Magnetic transport due to a translationally invariant potential obstacle

Was v_- essentially bounded outside a compact, the discrete character of the spectrum would follow from [RS, Thm. XIII.29], however, we do not need this additional hypothesis. Indeed, by (v?) we have v_-=v_{2,-}+v_{\infty,-} with v_{2,-}\in L^2, hence for any positive a,\delta we can infer that

and the right-hand side tends to zero as a\to\infty in view of the absolute continuity of the integral. The same is true for the integral of v_{2,-} over the interval (-a, -a-\delta) with any \delta>0 as a\to\infty. A simple estimate,

and its counterpart for the integral of the potential over (-a, -a-\delta) show that \int_a^{a+\delta} v(x)\,\mathrm{d} x \to\infty holds as |a|\to\infty for any \delta>0, hence the spectrum is purely discrete by Molchanov theorem [Mo53]. The simplicity comes for the fact that (?) is limit-point at both \pm\infty.

Indeed, for any p_0\in\mathbb{R} we have h_v(p)=h_v(p_0)+d_p in the form sense, where

The first term on right-hand side of (Proof) is bounded for p in any fixed neighborhood of p_0, concerning the second one we note that for any \varepsilon\in (0,1) one can find a \delta>0 such that

holds for all x\in\mathbb{R}, thus this term is relatively bounded with respect to h_v(p_0) with the bound less than one; this means that \{h_v(p):\: p \in \mathbb{R} \} is an analytic family of type (B) in the sense of Kato.

As we have indicated, in view of the analyticity it is enough to show that \epsilon_n(\cdot) can assume different values, which follows from the fact that \lim_{p \to \pm \infty} \epsilon_n(p) = v_{\pm}+ B(2n+1) holds for any n\in\mathbb{N}_0. Indeed, by variable shift, the spectrum of operator (?) coincides with that of

which can be regarded as a perturbation of the harmonic oscillator; just the \pm signs of the asymptotic limits are swaped. Let us consider operators \tilde{h}_v^{N/D}(p) obtained by adding Neumann/Dirichlet condition at the point x=\frac{p}{2B} which allow us to use the bracketing estimate [RS, Sec. XIII.15],

The spectrum of each of \tilde{h}_v^{N/D}(p) is the union of the respective operators on \big(-\infty,\frac{p}{2B}\big) and \big(\frac{p}{2B},\infty\big); for the limit p\to\infty only the former are relevant. As in [CSH02], one can check that they both converge to the spectrum of \tilde{h}_v(p), hence to any \varepsilon>0 there is a p_1>0 such that

holds for all p>p_1. Furthermore, by assumption (v?) there is a p_2>0 such that |v_- -v(x-\frac{p}{B})|<\frac12\varepsilon holds on \big(-\infty,\frac{p}{2B}\big) for all p>p_2, and consequently

putting the two estimates together, we get |\epsilon_n(p) -B(2n+1) - v_-| < \varepsilon for all p>\max\{p_1,p_2\}. The analogous estimate can be used for v_+ and the limit p\to-\infty which establishes the claim.

As mentioned above, the eigenvalues in question coincide with those of operator (Proof). First of all, we need again to establish the asymptotic behavior of the functions \epsilon_n(\cdot), namely to check that in the present situation we have \lim_{p \to \pm \infty} \epsilon_n(p) = B(2n+1). Since we do not assume (v?) now, we have to choose an argument different from that of Proposition 3.1. Consider the quadratic form of operator (Proof),

By the argument used in the proof of Proposition 2.3 its domain is the same for all p\in\mathbb{R}, and there is common core, e.g., C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}). In view of the absolute continuity of the integral, the last term on the right-hand side tends to zero as |p|\to\infty for any \psi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}). By [Ka, Thm. VIII.3.6] this implies \tilde{h}_v(p)\to h_0, the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian, in the strong resolvent sense, in particular, the sought convergence of the eigenvalues.

Next we fix a j and replace v by \lambda v; denoting then the normalized real-valued oscillator eigenfunctions by \varphi_j, we get

Assume that the integral in this first-order perturbation expansion term is zero for all p\in\mathbb{R}. Putting u(z)=v(-z), it takes a convolution form and applying to it the Fourier-Plancherel operator we infer that the assumption is equivalent to \big(\mathcal{F}_{x \to k}u\big)(k) (\widehat{\varphi_j^2})(k)=0 a.e. in \mathbb{R}. The second factor on the left-hand side equals \hat\varphi_j * \hat\varphi_j, and from the explicit knowledge of \varphi_j it is not difficult to check that as a function of p it can have isolated zeros only, it is then the first factor which must vanish; using further the injectivity of \mathcal{F}_{x \to k}, we get v(x)=0 a.e. in \mathbb{R}.

This is a contradiction, however, because we assumed that the perturbation is nontrivial. This means that the integral at the right-hand side of (?) is nonzero for some p. For weak coupling the first-order term dominates over the remainder, hence there is a \lambda(j)>0 such that \epsilon_j(p;\lambda v) \ne B(2j+1) holds for \lambda\in(0,\lambda(j)). To get the claim, it then enough to put \lambda_n:= \min_{0\le j\le n} \lambda(j).

Denoting by \tilde\phi_n the eigenfunctions of the operator (Proof) which are just the function \phi_n of Remark 2.2 with the shifted argument, \tilde{h_v}(p)\tilde\phi_n = \epsilon_n(p)\tilde\phi_n, we have

and using the fact that \tilde\phi_n is real-valued, we get

The first term on the right-hand side is \epsilon_n(p)\,\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} p} (\tilde\phi_n,\tilde\phi_n), and since \tilde\phi_n is normalized by assumption, it vanishes. Furthermore, the only p-dependent term in (Proof) is the last one, thus we obtain

We can use again the convolution argument for the proof of Proposition 3.2. Now we do not know \tilde\phi_n(\cdot,p) explicitly and in order to argue as before we need to ascertain that there is no interval on which the Fourier image of \tilde\phi_n(\cdot,p)^2 would vanish. Was it the case, the function must have oscillated asymptotically with a frequency bounded below by the size of the gap [EN04], however, we know that it is nonnegative and by Sturm-Liouville theory it has a finite number of zeros only. It allows us to conclude that v'=0, due to the continuity everywhere, and thus v is a constant function. By assumption (v?) it cannot be nonzero and we arrive at a contradiction. This means that the function \epsilon'_n(\cdot) is nonzero which we set out to prove.

The potential inequality implies the analogous inequality between the respective quadratic forms (?), hence the claim follows for the minimax principle [RS, Thm XIII.2].

For the sake of definiteness suppose that v=v_+, the other case is analogous. By Lemma 4.3 we have \epsilon_n(p,v)\ge \epsilon_n(p,w) \ge B(2n+1) for all p\in\mathbb{R} and n\in\mathbb{N}_0, however, \epsilon_n(\cdot,w) is nonconstant by Proposition 4.1 and \lim_{|p|\to\infty} = \epsilon_n(p,w) as shown in Proposition 3.2, so the claim follows.

By an elementary perturbation argument, |\epsilon_n(p)-B(2n+1)|\le \|v\|_\infty which yields the claim as the Landau level spacing is 2B; in case of a sign definite potential we use in addition Lemma 4.3.

We use again a Feynman-Hellmann type argument. Similarly as in (Proof) we get

and since \tilde\phi_n(\cdot,p)^2 is positive a.e. in \mathbb{R}, the claim follows.