Infinitely many periodic solutions to a Lorentz force equation with singular electromagnetic potential

(a1) Let us fix j\geq j_0. We claim that the assumptions of Theorem 2.5 with B=\emptyset, F=X and \mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}_j are satisfied. Indeed, assumption (1) is a consequence of property (P4) of the category. Moreover, assumption (2) is guaranteed by (ii) and assumption (3) is trivially fulfilled since

and

Hence, we can apply Theorem 2.5 to obtain the existence of a PS-sequence at the level c_j\geq c_{j_0}>\inf I. Since I satisfies the weak Palais-Smale condition at levels greater than \inf I, we deduce that there exists a critical point at level c_j.

(a2) The argument here follows closely the one in [ArBeTo20, Theorem 1], with three main changes. The first one is that our functional \Phi is singular and locally Lipschitz continuous, instead of being even and in C^{1}(X). The second is that we use the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category instead of the Krasnoselskii genus, a fact which is, however, linked to the first difference. Finally, we use item 2 in Assumption 2.1, which is weaker than the continuity of \psi on its proper domain D_\psi required in [ArBeTo20].

Concerning the weak PS-condition, we denote \|\cdot\|_{Y} the norm in Y (see Definition 2.4) and we set B_{Y}(x,r)=\{u\in X: \|u-x\|_{Y}<r\} which is open in X also w.r.t. the stronger topology induced by \|\cdot\|.

By contradiction, let us assume that I has only n\in\mathbb{N} critical points at level c\coloneqq c_{j_{1}}=c_{j_{2}}, which we label x_{1},\dots,x_{n}, and let r>0 be such that the sets \overline{B_{Y}(x_{m},2r)} are pairwise disjoint and contained in D_{\Phi} (the closure is taken w.r.t. the norm \|\cdot\| of X, if not otherwise specified). We define

and observe that, arguing by contradiction and using the weak PS-condition, there exists \epsilon\in(0,r^{2}) such that, for each x\in I^{-1}([c-\epsilon,c+\epsilon])\setminus N_{r}, there is \xi_{x}\ne x such that

Let A\in\mathcal{F}_{j_{2}} be chosen in such a way that

In particular, A\subset D_{\phi} and \sup_{A}I=\max_{A}I since \psi is bounded on A and, thus, continuous in A by Assumption 2.1. The set B=A\setminus N_{2r} is compact in X and B\in\mathcal{F}_{j_{1}}, since

by (P3). As a consequence we have

We apply Ekeland variational principle (see also [ArBeTo20, Lemma 1(iii)]), to the map \Pi:\mathcal{F}_{j_{1}}\to\left]-,\infty+\infty\right] such that \Pi(A)=\sup_{A}I, since \mathcal{F}_{j_{1}} is complete w.r.t. the Hausdorff metric

and \Pi is lower semi-continuous w.r.t. the same matric. Then, we obtain C\in\mathcal{F}_{j_{1}} such that

where is the Hausdorff distance for compact sets of a metric space. In particular, C\cap N_{r}=\emptyset and the set S=\{x\in C:c-\epsilon\le I(x)\} is contained in I^{-1}([c-\epsilon,c+\epsilon])\setminus N_{r} and is compact in X.

Since the mapping

is upper semi-continuous in X\times D_{\Phi} (by [Clarke90, Proposition 2.1.1]) and negative for x_{1}=x_{2}=x\in S by (?), for each x\in S there is a positive \delta_{x}<\|\xi_{x}-x\| such that \overline{B_{X}(x,\delta_{x})}\subset D_{\Phi} and

Since S is compact, there exist y_{1},\dots,y_{\ell}\in S such that S\subset B_{1}\cup\dots\cup B_{\ell}, where B_{k}=B_{X}(y_{k},\delta_{y_{k}}), 1\le k \le \ell. We observe that \xi_{y_{k}}\not\in B_{k}, by construction, and, thus, we can fix some positive \delta \le \min\{\delta_{C}/2,\delta_{y_{k}},\operatorname{dist}(\xi_{y_{k}},\overline{B}_{k}\cap C): 1\le k\le \ell \}, where \delta_{C}\coloneqq\min\{\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial D_{\Phi}):x\in c\} >0 since C\subset D_{\Phi} by (?).

