2025-11-23T02:19:16.359883

Ground states of the defocusing NLSE with a point interaction

Ramos
Suppose that either (i) $N = 2$, $α\in \mathbb{R}$ and $p > 2$ or (ii) $N = 3$, $α< 0$ and $2 < p < 3$. We prove that there exists an explicitly computable $μ_0 = μ_0 (N, α, p) > 0$ such that if $0 < μ< μ_0$, then the following normalized semilinear elliptic problem with a point interaction admits ground states: \[ \begin{cases} - Δ_αu + ωu + u |u|^{p - 2} = 0 &\text{in} ~ \mathbb{R}^N; \\ \|u\|_{\mathscr{L}^2}^2 = μ, \end{cases} \] where $- Δ_α$ denotes the Laplacian of point interaction (centered at the origin) with inverse scattering length $- 2 (N - 1) πα$ and we want to solve for $ω\in \mathbb{R}$, $u \colon \mathbb{R}^N \to \mathbb{R}$. We remark that this kind of solutions does not exist in the framework of the defocusing NLSE without a point interaction.
academic

Ground states of the defocusing NLSE with a point interaction

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2511.12593
  • Title: Ground states of the defocusing NLSE with a point interaction
  • Author: Gustavo de Paula Ramos (Universidade de São Paulo)
  • Classification: math.AP (Analysis of PDEs)
  • Publication Date: November 16, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12593

Abstract

This paper investigates the existence of ground states for the defocusing nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) with a point interaction. Under two scenarios: (i) N=2, α∈ℝ, p>2 or (ii) N=3, α<0, 2<p<3, the author proves the existence of an explicitly computable threshold μ₀=μ₀(N,α,p)>0 such that when 0<μ<μ₀, the normalized semilinear elliptic problem {−Δαu+ωu+u∣u∣p−2=0in RN∥u∥L22=μ\begin{cases} -Δ_αu + ωu + u|u|^{p-2} = 0 & \text{in } \mathbb{R}^N \\ \|u\|_{L^2}^2 = μ \end{cases} admits ground state solutions. Here -Δ_α denotes the Laplacian with point interaction. Importantly, such solutions do not exist in the standard defocusing NLSE framework without point interactions.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem

This paper studies the existence of ground states for the defocusing nonlinear Schrödinger equation with point interactions (point interaction). Specifically, it investigates the normalized elliptic problem with delta potentials (zero-range potentials, point defects).

2. Problem Significance

  • Physical Background: Point interactions in quantum mechanics model localized singular potentials, such as impurities and defects in physical phenomena
  • Mathematical Significance: The defocusing NLSE is known to not admit nontrivial bound states. However, this situation fundamentally changes upon inclusion of point interactions
  • Theoretical Breakthrough: First proof that defocusing equations can generate ground states under the influence of point interactions—a surprising phenomenon

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

  • Standard defocusing NLSE (-Δψ + ψ|ψ|^{p-2} = i∂_t ψ) does not admit nontrivial bound states
  • Point interaction problems for focusing NLSE have been studied 2,3, but the defocusing case remains unresolved
  • Variational elliptic problems involving point interactions are only beginning to be investigated

4. Research Motivation

Key observation: Unlike the standard Laplacian -Δ, the point interaction Laplacian -Δ_α is not positive definite under specific conditions:

  • For all α∈ℝ when N=2
  • When N=3 and α<0

This non-positive-definiteness provides the possibility for ground states to emerge in defocusing equations.

Core Contributions

  1. Existence Theorem: Proves that the defocusing NLSE with point interactions admits ground state solutions when mass is sufficiently small (0<μ<μ₀), where the threshold μ₀ is explicitly computable: μ0=(ωαp2)2p−2(∥Gωα∥L2∥Gωα∥Lp)2pp−2μ₀ = \left(\frac{ωα p}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{p-2}} \left(\frac{\|G_{ωα}\|_{L^2}}{\|G_{ωα}\|_{L^p}}\right)^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}
  2. Singularity Characterization: Proves that ground state solutions must have singularity at the origin (q≠0), meaning solutions cannot belong to standard Sobolev spaces H¹
  3. Strict Energy Negativity: Establishes the strict negativity property E_μ<0 of the energy functional, in sharp contrast to standard defocusing equations
  4. Monotonicity Property: Proves that the normalized energy function μ↦E_μ/μ is strictly decreasing on (0,μ₀) (Lemma 2.5)

Detailed Methodology

Problem Formulation

Seeking ground state solutions to the normalized semilinear elliptic problem (1.1), i.e., solving the variational problem:

E(u) = E_μ := \inf\{E(v): v \in S(μ)\} \\ u \in S(μ) := \{u \in H^1_δ: \|u\|_{L^2}^2 = μ\} \end{cases}$$ where the energy functional is defined as: $$E(u) = \frac{1}{2}A(u) + \frac{1}{p}\|u\|_{L^p}^p$$ ### Function Space Framework **1. Point Interaction Laplacian** - Spectral structure: σ(-Δ_α) = {-ω_α} ∪ [0,∞), where $$ω_α = \begin{cases} 4e^{-4πα-2γ} & \text{if } N=2 \\ (4πα)^2 & \text{if } N=3, α<0 \end{cases}$$ - Unique negative eigenvalue -ω_α with corresponding eigenfunction being the Green function G_{ω_α} **2. Working Space H¹_δ** Vector space: $$VS(H^1_δ) = \{φ_λ + qG_λ: φ_λ \in H^1, q \in \mathbb{R}, λ>0\}$$ Inner product: $$\langle u,v \rangle_{H^1_δ} = \langle φ_λ, ψ_λ \rangle_{\dot{H}^1} + λ\langle φ_λ, ψ_λ \rangle_{L^2} + (ω_α-λ)\langle u,v \rangle_{L^2} + (α+θ_λ)q_uq_v$$ **3. Green Function** $$G_λ(x) = \begin{cases} (2π)^{-1}K_0(\sqrt{λ}|x|) & \text{if } N=2 \\ (4π|x|)^{-1}e^{-\sqrt{λ}|x|} & \text{if } N=3 \end{cases}$$ ### Proof Strategy **Core Idea**: Employ variational methods by constructing minimizing sequences and proving their convergence. **Key Steps**: **Step 1: Energy Lower Bound (Lemma 2.2)** Utilize the infimum of the spectrum: $$E(u) = \frac{1}{2}A(u) + \frac{1}{p}\|u\|_{L^p}^p \geq -\frac{ω_α μ}{2} > -∞$$ **Step 2: Strict Energy Negativity (Lemma 2.3)** Take test function $u = \sqrt{μ}/\|G_{ω_α}\|_{L^2} \cdot G_{ω_α} \in S(μ)$, using A(G_{ω_α}) = -ω_α\|G_{ω_α}\|²_{L^2}: $$E(u) = -\frac{ω_α μ}{2} + \frac{μ^{p/2}}{\|G_{ω_α}\|_{L^2}^p} \cdot \frac{\|G_{ω_α}\|_{L^p}^p}{p}$$ When μ<μ₀, we have E(u)<0. **Step 3: Coercivity (Lemma 2.1)** Choose λ such that α+θ_λ>0. Then when \|u_n\|_{H^1_δ}→∞, we have E(u_n)→∞. **Step 4: Monotonicity (Lemma 2.5)** This is the technical core. For 0<η<μ<μ₀, set τ=μ/η>1. Using the scaling transformation g_u(x)=u(τ^{-1/N}x) and Corollary 2.4 (ensuring |q_n|≥r>0), prove separately for N=2 and N=3: - **N=2**: Utilize Green function scaling properties: $$\frac{E(g_{u_n})}{μ} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{μ}-\frac{1}{η}\right)(α+θ_λ)r^2 + \frac{E(u_n)}{η}$$ - **N=3**: Utilize α<0 and scaling factor τ^{2/3}: $$\frac{E_μ}{μ} \leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{τ^{2/3}η}-\frac{1}{η}\right)(\|φ_{λ,n}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 + (α+θ_λ)q_n^2) + \frac{E_{u_n}}{η}$$ **Step 5: Existence Proof (Theorem 1.1)** Let {u_n=φ_{λ,n}+q_nG_λ} be a minimizing sequence: 1. By coercivity, {u_n} is bounded in H¹_δ 2. Weak convergence u_n⇀u_∞ 3. Prove u_∞≢0 (by contradiction: if u_∞≡0 then lim inf E(u_n)≥0, contradicting E_μ<0) 4. Prove \|u_∞\|²_{L^2}=μ (by contradiction: if ρ<μ, then by monotonicity E_ρ/ρ≤E_μ/μ, contradiction) 5. Weak lower semicontinuity yields E(u_∞)=E_μ ### Technical Innovations 1. **Exploitation of Non-positive-Definite Operators**: Cleverly utilizes the negative eigenvalue of -Δ_α, which is the fundamental reason ground states emerge in defocusing equations 2. **Scaling Transformation Technique**: In the monotonicity proof, different scaling transformations are designed for the distinct geometric structures of N=2 and N=3 3. **Singularity Lower Bound**: The lower bound on |q_n| established in Corollary 2.4 is the key technical tool for proving monotonicity 4. **Energy Ratio Comparison**: By comparing E_μ/μ rather than E_μ itself, the essential structure of the problem is revealed ## Experimental Setup **Note**: This is a pure mathematical theory paper with no numerical experiments. All results are rigorous mathematical proofs. ### Theoretical Verification Framework **Parameter Settings**: - Dimension: N∈{2,3} - Point interaction parameter: - N=2: α∈ℝ (arbitrary real number) - N=3: α<0 (negative) - Nonlinearity exponent: - N=2: p>2 - N=3: 2<p<3 (subcritical) **Assumptions**: - (H1): N=2, α∈ℝ, p>2 - (H2): N=3, α<0, 2<p<3 ### Theoretical Tools - Sobolev embedding: H¹_δ↪→L^r (r≥2 for N=2; r∈[2,3) for N=3) - Modified Bessel function K₀ (for N=2 Green function) - Euler-Mascheroni constant γ (appearing in θ_λ definition) ## Experimental Results ### Main Theoretical Results **Theorem 1.1 (Main Result)**: Under assumption (H1) or (H2), if $$0 < μ < μ_0 = \left(\frac{ωαp}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{p-2}} \left(\frac{\|G_{ωα}\|_{L^2}}{\|G_{ωα}\|_{L^p}}\right)^{\frac{2p}{p-2}}$$ then: 1. Problem (1.1) admits a ground state 2. If u=φ_λ+qG_λ is a ground state, then q≠0 (singularity at origin is necessary) ### Auxiliary Results **Lemma 2.1 (Coercivity)**: For given μ>0, the constrained functional E|_{S(μ)} is coercive. **Proof Outline**: Choose λ such that α+θ_λ>0. Then $$E(u_n) = \frac{1}{2}(\|φ_{λ,n}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 + λ\|φ_{λ,n}\|_{L^2}^2 + (α+θ_λ)q_n^2) - \frac{λμ}{2} + \frac{1}{p}\|u_n\|_{L^p}^p$$ When \|u_n\|_{H^1_δ}→∞, we have E(u_n)→∞. **Lemma 2.2 (Energy Lower Bound)**: E_μ > -∞ for all μ>0. **Lemma 2.3 (Strict Energy Negativity)**: If 0<μ<μ₀, then E_μ<0. This is crucial for existence. **Lemma 2.5 (Monotonicity)**: The function ]0,μ₀[∋μ↦E_μ/μ∈]-∞,0[ is strictly decreasing. **Proof Highlight** (N=2 case): $$\frac{E(g_{u_n})}{μ} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{μ}-\frac{1}{η}\right)(\|φ_{λ,n}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 + (α+θ_λ)q_n^2) - \frac{\log τ}{4μ}q_n^2 + \frac{E(u_n)}{η}$$ utilizing the negative contribution of the log τ term and |q_n|≥r>0. **Corollary 2.4 (Singularity Lower Bound)**: If 0<μ<μ₀ and {u_n=φ_{λ,n}+q_nG_λ} is a minimizing sequence, then lim inf|q_n|>0. This ensures that ground state solutions do not degenerate to standard Sobolev spaces. ### Theoretical Significance 1. **Computable Existence Threshold**: The explicit formula for μ₀ makes the result verifiable 2. **Necessity of Singularity**: q≠0 indicates the essential role of point interaction; solutions cannot be H¹ functions 3. **Contrast with Standard Case**: - Without point interaction: defocusing NLSE has no nontrivial bound states - With point interaction: ground states exist for small mass 4. **Dimension Dependence**: - N=2: α arbitrary, p>2 suffices - N=3: requires α<0 and 2<p<3 (more restrictive) ## Related Work ### Research Progress on Elliptic Problems with Point Interactions **1. Focusing NLSE (Existing Work)** - **Adami et al. [2,3]**: First to study ground states of planar and three-dimensional focusing NLSE with point defects - [2]: 2D case, as minimizers of constrained energy - [3]: 3D case, existence, structure, and robustness **2. General Semilinear Problems** - **Pomponio-Watanabe [4]**: Recently studied more general nonlinear scalar field equations with point interactions **3. Nonlocal Problems** - **Georgiev-Michelangeli-Scandone [5]**: Standing waves and global well-posedness for 2D Hartree equation - **Ramos [6]**: Minimizers of mass-constrained functionals involving non-attractive point interactions ### Innovations of This Paper **Breakthroughs Compared to Existing Work**: 1. **First Treatment of Defocusing Case**: Previous work focused on focusing equations (negative nonlinearity) 2. **Revealing Counterintuitive Phenomena**: Proves that defocusing + point interaction can generate bound states 3. **Complete Variational Framework**: Establishes systematic theory in the special Hilbert space H¹_δ ### Theoretical Foundations **Mathematical Physics Background**: - **Albeverio et al. [1]**: Solvable models in quantum mechanics, systematic theory of point interaction operators - **Gallone-Michelangeli [8]**: Self-adjoint extension theory and modern applications **Standard Defocusing NLSE**: - **Fibich [7]**: Singular solutions and optical collapse in nonlinear Schrödinger equations ## Conclusions and Discussion ### Main Conclusions 1. **Existence Theorem**: When mass is below the explicit threshold μ₀, the defocusing NLSE with point interactions admits ground state solutions 2. **Mechanism Revelation**: Non-positive-definiteness (negative eigenvalue -ω_α) is the fundamental reason ground states emerge in defocusing equations 3. **Essential Nature of Singularity**: Ground state solutions must have singularity at the origin, reflecting the essential role of point interactions 4. **Strict Monotonicity**: The monotone decreasing property of normalized energy E_μ/μ reveals the deep structure of the problem ### Limitations **1. Dimension Restriction** - Only addresses N=2 and N=3 - N≥4 cases not covered (may require different techniques) **2. Parameter Range** - For N=3, requires α<0 (attractive point interaction) - For N=3, requires 2<p<3 (subcritical nonlinearity) **3. Mass Constraint** - Only proves small mass case (μ<μ₀) - Behavior for large mass (μ≥μ₀) unknown **4. Uniqueness Problem** - Uniqueness of ground states not discussed - Multiple ground states may exist **5. Stability Analysis** - Stability of ground states not investigated (orbital stability, etc.) - Dynamical behavior not addressed ### Future Directions **Research Directions Suggested by the Paper**: 1. **Large Mass Case**: Study existence and properties of solutions for μ≥μ₀ 2. **Higher Dimensions**: Extend results to N≥4 3. **Stability Theory**: Investigate orbital and asymptotic stability of ground states 4. **Dynamical Problems**: Study global well-posedness of time-dependent defocusing NLSE 5. **Numerical Verification**: Numerically compute ground states and verify theoretical predictions 6. **Other Nonlinearities**: Generalize to other types of nonlinear terms ## In-Depth Evaluation ### Strengths **1. Theoretical Innovation (★★★★★)** - **Counterintuitive Discovery**: Proves defocusing equations can generate bound states, overturning conventional wisdom - **Mechanism Clarification**: Clearly elucidates the crucial role of non-positive-definiteness - **Computable Threshold**: Explicit formula for μ₀ enhances practical value of results **2. Mathematical Rigor (★★★★★)** - Complete proofs with clear logic - Precise technical details (separate treatment for N=2 and N=3) - Well-structured auxiliary lemmas supporting main theorem **3. Methodological Contribution (★★★★☆)** - **Scaling Transformation Technique**: Elegant design for different dimensions - **Energy Ratio Method**: Analysis via E_μ/μ rather than E_μ itself - **Singularity Lower Bound**: Technical innovation in Corollary 2.4 **4. Clarity of Exposition (★★★★★)** - Compact structure (only 6 pages) - Clear motivation - Standard mathematical notation **5. Theoretical Completeness (★★★★☆)** - Complete system from function space construction to existence proof - Auxiliary results (coercivity, lower bound, monotonicity) form coherent chain ### Weaknesses **1. Limited Result Scope (★★★☆☆)** - Restricted to N∈{2,3}, limiting generalizability - Strict parameter restrictions for N=3 (α<0, 2<p<3) **2. Insufficient Qualitative Analysis (★★★☆☆)** - Uniqueness of ground states not discussed - Lacking analysis of decay properties, positivity, etc. - Stability not investigated **3. Limited Physical Interpretation (★★☆☆☆)** - Quantum mechanics background mentioned but not deeply explored - Physical meaning of parameter α not intuitively explained **4. Absence of Numerical Verification (★★☆☆☆)** - Pure theoretical work without numerical examples - Cannot visually demonstrate ground state morphology **5. Unclear Application Scenarios (★★★☆☆)** - Practical application domains not clearly identified - Connection to physical experiments unclear ### Impact Assessment **1. Theoretical Contribution (High)** - Opens new research direction: point interactions in defocusing equations - Provides framework and methods for subsequent research - Expected citation rate: moderate to high within specialized field **2. Practical Value (Moderate)** - Explicit threshold μ₀ is computationally useful - Application domains need further clarification - Potential relevance to quantum mechanics and nonlinear optics **3. Reproducibility (High)** - Complete proofs fully verifiable - Clear definitions and standard notation - Numerical implementation relatively straightforward (though not done) **4. Method Generalizability (Moderate to High)** - Variational methods have universal applicability - Scaling transformation techniques potentially applicable to other problems - Strong dependence on point interaction operators limits scope ### Applicable Scenarios **1. Mathematical Research** - Nonlinear partial differential equations theory - Variational methods and critical point theory - Singular perturbation problems **2. Mathematical Physics** - Quantum systems with impurities - Zero-range potential problems - Point defects in Bose-Einstein condensates **3. Applied Physics** - Nonlinear optics (point defects in optical fibers) - Condensed matter physics (impurity effects) - Quantum information (artificial atoms) **4. Future Research Directions** - Large mass regime investigation - Stability and dynamical analysis - Numerical algorithm development - Experimental verification ## References **Core Citations**: [1] S. Albeverio et al., *Solvable models in quantum mechanics*, AMS Chelsea Publishing, 1988. - Classical reference for point interaction operators [2] R. Adami et al., *Ground states for the planar NLSE with a point defect*, Calc. Var. PDE, 61, 2022. - Pioneering work on 2D focusing case [3] R. Adami et al., *Existence, structure, and robustness of ground states of a NLSE in 3D with a point defect*, J. Math. Phys., 63, 2022. - 3D focusing case [7] G. Fibich, *The Nonlinear Schrödinger equation: Singular Solutions and Optical Collapse*, Springer, 2015. - Standard NLSE theory [8] M. Gallone, A. Michelangeli, *Self-Adjoint Extension Schemes and Modern Applications*, Springer Nature, 2023. - Modern self-adjoint extension theory --- **Overall Assessment**: This is a high-quality mathematical analysis paper achieving original breakthroughs in point interaction problems for defocusing NLSE. Through elegant variational methods and technical innovations, it proves a counterintuitive result: defocusing equations can generate ground states under point interaction influence. The paper is mathematically rigorous and logically clear, establishing important foundations for subsequent research in this field. Main limitations lie in restricted result scope and insufficient qualitative analysis, but these do not diminish the significance of this important theoretical contribution.