6
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a manifold with smooth boundary. We can consider the Dirichlet or the Neumann problem on $M$. Let $(\phi_k)$ be an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions to the Dirichlet problem and let $(\psi_k)$ and orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions to the Neumann problem.

What can be said about the functions $\partial_{\mathbf{n}}\phi_k|_{\partial M}$ and $\psi_k|_{\partial M}$? For example, does a subsequence of them constitute an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\partial M)$? Are they solutions to some PDE?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I think you meant $\psi_k|_{\partial M}$ and $\partial_n\phi_k|_{\partial M}$ $\endgroup$
    – Liviu Nicolaescu
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 13:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are essentially asking about the image of a Poincaré-Steklov operator. I don't know the answer, but that term may help you do a more thorough search. $\endgroup$
    – Igor Khavkine
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ There cannot be a geometric (differential) operator naturally associated with the (nontrivial) traces of the Dirichlet or Neumann eigenfunctions, simply because there are too many of these traces. $\endgroup$
    – ifw
    Commented Apr 10, 2015 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ Hey ifw, could you elaborate? $\endgroup$
    – Matthias Ludewig
    Commented Apr 10, 2015 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the last point, one can also look at the oscillations of the $u_k$. This rules out the possibility of getting the same $u_k$ many times for any $M$ (not just the generic ones). $\endgroup$
    – ifw
    Commented Apr 10, 2015 at 16:38

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

Consider the Dirichlet eigenfunctions. Let $\Delta \phi_k + \lambda_k^2\phi_k=0$, where $0<\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \lambda_3\dots$, and $\displaystyle u_k = \frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial n}\bigr|_{\,\partial M}$. Here is a quotation from Bäcker, Fürstberger, Schubert, and Steiner when $\dim M=2$:

Our results show that the mean behaviour of the normalized boundary functions is very similar to the mean behaviour of eigenfunctions. The crucial difference between the two sequences of functions $\{\phi_k\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$, $\{u_k\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$ is that the eigenfunctions live on a two–dimensional space whereas the boundary functions live on a one–dimensional space. Since both $u_k$ and $\phi_k$ oscillate roughly with the same de Broglie wave length $2π/\lambda_k$, this leads to an overcompleteness of the set $\{u_k\}_{k\in\mathbb N}$. This statement can be made more explicit $\ldots$

More precisely, this means that for every $w \in C^\infty(\partial M)$ $$ w(s) = \sum_{k\in\mathbb N} \rho(\lambda-\lambda_k) w_k u_k(s) + O\left(1/\lambda\right) \tag{54} $$ holds with coefficients $$ w_k := \frac{\pi}{2\lambda_k^2}\int_{\partial M} w(s)u_k(s)\,ds. \tag{55} $$ This follows from ($\ldots$) by the method of stationary phase (see $\ldots$). Since $\rho$ is a rapidly decreasing function, this means that the boundary functions with spectral parameter $\lambda_k$ in an interval of fixed width around $\lambda$ form a complete set in the limit $\lambda\to\infty$. The number of these states grows like $\lambda$, in contrast to the number of all states up to energy $\lambda^2$, which, according to the Weyl formula, grows like $\lambda^2$. Therefore this result gives a quantitative measure of the overcompleteness of the set $\{u_k\}$.

In formulas (54), (55), $s$ is the generic point in the boundary $\partial M$, while $\rho\in S(\mathbb R)$ has Fourier transform which is even and compactly supported in a small neighborhood of $0$. Also the notation has been slightly adjusted (e.g., $\lambda_k$ in place of $k_n$ which is used by BFSS)

Similar results hold for the Neumann eigenfunctions and in higher dimensions, see e.g. Hassell and Barnett.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .