text:
# Positive mass theorem for the Yamabe problem on spin manifolds

## 1. Introduction

The positive mass conjecture is a famous and difficult problem which originated in physics. The mass is a Riemannian invariant of an asymptotically flat manifold of dimension $`n3`$ and of order $`\tau >\frac{n2}{2}`$. The problem consists in proving that the mass is positive if the manifold is not conformally diffeomorphic to $`(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\text{can}\mathrm{}`$. Two good references on this subject are \[LP87, Her98\].

Schoen and Yau \[Sch89, SY79\] gave a proof if the dimension is at most $`7`$ and Witten \[Wit81, Bar86\] proved the result if the manifold is spin. The positivity of the mass has been proved in several other particular cases (see e.g. \[Sch84\]), but the conjecture in its full generality still remains open.

This problem played an important role in geometry because its solution led to the solution of the Yamabe problem. Namely, let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact connected Riemannian manifold of dimension $`n3`$. In \[Yam60\] Yamabe attempted to show that there is a metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ conformal to $`g`$ such that the scalar curvature $`Scal_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is constant. However, Trudinger realized that Yamabe’s proof contained a serious gap. It was the achievement of many mathematicians to finally solve the problem of finding a conformal metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ with constant scalar curvature. The problem of finding a conformal $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ with constant scalar curvature is called the Yamabe problem. As a first step, Trudinger \[Tru68\] was able to repair the gap if a conformal invariant named the Yamabe invariant is non-positive. The problem is much more difficult if the Yamabe invariant is positive, which is equivalent to the existence of a metric of positive scalar curvature in the conformal class of $`g`$. Aubin \[Aub76\] solved the problem when $`n6`$ and $`M`$ is not locally conformally flat. Then, in \[Sch84\], Schoen completed the proof that a solution to the Yamabe problem exists by using the positive mass theorem in the remaining cases. Namely, assume that $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformally flat or $`n\{3,4,5\}`$. Let

$$L_g=\frac{4(n1)}{n2}\mathrm{\Delta }_g+Scal_g$$

be the conformal Laplacian of the metric $`g`$ and $`PM`$. There exists a smooth function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the so-called Green’s function of $`L_g`$, which is defined on $`M\{P\}`$ such that $`L_g\mathrm{\Gamma }=\delta _P`$ in the sense of distributions (see for example \[LP87\] ). Moreover, if we let $`r=d_g(.,P)`$, then in conformal normal coordinates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the following expansion at $`P`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\frac{1}{4(n1)\omega _{n1}r^{n2}}+A+\alpha (x)\omega _{n1}=vol(S^{n1})$$

where $`A\mathrm{}`$. In addition, $`\alpha `$ is a function defined on a neighborhood of $`P`$ and $`\alpha (0)=0`$. On this neighborhood of $`P`$, the function $`\alpha `$ is smooth if $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformally flat, and it is a Lipschitz function for $`n=3,4,5`$. Hence, in both cases $`\alpha =O(r)`$. Schoen has shown in \[Sch84\] that the positivity of $`A`$ would imply the solution of the Yamabe problem. He also proved that $`A`$ is a positive multiple of the mass of the asymptotically flat manifold $`(M,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\frac{4}{n2}}g)`$. Hence, in these special cases the solution of the Yamabe problem follows from the positive mass theorem, which was proven by Schoen and Yau in \[SY79, SY88\].

In our article, we will give a short proof for the positivity of the constant term $`A`$ in the development of the Green’s function in case that $`M`$ is spin and locally conformally flat. The statement of this paper is weaker than the results of Witten \[Wit81\] and Schoen and Yau \[Sch89, SY79\]. The proof in our paper is inspired by Witten’s reasoning, but we have considerably simplified many of the analytic arguments. Witten’s argument is based on the construction of a test spinor on the stereographic blowup which is both harmonic and asymptotically constant. We show that the Green’s function for the Dirac operator on $`M`$ can be used to construct such a test spinor. In this way, we obtain a very short solution of the Yamabe problem using only elementary and well known facts from analysis on compact manifolds.

The last section shows how to adapt our proof to arbitrary spin manifolds of dimensions $`3`$, $`4`$ and $`5`$. In dimension $`3`$ the proof is completely analogous. However, in dimensions $`4`$ and $`5`$, additional estimates have to be derived in order to get sufficient control on the Green’s function of the Dirac operator.

Remark about this version: In printed version that appeared in Geom. Funct. Anal., 15, 567–576 (2005) a term in the local formula for the Dirac operator was missing. This implies that some additional terms have to be added in the last proof. This gap is repaired in the present version.

## 2. The locally conformally flat case

In this section, we will assume that $`(M,g)`$ is a compact, connected, locally conformally flat spin manifold of dimension $`n3`$. The Dirac operator is denoted by $`D`$. A spinor $`\psi `$ is called $`D`$-*harmonic* if $`D\psi 0`$. As the solution of the Yamabe problem in the case of non-negative Yamabe invariant follows from \[Tru68\] we will assume that the Yamabe invariant is positive. Hence, the conformal class contains a positive scalar curvature metric. As $`dim\mathrm{ker}D`$ is conformally invariant, we see that $`dim\mathrm{ker}D=0`$. We fix a point $`PM`$. We can assume that $`g`$ is flat in a small ball $`B_P(\delta )`$ of radius $`\delta `$ about $`P`$, and that $`\delta `$ is smaller than the injectivity radius. Let $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ denote local coordinates on $`B_P(\delta )`$. On $`B_P(\delta )`$ we trivialize the spinor bundle via parallel transport.

###### LEMMA 2.1.

Let $`\psi _0\mathrm{\Sigma }_PM`$. Then there is a $`D`$-harmonic spinor $`\psi `$ on $`M\{P\}`$ satisfying

$$\psi |_{B_P(\delta )}=\frac{x}{r^n}\psi _0+\theta (x)$$

where $`\theta (x)`$ is a smooth spinor on $`B_P(\delta )`$.

It is not hard to see, that in the sense of distributions

$$D\psi =\omega _{n1}\delta _P\psi _0,$$

where $`\delta _P`$ is the $`\delta `$-function centered at $`P`$. Hence, by definition, $`\omega _{n1}^1\psi `$ is the Green’s function of the Dirac operator.

Proof. Our construction of $`\psi `$ follows the construction of the Green’s function $`G`$ of the Laplacian in \[LP87, Lemma 6.4\]. Namely, we take a cut-off function $`\eta `$ with support in $`B_P(\delta )`$ which is equal to $`1`$ on $`B_P(\delta /2)`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\eta \frac{1}{r^{n1}}\frac{x}{r}\psi _0`$ where $`\psi _0`$ is constant. The spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`\overline{D}`$-harmonic on $`B_P(\delta /2)\{P\}`$. Outside $`B_P(\delta )`$ we extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by zero, and we obtain a smooth spinor on $`M\{P\}`$. As $`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{B_P(\delta /2)}0`$, we see that $`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to a smooth spinor on $`M`$. Using the selfadjointness of $`\overline{D}`$ together with $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{D}=\{0\}`$ we know that there is a smooth spinor $`\theta _1`$ such that $`\overline{D}\theta _1=D\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Obviously, $`\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }+\theta _1`$ is a spinor as claimed.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We now show that the existence of $`\psi `$ implies the positivity of $`A`$.

###### THEOREM 2.2.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact connected locally conformally flat manifold of dimension $`n3`$. Then, the mass $`A`$ of $`(M,g)`$ satisfies $`A0`$. Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $`(M,g)`$ is conformally equivalent to the standard sphere $`(S^n,can)`$.

Proof. Let $`\psi `$ be given by lemma 2.1. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`|\psi _0|=1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the Green’s function for $`L_g`$, and $`G=4(n1)\omega _{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using the maximum principle, it is easy to see that $`G`$ is positive \[LP87, Lemma 6.1\]. We set

$$\stackrel{~}{g}=G^{\frac{4}{n2}}g.$$

Using the transformation formula for $`Scal`$ under conformal changes, we obtain $`Scal_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0`$. We can identify spinors on ($`M\{P\}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$) with spinors ($`M\{P\}`$,$`g`$) such that the fiber wise scalar product on spinors is preserved \[Hit74, Hij86\]. Because of the formula for the conformal change of Dirac operators, the spinor

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }:=G^{\frac{n1}{n2}}\psi $$

is a $`D`$-harmonic spinor on ($`M\{P\}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$), i.e. if we write $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ for the Dirac operator in the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0`$. By the Schrödinger-Lichnerowicz formula we have

$$0=\stackrel{~}{D}^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }+\frac{\underset{\stackrel{~}{g}}{Scal}}{4}\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }.$$

Integration over $`MB_P(ϵ)`$, $`ϵ>0`$ and integration by parts yields

$$0=_{MB_P(ϵ)}(\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi },\stackrel{~}{\psi })𝑑v_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=_{MB_P(ϵ)}|\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2𝑑v_{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{S_P(ϵ)}(\stackrel{~}{}_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\stackrel{~}{\psi },\stackrel{~}{\psi })𝑑s_{\stackrel{~}{g}}.$$

Here $`S_P(ϵ)`$ denotes the boundary $`B_P(ϵ)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is the unit normal vector on $`S_P(ϵ)`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ pointing into the ball, and $`ds_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ denotes the Riemannian volume element of $`S_P(ϵ)`$. Hence, we have proved that

$`{\displaystyle _{MB_P(ϵ)}}|\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2𝑑v_{\stackrel{~}{g}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{S_P(ϵ)}}_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2ds_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ (2.3)
If $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=G^{\frac{2}{n2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}=\left(\epsilon ^2+o(\epsilon ^2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}`$ (2.4)
$`ds_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=G^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}ds_g=G^{\frac{2(n1)}{n2}}\epsilon ^{n1}ds=\left(\epsilon ^{(n1)}+o(\epsilon ^{(n1)})\right)ds`$ (2.5)
where $`ds`$ stands for the volume element of $`(S^{n1},can)`$, and

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2=G^{2\frac{n1}{n2}}|\psi |^2=\left(\frac{1}{r^{n2}}+4(n1)\omega _{n1}A+r\alpha _1(r)\right)^{2\frac{n1}{n2}}\left|\frac{1}{r^{n1}}\frac{x}{r}\psi _0+\theta (x)\right|^2$$

where $`\alpha _1`$ is a smooth function. This gives

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2=(1+4(n1)\omega _{n1}Ar^{n2}+r^{n1}\alpha _1(r))^{2\frac{n1}{n2}}\times $$

$$(1+2r^{n1}Re(<\frac{x}{r}\psi _0,\theta (x)>)+r^{2(n1)}|\theta (x)|^2)$$

Noting that $`_r(\frac{x}{r}\psi _0)=0`$, we get that on $`S_P(ϵ)`$ and for $`\epsilon `$ small,

$`_r|\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2=8(n1)^2\omega _{n1}A\epsilon ^{n3}+o(\epsilon ^{n3})`$ (2.6)
Plugging (2.4), (2.5) and (2.6) into (2.3), we get that for $`\epsilon `$ small

$`0{\displaystyle _{MB_P(ϵ)}}|\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }|^2𝑑v_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`4(n1)^2\omega _{n1}A{\displaystyle _{S^{n1}}}𝑑s+o(1)`$ (2.7)
$`=`$ $`4(n1)^2\omega _{n1}^2A+o(1)`$ (2.8)
This implies that $`A0`$.

Now, we assume that $`A=0`$. Then it follows from (2.7) that $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0`$ on $`M\{P\}`$ and hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is parallel. Since the choice of $`\psi _0`$ is arbitrary, we obtain in this way a basis of parallel spinors on $`(M\{P\},\stackrel{~}{g})`$. This implies that $`(M\{P\},\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is flat and hence isometric to euclidean space. Let $`I:(M\{P\},\stackrel{~}{g})(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ be an isometry. We define $`f(x)=1+I(x)^2/4,xM`$. Then $`M\{P\},f^2\stackrel{~}{g}=f^2G^{\frac{4}{n2}}g`$ is isometric to $`(S^n\{N\},can)`$. The function $`f^2G^{\frac{4}{n2}}`$ is smooth on $`M\{P\}`$ and can be extended continuously to a positive function on $`M`$. Hence, $`M`$ is conformal to $`(S^n,can)`$.

## 3. The case of dimensions 3, 4 and 5

Now under the assumption that the dimension of M is $`3`$, $`4`$ or $`5`$ we show how to adapt the proof from the last section to the case in which $`M`$ is not conformally flat. Let us assume that $`(M,g)`$ is an arbitrary connected spin manifold of dimension $`n\{3,4,5\}`$. We choose any $`PM`$. After possibly replacing $`g`$ by a metric conformal to $`g`$, we may assume that $`Ric_g(P)=0`$. We trivialize the spinor bundle near $`P`$ with the Bourguignon-Gauduchon trivialization \[BG92\]: let $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ be a system of normal coordinates at $`P`$ defined on a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`P`$. Let also

$`G:V`$ $``$ $`S_+^2(n,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`m`$ $``$ $`G_m:=(g_{ij}(m))_{ij}`$
denote the smooth map which associates to any point $`mV`$, the matrix of the coefficients of the metric $`g`$ at this point, expressed in the basis $`(_i:=\frac{}{x^i})_{1in}`$. The vector fields $`_i`$ are defined on a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`0`$ in $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Since $`G_m`$ is symmetric and positive definite, there is a unique symmetric matrix $`B_m`$ such that

$$B_m^2=G_m^1.$$

We now define

$$e_i:=b_i^j_j,$$

so that $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is an orthonormal frame of $`(TV,g)`$. Standard constructions then allow to identify the spinor bundles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$. Denote by $``$ (resp. $`\overline{}`$) the Levi-Civita connection on $`(TU,\xi )`$ (resp. $`(TM,g)`$) as well as its lifting to the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }U`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$). We denote Clifford multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }V`$ by “$``$”. For all spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }U)`$, since $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }V)`$ and by definition of $`\overline{}`$, we have

$$\overline{}_{e_i}\overline{\psi }=\overline{_{e_i}(\psi )}+\frac{1}{4}\underset{j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_je_k\overline{\psi }.$$
(3.1)
where the Christoffel symbols of the second kind $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k`$ are defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k:=\overline{}_{e_i}e_j,e_k,$$

Taking Clifford multiplication by $`e_i`$ on each member of (3.1) and summing over $`i`$ yields

$$\overline{D}\overline{\psi }=\underset{i}{}e_i\overline{_{e_i}\psi }+\frac{1}{4}\underset{i,j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k\overline{\psi }.$$

Now, using that $`e_i=_jb_i^j_j`$ and that $`e_i\overline{_{e_i}\psi }=\overline{_i_{e_i}\psi }`$, we obtain that

$$\overline{D}\overline{\psi }=\underset{ij}{}b_i^j\overline{_i__j\psi }+\frac{1}{4}\underset{i,j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k\overline{\psi }$$

and hence,

$`\overline{D}\overline{\psi }=\overline{D\psi }+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(b_i^j\delta _i^j)\overline{_i__j\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k\overline{\psi }.`$ (3.2)
Let us introduce a convenient notation for sections in this trivialization. For $`v=v^ie_i(P):UT_PM\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ we define $`\overline{v}:UTM`$, $`\overline{v}(q)=v^i(q)e_i(q)`$, i.e. $`v`$ is the coordinate presentation for $`\overline{v}`$. Similarly, for $`\psi :U\mathrm{\Sigma }_PM=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\psi =\psi ^i\alpha _i(P)`$ we write $`\overline{\psi }(q)=\psi ^i(q)\alpha _i(q)`$. In this notation, $`\overline{x}`$ is the outward radial vector field whose length is the radius. Similarly, we write $`D`$ for the Dirac operator on flat $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ for the Dirac operator on $`(M,g)`$.

###### PROPOSITION 3.3.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact connected spin manifold of dimension $`n\{3,4,5\}`$. Let $`PM`$ and $`\psi _0\mathrm{\Sigma }_PM`$, then there is a spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)`$ which is $`\overline{D}`$-harmonic on $`MP`$, and which has in the trivialization defined above the following expansion at $`P`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)=\frac{\overline{x}}{r^n}\psi _0+\mathrm{\Theta }_1(x)\text{ if }n=3$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)=\frac{\overline{x}}{r^n}\psi _0+\mathrm{\Theta }_2(x)\text{ if }n=4$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)=\frac{\overline{x}}{r^n}\psi _0+\alpha (x)+\mathrm{\Theta }_3(x)\text{ if }n=5$$

where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1C^{0,a}(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`a]0,1[`$, where, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, $`r^\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }_2`$, $`r^\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }_3`$, $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\mathrm{\Theta }_1|`$, $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\mathrm{\Theta }_2|`$ and $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\mathrm{\Theta }_3|`$ are continuous on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and where $`\alpha `$ is homogeneous of order $`1`$ and even near $`P`$.

###### Remark.

As before, the spinor $`\omega _{n1}^1\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)`$ is the Green’s function for the Dirac operator on $`M`$. The expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)`$ could be improved but the statement of proposition 3.3 is sufficient to adapt the proof of theorem 2.2.

Proof of positive mass theorem. Using this proposition, the proof of theorem 2.2 can easily be adapted with $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)`$. As one can check, equation (2.7) is still available in dimensions $`3`$, $`4`$ and $`5`$. This is easy to see in dimensions $`3`$ and $`4`$. In dimension $`5`$, we note that since $`\alpha `$ is even near $`P`$ and since $`\frac{x}{r}`$ is an odd vector field, we have

$$Re_{S^{n1}}\frac{}{r}(<\frac{x}{r}\psi _0,\alpha (x)>)ds=_{S^{n1}}Re(<\frac{x}{r}\psi _0,_r\alpha (x)>)ds=0$$

Equation (2.7) easily follows. This proves the positive mass theorem 2.2.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We will now prove Proposition 3.3.

###### Definition.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ be a smooth spinor defined on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$. For $`k\mathrm{}`$, we say that $`\alpha `$ is *homogeneous of order $`k`$* if $`\alpha (sx)=s^k\alpha (x)`$ for all $`x\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and all $`s>0`$. This is equivalent to $`_r\alpha =k\alpha `$.

###### PROPOSITION 3.4.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a spinor homogeneous of order $`k(n,1)`$. Then there is a spinor $`\beta `$, homogeneous of order $`k+1`$, such that $`D(\beta )=\alpha `$.

Proof. Let $`\alpha `$ be a homogeneous spinor of order $`k`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D:=\frac{x}{\omega _{n1}r^n}`$ is the Green’s function for the Dirac operator on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. We define $`\beta :=\mathrm{\Gamma }_D\alpha `$, i.e.

$$\beta (x)=\frac{1}{\omega _{n1}}\underset{\rho 0}{lim}_{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝔹}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{𝔹}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\rho \mathrm{}\mathrm{}}\frac{xy}{|xy|^n}\alpha (y)dy.x0$$

The integral converges for $`|y|\mathrm{}`$ as $`k<1`$. The limit for $`\rho 0`$ exists as $`k>n`$. Similarly one sees that $`\beta `$ is smooth, and one calculates $`D(\beta )=\alpha `$. A simple change of variables shows that $`\beta `$ is homogeneous of order $`k+1`$.

###### LEMMA 3.5 (Regularity Lemma).

Let $`\alpha `$ be a smooth spinor on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$. We assume that $`D(\alpha )=O(\frac{1}{r})`$ and $`_iD(\alpha )=O(\frac{1}{r^2})`$ as $`r0`$. Then, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, $`r^\epsilon \alpha `$ and $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\alpha |`$ extend continuously to $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof. As the statement is local, we can assume for simplicity that $`\alpha `$ vanishes outside a ball $`B_0(R)`$ about $`0`$. Since $`D(\alpha )L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q<n`$, from regularity theory we get that $`\alpha H_1^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q<n`$. The Sobolev embedding theorem then implies that $`\alpha L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q>1`$. Moreover, we have

$$|D(r^\epsilon \alpha )|\epsilon r^{\epsilon 1}|\alpha |+O(r^{\epsilon 1})$$

Using Hölder’s inequality, we see that $`D(r^\epsilon \alpha )L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`q>n`$. By regularity theory, we have $`r^\epsilon \alpha H_1^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ and by the Sobolev embedding theorem, $`r^\epsilon \alpha C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. This proves the first part of lemma 3.5. For the second part, we apply the same argument twice: a calculation on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ yields:

$`|D(r^{1+\epsilon }_i\alpha )|(1+\epsilon )r^\epsilon |_i\alpha |+O(r^{\epsilon 1})`$ (3.6)
In the same way, we have:

$`|D(r^\epsilon _i\alpha )|\epsilon r^{\epsilon 1}|_i\alpha |+O(r^{\epsilon 2})`$ (3.7)
For all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ we have $`D(_i\alpha )=_iD\alpha =O(r^2)`$ and $`D(_i\alpha )L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q<\frac{n}{2}`$. Using the regularity theory and then the Sobolev embedding theorem, we get that $`_i\alpha H_1^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q<\frac{n}{2}`$ and that $`_i\alpha L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q<n`$. The Hölder inequality implies that there is a $`q>\frac{n}{2}`$, close to $`\frac{n}{2}`$, such that $`r^{\epsilon 1}|_i\alpha |L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. Together with (3.7), this shows that $`D(r^\epsilon _i\alpha )L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`q>\frac{n}{2}`$. By the regularity and Sobolev theorems, we obtain that $`r^\epsilon _i\alpha L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`q>n`$. Now using (3.6), we obtain $`|D(r^{1+\epsilon }_i\alpha )|L^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`q>n`$. Applying regularity theory and the Sobolev theorems again, we get that $`r^{1+\epsilon }_i\alpha C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. This proves that $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\alpha |C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 3.3.

Let us come back to formula (3.2). We have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_k=\overline{}_{e_i}e_j=b_i^r\overline{}__r(b_j^s_s)=b_i^r(_rb_j^s)_s+b_i^rb_j^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^l_l,$$

where as usually the Christoffel symbols of the first kind $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^l`$ are defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^l_l=\overline{}__r_s.$$

Therefore we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^kb_k^l_l=b_i^r(_rb_j^s)_s+b_i^rb_j^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^l_l,$$

and hence

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k=\left(b_i^r(_rb_j^l)+b_i^rb_j^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^l\right)(b^1)_l^k.$$
(3.8)
Let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function equal to $`1`$ in a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`P=0`$ in $`M`$, and supported in the normal neighborhood $`U`$. Let $`\psi _0`$ be a constant spinor on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. We define $`\psi `$ on $`U\{0\}`$ by

$$\overline{\psi }=\frac{\eta }{r^{n1}}\frac{\overline{x}}{r}\overline{\psi }_0$$

and extend it with zero on $`MU`$. Now, we have the following development of the metric $`g`$ (see for example \[LP87\]):

$`g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R_{i\alpha \beta j}(p)x^\alpha x^\beta +O(r^3)`$
Since the matrix $`(b_{ij})`$ is equal to $`(g_{ij})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, we get that

$$b_i^j=\delta _i^j\frac{1}{6}R_{i\alpha \beta j}x^\alpha x^\beta +O(r^3).$$
(3.9)
Since $`Ric(p)=0`$, one computes that near $`P`$ (i.e. where $`\eta 1`$),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}R_{i\alpha \beta j}x^\alpha x^\beta \overline{_i_j\psi }=0.`$ (3.10)
In the same way, using Bianchi identity and relation (3.8), we compute that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k=O(r^2).`$ (3.11)
Then, $`\psi `$ is smooth on $`M\{P\}`$ and is $`\overline{D}`$-harmonic near $`P`$ (see the locally conformally flat case) and by (3.2), near $`P`$ we have

$$\overline{D}(\overline{\psi })=\frac{1}{4r^{n1}}\underset{ijk}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k\frac{\overline{x}}{r}\overline{\psi }_0+\underset{ij}{}(b_i^j\delta _i^j)\overline{_i_j\psi }.$$

Writing the Taylor development of the right side member of this relation with the help of relations (3.9) and(3.11) we can write $`\overline{D}(\overline{\psi })`$ as a sum of a spinor $`\gamma `$ which is homogeneous of order $`3n`$ and a spinor $`\gamma ^{}`$, smooth on $`U\{0\}`$, which satisfies $`\gamma ^{}=0(r^{4n})`$ and $`|\gamma ^{}|=0(r^{3n})`$.

$$\overline{D}(\overline{\psi })=\gamma +\gamma ^{}$$

If $`n=3`$, $`\gamma +\gamma ^{}L^q(U)`$ for all $`q>1`$. Let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function as above, then $`\eta (\gamma +\gamma ^{})`$ can be viewed as a spinor on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_D(\eta (\gamma +\gamma ^{}))`$ is a smooth spinor on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`D(\mathrm{\Theta })=\gamma +\gamma ^{}`$ near $`0`$. By regularity theory and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we get that $`\mathrm{\Theta }H_1^q(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`q>1`$, and hence $`\mathrm{\Theta }C^{0,a}(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`a(0,1)`$. Lemma 3.5 implies $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\mathrm{\Theta }|C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$.

If $`n=4`$, we have $`\gamma +\gamma ^{}=0(\frac{1}{r})`$ and $`|(\gamma +\gamma ^{})|=0(\frac{1}{r^2})`$. As in dimension $`3`$, we can find $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, a smooth spinor on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`D(\mathrm{\Theta })=\gamma +\gamma ^{}`$ near $`0`$. We fix $`ϵ(0,1)`$. By the regularity lemma 3.5 we get $`r^\epsilon \mathrm{\Theta }C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ and $`r^{1+\epsilon }|\mathrm{\Theta }|C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$.

If $`n=5`$, by proposition 3.4, we can find a spinor $`\alpha `$ homogeneous of order $`1`$ such that $`D(\alpha )=\gamma `$. Moreover, $`\gamma ^{}=0(\frac{1}{r})`$ and $`|\gamma ^{}|=0(\frac{1}{r^2})`$. Proceeding as in dimension $`3`$ and using lemma 3.5, we can find a spinor $`f`$ smooth on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`D(f)=\gamma ^{}`$ near $`0`$, such that $`r^\epsilon fC^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ and such that $`r^{1+\epsilon }|f|C^0(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Theta }:=(\alpha +f)`$.

Now, for all dimensions, we set

$$\phi =\psi \eta \mathrm{\Theta }$$

By (3.2), we have on $`V`$

$$\overline{D}\overline{\phi }=\overline{D}(\overline{\psi })\overline{D\mathrm{\Theta }}\frac{1}{4}\underset{ijk}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^ke_ie_je_k\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\underset{ij}{}(b_i^j\delta _i^j)\overline{_i_j\mathrm{\Theta }}$$

Using (3.10), (3.11) and the fact that $`\overline{D}(\overline{\psi })\overline{D\mathrm{\Theta }}=0`$, we get that $`\overline{D}\overline{\phi }=O(r)`$ and hence is of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M\{P\})C^{0,1}(M)`$. As a consequence, there exists $`\overline{\phi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M\{P\})C^{1,a}(M)`$, $`a(0,1)`$ such that $`\overline{D}\overline{\phi }^{}=\overline{D}\overline{\phi }`$. We now set $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi _0)=\overline{\phi }\overline{\phi }^{}`$. Proposition 3.3 follows.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Authors’ address:
Bernd Ammann and Emmanuel Humbert,
Institut Élie Cartan BP 239
Université de Nancy 1
54506 Vandoeuvre-lès -Nancy Cedex
France

E-Mail: ammann at iecn.u-nancy.fr, humbert at iecn.u-nancy.fr


format: text

text:
# Quantum Vacuum Contribution to the Momentum of the Dielectric Media.

## Abstract

Momentum transfer between matter and electromagnetic field is analyzed. The related equations of motion and conservation laws are derived using relativistic formalism. Their correspondence to various, at first sight self-contradicting, experimental data (the so called Abraham-Minkowski controversy) is demonstrated. A new, Casimir like, quantum phenomenon is predicted: contribution of vacuum fluctuations to the motion of dielectric liquids in crossed electric and magnetic fields. Velocities about $`50nm/s`$ can be expected due to the contribution of high frequency vacuum modes.

Electromagnetic radiation possesses energy, linear and angular momenta like any ordinary material object. As a consequence the light can exert mechanical forces on matter during the interaction. The forces associated with exchange of the linear and the angular momenta of light with material bodies were successfully measured already hundred years agoleb nich beth . However, the fundamental question of the momentum associated with a photon in an optically dense medium is still under discussionloudon , despite that it was formulated in the beginning of the previous century. This problem arises from the discrepancy between Minkowski’sminko  $`G_M=\frac{1}{4\pi c}d^3xD\times B`$ and Abraham’sabrah  $`G_A=\frac{1}{4\pi c}d^3xE\times H`$ results, where $`E`$, $`H`$, $`D`$ and $`B`$ are electric and magnetic fields and inductances correspondingly. Their difference is significant: while Minkowski’s moment is directly proportional to the refractive index of the medium, the moment of Abraham possess inverse proportionality.

Minkowski momentum is considered by many as unacceptable, although it was shown by Jones, Richards and Leslie (JRL) that the recoil force of the light on a mirror immersed in liquid is directly proportional to the refractive index of the liquidjones1 . This experiment was conducted twice with a 20 years periodjones2 . However most of the theoretical works are in favor of Abraham’s expression (for a review, see refs. pierls brevik ).

Abraham’s momentum can be derived from the Poynting energy flow vector $`S=\frac{c}{4\pi }E\times H`$ under assumption that all energy is purely electromagnetic and relates to the mass through the $`U=mc^2`$ relativistic formula. It corresponds to the relativistic requirement for direct proportionality of the energy and momentum flows (the symmetry of the electromagnetic stress tensor)jackson . Abraham’s result is also supported by statistical physics approachesgroot . However, as far as we know, there are no experimental data that demonstrate the inverse dependence of the radiation pressure on the refractive index. This, at least, allows to conclude that the measured momentum is not purely electromagnetic.

The effective momentum of a photon in a dielectric medium consists of electromagnetic momentum and associated motion or even radiation of matterpierls . However separate identification of different parts proved itself to be non-trivial and sometimes led to contradictions with experimental datajones2 . BlountBlount  and Nelsonnelson  developed a Lagrangian formalism of the problem, using heuristic and microscopic averaging approaches correspondingly. They significantly clarified the picture by associating Abraham’s expression with electromagnetic momentum and Minkowski’s momentum with phonon like pseudomomentum. Still several questions remained open, especially a small discrepancy of Abraham’s momentum with the expression derived in refs. nelson lodnel .

In this Letter the related Lagrangian and corresponding equations of motion are derived using relativistic formalism. In the case of liquid dielectric, interaction of the electromagnetic field with matter causes motion of the latter. Thus while Abraham’s expression is indeed the momentum of the field, the measured momentum also includes the matter contribution and its value coincides with Minkowski’s result. Afterwards the possible vacuum contributions to the motion of the matter are considered. Each electromagnetic mode possesses finite momentum, even in its ground statemandel . Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.

The electromagnetic field in an optically dense medium is described by the Maxwell equations:

$$\times H=\frac{1}{c}\frac{D}{t},D=0,\times E=\frac{1}{c}\frac{B}{t},B=0.$$
(1)
The free electric $`E`$ and magnetic $`B`$ fields exist both inside and outside the matter. The matter response to the radiation is taken into account through derived fields $`D`$ and $`H`$, related to $`E`$ and $`B`$ by the dispersion relations. In the case of linear, non-dispersive dielectric medium they are given by:

$$D=\epsilon E,H=\frac{1}{\mu }B,$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mu `$ are the dielectric and magnetic constants of the matter correspondingly.

The Lagrangian approach simplifies the investigation of light-matter interaction. The simplicity comes from the universality that allows to use the same approach to the system consisting of significantly different subsystems and the natural to the Lagrangian approach definition of the conservation laws. The Lagrangian which is equivalent to eqs. (1) and (2) islanfield goldstein :

$$L_{Field}=d^3x\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2}E^2\frac{1}{2\mu }B^2\right).$$
(3)
The first pair of the Maxwell equations (1) corresponds to the equations of motion:

$$\frac{}{t}\frac{L_{Field}}{\frac{A_i}{t}}=\frac{L_{Field}}{A_i},\frac{}{t}\frac{L_{Field}}{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}}=\frac{L_{Field}}{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(4)
while the second pair of (1) follows from definitions of the vector $`A`$ and the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ potentials:

$$E=\frac{1}{c}\frac{A}{t}\mathrm{\Phi },B=\times A.$$
(5)
The motion of the matter and especially its influence on the electromagnetic field must be taken into account in a combined matter-field Lagrangian $`L_{MF}`$. The linear dispersion relations (2) change in moving media to:

$$D=\epsilon E+\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{c\mu }v\times B,B=\mu H+\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{c}E\times v,$$
(6)
where first order $`v/c`$ terms were taken into accountlandel pauli . They follow from relativistic requirements and can be derived using the first order Lorentz transformations:

$$EE+\frac{1}{c}v\times B,BB+\frac{1}{c}E\times v,$$
(7)
$$DD+\frac{1}{c}v\times H,HH+\frac{1}{c}D\times v,$$
(8)
relative to (2). These transformations can be applied directly to the Lagrangian (3). Substituting (7) into (3), keeping the first order $`v/c`$ terms and adding $`\rho v^2/2`$ one obtains:

$$L_{MF}=d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\epsilon }{2}E^2\frac{1}{2\mu }B^2+\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{\mu c}B\left(E\times v\right)\right)\right).$$
(9)
Since the liquid is assumed to be incompressible, it is described by its density $`\rho `$ and local velocity $`v`$ only. The equations of motion (4) of (9) are identical to the Maxwell equations with dispersion relations (6). The last term of (9) can be rewritten in an interaction $`Aj`$ form, where the current $`j`$ is given by $`\times \left(E\times v\right)\left(\epsilon \mu 1\right)/\mu c`$. The latter, at least for the non-magnetic $`\mu =1`$ case, can be obtained by microscopic averaging proceduresnelson jackson .

The Lagrangian (9) is explicitly independent of the space coordinates $`x`$, due to the homogeneity of space. Thus according to Noether theorem, the momentumgoldstein :

$$G_i=d^3x\left(\frac{L}{v_i}\frac{L}{\frac{A_j}{t}}\frac{A_j}{x_i}\right)$$
(10)
is conserved. Substituting (9) into (10) one obtains:

$$G=d^3x\left(\rho v+\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\epsilon }{c}E\times B\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{\mu c}E\times B\right)\right)=d^3x\left(\rho v+\frac{1}{4\pi c}E\times H\right).$$
(11)
The corresponding angular momentum $`l=x\times G`$ becomes:

$$l=d^3x\left(x\times \rho v+\frac{1}{4\pi c}x\times E\times H\right).$$
(12)
Therefore the conserved linear (11) and angular (12) momenta consist of the matter and the Abraham’s field terms. The correspondence between the conserved and the measured momenta follows from the analysis of the Lorentz force acting on material objectsjackson .

The $`\rho v`$ term can be obtained from the liquid’s equation of motion:

$$\frac{}{t}\frac{L}{v}=\frac{L}{R},$$
(13)
where $`R`$ is the matter coordinate. Far from the boundaries, $`L/R`$ can be neglected, leading to:

$$\rho v=\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{4\pi \mu c}E\times B.$$
(14)
This expression corresponds qualitatively to the pseudomomentum of ref. nelson . Substituting (14) into (11), one obtains $`G=D\times B/4\pi c`$, which was observed in the JRL experiments.

By analogy, the measured angular momentum is $`l=x\times \left(D\times B\right)`$. It can be separated into ”spin” $`D\times A`$ and ”orbital” $`D_j\left(x\times \right)A_j`$ parts. The latter does not vanish only in the case of beams with specific wavefront distortions, e.g. Laguerre-Gaussian beamsgausslag . In contrast to the linear momentum, the spin part of the nearly plane wave is independent of dielectric properties of the medium. This was verified experimentally for microwave radiation angmicro .

The dielectric constant dependent angular momentum was observed inside a cylindrical capacitor filled with dielectriccannat . A cylindrical capacitor was suspended on torsional levers inside some external magnetic field parallel to the axis of the cylinder. By applying voltage to the capacitor’s walls a radial electric field was created. These independent fields possessed non-vanishing angular momentum, which was compensated by the motion of the capacitor itself. The observedcanada  $`x\times \rho v\left(\epsilon 1\right)l_0`$, where $`l_0`$ corresponds to the $`\epsilon =1`$ case, follows from (14)smol .

Ashkin and Dziedzic observed that the liquid interface bends outwards the liquid in both cases when light enters and leaves the liquidashkin . Contrary to their measurement, the conservation law (11) predicts inward bending. Loudon recently arrived to the same conclusion by quantum analysis of the Lorentz forceloudon . The results of ref. ashkin  were explained by the influence of ponderomotive forcesgordon , caused by strong focusing of the light in this experiment. These forces, also used for optical tweezers, are much stronger than contributions from the change of the radiation momentum on the boundary.

Radiation forces can be caused even by redistribution of the energy between quantum vacuum and matter. Attraction of two parallel metal plates in vacuum was predicted by Casimircasimir  and experimentally observed by Lamoreauxlamor . Electromagnetic field possesses finite energy even in the ground state, similar to the quantum harmonic oscillator. The presence of dielectric or metallic objects in space alternates the eigenstates of the electromagnetic field. The energy of such system depends on the specific arrangement of the objects and some rearrangement can be energetically favorable. Between two metal plates the low frequency electromagnetic modes are cut off by the boundary conditions. The smaller the separation the smaller is the effective energy of the system, consequently the plates attract each other. However, in Casimir case, no momentum is gained by the plate’s center of the mass according to symmetry considerations. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, the transfer of finite momentum from vacuum modes to matter was not considered yet.

The zero fluctuations contribution to the equation of motion (14) can be expected, since the moment of electromagnetic field, similar to its energy, is a quadratic function of $`E`$ and $`B`$. Vacuum contribution can not occur, neither in time even media nor in spatially symmetrical time-odd (Faraday) materials, due to the self compensation of counterpropagating modes. Therefore both time and spatial asymmetries are required.

The break of both spatial and time symmetries occur naturally in magnetoelectric materialsfuchs ,dell . The dispersion relations for magnetoelectrics are:

$$D=\widehat{\epsilon }E+\widehat{\chi }H,B=\widehat{\mu }H+\widehat{\chi }^TE.$$
(15)
The same dispersion can be created artificially by applying external electric and magnetic fieldsrothbi . In this case, the dielectric properties of the medium $`\widehat{\epsilon }`$, $`\widehat{\mu }`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }`$ depend on the external fields $`E_{ext}`$ and $`B_{ext}`$. For the specific case of perpendicular electric and magnetic fields acting on isotropic materialrothvac figotin :

$$\widehat{\epsilon }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon & 0& 0\\ 0& \epsilon & 0\\ 0& 0& \epsilon \end{array}\right)\widehat{\mu }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu & 0& 0\\ 0& \mu & 0\\ 0& 0& \mu \end{array}\right)\widehat{\chi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \chi _{xy}& 0\\ \chi _{yx}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
For light propagating along $`z=E_{ext}\times B_{ext}`$ direction, substituting (15) and (16) into Maxwell equations (1) one obtainsfigotin :

$$n_{\stackrel{}{k},1}=\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }+\chi _{xy},n_{\stackrel{}{k},2}=\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }\chi _{yx},n_{\stackrel{}{k},1}=\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }+\chi _{xy},n_{\stackrel{}{k},2}=\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }\chi _{yx}.$$
(17)
and corresponding modes $`(E_x,E_y,B_x,B_y)`$:

$$(1,0,0,\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }),(0,1,\sqrt{\epsilon \mu },0),(1,0,0,\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }),(0,1,\sqrt{\epsilon \mu },0).$$
(18)
In the case of magnetoelectrics (15), the term $`\frac{1}{\mu }B\widehat{\chi }^TE`$ must be added to the Lagrangian (9). Using (7) one obtains:

$$L_{ME}=L_{FM}+\frac{d^3x}{4\pi }\left(\frac{1}{\mu }B\widehat{\chi }^TE+\frac{1}{\mu c}B\widehat{\chi }^T\left(v\times B\right)+\frac{1}{\mu c}\left(E\times v\right)\widehat{\chi }^TE\right).$$
(19)
Equations of motion (4) correspond to the dispersion relations (15) in moving media, while (13) becomes:

$$\rho ^0v=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\epsilon \mu 1}{\mu c}E\times B+\frac{1}{\mu c}E\times \left(\widehat{\chi }^TE\right)\frac{1}{\mu c}B\times \left(\widehat{\chi }B\right)\right).$$
(20)
The non-compensating moment of a pair of counterpropagating modes in $`z`$ direction is $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=\left(\chi _{xy}\chi _{yx}\right)\left(1+\epsilon \mu \right)/\left(2\pi \mu c\right)`$. It is obtained by substitution of (18) into (20). Taking into account all contributing modes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\left(\theta \right)=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }pcos\theta `$, we obtain:

$$v=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1+\epsilon \mu }{\mu c}\underset{0,\mathrm{}}{\overset{\pi /2,2\pi /\omega _{cut}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }ncos\theta k^2E^2\frac{dk}{\pi ^2}sin\theta d\theta ,$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=\left(\chi _{xy}\chi _{yx}\right)`$. The vacuum $`E_{vac}^2=\mathrm{}\omega /2`$, thus (21) becomes:

$$v=\frac{1}{32\pi ^3}\frac{1}{\rho }\mathrm{\Delta }n\frac{1+\epsilon \mu }{\mu }\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{cut}^4}{c^4}.$$
(22)
This expression is significantly different from the Casimir effect, since it is powered by the high frequency cut-off. The latter makes it more similar to the Lamb shift phenomenon.

This effect (22) can be evaluated quantitatively by the estimation of the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ from the known experimental data. In crossed external magnetic $`B_{ext}`$ and electric $`E_{ext}`$ fields, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ is proportional to magnetoelectric susceptibility $`\beta _{}`$buck :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n\left(\frac{3}{2}\beta _{}\frac{1}{2}\beta _{||}\right)E_{ext}B_{ext}l_0^1\beta _{}E_{ext}B_{ext}l_0^1$$
(23)
where $`l_00.3nm`$ is the characteristic interatomic distance. This result follows from the spherically symmetric system’s fourth order energy terms $`L=1/4\beta _{}E^2B^2+1/4\left(\beta _{||}\beta _{}\right)\left(EB\right)^2`$ and $`D=L/E`$ relation. The $`\chi _{xy}+\chi _{yx}1e11`$ was recently observed rothbi  by measurement of magnetoelectric linear birefringence (17) in external electric $`E_{ext}=1e5V/m`$ and magnetic $`B_{ext}=17T`$ fields. The contribution of the non-local termsross rothbi  to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$, leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n1/\lambda `$, can significantly increase the value of (22). However, taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }n\chi _{xy}\chi _{yx}\chi _{xy}+\chi _{yx}`$, the $`\beta _{}0.1a.u.`$, which corresponds to the experimentally observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }n1e11`$rothbi  according to (23), is in the range of theoretical predictionslyons graham . Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ is assumed to be constant in the (21) integral.

According to (22) $`v_{vac}50nm/s`$ in external fields $`E_{ext}=1e5V/m`$ and $`B_{ext}=17T`$. The cut-off frequency $`\omega _{cut}`$ was chosen to correspond to a wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi c/\omega 0.1nm`$, since for higher frequencies the molecular polarization vanishes. Density $`\rho 1e3kg/m^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n1e11`$ and dielectric constant $`\epsilon 1.5`$ were assumed. The contribution of the static field (14) is $`v_{stat}20nm/s`$. In JRL experiment the estimated velocity from (14) was $`v_{laser}1e15m/s`$ (the laser beam intensity was about $`1e5W/m^2`$). Velocity $`v_{vac}`$ is not only greater than $`v_{stat}`$ and $`v_{laser}`$, but may also possess the opposite sign. The latter follows from substitution of ref. lyons  results into (23). The experimental measurement of (22) requires effective homogeneity of the matter. Otherwise eqs. (14) and (20) are not valid. Thus the region of the crossed fields must be produced locally, similar to the laser beam in JRL experiment. It can be done for instance by immersing a capacitor’s electrodes inside the liquid.

Any liquid possess viscosity, causing decay in time of any artificially created flow. The dissipation processes can be taken into account empirically by adding correspondent viscous forces $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }v`$ to the equation of motion (13):

$$\rho \frac{v}{t}=\eta \mathrm{\Delta }v$$
(24)
while (14) defines the boundary conditions. According to (14), the Gaussian laser beam in JRL experiment generated Gaussian flow. Eq. (24), in such case, becomes an ordinary diffusion equation. The initially gained momentum of the liquid ”diffuses” in a plane perpendicular to the propagation direction. Thus the characteristic decay time is $`t_dl_{mirror}^2\rho /\eta 10s`$, where the mirror’s size $`l_{mirror}0.25cm`$ and the density to viscosity ratio $`\rho /\eta 200s/cm^2`$jones2 . Radiation pressure in liquids was studied on the time scales comparable with $`t_d`$jones2 . Longer timescale observations can separate the electromagnetic and liquid flow contributions to the measured force, because the measured momentum (11), in the case of static liquid, corresponds to Abraham’s momentum. It is also feasible in an experiments with strong overlap between incident and reflected beams, e.g. measurement in a tube. The motion of matter can not occur under symmetric illumination, thus the measured force must be independent of the liquid’s refractive index.

In conclusion relativistic formalism was applied for light-matter Lagrangian derivation. Equations of motion were obtained and their correspondence to the Abraham-Minkowski controversy related experimental data was demonstrated. The received results correspond to Abraham’s predictions, while Minkowski’s momentum can be obtained from (9) without its last ”motion of the matter” term. Therefore the origin of the controversy lies in the underestimation of the fact that the field-matter interaction is impossible without the motion of the latter. The vacuum fluctuations induced flow in dielectric liquids with $`v_{vac}50nm/s`$ was predicted in external crossed electric and magnetic fields. The significant property of this phenomenon is the high frequency vacuum modes contribution, similar to the Lamb shift effect. It can be used in future as an investigating tool for zero fluctuations. Other possible applications lie in fields of microfluidics or precise positioning of microobjects, e.g. cold atoms or molecules. Initial experimental verifications can be based on artificially created random fields.

The helpful discussions with A. Englander, B. Sfez and Y. Siberberg are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Mappings between real submanifolds in complex space

## 1. Introduction

In this survey we shall discuss a number of questions and results on approximation, convergence, and finite determination of mappings between real submanifolds in complex space. We begin with some notation. Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be connected smooth real submanifolds of $`^N`$ and $`^N^{}`$ respectively, with $`pM`$ and $`p^{}M^{}`$. We write $`H:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ for a germ of a holomorphic mapping at $`p`$ of $`^N`$ into $`^N^{}`$ with $`H(p)=p^{}`$ . We shall say that such a germ $`H`$ sends $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ if there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ in $`^N`$ with $`H(MU)M^{}`$.

We shall consider here three questions concerning mappings sending one real submanifold into another. The first question (and easiest to state) is that of “finite determination.”

Question 1. Suppose $`H:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ is a germ of a holomorphic mapping at $`p`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$. Is there a positive integer $`K`$ (depending on $`M`$, $`M^{}`$, $`p`$, $`p^{}`$ and possibly also on $`H`$) such that if $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is another such germ of a holomorphic mapping sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ and satisfying

(1.1)
$$^\alpha H(p)=^\alpha \stackrel{~}{H}(p),\alpha ^N,|\alpha |K,$$

then $`H=\stackrel{~}{H}`$.

It is easy to see that the answer to Question 1 is “no” in general, even if $`N=N^{}`$, $`M`$ is real analytic, and $`H`$ is a biholomorphism. Indeed, one may take $`N=1`$, $`M=M^{}=`$, and $`p=p^{}=0`$. In that case, any convergent power series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_nz^n`$ with $`a_n`$ real for all $`n`$ and $`a_10`$ defines a germ of a holomorphic mapping at $`0`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$. However, it follows from the ground breaking work of Chern and Moser \[CM74\] in the mid ’70’s that the answer to Question 1 is “yes” when $`N=N^{}`$, $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are Levi nondegenerate hypersurfaces, and $`H`$ is invertible i.e. the Jacobian of $`H`$ is invertible at $`p`$. In fact, in this case it is shown that one may take $`K=2`$. In this survey we shall give some recent generalizations of this result and state some open problems related to Question 1.

In order to state two other questions, we introduce the notion of a formal mapping. For $`p^N`$ and $`p^{}^N^{}`$, a formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ is an $`N^{}`$-vector of formal power series in $`N`$ complex variables,

(1.2)
$$F=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_N^{}),F_j(Z)=\underset{\alpha ^N}{}a_{j\alpha }(Zp)^\alpha ,$$

with $`(Zp)^\alpha :=(Z_1p_1)^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}(Z_Np_N)^{\alpha _N}`$ and $`F(p)=p^{}`$.

Since a formal mapping is not necessarily a holomorphic mapping, one must redefine what it means to send one manifold into another. Suppose that $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ are germs of real analytic, real submanifolds in $`^N`$ and $`^N^{}`$ respectively, given by the vanishing of real-analytic (vector valued) real local defining functions $`\rho (Z,\overline{Z})`$ and $`\rho ^{}(Z^{},\overline{Z}^{})`$ near $`pM`$ and $`p^{}M^{}`$ respectively. We shall say that a formal mapping $`F`$ as above sends $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ if

$$\rho ^{}(F(Z(x)),\overline{F(Z(x))})=0$$

in the sense of formal power series in $`x`$ for some (and hence for any) real-analytic parametrization $`xZ(x)`$ of $`M`$ near $`p=Z(0)`$. (Here $`x^{dimM}`$.)

Our next question concerns convergence of formal mappings.

Question 2. Suppose $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ is a formal mapping taking $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, where $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are real analytic submanifolds of $`^N`$ and $`^N^{}`$ respectively. Is $`F`$ necessarily convergent?

Again the case $`N=N^{}=1`$, $`M=M^{}=`$, and $`p=p^{}=0`$ is a simple counterexample. Indeed, any formal series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_nZ^n`$ with $`a_n`$ for all $`n`$ represents a formal mapping sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$. Nevertheless, as in the case of finite determination, it was proved in \[CM74\] that if $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are Levi nondegenerate real analytic hypersurfaces in $`^N`$ and if $`F`$ is invertible (i.e. Jac$`F(p)0`$), then $`F`$ must be convergent.

The third question we shall consider is more subtle. Recall that one version of the Artin approximation theorem \[Art68\] implies that if $`F:(^j,0)(^N,0)`$ is any formal mapping and $`h_\alpha :(^N,0)(^q,0)`$ a family of holomorphic mappings such that $`h_\alpha F=0`$ for all $`\alpha `$, then for any integer $`k>0`$ there is a holomorphic mapping $`H^k:(^j,0)(^N,0)`$ such that the Taylor series of $`H^k`$ agrees with that of $`F`$ up to order $`k`$, and $`h_\alpha H^k=0`$ for all $`\alpha `$. Question 3 asks whether there is an analogous theorem for formal mappings sending one submanifold into another.

Question 3. Suppose $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ is a formal mapping sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, where $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are real analytic, real submanifolds of $`^N`$ and $`^N^{}`$ respectively. Can $`F`$ be approximated by convergent mappings sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$? More precisely, given any $`k>0`$ is there a holomorphic mapping $`H^k:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ such that

(1.3)
$$^\alpha H^k(p)=^\alpha F(p),\alpha ^N,|\alpha |k\mathrm{?}$$

Returning to our example $`N=N^{}=1`$, $`M=M^{}=`$, and $`p=p^{}=0`$, any formal mapping $`F:(,0)(,0)`$ sending $``$ into itself is given by a power series with real coefficients. Hence it may be approximated by a convergent series to any order by simply truncating the series. Nevertheless, the answer to Question 3 is also “no” in general. Indeed, in their study of real surfaces in $`^2`$, Moser and Webster \[MW83\] exhibited pairs of real analytic surfaces $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ through $`0`$ for which there exists a formal invertible mapping $`F:(^2,0)(^2,0)`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, but no germ of an invertible holomorphic mapping $`H:(^2,0)(^2,0)`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$. In this situation one says briefly that $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are formally, but not biholomorphically, equivalent at $`0`$.

Note that Question 1, that of finite determination, still makes sense if the holomorphic mapping $`H`$ in that question is assumed only to be formal. Before giving some recent results, we will explore the relationship between answers to Questions 1, 2, and 3. It is clear that a positive answer to Question 2 for a fixed triplet ($`(M,p)`$, $`(M^{},p^{})`$, $`F`$), gives a positive answer to Question 3 for that triplet. Now suppose that the answers to Questions 1 and 3 are positive for a fixed pair of germs of real analytic, real submanifolds $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ in $`^N`$ and for all invertible formal mappings sending $`p`$ to $`p^{}`$ and $`M`$ to $`M^{}`$. We claim that this implies that every such mapping is necessarily convergent. Indeed, for any invertible formal mapping $`F`$ sending $`p`$ to $`p^{}`$ and $`M`$ to $`M^{}`$, by the positive answer to Question 1, there exists $`K>0`$ such that if $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is another such mapping and satisfies

(1.4)
$$^\alpha F(p)=^\alpha \stackrel{~}{F}(p),\alpha ^N,|\alpha |K,$$

then $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F`$. By the approximation of $`F`$ given by the positive answer to Question 3 with $`k=K`$, there is a germ of a holomorphic mapping $`H:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ and satisfying (1.4) with $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ replaced by $`H`$. In that case it follows that $`H=F`$ and hence $`F`$ is convergent.

In the rest of this paper I shall state some recent results related to Questions 1, 2, and 3 and also mention some open problems and conjectures. In the last section I will discuss some aspects of the techniques used in the proofs.

## 2. Approximation

I shall begin with the following approximation result, which is a partial answer to Question 3. If $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are formal mappings at $`p`$ we shall write $`FF^{}=O(|Zp|^K)`$ if the series of the components of $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ agree up to order $`K1`$ at $`p`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

(Baouendi, Rothschild, & Zaitsev \[BRZ01\]) Let $`M^N`$ be a connected real analytic submanifold. Then there exists a closed proper real analytic subvariety $`VM`$ such that for every $`pMV`$, every real analytic submanifold $`M^{}^N`$ with $`dim_{}M^{}=dim_{}M`$, every $`p^{}M^{}`$, every integer $`K>1`$, and every invertible formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, there exists a holomorphic mapping $`H:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ with $`H(Z)F(Z)=O(|Zp|^K)`$.

As a consequence of this approximation theorem, one may conclude in particular that for all points on a given submanifold outside a proper real analytic subvariety, formal equivalence to another submanifold is the same as local biholomorphic equivalence. In the absence of counterexamples, one may conjecture the following generalization of Theorem 2.1 in which the assumptions that $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are equidimensional submanifolds in the same complex space and the invertibility of the formal map $`F`$ are dropped.

###### Conjecture 2.2.

Let $`M^N`$ be a connected real analytic submanifold. Then there exists a closed proper real analytic subvariety $`VM`$ such that for every $`pMV`$, every positive integer $`N^{}`$, every real analytic submanifold $`M^{}^N^{}`$, every $`p^{}M^{}`$, every integer $`K>1`$, and every formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, there exists a holomorphic mapping $`H:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ with $`H(Z)F(Z)=O(|Zp|^K)`$.

A recent result in this direction was proved by Meylan, Mir, and Zaitsev \[MMZ03\]. To state their result we need to recall some definitions. Let $`M^N`$ be a real submanifold of codimension $`d`$ and $`p_0M`$. Let $`\rho =(\rho _1,\mathrm{}\rho _d)`$ be a set of real valued defining functions for $`M`$ near $`p_0`$ with linearly independent differentials. For $`pM`$ near $`p_0`$, let

(2.1)
$$r(p):=ddim\text{span}_{}\{\rho _{j,Z}(p,\overline{p}):1jd\}.$$

Here $`\rho _{j,Z}=(\rho _j/Z_1,\mathrm{},\rho _j/Z_N)^N`$ denotes the complex gradient of $`\rho _j`$ with respect to $`Z=(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_N)`$. The point $`p_0M`$ is called CR if the mapping $`pr(p)`$ is constant for $`p`$ in a neighborhood of $`p_0`$ in $`M`$. (It is easy to see that if $`M`$ is real analytic then the set of points at which $`M`$ is not CR is a proper real analytic subvariety of $`M`$.) The submanifold $`M`$ is called CR if it is CR at all its points. If $`M`$ is CR, the set $`𝒱:=T^{(0,1)}(^N)TM`$ of antiholomorphic vectors tangent to $`M`$ form a bundle, as does the set of holomorphic vectors $`\overline{𝒱}:=T^{(1,0)}()TM`$. The bundle $`𝒱`$ is called the CR bundle of $`M`$. The CR submanifold $`M`$ is said to be of finite type at $`p`$ (in the sense of Kohn \[Koh72\], Bloom-Graham \[BG77\]) if the span at $`p`$ of the Lie algebra generated by the sections of the bundles $`𝒱`$ and $`\overline{𝒱}`$ equals $`T_pM`$.

###### Theorem 2.3.

(Meylan, Mir, & Zaitsev \[MMZ03\]) Let $`M^N`$ be a real analytic CR submanifold, $`pM`$ a point of finite type, and $`K`$ a positive integer. Then for any real algebraic subset $`M^{}^N^{}`$, any $`p^{}M^{}`$, and any formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$, there exists a germ of a holomorphic mapping $`H:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ with $`H(Z)F(Z)=O(|Zp|^K)`$.

Although the hypothesis that $`M^{}`$ be algebraic is essential for the proof of Theorem 2.3 as stated, one can conjecture the following.

###### Conjecture 2.4.

The conclusion of Theorem 2.3 still follows if $`M^{}`$ is assumed to be a real analytic set, rather than an algebraic set.

Another direction in which Theorem 2.1 might be generalized is to reduce the exceptional subvariety $`V`$ (at which mappings may not be approximable) to the points at which $`M`$ is not CR. Since the only known examples of germs $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ of real analytic submanifolds of $`^N`$ which are formally equivalent but not biholomorphically equivalent occur in cases where $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are not CR at $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ respectively, the following conjecture seems reasonable.

###### Conjecture 2.5.

Let $`M^N`$ be a real analytic CR submanifold. Then for any $`pM`$, any real analytic real submanifold $`M^{}^N`$ with $`dim_{}M=dim_{}M^{}`$, and $`p^{}M^{}`$, any formal invertible mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ can be approximated by holomorphic ones, as in the conclusion of Theorem 2.1.

In fact, when $`M`$ is assumed to be of finite type at $`p`$, Baouendi, Mir, and the author \[BMR02\] have recently proved this conjecture.

## 3. Convergence of formal mappings

In this section we shall discuss results and conjectures concerning the convergence of formal mappings which take one real analytic submanifold into another. That is, we shall seek sufficient conditions for germs $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ of real analytic submanifolds of $`^N`$ and $`^N^{}`$ and classes $``$ of formal mappings sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ which guarantee that every element of $``$ is convergent, i.e. holomorphic.

To describe the results and conjectures, we first recall that a real CR manifold $`M`$ is called generic at $`p`$ if the number $`r(p)`$ defined in (2.1) is $`0`$. (Any real hypersurface is a generic submanifold.) If $`M`$ is CR but $`r:=r(p)>0`$, then after a local change of holomorphic coordinates in a neighborhood of $`p`$, one can assume $`p=0`$ and write $`M=M_1\times 0^{Nr}\times ^r`$, where $`M_1`$ is a real analytic generic submanifold of $`^{Nr}`$. (See e.g. \[BER99b\] for details.) In this case, as is shown in Example 3.1 below, there are invertible formal mappings taking $`(M,p)`$ into itself which are not convergent. It is also clear that near $`p`$, $`M`$ may be identified with the generic submanifold $`M_1`$ of $`^{Nr}`$. For this reason we shall often restrict our attention to generic submanifolds.

###### Example 3.1.

Let $`M=M_1\times \{0\}^{Ns}\times ^s`$, where $`s`$ is a positive integer and $`M_1`$ is a real submanifold through $`0`$ in $`^{Ns}`$. Let $`e_N`$ be the last basis vector in $`^N`$. Then the function $`F:ZZ+g(Z_N)e_N`$ maps $`(M,0)`$ to itself and is invertible for any formal series $`g(Z_N)`$ satisfying $`g(0)=0`$ and $`g^{}(0)=0`$. If $`g`$ is not convergent, neither is $`F`$. Furthermore, since $`g`$ is arbitrary, $`F`$ is not determined by any finite number of its derivatives at $`0`$

Before stating a theorem, I will introduce some nondegeneracy conditions for a generic submanifold. Suppose first that $`M`$ is a real hypersurface in $`^N`$ given near $`pM`$ by $`\rho (Z,\overline{Z})=0`$, where $`\rho `$ is a real-valued function with nonvanishing differential. As above, let $`\rho _Z`$ be the vector $`(\rho /Z_1,\mathrm{},\rho /Z_N)`$ and let $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_{N1}`$ be a basis of $`(0,1)`$ vector fields tangent to $`M`$ near $`p`$. The hypersurface $`M`$ is Levi-nondegenerate at $`p`$ if and only if

(3.1)
$$\text{span}_{}\{\rho _Z(p),L_1\rho _Z(p),\mathrm{},L_{N1}\rho _Z(p)\}=^N.$$

We introduce a generalization of Levi-nondegeneracy not only for hypersurfaces but also for generic submanifolds of higher codimension. A generic submanifold $`M`$ of codimension $`d`$ is called finitely nondegenerate at $`p`$ if there is an integer $`k`$ for which

(3.2)
$$\text{span}_{}\{\rho _{j,Z}(p),L^\alpha \rho _{j,Z}(p),\alpha ^{Nd},1jd,|\alpha |k\}=^N,$$

where $`\rho =(\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _d)`$ are defining functions of $`M`$ near $`p`$, $`L^\alpha =L_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}L_d^{\alpha _{Nd}}`$, $`|\alpha |=\alpha _1+\mathrm{}\alpha _{Nd}`$. Here, as in the case of a hypersurface, $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_{Nd}`$ is a basis of $`(0,1)`$ vector fields tangent to $`M`$ near $`p`$. If $`k`$ is the smallest integer such that (3.2) holds, then $`M`$ is said to be $`k`$-nondegenerate at $`p`$.

The case of Levi degenerate, but finitely nondegenerate, hypersurfaces was considered in the joint work of Baouendi, Ebenfelt and the author \[BER97\]. In that work it was proved that any invertible formal mapping sending one finitely nondegenerate hypersurface in $`^N`$, $`N>1`$, onto another is convergent. For hypersurfaces in $`^N,N2`$, the condition of finite nondegeneracy at a point can be satisfied only if the hypersurface is already of finite type at that point, but for generic submanifolds of higher codimension the two conditions are independent. (In $``$ any real analytic hypersurface (i.e. curve) is finitely nondegenerate at all points but not of finite type at any point, since there are no nontrivial (0,1) vector fields tangent to a curve.) In \[BER99a\] the above authors extended their results to prove that an invertible formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$ sending a generic submanifold $`(M,p)`$ onto $`(M^{},p^{})`$ is necessarily convergent provided that $`M`$ is finitely nondegenerate and of finite type at $`p`$.

Another condition that plays an important role for these questions is that of holomorphic nondegeneracy, which is weaker than finite nondegeneracy. A generic submanifold $`M^N`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate at a point $`p`$ if there is no nontrivial holomorphic vector field (with holomorphic coefficients) tangent to $`M`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$. The condition was first introduced for hypersurfaces by N. Stanton \[Sta96\] for studying infinitesimal automorphisms, and more generally later by the author in joint work with Baouendi and Ebenfelt \[BER96\] in their study of algebraicity of mappings. The following gives some basic properties of holomorphic nondegeneracy. See e.g. \[BER99b\] for proofs.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`M^N`$ be a connected, real analytic, generic submanifold, and $`pM`$. The following are equivalent:

1. $`M`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate at $`p`$;
2. $`M`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate at all $`qM`$;
3. $`M`$ is finitely nondegenerate on a dense subset of points.

In light of Proposition 3.1, for a connected, real analytic, generic submanifold $`M`$, one may assume that $`M`$ is either holomorphically nondegenerate at no points, in which case we shall say that $`M`$ is holomorphically degenerate, or at all points, in which case we shall say that $`M`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate. In the first case, one may use the implicit function theorem to show that there is a dense open set $`UM`$ such for any $`pU`$, after a change of local holomorphic coordinates in $`^N`$ near $`p`$, one may assume $`p=0`$ and $`M=M_1\times ^s`$, where $`M_1`$ is a holomorphically nondegenerate generic submanifold of $`^{Ns}`$, with $`s`$ a positive integer (see \[BRZ01\]). Thus if $`M`$ is connected and holomorphically degenerate, near all points $`pU`$, after a change of holomorphic coordinates near $`p`$, one may assume that $`p=0`$ and $`M`$ is given by a defining function which is independent of one of the coordinates, say $`Z_N`$. In this case we may construct invertible formal mappings $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p)`$ which send $`M`$ into itself but are not convergent by using the mappings given in Example 3.1 above.

One can also show (see e.g. \[BER97\]) that such mappings as those of Example 3.1 exist at all $`pM`$ in the holomorphically degenerate case. Hence another necessary condition for positive answers to either Questions 1 or 2 is that the target manifold $`M^{}`$ be holomorphically nondegenerate.

Recall that a formal mapping $`F`$ from $`(^N,p)`$ to itself is called finite if the ideal generated by its components is of finite codimension in the ring, $`[[Zp]]`$, of all formal power series in $`^N`$ at $`p`$. The following theorem, which was first proved by Mir \[Mir00\] in the case of hypersurfaces, is the most general to date for finite formal mappings from $`(^N,p)`$ to $`(^N,p^{})`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

(Baouendi, Mir, & Rothschild \[BMR02\]) Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be connected real analytic generic submanifolds of $`^N`$ of the the same dimension, and $`pM`$ a point of finite type. Let $`p^{}M^{}`$ and suppose that $`M^{}`$ is holomorphically nondegenerate. Then any formal finite mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$ which sends $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ is convergent.

It is clear that even under the hypotheses on $`M`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`p`$ in Theorem 3.2, one must still impose stringent conditions on a formal mapping $`F`$ in order to assure convergence, as the following example shows.

###### Example 3.2.

Let $`M=M^{}^3`$ be the hypersurface through $`p=p^{}=0`$ defined by

(3.3)
$$M:=\{Z=(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3)^3:\text{Im }Z_3=|Z_1|^2|Z_2|^2\},$$

and let $`F_1(Z):(^3,0)(,0)`$ be any divergent formal mapping. Then the formal mapping $`F=(F_1,F_1,0)`$ sends $`M`$ into itself, but is not convergent.

In Example (3.2) the target hypersurface $`M^{}`$ contains the holomorphic subvariety $`V=\{Z:Z_1=Z_2\}`$ and the formal map $`F`$ sends $`M`$ into $`V`$. If neither of the hypersurfaces $`M`$ nor $`M^{}`$ contains a nontrivial holomorphic subvariety through $`0`$, then both are of finite type at $`0`$ and holomorphically nondegenerate. In this case, it is possible to drop all conditions on the formal mapping $`F`$, as is shown by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.3.

(Baouendi, Ebenfelt, & Rothschild \[BER00\]) Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be real analytic hypersurfaces through $`0`$ in $`^N`$, $`N2`$, and suppose that neither $`M`$ nor $`M^{}`$ contains a nontrivial holomorphic variety through $`0`$. Then any formal mapping $`F:(^N,0)(^N,0)`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ is convergent.

Even for real analytic connected hypersurfaces in $`^2`$, necessary and sufficient conditions to guarantee the convergence of all invertible formal mappings sending one into another are not known. In this case, finite type at any point implies holomorphic nondegeneracy. A reasonable conjecture is the following.

###### Conjecture 3.4.

Let $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ be connected real analytic hypersurfaces through $`0`$ in $`^2`$, and suppose that $`M`$ is of finite type at some point. Then any invertible formal mapping $`F:(^2,0)(^2,0)`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ is convergent.

If $`M`$ is of finite type at $`0`$, then the conclusion of Conjecture 3.4, is true; this has been proved in \[BER00\]. Hence the conjecture addresses the situation in which $`M`$ is of finite type only at a dense set of points and $`M`$ is not of finite type at $`0`$.

The situation for generic submanifolds in complex spaces of different dimensions is much more complicated. The following result has been proved for the case where the target manifold is assumed to be real algebraic, i.e. contained in a real algebraic subvariety of the same dimension.

###### Theorem 3.5.

(Meylan, Mir, & Zaitsev \[MMZ03\]) Let $`M^N`$ be a real analytic generic submanifold and $`pM`$ a point of finite type. If $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is a real algebraic set which contains no complex subvariety, then for any $`p^{}M^{}`$, any formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ is convergent.

It is reasonable to conjecture that the condition of algebraicity in Theorem 3.5 is superfluous. Hence the following.

###### Conjecture 3.6.

If $`M`$ and $`p`$ are as in Theorem 3.5 and $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is a real analytic set containing no nontrivial holomorphic varieties, then any formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ to $`M^{}`$ is convergent.

In fact Conjecture 3.6 is still open even for embeddings into strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces (which necessarily cannot contain nontrivial holomorphic varieties). Recently, an advance for mappings between strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces was proved by Mir.

###### Theorem 3.7.

(\[Mir02\]) Any formal embedding sending a real-analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface $`M^N`$ into another real-analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface $`M^{}^{N+1}`$ is convergent.

In light of this result, the following special case of Conjecture 3.6 seems more accessible.

###### Conjecture 3.8.

For any integers $`N,N^{}`$, $`2NN^{}`$, any formal embedding sending a real-analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface $`M^N`$ into another real-analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface $`M^{}^N^{}`$ is convergent.

Recall that for $`N^{}=N`$ the conclusion of Conjecture 3.8 holds by the results in \[CM74\] mentioned above. Theorem 3.7 above shows that the conjecture is true for $`N^{}=N+1`$.

Theorem 3.7 is a consequence of a more general result for which the target is assumed to be only Levi nondegenerate, rather than strictly pseudoconvex. (In this case $`M^{}`$ may contain a nontrivial holomorphic subvariety, or even be foliated by complex subvarieties, as in Example 3.2.) To state the more general result we need another definition. A formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N^{},p^{})`$ sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ is called CR transversal if $`dF(p)(T_pM)𝒱_p^{}^{}\overline{𝒱_p^{}^{}}`$, where $`𝒱^{}`$ is the CR bundle of $`M^{}`$, and $`𝒱_p^{}^{}`$ is the fiber of that bundle at $`p^{}`$. It is known that any formal embedding from one strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface into another is necessarily CR transversal (see Lamel \[Lam01\], and Ebenfelt-Lamel \[EL02\]). Hence the following result implies Theorem 3.7.

###### Theorem 3.9.

(Mir \[Mir02\]) Any formal CR transversal mapping sending a real analytic Levi nondegenerate hypersurface $`M^N`$ into another such hypersurface $`M^{}^{N+1}`$ is convergent.

When $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are not strictly pseudoconvex, Theorem 3.10 is sharp in the sense that $`N+1`$ cannot be replaced by any larger integer $`N^{}`$, as shown by the following example (see \[Lam01\]).

###### Example 3.3.

Let $`M^N`$ and $`M^{}^{N+2}`$ be given respectively by

(3.4)
$$\text{Im }Z_N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}|Z_j|^2,\text{Im }Z_{N+2}^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}|Z_j^{}|^2|Z_{N+1}^{}|^2,$$

and consider the formal mapping $`F:(^N,0)(^{N+2},0)`$ given by

$$F(Z):=(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_{N1},f(Z),f(Z),Z_N),$$

where $`f(Z)`$ is a divergent series with $`f(0)=0`$. It is easy to see that $`F`$ maps $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ and is CR transversal. Here $`M`$ is strictly pseudoconvex, but $`M^{}`$ is only Levi nondegenerate and contains the complex curve given by the equations $`Z_{N+2}^{}=Z_1^{}=Z_2^{}=\mathrm{}Z_{N1}^{}=0`$, $`Z_N^{}=Z_{N+1}^{}`$.

For formal embeddings (not necessarily CR transversal) for which the target manifold contains no nontrivial complex curves, Mir has proved the following, which also implies Theorem 3.7, since a strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface cannot contain a complex curve.

###### Theorem 3.10.

\[Mir02\] Any formal embedding sending a real analytic Levi nondegenerate hypersurface $`M^N`$ into another such hypersurface $`M^{}^{N+1}`$ is convergent if $`M^{}`$ contains no nontrivial complex curves.

## 4. Finite determination of mappings: results and conjectures

In this section we return to variations of Question 1. As mentioned above, if $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are real analytic, one may ask the analogue of Question 1 when $`H`$ is assumed to be a formal mapping rather than a convergent one. Since the publication of \[CM74\] in the mid ’70’s, a number of results were obtained concerning invertible mappings sending one finitely nongenerate generic submanifold in $`^N`$ into another. In \[BER98\] Baouendi, Ebenfelt, and the author proved that if $`M`$ is a real analytic generic submanifold of codimension $`d>0`$ and $`pM`$ is a point of finite type at which $`M`$ is $`k`$-nondegenerate, then any germ at $`p`$ of an invertible holomorphic mapping sending $`M`$ into itself is determined by its derivatives at $`p`$ of order $`k(d+1)`$. This theorem has since been generalized in several directions (see e.g. \[BER00\]), and a number of authors have also proved stronger results in special cases.

For smooth CR submanifolds in $`^N`$ an interesting class of mappings between two such manifolds consists of the CR mappings, since they are exactly the ones that preserve the CR structures. Recall that for CR submanifolds $`M^N`$, $`M^{}^N^{}`$, a differentiable mapping $`h:MM^{}`$ is called CR if $`h_{}𝒱_p𝒱_{h(p)}^{}`$ for all $`pM`$, where $`𝒱`$ and $`𝒱^{}`$ denote the CR bundles of $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ respectively. The restriction of a holomorphic mapping is always CR, but when the submanifolds are both real analytic, a smooth CR mapping is the restriction of a holomorphic mapping if and only if it is real analytic.

The following generalization to the CR case of the theorem in \[BER98\] cited above was proved first by Ebenfelt \[Ebe01\] for the case of hypersurfaces and by Kim and Zaitsev \[KZ01\] for higher codimension.

###### Theorem 4.1.

(Ebenfelt \[Ebe01\], Kim & Zaitsev \[KZ01\]) Let $`M,M^{}^N`$ be smooth CR manifolds of codimension $`d`$ with $`M`$ $`k`$-nondegenerate and of finite type at a point $`p`$. If $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are smooth invertible CR mappings of $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ such that

(4.1)
$$^\alpha h_1(p)=^\alpha h_2(p),\alpha ,|\alpha |k(d+1)$$

then $`h_1=h_2`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

In the case of formal or holomorphic mappings there are some results in which the condition of finite nondegeneracy in Theorem 4.1 can be weakened. The notion of holomorphic nondegeneracy at a point, as given in Section 3, can be extended to smooth manifolds by considering formal holomorphic vector fields (see e.g.\[BER99b\]). For holomorphically nondegenerate generic submanifolds the following was proved in \[BMR02\].

###### Theorem 4.2.

(Baouendi, Mir, & Rothschild \[BMR02\]) Let $`M^N`$ be a smooth generic submanifold through $`p`$, and assume that $`M`$ is of finite type and holomorphically nondegenerate at $`p`$. Then there exists a positive integer $`K`$ such that for any smooth generic submanifold $`M^{}^N`$ with $`dimM=dimM^{}`$, if $`H^j:(^N,p)(^N,p^{})`$, $`j=1,2`$, are invertible formal mappings sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ and satisfying

(4.2)
$$^\alpha H^1(p)=^\alpha H^2(p)\alpha ,|\alpha |K,$$

then $`H^1=H^2`$.

For the case where the point $`p`$ is assumed to be essentially finite (a conditon weaker than finite nondegeneracy, but stronger than holomorphic nondegeneracy, see e.g. \[BER99b\]) this result was previously proved in \[BER00\].

For a hypersurface in $`^2`$ Ebenfelt, Lamel & Zaitsev \[ELZ01\] have recently found optimal results for finite determination of biholomorphisms.

###### Theorem 4.3.

(\[ELZ01\]) Let $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ be germs of real analytic hypersurfaces in $`^2`$ which are not Levi flat. Then there is a an integer $`K2`$ such that if $`H^1,H^2:(^2,p)(^2,p^{})`$ are germs of biholomorphisms sending $`M`$ into $`M^{}`$ with

(4.3)
$$^\alpha H^1(p)=^\alpha H^2(p)\alpha ,|\alpha |K,$$

it follows that $`H^1=H^2`$. Moreover, if $`M`$ is of finite type at $`p`$, the conclusion holds with $`K=2`$.

Theorem 4.3 is sharp. Indeed, as mentioned above, for a Levi flat hypersurface (i.e. given by $`\text{Im }Z_2=0`$), no finite $`K`$ exists for which the conclusion of Theorem 4.3 holds. In addition, Kowalski \[Kow02\] has given a class of non-Levi flat (and hence holomorphically nondegenerate) hypersurfaces $`(M,p)`$ and $`(M^{},p^{})`$ in $`^2`$ for which the best integer $`K`$ as in Theorem 4.3 can be arbitrarily large.

For hypersurfaces in $`^N`$, $`N>2`$, finite type no longer implies holomorphic nondegeneracy and is not sufficient to guarantee finite determination of biholomorphisms, even between real analytic hypersurfaces. Indeed, the mappings $`(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3)(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3+Z_3^K)`$, $`K=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, are biholomorphisms at the origin in $`^3`$ sending the hypersurface $`M=\{(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3):\text{Im }Z_2=|Z_1|^2\}`$ into itself; no finite $`K`$ will determine all such mappings. Indeed, in this case the defining function of $`M`$ is independent of $`Z_3`$ (so that $`M`$ is holomorphically degenerate) and the given mapping is a special case of that of Example 3.1. Recently it has been discovered that in $`^N`$, $`N>2`$, there are real analytic hypersurfaces which are of finite type and holomorphically nondegenerate at all points, but for which self mappings fixing a point cannot be determined by derivatives of order $`2`$.

A survey including other results on finite determination can be found in the recent article by Zaitsev \[Z02\].

## 5. Segre mappings and the characerization of finite type

In this last section we shall define the so-called Segre mappings and give an explicit example to show how these mappings can be used to prove convergence of formal mappings sending a generic submanifold into another. The closely related Segre varieties (see below) have featured prominently in the study of mappings such as in the work of Webster \[W77\] on algebraicity. Segre mappings are also a crucial tool in proving results concerning finite determination and approximation.

For simplicity we shall take $`M=M^{}^N`$ and $`p=p^{}=0`$ in this section, where $`M`$ is a real analytic generic submanifold of codimension $`d`$ given near $`0`$ by the equation $`\rho (Z,\overline{Z})=0`$. Here $`\rho =(\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _d)`$, is a real analytic local defining function of $`M`$ near $`0`$ with $`_Z\rho _1(0),\mathrm{},_Z\rho _d(0)`$ linearly independent. We consider $`\overline{Z}`$ as an independent variable so that $`\rho _j(Z,\zeta )`$ is a convergent power series in the $`2N`$ indeterminates $`(Z,\zeta )`$. We shall denote the ring of such convergent power series with complex coefficients by $`\{Z,\zeta \}`$. The generic rank, $`\text{Rk }F`$, of a formal mapping $`F:(_x^k,0)(_y^p,0)`$ is defined as the rank of the Jacobian matrix $`F/x`$ regarded as a $`𝕂_x`$-linear mapping $`𝕂_x^k𝕂_x^p`$, where $`𝕂_x`$ denotes the field of fractions of $`[[x]]`$. Hence $`\text{Rk }F`$ is the largest integer $`s`$ such that there is an $`s\times s`$ minor of the matrix $`F/x`$ which is not 0 as a formal power series in $`x`$.

Let $`\gamma (\zeta ,t)`$, where $`\zeta =(\zeta _1,\mathrm{}\zeta _N)`$, $`t=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)`$, and $`n=Nd`$, be a holomorphic mapping $`(^N\times ^n,0)(^N,0)`$ such that

(5.1)
$$\rho (\gamma (\zeta ,t),\zeta )=0,\text{rk}\frac{\gamma }{t}(0,0)=n.$$

The existence of such $`\gamma (\zeta ,t)`$ is a consequence of the implicit function theorem and the fact that $`_Z\rho _1,\mathrm{},_Z\rho _d`$ are linearly independent at $`0`$. We shall call a holomorphic mapping $`\gamma (\zeta ,t)`$ satisfying (5.1) a Segre variety mapping for the germ of $`M`$ at $`0`$. The mapping $`t\gamma (\zeta ,t)`$, for $`t`$ near $`0^n`$, parametrizes the Segre variety of $`M`$ at $`\overline{\zeta }`$.

We define a sequence of holomorphic mappings $`v^j:(^{nj},0)(^N,0)`$, called the iterated Segre mappings of $`M`$ at $`0`$ (relative to $`\gamma `$), inductively as follows:

(5.2) $`v^1(t^1):=\gamma (0,t^1),`$
$`v^{j+1}(t^1,\mathrm{},t^{j+1}):=\gamma (\overline{v}^j(t^1,\mathrm{},t^j),t^{j+1}).`$
Here for $`u(x)\{x\}`$ we denote by $`\overline{u}(x)`$ the series obtained by replacing the coefficients in $`u`$ by their complex conjugates. The relevance of the iterated Segre mappings is given by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.1.

(Baouendi, Ebenfelt, & Rothschild \[BER03\]) Let $`M^N`$ be as above. Then

(5.3)
$$\rho (v^{k+1}(t^1,\mathrm{},t^{k+1}),\overline{v}^k(t^1,\mathrm{},t^k))=0,k=1,2,\mathrm{},$$

(5.4)
$$\text{Rk }v^1\text{Rk }v^2\mathrm{}\text{Rk }v^j\text{Rk }v^{j+1}N,j=1,2,\mathrm{},$$

and $`M`$ is of finite type at $`0`$ if and only if $`\text{Rk }v^{d+1}=N`$. Moreover, for any $`j`$, $`\text{Rk }v^j`$ is independent of the choice of the Segre variety mapping $`\gamma `$.

We shall illustrate here how the Segre mappings can be used to prove convergence and finite determination in a very simple case. We let $`M`$ be the Lewy hypersurface in $`^2`$, i.e.

(5.5)
$$M=\{Z=(z,w)^2:\text{Im }w=|z|^2\},$$

and let $`\rho (Z,\zeta )=w\tau 2iz\chi `$, where $`\zeta =(\chi ,\tau )^2`$. Then $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\gamma _2):(^3,0)(^2,0)`$ is uniquely defined by choosing $`\gamma _1(\zeta ,t)=t`$, so that by (5.1) and (LABEL:vj),

(5.6)
$$\gamma _2(\zeta ,t)=\tau +2it\chi \mathrm{and}v^1(t^1)=(t^1,0),$$

Applying (LABEL:vj) for the next iteration, we obtain

(5.7)
$$v^2(t^1,t^2)=\gamma (\overline{v}^1(t^1),t^2)=(t^2,2it^1t^2),\mathrm{with}\text{Rk }v^2=2.$$

By Theorem 5.1 we recover the well-known fact, which is in this case easier to prove directly from the definition, that the Lewy hypersurface is of finite type at $`0`$. For our purposes, however, it will be necessary to go one further iteration to obtain

(5.8)
$$v^3(t^1,t^2,t^3)=\gamma (\overline{v}^2(t^1,t^2),t^3)=(t^3,2it^1t^2+2it^2t^3).$$

Now suppose that $`F:(^2,0)(^2,0)`$ is a formal invertible mapping sending $`M`$ into itself. Considering $`\overline{Z}`$ as an independent variable $`\zeta `$ it follows that

(5.9)
$$\rho (F(Z),\overline{F}(\zeta ))=a(Z,\zeta )\rho (Z,\zeta ),$$

for some $`a(Z,\zeta )[[Z,\zeta ]]`$. Applying (5.3) of Theorem 5.1 with $`k=2`$ we obtain

(5.10)
$$\rho (F(v^3(t^1,t^2,t^3)),\overline{F}(\overline{v}^2(t^1,t^2)))=0.$$

Writing $`F(z,w)=(f(z,w),g(z,w))`$ and using our choice of $`\rho `$, we hence have the identity

(5.11)
$$g(t^3,2i(t^1t^2t^2t^3))\overline{g}(t^2,2it^1t^2)=2if(t^3,2i(t^1t^2t^2t^3))\overline{f}(t^2,2it^1t^2)$$

Setting $`t^1=t^2=0`$ in (5.11), and noting that $`f(0)=g(0)=0`$, we obtain $`g(z,0)=0`$. Since $`F`$ is assumed to be invertible, it follows that $`f_z(0)0`$. Hence after differentiating (5.11) in $`t^3`$ we may solve for $`\overline{f}(t^2,2it^1t^2)`$ as a quotient of formal series

(5.12)
$$\overline{f}(t^2,2it^1t^2)=\frac{(g_z2it^2g_w)(t^3,2i(t^1t^2t^2t^3))}{(f_z2it^2f_w)(t^3,2i(t^1t^2t^2t^3))}.$$

Now set $`t^3=t^1`$ in (5.12) to obtain

(5.13)
$$\overline{f}(v^2(t^1,t^2))=\overline{f}(t^2,2it^1t^2)=\frac{g_z(t^1,0)2it^2g_w(t^1,0)}{f_z(t^1,0)2it^2f_w(t^1,0)}=:R(t^1,t^2).$$

To prove the convergence of the formal series $`F`$ we shall make use of the the following result (see e.g. \[EH77\] or \[BM88\]).

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`S:(^p,0)`$ be a formal series and $`h:(^p,0)(^p,0)`$ a germ of a holomorphic mapping with $`\text{Rk }h=p`$. Then if $`Sh`$ is convergent, so is $`S`$.

I claim that the convergence of $`F`$ will follow from that of $`R(t^1,t^2)`$. For this, assume first that $`R(t^1,t^2)`$ is convergent. Since $`\text{Rk }v^2=2`$, it follows from Lemma 5.2 that $`\overline{f}(\chi ,\tau )`$ (and hence $`f`$) is also convergent. Setting $`t^1=t^3`$ in (5.11), and making use of the fact that $`g(t^3,0)=0`$, it follows from the convergence of $`f`$ and again Lemma 5.2 that $`\overline{g}(\chi ,\tau )`$ is also convergent. This yields the claim that $`F`$ is convergent.

It remains to show the convergence of $`R(t^1,t^2)`$ given by (5.13). By the formula for $`R`$, it will suffice to show that

(5.14)
$$t^\alpha h(t,0)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{convergent}\mathrm{for}|\alpha |=1,h=f\mathrm{or}g.$$

Putting $`t^1=0`$ in (5.13) we obtain

(5.15)
$$\overline{f}(t^2,0)=\frac{g_z(0)2it^2g_w(0)}{f_z(0)2it^2g_w(0)}=R(0,t^2),$$

where we note that $`R(0,t^2)`$ is a rational (and hence convergent) function of $`t^2`$ whose coefficients depend only on the first derivatives of $`F`$ at $`0`$. This shows that $`\overline{f}(t^2,0)`$ is convergent. Differentiating (5.15) we have

(5.16)
$$\overline{f}_\chi (t^2,0)=\frac{d}{dt^2}R(0,t^2).$$

Since $`g(z,0)=0`$, we have $`g_z(t,0)=0`$. This proves the convergence of $`f_z(t,0)`$ and $`g_z(t,0)`$.

To complete the proof of the convergence of $`F`$, it suffices to show that $`t\overline{f}_\tau (t,0)`$ and $`t\overline{g}_\tau (t,0)`$ are convergent. For the first, differentiate both sides of (5.13) with respect to $`t^1`$ and set $`t^1=0`$. In fact this shows that $`\overline{f}_\tau (t,0)`$ is a rational function whose coefficients depend only on the first two derivatives of $`f`$ and $`g`$ at $`0`$. To prove that $`tg_w(t,0)`$ is convergent, set $`t^3=t^1`$ in (5.11) to obtain

(5.17)
$$\overline{g}(t^2,2it^1t^2)=2if(t^1,0)\overline{f}(t^2,2it^1t^2).$$

The desired convergence then follows from that of $`\overline{f}(t^1,0)`$ by differentiating (5.17) with respect to $`t^1`$ and setting $`t^1=0`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

In the above computation one can in fact obtain an explicit formula for any local biholomorphism mapping $`M`$ to itself, and it can be readily seen that all such are given by rational mappings. Furthermore, it follows that any such mapping is determined by its derivatives of order two at $`0`$.

Although the above calculation is for a very special case, an argument along the same lines can be used to show that if $`M^N`$ is a real analytic generic submanifold which is finitely nondegenerate and of finite type at $`p`$, then any invertible formal mapping $`F:(^N,p)(^N,p)`$ sending $`M`$ into itself is convergent. (This is a special case of Theorem 3.2 stated above.) In fact, the proofs of most of the results stated in this survey rely on Theorem 5.1 and also on a crucial use of Artin’s approximation theorem.