text:
# Effectively classical quantum states for open systems

## Abstract

Notions of robust and ”classical” states for an open quantum system are introduced and discussed in the framework of the isometric-sweeping decomposition of trace class operators. Using the predictability sieve proposed by Zurek, “quasi-classical” states are defined. A number of examples illustrating how the “quasi-classical” states correspond to classical points in phase space connected with the measuring apparatus are presented.

1. Introduction

Quantum mechanics, whose basic laws were formulated in the twenties, still remains the most fundamental theory we know. Although, it was originally conceived as a theory of atoms, it has shown a wide range of applicability, making it more and more evident that the formalism describes some general properties of Nature. However, despite its successes, there is still no consensus about its interpretation with the main questions being centered around the quantum measurements. Clearly, the existence of classical quantities which would allow to express the measurement results and explain the classical appearance of the macroscopic world is a fundamental problem in this matter. The standard explanation which states that, for example, the center-of-mass motion of a macroscopic object should be described by a narrow wave packet, well localized in both position and momentum, is not satisfactory. It still remains unanswered why such objects are represented by narrow wave packets, while the superposition principle allows the emergence of non-classical states as well. Moreover, measurement-like processes would necessarily produce such non-classical states, as in the infamous example of Schrödinger’s cat. A superposition of being dead and alive should produce an entirely new state, in the same sense as the superposition of $`K`$ meson and its antiparticle does.

The main reason for this annoying situation seems to be based on the assumption that it is possible to isolate systems from their environment. When we drop it as unjustified and consider quantum systems as open ones we obtain a new perspective for the understanding of the emergence of classical properties within the framework of open systems theory. This is the basic objective of the program of decoherence proposed by Zurek  and further developed in . For a recent review of the subject and a wide range of references up to 1996 see . Decoherence is a process of continuous measurement-like interaction between a system and its environment which results in limiting the validity of the superposition principle in the Hilbert space of the system. In other words, the environment destroys the vast majority of superpositions in short time, and, in the case of macroscopic objects, almost instantaneously. This leads to the appearance of environment-induced superselection rules, which precludes all but a particular subset of states from stable existence. On the other hand, it singles out a preferred set of states which behave in an effectively classical, predictable manner. Generalizing this notion the predictability sieve was introduced  (see also ). It is a procedure, which systematically explores states of an open quantum system in order to arrange them and next put on a list, starting with the most predictable ones and ending with those, which are most affected by the environment. Clearly, the states being on the top of the list can be thought of as ”classical” or “quasi-classical” ones.

In order to study decoherence, the analysis of the evolution of the reduced density matrix obtained by tracing out the environment variables is the most convenient strategy. If the interaction is such that the reduced density matrix becomes approximately diagonal in a particular basis (in the simplest case), then it is said that an environment-induced superselection structure has emerged. Generally, the procedure of tracing out environment variables, being the composition of a unitary automorphism with a conditional expectation, leads to a complicated integro-differential equation for the reduced statistical operator. However, for a large class of interesting physical phenomena we can derive, using certain limiting procedures, an approximate Markovian master equation for the reduced density matrix . More recently, the derivation of the master equation for the reduced density matrix of a system coupled linearly to an ohmic, subohmic and supraohmic environment at arbitrary temperature has been obtained in .

Usually, when deriving the master equation for the reduced density matrices it is assumed that the quantum system interacts with the environment, which is another quantum system and hence is also described in terms of quantum mechanics. However, it should be pointed out here that such an assumption stemming from the thinking of quantum mechanics as a universal theory, can be replaced by a more general one. Sometimes, it is more useful and natural to treat the external degrees of freedom as a classical system described by a commutative algebra of functions. In this approach ( see  for discrete classical systems and  for continuous ones) the evolution equation for the classical part is modified by the expectation value of some quantum observable while, at the same time, the Schrödinger unitary dynamics for the quantum subsystem is replaced by a dynamical semigroup of completely positive maps. Therefore, when we allow the quantum system to interact with its environment, then, regardless of the nature of this interaction, the evolution becomes dissipative, given by the Markovian master equation.

The loss of quantum coherence in the Markovian regime was established in a number of open systems , giving a clear evidence of environment-induced superselection rules. In a recent paper  a thorough mathematical analysis of the superselection structure associated to an environment-induced semigroup was presented. It was achieved by the use of the isometric-sweeping decomposition, which singles out a subspace of density matrices, on which the semigroup acts in a reversible, unitary way, and sweeps out the rest of statistical states. The purpose of this paper is to pursue that investigation with a particular emphasis on the analysis of the classicality of states. We put the notion of pointer states, previously introduced and discussed by Zurek and other authors, into a general framework, and examine their properties. It is worth noting that proposed definitions are expressed solely in terms of the dynamical semigroup and does not refer to any additional conditions like that one involving the knowledge of the state of the quantum system before the beginning of interaction. A number of examples including that of a quantum stochastic process of Davies, and illustrating how the “quasi-classical” states correspond to classical points in the underlying phase space are also presented.
2. ”Classical” states

One can show that purely unitary evolution can never resolve the apparent conflict between predictions it implies and perception of the classical reality. Therefore, in order to explain the appearance of classical (non-quantum) properties of a quantum system, we have to open the system and allow it to interact with the environment. As was mentioned in Introduction we restrict our considerations to the Markovian regime and thus assume that the evolution of the reduced density matrix is given by an environment-induced semigroup. The concept of the environment-induced semigroup was introduced in , and the justification of the name was also given there. They form a subclass of dynamical semigroups (completely positive, trace preserving and contractive in the trace norm $`_1`$), which are also contractive in the operator norm $`_{\mathrm{}}`$. This additional property ensures that both the linear and statistical entropy of the open quantum system never decrease in the course of interaction .

In this section we search for quantum states which can correspond to the classical points in phase space once the interaction with the environment is acknowledged. Our strategy is as follows. We start with a quantum system whose evolution is given by an environment-induced semigroup $`T_t`$ without asking question where it comes from. Then, using general principles and properties of that semigroup we determine sets of ”classical” and “quasi-classical” (see the next section) states. If they are empty and all states are stable, the system can be thought of as closed, evolving in a unitary way, and hence the semigroup may be extended to a one parameter group of unitary automorphisms. However, if one of them is non-trivial, then the system is open and we conclude that the selected states correspond with points in a classical phase space. Therefore, these sets contain the information about the type of interaction with the environment (measuring apparatus) which led to the appearance of the semigroup $`T_t`$.

At first, let us comment on crucial differences between states of classical and quantum systems. One of the most characteristic features distinguishing classical from quantum states is their sensitivity to measurements. In classical physics we could perform many kinds of measurements which would not disturb the system in an essential way. A measurement can increase our knowledge of the state of the system but, in principle, it has no effect on the system itself. By contrast, in quantum mechanics it is impossible to find out what the state is without, at the same time, changing it in the way determined by the measurement. According to the von Neumann projection postulate the outcome will be, in general, represented by a density matrix. Therefore, as a convenient measure of the influence of the environment on the state, we take the measure of the loss of its purity expressed in terms of the linear entropy $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \rho ^2)`$ .

Let $`𝒮`$ denote the set of all states of the quantum system. By a state we always mean a pure state, whereas for a mixed state we reserve such notions like density matrix or statistical state. Hence $`𝒮`$ consists of unit vectors from a Hilbert space $``$ determined up to the phase factor $`[|\psi >]`$ or, in other words, of one-dimensional projectors in $``$. Hence $`[|\psi >]`$ is the abstract class of unit vectors with respect to the following equivalence relation: $`|\psi >|\psi ^{}>`$ if $`|\psi >=e^{i\alpha }|\psi ^{}>`$ for some $`\alpha 𝐑`$. Let us notice that the scalar product of two distinct states is not well defined but its absolute value is. Also the one-dimensional projector $`|\psi ><\psi |`$ does not depend on the choice of a state vector $`|\psi >`$.

In order to define a subset of robust (completely stable) states let us notice that any environment-induced semigroup $`T_t`$ determines two linear closed and $`T_t`$-invariant subspaces $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ in the Banach space of all trace class operators $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$. The subspace $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ is called the isometric part and $`\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ the sweeping part. For the reader convenience we recall here some basic results of this isometric-sweeping decomposition. For proofs and a more detailed discussion see . The isometric and sweeping subspaces have the following properties:
a) $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ are -invariant,
b) $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ in the following sense: $`\varphi _1\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}\varphi _2\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ we have $`\mathrm{tr}\varphi _1\varphi _2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$,
c) $`\mathrm{Tr}()=\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$, $`T_t=T_{1t}T_{2t}`$,
d) $`T_{1t}`$ is an invertible isometry given by a unitary group, i.e. $`T_{1t}\varphi =U_t\varphi U_t^{}`$ for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$,
e) $`T_{2t}`$ is sweeping, i.e. $`w^{}lim_t\mathrm{}T_{2t}\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$, where $`w^{}`$ denotes the weak topology.
Hence, to any environment-induced semigroup corresponds a space of statistical states $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and associated with it an algebra of observables such that the evolution, when restricted to these spaces, is given by the Schrödinger unitary dynamics. In addition, $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ has the following properties:
(i) if $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$, then also $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$,
(ii) if projectors $`e,f\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$, then also $`ef\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$, where $`ef`$ denotes a projector onto the two-dimensional subspace spanned by the ranges of $`e`$ and $`f`$.
As a consequence, any one-dimensional projector $`e\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ remains a projector during the evolution, and so $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for any $`t0`$. Therefore, we define a subset $`𝒮_0`$ of robust states by

$$𝒮_0=𝒮\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}$$
(1)
or, equivalently,

$$𝒮_0=\{e𝒮:S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)=S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_t^{}e)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\}$$

where $`T_t^{}`$ denotes the adjoint semigroup. If $`T_t^{}`$ commutes with $`T_t`$, then

$$\mathrm{tr}(T_t^{}e)^2=<T_t^{}e,T_t^{}e>_{HS}=<T_te,T_te>_{HS}=\mathrm{tr}(T_te)^2$$

where $`<,>_{HS}`$ is the scalar product in the Hilbert space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators, and so the condition $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ implies that also $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_t^{}e)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Therefore, in such a case for a state $`e𝒮`$ to be robust it is enough that its linear entropy does not change in the course of evolution. It is worth noting that for quantum systems over finite dimensional Hilbert spaces it also turns out that the condition $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ alone is sufficient for state $`e`$ to be in $`𝒮_0`$, see Appendix. If $`𝒮_0=𝒮`$, then the semigroup $`T_t`$ may be extended to a group of unitary automorphisms.

Obviously, any state from $`𝒮_0`$ will remain pure during the evolution and so remain in $`𝒮_0`$. Therefore, elements from $`𝒮_0`$ are the most probable candidates for “classical” states. But the unitary evolution and thus perfect predictability alone does not suffice to accomplish our goal. Another feature distinguishing quantum from classical states, namely the validity of the superposition principle, has to be taken into account. In quantum mechanics it guarantees that any superposition of two distinct, and not necessarily orthogonal, states is again a legitimate quantum state. It means that for any pair of different one-dimensional projectors $`e_1`$ end $`e_2`$ we can associate a set of one-dimensional projectors $`e`$ given by $`e(e_1e_2)=e`$. Equivalently, we may write that

$$e=\frac{(z_1|\psi _1>+z_2|\psi _2>)(z_1^{}<\psi _1|+z_2^{}<\psi _2|)}{z_1|\psi _1>+z_2|\psi _2>^2}$$

where $`|\psi _1><\psi _1|=e_1`$, $`|\psi _2><\psi _2|=e_2`$ and $`z_1,z_2`$ are complex numbers. By contrast, classical states do not combine into another state. The only situation when their combination can be considered is inevitably tied to probability distributions on the phase space. Therefore, it is natural to assume that any non-trivial superposition of ”classical” states cannot be robust.
Definition 2.1. A state $`e𝒮`$ is called ”classical” if $`e𝒮_0`$ and for any $`f𝒮_0`$, $`fe`$, $`S(e,f)𝒮_0=\mathrm{}`$, where $`S(e,f)`$ denotes the collection of all states being non-trivial superpositions of $`e`$ and $`f`$. The collection of all ”classical” states we denote by $`𝒮_c`$.
Hence, although ”classical” states remain pure during the evolution, any of their superpositions deteriorates into a mixture. Under a mild, technical assumption namely that $`T_t`$ admits a holomorphic extension to a sector $`_ϵ=\{z:\mathrm{Re}z>0,|\mathrm{arg}z|<ϵ\}`$, for some $`ϵ>0`$, the loss of the purity of their superpositions happens instantaneously.

We are now in position to describe the structure of set $`𝒮_c`$.
Theorem 2.2. If $`𝒮_c\mathrm{}`$, then it consists of a family, possibly finite, of pairwise orthogonal states $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`T_te_i=e_i`$ for all $`t0`$ and any index $`i`$.
Proof: Let $`e𝒮_c`$. We show that $`e`$ is orthogonal to any state $`f𝒮_0`$, $`fe`$. Suppose, on the contrary, that $`ef0`$. Then, because $`ef\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$, the state $`e^{}=efe`$ also belongs to $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and is orthogonal to $`e`$. All of these states can be considered as acting on a two-dimensional Hilbert space, the range of $`ef`$. Choosing an appropriate coordinate system we represent them by

$$e=\frac{1}{2}(I+\stackrel{}{n}_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }),f=\frac{1}{2}(I+\stackrel{}{n}_2\stackrel{}{\sigma })$$

with $`\stackrel{}{n}_1=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_2=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$, $`\theta [0,\pi /2)`$. Because the hermitian matrix $`i[e,f]\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ is non-zero so its spectral projectors $`\frac{1}{2}(I\pm \stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, where $`\stackrel{}{m}=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, also belong to $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$. On the other hand, they are superpositions of $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$. Therefore, $`S(e,e^{})𝒮_0\mathrm{}`$, what contradicts the assumption that $`e`$ is ”classical”. Hence $`ef`$ for any $`f𝒮_0`$, $`fe`$ and so $`𝒮_c=\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ with $`e_ie_j=\delta _{ij}e_i`$. Finally, we show that $`T_te=e`$ for all $`t`$. If not so, then for any $`ϵ>0`$ we find an instant $`s`$ such that $`T_see`$ and $`T_see_1<ϵ`$. However, by the above argument, $`T_se`$ is orthogonal to $`e`$, so $`T_see_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, the contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$
Therefore, it turned out that ”classical” states, which are defined in a general way, form so-called pointer basis being introduced so far only on the operational level. Let us recall that pointer basis arises in a specific situation when before the measurement the quantum system was in an eigenstate of the measured observable. Such states are completely predictable since they do not evolve at all. By Theorem 2.2, they always correspond to points in a discrete classical phase space.

It is also clear that a unitary evolution $`T_t=e^{itH}e^{itH}`$ with $`H=H^{}`$, does not lead to the appearance of ”classical” states at all. Although $`𝒮_0=𝒮`$ in this case, $`𝒮_c=\mathrm{}`$ since any superposition of robust states is again robust. It is worth noting that, in general, even if ”classical” states exist, they may form an incomplete set of one-dimensional projectors.
3. “Quasi-classical” states

In this section we continue the investigation of states of an open quantum system which offer optimal predictability of their own future values. In the case when “classical” states exist, they are the best candidates for states corresponding to classical points of phase space. If they are absent, it is natural to consider the states which are least affected by the interaction with the environment, that is, which are least prone to deteriorate into mixtures. Since linear entropy is a convenient measure of the loss of purity, we take its increase for initial states as a basic criterion. For a more complete analysis one should search for states which minimize the linear entropy over some finite period of time characteristic for the evolution of the system. To start with we define a quadratic form on the Hilbert space HS$`()`$ of Hilbert-Schmidt operators

$$B(\varphi )=<\varphi ,L(\varphi )>_{HS}$$

where $`\varphi D(L)\mathrm{Tr}()`$ and $`L`$ denotes the generator of semigroup $`T_t`$. Since $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ is dense in HS$`()`$ so $`B`$ is densely defined. The closure of its symmetric part we denote by $`\lambda `$. By the Hille-Yosida theorem, the Lumer-Philips form, $`\lambda `$ is positive definite. It is clear that

$$\lambda (\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_t\varphi )|_{t=0}$$
(2)
whenever the corresponding derivative exists. Let

$$𝒮(a)=\{e𝒮D(\lambda ):\lambda (e)=a\}$$
(3)
for $`a>0`$, and put $`a_0=inf\{a:𝒮(a)\mathrm{}\}`$. Guided by the previous considerations we define the set $`𝒮_s`$ of most stable states by $`𝒮_s=𝒮(a_0)`$, if it is non-empty. When $`𝒮(a_0)=\mathrm{}`$, then, in general, $`𝒮_s_{a<a_0+ϵ}𝒮(a)`$. The choice of $`ϵ`$ is somewhat arbitrary as it serves as the border between the preferred “quasi-classical” states and the ”non-classical” remainder. In this case, as was mentioned above, a further analysis examining the behavior of $`T_te`$ also for $`t>0`$ may be inevitable in order to select the set $`𝒮_s`$.

By combining predictability with the previously exploited principle expressing the fact that any superposition of two distinct preferred states cannot belong to the same class of stability we obtain the following.
Definition 3.1. A state $`e`$ is called “quasi-classical” if $`e𝒮_s`$ and for any $`f𝒮_s`$, $`fe`$, $`S(e,f)𝒮_s=\mathrm{}`$. The space of “quasi-classical” states will be denoted by $`𝒮_{qc}`$.
It should be pointed out that “quasi-classical” states can form an overcomplete set in contrast to the ”classical” states. On the other hand they may not exist at all. A simple example illustrating such a case is given by a dynamical semigroup on $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices with the following generator:

$$L(\rho )=i[H,\rho ]+(\mathrm{tr}\rho )I\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\rho $$

Then $`𝒮(a)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`a1`$ and $`𝒮(a)=𝒮`$ for $`a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Hence $`𝒮_s`$ consists of all states and so any superposition of its two states again belongs to $`𝒮_s`$. Therefore $`𝒮_{qc}=\mathrm{}`$. In this case all states deteriorate into a completely mixed state in a uniform way.
4. Examples

Having discussed theoretical properties of ”classical” and “quasi-classical” states, let us now consider some physical examples.
4.1. Pointer states

Pointer states have been thoroughly discussed, see  and references therein. They arise, for example, when the dynamical generator for the reduced density matrix is given by (see )

$$L(\rho )=i[H,\rho ]+\underset{i}{}P_i\rho P_i\frac{1}{2}\{P,\rho \}$$

where $`P_i`$ are one-dimensional orthogonal projectors, $`P=_iP_i`$, and Hamiltonian $`H`$ commutes with all $`P_i`$. Then $`𝒮_c=\{P_i\}`$.
4.2. Quantum Brownian motion

For quantum Brownian motion

$$\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]D[x,[x,\rho ]]$$
(4)
which leads to an environment-induced semigroup, the rate of change of linear entropy for a state $`e=|\psi ><\psi |`$ is given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)|_{t=0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}D(<x^2><x>^2)$$

where $`<x>=<\psi |x|\psi >`$ and $`<x^2>=<\psi |x^2|\psi >`$. Hence $`\lambda (e)`$ is proportional to the dispersion in position of $`|\psi >`$ and so $`𝒮(a)\mathrm{}`$ for any $`a>0`$. However, $`𝒮(a=0)=\mathrm{}`$. A more detailed analysis shows that the space of the most stable states $`𝒮_s`$ consists of coherent states of the quantum harmonic oscillator . Because these states are represented by

$$|\alpha >=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^n}{(n!)^{1/2}}|n>$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a complex number and $`|n>`$ denotes the energy eigenstate, hence for any two distinct states $`|\alpha >`$ and $`|\beta >`$, $`\alpha \beta `$, none of their superpositions belongs to $`𝒮_s`$. Therefore, $`𝒮_sS(|\alpha ><\alpha |,|\beta ><\beta |)=\mathrm{}`$, and so the coherent states are “quasi-classical”. It is worth noting that coherent states of a harmonic oscillator coupled with up and down spins are also selected as the preferred states (“quasi-classical” in our terminology) in a model of the joint system of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle and a harmonic oscillator interacting with a zero-temperature bath of harmonic oscillators .
4.3. GRW spontaneous localization

Let us now examine the behavior of pure states $`e_\psi =|\psi ><\psi |`$ for a semigroup given by the master equation of the type discussed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber  (see also )

$$\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑aG_a\rho G_a\kappa \rho $$
(5)
where $`G_a`$ is an operator of multiplication by a Gaussian function

$$g_a(x)=\kappa ^{1/2}(\frac{2\alpha }{\pi })^{1/4}e^{\alpha (xa)^2}$$

that is $`G_a\psi (x)=g_a(x)\psi (x)`$. Clearly, the above master equation leads to a dynamical semigroup which is also contractive in the operator norm. Hence $`\lambda `$ is well defined and

$$\lambda (e_\psi )=\kappa \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑a(\mathrm{tr}G_ae_\psi )^2$$

$$=\kappa \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x𝑑y|\psi (x)|^2|\psi (y)|^2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑ag_a(x)g_a(y)$$

$$=\kappa [1\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x𝑑y|\psi (x)|^2|\psi (y)|^2e^{\alpha (xy)^2/2}]$$

Therefore, for any $`e_\psi `$, $`0<\lambda (e_\psi )<\kappa `$ and for any $`0<a<\kappa `$, $`𝒮(a)\mathrm{}`$. Clearly, the most stable states are those of Dirac’s delta type, whereas states which are uniformly distributed over large intervals are strongly affected by the interaction.
4.4. Quantum stochastic process

This example shows that coherent states can be also selected as the “quasi-classical” states for quantum stochastic processes introduced by Davies . Quantum stochastic processes were introduced to describe rigorously certain continuous measurement processes. They can be constructed from two infinitesimal generators. The first is the generator $`Z`$ of a strongly continuous semigroup on a Hilbert space $``$, and the second is a stochastic kernel $`J`$, describing how the measuring apparatus interacts with the system. Let us recall that a stochastic kernel is a measure defined on the $`\sigma `$-algebra of Borel sets in some locally compact space and with values in the space of bounded positive linear operators on $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$. In this example we take Poincaré disc $`D=\{\zeta 𝐂:|\zeta |<1\}`$ as the underlying topological space, and define

$$Z=iH\frac{\kappa }{2}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, $`\kappa >0`$ is the coupling constant. For $`ED`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{Tr}()`$ the stochastic kernel is defined by

$$\mathrm{tr}[J(E,\rho )A]=\kappa \underset{E}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )\mathrm{tr}(e_\zeta \rho e_\zeta A)$$

where $`A`$ is a bounded linear operator on $``$, $`e_\zeta =|\zeta ><\zeta |`$ with $`|\zeta >`$ being a SU(1,1) coherent state, i.e. a holomorphic function on $`D`$

$$|\zeta >(z)=(1|\zeta |^2)(1z\zeta )^2$$

and

$$d\mu (\zeta )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{d\zeta d\overline{\zeta }}{(1|\zeta |^2)^2}$$

is a SU(1,1) invariant measure on $`D`$. In order to define a quantum stochastic process $`Z`$ and $`J`$ have to satisfy the following relation

$$\mathrm{tr}[J(D,e_\psi )]=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}<\psi |Z|\psi >$$

$`e_\psi =|\psi ><\psi |`$, for all normalized vectors $`\psi D(Z)`$. It is straightforward to check that

$$\mathrm{tr}[J(D,e_\psi )]=\kappa \underset{Q}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )\mathrm{tr}(e_\zeta e_\psi e_\zeta )=\kappa =2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}<\psi |Z|\psi >$$

The strongly continuous semigroup $`T_t`$ associated with the process is given by

$$T_t(\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(tZ^{})\rho \mathrm{exp}(tZ)+tJ(D,\rho )+o(t)$$

and so its generator reads

$$L(\rho )=i[H,\rho ]+\kappa \underset{Q}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )e_\zeta \rho e_\zeta \kappa \rho $$
(6)
Obviously, it generates an environment-induced semigroup. It is worth noting that the integral formula above is a straightforward generalization of the von Neumann projection postulate to the case in which the family of states is overcomplete. Such a generator was thoroughly discussed in .

