arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 14 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND APPLICATIONS TO NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER arxiv:8.48v [math.ap] 4 Sep 8 Abstract. We discuss a variational model, given by a weighted sum of perimeter, bending and Riesz interaction energies, that could be considered as a toy model for charged elastic drops. The different contributions have competing preferences for strongly localized and maximally dispersed structures. We investigate the energy landscape in dependence of the size of the charge, i.e. the weight of the Riesz interaction energy. In the two-dimensional case we first prove that for simply connected sets of small elastica energy, the elastica deficit controls the isoperimetric deficit. Building on this result, we show that for small charge the only minimizers of the full variational model are either balls or centered annuli. We complement these statements by a non-existence result for large charge. In three dimensions, we prove area and diameter bounds for configurations with small Willmore energy and show that balls are the unique minimizers of our variational model for sufficiently small charge. Contents. Introduction Setting and main results 3 Outline and notation 5. The planar case: uncharged drops 6.. Simply connected sets: controlling the asymmetry index by the elastica deficit 6.. Minimizers of F λ.3. Stability estimates 4 3. The planar case: charged drops Minimization in the class of simply connected sets Minimization in the class M B Non-existence of minimizers for large charge 4 4. The three-dimensional case Upper bound on the energy Area and diameter bounds Minimality of the ball for small charge Properties of minimizers for large charge A non-existence result 3 Acknowledgments 3 References 3 Date: September 7, 8. Mathematics Subject Classification. 49J,53C,49Q45,76W99. Key words and phrases. Geometric variational problems, competing interactions, non-local perimeter perturbation, Willmore functional, bending energy, global minimizers.

2 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER. Introduction In recent years there has been a strong interest in variational models involving a competition between a perimeter type energy and a repulsive term of long-range nature see for instance the recent review papers [8, ] and the detailed discussion below. The aim of this paper is to start investigating the effects for this class of problems of higher order interfacial energies such as the Euler elastica in dimension two or the Willmore energy in dimension three. We will consider the simplest possible setting and study volume constrained minimization of functionals defined for sets E R d with d =, 3 as The different contributions are given by the perimeter P, defined as λp E + µw E + QV α E, λ, µ, Q.. P E = H d E, the elastica or Willmore energy W, defined as H dh for d =, E W E = H dh for d = 3, 4 E where H denotes the mean curvature of E i.e. the curvature in dimension two and the sum of the principal curvatures in dimension three, the Riesz interaction energy V α, defined for α, d as V α E = dx dy. x y d α E E For µ = functional. is arguably the simplest example of an isoperimetric type problem showing competition between a local attractive term with a non-local repulsive term. In the case of Coulombic interactions, that is d = 3 and α =, this model appears in a variety of contexts. It is for instance the celebrated Gamow liquid drop model for atomic nuclei [9] or the sharp interface limit of the so-called Ohta-Kawasaki model for diblock copolymers [4, 3]. See also [43] for another application of this model. Even though the picture is not complete, it has been shown that minimizers are balls for small Q [8, 9,, 5, 5] actually they are the only stable critical sets [6] and that no minimizers exist for large Q [8, 9, 37] see also [6] for a simple proof of non-existence in the three dimensional case. Many more questions related to pattern formation have been investigated for very closely related models, see for instance [,, 9, 46, 5, 3,, 3] for a non-exhaustive list. Other examples of functionals presenting this type of competition can be found for instance in shape memory alloys [3, 7], micromagnetics [44] or epitaxial growth [4, 35]. However, the closest model is probably the one for charged liquid drops introduced in [45] where the Riesz interaction energy is replaced by a capacitary term. Surprisingly, it has been shown in [] that independently of the charge, no minimizers exist for this model see also [4, 4]. It has been suggested in [] that a regularization by a Willmore type energy such as the one considered here might restore well-posedness. We choose to keep the factor in dimension three to stick with the traditional notation. 4

3 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 3 This paper can be seen as a first step in this direction. The energy. could be seen as a toy model for charged elastic vesicles, where the Willmore energy represents a prototype of more general bending energies for fluid membranes and a Coulomb self-interactions refers to the energy of a uniformly charged body. Associated with this interpretation, we refer to the parameter regimes Q and Q by the terms small and large charge. Our goal is to understand how the picture changes for. in the presence of a bending energy i.e. for µ >. For d = and fixed volume, since an annulus of large radius has arbitrary small elastica energy and also arbitrary small Riesz interaction energy, one needs to either restrict the class of competitors to simply connected sets or to include the perimeter penalization that is take λ >. In contrast, for d = 3, the Willmore functional is scaling invariant and is globally minimized by balls [49]. It seems then natural to consider. for λ = and study the stability of the ball. Let us point out that compared to the planar case, configurations with catenoid type parts allow for a much larger variety of structures with low energy. This makes the identification of optimal structures and the distinction between existence and non-existence of minimizers even more challenging. Setting and main results. Let us set some notation and give our main results. We will always assume that the energy. contains the bending term and we set without loss of generality µ =. For λ, Q, we define F λ,q = λp + W + QV α. Regarding the volume constraint, as will be better explained later on, up to a rescaling there is no loss of generality in assuming that E = B. For d =, 3, we define the following classes of admissible sets M = {E R d bounded with W, -regular boundary}, M sc = {E M : E simply connected}, M B = {E M : E = B }, M sc B = {E M sc : E = B }, and consider the variational problems min F λ,qe. M sc B and min F λ,qe..3 M B We start by considering the planar problem d = and first focus on the uncharged case Q =. For λ = no global minimizer exists in M B, but it has been recently shown in [7, 4] that balls minimize the elastica energy under volume constraint in the class of simply connected sets. Our first result is a quantitative version of this fact in the spirit of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality [8, ]. Theorem.. There exists a universal constant c > such that for every set E M sc B, W E W B c min E B x, x where E F denotes the symmetric difference of the sets E and F. Furthermore, there exist δ > and c > such that if W E W B + δ, then W E W B c P E P B.

4 4 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER Q Non existence λ + λ α Q λ λ λ 3+α Annuli Balls λ λ Figure. The phase diagram. The proof is based on the idea of [] for the proof of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality to reduce by a contradiction argument to the case of nearly spherical sets and then compute a Taylor expansion along the lines of [7]. As opposed to [] which is based on an improved convergence theorem, we obtain the strong convergence to the ball directly from the energy and a delicate refinement of [7] see Lemma.5. Still in the case Q =, we then remove the constraint on the sets to be simply connected but consider the minimization problem.3 for λ >. Theorem.. Let Q = and d =. There exists λ > such that for λ, λ, minimizers of.3 are annuli while for λ > λ they are balls. Next, we turn to the stability estimates analogous to Theorem.. Theorem.3. Let d = and λ be given by Theorem.. Then, there exists a universal constant c >, such that for any E M B and λ > λ F λ, E F λ, B c λ λ min x E B x, while for any λ > there exists a constant cλ > such that for any λ [λ, λ] F λ, E min F λ, cλ min M B Ω E Ω, where the minimum is taken among all sets Ω minimizing F λ, in M B which are either balls or annuli depending on λ. Then, we turn to the study of. and.3 for Q >. Regarding. we prove the following. Theorem.4. Let d =. There exists Q > such that for Q < Q and all λ, balls are the only minimizers of.. The proof is a combination of Theorem. and [8]. As for.3, we obtain a good understanding of part of the phase diagram see Figure. Theorem.5. Let d =.

5 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 5 There exists Q > such that for every λ > λ and every Q Q λ λ, balls are the only minimizers of.3. There exists Q > such that for every λ, λ] and every Q Q λ 3+α, centered annuli are the only minimizers of.3. For every α, there exists Q 3 α such that for every λ and every Q Q 3 αλ + λ α, no minimizer exists for.3. The first part of the theorem is a direct consequence of the minimality of the ball for F λ, and for P + QV α for Q small enough. The second point regarding the minimality of centered annuli is the most delicate part of the theorem. It requires first to argue that sets of small energy are almost annuli and then to use the stability of annuli. The last part of the theorem regarding non-existence is obtained by noticing that if a minimizer exists then we can obtain a lower bound on the energy which is not compatible for large Q with an upper bound obtained by constructing a suitable competitor. We conclude the paper by studying the three dimensional case where a characterization of the energy landscape is even more difficult. As already pointed out, the Willmore energy is invariant under rescaling and is globally minimized by balls [5, 49]. We can thus focus on the case λ = where we have competition between the Willmore energy and the Riesz interaction energy. Stability estimates for the Willmore energy have been obtained by De Lellis and Müller [3]. Building on these, on the control of the isoperimetric deficit by the Willmore deficit obtained in [47] and a bound on the perimeter see Proposition 4.3, we obtain that balls are minimizers of.3 for small Q. Theorem.6. For d = 3 and λ =, there exists Q 4 > such that for every Q Q 4, the only minimizers of.3 are balls. Of course, since balls are also minimizers of the isoperimetric problem, a direct consequence of Theorem.6 is the minimality of the balls for.3 for every λ and every Q Q 4. For the case λ = we are not able to prove or disprove a non-existence regime in the parameter space. Still, we show that if a minimizer exists for every Q then its isoperimetric quotient must degenerate as Q see Proposition 4.. This is somewhat reminiscent of earlier results obtained by Schygulla [48]. Finally, we obtain a non-existence result in the case λ > and α, 3 in the regime of sufficiently large charge. Proposition.7. For every α, 3, there exists Q 5 α such that for every λ, Q with Q Q 5 λ 3 α + λ 3+α, no minimizer of F λ,q in M B exists. Outline and notation. In Section we first consider the planar case d = in the absence of charge Q = before considering the case Q > in Section 3. In the last section we finally consider the three dimensional case. For the reader s convenience, the main theorems given in the introduction are restated in the respective sections and some of them have been extended by more detailed statements. Theorem., Theorem., and Theorem.4 correspond to Theorem.3, Theorem.7 and Theorem., respectively. The statements in Theorem.4 are collected from Proposition 3.4, Theorem 3.8, Proposition 3.9 and Proposition 3.4. Theorem.6 corresponds to Theorem 4.6, and Proposition.7 to Proposition 4.. For two real numbers A, B the notation A B means that A cb for some c > that is universal unless dependencies are explicitly stated. Correspondingly we use the notation and write A B if A B and A B.

6 6 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER. The planar case: uncharged drops We start by investigating the planar case d = in the absence of charges i.e. Q =. Our aim is both to characterize the minimizers and to show that the energy controls the distance to these minimizers... Simply connected sets: controlling the asymmetry index by the elastica deficit. We first restrict ourselves to simply connected sets. By [7, 4] balls are the unique minimizers of the elastica energy among simply connected sets with prescribed volume. Since they also minimize the perimeter, balls are the unique minimizers of F λ = F λ, in this class. Using the quantitative isoperimetric inequality [8], one could directly obtain a quantitative inequality for F λ which would however degenerate as λ. Our aim here is to show that actually the elastica energy W E itself controls the distance to balls. This is a quantitative version of [7, 4] which could be of independent interest. Inspired by a strategy first used in [, ] see for instance also [6,, ] for a few other applications which was building on ideas from [7], we first restrict ourselves to nearly spherical sets. More precisely, we consider sets E such that E is a graph over B R for some R >, i.e. E = {R + φθe iθ : θ [, π},. with φ W,. We will need the following estimate on the elastica energy of nearly spherical sets. Lemma.. Let R > and E be a nearly spherical set. Then, π W E W B R = R φ + φ + 3 φ φ φ + 4φ + o φ W.., Moreover, if E = B R and the barycenter of E is equal to zero, then π W E W B R R φ + φ + φ..3 Proof. By scaling, it is enough to prove.,.3 for R =. The elastica energy of E is given by π H = φ + + φ + φ φ E φ. + + φ 5/ Let us now compute the Taylor expansion of the integrand. Keeping only up to quadratic terms, we get that on the one hand, φ ++φ +φ φ = +4φ φ+6φ + φ +4 φ 6φ φ+φ + φ + φ O φ + φ, and on the other hand, so that φ + + φ + φ φ φ + + φ 5/ = 5φ 5 φ + 5φ + oφ + φ, φ + + φ 5/ = φ φ+ φ +φ + 3 φ +4φ φ+φ + φ + φ O φ + φ. Using that π φ =, we obtain.. If now E = B, using that E = E x νx dh x, we have π φ + φ =,.4

7 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 7 while if the barycenter x is zero, using that 3 E x = E x νxx dh x, Using.4 in., we get W E W B = π π [ + φ 3 ]e iθ =..5 φ + 3 φ + 3 φ + 4φ φ + o φ W,..6 If φ = k Z a ke ikθ is the Fourier representation of φ, then.4 and.5 imply that a + a ± a k and thus for every j N, k d j φ dθ j C k j a k. L k Since by Parseval s identity, π φ + 3 φ + 3 φ φ + 4φ = π k 4 5 k + 3 a k, k Z and since for k Z, the polynomial k 4 5 k + 3 is always non-negative and vanishes only for k =, we have for all φ with φ W, sufficiently small W E W B k 4 5 k + 3 a k concluding the proof of.3. k π φ + φ + φ, We also recall the following Taylor expansion of the perimeter for nearly spherical sets see [7]. Lemma.. Let R > and let E be a nearly spherical set with E represented as in., then π P E P B R = R φ + φ + o φ W..7, We now combine estimate.3 and the work of Bucur-Henrot [7], to obtain a quantitative estimate on the elastica deficit. Theorem.3. There exists a universal constant c > such that for every R > and every set E M sc B R, E B R x R W E W B R c min..8 x R B R Furthermore, there exist δ > and c > such that if W E R W B + δ, then P E P B R R W E W B R c..9 P B R

8 8 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER In order to prove this theorem we will need some auxiliary results. Even for simply connected sets, uniform bounds on the volume and the elastica energy are in general not sufficient to obtain a perimeter or a diameter control see for example [7, Figure ]. However, this is the case for sets with elastica energy sufficiently small. Lemma.4. There exist δ > and C > such that for every E M sc B with W E W B + δ, there holds P E C.. Proof. We first prove, by contradiction, a corresponding bound for the diameter, and then deduce the perimeter bound. Step. Assume that there exists a sequence E n n N in M sc B with W E n W B and d n = diame n. In the following steps, the implicit constants in and estimates may depend on the fixed sequence E n n but are independent of n N. First, up to a rotation, we may assume that for every ξ, d n the vertical section Eξ n = E n {ξ} R is not empty. By Fubini s Theorem, there exists ξ n dn 3, dn 3 such that Eξ n n d n. Then, there also exist x n E n Eξ n n and y n E n Eξ n n such that x n, y n E n and x n y n d n. Step. Choose an oriented tangent field τ on E n. We claim that, for some C > independent of n, we have τx n τy n C d /3 n.. Indeed, assume that. does not hold so that there exists Λ n with τx n τy n Λ n dn /3.. Without loss of generality, using another translation and rotation, we can assume that x n = and τx n = e see Figure. f y n γ n ηd /3 n x n γ n ηd /3 n Figure. Geometry of E n around x n under assumption.. By the bound on the elastica energy we can locally write the part of E n containing as a graph of the form {ξ, fξ : ξ d /3 n } with f = f = and uniformly bounded

9 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 9 slope see [7, Lemma.]. Moreover, sup ξ d /3 n fξ ξ ξ ξ s f s ds f + f 5 C W E n + fξ Cd n, since for ξ dn /3 / ξ ξ s + f 5 sup ξ d /3 n f 5 ξ 3, and similarly for d /3 n ξ. Let γ n = γ n, γn be an arclength parametrization of E n. We may assume that y n = γ n with γ n d n. By., γ n = τx n τy n Λ n d /3 n. Let us assume for definiteness that γ n < the other case being analogous. We then have by the bound on the elastica energy that for every t d /3 γ n t = γ n + t γ n ds Λ n d /3 n / t / + t / γ n ds Λ n Let η be a small constant chosen so that for t [ ηdn /3, ηd /3 n ], γ n t t = y n + γ n sds d n + ηdn /3 dn /3. d /3 n. n, This implies that for t [ ηd /3 n, ηd /3 n ], γ n t stays inside the cylinder [ d /3 n, d /3 n ] R. Furthermore, γ n ηd /3 n = y n ηd /3 n γ n sds d n + Λ n d n > sup fξ, ξ d /3 n and /3 ηd γ n ηd /3 n n = y n + γ n sds d n Λ n d n < sup fξ. ξ d /3 n Therefore, the graph {ξ, fξ : ξ dn /3 } splits the cylinder [ dn /3, d /3 n ] R into two connected components with γ n ηd /3 n in one of the components and γ nηd /3 n in the other see Figure. Hence, γ n intersects the graph of f which contradicts the fact that g f f + tφ Figure 3. Construction of the deformed set. E n can be locally written as a graph. We have thus shown that. holds.

10 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER Step 3. We recall that we assume without loss of generality that x n = and τx n = e. By the bound on the elastica energy and., for η small enough but not depending on n, x n and y n belong to two different connected components of E n Q η, where Q η = η, η. Let Γ, respectively Γ be the connected component containing x n, respectively y n. By [7, Lemma.] and., we have Γ Q η = {ξ, fξ, ξ η} and Γ Q η = {ξ, gξ, ξ η} where without loss of generality, we can assume that fξ < gξ for ξ η see Figure 3. Let now φ C η, η be a non-negative bump function with φ = and let d n t > be such that max f + tφ g =. [ η,η] If we replace in Q η the component Γ by Γ = {ξ, fξ + tφξ : ξ η}, we obtain a new set Ẽn with Ẽn E n since by construction Ẽn E n and η W Ẽn W E n f + tφ + f + tφ 5/ f + f 5/ t d n, η where we have used that thanks to the energy estimate, f is uniformly small in η, η to make the Taylor expansion. The set Ẽn is made of two drops E n and E n with mass m n = E n and m n = E n satisfying m n + mn E n. From [7, Theorem 3.5], for every couple of drops E and F, with E + F = B /3, W F + W E + δ W B /3, for some δ >. By scaling, we deduce that if we choose a ball B such that B = m n + mn E = B, then from which we obtain that W Ẽn = W E n + W E n + δ W B + δ W B, W E n W Ẽn Cd n + δ W B, contradicting the fact that W E n W B. Step 4. By the previous steps we know that there exists R > such that diame R for all E M sc B with W E W B + δ. Therefore, after translation E B R. We now choose an arclength parametrization γ : [, L] R, L = P E and obtain as in [7, Lemma.5] L L L = γ L ds = γ γ ds γ ds W E L Rπ + δ, from which the perimeter bound follows. Lemma.5. Let E n n be a sequence in M sc B with W E n W B as n. For every n N let γ n : [, π R be a constant speed parametrization of E n. Then, after translation γ n converges strongly in W, to a unit speed arclength parametrization of B. Proof. Consider the sets Ẽn = 3 E n. It follows from [7] and our assumptions that Ẽn n is a minimizing sequence of the functional E E + W E on M. Moreover, Ẽn has uniformly bounded perimeter by Lemma.4. For such sequences it is proved in [7, Section 4] that, after translation, Ẽn must converge to B 3. Hence E n converges to B. This gives

