In this paper we present a quantum-classical hybrid model based on the hydrodynamic equations in steady state form. The approach presented here, which has already been proposed in previous works, consists in considering an intrinsically hybrid version of the Bohm potential, which acts only in the region of the domain where quantum effects play an important role, while it disappears where the quantum contribution is essentially negligible and the operation of the device can be well described by using a classical model. Compared to previous results from the same line of research, here we assume that the device at the boundaries of the domain behaves classically, while quantum effects are localised in the central part of it. This is the case of greatest scientific interest, since, in real devices, quantum effects are generally localized in a small area within the device itself. The well posedness of the problem is ensured by adding a viscous term necessary for the convergence of the hybrid limit to an appropriate weak solution. Some numerical tests are also performed for different values of the viscous coefficient, in order to evaluate the effects of the viscosity, especially on the boundaries of the device.
Citation: Federica Di Michele, Bruno Rubino, Rosella Sampalmieri, Kateryna Stiepanova. Stationary solutions to a hybrid viscous hydrodynamic model with classical boundaries[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(5): 705-725. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024027
[1] | Fatemah Mofarreh, S. K. Srivastava, Anuj Kumar, Akram Ali . Geometric inequalities of PR-warped product submanifold in para-Kenmotsu manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19481-19509. doi: 10.3934/math.20221069 |
[2] | Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan . Ricci curvature of contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space forms admitting nearly Sasakian structure. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2132-2151. doi: 10.3934/math.2021130 |
[3] | Amira A. Ishan, Meraj Ali Khan . Chen-Ricci inequality for biwarped product submanifolds in complex space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 5256-5274. doi: 10.3934/math.2021311 |
[4] | Ali H. Alkhaldi, Akram Ali, Jae Won Lee . The Lawson-Simons' theorem on warped product submanifolds with geometric information. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 5886-5895. doi: 10.3934/math.2021348 |
[5] | Biswabismita Bag, Meraj Ali Khan, Tanumoy Pal, Shyamal Kumar Hui . Geometric analysis on warped product semi-slant submanifolds of a locally metallic Riemannian space form. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8131-8143. doi: 10.3934/math.2025373 |
[6] | Fahad Sikander, Tanveer Fatima, Sharief Deshmukh, Ayman Elsharkawy . Curvature analysis of concircular trajectories in doubly warped product manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 21940-21951. doi: 10.3934/math.20241066 |
[7] | Özgür Boyacıoğlu Kalkan . On normal curves and their characterizations in Lorentzian n-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3510-3524. doi: 10.3934/math.2020228 |
[8] | Ali H. Alkhaldi, Meraj Ali Khan, Shyamal Kumar Hui, Pradip Mandal . Ricci curvature of semi-slant warped product submanifolds in generalized complex space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 7069-7092. doi: 10.3934/math.2022394 |
[9] | Andrea Ratto . Higher order energy functionals and the Chen-Maeta conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1089-1104. doi: 10.3934/math.2020076 |
[10] | Mohammad Aamir Qayyoom, Rawan Bossly, Mobin Ahmad . On CR-lightlike submanifolds in a golden semi-Riemannian manifold. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 13043-13057. doi: 10.3934/math.2024636 |
In this paper we present a quantum-classical hybrid model based on the hydrodynamic equations in steady state form. The approach presented here, which has already been proposed in previous works, consists in considering an intrinsically hybrid version of the Bohm potential, which acts only in the region of the domain where quantum effects play an important role, while it disappears where the quantum contribution is essentially negligible and the operation of the device can be well described by using a classical model. Compared to previous results from the same line of research, here we assume that the device at the boundaries of the domain behaves classically, while quantum effects are localised in the central part of it. This is the case of greatest scientific interest, since, in real devices, quantum effects are generally localized in a small area within the device itself. The well posedness of the problem is ensured by adding a viscous term necessary for the convergence of the hybrid limit to an appropriate weak solution. Some numerical tests are also performed for different values of the viscous coefficient, in order to evaluate the effects of the viscosity, especially on the boundaries of the device.
In the year 2003, Shaikh [18] introduced a fascinating mathematical concept known as (LCS)n-manifold, which stands for Lorentzian concircular structure manifold. This concept has profound implications in the field of general relativity. It was subsequently discovered that (LCS)n-spacetimes are intricately connected to generalized Robertson Walker spacetimes [10], a well-established framework in cosmology.
The (LCS)n-structure has garnered considerable attention due to its wide-ranging applications in the general theory of relativity. Researchers, as evidenced by studies such as [19,20], have explored the various implications and consequences of this structure within the framework of Einstein's theory.
One intriguing property of the (LCS)n-structure is its invariance under conformal transformations. This means that the structure remains unaltered when subjected to a conformal transformation, a mathematical operation that preserves angles but alters distances.
The concept of slant submanifolds was first introduced in the seminal work by Chen [3]. Building upon this notion, the idea of slant immersions of Riemannian manifolds into almost contact metric manifolds was further developed by Lotta [9]. Pointwise slant submanifolds, another variant of this concept, were introduced and investigated by Etayo [7]. For more comprehensive information on these topics, one may read [13,17].
To explore additional classes of submanifolds within this manifold framework, researchers are suggested to go through Atehui [1] and Hui et al. [8].
The notion of warped product manifolds, on the other hand, originated from the pioneering work of Bishop and O'Neill [2] and has since been extensively studied in the literature, see [4,5,6,8,14,22,24]. The existence or non-existence of such product manifolds holds great significance, as it contributes to our understanding of the geometric structures and properties of these manifolds.
