Abstract
In this paper, we study the fractional critical Schrödinger–Poisson system
having prescribed mass
where \( s, t \in (0, 1)\) satisfy \(2\,s+2t> 3, q\in (2,2^*_s), a>0\) and \(\lambda ,\mu >0\) parameters and \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\) is an undetermined parameter. For this problem, under the \(L^2\)-subcritical perturbation \(\mu |u|^{q-2}u, q\in (2,2+\frac{4\,s}{3})\), we derive the existence of multiple normalized solutions by means of the truncation technique, concentration-compactness principle and the genus theory. In the \(L^2\)-supercritical perturbation \(\mu |u|^{q-2}u,q\in (2+\frac{4\,s}{3}, 2^*_s)\), we prove two different results of normalized solutions when parameters \(\lambda ,\mu \) satisfy different assumptions, by applying the constrained variational methods and the mountain pass theorem. Our results extend and improve some previous ones of Zhang et al. (Adv Nonlinear Stud 16:15–30, 2016); and of Teng (J Differ Equ 261:3061–3106, 2016), since we are concerned with normalized solutions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In the last decade, the following time-dependent fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system
has attracted much attention, where \(\Psi : {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^3\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}, s,t\in (0,1), \lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}.\) It is well-known that, the first equation in (1.1) was used by Laskin (see [17, 18]) to extend the Feynman path integral, from Brownian-like to Lévy-like quantum mechanical paths. This class of fractional Schrödinger equations with a repulsive nonlocal Coulombic potential can be approximated by the Hartree–Fock equations to describe a quantum mechanical system of many particles; see, for example, Cho et al. [7], Lieb and Loss [20], Longhi [21], Molica Bisci [26], Di Nezza et al. [27] for more applied backgrounds on the fractional Laplacian.
When we look for standing wave solutions to (1.1), namely to solutions of the form \(\Psi (\tau , x) =(e^{-i\alpha \tau }u(x),\phi (x)), \alpha \in {\mathbb {R}},\) then the function \((u(x),\phi (x))\) solves the equation
Here \((-\Delta )^s\) is a nonlocal operator defined by
and P.V. stands for the Cauchy principal value on the integral, and \(C_s\) is a suitable normalization constant.
We note that, when \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\) is a fixed real number, there was a lot of attention in recent years on the system (1.2) for the existence and multiplicity of ground state solutions, bound state solutions and concentrating solutions, see for examples [34, 36, 37, 39] and references therein. Especially, Zhang et al. [39] considered the existence and asymptotical behaviors of positive solutions as \(\lambda \rightarrow 0^+\), for the fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system
where \(\lambda >0\) and g may be subcritical or critical growth satisfying the Berestycki–Lions conditions. In [31], Teng studied the existence of a nontrivial ground state solution for the nonlinear fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system with critical Sobolev exponent
where \(\mu \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\) is a parameter, \(1<q<2^*_s-1,~s,t\in (0,1)\) with \(2s+2t>3.\) The potential V satisfies some suitable hypotheses. By the monotonicity trick, concentration-compactness principe and a global compactness Lemma, the author establishes the existence of ground state solutions. Formally, system (1.1) with \(s=t=1\) can be regarded as the following classical Schrödinger–Poisson system
which appears in semiconductor theory [26] and also describes the interaction of a charged particle with the electrostatic field in quantum mechanics. The literature on the Schrödinger–Poisson system in presence of a pure power nonlinearity is very rich, we refer to [34, 36, 38] and references therein.
Alternatively, from a physical point of view, it is interesting to find solutions of (1.2) with prescribed \(L^2\)-norms, \(\alpha \) appearing as Lagrange multiplier. Solutions of this type are often referred to as normalized solutions. The occurrence of the \(L^2\)-constraint renders several methods developed to deal with variational problems without constraints useless, and the \(L^2\)-constraint induces a new critical exponent, the \(L^2\)-critical exponent given by
and the number \(\bar{q}\) can keep the mass invariant by the law of conservation of mass. Precisely for this reason, \(2 + \frac{4s}{3}\) is called \(L^2\)-critical exponent or mass critical exponent, which is the threshold exponent for many dynamical properties such as global existence, blow-up, stability or instability of ground states. In particular, it strongly influences the geometrical structure of the corresponding functional. Meanwhile, the appearance of the \(L^2\)-constraint makes some classical methods, used to prove the boundedness of any Palais–Smale sequence for the unconstrained problem, difficult to implement. In [22], Li and Teng proved the existence of normalized solutions to the following fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system:
where \(s \in (0,1), 2\,s+2t>3, \lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and \(f\in C^1({\mathbb {R}},{\mathbb {R}})\) satisfies some general conditions which contain the case \(f(u)\sim |u|^{q-2}u\) with \(q\in (\frac{4\,s+2t}{s+t},2+\frac{4\,s}{3})\cup (2+\frac{4\,s}{3},2^*_s)\), i.e., the nonlinearity f is \(L^2\)-mass subcritical or \(L^2\)-mass supercritical growth, but is Sobolev subcritical growth. In [37], Yang et al. showed the existence of infinitely many solutions \((u, \lambda )\) to (1.3) with subcritical nonlinearity \(\mu |u|^{q-2}u\), by using the cohomological index theory.
We note that, when \( s = t=1,\) problem (1.3), are related to the the following equation
Recently, Jeanjean and Trung Le [15] studied the existence of normalized solutions for (1.4) when \(\gamma >0\) and \(a>0\), both in the Sobolev subcritical case \(p\in (10/3, 6)\) and in the Sobolev critical case \(p=6,\) they showed that there exists a \(c_1>0\) such that, for any \(c\in (0, c_1),\) Eq. (1.4) admits two solutions \(u^+_c\) and \(u^-_c\) which can be characterized respectively as a local minima and as a mountain pass critical point of the associated energy functional restricted to the norm constraint. While in the case \(\gamma <0, a>0\) and \(p=6\) the authors showed that (1.4) does not admit positive solutions. Bellazzini et al. [4] proved that for \(c > 0\) sufficiently small, there exists a critical point which minimizes with prescribed \(L^2\)-norms. In [14], Jeanjean and Luo studied the existence of minimizers for with \(L^2\)-norm for (1.4), and they expressed a threshold value of \(c> 0\) separating existence and nonexistence of minimizers. In [32], Wang and Qian established the existence of ground state and infinitely many radial solutions to (1.4) with \(a|u|^{p-2}u\) replaced by a general subcritical nonlinearity af(u), by constructing a particular bounded Palais–Smale sequence when \(\gamma < 0, a > 0.\) In [23], Li and Zhang studied the existence of positive normalized ground state solutions for a class of Schrödinger-Bopp-Podolsky system. For more results on the existence and no-existence of normalized solutions of Schrödinger–Poisson systems, we refer to [2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 24, 35, 37] and references therein.
After the above bibliography review we have found only two papers [22, 37] considering the normalized solutions for the fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system by the prescribed mass approaches with the nonlinearity f(u), being Sobolev subcritical growth.
A natural question arises: How to obtain solutions to system (1.3) in presence of the nonlinear term \(f(u)=\mu |u|^{q-2}u+|u|^{2^*_s-2}u\), combining the Sobolev critical term with a subcritical perturbation?
The main contribution of this paper is to give an affirmative answer to this question and fill this gap. To be specific, in the present paper we aim to study the following fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system
having prescribed \(L^2\)-norm
where \(s, t \in (0, 1)\) satisfy \(2s+2t > 3, q\in (2,2^*_s)\) and \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\) is an undetermined parameter, \(\mu ,\lambda >0\) are parameters. For this purpose, applying the reduction argument introduced in [39], system (1.5) is equivalent to the following single equation
where
We shall look for solutions to (1.5)–(1.6), as a critical point of the action functional
restricted on the set
with \(\alpha \) being the Lagrange multipliers, Clearly, to each critical point \(u_a\in S_a\) of \(I_{\mu }|_{S_a}\), corresponds a Lagrange multiplier \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that \((u_a, \alpha )\) solves (1.7). In particular, if \(u_a\in S_a\) is a minimizer of problem
then there exists \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\) as a Lagrange multiplier and then \((u_a, \alpha )\) is a weak solution of (1.7). As far as we know, there is no result about the existence of normalized solutions for Schrödinger–Poisson system with a critical term in the current literature. For this aim, we shall focus our attention on the existence, asymptotic and multiplicity of normalized solutions for problem (1.5)–(1.6).
2 The main results
In this section we formulate the main results. We first deal with the existence of multiple normalized ground state solutions in the \(L^2\)-subcritical case: \(q\in (2,2+\frac{4s}{3})\). Secondly, we are concerned with the existence and asymptotic behavior of positive normalized ground state solutions of Schrödinger–Poisson system (1.7) in the \(L^2\)-supercritical case: \(q\in (2+\frac{4\,s}{3}, 2^*_s)\).
To state the main results, for \(\delta _{q,s}=3(q-2)/2qs\), we introduce the following constants:
where
and \(\Gamma _t\) is given in (3.3).
The first result is concerned with the multiplicity of normalized solutions for the \(L^2\)-subcritical perturbation, which can be formulated as
Theorem 2.1
Let \(\mu ,\lambda , a>0\), and \(q\in (2,2+\frac{4s}{3})\). Then, for a given \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\), there exists \(\beta >0\) independent of k and \(\mu ^*_k>0\) large, such that problem (1.5)–(1.6) possesses at least k couples \((u_j,\alpha _j)\in H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\times {\mathbb {R}}\) of weak solutions for \(\mu >\mu ^*_k\) and
with \(\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u_j|^2dx=a^2\), \(\alpha _j<0\) for all \(j=1,\ldots ,k\).
The second result of this paper is concerned with the existence and asymptotical behavior of normalized solutions for the \(L^2\)-supercritical perturbation when the parameters \(\lambda ,\mu >0\) are suitably small.
Theorem 2.2
Let \(q\in (2+\frac{4s}{3}, 2^*_s)\), assume that \(\mu ,a>0\) satisfy the following inequality
where \(\delta _{q,s}=3(q-2)/2qs.\) Then, there exists \(\Lambda ^*>0\) such that for \(0<\lambda <\Lambda ^*\), problem (1.5)–(1.6) possesses a positive normalized ground state solution \(u_{\alpha }\in H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) for some \(\alpha <0\).
Finally, we present an existence result of normalized solutions under the \(L^2\)-supercritical perturbation, when parameter \(\mu >0\) is large.
Theorem 2.3
If \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q<2^*_s \), there exists \(\mu ^*=\mu ^*(a)>0\) large, such that as \(\mu >\mu ^*\), problem (1.5)–(1.6) possesses a couple \((u_a,\alpha )\in H^{s}({\mathbb {R}}^3) \times {\mathbb {R}}\) of weak solutions with \(\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u_a|^2dx=a^2\), \(\alpha <0\).
Remark 2.1
-
(i)
Theorems 2.1–2.3 improve and complement the main results in [31, 39] in the sense that, we are concerned with the normalized solutions.
-
(ii)
Our studies improve and fill in gaps of the main works of [22, 30, 37], since we consider the existence of normalized solutions to (1.5)–(1.6) with Sobolev critical growth.
2.1 Remarks on the proofs
We give some comments on the proof for the main results above. Since the critical terms \(|u|^{2^*_s-2}u\) is \(L^2\)-supercritical, the functional \(I_{\mu }\) is always unbounded from below on \(S_a,\) and this makes it difficulty to deal with existence of normalized solutions on the \(L^2\)- constraint. One of the main difficulties that one has to face in such context is the analysis of the convergence of constrained Palais–Smale sequences: In fact, the critical growth term in the equation makes the bounded (PS) sequences possibly not convergent; moreover, the Sobolev critical term \(|u|^{2^*_s-2}u\) and nonlocal convolution term \(\lambda \phi ^t_u u\), makes it more complicated to estimate the critical value of mountain pass, and one has to consider how the interaction between the nonlocal term and the nonlinear term, and the energy balance between these competing terms needs to be controlled through moderate adjustments of parameter \(\lambda >0.\) Another difficulty is that sequences of approximated Lagrange multipliers have to be controlled, since \(\alpha \) is not prescribed; and moreover, weak limits of Palais–Smale sequences could leave the constraint, since the embeddings \(H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\hookrightarrow L^2({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) and also \(H^s_{\textrm{rad}}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\hookrightarrow L^2({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) are not compact.
To overcome these difficulties, we employ Jeanjean’s theory [13] by showing that the mountain pass geometry of \(I_{\mu }|_{S_a}\) allows to construct a Palais–Smale sequence of functions satisfying the Pohozaev identity. This gives boundedness, which is the first step in proving strong \(H^s\)-convergence. As naturally expected, the presence of the Sobolev critical term in (1.5) further complicates the study of the convergence of Palais–Smale sequences. To overcome the loss of compactness caused by the critical growth, we shall employ the concentration-compactness principle, mountain pass theorem and energy estimation to obtain the existence of normalized ground states of (1.5), by showing that, suitably combining some of the main ideas from [28, 29], compactness can be restored in the present setting.
Finally, let us sketch the ideas and methods used along this paper to obtain our main results. For the \(L^2\)-subcritical perturbation: \(q\in (2, 2+\frac{4s}{3})\), it is difficult to get the boundedness of the (PS) sequence by the idea of [13]. To get over this difficulty, we use the truncation technique; to restore the loss of compactness of the (PS) sequence caused by the critical growth, we apply for the concentration-compactness principle; and to obtain the multiplicity of normalized solutions of (1.5)–(1.6), we employ the genus theory. For the \(L^2\)-supercritical perturbation: \(q\in (2+\frac{4s}{3}, 2^*_s),\) we use the Pohozaev manifold and mountain pass theorem to prove the existence of positive ground state solutions for system (1.5)–(1.6) when \(\mu >0\) small. While if the parameter \(\mu >0\) is large, we employ a fiber map and the concentration-compactness principle to prove that the (PS) sequence is strongly convergent, to obtain a normalized solution of (1.5)–(1.6).
2.2 Paper outline
This paper is organized as follows.
-
Section 2 provides the main results, and Sect. 3 presents some preliminary results that will be used frequently in the sequel.
-
Section 4 presents the multiplicity of normalized ground state solutions for system (1.5)–(1.6) when \(q\in (2, 2+\frac{4s}{3})\), and finish the proof of Theorem 2.1.
-
Section 5 proves the existence of normalized positive ground state solutions for problem (1.5)–(1.6) when \(q\in (2+\frac{4s}{3}, 2^*_s),\) and Theorem 2.2 is proved if \(\mu ,\lambda >0\) are suitably small.
-
In Sect. 6 we give another existence result for problem (1.5)–(1.6) with \(q\in (2+\frac{4\,s}{3}, 2^*_s),\) when the parameter \(\mu >0\) is large, and finishes the proof of Theorem 2.3.
Notations. In the sequel of this paper, we denote by \(C,C_i > 0\) different positive constants whose values may vary from line to line and are not essential to the problem. We denote by \(L^p = L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) with \(1< p \le \infty \) the Lebesgue space with the standard norm \(\Vert u\Vert _p=\left( \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u|^pdx\right) ^{1/p}.\)
3 Preliminary stuff
In this section, we first give the functional space setting, and sketch the fractional order Sobolev spaces [27]. We recall that, for any \(s\in (0, 1),\) the nature functions space associated with \((-\Delta )^s\) is \(H:=H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) which is a Hilbert space equipped with the inner product and norm, respectively given by
The homogeneous fractional Sobolev space \(D^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) is defined by
a completion of \(C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) under the norm
where \(2^*_s=6/(3-2s)\) is the critical exponent. From Proposition 3.4 and 3.6 in [27] we have
The best fractional Sobolev constant S is defined as
The work space \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) is defined by
Let \({\mathbb {H}} = H\times {\mathbb {R}}\) with the scalar product \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{H}+\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{{\mathbb {R}}},\) and the corresponding norm \(\Vert (\cdot ,\cdot )\Vert ^2_{{\mathbb {H}}}=\Vert \cdot ,\cdot \Vert _{H}^2+|\cdot ,\cdot |_{{\mathbb {R}}}^2.\)
The following two inequalities play an important role in the proof of our main results.
Proposition 3.1
(Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality [20]) Let \(l,r>1\) and \(0<\mu <N\) be such that \(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{l}+\frac{\mu }{N}=2, f\in L^r({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) and \(h\in L^l({\mathbb {R}}^N)\). Then there exists a constant \(C(N,\mu ,r,l)>0\) such that
We recall the fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality.
Lemma 3.2
([11]) Let \( 0<s <1,\) and \(p\in (2, 2^*_s).\) Then there exists a constant \(C(p,s) = S^{-\frac{\delta _{p,s}}{2}}>0\) such that
where \(\delta _{p,s}=3(p-2)/2ps.\)
Lemma 3.3
(Lemma 5.1 [9]) If \(u_n\rightharpoonup u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), then
and
From Proposition 3.1, with \(l= r = \frac{6}{3+2t}\), then Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality implies that:
It is easy to enumerate that
where \(\bar{q}:=2+\frac{4s}{3}\) is the \(L^2\)-critical exponent.
Now, we introduce the Pohozaev mainfold associated to (1.7), which can be derived from [31].
Proposition 3.4
Let \(u\in H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) be a weak solution of (1.7), then u satisfies the equality
Lemma 3.5
Let \(u\in H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) be a weak solution of (1.7), then we can construct the following Pohozaev manifold
where
Proof
From Proposition 3.4, we know that u satisfies the Phohzaev identity as follows
Moreover, since u is the weak solution of system (1.7), we have
Combining with (3.4) and (3.5), we get
which finishes the proof. \(\square \)
Finally, we state the following well-known embedding result.
Lemma 3.6
([10]). Let \(N\ge 2.\) The embedding \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^N)\hookrightarrow L^p({\mathbb {R}}^N)\) is compact for any \(2< p < 2^*_s.\)
4 Proof of Theorem 2.1
In this section, we aim to show the multiplicity of normalized solutions to (1.5)–(1.6). To begin with, we recall the definition of a genus. Let X be a Banach space and let A be a subset of X. The set A is said to be symmetric if \(u\in A\) implies that \(-u \in A\). We denote the set
For \(A\in \Sigma \), define
and that \(\Sigma _k=\{A\in \Sigma : \gamma (A)\ge k\}\).
In order to overcome the loss of compactness of the (PS) sequences, we need to apply for the following concentration-compactness principle.
Lemma 4.1
([40]) Let \(\{u_n\}\) be a bounded sequence in \({D}^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) converging weakly and a.e. to some \(u \in {D}^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). We have that \(|(-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n|^2\rightharpoonup \omega \) and \(|u_n|^{2^*_s}\rightharpoonup \zeta \) in the sense of measures. Then, there exist some at most a countable set J, a family of points \(\{z_j\}_{j\in J}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^3\), and families of positive numbers \(\{\zeta _j\}_{j\in J}\) and \(\{\omega _j\}_{j\in J}\) such that
and
where \(\delta _{z_j}\) is the Dirac-mass of mass 1 concentrated at \(z_j \in {\mathbb {R}}^3\).
Lemma 4.2
([40]) Let \(\{u_n\}\subset {D}^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) be a sequence in Lemma 4.1 and define that
Then it follows that
and
For \(u\in S_{r,a}\), in view of Lemma 3.2, and the Sobolev inequality, one has that
where
Recalling that \(2<q<2+\frac{4s}{3}\), we get that \(q\delta _{q,s}<2\), and there exists \(\beta > 0\) such that, if \(\mu a^{q(1-\delta _{q,s})}\le \beta \), the function g attains its positive local maximum. More precisely, there exist two constants \(0<R_1<R_2<+\infty \), such that
Let \(\tau :{\mathbb {R}}^+\rightarrow [0,1]\) be a nonincreasing and \(C^\infty \) function satisfying
In the sequel, let us consider the truncated functional
For \(u\in S_{r,a}\), again by Lemma 3.2, and the Sobolev inequality, it is easy to see that
where
Then, by the definition of \(\tau (\cdot )\), when \(a\in (0,(\frac{\beta }{\mu })^{\frac{1}{q(1-\delta _{q,s})}})\), we have
In what follows, we always assume that \(a\in (0,(\frac{\beta }{\mu })^{\frac{1}{q(1-\delta _{q,s})}})\). Without loss of generality, in the sequel, we may assume that
and
Lemma 4.3
The functional \(I_{\mu ,\tau }\) has the following characteristics:
-
(i)
\(I_{\mu ,\tau } \in C^1\left( H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),{\mathbb {R}}\right) ;\)
-
(ii)
\(I_{\mu ,\tau }\) is coercive and bounded from below on \(S_{r,a}\). Moreover, if \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)\le 0\), then \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u\Vert _2\le R_1\) and \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)=I(u)\);
-
(iii)
\(I_{\mu ,\tau }|_{S_{r,a}}\) satisfies the \((PS)_c\) condition for all \(c<0,\) provided that \(\mu>\mu ^*_1>0\) large.
Proof
We can obtain conclusions (i) and (ii) by a standard argument. To prove item (iii), let \(\{u_n\}\) be a \((PS)_c\) sequence of \(I_{\mu ,\tau }\) restricted to \(S_{r,a}\) with \(c < 0\). By (ii), we see that \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert _2\le R_1\) for large n, and thus \(\{u_n\}\) is a \((PS)_c\) sequence of \(I|_{S_{r,a}}\) with \(c < 0\); i.e., \(I(u_n)\rightarrow c<0\) and \(\Vert I|'_{S_{r,a}}(u_n)\Vert \rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, \(\{u_n\}\) is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). Therefore, up to a subsequence, there exists \(u \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) such that \(u_n \rightharpoonup u\) in \( H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) and \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) for \(2<p<2^*_{s}\) and \(u_n(x) \rightarrow u(x)\) a.e. on \({\mathbb {R}}^3\). From \(2<q<2+\frac{4s}{3}<2^*_{s}\) and Lemma 3.3, we infer to
Moreover, we have that \(u\not \equiv 0\). Indeed, assume by contradiction that, \(u \equiv 0\), then \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u_n|^qdx=0\). From (4.8) and the definition of \(I_{\mu ,\tau }\), we infer that
which is absurd. On the other hand, setting the function \(\Theta (v): H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) by
it follows that \(S_a=\Theta ^{-1}(\{\frac{a^2}{2}\})\). Then, by Proposition 5.12 in [33], there exists \(\alpha _n\in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
Hence, we have that
where \(H^{-s}_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) is the dual space of \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). Thus, we have for \(\varphi \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), that
and if we choose \(\varphi =u_n\), we get
From (4.12), and the boundedness of \(\{u_n\}\) in \(D^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), we can deduce that \(\{\alpha _n\}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {R}}\). Then we can assume that, up to a subsequence, \(\alpha _n \rightarrow \alpha \) for some \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}.\) Then, by (4.11), we can derive that u solves the following equation
Indeed, for any \(\varphi \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), it follows by \(u_n \rightharpoonup u\) in \( H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) and \(\alpha _n \rightarrow \alpha \), that
as \( n\rightarrow \infty .\) Since \(\{|u_n|^{2^*_s-2}u_n\}\) is bounded in \(L^\frac{2^*_s}{2^*_s-1}({\mathbb {R}}^3), \{|u_n|^{q-2}u_n\}\) is bounded in \(L^\frac{2^*_s}{q-1}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and \(u_n(x)\rightarrow u(x)\) a.e. on \({\mathbb {R}}^3\), we obtain that
and so,
as \( n\rightarrow \infty .\) Recall from Lemma 3.3 that
Thus, we have
Therefore, u solves equation (4.13).
In the sequel, by the concentration-compactness principle, we can prove that
In fact, since \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert _2\le R_1\) for n large enough, by Lemma 4.1, there exist two positive measures, \(\zeta , \omega \in \mathcal {M}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), such that
as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, by Lemma 4.1, either \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(L_{loc}^{2^*_s}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) or there exists a (at most countable) set of distinct points \(\{x_j\}_{j\in J}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^3\) and positive numbers \(\{\zeta _j\}_{j\in J}\) such that
Moreover, there exist some at most a countable set \(J\subseteq {\mathbb {N}}\), a corresponding set of distinct points \(\{x_j\}_{j\in J}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^3\), and two sets of positive numbers \(\{\zeta _j\}_{j\in J}\) and \(\{\omega _j\}_{j\in J}\) such that items (4.1)–(4.3) holds. Now, assume that \(J\ne \emptyset .\) We split the proof into three steps.
Step 1. We prove that \(\omega _j=\zeta _j\), where \(\omega _j\), and \(\zeta _j\) come from Lemma 4.1.
Define \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^3 ) \) as a cut-off function with \(\varphi \in [0,1]\), \(\varphi \equiv 1\) in \(B_{1/2}(0)\), \(\varphi \equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^3{\setminus } B_1(0)\). For any \(\rho > 0\), define
By the boundedness of \(\{u_n\}\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), we have that \(\{\varphi _\rho u_n\}\) is also bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). Thus, one has that
It is easy to check that
where
and
For \(T_1\), by (4.16), we obtain
From Hölder’s inequality, we have
Analogously to the proof of Lemma 3.4 in [40], we obtain
and
Again by (4.16), we have
By the definition of \(\varphi _\rho \), and the absolute continuity of the Lebesgue integral, one has that
Thus, by Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.6, we have
Therefore,
Summing up, from (4.17)–(4.19) and (4.21), taking the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), and then the limit as \(\rho \rightarrow 0\), we arrive at
Step 2. We show that \(\omega _\infty =\zeta _\infty \), where \(\omega _\infty \) and \(\zeta _\infty \) are given in Lemma 4.2. Let \(\psi \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^3 ) \) be a cut-off function with \(\psi \in [0,1]\), \(\psi \equiv 0\) in \(B_{1/2}(0)\), \(\psi \equiv 1\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^3{\setminus } B_1(0)\). For any \(R> 0\), define
Using again the boundedness of \(\{u_n\}\) and \(\{ u_n\psi _R\}\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), we have
It is easy to derive that
where
and
For \(T_3\), by (4.16) and Lemma 4.2, we infer to
By virtue of Hölder’s inequality, we get
Combining the above proof, we conclude that
Hence,
By Lemma 4.2, we have
Analogous the proof of Lemma 3.3 in [40], we infer to
Moreover, we can obtain
Summing up, from (4.24)–(4.27), taking the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), and then the limit as \(R\rightarrow \infty \), we have
Step 3. We claim that \(\zeta _j=0\) for any \(j\in J\) and \(\zeta _\infty =0.\)
Suppose by contradiction that, there exists \(j_0\in J\) such that \(\zeta _{j_0}>0\) or \(\zeta _\infty >0\). Step 1, Step 2, and Lemmas 4.1, 4.2 imply that
and
Consequently, we get \( \zeta _{j_0}\ge S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\) or \(\zeta _{\infty }\ge S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\). If the former case occurs, we have
Taking the limit \( \rho \rightarrow 0\) in the last inequality, we get
which contradicts (4.9). If the last case happens, we have
Taking the limits \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and \( R\rightarrow \infty \) in (4.31), we infer to
which also contradicts (4.9). Therefore, \(\zeta _j=0\) for any \(j\in J\) and \(\zeta _\infty =0\). As a result, by Lemma 4.1, we obtain that \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(L_{loc}^{2^*_s}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\); while by Lemma 4.2, we know that \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(L^{2^*_s}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\).
