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/0702145

On the consistency in the adiabatic theorem and quantum geometric phase

Huazhong Li

Published Feb 14, 2007• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0702145

Related papers

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

Inconsistencies of the Adiabatic Theorem and the Berry Phase

Arun Kumar Pati, A. K. Rajagopal

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.

arXiv:quant-ph/0405129•May 21, 2004•5 citations

GEOMETRIC PHASE SHIFTS IN DISSIPATIVE CLASSICAL SYSTEMS

Thomas B. Kepler

The reanalysis of the adiabatic theorem initiated by Berry and leading to the discovery of the unexpectedly elegant geometric phase shift, has been broadened in scope by many authors; most recently, to dissipative classical dynamical systems. I review this work with an emphasis on the fundamental characteristics underlying all instantiations of geometric phase shifts.

Modern Physics Letters B•Nov 10, 1992•4 citations

Inconsistency of the theory of geometric phases in adiabatic evolution

Da-Jian Zhang, P. Z. Zhao, Guofu Xu

We unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstates of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change in the geometric phase accompanying adiabatic evolution without degeneracies of the energy levels. This leads to the counterintuitive result that the values of two geometric phases computed from the general definition of the Berry phase [Samuel and Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988)] can dramatically differ from each other in the adiabatic limit even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner. The result of this work indicates that the widely accepted theory of geometric phases is not very consistent in the context of adiabatic evolution involving superposed eigenstates.

Physical Review A•Apr 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

Consistency between adiabatic and non-adiabatic geometric phases for non-self-adjoint Hamiltonians

David Viennot, Arnaud Leclerc, Georges Jolicard +1 more

We show that the adiabatic approximation for non-self-adjoint Hamiltonians seems to induce two non-equal expressions for the geometric phase. The first one is related to the spectral projector involved in the adiabatic theorem, and the other one is the adiabatic limit of the non-adiabatic geometric phase. This apparent inconsistency is resolved by observing that the difference between the two expressions is compensated by a small deviation in the dynamical phases.

arXiv:2206.06748•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Jul 26, 2012•6 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 unveil that even an infinitesimal deviation of the initial state from the eigenstates of the initial Hamiltonian can yield a significant change in the geometric phase accompanying adiabatic evolution without degeneracies of the energy levels. This leads to the counterintuitive result that the values of two geometric phases computed from the general definition of the Berry phase [Samuel and Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988)] can dramatically differ from each other in the adiabatic limit even if their evolution paths are sufficiently close in a pointwise manner. The result of this work indicates that the widely accepted theory of geometric phases is not very consistent in the context of adiabatic evolution involving superposed eigenstates.
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.