arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 11 Mar 2016

Transcription

1 arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 11 Mar 016 Symmetry of optimizers of the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities J. Dolbeault 1 an M.J. Esteban CEREMADE (CNRS UMR n 7534), PSL research university, Université Paris-Dauphine, Place e Lattre e Tassigny, Paris 16, France 1 olbeaul@ceremae.auphine.fr esteban@ceremae.auphine.fr M. Loss School of Mathematics, Georgia Tech, 686 Cherry St., Atlanta, GA, , USA loss@math.gatech.eu In their simplest form, the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities are a two parameter family of inequalities. It has been known that there is a region in parameter space where the optimizers for the inequalities have broken symmetry. It has been shown recently that in the complement of this region the optimizers are raially symmetric. The ieas for the proof will be given. Keywors: Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities; symmetry; symmetry breaking; optimal constants; rigiity results; fast iffusion equation. 010 Mathematics Subject Classification:35J0; 49K30; 53C1 1. Introuction Symmetries of optimizers in variational problems is a central theme in the calculus of variations. Sophisticate methos like rearrangement inequalities, reflection methos an moving plane methos belong now to the stanar repertoire of any analyst. There are, however, examples where these methos cannot be applie. Variational problems that epen on parameters very often cannot be treate by such methos, simply because, epening on the parameters, the optimizers are symmetric an sometimes not. Famous examples are the minimizers of the Ginzburg-Lanau functional in superconuctivity, where, epening on the strength of the quartic interaction the minimizers form a single, symmetric vortex or a vortex lattice. Clearly such problems cannot be treate by general methos. For certain parameters they ought to work while in others they cannot. Thus, rather special techniques, tailore to the problems at han, have to be evelope to prove symmetry in the esire regions. One class of such examples is given by the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequali-

2 ties [3]. In these notes, we shall specifically consier the case of the inequality R w (R x a x w p ) /p C a,b x (CKN) x bp with a b a+1 if 3, a < b a+1 if =, an a < a c where a c :=, p = +(b a). The function w is in a suitable function space which contains, for instance, all smooth functions with compact support. The constant Ca,b is, by efinition, the best possible constant. Rotating the function w oes not change the value of the various expressions in (CKN), i.e., the inequality is rotationally invariant. The special case where a 0 has been treate by various authors (see the references in [7]). Rearrangement inequalities can be use to reuce the problem to the set of raial functions, for which the optimality issue can then be solve explicitly. For the case where a < 0 the problem is much more subtle. Nevertheless, Catrina an Wang [6], prove that the optimizers, i.e., the functions that yiel equality in (CKN), exist in the open strip a < b < a+1. This result establishes the existence of non-negative solutions w L p (R ; x bp x) of the equation iv ( x a w ) = x bp w p 1. (1) Moreover, in the same paper Catrina an Wang also showe that, in some region in the (a,b) plane, the rotational symmetry of the optimizers is broken. A more etaile analysis by Felli an Schneier [8] shows that the region where the optimizers have a broken symmetry contains the set R FS := {(a,b) : a < 0, b < b FS (a)} where b FS (a) := (a c a) (a c a) + 1 +a a c. We call this region R FS the Felli-Schneier region. In [8] more is shown. The optimizers in the raial class can be etermine explicitly which allows to compute the secon variation operator about these solutions. The lowest eigenvalue of this operator is strictly negative for (a,b) R FS, equals zero on the curve b = b FS (a) an is strictly positive in the open complement of the Felli-Schneier region: there, the raial optimizers are stable. Neeless to say that positivity of the secon variation oes not imply the raial symmetry of the (global) optimizers for the (CKN) inequality. Thus, it is a natural question whether or not the optimizers possess rotational symmetry in the complement of R FS. Let := if 3 an := if =. The following theorem is prove in [7]: Theorem 1.1. Let, p (, ), a < 0 an b in the complement of the Felli- Schneier region an such that p =. Then any non-negative solution +(b a)

