1: \documentclass[11pt,a4paper,leqno]{amsart}

2:        

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}

4: \usepackage{enumerate} 

5: \usepackage{amsthm}

6: %\usepackage{draftcopy}

7: %\usepackage{showkeys}

8: \usepackage{hyperref}

9: 

10: 

11: \def\dis

12: {\displaystyle}

13: 

14: \def\ii{\int\!\!\!\int}

15: 

16: \def\C{{\mathbb C}}

17: \def\R{{\mathbb R}}

18: \def\N{{\mathbb N}}

19: \def\Z{{\mathbb Z}}

20: \def\T{{\mathbb T}}

21: \def\Q{{\mathbb Q}}

22: \def\S{{\mathcal S}}

23: \def\virgp{\raise 2pt\hbox{,}}

24: \def\bv{{\bf v}}

25: \def\bu{{\bf u}}

26: \def\bw{{\bf w}}

27: \def\({\left(}

28: \def\){\right)}

29: \def\<{\left\langle}

30: \def\>{\right\rangle}

31: 

32: 

33: 

34: \def\longformule#1#2{

35: \displaylines{

36: \qquad{#1}

37: \hfill\cr

38: \hfill {#2}

39: \qquad\cr

40: }

41: }

42: 

43: 

44: \def\Eq#1#2{\mathop{\sim}\limits_{#1\rightarrow#2}}

45: \def\Tend#1#2{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{#1\rightarrow#2}}

46: 

47: \def\d{{\partial}}

48: \def\a{{\tt a}}

49: \def\b{\beta}

50: \def\g{\gamma}

51: \def\e{\varepsilon}

52: \def\l{\lambda}

53: \def\om{\omega}

54: \def\si{{\sigma}}

55: \def\U{{\mathcal U}^\e}

56: \def\V{{\tt V}^\e}

57: \def\W{{\tt W}}

58: \def\u{{\tt u}}

59: \def\v{{\tt v}}

60: \def\w{{\tt w}}

61: \def\H{{\tt H}}

62: \def\F{\mathcal F}

63: \def\M{{\mathcal M}^\e}

64: \def\D{{\tt D}^\e}

65: \def\O{\mathcal O}

66: \def\eik{\phi_{\rm eik}}

67: 

68: 

69: \newenvironment{idee}{\par

70:   \noindent{\bf Develop: }\normalfont\itshape}

71: 

72: \theoremstyle{plain}

73: \newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}[section]

74: \newtheorem{lem}[theo]{Lemma}

75: \newtheorem{cor}[theo]{Corollary}

76: \newtheorem{prop}[theo]{Proposition}

77: \newtheorem{hyp}{Assumption}

78: 

79: \theoremstyle{definition}

80: \newtheorem{defin}[theo]{Definition}

81: \newtheorem*{nota}{Notation}

82: 

83: \theoremstyle{remark}

84: \newtheorem{rema}[theo]{Remark}

85: \newtheorem*{rema*}{Remark}

86: \newtheorem*{remas}{Remarks}

87: \newtheorem{ex}{Example}

88: 

89: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

90: 

91: 

92: 

93: 

94: 

95: \begin{document}

96: \author[R. Carles]{R{\'e}mi Carles}

97: \address{MAB, Universit\'e de Bordeaux 1\\ 351 cours de la

98:   Lib{\'e}ration\\ 33405 Talence cedex\\ France}

99: \email{Remi.Carles@math.cnrs.fr}

100: %\date{\today}

101: \thanks{Supports by European network HYKE,

102:   funded  by the EC as contract HPRN-CT-2002-00282, by Centro de

103:   Matem\'atica e Aplica\c c\~oes Fundamentais (Lisbon), funded by

104:   FCT as contract POCTI-ISFL-1-209, and by the ANR project SCASEN,

105:   are acknowledged.} 

106: \title[WKB for NLS]{WKB analysis for nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations

107: with potential} 

108: \begin{abstract}

109: We justify the WKB analysis for the semiclassical nonlinear

110: Schr\"o\-din\-ger equation with a subquadratic potential. This concerns

111: subcritical, critical, and supercritical cases as far as the

112: geometrical optics method is concerned. In the supercritical case,

113: this extends a previous result by E.~Grenier; we also have to

114: restrict to nonlinearities which are defocusing and cubic at the

115: origin, but besides subquadratic potentials, we consider

116: initial phases which may be unbounded. For this, we construct solutions

117: for some compressible Euler equations with unbounded 

118: source term and unbounded initial velocity.   

119: \end{abstract}

120: \subjclass[2000]{35B30, 35B33, 35B40, 35C20, 35Q55, 81Q20}

121: \keywords{Nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation, 

122:   semiclassical analysis,

123:   critical indices, supercritical WKB analysis, Euler equation} 

124: \maketitle

125: 

126: 

127: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

128: 

129: 

130: 

131: 

132: 

133: \section{Introduction}

134: \label{sec:intro}

135: Consider the initial value problem, for $x\in \R^n$ and $\kappa \ge 0$:

136: \begin{align}

137:   i\e \d_t u^\e +\frac{\e^2}{2}\Delta u^\e &= V(t,x)u^\e + \e^\kappa

138:   f\(|u^\e|^2\) 

139:   u^\e\label{eq:nlssemi}\\

140: u^\e_{\mid t=0} &= a_0^\e(x)e^{i\phi_0(x)/\e} .\label{eq:CI} 

141: \end{align}

142: The aim of WKB methods is to describe $u^\e$ in the limit $\e \to 0$,

143: when $\phi_0$ does not depend on $\e$, and 

144: $a_0^\e$ has an asymptotic expansion of the form:

145: \begin{equation}\label{eq:CIbkw}

146:   a_0^\e (x)\sim a_0(x) +\e a_1(x)+\e^2 a_2(x) +\ldots

147: \end{equation}

148: The parameter $\kappa \ge 0$ describes the strength of a coupling

149: constant, which makes nonlinear effects more or less important in the

150: limit $\e \to 0$; the larger the $\kappa$, the weaker the nonlinear

151: interactions. In this paper, we describe the asymptotic behavior of

152: $u^\e$ at leading order, when the potential $V$ and the initial phase

153: $\phi_0$ are smooth, and subquadratic in the space variable. 

154: 

155: \smallbreak

156: 

157: Such equations as \eqref{eq:nlssemi} appear in physics: see

158: e.g. \cite{Sulem} for a general overview.  For instance, they are used to

159: model Bose-Einstein condensation when $V$ is an

160: harmonic potential (isotropic or anisotropic) and the nonlinearity is

161: cubic or quintic (see e.g. \cite{DGPS,KNSQ,PiSt}). In most of this

162: paper, the initial data

163: we consider are in Sobolev spaces $H^s$.  

164: %We outline a WKB analysis for

165: %the  Gross-Pitaevskii equation in Appendix~\ref{sec:gross}. 

166: We refer to \cite{BJM} for numerics on the semi-classical limit of

167: \eqref{eq:nlssemi}. 

168: 

169: \smallbreak

170: 

171: We shall not recall the results concerning the  Cauchy

172: problem for \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI}, and refer to

173: \cite{CazCourant} 

174: for an overview on the semilinear Schr\"odinger equation. 

175: 

176: \smallbreak

177: 

178: In the one-dimensional case $n=1$, the cubic nonlinear

179: Schr\"odinger equation is completely integrable, in the absence of an

180: external potential,  or when $V$ is a quadratic polynomial

181: (\cite[p.~375]{AblowitzClarkson}). Several tough papers

182: analyze the semi-classical limit in the case $V\equiv 0$, for $\kappa =0$: see

183: e.g. \cite{JLM,KMM,TianYe,TVZ}. We shall not use this approach, but

184: rather work in the spirit of \cite{Grenier98}.  

185: 

186: \smallbreak

187: 

188: An interesting feature of \eqref{eq:nlssemi} is that one does not

189: expect the creation of harmonics, provided that only one phase is

190: present initially, like in \eqref{eq:CI}. The WKB methods consist in

191: seeking an approximate solution to \eqref{eq:nlssemi} of the form:

192: \begin{equation}\label{eq:defBKW}

193:   u^\e(t,x)\sim \(\a_0(t,x) + \e \a_1(t,x) + \e^2

194:   \a_2(t,x)+\ldots \) e^{i\Phi(t,x)/\e}\, .

195: \end{equation}

196: One must not expect this approach to be valid when caustics are

197: formed: near a caustic, all the terms

198: $\Phi$, $\a_0$, $\a_1$, \ldots become singular. Past the

199: caustic, several phases are necessary in general to describe the

200: asymptotic behavior of the solution (see e.g. \cite{Du} for a general

201: theory in the linear case). In this paper,

202: we restrict our attention to times preceding this break-up. 

203: \smallbreak

204: 

205: For such an expansion to be available with profiles $\a_j$

206: independent of $\e$, it is reasonable to assume that $\kappa$ is an

207: integer. However, we do not assume that $\kappa$ is an integer:

208: we study the asymptotic behavior of $u^\e$ \emph{at leading order}

209: (strong limits in $L^2\cap 

210: L^\infty$ for instance), including cases where other powers of $\e$

211: would come into play.  

212: \smallbreak

213: 

214: We distinguish two families of assumptions: ``geometrical''

215: assumptions, on the potential $V$ and the initial phase $\phi_0$, and

216: ``analytical'' assumptions, on $f$ and the initial amplitude

217: $a_0^\e$. In all the cases, we shall not try to seek the optimal

218: regularity; we focus our interest on the limit $\e\to 0$.

219: 

220: \begin{hyp}[Geometrical]\label{hyp:geom}

221:   We assume that the potential and the initial phase are smooth and

222:   subquadratic: 

223:   \begin{itemize}

224:   \item $V\in C^\infty(\R_t\times \R^n_x)$, and $\d_x^\alpha V\in

225:   L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\R_t ;L^\infty(\R^n_x))$ as soon as $|\alpha|\ge 2$.

226:   \item $\phi_0\in C^\infty( \R^n)$, and $\d_x^\alpha \phi_0\in

227:   L^\infty(\R^n)$ as soon as $|\alpha|\ge 2$.

228:   \end{itemize}

229: \end{hyp}

230: The assumption of $V$ being subquadratic is classical in other

231: contexts; for instance, locally in time, the dispersion for

232: $e^{-i\frac{t}{\e}(-\e^2\Delta +V)}$ is the same as without potential

233: (see \cite{Fujiwara79,Fujiwara}), 

234: \begin{equation*}

235:   \left\| e^{-i\frac{t}{\e}(-\e^2\Delta +V)}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}

236:   \le \frac{C}{|\e t|^{n/2}},\quad \forall |t|\le \delta,

237: \end{equation*}

238: hence yielding the same local Strichartz

239: estimates as in the free case. Global in time Strichartz

240:   estimates must not be expected in general, as shown by the example

241:   of the harmonic oscillator, which has eigenvalues.  For

242:   positive superquadratic potentials, the 

243: smoothing effects and Strichartz estimates are different (see

244: \cite{YajZha01,YajZha04}). This is related to the 

245: properties of the Hamilton flow, which also imply: 

246: \begin{lem}\label{lem:hj}

247:   Under Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom}, there exist $T>0$ and a unique

248:   solution $\eik\in C^\infty([0,T]\times\R^n)$ to:

249:   \begin{equation}

250:     \label{eq:eik}

251:     \d_t \eik +\frac{1}{2}|\nabla_x \eik|^2 +V(t,x)=0\quad ;\quad

252:     \phi_{{\rm eik} \mid t=0}=\phi_0\, .

253:   \end{equation}

254: This solution is subquadratic: $\d_x^\alpha \eik \in

255:   L^\infty([0,T]\times\R^n)$ as soon as $|\alpha|\ge 2$. 

256: \end{lem}

257: This result is proved in Section~\ref{sec:HJ}, where other remarks on

258: Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} are made. 

259: 

260: \begin{hyp}[Analytical]\label{hyp:ana}

261:   We assume that the nonlinearity is smooth,  and

262:   that the initial amplitude converges in

263:   Sobolev spaces: 

264:   \begin{itemize}

265:   \item $f\in C^\infty(\R; \R)$.

266:   \item There exists  $ a_0\in H^\infty := \cap_{s\ge

267:   0}H^s(\R^n)$, such that 

268:   $ a_0^\e$ converges to  $a_0$ in $H^s$ for any $s$, as

269:   $\e\to 0$.  

270:   \end{itemize}

271: \end{hyp}

272: \begin{rema*}

273:   Some of the results we shall prove remain valid when $f$ is

274:   complex-valued. In that case, the conservation of mass associated to

275:   the Schr\"odinger equation, 

276:   $\|u^\e(t)\|_{L^2}= \|a_0^\e\|_{L^2}$, no longer holds. On the other

277:   hand, when $0\le \kappa <1$, this assumption is necessary in

278:   our approach, and we even assume $f'>0$. 

279: \end{rema*}

280: \subsection{Subcritical and critical cases: $\kappa \ge 1$}

281: \label{sec:sub0}

282: 

283: When the initial data is of the form \eqref{eq:CIbkw}, the usual

284: approach consists in plugging a formal expansion of the form

285: \eqref{eq:defBKW} into \eqref{eq:nlssemi}. Ordering the terms in

286: powers of $\e$, and canceling the cascade of equations thus obtained

287: yields $\Phi$, $\a_0$, $\a_1$, \ldots 

288: \smallbreak

289: 

290: Assume in this section

291: that $\kappa \ge 1$, and apply the above procedure. To cancel the term

292: of order $\O(\e^0)$, we find that $\Phi$ must solve

293: \eqref{eq:eik}: $\Phi=\eik$. Canceling the term of order $\O(\e^1)$,

294: we get: 

295: \begin{equation*}

296:   \d_t \a_0 +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla \a_0 +

297:   \frac{1}{2}\a_0\Delta \eik =

298: \left\{

299:   \begin{aligned}

300:     &0 & \text{ if }\kappa >1,\\

301:     &-if\(|\a_0|^2\)\a_0& \text{ if }\kappa =1.

302:   \end{aligned}

303: \right.

304: \end{equation*}

305: We see that  the value $\kappa =1$ is critical as far as

306: nonlinear effects are concerned: if $\kappa>1$, no nonlinear effect is

307: expected at leading order, since formally, $u^\e \sim \a_0 e^{i\eik

308:   /\e}$, and $\eik$ and $\a_0$ do not depend on the nonlinearity

309: $f$. If $\kappa =1$, then $\a_0$ solves a nonlinear equation

310: involving $f$. 

311: \smallbreak

312: 

313: We will see in Section~\ref{sec:sub} that $\a_0$ solves a transport

314: equation that turns out to be a ordinary differential equation along

315: the rays of geometrical optics, as is usual in the hyperbolic case

316: (see e.g. \cite{RauchUtah}). More typical of Schr\"odinger equation is

317: the fact that this ordinary differential equation can be solved

318: explicitly: the nonlinear effect is measured by a nonlinear phase

319: shift (see the example of \cite{LannesRauch} for a similar result 

320: in the hyperbolic setting). We prove the following result in

321: Section~\ref{sec:sub}: 

322: \begin{prop}\label{prop:sub}

323:   Let Assumptions~\ref{hyp:geom} and \ref{hyp:ana} be satisfied. Let

324:   $\kappa \ge 1$. Then for any $\e \in ]0,1]$,

325:   \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI} has a unique solution $u^\e \in

326:   C^\infty([0,T]\times \R^n)\cap C([0,T];H^s)$ for any $s>n/2$ ($T$ is

327:   given by  

328:   Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}). Moreover,

329:   there exist $ a, G\in C^\infty([0,T]\times \R^n)$,

330:   independent of $\e \in ]0,1]$, where

331:   $ a \in C([0,T]; L^2\cap L^\infty)$, and $G$ is

332:   real-valued with 

333:   $G \in C([0,T]; 

334:   L^\infty)$, such that:

335:   \begin{equation*}

336:     \left\| u^\e -  a e^{i\e^{\kappa -1}G}e^{i\eik

337:         /\e}\right\|_{L^\infty([0,T]; L^2\cap L^\infty) } \to 0\quad

338:     \text{as }\e \to 0.

339:   \end{equation*}

340: The profile $ a$ solves the initial value problem:

341: \begin{equation}\label{eq:alibre}

342:   \d_t  a +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla a +

343:   \frac{1}{2} a\Delta \eik =0\quad ;\quad a_{\mid

344:     t=0}=a_0, 

345: \end{equation}

346: and $G$  depends nonlinearly on $ a$ through $f$.

347: In particular, if $\kappa>1$, then 

348: \begin{equation*}

349:     \left\| u^\e - a e^{i\eik

350:         /\e}\right\|_{L^\infty([0,T]; L^2\cap L^\infty) } \to 0\quad

351:     \text{as }\e \to 0,

352:   \end{equation*}

353: and no nonlinear effect is present in the leading order behavior of

354: $u^\e$. If $\kappa =1$, nonlinear effects are present at leading

355: order, measured by $G$.

356: \end{prop}

357: The dependence of $G$ upon $ a$ and $f$ is made more explicit in

358: Section~\ref{sec:sub}, in terms of the Hamilton flow determining

359: $\eik$ (see \eqref{eq:exprG}). Note that in the above result, we do

360: not assume that $\kappa$ is an integer. 

361: 

362: \subsection{Supercritical case: $\kappa=0$}

363: \label{sec:surcrit0}

364: 

365: It follows from the above analysis that the case $0\le \kappa <1$ is

366: supercritical. We restrict our attention to the case $\kappa =0$. We

367: present an analysis of the range $0<\kappa<1$ in

368: Section~\ref{sec:kappaint}. Plugging an

369: asymptotic expansion of the form \eqref{eq:defBKW} into

370: \eqref{eq:nlssemi} yields a shifted cascade of equations:

371: \begin{align*}

372:  \O\(\e^0\):&\quad \d_t \Phi +\frac{1}{2}|\nabla\Phi|^2 + V +

373:  f\(|\a_0|^2\)=0,\\ 

374: \O\(\e^1\):&\quad \d_t \a_0 +\nabla\Phi \cdot \nabla \a_0

375: +\frac{1}{2}\a_0\Delta \Phi = 

376: 2if'\(|\a_0|^2\) {\rm Re}\(\a_0\overline{\a_1}\).

377: \end{align*}

378: Two comments are in order. First, we see that there is a strong

379: coupling between the phase and the main amplitude: $\a_0$ is present

380: in the equation for $\Phi$. Second, the above system is not closed:

381: $\Phi$ is determined in function of $\a_0$, and $\a_0$ is determined in

382: function of $\a_1$. Even if we pursued the cascade of equations, this

383: phenomenon would remain: no matter how many terms are computed, the

384: system is never closed (see \cite{PGX93}). This is a typical feature

385: of supercritical 

386: cases in nonlinear geometrical optics (see

387: \cite{CheverryBullSMF,CG05}).  

388: \smallbreak

389: 

390: In the case when $V\equiv 0$ and $\phi_0\in H^s$, this problem was

391: resolved by E.~Grenier \cite{Grenier98}, by modifying the usual WKB

392: methods; this approach is recalled in Section~\ref{sec:grenier}. Note

393: that even though $\a_1$ is not determined by the above system, the

394: pair $(\rho,v):= (|\a_0|^2,\nabla \Phi)$ solves a compressible Euler

395: equation:

396: \begin{equation}

397:   \label{eq:eulerV}

398:   \begin{aligned}

399:     \d_t v +v\cdot \nabla v + \nabla V + \nabla f(\rho)&=0\ ;\quad

400:     v\big|_{ t=0}=\nabla \phi_0\\

401:     \d_t \rho+ \nabla\cdot (\rho v) &=0\ ;\quad \rho\big|_{t=0}=|a_0|^2.

402:   \end{aligned}

403: \end{equation}

404: Using techniques introduced in the study of quasilinear hyperbolic

405: equations, E.~Grenier justified a WKB expansion for nonlinearities

406: which are defocusing, and cubic at the origin ($f'>0$). We shall not

407: change this assumption, but show how to treat the case of a

408: subquadratic potential with a subquadratic initial phase. Note that

409: even the construction of solution to \eqref{eq:eulerV} under

410: Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} is not standard: the source term $ \nabla V$

411: may be unbounded, as well as the initial velocity $\nabla \phi_0$. 

412: \begin{hyp}\label{hyp:surcrit}

413:   In addition to Assumption~\ref{hyp:ana}, we assume:

414:   \begin{itemize}

415:   \item $f'>0$.

416:   \item There exists $a_0, a_1\in H^\infty$, with $xa_0, xa_1\in H^\infty$,

417:   such that:

418:   \begin{equation*}

419:     \left\|a_0^\e -a_0 -\e a_1\right\|_{H^s} +

420:     \left\|xa_0^\e -xa_0 -\e xa_1\right\|_{H^s}

421:     =o(\e),\quad \forall s\ge 0. 

422:   \end{equation*}

423:   \end{itemize}

424: \end{hyp}

425: We can then describe the asymptotic behavior of the solution to

426: \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI} for small times:

427: \begin{theo}\label{theo:BKWV}

428:   Let Assumptions~\ref{hyp:geom}, \ref{hyp:ana} and \ref{hyp:surcrit}

429:   be satisfied. Let $\kappa =0$. There exists $T_*>0$ independent

430:   of $\e \in ]0,1]$ and a unique solution $u^\e \in

431:   C^\infty([0,T_*]\times \R^n)\cap C([0,T_*];H^s)$ for any $s>n/2$ to

432:   \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI}. Moreover, there exist $a,\phi \in

433:   C([0,T_*];H^s)$ for every $s\ge 0$, such that:

434:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:BKWVtpetit}

435:     \limsup_{\e \to 0}\left\| u^\e - a

436:     e^{i(\phi+\eik)/\e}\right\|_{L^2\cap L^\infty}=\O(t)\quad

437:     \text{as }t\to 0. 

438:   \end{equation}

439: Here, $a$ and $\phi$ are nonlinear functions of $\eik$ and

440: $a_0$, given by \eqref{eq:11h09}. Finally, there exists $\phi^{(1)}\in

441:   C([0,T_*];H^s)$ for every $s\ge 0$, real-valued, such that: 

442:   \begin{equation}\label{eq:BKWVtgrand}

443:     \limsup_{\e \to 0}\sup_{0\le t\le T_*}\left\| u^\e - ae^{i\phi^{(1)}}

444:     e^{i(\phi+\eik)/\e}\right\|_{L^2\cap L^\infty}=0. 

445:   \end{equation}

446: The phase shift $\phi^{(1)}$ is a nonlinear function of $\eik, a_0$

447: and $a_1$.  

448: \end{theo}

449: This result can be understood as follows. At leading order, the

450: amplitude of $u^\e$ is given by $a e^{i\phi^{(1)}}$, which can be

451: approximated for small times by $a$, because

452: $\phi^{(1)}\big|_{t=0}=0$. The rapid oscillations are described by the

453: phase $\phi +\eik$. The 

454: function $\phi$ is constructed as a perturbation of $\eik$, but must not

455: be considered as negligible: its $H^s$-norms are not small in

456: general, see \eqref{eq:11h09} (at time $t=0$ for instance). As a

457: consequence of our analysis, the pair 

458: \begin{equation*}

459:   (\rho,v) = \( |a|^2,\nabla (\phi +\eik)\) = \(

460:   \left|a e^{i\phi^{(1)}}\right|^2,\nabla (\phi +\eik)\)  

461: \end{equation*}

462: solves the system \eqref{eq:eulerV}. 

463: \begin{rema}

464: With this result, we could deduce instability phenomena for 

465: \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI} in the same fashion as in

466: \cite{CaInstab}. Note that because of Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom}, it 

467: seems that the

468: approaches of \cite{BGTENS,BZ,CCT2} cannot be adapted to the

469: present case: the Laplacian can never be neglected, and apparently, 

470: WKB approach is really needed.  

471: \end{rema} 

472: 

473:  

474: The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In

475: Section~\ref{sec:HJ}, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}. In

476: Section~\ref{sec:sub}, we prove Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}, and

477: explain  how $G$ is obtained. We recall the approach of

478: \cite{Grenier98} in Section~\ref{sec:grenier}, and show how to adapt

479: it to prove Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV} 

480: in Section~\ref{sec:surcrit}. 

481: We present an

482: analysis for the case $0<\kappa<1$ in Section~\ref{sec:kappaint}. 

483: %We sketch the

484: %proof of the analogue of Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV}  for the

485: %Gross-Pitaevskii equation in Appendix~\ref{sec:gross}. 

486: 

487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

488: 

489: 

490: 

491: 

492: 

493: 

494: \section{Global in space Hamilton-Jacobi theory}

495: \label{sec:HJ}

496: In this section, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}.

497: Consider the classical Hamiltonian:

498: \begin{equation*}

499:   H(t,x,\tau,\xi)= \tau +\frac{1}{2}|\xi|^2 +V(t,x),\quad

500:   (t,x,\tau,\xi)\in \R_+\times\R^n \times\R\times\R^n.

501: \end{equation*}

502: It is smooth by Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom}. Therefore, it is classical

503: (see e.g. \cite{DG}) that in the neighborhood of each

504: point $x\in \R^n$, one can construct a smooth solution to the eikonal

505: equation \eqref{eq:eik}, on some time interval $[-t(x),t(x)]$, for

506: some $t(x)>0$ depending on $x$. The fact 

507: that in Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}, we can find some $T>0$ uniform in $x\in

508: \R^n$ is due to the fact that the potential and the initial phase are

509: subquadratic. 

510: \smallbreak

511: 

512: Recall that if there

513: exist some constants $a,b>0$ such that a potential $\tt V$ satisfies

514: ${\tt V}(x)\geq -a |x|^2-b$, then $-\Delta +{\tt V}$ is

515: essentially self-adjoint on $C_0^\infty({\mathbb R}^n)$ (see 

516: \cite[p.~199]{ReedSimon2}). If  $-{\tt V}$ has

517: superquadratic growth,

518: then it is not possible to define $e^{-it(-\Delta +{\tt V})}$

519: (see \cite[Chap.~13, Sect.~6, Cor.~22]{Dunford} for the case ${\tt

520:   V}(x)=-x^4$ in space dimension one). This is due to the fact that

521: classical trajectories can reach an infinite speed. We will see below

522: that if the initial phase $\phi_0$ is superquadratic, then focusing at

523: the origin may occur ``instantly'' (see Example~\ref{ex:phase}). 

524: \smallbreak

525: 

526: To construct the solution of \eqref{eq:eik}, introduce the flow

527: associated to $H$: let $x(t,y)$ and $\xi(t,y)$ solve

528: \begin{equation}

529:   \label{eq:hamilton}

530: \left\{

531:   \begin{aligned}

532:    &\d_t x(t,y) = \xi \(t,y\)\quad ;\quad x(0,y)=y,\\ 

533:    &\d_t \xi(t,y) = -\nabla_x V\(t,x(t,y)\)\quad ;\quad

534:    \xi(0,y)=\nabla \phi_0(y).

535:   \end{aligned}

536: \right.

537: \end{equation}

538: Recall the result (valid under weaker conditions than

539: Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom}): 

540: \begin{theo}[\cite{DG}, Th.~A.3.2]\label{theo:hj}

541:   Suppose that Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} is satisfied. Let $t\in

542:   [0,T]$ and $\theta_0$ an open set of $\R^n$. Denote

543:   \begin{equation*}

544:     \theta_t := \{ x(t,y)\in \R^n, y\in\theta_0\}\quad ;\quad \theta

545:     := \{ (t,x)\in [0,T]\times\R^n, x\in \theta_t\}.