Now, we prove there exists \(\mu ^*_1>0\) independently on \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that if \(\mu >\mu ^*_1\), the Lagrange multiplier \(\alpha <0\) in (4.13). Indeed, note that \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,s}\) and \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert _2\le R_1\), as can be seen from the previous proof of this lemma, and (3.2)–(3.3) that, there exists \(Q_1>0\) independently on n, such that
and
where \(Q_2=Q_2(s,t,R_1,a)>0.\) We define the constant
Recall by (4.13) and its Pohozaev identity \(P_{\mu }(u)=0\), we infer to
Now, if \(\mu >\mu ^*_1,\) we conclude from (4.35), that
Thus, from (4.36), we infer to \(\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\alpha _n=\alpha <0.\) Hence, taking into account (4.12), we derive
Since \(\alpha <0\) for \(\mu >\mu ^*_1\) large, we obtain by Fatou’s Lemma,
and from (4.37)–(4.38), one has
But by Fatou’s Lemma, we see that
Combining (4.39) with (4.40) we get
that is,
Thus, by (4.37) we have
Theerfore, \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) and \(\Vert u\Vert _2=a\). The proof is complete. \(\square \)
For \(\varepsilon >0\), we introduce the set
By the fact that \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)\) is continuous and even on \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), \(I^{-\varepsilon }_{\mu ,\tau }\) is closed and symmetric.
Lemma 4.4
For any fixed \(k \in {\mathbb {N}}\), there exists \(\varepsilon _k:=\varepsilon (k)>0\) and \(\mu _k:=\mu (k)>0\) such that, for \(0<\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _k\) and \(\mu \ge \mu _k\), one has that \(\gamma (I^{-\varepsilon }_{\mu ,\tau }) \ge k\).
The proof of Lemma 4.4 is similar to Lemma 3.2 in [1], so we omit it here.
In the sequel, we define the set
and by Lemma 4.3-(ii), we know that
for all \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\). To prove Theorem 2.1, we introduce the critical value, we define
Then, we can derive the following conclusion:
Lemma 4.5
If \(c = c_k = c_{k+1} = \cdot \cdot \cdot = c_{k+\ell }\), then one has \(\gamma (K_c)\ge \ell +1\). Especially, \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)\) admits at least \(\ell +1\) nontrivial critical points.
Proof
For \(\varepsilon >0\), it is easy to check that \(I^{-\varepsilon }_{\mu ,\tau }\in \Sigma \). For any fixed \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\), by Lemma 4.4, there exists \(\varepsilon _k:=\varepsilon (k)>0\) and \(\mu _k:=\mu (k)>0\) such that, if \(0<\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _k\) and \(\mu \ge \mu _k\), we have \(\gamma (I^{-\varepsilon _k}_{\mu ,\tau }) \ge k.\) Thus, \(I^{-\varepsilon _k}_{\mu ,\tau } \in \Sigma _k\), and moreover,
Assume that \(0> c = c_k = c_{k+1} = \cdot \cdot \cdot = c_{k+\ell }\). Then, by Lemma 4.3-(iii), \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)\) satisfies the \((PS)_c\)-condition at the level \(c < 0\). So, \(K_c\) is a compact set. By Theorem 2.1 in [1], or Theorem 2.1 in [16], we know that the restricted functional \(I_{\mu ,\tau }|_{S_a}\) possesses at least \(\ell +1\) nontrivial critical points. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 2.1
Let \(\mu \ge \mu ^*_k=\max \{\mu ^*_1,\mu _k\}\). From Lemma 4.3-(ii), we see that the critical points of \(I_{\mu ,\tau }(u)\) found in Lemma 4.5 are the critical points of \(I_{\mu }\), which completes the proof. \(\square \)
5 Proof of Theorem 2.2
From Lemma 3.5, we see that any critical point of \(I_{\mu }|_{S_a}\) belongs to \(\mathcal {P}_{a}\). Consequently, the properties of the manifold \(\mathcal {P}_{a}\) have relation to the mini-max structure of \(I_{\mu }|_{S_a}\). For \(u\in S_a\) and \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\), we introduce the transformation (e.g. [29]):
It is easy to check that the dilations preserve the \(L^2\)-norm such that \(\theta \star u\in S_a\), by direct calculation, one has
Lemma 5.1
Let \(u\in S_a,\) then
-
(i)
\(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}(\theta \star u)\Vert _2\rightarrow 0\) and \(I_{\mu } ((\theta \star u))\rightarrow 0\) as \(\theta \rightarrow -\infty \);
-
(ii)
\(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}(\theta \star u)\Vert _2\rightarrow +\infty \) and \(I_{\mu } ((\theta \star u))\rightarrow -\infty \) as \(\theta \rightarrow +\infty \).
Proof
A direct computation shows that
and
Notice that
by \(q>2\), we infer to
Hence, item (i) follows. Using \(2s + 2t > 3\), it is easy to obtain that \(\frac{3(2^*_{s}-2)}{2}>3-2t\), and conclusion (ii) holds. \(\square \)
Lemma 5.2
There exist \(K=K_a> 0 \) and \(\widetilde{a} > 0\) such that for all \(0< a < \widetilde{a },\)
where \(\mathcal {A}_a:= \{u\in S_{r,a}: \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3} |(-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u|^2dx\le K_a\}, ~~\mathcal {B}_a:= \{u\in S_{r,a}: \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3} |(-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u|^2dx =2 K_a\}.\)
Proof
By Lemma 3.2, we have for any \(q\in (2,2^*_s)\), that
By the Sobolev inequality (3.1), and (5.6), for \(u \in S_{r,a} \), we have
Let \(\Vert u\Vert ^2\le K_a\) and choose \(\theta >0\) such that \(\Vert (\theta \star u)\Vert ^2 =2 K_a\), here \(K_a\) will be determined later, set
then we get
where \(\gamma _1:=\frac{[2t+2s-3][6-q(3-2s)]+[3(q-2)-4s][4s+2t-3]}{4s(4s+2t-3)}\). If we take
with \(\gamma _2:=\frac{4s(4s+2t-3)}{[2t+2s-3][6-q(3-2s)]+[3(q-2)-4s][4s+2t-3]}\), then, we deduce by (5.8) that (5.5) holds. \(\square \)
By Lemma 5.2, we can deduce the following
Corollary 5.1
Let \(K_a, \widetilde{a}\) be given in Lemma 5.2, and \(u\in S_{r,a} \) with \(\Vert u\Vert ^2\le K_a\), then \(I_{\mu }(u)> 0.\) Furthermore, we have
Proof
As in the proof of Lemma 5.2, we have that
if \(\Vert u\Vert ^2\le K_a\), and the conclusion follows. \(\square \)
Next, we study the characterizations of the mountain pass levels for \(I(u,\theta )\) and \(I_{\mu }(u).\) Denote the closed set \(I_{\mu }^d:=\{u\in S_{r,a}: I_{\mu }(u) \le d \},\) and \( S_{r,a}:= H^s_{rad} ({\mathbb {R}}^3)\cap S_a.\)
Proposition 5.3
Under assumptions \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q < 2^*_s,\) define
where
and
where
then we have
Proof
Note that \(\Gamma _a\times \{0\}\subset \widetilde{\Gamma }_a,\) we see that \(\widetilde{c}_{\mu }(a)\le {c}_{\mu }(a).\) On the other hand, for \(\widetilde{\gamma }(t)=(\widetilde{\gamma }_1(t),\widetilde{\gamma }_2(t))\in \widetilde{\Gamma }_a\), we denote by \(\gamma (t)= \widetilde{\gamma }_1(t)\star \widetilde{\gamma }_2(t)\). Thus, \(\gamma (t)\in \Gamma _a,\) and so
which implies that \(\widetilde{c}_{\mu }(a)\ge {c}_{\mu }(a)>0,\) using Corollary 5.1. \(\square \)
Next, we show the existence of the \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence for \(I(u, \theta )\) on \(S_{r,a}\times {\mathbb {R}}\subset {\mathbb {H}}\). It is obtained by a standard argument using Ekeland’s variational principle and constructing pseudo-gradient flow, see Proposition 2.2 [13].
