4
$\begingroup$

Let us consider $h_n=(2n+1)^{-1/2}\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ be a small parameter, which we just write as $h$ for convenience, and $u_h : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be functions satisfying $Pu_h=0$ (I think that $Pu=O(h)$ would be sufficient) where $P = -h^2D_x^2+(x^2-1)$, that is $Op_h(p)u_h=0$ where the principal symbol of $p$ is $p_0(x)=\xi ^2+x^2-1$. We also assume that $\|u_h\|_{L^2}=1$ (again, $\|u_h\|_{L^2}=O(1)$ would suffice I guess).

I want to prove the following:

For $\varepsilon \leq C h^{2/3}$, and $\Omega_{\varepsilon} = \{x : |x-1|<\varepsilon\}$ there holds$\|u_h\|_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\varepsilon})} = O(\varepsilon^{1/4})$.

This statement is in fact proven in [KTZ], Lemma 7.3 (what we want here is a special case), but I think that there should exist a much simpler proof, because in the mentioned article they claimed that intuitively $u_h$ microlocally concentrates on $x^2+\xi^2 =1$, so $\|u_h\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_{\varepsilon}}$ is the portion of the energy coming from it, that is the length of $\{x^2+\xi^2 =1 \} \cap \Omega_{\varepsilon}$ which is $\sim \varepsilon^{1/2}$.

What I know is the following:

  • When $A=Op_h(a)$ is a zero order operator of principal symbol $a_0$ then we have $$(Au_h,u_h)_{L^2} \to \langle \mu, a_0 \rangle$$ where $\mu$ is the microlocal defect measure of $u_h$.
  • Actually, we know that $\mu$ is the normalized Lebesgue measure on $\{x^2+\xi^2=1\}$.

From that, I want to take something like $a=\mathbf{1}_{|x-1|<\varepsilon}\mathbf{1}_{|\xi|<\varepsilon^{1/2}}$, but the problem is that I need to a smooth substitute for $a$, something like $a(x,\xi)=\chi(x/\varepsilon)\chi(\xi/\varepsilon^{1/2})$, where $\chi$ is a standard cuttof function. But the problem is that this operator is not uniform in $\varepsilon$ so I cannot claim any estimates in terms of $\varepsilon$.

Is there a way of making this intuition work, other than using [KTZ] (which I do not deeply understand)?

Reference: [KT] Koch, Tataru & Zworski : arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0603080.pdf

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ ahh right, I'm assuming that, so I will edit and add it, thanks $\endgroup$
    – J.Mayol
    Commented May 24, 2022 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong the thing is to not use what is known about the Hermite polynomials. In fact, because it is semiclassical analysis one can change $x^2$ for some $V(x)$ with similar properties. For the fact that $Pu_h$ is not always solvable, just take $h=h_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2n+1}}$ (note that there is a square root missing in your $h$, it's because you should also rescale de $x^2$). $\endgroup$
    – J.Mayol
    Commented May 25, 2022 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ My (somewhat facetious) point is that there does exist a much simpler proof, albeit not the one you are looking for. So as the question asker, it may help if you specify more precisely what is the "lower bound" of simplicity you are looking for. $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2022 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ I edited so that we only consider the $h_n$ values. What I want is the $O(\varepsilon^{1/4})$ bound that I'm asking, which is an upper bound (of course if you really look at the precise asymptotics of Hermite functions you will see that in this special case this is also a lower bound, but here I only want the upper bound. $\endgroup$
    – J.Mayol
    Commented May 26, 2022 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ Looks like a change of variable could be suffient: doing $x \mapsto x+1$ then we need to localize the new $x$ as $x = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$, so introducing $x=\varepsilon \tilde{x}$ we obtain $(\varepsilon^{-3}h^2D_{\tilde{x}}^2 + \tilde x)u=0$ (changing charts, etc.). But for $\varepsilon= Ch^{2/3}$ we have $\varepsilon^{-3}h^2$ which is not a semiclassical parameter anymore ... $\endgroup$
    – J.Mayol
    Commented May 31, 2022 at 6:52

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .