text:
# Traces for star products on the dual of a Lie algebra

## 1 Introduction

Trace functionals play an important role in deformation quantization  (for recent reviews on deformation quantization we refer to , existence and classification results can be found in ).

Physically, traces correspond to states of thermodynamical equilibrium characterized by the KMS condition at infinite temperature . Note however, that for reasonable physical interpretation one has to impose an additional positivity condition on the traces .

On the mathematical side traces are one half of the index theorem, namely the part of cyclic cohomology. The other half comes from the $`K`$-theory part. Having a trace functional $`𝗍𝗋:𝒜𝖢`$ of an associative algebra $`𝒜`$ over some commutative ring $`𝖢`$ and having a projection $`P=P^2M_n(𝒜)`$ representing an element $`[P]K_0(𝒜)`$ the value $`𝗍𝗋(P)𝖢`$ does not depend on $`P`$ but only on its class $`[P]`$. This is just the usual natural pairing of cyclic cohomology with $`K`$-theory, see e.g. \[16, Chap. III.3\], and the value $`\mathrm{ind}([P])=𝗍𝗋(P)`$ is called the index of $`[P]`$ with respect to the chosen trace.

In the case of deformation quantization the situation is as follows. The starting point is a star-product $``$ for a Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi )`$ whence the algebra of interest is $`𝒜=(C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]],)`$ viewed as an algebra over $`[[\nu ]]`$. Then a trace is a $`[[\nu ]]`$-linear functional $`𝗍𝗋:C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]][[\nu ]]`$ such that

$$𝗍𝗋(fg)=𝗍𝗋(gf),$$
(1.1)
whenever one function has compact support. For the $`K`$-theory part of the index theorem one knows that $`K`$-theory is stable under deformation, see e.g. : any projection $`P_0`$ of the undeformed algebra $`M_n(C^{\mathrm{}}(M))`$ can be deformed into a projection

$$P=\frac{1}{2}+\left(P_0\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt[]{1+4(P_0P_0P_0)}}$$
(1.2)
with respect to $``$, see \[20, Eq. (6.1.4)\]. Moreover, this deformation is unique up to equivalence of projections and any projection of the deformed algebra arises this way. It follows that $`\mathrm{ind}([P])`$ only depends on $`[P_0]K_0(C^{\mathrm{}}(M))`$, which is the isomorphism class of the vector bundle defined by $`P_0`$, see also  for a more detailed discussion.

Now let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be an equivalent star product with equivalence transformation $`T(fg)=Tf\stackrel{~}{}Tg`$. Then clearly $`\stackrel{~}{𝗍𝗋}=𝗍𝗋T^1`$ defines a trace functional with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. From (1.2) we see that $`\mathrm{ind}([P])=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ind}}([\stackrel{~}{P}])`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{ind}}`$ is the index with respect to the trace $`\stackrel{~}{𝗍𝗋}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Thus the index transforms well under equivalences of star products provided one uses the ‘correct‘ corresponding trace. It happens that in the symplectic case there is only one trace up to normalization . So suppose that $`M`$ is compact and that for each star product $``$ we have chosen a trace $`𝗍𝗋_{}`$ normalized such that

$$𝗍𝗋_{}(1)=c$$

where $`c`$ does not depend on $``$. Then $`T1=1`$ implies $`𝗍𝗋_\stackrel{~}{}=𝗍𝗋_{}T^1`$ and thus the index does not depend on the choice of $``$ but only on the equivalence class $`[]`$. This simple reasoning already explains the structure of Fedosov’s index formula \[20, Thm. 6.1.6\], . Nevertheless we would like to mention that the computation of $`\mathrm{ind}([P])`$ in geometrical terms is a quite non-trivial task.

For a formulation of the index theorem in the general Poisson case we refer to . Here the situation is far more non-trivial as in general there is no longer a unique trace. In  it is shown that integration over $`M`$ with respect to some smooth density $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a trace for Kontsevich’s star product provided the Poisson tensor is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-divergence free. However, there are much more traces, typically involving integrations over the symplectic leaves.

An elementary proof that in the symplectic case one has a unique trace is presented in . This approach uses the canonical way of normalization of the trace, introduced by Karabegov  using local $`\nu `$-Euler derivations, see  and the elementary proof of the uniqueness up to scaling of a trace as given in : Here one uses the fact that in the whole algebraic dual of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ there is only one *Poisson trace*

$$\tau _0(\{f,g\})=0,$$
(1.3)
namely the integration with respect to the Liouville measure.

In this article we shall now consider the most simple case of a Poisson manifold: the dual of a Lie algebra. Here we shall determine all the traces for the BCH star product on $`𝔤^{}`$ by very elementary arguments.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we recall the construction of various star products on the dual of a Lie algebra $`𝔤^{}`$ as well as their relation to star products on $`T^{}G`$ where $`G`$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Then we prove the strong closedness of homogeneous star products on $`𝔤^{}`$ by elementary computations in Sect. 3 and in Sect. 4 we show that any $`ad`$-invariant functional is a trace for the BCH star product. In Sect. 5 we prove the positivity of a trace $`𝝉_𝓞`$ associated to a regular orbit $`𝒪𝔤^{}`$ for compact $`G`$ by a BRST construction of a star product on $`𝒪`$. Sect. 6 contains a characterization of the GNS representation obtained from the positive trace $`𝝉_𝓞`$. Finally, Sect. 7 is devoted to a construction of trace functionals by a group action using a ‘universal deformation’ on the group, inspired by techniques developed in .

## 2 Star products on $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`T^{}G`$

In this section we shall recall the construction of several star products on the dual $`𝔤^{}`$ of a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and on $`T^{}G`$ where $`G`$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. First we shall establish some notation.

By $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ we denote a basis of $`𝔤`$ with dual basis $`e^1,\mathrm{},e^n𝔤^{}`$. Such a basis gives raise to linear coordinates $`x=x^ie_i`$ on $`𝔤`$ and $`\xi =\xi _ie^i`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$. Here and in the following we shall use Einstein’s summation convention. With a capital letter $`X`$ we shall denote the left-invariant vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TG)`$ corresponding to $`x𝔤`$, i.e. $`X_e=x`$. A vector $`x𝔤`$ determines a linear function $`\widehat{x}𝖯𝗈𝗅^1(𝔤^{})`$ by $`\widehat{x}(\xi )=\xi (x)`$. Analogously, $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TG)`$ determines a function $`\widehat{X}𝖯𝗈𝗅^1(T^{}G)`$, linear in the fibers, by setting $`\widehat{X}(\alpha _g)=\alpha _g(X_g)`$, where $`\alpha _gT_g^{}G`$ and $`gG`$. We shall use the same symbol $`\widehat{}`$ for the corresponding graded algebra isomorphism between the symmetric algebra $`^{}𝔤`$ of $`𝔤`$ and all polynomials $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$. Similar we have a graded algebra isomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(^{}TG)`$ and $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(T^{}G)`$. By use of left-invariant vector fields and one-forms, $`TG`$ and $`T^{}G`$ trivialize canonically. This yields $`TGG\times 𝔤`$ and $`T^{}GG\times 𝔤^{}`$. The corresponding projections are denoted by

$$G\stackrel{\pi }{}G\times 𝔤^{}\stackrel{\varrho }{}𝔤^{},$$
(2.1)
whence in particular $`\widehat{X}=\varrho ^{}\widehat{x}`$ for a left-invariant vector field $`X`$. More generally, $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(T^{}G)^G=\varrho ^{}𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})`$. For the symplectic Poisson bracket on $`T^{}G`$ we use the sign convention such that the map $`\widehat{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(TG)𝖯𝗈𝗅^1(T^{}G)`$ becomes an isomorphism of Lie algebras (and not an anti-isomorphism as in ). Then the canonical linear Poisson bracket on $`𝔤^{}`$ can be obtained by the observation that left-invariant functions on $`T^{}G`$ (with respect to the lifted action) are a Poisson sub-algebra which is in linear bijection with $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ via $`\varrho ^{}`$. Thus it is meaningful to require $`\varrho ^{}`$ to be a morphism of Poisson algebras. In the global coordinates $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n`$ the resulting Poisson bracket on $`𝔤^{}`$ reads as

$$\{f,g\}=\xi _kc_{ij}^k\frac{f}{\xi _i}\frac{g}{\xi _j},$$
(2.2)
where $`c_{ij}^k=e^k([e_i,e_j])`$ are the structure constants of $`𝔤`$ and $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$.

The first star-product on $`𝔤^{}`$ is essentially given by the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff series of $`𝔤`$. One uses the total symmetrization map $`\sigma _\nu :𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})[\nu ]𝒰(𝔤)[\nu ]`$ into the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$, defined by

$$\sigma _\nu (\widehat{x_1\mathrm{}x_k})=\frac{\nu ^k}{k!}\underset{\tau S_k}{}x_{\tau (1)}\mathrm{}x_{\tau (k)},$$
(2.3)
where we have built in the formal parameter $`\nu `$ already at this stage. Then

$$\sigma _\nu (f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g)=\sigma _\nu (f)\sigma _\nu (g)$$
(2.4)
yields indeed a deformed product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ for $`f,g𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})[\nu ]`$, which turns out to extend to a differential star-product for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]`$, see  for a detailed discussion. Here we shall just mention a few properties of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$. First, $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is *strongly $`𝔤`$-invariant*, i.e. for $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$ and $`x𝔤`$ we have

$$\widehat{x}_{\mathrm{BCH}}ff_{\mathrm{BCH}}\widehat{x}=\nu \{\widehat{x},f\}.$$
(2.5)
Moreover, $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is *homogeneous*: this means that the operator $`=\nu \frac{}{\nu }+_E`$, where $`E=\xi _i\frac{}{\xi _i}`$ is the *Euler vector field*, is a derivation of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$, i.e.

$$(f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g)=f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g+f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g$$
(2.6)
for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]`$. It follows immediately that $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})[\nu ]`$ is a ‘convergent’ sub-algebra generated by the constant and linear polynomials. The relation to the BCH series can be seen as follows: Consider the exponential functions $`e_x(\xi ):=\mathrm{e}^{\xi (x)}`$. Then for all $`x,y𝔤`$ one has

$$e_x_{\mathrm{BCH}}e_y=e_{\frac{1}{\nu }H(\nu x,\nu y)},$$
(2.7)
where $`H(,)`$ is the BCH series of $`𝔤`$. Since bidifferential operators on $`𝔤^{}`$ are already determined by their values on the exponential functions $`e_x`$, $`x𝔤`$, the star-product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is already determined by (2.7). For a more detailed analysis and proofs of the above statements we refer to .

The other star-product we shall mention is the Kontsevich star-product $`_\mathrm{K}`$ for $`𝔤^{}`$. His general construction of a star product for arbitrary Poisson structures on $`^n`$ simplifies drastically in the case of a linear Poisson structure (2.2). We shall not enter the general construction but refer to  for more details and just mention a few properties of $`_\mathrm{K}`$. First, $`_\mathrm{K}`$ is *$`𝔤`$-covariant*, i.e. one has

$$\widehat{x}_\mathrm{K}\widehat{y}\widehat{y}_\mathrm{K}\widehat{x}=\nu \{\widehat{x},\widehat{y}\}=\nu \widehat{[x,y]}$$
(2.8)
for all $`x,y𝔤`$. This is a weaker compatibility with the (classical) $`𝔤`$-action than (2.5). Moreover, $`_\mathrm{K}`$ is homogeneous, too, but in general $`_\mathrm{K}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ do *not* coincide but are only equivalent, see .

Let us now recall how the star-product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ is related to star-products on $`T^{}G`$. The main idea is to make the Poisson morphism $`\varrho ^{}`$ into an algebra morphism of star-product algebras. This requirement does not determine the star-product on $`T^{}G`$ completely and the remaining freedom (essentially the choice of an ‘ordering prescription’ between functions depending only on $`G`$ and on $`𝔤^{}`$, respectively) can be used to impose further properties. In  a star-product $`_\mathrm{G}`$ of Weyl-type was constructed by inserting additional derivatives in $`G`$-direction into the bidifferential operators of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$. In  a star product $`_\mathrm{S}`$ of standard-ordered type was obtained by a (standard-ordered) Fedosov construction using the lift of the half-commutator connection on $`G`$ to a symplectic connection on $`T^{}G`$. The star-product $`_\mathrm{S}`$ can also be understood as the resulting composition law of symbols from the standard-ordered symbol and differential operator calculus induced by the half-commutator connection. A further ‘Weyl-symmetrization’ yields a star-product $`_\mathrm{W}`$ of Weyl-type which does not coincide in general with the original Fedosov star-product $`_\mathrm{F}`$ built out of the half-commutator connection directly. However, it was shown in \[8, Sect 8\] that $`_\mathrm{W}`$ coincides with $`_\mathrm{G}`$. Moreover, the pull-back $`\varrho ^{}`$ is indeed an algebra morphism for both star-products $`_\mathrm{G}`$ and $`_\mathrm{S}`$, i.e. one has

$$\varrho ^{}f_{\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{S}}\varrho ^{}g=\varrho ^{}(f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g)$$
(2.9)
for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]]`$. All the star products $`_\mathrm{G}`$, $`_\mathrm{S}`$, and $`_\mathrm{F}`$ are homogeneous in the sense of star-products on cotangent bundles whence it follows that they are all strongly closed: integration over $`T^{}G`$ with respect to the Liouville form defines a trace on the functions with compact support, see \[9, Sect. 8\].

## 3 Strong closedness of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ and $`_\mathrm{K}`$

We shall now discuss an elementary proof of the fact that $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ as well as $`_\mathrm{K}`$ are strongly closed with respect to the constant volume form $`d^n\xi `$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ if and only if the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is *unimodular*, i.e. $`𝗍𝗋ad(x)=0`$ for all $`x𝔤`$, or, equivalently, $`c_{ij}^i=0`$. The unimodularity of $`𝔤`$ is easily seen to be necessary since it is exactly the condition that the integration is a *Poisson trace*, see also \[40, Sect. 4\] for the Poisson case and  for a different and more general proof for Kontsevich’s star product on $`^n`$.

Before we discuss the general case let us consider the case where $`G`$ is compact. In this case $`𝔤`$ is known to be in particular unimodular.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`G`$ be compact. Then $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is strongly closed.

Proof: Let $`f,gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$. Since $`G`$ is compact, $`\varrho ^{}f,\varrho ^{}gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}G)`$ and thus the strong closedness of $`_\mathrm{G}`$ and (2.9) implies

$$0=_{T^{}G}\left(\varrho ^{}f_\mathrm{G}\varrho ^{}g\varrho ^{}g_\mathrm{G}\varrho ^{}f\right)\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{vol}\left(G\right)_𝔤^{}\left(f_{\mathrm{BCH}}gg_{\mathrm{BCH}}f\right)d^n\xi ,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the (suitably normalized) Liouville measure on $`T^{}G`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Clearly the above proof relies on the compactness of $`G`$, otherwise the integration would not be defined. As an amusing observation we remark that one can also use the above proposition to obtain the well-known fact that compact Lie groups have unimodular Lie algebras.

For the general unimodular case we use a different argument which is essentially the same as for homogeneous star-products on a cotangent bundle \[9, Sect. 8\]. A differential operator $`D`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ is called homogeneous of degree $`r`$ if $`[_E,D]=rD`$, where $`_E`$ is the Lie derivative with respect to the Euler vector field.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`D`$ be a homogeneous differential operator of degree $`r`$ with $`r1`$. Then for all $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ one has

$$_𝔤^{}Dfd^n\xi =0.$$
(3.1)
From here we can follow  almost literally: If $`f𝖯𝗈𝗅^k(𝔤^{})`$ and $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ then for every homogeneous star product $``$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ one has

$$_𝔤^{}fgd^n\xi =\underset{r=0}{\overset{k}{}}\nu ^r_𝔤^{}C_r(f,g)d^n\xi ,$$
(3.2)
where $`C_r`$ is the $`r`$-th bidifferential operator of $``$. This follows from Lemma 3.2 since $`C_r(f,)`$ is homogeneous of degree $`kr`$. The analogous statement holds for the integral over $`gf`$. From this we conclude the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $``$ be a homogeneous star-product for $`𝔤^{}`$, $`f𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})`$, and $`gC_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$. Then

$$_𝔤^{}(fggf)d^n\xi =0$$
(3.3)
if and only if $`𝔤`$ is unimodular.

Proof: The proof is done by induction on the polynomial degree $`k`$ of $`f`$. For $`k=0`$ the statement (3.3) is true by (3.2). For $`k=1`$ we obtain (3.3) by (3.2) if and only if the integral vanishes on Poisson brackets, i.e. if and only if $`𝔤`$ is unimodular. For $`k2`$ we can write $`f`$ as a $``$-polynomial in at most linear polynomials since these polynomials generate $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})[\nu ]`$ by the homogeneity of $``$. Then we can use the cases $`k=0,1`$ to prove (3.3). $`\mathrm{}`$

Having the trace property for polynomials and compactly supported functions, we only have to use a density argument, i.e. the Stone-Weierstraß theorem, to conclude the trace property in general:

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $``$ be a homogeneous star-product for $`𝔤^{}`$. Then the integration over $`𝔤^{}`$ with respect to the constant volume $`d^n\xi `$ is a trace if and only if $`𝔤`$ is unimodular.

Since $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ as well as $`_\mathrm{K}`$ are homogeneous this theorem proves in an elementary way that they are strongly closed in the sense of .

## 4 Trace properties of $`𝔤`$-invariant functionals

Quite contrary to the symplectic case it turns out that in the Poisson case traces are no longer unique in general.

Before we give an elementary proof in the case of $`𝔤^{}`$ we shall make a few comments on the general situation. As we have seen already before, the trace functionals are typically not defined on the whole algebra but on a certain subspace, as e.g. the functions with compact support. On the other hand, the property of being a trace only becomes interesting if this subspace is not only a sub-algebra but even an ideal. This motivates the following terminology: For an associative algebra $`𝒜`$ we call a functional $`\tau `$ defined on $`𝒥𝒜`$ a *trace on $`𝒥`$* if $`𝒥`$ is a two-sided ideal and for all $`A𝒜`$ and $`B𝒥`$ one has $`\tau ([A,B])=0`$. Similarly we define a *Poisson trace on a Poisson ideal* of a Poisson algebra.

With this notation the traces which are given by integrations are traces on the ideals $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ and $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]`$, respectively. However, there will be some interesting traces with a slightly different domain. If we want to integrate over a sub-manifold $`\iota :NM`$ then the following space becomes important. Here and in the following we shall only consider the case where $`\iota `$ is an embedding. We define

$$C_N^{\mathrm{}}(M):=\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)|\iota (N)suppf\text{ is compact }\}.$$
(4.1)
If $`N`$ is a closed embedded sub-manifold then $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)C_N^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. Moreover, the locality of a star-product ensures that $`C_N^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$ is a two-sided ideal of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)[[\nu ]]`$.

Taking such a subspace as example we consider more generally domains of the form $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ where $`𝒟C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. In this case $`𝒟`$ is necessarily a Poisson ideal which follows immediately from the ideal properties of $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$. Moreover, if $`\tau :𝒟[[\nu ]][[\nu ]]`$ is a trace for a local star-product $``$ on $`M`$ with domain $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ then $`\tau =_{r=0}^{\mathrm{}}\nu ^r\tau _r`$ with linear functionals $`\tau _r:𝒟`$. For the following we shall assume that all $`\tau _r`$ have some reasonable continuity property, e.g. with respect to the locally convex topology of smooth functions. This requirement seems to be reasonable as long as we are dealing with star products having at least continuous cochains in every order of $`\nu `$.

Now let us come back to the case of $`𝔤^{}`$ with the star product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$. As a first observation we remark that the strong $`𝔤`$-invariance of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ implies that for a two-sided ideal $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ the space $`𝒟`$ is $`𝔤`$-invariant. Moreover, we have the following theorem:

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`𝒟C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ be a subspace such that $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ is a two-sided ideal with respect to $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ and let $`\tau =_{r=0}^{\mathrm{}}\nu ^r\tau _r`$ be a $`[[\nu ]]`$-linear functional on $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ with the following continuity property: For a given $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ and $`g𝒟`$ and a sequence $`p_n𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})`$ such that $`p_nf`$ in the locally convex topology of smooth functions we have $`\tau _r([p_n,g]_{_{\mathrm{BCH}}})\tau _r([f,g]_{_{\mathrm{BCH}}})`$ (in each order of $`\nu `$).

Then $`\tau `$ is a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace on $`𝒟[[\nu ]]`$ if and only if $`\tau `$ is a Poisson trace on $`𝒟`$ which is the case if and only if $`\tau `$ is $`𝔤`$-invariant.

Proof: The continuity ensures that $`𝔤`$-invariance coincides with the property of being a Poisson trace. Now let $`\tau _0`$ be a Poisson trace and let $`g𝒟`$. Then for all $`x𝔤`$ we have $`\tau _0([\widehat{x},g])=\nu \tau _0(\{\widehat{x},g\})=0`$ by the strong invariance of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$. But since $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^1(𝔤^{})[\nu ]`$ together with the constants generates $`𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})[\nu ]`$ we have $`\tau _0([p,g])=0`$ for every polynomial $`p`$. Together with the fact that the polynomials are dense in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ and $`\tau _0`$ has the above continuity it follows that $`\tau _0`$ is a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace. Now if $`\tau `$ is a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace then $`\tau _0`$ is a Poisson trace and hence a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace itself. Thus $`\tau \tau _0`$ is still a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace and a simple induction proves the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

The somehow technical continuity property needed above turns out to be rather mild. In the main example it is trivially fulfilled:

###### Example 4.2

1. Let $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ be a not necessarily closed but embedded coadjoint orbit and consider $`𝒟=C_𝒪^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$. Then the integration with respect to the Liouville measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒪`$ on $`𝒪`$,

$$\tau _𝒪(f):=_𝒪\iota ^{}f\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒪,$$
(4.2)
is a $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$-trace on $`C_𝒪^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]`$.
2. If in addition $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a $`𝔤`$-invariant differential operator on $`𝔤^{}`$ then $`\tau _𝒪^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, defined by

$$\tau _𝒪^\mathrm{\Delta }(f):=\tau _𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }f)=_𝒪\iota ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }f)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒪,$$
(4.3)
is still a trace on $`C_𝒪^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\nu ]]`$.

## 5 Positivity of traces

If one replaces the formal parameter $`\nu `$ by a new formal parameter $`\lambda `$ such that $`\nu =\mathrm{i}\lambda `$ and if one treats $`\lambda `$ as a real quantity, i.e. $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda `$, then it is well-known that the complex conjugation of functions in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$ becomes a -involution for $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$. One has

$$\overline{f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g}=\overline{g}_{\mathrm{BCH}}\overline{f}$$
(5.1)
for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)[[\lambda ]]`$. Such a star product is also called a Hermitian star-product, see e.g.  for a detailed discussion. Thus one enters the realm of -algebras over ordered rings, see . In particular one can ask whether the traces for $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ are *positive* linear functionals, i.e. satisfy $`\tau (\overline{f}_{\mathrm{BCH}}f)0`$ in the sense of formal power series, if the corresponding classical functional $`\tau _0`$ comes from a positive Borel measure on $`𝔤`$. In general a classically positive linear functional is no longer positive for a deformed product, see e.g. \[11, Sect. 2\] for a simple example and . But sometimes one can *deform* the functional as well in order to make it positive again: in the case of star-products on symplectic manifolds this is always possible \[13, Prop. 5.1\]. Such deformations are called *positive deformations*. In our case we are faced with the question whether we can deform the traces $`\tau _𝒪`$ such that on one hand they are still traces and on the other hand they are positive.

One strategy could be the following: First prove that the trace can be deformed into a positive functional perhaps loosing the trace property. Secondly average over the group in order to obtain a $`𝔤`$-invariant functional and hence a trace. This would require to have a compact group. However, we shall follow another idea giving some additional insight in the problem. Nevertheless we shall first ask the following question as a general problem in deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds:

###### Question 5.1

Is every Hermitian star-product on a Poisson manifold a positive deformation?

We shall now consider the following more particular case. We assume the group $`G`$ to be compact and $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ to be a regular coadjoint orbit. Then we want to find a positive trace for $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ with zeroth order given by $`\tau _𝒪`$ as in (4.2). The construction is based on the following theorem which is of independent interest:

###### Theorem 5.2

Let $`G`$ be compact and let $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ be a regular coadjoint orbit. Then there exists a star-product $`_𝒪`$ on the symplectic manifold $`𝒪`$ and a series of $`𝔤`$-invariant differential operators $`S=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}+_{r=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^rS_r`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$ such that the deformed restriction map

$$𝜾^{\mathbf{}}=\iota ^{}S:C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]$$
(5.2)
becomes a real surjective homomorphism of star-products, i.e.

$$𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f_𝒪𝜾^{\mathbf{}}g=𝜾^{\mathbf{}}(f_{\mathrm{BCH}}g)\text{and}\overline{(𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f)}=𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\overline{f}$$
(5.3)
for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$. Hence $`_𝒪`$ becomes a Hermitian deformation.

One can view this theorem as a certain ‘deformed tangentiality property’ of the star product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$: Though $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is not tangential, i.e. restricts to all orbits, for a particular orbit it can be arranged such that it restricts by deforming the restriction map, see  for a more detailed discussion.

From this theorem and \[11, Lem. 2\] we immediately obtain a positive trace deforming $`\tau _𝒪`$:

###### Corollary 5.3

Let $`G`$ be compact and $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ a regular orbit with deformed restriction map $`𝛊^{\mathbf{}}`$ as in (5.2). Then the functional

$$𝝉_𝒪(f):=_𝒪𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒪$$
(5.4)
is a positive trace with classical limit $`\tau _𝒪`$. In particular, $`_𝒪`$ is strongly closed.

