text:
# Fluxoid dynamics in superconducting thin film rings

## I Introduction

Although fluxoid quantization in superconductors was first demonstrated experimentally over 40 years ago,deaver ; doll  there has recently been a resurgence of interest in fluxoid dynamics in a ring geometry. For example, it has been proposed that the interacting dipole moments in an array of superconducting rings can provide a model experimental system for studying magnetism in Ising antiferromagnets. aeppli ; moessner ; chandra ; davidovic1 ; davidovic2  This possibility has become particularly attractive with the development of $`\pi `$-rings: superconducting rings with an intrinsic quantum mechanical phase change of $`\pi `$ upon circling the ring, in the absence of supercurrents or externally applied fields. Such $`\pi `$ phase changes can be produced either by the momentum dependence of an unconventional superconducting order parameter, geshkenbein ; geshkenbein2 ; sigrice ; harlrmp ; trirmp  or by magnetic interactions in the tunneling region of a Josephson weak link in the ring.bulaevski ; ryazanov1 ; ryazanov2  $`\pi `$-rings are an ideal model system for the Ising antiferromagnet, since they have a degenerate, time-reversed ground state in the absence of an externally applied magnetic field. Recent progress smildeapl ; smildeprl  has made it possible to reliably make very large closely packed arrays of $`\pi `$-rings, which show strong antiferromagnetic correlations in their “spin” orientations upon cooling in zero magnetic field.hilgnat  Superconducting ring experiments have also been proposedsenthilprl  and performed bonn ; wynn  to test for the presence of “visons”, vortex-like topological excitations which may result from electron fractionalization in the high-Tc cuprate superconductors. In addition, superconducting rings can provide a model system for the early evolution of the universe, through the study of quenched fluctuations in superconducting rings. kibble ; kibble2 ; zurek ; carmi1 ; carmi2 ; kovoussanaki ; ghinovker  Each of these studies depend critically on an understanding of the fluxoid dynamics during the cooldown process. Finally, there has been a resurgence of interest lately in macroscopic quantum coherence effects in superconducting rings, in conjunction with applications to quantum computation.mooij ; vanderwal ; friedman  In these experiments noise due to thermally activated motion of fluxoids must be considered, at least at elevated temperatures. Therefore the study of fluxoid dynamics in rings is one of much current topical interest.

Thermally activated vortex dynamics in superconductors have been studied extensively,blatter  including in ring geometries.landau  Magnetic noise in high temperature cuprate superconductors has been shown to arise from thermally activated hopping of vortices between pinning sites.ferrari  Fluxoid dynamics have been studied in superconducting rings interrupted by Josephson weak links,lukens  and in mesoscopic rings, with the coherence length comparable to the ring dimensions.zhang  However, the system we have chosen to study, relatively large rings with long magnetic penetration depths (because they are strongly underdoped), is in many respects a particularly simple one. First, our rings have no intentional Josephson weak links. Many quantitative details specific to phenomena related to flux quantization can be treated within the London approach, which is not bound by the rigid temperature restriction of the Ginzburg-Landau theory. The smallness of the ring with respect to the Pearl length pearl  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\lambda ^2/d`$ (in the thin film limit, the London penetration depth $`\lambda d`$, the film thickness) simplifies considerably the problem of a ring in an applied magnetic field. Studies of the transitions between quantum states in thin film rings are relevant for understanding the dynamics of multiply connected mesoscopic superconducting devices in general and of the telegraph noise in these devices in particular.

## II Experimental results

Our measurements were made on 300 nm thick films of the high-temperature superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (BSCCO), epitaxially grown on (100) SrTiO3 substrates using magnetron sputtering. The oxygen concentration in these films was varied by annealing in oxygen or argon at 400-450 oC. The films were photolithographically patterned into circular rings using ion etching. The rings had outside diameters of 40, 60, and 80 $`\mu `$m, with inside diameters half the outside diameters. The film for the current measurements had a broad resistive transition (90% of the extrapolated normal state resistance at T = 79 K, 10% at T = 46 K) with a zero-resistance $`T_c`$ of 36 K before patterning. Such broad resistive transitions are characteristic of both single crystals watanabe  and thin films konstantinovic  of BSCCO, and may be indicative of oxygen inhomogeneity. In this paper we will treat the rings as homogeneous and cylindrically symmetric. This view is supported by two facts: 1) the SQUID images are homogeneous, at least within the spatial resolution set by the 17.8 $`\mu `$m pickup loop size, at all temperatures (see e.g. Fig. 1); and 2) the Pearl penetration depth is quite long, of order 100 $`\mu `$m, at the temperatures of interest. This long penetration depth might be expected to average out spatial inhomogeneities. Nevertheless, it is possible that the fluxoid transitions in our samples are dominated by paths with relatively low barrier heights.landau  It is therefore remarkable that the simple model described in this paper qualitatively describes our results in the presence of this inhomogeneity. The critical temperatures of the rings were slightly lower after patterning than the blanket coverage film, presumably due to additional oxygen removal in the ion etching step. The critical temperature of the individual ring being measured was determined by SQUID inductive measurements, as described below. The rings were magnetically imaged using a variable sample temperature scanning Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) microscope,vartapl  which scans a sample relative to a SQUID with a small, well shielded, integrated pickup loop (a square loop 17.8 $`\mu `$m on a side for these measurements), the sample temperature being varied while the low-$`T_c`$ SQUID remains superconducting.

Figure 1(a) shows a scanning SQUID microscope image of an 80 $`\mu `$m outside diameter ring, cooled in an induction of 6.9 mG, which results in a vortex number N = 10 in the ring, and imaged in zero field at low temperature. For consistency, all of the measurements presented in this paper were made on this ring. Measurements on a number of rings of all three sizes were also performed, with quite comparable results. The dots in Figure 1(b) are cross-sections through the center of the 80 $`\mu `$m ring with a ring fluxoid number of N = 1 in zero field at two temperatures. The solid lines are fits to the SSM images, taking into account the detailed current distributions in the rings. Such fits are used in this paper to determine the temperature-dependent Pearl penetration length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is an important parameter in modelling the fluxoid dynamics.

Fig. 2 shows the results of a number of such measurements as a function of temperature on this ring. The solid circles in Fig. 2a are the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ between the SQUID signal with the pickup loop centered over the ring and that with the pickup loop far from the ring, with the ring in the N = 1 fluxoid state. Such measurements cannot be made closer than about 1K from Tc because the ring switches to the N = 0 state. The solid diamonds are measurements $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ with a small applied induction $`B_a`$ = 0.2 mG with the ring in the N = 0 state. The squares are the change in the flux through the SQUID when the ring spontaneously changes fluxoid number in the telegraph noise described below. The dashed line is a linear extrapolation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ (circles and squares) data; the zero crossing of this line provides an estimate of the critical temperature Tc for this ring, Tc = 32.5$`\pm `$0.2 K.

Our modelling of the supercurrent distributions in these rings is as follows: Consider a thin film ring of thickness $`d\lambda `$ with radii $`a<b`$ in the plane $`z=0`$. The London equations for the film interior read

$$𝐣=\frac{c\varphi _0}{8\pi ^2\lambda ^2}\left(\theta +\frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}𝐀\right),$$
(1)
where $`𝐣`$ is the supercurrent density, $`\varphi _0=hc/2e`$ is the superconducting flux quantum, $`\theta `$ is the order parameter phase, and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential. Since the current in the ring must be single valued, $`\theta =N\phi `$, where $`\phi `$ is the azimuth and the integer $`N`$ is the winding number (vorticity) of the state. Integrating $`𝐣`$ over the film thickness $`d`$, we obtain:

$$g_\phi g(r)=\frac{c\varphi _0}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\frac{N}{r}\frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}A_\phi \right),$$
(2)
where $`g(r)`$ is the sheet current density directed along the azimuth $`\phi `$. The vector potential $`A_\phi `$ can be written as

$$A_\phi (r)=_a^b𝑑\rho g(\rho )a_\phi (\rho ;r,0)+\frac{r}{2}H,$$
(3)
where the last term represents a uniform applied field $`H`$ in the $`z`$ direction and $`a_\phi (\rho ;r,z)`$ is the vector potential of the field created by a circular unit current of radius $`\rho `$:LL

$`a_\phi (\rho ;r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{ck}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{r}}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}\right)𝑲(k)𝑬(k)\right],`$
$`k^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\rho r}{(\rho +r)^2+z^2}}.`$ (4)
Here, $`𝑲(k)`$ and $`𝑬(k)`$ are the complete elliptic integrals in the notation of Ref. Grad, .

Substituting Eq. (3) and (4) into (2), we obtain an integral equation for $`g(r)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{c}}rg(r)+\pi r^2H\varphi _0N`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}{\displaystyle _a^b}𝑑\rho g(\rho )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2+r^2}{\rho +r}}𝑲(k_0)(\rho +r)𝑬(k_0)\right],`$ (5)
where $`k_0^2=4\rho r/(\rho +r)^2`$. This equation is solved by iteration for a given integer $`N`$ and field $`H`$ to produce current distributions which we label as $`g_N(H,r)`$.

After $`g_N(H,r)`$ is found, the field outside the ring can be calculated using Eq. (4):

$`h_z(N;r,z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}{\displaystyle _a^b}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho g_N(H,\rho )}{\sqrt{(\rho +r)^2+z^2}}}[𝑲(k)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2r^2z^2}{(\rho r)^2+z^2}}𝑬(k)]+H.`$ (6)
The flux through the SQUID is obtained numerically by integrating Eq. (II) over the pickup-loop area. The lines in Fig. 1b are two-parameter fits of this integration of Eq. (II) to the data, resulting in $`z`$ = 3.5 $`\mu `$m, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 7 $`\mu `$m (corresponding to $`\lambda `$ = 1 $`\mu `$m) at T = 6 K, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 54 $`\mu `$m ($`\lambda `$ = 2.8 $`\mu `$m) at T = 30 K.

This value ($`\lambda `$ = 1$`\mu `$m) for the low-temperature in-plane penetration depth is at first surprising, given the observed values of $`\lambda `$ 0.2 $`\mu `$m for BSCCO near optimal doping.waldmann  However, one might expect the penetration depth to be larger for our underdoped films because of their lower Tc, following the Uemura relation $`\lambda ^2`$ Tcuemura  Further, these films have large normal-state resistivities $`\rho `$ 1200 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$-cm, meaning that they are in the dirty limit, and close to the metal-insulator transition.semba  The zero-temperature penetration depth of a dirty-limit superconductor is given by $`\lambda _0=(c/2\pi )\sqrt{\mathrm{}\rho /\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$. Taking the BCS value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.74k_BT_c`$, with Tc = 30 K gives $`\lambda _0`$ = 0.7 $`\mu `$m. It is expected that fluctuations in the superfluid density could further increase the penetration depth in these layered superconductors.artemenko

To model the fluxoid dynamics data presented in this paper, it is necessary to estimate the temperature-dependent Pearl length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the energy associated with supercurrent flow in our rings. We can infer the temperature dependence of the Pearl length from the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ as follows. Numerical integration of Eq. (II) for our ring and SQUID pickup loop geometry as a function of the Pearl length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gives the solid line in Fig. 3a. The calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ is nearly inversely proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as shown by the dashed line in Fig. 3a. The linear dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _s`$ on temperature indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 2 results in a temperature dependence of the Pearl length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ for this ring indicated by the solid line in Fig. 3. Since the London penetration depth $`\lambda 1/\sqrt{1t^4}`$ ($`t`$ = T/Tc), tinkham  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\lambda ^2/d`$ should be approximately proportional to $`(1t^4)^1`$ as indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 3b.

The fluxoid number $`N`$ of a ring can be changed by varying the externally applied flux $`\varphi _a=HA_{eff}`$, where $`A_{eff}`$ is the effective area, clemarea  and can be monitored by positioning the SQUID pickup loop directly over it. triprl  In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>>b`$, the current around the loop can be found by integrating Eq. (2) to obtain $`A_{eff}=(\pi /2)(b^2a^2)/\mathrm{ln}(b/a)`$. This result also can be obtained from more detailed calculations of the system energy E(N,H) in equilibrium. kogmint  We assign an experimental value for the effective ring area using the telegraph noise data of Fig. 7, and assuming the peaks are spaced by $`\varphi _0`$. This gives a value of 2895 $`\mu `$m2, in comparison with the calculated value of 2719 $`\mu `$m2. This discrepancy of about 6% could be due to variations in the photolithography of the rings, or errors in the calibration of the Helmholtz coils which apply the magnetic fields. We used the experimental value for $`A_{eff}`$ in determining the flux scales in Figs. 4, 5, and 7. At temperatures sufficiently close to Tc the fluxoid number changes by one fluxoid at a time, as determined by the agreement (to within 10%) with our calculations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ of the measured spacing in applied flux between vortex switching events. Switching distributions $`P(\varphi _{a,i})`$ were obtained by repeatedly sweeping the applied field, in analogy with measurements of Josephson junctions switching into the voltage state.fulton  An example is shown in Fig. 4

The transition rates $`\nu `$ of the fluxoid states were determined from such data usingfulton

$$\nu (\varphi _{a,m})=\frac{d\varphi _a/dt}{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _a}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}P(\varphi _{a,j})/\underset{i=1}{\overset{m1}{}}P(\varphi _{a,i})\right\},$$
(7)
where $`m=1`$ labels the largest $`\varphi _a`$ in a given switching histogram peak, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _a`$ is the flux interval between data points. The dots in Figure 5 show the results from such experiments from the 80 $`\mu `$m ring at several reduced temperatures. The assignment of the starting fluxoid number $`N`$ in this data was made by following the transitions as they evolved with temperature from the two-state telegraph noise (see Fig. 7) described below.

At temperatures sufficiently close to Tc and applied fluxes close to a half-integer multiple of $`\varphi _0`$, two-state telegraph noise was observed in the SQUID pickup loop signal when the loop was placed directly above a ring. An example is shown in Fig. 6.

The frequency of this telegraph noise oscillates with the applied flux, with period $`\varphi _0`$, and peaks at $`\varphi _a=(N+1/2)\varphi _0`$, $`N`$ an integer, as shown in Fig. 7.

## III Discussion

Several general observations can be made about the fluxoid dynamics observed in our experiments. First, the dynamics are nearly periodic in the applied field, with a period given by the applied field times the effective ring area $`A_{eff}=(\pi /2)(b^2a^2)/\mathrm{ln}(b/a)`$ (see Figs. 4, 5, and 7). This scaling with the effective ring area has been confirmed for three different ring sizes.

Second, the fluxoid transition rates depend exponentially on the applied flux, both for the fluxoid escape measurements of Fig. 5, and in the telegraph noise data of Fig. 7. The latter becomes clear when this data is plotted on a log-linear scale, as in Fig. 7(b).

Third, at a particular applied field, both the fluxoid escape rates and the telegraph noise frequencies depend exponentially on temperature. An example for the 80 $`\mu `$m ring is shown in Fig. 8.

We consider the mechanism for transitions between fluxoid states as a thermally activated nucleation of a vortex in, and transport of this vortex across, the ring wall. The relevant energies in the proposed process are 1) the energy required to nucleate a vortex, and 2) the kinetic and magnetic energies associated with supercurrents in the ring.

The maximum vortex energy in a straight thin film superconducting strip of width $`W\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (carrying no transport supercurrent):kogan94

$$E_v=\frac{\varphi _0^2}{8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2W}{\pi \xi }.$$
(8)
where $`\xi `$ is the vortex core size. The energy of the ring in a state with the winding number $`N`$ isbarone

$$E_r(N,H)=E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0)^2.$$
(9)
Clearly, the prefactor $`E_0`$ coincides with the ring energy in the state $`N=1`$ in zero applied field:

$$E_0=E_r(1,0)=\frac{\varphi _0}{2c}_a^bg_{N=1}(0,r)𝑑r;$$
(10)
see Appendix A.

We inferred the temperature dependence of the Pearl length from our SQUID microscope measurements above (see Fig. 3). Once the Pearl length is known, it is possible to calculate the temperature dependence of the energy of our ring. This is done by setting $`N=1`$ and $`H=0`$, and integrating the solution of Eq. (II) to obtain the total supercurrent, and the total energy in the ring from Eq. (10). Figure 9a shows the results of such a calculation for $`E_0`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Figure 9b plots $`E_0`$ as a function of $`T`$ for the $`80\mu `$m ring.

Figure 10 shows a simplified schematic of the energies involved in the thermally activated process $`NN+1`$ which is accomplished by a vortex (or an antivortex) crossing the ring. The ring has an initial ring energy $`E_r(N)`$, and a final ring energy $`E_r(N+1)`$. Within this simple scheme, the energy barrier for the process is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_v`$ $``$ $`\mu H+{\displaystyle \frac{E_r(N+1)+E_r(N)}{2}}E_r(N)`$
$`=E_v`$ $``$ $`\mu H+{\displaystyle \frac{E_r(N+1)E_r(N)}{2}}`$
$`=E_v`$ $``$ $`\mu H+E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0+1/2),`$ (11)
Here, we have used Eq. (9); the upper (lower) sign is for a vortex (antivortex) since the corresponding energy is $`𝝁𝑯`$.

It should be noted that the model we consider here is by no means exact. It disregards an intricate interplay between vortex currents and those flowing in the ring in a certain quantum state $`N`$ (the currents in the ring are not a simple superposition of vortex currents and those in the absence of a vortex - even within a linear London approach - because a vortex causes the vorticity $`N`$ to depend on the vortex position). For this reason, there is no point - within our model - to calculate “exactly” the magnetic moment; instead, we consider $`\mu `$ as a fitting parameter.

