Sharp blowup rate for NLS with a repulsive harmonic potential

*Correspondence: zhourui860514@163.com 1Department of Normal Education, Meishan Vocational and Technical College, Meishan, 620010, P.R. China Abstract In this paper, we are concerned with the blowup solutions of the L2 critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a repulsive harmonic potential. By using the results recently obtained by Merle and Raphaël and by Carles’ transform we establish in a quite elementary way universal and sharp upper and lower bounds of the blowup rate for the blowup solutions of the aforementioned equation. As an application, we derive upper and lower bounds on the Lr-norms of the singular solutions.

We impose the initial data (ii) Conservation of energy: H ω u(t) = 1 2 |∇ x u| 2 dx -ω 2 2 |x| 2 |u| 2 dx -1 1 + 2 n |u| 2+ 4 n dx = H ω (u 0 ). (1.4) The existence of blowup solutions for a class of initial data isproved in [1], and, last but not least, some dynamical properties of the blowup solutions were studied in [6-8, 18, 20-22]. Another interesting aspect of this equation is its relation to the following problem known as the L 2 -critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation: The link between problems (1.1) and (1.5) emanates from the work of Carles [2]. As for (1.1), the initial value problem (1.5) has been studied extensively; we refer the reader to [3] for the basic results. One of the major breakthrough as far was accomplished by Merle and Raphaël. In a series of papers [9][10][11], they succeeded in proving upper and lower bounds on the blowup rate suggested by numerical simulations for a class of initial data in H 1 (R n ). This was done under some positivity condition on an explicit quadratic form. In this paper, we combine the ideas of Merle and Raphaël, Carles, and Zhu and Li to establish the exact upper and lower bounds on the blowup rate for the blowup solutions of (1.1). The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we present some notations and the results obtained by Merle and Raphaël in connection with (1.5), and then we focus on Carles' work on the Cauchy problem (1.1). We conclude the section with the transform linking the two problems. In Sect. 3, we state the main results of this paper and proceed to their proofs. Section 4 is devoted to an application of our main theorems.

Notations and preliminaries
In this paper, for simplicity, we abbreviate L r (R n ) and H 1 (R n ) by L r and H 1 , respectively. We define We further recall some established facts about Cauchy problems (1.1) and (1.5) that are relevant in our study. First, we begin with Merle and Raphaël's celebrated result concerning the sharp upper and lower bounds on the blowup rate for blowup solutions to problem (1.5), and, second, we focus on Carles' work in relation with problem (1.1). We conclude the section with the relation between the two problems.

Sharp blowup rate for Eq. (1.5)
As mentioned in the introduction, the results of Merle and Raphaël were based on the following spectral property of some explicit quadratic form.

Spectral property
Let n ≥ 1. Consider two real Schrödinger operators Here Q is the ground state, that is, the unique H 1 -positive and radially symmetric function solution to the scalar field equation -1 2 Q + Q -|Q| 4/n Q = 0 (see [5,15] for more detail), Q 1 = n 2 Q + y · ∇Q, Q 2 = n 2 Q 1 + y · ∇Q 1 , and 0 < 2 -< 2 is an arbitrary real number. The above property was proved in [9] for n = 1 m wich is due to an explicit expression of the ground state in one dimension. In [4] the spectral property was checked numerically up to n = 5.
Based on the spectral conjecture, Merle and Raphaël proved the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1 Let n = 1 or n ≥ 2 and assume that the spectral property holds. There exist α * > 0 and a universal constant C > 0 such that the following is true.
Let v be the unique maximal solution to Eq.
Then v blows up in finite time S > 0, and Theorem 2.1 states in particular that if the initial data ψ ∈ H 1 has a slightly supercritical mass and a strictly negative energy, then the corresponding maximal solution v to Eq. (1.5) blows up in finite time with ln ln rate of blowup. This is a step toward a proof of the negative energy conjecture. We note that the latter was proved in some particular cases by Ogawa and Tsutsumi [12,13].
Let us now turn to the result of Merle and Raphaël [10] for the lower bound.
Theorem 2.2 Let n = 1 or n ≥ 2 and assume that the spectral property holds. There exist α * > 0 and a universal constant C > 0 such that the following is true.
Let v be the unique maximal solution to Eq. (1.5) with initial data v(0, x) = u 0 , and assume that it blows up in finite time S > 0. Then we have the following lower bound on the blowup rate: as s → S -.

Carles' transform
One of the main interests of problem (1.1) is its relation to (1.5). This was shown by Carles [2]. We have the following: Then u solves (1.1). In particular, if the solution to (1.5) is unique, then so is the solution to (1.1), and it is given by (2.1).

Sharp blow-up rate for Eq. (1.1)
We come now to the principal section of this article. We begin with the following theorem on the sharp upper bound on the blow-up rate for singular solutions to (1.1).
Theorem 3.1 Let n = 1 or n ≥ 2 and assume that the spectral property holds. There exist α * > 0 and a universal constant C > 0 such that the following is true. Let u 0 ∈ be such that Then there exists ω 0 > 0 such that for all ω ∈]0, ω 0 [, if u is the unique maximal solution to (1.1) with initial data u 0 , then u blows up in finite time T > 0, and The proof of Theorem 3.1 is fairly easy; it is in fact a combination of the results presented in the previous section.
Proof Let α * and C be as in Theorem 2.1. Let u 0 ∈ satisfy the above hypothesis. Let v be the unique maximal solution to (1.5) with initial data u 0 . We know from Theorem 2.1 that v blows up in finite time S > 0 and satisfies the following sharp upper bound on its blowup rate: as s → S -.
Let ω 0 > 0 be such that ω 0 S < 1 2 . Take ω ∈]0, ω 0 [ and define u by Carles' transform. It is clear that u is the unique maximal solution to (1.1) with initial data u 0 . Moreover, u blows up in finite time T = arg tanh(ωS) ω . We now proceed in two steps.
Step 1 Let t ∈ [0, T). We have A straightforward calculation gives as t → T -. Note that cosh(ωT) = cosh arg tanh(ωS) ≤ cosh arg tanh(ω 0 S) ≤ cosh arg tanh(1/2) , with C > 0 being a universal constant. Elementary manipulations of the term ln | ln( T-t cosh 2 (ωT) )| show that it is less than 2 ln | ln(Tt)| for t close enough (from the left) to T. Finally, we obtain the estimate for some universal constant C.
Step 2 Calculating ∇ x u using Carles' transform (2.1), we get Using results from [16], we estimate the first term in the right hand-side of this inequality as follows: where C(ω, u 0 ) denotes a constant depending on ω and u 0 . Hence for all t ∈ [0, T). We know from the previous step that cosh(ωT) ≤ cosh(arg tanh(1/2)) = M, and hence for all t ∈ [0, T), for t close enough to T. Here we used the fact that cosh(x) ≥ 1 for all x ∈ R. From (3.1) we arrive at which is the announced bound. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1 Now we state a result analogous to Theorem 2.2 for solutions to (1.1).
Theorem 3.2 Let n = 1 or n ≥ 2 and assume that the spectral property holds. Then there exist α * > 0 and a universal constant C > 0 such that the following is true. Let u 0 ∈ H 1 be such that Let u be the unique maximal solution to (1.1) with initial data u 0 , and assume that it blows up in finite time T > 0. Then we have the following lower bound on the blowup rate: Proof Let α * and C be as in Theorem 2.2. Let u 0 ∈ satisfy the above hypothesis. Let u be the unique maximal solution to (1.1) with initial data u 0 and assume that it blows up in finite time T. Let v be the unique maximal solution to (1.5) with initial data u 0 related to u by Carles' transform (2.1). From Theorem 2.2, since v blows up in finite time S > 0, we deduce that it satisfies the following lower bound on its bolwup rate: Here the blowup time is S is given by Carles' transform S = tanh(ωT) ω .
As in step 1 of the previous proof, after some elementary calculations, we get the estimate as t → T - (3.5) for some universal constant C > 0. With the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we get Combining this inequality with (3.5), we obtain as t → Tfor some universal constant C > 0. This establishes the lower bound for singular solutions to (1.1).

Further discussion
We simply obtain upper and lower bounds on the L r -norms for blowup solutions without using the rate of L 2 -concentration for NLS with potential established in [19].

Corollary 4.1
If all the assumptions in Theorem 3.1 are satisfied, then there exists a universal constant C > 0 such that for any r with 2 < r < ∞, we have as t → T -.
Proof We have the following Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality where δ(r) = n( 1 2 -1 r ). Applying Theorem 3.1 yields where we used the conservation of mass. A simple calculation gives δ(r) 2 = n(r-2) 4r , which proves the desired result.

Corollary 4.2
If all the assumptions in Theorem 3.2 are satisfied, then there exists a universal constant C > 0 such that for any r with 2 < r < ∞, we have as t → T -.
Proof Suppose first that 2 < r ≤ 2 + 4 n . This allows us to write the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality where μ = 4r-8 2n-r(n-2) . By conservation of energy and the above inequality we obtain, for all t ∈ [0, T), L 2 ≤ C u(t) L r as t → T -.
We conclude using the lower bound on the blowup rate. Suppose now 2 + 4 n < r < ∞. A similar argument as before, combined with the following Hölders inequality, yields the result: