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

Physical Review A

Berry’s phase for a noncyclic rotation of light in a helically wound optical fiber

Atsuo Morinaga, Akinori Monma, Kazuhito Honda, Masao Kitano

Published Nov 16, 2007• 14 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We investigated Berry's phase for noncyclic evolution using the rotation of a polarization azimuth of linearly polarized light in a partially wound optical fiber over the surface of a cylinder. Using a rotation gauge around the rotation axis, the observed rotation of the polarization azimuth corresponds to the area of a spherical rectangle over the surface enclosed by the contour $C$ of actual evolution, a large circle on the equator, and a longitudinal line connecting them, whereas the rotation of the polar gauge encloses a spherical triangle connecting the zenith of the sphere. The observed values were converted to Berry's phase by transformation from the rotation gauge to the geodesic gauge. Consequently, we could confirm that Berry's phase for a noncyclic evolution is given by the geodesic rule proposed by Samuel and Bhandari.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.76.052109

Related papers

Berry Phase for Evolution of Spinning Particle along Geodesic Arcs on a Sphere of Directions

Kota Nanri, Takayuki Ishida, Atsuo Morinaga

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.

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Oct 25, 2013•3 citations

Noncyclic continuous Pancharatnam—Berry phase in dual-beam interference

Aleksi Leinonen, Antti Hannonen, Henri Partanen +4 more

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.

Communications Physics•Jun 7, 2023•18 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

An experimental test of the geodesic rule proposition for the noncyclic geometric phase

Zhifan Zhou, Yair Margalit, S. Moukouri +2 more

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.

arXiv:1908.03008•Science Advances•Feb 28, 2020•33 citations

Geometric phase of open paths and a geodesic-selection rule at a level degeneracy

Hyeonseok Yang, Changsuk Noh

When the control field of a qubit, a polarization state, or a spin-$\tfrac12$ system is swept through a level degeneracy, its direction traces an open curve on the Bloch sphere whose endpoints are antipodal, and the geodesic rule for the open-path geometric phase becomes ambiguous: infinitely many geodesics close the path, and different closures enclose different solid angles. We resolve this ambiguity in closed form. A coordinate-free monopole connection defines the open-path solid angle $Ω[C]$ intrinsically, and displacing the degeneracy by $ε\uhat$ closes the path with enclosed solid angle $Ω(ε\uhat)=Ω[C]+2α+O(ε)$, where $α$ is the azimuth of the transverse part of $\uhat$ measured from the principal normal of the control curve at the crossing. The identity between geometric phase and enclosed solid angle therefore holds for exactly one closing geodesic---the great circle in the osculating plane ($α=0$)---supplied by the curvature at the degeneracy. Berry's $π$ invariant under reversal of the displacement and the values $\pmπ/2$ under a reflection symmetry follow as corollaries, and the pure-state limit of the finite-temperature Uhlmann phase selects the osculating-plane closure automatically, turning the heuristic closing rules of the open-path literature into a computable prescription.

quant-pharXiv:2608.19679•Aug 21, 2026•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
We investigated Berry's phase for noncyclic evolution using the rotation of a polarization azimuth of linearly polarized light in a partially wound optical fiber over the surface of a cylinder. Using a rotation gauge around the rotation axis, the observed rotation of the polarization azimuth corresponds to the area of a spherical rectangle over the surface enclosed by the contour CCC of actual evolution, a large circle on the equator, and a longitudinal line connecting them, whereas the rotation of the polar gauge encloses a spherical triangle connecting the zenith of the sphere. The observed values were converted to Berry's phase by transformation from the rotation gauge to the geodesic gauge. Consequently, we could confirm that Berry's phase for a noncyclic evolution is given by the geodesic rule proposed by Samuel and Bhandari.
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.
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.
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 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.
When the control field of a qubit, a polarization state, or a spin-12\tfrac1221​ system is swept through a level degeneracy, its direction traces an open curve on the Bloch sphere whose endpoints are antipodal, and the geodesic rule for the open-path geometric phase becomes ambiguous: infinitely many geodesics close the path, and different closures enclose different solid angles. We resolve this ambiguity in closed form. A coordinate-free monopole connection defines the open-path solid angle Ω[C]Ω[C]Ω[C] intrinsically, and displacing the degeneracy by $ε\uhat$ closes the path with enclosed solid angle $Ω(ε\uhat)=Ω[C]+2α+O(ε)$, where ααα is the azimuth of the transverse part of $\uhat$ measured from the principal normal of the control curve at the crossing. The identity between geometric phase and enclosed solid angle therefore holds for exactly one closing geodesic---the great circle in the osculating plane (α=0α=0α=0)---supplied by the curvature at the degeneracy. Berry's πππ invariant under reversal of the displacement and the values ±π/2\pmπ/2±π/2 under a reflection symmetry follow as corollaries, and the pure-state limit of the finite-temperature Uhlmann phase selects the osculating-plane closure automatically, turning the heuristic closing rules of the open-path literature into a computable prescription.
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