text:
# ENHANCEMENT OF RESONANT THERMONUCLEAR REACTION RATES IN EXTREMELY DENSE STELLAR PLASMAS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In a recent important paper Cussons, Langanke, & Liolios (2002) have pointed out the potential resonant screening effects on stellar 12C + 12C reaction rates. The 12C + 12C fusion cross sections show noticeable resonant structures down to the lowest energies measured so far in the laboratory $`E2.4`$ MeV (Kettner, Lorenz-Wirzba, & Rolfs 1980). If the resonant structure continues to even lower energies and the astrophysical reaction rate is due to the contributions of narrow resonances, one then has to consider that the entrance channel width of these resonances will be modified in the plasma.

Cussons, Langanke, & Liolios (2002) have specifically pointed out the possible importance of the plasma effects on the resonant 12C + 12C reactions for a carbon white dwarf environment with $`T=5\times 10^7`$ K and $`\rho =2\times 10^9`$ g cm-3. They have considered a resonance energy interval 0.4$``$2 MeV. They have specifically discussed a rather extreme case of the low resonance energy $`E_r`$ = 400 keV and have estimated the overall enhancement of the resonant 12C + 12C reaction rates due to the plasma effects for this case.

Cussons, Langanke, & Liolios (2002) adopted the method of Salpeter & Van Horn (1969) which is based on the lattice model of the dense plasma to calculate the resonant screening effects. One of the present authors (N. I.) and his collaborators have calculated the enhancement of non-resonant thermonuclear reaction rates in extremely dense stellar plasmas (Itoh, Kuwashima, & Munakata 1990). This work is a natural extension of the works of Itoh, Totsuji, & Ichimaru (1977) and Itoh et al. (1979), and improves upon the accuracy of the results of Salpeter & Van Horn (1969). Itoh, Kuwashima, & Munakata (1990) have summarized their numerical results by an accurate analytical fitting formula which will be readily implemented in the stellar evolution computations.

The aim of the present paper is to extend the work of Itoh, Kuwashima, & Munakata (1990) to the case of resonant reactions. The present paper is organized as follows. Physical conditions relevant to the present calculation are made explicit in § 2. Calculation of the enhancement factor of the resonant thermonuclear reaction rates is summarized in § 3. The results are presented in § 4. Extension to the case of ionic mixtures is made in § 5. Concluding remarks are given in § 6.

## 2 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

First we consider thermonuclear reactions which take place in the plasma in the thermodynamic equilibrium at temperature $`T`$ composed of one kind of atomic nuclei and electrons with number densities $`n_i`$ and $`n_e`$ respectively; $`Ze`$ and $`M`$ denote the electric charge and the mass of such an ion. The conventional parameters which characterize such a plasma are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(Ze\right)^2}{ak_BT}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2275}{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2}{T_8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _6}{A}}\right)^{1/3},`$ (2.1)
$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{27\pi ^2}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M(Ze)^4}{\mathrm{}^2k_BT}}\right]^{1/3},`$ (2.2)
where $`a`$ is the ion-sphere radius $`a=(4\pi n_i/3)^{1/3}`$, $`A`$ is the mass number of the nucleus, $`T_8`$ is the temperature in units of 108 K, and $`\rho _6`$ is the mass density in units of 106 g cm-3. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the case that electrons are strongly degenerate. This condition is expressed as

$`TT_F`$ $`=`$ $`5.930\times 10^9\left[\left\{1+1.018(Z/A)^{2/3}\rho _6^{2/3}\right\}^{1/2}1\right]\mathrm{K},`$ (2.3)
where $`T_F`$ is the electron Fermi temperature. Furthermore, we consider the case that the ions can be treated approximately as classical particles. The corresponding condition is written as

$$n_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^31,$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/Mk_BT)^{1/2}`$ is the thermal de Broglie wave length of the ions. The condition (2.4) is rewritten as

$`T_8`$ $``$ $`2.173\rho _9^{2/3}/A^{5/3},`$ (2.5)
where $`\rho _9`$ is the mass density in units of 109 g cm-3. In this paper we impose a further condition that the ions are in the liquid state (Slattery, Doolen, & Dewitt 1982):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }<178.$$
(2.6)
The parameter 3$`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\tau `$ corresponds to the ratio of the classical turning point radius at the Gamow peak and the mean interionic distance in the case of the pure Coulomb potential (Itoh, Totsuji, & Ichimaru 1977; Alastuey & Jancovici 1978). The theories of Itoh, Totsuji, & Ichimaru (1977), Itoh et al. (1979) and also Alastuey & Jancovici (1978) are valid under the condition 3$`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\tau 1.6`$. Itoh, Kuwashima, & Munakata (1990) have extended the calculation of the enhancement of the non-resonant thermonuclear reaction rates to the case 3$`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\tau 5.4`$. In Figure 1 we show the density-temperature diagram of the pure 12C plasma which illustrates the physical conditions described in this section.

## 3 ENHANCEMENT OF THE RESONANT THERMONUCLEAR REACTION RATES

In this paper we use the following screening potential for the classical one-component plasma

$`H(r)`$ $`=`$ $`Ck_BT{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2e^2}{a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}}\right)^2b\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}}\right)^4\right],\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rr_0`$ (3.1)
$`H(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2e^2}{a}}\left[1.25\left({\displaystyle \frac{1.25}{2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}}\right],r_0r1.60a`$ (3.2)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`1.0531\mathrm{\Gamma }+2.2931\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/4}0.5551\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }2.35.`$ (3.3)
This screening potential is derived from the equilibrium pair correlation function of the classical one-component plasma. In adopting this screening potential, our standpoint is the same as that of Alastuey & Jancovici (1978). They have argued that the pair correlation function should be taken as the static one. The point is that the transmission coefficient of the potential barrier is exceedingly small, which makes nuclear reactions very rare events. In a loose classical analogy, one might say that, in most collisions, the colliding particles tunnel through only a certain distance and are then reflected back. Therefore, as soon as $`r`$ is larger than a few nuclear diameters, equilibrium is achieved and the probability of finding two nuclei at a distance $`r`$ from one another is given by the equilibrium pair correlation function. Thus one can use the averaged potential in describing the tunnelling. More recently DeWitt (1994), Rosenfeld (1994), and Isern & Hernanz (1994) have studied this problem. They have essentially confirmed the correctness of the method of Alastuey & Jancovici (1978) on which our work is based. A similar work in the case of the solar fusion reactions has been recently carried out by Bahcall et al. (2002) essentially confirming the soundness of the method of the average potential.

We also remark in relaion to the above-stated point that the nuclear reactions as a whole are taking place on the macroscopic time scale, whereas the screening potential is kept in equilibrium on the microscopic time scale.

We here remark on the validity of the classical one-component plasma (OCP) model. In the interior of dense stars the electron Fermi energy becomes much larger than the Coulomb interaction energy between the electron and the ion. Therefore, the electron liquid becomes an almost uniform liquid. Owing to this fact, the interior of dense stars can be satisfactorily described by the OCP model which consists of point ions imbedded in the rigid background of electrons. Of course, at the same density the OCP model becomes better for the smaller ionic charge $`Z`$, as the ratio of the electron-ion interaction energy to the electron Fermi energy becomes smaller for the smaller $`Z`$.

The expression for $`C`$ is taken from Alastuey and Jancovici (1978). The two segments of the screening potential are matched at $`r=r_0`$ so that the screening potential and its derivative be a continuous function with respect to the distance $`r`$. This procedure produces solutions for $`r_0`$ and $`b`$ for the range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-values $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }90`$. Outside this range we use the value of $`b`$ which makes (3.1) and (3.2) continuous at $`r`$=1.171875$`a`$. In this case the first derivatives of (3.1) and (3.2) are slightly discontinuous at this point. The linearly decreasing part of the screening potential is identical to that employed by Itoh, Totsuji, & Ichimaru (1977) and also by Itoh et al. (1979). The screening potential (3.1) and (3.2) fits the results of the numerical experiments excellently. (See Figure 1 of Itoh et al. (1979) for the accuracy of this screening potential in reproducing the results of the Monte Carlo computations.) Note that this screening potential exactly cancels the Coulomb potential $`Z^2e^2/r`$ at $`r=1.60a`$. We further assume that the potential of mean force vanishes for $`r1.60a`$. Given the explicit form of the screening potential, we are now in a position to calculate the enhancement of the resonant thermonuclear reaction rates.

A single resonance in the cross section of a nuclear reaction $`0+12+3`$ can be represented most simply as a function of energy in terms of the classical Breit-Wigner formula (Fowler, Caughlan, & Zimmerman 1967)

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2}{2\mu E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _r\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{(EE_r)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^2}{4}}},`$ (3.4)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass, $`E`$ is the center-of-mass energy, $`E_r`$ is the resonance energy, $`\omega _r`$ is the statistical weight factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the partial width for the decay of the resonant state by reemission of $`0+1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is the partial width for emission of $`2+3`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{}`$ is the sum over all partial widths. The partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is proportional to the barrier penetration factor $`P(E)`$ for the screened Coulomb potential.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ $``$ $`P(E)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2\mu }}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{r_{tp}}}\left[V(r)E\right]^{1/2}𝑑r\right\},`$ (3.5)
$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2e^2}{r}}H(r),`$ (3.6)
where $`r_{tp}`$ is the classical turning point radius which satisfies the condition

$$V(r_{tp})E=0.$$
(3.7)
We consider the case that the resonance is sharp; that is, the full width at resonance, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$, is considerably smaller than the effective spread in energy of the interacting particles. We further consider the case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Cussons, Langanke, & Liolios (2002) have pointed out that for 12C + 12C resonances far below the height of the Coulomb barrier, the entrance channel width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is much smaller than the total resonance width. The latter (which is of order $``$ 100 keV for the observed resonances above 2.4 MeV) is also noticeably smaller than the resonance energy. In this case we have (Fowler, Caughlan, & Zimmerman 1967)

$`\sigma v`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{\mu k_BT}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega \gamma )_r}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_r}{k_BT}}\right),`$ (3.8)
$`(\omega \gamma )_r`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _r\gamma _r=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}}\right)_r(\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_1)_r.`$ (3.9)
Therefore the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ in equation (3.5) is to be evaluated at the resonance energy $`E=E_r`$. Here we notice that the resonance energy is shifted by the plasma effects. We take $`E_r`$ to be the shifted resonance energy. The shifted resonance energy $`E_r`$ is related to the resonance energy in the vacuum $`E_r^0`$ by the relationship

$`E_r`$ $`=`$ $`E_r^0Ck_BT,`$ (3.10)
where the expression for $`C`$ is given by equation (3.3).

The barrier penetration factor $`P_0(E)`$ for the pure Coulomb potential $`Z^2e^2/r`$ of the identical nuclei is known to be

$`P_0(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{MZ^2e^2}}}\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ}}}\right\},`$ (3.11)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{aE}{Z^2e^2}}.`$ (3.12)
Therefore, the enhancement factor $`\alpha `$ of the resonant thermonuclear reaction rates which arises because of the plasma screening effects is

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{MZ^2e^2}}}\right]^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ_r^0}}}+J(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)\right]\right\}\mathrm{exp}(C),`$ (3.13)
$`J(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_{tp}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}h(x)ϵ\right]^{1/2}𝑑x,`$ (3.14)
$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{Z^2e^2}}H(r),`$ (3.15)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{a}},x_{tp}={\displaystyle \frac{r_{tp}}{a}},`$ (3.16)
$`ϵ_r^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{aE_r^0}{Z^2e^2}},ϵ_r={\displaystyle \frac{aE_r}{Z^2e^2}}=ϵ_r^0{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}.`$ (3.17)
Here we notice that our method is valid for $`ϵ_r=ϵ_r^0\frac{C}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}0.`$

Since we have (Itoh et al. 2002)

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`0.7346\times 10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _6}{A}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{cm},`$ (3.18)
we can rewrite equation (3.13) as

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{1.004\times 10^1ZA^{2/3}\rho _6^{1/6}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ_r+\frac{C}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}}+J(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)\right]\right\}\mathrm{exp}(C)`$ (3.19)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[1.004\times 10^1ZA^{2/3}\rho _6^{1/6}K(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)\right]\mathrm{exp}(C).`$
We also have a useful relationship

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z^2e^2}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.960\times 10^3Z^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _6}{A}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (3.20)
This gives $`Z^2e^2/a=0.308`$ MeV and 1.004$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{1}ZA^{2/3}\rho _6^{1/6}`$ = 99.85 for $`Z=6`$, $`A=12`$, $`\rho =10^9\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

## 4 RESULTS

We have carried out the numerical integration of $`J(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ)`$ in equation (3.14) for various values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`ϵ`$. In Figure 2 we show the function $`J(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ)`$ as a function of $`ϵ`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In Figure 3 we show the function $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)`$ as a function of $`ϵ_r`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In order to facilitate the application of the numerical results obtained in the present paper we will present an accurate analytic fitting formula for $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)`$. We have carried out the numerical calculations of $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)`$ for $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }200`$, $`0ϵ_r10`$. We express the analytic fitting formula by

$`\mathrm{log}_{10}K(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{10}{}}}a_{ij}g^iu^j,`$ (4.1)
$`g`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1.1505}}\left(\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1505}\right),`$ (4.2)
$`u`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5.0}}\left(ϵ_r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.0}\right).`$ (4.3)
The coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ are presented in Table 1. The accuracy of the fitting is generally better than 0.1%.

## 5 IONIC MIXTURES

Itoh et al. (1979) analyzed the results of the Monte Carlo computations for the screening potentials of the ionic mixtures of various charge ratios and concentration ratios carried out by them and also by Hansen, Torrie, & Vieillefosse (1977). They have established that the screening potential at intermediate distances $`H_{ij}(r)`$ for a mixture of two kinds of ions with charges and number densities $`(Z_1e,n_1)`$ and $`(Z_2e,n_2)`$ given below fits the Monte Carlo results excellently within the inherent Monte Carlo noise:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ij}(r)}{k_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.25\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.390625}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{(a_i+a_j)/2}}(i,j=1,2),`$ (5.1)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_iZ_je^2}{(1/2)(a_i+a_j)k_BT}}(i,j=1,2),`$ (5.2)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3Z_1}{4\pi (Z_1n_1+Z_2n_2)}}\right]^{1/3},`$ (5.3)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3Z_2}{4\pi (Z_1n_1+Z_2n_2)}}\right]^{1/3}.`$ (5.4)
We also define the parameter

$`\tau _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{27\pi ^2}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{ij}Z_i^2Z_j^2e^4}{\mathrm{}^2k_BT}}\right]^{1/3}(i,j=1,2),`$ (5.5)
where $`\mu _{ij}`$ is the reduced mass for the two ions with charges $`Z_i`$ and $`Z_j`$. Then the enhancement factor for the resonant thermonuclear rates of the two nuclei $`Z_i`$ and $`Z_j`$ is given by

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_i+a_j)}{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{ij}Z_iZ_je^2}}}\right]^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ_r+\frac{C_{ij}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}}}}}+J(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij},ϵ_r)\right]\right\}\mathrm{exp}(C_{ij})`$ (5.6)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_i+a_j)}{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu _{ij}Z_iZ_je^2}}}\right]^{1/2}K(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij},ϵ_r)\right\}\mathrm{exp}(C_{ij}),`$
$`ϵ_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_i+a_j)E_r}{Z_iZ_je^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_i+a_j)E_r^0}{Z_iZ_je^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{ij}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}}},`$ (5.7)
$`C_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`1.0531\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}+2.2931\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{1/4}0.5551\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}2.35.`$ (5.8)
The analytic fitting formula for this case $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij},ϵ_r)`$ has the same form as equations (4.1), (4.2), (4.3).

## 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

We have presented a calculation of the enhancement of the resonant thermonuclear reaction rates for extremely dense stellar plasmas. The calculation has been carried out by adopting the screening potential derived from the Monte Carlo computations of the classical one-component plasma. We have summarized our numerical results by an accurate analytic fitting formula to facilitate applications. The present results will be useful if the 12C + 12C fusion reaction contains narrow resonances in the astrophysical energy range.

We wish to thank K. Langanke for making the preprint available to us prior to its publication. We also thank Y. Oyanagi for allowing us to use the least-squares fitting program SALS. We are most grateful to our referee for many valuable comments on the original manuscript which helped us tremendously in revising the manuscript. This work is financially supported in part by Grants-in-Aid of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology under contracts 13640245, 13740129.


format: text

text:
# Condensation Energy and High 𝑇_𝑐 Superconductivity

(july 7, 2002)

## Abstract

From an analysis of the specific heat of one of the cuprate superconductors it is shown, that even if a large part of the experimental specific heat associated with the superconducting phase transition is due to fluctuations, this part must be counted when one tries to extract the condensation energy, $`E_{cond}`$, from the data. Previous work where the fluctuation part was subtracted, has resulted in an incorrect estimation of $`E_{cond}`$.

In conventional metals superconductivity has been understood to result from an effective attractive interaction between electrons. This simultaneously causes a reduction of the interaction energy and an increase of the kinetic energy when the material becomes superconducting. For high $`T_c`$ superconductors, and in particular for the cuprate family, it has been proposed that the opposite situation could exist, where the superconducting state is accompagnied by a reduction of the charge carrier kinetic energycka98 ; hirsch92 ; sudip93 ; pwa95 . Experimental investigations of the kinetic energy component perpendicular to the superconducting planes of the cuprate high Tc superconductors have previously demonstrated that the kinetic energy reduction perpendicular to the layers is far too small to account for the condensation energypwa95 ; loram94 ; leggett96 , which ruled out interlayer tunneling (ILT) as a mechanism of superconductivitymarel96 ; leggett96 ; schuetzmann97 ; moler98 ; pwa98 ; tsvetkov98 ; kirtley98 . Although evidence was subsequently reportedbasov99 ; basov01  that the c-axis kinetic energy is reduced in the superconducting state in a number of cases, the amount of energy is orders of magnitude smaller than earlier estimates of the condensation energypwa95 ; loram94 ; leggett96 .

Later experiments have identified two contributions to the internal energy of cuprate superconductors: (i) From a re-analyses of inelastic neutron scattering data it was concluded that the $`ab`$-plane spin-correlation energy was lowered by an amount which may be sufficient to account for the condensation energyzhang , and (ii) an even larger lowering of $`ab`$-plane kinetic energy was measured with optical spectroscopymolegraaf . Since spin-correlations result from exchange interactions, which in turn reflect the spin-dependent virtual motion of electrons, these two channels of condensation energy may have at least in part the same microscopic origin.

However, the analysis providing the condensation energy from specific data has been questioned in 1999 by Chakravarty, Kee, and Abrahamscka98  (hereafter CKA), who stated that “the attempt to extract the condensation energy from the specific heat data runs into ambiguity, except within a mean field treatment. In the presence of fluctuations, superconducting correlations, which can primarily be of in-plane origin, contribute to the energy and significantly to the specific heat of the normal state.” In order to resolve this ambiguity, CKA proposed to “subtract the fluctuation effects and to use the remainder as an effective specific heat from which to extract the $`c`$-axis contribution to the condensation energy. The rationale is that free energy can be decomposed into a singular and a non-singular part. The universal singular part is more sensitive to collective long-wavelength fluctuations, while the non-singular part is dominated by short distance microscopic pairing correlations.” Subtracting the fluctuation led CKA to a value of the condensation energy which was 40 times smaller than the value obtained in Refs. pwa95, ; loram94, ; leggett96, .

Here we demonstrate that the analysis of CKA was internally inconsistent. If carried out correctly, the subtraction of fluctuation energy makes only a factor of 2 to 3 difference compared to Refs. pwa95, ; loram94, ; leggett96, . Moreover, we show that it is overwhelmingly natural to count also the fluctuation contribution in the condensation energy.

The condensation energy, $`E_{cond}`$ is the internal energy of the equilibrium phase relative to the internal energy of the normal state. The former is the experimentally observed phase, which is superconducting for $`T<T_c`$, whereas the latter corresponds to the state where all superconducting correlations have been suppressed in the sense that the two-particle correlation function tends to zero as a function of the ’center-of-mass’ variable over a range no greater than a few times the inter-particle spacing. In the remainder of this paper we will use the sub-index $`n`$ to indicate the thermodynamic quantities corresponding to this normal state. In any superconductor long range phase-coherence is only present for $`T<T_c`$. In BCS theory long range phase coherence and pair-correlations become non-zero simultaneously for $`TT_c`$. Knowledge of equilibrium and normal specific heat for $`T<T_c`$ then suffices to determine $`E_{cond}`$. On the other hand, pair-correlations can in principle still exist for temperatures above the transition temperature, and indeed such correlations are often associated with the pseudo-gap phenomenon in underdoped cuprates. A measurement of the internal energy, released when the superconducting state is formed out of the normal state, should now also include the pair-correlations which already exist above the superconducting phase transition. Since our discussion is most easily formulated in terms of the entropy, let us remind the reader that the entropy follows uniquely from the specific heat according to the relation

$$S(T)=_0^T\frac{C(T^{})}{T^{}}𝑑T^{}$$
(1)
If the temperature dependence of the specific heat is known in equilibrium and in the normal state, the free and internal energy differences can be calculated directly using the relations

$`F_n(T)F(T)={\displaystyle _T^{\mathrm{}}}\left(S_n(T^{})S(T^{})\right)𝑑T^{}`$ (2)
$`E_n(T)E(T)={\displaystyle _T^{\mathrm{}}}\left(C(T^{})C_n(T^{})\right)𝑑T^{}`$ (3)
The integration limits ensure that $`lim_T\mathrm{}F(T)=F_n(T)`$ and $`lim_T\mathrm{}E(T)=E_n(T)`$, in accordance with the assumption that for $`T\mathrm{}`$ all superconducting correlations vanish. The condensation energy corresponds to the zero-temperature energy difference $`E_{cond}=E_n(0)E(0)=F_n(0)F(0)`$. This positive energy can be obtained either by integrating the specific heat difference,

$$E_{cond}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(C(T)C_n(T)\right)𝑑T$$
(4)
or by integrating the entropy difference

$$E_{cond}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(S_n(T)S(T)\right)𝑑T$$
(5)
The fact that Eq. 4 and Eq. 5 should give the same value provides, as we will see, an important consistency check.

CKAcka98  questioned the analysis providing the condensation energy, and provided a different analysis where a Gaussion fluctuation contribution was subtracted from the experimental data. In Fig. 1 the fit obtained by CKA to the specific heat of Tl2201 to 2D Gaussian fluctuation plus non-singular parts is reproduced. We will indicate with an asterisk thermodynamic quantities from which the fluctuations have been subtracted. CKA calculated both results with ($`E_n(0)E^{}(0)=25`$ mJ/g-at.) and without ($`E_n(0)E(0)=825`$ mJ/g-at.) subtracting the singular part. The latter corresponds to the earlier estimates in Refs. pwa95, ; loram94, ; leggett96, . Following the basic idea of the ILT theory, CKA now equate the ’subtracted’ value of the condenstaion energy to the decrease of the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy in the superconducting state, $`\delta K`$. Finally they use the standard relation marel96 ; leggett96 ; schuetzmann97 ; moler98 ; pwa98 ; tsvetkov98 ; kirtley98 ; basov99 ; basov01  between $`\delta K`$ and the $`c`$-axis penetration depth $`\lambda _c`$,

$$\frac{c^2}{8\lambda _c^2}\frac{\pi e^2d^2}{2Ad\mathrm{}^2}\delta K,$$
(6)
Their resulting estimate of $`\lambda _c`$ is much larger than the value $`\lambda _c1\mu `$m derived previously in the context of ILT. Vice versa the implication was, that the condensation energy is approximately 40 times smaller than earlier estimates, which had not corrected the specific heat for the singular part.

The main source of this huge difference is the difficulty in determining the ’normal’ thermodynamic quantities. The experimental questions include not only how but also whether the ’normal’ state can be reached as a function of temperature, or indeed anything else. In other words, whether or not a parameter exists that can be tuned to lower the energy of the normal state below that of the equilibrium superconducting state so that it can be accessed without losing its fundamental character. Quite generally such a parameter does not always have to exist. For a weak coupling superconductor a magnetic field would suffice. In most cuprate superconductors the required magnetic fields are beyond experimental reach, but Zn ions substituted for planar Cu may serve as an alternative for suppressing superconductivityloram1990 ; zn . However, for the cuprates there is reason to believe that several ’normal’ states are competing with the superconducting one (eg stripe, DDW, normal). In this case the field (or Zn-doping) required to mute superconductivity could be enough to rearrange the order between these ’normal’ states, thus revealing the ’wrong’ one when superconductivity gets suppressed. Thus we are confronted with the difficult situation, that the normal state entropy is not an experimental quantity, and can only be determined based on theoretical considerations and/or by extrapolating the normal state dependence as was indeed done in Ref. cka98, , providing us, as we have seen, with estimates of condensation energy differing by a factor of 40.

However, the situation isn’t as bad as it looks. We can use our knowledge of thermodynamics to constrain the possible behaviour of $`S_n(T)`$: Both $`S(T)`$ and $`S_n(T)`$ are subject to the 2d and 3d law of thermodynamics. We can also use the reasonable assumption, that for temperatures high enough, all superconducting correlations cease to exist, causing $`S_n`$ and $`S`$ to become equal in that limit. The circumstance that $`F(T)`$ corresponds to the equilibrium state, implies that for any temperature $`F_n(T)`$ has to be larger than $`F(T)`$. The corresponding constraints on the entropy are, in the same order,

$$\begin{array}{c}dS_n/dT>0\hfill \\ S_n(0)=S(0)=0\hfill \\ S_n(\mathrm{})=S(\mathrm{})\hfill \\ _0^TS_n(T^{})𝑑T^{}_0^TS(T^{})𝑑T^{}+E_{cond}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In Fig. 2 the entropy is plotted as a function of temperature. The condensation energy in this plot corresponds to the area between the equilibrium entropy ($`S(T)`$: open circles) and the normal entropy ($`S_n(T)`$: dashed curve). A condensation energy which is 40 times smaller than the earlier estimates of the condensation energypwa95 ; loram94 ; leggett96 , would require that the area enclosed by $`S_n(T)`$ and $`S(T)`$ is also 40 times smaller than in Fig. 2. Due the constraints of Eq. 7, $`S_n(T)`$ would almost coincide with $`S(T)`$. $`S_n(T)`$ then has a sharp bend at $`T_c`$, which would correspond to a pathological phase transition of the normal state in close proximity to the real superconducting phase transition.

