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
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
This special issue celebrates the discovery of two of the most important aspects of quantum mechanics: the Aharonov–Bohm effect and the Berry phase. The issue includes work presented at two conferences, 50 Years of the Aharonov–Bohm Effect, 11–14 October 2009, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and the Aharonov–Bohm Effect and Berry Phase 50/25 Anniversary, 14–15 December 2009, Bristol University, UK. The Aharonov–Bohm (AB) effect and the Berry phase have many things in common, apart from the happy coincidence that they were discovered 25 years apart, making possible such a joint anniversary. First, they were both discovered in the same place, the H H Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, UK. Second, they both were there for everybody to see from day one, from the very beginning of quantum mechanics. They were, so to say, right on the surface; there was no need for sophisticated mathematics or involved constructions. Yet it took so long for somebody to see them. The explanation, we dare to speculate, is that they are so unusual, they challenge so much our everyday experience and ingrained intuitions about physics that it was difficult to recognise them. Third, both the AB effect and the Berry phase are quintessentially quantum; they both manifest themselves as topological/geometric quantum phases. The AB effect revolutionized our understanding of the role of potentials in physics. For the first time, it was shown that a particle moving in a field-free region could be affected by a field in a disjoint region. In doing so, it shattered one of the strongest held principles of physics. In the case of the Berry phase, the importance lies in its absolute generality—the topological/geometric phase named after Berry is acquired by all physical systems when the external parameters they depend upon undergo an adiabatic cyclic change. Remarkably this phase depends only on the geometry of the cyclic path in the abstract parameter space, a fact which deepens our appreciation of the underlying geometry of quantum mechanics. The AB effect and the Berry phase are ubiquitous in modern physics and have implications ranging from the most fundamental to the very applied. First and foremost, they give a deeper understanding of the nature of quantum mechanics itself. Furthermore, we find them in fields as varied as cosmology, particle physics, non-abelian gauge theories, condensed matter, chemical and molecular physics, and laser dynamics. Generalizations of the AB effect to non-abelian gauge theories, such as the Wilson and `t Hooft loops, are important tools for studying confinement and spontaneous symmetry breaking. They explain charge quantization, the quantum Hall effect and the Josephson junction and also play a crucial role in electron microscope holography. Without them an understanding of many effects in the new field of mesoscopic physics, where tiny electronic circuits exhibit quantum behaviour, would be impossible. Like good wine, the AB effect and the Berry phase become finer and more appreciated with time. Even though they appear in textbooks and encyclopaedias, the number of researchers thinking and publishing papers on these two effects is increasing annually. The AB effect and the Berry phase keep being observed in new systems and with every day that passes novel applications are routinely found. This special issue is just a small snapshot of the state of the art 50 and 25 years, respectively, from their discoveries.
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.
Quantum eigenstates undergoing cyclic changes acquire a phase factor of geometric origin. This phase, known as the Berry phase, or the geometric phase, has found applications in a wide range of disciplines throughout physics, including atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, optics, and classical dynamics. In this article, the basic theory of the geometric phase is presented along with a number of representative applications. The article begins with an account of the geometric phase for cyclic adiabatic evolutions. An elementary derivation is given along with a worked example for two-state systems. The implications of time-reversal are explained, as is the fundamental connection between the geometric phase and energy level degeneracies. We also discuss methods of experimental observation. A brief account is given of geometric magnetism; this is a Lorenz-like force of geometric origin which appears in the dynamics of slow systems coupled to fast ones. A number of theoretical developments of the geometric phase are presented. These include an informal discussion of fibre bundles, and generalizations of the geometric phase to degenerate eigenstates (the nonabelian case) and to nonadiabatic evolution. There follows an account of applications. Manifestations in classical physics include the Hannay angle and kinematic geometric phases. Applications in optics concern polarization dynamics, including the theory and observation of Pancharatnam's phase. Applications in molecular physics include the molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and nuclear magnetic resonance studies. In condensed matter physics, we discuss the role of the geometric phase in the theory of the quantum Hall effect.
The Berry phase [3] is traditionally understood as a geometric phase acquired during cyclic adiabatic evolution, often interpreted as the flux of an effective “magnetic field” through a solid angle in parameter space. In this thesis, we investigate situations in which a geometric phase arises even when no spatial solid angle is enclosed, revealing the limitations of the standard purely spatial interpretation. We first review the Berry phase for a spin-½ particle in a slowly varying magnetic field and analyze scenarios in which the system’s eigenstate is changed during the adiabatic evolution. We show that the resulting phase can be understood through a spacetime formulation analogous to the electrodynamic Aharonov–Bohm effect [1], where both “analogous magnetic” and “analogous electric” fields contribute through a spacetime surface integral. This framework clarifies how nonzero geometric phases can occur even when the projected spatial solid angle vanishes. We then extend this perspective to the Jahn–Teller 𝐸 ⊗ 𝑒 system. While a closed loop around the conical intersection yields the familiar π phase, we show that nontrivial geometric phases can also emerge in paths with zero net enclosed solid angle. Advisors: Herman Batelaan and Ilya Kravchenko
Abstract The geometric phase for classical electromagnetic light beams, in its original formulation as introduced by Pancharatnam, concerns fields experiencing cyclic, discrete in-phase polarization-state changes. A similar phase was later recognized by Berry to govern the behavior of adiabatic quantum systems, with consequent extensions to nonadiabatic and noncyclic evolutions of the quantum state. However, no optical counterpart for the noncyclic, adiabatic (continuous) evolution has been demonstrated. Here we employ a modified Young’s two-pinhole setup with controlled pinhole polarizations and intensities to generate on interference an arbitrary continuous spatial evolution of the polarization state, an optical analogue to the adiabatic case. The customized arrangement allows separating at any point the accumulated dynamical and geometric phases from the total phase, enabling a detailed study of the noncyclic Pancharatnam–Berry phase in a continuous transformation. Our theoretical and experimental results are in excellent agreement and consistent with the geodesic rule for noncyclic evolutions.