Initial boundary value problem for nonlinear Dirac equation of Gross-Neveu type in $1+1$ dimensions
Yongqian Zhang, Qin Zhao

TL;DR
This paper establishes the global existence and uniqueness of strong solutions for a nonlinear Dirac equation with cubic terms and moving boundary conditions in one spatial and one temporal dimension.
Contribution
It provides the first rigorous proof of global well-posedness for this class of nonlinear Dirac equations with moving boundaries.
Findings
Proved global existence of solutions.
Established uniqueness of solutions.
Handled moving boundary conditions effectively.
Abstract
This paper studies an initial boundary value problem for a class of nonlinear Dirac equations with cubic terms and moving boundary. For the initial data with bounded norm and the suitable boundary conditions, the global existence and the uniqueness of the strong solution are proved.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Physics Problems · Spectral Theory in Mathematical Physics · Stability and Controllability of Differential Equations
Initial boundary value problem for nonlinear Dirac equation of Gross-Neveu type in dimensions
Yongqian Zhang
Yongqian Zhang: School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, P.R.China
and
Qin Zhao
Qin Zhao : School of Mathematical Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, P.R.China
Abstract.
This paper studies an initial boundary value problem for a class of nonlinear Dirac equations with cubic terms and moving boundary. For the initial data with bounded norm and the suitable boundary conditions, the global existence and the uniqueness of the strong solution are proved.
Key words and phrases:
Nonlinear Dirac equation; Gross-Neveu model; global strong solution; Bony type functional; Glimm type functional.
( AMS subject classification. Primary: 35Q41 ; Secondary: 35L60, 35Q40)
1. Introduction
Consider the nonlinear Dirac equations
[TABLE]
in a domain \Omega=\{(x,t)\,\big{|}\,t\geq 0,\,x\geq z(t)\} for with initial data
[TABLE]
and boundary condition
[TABLE]
The nonlinear terms take the following form
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
where and are complex conjugate of and .
The boundary , denoted by , is assumed to satisfy the following,
**(H1): **
, for and .
**(H2): **
, for .
Here and in sequel, we denote , , , etc. for simplification.
The nonlinear Dirac equation (1.1) is called Thirring equation for and , while it is called Gross-Neveu equation for and ; see for instance [23] and [14], [20]. There are a number of works devoted to the local and global well-poedness of the Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Dirac equation with various type of nonlinearities in different spatial dimensions (see for instance [2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25], and the references therein). There are also some papers on the initial boundary value problem (see for example [5] and [18]). In [5], motivated to study the Hawking effect describing the collapse of a spherically symmetric star to a Schwarzchild black hole, Bouvier and Gérard used technique from algebra to study the asymptotic behaviour of the global solution to (1.1),(1.2) and (1.3) with a class of special initial data in , where the non-characteristic boundary is assumed to approach characteristic as , with for and the solution is assumed to be bounded. In [18, 19], Naumkin proved the existence of global solution in to initial boundary value problem for Thirring model in quarter plane with small data and study the scattering behaviour of solution. To our knowledge there is no result on the well posedness of initial boundary value problem for Gross-Neveu model with general initial data in . Our purpose is to prove the existence and the uniqueness in and in of global solution to (1.1-1.3).
The first result is the following.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Suppose that (H1) and (H2) hold. Let with compact support in and satisfy the compatibility conditions as follow,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then (1.1-1.3) has a unique global solution .
This result could be generalized to the following case.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Suppose that (H1) and (H2) hold. Let satisfy the compatibility conditions as follows,
[TABLE]
Then (1.1-1.3) has a unique global solution . Moreover,
[TABLE]
for .
With Theorem 1.1, we can look for the global strong solution. Here the strong solution is defined as follows.
Definition 1.1**.**
A pair of measurable functions is called a strong solution to (1.1-1.3) if there exits a sequence of classical solutions to (1.1) such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for any compact set and for any .
