1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% J. Dolbeault, M.J. Esteban, M. Loss %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% (LaTeX file) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% June 29, 2006 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file: del39.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: \documentclass[del-ppn]{ppn}

10: \usepackage{graphics}

11: \usepackage{amssymb,amsfonts,amsmath,latexsym}

12: \addtolength{\textheight}{2cm}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\AMS}{\noindent{\small\sl AMS classification (2000). }}

15: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

16: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

17: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

18: \newcommand{\finprf}{\unskip\null\hfill$\;\square$\vskip 0.3cm}

19: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}

20: \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}

21: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}

22: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}

23: \newcommand{\X}{X}

24: \newcommand{\Y}{Y}

25: \newcommand{\W}{Z}

26: \newcommand{\aatop}[2]{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{#1}{#2}}

27: \newcommand{\llc}{\lambda_1^{\mathcal L}}

28: \newcommand{\lambdaL}{\lambda^{\mathcal L}}

29: \newcommand{\PiL}{\Pi_{\mathcal L}}

30: \newcommand{\PiLC}{\Pi_{\mathcal L}^c}

31: \newcommand{\PiTot}{\Pi}

32: \newcommand{\PiTotC}{\Pi^c}

33: \newcommand{\BL}{B_{\mathcal L}}

34: \newcommand{\dnu}{d_+(\nu)}

35: \newcommand{\deltanu}{\delta}

36: \newcommand{\nnrm}[1]{|\kern-1pt|\kern-1pt|#1|\kern-1pt|\kern-1pt|}

37: 

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

40: 

41: \begin{document}

42: \baselineskip=6pt

43: 

44: \title{Relativistic hydrogenic atoms\\

45: in strong magnetic fields}

46: \author{Jean Dolbeault\inst{1} \and Maria J. Esteban\inst{1} \and Michael Loss\inst{2}}

47: \institute{Ceremade (UMR CNRS no. 7534), Universit\'e Paris Dauphine, Place de Lattre de Tassigny, 75775 Paris C\'edex~16, France \and School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA}

48: \date{\today}

49: % \date{Received: date / Accepted: date}

50: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer

51: %

52: % Add name of the expert who has communicated your paper

53: %\communicated{name}

54: 

55: \maketitle 

56: 

57: \begin{abstract} In the Dirac operator framework we characterize and estimate the ground state energy of relativistic hydrogenic atoms in a constant magnetic field and describe the asymptotic regime corresponding to a large field strength using relativistic Landau levels. We also define and estimate a critical magnetic field beyond which stability is lost. \end{abstract}

58: 

59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

60: \keywords{Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian -- relativistic hydrogen atom -- constant magnetic field -- Landau levels -- min-max levels -- Hardy inequality -- selfadjoint operators}\par\medskip

61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

62: \AMS{\scriptsize {35Q40, 35Q75, 46N50, 81Q10; 34L40, 35P05, 47A05, 47N50, 81V45}

63: 

64: % PRIMARY:

65: % 35Q40 Equations from quantum mechanics

66: % 35Q75 PDE in relativity

67: % 46N50 Applications in quantum physics

68: % 81Q10 Selfadjoint operator theory in quantum theory,including spectral analysis

69: % SECONDARY:

70: % 34L40 Particular operators (Dirac, one-dimensional Schr\"odinger, etc.)

71: % 35P05 General spectral theory of PDE

72: % 47A05 General (adjoints, conjugates, products, inverses, domains, ranges, etc.)

73: % 47F05 Partial differential operators [See also 35Pxx, 58Jxx]

74: % 47N50 Applications in quantum physics

75: % 81V45 Atomic physics

76: % 81V55 Molecular physics [See also 92E10]

77: 

78: 

79: % MORE DETAILS...

80: % ===============

81: 

82: % 34-XX ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

83: % 34Lxx Ordinary differential operators [See also 47E05]

84: % 34L40 Particular operators (Dirac, one-dimensional Schr\"odinger, etc.)

85: 

86: % 35-XX PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

87: % 35Axx General theory

88: % 35A15 Variational methods

89: % 35Pxx Spectral theory and eigenvalue problems for partial differential operators [See also 47Axx,47Bxx,47F05]

90: % 35P05 General spectral theory of PDE

91: % 35P10 Completeness of eigenfunctions, eigenfunction expansions for PDO

92: % 35P15 Estimation of eigenvalues, upper and lower bounds

93: % 35Qxx Equations of mathematical physics and other areas of application [See also 35J05, 35J10, 35K05, 35L05]

94: % 35Q40 Equations from quantum mechanics

95: % 35Q75 PDE in relativity

96: 

97: % 37-XX DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS AND ERGODIC THEORY [See also 26A18, 28Dxx, 34Cxx, 34Dxx, 35Bxx, 46Lxx, 58Jxx, 70-XX]

98: % 37N20 Dynamical systems in other branches of physics (quantum mechanics, general relativity, laser physics)

99: 

100: % 46-XX FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS {For manifolds modeled on topological linear spaces, see 57Nxx, 58Bxx}

101: % 46Nxx Miscellaneous applications of functional analysis [See also 47Nxx]

102: % 46N50 Applications in quantum physics

103: 

104: % 47-XX OPERATOR THEORY

105: % 47Axx General theory of linear operators

106: % 47A05 General (adjoints, conjugates, products, inverses, domains, ranges, etc.)

107: % 47A07 Forms (bilinear, sesquilinear, multilinear)

108: % 47A10 Spectrum, resolvent

109: % 47A11 Local spectral properties

110: % 47A12 Numerical range, numerical radius

111: % 47A13 Several-variable operator theory (spectral, Fredholm, etc.)

112: % 47A15 Invariant subspaces

113: % 47A75 Eigenvalue problems [See also 49R50]

114: % 47F05 Partial differential operators [See also 35Pxx, 58Jxx]

115: % 47Nxx Miscellaneous applications of operator theory [See also 46Nxx]

116: % 47N50 Applications in quantum physics

117: 

118: % 49-XX CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS AND OPTIMAL CONTROL; OPTIMIZATION [See also 34H05, 34K35, 65Kxx, 90Cxx, 93-XX]

119: % 49R50 Variational methods for eigenvalues of operators [See also 47A75]

120: % 49S05 Variational principles of physics

121: 

122: % 81-XX QUANTUM THEORY

123: % 81Qxx General mathematical topics and methods in quantum theory

124: % 81Q05 Closed and approximate solutions to the Schr\"odinger, Dirac, Klein-Gordon and other quantum-mechanical equations

125: % 81Q10 Selfadjoint operator theory in quantum theory,including spectral analysis

126: % 81Q15 Perturbation theories for operators and differential equations

127: % 81Q20 Semiclassical techniques including WKB and Maslov methods

128: % 81Vxx Applications to specific physical systems

129: % 81V45 Atomic physics

130: % 81V55 Molecular physics [See also 92E10]

131: 

132: % 83?XX RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATIONAL THEORY

133: % 83Cxx General relativity

134: % 83C50 Electromagnetic fields

135: }

136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

137: 

138: 

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

141: \section{Introduction}\label{Sec:Intro}

142: 

143: In this paper we characterize the ground state energy of hydrogenic atoms in magnetic fields. We deal with fields of large strength in the Dirac operator framework, far away from the perturbative regime.

144: 

145: To compute eigenvalues of Dirac operators, the usual min-max principle does not apply. More sophisticated versions of this principle have been established over the last few years, see \cite{GS,GLS,DES}. These techniques are powerful enough to provide accurate and efficient algorithms for calculating eigenvalues of Dirac operators \cite{DESV,DES2}. In this paper we demonstrate that they are also flexible enough to cover the case with a magnetic field and provide reasonable results for a highly non-perturbative problem, when paired with the right physical insight.

146: 

147: \medskip The Dirac operator for a hydrogenic atom in the presence of a constant magnetic field $B$ in the $x_3$-direction is given by

148: \be

149: H_B- \frac{\nu}{|x|} \quad\mbox{with}\quad H_B:= \alpha \cdot \left[\frac{1}{i}\,\nabla + \frac{1}{2}\,B(-x_2,x_1, 0)\right] +\beta \; , \label{one}

150: \ee

151: where $\nu = Z \alpha<1$, $Z$ {is} the nuclear charge number. The Sommerfeld fine-structure constant {is} $\alpha \approx 1/137.037$. The energy is measured in units of $mc^2$, {\sl i.e.,\/} the rest energy of the electron, the length in units of {$\hbar/mc$}, {\sl i.e.,\/} the Compton wavelength divided by $2\,\pi$, and the magnetic field strength $B$ is measured in units of {$\frac{m^2 c^2}{|q| \hbar} \approx 4.4\times 10^9$ Tesla}. Here $m$ is the mass of the electron, $c$ the speed of light, $q$ the charge of the electron (measured in Coulomb) and $\hbar$ is Planck's constant divided by $2 \pi$. It is worth recalling the the earth's magnetic field is of the order of $1$ Gauss and $1$ Tesla is $10^4$ Gauss.

152: 

153: In (\ref{one}), $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ and $\beta$ are $4 \times 4$ complex matrices, whose standard form (in $2\times 2$ blocks) is

154: $$

155: \beta=\left( \begin{matrix} {

156: \mathbb I} & 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbb I} \\ \end{matrix} \right),\quad\alpha_k=\left( \begin{matrix} 0 &\sigma_k \\ \sigma_k &0 \\ \end{matrix}\right) \qquad (k=1, 2, 3)\;,

157: $$

158: where ${

159: \mathbb I}=\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right)$ and $\sigma_k$ are the Pauli matrices:

160: $$\sigma _1=\left( \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right),\quad \sigma_2=\left( \begin{matrix} 0 & -i \\ i & 0 \\ \end{matrix}\right),\quad \sigma_3=\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 &-1\\ \end{matrix}\right) .$$

161: 

162: The magnetic Dirac operator without the Coulomb potential has essential spectrum $(-\infty, -1] \cup [1, \infty)$ and no eigenvalues in the gap $(-1,1)$. For $\nu\in(0,1)$ the Hamiltonian (\ref{one}) has the same essential spectrum and eigenvalues in the gap. The ground state energy $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is defined as the smallest eigenvalue in the gap.

163: 

164: As the field gets large enough, one expects that the ground state energy of the Dirac operator decreases and eventually penetrates the lower continuum. The implication of this for a second quantized model is that electron--positron pair creation comes into the picture {\cite{0627.58040,pickl}}. The intuition for that can be gleaned from the Pauli equation, where the magnetic field tends to lower the energy because of the spin. It is therefore reasonable to define the {\it critical field strength} $B(\nu)$ as the supremum of the {positive} $B$'s for which $\lambda_1(\nu, b)$ is in the gap $(-1,1)$ for all {$b\in (0,B)$}. As a function of $\nu$, $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is non-increasing. Hence the function $B(\nu)$ is also non-increasing.

165: 

166: \medskip One of our goals is to give estimates on this critical field as a function of the nuclear charge. Our first result, proved in Section 2 is that this critical field exists and we give some rough estimates in terms of $\nu$: For some $C>0$,

167: \be\label{Estimation1}

168: {\frac {4}{5\,\nu^2}} \leq\; B(\nu)\;\leq \;\min \left(\frac{18\,\pi \nu^2}{[3\,\nu^2-2]_+^2}\ ,\ e^{\,C/\nu^2} \right)\,.

169: \ee

170: As a corollary we get the noteworthy result that as $\nu \to 1$ the critical field $B(\nu)$ stays strictly positive. This is somewhat remarkable, since in the case without magnetic field the ground state energy as a function of $\nu$ tends to $0$ as $\nu \to 1$ but {\it with an infinite slope}. Thus, one might expect very large variations of the eigenvalue at $\nu=1$ as the magnetic field is turned on, in particular one might naively expect that the ground state energy leaves the gap for small fields $B$. This is not the case. Moreover, since the hydrogenic Hamiltonian ceases to be selfadjoint at $\nu=1$ it is hard to visualize how one might arrive at such estimates using standard perturbation theory.

171: 

172: \medskip Section 3 is devoted to the asymptotics of $B(\nu)$ as $\nu\to 0$. We define the notion of lowest relativistic Landau level which leads to {a} one dimensional effective theory. This effective theory can be analyzed in great detail and allows to calculate the ground state energy $\llc(\nu,B)$ of the magnetic Dirac--Coulomb equation~(\ref{one}) in the lowest relativistic Landau level. It is given by the variational problem

173: {\[

174: \llc(\nu,B) := \inf_{f\in C^\infty_0(\R, \C)\setminus\{0\}}\quad \lambdaL[f,\nu,B]\ ,

175: \]}

176: where {$\lambda=\lambdaL[f,\nu,B]$} is defined by

177: \[

178: \lambda\int_\R |f(z)|^2\,dz= \int_\R\left(\frac{|f'(z)|^2}{1+ \lambda+\nu\,a^B_0(z)}+(1-\nu\,a^B_0(z))\,|f(z)|^2\right)dz\;,

179: \]

180: and

181: $$

182: {a^B_0(z)}:=B\,\int_0^{+\infty}\frac{s\,e^{-\frac12\,B\,s^2}}{\sqrt{s^2+z^2}}\,ds\;.

183: $$

184: The point here is that for $B$ not too small and $\nu$ not too large (the precise bounds are given in Theorem \ref{thmfirstll}),

185: \[

186: \llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2}, B) \le \lambda_1(\nu, B) \le \llc(\nu-\nu^{3/2},B) \ .

187: \]

188: 

189: The one dimensional $\llc(\nu,B)$ problem, although not trivial, is simpler to calculate than the $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ problem. As a result, in the limit as $\nu \to 0$, this new theory yields the first term in the asymptotics of the logarithm of the critical field. In particular we have the following result,

190: $$

191: \lim_{\nu \to 0} \nu \log(B(\nu))\,=\,\pi\ .

192: $$

193: 

194: \medskip From a methodological point of view, the ground state energy of the Dirac operator is {\it not} given by a minimum problem for the corresponding Rayleigh quotient, but it is a min--max in the sense that one decomposes the whole Hilbert space ${\mathcal H} = {\mathcal H}_1 \oplus {\mathcal H}_2$, maximizes the energy over functions in ${\mathcal H}_2$ and then minimizes over non-zero functions in ${\mathcal H}_1$. While the choice of these Hilbert spaces is not arbitrary, there is some flexibility in choosing them, see \cite{GS,GLS,DES}. For certain choices, the maximization problem can be worked out almost explicitly leading to a new energy functional for which the ground state energy $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is the minimum. In this sense, the ground state energy of the Dirac operator appears as a minimum of a well defined functional. Both variational characterizations, the min--max and the min, are of course equivalent, and our approach depends on the interplay between the two.

195: 

196: \medskip Our results are different from the work of \cite{AHS} which considered the non-relativistic hydrogen atom and worked out the asymptotics of the ground state energy as $B \to \infty$ for every $\nu >0$. In our case, however, $\nu$ has to stay in the interval $[0,1)$ in order that the operator can be defined as a selfadjoint operator. Further, the critical field is always finite and we are interested in estimating it as a function of $\nu$. The similarity with \cite{AHS} comes as we let $\nu \to 0$, since then the critical field tends to infinity but the estimates are not the same.

