Scattering theory for repulsive Schrödinger operators and applications to limit circle problem
Kouichi Taira
Abstract.
In this note, we study existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvents of repulsive Schrödinger operators which may not be essentially self-adjoint on the Schwartz space. As a consequence, we construct L2-eigenfunctions associated with complex eigenvalues by a standard technique of scattering theory. In particular, we give another proof of the classical result via microlocal analysis: The repulsive Schrödinger operators with large repulsive exponent are not essentially self-adjoint on the Schwartz space.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider the following repulsive Schrödinger operator on Rn:
[TABLE]
where ⟨x⟩=(1+∣x∣2)1/2 and Op(V) is the Weyl quantization of a symbol V:R2n→R. We set
[TABLE]
Let p0(x,ξ)=∣ξ∣2−⟨x⟩2α and p(x,ξ)=p0(x,ξ)+V(x,ξ). In this paper, we always assume the following assumptions.
Assumption A**.**
We set
Suppose that V is of the form
[TABLE]
where ajk=akj, bj and c are real-valued smooth functions on Rn and satisfy
[TABLE]
with some 0<μ<1/2 and Cβ>0.
In particular, Op(V) is a symmetric differential operator and
[TABLE]
Assumption B**.**
For any M>0
[TABLE]
with some C>0 and R0>0.
We study stationary scattering theory of P and give an application to limit circle problem. The usual scattering theory is based on the limiting absorption principle: the resolvent bound
[TABLE]
and existence of the boundary values of the resolvent
[TABLE]
(\refresbd) is used in order to prove existence and completeness of the wave operators. (\refresbovalue) is used for a construction of generalized eigenfunctions of the stationary Schrödinger equation:
[TABLE]
The difficulty in the case of P with α>1 lies in the lack of essential self-adjointness of P on S(Rn). Since P may have many self-adjoint extensions, ”the boundary value of the resolvent” seems meaningless. The recent progress in the microlocal analysis gives another definition of the outgoing/incoming resolvents of pseudodifferential operators under some dynamical conditions. See [5] for the Anosov vector fields, [1] and [14] for the d’Alembertians in the scattering Lorentzian spaces. We apply this technique to the repulsive Schrödinger operator P even for α>1 and prove existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvents. Moreover, we show that P has many eigenfunctions associated with the eigenvalues λ∈C except for the discrete set. As a corollary, we give another proof of that P is not essentially self-adjoint for α>1 in view of scattering and microlocal theory. This is a classical result which is known as a typical limit circle case (for example, see [12]) when Op(V) is a multiplication operator. It seems to be new result when Op(V) is not a multiplication operator.
The repulsive Schrödinger operator is studied by several authors when Op(V) is a multiplication operator. Time-dependent scattering theory of the operator (\refrep) for 0<α≤1 is studied in [2] in the short-range case. They prove existence and completeness of the wave operator and existence of the asymptotic velocity. They also study that existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvent and the absence of L2-eigenvalues. The recent works in [9] and [10] extend some results in [2] for the long-range case. Moreover, in [9], the author of these papers proves the absence of eigenvalues in the Besov space is proved, where the order of Besov space is 2α−1. This result is an extension of well-known results for the usual Schrödinger operators (α=0) to the repulsive Schrödinger operators (0<α≤1).
From the usual stationary scattering theory of −Δ, we know that:
Eigenfunctions of −Δ associated with positive eigenvalues do not exist in the threshold weighted L2-space: L2,−21.
There are many eigenfunctions right above L2,−21:
[TABLE]
for each λ>0.
The result in [9] and [10] suggests that the above results hold for the repulsive Schrödinger operator with 0<α≤1 with threshold weight 2α−1. It is expected that these results also hold for α>1. In this paper, we almost justify these and we prove the existence of non-trivial L2-solution to
[TABLE]
for z∈C except for a discrete subset of C.
We introduce the variable order weighted L2-space L2,k+tm(x,ξ), where k,t∈R and m is a real-valued function on the phase space R2n. Though we give a precise definition of L2,k+tm(x,ξ) in Appendix A, we state properties of L2,k+tm(x,ξ) here: If u∈L2,k+tm(x,ξ), then
[TABLE]
for large R>0.
The following theorem is an analog of [5, Theorem 1.4].
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let t=0 and z∈C. We define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
is a Fredholm operator and coincides with the closure of (P−z) with domain S(Rn) with respect to its graph norm.
There exists a discrete subset Tα,t⊂C such that (\refPmap) is invertible for C∖Tα,t.
Remark 1.2*.*
By the standard radial point estimates and the propagation of singularities, it follows that Tα,t=Tα,sgnt is independent of ∣t∣ and Tα,t⊂C−sgnt={−(sgnt)Imz≥0}. Moreover, this theorem is true for 0<α≤1 if we replace z∈C above by z∈Csgnt (though Dtm depends on z). We leave their proofs to future work.