Theorem 1.3**.**
Suppose that (H1) and (H2) hold. For any , (1.1-1.3) has a unique global strong solution . Moreover, , and solves (1.1-1.3) in the following sense,
[TABLE]
for any with bounded support in and for .
Moreover, we have the following.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Suppose that (H1) and (H2) hold. If , then the strong solution given by Theorem 1.3 satisfies the following,
[TABLE]
for any . Moreover, if for , then
[TABLE]
for almost every .
The remaining is organized as follows. First, in section 2, to prove Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 for (1.1-1.3), we derive the equations (2.1) and (2.2) for and for local smooth solution , and apply the characteristic method to the equations (2.1) and (2.2) to get the pointwise bounds on and . Then it enables us to get the uniform bounds on in the domain for any and extend the local solution globally. In section 3 we introduce a Bony type functional and a Glimm type functional for smooth solution to get estimates of nonlinear term, on each characteristic triangle . Here different from the work in [25], for the case that , by the assumption (H2) we choose a suitable constant so that the derivative of the weighted norm, \frac{d}{dt}\big{(}L(t,u,\Delta)+K_{0}L(t,v,\Delta)\big{)} can control the possible increasing of the functional , and choose a suitable constant so that can control , while for the case that same argument as in [25] can be carried out to get the control on . In section 4, we consider the difference for two smooth solutions and . We first write down the equations (4.1) and (4.2) for , which contain , and . Then we introduce a Bony type functional and a Glimm type functional for , , and and , and use it to prove the stability estimates in Proposition 4.1. Here, as in section 3, for the case that , by the assumption (H2) we choose a suitable constant so that the derivative of the weighted norm, \frac{d}{dt}\big{(}L(t,U,\Delta)+K_{1}L(t,V,\Delta)\big{)} can control the possible increasing of the functional . In section 5, we first approximate the initial data (1.2) by a sequence of smooth functions. Then, by the result on the global wellposedness for smooth solution in section 2, we can have a sequence of global smooth solutions for smooth data for (1.1). With the help of the stability estimates in section 4, we show that the sequence of global smooth solutions converges to a strong solution in for any triangle . In section 6, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4.
2. Global classical solution
For , denote
[TABLE]
Classical theory on semilinear hyperbolic systems [1] gives the following local existence result (see also [17]).
Lemma 2.1**.**
Suppose that the compatibility conditions (1.6) and (1.7) hold. For any with compact support in , there exists a such that (1.1-1.3) has a unique solution .
Our aim in this section is to extend the solution globally to . To this end, let with compact support and let be the solution to (1.1-1.3) for , taking as its initial data, we have to establish the estimates on in the next. Here we assume that the compatibility conditions (1.6) and (1.7) hold for .
Multiplying the first equation of (1.1) by and the second equation by gives
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which, together with the structure of nonlinear terms, leads to
[TABLE]
For the nonlinear terms in the righthand side of (2.1) and (2.2), we have the following by direct computation.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let . Then there hold the followings,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
And we have the estimates on the norm of the solution as follows.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let . Then for any , there holds the following,
[TABLE]
Proof. By (1.3) and (2.3), and by assumption (H2), we have
[TABLE]
which gives the desired inequality and completes the proof.
We consider the characteristic triangles for in . For any with and for any , we denote
[TABLE]
see Figure 1,
and, denote
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for , see Figure 2.
It is obvious that is a characteristic line for the first equation of in (1.1) while is a characteristic line for the second equation of in (1.1).
Along these characteristic lines in , we have the following estimates.
Lemma 2.4**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
Here .
Proof. Denote
[TABLE]
Then taking the integration of (2.3) over gives the following,
[TABLE]
where we use the boundary condition (1.3) and assumption (H2) to get the last inequality. This implies the result and the proof is complete.
Lemma 2.5**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
Here .
Proof. Since , then the domain
[TABLE]
Taking the integration of (2.3) over , we have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality is given by Lemma 2.3. The proof is complete.
Using the above estimates on along the characteristic lines, we can get the following pointwise estimates on at first.
Lemma 2.6**.**
For ,
[TABLE]
Here .
Proof. Assumption (H1) implies that
[TABLE]
for any .
Then, by Lemma 2.2, along we use the equation (2.2) to derive that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Taking the integration of the above from to , we can prove the desired result by Lemma 2.4. The proof is complete.
To get the pointwise estimates on , we look for the intersection point of the boundary and the characteristic line for .
Lemma 2.7**.**
For any , the equation has a unique solution , where and for .
Proof. From assumption (H1) it follows that
[TABLE]
for , which implies that the function has a global inverse . Moreover,
[TABLE]
Therefore the proof is complete.
Now we can have the following pointwise estimates on .
Lemma 2.8**.**
If with , then
[TABLE]
If with , then
[TABLE]
Here .
Proof. For with , the assumption (H1) implies that
[TABLE]
Then, by (2.1) and by Lemma 2.2, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Taking the integration of (2.5) from [math] to and using Lemma 2.5, we get
[TABLE]
For with , Lemma 2.7 implies that the characteristic line and the boundary intersect only at the point (z\big{(}p(x-t)\big{)},p(x-t)).
Then, by (2.1) and by Lemma 2.2, along the characteristic line we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Taking the integration of the above from to , we use Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.6 to get the following,
[TABLE]
The proof is complete.
Now using the pointwise estimates on and , we can prove Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. For , Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.8 lead to
[TABLE]
for and .
Then by the standard theory on semilinear hyperbolic equations (see [1] for instance), we can extend the solution across the time .
Therefore, repeating the same argument for any time, we can extend the solution globally to . The proof is complete.
Furthermore Theorem 1.2 follows from Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let be a pair of functions such that and for belonging to a neighbourhood of zero. Then we choose a sequence of functions such that is convergent to in as tends to .
It is obvious that satisfies the compatibility conditions as (1.6) and (1.7). Therefore, by Theorem 1.1, the equations (1.1) has a global smooth solution with the initial data for .
Moreover, by Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.8, we have
[TABLE]
for any , which enables us to show as in [1] and [17] that the sequence is convergent in to a solution of (1.1)-(1.3) as tends to for any .
The uniqueness can be proved by the the energy inequality for the difference of solutions in as in [1] and [17]. The proof is complete.
3. Estimates on the classical solution
Consider the case that , and let be the global solution to (1.1) with boundary condition (1.3). Here we assume that the compatibility condition (1.6) and (1.7) hold. Our aim in this section is to establish the local estimates on .
To this end, set for simplification and assume that in this section.
Let
[TABLE]
Then and are the left and right edges of . By (H1), and intersect at one point at the most.
We introduce a time interval as follows. Denote
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.7, we have the following.
Lemma 3.1**.**
There hold the following statements. (1) If for some (Figure 4), then and
[TABLE]
(2) If for some (Figure 5), then and
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(3) If , then and
[TABLE]
Now we can define the functionals for on as follow.
Definition 3.1**.**
For , and for any , define,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Definition 3.2**.**
For , and for the solution , define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Then we have the following estimates on the norm.
Lemma 3.2**.**
For , there holds the following,
[TABLE]
Proof. It suffices to prove lemma for three cases according to Lemma 3.1.
Case 1: The right edge of and intersect at some point , see Figure 4. In this case .
Then for , . Moreover, by (1.3) and (2.3), and by assumption (H2), we have
[TABLE]
This leads to the desired result.
Case 2: The left edge of and intersect at some point , see Figure 5. Then .
For , , and in the same way as in the proof of Case 1, we can get
[TABLE]
For , , then we can use the result for Case 2 to deduce that
[TABLE]
Case 3: lies in the interior of . The proof can be carried out in the same way as in Case 1.
Therefore the proof is complete.
For any , we recall the notation
[TABLE]
and have the control on the potential for the case that as follows.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Suppose that for . Then there exists constants such that for the initial data satisfying there holds the following
[TABLE]
for . Therefore,
[TABLE]
for . Here is independent of .
The proof of Lemma 3.3 has been given in [25] and is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.4 in the next.
To get the control on the potential near the boundary, we introduce a new functional as follows.
Definition 3.3**.**
For constants and and for , define
[TABLE]
For any , we have the control on near the boundary as follows.
Lemma 3.4**.**
Suppose that and for . Then there exist constants , and such that for there hold the following,
[TABLE]
for with . Here the constants and depend only on ; and the bound of depends only on .
Proof. For simplification, we denote ,, and by ,, and . Now it suffices to prove the lemma for two cases.
Case 1: The boundary and the right edge of intersect at the point for some , see Figure 4.
Then , . For , by Lemma 2.2, we use (2.1), (2.2) to get
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which lead to
[TABLE]
where we choose large enough so that
[TABLE]
for .
On the other hand, by Lemma 2.2, we use (2.1), (2.2) again to get the following for ,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
where we choose constant and such that and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for . Then (3.4) is proved for this case.
Case 2: The boundary and the right edge of intersect at the point for some , see Figure 5. The proof of (3.4) can be carried out in the same way as in Case 1 for . Thus the proof is complete.
4. Estimates on the difference between the classical solutions
Let and be two classical solutions to (1.1) with (1.3). We consider the difference between these two solutions and denote
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
which lead to
[TABLE]
For the nonlinear terms in the righthandsides of (4.1) and (4.2), we have following by direct computations.
Lemma 4.1**.**
There exists a such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
To get the control on via (4.1) and (4.2), we introduce following functionals on for as in [25]. Here it is assume that .
Definition 4.1**.**
For and , , define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for . Here with
[TABLE]
, and are given by Definition 3.1 in section 3.
In addition we use the notations in Definition 3.2 for , and use the following for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
Moreover, (2.1) and (2.2) still hold for both and , and Lemmas in Section 3 also hold for these two solution.
Now for any , we can have the estimates on near the boundary as follows.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Suppose that and . Then, there exist constants , and such that if and then there holds the following,
[TABLE]
for with , where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here the constants , and depend only on .
Proof. It suffices to prove lemma for two cases.
Case 1: The boundary and the right edge of intersec at some point , see Figure 4. Then , and for .
For , by Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 4.1, we use (4.1) and (2.2) for both and to derive that
[TABLE]
while by Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 4.1, we use (4.2) and (2.1) for both and to derive that
[TABLE]
Collecting these two inequalities, we have the estimates on as follows,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For the functional , by (4.1) and by Lemma 4.1, we have
[TABLE]
while by (4.2) and by Lemma 4.1, we have
[TABLE]
Then we have the following estimate on ,
[TABLE]
Here the constant is chosen so that
[TABLE]
Now, with the above estimates on and , we use Lemma 3.2 to derive the following,
[TABLE]
for and , where we choose and so that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore (4.3) is proved for Case 1.
Case 2: The boundary and the left edge of intersect at . Then, , and for , for . The proof can be carried out in the same way as in Case 1 for . Thus the proof is complete.
Remark 4.1**.**
For the case that , we have similar estimates on without boundary terms, see [25] for the proof, where only makes contribution to the control on . For the case that , both and are needed to give the control on .
As conclusion of the above argument, we get the stability result for smooth solutions for any .
Proposition 4.1**.**
Suppose that with , and suppose that , . Then for , there holds the following
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Here the constant depends only on and .
Proof. It suffices to prove lemma for two cases.
Case 1: , that is, . Then taking the integral of (3.4) in Lemma 3.4 over , we have
[TABLE]
which leads to
[TABLE]
for some constant depending on .
Therefore, we use Lemma 4.2 to deduce that
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
which lead to the result for Case 1. Here the constants and depend only on .
Case 2: , that is, and . Then . The result for this case has been proved in [25], and its proof can be carried out in the same way as above. Therefore the proof is complete.
5. Convergence of global classical solutions
Choose a sequence of smooth functions
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
as . Theorem 1.1 implies that there is a sequence of classical solutions, , to (1.1), which satisfy boundary condition (1.3) and take as their initial data respectively. And has bounded support in for any and .
We consider the convergence of on for any . To this end, we first give the estimate on norm of solution over small interval for any and .
Lemma 5.1**.**
There is a constant such that if and then
[TABLE]
for with .
*Proof.*It is obvious that
[TABLE]
As in [25], we choose such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for and for . Here for simplification .
Then with the pointwise estimates along the characteristics in Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.8, we can deduce the desired result. The proof is complete.
Now application of Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 5.1 to any pair of smooth solutions and gives the following.
Lemma 5.2**.**
Suppose that with and . Then there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any and . Here the constant depends only on and ; the constant is given by Lemma 5.1.
In the next, we prove the convergence of on by the induction step as follows.
Denote
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.3**.**
Suppose that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for . Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here is given in Lemma 5.1.
Proof. We choose a finite number of subintervals, , , with and , such that
[TABLE]
where , and .
For , by Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 5.1, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore we have the convergence of the sequences , and in respectively. The proof is complete.
Now we have the following convergence result.
Proposition 5.1**.**
There exists a such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof. With the induction steps given by Lemma 5.3, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any . These lead to the desired result. The proof is complete.
6. Proof of main results on strong solutions
In the same way as in the proof of Lemma 5.3 and Proposition 5.1, we can prove the following.
Proposition 6.1**.**
Suppose that , , are two sequences of classical solution to (1.1) satisfy boundary condition (1.3) with the following,
[TABLE]
for some . Then,
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem1.3. The existence of solution is proved by Proposition 5.1. Moreover, satisfies (1.9) and (2.6).
To prove the uniqueness, let , , be two strong solutions to (1.1-1.3), and let , be two sequences of classical solutions to (1.1) with boundary condition (1.3), which are convergent to , , respectively in . Moreover, the initial data are assumed to be convergent to for .
Then by Proposition 6.1, we have
[TABLE]
which yields that
[TABLE]
This leads to the uniqueness of the strong solution. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 1.4. Indeed the results hold for the classical solutions. Then by taking the limit, we can prove the result still hold for the strong solution. The proof is complete.
Acknowledgement
This work was partially supported by NSFC Project 11421061 and by the 111 Project B08018.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Alinhac, Blowup for nonlinear hyperbolic equations, Birkhauser Boston, Inc., Boston, 1995.
- 2[2] A. Bachelot, Global Cauchy problem for semilinear hyperboloc systems with nonlocal interactions. Applications to Dirac equations, J. Math. Pures. Appl. 86 (2006), 201-236.
- 3[3] J. M. Bony, Solution globales bornées pour les modèles discrets de l’équation de Boltzmann, en dimension 1 d’espace, Journées ”Equations aux derivées partielles” (Saint Jean de Monts, 1987), Exp. No XVI, 10pp., École Polytech., Palaiseau, 1987.
- 4[4] N. Bournaveas and G. E. Zouraris, Theory and numerical approximations for a nonlinear 1 + 1 1 1 1+1 Dirac system, ESAIM: Math. Model. Num. Analysis 46 (4) (2012), 841-874.
- 5[5] P. Bouvier and C. Gérard, Hawking effect for toy model of interacting Fermions, Ann. Heri. Poincaré 16 (5) (2015), 1191-1230.
- 6[6] F. Cacciafesta, Global small solutions to the critical radial Dirac equation with potential, Nonlinear Analysis 74 (2011), 6060-6073.
- 7[7] T. Candy, Global existence for an L 2 superscript 𝐿 2 L^{2} critical nonlinear Dirac equation in one dimension, Adv. Differential Equations 16 No. 7-8 (2011), 643-666.
- 8[8] C. M. Dafermos, Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010.
