2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.07573
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Existence of standing and traveling waves in quantum hydrodynamics with viscosity

Abstract: We prove existence of standing waves for two quantum hydrodynamics systems with linear and nonlinear viscosity. Moreover, global existence of traveling waves is proved for the former without restrictions on the viscosity and dispersion parameters, thanks to a suitable Lyapunov function. This is an improvement with respect to the global existence result in [20], where it was required that the viscosity is sufficiently strong.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Monotonicity. As it was previously mentioned, the existence of profiles satisfying (2.9) with end states P ± is studied in detail in [28,36]. In particular, it is well known that if the amplitude |P + − P − | is sufficiently small, then a heteroclinic solution exists (cfr.…”
Section: 10)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Monotonicity. As it was previously mentioned, the existence of profiles satisfying (2.9) with end states P ± is studied in detail in [28,36]. In particular, it is well known that if the amplitude |P + − P − | is sufficiently small, then a heteroclinic solution exists (cfr.…”
Section: 10)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Monotonicity. As it was previously mentioned, the existence of profiles satisfying (2.9) with end states P ± is studied in detail in [28,36]. In particular, it is well known that if the amplitude |P + − P − | is sufficiently small, then a heteroclinic solution exists (cf.…”
Section: 10)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been proved in [36] that the solution J − 1 should not be considered, because the corresponding shock (P ± , J ± 1 , s) is not an admissible Lax shock for (2.1), while (P ± , J ± 2 , s) defines a Lax 2-shock for that system. As a consequence, the definition (2.8) yields…”
Section: Asymptotic Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations