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

International Journal of Theoretical Physics

Geometric Phase of Non-geodesic Evolution in a Three-channel Optical Interferometry

Xin-Ding Zhang, Guang-Fei Yang, Wenjie Liu, Cai-Qin Xiang

Published Feb 18, 2015• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/s10773-015-2561-y

Related papers

Geometric phases in optical interferometry

H. Kobayashi

•May 23, 2011•0 citations

Geometric phases in optical interferometry

弘和 小林

•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Geometric Phase of Three-Level Systems in Interferometry

Barry C. Sanders, Hubert de Guise, Stephen D. Bartlett +1 more

We present the first scheme for producing and measuring an Abelian geometric phase shift in a three-level system where states are invariant under a non-Abelian group. In contrast to existing experiments and proposals for experiments, based on U(1)-invariant states, our scheme geodesically evolves U(2)-invariant states in a four-dimensional SU(3)/U(2) space and is physically realized via a three-channel optical interferometer.

arXiv:quant-ph/0010068•Physical Review Letters•Jan 15, 2001•38 citations

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

Geometry of weak measurements and its application to optical interferometry

修平 玉手

•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

Comment on "Geometric Phases for Mixed States in Interferometry"

Paul B. Slater

We find for the unitary evolution of spin-1/2 systems that the "purely mathematical mixed state holonomy of Uhlmann limitedly agrees, in the case of evolution over geodesic spherical triangles, with the holonomy "in the experimental context of quantum interferometry" recently proposed by Sjoqvist, Pati, Ekert, Anandan, Ericsson, Oi and Vedral (Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 [2000], 2845-2848).

arXiv:math-ph/0111013•Nov 8, 2001•0 citations
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.