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

Communications Physics

Noncyclic continuous Pancharatnam—Berry phase in dual-beam interference

Aleksi Leinonen, Antti Hannonen, Henri Partanen, Janne I. Heikkinen, Tero Setälä, Ari T. Friberg, Tommi K. Hakala

Published Jun 7, 2023• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1038/s42005-023-01249-2

Related papers

Pancharatnam-Berry phase in electromagnetic double-pinhole interference

Antti Hannonen, Henri Partanen, Jani Tervo +2 more

Young's two-beam interference and the Pancharatnam-Berry geometric phase constitute two landmark results in optical physics. Employing the spectral interference law of electromagnetic waves, we establish a general expression for the Pancharatnam-Berry phase in Young's two-pinhole setup. We show that the phase is elegantly specified by the electric field Stokes parameters at the openings. The geometric phase can also be deduced from the interference pattern using Pancharatnam's definition of the generalized phase, as we demonstrate both numerically and experimentally. Our results imply a way to control the phase differences in two-beam electromagnetic interference by adjusting the input-field intensities and polarization states.

Physical Review A•May 20, 2019•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

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

Pancharatnam’s connection and geometric phase of partially polarized light

Kaisa Rantaeskola, Kimmo Saastamoinen, Andreas Norrman +3 more

We extend the concepts of Pancharatnam’s connection and phase difference of optical beams to cover random, stationary, partially polarized quasimonochromatic light. The geometric and dynamic structures of the phase are assessed within the framework of classical statistical polarization theory when the beam undergoes a cyclic, unitary polarization-state evolution. The existence of the two phase types is confirmed experimentally by conducting an interferometric measurement where the phase changes are found from the variations in the position of an intensity fringe pattern. The formalism also leads to a definition of the geometric phase for partially polarized beams, which is consistent with the results on mixed (qubit) quantum states.

Optica•Nov 26, 2024•1 citation

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

Anthony Martin, Olivier Alibart, Jean-Christophe Flesch +4 more

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.

•Nov 23, 2011•0 citations

Geometric phase in beating of light waves

Antti Hannonen, Kimmo Saastamoinen, Lasse-Petteri Leppänen +4 more

Abstract Beating is a simple physical phenomenon known for long in the context of sound waves but remained surprisingly unexplored for light waves. When two monochromatic optical beams of different frequencies and states of polarization interfere, the polarization state of the superposition field exhibits temporal periodic variation—polarization beating. In this work, we reveal a foundational and elegant phase structure underlying such polarization beating. We show that the phase difference over a single beating period decomposes into the Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase and a dynamical phase of which the former depends exclusively on the intensities and polarization states of the interfering beams whereas the sum of the phases is determined solely by the beam frequencies. Varying the intensity and polarization characteristics of the beams, the relative contributions of the geometric and dynamical phases can be adjusted. The geometric phase inherent in polarization beating is governed by a compact expression containing only the Stokes parameters of the interfering waves and can alternatively be obtained from the individual beam intensities and the amplitude of the intensity beats. We demonstrate both approaches experimentally by using an interferometer with a fast detector and a specific polarimetric arrangement. Polarization beating has a unique character that the geometric and dynamical phases are entangled, i.e. variation in one unavoidably leads to a change in the other. Our work expands geometric phases into a new domain and offers important novel insight into the role of polarization in interference of electromagnetic waves.

New Journal of Physics•Jul 31, 2019•19 citations
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 two-beam interference and the Pancharatnam-Berry geometric phase constitute two landmark results in optical physics. Employing the spectral interference law of electromagnetic waves, we establish a general expression for the Pancharatnam-Berry phase in Young's two-pinhole setup. We show that the phase is elegantly specified by the electric field Stokes parameters at the openings. The geometric phase can also be deduced from the interference pattern using Pancharatnam's definition of the generalized phase, as we demonstrate both numerically and experimentally. Our results imply a way to control the phase differences in two-beam electromagnetic interference by adjusting the input-field intensities and polarization states.
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.
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 extend the concepts of Pancharatnam’s connection and phase difference of optical beams to cover random, stationary, partially polarized quasimonochromatic light. The geometric and dynamic structures of the phase are assessed within the framework of classical statistical polarization theory when the beam undergoes a cyclic, unitary polarization-state evolution. The existence of the two phase types is confirmed experimentally by conducting an interferometric measurement where the phase changes are found from the variations in the position of an intensity fringe pattern. The formalism also leads to a definition of the geometric phase for partially polarized beams, which is consistent with the results on mixed (qubit) quantum states.
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.
Abstract Beating is a simple physical phenomenon known for long in the context of sound waves but remained surprisingly unexplored for light waves. When two monochromatic optical beams of different frequencies and states of polarization interfere, the polarization state of the superposition field exhibits temporal periodic variation—polarization beating. In this work, we reveal a foundational and elegant phase structure underlying such polarization beating. We show that the phase difference over a single beating period decomposes into the Pancharatnam–Berry geometric phase and a dynamical phase of which the former depends exclusively on the intensities and polarization states of the interfering beams whereas the sum of the phases is determined solely by the beam frequencies. Varying the intensity and polarization characteristics of the beams, the relative contributions of the geometric and dynamical phases can be adjusted. The geometric phase inherent in polarization beating is governed by a compact expression containing only the Stokes parameters of the interfering waves and can alternatively be obtained from the individual beam intensities and the amplitude of the intensity beats. We demonstrate both approaches experimentally by using an interferometer with a fast detector and a specific polarimetric arrangement. Polarization beating has a unique character that the geometric and dynamical phases are entangled, i.e. variation in one unavoidably leads to a change in the other. Our work expands geometric phases into a new domain and offers important novel insight into the role of polarization in interference of electromagnetic waves.