Abstract
The goal of this note is to establish non-tangential convergence results for Schrödinger operators along restricted curves. We consider the relationship between the dimension of this kind of approach region and the regularity for the initial data which implies convergence. As a consequence, we obtain an upper bound for p such that the Schrödinger maximal function is bounded from \(H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\) to \(L^{p}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\) for any \(s > \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The solution to the Schrödinger equation
with initial datum \(u\left( {x,0} \right) = f,\) is formally written as
The problem about finding optimal s for which
whenever \(f \in {H^s}\left( {{\mathbb {R}^n}} \right) ,\) was first considered by Carleson [4], and extensively studied by Sjölin [20] and Vega [21], who proved independently the convergence for \(s > 1/2\) in all dimensions. Dahlberg–Kenig [8] showed that the convergence does not hold for \(s < 1/4\) in any dimension. In 2016, Bourgain [3] gave a counterexample showing that convergence can fail if \(s<\frac{n}{2(n+1)}\). Very recently, Du–Guth–Li [9] and Du–Zhang [11] obtained the sharp results by the polynomial partitioning and decoupling method.
It is very interesting to consider whether a.e. convergence results mentioned above still hold true if we replace the vertical line by a wider approach region, such as non-tangential convergence to the initial data. In fact, Sjölin-Sjögren [19] constructed a function \(f \in H^{\frac{n}{2}}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\) such that
for all \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\), where \(\gamma \) is strictly increasing and \(\gamma (0)=0\). This indicates the failure of non-tangential convergence for \(s \le n/2\). Comparing the previous results along vertical line, one can observe that to guarantee a.e. existence of the non-tangential limit, it is necessary to require more regularity on the initial data. Therefore, in [6], the authors tried to seek the relationship between the approach region and the required Sobolev regularity of the initial data. More concretely, let \(\Gamma _{x,t}=\{x+t\theta : \) \(\theta \in \Theta \}\), where \(t\in [-1,1]\), \(\Theta \) is a given compact set in \(\mathbb {R}^{1}\). In [6], they proved that the corresponding non-tangential convergence result holds for \(s>\frac{\beta (\Theta )+1}{4}\), here \(\beta (\Theta )\) denotes the upper Minkowski dimension of \(\Theta \). This result in [6] was established by the \(TT^{\star }\) method and a time localizing lemma. Recently, by getting around the key localizing lemma in [6], Shiraki [18] generalized this result to a wider class of equations which includes the fractional Schrödinger equation.
However, the above question remains open in \(\mathbb {R}^n\) (\(n\ge 2\)) until recently. In this article, we consider the non-tangential convergence problem along the set of points in \(\mathbb {R}^{n} \times \mathbb {R}\) given by \(\{(y,t): y \in \Gamma _{x,t}\}\) for each \(t\in [0,1]\), where
for a given compact set \(\Theta \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\). \(\gamma \) is a map from \(\mathbb {R}^{n} \times [0,1] \times \Theta \) to \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\), which satisfies \(\gamma (x,0,\theta ) =x\) for all \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\), \(\theta \in \Theta \), and the following (C1)–(C3) hold:
(C1) For fixed \(t \in [0,1]\), \(\theta \in \Theta \), \(\gamma \) has at least \(C^{1}\) regularity in x, and there exists a constant \(C_{1} \ge 1\) such that for each \(x, x^{\prime } \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\), \(\theta \in \Theta \), \(t \in [0,1]\),
(C2) There exists a constant \(C_{2} >0\) such that for each \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\), \(\theta \in \Theta \), \(t,t^{\prime } \in [0,1]\),
(C3) There exists a constant \(C_{3} >0\) such that for each \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\), \(t \in [0,1]\), \(\theta , \theta ^{\prime } \in \Theta \),
We consider the relationship between the dimension of \(\Theta \) and the optimal s for which
whenever \(f \in {H^s}\left( {{\mathbb {R}^n}} \right) \).
We first give two examples for \(\Gamma _{x,t}\). It is not hard to check that all the conditions mentioned above can be satisfied if we take (E1): \(\gamma (x,t,\theta ) = x + t\theta \), where \(\Theta \) is a compact subset of the unit ball in \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\). When \(n=1,\) this is just the problem considered in [6]. Another example is (E2): \(\gamma (x,t,\theta ) = x + t^{\theta }\), where \(t^{\theta } =(t^{\theta _{1}}, t^{\theta _{2}}, \cdot \cdot \cdot , t^{\theta _{n}} )\) for \(\theta =(\theta _1,\theta _2,\cdots ,\theta _n) \in \Theta \). Here, \(\Theta \) is a compact subset in the first quadrant away from the axis of \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\). For this example, it is worth to mention that when \(\theta \) is fixed, Lee–Rogers [14] have obtained that the convergence along the curve \((\gamma _{\theta }(x,t),t)\) is equivalent to the convergence along the vertical line.
In order to characterize the size of \(\Theta \), we introduce the so called logarithmic density or upper Minkowski dimension of \(\Theta \),
where \(N(\delta )\) is the minimum number of closed balls of diameter \(\delta \) to cover \(\Theta \). It is not hard to see that when \(\Theta \) is a single point, \(\beta (\Theta ) =0\); when \(\Theta \) is a compact subset of \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\) with positive Lebesgue measure, \(\beta (\Theta ) =n\).
By standard arguments, in order to obtain the convergence result, it is sufficient to establish the bounded estimates for the maximal operator defined by
Our main results are as follows. Firstly, we show the following main result in general dimensional case.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(n \ge 1\). Suppose that there exists \(p \ge 2\) such that for any \(s> \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\),
whenever \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\). If \(\gamma \) satisfies (C1)-(C3), then for a given \(B(x_{0},R) \subset \mathbb {R}^{n}\) and any \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )}{p} + \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\), it holds that
whenever \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^n)\). Here, the constant C depends on s, \(C_{1}\), \(C_{2}\), \(C_{3}\), and the choice of \( B(x_{0}, R)\), but does not depend on f.
Theorem 1.1 implies that if (1.7) holds for some \(p \ge 2\) whenever \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\) for any \(s> \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\), then for any \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )}{p} + \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\),
whenever \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\). We briefly sketch the proof of Theorem 1.1, and leave the details to Sect. 2. We decompose \(\Theta \) into small subsets \(\{\Theta _{k}\}\) with bounded overlap, where the size of each \(\Theta _{k}\) is small enough so that our problem can be reduced to estimate the maximal function for Schrödinger operator along certain curves, i.e. the maximal operator defined by
for some \(\theta _{k}^{0} \in \Theta _{k}\). The number of \(\Theta _{k}\) is determined by \(\beta (\Theta )\). In order to get the bounded estimate for maximal function defined by (1.10), we need inequality (1.7). The idea to establish the bounded estimate for maximal function defined by (1.10) using inequality (1.7) comes from the method adopted by Lee–Rogers [14] to show equivalence between convergence result for Schrödinger operators along smooth curves and vertical lines. However, we should be more careful since we need an estimate uniformly in k. In our case, this can be realized since \(\Theta \) is compact.
When \(n=2\), Du–Guth–Li [9] proved that for any \(s>1/3\), inequality (1.7) holds for any function \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^2)\) with \(p=3\). Therefore, combining with Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 1.2
When \(n=2\) and \(\gamma \) satisfies (C1)–(C3),
-
(1)
for a given \(B(x_{0},R) \subset \mathbb {R}^{2}\), it follows that for any \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )+1}{3}\),
$$\begin{aligned} \biggl \Vert \mathop {\mathrm{sup}}\limits _{(t,\theta ) \in (0,1) \times \Theta } |e^{it\Delta }f(\gamma (x,t,\theta ))|\biggl \Vert _{L^{3}(B(x_{0},R))} \le C\Vert f\Vert _{H^s(\mathbb {R}^2)} \end{aligned}$$(1.11)whenever \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^2)\), where the constant C depends on s, \(C_{1}\), \(C_{2}\), \(C_{3}\), and the choice of \( B(x_{0}, R)\), but does not depend on f;
-
(2)
as a consequence of (1), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{\begin{array}{c} (y,t) \rightarrow (x,0) \\ y\in \Gamma _{x,t} \end{array}}e^{it\Delta }f(y) = f(x) a.e. \end{aligned}$$(1.12)whenever \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^2)\) for each \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )+1}{3}\).
