arXiv:1703.03667v3 [math-ph] 20 Apr 2018

PAVEL EXNER, VLADIMIR LOTOREICHIK, AND AXEL P ´EREZ-OBIOL

ABSTRACT. This paper is mainly inspired by the conjecture about the existence of bound states for magnetic Neumann Laplacians on planar wedges of any apertureφ∈(0, π). So far, a proof was only obtained for aperturesφ . 0.511π. The conviction in the validity of this conjecture for aperturesφ&0.511πmainly relied on numerical computations. In this paper we succeed to prove the existence of bound states for any apertureφ.0.583π using a variational argument with suitably chosen test functions. Employing some more involved test functions and combining a variational argument with computer-assistance, we extend this interval up to any apertureφ . 0.595π. Moreover, we analyse the same question for closely related problems concerning magnetic Robin Laplacians on wedges and for magnetic Schr ¨odinger operators in the plane with δ-interactions supported on broken lines.

1. INTRODUCTION

Our first motivation comes from the problem of finding the ground state energy for the magnetic Neumann Laplacian, with a large magnetic field, on a bounded domain. This problem arises in the analysis of the Ginzburg-Landau equation in the regime of onset superconductivity in a surface, occurring when the intensity of an exterior magnetic field decreases from a large, critical value; see e.g. [FH09, J01,LP99a], the monograph [FH], and the references therein.

Large field values for the magnetic Laplacian are equivalent, via scaling, to the semi- classical limit of the magnetic Schr ¨odinger operators. In this limit, themagnetic Neumann Laplacian on a wedgeemerges, after some derivation, as a model in the problem for do- mains with corners. Notably, spectral properties of this model operator are manifested in the semi-classical asymptotic expansion for the ground state eigenvalue of the initial magnetic Schr ¨odinger operator on such a cornered domain; seee.g. [BDP16, BF07, J01, P13] and the monographs [FH,R] for details. This mathematical problem resonates with the recent interest in surface superconductivity in presence of corners; see [CG17] and the references therein.

Some results about magnetic Schr ¨odinger operators on domains with corners in the semi-classical limit [BDP16,R] have been proven assuming that certain spectral proper- ties of magnetic Neumann Laplacians on wedges are valid. However, rigorous proofs

2010Mathematics Subject Classification. 35P15 (primary); 58J50, 81Q37 (secondary).

Key words and phrases. magnetic Laplacian, homogeneous magnetic field, wedge-type domains, Neu- mann and Robin boundary conditions, δ-interactions, existence of bound states, min-max principle, test functions, numerical optimisation.

1

arXiv:1703.03667v3 [math-ph] 20 Apr 2018

of these properties are missing and only numerical evidences supporting them are avail- able. The existence of bound states for any aperture in the interval(0, π)is a prominent open problem of this type.

A similar question can be asked if the Neumann condition at the boundary is replaced by a Robin one, a problem which has recently gained attention [FRTS16,GKS16,KN15].

Moreover, one can study in the same line magnetic Schr ¨odinger operators in the plane with a singular interaction of δ-type supported by a wedge type structure, namely a broken line consisting of two half-lines meeting at the angleφ∈(0, π). We know that in the absence of the magnetic field such a system has a non-void discrete spectrum [EI01], and one asks whether this property persists in the presence of the magnetic field. Singular Schr ¨odinger operators of this type are used to modelleaky quantum wiresand, apart of a few results [EY02], not much is known about their properties in the magnetic case [E08, Problem 7.15].

In the present paper, we study the existence of bound states for magnetic Laplacians on wedge-type structures with the homogeneous magnetic field and with both Robin andδboundary conditions. These operators are fully characterized by the strengthβ ∈ R of the surface interaction and the opening angle φ ∈ (0, π) of the wedge. Making use of the min-max principle with suitable test functions we prove, for both boundary conditions, existence of bound states for sub-domains of the parametric space (φ, β). In the Robin setting, we put a particular emphasis on the case β = 0, corresponding to the Neumann boundary condition. In this case, we analytically prove the existence of a bound state up to φ . 0.583π. This is a notable improvement with respect to the previously known limit,φ .0.511π; cf. [B03,B05,J01,Pa02]. Using more sophisticated test functions and additionally involving computer-assistance we managed to increase this limit up to φ . 0.595π. We emphasize that this computer-assistance is different in nature from the numerical analysis in [BDMV06]. In fact, it is only needed to avoid dealing with tedious formulae and that the whole analysis can be, in principle, performed analytically.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section2we describe the geometric setting, de- fine the Hamiltonians, and provide the notation used throughout the rest of the paper. In Section3we formulate and discuss the main results obtained in the paper. These results are proved in the two following sections: in Section 4we treat the magnetic Neumann and Robin Laplacians on wedges, and in Section5theδ-interaction on a broken line in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field. Finally, in AppendixAwe obtain variational characterisations for the bottoms of the essential spectra and explore their additional use- ful properties.

2. MAGNETICHAMILTONIANS ON WEDGE-TYPE STRUCTURES

First, we describe the geometric setting. In what follows, by a wedge of an aperture φ ∈ (0,2π)we understand an unbounded domain in R², which is defined in the polar coordinates(r, θ)by

(2.1) Ω_φ:=

(r, θ)∈R+×S¹:θ∈(0, φ) ⊂R²;

see Figure1. Note that for any φ ∈ (0, π]the Euclidean planeR² can be naturally split

Ωφ

φ

FIGURE1. WedgeΩφwith the apertureφ∈(0,2π).

into the wedgeΩ_φand the non-convex ‘wedge’Ω2π−φ, provided that the latter is rotated by the angle φ counterclockwise. The common boundary of these two wedges is the broken line Γφ ⊂ R² consisting of two half-lines meeting at the angle φ ∈ (0, π]. The complementary angleπ−φcan be viewed as the ‘deficit’ of the broken lineΓφfrom the straight line.

Next we note that, since the considered geometry is scale invariant, we may assume without loss of generality that our magnetic field, homogeneous and perpendicular to the plane, satisfiesB = 1. We select the gauge by choosing the vector potentialA: R² → R² as

A(x1, x2) =1

2(−x₂, x1)^>, x= (x1, x2)∈R², and define the associated magnetic gradient by∇_A :=i∇+A.

To describe all the situations mentioned in the introduction simultaneously, let Ω ∈ {Ω_φ,R²} be fixed, where Ωφ ⊂ R² is a wedge as in (2.1), and denote, for the sake of brevity,Γ = Γ_φ. With this notation, we introduce the magnetic first-order Sobolev space onΩby

(2.2) H_A¹(Ω) :=

u∈L²(Ω) : ∇_Au∈L²(Ω;C²) ,

where ∇_A is computed in the distributional sense; cf. [LL01, §7.20] for details. Finally, we define our operator of interest in the Hilbert spaceL²(Ω)with the boundary/coupling parameterβ ∈ Ras the self-adjoint operator associated via the first representation the- orem [K, Thm. VI 2.1] to the closed, densely defined, semi-bounded, and symmetric quadratic form¹

(2.3) H_A¹(Ω)3u7→h[u] :=k∇_Auk²_L2(Ω;C²)−βku|_Γk²_L2(Γ),

whereu|_Γstands for the trace ofu∈H_A¹(Ω)ontoΓ;cf. [McL, Thm. 3.38]. We denote the form hin (2.3) forΩ = Ωφbyh_R,φ,β and for Ω =R² byh_δ,φ,β. The operators associated with the forms h_R,φ,β and h_δ,φ,β will be denoted by H_R,φ,β and by H_δ,φ,β, respectively.

For β = 0 the operator H_N,φ := H_R,φ,0 corresponding to the form h_N,φ := h_R,φ,0 is the classicalmagnetic Neumann Laplacianon the wedgeΩ_φ, extensively studied,e.g., in [B05, J01,P12,P13,P15], see also the monographs [FH,R] and the references therein. Forβ 6= 0 the operator HR,φ,β can be interpreted as the magnetic Robin Laplacian on Ωφ discussed

1Closedness and semi-boundedness ofh[·]follow by a standard argument from the diamagnetic inequal- ity [LL01, Thm. 7.21] and from the inequalityku|Γk²_L2(Γ)≤εk∇uk²_L2(Ω;C²)+C(ε)kuk²_L2(Ω), which holds for anyε >0and someC(ε)>0(seee.g.[BEL14, Lem. 2.6]).

e.g.in [K06]. Finally, the operator Hδ,φ,β can be seen as the magnetic Schr¨odinger operator with aδ-interactionsupported on the broken lineΓ;cf. [E08,EY02,Oˇz06].

The bottoms of the essential spectra forH_R,φ,βandH_δ,φ,βare denoted by (2.4) Θ_R,β:= infσ_ess(H_R,φ,β) and Θ_δ,β := infσ_ess(H_δ,φ,β).

In TheoremA.1we provide the variational characterisations forΘ_R,βandΘ_δ,βwhich will be used throughout the paper. For the major part of our discussion it is only important to know that these thresholds do not depend on the apertureφ∈(0, π]of the wedge. Note also that in the Neumann case,β = 0, we haveΘ0 := ΘR,0 ≈0.5901according to [J01, Sec.

II]. The constant Θ0 is usually referred to asde Gennes constantand is characterized via the lowest eigenvalue of the shifted harmonic oscillator on the half-line;cf. AppendixA.

3. MAIN RESULTS

As indicated in the abstract, the results of this paper are mainly connected with and motivated by the conjecture [FH, Conj. 4.4.1] (see also [B05, Rem. 2.4]), namely

(3.1) σ_d(H_N,φ)∩(0,Θ₀)6=∅, ∀φ∈(0, π),

which has been so far only proven for φ . 0.511π, see [J01, Prop. 2.11], [Pa02, Sec.

2], [B05, Prop. 2.5 and Prop. 4.2], and [B03, Rem. 5.4]. A survey of the known results can be found in [FH, Sec. 4.4]; see also [B03, Sec. 11.3] and [P12, Sec. 3.2] for further details.

The validity of (3.1) forφ & 0.511πis still open to the best of our knowledge, although numerical computations in [BDMV06] confirm it. In this context we prove the following results.

Theorem 3.1. Letφ∈(0, π)andβ ∈Rbe fixed. Let the polynomialP_φ,β(x)of the 4-th degree be defined by

(3.2) Pφ,β(x) :=x⁴

2φ−πtanh φ

2

−8ΘR,βφx²−16β√

πx+ 8φ.

Ifmin_x∈(0,∞)P_φ,β(x)<0, thenσ_d(H_R,φ,β)∩(−∞,Θ_R,β)6=∅holds.

The method of the proof of Theorem3.1relies on the min-max principle, in which we use test functions given in the polar coordinates(r, θ)by

(3.3) u_?(r, θ) =e^−ar2/2exp icrh

e^θ−e^φ−θi

, a, c >0.

The statement then follows upon analytical optimization with respect to the parameters a, c > 0. This particular choice of the test function is inspired by the proof of [J01, Prop.

2.11]. The main novelty consists in the choice of the angular-dependent coefficient in the imaginary exponent via the functional derivative, which makes the choice optimal within a certain class of test functions;cf. Subsection4.1for details.

Computing Θ_R,β numerically and analysing the conditionmin_x∈(0,∞)P_φ,β(x) < 0we show that at least one bound state forHR,φ,βbelow the thresholdΘR,βexists for a region in the (φ, β)-plane, plotted in Figure 2. Note that our results imply the existence of a bound state below the threshold of the essential spectrum forβ <0with small absolute value. We note that this cannot happen without the presence of a magnetic field.

minx∈(0,∞)Pϕ,β(x) >0 min_x∈(0,∞)P_ϕ,β(x) <0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

π 4

ϕ* 3π

4

π

π

β

ϕ*≃0.509π

FIGURE2. The region in the(φ, β)-plane in which we prove existence of at least one bound state forH_R,φ,β belowΘ_R,β.

For largeβ >0we get the following consequence of Theorem3.1using the properties ofΘ_R,β, shown in CorollaryA.2(i) and (ii).

Corollary 3.2. For anyφ∈(0,√

π)(i.e.φ.0.564π),

σd(HR,φ,β)∩(−∞,ΘR,β)6=∅, for allβ > 1 2





2φ−πtanh φ

2

√π−φ





1 4

.

In the case of Neumann boundary conditions (β = 0) the expression for the polynomial in (3.2) simplifies and one can derive from Theorem3.1thatσ_d(H_N,φ)∩(−∞,Θ₀)6=∅for allφ.0.509π. This interval of admissible apertures does not beat the previously known φ . 0.511π. In order to obtain a better result we use test functions of a more general structure:

(3.4) u?(r, θ) =e^−ar2/2exp i

N

X

k=1

r^kbk(θ)

!

, N ∈N,

with the parameter a > 0 and arbitrary real-valued functions b_k ∈ C^∞([0, φ]), k = 1,2, . . . , N. Using functional derivative we observe that the optimal choice of {b_k}^N_k=1 is necessarily a solution of a certain system of linear second-order ordinary differential equations on the interval [0, φ]with constant coefficients. Employing the Ansatz (3.4) withN = 2we get the following result.

Theorem 3.3. Lets:=√

9−2π,µ1,2 := ^√s±1_4−π, andν1,2 :=

√4−π(3−π±s)

2(1±s) . Ifφ∈(0, π)is such that

(3.5) 2φsΘ²₀

2φs−µ²₁µ²₂

ν1tanh ¹₂µ1φ

+ν2tanh ¹₂µ2φ ⁻¹>1, thenσ_d(H_N,φ)∩(−∞,Θ₀)6=∅.

The condition (3.5) is satisfied, thus yielding the existence of at least one bound state forHN,φbelowΘ0, for allφ.0.583π. This new limit is a significant improvement of the previously known intervalφ.0.511π.

Using the Ansatz (3.4) with N = 4we confirm the validity of (3.1) for φ . 0.595π.

These computations are performed partly numerically, because making them fully an- alytical inevitably leads to tedious formulæ; see Subsection 4.2 for details. Performing computational experiments, we observe that the Ansatz (3.4) cannot be used to confirm the validity of (3.1) forφ&0.6π.

As for the case of magnetic Sch ¨odinger operator H_δ,φ,β with δ-interaction, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 3.4. Letφ∈(0, π)andβ >0be fixed. LetF_φ,β(·)be defined by² (3.6) Fφ,β(x, y) = 1 + x⁴

4 −x²Θδ,β−βxπ^−1/2e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y)). Ifinf_{x,y∈(0,∞)}F_φ,β(x, y)<0, thenσ_d(H_δ,φ,β)∩(−∞,Θ_δ,β)6=∅.

In order to prove Theorem 3.4, it is convenient to change the gauge by rotating and shifting the vector potential associated to the magnetic field. Equivalently, one can rotate and shift the broken lineΓ, which is how we proceed. Specifically, we rotate the broken lineΓby the angleπ/4−φ/2counterclockwise and shift it by the vector(−c,−c)^>, where c > 0 is a parameter to be determined. Applying the min-max principle with the test function given in the polar coordinates(r, θ)by

(3.7) u?(r, θ) :=e^−ar2/2, a >0,

we obtain the claim upon analytical optimization with respect to the parametersa, c >0.

Computing Θδ,β and analysing the conditioninf(x,y)∈(0,∞)Fφ,β(x, y) < 0we observe the existence of at least one bound state forH_δ,φ,β below the thresholdΘ_δ,β for a region in the(φ, β)-plane, plotted in Figure3.

Using the expansion ofΘ_δ,βin the limitβ →0+given in CorollaryA.2(iii) and a lower bound onΘ_δ,β in CorollaryA.2(i) we get the following consequence of Theorem3.4.

Corollary 3.5. The following claims hold.

(i) For anyφ∈ 0,¹₃π

,σd(Hδ,φ,β)∩(−∞,Θδ,β)6=∅holds for allβ >0small enough.

(ii) For anyφ∈ 0,¹₈π

,σ_d(H_δ,φ,β)∩(−∞,Θ_δ,β)6=∅holds for allβ >0large enough.

Finally, we point out that if we allow for homogeneous magnetic field of arbitrary intensityB ∈R\ {0}, then, by scaling, Corollary3.5yields the existence of at least one bound state below the threshold of the essential spectrum for the magnetic Schr ¨odinger operators with δ-interaction supported onΓ of fixed strengthβ > 0 and all sufficiently large or sufficiently small|B|.

2Hereerf (x) := ^√2_πRx

0 e^−t2dtis the error function.

0 2 4 6 8 10

π 8 π 3 π 2

β

ϕ infx,y∈(0,∞)Fϕ,β(x,y) >0

infx,y∈(0,∞)Fϕ,β(x,y) <0

FIGURE3. Region in the(φ, β)-plane in which we prove the existence of bound states forH_δ,φ,βbelowΘ_δ,β.

.

Note that part of the results shown above are based on numerical analysis, as proving the validity of (3.1) forφ.0.595πor the computation of the bottoms of the essential spec- traΘ_R,β andΘ_δ,β. For these numerical solutions and minimizations we use the default Newton and quasi-Newton methods integrated in Wolfram Mathematica.

4. NEUMANN ANDROBIN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In this section we consider the magnetic Neumann and Robin Laplacians on wedges.

First, in Subsection4.1we prove Theorem3.1on the existence of bound states forH_R,φ,β below the thresholdΘ_R,βand its Corollary3.2for largeβ >0. In Subsection4.2we dis- cuss improvements upon Theorem3.1for the caseβ= 0with the aid of the Ansatz (3.4).

In particular, employing the Ansatz (3.4) withN = 2we prove Theorem3.3.

4.1. Robin boundary conditions. We make use of a test function given in the polar co- ordinates(r, θ)by

(4.1) u?(r, θ) =f(r)e^ib(r,θ)∈H_A¹(Ωφ),

where the functionsf:R+→Randb:R+×(0, φ)→Rwill be chosen later. Substituting u_?into the functional

(4.2) H_A¹(Ω_φ)7→I[u] :=h_R,φ,β[u]−Θ_R,βkuk²_L2(Ωφ)

we obtain after elementary computations (4.3)

I[u?] = Z φ

0

Z ∞ 0

f(r)²

(∂rb)²+(∂θb)²

r² −∂θb+r²

4 −ΘR,β−2β φr

+ (∂rf)²

rdrdθ.

Now we are prepared to prove Theorem3.1.

Proof of Theorem3.1. We fixf andbin (4.1) byf(r) =e^−ar2/2 andb(r, θ) =rb₁(θ), where b₁(θ)∈C^∞([0, φ])will be selected later. With this choice off andbwe rewriteI[u_?]as

I[u?] = Z φ

0

Z ∞ 0

re^−ar2

b²₁+ (∂θb1)²−r∂θb1+r²

4 −ΘR,β− 2β φr

+a²r²

drdθ

= Z ∞

0

re^−ar2dr Z φ

0

b²₁+ (∂θb1)²−ΘR,β

dθ− Z ∞

0

r²e^−ar2dr Z φ

0

∂θb1dθ +

a²φ+φ 4

Z ∞ 0

r³e^−ar2dr−2β Z ∞

0

e^−ar2dr.

(4.4)

In what follows, we set En := R∞

0 rⁿe^−ar2dr,n ≥ 0. Using that (see [GR, Eqs. 3.461 (2), (3)])

(4.5) E0= π^1/2

2a^1/2, E1= 1

2a, E2 =

√π

4a^3/2, E3 = 1 2a², we simplify the expression forI[u?]as

(4.6) I[u_?] = 1 2a

Z φ 0

b²₁+ (∂_θb₁)² dθ−

√π

4a^3/2[b₁]^φ₀ +J(a), where

[b₁]^φ₀ =b₁(φ)−b₁(0) and J(a) := φ

2 −Θ_R,βφ 2a + φ

8a² −β rπ

a. Now we plugb1(θ) =α⁺e^θ+α⁻e^−θwithα^±∈Rinto the above expression forI[u?]

I[u?] = 1 a

Z φ 0

(α⁺)²e^2θ+ (α⁻)²e^−2θ

dθ−

√π 4a^3/2

α⁺(e^φ−1) +α⁻(e^−φ−1)

+J(a)

= 1 2a

(α⁺)²(e^2φ−1) + (α⁻)²(1−e^−2φ)

−

√π 4a^3/2

α⁺(e^φ−1) +α⁻(e^−φ−1)

+J(a).

Let us further setα=α⁺andα⁻=−e^φαin the last expression I[u_?] = α²

a (e^2φ−1)− α√ π

2a^3/2(e^φ−1) +J(a).

The latter can be viewed as a quadratic polynomial inα. Minimising it with respect toα we obtain, withx:= 1/√

a, I[u_?] =−x⁴ π

16

(e^φ−1)²

e^2φ−1 +J(1/x²)

=−x⁴ π 16

(e^φ−1)²

e^2φ−1 −ΘR,βφx²

2 +φ

2 +x⁴φ 8 −β√

πx

=x⁴ φ

8 −πtanh(φ/2) 16

−Θ_R,βφx²

2 +φ

2 −β√

πx= P_φ,β(x) 16 .

Ifminx∈(0,∞)Pφ,β(x)<0, then the min-max principle [RS4, Thm. XIII.2] yields the claim.

The choice of the function b₁ in the proof of Theorem3.1relied on the functional de- rivative for the functional

C^∞([0, φ])3b17→ 1 2a

Z φ 0

b²₁+ (∂_θb1)² dθ−

√π 4a^3/2[b1]^φ₀

appearing in (4.6). As a consequence of this procedure one gets that the optimalb1 nec- essarily satisfies the linear second-order ordinary differential equationb⁰⁰₁(θ)−b₁(θ) = 0 on[0, φ]and the choice

(4.7) b₁(θ) =α⁺e^θ+α⁻e^−θ

is simply the general solution of this ODE. The differential equation onb₁ itself is inde- pendent ofβ, but the parameterβenters in the optimal choice of the constantsα^±in (4.7).

It can also be shown that the relationα⁻ =−e^φα⁺is necessarily satisfied by the optimal choice of(α⁺, α⁻)for anyβ.

Next, we prove Corollary3.2on large values ofβ.

Proof of Corollary3.2. By CorollaryA.2(i) we haveΘ_R,β ≥ −β² forβ > 0. Hence, substi- tutingx= 1/βintoP_φ,β(·)we obtain that

P_φ,β(1/β)≤β⁻⁴

2φ−πtanh φ

2

+ 16 φ−√ π

<0,

for all β > ¹₂

2φ−π_√tanh(^φ2)

π−φ

¹₄

and φ ∈ (0,√

π). Theorem 3.1 immediately yields the

claim.

4.2. Improvements in the Neumann case (β = 0). The result of Theorem 3.1 can be improved if we consider more involved classes of test functions of the form (3.4). In order to illustrate the idea we restrict our attention to the Neumann setting (β= 0).

Proof of Theorem3.3. We employ test functions of the type (3.4) withN = 2:

u_?(r, θ) =e^−ar2/2exp i

rb₁(θ) +r²b₂(θ) ,

where the real-valued functionsb1, b2 ∈C^∞([0, φ])will be fixed later. Define the auxiliary functions

F1(r, θ) := (b1(θ))²+ 4r²(b2(θ))²+ 4rb1(θ)b2(θ) +r²(b⁰₂(θ))²+ (b⁰₁(θ))²+ 2rb⁰₁(θ)b⁰₂(θ), F₂(r, θ) :=−r²b⁰₂(θ)−rb⁰₁(θ),

F3(r) :=

a²+1

4

r²−Θ0.

For the sake of brevity, we introduce the notation [b]^φ₀ := b(φ)−b(0)for a functionb ∈ C^∞([0, φ]). Substitutingf(r) =e^−ar2/2,b(r, θ) =rb₁(θ) +r²b₂(θ), andβ = 0into (4.3) we get

I[u?] = Z φ

0

dθ Z ∞

0

re^−ar2(F1(r, θ) +F2(r, θ) +F3(r))dr

= Z φ

0

(b⁰₁(θ))²

2a +(b⁰₂(θ))² 2a² +

√πb⁰₁(θ)b⁰₂(θ) 2a^3/2

dθ

+ Z φ

0

(b1(θ))²

2a +2(b2(θ))² a² +

√πb1(θ)b2(θ) a^3/2

dθ

−[b₂]^φ₀ 2a² −

√π[b₁]^φ₀

4a^3/2 +J(a), (4.8)

whereJ(a) := ^{φ(4a2+1−4aΘ}_8a2 ⁰⁾. Applying the functional derivative toI[u?]in (4.8), we find that the optimal choice ofb1 andb2constitutes a solution of the linear system of second- order ordinary differential equations with constant coefficients

(4.9)

2a √

√ aπ

aπ 2

b⁰⁰₁(θ) b⁰⁰₂(θ)

=

2a 2√ aπ 2√

aπ 8

b1(θ) b2(θ)

.

Integrating by parts, we simplify the expression forI[u?], withb1, b2satisfying (4.9), (4.10) I[u_?] =

b⁰₁b₁

2a +b⁰₂b₂

2a² +(b⁰₁b₂+b₁b⁰₂)√ π 4a^3/2 − b₂

2a² −

√πb₁ 4a^3/2

φ 0

+J(a).

Further, denoting

b(θ) := (b1(θ), b2(θ))^>, A:=

4−2π

4−π −⁴

√πa^−1/2 4−π 2a^1/2√

π 4−π

16−2π 4−π

! , we rewrite the system of differential equations (4.9) as

(4.11) b⁰⁰(θ) =Ab(θ).

The eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors of the matrixAare given by λ1,2 = 10−2π±2s

4−π c1,2= (a^−1/2c1,2,1)^>=

−3±s

√aπ ,1 >

, wheres =√

9−2π. Hence, the general real-valued solution of the system (4.11) can be parametrised as

b(θ) =c1χ1(θ) +c2χ2(θ), for χj(θ) :=α⁺_je^µjθ+α⁻_j e^−µjθ, j= 1,2,

whereµ1,2 = p

λ1,2 = ^√s±1_4−π and whereα^±_j ∈R(j = 1,2) are arbitrary constants. Intro- ducing the shorthand notationgx:=e^xφ−1forx∈R, we find fori, j∈ {1,2}

[χj]^φ₀ =α⁺_j gµj+α⁻_j g−µ_j, [χ_iχ⁰_j]^φ₀ =µ_jh

α⁺_i α⁺_j g_µi+µj−α⁻_i α⁻_jg−µ_i−µ_j−α⁺_i α⁻_j g_µi−µ_j+α⁻_i α⁺_j g−µ_i+µj

i . In view ofb⁰(θ) =c1χ⁰₁(θ) +c2χ⁰₂(θ), we also get

b⁰₁b1 =a⁻¹

c²₁χ⁰₁χ1+c1c2(χ⁰₁χ2+χ1χ⁰₂) +c²₂χ⁰₂χ2

, b⁰₂b2 =χ⁰₁χ1+χ⁰₁χ2+χ1χ⁰₂+χ⁰₂χ2,

b⁰₁b₂ =a^−1/2

c₁(χ⁰₁χ₁+χ⁰₁χ₂) +c₂(χ⁰₂χ₁+χ⁰₂χ₂) b₁b⁰₂ =a^−1/2

c₁(χ₁χ⁰₁+χ₁χ⁰₂) +c₂(χ₂χ⁰₁+χ₂χ⁰₂) . Further, we introduce fori, j∈ {1,2}the constants

γij := cicj

2 +1 2 +

√π(ci+cj)

4 and δj := 1

2 +

√πcj

4 = −1±s 4 . Hence, we can rewrite the functional in (4.10) as

I[u?] = 1 a²





2

X

i,j=1

γij[χiχ⁰_j]^φ₀ −δ1[χ1]^φ₀ −δ2[χ2]^φ₀



+J(a)

=

2

X

i,j=1

γijµj

a² h

α⁺_i α⁺_j gµi+µj −α⁻_i α⁻_jg−µi−µj−α⁺_i α⁻_j gµi−µj+α⁻_i α⁺_j g−µi+µj

i

−

2

X

j=1

δj

a² α⁺_j g_µj+α⁻_j g−µj

+J(a).

Analysing the above quadratic form with respect to the parametersα^±_j ,j = 1,2, we con- clude that the minimal value ofI[u?]is attained at the vectorα = (α1, α2)^>= (α⁺₁, α⁻₁, α⁺₂, α₂⁻)^>

being the solution of the linear system of equations (4.12)

2γ₁₁µ₁B₁₁ γ₁₂B₁₂ γ₁₂B₁₂^∗ 2γ₂₂µ₂B₂₂

α₁ α₂

= δ₁v₁

δ₂v₂

, where the matricesB11, B22, B12and the vectorsv1, v2are defined by

B_jj :=

g2µj 0 0 −g_−2µj

, v_j :=

gµj

g−µ_j

, j= 1,2, B12:=

(µ₁+µ₂)g_µ1+µ2 (µ₁−µ₂)g_µ1−µ2

(µ₂−µ₁)g_µ2−µ₁ −(µ₁+µ₂)g−µ₁−µ₂

. Solving the system (4.12), we find

α^±_j = µ²₁µ²₂

16µ_jg±µjr_jstanh ¹₂µjφ

, j= 1,2,

π 4

π

2 ϕ_* ³₄^π ϕ

-3 -2 -1

ℐ[u_*]

ϕ_*≃0.583π

FIGURE4. The graph of the right-hand side in (4.4) as a function ofφ.

withr_1,2 =−_2(3−π±s)^(±1−s) . The value of the functionalI[u_?]forα∈R⁴as above is given by I[u_?] =−x²

2

2

X

j=1

δ_j(α⁺_jg_µj+α⁻_j g−µ_j) +J(1/x)

=x² φ

8 −µ²₁µ²₂

16s ν1tanh ¹₂µ1φ

+ν2tanh ¹₂µ2φ

−xφΘ₀ 2 + φ

2, (4.13)

wherex := 1/aandν_j = _µ^δj

jrj =

√4−π 2

3−π±s

1±s ,j = 1,2. The expression on the right-hand side in (4.13) is a quadratic polynomial inx. Minimizing it with respect to the parameter x >0we find that the minimal value equals

I[u?] = φ

2 −φ²sΘ²₀

2φs−µ²₁µ²₂

ν1tanh ¹₂µ1φ

+ν2tanh ¹₂µ2φ ⁻¹.

Analysing numerically the above expression, we obtain that I[u_?] < 0for allφ < φ_? ≈ 0.583π;cf. Figure4. The claim follows from the min-max principle.

Furthermore, we try test functions of the type (3.4) withN = 3 (4.14) u_?(r, θ) =e^−ar2/2exp i

rb₁(θ) +r²b₂(θ) +r³b₃(θ) ,

where the optimal choice of the real-valued functionsb1, b2, b3 ∈ C^∞([0, φ])satisfies the system of ordinary differential equations





2a √

aπ 2

2a√

π 4√

a 3√ π 4a 3√

aπ 8







 b⁰⁰₁ b⁰⁰₂ b⁰⁰₃



=





2a 2√

aπ 6

4a√

π 16√

a 18√ π 12a 18√

aπ 72







 b1

b₂ b₃



.

The general solution of the above system can be parametrised by six constants{α^±_j }³_j=1. Performing numerical minimisation ofI[u?]with u? as in (4.14) with respect to the pa- rametersa >0and{α^±_j }³_j=1, we show the existence of a bound state for allφ.0.591π.

Finally, we try test functions of the type (3.4) withN = 4. In this case, we obtain the system of ordinary differential equations onb1, b2, b3, andb4,









4a³² 2a√ π 4√

a 3√ π 2√

πa³² 4a 3√

aπ 8

8a³² 6a√

π 16√

a 15√ π 6√

πa³² 16a 15√

aπ 48















b⁰⁰₁ b⁰⁰₂ b⁰⁰₃ b⁰⁰₄





=









4a³² 4a√

π 12√

a 12√ π 4√

πa³² 16a 18√

aπ 64

24a³² 36a√

π 144√

a 180√ π 24√

πa³² 128a 180√

aπ 768















b1

b2

b3

b4





.

For this system, the general solution is parametrised by eight constants{α^±_j}⁴_j=1. Numer- ically minimasing with respect toa > 0and{α^±_j}⁴_j=1 we show the existence of at least one bound state forH_N,φbelowΘ0for allφ.0.595π.

According to more extensive numerical tests, going further toN ≥5in the Ansatz (3.4) seems to be useless to prove the existence of bound states forH_N,φ below the threshold Θ₀for aperturesφ&0.6π.

5. δ-INTERACTIONS SUPPORTED ON BROKEN LINES

In this section we prove Theorem 3.4and its consequences in the limitsβ → 0+and β →+∞.

Proof of Theorem3.4. First, we rotate the broken lineΓsupporting theδ-interaction by the angle π/4−φ/2 counterclockwise, and then shift it by the vector(−c,−c)^> with some constantc > 0. This transform leads to the operatorHe_δ,φ,β which is unitarily equivalent to H_δ,φ,β. By the min-max principle, to show the existence of a bound state for He_δ,φ,β belowΘ_δ,β it suffices to find a real-valued functionu_?∈H_A¹(R²)such that

I[u_?] :=

Z 2π 0

Z ∞ 0

|∇u_?|²+ (|A|²−Θ_δ,β)|u_?|² rdrdθ

−β Z ∞

0

|u_?(rcosφ+−c, rsinφ+−c)|²dr

−β Z ∞

0

|u_?(rcosφ−−c, rsinφ−−c)|²dr <0,

withφ±:=π/4±φ/2. Next, we take a real-valued test function represented in the polar coordinates(r, θ)by

u?(r, θ) =e^−ar2/2∈H_A¹(R²),

wherea >0will be determined later. Using the identity (see [GR, Eq. 3.322 (2)]) Z ∞

0

e^−γr2+ωrdr = 1 2

π γ

1/2

exp ω²

4γ 1 + erf ω

2√ γ

, γ >0, ω∈R,

withγ =aandω = 2√

2accos(φ/2)we find that Jφ(a, c) :=

Z ∞ 0

exp

−a rsin

π 4 +^φ₂

−c2

−a rcos

π 4 + ^φ₂

−c2 dr

=e^−2ac2 Z ∞

0

exp

−ar²+ 2√

2accos

φ 2

r

dr

=

√π 2√

ae^{−2ac2sin2(φ/2)} 1 + erf

√

2ac²cos

φ 2

. Employing the integrals in (4.5) we obtain

I[u?] = 2π Z ∞

0

e^−ar2

a²+1 4

r³−Θδ,βr

dr−β Jφ/2(a, c) +J−φ/2(a, c)

= 2π 1

2 + 1

8a² −Θδ,β

2a

−β√

√π

a e^{−2ac2sin2(φ/2)} 1 + erf

√

2ac²cos

φ 2

. Choosing the parametersx= 1/√

aandy=√

2ac²cos(φ/2)we rewriteI[u_?]as I[u?] =π

1 +x⁴

4 −x²Θδ,β

−βx√

πe^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y)) =πFφ,β(x, y).

If the conditionF_φ,β(x₀, y₀)<0holds for somex₀, y₀ ∈(0,∞), thenσ_d(H_δ,φ,β)∩(−∞,Θ_δ,β)6=

∅follows by the min-max principle.

Next, we prove Corollary3.5on small and large values ofβ.

Proof of Corollary3.5. (i) Using the expansion ofΘ_δ,β in CorollaryA.2(iii) we get Fφ,β(x, y) =

1−x²

2 2

+ xβ

√π

x−e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y))

+O(β²), β →0 +. Substitutingx=√

2we find F_φ,β(√

2, y) = β√

√2 π

√

2−e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y))

+O(β²), β →0 +. For the special choicey= ¹⁷

√ 3

40 and for anyφ∈(0,¹₃π]we get F_φ,β(√

2,¹⁷

√ 3 40 )≤F^π

3,β(√ 2,¹⁷

√ 3 40 )

= β√

√ 2 π

√

2−exp

−¹₄ ¹⁷₂₀2 h 1 + erf

17√ 3 40

i

+O(β²), β→0 +. Since the value

√

2−exp

−¹₄ ¹⁷₂₀2 h 1 + erf

17√ 3 40

i

≈ −0.006645 is negative, we obtain the claim (i) from Theorem3.4.

(ii) Using the estimateΘδ,β ≥ −^β₄² in CorollaryA.2(i), we get F_φ,β(x, y)≤1 +x⁴

4 +β²

4 x²−βxπ^−1/2e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y)).