197: 

198: \medskip While the mathematical methods are the main point of this paper, let us make a few additional remarks about its physical motivation. Spontaneous pair creation in strong external fields, although never experimentally confirmed, has been analyzed by Nenciu \cite{N,0627.58040}. In \cite{N} it was conjectured that by adiabatically switching the potential on and off, there is spontaneous pair creation provided some of the eigenvalues emerging from the negative spectrum crossed eigenvalues emerging from the positive spectrum. This conjecture was partly proved in \cite{0627.58040} and \cite{pickl}. Since such a crossover occurs in the Dirac hydrogenic atom with a strong magnetic field, it is natural to try to estimate the strength of the magnetic fields for which this crossing phenomenon occurs. 

199: 

200: Note that the unit in which we measure the magnetic field is huge, about {$4.4\times 10^{9}$} Tesla. Sources of gigantic magnetic fields are neutron stars that can carry magnetic fields of about $10^{9}$ Tesla. Fields of $10^{11}$ Tesla for a neutron star in its gestation and in magnetars are expected, and there is speculation that fields of up to $10^{12}$ Tesla may exist in the interior of a magnetar. There is a considerable literature in this area and an entertaining introduction can be found in~\cite{ScientificAmerican}.

201: 

202: Further, it is expected that near the surface of a neutron star atoms persist up to about $Z=40$. We show that the critical field at $Z=40$ must be larger than $4.1 \times 10^{10}$ Tesla, and preliminary calculations using numerical methods based on Landau levels yield an estimated value of about {$2.5 \times 10^{16}$ Tesla}. Although improvements on these estimates are currently under investigation we believe it is unlikely that they will yield relevant values for the magnetic field strength. For elements with higher $Z$, the values for the critical field are much lower. In the case of Uranium ($Z=92$), they are sandwiched between $7.8\times 10^9$ Tesla and an estimated value (using Landau levels) of $4.6\times 10^{11}$ Tesla.

203: 

204: \medskip Speculations that large magnetic fields facilitate the creation of electron - positron pairs are not new in the physics and astrophysics literature. Clearly, the Dirac operator coupled to a magnetic field but {\it without} electrostatic potential has a gap of $2mc^2$ independent of the magnetic field. It was pointed out in \cite{PhysRev.173.1220,PhysRevLett.21.397} that the anomalous magnetic moment narrows the gap, {\sl i.e.,\/} it decreases the energy needed for pair production. In lowest nontrivial order the anomalous magnetic energy is proportional to the magnetic field which leads indeed to a narrowing of the gap; in fact the gap closes at a field strength of about $4 \times 10^{12}$ Tesla. It was observed in \cite{PhysRev.187.2275}, however, that the anomalous magnetic energy depends in a non linear fashion on the external field. Further it is shown that even at field strengths of $10^{12}$ Tesla the gap narrows only a tiny bit, irrelevant for pair production. For a review of these issues the reader may consult \cite{duncan}. Our contribution is to take into account simultaneously the magnetic field and the Coulomb singularity, in which case no explicit or simple calculations are possible.

205: 

206: Of course our analysis only deals with a single electron and a fixed nucleus. A description of the non-relativistic many electron atom under such extreme situations has been given in \cite{MR1163415,MR1272387,MR1266071}. The authors study various limits as the nuclear charge and the magnetic field strength gets large and determine the shape of the atom in these limits. In non-relativistic physics the natural scale for the magnetic field is {$\alpha^2 \frac{m^2 c^2}{|q| \hbar} \approx 2.4\times 10^5$ Tesla}, much smaller than the ones under considerations in our paper.

207:  

208: As we have mentioned before, for small $Z$ the critical magnetic field is of the order of $e^\frac{\pi}{Z\alpha}$ and hence non relativistic physics is sufficient to explain the rough shapes and sizes of atoms even at very high field strengths. It may very well be, however, that for heavy elements and very large fields qualitatively new effects appear that cannot be understood on the basis of non relativistic physics alone. Should such effects occur, then it could make sense to treat the many body relativistic electron problem using the Dirac - Fock approximation.

209: 

210: 

211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

212: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

213: \section{Ground state and critical magnetic field}\label{Sec:Estim}

214: 

215: {In this section, we set some notations, establish basic properties and prove Estimate~\eqn{Estimation1} on the critical magnetic field.}

216: 

217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

218: \subsection{Min--max characterization of the ground state energy}

219: 

220: The eigenvalue equation for the Hamiltonian (\ref{one})

221: \be \label{eigenvalue}

222: H_B\,\psi- \frac{\nu}{|x|}\,\psi = \lambda\,\psi

223: \ee

224: is an equation for four complex functions. It is convenient to split $\psi$ as

225: \[

226: \psi=\binom{\,\phi\,}\chi

227: \]

228: where $\phi, \chi \in L^2(\R^3 ; \C^2)$ are the {{\sl upper and lower components.\/}} Written in terms of {$\phi$ and $\chi$,} (\ref{eigenvalue}) is given by

229: \begin{eqnarray}

230: P_B\chi + \phi - \frac{\nu}{|x|}\,\phi = \lambda \phi \label{1st} \ , \\

231: P_B\phi -\chi - \frac{\nu}{|x|}\,\chi = \lambda \chi \label{2nd} \ .

232: \end{eqnarray}

233: Here $P_B$ denotes the operator

234: {

235: \[

236: P_B:=-\,i\,\sigma \cdot (\nabla-i\,{ A}_B(x))\;,

237: \]

238: }

239: where

240: \[

241: { A}_B(x):=\frac B2\left(\begin{array}{c} -x_2\\ x_1\\ 0\end{array}\right)

242: \]

243: is the magnetic potential associated with the constant magnetic field

244: \[

245: { {\mathbf B}}(x):=\left(\begin{array}{c} 0\\ 0\\ B\end{array}\right)\,.

246: \]

247: 

248: Using (\ref{2nd}) we can eliminate the lower component $\chi$ in (\ref{1st}). Taking then the inner product with $\phi$ we get

249: \be

250: J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]=0\ , \label{jayequation}

251: \ee

252: where

253: \[

254: J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]:= \int_{\R^3}\left(\frac{|P_B \phi|^2} {1+\lambda+\frac\nu{|x|}}+(1-\lambda)|\phi|^2-\frac\nu{|x|}\,|\phi|^2\right)\,d^3x\;. \label{jay}

255: \]

256: Thus, we see that that for any eigenvalue $\lambda \in (-1,1)$ of (\ref{one}) the corresponding eigenvector leads to a solution of (\ref{jayequation}).

257: 

258: {Reciprocally, the functional $J$ can be used to characterize the eigenvalues. For this purpose,} a few definitions are {useful.} The functional $J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]$ is defined for

259: any $B\in\R^+$, $\nu\in (0,1)$, $\lambda\geq -1$ and $\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)$. Further, in order that (\ref{jayequation}) makes sense we introduce the set

260: \begin{eqnarray*}

261: {\cal A}(\nu,B):=\{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3)\,:&&\|\phi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1,\\ &&\qquad\lambda\mapsto J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]\;\mbox{changes sign in}\;(-1,+\infty)\} \,.

262: \end{eqnarray*}

263: Note that this set might be {\sl a priori\/} empty. Finally, since the function $J$ is decreasing in $\lambda$, we define $\lambda=\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]$ to be either the unique solution to

264: \[

265: J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]=0\; \hbox{if}\; \phi\in{\cal A}(\nu,B)\ ,

266: \]

267: or $\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]=-1$ if $J[\phi,-1,\nu,B]\leq 0$.

268: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

269: \begin{theorem}\label{min-max} Let $B\in\R^+$ and $\nu\in (0,1)$. If

270: \[

271: -1<\inf_{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}\lambda[\phi,\nu,B] <1\ ,

272: \]

273: this infimum is achieved and

274: \[

275: \lambda_1(\nu,B):=\inf_{\phi\in{\cal A}(\nu,B)}\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]

276: \]

277: is the lowest eigenvalue of $H_B-\frac{\nu}{|x|}$ in the gap of {its} continuous spectrum, $(-1,1)$. \end{theorem}

278: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

279: \proof This proposition is a consequence of Theorem 3.1 in \cite{DES}. The essential assumptions of this theorem are:

280: \\

281: i) The selfadjointness of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$ which is proved in the appendix. It is crucial here that $0 < \nu < 1$.

282: \\

283: ii) {The existence of} a direct decomposition of $L^2(\R^3;\C^4)$ as the sum of two subspaces ${\mathcal H}_1 \oplus {\mathcal H}_2$ such that

284: \begin{eqnarray*}

285: a_2 := &&\sup_{x \in {\mathcal H}_2} \frac {(x, (H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1})\,x)}{(x,x)} \\

286: &&< c_1 := \kern -2pt\inf_{0 \not= x \in {\mathcal H}_1} \ \sup_{y \in {\mathcal H}_2} \frac {(x+y, (H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1})\,(x+y))}{\| x+y \|^2} \ .

287: \end{eqnarray*}

288: Set $b:= \inf \sigma_{ess}(H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}) \cap (a_2, +\infty)$. If $c_1 < b$ then $c_1$ is the lowest eigenvalue of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$ in the interval $(a_2, b)$. {In the present case} we choose the decomposition

289: $$

290: \psi = \binom\phi\chi = \binom\phi{0}+\binom 0\chi

291: $$

292: {based on the upper and lower components of the four components spinor $\psi$.} It is easy to see that $a_2=-1$. Furthermore the essential spectrum of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$ is $(-\infty, -1] \cup [1,+\infty)$ independently of $B$, see \cite{T}. Hence $b=1$. It remains to calculate the {supremum} in the definition of $c_1$ as a function of $x = \binom\phi{0}$. Note that the Rayleigh quotient in the definition of $c_1$ is strictly concave in $y=\binom 0\chi$. Therefore the supremum is uniquely achieved by

293: \[\label{maxx}

294: \chi[\phi]= \left(1+\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]+\frac{\nu}{|x|}\right)^{-1}P_B\phi

295: \]

296: and its value is $\lambda[\phi, \nu, B]$, that is,

297: \[\label{firstminmax}

298: \lambda[\phi,\nu,B] = {\sup_{\chi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2),\,\psi=\binom\phi\chi}}\;\frac{\Big(\big( H_B-\frac{\nu}{|x|}\big)\,\psi, \psi\Big)}{(\psi, \psi)}\ .

299: \]

300: \finprf

301: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

302: \noindent{\bf Remarks:} 1) {\sl The eigenvalue $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ can be characterized either as the minimum of the functional $\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]$ or as a min-max level of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$. {Both characterizations will be} useful in the sequel of this paper.}

303: 

304: \smallskip\noindent 2) {\sl Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{min-max}, we have

305: \[

306: J[\phi, \lambda,\nu, B]\geq 0\quad \forall \phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)\label{newrm}

307: \]

308: for any $\lambda \le \lambda_1(\nu, B)$. {The eigenvalue $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ can therefore be interpreted as the best constant in the above inequality.}}

309: 

310: \smallskip\noindent 3) {\sl When $\lambda_1(\nu,B)$ is equal to $-1$, it belongs to the continuous spectrum and it is not necessarily an eigenvalue of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$.}

311: 

312: 

313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

314: \subsection{Basic properties of the ground state energy}

315: 

316: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

317: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop:MonotonicityNu} For all $B\geq 0$, the function $\nu\mapsto \lambda_1(\nu,B)$ is monotone nonincreasing on $(0,1)$. \end{proposition}

318: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

319: {The proof is left to the reader. It is a consequence of the definition of $J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]$. %---------------------------------------------------------------------

320: \begin{proposition}\label{cont} For all $B\geq 0$, the function $\nu\to \lambda_1(\nu,B)$ is continuous in the interval $\left(0,1\right)$ as long as $ \lambda_1 (\nu,B)\in (-1,1)$. \end{proposition}

321: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

322: \proof By Theorem \ref{min-max}, if $ \lambda_1 (\nu,B)\in (-1,1)$ there exists a function $\phi_\nu$ such that $J[\phi_\nu, \lambda_1(\nu,B), \nu, B]=0$. For any sequence $\{\nu_n\}_{_n}$ converging to~$\nu$, the upper semi-continuity of $\nu\to \lambda_1(\nu,B)$ holds:

323: \[\label{uppercont}

324: \limsup_{n\to +\infty} \lambda_1(\nu_n, B)\leq \limsup_{n\to +\infty} \lambda[\phi_\nu,\nu_n, B]=\lambda_1(\nu, B)\ .

325: \]

326: {If $\nu_n\leq\nu$, then $\lambda_n:=\lambda_1(\nu_n,B)\geq\lambda_1(\nu,B)$ and $\{\lambda_n\}_{_n}$ converges to $\lambda$. Consider therefore} a $\{\nu_n\}_{_n}$ converging to $\nu$ from above. {We have to face two~cases:\\

327: \underline{\sl First case:\/} $\lambda_n>-1$ for all $n\in\N$. Since $J[\phi_\nu, \lambda_1(\nu,B), \nu_n, B]\leq 0$, we know that $\lambda_n\leq\lambda_1(\nu,B)$.} Consider the corresponding eigenfunctions $\psi_n$, such that $J[\phi_n, \lambda_n, \nu_n, B]=0$, where $\phi_n$ denotes the upper component of $\psi_n$ {and assume that $\|\phi_n\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1$. By Theorem~\ref{min-max}, we have}

328: \[

329: \int_{\R^3}\left(\frac{|P_B \phi_n|^2} {1+\lambda_n+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}} +(1-\lambda_n)|\phi_n|^2\right)\,d^3x =\int_{\R^3} \frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\,|\phi_n|^2 \,d^3x\;.

330: \]

331: {Assume that $\Lambda:=\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \lambda_1(\nu_n,B)<\lambda_1(\nu,B)$. Up to the extraction of a subsequence, assume further that $\{\lambda_1(\nu_n,B)\}_{n\in\N}$ converges to some value in $(-1,\lambda_1(\nu,B))$ and choose $\tilde\lambda\in(\Lambda,\lambda_1(\nu,B))$. For $n$ large enough, $\lambda_1(\nu_n,B)<\tilde\lambda$ and 

332: \be\label{nunb}

333: \int_{\R^3}\left(\frac{|P_B \phi_n|^2} {1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}}+(1-\tilde\lambda)|\phi_n|^2\right)\,d^3x \leq\int_{\R^3} \frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\,|\phi_n|^2 \;.

334: \ee

335: } \par\smallskip\noindent

336: {\underline{\sl Second case:\/}} $\lambda_1(\nu', B)=-1$ for all $ \nu'>\nu$. We choose $\tilde\lambda\in (-1, \lambda_1(\nu, B))$ and find a $\{\phi_n\}_n$ such that $\|\phi_n\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1$ and $ \,J[\phi_n, \tilde\lambda,\nu_n, B]\leq 0$ for $n$ large: \eqn{nunb} also holds. 

337: 

338: \par\medskip Using the monotonicity of the $\{\nu_n\}_n$, {which implies the monotonicity of the $\{\lambda_n\}_n$ by Proposition \ref{Prop:MonotonicityNu}, and the fact that in both cases, $\nu\in(0,1)$ and $\tilde\lambda\in(-1,1)$, we deduce from} (\ref{nunb}) a uniform bound for the functions~$\phi_n$:

339: \be\label{zzz}

340: \sup_n\int_{\R^3}\left(|x|\,|P_B \phi_n|^2+\frac{| \phi_n|^2}{|x|}\right)\,d^3x<+\infty\ .

341: \ee

342: {The proof goes as follows. It is sufficient to prove that $\int_{\R^3}|x|^{-1}\,|\phi_n|^2\,d^3x$ is uniformly bounded. Let $\chi$ be a smooth truncation function such that $\chi(r)\equiv 1$ if $r\in [0,1)$, $\chi(r)\equiv 0$ if $r>2$, and $0\leq \chi\leq 1$. Since

343: \begin{eqnarray*}

344: \int_{\R^3}\frac{|\phi_n|^2}{|x|}\,d^3x&\leq& \int_{\R^3}\frac{|\tilde \phi_n|^2}{|x|}\,d^3x+\frac 1R\int_{\R^3}|\phi_n|^2\,\left(1-\chi^2\left(\frac{|x|}R\right)\right)\,d^3x\\

345: &\leq& \int_{\R^3}\frac{|\tilde \phi_n|^2}{|x|}\,d^3x+\frac 1R

346: \end{eqnarray*}

347: with $\tilde\phi_n=\chi(|R^{-1}\cdot|)\,\phi_n$, it is therefore sufficient to prove that $\int_{\R^3}|x|^{-1}\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2\,d^3x$ is uniformly bounded, for some $R>0$, eventually small. Using the estimate

348: \[

349: a^2\geq \frac{(a+b)^2}{1+\varepsilon}-\frac{b^2}\varepsilon\ ,

350: \]

351: we get the following lower bound

352: \begin{eqnarray*}

353: \int_{\R^3}\frac{|P_B\phi_n|^2}{1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}}\,d^3x&\geq&

354: \int_{\R^3}\frac{|P_B\phi_n|^2\,\chi^2}{1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}}\,d^3x\\ &\geq& \int_{\R^3}\frac{|P_B\tilde\phi_n|^2}{(1+\varepsilon)\big(1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\big)}\,d^3x-\frac C\varepsilon\,\|\tilde\phi_n\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2

355: \end{eqnarray*}

356: }{where $C$ is a constant which depends on $\|\chi'\|_{L^\infty(\R^+)}^2$, $B$ and $R$. Next, with the same type of arguments, we can write

357: \[

358: |P_B\tilde\phi_n|^2\geq\frac{|\sigma\cdot\nabla\tilde\phi_n|^2}{1+\varepsilon}-\frac 1\varepsilon\,{\Big|\,B\,|x|\,\tilde\phi_n\,\Big|^2}\geq\frac{|\sigma\cdot\nabla\tilde\phi_n|^2}{1+\varepsilon}-\frac {B^2\,R^2}\varepsilon\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2\;.

359: \]

360: Collecting these estimates, this gives

361: \[

362: \int_{\R^3}\frac{|\sigma\cdot\nabla\tilde\phi_n|^2}{(1+\varepsilon)^2\big(1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\big)}\,d^3x\leq C(\varepsilon,R,\chi)+\int_{\R^3} \frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2 \,d^3x\;.

363: \]

364: Because $\tilde\phi_n$ has a compact support in the ball of radius $2\,R$, if $\delta=\delta(R)>(1+\tilde\lambda)R/\nu_n$ at least for $n$ large enough, then 

365: \[

366: \frac 1{1+\tilde\lambda+\frac{\nu_n}{|x|}}\geq \frac{|x|}{\nu_n\,(1+\delta)}\quad\forall\;x\in B(0,R)

367: \]

368: so that

369: \[

370: \frac1{(1+\varepsilon)^2\,\nu_n\,(1+\delta)}\int_{\R^3}|x|\,|\sigma\cdot\nabla\tilde\phi_n|^2\,d^3x\leq C(\varepsilon,R,\chi)+\int_{\R^3} \frac{\nu_n}{|x|}\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2 \,d^3x\;.

371: \]

372: On the other hand, according to \cite{DES,DELV},

373: \[

374: \int_{\R^3}|x|\,|\sigma\cdot\nabla\tilde\phi_n|^2\,d^3x\geq \int_{\R^3} \frac 1{|x|}\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2 \,d^3x\ .

375: \]

376: This provides a uniform upper bound on $\int_{\R^3}|x|^{-1}\,|\tilde\phi_n|^2 \,d^3x$ if $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ are chosen small enough in order that 

377: \[

378: \frac1{(1+\varepsilon)^2\,(1+\delta)}>\nu_n^2

379: \]

380: for $n$ large. This can always be done since $\nu_n$ converges to $\nu\in (0,1)$ and $\delta(R)$ can be taken as small as desired for $R>0$ sufficiently small. This concludes the proof of \eqn{zzz}.}

381: 

382: \medskip{Summarizing,} we obtain that

383: $$

384: J\left[\phi_n, {\frac 12(\tilde\lambda+\lambda_1(\nu,B))}, \nu, B\right] \leq 0\ ,

385: $$

386: for {$n$ large enough: hence} $\lambda [\phi_n, \nu, B]\leq\frac 12{(\tilde\lambda+\lambda_1(\nu,B))}<\lambda_1(\nu, B)$, a contra\-diction. \finprf

387: 

388: Consider now the effect of a scaling on $J$.}

389: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

390: \begin{lemma} Let $B\geq 0$, $\lambda\geq -1$, $\theta>0$ and $\phi_\theta(x) :=\theta^{3/2}\phi(\theta\,x)$ for any $x\in\R^3$. Then

391: \[

392: \nabla_{{ A}_{\theta^2B}}\phi_\theta(x)=\theta^{5/2}\left[\nabla\phi(\theta\,x)-i\,{ A}_B(\theta\,x)\,\phi (\theta\,x) \right] \ ,

393: \]

394: and for any $a \in \R$, $\nu \in (0,1)$,

395: \be\label{Eqn:ScaledFunctional}

396: J[\phi_\theta,\lambda,\theta^a\nu,\theta^2B]= \int_{\R^3}\left(\theta^2\frac{|P_B \phi|^2} {1+\lambda+\frac{\theta^{a+1}\nu}{|x|}} +(1-\lambda)|\phi|^2-\frac{\theta^{a+1}\nu}{|x|}\,|\phi|^2\right)\,d^3x\;.

397: \ee \end{lemma}

398: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

399: Using this scaling, we prove some properties enjoyed by the function $\lambda_1(\nu,B)$.

400: Take $\lambda=\lambda[\phi_\theta,\nu,\theta^2B]>-1$, $ \theta>1$ and $a=0$ in \eqn{Eqn:ScaledFunctional}. With $1+\lambda= \theta(1+\mu)$,

401: \begin{eqnarray*}

402: 0&=&J[\phi_\theta,\lambda,\nu,\theta^2B]\\

403: &=&\theta\int_{\R^3}\left(\frac {|P_B\phi|^2} {1+\mu+\frac\nu{|x|}}+(1-\mu)|\phi|^2-\frac\nu{|x|}\,| \phi|^2\right)d^3x+2(1-\theta)\int_{\R^3}|\phi|^2\;d^3x\ .

404: \end{eqnarray*}

405: Assuming that $\|\phi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1$, we get

406: \[

407: J[\phi,\mu,\nu,B]=2\,\frac{\theta-1}\theta>0\,

408: \]

409: and thus,

410: \[

411: \lambda[\phi,\nu,B]> \mu=\frac\lambda\theta-\frac{\theta-1}\theta\;.

412: \]

413: On the other hand, $\frac \partial{\partial\mu}J[\phi,\mu,\nu,B]\leq -1$, so that

414: \[

415: \lambda[\phi,\nu,B]\leq \mu+J[\phi,\mu,\nu,B]=\frac\lambda\theta+\frac {\theta-1}\theta\;.

416: \]

417: Summarizing, we have the estimate

418: \[

419: \frac{\lambda[\phi_\theta,\nu,\theta^2B]}\theta-\frac{\theta-1}\theta \leq \lambda[\phi,\nu,B] \leq \frac{\lambda[\phi_\theta,\nu, \theta^2B]}\theta+\frac{\theta-1}\theta\quad\forall\; \theta>1\;.

420: \]

421: The above estimate, which holds provided $\lambda[\phi_\theta,\nu,\theta^2B]>-1$ is equivalent to

422: \be\label{Estim-Page5}

423: \frac{\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B]}\theta-\frac{\theta-1}\theta\leq \lambda[\phi_{1/\theta},\nu,B] \leq \frac{\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B]} \theta+\frac{\theta-1}\theta\quad\forall\; \theta>1

424: \ee

425: under the condition $\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B]>-1$. {As a consequence, we have the following result.}

426: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

427: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop:Lipschitz} For all $\nu\in (0,1)$, the function $B\mapsto \lambda_1(\nu,B)$ is continuous as long as it takes its values in $(-1,+\infty)$. Moreover

428: \be\label{restricttheta}

429: \frac{\lambda_1(\nu,\theta^2B)}\theta-\frac{\theta-1}\theta\leq \lambda_1(\nu,B) \leq \frac{\lambda_1(\nu,\theta^2B)}\theta+\frac {\theta-1}\theta\ ,

430: \ee

431: if $\lambda_1(\nu, B) \in (-1, +\infty)$ and $\theta\in\left(1, \frac 2{1-\lambda_1(\nu,B)}\right)$. As a consequence,

432: $B\mapsto \lambda_1(\nu,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous for any $\nu \in (0,1)$ and $B>0$ such that $\lambda_1(\nu,B)\in(-1,+\infty)$:

433: \[

434: \frac{\lambda_1-1}{2B} \leq\frac{\partial\lambda_1}{\partial B}\leq \frac{\lambda_1+1}{2B}\;. \]\end{proposition}

435: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

436: \proof Choose $a\in (-1,\lambda_1(\nu,B))$ and take any $\phi\in C^ \infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)$. Since

437: $$

438: \frac\partial{\partial\lambda}J[\phi, \lambda,\nu,B]\leq -1\ ,

439: $$

440: an integration on the interval $[a,\lambda [\phi,\nu,B]]$ shows that

441: \[

442: -J[\phi,a,\nu,B]=\Big[J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]\Big]_{\lambda=a}^{\lambda= \lambda[\phi,\nu,B]}\leq -\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]+a

443: \]

444: where the first {equality} holds by definition of $\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]$, {\sl i.e.\/} $J[\phi,\lambda[\phi,\nu,B],\nu,B]=0$. As a consequence,

445: \[

446: J[\phi,a,\nu,B]\geq\lambda[\phi,\nu,B]-a>0\;.

447: \]

448: The function $\theta\mapsto J[\phi,a,\nu,\theta^2B]$ is continuous, so only two cases are possible:\\

449: \underline{\sl First case:\/}

450: \[

451: J[\phi,a,\nu,\theta^2B]\geq 0\quad\forall\;\theta>1\;,

452: \]

453: \underline{\sl Second case:\/} there exists a constant $\bar\theta=\bar\theta(a,\phi)>1$ such that \begin{description}

454: \item{(i)} $J[\phi,a,\nu,\theta^2B]>0$ for any {$\theta\in (1,\bar \theta)$,}

455: \item{(ii)} $J[\phi,a,\nu,{\bar\theta}^2B]=0$ or, equivalently, $ \lambda[\phi,\nu,{\bar\theta}^2B]=a$.

456: \end{description}

457: In the second case, by (i), we know that $\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B] > a>-1$ for any {$\theta\in (1,\bar\theta)$} and so \eqn{Estim-Page5} applies:

458: {\[

459: \theta\,\lambda_1(\nu,B)\leq \theta\,\lambda[\phi_{1/\theta},\nu,B]\leq\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B]+\theta-1\;.

460: \]}

461: In the limit case $\theta=\bar\theta$, we get

462: \[

463: \bar\theta\,\lambda_1(\nu,B)+1-\bar\theta\leq\lambda[\phi,\nu,{\bar \theta}^2B]=a\;,

464: \]

465: which gives the estimate

466: \[

467: \bar\theta\geq\frac{1-a}{1-\lambda_1(\nu,B)}=:\theta^*(a)\;.

468: \]

469: Thus the inequality

470: \[

471: \theta\,\lambda_1(\nu,B)\leq \theta\,\lambda[\phi_{1/\theta},\nu,B]\leq\lambda[\phi,\nu,\theta^2B]+\theta-1

472: \]

473: holds for any $\theta\in [0,\theta^*(a)]$ and for any $\phi\in C^ \infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)$, which proves the r.h.s. inequality in (\ref {restricttheta}) by letting $a\to -1$:

474: \[

475: \lim_{a\to -1}\theta^*(a)=\frac 2{1-\lambda_1(\nu,B)}\;.

476: \]

477: The l.h.s. inequality is obtained in the same manner.

478: \finprf

479: 

480: With the appropriate test functions one can prove that $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is always below~$-1$ for $B$ large. We recall that $\lambda_1(\nu,B)=-1$ means that if $J[\phi,-1,\nu,B]\leq 0$ for any $\phi\in{\cal A}(\nu,B)$. Let us give some details.

481: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

482: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop:testfunction} Let $\nu\in (0,1)$. Then {for $B$ large enough, $\lambda_1(\nu,B)\leq 0$ and there exists $B^*>0$ such that $\lambda_1(\nu,B)=-1$ for any $B\geq B^*$.} \end{proposition}

483: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

484: \proof Let us consider $B>0$ and the trial function

485: $$

486: \psi=\binom\phi{0}\ ,

487: $$

488: where

489: $$

490: \phi = \sqrt{\frac B{2\,\pi}}\,e^{-\frac{B}{4}(|x_1|^2+|x_2|^2)} \,\binom{f (x_3)}{0} \ $$

491: and $f\in C^\infty_0(\R, \R)$ is such that $f\equiv 1$ for $| x|\leq \delta$, $\delta$ small but fixed, and $\|f\|_{_{L^2 (\R)}}=1$. Note that $\phi\in Ker(P_B+i\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3})$ and so, 

492: $$

493: P_B \phi = -i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\,\phi\; ,

494: $$

495: Moreover, the state $\phi$ is normalized in $L^2(\R^3)$. With $r=|x|$, we can define

496: \be\label{GB}

497: G_B[\phi]:=\int_{\R^3}\left(\frac r{\nu}\,|P_B \phi|^2- \frac{\nu} {r}\,|\phi|^2\right)d^3x

498: \ee

499: {and compute}

500: \begin{eqnarray*}

501: G_B[\phi]&=&B\,\iint_{\R\times\R^+} \left(\frac{\sqrt{s^2+|x_3|^2}}{\nu} \,|f'(x_3)|^2-\frac{\nu\,|f(x_3)|^2}{\sqrt{s^2+|x_3|^2}} \right)s\,e^ {-B\,s^2/2}\,ds\,dx_3

502: \\&=&\iint_{\R\times\R^+} \left(\frac{\sqrt{\scriptstyle B^{-1}s^2+|x_3|^2}}{\nu} \,|f'(x_3)|^2-\frac{\nu\,|f(x_3)|^2}{\sqrt{\scriptstyle B^{-1}s^2+|x_3|^2}} \right)s\,e^{-s^2/2}\,ds\,dx_3\ .

503: \end{eqnarray*}

504: {Using $\sqrt{B^{-1}s^2+|x_3|^2}\leq B^{-1/2}\,s+|x_3|$ and

505: \begin{eqnarray*}

506: \iint_{\R\times\R^+}\frac{|f(x_3)|^2}{\sqrt{B^{-1}s^2+|x_3|^2}}\,s\,e^{-s^2/2}\,ds&\geq&

507: \int_0^1\frac{ds}{\sqrt e}\int_0^\delta\frac s{B^{-1/2}s+x_3}\,dx_3\\

508: &&\qquad\geq\frac 1{4\sqrt e}\,\log(\delta^2B)\ ,

509: \end{eqnarray*}

510: for $B\geq 1$, we can therefore bound $G_B[\phi]$ from above by

511: \[

512: G_B[\phi]\leq\frac{C_1}{\nu}+C_2\,\nu- C_3\,\nu\log B\ .

513: \]

514: where $C_i$, $i=1$, $2$, $3$, are positive constants which depend only on $f$. For $B\geq 1$ large enough,} $G_B[\phi]+2\,\| \phi \|^2 \leq 0$ and $\lambda_1(\nu,B)= -1$, since in this case $J[\phi,-1,\nu,B] \leq 0$. \finprf

515: 

516: 

517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

518: \subsection{The critical magnetic field}

519: 

520: Proposition \ref{Prop:testfunction} motivates the following definition.

521: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

522: \begin{definition}\label{Def:CriticalMagField} Let $\nu\in (0,1)$. We define the {\rm critical} magnetic field as

523: \[

524: B(\nu):=\inf\left\{B>0\;:\;\lim_{b\nearrow B}\lambda_1(\nu, b)=-1\right\}\;.

525: \]\end{definition}

526: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

527: 

528: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

529: \begin{corollary} For all $\nu\in (0,1)$, $\lambda_1(\nu,B)<1$ {for any $B\in(0,B(\nu))$} . \end{corollary}

530: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

531: \proof For $B= 0$ we have $\lambda_1(\nu, 0)=\sqrt{1-\nu^2}<1$. {Given $B>0$, small, by continuity of $B\mapsto\lambda_1(\nu,B)$ we know that $\lambda_1(\nu,B)\in (0,1)$. Let us consider~$\theta\in(1,\sqrt{B(\nu)/B})$ such that $-1<\lambda_1(\nu, \theta^2B)\leq 0$.} This is made possible by Propositions \ref{Prop:Lipschitz} and \ref{Prop:testfunction}. Then, by Proposition \ref{Prop:Lipschitz},

532: $$ \lambda_1(\nu, B)\leq \frac{\theta -1}{\theta}<1\ .$$ \finprf

533: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

534: The computations {of Proposition \ref{Prop:testfunction}} show the existence of a constant $C_3>0$ such that $B(\nu)\leq e^{\,C_3/\nu^2}$, for all $\nu\in (0,1)$. This estimate can be made more precise for any $\nu$ not too small:

535: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

536: \begin{theorem}\label{HHH} For all {$\nu\in(0,1)$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that}

537: \[\label{firstineq}

538: {\frac {4}{5\,\nu^2}} \leq\; B(\nu)\;\leq \;\min \left(\frac{18\,\pi\,\nu^2}{[3\,\nu^2-2]_+^2}\ ,\ e^{\,C/\nu^2} \right)\ .

539: \]

540: \end{theorem}

541: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

542: The proof of this theorem uses Proposition \ref{Prop:testfunction}. Otherwise it is splitted in two partial results stated in Propositions \ref{Prop:testfunction2} and~\ref{Prop:lowerboundatone}. 

543: 

544: Notice that there is a big gap between these lower and upper estimates when $\nu$ is small. To try to better understand this problem, in the next section, we will analyze the case when $B$ is large, proving that the $3d$ definition of $B(\nu)$ is actually asymptotically equivalent to a $1d$ problem related to the lowest relativistic Landau level. More precisely we will prove that when $\nu$ is small, $B$ is not too small and $\lambda_1(\nu, B)\in (-1,1)$, the eigenvalue associated with $\lambda_1(\nu,B)\in (-1,1)$ is {\sl almost equal\/} to the corresponding eigenvalue in the lowest relativistic Landau level class of functions, see Theorem~\ref{thmfirstll}. We will also establish that $B(\nu)$ behaves in the limit $\nu\to 0$ like the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{HHH} and obtain the corresponding value of $C$, see Theorem~\ref{CC}.

545: 

546: Our first partial result is the following

547: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

548: \begin{proposition} \label{Prop:testfunction2} For any $\nu\in (\sqrt{2/3},1)$, $\sqrt{B(\nu)}\leq \frac{3\,\sqrt{2\,\pi}\,\nu}{3\,\nu^2-2}$. \end{proposition}

549: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

550: \proof Consider the trial function $\psi=\binom\phi{0}$ where

551: $$

552: \phi = \left(\frac B{2 \pi}\right)^{3/4}e^{-B\,|x|^2/4}\,\binom 10\ ,

553: $$

554: is like the one chosen in the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop:testfunction}, {with $f(x_3)=\left(\frac B{2 \pi}\right)^{1/4}e^{-B x_3^3/4}$}. Here, with the notation $r:=|x|$, we find

555: \begin{eqnarray*}

556: &&\hspace*{-12pt}G_B[\phi]=B^2\int \frac{r\,|x_3|^2}{4\,\nu}\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x - \int \frac{\nu}{r}\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x

557: \\&=&

558: (2 \pi)^{-\frac 32}\,B^{\frac 12} \left[\frac{\pi}{2\,\nu} \int_0^\infty e^{-r^2/2}\,r^5\,dr \int_0^\pi\cos^2\theta\,\sin\theta\,d \theta - 4\,\pi\,\nu \int_0^\infty e^{-r^2/2}\,r\,dr\right]

559: \\&=&

560: (2 \pi)^{-\frac 32}\,B^{\frac 12}\left[ \frac{\pi}{{3\,\nu}}\int_0^\infty e^{-r^2/2} r^5 dr - 4\,\pi\,\nu \int_0^\infty e^{-r^2/2}\,r\,dr\right]

561: \\&=&

562: (2\pi)^{-\frac 32}\,B^{\frac 12}\left[\frac{8\,\pi}{{3\,\nu}}-4\,\pi\,\nu\right]\ .

563: \end{eqnarray*}

564: If $\nu^2\in (2/3, 1)$ and $\sqrt{B}\geq \frac{3\,\sqrt{2\,\pi}\,\nu}{3\,\nu^2-2}$, then 

565: $G_B[\phi]\leq -2=-||\phi||_2$ and so $\lambda_1(\nu, B)=-1$, which proves the Proposition. \finprf

566: 

567: Proposition \ref{Prop:testfunction} shows that for $\nu>\sqrt{2/3}$ and $B$ large, $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ possibly ceases to be an eigenvalue of the operator $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$. This can be interpreted by saying that for strong magnetic fields, the Coulomb potential does not stabilize the electron. At some level, electron-positron pairs could appear and then Quantum Field Theory (or QED) becomes unavoidable for a correct description of the electron dynamics, see \cite{pickl}.

568: 

569: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

570: \begin{proposition}\label{Prop:ScalingBNu} For given $\nu\in (0, 1)$ and $B>0$, the function {$\theta\mapsto\lambda_1(\theta^{-1}\nu,\theta^2B)$ is monotone nondecreasing as long~as it takes its values in $(-1,1)$ and $\nu/\theta\in(0,1)$.}\end{proposition}

571: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

572: \proof Take $a=-1$ in \eqn{Eqn:ScaledFunctional}:

573: \[

574: J\left[\phi_\theta,\lambda, \theta^{-1}\nu,\theta^2B\right]=(\theta^2-1) \int_{\R^3}\frac{|P_B\phi|^2} {1+\lambda+\frac\nu{|x|}}\;d^3x+J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]

575: \]

576: so that for $\theta<1$,

577: \[

578: J\left[\phi_\theta,\lambda,\theta^{-1}\nu,\theta^2B\right]\leq J[\phi,\lambda,\nu,B]

579: \]

580: at least for $1-\theta>0$, small, so that $\phi_\theta\in {\cal A}\left(\theta^{-1}\nu,\theta^2B\right)$ for $\phi={\phi_\nu}$ such that $

581: \lambda[{\phi_\nu},\nu,B] =\lambda_1(\nu,B)$. This proves that

582: \be\label{Ineq:theta}

583: \lambda_1\left(\theta^{-1}\nu,\theta^2B\right) \leq\lambda_1(\nu,B)

584: \ee

585: for $1-\theta>0$, small. By continuation, the property holds as long as the {assumptions of Proposition~\ref{Prop:ScalingBNu} are satisfied. The case $\theta>1$ follows by multiplying $\theta\,\nu$ and $\theta^{-2}B$ by respectively $\theta^{-1}$ and $\theta^2$.}\finprf

586: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

587: \begin{corollary}\label{Cor:LowerEstimate} There exists a positive constant $\Lambda$ such that

588: \[

589: B(\nu)\geq \frac\Lambda{\nu^2}\quad\mbox{as}\;\nu\searrow 0\;.

590: \] \end{corollary} %---------------------------------------------------------------------

591: \proof Let $(\nu_0,B_0)$ be such that $B(\nu_0)>B_0$, {\sl i.e.,\/} $\lambda_1(\nu_0,B_0)>-1$ and take $\nu\in (0,\nu_0)$, $\theta=\nu/\nu_0\in (0,1)$, $B=\theta^{-2}B_0$ in \eqn{Ineq:theta}:

592: \[

593: -1<\lambda_1(\nu_0,B_0)\leq\lambda_1(\nu,B)=\lambda_1(\sqrt{B_0/B}\,\nu_0,B)\;.

594: \]

595: By Proposition \ref{Prop:MonotonicityNu}, this inequality can be extended to

596: \[

597: \lambda_1(\sqrt{B_0/B}\,\nu_0,B)\leq \lambda_1(\nu,B)\quad\forall\;\nu\in (0,\sqrt{B_0/B}\,\nu_0)\;.

598: \]

599: {This amounts to say} that

600: \[

601: 0\leq\nu\leq\sqrt{B_0/B}\,\nu_0\Longrightarrow B(\nu)\geq B_0\,\frac{\nu_0^2}{\nu^2}\;,

602: \]

603: which proves the result with $\Lambda=B_0\,\nu_0^2$.\finprf

604: 

605: The constant $\Lambda$ can be made more precise. {The remainder of this section is devoted to the following improvement of Corollary \ref{Cor:LowerEstimate}.}

606: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

607: \begin{proposition} \label{Prop:lowerboundatone} For all $\nu\in (0,1)$,

608: $$

609: G_B[\phi]=\int_{\R^3}\frac{|x|}{\nu}\,|P_B\phi|^2\,d^3x-\int_{\R^3}\frac{\nu}{|x|}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3x\ge-\nu\,\sqrt {5B}\int_{\R^3}|\phi|^2\,d^3x\ .

610: $$

611: In particular this implies that {$B(\nu)\geq \frac 4{5\,\nu^2}$}. \end{proposition}%---------------------------------------------------------------------

612: \proof Scaling the function $\phi$ according to

613: $$

614: \phi_B:=B^{3/4}\,\phi\left(B^{1/2}\,x\right)

615: $$

616: preserves the $L^2$ norm, and yields

617: $$

618: G_B[\phi_B] = \sqrt B\,G_1[\phi] \ ,

619: $$

620: {where $G_B$ has been defined in \eqn{GB}.} Obviously it is sufficient to find a good estimate on the functional $G_1$.

621: 

622: \bigskip {Let us collect some preliminary observations.} Recalling that the angular momentum vector $L$ is given by

623: $$

624: L= -i \,\nabla \wedge x \ ,

625: $$

626: a simple calculation shows that

627: \[\label{angmom}

628: \sigma \cdot \nabla = \left(\sigma \cdot \frac{x}{r}\right)\,\left(\partial_r - \frac{1}{r}\,\sigma \cdot L\right)

629: \]

630: {with $r=|x|$ and $\partial_r=\frac xr\cdot\nabla$. We also recall that}

631: $$

632: -i\,A_1(x) \cdot \sigma = -\left(\sigma \cdot \frac{x}{r}\right) \,\left( \sigma \cdot q(x)\right) \ \quad\mbox{where}\quad q(x) = \frac{1}{2\,r} \left[\begin{array}{c} -x_3\,x_1 \\ -x_3\,x_2 \\ x_1^2+x_2^2 \end{array}\right]

633: $$

634: {and}

635: $$

636: i\,P_1 = \sigma \cdot \nabla - i\,A_1(x) \cdot \sigma

637: $$

638: {so that we can expand $|P_1 \phi |^2$ as

639: \begin{eqnarray*}

640: |P_1 \phi |^2&=&\left|\left(\partial_r -\frac{1}{r}\,\sigma \cdot L -\sigma \cdot q(x)\right)\phi\right|^2\\

641: &=&|\partial_r \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\sigma \cdot L\,\phi|^2 + |q|^2\,|\phi|^2 -\partial_r \langle \phi, \sigma \cdot q\,\phi \rangle + \langle \phi, \sigma \cdot (\partial_r q)\,\phi \rangle\\

642: &&\qquad+\;\frac 1r\,\Big[-\partial_r \langle \phi, \sigma \cdot L\,\phi \rangle+\langle \sigma \cdot L\,\phi, \sigma \cdot q\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \cdot q\,\phi, \sigma \cdot L\,\phi \rangle \Big] \ .

643: \end{eqnarray*}

644: As a last preliminary remark, we notice that $r\,\partial_rq = q$.}

645: 

646: \medskip Since the vector potential grows linearly, we localize the problem near the origin. To this end consider the function

647: $$

648: t(r)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \hbox{if} \; r \leq R\ , \\ &\\

649: {R}/{r} & \hbox{if}\; r \geq R\ .\end{array}\right.

650: $$

651: Since $t(r)\leq 1$ and $\nu \le 1$ we get the lower bound

652: \begin{eqnarray*}

653: G_1[\phi]&\geq&\int_{\R^3} \frac{t(r)\,r}{\nu}\,|P_1 \phi |^2\,d^3 x - \int_{\R^3} \frac{\nu}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x

654: \\&\geq& \nu \left(\int_{\R^3} t(r)\,r\,|P_1 \phi |^2\,d^3 x - \int_{\R^3} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x\right)=\nu \left(K[\phi] - \int_{\R^3} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x\right)

655: \end{eqnarray*}

656: where the kinetic part is defined by $K[\phi]:= \int_{\R^3} t(r)\,r\,|P_1 \phi |^2\,d^3 x$ and satisfies

657: \begin{eqnarray*}

658: &&K[\phi]\\

659: && =\int_{\R^3} t(r)\,r\left[ |\partial_r \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi|^2 + |q|^2\,|\phi|^2\right]d^3x \\

660: &&\qquad +\int_{\R^3} t(r)\Big[-r \,\partial_r \langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle + r\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! (\partial_r q)\,\phi \rangle-\partial_r \langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle \Big]\,d^3 x \\

661: &&\qquad +\int_{\R^3} t(r)\Big[\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle\Big] \,d^3x \ .

662: \end{eqnarray*}

663: An integration by parts in the $r$ variable yields

664: \begin{eqnarray*}

665: &&K[\phi]\\

666: && = \int_{\R^3} t(r)\,r\,\left[ |\partial_r \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi|^2 + |q|^2\,|\phi|^2\right]d^3x\\

667: &&\; +\int_{\R^3} t(r) \left[4\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\frac{2}{r}\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle\right] d^3x\\

668: &&\; +\int_{\R^3} t'(r) \Big[\,r\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle + \langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle \,\Big]\,d^3x\ ,

669: \end{eqnarray*}

670: where we have also used that $r\,\partial_rq = q$. Consider now the region of integration where $r \leq R$ and denote the corresponding expression by $K_1[\phi]$. There the derivative of $t(r)$ vanishes and hence collecting terms we find

671: \begin{eqnarray*}

672: K_1[\phi]=\int_{r \leq R}t\,r \left[|\partial_r \phi|^2 + \left|\left[\frac{1}{r}\,(\sigma \cdot L + 1) +\sigma\cdot q\right]\phi\right|^2- \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\phi|^2\right] d^3 x \\

673: +\,2 \int_{r \leq R}\langle \phi, \sigma \cdot q\,\phi \rangle \,d^3 x \ .