We notice that the convergence result obtained in Theorem 1.2 is sharp when \(\beta (\Theta ) = 0\) ( [9] and [3]) or \(\beta (\Theta ) = 2\) ( [19]). It is quite interesting to seek whether (1.12) is sharp when \(0< \beta (\Theta ) <2\).
When \(n \ge 3\), then it comes to the question about what is the largest possible value for p such that (1.7) holds for any \(s> \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\). This question is still open to our best knowledge, but combining with the counterexample given by Sjölin-Sjögren [19], we get an upper bound for p.
Theorem 1.3
For general positive integer n, if there exists \(p \ge 2\) such that for any \(s> \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\), (1.7) holds whenever \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{n})\), then \(p \le \frac{2(n+1)}{n}\).
The upper bound given by Theorem 1.3 is sharp for \(n=1\) ( [4]) and \(n=2\) ( [9]). In [11], it was proved that (1.7) holds for \(p=2\) when \(n \ge 3\). There is a gap between 2 and \(\frac{2(n+1)}{n}\), then there may still be margin to improve for \(n \ge 3\). Also, combining the result of [11] with Theorem 1.1, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 1.4
When \(n \ge 3\), if \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )}{2} + \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\), then
whenever \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^n)\).
What’s more, by parabolic rescaling and time localizing lemma, inequality (1.7) is equivalent to
whenever supp\(\hat{f} \subset \{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim 1\}\), where \(\lambda \gg 1\). The range of p has been discussed in Du–Kim–Wang–Zhang [10], but the optimal range of p is still unknown.
Conventions Throughout this article, we shall use the well known notation \(A\gg B\), which means if there is a sufficiently large constant G, which does not depend on the relevant parameters arising in the context in which the quantities A and B appear, such that \( A\ge GB\). We write \(A\sim B\), and mean that A and B are comparable. By \(A\lesssim B\) we mean that \(A \le CB \) for some constant C independent of the parameters related to A and B. Given \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\), we write B(0, 1) instead of the unit ball \(B^{n}(0,1)\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\) centered at the origin for short, and the same notation is valid for \(B(x_{0},R)\).
2 Proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2
Proof of Theorem 1.1 In order to prove Theorem 1.1, using Littlewood-Paley decomposition, we only need to show that for f with supp\(\hat{f} \subset \{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\), \(\lambda \gg 1\),
where \(s_{0}=\frac{\beta (\Theta )}{p} + \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\).
We decompose \(\Theta \) into small subsets \(\{\Theta _{k}\}\) such that \(\Theta = \cup _{k}\Theta _{k}\) with bounded overlap, where each \(\Theta _{k}\) is contained in a closed ball with diameter \(\lambda ^{-1}\). Then we have
Under the assumption of Theorem 1.1, we claim that for each k,
Then we have
which implies inequality (2.1).
Now we are left to prove inequality (2.3). For this goal, we first show the following Lemma 2.1. The original idea comes from Lemma 2.2 in [14].
Lemma 2.1
Assume that g is a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform is supported in \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\). If
then for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\) and \(t \in (0, 1)\),
where the constant C depends on n and \(C_{3}\) in inequality (1.5).
Proof
We introduce a cut-off function \(\phi \) which is smooth and equal to 1 on B(0, 2) and supported on \((-\pi , \pi )^{n}\). After scaling we have
Since it follows by inequality (1.5),
then by the Fourier expansion,
where
uniformly for each \(\mathfrak {l} \in \mathbb {Z}^{n}\), \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\) and \(t \in (0, 1)\). Then we have
then we arrive at (2.4). \(\square \)
By the similar argument, we can prove the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2
Assume that g is a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform is supported in \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\). If
then for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\) and \(\theta \in \Theta \),
where the constant C depends on n and \(C_{2}\) in inequality (1.4).
We now prove inequality (2.3). For fixed k, by the construction of \(\Theta _{k}\), there is a \(\theta _{k}^{0} \in \Theta _{k}\) such that
holds for each \(\theta \in \Theta _{k}\). Then according to Lemma 2.1, for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\), \(t \in (0, 1)\) and \(\theta \in \Theta _{k}\), we have
where
It follows that
provided that we have proved the following lemma.
Lemma 2.3
Under the assumption of Theorem 1.1, if g is a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform is supported in the annulus \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\). Then for each k,
where the constant C is independent of k.
Now let’s turn to prove Lemma 2.3. The following theorem is required.
Theorem 2.1
( [14]) Let \(\rho : \mathbb {R}^{n+1} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^{n}\), \(q, r \in [2, +\infty ]\), \(\lambda \ge 1\), supp \(\nu \subset [-2,2]\), \(\lambda \ge \Vert 1\Vert _{L_{\mu }^{q}L_{\nu }^{r}}^{1/n}\), and suppose that
where \(M >1\). Suppose that for a collection of boundedly overlapping intervals I of length \(\lambda ^{-1}\), there exists a constant \(C_{0} >1\) such that
whenever \(\hat{f}\) is supported in \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\). Then there is a constant \(C_{n} >1\) such that
whenever \(\hat{f}\) is supported in \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\).
Notice that in our case, for each k, we have
By inequality (1.4), for each \((x,t,\theta ) \in B(x_{0},R) \times (0,1) \times \Theta \),
then \(|\gamma (x,t,\theta )|\) is uniformly bounded for \((x,t,\theta ) \in B(x_{0},R) \times (0,1) \times \Theta \), and the upper bound is determined by \(C_{2}\) and the choice of \(B(x_{0},R)\), but independent of k.
Therefore, according to Theorem 2.1, in order to prove Lemma 2.3, we only need to show that for each interval \(I \subset (0,1)\) of length \(\lambda ^{-1}\), and any function g such that \(\hat{g}\) is supported in \(\{\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{n}: |\xi | \sim \lambda \}\), we have
Since I is an interval of length \(\lambda ^{-1}\), there exists \(t_{I}^{0} \in I\) such that for each \(t \in I\),
Then by Lemma 2.2, for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\), \(t \in I\), we have
where
It follows that
For each \(t_{I}^{0}\), \(\theta _{k}^{0}\), \(\gamma _{t_{I}^{0}, \theta _{k}^{0}}\) is at least \(C^{1}\) from \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\) to \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\). By inequality (1.3), for each \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{n}\),
By the same reason, for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\),
which implies \(\gamma _{t_{I}^{0}, \theta _{k}^{0}}(B(x_{0},R)) \subset B( \gamma (x_{0},t_{I}^{0},\theta _{k}^{0}),C_{1}R)\). Therefore, changes of variables and inequality (1.7) imply that
Combining inequality (2.12) with inequality (2.13), we have
This completes the proof of Lemma 2.3.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
We only need to prove that (1) implies (2). The proof is quite standard. We write the details for completeness. Let \(s> \frac{\beta (\Theta )+1}{3}\), and \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{2})\). For a fixed \(\lambda >0\), choose \(g \in C_{c}^{\infty }(\mathbb {R}^{2})\) such that
where the constant C is the constant in inequality (1.11), which follows
Moreover,
uniformly for \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\). Indeed, for each \(x \in B(x_{0},R)\),
By mean value theorem and inequality (1.4), we have
and
Inequalities (2.17) - (2.19) imply (2.16).
since we can always assume that \(C \ge 1\), which implies convergence for \(f \in H^{s}(\mathbb {R}^{2})\) and almost every \(x \in B(x_{0}, R)\). By the arbitrariness of \(B(x_{0}, R)\), in fact we can get convergence for almost every \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{2}\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2. \(\square \)
3 Proof of Theorem 1.3
Proof of Theorem 1.3 We take \(\gamma (x,t,\theta ) = x + t\theta \), where \(\Theta \) is the interior of the unit ball in \(\mathbb {R}^{n}\). Then we have
and for \(t \in [0,1]\), choose
Assuming that (1.7) holds, then it follows from Theorem 1.1 and the choice of \(\Gamma _{x,t}\) that for any \(s > \frac{\beta (\Theta )}{p} + \frac{n}{2(n+1)}\),
whenever \(f\in H^s(\mathbb {R}^n)\). But according to Theorem 3 in [19], this result fails for any \(s \le \frac{n}{2}\). Therefore, we get
Then inequality (3.4) and equality (3.1) imply Theorem 1.3. \(\square \)
References
Bourgain, J.: Some new estimates on oscillatory integrals. In Essays on Fourier Analysis in Honor of Elias M. Stein (Princeton, NJ, : Princeton Math. Ser. 42, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, pp. 83–112 (1991)
Bourgain, J.: On the Schrödinger maximal function in higher dimension. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 280(1), 53–66 (2012)
Bourgain, J.: A note on the Schrödinger maximal function. J. d’Analyse Mathématique 130, 393–396 (2016)
Carleson, L.: Some Analytic Problems Related to Statistical Mechanics. Euclidean Harmonic Analysis, pp. 5–45. Springer, Berlin (1980)
Carbery, A.:. Radial Fourier multipliers and associated maximal functions. In: Peral, I., Rubio de Francia, R.L. (eds.) Recent Progress in Fourier Analysis. pp. 49–56, North Holland, Amsterdam (1985)
Cho, C., Lee, S., Vargas, A.: Problems on pointwise convergence of solutions to the Schrödinger equation. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 18(5), 972–994 (2012)
Ding, Y., Niu, Y.: Weighted maximal estimates along curve associated with dispersive equations. Anal. Appl. 15(2), 225–240 (2017)
Dahlberg, B.E.J., Kenig, C.E.: A note on the almost everywhere behavior of solutions to the Schrödinger equation. In Harmonic Analysis (Minneapolis, Minn., : Lecture Notes in Math. 908. Springer-Verlag, New York 1982, pp. 205–209 (1981)
Du, X., Guth, L., Li, X.: A sharp Schrödinger maximal estimate in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). Ann. Math. 186, 607–640 (2017)
Du, X., Kim, J., Wang, H., Zhang, R.: Lower bounds for estimates of Schrödinger maximal function. arXiv: 1902.01430v1 (2019)
Du, X., Zhang, R.: Sharp \(L^{2}\) estimates of the Schrödinger maximal function in higher dimensions. Ann. Math. 189, 837–861 (2019)
Kenig, E.C., Ponce, G., Vega, L.: Oscillatory integrals and regularity of dispersive equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 40(1), 33–69 (1991)
Lee, S.: On pointwise convergence of the solutions to Schrödinger equations in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). Int. Math. Res. Not. 32597, 1–21 (2006)
Lee, S., Rogers, K.M.: The Schrödinger equation along curves and the quantum harmonic oscillator. Adv. Math. 229, 1359–1379 (2012)
Lucá, R., Rogers, K.M.: An improved necessary condition for the Schrödinger maximal estimate. arXiv:1506.05325v1 (2015)
Miao, C., Yang, J., Zheng, J.: An improved maximal inequality for 2D fractional order Schrödinger operators. Studia Mathematica 230, 121–165 (2015)
Moyua, A., Vargas, A., Vega, L.: Schrödinger maximal function and restricion properties of the Fourier transform. Int. Math. Res. Not. 16, 793–815 (1996)
Shiraki, S.: Pointwise convergence along restricted directions for the fractional Schrödinger equation. arXiv:1903.02356v1 (2019)
Sjögren, P., Sjölin, P.: Convergence properties for the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ 14, 13–25 (1989)
Sjölin, P.: Regularity of solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Duke Math. J. 55(3), 699–715 (1987)
Vega, L.: Schrödinger equations: pointwise convergence to the initial data. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 102(4), 874–878 (1988)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Luis Vega.
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 (No.11871452); Natural Natural Science Foundation of China (No.11701452); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.2017M613193); Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2017JQ1009).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, W., Wang, H. & Yan, D. A Note on Non-tangential Convergence for Schrödinger Operators. J Fourier Anal Appl 27, 61 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-021-09862-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-021-09862-x