Abstract
The paper is devoted to the classification of entire solutions to the Cahn–Hilliard equation \(-\Delta u=u-u^3-\delta \) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), with particular interest in those solutions whose nodal set is either bounded or contained in a cylinder. The aim is to prove either radial or cylindrical symmetry, under suitable hypothesis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We consider the entire equation
with \(f(u):=u-u^3\) and \(\delta \in \mathbb {R}\). This equation has a variational characterisation, indeed, if we consider it on a domain \(\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^N\), it arises as the Euler equation of the Ginzburg–Landau functional
under the mass constraint
which gives rise to the Lagrange multiplier \(\delta \). The interest in the minimisers u of \(E(\cdot p,\Omega )\) arises from the phase transitions theory. In other words, if two different fluids are mixed in a container \(\Omega \), the number u(x) represents the density of one of the two at x, in an equilibrium configuration. Here we take \(\delta \in (-\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}},\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\), so that the polynomial \(f_\delta (t):=t-t^3-\delta \) admits exactly 3 real roots
with \(z_2(\delta )\) satisfying \(\delta z_2(\delta )\ge 0\). The main results of the paper deal with symmetry properties of entire solutions to the Cahn–Hilliard equation (1.1).
Theorem 1
Let \(N\ge 2\), \(\delta \in (-\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}},\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a solution to (1.1) such that
- (1)
If \(\delta \in (-\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}},0]\), then \(u\equiv z_3(\delta )\).
- (2)
If \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\), then \(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric (not necessarily constant).
We note that, for \(\delta >0\), nontrivial bubble solutions are known to exist. This is an important difference with the case \(\delta \le 0\). Moreover, we will see that the zero level set of radial solutions is non empty. In particular, we have the following Corollary.
Corollary 2
Let \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a non constant solution to (1.1) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside a ball \(B_R\). Then the nodal set of \(u_\delta \) is a sphere.
This result agrees with the variational theory, which studies the asymptotic behaviour of the scaled functionals
as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). For instance, Modica proved that, if \(\varepsilon _k\) is a sequence of positive numbers tending to 0 and \(u_{\varepsilon _k}\) is a sequence of minimisers of \(E_{\varepsilon _k}(\cdot p,\Omega )\) under the constraint (1.3) such that \(u_{\varepsilon _k}\rightarrow u_0\) in \(L^1(\Omega )\), then \(u_0(x)\in \{\pm 1\}\) for almost every \(x\in \Omega \), and the boundary in \(\Omega \) of the set \(E:=\{x\in \Omega :\, u_0(x)=1\}\) has minimal perimeter among all subsets \(F\subset \Omega \) such that \(|F|=|E|\), where \(|\cdot p|\) denotes the volume (see [15], Theorem 1). Further \(\Gamma \)-convergence results relating \(E_\varepsilon (\cdot p,\Omega )\) to the perimeter can be found in [16]. Therefore, given a family \(\{u_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)}\) of minimisers under the constraint (1.3), their nodal set is expected to be close to a compact Alexandrov-embedded constant mean curvature surface, at least for \(\varepsilon \) small. Corollary 2, together with a scaling argument, shows that, for \(\varepsilon \) small enough, the nodal set of any entire solution to
in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) such that \(u>z_2(\varepsilon \ell )\) outside a ball is actually a sphere, which is known to be the unique compact Alexandrov-embedded constant mean surface in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) (see [1]).
After that, we set
and we consider solutions satisfying
The aim is to study their symmetry properties and their asymptotic behaviour as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\), with particular interest in solutions which have one periodicity direction.
Theorem 3
Let \(\{u_\delta \}_{\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})}\) be a family of non constant solutions to (1.1) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), with \(N\ge 2\). Assume furthermore that \(u_\delta \) is periodic in \(x_N\) and, for any \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\), there exists \(R(\delta )>0\) such that (1.7) is true. Then
- (1)
\(z_1(\delta )<u_\delta (x)<z_3(\delta )\), for any \(x\in \mathbb {R}^N\).
- (2)
\(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric in \(x'\).
- (3)
\(u_\delta \rightarrow -1\) as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) uniformly on compact subsets of \(\mathbb {R}^N\).
In view of the aforementioned \(\Gamma \)-convergence results, given a solution u to (1.6) satisfying (1.7), with \(\delta =\varepsilon \ell \), we expect its nodal set to be close to an Alexandrov-embedded constant mean curvature surface which is contained in a cylinder. This kind of surfaces are fully classified, at least the ones which are embedded in \(\mathbb {R}^3\), in fact it is known that the unique examples are the sphere and Delaunay unduloids, that is a family of non compact revolution surfaces obtained by rotating a periodic curve around a fixed axis in \(\mathbb {R}^3\), which can be taken to be the \(x_3\)-axis, parametrised by a real number \(\tau \in (0,1)\). We will denote the period of \(D_\tau \) by \(T_\tau \). For a detailed introduction of Delaunay surfaces, we refer to [12, 14]. For any \(\tau \in (0,1)\), Kowalczyk and Hernandez [11] constructed a family \(\{u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }\}_{\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)}\) of solutions to (1.6) in \(\mathbb {R}^3\), with \(\ell =\ell _\varepsilon \) depending on \(\varepsilon \), such that
- (1)
\(\ell _\varepsilon \) is positive and bounded uniformly in \(\varepsilon \).
- (2)
\(u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }\) is radially symmetric in \(x'\).
- (3)
\(u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }(x)\rightarrow \pm 1\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), uniformly on compact subsets of \(\Omega _\tau ^\pm \), where \(\Omega _\tau ^\pm \) denote the exterior and the interior of the Delaunay surface \(D_\tau \), respectively.
- (4)
\(u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }(x',x_3)\rightarrow z_3(\varepsilon \ell _\varepsilon )\) as \(|x'|\rightarrow \infty \), uniformly in \(x_3\).
- (5)
\(u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }\) is periodic in \(x_3\) of period \(T_\tau \).
We observe that the solutions \(u_{\varepsilon ,\tau }\) constructed in [11] are actually negative outside a cylinder, however, in order to obtain the aforementioned family, thanks to the oddness of f, it is enough to replace them with \(-u_{\varepsilon ,\tau }\). An interesting question is uniqueness. In other words, we are interested in the following question.
Question 4
(Uniqueness) Let \(\varepsilon _0>0\), \(\tau \in (0,1)\) and let v be a non constant solution to (1.6) in \(\mathbb {R}^3\) with \(\ell =\ell _\varepsilon \), for \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)\). Assume in addition that
\(\ell _\varepsilon \) is bounded uniformly in \(\varepsilon \).
v is periodic in \(x_3\), with period \(T_\tau \).
\(v>z_2(\varepsilon \ell _\varepsilon )\) outside a ball \(B_R\).
Is it true that \(v=u_{\varepsilon ,\tau }\), at least if \(\varepsilon _0\) is small enough?
This would be the counterpart of Corollary 2 for periodic solutions. For now we are not able to give a full answer to this question. However Theorem 3 is a first step in this direction, since it proves that any family \(\{v_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)}\) of such solutions has to share many properties with the family \(\{u_{\tau ,\varepsilon }\}_{\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)}\) constructed by Hernandez and Kowalczyk. For instance, for \(\varepsilon \) small, \(v_\varepsilon \) has to satisfy (1), (2), (3) and the scaled functions \(v_\varepsilon (\varepsilon x)\) tend to \(-1\) uniformly on compact subsets of \(\mathbb {R}^N\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\).
The plan of the paper is the following. In Sect. 2 we will state some quite general results, of which the Theorems stated in the introduction are consequences. Section 3 is devoted to the proofs. It is divided into three subsections, dedicated to prove global boundedness, radial symmetry and the asymptotic behaviour for \(\delta \) small respectively.
2 Some relevant results
In this section we state some results that are proved in Sect. 3. First we prove boundedness of solutions, which holds irrespectively of the sign of \(\delta \).
Proposition 5
Let \(\delta \in (-\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}},\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\) and let \(u_\delta \in L^3_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) be a distributional solution to the Cahn–Hilliard equation (1.1). Then
a. e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N\).