Let (ˉΣ,g) be an n-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with Lorentzian metric g and ˉ∇ be the Levi-Civita connection for g. The (LCS)n-manifold is defined as an n-dimensional Lorentzian manifold equipped with
● ξ, a unit timelike concircular vector field,
● η, ξ's associated 1-form,
● an (1,1) tensor field ϕ,
such that
ˉ∇Pξ=αϕP, | (2.1) |
for some non-zero scalar function α which satisfies
ˉ∇Pα=Pα=dα(P)=ρη(P), | (2.2) |
where ρ=−(ξα) is also a scalar and P∈Γ(TˉΣ). A (LCS)n-manifold becomes a LP-Sasakian manifold when α=1 [11,12].
From [18], we get some basic relations in a (LCS)n-manifold (n>2) ˉΣ:
η(ξ)=−1, ϕξ=0, η(ϕP)=0, g(ϕP,ϕQ)=g(P,Q)+η(P)η(Q), | (2.3) |
ϕ2P=P+η(P)ξ, | (2.4) |
(ˉ∇Pϕ)Q=α{g(P,Q)ξ+2η(P)η(Q)ξ+η(Q)P}, | (2.5) |
for all P, Q, Z∈Γ(TˉΣ). Throughout the paper, we denote a (LCS)n-manifold by ˉΣ.
We consider a submanifold Σ↪ˉΣ with induced metric g and suppose that ∇, ∇⊥ denotes the induced connections on TΣ and T⊥Σ of Σ, respectively. In this regard, the Gauss and Weingarten formulae are
ˉ∇PQ=∇PQ+ζ(P,Q), | (2.6) |
and
ˉ∇PV=−AVP+∇⊥PV, | (2.7) |
for all P,Q∈Γ(TΣ) and V∈Γ(T⊥Σ), where the second fundamental form is denoted by ζ and AV denotes the shape operator (corresponding to V) for the immersion Σ↪ˉΣ such that g(ζ(P,Q),V)=g(AVP,Q).
For P∈Γ(TΣ), the gradient ∇i of a differentiable function i on Σ is defined by
g(∇i,P)=Pi. | (2.8) |
We also have
(a) ϕP=hP+kP, (b) ϕV=lV+fV, | (2.9) |
for any P∈Γ(TΣ) and V∈Γ(T⊥Σ), where hP, lV are the tangential components and kP, fV are the normal components.
A submanifold Σ↪ˉΣ is said to be invariant if ϕ(TpΣ)⊆TpΣ and anti-invariant if ϕ(TpΣ)⊆T⊥pΣ for every p∈Σ.
A submanifold Σ↪ˉΣ is said to be slant if for each non-zero vector P∈TpΣ, the angle β(0≤β≤π2) between ϕP and TpΣ is a constant, i.e., it is independent of the choice of p∈Σ. Again Σ is said to be pointwise slant of ˉΣ if β depends on P.
From [21], we find that a submanifold Σ↪ˉΣ with ξ∈Γ(TΣ) is pointwise slant if and only if
h2=cos2β(I+η⊗ξ), | (2.10) |
for some real valued function β defined on TΣ. Also if Dβ is a pointwise slant distribution on pointwise slant submanifold Σ with ξ∈Γ(TΣ), then
g(hZ,hW)=cos2β{g(Z,W)+η(Z)η(W)}, | (2.11) |
g(kZ,kW)=sin2β{g(Z,W)+η(Z)η(W)}, | (2.12) |
for any Z, W∈Γ(Dβ).
Let (N1,g1) and (N2,g2) be two semi-Riemannian manifolds and i be a positive smooth function on N1. The warped product of (N1,g1) and (N2,g2) is denoted by N1×iN2:=(N1×N2,g), where
g=g1+i2g2, | (2.13) |
and i is the warping function. From [16], we have
∇UP=∇PU=(Plni)U,∀P∈Γ(TN1) and U∈Γ(TN2). | (2.14) |
We consider ΣI, Σ⊥, Σβ, and Σψ as invariant, anti-invariant, proper slant, and proper pointwise slant submanifolds of ˉΣ. In this paper, we study the following two different classes of warped product submanifolds of ˉΣ.
First Class: Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ with ξ tangent to Σ1, where Σ1=ΣI×Σβ. This class of submanifolds are known as warped product skew-CR submanifolds [15].
Second Class: Σ=Σ2×iΣψ with ξ tangent to Σ2, where Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥. This class of submanifolds are known as warped product CR-slant submanifolds [23,25].
Throughout this paper, we consider the tangent spaces of ΣI, Σ⊥, Σβ, and Σψ as DI, D⊥, Dβ, and Dψ, respectively.
First, we construct an example of a submanifold of the { First Class}.
Example 1. Consider the Euclidean space R13 with the cartesian coordinates (u1,v1,⋯,u6,v6,t) and para contact structure
ϕ(∂∂ui)=∂∂vi,ϕ(∂∂vj)=∂∂uj,ϕ(∂∂t)=0,1≤i,j≤6. |
It is clear that R13 is a Lorentzian manifold with usual semi-Euclidean metric tensor. For any non-zero λ,τ, and β∈[0,π2], let Σ be a submanifold of R13 defined by the immersion map χ:R6→R13 as
χ(λ,τ,β,μ,ϱ,t)=(λcosβ,λsinβ,τcosβ,τsinβ,4λ+3τ,3λ+4τ,−τcosβ,τsinβ,−λcosβ,λsinβ,μ,ϱ,t). |
Then the tangent space of Σ is spanned by the following vectors
J1=cosβ∂∂u1+sinβ∂∂v1+4∂∂u3+3∂∂v3−cosβ∂∂u5+sinβ∂∂v5,J2=cosβ∂∂u2+sinβ∂∂v2+3∂∂u3+4∂∂v3−cosβ∂∂u4+sinβ∂∂v4,J3=−λsinβ∂∂u1+λcosβ∂∂v1−τsinβ∂∂u2+τcosβ∂∂v2+τsinβ∂∂u4+τcosβ∂∂v4+λsinβ∂∂u5+λcosβ∂∂v5,J4=∂∂u6, J5=∂∂v6, and J6=∂∂t. |
Then we have
ϕJ1=cosβ∂∂v1+sinβ∂∂u1+4∂∂v3+3∂∂u3−cosβ∂∂v5+sinβ∂∂u5,ϕJ2=cosβ∂∂v2+sinβ∂∂u2+3∂∂v3+4∂∂u3−cosβ∂∂v4+sinβ∂∂u4, |
ϕJ3=−λsinβ∂∂v1+λcosβ∂∂u1−τsinβ∂∂v2+τcosβ∂∂u2+τsinβ∂∂v4+τcosβ∂∂u4+λsinβ∂∂v5+λcosβ∂∂u5,ϕJ4=∂∂v6,ϕJ5=∂∂u6, andϕJ6=0. |
Therefore, it is clear that DI=span{J4, J5, J6} is an invariant distribution, Dβ=span{J1, J2} is a slant distribution with slant angle cos−1(2527), and D⊥=span{J3} is an anti-invaiant distribution. Hence Σ is a skew CR-submanifold. Denote the integral manifolds of DI, D⊥, and Dβ by ΣI,Σ⊥, and Σβ, respectively. Then the product metric g of Σ is given by
g=−dt2+27(dλ2+dτ2)+(dμ2+dϱ2)+2(λ2+τ2)dβ2. |
Consequently Σ is a warped product skew CR-submanifold of type Σ1×iΣ⊥ of R13, where Σ1=ΣI×Σβ with warping function i=√2(λ2+τ2).
We take dimΣI=2a+1, dimΣ⊥=b, dimΣβ=2c and their corresponding tangent spaces are DI⊕{ξ}, D⊥, and Dβ, respectively.
Assume that {x1,x2,⋯,xa,xa+1=ϕx1, ⋯,x2a=ϕxa,x2a+1=ξ}, {x2a+2=x∗1,⋯,x2a+b+1=x∗b}, and {x2a+b+2=ˆx1,x2a+b+3=ˆx2,⋯, x2a+b+c+1=ˆxc,x2a+b+c+2=ˆxc+1=secβhˆx1, ⋯,x2a+b+2c+1(=xm)=ˆx2c=secβhˆxc} are local orthonormal frames of DI⊕{ξ}, D⊥, and Dβ, respectively.
Then the local orthonormal frames for ϕD⊥ and kDβ are {xm+1=~x1=ϕx∗1,⋯,xm+b=~xb=ϕx∗b} and {xm+b+1=˜xb+1=cscβkˆx1,⋯, xm+b+c=˜xb+c=cscβkˆxc,xm+b+c+1=˜xb+c+1=cscβsecβkhˆx1, ⋯,xm+b+2c=˜xb+2c=cscβsecβkhˆxc}, respectively. Also {xm+b+2c+1,⋯,xn} is a normal subbundle. We denote it by ν. Clearly ν is ϕ invariant and dim ν=(n−m−b−2c).
First, we prove the following lemmas:
Lemma 1. Let Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ be a warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ1=ΣI×Σβ. Then we have
g(ζ(P,Q),ϕZ)=g(ζ(P,Z),kU)=g(ζ(P,U),ϕZ)=0, | (3.1) |
and
g(ζ(U,Z),kV)+g(ζ(U,V),ϕZ)=0, | (3.2) |
for every P, Q∈Γ(ΣI), Z∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U,V∈Γ(Σβ).
Proof. For P, Q∈Γ(ΣI), Z∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U,V∈Γ(Σβ), we find
g(ζ(P,Q),ϕZ)=g(∇QϕP,Z)−g((ˉ∇Qϕ)P,Z), | (3.3) |
g(ζ(P,Z),kU)=−g(∇ZϕP,U)−g((ˉ∇Zϕ)P,U)+g(P,∇ZhU), | (3.4) |
and
g(ζ(P,U),ϕZ)=g(∇UϕP,Z)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)P,Z). | (3.5) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (3.3)–(3.5), we get (3.1).
Also we have
g(ζ(U,V),ϕZ)=−g(hV,∇UZ)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)V,Z)+g(ˉ∇UkV,Z). | (3.6) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (3.6), we get (3.2).
Lemma 2. Let Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ be a warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ1=ΣI×Σβ. Then we have
g(ζ(P,Z),ϕW)={(ϕPlni)−αη(P)}g(Z,W), | (3.7) |
g(ζ(ϕP,Z),ϕW)={(Plni)+αη(P)}g(Z,W), | (3.8) |
and
g(ζ(Z,U),ϕW)+g(ζ(Z,W),kU)={(hUlni)−αη(U)}g(Z,W), | (3.9) |
for every P∈Γ(ΣI), Z, W∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U∈Γ(Σβ).
Proof. For P∈Γ(ΣI), Z, W∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U∈Γ(Σβ), we find
g(ζ(P,Z),ϕW)=−g(ˉ∇ZϕP,W)−g((ˉ∇Zϕ)P,W). | (3.10) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (3.10), we get (3.7). Replacing P by ϕP and applying (ξlni)=α in (3.7), we get (3.8).
Also we have
g(ζ(Z,U),ϕW)=−g(ˉ∇ZhU,W)+g(ˉ∇ZkU,W)−g((ˉ∇Zϕ)U,W). | (3.11) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (3.11), we get (3.9).
Corollary 1. Let Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ be a D⊥−Dθ warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ1=ΣI×Σβ, then we have
g(ζ(Z,W),kU)={(hUlni)−αη(U)}g(Z,W), | (3.12) |
and
g(ζ(Z,W),khU)=cos2θ[(Ulni)−αη(U)]g(Z,W), | (3.13) |
for every Z, W∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U∈Γ(Σβ).
Now we establish an inequality on a submanifold Σ of the First Class of ˉΣ.
Theorem 1. Let Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ be a D⊥−Dβ mixed geodesic warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to ΣI, where Σ1=ΣI×Σβ. Then the squared norm of the second fundamental form satisfies
‖ζ‖2≥b[{2(∥∇Ilni∥2)}+cot2β∥∇βlni∥2], | (3.14) |
where ∇Ilni and ∇βlni are the gradient of lni along ΣI and Σβ, respectively, and for the case of equality, Σ1 becomes totally geodesic and Σ⊥ becomes totally umbilical in ˉΣ.
Proof. From (2.8), we have
‖ζ‖2=m∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),ζ(xp,xq))=n∑r=m+1g(ζ(xp,xq),xr)2. |
Decomposing the above relation for our constructed frames, we get
‖ζ‖2=n∑r=m+12a+1∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),xr)2+n∑r=m+1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),xr)2+n∑r=m+12c∑i,j=1g(ζ(^xp,^xq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+1b∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(x∗p,^xq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+1b∑p=12a+1∑q=1g(ζ(x∗p,xq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+12c∑p=12a+1∑q=1g(ζ(^xp,xq),xr)2. | (3.15) |
Now, again decomposing (3.15) along the normal subbundles ϕD⊥, kDβ, and ν, we get
‖ζ‖2=m+b∑r=m+12a+1∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),xr)2+m+b+2c∑r=m+b+12a+1∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),xr)2+n∑r=m+b+2c+12a+1∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),xr)2+m+b∑r=m+1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),xr)2+m+b+2c∑r=m+b+1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),xr)2+n∑r=m+b+2c+1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),xr)2+m+b∑r=m+12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),xr)2+m+b+2c∑r=m+b+12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),xr)2+n∑r=m+b+2c+12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),xr)2+2m+b∑r=m+1b∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(x∗p,ˆxq),xr)2+2m+b+2c∑r=m+b+1b∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(x∗p,ˆxq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+b+2c+1b∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(x∗p,ˆxq),xr)2+2m+b∑r=m+12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,∗xq),xr)2+2m+b+2c∑r=m+b+12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,∗xq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+b+2c+12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,∗xq),xr)2+2m+b∑r=m+12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),xr)2+2m+b+2c∑r=m+b+12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),xr)2+2n∑r=m+b+2c+12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),xr)2. | (3.16) |
Now, we can not find any relation for a warped product in the form g(ζ(E,F),ν) for any E,F∈Γ(TΣ). So, we leave the positive third, sixth, ninth, twelfth, fifteenth, and eighteenth terms of (3.16). Also, using Lemma 3.1 and the D⊥−Dβ mixed geodesic property of Σ in (3.16), we get
|ζ‖2≥b∑r=1b∑p,q=2a+1g(ζ(xp,xq),kˆxr)2+b∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+2c∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2+2c∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2+2b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+22c∑r=12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2. | (3.17) |
Also, we have no relation for a warped product of the forms g(ζ(Z,W),ϕD⊥), g(ζ(P,Q),kDβ), g(ζ(P,U),kDβ), and g(ζ(U,V),kDβ) for any P, Q∈Γ(DI) Z, W∈Γ(D⊥), U, V∈Γ(Dβ⊕{ξ}). So, we leave these terms from (3.17) and obtain
‖ζ‖2≥2c∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2+2b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2. | (3.18) |
Now
2c∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2=csc2βc∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2+csc2βsec2βc∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),khˆxr)2. |
Using Corollary 3.1, the above relation reduces to
2c∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2=bcsc2β2c∑r=1[h(ˆxrlni)−η(ˆxr)]2+bcot2β[2c∑r=1[(ˆxrlni)+αη(ˆxr)]2. | (3.19) |
Now, since η(ˆxr=0), for every r=1,2,⋯2c. So (3.19) turns into
2c∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),kˆxr)2=bcot2β‖∇βlni‖2. | (3.20) |
On the other hand
b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2=b∑r=1a∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+b∑r=1a∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(ϕxp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+b∑r=1g(ζ(ξ,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2. |
Using Lemma 3.2 in the above relation, we obtain
b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2=ba∑p=1[(ϕxplni)−η(xp)]2+ba∑p=1[(xplni)+αη(xp)]2+bα. |
Since η(xp)=0 for every p=1,2,⋯,a, using the relation ξ(lni)=α, the above equation reduces to
b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2=b‖∇Ilni‖2. | (3.21) |
Using (3.20) and (3.21) in (3.18), we get the inequality (3.14).
If the equality of (3.14) holds, then after omitting ν component terms of (3.16), we get ζ(DI,DI)⊥ν, ζ(D⊥,D⊥)⊥ν, ζ(Dβ,Dβ)⊥ν, ζ(D⊥,Dβ)⊥ν, ζ(DI,D⊥)⊥ν, and ζ(DI,Dβ)⊥ν. Also, for the neglected terms of (3.17), we get ζ(DI,DI)⊥kDβ, ζ(D⊥,D⊥)⊥ϕD⊥, ζ(Dβ,Dβ)⊥kDβ, ζ(DI,Dβ)⊥kDβ. Next, for Dβ−D⊥ mixed geodesicness and Lemma 3.1, we get ζ(DI,DI)⊥ϕD⊥ and ζ(Dβ,Dβ)⊥ϕD⊥.
Thus, we get ζ(DI,DI)=0, ζ(Dβ,Dβ)=0, ζ(DI,Dβ)=0 and ζ(D⊥,D⊥)⊂kDβ.
Therefore Σ1 is totally geodesic in Σ and hence in ˉΣ [2]. Again, since Σ⊥ is totally umbilical in Σ [2], with the fact that ζ(D⊥,D⊥)⊂kDβ, we conclude that Σ⊥ is totally umbilical in ˉΣ.
Theorem 2. Let Σ=Σ1×iΣ⊥ be a D⊥−Dβ mixed geodesic warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ⊥, where Σ1=Σ⊥×Σβ. Then the squared norm of the second fundamental form satisfies
‖ζ‖2≥b[2(∥∇Ilni∥2)+cot2β{∥∇βlni∥2−α2}], | (3.22) |
where ∇Ilni and ∇βlni are the gradient of lni along ΣI and Σβ, respectively, and for the case of equality, Σ1 becomes totally geodesic and Σ⊥ becomes totally umbilical in ˉΣ.
First, we construct an example of a submanifold of the Second Class.
Example 2. Consider the semi-Euclidean space R21 with the cartesian coordinates (u1,v1,u2,v2,⋯,u10,v10,t) and para contact structure
ϕ(∂∂ui)=∂∂vi,ϕ(∂∂vj)=∂∂uj,ϕ(∂∂t)=0,1≤i,j≤10. |
It is clear that R21 is a Lorentzian manifold with usual semi-Euclidean metric tensor. For any non-zero λ,τ, and β,ψ∈[0,π2], let Σ be a submanifold of R21 defined by the immersion map χ:R7→R21 as
χ(λ,τ,β,ψ,μ,ϱ,t)=(λcosβ,λsinβ,τcosβ,τsinβ,λcosψ,λsinψ,τcosψ,τsinψ,4β+3ψ,3β+4ψ,−τcosβ,τsinβ,−λcosβ,λsinβ,−τcosψ,τsinψ−λcosψ,λsinψ,μ,ϱ,t). |
Then the tangent space of Σ is spanned by the following vectors
J1=cosβ∂∂u1+sinβ∂∂v1+cosψ∂∂u3+sinψ∂∂v3−cosβ∂∂u7+sinβ∂∂v7−cosψ∂∂u9+sinψ∂∂v9,J2=cosβ∂∂u2+sinβ∂∂v2+cosψ∂∂u4+sinψ∂∂v4−cosβ∂∂u6+sinβ∂∂v6−cosψ∂∂u8+sinψ∂∂v8,J3=−λsinβ∂∂u1+λcosβ∂∂v1−τsinβ∂∂u2+τcosβ∂∂v2+4∂∂u5+3∂∂v5+τsinβ∂∂u6+τcosβ∂∂v6+λsinβ∂∂u7+λcosβ∂∂v7,J4=−λsinψ∂∂u3+λcosψ∂∂v3−τsinψ∂∂u4+τcosψ∂∂v4+3∂∂u5+4∂∂v5+τsinψ∂∂u8+τcosψ∂∂v8+λsinψ∂∂u9+λcosψ∂∂v9,J5=∂∂u10,J6=∂∂v10, andJ7=∂∂t. |
Then we have
ϕJ1=cosβ∂∂v1+sinβ∂∂u1+cosψ∂∂v3+sinψ∂∂u3−cosβ∂∂v7+sinβ∂∂u7−cosψ∂∂v9+sinψ∂∂u9,ϕJ2=cosβ∂∂v2+sinβ∂∂u2+cosψ∂∂v4+sinψ∂∂u4−cosβ∂∂v6+sinβ∂∂u6−cosψ∂∂v8+sinψ∂∂u8, |
ϕJ3=−λsinβ∂∂v1+λcosβ∂∂u1−τsinβ∂∂v2+τcosβ∂∂u2+4∂∂v5+3∂∂u5+τsinβ∂∂v6+τcosβ∂∂u6+λsinβ∂∂v7+λcosβ∂∂u7,ϕJ4=−λsinψ∂∂v3+λcosψ∂∂u3−τsinψ∂∂v4+τcosψ∂∂u4+3∂∂v5+4∂∂u5+τsinψ∂∂v8+τcosψ∂∂u8+λsinψ∂∂v9+λcosψ∂∂u9,ϕJ5=∂∂v10,ϕJ6=∂∂u10, andϕJ7=0. |
Therefore, it is clear that DI=span{J5, J6, J7} is an invariant distribution, Dψ=span{J3, J4} is a pointwise slant distribution with pointwise slant function cos−1(252λ2+2τ2+25), and D⊥=span{J3,J4} is an anti-invaiant distribution. Hence Σ is a CR-slant submanifold. Denote the integral manifolds of DI, D⊥, and Dψ by ΣI,Σ⊥, and Σβ, respectively. Then the product metric g of Σ is given by
g=−dt2+4(dλ2+dτ2)+(dμ2+dϱ2)+(4λ2+4τ2+25)(dβ2+dψ2). |
Consequently Σ is a warped product CR-slant submanifold of type Σ2×iΣβ of R21, where Σ2=ΣI×Σψ with warping function i=√4λ2+4τ2+25.
Now we prove the following lemmas:
Lemma 3. Let Σ=Σ2×iΣψ be a warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥. Then we have
g(ζ(P,Q),kU)=g(ζ(P,U),ϕZ)=g(ζ(P,Z),kU)=0, | (4.1) |
and
g(ζ(Z,PU),ϕW)+g(ζ(Z,W),khU)=0, | (4.2) |
for every P, Q∈Γ(ΣI), Z, W∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U∈Γ(Σψ).
