Motivated by the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity, we estimate in
the semi-classical limit the ground state energy of a magnetic Schr\"odinger
operator with De Gennes boundary condition and we study the localization of the
ground state. We exhibit cases when the De Gennes boundary condition has strong
effects on this localization.Comment: content revise

Agmon S.

Ayman Kachmar

Bolley C.

Cycon H. L.

De Gennes P. G.

Kato T.

Reed M.

Saint-James D.

Tinkham M.

English

arXiv

Kachmar, Ayman

Numérisation de Documents Anciens Mathématiques

C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706http://france.elsevier.com/direct/CRASS1/Mathematical PhysicsOn the ground state energy for a magnetic Schrödinger operatorand the effect of the de Gennes boundary conditionAyman Kachmar a,ba Université Paris-Sud, département de mathématiques, bâtiment 425, 91405 Orsay, Franceb Université Libanaise, département de mathématiques, Hadeth, Beyrouth, LebanonReceived 12 January 2006; accepted after revision 28 February 2006Presented by Jean-Michel BonyAbstractMotivated by the Ginzburg–Landau theory of superconductivity, we estimate the ground state energy of a magnetic Schrödingeroperator with de Gennes boundary condition in the semi-classical limit and we study the localization of the corresponding groundstates. We exhibit cases when the de Gennes boundary condition has a strong effect on this localization. To cite this article:A. Kachmar, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006). 2006 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.RésuméSur l’énergie de l’état fondamental d’un opérateur de Schrödinger avec un champ magnétique et l’effet de la condition aubord de de Gennes. Motivé par la théorie de Ginzburg–Landau de supraconductivité, nous estimons dans le régime semi-classiquel’énergie de l’état fondamental d’un opérateur de Schrödinger avec champ magnétique et condition au bord de de Gennes. Nousobtenons des cas où la condition au bord de de Gennes a un effet fort sur cette localisation. Pour citer cet article : A. Kachmar,C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006). 2006 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.Version française abrégéeComme le physicien de Gennes l’explique dans [3], le comportement de la supraconductivité dans un matériaucylindrique de section Ω ⊂ R2 entouré par un autre matériau est décrit par les minimiseurs de la fonctionelle deGinzburg–Landau :G(φ,A) =∫Ω{∣∣(∇ − iσκA)φ∣∣2 + σ 2κ2| curlA− 1|2 + κ22(|φ|2 − 1)2}dx + ∫∂Ωγ̃ (x;κ)∣∣φ(x)∣∣2 dx, (1)définie pour (φ,A) ∈ H 1(Ω;C) × H 1(Ω;R2). Le paramètre σ est l’intensité du champ magnétique appliqué, κ estune caractéristique du matériau et γ̃ (·;κ) est une fonction C∞ sur le bord (appelée dans la littérature physique etE-mail address: ayman.kachmar@math.u-psud.fr (A. Kachmar).1631-073X/$ – see front matter  2006 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.crma.2006.03.001702 A. Kachmar / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706dans le cas où elle est constante paramètre de de Gennes). Pour un minimiseur global (ψ,A) de (1), la fonctionψ est appelée le paramètre d’ordre et son amplitude rend compte de la densité des paires de Cooper dans Ω . Lechamp de vecteur A est appelé le potentiel magnétique induit. La fonction ψ satisfait alors la condition au bord ditede de Gennes : ν · (∇ − iσκA)ψ + γ̃ (x;κ)ψ = 0, où ν est le vecteur normal unité exterieur de ∂Ω . Dans d’autrescontextes, cette condition est appelée Condition de Robin.L’équation d’Euler–Lagrange associée à la fonctionnelle G admet une solution (0,A), appelée solution normale,telle que rotA = 1. Il est alors naturel d’étudier si cette paire est un minimum local de la fonctionnelle G, ce quiconduit immédiatement à l’étude de la positivité de la forme quadratique :H 1(Ω)  φ → QσκA,γ̃ ,Ω(φ) = (σκ)2qα,γh,A,Ω(φ) − κ2‖φ‖2L2(Ω),où h = 1σκ, γ̃ (x;κ) = hα−1γ (x), etqα,γh,A,Ω(φ) =∥∥(h∇ − iA)φ∥∥2L2(Ω)+ h1+α∫∂Ωγ (x)|φ|2 dx. (2)Le paramètre α > 0 est introduit dans le but de contrôler le taille de la fonction γ̃ (·;κ). Nous noterons :µ(1)(α, γ,h) = inf{qα,γh,A,Ω(u); u ∈ H 1(Ω); ‖u‖L2(Ω) = 1}.Nous sommes intéressés à estimer µ(1)(α, γ,h) dans le régime semi-classique h → 0. Nous établissons un dévelop-pement limité de premier ordre de µ(1)(α, γ,h) dans le Théorème 3.1. Ce développement dépend fortement de α. Enparticulier, si α  12 , nous avons un comportement semblable à celui de Neumann (γ = 0). Si α ∈ ]0, 12 [ et γ0 > 0,nous avons un comportement semblable à celui de la réalisation de Dirichlet. Si α ∈ ]0, 12 [ et γ0 < 0, µ(1)(α,γ,h)hestnegatif et tend vers −∞ lorsque h → 0.Pour α  12 , nous déterminons ensuite des développements limités plus fins dans les Théorèmes 4.1 et 4.2, quimontrent l’effet de la courbure scalaire κr et de la fonction γ . Le cas α = 1 est particulier dans le sens où γ et κr ontle même ordre dans le dévoloppement limité de µ(1)(α, γ,h).Cette étude complète celle de Lu–Pan [11] et c’est une première étape dans l’analyse de l’apparition de la supra-conductivité dans le même esprit que les travaux de Lu–Pan [10,11] et Helffer–Pan [8].1. IntroductionLet us consider an open bounded set Ω ⊂ R2 with regular boundary. For a vector field A ∈ C∞( 	Ω;R2) suchthat curlA = 1, a regular real valued function γ ∈ C∞(∂Ω;R) and a number α > 0, let us consider the self-adjointmagnetic Schrödinger operator P α,γh,A,Ω defined by:D(Pα,γh,A,Ω) = {u ∈ H 2(Ω);ν · (h∇ − iA)u|∂Ω + hαγ u|∂Ω = 0}, P α,γh,A,Ω = −(h∇ − iA)2. (3)The parameter h is called the semi-classical parameter. We denote by µ(1)(α, γ,h) the ground state energy (or lowesteigenvalue) of P α,γh,A,Ω . Our aim is to estimate µ(1)(α, γ,h) as h tends to 0.As in [7,11], a first step is to understand the model case of the half-plane when the function γ and the magneticfield are both constant.2. The model operatorLet us consider the magnetic potential A0(x1, x2) = (−x2,0), ∀(x1, x2) ∈ R × R+. For γ ∈ R, we define the self-adjoint operator P [γ ] = −(∇ − iA0)2 on the domain:D(P [γ ]) = {u ∈ L2(R × R+); (∇ − iA0)u, (∇ − iA0)2u ∈ L2(R × R+), ∂x2u = γ u at x2 = 0}.We denote by Θ(γ ) the bottom of the spectrum of P [γ ]. Actually, we are interested in the bottom of the spectrum ofthe operator P α,γh,A0,R×R+ , but a scaling argument gives∀h ∈ R+, ∀α,γ ∈ R, inf Sp(Pα,γ ) = hΘ(hα−1/2γ ).h,A0,R×R+A. Kachmar / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706 703By a partial Fourier transformation with respect to the first variable, we get the ξ -family of one-dimensional operators:H [γ, ξ ] = − d2dt2+ (t − ξ)2, (4)with domainD(H [γ, ξ ]) = {u ∈ H 2(R+); (t − ξ)ju ∈ L2(R+), j = 1,2; u′(0) = γ u(0)}. (5)Note that the operator H [γ, ξ ] has compact resolvent. We denote by µ(1)(γ, ξ) the first eigenvalue (necessarily simple)of H [γ, ξ ]. A spectral analysis using the separation of variables (cf. [13]) permits to show that:Θ(γ ) = infξ∈Rµ(1)(γ, ξ). (6)Following the method of Dauge–Helffer [4], we get that for each γ ∈ R, Θ(γ ) < 1 and that the function ξ →µ(1)(γ, ξ) attains its minimum at a unique point ξ(γ ) > 0 satisfyingξ(γ )2 = Θ(γ ) + γ 2. (7)We denote by ϕγ the unique strictly positive and L2-normalized eigenfunction associated to the eigenvalue Θ(γ ). Weget now that the function:φγ (x1, x2) = exp(−iξ(γ )x1)ϕγ (x2) (8)satisfies P [γ ]φγ = Θ(γ )φγ and hence it behaves like an eigenfunction for the operator P [γ ].A modification of Grushin’s method [6] permits to show that the functions Θ(γ ) and γ → ϕγ ∈ L2(R+) are C∞on R (cf. [9]).By using the function eγ tϕ0 as a trial function for the operator H [γ, ξ(γ )], we get by the spectral theorem:Θ ′(0) = ∣∣ϕ0(0)∣∣2. (9)The analysis of the Neumann problem in [2] gives the following decay when γ is sufficiently large:1 − C0γ exp−γ 2  Θ(γ ) < 1, ∀γ ∈ [γ0,+∞[. (10)We have the following decay when γ < 0:−γ 2  Θ(γ )  −γ 2 + 14γ 2, ∀γ ∈ ]−∞,0[. (11)Note that the lower bound given above is a direct consequence of the relation (7). For the upper bound, we use thefunction eγ t (with γ < 0) as a trial function for the quadratic form defining H [γ,0].3. AsymptoticsHaving analyzed in detail the model operator, we come back to the general situation and give an asymptotics forµ(1)(α, γ,h) as h tends to 0. Let γ0 = minx∈∂Ω γ (x). From the expression of the quadratic form in (2), when lookingfor a lower bound of µ(1)(α, γ,h), it is natural to start by finding a lower bound of µ(1)(α, γ0, h). Using the techniqueof [7], we use a fine partition of unity of R2 where the size of the partition’s support is of order h3/8. The maincontribution is then due to terms where the partition’s support meets the boundary. After a change of variables, wecompare with the model operator in the half-plane. In this way we get positive constants C,C′ and h0 such that:µ(1)(α, γ,h)  hΘ(hα−1/2γ0(1 + C′h1/4)) − Ch5/4, ∀h ∈ ]0, h0]. (12)When looking for an upper bound of µ(1)(α, γ,h), it is a natural idea to construct a trial function supported near apoint x0 of the boundary where γ is minimum so that we can approximate γ by γ0 modulo a small error. In a tubularneighborhood of ∂Ω , let us consider the coordinates (s, t) where t measures the distance to ∂Ω and s measures thedistance in ∂Ω . We suppose that x0 = 0 in the (s, t) coordinates and we define the following trial function supportednear x0:uh,α = a−1/2h−3/8χ(t) × f(h−1/4s)φη(h−1/2s, h−1/2t), (13)704 A. Kachmar / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706where a(s, t) = 1 − tκr (s), κr is the scalar curvature, the function χ is a cut-off equal to 1 in a compact interval[0, t02 ] and the function f ∈ C∞0 (]− 12 , 12 [;R) is chosen such that ‖f ‖L2(R) = 1. The function φη defined in (8) is theeigenfunction for the model operator and η = hα−1/2(γ0 + Ch1/2) where C is an appropriate positive constant. Bycomputing qα,γh,A,Ω(uh,α), we get the following upper bound:µ(1)(α, γ,h)  hΘ(hα−1/2(γ0 + Ch1/2)) + C̃h3/2, ∀h ∈ ]0, h0]. (14)Remark 1. When α ∈ ] 12 ,1[, we get from (14) and (9) the following upper bound,µ(1)(α, γ,h)  hΘ(0) + 3C1γ0hα+1/2 +O(hinf(3/2,2α)),where C1 := |ϕ0(0)|23 . This upper bound is actually an asymptotic expansion of µ(1)(α, γ,h).Using (9), (10) and (11), we get from (12) and (14) the following theorem.Theorem 3.1. The ground state energy of the operator P α,γh,A,Ω satisfies as h tends to 0:µ(1)(α, γ,h) ∼ hΘ(hα−1/2γ0). (15)The asymptotics (15) depends strongly on α and γ0 does not always appear effectively. However, if γ0  0 or12  α < 1, then limh→0µ(1)(α,γ,h)h< 1 and a ground state is localized as h → 0 near the boundary points where thefunction γ is minimum.4. Curvature effectsIn the case when α  12 , we give a two terms asymptotics for µ(1)(α, γ,h).Theorem 4.1. Suppose that α = 1. Then the ground state energy of the operator P 1,γh,A,Ω satisfies as h tends to 0:µ(1)(1, γ,h) = hΘ(0) − C1(κr − 3γ )maxh3/2 +O(h13/8). (16)Moreover the ground states are localized near the boundary points where κr − 3γ is maximum.If γ is constant, the remainder in (16) is better and of order O(h5/3). We have recovered in the above theorem theresult of [7] which deals with the case γ = 0.Theorem 4.2. Suppose that α  12 and γ is constant, then the ground state energy of the operator Pα,γh,A,Ω satisfies ash tends to 0:µ(1)(α, γ,h) = hΘ(hα−1/2γ ) − C1(α, γ )(κr )maxh3/2 + o(h3/2), (17)where C1(α, γ ) = |ϕ0(0)|23 if α > 12 and C1( 12 , γ ) = 16 [1 + (γ ξ(γ ))2]|ϕγ (0)|2 if α = 12 .To prove the above two theorems, we have to introduce a ‘refined’ family of model operators. For η,β ∈ R andδ ∈ ] 14 , 12 [, let us consider the one-dimensional ξ -family of self-adjoint operators on the space L2(]0, hδ−1/2[; (1 −h1/2βt)dt):Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ = −∂2t + (t − ξ)2 + βh1/2(1 − βh1/2t)−1∂t + 2βh1/2t(t − ξ − βh1/2 t22)2− βh1/2t2(t − ξ) + β2ht44,with domain:D(Hα,η,D) = {u ∈ H 2( ]0, hδ−1/2[ );u′(0) = hα−1/2ηu(0), u(hδ−1/2) = 0}.h,β,ξA. Kachmar / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706 705We have then to find (when η,β ∈ ]−M,M[ and M a given positive constant), uniformly with respect to ξ ∈ R, a lowerbound for the first eigenvalue µ1(Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ ) of the operator Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ . Because we are interested in infξ∈R µ1(Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ ),it is sufficient to consider ξ ’s satisfying |ξ − ξ(η̃)|  ζhρ , where ζ,ρ are positive constants independent of h andη̃ = hα−1/2η. We look for a formal solution (µ,f α,ηh,β,ξ ) toHα,ηh,β,ξ fα,ηh,β,ξ = µf α,ηh,β,ξ ,(fα,ηh,β,ξ)′(0) = hα−1/2ηf α,ηh,β,ξ (0), in R+, (18)in the form:µ = d0 + d1(ξ − ξ(η̃)) + d2(ξ − ξ(η̃))2 + d3h1/2, f α,ηh,β,ξ = u0 + (ξ − ξ(η̃))u1 + (ξ − ξ(η̃))2u2 + h1/2u3.The coefficients d0, d1, d2, d3 and the functions u0, u1 are given by:d0 = Θ(η̃), d1 = 0, d2 = 1 − 2∫R+(t − ξ(η̃))ϕη̃u1 dt, d3 = β ∫R+ϕη̃{∂t +(t − ξ(η̃))3}ϕη̃ dt,u0 = ϕη̃, u1 = 2(−∂2t + (t − ξ(η̃))2 − Θ(η̃))−1{(t − ξ(η̃))ϕη̃}.By standard Fredholm theory, the operator (−∂2t + (t − ξ(η̃))2 − Θ(η̃))−1 is defined on the orthogonal space of ϕη̃and has values in D(H [η̃, ξ(η̃)]) (cf. (5)).Note that, using Agmon’s technique (cf. [1]), the function f α,ηh,β,ξ decays exponentially at infinity and we can controlits decay uniformly with respect to h. Then by using the function χ( thδ−1/2 )fα,ηh,β,ξ (where χ is the same as in (13)) asa quasi-mode for the operator Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ , we get by the spectral theorem,∣∣µ1(Hα,η,Dh,β,ξ ) − {Θ(η̃) + d2(ξ − ξ(η̃))2 + d3h1/2}∣∣  C[h1/2∣∣ξ − ξ(η̃)∣∣ + hδ+1/2].We show that d2 > 0 and if α > 12 , d3 = |ϕ0(0)|23 modulo O(hα−1/2). If α = 12 , we show that d3 = C1(α, η). Thispermits (cf. [9]) to obtain a lower bound for µ(1)(α, γ,h).5. ConclusionWe have extended in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 the two term expansion announced by Pan [12] in the particular casewhen α = 1 and γ is a positive constant. The systematic analysis in the spirit of [7] had allowed us to understand therole of the boundary condition imposed by de Gennes. We have found a specific difficulty when γ is negative. Notethat negative values of γ were considered in the physical literature [5]. We have not been able to obtain the localizationof the ground state when α < 1/2 and γ0 > 0. This situation is strongly related to the question of the localization ofthe ground state of the Dirichlet realization of the Schrödinger operator with constant magnetic field which is an openproblem. Finally, in the spirit of [8,11], we hope to apply this analysis to the onset of superconductivity (cf. [9]).AcknowledgementsI am deeply grateful to Professor B. Helffer for the constant attention to this work, his help, advice and comments.I would like also to thank S. Fournais for his attentive reading and suggestions.References[1] S. Agmon, Lectures on Exponential Decay of Solutions of Second Order Elliptic Equations, Math. Notes, vol. 29, Princeton University Press,1982.[2] C. Bolley, B. Helffer, An application of semi-classical analysis to the asymptotic study of the supercooling field of a superconducting material,Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Phys. Théorique 58 (2) (1993) 243–262.[3] P.G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys, Benjamin, 1966.[4] M. Dauge, B. Helffer, Eigenvalues variation I, Neumann problem for Sturm–Liouville operators, J. Differential Equations 104 (2) (1993)243–262.[5] H.J. Fink, W.C.H. Joiner, Surface nucleation and boundary condition in superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (3) (1969).[6] V.V. Grushin, On a class of hypoelliptic operators, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 12 (1970) 458–475.706 A. Kachmar / C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I 342 (2006) 701–706[7] B. Helffer, A. Morame, Magnetic bottles in connection with superconductivity, J. Funct. Anal. 185 (2) (2001) 604–680.[8] B. Helffer, X.-B. Pan, Upper critical field and location of surface nucleation of superconductivity, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. NonLinéaire 20 (1) (2003) 145–181.[9] A. Kachmar, Thèse à l’université Paris-Sud, in preparation.[10] K. Lu, X.-B. Pan, Ginzburg–Landau equation with de Gennes boundary condition, J. Differential Equations 129 (1) (1996) 136–165.[11] K. Lu, X.-B. Pan, Estimates of the upper critical field of the Ginzburg–Landau equations of superconductivity, Physica D (1999) 73–104.[12] X.-B. Pan, Superconducting films in perpendicular fields and the effect of the de Gennes parameter, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 34 (4) (2003)957–991.[13] M. Reed, B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics IV, Academic Press, 1979.

On the ground state energy for a magnetic Schrödinger operator and the effect of the de Gennes boundary condition

Comptes Rendus Mathématique

Crossref

Erratum: “On the ground state energy for a magnetic Schrödinger operator and the effect of the DeGennes boundary condition” [J. Math. Phys. 47, 072106 (2006)]