Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0910.0396

Geometric phases and hidden gauge symmetry

Kazuo Fujikawa

Published Oct 2, 2009• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The second quantized approach to geometric phases is reviewed. The second quantization generally induces a hidden local (time-dependent) gauge symmetry. This gauge symmetry defines the parallel transport and holonomy, and thus it controls all the known geometric phases, either adiabatic or non-adiabatic, in a unified manner. The transitional region from the adiabatic to non-adiabatic phases is thus analyzed in a quantitative way. It is then shown that the topology of the adiabatic Berry's phase is trivial in a precise sense and also the adiabatic phase is rather fragile against the non-adiabatic deformation. In this formulation, the notion such as the projective Hilbert space does not appear.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0910.0396

Related papers

Gauge symmetries in geometric phases

Kazuo Fujikawa

The analysis of geometric phases is briefly reviewed by emphasizing various gauge symmetries involved. The analysis of geometric phases associated with level crossing is reduced to the familiar diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation. A hidden local gauge symmetry becomes explicit in this formulation and specifies physical observables; the choice of a basis set which specifies the coordinates in the functional space is arbitrary in the second quantization, and a sub-class of coordinate transformations, which keeps the form of the action invariant, is recognized as the gauge symmetry. It is shown that the hidden local symmetry provides a basic concept which replaces the notions of parallel transport and holonomy. We also point out that our hidden local gauge symmetry is quite different from a gauge symmetry used by Aharonov and Anandan in their definition of non-adiabatic phases.

arXiv:hep-th/0510265•Oct 31, 2005•0 citations

Geometric phases and hidden local gauge symmetry

Kazuo Fujikawa

The analysis of geometric phases associated with level crossing is reduced to the familiar diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation. A hidden local gauge symmetry, which is associated with the arbitrariness of the phase choice of a complete orthonormal basis set, becomes explicit in this formulation (in particular, in the adiabatic approximation) and specifies physical observables. The choice of a basis set which specifies the coordinate in the functional space is arbitrary in the second quantization, and a subclass of coordinate transformations, which keeps the form of the action invariant, is recognized as the gauge symmetry. We discuss the implications of this hidden local gauge symmetry in detail by analyzing geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. It is shown that the hidden local symmetry provides a basic concept alternative to the notion of holonomy to analyze geometric phases and that the analysis based on the hidden local gauge symmetry leads to results consistent with the general prescription of Pancharatnam. We however note an important difference between the geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. We also explain a basic difference between our hidden local gauge symmetry and a gauge symmetry (or equivalence class) used by Aharonov and Anandan in their definition of generalized geometric phases.

arXiv:hep-th/0505087•Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jul 21, 2005•24 citations

GEOMETRIC PHASE AND CHIRAL ANOMALY IN PATH INTEGRAL FORMULATION

Kazuo Fujikawa

All the geometric phases, adiabatic and non-adiabatic, are formulated in a unified manner in the second quantized path integral formulation. The exact hidden local symmetry inherent in the Schrödinger equation defines the holonomy. All the geometric phases are shown to be topologically trivial. The geometric phases are briefly compared to the chiral anomaly which is naturally formulated in the path integral.

arXiv:0711.2583•International Conference on Path Integrals•Nov 1, 2008•0 citations

GEOMETRIC PHASE AND CHIRAL ANOMALY: THEIR BASIC DIFFERENCES

Kazuo Fujikawa

All the geometric phases are shown to be topologically trivial by using the second quantized formulation. The exact hidden local symmetry in the Schrödinger equation, which was hitherto unrecognized, controls the holonomy associated with both of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic geometric phases. The second quantized formulation is located in between the first quantized formulation and the field theory, and thus it is convenient to compare the geometric phase with the chiral anomaly in field theory. It is shown that these two notions are completely different.

arXiv:0802.4157•International Journal of Modern Physics A•Dec 20, 2008•0 citations

Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Geometric Phases — Exact and Approximate Topology

Kazuo Fujikawa

By analyzing an exactly solvable model in the second quantized formulation which allows a unified treatment of adiabatic and non-adiabatic geometric phases, it is shown that the topology of the adiabatic Berry's phase, which is characterized by the singularity associated with possible level crossing, is trivial in a precise sense. This topology of the geometric phase is quite different from the topology of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, where the topology is specified by the external local gauge field and it is exact for the slow as well as for the fast motion of the electron.

arXiv:1302.0456•WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Apr 1, 2014•0 citations

GEOMETRIC PHASES, GAUGE SYMMETRIES AND RAY REPRESENTATION

Kazuo Fujikawa

The conventional formulation of the nonadiabatic (Aharonov–Anandan) phase is based on the equivalence class {eiα(t)ψ(t,x)} which is not a symmetry of the Schrödinger equation. This equivalence class when understood as defining generalized rays in the Hilbert space is not generally consistent with the superposition principle in interference and polarization phenomena. The hidden local gauge symmetry, which arises from the arbitrariness of the choice of coordinates in the functional space, is then proposed as a basic gauge symmetry in the nonadiabatic phase. This reformulation reproduces all the successful aspects of the nonadiabatic phase in a manner manifestly consistent with the conventional notion of rays and the superposition principle. The hidden local symmetry is thus identified as the natural origin of the gauge symmetry in both of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic phases in the absence of gauge fields, and it allows a unified treatment of all the geometric phases. The nonadiabatic phase may well be regarded as a special case of the adiabatic phase in this reformulation, contrary to the customary understanding of the adiabatic phase as a special case of the nonadiabatic phase. Some explicit examples of geometric phases are discussed to illustrate this reformulation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0605081•International Journal of Modern Physics A•Oct 20, 2006•7 citations
The second quantized approach to geometric phases is reviewed. The second quantization generally induces a hidden local (time-dependent) gauge symmetry. This gauge symmetry defines the parallel transport and holonomy, and thus it controls all the known geometric phases, either adiabatic or non-adiabatic, in a unified manner. The transitional region from the adiabatic to non-adiabatic phases is thus analyzed in a quantitative way. It is then shown that the topology of the adiabatic Berry's phase is trivial in a precise sense and also the adiabatic phase is rather fragile against the non-adiabatic deformation. In this formulation, the notion such as the projective Hilbert space does not appear.
The analysis of geometric phases is briefly reviewed by emphasizing various gauge symmetries involved. The analysis of geometric phases associated with level crossing is reduced to the familiar diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation. A hidden local gauge symmetry becomes explicit in this formulation and specifies physical observables; the choice of a basis set which specifies the coordinates in the functional space is arbitrary in the second quantization, and a sub-class of coordinate transformations, which keeps the form of the action invariant, is recognized as the gauge symmetry. It is shown that the hidden local symmetry provides a basic concept which replaces the notions of parallel transport and holonomy. We also point out that our hidden local gauge symmetry is quite different from a gauge symmetry used by Aharonov and Anandan in their definition of non-adiabatic phases.
The analysis of geometric phases associated with level crossing is reduced to the familiar diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation. A hidden local gauge symmetry, which is associated with the arbitrariness of the phase choice of a complete orthonormal basis set, becomes explicit in this formulation (in particular, in the adiabatic approximation) and specifies physical observables. The choice of a basis set which specifies the coordinate in the functional space is arbitrary in the second quantization, and a subclass of coordinate transformations, which keeps the form of the action invariant, is recognized as the gauge symmetry. We discuss the implications of this hidden local gauge symmetry in detail by analyzing geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. It is shown that the hidden local symmetry provides a basic concept alternative to the notion of holonomy to analyze geometric phases and that the analysis based on the hidden local gauge symmetry leads to results consistent with the general prescription of Pancharatnam. We however note an important difference between the geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. We also explain a basic difference between our hidden local gauge symmetry and a gauge symmetry (or equivalence class) used by Aharonov and Anandan in their definition of generalized geometric phases.
All the geometric phases are shown to be topologically trivial by using the second quantized formulation. The exact hidden local symmetry in the Schrödinger equation, which was hitherto unrecognized, controls the holonomy associated with both of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic geometric phases. The second quantized formulation is located in between the first quantized formulation and the field theory, and thus it is convenient to compare the geometric phase with the chiral anomaly in field theory. It is shown that these two notions are completely different.
By analyzing an exactly solvable model in the second quantized formulation which allows a unified treatment of adiabatic and non-adiabatic geometric phases, it is shown that the topology of the adiabatic Berry's phase, which is characterized by the singularity associated with possible level crossing, is trivial in a precise sense. This topology of the geometric phase is quite different from the topology of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, where the topology is specified by the external local gauge field and it is exact for the slow as well as for the fast motion of the electron.
The conventional formulation of the nonadiabatic (Aharonov–Anandan) phase is based on the equivalence class {eiα(t)ψ(t,x)} which is not a symmetry of the Schrödinger equation. This equivalence class when understood as defining generalized rays in the Hilbert space is not generally consistent with the superposition principle in interference and polarization phenomena. The hidden local gauge symmetry, which arises from the arbitrariness of the choice of coordinates in the functional space, is then proposed as a basic gauge symmetry in the nonadiabatic phase. This reformulation reproduces all the successful aspects of the nonadiabatic phase in a manner manifestly consistent with the conventional notion of rays and the superposition principle. The hidden local symmetry is thus identified as the natural origin of the gauge symmetry in both of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic phases in the absence of gauge fields, and it allows a unified treatment of all the geometric phases. The nonadiabatic phase may well be regarded as a special case of the adiabatic phase in this reformulation, contrary to the customary understanding of the adiabatic phase as a special case of the nonadiabatic phase. Some explicit examples of geometric phases are discussed to illustrate this reformulation.