Remark 6
-
Using Proposition 5, standard elliptic estimates (see [10], Theorem 8.8 and Corollary 6.3) and a bootstrap argument, it is possible to show that any distributional solution \(u\in L^3_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^3)\) is actually in \(C^\infty (\mathbb {R}^N)\). This parallels the regularity result proved in [6] for the Allen–Cahn equation.
-
It follows from the strong maximum principle that either \(u_\delta \) is constant, and in this case it has to be either \(z_1(\delta )\), or \(z_2(\delta )\) or \(z_3(\delta )\), or it satisfies \(z_1(\delta )<u_\delta <z_3(\delta )\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\).
We observe that Proposition 5 and Remark 6 prove point (1) of Theorem 3, which is actually true for any non constant entire solution. After that, we rule out the case \(\delta \le 0\), in which only constant solutions are allowed.
Proposition 7
Let \(u_\delta \) be a solution to (1.1) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), with \(-\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}<\delta \le 0\) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside a stripe \(\{x\in \mathbb {R}^N:\,|x_N|<L\}\). Then \(u_\delta \equiv z_3(\delta )\).
We stress that the latter result proves point (1) of Theorem 1 and agrees with the sign of \(\delta \) obtained by Hernández and Kowalczyk in [11]. Using boundedness and the famous result by Gidas et al. [9], or Theorem 2 of [7], which relies on the moving planes method, we can prove this symmetry result.
Proposition 8
Let \(\delta \in (0,2/3\sqrt{3})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a non constant solution to (1.1) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside a ball \(B_R\), for some \(R>0\). Then
\(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric, that is, up to a translation, \(u_\delta (x)=w_\delta (|x|)\).
\(u_\delta \) is radially increasing, in the sense that \((\nabla u_\delta (x),x)> 0\), for any \(x\in \mathbb {R}^N\backslash \{0\}\).
Proposition 8 proves point (2) of Theorem 1. More precisely, it is known that, for \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\), the problem
admits a unique solution which is radially symmetric (see [4, 17, 18]), that is \(v_\delta (x)=w_\delta (|x|)\). In view of this fact, we can actually prove the following classification result.
Proposition 9
Let \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a non constant solution to (1.1) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside a ball \(B_R\). Then, up to a translation, \(u_\delta =v_\delta \).
In the sequel, we will use the notation \(W_\delta (t):=W(t)+\delta t\).
Remark 10
It is possible to see that, for any \(\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\), there exists \(R(\delta )>0\) such that \(w_\delta (R(\delta ))=0\). In fact, the energy
is strictly decreasing, since
Thus, using that, by Proposition 8, \(v_\delta \) is decreasing,
which yields that \(w_\delta (0)<0\).
In particular, in view of Remark 10, which yields that the nodal set of \(v_\delta \) is neither empty nor a singleton, Corollary 2 is true.
Considering solutions that are approaching a positive limit just with respect to \(N-1\) variables, we can prove the following.
Proposition 11
Let \(\delta \in (0,2/3\sqrt{3})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a non constant solution to (1.1) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside a cylinder \(C_R\), for some \(R>0\). If \(u_\delta \) is periodic in \(x_N\), then
\(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric in \(x'\), that is, up to a translation, \(u_\delta (x)=w_\delta (|x'|,x_N)\).
\(u_\delta \) is radially increasing, in the sense that \((\nabla u_\delta (x), (x',0))> 0\), for any \(x=(x',x_N)\in \mathbb {R}^N\backslash \{0\}\).
We note that this proves point (2) of Theorem 3. Even in this case, our result agrees with the construction of [11], where the authors prove the existence of a family of solutions fulfilling the symmetries of the Delaunay surface \(D_\tau \), hence, in particular they are periodic in \(x_N\), radially symmetric and radially increasing in \(x'\). Here we show that any periodic solution has to be radially symmetric and radially increasing in \(x'\). Finally, in order to prove point (3) of Theorem 3, we need the following result, which shows that the phase transition has to be complete.
Proposition 12
For any \(\epsilon >0\) there exists \(\delta _0\in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})\) such that, for any \(\delta \in (0,\delta _0)\) and for any non constant solution \(u_\delta \) to (1.1) satisfying \(\sup _{\mathbb {R}^N}u_\delta =z_3(\delta )\), we have
This result somehow parallels Lemma 2.5 of [8]. The proof relies on both the moving planes and the sliding method. For a detailed proof of point (3) of Theorem 3, we refer to Sect. 3.
3 The proofs
3.1 Boundedness
In order to prove boundedness for distributional solutions to (1.1), we will rely on a result proved by Brezis [2].
Lemma 13
(Brezis–Kato inequality) Let \(p>1\) and assume that \(v\in L^p_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^k)\) satisfies
Then \(v\le 0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N\).
Now we prove Proposition 5.
Proof
Writing \(-f_\delta (t)=(t-z_1(\delta ))(t-z_2(\delta ))(t-z_3(\delta ))\) and setting
we have
thus
where \(\chi _{\{w>\beta \}}\) denotes the characteristic function of the set \(\{\in \mathbb {R}^N:\, w(x)>\beta \}\). By the Kato–Brezis inequality (see Lemma 13), we have \(w\le \beta \). The same argument applied to \((\alpha -w)^+\) gives the lower bound \(w\ge \alpha \). \(\square \)
Remark 14
A similar argument is used in [5] to prove boundedness for solutions to a class of vectorial equations of the form
with \(0<k_1<\cdots <k_n\). The scalar Allen–Cahn equation is included in this class. Here we prove that a similar result is true for a slightly different non linearity, due to the presence of \(\delta \).
Now we can prove Proposition 7, using boundedness and a result of [6] where non-existence f ground states for some special non linearies is proved.
Proof
By Lemma 13, \(z_1(\delta )\le u_\delta \le z_3(\delta )\), in particular, since \(\delta \le 0\), \(|z_1(\delta )|\le z_3(\delta )\), hence \(|u_\delta |\le z_3(\delta )\). By Lemma 15, \(u_\delta \rightarrow z_3(\delta )\) as \(x_1\rightarrow \pm \infty \), the limit being uniform in \(x'\). Moreover, setting \(f_\delta (t):=f(t)-\delta \), we have
\(f_\delta (t)\ge 0\), \(\forall \,t\in (0,z_3(\delta ))\),
\(f_\delta (t)+f_{-\delta }(t)=-2\delta \ge 0\), \(\forall \,t\in (0,z_3(\delta ))\),
\(f_\delta (t)\) is non increasing in a left neighbourhood of \(z_3(\delta )\).
Therefore, by Theorem 4.2 of [6], \(u_\delta \equiv z_3(\delta )\). \(\square \)
3.2 Radial symmetry
The aim of this subsection is to prove Proposition 11. In order to do so, we need some decay at infinity of the solution. From now on, we denote the variables by \(x:=(x_1,x'')\in \mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}^{N-1}\). For \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\), we set
This changing of notation is justified by the fact that several times this section \(x_N\) is the periodicity variable, hence we are not allowed to start the moving planes in that direction.
Lemma 15
Let \(u_\delta \) be a solution to (1.1). Assume furthermore that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) in the half-space \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _\lambda \), for some \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\). Then
Proof
The statement is trivial if \(u_\delta \) is constant (see Remark 6), hence we can assume that it is non constant. We apply Lemma 2.3 of [6] to \(w:=u_\delta -z_2(\delta )\) in the half space \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _\lambda \), where, by Lemma 13, \(0<w<\beta \). This is possible since the non linearity \(g(t):=-t(t-\alpha )(t-\beta )\) is positive in \((0,\beta )\) and \(g'(0)>0\). We recall that the constants \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) are defined in the Proof of Proposition 5. The conclusion is that
and the limit is uniform in the other variables. \(\square \)
Using the fact that \(f'(z_3(\delta ))<0\), we can actually prove a better result about the decay rate of \(z_3(\delta )-u_\delta \).
Lemma 16
Let \(u_\delta \) be a solution to (1.1) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) in the half space \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _\lambda \), for some \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\). Then, for any \(\gamma \in (0,\sqrt{-f'(z_3(\delta ))})\), there exists a constant \(C(\gamma )>0\), depending on \(\gamma \), such that
Proof
We compare the bounded function \(v:=z_3(\delta )-u_\delta \) with the barrier \(\mu e^{-\gamma x_1}\), for \(\gamma \in (0,\sqrt{-f'(z_3(\delta ))})\), in the half-space \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _M\), with \(M>0\) large enough. In fact, on \(\partial (\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _M)\), we have
provided \(\mu \ge \Vert v\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {R}^N)}e^{\gamma M}\). Note that here we use the fact that \(v\in L^\infty \), which is true by Lemma 13. Moreover, setting \(h_\delta (v):=-f_\delta (z_3(\delta )-v)\), we have \(h_\delta (0)=-f_\delta (z_3(\delta ))=0\) and \(h'_\delta (0)=f'(z_3(\delta ))<0\), thus
in \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _M\) if M is large enough, since, by Lemma 15, \(z_3(\delta )-v\) is decaying as \(x_1\rightarrow \infty \), uniformly with respect to \(x''\). Thus, by the maximum principle for possibly unbounded domains (see Lemma 2.1 of [3]), we conclude that (3.4) is true in \(\mathbb {R}^N\backslash \Sigma _M\). Changing, if necessary, the constant \(C(\gamma )\), the required inequality is fulfilled in the whole space. \(\square \)
Now we prove Proposition 8
Proof
By Proposition 5, \(z_1(\delta )<u_\delta <z_3(\delta )\) and, by Remark 6, \(u_\delta \) is smooth. By Lemma 15, it converges to \(z_3(\delta )\) as \(|x|\rightarrow \infty \), therefore, by the famous symmetry result by [9], or by Theorem 2 of [7], we conclude that \(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric and radially decreasing. \(\square \)
Now we prove Proposition 9.
Proof
Since, by Proposition 8, \(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric and radially decreasing, then, up to translation, we have \(u_\delta (0)=\min _{\mathbb {R}^N} u_\delta \). Since, by Lemma 15, \(u_\delta (x)\rightarrow z_3(\delta )\) as \(|x|\rightarrow \infty \), then it solves (2.1), therefore, by uniqueness, \(u_\delta =v_\delta \). \(\square \)
In order to prove Proposition 11, we need to apply Theorem 2 of [7], which we recall, for the reader’s convenience.
Theorem 17
([7]) Let \(v>0\) be a bounded entire solution to
in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), with \(g\in C^1(\mathbb {R})\) such that \(g'(s)\le 0\) in \((0,\eta )\), for some \(\eta >0\). Writing \(x=(y,z)\in \mathbb {R}^M\times \mathbb {R}^{N-M}\), we assume that
\(v(y,z)\rightarrow 0\) as \(|y|\rightarrow \infty \), uniformly in z.
v is periodic in z.
Then v is radially symmetric in y, that is, up to a translation, \(v(y,z)=w(|y|,z)\), and radially decreasing in y, that is \(\partial _{y_j} v(y,z)<0\) for any \(x=(y,z)\in \mathbb {R}^M\times \mathbb {R}^{N-M}\) with \(y\ne 0\).
Proof
By Proposition 5, \(z_1(\delta )<u_\delta <z_3(\delta )\) and, by Remark 6, \(u_\delta \) is smooth. By Lemma 15, it converges to \(z_3(\delta )\) as \(|x'|\rightarrow \infty \), uniformly in \(x_N\). Since \(u_\delta \) is periodic, in order to conclude that it is radially symmetric in \(x'\) and radially decreasing, it is enough to apply Theorem 17 to \(v:=z_3(\delta )-u_\delta \). \(\square \)
3.3 The asymptotic behaviour for \(\delta \) small
First we show that if a solution lies between \(1/\sqrt{3}\) and \(z_3(\delta )\), then it is constant. This is proved by the moving planes method.
Lemma 18
Let \(\delta \in [0,2/3\sqrt{3})\) and let \(u_\delta \) be a solution to (1.1) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) such that \(u_\delta (x)\ge 1/\sqrt{3}\), for any \(x\in \mathbb {R}^N\). Then \(u_\delta \equiv z_3(\delta )\).
Proof
We set \(v:=z_3(\delta )-u_\delta \). Setting, for any \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\), \(v_\lambda (x):=v(2\lambda -x_1,x'')\), we have
In order to prove this fact, we assume by contradiction that there exists \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\) such that the open set \(\Omega _\lambda :=\{x\in \Sigma _\lambda :v-v_\lambda <0\}\) is nonempty, and we observe that, in any connected component \(\omega \) of \(\Omega _\lambda \) we have
due to the strict monotonicity of \(f_\delta \) in \([1/\sqrt{3},1)\) (for the definition of \(h_\delta \), see the Proof of Lemma 16). As a consequence, by the maximum principle for possibly unbounded domains, we have \(v-v_\lambda \le 0\) in \(\omega \), a contradiction.
By (3.5), we have \(\partial _{x_1}v\le 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\). The same argument applied to \({\tilde{v}}(x):=v(-x_1,x')\) implies that also \({\tilde{v}}\) satisfies (3.5), hence \(\partial _{x_1}v\ge 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), thus \(\partial _{x_1}v\equiv 0\). Composing v with any rotation of \(\mathbb {R}^N\), we conclude that v is a constant solution to (1.1), thus \(v\equiv 0\). \(\square \)
Given the double well potential \(W(t)=\frac{(1-t^2)^2}{4}\), \(0<\alpha <W(1/\sqrt{3})=\frac{1}{9}\) and \(\delta \in (0,2/3\sqrt{3})\), we set
Moreover, we take a smooth cutoff function \(\chi :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow [0,1]\) such that \(\chi =1\) in \((-\infty ,-1)\) and \(\chi =0\) in \((0,\infty )\) and we set
We will denote \({\tilde{W}}:={\tilde{W}}_0\). It is possible to see that \({\tilde{W}}_\delta \) enjoys the following properties:
and
In the sequel, we will be interested in a solution to
for \(\delta \ge 0\) small enough and R large. This will be used as a barrier in the Proof of Proposition 12, which relies on a sliding method. This can be obtained in a variational technique, by minimising the functional
among all \(H^1(B_R)\) functions with trace \(z_1(\delta )\) on \(\partial B_R\). The case \(\delta =0\) is treated in Lemma 2.4 of [8].
Lemma 19
Let \(\delta _0>0\) be so small that \(W_\delta (z_3(\delta ))<\alpha /2\), for any \(\delta \in [0,\delta _0)\). Then, For any \(R>0\) and \(\delta \in [0,\delta _0)\), there exists a minimiser \(\beta _{R,\delta }\in C^2(B_R)\) of (3.11) among all functions with trace \(z_1(\delta )\) on \(\partial B_R\). Moreover, there exists \(R_0>0\) such that, for any \(R\ge R_0\) and for any \(\delta \in [0,\delta _0)\),
- $$\begin{aligned} z_1(\delta )<\beta _{R,\delta }(x)<z_3(\delta ), \quad \forall \, x\in B_R, \end{aligned}$$(3.12)
- $$\begin{aligned} \sup _{B_R}\beta _{R,\delta }>\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}, \end{aligned}$$(3.13)
there exists a solution \(\beta _R\) of (3.10) with \(\delta =0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \sup _{B_R}\beta _{R,\delta }\rightarrow \sup _{B_R}\beta _R\in [\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},1) \quad \text {as }\delta \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$(3.14)
Proof
Existence follows from coercivity and weak lower semi continuity. By the fact that \({\tilde{W}}_\delta \equiv \alpha \) in \((-\infty ,\mu (\delta ))\) and (3.8), we can see the minimiser actually has to satisfy \(z_1(\delta )\le \beta _{R,\delta }\le z_3(\delta )\), thus, due to the strong maximum principle, either (3.12) holds or \(\beta _{R,\delta }\equiv z_1(\delta )\).
Now we prove (3.13), which, in particular, shows that \(\beta _{R,\delta }> z_1(\delta )\) in \(B_R\), at least for \(R\ge R_0\). In order to do so, we assume that there exists a sequence \(R_k\rightarrow \infty \) and a sequence \(\delta _k\in [0,\delta _0)\) such that
It follows that, on the one hand
where \(\omega _N\) denotes the surface of \(S^{N-1}\). On the other hand, if, for \(R>1\) and \(\delta \in [0,\delta _0)\), we take \(w_{R,\delta }\) to be equal to \(z_1(\delta )\) on \(\partial B_R\) and to \(z_3(\delta )\) in \(B_{R-1}\) with \(|\nabla w_{R,\delta }|\) bounded uniformly in \(\delta \), we can see that there exists a constant \(C>0\) such that, for k large enough,
since \(\delta _k\in [0,\delta _0)\), hence \(W_{\delta _k}(z_3(\delta _k))<\alpha /2\). This contradicts the minimality of \(\beta _{R_k,\delta _k}\).
Finally we prove (3.14). In the forthcoming argument, \(R>0\) will always be arbitrary but fixed. We observe that, since \(\beta _{R,\delta }\) is bounded uniformly in \(R>0\) and \(\delta >0\), then any sequence \(\delta _k\rightarrow 0\) admits a subsequence, that we still denote by \(\delta _k\), such that \(\beta _{R,\delta _k}\) converges in \(C^2(B_R)\) to a solution \(\beta _R\) to
satisfying \(\beta _R=-1\) on \(\partial B_R\). Since the convergence is uniform and (3.12) holds, then
as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\). Moreover, by (3.13) and the strong maximum principle, \(\sup _{B_R}\beta _R\in [\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},1)\). \(\square \)
Now we can prove Proposition 12.
Proof
It is enough to prove that, if there exists a sequence \(\delta _k\rightarrow 0\), a sequence \(u_{\delta _k}\) of solutions to (1.1) and \(\nu >-1\) such that
then there exists a subsequence \(\delta _{k'}\) such that \(u_{\delta _{k'}}\equiv z_3(\delta _{k'})\).
Claim
For any \(\varepsilon >0\) and \(\rho >0\), there exists a subsequence, which we still denote by \(u_{\delta _k}\), and a sequence \(x^k\in \mathbb {R}^N\) such that
Since \(\sup _{\mathbb {R}^N}u_{\delta _k}=z_3(\delta _k)\), there exists \(x^k\in \mathbb {R}^N\) such that
Therefore the sequence \(u^k(x):=u_{\delta _k}(x+x^k)\) admits a subsequence converging, in \(C^2_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^N)\), to a solution \(u^\infty \) to the Allen–Cahn equation
By (3.19), we can see that \(u^\infty (0)=1\), thus \(u^\infty \equiv 1\). As a consequence, for any \(\varepsilon >0\) (small) and \(\rho >0\), there exists a subsequence (still denoted by \(u^k\)) such that
hence the claim is true.
In order to prove our result, we first observe that, by (3.13), for \(\delta _0\) small as in Lemma 19 and \(\delta \in (0,\delta _0)\), there exists \(R>0\) and a solution \(\beta _{R,\delta }\) to (3.10) such that
Moreover, by (3.14), there exists a solution \(\beta _R\) to
and \(\delta _1=\delta _1(R)>0\) such that, for any \(\delta \in (0,\delta _1)\), we have
As a consequence, for any \(\delta \in (0,{\bar{\delta }})\), where \({\bar{\delta }}={\bar{\delta }}(R):=\min \{\delta _0,\delta _1(R)\}\), we get
Now, applying the claim with \(\rho =R\) and
we can prove the existence of a subsequence, still denoted by \(u_{\delta _k}\), and a sequence \(x^k\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) such that
Sliding \(\beta _{R,\delta _k}\), with \(k\ge k_0\) fixed, we get the lower bound
In conclusion, by Lemma 18, \(u_{\delta _k}\equiv z_3(\delta _k)\). \(\square \)
Proposition 20
Let \(\delta \in (0,2/3\sqrt{3})\) and let \(\{u_\delta \}_{\delta \in (0,\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}})}\) be a family of non constant solutions to (1.1) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) such that
for any \(\delta \in (0,2/3\sqrt{3})\) there exists \(R(\delta )>0\) such that \(u_\delta >z_2(\delta )\) outside the cylinder \(C_{R(\delta )}\).
\(u_\delta \) is periodic in \(x_N\).
Then
and
Remark 21
We note that point (3) of Theorem 3 is a consequence of Proposition 20.
Proof
By Lemma 13, the family \(u_\delta \) is uniformly bounded, hence any sequence \(\delta _k\rightarrow 0\) admits a subsequence, that we still denote by \(\delta _k\), such that \(u_{\delta _k}\) converges in \(C^2_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) to a solution \(u^\infty \) to the Allen–Cahn equation (3.20). Since \(u_\delta \) are all non constant solutions, then, by Proposition 12, we have
By periodicity and Theorem 11, we know that, for \(\delta \) small, \(u_\delta \) is radially symmetric in \(x'\) and, up to a translation,
hence, passing to the limit, we get
which yields that \(u^\infty \equiv -1\), thus (3.24) holds.
In order to prove (3.25), we assume by contradiction that there exists \({\bar{R}}>0\) and a sequence \(\delta _k\rightarrow 0\) such that \(R(\delta _k)\le {\bar{R}}\). By (3.24), \(u_{\delta _k}\rightarrow -1\) uniformly in \(B^{N-1}_{2{\bar{R}}}\times [-1,1]\), thus, for k large enough,
if, for instance, \(x'_k=(2R(\delta _k),0)\in \mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}^{N-2}\), which contradicts the fact that \(u_{\delta _k}\) is radially increasing. \(\square \)
References
Alexandrov, A.D.: Uniqueness theorems for surfaces in the large. Am. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 21(2), 412–416 (1962)
Brezis, H.: Semilinear equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\) without conditions at infinity. Appl. Math. Optim. 12(3), 271–282 (1984)
Berestycki, H., Caffarelli, L., Nirenberg, L.: Monotonicity for elliptic equations in unbounded Lipschitz domains. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 50(11), 1089–1111 (1997)
Dancer, E.N.: A note on asymptotic uniqueness for some nonlinearities which change sign. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 61(2), 305–312 (2000)
Farina, A.: Finite energy solutions, quantisation effects and Liuoville-type results for a variant of the Ginzburg–Landau system in \({\mathbb{R}}^k\). Differ. Integral Equ. 11(6), 875–893 (1998)
Farina, A.: Rigidity and one-dimensional symmetry for semilinear elliptic equations in the whole of \(R^N\) and in half spaces. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 13(1), 65–82 (2003)
Farina, A., Malchiodi, A., Rizzi, M.: Symmetry properties of some solutions to some semilinear elliptic equations Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 16(4), 1209–1234 (2016)
Farina, A., Valdinoci, E.: 1D Symmetry for solutions of semilinear and quasilinear elliptic equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 363(2), 579–609 (2011)
Gidas, B., Ni, W.M., Nirenberg, L.: Symmetry of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^n\), Mathematical analysis and applications, Part A. Adv. Math. Suppl. Stud. 7, 369–402 (1981)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order Classics in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (2001). reprint of the 1998 edition
Hernández, Á., Kowalczyk, M.: Rotationally symmetric solutions to the Cahn–Hilliard equation. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 37(2), 801–827 (2017)
Jleli, M., Pacard, F.: An end-to-end construction for compact constant mean curvature surfaces. Pac. J. Math. 221(1), 81–108 (2005)
Kowalczyk, M., Rizzi, M.: Multiple Delaunay ends solutions of the Cahn–Hilliard equation. Accepted for publication by Communications in partial differential equations (2018)
Mazzeo, R., Pacard, F.: Constant mean curvature surfaces with Delaunay ends. Commun. Anal. Geom. 9(1), 169–237 (2001)
Modica, L.: The gradient theory of phase transitions and the minimal interface criterion. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 98(2), 123–142 (1987)
Modica, L., Mortola, S.: Un esempio di \(\Gamma \)-convergenza (Italian). Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B (5) 14(1), 285–299 (1977)
Peletier, L.A., Serrin, J.: Uniqueness of positive solutions of semilinear equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\). Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 81, 181–197 (1983)
Wei, J., Winter, M.: On the stationary Cahn–Hilliard equation: bubble solutions SIAM. J. Math. Anal. 29(6), 1492–1518 (1998)
Acknowledgements
Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by M. Del Pino.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The author was partially supported by Fondecyt postdoctoral research Grant 3170111 and Fondo Basal AFB170001 CMM-Chile. Moreover, the author is particularly grateful to his PhD advisor Alberto Farina for his crucial comments and remarks about this paper.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.