This theorem also gives the bijectivity of P−z in the usual weighted L2-spaces: Suppose z∈C∖Tα,t. For any f∈L(1−α)/2+ε with ε>0, there exists a unique solution u∈L2,(α−1)/2−ε to the equation
[TABLE]
where ”u is outgoing” says that (\refout) holds with k=(α−1)/2 and t=ε and ”u is incoming” says that (\refinc) holds with k=(α−1)/2 and t=−ε.
Moreover, we construct non-trivial L2 solutions to Pu=zu.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let α>1 and 0<∣t∣<1/2. For z∈C∖Tα,t, there exists u∈L2∖{0} such that Pu=zu.
Remark 1.4*.*
As is proved in Proposition 4.9, it follows that there are many eigenfucntions associated with z∈C∖Tα,t.
From Theorem 1.3 and the standard criterion for essential self-adjointness [12, Corollary after Theorem VIII.3], we conclude that P is not essentially self-adjoint if α>1.
Corollary 1.5**.**
Suppose α>1. Then P=Pα is not essentially self-adjoint on Cc∞(Rn) and S(Rn).
The repulsive Schrödinger operator P=Pα for large α is expected to have the same structure to the Laplace operator on a bounded open set in Rn. For a bounded open set Ω, it easily follows that the inclusion H02(Ω)↪L2(Ω) is compact. Here we note that H02(Ω) is the minimum domain of −Δ∣Cc∞(Ω). For the repulsive Schrödinger operator, we prove the similar result.
Theorem 1.6**.**
Define a Banach space
[TABLE]
with its graph norm. Then the inclusion Dminα↪L2 is compact.
Remark 1.7*.*
Dminα coincides with the minimal domain of P∣Cc∞(Rn), that is the domain of the closure of P∣Cc∞(Rn).
Corollary 1.8**.**
Let n=1 and PU be a self-adjoint extension of P. Then there exists {λk}k=1∞⊂R such that σ(PU)=σd(PU)={λk}k=1∞ and ∣λk∣→∞ as k→∞, where σ(PU) is the spectrum of PU and σd(PU) is the discrete spectrum of PU.
Remark 1.9*.*
For a relatively bounded open interval I⊂R, it is proved that each self-adjoint extension of −Δ∣Cc∞(I) has a discrete spectrum by mimicking the proof of Corollary 1.8. However, in the case of n≥2, the situation is dramatically different.
In fact, we consider the Klein Laplacian (−Δ with domain {u∈L2(Ω)∣Δu=0}+H02(Ω)) for the bounded domain with smooth boundary ∂Ω. The Klein Laplacian has a nonempty essential spectrum for n≥2. In fact, we note that any L2 harmonic functions on Ω lies in the domain of the Klein Laplacian. Since restrictions of harmonic functions on Rn to Ω are L2 harmonic functions on Ω and since the dimension of the set of all harmonic functions for n≥2 is infinite, we conclude that [math] is the eigenvalue with infinite multiplicity. In this way, it follows that the essential spectrum is not empty.
Remark 1.10*.*
As an analogy to −Δ on Ω, we naturally propose the following problems:
Does there exist a distinguish self-adjoint extension of P (such as the Friedrichs extension of −Δ∣Cc∞(Ω) in the case of −Δ on Ω)?
How is the structure of the self-adjoint extension of P? (More concretely, does there exist a self-adjoint extension of P which has a discrete spectrum?)
We fix some notations. S(Rn) denotes the set of all rapidly decreasing functions on Rn and S′(Rn) denotes the set of all tempered distributions on Rn. We use the weighted Sobolev space: L2,l=⟨x⟩−lL2(Rn), Hk=⟨D⟩−kL2(Rn) and Hk,l=⟨x⟩−l⟨D⟩−kL2(Rn) for k,l∈R. For Banach spaces X,Y, B(X,Y) denotes the set of all linear bounded operators form X to Y. For a Banach space X, we denote the norm of X by ∥⋅∥X. If X is a Hilbert space, we write the inner metric of X by (⋅,⋅)X, where (⋅,⋅)X is linear with respect to the right variable. We also denote ∥⋅∥L2=∥⋅∥L2(Rn) and (⋅,⋅)L2=(⋅,⋅)L2(Rn). We denote the distribution pairing by <⋅,⋅>. For I⊂R, we denote I±={z∈C∣Rez∈I,±Imz≥0}. We denote ⟨x⟩=(1+∣x∣2)1/2 for x∈Rn. Set
[TABLE]
Acknowledgment.
This work was supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists, KAKENHI Grant Number 17J04478 and the program FMSP at the Graduate School of Mathematics Sciences, the University of Tokyo. The author would like to thank Shu Nakamura for pointing out mistakes of the first draft and for useful comments. The author also would like to thank Kyohei Itakura, Kenichi Ito and Kentaro Kameoka for helpful discussions.
2. Preliminary
2.1. Notations and cut-off functions
In this subsection, we fix some notations and define cut-off functions which are used in this paper many times.
Let χ∈Cc∞(R,[0,1]) such that
[TABLE]
For R,L≥1 and 0<r≤1, set χˉ=1−χ and
[TABLE]
We often use the symbol
[TABLE]
2.2. Pseudodifferential operators
Set
[TABLE]
We denote the Weyl quantization of a∈C∞(R2n)∩S′(Rn) by Op(a):
[TABLE]
We denote OpS=Op(S) for S⊂S′(R2n).
Recall that if a is real-valued, then Op(a) is formally self-adjoint with respect to the metric on L2(Rn). We denote the composition of the Weyl calculus by #:
[TABLE]
The following lemmas is easily proved by a standard ε/3-argument.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let bL as in subsection 2.1 and Q∈Sk,l for some k,l∈R. Then the symbol of [Q,Op(bL)] is uniformly bounded in Sk−1,l−1 with respect to L≥1 and converges to [math] in Sk−1+ε,l−1+ε as L→∞ for any ε>0.
The following proposition is proved by the standard parametrix construction and Assumption B. We omit its proof.
Proposition 2.2** (Elliptic estimate).**
Let z∈C, k,l∈R, N>0 and k1,l1≥0 with k1+l1≤2. For R,M≥1 and γ>1, set
[TABLE]
Let γ>1. There exists R1>0 such that if R≥R1 and a,a1∈S0,0 are supported in Ωloc∪ΩR,γ,1∪ΩR,γ,2 and infsuppa∣a1∣>0, then there exists C>0 such that for u∈H−N,−N with Op(a1)Pu∈Hk,l, we have Op(a)u∈Hk+k1,l+αl1 and
[TABLE]
Here the constant C>0 is locally uniformly in Rez∈R.
The next lemma follows from a simple observation; ∣ξ∣∼∣x∣α on suppaR.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let k,l∈R. If u∈Hk,l, then Op(aR)u∈Hk+M,l−αM for M∈R, where aR is as in subsection 2.1.
Proof.
First, suppose ∣M∣≤1.
By a support property of aR, we have
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
with some C>0.
∎
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 (i)
For k∈R, we set
[TABLE]
3.1. Construction of an escape function
Take ρ∈C∞(R,[0,1]) such that
[TABLE]
We define
[TABLE]
where η(x,ξ)=x⋅ξ/∣x∣∣ξ∣ and aR is as in (\refcut2). Moreover, we set
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.1**.**
There exists R0≥1 such that if R≥R0, then
[TABLE]
where e(x,ξ)=ρ(η(x,ξ))(HpaR)(x,ξ)log⟨x⟩∈Sαα−1+0.
Proof.
We learn
[TABLE]
Note that the first line of the right hand side is positive for (x,ξ)∈ΩR. Moreover, we observe that ∣ξ∣∼∣x∣α on ΩR if R is large enough. For ∣η(x,ξ)∣≥1/4, it follows
[TABLE]
by (\refro21) and (\refro22). For ∣η(x,ξ)∣≤1/4, we have
[TABLE]
Thus we complete the proof.
∎
3.2. Fredholm properties
Let m=mR0 be as in subsection 3.1, where R0 is as in Lemma 3.1. Moreover, we set kα=(α−1)/2. Let Sk,tm(x,ξ)+l be as in Definition A.1 and let G~kα,tm(x,ξ)=⟨x⟩kα+tm(x,ξ)+S−∞,−∞ such that Op(G~kα,tm):S(Rn)→S(Rn) is invertible. Existence of such G~kα,tm is proved in Lemma A.3 (see also (A.1)). Moreover, the variable order weighted L2-space L2,kα+tm(x,ξ) is defined by
[TABLE]
By Lemma A.4 (ii), we have
[TABLE]
For t=0 and z∈C±, we set
[TABLE]
We note that the operator P on L2,kα+tm(x,ξ) is unitary equivalent to Ptm on L2,kα. This is why we study the Fredholm property of Ptm(z) instead of P in order to prove Theorem 1.1.
By the asymptotic expansion, we have
[TABLE]
since ∣ξ∣∼∣x∣α on suppm and G~0,tm=⟨x⟩tm(x,ξ)+S−∞,−∞.
Lemma 3.2**.**
We have
[TABLE]
for u∈S(Rn).
Proof.
By the construction, m is supported in suppaR. Hence we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1 and the sharp Ga˚rding inequality, we obtain the above inequality.
∎
Lemma 3.3**.**
Set D~tm(z)={u∈L2,(α−1)/2∣Ptm(z)u∈L2,(1−α)/2}. We consider D~tm(z) as a Banach space with its graph norm. Then S(Rn) is dense in D~tm(z).
Proof.
Let u∈D~tm(z). We recall that bL(x,ξ)=χ(∣x∣/L)χ(∣ξ∣/L) is as in (\refcut2). Since Op(bL)u→u in L2,(α−1)/2 and Op(bL)Ptm(z)u→Ptm(z)u in L2,(1−α)/2, it suffices to prove that [Ptm,Op(bL)]u→0 in L2,(1−α)/2.
We learn
[TABLE]
Since ∣ξ∣∼∣x∣α on aR, it follows that [Ptm(z),Op(bL)]Op(aR) is uniformly bounded in S0,α−1 and converges to [math] in S0,(α−1)/2+0. Lemma 2.1 and u∈L2,(α−1)/2 imply
[TABLE]
Moreover, since u∈L2,(α−1)/2 with Ptm(z)u∈L2,(1−α)/2, then the elliptic estimates (Proposition 2.2) implies (1−Op(aR))u∈Hk1,(1−α)/2+αl1 for k1,l1≥0 with k1+l1≤2. In particular,
[TABLE]
Since [Ptm(z),Op(bL)] is uniformly bounded in ∑j=02S1−j,jα−1 and converges to [math] in ∑j=02S1−j+ε,jα−1+ε for any ε>0, then Lemma 2.1 gives
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let I⊂R be a relativity compact interval. Then there exists C>0 such that for z∈Isgnt we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, (\ref13) and (\ref14) hold for z∈I−sgnt though the constant C>0 depends on Imz.
Proof.
First, we assume z∈Isgnt.
We prove (\ref13) only. Since Ptm(z)∗=(P−z)∗−itOp(Hp(mlog⟨x⟩))+OpS0,−2+0 holds, (\ref14) is similarly proved. By Lemma 3.3, we may assume u∈S(Rn).
By Lemma 3.2 and tImz≥0, then
[TABLE]
for u∈S(Rn).
Since tImz≥0, then we have
[TABLE]
By the elliptic estimate (Proposition 2.2) and the interpolation estimate, we have
[TABLE]
By using (\ref11), (\ref12) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain (\ref13) for u∈S(Rn).
Next, we prove that (\ref13) and (\ref14) hold for z∈I−sgnt though the constant C>0 depends on Imz. In fact, since (α−1)/2>(1−α)/2, then the elliptic estimate and the interpolation inequality implies that for any ε1>0,
[TABLE]
Taking ε1>0 small enough and use (\ref13) and (\ref14) for zˉ, we obtain (\ref13) for z∈I−sgnt.
∎
Remark 3.5*.*
Suppose t≥0. If Imz is large enough, then
[TABLE]
In fact, in (\ref11), we have a stronger bound:
[TABLE]
Hence the argument after (\ref11) implies
[TABLE]
We use the trivial bounds ∥u∥H−N,−N≤∥u∥L2 ∥u∥H−N,−N≤∥u∥L2,(α−1)/2 and we obtain (\ref15). Similarly, for t≤0, (\ref15) holds if −Imz is large enough.
Corollary 3.6**.**
A map
[TABLE]
is a Fredholm operator. Moreover, if tImz≥0 holds and ∣Imz∣ is large enough, then P−z is invertible.
Furthermore, (\refPtmmap) is an analytic family of Fredholm operators with index zero. Moreover, there exists a discrete set Tα,t⊂C such that (\refPtmmap) is invertible for z∈C∖Tα,t.
Remark 3.7*.*
Remark 3.5 implies that Ptm(z) is invertible for t≥0 and for large Imz>0. In fact, the injectivity of Ptm(z) follows from (\ref15) and the surjectivity follows from the injectivity of Ptm(z)∗.
Proof.
First, we prove that KerPtm(z)<∞ is of finite dimension and RanPtm(z) is closed. Let a bounded sequence uk∈D~tm(z) such that Ptm(z)uk is convergent in L2,(1−α)/2. Due to [7, Proposition 19.1.3], it suffices to prove that uk has a convergent subsequence in D~tm(z). It easily follows from (\ref13) and the compactness of the inclusion L2,(α−1)/2⊂H−N,−N.
Next, we prove that the cokernel of Ptm(z) is of finite dimension. To do this, it suffices to prove that the kernel of Ptm(z)∗:L2,(α−1)/2→D~tm(z)∗ is of finite dimension.
By definition, we have
[TABLE]
where we use Lemma 3.3 in the second line. If u∈L2,(α−1)/2 satisfies Ptm(z)∗u=0, then this equality holds in the distributional sense. The claim follows same as in the first half part of this proof.
The invertibility of (\refPtmmap) when tImz≥0 and when ∣Imz∣ is large follows from Remark 3.5 and its dual statement. The analytic Fredholm theorem [15, Theorem D.4] imply existence of Tα,t as above.
∎
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 1.1 follows from (\refunitary) and Corollary 3.6.
∎
4. Proof of Theorem 1.3
4.1. Outgoing/incoming parametrices
In this subsection, we construct outgoing/incoming parametrices of a solution to Pu=zu.
Set
[TABLE]
Moreover, we frequently use the following notation:
[TABLE]
The main result of this subsection is the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Fix a signature ± and a∈C∞(Sn−1). Then there exists φ±∈S1+α(Rn) such that
[TABLE]
where b(x)=∣x∣−2n−1+αχˉ(∣x∣/R)a(x^)∈S−2n−1+α(Rn) and x^=x/∣x∣.
Theorem 4.1 is proved by Propositions 4.2 and 4.5 below.