Substitutingx=zβ⁻¹, we find F_φ,β

z β, y

≤1 + z⁴ 4β⁴ +z²

4 −zπ^−1/2e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y)). Forz=g_φ(y) := 2π^−1/2e^{−y2tan2(φ/2)}(1 + erf (y))we obtain

F_φ,β

g_φ(y) β , y

≤1 +g_φ(y)⁴

4β⁴ −g_φ(y)² 4 .

Using monotonicity ofgφwith respect toφwe get fory= ¹³₁₀ andφ∈(0,¹₈π]

F_φ,β g_φ(¹³₁₀) β ,13

10

!

≤1−g^π

8(¹³₁₀)²

4 +O(β⁻⁴), β→+∞.

Since the value

1−g^π

8

13 10

2

4 ≈ −0.04157

is negative, we obtain the claim (ii) from Theorem3.4.

APPENDIXA. CHARACTERISATIONS FOR THE THRESHOLDSΘ_R,β ANDΘ_δ,β The aim of this appendix is to obtain variational characterisations for the thresholds Θ_R,β andΘ_δ,β. Such variational characterisations are expected and their proofs follow the strategy elaborated in [B05, Prop. 2.3] for the variational characterisation ofΘ₀. We provide complete arguments for convenience of the reader.

In order to formulate the main result of this section we introduce forβ ∈ Rthe auxil- iary functions:

θ_R,β(p) := inf

f∈C₀^∞([p,∞)) f6=0

Z ∞ p

|f⁰(t)|²+t²|f(t)|²

dt−β|f(p)|² Z ∞

p

|f(t)|²dt (A.1a) ,

θ_δ,β(p) := inf

f∈C₀^∞(R) f6=0

Z

R

|f⁰(t)|²+t²|f(t)|²

dt−β|f(p)|² Z

R

|f(t)|²dt (A.1b) .

Before formulating the statement we recall thatβ >0corresponds to an attractive inter- action, whileβ <0to a repulsive one.

Theorem A.1. LetΘ_R,β,Θ_δ,β be as in(2.4) and letθ_R,β,θ_δ,β be as above. Then the following claims hold.

(i) Θ_R,β= infp∈Rθ_R,β(p)for allβ ∈R. (ii) Θ_δ,β= infp∈Rθ_δ,β(p)for allβ ∈R.

(iii) Θ_δ,β=θ_δ,β(0)for allβ >0andΘ_δ,β = 1for allβ ≤0.

Proof. The characterisations in (i) and (ii) follow from the respective items of Proposi- tionsA.3andA.5below.

According to [GCh97, Thm. 1] (see also [GCh98]),R 3 p 7→ θ_δ,β(p)is a C^∞-smooth, even function, for which the limitslimp→±∞θ_δ,β(p) = 1hold and for which the equation θ_δ,β⁰ (p) = 0has exactly one root. Furthermore, θ_δ,β(p) < 1holds for anyβ > 0. On the other handθ_δ,β(p)≥1is satisfied for anyβ≤0. Thus, the claims in (iii) follow.

Before proving PropositionsA.3andA.5we formulate and prove a corollary of Theo- remA.1.

Corollary A.2. Let the assumptions be as in TheoremA.1. Then the following claims hold.

(i) Θ_R,β≥ −β²andΘ_δ,β ≥ −¹₄β²for allβ >0.

(ii) Θ_R,β,Θ_δ,β <0for allβ >0large enough.

(iii) Θ_δ,β= 1−^√β

π +O(β²)asβ →0+.

Proof. (i) Letβ > 0be fixed. It is easy to check that−β²is the lowest spectral point for the self-adjoint operator inL²(R+)corresponding to the quadratic formH¹(R+)3 f 7→

kf⁰k²_L2(

R+)−β|f(0)|². Using this fact, we get

Θ_R,β= inf

p∈R

θ_R,β(p)≥ inf

p∈R

inf

f∈C₀^∞([p,∞)) f6=0

Z ∞ p

|f⁰(t)|²dt−β|f(p)|² Z ∞

p

|f(t)|²dt

=−β².

It can also be checked that−¹₄β²is the lowest spectral point for the self-adjoint operator inL²(R)corresponding to the quadratic formH¹(R) 3f 7→ kf⁰k²_L2(R)−β|f(0)|². In the same manner we find

Θ_δ,β = inf

p∈R

θ_δ,β(p)≥ inf

p∈R

inf

f∈C₀^∞(R) f6=0

Z

R

|f⁰(t)|²dt−β|f(p)|² Z

R

|f(t)|²dt

=−β² 4 .

(ii) Let us fix p = 0in the quotients in (A.1). Substituting any non-trivial functionf ∈ C₀^∞(R)withf(0)6= 0into the quotient (A.1b) or its restriction ontoR+into the quotient in (A.1a), we observe these quotients are negative for all β > 0 large enough and the claim of (ii) follows.

(iii) Let λ₁(β) and ψ₁^β be, respectively, the lowest eigenvalue and the corresponding normalised eigenfunction for the self-adjoint operatorH_βinL²(R)induced by the closed, symmetric, semi-bounded, and densely defined quadratic form

f:f, f⁰, tf ∈L²(R) 7→h_β[f] :=

Z

R

|f⁰(t)|²+t²|f(t)|²

dt−β|f(0)|².

Note also thatλ1(0) = 1is a simple eigenvalue ofH0 and thatψ₁⁰(x) =π^−1/4e^−x2/2. It is easy to check using [K, Thm. VII.4.8] that the family of operators{H_β}_β is holomorphic