The geometric phase due to the evolution of the Hamiltonian is a central concept in quantum physics and may become advantageous for quantum technology. In noncyclic evolutions, a proposition relates the geometric phase to the area bounded by the phase-space trajectory and the shortest geodesic connecting its end points. The experimental demonstration of this geodesic rule proposition in different systems is of great interest, especially due to the potential use in quantum technology. Here, we report a previously unshown experimental confirmation of the geodesic rule for a noncyclic geometric phase by means of a spatial SU(2) matter-wave interferometer, demonstrating, with high precision, the predicted phase sign change and π jumps. We show the connection between our results and the Pancharatnam phase. Last, we point out that the geodesic rule may be applied to obtain the red shift in general relativity, enabling a new quantum tool to measure gravity.
The geometric phase due to the evolution of the Hamiltonian is a central concept in quantum physics and may become advantageous for quantum technology. In noncyclic evolutions, a proposition relates the geometric phase to the area bounded by the phase-space trajectory and the shortest geodesic connecting its end points. The experimental demonstration of this geodesic rule proposition in different systems is of great interest, especially due to the potential use in quantum technology. Here, we report a previously unshown experimental confirmation of the geodesic rule for a noncyclic geometric phase by means of a spatial SU(2) matter-wave interferometer, demonstrating, with high precision, the predicted phase sign change and π jumps. We show the connection between our results and the Pancharatnam phase. Last, we point out that the geodesic rule may be applied to obtain the red shift in general relativity, enabling a new quantum tool to measure gravity.
We use the recently developed wave model of geometric phase to track the continuous evolution of geometric phase as a wave propagates through optical elements and throughout an optical system. By working directly with the wave properties, we encounter a natural explanation of why the conventional Poincaré sphere solid angle method must use geodesic paths rather than the physical paths of the polarization state-the "geodesic rule"-and show that the existing rules for the solid angle algorithm are incomplete. Finally, we use the physical model to clarify the differences between the Pancharatnam connection and the geometric phase of a wave.
Entanglement plays a central role in the fundamental tests and practical applications of quantum mechanics. Because entanglement is a feature unique to quantum systems, its observations provide evidence of quantumness. Hence, if gravity can generate entanglement between quantum superpositions, this indicates that quantum amplitudes are field sources and that gravity is quantum. I study the dual spin-one-half Stern-Gerlach interferometers and show that the Pancharatnam phase is a tool that qualitatively distinguishes semiclassical from quantum gravity. The semiclassical evolution is equivalent to that of two independent interferometers in an external field. In this case, a phase jump was observed, as expected from the geodesic rule, which dictates the noncyclic evolution in the Bloch sphere. By contrast, in the quantum case, the quantum amplitudes are the sources of the gravitational field, inducing entanglement between the two interferometers, and the phase is continuous.
We demonstrated the noncyclic Berry phase based on the geodesic rule proposed by Samuel and Bhandari using two dynamical phase-free systems in a spin-redirection evolution. In the atom interferometer with a noncyclic rotating magnetic field, the quasi-geodesic arc was realized by a straight line connecting the initial and the final points. The phase shifts were measured for noncyclic evolutions and cyclic evolutions connected by several quasi-geodesic arcs. The other system to observe the noncyclic Berry phase for change in the propagation direction of light was a single mode fiber wounded on an auxiliary cylinder to realize strictly back along the real geodesic arc joining the final to the initial point. Theses observed phase shifts were in good agreement with the theoretical values of the noncyclic Berry phase based on the geodesic rule.
Geometric phases play a central role in a variety of quantum phenomena, especially in condensed matter physics. Recently, it was shown that this fundamental concept exhibits a connection to quantum phase transitions where the system undergoes a qualitative change in the ground state when a control parameter in its Hamiltonian is varied. Here we report the first experimental study using the geometric phase as a topological test of quantum transitions of the ground state in a Heisenberg XY spin model. Using NMR interferometry, we measure the geometric phase for different adiabatic circuits that do not pass through points of degeneracy.
The geometric phase was first anticipated 1956 by Pancharatnam, in the context of polarised light. Much later, in 1984, Berry made an analogue discovery, but this time in the context of quantum mechanics. It turns our that the geometric phase, or Berry's phase, or the Pancharatnam phase, is a very general phenomenon. It is a phase shift that can be acquired by a system, when it has undergone a adiabatic process, bringing it back to its original initial conditions. If the parameter space of the involved Hamiltonian is curved, the final condition may involve a phase change. This effect has been demonstrated in a range of different interferometry experiments. Although the Pancharatnam phase has been seen, this has always been in studies involving the first order correlation, g(1), this is in the intereferogramm of two or more wave amplitudes. Here, we demonstrate experimental proofs of the effect of the Pancharatnam phase in intensity interferometry, or in other words, where the second order correlation factor g(2) is the relevant description of the interference.
In 1984 Berry addressed a quantum system undergoing a unitary and cyclic evolution under the action of a time-dependent Hamiltonian (M. V. Berry, 1984). The process was supposed to be adiabatic, meaning that the time scale of the system’s evolution was much shorter than the time scale of the changing Hamiltonian. Until Berry’s study, it was assumed that for a cyclic Hamiltonian the quantum state would acquire only so-called dynamical phases, deprived of physical meaning. Such phases could be eliminated by redefining the quantum state through a “gauge” transformation of the form |ψ〉 → eiα |ψ〉. However, Berry discovered that besides the dynamical, there was an additional phase that could not be “gauged away” and whose origin was geometric or topological. It depended on the path that |ψ〉 describes in the parameter space spanned by those parameters to which the Hamiltonian owed its time dependence. Berry’s discovery was the starting point for a great amount of investigations that brought to light topological aspects of both quantum and classical systems. Berry’s phase was soon recognized as a special case of more general phases that showed up when dealing with topological aspects of different systems. For example, the Aharonov-Bohm phase could be understood as a geometric phase. The rotation angle acquired by a parallel-transported vector after completing a closed loop in a gravitationally curved space-time region, is also a geometric, Berry-like phase. Another example is the precession of the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum. Berry’s original formulation was directly applicable to the case of a spin-1/2 system evolving under the action of a slowly varying magnetic field that undergoes cyclic changes. A spin-1/2 system is a special case of a two-level system. Another instances are two-level atoms and polarized light, so that also in these cases we should expect to find geometric phases. In fact, the first experimental test of Berry’s phase was done using polarized, classical light (A. Tomita, 1986). Pancharatnam (S. Pancharatnam, 1956) anticipated Berry’s phase when he proposed, back in 1956, how to decide whether two polarization states are “in phase”. Pancharatnam’s prescription is an operational one, based upon observing whether the intensity of the interferogram formed by two polarized beams has maximal intensity. In that case, the two polarized beams are said to be “in phase”. Such a definition is analogous to the definition of distant parallelism in differential geometry. Polarized states can be subjected to different transformations which could be cyclic or not, adiabatic or not, unitary or not. The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects