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

Quantum trajectory approach to the geometric phase: open bipartite systems

X. X. Yi, D. P. Liu, Wei-Wei Wang

Published Oct 21, 2005• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Through the quantum trajectory approach, we calculate the geometric phase acquired by a bipartite system subjected to decoherence. The subsystems that compose the bipartite system interact with each other, and then are entangled in the evolution. The geometric phase due to the quantum jump for both the bipartite system and its subsystems are calculated and analyzed. As an example, we present two coupled spin-$\\frac 1 2 $ particles to detail the calculations.

Related papers

Quantum trajectory approach to the geometric phase: open bipartite systems

X X Yi, D P Liu, W Wang

Through the quantum trajectory approach, we calculate the geometric phase acquired by a bipartite system subjected to decoherence. The subsystems that compose the bipartite system interact with each other, and then are entangled in the evolution. The geometric phase due to the quantum jump for both the bipartite system and its subsystems are calculated and analyzed. As an example, we present two coupled spin-$\frac 1 2 $ particles to detail the calculations.

arXiv:quant-ph/0510168•New Journal of Physics•Oct 17, 2005•8 citations

THE QUANTUM TRAJECTORY APPROACH TO GEOMETRIC PHASE FOR OPEN SYSTEMS

Angelo C. M. Carollo

The quantum jump method for the calculation of geometric phase is reviewed. This is an operational method to associate a geometric phase to the evolution of a quantum system subjected to decoherence in an open system. The method is general and can be applied to many different physical systems, within the Markovian approximation. As examples, two main source of decoherence are considered: dephasing and spontaneous decay. It is shown that the geometric phase is to very large extent insensitive to the former, i.e. it is independent of the number of jumps determined by the dephasing operator.

Modern Physics Letters A•Jul 11, 2005•13 citations

Geometric Phase in Open Systems

Angelo C. M. Carollo, Ivette Fuentes, Marcelo França Santos +1 more

We calculate the geometric phase associated with the evolution of a system subjected to decoherence through a quantum-jump approach. The method is general and can be applied to many different physical systems. As examples, two main sources of decoherence are considered: dephasing and spontaneous decay. We show that the geometric phase is completely insensitive to the former, i.e., it is independent of the number of jumps determined by the dephasing operator.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301037•Physical Review Letters•Apr 23, 2003•307 citations

Spin- 1/2 Geometric Phase Driven by Decohering Quantum Fields

Angelo C. M. Carollo, Ivette Fuentes, Marcelo França Santos +1 more

We calculate the geometric phase of a spin-1/2 system driven by one and two mode quantum fields subject to decoherence. Using the quantum jump approach, we show that the corrections to the phase in the no-jump trajectory are different when considering adiabatic and nonadiabatic evolutions. We discuss the implications of our results from both fundamental as well as quantum computational perspectives.

arXiv:quant-ph/0306178•Physical Review Letters•Jan 15, 2004•100 citations

Geometric phase and quantum correlations for a bipartite two-level system

Fernando C. Lombardo, Paula I. Villar

We calculate the geometric phase of a bipartite two-level system coupled to an external environment. We compute the correction to the unitary geometric phase through a kinematic approach. To this end, we analyse the reduced density matrix of the bipartite system after tracing over the environmental degrees of freedom, for arbitrary initial states of the composite system. In all cases considered, the correction to the unitary phase has a similar structure as a function of the degree of the entanglement of the initial state. In the case of a maximally entangled state (MES), the survival phase is only the topological phase, and there is no correction induced by the environments. Further, we compute the quantum discord and concurrence of the bipartite state and analyse possible relations among these quantities and the geometric phase acquired during the non-unitary system's evolution.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Jul 3, 2015•2 citations

Geometric phase of a spin-1/2 particle driven by decohering quantum in adiabatic and nonadiatic evolution

Feng Fu

Quantum computer takes advantages from properties of superposition and entanglement, which are also very fragile and easy to be error. But they may be destroyed easily by a process called decoherence. Therefore, how to overcome the effect of decoherence is key to implement quantum computer. Using the no-jump trajectory, Berry's and AA's formula for geometric phase, we calculate the geometric phase of a spin-1/2 system driven by one and two mode quantum fields subject to decoherence in the adiabatic and nonadiabatic case, respectively. By quantum jump method, we find that the corrections to its phase for the no-jump trajectory are different when considering adiabatic and nonadiabatic evolutions. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results from fundamental and quantum computational points.

Chinese Journal of Quantum Electronics•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations
Through the quantum trajectory approach, we calculate the geometric phase acquired by a bipartite system subjected to decoherence. The subsystems that compose the bipartite system interact with each other, and then are entangled in the evolution. The geometric phase due to the quantum jump for both the bipartite system and its subsystems are calculated and analyzed. As an example, we present two coupled spin-frac12\\frac 1 2 frac12 particles to detail the calculations.
The quantum jump method for the calculation of geometric phase is reviewed. This is an operational method to associate a geometric phase to the evolution of a quantum system subjected to decoherence in an open system. The method is general and can be applied to many different physical systems, within the Markovian approximation. As examples, two main source of decoherence are considered: dephasing and spontaneous decay. It is shown that the geometric phase is to very large extent insensitive to the former, i.e. it is independent of the number of jumps determined by the dephasing operator.
We calculate the geometric phase of a bipartite two-level system coupled to an external environment. We compute the correction to the unitary geometric phase through a kinematic approach. To this end, we analyse the reduced density matrix of the bipartite system after tracing over the environmental degrees of freedom, for arbitrary initial states of the composite system. In all cases considered, the correction to the unitary phase has a similar structure as a function of the degree of the entanglement of the initial state. In the case of a maximally entangled state (MES), the survival phase is only the topological phase, and there is no correction induced by the environments. Further, we compute the quantum discord and concurrence of the bipartite state and analyse possible relations among these quantities and the geometric phase acquired during the non-unitary system's evolution.
Quantum computer takes advantages from properties of superposition and entanglement, which are also very fragile and easy to be error. But they may be destroyed easily by a process called decoherence. Therefore, how to overcome the effect of decoherence is key to implement quantum computer. Using the no-jump trajectory, Berry's and AA's formula for geometric phase, we calculate the geometric phase of a spin-1/2 system driven by one and two mode quantum fields subject to decoherence in the adiabatic and nonadiabatic case, respectively. By quantum jump method, we find that the corrections to its phase for the no-jump trajectory are different when considering adiabatic and nonadiabatic evolutions. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results from fundamental and quantum computational points.