text:
# Coulomb drag by small momentum transfer between quantum wires

## Abstract

We demonstrate that in a wide range of temperatures Coulomb drag between two weakly coupled quantum wires is dominated by processes with a small interwire momentum transfer. Such processes, not accounted for in the conventional Luttinger liquid theory, cause drag only because the electron dispersion relation is not linear. The corresponding contribution to the drag resistance scales with temperature as $`T^2`$ if the wires are identical, and as $`T^5`$ if the wires are different.

Electrons moving in a conductor generate a fluctuating electric field around it. This field gives rise to an unusual transport phenomenon, Coulomb drag between two closely situated conductors Rojo . The structure of the fluctuating field is determined by electron correlations within the conductors. Correlations are stronger in conductors of lower dimensionality. Tomonaga-Luttinger model captures some aspects of the correlations in the case of one-dimensional conductors (quantum wires). Within this model, the Coulomb drag was studied in NA ; KS . In a typical setup exp1 ; exp2  a dc current flows through the active wire $`1`$, while the bias applied to the passive wire sets $`I_2=0`$, see Fig. 1. The drag resistivity (drag resistance per unit length of the interacting region) is then defined as

$$r=\underset{I_10}{lim}\frac{e^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{1}{L}\frac{dV_2}{dI_1}.$$
(1)
The only source of drag in the Luttinger liquid is interwire backscattering, associated with a large momentum transfer between the wires. The model predicts a distinctive temperature dependence of the corresponding contribution $`r_{2k_F}`$ to the drag resistivity (1). In the case of identical wires $`r_{2k_F}l_{2k_F}^1e^{\mathrm{\Delta }/T}`$ at the lowest temperatures NA ; KS . Here $`l_{2k_F}`$ is the scattering length characterizing the interwire backscattering. At temperatures $`T`$ above the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, this exponential dependence is replaced by a power-law, $`r_{2k_F}l_{2k_F}^1(T/ϵ_F)^{1\gamma }`$, where $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy. The exponential temperature dependence of $`r_{2k_F}`$ indicates a formation of a zig-zag charge order due to the $`2k_F`$-component of the interwire interaction NA ; KS . To the contrary, the exponent $`\gamma >0`$ in the power-law portion of the function $`r_{2k_F}(T)`$ is determined by the interactions within the wires; $`\gamma =0`$ in the absence of interactions HF . This renormalization of $`r_{2k_F}`$ is similar in origin to the suppression of the conductance of a Luttinger liquid with an impurity Kane\_Fisher : in both cases repulsive interactions enhance the backscattering probability when temperature is lowered.

However, forward scattering between the wires also induces drag. To see this, one has to go beyond the Tomonaga-Luttinger model and account for the nonlinearity of the electronic dispersion relation. If the electron velocity depends on momentum, then even small (compared to $`2k_F`$) momentum transfer results in drag.

The small ($`r_0`$) and large ($`r_{2k_F}`$) momentum transfer contributions to the drag are inversely proportional to the corresponding scattering lengths $`l_0`$ and $`l_{2k_F}`$, respectively. Their ratio $`l_0/l_{2k_F}e^{4k_Fd}`$ depends strongly on the distance $`d`$ between the wires. If the drag effect is employed to study the correlations within a wire, rather than the zig-zag order induced by interwire interaction, then $`d`$ must be large: $`k_Fd>1`$. In this case the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_F(k_Fl_{2k_F})^{1/\gamma }`$ becomes narrow, and the role of forward scattering increases.

In this paper we demonstrate that the drag resistivity between weakly coupled wires is dominated by the forward scattering in a wide temperature range. Even for identical wires, which is the most favorable for backscattering case, $`r_0T^2`$ wins over $`r_{2k_F}`$ at all $`T`$ above $`T^{}ϵ_F(l_0/l_{2k_F})^{1/(1+\gamma )}`$. For different wires, $`r_{2k_F}`$ is exponentially small at $`Tu\delta n`$, whereas $`r_0`$ has a power-law low-temperature asymptotics; here $`\delta n`$ is the mismatch of the electron densities between the wires and $`u`$ is the characteristic plasma velocity; hereafter we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

The Hamiltonian of the system, $`H=H_1+H_2+H_{12}`$, is given by the sum of the Hamiltonians of the two isolated wires $`i=1,2`$,

$`H_i={\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _i^{}(x)\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}\psi _i(x)}+H_{int},\widehat{p}=id/dx,`$
$`H_{int}={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\rho _i(x)U_{ii}(xy)\rho _i(y)},`$ (2)
and of the Hamiltonian of the interwire interaction,

$$H_{12}=𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\rho _1(x_1)U_{12}(x_1x_2)\rho _2(x_2);$$
(3)
here $`\rho _i(x)=\psi _i^{}(x)\psi _i(x)`$.

We will assume that the interactions are screened by the nearby metallic gates. The screening length $`d_s`$ is set by the distance to the gates and is typically exp1 ; exp2  of the order of the separation $`d`$ between the wires, $`d_sd`$. The short-distance cutoff $`d_{ij}`$ of the Coulomb potential is provided by the wire width $`d_0`$ for $`i=j`$ or by the interwire distance $`d`$ for $`ij`$. The Fourier transforms $`U_{ij}(k)=𝑑xe^{ikx}U_{ij}(x)`$ are rapidly decreasing functions of $`k`$ with $`U_{ij}(k)e^{|k|d_s}`$ for $`|k|1/d_s`$, and $`U_{ij}(k)\mathrm{const}`$ for $`|k|1/d_{ij}`$. Note that $`d_{ij}d_sd`$ for interwire interaction $`U_{12}(k)`$. Thus, its $`k`$-dependence is characterized by a single scale $`k_01/d`$.

Because of the interaction $`H_{12}`$, electrons in the wire $`2`$ experience a force NA  whose density is given by

$$_2=𝑑x\left(dU_{12}(x)/dx\right)\rho _1(x)\rho _2(0).$$
(4)
Since there is no current in the wire 2, this force must be balanced by an external electric field, $`en_2_2+_2=0`$, where $`_2=V_2/L`$ and $`n_i=\rho _i`$ is the concentration of electrons in the wire $`i`$. At $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see the discussion above) the correlation function in the r.h.s. of Eq. (4) can be evaluated in the first order in $`U_{12}`$,

$$\frac{V_2}{L}=\frac{1}{en_2}\frac{dkd\omega }{(2\pi )^2}kU_{12}^2(k)\stackrel{~}{S}_1(k,\omega )\stackrel{~}{S}_2(k,\omega ),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i(k,\omega )`$ are the dynamic structure factors,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_i(k,\omega )=𝑑x𝑑te^{i\omega tikx}\rho _i(x,t)\rho _i(0,0),$$

calculated in the presence of a finite current $`I_1`$ in the wire $`1`$. The structure factor $`\stackrel{~}{S}_2(k,\omega )`$ in the wire 2 coincides with its equilibrium value, $`S_2(k,\omega )`$. The electronic subsystem in the wire $`1`$ is in equilibrium in the reference frame moving with the drift velocity $`v_d=I_1/en_1`$ in the direction of the current. Therefore the structure factor $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1`$ is obtained from the equilibrium value $`S_1`$ using the Galilean transformation: $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1(k,\omega )=S_1(k,\omega qv_d)`$. Equations (1) and (5) then yield

$$r=𝑑k𝑑\omega \frac{k^2U_{12}^2(k)}{8\pi ^3n_1n_2}\frac{S_1(k,\omega )}{\omega }S_2(k,\omega ).$$
(6)
Now we use the fluctuation-dissipation theorem,

$$S_i(k,\omega )=\frac{2A_i(k,\omega )}{1e^{\omega /T}}$$

to further simplify Eq. (6),

$$r=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{k^2U_{12}^2(k)}{4\pi ^3n_1n_2T}\frac{A_1(k,\omega )A_2(k,\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\omega /2T)}.$$
(7)
Here $`A_i`$ is the imaginary part of the retarded density-density correlation function; $`A_i(k,\omega )=A_i(k,\omega )=A_i(k,\omega )`$. Equation (7) was derived by different means in ZM ; similar expressions have been also obtained for noninteracting systems with disorder nonint . Here we demonstrated the validity of Eq. (7) for clean interacting systems.

We start with the evaluation of the drag resistivity for noninteracting electrons ($`U_{ii}=0`$). Concentrating on the small momentum transfer contribution to $`r`$, we consider the limit $`l_0/l_{2k_F}0`$, thus setting $`r_{2k_F}=0`$. In this case the main contribution to the integral over $`k`$ in Eq. (7) comes from small momenta $`kk_F`$ and small energies $`\omega ϵ_F`$. At these values of $`k`$ and $`\omega `$, functions $`A_i(k,\omega )`$ are sharply peaked at $`\omega _i=v_ik`$, where $`v_i=\pi n_i/m`$ are the Fermi velocities in the two wires. For a given $`k<2k_F`$ the widths of the peaks can be estimated as

$$\delta \omega (k,T)=\mathrm{max}\{k^2/m,kT/k_F\}.$$
(8)
Equation (8) and the exact f-sum rule,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \omega A_i(k,\omega )=\frac{\pi n_i}{m}\frac{k^2}{2},$$
(9)
allow us to estimate the peak heights: $`A_ik/2\delta \omega `$. If the difference between the Fermi velocities is small,

$$\delta v=|v_1v_2|v_F=\pi n/m,n=(n_1+n_2)/2,$$

then Eq. (7) reduces to

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^3n^2T}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^2U_{12}^2(k)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(v_Fk/2T)}}\alpha (k,T),`$ (10)
$`\alpha (k,T)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega A_1(k,\omega )A_2(k,\omega ).`$ (11)
The function $`\alpha (k,T)`$ depends on $`\delta v`$. If the wires are identical ($`\delta v=0`$), then Eq. (11) and the above estimates for $`A_i`$ yield

$$\alpha (k,T)\frac{k^2}{4\delta \omega (k,T)}.$$
(12)
There are two competing scales in the integrand of Eq. (10). The first scale, $`k_01/dk_F`$, characterizes the $`k`$-dependence of the interwire interaction $`U_{12}(k)`$. The typical wave vector of thermally excited electron-hole pairs, $`T/v_F`$, defines the second scale. The two scales coincide at $`T=T_0=v_Fk_0`$. At $`TT_0`$ one can replace $`U_{12}(k)`$ by $`U_{12}(0)`$ in Eq. (10). Furthemore, we use $`\alpha `$ in the form of Eq. (12) at $`T=0`$, which results in

$$r=\frac{c_1}{l_0}\left(\frac{T}{ϵ_F}\right)^2,\frac{1}{l_0}=\left[\frac{U_{12}(0)}{2\pi v_F}\right]^2n$$
(13)
with $`c_1=\pi ^4/12`$. Use of exact form of $`A_i(k,\omega )`$ in Eq. (11) changes only the numerical coefficient, $`c_1=\pi ^2/4`$.

The increase of temperature $`T`$ above $`T_0`$ results in a saturation of the drag resistivity. Indeed, at $`T_0Tϵ_F`$ one can expand $`\mathrm{sinh}(v_Fk/2T)`$ in Eq. (10) and use $`\delta \omega =kT/k_F`$ for the peak width in (12). This yields

$$r\frac{1}{l_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{kdk}{n^2}\frac{U_{12}^2(k)}{U_{12}^2(0)}\frac{1}{l_0}\left(\frac{T_0}{ϵ_F}\right)^2.$$
(14)
Further increase of $`T`$ leads to the decay of the drag,

$$rl_0^1(T_0/ϵ_F)^2(T/ϵ_F)^{3/2},Tϵ_F,$$
(15)
similar to the two-dimensional case FH .

We now consider wires with slightly different Fermi velocities $`\delta v>0`$. In this case the peaks of $`A_i(k,\omega )`$ are separated in $`\omega `$ by $`k\delta v`$. We define a new temperature scale $`T_1=k_F\delta v`$ by equating the separation to the peak width (8). We assume this scale is small, $`T_1T_0`$. The difference between velocities does not affect the drag at $`TT_1`$. However, at $`TT_1`$ the drag resistivity is suppressed exponentially. To obtain the leading asymptotics of $`r(T)`$ it is sufficient to use the $`T=0`$ limit free  of $`A_i(k,\omega )`$ in Eq. (11), $`\alpha (k,0)=(m/4k)\left(km\delta v\right)\theta (km\delta v)`$. Equation (10) then results in

$$r=\frac{\pi ^2/4}{l_0}\left(\frac{T_1}{ϵ_F}\right)^2\frac{T}{T_1}e^{T_1/T},TT_1.$$
(16)
The activational temperature dependence Eq. (16) holds for all $`TT_1`$, because for noninteracting electrons at $`T=0`$ the product $`A_1(k,\omega )A_2(k,\omega )`$ is exactly zero free  at $`k<m\delta v`$. If electrons interact, some overlap of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ exists even at small $`km\delta v`$. This yields a further contribution to $`r`$, that has a power-law temperature dependence. We will evaluate this contribution for weak intrawire interaction.

It is convenient to write $`A(k,\omega )`$ (we suppress the index $`i`$ in the following) in the form $`A(k,\omega )=\left[S(k,\omega )S(k,\omega )\right]/2`$ and use the Lehmann representation for the dynamic structure factor:

$$S(k,\omega )=\frac{2\pi }{L}\underset{n}{}\left|n\left|\rho _k\right|gs\right|^2\delta (\omega E_n+E_{gs}).$$
(17)
Here $`L`$ is the system size, $`|gs`$ is the ground state, and $`\rho _k=_p\psi _{p+k}^{}\psi _p`$. We evaluate the matrix element in Eq. (17) in the first order in the intrawire interaction. The nonvanishing at $`\omega v_Fk\delta \omega `$ contribution results from the processes in which the unperturbed final state $`|n`$ in Eq. (17) has two electron-hole pairs: $`|n^{(0)}=\psi _{p+q}^{}\psi _p\psi _{p^{}q^{}}^{}\psi _p^{}|0`$. This contribution is

$`\delta S(k,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p𝑑p^{}𝑑q𝑑q^{}\delta (qq^{}k)}`$ (18)
$`\times \delta (\omega \xi _{p+q}+\xi _p\xi _{p^{}q^{}}+\xi _p^{})`$
$`\times f_p(1f_{p+q})f_p^{}(1f_{p^{}q^{}})K^2(p,p^{},q,q^{},\omega ),`$
where $`f_p`$ are the Fermi functions, $`\xi _p=p^2/2m`$, and

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U(q^{})U(pp^{}+q^{})}{\omega \xi _{p+q}+\xi _{p+q^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{U(q^{})U(pp^{}+q)}{\omega \xi _{p+qq^{}}+\xi _p}}`$
$`+[pp^{},qq^{}].`$
Note that Eq. (18), unlike Eq. (17), accounts for a finite temperature. At $`\omega ϵ_F`$ and $`kk_F`$, Eq. (18) yields the interaction-induced correction to $`A(k,\omega )`$,

$$\delta A(k,\omega )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}{v_F}\frac{k^4}{m^2}\frac{\theta (\omega v_Fk)}{\omega ^2v_F^2k^2},$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{U}=[U(0)U(2k_F)]/2\pi v_F1`$. This result is valid for $`\omega ϵ_F`$, $`kk_F`$, $`|\omega v_Fk|\mathrm{max}\{\stackrel{~}{U}v_Fk,\delta \omega (k,T)\}`$, and describes $`A(k,\omega )`$ outside the interval Eq. (8). The limit of linear electron dispersion relation ($`m\mathrm{}`$) corresponds DL  to $`\delta A(k,\omega )=0`$.

We use Eq. (19) to evaluate the interaction-induced correction $`\delta r`$ to the drag resisitivity between non-identical wires with $`T_1=k_F\delta vϵ_F\stackrel{~}{U}`$. At the lowest temperatures, Eqs. (10) and (11) yield

$$\delta r\frac{\stackrel{~}{U}^2}{l_0}\left(\frac{T_1}{ϵ_F}\right)^4\left(\frac{T}{T_1}\right)^5.$$
(20)
With increasing temperature, the $`r(T)`$ dependence changes from Eq. (20) to the activation law (16). At $`TT_1`$ the difference between wires does not affect $`r(T)`$.

We will argue now that intrawire interactions do not change the quadratic temperature dependence of $`r(T)`$ at $`T_1TT_0`$, see Eq. (13). At these temperatures, an estimate equivalent to Eq. (13) reads $`r|U_{12}^2(0)|v_F^3\delta \omega (k_T,T)`$ and yields $`rT^2`$; here $`k_TT/v_Fk_F`$ is the wave vector of a typical electron-hole excitation. Interaction apparently does not affect the functional dependence of $`\delta \omega `$ on $`k`$ and $`T`$; the estimate (8) still can be used, although the coefficients $`1/m`$ and $`1/k_F`$ in it are affected by the interaction.

The Tomonaga-Luttinger model is insufficient for the evaluation of $`\delta \omega `$ in the presence of interaction: it implies linear electron spectrum, which yields DL  $`\delta \omega =0`$. Accounting for the curvature of the electron spectrum complicates the treatment of the interaction greatly. The width $`\delta \omega `$ can be explicitly evaluated in the Calogero-Sutherland model which is characterized by a very specific interaction potential,

$$U_{ii}(x)=\frac{2\pi ^2}{mL^2}\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\pi x/L\right]}.$$
(21)
The parameter $`\lambda `$ here is related to the conventional interaction parameter $`g`$ of the Luttinger liquid: $`g=1/\lambda `$. This relation follows from the definition $`g=v_F/u`$ in terms of the velocity of the collective mode (plasmon) $`u`$, and its value $`u=(\pi n/m)\lambda `$ in the Calogero-Sutherland model SLA ; Ha . For the rational values of $`\lambda `$ and at $`T=0`$ the density-density correlation function is known exactly SLA ; Ha . Due to the integrability of the model, $`A_i(k,\omega )0`$ only in a finite interval of $`\omega `$ around $`\omega =u_ik`$ tail . We found this interval for $`k2\pi n_i`$:

$$(1/g)\frac{k^2}{2m}<\omega u_ik<\frac{k^2}{2m},$$
(22)
which yields for the width

$$\delta \omega (k,0)=\frac{1+g}{2g}\frac{k^2}{m}.$$
(23)
In order to estimate $`r`$ we note that Eq. (7) and the sum rule (9) remain valid in the presence of interactions within the wires. This allows us to follow the steps that led to Eq. (13). Replacing $`v_F`$ by the plasma velocity $`u`$ in Eq. (10) and using Eq. (23), we find

$$r=\frac{c_g}{l_0}\left(\frac{T}{ϵ_F}\right)^2,c_g\frac{g^6}{1+g},$$
(24)
which agrees with our expectation for the $`r(T)`$ dependence. We are not aware of a reliabale theory of $`A_i(k,\omega )`$ beyond the exactly solvable case. However, the self-consistent Born approximation results Samokhin  allow us to corroborate the estimate $`\delta \omega k^2/m`$ for the peak width, so, apparently, the $`rT^2`$ dependence is universal.

First observations of drag between ballistic quantum wires appeared recently exp1 ; exp2 . In a limited temperature interval, $`0.2\mathrm{K}<T<0.9\mathrm{K}`$, a three-fold drop in the drag resistance was observed exp1  with the increase of temperature. This drop was fit to a power-law $`rT^{0.77}`$ and interpeted as evidence of the Luttinger liquid behavior. However, the Fermi wave vector in the wires of Ref. exp1  was estimated to be $`k_F=6\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^1`$, which yields $`ϵ_F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m^{}0.2\mathrm{K}`$ (we used here $`m^{}=0.068m_0`$ known for GaAs). It thus appears that the measurements of Ref. exp1  correspond to a non-degenerate or weakly degenerate regime incompatible with the Luttinger liquid description. An alternative explanation of the observations exp1 ; exp2  is provided by our theory. Indeed, using the values of $`k_F`$ and $`d=200\mathrm{nm}`$ of exp1 , we find $`k_Fd=1.2`$. Under this condition the small momentum transfer contribution dominates at $`T>T^{}`$, see Fig. 2. The observed exp1 ; exp2  behavior of $`r(T)`$ may correspond to the crossover regime between the limits $`r(T)=\mathrm{const}`$ and $`r(T)T^{3/2}`$ presented by Eqs. (14) and (15).

To conclude, the small momentum transfer contribution dominates Coulomb drag at almost all temperatures if the distance between the wires exceeds the Fermi wavelength, see Fig. 2. Drag by small momentum transfer is possible because electron dispersion relation is not linear, and therefore can not be accounted for in the conventional Tomonaga-Luttinger model.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank KITP, Santa Barbara, for hospitality, and K. Flensberg, A. Kamenev, S. Tarucha, and A. Tsvelik for discussions. This work was supported by NSF grants DMR97-31756, DMR-9984002, DMR02-37296, EIA02-10736, and by the Packard Foundation.


format: text

text:
# A qualitative Langevin-like model for the coexistence of two distinct granular temperatures

## 1 Introduction

Granular Systems (GS) are ubiquitous in Nature . They consist of large numbers of distinct, inelastic, rough grains. When studying GS, we are faced with mesoscopic collective effects, such as frictional forces, that are not present in molecular gases . The presence of energy dissipation during internal collisions  make GS very different from molecular gases: true equilibrium is only possible when the total kinetic energy is completely dissipated. Thus, in order to keep a GS in a steady-state, we need to inject energy through the boundaries or by means of a coupled heath bath . The parameter used to account for the kinetic energy present in a GS is the so called granular temperature, i.e., the average kinetic energy per grain. It is clearly related to the usual microscopic definition of temperature in statistical mechanics .

Thus, we define macroscopic granular quantities taking inspiration from thermodynamic concepts familiar to us. For instance, pressure and granular number density, among others, are widely used when studying GS . However, the naive application of thermodynamic concepts to GS can sometimes be misleading. Take pressure for instance: for molecular gases, as we increase the number density, at fixed energy feeding rate, the pressure should increase. However, for GS, the reverse happens for high enough densities . This tells us to be careful when applying thermodynamic concepts, such as the granular temperature $`T_g`$, to GS.

Thermodynamics is based on a few simple principles, much in the same way as Euclidean geometry is based on five postulates. However, we can build non-Euclidean geometries from the first four postulates and the negation of the fifth. We ask ourselves: is there a similar hope for GS thermodynamics? In this spirit, we start by studying the most basic law of granular thermodynamics: the zeroth law, or the temperature equilibrium law. Our model is a very simple one, based on a Langevin-like approach to the collisions of different granular species in a mixture.

We study the transient behavior of a binary granular gas mixture evolving toward a steady-state . The mixture components are smooth, inelastic identical spheres of two type: a species of mass $`M`$ and another species of mass $`mM`$ and same radius. A convenient Langevin-like collision term is introduced, aiming to take into account the more complicated aspects of the physics in a simplified, effective way. Experimental realizations of granular temperature coexistence  have shown some characteristics that can be reproduced by the present model. In our opinion, the model’s main advantage is that it permits us to visualize some important physical aspects of an actual system in a mathematical setting which is much simpler then that of more complete theories .

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we study the behavior of an intruder in a bath of particles. In Section 3, we analyze the mixture of granular species while we calculate the temperature ratio in Section 4. We conclude briefly in Section 5.

## 2 Test particle in a granular bath

We study the behavior of a 1D test particle of mass $`M`$, velocity $`V`$, immersed in granular bath of particles of mass $`m=\gamma M`$ and same radius of the test particle . The granular bath interacts with the test particle through frontal inelastic collisions characterized by a coefficient of restitution $`0<\epsilon <1`$.

We assume that the typical bath particle has a constant driving velocity $`v_D`$ and we suppose that collisions happen with equal probabilities for the direction of the bath particle’s velocity. The choice above is a reasonable one, since there are always four possible ways for a bath particle to collide with the test particle (with velocity $`V`$): two frontal collisions (with $`V`$ and $`\pm v_D`$) and two rear ones (again with $`V`$ and $`\pm v_D`$). For each case, regardless of whether $`\left|V\right|>v_D`$ or $`\left|V\right|<v_D`$, a simple analysis shows that the next collision will occur either with a $`+v_D`$ or with a $`v_D`$ bath particle. A further implicit simplifying hypothesis is that we ignore the dependence of the collision rate on the relative velocity. This is similar to the so called Maxwell model . We thus write the momentum conservation and the inelastic behavior equation as

$`MV\pm mv_D`$ $`=`$ $`MV^{}+mv^{},`$ (1)
$`V^{}v^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (V(\pm v_D)).`$ (2)
After a little manipulation, we obtain

$$V^{}=\left(\frac{1\gamma \epsilon }{1+\gamma }\right)V\pm v_D\left(\frac{\gamma (1+\epsilon )}{1+\gamma }\right).$$
(3)
The test particle’s change in velocity is thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=V^{}V=\beta [V+\eta v_D],\text{ where }\beta =\frac{\gamma (1+\epsilon )}{1+\gamma },$$
(4)
and $`\eta `$ is a random variable with values $`\pm 1`$ with equal probability distribution, $`<\eta >=0`$, $`\eta ^2=1`$.

The test particle’s collisional history is determined by its sequence of collisions with the bath particles. We assign an independent random variable $`\eta _{N1}`$ for the $`N`$-th collision. Then, we can write the velocity of the test particle, after the $`N`$th collision as

$`V_N`$ $`=`$ $`(1\beta )^NV_0+\beta v_D{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}(1\beta )^{N1i}\eta _i,`$ (5)
where $`V_0`$ is the initial velocity of the test particle and

$$<\eta _i>=0,\text{ }<\eta _i\eta _j>=\delta _{i,j},\text{ }\eta _i^2=1.$$
(6)
It can be seen from above that the memory of the initial velocity is lost exponentially fast.

Next, we calculate the cases of the test particle being a bath particle ($`\gamma =1`$) and that of it being a massive intruder ($`\gamma 1`$. In these two limiting cases, the quadratic velocities will be in equilibrium with the bath and their ratio should reflect the ratio between test particle-bath particle quadratic ratio. Obviously, we have $`v_{bath}v_D`$ since we allow $`v_{bath}`$ to fluctuate while supposing $`v_D`$ fixed. Thus, it is straightforward to show that

$`v_{bath}^2=\underset{N\mathrm{},\gamma =1}{lim}<V_N^2>`$ $`=`$ $`v_D^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\epsilon }{3\epsilon }},`$ (7)
$`v_{test}^2=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}<V_N^2>`$ $`=`$ $`v_D^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (1+\epsilon )}{2+\gamma (1\epsilon )}}.`$ (8)
From Eq. 7-8, we obtain the granular temperature ratio in the steady state for a test particle immersed in a granular bath:

$$\frac{T_g^{bath}}{T_g^{test}}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}m<v_{bath}^2>}{\frac{1}{2}M<v_{test}^2>}=\frac{\frac{m}{2}v_D^2\frac{1+\epsilon }{3\epsilon }}{\frac{M}{2}v_D^2\frac{\gamma (1+\epsilon )}{2+\gamma (1\epsilon )}}=\frac{2+\gamma (1\epsilon )}{3\epsilon }.$$
(9)
In order to compare the result of Eq. 9 with the literature on the tracer limit, we see that in the quasi-elastic case, $`\epsilon 1`$, we have up to first order in the limit of the heavy tracer $`\gamma 0`$

$$\frac{T_g^{test}}{T_g^{bath}}1+\frac{1\epsilon }{2}.$$
(10)
From reference , which agrees with references , we observe that from Eq. 31 and Fig. 3, the same limit above is obtained. The present model seems to have better agreement with kinetic theories on this region. The case of larger $`\gamma `$ does not agree so well. However, its aim is not to obtain accurate quantitative results, but to get insights into the mechanism of granular temperature coexistence.

The cases of: same species ($`\gamma =1`$) and elastic motion ($`\epsilon =1`$) imply that $`T_g^{bath}=T_g^{test}`$, as expected.

We observe that the above difference in granular temperatures is due to the factor $`\beta `$ being smaller for the massive intruder, $`\gamma <1`$ , leading to a smaller loss of speed during an inelastic collision giving

$$(1\beta _{int})=\left(1\frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma }\frac{(1+\epsilon )}{2}\right)>(1\beta _{bath})=\left(1\frac{(1+\epsilon )}{2}\right),$$

(see Eq. 5). This reflects the fact that, due to its inertia, a massive inelastic intruder will lose comparatively less energy to a lighter bath than a less massive particle would.

Our next step will be to characterize the mixture of different species.

## 3 Granular mixture

We suppose that the granular fluid under study is composed of homogeneous particles of identical diameters. Similarly to the previous section, any chosen particle’s collisions will occur with a bath of particles. But now this bath consists of a mix of two types of particles with different constant driving velocities, namely $`v_D`$ for particles $`m`$ and $`V_D`$ for particles $`M`$  (the above mentioned particle belongs to one of these families). The coefficients of restitution are $`\epsilon _1`$, $`\epsilon _2`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ corresponding to the $`mm`$, $`MM`$, $`mM`$ (or $`Mm`$) collision possibilities. In what follows, we use the definitions

$$\alpha _1=\frac{1+\epsilon _1}{2},\text{ }\alpha _2=\frac{1+\epsilon _2}{2},\text{ }\beta =\frac{\gamma (1+\epsilon ^{})}{1+\gamma }=\gamma \zeta .$$
(11)
We need two families of random variables in order to describe the chosen particle’s $`N`$th collision of a: a variable $`\theta _{m,N}`$ or $`\theta _{M,N}`$, to describe with what species the collision occurs; another, $`\eta _{m,N}`$ or $`\eta _{M,N}`$, to give the direction of the bath particle. These variables have the following distributions: $`\theta _{m,N}=1`$ with probability $`x`$, $`\theta _{m,N}=0`$ with probability $`1x`$, $`\theta _{M,N}=1`$ with probability $`1x`$, $`\theta _{M,N}=0`$ with probability $`x`$, where

$$x=\frac{\rho _m}{\rho _m+\rho _M},$$
(12)
and $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _M`$ are the species number densities; the $`\eta `$variables are distributed with equal probabilities.

According to the distributions above and skipping the algebra, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we obtain: $`<v_{\mathrm{}}>=0`$ and

$`<v_{\mathrm{}}^2>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x\alpha _1^2v_D^2+(1x)\zeta ^2V_D^2}{1(x(1\alpha _1)^2+(1x)(1\zeta )^2)}}.`$ (13)
Similarly, we have $`<V_{\mathrm{}}>=0`$ and

$`<V_{\mathrm{}}^2>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1x)\alpha _2^2V_D^2+x\beta ^2v_D^2}{1((1x)(1\alpha _2)^2+x(1\beta )^2)}}.`$ (14)
## 4 Temperature ratio: general situation

As in the case of a test particle, we define the granular temperature ratio as

$$\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}m<v_{\mathrm{}}^2>}{\frac{1}{2}M<V_{\mathrm{}}^2>}=\gamma \frac{<v_{\mathrm{}}^2>}{<V_{\mathrm{}}^2>}=\gamma \frac{v_D^2}{V_D^2},$$
(15)
where we assumed that the same relationship holds both for the steady-state velocities and the driving velocities.

Replacing Eq. 13 and Eq. 14 into Eq. 15, and solving for $`\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}`$, yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \{{\displaystyle \frac{[x\alpha _1^2(1x)\alpha _2^2A]}{2x\beta ^2A}}`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{[x\alpha _1^2(1x)\alpha _2^2A]^2+4x(1x)\beta ^2\zeta ^2A}}{2x\beta ^2A}}\},`$
where

$$A=\frac{1x(1\alpha _1)^2(1x)(1\zeta )^2}{1(1x)(1\alpha _2)^2x(1\beta )^2}.$$
(17)
We notice, in Eq. 16, that the dependence of $`\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}`$ on $`\gamma `$ is stronger than on the inelasticity parameters, as mentioned in reference . Some important physical limits are listed below.

Elastic limit. In this limit, $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2=\epsilon ^{}=1`$, and we have

$$\alpha _1=\alpha _2=1,\text{ }\beta =\gamma \zeta =\frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma }\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}=1,$$
(18)
for any value of $`\gamma `$. The elastic equilibrium regime is such that all granular temperatures are the same, as expected.

Same species, same inelasticity. In this case we set $`\gamma =1`$ and $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2=\epsilon ^{}\epsilon `$. We have now

$$\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\beta =\zeta =\frac{1+\epsilon }{2}.$$

It is also trivial to check that $`\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}=1`$. But, for $`\gamma 1`$ and $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon ^{}<1`$ the granular temperature ratio is non trivial, assuming values different from 1.

Tracer limit. It is straightforward to show that we recover Eq. 9 when $`x0`$ :

$$\underset{x0}{lim}\frac{T_g^{bath}}{T_g^{test}}=\frac{2+\gamma (1\epsilon )}{3\epsilon }.$$
(19)
Comparison with experiments. In a recent work, Feitosa and Menon  used beads of equal diameters, made from different materials in order to study the granular temperature behavior of a granular mix. According to their experimental data, for a 1/2-1/2 mix of glass-brass: $`x=0.5`$, $`\gamma =0.28`$, $`\epsilon _1=0.83`$, $`\epsilon _2=0.61`$, $`\epsilon ^{}=0.72`$, $`\alpha _1=0.92`$, $`\alpha _2=0.81`$, $`\beta =0.38`$ and $`\zeta =1.34`$. We assumed $`\epsilon ^{}=\frac{\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2}{2}`$ in order to carry out the calculations. By looking at the data in reference , we estimate $`\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}0.8`$ as the plateau value for large velocities, where the above ratio seems to converge to.

From our model, and using the data above, we obtain

$$\frac{T_g^m}{T_g^M}=0.86,$$

which is not too far from the experimental result above. But we need to keep in mind that the present model is basically qualitative. It is not sophisticated enough in order to obtain precise quantitative agreement with the experiments.

## 5 Conclusions

A simple Langevin-like collisional model, valid for any mass ratio and inelasticities values, which assumes a bath of grains interacting with test particles, is used to study the steady-state average kinetic energy of a mixture of distinct species of grains. The collisions are modeled by a Langevin-like impulsive term. The collisional history of the test particle is obtained and the limiting mean square velocity calculated. We compare the mean kinetic energy for each species. There results a difference in coexisting granular temperatures. We verify that this is due to inertial effects during a collision of massive and light particles.


text:
# Counterexamples for Local Isometric Embedding

## 1.  Introduction

In this paper, we construct metrics on 2-manifold which cannot be even locally isometrically embedded in the Euclidean space $`^3.`$ By isometric embedding of $`(M^2,g)`$ with $`g=_{i,j=1}^2g_{ij}dx_idx_j`$ in $`^3,`$ we mean there exists a surface in $`^3`$ with the induced metric equaling $`g,`$ namely, the three coordinate functions $`(X(x_1,x_2),Y(x_1,x_2),Z(x_1,x_2))`$ defined on $`M^2`$ satisfy

$$dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}g_{ij}dx_idx_j.$$

To be precise, we state the results in the following

###### Theorem 1.1.

There exists a smooth metric $`g`$ in $`B_1^2`$ with Gaussian curvature $`K_g0`$ such that there is no $`C^3`$ isometric embedding of $`(B_r\left(0\right),g)`$ in $`^3`$ for any $`r>0.`$

###### Theorem 1.2.

There exists a smooth metric $`g`$ in $`B_1^2`$ with Gaussian curvature $`K_g(0)=0`$ and $`K_g\left(x\right)<0`$ for $`x0`$ such that there is no $`C^{3,\alpha }`$ isometric embedding of $`(B_r\left(0\right),g)`$ in $`^3`$ for any $`r>0`$ and $`\alpha >0.`$

Pogorelov \[P2\] constructed a simple $`C^{2,1}`$ metric $`g`$ in $`B_1^2`$ with sign-changing Gaussian curvature such that $`(B_r,g)`$ cannot be realized as a $`C^2`$ surface in $`^3`$ for any $`r>0.`$ Recently the first author \[N\] gave a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ metric $`g`$ on $`B_1`$ with no smooth isometric embedding of $`(B_r,g)`$ in $`^3`$ for any $`r>0.`$ The sign of the Gaussian curvature $`K_g`$ also changes.

On the positive side, when the sign of $`K_g`$ for any smooth metric $`g`$ does not change, the local smooth isometric embedding was settled by Pogorelov \[P1\], Nirenberg \[Ni\], and Hartman and Winter \[HW2\]. When $`K_g0`$ for the $`C^k`$ metric with $`k10,`$ there is a $`C^{k6}`$ isometric embedding of $`(B_{r_k},g)`$ in $`^3,`$ this was done by Lin \[L1\]. When $`K_g`$ changes sign cleanly, namely, $`K_g\left(0\right)=0,g\left(0\right)0`$ for a $`C^k`$ metric $`g,`$ Lin \[L2\] showed that there exists a $`C^{k3}`$ isometric embedding in $`^3`$ for $`(B_{r_k},g)`$ with $`k6.`$ When $`K_g0`$ and $`^2K_g\left(0\right)0`$ for the smooth metric $`g,`$ there is a local smooth isometric embedding of $`g`$ in $`^3,`$ see Iwasaki \[I\]. When $`K_g=x_1^{2m}\stackrel{~}{K}(x)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{K}(0)>0`$ for the smooth metric $`g`$, the same local isometric embedding also holds, see Hong \[H\]. Recently, Han, Hong, and Lin \[HHL\] showed that the local isometric embedding exists under the assumption $`K_g0`$ with a certain non-degeneracy of the gradient of $`K_g,`$ or $`K_g0`$ with finite order vanishing.

If one allows higher dimensional ambient space, say $`^4`$, Poznyak \[Po1\] proved that any smooth metric $`g`$ on $`M^2`$ can be locally smoothly isometrically embedded in $`^4.`$ In fact, any $`C^k`$ metric on n-manifold $`M^n`$ has a $`C^k`$ global isometric embedding in $`^{N_n}`$ with $`N_n`$ large for $`3k\mathrm{}.`$ This is the work by Nash \[Na2\].

If we start with an analytic metric $`g`$ on $`M^n`$, one always has a local analytic isometric embedding of $`(M^n,g)`$ in $`^{n\left(n+1\right)/2}.`$ This was proved by Janet \[J\], Cartan \[C\] very earlier on, and initiated by Schlaefli in 1873!

Lastly, any $`C^0`$ metric $`g`$ on a compact n-manifold $`M^n`$ which can be differentially embedded in $`^{n+1}`$ has a $`C^1`$ isometric embedding in $`^{n+1},`$ see Nash \[Na1\] and Kuiper \[K\].

For general description and further results on isometric embedding problem, we refer to \[GR\], \[P2\] and \[Y\].

The heuristic idea of the construction is to arrange the metric $`g`$ in $`B_1`$ so that the second fundamental form of any isometric embedded surface in $`^3`$, II$`i`$ vanishes at one point, where $`i:(B_1,g)^3`$ is the isometric embedding which is supposed to exist. Further we force II$`i`$ to vanish along the boundary of a small domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ near the center of $`B_1,`$ where the Gaussian curvature $`K_g<0`$ (in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). By the maximal principle, one cannot have a saddle surface with vanishing second fundamental form along the boundary. So $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ cannot be realized in $`^3.`$ We repeat the construction near the center of $`B_1`$ at every scale so that $`(B_1,g)`$ is not isometrically embeddable in $`^3`$ near the center.

The way to force II$`i`$ to vanish at one point, say o, is the following. We modify the flat metric $`g_0=dx^2`$ in $`^2`$ only over certain region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ slightly away from the center o to a new one $`g`$ so that, for a segment $`A_1A_2`$ with $`A_1,`$ $`A_2\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ the length of $`A_1A_2`$ under $`g`$ is shorter than the one of the geodesic $`A_1A_2`$ under the flat $`g_0,`$ and $`K_g0`$ in a subregion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ containing $`A_1A_2`$. Because of $`det`$II$`\left(i\left(0\right)\right)=0,`$ we only need to deal with the other principle curvature. Suppose the second one $`\kappa _20,`$ say $`\kappa _2<0.`$ We show that there is a flat concave cylinder $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ near $`i\left(B_1\right),`$ which is isometric to $`(B_1,g_0)`$ provided the embedding $`i`$ is $`C^3`$ (This assertion for $`C^2`$ embedding case remains unclear to us). Now $`i\left(A_1A_2\right)`$ supported on the saddle surface $`i\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\right)`$ can only stay above the concave cylinder $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ Then the length of $`i\left(A_1A_2\right)`$ is longer than the one of the projection of $`i\left(A_1A_2\right)`$ down to the flat $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ call it $`Pi\left(A_1A_2\right).`$ We know the length of $`Pi\left(A_1A_2\right)`$ under $`g_0`$ is equal to or longer than that of the geodesic $`A_1A_2`$ under $`g_0.`$ But we start from $`A_1A_2`$ with shorter length under $`g`$ than under $`g_0.`$ This contradiction shows that II$`i\left(0\right)`$ vanishes.

Inevitably, $`K_g`$ is positive somewhere in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is surrounded by flat region with metric $`dx^2.`$ We add “tails” extending to the boundary $`B_1`$ for the modifying regions $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ modify the metric on the tails, then we have the $`g`$ with $`K_g0`$ in $`B_1.`$ It turns out that we cannot work with a segment in the construction, we go with a minimal tree connecting three points on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for each $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ see section 2 for details.

Now that we have a non-isometrically embeddable metric (with nonpositive Gaussian curvature), the nearby metrics are almost non-isometrically embeddable. Based on this observation, we construct a non-isometrically embeddable metric with negative Gaussian curvature except for one point in section 3.

## 2. Metric with nonpositive curvature

Recall any three segments in $`^2`$ with equal angles $`\frac{2}{3}\pi `$ at the common vertex form a minimal tree $`T,`$ namely, the length of $`T`$ is less than that of any arcs connecting the other three vertices.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`u=\mathrm{Im}e^{\mathrm{log}^2z}=e^{\mathrm{log}^2r\theta ^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\theta \mathrm{log}r\right),`$ $`0<\theta <2\pi .`$ Then there exists a large integer $`K`$ such that

$$_Tu𝑑s<0,$$

where the minimal tree $`T=AA_1AA_2AA_3`$ with $`A=(e^K,0),`$ $`A_2=(1,0),`$ $`A_{1,}`$ $`A_2B_1,`$ $`\mathrm{}A_1AA_2=\mathrm{}A_2AA_3=\frac{2}{3}\pi .`$ Moreover, $`u_r<0`$ for $`r=1.`$

###### Proof.

Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_u=B_1`$Sector$`A_1AA_2,`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l=B_1`$Sector$`A_2AA_3,`$ $`\widehat{A_1A_2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_uB_1,`$ $`\widehat{A_2A_3}=\mathrm{\Omega }_lB_1.`$ Let the angle from $`A_1A`$ to $`x`$ be $`\phi ,`$ or $`\phi \left(x\right)=\mathrm{}A_1Ax,`$ then $`0\phi \left(x\right)\frac{4}{3}\pi `$ for $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_u\mathrm{\Omega }_l.`$

We apply Green formula to harmonic functions $`u`$ and $`\phi `$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l,`$

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}u\phi _\gamma 𝑑s`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_u}}\phi u_\gamma 𝑑s`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_l}}u\left(\phi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \right)_\gamma 𝑑s`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_l}}\left(\phi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \right)u_\gamma 𝑑s,`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the outward unit normal of the integral domain. We then have

$`{\displaystyle _{AA_1}}uds+{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}u𝑑s`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_1A_2}}}\phi u_r𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi u_\theta 𝑑s`$
$`{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}uds+{\displaystyle _{AA_3}}u𝑑s`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_2A_3}}}\left(\phi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \right)u_r𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi u_\theta 𝑑s.`$
It follows that

$`{\displaystyle _{AA_1AA_3}}u𝑑s`$ $`=2{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}u𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_1A_2}}}\phi u_rds+{\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_2A_3}}}\left(\phi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \right)u_r𝑑s`$
$`=2{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}u𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_1A_2}}}\phi e^{\theta ^2}2\theta 𝑑s+{\displaystyle _{\widehat{A_2A_3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \phi \right)e^{\theta ^2}2\theta 𝑑s.`$
On the other hand,

$`{\displaystyle _{AA_2}}u𝑑s`$ $`={\displaystyle _{e^K}^{e^0}}e^{\left(\mathrm{log}^2r\pi ^2\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \mathrm{log}r\right)dr`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi e^{\pi ^2}}}{\displaystyle _{2\pi K}^0}e^{\left(\frac{t^2}{4\pi ^2}+\frac{t}{2\pi }\right)}\mathrm{sin}tdt.`$
We choose large enough integer $`K`$ so that $`_{AA_2}u𝑑s<0`$ and

$$2_{AA_2}u𝑑s+_{\widehat{A_1A_2}}\phi e^{\theta ^2}2\theta 𝑑s+_{\widehat{A_2A_3}}\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi \phi \right)e^{\theta ^2}2\theta 𝑑s<0.$$

Therefore

$$_Tu𝑑s<0.$$

Remark. By applying Green formula to the above harmonic function $`u`$ and linear functions, one sees that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }u𝑑s>0`$ for any segment $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_u\mathrm{\Omega }_l,`$ connecting two boundary points on $`B_1.`$

###### Lemma 2.2.

There exists a function $`vC_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_{1.1}\right)`$ satisfying

$`v`$ $`=0in\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1<0.9\}\backslash B_1`$
$`v`$ $`0\text{ }inB_1`$
$`{\displaystyle _T}v𝑑s`$ $`<0`$
where the minimal tree $`T=CC_1CA_2CC_3`$ with $`A_2=(1,0),`$ $`C=(\frac{1}{10}e^K0.8,0),`$ $`C_1,`$ $`C_3B_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}C_1CA_2=\mathrm{}A_2CC_3=\frac{2}{3}\pi .`$ Moreover $`T\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1<0.1\}.`$

###### Proof.

Set $`D=(e^{2K},0),`$ $`D_1,`$ $`D_2B_1`$ with $`\mathrm{}D_1DA_2=\mathrm{}A_2DD_3=\frac{2}{3}\pi ,`$ and $`D_4=(20,x_2\left(D_3\right)),`$ $`D_5=(20,x_2\left(D_1\right)).`$ Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=`$Pentagon$`D_1DD_3D_4D_5.`$ Let $`w`$ satisfy

$`w`$ $`=0in\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$
$`w`$ $`=uonD_1DD_3D`$
$`w`$ $`=0onD_1D_5D_3D_4`$
$`w`$ $`=NonD_4D_5`$
$`w`$ $`=uinB_1\backslash \text{Sector}D_1DD_3,`$
where $`u`$ is the one in Lemma 2.1.

We choose large enough $`N`$ so that $`w_\gamma >u_\gamma `$ on $`D_1DD_3D`$ and $`w_\gamma >0`$ on $`D_1D_5D_3D_4,`$ where $`\gamma `$ is the inward unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ this time. (If one insists, we can smooth off $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p.`$)

Next we mollify $`w`$ by the usual (radially symmetric) mollifier $`\rho _\delta C_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_\delta \right)`$ with $`0<\delta <e^{2K}`$ to be determined later. We see that the smooth function $`w\rho _\delta `$ satisfies

$`w\rho _\delta \left(x\right)`$ $`0forx_119.9`$
$`w\rho _\delta \left(x\right)`$ $`=uforx\text{ inside }\mathrm{\Omega }_i=B_1\backslash \text{Sector}D_1DD_3\text{and }\delta \text{away from }\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$
$`w\rho _\delta \left(x\right)`$ $`=0forx\text{ outside }\mathrm{\Omega }_o=\left(B_1\backslash \text{Sector}D_1DD_3\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{and }\delta \text{away from }\mathrm{\Omega }_o.`$
Finally, set $`C_0=(0.8,0)`$ and

$$v\left(x\right)=w\rho _\delta \left(10\left(xC_0\right)\right).$$

By making $`\delta `$ even smaller yet positive if necessary so that $`_Tv𝑑s<0`$, we obtain the desired function $`v`$ in the above lemma. ∎

###### Corollary 2.1.

Let $`v`$ be the function in Lemma 2.2. There exists a family of smooth metrics in $`^2`$

$$g_\delta =e^{2\delta v}dx^2\text{for }0<\delta <\delta _0$$

such that

$`g_\delta `$ $`=dx^2\text{in }\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1<0.9|\}\backslash B_1`$
$`K_{g_\delta }`$ $`0\text{in }B_1`$
$`L(T,g_\delta )`$ $`<L(T,dx^2),`$
where $`L(T,g)`$ is the length of the minimal tree $`T`$ from Lemma 2.2 in metric $`g.`$

###### Proof.

We only prove the last two inequalities. One has

$$K_{g_\delta }=e^{2\delta v}\left(\delta v\right)0\text{in }B_1.$$

Also

$`L(T,g_\delta )`$ $`={\displaystyle _T}e^{\delta v}𝑑s`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dL}{d\delta }}|_{\delta =0}`$ $`={\displaystyle _T}v𝑑s<0.`$
Thus there exists $`\delta _0`$ such that $`L(T,g_\delta )<L(T,dx^2)`$for $`0<\delta <\delta _0.`$

Let $`\psi C^1\left([1,1]\right)`$ satisfy $`0\psi 1`$ and $`\psi \left(\pm 1\right)=0.`$ Set

$`\gamma `$ $`=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1=\psi \left(x_2\right),\left|x_2\right|1\},Q=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|0<x_1<\psi \left(x_2\right),\left|x_2\right|1\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=[0,2]\times [2,2]R^2,F=\mathrm{\Pi }\backslash Q.`$
###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`fC^3\left(F\right).`$ Assume the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`f`$ is flat or $`detD^2f`$ $`=0`$ and $`D^2f0`$ in $`F.`$ Also assume a unit $`C^1`$ continuous eigenvector $`V_0`$ for the zero eigenvalue of $`D^2f`$ is transversal to $`\gamma .`$ For any $`0<\tau <1,`$ there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ so that if $`D^2f\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \tau \end{array}\right]\epsilon \tau ,`$ one can extend $`f`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with the graph of the extension being flat and concave.

###### Proof.

We take the $`C^2`$ Legendre coordinate system on $`F\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (cf. \[HW1\]).

$$\{\begin{array}{c}t=x_1\hfill \\ s=f_2(x_1,x_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that the graph of $`f`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is flat, or $`detD^2f`$ $`=0,`$ it follows that $`\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|f_2(x_1,x_2)=s=const\}`$ is a straight segment in $`^2`$ and $`x_t(t,s)`$ ($`V_0`$) is independent of $`t.`$ Also $`\frac{f}{t}\left(x(t,s)\right)`$ is independent of $`t.`$ Hence we can represent a portion $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^p`$ of the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the ruling form

$$(x_1,x_2,x_3)(t,s)=h(t,s)=c\left(s\right)+t\delta \left(s\right)=(t,x_2(t,s),f(t,x_2(t,s))),$$

where $`c\left(s\right),\delta \left(s\right)C^2`$ and $`sS=[f_2(2,2),f_2(2,2)],t2.`$

We may assume $`f(2,0)=0.`$ If $`\epsilon `$ is chosen small enough, then $`\delta \left(s\right)(V_0)`$ is close to $`(1,0,0)`$ in $`C^1`$ norm. Take $`\epsilon `$ small, then

$$\left\{(x_1,x_2,f(x_1,x_2))\right|\left((x_1,x_2)\gamma \right)\}\mathrm{\Sigma }^p.$$

Set $`U=\left\{(t,s)\right|1t2,sS\}.`$ Take $`\epsilon `$ small so that $`\delta \left(s\right)(1,0,0)_{C^1}`$ small, then $`(t,s)U`$ is a $`C^2`$ coordinate system for $`\mathrm{\Pi }.`$

Now $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e=h\left(U\right)`$ is a $`C^2`$, flat, concave graph over a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Indeed, the normal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ is

$$N=\frac{h_t\times h_s}{h_t\times h_s}.$$

We know

$`h_t`$ $`=(1,{\displaystyle \frac{f_{21}}{f_{22}}},f_1+f_2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{21}}{f_{22}}})\stackrel{\epsilon 0}{}(1,0,0)`$
$`h_s`$ $`=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_{22}}},{\displaystyle \frac{f_2}{f_{22}}})\stackrel{\epsilon 0}{}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }},{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\tau }}),`$
then $`h_t\times h_s\stackrel{\epsilon 0}{}(0,\frac{s}{\tau },\frac{1}{\tau }).`$ So $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ is a $`C^2`$ graph if we choose $`\epsilon `$ small enough.

Next, the second fundamental form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ is

$`II`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}h_{tt},N& h_{ts},N\\ h_{st},N& h_{ss},N\end{array}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h_t\times h_s}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& c^{\prime \prime }+t\delta ^{\prime \prime },\delta \times \left(c^{}+t\delta ^{}\right)\end{array}\right]`$
and the Gaussian curvature

$$K_g=0.$$

Finally, the nonzero principle curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$

$$\kappa =\left[\frac{\tau ^3}{\left(1+s^2\right)^{3/2}}+o\left(\epsilon \right)\right]c^{\prime \prime }+t\delta ^{\prime \prime },\delta \times \left(c^{}+t\delta ^{}\right).$$

On the other hand, from the graph representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^p`$, $`\kappa \stackrel{\epsilon 0}{}\tau /\left(1+s^2\right)^{3/2}.`$ So for $`t`$ in a certain range close to $`2,`$ say $`t[1,2],`$ the quadratic function in terms of $`t,`$

$$c^{\prime \prime }+t\delta ^{\prime \prime },\delta \times \left(c^{}+t\delta ^{}\right)=a_0+a_1t+a_2t^2$$

is close to $`1/\tau ^2`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$ . It follows that $`a_0+a_1t+a_2t^2`$ is still close to $`1/\tau ^2`$ for $`t[1,2],`$ if we choose $`\epsilon `$ small enough. So $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ is concave. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`f`$ be the extended function in Lemma 2.3, let $`wC^2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\right)`$ satisfy $`w=f`$ on $`F,`$ $`detD^2w0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi },`$ and $`D^2w\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \tau \end{array}\right]`$ $`{}_{C^1}{}^{}\epsilon \tau .`$ Then

$$fwin\mathrm{\Pi }.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose there is a point $`x^{}=(x_1^{},x_2^{})M`$ such that $`w\left(x^{}\right)<f\left(x^{}\right)`$. We know $`x_2^{}(1,1).`$ For simplicity, we may assume

$$f\left(x^{}\right)w\left(x^{}\right)=\underset{x_2[1,1]}{sup}\left[f(x_1^{},x_2)w(x_1^{},x_2)\right].$$

Then $`f_2\left(x^{}\right)=w_2\left(x^{}\right).`$ It follows that the two tangent lines $`l_f`$, $`l_w`$ to $`f`$ and $`w`$ at $`x^{}`$ in the plane $`\left\{(x_1,x_2,x_3)\right|x_1=x_1^{}\}`$ are parallel. Since $`w(x_1^{},)`$ is concave, $`l_w`$ is above $`w.`$

Let $`T^3`$ be the tangent plane to the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ of $`f`$ at $`(x^{},f\left(x^{}\right)).`$ Let $`R=T\mathrm{\Sigma }_f.`$ Then $`R`$ is a segment (ruling) transversal to $`l_f.`$ Let $`(x^0,z^0)R`$ with $`x^0F,`$ then $`z^0=f\left(x^0\right)=w\left(x^0\right).`$ Let $`l_0T`$ through $`(x^0,z^0)`$ with $`l_0l_w`$. By the concavity of $`f=w`$ in $`F,`$ $`l_0`$ is above the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ of $`w.`$

Let $`m\left(x\right)`$ be the linear function with graph as the plane $`E`$ through $`l_w`$ and $`l_0`$. Let $`V=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1^{}<x_1<2,\left|x_2\right|<2\}.`$ Because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ is a ruling surface on $`F`$, then

$$w\left(x\right)m\left(x\right)\text{on }V.$$

Note that $`detD^2w0,`$ by the maximum principle,

$$w\left(x\right)m\left(x\right)\text{in}V.$$

On the other hand, there is $`(x^{},w\left(x^{}\right))R`$ with $`x^{}V`$ such that

$$w\left(x^{}\right)>m\left(x^{}\right).$$

This contradiction completes the proof of the above lemma. ∎

Let r be a rotation in $`^2`$ through an angle $`1^{}`$. Let $`v`$ be the function in Lemma 2.2, set

$$w\left(x\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{360}{}}v\left(\text{r}^i\left(1000x\right)(360,0)\right).$$

Pick two sequences $`z_n^2`$ and $`\rho _n>0`$ such that

$$z_n0\text{as }n+\mathrm{}$$

$$B_{\rho _n}\left(z_n\right)B_{\rho _k}\left(z_k\right)=\mathrm{}\text{for }nk.$$

Take another sequence $`\delta _n>0`$ going to $`0`$ fast enough so that the smooth metric $`g_{\text{II}}`$ in $`^2`$ satisfying

$`g_{\text{II}}`$ $`=e^{2\delta _nw\left(z_n+x/\rho _n\right)}dx^2\text{in }B_{\rho _n}\left(z_n\right)`$
$`g_{\text{II}}`$ $`=dx^2\text{otherwise.}`$
Remark. Certainly our $`v`$ is only smooth in $`B_{1.1}\left(0\right)`$, that leaves the function $`w`$ nonsmooth, even undefined near the corresponding tails. At this stage, we do not need any information on the metric $`g_{II}`$ near those tails (Figure 1 and 3). We can make a smooth extension of $`v`$ to $`^2`$ with $`vC_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_2\right)`$ if one insists. Then the Gaussian curvature of $`g`$ would be positive near the transition region. In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we will extend the tails to the boundary, make $`v`$ a smooth subharmonic function inside the unit ball. Then the Gaussian curvature would be nonpositive in the unit ball.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`i`$ be a $`C^3`$ isometric embedding

$$i:(B_r\left(0\right),g_{\text{II}})^3$$

for some $`r>0.`$ Then the second fundamental form of $`i\left(B_r\left(0\right)\right)`$ vanishes at $`i\left(0\right),`$ or II$`\left(i\left(0\right)\right)=0.`$

###### Proof.

We may assume $`i\left(B_r\right)`$ is the graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ of a function $`x_3=w(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`w\left(0\right)=0`$, $`w\left(0\right)=0.`$ Then II$`\left(i\left(0\right)\right)=D^2w\left(0\right)`$ and $`detD^2w\left(0\right)=0.`$ Suppose

$$D^2w\left(0\right)0.$$

Let $`P_3`$ be the projection from $`^3`$ to x$`{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{\_}`$x<sub>2</sub> plane. Set $`J\left(x\right)=P_3\left(i\left(x\right)\right)`$. We may assume DJ is the identity map on the tangent space $`^2`$ at $`0,`$ and

$$D^2w(0,0)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \tau \end{array}\right].$$

For a sufficiently large $`n,`$ $`B_{\rho _n}\left(z_n\right)B_r`$ and

$$g_{II}=e^{2\delta _nv\left(r^{180}\left(1000\left(z_n+x/\rho _n\right)\right)(360,0)\right)}dx^2$$

in the $`179^{}`$ to $`181^{}`$ section of the ball $`B_{\rho _n}\left(z_n\right).`$

In order to simply the presentation, we work with the metric $`g_{\delta _n}=e^{2\delta _nv\left(x\right)}dx^2`$ as in the Corollary 2.1. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ be the flat, concave extension of $`i\left(B_2^{}\backslash B_1^{}\right)`$ by Lemma 2.3, where $`B_\rho ^{}=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_1<0\}B_\rho .`$ Note that we may consider the graph $`x_3=w_\epsilon \left(x\right)=w\left(\epsilon x\right)`$ for small $`\epsilon `$, then

$$D^2w_\epsilon \left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \epsilon ^2\tau \end{array}\right]_{C^1}\epsilon ^3,$$

make the extension, then scale back.

Since $`i\left(B_1^{}\right)`$ is negatively curved, or $`detD^2w0`$ and concave, we apply Lemma 2.4 to conclude that $`i\left(B_1^{}\right)`$ is above $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e.`$

Let $`P`$ be the normal projection of points $`p`$ above $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$ down to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e,`$ that is $`\left[pP\left(p\right)\right]\mathrm{\Sigma }^e.`$ By concavity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e`$, we have

$$\text{Length}(T,g_{\delta _n})=\text{Length}(i\left(T\right),g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_w})\text{Length}(P\left(i\left(T\right)\right),g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^e}),$$

Where $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_w}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^e}`$ is the induced metrics on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e.`$

Note that $`P\left(i\left(C_1\right)\right)=i\left(C_1\right),`$ $`P\left(i\left(C_3\right)\right)=i\left(C_3\right),`$ $`P\left(i\left(A_2\right)\right)=i\left(A_2\right),`$ there is an isometry $`i_0:`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^e(^2,dx^2)`$ such that $`i_0Pi\left(C_1\right)=C_1,`$ $`i_0Pi\left(C_3\right)=C_3,`$ $`i_0Pi\left(A_2\right)=A_2.`$ Apply Corollary 2.1, we have

$$\text{Length}(P\left(i\left(T\right)\right),g_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^e})=\text{Length}(i_0Pi\left(T\right),dx^2)>\text{Length}(T,g_{\delta _n}).$$

Thus we arrive at

$$\text{Length}(T,g_{\delta _n})>\text{Length}(T,g_{\delta _n}).$$

This contradiction finishes the proof of the above proposition. ∎

Now we give the constructive proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Proof.

Step1. Let $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ be a smooth function in $`^2`$ satisfying

$`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ $`<0\text{in }B^n=B_{2^{2n}}(2^n,0),n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ $`=0\text{otherwise.}`$
Let $`u_1`$ be a smooth solution of

$$\mathrm{}u_1=\stackrel{~}{k}.$$

Then the Gaussian curvature of the metric $`g_1=e^{2u_1}dx^2`$ satisfies

$`K_{g_1}`$ $`=e^{2u_1}\mathrm{}u_1<0\text{in }B^n`$
$`K_{g_1}`$ $`=0\text{otherwise.}`$
Step2. Choose a sequence $`z_{n,k}`$ outside each $`B^n`$ and $`\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_2=0\}`$ such that

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}z_{n,k}B^n`$
$`B^n\overline{\left\{z_{n,k}\right\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}.}`$
For each $`z_{n,k},`$ choose a simply connected thin tail $`T_{n,k}`$ with $`T_{n,k}`$ connecting $`z_{n,k}`$ and the boundary $`B_1`$ such that

$`z_{n,k}T_{n,k}`$
$`T_{n,k}B_1=\text{ a piece of arc with positive length}`$
$`T_{n,k}_+^2=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_2>0\}\text{for }x_2\left(z_{n,k}\right)>0`$
$`T_{n,k}_{}^2=\left\{(x_1,x_2)\right|x_2<0\}\text{for }x_2\left(z_{n,k}\right)<0`$
$`T_{n,k}T_{m,j}=\mathrm{}\text{for }(n,k)(m,j).`$
We modify the metric $`g_1`$ $`=e^{2u_1}dx^2`$ over each tail $`T_{n,k}.`$ But we proceed with the tails in the upper and lower half planes separately.

Since $`K_{g_1}0`$ in the simply connected domain $`_+^2\backslash _{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}B^n`$. We represent $`g_1=dy_+^2`$ in $`_+^2\backslash _{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}B^n`$ by a different coordinate system $`y_+.`$ Over each $`T_{n,k}R_+^2,`$ we plant a metric

$$g_2=e^{2V_{n,k}}dy_+^2\text{in }x^1\left(T_{n,k}\right),$$

where $`V_{n,k}`$ is similar to the one in the construction before Proposition 2.1, but the 360 disjoint sub-tails extend to the boundary $`x^1\left(B_1\right)`$ within $`x^1\left(T_{n,k}\right).`$ We know $`V_{n,k}=0`$ in $`x^1\left(B_1\backslash T_{n,k}\right).`$ With $`V_{n.k}=N_{n,k}`$ chosen large enough on $`x^1\left(B_1\right)`$ intersection with the $`x`$ pre-image of the 360 sub-tails, we make

$$\mathrm{}V_{n,k}0\text{in }x^1\left(B_1\right).$$

We modify the metric $`g_1=e^{2u_1}dx^2`$ over the tails in the lower half plane $`_{}^2`$ with different coordinate system in the same way.

So far, we obtain a new metric $`g_2=e^{2u_2}dx^2`$ in $`B_1`$ (which may not be smooth). We modify $`g_2`$ over the tails one last time.

Let

$`g_3`$ $`=e^{2ϵ_{n,k}V_{n.k}}dy_+^2\text{in }x^1\left(T_{n,k}\right)\text{ for }T_{n,k}_+^2`$
$`g_3`$ $`=e^{2ϵ_{n,k}V_{n.k}}dy_{}^2\text{in }x^1\left(T_{n,k}\right)\text{ for }T_{n,k}_{}^2.`$
By choosing $`ϵ_{n,k}>0,`$ $`ϵ_{n,k}0`$ sufficiently fast for $`k\mathrm{}`$, we can assure $`g_3=e^{2u_3}`$ $`dx^2`$ is a smooth metric with $`K_{g_3}0`$ in $`B_1.`$

Step 3. Suppose there is an isometric embedding

$$i:(B_r,g)R^3$$

for some $`r>0.`$ Then there is $`n_{}`$ such that

$$B^n_{}B_r.$$

Applying Proposition 2.1, we have

$$IIi=0\text{on }B^n_{}.$$

We may assume $`i\left(B_r\right)`$ is represented as a graph $`x_3=f(x_1,x_2)`$ with $`f(0,0)=0.`$ Also we may assume the projection of $`i\left(B^n_{}\right)`$ down to x<sub>1</sub>\_x<sub>2</sub> plane is a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Then

$`detD^2f=K_g\left(1+\left|f\right|^2\right)^2<0\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`D^2f=0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$
From $`D^2f=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ it follows that $`f=const`$. on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`f`$ coincides with a linear function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ After subtracting the linear function from $`f`$, we may further assume $`f=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ We still have $`detD^2f<0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ From the maximum principle, we see that $`f0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ This contradiction finishes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

## 3. Metric with negative curvature except for one point

Relying on the metric constructed in Section 2, we construct a smooth metric $`g`$ in $`B_1`$ with negative Gaussian curvature except for one point, namely, $`K_g\left(x\right)<0`$ for $`x0,`$ such that the surface $`(B_1,g)`$ is not $`C^{3,\alpha }`$ isometrically embeddable in $`^3`$ even locally near $`0.`$

For any surface $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$, we define the $`C^{3,\alpha }`$ isometric embedding norm by

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },g)_E=inf\{II\left(i\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right)_{C^{1,\alpha }}|C^{3,\alpha }\text{isometric embedding}i:(\mathrm{\Omega },g)R^3\}.$$

Now we give a constructive proof of Theorem 1.2.

###### Proof.

Let the annulus $`A^n=B_{1/n}\backslash B_{1/\left(n+1\right)}R^2.`$ We construct a metric $`g=e^{2u_0}dx^2`$ on $`B_1`$ such that a non-isometrically embeddable metric $`g`$ as in Theorem 1.1 is planted (not just cut and pasted) over each annulus $`A^n.`$

Set

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi _n}\left(r\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}e^{\frac{1}{r1/n}}r=\left|x\right|>\frac{1}{n}\hfill \\ 00r\frac{1}{n}\hfill \end{array}$$

We choose $`\mu _1>0,\mu _2>0,`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`\mu _n>0,`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\phi _n=\mu _n\stackrel{~}{\phi _n}`$ satisfies that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\phi _n`$ is smooth and even $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}ϵ_n\phi _n`$ is smooth for $`(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{})l^{\mathrm{}}.`$

For $`ϵ=(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{})l_+^{\mathrm{}},`$ that is $`ϵ_1>0,ϵ_2>0,\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{max}ϵ_m<+\mathrm{}`$ , set

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_ϵ={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ_m\phi _m`$
$`g_v=e^{2\left(u_0+v\right)}dx^2.`$
By the construction, $`(A^n,e^{2u_0}dx^2)`$ is not $`C^3`$ isometrically embeddable in $`^3`$ for any $`n,`$ then we have the following.

There exists $`0<\eta _1`$ such that $`(A^1,g_{\mathrm{\Phi }_ϵ})_E1`$ for $`ϵl_+^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\eta _1.`$

Next there exists $`0<\eta _2<\eta _1`$ such that $`(A^m,g_{\mathrm{\Phi }_ϵ})_Em`$ for $`m=1,2`$ and $`ϵ=(\eta _1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3,\mathrm{})l_+^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`(0,ϵ_2,ϵ3,\mathrm{})_{\mathrm{}}\eta _2.`$

Inductively there exists $`0<\eta _k<\eta _{k1}`$ such that $`(A^m,g_{\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ})_Em`$ for $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$ and with $`ϵ=(\eta _1,\eta _2,\mathrm{},\eta _k,ϵ_{k+1},ϵ_{k+2},\mathrm{})l_+^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`(0,\mathrm{},0,ϵ_{k+1},ϵ_{k+2},\mathrm{})_{\mathrm{}}\eta _k.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Finally let $`\mathrm{\Psi }=_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}\eta _m\phi _m`$ , $`g=g_\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ We see that

$`(A^m,g)_Em\text{for}m=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$
$`K_g\left(x\right)<0\text{ for}x0\text{and}`$
$`K_g\left(0\right)=0.`$
It follows that there is no $`C^{3,\alpha }`$ isometric embedding of $`(B_r\left(0\right),g)`$ in $`^3`$ for any $`r>0,\alpha >0.`$


text:
# Trajectories and Particle Creation and Annihilation in Quantum Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

A formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics based on objectively existing particle positions and particle trajectories, now usually called Bohmian mechanics, was proposed fifty years ago by David Bohm (and even earlier by Louis de Broglie); see  for a recent overview. Today there remain two big challenges for this approach: to form a relativistic version, and a version suitable for quantum field theory (QFT). Here we shall address the latter. We describe a general and particularly natural way of extending Bohmian mechanics to QFTs, explicitly giving the equations for a simple example.

Bohm himself proposed \[2, p. 230\] that Bohmian mechanics should be extended to QFT by means of the incorporation of the actual field configuration, guided by a wave functional (the state vector). In contrast, John Bell proposed a model \[1, p. 173\] in which, instead of the field configuration, the local beables are the fermion numbers at each site of a lattice discretizing 3-space. We argue that it is instructive to modify Bell’s proposal in two ways, and thus get a similar but even simpler theory with a direct connection to Bohmian mechanics. Below, we give an explicit example of such a theory for a particularly simple Hamiltonian.

Bell’s model contains no beables representing the bosonic degrees of freedom (such as radiation), neither an actual field, nor actual particles, nor anything else; the existence of a radiation part of the state vector is relevant only to the behavior of the fermions. This is certainly consistent and empirically irrefutable, but it is neither *necessary* (as our example below shows), nor even a *natural* view.555 After all, if the role of the wave function is to guide particles, it would seem that there should be as many particles as there are variables in the wave function. In addition, the Hilbert space of the radiation degrees of freedom (unlike the one for quark color) is not a purely abstract Hilbert space, but is related to space-time points (via creation and annihilation operators, for example), a fact that would seem surprising if the state vector were not related to space-time objects such as particles, strings, or fields.  In the model proposed below, the bosons have the same status as the fermions: they are particles, described by their positions. This, of course, should not be regarded as discouraging consideration of the approach based on actual field configurations.

The other deviation from Bell’s proposal is the replacement of the lattice by continuous space. The lattice was introduced in the first place for the purpose of providing an effective ultraviolet cut-off and thus a well-defined Hamiltonian. Such a cut-off, however, can also be realized by smearing out the interaction Hamiltonian through convolution with, say, a sharply peaked but bounded function $`\phi `$. The continuum analogue of the particle number at every lattice site is the position of all particles in ordinary space, with the total number of particles $`N(t)`$ possibly varying with time. However, in the model we propose the particles follow Bohmian trajectories, except when there is particle creation or annihilation. (For a discussion of how Bohmian mechanics arises from a lattice model (in the absence of interaction) in the limit of vanishing lattice width, see .)

Our proposal profits, we believe, from making this contact with Bohmian mechanics, since then every argument for taking the Bohmian trajectories seriously also provides some support for the proposal. Bohmian mechanics also profits from this contact because the Bohmian trajectories *can* then be taken seriously even in the framework of QFT.

Our moving configuration $`Q(t)`$ is constructed in such a way that it is random with distribution at time $`t`$ equal to $`\rho (t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is the (position) Fock space representation of the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ at time $`t`$. (For a model in which there are only bosons, the $`n`$-particle component of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(𝒙_1,\mathrm{},𝒙_n)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}0|a(𝒙_1)\mathrm{}a(𝒙_n)|\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(1)
where $`|0`$ is the Fock vacuum and $`a(𝒙)=(2\pi )^{3/2}d^3𝒌e^{\mathrm{i}𝒌𝒙}a_𝒌`$ is the boson annihilation operator at position $`𝒙`$.) In particular, the probability that $`N(t)=n`$, i.e., that there are $`n`$ particles at time $`t`$, equals the integral of $`\rho (t)`$ over $`K^{(n)}(^3)^n`$ (suitably symmetrized), the $`n`$-particle sector of configuration space—i.e., the $`L^2`$ norm of the projection of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ onto the $`n`$-particle subspace of Fock space. A nontrivial superposition of quantum states with different particle numbers leads to a probability distribution over different particle numbers, among which only one is, of course, actually realized.

## 2 Configuration Jumps

The Hamiltonian for QFTs is typically a sum of terms, each of which yields a contribution to the motion we wish to propose. It is quite generally the case that $`H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ where the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ corresponds naturally to a deterministic motion—in the model considered here that of Bohmian mechanics, and in a relativistic model for example the Bohm–Dirac motion \[2, p. 274\]—given by a (time-dependent) velocity field $`v=v^{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}(q,t)`$, on configuration space $`K=_nK^{(n)}`$, that defines the “deterministic part” of the process, while the interaction term $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ corresponds to random jumps, a continuum version of the process proposed by Bell \[1, p. 173\], defined by jump rates $`\sigma =\sigma (q^{},q,t)=\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}(q^{},q)`$ for a transition from $`q`$ to $`q^{}`$ at time $`t`$. \[This means that when the actual configuration $`Q`$ at time $`t`$ is $`q`$, then with probability (density, with respect to $`q^{}`$) $`\sigma (q^{},q,t)dt`$, $`Q`$ will jump from (very near) $`q`$ to $`q^{}`$ in the time-interval $`(t,t+dt)`$.\]666One can regard the jumps as having two ingredients: A jump occurs with total rate $`\overline{\sigma }(q,t)=\sigma (q^{},q,t)𝑑q^{}`$; when a jump does occur, the destination is randomly chosen with distribution $`\sigma (q^{},q,t)/\overline{\sigma }(q,t)`$.

The relevant continuum analogue of Bell’s jump rates for $`H=H_{\mathrm{int}}`$, equations (6–8) of \[1, p. 173\], is

$$\sigma ^\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{},q)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}q|H_{\mathrm{int}}|q^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{})\right)^+}{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}$$
(2)
where for particles with spin the two products in the numerator and the product in the denominator are local spinor inner products, and where we have used the notation $`A^+=\mathrm{max}(A,0)`$ for the positive part of $`A`$. This will typically be well-defined (as jump rates), since the kernel $`q|H_{\mathrm{int}}|q^{}`$ of the (cut-off) interaction Hamiltonian of a QFT should involve nothing worse than $`\delta `$-function singularities.

The complete process, corresponding to the total Hamiltonian, is then given by the deterministic motion with velocity $`v`$, randomly interrupted by jumps, with rate $`\sigma `$, after each of which the deterministic motion is resumed until it is again interrupted. As a function of $`t`$, each realization $`Q(t)`$ is thus piecewise smooth. At the end of a smooth piece, $`Q`$ jumps to the starting point of the next smooth piece. What is stochastic about $`Q`$ are the times at which the jumps take place, and the destinations of the jumps. The probabilities for times and destinations are governed by the wave function. $`Q(t)`$ is a Markov process.

As described, our process is so designed as to directly imply the following equivariance theorem: If $`Q(t_0)`$ is chosen at random with distribution $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_0)|^2`$, then at every later time $`t>t_0`$, $`Q(t)`$ is distributed with density $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2`$. (This can also be explicitly checked by comparing the equation for $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi })/t`$ as implied by the evolution equation of the quantum state, $`i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }/t=H\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and the master equation for the distribution of $`Q(t)`$, which reads

$$\frac{}{t}\rho (q,t)=\left(\rho (q,t)v(q,t)\right)+_Kdq^{}(\rho (q^{},t)\sigma (q,q^{},t)\rho (q,t)\sigma (q^{},q,t)).)$$

The choice of jump rates that will make the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ distribution equivariant is not unique. But the ‘minimal’ jump rates are unique, and these are the ones we have chosen. Details on the choice of jump rates as well as an elucidation of the general mathematical structure underlying equivariant processes will be presented in .

Corresponding to the standard interaction terms in QFT, the possible jumps are very restricted: there are only changes in the particle number by $`\pm 1`$, and possible types are (i) appearance or (ii) disappearance of a particle (while the others remain at their positions) or (iii) replacement of a particle by two others or (iv) the reverse of this. Type (i) is appropriate for, e.g., photon emission, (ii) for absorption, (iii) for pair creation and (iv) for pair annihilation. (It follows that there is no discontinuity in the individual particle world lines, in spite of the discontinuity in $`Q`$.) In our explicit model, only types (i) and (ii) occur.

## 3 An Explicit Model

We now present an explicit theory. It is based on a “baby” QFT taken from \[6, p. 339\] and , containing two species of particles, which we simply call electrons and photons. Electrons, whose number stays constant, emit and absorb photons. To keep things simple, we employ nonrelativistic dispersion relations (as everything here is nonrelativistic) for both electrons and photons, and give the photon a positive (rest) mass. In addition, we ignore spin and polarization, and, of course, smoothen the interaction Hamiltonian.

In field theoretic language, we have a bosonic field $`\varphi (𝒙)=a^{}(𝒙)+a(𝒙)`$, with $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ the photon creation and annihilation operators \[cf. equations (4) and (5)\] and a fermionic field $`\psi (𝒙)`$, and the Hamiltonian is the sum

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_F+H_B+H_{\mathrm{int}}`$
$`=`$ $`(1/2m_F){\displaystyle d^3𝒙\psi ^{}(𝒙)\psi (𝒙)}+(1/2m_B){\displaystyle d^3𝒙a^{}(𝒙)a(𝒙)}`$
$`+g{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\psi ^{}(𝒙)\varphi _\phi (𝒙)\psi (𝒙)}`$
where $`\varphi _\phi (𝒙)=d^3𝒚\left(\phi (𝒙𝒚)a^{}(𝒚)+\overline{\phi }(𝒙𝒚)a(𝒚)\right)`$ is the cutoff bosonic field, $`m_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{B}`$ denote the mass of the electrons and photons, and $`g`$ is a real coupling constant. $`H`$ commutes with the fermion number operator $`N_F=d^3𝒙\psi ^{}(𝒙)\psi (𝒙)`$.

Since the fermion number is conserved, we give it a fixed value $`N`$. The configuration space (changing notation slightly from before) is $`K=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}K^{(m)}`$ where $`m`$ is the photon number and

$$K^{(m)}:=(^3)^N\times (^3)^m,K^{(0)}=(^3)^N.$$

We will denote the electron coordinates by $`x:=x^{(N)}:=(𝒙^1,\mathrm{},𝒙^N)`$ and the photon coordinates by $`y:=y^{(m)}=(𝒚^1,\mathrm{},𝒚^m)`$. The full configuration is thus given by $`q=(x,y)`$ and, more explicitly, by $`q^{(m)}=(x,y^{(m)})`$.

In terms of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \[the (position) Fock representation of the quantum state\], the Hilbert space inner product is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi }:=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{K^{(m)}}d^{3N}xd^{3m}y\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y),$$

and the contributions to the Hamiltonian assume the form

$$H_\mathrm{F}=\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_\mathrm{F}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i$$

$$H_\mathrm{B}=\underset{j}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{\Delta }_j$$

and

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}=g\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _\phi (𝒙^i)=g\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(a_\phi ^{}(𝒙^i)+a_{\overline{\phi }}(𝒙^i)\right)$$
(3)
with creation and annihilation operators $`a_\phi ^{}`$ and $`a_{\overline{\phi }}`$ acting on Fock space in a smeared-out form:

$`a_\phi ^{}(𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒖\phi (𝒖𝒙)a^{}(𝒖)}`$
$`a_{\overline{\phi }}(𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒖\overline{\phi }(𝒖𝒙)a(𝒖)},`$
where

$`\left(a^{}(𝒖)\mathrm{\Psi }\right)(q^{(m)})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta (𝒚^j𝒖)\mathrm{\Psi }(\widehat{q^j}),`$ (4)
$`\left(a(𝒖)\mathrm{\Psi }\right)(q^{(m)})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m+1}\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{(m)},𝒖).`$ (5)
$`a_\phi ^{}(𝒙)`$ creates a new photon in state $`\phi `$ centered at $`𝒙^3`$ (which will be the position of an electron), and $`a_{\overline{\phi }}(𝒙)`$ annihilates a photon with “form factor” $`\phi `$ at $`𝒙`$.777If the form factor $`\phi `$ is square-integrable (as we assume) it provides an ultraviolet cutoff; it can be regarded as determining the effective range of a electron’s power to create or absorb a photon. Here $`(q^{(m)},𝒖)`$ is the configuration with a photon at $`𝒖`$ added to $`q^{(m)}`$ and $`\widehat{q^j}`$ is the configuration with the $`j`$-th photon deleted from $`q^{(m)}`$. Thus

$`(H_{\mathrm{int}}\mathrm{\Psi })(q^{(m)})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{m}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\phi (𝒚^j𝒙^i)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\widehat{q^j}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`g\sqrt{m+1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle d^3𝒚^{}\overline{\phi }(𝒚^{}𝒙^i)\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{(m)},𝒚^{})}.`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the Pauli principle, i.e., it is symmetric in the photon variables and antisymmetric in the electron variables.

We now turn to the particles, described by the actual electron configuration $`X`$ and the actual photon configuration $`Y`$. The deterministic part of the motion $`Q(t)=(X(t),Y(t))`$, corresponding to $`H_\mathrm{F}+H_\mathrm{B}`$, is the usual Bohm motion

$`\dot{X}^i`$ $`=`$ $`v_{\mathrm{F},i}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q):={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\mathrm{F}}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }/𝒙^i\right)(Q)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)}},`$ (7)
$`\dot{Y}^j`$ $`=`$ $`v_{\mathrm{B},j}^\mathrm{\Psi }(Q):={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\mathrm{B}}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Psi }/𝒚^j\right)(Q)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)}}`$ (8)
and it follows from (2) and (3) that only two kinds of jumps occur, with rates as follows:

* The $`j`$-th photon vanishes, while all the other particles stay at their positions. Thus $`q^{}=\widehat{q^j}`$ and the jump rate from $`q=q^{(m)}`$ to $`q^{}`$ is

$$\sigma (q^{},q)=\frac{2g}{\mathrm{}\sqrt{m}}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{Im}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(\widehat{q^j})\phi (𝒚^j𝒙^i)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}\right]^+.$$
(9)
* A new photon appears at $`𝒚^{}`$, while all the other particles stay at their positions. Thus $`q^{}=(q^{(m)},𝒚^{})`$ and the jump rate from $`q=q^{(m)}`$ to $`q^{}`$ (a density in the variable $`𝒚^{}`$) is

$$\sigma (q^{},q)=\frac{2g}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{m+1}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{Im}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(q,𝒚^{})\overline{\phi }(𝒚^{}𝒙^i)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}\right]^+.$$
(10)

We reiterate that these choices guarantee that the process obeys the equivariance theorem mentioned in the previous section.

Note that, contrary to what might have been expected, the creation operator in the interaction Hamiltonian (3) corresponds, according to (2), to the annihilation rate, while the annihilation operator corresponds to the creation rate. There is less in this than meets the eye: The correspondence is an artifact of the way (2) is written, and if (2) had been written equivalently as

$$\sigma ^\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{},q)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }(q^{})}q^{}|H_{\mathrm{int}}|q\mathrm{\Psi }(q)\right)^+}{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}\mathrm{\Psi }(q)}$$
(11)
the correspondence would have been reversed. Note also that if $`\phi `$ is supported by a $`\delta `$-ball around the origin of $`^3`$, then photons can be created or annihilated only in the $`\delta `$-neighborhood of an electron.888 One might suspect that if $`\delta `$ were small, there would be only a small probability (perhaps of order $`\delta ^3`$) that a photon will come closer than $`\delta `$ to an electron. But equivariance implies that this is not so: if a certain amount of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}|^2`$ flows to the sector $`K^{(m1)}`$, then the probability for a photon to be annihilated is just as large.

Our model is translation invariant (unless one introduces an additional external potential), time translation invariant, rotation invariant provided $`\phi `$ is spherically symmetric, time reversal invariant provided $`\phi `$ is real-valued, and gauge invariant provided one introduces an external vector potential—in all derivatives acting on electron coordinates—and an external scalar potential into $`H_\mathrm{F}`$. Galilean boost invariance fails, but not because of the Bohmian variables; owing to the interaction term (3), it fails, in fact, for the evolution of the quantum state. The reason is that, roughly speaking, a photon gets created with wave function $`\phi `$ which cannot be Galilean invariant. Alternatively, one could say that under boosts with velocity $`𝒖`$ the form factor $`\phi (𝒚𝒙)`$ must be replaced by $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{B}𝒖𝒚/\mathrm{})\phi (𝒚𝒙)`$. Note that even with the cutoff removed, i.e., for $`\phi (𝒚)=\delta (𝒚)`$, the quantum dynamics is not Galilean invariant.

If we add to $`H`$ a suitable confining potential (and $`\phi `$ is real-valued, and the rest energy of the photon is made positive), it possesses a unique ground state , and this ground state (like every nondegenerate eigenstate) is real up to an overall phase. Thus in this state the jump rates (9), (10) as well as the velocities (7), (8) vanish identically—nothing moves. Surprisingly, perhaps, the Bohmian particles do not perform any “vacuum fluctuations”.

As in Bohmian mechanics, disentangled subsystems are governed by the same laws as for the whole. More precisely, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are two wave functions from Fock space having disjoint supports $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`S_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in physical space $`^3`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ defines another Fock state $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ after suitable symmetrization; if the distance between $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`S_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is at least the diameter $`\delta `$ of the support of $`\phi `$, then in a system with wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the particles in $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and those in $`S_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will not influence each other, each set moving independently according to the corresponding ‘factors’. This is a consequence of the fact that the velocities and jump rates are homogeneous of degree 0 in the wave function.

While the other particles keep their positions when a photon is created or annihilated, their velocities may change discontinuously because (7) evaluated at the destination may differ from (7) evaluated at the point of departure. As a result, the world lines of all (possibly distant) particles, if the particles are entangled, will have kinks at the times of particle creation or annihilation. These kinks will however not be visible in, say, a cloud chamber since the necessary entanglement is destroyed by the decoherence of the tracked particle with its environment, caused, say, by the particle’s interaction with the vapor.

## 4 Removing the Cutoff

Removing the cutoff is of course problematical, which is why the cutoff was introduced in the first place. However the problems arise primarily from the evolution equation of the wave function, not those of the Bohmian configuration, equations (7) through (10). Suppose that a family of $`\phi `$’s is parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and that as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, $`\phi ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)`$ approaches $`\delta (y)`$. Then the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to “removing the cutoff”. Unfortunately, the corresponding $`H^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will not converge in any reasonable sense. But there exist numbers $`E^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ tending to infinity  such that $`H^\mathrm{\Lambda }E^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does converge in a suitable sense, and the evolution of the wave function is well-defined. This seems completely acceptable. We do not know whether the corresponding process $`Q^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches (given a fixed initial wave function) a limiting process $`Q^{\mathrm{}}`$. To decide this requires a careful mathematical study, but at least we see nothing precluding this possibility: the velocity law is not affected by the cutoff, while absorption might become deterministic in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and occur whenever (and only when) a photon hits an electron.

Other Hamiltonians, more sophisticated ones, are more problematical, and do not possess a limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, even after subtracting an “infinite energy”. In some cases this is due to the creation of a large (average) number $`m^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of photons that goes to infinity with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. On the other hand, it is not clear that removing the cutoff is desirable or relevant. That is, there might exist an effective UV cutoff in nature, just as there is an effective IR cutoff (the finite radius of the universe).

Be that as it may, if the unitary evolution on some Hilbert space does not survive the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, we face a problem, one that seems particularly bad for Bohmian theories, which so heavily rely on the wave function and, consequently, its having a well-defined unitary evolution. But appearances are misleading here. From a Bohmian viewpoint, the basic variable, bearing all the physical implications of the theory, is the configuration $`Q`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`H`$ are only theoretical objects whose purpose is to generate a law of motion for $`Q`$. And, indeed, a law for $`Q`$ might arise as a limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ of the law induced by $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; it might be the case that while $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not have a limit, the time evolution of $`Q`$ is well defined in the limit. After all, this is precisely what occurs when one consider the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics: while the Hamiltonian and wave function do not have any sensible limit, the law for $`Q`$ does!

## 5 Determinism

We close with a remark on (the lack of) determinism. It may seem surprising that we abandon determinism. Was not the main point of hidden variables to restore it? Actually, no. What was important was to provide a clear and coherent account of quantum mechanics. The simplest such account, we believe, is provided by Bohmian mechanics, which happens to be deterministic. And the simplest such account of QFT seems to be of the sort we have presented here, which is stochastic.