Arxiv:1604.00784V1 [Math.AP] 4 Apr 2016 Ucin Emn Onayproblem

Home , Heat kernel

arXiv:1604.00784v1 [math.AP] 4 Apr 2016 ucin emn onayproblem. boundary Neumann function, yepotn h rbblsi nepeaino h etkre ([ kernel heat the of interpretation au probabilistic some the by obtained exploiting been by have principle this of versions quantitative rnil fntfeigtebudr yKc([ Kac by boundary the feeling not of principle npyia rud n xet htfrsaltmsteha ker of heat boundary the the involve times not small do for that contributions that local expects by one grounds physical On ∆ sapstv mohfnto on function smooth positive a is iihe onaycniin a ecntutdvaseta calc spectral via constructed be can conditions boundary Dirichlet rmtepoint the from h nerlkernel integral The ie by given D e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 Let on ETKRE SIAE O EEA BOUNDARY GENERAL FOR ESTIMATES KERNEL HEAT U ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics nvco-audcmatyspotdfntoso oanin domain op a Laplace on the functions of supported extension compactly self-adjoint vector-valued non-negative on any for hold Abstract. fpofi eygnrladi ae nfiiepoaainsedes speed propagation finite Safarov. on Y. based by is obtained and theorems extens Tauberian general self-adjoint Fourier very explicit the is of th proof show independent we of chosen and be condition boundary can of constants choice any for valid therefore L 2 ea pnstin set open an be ( U .Te h udmna solution fundamental the Then ). x otepoint the to eso htntfeigtebudr siae o etkernels heat for estimates boundary the feeling not that show We eiae otemmr fYr aao (1958–2015) Safarov Yuri of memory the to Dedicated INPNL N LXNE STROHMAIER ALEXANDER AND LI LIANGPAN K D K etkre,vco-audLpain nt rpgto pe,s speed, propagation finite Laplacian, vector-valued kernel, Heat ( ( ,y x, 0 K ( ,y x, D R ; ( t t y d of ) ) ; f t ntime in ( K (4 = ) d )( 1. D U K x ≥ PROBLEMS ( = ) Introduction × t D exp( = ) )adcnie h iihe alc operator Laplace Dirichlet the consider and 2) ( πt U 35K08. t t endby defined ) Z ncase In . ) × U − 1 d/ K R 2 D + − exp( tdsrbstepoaaino heat of propagation the describes It . ( K t ,y x, ∆ 19 ( U D t − ) ; ) ohqaiaieadexplicit and qualitative Both ]). ) = t , t | . ) x f R − ≥ ( 4 d y t y ) fteha qainwith equation heat the of 0 h etkre sexplicitly is kernel heat the dy | 2 U ) . hsi setal the essentially is This . o.Temethod The ion. R tteimplied the at rtracting erator d iae and timates 27 hyare They . lsas ulus e sdominated is nel hr ([ thors , 28 , 31 2 , ) The ]). 4 pectral , 18 ]) 2 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER best estimate for the Dirichlet Laplacian we are aware of was obtained in [4] and reads

d j 2 j 1 KD(x, y; t) δ2/t 2 δ − (1.1) 1 1 e− . ≥ K (x, y; t) ≥ − (j 1)! t 0 Xj=1 − Here δ is the distance of the convex hull of x, y to the boundary ∂U of U. It is also known (see e.g. [4, 17]) that { } K (x, x; t) lim t log 1 D = ρ2(x), t 0+ → − K0(x, x; t) − where ρ(x) is the distance of x to ∂U. These estimates show that as t goes to 0 the error in approximating the heat kernel by K0(x, y; t) is exponentially small with decay rate determined by the distance to the boundary. Explicit estimates like these are important in spectral geometry and mathematical physics. For example the meromorphic extension of the local spectral zeta function is usually based on the expansion of the heat kernel ([16]). The above estimates directly lead to bounds on the local spectral zeta functions or other spectral invariants ([15]). A particular example of such a local spectral function is the Casimir energy density that plays a distinguished role in physics. For these applications it is important to allow for boundary conditions other than Dirichlet. For example Casimir interaction between two conducting obstacles is described by the Casimir energy density of the photon field. This is obtained from the Laplace operator acting on one forms with relative boundary conditions. To be able to deal with Laplace operators of such type one needs to consider self-adjoint extensions of the vector-valued Laplace operator on domains that are not simply sums of Laplace operator on functions. In order to illustrate this let us discuss briefly the example of the propagation of electromagnetic waves, or in a quantum field theoretic description the propagation of a photon. To keep things simple assume that U is either R3 K, where K R3 is a compact subset with smooth boundary, or a bounded domain\ with smooth⊂ boundary. If the boundary is modelled as a perfect conductor then separation of variables in the wave equation results in the Laplace operator acting on C3-valued functions and the following boundary conditions for the electromagnetic vector potential A(x) of the form n(x) A(x)=0, A(x)=0 × ∇ for all x ∂U. Here n(x) is the outward pointing unit-vector-field on the boundary ∂U of U.∈ These boundary conditions define a self-adjoint extension of the Laplace operator acting on C3-valued smooth compactly supported functions. This self- adjoint extension is however not simply a sum of operators acting on function, as the boundary conditions are different for the different components. In fact, the wave group as well as the heat semi-group will in general mix the components of the vector they are acting on. In physics this corresponds to the fact that mirrors change the polarization of light. We would like to refer the reader to [7] for further details and references on Casimir energy density computations. IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 3

The aim of this note is to show that explicit not feeling the boundary estimates can be obtained for any self-adjoint extension of the Laplace operator acting on vector-valued functions on a domain. They can be derived from a combination of finite propagation speed estimates and explicit Fourier Tauberian theorems that were found by Safarov in [29]. The idea of using finite propagation speed estimates in this context is not new and is already present in the classical paper [10]. It has since been used by many authors to derive heat kernel bounds on manifolds (see e.g. [11, 14, 23, 26, 30]). The combination with the estimates of the spectral function obtained via Fourier Tauberian arguments gives bounds that in some regimes are better than the known estimates for the Dirichlet heat kernel. The implied constants are independent of the boundary conditions. To describe the main result let us assume that, as before, U is an open set in Rd, d 2 and denote by ρ(x) the distance from x U to the boundary of U. Let N ≥be a positive integer. Consider in the Hilbert space∈ L2(U; CN ) an arbitrary non-negative self-adjoint extension ∆U of the Laplacian 2 2 ∂ ∂ N N + + : C∞(U; C ) C∞(U; C ) − ∂x2 ··· ∂x2 c → c 1 d acting component-wise. The heat kernel for ∆U , denoted by (11) (1N) KU (x, y; t) KU (x, y; t)  . ···. .  KU (x, y; t)= . .. . ,  K(N1)(x, y; t) K(NN)(x, y; t)   U ··· U  t∆U is the integral kernel of e− , t> 0 defined by the functional calculus of self- d adjoint operators. When U = R the counterpart for ∆U and KU (x, y; t) is denoted respectively by ∆0 and K0(x, y; t). Of course, 2 d/2 x y K (x, y; t)=(4πt)− exp( | − | )1. 0 − 4t Theorem 1.1. There exist two positive constants C1,C2 depending only d such that 2 if t (ρ(x)+ρ(y)) then ≤ 8 (ρ(x)+ ρ(y))2 exp d − 4t KU (x, y; t) K0(x, y; t) C1ρ(x, y)− + C2 d+1 1 . k − k ≤ · 2 2 2 t ⌈ ⌉− Here ρ(x, y) = min(ρ(x), ρ(y)).

The constants C1,C2 can be explicitly given, but we refer the reader to the relevant section of this paper for the full description. As a corollary, we are able to answer a question raised in [21] about an upper estimate for the Neumann heat kernel.

2. Vector-valued Laplacians

N d Throughout we ﬁx some notations: Let m with m > 2 . Let V denote (m) ∈ either U or 0. Let GV denote the (distributional) integral kernel of the operator 4 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER

m (m) (m) (1+∆V )− . If N = 1 we also write GV for GV . By (local) elliptic regularity G(m) is continuous on the open set U U. For any R> 0 deﬁne V ×

(2.1) Jm(R; t) = inf Jm(ψ; t) (R> 0), ψ AR ∈

2m where AR is the set of real-valued functions ψ in C (R) such that Supp(1 ψ) ( R, R), and − ⊂ −

2 2 d m s J ψ t ψ s e− 4t ds. (2.2) m( ; )= (1 2 ) ( ) ZR − ds

Any matrix of size N N can be naturally regarded as a linear operator on the Hilbert space CN , so we× let denote its operator norm. k·k

2.1. Finite propagation speed. Before we start let us make some notational N (v) remarks. Let x, y U, v,w C . We denote δx = δ v, where δ is ∈ ∈ x ⊗ x the Dirac delta distribution at x. Strictly speaking, δx v is not in the domain t∆V ⊗ of the self-adjoint operators e− and cos(s√∆V ). We understand however expressions such as cos(s√∆V )(δx v) as distributions (in x) with values in the 2 N ⊗ Hilbert space L ( ; C ). Pairing with the test function ϕ C∞(U) is deﬁned U ∈ c as cos(s√∆V )(ϕ v). As usual, the expression cos(s√∆V )(δx) is then understood ⊗ 2 N N 2 as a distribution with values in L ( ; C (C )∗) = L ( ; Mat(N, C)) With this U ⊗ U notation the distributional integral kernel k ′(U U; Mat(N, C)) of an operator ∈D × (v) (w) K is k(x, y) = δ , Kδ . In particular, expressions of the form δx , Kδy are h x yi h i bi-distributions and the pairing with test functions ϕ ϕ C∞(U U) is given 1 ⊗ 2 ∈ c × by ϕ v,Kϕ w = v, k w CN (ϕ ϕ ). h 1 ⊗ 2 ⊗ i h i 1 ⊗ 2 Alternatively, one can also understand cos(s√∆ )(δ v) as the distributional V x ⊗ limit of a sequence cos(s√∆V )(ϕn v), where ϕn is a δ-family centered at x. Note ⊗ CN that cos(s√∆V ) is formally self-adjoint, and a continuous map from Cc∞(U; ) to CN m C∞(U; ). This follows from (local) elliptic regularity because ∆V cos(s√∆V ) = m 2 N cos(s√∆V )∆V is a continuous map from C0∞( ) L ( ) for any m . It U → U N ∈ N therefore extends by duality to a continuous map from ′(U; C ) to ′(U; C ). As N E D N usual, here ′(U; C ) denotes the space of distributions with values in C , and N D ′(U; C ) denotes the subspace of distributions of compact support. E Theorem 2.1. The following pointwise estimate holds for the heat kernel:

K (x, y; t) K (x, y; t) k U − 0 k d 1 Γ(m ) J ρ x ρ y t (m) (m) 2 2 m( ( )+ ( ); ) GU (x, x) GU (y,y) + d − . ≤ k kk k (4π) 2 (m 1)! 2√πt − IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 5

Proof. Let ψ A where R = ρ(x)+ ρ(y). It is well-known (see e.g. [34]) that ∈ R s2 t∆V 1 e− = cos(s ∆V )e− 4t ds √ R 2 πt Z p 1 s2 = cos(s ∆V )(1 ψ(s))e− 4t ds √ R 2 πt Z p − 2 2 1 m d m s s ψ s e 4t ds. (2.3) + (1+∆V )− cos( ∆V )(1 2 ) ( ( ) − ) √ R ds 2 πt Z p − Finite propagation speed for the wave equation implies that if s1 < ρ(x) then (v) | | (v) cos(s1√∆0)δx has compact support in U and agrees with cos(s1√∆U )δx . Note that any s R with s < ρ(x)+ ρ(y) can be written as s = s1 + s2 with s1 < ρ(x), s < ρ(y),∈s s 0.| With| this decomposition available and by considering| | | 2| 1 2 ≥ cos(s ∆ ) = 2cos(s ∆ ) cos(s ∆ ) cos((s s ) ∆ ) cos(0 ∆ ) V 1 V 2 V − 1 − 2 V V as well asps s < maxpρ(x), ρ(y) ,p 0 < min ρ(x), ρ(y) , onep obtains p | 1 − 2| { } { } δ(v), cos(s ∆ )δ(w) δ(v), cos(s ∆ )δ(w) =0 h x U y i−h x 0 y i for any s R with s < ρ(xp)+ ρ(y). As supp(1 ψp) ( ρ(x) ρ(y), ρ(x)+ ρ(y)), we get ∈ | | − ⊂ − − (2.4) (1 ψ(s)) δ(v), cos(s ∆ )δ(w) (1 ψ(s)) δ(v), cos(s ∆ )δ(w) =0 − h x U y i − − h x 0 y i for any s R. On the other hand,p note that p ∈ (v) m (w) m (v) m (w) δ , (1+∆ )− cos(s ∆ )δ = (1+∆ )− 2 δ , cos(s ∆ )(1+∆ )− 2 δ . h x V V y i h V x V V y i Applying the Cauchy-Schwarzp inequality several times thisp gives (v) m (w) (m) (m) 1/2 (2.5) δ , (1+∆ )− cos(s ∆ )δ v w G (x, x) G (y,y) |h x V V y i|≤| || | k V kk V k for any s R. Combining (2.4p), (2.5), (2.10) with (2.3) suﬃces to conclude the proof. ∈

2.2. Safarov’s estimate. Since ∆U is a non-negative self-adjoint operator, by the spectral theorem ∞ ∆U = λdΠ(λ), Z0 where Π(λ) (λ 0) denotes the spectral projection of ∆U onto the interval [0,λ]. The so-called spectral≥ function e(x, y; λ), deﬁned to be the integral kernel of Π(λ), is smooth in U U for each ﬁxed λ. × If N = 1 we also write e(x, y; λ) for e(x, y; λ). Safarov ([29, Cor. 3.1]) proved for every x U and all λ> 0 that ∈ (2) (3) d 1 (1) d/2 Cd 1/2 Cd − (2.6) e(x, x; λ) Cd λ + λ + , ≤ ρ(x) ρ(x) (1) (2) (3) (1) d where Cd , Cd , Cd are universal constants given respectively by Cd = ωd(2π)− Rd (2) (1) 1 (3) 2 (3) with ωd denoting the volume of the unit ball in , Cd = dCd (2π− (Cd ) +Cd ), 6 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER

(3) 1 2md d+1 Cd 2md3 , where md = 2 (see [29, Lemma 2.6]). We should mention that Safarov≤ originally established (⌈2.6)⌉ by understanding e(x, x; λ) as the integral kernel Π(λ 0)+Π(λ+0) − of 2 . But the right hand side of (2.6) is a continuous function of λ> 0, (2.6) also holds for our choice of the spectral function. The key points for proving (2.6) are the fact (see [29, Lemma 2.7, Cor. 3.1]) 2 that χ+(λ)e(x, x; λ ) is a non-decreasing function of λ on R, and the cosine Fourier transform of (1) 1 d 2 (C )− χ (λ)e(x, x; λ ) d · dλ + d 1 coincides on the interval ( ρ(x), ρ(x)) with the cosine Fourier transform of dλ − . − + Here χ+ is the characteristic function of the positive axis. The latter property can be seen from the finite propagation speed for the wave equation. In the vector-valued situation, we claim as (non-negative) self-adjoint matrices, C(2) C(3) d 1 (1) d/2 d 1/2 d − 1 (2.7) e(x, x; λ) Cd λ + λ + ≤ ρ(x) ρ(x) for every x U and all λ > 0. To this end we see once again from the finite propagation∈ speed for the wave equation that for each fixed unit vector v CN , the cosine Fourier transform of ∈

(1) 1 d (v) 2 (v) (C )− χ (λ) δ , Π(λ )δ d · dλ + h x x i d 1 coincides on the interval ( ρ(x), ρ(x)) with the cosine Fourier transform of dλ+− . (v) 2 (v)− Also, χ+(λ) δx , Π(λ )δx is a non-decreasing function of λ on R. So similar to (2.6) we haveh i

(2) (3) d 1 (v) (v) (1) d/2 Cd 1/2 Cd − δx , Π(λ)δx Cd λ + λ + (x U,λ > 0), h i ≤ ρ(x) ρ(x) ∈ which proves (2.7). For simplicity, applying H¨older’s and Young’s inequalities to the right hand side of (2.7) gives for every x U and all λ> 0 that ∈ (4) d/2 (5) d (2.8) e(x, x; λ) (C λ + C ρ(x)− )1, ≤ d d (4) (1) d 1 d 2 (2) (5) d 2 (2) (3) d 1 1 where Cd =(Cd + −d 2 − Cd ), Cd =2 − Cd ((Cd ) − + d ). According to the functional calculus of self-adjoint operators, we have

m ∞ 1 − d λ . (1+∆U ) = m Π( ) Z0 (1 + λ) For m > 0 this integral can be understood as an operator-valued integral that converges in the strong operator topology. For the purposes of this paper it is enough to understand it in the weak sense as a statement about quadratic forms. d (m) m For m> 2 the integral kernel GU (x, y) of (1+∆U )− is continuous on U U and we have × ∞ 1 G(m) x, x de x, x λ . U ( )= m ( ; ) Z0 (1 + λ) IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 7

Pointwise convergence of the integral can easily seen as follows. Choose s R such d s/2 ∈ that m>s> 2 . The operator (1 +∆U ) commutes with the spectral measure s/2 m s/2 and (1+∆U ) (1+∆U )− (1+∆U ) is bounded. Therefore, its integral spectral s/2 representation converges in the sense of quadratic forms. Since (1+∆U )− maps 2 CN s CN s CN L (U; ) to Hloc(U; ) it extends by duality to a continuous map Hcomp− (U; ) to L2(U; CN ). We conclude that

m ∞ 1 − d λ (1+∆U ) = m Π( ) Z0 (1 + λ) s CN converges in the sense of quadratic forms on Hcomp− (U; ). By the Sobolev embed- (v) s CN d ding theorem δx is in Hcomp− (U; ). Considering m> 2 , (2.8), e(x, x;0) 0, and the following equivalent representation of the classical Beta function ≥

α 1 ∞ λ B α, β − dλ α > , β > , ( )= α+β (Re( ) 0 Re( ) 0) Z0 (1 + λ) one can use integration by parts to get

∞ 1 G(m) x, x de x, x λ U ( )= m ( ; ) Z0 (1 + λ) ∞ e(x, x; λ) m dλ e x, x = m+1 ( ;0) Z0 (1 + λ) − (4) d/2 (5) d ∞ C λ + C ρ(x) m d d − dλ 1 m+1 ≤ Z0 (1 + λ) (4) d d (5) d (2.9) = mC B(1 + , m )+ C ρ(x)− 1. d 2 − 2 d (1) d/21 On the other hand we have e0(x, x; λ) = Cd λ (see [33, Example 3.1]), where e0(x, y; λ) denotes the spectral function of ∆0. Therefore, one obtains

Γ(m d ) (m) 2 1 (2.10) G0 (x, x)= d − . (4π) 2 (m 1)! − Finally, by considering (2.9) and (2.10) and by introducing

d (6) (4) d d Γ(m 2 ) Cd = mCd B(1 + , m )+ d − , 2 − 2 (4π) 2 (m 1)! − we can deduce from Theorem 2.1 that Theorem 2.2. The following pointwise estimate holds for the heat kernel:

(5) d (6) Jm(ρ(x)+ ρ(y); t) KU (x, y; t) K0(x, y; t) C ρ(x, y)− + C . k − k ≤ d d · 2√πt 8 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER

2.3. Optimizing cut-oﬀ functions. This section is devoted to proving Theorem 1.1. To this end it suﬃces to bound Jm(R; t) for R = ρ(x)+ ρ(y). In general we suppose R> 0. The Hermite polynomials n n s2 d s2 H (s)=( 1) e e− (n =0, 1, 2,...) n − dsn can be written as n ⌊ 2 ⌋ k ( 1) n! n 2k H (s)= − (2s) − , n k!(n 2k)! Xk=0 − from which it is easy to deduce that

n 2 n 2 ⌊ ⌋ 1 n k 2 d s ( 2 ) ( 1) n! k n n 2k s (e− 4t )= − − t − s − e− 4t (n =0, 1, 2,...). dsn k!(n 2k)! Xk=0 − Consequently, by Leibniz’s rule one gets for any non-negative integer n 2m that ≤ j n 2 n 2 ⌊ ⌋ 1 j k 2 d s n (n j) ( 2 ) ( 1) j! k j j 2k s ψ(s)e− 4t = ψ − − − t − s − e− 4t . dsn j k!(j 2k)! Xj=0 Xk=0 −

To optimize the choice of cutoff functions we first let ψ0 denote a fixed real-valued function in C2m(R) such that ψ (s)=0 for s 0 and ψ (s)=1 for s 1. Later on 0 ≤ 0 ≥ we will give concrete examples of ψ0 and thus j d ψ0 Mj(ψ0) = max (s) (j =0, 1,..., 2m) 0 s 1 dsj ≤ ≤ can be explicitly determined. Then for any 0 < ǫ1 < ǫ2 < R define s ǫ ψ (s)= ψ | | − 1 , ǫ1,ǫ2 0 ǫ ǫ 2 − 1 which is an even function in C2m(R) with Supp(1 ψ ) ( R, R). We let the − ǫ1,ǫ2 ⊂ − parameters ǫ1, ǫ2 (depending on both R and t) behave in the following way:

ǫ2 R, • ǫ →ǫ 2t . • 2 − 1 ≡ R 2 With the help of Lemma 2.4, it is not hard to show that if 0 < t R , then ≤ 8 n d s2 R2 ψ s e 4t ds Z n, ψ , R t e 4t n m , (2.11) lim n ( ǫ1,ǫ2 ( ) − ) ( 0 ; ) − ( 2 ) ǫ2 R ZR ds ≤ ≤ → where Z(n, ψ0, R; t) is short for the rational function

n j 2 n 2k 1 n 1 2 ⌊ ⌋ 2 n 2k 1 − ⌊ ⌋ n 2k 1 n! − 2 − !M0(ψ0)e R − − 1+k n n!Mn j(ψ0)eR − − 1+k n ⌈ ⌉ t − + − t − . 22n 2k 1k!(n 2k)! 2n 2k!(j 2k)!(n j)! Xk=0 − − − Xj=0 Xk=0 − − − In general, it follows straightforward from Leibniz’s rule and (2.11) that IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 9