546:   \end{equation*}

547: Suppose that for $t\in [0,T]$, the mapping 

548: \begin{equation*}

549:   \theta_0\ni y\mapsto x(t,y)\in \theta_t

550: \end{equation*}

551: is bijective, and denote by $y(t,x)$ its inverse. Assume also that 

552: \begin{equation*}

553:   \nabla_x y \in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\theta).

554: \end{equation*}

555: Then there exists a unique function $\theta\ni (t,x)\mapsto \eik(t,x)\in

556: \R$ that solves \eqref{eq:eik}, and satisfies $\nabla_x^2\eik \in

557: L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\theta)$. Moreover,

558: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gradeik}

559:   \nabla_x \eik(t,x) =\xi(t,y(t,x)). 

560: \end{equation}

561: \end{theo}

562: 

563: \begin{prop}[\cite{SchwartzBook}, Th.~1.22 and \cite{DG},

564:   Prop.~A.7.1]\label{prop:invglobale} 

565:   Suppose that the function $\R^n\ni y\mapsto x(y)\in \R^n$ satisfies:

566:   \begin{equation*}

567:     |\operatorname{det}\nabla_y x|\ge C_0>0\quad \text{and}\quad \left|

568:      \d_y^\alpha x\right|\le C, \ |\alpha|=1,2.

569:   \end{equation*}

570: Then $x$ is bijective. 

571: \end{prop}

572: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}]

573: Lemma~\ref{lem:hj} follows from the above two

574: results. From Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom}, we know that we can solve

575: \eqref{eq:hamilton} locally in time in the neighborhood of any

576: $y\in\R^n$. Differentiate \eqref{eq:hamilton} with respect to $y$:

577: \begin{equation}

578:   \label{eq:dyhamilton}

579: \left\{

580:   \begin{aligned}

581:    &\d_t \d_y x(t,y) = \d_y\xi \(t,y\)\quad ;\quad \d_y

582:    x(0,y)={\rm Id},\\ 

583:    &\d_t \d_y \xi(t,y) = -\nabla_x^2 V\(t,x(t,y)\)\d_y x(t,y) \quad ;\quad

584:    \d_y\xi(0,y)=\nabla^2 \phi_0(y).

585:   \end{aligned}

586: \right.

587: \end{equation}

588: Integrating \eqref{eq:dyhamilton} in time, we infer from

589: Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} that for any $T>0$, there exists $C_T$ such

590: that for $(t,y)\in [0,T]\times \R^n$: 

591: \begin{equation*}

592:   \left| \d_y x(t,y) \right| +\left|  \d_y \xi(t,y)\right|

593:   \le C_T + C_T\int_0^t \( \left| \d_y x(s,y) \right| +\left|  \d_y

594:   \xi(s,y)\right| \) ds.

595: \end{equation*}

596: Gronwall lemma yields:

597: \begin{equation}\label{eq:10:04}

598:   \left\| \d_y x(t) \right\|_{L^\infty_y} +\left\|  \d_y

599:   \xi(t)\right\|_{L^\infty_y} 

600:   \le C'(T).

601: \end{equation}

602: Similarly, 

603: \begin{equation}\label{eq:10:05}

604:   \left\| \d_y^\alpha x(t) \right\|_{L^\infty_y} +\left\|

605:   \d_y^\alpha  \xi(t)\right\|_{L^\infty_y} 

606:   \le C(\alpha,T),\quad \forall \alpha \in \N^n,\  |\alpha|\ge 1.

607: \end{equation}

608: Integrating the first line of \eqref{eq:dyhamilton} in time, we

609: have:

610: \begin{equation*}

611:   \operatorname{det}\nabla_y x(t,y) = \operatorname{det}\({\rm

612:   Id}+\int_0^t \nabla_y\xi \(s,y\)ds\). 

613: \end{equation*}

614: We infer from \eqref{eq:10:04} that for $t\in [0,T]$, provided that

615: $T>0$ is sufficiently small, we can find $C_0>0$ such that:

616: \begin{equation}\label{eq:det}

617:   \left| \operatorname{det}\nabla_y x(t,y)\right|\ge C_0,\quad \forall

618:   (t,y)\in [0,T]\times \R^n.

619: \end{equation}

620: Applying Proposition~\ref{prop:invglobale}, we deduce that we can

621: invert $y\mapsto x(t,y)$ for $t\in [0,T]$. 

622: \smallbreak

623: 

624: To apply Theorem~\ref{theo:hj} with $\theta_0= \theta= \theta_t=\R^n$,

625: we must check that $\nabla_x y\in L^\infty_{\rm loc}

626: (\R^n)$. Differentiate the relation

627: \begin{equation*}

628:   x\(t,y(t,x)\) = x

629: \end{equation*}

630: with respect to $x$:

631: \begin{equation*}

632:   \nabla_x y(t,x)\nabla_y x\(t,y(t,x)\) = {\rm Id}. 

633: \end{equation*}

634: Therefore, $\nabla_x y(t,x) = \nabla_y x\(t,y(t,x)\)^{-1}$ as

635: matrices, and

636: \begin{equation}\label{eq:adj}

637:   \nabla_x y(t,x) =\frac{1}{\operatorname{det}\nabla_y x(t,y)}{\rm

638:   adj}\( \nabla_y x\(t,y(t,x)\)\),

639: \end{equation}

640: where ${\rm adj}\( \nabla_y x\)$ denotes the adjugate of $\nabla_y

641: x$. We infer from \eqref{eq:10:04} and \eqref{eq:det} that $\nabla_x y

642: \in L^\infty(\R^n)$ for $t\in [0,T]$. Therefore, Theorem~\ref{theo:hj}

643: yields a smooth solution $\eik$ to \eqref{eq:eik}, local in time and

644: global in space: $\eik \in C^\infty([0,T]\times \R^n)$. 

645: \smallbreak

646: 

647: The fact that $\eik$ is subquadratic as stated in Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}

648: then stems from \eqref{eq:gradeik}, \eqref{eq:10:05}, \eqref{eq:det}

649: and \eqref{eq:adj}. 

650: \end{proof}

651: 

652: We now give some two examples showing that

653: Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} is essentially sharp to solve \eqref{eq:eik}

654: globally in space, at least when no assumption is made on the sign of

655: $V$ nor on the geometry of $\nabla \phi_0$. We already recalled that

656: if $-V$ has a 

657: superquadratic growth, then $-\Delta +V$ is not essentially

658: self-adjoint on $C_0^\infty(\R^n)$, so we shall rather study the

659: dependence of $\eik$ on the initial phase $\phi_0$.

660: \begin{ex}\label{ex:phase}

661:   Assume that $V\equiv 0$ and 

662:   \begin{equation*}

663:     \phi_0(x) = -\frac{1}{(2+2\delta)T}\(|x|^2+1 \)^{1+\delta}, \quad

664:     T>0,\ \delta

665:     \not = -1. 

666:   \end{equation*}

667: Then Assumption~\ref{hyp:geom} is satisfied if and only if $\delta\le

668: 0$. When $\delta =0$, then \eqref{eq:eik} is solved explicitly:

669: \begin{equation*}

670:   \eik(t,x) = \frac{|x|^2}{2(t-T)}-\frac{1}{2T}. 

671: \end{equation*}

672: This shows that we can solve \eqref{eq:eik} globally in space, but only

673: locally in time: as $t\to T$, a caustic reduced to a single point (the

674: origin) is

675: formed. Note that with $T<0$, \eqref{eq:eik} can be solved globally in

676: time \emph{for positive times}.\\

677: When $\delta>0$, then integrating \eqref{eq:hamilton} yields:

678: \begin{align*}

679:  x(t,y) &=y +\int_0^t \xi(s,y)ds = y +\int_0^t  \xi(0,y)ds= y -

680: \frac{t}{T}\(|y|^2+1 \)^{\delta} y\\

681: &= y\(1 - \frac{t}{T}\(|y|^2+1

682: \)^{\delta}\).  

683: \end{align*}

684: For $R>0$, we see that the rays starting from the

685: ball $\{|y|=R\}$ meet at the origin at time

686: \begin{align*}

687:   T_c(R) = \frac{T}{(R^2+1)^\delta}.

688: \end{align*}

689: Since $R$ is arbitrary, this shows that several rays can meet

690: arbitrarily fast, thus showing that Theorem~\ref{theo:hj} cannot be

691: applied uniformly in space. 

692: \end{ex}

693: \begin{ex}

694:   When $V(t,x) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^n \om_j^2 x_j^2$ is an harmonic

695:   potential ($\om_j \not= 0$), and $\phi_0\equiv 0$, we have:

696:   \begin{equation*}

697:     \phi(t,x) = -\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\om_j}{2}x_j^2\tan (\om_j t). 

698:   \end{equation*}

699: This also shows that we can solve \eqref{eq:eik} globally in space,

700: but locally in time only. Note that if we replace formally $\om_j$ by

701: $i\om_j$, then $V$ is turned into $-V$, and the trigonometric

702: functions become hyperbolic functions: we can then solve \eqref{eq:eik}

703: globally in space \emph{and} time. 

704: \end{ex}

705: 

706: Instead of invoking Theorem~\ref{theo:hj} and

707: Proposition~\ref{prop:invglobale}, one might try to differentiate

708: \eqref{eq:eik} in order to prove that $\eik$ is subquadratic, in the

709: same fashion as in \cite{BahouriCheminAJM,BahouriCheminIMRN}. For

710: $1\le j,k\le n$, differentiate \eqref{eq:eik} with respect to $x_j$

711: and $x_k$:

712: \begin{align*}

713:     &\d_t \d^2_{jk}\eik +\nabla_x \eik\cdot \nabla_x\(\d^2_{jk}\eik \)+

714:     \sum_{l=1}^n \d^2_{jl}\eik\d^2_{lk}\eik

715:     +\d^2_{jk}V(t,x)=0\ ;\\

716:     &\d^2_{jk}\phi_{{\rm eik} \mid t=0}=\d^2_{jk}\phi_0\, .

717:   \end{align*}

718: We see that we obtain a system of the form

719: \begin{equation*}

720:   D_t y = Q(y) + R\quad ;\quad y_{\mid t=0} = y(0),

721: \end{equation*}

722: where $y$ stands for the family $(\d^2_{jk}\eik)_{1\le j,k\le n}$, $Q$

723: is quadratic, and

724: $R$ and $y(0)$ are bounded. The operator $D_t$ is a well-defined

725: transport operator provided that the characteristics given by:

726: \begin{equation*}

727:   \d_t x(t,y) = \nabla_x \eik \(t,x(t,y)\)\quad ; \quad x(0,y)=y,

728: \end{equation*}

729: define a global diffeomorphism. Proving this amounts to using

730: Proposition~\ref{prop:invglobale}, for the rather general initial data

731: we consider. So it seems that this approach does not allow to shorten

732: the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}. 

733: 

734: 

735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: \section{Subcritical and critical cases}

740: \label{sec:sub}

741: 

742: To establish Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}, define

743: \begin{equation*}

744:   a^\e(t,x) := u^\e (t,x) e^{-i\eik(t,x)/\e}. 

745: \end{equation*}

746: Then $u^\e$ solves \eqref{eq:nlssemi}-\eqref{eq:CI} if and only if

747: $a^\e$ solves:

748: \begin{equation}

749:   \label{eq:asub}

750:   \begin{aligned}

751:     \d_t a^\e +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla a^\e +

752:   \frac{1}{2}a^\e\Delta \eik &=i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e

753:   -i\e^{\kappa -1}f\(|a^\e|^2\)a^\e ,\\

754: a^\e_{\mid  t=0}&=a_0^\e. 

755:   \end{aligned}

756: \end{equation}

757: \begin{prop}\label{prop:asub}

758:   Let Assumptions~\ref{hyp:geom} and \ref{hyp:ana} be satisfied. Let

759:   $\kappa \ge 1$. For any $\e \in ]0,1]$, \eqref{eq:asub} has a

760:   unique solution $a^\e \in

761:   C^\infty([0,T]\times \R^n)\cap C([0,T];H^s)$ for any

762:   $s>n/2$. Moreover, $a^\e$ is bounded in 

763:   $L^\infty([0,T]; H^s)$ uniformly in $\e \in ]0,1]$, for any $s\ge

764:   0$. 

765: \end{prop}

766: \begin{proof}

767:   Using a mollification procedure, we see that it is enough to

768:   establish energy estimates for \eqref{eq:asub} in $H^s$, for any

769:   $s\ge 0$. Let $s>n/2$, and $\alpha\in \N^n$, with $s=|\alpha|$. Applying

770:   $\d^\alpha_x$ to \eqref{eq:asub}, we find:

771: \begin{equation}

772:   \label{eq:asubder}

773:     \d_t \d^\alpha_x a^\e +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla \d^\alpha_x a^\e

774:     =i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta \d^\alpha_x a^\e 

775: -i\e^{\kappa -1}\d^\alpha_x\(f\(|a^\e|^2\)a^\e\) 

776: + R_\alpha^\e, 

777: \end{equation}

778: where

779: \begin{equation*}

780:   R_\alpha^\e = \left[ \nabla \eik\cdot \nabla ,\d^\alpha_x \right]a^\e -

781:   \frac{1}{2}\d^\alpha_x \(a^\e\Delta \eik\). 

782: \end{equation*}

783: Take the inner product of \eqref{eq:asubder} with $\d^\alpha a^\e$,

784: and consider the real part:

785: the first term of the right hand side of \eqref{eq:asubder} vanishes,

786: and we have:

787: \begin{equation*}

788:   \begin{aligned}

789:     \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\d^\alpha_x a^\e\|_{L^2}^2+ {\rm Re}\int_{\R^n}

790:   \overline{\d^\alpha_x a^\e}\nabla 

791:   \eik\cdot \nabla \d^\alpha_x a^\e \le &\e^{\kappa -1}

792:   \left\|f\(|a^\e|^2\)a^\e\right\|_{H^s} \left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s}\\

793:   &   +\left\|R_\alpha^\e\right\|_{L^2}\left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s} .