Proof. For P, Q∈Γ(ΣI), Z, W∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U∈Γ(Σψ), we find
g(ζ(P,Q),kU)=−g(ϕP,∇QU)−g((ˉ∇Qϕ)P,U), | (4.3) |
g(ζ(P,U),ϕZ)=−g(ˉ∇UϕP,Z)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)P,Z)+g(P,ˉ∇U,Z), | (4.4) |
and
g(ζ(P,Z),kU)=g(ϕP,ˉ∇ZU)−g((ˉ∇Zϕ)P,U). | (4.5) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (4.3)–(4.5), we get (4.1).
Also,
g(ζ(U,V),ϕZ)=−g(hV,ˉ∇UZ)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)V,Z)+g(ˉ∇UkV,Z). | (4.6) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (3.6), we get (3.2).
Lemma 4. Let Σ=Σ2×iΣβ be a warped product CR-slant submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥. Then we have
g(ζ(P,U),kV)={(ϕPlni)−αη(P)}g(U,V)−(Plni)g(U,hV), | (4.7) |
g(ζ(ϕP,U),kV)={(Plni)+αη(P)}g(U,V)−(ϕPlni)g(U,hV), | (4.8) |
and
g(ζ(U,hV),ϕZ)+g(ζ(U,Z),khV)=−cos2ψ(Zlni)g(U,V)−η(Z)g(U,hV), | (4.9) |
for every P∈Γ(ΣI), Z∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U, V∈Γ(Σψ).
Proof. For P∈Γ(ΣI), Z∈Γ(Σ⊥), and U, V∈Γ(Σψ), we find
g(ζ(P,U),kV)=−g(ˉ∇UϕP,V)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)P,V). | (4.10) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (4.10), we get (4.7) and replacing P by ϕP in (4.7), we get (4.8).
Also we have
g(ζ(U,hV),ϕZ)=−g(ˉ∇UZ,hV)+g(ˉ∇UkhV,Z)−g((ˉ∇Uϕ)hV,Z). | (4.11) |
Using (2.5) and (2.14) in (4.11), we get (4.9).
Corollary 2. Let Σ=Σ2×iΣψ be a D⊥−Dψ mixed geodesic warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥, then we have
g(ζ(U,hV),ϕZ)=−cos2ψ(Zlni)g(U,V)−αη(Z)g(U,hV), | (4.12) |
and
g(ζ(U,V),ϕZ)=−(Zlni)g(U,hV)−αη(Z)g(U,V). | (4.13) |
Now we establish the following inequality on a warped product submanifold Σ of ˉΣ of the Second Class.
Theorem 3. Let Σ=Σ2×iΣψ be a D⊥−Dψ mixed geodesic warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to ΣI, where Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥. Then the squared norm of the second fundamental form satisfies
‖ζ‖2≥2c[{(csc2β+cot2β)∥∇Ilni∥2}+cos2ψ∥∇⊥lni∥2], | (4.14) |
where ∇Ilni and ∇⊥lni are the gradient of lni along ΣI and Σ⊥, respectively, and for the case of equality, Σ2 becomes totally geodesic and Σψ becomes totally umbilical in ˉΣ.
Proof. For our constructed frame field, the second fundamental form ζ satisfies the relation (3.16). Now, similar to Theorem 1, we leave the positive third, sixth, ninth, twelfth, fifteenth, and eighteenth terms of (3.16).
Also, using Lemma 4.1 and the D⊥−Dβ mixed geodesic property of Σ, from (3.16), we get
|ζ‖2≥b∑r=12a+1∑p,q=1g(ζ(xp,xq),kˆxr)2+b∑r=1b∑p,q=1g(ζ(x∗p,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+b∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2+2c∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2+2b∑r=12a+1∑p=1b∑q=1g(ζ(xp,x∗q),ϕx∗r)2+22c∑r=12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2. | (4.15) |
Also, we have no relation for a warped product of the forms g(ζ(Z,W),ϕD⊥), g(ζ(P,Q),kDψ), g(ζ(P,Z),ϕD⊥), and g(ζ(U,V),kDψ) for any P, Q∈Γ(DI⊕{ξ}), Z, W∈Γ(D⊥), U, V∈Γ(Dψ). So, we leave these terms from (4.15) and obtain
‖ζ‖2≥b∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2+22c∑r=12a+1∑p=12c∑q=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2. | (4.16) |
Now
b∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2=b∑r=1c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2+2sec2ψb∑r=1c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,hˆxq),ϕx∗r)2+sec4ψb∑r=1c∑p,q=1g(ζ(hˆxp,hˆxq),ϕx∗r)2. |
Using Corollary 4.1, the above relation reduces to
b∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2=2cb∑r=1[η(x∗r)]2+2ccos2ψb∑r=1[(x∗rlni)]2. | (4.17) |
Now, since η(x∗r)=0, for every r=1,2,⋯b, (4.17) turns into
b∑r=12c∑p,q=1g(ζ(ˆxp,ˆxq),ϕx∗r)2=2ccos2ψ[‖∇⊥lni‖2]. | (4.18) |
On the other hand
2c∑r,q=12a+1∑p=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2=csc2ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψc∑r,q=12a∑p=1g(ζ(ϕxp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(xp,hˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψc∑r,q=1g(ζ(ξ,ˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(ϕxp,hˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=1g(ζ(ξ,hˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(xp,hˆxq),khˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=12a∑p=1g(ζ(ϕxp,hˆxq),khˆxr)2+csc2ψsec2ψc∑r,q=1g(ζ(ξ,hˆxq),kˆxr)2+csc2ψsec4ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(xp,hˆxq),khˆxr)2+csc2ψsec4ψc∑r,q=1g(ζ(ξ,hˆxq),khˆxr)2+csc2ψsec4ψc∑r,q=1a∑p=1g(ζ(xp,hˆxq),khˆxr)2. |
Using Lemma 4.4 in the above relation, we obtain
2c∑r,q=12a+1∑p=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2=ccsc2ψa∑p=1[(ϕxplni)−η(xp)]2+ccsc2ψa∑p=1[(xplni)+αη(xp)]2+2cα2csc2ψ+ccot2ψa∑p=1(xplni)2+ccot2ψa∑p=1(ϕxplni)2+ccot2ψa∑p=1(xplni)2+ccot2ψa∑p=1(ϕxplni)2+ccsc2ψa∑p=1[(ϕxplni)−η(xp)]2+ccsc2ψa∑p=1[(xplni)+αη(xp)]2+2cα2cot2ψ. |
Since η(xp)=0 for every p=1,2,⋯,a, the above equation reduces to
2c∑r,q=12a+1∑p=1g(ζ(xp,ˆxq),kˆxr)2=2c(cos2ψ+cot2ψ)‖∇Ilni‖2. | (4.19) |
Using (4.18) and (4.19) in (4.17), we get the inequality (4.14).
