
This paper is devoted to considering the attainability of minimizers of the L2-constraint variational problem
mγ,a=inf{Jγ(u):u∈H2(RN),∫RN|u|2dx=a2},
where
Jγ(u)=γ2∫RN|Δu|2dx+12∫RN|∇u|2dx+12∫RNV(x)|u|2dx−12σ+2∫RN|u|2σ+2dx,
γ>0, a>0, σ∈(0,2N) with N≥2. Moreover, the function V:RN→[0,+∞) is continuous and bounded. By using the variational methods, we can prove that, when V satisfies four different assumptions, mγ,a are all achieved.
Citation: Cheng Ma. Normalized solutions for the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schrödinger equations with four types of potentials and mass subcritical growth[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(7): 3759-3775. doi: 10.3934/era.2023191
[1] | Riccardo Adami, Raffaele Carlone, Michele Correggi, Lorenzo Tentarelli . Stability of the standing waves of the concentrated NLSE in dimension two. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(2): 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021011 |
[2] | Anne-Charline Chalmin, Jean-Michel Roquejoffre . Improved bounds for reaction-diffusion propagation driven by a line of nonlocal diffusion. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(1): 1-16. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021006 |
[3] | Takeyuki Nagasawa, Kohei Nakamura . Asymptotic analysis for non-local curvature flows for plane curves with a general rotation number. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(6): 1-26. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021047 |
[4] | Evangelos Latos, Takashi Suzuki . Quasilinear reaction diffusion systems with mass dissipation. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(5): 1-13. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022042 |
[5] | Luis A. Caffarelli, Jean-Michel Roquejoffre . The shape of a free boundary driven by a line of fast diffusion. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(1): 1-25. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021010 |
[6] | Rupert L. Frank, Tobias König, Hynek Kovařík . Energy asymptotics in the Brezis–Nirenberg problem: The higher-dimensional case. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(1): 119-140. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020007 |
[7] | Simon Lemaire, Julien Moatti . Structure preservation in high-order hybrid discretisations of potential-driven advection-diffusion: linear and nonlinear approaches. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(1): 100-136. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024005 |
[8] | Boumediene Abdellaoui, Ireneo Peral, Ana Primo . A note on the Fujita exponent in fractional heat equation involving the Hardy potential. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(4): 639-656. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020029 |
[9] | Alessandra De Luca, Veronica Felli . Unique continuation from the edge of a crack. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(3): 1-40. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021023 |
[10] | Lorenzo Pistone, Sergio Chibbaro, Miguel D. Bustamante, Yuri V. Lvov, Miguel Onorato . Universal route to thermalization in weakly-nonlinear one-dimensional chains. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(4): 672-698. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.4.672 |
This paper is devoted to considering the attainability of minimizers of the L2-constraint variational problem
mγ,a=inf{Jγ(u):u∈H2(RN),∫RN|u|2dx=a2},
where
Jγ(u)=γ2∫RN|Δu|2dx+12∫RN|∇u|2dx+12∫RNV(x)|u|2dx−12σ+2∫RN|u|2σ+2dx,
γ>0, a>0, σ∈(0,2N) with N≥2. Moreover, the function V:RN→[0,+∞) is continuous and bounded. By using the variational methods, we can prove that, when V satisfies four different assumptions, mγ,a are all achieved.
The classical Thomas-Fermi problem for the neutral atom is a second-order non-linear ordinary differential equation, named after Llewellyn Thomas and Enrico Fermi [1,2,3,4,5] which can be derived by applying the Thomas-Fermi model to atoms. The Thomas-Fermi model assumes that all electrons are subject to the same conditions and energy conservation law, and has potential energy eΦ[6] so when assuming that the potential is spherically symmetric, then the charge density ρ and the potential energy are related through the Poisson's equation
1rd2dr2(rΦ(r))+4πρ(r)=0, | (1.1) |
where ℏ is the Planck's constant, r is the distance from the nucleus, and ρ is given by
ρ=−13π2ℏ3(2m)3/2[eΦ(r)]3/2, | (1.2) |
where e is the electronic charge and m is the mass. Substituting in the above equation yields
1rd2dr2(rΦ(r))−4e3π(2mℏ)3/2[eΦ(r)]3/2=0, | (1.3) |
with the corresponding boundary conditions:
limr→0rΦ(r)=eZ, | (1.4) |
where Z is the atomic number, and
limr→∞Φ(r)=0. | (1.5) |
By introducing the following transformation r=μx for some appropriate parameter μ and y=rΦ(r)eZ, we arrive at the so-called differential equation of the Thomas-Fermi equation
y″=x−12y32, 0<x<∞, | (1.6) |
y(0)=1, y(∞)=0. | (1.7) |
This equation models the charge distribution of a neutral atom as a function of the radius x. It should be noted here that the basic Thomas-Fermi (TF) model for ions is subject to the boundary conditions y(0)=1 and y(x0)=0, where x0>0 is the dimensionless ion size which measures the boundary radius and satisfies the relation −x0y′(x0)=q for some ionization factor q. When the nuclear charge equals the number of (bound) electrons, then q=0 which occurs when x0⟶∞, and the the problem, in this case, describes the neutral atom model case [7]. The TF equation (1.6) has connections to other important partial differential equations, for example, it is considered a special case of the well-known Poisson equation, and can also be viewed as an Euler-Lagrange equation associated with the Fermi energy [8]. The Thomas-Fermi model has deep connections to the quantum gravity theory where it is reformulated at the Planck scale [9,10,11].
The equation has a particular solution yp(x), which satisfies the boundary condition y→0 as x→∞, but not the initial condition y(0)=1. This particular solution is yp(x)=144x3.
Arnold Sommerfeld used this particular solution and provided an approximate solution that can satisfy the other boundary condition [4]:
ys(x)=yp(x)(1+yp(x)λ1/3)λ2/2, | (1.8) |
where λ1=0.772 and λ2=−7.772. This solution predicts the correct solution accurately for large x but still fails near the origin. A considerable amount of literature is devoted to the numerical solutions for the classical version of this problem [12,13,14,15,16]. In [12], numerical solution was obtained using the variational principle. J. Boyd [13] obtained a numerical solution using rational Chebyshev functions. The authors in [14,15] obtained numerical solutions using a spectral method based on the fractional order of rational Bessel functions. Pikulin [16] used a semi-analytical numerical method to compute the solution. Furthermore, different methods such as homotopy analysis and iterative methods are used to investigate the approximate solutions to this problem, see, e.g., [17,18,19,20,21].
However, a free boundary value issue is also implemented to approach the initial Thomas-Fermi equation. As a result, the free boundary value issue is changed into a nonlinear boundary value problem that is defined on a closed interval. An adaptive approach is used to tackle the issue utilizing the moving mesh finite element method [22].
The present paper investigates the generalized boundary value problem of the Thomas-Fermi equation
{y″+f(x,y)=0, 0<x<∞,y(0)=1, y(∞)=0, | (1.9) |
where
f(x,y)=−y(yx)pp+1, p>0, 0<x<∞, | (1.10) |
and we assume that 0≤y(x)≤1.
The Thomas-Fermi equation is a special case of this equation when p=1. As pointed out in [23], this generalized TF equation is related to non-integrable Abel equations, and therefore no closed solutions are possible for any case of this type of equation.
In this paper, we aim to provide an analytic approximate solution in explicit form for problem (1.9) with (1.10). In Section 2, we establish a theorem that provides the lower and upper bounds of the solution y and guarantees the existence of the solution to this problem as well as a theorem on the uniqueness of the solution. In Section 3, we present analytic approximate solutions in different explicit forms to this problem. Also, an interesting variation of the Adomian decomposition method (ADM) [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33] is presented, which allows the determination of the solution in an easily-computed series. In Section 4, we carry out an analysis of the solution and compare it with other numerical solutions.
We first prove a result on the double inequalities for the lower and upper bounds of the solution y, which is an important tool in the proof of the existence of the solution to problem (1.9) with (1.10).
Theorem 2.1. The generalized boundary value problem of TF equation (1.9) with (1.10) has at least one solution y∈C2[0,∞) such that
y1≤y≤y2 on [0,∞), | (2.1) |
where y1(x)=1(x+1)1+√52, y2(x)=−x((K(0,x)−K(1,x))), and K is the modified Bessel function of the second kind.
Proof. Using the following inequality:
(1x)r<(1+1x)r, r=pp+1<1, x>0, | (2.2) |
we obtain
(1x)r<1+1x, r=pp+1<1, x>0, | (2.3) |
which will be helpful later.
In view of 0≤y(x)≤1, it follows that
(yx)pp+1≤(1+1x)ypp+1, for 0≤y≤1, | (2.4) |
and with ypp+1≤1, we have
(yx)pp+1≤1+1x, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.5) |
Consequently,
y(yx)pp+1≤(1+1x)y, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.6) |
Hence,
f(x,y)=−y(yx)pp+1≥−(1+1x)y, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.7) |
On the other hand, in view of the solution y remains in the interval [0,1] and since pp+1<1, we have
ypp+1≥y. | (2.8) |
Using now x<x+1 to obtain 1x>1x+1. Hence, (1x)pp+1>1(x+1)pp+1. Thus,
(yx)pp+1≥1(x+1)pp+1 | (2.9) |
or
(yx)pp+1≥yx+1. | (2.10) |
It can be checked easily that
y(yx)pp+1≥y(x+1)2, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.11) |
Hence,
f(x,y)=−y(yx)pp+1≤−y(x+1)2, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.12) |
Thus, from (2.7) and (2.12), we obtain
G2(x,y)≤f(x,y)=−y(yx)pp+1≤G1(x,y), for 0≤y≤1, | (2.13) |
where
G1(x,y)=−1(x+1)2y and G2(x,y)=−(1+1x)y, for 0≤y≤1. | (2.14) |
For comparison purposes, we have the following linear boundary value problems:
{y″1+G1(x,y1)≤0, 0<x<∞,y1(0)=1, y1(∞)=0, | (2.15) |
and
{y″2+G2(x,y2)≥0, 0<x<∞,y2(0)=1, y2(∞)=0. | (2.16) |
Then, suitable comparison problems are
{y″1−1(1+x)2y1=0, 0<x<∞,y1(0)=1, y1(∞)=0, | (2.17) |
and
{y″2−(1+1x)y2=0, 0<x<∞,y2(0)=1, y2(∞)=0. | (2.18) |
To find the solution y1 of problem (2.17), we write
(1+x)2y″1−y1=0. | (2.19) |
Let ξ=x+1. Thus this equation becomes
ξ2y″1(ξ)−y1(ξ)=0. | (2.20) |
The substitution ξ=e−t leads to a constant coefficient linear equation
y″1(t)−y′1(t)−y1(t)=0. | (2.21) |
Thus,
y1(x)=C1(x+1)1+√52+C2(x+1)1−√52, | (2.22) |
where C1 and C2 are two constants. Using the boundary conditions y1(0)=1, y1(∞)=0 to find C1=1 and C2=0. This gives
y1(x)=1(x+1)1+√52. | (2.23) |
To find the solution y2 of problem (2.18), we bring back the form of the confluent hypergeometric equation with parameters a and b [34,35,36]:
xy″+(b−x)y′−ay=0, | (2.24) |
which has a regular singularity at 0 and an irregular one at infinity; and whose solution is 1F1(a;c;x).
The equation of problem (2.18) can be simply written as
y″2−(1+22x)y2=0. | (2.25) |
We introduce the change of variables ξ=2x and y2(x)=v(ξ). Then
4ξv″(ξ)−(ξ+2)v(ξ)=0. | (2.26) |
The transformation v(ξ)=ξe−ξ2w(ξ) leads to
ξw″(ξ)+(2−ξ)w′(ξ)−32w(ξ)=0, | (2.27) |
which is the confluent hypergeometric equation with parameters a=3/2 and b=2.
Thus the general solution of problem (2.18) is given in terms of the modified Bessel functions as
y2(x)=x(c1(I(0,x)+I(1,x))+c2(K(0,x)−K(1,x))), | (2.28) |
where I and K are the modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively. c1 and c2 are arbitrary constants, which can be determined from the boundary conditions. Indeed, to satisfy these conditions y2(0)=1 and y2(∞)=0, we get c1=0 and c2=−1, and so the required solution is given by
y2(x)=−x((K(0,x)−K(1,x))). | (2.29) |
For small x, we have
y2(x)≈1+x(ln(x2)+γ)+O(x2) as x→0+. | (2.30) |
Hence, the condition y2(0)=1 is satisfied.
We are now able to apply the method of upper and lower solutions. For more details about this technique, we refer the reader to (Chapter 7, [37]), which is applicable when f(x,y) has a singularity at x=0 and the Lipschitz constants L1(x)=−1(x+1)2 and L2(x)=−(1+1x) are functions of the independent variable x and continuous everywhere except for L2(x) at x=0.
It should be noted here that y1 and y2 are both twice continuously differentiable and satisfy the above differential inequalities functions (2.15) and (2.16) on (0,∞) with y1<y2. Furthermore, the function f(x,y) is continuous and bounded in
S={(x,y): 0≤x<∞, y1≤y≤y2}. | (2.31) |
This completes the proof.
To show the variation of these two extremum functions, we present in Figure 1 the variation of the upper and lower functions in terms of the independent variable x. In addition, the extremum functions are independent of the parameters p, which makes them the optimum functions for all kinds of Thomas-Fermi equations.
Theorem 2.2. The generalized boundary value problem of TF equation (1.9) with (1.10) has at most one solution y∈C2[0,∞).
Proof. To obtain an important result on the uniqueness, we assume that ˉy1 and ˉy2 are two different solutions to problem (1.9) with (1.10). Then,
{ˉy″1=g(x,ˉy1), 0<x<∞,ˉy1(0)=1, ˉy1(∞)=0, | (2.32) |
and
{ˉy″2=g(x,ˉy2), 0<x<∞,ˉy2(0)=1, ˉy2(∞)=0, | (2.33) |
where g(x,y)=y(yx)pp+1.
Consider the positive function h(x)=12(ˉy1−ˉy2)2. Thus h vanishes at zero and infinity. Therefore, if is not identically zero it must have a positive maximum at a point ˉx, where ˉx>0. Thus, its graph is concave down at ˉx>0, and we have
h″(ˉx)=[12(ˉy1−ˉy2)2]″∣x=ˉx≤0. | (2.34) |
Since
[12(ˉy1−ˉy2)2]″∣x=ˉx=(ˉy″1(ˉx)−ˉy″2(ˉx))(ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx))+(ˉy′1(ˉx)−ˉy′2(ˉx))2, | (2.35) |
or
[12(ˉy1−ˉy2)2]″∣x=ˉx=(ˉy″1(ˉx)−ˉy″2(ˉx))(ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx)). | (2.36) |
Hence,
(ˉy″1(ˉx)−ˉy″2(ˉx))(ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx))≤0. | (2.37) |
From (2.32) and (2.33), we have
ˉy″1(x)−ˉy″2(x)=g(x,ˉy1)−g(x,ˉy2). | (2.38) |
Applying the mean value theorem to the function g with respect to ˉy, we obtain
ˉy″1(x)−ˉy″2(x)=∂g∂y(x,ˉy∗)(ˉy1(x)−ˉy2(x)), | (2.39) |
where 0≤ˉy1<ˉy∗<ˉy2≤1.