Proposition 4.2**.**
Fix a signature ±, z∈C and a∈C∞(Sn−1). Set b(x)=∣x∣−2n−1+αχˉ(∣x∣/R)a(x^)∈S−2n−1+α(Rn). Let φ±,z∈S1+α(Rn) be satisfying
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.2 directly follows from Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 below.
Lemma 4.3**.**
Fix a signature ± and z∈C. Let φ±,z and b be as in the above proposition.
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set k=−2n−1+α, then we note k+α−μ−1=−2n+1−α−μ. We write φ=φ± and φ0=φ0,±=±∣x∣1+α/(1+α). By a simple calculation, we have
[TABLE]
Due to b∈Sk and φ−φ0∈S1+α−μ, we observe
[TABLE]
Thus, it suffices to prove
[TABLE]
Since ∇φ0=±∣x∣α−1x,Δφ0=±(n−1+α)∣x∣α−1, we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let k∈R, φ∈S1+α(Rn) and b∈Sk(Rn). Set ψ(x,y)=∫01∇φ(tx+(1−t)y)dt. Then
[TABLE]
where L∈Sk+α−μ−1(Rn) is defined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
By a simple calculation, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Thus it suffices to compute L.
Since V is a polynomial of degree 2 with respect to ξ-varibble, we have
[TABLE]
Note that ∂ξ2V(2x+y,ψ(x,y))=∂ξ2V(2x+y,0) since V is a second order differential operator. By integrating by parts, L(x) is written as
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
Now we find approximate solutions to the eikonal equations:
[TABLE]
In [6], solutions to eikonal equations is used for constructing eigenfunctions of a usual Schrödinger operator −Δ+V with a long range perturbation. Isozaki [8] proved the existence of solutions to eikonal equations for −Δ+V by using the estimates for the classical trajectories. In our case, we cannot directly apply this strategy since the classical trajectories may blow up at finite time. Instead, we use iteration and construct the approximate solutions to (\refeikonalr) even for z∈/R.
Proposition 4.5**.**
Set φ0,±(x)=φ0,±(x,z)=±1+α∣x∣α+1±z2(1−α)∣x∣1−α. Let R≥1 be large enough. Then for any integer N>0, there exists φN,±∈S1+α(Rn) such that φN,±−φN−1,±∈S1+α−Nμ(Rn), Im(φN,±−φ0,±)∈S0(Rn), φN,±−φN−1,± is supported in ∣x∣≥R and
[TABLE]
Remark 4.6*.*
Such construction of φN succeeds for 0<α<1. For α=1 and z∈R, we have to replace φ0,±(x,z)=±2∣x∣2±2zlog∣x∣.
Proof.
We find φN,±∈S1+α(Rn) of the form
[TABLE]
By a simple calculation, we have
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
Note Ime1,±∈S1−α−μ(Rn).
Then (∇φ1,±(x))2−∣x∣2α+V(x,∇φ1,±(x))−z is equal to
[TABLE]
and this term belongs to S2α−2μ(Rn).
In fact, ∇φ0,±+t∇e1,±(x)=∣x∣α−1x+O(∣x∣α−μ) and hence ∂ξV(x,∇φ0,±+t∇e1,±)=O(∣x∣α−μ) uniformly in 0≤t≤1.
For N≥1, we define φN∈Sα+1 and eN∈Sα+1−Nμ inductively as follows:
[TABLE]
We note ImeN,±∈S1−α−Nμ(Rn).
For ∣x∣≥2R, we have
[TABLE]
modulo S2α−(N+2)μ. Hence
[TABLE]
modulo S2α−(N+2)μ. Moreover, we have Im(φN,±∓z2(1−α)∣x∣1−α)∈S0(Rn) since ImeN,±∈S1−α−Nμ(Rn) and α>1. This completes the proof.
∎
Proof of Theorem 4.1.
Fix a signature ±. Let N>0 be an integer such that
[TABLE]
We take φ=φ±=φ±,N as in Proposition 4.5. Then Proposition 4.2 gives Theorem 4.1.
∎
4.2. Construction of the L2-solutions, proof of Theorem 1.3
Now we construct the L2-solutions to
[TABLE]
where u is of the form
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
Set V~(x,ξ)=V(x,ξ)−(⟨x⟩2α−∣x∣2α)χˉ(2∣x∣/R) for R>0. Let φ−∈S1+α and b=∣x∣−2n−1+αχˉ(∣x∣/R)a(x^) be as in Theorem 4.1 with V~, where a∈C∞(Sn−1)∖{0}. Since χˉ(2∣x∣/R)χˉ(∣x∣/R)=χˉ(∣x∣/R) and S−2n+1−α−μ(Rn)⊂L2,21−α+μ, we have
[TABLE]
Now we take 0<t<min(μ/2,(α−1)/2) and m=mR0 be as in subsection 3.1, where R0 is as in Lemma 3.1. Since
[TABLE]
then there exists u1∈L2,(α−1)/2+tm(x,ξ) such that
[TABLE]
by Theorem 1.1. We set u=u1+eiφ−b∈L2, then u satisfies (P−z)u=0 since t<(α−1)/2. Finally, we prove u=0. In order to prove this, we use the wavefront condition of u1 and eiφ−b.
