QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE

AND NONASSOCIATIVITY
arXiv:1410.8191v1 [math.QA] 29 Oct 2014

EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

Abstract. Noncommutative or ‘quantum’ differential geometry has emerged

in recent years as a process for quantizing not only a classical space into a
noncommutative algebra (as familiar in quantum mechanics) but also differen-
tial forms, bundles and Riemannian structures at this level. The data for the
algebra quantisation is a classical Poisson bracket, the data for the quantum
differential forms is a Poisson-compatible connection it was recently shown
in [6] that after this, classical data such as classical bundles, metrics etc. all
become quantised in a canonical ‘functorial’ way at least to 1st order in defor-
mation theory. There are, however, fresh compatibility conditions between the
classical Riemannian and the Poisson structures as well as new physics such as
nonassociativity at 2nd order. We give an introduction to this theory from [6]
and some details for the case of CPn where the commutation relations have the
canonical form [w i , w̄ j ] = iλδij similar to the proposal of Penrose for quantum
twistor space. Our work provides a canonical but ultimately nonassociative
differential calculus on this algebra and quantises the metric and Levi-Civita
connection at lowest order in λ.

1. Introduction

There are today lots of reasons to think that spacetime itself is better modelled
as ‘quantum’ due to Planck-scale corrections. Here the quantisation parameter λ
is the Planck scale around 10−33 cm (more precisely, i times this as we work with
imaginary λ) and in this context we should quantise not only the spacetime vari-
ables but classical Riemannian geometry or ‘gravity’ variables as well. This is a
viable approach to the hot topic of quantum gravity phenomenology as it allows
one to come rather quickly to predictions for Planck scale effects. In other con-
texts one might have λ = ıh̵ and be interested in Quantum Mechanics on a classical
phase space that has other classical geometrical data on it, including perhaps a
Riemannian structure, and one could ask how does this structure extend to the
quantum algebra. This would be relevant for example to quantisation of the geo-
metrical description[9] of Berry phase. These and many other contexts where one
may want for mathematical or physical reasons to ‘follow’ classical geometry into
the quantum domain can now be addressed using noncommutative geometry.
The approach to noncommutative geometry that we use is one that has developed
over the years mainly from experience with quantum groups, see in particular our
papers [2]-[6] and references therein. This approach is very different from and has a

Key words and phrases. noncommutative geometry, quantum gravity, Poisson geometry, Rie-
mannian geometry, quantum mechanics.
The 2nd author was on leave at the Mathematical Institute, Oxford.
1
2 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

completely opposite starting point to the approach of Alain Connes[10]. The latter
starts ‘top down’ with a spectral triple as an algebraic model of the Dirac operator
on spinors whereas our approach is ‘bottom up’ starting with differential structures
and ultimately, we hope, building up to spinors and a Dirac operator as a final
layer that is not yet fully understood. Although our approach to noncommutative
differential and Riemannian geometry now exists as a noncommutative algebraic
framework, and has some fully worked examples such as the 2D analysis in [5],
there still remains the general problem of construction from classical data. This
was recently solved in [6] as follows.
The very first layer of the problem from our point of view is of course the Poisson
structure, a tenet of mathematical physics since the early works of Dirac being to
‘quantise’ this to a noncommutative algebra Aλ . Let us recall that the mathematical
background to this is to consider an algebra Aλ where λ is a formal parameter such
that A0 is commutative, we denote the product of the latter by omission, and
a ●λ b = ab + O(λ).
We assume that expressions can be expanded in λ and equated order by order. In
this case
a ●λ b − b ●λ a = λ{a, b} + O(λ2 )
defines a map { , } and the assumption of an associative algebra quickly leads to
the necessary feature that this is a Lie bracket and the Hamiltonian vector field
â ∶= {a, } is a derivation on A0 , making A0 a Poisson algebra. The converse to this
is the ‘quantisation problem’: given a smooth manifold M and a Poisson bracket
on it, can one deform C ∞ (M ) to a noncommutative algebra Aλ = C ∞ (M )[[λ]] as
a vector space (i.e. complexifying and working over the ring of formal power series
C[[λ]] such that the above holds. In 1994 Fedosov[13] gave a geometrical solution
for the symplectic case where { , } is nondegenerate. This uses Weyl bundles
over the spacetime and a flat connection to globalise the Heisenberg-type algebra
associated to the symplectic structure. In 2003 Kontsevich gave a rather different
solution using a sum over graphs and bidifferential operators associated to them,
for any Poisson manifold. Our first innovation in [6] is instead of working over the
ring C[[λ]] we work over the ring C[λ]/(λ2 ) where we formally set λ2 = 0, which we
call semiquantisation. Both rings are mathematical tricks: in physical applications
one wants λ to be an actual (imaginary) number meaning on the one hand for
powerseries to converge and on the other hand, in our case, for O(λ2 ) terms to
be physically neglectable. This should be reasonable when λ is the Planck scale as
envisaged in many (but not the only) applications; it will be hard enough to observe
these order λ corrections and corrections beyond that are likely to be undetectable
and irrelevant to current tests of quantum gravity. At this level the semiquantisation
presents no problem and does not even need { , } to obey the Jacobi identity. On
the other hand letting go of this would entail Aλ being nonassociative when λ2 is
considered, which we prefer to avoid.
The second layer of the problem is to construct not only an algebra Aλ (specifying
the algebra is roughly speaking like specifying a topological space) but a ‘differential
graded algebra’ (DGA)
Ω(Aλ ) = ⊕n Ωn (Aλ ), d ∶ Ωn (Aλ ) → Ωn+1 (Aλ )
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 3

