format: text

text:
# BASIC PROBLEMS OF A MICROSCOPIC THEORY OF A MANY BODY QUANTUM SYSTEM

## I 1.0 Introduction

Microscopic studies of a system of interacting bosons (SIB) such as liquid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ (LHe-4) and a system of interacting fermions (SIF) such as liquid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ (LHe-3) are of great fundamental importance 1 ; 2  because these systems provide an opportunity to investigate quantum effects at macroscopic level. The scope of such studies has been widened by the recent experimental discovery of Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) in trapped dilute gases because interparticle interactions in these gases too play as important role as in LHe-4 3 . While the basic aspects of the subject are elegantly discussed in several texts 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 , the wealth of experimental and theoretical results generated from widely different studies of various SIB and SIF has been reviewed recently in several reports 8 ; 9 , books 10 ; 11  and research articles 12 ; 13 . References to other important publications and review articles of older times can be traced from all these sources and our recent publications 14 ; 15 ; 16  presenting a new approach to the microscopic understanding of a SIB and its unification with that of a SIF.

It appears that theories of these systems, developed by using different mathematical tools and varying sets of assumptions and conjectures, can be placed into two groups, viz., G1 group of the conventional theories which assume the existence of $`p=0`$ condensate, $`n_{p=0}(T)`$ (a macroscopic fraction of particles condensed into a single particle state of $`p=0`$), as the basic origin of superfluidity of a SIB 8 ; 10 ; 11  and the formation of a kind of Cooper pairs as the main factor for the superfluidity of a SIF 9 ; 10 , and G2 group of a recently developed theoretical framework which uses a new approach to formulate the microscopic theories of a SIB 15  and SIF 17 . The approach makes no assumption like the existence of $`p=0`$ condensate for a SIB or the formation of Cooper like pairs for a SIF. In stead it uses the results that we obtain by solving the $`N`$ body Schrödinger equation. It concludes that ( q, - q) bound pairs form an important basis for the unique properties of superfluid phase of a SIB/SIF 15 ; 16 ; 17 .

In one of the two approaches of conventional theories, one starts with the Hamiltonian of the system written in terms of second quantized Schrödinger field and then proceeds to solve the problem by using several important inferences such as : (i) the HC potential can be used perturbatively by pseudo-potential method, (ii) coupling constant can be related directly to the two body scattering length ($`a`$), (iii) a dimensionless expansion parameter ($`n.a^3`$) can be used to perform perturbation calculation, etc. 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 8 . However, in an alternative approach of variational calculations based on Jastrow correlation or Feenberg approximation one finds the radial distribution function, $`g(r)`$, and liquid structure factor, $`S(Q)`$, which can be used to calculate the ground state (G-state) properties, excitation spectrum, different thermodynamic properties and equation of state 12 ; 13 . Widely different methods of computer calculation of $`g(r)`$, $`S(Q)`$ and other properties are discussed and reviewed in 18 . In spite of highly complex mathematical formulations and calculations, these approaches are believed to have succeeded in obtaining certain results in support of their presumptions of the existence of $`p=0`$ condensate in superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and formation of (q, -q) bound pairs in case of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ as a basis of superfluidity of these systems. However, several experts in the field (e.g. Rickayzen 19 , Woods and Cowley 20  and Sokol 21  in case of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and Senatore and March 9  in case of $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$) also underline the limitations and difficulties of these approaches in providing theories that explain the experimental properties of a SIB/SIF.

Our new approach, on the other hand, is a simple approach. It follows the standard method of solving the Schrödinger equation of the system and uses the wave mechanics of two HC particles as its basis. We make a critical study 14  of this mechanics to discover its several untouched aspects which serve as the basic foundations of our approach. We find 15 ; 16 ; 17  that : (i) each particle in a SIB/SIF represents (q, -q) pair moving with center of mass (CM) momentum K, (ii) with the onset of superfluid transition these particles form (q, -q) bound pairs with their phase positions locked at a relative separation of $`\delta \varphi =2n\pi `$; it happens with every particle representing a (q, -q) pair and leads the system to have a kind of collective binding and a macro-molecular behavior, (iii) while the $`\lambda `$-transition of a SIB represents the condensation of particles as (q, -q) pairs in the G-state of the system defined by $`q=\pi /d`$ and $`K=0`$ 15 , the superfluid transition of a SIF 16 ; 17  represents the fall of (q, -q) pairs in a state of $`q=\pi /d`$ and $`K`$ ranging between $`K=0`$ and $`K=K_F`$ (with $`K_F`$ being the Fermi wave vector); the formation of (q, -q) bound pairs in both cases arises as a combined effect of interparticle phase correlations and interparticle attraction 15 ; 16 ; 17 .

As demonstrated in 15 , the new approach provides an almost exact theory of a SIB that explains the properties of liquid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ with unparalleled accuracy, simplicity and clarity. It has several advantages. It provides a framework that can unify the physics of widely different SIB (e.g. low dimensional systems, BEC state of dilute gases, etc. and SIF (e.g. superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, atomic nucleus, supercondutors,  etc.) 16 ; 17 . It does not require complex mathematical formulations and involved computer calculations. Evidently, these results provide enough reasons to search for the origin of the difficulties with our conventional approaches so that a comprehensive approach free from every problem can be identified for future studies. To facilitate the process we make a critical study of certain physical realities of LHe-4 anf LHe-3 systems and intricacies of wave particle duality and conclude that certain aspects of conventional approaches are in error and the new approach can help in developing an almost exact microscopic theory of these systems.

The paper has been arranged as follows. While Section 2.0 defines the basic nature of a SIB/SIF to which our approach can be applied, wave mechanics of two HC particles, which serves as an important basis of a theory of a SIB/SIF, is critically analyzed in Section 3.0. The way this analysis modifies our conventional understanding of a $`N`$ body system is discussed in Section 4.0 and a summary of this study is presented in Section 5.0. While the paper is basically an expanded version of 14 , it also analyzes some important aspects of $`N`$ body systems for the first time. For example, by using a systematic mathematical derivation, this paper finds (cf. Section 4.5) that the expectation value of $`V_{HC}(r_{ij})`$ for every state of $`N`$ body SIB/SIF has zero value. This has a direct conflict with non-zero value of $`<V_{HC}(r_{ij})>`$ 4 ; 5 , that we know for the last seven decades. Similarly the allowed $`q`$ values satisfy $`q\pi /d`$ indicating that no particle in a SIB/SIF has $`q=0`$ as presumed in conventional formulations. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that our approach provides a theory that explains experimentally observed properties of superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ (even those which find no explanation in conventional theories), the accuracy and importance of our work has been ignored. In stead it faced unexpected difficulties with experts not for any error 22  but for the conflict of its basic ideas/results with those of their conventional framework. The history of the development of science witnesses many instances when non-conventional ideas/suggestions faced such difficulties before their acceptability. Consequently, we sum up all these difficulties and our response 23  so that the accuracy of different aspects of our work could be critically assessed and better understood. We hope that our approach should provide scientifically sound answers to different possible questions. It is satisfying that several competent people found merit in our work 22 .

## II 2.0 Basic Nature of Our SIB/SIF

To a good approximation, interparticle interaction in LHe-4/LHe-3 type system can be represented by two-body interaction $`V(r_{ij})`$ by presuming that the spin-spin type interactions (if exist) can be treated separately as a perturbation after solving the equation

$$[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}_i^2+\underset{i<j}{}V(r_{ij})]\mathrm{\Psi }_n=E_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n$$
(1)
for its allowed states. $`V(r_{ij})`$ can be considered as the sum of : (i) the repulsive potential $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$ approximated to a HC interaction $`V_{HC}(r_{ij})`$ defined by $`V_{HC}(r_{ij}\sigma )=0`$ and $`V_{HC}(r_{ij}<\sigma )=\mathrm{}`$ with $`\sigma `$ being the HC diameter of a particle and (ii) a relatively long range weak attraction $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$. Since $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ can be replaced by constant negative potential (say, $`V_o`$), atoms in these systems move freely like HC particles on a surface of potential $`V_o`$. This not only agrees with the translation symmetry of a liquid 24 , but also concludes that in formulating the theory of such a SIB/SIF we, at the first stage, have to deal with $`V_{HC}(r_{ij})`$ and $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ can be used as a perturbation at the second stage. As such the effective $`N`$ body Hamiltonian, with which a first stage analysis should be started, can be expressed by

$$H^o(N)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}_i^2+\underset{i<j}{}V_{HC}(r_{ij}).$$
(2)
However, following a discussion in Section 4.8, it is evident that the effective interaction incorporated in our new approach hardly differs from the real interaction between the particles.

## III 3.0 Wave Mechanics of Two HC particle

3.1. Schrödinger equation : In what follows from the above discussion, the wave mechanics of two particles (say P1 and P2) in a above defined SIB/SIF can be described by

$$[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}(_1^2+_2^2)+V_{HC}(r)]\mathrm{\Psi }(r_1,r_2)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(r_1,r_2).$$
(3)
For a central force like $`V_{HC}(r)`$, Eqn.(3) can also be expressed 25  as

$$[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}_R^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}_r^2+V_{HC}(r)]\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)$$
(4)
with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)=\psi _k(r)\mathrm{exp}[i(\text{K}.\text{R})]$$
(5)
describing a state of P1 and P2 having relative momentum k and CM momentum K. Here $`\psi _k(r)`$ representing the relative motion of P1 and P2 satisfies

$$[(\mathrm{}^2/m)_r^2+V_{HC}(r)]\psi _k(r)=E_k\psi _k(r)$$
(6)
with $`E_k=E\mathrm{}^2K^2/4m`$. Different notations in Eqns.(3-6) including

$$\text{r}=\text{r}_2\text{r}_1\mathrm{and}\text{k}=\text{k}_2\text{k}_1$$
(7)
$$\text{R}=(\text{r}_1+\text{r}_2)/2\mathrm{and}\text{K}=\text{ k}_1+\text{k}_2$$
(8)
have their usual meaning. It is evident that while allowed k can be affected by $`V_{HC}(r)`$, similar values of K representing a kind of free particle motion ($`\mathrm{exp}[i.(\text{K}.\text{R})]`$) are controlled only by the dimensions of the container. This difference in the nature of k and K motions of a pair clearly indicates that these motions can get totally delinked under certain physical conditions of a SIB/SIF. In fact, as found in our recent study of a SIB 15 , this really happens below $`\lambda `$-point and its superfluid phase is concluded to behave like a homogeneous mixture of two fluids as envisaged exactly by Landau 26 .

3.2. Characteristic details of $`\psi _k(r)`$ : The details of a $`\psi _k(r)`$, as defined by Eqns.(6 and 7), have so far been considered sufficient for most theoretical formulations of a SIB/SIF. However, we find no reason to ignore its additional details which not only simplify a theoretical formulation but also provide a better understanding of the system. To this effect we analyze $`\psi _k(r)`$ as seen from a frame attached to their CM defined by R = 0 and K = 0 and find that

$$\text{k}_1=\text{k}_2=\text{q}$$
(9)
and

$$\text{r}_{CM}(1)=\text{r}_{CM}(2)$$
(10)
define the characteristic details of such a $`\psi _k(r)`$. Here $`\text{ r}_{CM}`$ and  q, respectively, represent the position and momentum of a particle with respect to the CM of the pair. It is evident that P1 and P2 in their relative dynamics have: (i) equal and opposite momenta (q, -q) (cf. Eqn.(9)) and (ii) they maintain a center of symmetry at their CM (cf. Eqn.(10)). In other words, two particles in a laboratory frame could be identified as a pair having (q, -q) momenta at their CM which by itself moves with momentum K.

3.3. Equivalence of $`V_{HC}(r)`$ and $`\delta (r)`$ repulsion : Note that two particles of momenta $`\text{k}_1`$ and $`\text{k}_2`$ collide with each other at their CM defined by $`r=0`$ and after this collision they either bounce back with an exchange of $`\text{k}_1`$ and $`\text{k}_2`$ or they appear to exchange their positions. This aspect of the dynamics of P1 and P2 does not change even if $`\sigma `$ had been infinitely small (i.e. $`\delta `$size). Only the probability of their collision should change with a change in $`\sigma `$ and it would be higher for higher $`\sigma `$. Evidently, two colliding particles can be identified to behave effectively as particles of $`\delta `$-size hard core or to interact through $`\delta (r)`$-repulsion. This implies $`V_{HC}(r)A.\delta (r)`$ where $`A`$ representing the strength of $`\delta (r)`$-repulsion is given by 15  $`A=h^2/8md^2`$. Note that this equivalence does not differ significantly from $`V_{HC}(r)A^{}.\delta (r)`$ (with $`A^{}=h^2.a/(\pi m.d^3)=(8a/\pi d).A`$ and $`a=`$ s-wave scattering length) obtained analytically 4 ; 5 .

3.4. Correct form of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)`$ : In view of $`V_{HC}(r)A.\delta (r)`$, we find that two particles at $`r0`$ experience no interaction because $`A.\delta (r)`$ has zero value at all these points. Consequently, these particles can be represented by plane waves, $`u_{k_i}(r_i)=(1/\sqrt{V}).\mathrm{exp}(i\text{k}_i.\text{r}_i)\mathrm{exp}[iE_it/\mathrm{}]`$ and $`\psi (r,R)`$, at all $`r0`$, can be expressed either as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r_1,r_2)=u_{k_1}(r_1)u_{k_2}(r_2)$$
(11)
when P1 and P2 having $`r>>\lambda (2\pi /q)`$ do not interfere with each other or as

$$\psi (r_1,r_2)^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[u_{k_1}(r_1)u_{k_2}(r_2)\pm u_{k_2}(r_1)u_{k_1}(r_2)\right]$$
(12)
when they have $`r\lambda `$. Eqn.(12) can be arranged to read as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^\pm =\psi _k(r)^\pm \mathrm{exp}(i\text{K}.\text{R})\mathrm{exp}[i(E_k+E_K)t/\mathrm{}]$$
(13)
with

$$\psi _k(r)^+=\sqrt{\frac{2}{V}}\mathrm{cos}(\text{k}\text{r}/2).\mathrm{exp}[iE_kt/\mathrm{}]$$
(14)
and

$$\psi _k(r)^{}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{V}}\mathrm{sin}(\text{k}.\text{r}/2)\mathrm{exp}[iE_kt/\mathrm{}].$$
(15)
We find that $`\psi _k(r)^+`$ or $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ defines a kind of stationary matter wave (SMW) which modulates the relative phase position ($`\varphi =\text{k}.\text{r}`$) of two particles in $`\varphi `$-space. As shown in 15 , this modulation is the basic reason for the interparticle phase coherence experimentally observed in superfluid SIB and SIF; note that in optical lasers too we have cavity modes in the form of standing electromagnetic waves which modulate the phase positions of photons. Note that $`\psi _k(r)^+`$ and $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ differ only in terms of the origin of the $`\varphi =\text{k}.\text{r}`$ scale by $`\pi `$. While $`\varphi =0`$ for $`\psi _k(r)^+`$ represents the center of an anti-nodal region of its SMW form, the same for $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ represents a nodal point. This concludes $`\psi _k(r)^+\psi _k(r)^{}`$. To understand this equivalence we note that in the wave mechanical superposition there is no way to find whether two particles after their collision have bounced back on their respective sides of their CM or they exchanged their positions across this point. Since the former case represents the self superposition of each particle, it can best be described by $`\psi _k(r)^+`$ because $`V_{HC}(r)`$ would not operate in such superposition. However, the latter case implying mutual superposition of two particles should be represented $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ because the corresponding wave function has to vanish at $`r=0`$ due to $`V_{HC}(r)`$ operating between the two particles. One can also use $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ to represent the self superposition state of a particle with a understanding that the quantum spread of the particle starts from $`r=0`$ (the nodal point of $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ identified with the CM of the pair) to $`r=\lambda /2`$ on the line joining the locations of P1 and P2. Evidently, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}`$ is the best choice of the waveform that can correctly represent a pair of HC particles or a particle as the part of this pair.

3.5. Correct value of $`<V_{HC}(r)>`$ : In view of what has been concluded in the above section, we have to use $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}`$) to evaluate $`<V_{HC}(r)>`$ in a state of two HC particles (bosons and fermions alike). The anti-symmetry of $`\psi (r,R)^{}`$ for the exchange of two particles, agrees with the observation of Woo 24  that HC bosons in configuration space behave the way fermions behave in momentum space. However, this does not mean that larger systems of HC bosons and HC fermions have no difference due to intrinsic spin values of bosons and fermions. They would differ in terms of the occupancy of the states of allowed $`K`$ values. While any number of boson pairs can have same $`K`$, no two pairs of fermions have this liberty ; note that by using the relations, $`\text{k}_1=\text{K}/2+\text{q}`$, $`\text{k}_2=\text{K}/2\text{q}`$, $`\text{k}_1^{}=\text{K}^{}/2+\text{q}^{}`$ and $`\text{k}_2^{}=\text{K}^{}/2\text{q}^{}`$, one may find that $`\text{k}_1\text{k}_2\text{k}_1^{}\text{k}_2^{}`$ applicable to the set of four identical fermions is equivalent to $`\text{K}\text{K}^{}`$ when $`\text{q}=\text{q}^{}`$ and $`\text{q}\text{q}^{}`$ when $`\text{K}=\text{K}^{}`$. As such by using $`\psi (r,R)^{}`$ (Eqn.13) as a state function of two HC particles we find that

$$<\psi (r,R)^{}|A.\delta (r)|\psi (r,R)^{}>=|\psi _k(r)^{}|_{r=0}^2=0$$
(16)
which differs from its non-zero value reported in 4 ; 5 . It is evident that only one of the two values (zero or non-zero) of $`<A.\delta (r)>`$ can be true and one can easily find that Eqn.(16) is correct.

## IV 4.0. Some Basic Results for N Body Systems

4.1. Validity of Eqn.(3/4) for two HC particles in a SIB/SIF : Since Eqn.(3/4) basically describes two HC particles in free space, its validity for two such particles in a SIB/SIF must be established if we wish to use it as a basis to describe such a SIB/SIF. To this effect we note that two particles in a SIB/SIF encounter $`V_{HC}(r)`$ only when they collide with each other. While this elastic collision leads to an exchange of momenta $`\text{k}_1`$ and $`\text{k}_2`$, the fact remains that P1 and P2 (before and after their collision) have free particle motion. Analyzing another possible situation in which mutually colliding P1 and P2 also collide with other particle(s), we find that $`\text{k}_1`$ and $`\text{k}_2`$ (or k and K) after such collision may assume new values, $`\text{k}_1^{}`$ and $`\text{k}_2^{}`$ (or $`\text{k}^{}`$ and $`\text{K}^{}`$) but once again P1 and P2 retain their free particle motion. As such the interparticle interactions make a pair embedded in a SIB/SIF scatter/jump from its one state to another state of possible k and K, while such a state of the pair in free space simply remains unchanged. Evidently, the basic nature of the dynamics of a pair in two situations does not differ which means that the states of P1 and P2 in such a system, in spite of their interaction with other particles, can be described by Eqn.(3/4).

4.2. Correct boundary condition : We find that the boundary condition, $`\psi _k(r\sigma )=0`$ or its equivalent, used to obtain a $`\psi _k(r)`$ either as a solution of Eqn.(6) or by way of a choice to construct a $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)`$, implicitly presumes that $`r=\sigma `$ can be determined precisely (i.e. with an uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$) which implies that momentum uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ is infinitely large. However, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=\sqrt{(<k^2><k>^2)}`$ for the pair in $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ (Eqn.15) state can be at the most equal to $`k`$ 27 , $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$ would be inconsistent with uncertainty principle for finite $`k`$ and we have no pair of particles in a SIB/SIF having $`k=\mathrm{}`$. The degree of this inconsistency assumes prominence, particularly, for particles of low momentum, viz., $`q<\pi /\sigma `$ (i.e. $`\lambda /2>\sigma `$) for which uncertainty in the positions of each particle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\lambda /2`$, becomes much larger than $`r`$. Evidently, one needs to find a right alternative of $`\psi _k(r\sigma )=0`$ condition. In this context we take cognizance of the fact that a particle in wave mechanics manifests itself as a wave packet(WP) of size $`\lambda /2`$ (i.e. a sphere of diameter $`\lambda /2`$) and because two HC particles do not overlap, their representative WPs should also have no overlap. Thus, the separation ($`<r>`$) between two particles should satisfy $`<r>\lambda /2`$ condition or $`k<r>2\pi `$) 27  which also follows from the uncertainty relation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k\mathrm{\Delta }r2\pi `$, because we expect $`k\mathrm{\Delta }k`$, and $`<r>\mathrm{\Delta }r`$.

4.3. Allowed values of $`q`$ : Since two particles in a LHe-4/LHe-3 have shortest $`<r>=d`$ (the average nearest neighbor separation), $`<r>\lambda /2`$ could be read as $`d\lambda /2`$ which implies that lower bound of $`q`$ should be $`q=q_o=\pi /d`$. This does not support the assumption that particles in a LHe-4/LHe-3 can have $`q=0`$ and there can exist a $`q=0`$ condensate $`n_{p=0}(T)`$ in LHe-4 below $`T_\lambda `$. This inference agrees with the fact that the existence of $`n_{p=0}(T)`$ in superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ has not been proved experimentally beyond doubt 21 . In fact, as discussed above, this assumption contradicts the uncertainty relation. The lowest possible $`q=q_o=\pi /d`$ and corresponding energy $`\epsilon _o=h^2/8md^2`$, so inferred, imply that each particle in the system exclusively occupies a cavity of volume $`d^3`$ and agrees with excluded volume condition 28  supposed to be satisfied by HC particles.

4.4. Interparticle phase correlations : When a particle manifests itself as a wave, its phase position $`\varphi `$ becomes more relevant than its $`r`$. Naturally, in the low temperature phase of a SIB/SIF where wave nature dominates the particle nature, the interparticle phase correlation defined by $`g(\varphi )=|\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}|^2=|\psi _k(r)^{}|^2`$ (an explicit consequence of wave nature) should be more relevant than interparticle position correlation defined by $`g(r)=|\varphi _k(r)|^2`$ (a consequence of interparticle potential) where $`\varphi _k(r)`$ is the solution of hyper-netted chain Schrödinger equation 12 ; 13 . The fact that this inference also applies to a LHe-3 is well evident since the details of $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ describing relative dynamics of two particles does not differ for a pair of HC bosons and that of fermions. $`g(\varphi )`$ can also be expressed by an equivalent quantum correlation potential 15  $`U=k_BT_o.\mathrm{ln}|\psi _k(r)^{}|^2=k_BT_o.\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}^2(\text{k}.\text{r}/2)`$ (with $`T_o`$ being the temperature equivalent of $`\epsilon _o`$) having minimum ($`=k_BT_o.\mathrm{ln}2`$) and maximum (=$`\mathrm{}`$) periodically located at $`\varphi =\text{k}.\text{r}=(2n+1)\pi `$ (midpoint of an anti-nodal region a SMW) and $`2n\pi `$ (location of a node of SMW), respectively. As such this potential locks the particles at phase position separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2n\pi `$ (with $`n=`$ 1, 2, 3, …) and explains the origin of the experimentally observed phase coherence in the motion of particles in a superfluid phase of a SIB/SIF. It is important to note that our emphasis on $`g(\varphi )`$ does not ignore $`g(r)`$. Rather it gives equal importance of $`g(r)`$ and $`g(k)`$ (the interparticle momentum correlation) because of $`\varphi =\text{k}.\text{r}=2n\pi `$, while the emphasis on only $`g(r)`$ ignores $`g(k)`$.

4.5. $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|V_{HC}(r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$  : As reported in 4 ; 5 , one obtains a non-zero $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|V_{HC}(r)A.\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ when he uses

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\underset{P}{}(\pm 1)^{[P]}[u_{P\alpha _i}(r_1)u_{P\alpha _j}(r_2)\mathrm{}u_{P\alpha _N}(r_N)]$$
(17)
to represent a state of $`N`$ particles and evaluates the integral over $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. However, in this process he does not encounter $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ to implement $`\psi _k(r)^{}|_{r=0}=0`$, -the basic character of a pair waveform. Naturally, this process does not ensure the accuracy of non-zero $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|V_{HC}(r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ so obtained 4 ; 5 . Guided by this observation, we rearrange Eqn.(17) as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left\{u_{\alpha _i}(r_1)u_{\alpha _j}(r_2)\pm u_{\alpha _j}(r_1)u_{\alpha _i}(r_2)\right\}.`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{P^{}}{}}(\pm 1)^{[P^{}]}[u_{P^{}\alpha _l}(r_3)\mathrm{}u_{P^{}\alpha _N}(r_N)]`$
which resolves $`\psi _k(r)^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\text{ K}.\text{ R})`$ waveforms of two particles at $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ (say) and evaluate the $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|V_{HC}(r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ related integral over $`r`$ and $`R`$. Note that $`P^{}`$ in Eqn.(18) represents the permutation over different $`\alpha `$ includes all $`N`$ $`\alpha `$ ( i.e. $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, …$`\alpha _N`$) except those identified as $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\alpha _j`$ (with integers $`i`$ and $`j`$ running from 1 to $`N`$). Defining

$`\psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r,R)^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`[u_{\alpha _i}(r_1)u_{\alpha _j}(r_2)\pm u_{\alpha _j}(r_1)u_{\alpha _i}(r_2)]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r)^\pm \mathrm{exp}[i(\text{k}_i+\text{k}_j).\text{R}]`$
we find that

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>=\frac{N(N1)}{2}I_{ij,i^{}j^{}}^{(1)}.I_{ij,i^{}j^{}}^{(2)}.I^{(3)}$$
(20)
with

$`I_{ij,i^{}j^{}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r)^c\delta (r)\psi _{\alpha _i^{},\alpha _j^{}}(r)^cd^3r}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r)^c|_{r=0}.\psi _{\alpha _i^{},\alpha _j^{}}(r)^c|_{r=0}=0.`$
Here $`\psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r)^c`$ is that $`\psi _{\alpha _i,\alpha _j}(r)^\pm `$ which vanishes at $`r=0`$ since only such a waveform can correctly represent two HC particles (bosons/fermions). We also have

$`I_{ij,i^{}j^{}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{exp}[i(\text{k}_i+\text{k}_j).\text{R}]`$ (22)
$`.\mathrm{exp}[i(\text{k}_i^{}+\text{k}_j^{}).\text{R}]d^3R`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{(\text{k}_i+\text{k}_j),(\text{k}_i^{}+\text{k}_j^{})}`$
representing the conservation of momentum of two particles in their collision, and

$`I^{(3)}=<\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(N2)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{P^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{Q^{}}{}}(\pm 1)^{[P^{}]+[Q^{}]}`$ (23)
$`[\delta _{P^{}\alpha _3,Q^{}\alpha _3}\mathrm{}\delta _{P^{}\alpha _N,Q^{}\alpha _N}]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}`$, -a part of Eqn.(18), can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}(r_3,\mathrm{},r_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(N2)!}}}{\displaystyle \underset{P^{}}{}}(\pm 1)^{[P^{}]}[u_{P^{}\alpha _3}(r_3)`$ (24)
$`u_{P^{}\alpha _4}(r_4)\mathrm{}u_{P^{}\alpha _N}(r_N)].`$
Evidently, $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A.\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ vanishing due to zero value of $`I_{ij,i^{}j^{}}^{(1)}`$ (Eqn.21) renders

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A.\underset{a<b}{}\delta (r_br_a)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>=0$$
(25)
which differs from its non-zero value 4 ; 5 . It is important to note that the zero value of $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A.\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ should not be confused to imply that energy eigenvalues of a system of non-interacting particles are identical to those of a system of particles interacting through $`V_{HC}(r)`$. While particles in the former case have no way to identify the presence of each other and the lowest possible $`q=q_o=\pi /L`$ and corresponding energy $`\epsilon _o=h^2/8mL^2`$ are decided by the size $`L`$ of the container, $`q_o`$ and $`\epsilon _o`$, in the latter case (cf. Section 4.2), are decided by $`d`$ which is not only much shorter than $`L`$ but is also decided by net sum of $`V(r_{ij})`$.

4.6. Energy eigenvalue : It is evident that a particle in a SIB/SIF can be represented more accurately by a $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}`$ pair waveform (Eqn.13) than a plane wave due to its wave mechanical superposition with itself (self superposition) or with another particle (mutual superposition) in a process of its collision; self superposition of a particle can also be visualized when it returns after its collision with the walls of the container. However, the consistency of this representation demands that the kinetic energy terms of $`H^o(N)`$ (Eqn.2) should also be paired as

$$h(i)=\frac{1}{2}\left[h_i+h_{i+1}\right]$$
(26)
with $`h_{N+1}=h_1`$ and

$$h_i=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_i^2\mathrm{and}h(i)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}_{R_i}^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_{r_i}^2$$
(27)
Naturally, this renders

$$H^o(N)=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}h(i)+\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}A.\delta (r_{ij}).$$
(28)
One can also use other schemes of pairing $`h_i`$ terms of $`H^o(N)`$ as discussed in 15 . The rearrangement of $`H^o(N)`$ as expressed by Eqn.(28) and representation of each particle by a $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}`$ type pair waveform facilitate in constructing a wave function for a state of $`N`$ particle system by following the standard procedure. This is particularly so because expectation value of $`V_{HC}(r_{ij})A.\delta (r_{ij})`$ vanishes ( cf. Eqns. 16 and 25). For $`N`$ particles we have $`N`$ different $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,R)^{}`$ rendering $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=N!`$ different $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ (through permutations of $`q_i`$ or $`r_i`$ of N particles) for $`n`$th state of equal energy $`E_n=E_n(K)+E_n(k)`$. Defining

$$E_n(K)=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\epsilon (K)_i\mathrm{and}E_n(k)=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\epsilon (k)_i$$
(29)
we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\varphi _n(q).\varphi _n(K)$$
(30)
with

$$\varphi _n(q)=\left[\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{V}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\text{q}_i.\text{r}_i)\right]\mathrm{exp}[iE_n(k)t/\mathrm{}]$$
(31)
and

$`\varphi _n(K)`$ $`=`$ $`A.\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{V}}}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{ p}K}{}}(\pm 1)^p{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\text{K}_i.\text{R}_i].`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{exp}[iE_n(K)t/\mathrm{}]`$
with $`A=\sqrt{1/N!}`$. Here $`_{\text{ p}K}(\pm 1)^p`$ refers to the sum of different permutations of $`K`$ over all particles. While the use of $`(+1)^p`$ or $`(1)^p`$ in Eqn.(32) depends on the bosonic or fermionic nature of the system for their spin character of the particles, the use of the restriction $`q_i\pi /d`$ in Eqn.(31) treats the so called fermionic behavior (in the $`r`$space) of HC particles (bosons and fermions alike). Evidently, a state function of $`N`$ HC bosons should differ from that of $`N`$ HC fermions in the choice of $`(+1)^p`$ or $`(1)^p`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ different $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ counted above take care of the permutation of $`k=2q`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}.\underset{i}{\overset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(i)}$$
(33)
which represents the general form of a state function that should reveal the physics of a SIB/SIF. Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ represents a state where each particle, as a WP of size $`=\pi /q`$, has a plane wave motion of momentum K. Since $`\varphi _n(q)`$ (Eqn.31) appearing in each $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{(i)}`$ of Eqn.(33) through Eqn.(30) vanishes at every point $`r_i=r_j`$, that defines the CM of $`i`$th and $`j`$th particles, one may easily find

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|V_{HC}(r_{ij})A.\delta (r_{ij})|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>=0$$
(34)
and

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|H^o(N)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}\left(K_i^2+k_i^2\right)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}\left(K_i^2+4q_i^2\right)`$
which can be shown 15  to render

$$E_o=Nh^2/8md^2=N\epsilon _o$$
(36)
as the G-state energy for a SIB for which all $`K`$ values can be zero. However the G-state energy for a SIF, where only two particles (with spin up and spin down) can occupy a state of an allowed $`K`$, is found to be 16 ; 17

$$E_o=N\epsilon _o+E_F$$
(37)
with $`E_F=h^2/8\pi m(N/1.5045\mathrm{V})^{2/3}`$ representing the Fermi energy of $`N`$ particles derived for their $`K`$ motions. Note that $`K`$ motion of a particle in SMW configuration is a kind of free particle motion with effective mass being $`4m`$.

4.7. $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ as perturbation : It is obvious that $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ can affect the relative configuration of particles in a SIB/SIF which, in the G-state of the system, is defined by the nearest neighbor separation $`d`$ and the least possible $`q`$ of a particle $`q_o=\pi /d`$. Evidently, when this state of the system is subjected to a perturbation by attractive potential, $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$, its G-state energy $`E_o=N\epsilon _o=Nh^2/8md^2`$ changes to $`E_o^{}=N\epsilon _o^{}=Nh^2/8md^2`$ rendering a net fall in G-state energy by

$$E_g=\frac{Nh^2}{8m}\left[\frac{1}{d^2}\frac{1}{d^2}\right]\frac{Nh^2}{4m}\frac{d^{}d}{d^3}$$
(38)
where $`d^{}`$ represents the increased $`d`$ value which arises due to zero point repulsion coming into effect at a temperature at which particles in the system satisfy $`\lambda _T=2d`$ (with thermal de Broglie wave length, $`\lambda _T=h/\sqrt{2\pi mk_BT}`$). In fact this force leads the system to have volume expansion on its cooling below certain temperature as observed experimentally for LHe-4 as well as LHe-3. We define $`E_g`$ as the energy gap between the normal and superfluid states of the system. It also represents a kind of collective binding of all atoms for which the entire system can be identified as a single macro-molecule.

4.8. Effective interparticle interaction : It may be noted that our approach of developing the microscopic theory not only replaces $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$, as an approximation, by $`V_{HC}(r_{ij})A.\delta (r_{ij})`$ but also imposes a condition, “that two WPs of HC particles should not share any point  r in configuration space”, -equivalent to assuming the presence of a repulsion of  finite range, $`r_a=\lambda /2`$; it appears that the WP manifestation of particle extends the range of the influence of $`V_{HC}(r)`$ from $`r_a=\sigma `$ to $`r_a=\lambda /2`$ when $`\lambda /2>\sigma `$. This repulsion is nothing but the zero point repulsion 29  which can be derived as the first $`d`$ derivative of $`\epsilon _o=h^2/8md^2`$ representing the G-state energy of a particle. This again shows that $`A`$ in $`V_{HC}(r)A.\delta (r)`$ should be $`h^2/8md^2`$.

Further, since $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$ in most SIB falls faster (in LHe-4 it varies as $`r^{12}`$) than the zero-point repulsion, varying as $`r^2`$, the latter would dominate $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$ particularly for all $`r>\sigma `$ and $`\lambda /2`$ and this observation agrees with the experimental facts that : (i) LHe-4 and LHe-3 do not solidify due to zero-point repulsion even at $`T=0`$ unless they are subjected to an external pressure of $`25`$ and $`30`$ atms, respectively, and (ii) they exhibit volume expansion with falling $`T`$ around 2.2 and 0.5 K, respectively30 . It may also be noted that our condition, $`\lambda /2d`$, identifies $`d`$ as the upper limit of the WP size $`\lambda /2`$ (the key aspect of our theory) of a particle and $`d`$ is decided by the net sum of $`V(r_{ij})`$ without any approximation. Evidently, these observations prove that  our theory accounts for the $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$ and $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ components of $`V(r_{ij})`$ close to their real effect.

4.9. Why (q, -q) pair condensation : The phenomenon of superfluidity/superconductivity of a fermionic system is attributed to the condensation of Cooper pairs of fermions for a reason that the Pauli exclusion principle forbids two identical fermions from occupying single energy state, while any number of these pairs presumed to behave like bosons can do so. Because Pauli exclusion does not apply to bosons, conventional theorists find no difficulty in assuming the condensation of macroscopically large number of bosons into a single particle state of $`p=0`$ as their main theme. However, this assumption ignores the fact that the way two fermions do not occupy same point in $`k`$space, two HC particles do not occupy same point in $`r`$space. This is particularly important because the requirement of antisymmetry of two fermion wave function, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(1,2)=[v_\text{k}^{}(\text{r}_1).v_{\text{k}^{\prime \prime }}(\text{r}_2)v_\text{k}^{}(\text{r}_2).v_{\text{k}^{\prime \prime }}(\text{r}_1)]`$, for their exchange, makes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(1,2)`$ vanish not only for $`\text{k}^{}=\text{k}^{\prime \prime }`$ but also for $`\text{r}_1=\text{r}_2`$. Evidently, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1,2)`$ of two HC particles is subjected to a condition that it should vanish for $`\text{r}_1=\text{r}_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1,2)`$ has to be identically antisymmetric and would, obviously, vanish also for $`\text{k}^{}=\text{k}^{\prime \prime }`$. This implies that two HC quantum particles in $`r`$space behave like two fermions behave in $`k`$space and concludes that two HC particles (excluded to have $`\text{r}_1=\text{r}_2`$) can not have $`\text{k}^{}=\text{k}^{\prime \prime }`$, particularly, in a state of their wave mechanical superposition (i.e. a quantum state of $`\lambda >d`$). Note that the inference would be valid not only for particles of $`\sigma 0`$ (i.e. particles interacting through $`\delta `$-function repulsion) but also for $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ type atoms because finite size HC repulsion becomes equivalent to $`\delta `$-function repulsion for particles of $`\lambda /2>\sigma `$ 14 . However, we also note that there is a difference in Fermi behavior due to HC nature and that due to half integer spin; while the former excludes every particle from having $`q<\pi /d`$ (applies identically to HC bosons and HC fermions), the latter excludes two particles (applies to fermions only) from having equal K. Evidently, this excludes the possibility of nonzero $`n_{p=0}(T)`$ which has also been shown to be inconsistent with excluded volume condition of HC particles 28 .

As such like Pauli exclusion provides effective repulsion to keep two fermions apart 20 , the volume exclusion condition applicable to HC quantum particles and WP manifestation of quantum particles render such repulsion to keep their WPs  at $`r\lambda /2`$; experimentally observed volume expansion of LHe-4 with decreasing $`T`$ near $`T_\lambda `$ 30  corroborates this fact. Evidently, there is no doubt that superfluidity of LHe-4 type SIB originates from the condensation of (q, -q) pairs. The binding between two particles originates from their inherent interatomic attraction and this has been discussed in detail in Section (5.4) of 15 .

## V 5.0. Conclusion

As such, this study concludes that : (i) Under the approximation $`V_{HC}(r)A.\delta (r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r_1,r_2)`$ (Eqn. 11) (for the situation $`r>\lambda /2`$) and $`\psi _k(r,R)^{}`$ (Eqn. 13) (for $`r\lambda /2`$) represent exact solutions of Eqns.(3) and (4), respectively, (ii) allowed $`q`$ values satisfy $`q\pi /d`$ (cf. Section 4.3), (iii) $`\varphi `$-correlations dominates the behavior of low temperature phase (cf. Section 4.4), and (iv) $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A.\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ has zero value (cf. Section 4.5) which differs significantly from its non-zero value concluded through conventional formulations4 ; 5 . The errors of non-zero value of $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_n|A.\delta (r)|\mathrm{\Phi }_n>`$ are also evident from its dependence on momentum and spin distribution of particles4 ; 5  which does not agree with the fact that $`A.\delta (r=0)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`A.\delta (r>0)=0`$ is independent of momentum and/or spin states of two HC particles. As such the main sources of our basic problems in developing a correct theory of a LHe-4/LHe-3 have been the finer intricacies of wave mechanics (cf. Sections. 4.2-4.6 and Eqns.(16 AND 25) that we, somehow, missed for so long. This author too never imagined of this fact. Only recently, we identifies these intricacies and developed a new approach that resolves these problems and helps in finding an almost exact theory of a LHe-4(LHe-3) type SIB(SIF)15 ; 16 ; 17 . As such the present analysis provides strong foundations to our approach. We also find that : (i) our approach not only uses $`V^\mathrm{R}(r_{ij})`$ and $`V^\mathrm{A}(r_{ij})`$ components of $`V(r_{ij})`$ effectively but also analyzes the way zero-point repulsion dominates the behavior of a superfluid SIB (cf. Section (4.8)) and (ii) there are compelling reasons (cf. Section (4.9)) for a SIB too to have (q, -q) pair condensation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is thankful to Prof. M.K. Parida for useful discussion.


text:
# On diffeomorphisms deleting weakly compacta in Banach spaces

## 1. Introduction, main results and preliminaries

A subset $`K`$ of $`X`$ is said to be topologically negligible provided there exists a homeomorphism $`h:XXK`$. The homeomorphism $`h`$ is usually required to be the identity outside a given neighborhood of $`K`$. Here $`X`$ can be a Banach space, a manifold, or just a topological space, though in this paper we will only consider the case when $`X`$ is an infinite-dimensional Banach space and $`h`$ is a diffeomorphism (of course, points are not topologically negligible in finite-dimensional spaces).

The theory of topological negligibility started in 1953 when Victor L. Klee  proved that, if $`X`$ is a non-reflexive Banach space or an infinite-dimensional $`L^p`$ space and $`K`$ is a compact subset of $`X`$, there exists a homeomorphism between $`X`$ and $`XK`$ which is the identity outside a given neighborhood of $`K`$. Klee also proved that for those infinite-dimensional Banach spaces X the unit sphere and the unit ball are homeomorphic to any of the closed hyperplanes in X, and gave a topological classification of convex bodies in Hilbert spaces. In subsequent papers, Bessaga and Klee generalized those results to every infinite-dimensional normed space .

Klee’s original proofs were of a strong geometrical flavor: very beautiful, but rather difficult to handle in an analytical way. Nevertheless, C. Bessaga found elegant explicit formulas for deleting homeomorphisms, based on the existence of continuous noncomplete (nonequivalent) norms in every infinite-dimensional Banach space. This discovery allowed him in 1966 to construct diffeomorphisms which delete points in the Hilbert space, and to prove that the Hilbert space is diffeomorphic to its unit sphere . These striking results of Bessaga’s have been highly celebrated and they remain a key ingredient in the proofs of the already classic fundamental theorems on Hilbert manifolds (e.g., that every two homotopic Hilbert manifolds are diffeomorphic, see ). Later on (and by using Bessaga’s result), J. West produced the following theorem (which remains the most powerful result about topological negligibility in Hilbert manifolds): if $`K`$ is a closed, locally compact subset of a Hilbert manifold $`M`$, $`U`$ is an open neighborhood of $`K`$ and $`G`$ is an open covering of $`M`$, then there exists a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ diffeomorphism $`h:MMK`$ which is the identity off $`U`$ and is limited by $`G`$ (this roughly means that $`h`$ is arbitrarily close to the identity mapping).

Apart from the classification of Hilbert manifolds by homotopy type, the results about topological negligibility have found many interesting applications in several branches of mathematics, which include fixed point theory, smooth topological classification of convex bodies, strange phenomena concerning ordinary differential equations and dynamical systems in infinite dimensions, the failure of Rolle’s theorem in infinite dimensions and many more things, see  and the references therein. Very recently, Manuel Cepedello and the first-named author have used smooth topological negligibility to prove the following approximate strong version of the Morse-Sard theorem: the smooth functions with no critical points are dense in the space of continuous functions on every Hilbert manifold. More precisely, if $`M`$ is a smooth manifold modeled on the separable Hilbert space and $`f:M^m`$ and $`\epsilon :M(0,\mathrm{})`$ are continuous functions then there exists a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth function $`g:M^m`$ with no critical points and such that $`fg\epsilon `$ (a positive consequence of this theorem is the following fact, which may be regarded as a nonlinear analogue of the Hahn-Banach theorem: if $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are two disjoint closed sets in a Hilbert manifold $`M`$, then there exists a smooth submanifold of codimension one which separates $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ and which is a level set of a smooth function with no critical points on $`M`$). See .

In view of the interest of such applications, it is natural to try to extend these results to Banach spaces other than the Hilbert space.

The real-analytic and smooth negligibility of compact sets in Banach spaces was studied by Tadeusz Dobrowolski , who developed Bessaga’s non-complete norm technique in the smooth case and generalized some of the results of . He  showed that for every infinite-dimensional Banach space $`X`$ having a $`C^p`$ non-complete norm, and for every compact set $`K`$ in $`X`$, the space $`X`$ is $`C^p`$ diffeomorphic to $`XK`$. Unfortunately, it is still unknown whether every Banach space with a $`C^p`$ smooth equivalent norm possesses a noncomplete $`C^p`$ smooth norm as well.

Without showing the existence of smooth non-complete norms, the first-named author proved  that every Banach space $`(X,)`$ with a $`C^p`$ smooth norm $`\varrho `$ is $`C^p`$ diffeomorphic to $`X\{0\}`$ and, moreover, that every hyperplane $`H`$ in $`X`$ is $`C^p`$ diffeomorphic to the sphere $`\{xX\varrho (x)=1\}`$.

In subsequent work , T. Dobrowolski and the first-named author strengthened the new technique of deleting points introduced in  so as to generalize some results and applications of smooth negligibility of compacta and subspaces to the class of all Banach spaces having $`C^p`$ smooth norms.

Despite all these efforts, the natural question as to the characterization of those Banach spaces in which compact sets are topologically negligible remains open. This is due to a surprising (and rather uncomfortable) theorem proved by R. Haydon : there are Banach spaces which have $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth bump functions, and even $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth partitions of unity, but do not possess any equivalent $`C^1`$ smooth norm.

In this paper we deal with the following natural question: what can be said about smooth negligibility of compacta in those Banach spaces with smooth partitions of unity? As we have just pointed out, there are Banach spaces with smooth partitions of unity which have no equivalent smooth norms, and therefore the known results on diffeomorphisms deleting compacta are useless in this setting. Nevertheless, we will prove in this paper that every (weakly) compact subset $`K`$ of an infinite-dimensional Banach space with $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity can be removed by a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`h:XXK`$ which is the identity outside a given starlike body $`A`$ containing $`K`$. More precisely, our main result is as follows.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space which has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of the unity. Then, for every weakly compact set $`KX`$ and every starlike body $`A`$ such that $`\text{dist}(K,XA)>0`$, there exists a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`h:XXK`$ such that $`h`$ is the identity outside $`A`$.

In particular, when $`K`$ is compact and $`K\text{int}(A)`$, there always exists such a deleting diffeomorphism $`h`$.

Here, $`p\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Of course if $`X`$ is finite-dimensional, there exist no such deleting diffeomorphisms.

The class of Banach spaces which admit smooth partitions of unity is quite large. For instance, every Banach space with a separable dual admits $`C^1`$ smooth partitions of unity, so does every reflexive space, and there are many other simple conditions that ensure the existence of smooth partitions of unity in a Banach space; see . On the other hand, it is an open problem to know whether every Banach space with a $`C^p`$ smooth equivalent norm has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity (see ). If a positive answer to this question is ever reached, then Theorem 1.1 will be an extension of the main theorem in . Otherwise and for the time being, by combining Theorem 1.1 with the main result of , we may deduce the following.

###### Corollary 1.2.

Let $`X`$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space. Assume that either $`X`$ possesses a $`C^p`$ smooth norm or else $`X`$ has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity. Then, for every compact set $`KX`$ and every $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body $`A`$ such that $`K\text{int}(A)`$, there exists a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`h:XXK`$ such that $`h`$ is the identity outside $`A`$.

It should be noted that, for the time being, no one knows of an infinite-dimensional Banach space with a $`C^1`$ bump function which does not have either a $`C^1`$ smooth norm or $`C^1`$ smooth partitions of unity (hence which does not fall into the category to which the above Corollary applies). On the other hand, it is easy to see that the existence of a $`C^1`$ smooth bump is a necessary condition for a Banach space $`X`$ to have a diffeomorphism from $`X`$ onto $`X\{0\}`$ which restricts to the identity outside some ball.

We should also stress that, as a consequence of Theorem 1.1, all of the corollaries of the main theorem of  proved in that paper are true for every infinite-dimensional Banach space having $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity. For instance, Garay’s results concerning strange phenomena for ODEs in Banach spaces can be readily extended to this category. We will not elaborate on these topics; see  and the references therein.

At this point we need to introduce some terminology and notation concerning starlike bodies, which, apart from the statements of the preceding results, will play a key role in our proofs. The number of things that can be proved if one only knows that there are enough smooth starlike bodies in our space is somewhat surprising. In fact, the requirement that our space $`X`$ has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity will only be used to ensure that our space has enough smooth starlike bodies.

A closed subset $`A`$ of a Banach space $`X`$ is said to be a starlike body if there exists a point $`a_0`$ in the interior of $`A`$ such that every ray emanating from $`a_0`$ meets $`A`$, the boundary of $`A`$, at most once. We will say that $`a_0`$ is a center of $`A`$. There can obviously exist many centers for a given starlike body. Up to a suitable translation, we can always assume that $`a_0=0`$ is the origin of $`X`$, and we will often do so, unless otherwise stated. For a starlike body $`A`$ with center $`a_0`$, we define the characteristic cone of $`A`$ as

$$ccA=\{xX|a_0+r(xa_0)A\text{for  all}r>0\},$$

and the Minkowski functional of $`A`$ with respect to the center $`a_0`$ as

$$\mu _{A,a_0}(x)=\mu _A(x)=inf\{t>0|xa_0t(a_0+A)\}\text{ for all }xX\text{.}$$

Note that $`\mu _A(x)=\mu _{a_0+A}(xa_0)\text{ for all }xX.`$ It is easily seen that $`\mu _A`$ is a continuous function which satisfies $`\mu _A(a_0+rx)=r\mu _A(a_0+x)`$ for every $`r0`$ and $`xX`$, and $`\mu _A^1(0)=ccA`$. Moreover, $`A=\{xX|\mu _A(x)1\}`$, and $`A=\{xX\mu _A(x)=1\}`$. Conversely, if $`\psi :X[0,\mathrm{})`$ is continuous and satisfies $`\psi (a_0+\lambda x)=\lambda \psi (a_0+x)`$ for all $`\lambda 0`$, then $`A_\psi =\{xX\psi (x)1\}`$ is a starlike body. More generally, for a continuous function $`\psi :X[0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`\psi _x(\lambda )=\psi (a_0+\lambda x)`$, $`\lambda >0`$, is increasing and $`sup\{\psi _x(\lambda ):\lambda >0\}>\epsilon `$ for every $`xX\psi ^1(0)`$, the set $`\psi ^1([0,\epsilon ])`$ is a starlike body whose characteristic cone is $`\psi ^1(0)a_0`$.

A familiar important class of starlike bodies are convex bodies, that is, starlike bodies that are convex. For a convex body $`U`$, $`ccU`$ is always a convex set, but in general the characteristic cone of a starlike body is not convex. Starlike bodies can also be related to $`n`$-homogeneous polynomials, since the level sets of such polynomials are always boundaries of starlike bodies.

We will say that $`A`$ is a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body provided its Minkowski functional $`\mu _A`$ is $`C^p`$ smooth on the set $`XccA=X\mu _A^1(0)`$. This is equivalent to saying that $`A`$ is a $`C^p`$ smooth one-codimensional submanifold of $`X`$ such that no affine hyperplane tangent to $`A`$ contains a ray emanating from the center $`a_0`$. Throughout this paper, $`p=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.,\mathrm{}`$, and $`C^0`$ smooth means just continuous.

We will also say that $`A`$ is Lipschitz if $`\mu _A`$ is a Lipschitz function on $`X`$. It is easy to see that every convex body is Lipschitz with respect to any point in its interior (but this is no longer true if we drop convexity: even in the plane $`^2`$ there are starlike bodies which are not Lipschitz).

All the starlike bodies that we will deal with in this paper are radially bounded. A starlike body $`A`$ is said to be radially bounded provided that, for every ray emanating from the center $`a_0`$ of $`A`$, the intersection of this ray with $`A`$ is a bounded set. This amounts to saying that $`ccA=\{a_0\}`$.

In finite dimensions every radially bounded starlike body is in fact bounded (because the Minkowski functional of the body attains an absolute minimum on the unit sphere, which is compact), but this is no longer true in infinite-dimensional Banach spaces. For instance, $`A=\{x\mathrm{}_2:_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_n^2/2^n1\}`$ is a radially bounded convex body which is not bounded in the Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}_2`$; the body $`A`$ is the unit ball of the nonequivalent $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth norm $`\omega (x)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_n^2/2^n`$ in $`\mathrm{}_2`$.

For every bounded starlike body $`A`$ in a Banach space $`(X,)`$ there are constants $`M,m>0`$ such that

$$mx\mu _A(x)Mx\text{ for all }xX.$$

If $`A`$ is just radially bounded then we can only ensure that

$$\mu _A(x)Mx\text{ for all }xX,$$

for some $`M>0`$. As is shown implicitly in \[20, Proposition II.5.1\], a Banach space $`X`$ has a $`C^p`$ smooth bump function if and only if there is a bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body in $`X`$. The reader might want to consult the references  for other properties of starlike bodies.

We will finish these preliminaries with some nonstandard notation concerning strict inclusions between starlike bodies. In our proofs we will often require that, for a couple of starlike bodies $`AB`$, the boundaries of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are well separated. There are at least two nonequivalent natural notions of separation between boundaries of starlike bodies, and we will need to use both of them, as each one has its own advantages. The strongest and most natural notion corresponds to the fact that the distance between $`A`$ and $`XB`$ is positive. We will use the notation

$$A_dB$$

to mean that $`\text{dist}(A,XB)>0`$, and we will say that $`B`$ strictly contains $`A`$ in the distance sense. Notice that this notion makes sense even though $`A`$ and $`B`$ do not have the same center, or even if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are mere sets, not necessarily starlike.

The other useful notion is that the Minkowski functionals of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are well separated, in the following sense. First, note that if $`AB`$ are starlike with respect to the same center $`a_0`$ then we always have that $`\mu _B(x)\mu _A(x)`$ for all $`xX`$. If we also know that

$$\underset{xA}{sup}\mu _B(x)<1$$

then we will denote $`A_\mu B`$, saying that $`B`$ strictly contains $`A`$ in the gauge sense. This is equivalent to saying that there exists some $`\delta >0`$ such that

$$a_0+(1+\delta )(a_0+A)B.$$

Of course, this notion only makes sense when $`A`$ and $`B`$ have at least one center $`a_0`$ in common. It is immediate to see that $`A_dB`$ implies that $`A_\mu B`$. The converse is false in general, unless $`A`$ is Lipschitz. When $`AB`$ have the same center and $`A`$ is Lipschitz we have that $`A_dB`$ if and only if $`A_\mu B`$ (see Lemma 2.6 below).

## 2. Proof of the main result

In contrast with Bessaga-type constructions , our proof does not provide an explicit elegant formula for the deleting diffeomorphism. The reason why we cannot use those Bessaga-type formulas in this setting is the following one. Such deleting formulas are of the form $`h:XKX,h(x)=x+p(f(x))`$, where $`p:(0,\mathrm{})X`$ is a deleting path, $`f`$ is a function such that $`f^1(0)=K`$, and both $`f`$ and $`p`$ satisfy a Lipschitz condition with respect to the Minkowski functional $`\omega `$ of a convex body which is radially bounded but not bounded (for instance $`\omega `$ could be a continuous noncomplete norm). The path $`p`$ can always be assumed to be $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth, but the function $`f`$ cannot, in general. One could think that if one approximates the function $`f`$ well enough by a smooth function $`g`$ then the formula $`xx+p(g(x))`$ should define a diffeomorphism from $`XK`$ onto $`K`$. This approach can only be successful if we further ensure that $`g`$ is still Lipschitz with respect to $`\omega `$. Unfortunately, for an infinite-dimensional Banach space $`X`$ with smooth partitions of unity, it is unknown whether a given function $`f`$ which is Lipschitz with respect to a continuous norm $`\omega `$ can be uniformly approximated by smooth functions which are still Lipschitz with respect to $`\omega `$; in fact the question is open even when the norm $`\omega `$ is complete.

So we will rather turn to the origins and find inspiration in the geometrical ideas of the pioneering work of Klee’s . We will need to consider an infinite composition of carefully constructed self-diffeomorphisms of $`X`$.

The main ingredient of our proof is the following Proposition, which implies that if our infinite-dimensional space $`X`$ has enough smooth starlike bodies then every weakly compact set $`K`$ can be removed by means of a diffeomorphism $`h:XXK`$ which is the identity outside some starlike body.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space, and $`K`$ a subset of $`X`$. Assume that there are sequences $`(P_n)`$, $`(C_n)`$, $`(A_n)`$, $`(B_n)`$, $`(Q_n)`$, $`(D_n)`$, $`(E_n)`$ of subsets of $`X`$ and a sequence $`(c_n)`$ of points of $`X`$ satisfying the following conditions for each $`n`$:

1. $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$, $`Q_n`$, $`D_n`$, $`E_n`$ are radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$;
2. $`C_{n+2}D_n_\mu E_n_\mu A_nC_{n+1}P_{n+1}B_n_\mu Q_nP_n`$
3. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$
4. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=K`$.

Then there exists a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:XXK`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the identity on $`XP_1`$.

In order to prove this Proposition we will only require a simple geometrical Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2 (The four bodies lemma).

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space, and let $`A,B,C,D`$ be four radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to the same point $`a_0\text{int}(A)`$. Assume that

$$A_\mu BC_\mu D.$$

Then there exists a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`h:XX`$ such that

1. $`h(B)=C`$
2. $`h`$ is the identity on $`A(XD)`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume $`a_0=0`$. Since $`A_\mu B`$ and $`C_\mu D`$, there exists some $`\delta (0,1)`$ such that $`A(1\delta )B`$ and $`(1+\delta )CD`$. Take a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth function $`\lambda :`$ such that $`\lambda `$ is non-decreasing, $`\lambda (t)=0`$ if $`t1\delta `$, and $`\lambda (t)=1`$ for $`t1`$. Define then $`f:XX`$ by

$$f(x)=\left[\lambda (\mu _B(x))\frac{\mu _B(x)}{\mu _C(x)}+1\lambda (\mu _B(x))\right]x,\text{ if }x0,$$

and $`f(0)=0`$. It is easy to check that $`f`$ is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism of $`X`$ such that $`f(B)=C`$ and $`f`$ is the identity on $`A`$.

On the other hand, pick $`\theta :`$ a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth function such that $`\theta `$ is non-increasing, $`\theta (t)=1`$ if $`t1+\delta /4`$, and $`\theta (t)=0`$ if $`t1+\delta /2`$. Consider the mapping $`g:X\{0\}X\{0\}`$ defined by

$$g(x)=\left[\theta (\mu _C(x))\frac{\mu _C(x)}{\mu _B(x)}+1\theta (\mu _C(x))\right]x,$$

which is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism as well. Now define $`h:XX`$ by

$$h(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}& f(x)\text{if }\mu _B(x)<1+\frac{\delta }{4}\text{;}\hfill \\ & g^1(x)\text{if }1<\mu _B(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

Observe that if $`1\mu _B(x)1+\delta /4`$ then $`f(x)=\left[\mu _B(x)/\mu _C(x)\right]x=g^1(x)`$ ; hence $`h`$ is well-defined and locally a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism. Moreover, it is easy to see that $`h(X(1+\delta /4)B)=X(1+\delta /4)C`$, which (bearing in mind the definition of $`h`$) implies that $`h`$ is one-to-one. On the other hand, since $`h((1+\delta /4)B)=(1+\delta /4)C`$ and $`h(XB)=g^1(XB)=XC`$, it follows that $`h`$ is a surjection. Therefore $`h:XX`$ is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism. Finally, it is clear that $`h(B)=C`$, and $`h`$ is the identity on $`A\left(X(1+\delta /2)B\right)A\left(XD\right)`$. ∎

Proof of Proposition 2.1

Fix any $`n`$. Consider the inclusions of bodies

$`D_n_\mu E_n_\mu B_n_\mu Q_n`$
$`D_n_\mu E_n_\mu A_n_\mu Q_n.`$
According to the Four Bodies Lemma there exist $`C^p`$ diffeomorphisms $`f_n,g_n:XX`$ such that

$`f_n(E_n)=B_n,\text{ and }f_n\text{ is the identity on }D_n(XQ_n),`$
$`g_n(E_n)=A_n,\text{and }g_n\text{ is the identity on }D_n(XQ_n).`$
Define then $`h_n=g_nf_n^1:XX`$, which is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism of $`X`$ satisfying that

$$h_n(B_n)=A_n,\text{ and }h_n\text{ is the identity on }D_n(XQ_n).$$

Now consider the family of $`C^p`$ diffeomorphisms $`(h_n)`$. For each $`n`$ define the mapping $`\psi _n:XX`$ by the composition

$$\psi _n(x)=(h_1h_2\mathrm{}h_{n1}h_n)(x),$$

which is obviously a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism of $`X`$. Since $`h_n`$ is the identity on $`XQ_n`$ and $`Q_nP_n`$, we have that $`h_n`$ is the identity on $`XP_n`$. It follows that

$`(1)`$
$$\psi _{n}^{}{}_{|XP_n}{}^{}=\psi _{n1}^{}{}_{|XP_n}{}^{}\text{ for all }n2.$$

Note that, from the conditions in the statement of Proposition 2.1, we know that

$`(2)`$
$$XP_nXP_{n+1}XK,\text{ for all }n\text{, and }XK=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}XP_n.$$

Then we can define $`\psi :XKX`$ by letting

$`(3)`$
$$\psi _{|XP_{n+1}}=\psi _{n}^{}{}_{|XP_{n+1}}{}^{}\text{ for each }n.$$

Taking equations $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ above into account, it is clear that the mapping $`\psi `$ is well defined, one-to-one, and is locally a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism. Let us see that $`\psi `$ is surjective and therefore a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism from $`XK`$ onto $`X`$.

Bearing in mind that $`h_j`$ is the identity on $`D_jC_{j+2}`$ and $`A_jC_{j+1}`$, we have that $`h_j(A_n)=A_n`$ if $`jn1`$, and since $`h_n(B_n)=A_n`$ we may deduce that

$$\psi _n(B_n)=h_1\mathrm{}h_n(B_n)=h_1\mathrm{}h_{n1}(A_n)=h_1\mathrm{}h_{n2}(A_n)=\mathrm{}=A_n;$$

and in particular $`\psi _n(XB_n)=XA_n`$. But, by the hypothesis on the bodies, $`P_{n+1}B_nP_n`$, that is $`XP_nXB_nXP_{n+1}`$, and hence

$`(4)`$
$$\psi (XB_n)=\psi _n(XB_n)=XA_n.$$

Now, note that the hypothesis of Proposition 2.1 imply that $`C_{n+2}A_nC_{n+1}`$, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$, which yield

$`(5)`$
$$X=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(XA_n).$$

On the other hand, since $`K=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_{n+1}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}B_n_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=K`$, we have that

$`(6)`$
$$XK=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(XB_n).$$

Now, by combining equations $`(4)`$, $`(5)`$ and $`(6)`$, we get that

$$\psi (XK)=\psi \left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(XB_n)\right)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(XA_n)=X,$$

hence $`\psi `$ is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism from $`XK`$ onto $`X`$. Moreover, if $`xXP_1XP_2`$, from the definition of $`\psi `$, and bearing in mind that $`h_1`$ is the identity on $`XP_1`$, we conclude that $`\psi (x)=\psi _1(x)=h_1(x)=x`$. Finally, if we define $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi ^1`$, it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism from $`X`$ onto $`XK`$ which is the identity off $`P_1`$.

The next step in the proof of our main theorem is of course to ensure that if an infinite-dimensional Banach space $`X`$ has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity then, for every weakly compact set $`KX`$, there are families of $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies satisfying the conditions of Proposition 2.1.

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`X`$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space which admits $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity. Then there exists $`B`$, a radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to the origin, such that, for every weakly compact set $`KX`$ and for every bounded starlike body $`AK`$, there is some $`r>0`$ such that $`ArB`$, and there are sequences $`(P_n)`$, $`(C_n)`$, $`(A_n)`$, $`(B_n)`$, $`(Q_n)`$, $`(D_n)`$, $`(E_n)`$ of subsets of $`X`$ and a sequence $`(c_n)`$ of points of $`X`$ satisfying the following conditions for each $`n`$:

1. $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$, $`Q_n`$, $`D_n`$, $`E_n`$ are radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$;
2. $`C_{n+2}D_n_\mu E_n_\mu A_nC_{n+1}P_{n+1}B_n_\mu Q_nP_n`$;
3. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$;
4. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=K`$;
5. $`P_1rB`$.

In the sequel such a body $`B`$ will be called universal.

The proof of Proposition 2.3 is quite long and will be split into several lemmas.

###### Notation 2.4.

If $`X`$ is a Banach space and $`B_X=\{xX:x1\}`$ is its unit ball, for all subsets $`A,B`$ of $`X`$ and for every $`\epsilon >0`$, we will denote

$$[A,B]=\{tx+(1t)y:xA,yB,t[0,1]\},$$

and $`N(A,\epsilon )=\{xX:\text{dist}(x,A)\epsilon \}=\overline{A+\epsilon B_X}`$. When $`A=\{a\}`$ is a singleton we will simply write $`[A,B]=[a,B]`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space, $`C`$ a bounded convex body in $`X`$, and $`K`$ a weakly compact subset of $`X`$. Then $`V:=[K,C]`$ is a starlike body with respect to every interior point of $`C`$. Moreover, $`V`$ is bounded and $`\mu _V:X[0,\mathrm{})`$ is Lipschitz.

###### Proof.

Since $`CV`$, it is obvious that $`V`$ has nonempty interior.

Let us see that $`V`$ is closed. Take a sequence $`(z_n)`$ in $`V`$ converging to a point $`z_0`$. Each $`z_n`$ is of the form $`z_n=t_nx_n+(1t_n)y_n`$, with $`t_n[0,1]`$, $`x_nC`$, $`y_nK`$. Since $`K`$ is weakly compact and $`[0,1]`$ is compact, we may assume, passing to a subsequence if necessary, that $`t_nt_0[0,1]`$ and $`y_ny_0K`$ weakly. Then we distinguish two possibilities: either $`t_00`$ or $`t_0=0`$. If $`t_00`$ then we see that $`x_n=t_n^1(z_n(1t_n)y_n)`$ weakly converges to the point $`x_0:=t_0^1(z_0(1t_0)y_0)`$, which must belong to $`C`$ because $`C`$ is closed and convex, hence weakly closed. Then $`z_0=lim_nz_n=w\text{-}lim_nz_n=t_0x_0+(1t_0)y_0`$ clearly belongs to $`V`$. On the other hand, if $`t_0=0`$ then, since $`C`$ is bounded, we have that $`t_nx_n0`$, and we deduce that $`z_0=lim_nz_n=w\text{-}lim_nz_n=w\text{-}lim_ny_n=y_0KV`$. In either case, $`z_0V`$, and this shows that $`V`$ is closed.

Now let us see that $`V`$ is starlike with respect to every point $`x_0\text{int}(C)`$. Take two points $`x_1,x_2VV`$ with $`x_1[x_0,x_2]`$. Assuming that $`x_1x_2`$ we will get a contradiction. Indeed, since

$$V=\underset{yK}{}[y,C]$$

and $`x_1V`$, we have that $`x_1X\text{int}([y,C])`$ for every $`yK`$. Hence, for every $`yK`$, either $`x_1[y,C]`$ or $`x_1[y,C]`$; in either case, since $`[y,C]`$ is a starlike body with respect to $`x_0\text{int}(C)`$, and $`x_2x_1[x_0,x_2]`$, we get that $`x_2[y,C]`$. But then we have that

$$x_2\underset{yK}{}[y,C]=V,$$

a contradiction.

It is obvious that $`V`$ is bounded. It only remains to show that $`V`$ is Lipschitz, that is, its Minkowski functional $`\mu _V`$ (with respect to any point $`x_0\text{int}(C)`$) is Lipschitz. Without loss of generality we may assume that the given center is $`x_0=0`$. Let $`M>0`$ be such that $`\mu _C(x)Mx`$ for all $`xX`$. Since $`C[y,C]`$ we have that

$$\mu _{[y,C]}(x)\mu _C(x)Mx$$

for all $`xX`$ and, bearing in mind that $`[y,C]`$ is a convex body, this means that $`\mu _{[y,C]}`$ is $`M`$-Lipschitz for all $`yK`$. On the other hand, it is easily seen that

$$\mu _V(x)=\underset{yK}{inf}\mu _{[y,C]}(x).$$

Now we can show that $`\mu _V`$ is $`M`$-Lipschitz as well. For any given $`\epsilon >0`$, $`x,zX`$, by using the above formula for $`\mu _V`$ and the definition of inf, we obtain some $`yK`$ such that

$$\mu _V(x)\mu _V(z)\mu _{[y,C]}(x)+\epsilon \mu _{[y,C]}(z)Mxz+\epsilon .$$

This implies that $`\mu _V(x)\mu _V(z)Mxz`$ for all $`x,zX`$, and therefore $`\mu _V`$ is $`M`$-Lipschitz. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space, $`A`$ a Lipschitz starlike body with respect to the origin. Then, for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ so that $`A+\delta B_X(1+\epsilon )A`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be a Lipschitz constant for $`\mu _A`$. For a given $`\epsilon >0`$ choose $`\delta >0`$ with $`\delta M<\epsilon `$. Take $`x=y+z`$, with $`yA`$, $`z\delta B_X`$. Then we have

$$\mu _A(x)=\mu _A(y+z)\mu _A(y)+\mu _A(y)Mz+\mu _A(y)M\delta +1<1+\epsilon .$$

This shows that $`A+\delta B_X(1+\epsilon )A`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`C`$ a bounded convex body in a Banach space $`X`$, with $`0\text{int}(C)`$. Then, for every $`\delta (0,1)`$, $`dist((1\delta )C,XC)>0`$, that is, $`(1\delta )C_dC`$.

###### Proof.

This is an easy consequence of the preceding lemma and the fact that $`\mu _C`$ is Lipschitz whenever $`C`$ is a convex body (ensured in turn by Lemma 2.5 if we take $`K=\{0\}`$, $`V=[0,C]=C`$). ∎

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`T:XY`$ be a continuous linear injection between two Banach spaces. Then, for every radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth body $`B^{}`$ in $`Y`$ which is starlike with respect to a point $`b^{}T(X)`$, we have that $`B=T^1(B^{})`$ is a radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body in $`X`$ with respect to $`b=T^1(b^{})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`b^{}=T(b)`$ be the center of $`B^{}`$. Then $`A^{}:=b^{}+B^{}`$ is starlike with respect to the origin, radially bounded and $`C^p`$ smooth. Consider the function $`\psi :X[0,\mathrm{})`$ defined by $`\psi (x)=\mu _A^{}(T(x))`$. This function is continuous, positively homogeneous, $`C^p`$ smooth on $`X\{0\}`$, and $`\psi (x)=0`$ if and only if $`x=0`$. Therefore

$$A:=\{xX:\psi (x)1\}$$

is a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body in $`X`$ (with respect to the origin); besides, since $`\psi (x)>0`$ whenever $`x0`$, we have that $`ccA=\{0\}`$, that is, $`A`$ is radially bounded. It is obvious that $`A=T^1(A^{})`$. Then we see that

$$B=T^1(B^{})=T^1(b^{}+A^{})=b+A$$

is a radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`bX`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.9.

Let $`T:XY`$ be a continuous linear injection between two Banach spaces. Assume that $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ are starlike bodies with respect to $`y_0=T(x_0)T(X)`$, and $`A^{}_\mu B^{}`$. Then $`A:=T^1(A^{})_\mu T^1(B^{}):=B`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume $`x_0=0`$. According to the proof of the preceding lemma, $`\mu _A=\mu _A^{}T`$, and $`\mu _B=\mu _B^{}T`$. Then, for every $`xA`$,

$$\mu _B(x)=\mu _B^{}(T(x))\underset{yA^{}}{sup}\mu _B^{}(y)<1$$

because $`A^{}_\mu B^{}`$, and therefore

$$\underset{xA}{sup}\mu _B(x)\underset{yA^{}}{sup}\mu _B^{}(y)<1,$$

which means that $`A_\mu B`$. ∎

The following lemmas show how one can approximate and interpolate starlike bodies with smooth starlike bodies, provided the space has smooth partitions of unity.

###### Lemma 2.10.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity, and $`C`$ a starlike body with $`ccC=\{0\}`$. Then, for every $`\delta >0`$, there exists a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with $`ccA=\{0\}`$ such that $`(1\delta )CA(1+\delta )C`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`X`$ has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity, it has a $`C^p`$ smooth bump as well, and in particular there exists $`B`$, a bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to the origin \[20, Proposition II.5.1\]. Choose $`\epsilon _0(0,1)`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{1\epsilon _0}<1+\delta ,\text{ and }1+\epsilon _0<\frac{1}{1\delta }.$$

Define $`\epsilon :X\{0\}(0,\mathrm{})`$ by

$$\epsilon (x)=\epsilon _0\mu _C(x)\text{ for all }x0,$$

which is a continuous strictly positive function. Since $`X`$ has $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity, so does its open subset $`X\{0\}`$, and therefore every continuous function on $`X\{0\}`$ can be $`\epsilon `$-approximated by a $`C^p`$ smooth function on $`X\{0\}`$. Hence, given the continuous function $`\mu _C:X\{0\}(0,\mathrm{})`$, there exists a $`C^p`$ smooth function $`g:X\{0\}`$ such that $`|\mu _C(x)g(x)|\epsilon (x)`$ for all $`x0`$. Now define $`\psi :X`$ by

$$\psi (x)=\mu _B(x)g\left(\frac{x}{\mu _B(x)}\right)\text{ if }x0,$$

and $`\psi (0)=0`$. The function $`\psi `$ is clearly continuous on $`X`$, $`\psi `$ is of class $`C^p`$ on $`X\{0\}`$, and $`\psi `$ is positively homogeneous. Moreover,

$`|\psi (x)\mu _C(x)|=\left|\mu _B(x)g\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _B(x)}}\right)\mu _C(x)\right|=`$
$`\left|\mu _B(x)g\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _B(x)}}\right)\mu _B(x)\mu _C\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _B(x)}}\right)\right|\mu _B(x)\epsilon \left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mu _B(x)}}\right)=\epsilon _0\mu _C(x)`$
for all $`x0`$. In particular, $`\psi (x)(1\epsilon _0)\mu _C(x)>0`$ if $`x0`$. Therefore,

$$A:=\{xX:\psi (x)1\}$$

is a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`0`$. Let us check that $`A`$ approximates $`C`$ as required. We have

$`xA\psi (x)1\mu _C(x)1+\epsilon _0\mu _C(x)(1\epsilon _0)\mu _C(x)1`$
$`x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\epsilon _0}}C(1+\delta )C,`$
so $`A(1+\delta )C`$. On the other hand, if $`x(1\delta )C`$, that is, $`\mu _C(x)1\delta `$, then we have

$$\psi (x)(1+\epsilon _0)\mu _C(x)(1+\epsilon _0)(1\delta )<1,$$

hence $`xA`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity, $`K`$ a weakly compact subset of $`X`$, and $`D`$ a bounded starlike body with respect to $`0`$, such that $`K_dD`$. Then there exist $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`0`$, such that

$$KD_1_\mu D_2D.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`K_dD`$ we can take $`0<\theta <1/2`$ so that $`K(12\theta )D`$. Choose $`\delta (0,1)`$ with $`(12\theta )/(1\theta )<1\delta `$ and $`(1+\delta )(1\theta )<1`$. Applying the preceding lemma to $`C:=(1\theta )D`$, we get a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`0`$, $`D_1`$, such that $`(1\delta )CD_1(1+\delta )C`$; in particular, taking into account that $`12\theta <(1\theta )(1\delta )`$, we deduce $`K(12\theta )D(1\theta )(1\delta )D=(1\delta )CD_1`$. Now pick $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`(1+\epsilon )(1+\delta )(1\theta )<1`$, and set $`D_2:=(1+\epsilon )D_1`$. The body $`D_2`$ is $`C^p`$ smooth and starlike with respect to $`0`$, and $`D_1_\mu D_2`$. Finally, we also have $`D_2=(1+\epsilon )D_1(1+\epsilon )(1+\delta )C(1+\epsilon )(1+\delta )(1\theta )DD`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.12.

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with $`C^p`$ smooth partitions of unity, $`C_1`$ a bounded starlike body with respect to a point $`c`$, and $`C_2`$ a mere subset of $`X`$ such that $`C_1_dC_2`$. Then there exist $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`c`$, which satisfy $`C_1_\mu D_1_\mu D_2_dC_2`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`c=0`$ and $`C_2B_X`$. Let us pick $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`\text{dist}(C_1,XC_2)\epsilon `$. According to Lemma 2.10, there exists a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`0`$, $`A`$, satisfying

$$(1\theta )(1+\epsilon /2)C_1A(1+\theta )(1+\epsilon /2)C_1,$$

where $`\theta `$ is any positive number such that $`\epsilon /2\theta (1+\epsilon /2)\epsilon /4`$. Define $`D_1:=A`$. Since $`(1\theta )(1+\epsilon /2)1+\epsilon /4`$ we have that $`C_1(1+\epsilon /4)C_1(1\theta )(1+\epsilon /2)C_1A=D_1`$, and in particular $`C_1_\mu D_1`$. On the other hand,

$$A=D_1(1+\theta )(1+\epsilon /2)C_1C_1+(\theta +\epsilon /2+\theta \epsilon /2)C_1C_1+(\theta +\epsilon /2+\theta \epsilon /2)B_X,$$

which implies that

$$\text{dist}(D_1,XC_2)\text{dist}(C_1+(\theta +\epsilon /2+\theta \epsilon /2)B_X,XC_2)\epsilon (\theta +\epsilon /2+\theta \epsilon /2)\epsilon /4.$$

Define now $`D_2:=(1+\epsilon /8)D_1`$. It is obvious that $`D_2`$ is a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`0`$ satisfying $`D_1_\mu D_2`$. Finally, we have that $`D_2=(1+\epsilon /8)D_1D_1+\epsilon /8B_X`$, and therefore

$$\text{dist}(D_2,XC_2)\text{dist}(D_1+\frac{\epsilon }{8}B_X,XC_2)\text{dist}(D_1,XC_2)\frac{\epsilon }{8}\frac{\epsilon }{4}\frac{\epsilon }{8}=\frac{\epsilon }{8},$$

which means that $`D_2_dC_2`$. ∎

The following lemma is one of the keys to the proof of Proposition 2.3.

###### Lemma 2.13.

Let $`X`$ be a nonreflexive Banach space, $`K`$ a weakly compact set, and $`C`$ a bounded convex body with $`0\text{int}(C)`$ and $`K_dC`$. Then there exist $`\epsilon >0`$ and a sequence $`(C_n)`$ of convex bodies such that

1. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$,
2. $`C_{n+1}_dC_nC`$ for all $`n`$, and
3. $`[K,C_1]+3\epsilon B_XC`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`K_dC`$, there exists $`\delta _0>0`$ such that $`K(12\delta _0)C`$ and, by Lemma 2.7, $`\text{dist}((1\delta _0)C,XC)\delta _1`$ for some $`\delta _1>0`$.

Since $`X`$ is nonreflexive, according to James’ theorem, there exists a continuous linear functional $`TX^{}`$ such that $`T`$ does not attain its sup on the body $`(12\delta _0)C`$,

$$\alpha :=sup\{T(x):x(12\delta _0)C\}.$$

Define then

$$H_n:=\{x(12\delta _0)C:T(x)\alpha 1/n\}$$

for each $`n`$. We have that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_n=\mathrm{},H_{n+1}H_n\text{ for all }n\text{, and }H_1(12\delta _0)C_d(1\delta _0)C.$$

Take $`\epsilon >0`$ such that $`H_1+\epsilon B_X(1\delta _0)C`$ and $`3\epsilon <\delta _1`$. Now, for each $`n`$ let us define

$$C_n=N(H_n,\frac{\epsilon }{2^n})=\{xX:\text{dist}(x,H_n)\frac{\epsilon }{2^n}\}.$$

It is easy to see that $`(C_n)`$ is a sequence of bounded convex bodies such that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n=\mathrm{},\text{ and }C_{n+1}_dC_n\text{ for all }n.$$

Moreover, from the facts that $`C_1=N(H_1,\epsilon /2)(1\delta _0)C`$, $`K(1\delta _0)C`$, and $`3\epsilon <\delta _1\text{dist}((1\delta _0)C,XC)`$, we easily get that $`[C_1,K]+3\epsilon B_XC`$. ∎

Proof of Proposition 2.3.

Case I. Assume that $`X`$ is nonreflexive.

Let $`E`$ be a bounded convex body with $`0\text{int}(E)`$. By Lemma 2.7, we have that $`(1/2)E_dE`$. According to Lemma 2.10, there exists a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body with respect to $`0`$ such that $`(1/2)EBE`$. This body $`B`$ is the one we need.

Now take a weakly compact set $`KX`$ and a starlike body $`AK`$. Since $`A`$ is bounded and $`0\text{int}(E)`$, there exists some $`r>0`$ so that $`A_d(r/2)E`$. According to Lemma 2.13, there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ and a sequence $`(C_n)`$ of convex bodies such that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n=\mathrm{},[K,C_1]+3\epsilon B_X(r/2)E,\text{ and }C_{n+1}_dC_nrE\text{ for all }n.$$

Let us choose a sequence $`(c_n)`$ of points of $`X`$ such that $`c_n\text{int}(C_n)`$ for every $`n`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\text{diam}(\frac{r}{2}E)>0`$. For each $`n`$, define

$$V_n=[C_n,K].$$

By Lemma 2.5, $`V_n`$ is a Lipschitz starlike body with respect to every point in the interior of $`C_n`$. Let $`\mu _n=\mu _{V_n}`$ be the Minkowski functional of $`V_n`$ with respect to the point $`c_{n+1}\text{int}(C_{n+1})\text{int}(C_n)`$. Note that $`\mu _n`$ is a Lipschitz function.

Next we are going to inductively construct a sequence of positive numbers $`(\delta _n)`$ such that, if we define

$$P_n:=\{xX:\mu _n(x)1+\delta _n\}$$

for each $`n`$, then $`(P_n)`$ is a sequence of bounded starlike bodies such that

* $`P_{n+1}_dP_nP_1(r/2)E`$ for all $`n`$,
* $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=K`$,
* $`P_n`$ is starlike with respect to $`c_{n+1}`$ for all $`n`$,
* $`C_{n+1}_dP_nC_n`$ for all $`n`$.

$``$1st step. Choose $`\delta _1>0`$ with $`\delta _1<\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta },1\}`$, and set $`P_1=\{xX:\mu _1(x)1+\delta _1\}`$. By Lemma 2.6, there is $`\delta _1^{}>0`$ such that $`P_1V_1+\delta _1^{}B_X`$.

$``$2nd step. Now choose $`\delta _2>0`$ such that $`\delta _2<\mathrm{min}\{\delta _1^{}/2\mathrm{\Delta },1/2\}`$. Then $`P_2=\{xX:\mu _2(x)1+\delta _2\}V_2+(\delta _1^{}/2)B_X`$, and therefore $`\text{dist}(P_2,XP_1)>0`$.

$``$(n+1)-th step. Assume $`\delta _j`$ and $`P_j`$ are already defined for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ in such a way that $`P_{j+1}_dP_j`$ for $`jn1`$. By Lemma 2.6, there is $`\delta _n^{}>0`$ such that $`P_nV_n+\delta _n^{}B_X`$. Pick $`\delta _{n+1}>0`$ so that $`\delta _{n+1}<\mathrm{min}\{\delta _n^{}/2\mathrm{\Delta },1/2^n\}`$, and set $`P_{n+1}=\{xX:\mu _{n+1}(x)1+\delta _{n+1}\}`$. Then we have that $`P_{n+1}V_n+(\delta _n^{}/2)B_X`$, hence $`\text{dist}(P_{n+1},XP_n)>0`$.

By induction the sequence $`(P_n)`$ is well-defined and satisfies properties $`(i)`$ and $`(iii)`$ above. To see that $`P_1_d(r/2)E`$, just note that $`P_1V_1+\delta _1\mathrm{\Delta }B_X=[C_1,K]+\delta _1\mathrm{\Delta }B_X[C_1,K]+3\epsilon B_X(r/2)E`$. On the other hand, since $`P_nC_n=C_n`$, it is clear that $`C_{n+1}_dP_nC_n`$, that is, the sequence $`(P_n)`$ satisfies property $`(iv)`$.

Finally, let us check that condition $`(ii)`$ is met as well. It is immediate that $`K_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n`$. Let us take $`q_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n`$ and show that $`qK`$. For each $`n`$ we have $`qP_nV_n+\delta _n\mathrm{\Delta }B_X=[C_n,K]+\delta _n\mathrm{\Delta }B_X`$, so there are $`x_nC_n,y_nK,t_n[0,1]`$ with $`q(1t_n)x_nt_ny_n\delta _n\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and in particular $`lim_n\mathrm{}[(1t_n)x_nt_ny_n]=q`$. Since $`K`$ is weakly compact and $`[0,1]`$ is compact, we may assume (passing to a subsequence if necessary) that $`y_n`$ converges to some $`y_0K`$ weakly, and $`t_nt_0[0,1]`$. Then $`(1t_n)x_n`$ converges to $`qt_0y_0`$ weakly. If $`t_01`$ then we have that $`x_n`$ converges weakly to $`x_0:=(1t_0)^1(qt_0y_0)`$; but, since each $`C_n(x_j)_{jn}`$ is closed and convex, hence weakly closed, we have $`x_0C_n`$ for each $`n`$, and then $`x_0_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$, a contradiction. Therefore, $`t_0=1`$, and $`q=y_0K`$.

Now we are going to define the bodies $`A_n,B_n,D_n,E_n`$, and $`Q_n`$. Fix $`n`$. Since $`C_{n+2}`$ and $`C_{n+1}`$ are bounded starlike bodies with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$, and $`C_{n+2}_dC_{n+1}`$, we can apply Lemma 2.12 to obtain two $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies $`D_n,E_n`$ with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$ such that

$$C_{n+2}D_n_\mu E_n_dC_{n+1}.$$

Another application of Lemma 2.12 gives us a $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body $`A_n`$ with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$ such that

$$E_n_\mu A_nC_{n+1}=C_{n+1}P_{n+1}.$$

Besides, $`P_{n+1}_dP_n`$, and $`P_{n+1}`$ is starlike with respect to $`c_{n+1}`$. Then, applying Lemma 2.12 for the last time (now $`P_n`$ acts as a mere set, it is not necessary that $`P_n`$ be starlike with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$, only $`P_{n+1}`$ has to meet this condition), we get $`B_n`$ and $`Q_n`$, two $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$, satisfying

$$P_{n+1}_\mu B_n_\mu Q_nP_n.$$

Moreover, we also have $`E_nC_{n+1}P_{n+1}_\mu B_n`$. Summing up, we get that

$$C_{n+2}D_n_\mu E_n_\mu A_nC_{n+1}P_{n+1}_\mu B_n_\mu Q_nP_n,$$

and now it is clear that the sequences of bodies we have just constructed satisfy conditions $`(1)(4)`$ of Proposition 2.3. Finally, $`B`$ is the required universal body and satisfies condition $`(5)`$. Indeed, notice that $`KA(r/2)\text{int}(E)rB`$, $`P_1(r/2)ErB`$.

Case II. Assume now that $`X`$ is reflexive.

In this case it is known that there exists a continuous linear injection $`T:Xc_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for some (infinite) set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see , p.246, for instance). It is also well known that for an infinite set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the space $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is $`c_0`$-saturated, that is, every infinite-dimensional closed subspace of $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has a closed subspace which is isomorphic to $`c_0`$. This clearly implies that $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contains no closed infinite-dimensional reflexive subspaces. Therefore $`Y:=\overline{T(X)}c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is nonreflexive, and $`T(X)`$ is not a closed subspace of $`Yc_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. On the other hand, the space $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth equivalent norm (see , chapter V, theorem 1.5), whose restriction to $`Y`$ defines a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth equivalent norm $`||`$. Finally, it is well known  that the space $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth partitions of unity, hence so does $`Y`$.

Summing up, we have a continuous linear injection $`T:XY`$, where $`(Y,||)`$ is a nonreflexive Banach space with a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth norm and $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth partitions of unity, and $`T(X)`$ is dense in $`Y`$.

Set $`B^{}=\{yY:|y|1\}`$, which is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth bounded convex body with $`0\text{int}(B^{})`$. Define $`B=T^1(B^{})`$. It is clear that $`B`$ is a radially bounded $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth convex body.

Let $`K`$ be a weakly compact subset of $`X`$ and $`A`$ a bounded starlike body containing $`K`$. Since $`T`$ is continuous, $`T(A)`$ is bounded in $`Y`$. Choose $`r>0`$ so that $`T(A)_d(r/2)B^{}`$. Now we may copy the above proof (nonreflexive case) with $`B^{}=E`$ and obtain sequences of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth starlike bodies, $`(P_n^{}),(C_n^{}),(A_n^{}),(B_n^{}),(Q_n^{}),(D_n^{}),(E_n^{})`$, and a sequence of points $`(c_n^{})`$ of $`Y`$ satisfying the conditions $`(1)(4)`$ of the statement of Proposition 2.3 and $`P_1^{}(r/2)B^{}`$. Ensure further that $`c_n^{}T(X)\text{int}(C_n^{})`$ for each $`n`$ (this is possible because $`T(X)`$ is dense in $`Y`$, hence $`T(X)\text{int}(C_n^{})\mathrm{}`$ for all $`n`$).

Then, for each $`n`$, define $`c_n=T^1(c_n^{})X`$, and

$`C_n=T^1(C_n^{}),B_n=T^1(B_n^{}),P_n=T^1(P_n^{}),A_n=T^1(A_n^{})`$
$`Q_n=T^1(Q_n^{}),D_n=T^1(D_n^{}),E_n=T^1(E_n^{})X.`$
By Lemma 2.8, these are radially bounded $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth starlike bodies with respect to $`c_{n+2}`$. On the other hand, Lemma 2.9 guarantees that

$$C_{n+2}D_n_\mu E_n_\mu A_nC_{n+1}P_{n+1}B_n_\mu Q_nP_n.$$

Finally, it is immediately checked that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_n=\mathrm{}`$, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=K`$, $`P_1(r/2)B`$, and $`A(r/2)B`$.

Now we are in a position to finish the proof of the main result.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

We may assume that $`A`$ is starlike with respect to the origin. According to Proposition 2.3, there exists a radially bounded $`C^p`$ smooth starlike body $`B`$ with respect to $`0`$ so that $`K_dA_\mu rB`$ for some $`r>0`$ large enough, and there are sequences $`(P_n)`$, $`(C_n)`$, $`(A_n)`$, $`(B_n)`$, $`(Q_n)`$, $`(D_n)`$, $`(E_n)`$ of subsets of $`X`$ and a sequence $`(c_n)`$ of points of $`X`$ which satisfy the conditions of Proposition 2.1. Then we can apply this Proposition to find a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:XXK`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the identity on $`XP_1XrB`$.

On the other hand, since $`K_dA`$, Lemma 2.11 allows us to find two $`C^p`$ smooth starlike bodies $`U_1,U_2`$ with respect to $`0`$ such that

$$KU_1_\mu U_2A.$$

Now, by the Four Bodies Lemma 2.2, there is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism $`g:XX`$ such that $`g(U_2)=rB`$ and $`g`$ is the identity on $`U_1K`$; notice in particular that $`g(K)=K`$.

Define then $`h=g^1\mathrm{\Psi }g`$. It is clear that $`h`$ is a $`C^p`$ diffeomorphism from $`X`$ onto $`XK`$. Moreover, if $`xXA`$ then $`xU_2`$, so $`g(x)rB`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(g(x))=g(x)`$, hence $`h(x)=x`$; that is, $`h`$ is the identity off $`A`$.

Acknowledgements

Part of this research was carried out during a stay of the first-named author in the Mathematics Department of University College London. This author wishes to thank the members of that Department, and very especially David Preiss, for their kind hospitality and advice. The authors also wish to thank Antonio Suárez Granero for his probity.

Departamento de Análisis Matemático. Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas. Universidad Complutense. 28040 Madrid, SPAIN
E-mail addresses: daniel\_azagra@mat.ucm.es, a\_montesinos@mat.ucm.es