2 Theorem 2.3. Suppose 0 < t R . Then ≤ 8 m m R2 J (R; t) Z(2n, ψ , R; t)e− 4t . m ≤ n 0 Xn=0

Theorem 1.1 is an immediate consequence of Theorems 2.2, 2.3 with m = d+1 . ⌈ 2 ⌉ Lemma 2.4. If β is a non-negative integer and if ρ 2√t, then ≥ 2 2 ∞ β s β 1 β 1 ρ s e− 4t ds 2e − ! ρ − te− 4t . Zρ ≤ l 2 m Proof. Note ﬁrst 2 2 ∞ β s β β+1 β +1 ρ s e− 4t ds =2 t 2 Γ( , ), Zρ 2 4t β+1 where Γ( , ) is the upper incomplete Gamma function. If 2 is a positive integer β−1 · · k β+1 β 1 r 2 r then it is known that Γ( 2 ,r)=( −2 )! e− k=0 k! for all r > 0. This partially 2 proves the lemma simply by considering ρ P1. If β+1 is a positive half-integer then 4t ≥ 2 we can use Γ( β+1 ,r) 1 Γ( β+2 ,r) and the previous explicit formula for Γ( β+2 ,r) 2 ≤ √r 2 2 to prove the remaining part of the lemma. This ﬁnishes the proof.

Although there are many test functions for ψ0, we use an interpolating polynomial because Mj(ψ0) can be determined rather easily. For any n N, there exists a unique polynomial P of degree 2n + 1 such that P (0) = 0, P ∈(1) = 1, and n ≤ n n di di Pn = Pn =0 (1 i n). dsi s=0 dsi s=1 ≤ ≤

We then deﬁne a function P n on R such that it agrees with Pn on [0, 1], equals 0 on ( , 0), and equals 1 on (1, ). It is easy to check that P Cn(R). This means −∞ e ∞ n ∈ that one can set ψ = P . A few examples of P are listed below: 0 2m n e 2 3 P1(s)=3e s 2s , − P (s)=10s3 15s4 +6s5, 2 − P (s)=35s4 84s5 + 70s6 20s7, 3 − − P (s) = 126s5 420s6 + 540s7 315s8 + 70s9. 4 − −

3. Dirichlet boundary conditions

(D) Rd We denote by KU (x, y; t) the Dirichlet heat kernel for an open set U . Michiel van den Berg’s (1.1) gives ⊂

2 2 d j 2j 2 (D) d/2 x y +4δ 2 δ − (3.1) K (x, y; t) K (x, y; t) (4πt)− exp( | − | ) . | U − 0 | ≤ − 4t (j 1)!tj 1 Xj=1 − − 10 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER

To compare, Theorem 1.1 is a slight improvement of (3.1) for the short-time diagonal elements of the Dirichlet heat kernel if d 5. ≥ It is known that G(m)(x, x) G(m)(x, x) for any x U, where G(m) is interpreted U ≤ 0 ∈ U in accordance with the choice that ∆U denotes the Dirichlet Laplacian on U. Thus it follows from Theorem 2.1 and (2.10) that d (D) Γ(m 2 ) Jm(ρ(x)+ ρ(y); t) (3.2) KU (x, y; t) K0(x, y; t) d − . | − | ≤ (4π) 2 (m 1)!√π · √t − We remark that two other estimates by Michiel van den Berg ([2]) reading 2 (D) 2d ρ(x) (3.3) KU (x, x; t) K0(x, x; t) d exp( ), | − | ≤ (4πt) 2 − dt 2d (max ρ(x), ρ(y) )2 (3.4) K(D)(x, y; t) K (x, y; t) exp( (3 2√2) { } ), | U − 0 | ≤ (4πt)d/2 − − dt have been widely used in the study of short-time asymptotics of the heat trace (see e.g. [3, 6, 32]) and some other related problems (see e.g. [5]).

4. Neumann boundary conditions

(N) Let KU (x, y; t) denote the Neumann heat kernel for a smooth bounded open set Rd d+1 U . As an application of Theorem 1.1 (or Theorem 4.1 with m = 2 ), there ⊂ 2 ⌈ ⌉ exists a positive function g on U such that if 0 < t ρ(x) then ≤ 2 2 (N) d/2 α ρ(x) (4.1) K (x, x; t) (4πt)− + g(x) t− exp( ), U ≤ · · − t d+1 1 where α =2 2 2 . This answers a question raised by Lacey ([21]) who conjec- tured that for⌈ the⌉ class − of smooth bounded strictly star-shaped domains (4.1) holds d for some α > 2 as long as time t is suﬃciently small. Lacey also asked to extend the main result in [21] to unbounded domains, domains with non-smooth boundary, or more general boundary conditions. Because of Theorem 1.1 this is indeed doable for the diagonal element of the corresponding Neumann heat kernel. (m) In the rest of the section we also give a replacement of (2.9) for GU (x, x) without (m) using Safarov’s estimate (2.6). Here GU is interpreted in accordance with the choice that ∆U denotes the Neumann Laplacian on U. This can be done by appealing to partial domain monotonicity of the Neumann heat kernel. For simplicity we assume that U Rd is a smooth bounded open set. Note ﬁrst (see e.g. [8, (3.33)], [12, 3.4]) ⊂ § (m) 1 ∞ m 1 t (N) (4.2) G (x, x)= t − e− K (x, x; t)dt, U (m 1)! Z U − 0 (N) which means that we need instead to prepare suitable upper bounds for KU (x, x; t). In contrast to the Dirichlet boundary problems, there does not exist a general domain IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 11 monotonicity principle ([1]) claiming for any U U that 2 ⊂ 1 (N) (N) + K (x, y; t) K (x, y; t) ((x, y, t) U2 U2 R ). U1 ≤ U2 ∈ × × (D) (D) Even though, Kac’s original idea ([19]) of comparing KU (x, x; t) with KBx (x, x; t) 1 d where Bx is chosen here to be the ball in R with center x and radius ρ(x), still works for the Neumann boundary problems. This is exactly a result by Kendall ([20], see also [24]; if U is convex then see [9]) stating (4.3) K(N)(x, x; t) K(N)(x, x; t) ((x, t) U R+), U ≤ Bx ∈ × which combined with (4.2) yields (4.4) G(m)(x, x) G(m)(x, x) (x U). U ≤ Bx ∈ Let Ud(x, y; t) denote the Neumann heat kernel for the d-dimensional unit ball. The Pascu-Gageonea resolution ([25]) of the Laugesen-Morpurgo conjecture ([22]) says that

(4.5) Ud(x, x; t) < Ud(y,y; t) holds for all t > 0 and all x, y in the d-dimensional unit ball with x < y . This result implies that | | | |

t∆(N) Tr(e− d ) (4.6) Ud(0, 0; t) < , ωd (N) where ∆d is short for the Neumann Laplacian on the d-dimensional unit ball. Now let x U be ﬁxed. It is straightforward to verify that ∈ t U 0, 0; d ρ(x)2 (4.7) K(N)(x, x; t)= . Bx ρ(x)d

Hence by considering (4.4), (4.2) with U replaced by Bx, (4.7) and (4.6), we get

N t ∆( ) − ρ(x)2 d (m) 1 ∞ m 1 t Tr(e ) G (x, x) t − e− dt U ≤ (m 1)! · Z ω ρ(x)d − 0 d 2m d N ρ(x) − ∞ m 1 tρ(x)2 t∆( ) = t − e− Tr(e− d )dt (m 1)!ωd · Z0 −2m d 1 ρ(x) − m 1 t∆(N) ∆(N) ∞ m 1 tρ(x)2 t − Tr(e− d )dt + Tr(e− d ) t − e− dt ≤ (m 1)!ωd · Z0 Z0 − (N) 2m d 1 ∆d ρ(x) − m 1 t∆(N) Tr(e− ) = t − Tr(e− d )dt + , (m 1)!ω · Z ω ρ(x)d − d 0 d t∆(N) ∆(N) where in the last inequality we have used the fact Tr(e− d ) Tr(e− d ) for all t 1. This estimate together with (2.10) gives from Theorem 2.1≤ the following ≥ 1 To be precise, Kac ([19]) set Bx to be the largest open cube contained in U. 12 LIANGPANLIANDALEXANDERSTROHMAIER

Rd N d Theorem 4.1. Let U a smooth bounded open set and let m with m> 2 . For any t> 0 and any⊂x, y in U one has ∈

2 (N) d/2 x y Jm(ρ(x)+ ρ(y); t) K (x, y; t) (4πt)− exp( | − | ) Nd(x, y) , U − − 4t ≤ · √πt 2 where 1 m 1 t∆(N) t − Tr(e− d )dt d Z0 2m d Γ(m 2 ) Nd(x, y)= (max ρ(x), ρ(y) ) − + d − + (m 1)!ωd · { } (4π) 2 (m 1)! − (N) − ∆d Tr(e− ) d (min ρ(x), ρ(y) )− . ωd · { }

