Abstract
In this paper we prove a blow up result for a class of nonlocal scalar Klein–Gordon equation. We assume that the nonlinearity has critical exponential growth. Additionally, we prove that the ground state solution of the elliptic problem associated to the original problem is unstable. The strategy is to adapt the recent ideas of Carrião et al. (J Dyn Differ Equ 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-023-10281-3) to find two regions (stable and unstable regions). Since the one dimensional case combined with the 1/2 Laplacian operator cause lack of the control on the \(L^2(\mathbb {R})\) norm of \((-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{4}}u\), new delicate calculations are necessary. We prove also that there exists a subset of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\times L^2(\mathbb {R})\) such that the solution is global when the initial data is taken into this set.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In this paper we consider the following Cauchy problem for the nonlinear hyperbolic equation
where \(\lambda _0\) is a real positive constant; \(u_0,u_1:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) are given functions; \(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a known function with exponential growth, and \((-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\) is the fractional laplacian operator which is defined as
for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), where \(k(\xi )=|\xi |_{\mathbb {R}}^{-2}\). Details about the fractional Laplacian can be found in Di Nezza, Palatucci, and Valdinoci [7]. We say that \(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) has \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth at \(\pm \infty \) if there exist \(\omega \in (0,\pi )\) and \(\alpha _0\in (0,\pi )\) such that
and
We consider the following hypotheses on the function f:
-
H1)
\(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is an odd and convex function on \(\mathbb {R}_+\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{s\rightarrow 0}\frac{f(s)}{s}=0. \end{aligned}$$ -
H2)
the function \(s\mapsto \frac{f(s)}{s}\) is increasing on \(\mathbb {R_+}\).
-
H3)
there exists \(q>2\) and \(C_0>0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} F(s)\ge C_0|s|^q, \end{aligned}$$for all \(s\in \mathbb {R}\), where \(F(\xi )=\int _0^{\xi }f(\tau )\,d\tau \).
-
H4)
there exists \(C_A>2\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} C_AF(s) \le f(s)s, \end{aligned}$$for all \(s\in \mathbb {R}\).
The assumptions above are well known in the context of elliptic equations. For instance, see do Ó, Miyagaki, and Squassina [18] where it is possible to find an explicit example. See also Iannizzotto and Squassina [12]. The assumptions (H3) and (H4) are used only to prove the existence of the ground state solution. Problems concerning fractional Laplacian in the context of elliptic equations can be found, for instance, in Alves and Torres Ledesma [3], Ferrari and Verbitski [9], Luo and Zhang [15], Bisci, Radulescu, and Servadei [4], and Servadei and Valdinoci [22,23,24] end references therein.
In the classical paper of Shatah [25], the author proved the instability of the ground state solution of the stationary problem associated to the wave equation
where \(\Delta \) is the classical laplacian in the spatial variable, \(N\ge 3\), and f is a known function. Shatah combined the use of an appropriate cut-off function and the classical Strauss compactness result. The case \(N=2\) was studied by Jeanjean and Le Coz [13] and it is more delicate, because it holds the lose of the control on the \(L^2\) norm of \(\nabla u\). Concerning the classical wave equation, blow-up results can be found, for instance, in Alves and Cavalcanti [1], Alves et al. [2], Domingos Cavalcanti et al. [8], Gazzola and Squassina [10], Georgiev and Todorova [11], Levine and Todorova [14], Merle and Zaag [16], Messaoudi [17], Ohta and Todorova [19], Todorova [27], and references therein. We would like to cite also the recent work of Yang and Han [28] where the authors studied a damped p-Laplacian type wave equation with logarithmic nonlinearity. They proved a result concerning the finite time blow-up of solutions.
Recently, Carrião, Lehrer, and Vicente [5] introduced a new technique to prove blow-up results for nonlocal hyperbolic operators. Precisely, the authors studied the following problem
where \((-\Delta )^s\) is the fractional laplacian and \(N=3\) and \(\frac{3}{4}\le s\le 1\) or \(N=4\) and \(s=1\). This restriction holds only in their existence result. The main result of the paper was proved for \(0<s\le 1\) and \(N\ge 3\). They introduced a new cut-off function which allows to work with nonlocal operators. This new definition is associated with a function defined with a parameter, \(\lambda \), which rediscover some derivative formulas and allows to avoid the use of Green formula. The strategy of the authors is associated to the use of the Pohozaev functional
This functional allows the authors to define stable and unstable sets for the initial data. They proved also the instability of the ground state solution of the stationary problem associated to the problem (5). Observing the definition of the Pohozaev functional above, we have that the case \(N=1\) and \(s=\frac{1}{2}\) causes the lose of the control on the \(L^2(\mathbb {R})\) norm of \((-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{4}} u\). Thus, in this case the calculations need special attention. Pohozaev identity for the fractional Laplacian can be found in Ros-Oton and Serra [21].
The main objective of this manuscript is extend the result of Carrião, Lehrer, and Vicente [5] to the case \(N=1\) and \(s=\frac{1}{2}\). Our strategy is combine the ideas of [5] with some ones of Jeanjean and Le Coz [13]. Some additional and delicate estimates are necessary. Summarizing, we prove that there exists a subset of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\times L^2(\mathbb {R})\) such that the solution blows up when the initial data is taken into this set (in finite or infinite time). Additionally, we prove that the ground state solution of the elliptic problem associated to the problem (1) is unstable. Finally, we prove also that there exists a subset of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\times L^2(\mathbb {R})\) such that the solution is global when the initial data is taken into this set.
We define the Pohozaev manifold associated to the problem (1) by
where the Pohozaev functional \(P: H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is given by
We define the functional I by
and we consider the elliptic problem
The least energy level of (7) is defined by
A function \(\varphi \in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) is called ground state or least energy solution of (7) if
Since we will prove an instability result of the stationary problem, we need a result concerning the existence of the ground state solution for (7). This result was proved by do Ó, Miyagaki, and Squassina [18] and it is given by proposition below.
Proposition 1.1
Suppose that f(s) and \(f'(s)s\) have \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth and satisfies (H1)–(H4). Then problem (7) admits a ground state solution \(u\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) proved \(C_0\) in (H3) is large enough.
We introduce the following subset of \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\)
where E(u, v) is given by
Since (H1) and (H2) hold and f has \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth, for \(\alpha >\alpha _0\) and for each \(\epsilon >0\), there exists \(s_1>0\) such that
for all \(s\in \mathbb {R}\) and
for all \(s\in \mathbb {R}\). Moreover, since \(f'(s)s\) has \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth it holds
for all \(s\in \mathbb {R}\setminus \{0\}\). Therefore, using (10), for \(\alpha >\alpha _0\), we have
for all \(s,\tau \in \mathbb {R}\setminus \{0\}.\)
Since \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\hookrightarrow L^q(\mathbb {R})\) continuously for \(2\le q<\infty \), we have there exists positive constant \(C_q\) such that
for all \(u\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\), where \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _q\) is the standard norm in \(L^q(\mathbb {R})\) and
is the norm in \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\). Moreover, since \(H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\hookrightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) continuously, there exists a positive constant \(C_1\) such that
for all \(u\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\).
We observe that, concerning the nonlinearity f, in present paper unlike [5] (where polinomial growth was considered) the nonlinear term has exponential growth. It is well known that, when exponential growth is in place, it is necessary some kind of Trudinger-Moser inequality. In this manuscript, we use the following result due to Ozawa [20].
Proposition 1.2
There exists \(0<\omega \le \pi \) such that, for all \(\alpha \in (0,\omega )\), there exists \(H_{\alpha }>0\) with
for all \(u\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) with \(\Vert (-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{4}}u\Vert _2^2\le 1\).
For Trundiger-Moser inequality on \(\mathbb {R}\) see also Takahashi [26]. Now we can enunciate the main results of this paper:
Theorem 1.1
[Blow up Theorem] Suppose that f(s) and \(f'(s)s\) have \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth and satisfies (H1)–(H4). Suposse \(\lambda _0>6\alpha C(s_1)\), for some \(\alpha \in (\alpha _0,\pi )\). Let \((u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal {I}\) be the initial data and let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the unique strong solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Then, either
a) the solution exists locally, i.e. \(T<\infty \), and there exists a sequence \((t_k)_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\subset (0,T)\) with \(t_k\rightarrow T^-\) such that
or
b) the solution exists globally on \([0,\infty )\) and there exists a sequence \((t_k)_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\subset (0,\infty )\) with \(t_k\rightarrow \infty \) such that
To prove Theorem 1.1, it is necessary a blow up result as Lemma 14 of Jeanjean and Le Coz [13] and Lemma 1.2 of Carrião, Lehrer, and Vicente [5]. This is enunciate in next result. The constant \(\delta \) is a known positive real number, which does not depend of t. It is given by Lemma 2.5.