On the other hand, differentiating the function g(x,y) with respect to y, we obtain
∂g∂y(x,y)=(2p+1p+1)(yx)pp+1. | (2.40) |
Hence,
∂g∂y(ˉx,ˉy∗)=(2p+1p+1)(ˉy∗(ˉx)ˉx)pp+1, ˉx>0. | (2.41) |
Consequently,
ˉy″1(ˉx)−ˉy″2(ˉx)=(2p+1p+1)(ˉy∗(ˉx)ˉx)pp+1(ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx)). | (2.42) |
Substituting this into (2.37), we obtain
(2p+1p+1)(ˉy∗(ˉx)ˉx)pp+1(ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx))2≤0, | (2.43) |
which contradicts the assumption that 2p+1p+1>0, ˉy∗(ˉx)ˉx>0, ˉx>0 and (ˉy1(ˉx)−ˉy2(ˉx))2>0. So h(x)=12(ˉy1−ˉy2)2≡0. This shows the uniqueness of the solution and completes the proof of the theorem.
We conclude here based on Theorem 2.1, which may offer advantages in finding out lower and upper solutions of our problem (1.9) with (1.10) in explicit forms such that y1≤y≤y2 on [0,∞), and consequently we should expect y to take similar explicit forms in the whole region with the corresponding boundary conditions.
To obtain an approximate solution y to problem (1.9) with (1.10), we first make the following approximation.
A possible linear approximation of a function f(x) at x=x0 may be obtained using the equation of the tangent line
f(x)≈f(x0)+f′(x0)(x−x0). | (3.1) |
If we choose f(x)=√βx, β>0 and x0=1β, then
√βx≈1+βx2, | (3.2) |
when x is close enough to x0=1β. Hence,
βx≈(1+βx)24. | (3.3) |
Substituting (3.3) into the nonlinear term of the ODE of problem (1.9), we obtain
y″−22pp+1βpp+1(1+βx)2pp+1ypp+1+1=0. | (3.4) |
For the solution y of the approximate equation (3.4), by Theorem 2.1, we expect that the solution y can be obtained in the form
y=(1+βx)m, | (3.5) |
where β>0 and m<0 are two parameters to be determined. Inserting the ansatz given by (3.5) into Eq (3.4), we obtain
m(m−1)β2(1+βx)m−2=22pp+1βpp+1(1+βx)mpp+1+m−2pp+1. | (3.6) |
If we assume that m−2=mpp+1+m−2pp+1, that is m=−2p, then, we derive the following relation between the parameters
2pp+2p=22pp+1β−p+2p+1, | (3.7) |
that is
β=22pp+2(2pp+2p)p+1p+2. | (3.8) |
Thus the first analytic approximate solution to the generalized TF equation is given by
y1(x;p)=1(1+βx)2p, where β=22pp+2(2pp+2p)p+1p+2. | (3.9) |
The term (βx)pp+1 can be approximated by (1+βx)pp+1 for sufficiently large values of βx; that is,
(βx)pp+1≈(1+βx)pp+1. | (3.10) |
Substituting (3.10) into the nonlinear term of the ODE of problem (1.9), we obtain
(m2+m)β2(1+βx)−2=βpp+1(1+βx)−(m+1)pp+1. | (3.11) |
It follows that m=1+2p and β=[(p+2p)2+p+2p]−p+1p+2.
Thus, the second analytic approximate solution to the generalized TF equation for x large is given as
y2(x;p)=1(1+βx)1+2p, where β=[(p+2p)2+p+2p]−p+1p+2. | (3.12) |
For x near 1, we can substitute x≈1 in the denominator of the nonlinear term of the ODE of problem (1.9) to find
(m2+m)β2(1+βx)−2=(1+βx)−(m+1)pp+1. | (3.13) |
It follows that m=2+2p and β=[(2p+2p)2+2p+2p]−12.
Thus, the third analytic approximate solution to the generalized TF equation for x near 1 is given as
y3(x;p)=1(1+βx)2+2p, where β=[(2p+2p)2+2p+2p]−12. | (3.14) |
Thus, our approximate solutions can be obtained by direct approaches.
In this section, we consider an interesting variation of the modified Adomian decomposition method (ADM) [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34], which permits the determination of the solution of nonlinear initial-boundary value problem (1.9) with (1.10).
Rewrite the ODE of problem (1.9) with (1.10) in Adomian's operator-theoretic form
Ly=x−pp+1N(y), 0<x<∞, | (3.15) |
where L=d2dx2 and N(y)=y2p+1p+1.
Applying L−1 to both sides of Eq (3.15) and using the initial condition y(0)=1, we obtain
y=1+Bx+∫x0∫x0[x−pp+1N(y)]dxdx, | (3.16) |
where B=y′(0) is an unknown constant to be determined by using the boundary condition y(∞)=0.
According to the Adomian decomposition method [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33], assuming the decomposition
y=∞∑n=0yn and N(y)=y2p+1p+1=∞∑n=0An, | (3.17) |
where An are the Adomian polynomials [24,25,33]. Thus, Eq (3.16) becomes
∞∑n=0yn=1+Bx+∫x0∫x0[x−pp+1∞∑n=0An]dxdx. | (3.18) |
We identify
y0=1, y1=Bx and ∞∑n=2yn=∫x0∫x0[x−pp+1∞∑n=0An]dxdx. | (3.19) |
Hence, a new recurrence relation for yn, n≥0, is established as
{y0=1,y1=Bx,yn+2=∫x0∫x0[x−pp+1An]dxdx, | (3.20) |
where the Adomian polynomials An [24,25,33] for the N(y)=y2p+1p+1 term are
{A0(y0)=y2p+1p+10,A1(y0,y1)=2p+1p+1y1ypp+10,A2(y0,y1,y2)=2p+1p+1y2ypp+10+12!2p+1p+1pp+1y21y−p+2p+10,... | (3.21) |
The first few components of the solution yn, n≥0 are given by
{y0=1,y1=Bx,y2=(p+1)2p+2xp+2p+1,y3=B(p+1)(2p+1)(p+2)(2p+3)x2p+3p+1,y4=(p+1)3(2p+1)2(p+2)2(p+3)x2p+4p+1+B2p(2p+1)2(3p+4)(2p+3)x3p+4p+1,... | (3.22) |
Hence,
y=1+Bx+(p+1)2p+2xp+2p+1+B(p+1)(2p+1)(p+2)(2p+3)x2p+3p+1+.... | (3.23) |
It remains now to apply the second boundary condition y→0 as x→∞ to the function y(x). This boundary condition cannot be applied directly to the series (3.23). Recall that it is customary to combine the series solutions obtained by the decomposition method with the Padé approximants to provide an effective tool to treat boundary value problems on an infinite or semi-infinite interval [33]. To illustrate this, we choose p=1. For convenience, we list below, by using (3.21), few terms of the Adomian polynomials An
{A0(y0)=1,A1(y0,y1)=32y1,A2(y0,y1,y2)=32y2+38y21,A3(y0,y1,y2)=32y3+34y1y2−116y21,... | (3.24) |
The first few components of the solution yn, n≥0, are given by
{y0=1,y1=Bx,y2=43x32,y3=25Bx52,y4=13x3+370B2x72,... | (3.25) |
Hence,
y=1+Bx+43x32+25Bx52+13x3+370B2x72+215Bx4+.... | (3.26) |
Setting x12=ξ into (3.26), we obtain
y=1+Bξ2+43ξ3+25Bξ5+13ξ6+370B2ξ7+215Bξ8+..., | (3.27) |
which is indeed the same approximation of y that obtained by Baker in 1930 [5] and Wazwaz [33]. In applying the boundary condition y(∞)=0 to the diagonal Padé approximants P10,10=[10/10], we obtain the approximation for the initial slope B=y′(0)=−1.588077, which is a very good approximation to accuracy 10−5 comparing to the value obtained by Parand et al. as −1.588071 [14]. These values are also in good agreement with the obtained numerical value y′n(0)=−1.564036 for p=1.
We are now in the position to explore some mathematical results and investigate the numerical treatment of the boundary value problem (1.9) with (1.10). In Figure 2, we present the different solutions of problem (1.9) with (1.10) with the particular case p=1. The first approximation (solid blue line) is in good agreement with the numerical solution and Sommerfeld's approximation. On the other hand, the third approximation (black dash-dotted line) is in good agreement with the numerical solution for small values of the independent variable x. While the second approximation diverges slightly from the other solutions for small and intermediate values of the independent variable x. All solutions coincide together for large values of x. Due to the potential limits of the numerical volume [38,39,40], we chose the maximum value of the independent variable as x=14. The numerical solution is obtained, using the Maple software, and the available mid-rich sub-method, which is a midpoint method with the same enhancement schemes. So, the midpoint sub-methods are capable of handling harmless end-point singularities that the trapezoid sub-methods cannot. For the enhancement schemes, Richardson extrapolation is generally faster, but deferred corrections use less memory on difficult problems [41,42].
In addition, we present in Tables 1 and 2 a comparison between the numerical solution and different proposed approximations for the case p=1, for small and large values of the independent variables x. These numerical values show clearly that the first and third approximations agree very well with the numerical solution in all ranges of the independent value x.
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
.100000 | .890589 | .836423 | .910357 | .944876 | .915349 |
.200000 | .800549 | .740601 | .832265 | .893735 | .839461 |
.300000 | .725548 | .666917 | .763802 | .846210 | .771278 |
.400000 | .662283 | .606766 | .703443 | .802028 | .709884 |
.500000 | .608242 | .556122 | .649967 | .760838 | .654476 |
.600000 | .561517 | .512617 | .602373 | .722429 | .604368 |
.700000 | .520665 | .474709 | .559820 | .686559 | .558968 |
.800000 | .484586 | .441319 | .521616 | .653027 | .517735 |
.900000 | .452445 | .411651 | .487194 | .621639 | .480250 |
1.00000 | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
1. | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
2. | .242734 | .220660 | .259910 | .379212 | .227968 |
3. | .156335 | .142841 | .167656 | .257243 | .128316 |
4. | .107979 | .0993388 | .117042 | .182448 | .0776398 |
5. | .781469e-1 | .725516e-1 | .863148e-1 | .134052 | .496894e-1 |
6. | .584026e-1 | .549358e-1 | .662721e-1 | .101365 | .332598e-1 |
7. | .445657e-1 | .427789e-1 | .524786e-1 | .784985e-1 | .230930e-1 |
8. | .343581e-1 | .340689e-1 | .425827e-1 | .620228e-1 | .165308e-1 |
9. | .264419e-1 | .276399e-1 | .352432e-1 | .498537e-1 | .121427e-1 |
10. | .199817e-1 | .227745e-1 | .296497e-1 | .406706e-1 | .911860e-2 |
11. | .144286e-1 | .190161e-1 | .252895e-1 | .336111e-1 | .698002e-2 |
12. | .940720e-2 | .160612e-1 | .218248e-1 | .280956e-1 | .543328e-2 |
13. | .465612e-2 | .137020e-1 | .190263e-1 | .237236e-1 | .429216e-2 |
14. | 0. | .117932e-1 | .167334e-1 | .202137e-1 | .343549e-2 |
Now, we can explore other interesting cases with p≠1, to show the efficiency of the suggested approximations and their validity ranges. In Figure 3, we present the different solutions of (1.9) with (1.10) with the particular cases p=2,3. The first and third approximations (solid blue line, black dash-dotted line) are in good agreement with the numerical solution for small values of the independent variable x. On the other hand, the third approximation remains in good agreement with the numerical solutions, while the first approximation diverges from the numerical solution by increasing the parameter p. The second approximation is still larger than all approximations over the small and intermediate domains of x.
Our overall findings demonstrate that it is possible to acquire a good approximation to the generalized TF equation. The charge distribution of a neutral atom as a function of radius x is also well-known to be described by this equation if and only if y(x) approaches zero as x grows in size. Solutions with y(x)=0 at a finite x are used to mimic positive ions. For solutions where y(x) becomes significant and positive as x increases significantly, it can be viewed as a model of a compressed atom, where the charge is squeezed into a smaller region. These broad comments are adequately supported by our plots. The proposed investigation might be useful in dense media where quantum gravity's effects could be felt strongly.
The goal of this study is to solve the generalized TF equation which governs several physical issues, such as quantum systems, that naturally differ significantly from Fermi or Bose statistics, as well as some astrophysical or cosmological contexts where quantum electrostatics may exhibit more intertwined screening effects. The TF equation is modeled in this investigation as a singular boundary value problem with an upper and lower solution theory. The existence-construction of the aforementioned upper-lower solutions is also explored. Excellent approximations are proposed and the obtained results are in good agreement with those obtained numerically. We anticipate that the approximation solutions we have presented will be useful in assisting with the investigation of the TF model-governed physics issues.
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University for funding this work through Research Group no. RG-21-09-14.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
[1] |
V. I. Karpman, Stabilization of soliton instabilities by higher-order dispersion: fourth-order nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations, Phys. Rev. E, 53 (1996), R1336. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.53.r1336 doi: 10.1103/physreve.53.r1336
![]() |
[2] |
V. I. Karpman, A. G. Shagalov, Stability of solitons described by nonlinear Schrödinger-type equations with higher-order dispersion, Physica D, 144 (2000), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00078-6 doi: 10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00078-6
![]() |
[3] |
Y. Fukumoto, H. K. Mofatt, Motion and expansion of a viscous vortex ring. Part 1. A higher-order asymptotic formula for the velocity, J. Fluid Mech., 417 (2000), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112000008995 doi: 10.1017/S0022112000008995
![]() |
[4] |
T. Cazenave, P. L. Lions, Orbital stability of standing waves for some nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Commun. Math. Phys., 85 (1982), 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01403504 doi: 10.1007/BF01403504
![]() |
[5] |
D. Bonheure, J. B. Casteras, T. Gou, L. Jeanjean, Normalized solutions to the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the mass critical and supercritical regime, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 372 (2019), 2167–2212. https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/7769 doi: 10.1090/tran/7769
![]() |
[6] |
O. Goubet, I. Manoubi, Standing waves for semilinear Schrödinger equations with discontinuous dispersion, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, Ser. 2, 71 (2022), 1159–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12215-022-00782-3 doi: 10.1007/s12215-022-00782-3
![]() |
[7] |
M. Khiddi, L. Essafi, Infinitely many solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations with sign-changing nonlinearity without the aid of 4-superlinear at infinity, Demonstr. Math., 55 (2022), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.1515/dema-2022-0169 doi: 10.1515/dema-2022-0169
![]() |
[8] |
M. Alotaibi, M. Jleli, B. Samet, C. Vetro, First and second critical exponents for an inhomogeneous Schrödinger equation with combined nonlinearities, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 73 (2022), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00033-022-01784-y doi: 10.1007/s00033-022-01784-y
![]() |
[9] |
D. Bonheure, J. B. Casteras, E. M. dos Santos, R. Nascimento, Orbitally stable standing waves of a mixed dispersion nonlinear Schrödinger equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 50 (2018), 5027–5071. https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1154138 doi: 10.1137/17M1154138
![]() |
[10] |
A. J. Fernández, L. Jeanjean, R. Mandel, M. Maris, Non-homogeneous Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in RN and application to a biharmonic non-linear Schrödinger equation, J. Differ. Equations, 330 (2022), 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2022.04.037 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2022.04.037
![]() |
[11] |
D. Bonheure, J. B. Casteras, T. Gou, L. Jeanjean, Strong instability of ground states to a fourth order Schrödinger equation, Int. Math. Res. Not., 2019 (2019), 5299–5315. https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnx273 doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnx273
![]() |
[12] |
B. H. Feng, J. Y. Liu, H. L. Niu, B. L. Zhang, Strong instability of standing waves for a fourth-order nonlinear Schrödinger equation with the mixed dispersion, Nonlinear Anal., 196 (2020), 111791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2020.111791 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2020.111791
![]() |
[13] |
C. Ji, N. Su, Existence and stability of standing waves for the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a partial confinement in RN, J. Geom. Anal., 33 (2023), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-023-01207-y doi: 10.1007/s12220-023-01207-y
![]() |
[14] |
H. J. Luo, Z. T. Zhang, Existence and stability of normalized solutions to the mixed dispersion nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Electron. Res. Arch., 30 (2022), 2871–2898. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022146 doi: 10.3934/era.2022146
![]() |
[15] |
Z. J. Ma, X. J. Chang, Normalized ground states of nonlinear biharmonic Schrödinger equations with Sobolev critical growth and combined nonlinearities, Appl. Math. Lett., 135 (2023), 108388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2022.108388 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2022.108388
![]() |
[16] |
E. D. Silva, M. L. Carvalho, C. Goulart, Periodic and asymptotically periodic fourth-order Schrödinger equations with critical and subcritical growth, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 42 (2022), 1039–1065. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcds.2021146 doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021146
![]() |
[17] | C. O. Alves, C. Ji, O. H. Miyagaki, Multiplicity of normalized solutions for a nonlinear Schrödinger equation with critical growth in RN, preprint, arXiv: 2103.07940. |
[18] |
C. O. Alves, C. Ji, O. H. Miyagaki, Normalized solutions for a Schrödinger equation with critical growth in RN, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equations, 61 (2022), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-021-02123-1 doi: 10.1007/s00526-021-02123-1
![]() |
[19] |
H. Berestycki, P. L. Lions, Nonlinear scalar field equations, I existence of a ground state, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 82 (1983), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00250555 doi: 10.1007/BF00250555
![]() |
[20] | M. J. Esteban, P. L. Lions, Stationary solutions of nonlinear Schrödinger equations with an external magnetic field, in Partial Differential Equations and the Calculus of Variations, (1989), 401–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9828-2_18 |
[21] |
P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The locally compact case, Part I, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare C, 1 (1984), 109–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0294-1449(16)30428-0 doi: 10.1016/S0294-1449(16)30428-0
![]() |
[22] |
C. O. Alves, C. Ji, Normalized solutions for the Schrödinger equations with L2-subcritical growth and different types of potentials, J. Geom. Anal., 32 (2022), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-022-00908-0 doi: 10.1007/s12220-022-00908-0
![]() |
[23] |
L. Jeanjean, Existence of solutions with prescribed norm for semilinear elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal. Theory Methods Appl., 28 (1997), 1633–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-546X(96)00021-1 doi: 10.1016/S0362-546X(96)00021-1
![]() |
[24] |
M. Shibata, Stable standing waves of nonlinear Schrödinger equations with a general nonlinear term, Manuscr. Math., 143 (2014), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-013-0627-9 doi: 10.1007/s00229-013-0627-9
![]() |
[25] | E. Gagliardo, Caratterizzazioni delle tracce sulla frontiera relative ad alcune classi di funzioni in n variabili, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. di Padova, 27 (1957), 284–305. |
[26] | E. Gagliardo, Proprietà di alcune classi di funzioni in più variabili, Ricerche Mat., 7 (1958), 102–137. Available from: https://zbmath.org/?q = an: 0089.09401. |
[27] | L. Nirenberg, On elliptic partial differential equations, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa. Cl. Sci., 13 (1959), 115–162. Available from: http://www.numdam.org/item/ASNSP_1959_3_13_2_115_0.pdf. |
[28] | M. Willem, Minimax Theorems, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4146-1 |
[29] |
T. Bartsch, Z. Q. Wang, Multiple positive solutions for a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 51 (2000), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00001511 doi: 10.1007/PL00001511
![]() |
1. | Shouming Zhou, Li Zhang, On the Cauchy problem for Keller‐Segel model with nonlinear chemotactic sensitivity and signal secretion in Besov spaces, 2024, 47, 0170-4214, 3651, 10.1002/mma.9104 | |
2. | Razvan Gabriel Iagar, Marta Latorre, Ariel Sánchez, Optimal existence, uniqueness and blow-up for a quasilinear diffusion equation with spatially inhomogeneous reaction, 2024, 533, 0022247X, 128001, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2023.128001 |
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
.100000 | .890589 | .836423 | .910357 | .944876 | .915349 |
.200000 | .800549 | .740601 | .832265 | .893735 | .839461 |
.300000 | .725548 | .666917 | .763802 | .846210 | .771278 |
.400000 | .662283 | .606766 | .703443 | .802028 | .709884 |
.500000 | .608242 | .556122 | .649967 | .760838 | .654476 |
.600000 | .561517 | .512617 | .602373 | .722429 | .604368 |
.700000 | .520665 | .474709 | .559820 | .686559 | .558968 |
.800000 | .484586 | .441319 | .521616 | .653027 | .517735 |
.900000 | .452445 | .411651 | .487194 | .621639 | .480250 |
1.00000 | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
1. | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
2. | .242734 | .220660 | .259910 | .379212 | .227968 |
3. | .156335 | .142841 | .167656 | .257243 | .128316 |
4. | .107979 | .0993388 | .117042 | .182448 | .0776398 |
5. | .781469e-1 | .725516e-1 | .863148e-1 | .134052 | .496894e-1 |
6. | .584026e-1 | .549358e-1 | .662721e-1 | .101365 | .332598e-1 |
7. | .445657e-1 | .427789e-1 | .524786e-1 | .784985e-1 | .230930e-1 |
8. | .343581e-1 | .340689e-1 | .425827e-1 | .620228e-1 | .165308e-1 |
9. | .264419e-1 | .276399e-1 | .352432e-1 | .498537e-1 | .121427e-1 |
10. | .199817e-1 | .227745e-1 | .296497e-1 | .406706e-1 | .911860e-2 |
11. | .144286e-1 | .190161e-1 | .252895e-1 | .336111e-1 | .698002e-2 |
12. | .940720e-2 | .160612e-1 | .218248e-1 | .280956e-1 | .543328e-2 |
13. | .465612e-2 | .137020e-1 | .190263e-1 | .237236e-1 | .429216e-2 |
14. | 0. | .117932e-1 | .167334e-1 | .202137e-1 | .343549e-2 |
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
.100000 | .890589 | .836423 | .910357 | .944876 | .915349 |
.200000 | .800549 | .740601 | .832265 | .893735 | .839461 |
.300000 | .725548 | .666917 | .763802 | .846210 | .771278 |
.400000 | .662283 | .606766 | .703443 | .802028 | .709884 |
.500000 | .608242 | .556122 | .649967 | .760838 | .654476 |
.600000 | .561517 | .512617 | .602373 | .722429 | .604368 |
.700000 | .520665 | .474709 | .559820 | .686559 | .558968 |
.800000 | .484586 | .441319 | .521616 | .653027 | .517735 |
.900000 | .452445 | .411651 | .487194 | .621639 | .480250 |
1.00000 | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
x | yn | ys | y1;1 | y2;1 | y3;1 |
1. | .423598 | .385104 | .456075 | .592235 | .446096 |
2. | .242734 | .220660 | .259910 | .379212 | .227968 |
3. | .156335 | .142841 | .167656 | .257243 | .128316 |
4. | .107979 | .0993388 | .117042 | .182448 | .0776398 |
5. | .781469e-1 | .725516e-1 | .863148e-1 | .134052 | .496894e-1 |
6. | .584026e-1 | .549358e-1 | .662721e-1 | .101365 | .332598e-1 |
7. | .445657e-1 | .427789e-1 | .524786e-1 | .784985e-1 | .230930e-1 |
8. | .343581e-1 | .340689e-1 | .425827e-1 | .620228e-1 | .165308e-1 |
9. | .264419e-1 | .276399e-1 | .352432e-1 | .498537e-1 | .121427e-1 |
10. | .199817e-1 | .227745e-1 | .296497e-1 | .406706e-1 | .911860e-2 |
11. | .144286e-1 | .190161e-1 | .252895e-1 | .336111e-1 | .698002e-2 |
12. | .940720e-2 | .160612e-1 | .218248e-1 | .280956e-1 | .543328e-2 |
13. | .465612e-2 | .137020e-1 | .190263e-1 | .237236e-1 | .429216e-2 |
14. | 0. | .117932e-1 | .167334e-1 | .202137e-1 | .343549e-2 |