References [1] R. Bass, K. Burdzy, On domain monotonicity of the Neumann heat kernel, J. Funct. Anal. 116 (1993) 215–224. [2] M. van den Berg, Bounds on Green’s functions of second-order differential equations, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 2452–2455. [3] M. van den Berg, On the asymptotics of the heat equation and bounds on traces associated with the Dirichlet Laplacian, J. Funct. Anal. 71 (1987) 279–293. [4] M. van den Berg, Heat equation and the principle of not feeling the boundary, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh A, 112 (1989) 257–262. [5] M. van den Berg, A. Dall’ Acqua, G. H. Sweers, Estimates for the expected lifetime of condi- tioned Brownian motion, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh A, 137 (2007) 1091–1099. [6] M. van den Berg, S. Srisatkunarajah, Heat equation for a region in R2 with a polygonal boundary, J. London Math. Soc. 37 (1988) 119–127. [7] M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, V. M. Mostepanenko, New developments in the Casimir effect, Physics Reports 353 (2001) 1–205. [8] N. V. Borisov, W. Müller, R. Schrader, Relative index theorems and supersymmetric scattering theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 114 (1988) 475–513. [9] I. Chavel, Heat diffusion in insulated convex domains, J. London Math. Soc. 34 (1986) 473– 478. [10] J. Cheeger, M. Gromov, M. Taylor, Finite propagation speed, kernel estimates for functions of the Laplace operator, and the geometry of complete Riemannian manifolds, J. Diff. Geom. 17 (1982) 15–53. [11] T. Coulhon, A. Sikora, Gaussian heat kernel upper bounds via Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem, Proc. London Math. Soc. 96 (2008) 507–544. [12] E. B. Davies, Heat Kernels and Spectral Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1989. [13] E. B. Davies, Spectral properties of compact manifolds and changes of metric, Amer. J. Math. 112 (1990) 15–39. [14] J. Dodziuk, V. Mathai, Approximation L2 invariants of amenable covering spaces: A heat kernel approach, Contemp. Math. 211, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1997, pp. 151–167. [15] E. Elizalde, Ten Physical Applications of Spectral Zeta Functions, Second edition, Lecture Notes in Physics 855, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012. [16] P. B. Gilkey, Invariance Theory, the Heat Equation, and the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem, Second edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995. [17] E. P. Hsu, On the principle of not feeling the boundary for diffusion processes, J. London Math. Soc. 51 (1995) 373–382. IMPROVED NOT FEELING THE BOUNDARY ESTIMATES 13

[18] G. A. Hunt, Some theorems concerning Brownian motion, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 81 (1956) 294–319. [19] M. Kac, On some connections between probability theory and differential and integral equations, Proc. Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1950, pp. 189-215, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951. [20] W. Kendall, Coupled Brownian motions and partial domain monotonicity for the Neumann heat kernel, J. Funct. Anal. 86 (1989) 226–236. [21] A. A. Lacey, An upper estimate for a heat kernel with Neumann boundary condition, Bull. London Math. Soc. 25 (1993) 453–462. [22] R. S. Laugesen, C. Morpurgo, Extremals for eigenvalues of Laplacians under conformal map- ping, J. Funct. Anal. 155 (1998) 64–108. [23] W. Lück, T. Schick, L2-torsion of hyperbolic manifolds of finite volume, Geom. Funct. Anal. 9 (1999) 518–567. [24] M. Pascu, Mirror coupling of reflecting Brownian motion and an application to Chavel’s conjecture, Electronic J. Probab. 16 (2011) 504–530. [25] M. Pascu, M. Gageonea, Monotonicity properties of the Neumann heat kernel in the ball, J. Funct. Anal. 260 (2011) 490–500. [26] N. Peyerimhoff, I. Veselic, Integrated density of states for ergodic random Schrödinger operators on manifolds, Geom. Dedicata 91 (2002) 117–135. [27] D. Ray, On spectra of second-order differential operators, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 77 (1954) 299–321. [28] M. Rosenblatt, On a class of Markov processes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 71 (1951) 120–135. [29] Y. Safarov, Fourier Tauberian theorems and applications, J. Funct. Anal. 185 (2001) 111–128. [30] A. Sikora, Riesz transform, Gaussian bounds and the method of wave equation, Math. Z. 247 (2004) 643–662. [31] B. Simon, Functional Integration and Quantum Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1979. [32] F. Steiner, P. Trillenberg, Refined asymptotic expansion for the partition function of unbounded quantum billiards, J. Math. Phys. 31 (1990) 1670–1676. [33] R. Strichartz, Spectral asymptotics revisited, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 18 (2012) 626–659. [34] M. E. Taylor, Partial Differential Equations I: Basic Theory, 2nd edition, Springer, 2011.

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]