7 Heat Equation on Manifold with Boundary
We now use the previous calculations to establish local formulas for the index of a differential operator on a manifold with boundary.
Let M be a Riemannian manifold with boundary ∂M, and D:Γ(E)→Γ(F) be a first-order elliptic differential operator. We assume there is a choice of collar neighbourhood of ∂M with a diffeomorphism to ∂M×[0,1] such that
D=σ(∂u∂+A),
where σ=σD(du) is the bundle isomorphism E→F given by the symbol of D, and A:Γ(E)→Γ(E) is a first-order self-adjoint elliptic operator, independent of u. This is the scenario we had in Section 5.
There is no loss in generality if we assume E=F and σ=1, and we will do so to simplify notation.
Lemma
7.1
D:Γ(E;P)→Γ(E) has a two-sided parametrix R which sends Hs→Hs+1.
The lemma implies everything we did for manifolds without boundary go through without modification, and the index of
D:Γ(E;P)→Γ(E) can be calculated by
tre−tD∗D−tre−tDD∗, etc.
Let
Q1 be the parametrix on
∂M×[0,1] given by restricting that on
∂M×R≥0 we constructed previously. Let
Q2 be a parametrix on the interior of
M. To be precise, we consider the
double of
M obtained by gluing
M∪∂MM. Everything such as
E and
D extend to the double, since we assumed everything looked like a product near the boundary. We then obtain a parametrix on the double using usual elliptic regularity theory, and then restrict to the interior of
M.
We pick bump functions ϕ1,ϕ2,ψ1,ψ2 as follows:
Importantly, here ψ1+ψ2=1, and so is a partition of unity.
Thinking of these as multiplication operators, we set
R=ϕ1Q1ψ1+ϕ2Q2ψ2,
and standard gluing techniques shows that this works.
We now know that if we can find a fundamental solution H for e−tD∗D−e−tDD∗, then we can calculate
indexD=∫MHt(x,x)dx
for any t. So our job will be to construct H and understand its asymptotic behaviour as t→0.
As in the previous lemma, we can construct (approximate) fundamental solutions H1 and H2 near the boundary and in the interior respectively, and set
Kt(x,y)=H1,t(x,y)ϕ1(x)ψ1(y)+H2,tϕ1(x)ψ2(y).
We see that this satisfies the properties required to run the proof of Theorem 2.3. So we know there is a true heat kernel H such that Ht−Kt→0 exponentially as t→0. So we have
indexD∼∫∂M×[0,1]H1,t(x,x)ψ1(x)dx+∫MH2,t(x,x)ψ2(x)dx.
In the first integral, as t→0, the contributions of any positive u is exponentially suppressed. So we can replace the integral with one over ∂M×R≥0 and get rid of ψ1.
In the second integral, we know that
H2,t(x,x)∼k≥0∑tk−d/2ak(x),
where ak(x) are given by local formulas, which are the same as the ones in the without boundary case. Moreover, on the collar neighbourhood, D∗D and DD∗ are literally equal, both being −∂u2∂2+A2 (near the boundary, they are equal as differential operators but have different domains. Here we do not have boundary conditions). So the upshot is H2,t(x,x)∼0 on the collar neighbourhood, and so we can drop the ψ2(x) in the integral.
Rearranging these, we know that
K(t)∼indexD−k≥0∑tk−d/2∫Mak(x)dx.
We are now in the situation of the end of the previous section. After rearranging, we are allowed to conclude
indexD=∫Mad/2(x)dx−2h+η(0).
We now apply this to the case where D is the signature operator d+d∗:Ω+→Ω−. We have already found that
ad/2(x)=L(p1,…,pd/4).
Recall that kerA consists of harmonic forms, so
h=dimH∗(∂M),
Combining these with Theorem 5.4, we deduce that
signM=∫ML(p)−2h+η(0)+h∞−.
What we have to do now is to do something slightly sneaky. The reason h∞− shows up is that our boundary condition for D required fλ(0)=0 for λ≥0, while the adjoint boundary condition requires it for λ<0, and the λ=0 case is not treated “symmetrically”.
We can run the whole calculation all over again where the boundary condition for D is now fλ(0)=0 for λ>0. The main difference is that in the formula for K(t), we now declare sign0=−1 instead of +1. Then the result is that
signM=∫ML(p)−2−h+η(0)−h∞+.
Subtracting these two equations give
h=h∞−+h∞+.
Knowing also that h∞±≤2h, we know that they must in fact be equal. So we get
Theorem
7.2
signM=∫ML(p)−2η(0).