Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences
Abstract
It is sometimes stated in the literature that the quantum anomaly is regarded as an example of the geometric phase. Though there is some superficial similarity between these two notions, I here show that the differences between these two notions are more profound and fundamental. As an explicit example, I analyze in detail a quantum mechanical model proposed by M. Stone, which is supposed to show the above connection. I show that the geometric term in the model, which is topologically trivial for any finite time interval T, corresponds to the socalled 'normal naive term' in field theory and has nothing to do with the anomalyinduced WessZumino term. In the fundamental level, the difference between the two notions is stated as follows: The topology of gauge fields leads to level crossing in the fermionic sector in the case of chiral anomaly, and the failure of the adiabatic approximation is essential in the analysis, whereas the (potential) level crossing in the matter sector leads to the topology of the Berry phase only when the precise adiabatic approximation holds.
 Authors:
 Institute of Quantum Science, College of Science and Technology, Nihon University, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 1018308 (Japan)
 Publication Date:
 OSTI Identifier:
 20795761
 Resource Type:
 Journal Article
 Resource Relation:
 Journal Name: Physical Review. D, Particles Fields; Journal Volume: 73; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.025017; (c) 2006 The American Physical Society; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
 Country of Publication:
 United States
 Language:
 English
 Subject:
 72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS; ADIABATIC APPROXIMATION; CHIRALITY; FERMIONS; LAGRANGIAN FIELD THEORY; POTENTIALS; QUANTUM MECHANICS; TOPOLOGY
Citation Formats
Fujikawa, Kazuo. Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences. United States: N. p., 2006.
Web. doi:10.1103/PHYSREVD.73.0.
Fujikawa, Kazuo. Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences. United States. doi:10.1103/PHYSREVD.73.0.
Fujikawa, Kazuo. Sun .
"Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences". United States.
doi:10.1103/PHYSREVD.73.0.
@article{osti_20795761,
title = {Quantum anomaly and geometric phase: Their basic differences},
author = {Fujikawa, Kazuo},
abstractNote = {It is sometimes stated in the literature that the quantum anomaly is regarded as an example of the geometric phase. Though there is some superficial similarity between these two notions, I here show that the differences between these two notions are more profound and fundamental. As an explicit example, I analyze in detail a quantum mechanical model proposed by M. Stone, which is supposed to show the above connection. I show that the geometric term in the model, which is topologically trivial for any finite time interval T, corresponds to the socalled 'normal naive term' in field theory and has nothing to do with the anomalyinduced WessZumino term. In the fundamental level, the difference between the two notions is stated as follows: The topology of gauge fields leads to level crossing in the fermionic sector in the case of chiral anomaly, and the failure of the adiabatic approximation is essential in the analysis, whereas the (potential) level crossing in the matter sector leads to the topology of the Berry phase only when the precise adiabatic approximation holds.},
doi = {10.1103/PHYSREVD.73.0},
journal = {Physical Review. D, Particles Fields},
number = 2,
volume = 73,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2006},
month = {Sun Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2006}
}

A free quantum field in 1+1 dimensions admits unitary Schroedinger picture dynamics along any foliation of spacetime by Cauchy curves. Kuchar showed that the Schroedinger picture state vectors, viewed as functionals of spacelike embeddings, satisfy a functional Schroedinger equation in which the generators of time evolution are the field energymomentum densities with a particular normalordering and with a (nonunique) cnumber contribution. The cnumber contribution to the Schroedinger equation, called the ''anomaly potential,'' is needed to make the equation integrable in light of the Schwinger terms present in the commutators of the normalordered energymomentum densities. Here we give a quantum geometricmore »

Geometric quantum phase and angles
The geometric phase in quantum mechanics is formulated for charged particles in a gaugeinvariant, geometric manner. It is then extended to an evolution resulting from a sequence of measurements as in the work of Pancharatnam and Aharonov and Vardi. Its close connection to the Feynman formulation of quantum mechanics is pointed out. The geometric angles, which are generalizations of the classical, adiabatic angles introduced by Hannay and the quantum, adiabatic angles introduced by Anandan and Stodolsky in their grouptheoretic treatment of Berry's phase, are studied in quantum and classical physics. The geometric phase for a quantum spin in a magneticmore » 
A local understanding of the quantum chemical geometric phase theorem in terms of diabatic states
A global understanding of the geometric phase theorem associated with conical intersections is gained in terms of {ital local} properties of the Hamiltonian along the path actually traversed by means of a resolution of adiabatic states in terms of diabatic states. The analysis also answers certain questions that are left open by formulations in terms of intersection seams. It moreover leads to a method for determining the location of the adiabatic intersections. {copyright} {ital 1999 American Institute of Physics.} 
Quantum adiabatic approximation and the geometric phase
A precise definition of an adiabaticity parameter {nu} of a timedependent Hamiltonian is proposed. A variation of the timedependent perturbation theory is presented which yields a series expansion of the evolution operator U({tau})={summation}{sub scr(l)}U{sup (scr(l))}({tau}) with U{sup (scr(l))}({tau}) being at least of the order {nu}{sup scr(l)}. In particular, U{sup (0)}({tau}) corresponds to the adiabatic approximation and yields Berry`s adiabatic phase. It is shown that this series expansion has nothing to do with the 1/{tau} expansion of U({tau}). It is also shown that the nonadiabatic part of the evolution operator is generated by a transformed Hamiltonian which is offdiagonal in themore »