Lemma 1.1
[Blow up Lemma] Suppose that f(s) and \(f'(s)s\) have \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth and satisfies (H1)–(H4). Suposse \(\lambda _0>6\alpha C(s_1)\), for some \(\alpha \in (\alpha _0,\pi )\). Let \((u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal {I}\) be the initial data and let u(t) be the associated strong solution of (1) defined in [0, T). If there exists a constant \(K>0\) such that
for all \(t\in [0,T)\), then for each \(T_1\in [0,T)\) it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\), where
with
We prove the following instability result.
Theorem 1.2
[Instability of the ground state] Suppose that f(s) and \(f'(s)s\) have \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth and satisfies (H1)–(H4). Suposse \(\lambda _0>6\alpha C(s_1)\), for some \(\alpha \in (\alpha _0,\pi )\). Let \(\varphi \) be a ground state solution of (7). Then \(\varphi \) viewed as a stationary solution of (1) is strongly unstable. Namelly, for all \(\eta >0\) there exist \(u_{0,\eta }\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\), \(T_{\eta }\in (0,\infty ]\) and \((t_n)\subset (0,T_{\eta })\) such that \(\Vert \varphi -u_{0,\eta }\Vert <\eta \) and \(\lim _{t_n\rightarrow T_{\eta }}\Vert u(t_n)\Vert =\infty \), where u is the strong solution of (1) associated to the initial data \((u_{0,\eta },0)\).
Now, we define the stable region by
Finally, we prove the following theorem which gives us the existence of global solution when the initial data are taken in \(\mathcal {S}\).
Theorem 1.3
[Global existence] Suppose that f(s) and \(f'(s)s\) have \(\alpha _0\)-critical growth and satisfies (H1)–(H4). If \((u_{0},u_{1})\) \(\in \mathcal {S}\), then the local generalized solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1 can be extended for all \(t>0\).
Our paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we give the notations, the preliminaries and we stablish the local existence theorem. In Section 2, we also prove some lemmas. In Section 3 we prove Lemma 1.1. Finally, in Section 4, we prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.
2 Preliminaries
In this section we establish the notation and give some preliminary results. We denote by C all generic constants and sometimes, to simplify the notation, we write u instead of u(x, t).
We define
with the inner product and norm given by
and
We define also the operator \(A:D(A)\subset \mathcal {H}\rightarrow \mathcal {H}\) by setting
i. e.,
where \(D(A)=H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\times H^{1}(\mathbb {R})\). We define also \(B:\mathcal {H}\rightarrow \mathcal {H}\) by setting
Therefore, the problem (1) can be write as
where \(U=(u,u_t)^{\top }\) and \(U_0=(u_0,u_1)^{\top }\in D(A)\).
To prove that (18)–(19) has solution, it is suffices to verify that A is a maximal monotone operator and B is a local Lipschitz operator. It is not difficult to verify that
for all \(\Big (\begin{array}{c} u\\ v \end{array} \Big ),\Big (\begin{array}{c} z\\ w \end{array} \Big )\in D(A)\), thus A is monotone. To prove that A is maximal monotone, we show that \(I+A\) is into \(\mathcal {H}\). Let \(h=\Big (\begin{array}{c} h_1\\ h_2\end{array}\Big )\) be in the space \(\mathcal {H}\). We are going to prove that there exists \(\Big (\begin{array}{c} u\\ v\end{array}\Big )\in D(A)\) such that
We have that (20) can be writen as
Combining (21) and (22), we obtain
Since \(h_1+h_2\in L^2(\mathbb {R})\), from elliptic equation theory, we have that (23) has a weak solution \(u\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\). Moreover, elliptic regularity results give us that the solution is more regular, i.e., \(u\in H^{1}(\mathbb {R})\). This regularity and as \(h_1\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\), (21) allows us to conclude that \(v\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\). Using elliptic regularity results one more time, we have that \(u\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\). Thus, (22) gives us that \(h_2\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\). Therefore, from (22) we have that
Using elliptic regularity, we obtain that \(v\in H^1(\mathbb {R})\). Therefore, \(\Big (\begin{array}{c} u\\ v\end{array}\Big )\in D(A)\) is solution of (20), consequently A is maximal monotone.
Now we are going to prove that B is a local Lipschitz operator. Indeed, it is enough to prove that \(f: H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\rightarrow L^2(\mathbb {R})\) is a local Lipschitz function. Using (11) and Hölder inequality, we have
Since
there exists \(\delta _0>0\) such that
We define
We have
From (25), we obtain
We have that
We suppose that
where k is a positive constant. Thus, using Proposition 2.1 of [18], we infer
Therefore, from (24), (26)–(29), we conclude that
provided \(\Vert u\Vert \le k\). Analogously,
provided \(\Vert v\Vert \le k\).
Therefore, if \(\Vert u\Vert ,\Vert v\Vert \le k\), then (24), (30), and (31) allow us to conclude that
i.e., f is local Lipschitz. Thus, using Theorem 7.2 of [6], we can enunciate the following theorem
Theorem 2.1
[Local existence] Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold. If \((u_0,u_1)\in D(A)\), then there exists \(T\le \infty \) such that (1) has a unique strong solution \((u,u_t)\in D(A)\) on the interval [0, T). Furthermore, if \((u_0,u_1)\in \mathcal {H}\), then (1) has a unique generalized solution \((u,u_t)\in \mathcal {H}\) on the interval [0, T). In both cases we have that \(\lim _{t\rightarrow T^-} \Vert u(t)\Vert =\infty \) provided \(T<\infty \).
Let u be the local solution of (1)\(_1\) given by Theorem 2.1. We define the energy of (1) by
Multiplying (1) by \(u_t\) and integrating on \(\mathbb {R}\), we have the following identity
for all t in the interval of existence of solution u.
Now, we are going to enunciate a lemma which gives us that the ground state holds on the Pohozaev manifold. Its proof is omitted.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(\varphi \in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) be the ground state of (7), then
Next result gives us another characteristic of the ground state level and its proof is an adaptation of the analogous one of Jeanjean and Le Coz [13].
Lemma 2.2
Let \(\varphi \in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) be the ground state of (7), then
where \(\displaystyle T(v)=\frac{1}{2}\int _{\mathbb {R}}|(-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{4}}v|^2\,dx\).
Proof
Let \(v\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) be such that \(P(v)\ge 0\). If \(P(v)=0\), then \(v\in \mathcal {P}\). Thus, using Lemma 2.1, we have
On the other hand, if \(P(v)>0\), then for each \(\beta >0\), we define
We claim that there exists \(\beta _0<1\) such that
Using (9), we have that
Since
for all \(\beta >0\), then taking \(\epsilon =\frac{\lambda _0}{2}\) in (34) we obtain
Observing that
for \(0<\beta <1\), and using Proposition 1.2, we have that \(e^{\alpha v^2}-1\in L^1(\mathbb {R})\). Moreover, it holds
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}\), as \(\beta \rightarrow 0\). Thus, we can use the Lebesgue convergence theorem and to conclude that
as \(\beta \rightarrow 0\). From (35) and (37), we have
for \(\beta \) small enough. Using the assumption \(\lambda _0>6\alpha C(s_1)\) in (38), we obtain
for \(\beta \) small enough. Therefore, there exists \(\beta _0\) such that \(P(v_{\beta _0})=0\) and the claim is proved. Therefore,
\(\square \)
Lemma 2.3
Let \((u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal {I}\) and let u(t) be the associated solution of (1) defined in [0, T). Then \((u(t),u_t(t))\in \mathcal {I}\) for all \(t\in [0,T)\).
Proof
We suppose that the conclusion is not true. Thus, there exists \(t_1\in (0,T)\) such that \(P(u(t_1))\le 0\). From this and since \(P(u_0)>0\), there exists \(t_0\in (0,t_1)\) such that
On the other hand, Lemma 2.2 gives us that
on \(\{v\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\backslash \{0\},\, P(v)>0\}\). Therefore, by continuity, we infer
and this implies that \(u(t_0)\ne 0\). Thus, (39) gives us that \(u(t_0)\in \mathcal {P}\) and since
we have a contradiction with Lemma 2.1. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.4
Let \((u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal {S}\) and let u(t) be the associated solution of (1) defined in [0, T). Then \((u(t),u_t(t))\in \mathcal {S}\) for all \(t\in [0,T)\).
Proof
Analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.3. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.5
Let \((u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal {I}\) and let u(t) be the associated solution of (1) defined in [0, T). Then there exists \(\delta >0\) such that \(P(u(t))>\delta \), for all \(t\in [0,T)\).
Proof: See [5] Lemma 2.6. \(\square \)
Finally, the last lemma of this section, which is used in the proof of the instability result.
Lemma 2.6
Let \(\varphi \in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) be a ground state of (7). For all \(\eta >0\) there exists \(\varphi _{\eta }\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) such that
Proof: For each \(\lambda ,\mu >0\), we define \(\displaystyle \varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(x)=\lambda \varphi \Big (\frac{x}{\mu }\Big )\). Observing the definition of the functional \(I(\varphi )\) and that \(\varphi \in \mathcal {P}\), we obtain
Multiplying (7) by \(\varphi \) and integrating over \(\mathbb {R}\), we obtain
Taking \(\lambda =1\) in (40) and observing (41), we obtain
Thus, for \(\mu >1\) there exists \(\lambda _{\mu }>0\) such that
for \(\lambda \in (1-\lambda _{\mu },1+\lambda _{\mu })\). Therefore, since \(P(\varphi )=0\), we have
for \(\lambda \in (1,1+\lambda _{\mu })\).
On the other hand, since
and observing (41), we infer
Thus, for all \(\mu >0\) there exists \(\lambda _{\mu }\) such that
for \(\lambda \in (1-\lambda _{\mu },1+\lambda _{\mu })\). Therefore,
for \(\lambda \in (1,1+\lambda _{\mu })\). From (44) and (47) we conclude the proof. \(\square \)
3 Proof of Lemma 1.1
In this section we prove the main result. The first lemma is analogous to Lemma 3.1 of [5] with one adjust of the level of (49). The strategy to prove Lemma 1.1 is multiply the equation (1)\(_1\) by \(u_x x\Psi _{\varepsilon ,x}(1) \) and to integrate on \(\mathbb {R}\). This gives us the following identity
After this, it is necessary to estimate each term of the left hand side of (48). The section is organized of the following way: the second integral of (48) is estimate in Lemma 3.6, but some intermediate calculations are made in Lemmas 3.2–3.5. Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 are not proved here, their proofs are analogous to the ones of [5]. Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 have some motification in their proofs and we make it here. In Lemma 3.7 we estimate some terms generate by the two last integrals of (48). In Lemma 3.8 we control some terms called here of ‘boundary terms’. They are generated by the use of derivative rules. In Lemma 3.9 we write an additional result (when it is compared with [5]) which is generated by the adaptation of Carrião, Lehrer, and Vicente ideas to the one dimensional case. Finally, the last result of this section is the proof of Lemma 1.1.
For each \(\varepsilon >0\), we define \(\Phi _{\varepsilon }:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
Now, for each \(\varepsilon >0\) and \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), we define the function \(\varphi _{\varepsilon ,x}:\mathbb {R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) which depends on one extra parameter, given by
We define the function \(\Psi _{\varepsilon , x}:\mathbb {R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
We are going to use the notation \(\frac{d}{d\lambda } \Psi _{\varepsilon ,x}(\lambda )=\Psi _{\varepsilon ,x}'(\lambda )\).
Lemma 3.1
For each \(\varepsilon >0\), \(\lambda >0\) and \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), we have
Moreover, for each \(\varepsilon >0\) and \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), we infer
Proof
See [5], Lemma 3.1. \(\square \)
Let \(\lambda \) be a real number. To prove the results below we use an auxiliary function defined by
Lemma 3.2
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. It holds
Proof
See [5] Lemma 5.1. \(\square \)
In next results (Lemma 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9) \(\delta \) is the constant gives by Lemma 2.5.
Lemma 3.3
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Given \(T_1\in [0,T)\) there exists a \(\varepsilon _0>0\) such that
for all \(t\le T_1\) and for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _0\).
Proof
See [5] Lemma 5.2. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.4
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Given \(T_1\in [0,T)\) there exists a \(\varepsilon _1>0\) such that for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _1\) it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\).
Proof
From \(\varphi _{\varepsilon ,x}\) definition, we have
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{2}\times (0,T_1)\), as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Moreover,
From (60), (61) and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have
as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Therefore, there exists \(\tilde{\varepsilon }_1>0\), such that for all \(\varepsilon \le \tilde{\varepsilon }_1\), it holds
where \(\delta \) is given by Lemma 2.5. We observe that
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). Thus,
for all \(\varepsilon \le \tilde{\varepsilon }_1\).
On the other hand, since \(\Psi _{\varepsilon ,z}(1)\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}\), as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), we have
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{2}\times (0,T_1)\), as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Moreover,
From (66), (67) and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have
as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Thus, (68) allows us to conclude that there exists \(\hat{\varepsilon }_1>0\), such that for all \(\varepsilon \le \hat{\varepsilon }_1\), it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and \(\varepsilon \le \hat{\varepsilon }_1\), where \(\delta \) is given by Lemma 2.5. Thus,
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). Taking \(\varepsilon _1=\min \{\tilde{\varepsilon }_1,\hat{\varepsilon }_1\}\) and combining (65) with (70), we have that (59) is proved. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.5
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Given \(T_1\in [0,T)\) it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon >0\).
Proof
The estimate (52) and the assumption (15) allow us to control the first integral of the right hand side of (71), i.e.,
For the second one, the assumption (15) and (53) allow us to conclude that
\(\square \)
Lemma 3.6
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Given \(T_1\in [0,T)\) there exists a \(\varepsilon _2>0\) such that for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _2\) it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\).
Proof
Let \(T_1\in [0,T)\) be an arbitrarily fixed number. Taking \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _2=\min \{\varepsilon _0,\varepsilon _1\}\) (where \(\varepsilon _0\) and \(\varepsilon _1\) was given by Lemma 3.3 and 3.4), respectively, we can combine Lemma 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 to conclude that
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _2\). \(\square \)
Lemma 3.7
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. For each \(T_1\in [0,T)\), there exists a \(\varepsilon _3>0\) such that for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _3\), it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\).
Proof
Let \(T_1\in [0,T)\) be an arbitrarily fixed number. From \(\varphi _{\varepsilon ,x}\) definition, we have
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R} \times (0,T_1)\), as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Moreover,
From (76), (77) and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have
as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Therefore, there exists \(\varepsilon _3>0\) such that for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _3\), it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\), where \(\delta \) is given by Lemma 2.5. Thus, the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
Due the use of product derivative rule, in the proof of Lemma 1.1 arise some terms involving the derivative with respect to the additional variable \(\lambda \). These terms are estimate in next lemma.
Lemma 3.8
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. Given \(T_1\in [0,T)\), it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon >0\), where \(C_3\) is given by (16).
Proof
We denote the three first integrals of the left hand side of (80) by \(I_1,I_2\) and \(I_3\), respectively. Now, we are going to estimate these integrals.
Estimate of \(I_1\): Making the change of variable \(z=\lambda x\), we obtain
Therefore,
The estimate (52) and the assumption (15) (\(\Vert u(t)\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})}\le K\), for all \(t\in [0,T)\)), allow us to control the first integral of the right hand side of (82), i.e.,
For the second one, again the assumption (15) and (53) allow us to conclude that
Estimate of \(I_2\): Making the change of variable \(z=\lambda x\), we obtain
Therefore, working as (82), we obtain
Observing the definitions of the energy and I(u), and (9) and (12), we have
a.e. in [0, T). Since \((u(t),u_t(t))\in \mathcal {I}\) for all \(t\in [0,T)\), we have that \(E(t)<m\). Using this and (15) in (86), we conclude that
a. e. in [0, T).
Then, making estimates as (72) and (73), we can conclude that
Estimate of \(I_3\): Making the change of variable \(z=\lambda x\), we obtain
thus,
The assumption (9) and the estimate (52) give us
Analogously, (9) and (53) allow us to infer
Thus, from (89), (90) and (91) we have
\(\square \)
Lemma 3.9
Let \(u:\mathbb {R}\times [0,T)\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the solution of (1) given by Theorem 2.1. For each \(T_1\in [0,T)\), there exists a \(\varepsilon _4>0\) such that for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _4\), it holds
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\).
Proof
Analogously to the proof of Lemma 3.7. \(\square \)
3.1 Proof of Lemma 1.1
Multiplying (1) by \(u_x x\Psi _{\varepsilon ,x}(1) \) and integrating on \(\mathbb {R}\), we have
We denote the integrals of (93) by \(I_4,I_5,I_6,\) and \(I_7\).
Estimate of \(I_4\): We observe that
Since \(u_{\lambda }(x,t)=u(\lambda x,t)\), it follows
We have that
Taking \(\lambda =1\) in (95), using (96) into (95) and combining the resultant equation with (94), we have
From (97) and using (51), we have the following expression
Estimate of \(I_5\): From the product derivative rule, we have
Taking \(\lambda =1\), observing that
and considering (51), we infer
Estimate of \(I_6\): Observing that \(\frac{d}{d\lambda }F(u_{\lambda })=f(u_{\lambda })u_{\lambda x}x \), we have
Taking \(\lambda =1\) and using (51) we obtain the following identity
Replacing (98), (99) and (100) into (93) we infer
Let \(T_1\in [0,T)\) be an arbitrarily fixed number. Integrating from 0 to \(t<T_1\) and observing Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.8, we infer
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon <\varepsilon _2\). This estimate, Lemma 3.7, and Lemma 3.9 give us
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon <\min \{\varepsilon _2,\varepsilon _3,\varepsilon _4\}\).
The estimate (103) and Lemma 2.5 allow us to conclude
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\) and for all \(\varepsilon <\min \{\varepsilon _2,\varepsilon _3,\varepsilon _4\}\).
Choosing \(\varepsilon <\min \left\{ \varepsilon _2,\varepsilon _3,\varepsilon _4,C_2\right\} \), where \(C_2\) is the constant defined in (16), we infer
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). Using the inequality of Cauchy-Schwarz, we obtain
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). From this and since, from Lemma 3.1,
we conclude that
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). \(\square \)
4 Blow Up, Instability and Global Existence
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. They are consequence of Lemma 1.1.
4.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1
The blow up result of the item a) is a consequence of \(T<\infty \). Now, we suppose that \(T=\infty \). We prove this by contradiction. We suppose that there exists a constant \(K>0\) such that
for all \(t\ge 0\). By the identity of energy (33) we have
Analogously to (86) we have
for all \(t\ge 0\). Since \(E(0)<m\), from (106) and (108) we obtain
for all \(t\ge 0\). Moreover, from the continuous inclusion \(H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\hookrightarrow H^1(\mathbb {R})\), we have
for all \(t\ge 0\).
On the other hand, using (106) we can apply Lemma 1.1 with
to infer that
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\). Combinning (109)–(111) we conclude that
for all \(t\in [0,T_1]\), which is a contradiction. \(\square \)
4.2 Proof of Theorem 1.2
Let \(\eta >0\) and \(\varphi _{\eta }\) be given by Lemma 2.6. As \(H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) is dense in \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\), there exists \(u_{0,\eta }\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) such that
Then
Let u be the solution of (1) associated to the initial data \((u_{0,\eta },0)\). Then the initial energy satisfies
Therefore, the initial energy is below of the level m and the couple \((u_{0,\eta },0)\) is in \(\mathcal {I}\), thus the result follows from Theorem 1.1. \(\square \)
Finally, we prove our global existence theorem.
4.3 Proof of Theorem 1.3
It is enough to estimate the \(H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb {R})\) norm. We observe that
As \((u_0,u_1)\in \mathcal {S}\), then for all t, \((u(t),u_t(t))\in \mathcal {S}\) and \(P(u(t))\le 0\). Therefore, from (113) we have
for all \(t\ge 0\). Now, we observe that
this and (114) give us the result. \(\square \)
Data Availability
The manuscript has no associated data.
References
Alves, C.O., Cavalcanti, M.M.: On existence, uniform decay rates and blow up for solutions of the 2-D wave equation with exponential source. Calc. Var. 34, 377–411 (2009)
Alves, C.O., Cavalcanti, M.M., Domingos Cavalcanti, V.N., Rammaha, M.A., Toundykov, D.: On existence, uniform decay and blow up for solutions of systems of nonlinear wave equations with damping and source terms. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S. 2(3), 583–608 (2009)
Alves, C.O., Torres Ledesma, C.: Multiplicity of solutions for a class of fractional elliptic problems with critical exponential growth and nonlocal Neumann condition. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 20(5), 2065–2100 (2021)
Bisci, G.M., Radulescu, V.D., Servadei, R.: Variational Methods for Nonlocal Fractional Problems, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 162. Cambridge University Press, London (2016)
Carrião, P.C., Lehrer, R., Vicente, A.: Unstable ground state and blow up result of Nonlocal Klein–Gordon equations. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-023-10281-3
Chueshov, I., Eller, M., Lasiecka, I.: On the attractor for a semilinear wave equation with critical exponent and nonlinear boundary dissipation. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 27(9–10), 1901–1951 (2002)
Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G., Valdinoci, E.: Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136, 521–573 (2012)
Domingos Cavalcanti, V.N., Cavalcanti, M.M., Marchiori, T.D., Webler, C.M.: Asymptotic behaviour of the energy to the viscoelastic wave equation with localized hereditary memory and supercritical source term. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. 1, 1–51 (2022)
Ferrari, F., Verbitsky, I.E.: Radial fractional Laplace operators and Hessian inequalities. J. Differ. Equ. 253, 244–272 (2012)
Gazzola, F., Squassina, M.: Global solutions and finite time blow up for damped semilinear wave equations. Ann. I. H. Poincaré 23, 185–207 (2006)
Georgiev, V., Todorova, G.: Existence of a solution of the wave equation with nonlinear damping and source terms. J. Differ. Equ. 109, 295–308 (1994)
Iannizzotto, A., Squassina, M.: 1/2-Laplacian problems with exponential nonlinearity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 414, 372–385 (2014)
Jeanjean, L., Le Coz, S.: Instability for standing waves of nonlinear Klein–Gordon equations via mountain-pass arguments. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 361(10), 5401–5416 (2009)
Levine, H.A., Todorova, G.: Blow up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for a wave equation with nonlinear damping and source terms and positive initial energy. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 129(3), 793–805 (2000)
Luo, H., Zhang, Z.: Normalized solutions to the fractional Schrödinger equations with combined nonlinearities. Calc. Var. 59, 143 (2020)
Merle, F., Zaag, H.: Determination of the blow-up rate for the semilinear wave equation. Am. J. Math. 125(5), 1147–1164 (2003)
Messaoudi, S.A.: Blow up and global existence in a nonlinear viscoelastic wave equation. Math. Nachr. 260, 58–66 (2003)
Marcos do Ó, J., Miyagaki, O.H., Squassina, M.: Ground state of nonlocal scalar field equations with Trudinger–Moser critical nonlinearity. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 48(2), 477–492 (2016)
Ohta, M., Todorova, G.: Strong instability of standing waves for nonlinear Klein–Gordon equation and Klein–Gordon–Zakharov system. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 38, 1912–1931 (2007)
Ozawa, T.: On critical cases of Sobolev’s inequalities. J. Funct. Anal. 127, 259–269 (1995)
Ros-Oton, X., Serra, J.: The Pohozaev identity for the fractional laplacian. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 213, 587–628 (2014)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: Mountain pass solutions for non-local elliptic operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 389, 887–898 (2012)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: Variational methods for non-local operators of elliptic type. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 33(5), 2105–2137 (2013)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: The Brezis–Nirenberg result for the fractional laplacian. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 367(1), 67–102 (2015)
Shatah, J.: Unstable ground state of nonlinear Klein–Gordon equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 290(2), 701–710 (1985)
Takahashi, F.: Critical and subcritical fractional Trudinger–Moser-type inequality on \(\mathbb{R} \). Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 8, 868–884 (2019)
Todorova, G.: Stable and unstable sets for the Cauchy problem for a nonlinear wave equation with nonlinear damping and source terms. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 239, 213–226 (1999)
Yang, H., Han, Y.: Blow-up for a damped p-Laplacian type wave equation with logarithmic nonlinearity. J. Differ. Equ. 306, 569–589 (2022)
Funding
Research of O. H. Miyagaki is partially supported by the CNPq Grant 303256/2022-2. Research of A. Vicente is partially supported by the CNPq Grant 306771/2023-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors do not have conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Carrião, P.C., Miyagaki, O.H. & Vicente, A. Blow Up for Klein–Gordon Equation with Nonlocal Operator and Trudinger–Moser Nonlinearity. J Dyn Diff Equat (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-024-10366-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-024-10366-7
Keywords
- Nonlocal Klein–Gordon equation
- Nonlocal scalar equation
- Blow-up of solution
- Exponential growth
- Instability of ground state solution