We now search for the most stable states with respect to semigroup $`T_t`$. Let us first note that no state is stable since, by Lemma 3.2 in , $`T_t`$ is strictly positive, that is $`T_te`$ is a faithful density matrix for every $`t>0`$ and any $`e𝒮`$. Hence $`𝒮_0=\mathrm{}`$ and so, in this case, there are no ”classical” states at all. However, the quadratic form $`\lambda `$ is bounded and allows to classify all states in the following way.
Proposition 4.1. $`\frac{2}{3}\kappa \lambda (e)<\kappa `$ for every $`e𝒮`$, and $`𝒮(a)\mathrm{}`$ if $`\frac{2}{3}\kappa a<\kappa `$. For $`a_0=\frac{2}{3}\kappa `$, $`𝒮(a_0)`$ consists exactly of the coherent states $`e_\zeta `$, $`|\zeta |<1`$.
Proof: Let $`e𝒮`$. Then, by definition,

$$\lambda (e)=\kappa [1\underset{Q}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )(\mathrm{tr}ee_\zeta )^2]$$

Suppose $`e_n=|n><n|`$, where $`|n>(z)=\sqrt{n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}z^n`$, $`n𝐍\{0\}`$, is an orthonormal basis in $``$. It was shown in  that

$$\underset{Q}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )(\mathrm{tr}e_ne_\zeta )^2=\frac{n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}}{(2n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1})(2n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3})}$$

Therefore,

$$0<\underset{Q}{}𝑑\mu (\zeta )(\mathrm{tr}ee_\zeta )^2\frac{1}{3}$$

for any $`e`$, and so $`\frac{2}{3}\kappa \lambda (e)<\kappa `$. Finally, notice that $`\lambda `$ is SU(1,1) invariant. Hence $`\lambda (e_0)=\lambda (\pi (g)e_0\pi (g)^{})=\frac{2}{3}\kappa `$ for any $`g`$SU(1,1). However, the set $`\{\pi (g)e_0\pi (g)^{}\}`$ coincides with the set of coherent states $`e_\zeta `$, $`|\zeta |<1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$
Hence, by definition, $`𝒮_s=𝒮(a_0)`$. Not surprisingly, the most stable states are the coherent ones. Next we show that they are “quasi-classical”. Because any $`|\zeta >`$ has the following representation

$$|\zeta >=(1|\zeta |^2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{n+\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}}\zeta ^n|n>$$

it follows that any superposition of two distinct coherent states $`|\zeta >`$ and $`|\zeta ^{}>`$ is not coherent, and thus $`𝒮_sS(e_\zeta ,e_\zeta ^{})=\mathrm{}`$. Hence the coherent states are “quasi-classical” and make up an analog of the pointer basis. They correspond to points in Poincaré disc, which is the underlying space of the stochastic kernel representing the measuring apparatus.

In this section we have presented different types of examples which demonstrate how robust states can be selected and how non-stable states decohere to mixtures. Moreover, the rate of their deterioration to density matrices was examined. Such an analysis can be useful, for example, in quantum computing, where it is essential to control the process of decoherence in order to allow quantum bits to compute in parallel.
Acknowledgements

One of us (R.O.) would like to thank the A. von Humboldt Foundation for the financial support.
Appendix

Suppose dim$`<\mathrm{}`$ and let $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_te)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for some $`e𝒮`$. Then $`e𝒮_0`$.
Proof: Let $`P`$ be the projection onto $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ along $`\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$. Because $`P`$ extends to an orthogonal projection in the Hilbert space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $``$ so

$$T_te_2^2=P(T_te)_2^2+(idP)T_te_2^2$$

where $`_2`$ denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. Since $`P`$ commutes with $`T_t`$ and $`T_te𝒮`$, we obtain that

$$1=T_t(Pe)_2^2+(idP)T_te_2^2$$

Because dim$`<\mathrm{}`$ so $`T_t`$ is relatively compact in the strong operator topology and so, by Theorem 24 in , $`lim_t\mathrm{}T_t\varphi P(T_t\varphi )_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for any trace class operator $`\varphi `$. Since $`_2_1`$ we obtain that $`lim_t\mathrm{}T_t(Pe)_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. However, $`T_t`$ is also contractive in the norm $`_2`$, so $`Pe_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and hence $`Pe=e`$. It means that $`e\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$, and thus $`e𝒮_0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$
References
$`[1]`$ W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1516.
$`[2]`$ W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 1862.
$`[3]`$ E. Joos and H.D. Zeh, Z. Phys. B 59 (1985) 223.
$`[4]`$ J.P. Paz and W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2728.
$`[5]`$ E. Joos, Decoherence through interaction with the environment, in: D. Giulini et al. (Eds.), Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, Springer, Berlin, 1996.
$`[6]`$ D. Giulini et al. (Eds.), Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, Springer, Berlin, 1996.

Ph. Blanchard et al. (Eds.), Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental and Conceptual Problems, Lect. Notes Phys. 538, Springer, Berlin, 2000
$`[7]`$ W.H. Zurek, S. Habib and J.P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1187.
$`[8]`$ W.H. Zurek, Progr. Theor. Phys. 89 (1993) 281.
$`[9]`$ M.R. Gallis, Phys. Rev. A 53 (1996) 655.
$`[10]`$ R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications, Lect. Notes Phys. 286, 1987.
$`[11]`$ B.L. Hu, J.P. Paz and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2843.
$`[12]`$ Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Phys. Lett. A 175 (1993) 157.
$`[13]`$ Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Phys. Lett. A 183 (1993) 272.
$`[14]`$ R. Olkiewicz, Rev. Math. Phys. 9 (1997) 719.
$`[15]`$ R. Olkiewicz, J. Math. Phys. 40 (1999) 1300.
$`[16]`$ W.G. Unruh and W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1071.
$`[17]`$ J. Twamley, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 5730.
$`[18]`$ R. Olkiewicz, Commun. Math. Phys. 208 (1999) 245.
$`[19]`$ R. Olkiewicz, Structure of the algebra of effective observables in quantum mechanics, quanth-ph/0003032.
$`[20]`$ P. Carruthers and M.M. Nieto, Amer. J. Phys. 33 (1965) 537.
$`[21]`$ A. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000) 012102.
$`[22]`$ G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, An attempt at a unified description of microscopic and macroscopic systems, in: V. Gorini and A. Frigerio (Eds.), Fundamental Aspects of Quantum Theory, NATO ASI Series B 144, Plenum Press, New York, 1986.
$`[23]`$ A. Jadczyk, Progr. Theor. Phys. 93 (1995) 631.
$`[24]`$ E.B. Davies, Commun. Math. Phys. 15 (1969) 277.
$`[25]`$ A.M. Perelomov, Commun. Math. Phys. 26 (1972) 222.
$`[26]`$ Ph. Blanchard and R. Olkiewicz, J. Stat. Phys. 94 (1999) 933.


format: text

text:
# Bounds on extra quark-lepton generations from precision measurements

## 1 Introduction

The aim of this talk is to analyze to what extent precision measurements of IVB parameters allow to bound effectively the existence of extra chiral generations of heavy fermions, both quarks ($`q=U,D`$) and leptons ($`l=N,E`$).  We will show that the case where *all* the extra particles are heavier than $`m_Z`$ is now excluded by more than $`2`$ standard deviations. However, if the masses of new neutrinos are assumed to be close to $`50\text{ GeV}`$, then additional generations become allowed and up to three extra families can exist within $`2.5\sigma `$. Finally, inclusion of new generations in SUSY extension of Standard Model is briefly discussed.

For simplicity, we will assume that the extra neutrinos are just ordinary massive Dirac particles, and that their mass is larger than $`45\text{ GeV}`$ so to avoid contradiction with the experimental data on the invisible $`Z`$ width. Also, we will neglect the possible mixing among new generations and the three existing ones, hence new fermions contribute to electroweak observables only through oblique corrections. On the other hand, we perform global fit of *all* precision data,  studying both degenerate and non-degenerate extra generations on the equal footing. Taking the number of new generations $`N_g`$ as a continuous parameter, just as it was done with the determination of the number of neutrinos from invisible $`Z`$ width, we get a bound on it. The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ corresponds to $`N_g0.5`$, while the case $`N_g=1`$ is excluded by more than $`2`$ standard deviations.

## 2 Discussion

Heavy fermions. The comparison between theoretical predictions and experimental data is performed with the help of the computer code LEPTOP To simplify the analysis we start from the “horizontally degenerate” case $`(m_N=m_U)>(m_E=m_D=130\text{ GeV})`$ the lower bound on extra quark masses coming from Tevatron search,  and in Fig. 2 we show the excluded domains in coordinates ($`N_g`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(m_U^2m_D^2)^{1/2}`$). Any value of higgs mass above $`90\text{ GeV}`$ is allowed in our fits; minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ corresponds to $`N_g=0.5`$, and the case $`N_g=0`$ is within the $`1\sigma `$ domain. It is immediate to see that one extra generation is always excluded by more than $`2.5`$ standard deviations.

We checked that similar bounds are valid for the general choice of heavy masses of leptons and quarks.  In particular we found that for the “cross degenerate” case $`(m_E=m_U)>(m_N=m_D=130\text{ GeV}`$) one extra generation is excluded at $`2\sigma `$ level, while in the “anti-cross degenerate” case $`(m_N=m_D)>(m_E=m_U=130\text{ GeV})`$ the limits are even stronger than in Fig. 2.

Light neutrinos. For particles with masses close to $`m_Z/2`$, oblique corrections drastically differ from what we have above $`m_Z`$. If we assume that the mixing angle between $`N`$ and the three known neutrinos is less than $`10^6`$, so to avoid the bound $`m_N>70÷80\text{ GeV}`$ from LEP II searches of the decays $`NlW^{}`$, we have that extra neutrinos as light as $`45\text{ GeV}`$ are still allowed by direct search experiments. In this case, effects of $`Z`$-boson wave function renormalization become relevant,  and the quality of the fit can be even better than the SM. Analyzing all the electroweak observables, we conclude that presently a light neutral lepton $`N`$ cannot be excluded by precision measurements as well. As an example, in Fig. 2 we assume $`m_U=220\text{ GeV}`$, $`m_D=200\text{ GeV}`$, $`m_E=100\text{ GeV}`$ and draw the exclusion plot in coordinates ($`m_N,N_g`$): from this plot it is clear that for the case of extra generations with $`m_N50\text{ GeV}`$ even two new generations are allowed within $`1.5\sigma `$.

The case of SUSY. Concerning bounds on extra generations which occur in SUSY extensions, when superpartners are heavy their contributions to electroweak observables become power suppressed, and the same Standard Model exclusion plots shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 2 are valid. The present lower bounds on the sparticle masses from direct searches leave mainly this decoupled domain. One possible exception is a contribution of the third generation squark doublet, enhanced by large stop-sbottom splitting.  To see whether this contribution affects the bounds on extra generations found in the previous section, in Fig. 4 we analyze the simplest case of the absence of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ mixing, setting the masses of all the extra fermions to the common value $`m_{N,E,U,D}=130\text{ GeV}`$ and showing the plot in coordinates $`(N_g,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}})`$. It is clear that even in the context of SUSY models new heavy generations are disfavored.

Situation qualitatively changes in the case of almost degenerate light chargino and neutralino. This possibility is yet not excluded – dedicated search at LEP II by DELPHI still allows the existence of such particles with masses as low as $`45\text{ GeV}`$ if their mass difference is $`1\text{ GeV}`$  – and even in this case radiative corrections are large.  Fig. 4 demonstrates how the presence of a chargino-neutralino pair (dominated by higgsino) with mass $`57\text{ GeV}`$ relaxes the bounds shown on Fig. 2: we see that one extra generation of heavy fermions is now allowed within the $`1.5\sigma `$ domain.

## 3 Conclusions

Inclusion of new generations in Standard Model is not excluded by precision data if the new neutral leptons have masses close to $`m_Z/2`$ (see Fig. 2). In order to experimentally investigate this case a special search for the reaction $`e^+e^{}\gamma Z^{}\gamma N\overline{N}`$ with larger statistics and improved systematics is needed. Finally, further experimental search for light chargino and neutralino  is of interest. These searches could close the existing windows of “light” extra particles, or open a door into a realm of New Physics.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my collaborators V.A. Novikov, A.N. Rozanov, L.B. Okun and M.I. Vysotsky. This work was supported by DGICYT under grant PB98-0693 and by the TMR network grant ERBFMRX-CT96-0090 of the European Union.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

For massless neutrinos, the leading contribution to low energy neutrino-photon scattering vanishes because the amplitude can be written in the form of a vector or axial-vector current coupling to the photons. The largest low energy interaction between photons and neutrinos is therefore $`\gamma \nu \gamma \gamma \nu `$ and the crossed channels. Rates for these processes have been calculated, for energies less than the electron mass, $`m_e`$, by using an effective action  and, for larger energies, by a straight-forward calculation of box diagrams .

In the presence of magnetic fields neutrino photon elastic scattering does exist because the magnetic field gives an additional interaction – it effectively replaces one of the photons in $`\gamma \nu \gamma \gamma \nu `$ with a zero momentum insertion. This too has been calculated; for low energies using the effective action for the $`23`$ processes  and, at higher energies, by calculating triangle diagrams in the external field .

Our purpose here is to criticize mildly and extend slightly these external field results. In particular the effective action paper  gave results for only one channel ($`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$). We extend this to all channels with $`B`$ perpendicular and parallel for each channel. Results of the more general calculation of Ref.  are given in three figures. We believe the curves in these figures are somewhat in error; for example, they sometimes disagree at low energies with our extended effective action results. Both references  and  express their results in terms of the critical magnetic field $`B_c=m_e^2/e=4.41\times 10^{13}`$ gauss. In each case the authors have taken $`e`$ to be in unrationalized units, $`e^2=1/137`$. whereas it should have been taken to be in natural units $`e^2=4\pi /137`$. Thus all their results are too large by a factor of $`4\pi `$.

## 2. Neutrino-photon cross sections in a uniform magnetic field

The calculation of Ref.  uses the effective interaction given in Ref. . In this interaction, as in the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian upon which it is based, $`\alpha `$ equals $`e^2/4\pi `$ so the coupling of the magnetic field has been taken as this $`e`$. As discussed in Ref.  the critical field, when written as $`m_e^2/e`$, uses $`e`$ in these same natural units. The value of the critical field, $`4.41\times 10^{13}`$ gauss, means that in natural (or rationalized) units 1 tesla $`=195\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The result of Ref.  agrees in every respect with the result given below for $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ with the external field perpendicular to the direction of the photons except in the replacement of $`B_c^2`$ by $`m_e^4/\alpha `$ where it should be replaced by $`m_e^4/4\pi \alpha `$. Since the curve $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ in Fig. 2 of Ref.  agrees, at low energy, with the result of Ref.  these authors too must have made the wrong substitution for $`B_c`$.

### 2.1 Low energy interactions

The explicit calculations at low energy, using the effective action, are unremarkable and give the following results. For $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma \gamma `$ the cross sections with center of mass energy $`\omega `$ and scattering angle $`z`$ are given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dz}=\sigma _0\frac{A}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\omega }{m_e}\right)^6\left(\frac{B}{B_c}\right)^2\left[2312\left(1N_1^2\right)+816N_1N_2zN_2^2(744+72z^2)\right],$$
(1)
where $`A=1`$ for $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ and 1/2 for $`\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma \gamma `$. For electron neutrinos, including both the $`W`$ and $`Z`$-boson contributions, $`a=1/2+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and

$$\sigma _0=\frac{G_F^2\alpha ^2a^2m_e^2}{(180)^2\pi ^2}=2.12\times 10^{54}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(2)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ depend on whether the $`B`$ field is parallel or perpendicular to the direction of the initial particles and are given in Table I.

The cross section for $`\gamma \nu \gamma \nu `$ is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dz}=\frac{\sigma _0}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\omega }{m_e}\right)^6\left(\frac{B}{B_c}\right)^2\left[1211143z^2\left(N_1^2+N_2^2\right)(896+62z^2)+N_1N_2z(85911z^2)\right]$$
(3)
where terms odd in $`z`$ have been dropped. Using the $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ values and completing the integral over $`z`$ gives

$$\sigma =\frac{\sigma _0}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\omega }{m_e}\right)^6\left(\frac{B}{B_c}\right)^2𝑿,$$
(4)
where the $`𝑿`$ values for the six cases are given in Table I. Note that the result for $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ with perpendicular $`B`$ agrees with Ref.  if the $`4\pi `$ is ignored. Also note that the differential cross sections for parallel $`B`$ go as $`1z^2`$ as they must.

The $`𝑿`$ values show that the cross sections for $`\gamma \nu \gamma \nu `$ differ by a factor of about 4 depending on whether the magnetic field is parallel or perpendicular. The cross sections for $`\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma \gamma `$ differ by a factor of about 200. These differences are not present in the figures of Ref. .

### 2.2 Interactions at arbitrary center of mass energies

The authors of Refs.  do a nice job of deriving the lowest order constant magnetic field contribution to photon-neutrino scattering, both from the correction to the electron propagator and from the phase factor. Their expression for the matrix element  seems entirely correct with the exception of a relative minus sign in the tensor which multiplies the coefficient function $`C_{11}`$. The authors of Ref.  inform us that this is a typographical error . We agree with all the coefficient functions $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_{11}`$.

The results of our calculation of neutrino-photon scattering in a constant magnetic field following the methods of Refs.  and  are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 for the three channels. All calculations are for $`B=0.1B_c`$ as is the case in Ref. . At low energies the cross sections agree almost exactly with Eq. (4). Note the relative factor of about 4 between the magnetic field directions for $`\gamma \nu \gamma \nu `$ and the similar factor of about 200 for $`\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma \gamma `$. Also note the infrared divergence at $`\omega =m_e`$ in the $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ channels where the magnetic field interaction acts as a zero energy insertion on an external leg.

For large energy all of the cross sections grow as $`\omega ^2`$ except for $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ with $`B`$ parallel to the photon direction, which decreases. After summation over photon polarizations, the cross section for this channel can be written as

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`A_1F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+A_2(k_1^\mu F_{\mu \alpha }F^{\alpha \nu }k_{1\nu }+k_2^\mu F_{\mu \alpha }F^{\alpha \nu }k_{2\nu })`$ (5)
$`+A_3k_1^\mu F_{\mu \alpha }F^{\alpha \nu }k_{2\nu }+A_4(k_1^\mu F_{\mu \nu }k_2^\nu )^2,`$
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength of the magnetic field and $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the momenta of the photons. The $`A_i`$ are combinations of the coefficient functions $`C_1,C_2,\mathrm{},C_{11}`$. For a magnetic field in a direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ this reduces to

$$\sigma 2A_1\omega ^2A_2[2(\widehat{k}_1\stackrel{}{n})^2(\widehat{k}_2\stackrel{}{n})^2]+\omega ^2A_3[1+\widehat{k}_1\stackrel{}{n}\widehat{k}_2\stackrel{}{n}].$$
(6)
Thus for $`\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ with $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ parallel to $`\widehat{k}_1`$ and $`\widehat{k}_2`$ the coefficients of $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ vanish. $`A_1`$, which in this channel depends only on $`C_1`$, falls as $`\mathrm{ln}^2(\omega ^2/m_e^2)/\omega ^2`$ for $`\omega >>m_e`$, giving the decrease at large $`\omega `$ seen in Fig. (1). $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ do not vanish for $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{k}_1`$ and $`\widehat{k}_2`$ nor do they vanish for either $`B`$ direction in the other channels.

## 3. Conclusions

We have extended the low energy effective Lagrangian calculation of Ref.  to include all channels and directions of the magnetic field B. In Figs. (1-3), we have given correct values for the cross sections at all energies, which, while shown for $`B=0.1B_c`$, can be scaled by $`B^2`$. (Of course, following Ref.  and , we have essentially done perturbation theory in $`B/B_c`$ so our results are not valid for much larger $`B`$.) All calculations were performed for electron neutrinos but this too can be easily changed by using $`a=1/22\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ for the other neutrino types.

It turns out that neutrino photon scattering in an external magnetic field is less important, relative to the $`23`$ processes, than previously thought . Since the effects of these processes on stars was already calculated  to be small we have not repeated the determination of the stellar energy loss rates or mean free paths.

## Acknowledgement

We would like thank Chung Kao, Vic Teplitz and Roberto Vega for helpful conversations and R. Shaisultanov and G.-L. Lin for comments. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-9802439 and by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG13-93ER40757.

## References

## Tables

## Figures


text:
# I. Introduction

## I. Introduction

It is known that quantum deformation of Lie group $`GL(2)`$ with central quantum determinant is classified into two types  : the standard deformation $`GL_q(2)`$  and the Jordanian deformation $`GL_h(2)`$ . The representation theory of $`GL_q(2)`$ has been studied extensively and we know that its contents are quite rich (See, for instance, Refs. ). On the other hand, the representation theory of $`GL_h(2)`$ has not been developed yet. There are some works studying differential geometry on quantum $`h`$-plane and on $`SL_h(2)`$ itself . However, the representation functions for $`GL_h(2)`$, the most basic ingredient of representation theories, has not been known. Recently Chakrabarti and Quesne  showed that the representation functions for two-parametric extension of $`GL_h(2)`$  can be obtained from the standard deformed ones via a contraction method and gave explicit form of representation functions for some low dimensional cases. In Ref., the present author shows that the Jordanian deformation of symplecton for $`sl(2)`$ gives a natural basis for a representation of $`SL_h(2)`$ and he also gives another basis in terms of quantum $`h`$-plane.

The purpose of the present paper is to obtain explicit formulae for $`SL_h(2)`$ representation functions using the tensor operator technique and to investigate their properties. Representation functions are also called Wigner’s $`D`$-functions in physicist’s terminology. We use both terms and concentrate ourselves to the finite dimensional highest weight irreducible representations of $`SL_h(2)`$ throughout the present paper. In order to make a comparison between $`D`$-functions for $`SL_q(2)`$ and $`SL_h(2)`$, let us recall some known properties of $`D`$-functions for $`SL_q(2)`$  : (a) Wigner’s product law , (b) recurrence relations , (c) orthogonality (d) RTT type relations , (e) $`D`$-functions can be written in terms of the little $`q`$-Jacobi polynomials , (f) generating function . We will show, in this paper, that many of them have counterparts in the representation theory of $`SL_h(2)`$. Only exception is the generating function, it is not presented in this paper. Of course it does not mean that the generating function for the $`D`$-functions of $`SL_h(2)`$ dose not exist.

The plan of this paper is as follows: we present the definitions of $`SL_h(2)`$ and its dual quantum algebra $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ in the next section. In §III, before deriving the explicit formulae for the representation functions, we discuss general features of them which are valid for any kind of deformation of $`SL(2)`$ under the assumption that the representation theory of the dual quantum algebra has a one-to-one correspondence with the undeformed $`sl(2).`$ Then we shall write down the recurrence relations for $`SL_h(2)D`$-functions. §IV is a brief review of the $`D`$-functions for Lie group $`SL(2)`$ (and $`GL(2)`$). We emphasize that the $`D`$-functions for $`GL(2)`$ form, in a certain boson realization, irreducible tensor operators of the Lie algebra $`gl(2)gl(2).`$ In §V, a tensor operator technique is used to obtain the boson realization of the generators of the Jordanian quantum group $`GL_h(2)`$, then it is generalized to obtain the $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$. We shall apply the same technique to show that the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials. This method will be applied to obtain a boson realization for two-parametric extension of the Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)`$ in §VI. §VII is concluding remarks.

## II. $`𝑺𝑳_𝒉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and its Dual

The Jordanian quantum group $`GL_h(2)`$ is generated by four elements $`x,y,u`$ and $`v`$ subject to the relations

$`[v,x]=hv^2,[u,x]=h(Dx^2),`$
$`[v,y]=hv^2,[u,y]=h(Dy^2),`$ (2.1)
$`[x,y]=h(xvyv),[v,u]=h(xv+vy),`$
where $`D=xyuvhxv`$ is the quantum determinant generating the center of $`GL_h(2)`$. This is a Hopf algebra and Hopf algebra mappings have a similar form as $`GL_q(2)`$. However, explicit form of the mappings is not necessary in the following discussion. By setting $`D=1`$, we obtain $`SL_h(2)`$ from $`GL_h(2).`$

The quantum algebra dual to $`GL_h(2)`$ is denoted by $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$, and defined by the same commutation relations as the Lie algebra $`gl(2)`$

$$[J_0,J_\pm ]=\pm 2J_\pm ,[J_+,J_{}]=J_0,[Z,]=0.$$
(2.2)
However, their Hopf algebra mappings are modified via twisting  by the invertible element $`𝒰_h(gl(2))^2`$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}J_0\sigma \right),\sigma =\mathrm{ln}(12hJ_+).$$
(2.3)
The coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, counit $`ϵ`$ and antipode $`S`$ for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ are obtained from those for $`gl(2)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1,ϵ=ϵ_0,S=\mu S_0\mu ^1,$$
(2.4)
where the mappings with suffix $`0`$ stand for the Hopf algebra mappings for $`gl(2)`$. The elements $`\mu `$ and $`\mu ^1`$ are defined, using the product $`m`$ for $`gl(2)`$, by

$$\mu =m(idS_0)(),\mu ^1=m(S_0id)(^1).$$
(2.5)
The twist element $``$ is not depend on the central element $`Z`$ so that the Hopf algebra mappings for $`Z`$ remain undeformed. Therefore the Jordanian quantum algebra obtained by the twist element (2.3) has the decomposition $`𝒰_h(gl(2))=𝒰_h(sl(2))u(1)`$. The Jordanian quantum algebra $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ is a triangular Hopf algebra whose universal $`R`$-matrix is given by $`=_{12}^1`$.

It is obvious, from the commutation relation (2.2), that $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ and $`gl(2)`$ have the same finite dimensional highest weight irreducible representations. Furthermore we can easily see that tensor product of two irreducible representations (irreps) is completely reducible and decomposed into irreps in the same way as $`gl(2),`$ since the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (CGC) for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ are product of the ones for $`gl(2)`$ and matrix elements of the twist element $``$. For the $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ sector, this is carried out in Ref.. The CGC for $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ in another basis are discussed in Ref.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ`$ be the coproduct and counit for $`GL_h(2)`$, respectively. We use the same notations for the Hopf algebra mappings of both $`GL_h(2)`$ and $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$, however, this may not cause serious confusion. A vector space (representation space) $`V`$ is called right $`GL_h(2)`$ comodule, if there exist a map $`\rho :VVGL_h(2)`$ such that the following relations are satisfied

$$(\rho id)\rho =(id_V\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ,(id_Vϵ)\rho =id_V,$$
(2.6)
where $`id_V`$ stands for the identity map in $`V`$. The left comodule is defined in the similar manner. Using the bases $`\{e_i|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of $`V`$, the map $`\rho `$ is written as

$$\rho (e_i)=\underset{j}{}e_j𝒟_{ji},$$
(2.7)
it follows that the relation (2.6) are rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒟_{ij})=\underset{k}{}𝒟_{ik}𝒟_{kj},ϵ(𝒟_{ij})=\delta _{ij}.$$
(2.8)
We call $`𝒟_{ij}GL_h(2)`$ satisfying (2.7) and (2.8) the $`D`$-function for $`GL_h(2)`$.

## III. Properties of $`D`$-functions

### A. Wigner’s Product Law and RTT Type Relations

Before deriving the explicit formulae for $`SL_h(2)`$ $`D`$-functions , one can discuss some important properties of $`D`$-functions such as Wigner’s product law, recurrence relations, RTT type relations and so on, using the definition of universal $`T`$-matrix . The explicit expression of the universal $`T`$-matrix is not necessary. The universal $`T`$-matrix for the standard deformation of $`GL(2)`$ is given in Ref., while it is not known for the Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)`$.

The discussion in this subsection is quite general. We shall present it so as to be applicable to any kind of deformation of $`SL(2)`$ (standard, Jordanian, two-parametric extension, anything else if any). Then we will write down the results explicitly for the Jordanian deformation of $`SL(2)`$ in the next subsection. It will also be seen that the discussion is easily extended to other groups.

Let $`𝒢`$ and $`𝐠`$ be deformation of Lie group $`SL(2)`$ and Lie algebra $`sl(2)`$, respectively. The duality between $`𝒢`$ and $`𝐠`$ are expressed, by choosing suitable bases, in terms of the universal $`T`$-matrix . Let $`x^\alpha `$ and $`X_\alpha `$ be elements of a basis of $`𝒢`$ and $`𝐠`$, respectively. They are chosen as follows: the product is given by

$$x^\alpha x^\beta =\underset{\gamma }{}h_\gamma ^{\alpha ,\beta }x^\gamma ,X_\alpha X_\beta =\underset{\gamma }{}f_{\alpha ,\beta }^\gamma X_\gamma ,$$
(3.1)
the coproduct is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x^\alpha )=\underset{\beta ,\gamma }{}f_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha x^\beta x^\gamma ,\mathrm{\Delta }(X_\alpha )=\underset{\beta ,\gamma }{}h_\alpha ^{\beta ,\gamma }X_\beta X_\gamma .$$
(3.2)
Then the universal $`T`$-matrix $`𝒯`$ is defined by

$$𝒯=\underset{\alpha }{}x^\alpha X_\alpha .$$
(3.3)
We assume that the deformed algebra $`𝐠`$ has the same finite dimensional highest weight irreps as $`sl(2)`$, that is, (1) each irrep is classified by the spin $`j`$ and a irrep basis $`|jm`$ is specified by $`j`$ and the magnetic quantum number $`m`$, (2) tensor product of irreps $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ is completely reducible

$$j_1j_2=j_1+j_2j_1+j_21\mathrm{}|j_1j_2|.$$

We further assume that vectors $`|jm`$ are complete and orthonormal. Then the $`D`$-functions for $`𝒢`$ is obtained by

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=jm^{}\left|𝒯\right|jm=\underset{\alpha }{}x^\alpha jm^{}\left|X_\alpha \right|jm.$$
(3.4)
For the standard two-parametric deformation of $`GL(2)`$, the RHS of (3.4) was computed and it was shown that (3.4) coinceided with the $`D`$-functions obtained by another method . In our case, we show that the $`D`$-functions (3.4) satisfy (2.8) by making use of the relations (3.1) and (3.2). The coproduct of $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ is computed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒟_{m^{},m}^j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(x^\alpha )jm^{}\left|X_\alpha \right|jm={\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\gamma }{}}x^\beta x^\gamma jm^{}\left|X_\beta X_\gamma \right|jm`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\gamma ,k}{}}x^\beta x^\gamma jm^{}\left|X_\beta \right|jkjk\left|X_\gamma \right|jm={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}𝒟_{m^{},k}^j𝒟_{k,m}^j.`$
To compute the counit for $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$, we use the identiy obtained from the definition of counit

$$\underset{\beta ,\gamma }{}f_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha ϵ(x^\beta )x^\gamma =x^\alpha .$$
(3.5)
Using this relation, the universal $`T`$-matrix is rewritten as

$`𝒯`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}x^\alpha X_\alpha ={\displaystyle f_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha ϵ(x^\beta )x^\gamma X_\alpha }={\displaystyle ϵ(x^\beta )x^\gamma X_\beta X_\gamma }`$
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ϵ(x^\beta )X_\beta )𝒯.`$
It follows that

$$(\underset{\beta }{}ϵ(x^\beta )X_\beta )=(ϵid)(𝒯)=1.$$
(3.6)
Therefore the counit for $`D`$-functions is

$$ϵ(𝒟_{m^{},m}^j)=jm^{}\left|(ϵid)(𝒯)\right|jm=jm^{}|jm=\delta _{m^{},m}.$$

We first show that the $`D`$-functions (3.4) satisfy the analogous relations to Wigner’s product law. Let us denote the CGC for $`𝐠`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}`$, $`i.e.`$,

$$|(j_1j_2)jm=\underset{m_1,m_2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}|j_1m_1|j_2m_2.$$
(3.7)
We write the inverse of the above relation as follows:

$$|j_1m_1|j_2m_2=\underset{j,m}{}\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}|(j_1j_2)jm.$$
(3.8)
Then an analogue of Wigner’s product law reads

###### Theorem 3.1

The $`D`$-functions for $`𝒢`$ satisfy the relation

$$\delta _{j,j^{}}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=\underset{k_1,k_2,m_1,m_2}{}\mathrm{}_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2}.$$
(3.9)
$`Proof`$ : Because of the relations (3.1) and (3.2), one can show that

$$(id\mathrm{\Delta })(𝒯)=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}x^\alpha x^\beta X_\alpha X_\beta ,(\mathrm{\Delta }id)(𝒯)=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}x^\alpha x^\beta X_\alpha X_\beta .$$
(3.10)
It follows that

$$(id\mathrm{\Delta })(𝒯)|(j_1j_2)jm=\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,m_1,m_2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}x^\alpha x^\beta X_\alpha |j_1m_1X_\beta |j_2m_2.$$
(3.11)
The LHS of (3.11) is rewritten as

$$\underset{m^{}}{}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j|(j_1j_2)jm^{}=\underset{m^{},k_1,k_2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j|j_1k_1|j_2k_2.$$

The RHS of (3.11) is rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}j_1k_1\left|X_\alpha \right|j_1m_1j_2k_2\left|X_\beta \right|j_2m_2x^\alpha x^\beta |j_1k_1|j_2k_2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2}|j_1k_1|j_2k_2}.`$
Thus we obtain

$$\underset{m^{}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=\underset{m_1,m_2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2}.$$
(3.12)
Using the orthogonality of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}`$, the theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.2

The $`D`$-functions also satisfy the following relations

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j={\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2},`$ (3.13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j={\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}\mathrm{}_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2},`$ (3.14)
$`𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^{j_2}={\displaystyle \underset{j,m,m^{}}{}}\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1,k_2,m^{}}^{j_1,j_2,j}𝒟_{m^{},m}^j.`$ (3.15)
$`Proof`$ : (3.13) has already been obtained in the proof of Theorem 3.9, see (3.12). Others can be obtained from (3.13) by the orthogonality of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`𝒢=SL_q(2)`$ and $`𝐠=𝒰_q(sl(2))`$, the CGC $`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{}`$ are given by the $`q`$-analogue of the CGC of $`sl(2)`$ : $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}=\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}={}_{q}{}^{}C_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}`$ . From the relations (3.9) and (3.13) - (3.15), the recurrence relations and the orthogonality of $`SL_q(2)`$ $`D`$-functions are obtained .

Next we show that the $`D`$-functions (3.4) satisfy the RTT type relation.

###### Theorem 3.3

The $`D`$-functions for $`𝒢`$ satisfy

$$\underset{s_1,s_2}{}(R^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}𝒟_{s_1,k_1}^{j_1}𝒟_{s_2,k_2}^{j_2}=\underset{s_1,s_2}{}𝒟_{m_2,s_2}^{j_2}𝒟_{m_1,s_1}^{j_1}(R^{j_1,j_2})_{s_1,s_2}^{k_1,k_2},$$
(3.16)
where $`(R^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}`$ are the matrix elements of the universal $`R`$-matrix for $`𝐠`$

$$(R^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}=j_1m_1|j_2m_2\left|\right|j_1s_1|j_2s_2.$$

$`Remark`$ : For $`j_1=j_2=1/2`$, the matrix elements for $``$ are evaluated in the fundamental representation of $`𝐠`$. Therefore, the relation (3.16) is reduced to the defining relation of $`𝒢`$ in FRT-formalism . This implies that $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are generators of $`𝒢.`$

$`Proof`$ : The relation (3.16) can be proved by evaluating matrix elements of the RTT type relation for the universal $`T`$-matrix . We define

$$𝒯_1=x^\alpha X_\alpha 1,𝒯_2=x^\alpha 1X_\alpha ,$$

then

$`𝒯_1𝒯_2={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}x^\alpha x^\beta X_\alpha X_\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}x^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }(X_\alpha ),`$
$`𝒯_2𝒯_1={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}x^\beta x^\alpha X_\alpha X_\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}x^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(X_\alpha ),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ stands for the opposite coproduct. It follows that

$$𝒯_2𝒯_1=\underset{\alpha }{}x^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }(X_\alpha )^1,$$

thus we obtain

$$(1)𝒯_1𝒯_2=𝒯_2𝒯_1(1).$$

Evaluating the matrix elements on $`1|j_1k_1|j_2k_2`$, the theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`𝒢=SL_q(2)`$, the relaiton (3.16) was proved by Nomura . However, Theorem 3.3 shows that the relation (3.16) holds for any kind of deformation of $`SL(2)`$. In Ref., the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_q(2)`$ are interpreted as the wave functions of quantum symmetric tops in noncommutative space.

### B. Recurrence Relations and Orthogonality-like Relations

In this subsection, the recurrence relations and the orthogonality-like relations of the $`SL_h(2)`$ $`D`$-functions are derived as a consequence of the theorems in the previous subsection. It is known that the CGC for $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ are given in terms of the CGC for $`sl(2)`$ and the matrix elements of the twist element $``$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}=\underset{s_1,s_2}{}C_{s_1,s_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}(F^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2},$$
(3.17)
where $`C_{s_1,s_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}`$ is the CGC for $`sl(2)`$ and $`(F^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}`$ is given by

$$(F^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}=j_1,m_1|j_2,m_2\left|\right|j_1,s_1|j_2,s_2.$$

The explicit formula for $`(F^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}`$ and the next relation are found in Ref..

$$(F^{j_1,j_2})_{m_1,m_2}^{s_1,s_2}=((F^1)^{j_1,j_2})_{s_1,s_2}^{m_1,m_2}.$$
(3.18)
The CGC for $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ satisfy the orthogonality relations  because of

$$\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}=(1)^{j_1+j_2j}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}=\underset{s_1,s_2}{}C_{s_1,s_2,m}^{j_1,j_2,j}((F^1)^{j_1,j_2})_{s_1,s_2}^{m_1,m_2}.$$
(3.19)
The relation(3.18) and the well known property of the $`sl(2)`$ CGC are used in the last equality.

