q4-Orientiation-Equivalence.md 11.4 KB
Newer Older
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
# Orientability and Energy Minimization in Liquid Crystal Models

## Overview

- *uniaxial nematic liquid crystals* werden modelliert
- *Oseen-Frank*: unit vector field $`n`$ → nicht als $`ℝP^2`$ gesehen, sondern mit $`n ≠ -n`$ (ignoriert Symmetrie)
  - wird als Standardsichtweise dargestellt
8
- *Landau-de Gennes*: $`Q = s(n \otimes n - \tfrac13\operatorname{Id})`$
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
9
10
11
12
13
14
- Resultat:
  - Theorien sind gleich für einfach zusammenhängende Urbilder und $`W^{1,2}`$
  - Unterschiede in anderen Fällen sind beschrieben:
  - for simple energy functional, holes, various boundary conditions, difference cases are characterised (i.e. $`⇔`$)

## de Gennes
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
15

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
16
17
- closer to physics reality
- $`Q`$-tensors are generally more [complex](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3542.pdf), in our case just of the simple form („constrained”)
18
19
20

### Derivation of $`Q`$-Tensors
(from chapter 1 Introduction)
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
21

22
23
24
- each point has preferred direction but can have any direction → probability measure $`μ(x, ·) : ℒ(𝕊^2) → [0,1]`$ ($`ℒ`$ being all Lebesque sets) modelling very small area around $`x`$
- symmetry modeled as $`μ(x, A) = μ(x, -A) ⇒ ⟨p⟩ = ∫_{𝕊^2} p dμ(p) = 0`$ (first moment or average)
- Tensor of second moments: $`M_{ij} = ∫_{𝕊^2} p_ip_j dμ(p)`$ ($`i, j = 1, 2, 3`$)
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
25
  - $`M = M^T`$, $`\operatorname{Tr} M = Σ_{i=1}^3 ∫_{𝕊^2} p_i^2 dμ(p) = ∫_{𝕊^2} 1 dμ(p) = 1`$ ($`μ`$ is probability measure)
26
27
28
29
  - $`e · M e = ∫_{𝕊^2} (e · p)^2 dμ(p) = ⟨\cos^2(θ)⟩`$ ($`θ`$ = angle between $`p`$ and $`e`$) for $`|e| =1`$)
  - if $`μ`$ is isotropic (no preferred direction): $`μ_0`$ with $`dμ_0(p) = (4π)^{-1}dA`$ with
    $`M_0 = (4π)^{-1} ∫_{𝕊^2} p \otimes p dA = \frac 13 \operatorname{Id}`$
    - $`∫_{𝕊^2} p_1 p_2 dμ(p) = 0`$ since what happens on one half-sphere is countered by the other half-sphere ($`p_2`$, $`p_3`$ are same but $`p_1`$ is of opposite sign)
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
30
    - $`∫_{𝕊^2} p_i^2 dμ(p)`$ are equal ($`i=1,2,3`$) and in sum $`= \operatorname{Tr} M_0 = 1`$
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
- Def. *de Gennes order-parameter tensor $`Q`$*: difference of second moment tensor to isotropic case $`Q = M - M_0 = ∫_{𝕊^2}(p \otimes p - \frac13 \operatorname{Id}) dμ(p)`$
  - $`Q`$ symmetric, $`\operatorname{Q} = 0`$ $`⇒`$ (spectral theorem) $`Q = λ_1 ê_1 \otimes ê_2 + λ_2 ê_2 \otimes ê_2 - (λ_1 + λ_2)ê_3 \otimes ê_3`$ ($`ê_{1,2,3}`$ orthonormal eigenvector basis, $`λ_1, λ_2`$ eigenvectors)
    - Eigenvectors for different non-zero eigenvalues are orthogonal: $`(λ_1e_1) · (λ_2^{-1} e_2) = (Q e_1)^T (Q^{-1}e_2) = e_1 · Q^T Q^{-1} e_2 = e_1 · e_2 ⇒ e_1 ⊥ e_2`$
  - two eigenvalues equal and non-zero: *uniaxial* (considered here)
  - otherwise *biaxial* (more complicated)
- Constraint on $`s`$:
  - $`s`$ defined by limiting process $`L → 0`$ and the constants $`a, b, c`$
  - but also $`Q`$ has an original definition via $`μ`$. Together:
  ```math
  Qn · n
  = n^T s (n n^T - \frac 13 \operatorname{Id}) n
  = s (n^T n n^T n - \frac13 n^T \operatorname{Id}n)
  = s(1 · 1 - \frac13 · 1) \frac23 s
  = ∫_{𝕊^2} n^T p p^T n - \frac13 n^T n dμ(p)
  = ∫_{𝕊^2} (n · p)^2 - \frac 13 dμ(p)
  = ⟨\cos^2 θ - \frac13⟩
  ⇒ s = \frac32 ⟨\cos^2 θ - \frac13⟩
  ```
  - $`⇒ -\frac12 \leq s \leq 1`$: $`s`$ says how much the molecules agree, are „in order“ (max: $`s = 1`$: perfectly ordered $`p∥n`$; $`s = -\frac12`$: $`p ⊥ n`$; $`s=0`$: $`Q = 0`$, isotropic)
  - $`⇒`$ s is *scalar order parameter associated to the tensor $`Q`$*
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
51
52
  - usual assumption: $`s`$ is constant $`⇒`$ space of $`Q`$-Tensors "is" $`ℝP^2`$

53
54
55
### Simpliest energy functional
(p. 495 = 3)
```math
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
56
ℱ_{\text{LG}}[Q] = ∫_{Ω} \left(\sum_{i,j,k = 1}^3 \frac L2 Q_{ij,k} Q_{ij,k} - \frac a2 \operatorname{Tr} Q^2 - \frac b3 \operatorname{Tr} Q^3 + \frac c4 (\operatorname{Tr} Q^2)^2 \right) dx
57
58
59
```
$`a, b, c`$ constants, $`L`$ „*elastic constant*”. Physics is interested in $`L → 0`$

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
60
61
## Oseen-Frank
- simpler, but sometimes wrong
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
- (here:) with orientation ($`n ∈ 𝕊^2`$, not $`n ∈ ℝP^2`$)
- problem: *„fake defects”*: „non-orientable line field” (places where vector field has to be rough but would be OK if we took away the orientation

### Simpliest energy functional
minimizers of $`ℱ_{\text{LG}}`$ for $`L → 0`$ are "suitably approximated" by minimizers of
```math
ℱ_{\text{OF}}[Q] = ∫_{Ω} \sum_{i, j, k = 1}^3 Q_{ij,k} Q_{ij,k} dx
```
*if* $`Q ∈ W^{1,2}`$ with $`Q`$ uniaxial almost everywhere, i.e.
```math
Q = s(n \otimes n - \tfrac13 \operatorname{Id}) \quad (s = -3 λ_1 = -3 λ_2, n = ê_3)
```
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
74
75
76
77

## Compatibility
- Oseen-Frank and de Gennes are compatible if the oriented line field (= unit vector field) can be oriented (without changing regularity)
  - otherwise Oseen-Frank might miss a global minimizer because it is not orientable
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
  - Question if orientable calculable with integer programming problem (p. 4 = 496) (= (linear) optimization problem with only integer coefficiants)

### Notation
- $`P : 𝕊^2 → 𝒬`$ removes orientation. Orientable = in the image of $`P`$. Same for $`Q`$ only defined on $`∂Ω`$
- $`𝒬 := \{Q = s(n \otimes n - \frac13 \operatorname{ID}) | n ∈ 𝕊^2\}`$
- $`𝒬_2 := \{Q = s((n_1, n_2, 0) \otimes (n_1, n_2, 0) - \frac13 \operatorname{ID}) | n = (n_1, n_2, 0) ∈ 𝕊^2\}`$
- $`C^k`$ and Lipschitz domains are defined as having a graph as the boundary (as usual)
- $`W^{1,p}`$ defined via embedding
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
86
- $`W^{1,p}_{φ} = W^{1,p}`$ with $`φ`$ on the boundary (use $`\operatorname{Tr}`$-Operator to define boundary value)
87
- $`P : 𝕊^2 → 𝒬`$ removes orientation. Orientable = in the image of $`P`$. Same for $`Q`$ only defined on $`∂Ω`$
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
88
89
  - for $`Q ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬)`$ $`ℒ^d`$-almost everywhere
  - for $`Q ∈ W^{1-\frac1p, p}(∂Ω, 𝒬)`$ orientable to $`n ∈ W^{1-\frac1p, p}(Ω, 𝕊^2)`$ $`ℋ^{d-1}`$-almost everywhere
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
90
91
- $`v_{,k}`$ is the variable $`v`$ differentiated in the direction $`k`$. $`Q_{ij,k}`$ is the $`i-j`$'th component of the matrix field $`Q`$ differentiated in the direction $`k`$. This is not mentioned anywhere!!
- Indeces which appear twice, are summed over, without mentioning it once!! Even when both are lower indeces.
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
92
93
94
95
96
- in chapter 3.1 firstly for continous $`Q`$ since that's standard from topology
  - *Theorem 1*: $`𝒬_2`$ (one-dim), orientable on boundary of holes, $`Q`$ continous $`⇒`$ orientable (long proof with a lot of fiddling!)
- chapter 3.2 Theorem 2: $`Ω`$ simply connected, $`Q ∈ W^{1, p}`$, $`p \geq 2`$ (!) $`⇒`$ orientable with Sobolev-Seminorm estimate. Counterexample for $`p < 2`$
- chapter 4: different cases of $`Q`$ orientable on boundary $`⇒`$/$`⇔`$/$`⇐`$ on $`Ω`$. Sometimes $`Q: → 𝒬_2`$, sometimes $`Q`$ continous (on boundary)

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
### Chapter 2 Propositions
(choose better subsection title!)

*Proposition 2*: $`Q ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬)`$ ($`1 \leq p \leq ∞`$) can have only two orientations.

*Proof*:
In one dimension weakly differentiable means that $`f(x) = f(a) + ∫_a^x f'(y) dy`$.
(Which is in turn equivalent to absolutely continous.)
In several dimensions this is true in each direction but only for almost all $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$.
So: $`n`$, $`m`$ have representatives such that for almost everywhere $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$: $`n`$, $`m=τn`$ are  absolutely continous, so also $`τ = τ·1 = τn·n = m·n`$.

Absolute continuity implies continuity, so $`τ`$ has a representative that is for those almost all $`x_2, x_3`$, constant.
Now use this in Fubini on a small ball in $`Ω`$ around $`y`$:
```math
∫_{B_{ε}(y)} ∂_1 τ(x) φ(x) dx = ∫_{B_{ε}(y)} τ(x) ∂_1 φ(x) dx = ∫_{B_{ε}(y)} ∂_1(τφ)(x) dx = 0
```
(first =: Fubini, second =: $`τ`$ is constant along $`x_1`$ for almost all $`x_2, x_3`$, third =: first integrated over $`x_1`$ direction, this is $`± φ(x_{1, \max}, x_2, x_3) - (± φ(x_{1, \min}, x_2, x_3)) = 0 - 0 = 0`$, then integrated over $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$, it stays 0)

Hence $`∇τ = 0`$ (since $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$ are analogous) weakly but this means that $`τ`$ is constant on $`B_{ε}(y)`$ for every $`y ∈ Ω`$ and therefore constant on $`Ω`$. Done. 

---

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
119
Trace operator is introduced by Evans but with continuity estimate for $`\operatorname{Tr} : W^{1,p} → L^p`$. Here we need the stronger statement that $`\operatorname{Tr}`$ maps into the [Sobolev-Slobodeckij space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_operator#Characterization_using_Sobolev%E2%80%93Slobodeckij_spaces) $`W^{1-1/p, p}`$.
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
120

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
121
*Proposition 3*: If $`Q = P(n)`$ (orientable) on $`Ω`$, then $`\operatorname{Tr} Q P(\operatorname{Tr} n)`$ ($`Q`$ on $`∂Ω`$ is orientable).
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
122

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
*Proof sketch*: Approximate $`n`$ with differentable functions on and around $`Ω`$, then use continuity of $`\operatorname{Tr}`$ and $`P`$ (show it!) in $`W^{1,p}(Ω)`$ and $`L^p(∂Ω)`$ to show $`P(\operatorname{Tr} Q) = \operatorname{Tr} P(Q)`$. Show with integral approximation property that $`\operatorname{Tr} n`$ lies in $`𝕊^2`$.

---

*Proposition 4*: Orientability is preserved by weak convergence.

For that: *Lemma 1*: (regularity is preserved) ($`Ω`$ bounded)
* $`n ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝕊^2) ⇒ Q = P(n) ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬)`$
* $`Q ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬) ∧ Q = P(n)`$ and $`n`$ is measurable and continous along almost every line parallel to the coordinate axes. Then $`n ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬)`$ and $`\sum_{j=1}^3 Q_{ij,k} n_j = sn_{i,k}`$.

*Proof of Lemma 1*: Since $`Ω`$ is bounded, $`W^{1,p}(Ω) ⊆ W^{1,1}(Ω)`$, so from $`n ∈ W^{1,p}`$ we get $`n ∈ W^{1,1}`$. Also $`|n(x)|=1`$ for all $`x`$, so $`n ∈ L^{∞}`$. For $`g,h∈W^{1,1} ∩ L^{∞}`$, we have $`gh ∈ W^{1,1} ∩ L^{∞}`$. With
```math
Q ∈
```
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
137

Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
138
139
140
## Energy functionals
- specific energy functionals are regarded (p. 11/503) because they were looked at before and Oseen-Frank was successful for them
  - conversion between energy functionals possible
141
142
143

## Questions
- What is the third index $`k`$ for $`Q`$ on page 3 (= 495)?
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
144
  - Probably it's a derivative of $`Q_{ij}`$ in direction $`k`$.
145
146
- And why is it written as a product instead of a square$`^2`$?
- To make spectral representation of $`Q`$ fit to $`Q = s(n \otimes n - \tfrac13 \operatorname{Id})`$, we need $`s = -3 λ_1 = -3 λ_2, n = ê_3`$. How can $`s`$ then depend on $`a, b, c`$ (see formula (3) on page 3 (=495))? If that's the case, $`Q`$ is further reduced to the choice of $`n`$ but that's what we assumed as our model at the beginning. So apparently that's fine.
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
- in Proposition 1 it should be $`\det Q = +\frac{2s^3}{27}`$ since the $`-`$ exists in exactly two eigenvalues: $`\det Q = λ_1 λ_2 λ_3 = (-\frac s3)(-\frac s3)(+\frac {2s}3) = +\frac{2s^3}{27}`$. Correct?

## Errors in the paper
p.5 (=497) Proposition 1 (iii): sign of $`\operatorname{det} Q`$ is wrong. Must be positive, since exactly two of the eigenvalues are negative

p. 7 (=499) Proposition 2: it says $`Q(x) ∈ W^{1,p}(Ω, 𝒬)`$ but $`(x)`$ must be erased ($`Q(x) ∈ 𝒬`$)
Also the statement of the proposition is trivial and not what the colloquial formulation says: it should be "... with $`P(n) = P(m) = Q`$ and $`n ≠ m`$ [as $`W^{1,p}`$-generalized functions, so on a non-0-Lebesgue set], we have $`m = -n`$ almost everywhere in $`Ω`$. If $`n ≠ m`$ almost everywhere, it follows straight away that $`m = -n`$ almost everywhere since pointwise $`n(x) = ± m(x)`$
Felix Hilsky's avatar
Felix Hilsky committed
154
155

~~p. 8 (=500) Proof Proposition 3: "Mollify $`\overline n`$ o get $`\overline n^{(j)} ∈ C^1(\overline{Ω}, ℝ^3)`$ should be $`∈ C^1(B, ℝ^3)`$. By mollifying we cannot get a bigger domain and it would be weird to first extend $`n`$ to then ignore this extension when mollifying again.~~ ($`\overline{Ω} ⊆ B!`$)