The geometric phase in quantum mechanics is formulated for charged particles in a gauge-invariant, geometric manner. It is then extended to an evolution resulting from a sequence of measurements as in the work of Pancharatnam and Aharonov and Vardi. Its close connection to the Feynman formulation of quantum mechanics is pointed out. The geometric angles, which are generalizations of the classical, adiabatic angles introduced by Hannay and the quantum, adiabatic angles introduced by Anandan and Stodolsky in their group-theoretic treatment of Berry's phase, are studied in quantum and classical physics. The geometric phase for a quantum spin in a magnetic field due to a second particle is obtained using the quantum reference frame defined by the latter. The question of whether the geometric phase and angles are local or nonlocal and their relationship to the electromagnetic and gravitational phases are also discussed.
The geometric phase in quantum mechanics is formulated for charged particles in a gauge-invariant, geometric manner. It is then extended to an evolution resulting from a sequence of measurements as in the work of Pancharatnam and Aharonov and Vardi. Its close connection to the Feynman formulation of quantum mechanics is pointed out. The geometric angles, which are generalizations of the classical, adiabatic angles introduced by Hannay and the quantum, adiabatic angles introduced by Anandan and Stodolsky in their group-theoretic treatment of Berry's phase, are studied in quantum and classical physics. The geometric phase for a quantum spin in a magnetic field due to a second particle is obtained using the quantum reference frame defined by the latter. The question of whether the geometric phase and angles are local or nonlocal and their relationship to the electromagnetic and gravitational phases are also discussed.
We are accustomed to think the phase of single particle states does not matter. After all, the phase cancels out when calculating physical observables. However, the geometric phase can cause interference even in single particle states and can be measured. Berry’s phase is a geometric phase the system accumulates as its time-dependent Hamiltonian is subjected to closed adiabatic excursion in parameter space. In this report, we explore how Berry’s phase manifests itself in various fields of physics, both classical and quantum mechanical. The Hannay angle is a classical analogue to Berry’s phase and they are related by a derivative. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a manifestation of Berry’s phase. Net rotation of deformable bodies in the language of gauge theory can be translated as a Berry phase. The well-known BornOppenheimer approximation is a molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and is another manifestation of Berry’s Phase.
The analysis of geometric phases associated with level crossing is reduced to the familiar diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the second quantized formulation. A hidden local gauge symmetry, which is associated with the arbitrariness of the phase choice of a complete orthonormal basis set, becomes explicit in this formulation (in particular, in the adiabatic approximation) and specifies physical observables. The choice of a basis set which specifies the coordinate in the functional space is arbitrary in the second quantization, and a subclass of coordinate transformations, which keeps the form of the action invariant, is recognized as the gauge symmetry. We discuss the implications of this hidden local gauge symmetry in detail by analyzing geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. It is shown that the hidden local symmetry provides a basic concept alternative to the notion of holonomy to analyze geometric phases and that the analysis based on the hidden local gauge symmetry leads to results consistent with the general prescription of Pancharatnam. We however note an important difference between the geometric phases for cyclic and noncyclic evolutions. We also explain a basic difference between our hidden local gauge symmetry and a gauge symmetry (or equivalence class) used by Aharonov and Anandan in their definition of generalized geometric phases.
The concept of Geometric Phase in Quantum Mechanics is generally formulated en- tirely in terms of geometric structure of complex Hilbert Space. This tutorial article gives a general mathematical overview of the Geometric phase introduced by Berry with the conditions over the system’s evolution embedded through adiabaticity and cyclicity, which were subsequently relaxed sequentially by Aharonov-Anandan, Samuel-Bhandari, and later by Mukunda and Simon by using the idea of Bargmann Invariants. The arti- cle presents a thorough and illustrative overview regarding the mathematical derivation behind the upliftment of the conditions, which results in the generalized definition of the Geometric phase for quantum systems. In addition to that, the article also gives an overall idea about the general analytical aspects of finding the Geometric phase for three level open quantum systems undergoing decoherence and dephasing due to interaction with the surroundings in the weak system reservoir coupling limit described by quantum master equations.
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
The conventional formulation of the nonadiabatic (Aharonov–Anandan) phase is based on the equivalence class {eiα(t)ψ(t,x)} which is not a symmetry of the Schrödinger equation. This equivalence class when understood as defining generalized rays in the Hilbert space is not generally consistent with the superposition principle in interference and polarization phenomena. The hidden local gauge symmetry, which arises from the arbitrariness of the choice of coordinates in the functional space, is then proposed as a basic gauge symmetry in the nonadiabatic phase. This reformulation reproduces all the successful aspects of the nonadiabatic phase in a manner manifestly consistent with the conventional notion of rays and the superposition principle. The hidden local symmetry is thus identified as the natural origin of the gauge symmetry in both of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic phases in the absence of gauge fields, and it allows a unified treatment of all the geometric phases. The nonadiabatic phase may well be regarded as a special case of the adiabatic phase in this reformulation, contrary to the customary understanding of the adiabatic phase as a special case of the nonadiabatic phase. Some explicit examples of geometric phases are discussed to illustrate this reformulation.
Quantum eigenstates undergoing cyclic changes acquire a phase factor of geometric origin. This phase, known as the Berry phase, or the geometric phase, has found applications in a wide range of disciplines throughout physics, including atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, optics, and classical dynamics. In this article, the basic theory of the geometric phase is presented along with a number of representative applications. The article begins with an account of the geometric phase for cyclic adiabatic evolutions. An elementary derivation is given along with a worked example for two-state systems. The implications of time-reversal are explained, as is the fundamental connection between the geometric phase and energy level degeneracies. We also discuss methods of experimental observation. A brief account is given of geometric magnetism; this is a Lorenz-like force of geometric origin which appears in the dynamics of slow systems coupled to fast ones. A number of theoretical developments of the geometric phase are presented. These include an informal discussion of fibre bundles, and generalizations of the geometric phase to degenerate eigenstates (the nonabelian case) and to nonadiabatic evolution. There follows an account of applications. Manifestations in classical physics include the Hannay angle and kinematic geometric phases. Applications in optics concern polarization dynamics, including the theory and observation of Pancharatnam's phase. Applications in molecular physics include the molecular Aharonov-Bohm effect and nuclear magnetic resonance studies. In condensed matter physics, we discuss the role of the geometric phase in the theory of the quantum Hall effect.