Proposition 5.4
Let \(\{h_n\}\subset \widetilde{\Gamma }_a\) satisfying that
then there exists a sequence \(\{(v_n, \theta _n)\}\subset S_{r,a} \times {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
-
(i)
\(I(v_n,\theta _n)\in [\widetilde{c}_{\mu }(a)-\frac{1}{n},\widetilde{c}_{\mu }(a)+\frac{1}{n}],\)
-
(ii)
\(\min _{t\in [0,1]}\Vert (v_n, \theta _n)-h_n(t)\Vert _{{\mathbb {H}}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\); and
-
(iii)
\(\Vert (I|_{S_{r,a}\times {\mathbb {R}}})'(v_n,\theta _n)\Vert \le \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}},\) that is,
$$\begin{aligned} |\langle I'(v_n,\theta _n),z\rangle _{{\mathbb {H}}^{-1}\times {\mathbb {H}}}|\le \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\Vert z\Vert _{{\mathbb {H}}}, \end{aligned}$$for all
$$\begin{aligned} z\in \widetilde{T}_{(v_n,\theta _n)} \triangleq \{(z_1, z_2)\in {\mathbb {H}}: \langle v_n, z_1\rangle _{L^2} = 0\}. \end{aligned}$$
It follows from the above proposition, we can obtain a special \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence for \(I_{\mu }(u)\) on \(S_{r,a}\subset H^s({\mathbb {R}}^3).\)
Proposition 5.5
Under the assumption \(2+\frac{4s}{3}< q < 2^*_s\), there exists a sequence \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) such that
-
(1)
\(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a)\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty ;\)
-
(2)
\(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty ;\)
-
(3)
\((I_{\mu }|_{S_{r,a}})'(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty ,\) i.e., \(\langle I_{\mu }'(u_n),z\rangle _{H^{-1}\times H}\rightarrow 0\), uniformly for all z satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}\Vert z\Vert _H\le 1, ~~\hbox {where}~~z\in T_{u_n}:=\{z\in H:~\langle u_n,z\rangle _{L^2}=0\} \end{aligned}$$
Proof
By Proposition 5.3, \(\widetilde{c}_{\mu }(a)={c}_{\mu }(a)\). Hence, we can take \(\{h_n = ((h_n)_1, 0)\}\in \widetilde{\Gamma }_a\) so as to
It follows from Proposition 5.4 that, there exists a sequence \(\{(v_n,\theta _n)\}\subset S_{r,a}\times {\mathbb {R}}\) such that as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), one has
Set \( u_n = \theta _n\star v_n.\) Then, \(I_{\mu }(u_n) = I(v_n, \theta _n),\) and by (5.9), item (1) holds. To prove conclusion (2), we utilize
which implies item (2) by (5.10). To show item (3), we set \(z_n\in T_{u_n}.\) Then,
Denote by \(\widetilde{z}_n(x) = e^{-\frac{3\,s}{2}}z_n(e^{-\theta _n}x),\) then we get
It is easy to check that
Therefore, we see that \((\widetilde{z}_n, 0)\in \widetilde{T}_{(v_n,\theta _n)}\). On the other hand,
where the last inequality follows by \(\theta _n\rightarrow 0\). Consequently, we conclude item (3). \(\square \)
Remark 5.1
From Propositions 5.4, 5.5, we know that \(u_n:= \theta _n\star v_n \subset S_{r,a}\) is a (PS) sequence for \(I_{\mu }\) with the level \(c_{\mu }(a)\), that is
and
Lemma 5.6
The (PS) sequence \(\{u_n\}\) mentioned in Remark 5.1 is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) Moreover, suppose that \(c_{\mu }(a)<\frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\), and \(\lambda <\lambda ^*_1\) for some \(\lambda ^*_1>0,\) then \(\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\alpha _n=\alpha <0\).
Proof
From Remark 5.1 we see that \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\) is bounded. In fact, by \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty ,\) we have
which implies that,
In view of the boundedness of \(I_{\mu }(u_n),\) we have
Note that \(2s+2t>3, q>2+\frac{4s}{3}\), we have that \( q\delta _{q,s}-2>0,\) and so
are all bounded. Thus, \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert _2\le R_2\) for some \(R_2>0\) independently on \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Since \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a},\) we see that \(\{u_n\}\) is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) Thus, passing to a subsequence, and we may assume that \(u_n\rightharpoonup u\) for some \(u\in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and so \(u_n\rightarrow u \) in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3), \forall p\in (2,2^*_s)\).
Now, we set the functional \(\Phi : ~H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3) \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) as
then \(S_{r,a} = \Phi ^{-1}\left( \frac{a^2}{2}\right) \). As a result, it can be derived from Proposition 5.12 [33] that there is a sequence \(\{\alpha _n\}\subset {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
That is, we have
Similar to the proof of Lemma 4.3, we know that u solves the equation
Moreover, \(u\not \equiv 0\). In fact, argue by contradiction that \(u\equiv 0\). Then \(u_n\rightarrow 0\) in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3),~ \forall ~p\in (2,2^*_s)\), and by \(P_{\mu }(u_n)=o_n(1)\), (3.3), we have
We may assume that \(\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\Vert u_n\Vert ^2=\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u_n|^{2^*_s}dx=\vartheta \ge 0.\) Thus, we have
On the other hand, by the Sobolev inequality (3.1), we have \(\vartheta \ge S \vartheta ^{\frac{2}{2^*_s}}.\) Then we have two possible cases: (i) \(\vartheta =0\); (ii) \(\vartheta \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\).
If \(\vartheta =0\), then by (5.17) we get \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\), which contradicts to \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a)>0.\) Now if the second case \(\vartheta \ge S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\) occurs, then by (5.17) we get \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow \frac{s}{3}\vartheta \ge \frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\), which contradicts to \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a)<\frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\). Hence, \(u\not \equiv 0.\) Moreover, by (5.15) and \(P_{\mu }(u_n)=o_n(1)\), we have
Since \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) then by Lemma 3.6 and (5.18), we derive that \(\{\alpha _n\}\) is bounded and \(\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\alpha _n=\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}\). By a similar argument as in (4.32) and (4.33), for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we have
and
where \(T_2=Q_2(s,t,R_2,a)>0.\) We define the positive constant
Therefore, if \(\lambda <\lambda _1^*\), we get
Hence, by (5.19), (5.20) we see that
Taking the limit in (5.21) as \(n\rightarrow +\infty ,\) and applying Lemmas 3.3, 3.6, we obtain
Consequently, passing the limit in (5.18) as \(n\rightarrow +\infty ,\) and using (5.23) we deduce that
Thus, we have that \(\alpha < 0\), if \(\lambda <\lambda ^*_1\) small.\(\square \)
Lemma 5.7
If \(2+\frac{4s}{3}< q < 2^*_s,\) and inequality (2.5) holds, then there \(\lambda ^*_2>0\), such that \( c_{\mu }(a) <\frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\) for \(\lambda <\lambda ^*_2\) small.
Proof
From [8], we know that S defined in (3.1) is attained in \({\mathbb {R}}^3\) by functions
for any \(\varepsilon >0\) and C(s) being normalized constant such that
We define \(u_{\varepsilon } =\varphi U_{\varepsilon }\), and
where \(\varphi (x)\in C_0^{\infty }(B_2(0))\) is a radial cutoff function such that \(0\le \varphi (x)\le 1\) and \(\varphi (x)\equiv 1\) on \(B_1(0).\) From Proposition 21 and Proposition 22 in [28], we have
For any \(p>1\), by a direct computation [31], we obtain the following estimations:
and especially,
Define the function
then it is easy to see that \( \Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\rightarrow 0^+\) as \(\theta \rightarrow -\infty \), and \(\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\rightarrow -\infty \) as \(\theta \rightarrow +\infty \). Therefore, \(\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}\) can obtain its global positive maximum at some \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu } >0\). A direct computation yields that
and
Let \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\) be the maximum point of \(\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\), then \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\) is unique. In fact, combining with \((\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }})'(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu })=0,\) and \(3-2t-2s<0, 2-q\delta _{q,s}<0, 2-2^*_{s}<0,\) we have
where \(\widetilde{u}_{\varepsilon }=\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\star v_{\varepsilon },\) and the uniqueness of \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\) follows. Using \((\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }})'(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu })=P_{\mu }(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\star v_{\varepsilon })=0\) again, we have
In the sequel, we distinguish the following two possible cases.
Case 1. \(s\Vert v_{\varepsilon }\Vert ^2>\lambda \frac{3-2t}{4}e^{(3-2t-2\,s)\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }}\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}\phi ^t_{v_{\varepsilon }}v_{\varepsilon }^2dx\).
In this case, we have from (5.30) that
and from \((\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }})'(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu })=0\), we have
Notice that, by (5.24)–(5.27), there exist positive constants \(C_1, C_2\) and \(C_3\) depending on s and q such that
and
Next, we show that
under suitable conditions. To this aim, we distinguish the following three subcases.
Subcase (i). \(0<s<\frac{3}{4}.\) In this case, it holds that
and from (5.32)–(5.34) we have
and we see that inequality (5.35) holds only when \(\mu \gamma _{q,s}a^{q(1-\delta _{q,s})}< C_1C_2(C_3)^{-1}2^{-\frac{q\delta _{q,s}-2}{2^*_s-2}}\). Thus, we have to give a more precise estimate, let us come back to (5.32) and observe that by well-known interpolation inequality, we have
Therefore, by (5.37) and (5.32) we have
From the estimations (5.24), (5.25), we see that the right hand side of (5.38) is positive provided that
Therefore, if \(0<s<\frac{3}{4}\) and
we have
Subcase (ii). \(s=\frac{3}{4}\). In this case, then we have \(3<q<4\), and
Consequently,
Therefore, we get
Subcase (iii). \(\frac{3}{4}<s<1\). By the definition of \(\delta _{q,s}\) and a direct computation we infer to
Thus, \(\varepsilon ^{3-\frac{3-2s}{2}q-\frac{(3-2s)q(1-\gamma _{q,s})}{2}}\rightarrow 0~~\hbox {as}~~\varepsilon \rightarrow 0,\) and so
Therefore, we conclude that,
Case 2. \(s\Vert v_{\varepsilon }\Vert ^2\le \lambda \frac{3-2t}{4}e^{(3-2t-2\,s)\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }}\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}\phi ^t_{v_{\varepsilon }}v_{\varepsilon }^2dx\).
In this case, we have from (5.30) that \( se^{2^*_{s} s\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }} \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|v_{\varepsilon }|^{2^*_s}dx<e^{2\,s\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }} \frac{3-2t}{2}e^{(3-2t-2\,s)\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }}\lambda \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}\phi ^t_{v_{\varepsilon }}v_{\varepsilon }^2dx,\) which implies that
and from \((\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }})'(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu })=0\) and (5.40), together with (3.2)–(3.3) and Hölder inequality, we induce that
where \(0<\tau =\frac{2t+4s-3}{4s}<1,\) and
By a direct computation, we have the following clearer expressions
and
where the last inequality holds true since \(q\in (2+\frac{4s}{3},2^*_s), 2s+2t>3\). Consequently, we have
Substituting formulas (5.42)–(5.44) into (5.41), we infer to
Notice that, by (5.24)–(5.27), there exist positive constants \(C_4, C_5\) and \(C_6\) depending on s and q such that
and
Next, we show that
for some positive constant \(C>0\). To obtain the estimation (5.48), as in Case 1, we have to consider the three cases: (i) \(0<s<\frac{3}{4};\) (ii) \(s=\frac{3}{4};\) and (iii) \(\frac{3}{4}<s<1.\)
When \(0<s<\frac{3}{4}, \) it holds that
and from (5.45)–(5.47) we have
and we see that inequality (5.48) holds only when \(\mu \delta _{q,s}D(s,t)a^{\frac{(q-2)2t+2\,s(2^*_s-4)}{s2^*_{s}+2t-3}}< C_1C_4C_5 C_6^{-1}\). Thus, we have to give a more precise estimate, let us come back to (5.45) and observe that by well-known interpolation inequality, we have
Therefore, by (5.45) and (5.50) we derive as
We observe that the right hand side of (5.51) is positive provided that
Therefore, if \(0<s<\frac{3}{4}\) and
we see that (5.48) holds for some constant \(C>0\).
For the cases: \(s=\frac{3}{4}\), and \(\frac{3}{4}<s<1\), we still have the following estimations as in Case 1,
and
respectively. Moreover, we derive that
To sum up, condition (2.5) can ensure that (5.39), (5.52) occur, so as to guarantee (5.53) hold.
In what follows we focus on an upper estimate of \(\max _{\theta \in {\mathbb {R}}}\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\). We split the argument into two steps.
Step 1. We estimate for \(\max _{\theta \in {\mathbb {R}}}\Psi ^0_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\), where,
It is easy to see that for every \(v_{\varepsilon }\in S_{r,a}\) the function \(\Psi ^0_{v_{\varepsilon }}(\theta )\) has a unique critical point \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,0}\), which is a strict maximum point and is given by
Using the fact that
for any fixed \(a,b>0.\) We can deduce by (5.24), (5.25), that
Step 2. We next estimate for \(\max _{\theta \in {\mathbb {R}}}\Psi ^{\mu }_{v_{\varepsilon }}(t)\). Recall (3.3), (5.30) and Hölder inequality, we have
From the estimations (5.24)–(5.25) and (5.56), we see that the number \(\theta _{\varepsilon ,\mu }\) can not go to \(+\infty \), and there exists some \(\theta ^*\in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
Hence, by virtue of (5.56), (5.57) and (3.3) we derive to
Next, we separate three cases:
Case 1: \(0<s<\frac{3}{4}.\) In this case, owing to \(2t+8s<9\), we get \(p=\frac{12}{3+2t}>\frac{3}{3-2s}\), it following from (5.26)–(5.27) and (5.34) that,
if we choose \(\lambda =\varepsilon ^{s}\).
Case 2: \(s=\frac{3}{4}.\) In this case, we still have \(2t+8s=2t+6<9\), and also, \(p=\frac{12}{3+2t}>\frac{3}{3-2s}\). Moreover, \(2+\frac{q(\gamma _{q,s}-1)}{2}=\frac{q(3-2s)}{4s}>0\), hence
when \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^+.\) Consequently, if we choose \(\lambda =\varepsilon ^{2s}\), then we have
when \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough.
Case 3: \(\frac{3}{4}<s<1.\) In this case, using the fact that \(2t+2s>3, q>2+\frac{4s}{3}\), we can obtain the inequality by a direct computation,
Thus, from (5.26)–(5.27) and (5.34), letting \(\lambda =\varepsilon ^{6-4s}\) we derive that
Since \( {v}_{\varepsilon } \in S_{r,a}, \) from Lemma 5.1 we can take \(\theta _1< 0\) and \(\theta _2> 0\) such that \(\theta _1\star {v}_{\varepsilon } \in \mathcal {A}_a\) and \(I_{\mu }(\theta _2\star {v}_{\varepsilon }) < 0,\) respectively. Then we can define a path
To sum up, by the estimations (5.58)–(5.61), we can derive that
for \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough, which is the desired result. \(\square \)
Lemma 5.8
Let \(\{u_n\}\) be the (PS) sequence in \(S_{r,a}\) at level \(c_{\mu }(a),\) with \(c_{\mu }(a) <\frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\), assume that \(u_n\rightharpoonup u,\) then, \(u \not \equiv 0.\)
Proof
Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that \(u \equiv 0.\) Noticing that \(\{u_n\}\) is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) going to a subsequence, we may assume that \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert _2^2\rightarrow \ell \ge 0.\) By Lemma 3.6, \(u_n\rightarrow 0\) in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3), \forall p\in (2,2^*_s)\). From Proposition 5.5 and Lemmas 3.3, 3.6, we have \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) such that,
as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, using Sobolev’s inequality, one has \(\ell \ge S\ell ^{\frac{2}{2^*_s}},\) and so, either \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\) or \(\ell = 0.\) In the case \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\), from \(I_{\mu } (u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a), P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\), we know
which means \(c_{\mu }(a)= \frac{s}{3}\ell \), that is \(c_{\mu }(a)\ge \frac{s}{3} S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\), which contradicts the assumption \(c_{\mu }(a)< \frac{s}{3} S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\). In the case \(\ell = 0\), one has
and combining with
we have, \(I_{\mu } (u_n)\rightarrow 0\), which is absurd since \(c_{\mu }(a)>0.\) Therefore, \(u\not \equiv 0\). \(\square \)
Lemma 5.9
Let \(\{u_n\}\) be the (PS) sequence in \(S_{r,a}\) at level \(c_{\mu }(a)\), with \(c_{\mu }(a)< \frac{s}{3} S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\), assume that \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) when \(n\rightarrow \infty \), and \(\lambda <\lambda ^*_1\) small. Then one of the following alternatives holds:
(i) either going to a subsequence \(u_n\rightharpoonup u\) weakly in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), but not strongly, where \(u \not \equiv 0\) is a solution to
where \(\alpha _n\rightarrow \alpha < 0,\) and
(ii) or passing to a subsequence \(u_n\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3), I_{\mu }(u) =c_{\mu }(a)\) and u is a solution of (1.5)–(1.6) for some \(\alpha < 0.\)
Proof
By Lemma 5.6, we have that \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) is a bounded (PS) sequence for \(I_{\mu }\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and so \(u_n\rightharpoonup u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) for some u. By the Lagrange multiplier principle, there exists \(\{\alpha _n\}\subset {\mathbb {R}}\) satisfying
for any \(\varphi \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) Moreover, one has \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _n=\alpha < 0.\) Letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (5.64), we have
which implies that u solves the equation
and we have the Pohozăev identity \(P_{\mu }(u) = 0.\)
Let \(v_n = u_n-u,\) then \(v_n\rightharpoonup 0\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) According to Brezis–Lieb lemma [33] and Lemma 3.3, one has
and
Then, from \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0, u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), one can derive that
By \(P_{\mu }(u) = 0,\) we have
Passing to a subsequence, we may assume that
Then, it follows from Sobolev’s inequality that \(\ell \ge S\ell ^{\frac{2}{2^*_s}},\) and so, either \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\) or \(\ell = 0.\) In the case \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\), from \(I_{\mu } (u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a), P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\), we know
which means that item (i) holds.