Let us denote by \eta,\eta_{k}:C\to[0,1] (1\le k\le\ell) continuous functions such that

so that \sum_{k=1}^{\ell}\eta_{k}=1 on S. Let us consider the function \beta: [0,1]\times C \to X defined by

which is continuous and satisfies \|\beta_{t}(x)-x\|\le\delta<\delta_{C} for all (t,x)\in[0,1]\times C by construction. As a consequence \beta_{1} is a deformation of C in D_{\Phi} (observe that \beta_{0} is the identity on C) and D\coloneqq\beta_{1}(C) belongs to \mathcal{F}_{j_{1}} by property (P4).

From the estimate

we deduce that \beta_{t}(x) is a convex combination of x,\xi_{y_{1}},\dots,\xi_{y_{\ell}} and, hence,

On the side of \Phi, by Lebourg’s theorem [Clarke90, Theorem 2.3.7] for each x\in C there exists \tau=\tau(x)\in(0,1) and \zeta\in\partial\Phi(\beta_{\tau}(x)) such that \Phi(\beta_{1}(x))-\Phi(x)=\langle \zeta,\beta_{1}(x)-x\rangle, where \partial\Phi(x) is the generalized gradient of \Phi at x (see [Clarke90, § 2.1]). Hence, we have

by [Clarke90, Propositions 2.1.1-2]. As a consequence we can estimate

Now, by construction, \|\beta_{\tau}(x)-x\|\le\delta\le\delta_{y_{k}} for all k=1,\dots,\ell, which implies that

Therefore, we have

On the other hand, if x\in C\setminus S, we have \eta(x)=0 and I(\beta_{1}(x))=I(x)<c-\epsilon.

We can choose x_{0}\in C such that I(\beta_{1}(x_{0})) = \max I(\beta_{1}(C))=\max I(D)\ge c since D\in\mathcal{F}_{j_{1}}. As consequences we have that x_{0}\in S and

and, thus, \eta(x_{0})=1 and

which is a contradiction with (?).

Most of the above statement has been already proved in [BoDaPapp, Proposition 3.2] (and, in turn, in corresponding results in [ArBeTo19]); notice indeed that the functional \psi is the same as the one considered therein, while \Phi, despite the presence of the magnetic term, is still of class C^1 on the open set D_\Phi = \Lambda, with

cf. [ArBeTo19, Lemma 1] (in the above formula, the term (D_x A)^T \dot x is meant as the product of the transpose of the Jacobian matrix D_x A with the (column) vector \dot x). Notice that, by integrating by parts,

From this, together with the identity

we can rewrite d\Phi in the equivalent form

Using this formula, and recalling (?), the fact that critical points of I gives rise to classical T-periodic solutions of equation (?) can be proved with the very same arguments of [BoDaPapp, Proposition 3.3] (see also [ArBeTo19, Theorem 2]).

The only point which requires a bit of care is the proof of the property of blow-up on the boundary (that is, item 4 of Assumption  2.1), for which we give the complete details. At first, we notice that

So, let us consider a sequence \{x_n\} in D_I such that d_n : = \operatorname{dist}(x_n, \partial D_{\Phi}) \to 0 and, accordingly, let y_n \in \partial D_{\Phi} be such that \Vert x_n - y_n \Vert \leq 2d_n. Since \Vert \dot x_n \Vert_\infty \leq c for any n, we find that

for n large enough. Moreover, since y_n(t_n) = r_{i_n}(t_n) for some t_n \in [0,T] and i_n \in \{1,\ldots, N\}, we have

and thus the sequence \{y_n\} is bounded in X. Since \Vert x_n - y_n \Vert \leq 2d_n, the sequence \{x_n\} is bounded in X as well. Therefore, the Ascoli-Arzelà theorem yields the existence of a continuous function z such that, up to subsequence, x_n \to z and y_n \to z uniformly on [0,T]. Hence, z(0) = z(T) and z(t_0) = r_{i_0}(t_0) for some t_0 \in [0,T], limit point of the sequence t_n, and i_0 \in \{1,\ldots ,N\}, limit point of the sequence i_n. Moreover, passing to the limit in the Lipschitz-continuity condition

we easily see that z \in D_\psi \subset X. Hence, the function z - r_{i_0} is Lipschitz continuous and so

Therefore, by (V) and (AV1) and using Fatou’s lemma we obtain

Since 0 \leq \psi(x_{n}) \leq mc^2 T, we finally conclude that I(x_n) \to +\infty as desired.

Let \{x_n\} \subset X be a Palais-Smale sequence at level c > 0; incidentally, let us notice that \{x_n\} \subset D_I, since otherwise I(x_n) = +\infty. The proof will be divided in two steps.

At first, we show that the sequence \{x_n\} is bounded in L^\infty (and, thus, in X). To see this, let us write x_n = \tilde x_n + \bar{x}_n, where \bar{x}_n = \tfrac{1}{T}\int_0^T x_n and \int_0^T \tilde x_n \,dt = 0. Since \Vert \dot{\tilde x}_n \Vert_\infty = \Vert \dot x_n \Vert_\infty \leq c, we have that \Vert \tilde x_n \Vert_\infty is bounded. So, assuming by contradiction that \Vert x_n \Vert_\infty is not bounded yields, up to subsequences, \vert \bar{x}_n \vert \to +\infty. Then \vert x_n(t) \vert \geq \vert \bar{x}_n \vert - \Vert \dot{\tilde} x_n \Vert_\infty and so

Choosing z = \bar{x}_n in (?), we obtain

that is, using (Proof),

Therefore, recalling the boundedness of \Vert \tilde x_n \Vert_\infty, (?) and assumption (AV2) we obtain \psi(x_n) \to 0. On the other hand, for the same reasons \Phi(x_n) \to 0 and so

a contradiction.

As a second step, we show that the boundedness of \{x_n\} implies the existence of a subsequence \{x_{n_k}\} converging in L^\infty(0,T) to a critical point x of the functional I at level c (that is, the condition required in the definition of weak Palais-Smale condition at level c). For this, we combine the arguments used in the proof of [BoDaPapp, Proposition 3.5] with the ones in the proof of [ArBeTo19, Lemma 5].

We first prove that (i) holds when there is only one curve r_{1} of singularities. To this aim, we make use of the following auxiliary open sets in C_{T}\coloneqq\{x\in C([0,T],\mathbb{R}^{3}):x(0)=x(T)\}, endowed with the topology of uniform convergence:

and of the the continuous and dense immersion \iota:X\to C_{T}. We have that X\cap\Lambda_{1} = \iota^{-1}(\Lambda_{1}) and that \iota|_{X\cap\Lambda_{1}}:X\cap\Lambda_{1}\to\Lambda_{1} is a homotopy equivalence by [Palais66, Theorem 16]. Since the affine isometry x\mapsto x-r_{1} maps \Lambda_1 onto \Lambda_0, we have that its composition with \iota|_{X\cap\Lambda_{1}} provides a homotopy equivalence between X\cap\Lambda_{1} and \Lambda_{0}. Using [FaHu92, Corollary 2.8], we deduce that the cup length in \mathbb{Z}_{2} of \Lambda_{0} is infinite. Since the cup length is a homotopy invariant, we infer that X\cap\Lambda_{1} contains compact sets with arbitrarily large category by [FaHu89, Lemma 2.9].

Now, we are going to show that, for each j\ge 1, there exists a compact A\subset\Lambda\cap D_{\psi} such that \operatorname{cat}_{X}(A,\Lambda)\ge j; this will imply both (i) and (ii), since our functional \psi is bounded in D_{\psi}. We just showed that there exists a compact A_{1}\subset\Lambda_{1} such that \operatorname{cat}_{X}(A_{1},\Lambda_{1}\cap X)\geq j. For each \lambda >0 and x\in X we define x_{\lambda}=r_{1}+\lambda(x-r_{1}) and observe that x_{\lambda}\in\Lambda_{1}\cap X if and only if x\in\Lambda_{1}\cap X. We set A_{\lambda}=\{x_{\lambda}:x\in A_{1}\} which is compact and omeomorphic to A_{1} so that

Now, let \delta\coloneqq\min\{|r_{1}(t)-r_{j}(t)|:t\in[0,T],\,j=2,\dots,N\}>0. Since

for \lambda<\delta/\operatorname{dist}(r_{1},A_{1}) we have that A_{\lambda}\subset \Lambda and

by property (P2). On the other hand, we have that

Hence, if \lambda>0 is small enough we have that A_{\lambda}\subset D_{\psi}\cap\Lambda and A_{\lambda}\in \mathcal{F}_{j}.

Suppose by contradiction that c_3=0, that is

Then, for every n\in \mathbb{N} there exists A_n\in \mathcal{F}_3 such that

Of course, A_n\subset D_I. Hence, taking into account that I=\psi+\Phi, with \psi \geq 0 and \Phi > 0 in D_I (cf. (?)), we get

In particular, noticing that

we obtain

and so, from Sobolev inequality (see, for instance, [MaWi89, Proposition 1.3]),

where we have written as usual x(t) = \bar{x} + \tilde x(t), with \bar{x} = \tfrac{1}{T} \int_0^T x(t)\,dt.

Now, we claim that, fixed an arbitrary constant R > 0 with the property that

there exists n^*\in \mathbb{N} such that, for every n \geq n^*,

Indeed, let \iota^* be defined by

and observe that \iota^*>0 by assumption (V); moreover, let n^*\in \mathbb{N} be such that

Assume now by contradiction that there exist n \geq n^*, x \in A_n and t_0 \in [0,T] such that |x(t_0)|< 2R. Then, from (Proof) we infer that

and hence from (?) we deduce that |x(t)|<3R, for every t\in [0,T]. Therefore, recalling (?) and (Proof), we have

which contradicts (?).

At this point, we notice that from (Proof) and (?) it follows that

Hence, taking into account (?) we deduce that, for every n \geq n^*,

In particular, recalling (?), \bar{x} + (1-\lambda) \tilde x \in \Lambda for every x \in A_n and \lambda \in [0,1]. Hence, the map H: [0,1] \times A_n \to \Lambda given by

provides a deformation in \Lambda of A_n into A_n' = H(1,A_n). Hence, by property (P4) of the category,

On the other hand, we observe that, setting

from (?) we have that A_n' \subset \Xi \subset \Lambda. Hence, from properties (P1) and (P2) of the category,

The set \Xi is clearly homeomorphic to \mathbb{R}^3 \setminus B_R(0) (with B_R(0) the open ball of radius R) and so \textrm{cat}_X (\Xi,\Xi) = 2. Hence, (?) and (?) yield

contradicting the fact that A_n \in \mathcal{F}_3.

The result follows from Theorem (3.1). We need to show that V and A satisfy assumptions (V), (AV1) and (AV2).

As far as (V) is concerned, the assumption q_i<0, for every i=1,\ldots, N, implies that V(t,x) < 0, for every (t,x)\in \Omega. Moreover, from (?) and the definition of \beta_i we deduce that

thus implying

Using this estimate in (Proof), we infer

This relation, together with (?) and the sign assumption on the charges, implies that

for every (t,x)\in \Omega. Recalling that V_j(t,x)<0, for every (t,x)\in \Omega and j=1,\ldots, N, we conclude that

for every (t,x)\in \Omega. This proves the validity of (3.1) with \kappa=\max \{\kappa_i:\, i=1,\ldots, N\}, \kappa_i=-q_i/4\pi \varepsilon_0 and \delta > 0 arbitrary.

The validity of (AV1) is an immediate consequence of the definition of A_i given in (?). Indeed, (AV1) is satisfied with

(observe that \kappa'<1 by (?)).

Finally, we pass to the proof of the validity of (AV2), first observing that (?) implies that (AV2) can be written as

uniformly in t\in \mathbb{R}. For every i=1,\ldots, N, from (?) we infer that

for every (t,x)\in \Omega. Now, defining

it is immediate to see that the set E=\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^3: \ |x|>\Theta+1\} satisfies E\subset \Omega and that

thus implying

uniformly in t\in \mathbb{R}. Taking again into account (?), the fact that \eta_i, \beta_i and \dot{\beta_i} are bounded and the definition of \Theta, we deduce that there exists Z'>0 such that

This proves that

uniformly in t\in \mathbb{R}. Finally, from (?) and (?), recalling that \eta_i is bounded, we infer

uniformly in t\in \mathbb{R}. From the fact that (?), (?) and (?) hold for every i=1,\ldots, N, recalling (4.1), we can conclude that (?) is fulfilled.

The result follows from Theorem 3.1. Indeed, let us first observe that here \Omega =\{(t,x)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^3:\ x\neq 0\},

Then, from the sign condition on U we plainly deduce that (V) (with \kappa =1 and arbitrary \delta >0) is satisfied. Moreover, assumption (AV1) is trivially fulfilled since A\equiv 0. Finally, from assumption (4.2), we infer that

uniformly in t\in \mathbb{R}. Recalling again that A\equiv 0, this proves the validity of (AV2).