Quantum Mechanics and Group Theory questions

Nomajere
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello all. I am new here. I am in the last quarter of a 3 quarter sequence of undergrad quantum mechanics and I just had some conceptual questions (nothing pertaining to homework). We just recently covered Berry's Phase and the Dynamical Phase. Now I wanted to start with a more basic quantum mechanical question before moving to Berry's Phase:

When determining a wavefunction $$\psi$$ we can pretty much derive a wavefunction "up to" a phase, i.e $$\psi = A \left(functions\right) e^{i \chi}$$ Now, if I am understanding elementary group theory correctly, a U(1) transformation would be multiplying our initial function by a complex exponential with a phase. So, is the wavefunction I wrote "up to a phase" basically transformed by U(1)?

Okay, assuming what I first asked is legitimate, I wanted to ask about Berry and Dynamical Phases. Through the adiabatic approximation we can write $$\Psi_n\left(t\right) = \psi_n \left(t \right) e^{i \theta_n \left(t \right)} e^{i \gamma_n \left(t \right)} $$. My question here is if any of this may be similar or is a U(1) transformation, or is it not so because of the possible time dependence?

Relevant equations:
$$\theta_n \left(t \right) =-\frac{1}{\hbar} \int_{0}^{t} E_n\left(t'\right) dt'$$

$$\gamma_{n} \left(t \right) = i \int_{0}^{t} \langle \psi_m\left(t'\right) | \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} \psi_{m}\left(t' \right) \rangle dt'$$

Thank you all for your patience and help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I'm understanding your two questions but I will try to do the best with my (not that extensive) knowledge of the matter

- Yes, multiplying by a phase is equivalent to doing a U(1) transformation.

- if the adiabatic approximation is valid and If the path is closed, meaning H(T)=H(t=0), then yes the acquired geometrical phase is a very specific U(1) transformation linking the psi(t=0) original vector to the psi(T) final vector. It is specific in the sense that it depend on the path traveled by the hamiltonian (or more generally the path traveled in the projective hilbert space).
 
andresB said:
I'm not sure I'm understanding your two questions but I will try to do the best with my (not that extensive) knowledge of the matter

- Yes, multiplying by a phase is equivalent to doing a U(1) transformation.

- if the adiabatic approximation is valid and If the path is closed, meaning H(T)=H(t=0), then yes the acquired geometrical phase is a very specific U(1) transformation linking the psi(t=0) original vector to the psi(T) final vector. It is specific in the sense that it depend on the path traveled by the hamiltonian (or more generally the path traveled in the projective hilbert space).

Thank you! That was basically what I was looking for. We are using Griffiths, which when it comes to showing me how to do quantum problems, is great. Conceptually, I am not too happy with it all the time.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
900
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
842
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top