If \(\ell = 0,\) then \(\Vert u_n -u\Vert = \Vert v_n \Vert \rightarrow 0,\) one has \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(D^{s,2}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) and so \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(L^{2^*_s}({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) To prove that \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) it remains only to prove that \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \( L^2({\mathbb {R}}^3).\) Fix \(\psi = u_n - u\) as a test function in (5.64), and \(u_n- u\) as a test function of (5.65), we deduce that
Passing the limit in (5.71) as \( n\rightarrow \infty \), we have
and then \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(L^2({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). Therefore, item (ii) holds. \(\square \)
Now, we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem 2.2.
Proof of Theorem 2.2
Let \(\lambda <\Lambda ^*:=\min \{\lambda ^*_1,\lambda ^*_2\}.\) By virtue of Lemmas 5.1–5.2, 5.6–5.7, Propositions 5.3–5.5, there exists a bounded \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\), with \(c_{\mu }(a)<\frac{s}{3}S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\), and \(u\in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) such that one of the alternatives of Lemma 5.9 holds. We assert that (i) of Lemma 5.9 can not occur. Indeed, suppose by contradiction that, item (i) holds, then u is a nontrivial solution of (5.63), and by Lemmas 5.9 and 5.7, we have
On the other hand, we have
which leads to a contradiction. Therefore, \(u_n\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) with \(I_{\mu }(u) =c_{\mu }(a)\), and u is a solution of (1.5)–(1.6) for some \(\alpha < 0.\) Moreover, \(u(x)>0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^3\). In fact, we note that all the calculations above can be repeated word by word, replacing \(I_{\mu }\) with the functional
Then u is the critical point of \(I_{\mu }^+\) restricted on the set \(S_{r,a}\), it solves the equation
Using \(u^{-}= \min \{u,0\}\) as a test function in (5.73), in view of \((a-b)(a^{-}-b^{-})\ge |a^{-}-b^{-}|^2, \forall a,b\in {\mathbb {R}},\) we conclude that
Thus, \(u^{-} =0\) and \(u \ge 0, \forall x\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\), is a solution of (5.73). By the regularity result [36] we know that \(u \in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^3)\cap C^{0,\alpha }({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) for some \(\alpha \in (0,1)\). Suppose \(u(x_0) = 0\) for some \(x_0\in {\mathbb {R}}^3\), then \((-\Delta )^s u (x_0) = 0\) and by the definition of \((-\Delta )^s\), we have [27]:
Hence, \(\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}\frac{u(x_0+y)+u(x_0-y)}{|y|^{3+2s}}dy=0,\) which implies \(u\equiv 0\), a contradiction. Thus, \(u(x)>0, \forall x\in {\mathbb {R}}^3.\) \(\square \)
6 Proof of Theorem 2.3
In this section, we deal with the \(L^2\)-supercritical case \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q<2^*_s\), when parameter \(\mu >0\) large. In view of \(\frac{3(q-2)}{2s}>2\), the truncated functional \(I_{\mu ,\tau }\) defined in Sect. 4 is still unbounded from below on \(S_{r,a}\), and the truncation technique can not be applied to study problem (1.5)–(1.6).
To overcome this difficulty, as in Sect. 5 we introduce the transformation (e.g. [29]):
and the auxiliary functional
From Lemmas 5.1, 5.2, we have the the mountain pass level value \(c_{\mu }(a)\) by
where
In what follows, we set \(g(t)=\mu |t|^{q-2}t+|u|^{2^*_s-2}u\), for any \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\). From Propositions 5.4, 5.5, we know that there exist a \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) satisfying
where
Similar to the Sect. 5, setting the functional \(\Psi (v): H_{rad}^s({\mathbb {R}}^3)\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) given by
it follows that \(S_{r,a}=\Psi ^{-1}(\{\frac{a^2}{2}\})\), and by Proposition 5.12 in [33], there exists \(\alpha _n\in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
That is, we have
Therefore, for any \(\varphi \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), one has
In the sequel, we study the asymptotical behavior of the mountain pass level value \(c_{\mu }(a)\) as \(\mu \rightarrow +\infty ,\) and the properties of the \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) as \(n\rightarrow +\infty .\)
Lemma 6.1
The limit \(\lim _{\mu \rightarrow +\infty }c_{\mu }(a) = 0\) holds.
Proof
Recall Lemmas 5.1, 5.2, we see that for fixed \(u_0\in S_{r,a}\), there exists two constants \(\theta _1,\theta _2\) satisfying \(\theta _1<0<\theta _2\) such that \(u_1:=\theta _1\star u_0\in A\) and \(I_{\mu }(u_2)<0\). Then we can define a path
Thus, we have
Note that \(\frac{3q-6}{2}>2s>3-2t,\) we have that \(\lim _{r\rightarrow 0^+}h(r)=0^+, \lim _{r\rightarrow +\infty }h(r)=-\infty ,\) and so, there exists a unique maximum point \(r_0>0\) such that \(\max _{r\ge 0}h(r)=h(r_0)>0\). Hence, we distinguish two cases: \(r_0 \ge 1\) and \(0\le r_0 < 1.\)
If \(r_0 \ge 1,\) we have by \(2s+2t>3\), that
where
Therefore, for \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q < 2^*_s\), we have a positive constant \(\widetilde{C}\) independent of \(\mu \) such that
If \(0 \le r_0 < 1,\) we infer to
where
Since \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q < 2^*_s\), and \(2s+2t>3\), we can deduce that \(3q+4t-12>0\), then there exists a positive constant \(C_1\) independent of \(\mu \) such that
This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 6.2
There exists a constant \(C=C(q,s)>0\) such that
and
Proof
Since \(I_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow c_\mu (a)\) and \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have
Hence,
which implies that
and then
Then, from (6.5)–(6.7), we have
Consequently, the proof is completed. \(\square \)
Lemma 6.3
There exists \(\mu ^*_1:=\mu ^*_1(a)>0\) such that \(u\not \equiv 0\) for all \(\mu \ge \mu ^*_1\).
Proof
From Lemma 5.6, we know that \(\{u_n\}\) is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and by Lemma 3.6, up to a subsequence, there exists \(u \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) such that \( u_n\rightharpoonup u \) weakly in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) \(u_n\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(L^t({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), for \(\ t\in (2,2^*_s),\) \( u_n\rightarrow u \hbox { a.e.}\) on \({\mathbb {R}}^3.\) In view of \(2+\frac{4s}{3}<q<2^*_s\), and Lemmas 3.3, 3.6, then
Suppose by contradiction that, \(u\equiv 0\). Then, by (6.9) and \(P_{\mu }(u_n)=o_n(1)\), we deduce as
Without loss of generality, we may assume that
as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). By Sobolev’s inequality we get \(\ell \ge S\ell ^{\frac{2}{2^*_s}},\) and so, either \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\) or \(\ell = 0.\)
If \(\ell \ge S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\), then from \(I_{\mu } (u_n)\rightarrow c_{\mu }(a), P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\), we have
which implies that \(c_{\mu }(a)= \frac{s}{3}\ell \), and so, \(c_{\mu }(a)\ge \frac{s}{3} S^{\frac{3}{2s}}\), but this is impossible since by Lemma 6.1, there exists some \(\mu ^*_1:=\mu ^*_1(a)>0\) such that \(c_{\mu }(a)<\frac{s}{3} S^{\frac{3}{2\,s}}\) as \(\mu >\mu ^*_1\).
If \(\ell = 0\), then we have \( \Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u_n\Vert ^2_2\rightarrow 0,\) thus \(I_{\mu } (u_n)\rightarrow 0\), which is absurd since \(c_{\mu }(a)>0.\) Therefore, \(u\not \equiv 0\).\(\square \)
Lemma 6.4
\(\{\alpha _n\}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {R}}\), and \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty }|\alpha _n|\le \frac{C}{a^2}c_\mu (a)\) has the following estimation:
Moreover, there exists some \(\mu ^*_2:=\mu ^*_2(a)>0\) such that \(\lim _{n\rightarrow +\infty }\alpha _n=\alpha <0\), if \(\mu >\mu ^*_2\) large.