Proof of the equalty case is similar to the proof of the equality case of Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 4. Let Σ=Σ2×iΣψ be a D⊥−Dψ mixed geodesic warped product submanifold of ˉΣ such that ξ is tangent to Σ⊥, where Σ2=ΣI×Σ⊥. Then the squared norm of the second fundamental form satisfies
‖ζ‖2≥2c[(csc2ψ+cot2ψ)∥∇Ilni∥2+cos2ψ{∥∇⊥lni∥2−α2}], | (4.20) |
where ∇Ilni and ∇⊥lni are the gradient of lni along ΣI and Σ⊥, respectively, and for the case of equality, Σ2 becomes totally geodesic and Σψ becomes totally umbilical in ˉΣ.
This paper investigated different types of submanifolds in the context of a Lorentzian concircular structure manifold. We examined invariant, anti-invariant, proper slant, and pointwise slant submanifolds, and further explored two distinct categories of warped product submanifolds.
In the first category, we considered the fiber submanifold as an anti-invariant submanifold, while in the second category, the fiber submanifold was treated as a pointwise slant submanifold. Throughout our analysis, we established several fundamental results and derived important inequalities for the squared norm of the second fundamental form.
Our research not only provided a theoretical framework for understanding the properties and characteristics of these submanifold classes but also demonstrated the existence of such submanifold classes through specific examples. By examining these examples, we gained valuable insights into the behavior and geometric structures of the submanifolds within the Lorentzian concircular structure manifold.
Overall, this study contributes to the field of differential geometry by expanding our understanding of submanifolds and their relationships within a Lorentzian concircular structure manifold. The results and inequalities derived in this paper can serve as valuable tools for future research in this area, and we hope that they will inspire further investigations into the geometric properties of submanifolds in related contexts.
Tanumoy Pal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing-original draft preparation, Writing-review and editing; Ibrahim Al-Dayel: Investigation, Writing-original draft preparation; Meraj Ali Khan: Conceptualization, Writing-review and editing; Biswabismita Bag: Methodology, Investigation, Writing-original draft preparation, Writing-review and editing; Shyamal Kumar Hui: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-review and editing, Foued Aloui: Investigation, Writing-original draft preparation. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-RP23074).
The authors are thankful to the reviewers for their invaluable suggestions toward the improvement of the paper.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
M. G. Ancona, G. J. Iafrate, Quantum correction to the equation of state of an electron gas in a semiconductor, Phys. Rev. B, 39 (1989), 9536–9540. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.39.9536 doi: 10.1103/physrevb.39.9536
![]() |
[2] |
P. Antonelli, P. Marcati, The quantum hydrodynamics system in two space dimensions, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 203 (2012), 499–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-011-0454-7 doi: 10.1007/s00205-011-0454-7
![]() |
[3] |
N. Ben Abdallah, C. Jourdana, P. Pietra, N. Vauchelet, A hybrid classical-quantum approach for ultra-scaled confined nanostructures: modeling and simulation, ESAIM: Proc., 35 (2012), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1051/proc/201235021 doi: 10.1051/proc/201235021
![]() |
[4] |
N. Ben Abdallah, A hybrid kinetic-quantum model for stationary electron transport, J. Stat. Phys., 90 (1998), 627–662. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023216701688 doi: 10.1023/a:1023216701688
![]() |
[5] |
N. Ben Abdallah, F. Méhats, N. Vauchelet, Diffusive transport of partially quantized particles: existence, uniqueness and long time behaviour, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc., 49 (2006), 513–549. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0013091504000987 doi: 10.1017/S0013091504000987
![]() |
[6] |
G. Bader, U. Ascher, A new basis implementation for a mixed order boundary value ODE solver, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., 8 (1987), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1137/0908047 doi: 10.1137/0908047
![]() |
[7] |
M. Baro, N. Ben Abdallah, P. Degond, A. El Ayyadi, A 1D coupled Schrödinger drift-diffusion model including collisions, J. Comput. Phys., 203 (2005), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.08.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.08.009
![]() |
[8] |
F. Brezzi, I. Gasser, P. A. Markowich, C. Schmeiser, Thermal equilibrium states of the quantum hydrodynamic model for semiconductors in one dimension, Appl. Math. Lett., 8 (1995), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-9659(94)00109-p doi: 10.1016/0893-9659(94)00109-p
![]() |
[9] |
S. Chiarelli, F. Di Michele, B. Rubino, A hybrid drift diffusion model: derivation, weak steady state solutions and simulations, Math. Appl., 1 (2012), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.13164/ma.2012.03 doi: 10.13164/ma.2012.03
![]() |
[10] |
P. Degond, P. A. Markowich, On a one-dimensional steady-state hydrodynamic model for semiconductors, Appl. Math. Lett., 3 (1990), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-9659(90)90130-4 doi: 10.1016/0893-9659(90)90130-4
![]() |
[11] |
F. Di Michele, P. Marcati, B. Rubino, Steady states and interface transmission conditions for heterogeneous quantum classical 1-d hydrodynamic model of semiconductor devices, Phys. D, 243 (2013), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2012.08.012 doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2012.08.012
![]() |
[12] |
F. Di Michele, P. Marcati, B. Rubino, Stationary solution for transient quantum hydrodynamics with bohmenian-type boundary conditions, Comp. Appl. Math., 36 (2017), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-015-0235-2 doi: 10.1007/s40314-015-0235-2
![]() |
[13] | F. Di Michele, M. Mei, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, Stationary solution to hybrid quantum hydrodynamical model of semiconductors in bounded domain, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Mod., 13 (2016), 898–925. |
[14] |
F. Di Michele, M. Mei, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, Thermal equilibrium solution to new model of bipolar hybrid quantum hydrodynamics, J. Differ. Equations, 263 (2017), 1843–1873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2017.03.032 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2017.03.032
![]() |
[15] |
F. Di Michele, M. Mei, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, Stationary solutions for a new hybrid quantum model for semiconductors with discontinuous pressure functional and relaxation time, Math. Mech. Solids, 24 (2018), 2096–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081286518814289 doi: 10.1177/1081286518814289
![]() |
[16] |
F. Di Michele, M. Mei, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, Existence and uniqueness for a stationary hybrid quantum hydrodynamical model with general pressure functional, Commun. Math. Sci., 19 (2021), 2049–2079. https://doi.org/10.4310/cms.2021.v19.n8.a1 doi: 10.4310/cms.2021.v19.n8.a1
![]() |
[17] |
F. Di Michele, M. Mei, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, A steady-state mathematical model for an EOS capacitor: the effect of the size exclusion, Netw. Heteroge. Media, 11 (2016), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.3934/nhm.2016011 doi: 10.3934/nhm.2016011
![]() |
[18] |
F. Di Michele, B. Rubino, R. Sampalmieri, Existence of solutions for a viscous hybrid quantum system for arbitrary large current density, Math. Mech. Solids, 27 (2022), 2189–2200. https://doi.org/10.1177/10812865221105812 doi: 10.1177/10812865221105812
![]() |
[19] |
I. M. Gamba, A. Jüngel, Positive solutions to singular second and third order differential equations for quantum fluids, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 156 (2001), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002050000114 doi: 10.1007/s002050000114
![]() |
[20] |
C. L. Gardner, The quantum hydrodynamic model for semiconductor devices, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 54 (1994), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0036139992240425 doi: 10.1137/s0036139992240425
![]() |
[21] |
Y. Guo, W. Strauss, Stability of semiconductor states with insulating and contact boundary conditions, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 179 (2006), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-005-0369-2 doi: 10.1007/s00205-005-0369-2
![]() |
[22] |
M. T. Gyi, A. Jüngel, A quantum regularization of the one-dimensional hydrodynamic model for semiconductors, Adv. Differ. Equ., 5 (2000), 773–800. https://doi.org/10.57262/ade/1356651347 doi: 10.57262/ade/1356651347
![]() |
[23] |
F. Huang, M. Mei, Y. Wang, H. Yu, Asymptotic convergence to stationary waves for unipolar hydrodynamic model of semiconductors, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 43 (2011), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1137/100793025 doi: 10.1137/100793025
![]() |
[24] |
F. Huang, M. Mei, Y. Wang, H. Yu, Asymptotic convergence to planar stationary waves for multi-dimensional unipolar hydrodynamic model of semiconductors, J. Differ. Equations, 251 (2011), 1305–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2011.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2011.04.007
![]() |
[25] |
C. Jourdana, P. Pietra, A hybrid classical-quantum transport model for the simulation of carbon nanotube transistors, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36 (2014), B486–B507. https://doi.org/10.1137/130926353 doi: 10.1137/130926353
![]() |
[26] | A. Jüngel, H. Li, Quantum Euler-Poisson systems: existence of stationary states, Arch. Math. (Brno), 40 (2004), 435–456. |
[27] |
A. Jüngel, H. Li, Quantum Euler-Poisson systems: global existence and exponential decay, Quart. Appl. Math., 62 (2004), 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/2086047 doi: 10.1090/qam/2086047
![]() |
[28] |
H. Li, P. Markowich, M. Mei, Asymptotic behaviour of solutions of the hydrodynamic model of semiconductors, Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh, 132 (2002), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0308210500001670 doi: 10.1017/s0308210500001670
![]() |
[29] |
P. Marcati, R. Natalini, Weak solutions to a hydrodynamic model for semiconductors and relaxation to the drift-diffusion equation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 129 (1995), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00379918 doi: 10.1007/bf00379918
![]() |
[30] |
P. Natalini, T. Luo, Z. Xin, Large time behavior of the solutions to a hydrodynamic model for semiconductors, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 59 (1998), 810–830. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0036139996312168 doi: 10.1137/s0036139996312168
![]() |
[31] |
S. Nishibata, M. Suzuki, Initial boundary value problems for a quantum hydrodynamic model of semiconductors: asymptotic behaviors and classical limits, J. Differ. Equations, 244 (2008), 836–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2007.10.035 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2007.10.035
![]() |
[32] |
O. Salas, P. Lanucara, P. Pietra, S. Rovida, G. Sacchi, Parallelization of a quantum-classic hybrid model for Nanoscale Semiconductor devices, Rev. Mat., 18 (2011), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.15517/rmta.v18i2.2096 doi: 10.15517/rmta.v18i2.2096
![]() |