The experimental observation of effects due to Berry's phase in quantum systems is certainly one of the most impressive demonstrations of the correctness of the superposition principle in Quantum Mechanics. Since Berry's original paper in 1984, the spin 1/2 coupled with rotating external magnetic field has been one of the most studied model where those phases appear. We also consider this soluble model. A detailed analysis of the coupled differential equations and comparison with exact results teach us why the usual procedure (of neglecting non-diagonal terms) is mathematically sound.
The experimental observation of effects due to Berry's phase in quantum systems is certainly one of the most impressive demonstrations of the correctness of the superposition principle in Quantum Mechanics. Since Berry's original paper in 1984, the spin 1/2 coupled with rotating external magnetic field has been one of the most studied model where those phases appear. We also consider this soluble model. A detailed analysis of the coupled differential equations and comparison with exact results teach us why the usual procedure (of neglecting non-diagonal terms) is mathematically sound.
The experimental observation of effects due to Berry’s phase in quantum systems is certainly one of the most impressive demonstrations of the correctness of the superposition principle in quantum mechanics. Since Berry’s original paper in 1984, the spin 12 coupled with a rotating external magnetic field has been one of the most studied models where those phases appear. We also consider a special case of this soluble model. A detailed analysis of the coupled differential equations and comparison with exact results teach us why the usual procedure (of neglecting nondiagonal terms) is mathematically sound.
We derive the general formula giving Berry's phase for an arbitrary spin, having both magnetic-dipole and electric-quadrupole couplings with external time-dependent fields. We assume that the 'effective' electric and magnetic fields remain orthogonal during the quantum cycles. This mild restriction has many advantages. It provides simple symmetries leading to useful selection rules. Furthermore, the Hamiltonian parameter space coincides with the density matrix space for a spin S = 1. This implies a mathematical identity between Berry's phase and the Aharonov–Anandan phase, which is lost for S > 1. We have found that new physical features of Berry's phases emerge for integer spins ⩾2. We provide explicit numerical results of Berry's phases for S = 2, 3, 4. For any spin, one easily finds well-defined regions of the parameter space where instantaneous eigenstates remain widely separated. We have decided to stay within them and not deal with non-Abelian Berry's phases. We present a thorough and precise analysis of the non-adiabatic corrections with separate treatment for periodic and non-periodic Hamiltonian parameters. In both cases, the accuracy for satisfying the adiabatic approximation within a definite time interval is considerably improved if one chooses for the time derivatives of the parameters a time-dependence having a Blackman pulse shape. This has the effect of taming the non-adiabatic oscillation corrections which could be generated by a linear ramping. For realistic experimental conditions, the non-adibatic corrections can be kept below the 0.1% level. For a class of quantum cycles, involving as a sole periodic parameter the precession angle of the electric field around the magnetic field, the corrections odd upon the reversal of the associated rotation velocity can be canceled exactly if the quadrupole to dipole coupling is chosen appropriately ('magic values'). The even ones are eliminated by taking the difference of the Berry phases generated by two 'mirror' cycles. We end by indicating a possible application of the theoretical tools developed in this paper. We propose a way to perform a holonomic entanglement of N non-correlated 1/2-spins by performing adiabatic cycles governed by a Hamiltonian given as a nonlinear function of the total spin operator S , defined as the sum of the N individual spin operators. The basic idea behind this proposal is the mathematical fact that any non-correlated states can be expanded into eigenstates of S 2 and S z . The same eigenvalues appear several times in the decomposition when N > 2 but all these states differ by their symmetry properties under the N -spin permutations. The case N = 4 and S z = 1 is treated explicitly and a maximum entanglement is achieved.
We show that the difference of adiabatic phases, that are basis-dependent, in noncyclic evolution of non-degenerate quantum systems have to be taken into account to give the correct interference result in the calculation of physical quantities in states that are a superposition of instantaneous eigenstates of energy. To verify the contribution of those adiabatic phases in the interference phenomena, we consider the spin-1/2 model coupled to a precessing external magnetic field. In the model, the adiabatic phase increases in time up to reach the difference of the Berry's phases of the model when the external magnetic field completes a period.
By invoking the Rabi rotation technique, the Schrödinger wavefunction of a neutral particle with a magnetic moment and a high-spin is exactly solved in a harmonically-changing magnetic field. This result is then applied to illustrate what the accuracy of the quantum adiabatic approximation is exactly and how the non-adiabatic transition vanishes in accompaniment with the appearence of Berry's geometrical phase. The discussion of this paper verifies C. N. Yang's point of view about the generalization of the quantum adiabatic approximation in connection with Berry's phase.
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 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