Lemma 4.7**.**
Set u0=eiφ−b, where b(x)=∣x∣−2n−1+αχˉ(∣x∣/R)a(x^) and a∈C∞(Sn−1)∖{0}. Let bR1,δ(x,ξ)=χ((η(x,ξ)+1)/δ)aR1(x,ξ) and AR1,δ=Op(bR1,δ) for 0<δ<1 small enough and R1≥1 large enough. Then AR1,δu0∈/L2,2α−1.
Proof.
By (\refu0), Proposition 2.2 implies that (1−Op(aR))u0∈L2,(α−1)/2.
Moreover, by a simple calculation, we have
[TABLE]
Note that if r1,δ are small and R1 is large, for (x,ξ)∈supp(aR1−bR1,δ)
[TABLE]
Since u0∈/L2,(α−1)/2 and u0∈∩ε>0L2,(α−1)/2−ε, we have
[TABLE]
by a symbol calculus and (\refrad). Thus if we suppose AR1,δu0∈L2,2α−1, then u0∈L2,2α−1 follows. However, this is a contradiction since u0∈/L2,(α−1)/2 by a simple calculation.
∎
Lemma 4.8**.**
For 0<δ<1 small enough and R1≥1 large enough, AR1,δu1∈L2,2α−1.
Proof.
Note that u1∈L2,(α−1)/2−tm(x,ξ)=Op(G~(α−1)/2,−tm)−1L2, 0<t<(α−1)/2 and G~(α−1)/2,−tm=⟨x⟩(α−1)/2−tm(x,ξ) by (\refGinvdef). Moreover, we note m(x,ξ)=−1 on suppbR1,δ if 0<δ<1 is small enough and R1≥1 is large enough. Thus AR1,δu∈L2,(α−1)/2.
∎
By the above two lemmas, we obtain u=u0+u1=0. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.3.
∎
Finally, we prove that there are many eigenfunctions associated with λ∈C∖Tα,t.
Proposition 4.9**.**
Suppose that a,a′∈C∞(Sn−1) are linearly independent. Let u,u′∈L2∖ be corresponding eigenfunctions as in (\refefform). Then u,u′ are also linearly independent.
Proof.
By (\refefform) and Lemma 4.8, we write
[TABLE]
where u1,u1′∈L2 satisfy AR1,δu1,AR1,δu1′∈L2,2α−1, where AR1,δ is defined in Lemma 4.7. Suppose that L,L′∈C satisfy
[TABLE]
It suffices to prove that La(x^)+L′a′(x^)=0 for x^∈Sn−1. Suppose La(x^)+L′a′(x^)=0 for some x^∈Sn−1. By Lemma 4.7, we have
[TABLE]
(\reflinindep) and (\reflin2) imply
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction.
∎
5. Proof of Theorem 1.6 and Corollary 1.8
5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.6
.
Note that if α≤1, then Dminα={u∈L2∣Pu∈L2} since P is essentially self-adjoint on S(Rn) for α≤1. However, it follows that Dminα={u∈L2∣Pu∈L2} for α>1.
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let α>1. For δ>0, there exists C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for u∈Dminα, where we recall that a2R is as in (\refcut2).
Proof.
First, we prove (\refsmo1) for u∈S(Rn).
We may assume 0<δ<μ. Set
[TABLE]
We note that ∣x∣>2R, ∣ξ∣≥2R and ∣x∣α∼∣ξ∣ hold for (x,ξ)∈suppbR.
For (x,ξ)∈suppbR, we have
[TABLE]
with C>0 if R>0 is large enough. Since HVbR∈S0,α−1−μ and 0<δ<μ, we see
[TABLE]
where eR∈S0,α−1 is supported away from the elliptic set of P. By the sharp Ga˚rding inequality, we have
[TABLE]
for any u∈S(Rn). Take R1≥1 such that a2RaR1=a2R. Substituting Op(aR1) into (\refsmoes) and using the disjoint support property and a support property of aR1, then we have
[TABLE]
for u∈S(Rn) with some C>0. Using the elliptic estimate Proposition 2.2 in order to estimate the term (u,Op(eR)u)L2, we have
[TABLE]
for u∈S(Rn) with some C>0. Thus we obtain (\refsmo1) for u∈S(Rn).
In order to prove (\refsmo1) for u∈Dminα, it remains to use a standard density argument. Let u∈Dminα. By definition of Dminα, there exists uk∈Cc∞(Rn) such that uk→u and Puk→Pu in L2(Rn). Substituting uk into (\refsmo1), we have
[TABLE]
Hence Op(a2R)uk has a weak*-convergence subsequence in L2,2α−1−δ and its accumulation point is Op(a2R)u. Thus we obtain Op(a2R)u∈L2,2α−1−δ and
[TABLE]
∎
Combining this lemma with the elliptic estimate Proposition 2.2 and Lemma 2.3, we have the following proposition:
Proposition 5.2**.**
Let α>1 and 0≤β1,β2≤4 with β1+β2=1. For δ>0, there exists C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for u∈Dminα. In particular, the natural embedding Dminα↪L2(Rn) is compact, where we regard Dminα as a Banach space equipped with its graph norm.
This proposition gives the proof of Theorem 1.6.
5.2. Proof of Corollary 1.8
Note that Dminα is the domain of the closure of P∣Cc∞(R). Set
[TABLE]
We easily see that Dα is the domain of (P∣Cc∞(R))∗. Moreover, it follows that the action of (P∣Cc∞(R))∗ on Dα is in the distributional sense. In particular, we have
[TABLE]
We use the following von-Neumann theorem.
Lemma 5.3**.**
[12, Theorem X.2 and Corollary after Theorem X.2]**
Set H±=KerL2(P∓i). Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between self-adjoint extensions of P∣Cc∞(R) and unitary operators from H+ to H−. Moreover, for U∈B(H+,H−) be a unitary operator , we define
[TABLE]
Then P is self-adjoint on DU.
Now suppose n=1. We prove that each self-adjoint extension of P∣Cc∞(R) has a discrete spectrum.
Lemma 5.4**.**
dimH+=dimH−=2.
Proof.
By [12, Theorem X.1], it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
for some μ>0.
We note dimKerL2(P±iμ)≤2 by uniqueness of solutions to ODE. Hence it suffices to prove dimKerL2(P±iμ)≥2. We observe Sn−1=S0={±1} and dimC∞({±1})=2. By Proposition 4.9, the discreteness of Tα,t imply that for some μ∈C∖R∪Tα,t there exists linearly independent functions such that u±,u±′∈KerL2(P±iμ). This gives dimKerL2(P±iμ)≥2.
∎
The following proposition is a variant of [12, Theorem XIII.64]. We do not know whether a self-adjoint extension of P∣Cc∞(Rn) is bounded from below. Hence we cannot apply [12, Theorem XIII.64] with our case directly in order to prove Corollary 1.8.
Proposition 5.5**.**
Let H be a Hilbert space and A be a self-adjoint operator on H. Suppose that (A+i)−1 is a compact operator on H. Then there exists {λj}j=1∞⊂R such that ∣λk∣→∞ as k→∞ and σ(A)=σd(A)={λj}j=1∞, where σ(A) is the spectrum of A and σd(A) is the discrete spectrum of A.
Proof.
First, we prove existence of λ∈R∖σ(A). To prove this, we use a contradiction argument. Suppose σ(A)=R.
Set B=(A−i)−1(A+i)−1=f(A), where f(t)=1/(t2+1). By the spectrum mapping theorem, we have σ(B)=[0,1]. On the other hand, by the assumption of the lemma, it follows that B is a compact self-adjoint operator on H. This contradicts to σ(B)=[0,1].
We let λ∈R∖σ(A) and set T=(A−λ)−1. Since (A+i)−1 is compact and since λ∈R, it easily follows that T is a compact self-adjoint operator. By the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem [12, Theorem VI.16], there exist a complete orthonormal basis φk∈H and a sequence μk∈R such that
[TABLE]
We note that φk belongs to the domain of A since φk∈RanT and since RanT is contained in the domain of A. Moreover, we observe μk=0. In fact, suppose μk=0 holds. Multiplying (\refcptef) by A−λ, we have φk=0, which is a contradiction. By (\refcptef), we have
[TABLE]
Note ∣λk∣→∞ as k→∞.
Since λk has no accumulation point in R, it suffices to prove σ(A)={λk}k=1∞. To see this, we prove that A−z has a bounded inverse for z∈R∖{λk}k=1∞. We set
[TABLE]
and c=infk≥1∣λk−z∣. Since λk has no accumulation point in R, we have c>0. Thus we have
[TABLE]
Hence R(z) is a bounded operator on H. Moreover, (A−z)R(z)ψ=ψ holds by (\refresol). These imply z∈/R∖σ(A). Thus we have σ(A)={λj}j=1∞.
Moreover, it follows that σd(A)=σ(A) holds since dimKer(A−λk)=dimKer(T−μk)<∞.
∎
By virtue of Lemma 5.4 and [12, Corollary after Theorem X.2], it follows that P∣Cc∞(R) has a self-adjoint extension.
Proof of Corollary 1.8.
Fix U∈ be a unitary operator and let DU be as in Lemma 5.3.
By virtue of Proposition 5.5, it suffices to prove that the inclusion DU⊂L2 is compact, where we regard DU as a Hilbert space equipped with the graph norm of P.
Let φj∈DU be a bounded sequence in DU:
[TABLE]
We only need to prove that φj has a convergent subsequence in L2.
We write φj=uj+vj+Uvj, where uj∈Dminα and vj∈H+.
By [12, Lemma before Theorem X.2], we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, uj and vj are bounded in DU. Since uj∈Dminα, it follows that uj has a convergent subsequence {ujk} in L2. Moreover, we see that vjk∈H+ has a convergent subsequence in L2 due to the finiteness of the dimension of H+. Thus we conclude that φj has a convergent subsequence in L2.
∎
Appendix A Variable order spaces
In this Appendix, we give a construction of variable order weighted L2-spaces. Here, we follow the argument in [4]. See [1, Appendix A] for other ways of constructions.
Let m∈S0,0 be real-valued and k,t∈R. Suppose ∣m(x,ξ)∣≤1 for (x,ξ)∈R2n. Set Gk,tm(x,ξ)=⟨x⟩k+tm(x,ξ). Set l(x)=⟨log⟨x⟩⟩.
Definition A.1**.**
For a∈C∞(R2n), we say that for a∈Ss,k+tm(x,ξ) if
[TABLE]
for γ1,γ2∈Nn.
Note that Gk,tm∈S0,k+tm(x,ξ).
Lemma A.2**.**
An unbounded operator Op(Gk,tm) on L2(Rn) with domain S(Rn) admits a self-adjoint extension.
Proof.
By virtue of[12, Theorem X.23], it suffices to prove that Op(Gk,tm) is bounded below in S(Rn).
We note Gk,tm(x,ξ)=Gk/2,tm/2(x,ξ)2. By the standard construction (see [4, Lemma 13]), there exists Rj∈S−j,k/2−j+0+tm(x,ξ)/2 such that
[TABLE]
where (⋅)∗ denotes the adjoint symbol. By the Borel summation theorem, we have
[TABLE]
Thus we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
We denote a self-adjoint extension of Op(Gk,tm) in L2(Rn) by G(t) and its domain by DG(t).
Lemma A.3**.**
There exists R1(t)∈OpS−∞,−∞ such that Op(Gk,tm)+R1(t) is invertible in S(Rn)→S(Rn). Moreover, its inverse is a pseudodifferential operator with its symbol in S0,−k−tm(x,ξ). Moreover, the symbol of its inverse is G−k,−tm+S−1,−k−1−tm(x,ξ)+0.
Proof.
We follow the argument as in [4, Appendix Lemma 12]. We decompose L2=RanL2G(t)⊕KerL2G(t). We denote the orthogonal projection into KerL2G(t) by π(t):L2→KerL2G(t). By the standard parametrix construction of G(t), we see that KerL2G(t)⊂S(Rn) and KerL2G(t) is of finite dimension. This implies π(t)∈OpS−∞,−∞. We define G~(t)=G(t)(I−π(t))+π(t)∈OpS0,k+tm(x,ξ). We observe that G~(t):DG(t)→L2 is invertible. We set R1(t)=(I−G(t))π(t)∈OpS−∞,−∞, then G~(t)=G(t)+R1(t).
We show that G~(t) is invertible in S(Rn)→S(Rn). This map is injective since G~(t) is injective in DG(t)→L2. Next, we prove that G~(t):S(Rn)→S(Rn) is surjective. To see this, let f∈S(Rn). Since G~(t):DG(t)→L2 is invertible, there exists u∈DG(t) such that G(t)u=f. By using existence of the parametrix of G~(t), we obtain u∈S(Rn).
Finally, we show that the inverse of G~(t) belongs to OpS0,−k−tm(x,ξ) and its symbol is G−k,−tm+S−1,−k−1−tm(x,ξ)+0. Let Q(t) is the parametrix of G~(t): Q(t)G~(t)=I+R2(t), where R2(t)∈OpS−∞,−∞. Then the symbol of Q(t) is G−k,−tm+S−1,−k−1−tm(x,ξ)+0. Moreover, we observe
[TABLE]
in S(Rn)→S(Rn). By the open mapping theorem, G~(t)−1 is continuous in S(Rn)→S(Rn). Thus we have R2(t)G~(t)−1∈OpS−∞,−∞. We conclude that G~(t)=Q(t)−R2(t)G~(t)∈OpS0,−k−tm(x,ξ) and its symbol is G−k,−tm(x,ξ)+S−1,−k−1−tm(x,ξ)+0.
∎
Let G~k,tm∈S0,k+tm(x,ξ) such that
[TABLE]
By Lemma A.3 and duality, Op(G~k,tm):S′(Rn)→S′(Rn) is also invertible.
Now we define the variable order weighted L2 space by
[TABLE]
for k∈R and ∣t∣<1/2 and its inner metric by
[TABLE]
Then L2,k+tm(x,ξ) is a Hilbert space.
We state some properties of L2,k+tm(x,ξ).
Lemma A.4**.**
(L2,k+tm(x,ξ))∗=L2,−k−tm(x,ξ).
For u∈S′(Rn), u∈L2,k+tm(x,ξ) if and only if ⟨x⟩ku∈L2,tm(x,ξ). Moreover, there exists C>0 such that u∈L2,k+tm(x,ξ)
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) This follows from the fact that the symbol of the inverse of Op(G~k,tm) belongs to S0,−k−tm(x,ξ).
(ii) Note that Op(G~0,tm)⟨x⟩kOp(G~k,tm)−1 and Op(G~k,tm)⟨x⟩−kOp(G~0,tm)−1 is bounded in L2 by Lemma A.3. We are done.
∎