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

Gauge- and Galilei-invariant Geometric Phases

Guido Bacciagaluppi

Published Dec 1, 1997• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Neither geometric phases nor differences in geometric phases are generally invariant under time-dependent unitary transformations (unlike differences in total phases), in particular under local gauge transformations and Galilei transformations. (This was pointed out originally by Aharonov and Anandan, and in the case of Galilei transformations has recently been shown explicitly by Sjoeqvist, Brown and Carlsen.) In this paper, I introduce a phase, related to the standard geometric phase, for which phase differences are both gauge- and Galilei-invariant, and, indeed, invariant under transformations to linearly accelerated coordinate systems. I discuss in what sense this phase can also be viewed as geometric, what its relation is to earlier proposals for making geometric phases invariant under gauge or Galilei transformations, and what is its classical analogue. I finally apply this invariant phase to Berry's derivation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Related papers

A study on Berry's geometric phase and the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect

Cássio Cecato Favarato

In this work, we make a review of the literature that the so-called Berry’s geometric phase. A recent issue, which has been employed in various areas of physics. For this, we use, in a number of references, in which many were critical to the theoretical foundation of this work. At first, we focus on the study of the time evolution of quantum systems governed by Hamiltonians operators whose time dependence is manifested by a set of parameters called classical fields. The adiabatic approximation, is justified mathematically when demonstrated the adiabatic theorem. Under these conditions, we obtain geometric phases - Berry’s phase - associated with these systems in different representations, each displaying its particularity. Finally, as a particular case of geometric phase, we studi from the viewpoint of duality transformations of Maxwell’s equations, the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect, extracting the geometric Berry’s phase associated with the dynamics of the magnetic monopole in the presence of the electric vector potential

•Nov 28, 2014•0 citations

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 Phases in Classical and Quantum Systems

Simon Godskesen

We are accustomed to think the phase of single particle states does not matter. After all, the phase cancels out when calculating physical observables. However, the geometric phase can cause interference even in single particle states and can be measured. Berry’s phase is a geometric phase the system accumulates as its time-dependent Hamiltonian is subjected to closed adiabatic excursion in parameter space. In this report, we explore how Berry’s phase manifests itself in various fields of physics, both classical and quantum mechanical. The Hannay angle is a classical analogue to Berry’s phase and they are related by a derivative. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a manifestation of Berry’s phase. Net rotation of deformable bodies in the language of gauge theory can be translated as a Berry phase. The well-known BornOppenheimer approximation is a molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and is another manifestation of Berry’s Phase.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Geometric phases for mixed states during cyclic evolutions

Fu, L. B., Chen, J. L.

The geometric phases of cyclic evolutions for mixed states are discussed in the framework of unitary evolution. A canonical 1-form is defined whose line integral gives the geometric phase, which is gauge invariant. It reduces to the Aharonov and Anandan phase in the pure state case. Our definition is consistent with the phase shift in the proposed experiment (Sjöqvist et al 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2845) for a cyclic evolution if the unitary transformation satisfies the parallel transport condition. A comprehensive geometric interpretation is also given. It shows that the geometric phases for mixed states share the same geometric sense with the pure states.

•Jan 1, 2004•4 citations

Geometric phases for mixed states during cyclic evolutions

Li-Bin Fu, Jing-Ling Chen

The geometric phases of cyclic evolutions for mixed states are discussed in the framework of unitary evolution. A canonical 1-form is defined whose line integral gives the geometric phase, which is gauge invariant. It reduces to the Aharonov and Anandan phase in the pure state case. Our definition is consistent with the phase shift in the proposed experiment (Sjöqvist et al 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2845) for a cyclic evolution if the unitary transformation satisfies the parallel transport condition. A comprehensive geometric interpretation is also given. It shows that the geometric phases for mixed states share the same geometric sense with the pure states.

arXiv:quant-ph/0403070•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Mar 2, 2004•4 citations
Neither geometric phases nor differences in geometric phases are generally invariant under time-dependent unitary transformations (unlike differences in total phases), in particular under local gauge transformations and Galilei transformations. (This was pointed out originally by Aharonov and Anandan, and in the case of Galilei transformations has recently been shown explicitly by Sjoeqvist, Brown and Carlsen.) In this paper, I introduce a phase, related to the standard geometric phase, for which phase differences are both gauge- and Galilei-invariant, and, indeed, invariant under transformations to linearly accelerated coordinate systems. I discuss in what sense this phase can also be viewed as geometric, what its relation is to earlier proposals for making geometric phases invariant under gauge or Galilei transformations, and what is its classical analogue. I finally apply this invariant phase to Berry's derivation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
In this work, we make a review of the literature that the so-called Berry’s geometric phase. A recent issue, which has been employed in various areas of physics. For this, we use, in a number of references, in which many were critical to the theoretical foundation of this work. At first, we focus on the study of the time evolution of quantum systems governed by Hamiltonians operators whose time dependence is manifested by a set of parameters called classical fields. The adiabatic approximation, is justified mathematically when demonstrated the adiabatic theorem. Under these conditions, we obtain geometric phases - Berry’s phase - associated with these systems in different representations, each displaying its particularity. Finally, as a particular case of geometric phase, we studi from the viewpoint of duality transformations of Maxwell’s equations, the dual Aharonov-Bohm effect, extracting the geometric Berry’s phase associated with the dynamics of the magnetic monopole in the presence of the electric vector potential
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.
We are accustomed to think the phase of single particle states does not matter. After all, the phase cancels out when calculating physical observables. However, the geometric phase can cause interference even in single particle states and can be measured. Berry’s phase is a geometric phase the system accumulates as its time-dependent Hamiltonian is subjected to closed adiabatic excursion in parameter space. In this report, we explore how Berry’s phase manifests itself in various fields of physics, both classical and quantum mechanical. The Hannay angle is a classical analogue to Berry’s phase and they are related by a derivative. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a manifestation of Berry’s phase. Net rotation of deformable bodies in the language of gauge theory can be translated as a Berry phase. The well-known BornOppenheimer approximation is a molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and is another manifestation of Berry’s Phase.
The geometric phases of cyclic evolutions for mixed states are discussed in the framework of unitary evolution. A canonical 1-form is defined whose line integral gives the geometric phase, which is gauge invariant. It reduces to the Aharonov and Anandan phase in the pure state case. Our definition is consistent with the phase shift in the proposed experiment (Sjöqvist et al 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2845) for a cyclic evolution if the unitary transformation satisfies the parallel transport condition. A comprehensive geometric interpretation is also given. It shows that the geometric phases for mixed states share the same geometric sense with the pure states.
The geometric phases of cyclic evolutions for mixed states are discussed in the framework of unitary evolution. A canonical 1-form is defined whose line integral gives the geometric phase, which is gauge invariant. It reduces to the Aharonov and Anandan phase in the pure state case. Our definition is consistent with the phase shift in the proposed experiment (Sjöqvist et al 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2845) for a cyclic evolution if the unitary transformation satisfies the parallel transport condition. A comprehensive geometric interpretation is also given. It shows that the geometric phases for mixed states share the same geometric sense with the pure states.