Let us now return to the analysis by CKA. If we calculate the entropy by integrating $`C^{}(T)/T`$ with the singular part subtracted, we obtain the curve indicated with open circles in Fig. 3. Above the phase transition $`S^{}(T)`$ approaches a linear temperature dependence with a negative offset, given by $`S^{}(T)=\gamma TS_0`$. We notice, that the corrected entropy $`S^{}(T)`$ and the normal entropy do not merge above $`T_c`$, causing the integral $`E_{cond}^{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(S_n(T)S^{}(T)\right)𝑑T`$ to diverge.

We see, that subtracting the singular part has the effect that two procedures by which the condensation energy can be calculated provide opposite results:

$`E_{cond}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(C(T)C_n(T)\right)𝑑T=25`$mJ/g-at.

$`E_{cond}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(S_n(T)S(T)\right)𝑑T\mathrm{}`$

This inconsistency does not arise in the earlier estimates of the condensation energypwa95 ; loram94 ; leggett96 : The fact that $`S_n(T)`$ and $`S(T)`$ merge above $`T_c`$ in Fig. 2 guarantees that the same value of $`E_{cond}`$ is obtained with the two different formulas.

Following a recent suggestion by Abrahamselihuprivate  the CKA-analysis can be improved by adopting a specific heat exponent $`\eta `$ different from 1 below $`T_c`$. We must also take into account that the entropy above for $`T>T_c`$ approaches $`S^{}(T)=\gamma TS_0`$. A simple analytical expression with these two properties is

$$S_n^{}(T)=S_0\left\{\left(1+\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^\eta \right)^{1/\eta }1\right\}$$
(8)
We have tried to fit different values for $`\eta `$. If we choose $`\eta 2.5`$ the ’normal’ entropy $`S_n^{}(T)`$ becomes smaller than the experimentally measured $`S(T)`$ for temperatures below 40 K. Although such a possibility can not be excluded by the thermodynamical constraints of Eq. 7, from a microscopic perspective it looks suspicious that the entropy of the (gapped) superconducting state could exceed that of the normal state. To avoid this, we have adopted the value $`\eta =2.0`$. The best fit in the region between $`T_c`$ and $`110K`$ was obtained with $`S_0=34.85`$ mJ/g-at.K and $`T_0=50K`$. In Fig.3 we display the singular contribution to the entropy $`S_{sing}(T)`$, the corrected entropy $`S^{}(T)=S(T)S_{sing}(T)`$, and the normal state entropy $`S_n^{}(T)`$. Note that if indeed it would be justified to subtract the singular contribution, the presence of a negative offset in the entropy implies that this ’normal’ state would have a pseudo-gaploram94 ; loram2001 .

In Fig. 4 we display both $`S_n(T)S(T)`$, and the quantity which corresponds to the improved version of the CKA-analysis, $`S_n^{}(T)S^{}(T)`$. We see, that with the improved CKA-analysis the difference entropy between the normal and superconducting state indeed becomes zero above $`T_c`$. We carried the analysis of the specific heat one step further, and calculated the free energy difference curves. These are displayed in Fig. 5. The corrected CKA-analysis thus provides a condensation energy of $`0.35`$ J/g-at. This value is about 30 percent of the condensation energy from direct integration of the total entropy of Fig.2 which gives $`E_{cond}=1.3`$ J/g-at.. We see, that even if it would be justified to subtract the fluctuations, the correct analysis would still reduce the condensation by a factor of 2 or 3, not by a factor of 40 as stated in Ref. cka98, .

However, removing the singular contribution from the experimental data comes with a penalty: As a reminder that a fluctuation contribution has been subtracted in the CKA-analysis, we have displayed in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 its contribution to the entropy and the free energy. We see, that the fluctuation entropy has a conspicious step at $`T_c`$, which indicates that these fluctuations are intimately connected to the superconducting phase transition. The fact that the fluctuation specific heat is strongly peaked at the phase transition, implies that there is an additional reduction of the internal energy due to the fluctuation contribution. Hence it would seem to be overwhelmingly natural to count this part when one estimates the energy by which the superconducting state is stabilized relative to competing (non-superconducting) phases.

In conclusion, we have shown, that in the original analysis of CKA, i.e. subtraction of a fluctuation contribution to the specific heat, a corrected entropy below Tc was used which does not match the value used above $`T_c`$. This internal inconsistency was the main reason why the condensation energy was estimated a factor of 40 smaller than the value obtained in earlier publications. This problem could have been fixed by letting the specific heat exponent be less than one at low temperatures. We have repeated the CKA-analysis with this fix, resulting in a condensation energy which is ten times as large. However, it seems overwhelmingly natural to include the contribution of the fluctuations in the analysis, because experimentally the fluctuation contribution to the internal energy appears to be intimately linked to the superconducting phase transition. This results in a condensation energy of approximately $`1.3`$ J/g-at. for optimally doped Tl2201.

We gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions with K. A. Moler, S. Kivelson, J. Zaanen, S. Chakravarty, H.-Y. Kee, and E. Abrahams during the preparation of this paper.


text:
# A Riemann mapping type Theorem in higher dimensions Part I : the conformally flat case with umbilic boundary

## 1 Introduction

In , José F. Escobar raised the following question: Given a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary, when it is conformally equivalent to one that has zero scalar curvature and whose boundary has a constant mean curvature ? This problem can be seen as a “generalization” to higher dimensions of the well known Riemannian mapping Theorem. The later states that an open, simply connected proper subset of the plane is conformally diffeomorphic to the disk. In higher dimensions few regions are conformally diffeomorphic to the ball. However one can still ask whether a domain is conformal to a manifold that resembles the ball into ways : namely, it has zero scalar curvature and its boundary has constant mean curvature. In the above the term “generalization” has to be understood in that sens. The above problem is equivalent to finding a smooth positive solution to the following nonlinear boundary value problem on a Riemannian manifold with boundary $`(M^n,g)`$, $`n3`$:

($`P`$)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_gu+\frac{(n2)}{4(n1)}R_gu=0,u>0\hfill & \text{ in }\stackrel{̊}{M};\hfill \\ _\nu u+\frac{n2}{2}h_gu=Q(M,M)u^{\frac{n}{n2}},\hfill & \text{ on }M.\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M`$, $`h`$ is the mean curvature of $`M`$, $`\nu `$ is the outer normal vector with respect to $`g`$ and $`Q(M,M)`$ is a constant whose sign is uniquely determined by the conformal structure. Indeed if $`\overline{g}=u^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$, then the metric $`\overline{g}`$ has zero scalar curvature and the boundary has constant mean curvature with respect to $`\overline{g}`$.

Solutions of equation (P) correspond , up to a multiple constant, to critical points of the following functional $`J`$ defined on $`H^1(M)\{0\}`$

(1)
$$J(u)=\frac{\left(_M\left(|_gu|^2+\frac{n2}{4(n1)}R_gu^2\right)𝑑V_g+\frac{n2}{2}_Mh_gu^2𝑑\sigma _g\right)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_M|u|^{2\frac{n1}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g}.$$

where $`dV_g`$ and $`d\sigma _g`$ denote the Riemannian measure on $`M`$ and $`M`$ induced by the metric $`g`$.

The regularity of the $`H^1`$ solutions of (P) was established by P. Cherrier ; and related problems regarding conformal deformations of metrics on manifold with boundary were studied in  ,  , ,  , ,  , ,  ,  and the references therein.

The exponant $`\frac{2(n1)}{n2}`$ is critical for the Sobolev trace embedding $`H^1(M)L^q(M)`$. This embedding being not compact , the functional $`J`$ does not satisfy the Palais Smale condition. For this reason standard variational methods cannot be applied to find critical points of $`J`$.

Following the original arguments introduced by T. Aubin ,  and R. Schoen  to prove Yamabe conjecture on closed manifolds, Escobar proved the existence of a smooth positive solution $`u`$ of (P) on $`(M^n,g),n3`$ for many cases. To state his results we need some preliminaries:

Let $`H`$ denote the second fondamental form of $`M`$ in $`(M,g)`$ with respect to the inner normal. Let us denote the traceless part of the second fundamental form by $`U`$ that is $`U(X,Y)=H(X,Y)h_gg(X,Y)`$

###### Definition 1.1

A point $`qM`$ is called an umbilic point  if $`U=0`$ at $`q`$. $`M`$ is called umbilic if every point of $`M`$ is umbilic.

Regarding the above problem Escobar proved the following Theorem :

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary, $`n3`$. Assume that $`M^n`$ satisfies one of the following conditions:

(i) $`n6`$ and $`M`$ has a nonumbilic point on $`M`$

(ii) $`n6`$ and $`M`$ is conformally locally flat with umbilic boundary

(iii) $`n=4,5`$ and $`M`$ is umbilic

(vi) $`n=3`$

then there exists a smooth metric $`u^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$, $`u>0\text{on }M`$ of zero scalar curvature and constant mean curvature on $`M`$.

In his proof Escobar uses strongly an extension of the positive mass Theorem of R. Schoen and S.T. Yau ,  to some type of manifolds with boundary. Such an extension was proved by Escobar in . Besides the proof of T.Aubin and R.Schoen of the Yamabe conjecture, another proof by A. Bahri  and A.Bahri and H. Brezis  of the same conjecture is available by techniques related to the Theory of critical point at Infinity of A. Bahri .

We plan to give a complete positive answer to the above problem based on the topological argument of Bahri-Coron , as Bahri and Brezis did for the Yamabe conjecture. In this first part we study the case where the manifold is locally conformally flat with umbilic boundary. Namely we prove the following Theorem

###### Theorem 1.2

Suppose that $`(M^n,g)`$, $`n3`$ is a compact locally conformally flat manifold with umbilic boundary, then equation (P) has a solution.

Let us observe that while the solution obtained by Escobar is a minimum of $`J`$, our solution is in general, a critical point of $`J`$ of higher Morse index, more precisely we have the following characterization of solutions obtained by Bahri-Coron existence scheme( see ) :

###### Theorem 1.3

The solution $`u`$ obtained in Theorem 1.2 satisfies, for some nonnegative integer $`p_0`$:

(i) $`p_0^{\frac{1}{n2}}SJ(u)(p_0+1)^{\frac{1}{n2}}S`$

(ii) $`ind(J,u)(p_0+1)(n1)+p_0,ind(J,u)+dimkerd^2J(u)p_0(n1)+p_0`$

(iii) $`u`$ induces some difference of topology at the level $`p_0^{\frac{1}{n2}}S`$.

where $`ind(J,u)`$ is the Morse index of $`J`$ at $`u`$, and $`S=2^{1n}\omega _{n1}`$, where $`\omega _{n1}`$ is the volume of the $`n1`$ dimensional unit sphere. Moreover, if (P ) has only nondegenerate solutions, $`ind(J,u)=(n1)p_0+p_0`$.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we construct some “almost solutions” which are solutions of the “problem at Infinity”. In section 3 we collect some standard results regarding the description of the lack of compactness and some local deformation Lemma. In section 4 we perform an expansion of $`J`$ at ’Infinity’ and we give the proof of Theorem 1.2 in section 5. Lastly we devote the appendix to establish some technical Lemma and to recall some well known results.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Pr. Abbas Bahri for teaching him his Theory of critical point at Infinity and he is gratefull to Pr. Antonio Ambrosetti for his interest in his work and his constant support.

## 2 Construction of “almost solutions”

In this paper we assume that $`(M^n,g)`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary and dimension $`n3`$ . Let $`R_{pq}`$ and $`R=g^{pq}R_{pq}`$ be the Ricci curvature and the scalar curvature, respectively; let $`h_{ij}`$ and $`h=\frac{1}{n1}g^{ij}h_{ij}`$ be the second fundamental form of the boundary of M, $`M`$ and the mean curvature , respectively. Let $`\stackrel{~}{g}=u^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$ be a metric conformally related to $`g`$. We denote by a tilde all quantities computed with respect to the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. The transformation law for the scalar curvature is

(2)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{4(n1)}{n2}\frac{Lu}{u^{\frac{n+2}{n2}}}$$

where $`L`$ is the conformal Laplacian $`L=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{n2}{4(n1)}R\text{on }M`$; while the transformation law for the mean curvature is

(3)
$$\stackrel{~}{h}=\frac{2}{n2}\frac{Bu}{u^{\frac{n}{n2}}}$$

where $`B`$ is the boundary operator $`B=\frac{}{\nu }+\frac{n2}{2}h\text{on }M`$.

Consider now the following eigenvalue problem on $`(M,g)`$ :

($`E`$)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_gu=\lambda u\text{on }\stackrel{̊}{M}\hfill & \\ B_gu=0\text{on }M\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let $`\lambda _1`$ the first eigenvalue of (E).

###### Definition 2.1

We say that a manifold $`M`$ is of positive(negative, zero) type if $`\lambda _1>0(<0,=0)`$.

As it is well known the existence problem is easy when the manifold is of negative or zero type, so we treat only in this paper the case of manifold of positive type.

Now we construct some almost solutions of (P), which will play a central role in the description of the lack of compactness.

Let $`f_1`$ denote a positive eigenfunction corresponding to the first eigenvalue of (E) , and consider $`g_1=(f_1)^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$ then , according to (2) and (3) we have: $`R_{g_1}>0`$ and $`h_{g_1}=0`$ on $`M`$. We can work with $`g_1`$ instead of $`g`$, but for simplicity we still denote it by $`g`$. Let $`aM`$; since $`M`$ is a compact locally conformally flat manifold one can find a neighborhood of $`a`$, $`𝒰(a)B_\rho ^M(a)`$ , $`\rho >0`$ uniform and a conformal diffeomorphism $`\phi `$ which maps $`B_\rho ^M(a)`$ into $`^n`$ with $`\phi (0)=a`$ . Therefore, denoting $`g_0`$ the flat metric on $`^n`$, there exist a positive function $`u_a`$ such that $`\phi ^{}(g_0)=u_a^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$. Since the boundary is umbilic, $`\phi (MB_\rho ^M(a))`$ has to be a piece of sphere or a piece of a hyperplane (See ) and since spheres and hyperplanes are locally conformal to each other, we can assume without loss of generality that $`B_2^+(0)_+^n\phi (MB_\rho ^M(a))`$ and $`\phi (\stackrel{̊}{M}B_\rho ^M(a))_+^n`$ . Since $`B_2^+(0)_+^n`$ has zero mean curvature in $`\overline{B_2^+}`$, we deduce from $`(\text{3})`$ that $`\frac{u_a}{\nu }=0`$ on $`MB_\rho ^M(a)`$. We extend $`u_a`$ to be a smooth positive function on $`M`$ such that $`\frac{u_a}{\nu }=0`$ on $`M`$ and $`u_a=0`$ on $`MB_{2\rho }^M(a)`$. Consider now the conformal metric $`\overline{g_0}=u^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$, then $`\overline{g_0}`$ has the property that $`h_{\overline{g_0}}=0`$ and it is Euclidean in $`B_\rho ^M(a)`$. Moreover this metric can be chosen to depend smoothly on $`a`$ (see ).

For $`aM`$, define the function:

$$\delta _{a,\lambda }(y)=\overline{c}\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}{((1+\lambda x^n)^2+\lambda ^2|x^{}|^2)^{\frac{n2}{2}}}$$

where $`(x^{},x^n)=\phi (y)`$, and $`\overline{c}`$ is chosen such that $`\delta _{a,\lambda }`$ satisfies the following equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{g}_0}u=0,\hfill & \text{in }B_\rho ^M\stackrel{̊}{M};\hfill \\ _\nu u=\delta _{a,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}},\hfill & \text{on }B_\rho ^MM\hfill \end{array}$$

Set $`\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda }=\omega _au_a\delta _{a,\lambda }`$ where $`\omega _a`$ is a cutoff function $`\omega _a=1\text{on }B_\rho ^M(a)`$ and $`\omega _a=0\text{on }MB_{2\rho }^M`$.

We define now a familly of almost solutions $`\phi _{a,\lambda }`$ to be the unique solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_gu=0,\hfill & \text{in }\stackrel{̊}{M};\hfill \\ B_gu=\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}},\hfill & \text{on }M\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us recall that the operators $`L_g`$ and $`B_g`$ are conformally invariant under the conformal change of metrics, namely we have:

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`\psi C^2(B_\rho (a))`$, we have

$$L_g(u_a\psi )=u_a^{\frac{n+2}{n2}}L_{\overline{g}_0}(\psi )$$

and

$$B_g(u_a\psi )=u_a^{\frac{n}{n2}}B_{\overline{g}_0}(\psi $$

In the remainder of this section we establish some properties of our almost solutions $`\phi _{a,\lambda }`$.

###### Lemma 2.2

There are two positive constants $`C`$ and $`B`$ , such that for all $`aM`$ and $`\lambda B`$, we have

$$\left|\phi _{a,\lambda }\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda }\right|_{\mathrm{}}\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}$$

Proof.

Let $`H_{a,\lambda }=\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}(\phi _{a,\lambda }\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda })`$, we have

$$L_gH_{a,\lambda }=\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}L_g(\omega _au_a\delta _{a,\lambda })=\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}u_a^{\frac{n+2}{n2}}L_g(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda })$$

Since on $`B_\rho `$ , $`\omega _a=0`$, we deduce that on $`B_\rho `$ we have $`L_gH_{a,\lambda }=0`$, whereas on $`MB_\rho `$ there holds $`L_gH_{a,\lambda }C`$.

From another part

$$B_gH_{a,\lambda }=\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}[B_g\phi _{a,\lambda }B_g(\omega _au_a\delta _{a,\lambda })]=\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}[\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda }u_a^{\frac{n}{n2}}B_g(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda })]$$

on $`B_\rho (a)M,\omega _a=1`$, therefore $`B_gH_{a,\lambda }=0`$ , while on $`MB_\rho `$ there holds $`B_gH_{a,\lambda }C`$. Thus our Lemma follows from Lemma 6.3 quoted in the appendix.

###### Lemma 2.3

There are two positive constants $`C`$ and $`B`$ , such that for all $`aM`$ and $`\lambda B`$, we have

$$\phi _{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}$$

Proof.

Using Lemma 2.2, we know that if $`\rho _1<\rho `$ is chosen small enough, independent of $`\lambda `$, the following inequality holds on $`B(a,\rho _1)`$

$$\phi _{a,\lambda }\widehat{\delta }_{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=B(a,\rho )\stackrel{̊}{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=M\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$.

Then we have

(4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_g(\phi _{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\hfill & \text{in }\stackrel{̊}{M}\hfill \\ \phi _{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}0,\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\hfill \\ \frac{}{\nu }(\phi _{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}})0\hfill & \text{on }\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\hfill \end{array}$$

Then by the hopf maximum principle, we deduce from (4) that

$$\phi _{a,\lambda }\frac{C}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}\text{for }xM$$

###### Lemma 2.4

Let $`\theta >0`$ be given. There are positive constants $`C`$ and $`B`$, such that the following estimates hold, provided $`\lambda B`$

(i)

$$|_MB_g\phi _{a,\lambda }\phi _{a,\lambda }d\sigma _g\overline{c}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}_{^{n1}}\frac{dx}{(1+|x|^2)^{n1}}|\frac{C}{\lambda ^{n2}}\text{for }aM$$

(ii)

$$|_M\phi _{a,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}d\sigma _g\overline{c}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}_{^{n1}}\frac{dx}{(1+|x|^2)^{n1}}|\frac{C}{\lambda ^{n2}}\text{for }aM$$

(iii)

$$_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }d\sigma _g\frac{C}{\lambda ^{n2}}\text{for }a_1,a_2M$$

(vi)

$$_MB_g\phi _{a,\lambda }\phi _{a,\lambda }d\sigma _g(1+\theta )_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }d\sigma _g$$

Proof.

Proof of (i)

From the definition of $`\phi _{a,\lambda }`$, we derive:

$$_MB_g\phi _{a,\lambda }\phi _{a,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g=_M(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda }u_a)^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g$$

Using Lemma 2.2, we deduce:

(5) $`{\displaystyle _M}B_g\phi _{a,\lambda }\phi _{a,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{MB_{2\rho }}}(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda }u_a)^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}){\displaystyle _{MB_{2\rho }}}(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda }u_a)^{\frac{n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho }}(\delta _{a,\lambda })^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}𝑑v+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}){\displaystyle _{MB_{2\rho }}}(\omega _a\delta _{a,\lambda }u_a)^{\frac{n}{n2}}𝑑v_{g_0}+O(\lambda ^{n1})`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{c}^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}{\displaystyle _{^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(1+|x|^2)^{n1}}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}})`$
.

The proof of (ii) is essentially reduced, up to minor differences to the same computations involved in the proof of (ii).

Proof of (iii)

From Lemma 2.3 we deduce

$$_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g\frac{1}{C\lambda ^{n2}}_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g$$

Then from Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 we derive

$`{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C\lambda ^{n2}}}{\displaystyle _{B_\rho (a)M}}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C\lambda ^{n2}}}{\displaystyle _{B_\rho (a)M}}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}𝑑\sigma _{g_0}=O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}})`$
Proof of (vi)

$`{\displaystyle _M}B_g\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho }}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}}}}){\displaystyle _{MB_\rho }}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}){\displaystyle _M}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n1}}})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+O(\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}){\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}_0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}){\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}_0}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n1}}})`$
Now from Lemma 6.1 in the Appendix we deduce :

$`O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}){\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)}}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}_0}`$ $`=`$ $`o\left({\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _{\overline{g}_0}\right)`$
Therefore using (iii) we have

$$_MB_g\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g=_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_g(1+o(1))$$

The proof of (vi) and the proof of Lemma 2.4 are thereby completed.

## 3  Some standard facts

We recall that solutions of Problem $`(P)`$ arises , up to a constant, as critical points of the functional $`J`$ is defined by

$$J(u)=\left(_ML_guudv_g+_MB_guu𝑑\sigma _g\right)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\left(_Mu^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^1$$

where $`u`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+=\{uH^1(M),u0,u=1\}$$

Let us observe that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ is invariant by the flow of $`J`$.

The functional $`J`$ is known to not satisfy Palais Smale condition(PS for short) , which leads to the failure of classical existence mecanism. In order to describe this failure we need some notation.

For $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`p1`$ , let

$$V(p,\epsilon )=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}u\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\text{such that }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)(M)^p\text{and }(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)(_+^{})^p\text{such that }& \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\ u\frac{_{i=1}^p\phi _{a_i,\lambda _i}}{_{i=1}^p\phi _{a_i,\lambda _i}}<\epsilon ,\text{with }\lambda _i\frac{1}{\epsilon }\text{and }\epsilon _{ij}<\epsilon & \end{array}\right\}.$$

where $`\epsilon _{ij}=\left(\frac{1}{\frac{\lambda _i}{\lambda _j}+\frac{\lambda _j}{\lambda _i}+\lambda _i\lambda _jd(a_i,a_j)^2}\right)^{\frac{n2}{2}}`$ and $`d`$ denotes the geosedic distance.

If $`u`$ is a function in $`V(p,\epsilon )`$ , one can find an optimal representation, arguing as in Proposition 7 of  , namely we have:

###### Lemma 3.1

For every $`p1`$, there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`uV(p,\epsilon )`$ the minimization problem

$$\underset{\alpha _i,b_i,\mu _i}{inf}u\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{b_i,\mu _i}$$

has a unique solution, up to permutation on the set of indices $`\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$

At this point we introduce the following notations:

Let $`S`$ be defined as $`S=\left(_{^{n1}}\frac{1}{(1+|x|^2)^{n1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}`$, $`b_p=p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S`$ and

$$W_p=\{u\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\text{such that }J(u)<b_{p+1}\}$$

We are ready now to state the characterization of the Palais Smale sequences failing the P.S condition.

###### Proposition 3.1

Under the assumption that (P) has no solution, let $`u_k\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ be a sequence satisfying $`J(u_k)c`$ , a positive number and $`J(u_k)0`$ . There exist an integer $`p1`$ and a sequence $`(\epsilon _k)_k`$ such that $`u_kV(p,\epsilon )`$. Conversely, let $`p^+`$, let $`\epsilon _k`$ be a positive sequence with $`lim_{k+\mathrm{}}\epsilon _k=0`$ and let $`u_kV(p,\epsilon )`$ then $`J(u_k)0`$ and $`J(u_k)b_p`$.

Proof. The proof of this Proposition is by now standard, taking into account the uniqueness result of Li-Zhu , see also  and using the Liouville Theorem to rule out the possibility of interior blow up.   we have also the following local deformation Lemma , similar to Lemma 17 in  :

###### Lemma 3.2

Under the asumption that (P) has no solution, for $`\epsilon >0`$, the pair $`(W_p,W_{p1})`$ retracts by deformation onto the pair $`(W_{p1}A_p,W_{p1})`$ where $`A_pV(p,\epsilon )`$.

## 4 Expansion of the functional near its potential critical point at infinity

This section is devoted to an asymptotic expansion of $`J`$ in the neighborhood of its potential critical points at infinity, that is in some $`V(p,\epsilon )`$. This expansion displays the fact that when the number of the bubbles are large enough, their interaction increases to force their energy to be under their critical level.Such a fact is a key point in the topological argument.

###### Lemma 4.1

There holds:

(i) For every $`p^{}`$ and every $`\epsilon _1>0`$, there exists $`\lambda _p=\lambda (p,\epsilon _1)`$ such that for any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ satisfying $`\alpha _i0,_{i=1}^p\alpha _i=1`$ , for any $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_p)(M)^p`$ for any $`\lambda \lambda _p`$, we have:

$$\text{If }\underset{ij}{}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }\epsilon _1\text{then }J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{\alpha _i,\lambda })p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S.$$

(ii) There exist $`0<\theta _0<1`$, $`C>0`$, and $`\overline{\epsilon _1}\epsilon _1`$, such that for any $`p^{}`$, for any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ satisfying $`\alpha _i0,_{i=1}^p\alpha _i=1,\frac{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}\theta _0`$ , for any $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)(M)^p`$, for any $`\lambda 1`$, the following inequality holds

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{\alpha _i,\lambda })p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S\left(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})+\frac{(p+1)C}{\lambda ^{n2}}\right)$$

If

$$\underset{ij}{}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }\overline{\epsilon }_1$$

(iii) If we drop in (ii) the condition $`\frac{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}\theta _0`$, then the following weaker inequality still holds:

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{\alpha _i,\lambda })p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S(1+\frac{1}{C\lambda ^{n2}}+\frac{1}{C}\underset{ij}{}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }$$

Proof.

Let

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}b_i=\frac{\alpha _i\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }}{_{j=1}^p\alpha _j\widehat{\delta }_{a_j,\lambda }}\text{if }\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }0\hfill & \\ b_i=1\text{if }\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

then Lemma B2 of , which extends to our functional, implies that

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda })\left(\frac{_M(_{i=1}^p\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda })^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}{_M(_{i=1}^p\phi _{a_i,\lambda })^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}b_i_M\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

Using Lemma 2.2, and $`_M\widehat{\delta }_i^{\frac{n}{n2}}dv_g=O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}})`$, we derive easily

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda })(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}))\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}b_i_M\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

Thus we obtain

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda })(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}))\left((p1)S^{n2}+_M\frac{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }}{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }+\alpha _2\widehat{\delta }_{a_2,\lambda }}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

We may assume without loss of generality that

(i) $`\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _2}1`$

(ii)

$$_M(\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}})=\underset{ij}{sup}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+\phi _{a_i,\lambda }\phi _{a_j,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}$$

We then have using that $`_{MB_{\frac{\rho }{2}}(a_1)}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}𝑑v_g=O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})`$

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda })(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}))\left((p1)S^{n2}+_M\frac{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }}{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }+\alpha _2\widehat{\delta }_{a_2,\lambda }}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

The continuity of $`u_y`$ with respect to $`y`$ implies the existence of $`\eta >0`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{u_{a_1}}{u_{a_2}}2\text{if }x_2B_\eta (a_1)$$

Thus if $`d(a_2,a_2)\eta `$, we have

(6) $`J({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$ $``$ $`(1+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}))\left((p1)S^{n2}+{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }}{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }+\alpha _2\widehat{\delta }_{a_2,\lambda }}}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}`$
$``$ $`(1+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}))\left((p1)S^{n2}{\displaystyle _{MB_{a_1}(\rho )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1\delta _{a_1,\lambda }}{\alpha _1\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}`$
.

At this point we state the following Claim which proof is postponed until the end of this section.

Claim : There exists $`\epsilon _0`$ small enough, and a positive constant $`\overline{C}^{}`$ such that

$$_M\frac{\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}{2\delta _{a_2,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}𝑑v_{\overline{g}_0}\overline{C}^{}\epsilon _0_M\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}dv_{\overline{g}_0}$$

From another part , by assumption, we know that

$$\underset{ij}{}_M\left(\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }dv_{\overline{g}}\right)p^2_M\left(\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\right)𝑑v_{\overline{g}}$$

Thus we derive from the above claim and (6) , that:

(7) $`J({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$ $``$ $`(1+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}))\left(pS^{n2}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{C}\epsilon _0}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }𝑑v_{\overline{g}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}`$
(8) $``$ $`p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S(1+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}}}){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{C_1}\epsilon _0\epsilon _1}{p^3}})`$
clearly implies (i), which is therefore proven if $`d(a_1,a_2)\eta `$. Now we rule out the case where $`d(a_1,a_2)\eta `$ as follows:

If $`d(a_1,a_2)\eta `$ then

$$_M\left(\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\right)=O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})$$

Therefore

$$\underset{ij}{}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }p^2.O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})=O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})$$

Taking $`\lambda `$ very large we have $`_{ij}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }<\epsilon _1`$ therefore the proof of (i) is reduced to the case $`d(a_1,a_2)\eta `$. The proof of (i ) is thereby established.

The proofs of (ii) and (iii) will be completed toghether since they rest on the same expansion of the functional $`J`$.

Using Lemma 6.2 we derive the following inequality

(9)
$$J(\underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })\frac{\left(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2_M\widehat{\delta }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }+_{ij}^p\alpha _i\alpha _j_M\widehat{\delta }_{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }\right)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=2}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}+_{ij}^p\frac{\gamma (n1)}{n2}\alpha _i^{\frac{n}{n2}}\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }}$$

Then (9) implies using Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.4

$`J({\displaystyle \underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2S^{n2}++(1+\theta )_{ij}^p\alpha _i\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}})^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=2}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}S^{n2}+_{ij}^p\frac{\gamma (n1)}{n2}\alpha _i^{\frac{n}{n2}}\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}}}}`$
where $`\overline{C}`$ and $`\overline{C}^{}`$ are positive constants independant of $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`p`$.

Let us assume that

$$\underset{ij}{}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }<\epsilon _1.$$

If $`\epsilon _1`$ is chosen small enough, then for $`\lambda `$ large enough , we have

(11) $`J({\displaystyle \underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2S^{n2}++(1+\theta )_{ij}^p\alpha _i\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}})^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=2}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}S^{n2}+_{ij}^p\frac{\gamma (n1)}{n2}\alpha _i^{\frac{n}{n2}}\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}}}}`$
. Making an expansion we have

(12) $`J({\displaystyle \underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$
(13) $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2S^{n2}++(1+\theta )_{ij}^p\alpha _i\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}})^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=2}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}S^{n2}+_{ij}^p\frac{\gamma (n1)}{n2}\alpha _i^{\frac{n}{n2}}\alpha _j_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\frac{\overline{C}}{\lambda ^{n2}}}}`$
Finally we obtain:

$`J({\displaystyle \underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2\right)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}}S(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i\alpha _j}{_i\alpha _i^2S^{n2}}}{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i\alpha _j}{_i\alpha _i^2S^{n2}}}{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{C}^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda ^{n2}}})`$
Let us observe that (iii) follows from (4), so it remains only to prove (ii).

Proof of (ii)

Let us now assume that there exists $`\theta _0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<\theta _0<1`$ and $`\frac{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}\theta _0`$ for any $`(i,j)`$, then

$$\frac{\alpha _i\alpha _i}{_{r=1}^p\alpha _r^2}\frac{1}{p\theta _0^2}\text{and }\frac{\alpha _i^{\frac{n}{n2}}\alpha _j}{_{r=1}^p\alpha _r^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}\frac{\theta _0^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}{p}$$

Now we choose $`0<\theta _0<1`$ and $`\theta >0`$ such that $`(1+\theta )\frac{1}{\theta _0^2}\gamma \theta _0^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}<0`$.

Let $`\delta =S^{n2}\left(\frac{\gamma (n1)}{n2}\theta _0^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\frac{n1}{n2}\frac{1+\theta }{\theta _0^2}\right)`$

We then derive

(14)
$$J(\underset{i1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })\frac{\left(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2\right)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}S\left(1\frac{\delta }{p}\underset{ij}{}\frac{\alpha _i\alpha _j}{_i\alpha _i^2S^{n2}}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_j,\lambda }+\frac{\overline{C}^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda ^{n2}}\right)$$

Then using (iii) of Lemma 2.4 , we derive (ii) from (14). The proof of Lemma 4.1 is thereby complete.

Proof of the claim

Let $`\epsilon _0>0`$ be given and let

$$E_0=\{xM\text{such that }\delta _{a_1,\lambda }(x)\epsilon _0\left(2\delta _{a_1,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }\right)(x)\}$$

We have:

$`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}{2\delta _{a_1,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}}`$
$``$ $`\epsilon _0{\displaystyle _{E_0}}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{\overline{g}_0}`$
$``$ $`\epsilon _0\left({\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{\overline{g}_0}({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _0}{12\epsilon _0}})^{\frac{1}{n2}}{\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\right)`$
Let us obseve that

$$_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }=_M\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }$$

and

$$_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\frac{1}{2}\left(_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }+\delta _{a_1,\lambda }\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\right)$$

Then (4) becomes

(16)
$$_M\frac{\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}{2\delta _{a_1,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}\frac{\epsilon _0}{2}(1(\frac{\epsilon _0}{1\epsilon _0})^{\frac{1}{n2}})_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }+\delta _{a_1,\lambda }\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}$$

Thus for $`\epsilon _0`$ small enough , we have:

(17) $`{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}{2\delta _{a_1,\lambda }+\delta _{a_2,\lambda }}}`$ $``$ $`C\epsilon _0{\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }+\delta _{a_1,\lambda }\delta _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}},`$
$``$ $`C^{}\epsilon _0{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)}}\widehat{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\overline{\delta }_{a_2,\lambda }+\overline{\delta }_{a_1,\lambda }\widehat{\delta }_{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}`$
$``$ $`C^{\prime \prime }\epsilon _0{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)}}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}`$
$``$ $`C^{\prime \prime }\epsilon _0{\displaystyle _M}\phi _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\phi _{a_2,\lambda }+\phi _{a_1,\lambda }\phi _{a_2,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}.`$
Hence our claim is proved.

Lemma 4.1 implies the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.1

There exists an integer $`p_0`$ and a positive real number $`\lambda _0>0`$ such that for any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ satisfying $`\alpha _i0,_{i=1}^p\alpha _i=1`$, for any $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)M`$, for any $`\lambda \lambda _0`$, we have

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{\alpha _i,\lambda })p_0^{\frac{1}{n2}}S$$

Proof. The proof of Proposition 4.1 follows from (i), (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 4.1. We first choose $`0<\epsilon _1<\overline{\epsilon _1}`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ so that :

(18)
$$\frac{(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}\left(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})+\frac{\epsilon _1}{C}\right)<p^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

.