obeying d2 = 0 and the graded-Leibniz rule. This plays the role of the algebra of
differential forms and is like specifying a differential structure on a space. The data
for the differential structure at the semiclassical level was analysed in [14, 2] by
looking at
a ●λ db − (db) ●λ a = λ∇â db + O(λ2 ).
The assumption of an associative Ω(Aλ ) and the Leibniz rule for d requires at order
λ that
∇â (bdc) = {a, b}dc + b∇â dc
(1.1) d{a, b} = ∇â db − ∇b̂ da
(these follow easily from [a, bdc] = [a, b]dc + b[a, dc] and d[a, b] = [da, b] + [a, db]).
The first requirement says that ∇ is a covariant derivative along Hamiltonian vector
fields â and the second is a Poisson-compatibility. For simplicity we will speak of a
connection ∇i in our coordinate basis but if the Poisson tensor in these coordinates
is ω ij then we are only really making use of the combination ω is ∇s in all that follows,
which is to say a partial connection in the case where ω is degenerate. Simply put,
the semiclassical data for the quantum differential structure is a Poisson-compatible
(partial) connection ∇.
This brings us to the following two quantisation problems given a manifold M
equipped with data (ω, ∇) as above:

Problem 1: can we quantise the data to an associative DGA

Ω(Aλ )?

Problem 2: can we similarly quantise other classical geometrical

structures such as a metric and its Levi-Civita connection?

Problem 1 completes the ‘second layer’ to include higher differential forms and
Problem 2 represents a ‘third layer’ to the quantisation of the geometry. The work
[6] has answered both questions in the affirmative, but only at order λ, i.e. the
semiquantisation problem is now fully solved. Problem 1 has a canonical solution
at this order without needing any new data and Problem 2 also has a canonical
solution when it exists, but for existence there are new equations of constraint not
seen before in physics between the Poisson bracket, the Poisson connection and
the classical Riemannian structure. Let g be the Riemannian metric and S the
contorsion tensor of ∇ (so that ∇ + S is the Levi-Civita connection) and we let R
be a certain ‘generalized Ricci 2-from’ which we build by contraction of ω with the
curvature R and torsion of ∇. Then the new conditions we find are[6]
(1.2) gmn;k = 0

(1.3) Rmnˆ;k − ω ij grs Sjn

s
(Rr mki + Skm;i
r
) + ω ij grs Sjm
s
(Rr nki + Skn;i
r
)=0
where the first condition ensures centrality of the quantum metric and the second
ensures quantum metric compatibility of our quantum Levi-Civita connection. Here
ˆ; is with respect to the Levi-Civita connection and ; is with respect to ∇. We will
give more details from [6] in the next section. What is significant is for the first
time to have differential constraints relating the Riemann and Poisson structures
on the classical manifold, as a condition for quantisability. These conditions can
be severe, for example in 2D[5] for a certain well-known quantum spacetime the
4 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

condition (1.2) forces the classical metric to either have a very strong gravitational
source at the origin or to correspond to an expanding cosmology depending on the
sign of a parameter.
Finally, it is already known from [2] that the quantisation even of Ω1 (Aλ ) at the
next, order λ2 , level, has a obstruction the Riemann curvature of ∇. We could
require ∇ to have zero curvature but if we are geometers this feels like restricting
ourselves for no reason to ‘flatland’, particularly if we take the simplest case where
∇=∇ ̂ . The alternative is that we must allow nonassociativity of differential forms
with functions as second order:
(a ●λ db) ●λ c − a ●λ ((db) ●λ c) = O(λ2 )
for generic functions a, b, c on phase space, as controlled by the curvature. In the
case where ∇ = ∇ˆ we see that gravity induces nonassociativity. In this nonassociative
case we see that the axioms for Ω(Aλ ) are weaker than we had first posed. This
suggests to tackle the full problem order by order in some kind of A∞ approach
which remains to be worked out. The alternative to this ‘anomaly for differential
calculus’ (or Beggs-Majid no-go theorem) in [2] is to absorb the anomaly by adding
one or more extra dimensions to Ω(Aλ ) which is a very different analysis[19].
One example of classical data and where our conditions automatically hold[6] is any
Kähler-Einstein manifold. Here we take ∇ to be the Levi-Civita connection so S = 0
and R comes out to be the usual Ricci 2-form which is covariantly constant so both
(1.2)-(1.3) are solved. This includes CPn and we give details for semiquantisation
of the differential geometry in this case. As noted by Penrose in the twistor case
the quantum algebra here can be put in a canonical commutation relations form.
We will describe our nonassociative calculus in these coordinates as well as in other
more natural z, z̄ coordinates. The ‘noncommutative complex structure’ quantising
the classical one of CPn will also be touched upon, with details to appear in [7].

2. Semiquantum Riemannian geometry[6]

We will work in a local coordinate basis for our manifold M so that

{a, b} = ω ij a,i b,j , ∇j dxi = −Γijk dxk
where Γ are the Christoffel symbols of our (partial) linear connection ∇. Then (1.1)
can be written [6] as
j
(2.1) ω ij ;m + ω ik Tkm − ω jk Tkm
i
=0
i
where Tjk = Γi jk − Γi kj is the torsion tensor of ∇ and ; is with respect to ∇. Given
this identity, the requirement that the antisymmetric bivector ω ij defines a Poisson
tensor becomes[6]
(2.2) ∑ ω im ω jn Tmn
k
=0
cyclic(i,j,k)

again depending only on the torsion. We will speak throughout about a Poisson
tensor ω and ∇ Poisson-compatible, since we ultimately prefer Aλ to be associative
at all orders, but in fact we will never make use of (2.2) in what follows.
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 5

2.1. Quantisation of the exterior algebra. Given such data (ω, ∇), the obvious
structure of Ω1 (Aλ ) at order λ is
λ ij
a ●λ b = ab + ω a,i b,j
2

λ ij λ ij
a ●λ ξ = aξ + ω a,i ∇j ξ, ξ ●λ a = aξ − ω a,i ∇j ξ
2 2
for all a, b ∈ C ∞ (M ) and ξ ∈ Ω1 (M ). This is as in [2] and we extend this now to all
degrees:

Theorem 2.1. [6] The above data extends at order λ to a DGA Ω(Aλ ) quantising
the exterior algebra Ω(M ).

Here the quantum wedge product has a functorial part ∧Q and a ‘quantum’ correc-
tion

ξ ∧1 η = ξ ∧Q η + λ (−1)∣ξ∣+1 H ij ∧ (∂i ⌟ ξ) ∧ (∂j ⌟ η);

λ
ξ ∧Q η = ξ ∧ η + ω ij ∇i ξ ∧ ∇j η
2
where the quantum correction is controlled by a family of 2-forms

(2.3) H ij = 41 ω is (Tnm;s
j
− 2Rj nms ) dxm ∧ dxn ∈ Ω2 (M ).

This solves Problem 1 in the introduction. Moreover, the classical connection ∇

gets quantised as a map ∇Q ∶ Ω1 → Ω1 ⊗1 Ω1 where ⊗1 means over the algebra Aλ
with the above ●λ product. In noncommutative geometry quantum connections are
handled like this as having values in an extra copy of Ω1 which, classically, one
would evaluate against a vector field to give the covariant derivative along that
vector field. The quantum connection obeys two Leibniz rules

∇Q (a ● ξ) = a ● ∇Q ξ + da ⊗1 ξ, ∇Q (ξ ● a) = (∇Q ξ) ● a + σQ (da ⊗1 ξ)

where
σQ ∶ Ω1 ⊗1 Ω1 → Ω1 ⊗1 Ω1
is a bimodule map called the ‘generalised braiding’ and is needed to make sense of
the connection-like derivation property from the right. If it exists we say that the
quantum connection is a ‘bimodule connection’ (and when it exists, σQ is unique
so this is really a property of ∇Q not extra data).
In our case [6] proves that there is such a bimodule connection quantising our ∇.
In indices, it is

∇Q dxi = − (Γimn + ω (Γmk,s Γkjn − Γikt Γksm Γtjn − Γijk Rk nms )) dxm ⊗1 dxn
λ sj i
2

In the quantisation process the torsion of ∇Q gets modified to [6]

T∇Q ξ = (ξi Tnm (∂j ⌟ ∇i ξ) ω is Tnm;s ) dxm ∧1 dxn .

1 i λ j
+ 2
2
6 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

2.2. Quantisation of the metric and Levi-Civita connection. Here we sup-

pose that (M, ω, ∇) above has additional structure (g, ∇̂ ) where g is a Riemannian
(or pseudo-Riemannian) metric and ∇ ̂ is the Levi-Civita connection. The condition
in [6] for the construction of a quantum metric comes out as the very reasonable
requirement
(2.4) ∇g = 0
that our Poisson connection is compatible with g. It corresponds at the quantum
level to the quantum metric being central and we assume the condition from now
on. We build the quantum metric in two stages. First, the ‘functorial’ choice is

1 ,Ω1 (g) = gij dx ⊗1 dx +

λ ij
(2.5) gQ = qΩ −1 i j
ω gpm Γpiq Γqjn dxm ⊗1 dxn
2
where q −1 will be explained in the next section but we have shown the result. One
has ∇Q gQ = 0 so this is quantum metric compatible. We want our quantum metric
to be ‘quantum symmetric’ in the sense of killed by the quantum wedge product
but we find
∧1 gQ = λR; R = H ij gij ,
where explicitly

R = Rmn dxn ∧ dxm , Rmn = gij ω is (Tnm;s − Rj nms − Rj mns ) .

1 1 j
2 2
One can therefore either live with this or, which we do, define

g1 = gQ − gij ω is (Tnm;s − Rj nms − Rj mns )dxm ⊗1 dxn

λ j
4
as the quantum metric, which now has ∧1 (g1 ) = 0.
̂ = ∇ + S where
Finally, write the classical Levi-Civita connection as ∇
i
Sjk = 12 g im (Tmjk − Tjkm − Tkjm )
is the contorsion tensor built from the torsion T of ∇. We do not want to give
all the details but the main idea in [6] is to functorially quantise the contorsion to
a quantum one Q(S) and also to allow a further O(λ) adjustment by a classical
tensor K, i.e. we search for the quantum-Levi-Civita connection in the form
∇1 = ∇Q + Q(S) + λK.
Theorem 2.2. [6] There is a unique quantum connection ∇1 which is quantum tor-
sion free and for which the symmetric part in the last two factors of ∇1 g1 vanishes.
We have ∇1 g1 = 0 entirely if and only if
̂ R + ω ij grs Sjn
∇ s
(Rr mki + Skm;i
r
) dxk ⊗ dxm ∧ dxn = 0

This is the condition (1.3) stated in tensor-calculus terms in the Introduction. The
theorem says that there is always a unique ‘best-possible’ quantum Levi-Civita
connection but in general there could be an antisymmetric correction in the sense
(id ⊗ ∧)∇1 g1 = O(λ)
as a new feature of quantum geometry. The condition for this correction to vanish is
the one stated in the theorem but there are examples such as the axisymmetrically
quantised Schwarzschild black hole in [6] where we show that the correction cannot
vanish for a large class of Poisson-connections ∇.
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 7

We will be interested only in the canonical special case S = T = 0 case of the above,
where the ∇ = ∇̂ . In this case
1
R = − gij ω is Rj nms dxm ∧ dxn
2
and the ‘best possible’ quantum Levi-Civita connection is just ∇Q itself. The
condition in the Theorem above is that this is covariantly constant. This holds for
example for any Kähler-Einstein manifold and we will show the results for CPn .

2.3. Semiquantisation functor. We do not want to explain all the mathematics

here but the main result in [6] that then leads to the formulae above is as follows.
We fix a manifold M and a pair (ω, ∇) of a Poisson tensor and Poisson-compatible
connection. We show in [6] that there is a monoidal functor
Q ∶ {Vector bundles with connecton} → {Bimodules over Aλ with connection}
This associates to a classical vector bundle E and connection ∇E on M a bimodule
Q(E) over Aλ equipped with a bimodule quantum connection ∇Q(E) ∶ Q(E) →
Ω1 ⊗Aλ Q(E). Here Q(E) is the sections of the classical bundle viewed with de-
formed left and right multiplication by Aλ :

ω a,i ∇Ej ξ, ξ ●λ a = aξ − ω ij a,i ∇Ej ξ, ∀a ∈ C ∞ (M ), ξ ∈ Q(E).

λ ij λ
a ●λ ξ = aξ +
2 2
Now both sides have a tensor product: the classical tensor product ⊗0 on the
left means tensor product their sections, adding connections, on the right we have
the usual tensor product ⊗1 of bimodules over and a certain tensor product of
bimodule connections that makes use of their generalised braidings. The functor Q
being monoidal comes equipped with a functorial bimodule isomorphisms

qE,F ∶ (Q(E) ⊗1 Q(F )) → Q(E ⊗0 F ), qE,F (ξ ⊗1 η) = ξ ⊗0 η +

λ ij
ω ∇Ei ξ ⊗0 ∇F j η
2
for all classical pairs (E, ∇E ), (F, ∇F ), relating these tensor products. Formulae
for the associated quantum bimodule connection are in [6]. This functor is further
extended to one where morphisms need not respect the connections, which is needed
for the construction of Q(S).

3. Semiquantum Riemannian geometry of CPn

Here we work out how the above general theory applies to CPn as a Kähler-Einstein
manifold. We first recall its classical geometry as real manifold so that we can
directly use the formulae above. Full details will be in [7] where we will also discuss
the noncommutative complex structure.