3 3 w L p (R ; x bp x) of (1) must be of the form ( A+B x α ) n where A, B are positive constants, an α = (1+a b)(a c a) a c a+b In particular this hols for the optimizers of (CKN). () n = p p. (3) There are some interesting consequences. Using the change of variables equation (1) can be cast in the form w(r,ω) = r a ac φ ( logr,ω ), zφ ω φ+λφ = φ p 1. (4) Here, x x = ω S 1, r = x, z = logr, ω is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the sphere S 1 an Λ = (a a c ). Thus, φ is a function on the cyliner R S 1. Moreover, as notice in [6], (CKN) is transforme into z φ L (R S 1 ) + ωφ L (R S 1 ) +Λ φ L (R S 1 ) C a,b φ L p (R S 1 ). (5) Corollary 1.1. Let, p (, ). Any non-negative solution φ L p (R S 1 ;zω) of (4) is, up to translations, of the form ( ) ) 1 p φ Λ (z) = Λz, if an only if pλ cosh( p Λ 4 1 p 4. In this range, equality in (5) is achieve if an only if φ(z) = φ Λ (z +z 0 ) for some z 0 R. To put this result in perspective we compare it with a result in []. Theorem 1.. Let, p (, ). On the sphere S consier the equation u+λu = u p 1

4 4 with λ > 0. Here represents the Laplace-Beltrami operator on S. Then the constant function u λ 1/(p ) is the only non-negative solution if an only if λ p. Thus, Corollary 1.1 can be viewe as an extension of the above mentione rigiity result to the non-compact case of a cyliner. As a special case, this also allows to ientify the equality case in the interpolation inequality (5) on the cyliner. In the next sections some ieas about the proofare given: we start by the simple case of the stanar Sobolev inequality in Section, explain in Section 3 how to recast (CKN) as a Sobolev type inequality in an artificial imension n, where n is not necessarily an integer, an conclue by explaining how the main estimates can be prouce using a fast iffusion flow.. Heuristics for the proof of Theorem 1.1 In orer to avoi long computations it is best to explain the ieas in a simple example. For any 3, the Sobolev inequality ( ) /p u x C u p x, with p = = (6) R R is extremely well unerstoo [1, 9, 10]. Once more C enotes the sharp constant. Note that this inequality appears as a special case of (CKN) if one sets a = b = 0, in which case C = C0,0. There is equality in (6) if an only if u is a translate of the Aubin-Talenti function ) ( )/ (c λ+ x, λ where c an λ are positive constants. There have been some proofs using flow methos to unerstan this inequality [4, 5]. The flow use for the case at han is a porous meium / fast iffusion flow. It is given by an has the self-similar solutions v (x,t) = v t = v1 1 (7) ) (c t+ x. t This function has slow ecay in the x variable. The obvious similarity of the expressions of the Aubin-Talenti an self-similar functions suggests a reformulation of the Sobolev functional by setting v = u.

5 5 Let us efine a pressure variable p by A short computation shows v = p. Lemma.1. The Sobolev inequality, written in terms of v an p, is given by ( ) a c v p x C vx. (8) R R Assume now that v satisfies the fast iffusion equation (7). This implies that p evolves by the equation p t = 1 ( p p p ). The right sie of (8) oes not change if v evolves via (7). For the left sie we have Lemma.. Assume that v evolves via (7). Then v p [ x = 1 t p p p 1 ( p)] p 1 x R R = Tr [ H p 1 (TrH p)i ] p 1 x R where H p = ( )p enotes the Hessian matrix of p. Moreover, H p 1 (TrH p)i = 0 if an only if p(x) = a+b x+c x for some (a,b,c) R R R. The proof is a somewhat longish but straightforwar computation. Note, that it is precisely the particular choice of v an p that reners the time erivative in such a simple form. To summarize, while the right sie of the Sobolev inequality stays fixe the left sie iminishes uner the flow. The iea is to use the fast iffusion flow to rive the functional towars its optimal value. Actually we use the fact that if v is optimal in (8), or if it is a critical point, the functional has to be stationary uner the action of the flow, which allows to ientify p, hence v. To exploit this iea for the (CKN) inequality we have to rewrite it in the form of a Sobolev type inequality. 3. A moifie Sobolev inequality The first step in the proof is to rewrite the problem in a form that resembles the Sobolev inequality. If we write w(r,ω) = u(s,ω) with s = r α,

6 6 the inequality (CKN) takes the form R + S 1 [ ( ) ] ( u α + ωu s s s n 1 sω Ca,bα 1 p u p s n 1 sω R + S 1 where ω enotes the uniform measure on the sphere S 1, ω enotes the graient on S 1 an where α an n are given by () an (3). We shall abbreviate Du := ( α u s, 1 s ωu ), Du = α ( ) u s + ωu s. Our inequality is therefore equivalent to a Sobolev type inequality an takes the form ( ) p Du µ Ca,b α1 p u p µ, with p = n R + S 1 R + S n. (9) 1 This inequality generalizes (6). Here the measure µ is efine on R + S 1 by µ = s n 1 sω. As in Section, we may consier v = u p an efine a pressure variable p such that v = p n, so that u = p (n )/. With these notations, (9) can be rewritten as ( 1 4 (n ) v Dp µ C a,b α1 p R + S 1 R + S 1 vµ ) p. (10) With straightforwar abuses of notations, we shall write R + S 1 f µ = R f µ an ientify L p (R + S 1 ;µ) with L p (R ; x n x) or simply L p (R ;µ). One shoul note that n is, in general, not an integer an the above inequality reuces to Sobolev s inequality only if n =. Of particular significance is that the curve b = b FS (a), when represente in the new variables α an n, is given by the equation α = α FS with 1 α FS := n 1. Thus, for α > α FS the minimizers are not raial. The equation (1) transforms into the equation L u = u p 1, (11) where L is the Laplacian associate with the quaratic form given by the left sie of (9), i.e., L = D D. Theorem 1.1 can be reformulate as ) p

7 7 Theorem 3.1. Let, p (, ), n = p p > an α α FS. Then any non-negative solution u L p (R ;µ) of (11) must be of the form ( A+B x ) n (1) where A, B are positive constants, an n is given by (3). As a special case, equality in (10) is achieve if an only if u is given by (1). The upshot of this work can be summarize in the following fashion: Any optimizer in the raial class that is not unstable uner small perturbations is in fact a global minimizer for the (CKN) inequality. 4. The flow We consier the fast iffusion flow v t = Lv1 1 n. (13) It is easily seen that the flow (13) has the self-similar solutions v (t;s,ω) = t (c n s ) n + (n 1)α t. The basic iea is now quite simple. We consier a non-negative solution u L p (R ;µ) of (11) an set v = u p. We also consier the pressure variable p such that v = p n. The first thing to note is that the right sie of (10) oes not change if we evolve v an hence u uner the flow (13). Further, if we ifferentiate the left sie of (10) along the flow we obtain t v Dp [ µ = 1 L Dp Dp DLp 1 n (Lp)] µ. R + S 1 R + S 1 On the other han simple computations show that ( ) 1 4 (n ) v Dp µ = (Lu)u t R + S 1 p( Lu p(n 1)/n) µ (14) 1 t=0 R + S 1 when expresse in terms of u. Now we take v = u p, where u is the solution to (11), as initial atum for (1). With this choice, the right sie in (14) is actually zero. Inee, by multiplying both sies of (11) by u 1 p( Lu p(n 1)/n) one obtains (Lu)u 1 p( Lu p(n 1)/n) µ = u p 1 u 1 p( Lu p(n 1)/n) µ = 0. R + S 1 R + S 1 The interesting point, an the heart of the argument, is that [ 0 = 1 L Dp Dp DLp 1 n (Lp)] µ R + S 1