We further simplify the model by considering only transitions between the ground state and the first excited state as in the case of a two-level system. For the two-level system, the RTN rate $`\nu =P_1/\tau _1=P_2/\tau _2`$, where $`P_{1,2}`$ are probabilities to find the system in the states 1,2 and $`\tau _{1,2}`$ are the lifetimes. Since $`P_1+P_2=1`$, we readily get $`P_{1,2}=\tau _{1,2}/(\tau _1+\tau _2)`$,machlup  and

$$\nu =\frac{1}{\tau _1+\tau _2}.$$
(12)
If the system is in the ground state $`N`$, the closest state of a higher energy depends on the applied field. Using Eq. (9) it easy to verify that for $`N1/2<\varphi _a/\varphi _0<N`$, the closest state is $`N1`$, whereas for $`N<\varphi _a/\varphi _0<N+1/2`$, the first excited state is $`N+1`$. We begin with the latter possibility. The rate of the transition $`NN+1`$ is

$$\tau _{N,N+1}^1=\nu _0\left(e^{U_v(N,N+1)}+e^{U_{av}(N,N+1)}\right)$$
(13)
since the transition can be accomplished by both vortices and antivortices. Here, $`\nu _0`$ is an“attempt frequency”, $`U_v`$ and $`U_{av}`$ denote corresponding barriers divided by $`k_BT`$ for vortices and antivortices (for brevity the argument $`\varphi _a/\varphi _0`$ of the $`U`$’s is omitted). This expression can be easily factorized with the help of an identity $`e^x+e^y=2\mathrm{cosh}[(xy)/2]\mathrm{exp}[(x+y)/2]`$:

$$\tau _{N,N+1}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{[E_v+E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0+1/2)]/T\}}{2\nu _0\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)},$$
(14)
where Eq. (11) has been used and for brevity we set $`k_B=1`$. Similarly we obtain:

$$\tau _{N+1,N}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{[E_vE_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0+1/2)]/T\}}{2\nu _0\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)}.$$
(15)
Now Eq. (12) yields

$$\nu =\nu _0e^{E_v/T}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)}{\mathrm{cosh}[E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0+1/2)/T]}.$$
(16)
The same calculation for the applied field $`N1/2<\varphi _a/\varphi _0<N`$ gives

$$\nu =\nu _0e^{E_v/T}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)}{\mathrm{cosh}[E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _01/2)/T]}.$$
(17)
The factors $`1/\mathrm{cosh}[E_0(N\varphi _a/\varphi _0\pm 1/2)/T]`$ oscillate with the period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _a/\varphi _0=1`$ because in the ground state the number $`N`$ is the closest integer to the value of $`\varphi _a/\varphi _0`$. Due to these factors, $`\nu (\varphi _a/\varphi _0)`$ has maxima at $`\varphi _a/\varphi _0=N\pm 1/2`$. Clearly, the peaks of $`\nu (\varphi _a/\varphi _0)`$ become sharper when the parameter $`E_0/T`$ increases.

The numerator $`\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)`$ provides an increase of the maxima with increasing applied field. Physically, this happens because the vortex magnetic moment reduces the energy barrier by $`\mu H`$. If $`\mu H/T1`$, the maxima increase quadratically with field: $`\mathrm{cosh}(\mu H/T)1+\mu ^2H^2/2T^2`$. This is, in fact, the case for our data. One does not expect $`\nu (\varphi _a/\varphi _0)`$ to increase without a limit: at a certain applied field, the barrier for the vortex entry splits in two and the vortex can stay in a metastable equilibrium at the ring. Our model does not hold for such fields.

The solid line in Fig. 7 shows a fit of Eqs. (16) and (17) to the experimental data. The best fit parameters were $`\nu _0`$ = 1.1$`\times `$108 s-1, $`E_v=6.03\times 10^{14}`$erg, $`E_0=4.98\times 10^{14}`$erg, and $`\mu =1.93\times 10^{13}`$erg/G. From Fig. 3b we read $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(T = 31.6 K) = 240 $`\mu `$m. Taking $`\xi =3.2/\sqrt{1t}`$ nm,seidell  and $`W=20\mu `$m, we calculate $`E_v=1.46\times 10^{13}`$ erg, a factor of 2.4 larger than the value extracted from the fit. As discussed above, sample inhomogeneities or surface defectsvodolazov  could reduce the barrier to entry of vortices in type-II superconductors. From Fig. 9b we read $`E_0=2.2\times 10^{14}`$erg, smaller than the value obtained from the fit by a factor of 2.3. Our value for the attempt frequency is within the range (106-1010 Hz) suggested for attempt frequencies from experiments on thermally activated flux jumps in high temperature superconductors. crisan ; yeshurun  Therefore our model provides a good description of the magnetic field dependence of the telegraph noise at a fixed temperature, using values for the vortex nucleation energy $`E_v`$ and the ring supercurrent energy coefficient $`E_0`$ that are within approximately factors of 2 of values calculated from experimental measurements on the same ring.

Note that our estimate of the attempt frequency is very sensitive to the value of the coherence length $`\xi `$. Indeed, the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(E_v/T)`$ combined with $`E_v`$ of Eq. (8) yields

$$\nu \left(\frac{\pi \xi }{2W}\right)^{\varphi _0^2/8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }T}$$
(18)
with a large exponent $`\varphi _0^2/8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }T`$.

The same model provides good agreement with the temperature dependence of the fluxoid transition rates and telegraph noise frequencies for the $`N=0N=1`$ transition at $`\varphi _a=\varphi _0/2`$ shown in Fig. 8. The solid line in Fig. 8 is the prediction of Eq. (13), scaling the value for $`E_v(T)`$ at T = 31.6 K from the fit of Fig. 7 by $`E_v(T)=E_v(T=0)(1t^4)`$.

The solid lines in Fig. 5 show the predictions of Eq. (14), using the model outlined above, with the fit values from the telegraph noise data of Fig. 7, with $`E_v`$ and $`E_0`$ scaled in temperature according to the calculated curves in Figs. 3 and 9 respectively. The predictions of the model diverge from experiment for lower temperatures and fluxoid numbers. In particular, the model predicts that the slope of the fluxoid transition rates with applied flux should increase as the temperature is reduced. However, as can be seen from Fig. 5, although these slopes are relatively insensitive to temperature, if anything they decrease with decreasing temperature. Somewhat better agreement with experiment (the dashed lines in Fig. 5) is obtained if $`E_0`$ is taken to have the temperature independent value obtained from the fit to telegraph noise data of Fig. 7, with $`E_v(T)=E_v(T=0)(1t^4)`$ as before.

We can speculate on some of the sources of the differences between the predictions of our model and experiment. First, the model does not take into account interactions between the bulk vortex and the supercurrents. As discussed above, we have also implicitly assumed that the rings are spatially homogeneous, with a sharp superconducting transition temperature. The resistive transitions are in fact quite broad. This broadening could be a source of the apparently reduced temperature dependence of $`E_0`$ and reduced vortex nucleation energy that we observe. Finally, spatial inhomogeneities could reduce the effective width of the rings.

In summary then, we have measured single fluxoid transitions and two-state telegraph noise in superconducting thin film rings as a function of applied magnetic field and temperature at temperatures close to Tc. The long penetration depths in the underdoped cuprate films used allowed measurements over a relatively broad temperature range. The measurements are generally consistent with a model in which the fluxoid transitions are mediated by thermally activated nucleation of a bulk vortex in, and transport of the vortex across, the ring wall. We presented a model which qualitatively explains some of the features of the data, but other features remain puzzling.

We would like to thank T. Senthil and M.P.A. Fisher for suggesting ring experiments to us, and D. Bonn, W.A. Hardy, R. Koch, K.A. Moler, D.J. Scalapino, F. Tafuri, and S. Woods for useful conversations. We would like to thank R. Mints for detailed discussions and calculations of the fluxoid transition process. This manuscript has been authored in part by Iowa State University of Science and Technology under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The work of VGK was partially supported by the Binational US-Israel Science Foundation.

## Appendix A

The magnetic part of the energy for the state $`N`$ in zero applied field is $`E_m=d^2𝒓𝑨𝒈/2c`$. Substitute here the vector potential from Eq. (2) to obtain $`E_m=(\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }/c^2)d^2𝒓g^2(\varphi _0/4\pi c)d^2𝒓\theta 𝒈`$. Since the kinetic part is the integral over the volume of the quantity $`2\pi \lambda _L^2j^2/c^2=\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }g^2/c^2d`$, the first term in $`E_m`$ is $`E_{kin}`$. Further, $`_\phi \theta =N/r`$ and we have $`E_m+E_{kin}=(\varphi _0N/2c)𝑑rg_\phi (0,r)`$.


format: text

text:
# On solutions to the Ginzburg-Landau equations in higher dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $`n2`$. Consider the semilinear elliptic equation

$$d^{}d\varphi =\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is a complex-valued function on $`M`$. This equation is the Euler-Lagrange equation for the functional

$$E_\epsilon (\varphi )=_M\left(|d\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)^2\right).$$

The equation (1) has been studied by many authors, including F. Bethuel, H. Brezis and F. Hélein , F.-H. Lin , and R. Jerrard and H. M. Soner . The corresponding Schrödinger and wave equation were studied by J. Colliander and R. Jerrard  and by F.-H. Lin, J. Xin, and P. Zhang . While these results are mainly devoted to the case $`n=2`$, the higher-dimensional situation has been studied by F.-H. Lin and T. Rivière  and F. Bethuel, H. Brezis and G. Orlandi .

An important problem is to describe the behavior of the solutions as $`\epsilon 0`$. Suppose that $`\varphi _j`$ is a sequence of complex-valued functions on $`M`$ such that

$$d^{}d\varphi _j=\frac{1}{2\epsilon _j^2}(1|\varphi _j|^2)\varphi _j$$

where $`\epsilon _j0`$. Then there exists a closed set $`S`$ of Hausdorff codimension $`2`$ and a harmonic map $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}:MSS^1`$ such that $`\varphi _j\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`MS`$. In particular, if $`M`$ has dimension $`2`$, then the set $`S`$ is finite, and its cardinality is given by the degree of $`\varphi _j`$.

In higher dimensions, it follows from results of F.-H. Lin and T. Rivière  and F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and G. Orlandi  that the vortex submanifold $`S`$ is stationary in the sense that its generalized mean curvature is equal to $`0`$.

In this paper, we study the converse problem. To this end, we consider a smooth minimal submanifold $`S`$ of codimension $`2`$. Our aim is to construct solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equations

$$d^{}F_A=\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi )$$
(2)
and

$$D_A^{}D_A\varphi =\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi .$$
(3)
Here, $`A`$ is a connection on a complex line bundle $`L`$ over $`M`$, and $`\varphi `$ is a section of $`L`$. A pair $`(A,\varphi )`$ satisfies (2), (3) if and only if $`(A,\varphi )`$ is a critical point of the Ginzburg-Landau functional

$$E_\epsilon (A,\varphi )=_M\left(\epsilon ^2|F_A|^2+|D_A\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)^2\right).$$

In dimension $`2`$, Bogomol’nyi observed that the Ginzburg-Landau functional has a lower bound which depends only on the degree of the line bundle $`L`$. This is a consequence of the identity

$$E_\epsilon (A,\varphi )=_^2\left(\epsilon (iF_A)\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(1|\varphi |^2)\right)^2+2_^2|\overline{}_A\varphi |^2+2\pi c_1(L).$$

From this it follows that

$$E_\epsilon (A,\varphi )2\pi c_1(L)$$

with equality if and only if $`(A,\varphi )`$ is a solution of the vortex equations

$$\epsilon (iF_A)=\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(1|\varphi |^2)$$
(4)
and

$$\overline{}_A\varphi =0.$$
(5)
In particular, if $`(A,\varphi )`$ satisfies the vortex equations, then we have the identity

$$\epsilon ^2|F_A|^2=\frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2).$$

This relation will play an important role in our subsequent arguments.

The equation (1) can be viewed as a simplified version of the Ginzburg-Landau equations (2), (3). The Ginzburg-Landau equations play an important role in mathematical physics, where they arise in the mathematical description of superconductivity. They have been studied intensively, in particular by A. Jaffe and C. H. Taubes . S. Bradlow  generalized the vortex equations (4), (5) to holomorphic vector bundles over Kähler manifolds.

The following result shows that every nondegenerate minimal submanifold of $`M`$ can be obtained as the limit of a family of solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equations.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $`n`$, and let $`S`$ be a nondegenerate minimal submanifold of dimension $`n2`$. Then the Ginzburg-Landau equation has a solution for all $`0<\epsilon <\epsilon _0`$. The solutions satisfy

$$\epsilon ^2|F_A|^2+|D_A\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)^2dH^{n2}|_S$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$. Moreover, the first Chern class of $`L`$ is the Poincaré dual of the homology class of $`S`$.

A related result was established by C. H. Taubes  for the Seiberg-Witten equations on symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. In this case, every pseudo-holomorphic curve can be approximated by a sequence of Seiberg-Witten solutions with parameters $`r_j\mathrm{}`$.

A similar approach is used in a recent work of F. Pacard and M. Ritoré  which relates constant mean curvature hypersurfaces to the theory of phase transitions.

Moreover, T. Ilmanen  proved that Brakke’s motion by mean curvature is given by the limit of a sequence of solutions to the Allen-Cahn equation.

In Section 2, we recall some results about the linearized operator on $`^2`$. In particular, the kernel of the linearized operator on $`^2`$ is isomorphic to the space of parallel vector fields on $`^2`$ (see  and  for details).

In Section 3, we study the mapping properties of a model operator on the product manifold $`^{n2}\times ^2`$.

In Section 4, we construct a family of approximate solutions of the Ginzburg-Landau equations. More precisely, given any normal vector field $`v`$ satisfying

$$v_{𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)}\epsilon ,$$

we construct a pair $`(A,\varphi )`$ such that

$$(d^{}F_A\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C$$

for some $`\mu >0`$. Here, the weighted Hölder space $`𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ is defined by

$`u_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`=supe^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p,S)}{\epsilon }}|u(p)|`$
$`+\underset{\text{dist}(p_1,p_2)\epsilon }{sup}\epsilon ^\gamma e^{\frac{\mu (\text{dist}(p_1,S)+\text{dist}(p_2,S))}{2\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u(p_1)u(p_2)|}{\text{dist}(p_1,p_2)^\gamma }}.`$
Moreover, we define

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}=\epsilon a_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}+f_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

In Section 5, we derive uniform estimates for the operator $`𝕃_\epsilon =L_\epsilon +T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}`$. Here, $`L_\epsilon `$ is the linearization of the Ginzburg-Landau equations at an approximate solution $`(A,\varphi )`$. Moreover, the operator $`T_\epsilon `$ is defined as

$$T_\epsilon u=(\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,\frac{1}{\epsilon }\varphi u)$$

for $`\overline{u}=u`$. Its adjoint is given by

$$T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f)=\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\varphi \overline{f}\overline{\varphi }f).$$

The additional term $`T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}`$ is necessary, because $`L_\epsilon `$ is not an elliptic operator.

To derive uniform estimates independent of $`\epsilon `$, we need to restrict the operator $`𝕃_\epsilon `$ to a subspace $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$. A pair $`(a,f)`$ belongs to $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ if

$$_{NS_x}\epsilon ^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}a(e_\alpha ^{}),F_A(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_{NS_x}f,D_{A,w}\varphi =0$$

for all $`xS`$ and $`wNS_x`$.

In Section 6, we apply the contraction mapping principle to deform the approximate solution $`(A,\varphi )`$ to a nearby pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ such that

$$(\text{I})(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0.$$

Here, $`(\text{I})`$ is the fibrewise projection from $`𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ to the subspace $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$.

In Section 7, we show that the glueing data can be chosen such that the corresponding pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ satisfies the balancing condition

$$(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0.$$

This last step of the proof uses the invertibility of the Jacobi operator of $`S`$.

## 2 The kernel of the linearized operator on $`^2`$

In this section, we study the linearized operator on $`^2`$, in particular its kernel. To this end, we define an inner product on the space of pairs $`(a,f)`$ by

$$(a_1,f_1),(a_2,f_2)=_^2\epsilon ^2a_1,a_2+_^2f_1,f_2.$$

Then the linearized operator on $`^2`$ satisfies

$$L_\epsilon (a,f),(a,f)=_^2\left|\epsilon d(ia)+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\psi \overline{f}+\overline{\psi }f)\right|^2+2_^2\left|\overline{}_Bf+\frac{1}{2}\psi \alpha \right|^2,$$

where

$$\alpha =a_1+ia_2$$

denotes the $`(0,1)`$-parts of $`a`$. This implies

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_1i_2)(a_1+ia_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_1a_2_2a_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_1a_1+_2a_2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d(ia){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d^{}a.`$
We define an operator $`T_\epsilon :\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^2,L)`$ by

$$T_\epsilon u=(\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,\frac{1}{\epsilon }\psi u)$$

for $`\overline{u}=u`$. Its adjoint is given by

$$T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f)=\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f).$$

This implies

$$T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f),(a,f)=_^2\left|\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f)\right|^2.$$

Thus, we conclude that

$`L_\epsilon (a,f)+T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f),(a,f)`$
$`={\displaystyle _^2}\left|\epsilon d(ia)\epsilon d^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{f}+\overline{\psi }f){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f)\right|^2+2{\displaystyle _^2}\left|\overline{}_Bf+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \alpha \right|^2`$
$`=4{\displaystyle _^2}\left|\epsilon \alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}\overline{\psi }f\right|^2+2{\displaystyle _^2}\left|\overline{}_Bf+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \alpha \right|^2.`$
In particular, the sum

$$L_\epsilon +T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^2,L)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^2,L)$$

is an elliptic operator.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The kernel of the operator $`L_\epsilon +T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}`$ is a vector space of real dimension $`2`$. It consists of all pairs of the form $`(F_B(w,),D_{B,w}\psi )`$, where $`w`$ is a fixed vector in $`^2`$.

Proof. Suppose that $`(a,f)`$ satisfies the equation

$$L_\epsilon (a,f)+T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f)=0.$$

This implies

$$\epsilon \alpha +\frac{1}{2\epsilon }\overline{\psi }f=0$$

and

$$\overline{}_Bf+\frac{1}{2}\psi \alpha =0.$$

The set $`V`$ of pairs $`(a,f)`$ satisfying these conditions is a vector space of real dimension $`2`$ (see, for example, ). We claim that the pair

$$a=F_B(w,)$$

and

$$f=D_{B,w}\psi $$

belongs to $`V`$. Using the identity

$$\epsilon (iF_B)=\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(1|\psi |^2),$$

we obtain

$`\epsilon d(ia)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{f}+\overline{\psi }f)`$ $`=\epsilon d(iF_B(w,))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{D_{B,w}\psi }+\overline{\psi }D_{B,w}\psi )`$
$`=\epsilon _w(iF_B)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}_w|\psi |^2`$
$`=0`$
and

$`\epsilon d^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f)`$ $`=\epsilon (d^{}F_B)(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\psi \overline{D_{B,w}\psi }\overline{\psi }D_{B,w}\psi )`$
$`=0.`$
Moreover, we have

$$\overline{}_Bf=\overline{}_BD_{B,w}\psi =\overline{}_BD_{B,w}\psi D_{B,w}\overline{}_B\psi =\frac{1}{2}\alpha \psi .$$

This proves the assertion.

## 3 The model problem on $`^{n2}\times ^2`$

In this section, we consider a complex line bundle $`L`$ over the product $`^{n2}\times ^2`$. Let $`B`$ be a connection on $`L`$ and let $`\psi `$ be a section of $`L`$. We assume that the pair $`(B,\psi )`$ is invariant under translations along the $`^{n2}`$ factor and agrees with the one-vortex solution along the $`^2`$ factor.