Considering $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ , $`(a_1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)`$ and $`\lambda \lambda _0`$ , we study various cases:

: There exists $`(i_0,j_0)`$ such that $`\frac{\alpha _{i_0}}{\alpha _{j_0}}\theta _0`$ , then taking, $`\lambda \lambda _{p_0}=sup(\lambda (p_0,\epsilon ),\lambda _0)`$ where $`\lambda (p_0,\epsilon _1)`$ is given by (i) of Lemma 4.1 , we derive :

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S\text{if }\underset{ij}{\overset{p}{}}_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }\phi _{a_j,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g\epsilon _1$$

If on the contrary $`_{ij}^p_M\phi _{a_i,\lambda }\phi _{a_j,\lambda }𝑑\sigma _g\epsilon _1`$ we apply (iii). Since we have choose $`\epsilon _1`$ such that :

(19)
$$\frac{(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^2)^{\frac{n1}{n2}}}{_{i=1}^p\alpha _i^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}}\left(1+O(\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n2}})+\frac{\epsilon _1}{C}\right)<p^{\frac{1}{n2}}$$

we derive that $`J(_{i=1}^p\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })p^{\frac{1}{n2}}S`$ and the proof of Proposition 4.1 is established in this case.

: Let us assume that $`\frac{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}>\theta _0`$ for any $`(i,j)`$ , then either (i) or (ii) of Lemma 4.1 holds. If (i) holds then Proposition 4.1 holds, so let assume that (ii) holds and then choose $`p_0`$ such that : $`(p_0+1)c^2>1`$ then

$$J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda })p_0^{\frac{1}{n2}}S$$

The proof of Proposition 4.1 is thereby complete.

## 5 Proof of Theorem 1.2

For the proof of the Theorem 1.2 , we introduce the following notations:

For any $`p1`$ and $`\lambda >0`$ , let

$$B_p=B_p(M)=\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\delta _{a_i},\alpha _i0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i=1,a_iM\}$$

and $`B_0=B_0(M)=\mathrm{}`$

Set also $`f_p(\lambda )`$ to denote the map from $`B_p(M)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ defined by

$$f_p(\lambda )(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\delta _{a_i})=\frac{_{i=1}^p\phi _{a_i,\lambda _i}}{_{i=1}^p\phi _{a_i,\lambda _i}}$$

Clearly we have $`B_{p1}B_p`$ and $`W_{p1}W_p`$.

Moreover $`f_p(\lambda )`$ enjoys the following properties:

###### Proposition 5.1

The function $`f_p(\lambda )`$ has the following properties:

(i) For any integer $`p1`$ , there exists a real number $`\lambda _p>0`$ such that

$$f_p(\lambda ):B_p(M)W_p\text{ for any }\lambda \lambda _p$$

(ii) There exists an integer $`p_0>1`$ , such that for any integer $`pp_0`$ , and for any $`\lambda \lambda _{p_0}`$ , the map of pairs $`f_p(\lambda ):(B_p,B_{p1})(W_p,W_{p1})`$ satisfies $`(f_p)_{}(\lambda )0`$ where

$$(f_p(\lambda ))_{}:H_{}(B_p,B_{p1})H_{}(W_p,W_{p1})$$

and $`H_{}`$is the $``$th homology group with $`_2`$ coefficients.

Proof.

(i) is a direct consequence of the inequalities (i), (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 4.1 , indeed :

$$J(f_p(\lambda )(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\delta _{a_i}))=J(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\phi _{a_i,\lambda _i})$$

(ii) follows from Propostion 4.1.

For the sequel we need the following notations: Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1}=\{(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p),\alpha _i0,_{i=1}^p\alpha _i=1\}`$ and $`F_p=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)(M)^p\text{such that }ij\text{with }a_i=a_j\}`$. Let $`\sigma _p`$ be the symmetric group of order p, which acts on $`F_p`$, and let $`T_p`$ be a $`\sigma _p`$\- equivariant tubular neighborhood of $`F_p`$, in $`(M)^p`$ (The existence of a such neighborhood is derived in the book of G. Bredon )

From another part, considering the topological pair $`(B_p,B_{p1})`$ we observe that $`(B_pB_{p1})`$ can be described as $`((M)^p)^{}\times _{\sigma _p}(\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1})`$ where $`(M)^p)^{}=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)(M)^p\text{such that }a_ia_j,ij\}`$ We notice that $`((M)^p)^{}\times _{\sigma _p}(\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1})`$ is a noncompact manifold of dimension $`(n1)p+p1`$. Let for $`0<\theta <1`$, $`_p=V_p\times _{\sigma _p}\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1}^\theta `$, where $`V_p=\overline{M^pT_p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1}^\theta =\{(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p)\mathrm{\Delta }_{p1}\text{such that }\frac{\alpha _i}{\alpha _j}[1\theta ,1+\theta ],i,j\}`$. $`_p`$ is a manifold which can be seen as a subst of $`B_p`$, and the topological pair $`(B_p,^c)`$ retracts by deformation onto $`(B_p,B_{p1})`$, we thus have

$$H_{}(B_p,B_{p1})=H_{}(B_p,_p^c)$$

Thus by excision we have

$$H_{}(B_p,B_{p1})=H_{}(,_p)$$

Since any manifold is orientable modulo its boundary with $`_2`$ coefficients, we have a nonzero orientation class in $`H_{(n1)p+p1}(B_p,B_{p1})`$ which we denote by $`\omega _p`$.

In contrast with Proposition 5.1, we have the following Proposition:

###### Proposition 5.2

Under the assumption that (P) has no solution , we have ,

$$\text{for every }p^{}(f_p(\lambda ))_{}(\omega _p)0.$$

Proof.

An abstract topological argument displayed in  , pp 260-265 , see also , which extends virtually to our framework shows that:

$$\text{If }(f_1(\lambda )_{}0\text{then }(f_p(\lambda ))_{}0\text{for every }p2.$$

Since $`J_{S+\epsilon }`$ , for $`\epsilon >0`$ small enough satisfies $`J_{S+\epsilon }V(1,\delta )`$ , where $`\delta 0`$ if $`\epsilon 0`$ , one can define using Lemma 3.1 a continuous map $`s:J_{S+\epsilon }M`$ which associates to $`u=\overline{\alpha }\phi _{\overline{a},\overline{\lambda }}+vJ_{S+\epsilon }aM`$. Here $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{a},\overline{\lambda })`$ are the unique solution of the minimization : $`\mathrm{min}\{u\alpha \phi _{a,\lambda },\alpha 0,\lambda >0,aM\}`$

So if $`r:W_1J_{S+\epsilon }`$ denotes the retraction by deformation of $`W_1`$ onto $`J_{S+\epsilon }`$, the existence of a such retraction by deformation follows from the assumption that (P) has no solution from one part and from Proposition 3.1 from another part. Let us observe that $`srf_1(\lambda )=id_M`$ hence $`(f_1(\lambda ))_{}(\omega _1)0`$ , where $`\omega _1`$ is the orientation class of $`M`$. Therefore the proof of Proposition 5.2 is reduced to the abstract topological argument of Bahri-Coron .

Proof of Theorem 1.2 completed

Proposition 5.2 is in contradiction with Proposition 5.1. Therefore (P) has a solution and Theorem 1.2 is thereby established.

## 6 Appendix

###### Lemma 6.1

There holds

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}_{MB_\rho (a_1)}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}=o(_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0})$$

Proof. For $`\epsilon >0`$ a fixed number, let

$$A_\epsilon =\{xB_\rho (a_1)M;\delta _{a_1,\lambda }\frac{1}{\epsilon \lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}\}$$

Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)}}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{2}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}`$ $``$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle _{A_\epsilon }}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)A_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{2}{n2}}}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}`$
$``$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle _{A_\epsilon }}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n2}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _{MB_\rho (a_1)A_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \epsilon ^{\frac{2}{n2}}}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}`$
$``$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle _M}\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^{\frac{2}{n2}}}}O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^{\frac{n}{2}+\frac{(n2)^2}{2n}}}})`$
Since $`\frac{n}{2}+\frac{(n2)^2}{2n}>n2`$ and since

$$_M\delta _{a_1,\lambda }^{\frac{n}{n2}}\delta _{a_2,\lambda }𝑑v_{g_0}\frac{C}{\lambda ^{n2}}$$

then our Lemma follows.

###### Lemma 6.2

\[\] Let $`q>2`$ be given. There exists $`\gamma >1`$ such that for any $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p),a_i>0`$, we have

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i\right)^q\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _i^p+\frac{\gamma q}{2}\underset{ij}{}a_i^{q1}a_j$$

###### Lemma 6.3

 \[Maximum Principle\]

Under the assumption that $`R_g0,h_g0`$ and $`R_g>0,\text{or }h_g>0`$ , let $`uC^2(\stackrel{̊}{M})C^1(M)`$ satisfying

$$L_gu0\text{on }\stackrel{̊}{M}\text{and }B_gu0\text{on }M$$

Then $`u0\text{on }M`$

Mohameden Ould Ahmedou :
Rheinische Frierich-Wilhelms- Universität Bonn
Mathematisches Institut, Beringstrasse 4, D- 53115 Bonn, Germany.
E-mail: ahmedou@math.uni-bonn.de