Uhlmann's geometric phase in presence of isotropic decoherence

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Tidström, Jonas ^a,b   Sjöqvist, Erik ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Dept Microelectron Info Technol ^*  (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; HAMILTONIANS; INTERFEROMETRY; MARKOV PROCESSES; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; VECTORS;

BLOCH VECTOR; GEOMETRIC PHASE; HILBERT SPACE; HILBERT-SCHMIDT OPERATORS; ISOTROPIC DECOHERENCE; MACH-ZEHNDER INTERFEROMETRY; MARKOVIAN APPROXIMATION;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0038175258     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 392, 45 (1984).
2. F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2111 (1984).
3. Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593 (1987).
4. J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2339 (1988).
5. P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Lett. A 264, 94 (1999).
6. J.A. Jones, V. Vedral, A. Ekert, and G. Castagnoli, Nature (London) 403, 869 (2000).
7. For nonadiabatic geometric quantum computation, see: Wang Xiang-Bin and M. Keiji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 097901 (2001).
8. K.M. Fonseca Romero, A.C. Aguiar Pinto, and M.T. Thomaz, Physica A 307, 142 (2002).
9. A. Nazir, T.P. Spiller, and W.J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042303 (2002).
10. A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 24, 229 (1986).
11. A. Uhlmann, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 46, 63 (1989).
12. A. Uhlmann, Lett. Math. Phys. 21, 229 (1991).
13. M. Hübner, Phys. Lett. A 179, 226 (1993).
14. A. Uhlmann, J. Geom. Phys. 18, 76 (1996).
15. E. Sjöqvist, A.K. Pati, A. Ekert, J.S. Anandan, M. Ericsson, D.K.L. Oi, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2845 (2000).
16. E. Sjöqvist, Phys. Lett. A 286 4 (2001).
17. R. Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 268901 (2002).
18. J.S. Anandan, E. Sjöqvist, A.K. Pati, A. Ekert, M. Ericsson, D.K.L. Oi, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 268902 (2002).
19. P.B. Slater, Lett. Math. Phys. 60, 123 (2002); e-print math-ph/0112054.
20. E. Sjöqvist, in Proceedings of the Conference Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations, edited by A. Khrennikov (Växjö University Press, Växjö 2002), p. 343.
21. S. Filipp and E. Sjöqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 050403 (2003).
22. M. Ericsson, A.K. Pati, E. Sjöqvist, J. Brännlund, and D.K.L. Oi, e-print quant-ph/0206063.
23. j+1 for |r|<1 are nonvanishing, the existence of their inverse is ensured. The pure state limit (|r|→1) of this approach is well defined due to continuity.
24. M. Hübner, Phys. Lett. A 163, 239 (1992).
25. S. Braunstein and C. Caves, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 755, 786 (1995).
26. G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 39, 111 (1974).
27. g in Ref. [15] is indeterminate for degenerate density operators.
28. For a similar inhibition of the pure state geometric phase in the context of the quantum Zeno effect, see: A.K. Pati and S.V. Lawande, Phys. Lett. A 223, 233 (1996)
29. A.K. Pati, Acta Phys. Slov. 49, 567 (1999).
30. D, which therefore have to be known.
31. S. Pancharatnam, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., Sect. A 44, 247 (1956).
32. M. Ericsson, E. Sjöqvist, J. Brännlund, D.K.L. Oi, and A.K. Pati, Phys. Rev. A 67, 020101 (2003).