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

Experimental demonstration of a non-local Pancharatnam phase in intensity interferometry

Anthony Martin, Olivier Alibart, Jean-Christophe Flesch, Supurna Sinha, Joseph Samuel, Sébastien Tanzilli, Anders Kastberg

Published Nov 23, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The geometric phase was first anticipated 1956 by Pancharatnam, in the context of polarised light. Much later, in 1984, Berry made an analogue discovery, but this time in the context of quantum mechanics. It turns our that the geometric phase, or Berry's phase, or the Pancharatnam phase, is a very general phenomenon. It is a phase shift that can be acquired by a system, when it has undergone a adiabatic process, bringing it back to its original initial conditions. If the parameter space of the involved Hamiltonian is curved, the final condition may involve a phase change. This effect has been demonstrated in a range of different interferometry experiments. Although the Pancharatnam phase has been seen, this has always been in studies involving the first order correlation, g(1), this is in the intereferogramm of two or more wave amplitudes. Here, we demonstrate experimental proofs of the effect of the Pancharatnam phase in intensity interferometry, or in other words, where the second order correlation factor g(2) is the relevant description of the interference.

Related papers

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

Nonlocal Pancharatnam phase in two-photon interferometry

Poonam Mehta, Joseph Samuel, Supurna Sinha

We propose a polarized intensity interferometry experiment, which measures the nonlocal Pancharatnam phase acquired by a pair of Hanbury-Brown--Twiss photons. The setup involves two polarized thermal sources illuminating two polarized detectors. Varying the relative polarization angle of the detectors introduces a two-photon geometric phase. Local measurements at either detector do not reveal the effects of the phase, which is an optical analog of the multiparticle Aharonov-Bohm effect. The geometric phase sheds light on the three-slit experiment and suggests ways of tuning entanglement.

arXiv:1002.1547•Physical Review A•Sep 30, 2010•9 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

Measurement of the Pancharatnam–Berry phase in two-beam interference

Antti Hannonen, Henri Partanen, Aleksi Leinonen +4 more

Young’s dual-pinhole interference experiment with arbitrary fully correlated and polarized vector light fields leads to a Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase that is related to the associated dynamical phase. We demonstrate theoretically and experimentally how the dynamical phase across the interference pattern can be deciphered from the total phase, thereby leaving only the geometric phase. Our results constitute the first genuine interferometric phase measurements that yield the Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase in Young’s two-beam interference setup.

Optica•Sep 10, 2020•26 citations

Classical light analogue of the non-local Aharonov-Bohm effect

Nandan Satapathy, Deepak Pandey, Poonam Mehta +3 more

We demonstrate the existence of a non-local geometric phase in the intensity-intensity correlations of classical incoherent light, that is not seen in the lower-order correlations. This two-photon Pancharatnam phase was observed and modulated in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Using acousto-optic interaction, independent phase noise was introduced to light in the two arms of the interferometer to create two independent incoherent classical sources from laser light. The experiment is the classical optical analogue of the multi-particle Aharonov-Bohm effect. As the trajectory of light over the Poincaré sphere introduces a phase shift observable only in the intensity-intensity correlation, it provides a means of deflecting the two-photon wavefront, while having no effect on single photons.

arXiv:1202.2685•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Mar 1, 2012•13 citations

Universal anomaly of dynamics at phase transition points induced by Pancharatnam-Berry phase

Jia-Yuan Zhang, Xia Yin, Ming-Yu liu +3 more

Abstract Dynamical anomalies are often observed near both the continuous and first-order phase transition points. We propose that the universal anomalies could originate from the geometric phase effects. A Pancharatnam-Berry phase is accumulated continuously in quantum states with the variation of tuning parameters. Phase transitions are supposed to induce an abrupt shift of the geometric phase. In our multi-level quantum model, the quantum interference induced by the geometric phase could prolong or shorten the relaxation times of excited states at phase transition points, which agrees with the experiments, models under sudden quenches and our semi-classical model. Furthermore, we find that by setting a phase shift of π, the excited state could be decoupled from the ground state by quantum cancellation so that the relaxation time even could diverge to infinity. Our work introduces the geometric phase to the study of conventional phase transitions as well as quantum phase transition, and could substantially extend the dephasing time of qubits for quantum computing.

arXiv:2209.14519•Physica Scripta•Apr 3, 2023•2 citations
The geometric phase was first anticipated 1956 by Pancharatnam, in the context of polarised light. Much later, in 1984, Berry made an analogue discovery, but this time in the context of quantum mechanics. It turns our that the geometric phase, or Berry's phase, or the Pancharatnam phase, is a very general phenomenon. It is a phase shift that can be acquired by a system, when it has undergone a adiabatic process, bringing it back to its original initial conditions. If the parameter space of the involved Hamiltonian is curved, the final condition may involve a phase change. This effect has been demonstrated in a range of different interferometry experiments. Although the Pancharatnam phase has been seen, this has always been in studies involving the first order correlation, g(1), this is in the intereferogramm of two or more wave amplitudes. Here, we demonstrate experimental proofs of the effect of the Pancharatnam phase in intensity interferometry, or in other words, where the second order correlation factor g(2) is the relevant description of the interference.
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
We propose a polarized intensity interferometry experiment, which measures the nonlocal Pancharatnam phase acquired by a pair of Hanbury-Brown--Twiss photons. The setup involves two polarized thermal sources illuminating two polarized detectors. Varying the relative polarization angle of the detectors introduces a two-photon geometric phase. Local measurements at either detector do not reveal the effects of the phase, which is an optical analog of the multiparticle Aharonov-Bohm effect. The geometric phase sheds light on the three-slit experiment and suggests ways of tuning entanglement.
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.
Young’s dual-pinhole interference experiment with arbitrary fully correlated and polarized vector light fields leads to a Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase that is related to the associated dynamical phase. We demonstrate theoretically and experimentally how the dynamical phase across the interference pattern can be deciphered from the total phase, thereby leaving only the geometric phase. Our results constitute the first genuine interferometric phase measurements that yield the Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase in Young’s two-beam interference setup.
We demonstrate the existence of a non-local geometric phase in the intensity-intensity correlations of classical incoherent light, that is not seen in the lower-order correlations. This two-photon Pancharatnam phase was observed and modulated in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Using acousto-optic interaction, independent phase noise was introduced to light in the two arms of the interferometer to create two independent incoherent classical sources from laser light. The experiment is the classical optical analogue of the multi-particle Aharonov-Bohm effect. As the trajectory of light over the Poincaré sphere introduces a phase shift observable only in the intensity-intensity correlation, it provides a means of deflecting the two-photon wavefront, while having no effect on single photons.
Abstract Dynamical anomalies are often observed near both the continuous and first-order phase transition points. We propose that the universal anomalies could originate from the geometric phase effects. A Pancharatnam-Berry phase is accumulated continuously in quantum states with the variation of tuning parameters. Phase transitions are supposed to induce an abrupt shift of the geometric phase. In our multi-level quantum model, the quantum interference induced by the geometric phase could prolong or shorten the relaxation times of excited states at phase transition points, which agrees with the experiments, models under sudden quenches and our semi-classical model. Furthermore, we find that by setting a phase shift of π, the excited state could be decoupled from the ground state by quantum cancellation so that the relaxation time even could diverge to infinity. Our work introduces the geometric phase to the study of conventional phase transitions as well as quantum phase transition, and could substantially extend the dephasing time of qubits for quantum computing.