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:2211.06900 · Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Wave description of geometric phase

Luis A. Garza-Soto, Nathan A. Hagen, Dorilian Lopez-Mago, Yukitoshi Otani

Published Jan 4, 2023• 22 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Since Pancharatnam's 1956 discovery of optical geometric phase and Berry's 1984 discovery of geometric phase in quantum systems, researchers analyzing geometric phase have focused almost exclusively on algebraic approaches using the Jones calculus, or on spherical trigonometry approaches using the Poincaré sphere. The abstracted mathematics of the former and the abstracted geometry of the latter obscure the physical mechanism that generates geometric phase. We show that optical geometric phase derives entirely from the superposition of waves and the resulting shift in the location of the wave maximum. This wave-based model provides a way to visualize how geometric phase arises from relationships between waves, and from the transformations induced by optical elements. We also derive the relationship between the geometric phase of a wave by itself and the phase exhibited by an interferogram, and provide the conditions under which the two match one another.

DOI
10.1364/josaa.480814

Related papers

Evolution of geometric phase and explaining the geodesic rule

Nathan A. Hagen, Luis A. Garza-Soto

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.

Journal of the Optical Society of America A•Sep 12, 2024•3 citations

Geometric phase of rotations and 3D coordinate transformations

Luis A. Garza-Soto, Nathan A. Hagen

The wave superposition model of the geometric phase shows how the addition of waves creates a shift in the resulting wave position. While previous work focused on a basis of linearly polarized light waves and the Pancharatnam-Berry phase, we show how the spin-redirection phase (Rytov-Vladimirsky-Berry phase) can also be derived from the same approach of wave superposition, using rotating vectors to represent the superposing oscillations. The result is the first derivation of the spin-redirection phase using wave superposition. We illustrate this approach with two classic examples of the geometric phase of rotations in space: a system of three fold mirrors and the helically coiled fiber.

Journal of the Optical Society of America A•Dec 22, 2025•0 citations

Geometric phase: two triangles on the Poincaré sphere

Piotr Kurzynowski, Władysław A. Woźniak, Małgorzata Szarycz

The method of obtaining the dynamic and geometric part of the phase introduced by a birefringent medium in two kinds of interferometric experiments is presented. The mathematical formulas for the phases obtained using Jones formalism are visualized with the specific triangles on the Poincaré sphere. Generally, these triangles are similar to those used in the Pancharatnam's original construction developed by Courtial to calculate the Pancharatnam geometric phase for the light passing through a single birefringent plate. In these graphical constructions following Courtial's idea, we used the points representing both of the birefringent medium's eigenvectors. This allowed the most intuitive explanation of the mechanism of dividing the whole phase shift introduced by the birefringent plate into two different parts: dynamical and geometrical. The considered constructions were used as a description of two simple experiments with a birefringent medium in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a polariscopic setup. The experimental verifications of our theoretical predictions should convince the reader of the correctness of the assumed model.

Journal of the Optical Society of America A•Mar 1, 2011•29 citations

Geometric phase evolution

Nathan A. Hagen, Luis A. Garza-Soto

Geometric phase has historically been defined using closed cycles of polarization states, often derived using differential geometry on the Poincare sphere. Using the recently-developed wave model of geometric phase, we show that it is better to define geometric phase more generally, allowing every polarized wave to have a well-defined value at any point in its path. Using several example systems, we show how this approach provides more insight into the wave's behavior. Moreover, by tracking the continuous evolution of geometric phase as a wave propagates through an optical system, we encounter a natural explanation of why the conventional Poincare sphere solid angle method uses geodesic paths rather than physical paths of the polarization state.

arXiv:2407.19887•Jul 29, 2024•0 citations

Comprehensive Analysis of Geometric Phase for SU(3) Representations

Abhirup Chatterjee, Sobhan Kumar Sounda

Geometric Phase in Quantum Mechanics is generally formulated entirely in terms of geometric structure of the Complex Hilbert Space. We will exploit this fact in case of mixed states for three level open systems undergoing depolarization using the eight dimensional Poincare sphere in the SU(2) Polarisation picture and non unit vector rays in H3 within the limit of pure state approach may be found to be in agreement with the Pancharatnam Phase, Berry Phase and Aharonov-Anandan Phase.

quant-pharXiv:2511.08323•Nov 12, 2025•0 citations

The Pancharatnam-Berry Phase: Theoretical and Experimental Aspects

Francisco De

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

InTech eBooks•Feb 24, 2012•16 citations
Since Pancharatnam's 1956 discovery of optical geometric phase and Berry's 1984 discovery of geometric phase in quantum systems, researchers analyzing geometric phase have focused almost exclusively on algebraic approaches using the Jones calculus, or on spherical trigonometry approaches using the Poincaré sphere. The abstracted mathematics of the former and the abstracted geometry of the latter obscure the physical mechanism that generates geometric phase. We show that optical geometric phase derives entirely from the superposition of waves and the resulting shift in the location of the wave maximum. This wave-based model provides a way to visualize how geometric phase arises from relationships between waves, and from the transformations induced by optical elements. We also derive the relationship between the geometric phase of a wave by itself and the phase exhibited by an interferogram, and provide the conditions under which the two match one another.
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.
The wave superposition model of the geometric phase shows how the addition of waves creates a shift in the resulting wave position. While previous work focused on a basis of linearly polarized light waves and the Pancharatnam-Berry phase, we show how the spin-redirection phase (Rytov-Vladimirsky-Berry phase) can also be derived from the same approach of wave superposition, using rotating vectors to represent the superposing oscillations. The result is the first derivation of the spin-redirection phase using wave superposition. We illustrate this approach with two classic examples of the geometric phase of rotations in space: a system of three fold mirrors and the helically coiled fiber.
The method of obtaining the dynamic and geometric part of the phase introduced by a birefringent medium in two kinds of interferometric experiments is presented. The mathematical formulas for the phases obtained using Jones formalism are visualized with the specific triangles on the Poincaré sphere. Generally, these triangles are similar to those used in the Pancharatnam's original construction developed by Courtial to calculate the Pancharatnam geometric phase for the light passing through a single birefringent plate. In these graphical constructions following Courtial's idea, we used the points representing both of the birefringent medium's eigenvectors. This allowed the most intuitive explanation of the mechanism of dividing the whole phase shift introduced by the birefringent plate into two different parts: dynamical and geometrical. The considered constructions were used as a description of two simple experiments with a birefringent medium in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a polariscopic setup. The experimental verifications of our theoretical predictions should convince the reader of the correctness of the assumed model.
Geometric phase has historically been defined using closed cycles of polarization states, often derived using differential geometry on the Poincare sphere. Using the recently-developed wave model of geometric phase, we show that it is better to define geometric phase more generally, allowing every polarized wave to have a well-defined value at any point in its path. Using several example systems, we show how this approach provides more insight into the wave's behavior. Moreover, by tracking the continuous evolution of geometric phase as a wave propagates through an optical system, we encounter a natural explanation of why the conventional Poincare sphere solid angle method uses geodesic paths rather than physical paths of the polarization state.
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