3.1. Geometry of CPn as a Riemannian manifold. We start with complex

coordinates wi , w̄i for the sphere S 2n+1 ⊂ R2n+2 with relations
∑ wi w̄i = 1 .
The quotient of S 2n+1 with its natural metric (inherited from twice the Euclidean
metric) by the componentwise multiplicative action of U (1) is the complex pro-
jective space CPn with the Fubini-Study metric. As usual we take coordinates
8 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

(z1 , . . . , zn ) for the open subset of CPn where w0 ≠ 0. This is done by setting
(w0 , . . . , wn ) = (t, t z1 , . . . , t zn ) where
1
t2 =
1 + ∣z1 ∣2 + ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ + ∣zn ∣2
.

i i i+n
and finally we write z = x +i x for real coordinates xa where 1 ≤ a ≤ 2n. Outside
this range it is convenient to use a ‘signed mod 2n’ rule where xb = −xb+2n so that
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
+1 a − c an even multiple of 2 n
∂xc
= κac ∶= ⎨ −1 a − c an odd multiple of 2 n , ∂x ∂t 3 a
⎪ a = −t x .
⎪0
⎪
∂xa
⎩ otherwise
In these coordinates the Fubini-Study metric, connection, curvature, symplectic
and Poisson tensors are
g ab = t (κab
1 −2
2
+ xa xb + xa+n xb+n ) , gab = 2 t2 κab − 2 t4 (xa xb + xa+n xb+n ) .

Γabc = − t2 (xc κab + xb κac + κa+n,c xb+n + κa+n,b xc+n ) .

Rp cqb = 1
2
gcb κpq − 12 gcq κpb + 21 ωbc κp+n,q − 12 ωqc κp+n,b + κp+n,c ωbq .

ωab = ga,b+n = 2 t2 κa,b+n −2 t4 (xa xb+n −xa+n xb ), ω ab = 2

t (κa,b+n +xa xb+n −xa+n xb )
1 −2
.
The curvature map in our conventions is

R∇ = dxa ∧ dxb ⊗ [∇a , ∇b ], [∇a , ∇b ]dxc = −Rc dab dxd

1
2
and the symplectic 2-form (in our conventions) is
̟ = ωab dxb ∧ dxa .

Using the formula (2.3) gives

H ab = 1
4
dxa+n ∧ dxb + 14 dxb+n ∧ dxa − 14 g ab ̟ .

R = − 21 (n + 1)̟
so that the Ricci 2-form is a multiple of the symplectic 2-form, just as the usual
Ricci curvature is a multiple of g.
If we want some of these in complex coordinates then we have
g = gi j̄ (dz i ⊗ dz̄ j + dz̄ j ⊗ dz i ) , gi j̄ = (t2 δij − t4 z̄ i z j ) .

It will be convenient to define a 1-form

n
∑i=1 z̄ i dz i
1 + ∣⃗
z ∣2
τ=

in our patch. Here τ + τ̄ = d ln(1 + ∣⃗

z ∣2 ) = −t−2 dt2 . It will also be convenient for
i i i i
notation to set z+ = z and z− = z̄ , and correspondingly τ+ = τ and τ− = τ̄ .
We have followed standard conventions in defining the canonical 1-form for a Kähler
manifold by ̟ = (J ∧ id)g which gives
̟ = 2igij̄ dz i ∧ dz̄ j = −2idτ .
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 9

We may also recall that CPn is an example of a Kähler manifold. Hence its structure
is given via a Kähler potential which, in the case of CPn is
n
wa 2
Kj = ln ( ∑ ∣ ∣ )
a=0 wj
in the coordinate chart Uj = {(w , ⋯, wn ) ∣ wj ≠ 0}. On U0 with our complex
0

coordinates z1 , . . . , zn , K0 = ln(1 + ∣⃗
z ∣2 ). Then we calculate τ = ∂K0 and
∂ 2 K0
= gij̄ , ̟ = 2 i ∂∂K0 .
∂zi ∂ z̄j

Finally, we introduce
γ+ = γ = t2 dz̄ i ⊗ dz i − τ̄ ⊗ τ, γ− = γ̄ = t2 dz i ⊗ dz̄ i − τ ⊗ τ̄
with summation understood. Then
g = γ + γ̄, ̟ = i ∧ (γ̄ − γ) = −2i ∧ (γ).
Proposition 3.1. For CPn , the Levi-Civita connection and its curvature associated
to the standard complex structure and the Fubini-Study metric are

∇dz±i = τ± ⊗ dz±i + dz±i ⊗ τ± , R∇ (dz± ) = ± ̟ ⊗ dz±i − dz±i ∧ γ±

i
2

The curvature map here was computed using algebraic methods but one can check
that it agrees with the tensor calculus computation[7]. We have not seen such a
simple description of the geometry of CPn elsewhere but presumably this is known.
There are similar formulae in other coordinate patches.

3.2. Semiquantum Riemannian geometry of CPn . According to our construc-

tions we have the following quantised product, for functions e, f :

t (δij + z i z̄ j )(∂i e ∂ j f − ∂ j e ∂i f ) .
i λ −2
(3.1) e ● f = ef +
2
In fact this formula also gives the quantised product of a function and a form, if
we replace one of e or f by a form and use the (complex) Levi-Civita connection
for ∂i and ∂ j . The undeformed cases are
zi ● zj = zi zj , z i ● dz j = z i dz j , dz i ● z j = dz i z j ,
and the same formulae hold if we bar all the zs. As the exterior derivative is
undeformed, applying d to these results gives dz i ∧1 dz j = dz i ∧ dz j and dz̄ i ∧1 dz̄ j =
dz̄ i ∧ dz̄ j . However when we mix zs and z̄s in the same product, we get non
commutative behaviour:
t (δij + z i z̄ j ) , z̄ j ● z i = zi z̄ j − t (δij + z i z̄ j ) ,
i λ −2 i λ −2
z i ● z̄ j = zi z̄ j +
2 2
so we can write a commutation relation
[z i , z j ]● = 0 = [z̄ i , z̄ j ]● , [z i , z̄ j ]● = i λ t−2 (δij + z i z̄ j ) .
If we mix functions and forms, we get,
z i ● dz̄ j = z i dz̄ j + 2
t (δij
i λ −2
+ z i z̄ j ) τ̄ + i λ −2 i
2
t z dz̄ j ,
j i
dz̄ ● z = z dz̄ − i j
2
t (δij
i λ −2
+ z z̄ ) τ̄ −
i j i λ −2 i
2
t z dz̄ j .
10 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

which gives the commutation relations

[z i , dz j ]● = 0 = [z̄ i , dz̄ j ]
[z i , dz̄ j ]● = i λ t−2 ((δij + z i z̄ j ) τ̄ + z i dz̄ j ) , [z̄ i , dz j ]● = −i λ t−2 ((δij + z̄ i z j ) τ + z̄ i dz j ) .

For the wedge product using Section 2.1 we have

dz i ∧1 dz̄ j = dz i ∧ dz̄ j + t ((δij
i λ −2
2
+ z i z̄ j ) t2 dz k ∧ dz̄ k + τ ∧ z i dz̄ j + z̄ j dz i ∧ τ̄ + dz i ∧ dz̄ j ) ,
{dz i , dz̄ j }∧1 = i λ t−2 ((δij + z z̄ ) t dz k ∧ dz̄ k + τ ∧ z i dz̄ j + z̄ j dz i ∧ τ̄ + dz i ∧ dz̄ j ) .
i j 2

Let us note that to order λ we are free to write these as some kind of q-commutator
where
q = eiλt
−2

λt−2
qz̄ i z j − z j z̄ i = δij
i
λt−2
qz̄ i dz j − (dz j )z̄ i = (δij + z̄ i z j )τ
i
λt−2
q −1 z i dz̄ j − (dz̄ j )z i = − (δij + z i z̄ j )τ̄
i
q −1 dz i ∧1 dz̄ j + dz̄ j ∧1 dz i = i λ t−2 ((δij + z i z̄ j ) t2 dz k ∧ dz̄ k + τ ∧ z i dz̄ j + z̄ j dz i ∧ τ̄ ) .

We can also compute these relations on our constrained homogeneous coordinates

wi where w0 = t is real and positive and ww̄ = 1 as n + 1-vectors (i.e. t2 = 1 − ∣w∣
⃗2
i i
from this point of view of w = tz as the complex coordinates).
Proposition 3.2. In the ‘upstairs’ coordinates restricted to i, j > 0 we have
[wi , wj ]● = 0, [wi , w̄j ]● = iλδij
(τ̄ − τ )
[wi , dw̄j ]● = i ((2δij + wi w̄j (t−2 − 2)) + wi dw̄j − w̄j dwi )
λ
2 2
(τ̄ − τ )
[wi , dwj ]● = (wi wj (2τ̄ + t−2 ) + wi dwj + wj dwi )
λ
2i 2

We see that our algebra relations agree with the recent proposal[21] of Roger Pen-
rose for ‘quantum twistor space’ but in our case with the Euclidean signature. On
the other hand, these restricted homogeneous coordinates are less well-adapted to
the holomorphic nature of the calculus even if they put the algebra commutation re-
lations in canonical form. Whichever coordinates are used, it should be remembered
that while the coordinate algebra can be constructed to all orders in λ associatively
(for example using geometric quantisation via τ as a connection with curvature
yielding ̟) this is not the case for the differential calculus which, since ∇ on CPn
has curvature, will be nonassociative at order λ2 .
Finally, a long computation in [7] but using the general results in Section 2.1 gives
us the quantum metric and quantum-Levi-Civita connection. Because we have
taken ∇ to be the Levi-Civita connection and because R is a multiple of the metric
it is covariantly constant, Theorem 2.2 in Section 2.2 applies but in the simplified
form where we the quantum Levi-Civita connection is just ∇Q itself.
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 11

Proposition 3.3.
g1 = gi j̄ dz i ⊗1 dz̄ j + gi j̄ dz̄ j ⊗1 dz i + λ
2
(n + 1) ̟,
̃
̃ = i(γ̄ − γ) is taken with ⊗1 , and
where ̟
∇Q dz±i = (1 ± i λ) (τ± ⊗1 dz±i + dz±i ⊗1 τ± ) .

We note that the quantum ∇Q has a strikingly similar form to the classical Levi-
Civita connection in Theorem 3.1. The general theory means that there is an
associated σQ making it a bimodule connection.

4. Quantum geometry in quantum mechanics

The currently envisaged application of the above is with λ related to the Planck
scale, i.e. applying the theory to quantum spacetime. However, here we want to
consider the question of ordinary quantum mechanics where λ should be related to
̵ and other physical scales in ordinary quantum systems.
h
Specifically, the questions we pose, if (M, ω) is a quantum mechanical phase space,
are:

Question 1 What is the physical content of quantum differential

forms on Aλ ?

Question 2 What is the physical content of quantum metrics and

connections on the quantisation on Aλ ?

Let’s consider the first question. In classical mechanics the phase space is not
merely a topological space, it is a manifold and this differential structure is used in
formulating the Hamilton-Jacobi equations of motion
ȧ = {a, H} = −Ĥ(a), ∀a ∈ C ∞ (M ).
In other words, time evolution is by the vector field −Ĥ. When we quantise we
might then expect the quantum evolution to be given to lowest order by a quantum
version of the Hamiltonian-Jacobi equations using the quantum differential forms.
Of course, the usual proposal is to replace Poisson bracket by commutator:
̵
ȧ = ̵ [H, a] = {a, H} + O(h)
i
h
while we might in quantum geometry be inclined to something like
ȧ = ω1 (da ⊗1 dH)
for a natural quantum Poisson tensor ω1 and a quantum pairing, to be constructed.
This comparison would give us partial information about the next (2nd) order terms
in product of Aλ . We can also compare with this order in the Fedosov quantisation
Aλ which is determined through a flat symplectic connection that we could also use
as ∇. This issue remains further to be investigated.
We also should consider the question of how do differential forms evolve in quantum
mechanics? If we take the view that they do so by commutator with H then
˙ = i [H, da] = −∇ (da) + O(h)
(da) ̵
h̵ Ĥ
12 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

which is very reasonable for it says that we use the same vector field −Ĥ but now
with the covariant derivative given by our Poisson connection. Note that this is not
the Lie derivative so time evolution is not a diffeomorphism of the classical system.
Rather, our induced classical picture is that as a particle moves along a trajectory
with tangent vector given by −Ĥ, any differentials are parallel transported also
using the connection ∇. This should also apply to the evolution of points in other
bundles over phase space that are equipped with connections as in Section 2.3. On
the other hand, by the Poisson-compatibility condition (1.1), the above classical
evolution of 1-forms is equivalent to
(da)
˙ = dȧ − ∇â (dH)
which reminds us that time evolution does not commute with d unless the 2nd term
̵ corrections to this evolution
vanishes. As for functions, we can ask about the O(h)
and compare with the quantum geometry via ∇Q .
To put some of these ideas in concrete terms, lets look at the simplest case M = R2n
and canonical coordinates {q i , pi }, Euclidean metric and trivial ∇ so that
̵ ij , g = dq i ⊗ dq i + dpi ⊗ dpi , ∇dq i = ∇dpi = 0.
[q i , pj ] = ihδ
Here (dq˙ i ) = (dp˙ i ) = 0 which means that our choice of coordinate basis for Ω1 is not
affected by time evolution. On the other hand, both q̇ i , ṗi are not normally constant
on M as they are given by the Hamiltonian-Jacobi equations. For example
p2 2
H= + V (q) ⇒ (da) ˙ − dȧ = − 1 ∂a dpi + ∂ V ∂a dq i .
2m m ∂q i ∂q i ∂q j ∂pj
Thus our proposal seems reasonable for the evolution of differential forms, but it
is still an assumption that should be put to experimental test. Or rather, such an
evolution may be natural in classical mechanics when we have internal geometric
structure at each point of phase space. The quantum calculus, meanwhile, has the
same form on the generators as classically and is associative as ∇ is trivial and flat.
Question 2 about the quantum Riemannian geometry of phase space entails a pre-
question about the classical Riemannian geometry of phase space. In physics, one
place where this enters is in the description of Berry phase. For example on CPn
seen as a state space of a quantum system its Riemannian geometry enters into this
and into expressions for higher-power uncertainty relations[9]. In the Kähler case
such as this, the metric is canonical given the symplectic and complex structures
but in other cases the prequestion is what should be the physical significance of the
metric on phase space? Also note that we have different choices for ∇ and if we take
the Levi-Civita connection we will tend to have nonassociativity of the calculus in
the presence of Riemannian curvature as in our CPn example. However, when the
manifold is parallelizable, one can also take the Weitzenböck ∇ as in teleparallel
gravity[1], which is flat but has torsion. Then we will need the general case of
Theorem 2.2.
There has also been much interest recently in an interpretation[16] of noncommuta-
tive spacetime as curved momentum space or ‘cogravity’ in some sense. In the same
way by quantum Born reciprocity, a curved position spacetime should correspond
locally to noncommutative position space. Thus at the Poisson level non-zero ω in
the q sector of phase space should correspond to cogravity in the spatial momentum
while non-zero ω in the p sector should be a signal of gravity or at least of curvature
 QUANTUM RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY OF PHASE SPACE AND NONASSOCIATIVITY 13

in space. Hence, when there is quantum noncommutativity of space or spacetime

and gravity, there should be both ω and phase space curvature generically, which
is how quantum groups first arose out of Planck scale physics in [15]. The prob-
lem in this context is what precise equations should govern the interaction of these
structures and what (1.3) provides is a first instance of such an equation, coming
from the assumption of the existence of a quantum geometry of which the classical
manifold is a classical limit. In this context a natural special case of (1.3) would
be where ω is zero among half the variables and the curvature zero among the
other half (the gravity or cogravity special cases). Another idea is quantum Born
reciprocity that one should be able to interchange position and momentum as a key
idea self-duality principle for quantum gravity[15] and this could now be imposed
at the semiclassical level as a further condition on (1.3). We do not assume that ∇
is the Levi-Civita connection but instead we need new principles and equations to
help determine it.

References
[1] R. Aldrovandi & J.G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction, Springer, 2013.
[2] E.J. Beggs and S. Majid, Semiclassical Differential Structures, Pac. J. Math. 224 (2006) 1–44
[3] E.J. Beggs and S. Majid, Bar categories and star operations, Alg. and Representation Theory
12 (2009) 103–152
[4] E.J. Beggs & S. Majid, *-Compatible connections in noncommutative Riemannian geometry,
J. Geom. Phys. (2011) 95–124
[5] E.J. Beggs & S. Majid, Gravity induced by quantum spacetime, Class. Quantum. Grav. 31
(2014) 035020 (39pp)
[6] E.J. Beggs & S. Majid, Semiquantisation functor and Poisson Riemannian geometry,
arXiv:1403.4231(math.QA)
[7] E. J. Beggs & S. Majid, Nonassociative quantisation of CPn , in preparation.
[8] Beggs E.J. & Smith S.P., Noncommutative complex differential geometry, Jour. of Geometry
and Physics, Vol 72, p 7–33 (2013).
[9] D.C. Brody & L.P. Hughston, Geometric quantum mechanics, J. Geom. Phys. 38 (2001)
19–53.
[10] A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994).
[11] M. Dubois-Violette & T. Masson, On the first-order operators in bimodules, Lett. Math.
Phys. 37 (1996) 467–474.
[12] M. Dubois-Violette & P.W. Michor, Connections on central bimodules in noncommutative
differential geometry, J. Geom. Phys. 20 (1996) 218 –232
[13] Fedosov B.V., Deformation quantisation and Index theory, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1996.
[14] E. Hawkins, Noncommutative rigidity, Commun. Math. Phys. 246 (2004) 218–232.
[15] S. Majid, Hopf algebras for physics at the Planck scale, Class. Quantum Grav. 5 (1988)
1587–1607
[16] S. Majid, Meaning of noncommutative geometry and the Planck-scale quantum group,
Springer Lect. Notes Phys. 541 (2000) 227–276
[17] S. Majid, Almost commutative Riemannian geometry: wave operators, Commun. Math. Phys.
310 (2012) 569-609
[18] S. Majid, Noncommutative Riemannian geometry of graphs, J. Geom. Phys. 69 (2013) 74-93
[19] S. Majid, Reconstruction and quantisation of Riemannian structures, 40pp. arXiv:1307.2778
(math.QA)
[20] J. Mourad, Linear connections in noncommutative geometry, Class. Quantum Grav. 12 (1995)
965–974
[21] R. Penrose, talk at “Noncommutative Geometry and Physics: fundamental structure of space
and time”, Newton Institute, 2006; talk at “New Geometric Concepts in the Foundations of
Physics”, Chicheley Hall, 2013.
14 EDWIN J. BEGGS & SHAHN MAJID

Department of Mathematics, Swansea University, Singleton Parc, Swansea SA2 8PP, +,

Queen Mary, University of London, School of Mathematics, Mile End Rd, London E1
4NS, UK

E-mail address: [email protected]