that , and the case of is similar. In light of Lemmas 7 and 10, there exists such thatWe claim that . Next we argue by contradiction while assuming that . It is clear from Lemma 3 thatWith Equation (22), we can obtainSince , we deduce thatHence, we conclude thatThus, , which is a contradiction with Equation (20). Therefore, in this case, we conclude that .
- Case 2.
- Suppose that p, q satisfies (). Similar to case 1, in case 2, we still assume that . Notice thatholds for all . Hence, we haveIt follows from Lemma 8, Equation (14) and that there exists such thatFor this case, assume by contradiction that . In light of Lemma 3, we haveDue to , we haveThus, we find thatBased on the inequality above, we find thatHence, we have , which is a contradiction with Equation (26). Therefore, we conclude that .
- Case 3.
- Suppose that p, q satisfies (). Without loss of generality, we still assume that . It follows from Lemma 8 that there exists such thatfor all . By combining Equations (12), (14) and (15), we have thatwhich, together with Equations (24) and (25), implies thatFurthermore, we observe thatwhich means thatWe can similarly deduce that
□
6. Nonexistence
In this section, we obtain a nonexistence result based on the following Pohožaev identity type:
Lemma 12.
Let and be any solution of system (1). Then, satisfies the following Pohožaev identity:
Proof.
The proof is similar to the argument of Theorem 1.13 in [17], and thus we omitted it here. □
Proof of Theorem 3.
We divide the proof into two cases:
□
Author Contributions
Investigation, H.L. and K.O.; writing—–review and editing, H.L. and K.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The authors declare that no funding was received for this article.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Nezza, E.D.; Palatucci, G.; Valdinoci, E. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 2012, 136, 512–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Pekar, S. Untersuchungüber die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle; Akademie Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Lieb, E.H. Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard nonlinear equation. Stud. Appl. Math. 1977, 57, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Penrose, R. On gravity role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 1996, 28, 581–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Penrose, R. Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction. R. Soc. Lond. Philos. Trans. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 1998, 356, 1927–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ackermann, N. On a periodic Schrödinger equation with nonlocal superlinear part. Math. Z. 2004, 248, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cassani, D.; Zhang, J. Choquard-type equations with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev upper-critical growth. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 2019, 8, 1184–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lenzmann, E. Well-posedness for semi-relativistic Hartree equations of critical type. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 2007, 2, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ma, L.; Zhao, L. Classification of positive solitary solutions of the nonlinear Choquard equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2010, 195, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ma, P.; Zhang, J. Existence and multiplicity of solutions for fractional Choquard equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2017, 164, 100–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Berestycki, H.; Lions, P.L. Nonlinear scalar field equations. I. Existence of a ground state. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 1983, 82, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Moroz, V.; van Schaftingen, J. Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2015, 367, 6557–6579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Laskin, N. Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals. Phys. Revh. 2000, 268, 56–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Applebaum, D. Lévy processes: From probability to finance and quantum groups. Notices Am. Math. Soc. 2004, 51, 1336–1347. [Google Scholar]
- OuYang, K.; Wei, Y.; Lu, H. Positive ground state solutions for a class of fractional coupled Choquard systems. AIMS Math. 2023, 8, 15789–15804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Chen, P.; Liu, X. Ground states of linearly coupled systems of Choquard type. Appl. Math. Lett. 2018, 84, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- d’Avenia, P.; Siciliano, G.; Squassina, M. On fractional Choquard equations. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 2015, 25, 1447–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lieb, E.H.; Loss, M. Analysis. In Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 2nd ed.; American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, USA, 2001; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
- Willem, M. Minimax Theorems; Birkhäser: Boston, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Baernstein, A. A unified approach to symmetrization. In Partial Differential Equations of Elliptic Type; Symposia Mathematica; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, CA, USA, 1994; Volume 35, pp. 47–91. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).