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

Electric curvature and the time component of the adiabatic connection

John P. Ralston

Published Nov 1, 1989• 6 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Generalizing the concept of the Berry phase, I show that an additional gauge structure associated with a time-component vector potential ${A}_{0}$ is present in the adiabatic evolution of a quantum system. The gauge structure, which generates the usual dynamical phase, is revealed by a formalism in which the time variable is treated on an equal footing with other parameters on which the Hamiltonian depends. The invariant curvature associated with ${A}_{0}$, an electriclike field, determines the phase difference between low- and high-energy paths in a generalized phase-space and time picture. The covariance of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation illustrates the results.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.40.5400

Related papers

Berry’s phase and the symplectic character of quantum time evolution

John P. Ralston

General time-dependent, bilinear classical Lagrangian mechanics can be interpreted as a charged particle interacting with a gauge scalar and vector potential. For an arbitrary discrete number of degrees of freedom, there are enough symplectic symmetries in classical mechanics to make this system canonically identical to the most general discrete spectrum quantum system. It follows that the general invariance group of the Schr\"odinger system of equations is the symplectic group Sp(2N), not U(N). Several examples show the physical naturalness of the classical coordinates. In the adiabatic limit Berry's phase is identified as the cumulative change of the angle of action-angle coordinates of a normal mode. A generalization of Berry's phase, the time component of the adiabatic connection and its associated electric curvature, is shown to be on an equal footing with the usual Berry phase.

Physical Review A•Nov 1, 1989•14 citations

Adiabatic Approximation for Path Integrals and Geometrical Potentials

Takashi Ohnishi, Naoto Nagaosa

Geometrical concepts have played an important role in quantum mechanics. In the Schrodinger representation, the Berry–Simon connection and the quantum geometric tensor appear as gauge potentials in the effective Hamiltonian for a heavy system under the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. On the other hand, the Berry phase should arise as the amplitude of each path in the pathintegral formalism. In their pioneering work, Kuratsuji and Iida have developed the treatment of the Born– Oppenheimer approximation in the path integral quantization, where the Berry phase of the light system naturally appears in the effective action for the heavy system. However, they did not derive the gauge potentials themselves in the effective Hamiltonian. In this short note, we show that the gauge potentials which relate to the geometry of the Hilbert space of the light system are also derived in the adiabatic scheme of path integrals. Our result presents the path-integral formalism to consider the effective dynamics of the heavy system under the adiabatic approximation. Let us consider the following Hamiltonian:

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Dec 25, 2006•2 citations

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

From Primitives to Berry Phase

Allen Proxmire

This walkthrough derives, from substrate primitives, three closely related quantities of standard quantum mechanics: the Berry connection Aₙ(R) = i⟨n(R) | ∇ᴿ n(R)⟩ on parameter space; the Berry phase γₙ[C] = ∮₍C₎ Aₙ(R) · dR accumulated under adiabatic cyclic evolution around a closed loop; and the Berry curvature Ωₙ(R) = ∇ᴿ × Aₙ(R), with γₙ[C] = ∫₍S₎ Ωₙ · dS for any surface S bounded by C. Each is derived, not posited. Berry’s 1984 derivation observed that adiabatic cyclic evolution leaves an instantaneous eigenstate |n(R)⟩ unchanged in identity but multiplied by a phase factor e^{iγₙ} above and beyond the standard dynamical phase. The construction proceeds: write |ψ(t)⟩ = e^{−i∫₀ᵗ Eₙ(t′) dt′ / ℏ} e^{iγₙ(t)} |n(R(t))⟩, substitute into Schrödinger, project onto ⟨n|, and read off γ̇ₙ = i⟨n | ∇ᴿ n⟩ · Ṙ. This is mathematically correct. It is also mechanistically opaque. Standard QM does not say what makes the parameter‑dependent eigenstate |n(R)⟩ a coherent object across R‑values that are never simultaneously instantiated, why parallel transport produces a connection rather than a flat structure, what makes the geometric phase rate‑independent, or what physical object the Berry curvature describes. The construction is presented as a derived consequence of QM postulates, but the postulates themselves are unexplained at any deeper ontological level. The Berry connection and curvature are objects in parameter space, not physical space — their meaning at the level of underlying ontology is left unstated. This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework forces all three quantities from substrate ontology when participation rules are parameter‑dependent. The connection one‑form is the substrate‑level statement that adiabatic identity‑preservation under parameter change requires a path‑dependent compensation. The geometric‑phase rate‑independence is the substrate‑level statement that the connection lives on parameter space rather than time. The curvature is the substrate‑level rule‑type curvature in parameter space — directly analogous to the rule‑type curvature of a gauge field in physical space (T17), but lifted to the space of rule parameters. The substrate‑level mechanism, in one sentence: the Berry phase is the holonomy of the rule‑type connection on the bundle of parameter‑dependent participation rules. The derivation chain runs from five substrate primitives (parameter‑dependent participation rule, identity alignment with pre‑individuation amplitudes, channels and adiabatic evolution as slow parameter change, global ED‑geometry in parameter space, closed loops as closed families of rules) through parallel‑transport‑forced connection and Stokes‑theorem‑related curvature, with the geometric‑vs‑dynamical phase separation made explicit.

•May 12, 2026•0 citations

Invariance of the generalised Berry phase under unitary transformations: application to the time-dependent generalised harmonic oscillator

Donald H. Kobe

A generalisation of the Berry phase, which reduces to the usual Berry phase in the adiabatic and cyclic case is derived in a gauge-invariant way. This generalised Berry phase, unlike the Berry phase, is invariant under unitary transformations. A time-dependent generalised harmonic oscillator with a cross term in the Hamiltonian is taken as an example. The Hamiltonian of this system is not in general the energy. An energy, the time derivative of which is the power, is obtained from the equation of motion. When the system is quantised, the generalised Berry phase is zero, and remains invariant under unitary transformations. On the other hand, if the energy is chosen to be the Hamiltonian, a non-zero generalised Berry phase is obtained, but the power is given incorrectly. In this case the total phase, which includes the dynamical phase and the generalised Berry phase, is equal in the adiabatic limit to the correct total phase.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Oct 7, 1990•26 citations

Appearance of Gauge Fields and Forces beyond the adiabatic approximation

Pierre Gosselin, Hervé Mohrbach

We investigate the origin of quantum geometric phases, gauge fields and forces beyond the adiabatic regime. In particular, we extend the notions of geometric magnetic and electric forces discovered in studies of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to arbitrary quantum systems described by matrix valued quantum Hamiltonians. The results are illustrated by several physical relevant examples.

•Oct 20, 2008•3 citations
Generalizing the concept of the Berry phase, I show that an additional gauge structure associated with a time-component vector potential A0{A}_{0}A0​ is present in the adiabatic evolution of a quantum system. The gauge structure, which generates the usual dynamical phase, is revealed by a formalism in which the time variable is treated on an equal footing with other parameters on which the Hamiltonian depends. The invariant curvature associated with A0{A}_{0}A0​, an electriclike field, determines the phase difference between low- and high-energy paths in a generalized phase-space and time picture. The covariance of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation illustrates the results.
General time-dependent, bilinear classical Lagrangian mechanics can be interpreted as a charged particle interacting with a gauge scalar and vector potential. For an arbitrary discrete number of degrees of freedom, there are enough symplectic symmetries in classical mechanics to make this system canonically identical to the most general discrete spectrum quantum system. It follows that the general invariance group of the Schr\"odinger system of equations is the symplectic group Sp(2N), not U(N). Several examples show the physical naturalness of the classical coordinates. In the adiabatic limit Berry's phase is identified as the cumulative change of the angle of action-angle coordinates of a normal mode. A generalization of Berry's phase, the time component of the adiabatic connection and its associated electric curvature, is shown to be on an equal footing with the usual Berry phase.
Geometrical concepts have played an important role in quantum mechanics. In the Schrodinger representation, the Berry–Simon connection and the quantum geometric tensor appear as gauge potentials in the effective Hamiltonian for a heavy system under the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. On the other hand, the Berry phase should arise as the amplitude of each path in the pathintegral formalism. In their pioneering work, Kuratsuji and Iida have developed the treatment of the Born– Oppenheimer approximation in the path integral quantization, where the Berry phase of the light system naturally appears in the effective action for the heavy system. However, they did not derive the gauge potentials themselves in the effective Hamiltonian. In this short note, we show that the gauge potentials which relate to the geometry of the Hilbert space of the light system are also derived in the adiabatic scheme of path integrals. Our result presents the path-integral formalism to consider the effective dynamics of the heavy system under the adiabatic approximation. Let us consider the following Hamiltonian:
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
This walkthrough derives, from substrate primitives, three closely related quantities of standard quantum mechanics: the Berry connection Aₙ(R) = i⟨n(R) | ∇ᴿ n(R)⟩ on parameter space; the Berry phase γₙ[C] = ∮₍C₎ Aₙ(R) · dR accumulated under adiabatic cyclic evolution around a closed loop; and the Berry curvature Ωₙ(R) = ∇ᴿ × Aₙ(R), with γₙ[C] = ∫₍S₎ Ωₙ · dS for any surface S bounded by C. Each is derived, not posited. Berry’s 1984 derivation observed that adiabatic cyclic evolution leaves an instantaneous eigenstate |n(R)⟩ unchanged in identity but multiplied by a phase factor e^{iγₙ} above and beyond the standard dynamical phase. The construction proceeds: write |ψ(t)⟩ = e^{−i∫₀ᵗ Eₙ(t′) dt′ / ℏ} e^{iγₙ(t)} |n(R(t))⟩, substitute into Schrödinger, project onto ⟨n|, and read off γ̇ₙ = i⟨n | ∇ᴿ n⟩ · Ṙ. This is mathematically correct. It is also mechanistically opaque. Standard QM does not say what makes the parameter‑dependent eigenstate |n(R)⟩ a coherent object across R‑values that are never simultaneously instantiated, why parallel transport produces a connection rather than a flat structure, what makes the geometric phase rate‑independent, or what physical object the Berry curvature describes. The construction is presented as a derived consequence of QM postulates, but the postulates themselves are unexplained at any deeper ontological level. The Berry connection and curvature are objects in parameter space, not physical space — their meaning at the level of underlying ontology is left unstated. This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework forces all three quantities from substrate ontology when participation rules are parameter‑dependent. The connection one‑form is the substrate‑level statement that adiabatic identity‑preservation under parameter change requires a path‑dependent compensation. The geometric‑phase rate‑independence is the substrate‑level statement that the connection lives on parameter space rather than time. The curvature is the substrate‑level rule‑type curvature in parameter space — directly analogous to the rule‑type curvature of a gauge field in physical space (T17), but lifted to the space of rule parameters. The substrate‑level mechanism, in one sentence: the Berry phase is the holonomy of the rule‑type connection on the bundle of parameter‑dependent participation rules. The derivation chain runs from five substrate primitives (parameter‑dependent participation rule, identity alignment with pre‑individuation amplitudes, channels and adiabatic evolution as slow parameter change, global ED‑geometry in parameter space, closed loops as closed families of rules) through parallel‑transport‑forced connection and Stokes‑theorem‑related curvature, with the geometric‑vs‑dynamical phase separation made explicit.
A generalisation of the Berry phase, which reduces to the usual Berry phase in the adiabatic and cyclic case is derived in a gauge-invariant way. This generalised Berry phase, unlike the Berry phase, is invariant under unitary transformations. A time-dependent generalised harmonic oscillator with a cross term in the Hamiltonian is taken as an example. The Hamiltonian of this system is not in general the energy. An energy, the time derivative of which is the power, is obtained from the equation of motion. When the system is quantised, the generalised Berry phase is zero, and remains invariant under unitary transformations. On the other hand, if the energy is chosen to be the Hamiltonian, a non-zero generalised Berry phase is obtained, but the power is given incorrectly. In this case the total phase, which includes the dynamical phase and the generalised Berry phase, is equal in the adiabatic limit to the correct total phase.