Vol. 15 (1978) REPORTS ON MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS No.

SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION”t

C. FRONSDAL
University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.
(Received February 23, 1978)

Recent work on generalizations of Weyl quantization and of the Moyal formulation

of quantum mechanics is developed. In conventional quantization schemes the Heisenberg
algebra plays a fundamental role. The main idea of the generalization is to replace the Hei-
senberg algebra by any Lie algebra that has a canonical realization on phase space. Special
cases are analyzed in detail, including the algebras E(2), SL(2, R), and SO(~). The concept
of *-polarization is introduced and related to the method of induced representations. It turns
out that the ,,Exp transform” intertwines between the phase space realization and the quan-
tum mechanical Hilbert space realization. The generalized Weyl correspondence now appears
as a ,,pullback” to the linear operators of the Exp transform. The relationship between
*-products and representation theory is investigated, as well as the question’ of equivalence
between different *-products. Both problems are intimately related to the theory of
characters.
CONTENTS
Selected notation Page
Introduction-Summary 113
Moyal Mechanics and Generalizations. Review
1. Weyl application 118
2. Invariance of Weyl application 118
3. Geometric significance of invariance 119
4. Substitutes for the Heisenberg algebra 120
5. Invariant *-products 121
6. The functions Exp and E 122
7. Differential equations for Exp 122
8. The function Exp for E(2) 123
9. A *-product for E(2) 124

The Problem of Polarization

10. *-quantization 125
Il. Quantization for H1 126
12. Quantization for E(2) 127
13. Comparison I28
14. Induced representations 130

* Based in part on four lectures given at Collbge de France, June 1977.

t Work supported in part by the National Science Foundation.
I12 C. FRONSDAL

15. Exp transform and Weyl application 130

Symmetric *-products and Unitary Representations
16. Symmetric *-products and the inner product 132
17. Example, HI 135
18. Example, E(2) 135
19. Compact case 136
20. SU(2), the function E 138
21. SL(2, R) 140
22. Generating functions 144

References 145

Selected Notation
.Ce==an algebra of distinguished observables, either as an abstract Lie algebra or as an alge-
bra of functions on phase space with the Poisson bracket.
ccu’0m- a subalgebra of ,d.
.?I,, .d, ~7the representations a -+ a*, a ‘--f -_*a.
.cJ” .y the real vector space dual of .sl.
add, ads _ the adjoint and co-adjoint actions of .d.
0, h, c = elements of .d or of &**.
E : function on G, related to E” and to Exp.
E” -2 *-representation map.
Exp(f) = a formal series, a function on W.
e 2 basis element for the center of H,.
E(2) =: two-dimensional Euclidean algebra or group.
f, .f“, &, y’l, . . . - functions on W.
f:.&, $1, . . - functions on G or on G-homogeneous spaces.
3&w. the inverse Weyl application.
G _ a connected Lie group with Lie algebra .N’.
G0 = a subgroup of G.
H, = Heisenb:rg algebra or group of dimension 2n+ 1.
AC, X0 = Hilbert spaces.
K = character for sp,,.
3: = character for G or Go.
LA(A~-0,1,2orA-1,2,...)=abasicfor.dorcoordinatesfor.d*.
I(a) ;: vector field for the left regular representation of G.
M, -= metaplectic algebra
A
Q, Q, . . . = Casimir elements.
I.(U) = vector field for the right regular representation of G.
7i, C ;- the representations g H E(g)*, g I+ *E(g-‘) of G.
,T 7 the irreducible representation of G with character x, or Ihe representation of G induced
from a character x of Go.
Tw 7 representation of G by co-adjoint action in L2( IV).
T, T’, . . ~.. various other group representations
W 7 phase space, or an orbit of ads in .d*.
X,,X , . . -= *-polarizations, subspaces of CJj(W).
2x,,?>. ,... - space of functions on either .d or G.
<E, Q;, dual form on .3-j’,&* (5 a point in .d* or in W).
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 113

Introduction-Summary
Correspondence principle. Between the two types of descriptions of physical systems-
one by classical, Hamiltonian mechanics, the other by quantum theory-there can be
no well-defined correspondence ; for it is evidently not possible to maintain that two
theories-one classical, the other quantum-describe the same physical system, unless
one or the other or perhaps both are approximate. The most optimistic point of view is
that the quantum theory is an exact description of the physical system; t&s then becomes
the dejinition of the physical system. Adopting this view, and regarding every classical-
mechanical description as an approximation, we conclude that the problem ofquantiza-
tion is ill-posed because the physical system to be quantized is not fully defined in terms
of its approximate classical description.
Consider now a physical system, approximately defined by classical equations of mo-
tion; is it possible to define it more precisely by providing more information about it?
Is it true that a deeper understanding of the system leads to a reduction of the ambiguity
that is intrinsic to quantization? An example will suffice to justify an affirmative answer.
Think of two interacting point particles in a homogeneous, otherwise empty universe
and suppose that the classical equations of motion are given in terms of an inertial coordi-
nate system. The fact that the universe is precisely homogeneous cannot be inferred from
the equations of motion, it therefore constitutes additional information. The required
exact description of this system by quantum theory must incorporate exact translational
invariance and this amounts to a restriction of the class of possible quantizations.
How can one obtain information about a physical system besides that contained in
the equations of motion? Usually, every C” function on phase space is regarded as a clas-
sical observable ; but perhaps some observables are more fundamental than the others.
Bayen et al. [l] have proposed that one attempt to identify an algebra (JS’)of distinguished
observables, consisting of C” functions on phase space (IV) with the Poisson bracket.
This algebra would include the generators of exact symmetry groups and others whose
geometrical significance were expected to be retained after quantization.
In the usual Weyl quantization scheme (see 8 1) the Heisenberg algebra H,, (2n = di-
mension of W) plays a very fundamental role (see $6 2 and 3). However, it is easy to imag-
ine physical systems for which no canonical realization of H, exists, such as those with
a compact configuration space (see 3 4 for examples). It was proposed’ that the role that
is played by H,, in the Weyl quantization be assigned to the algebra d of distinguished ob-
servables.

*-quantization. As in Bayen et al. [I] we regard quantization as a deformation of the

usual associative algebra of Cm functions on phase-space. The new product is denoted
f*f'for f and f’ in P(W). To implement the requirement that the algebra JZ! of distin-
guished observables retain its geometrical meaning one imposes “d-invariance” on the
.____I_
’ Ref. [l], II, Section 3.
114 C. FRONSDAL

*-product; that is, it is required that, { , } being the Poisson bracket,

@,f*J”? = {aJ+f’+S*{O> 0)
for a in &’ and J; f'in Cm(W). The usual Moyal +-product, associated with Weyl quanti-
zation, is Ha-invariant (see 0 2). The geometric significance of Eq. (i) is discussed in Q 3.
Examples of invariant *-products have been worked out in detail in Q$5-9. It has been
shown’ that the usual quantum theory can be formulated entirely in terms of the Moyal
*-product algebra. The introduction of an invariant *-product on Cm(W) yields a complete
and autonomous theory, equivalent to the usual quantum theory in some cases, but much
more general. We stress that the introduction of a *-product is a method ef quantization,
not just preparation for quantization; we call it *-quantization.
*-representations. The formal series (*-exponential off):

Exp(f) = 2 (l/n!)(%)-“(f*)” (ii)

n=O
where (f*>” = f* . . . *f (n factors) plays a crucial role in the determination of the spectrum
of the observablefE Cm(W).3 Each term in the series is a C” function on W and it often
happens that the series converges, pointwise on W, to a C” function on W. It was shown
that, if Exp(u), for each a in some neighborhood of the origin of ~2, converges to a fun-
ction on W, then this function in turn determines the *-product.4 The explorations to be
reported in this paper show that a large class of invariant *-products can be obtained
in this manner from *-exponential functions of a special kind. This leads us to introduce
a new definition. It will be assumed throughout that S.S? is integrable to a group of symplectic
diffeomorphisms on W; also that d is “sufficiently large”,5 so that W can be identified
with an orbit of the co-adjoint action of ~4 in the real vector space dual ~2”. We denote
by G any connected Lie group with Lie algebra &, by d,.g the right-invariant Haar meas-
ure on G and by r(d) the space of vector fields on G associated with left translations.
DEFINITION 1. A *-representation of G on W is a distribution 6’ on G, with values in
P(W), such that:
(1) The domain and the kernel of 8 are closed under the convolution in the test function
space.
(2) 8 is ad&-invariant in the sense that, for every a in d,
6’ o ad,(u) = ad>(u) o 8. (iii)
The first condition makes it possible to define a *-product on the image of E in Cm(W) by

-_ a(f) * S(Y) = 8(&T’). (iv)

’ In particular, it was shown in Ref. [I], II, Part B, that the correct quantum theory spectra can be
defined and calculated without Hilbert space methods.
’ Briefly, the spectrum offis determined by the Fourier spectrum of Exp(f); see Ref. [ll, II, Section 4.
4 Ref. [l], I, Section 12.
5 Ref. [l], II, Section 3.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 115

The second condition ensures that this *-product is &-invariant in the sense that, for
every a in d,
{a,f*.?> = {aJ>*f+.f*{aJ> (v)
All *-representations examined up to now are analytic and normalized in the sense of
DEFINITION 2. A *-representation 8 of G on Wis called analytic if it coincides, in a neigh-
borhood U of the identity of G, with E(g-‘) * d,g, where E(g-‘) is analytic in U. It is
called normalized if, in addition,
El,, = 1, /(a)El,, = -a/ih (vi)
for each a in d
The first condition of Definition 1 implies funder some additional differentiability
assumptions) that 6’ is an eigen-distribution on G. (See 0 7.) In the case of a normalized,
analytic *-representation this suggests that 8 coincides with @g-l) d,g, where the function E
is analytic in some open, dense domain in G.
Suppose that 6’ is a normalized, analytic *-representation. We may take the neighbor-
hood U in Definition 2 within the domain of the exponential map. For g in U, write g = co
with a in d; then we have a convergent series:

E(e”) = 2 (1/n!) (ifi)-“T”(a),

II=0
(= ENa)) (vii)

where T,,(a) is an n-linear function from ti into Cm( IV). In particular, TO = 1 and T,(a)
= a. A mapping from the space of formal *-polynomials into C”(W) is defined by (v) and
(a*)” = T,(a), n = 0, 1, . . . (viii)
In this way the domain of the *-product defined by (iv) is extended to the linear span
of the functions T,(a). In all cases studied up to now it turned out that each T,(a) was
the restriction to W of a polynomial on JXI*of degree < n.6

*-polarizations. Suppose now that phase-space (W) has been equipped with an alge-
bra d of distinguished observables, and with a *-representation 8 of G on W, where G is
a connected Lie group with Lie algebra ,&. Then we say that the system has been *-quan-
tized. It turns out that there is a close relationship between *-quantization, pre-quanti-
zation in the sense of Kostant [2] and Souriau [3], and quantization in the conventional
sense. (This is explored in $0 10-15.) The relationship between *-quantization and pre-
quantization is based on the identification, first proposed by Souriau7 of phase space
with an orbit of the co-adjoint action of G in the vector space dual d* of PI. It must
be stressed, however, that *-quantization is intended to be a complete and autonomous
theory, equivalent to quantum theory, whereas pre-quantization is only preparation for
quantization. Jn both cases one deals with the space Cm(W) of functions on phase space;
.-___ _
6 Compare Ref. [I], I, Section 12.
’ Ref. 9, p. 105.
I16 C. FRONSDAL

that is, functions of 2n = dim W variables, and in both cases one considers a reduction
of the number of independent variables, though the purpose is very different. For simpli-
city, we now assume that I is surjective.
Consider the endomorphisms of Cm(W) defined by
f H a*f-f*b, (a, b) in d@d.
These form a representation of &Q&; for simplicity we suppose that it is irreducible.
The representation of ~2 given by f I-+a *f is then isotypical; that is, a direct sum ‘or in-
tegral of equivalent representations. We now give a precise formulation of the idea of
reducing the number of independent variables.
DEFINITION 3. A *-polarization is a topological subspace of Cm@‘), stable and irre-
ducible under the algebra of endomorphisms given by f H a *f, a in d.
For simplicity we now consider *-polarizations that can be defined in terms of a subal-
gebra do of d and a character X on &, as follows:
-JL = (SE WW>; f *a = K(a)f, Vaod,} (ix)
The analogy between *-polarizations and polarizations in the sense of Kostant [4] and
Souriau’ is very evident; nevertheless, a very important difference should be noted. Here
there is no limitation corresponding to the restriction to invariant polarizations. Associa-
tivity of the *-product guarantees the stability of X, under f H a *f, for every a in A and
for any choice of &,. (See $3 12, 13.)
In $5 lo-15 we explore, by working out two examples in full detail, the relationship
between *-polarizations, polarizations and induced representations in the sense of Mackey.
It turns out that the map G intertwines between an induced representation of L$ (formu-
lated in terms of a space of functions on G, a subalgebra d, and a character X on &,,)
and the action on X, given by a ++a *f, a in d. This interwining operator may be viewed
as an extension of the (generalized) Weyl application (defined for operators) to wave
functions. (See 9 15.)
Symmetry andpositivity. One should have liked to be able to classify, up to “physical
equivalence”, those *-representations that correspond to “realistic physical systems”.
Ill-defined as these concepts are, it is possible to adduce some justification for restricting
the attention to a mathematically well defined class of *-representations. Consider any
real function in the image of 8; we require that its spectrum (in the sense of Bayen et al.‘)
be real. This leads to the
DEFINITION 4. A *-representation & is said to be symmetric if the domain oft” is closed
under the involution f H f*, where f**(g) = fpj, and if

Q(f) = &(f*) (x)

-.
8 Ref. [9], p. 319.
’ Ref. [I], II, Section 4.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 117

This implies that the image of 8 is closed under complex conjugation in Cm(W) and
that f *f’ = f’*f- The spectrum of a real function is then closed under complex conjuga-
tion, but not necessarily real.”
To prepare for the possibility of an interpretation of some functions on Was proba-
bility densities we introduce the
DEFINITION 5. A Cm function Q on W is said to be positive if there is a function f such
that e =T*f.
If Q is positive we write Q > 0; whether Q is a positive valued function on W, or not,
is another question.
DEFINITION 6. A trace on d is a complex, linear function on the image of 6, with val-
ues in CU { co}, such that tr(i) = tr(e) and tr(@) > 0 for every positive Q.
If 6 is symmetric, then there is an obvious candidate for a trace on 8, namely

tr(e) = s e(SZ (xi)

W

where dl is the Liouville measure on W.

DEFINITION 7. A symmetric *-representation is said to be positive if the formula (xi)
defines a trace in the sense of Definition 6.
It is known that [5], if 8 is symmetric and positive, and if 9 is real (resp. positive),
then the spectrum of Q is real (resp. positive).
A heuristic study of symmetric, positive *-representations is presented in § 16. Several
examples have been worked out in detail in $9 17, 18. It turns out that the trace is inti-
mately related to the character of a unitary representation of G. This suggests the follow-
ing definition of “physical equivalence”.
DEFINITION 8. Two symmetric, positive *-representations b1 and &‘, of G on Ware said
to be physically eqiuvalent if
tr B, (7) = tr g2(J) (xii)
holds on a set that is dense in the domains of both.
Evidently, “physical equivalence” is not the same as equivalence in the sense of repre-
sentation theory. (Below, we use the word in this conventional meaning.)
Representation theory. We return to the question of the ambiguities of quantization.
In 9 16 it is shown, on a formal level, that some symmetric, positive *-representations are
equivalent to unitary representations. Many questions suggest themselves; for example:
(1) What unitary, irreducible representations of G can be constructed on a given orbit?
The answer is given in the compact case by the Theorem of 0 19. (2) What is the minimal
set of orbits required to obtain all unitary, irreducible representations? In the compact

lo Ref. 111,II, Section 4.

118 C. FRONSDAL

case a single, regular orbit is sufficient. Our preliminary study of the noncompact group
SL(2, R) in $21 shows only that many representations can be obtained on each regular
orbit; the “accommodation” between infinitesimal characters and orbits, suggested by
the work of Kirillov [6] and others for nilpotent groups, yields at most a technical simpli-
fication. In the case of the singular orbits of SL(2, R) we have been unable to discover
any *-representations that are both analytic and irreducible. Much work remains for non-
compact groups, especially in connection with the singular orbits.
Ge??eratingfi~nctions. Let there be given a Lie group G with ~2 as its Lie algebra, an
orbit Win d* and an irreducible representation T of G with character x. Is it possible
to find a general algorithm for the construction of a *-representation c” of G on W with
trace x? Ideally, 8 should be symmetric and positive whenever T is unitary, and tp should
be analytic and normalized whenever possible. A very general algorithm has been found
(P 22) although it is not known whether it is the best one possible. In the semisimple case
the *-representation can be constructed directly in terms of x; in general one needs a char-
acter for an extension of G.

Moyal mechanics and generalizations. Review

1. W’eyl application. A Weyl application, Q: f HX maps a family of functions on
phase space (a sympIectic, C”, paracompact manifold W) bijectively to a family of ope-
rators in the Hilbert space X,r of quantum mechanics. The inverse, Q-l: f cr &, of a Weyl
application, is called a Wigner application. The formal definition is given in implicit form
as follows for W = R2”:

f(t) = S A+, . . . , aLn)F(u,, . . . , a2n)e-Cb*a;iihda, (1)

RZ"

j: = S ?(a,, . . . . a2n)e-CTva)!ihda, (2)

R2"

Here E = {$‘, . . . . E2”1\ = (q’, . . . . qn;pl, . . . . p”> are natural coordinates for W = R2”,
fi a
and i = {[I, . . . . i2”, are the corresponding operators in X’,: i1 = x', pt' = i -a;l-,

etc. The dual forms are

(t,Q> = E’aj, (i, a} = $ai. (3)
The measure da is the standard Lebesgue measure in R2”. The function F is an entire
function with constant term equal to 1 and with no linear term. Different choices of F
correspond to different ordering conventions; the original Weyl application, with F = 1,
may be called the s_vmnretric Weyl application, and its inverse, the symmetric Wigncr
application.
2. Invariance of Weyl application. Consider the real Lie algebra of functions on phase
space with the Poisson bracket, with the basis ([I, . . , t2” ; e) consisting of the natural
coordinate functions and a function e that is constant (usually equal to 1) on W. This
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 119

algebra, as well as the associated abstract Lie algebra, will be called the H&&erg al-
gebra and denoted H, . Every Weyl application has the following property, for all a in H,,:

G,_h = Wa,f>. (4)

Here [ , ] is the commutator and ( , } is the Poisson bracket. We say that the Weyl
application is H,,-invariant and that it defines an H,,-invariant quantization. The Moyal
product is defined for functions f, g in Domed by

f*g = (A&. (5)

This defines a new associative structure on DomSZ, isomorphic to the algebraic structure
of ImSZ. Quantum mechanics can be formulated entirely in terms of this “algebra of
observables” without the use of Hilbert space methods. I1 Equation (4) reads, for all a in H,, ,
a*f-f*a = ifi{a,f}. (6)
We say that the Moyal product is H,,-invariant.l*
Consider the real Lie algebra of functions on phase space with the Poisson bracket,
consisting of all polynomials of order not greater than 2. We call this algebra AI,. The
symmetric Weyl application (for which Fin Eq. (1) equals 1) has the property (4) for
all a in M,, and the corresponding symmetric Moyalproduct satisfies (6) for all a in AI,.
3. Geometric signcjicance of invariance. The Hamiltonian function for the n-dimensional
harmonic oscillator is an element of AI,, and (6) therefore holds in the case of the symmetric
Moyal product when this function is substituted for a. The remarkable consequence of
this, pointed out already by Moyal [I, is that the quantized harmonic oscillator remains
in some sense deterministic. Let a and f be real C” functions on Wand consider the tra-
jectory in C” (W, R) defined by
&tat = (A*a-a*.fJlifi, fO =f, (7)
where f;(5) = f(E, t) is defined on WX R. We ask whether this trajectory in Cm( W, R)
defines a trajectory in W. Let {Ei} (i = 1, . . . , 2n) be a set of natural coordinates for
W = R*“, and take f = P, then f = E*, and so on, in (7). This procedure clearly gives
a curve in W, determined by the function (I and the choice of coordinates. However,
because (fg), is not in general equal tof,g,, the curve that one obtains will not be inde-
pendent of the choice of coordinates. Roughly speaking, one obtains, using different co-
ordinate systems, a “fuzzy” trajectory of cross sectional area fi*“-‘. This is, of course,
a reflection of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But if the function a satisfies (6)
for “all” functionsf, that is, if the *-product is a-invariant, then one easily checks that this
implies the derivation property d(fg)/dt = (df/dt)g+f(dg/dt) and thus (fg), = f,g,.
To summarize: if ~2 is a Lie algebra of functions on W with the Poisson bracket, and
if the Moyal product associated with some Weyl application is d-invariant, then, for any

I’ See footnote 2.
I2 The reason why one refers to (6) as an invariance property is that it implies Eq. (i) of the introduc-
tion, which shows that the Heisenbxg group is a group of symplectic automorphisms of the Moyal algebra.
 120 C. FRONSDAL

a in CQZ,the Moyal equation of motion (7) defines a family of trajectories in W; in other

words, any a in .B’ retains its geometrical meaning, as a generator of trajectories in W,
after quantization.

4. Substitutes for the Heisenberg algebra. The symmetric Weyl application is invariant
under algebra M,,; the more general Weyl application is less invariant but retains the
invariance under the Heisenberg algebra H.. The invariance algebra of the Moyal product
has a geometrical significance and is doubtless of physical importance, but must it include
H,? We shall consider quantization schemes-generahzed *-products and generalized
Weyl applications-invariant under any Lie algebra &, but first let us consider some
elementary physical examples.
First example, d = E(2). The physical model is a “free” particle in one dimension,
confined to the interval - 1 < q < 1 of the real line, with Hamiltonian function H = p2/2.
The Heisenberg algebra is inappropriate in this case because the function p is not a “good”
observable: it does not generate a group of canonical transformations. Geometrically,
the reason is that the classical trajectories generated by the function p crash into the bound-
aries at q = t_ 1; that is, {f, p} is different from zero at q = rt 1 (for most functions f).
A possible choice for the algebra & ofgood observables is the span of (LA} = {Lo, P’, P’},
where
LO = (I-qyp,, L’ = p’ = q, L2 = p2 = (1 -qy. (8)
This algebra is isomorphic to E(2). Suppose one simply replaces q H x, p H (E/i) a/ax
in (S), retaining the order of the factors. Then the invariance condition (4) holds for
a = a, LA. The operators iA can be made self-adjoint if we take the following inner product:

($, iy) = j -y(x)$7(x)(l-x2)-1/2dx. (9)

-1

The Schrodinger equation has the usual form, but the boundary conditions @(& 1) = 0
that lead to quantization of the energy levels are satisfied by every normalizable wave
function and need not be introduced in an ad hoc manner as in the usual treatment.
Second example, s2 = SO(~). This algebra is appropriate if phase space is a 2-sphere.
The physical model is a relativistic particle confined to a circle-the equator of S2. The
meridians are the momentum fibers and their termination of fusion at the poIes reffects
the limitation on velocity implied by special relativity. In the limit (velocity of light =)
c + co, so (3) contracts to E(2). Quantization on this compact phase space will be carried
out in 0 20. Conventional Weyl quantization is evidently not applicable.
Third example, .&’ = so(2, 1). The physical model is the one-dimensional Kepler
problem. Configuration space is the half line r > 0. The Hamiltonian may be regularized
in the same way as in three dimensions-one replaces the time parameter by the mean
anomaly and obtains the following equation of motion

dflds = (r(E-_J’) (10)

 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 121

together with the weak equation (Dirac’s sense)

r(E-H) = rE-rp2/2+1 * 0. (11)
The function p is not a good observable, for the same reason as in the first example (colli-
sions). We take d = so(2, 1) = span(LA} (A = 1,2,3), with
L’ = r(l+pZ), L2 = 2rp, L3 = r(p”- 1). (12)
This example is a model for the long-sought so(4, 2)-invariant geometric quantization
of the three-dimensional Kepler problem. Here, too, Weyl quantization is, strictly speak-
ing, not applicable, for theoperator (fi/i) a/ax cannot be made self-adjoint in L*(O, co; dx).
Nevertheless, if one substitutes q w x and p H (fiji) a/ax in (12), then one obtains op-
erators that can be made self-adjoint in L*(O, co ; dx/x).
These examples serve only to illustrate that elementary physical systems may exist
for which the usual &-invariant Weyl application may be inappropriate. The ultimate
applications of a more general approach to quantization may include electrodynamics,
Yang-Mills fields, and the quark confinement problem.
5. Invariant *-products.13 If the Lie algebra d of functions on W is large enough,
then W can be identified with an orbit of ad> in the real vector space dual d* of sJ.
Let 9 denote the ring of polynomial functions on d* and n(9) the projection of 9 on
the orbit W. We identify d with &**, so when we write a E JZZthis may mean a linear
function on &*. If (LA) (A = 1, . . . , m) is a basis for JS’, and F is a point in d*, then
{L”(l)> are the coordinates of 5 in the dual basis. The restriction of a E A’** to W is
also denoted a. The Poisson bracket is defined by the derivation rule and

{LA, LB) (5) = [LA, LB1(6) = GBLC(5) (13)

where [ , ] is the commutator of & and C is the structure tensor.
An invariant *-product on W is an internal composition law on n(9), associative
and distributive over C, such that14
k*f = j-*k = kf, (14)

a*f-f*a = ifi{a,f> (15)

hold for all k in C, a in ,r4, fin 17(g). Under some restrictions, the *-product can be ex-
tended from n(9) to Cm( 6’). An algorithm has been given for the construction of all
invariant *-products on any regular orbit of any semisimple Lie algebra.15 The general
result for H, is given by Eqs. (l), (2) and (5). A similar formula for E(2) will be derived
later. We now develop an important tool, the *-exponential function Exp.

I3 For more details, see Ref. [l], I, Sections 9-12.

I4 Here we follow Ref. [l]; an alternative approach was suggested in the Introduction. See the remarks
following Eq. (viii).
I5 Ref. [l], I, Section 11.
122 C. FRONSDAL

6. The functions Exp and E. Given an invariant *-product on W one defines a function
Exp: JZZ-+ n(P), where 8’ is the ring of formal power series on d*, by
m

Exp(a) = 2 (l/n)(iVr!)-“(a*)“, (a*)” = a*a* . . . *a. (16)

il=O

If {eO>denotes the local group having d as its Lie algebra, and if eaeb = ec denotes the
Campbell-Hausdorff application, then
Exp(a) * Exp(b) = Exp(c). (17)
We assume that (16) converges for a in some neighborhood “Z of the origin of & so that (16)
defines, for every a in +Y,a function Exp(a) on W. The value at l in W will be denoted
Exp[(a). It will also be assumed that (17) makes sense when Exp(a) is considered as a func-
tion rather than a formal power series.
Let G be a connected Lie group having d as its Lie algebra. The canonical, local
diffeomorphism from % to U (an open subset of G including the identity) allows us to
regard Exp(a) as a function on U. All eIements of G will be taken to belong to some open
subset Vof U, small enough so that all products that appear will be in U. With this under-
standing we define
E(e”) = Exp(a), Me”) = Exp&) (18)
and rewrite (17) in the form (compare Introduction, Eq. (iv))
E(e”) *E(eb) = E(e”eb). (19)
Another property of Exp, that is an immediate consequence of (15), is invariance under ad,,
precisely (compare Introduction, Eq. (iii)):
(ad,(a)Exp)(b) = (a, Exp(b)) = ad>(a)Exp(b). (20)
Finally, the function Exp satisfies a set of differential equations; these will be discussed
next.
The function Exp and E are important for two reasons. Firstly, it turns out that any
function from % to Cm(W) that is ad, invariant in the sense of (20), and satisfies the dif-
ferential equations as well as some boundary conditions, is the function Exp associated
with some invariant *-product on W. l6 This provides a method for construction of all
invariant *-products on W. Secondly, it will turn out that the function E is an essential
ingredient in the formulation of the generalized .Weyl application. In fact, the function
E for H, is essentially the kernel of the integral transform (l), and our study began with
the idea of generalizing the Weyl application.
7. DQj5erential equations for Exp. Let
Q = g,,LALB, g,,eR, A,B= I,..., m, (21)
be an element of the center of the enveloping algebra of &, and Qw the function on W

I6 Ref. [l], I, Section 12.

 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 123

obtained by replacing each LA by the corresponding coordinate function on ,c4*, re-

stricted to W. Then, because W is an orbit of ad:, Qw is constant on W. This constant
value will also be denoted Q. Now consider the function
Q 3 g,,L‘%LB. (22)

By invariance of the *-product, this reduces to a constant function Qw on W; the value

of which will also be denoted Q. No fixed relation between the values of Q and of Q is
imposed. We shall return to the qestion of accommodating the infinitesimal character
to the orbit in Sections 10, 20.
Let r(a) and r(a) denote the vector fields associated with left and right translations on G.
Then one easily finds, by differentiation of (17), that
a*Exp = -M(a)Exp, Exp * a = z%(a) Exp. (23)
From (22) and (23) one obtains
[&,, &LB)l(LA)+ Q/fi2] Exp = 0. (24)
Every element of the center of the enveloping algebra of d gives rise to a differential
equation for Exp. For H, one has a first order differential equation; for E(2), SO(~),
and so(2,l) one has an equation that is precisely of the form (24), see e.g. Eq. (29).
These equations are precisely the same as those that are satisfied by the eigendistribu-
tions on the group, and in particular by the characters. Here one is interested in solutions
that are ad&-invariant functions on W in the sense of Eq. (20).
8. The function Exp for E(2). As in $ 4, let (LA} = (Lo, PI, P2> be a basis for E(2).
The commutation relations are
[LO, P’] = -2P2, [LO,P’] = 2P’, [P’, P’] = 0. (25)
The invariance requirement (20) is satisfied if and only if ExpS(a) can be expressed in
terms of
t E a, and (5, a> = LAaAe (26)
The center of the enveloping algebra is generated by
Q E p’. FE P’P2+P2P2 (27)
and every orbit of dimension different from zero is determined by fixing Qw
Qw = Q = R2, R > 0. (28)
The differential equation for Exp is
[r(F). Z@)+&fi2] Exp = 0. (29)
Explicit formulae for Z(F) will be given later. Any solution of (29) that depends on the
variables (26) only, has the form

Exp&) = c,(t)cos((E, X)/X)-k2(t)sin((E, X)/X). (30)

124 C. FRONSDAL

Here x = hR&‘/‘. We have introduced the parameterization {aA} ti (x,} given by

x3 = cost, x0 = sint, Xi = aiSint/t, i = 1,2, (31)
(5, x) = L”xo+?* 2 = (6, a)sint/t. (32)
The functions cl and c, are entire functions satisfying the boundary conditions c1 (0) = I,
~~(0) = x/fi. These conditions on q(t) are analogous to the conditions on the function F
mentioned in 9 1.
The simplest expression for Exp is obtained by taking Q = Q (fitting the orbit to the
infinitesimal character). In this case c,(O) = 1 and it is possible to take cl(t) = cz(t) = I,
with the result that (30) simplifies to
Exp&) = e<c.X>/ifi= e(L”Sint+~fi/ifi
(33)
In this case the function E is defined globally on the double covering of E(2) by:

(34)

2 in R2, 0 < t < 2~. With this choice it is easy to calculate the *-product for E(2).
9. A *-product for E(2). Using the parameterization (31) we can write I(b) and r(b)
in the form
-Z(b) = b~(X~a,-x,a,-xAa)+X~b~a+x,b/\a (35)
r(b) = bo(x,20-xo23+x~2)+x,b~ 2-xob~a. (36)
Here aP = 2/2x,, ,U =O, 1,2,3andxAa =x,2,-x,2,,b.2 = b,2,+b,2,. NowEq.
(23) gives
b*Exp(a) = ifi[bo(x,2,-x,2,-xA2)+x,b*2+xobA2]Exp(a). (37)
When for Exp one takes the simple choice (33) then this can be written
Lo* = Loll - (ifia,yp+ifiPA a, (38)
6. P* = 6. P[I-(ifi20)2]1~Z+ifib~P20. (39)
These equations are to be understood as operator identities, derived for application to (33),
but valid for application to any function on W of the form f = ly(a) Exp(a)da; that is,
to any function in the domain of 6’. (See the Introduction.) Since &’ is essentially surjec-
tive in this case, (38) and (39) are applicable whenever the right hand sides make sense.
Thus we arrive at pseudo-differential operators.” In the case of E(2) there exists no
invariant *-product such that b* is a differential operator. This appears to be typical
except for nilpotent groups. The Moyal product for H,, is generated by differential opera-
tors if the function F of $ 1 is a polynomial. For so(2, 1) there exists only one invariant
*-product that is generated by differential1 operators. [We say that a *-product is gener-
ated by differential operators, resp. pseudo-differential operators, if the operators a* are
differential, resp. pseudo-differential, operators.]

” We use this term in the sense of a formal series of differential operators of unbounded order.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 125

The problem of polarization

10. *-quantizution. The choice of the quantization algebra d and the orbit W in d*
is decided for each physical problem by the identification of the distinguished observables.
It is not possible to give general rules that would enable one to recognize a distinguished
observable, but we believe that criteria are established for any system by a sufficiently
thorough physical interpretation. [See Q 4 for examples.] The next step is to select one
among many possible invariant *-products. In the case of H,, it is generally believed that
all choices are “physically equivalent”. Mathematically, one knows that all irreducible
representations of H, are determined up to equivalence by a character of the center. In the
case of the metaplectic algebra M,, defined in 0 2 as a Lie algebra of functions on R2”
with the Poisson bracket, the only invariant *-product is the symmetric Moyal product.18
In the case of so (2, 1) we have found an infinite family of pairwise inequivalent, invariant
*-products on each regular orbit, for there is no a priori reason to match the infinitesimal
character 4 to the parameter Qw that determines the orbit. The degree of arbitrariness
that is encountered in the quantization of any physical system is evidently less, the larger
the quantization algebra. This is quite reasonable, since the identification of a larger al-
gebra of distinguished observables amounts to a sharper definition and a deeper inter-
pretation of the system.
With the choice of an invariant *-product, one arrives at a stage that may be called
“*-quantization”. The algebra ~2 is represented by the pseudodifferential operatorslg
a*; it is evident that this representation is highly reducible. The problem of quantization
proper is to find a subspace of functions (a polarization) on which the induced action
of B is irreducible.20
It must be emphasized that *-quantization is already a complete quantum theory,
unlike the stage of prequantization in the theory of Kostant [2] and Souriau [3]. It has
been demonstrated, in some special cases, that the *-product algebra of observables is
a complete and autonomous theory of quantum phenomena,21 capable of yielding correct
spectra and incorporating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, it is both
useful and instructive to understand the connection with more conventional forms of
quantum theory. In addition, we intend to investigate the intimate relationship between
*-products and representation theory, with the hope of contributing new insight into both.
The tools that will be used to relate *-quantization to an operator formulation of quan-
tum theory will be referred to as *-polarizations. As yet, no complete theory has been
constructed. We shall present two examples, each worked out in detail and compared
with two other methods of quantization. The general case will then be treated on the
formal level, in 9 15.
I8 Note that R’” can be identified with a singular orbit in the vector space dual of M,. On this orbit
the Moyal +-product is unique, but of course invariant *-products can be defined on other orbits as well.
I9 See footnote 17.
” A precise definition of a “*-polarization” has been suggested in the Introduction, Definition 3.
‘l See footnote 2.
126 C. FRONSDAL

Il. Qantization for HI. Preliminaries. The basis is denoted (Lo, L1, L2} = (E, q,p}.
The orbit W is defined by e = 1. On this orbit the Poisson bracket and the co-adjoint
action are
{a, b} = UAb, #a = aA 2, (40)
where ar\ 2 = a, 22-a,2, and 2, = 2/2L*. The symplectic two-form, defined by
~(#a, *b) = {b, a}, is exact, o = dcc, and the potential I-form is a = -qdp+dm, where m
is a differentiable function on W. The vector fields Z(a) and r(a) are (with 2* = 2/2b,)
l(a) = -aA2!-(1/2) (a/\b)2’, r(a) = aA2”-(l/2) (aAb)2’. (41)
The differential equation for Exp, and its solution, are
[f(G)-e/%]Exp(b) = 0, (g k e = l), (42)
Exp&~) = F(b, , b,)e(t,b)“fi, <E, b) = LAbA. (43)
The function F was described in 5 1. If F = 1, then we can use (23) to obtain e* = *c = 1
and
4*
*4 I= (I-+ (jW)al2p, f..)= p ‘f: (%/2) 2/2q. (44)
Three different methods of quantization will now be shown to lead to the same result.
Polarization-foliation (Kostant, Souriau). Define, for a in HI,

V, = #a + ~@u)/zX , CQZ)= v, -Idpi. (45)

Then a I-+ S(a) is a Lie algebra isomorphism. Introduce the space of measurable functions
on W that are annihilated by the operator V,. [The polarization is the vector field *p.]
Such functions have the form
f = e-“iifiy(p). (46)
This space is stable under S(a) and the action induced on ly is given by:
ifiS = 1, iTiS = ifi2/2p, Wcyp) = p. (47)
*-polarization. Introduce the space of measurable functions on W such that *p reduces
to a scalar: &,*(p- 2) = 0.22 Such functions have the form

h=e 2(1.-pWfiYA(p). (48)

This space is stable under a*, and the action induced on y). is given by:
e* = 1, q* = (ifi/2)alap, p* = 2p-ii. (49)
Induction. [§ 14 contains a brief review of the method of induced representations.]
One needs a subalgebra do of & that vanishes on the form B[(a, b) = (5, [a, b]) for F
in W. Let C be a point &‘* and form the character <C, a) = X(a) on ,QIo. An induced
representation is constructed in terms of functions on d that satisfy

U(a) + JWW.h = 0, all a in do. (50)

‘* Compare Introduction, Eq. (ix).
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 127

The induced representations of A? is a H r(u) with r(u) acting on f: Take do to be the

subalgebra spanned by e and p and K(a) = za, + La2 with r, 1 real. The solutions of (50)
have the form
L(b) = &t,N +&/2)/ifr&(bJ. (51)
The action of r(u) may be transferred to GK and becomes
ifir = t, ifir = ifiZ/ab,, %r(p) = tb, +A. (52)
Define the Exp transform of a class of functions on -c9, by

f’(5) = 1 _&)Exp,(-b)db. (53)

R3

Ifjis the function (51), and we use (43) with F = 1, thenz3

f’(E) N fi(r- l)f,(q, P), (54)
wherefA has the form (48) with yA(p) = & (2(p - A)). Th e action (52) on & reduces to the
action (49) on yA.
12. Quuntizution for E(2). Preliminaries. The basis, as in 0 8, is denoted {LA>
= (LO, P’, P’). We also use the notation (31):
x3 = cost, x0 = sint, Xi = ai sin t/t, i= 1,2, (55)
where t = a,. When function ?n d are expressed in terms of {x,}, then the vector fields
of left and right translation take the form (35), (36). The general form of the function
Exp was given by (30) and the simplest choice by (33). The operators b*, for the simplest
choice of Exp, were given by (38), (39). The operators *b differ only by the sign of the
second term, thus
= LO[I - (ifia,y-y+ifiP~ a, (56)

= b . p[l - (ifiao)2]1’2 f ihb A Pa,.

The symplectic two-form is LC)= dx = - (1/2)6L06v where v = arc tan(P2/P1), and

cc = - (l/2) 6~ +dm. We apply the three methods of quantization to this case.
Polarization-foliation. Taking the vector field *P2 = -2P’ao for polarization, one
introduces the space of functions that are annihilated by the operator VP1 = #P2 + cc(#P’).
Such functions have the form f(L’, p) = exp(-m/i@ y(p). The operators S(a) = V, +a/~%
act on y:
B(LO) = 2 ajay, ifi6(P’) = RCOS~I,, i?iB(P’) = Rsinq. (58)

23 The &functions that appear in Eqs. (54) and (67) do not indicate a necessary relationship between
the character and the orbit. We have elected to relate these a priori independent parameters in order to
simplify the expressions for Exp. In general, the &functions relate the inducing character to the *-polari-
zation character; see Eq. (79).
128 C. FRONSDAL

*-polarization. Introduce the space X, of functions on Wsuch thatfn*(P2 - Rsin A) = 0.24

Such functions have the form
h = &“sin(~-~>iifi~~(~)
(59)
and a* acts on ya:
Lo* = ifiafapl, P’* = Rcos(~Q,-A), P2* = Rsin(2g,-A). (60)
An alternative, not available in the case of Kostant-Souriau polarization, is to replace
P2 by Lo. Let Y, be the space of functions on W such that g,*(L”-p) = 0. Instead of (59)
and (60) we get (the operators acting on y+):

g,l = 1y,(t)e- (L”sin(t+~)-/rg)lifidtidf

(61)

LO* = 2alat+p, P’* = Rcost, P2* = -Rsint. (62)

Induction. To induce from the subalgebra do spanned by P’ and P2, we choose
a point c = (0, R’cos 1, R’sin 2) in sQ* and build the character (5, a) = K(a) on do.
Let xA be the space of functions on & that satisfy [Z(a)+K(a)/ifi]A = Oforallaind,.
Such functions have the form
ecos(t+d-s)rR’/il”
_&(a) = YA(O (63)
with t = a0 and r, s defined by x1 = rcoss, x2 = rsins. The action of r(LA) on +A is
given by
r(LO) = a/at, ifir = R’cos(2t+A), ifir = R’sin(2t + 1). (64)
The exponential in (63) is one valued on the twofold covering of E(2), and we therefore
reinterpret fA as a function on that group:
x(etLoe&lF) = ecos(t+l-s)rR’/ifr~l(t).
(65)
Finally, we apply the Exp-transform, as in (53) using the global form (34);
2.n

The integration extends to the double covering of E(2) and d,g = dtdx, dx, is the Haar
measure. Inserting (65) and (34) we get 25

f'(E)
- W-R'>_fM (67)
where fA has the form (59) with y+(p) = &(p- 1,). Transferring the operators (64) to WA
one obtains full agreement with (60).
13. Comparison. The results of *-polarization and of induction are identical, and
differ only superficially from that of the method of Kostant and Souriau. The appeal
that the latter has for geometers is that the entire quantization procedure takes place in
~~..
24 This is another example of Eq. (ix) of the Introduction.
25 See footnote 23.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 129

the original geometrical setting of classical phase space. Real polarizations do not always
exist, but the introduction of complex polarizations by Kostant has widened the field of
applications to include a large class of solvable groups. Cases are known, however, when
no invariant polarization exists, either real or complex. [The most interesting case is
the quantization of the Kepler problem on an orbit of the dual of so(4,2).] Invariance
of a polarization is simply the requirement that the space of functions annihilated by the
polarization be stable under the action of the operators d(u), a in .&. [In the case of HI,
with polarization *p, this is the space of functions of the form (46); in the case of E(2),
with polarization *P’, it is the space of functions of the formf(l’, v) = exp(-m/z%)y(p).]
A *-polarization is a space of functions that is required to be stable under the action of a*,
a in d; but this is guaranteed by the construction-it is simply the statement that a* com-
mutes with *b (for all a, b in ~2); that is, associativity of the *-product. The alternative *-PO-
larization for E(2), that follows Eq. (60) above, is based on a subalgebra that does not
satisfy the condition of invariance that is required for a Kostant-Souriau polarization.
We believe that the method of *-polarization will encounter no obstacles, even in cases
when invariant polarizations do not exist.
The idea of the method of *-polarization is the following. The application &[ of Z?
defined by a H a* is a Lie algebra isomorphism. [The Lie bracket [a, b] corresponds
to the *-bracket, or generalized Moyal bracket, [a * b] = (a * b-b *a)/%.] The same is true
of the application d, or d defined by -a H *a. Thus, we have a representation D of
&‘@d by (a, b) H a*-*b. Let us assume that this representation is topologically irre-
ducible so that D = D, x D,, where D,, D, are irreducible representations of d deter-
mined by &i, d,., respectively. The problem is to find a space X of functions on W on
which .zJ’~acts irreducibly. Now X is not stable for the action of ZZ’,, but it is highly pla-
usible that two representations of .@‘, given by the action of -02, on X, resp. Y = X*a
(where a is some fixed element of d), are equivalent, the intertwining operator being
closely related to the operator *a. If this is the case, then the choice of X is of no impor-
tance so long as JZZ~acts irreducibly in it.
The most straightforward construction of a space X with the desired properties is
to choose a suitable subalgebra ZZ’, of JZI and reduce JZZ’,,to scalars. Let a +* K(a) be
a character for .sl,, and let X, be the space of measurable functions on W such that

&*(a--K(a)) = 0, for all a in do. (58)

The choice of (do, X) matters; in order that &‘l act irreducibly on X, it is necessary to
choose a character that is “nondegenerate”. The operators *a of &, are (usually) pseudo-
differential operators;26 this makes explicit solution of (68) impractical or impossible
except in the simplest cases. But the *-polarizations defined by (68) are interesting because
of their close link, via the Exp transform, to induced representations. It was seen that
the Exp transforms (53) and (66) connect the method of induction to the method of

26 See footnote 17.

130 C. FRONSDAL

*-polarization, faithfully to the point of reproducing precisely the formulae (48), (49)
and (59) (60). This suggests that the Exp transform intertwines between the representa-
tions of &‘@d given by (d, b) e, Z(d)+r(b) and (a, b) H a*- *b, the former acting on
a space of functions on the group and the latter on a space of functions on W.
Before turning to a formal discussion of the Exp transform in the general case, it is
convenient to recall the essentials of the method of induced representations. We consider
induction from one-dimensional representations only.

14. Induced representations. Let G be a connected Lie group and G,, a closed subgroup.
Let g, H x(gO) be a character for Co and let -?X denote the space of measurable functions
on G such that, for all g, in G, and all g in G

Y(g0g) = x(gMg) * (69)

Under a certain condition on x (essentially, unitarity; see Kirillov [6], p. 212), which
we suppose satisfied, there exists a continuous, non-negative function Q on G, such that

(70)

is a G-invariant scalar product on 2;. The measure d,g is the right-invariant Haar measure
on G.
Let J: G/G, H G, z H gZ be a differentiable map, such that g, belongs to the left
coset z of G, in G. For any g in G we write g = go(g) *g,(g), or simply g = go *g,; both go
and gZ being determined by g. Any solution of (69) can be factorized as

fig) = X(60)&&)> g = go - gz- (71)

The induced representation Lnd(X) of G is defined by g H T,(g), where

T,(g) : fk’) I-+.fk’d (72)

or
T,(g): &(z) I-+ 3l(gZgg,‘)w,(zg). (73)
Under the conditions imposed, this formula defines a unitary representation in the Hilbert
space tiq with the inner product
(&, $;) = 1 $&)Y&(z)dr(z). (74)
The measure dv on Go/G is defined by
d,g = (d(go)lilo(go))dv(z)d,go, (75)
where A, A, are the moduIes of G, Go, and d,g, d,g, are the right invariant Haar meas-
ures ; g , z, go being related by g = g,g, . The representation (73) will be supposed irreducible.

15. Exp transform and Weyl applicdtion. Given an invariant *-product on an orbit W,
and the associated function (or distribution) E on G, consider the application (compare
Introduction, Definitions 1, 2):

(76)
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 131

Herefis a function or a distribution on G; the domain of the application depends on the

choice of E. Let xX be defined as in the preceding section, and let us suppose for simplicity
that d can be defined densely in xX. Then

b: -Z(C#H S_&)[l(a)S](g-‘)d.g = f*a. (77)

G

The image of _?xby Q is therefore the *-polarization XK defined by (68), X being the infini-
tesimal character related to x. Similarly, for J7 in 2%:

b: T,(g)Y I-+ s~(g’)E(s)~E(g’-‘)d,g’ = W*f. (78)

G

That is, the mapping (76) intertwines between the induced representation T,(g) and the
representation dejned by the action E(g)* in X,. The condition that 8 be defined densely
in _%Xis verified in some case’s (compact groups, some discrete series of representations
of semisimple groups). In other cases it is necessary to consider a space of characters,
endowed with a measure dK and associated d-function distribution. The application
b, = SlgX then takes the form
8,: f” r-+f), f’(5)%, xo) = [&Mg-‘Mg (79)
G

where x0 is a unique character, determined by the choice of the *-product, i.e., by the
function E. Examples of (79) were given by Eqs. (54) and (67).
Returning to (78) we note that d defi:es a generalized Wigner application, and its
inverse a generalized Weyl application. Let A be an operator of the form

where A is some function or distribution on G. Then

Q: &+A*f (81)
where A is the function on phase space defined by

A(t) = &P)Aig)d,g. (82)

G

That is, the Exp transform induces (by pullback):

Q-r: A”H A. (83)
Eqs. (82) (80) generalize Eqs. (1) (2). We turn again to the examples.
Example, HI. The operator T,(g) is given by exponentiation of (52). Take z = 1 and
write
g = e%~ew+%P, TJg-1) = e-o”/ine-c”,4^+0*“P)/ii
(84)
where i = ifir( j = ifir( After integration with respect to a, one obtains the usual
Weyl correspondence, in agreement with Eqs. (l), (2). If F = 1 and 2 = 1 one finds by
132 C. FRONSDAL

an elementary calculation [with 2, = Q-l(a)]:

&(p, q) = S(p+~al~Jp-~~>e-asli”da, (85)

R

the “matrix element” being defined by

&&z) = 1 <ZJA”JZ~>~~(Z~)dZ’. (86)

R

Example, E(2). Similarly one finds, using (34) and (64),

A^,&‘,e;) = f (;(pl-- t- A)l&(q+ t- A))eLasintlihdt, (87)

0

Note that this is not inve$ble;Jf 2, i are the operators &Q(Z) = GA(z),(&Z))(z)
= &(z+~mod2n), then Aw = Bw = 1. Thus a new degree of freedom appears on
quantization; this is because the function E defined by (34) is defined on the double co-
vering of E(2). (Invariant *-products for which the functions E are defined on the N-fold
covering of E(2), including E(2) itself, do exist, but are somewhat more complicated,
see 0 16.)
The Exp transform establishes a link between *-products and unitary representations
constructed by the method of induction. In fact, it was pointed out by Bayen et aZ.[l],
in connection with spectral theory, that a link exists between invariant +-products and
representations. The problem that will-be discussed next is whether a given *-product,
defined most conveniently (as in the Introduction, Definitions 1 and 2) by a function
or distribution E on a group G, is associated with a unique representation of G. One
should also like to know under what conditions this representation is unitary and/or
irreducible, etc.
Physical applications will not be considered in this paper. It may be worth while to
emphasize, however, that the results of this section may turn out to by very useful indeed.
One of the main reasons why the Moyal formalism is sometimes found to be somewhat
unwieldy is that the Wigner-Weyl correspondence deals exclusively with operators and
not with wave functions. The “Exp transform,” or b-application, remedies this defect.

Symmetric *-products and unitary representations

The developments of Q 16 are purely formal-but suggestive. In 94 17, 18 we return
to our examples; treating rigorously the case G = H1 and the case G = E(2, N) = N-fold
covering of E(2). Next, in 9 19 we give a discussion of the case when G is a compact Lie
group, thus treating the problem of quantization on a compact phase-space. In 5 20 we
give all details for the case G = SU(2), and in Q 21 we study SL(2, R).
16. Symmetric *-products and the inner product. For the physical applications we need
to introduce a norm on the space of functions on phase space. The close link that seems
 SOME TDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 133

to exist, between *-products and unitary representations, suggests that one look for a ses-
quilinear form (f,f’), invariant under the mapst7
C(g) : f I+ ml *L (88)
T,(g): f Hf*m-l). (89)
That is,
@(g)*.L %)*f’) = UJ-‘) = (J-*%)X*%$ (90)
Such a form exists for *-products that satisfy a condition of symmetry. An invariant
*-product is said to be symmetric iff
E(g) = E(g-‘) (91)
[the bar denotes the complex conjugate]. If (91) holds, then
f7 = f’*f (92)
holds for a very wide class of functions; in particular, for functions of the form (functions
in the image of 8’):

f(6) = &%cg-‘)J,g. (93)

G

[Here and below, drg denotes the right invariant measure on G.] We shall limit ourselves
to symmetric *-products and to functions that satisfy (92).
THEOREM. Let an invariant, symmetric *-product be given on an orbit W, and let dl
denote th.e G-invariant Liouville measure on W; then

(94)

is a hermitean sesquilinear form, invariant in the sense that Eqs. (90) are satisjed for g in G.
Proof: That (94) is a hermitean sesquilinear form satisfying the first of the condi-
tions (90), follows immediately from (92). As to the second condition:

(f*%W'*Ek)) =
W
sEtg-‘kf$-‘*-%iM
s
= t.hf’><gWt = ff,f’>.
W

Here l H g5 denotes the co-adjoint actions of G in W. The second equality depends on

the invariance of the *-product and the last equality follows from the G-invariance of d5.
A symmetric *-product will becalledpositive iff the form (94) is positive;‘* we limit ourselves
to positive *-products. Then TI and T, are unitary representations of G, and T, is equiva-

27 Ne continue the formal development in a notation that is strictly appropriate for the case of analy-
tic *-representation only. (Introduction, Definitions 1 and 2).
z8 Compare Introduction, Definitions 5-7.
134 C. FRONSDAL

lent to TF, since

T,f = T,fl (95)
The trace. If

then

(fLf’> = 1 f781)f’(g2)X(g1g*-1)d,gldrgZ (96)

GxG
where

x(g) = iE(g)dE
= trE(g). (97)

More precisely, x is a distribution on G defined by the linear form

x(f) = 1 E(f)dl = trf. (98)

W

Ifjo_?’ denotes the convolution,

j&g) = 1 r(h))f7l(gh-‘)d,h (99)

G
_
then f*f’ = E(fop) and
-r-
U-J-7 = x(fo.7) = (LPi”>,. (100)
Consider now the unitary representation gt-+ r,(g) defined by the right translations:”

(W.F)(g,) = _&I g)
and the inner product (f, f’& . Then

8 (T,(g)_?) = E(g) * ati1 7 (101)

which shows that T, is equivalent to Tl. We conclude that the representation T,, g H E(g)*,
is determined up to equivalence by x.
The following properties of x are evident. (i) x is constant on conjugacy classes; that is,
invariant under Ad, :

xk-‘g,g) = 1 Ek-‘g,ddE = 1 -%-‘)*E(gd*-%)d~

W W

= 1 E&M = [ 4kM = xkd.

W W

One says that x is a central distribution on G. (ii) If Tl is factorial, then x is a central

eigendistribution on G. (iii) If x is the character of a unitary irreducible representation of G,
then (,f,f’X is positive and x is the character of an irreducible component of rl.

29 The symbol TX had a different meaning in Section 13.

 SOME TC)EAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 135

All this suggests that a *-product quantization scheme may be physically acceptable
iff the trace is the character of a unitary representation, and that two such schemes are
physically equivalent if and only if they have the same trace. (Introduction, Definition 8.)

17. Example, HI. The general form (43) for Exp(b) defines E(eb) globally,
E(eb) = F(b, , b,)e(e,6)/i6, (102)
since HI is an exponential group. [That is, b H eb defines a global diffeomorphism of
the algebra onto the group.] Symmetry of the *-product means that
WG, W = F(-b,, -U.
Integrating (102) over phase space, we find, since F(0, 0) = 1:

x(e') = 1 F('(b,,bJe(EJ)Wqdp N ebJind(b,) d(b,). (103)

R'

The corresponding induced, unitary irreducible representation is given by (52) with t = 1;

that is,
TX($): .&(z) +, e(b,+lb,+b,z+b,b,/2)/i~~~(=+bl). (104)
The inner product is simply
(& $J = 1 ~,(z)~(zW> (105)
R
so
tr T,(eb) = s
R
(zlT,(eb)jz)dz

which agrees with (103). Note that the trace is independent of the choice of the factor F
in (101). This was to be expected, since HI has only one unitary irreducible representation
(up to projective equivalence). Different choices of F are believed to lead to physically
equivalent quantum ‘theories.
18. Example, E(2). The general form (30) for Exp(a) gives, globally, on the N-fold
covering of E(2),
E(etLo~“‘) = c,(t)cos((~, x)/X)-z&(t)sin((E, x)/x), (107)
provided that c,(t+Nx) = c1(t) and c,(t+Nrr) = (-)N~l(t). The *-product is symmetric iff
--
c,(t) = Cl(--t), c,(t) = CJ-t). (108)
Integrating (107) over the orbit, we find
N-l

(109)

The induced representation (64) may be exponentiated to a unitrary irreducible repre-

sentation of the N-fold covering of E(2) by imposing the boundary conditions
+l(z+arr) = c”+&), O<z<rc,n=O,l,..., N (110)
136 C. FRONSDAL

with CN = 1, and defining

(111)
0

we obtain
TA(etto&$): GA(z)H e R’[x,cos(2z+2ftl)+x,sin(2z+2~+~)]/i~~(z+~) (112)

The trace, in view of (110) and (1 ll), is given by

N-l

trT, = 1 (zlT,]z’) C 6(z-z’-nn)C”dzdz (113)

R' n=O

and this is in agreement with (109), provided R’ = Q*1/2 and provided that we choose
cl(m) = C”. (114)

19. Compact case. We shall find a necessary and sufkient condition for the existence
of an invariant *-product with trace 3: on an orbit W. It will be demonstrated that the
function E is always analytic in both variables; that is, on WxG.
Given any invariant *-product on an orbit W, let T be the representation of G defined by
T(g): f I+ E(g)*f*E(g-‘).
Invariance of the *-product gives
F’Wfl(5) = fk- ’8.
Now let Tw be the representation of G defined by the co-adjoint action in L2(W, dt)-
where d5 is the invariant Liouville measure; then
Tc Tw.
Suppose now that the *-product is symmetric, and let Tl be the representation g H E(g)*;
then T? is the representation gH *E(g-‘) and Tl@Tl* = T. Thus, we have proved the
PROPOSITION.If an invariant *-product on an orbit W is symmetric, and if Tl is the re-
presentation g t+ E(g)*, then
Tl@Tl* c T,, (115)
where Tw is defined by the co-anjoint action of Win L2( W, dt).
The representation Tw is a countable direct sum of irreducible representations:

Tw =&T,. (116)
CZ=O

[a # B does not imply that T,, Tp are inequivalent !] We introduce an orthonormal basis
on L2( W, dl):
{Yg} (a = 0, 1,2, . . . . m = 1, 2, . . . . d,), (117)
adapted to (116) and consisting of functions that are polynomials on W. [This means:
they are restrictions to W of polynomials in the linear coordinates on &*.I
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 137

On the other hand, let T’ denote the unitary representation of GX G defined by the
left and right translations on G, in the Hilbert space L’(G). If 2 is the complete set of
characters of irreducible representations of G, then the reduction of T’ is given by

Explicitly, if (f: f) denotes the L2 norm :

where (fly), denotes the inner product on PX, given by

(118)
Given W, we choose a x in Z and attempt to construct an invariant *-product associated
with TX. In view of the proposition, we must evidently choose x so that T,@T,* = Tw.
This insures that the complete reduction of T,QT; is obtained from (116) by restricting CI
to a finite set N:
TX@ T; = @Ta. (11%
-EN

We introduce an orthonormal basis on TX,

(Y;*“) (a EN; m = 1, . . . . d,), (120)
adapted to (119) and consisting of functions that are analytic on G.
The most general form of the function E is
4
4(g) = c C, >L: YFoY;%?) (121)
-ZEN m= 1

with complex coefficients C, that must satisfy certain conditions; namely:

(i) C, # 0, c( in N.
(ii) Reality conditions to ensure that E(g) = E(g-I).
(iii) Some of the C, are fixed by the boundary conditions on E(g) at the identity of G.
Thus we have proved the
THEOREM. (G compact.) Given an orbit W, and an irreducible representation T, of G.
A necessary and suficient condition for the existence of an invariant, symmetric, positive,
*-product, such that each factor in the representation g H E(g) is equivalent to T,, is that
T,QT,* E T,. The function E(g), g jixed, is the restriction to W of a polynomial on d*.
The function Es, t fixed, is analytic on G.
The trace (compact case). Since TX and T; is a contragredient pair of irreducible repre-
sentations, the series (119) contains the trivial representation precisely once. Let TO be
the trivial representation, and Y”, Y,” the c orresponding basis functions on W, G-the
index m being redundant in this case. Since W is an orbit, Y” is constant on W. Let us
138 C. FRONSDAL

normalize the measures :

s dt = 1, s dg = 1, (122)
W G

and choose Y”(5) = 1. By orthogonality,

s E(g) dE = Co Y,“(g). (123)

W

This function is central on G and proportional to x. Since E(1) = 1, x(1) = d; and x

is normalized, we may take (Yig) = x(g), Co = I/d,,

s E@dl = U/d,) x(g). (124)

W

20. SU(2), the function E. As an example of the construction of a-products and quan-
tization on a compact phase space, we consider the 2-sphere and the natural action of
W(2) induced by the homomorphism W(2) -+ SO(3). A physical model was proposed
in 0 4. A basis for & = SO(~) is denoted (LA} (A = 1,2,3) and an element a of so (3)
is written a = aAL* in terms of real parameters aA, A = 1,2, 3. The commutation re-
lations are [L1, L’] = 2L3 with the cyclic permutations. The orbit W is given in terms
of a fixed, real positive number R by

Q s )+L*E z’.z = R2. (125)

The representation Tw of W(2) in L2( W, d5) has the reduction

TW = @ T,, (126)
a=O,l,...
where T, is the irreducible representation of dimension d, = 2cr+ 1. The condition (I 15)
of the proposition is satisfied for every irreducible Tl . Ordinary spherical harmonics,
denoted {Y$“) (m = -c1, --a+ 1, . . . , cw;ilr = 0, I, . ..). and normalized so that

j mYZ’(W5 = &,, 6,,,,,,,, (127)

W

dt = dL’dL2/4aRL3, s dt = 1, (128)
W

form a basis for L2( W, dt), adapted to (126).

The SU(2) group manifold may be identified with the 3-sphere. In the domain of the
exponential map we have e” = g(x), where a is in d, x = {x,) = (x0, S;> and
x0 = cost, j; = Sisintlt,
t = 121, x; = x;+? = 1. (129)
The arrow notation is used for S-vectors. The notation facilitates the passage to E(2)
by contraction; see (31). The vector fields of left and right translations on G = SU(2)
are given by the natural action of SO(4) = S0(3)~ SO(3) on the 3-sphere,! namely
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT- QUANTIZATION 139

(with 8, E a/&P):
&LA)\
= +(XA~IJ-X~~_J-(XA~)A. (130)
GA) I
The differential equation for E, and the definition of I, are given by

1
1
(x,$-x&J2+2Z(21+2) E(x) = 0, 6 = 4fi21(1+ 1). (131)
1-
D c.v
A solution that is regular on SU(2) exists if and only if 21 is integer. [We take 21 to be
non-negative without losing generality.] The regular solutions are linear combinations

112
of the hyperspherical harmonics (a = 0, 1, . . . ,21; m = = - a, . . . , a):

YoC,i”(X)
here normalized to
=
1 (132)

s
G
y,aim(x)Yp”‘(x)dx = P’Pm (133)

dx = (d3x/xo)/4x2, s
G
dx = 1. (134)
The gem-al expression for E is

The normalization conditions on E give Co = C, = 1, and the phase-space integral-to

which only the first term in (135) contributes-is

sE,(ddt = W+ I)-‘xdg),
W
(136)
where
xl(g) = sin(21+ l)t/sint
is the character of T,,.
Closed forms for E can be obtained in three ways, by appropriate choice of C, and
summation, by direct solution of (131), or by means of a generating function (§ 22).
With e > 0, take
C,m[l/(22-a)!](fi/R)aQ;‘+‘(cothe) (137)
to obtain, with 2Z+ 1 s 1:
E(g) = (sinh ilc/sinh 5) (sinhe/sinh &I)
cash 5‘ E x0 cash e + (St* z/iR) sinh e (138)
R/fi = lcoth 12~- cothe.
140 C. FRONSDAL

The second relations defines c and the third guarantees the boundary conditions. The
limit ,o + co gives

c, = (2@)! @,R)
(21-R)!
I
E(g) = (x0 1-3 *ZjiR)” 1
(139)

R = 2%. I
The price of this simplification is that I is now fixed by R and k. This type of relationship
or accommodation between infinitesimal character and orbit is interpreted, in the context
of the geometrical quantization scheme of Souriau and Kostant, in terms of integrality
of a de Rham cohomology class. Others have suggested that it amounts to a quantifica-
tion of ?i. We have stressed throughout that no accommodation is required; thus R and
I are in principle independent of each other. It ist rue that (138) impIies the inequality
R < 2Z?i,but this is entirely due to the choice (137) of the coefficients C, in (135). With
the general formula (135) one can obtain all irreducible representation of SU(2), besides
the trivial representation, as an analytic, normalized *-representation on a single orbit
with R # 0.
A simpler road to (138) or (139) is also mar! interesting. An invariant 2-point function,
corresponding to the infinitesimal character Q of G = SU(2), is a function from GX G
into C, satisfying (131) in each argument, and invariant in the sense that f(ggl, gg,)
= f(g,, g2). Evidently, h(gi’gJ = f(g, , g2) defines a spherical function (= a central
eigenfunction) on G. Let g, , g, be parameterized by x and y; then f(g, , gJ depends on
the invariant x. y E xpy, only, and (13 1) reduces to an ordinary, second order differen-
tial equation. The general solution is, with il = 21+ 1 and cosh5 = x *y,
f(g, , g2) = (C, .&‘+ C- e-“?/sinh [. (140)
Now, in (140) let us substitute
-+
IY,) I+ {coshe, @lR)sinhe), @E c. (141)
Let E: (g, l) H Et(g) be the function on GX W obtained from f by this substitution;
then E is an Ad,-invariant solution of (131). Imposing reality conditions and boundary
conditions we easily recover (138). This construction can evidently be generalized to
compact, semisimple groups.

21. SL(2, R). Some of the ideas that were presented in B 16 can probably be imple-
mented rigorously for some types of Lie groups. The main difficulty is the paucity of in-
formation concerning the properties of the mapping d in the general case. In this section
we study another tractable example, selected with a view to illustrating the obstacles
that stand in the way of a general formulation of the theory. Tentative conclusions and
conjectures, suggested by this and the other examples that we have studied, were discussed
at the end of the Introduction.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 141

Algebra, dual, orbits. We use a notation that exploits the relationship between SL(2, R)
and SU(2); many formulae of $20 can be taken over with little or no change. The stan-
dard basis for the Lie algebra sl(2, R) is denoted {LA} (A = 1,2, 3). The commutation
relations are obtained from those of su(2) by the substitution L’, L2, L3 H iL1, -iL2, L3.
The same substitution gives the generator Q of the center of the enveloping algebra:
Q = - (L1)2 - (L2)2 + (L3)2. (142)
The orbits of the co-adjoint action in the real vector space dual are:
W, = (5~s~‘~; LA(l) = 0 (A= 1,2,3)},
W,, = {TV&*; Q(t) = R2 2 0, L3(E) > 01,
W,_ = (E E -01*; Q(l) = R2 2 0, L3(t) < 0},
WR = (5 E &*; Q(l) = RZ < O}.
The orbits are thus parametrized, mainly, by a complex number R E RuiR. All orbits,
except W,, + , W,, _ and W,, , are regular.
Group manifold. The group can be parametrized by
g = &J+x1o1+x2~~++xj$, Xi--x:-x:+x,2 = 1 (143)
where {oAA)(.4 = 1,2, 3) are real 2 by 2 matrices. The SL(2, R) group manifold is identi-
fied with the surface xb- x:-x: +x2 = 1 in R4. We use the convention x0, x1, x2, x3
= x0, -x1 2 -x2, x3 ; then the vector fields of the left and right translations are given
by Eq. (130), and (131) holds provided we interpret e.g. c x: E xpxP. The value of the
Casimir element Q = 4ZP Z(Z+1) is one of two invariants that may be used to classify
(up to a trichotomy) the integrable representations of the universal covering G of SL(2, R).
Representutions [8]. To every pair (I, k) of complex numbers, with - f < Re 2 and
-+ < Rek < $, is associated a representation D(Z, k) of the universal covering G
of SL(2, R),in which the Casimir element has the value 4fi2Z(Z+l), and the spectrum
of $L3 is k+Z. This representation is irreducible unless Z-k or Z+k (or both) is integer.
If Z-k is integer, but Z+k is not, then D(Z, k) is the sum of two irreducible representa-
tions D+(Z, k) and D-(I, k). In the reverse case D(Z, k) is the sum of two irreducible re-
presentations D+( - I- 1, k). The representations D+ (a, k) and D- (CT,k) are chara-
cterized by extremal weights; the spectra of i L3’ being (r + 1 +N and a-N, respectively.
If I+ k are integers, then D(Z, k) = D’(Z, k)OD-(-Z- 1, k)@D(Z), where D(Z) is the
finite-dimensional irreducible representation where the spectrum of f L3 is -Z,
-Z+l, . . . . +Z. The true representations of SL(2, R) are those for which k = 0 or i.
The unitary representations have k real and (Z+$)2 real; in particular, the principal se-
ries has (Z+$)” < 0, the supplementary series has If Ikl < 0, the discrete series are
of the type D’(a, k) with a > - 1 and D-(a, k) with a < 0. Our problem is to determine
which of these representations can be related (in the sense described formally in 9 16) to
*-representations, and on which orbits. We attempt to answer this question by exam-
ining the ad&-invariant eigendistributions on G.
142 C. FRONSDAL

Invariant eigendistributions. Let 9’ be the space of formal power series in (LA}, and
n(Y) the projection of P’ on an orbit. The most general solution of Eq. (131), by a fun-
ction E: G +17(Y) is given by the last expression in (135) with the sum of a extended
to N and C, # 0, CIin N. We choose an orbit W, 1 in C and the Cdl’s,In principIe, the
spectrum of $L” is determined; it is the Fourier spectrum of Exp(L3); but in practice
we do not know how to determine it. A fortiori we don’t know how to choose the C, so
as to obtain the spectrum appropriate for D(I, k) or one of its irreducible constituents.
However, the series can be summed for special values of the C,‘s; in fact, both methods
already used for SU(2) can be adapted to obtain closed expressions for E(x); and the
analysis can be completed.
The most general cIosed expression for E(x) found in 9 20 is Eq. (140). Adapting
it to SL(2, R) we have
E(x) = (C+t?fC_e-“?/sinhI;,
(1W
coshc = xOcosh~+(Z*~/iR)sinh~.
At the identity in G, [ = Q, so E(x) is analytic near the identity provided n # 0. The
normalization conditions are
+)/id = 1, (~E(x)/~x,.& = LA/%; (145)
that is
C+$.E+C_e-“e = sinhe,
(146)
n(C+ e’,”- C_ eeLe) = coshe+(R/fi)sin@.
The special case of symmetric *-products is characterized by E(g) = E(g-‘). There are
four possibilities :
I. R, e, R, C,, C- real.
If.R,e,inreal, C, = C_.
III. iR, ip, il real, c+ = -C_.
IV. iR, ie, 2, iA, iC, , iC_ real.
The trace. We consider now the orbits W,, , fixing +R > 0. We shall determine
the trace; that is, the distribution on G that is given formally by

x(x) = j Et(x)df, d,$ = dL’dL2/L3; (147)

W

restricting ourselves to symmetric *-products, cases, I, 11. Let E be the sign defined by
lim Etanhc = 1.
!L’,-‘UZ
The leading term in Et(x) for large JL”j is then
C,(cosh[)?-‘, if C, f 0,
C_,(cosh&“-‘, if C, = 0.
 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 143

By definition, Rel > 0. The above integral does not converge (in the usual sense) unless
C, = 0, ReA > 0, and then only on compact elements. We restrict ourselves to this case.
When C, = 0,
sinhe
E(x) = @a(-) m, cothQ+++cI = 0. (148)

For g compact set x,, = cost, sgn(j;_* ,$1x: -x:-x.$~~/~ = sink Now 7t. L’ E (@sint}
(1 < ,LJc 03); coshr = costcoshe-ipsintsine, and

where the contour y is the image in the complex c-plane of the straight line
(costcoshe-i(sintsinhe)p} (1 < ,u < co)

in the cosh[ plane, with endpoint co such that coshTo = cosh(e - it). Now cosh5 and
.ssinh[ are in the same quadrant of the complex plane. At the identity this gives E = sgne
and thus by (148):
R
& ,-+A+1 < 0, co = e-it,

21riR eigat 4nR ,-Zs(l+l+k)t/i

x(x) = -J- - = __ (149
sin At L c
ksN

We have thus identified the trace as that of D’(I, k) for R/ii > A+ 1 and as that of
D-( - I- 1, k) for -R/A < 1+ 1. [Of course, the sum must be understood as the limit
as t tends to R from the upper half of C.]
The limitation obtained here, namely jRl/ti > A+ 1, just as an analogous limitation
found for SU(2), is no more than the effect of choosing the expression (137) for the C,‘s.
We may, for example, generalize Eq. (140) as follows

E(X) = 1 eea(- a da(p) (150)

ep>O

with some measure da. The boundary conditions are

l da(e) = 1,
q>o

s [cothle] + I]da(e) = - cR/fi

ee>O

and da need not be positive. To remove the restriction it is sufficient to support da on two
points.
The simplest case is obtained by accommodating the infinitesimal character to the orbit,
144 C. FRONSDAL

by letting 181 -+ (1 -k l)fi, EQ + + co. One gets

E(x) = [x0 -I . Z/i&(A
+ l)]-“-1 (150
on the orbits W,,, Ijg, + and W,,, Ijfr,_.
The singular orbits W,,, . Returning to the more general formula (144) we attempt
to pass with R to 0. Evidently, Q must tend to zero with p = Rfsinhe fixed. In the limit,
E(x) = sinh ;2c/n sinh <,

cosh[ = x,,+?. z/ip, p/x = (AZ- 1)/3. (152)

To obtain other analytic *-representations on the singular orbits it is enough to choose
the coefficients C, in Eq. (135) so that the sum converges. In the limit R = 0, Eq. (135)
reads

(153)

If I = -i this simplifies, and if C, = 1 (a = 0, 1,2, . ..) the sum can be carried out,
giving
-1
~~i/ificosX/Z.
,

this may be recognized as the +-exponential associated with the Moyal *-product.30 The
integral over Wo+ converges in the sense of a distribution to (for x compact):

x(x) = n/sint/2 (155)

which is the sum of the characters for D+ (-d, i) (Sp f L3 = $ +N) and D+ (-i , -b)
(Sp&F = ;+N).
Summary. Our study of SL(2, R) is far from complete. In the case of regular orbits
it was found that some classes of unitary, irreducible representations can be realized
as *-representations on each orbit, no accommodation being required. This could be
verified because we possessed *-exponential functions in a closed form, suitable for in-
tegration over phase space and subsequent identification with the characters. In the case
of the singular orbits we know of no example of an analytic *-representation that has been
shown to be equivalent to an irreducible representation. No *-representation corresponding
to the principal series of SL(2, R) has been found.

22. Generating furzctions. An algorithm has been found for the explicit construction
of a large class of *-representations. It was found by reducing the Weyl application (9 l),
and the construction of *-representations for SU(2) (Q 20, last paragraph), to common
terms. The following is a somewhat oversimplified account of the method. Details will
be reported elsewhere.

” Ref. [l], I, Section 12 and II, Section 6.

 SOME IDEAS ABOUT QUANTIZATION 145

The essential step, in all cases except the semisimple case, is the construction of a mi-
nimal extension G’ of the connected group G by an involution I. Choose a point E,, on W,
and let d, be the stabilizer of E. in & under the co-adjoint action. Assume that d, is
the set of fixed points of I. We have G’ = GuGI; the remarkable fact is that central eigendis-
tributions on GZtum out to be much less singular that on G. Let C = {g1g-I: g in G},
and choose a central eigendistribution (T, defined on GI, equal to 1 on C. It may then
be shown, under some additional conditions, that the map h c, 5(/s), defined by
<E(h), a> = r-a@)4(4,
is a diffeomorphism of C on W. Finally, set
&h,(g) = a(g@*

Acknowledgments
It is a pleasure to thank M. Flato and A. Lichnt5rowicz for hospitality at Collbge de
France, R. Blattner for helpful discussions during which he suggested the connection
between *-polarizations and induced representations, and especially M. Flato and D. Stem-
heimer for constructive criticism and assistance.

REFERENCES
[l] F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnkowicz, and D. Stemheimer: Deformation Theory and
Quantization, I and II. UCLA preprint ll/TEP/ 7 and 8. Annals of Physics, to lx published.
[2] B. Kostant: Lecture Notes in Mathematics 170, Springer-Verlag, 1970, 87.
[3] J.-M. Souriau: Structure des syst2mes dynamiqaes, Dunod, Paris 1970.
[4] B. Kostant: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Nice, Septembx 1970.
[5] A. Lichrkowicz: Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1977), 133.
[6] A. Kirillov: Eliments de la The’orie des RepGentations, Edition Mir, Moscow, 1974.
[7] J. E. Moyal: Proc. Cambr. Phil. Sot. 45 (1949), 99.
[S] A. 0. Barut and C. Fronsdal: Proc. Roy. Sot. A 287 (1965), 523.