Thus it remains to prove Theorem 5.2. We shall use here arguments from phase space reduction of star-products via the BRST formalism as discussed in detail in . In order to make this article self-contained we shall recall the basic steps of  adapted to the case of Poisson manifolds.

Proof of Theorem 5.2 Since $`𝒪`$ is assumed to be a regular orbit there are real-valued *Casimir polynomials* $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_k𝖯𝗈𝗅^{}(𝔤^{})`$ such that $`𝒪`$ can be written as level surface $`𝒪=J^1(\{0\})`$ for the map $`J=(J_1,\mathrm{},J_k):𝔤^{}^k`$, where $`0`$ is a regular value. Since the components of $`J`$ commute with respect to the Poisson bracket this can be viewed as a moment map $`J:𝔤^{}𝔱^{}`$ where $`𝔱^{}`$ is the dual of the $`k`$-dimensional Abelian Lie algebra. Moreover, the $`J`$’s are in the Poisson center whence the corresponding torus action is trivial.

Since the differential operators $`S_r`$ will only be needed near $`𝒪`$ it will be sufficient to construct them in a tubular neighbourhood around $`𝒪`$. In fact, a globalization beyond is also easily obtained, see \[7, Lem. 6\]. As $`0`$ is a regular value of $`J`$ we can use $`J`$ for the transversal coordinates and find a $`G`$-invariant tubular neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`𝒪`$. On $`U`$ we can define the following maps: First we need a prolongation map $`\mathrm{prol}:C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)C^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ given by

$$\left(\mathrm{prol}\varphi \right)(o,\mu )=\varphi \left(o\right),$$
(5.5)
where $`o𝒪`$ and $`\mu 𝔱^{}`$ is the transversal coordinate in $`U`$. Next we consider $`^{}(𝔱)C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ and define the *Koszul coboundary operator* $``$ by the (left-)insertion of $`J`$, i.e. $`(tf)=_li(e^l)tJ_lf`$, where $`J=_le^lJ_l`$. Clearly $``$ is $`G`$-invariant with respect to the $`G`$ action $`g^{}(tf)=tg^{}f`$ and $`^2=0`$. We shall denote the homogeneous components of $``$ by $`_l:^l(𝔱)C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})^{l1}(𝔱)C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})`$ for $`l1`$. In the case $`l=0`$ we set $`_0=\iota ^{}`$ and clearly $`\iota ^{}_1=0`$. Finally, we define the chain homotopy $`h`$ on $`^{}(𝔱)C^{\mathrm{}}(U)`$ by

$$h\left(tf\right)(o,\mu )=\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}e_lt_0^1\frac{f}{\mu _l}(o,s\mu )s^k𝑑s,$$
(5.6)
an denote the corresponding homogeneous components by $`h_l`$. For convenience we set $`h_1=\mathrm{prol}`$. Then $`h`$ is obviously $`G`$-invariant and it is indeed a chain homotopy for $``$, i.e. for all $`l=0,\mathrm{},k`$ we have

$$h_{l1}_l+_{l+1}h_l=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}_{^l\left(𝔱\right)C^{\mathrm{}}\left(U\right)}.$$
(5.7)
Moreover, one has the obvious identities

$$\iota ^{}\mathrm{prol}=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}_{C^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝒪\right)},\text{and}h_0\mathrm{prol}=0.$$
(5.8)
In a next step we quantize the above chain complex and it’s homotopy. The first easy observation is that the star-product $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ is strongly $`𝔱`$-invariant, i.e. the components of $`J`$ are in the center of $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$, too. Thus we can define a deformed Koszul operator $`\mathbf{}`$ on the space $`\left(^{}(𝔱)C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})\right)[[\lambda ]]`$ by

$$\mathbf{}\left(tf\right)=\underset{l}{}i\left(e^l\right)tf_{\mathrm{BCH}}J_l.$$
(5.9)
Then we still have $`\mathbf{}^2=0`$ as well as $`\overline{\mathbf{}(tf)}=\mathbf{}\overline{(tf)}`$ since the $`J_l`$ commute and are real. Moreover, $`\mathbf{}`$ is still $`G`$-invariant. In a next step one constructs the deformations of $`h`$ and $`\iota ^{}`$ as follows. We define $`𝒉_1=\mathrm{prol}`$ without deformation and set

$$\mathbf{}_0:=𝜾^{\mathbf{}}:=\iota ^{}\left(\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\left(_1\mathbf{}_1\right)h_0\right)^1\text{and}𝒉_l:=h_l\left(h_{l1}\mathbf{}_l+\mathbf{}_{l+1}h_l\right)^1.$$
(5.10)
Clearly the used inverse operators exist as formal power series thanks to (5.7). The proof of the following lemma is completely analogously to the proofs of \[7, Prop. 25 and 26\]. The $`G`$-invariance is obvious.

###### Lemma 5.4

The operators $`𝛊^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐡`$ are $`G`$-invariant and fulfill the relations

$$𝒉_{l1}\mathbf{}_l+\mathbf{}_{l+1}𝒉_l=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}_{^l\left(𝔱\right)C^{\mathrm{}}\left(U\right)\left[\left[\lambda \right]\right]}$$
(5.11)
as well as

$$𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}_1=0\text{and}𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{prol}=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}_{C^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝒪\right)\left[\left[\lambda \right]\right]}.$$
(5.12)
Having the deformed restriction map and the chain homotopy it is quite easy to characterize the ideal generated by the ‘constraints’ $`J`$:

###### Lemma 5.5

Let $`𝓘(J)`$ be the (automatically two-sided) ideal generated by $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_k`$. Then the map $`𝛊^{\mathbf{}}:C^{\mathrm{}}(U)[[\lambda ]]C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ is surjective and

$$\mathrm{ker}𝜾^{\mathbf{}}=im\mathbf{}_1=𝓘\left(J\right).$$
(5.13)
Thus we can simply *define* $`_𝒪`$ by (5.3) which gives a well-defined star-product on the quotient. It is an easy computation that the first order commutator of $`_𝒪`$ gives indeed the desired Poisson bracket. Moreover, since the $`J`$’s are real the ideal generated by them is automatically a -ideal. Since $`h_0`$ as well as $``$ and $`\mathbf{}`$ are real operators, it follows that $`𝜾^{\mathbf{}}`$ is real, too.

It remains to show that $`𝜾^{\mathbf{}}`$ can be written by use of a series of differential operators $`S_r`$. This is not completely obvious as we used the non-local homotopy $`h_0`$ in order to define $`𝜾^{\mathbf{}}`$. However, one can show the existence of the $`S_r`$ in the same manner as in \[7, Lem. 27\]. Note that this is not even necessary for Corollary 5.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that in the above construction one does not need the ‘full’ machinery of the BRST reduction but only the *Koszul part*. The reason is that in this case the coadjoint orbit plays the role of the ‘constraint surface’ *and* the reduced phase space at once.

###### Remark 5.6

It seems that the above statement is not the most general one can obtain: There are certainly more general orbits and also non-compact groups where one can find such deformed restriction maps. We leave this as an open question for future projects.

## 6 GNS representation of the positive traces

Throughout this section we shall assume that $`G`$ is compact and $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ is a regular orbit. Then we shall investigate the GNS representation of the positive trace $`𝝉_𝓞`$ as constructed in the last section.

Let us briefly recall the basic steps of the GNS construction, see . Having a -algebra $`𝒜`$ over $`[[\lambda ]]`$ with a positive linear functional $`\omega :𝒜[[\lambda ]]`$ one finds that $`𝒥_\omega =\{A𝒜|\omega (A^{}A)=0\}`$ is a left ideal of $`𝒜`$, the so-called Gel’fand ideal of $`\omega `$. Then $`_\omega :=𝒜/𝒥_\omega `$ becomes a pre-Hilbert space over $`[[\lambda ]]`$ via $`\psi _A,\psi _B_\omega :=\omega (A^{}B)`$, where $`\psi _A_\omega `$ denotes the equivalence class of $`A`$. Finally, the left representation $`\pi _\omega (A)\psi _B=\psi _{AB}`$ of $`𝒜`$ on $`_\omega `$ turns out to be a -representation, i.e. one has $`\psi _B,\pi _\omega (A)\psi _C_\omega =\pi _\omega (A)\psi _B,\psi _C_\omega `$.

According to Theorem 5.2 we have in our case a surjective -homomorphism

$$𝜾^{\mathbf{}}:C^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]$$
(6.1)
and a positive linear functional $`𝝉_𝓞`$ which is the pull back of a positive linear functional on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ under $`𝜾^{\mathbf{}}`$, namely the trace $`𝗍𝗋_𝒪`$ on $`𝒪`$. Thus we can use the functoriality properties of the GNS construction, see \[9, Prop. 5.1 and Cor. 5.2\] in order to relate the GNS construction for $`𝝉_𝓞`$ with the one for $`𝗍𝗋_𝒪`$, which is well-known, see \[38, Sect. 5\] and \[10, Lem. 4.3\]. Since $`𝗍𝗋_𝒪`$ is a faithful functional the GNS representation of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ with respect to $`𝗍𝗋_𝒪`$ is simply given by left multiplication $`𝖫`$ with respect to $`_𝒪`$, where $`_{𝗍𝗋_𝒪}=C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$. Thus we arrive at the following theorem which can also be checked directly:

###### Theorem 6.1

Let $`G`$ be compact, $`\iota :𝒪𝔤^{}`$ a regular orbit, and $`𝛕_𝓞=𝗍𝗋_𝒪𝛊^{\mathbf{}}`$ the positive trace as in (5.4).

1. $`supp𝝉_𝓞=\iota (𝒪)`$.
2. The Gel’fand ideal $`𝒥_{𝝉_𝓞}`$ of $`𝝉_𝓞`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{ker}𝜾^{\mathbf{}}`$.
3. The GNS pre-Hilbert space $`_{𝝉_𝓞}`$ is unitarily isomorphic to $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ endowed with the inner product $`\varphi ,\chi _𝒪:=𝗍𝗋_𝒪(\overline{\varphi }_𝒪\chi )`$ via

$$U:_{𝝉_𝓞}\psi _f𝜾^{\mathbf{}}fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]$$
(6.2)
with inverse $`U^1:\varphi \psi _{\mathrm{prol}\varphi }`$.
4. For the GNS representation $`\pi _{𝝉_𝓞}`$ one obtains

$$\pi _𝒪(f)\varphi :=U\pi _{𝝉_𝓞}(f)U^1\varphi =𝜾^{\mathbf{}}(f_{\mathrm{BCH}}\mathrm{prol}\varphi )=𝖫_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f}\varphi .$$
(6.3)

Since the group $`G`$ acts on $`𝒪`$ and since all relevant maps are $`G`$-invariant/equivariant we arrive at the following $`G`$-invariance of the representation. This can be checked either directly or follows again from \[9, Prop. 5.1 and Cor. 5.2\].

###### Lemma 6.2

The GNS representation $`\pi _𝒪`$ is $`G`$-equivariant in the sense that

$$\pi _𝒪(g^{}f)g^{}\varphi =g^{}(\pi _𝒪(f)\varphi )$$
(6.4)
for all $`\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$, $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$ and $`gG`$. Moreover, the $`G`$-representation on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ is unitary.

Let us finally mention a few properties of the commutant of $`\pi _𝒪`$ and the ‘baby-version’ of the Tomita-Takesaki theory arising from this representation. The following statements follow almost directly form the considerations in \[38, Sect. 7\]. We consider the anti-linear map

$$J:\varphi \overline{\varphi },$$
(6.5)
where $`\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$, which is clearly anti-unitary with respect to the inner product $`,_𝒪`$ and involutive. This map plays the role of the *modular conjugation*. The *modular operator* $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is just the identity map since in our case the linear functional is a trace, i.e. a *KMS functional* for inverse temperature $`\beta =0`$. Then we can characterize the commutant of the representation $`\pi _𝒪`$ as follows:

###### Proposition 6.3

For $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$ we denote by $`𝖱_{𝛊^{\mathbf{}}f}`$ the right multiplication with $`𝛊^{\mathbf{}}f`$ with respect to the star-product $`_𝒪`$. Then the map

$$\pi _𝒪(f)=𝖫_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f}J𝖫_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}f}J=𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\overline{f}}$$
(6.6)
is an anti-linear bijection onto the commutant $`\pi _𝒪^{}`$ of $`\pi _𝒪`$.

Note that in this particularly simple case the modular one-parameter group $`U_t`$ is just the identity $`U_t=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}_{C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]}`$, since we have a trace. More generally, one could also consider KMS functionals of the form $`f𝝉_𝓞(\mathrm{Exp}(\beta H)_{\mathrm{BCH}}f)`$ where $`HC^{\mathrm{}}(𝔤^{})[[\lambda ]]`$ and $`\mathrm{Exp}`$ denotes the star exponential with respect to $`_{\mathrm{BCH}}`$ and $`\beta `$ is the ‘inverse temperature’.

From the above proposition we immediately have the following result on the relation between the $`𝔤`$-representations on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒪)[[\lambda ]]`$ arising from the GNS construction.

###### Lemma 6.4

For $`x,y𝔤`$ we have

$`\pi _𝒪(\widehat{x})\pi _𝒪(\widehat{y})\pi _𝒪(\widehat{y})\pi _𝒪(\widehat{x})`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\lambda \pi _𝒪(\widehat{[x,y]})`$ (6.7)
$`𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{x}}𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{y}}𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{y}}𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{x}}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\lambda 𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{[x,y]}}`$ (6.8)
and

$$\pi _𝒪(\widehat{x})𝖱_{𝜾^{\mathbf{}}\widehat{x}}=\mathrm{i}\lambda _{x_𝒪},$$
(6.9)
where $`_{x_𝒪}`$ denotes the Lie derivative in direction of the fundamental vector field of $`x`$.

## 7 Traces for deformations via group actions

Let us now describe a quite general mechanism for constructing deformations and traces via group actions. We first consider the algebraic part of the construction. Let $`G`$ be a group and denote the right translations by $`𝖱_g:hhg`$, where $`g,hG`$. The left translations are denoted by $`𝖫_g`$, respectively. Moreover, let $`𝒜_G\mathrm{Fun}(G)`$ be a sub-algebra of the complex-valued functions on $`G`$, closed under complex conjugation. We require $`𝖱_g^{}𝒜_G𝒜_G`$ for all $`gG`$. Then an associative formal deformation $`(𝒜_G[[\lambda ]],_G)`$ of $`𝒜_G`$ is called *(right) universal deformation* if it is right-invariant, i.e.

$$𝖱_g^{}(f_1_Gf_2)=𝖱_g^{}f_1_G𝖱_g^{}f_2$$
(7.1)
for all $`gG`$ and $`f_1,f_2𝒜_G[[\lambda ]]`$. Thus the right translations act as automorphisms of $`_G`$. In the sequel we shall always assume that $`1𝒜_G`$ and $`1_Gf=f=f_G1`$.

###### Remark 7.1

If $`G`$ is a Lie group and $`𝒜_G`$ are all smooth functions on $`G`$ then the existence of a right-invariant deformation gives quite strong conditions on $`G`$. However, in typical examples one may only deform a smaller class of functions. For instance the data of a $`G`$-invariant star product on a homogeneous symplectic space $`G\stackrel{\pi }{}H\backslash G`$ determines a right deformation of $`𝒜_G:=\pi ^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(H\backslash G)`$. In the extreme case where $`H=\{e\}`$, the pair $`(𝒜_G,_G)`$ becomes a star product algebra $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(G)[[\lambda ]],_\lambda )`$. The Poisson structure on $`G`$ associated to the first order term of $`_\lambda `$ is then right-invariant. Its characteristic distribution (generated by Hamiltonian vector fields)—being integrable and right-invariant— determines a Lie subalgebra $`𝒮`$ of $`𝔤=\text{Lie}(G)`$ endowed with a non-degenerate Chevalley 2-cocycle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to the trivial representation of $`𝒮`$ on $``$. This type of Lie algebras $`(𝒮,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (or rather their associated Lie groups) has been studied by Lichnerowicz et al.. When unimodular such a Lie algebra is solvable .

Now consider a set $`X`$ with a left action $`\tau :G\times XX`$ of $`G`$. For abbreviation we shall sometimes write $`g.x`$ instead of $`\tau (g,x)`$. We shall use the universal deformation $`_G`$ in order to induce a deformation of a certain sub-algebra of $`\mathrm{Fun}(X)`$. First we define $`\alpha ^x:\mathrm{Fun}(X)\mathrm{Fun}(G)`$ by

$$(\alpha ^xf)(g)=(\tau _g^{}f)(x)$$
(7.2)
for $`xX`$ and $`gG`$. Having specified $`𝒜_G`$ we define the space

$$𝒜_X=\{f\mathrm{Fun}(X)|\alpha ^xf𝒜_G\text{for all}xX\},$$
(7.3)
which is clearly a sub-algebra of $`\mathrm{Fun}(X)`$ stable under complex conjugation. Let us remark that $`𝒜_X`$ contains at least those functions on $`X`$ which are constant along the orbits of $`\tau `$. Indeed, let $`f\mathrm{Fun}(X)`$ satisfy $`f(g.x)=f(x)`$ for all $`xX`$ and $`gG`$. Then $`(\alpha ^xf)(g)=f(g.x)=f(x)`$ is constant (not depending on $`g`$).

The deformation $`_G`$ induces canonically an associative deformation $`_X`$ of $`𝒜_X`$, thereby justifying the name ‘universal deformation’. Indeed, define

$$(f_1_Xf_2)(x)=(\alpha ^xf_1_G\alpha ^xf_2)(e),$$
(7.4)
where $`eG`$ denotes the unit element. Then we have the following proposition:

###### Proposition 7.2

Let $`(𝒜_G[[\lambda ]],_G)`$ be a universal deformation and $`(𝒜_X[[\lambda ]],_X)`$ as above.

1. Then $`(𝒜_X[[\lambda ]],_X)`$ is an associative formal deformation of $`𝒜_X`$ which is Hermitian if $`_G`$ is Hermitian. Moreover, $`\alpha ^x:(𝒜_X[[\lambda ]],_X)(𝒜_G[[\lambda ]],_G)`$ is a homomorphism of associative algebras.
2. If $`f_1`$ is constant on some orbit $`G.x_0`$ then

$$(f_1_Xf_2)(g.x_0)=f_1(g.x_0)f_2(g.x_0)=(f_2_Xf_1)(g.x_0)$$
(7.5)
for all functions $`f_2𝒜_X[[\lambda ]]`$. In particular, the $`_X`$-product with a function, which is constant along all orbits, is the undeformed product. Thus $`_X`$ is ‘tangential’ to the orbits in a very strong sense.

Proof: Let us first recall a few basic properties of $`\alpha ^x`$, $`\tau `$, $`𝖱`$, and $`𝖫`$. The following relations are straightforward computations:

$$𝖱_g^{}\alpha ^x=\alpha ^{g.x}\text{and}𝖫_g^{}\alpha ^x=\alpha ^x\tau _g^{}.$$
(7.6)
Using the right invariance of $`_G`$ and the above rules we find the following relation

$$\alpha ^x\left(f_1_Xf_2\right)=\alpha ^xf_1_G\alpha ^xf_2$$
(7.7)
for $`f_1,f_2𝒜_X[[\lambda ]]`$. This implies on one hand that $`𝒜_X[[\lambda ]]`$ is indeed closed under the multiplication law $`_X`$. On the other hand it follows that $`\alpha ^x`$ is a homomorphism. With (7.7) the associativity of $`_X`$ is a straightforward computation. Finally, if $`_G`$ is Hermitian then $`_X`$ is Hermitian, too, since all involved maps are real, i.e. commute with complex conjugation. For the second part one computes

$$\left(f_1_Xf_2\right)(g.x_0)=\left(\alpha ^{x_0}f_1_G\alpha ^{x_0}f_2\right)\left(g\right).$$
(7.8)
Now $`\alpha ^{x_0}f_1`$ is constant whence the $`_G`$-product is the pointwise product. Thus the claim easily follows. If this holds even for all orbits and not just for $`G.x_0`$ then the $`_X`$-product with $`f_1`$ is the pointwise product globally. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7.3

From (7.5) we conclude that, heuristically speaking, the deformation $`_X`$ becomes more non-trivial the larger the orbits of $`\tau `$ are.

###### Remark 7.4

Given a right universal deformation $`(𝒜_G,_R)`$, one gets a left universal deformation $`(𝒜_G,_L)`$ via the formula

$$a_Lb=\iota ^{}(\iota ^{}a_R\iota ^{}b)$$
(7.9)
provided $`𝒜_G`$ is a bi-invariant subspace. Here $`\iota :GG`$ denotes the inversion map $`gg^1`$. Starting with a left invariant deformation $`(𝒜_G,_G)`$ of $`G`$ and an action $`\tau :G\times XX`$, the associated deformation of $`𝒜_X`$ is then defined by the formula

$$(f_1f_2)(x)=(\iota ^{}\alpha ^xf_1_G\iota ^{}\alpha ^xf_2)(e).$$
(7.10)
In some interesting cases, in particular in the Abelian case, the universal deformation $`_G`$ is also *left invariant*, i.e. the left translations $`𝖫_g^{}`$ acts as automorphisms of $`_G`$, too. In this situation the induced deformation $`_X`$ is invariant under $`\tau _g^{}`$:

###### Lemma 7.5

Let $`𝒜_G`$ be in addition left invariant and let $`_G`$ be a bi-invariant universal deformation. Then $`𝒜_X`$ is invariant under $`\tau _g^{}`$ for all $`gG`$ and

$$\tau _g^{}(f_1_Xf_2)=\tau _g^{}f_1_X\tau _g^{}f_2.$$
(7.11)
Proof: This is a straightforward computation using only the definitions and (7.6). $`\mathrm{}`$

Our main interest in the universal deformations comes from the following simple observation:

###### Theorem 7.6

Let $`(𝒜_G[[\lambda ]],_G)`$ be a right universal deformation and let $`𝗍𝗋_G:𝒜_G[[\lambda ]][[\lambda ]]`$ be a trace with respect to $`_G`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{Fun}(X)[[\lambda ]][[\lambda ]]`$ be an arbitrary $`[[\lambda ]]`$-linear functional. Then $`𝗍𝗋_\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒜_X[[\lambda ]][[\lambda ]]`$ defined by

$$𝗍𝗋_\mathrm{\Phi }(f)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x𝗍𝗋_G(\alpha ^xf))$$
(7.12)
is a trace with respect to $`_X`$.

Proof: This follows directly from the homomorphism property of $`\alpha ^x`$ and the trace property of $`𝗍𝗋_G`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In particular the trace $`𝗍𝗋_G`$ combined with the evaluation functionals at some point $`xX`$

$$𝗍𝗋_x:f𝗍𝗋_G(\alpha ^xf)$$
(7.13)
yields a trace for $`_X`$. Thus the only difficult task is to find traces for $`_G`$.

As a last remark we shall discuss the positivity of the traces $`𝗍𝗋_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We assume that $`𝗍𝗋_G`$ is a positive trace whence $`𝗍𝗋_G(\overline{f}_Gf)0`$ in the sense of formal power series for all $`f𝒜_G[[\lambda ]]`$.

###### Lemma 7.7

Assume $`𝗍𝗋_G`$ is a positive trace and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes non-negative values on non-negative valued functions on $`X`$. Then $`𝗍𝗋_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive. In particular $`𝗍𝗋_x`$ is always positive.

###### Remark 7.8

The above construction has the big advantage that it can be transfered to the framework of topological deformations instead of formal deformations. This has indeed been done by Rieffel  in a $`C^{}`$-algebraic framework for actions of $`^d`$. For a class of non-abelian groups this has been done in .

Let us finally mention two examples. The first one is the well-known example of the Weyl-Moyal product for $`^{2n}`$ and the second is obtained as the asymptotic version of  for rank one Iwasawa subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(1,n)`$.

###### Example 7.9

Let $`_\mathrm{W}`$ be the Weyl-Moyal star product on $`^{2n}`$, explicitly given by

$$f_{\mathrm{Weyl}}g=\mu \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\lambda }{2\mathrm{i}}_k(_{q^k}_{p_k}_{p_k}_{q^k})}fg,$$
(7.14)
where $`\mu (fg)=fg`$ is the pointwise product and $`q^1\mathrm{},p_n`$ are the canonical Darboux coordinates on $`^{2n}`$. Clearly $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$ is invariant under translations whence it is a bi-invariant universal deformation of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(^{2n})[[\lambda ]]`$. Moreover, it is well-known that $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$ is strongly closed, whence the integration with respect to the Liouville measure provides a trace, which is positive. Thus one can apply the above general results to this situation.

###### Example 7.10

This example is the asymptotic version of . The groups we consider are Iwasawa subgroups $`G=AN`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(1,n)`$, where $`\mathrm{SU}(1,n)=ANK`$ is an Iwasawa decomposition. One has the obvious $`G`$-equivariant diffeomorphism $`G\mathrm{SU}(1,n)/K`$ (here $`K=\mathrm{U}(n)`$). The group $`G`$ therefore inherits a left-invariant symplectic (Kähler) structure coming from the one on the rank one Hermitian symmetric space $`\mathrm{SU}(1,n)/\mathrm{U}(n)`$. The symplectic group may then be described as follows. As a manifold, one has

$$G=\times ^{2n}\times .$$
(7.15)
In these coordinates the group multiplication law reads

$$𝖫_{(a,x,z)}(a^{},x^{},z^{})=(a+a^{},\mathrm{e}^a^{}x+x^{},\mathrm{e}^{2a^{}}z+z^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(x,x^{})\mathrm{e}^a^{}),$$
(7.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a constant symplectic structure on the vector space $`^{2n}`$. The 2-form

$$\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }+dadz$$
(7.17)
then defines a left-invariant symplectic structure on $`G`$. The universal deformation $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ we are looking for is a star product for this symplectic structure. Since on $`^{2n+2}`$ all symplectic star products are equivalent, it will be sufficient to describe $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ be means of an equivalence transformation $`T=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}+_{r=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^rT_r`$ relating $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$. In  an explicit integral formula for $`T`$ has been given, which is defined on the Schwartz space $`𝒮(^{2n+2})`$. It allows for an asymptotic expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$ and gives indeed the desired equivalence transformation $`T`$. Then $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ defined by

$$f_{\mathrm{BM}}g=T^1(Tf_{\mathrm{Weyl}}Tg)$$
(7.18)
is a left-invariant universal deformation of $`G`$ and again we can use this to apply the above results on universal deformations. Moreover, since $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$ is strongly closed, the functional

$$𝗍𝗋^G(f):=_GT(f)\omega ^{n+1}$$
(7.19)
defines a trace functional for $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ on $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(G)[[\lambda ]]`$. This is again positive since that $`T`$ is real i.e. $`\overline{Tf}=T\overline{f}`$.

In what follows we give a precise description of the star product $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ in the two dimensional case i.e. on the group $`ax+b`$. The higher dimensional case is similar but more intricate. The non-formal deformed product in the $`ax+b`$ case is obtained by transforming Weyl’s product on $`(^2,dad\mathrm{})`$ under the equivalence

$$T=F^1\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^{}F$$
(7.20)
where

$$Fu(a,\alpha )=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\alpha \mathrm{}}u(a,\mathrm{})𝑑\mathrm{}\text{with}u𝒮(^2)$$
(7.21)
is the partial Fourier transform in the second variable and where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}:^2^2`$ is the one-parameter family of diffeomorphisms given by

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(a,\alpha )=(a,\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \mathrm{}))(\mathrm{}).$$
(7.22)
One has

$`Tu(a,\mathrm{})=c{\displaystyle \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\alpha \mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \mathrm{})q}u(a,q)𝑑q𝑑\alpha }=c{\displaystyle \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\alpha (\mathrm{}q)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi _{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )q}u(a,q)𝑑q𝑑\alpha }`$ (7.23)
with

$$\psi _{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )=\underset{k1}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^{2k}\alpha ^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)!}.$$
(7.24)
Setting $`p=\mathrm{}\alpha `$, one gets

$$Tu(a,\mathrm{})=\frac{c}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p(\mathrm{}q)}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}\psi _1(p)q}u(a,q)𝑑q𝑑p$$
(7.25)
which precisely coincides with

$$\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}Op_{\mathrm{},1}(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}\psi _1(p)q}))u(a,\mathrm{})$$
(7.26)
where $`Op_{\mathrm{},1}f(p,q)`$ denotes the anti-normally ordered quantization of the function $`f(q,p)`$. Recall that the $`\kappa `$-ordered pseudodifferential quantization rule on $`(^2,dqdp)`$ is defined (at the level of test functions) by $`Op_{\mathrm{},\kappa }:𝒟(^2)𝖤𝗇𝖽(L^2())`$ with

$$Op_{\mathrm{},\kappa }(f)\phi (q)=\frac{c}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}p(q\xi )}f(\kappa \xi +(1\kappa )q,p)\phi (\xi )𝑑\xi 𝑑p(\kappa [0,1]).$$
(7.27)
The explicit asymptotic expansion formula for $`Op_{\mathrm{},\kappa }(f)`$ is well known, see e.g. \[36, Sect. 1.2, p. 231 and Eq. (58), p. 258\]. It yields an expression for the equivalence $`T`$ at the formal level which we write, with natural delicacy, as

$$T=\mathrm{𝗂𝖽}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\psi _1(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{i}}_{\mathrm{}}).\mathrm{}),$$
(7.28)
where the operator $`T_{(\mathrm{})}:=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\lambda }\psi _1(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{i}}_{\mathrm{}}).\mathrm{})`$ is to be understood as anti-normally ordered ($`\kappa =1`$). Observe the reality of the equivalence, which may be directly checked using the fact that the function $`\psi _1`$ is odd. Moreover, for every right-invariant vector field $`X`$ on $`G=ax+b`$, one checks  that $`TXT^1`$ is an inner derivation of the Moyal-Weyl product $`_{\mathrm{Weyl}}`$. In other words, the star product $`_{\mathrm{BM}}`$ is left-invariant on G.


format: text

text:
# Casimir energy of dielectric systems

## 1 Introduction

This paper is devoted to study of Casimir effect  in dielectrics at zero temperature in the framework of quantum field theory. The presentation of the subject is based on the results and proofs derived by the author.

The paper is organized as follows. In section $`2`$ a new formula for the Casimir energy of a dispersive dilute dielectric ball  is discussed. In section $`3`$ a path-integral method is used to justify the formalism that was originally developed by Lifshitz in the framework of statistical physics . This method was applied in Ref.  to derive for the first time a formula for the Casimir energy of a polarizable particle situated in a perfectly conducting wedge-shaped cavity. These examples illustrate two different regimes: a dilute connected dielectric with pairwise dipole-dipole interaction between atoms, and the system of two disjoint dielectrics, one of which is not a dilute one, where many-body effects of non-pairwise interaction are important.

We put $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ and use rationalized Gaussian units where the polarizability of atoms $`\alpha (i\omega )`$ is defined via $`\epsilon (i\omega )1=4\pi \rho \alpha (i\omega )`$, $`\rho `$ is a number density of atoms, $`\omega _0`$ is a characteristic absorption frequency of materials, $`\lambda `$ is an average minimum distance between atoms of a dielectric, Casimir–Polder potential is defined by $`23\alpha _1(0)\alpha _2(0)/4\pi r^7`$.

## 2 Casimir energy of a dispersive dilute dielectric ball

We study a dielectric nonmagnetic ball of the radius $`a`$ and permittivity $`\epsilon `$, surrounded by a vacuum. The ball is dilute, i.e. all final expressions are obtained under the assumption $`\epsilon 11`$ in the order $`(\epsilon (i\omega )1)^2`$, the lowest order that yields the energy of interaction between atoms of the ball.

The study of the Casimir energy of a nonmagnetic dielectric ball remains one of the main problems in the theory of Casimir effect. Cut-off dependent terms arised in every macroscopic approach to the problem, so it was possible to extract correctly only the large distance contribution to the energy of a dilute dielectric ball by use of macroscopic methods (see Refs. ,  and Appendix in Ref.). The regularization of ill-defined expressions remains the main problem of various macroscopic approaches to connected dielectrics. Usually the Casimir energy of a disjoint macroscopic system (two dispersive dielectric parallel plates is a classic example by Lifshitz) depends only on the distance between macroscopic bodies and dispersion of dielectrics . On the other hand, it was argued in Refs. ,  and  that for a dilute connected dielectric the Casimir energy is equal to the energy of dipole-dipole pairwise interactions of all atoms constituting the dielectric and thus should also depend on an average minimum distance between atoms of a dielectric $`\lambda `$. For a dilute dispersive dielectric ball with an arbitrary frequency dependent dielectric permittivity the Casimir energy was first derived in Ref. :

$`E=\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{48}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \alpha ^2(i\omega )`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{a^3}{\lambda ^3}}e^{2\omega \lambda }(128+256\omega \lambda +128\omega ^2\lambda ^2+64\omega ^3\lambda ^3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\lambda ^2}}(e^{2\omega \lambda }(144+288\omega \lambda +120\omega ^2\lambda ^2+48\omega ^3\lambda ^3)`$
$`96\omega ^2\lambda ^2E_1(2\omega \lambda ))`$
$`+(e^{2\omega \lambda }(41+34\omega \lambda +14\omega ^2\lambda ^2+4\omega ^3\lambda ^3)`$ (1)
$`+24E_1(2\omega \lambda ))+`$
$`(e^{4\omega a}(21+12\omega a)E_1(4\omega a)(24+96\omega ^2a^2))).`$
Here $`E_1(x)=_1^+\mathrm{}e^{tx}/t𝑑t`$.

This energy is finite and physical only when a finite separation between atoms $`\lambda `$ is taken into account. In the hypothetical non-physical limit $`\lambda 0`$ the leading term in (1) ($`V`$ is a ball volume) is

$$\rho ^2\frac{2V}{\lambda ^3}_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \alpha ^2(i\omega ),$$
(2)
so in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ the Casimir energy is divergent for every model of atomic polarizability $`\alpha (i\omega )`$.

The formula (1) finally solves the problem of the Casimir energy for a dilute dielectric ball. The interest to this topic strongly arised after the series of articles by Schwinger  where he tried to treat the sonoluminescence of bubbles in water  as a dynamical Casimir effect. Schwinger suggested that the first order terms $`(\epsilon 1)V`$ should yield the main contribution to the energy of the ball. One possible argument why the first order terms have no influence on physics is the condition of the conservation of atoms constituting the ball:

$$(\epsilon 1)V=\mathrm{const}.$$
(3)
It follows from this condition that the first order terms do not change their value during the ball collapse or expansion, so they can be subtracted from the energy.

After publication of the articles  it was generally believed that the Casimir energy of a dilute dielectric ball is equal to (this expression was first derived in )

$$E_{ld}=\frac{23}{1536\pi a}(\epsilon 1)^2,$$
(4)
which is only a non-dispersive limit of the last line of our new full expression for the energy (1). To check this, we write the leading contribution from the last line of (1) as (it comes from frequencies $`\omega \omega _0`$, $`\omega _0`$ is a characteristic absorption frequency of materials, $`\omega _0a1`$, so it is possible to use the static polarizability $`\alpha (0)`$ in the leading approximation to the last line of (1))

$`\rho ^2\alpha ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{48}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}d\omega (e^{4\omega a}(21+12\omega a)`$
$`E_1(4\omega a)(24+96\omega ^2a^2))`$
$`=\rho ^2\alpha ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{23}{96}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{23}{1536\pi a}}(\epsilon 1)^2=E_{ld}.`$ (5)
The new full energy expression contains additional terms: volume and surface contributions to the energy, as well as the terms which do not depend on the ball radius $`a`$.

The term (4) can be called a large distance contribution to the Casimir energy of the ball. However, it is impossible to separate large distances between atoms of a dielectric ball from short distances between atoms of the ball in any possible experiment. This is why only the use of a dipole-dipole potential valid for all existing distances between atoms of the ball (which are all greater than $`\lambda `$) is physically reasonable for the calculation of Casimir energies of dilute bodies. To understand this, consider the line of the following examples. Casimir energy of two neutral atoms coincides with the energy of a dipole-dipole interaction of these atoms. When an atom is located outside a dielectric of an arbitrary form, then in a dilute approximation the Casimir energy is equal to the sum of dipole-dipole interactions between this atom and atoms of the dielectric . For two parallel dielectric slabs it is known that the Casimir energy in a dilute approximation is equal to the sum of pairwise dipole-dipole interactions of atoms constituting the slabs. For a dilute dielectric ball the sum of pairwise dipole-dipole interactions of atoms constituting the ball is given by Eq.(1), not Eq.(4).

There are several important differences between our microscopic calculation  and microscopic calculation in  where the term (4) was first derived. In the article  the Casimir-Polder potential, which is a large distance limit of a dipole-dipole potential, valid only for distances $`r1/\omega _0`$, was used in the calculation of the ball Casimir energy. The calculation in Ref.  was non-dispersive from the outset and thus could not yield the contribution to the energy from short distances ($`r<1/\omega _0`$) between atoms of the ball. Moreover, the use of a dimensional regularization in Ref.  concealed the divergences which would appear in the energy expression from the integration over short distances between atoms in the 3-dimensional ball since the minimum distance between atoms of the ball was not introduced in Ref. .

Needless to say that the term (4) itself was really important for development of the theory of Casimir effect in connected dielectrics since this term has been derived via different techniques . However, using these approaches one can extract correctly only the large distance contribution to the Casimir energy of the ball, e.g.$`E_{ld}`$. This large distance contribution $`E_{ld}`$ was found to be the same when summing up the Casimir–Polder potential between atoms of the ball  and when the Casimir energy was derived by field-theoretic calculations  \- so the equivalence of large distance parts of the Casimir energy for a dilute dielectric ball derived by microscopic and macroscopic approaches was proved.

It is important to stress that so far macroscopic methods did not yield satisfactorily short distance contributions to the Casimir energy of connected dielectrics. The reason is simple: these methods were developed for disjoint, not connected dielectrics, and application of these methods to connected dielectrics without any changes inevitably leads to different types of divergences in every field-theoretic calculation of the Casimir energy. These divergences are reminiscents of the ill-defined short distance structure of the theory.

It was generally believed that Casimir surface force is repulsive before the appearance of our papers . So it is natural to give here a proof that Casimir surface force on a dilute dielectric ball is attractive.

It is convenient to define $`Na/\lambda ,p\omega \lambda `$. Then Eq.(1) can be rewritten in a general form

$$E=\frac{\rho ^2}{\lambda }_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑p\alpha ^2\left(i\frac{p}{\lambda }\right)f(N,p).$$
(6)
The function $`f(N,p)>0`$ for $`N>1/2,p>0`$. The ball expands or collapses homogeneously, so

$$N=\mathrm{const}.$$
(7)
Conservation of atoms inside the ball imposes the condition

$$\rho \frac{4\pi a^3}{3}=const.$$
(8)
It is convenient to use Kramers–Kronig relations in the form

$$\alpha (i\omega )=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\frac{xg(x)}{x^2+\omega ^2},$$
(9)
where the condition $`g(x)>0`$ always holds. Using (6), (7), (8), (9), Casimir force on a unit surface is equal to

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{4\pi a^3}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x(7x^2+3\omega ^2)g(x)}{(x^2+\omega ^2)^2}}\alpha (i\omega )f(N,\omega \lambda )<0.`$ (10)
$`F<0`$ because all functions inside integrals are positive. Casimir surface force is attractive for every model of atomic polarizability consistent with general causal requirements.

## 3 Casimir energy of a polarizable particle in a perfectly conducting wedge

The one-loop effective action, which is the result of the integration over quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, has the form

$$W=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}L_{pp}(\epsilon ,t,𝐱),$$
(11)
where

$$L_{jm}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫)=\left[\epsilon (i|\omega |,𝐫)\omega ^2\delta _{jm}+\mathrm{rot}_{jl}\mathrm{rot}_{lm}\right].$$
(12)
Electromagnetic field propagator $`D_{mk}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ in a gauge $`A_0=0`$ satisfies the equations

$$L_{jm}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫)D_{mk}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫,𝐫^{})=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta _{jk}.$$
(13)
Imagine that the space was empty at first, with no dielectric in it. Imagine then that the particle with an atomic polarizability $`\alpha (i|\omega |)`$ is inserted at the point $`𝐱=𝐫^{}`$ so that $`\delta \epsilon (i|\omega |,𝐱)=4\pi \alpha (i|\omega |)\delta ^3(𝐱𝐫^{})`$. The change in the ground state energy for a small $`\alpha (i|\omega |)`$ is equal to

$$\delta E_1=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \alpha (i|\omega |)\omega ^2D_{pp}(\epsilon =1,\omega ,𝐫^{},𝐫^{}).$$
(14)
This change is divergent. However, there are no other particles around and thus this is not the energy of interaction that can be measured.

Imagine now that the same particle is inserted in the neighbourhood of a dielectric body with an arbitrary permittivity $`\epsilon (i|\omega |,𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})`$. The change in the ground state energy in this case is given by

$$\delta E_2=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\omega \alpha (i|\omega |)\omega ^2D_{pp}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫^{},𝐫^{}),$$
(15)
but this is not the answer for the energy of interaction. The energy responsible for interaction of a particle and a dielectric is finite and equal to $`\delta E=\delta E_2\delta E_1`$:

$`\delta E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\omega \alpha (i|\omega |)\omega ^2(D_{pp}(\epsilon ,\omega ,𝐫^{\prime \prime },𝐫^{})`$ (16)
$`D_{pp}(\epsilon =1,\omega ,𝐫^{\prime \prime },𝐫^{}))|_{𝐫^{\prime \prime }𝐫^{}}.`$
This formula can be used to calculate the Casimir energy of a polarizable particle with the polarizability $`\alpha (i\omega )`$ located at the point with cylindrical coordinates ($`r,\theta ,z`$) in a perfectly conducting wedge-shaped cavity  (the walls of the wedge have coordinates ($`r,0,z`$) and ($`r,\alpha ,z`$), $`0<\theta <\alpha `$).

This system may be described by the set of equations (13) with $`\epsilon =1`$ outside the wedge walls and perfect boundary conditions imposed on each spatial argument of $`D_{ij}(\epsilon =1,\omega ,𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ at the wedge walls.

For distances $`r\theta ,r(\alpha \theta )\lambda _050`$nm one can neglect dispersion in an atomic polarizability of the particle and walls of the wedge and take the limit $`\alpha (0)`$ from the beginning. Perfectly conducting walls of the wedge can be considered as the limiting case of the walls with a constant permittivity $`\epsilon (0)`$ when $`\epsilon (0)\mathrm{}`$.

Casimir energy of a polarizable particle situated in a perfectly conducting wedge-shaped cavity was first calculated in Ref. . It can be derived from (16) in the form:

$`\epsilon (𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (0)}{4\pi r^4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{\mathrm{sin}^4p\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2(p1)(p+1)}{\mathrm{sin}^2p\theta }}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}(p1)(p+1)(p^2+11)],`$
where $`p=\frac{\pi }{\alpha }`$ .