794: \end{aligned}

795: \end{equation*}

796: Notice that we have

797: \begin{align*}

798:   \left| {\rm Re}\int_{\R^n}

799:   \overline{\d^\alpha_x a^\e}\nabla 

800:   \eik\cdot \nabla \d^\alpha_x a^\e \right| &= \frac{1}{2}\left| \int_{\R^n}

801:   \nabla 

802:   \eik\cdot \nabla \left|\d^\alpha_x a^\e \right|^2\right|\\

803: & = \frac{1}{2}\left| \int_{\R^n}

804:   \left|\d^\alpha_x a^\e \right|^2 \Delta \eik  \right|\le C

805: \left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s}^2, 

806: \end{align*}

807: since $\Delta \eik \in L^\infty([0,T]\times\R^n)$ from

808: Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}. Moser's inequality yields:

809: \begin{equation*}

810:   \left\|f\(|a^\e|^2\)a^\e\right\|_{H^s} \le C \(

811:   \left\|a^\e\right\|_{L^\infty}\) \left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s}.

812: \end{equation*}

813: Summing over $\alpha$ such that $|\alpha|=s$, we infer:

814: \begin{equation*}

815:   \frac{d}{dt}\| a^\e\|_{H^s} \le C \(

816:   \left\|a^\e\right\|_{L^\infty}\) \left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s} +

817:   \left\|R_\alpha^\e\right\|_{H^s}. 

818: \end{equation*}

819: Note that the above locally bounded map $C(\cdot)$ is independent of

820: $\e$ if and only if $\kappa \ge 1$. 

821: To apply Gronwall lemma, we need to estimate the last term: we use the

822: fact that the derivatives of order at least two of $\eik$ are bounded,

823: from Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}, to have:

824: \begin{equation*}

825:   \left\|R_\alpha^\e\right\|_{L^2} \le C \left\|a^\e\right\|_{H^s}.

826: \end{equation*}

827: We can then conclude by a continuity argument and Gronwall lemma: 

828: \begin{equation*}

829:   \| a^\e\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)}\le C\(s, \left\|a_0^\e\right\|_{H^s} \). 

830: \end{equation*}

831: For the mollification procedure, this yields boundedness in the high

832: norm. Contraction in the small norm then follows easily with classical

833: arguments (see e.g. \cite{AlinhacGerard,Majda}), completing the proof

834: of Proposition~\ref{prop:asub}.

835: \end{proof}

836: \begin{cor}\label{cor:simplifsub}

837:  Let Assumptions~\ref{hyp:geom} and \ref{hyp:ana} be satisfied. Let

838:   $\kappa \ge 1$. Then

839:   \begin{equation*}

840:   \left\| a^\e -   \widetilde a^\e

841:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)}\to 0 \quad \text{as }\e \to 0,\quad

842:   \forall s\ge 0, 

843:   \end{equation*}

844: where $\widetilde a^\e$ solves:

845: \begin{equation}\label{eq:atildeeps}

846:   \d_t \widetilde a^\e +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla \widetilde a^\e +

847:   \frac{1}{2}\widetilde a^\e\Delta \eik =

848:   -i\e^{\kappa -1}f\(|\widetilde a^\e|^2\)\widetilde a^\e \quad ; \quad

849: \widetilde a^\e_{\mid  t=0}=a_0.

850: \end{equation}

851: \end{cor}

852: \begin{proof}

853:   The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:asub} shows that $\widetilde a^\e \in

854:   C^\infty([0,T]\times \R^n)$, and that $\widetilde a^\e$ is bounded in

855:   $L^\infty([0,T]; H^s)$ uniformly in $\e \in ]0,1]$, for any $s\ge

856:   0$. Let $w^\e = a^\e -\widetilde a^\e$: it solves

857: \begin{align*}

858:   \d_t w^\e +\nabla \eik\cdot \nabla w^\e +

859:   \frac{1}{2}w^\e\Delta \eik &=i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e

860:   -i\e^{\kappa -1}\(F(a^\e) -F(\widetilde a^\e)\),\\ 

861: w^\e_{\mid  t=0}&=a_0^\e -a_0,

862: \end{align*}

863: where we have denoted $F(z)=f(|z|^2)z$. Proceeding as in the proof of

864: Proposition~\ref{prop:asub}, we have the following energy estimate:

865: \begin{equation*}

866:   \frac{d}{dt}\| w^\e\|_{H^s} \le C  \left\|w^\e\right\|_{H^s} +

867:   \e \left\|\Delta a^\e\right\|_{H^s} + \left\|F(a^\e) -F(\widetilde

868:     a^\e)\right\|_{H^s}.  

869: \end{equation*}

870: Since $H^s$ is an algebra and $F$ is $C^1$, the Fundamental Theorem of

871: Calculus yields:

872: \begin{equation*}

873:   \left\|F(a^\e) -F(\widetilde

874:     a^\e)\right\|_{H^s}\le C\(\left\| a^\e\right\|_{H^s},

875:   \left\|\widetilde a^\e\right\|_{H^s}\) \| w^\e\|_{H^s}.

876: \end{equation*}

877: Now since $a^\e$ and $\widetilde a^\e$ are bounded in

878:   $L^\infty([0,T]; H^{s+2})$ uniformly in $\e \in ]0,1]$, we have an

879:   estimate of the form:

880: \begin{equation*}

881:   \frac{d}{dt}\| w^\e\|_{H^s} \le C(s)  \left\|w^\e\right\|_{H^s} +

882:   C(s) \e .  

883: \end{equation*}

884: We conclude by Gronwall lemma, since $\|a_0^\e -a_0\|_{H^s} \to 0$

885: from Assumption~\ref{hyp:ana}.

886: \end{proof}

887: \begin{rema}

888:   If we assume moreover that like in \eqref{eq:CIbkw}, 

889:   \begin{equation*}

890:     a_0^\e = a_0 + \O(\e) \quad \text{in }H^s, \ \forall s\ge 0,

891:   \end{equation*}

892: then the above estimate can be improved to: 

893: \begin{equation*}

894:   \left\| a^\e -   \widetilde a^\e

895:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)}=\O(\e),\quad \forall s\ge 0.

896:   \end{equation*}

897: \end{rema}

898: We have reduced the study of the asymptotic behavior of $u^\e$ to the

899: understanding of $\widetilde a^\e$. To complete the proof of

900: Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}, we resume the framework of

901: Section~\ref{sec:HJ}. With $x(t,y)$ given by the Hamilton flow

902: \eqref{eq:hamilton}, introduce the Jacobi determinant

903: \begin{equation*}

904:   J_t(y) ={\rm det}\nabla_y x(t,y). 

905: \end{equation*}

906: Denote

907: \begin{equation*}

908:   A^\e(t,y) := \widetilde a^\e \(t, x(t,y) \)\sqrt{J_t(y)}.

909: \end{equation*}

910: We see that so long as $y\mapsto x(t,y)$ defines a global

911: diffeomorphism (which is guaranteed for $t\in [0,T]$ by construction),

912: \eqref{eq:atildeeps} is equivalent to:  

913: \begin{equation*}

914:   \d_t A^\e = -i\e^{\kappa -1}f\(J_t(y)^{-1}\left|A^\e \right|^2\)

915:   A^\e\quad ; \quad A^\e(0,y)=a_0(y). 

916: \end{equation*}

917: This ordinary differential equation along the rays of geometrical

918: optics can be solved explicitly: since $f$ is real-valued, we see that

919: $\d_t |A^\e|^2 =0$, hence

920: \begin{equation*}

921:   A^\e(t,y) = a_0(y) \exp\(-i\e^{\kappa -1} \int_0^t

922:   f\(J_s(y)^{-1}\left|a_0(y) \right|^2\)ds\). 

923: \end{equation*}

924: Back to the function $\widetilde a^\e$, Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}

925: follows, with:

926: \begin{equation}\label{eq:exprG}

927:   \begin{aligned}

928:     a(t,x) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{J_t(y(t,x))}}a_0\(y(t,x)\),\\

929:   G(t,x) &= -\int_0^t

930:   f\(J_s(y(t,x))^{-1}\left|a_0(y(t,x)) \right|^2\)ds.

931:   \end{aligned}

932: \end{equation}

933: One may wonder if this approach could be extended to some values

934: $\kappa <1$. Seek a solution of \eqref{eq:asub}. To have a simple ansatz

935: as in Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}, we would like to remove the

936: Laplacian in the limit $\e \to 0$ in \eqref{eq:asub}, and obtain the

937: analogue of Corollary~\ref{cor:simplifsub}. Following the same lines

938: as above, we find:

939: \begin{equation*}

940:   \widetilde a^\e (t,x) = a(t,x) e^{i\e^{\kappa-1}G(t,x)},

941: \end{equation*}

942: which is exactly the first formula in Proposition~\ref{prop:sub}. Now

943: recall that in Proposition~\ref{prop:asub}, we prove that $a^\e$ is

944: bounded in $H^s$, uniformly for $\e \in ]0,1]$; this property is used

945: to approximate $a^\e$ by $\widetilde a^\e$. But when $\kappa <1$,

946: $\widetilde a^\e$ is no longer uniformly bounded in $H^s$, because

947: what was a phase modulation for $\kappa \ge 1$ is now a rapid

948: oscillation. 

949: \smallbreak

950: 

951: This remark in a particular case reveals a much more general

952: phenomenon. When studying geometric optics in a supercritical r\'egime

953: (when $\kappa <1$ in the present context), distinguishing phase and

954: amplitude becomes a much more delicate issue. Suppose for instance

955: that we seek $u^\e = a^\e e^{i\phi^\e/\e}$, where $a^\e$ and $\phi^\e$

956: have asymptotic expansions as $\e \to 0$. All the terms

957: for $\phi^\e$ which are not $o(\e)$ are relevant, since $\phi^\e$ is

958: divided by $\e$. To determine these terms, it is not sufficient to

959: determine the leading order amplitude $\lim a^\e$ in general: because of

960: supercritical interactions, initial perturbations of the amplitude

961: may develop  non-negligible phase terms. To illustrate this discussion

962: in the above case, let $\kappa <1$ and $\widetilde a^\e$ solve

963: \eqref{eq:atildeeps} with initial data

964: \begin{equation*}

965:   \widetilde a^\e_{\mid t=0} =a_0 +\e^\gamma a_1,\quad \gamma >0,

966: \end{equation*}

967: where $a_0$ and $a_1$ are smooth and independent of $\e$. Integrating

968: \eqref{eq:atildeeps}, we find

969: \begin{equation*}

970:  \widetilde a^\e (t,x) =  \frac{1}{\sqrt{J_t(y(t,x))}}\(

971:  a_0\(y(t,x)\)+ \e^\gamma a_1\(y(t,x)\)\) e^{i\e^{\kappa -1}G^\e(t,x)},

972: \end{equation*}

973: where 

974: \begin{equation*}

975:   G^\e (t,x) = -\int_0^t

976:   f\(J_s(y(t,x))^{-1}\left|a_0(y(t,x))+ \e^\gamma a_1\(y(t,x)\) \right|^2\)ds.

977: \end{equation*}

978: We have the identity $G^\e = G + \e^\gamma G_1 +\e^{2\gamma}G_2$, for

979: the same $G$ as before, and $G_1,G_2$ independent of $\e$, but

980: depending on $a_1$. We infer:

981: \begin{equation*}

982:  \widetilde a^\e (t,x) \Eq \e 0  \frac{1}{\sqrt{J_t(y(t,x))}}

983:  a_0\(y(t,x)\) e^{i\e^{\kappa -1}(G+\e^\gamma G_1 +\e^{2\gamma}G_2) (t,x)}.

984: \end{equation*}

985: In particular, if $\kappa +\gamma \le 1$, we see that $G_1$ has to be

986: incorporated to describe the leading order behavior of $\widetilde

987: a^\e$. Since the three requirements $\kappa <1$, $\gamma>0$ and

988: $\kappa +\gamma \le 1$ can be met, we see that the small initial

989: perturbation $\e^\gamma a_1$ may produce relevant phase

990: perturbations. This example explains why in

991: Assumption~\ref{hyp:surcrit}, we require the asymptotic behavior of

992: the initial amplitude up to order $o(\e)$ and not only $o(1)$ (take

993: $\kappa=0$ and $\gamma =1$). 

994: We refer to

995: \cite{CheverryBullSMF} for a 

996: general explanation of this phenomenon, and to the next three sections

997: as far as Schr\"odinger equations are concerned.  

998: 

999: 

1000: 

1001: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1002: 

1003: 

1004: \section{A hyperbolic point of view}

1005: \label{sec:grenier}

1006: 

1007: In this section, we study \eqref{eq:nlssemi} in the case

1008: $\kappa =0$, with no potential: 

1009: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hs}

1010:   i\e \d_t u^\e +\frac{\e^2}{2}\Delta u^\e =  f\(|u^\e|^2\)

1011:   u^\e\quad ; \quad u^\e_{\mid t=0} = a_0^\e(x)e^{i\varphi_0(x)/\e}\, . 

1012: \end{equation}

1013: We recall the method introduced by E.~Grenier \cite{Grenier98},

1014: which is valid for smooth nonlinearities which are defocusing and

1015: cubic at the origin. Throughout this section, we assume the

1016: following:

1017: \begin{hyp}[Study of \eqref{eq:hs}]\label{hyp:hyper}

1018:   We have $f'>0$. In addition,

1019:   $\varphi_0\in H^\infty$, and there exists $a_0,a_1 \in H^\infty$

1020:   such that

1021:   \begin{equation*}

1022:     a_0^\e = a_0 +\e a_1 +o(\e)\quad \text{in }H^s, \ \forall s\ge 0.

1023:   \end{equation*}

1024: \end{hyp}

1025: Note that this assumption is closely akin to

1026: Assumption~\ref{hyp:surcrit}: nevertheless, we do not make any

1027: assumption on the 

1028: momenta of $a_0$ and $a_1$, and  the initial phase is

1029: bounded. We will see in Section~\ref{sec:surcrit} how to weaken this

1030: assumption. 

1031: \subsection{Grenier's approach}

1032: \label{sec:hyper}

1033: The principle is somehow to perform the usual WKB analysis ``the other

1034: way round''. First, write the \emph{exact} solution as 

1035: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ecrexacte}

1036:   u^\e(t,x)= a^\e(t,x)e^{i\Phi^\e(t,x)/\e}\, ,

1037: \end{equation}

1038: where $\Phi^\e$ is real-valued. Then show that the ``amplitude'' $a^\e$

1039: and the ``phase'' $\Phi^\e$ have asymptotic expansions as $\e\to 0$:

1040: \begin{equation*}

1041:   a^\e \sim a +\e a^{(1)}+\e^2 a^{(2)}+\ldots \quad ;\quad 

1042: \Phi^\e \sim \phi +\e \phi^{(1)}+\e^2 \phi^{(2)}+\ldots

1043: \end{equation*}

1044: Introducing two unknown functions to solve one

1045: equation yields a degree of freedom. The historical approach

1046: \cite[Chap.~III]{LandauQ} consisted

1047: in writing 

1048: \begin{align*}

1049:     \d_t \Phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \Phi^\e\right|^2 + f\(

1050:     |a^\e|^2\)= \e^2 \frac{\Delta a^\e}{2 a^\e}\quad &; \quad

1051:     \Phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=\varphi_0\, ,\\

1052: \d_t a^\e +\nabla \Phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e

1053: \Delta \Phi^\e  = 0\quad  &;\quad

1054: a^\e\big|_{t=0}= a^\e_0\, . 

1055: \end{align*}

1056: Of course, this choice is not adapted when the amplitude $a^\e$

1057: vanishes (see \cite{PGX93}), so it must be left out when $a^\e_0 \in

1058: L^2(\R^n)$ in general. 

1059: The approach introduced by

1060: E.~Grenier consists in imposing:

1061: \begin{equation}\label{eq:systexact0}

1062:   \begin{aligned}

1063:     \d_t \Phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \Phi^\e\right|^2 + f\(

1064:     |a^\e|^2\)= 0\quad &; \quad

1065:     \Phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=\varphi_0\, ,\\

1066: \d_t a^\e +\nabla \Phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e

1067: \Delta \Phi^\e  = i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e\quad & ;\quad

1068: a^\e\big|_{t=0}= a^\e_0\, . 

1069:   \end{aligned}

1070: \end{equation}

1071: Before recalling the results of \cite{Grenier98}, observe that if

1072: $a^\e$ and $\Phi^\e$ are bounded in some sufficiently small Sobolev

1073: spaces uniformly in $\e$, passing to the limit formally in

1074: \eqref{eq:systexact0} yields:

1075: \begin{equation}\label{eq:systlim}

1076:   \begin{aligned}

1077:     \d_t \phi +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi\right|^2 + f\(

1078:     |a|^2\)= 0\quad &; \quad

1079:     \phi\big|_{t=0}=\varphi_0\, ,\\

1080: \d_t a +\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla a +\frac{1}{2}a

1081: \Delta \phi  = 0\quad & ;\quad

1082: a\big|_{t=0}= a_0\, . 

1083:   \end{aligned}

1084: \end{equation}

1085: We see that when the nonlinearity is

1086: exactly cubic ($f(y)\equiv y$), $(\rho,v):=\( |a|^2,\nabla

1087: \phi\)$ solves the  compressible, isentropic Euler equation 

1088: \begin{equation}

1089:   \label{eq:euler}

1090:   \begin{aligned}

1091:     \d_t v +v\cdot \nabla v + \nabla \rho= 0\quad &; \quad

1092:     v\big|_{t=0}=\nabla \varphi_0\, ,\\

1093: \d_t \rho  +\nabla\cdot (\rho v)  = 0\quad & ;\quad

1094: \rho\big|_{t=0}= |a_0|^2\, . 

1095:   \end{aligned}

1096: \end{equation}

1097: From this point of view, the formulation

1098: \eqref{eq:systlim} is closely akin to the change of unknown function $\rho

1099: \to \sqrt\rho$ introduced in \cite{MUK86} (see also

1100: \cite{JYC90}) to study \eqref{eq:euler} when the initial density is

1101: compactly supported, a situation more or less similar to the present

1102: one. Note however that here, $a$ is complex-valued in general.

1103: \smallbreak

1104: 

1105: 

1106: Introducing the ``velocity'' $v^\e = \nabla \Phi^\e$,

1107: \eqref{eq:systexact0} yields

1108: \begin{equation}\label{eq:systexact}

1109:   \begin{aligned}

1110:     \d_t v^\e +v^\e \cdot \nabla v^\e + 2 f'\(

1111:     |a^\e|^2\) \operatorname{Re}\(\overline{a^\e}\nabla a^\e\)=

1112:     0\quad &; \quad 

1113:     v^\e\big|_{t=0}=\nabla \phi_0\, ,\\

1114: \d_t a^\e +v^\e\cdot \nabla a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e

1115: \nabla\cdot v^\e  = i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e\quad & ;\quad

1116: a^\e\big|_{t=0}= a^\e_0\, . 

1117:   \end{aligned}

1118: \end{equation}

1119: Separate real and

1120: imaginary parts of $a^\e$, $a^\e = 

1121: a_1^\e + ia_2^\e$. Then we have 

1122: \begin{equation}

1123:   \label{eq:systhyp}

1124:   \d_t \bu^\e +\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu^\e)\d_j \bu^\e

1125:   = \frac{\e}{2} L 

1126:   \bu^\e\, , 

1127: \end{equation}

1128: \begin{equation*}

1129:   \text{with}\quad \bu^\e = \left(

1130:     \begin{array}[l]{c}

1131:        a_1^\e \\

1132:        a_2^\e \\

1133:        v^\e_1 \\

1134:       \vdots \\

1135:        v^\e_n

1136:     \end{array}

1137: \right)\quad , \quad L = \left(

1138:   \begin{array}[l]{ccccc}

1139:    0  &-\Delta &0& \dots & 0   \\

1140:    \Delta  & 0 &0& \dots & 0  \\

1141:    0& 0 &&0_{n\times n}& \\

1142:    \end{array}

1143: \right),

1144: \end{equation*}

1145: \begin{equation*}

1146: %\begin{aligned}

1147:   \text{and}\quad A(\bu,\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu)\xi_j

1148: = \left(

1149:     \begin{array}[l]{ccc}

1150:       v\cdot \xi & 0& \frac{a_1 }{2}\,^{t}\xi \\ 

1151:      0 &  v\cdot \xi & \frac{a_2}{2}\,^{t}\xi \\ 

1152:      2f'  a_1 \, \xi

1153:      &2f'  a_2\, \xi &  v\cdot \xi I_n 

1154:     \end{array}

1155: \right),

1156: %\end{aligned}

1157: \end{equation*}

1158: where $f'$ stands for $f'(|a_1|^2+|a_2|^2)$. 

1159: The matrix $A(\bu,\xi)$ can be symmetrized by 

1160: \begin{equation}\label{eq:symetriseur}

1161:   S=\left(

1162:     \begin{array}[l]{cc}

1163:      I_2 & 0\\

1164:      0& \frac{1}{4f'}I_n

1165:     \end{array}

1166: \right),

1167: \end{equation}

1168: which is symmetric and positive since $f'>0$. For an integer

1169: $s>2+n/2$, we bound $(S 

1170: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e 

1171: , \d_{x}^{\alpha }\bu^\e )$ 

1172: where $\alpha $ is a  multi index of length $\le s$, and

1173: $(\cdot ,\cdot)$ is the usual  $L^{2}$ scalar product. We have

1174: \begin{equation*}

1175: \frac{d}{dt}\(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1176:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1177: = \(\d_{t} S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \partial

1178: _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1179:   + 2 \( S \d_{t}  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \partial

1180:   _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1181:  \end{equation*}

1182: since $S$ is symmetric. For the first term, we consider the lower

1183: $n\times n$ block:

1184: \begin{equation*}

1185: \(\d_{t} S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1186:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1187: \le  \left\|\frac{1}{f'}\d_t\(f'\( | a_1^\e|^2 + 

1188: | a_2^\e|^2\)\)\right\|_{L^\infty}\(S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1189:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)\, .

1190: \end{equation*}

1191: So long as $\|\bu^\e\|_{L^\infty}\le 2\|a_0^\e\|_{L^\infty}$, we have:

1192: \begin{equation*}

1193:   f'\( |a_1^\e|^2 + 

1194: | a_2^\e|^2\) \ge \inf\left\{ f'(y)\ ;\ 0\le y\le

1195:   4\sup_{0<\e\le 1}\|a_0^\e\|_{L^\infty}^2\right\} =\delta_n>0\, ,

1196: \end{equation*}

1197: where $\delta_n$ is now fixed, since $f'$ is continuous with

1198: $f'>0$. We infer, 

1199: \begin{equation*}

1200:  \left\|\frac{1}{f'}\d_t\(f'\( |a_1^\e|^2 + 

1201: | a_2^\e|^2\)\)\right\|_{L^\infty}\le C \|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}\, ,

1202: \end{equation*}

1203: where we used Sobolev embeddings and

1204: \eqref{eq:systhyp}. 

1205: For the second term we use 

1206: \begin{equation*} 

1207: \( S \d_{t}  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)

1208: = \frac{\e}{2}\(S L( \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e )  , \d_{x}^{\alpha }

1209: \bu^\e\)

1210:   -  

1211: \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(\sum _{j=1}^{n} A_j(\bu^\e) \d_{j}

1212:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1213:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big).

1214: \end{equation*} 

1215: We notice that $SL$

1216: is a skew-symmetric second order operator, so the first term is zero. 

1217: For the second term, use the symmetry of $SA_j(\bu^\e)$  and usual

1218: estimates on commutators  to get finally:

1219: \begin{equation*}

1220: \frac{d}{dt} \sum _{|\alpha | \le s} \(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1221: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) \le C\(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}\)

1222: \sum _{|\alpha | \le s} \(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1223: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)\, ,

1224: \end{equation*}

1225: for $s > 2+d/2 $.

1226: Gronwall lemma along with a

1227: continuity argument yield: 

1228: \begin{prop}[\cite{Grenier98}, Th.~1.1]\label{prop:p}

1229: Let Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper} be satisfied. Let

1230: $s>2+n/2$. There exist $T_s>0$ independent of $\e\in ]0,1]$  and

1231: $u^\e = a^\e e^{i\Phi^\e/\e}$ solution to

1232: \eqref{eq:hs} on 

1233: $[0,T_s]$. Moreover, $a^\e$ and

1234: $\Phi^\e$ are bounded 

1235: in $L^\infty([0,T_s];H^s)$,

1236: uniformly in $\e\in ]0,1]$. 

1237: \end{prop}

1238: The solution to \eqref{eq:systexact0} formally converges to the

1239: solution  of \eqref{eq:systlim}. Under Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper}, 

1240: \eqref{eq:systlim} has a unique solution $(a,\phi)\in

1241: L^\infty([0,T_*];H^m)^2$ for any $m>0$ for some $T_*>0$ 

1242: independent of $m$ (see e.g. \cite{AlinhacGerard,Majda}). We

1243: infer: 

1244: \begin{prop}\label{prop:estprec}

1245: Let $s\in \N$. Then $T_s\ge T_*$, and there exists $C_s$ independent of

1246: $\e$ such that for 

1247: every $0\le t\le T_*$, 

1248: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tpetit}

1249:   \| a^\e (t)- a(t)\|_{H^s}\le C_s \e\quad ;\quad

1250:   \| \Phi^\e(t) - \phi(t)\|_{H^s} \le C_s \e t . 

1251: \end{equation}

1252: \end{prop}

1253: \begin{proof}

1254:   We keep the same notations as above,

1255:   \eqref{eq:systhyp}. Denote by $\bv$

1256:   the analog of $\bu^\e$ 

1257:   corresponding to $(a,\phi)$. We have

1258:   \begin{equation*}

1259: \d_t \(\bu^\e-\bv\) +\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu^\e)\d_j \(\bu^\e-\bv\) +

1260: \sum_{j=1}^n \(A_j(\bu^\e)-A_j(\bv)\)\d_j \bv  

1261:   = \frac{\e}{2} L 

1262:   \bu^\e    \, .

1263:   \end{equation*}

1264: Keeping the symmetrizer $S$ corresponding to $\bu^\e$, we can do

1265: similar computations to  the previous ones. Note that we

1266: know that $\bu^\e$ and $\bv$ are bounded in

1267: $L^\infty([0,\min(T_s,T_*)];H^s)$. Denote ${\bw}^\e 

1268: =\bu^\e-\bv$. Writing $L 

1269:   \bu^\e = L {\bw}^\e + L\bv$, the term $L {\bw}^\e$ disappears from

1270:   the energy estimate, and we get, for $s>2+n/2$: 

1271: \begin{align*}

1272: \frac{d}{dt} \sum _{|\alpha | \le s} \(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bw^\e,

1273: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bw^\e\) \le & \, C\( \|\bu^\e\|_{H^s},

1274: \|\bv\|_{H^{s+2}}\) 

1275: \sum _{|\alpha | \le s} \(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bw^\e,

1276: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bw^\e\)\\

1277: &+ \e \|\bv\|_{H^{s+2}} \| \bw^\e(t)\|_{H^s}\, .

1278: \end{align*}

1279: Gronwall lemma and a continuity argument show that

1280: $\bw^\e$ (hence $\bu^\e$) is defined on $[0,T_*]$. By

1281: Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper}, $\|\bw^\e_{\mid t=0}\|_{H^s} = \O(\e)$,

1282: and we get:

1283: \begin{equation*}

1284:   \left\| \bw^\e\right\|_{L^\infty([0,T_*];H^s)}=\O(\e ). 

1285: \end{equation*}

1286: The estimate for the phase (and not only its gradient) then follows

1287: from the above estimate and the integration in time of

1288: \eqref{eq:systexact0}-\eqref{eq:systlim}.  

1289: \end{proof}

1290: Proposition~\ref{prop:estprec} yields an approximation of $u^\e$

1291: \emph{for small times only}:

1292: \begin{align*}

1293:   \big\| u^\e(t) - & a(t)e^{i\phi(t)/\e}\big\|_{L^2}=\left\|

1294:   a^\e(t)e^{i\Phi^\e(t)/\e}- a(t)e^{i\phi(t)/\e}\right\|_{L^2}\\

1295: &=\O\(\left\|

1296:   a^\e(t)- a(t)\right\|_{L^2}+\left\|

1297:   e^{i\Phi^\e(t)/\e}- e^{i\phi(t)/\e}\right\|_{L^\infty }\left\|

1298:   a(t)\right\|_{L^2} \)\\

1299: &  = \O(\e)+\O(t). 

1300: \end{align*}

1301: For times of order $\O(1)$, the corrector $a_1$ must be taken into

1302: account: 

1303: \begin{prop}\label{prop:correc}

1304:   Let Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper} be satisfied. Define

1305:   $(a^{(1)},\phi^{(1)})$ by 

1306: \begin{equation*}

1307:   \begin{aligned}

1308:     \d_t \phi^{(1)} +\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \phi^{(1)} +

1309:     2\operatorname{Re}\(\overline a a^{(1)}\)f'\( |a|^2\)&=0,\\

1310:    \d_t a^{(1)} +\nabla\phi\cdot \nabla a^{(1)} + \nabla

1311:    \phi^{(1)}\cdot \nabla a + \frac{1}{2} a^{(1)}\Delta \phi

1312:    +\frac{1}{2}a\Delta \phi^{(1)}      &= \frac{i}{2}\Delta a,\\

1313: \phi^{(1)}\big|_{t=0}=0\quad ; \quad a^{(1)}\big|_{t=0}=a_1.

1314:   \end{aligned}

1315: \end{equation*}

1316: Then $a^{(1)},\phi^{(1)}\in

1317: L^\infty([0,T_*];H^s)$ for every $s\ge 0$, and

1318: \begin{equation*}

1319:   \|a^\e - a - \e a^{(1)}\|_{L^\infty([0,T_*];H^s)}+ \|\Phi^\e - \phi - \e

1320:   \phi^{(1)}\|_{L^\infty([0,T_*];H^s)} \le C_s\e^2,\quad \forall s\ge 0\, .

1321: \end{equation*}

1322: \end{prop}

1323: The proof is a straightforward consequence of the above analysis, and

1324: is given in \cite{Grenier98}. Despite 

1325: the notations, it seems unadapted to consider $\phi^{(1)}$ as being

1326: part of the phase. Indeed, we infer from Proposition~\ref{prop:correc}

1327: that 

1328: \begin{equation*}

1329:   \left\|u^\e - a e^{i\phi^{(1)}}

1330:     e^{i\phi/\e}\right\|_{L^\infty([0,T_*];L^2\cap L^\infty)}= \O(\e). 

1331: \end{equation*}

1332: Relating this information to the WKB methods presented in

1333: the introduction, we would have:

1334: \begin{equation*}

1335:   \a_0 = a e^{i\phi^{(1)}}.

1336: \end{equation*}

1337: Since $\phi^{(1)}$ depends on $a_1$ while $a$ does not, we retrieve

1338: the fact that in super-critical r\'egimes, the leading order amplitude

1339: in WKB methods depends on the initial first corrector $a_1$. 

1340: \begin{rema}

1341:   The term $e^{i\phi^{(1)}}$ does not appear in the Wigner measure

1342:   of $a e^{i\phi^{(1)}} e^{i\phi/\e}$. Thus, from the point of view of

1343:     Wigner measures, the asymptotic behavior of the exact solution is

1344:     described by the Euler-type system \eqref{eq:systlim}. 

1345: \end{rema}

1346: 

1347: \begin{rema}[Introducing an isotropic harmonic potential]

1348: The above method makes it possible to consider the semi-classical of

1349: \eqref{eq:nlssemi} when $V(t,x)=\frac{1}{2}|x|^2$ is an isotropic harmonic

1350: potential, and Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper} is satisfied. Let 

1351: \begin{equation*}

1352: U^\e(t,x) =

1353: \frac{1}{(1+t^2)^{n/4}}e^{i\frac{t}{1+t^2}\frac{|x|^2}{2\e}}u^\e \(

1354: \arctan t , \frac{x}{\sqrt{1+t^2}}\)\, .

1355: \end{equation*}

1356: Then $U^\e$ solves:

1357: \begin{equation*}\left\{

1358: \begin{aligned}

1359: i\e \d_t U^\e + \frac{\e^2}{2}\Delta U^\e& = 

1360: \frac{1}{1+t^2}f\(\(1+t^2\)^{n/2}|U^\e|^2\)U^\e\, , \\

1361: U^\e(0,x)&= a_0^\e(x)e^{i\varphi_0(x)/\e} .

1362: \end{aligned}\right.

1363: \end{equation*}

1364: We can then proceed as above. The only difference is the presence of

1365: time in the nonlinearity, which changes very little the analysis. 

1366: \end{rema}

1367: 

1368: \begin{rema}[Momenta]\label{rema:moment}

1369: If in Assumption~\ref{hyp:hyper}, we replace $H^s$ with 

1370: \begin{equation*}

1371:   \Sigma^s =H^s \cap \F (H^s) =\left\{ w \in L^2\ ; \

1372:     (1-\Delta)^{k/2}\< x\>^{s-k}w\in L^2, \   0\le k\le s\right\},

1373: \end{equation*}

1374: then the above analysis can be repeated in $\Sigma^s$. The main

1375: difference is due to the commutations of the

1376: powers of $x$ with the differential operators; it is easy to check

1377: that they introduce semilinear terms, which can be treated as

1378: source terms when applying  Gronwall lemma. 

1379: \end{rema}

1380: 

1381: 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: 

1385: 

1386: 

1387: 

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: \subsection{Remarks about some conserved quantities}

1394: \label{sec:conserved}

1395: Consider the case of the cubic, defocusing Schr\"odinger equation:

1396: $f(y)\equiv y$. 

1397: Recall three important evolution laws for \eqref{eq:nlssemi}:

1398: \begin{align*}

1399:   \text{Mass: }& \frac{d}{dt}\|u^\e(t)\|_{L^2}=0\, .\\

1400: \text{Energy: }& \frac{d}{dt}\(\|\e\nabla_x u^\e\|_{L^2}^2

1401: + \|u^\e\|_{L^4}^4 \)=0\, .\\

1402: \text{Momentum: }&\frac{d}{dt}\operatorname{Im}\int \overline {u^\e}(t,x)

1403: \e \nabla_x u^\e(t,x)dx =0\, .\\ 

1404: \text{Pseudo-conformal law: }& \frac{d}{dt}\(\|J^\e(t)

1405: u^\e\|_{L^2}^2 

1406: + t^2\|u^\e\|_{L^{4}}^{4}

1407: \)=t (2-n)\|u^\e\|_{L^{4}}^{4} ,

1408: \end{align*}

1409: where $J^\e(t) = x + i\e t\nabla_x$. These evolutions are deduced

1410: from the usual ones ($\e =1$, see e.g. \cite{CazCourant,Sulem}) via

1411: the scaling 

1412: $\psi(t,x)= u(\e t,\e x)$. Using \eqref{eq:ecrexacte} and passing to

1413: the limit formally in the above formulae yields:

1414: \begin{align*}

1415:    \frac{d}{dt}\|a(t)\|_{L^2}&=0\, .\\

1416:  \frac{d}{dt}\int \( |a(t,x)|^2 |\nabla \phi(t,x)|^2 +

1417: |a(t,x)|^4\)dx &=0\, .\\

1418: \frac{d}{dt}\int |a(t,x)|^2 \nabla \phi(t,x)dx &=0\, .\\

1419:  \frac{d}{dt}\int \( \left| \(x -t \nabla

1420:   \phi(t,x)\)a(t,x)\right|^2 +t^2 |a(t,x)|^4 

1421: \)&dx=\\

1422: =(2-n)t &\int |a(t,x)|^4dx\, .

1423: \end{align*}

1424: Note that we also

1425: have the conservation (\cite{CN}):

1426: \begin{equation*}

1427:    \frac{d}{dt}\operatorname{Re}\int \overline{u^\e}(t,x)

1428:  J^\e(t)u^\e(t,x) dx=0 \, ,

1429: \end{equation*}

1430: which yields:

1431: \begin{equation*}

1432:   \frac{d}{dt}\int \(\(x -t \nabla

1433:   \phi(t,x)\)|a(t,x)|^2 \)dx =0\, . 

1434: \end{equation*}

1435: All these expressions involve only $(|a|^2, \nabla \phi)$, that

1436: is, the solution of \eqref{eq:euler}. We thus

1437: retrieve formally some evolution laws

1438: for the Euler equation. 

1439: 

1440: 

1441: 

1442: 

1443: 

1444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1445: 

1446: 

1447: 

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: \section{Introducing subquadratic potential and initial phase}

1452: \label{sec:surcrit}

1453: In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV}. 

1454: First, we point out that the uniqueness for $u^\e$ in $C([0,T_*];H^s)$

1455: is straightforward for $s>n/2$. We thus have to prove that there

1456: exists such a solution, and that it is smooth. 

1457: \smallbreak

1458: 

1459: As suggested by

1460: the statements of Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV}, the idea consists in

1461: resuming Grenier's method, and in writing the phase $\Phi^\e$ as 

1462: \begin{equation*}

1463:   \Phi^\e = \eik +\phi^\e.

1464: \end{equation*}

1465: We take $\phi^\e$ as a new unknown function. Recall that the

1466: system~\eqref{eq:systexact0} reads, with the present notations:

1467: \begin{align*}

1468:     \d_t \Phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \Phi^\e\right|^2 + V+ f\(

1469:     |a^\e|^2\)= 0\quad &; \quad

1470:     \Phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=\phi_0\, ,\\

1471: \d_t a^\e +\nabla \Phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e

1472: \Delta \Phi^\e  = i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e\quad & ;\quad

1473: a^\e\big|_{t=0}= a^\e_0\, . 

1474: \end{align*}

1475: This system becomes, in terms of $\phi^\e$, and given \eqref{eq:eik}: 

1476: \begin{equation}\label{eq:modif0}

1477: \begin{aligned}

1478:     \d_t \phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi^\e\right|^2 +\nabla

1479:     \eik\cdot \nabla \phi^\e+ f\(

1480:     |a^\e|^2\)&= 0,\\

1481:     \d_t a^\e +\nabla \phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\nabla \eik \cdot \nabla

1482:     a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e 

1483: \Delta \phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e 

1484: \Delta \eik &= i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e,\\

1485: \phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=0\quad ;\quad a^\e\big|_{t=0}&= a^\e_0\, .

1486: \end{aligned} 

1487: \end{equation}

1488: Like in Section~\ref{sec:hyper}, we 

1489: work with $v^\e =\nabla \phi^\e$ instead of $\phi^\e$, to begin

1490: with. The new terms are the factors where $\eik$ is present. The point

1491: is to check that they are semilinear perturbations, which can be treated as

1492: source terms in view of Gronwall lemma. Again, separate real and

1493: imaginary parts of $a^\e$, $a^\e = 

1494: a_1^\e + ia_2^\e$, and introduce:

1495: \begin{equation*}

1496:   \bu^\e = \left(

1497:     \begin{array}[l]{c}

1498:        a_1^\e \\

1499:        a_2^\e \\

1500:        v^\e_1 \\

1501:       \vdots \\

1502:        v^\e_n

1503:     \end{array}

1504: \right)\quad , \quad L = \left(

1505:   \begin{array}[l]{ccccc}

1506:    0  &-\Delta &0& \dots & 0   \\

1507:    \Delta  & 0 &0& \dots & 0  \\

1508:    0& 0 &&0_{n\times n}& \\

1509:    \end{array}

1510: \right),

1511: \end{equation*}

1512: \begin{equation*}

1513: %\begin{aligned}

1514:   \text{and}\quad A(\bu,\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu)\xi_j

1515: = \left(

1516:     \begin{array}[l]{ccc}

1517:       v\cdot \xi & 0& \frac{a_1 }{2}\,^{t}\xi \\ 

1518:      0 &  v\cdot \xi & \frac{a_2}{2}\,^{t}\xi \\ 

1519:      2f'  a_1 \, \xi

1520:      &2f'  a_2\, \xi &  v\cdot \xi I_n 

1521:     \end{array}

1522: \right),

1523: %\end{aligned}

1524: \end{equation*}

1525: where $f'$ stands for $f'(|a_1|^2+|a_2|^2)$. Instead of

1526: \eqref{eq:systhyp}, we now have a system of the form

1527: \begin{equation}

1528:   \label{eq:systhypV}

1529:   \d_t \bu^\e +\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu^\e)\d_j \bu^\e

1530:   +\sum_{j=1}^n B_j(\nabla \eik)\d_j \bu^\e + M\(\nabla^2

1531:   \eik\)\bu^\e= \frac{\e}{2} L  

1532:   \bu^\e\, , 

1533: \end{equation}

1534: where the matrices $B_j$ depend linearly on their argument, and the matrix

1535: $M$ is smooth, locally bounded. The quasilinear part of

1536: \eqref{eq:systhypV} is the same as in

1537: Section~\ref{sec:hyper}, and involves the matrices $A_j$. In

1538: particular, we keep the same symmetrizer $S$ given by

1539: \eqref{eq:symetriseur}. The matrices

1540: $B_j$ have a semilinear contribution, as we see below. The term

1541: corresponding to the matrix $M$ can obviously be considered as a

1542: source term, since $\eik$ is subquadratic. 

