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 Modern Physics A

THREE ELABORATIONS ON BERRY’S CONNECTION, CURVATURE AND PHASE

R. Jackiw

Published Feb 1, 1988• 136 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We discuss how symmetries and conservation laws are affected when Berry’s phase occurs in a quantum system: symmetry transformations of coordinates have to be supplemented by gauge transformations of Berry’s connection, and consequently constants of motion acquire terms beyond the familiar kinematical ones. We show how symmetries of a problem determine Berry’s connection, curvature and, once a specific path is chosen, the phase as well. Moreover, higher order corrections are also fixed. We demonstrate that in some instances Berry’s curvature and phase can be removed by a globally well-defined, time-dependent canonical transformation. Finally, we describe how field theoretic anomalies may be viewed as manifestations of Berry’s phase.

DOI
10.1142/s0217751x88000114

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

Berry connection in atom-molecule systems

Fu-Cheng Cui, Biao Wu

In the mean-field theory of atom-molecule systems, where bosonic atoms combine to form molecules, there is no usual $\text{U}(1)$ symmetry, presenting an apparent hurdle for defining the Berry phase and Berry curvature for these systems. We define a Berry connection for this system, with which the Berry phase and Berry curvature can be naturally computed. We use a three-level atom-molecule system to illustrate our results. In particular, we have computed the mean-field Berry curvature of this system analytically, and compared it to the Berry curvature computed with the second-quantized model of the same system. An excellent agreement is found, indicating the validity of our definition.

Physical Review A•Aug 2, 2011•5 citations

Electric curvature and the time component of the adiabatic connection

John P. Ralston

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.

Physical Review A•Nov 1, 1989•6 citations

STOCHASTIC QUANTIZATION AND THE BERRY PHASE

Pratul Bandyopadhyay, K. Hajra

We study here the Berry phase from the point of view of stochastic quantization. The relativistic generalization of Nelson’s stochastic quantization procedure can be achieved when the Brownian motion process is taken into account in the internal space (apart from that in the external space). This effectively considers the particle as one that is stochastically extended, and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is obtained in the sharp point limit. This can be formulated in terms of a gauge-field-theoretical extension of the particle. This inherent gauge field gives rise to the holonomy in a Hermitian line bundle, which appears as an extra phase factor in the adiabatic limit for a parameter-dependent Hamiltonian, and determines a unique connection. When the Hamiltonian is degenerate, the holonomy is defined in a complex vector bundle. In the case of a fermion, this Berry connection is found to be related to the Wess-Zumino term and can be considered to be of topological origin.

International Journal of Modern Physics A•Jul 20, 1991•2 citations

Gauge- and Galilei-invariant Geometric Phases

Guido Bacciagaluppi

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.

•Dec 1, 1997•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
We discuss how symmetries and conservation laws are affected when Berry’s phase occurs in a quantum system: symmetry transformations of coordinates have to be supplemented by gauge transformations of Berry’s connection, and consequently constants of motion acquire terms beyond the familiar kinematical ones. We show how symmetries of a problem determine Berry’s connection, curvature and, once a specific path is chosen, the phase as well. Moreover, higher order corrections are also fixed. We demonstrate that in some instances Berry’s curvature and phase can be removed by a globally well-defined, time-dependent canonical transformation. Finally, we describe how field theoretic anomalies may be viewed as manifestations of Berry’s phase.
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.
In the mean-field theory of atom-molecule systems, where bosonic atoms combine to form molecules, there is no usual U(1)\text{U}(1)U(1) symmetry, presenting an apparent hurdle for defining the Berry phase and Berry curvature for these systems. We define a Berry connection for this system, with which the Berry phase and Berry curvature can be naturally computed. We use a three-level atom-molecule system to illustrate our results. In particular, we have computed the mean-field Berry curvature of this system analytically, and compared it to the Berry curvature computed with the second-quantized model of the same system. An excellent agreement is found, indicating the validity of our definition.
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.
We study here the Berry phase from the point of view of stochastic quantization. The relativistic generalization of Nelson’s stochastic quantization procedure can be achieved when the Brownian motion process is taken into account in the internal space (apart from that in the external space). This effectively considers the particle as one that is stochastically extended, and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is obtained in the sharp point limit. This can be formulated in terms of a gauge-field-theoretical extension of the particle. This inherent gauge field gives rise to the holonomy in a Hermitian line bundle, which appears as an extra phase factor in the adiabatic limit for a parameter-dependent Hamiltonian, and determines a unique connection. When the Hamiltonian is degenerate, the holonomy is defined in a complex vector bundle. In the case of a fermion, this Berry connection is found to be related to the Wess-Zumino term and can be considered to be of topological origin.
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.
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.