11 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS first weak convergence in W, which combined with the convergence of the energy gives the strong convergence. Proof of Theorem.3. Without loss of generality, we may assume that R = and E = π. Step. Assume for the sake of contradiction that.8 does not hold. Then, there exists a sequence E n n such that W E n W B..3 min x E n B x Since min x E n B x is bounded, this implies that W E n W B as n. We then obtain from Lemma.4 that the diameter d n of E n remains bounded. Hence, by Lemma.5 E n must converge up to translation to B strongly in W, and thus by Sobolev embedding, also in C,α for every α /. Thus, for n large enough, E n is a graph over B and E n is nearly spherical. Since the barycenter of E n is converging to zero, E n is also a graph over the ball centered in its barycenter. Up to a translation, this means that we can apply.3 and obtain that W E n W B π φ n E n B,.4 which contradicts.3. Step. We now turn to.9. The additional assumption implies in the rescaled setting that W E π + δ. If.9 does not hold there exists a sequence E n n such that W E n W B P E n P B..5 In particular, since by Lemma.4, P E n is uniformly bounded, we have as above that W E n W B as n. Using.4 and.7 we deduce as in.4 that π W E n W B φ n + φn P E n P B which is in contradiction with.5... Minimizers of F λ. We move on and remove the constraint that sets are simply connected. Since annuli of very large diameter have vanishing elastica energy, in order to have a well-posed problem, we need to consider λ >. Let us recall that the energy is given by F λ E = λp E + W E = λ + H dh. Up to a rescaling, we may restrict ourselves to the problem E min F λe..6 M B We will show below that depending on the value of λ, minimizers are either balls or annuli. Before stating the precise result we compute the energy of an annulus. Lemma.6. For every r >, the energy F λ of an annulus with inner radius r > and area equal to π is given by [ f λ r = π λr + + r / + ] r + + r /..7

12 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER The function f λ :, R is strictly convex and f 3 λ <. Its unique minimizer r λ is the unique solution of λ + r + r / r r + r =..8 3/ Proof. The strict convexity of f λ follows from [ r + + r /] = r r 5/ r r 3 + r 5/ >, which can be checked by considering separately the case r and the case r. Since f λ r as r and r it has a unique minimizer r λ > which then satisfies.8. We further compute that f 3 3λr λ r = r + 5 5r3 9r + r + 7 r + 5 We may now solve the minimization problem.6. 6 r 4 3 r3 + 3r r + 7 Theorem.7. There exists λ > such that for λ, λ, minimizers of.6 are annuli of inner radius r λ as defined in Lemma.6 while for λ > λ they are balls of radius one. Moreover, for λ = λ minimizers can be either a ball of radius one or an annulus of inner radius r λ. Proof. For an arbitrary set E M B, by translation invariance, we can in addition assume that the connected components of E are far apart from each other so that in particular their convex envelopes do not intersect. In the first two steps we prove that minimizers must be either balls or annuli. In the final step we compare the minimal energy of the optimal annuli with the energy of the ball to conclude the proof. Step. Let E be an admissible set. We first show that the energy of each connected component F of E can be strictly decreased by transforming it into a ball or an annulus. If F is simply connected, by [7, 4] and the isoperimetric inequality F λ F F λ B R, for R > with B R = F. Equality holds if and only if F is a translate of B R, proving the claim in this case. If F is not simply connected, then F c is made of an unbounded connected component and a finite union G,..., G n of bounded simply connected sets. For i =,... n, let m i = G i. By the discussion above, among all simply connected sets of mass m i, F λ is uniquely minimized by balls B i of area m i. For two balls B i and B j, if r > is such that B r = B i + B j, then F λ B i + F λ B j > F λ B r since the inequality is separately true for the perimeter and the elastica parts of the energy. Letting thus r > be such that B r = n i= m i, we have F λ i G i = F λ G i F λ B i F λ B r i i with equality if and only if n = and G is a translate of B r. The set F n i= G i given by filling the holes of F is simply connected and letting R > r be such that B R = <.

13 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 3 F + B r = F n i= G i, we have as above that F λ F n i=g i F λ B R with equality if and only if F n i= G i is a translate of B R. Putting all this together, we find that F λ F = F λ F n i=g i + F λ i G i F λ B R + F λ B r = F λ B R \B r with equality if and only if F is a not necessarily concentric annulus of outer radius R and inner radius r, which again proves our claim. Step. We are thus reduced to the class of competitors made of a finite union of balls and annuli. Since the elastica energy respectively the perimeter blows up when one of the radii goes to zero respectively to infinity, existence of a minimizer in this class is easily obtained. Let us prove that a minimizer must be either a single ball or a single annulus. If one of the connected components of E is a ball then E must be the ball. Indeed, by the first part of the proof, it cannot contain two balls. Moreover, the union of a ball and an annulus has energy higher than that of a ball of area the sum of the areas. Indeed, by the isoperimetric inequality the perimeter is better for the ball and since the elastica energy of a ball is a decreasing function of its area, the elastica energy of a single ball is also better than the elastica energy of a ball and an annulus. We are left to prove that one annulus is better than two. For i =,, let r i be the internal radii and R i be the external radii so that m i = πri r i are the area of the two annuli. We consider as a competitor the annulus B R \B r with R = R + R r. Since the elastica part of the energy is smaller, we are left to prove that the perimeter part is smaller, too. That is indeed the case since R = R + R r / R + R + r. Step 3. Let us now prove the existence of the threshold λ. Let us start by noticing that if the ball is a minimizer of.6 for some λ then it is also a minimizer of.6 for every λ > λ. Indeed, by the isoperimetric inequality, for every set E M B, F λ E = F λ E + λ λp E F λ B + λ λp B = F λ B with equality if and only if E is a ball. The energy of an annulus of internal radius r and area equal to B is larger than the energy of the ball B if and only if π λ + < min r> f λr,.9 for f λ as defined in.7. By taking as competitor r = λ /, we get that min r f λ r πλ / + + λ / + + λ /, so that for all λ > sufficiently small.9 does not hold and minimizers are annuli. Using that λr + r λ / and + r /, we obtain the lower bound proving that.9 holds for λ min f λ r πλ / + λ, r and concluding the proof.

14 4 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER Remark.8. Finding the explicit value of λ is not straightforward. Indeed, this entails first minimizing f λ r and then finding the range of λ such that.9 holds. The unique minimizer r λ of f λ is determined by.8. By.9 we deduce that the ball is the minimizer if and only if By minimality of f λ in r λ we find gλ = πλ + f λ r λ <. g λ = π π r λ + + r λ <. Therefore, the threshold λ is characterized by the condition g λ =. Letting U = +r /, we observe that finding r λ is equivalent to find the unique solution U of λu + U = U + U 3. Dividing by + U, we are left with finding a root larger than one of the fourth order polynomial U 4 U 3 λu + U. Nevertheless, a simple explicit formula for λ seems not to be available..3. Stability estimates. We now turn to stability estimates for the functional F λ. As for the proof of Theorem.3, we will first need to know that sets with small energy are close in a non-quantitative way to minimizers. Lemma.9. Consider a sequence of positive numbers λ n n with λ n λ, ] and a sequence E n n in M B such that F λn E n min F λ n as n.. M B Then, up to translations and passing to a subsequence, E n converges strongly in W, to a minimizer of F λ in M B. In particular, for all n N sufficiently large E n is connected and has topological genus one if λ < λ, zero if λ > λ and zero or one if λ = λ. Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that λ λ n λ/ for all n N. Let us first prove that for n large enough, E n must be connected. For the sake of contradiction, assume it is not. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem.7, we see that we can replace E n by a set Ẽn made of two connected components each of which is either a ball or an annulus with F λn Ẽn F λn E n so that. still holds for Ẽn. Inspecting the proof of Theorem.7 we see that we reach a contradiction since the minimum of F λn in this class is larger than min M B F λn by a constant not depending on n. If λ < λ we further obtain that for n large enough, E n cannot be simply connected since otherwise we would have by Theorem.7 for some δλ F λn E n F λn B min F λ n + δ, M B contradicting again.. Let us prove that for any λ, E n is of genus at most one. Otherwise, we can write E n = F n \ Nn i= G i with F n and G i simply connected and N n. Letting

15 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 5 V n = F n and m n i = G i, we have V n i mn i = B and by [7, 4] and the isoperimetric inequality, that F λn E n π 3/ Vn / + m n i / + πλ n Vn / + m n i /. i i Since g n x = π 3/ x / + πλ n x / is subadditive, and N n, F λn E n min g nv + g n m + g n m. V m +m = B Notice that g n as x tends to zero or infinity so that the minimum on the right-hand side is attained for m and m uniformly bounded above and below by a constant depending only on λ. Since for such values of m i g n m + g n m g n m + m + δλ, for some δλ >, we have by the last two inequalities and Theorem.7 F λn E n min g nv + g n m + δλ min F λ n + δλ, V m= B M B contradicting.. Thus, for n large enough, E n = F n \G n with F n and G n simply connected where G n = is possible if and only if λ λ. Consider first the case G n for all n sufficiently large possibly up to a subsequence. This implies in particular that λ λ. Let A n = B R n \ B R n be the centered annulus minimizing F λn in M B, hence R n = r λ n, R n = + r λ n, where r λn is the unique minimum of f λn given in Lemma.6. Choosing R n, Rn with B Rn = F n, B Rn = G n we deduce F λn E n F λn A n = λ n P F n + W F n + λ n P G n + W G n [ ] λ n P B R n + W B R n + λ n P B R n + W B R n [ ] =... λ n P B Rn + W B Rn + λ n P B Rn + W B Rn + f λn R n f λn R n λ n P F n P B Rn + P G n P B Rn + W F n W B Rn + W G n W B Rn + f λn R n f λn R n = T n + T n + T3 n. By. the left-hand side of the inequality vanishes as n. Since F n and G n are simply connected, all three terms on the right-hand side are non-negative and must therefore converge to zero. Since λ λ n λ/ we have that R n is uniformly bounded from above and below. Since T3 n and Rn minimizes f λ n we deduce by strict convexity of f λn and a Taylor expansion that = lim n T n 3 cλ lim sup R n R n, n and by the mass constraint, also R n Rn. Since T n we deduce that W F n W B R n and W G n W B R n. After rescaling we can apply Lemma.5 and the conclusion follows.

16 6 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER Let us finally consider the case that λ λ with E n simply connected. Then, F λn E n min M B F λ n = λ n P En P B +W E n W B + F λn B min M B F λ n, and we obtain as in the previous case that W E n W B concluding again by Lemma.5. We can now prove our stability estimate for F λ. Theorem.. Let λ be given by Theorem.7 and consider an arbitrary set E M B. Then, there exists a universal constant c >, such that for λ > λ F λ E F λ B c λ λ min x E B x,. while for any λ > there exists a constant cλ > such that for any λ [λ, λ] F λ E min F λ cλ min M B Ω E Ω,. where the minimum is taken among all sets Ω minimizing F λ in M B. Proof. Let us start by proving.. Since λ λ >, using the minimality of B for F λ and the quantitative isoperimetric inequality [8], we can write that F λ E F λ B = F λe F λb + λ λ P E P B λ λ P E P B which proves.. c λ λ min x E B x, We now turn to the proof of.. As for the proof of.8, we assume by contradiction that the inequality does not hold. We thus have sequences λ n n in [λ, λ] and E n n in M B with F λn E n min M B F λn lim n min Ω E n Ω =..3 Again, implicit constants in and estimates may depend on the fixed sequence E n n but are independent of n N. Since the denominator in.3 is uniformly bounded we have lim n F λn E n min M B F λn =. Without loss of generality we can also assume λ n λ [λ, λ] as n. By Lemma.9 E n converges strongly in W, to a minimizer of F λ. For n large enough, it is connected, and has either genus one or zero the latter being possible only if λ = λ. Let us first consider the case where up to a translation and up to passing to a subsequence, E n converges to B R \B R x so that for n large enough E n = F n \ G n for some simply connected sets G n F n. Up to a translation, we may assume that F n x = so that by Lemma.9, we can write F n as a graph over the ball of radius R n with B = F Rn n, and such that R n R. At the same time G n can be written as a graph over B Rn x n with B Rn = G n, G n x = x n, R n R and x n x as n. Hence, F n = { R n + φ n e iθ, θ [, π}, G n = {x n + R n + ψ n e iθ, θ [, π} for some functions φ n, ψ n with small W, norm that satisfy.4 and.5. Let us point out that B Rn \B Rn is in general not an optimal annulus and is thus in particular not admissible

17 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 7 for the denominator of.3. By.3 and the Sobolev inequality, we obtain that F λn E n F λn B Rn \B Rn W F n W B Rn + W G n W B Rn sup φ n + sup ψ n + F n B Rn + G n B Rn x n..4 If B Rn x n B Rn, we need to move x n inwards to obtain an annulus. To this aim, let δ n = max x n + R n R n,.5 x and define x n = x n δ n n x notice that if δ n n > then x n so that taking as a convention that x n = if x n =, this quantity is well defined. We then have B Rn x n B Rn by.5. Since B Rn sup ψ x n n G n F n B Rn +sup φ, n we must have x n + R n sup ψ n R n + sup φ n that is δn Rn sup φ n + R n.4 sup ψ n F λn E n F λn B Rn \B Rn..6 From this we deduce that G n B Rn x n G n B Rn x n + δ n We can now estimate.4,.6 F λn E n F λn B Rn \B Rn..7 F λn E n F λn A n = F λn E n F λn B Rn \B Rn + F λn B Rn \B Rn F λn A n.4,.7 F n B Rn + G n B Rn x n + F λn B Rn \B Rn F λn A n E n B Rn \B Rn x n + F λn B Rn \B Rn F λn A n. By the minimality of f λn at r = R n and by strict convexity of f λ n see Lemma.6, f λ n R n > and thus F λn B \B Rn Rn F λn A n cλ R n R n. We therefore conclude that F λn E n F λn A n E n B Rn \B Rn x n + R n R n..8 As pointed out above, this is not sufficient to obtain a contradiction with.3 since B Rn \B Rn x n is not an optimal annulus for F λn. We thus need to prove that there exists x n close to x n such that.8 holds with B R n \B R n x n instead of B Rn \B Rn x n. For ε n, we let x n = ε n x n. We want to choose ε n so that B R n x n B R n. If x n, we set ε n = while for x n, we claim that we can take ε n = C R n R n.9 for some constant C. Indeed, if ε n satisfies.9, then using first that by.5 x n + R n R n and then that R n Rn R n Rn since B Rn \ B Rn and B R n \ B R n

18 8 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER have equal mass we obtain x n + R n = ε n x n + R n + R n R n R n C x n R n R n = R n + R n R n C x n R n R n R n C x n c R n R n x n R n, and therefore B R n x n B R n. From.9 we conclude that B Rn B Rn x n B R n \B R n x n R n R n + R n R n + x n x n R n R n so that.8 and the fact that B R n \B R n x n is an optimal annulus for F λn, finally yields F λn E n F λn A n E n B Rn \B Rn x n + B Rn \B Rn x n B R n \B R n x n E n B R n \B R n x n min Ω E n Ω, which contradicts.3. Let us finally consider the case λ = λ with E n simply connected. We then have F λn E n inf M B F λ = F λb and W E n W B by [7, 4] so that the quantitative isoperimetric inequality [8] gives a contradiction to.3 one could also use The planar case: charged drops Still considering the planar case d =, we now turn our attention to the variational problem.3 for arbitrary positive parameters m, λ and Q. Our aim is to understand as much as possible the phase diagram of F λ,q i.e. identify regions of existence/non-existence of minimizers and characterize minimizers when they exist. By a simple rescaling we have min F λ,qe = Mm π m min F λm,qme, 3. M B with λm = λ m π, Qm = Q 3+α m π so that we may assume that m = B. Notice however that, for λ and Q fixed, λm and Qm tend to zero as m goes to zero. Therefore, if we want to understand the shape of minimizers at small volume, we need to carefully study the phase diagram of F λ,q close to λ, Q =,. 3.. Minimization in the class of simply connected sets. Let us start by investigating., i.e. restricting ourselves to simply connected sets. Proposition 3.. There exists Q > such that for Q < Q and all λ, balls are the only solutions of the minimization problem min F λ,qe. M sc B

19 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 9 Proof. Consider δ, c > from Theorem.3. By [8, Proposition 7.] see also [5, Theorem.3] there exists Q such that P E P B Q Vα B V α E for all E M B. 3. Consider now any E M sc B with F λ,q E F λ,q B Hence W E W B Q V α B V α E λ P E P B 3.3 QV α B < δ for all Q < δ V α B.Therefore, if Q < δ V α B,.9 applies and c P E P B P B W E W B. Together with 3.3 we get that for all Q < δ V α B P E P B Q c P B + λ Vα E V α B, which combined with 3. gives P E = P B for Q < Q P B + λ. This implies that E = B. Choosing Q := min{δ V α B c, Q P B } concludes the proof of the proposition. Remark 3.. Since for d = a bound on the perimeter gives a bound on the diameter for simply connected sets, existence of a minimizer for. holds for every λ > and Q >. For λ =, the existence of minimizers for large Q is less clear. As a direct consequence of 3. and Proposition 3. we get Corollary 3.3. Let Q be given by Proposition 3.. π Q Q 3+α balls are the only minimizers of min F λ,qe. M scm c For any Q >, λ and m 3.. Minimization in the class M B. We now drop the constraint that E is simply connected and study.3. We start by focusing on the simplest part of the phase diagram, that is where minimizers are balls. As above, let Q > be given by [8, 5] such that balls are the only minimizers of min M B P E + QV αe. Proposition 3.4 Global minimality of the ball for λ > λ. For every λ > λ and Q Q λ λ balls are the unique minimizers of F λ,q in M B. Proof. For λ > λ and Q Q λ λ, we have F λ,q E = λ λp E + QV α E + F λe = λ λ P E + Q λ λ V αe + F λe. By definition of Q, balls are the only minimizers of P E+ Q λ λ V αe. Since by Theorem.7 they also minimize F λ, balls are the only minimizers of F λ,q. Remark 3.5. Notice that if balls are minimizers of F λ,q then by the isoperimetric inequality they are also minimizers of F λ,q for every λ λ.

20 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER We now focus on the most interesting case and show that for λ λ and Q sufficiently small centered annuli are optimal. Our first observation is that among annuli of the form B R \B R x, the Riesz interaction energy is minimized for the centered annulus i.e. for x =. Lemma 3.6. For every x R such that B R x B R, it holds V α B R \B R x V α B R \B R, with equality if and only if x =. Moreover V α B R \B R x V α B. Proof. Let X = X BR, X = X BR. By the Riesz rearrangement inequality we deduce X xx y V α B R \B R x = R R x y α + X x x X y x R R x y α X xx y x R R x y α X xx y R R x y α + X xx y R R x y α X xx y R R x y α = V α B R \B R. By [36, Theorem 3.9] equality holds if and only if X, X coincide with their symmetric rearrangement, hence if and only if x =. The last statement is a direct consequence of the Riesz rearrangement inequality. We will also need the following stability lemma. Lemma 3.7. For any λ, λ] there exists Cλ > such that for all λ [λ, λ] and all Q > the following property holds: Let E M B satisfy F λ,q E F λ,q A λ, 3.4 where A λ is the centered annulus that minimizes F λ in M B. Then, there exists Ω that minimizes F λ in M B, such that E Ω + V α Ω V α A λ Cλ Q. 3.5 holds. In particular, for Q small enough Ω must be an annulus. Proof. Let Ω argmin M B F λ satisfy E Ω E Ω for all Ω argmin M B F λ. Thanks to 3.4,., and the Lipschitz-continuity of the Riesz interaction energy cλ E Ω F λ E F λ A λ Q V α A λ V α Ω + Q V α Ω V α E Q V α A λ V α Ω + CQ E Ω. By Lemma 3.6 the first term on the right-hand side is non-positive and we deduce 3.5. Since V α B V α A λ cλ, we also conclude from 3.5 that for Q small enough, Ω cannot be a ball. We can now prove the minimality of the centered annulus in this regime.

21 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS Theorem 3.8 Global minimality of the annulus for λ λ. For every < λ < λ there exists Qλ such that for all Q < Qλ and all λ [λ, λ], the minimizers of F λ,q in M B are centered annuli A λ,q. Moreover, there exist positive constants cλ, Cλ depending only on λ such that the inner radius r λ,q of A λ,q satisfies where r λ is the minimizer of f λ see Lemma.6. cλ Q r λ,q r λ Cλ Q, 3.6 Proof. Step. We minimize first F λ,q in the class of annuli. By 3.6, this minimum is attained by centered annuli i.e. annuli of the form A r = B R \B r with R = Rr = + r. We recall that f λ r = F λ A r and let gr = V α A r. Hence, we are left with minimizing h λ,q r = f λ r + Qgr. Since f λ is coercive and g is positive and since both are continuous, there exists at least one minimum r λ,q of h λ,q. Step. We claim that g r < for all r >. To prove this, let vx = B R \B r x y +α dy be the potential created by the annulus B R \B r then g r = d x y +α dy dx dr B Rr \B r B Rr \B r = R r = v B r vx dh x vx dh x B Rr B r R r x vx dh x. For x B r, let S x = B R + R r x A r see Figure 4. By the symmetry of S x with x S x + R r x B r respect to the line { x r y = r+r }, B R Figure 4. The set S x. S x x y α = S x R r x. y α Moreover, since for y A r S x, c x y < R r x y, we have for x B r R v r x vx = A r R r x y α A r x y α <

22 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER so that for every r >, g r <. Step 3. We therefore have r λ,q > r λ and that r λ,q is increasing in Q and decreasing in λ. Since h λ,q r λ h λ,q r λ,q and since f λ is strictly convex with f λ r λ = and f λ < we next deduce Qgr λ gr λ,q f λ r λ,q f λ r λ f λ r λ,qr λ,q r λ. On the one hand gr λ V α B and on the other hand r λ,q Cλ and f λ r λ,q cλ > for all λ λ, Q <. We infer that r λ,q r λ Cλ Q. Hence r λ,q r λ as Q uniformly for all λ [λ, λ]. Step 4. By the minimizing property of r λ,q, we deduce = f r λ,q + Qg r λ,q = f r λ,q r λ,q r λ + Qg r λ,q for some r λ r λ,q r λ,q. We have cλ f r λ,q Cλ and since cλ r λ,q Cλ also g r λ,q is uniformly bounded from above and below from which 3.6 follows. Step 5. Assume for the sake of contradiction that we can find a sequence λ n [λ, λ] converging to λ [λ, λ] and sequences Q n, E n n in M B which are not annuli and such that F λn,qn E n F λn,qn A n, 3.7 where A n = A rλn,qn is the optimal annulus which is centered. By 3.7 and the fact that r λn,qn r λ, we see that E n satisfies. so that Lemma.9 together with Lemma 3.7 imply that for n sufficiently large, up to a translation E n = F n \G n with F n converging strongly in W, to B Rλ where R λ = + rλ and G n converging strongly in W, to B rλ. Let R n R λ and r n r λ be such that B Rn = F n and B rn = G n. Since A n is optimal for F λn,qn among annuli, we have F λn,qn A n F λn,qn B Rn \B rn so that 3.7 becomes λ n P F n + W F n + λ n P G n + W G n + Q n V α F n \G n λ n P B Rn + W B Rn + λ n P B rn + W B rn + Q n V α B Rn \B rn. Using that by [7, 4], W F n W B Rn and W G n W B rn, this simplifies to λ n P F n + λ n P G n + Q n V α F n \G n λ n P B Rn + λ n P B rn + Q n V α B Rn \B rn. 3.8 We now estimate for simplicity we do not write the kernel in the integrals V α B Rn \B rn V α F n \G n = + B Rn B rn B Rn B rn B Rn B rn G n = V α B Rn V α F n + V α B rn V α G n + By the Riesz rearrangement inequality, F n G n B Rn B rn G n [ F n F n G n + F n B Rn F n B rn G n ]

23 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 3 from which we obtain V α B Rn \B rn V α F n \G n + V α B Rn V α F n + V α B rn V α G n. Inserting this into 3.8 and dividing by λ n, we obtain P F n + Q n λ n V α F n +P G n + Q n λ n V α G n P B Rn + Q n λ n V α B Rn +P B rn + Q n λ n V α B rn, which implies by [8, Proposition 7.] that if Q n /λ n is small enough then F n = B Rn and G n = B rn x n for some x n R. This contradicts our assumption that E n was not an annulus and concludes the proof. Having in mind the study of 3. for λ and Q fixed but m tending to zero, we now focus on the behavior of Qλ for λ going to zero. Proposition 3.9. There exist Q > and λ > such that if λ, λ ] and Q Q λ 3+α then every minimizer E λ,q of 3. is a centered annulus. If E λ,q = B Rλ,Q \B rλ,q then λ / r λ,q and λ / R λ,q, as λ. Proof. Consider sequences λ n n, Q n n with λ n, Q n, lim sup n We start by making the rescaling E = λ / n Ê so that F λn,qn E = λ / n Q n λ 3+α n Q. P Ê + W Ê + Q nλ 3+α n V α Ê = λ / n F Ê,, Qn with Q n = Q n λ 3+α n. We are thus left to study the minimization problem min F Mλ, Q nπ n E. Let us prove that if E n n is a sequence with F, E Qn n F, A Qn n, where A n is the optimal centered annulus, then for n large enough E n = F n \G n with F n and G n simply connected and both converging to the unit ball strongly in W,. Indeed, if we choose R n > with Rn = λ n and write E n as a union of simple closed curves Γ n,..., Γn N n, we deduce that N n P + W Γ n i F, E Qn n F, B Qn Rn \ B 8π + C + Q n λ n, i= where in the last inequality we have used that for every set Ω, V α Ω Ω. Since B minimizes P + W among all simple closed curves by [7, 4] and the isoperimetric inequality it is minimized by circles and then a simple optimization on the radius gives the minimality of B, and since + Q n λ n as n we deduce that for all n sufficiently large we have N n. By [7, Theorem.] we also have N n > since otherwise W E n would blow up. Hence N n = for all n sufficiently large and lim n W Γ n i = π for i =, so that the claim follows from Lemma.5. Arguing then exactly as in the proof of Theorem 3.8 and using that Q n Q we obtain that for n sufficiently large E n is an annulus if Q is sufficiently small.

24 4 MICHAEL GOLDMAN, MATTEO NOVAGA, AND MATTHIAS RÖGER Remark 3.. We do not expect that the condition Q c λ 3+α is sharp. Indeed, looking at the proofs of Proposition 3.9 and Theorem 3.8 we see that we have argued separately that F n and G n should be balls without exploiting the fact that the volume of E n = F n \G n is small. One could hope to improve the result by obtaining a better control on V α B Rn \B rn V α E n. As a corollary, we obtain by 3. the minimality of annuli for small volumes. Corollary 3.. There exist λ and c such that for m λ λ and Q 3+α c λ, minimizers of F λ,q in Mm are centered annuli Non-existence of minimizers for large charge. We now prove a non-existence result for α, and Q large enough depending on λ. The restriction α, comes from the fact that contrarily to what happens for the generalized Ohta-Kawasaki model. with µ =, we cannot easily use a cutting argument. That procedure has roughly the effect of replacing α by α + see [8, 9, 6] and thus allows to extend the non-existence result from α, to α,. For any Q > we first observe that if a minimizer exists then it must be connected. The following lower bound will thus by useful to prove non-existence results. Lemma 3.. There exists c α > such that, for every λ, Q > and every connected set E M B, there holds F λ,q E c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α. 3.9 Proof. Let E be a connected set and let d = diame be its diameter. If we write E = F \ n i= G i with F and G i simply connected then diame = diamf and W E W F. By [7] we have diamf W F 4π so that dw E 4π. Moreover, P E d and V α E d +α E and therefore Since we get 3.9. F λ,q E λd + 4π d + Qd +α π. min λd + d Qd +α c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α, We will also need an estimate for the interaction energy of annuli. Since we will also use it in Section 4 in dimension 3, we state it in arbitrary dimension. Lemma 3.3. Consider < ε and α, d. There exists C α > depending implicitly also on the dimension d such that ε if < α < d, V α B \ B ε C α ε ln ε if α =, 3. ε +α if < α <. Proof. Let E = B \ B ε and consider for an arbitrary x E the potential v α x = dy = H d B x y d α ϱ x Eϱ d+α dϱ. E For any < ϱ ε we have H d B ϱ x E ϱ d, hence ε H d B ϱ x Eϱ d+α dϱ ε ϱ α = C α ε α.

25 ESTIMATES FOR BENDING ENERGIES AND NON-LOCAL VARIATIONAL PROBLEMS 5 For ε ϱ / we have H d B ϱ x E Cερ d, hence / ε Finally, for < ϱ < we obtain / H d B ϱ x Eϱ d+α dϱ / ε for < α < d, Cε ϱ +α dϱ C α ε ln ε for α =, ε ε α for < α <. H d B ϱ x Eϱ d+α dϱ d α H d B ϱ x E dϱ C α E C α ε. / From these inequalities and V α B \ B ε = E v αx dx the claim follows. We next state our main non-existence result. Proposition 3.4. For any α,, there exists Q 3 α > such that, for all λ, Q > with Q Q 3 αλ + λ α, the functional F λ,q does not admit minimizers in M B. Proof. Let us start by the case λ. If a minimizer exists then by 3.9, min F λ,qe c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α. 3. M B Consider as a competitor N identical annuli of outer diameter. We may assume that they are so far apart that the interaction energy between different annuli becomes negligible. The inner radius is given by r N = N /, and the elastica energy of the competitor is not larger than πn 4πλN so that the perimeter is dominant. By Lemma 3.3 the interaction energy of a single annulus is estimated by a constant times N. Using this competitor in 3., we obtain C α λn + Q N Optimizing in N we find N Q / λ / and min F λ,qe c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α. M B λ / Q / c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α, which leads to a contradiction if Q Q 3 αλ with Q 3 α chosen large enough. We now consider the case λ. As above, if a minimizer exists then 3. holds. We now consider a competitor E N,R given by N identical annuli of outer radius R, to be optimized. We prescribe R λ /, 3. so that we are still in the regime where W E N,R λp E N,R. If R ε is the inner radius of the annulus, then ε RN and using Lemma 3.3 we deduce that Using E N,R in 3. we get V α B R \ B R ε = R +α V α B \ B ε/r C α R +α N. C α NλR + Q N R +α c α λ α 3 α Q 3 α.