Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to understand the Blattner-Kostant-Sternberg pairing as it applies to geometric quantization in real polarizations whose integral manifolds are, for simplicity, compact. I have been trying to follow Sniatycki's account (Geometric Quantization and Quantum Mechanics, pp 73-75). Thus, we have a symplectic manifold $(X,\omega)$, of dim $2n$ a Hermitian bundle $L$ with connection $\nabla$ whose curvature is $\omega$.
We choose a polarization D by Lagrangian submanifolds, and a bundle of half-forms. We obtain the Bohr-Sommerfeld variety S consisting of points lying in integral submanifolds of D with trivial holonomy. This will be a finite collection of tori $S_i$ if $X$ is compact and $D$ is sufficiently nice. Now we wish to define a pairing on them.
In Sniatycki's account we project each $S_i$ to a $Q_i$ in $X/D$. We wish to obtain a density on each $Q_i$. He does this by lifting a basis for $T_x(Q_i)$ and using $\omega$ to obtain a basis for $S_i$ from this, on which the half-form has a well-defined value.
This is fine so long as $Q_i$ is of dimension $n$. But it seems to me that in many cases, e.g. a torus, the dimension will actually be 0, in which case the prescription breaks down. Obviously I am missing something. Is there a source that discusses this issue in more depth?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

I don't think you're missing anything. Yes, in the case when the Lagrangian foliation consists of tori, the $Q_i$ will just be points. The `density' at one of these points will just be a number (see for example eqn (4.51) - now $k=n$, and so $\langle\sigma_1,\sigma_2\rangle_{Q_i}$ has no arguments), and the inner product will be the sum of these numbers over all the points $Q_i$ above which the sections have support.

The main other source of this material is Śniatycki's papers from the 70s, for example "Wave Functions Relative to a Real Polarization".

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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