1543: \smallbreak

1544: 

1545: Let $s$ be an integer, 

1546: $s>2+n/2$, and let $\alpha $ be a  multi index of length $\le s$. We

1547: have: 

1548: \begin{equation*}

1549: \frac{d}{dt}\(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1550:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1551: = \(\d_{t} S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \partial

1552: _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1553:   + 2 \( S \d_{t}  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \partial

1554:   _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1555:  \end{equation*}

1556: since $S$ is symmetric. For the first term, we consider the lower

1557: $n\times n$ block:

1558: \begin{equation}\label{eq:estdtS}

1559: \(\d_{t} S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1560:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) 

1561: \le  \left\|\frac{1}{f'}\d_t\(f'\( | a_1^\e|^2 + 

1562: | a_2^\e|^2\)\)\right\|_{L^\infty}\(S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1563:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)\, .

1564: \end{equation}

1565: We consider times not larger than $T$ given by Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}, so

1566: that the function $\eik$ remains smooth and subquadratic. 

1567: So long as $\|\bu^\e\|_{L^\infty}\le 2\|a_0^\e\|_{L^\infty}$, we have:

1568: \begin{equation*}

1569:   f'\( |a_1^\e|^2 + 

1570: | a_2^\e|^2\) \ge \inf\left\{ f'(y)\ ;\ 0\le y\le

1571:   4\sup_{0<\e\le 1}\|a_0^\e\|_{L^\infty}^2\right\} =\delta_n>0\, .

1572: \end{equation*}

1573: We infer, 

1574: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dtS}

1575:  \left\|\frac{1}{f'}\d_t\(f'\( |a_1^\e|^2 + 

1576: | a_2^\e|^2\)\)\right\|_{L^\infty}\le C \(\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}+

1577: \|x\bu^\e\|_{H^{s-1}}\)\, , 

1578: \end{equation}

1579: for some locally bounded map $C(\cdot)$. We used Sobolev embeddings,

1580: \eqref{eq:systhypV} and Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}: the terms $B_j$ are

1581: sublinear in $x$, hence the norm $\|x\bu^\e\|_{H^{s-1}}$ which we did

1582: not consider in Section~\ref{sec:hyper}. We emphasize that this

1583: estimate explains why we assume $s>2+n/2$, and not only $s>1+n/2$:

1584: we control $\d_t \bu^\e$ in $L^\infty$ using  \eqref{eq:systhypV}, 

1585: so we need to estimate $L \bu^\e$ in $L^\infty$. For all the other

1586: terms, $s>1+n/2$ would suffice. This also explains why we wrote

1587: $\|x\bu^\e\|_{H^{s-1}}$ and not $\|x\bu^\e\|_{H^{s}}$.  

1588: For the second term we use 

1589: \begin{align*} 

1590: \( S \d_{t}  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e , \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)

1591: =& \frac{\e}{2}\(S L( \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e )  , \d_{x}^{\alpha }

1592: \bu^\e\)

1593:   -  

1594: \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(\sum _{j=1}^{n} A_j(\bu^\e) \d_{j}

1595:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1596:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big)\\

1597: - \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(\sum _{j=1}^{n} B_j&(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}

1598:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1599:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big)- \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha }

1600:  \Big(M(\nabla^2 \eik) 

1601:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1602:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big).

1603: \end{align*}   

1604: The first two terms of the right hand side are handled in the same way

1605: as in Section~\ref{sec:hyper}: the first one is zero, and the second

1606: can be estimated by: 

1607: \begin{equation}\label{eq:estQL}

1608:  \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(\sum _{j=1}^{n} A_j(\bu^\e) \d_{j}

1609:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1610:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big)\le C\(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}\)

1611: \sum _{|\alpha | \le s} \(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1612: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\),

1613: \end{equation}

1614: where we keep the convention that $C(\cdot)$ is a locally bounded

1615: map. Let us briefly explain this quasilinear estimate. First, write

1616: \begin{equation*} 

1617: \begin{aligned}

1618: \( S  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \( A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j

1619:  \bu^\e  \) ,   

1620:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)&

1621: = 

1622: \(S   A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \partial _{x}^{\alpha

1623:  } \bu^\e, 

1624:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) \\

1625:  +& \(S \(  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } (

1626:  A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \bu^\e  ) - 

1627:   A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \partial _{x}^{\alpha }

1628:  \bu^\e  \), 

1629:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\).

1630: \end{aligned}

1631: \end{equation*}

1632: By symmetry of $SA_j(\bu^\e)$, 

1633: \begin{equation*}

1634: \begin{aligned}

1635: \(S  A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j  \partial_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e, 

1636:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)

1637:  = & -  \(\d_j (S A_j(\bu^\e))  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1638:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)\\

1639:  &-  \(S A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1640:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) .

1641: \end{aligned} 

1642: \end{equation*} 

1643: We infer: 

1644: \begin{align*} 

1645: \left| \(S   A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e,

1646:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) \right|&

1647: \le

1648:  \left\| \d_j\(S A_j (\bu^\e)\)

1649:  \right\|_{L^{\infty }} 

1650: \left\|\d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e \right\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\\

1651: &\le 

1652: C\( \left\| \bu^\e \right\|_{L^{\infty }}\) \left\| \nabla _{x} \bu^\e

1653:  \right\|_{L^{\infty }} 

1654: \left\|\d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e \right\|_{L^{2}}^{2} . 

1655: \end{align*}

1656: The usual estimates on commutators (see e.g. \cite{Majda}) lead to

1657: \begin{equation*}

1658: \left|\(S  \(  \partial_{x}^{\alpha } \(

1659:   A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \bu^\e  \) - 

1660:   A_j(\bu^\e) \d_j \partial_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e \),

1661:  \partial _{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) \right|

1662: \le C\(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}\) \left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}^{2},

1663: \end{equation*}

1664: and \eqref{eq:estQL} follows, since we consider times where 

1665:  $S^{-1}$ is bounded. 

1666: \smallbreak

1667: 

1668: 

1669: For the third term of $\( S \d_{t}  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1670: \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)$, write: 

1671: \begin{align*}

1672:  \( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \(B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}

1673:   \bu^\e  \) , 

1674:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\) =& \int  S  B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}\d_{x}^{\alpha } 

1675:   \bu^\e\d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e dx\\

1676: &+\int  S  \left[\d_{x}^{\alpha } ,B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}\right]

1677:   \bu^\e\d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e dx.  

1678: \end{align*}

1679: For the first term of the right hand side, an integration by parts

1680: yields:

1681: \begin{align}

1682:  \left|\int  S  B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}\d_{x}^{\alpha } 

1683:   \bu^\e\d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e dx\right| &\le \left\|

1684:   \d_j\(  S  B_j(\nabla\eik)

1685:   \)\right\|_{L^\infty}\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2 \label{eq:16h47} \\ 

1686: &\le C(\|a^\e \|_{L^\infty})\left\|\<x\> a^\e \nabla a^\e

1687:   \right\|_{L^\infty}\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2\notag \\ 

1688: \le C(\|\bu^\e\|_{L^\infty})

1689: \Big(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{L^\infty}&+\left\|x\bu^\e\right\|_{L^\infty} 

1690:   + \left\|\nabla\bu^\e\right\|_{L^\infty}\Big)^2\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2,\notag

1691: \end{align}

1692: where we have used Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}.  Again

1693: from Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}, the commutator 

1694: \begin{equation*}

1695:   \left[\d_{x}^{\alpha } ,B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}\right]

1696: \end{equation*}

1697: is a differential operator of degree $\le s$, with bounded

1698: coefficients. We infer:

1699: \begin{align*}

1700:   \Big| \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(\sum _{j=1}^{n} B_j(\nabla\eik) \d_{j}

1701:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1702:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big)\Big| 

1703: \le C(\|\bu^\e \|_{H^s} +\|x\bu^\e \|_{H^{s-1}} )

1704:   \|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2.

1705: \end{align*}

1706: We have obviously

1707: \begin{align*}

1708:   \Big| \Big( S  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \Big(M(\nabla^2\eik) 

1709:   \bu^\e  \Big) , 

1710:  \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\Big)\Big| \le C(\|\bu^\e \|_{L^\infty})

1711:   \|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2.

1712: \end{align*}

1713: This yields:

1714: \begin{equation}\label{eq:10h45}

1715:   \frac{d}{dt}\(S \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1716:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)  \le C

1717:   \(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}+\left\|x\bu^\e\right\|_{H^{s-1}} 

1718:   \)\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2, 

1719: \end{equation}

1720: where the map $C(\cdot)$ is locally bounded. 

1721: We now have to

1722: bound $x\bu^\e$ in $H^{s-1}$  to close our family of

1723: estimates: we consider

1724: \begin{equation*}

1725: \frac{d}{dt}\(S \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k\bu^\e) ,

1726:   \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k\bu^\e)\);\quad 1\le k\le n, \ |\beta|\le s-1.

1727:  \end{equation*}

1728: We can proceed as above, replacing $\bu^\e$ with $x_k\bu^\e$:

1729: $x_k\bu^\e$ solves almost the same equation as $\bu^\e$, and we must

1730: control some commutators. 

1731: \begin{align*}

1732:  \d_t (x_k\bu^\e) +\sum_{j=1}^n A_j(\bu^\e)\d_j &(x_k \bu^\e)

1733:   +\sum_{j=1}^n B_j(\nabla \eik)\d_j (x_k \bu^\e)+ \\

1734: + M\(\nabla^2

1735:   \eik\)x_k\bu^\e

1736: = \frac{\e}{2} L  

1737:   (x_k \bu^\e)

1738: &+ A_k (\bu^\e) \bu^\e + B_k(\nabla \eik)\bu^\e +

1739:   \frac{\e}{2}[x_k,L]\bu^\e .

1740: \end{align*}

1741: The term $A_k (\bu^\e) \bu^\e$ is harmless. The term $B_k(\nabla

1742: \eik)\bu^\e$ is controlled by $\<x\> \bu^\e$, since $\eik$ is

1743: subquadratic: this is a (semi)linear perturbation. Finally,

1744: \begin{equation*}

1745:  [x_k,L] = \left(

1746:   \begin{array}[l]{ccccc}

1747:    0  &2\d_k &0& \dots & 0   \\

1748:    -2\d_k  & 0 &0& \dots & 0  \\

1749:    0& 0 &&0_{n\times n}& \\

1750:    \end{array}

1751: \right).

1752: \end{equation*}

1753: Now we only have to notice that estimating $x_k \bu^\e$ does not

1754: involve extra regularity or extra momenta. In the above computations,

1755: the first time we needed to consider momenta was for \eqref{eq:dtS}:

1756: we need exactly the same estimate now, since it is due to the

1757: symmetrizer, which remains the same. The same remark is valid for

1758: \eqref{eq:16h47}. For $\beta$ a multi index of length $\le s-1$, we

1759: find:

1760: \begin{equation}\label{eq:10h46}

1761:   \begin{aligned}

1762:    \frac{d}{dt}&\(S \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k\bu^\e ),

1763:   \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k \bu^\e)\)  \le \\

1764: &\le C \(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}+\left\|x\bu^\e\right\|_{H^{s-1}} 

1765:   \)\(\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2+ \|x \bu^\e\|_{H^{s-1}}^2\).  

1766:   \end{aligned}

1767: \end{equation}

1768: The term $\|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}^2$ is due to the commutator $[x_k,L]$:

1769: \begin{align*}

1770:  \left|\( S \d^\beta_x \( [x_k,L]\bu^\e\),\d^\beta_x\(x_k

1771:    \bu^\e\)\)\right| & = 

1772: \left|\(  \d^\beta_x \( [x_k,L]\bu^\e\),\d^\beta_x\(x_k

1773:    \bu^\e\)\)\right|\\ 

1774: &\le \|\bu^\e\|_{H^s}\|x \bu^\e\|_{H^{s-1}}.

1775: \end{align*}

1776: Summing over the inequalities \eqref{eq:10h45} and \eqref{eq:10h46}

1777: yields a closed set of estimates, from which we infer the analogue of

1778: Proposition~\ref{prop:p};  note that the time $T_s$ is not larger

1779: than $T$ by construction, and may be strictly smaller than $T$, due to

1780: possible shocks for \eqref{eq:systhypV}. We also

1781: mention the fact that 

1782: the above analysis gives $v^\e = \nabla \phi^\e \in C([0,T_s];H^s)$,

1783: with $x \nabla \phi^\e \in C([0,T_s];H^{s-1})$: back to \eqref{eq:modif0},

1784: this shows that $ \phi^\e \in C([0,T_*];H^{s-1})$, but that we cannot

1785: claim that $ x\phi^\e \in C([0,T_*];H^{s-1})$. 

1786: \smallbreak

1787: 

1788: Passing to the limit $\e \to 0$ in \eqref{eq:modif0}, it is natural to

1789: introduce the system:

1790: \begin{equation}\label{eq:11h09}

1791: \begin{aligned}

1792:     \d_t \phi +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi\right|^2 +\nabla

1793:     \eik\cdot \nabla \phi+ f\(

1794:     |a|^2\)&= 0,\\

1795:     \d_t a +\nabla \phi \cdot \nabla a +\nabla \eik \cdot \nabla

1796:     a +\frac{1}{2}a 

1797: \Delta \phi +\frac{1}{2}a 

1798: \Delta \eik &= 0,\\

1799: \phi\big|_{t=0}=0\quad ;\quad a\big|_{t=0}&= a_0\, .

