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

arXiv:quant-ph/0405129

Inconsistencies of the Adiabatic Theorem and the Berry Phase

Arun Kumar Pati, A. K. Rajagopal

Published May 21, 2004• 5 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The adiabatic theorem states that if we prepare a quantum system in one of the instantaneous eigenstates then the quantum number is an adiabatic invariant and the state at a later time is equivalent to the instantaneous eigenstate at that time apart from phase factors. Recently, Marzlin and Sanders have pointed out that this could lead to apparent violation of unitarity. We resolve the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency within the quantum adiabatic theorem. Yet, our resolution points to another inconsistency, namely, that the cyclic as well as non-cyclic adiabatic Berry phases may vanish under strict adiabatic condition. We resolve this inconsistency and develop an unitary operator decomposition method to argue for the validity of the adiabatic approximation.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0405129

Related papers

Adiabatic theorem independent of the quantum representations: Resolution of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency

Hsiang Shun Chou

We construct the adiabatic theorem independent of the quantum representations. The quantum-representation-independent geometrical phase, adiabatic condition, and fidelity of the adiabatic approximation are derived. As an example, we apply the quantum-representation-independent adiabatic theorem to provide a thorough resolution of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. We show that the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency results from the wrong identification of the time-dependent Hamiltonian as the instantaneous energy operator and the quantum representation dependence of the Marzlin-Sanders transformation.

Physical Review A•Sep 12, 2022•2 citations

Quantum adiabatic theorem in light of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency

Juan Ortigoso

A consensus that questions the perfunctory use of the quantum adiabatic theorem has emerged since Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] showed the existence of an inconsistency in the applicability of the theorem. Further analysis proved that the inconsistency may arise from the existence of resonant terms in the Hamiltonian, but recent work indicates that the debate about the full extent of the problem remains open. Here, we first show that key premises required in the standard demonstration of the theorem do not hold for a dual Hamiltonian involved in the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. Also, we show that two simple conditions can identify systems for which the adiabatic approximation fails, in spite of satisfying traditional quantitative conditions that were believed to guarantee its validity. Finally, we prove that the inconsistency only arises for Hamiltonians that contain resonant terms whose amplitudes go asymptotically to zero.

arXiv:1111.5195•Physical Review A•Sep 26, 2012•24 citations

On the consistency in the adiabatic theorem and quantum geometric phase

Huazhong Li

The recent discovery of inconsistency (MS inconsistency) in the adiabatic approximation is discussed. In particular, the so-called, inconsistency in Berry phase is analyzed. On the contrary to some authors, we found that the MS inconsistency persisted and the so-called inconsistency in Berry phase does not exist.

arXiv:quant-ph/0702145•Feb 14, 2007•0 citations

Inconsistency in the Application of the Adiabatic Theorem

Karl-Peter Marzlin, Barry C. Sanders

The adiabatic theorem states that an initial eigenstate of a slowly varying Hamiltonian remains close to an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at a later time. We show that a perfunctory application of this statement is problematic if the change in eigenstate is significant, regardless of how closely the evolution satisfies the requirements of the adiabatic theorem. We also introduce an example of a two-level system with an exactly solvable evolution to demonstrate the inapplicability of the adiabatic approximation for a particular slowly varying Hamiltonian.

arXiv:quant-ph/0404022•Physical Review Letters•Oct 15, 2004•195 citations

Review of inconsistency of quantum adiabatic theorem

Yong Tao

In this paper, we note that there are two different types of inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem in work of K. P. Marzlin and B. C. Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408, 2004], MS inconsistency and MS counterexample. Nevertheless, these two types are often confused as one by many authors. We shall point out that the inconsistencies of quantum adiabatic theorem raised by the relevant references just can be classified as these two types.

arXiv:1010.1321•Oct 7, 2010•0 citations

Is the Adiabatic Approximation Inconsistent?

Solomon Duki, Harsh Mathur, Onuttom Narayan

Marzlin and Sanders \cite{marzlin} have shown rigorously that the adiabatic approximation can be very inaccurate when applied to a Hamiltonian $H(t)$ that generates the evolution $U^{\dagger} (t)$ even if it gives an excellent approximation to the evolution $U(t)$ generated by a dual Hamiltonian $h(t)$. We show that this is not inconsistent with the adiabatic theorem and find that in general even if $h(t)$ satisfies the conditions of the adiabatic theorem, $H(t)$ will likely violate those conditions.

arXiv:quant-ph/0510131•Oct 17, 2005•2 citations
The adiabatic theorem states that if we prepare a quantum system in one of the instantaneous eigenstates then the quantum number is an adiabatic invariant and the state at a later time is equivalent to the instantaneous eigenstate at that time apart from phase factors. Recently, Marzlin and Sanders have pointed out that this could lead to apparent violation of unitarity. We resolve the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency within the quantum adiabatic theorem. Yet, our resolution points to another inconsistency, namely, that the cyclic as well as non-cyclic adiabatic Berry phases may vanish under strict adiabatic condition. We resolve this inconsistency and develop an unitary operator decomposition method to argue for the validity of the adiabatic approximation.
We construct the adiabatic theorem independent of the quantum representations. The quantum-representation-independent geometrical phase, adiabatic condition, and fidelity of the adiabatic approximation are derived. As an example, we apply the quantum-representation-independent adiabatic theorem to provide a thorough resolution of the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. We show that the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency results from the wrong identification of the time-dependent Hamiltonian as the instantaneous energy operator and the quantum representation dependence of the Marzlin-Sanders transformation.
A consensus that questions the perfunctory use of the quantum adiabatic theorem has emerged since Marzlin and Sanders [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)] showed the existence of an inconsistency in the applicability of the theorem. Further analysis proved that the inconsistency may arise from the existence of resonant terms in the Hamiltonian, but recent work indicates that the debate about the full extent of the problem remains open. Here, we first show that key premises required in the standard demonstration of the theorem do not hold for a dual Hamiltonian involved in the Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency. Also, we show that two simple conditions can identify systems for which the adiabatic approximation fails, in spite of satisfying traditional quantitative conditions that were believed to guarantee its validity. Finally, we prove that the inconsistency only arises for Hamiltonians that contain resonant terms whose amplitudes go asymptotically to zero.
The adiabatic theorem states that an initial eigenstate of a slowly varying Hamiltonian remains close to an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at a later time. We show that a perfunctory application of this statement is problematic if the change in eigenstate is significant, regardless of how closely the evolution satisfies the requirements of the adiabatic theorem. We also introduce an example of a two-level system with an exactly solvable evolution to demonstrate the inapplicability of the adiabatic approximation for a particular slowly varying Hamiltonian.
Marzlin and Sanders \cite{marzlin} have shown rigorously that the adiabatic approximation can be very inaccurate when applied to a Hamiltonian H(t)H(t)H(t) that generates the evolution U†(t)U^{\dagger} (t)U†(t) even if it gives an excellent approximation to the evolution U(t)U(t)U(t) generated by a dual Hamiltonian h(t)h(t)h(t). We show that this is not inconsistent with the adiabatic theorem and find that in general even if h(t)h(t)h(t) satisfies the conditions of the adiabatic theorem, H(t)H(t)H(t) will likely violate those conditions.