A mod jm) spin state in an adiabatically-cycled magnetic field acquires a geometric phase of m times the solid angle described by B, so that for m=0 states the geometric phase vanishes. However, if B is not cycled, but is made to reverse direction, an m=0 state returns to itself and in so doing acquires a geometric phase factor of (-1) j . This phase is of a topological character; parameter space is the real projective plane, in which the phase distinguishes trivial from non-trivial cycles.
A mod jm) spin state in an adiabatically-cycled magnetic field acquires a geometric phase of m times the solid angle described by B, so that for m=0 states the geometric phase vanishes. However, if B is not cycled, but is made to reverse direction, an m=0 state returns to itself and in so doing acquires a geometric phase factor of (-1) j . This phase is of a topological character; parameter space is the real projective plane, in which the phase distinguishes trivial from non-trivial cycles.
The Berry phase [3] is traditionally understood as a geometric phase acquired during cyclic adiabatic evolution, often interpreted as the flux of an effective “magnetic field” through a solid angle in parameter space. In this thesis, we investigate situations in which a geometric phase arises even when no spatial solid angle is enclosed, revealing the limitations of the standard purely spatial interpretation. We first review the Berry phase for a spin-½ particle in a slowly varying magnetic field and analyze scenarios in which the system’s eigenstate is changed during the adiabatic evolution. We show that the resulting phase can be understood through a spacetime formulation analogous to the electrodynamic Aharonov–Bohm effect [1], where both “analogous magnetic” and “analogous electric” fields contribute through a spacetime surface integral. This framework clarifies how nonzero geometric phases can occur even when the projected spatial solid angle vanishes. We then extend this perspective to the Jahn–Teller 𝐸 ⊗ 𝑒 system. While a closed loop around the conical intersection yields the familiar π phase, we show that nontrivial geometric phases can also emerge in paths with zero net enclosed solid angle. Advisors: Herman Batelaan and Ilya Kravchenko
For a T-periodic non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H(t), we construct a class of adiabatic cyclic states of period T which are not eigenstates of the initial Hamiltonian H(0). We show that the corresponding adiabatic geometric phase angles are real and discuss their relationship with the conventional complex adiabatic geometric phase angles. We present a detailed calculation of the new adiabatic cyclic states and their geometric phases for a non-Hermitian analog of the spin 1/2 particle in a precessing magnetic field. Since the publication of Berry’s paper [1] on the adiabatic geometrical phase, the subject has undergone a rapid development. Berry’s adiabatic geometric phase for periodic Hermitian Hamiltonians with a discrete nondegenerate spectrum has been generalized to arbitrary changes of a quantum state. In particular, the conditions on the adiabaticity [2] and cyclicity [3, 4, 5] of the evolution, Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian [6], and degeneracy [7] and discreteness [8] of its spectrum have been lifted. Moreover, the classical [9] and relativistic [10] analogues of the geometric phase have been considered. The purpose of this note is to offer an alternative generalization of Berry’s treatment of the adiabatic geometric phase for a non-Hermitian parametric Hamiltonian H[R] with a nondegenerate discrete spectrum. The parameters R = (R1, · · ·, Rn) are assumed to be real ∗E-mail address:
It is well known that any cyclic solution of a spin 1/2 neutral particle moving in an arbitrary magnetic field has a nonadiabatic geometric phase proportional to the solid angle subtended by the trace of the spin. For neutral particles with higher spin, this is true for cyclic solutions with special initial conditions. For more general cyclic solutions, however, this does not hold. As an example, we consider the most general solutions of such particles moving in a rotating magnetic field. If the parameters of the system are appropriately chosen, all solutions are cyclic. The nonadiabatic geometric phase and the solid angle are both calculated explicitly. It turns out that the nonadiabatic geometric phase contains an extra term in addition to the one proportional to the solid angle. The extra term vanishes automatically for spin 1/2. For higher spin, however, it depends on the initial condition. We also consider the valence electron of an alkaline atom. For cyclic solutions with special initial conditions in an arbitrary strong magnetic field, we prove that the nonadiabatic geometric phase is a linear combination of the two solid angles subtended by the traces of the orbit and spin angular momenta. For more general cyclic solutions in a strong rotating magnetic field, the nonadiabatic geometric phase also contains extra terms in addition to the linear combination.
In this paper we define a non-dynamical phase for a spin-1/2 particle in a rotating magnetic field in the non-adiabatic non-cyclic case, and this phase can be considered as a generalized Berry phase. We show that this phase reduces to the geometric Berry phase, in the adiabatic limit, up to a factor independent of the parameters of the system. We could add an arbitrary phase to the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian due to the gauge freedom. Then, we fix this arbitrary phase by comparing our Berry phase in the adiabatic limit with the Berry's result for the same system. Also, in the extreme non-adiabatic limit our Berry phase vanishes, modulo 2π, as expected. Although, our Berry phase is in general complex, it becomes real in the expected cases: the adiabatic limit, the extreme non-adiabatic limit, and the points at which the state of the system returns to its initial form, up to a phase factor. Therefore, this phase can be considered as a generalization of the Berry phase. Moreover, we investigate the relation between the value of the generalized Berry phase, the period of the states and the period of the Hamiltonian.
In this work, we study the geometric phase and the dynamics of electric and magnetic dipoles. We present your origins, some relevant works in this area as well as your results. The appearance of a geometric phase is explained when a study of quantum dynamics of the particle is made, during a complete cycle and that is subject to cyclic adiabatic processes. The present study begins with an introduction about the geometric phase, where we present examples used to illustrate it. Next, the adiabatic theorem was presented in both classical and quantum systems and a discourse on adiabatic invariants. After this, we present its final mathematical formulation and also its obtaining for a spin 1/2 particle. Soon after, we obtained the Lagrangian and its Hamiltonian, we find the quantum phase that the particle acquired in the efect Aharonov- Bohm and Aharonov - Casher. We have also seen the quantum dynamics of both electric and magnetic dipoles, where we start from the Lagrangian and study its field configurations, we reach the Ananda phase, where in the next step we obtain phases for some of the Field configurations in the Ananda phase from phase of Aharonov - Casher where we made the electric dipole moment equal to zero, as well as the He - Mckellar - Welkens phase with magnetic dipole moment equal to zero, and the Casella efect thus obtaining a particle case of the Ananda phase.
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