674: \end{eqnarray*}

675: 

676: \medskip At this point we have decoupled the derivatives with respect to $r$ from the magnetic field or, to be precise, from $q$. The problem is that the angular momentum is still coupled to the magnetic field. Obviously

677: $$

678: \left|\,\Big[\frac{1}{r}\,(\sigma \cdot L + 1) +\sigma\cdot q\Big]\,\phi\right|\,\geq \left|\,\Big|\frac{1}{r}\,(\sigma \cdot L + 1)\,\phi\,\Big| -|\,\sigma\cdot q\,\phi\,| \,\right| \ .

679: $$

680: Further, since the eigenvalues of $\sigma \cdot L+1$ are given by $\pm 1$, $\pm 2 \dots $,

681: $$

682: \left\|\,(\sigma \cdot L + 1)\,\phi\,\right\|_{L^2(S^2)} \;\geq\quad \left\|\phi\,\right\|_{L^2(S^2)}\ ,

683: $$

684: and we have that

685: $$

686: \left\|\Big[\frac{1}{r}\,(\sigma \!\cdot\! L + 1) +\sigma\!\cdot\! q\,\Big]\,\phi\,\right\|_{L^2(S^2)}\kern -9pt \geq \frac{1}{r}\,\| \phi \|_{L^2(S^2)} -\Big\|\,|q|\,\phi\,\Big\|_{L^2(S^2)}\kern -3pt \geq \Big[\frac{1}{r}\,-\frac{r}{2}\Big]\,\| \phi\|_{L^2(S^2)}\ ,

687: $$

688: {since $|q(r)| \leq r/2$. For $r \leq R \leq \sqrt 2$, the factor $

689: [\frac{1}{r}\,-\frac{r}{2}]$ is nonnegative. Since $

690: [\frac{1}{r}\,-\frac{r}{2}]^2-\frac 1{r^2}=\frac{r^2}{4} - 1$ and since $2\,|q(r)|\leq r$, we obtain the lower bound}

691: $$

692: K_1[\phi]\geq \int_{r \leq R} r\left[\,|\partial_r \phi|^2 + {\Big[\frac{r^2}{4} - 2\Big]} |\phi|^2\,\right]d^3 x \ .

693: $$

694: The function $\frac{r^3}{4} - 2r$ is a decreasing function on the interval $\big[\,0,\sqrt{2}\,\big]$. Hence

695: $$

696: K_1[\phi] \ge \int_{r \leq R} r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2\,d^3 x + {\Big[\,\frac {R^3}4-2R\,\Big]} \int_{r \le R} |\phi|^2\,d^3 x\ ,\quad \mbox{if}\ R<\sqrt{2}\ .

697: $$

698: 

699: \medskip Next, we look at the {contribution to $K[\phi]$ of the} region where $r \geq R$, which we denote by $K_2[\phi]$,

700: \begin{eqnarray*}

701: &&K_2[\phi]\\

702: && =t \int_{r \geq R}\kern -6pt t(r)\,r\,\left[ |\partial_r \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi|^2 + |q|^2\,|\phi|^2\right]d^3x\\

703: &&\; +\int_{r \geq R}\kern -6pt t(r) \left[4\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\frac{2}{r}\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle\right] d^3x\\

704: &&\; -\int_{r \geq R}\frac{t(r)}{r}\,\Big[ \,r\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle + \langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle \,\Big]\ ,

705: \end{eqnarray*}

706: using the fact that $t'=-t/r$. Collecting the terms, we get

707: \begin{eqnarray*}

708: &&K_2[\phi]\\&& = \int_{r \geq R}\kern -12pt t(r)\,r\left[ |\partial_r \phi|^2 + \frac{1}{r^2}\,|\sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi|^2 + |q|^2\,|\phi|^2\right]d^3x\\

709: && +\int_{r \geq R}\kern -12pt t(r) \left[3\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\frac{1}{r}\,\langle \phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi \rangle +\langle \sigma \!\cdot\! q\,\phi, \sigma \!\cdot\! L\,\phi \rangle\right] d^3x \ .

710: \end{eqnarray*}

711: This can be rewritten as

712: \begin{eqnarray*}

713: K_2[\phi]&&\geq\int_{r \geq R} t(r)\,r\left[ |\partial_r \phi|^2 + \left|\,\Big[\,\frac{1}{r}\,\Big[\sigma \cdot L+\frac 12\Big]+\sigma \cdot q\,\Big] \phi \,\right|^2 -\frac{1}{4\,r^2}\,|\phi|^2\right]d^3x\\

714: && \qquad+\;2 \int_{r \geq R} t(r) \,\langle \phi, \sigma \cdot q\,\phi \rangle \,d^3x \ .

715: \end{eqnarray*}

716: Finally we get

717: $$

718: K_2[\phi] \ge \int_{r \geq R} t(r)\,r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2 \,d^3x - \frac{1}{4R} \int_{r \geq R} |\phi|^2 \,d^3x -2R \int_{r \geq R} \frac{1}{r}\,|q|\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x\ ,

719: $$

720: {and, using $|q|/r\leq 1/2$,}

721: $$

722: K_2[\phi] \geq \int_{r \geq R} t(r)\,r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2 \,d^3x - \Big[R+\frac{1}{4R}\Big] \int_{r \geq R} | \phi|^2 \,d^3x\ .

723: $$

724: 

725: \medskip Thus {we can estimate $K[\phi]=K_1[\phi]+K_2[\phi]$ as follows:}

726: $$

727: K[\phi] \geq \int_{\R^3} t(r)\,r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2 \,d^3x + \Big[\frac{R^3}{4}-2R\Big]\int_{r \leq R} |\phi|^2\,d^3 x - \Big[R +\frac{1}{4R}\Big]\int_{r \geq R} | \phi|^2 \,d^3x \ .

728: $$

729: Observe that generally

730: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{posit}

731: 0&\leq& \int_{\R^3}\kern -6pt t(r)\,r\left| \partial_r \phi + \frac{1}{r}\,\phi\right|^2\,d^3 x\\

732: &&\qquad = \int_{\R^3}\kern -6pt t(r)\,r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2\,d^3 x - \int_{\R^3}\kern -6pt t(r)\,\frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x -\int_{\R^3}\kern -6pt t'(r)\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x \ .

733: \end{eqnarray*}

734: Since $t'(r) \equiv 0$ and $t(r) \equiv 1$ on $[0,R)$, and $t'(r)=-t(r)/r$ on $(R, \infty)$, {the following estimate holds}

735: \begin{eqnarray*}

736: \int_{\R^3}\! t(r)\,r\,|\partial_r \phi|^2\,d^3 x - \int_{\R^3} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x &\geq& -\int_{\R^3} \!\frac{1-t(r)}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x +\int_{\R^3} t'(r)\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x \\

737: &&\;= -\int_{r \ge R} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x \ge -\frac{1}{R} \int_{r \ge R} |\phi|^2 \,d^3x

738: \end{eqnarray*}

739: and hence

740: $$

741: K[\phi] - \int_{\R^3} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2 \,d^3x \geq {\Big[\frac{R^3}{4}-2R\Big]} \int_{r \leq R} |\phi|^2\,d^3 x - \Big[R + \frac{5}{4 R}\Big]\int_{r \geq R} |\phi|^2\,d^3 x \ .

742: $$

743: {Optimizing on $R\in (0,\sqrt 2]$, {\sl i.e.\/} using

744: \[

745: \max_{R\in(0,\sqrt 2)}\min\left\{\Big[\frac{R^3}{4}-2R\Big],\Big[-R - \frac{5}{4 R}\Big]\right\}=\Big[-R - \frac{5}{4 R}\Big]_{|R=\sqrt 5/2}=-\sqrt 5\ ,

746: \]

747: we get

748: $$

749: G_1[\phi]\ge\nu \left(K[\phi] - \int_{\R^3} \frac{1}{r}\,|\phi|^2\,d^3 x\right)\ge -\nu\,\sqrt 5 \int_{\R^3} |\phi|^2\,d^3 x \ .

750: $$

751: Hence the condition $G_B[\phi] =\sqrt B\,G_1[\phi] \ge -2\,\| \phi \|^2$ entails that

752: $$

753: B(\nu)\geq\frac{4}{5\,\nu^2}\ .

754: $$

755: }\finprf

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

761: \section{Asymptotics for the critical magnetic field}\label{Sec:Asymp}

762: 

763: {In the large magnetic field limit, the upper component of the eigenfunction corresponding to the lowest energy levels in the gap of Dirac operator with magnetic field $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$ is expected to behave like the eigenfunctions associated to the lowest levels of the Landau operator

764: \[

765: L_B:=-\,i\,\sigma_1\,\partial_{x_1}-\,i\,\sigma_2\,\partial_{x_2}-\sigma \cdot { A}_B(x)\;,

766: \]

767: which can also we written as $L_B=P_B+\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}$ or $L_B=-\,i\,(\partial_{x_1}+i\,{Bx_2}/2)\,\sigma_1-\,i\,(\partial_{x_2}-i{B x_1}/2)\,\sigma_2$. The goal of this section is to compare the lowest energy levels of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$ with its lowest energy levels on a space generated by the lowest energy levels of $L_B$.} The asymptotic analysis for the small coupling limit $\nu\to 0^+$ is not that simple because {the Landau levels are not stable under the action of the kinetic part of the Dirac Hamiltonian.} The way out is to choose a {representation of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$} that diagonalizes the kinetic energy in the Dirac Hamiltonian {and to project both upper and lower components on the lowest Landau levels.}

768: 

769: 

770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

771: \subsection{Projection on Landau levels}

772: 

773: {To start with, we observe that

774: \[

775: P_B^2=L_B^2-\partial_{x_3}^2

776: \]

777: and summarize the basic properties of the lowest energy levels of $L_B$.}

778: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

779: \begin{lemma}\label{Lem:LandauLevels}{\rm[\cite{T}, Section 7.1.3]} The operator $L_B$ in $L^2(\R^2, \C^2)$ has discrete spectrum $\{2n B\,:\,n \in \N\}$, each eigenvalue being infinitely degenerate. Moreover the kernel of this operator, that is, the eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalue $0$, is the set generated by the $L^2$-normalized functions

780: $$

781: \phi_\ell:=\frac{B^{(\ell+1)/2}}{\sqrt{2\,\pi\,{2^\ell\,\ell!}}}\,(x_2+i\,x_1)^\ell\,e^{-{B\,s^2}/{4}}\,\binom 01 \,,\quad\ell\in \N\,,\quad s^2=x_1^2+x_2^2\ .

782: $$

783: \end{lemma}

784: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

785: 

786: Next we diagonalize the free magnetic Dirac Hamiltonian. First we write it in the form

787: $$

788: K_B= \left(\begin{matrix}{\mathbb I} & P_B \\ P_B & -{\mathbb I}\end{matrix}\right)=\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\; \left(\begin{matrix}R & Q \\ Q & -R\end{matrix}\right)\ ,

789: $$

790: where $R$ and $Q$ are operators acting on 2 spinors, given by

791: $$

792: R = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathbb I} +P_B^2}} \,, \quad Q = \frac{P_B}{\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}} \ ,

793: $$

794: and satisfy the relation

795: $$

796: R^2+Q^2={\mathbb I} \ .

797: $$

798: The matrix

799: $$

800: \left(\begin{matrix}R & Q \\ Q & -R\end{matrix}\right)

801: $$

802: is a reflection matrix and hence has eigenvalues $1$ and $-1$. It can be diagonalized using the matrix

803: $$

804: U= \frac 1{\sqrt{2\,({\mathbb I}-R)}}\,\left(\begin{matrix}Q &R-{\mathbb I} \\ {\mathbb I}-R& Q \end{matrix}\right)\,.

805: $$

806: The operator defined by $U$ is unitary and such that

807: $$\label{matrixU}

808: U^*K_B\,U=\left(\begin{matrix} \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} & 0 \\ 0 & -\sqrt{{\mathbb I} +P_B^2}\end{matrix}\right)\,.

809: $$

810: The potential $V=\frac1{r}$ is transformed into the nonnegative operator

811: $$

812: P:=U^*VU= \left(\begin{matrix}p & q \\ q^* & t\end{matrix}\right) \ .

813: $$

814: Here and from now on, we will omit ${\mathbb I}$ whenever it is multiplied by 	a scalar valued function. If we denote by $\W$ any $4$-spinor and decompose it as

815: $$

816: \W=\binom \X\Y\ ,

817: $$

818: {where $\X$ and $\Y$ are the upper and lower components, in the new representation, the full magnetic Dirac Hamiltonian takes the form

819: \[

820: U^*H_B\,U=U^*K_B\,U-\nu\,P=\left(\begin{matrix} \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} & 0 \\ 0 & -\sqrt{{\mathbb I} +P_B^2}\end{matrix}\right)-\nu\,\left(\begin{matrix}p & q \\ q^* & t\end{matrix}\right)\ .

821: \]

822: }

823: The Dirac energy for an electronic wave function $\W$ in the electromagnetic potential $(V,A)$ is now

824: \[\begin{array}{c}

825: {\cal E}_\nu[\W]:= \,{\cal K}[\W]-\nu\,(\W, P\,\W )\ , \\ \\

826: {\cal K}[\W]:=\left(\W, U^* K_B\, U \W\right) = \left(\X, \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,\X\right) - \left(\Y, \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,\Y\right)\ .

827: \end{array}\]

828: As we shall see below, in the new representation, restricting the upper and lower components $\X$ and $\Y$ to the lowest Landau levels makes sense for studying the regime of asymptotically large $B$. The price we pay for that is that all quantities like $R$, $Q$, $U$, $P$... depend on $B$. Denote by $\PiL$ the projector on the lowest Landau level, whose image is generated by all functions

829: \[

830: (x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto\phi_\ell(x_1,x_2)\,f(x_3)\quad\forall\;\ell\in\N\ ,\quad\forall\;f\in L^2(\R)\ ,

831: \]

832: and define $\PiLC:={\mathbb I}-\PiL$. Notice that $\PiL$ commutes with $L_B$. With the above notations, for all $\xi\in L^2(\R^3,\C^2)$, we have that

833: \be\label{d1}

834: \left(\xi, \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,\xi \right) = \left( \PiL \xi, \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,\PiL \xi \right) + \left( \PiLC\xi, \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,\PiLC\xi \right)\ .

835: \ee

836: Next, we decompose any $\W\in (L^2(\R^3,\C))^4$ as

837: $$ \W=\PiTot\, \W+\PiTotC\, \W\ ,$$

838: where

839: $$

840: \PiTot := \left(\begin{matrix}\PiL & 0\\ 0&\PiL \end{matrix}\right)\;,\quad \PiTotC := \left(\begin{matrix}\PiLC & 0\\ 0&\PiLC\end{matrix}\right) \ .

841: $$

842: 

843: 

844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

845: \subsection{Main estimates}

846: 

847: {}From \eqn{d1}, it follows that

848: \[

849: {\cal K}[\W]={\cal K}[\PiTot\,\W]+{\cal K}[\PiTotC\,\W]\ .

850: \]

851: Since the operator $P$ is nonnegative, {we also have

852: \begin{eqnarray*}

853: &&\label{d2}(\W, P\,\W) \leq\left(1+ \sqrt\nu\,\right)\,\left(\PiL\,\W, P\,\PiTot\, \W\right)+ \left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt\nu}\right)\,\left(\PiTotC\, \W, P\,\PiTotC\, \W\right) \ ,\\

854: &&\label{d3}(\W, P\,\W) \geq\left(1- \sqrt\nu\,\right)\, \left(\PiL\,\W, P\,\PiTot\, \W\right)+ \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt\nu}\right)\,\left(\PiTotC\, \W, P\,\PiTotC\, \W\right)\ .

855: \end{eqnarray*}

856: This simply follows from the identities

857: \begin{eqnarray*}

858: &&(a+b)^2\leq a^2+b^2+2\,|a\,b|=\inf_{\nu>0}\left[\left(1+ \sqrt\nu\,\right)\,a^2+\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt\nu}\right)\,b^2\right]\ ,\\

859: &&(a+b)^2\geq a^2+b^2-2\,|a\,b|=\sup_{\nu>0}\left[\left(1-\sqrt\nu\,\right)\,a^2+\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt\nu}\right)\,b^2\right]\ .

860: \end{eqnarray*}

861: }

862: The above remarks prove the next proposition.

863: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

864: \begin{proposition}\label{prop14} For all $\W\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^4]$,

865: \[{\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\, \W]+{\cal E}_{\nu+\sqrt\nu}\,[\PiTotC\, \W] \ \leq\ {\cal E}_\nu[\W]\ \leq\ {\cal E}_{\nu-\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\, \W]+{\cal E}_{\nu-\sqrt\nu}\,[\PiTotC\, \W]\ .

866: \]\end{proposition}

867: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

868: 

869: The following result will allow us to get rid of the higher Landau levels when looking for the ground state energy, {{\sl i.e.\/} of the term ${\cal E}_{\nu+\sqrt\nu}\,[\PiTotC\, \W]$ in Proposition~\ref{prop14}. Consider $\bar\nu\in (0,1)$ such that

870: $$2\,(\bar\nu + \sqrt{\bar\nu}\,)=2-\sqrt{2}\ ,$$

871: {\sl i.e.\/} $\bar\nu\approx 0.056$, and for any $\nu\in (0, \bar\nu)$, define

872: \[\label{dnu}

873: d(\delta):=(1-2\delta)\sqrt{2}-2\delta\ ,\quad d_\pm(\nu):=d(\delta_\pm(\nu))\quad\mbox{with}\quad \delta_\pm(\nu):=\sqrt\nu\pm\nu\ .

874: \]

875: We have 

876: \[

877: d(\delta)>0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\delta <1-\sqrt{2}/2\,,

878: \]

879: \[

880: d_\pm(\nu)>0\quad\mbox{if} \quad\nu<\bar\nu\ .

881: \]

882: }

883: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

884: \begin{proposition}\label{prop15} Let $B>0$ and $\delta\in (1-\sqrt{2}/2)$. For any $ \tilde\W=\binom \X0$, $\bar Z=\binom 0\Y$, $\X, \Y \in L^2(\R^3,\C^2)$

885: \[\label{outHLL}

886: {\cal E}_\delta\,[\PiTotC\, \tilde\W] \geq d(\delta)\,\sqrt{B}\,\,\|\,\PiLC\,\X\,\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2\ .

887: \]

888: \[\label{outHLL2}

889: {\cal E}_{-\delta}\,[\PiTotC\, \bar Z] \leq -d(\delta)\,\sqrt{B}\,\,\|\,\PiLC\,\Y\,\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2\ .

890: \]

891: \end{proposition}

892: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

893: 

894: 

895: \proof {An elementary computation shows that

896: $$

897: P_B^2=(\nabla-i{{A}_B})^2\,{\mathbb I}+\sigma\cdot{\mathbf B}\ .

898: $$

899: Using the diamagnetic inequality (see \cite{AHS1}),

900: \[

901: \int_{\R^3}\Big|\,(\nabla-i{{A}_B})\,\psi\,\Big|^2\,dx\geq \int_{\R^3}\Big|\,\nabla |\psi|\,\Big|^2\,dx\ ,

902: \]

903: Hardy's inequality, 

904: \[

905: \int_{\R^3}\Big|\,\nabla |\psi|\,\Big|^2\,dx\geq \frac 14\int_{\R^3}\frac{|\psi|^2}{|x|^2}\;dx\ ,

906: \]

907: and the nonnegativity of $\sigma\cdot{\mathbf B}+B\,{\mathbb I}$, we get

908: $$

909: P_B^2+(1+B)\,{\mathbb I}=(\nabla-i{{A}_B})^2\,{\mathbb I}+\sigma\cdot{\mathbf B}+(1+B)\geq \left(\frac14\,\frac{1}{|x|^2}+1\right)\ .

910: $$

911: }

912: Since the square root is operator monotone, we have

913: $$

914: \sqrt B + \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} \ge \sqrt{P_B^2+(1+B)\,{\mathbb I}}\geq \sqrt{\frac14\,\frac{1}{|x|^2}+1}\ .

915: $$

916: Now, for any $\delta>0$,

917: \[\begin{array}{ll}

918: \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}-\frac{\delta}{|x|}\kern -5pt&= (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} +2\delta\,\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}-\frac{\delta}{|x|}\\

919: & \geq (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}+2\delta \,\sqrt{\frac14\,\frac{1}{|x|^2}+1}- 2\delta\,\sqrt{B}- \frac{\delta}{|x|}\\

920: & \geq (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} -2\delta\,\sqrt{B}\ .

921: \end{array}\]

922: On the range of $\PiLC$ the operator $\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}\,{\geq\sqrt{{\mathbb I}+L_B^2}}$ is bounded from below by $\sqrt{1+2B}$. {Hence}

923: $$

924: \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2}-\frac{\delta}{|x|}\ge (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{1+2B} -2\delta\,\sqrt B\ ,

925: $$

926: which is equivalent to

927: $$

928: \sqrt{{\mathbb I}+P_B^2} - \delta\,P \ge (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{1+2B} -2\delta\,\sqrt B \ .

929: $$

930: Since

931: $$

932: (1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{1+2B} -2\delta\,\sqrt B\sim d(\delta)\,\sqrt B

933: $$

934: as $B\to\infty$, and 

935: $$

936: \inf_{B>0}[(1-2\delta) \,\sqrt{1+2B} -2\delta\,\sqrt B]>0$$

937: if $d(\delta)>0$, the right hand side is positive for any field strength provided that $0\le \delta< 1-\sqrt{2}/2$.\finprf

938: 

939: 

940: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

941: \subsection{The restricted problem}

942: 

943: Next we prove that the ground state energy $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is comparable with the one obtained by restricting it to the lowest Landau level, both in the upper and in the lower components of the wave function, provided that the Coulomb potential is slightly modified. By a result similar to Theorem \ref{min-max} (also see Theorem 3.1 in \cite{DES} in case $B=0$), for all $0<B<B(\nu)$, $\nu\in (0,1)$, $\lambda_1(\nu, B)$ is characterized as

944: \be\label{toto}

945: \lambda_1(\nu, B)= {\inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\X\ne 0}}\quad\sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\|\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1\,,\;\W=\binom\X\Y}}}{\mathcal E}_\nu[\W]\ .

946: \ee

947: With the notation $\W=\binom \X\Y$, we define the restricted

948:  min-max problem

949: \[\label{c0}

950: \llc(\nu,B):= {\inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiLC\X=0\,,\;{0<\|\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2<1}}}\quad\sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)\,,\;{\W=\binom\X\Y}}{\PiLC\Y=0\,,\;{\;\|\Y\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1- \|\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2 }}}} {\mathcal E}_\nu[\W]\ .

951: \]

952: We show below that this restricted

953:  problem is actually a one-dimensional problem. For this purpose, let us define the function $a^B_0:\R\times\R^+\to\R$ given by

954: $$

955: a^B_0(z):=B\,\int_0^{+\infty}\frac{s\,e^{-Bs^2/2}}{\sqrt{s^2+z^2}}\,ds\ .

956: $$

957: and implicitly define $\mu_{\mathcal L}$ as the unique solution of

958: $$

959: \mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]=\frac{\displaystyle\int_\R\kern-2pt\left(\kern-1pt\frac{|f'(z)|^2}{1+ \mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]+\nu\,a^B_0(z)}+(1-\nu\,a^B_0(z))\,|f(z)|^2\kern-1pt\right)dz}{\displaystyle\int_\R |f(z)|^2\,dz}\ .$$

960: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

961: \begin{theorem}\label{TT} For all $B > 0$ and $\nu\in (0, 1)$,

962: \[\label{defc0} \llc(\nu,B)= \inf_{f\in C^\infty_0(\R, \C)\setminus\{0\}}\quad \mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]\ .\]

963: \end{theorem}

964: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

965: \proof The definition of $\llc(\nu,B)$ is equivalent to

966: $$\label{c0phi}

967: \llc(\nu,B)= {\inf_{\aatop{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiLC\phi=0\,,\; \phi\ne 0}}\quad\sup_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptstyle{\chi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}\cr \scriptstyle{\PiLC\chi=0\,,\; {\psi=\binom\phi\chi}}\cr \scriptstyle\|\psi\|^2_{L^2(\R^3)}=1\end{array}}}\left(\left(\begin{matrix}1-\frac{\nu}{r} & -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\,\\ &\\ -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\, & -1-\frac{\nu}{r} \end{matrix}\right)\!\psi, \psi \right)

968: $$

969: or

970: $$

971: \llc(\nu,B)= {\inf_{\aatop{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiL\phi\ne 0}}\kern-3pt\sup_{\begin{array}{c}{\scriptstyle\chi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}\cr \scriptstyle{\PiL\chi\neq 0\,,\; {\psi=\binom\phi\chi}}\cr \scriptstyle\|\PiTot\,\psi\|^2_{L^2(\R^3)}=1\end{array}}}\left(\left(\begin{matrix} 1-\frac{\nu}{r} & -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\,\\ &\\ -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\, & -1-\frac{\nu}{r} \end{matrix}\right)\!\PiTot\,\psi, \PiTot\,\psi \right)

972: $$

973: with the notation $r=|x|=\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2}$. For any given $\phi$ such that $\PiLC\phi=0$, the supremum in $\chi$ is achieved by the function

974: $$

975: \chi_{\mathcal L}[\phi]= \Big(V_{\mathcal L}+\big(\lambda_{\mathcal L}[\phi,\nu,B]+1\big)\,\PiL \Big)^{-1} \PiL\,(-\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3})\,\phi\ ,

976: $$

977: with ${V_{\mathcal L}(x):=\PiL\,\frac\nu{r}\,\PiL}$ and

978: $$

979: \lambda_{\mathcal L}[\phi,\nu,B]:= \kern -7pt\sup_{\aatop{\chi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiL\chi\neq 0\,,\; \psi = \binom\phi\chi}}\kern -5pt\left(\left(\begin{matrix}1-\frac{\nu}{r} & -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\,\\ &\\ -\,i\,\sigma_3\,\partial_{x_3}\, & -1-\frac{\nu}{r} \end{matrix}\right)\!\frac{\PiTot\,\psi}{\|\PiTot\,\psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}}, \frac{\PiTot\,\psi}{\|\PiTot\,\psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}}\right).

980: $$

981: Since $\sigma_3\,\sigma_3^*=\sigma_3^2={\mathbb I}$, this yields the expression

982: $$

983: \llc(\nu,B)=\kern -12pt\inf_{\aatop{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiLC\phi=0\,,\;\|\phi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1}}\int_{\R^3}\left[\frac {|\partial_{x_3}\phi|^2}{V_{\mathcal L}+\lambda_{\mathcal L}[\phi,\nu,B]+1}+\Big(1-\frac{\nu}{r}\Big)|\phi|^2\right]\,dx\ .

984: $$

985: Now, with the notations of Lemma~\ref{Lem:LandauLevels}, for all $\ell\ne\ell' \geq 0$, for all $h:\R\to \R$, we have $\int_{\R^2} \phi_\ell \,h(r)\,\phi^*_{\ell'}\,dx_1\,dx_2 =0$, with $s=\sqrt{x_1^2+x_2^2}$, $r=\sqrt{s^2+x_3^2}$, and

986: $$

987: \llc(\nu,B)=\inf_{\ell\in \N} \;\inf_{\aatop {\|\phi\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1}{\phi\in C^\infty_0(\R,\mbox{\tiny span}(\phi_\ell))}}\kern-6pt\Big( (V_{\mathcal L}+\lambda_{\mathcal L}[\phi,\nu,B]+1)^{-1} \partial_{x_3}\phi ,\partial_{x_3}\phi )+\Big(1-\frac{\nu}{r}\Big)\phi, \phi\Big)\ .

988: $$

989: A simple calculation shows that for any $g\in C^\infty_0(\R^2,\C^2)$,

990: $$

991: \big((V_{\mathcal L})\,g, g\big)_{L^2(\R^2,\C^2)} = \sum_{\ell\geq 0}\,(g, \phi_\ell)_{L^2(\R^2,\C^2)}^2\,\left(\phi_\ell, \frac\nu{r}\,\phi_\ell\right)_{L^2(\R^2,\C^2)} \quad\mbox{a.e. in} \; \R\ni x_3 \ ,

992: $$

993: and also that

994: $$

995: \left(\phi_\ell, \frac 1r\,\phi_\ell\right)_{L^2(\R^2,\C^2)}=\quad a^B_\ell(x_3)\quad:\,=\quad \frac{B^{\ell+1}}{2^\ell\,\ell!}\,\int_0^{+\infty}\frac{s^{2\ell+1}\,e^{-Bs^2/2}}{\sqrt{s^2+x_3^2}}\,ds \ .

996: $$

997: A simple integration by parts shows that for all $\ell\geq 0$, $a^B_\ell\leq a^B_{\ell-1}$ a.e. When minimizing, only the $\ell=0$ component has therefore to be taken into account. \finprf

998: 

999: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1000: \begin{corollary}\label{Cor:LandauMonotonicity} For all $\nu\in (0, 1)$, the function $[0,+\infty)\ni B\mapsto \llc(\nu,B)$ is nonincreasing in $B$. \end{corollary}

1001: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1002: \proof A simple change of variables shows that

1003: $$

1004: a^B_0(z)=\,\int_0^{+\infty}\frac{s\,e^{-s^2/2}}{\sqrt{\frac{s^2}B+z^2}}\,ds\ .

1005: $$

1006: By Theorem~\ref{TT} and according to the definition of $\mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]$, this implies the monotonicity of $\llc(\nu,\cdot)$ in $[0,\infty)$.\finprf

1007: 

1008: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1009: \begin{proposition}\label{prop17} For all $B\geq 0$, the function $\nu\mapsto \llc(\nu,B)$ is continuous in the interval $(0, 1)$ as long as it takes its values in $(-1,1)$. {Moreover, for any $\nu\in (0,1)$, as long as $\llc(\nu,B)$ takes its values in $(-1,1)$, there exists a function $\W\in\mbox{Range}(\PiTot)$ with $\|\W\|_{L^2(\R^3,\C^4)}=1$ such that ${\mathcal E}_\nu[\W]=\llc(\nu,B)$.} \end{proposition}

1010: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1011: The proof is similar to the one of Proposition \ref{cont}.\finprf

1012: 

1013: The above proposition enables us to define

1014: $$\BL(\nu) := \inf\{B>0\;:\; \llc(\nu,B)=-1\}\ .$$

1015: Recall that $\lim_{\nu\to 0^+}d_+(\nu)^{-2}=1/2$. We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this section.

1016: 

1017: 

1018: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1019: \subsection{Asymptotic results}

1020: 

1021: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1022: \begin{theorem}\label{thmfirstll} Let $\nu\in(0,\bar\nu)$. For any $B\in\big(1/d_+(\nu)^{2},\min\big\{B(\nu), \BL(\nu+\nu^{3/2})\big\}\big)$, we have

1023: \[\label{firstfirst}

1024: \llc\Big(\nu+\nu^{3/2}, B\Big)\ \leq\ \lambda_1(\nu, B)\ \leq\ \llc(\nu-\nu^{3/2},B)\ .

1025: \]\end{theorem}

1026: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1027: Notice that the right hand side inequality holds for any $B\in\big(1/d_+(\nu)^{2},B(\nu)\big)$. 

1028: 

1029: \proof To prove the upper estimate, we use \eqn{toto} and notice that 

1030: \[\label{minoriz}

1031: \lambda_1(\nu, B)\leq \inf_{\aatop {X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\PiLC X=0, \PiL X\ne 0}}\;\;\sup_{\aatop{Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{ ||\W||_{L^2(\R^3)}=1\,,\;\W=\binom\X\Y}}{\mathcal E}_\nu(\W)\,,

1032: \]

1033: since adding the condition $\PiLC X=0$ increases the value of the infimum. Then, by Propositions \ref{prop14} and \ref{prop15},

1034: \begin{eqnarray*}

1035: \lambda_1(\nu,B) &\leq& \inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{ \PiLC \X=0, \PiL \X\ne 0}}\sup_{{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}}{\cal E}_{\nu-\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\, \W]+{\cal E}_{\nu-\sqrt\nu}\,[\PiTotC\, \W]\\

1036: &\leq& \inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{ \PiLC \X=0, \PiL \X\ne 0}}\sup_{{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}}\frac{{\cal E}_{\nu-\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]-d_-(\nu)\,\sqrt{B}\,\|\PiLC\Y\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2}{\|\PiTot\,\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+ \|\PiLC\Y\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}\\

1037: &\leq& \inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{ \PiLC \X=0, \PiL \X\ne 0}}

1038: \sup_{{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}}

1039: \frac{{\cal E}_{\nu-\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]}{\|\PiTot\,\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}= \llc(\nu-\nu^{3/2},B)\,.

1040: \end{eqnarray*}

1041: 

1042: \medskip Next, we establish the lower bound. By taking in (\ref{toto}) a smaller maximizing class of functions we decrease the maximum:

1043: $$

1044: \lambda_1( \nu, B)\geq {\inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\X\ne 0}}\quad\sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)\,,\;\W=\binom\X\Y}{\PiLC\Y=0\,,\;\|\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1}}}{\mathcal E}_\nu[\W]\ .

1045: $$

1046: Therefore, by Propositions \ref{prop14} and \ref{prop15}, 

1047: \begin{eqnarray*}

1048: \lambda_1(\nu,B)&\geq& {\inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\X\ne 0}}\quad\sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)\,,\;\W=\binom\X\Y}{\PiLC\Y=0\,,\;\|\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1}}}\Big(\; {\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]+ {\cal E}_{\nu+\sqrt\nu}[\PiTotC\,\W]\;\Big)\ ,\\

1049: \label{second} &\geq& \inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\X\ne 0}}\sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)\,,\;\W=\binom\X\Y}{\PiLC\Y=0\,,\;\|\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}=1}}\kern -10pt\frac{{\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]+\dnu\,\sqrt{B}\,\|\PiLC\X\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2}{\|\PiTot\,\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+ \|\PiLC\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}\ .

1050: \end{eqnarray*}

1051: Let us now notice that for every $\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2),\; \X\ne 0$, 

1052: $$

1053: \sup_{\aatop{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{{\W=\binom\X\Y}}}\frac{{\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]}{\|\PiTot\,\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}=\lambda_{\mathcal L}[\X,\nu+\nu^{3/2},B]

1054: $$

1055: is uniquely achieved at some $\Y_{\mathcal L}[\X]$ because of the same concavity argument as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{min-max}, after noticing that for any $B\in(0, \BL(\nu+\nu^{3/2}))$, $-1<\llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2},B)\leq{\lambda_{\mathcal L}[\X,\nu+\nu^{3/2},B]}$ and $V_{\mathcal L}\geq 0$. Recall that

1056: $$

1057: \llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2}, B) = \inf_{\aatop{\X\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}{\X\ne 0}} \lambda_{\mathcal L}[\X,\nu+\nu^{3/2},B]\ .

1058: $$

1059: Denoting $\W_{\mathcal L}[\X]= \binom \X{\Y_{\mathcal L}[\X]}$, for any given $\X$, we find

1060: \begin{eqnarray*}

1061: &&\kern-48pt\sup_{{\Y\in C^\infty_0(\R^3, \C^2)}}\frac{{\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}[\PiTot\,\W]+\dnu\,\sqrt{B}\,\|\PiLC\X\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2}{\|\PiTot\,\W\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+ \|\PiLC\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}\\

1062: &\geq& \frac{{\cal E}_{\nu+\nu^{3/2}}(\PiTot\, \W_{\mathcal L}[\X])+\dnu\,\sqrt{B}\,\|\PiLC\X\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2}{\|\PiTot\,\W_{\mathcal L}[\X]\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+ \|\PiLC\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}\\

1063: &&\kern24pt=\frac{\lambda_{\mathcal L}\X,\nu+\nu^{3/2},B]\|\PiTot\,\W_{\mathcal L}[\X]\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+\dnu\,\sqrt{B}\,\|\PiLC\X\|_{_{L^2(\R^3)}}^2}{\|\PiTot\,\W_{\mathcal L}[\X]\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2+ \|\PiLC\X\|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2}\\

1064: &&\kern48pt\geq\llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2},B)

1065: \end{eqnarray*}

1066: for $B$ large enough so that $\dnu\sqrt{B}\geq\llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2},B)$. As we shall see below, this is always possible.

1067: 

1068: Note indeed that on $(0, \bar \nu)$, $d_+(\nu)\leq \sqrt2$. Hence, $d_+(\nu)^{-2}\geq 1/2$. Now, by monotonicity (see Corollary~\ref{Cor:LandauMonotonicity}), $\llc(\delta,B)\leq \llc(\delta,1/2)$ for all $\delta\in (0,\bar\nu+\sqrt{\bar\nu})=(0,1-\sqrt 2/2)$ and for all $B\geq 1/2$. Moreover, one can prove very easily that $\llc(\delta,1/2)\leq 1$ for all $\delta \in (0,1)$.

1069: Indeed, by Theorem \ref{TT}, for all $B$, $\llc(\delta,B) =\inf_{f} \mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]$. A simple scaling argument shows that we can make $\int_{\R}|f'|^2\,dz$ as small as we wish while keeping $\int_{\R}|f|^2\,dz$ constant. Taking into account the definition of $\mu_{\mathcal L}[f,\nu,B]$, this shows that $\,\llc(\delta,B) \leq 1$ for all $B$, for all $\delta\in (0,1)$. Therefore, for all $B\geq d_+(\nu)^{-2}$, $\dnu\sqrt{B}\geq\llc(\nu+\nu^{3/2},B)$ holds true.

1070: \finprf

1071: 

1072: {}From Theorem~\ref{thmfirstll}, we deduce the following

1073: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1074: \begin{corollary}\label{Cor:BL} Let $\nu\in (0,\bar\nu)$. Then

1075: \be\label{LMLM} \BL(\nu+\nu^{3/2})\ \leq\ B(\nu)\ \leq\ \BL(\nu-\nu^{3/2})\ .\ee

1076: \end{corollary}

1077: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1078: 

1079: {}{From Theorem~\ref{TT} and Corollary \ref{Cor:BL}, better estimates of the critical magnetic strength $B(\nu)$ than those of Theorem \ref{HHH} can be established for $\nu$ small.}

1080: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1081: \begin{theorem}\label{CC} The critical strength $B(\nu)$ satisfies:

1082: $$ \lim_{\nu \to 0} \nu \log B(\nu)\,= \pi\ .$$

1083: \end{theorem}

1084: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1085: 

1086: \proof {Because of Corollary~\ref{Cor:BL}, $B(\nu)$ can be estimated using $\BL(\deltanu)$ with $\deltanu=\nu\pm\nu^{3/2}$. This amounts to look for the smallest positive $B$ for which

1087: \[\label{Eqn:LandauScaling}

1088: \lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, B):=1+\inf_{\aatop{f\in C^\infty_0(\R, \C)\setminus\{0\}}{\|f\|_{L^2(\R)}=1}}\quad \int_\R\left(\frac{|f'(z)|^2}{\deltanu\,a^{B}_0(z)}-\deltanu\,a^B_0(z)\,|f(z)|^2\right)\,dz

1089: \]

1090: is such that}

1091: \[\label{A0}

1092: \lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, B)= -1\ .

1093: \]

1094: {Using the identity

1095: \[

1096: a_0^B(z)=\sqrt B\,a^1_0\left(\sqrt B\,z\right)\ ,

1097: \]

1098: }by the changes of variable and function

1099: $$

1100: y(z) := \int_0^z a^1_0(t)\,dt\ ,\quad f\left({\frac z{\sqrt B}}\right)= B^{1/4}\,g(y)\ ,

1101: $$

1102: one tranforms the {above minimization problem into}

1103: \[

1104: \lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, B)-1=\sqrt{B}\,\inf_{\aatop{g\in C^\infty_0(\R, \C)\setminus\{0\}} {\int_\R g(y)^2\,{d\mu(y)}=1}}\quad \int_\R\left(\frac 1\deltanu\,|g'(y)|^2-\deltanu\,|g(y)|^2\right)\,dy\ .

1105: \]

1106: Hence, 

1107: \be\label{L0}

1108: \lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, B)=1+\sqrt{B}\left(\lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, 1)-1\right)\ .

1109: \ee

1110: For a given $\deltanu$, let $\kappa=\kappa(\deltanu):=\deltanu\,\big(1-\lambda_{\mathcal L}(\deltanu, 1)\big)$ and $\mu(y):=1/a_0^1(z(y))$. The problem is reduced to look for the first eigenvalue $E_1=E_1(\deltanu)$ of the operator $-\partial_y^2+\kappa(\deltanu)\,\mu(y)$, namely to find $\deltanu$ such that

1111: \[\label{eqqq}

1112: \deltanu^2=E_1(\delta)\ .

1113: \]

1114: The function $a^1_0$ satisfies

1115: $$ a^1_0(z)\leq a^1_0(0)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \quad\forall\;z\in\R\ , \quad a^1_0(z)\sim \frac{1}{|z|}\;\mbox{as}\;|z|\to\infty\ .

1116: $$

1117: {There exists therefore a constant $c>0$ such that $\mu(y)\leq c\, e^{|y|}$ for any $y\in\R$.} To get an upper estimate of $E_1$, we may now consider the function $g_1(y):=\cos (\pi\,y/2)$ {on $(-1,1)\ni y$} and the rescaled functions $g_\sigma(y):=\sigma^{-1/2}g_1\big(\cdot/\sigma)$.

1118: \begin{eqnarray*}

1119: E_1(\delta)\leq \frac{\pi^2}{4\,\sigma^2}+ \kappa \int_{-1}^1 |g_1|^2\,\mu(\sigma\,y)\,dy&\leq&\frac{\pi^2}{4\,\sigma^2}+ \kappa\,c\int_{-1}^1e^{\sigma|y|}|g_1|^2\,dy\\

1120: &&\qquad\leq \frac{\pi^2}{4\,\sigma^2}+ 2\,\kappa\,c\left(e^{\sigma}-1\right)\ .

1121: \end{eqnarray*}

1122: Optimizing in $\sigma$ in the above expression, we choose $\sigma=\sigma(\deltanu)$ satisfying

1123: $$

1124: \pi^2=4\,\kappa\,c\,\sigma^3\,e^{\sigma}\ ,

1125: $$

1126: which implies

1127: $$

1128: \sigma(\deltanu)\sim -\log\kappa=:\sigma_\deltanu\to \infty\quad\mbox{as}\quad\deltanu\to 0\ .

1129: $$

1130: A Taylor expansion at next order shows that 

1131: \[

1132: \sigma(\deltanu)-\sigma_\deltanu\sim -3\log\big(\sigma_\deltanu\big)\ ,

1133: \]

1134: which yields

1135: $$

1136: E_1(\delta)\leq\frac{\pi^2}{4\,\sigma_\deltanu^2}\,(1+o(1))\ .

1137: $$

1138: 

1139: \medskip Next, in order to obtain a lower estimate of $E_1(\delta)$, we consider the function $\mu_{\deltanu}$ which is equal to $0$ in the interval $(-\sigma_\deltanu, \sigma_\deltanu)$ and equal to $\kappa\,\mu(\sigma_\deltanu)$ elsewhere. The function $\mu_{\deltanu}$ is positive, but below the function $ \kappa\,\mu(y)$. Then observe that the first eigenvalue of the operator $-\partial_y^2 +\mu_{\deltanu}(y) $, that we denote $E_1^{\deltanu}$, satisfies the equation

1140: $$

1141: \sqrt{E_1^{\deltanu}}\,\sigma_\deltanu = \arctan\left(\sqrt{\frac{{\kappa\,\mu(\sigma_\deltanu)-E_1^{\deltanu}}}{{E_1^{\deltanu}}}}\,\right)\ ,

1142: $$

1143: and as $ \deltanu$ goes to $0^+$ this implies

1144: $$

1145: E_1(\delta)\geq E_1^{\deltanu}=\frac{\pi^2}{4\,\sigma_\deltanu^2}\,\big(1+o(1)\big)\,.

1146: $$

1147: Summarizing, what we have obtained is

1148: \[

1149: E_1(\delta)=\frac{\pi^2}{4\,\big(\log\kappa(\deltanu)\big)^2}\,\big(1+o(1)\big)\,.

1150: \]

1151: So, imposing $E_1(\delta)=\deltanu^2$, we get $\kappa(\delta)=e^{-\frac{\pi}{2\delta}(1+o(1))}$. Since by \eqref{L0}, 

1152: \[

1153: -1=\lambda_{\mathcal L}\big(\deltanu, \BL(\delta)\big)=1+\sqrt{\BL(\delta)}\,\,\frac{\kappa(\deltanu)}\deltanu\,,

1154: \]

1155: we get

1156: $$\BL(\deltanu)\,=\,4\,\deltanu^2\,e^{\frac\pi\deltanu\,(1+o(1))}\ ,$$

1157: which, together with \eqref{LMLM}, concludes the proof.\finprf 

1158: 

1159: 

1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1162: \section*{Appendix\footnote{The following proof was explained to us by George Nenciu to whom we are grateful.}: selfadjointness of $H_B-\nu\,|\cdot|^{-1}$}

1163: 

1164: With the notation $P=-i\,\nabla$, consider {a} Dirac operator of the form

1165: \[\label{H}

1166: {H_0}={\alpha \cdot P} +m\,{\beta} + {\mathbb{V}_0}({x})

1167: \]

1168: defined on $(\mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))^{4}$. {We assume for instance} that ${(\mathbb{V}_0)_{i,j}}({x})\in L^{2}_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$. If $f\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$, {then} the following identity holds on $(\mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))^{4}$ :

1169: \begin{equation}\label{id}

1170: {H_0}\,f-f\,{H_0}-i\,{\alpha} \cdot \nabla\,f=0 \ .

1171: \end{equation}

1172: {Still denote by} $H_{0}$ the a selfadjoint extension of ${\alpha \cdot P} +m\,{\beta} +\mathbb{V}_{0}({x})$ with domain $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ and let $f\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$ be such that $0\leq f({x}) \leq 1$, $f({x}) =1$ for $|{x} |\leq 1$, $f({x}) =0$ for $|{x} |\geq 2$, and {$f_a({x}):= f({x}/a)$.} If

1173: \[

1174: \mathcal{D}:=\Big\{g\equiv f_a\,\psi\;|\;a\geq 1,\;\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{0} \Big\}\;,

1175: \]

1176: then in all interesting cases, including the case of local Coulomb singularities with $\nu < 1$ (see the characterisation of $\mathcal{D}_{0}$ in \cite{KW}), one has $\mathcal{D} \subset \mathcal{D}_{0}$, and then by density, Identity~(\ref{id}) {implies that} for all $\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{0}$,

1177: \begin{equation}\label{id1}

1178: \big(H_{0}\,f_a-f_a\,H_{0}-i\,{\alpha} \cdot \nabla\,f_a\big)\,\psi=0 \ .

1179: \end{equation}

1180: 

1181: \noindent{

1182: %Let us recall some basic definitions and properties. An operator $T:\mathcal H_0\to\mathcal H$ is {\sl symmetric\/} if and only if 

1183: %\[\langle Tu,v\rangle_{\mathcal H}=\langle u,Tv\rangle_{\mathcal H}\quad\forall\;u\,,\;v\in\mathcal H_0\;.\]

1184: %$T$ is {\sl selfadjoint\/} if and only if $T^*=T$, {\sl i.e.,\/}

1185: %\[D(T)=D(T^*)\quad\mbox{and}\quad Tu=T^*u\quad\forall\;u\in D(T)\;.\]

1186: % A symmetric operator $T$ with domain $\mathcal H_0$ is called {\sl essentially selfadjoint\/} if its closure is selfadjoint. 

1187: A standard characterization of selfadjoint operators that we are going to use is the following: {\sl Let $T$ be a closed symmetric operator. $T$ is selfadjoint if and only if\/}

1188: \[{\rm Ker}\,(T^*\pm\,i)=\{0\}\;.\]}

1189: 

1190: The first remark is that $H_{0}$ is essentially selfadjoint on $ \mathcal{D}$. Suppose indeed that

1191: \[

1192: \langle\Psi, (H_{0}\pm\,i)\,{(f_a\psi)}\rangle=0\quad {\forall\; a \geq 1\,,\quad\forall\;\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{0}}

1193: \]

1194: {for some $\Psi\in(L^2(\R^3))^4$.} Now from (\ref{id1}),

1195: $$

1196: \langle\Psi, (H_{0}\pm\,i)\,f_a\psi\rangle= \langle\Psi, (H_{0}\pm\,i)\,\psi\rangle -\langle(1-f_a)\Psi, (H_{0}\pm\,i)\,\psi\rangle+i\,\langle\Psi,({\alpha \cdot \nabla}f_a)\psi \rangle \ ,

1197: $$

1198: so that, taking $a\rightarrow \infty$ at fixed $\psi$, one obtains

1199: \[

1200: \langle\Psi, (H_{0}\pm\,i)\,\psi\rangle=0\quad {\forall\;\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{0}\ ,}

1201: \]

1202: and then $\Psi =0$.

1203: 

1204: {This result also applies} to the case

1205: $$

1206: \mathbb{V}_{0} = -\frac{\nu}{|x|}\,,\quad 0 \le \nu < 1 \ .

1207: $$

1208: {See \cite{KW,N} for more details. Define $\nnrm\cdot$ as the matrix norm. Suppose that $\mathbb{V}_{1}$ is locally~$L^{\infty}$ and more precisely satisfies}

1209: \[\label{loc}

1210: M(R):=\sup_{\vert {x} \vert \leq R}\nnrm{\mathbb{V}_{1}({x})} < \infty\quad\forall\; R\in\R^+\,, \quad \lim_{R\rightarrow \infty}M(R)=\infty\ .

1211: \]

1212: Consider on $\mathcal{D}$ the operator $ H=H_{0}+\mathbb{V}_{1}$.

1213: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1214: \begin{lemma} Under the above assumptions, $H$ is essentially selfadjoint on $\mathcal{D}$. \end{lemma}

1215: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

1216: \proof Let $\chi_{R}$ be the characteristic function of the set $\{ {x} \;|\; \vert {x} \vert \leq {2}R \}$. Since $\chi_{R}\mathbb{V}_{1}$ is bounded, $H_{R}=H_{0}+\chi_{R}\mathbb{V}_{1}$ is essentially selfadjoint on $\mathcal{D}$. {Suppose that there exists $\Psi\in (L^2(\R^3))^4$ such that}

1217: \[\label{con}\langle\Psi, (H_{0}{\pm\,i})\,{(f_a\psi)}\rangle=0\quad {\forall\; a \geq 1\,,\quad\forall\;\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{0}}

1218: \]

1219: {and assume that $\|\Psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)} =1$. Using} (\ref{id}), one deduces that

1220: \[

1221: <f_a\Psi, (H {\pm\,i})\,\psi\rangle ={-i}\ \langle\Psi, {\alpha \cdot \nabla}f_a\psi\rangle\ .

1222: \]

1223: Observe now that $<f_a\Psi, (H {\pm\,i})\,\psi\rangle=\langle f_a\Psi, (H_a{\pm\,i})\,\psi\rangle$, which amounts to 

1224: \begin{equation}\label{com}

1225: \langle f_a\Psi, (H_a{\pm\,i})\,\psi\rangle ={-i}\ \langle\Psi, {\alpha \cdot \nabla}f_a\psi\rangle\ .

1226: \end{equation}

1227: Since $H_a$ is essentially selfadjoint on $\mathcal{D}$, $\mbox{Range}(H_a{\pm\,i})$ is dense in $\mathcal{D}$ and there exists ${\psi_a^\pm} \in \mathcal{D}$ such that

1228: \begin{equation}\label{ex}

1229: (H_a{\pm\,i})\,{\psi_a^\pm}=f_a\Psi +\delta_a

1230: \end{equation}

1231: with $\| \delta_a\|_{L^2(\R^3)} \leq 1/a$. Also notice that

1232: \[\label{symm}

1233: \| (H_a{\pm\,i})\,{\psi_a^\pm} \|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2=\| H_a\,{\psi_a^\pm} \|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2 + \| \psi_a^\pm \|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2 \geq \| {\psi_a^\pm} \|_{L^2(\R^3)}^2\ .

1234: \]

1235: 

1236: From (\ref{com}) written for ${\psi_a^\pm}$ and (\ref{ex}), {we get}

1237: $$

1238: \| f_a\Psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)} ^{2}+\langle f_a\Psi, \delta_a\rangle= -i\,\langle\Psi, {\alpha \cdot \nabla}f_a{\psi_a^\pm}\rangle

1239: $$

1240: so that

1241: \begin{eqnarray*}

1242: \| f_a\Psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)} ^{2}&\leq& \frac 1a +\|\nabla f_a\|_{L^\infty(\R^3)} \,\| {\psi_a^\pm} \|_{L^2(\R^3)}\\

1243: &\leq& \frac 1a +\|\nabla f_a\|_{L^\infty(\R^3)} \,\| (H_a{\pm\,i})\,{\psi_a^\pm} \|_{L^2(\R^3)}\\

1244: &\leq& \frac 1a +\|\nabla f_a\|_{L^\infty(\R^3)} \,\Big(1+\frac 1a\Big)\ .

1245: \end{eqnarray*}

1246: For $a \rightarrow \infty$, $\| f_a\Psi\|_{L^2(\R^3)} \rightarrow 1$ and $\|\nabla f_a\|_{L^\infty(\R^3)} \rightarrow 0$, a contradiction: $\Psi =0$.\finprf

1247: 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1252: \bigskip\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments.} We are grateful to George Nenciu for showing us the proof of self-adjointness in the appendix, to P. Pickl and D. D\"urr for references. Some of this research has been carried out at the Erwin Schr\"odinger Institute. M.L. would like to thank the Ceremade for its hospitality. J.D. and M.J.E. acknowledge support from ANR Accquarel project and European Program ``Analysis and Quantum'' HPRN-CT \# 2002-00277. M.L. is partially supported by U.S. National Science Foundation grant DMS 03-00349.

1253: 

1254: 

1255: \bigskip\noindent{\sl\scriptsize \copyright~2006 by the authors. This paper may be reproduced, in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes.}

1256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1259: %\nocite*

1260: %\bibliographystyle{siam}\bibliography{References}

1261: 

1262: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{AHS1}

1265: {\sc J.~Avron, I.~Herbst, and B.~Simon}, {\em Schr\"odinger operators with

1266:   magnetic fields. {I}. {G}eneral interactions}, Duke Math. J., 45 (1978),

1267:   pp.~847--883.

1268: 

1269: \bibitem{AHS}

1270: {\sc J.~E. Avron, I.~W. Herbst, and B.~Simon}, {\em Schr\"odinger operators

1271:   with magnetic fields. {III}. {A}toms in homogeneous magnetic field}, Comm.

1272:   Math. Phys., 79 (1981), pp.~529--572.

1273: 

1274: \bibitem{PhysRev.173.1220}

1275: {\sc V.~Canuto and H.-Y. Chiu}, {\em Thermodynamic properties of a magnetized

1276:   fermi gas}, Phys. Rev., 173 (1968), pp.~1220--1228.

1277: 

1278: \bibitem{DELV}

1279: {\sc J.~Dolbeault, M.~J. Esteban, M.~Loss, and L.~Vega}, {\em An analytical

1280:   proof of {H}ardy-like inequalities related to the {D}irac operator}, J.

1281:   Funct. Anal., 216 (2004), pp.~1--21.

1282: 

1283: \bibitem{DES}

1284: {\sc J.~Dolbeault, M.~J. Esteban, and E.~S{\'e}r{\'e}}, {\em On the eigenvalues

1285:   of operators with gaps. {A}pplication to {D}irac operators}, J. Funct. Anal.,

1286:   174 (2000), pp.~208--226.

1287: 

1288: \bibitem{DES2}

1289: {\sc J.~Dolbeault, M.~J. Esteban, and E.~S{\'e}r{\'e}}, {\em A variational

1290:   method for relativistic computations in atomic and molecular physics}, Int.

1291:   J. Quantum Chemistry, 93 (2003), pp.~149--155.

1292: 

1293: \bibitem{DESV}

1294: {\sc J.~Dolbeault, M.~J. Esteban, E.~S{\'e}r{\'e}, and M.~Vanbreugel}, {\em

1295:   Minimization methods for the one-particle dirac equation}, Phys. Rev.

1296:   Letters, 85 (2000), pp.~4020--4023.

1297: 

1298: \bibitem{duncan}

1299: {\sc R.~C. Duncan}, {\em Physics in ultra-strong magnetic fields}.

1300: \newblock Review talk given at Fifth Huntsville Gamma-Ray Burst Symposium.

1301: 

1302: \bibitem{MR1163415}

1303: {\sc I.~Fushiki, E.~H. Gudmundsson, C.~J. Pethick, and J.~Yngvason}, {\em

1304:   Matter in a magnetic field in the {T}homas-{F}ermi and related theories},

1305:   Ann. Physics, 216 (1992), pp.~29--72.

1306: 

1307: \bibitem{GLS}

1308: {\sc M.~Griesemer, R.~T. Lewis, and H.~Siedentop}, {\em A minimax principle for

1309:   eigenvalues in spectral gaps: {D}irac operators with {C}oulomb potentials},

1310:   Doc. Math., 4 (1999), pp.~275--283 (electronic).

1311: 

1312: \bibitem{GS}

1313: {\sc M.~Griesemer and H.~Siedentop}, {\em A minimax principle for the

1314:   eigenvalues in spectral gaps}, J. London Math. Soc. (2), 60 (1999),

1315:   pp.~490--500.

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{PhysRev.187.2275}

1318: {\sc B.~Jancovici}, {\em Radiative correction to the ground-state energy of an

1319:   electron in an intense magnetic field}, Phys. Rev., 187 (1969),

1320:   pp.~2275--2276.

1321: 

1322: \bibitem{KW}

1323: {\sc M.~Klaus and R.~W{\"u}st}, {\em Characterization and uniqueness of

1324:   distinguished selfadjoint extensions of {D}irac operators}, Comm. Math.

1325:   Phys., 64 (1978/79), pp.~171--176.

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{ScientificAmerican}

1328: {\sc C.~Kouveliotou, R.~C. Duncan, and C.~Thompson}, {\em Magnetars},

1329:   Scientific American Magazine,  (2003), pp.~35--41.

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{MR1272387}

1332: {\sc E.~H. Lieb, J.~P. Solovej, and J.~Yngvason}, {\em Asymptotics of heavy

1333:   atoms in high magnetic fields. {I}. {L}owest {L}andau band regions}, Comm.

1334:   Pure Appl. Math., 47 (1994), pp.~513--591.

1335: 

1336: \bibitem{MR1266071}

1337: \leavevmode\vrule height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, {\em Asymptotics of heavy

1338:   atoms in high magnetic fields. {II}. {S}emiclassical regions}, Comm. Math.

1339:   Phys., 161 (1994), pp.~77--124.

1340: 

1341: \bibitem{N}

1342: {\sc G.~Nenciu}, {\em Self-adjointness and invariance of the essential spectrum

1343:   for {D}irac operators defined as quadratic forms}, Comm. Math. Phys., 48

1344:   (1976), pp.~235--247.

1345: 

1346: \bibitem{0627.58040}

1347: \leavevmode\vrule height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, {\em {Existence of the

1348:   spontaneous pair creation in the external field approximation of Q.E.D.}},

1349:   Commun. Math. Phys., 109 (1987), pp.~303--312.

1350: 

1351: \bibitem{PhysRevLett.21.397}

1352: {\sc R.~F. O'Connell}, {\em Effect of the anomalous magnetic moment of the

1353:   electron on spontaneous pair production in a strong magnetic field}, Phys.

1354:   Rev. Lett., 21 (1968), pp.~397--398.

1355: 

1356: \bibitem{pickl}

1357: {\sc P.~Pickl}, {\em Existence of Spontaneous Pair Creation}, PhD thesis,

1358:   {M}athematisches {I}nstitut der {L}udwig-{M}aximilians-{U}niversit{\"a}t

1359:   {M}{\"u}nchen, 2005.

1360: 

1361: \bibitem{T}

1362: {\sc B.~Thaller}, {\em The {D}irac equation}, Texts and Monographs in Physics,

1363:   Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

1364:   

1365: \end{thebibliography}

1366: 

1367: \end{document}

1368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%