1800: \end{aligned} 

1801: \end{equation}

1802: The above analysis shows that this system has a unique solution in

1803: $H^s$ with the first momentum in $H^{s-1}$, 

1804: locally in time for $t\in [0,T_*]$, for some $T_*\in ]0,T]$;  $T_*$ is

1805: independent of $s$, from the usual continuation

1806: principle, explained for instance in \cite[Section~2.2]{Majda}. We

1807: easily obtain the analogue of 

1808: Proposition~\ref{prop:estprec}: mimicking the above computations, we

1809: can estimate the error $(a^\e -a,\phi^\e-\phi)$ in $H^s$, by first

1810: estimating $(a^\e -a,\nabla\phi^\e-\nabla\phi)$ \emph{and its first

1811:   momentum} in $H^s$. We deduce that $T_s\ge T_*$, and

1812: \eqref{eq:BKWVtpetit} follows. 

1813: \smallbreak

1814: 

1815: The end of Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV} can then be proved as in

1816: \cite{Grenier98}: from the above analysis, the functions

1817: \begin{equation*}

1818:   \frac{a^\e -a}{\e}\virgp\ \frac{\nabla \phi^\e -\nabla\phi}{\e}

1819: \end{equation*}

1820: and their first momentum, are bounded in $H^s$ for every $s\ge 0$. A

1821: subsequence converges to the linearization of 

1822: \eqref{eq:systhypV}, yielding a pair $(a^{(1)},\phi^{(1)})$. By

1823: uniqueness for the limit system, the whole sequence is convergent, and

1824: the analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop:correc} follows. This completes

1825: the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:BKWV}. 

1826: 

1827: 

1828: 

1829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1830: 

1831: 

1832: \section{Extension to the case $0<\kappa <1$}

1833: \label{sec:kappaint}

1834: 

1835: When $0<\kappa <1$, we propose an analysis which can be considered as

1836: a generalization of the study led in

1837: Section~\ref{sec:surcrit}. Throughout this paragraph, we suppose that

1838: Assumptions~\ref{hyp:geom}-\ref{hyp:surcrit} are satisfied. Again,

1839: we write the exact solution as

1840: \begin{equation*}

1841:   u^\e = a^\e e^{i\Phi^\e/\e},\quad \text{with }\Phi^\e=\eik +\phi^\e.

1842: \end{equation*}

1843: The unknown function is the pair $(a^\e,\phi^\e)$. We have two unknown

1844: functions to solve a single equation, \eqref{eq:nlssemi}. We can

1845: choose how to balance the terms: we resume the approach followed when

1846: $\kappa=0$. Note that this approach would also be efficient for the

1847: case $\kappa \ge 1$, with the serious drawback that we still assume

1848: $f'>0$, an assumption proven to be unnecessary when $\kappa\ge 1$ (see

1849: Section~\ref{sec:sub}). We impose: 

1850: \begin{equation}\label{eq:modifint}

1851: \begin{aligned}

1852:     \d_t \phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}\left|\nabla \phi^\e\right|^2 +\nabla

1853:     \eik\cdot \nabla \phi^\e+ \e^{\kappa}f\(

1854:     |a^\e|^2\)&= 0,\\

1855:     \d_t a^\e +\nabla \phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\nabla \eik \cdot \nabla

1856:     a^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e 

1857: \Delta \phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e 

1858: \Delta \eik &= i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e,\\

1859: \phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=0\quad ;\quad a^\e\big|_{t=0}&= a^\e_0\, .

1860: \end{aligned} 

1861: \end{equation}

1862: This is the same system as \eqref{eq:modif0}, with only $f$ replaced

1863: by $\e^{\kappa}f$. Mimicking the analysis of

1864: Section~\ref{sec:surcrit}, we work with the unknown $\bu^\e$ given by

1865: the same definition: it solves the system \eqref{eq:systhypV}, where

1866: only the matrices $A_j$  have changed, and now depend on $\e$. The

1867: symmetrizer is the same as before, with $f'$ replaced by $\e^\kappa

1868: f'$: the matrix $S=S^\e$ is not bounded as $\e \to 0$, but its inverse

1869: is. We see that \eqref{eq:estdtS} and \eqref{eq:dtS}

1870: still hold, independent of $\kappa$. We claim that inequalities

1871: similar to \eqref{eq:10h45} and \eqref{eq:10h46} hold:

1872: \begin{align*}

1873:   \frac{d}{dt}\(S^\e \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1874:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)  \le C

1875:   \(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}+\left\|x\bu^\e\right\|_{H^{s-1}} 

1876:   \)&\sum_{|\gamma|\le s}\(S^\e \d_{x}^{\gamma } \bu^\e ,

1877:   \d_{x}^{\gamma } \bu^\e\),\\

1878: \frac{d}{dt}\(S^\e \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k\bu^\e ),

1879:   \d_{x}^{\beta } (x_k \bu^\e)\)  

1880: \le C \(\left\|\bu^\e\right\|_{H^s}+\left\|x\bu^\e\right\|_{H^{s-1}} 

1881:   \)&\Big( \sum_{|\gamma|\le s}\(S^\e \d_{x}^{\gamma } \bu^\e ,

1882:   \d_{x}^{\gamma } \bu^\e\)\\

1883:  + \sum_{{|\gamma|\le s-1}\atop{1\le j\le

1884:   n}}(S^\e \d_{x}^{\gamma 

1885:   }& (x_j\bu^\e) , 

1886:   \d_{x}^{\gamma } (x_j\bu^\e))\Big),

1887: \end{align*}

1888: where the map $C(\cdot)$ is locally bounded, \emph{independent of

1889: }$\e\in]0,1]$. The fact that such estimates remain valid, with this

1890: dependence upon $\e$, stems essentially from the following reasons:

1891: \begin{itemize}

1892: \item The matrices $S^\e$ and $B_j$ are diagonal.

1893: \item The matrix $M$ is block diagonal: the blocks correspond to the

1894:   presence/absence of $\e$ in $S^\e$. 

1895: \item The matrices $S^\e A_j^\e$ are independent of $\e\in]0,1]$.

1896: \item The inverse of $S^\e$ is uniformly bounded on compacts, as $\e

1897:   \to 0$. 

1898: \end{itemize}

1899: A continuity argument and Gronwall lemma then imply the analogue of

1900: Proposition~\ref{prop:p}: $\bu^\e$ exists locally in time, with

1901: $H^s$-norm uniformly bounded as $\e\to 0$. Note that since

1902: $\phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=0$, we have: 

1903: \begin{equation*}

1904:   \(S^\e \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e ,

1905:   \d_{x}^{\alpha } \bu^\e\)\big|_{t=0} = \O(1),

1906: \end{equation*}

1907: and we infer more precisely:

1908: \begin{equation*}

1909:   \| a^\e \|_{L^\infty ([0,T_*];H^s)} =\O(1) \quad ; \quad

1910:     \left\| \nabla \phi^\e \right\|_{L^\infty ([0,T_*];H^s)} =\O\(\e^\kappa\). 

1911: \end{equation*}

1912: It seems natural to change unknown functions, and work with

1913: $\widetilde \phi^\e = \e^{-\kappa}\phi^\e$ instead of $\phi^\e$. With

1914: this, we somehow correct the shift in the cascade of equations caused by

1915: the factor $\e^\kappa$ in front of the nonlinearity. Then

1916: \eqref{eq:modifint} becomes: 

1917: \begin{equation}\label{eq:modifinttilde}

1918: \begin{aligned}

1919:     \d_t \widetilde \phi^\e +\frac{\e^\kappa}{2}\left|\nabla \widetilde

1920:       \phi^\e\right|^2 +\nabla 

1921:     \eik\cdot \nabla \widetilde \phi^\e+ f\(

1922:     |a^\e|^2\)&= 0,\\

1923:     \d_t a^\e +\e^\kappa\nabla \widetilde \phi^\e \cdot \nabla a^\e +\nabla

1924:     \eik \cdot \nabla 

1925:     a^\e +\frac{\e^\kappa}{2}a^\e 

1926: \Delta \widetilde \phi^\e +\frac{1}{2}a^\e 

1927: \Delta \eik &= i\frac{\e}{2}\Delta a^\e,\\

1928: \widetilde \phi^\e\big|_{t=0}=0\quad ;\quad a^\e\big|_{t=0}&= a^\e_0\, .

1929: \end{aligned} 

1930: \end{equation}

1931: The pair $(\widetilde \phi^\e, a^\e$) is bounded in

1932: $C([0,T];H^s)$. Therefore,  a subsequence is convergent, and the limit

1933: is given by: 

1934: \begin{equation*}

1935: \begin{aligned}

1936:     \d_t \widetilde \phi  +\nabla 

1937:     \eik\cdot \nabla \widetilde \phi+ f\(

1938:     |a|^2\)&= 0\ ; \quad \widetilde \phi\big|_{t=0}=0, \\

1939:     \d_t a +\nabla \eik \cdot \nabla a +\frac{1}{2}a 

1940: \Delta \eik &= 0\ ; \quad a\big|_{t=0}= a_0\, .

1941: \end{aligned} 

1942: \end{equation*}

1943: We see that $a$ solves \eqref{eq:alibre};  $\widetilde \phi $ is

1944: given by an 

1945: ordinary differential equation along the rays associated to $\eik$,

1946: with a source term showing nonlinear effect: $f\( |a|^2\)$. By

1947: uniqueness, the whole sequence is convergent. Roughly speaking, we see that if 

1948: \begin{equation*}

1949:   \bw^\e = \,^t \(\nabla \( \widetilde \phi^\e-\widetilde \phi\),a^\e -a\), 

1950: \end{equation*}

1951: then Gronwall lemma yields:

1952: \begin{equation*}

1953:   \(S^\e \d^\alpha_x \bw^\e , \d^\alpha_x \bw^\e\) \le C \( \e +

1954:   \e^\kappa\)\le 2 C\e^\kappa.

1955: \end{equation*}

1956: We infer:

1957: \begin{prop}\label{prop:estprecint}

1958: Let $s>2+n/2$. Then \eqref{eq:modifint} has a unique solution

1959: $(a^\e,\phi^\e)\in C([0,T];H^s)^2$, such that $x_k a^\e, x_k\d_j \phi^\e\in

1960: C([0,T];H^s)$,  for every $1\le j,k\le n$ ($T$ is given by

1961: Lemma~\ref{lem:hj}). Moreover, there exists 

1962: $C_s$ independent of $\e$ such that for every $0\le t\le T$, 

1963: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tpetitint}

1964:   \| a^\e (t)- a(t)\|_{H^s}\le C_s \e^\kappa \quad ;\quad 

1965:   \| \phi^\e(t) -\e^\kappa \widetilde \phi\|_{H^s} \le C_s \e^{2\kappa} t , 

1966: \end{equation}

1967: where $a$ is given by \eqref{eq:alibre}. 

1968: \end{prop}

1969: 

1970: Three cases must be distinguished:

1971: \begin{itemize}

1972: \item If $1/2< \kappa<1$, then we can infer the analogue of

1973:   \eqref{eq:BKWVtgrand}. 

1974: \item If $\kappa =1/2$, then we can infer the analogue of

1975:   \eqref{eq:BKWVtpetit} (but not yet of \eqref{eq:BKWVtgrand}).

1976: \item If $0<\kappa <1/2$, then we must pursue the analysis, and

1977:   compute a corrector of order $\e^{2\kappa}$.  

1978: \end{itemize}

1979: We shall not go further into detailed computations, but instead, discuss

1980: the whole analysis in a rather loose fashion. However, we note that

1981: all the ingredients have been given for a complete justification. 

1982: \smallbreak

1983: 

1984: Let $N= [1/\kappa]$, where $[r]$ is the largest integer not larger than

1985: $r>0$. We construct $a^{(1)},\ldots,a^{(N)}$ and

1986: $\widetilde\phi^{(1)},\ldots,\widetilde\phi^{(N)}$ such that:

1987: \begin{align*}

1988:  & \left\| a^\e -a-\e^\kappa a^{(1)}-\ldots -\e^{N\kappa}a^{(N)}

1989:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)} +\\

1990: &+\left\| \widetilde\phi^\e -\widetilde \phi -\e^{\kappa} 

1991:   \widetilde \phi^{(1)}- \ldots -\e^{N\kappa}\widetilde \phi^{(N)}

1992:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)}  

1993:   =o\( \e^{N\kappa}\).  

1994: \end{align*}

1995: But since $N +1 >1/\kappa$, we have:

1996: \begin{equation*}

1997:   \left\| \phi^\e -\e^{\kappa} \widetilde \phi -\e^{2\kappa} 

1998:   \widetilde \phi^{(1)}- \ldots -\e^{N\kappa}\widetilde \phi^{(N-1)}

1999:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];H^s)} 

2000:   =\O\( \e^{(N+1)\kappa}\)=o(\e).

2001: \end{equation*}

2002: The analogue of \eqref{eq:BKWVtgrand} follows:

2003: \begin{equation*}

2004:   \left\| u^\e - a e^{ i \eik/\e + i\phi_{\rm app}^\e}

2005:   \right\|_{L^\infty([0,T];L^2\cap  L^\infty)} =o(1),

2006: \end{equation*}

2007: where 

2008: \begin{equation*}

2009:   \phi_{\rm app}^\e = \frac{\widetilde \phi}{\e^{1-\kappa}} +\frac{\widetilde

2010:   \phi^{(1)}}{\e^{1-2\kappa}}+\ldots + 

2011:   \frac{\widetilde \phi^{(N-1)}}{\e^{1-N\kappa}}.

2012: \end{equation*}

2013: \begin{rema}

2014:   In the case $\kappa =1$, $N=1$, and the above analysis shows that one phase

2015:   shift factor appears: we retrieve the function $G$ of

2016:   Proposition~\ref{prop:sub} (under the unnecessary assumption $f'>0$). If

2017:   $\kappa >1$, then $N=0$, and we see that $a e^{i\eik/\e}$ is a good

2018:   approximation for $u^\e$. 

2019: \end{rema}

2020: 

2021: %%%%%%%%%

2022: 

2023: %\appendix

2024: 

2025: %\input{gross}

2026: \bibliographystyle{amsplain}

2027: \bibliography{../../carles}

2028: 

2029: \end{document}

2030: 

2031: 

2032: 

2033: 

2034: 

2035: