Timeline for Reconciling two notions of geometric quantization.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2013 at 14:57 | vote | accept | Eric O. Korman | ||
| Apr 12, 2013 at 5:38 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 12, 2013 at 2:27 | comment | added | Eric O. Korman | @Urs Schreiber: Thanks for your comment. I've skimmed through some of Landsman's work and it does seem to incorporate both notions of quantization. Indeed, it seems that this question is one of his motivating factors. | |
| Apr 11, 2013 at 19:51 | comment | added | Urs Schreiber | This is a good question. I think has a good answer if one thinks of the Spin^c-quantization as taking values in KK-cocycles, as promoted particularly in articles by Landsman. But before we get to that, a remark: it is not true that all functions on phase space act on the geometric quantum states, but only those whose flow fixes the polarization leafs do. This is in general a rather small subspace of functions/observables. But still, it is a good question to ask how push-forward quantization can remember this. | |
| Apr 11, 2013 at 17:50 | history | asked | Eric O. Korman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |