6
$\begingroup$

In quantization, one studies maps from functions on the phase space to operators acting on the Hilbert space. Let's fix one such map and call it $Q$.

Deformation quantization is based on the idea that $Q$ can be studied indirectly, by endowing the linear vector space of functions over the phase space with a non-commutative star product:

$$ f \star g = Q^{-1} \left( Q(f) \,Q(g) \right). $$

Kontsevich gives an explicit formula for the star product that can be applied to any compact phase space and gives an associative algebra with correct behavior in the $\hbar \rightarrow 0$ limit. It is therefore often claimed that Kontsevich formula solves the long-standing problem of proving that any compact symplectic manifold admits a quantization.

However, the other important ingredient of Quantum Mechanics is the trace of an operator. Traces are essential for making physical prediction, i.e. expectation values of observables are traces of the corresponding operators multiplied by the density matrix.

The Kontsevich formula does not give me a quantization map, only the star product. So how do I compute $\text{tr} Q(f)$ by only knowing $f$?

One possible answer that I see is that the classical formula holds: $$ \text{tr} Q(f) = \int \omega^{\wedge n} f. $$

Here $\omega^{\wedge n} = \omega \wedge \omega \wedge \dots \wedge \omega$ is the volume form associated to the symplectic form $\omega$, and the integral is over the phase space.

But I have never heard anyone say definitively that indeed this phase space integral is the counterpart of the operator trace in deformation quantization, and I can't come up with a good argument to show that $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ corrections don't appear.

My questions are:

  1. Do $\mathcal{O}(\hbar)$ corrections to the phase space integral appear in general?
  2. If they do, is there an explicit formula for the trace?
  3. If they do not, how do I convince myself of that?
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ My recollection -- supported by the wiki article you link to -- is that the Kontsevich formula does not involve a map $f\to Qf$ with $Qf$ some operator on a Hilbert space, but instead deforms the pointwise product of functions $f,g$ on phase space $(f,g)\to fg +\mathcal O(\hbar)$ directly. Perhaps list a reference where the map $Q$ is given (explicitly or implicitly)? $\endgroup$
    – user21299
    Commented Aug 16, 2020 at 22:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @alexarvanitakis you’re right and this is exactly the point I’m making in my question. Kontsevich formula needs to be augmented with a method for computing traces to be used in physics. I want to know if a consistent method exists. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 16, 2020 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes I missed The Kontsevich formula does not give me a quantization map, only the star product. Anyway some googling led me to arxiv.org/abs/math/0002057 which claims your formula works (in a specific sense), in Darboux coordinates (this is a corollary of the Corollary on page 4). Hopefully someone with a less superficial understanding of this than I will weigh in... $\endgroup$
    – user21299
    Commented Aug 16, 2020 at 23:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You may be trying to extend the Weyl map to arbitrary Poisson manifolds. Assuming you are comfortable with elementary flat phase space Weyl quantization, have you tried a simple example beyond trivial flat phase space? What $O(\hbar)$ corrections in traces are you talking about? In general, the Weyl symbols of an operator contain $O(\hbar)$ corrections in undergraduate Weyl quantization; think of the angular momentum squared operator. Why shouldn't integrals of such be independent of $\hbar$? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos the operators will clearly contain corrections, my confusion was about whether the corrections are also present in the trace formula or not. The classical limit of the trace should always be the integral that I wrote down, but it is not clear to me that the trace formula doesn’t acquire corrections like the Moyal product does. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 0:58

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Wikipedia says the following properties to uniquely determine the trace operation (up to scalar multiples):

  1. $\mathrm{tr}(cA) = c\mathrm{tr}(A)$
  2. $\mathrm{tr}(A + B) = \mathrm{tr}(A) + \mathrm{tr}(B)$
  3. $\mathrm{tr}(AB) = \mathrm{tr}(BA)$

For any linear $Q$, $\mathrm{tr} Q(f)$ will satisfy all three properties. $\int f d\Omega $ clearly satisfies (1) and (2). For (3), we want to show that $\int f \star g d\Omega = \int g \star f d\Omega $. It's easy to show that the $O(1)$ and $O(\hbar)$ terms vanish for sufficiently nice $f,g$ (using integration by parts and the equivalence of mixed partials). However, I don't understand Kontsevich graphs well enough to confidently extend this argument to higher orders in $\hbar$. If you can find a reference or an explanation, let me know. Assuming the argument does extend, we find that $\mathrm{tr} Q(f)$ and $\int f d\Omega $ are equivalent up to a scalar multiple.

Expectation values are given by $\mathrm{tr}(Q(f)\rho)$, so we can choose to normalize our trace operation such that $$\mathrm{tr}(\rho) = \int Q^{-1}(\rho)d\Omega = 1$$ This should be enough to uniquely determine all the physics. You could define in an $O(\hbar)$ term in the original integral formula, but once you normalize your density matrix it has no physical effect.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ Normalization constant is not the only imaginable source of non-uniqueness, but at this point I’m not asking about uniqueness — only existence. Kontsevich star product is also not the only possible star product. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 0:42
  • $\begingroup$ Let $Q$ be any quantization compatible with the Kontsevich formula. Then $\mathrm{tr}(Q(.))$ satisfies properties 1-3 above, so it is equivalent (up to normalization) to the integral formula you suggest. I'll try to include this in the answer. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I see what you mean - let me try to fix it. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel: the result proven in that reference is already special in that it only works for constant volume forms (see also my comment above) $\endgroup$
    – user21299
    Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 15:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I expanded the Kontsevich formula up to 2-nd order and terms cancel. Not a proof by any means, but my confidence in this answer is now higher $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 17, 2020 at 22:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.