Note that we have known the following fact because of the remark to Theorem 3.3.

###### Proposition 3.4

$`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are the generators of $`SL_h(2)`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}& 𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ 𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}& 𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& u\\ v& y\end{array}\right)_.$$
(3.20)
Let us consider the case that $`j_1`$ is arbitrary and $`j_2=1/2`$ in order to derive the recurrence relations for $`SL_h(2)`$ $`D`$-functions. In this case, the $`F`$-coefficients have a simple form

$`(F^{j_1,\frac{1}{2}})_{k_1,k_2}^{m_1,\frac{1}{2}}=\delta _{k_1,m_1}\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`(F^{j_1,\frac{1}{2}})_{k_1,k_2}^{m_1,\frac{1}{2}}=\delta _{k_1,m_1}(\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}2m_1h\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`((F^1)^{j_1,\frac{1}{2}})_{m_1,\frac{1}{2}}^{n_1,n_2}=\delta _{m_1,n_1}(\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}+2m_1h\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`((F^1)^{j_1,\frac{1}{2}})_{m_1,\frac{1}{2}}^{n_1,n_2}=\delta _{m_1,n_1}\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}.`$
One can use Winger’s product law, expressed in the form of (3.13) and (3.14), to derive the recurrence relations for $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ which are reduced to the known recurrence relations of the $`SL(2)`$ $`D`$-functions in the limit of $`h=0.`$

###### Proposition 3.5

The $`SL_h(2)`$ $`D`$-functions satisfy the following recurrence relations

| (i) | $`\sqrt{j+k}𝒟_{k,m}^j(2k1)h\sqrt{jk+1}𝒟_{k1,m}^j`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}x+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(u(2m+1)hx),`$ |
| (ii) | $`\sqrt{jk}𝒟_{k,m}^j=\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{k+\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}v+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{k+\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(y(2m+1)hv),`$ |
| (iii) | $`\sqrt{j+n}𝒟_{m,n}^j=\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(x+(2m1)hv)+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}v,`$ |
| (iv) | $`\sqrt{jn}𝒟_{m,n}^j+\sqrt{j+n}(2n+1)h𝒟_{m,n+1}^j`$ |
|  | $`=\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(u+(2m1)hy)+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}y,`$ |
| (v) | $`\sqrt{jk+1}𝒟_{k,m}^j+(2k1)h\sqrt{j+k}𝒟_{k1,m}^j`$ |
|  | $`=\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}x\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(u(2m+1)hx),`$ |
| (vi) | $`\sqrt{j+k+1}𝒟_{k,m}^j=\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{k+\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}v`$ |
|  | $`+\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{k+\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(y(2m+1)hv),`$ |
| (vii) | $`\sqrt{jn+1}𝒟_{m,n}^j=\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(x+(2m1)hv)`$ |
|  | $`\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}v,`$ |
| (viii) | $`\sqrt{j+n+1}𝒟_{m,n}^j\sqrt{jn}(2n+1)h𝒟_{m,n+1}^j`$ |
|  | $`=\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n+\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(u+(2m1)hy)+\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n+\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}y.`$ |

$`Proof`$ : Put $`j_2=1/2,j=j_1+1/2`$ in the relation (3.13), then

$`\sqrt{j_1+k_1+1}𝒟_{k_1+\frac{1}{2},m}^{j_1+\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{j_1k_1+1}(\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}2k_1h\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}})𝒟_{k_1\frac{1}{2},m}^{j_1+\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{j_1+m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒟_{k_1,m\frac{1}{2}}^{j_1}𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{j_1m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒟_{k_1,m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j_1}(𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(2m+1)h𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}).`$
Replacing $`j_1+\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`k_1+\frac{1}{2}`$ with $`j`$ and $`k`$, respectively, we obtain

$`\sqrt{j+k}\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{k,m}^j+\sqrt{jk+1}(\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}(2k1)h\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}})𝒟_{k1,m}^j`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(2m+1)h𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}).`$
The recurrence relations (i) and (ii) are obtained by putting $`k_2=1/2`$ and $`k_2=1/2`$, respectively.

We repeat the similar computation for the relation (3.14). We put $`j_2=1/2,j=j_1+1/2`$ in (3.14), then rearrange some variables. We obtain

$`\sqrt{j+n}\{\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}+(2n1)h\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}\}𝒟_{m,n}^j+\sqrt{jn+1}\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{m,n1}^j`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}\{𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}}+(2m1)h𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}}\}+\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The recurrence relations (iii) and (iv) correspond to the cases of $`n_2=1/2`$ and $`n_2=1/2`$, respectively.

The recurrence relations (v) - (viii) correspond to $`j_2=1/2,j=j_11/2`$. In this case, the relation (3.13) yields after rearrangement of variables

$`\sqrt{jk+1}\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{k,m}^j\sqrt{j+k}(\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}(2k1)h\delta _{k_2,\frac{1}{2}})𝒟_{k1,m}^j`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(2m+1)h𝒟_{k_2,\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}).`$
Putting $`k_2=1/2`$ and $`1/2`$, we obtain the relations (v) and (vi), respectively. The relation (3.14) yields

$`\sqrt{jn+1}(\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}+(2n1)h\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}})𝒟_{m,n}^j\sqrt{j+n}\delta _{n_2,\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{m,n1}^j`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{jm+1}𝒟_{m\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}(𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}}+(2m1)h𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}})\sqrt{j+m+1}𝒟_{m+\frac{1}{2},n\frac{1}{2}}^{j+\frac{1}{2}}𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},n_2}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The recurrence relations (vii) and (viii) are obtained as the cases of $`n_2=1/2`$ and $`n_2=1/2`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is possible to obtain the explicit form of $`D`$-functions for some special cases such as $`𝒟_{m^{},j}^j,𝒟_{j,m}^j`$, by solving these recurrence relations. However, it seems to be difficult to derive formulae for $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ for any values of $`j,m^{}`$ and $`m`$. We will solve this problem by using the tensor operator approach in §V.

The orthogonality-like relations for $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ can be obtained from the relations (3.13) and (3.14).

###### Proposition 3.6

The $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ satisfy the orthogonality-like relations which are reduced to the ortogonality relations of $`SL(2)`$ $`D`$-functions in the limit of $`h=0`$.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2}{}}(1)^{k_1m_1}(F^{j,j})_{m_1,m_2}^{m1,m1}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^j𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^j=(F^{j,j})_{k_1,k_2}^{k_1,k_1},`$ (3.21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}(1)^{m_1k_1}((F^1)^{j,j})_{k_1,k_1}^{k_1,k_2}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^j𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^j=((F^1)^{j,j})_{m_1,m_1}^{m_1,m_2}.`$ (3.22)
$`Proof`$ : Consider the cases of $`j=0,j_1=j_2`$ in the relations (3.13) and (3.14). Writing $`j_1=j_2=j`$, they yield

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,0}^{j,j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^j𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^j=\mathrm{\Omega }_{k_1,k_2,0}^{j,j,0},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2}{}}\mathrm{}_{k_1,k_2,0}^{j,j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}𝒟_{k_1,m_1}^j𝒟_{k_2,m_2}^j=\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,0}^{j,j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}.`$
The CGC are given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_1,m_2,0}^{j,j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}=\underset{s}{}C_{s,s,0}^{j,j,0}(F^{j,j})_{m_1,m_2}^{s,s},\mathrm{}_{m_1,m_2,0}^{j,j,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}=\underset{s}{}C_{s,s,0}^{j,j,0}((F^1)^{j,j})_{s,s}^{m_1,m_2},$$

and

$$(F^{j,j})_{m_1,m_2}^{s,s}=\delta _{s,m_1}jm_2\left|e^{s\sigma }\right|js,((F^1)^{j,j})_{s,s}^{m_1,m_2}=\delta _{s,m_1}js\left|e^{m_1\sigma }\right|jm_2.$$

Then the proof of Proposition 3.6 is straightforward. $`\mathrm{}`$

## IV. Review of $`𝑺𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ Representation Functions

This section is devoted to a review of the $`D`$-functions for Lie group $`SL(2).`$ Especially, we focus on tensor operator properties and the relationship to Jacobi polynomials. We write the $`D`$-functions for $`SL(2)`$ in terms of boson operators for the viewpoint of tensor operators.

Let $`a_i^j,\overline{a}_i^j,i,j\{1,2\}`$ be four copies of a boson operator commuting one another, $`i.e.`$,

$$[\overline{a}_i^j,a_k^{\mathrm{}}]=\delta _{i,k}\delta ^{j,\mathrm{}},[a_i^j,a_k^{\mathrm{}}]=[\overline{a}_i^j,\overline{a}_k^{\mathrm{}}]=0.$$
(4.1)
It is known that the Lie algebra $`gl(2)gl(2)`$ is realized by these boson operators. The left (lower) generators are defined by

$$E_{ij}=a_i^1\overline{a}_j^1+a_i^2\overline{a}_j^2,$$
(4.2)
the right (upper) generators are defined by

$$E^{ij}=a_1^i\overline{a}_1^j+a_2^i\overline{a}_2^j.$$
(4.3)
Then both left and right generators satisfy the $`gl(2)`$ commutation relations and furthermore $`[E_{ij},E^{k,\mathrm{}}]=0.`$ Each $`gl(2)`$ has decomposition $`gl(2)=sl(2)u(1)`$. The left and right $`sl(2)`$ are generated by

$$J_+=E_{21},J_{}=E_{12},J_0=E_{22}E_{11},$$
(4.4)
and

$$K_+=E^{12},K_{}=E^{21},K_0=E^{11}E^{22},$$
(4.5)
respectively, and $`u(1)`$ sectors by $`Z_L=E_{11}E_{22}`$ and $`Z_R=E^{11}+E^{22}`$. This choice of generators may be different from the usual one (see for example Ref. §4.4). However this is a suitable choice for twisting discussed in the next section. Note also that, in this realization, $`Z_L=Z_R.`$ Therefore, strictly speaking, this realization is not the direct sum of two copies of $`gl(2)`$.

The $`D`$-functions for Lie group $`GL(2)`$ can be given in terms of $`a_i^j`$

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}=\{(j+m^{})!(jm^{})!(j+m)!(jm)!\}^{1/2}\underset{K,L,M,N}{}\frac{(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N}{K!L!M!N!},$$
(4.6)
where the sum over $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$ runs nonnegative integers provided that

$$\begin{array}{cc}K+L=j+m,\hfill & M+N=jm,\hfill \\ K+M=j+m^{},\hfill & L+N=jm.^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.7)
We obtain $`SL(2)`$ $`D`$-functions by imposing $`a_1^1a_2^2a_2^1a_1^2=1`$.

It is not difficult to see that $`D`$-functions (4.6) form the irreducible tensor operators for both left and right $`gl(2)`$, $`i.e.`$,

$`[J_\pm ,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=\sqrt{(j\pm m^{})(jm^{}+1)}𝒟_{m^{}1,m}^{(0)j},`$
$`[J_0,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=2m^{}𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j},[Z_L,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=2j𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j},`$ (4.8)
and

$`[K_\pm ,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=\sqrt{(jm)(j\pm m+1)}𝒟_{m^{},m\pm 1}^{(0)j},`$
$`[K_0,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=2m𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j},[Z_R,𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}]=2j𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}.`$ (4.9)
It is well known that the $`D`$-functions for $`SL(2)`$ can be expressed in terms of the Jacobi polynomials. The Jacobi polynomials are defined by

$$P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)=\underset{r0}{}\frac{(n)_r(\alpha +\beta +n+1)_r}{(1)_r(\alpha +1)_r}z^r,$$
(4.10)
where $`(\alpha )_r`$ stands for the sifted factorial

$$(\alpha )_r=\alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{}(\alpha +r1).$$

For the case of $`SL(2)`$, we have the relation $`a_1^1a_2^2=1+a_2^1a_1^2`$. Using this, the $`D`$-functions are expressed for $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{c}j+m^{}\\ m^{}m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}jm\\ m^{}m\end{array}\right)\right\}^{1/2}(a_1^1)^{m^{}+m}(a_1^2)^{m^{}m}P_{jm^{}}^{(m^{}m,m^{}+m)}(z),$$
(4.11)
where $`za_2^1a_1^2`$. We have the similar relations for other cases.

## V. Representation Functions for $`𝑺𝑳_𝒉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

### A. Explicit Formulae for $`D`$-Functions

We saw, in the previous section, that the $`D`$-functions for $`GL(2)`$ form the irreducible tensor operators of both left and right $`gl(2)`$. This fact leads us to the expectation that the $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$ also form the irreducible tensor operators of left and right $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$. It is known that the tensor operators for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ can be obtained from the ones for $`gl(2)`$ by twisting . Therefore, we may obtain the $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$ from the one for $`GL(2)`$ by twisting twice. The irreducible tensor operators for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ are defined by replacing the comutator on the left hand side of (4.8) and (4.9) with the adjoint action. Let $`𝐭`$ be a any tensor operator for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ and $`X𝒰_h(gl(2))`$, then the adjoint action of $`X`$ on $`𝐭`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{ad}X(𝐭)=m(idS)(\mathrm{\Delta }(X)(𝐭1)).$$
(5.1)
The tensor operators $`𝐭`$ for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ and the tensor operators $`𝐭^{(0)}`$ for $`gl(2)`$ are related via the twist element $``$ by the relation  (see also Ref. )

$$𝐭=m(idS)((𝐭^{(0)}1)^1).$$
(5.2)
Note that $`gl(2)`$ and $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ have the same commutation relations so that the realization (4.2) and (4.3) is the realization of $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ as well. We consider the tensor operators under this realization of $`𝒰_h(gl(2)).`$

Let us first consider the simplest case : $`j=1/2.`$ What we obtain in this case from (4.6), (4.8) and (4.9) is that the pairs $`(a_1^1,a_2^1),(a_1^2,a_2^2)`$ are spinors of the left $`gl(2)`$ and the pairs $`(a_1^1,a_1^2),(a_2^1,a_2^2)`$ are spinors of the right $`gl(2).`$ Namely, each boson operator $`a_i^j`$ is a component of spinor for both left and right $`gl(2)`$. This fact tells us that, by twisting via the elements

$$_L=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}J_0\sigma _L)_,_R=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}K_0\sigma _R)_.$$
(5.3)
with $`\sigma _L=\mathrm{ln}(12hJ_+),\sigma _R=\mathrm{ln}(12hK_+)`$, we obtain a element of spinor for both left and right $`𝒰_h(sl(2)).`$ To this end, it is convenient to rewrite the relation (5.2) into different form. Let us write the twist element and its inverse as

$$=\underset{a}{}f^af_a,^1=\underset{a}{}g^ag_a,$$

then

$$\mu =\underset{a}{}f^aS_0(f_a),\mu ^1=\underset{a}{}S_0(g^a)g_a.$$

Noting the identity

$$g^b\mu S_0(g_b)=g^bf^aS_0(g_bf_a)=m(idS_0)(^1)=1,$$

the relation (5.2) yields

$$𝐭=f^a𝐭^{(0)}g^bS(f_ag_b)=f^a𝐭^{(0)}\mu S_0(f_ag_b)\mu ^1=f^a𝐭^{(0)}S_0(f_a)\mu ^1.$$
(5.4)
From (5.4), the twisting by $`_L`$ reads

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^nJ_0^na_i^jS_0(\sigma _L)\mu ^1=a_i^j\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{ik}}{k!}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^kS(\sigma _L)^k=a_i^j\mathrm{exp}\{(1)^i\sigma _L/2\}.$$

We used the fact $`S(\sigma _L)=\sigma _L`$ in the last equality. To twist the above obtained result by $`_R`$, we can repeat the similar computation. Then we have the doubly twisted boson operators

$$a_i^j\mathrm{exp}\{(1)^i\sigma _L/2+(1)^{j+1}\sigma _R/2\}.$$
(5.5)
The commutation relations of the twisted boson operators (5.5) are obtained by straightforward computation and it shows that the twisted boson operators give a realization of generators of $`GL_h(2)`$.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}x=a_1^1e^{(\sigma _L+\sigma _R)/2},\hfill & u=a_1^2e^{(\sigma _L+\sigma _R)/2},\hfill \\ v=a_2^1e^{(\sigma _L+\sigma _R)/2},\hfill & y=a_2^2e^{(\sigma _L\sigma _R)/2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.6)
then, $`x,u,v`$ and $`y`$ satisfy the commutation realtions of the generators of $`GL_h(2)`$ (2.1). In this realization, the central element $`D`$ is given

$$Dxyuvhxv=a_1^1a_2^2a_2^1a_1^2.$$
(5.7)
Note that the central element $`D`$ remains undeformed in this realization.

$`Proof`$ : One can verify the commutation relations directly. We here give some useful commutation relations for the verification. The commutation relations between $`\sigma _L,\sigma _R`$ and boson operators.

| $`[\sigma _L,a_1^1]=2he^{\sigma _L}a_2^1`$, | $`[\sigma _L,a_1^2]=2he^{\sigma _L}a_2^2`$, |
| --- | --- |
| $`[\sigma _R,a_1^2]=2he^{\sigma _R}a_1^1`$, | $`[\sigma _R,a_2^2]=2he^{\sigma _R}a_2^1`$. |

These are easily verified by using the power series expansion of $`\sigma _L,\sigma _R`$ : $`\sigma _L={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2hJ_+)^n}{n}}_.`$ These relations can be used to prove the following commutation relations which hold for any real $`k`$

| $`[e^{k\sigma _L},a_1^1]=2hke^{(k+1)\sigma _L}a_2^1,`$ | $`[e^{k\sigma _L},a_1^2]=2hke^{(k+1)\sigma _L}a_2^2,`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`[e^{k\sigma _R},a_1^2]=2hke^{(k+1)\sigma _R}a_1^1,`$ | $`[e^{k\sigma _R},a_2^2]=2hke^{(k+1)\sigma _R}a_2^1.`$ |

(5.8)
$`\mathrm{}`$

Next let us consider the twisting of $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}`$ for any values of $`j`$ by the twist elements $`_L,_R.`$ We denote the doubly twisted $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}`$ by $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$, since it will be shown later that this $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ gives the $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$. The computation is almost same as the case of spinors. What we need to compute is the twisting of $`(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N`$ in the expression (4.6). The twisting by $`_L`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^nJ_0^n(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^NS_0^n(\sigma _L)\mu ^1`$
$`=`$ $`(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^k(K+LM+N)^k\mu S_0^k(\sigma _L)\mu ^1`$
$`=`$ $`(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N\mathrm{exp}\{(KL+MN)\sigma _L/2\}.`$
Further twisting by $`_R`$ gives

$$(a_1^1)^K(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N\mathrm{exp}\{(KL+MN)\sigma _L/2+(K+LMN)\sigma _R/2\}.$$
(5.9)
Because of the condition (4.7), we have $`KL+MN=2m^{}`$ and $`K+LMN=2m.`$ Thus the exponential factor appeared in (5.9) is factored out the sum over $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$. Therefore we have proved the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.2

In the realization (4.2), (4.3), the irreducible tensor operators of both left and right $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$ are given by

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}e^{m^{}\sigma _L+m\sigma _R}.$$
(5.10)
One can write $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ of Proposition 5.10 in terms of the generators of $`GL_h(2)`$ by making use of Proposition 5.1. For real $`A,B`$,

$`(a_1^1)^Ke^{(A\sigma _L+B\sigma _R)/2}=(a_1^1)^{K1}xe^{(A+1)\sigma _L/2+(B1)\sigma _R/2}`$
$`=`$ $`(a_1^1)^{K1}e^{(A+1)\sigma _L/2+(B1)\sigma _R/2}\{e^{(A+1)\sigma _L/2}xe^{(A+1)\sigma _L/2}\}.`$
The expression $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in the last line can be calculated by using (5.8) and gives $`xh(A+1)v`$. Thus we have obtained

$`(a_1^1)^Ke^{(A\sigma _L+B\sigma _R)/2}=e^{(A+K)\sigma _L/2+(BK)\sigma _R/2}`$
$`\times (xh(A+K)v)(xh(A+K1)v)\mathrm{}(xh(A+1)v).`$ (5.11)
Similar computation gives three other identities

$`(a_2^1)^Le^{(A\sigma _L+B\sigma _R)/2}=e^{(AL)\sigma _L/2+(BL)\sigma _R/2}v^L,`$
$`(a_1^2)^Me^{(A\sigma _L+B\sigma _R)/2}=e^{(A+M)\sigma _L/2+(B+M)\sigma _R/2}`$
$`\times (uh(B+M)xh(A+M)y+h^2(A+M)(B+M)v)`$
$`\times (uh(B+M1)xh(A+M1)y+h^2(A+M1)(B+M1)v)`$
$`\times \mathrm{}\times (uh(B+1)xh(A+1)y+h^2(A+1)(B+1)v),`$ (5.12)
$`(a_2^2)^Ne^{(A\sigma _L+B\sigma _R)/2}=e^{(AN)\sigma _L/2+(B+N)\sigma _R/2}`$
$`\times (yh(B+N)v)(hh(B+N1)v)\mathrm{}(yh(B+1)v).`$
The boson operators $`a_i^j`$ commute one another so that the order of $`a_i^j`$’s in $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}`$ is irrelevant. Therefore we can have some different expressions of $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ according to the choice of the order of boson operators. We here give two of them and shall show that they are the representation functions of $`GL_h(2)`$.

###### Proposition 5.3

The $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$ are given by

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=\{(j+m^{})!(jm^{})!(j+m)!(jm)!\}^{1/2}\underset{K,L,M,L}{}\frac{X_Kv^LU_{K,L,M}Y_{K,L,M,N}}{K!M!L!N!},$$
(5.13)
where $`X_K,U_{K,L,M}`$ and $`Y_{K,L,M,N}`$ are defined by

$`X_K`$ $`=`$ $`x(x+hv)\mathrm{}(x+h(K1)v),`$
$`U_{K,L,M}`$ $`=`$ $`(uh(K+L)x+h(KL)yh^2(K^2L^2)v)`$
$`\times `$ $`(uh(K+L1)x+h(KL+1)yh^2(K^2(L1)^2)v)`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\times `$ $`(uh(K+LM+1)x+h(KL+M1)y`$
$`h^2(K^2(LM+1)^2)v)`$
$`Y_{K,L,M,N}`$ $`=`$ $`(yh(K+LM)v)(yh(K+LM1)v)`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{}(yh(K+LMN+1)v).`$
The $`D`$-functions have another expression which is

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=\{(j+m^{})!(jm^{})!(j+m)!(jm)!\}^{1/2}\underset{K,L,M,L}{}\frac{U_MX_{K,M}Y_{K,M,N}v^L}{K!M!L!N!},$$
(5.14)
where $`U_M,X_{K,M},Y_{K,M,N}`$ are defined by

$`U_M`$ $`=`$ $`u(u+h(x+y)+h^2v)\mathrm{}(u+h(M1)(x+y)+h^2(M1)^2v),`$
$`X_{K,M}`$ $`=`$ $`(x+hMv)(x+h(M+1)v)\mathrm{}(x+h(K+M1)v),`$
$`Y_{K,M,N}`$ $`=`$ $`(yh(KM)v)(yh(KM1)v)\mathrm{}(yh(KMN+1)v)v^L.`$
The sum over $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$ runs nonnegative integers under the condition (4.7).

$`Remark`$ : We obtain the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ by putting $`D=xyuvhxv=1.`$

$`Proof`$ : These expressions are obtained by using (5.11) and (5.12). The expression (5.13) corresponds to the boson ordering $`(a_1^1)^k(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N`$, while the expression (5.14) corresponds to $`(a_1^2)^M(a_1^1)^K(a_2^2)^N(a_2^1)^L.`$

To show that $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ are the representation functions of $`GL_h(2)`$, we must verify (2.8). It is obvious that $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^jGL_h(2)`$ and the counit of $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ is easily verified by using $`ϵ(x)=ϵ(y)=1,ϵ(u)=ϵ(v)=0`$. However, it seems to be difficult to verify the coproduct of $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ by straightforward computation. Instead of verifying the coproduct, we show that $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ satisfy the recurrence relations of Proposition 3.5. Note that the recurrence relations of Proposition 3.5 are for $`SL_h(2)`$. The Jordanian deformation of the Lie algebra $`gl(2)`$ considered in this paper is the direct sum of the deformed $`sl(2)`$ and undeformed $`u(1)`$ : $`𝒰_h(gl(2))=𝒰_h(sl(2))u(1).`$ This implies that the CGC for $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ also give the CGC for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))`$. Therefore the $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$ also satisfy the recurrence relations of Proposition 3.5.

As an example, we show that the $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ give the solutions to the recurrence relation (ii). We substitute the expression (5.14) of the $`D`$-functions into the first term of the RHS of the relation (ii), then replace the dummy index $`L`$ with $`L1`$. It follows that

$$\sqrt{j+m}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}v=\{(j+m)!(jm)!(j+k1)!(jk)!\}^{1/2}\underset{K,L,M,N}{}L\frac{U_MX_{K,M}Y_{K,M,N}v^L}{K!M!L!N!}_,$$

where the indices $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$ satifsy the condition

$$K+L=j+m,M+N=jm,K+M=j+k1,L+N=jk+1.$$
(5.15)
For the second term of the RHS of the relation (ii), we use the expression (5.13). Replacing the index $`N`$ with $`N1`$, we obtain

$`\sqrt{jm}𝒟_{k\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2}}^{j\frac{1}{2}}(u(2m+1)hv)`$
$`=\{(j+m)!(jm)!(j+k1)!(jk)!\}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{K,L,M,N}{}}N{\displaystyle \frac{X_Kv^LU_{K,L,M}Y_{K,L,M,N}}{K!M!L!N!}}_,`$
where the indices $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$ also satisfy the condition (5.15). Since the expressions (5.13) and (5.14) are the different expressions of the same $`D`$-functions, it holds that $`U_MX_{K,M}Y_{K,M,N}v^L=X_Kv^LU_{K,L,M}Y_{K,L,M,N}.`$ Therefore the RHS of (ii) reads

$`\{(j+m)!(jm)!(j+k1)!(jk)!\}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{K,L,M,N}{}}(L+N){\displaystyle \frac{X_Kv^LU_{K,L,M}Y_{K,L,M,N}}{K!M!L!N!}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{jk+1}𝒟_{k1,m}^j.`$
The four-term recurrence relation (i) is reduced to a three-term relation, by eliminating $`𝒟_{k1,m}^j`$ from (i) and (ii). This recurrence relation is easily solved by using the another expression of $`𝒟_{k,m}^j`$ corresponding to another ordering of boson operators. The suitable expressions for solving it are the ones obtained from the ordering $`(a_1^2)^M(a_2^2)^N(a_2^1)^L(a_1^1)^K`$ and $`(a_1^1)^K(a_2^2)^N(a_2^1)^L(a_1^2)^M.`$ In this way, we can verify the $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ obtained in this Proposition solve all the recurrence relations given in Proposition 3.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

Both expression of (5.13) and (5.14), of course, give the generators of $`GL_h(2)`$ for $`j=1/2`$ which reflects Proposition 3.20. The $`D`$-functions for $`j=1`$ reads

$$𝒟^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x^2+hxv& \sqrt{2}(ux+huv)& u^2+h(ux+uy+huv)\\ \sqrt{2}xv& D+2uv& \sqrt{2}(uy+huv)\\ v^2& \sqrt{2}yv& y^2+hyv\end{array}\right)_.$$
(5.16)
For $`SL_h(2),i.e.`$ putting $`D=1`$, this coincides with the one obtained by using $`h`$-symplecton or quantum $`h`$-plane . Chakrabarti and Quesne obtained the $`𝒟^1`$ for two-parametric Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)`$ in the coloured representation through a contraction technique to the $`D`$-functions for standard $`(q,\lambda )`$-deformation of $`GL(2)`$ . To compare the present $`𝒟^1`$ with the one given in Ref., put $`\alpha =0,z=1`$ in Eqs.(4.20) and (4.21) of Ref.. Then we see that the $`D`$-functions for $`j=1`$ of Ref.  are different form (5.16). This difference stems from the different choice of the basis of $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$. In Ref., the basis introduced by Ohn  is used, that is, the commutation relations of the generators of $`𝒰_h(sl(2))`$ are not same as those of $`sl(2)`$. While the basis of this paper satisfy the same commutation relations as $`sl(2)`$. This results the different CGC for the same algebra so that the recurrence relations for the $`D`$-functions have the different form. The CGC for Ohn’s basis are found in Ref.. Repeating the same procedure as §III.B, we obtain another form of recurrence relations. It may be easy to verify that the $`𝒟^1`$ of Ref. solves these recurrence relations.

### B. $`𝑺𝑳_𝒉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`D`$-Functions and Jacobi Polynomials

The purpose of this subsection is to show that the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials. To this end, we return to the boson realization of $`D`$-functions (Proposition 5.10) and use the fact that the $`D`$-functions for Lie group $`SL(2)`$ are written in terms of Jacobi polynomials. Recall the following two facts : (1) the central element $`D`$ of $`GL_h(2)`$ is not deformed in the boson realization, Eq.(5.7), (2) Jacobi polynomials appeared in the $`D`$-functions for $`SL(2)`$ are power series in the variable $`z=a_2^1a_1^2.`$ We write the $`D`$-functions $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}`$ for $`SL(2)`$ appeared in (5.10) in terms of Jacobi polynomials then use the easily proved relation $`(a_2^1a_1^2)^r=(uv)^r`$ in order to replace the variable $`z=a_2^1a_1^2`$ with the $`h`$-deformed one $`z=uv`$. Let us consider, as an example, the case of $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$. The $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{(0)j}`$ are given by (4.11). We rearrange the order of $`a_1^1,a_1^2`$ and $`P_{jm^{}}^{(m^{}m,m^{}+m)}(z)`$ to be $`P_{jm^{}}^{(m^{}m,m^{}+m)}(z)(a_1^2)^{m^{}m}(a_1^1)^{m^{}+m}.`$ Using the relations (5.11) and (5.12), we see that

$`(a_1^2)^{m^{}m}(a_1^1)^{m^{}+m}e^{m^{}\sigma _L+m\sigma _R}`$
$`=`$ $`u(u+h(x+y)+h^2v)\mathrm{}(u+h(m^{}m1)(x+y)+h^2(m^{}m1)^2v)`$
$`\times `$ $`(x+h(m^{}m)v)(x+h(m^{}m1)v)\mathrm{}(x+h(2m^{}1)v).`$
This completes the expression of $`D`$-functions in terms of Jacobi polynomials.

Repeating this process for other cases, we can prove the next proposition.

###### Proposition 5.4

The $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ are written in terms of Jacobi polynomials as follows:

(i) $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$

$`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ $`=`$ $`N_+P_{jm^{}}^{(m^{}m,m^{}+m)}(z)`$
$`\times `$ $`u(u+h(x+y)+h^2v)\mathrm{}(u+h(m^{}m1)(x+y)+h^2(m^{}m1)^2v)`$
$`\times `$ $`(x+h(m^{}m)v)(x+h(m^{}m1)v)\mathrm{}(x+h(2m^{}1)v).`$
(ii) $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$

$$𝒟_{m^{},m}^j=N_{}P_{jm}^{(m^{}+m,m^{}+m)}(z)x(x+hv)\mathrm{}(x+h(m^{}+m1)v)v^{m^{}+m}$$

(iii) $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$

$`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ $`=`$ $`N_+P_{j+m}^{(m^{}m,m^{}m)}(z)`$
$`\times `$ $`u(u+h(x+y)+h^2v)\mathrm{}(u+h(m^{}m1)(x+y)+h^2(m^{}m1)^2v)`$
$`\times `$ $`(yh(mm^{})v)(yh(mm^{}1)v)\mathrm{}(yh(2m+1)v).`$
(iv) $`m^{}+m0,m^{}m`$

$`𝒟_{m^{},m}^j`$ $`=`$ $`N_{}P_{j+m^{}}^{(m^{}+m,m^{}m)}(z)`$
$`\times `$ $`v^{m^{}+m}(yh(mm^{})v)(yh(mm^{}1)v)\mathrm{}(yh(2m+1)v).`$
The variable $`z`$ is defined by $`z=uv`$ and the factors $`N_+,N_{}`$ by

$$N_+=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{c}j+m^{}\\ m^{}m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}jm\\ m^{}m\end{array}\right)\right\}_,^{1/2}N_{}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{c}jm^{}\\ mm^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}j+m\\ mm^{}\end{array}\right)\right\}_.^{1/2}$$

$`Remark`$ : The Jacobi polynomials are to the left of the generators of $`SL_h(2)`$. To move $`P_n^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(z)`$ to the right, the relation

$$(uv)^r\mathrm{exp}(m^{}\sigma _L+m\sigma _R)=\mathrm{exp}(m^{}\sigma _L+m\sigma _R)\{uv2h(m^{}yv+mxv)4h^2mm^{}v^2\}^r,$$

is used and we see that the Jacobi polynomials are changed to the power series in $`\zeta _{m^{},m}=(u+2h(m^{}ymx)4h^2mm^{})v`$, but the rests of the formulae remain unchanged.

## VI. Boson Realization of $`𝑮𝑳_{𝒉\mathbf{,}𝒈}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

It is natural to generalize the results in the previous section to the two-parametric Jordanian deformation of $`GL(2)`$ , since the twist element which generates the two-parametric Jordanian quantum algebra $`𝒰_{h,g}(gl(2))`$  is known . Unfortunately, the method in the previous sections leads us to quite complex calculation. As the first step to obtain the $`D`$-functions for two-parametric Jordanian quantum group $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$, we here give the boson realization of the generators of $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$.

The left and right twist elements are given by

$`_L=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2h}}\sigma _LZ_L\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_0\sigma _L\right),`$
$`_R=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2h}}\sigma _RZ_R\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_0\sigma _R\right),`$
respectively. We can see that the $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$ is reduced to $`GL_h(2)`$ when $`g=0`$. Repeating the same procedure as (5.5), we obtain the twisted boson operators. We can rewrite the twisted boson operator in terms of the generators $`GL_h(2)`$. The next proposition can be regarded as a realization of $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$ by generators of $`GL_h(2)`$ and $`Z_L,Z_R`$ as well.

###### Proposition 6.1

Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}a=xgvZ_L,\hfill & b=ugxZ_RgyZ_L+g^2vZ_LZ_R,\hfill \\ c=v,\hfill & d=ygvZ_R,\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.1)
where $`x,u,v`$ and $`y`$ are given by (5.6). Then $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ satisfy the commutation relation of $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$.

$`Remark`$ : In this realization, the quantum determinant $`D^{}=adbc(h+g)ac`$ for $`GL_{h,g}(2)`$ and $`D`$ for $`GL_h(2)`$ coincide : $`D^{}=D=a_1^1a_2^2a_2^1a_1^2`$.

$`Proof`$ : It requires a lengthy calculation, however, the proof is straightforward. The following commutation relations  are verified.

$`[a,b]=(h+g)(D^{}a^2),[a,c]=(hg)c^2,`$
$`[a,d]=(h+g)ac(hg)dc,[b,c]=(h+g)ac(hg)cd,`$ (6.2)
$`[b,d]=(hg)(D^{}d^2),[c,d]=(h+g)c^2.`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

## VII. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, the explicit formulae of the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ (and $`GL_h(2)`$) have been obtained by using the tensor operator technique. We used the fact that the $`D`$-functions for Lie group $`GL(2)`$ form irreducible tensor operators of $`gl(2)gl(2)`$ in the realization (4.2), (4.3). This kind of tensor operators are called double irreducible tensor operators in the literature. The $`D`$-functions for $`GL_h(2)`$ were obtained via the construction of double irreducible tensor operators for $`𝒰_h(gl(2))𝒰_h(gl(2)).`$ Other examples of double irreducible tensor operators were considered for $`q`$-deformation  and for Jordanian deformation . Quesne constructed the $`GL_h(n)\times GL_h^{}(m)`$ covariant bosonic and fermionic algebra which form the double irreducible tensor operators of $`𝒰_h(gl(n))𝒰_h^{}(gl(m))`$ using the contraction method . This may suggest, in the case of $`n=m=2`$ and $`h=h^{}`$, that the bosonic algebra of Quesne has a close relation to $`𝒟_{m^{},m}^{\frac{1}{2}},i.e.,`$ the generators of $`GL_h(2).`$

We also showed that the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$ can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials. Contrary to the $`q`$-deformed case where the little $`q`$-Jacobi polynomials appear in the $`D`$-functions for $`SU_q(2)`$, the ordinary Jacobi polynomials are associated with the $`D`$-functions for $`SL_h(2)`$. It seems to be a general feature of Jordanian deformation that the ordinary orthogonal polynomials are associated with the representations. It is known that the ordinary Gauss hypergeometirc functions are associated with $`h`$-symplecton , while the $`q`$-hypergeometric functions are associated with the $`q`$-deformation of symplecton.

The extension of the results of this paper to the Jordanian deformation of $`SL(n)`$ may be possible, since the explicit expressions for the twist element are known for the Lie algebra $`sl(n)`$ .