As in Section 2, we consider the inner product

$$(a_1,f_1),(a_2,f_2)=_{^{n2}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2a_1,a_2+_{^{n2}\times ^2}f_1,f_2.$$

Then the linearized operator $`L_\epsilon `$ satisfies

$`L_\epsilon (a,f),(a,f)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}(\epsilon ^2|da|^2+|D_Bf|^2)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}(D_B\psi ,af+a\psi ,D_Bf)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}\left(|\psi |^2|a|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\text{Re}(\overline{\psi }f)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)|f|^2\right).`$
As in Section 2, we define an operator $`T_\epsilon :\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$ by

$$T_\epsilon u=(\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,\frac{1}{\epsilon }\psi u)$$

for $`\overline{u}=u`$. Its adjoint is given by

$$T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f)=\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f).$$

This implies

$$T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f),(a,f)=_{^{n2}\times ^2}\left|\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\psi \overline{f}\overline{\psi }f)\right|^2.$$

Therefore, we obtain

$`L_\epsilon (a,f),(a,f)+T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f),(a,f)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}(\epsilon ^2|da|^2+\epsilon ^2|d^{}a|^2+|D_Bf|^2)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}(D_B\psi ,af+a\psi ,D_Bf)2{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}d^{}a\psi ,f`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}\left(|\psi |^2|a|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\text{Re}(\overline{\psi }f)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\text{Im}(\overline{\psi }f)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)|f|^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}(\epsilon ^2|da|^2+\epsilon ^2|d^{}a|^2+|D_Bf|^2)`$
$`+4{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}D_B\psi ,af`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}\left(|\psi |^2|a|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi |^2|f|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)|f|^2\right).`$
From this it follows that

$`L_\epsilon (a,f)+T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f)=(`$ $`^{}a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}(\overline{D_B\psi }fD_B\psi \overline{f})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi |^2a,`$
$`D_B^{}D_Bf2(aD_B\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi |^2f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)f)`$
for $`a\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)`$ and $`f\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$. For abbreviation, let $`𝕃_\epsilon =L_\epsilon +T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}`$. Note that

$`𝕃_\epsilon :`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$
is an elliptic operator.

We define the weighted Hölder space $`𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$ by

$`u_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}`$
$`=supe^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}|u(x,y)|`$
$`+\underset{|x_1x_2|+|y_1y_2|\epsilon }{sup}\epsilon ^\gamma e^{\frac{\mu (|y_1|+|y_2|)}{2\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u(x_1,y_1)u(x_2,y_2)|}{(|x_1x_2|+|y_1y_2|)^\gamma }}.`$
More generally, let

$$u_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}\epsilon ^l^lu_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}.$$

Furthermore, we define

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}=\epsilon a_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}+f_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}.$$

Let $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ be the set of all pairs $`(a,f)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$ such that $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ and

$$_{\{x\}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}a(e_\alpha ^{}),F_B(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_{\{x\}\times ^2}f,D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and all $`w^2`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The operator $`𝕃_\epsilon `$ maps $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ into $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$.

Proof. It is obvious from the definition that $`𝕃_\epsilon `$ maps $`𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ into $`𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$. We now assume that $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ satisfies

$$_^2\epsilon ^2a,F_B(w,)+_^2f,D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and all $`w^2`$. Taking derivatives in horizontal direction, we obtain

$$_{\{x\}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_j_ja(e_\alpha ^{}),F_B(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_^2f,D_{B,w}\psi =0.$$

Furthermore, integration by parts gives

$`{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2_{e_\rho ^{}}_{e_\rho ^{}}a(e_\alpha ^{}),F_B(w,e_\alpha ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{B,e_\rho ^{}}D_{B,e_\rho ^{}}f,D_{B,w}\psi `$
$`2{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}D_B\psi ,aD_{B,w}\psi 2{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}D_B\psi ,F_B(w,)f`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}\left(|\psi |^2a,F_B(w,)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi |^2f,D_{B,w}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)f,D_{B,w}\psi \right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2a(e_\alpha ^{}),_{e_\rho ^{}}_{e_\rho ^{}}F_B(w,e_\alpha ^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}f,D_{B,e_\rho ^{}}D_{B,e_\rho ^{}}D_{B,w}\psi `$
$`2{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}D_B\psi ,aD_{B,w}\psi 2{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}D_B\psi ,F_B(w,)f`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\{x\}\times ^2}}\left(|\psi |^2a,F_B(w,)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi |^2f,D_{B,w}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)f,D_{B,w}\psi \right)`$
$`=0.`$
Hence, if we define $`(b,h)=𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)`$, then we obtain

$$_{\{x\}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}b(e_\alpha ^{}),F_B(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_{\{x\}\times ^2}h,D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and $`w^2`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$, $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^2)`$, and $`\eta 𝒮(^{n2})`$. Moreover, assume that the Fourier transform of $`\eta `$ satisfies $`\widehat{\eta }(\xi )=0`$ for $`|\xi |\delta `$ for some $`\delta >0`$. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(\eta (x)b(y),\eta (x)h(y)).$$

Proof. We perform a Fourier transformation in the $`^{n2}`$ variables. Let

$$\eta (x)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )𝑑\xi .$$

For every $`\xi ^{n2}`$, there exists a pair $`(\widehat{a}(\xi ,),\widehat{f}(\xi ,))𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^2)`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_\rho _\rho \widehat{a}(\xi ,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}(\overline{D_B\psi (y)}\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)D_B\psi (y)\overline{\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi (y)|^2\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)|\xi |^2\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)=b(y)`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{B,\rho }D_{B,\rho }\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)+2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{B,\rho }\psi (y)\widehat{a}_\rho (\xi ,y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi (y)|^2\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi (y)|^2)\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)|\xi |^2\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)=h(y).`$
We now define a pair $`(a,f)`$ by

$$a(x,y)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)𝑑\xi $$

and

$$f(x,y)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)𝑑\xi .$$

Then the pair $`(a,f)`$ satisfies

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_i_ia+\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}_\rho _\rho a+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}(\overline{D_B\psi }fD_B\psi \overline{f})\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}|\psi |^2a=\eta (x)b(y)$$

and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_i_if+\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{B,\rho }D_{B,\rho }f+2\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{B,\rho }\psi a_\rho \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}|\psi |^2f+\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\psi |^2)\widehat{f}=\eta (x)h(y).$$

From this we deduce that

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(\eta (x)b(y),\eta (x)h(y)).$$

This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$, and suppose that $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ satisfies $`𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=0`$. Then $`(a,f)=0`$.

Proof. Let $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^2)`$ and $`\zeta 𝒮(^{n2})`$ be given. We define a function $`\eta 𝒮(^{n2})`$ by $`\eta (x)=\zeta (x+x_0)\zeta (x)`$. Then the Fourier transform of $`\eta `$ satisfies $`\widehat{\eta }(0)=0`$. We approximate $`\eta `$ by functions $`\eta _\delta `$ such that

$$\widehat{\eta }_\delta (\xi )=0$$

for $`|\xi |\delta `$ and

$$\widehat{\eta }_\delta (\xi )=\widehat{\eta }(\xi )$$

for $`|\xi |2\delta `$. Using the condition $`\widehat{\eta }(0)=0`$, we obtain

$$D^{n2}(\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\eta }_\delta )_{L^{\frac{p}{p1}}(^{n2})}C\delta ^{1\frac{n2}{p}},$$

hence

$$(1+|x|)^{n2}(\eta \eta _\delta )_{L^p(^{n2})}C\delta ^{1\frac{n2}{p}}$$

for all $`p2`$. From this it follows that

$`\eta \eta _\delta _{L^1(^{n2})}`$ $`(1+|x|)^{(n2)}_{L^{\frac{p}{p1}}(^{n2})}(1+|x|)^{n2}(\eta \eta _\delta )_{L^p(^{n2})}`$
$`C\delta ^{1\frac{n2}{p}}`$
for all $`p2`$. This implies

$$\eta \eta _\delta _{L^1(^{n2})}0$$

as $`\delta 0`$.

For each $`\delta >0`$, the pair $`(\eta _\delta (x)b(y),\eta _\delta (x)h(y))`$ belongs to the image of $`𝕃_\epsilon `$. Since $`(a,f)`$ belongs to the kernel of $`𝕃_\epsilon `$, we obtain

$$_{^{n2}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2a(x,y),\eta _\delta (x)b(y)+_{^{n2}\times ^2}f(x,y),\eta _\delta (x)h(y)=0.$$

Letting $`\delta 0`$, we obtain

$$_{^{n2}\times ^2}\epsilon ^2a(x,y),\eta (x)b(y)+_{^{n2}\times ^2}f(x,y),\eta (x)h(y)=0.$$

From this it follows that

$`{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}\epsilon ^2a(x,y),\zeta (x)b(y)+{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}f(x,y),\zeta (x)h(y)`$
$`={\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}\epsilon ^2a(xx_0,y),\zeta (x)b(y)+{\displaystyle _{^{n2}\times ^2}}f(xx_0,y),\zeta (x)h(y).`$
Since $`(b,h)`$ and $`\zeta `$ are arbitrary, we conclude that $`a(x,y)=a(xx_0,y)`$ and $`f(x,y)=f(xx_0,y)`$. Therefore, $`a(x,y)`$ and $`f(x,y)`$ are constant in $`x`$. Using Proposition 2.1, we obtain

$$(a,f)=(F_B(w,),D_{B,w}\psi )$$

for some $`w^2`$. This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$. Then we have the estimate

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}C\epsilon ^2𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}$$

for all $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$.

Proof. By Schauder estimates, it suffices to show that

$$supe^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |a(x,y)|+|f(x,y)|)Csup\epsilon ^2e^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |b(x,y)|+|h(x,y)|),$$

where $`(b,h)=𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)`$. To prove this estimate, we argue by contradiction. Let $`(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})`$ be a sequence of pairs such that

$$supe^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |a^{(j)}(x,y)|+|f^{(j)}(x,y)|)=1$$

and

$$sup\epsilon ^2e^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |b^{(j)}(x,y)|+|h^{(j)}(x,y)|)0,$$

where $`(b^{(j)},h^{(j)})=𝕃_\epsilon (a^{(j)},f^{(j)})`$. We choose a sequence of points $`(x_j,y_j)^{n2}\times ^2`$ such that

$$e^{\frac{\mu |y_j|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |a^{(j)}(x_j,y_j)|+|f^{(j)}(x_j,y_j)|)\frac{1}{2}$$

for all $`j`$. There are two possibilities:

(i) Suppose that the sequence $`|y_j|`$ is bounded. After passing to a subsequence, we may assume that the sequence $`(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})`$ converges to a pair $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that

$$supe^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |a(x,y)|+|f(x,y)|)1$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=0.$$

Using Proposition 3.3, we conclude that $`(a,f)=0`$. This is a contradiction.

(ii) We now assume that $`|y_j|\mathrm{}`$. We define a sequence of pairs $`(\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{f}_j)`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)}(x,y)=e^{\frac{\mu |y_j|}{\epsilon }}a^{(j)}(x+x_j,y+y_j)$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)}(x,y)=e^{\frac{\mu |y_j|}{\epsilon }}f^{(j)}(x+x_j,y+y_j).$$

After passing to a subsequence, we may assume that the sequence $`(\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{f}_j)`$ converges to a pair $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{f})`$. The pair $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{f})`$ is defined on $`^{n2}\times ^2`$ and satisfies

$$supe^{\frac{\mu |y|}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |\stackrel{~}{a}(x,y)|+|\stackrel{~}{f}(x,y)|)1$$

and

$$(^{}\stackrel{~}{a}+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}\stackrel{~}{a},^{}\stackrel{~}{f}+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}\stackrel{~}{f})=0.$$

If $`\mu `$ is sufficiently small, it follows that $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{f})=0`$. This is a contradiction.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$. Assume that $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^2)`$ satisfies

$$_^2\epsilon ^2b,F_B(w,)+_^2h,D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and all $`w^2`$. Moreover, let $`\eta 𝒮(^{n2})`$. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(\eta (x)b(y),\eta (x)h(y)).$$

Proof. Let

$$\eta (x)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )𝑑\xi .$$

For every $`\xi ^{n2}`$, there exists a $`1`$-form $`\widehat{a}(\xi ,)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^2)`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_\rho _\rho \widehat{a}(\xi ,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}(\overline{D_B\psi (y)}\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)D_B\psi (y)\overline{\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi (y)|^2\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)|\xi |^2\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)=b(y)`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{B,\rho }D_{B,\rho }\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)+2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{B,\rho }\psi (y)\widehat{a}_\rho (\xi ,y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\psi (y)|^2\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi (y)|^2)\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)|\xi |^2\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)=h(y).`$
Furthermore, the pair $`(\widehat{a}(\xi ,),\widehat{f}(\xi ,))`$ satisfies

$$_^2\epsilon ^2\widehat{a}(\xi ,),F_B(w,)+_^2\widehat{f}(\xi ,),D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and all $`w^2`$. We now define a pair $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ by

$$a(x,y)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )\widehat{a}(\xi ,y)𝑑\xi $$

and

$$f(x,y)=_{^{n2}}e^{ix\xi }\widehat{\eta }(\xi )\widehat{f}(\xi ,y)𝑑\xi .$$

Then the pair $`(a,f)`$ satisfies

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_i_ia+\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}_\rho _\rho a+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}(\overline{D_B\psi }fD_B\psi \overline{f})\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}|\psi |^2a=\eta (x)b(y)$$

and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}_i_if+\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{B,\rho }D_{B,\rho }f+2\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{B,\rho }\psi a_\rho \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}|\psi |^2f+\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\psi |^2)\widehat{f}=\eta (x)h(y).$$

Thus, we conclude that

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(\eta (x)b(y),\eta (x)h(y)).$$

This proves the assertion.

###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$, and suppose that $`(b,h)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$ has compact support. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(b,h).$$

Proof. It follows from Proposition 3.4 that the range of the operator $`𝕃_\epsilon :_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$ is a closed subspace of the Banach space $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$. By Proposition 3.5, it contains all pairs of the form $`(\eta (x)b(y),\eta (x)h(y))`$, where $`\eta 𝒮(^{n2})`$ and $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^2)`$ satisfies

$$_^2\epsilon ^2b,F_B(w,)+_^2h,D_{B,w}\psi =0$$

for all $`x^{n2}`$ and all $`w^2`$. The assertion follows now by approximation.

###### Proposition 3.7.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$. Suppose that $`(b,h)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)`$ is supported in the set $`\{(x,y)^{n2}\times ^2:|x|\delta ,|y|2\delta \}`$. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that $`(a,f)`$ is supported in $`\{(x,y)^{n2}\times ^2:|x|2\delta ,|y|4\delta \}`$,

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}C\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\delta }+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}\right)b_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}.$$

Proof. By Corollary 3.6, there exists a pair $`(a,f)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(b,h).$$

Let $`\zeta `$ be a cut-off function on $`^{n2}`$ such that $`\zeta (x)=1`$ for $`|x|\delta `$, $`\zeta (x)=0`$ for $`|x|2\delta `$, and

$$sup\delta |\zeta |+sup\delta ^2|^2\zeta |C.$$

Furthermore, let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function on $`^{n2}`$ satisfying $`\eta (y)=1`$ for $`|y|2\delta `$, $`\eta (y)=0`$ for $`|y|4\delta `$, and

$$sup\delta |\eta |+sup\delta ^2|^2\eta |C.$$

Then we have the estimates

$$(\eta \zeta a,\eta \zeta f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}$$

and

$`𝕃_\epsilon (\eta \zeta a,\eta \zeta f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}`$
$`=𝕃_\epsilon (\eta \zeta a,\eta \zeta f)\eta \zeta 𝕃_\epsilon a_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{1,\gamma }(^{n2}\times ^2)}`$
$`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (^{n2}\times ^2)}.`$
From this the assertion follows.

## 4 Construction of the approximate solutions

In this section, we define a family of approximate solutions which concentrate near $`S`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$. To this end, we identify the total space of the normal bundle $`NS`$ with a neighborhood of the submanifold $`S`$ by means of the exponential map

$$\mathrm{exp}:NSM.$$

Note that this identification is not isometric. To see this, we choose an orthonormal basis $`\{e_i:1in2\}`$ for the horizontal subspace, and an orthonormal basis $`\{e_\alpha ^{}:1\alpha 2\}`$ for the vertical subspace. Using Jacobi’s equation, we obtain

$`\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_i)`$ $`=\pi _{}(e_i)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }y_\rho \pi _{}(e_j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma j}y_\rho y_\sigma \pi _{}(e_j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma \beta }y_\rho y_\sigma e_\beta ^{}+O(|y|^3).`$
This implies

$`\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_i),\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_j)`$ $`=\delta _{ij}+2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }y_\rho `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ik,\rho }h_{jk,\sigma }y_\rho y_\sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma j}y_\rho y_\sigma +O(|y|^3).`$
Furthermore, we have

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_i),\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_\alpha ^{})=O(|y|^2)$$

and

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_\alpha ^{}),\mathrm{exp}_{}(e_\beta ^{})=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{3}\underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}R_{\alpha \rho \sigma \beta }y_\rho y_\sigma +O(|y|^3).$$

Let $`v`$ be a section of the normal bundle $`NS`$. For every point $`xS`$, there is a unique one-vortex solution $`(B,\psi )`$ on $`NS_x`$ with center $`v_x`$. We now define a pair $`(A,\varphi )`$ by

$$A(e_\alpha ^{})=B(e_\alpha ^{}),$$

$$A(e_i)=_iv_\rho B(e_\rho ^{}),$$

and

$$\varphi =\psi .$$

###### Proposition 4.1.

The curvature of $`A`$ is given by

$$F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})=F_B(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{}),$$

$$F_A(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})=_iv_\rho F_B(e_\rho ^{},e_\alpha ^{}),$$

and

$$F_A(e_i,e_j)=_iv_\rho _jv_\sigma F_A(e_\rho ^{},e_\sigma ^{})+C_{ij}+A\left(C_{ij}(yv)\right),$$

where $`C_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2NS`$ is the curvature of the normal bundle. Furthermore, the covariant derivative of the section $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi =D_{B,e_\alpha ^{}}\psi $$

and

$$D_{A,e_i}\varphi =_iv_\rho D_{B,e_\rho ^{}}\psi .$$

Proof. Using the identity

$$[e_i,e_j]=C_{ij}y,$$

we obtain

$`F_A(e_i,e_j)`$ $`=C_{ij}+_{e_i}A(e_j)_{e_j}A(e_i)A([e_i,e_j])`$
$`=C_{ij}(_i_jv_\rho _j_iv_\rho )A(e_\rho ^{})`$
$`+_iv_\rho _jv_\sigma (_{e_\rho ^{}}A(e_\sigma ^{})_{e_\sigma ^{}}A(e_\rho ^{}))+A\left(C_{ij}y\right)`$
$`=C_{ij}A\left(C_{ij}v\right)`$
$`+_iv_\rho _jv_\sigma (_{e_\rho ^{}}A(e_\sigma ^{})_{e_\sigma ^{}}A(e_\rho ^{}))+A\left(C_{ij}y\right)`$
$`=_iv_\rho _jv_\sigma F_A(e_\rho ^{},e_\sigma ^{})`$
$`+C_{ij}+A\left(C_{ij}(yv)\right).`$
This proves the assertion.

Note that the pair $`(B,\psi )`$ satisfies the estimates

$$|F_B|\frac{C}{\epsilon ^2}e^{\frac{\mu r}{\epsilon }},$$

$$|D_B\psi |C\epsilon ^1e^{\frac{\mu r}{\epsilon }},$$

$$01|\psi |^2Ce^{\frac{\mu r}{\epsilon }}$$

for suitable constant $`\mu >0`$.

Throughout this paper, we will assume that the normal vector field $`v`$ satisfies the estimate $`v_{𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)}\epsilon `$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

If the normal vector field $`v`$ satisfies the estimate $`v_{𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)}\epsilon `$, then the error term verifies the estimate

$$(d^{}F_A\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C$$

for some $`\mu >0`$.

Proof. Since $`(B,\psi )`$ is a solution of the vortex equations on $`^2`$, we have

$$\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}_{e_\rho ^{}}F_A(e_\rho ^{},e_\alpha ^{})+\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi )=0$$

and

$$\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}\varphi +\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi =0.$$

Furthermore, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_\rho ^{}}F_A(e_\rho ^{},e_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_{A,e_i}\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_{A,e_i}\varphi )`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_iv_\rho \left({\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_\beta ^{}}F_A(e_\beta ^{},e_\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}\varphi )\right)`$
$`=0.`$
From this it follows that

$$(d^{_{g_0}}F_A\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{_{g_0}}D_A\varphi \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C.$$

Here, $`g_0`$ denotes the product metric on $`NS`$, i.e.

$`g_0(e_i,e_j)=\delta _{ij}`$
$`g_0(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})=0`$
$`g_0(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.`$
Let $`g`$ be the pull-back of the Riemannian metric on $`M`$ under the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}:NSM`$. Then the metric $`g`$ satisfies an asymptotic expansion of the form

$`g(e_i,e_j)=\delta _{ij}+2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }y_\rho +O(|y|^2)`$
$`g(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})=O(|y|^2)`$
$`g(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})=\delta _{\alpha \beta }+O(|y|^2),`$
where $`h`$ denotes the second fundamental form of $`S`$. In particular, the volume form of $`g`$ is related to the volume form of $`g_0`$ by

$$\left(\frac{detg}{detg_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=1+H_\rho y_\rho +O(|y|^2),$$

where $`H`$ is the mean curvature vector of $`S`$. Since the mean curvature of $`S`$ is $`0`$, we obtain

$$\left(\frac{detg}{detg_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=1+O(|y|^2).$$

Thus, we conclude that

$$(d^{}F_A\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C.$$

This proves the assertion.

## 5 Estimates for the operator $`𝕃_\epsilon =L_\epsilon +T_\epsilon T_\epsilon ^{}`$ in weighted Hölder spaces

Our aim in this section is to analyze the mapping properties of the linearized operator

$`𝕃_\epsilon :`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^{n2}\times ^2,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(^{n2}\times ^2,L).`$
###### Proposition 5.1.

Suppose that $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ is supported in the set $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta \}`$ and satisfies

$$_{NS_x}\epsilon ^2\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}b(e_\alpha ^{}),F_A(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_{NS_x}h,D_{A,w}\varphi =0$$

for all $`xS`$ and all $`wNS`$. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)4\delta \}`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2b_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\left(\delta +\frac{\epsilon }{\delta }+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}\right)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. Let $`\{\zeta ^{(j)}:1jj_0\}`$ be a partition of unity on $`S`$ such that each function $`\zeta ^{(j)}`$ is supported in a ball $`B_\delta (p_j)`$, and

$$|\{1jj_0:xB_{4\delta }(p_j)\}|C$$

for all $`xS`$ and some uniform constant $`C`$. For each $`1jj_0`$, there exists a pair $`(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{(x,y)NS:xB_{2\delta }(p_j),|y|4\delta \}`$ such that

$$(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a^{(j)},f^{(j)})(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\left(\delta +\frac{\epsilon }{\delta }+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}\right)(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

We now define

$$(a,f)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}(a^{(j)},f^{(j)}).$$

Then we have the estimates

$`(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$ $`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^2\underset{1jj_0}{sup}(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
and

$`𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$ $`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}𝕃_\epsilon (a^{(j)},f^{(j)})(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\left(\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)\underset{1jj_0}{sup}(\zeta ^{(j)}b,\zeta ^{(j)}h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\left(\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.`$
This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 5.2.

For every $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$, there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(^{}a+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}a,^{}f+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}f)=(b,h).$$

Proof. By Schauder estimates, it suffices to show that

$$supe^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p,S)}{\epsilon }}(\epsilon |a|+|f|)Csup\epsilon ^2e^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p,S)}{\epsilon }}\left(\epsilon \left|^{}a+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}a\right|+\left|^{}f+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}f\right|\right).$$

Suppose that there exists a sequence of positive real numbers $`\epsilon _j`$ and a sequence of pairs $`(a^{(j)},f^{(j)})𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$supe^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p,S)}{\epsilon _j}}(\epsilon _j|a^{(j)}|+|f^{(j)}|)=1$$

and

$$sup\epsilon _j^2e^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p,S)}{\epsilon _j}}\left(\epsilon _j\left|^{}a^{(j)}+\frac{1}{\epsilon _j^2}a^{(j)}\right|+\left|^{}f^{(j)}+\frac{1}{\epsilon _j^2}f^{(j)}\right|\right)0.$$

Then there exists a sequence of points $`p_jM`$ such that

$$e^{\frac{\mu \text{dist}(p_j,S)}{\epsilon _j}}(\epsilon _j|a^{(j)}(p_j)|+|f^{(j)}(p_j)|)\frac{1}{2}.$$

After rescaling, we obtain a sequence of pairs $`(\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)},\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)})`$ such that

$$supe^{\mu \text{dist}(p,p_j)}(|\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)}|+|\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)}|)1$$

and

$$supe^{\mu \text{dist}(p,p_j)}(|^{}\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)}+\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)}|+|^{}\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)}+\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)}|)0.$$

Moreover, we have

$$|\stackrel{~}{a}^{(j)}(p_j)|+|\stackrel{~}{f}^{(j)}(p_j)|\frac{1}{2}.$$

Taking the limit as $`j\mathrm{}`$, we obtain a pair $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{f})`$ such that

$$supe^{\mu \text{dist}(p,p_0)}(|\stackrel{~}{a}|+|\stackrel{~}{f}|)1$$

and

$$(^{}\stackrel{~}{a}+\stackrel{~}{a},^{}\stackrel{~}{f}+\stackrel{~}{f})=0.$$

If $`\mu `$ is sufficiently small, we conclude that $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{f})=0`$. This is a contradiction.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Suppose that $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\delta \}`$. Then there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\frac{\delta }{2}\}`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\delta }+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}+e^{\frac{\mu \delta }{\epsilon }}\right)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. By Proposition 5.2, we can find a pair $`(a,f)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(^{}a+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}a,^{}f+\frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}f)=(b,h).$$

Let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function such that $`\eta (p)=0`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\frac{\delta }{2}`$, $`\eta (p)=1`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\delta `$ and

$$sup\delta |\eta |+sup\delta ^2|^2\eta |C.$$

Then the pair $`(\eta a,\eta f)`$ is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\frac{\delta }{2}\}`$ and satisfies

$`𝕃_\epsilon (\eta a,\eta f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`𝕃_\epsilon (\eta a,\eta f)(^{}(\eta a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\eta a,^{}(\eta f)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\eta f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+(^{}(\eta a)\eta ^{}a,^{}(\eta f)\eta ^{}f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}\left(e^{\frac{\mu \delta }{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$
$`C\left(e^{\frac{\mu \delta }{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\delta ^2}}\right)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}.`$
This proves the assertion.

In the following, we will choose $`\delta =\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be a cut-off function such that $`\kappa (p)=1`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`\kappa (p)=0`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)2\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

Let $`_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(M)`$ be the set of all pairs $`(b,h)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,i)\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M,L)`$ such that $`(b,h)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{k,\gamma }(M)`$ and

$$_{NS_x}\epsilon ^2\kappa \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}b(e_\alpha ^{}),F_A(w,e_\alpha ^{})+_{NS_x}\kappa h,D_{A,w}\varphi =0$$

for all $`xS`$ and $`wNS_x`$.

We denote by $`\text{I}`$ the fibrewise projection from $`𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$ to the subspace $`_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$. Hence, for every pair $`(b,h)`$ there exists a normal vector field $`w`$ such that

$$(b,h)=(F_A(w,),D_{A,w}\varphi ).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be the linear operator which assigns to every pair $`(b,h)`$ the vector field

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(b,h)=w.$$

It is not difficult to show that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(b,h)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{1\gamma }(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

###### Proposition 5.4.

For every pair $`(b,h)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. Apply Proposition 5.1 to $`(\kappa b,\kappa h)`$ and Proposition 5.3 to $`((1\kappa )b,(1\kappa )h)`$.

###### Proposition 5.5.

For every $`(b,h)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(b,h).$$

Furthermore, the pair $`(a,f)`$ satisfies the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. By Proposition 5.4, there exists an operator $`𝕊:_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$𝕊(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊(b,h)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

This implies

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊(b,h)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}=\mathrm{\Pi }(𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊(b,h)(b,h))_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{3}{2}\gamma }(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

From this it follows that

$$(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊(b,h)(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Therefore, the operator $`(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊:_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)`$ is invertible. Hence, if we define

$$(a,f)=𝕊\left[(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon 𝕊\right]^1(b,h),$$

then $`(a,f)`$ satisfies

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2b_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)=(b,h).$$

This proves the assertion.

## 6 From approximate to exact solutions

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`v`$ be a normal vector field along $`S`$, and let $`A`$ be the approximate solution associated to $`v`$. Then there exists a pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=(A+a,\varphi +f)`$ such that $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$,

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2$$

and

$$(\text{I})(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0,$$

where

$$u=\epsilon d^{}a+\frac{1}{2\epsilon }(\varphi \overline{f}\overline{\varphi }f).$$

Furthermore, the pair $`(a,f)`$ satisfies the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}.$$

Proof. We use the identity

$`(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)`$
$`=(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}du,D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`+L_\epsilon (a,f)+Q(a,f).`$
Here, the remainder term $`Q(a,f)`$ is at least quadratic in $`(a,f)`$. This implies

$$Q(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}^2.$$

Hence, if we define

$$u=T_\epsilon ^{}(a,f),$$

then we obtain

$`(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)`$
$`=(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`+𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)+Q(a,f).`$
According to Proposition 5.5, there exists an operator $`𝔾:_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$𝔾(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2(b,h)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon 𝔾=\text{I}.$$

We now define a mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a,f)`$
$`=𝔾(\text{I})(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`𝔾(\text{I})Q(a,f).`$
Then we have the estimate

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^2(\text{I})(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+C\epsilon ^2(\text{I})Q(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^2(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+C\epsilon ^2Q(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^2`$
for all $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ satisfying

$$a_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}\epsilon ^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$

Moreover, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a,f)\mathrm{\Phi }(a^{},f^{})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$ $`C\epsilon ^2Q(a,f)Q(a^{},f^{})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{\frac{3}{2}}(a,f)(a^{},f^{})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$
for all $`(a,f),(a^{},f^{})𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ satisfying

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)},(a^{},f^{})_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}\epsilon ^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$

Hence, it follows from the contraction mapping principle that there exists a pair $`(a,f)𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a,f)=(a,f).$$

From this it follows that

$`𝔾(\text{I})(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`+(a,f)+𝔾(\text{I})Q(a,f)=0,`$
hence

$`(\text{I})(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`+(\text{I})𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)+(\text{I})Q(a,f)=0.`$
Thus, we conclude that

$`(\text{I})(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)`$
$`=0.`$
This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 6.2.

If

$$(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0,$$

then $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ is a solution of the Ginzburg-Landau equations.

Proof. It follows from the definition of the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ that

$$d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}=\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\frac{1}{\epsilon }du$$

and

$$D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u,$$

where $`u`$ satisfies $`\overline{u}=u`$. From this it follows that

$`0`$ $`=\epsilon d^{}d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+d^{}du`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)+d^{}du`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2u+d^{}du.`$
Thus, we conclude that $`u=0`$. Hence, $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ is a solution of the Ginzburg-Landau equations.

## 7 The balancing condition

###### Proposition 7.1.

Let $`g_0`$ be the product metric on the normal bundle $`NS`$ (cf. Section 4). Then we have the identity

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{_{g_0}}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{_{g_0}}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }v.`$
Proof. Using the results from Section 4, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_\beta ^{}}F_A(e_\beta ^{},e_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_{A,e_i}\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_{A,e_i}\varphi )`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_iv_\rho \left({\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_\beta ^{}}F_A(e_\beta ^{},e_\rho ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_{A,e_\rho ^{}}\varphi )\right)`$
$`=0.`$
The Bianchi identity implies that

$$_{e_\beta ^{}}F_A(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})_{e_\alpha ^{}}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{})+_{e_i}F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})=0.$$

Furthermore, we have

$$D_{A,e_i}D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}D_{A,e_i}\varphi =F_A(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})\varphi .$$

From this it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2(_{e_\beta ^{}}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_i,e_\alpha ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{e_\alpha ^{}}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{})`$
$`+_{e_i}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{}))w^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{e_\alpha ^{}}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_i}\varphi +_{e_i}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi \right)w^\alpha `$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2D_{A,e_i}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})w^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{A,e_i}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi w^\alpha `$
$`=\epsilon ^2d^{_{g_0}}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),F_A(w,)`$
$`+D_A^{_{g_0}}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi ,D_{A,w}\varphi .`$
We now take advantage of the identity

$`{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})w^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi w^\alpha `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_iv,w\left(2{\displaystyle _^2}\epsilon ^2|F_B|^2+{\displaystyle _^2}|D_B\psi |^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_iv,w\left({\displaystyle _^2}\epsilon ^2|F_B|^2+{\displaystyle _^2}|D_B\psi |^2+{\displaystyle _^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}}(1|\psi |^2)^2\right)`$
$`=\pi _iv,w.`$
Differentiating this identity, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2_{e_i}F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})w^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_i}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi w^\alpha `$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}_{e_i}{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})w^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}_{e_i}{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi w^\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{2}{}}}\epsilon ^2F_A(e_i,e_\beta ^{}),F_A(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})_iw^\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}}_{e_i}D_{A,e_i}\varphi ,D_{A,e_\alpha ^{}}\varphi _iw^\alpha `$
$`=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }v,w.`$
Thus, we conclude that

$`{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}\epsilon ^2d^{_{g_0}}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),F_A(w,)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{NS_x}}D_A^{_{g_0}}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi ,D_{A,w}\varphi `$
$`=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }v,w.`$
From this the assertion follows.

###### Proposition 7.2.

The fibrewise projection of the error term to the obstruction space satisfies the estimate

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\varphi \overline{D_A\varphi }\overline{\varphi }D_A\varphi ),D_A^{}D_A\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\varphi |^2)\varphi )`$
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho +{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }h_{ij,\sigma }v_\sigma +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma i}v_\sigma \right)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^2.`$
Proof. The Riemannian metric satisfies the asymptotic expansion

$`g(e_i,e_j)`$ $`=\delta _{ij}+2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }y_\rho `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ik,\rho }h_{jk,\sigma }y_\rho y_\sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma j}y_\rho y_\sigma +O(|y|^3)`$
$`g(e_i,e_\alpha ^{})`$ $`=O(|y|^2)`$
$`g(e_\alpha ^{},e_\beta ^{})`$ $`=\delta _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{\alpha \rho \sigma \beta }y_\rho y_\sigma +O(|y|^3).`$
Using this asymptotic expansion, one can deduce Proposition 7.2 from Proposition 7.1. The details are left to the reader.

By Proposition 6.2, it suffices to find a normal vector field $`v`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0.$$

To this end, we need the following result.

###### Proposition 7.3.

The pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ satisfies

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)`$
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }v_\rho +{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}h_{ij,\rho }h_{ij,\sigma }v_\sigma +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho ,\sigma =1}{\overset{2}{}}}R_{i\rho \sigma i}v_\sigma \right)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}.`$
Proof. Using the estimate

$$(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^2,$$

we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }Q(a,f)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{1\gamma }Q(a,f)_{𝒞_{\mu ,\epsilon }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^{3\gamma }.$$

Moreover, we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_\epsilon (a,f)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}.$$

The assertion follows now from Proposition 7.2.

###### Proposition 7.4.

If $`S`$ is non-degenerate, then we can choose the normal vector field $`v`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0.$$

Therefore, the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ corresponding to this normal vector field $`v`$ is a solution of the Ginzburg-Landau equations.

Proof. Let $`J`$ be the Jacobi-operator of the submanifold $`S`$. According to Proposition 7.3, we may write

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)`$
$`=Jv+R(v),`$
where $`R(v)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}`$ for $`v_{𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)}\epsilon `$. Hence, the mapping $`J^1R`$ maps a ball of radius $`\epsilon `$ in the Banach space $`𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)`$ into a ball of radius $`C\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{4}}`$ in $`𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)`$. Unfortunately, Schauder’s fixed point theorem cannot be applied, since the mapping $`J^1R`$ need not be compact. To overcome this problem, we use an idea of F. Pacard and M. Ritoré . Using an appropriate sequence of smoothing operators, we may approximate the mapping $`J^1R`$ by a sequence of compact mappings. Each of these mappings has a fixed point in $`𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)`$ by Schauder’s fixed point theorem. Taking limits, we obtain a fixed point of the original mapping $`J^1R`$ in the Banach space $`𝒞^{2,\frac{\gamma }{2}}(S)`$. Hence, there exists a normal vector field $`v𝒞^{2,\frac{\gamma }{2}}(S)`$ such that $`Jv+R(v)=0`$. Hence, the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ corresponding to that choice of the vector field $`v`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(d^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\overline{D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+\frac{1}{\epsilon }du,D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^{}D_{\stackrel{~}{A}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}(1|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }u)=0.$$

This concludes the proof.