Proof
By (6.3) and the fact that \(u_n\in S_{r,a}\), we have
It indicates that
By Lemma 5.6 we have the boundedness of \(\{u_n\}\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and so, \(\{\alpha _n\}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {R}}\). By Lemma 6.2 we know that \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty }|\alpha _n|\le \frac{C}{a^2}c_\mu (a)\). Moreover, together with \(P_{\mu }(u_n)\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we derive as
By (6.9) and similar arguments to that of (4.32)–(4.35), we see that there exists \(\mu ^*_2:=\mu ^*_2(a)>0\), such that
for \(\mu >\mu ^*_2\) large. \(\square \)
Subsequently, using the concentration-compactness principle, we derive the following lemma, whose proof is similar to that of Lemma 4.3 in Sect. 5, we omit its details here.
Lemma 6.5
For \(\mu >\mu ^*:=\max \{\mu ^*_1,\mu ^*_2\}\), there holds \(\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u_n|^{2^*_s}dx\rightarrow \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^3}|u|^{2^*_s}dx.\)
With the help of the above technical lemmas, we can prove Theorem 2.3 as follows.
Proof of Theorem 2.3
Let \(\mu >\mu ^*:=\max \{\mu ^*_1,\mu ^*_2\}.\) From Lemmas 5.1, 5.2, the functional \(I_{\mu }\) satisfies the Mountain pass geometry, from Propositions 5.4, 5.5, there exist a \((PS)_{c_{\mu }(a)}\)-sequence \(\{u_n\}\subset S_{r,a}\) satisfying (6.3), (6.4), which is bounded in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), and there exists \(u \in H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) such that \( u_n\rightharpoonup u \) weakly in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3),\) \(u_n\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(L^p({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), for \(p\in (2,2^*_s).\) Moreover, by Lemmas 6.1–6.4, we have that \(\alpha _n\rightarrow \alpha <0\) as \( n\rightarrow +\infty \). By the weak convergence of \(u_n\rightharpoonup u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), Eqs. (6.3) and (6.4), we have that u solves the equation
Therefore, from (6.9)–(6.11) and Lemma 6.5, it follows that
Since \(\alpha <0\), as in the proof of Lemma 4.3, we can derive as
Therefore, \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(H^s_{rad}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) and \(\Vert u\Vert _2=a\). This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Data availibility
We declare that the manuscript has no associated data.
References
Alves, C.O., Ji, C., Miyagaki, O.H.: Normalized solutions for a Schrödinger equation with critical growth in \({{\mathbb{R}}}^N\). Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 61(1) (2022)
Bartsch, T., Jeanjean, L., Soave, N.: Normalized solutions for a system of coupled cubic Schrödinger equations on \({{\mathbb{R}}}^3\). J. Math. Pure Appl. 106, 583–614 (2016)
Bartsch, T., Soave, N.: A natural constraint approach to normalized solutions of nonlinear Schrödinger equations and systems. J. Funct. Anal. 272, 4998–5037 (2017)
Bellazzini, J.J., Jeanjean, L., Luo, T.: Existence and instability of standing waves with prescribed norm for a class of Schrödinger–Poisson equations. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 107, 303–339 (2013)
Bellazzini, J., Siciliano, G.: Scaling properties of functionals and existence of constrained minimizers. J. Funct. Anal. 261, 2486–2507 (2011)
Bellazzini, J., Siciliano, G.: Stable standing waves for a class of nonlinear Schrödinger–Poisson equations. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 62, 267–280 (2011)
Cho, Y., Hwang, G., Kwon, S., Lee, S.: On finite time blow-up for the mass-critical Hartree equations. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A Math 145, 467–479 (2015)
Cotsiolis, A., Tavoularis, N.K.: Best constants for Sobolev inequalities for higher order fractional derivatives. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 295, 225–236 (2004)
d’Avenia, P., Siciliano, G.: Nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the Bopp–Podolsky electrodynamics: solutions in the electrostatic case. J. Differ. Equ. 267, 1025–1065 (2019)
Dinh, V.D.: Existence, non-existence and blow-up behaviour of minimizers for the mass-critical fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equations with periodic potentials. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A 150, 3252–3292 (2020)
Frank, R.L., Lenzmann, E., Silvestre, L.: Uniqueness of radial solutions for the fractional Laplacian. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 69, 1671–1726 (2016)
Huang, Y., Liu, Z., Wu, Y.: Existence of prescribed \(L^2\)-norm solutions for a class of Schrodinger–Poisson equation. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 11, 398164 (2013)
Jeanjean, L.: Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 28, 1633–1659 (1997)
Jeanjean, L., Luo, T.: Sharp nonexistence results of prescribed \(L^2\)-norm solutions for some class of Schrödinger–Poisson and quasi-linear equations. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 64, 937–954 (2013)
Jeanjean, L., Le, T.T.: Multiple normalized solutions for a Sobolev critical Schrödinger–Poisson–Slater equation. J. Differ. Equ. 303, 277–325 (2021)
Jeanjean, L., Lu, S.: Nonradial normalized solutions for nonlinear scalar field equations. Nonlinearity 32, 4942–4966 (2019)
Laskin, N.: Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals. Phys. Lett. A 268, 298–305 (2000)
Laskin, N.: Fractional Schrödinger equation. Phys. Rev. E 66, 56–108 (2002)
Li, Y., Zhang, B.: Critical Schrödinger–Popp–Podolsky system with prescribed mass. J. Geom. Anal. 33(7), 220 (2023)
Lieb, E., Loss, M.: Analysis. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 14. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001)
Longhi, S.: Fractional Schrödinger equation in optics. Opt. Lett. 40, 1117–1120 (2015)
Li, Y., Teng, K.: Normalized solutions for fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system with general nonlinearities. Mediterr. J. Math. 20(2), 92 (2023)
Luo, H., Zhang, Z.: Normalized solutions to the fractional Schrödinger equations with combined nonlinearities. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 59, 143 (2020)
Luo, T.: Multiplicity of normalized solutions for a class of nonlinear Schrödinger–Poisson–Slater equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 416, 195–204 (2014)
Markowich, P., Ringhofer, C., Schmeiser, C.: Semiconductor Equations. Springer, Vienna (1990)
Molica Bisci, G., Rǎdulescu, V.D., Servadei, R.: Variational Methods for Nonlocal Fractional Problems. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 162. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)
Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G., Valdinoci, E.: Hitchiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136, 521–573 (2012)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: The Brezis–Nirenberg result for the fractional Laplacian. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 367, 67–102 (2015)
Soave, N.: Normalized ground states for the NLS equation with combined nonlinearities: the Sobolev critical case. J. Funct. Anal. 279, 108610 (2020)
Sun, X., Teng, K.: Existence of normalized solutions for fractional Schrödinger–Poisson systems. Math. Appl. 33, 666–680 (2020)
Teng, K.: Existence of ground state solutions for the nonlinear fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system with critical Sobolev exponent. J. Differ. Equ. 261, 3061–3106 (2016)
Wang, Q., Qian, A.: Normalized solutions to the Schrodinger–Poisson–Slater equation with general nonlinearity: mass supercritical case. Anal. Math. Phys. 13, 1–37 (2023)
Willem, M.: Minimax Theorems. Birkhauser, Boston (1996)
Wu, D.: Existence and stability of standing waves for nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equation with Hartree type nonlinearity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 411, 530–542 (2014)
Yang, T.: Normalized solutions for the fractional Schrödinger equation with a focusing nonlocal \(L^2\)-critical or \(L^2\)-supercritical perturbation. J. Math. Phys. 61, 051505 (2020)
Yang, Z., Yu, Y., Zhao, F.: Concentration behavior of ground state solutions for a fractional Schrodinger–Poisson system involving critical exponent. Commun. Contemp. Math. 21, 1850027 (2019)
Yang, Z., Zhao, F., Zhao, S.: Existence and multiplicity of normalized solutions for a class of fractional Schrödinger–Poisson equations. Ann. Fenn. Math. 47, 777–790 (2022)
Yu, Y., Zhao, F., Zhao, L.: The concentration behavior of ground state solutions for a fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 56, 116 (2017)
Zhang, J., do Ó, J.M., Squassina, M.: Fractional Schrödinger–Poisson systems with a general subcritical or critical nonlinearity. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16, 15–30 (2016)
Zhang, X., Zhang, B., Repov, D.: Existence and symmetry of solutions for critical fractional Schrödinger equations with bounded potentials. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 142, 48–68 (2016)
Funding
Open access funding provided by Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this article.
Additional information
Communicated by S. Terracini.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (121714971, 11771468, 11971027, 11971061, 12271028). Marco Squassina is member of Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilita e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
He, X., Meng, Y. & Squassina, M. Normalized solutions for a fractional Schrödinger–Poisson system with critical growth. Calc. Var. 63, 142 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-024-02749-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-024-02749-x