8 8 can be written as a sum of non-negative terms precisely when α α FS, an the vanishing of these terms shows that u must be of the form (A+Bs ) (n )/. In this way one obtains a classification of the non-negative solutions of (11) provie they are in L p (R ;µ). To simplify notations, we shall omit the inex ω, so that from now on an respectively refer to the graientan to the Laplace-Beltrami operatoron S 1. With the notation = s, our ientity can be reworkeasfollows. Lemma4.1. Assume that 3, n > an let p be a positive function in C 3 (S 1 ). Then 1 L Dp Dp DLp 1 n (Lp) = α 4 n 1 n [p p r p α (n 1)r ] + α p r p r + 1 r 4 [1 p p p 1 n 1 ( p) (n )α p ]. The only term in Lemma 4.1 that oes not have a sign is the last one. When integrate against p 1 n over S 1, however, this term can be written as a sum of squares. The following lemma hols for 3. For the case = we refer the reaer to [7]. Lemma 4.. Assume that 3 an that p is a positive function in C 3 (S 1 ). Then [ 1 p p p 1 n 1 ( p) (n )α p ] p 1 n ω S 1 = (n )( 1) (n 1)( ) Lp 3(n 1)(n ) (n )(+1) Mp p 1 n ω S [ 1 ] S 1 + n n+3 (+1) + 3(n 1)(n+1)( ) p 4 (n )(+1) p p 1 n ω +(n ) [ α FS α ] S 1 p p 1 n ω where Lp := ( )p 1 p p 1 ( p)g an Mp := p 1 p 1 p g. Here g is the stanar metric on S 1 an Lp enotes the trace free Hessian of p. The key evice use for the proof of this lemma is the Bochner-Lichnerowicz- Weitzenböck formula. If M is a compact Riemannian manifol, then for any smooth function f : M R we have 1 f = H f +Ric( f, f) where H f is the trace of the square of the Hessian of f an Ric( f, f) is the Ricci curvature tensor contracte against f f. If M = S 1, then Ric( f, f) = ( ) f. The main point in Lemma 4. is that, provie α α FS, all terms are non-negative.

9 9 It is quite easy to see that the vanishing of these terms entails that p can only epen on the variable s = x an must be of the form (1). While the formal computations are straightforwar there is the perennial issue of the bounary terms that occur in all the integration by parts. This is ue to the fact that one is ealing with solutions of (11) an it is not at all clear that the bounary terms vanish. This requires a etaile regularity analysis of the solutions of (11). The task is non-trivial because the exponent p is critical for the scaling in the s variable. The reaer may consult [7] for etails. The computations outline above can be carrie over to the case where S 1 is replace by a compact Riemannian manifol M of imension 1. The results are then expresse in terms of the Ricci curvature of the manifol. Again the reaer may consult [7] for etails. Acknowlegment: This work has been partially supporte by the Projects STAB an Kibor (J.D.) of the French National Research Agency (ANR). M.L. has been partially supporte by NSF Grant DMS an the Humbolt Founation. c 016 by the authors. This paper may be reprouce, in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes. References [1] T. Aubin, Problèmes isopérimétriques et espaces e Sobolev, J. Differential Geometry, 11 (1976), pp [] M.-F. Biaut-Véron an L. Véron, Nonlinear elliptic equations on compact Riemannian manifols an asymptotics of Emen equations, Invent. Math., 106 (1991), pp [3] L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn, an L. Nirenberg, First orer interpolation inequalities with weights, Compositio Math., 53 (1984), pp [4] E. A. Carlen an M. Loss, Extremals of functionals with competing symmetries, J. Funct. Anal., 88 (1990), pp [5] J. A. Carrillo an G. Toscani, Asymptotic L 1 -ecay of solutions of the porous meium equation to self-similarity, Iniana Univ. Math. J., 49 (000), pp [6] F. Catrina an Z.-Q. Wang, On the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities: sharp constants, existence (an nonexistence), an symmetry of extremal functions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 54 (001), pp [7] J. Dolbeault, M. J. Esteban, an M. Loss, Rigiity versus symmetry breaking via nonlinear flows on cyliners an Eucliean spaces. Preprint, to appear in Inventiones Mathematicae, 016. [8] V. Felli an M. Schneier, Perturbation results of critical elliptic equations of Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg type, J. Differential Equations, 191 (003), pp [9] E. H. Lieb, Sharp constants in the Hary-Littlewoo-Sobolev an relate inequalities, Ann. of Math. (), 118 (1983), pp [10] G. Talenti, Best constant in Sobolev inequality, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), 110 (1976), pp