SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Physics / 2015 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1

Electric and magnetic field induced geometric phases for the 2D harmonic oscillator in noncommutative phase space

Mai-Lin LIANG
Li-Fang XU
Pages
16–23
Publication Date
2015-03-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering that the noncommutative parameters are very small, it is better to use the magnetic field rather than the electric field for detecting the noncommutativity of spaces.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this work, we point out the phenomenon whereby the noncommutative corrections to the geometric phases induced by an electric field and a magnetic field have different orders in terms of the noncommutative parameters.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The first order correction is zero for the electric field induced geometric phase and it is nonzero for the magnetic field induced geometric phase.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering that the noncommutative parameters are very small, it is better to use the magnetic field rather than the electric field for detecting the noncommutativity of spaces.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Noncommutative phase space · geometric phase · magnetic field

Abstract

In this work, we point out the phenomenon whereby the noncommutative corrections to the geometric phases induced by an electric field and a magnetic field have different orders in terms of the noncommutative parameters. The first order correction is zero for the electric field induced geometric phase and it is nonzero for the magnetic field induced geometric phase. In our calculation, the system is in coherent states when the electric field is applied, so the corresponding geometric phase calculated is that of the coherent states. Considering that the noncommutative parameters are very small, it is better to use the magnetic field rather than the electric field for detecting the noncommutativity of spaces.

Özet

In this work, we point out the phenomenon whereby the noncommutative corrections to the geometric phases induced by an electric field and a magnetic field have different orders in terms of the noncommutative parameters. The first order correction is zero for the electric field induced geometric phase and it is nonzero for the magnetic field induced geometric phase. In our calculation, the system is in coherent states when the electric field is applied, so the corresponding geometric phase calculated is that of the coherent states. Considering that the noncommutative parameters are very small, it is better to use the magnetic field rather than the electric field for detecting the noncommutativity of spaces.

🔖

Cite This Article

LIANG, M., XU, L. (2015). Electric and magnetic field induced geometric phases for the 2D harmonic oscillator in noncommutative phase space. Turkish Journal of Physics, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1, 16–23. https://ajindex.com/articles/723983

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Seiberg, N.; Witten, E. JHEP 1999, 09, 03201–03292.
  2. Douglas, M. R.; Nekrasov, N. A. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2001, 73, 977–1029.
  3. Szabo, R. Phys. Rep. 2003, 378, 207–299.
  4. Banerjee, R.; Chakraborty, B.; Ghosh, S.; Mukherjee, P.; Samanta, S. Found. Phys. 2009, 39, 1297–1345.
  5. Bertolami, O.; Rosa, J. G.; Aragao, C. M. L. D.; Castorina, P.; Zappala, D. Phys. Rev. D, 2005, 72, 02501001– 02501015. Chaichian, M.; Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M.; Tureanu, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 86, 2716–2719.
  6. Alavi, S. A. Phys. Scr. 2003, 67, 366–368.
  7. Mirza, B.; Zarei, M. Eur. Phys. J. C 2004, 32, 583–586.
  8. Basu, B.; Dhar, S.; Ghosh, S. Europhys. Lett. 2006, 76, 395–401.
  9. Passos, E.; Ribeiro, L. R.; Furtado, C.; Nascimento, J. R. Phys. Rev. A 2007, 76, 0121131–0121137.
  10. Diao, X. F.; Long, C. Y.; Guo, G. J.; Long, Z. W. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2011, 26, 1561–1568.
  11. Yan, L.; Feng, X. L.; Zhang, Z. M.; Liu, S. H. Chin. Phys. Lett. 2012, 29, 0411021–0411024.
  12. Dey, S.; Fring, A. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 0640381–0640388.
  13. Nach, M.; Bilal, K.; Sedra, M. B.; El Boukill, A. Turk. J. Phys. 2013, 37, 22–29.
  14. Basu, B.; Chowdhury, D.; Ghosh, S. Phys. Lett. A 2013, 377, 1661–1667.
  15. Vassilevich, D. V. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 87, 1040111–1040115.
  16. Abdalla, M. C. B.; Holender, L.; Santos, M. A.; Vancea, I. V. Phys. Lett. A 2013, 377, 1227–1232.
  17. Hassanabadi, H.; Hosseini, S. S.; Molaee, Z. Commun. Theor. Phys. (Beijing, China) 2013, 60, 9–18.
  18. Liu, G. F.; Liu, H. L.; Guo, G. J. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2013, 28, 13500201–13500209.
  19. Nizamidin, H.; Anwar, A.; Dulat, S.; Li, K. Front. Phys. 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s11467-014-0425-1.
  20. Panchartnam, S. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. A 1956, 44, 247–262.
  21. Berry, M. V. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1984, 392, 45–57.
  22. Aharonov, Y.; Anandan, J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 58, 1593–1596.
  23. Samuel, J.; Bhandari, R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1988, 60, 2339–2342.
  24. Mukunda, N.; Simon, R. Ann. Phys. 1993, 228, 205–268.
  25. Chaturvedi, S.; Sriram, M. S.; Srinivasan, V. J. Phys. A 1987, 20, L1071–L1076. Biswas, S. N.; Soni, S. K. Phys. Rev. A 1991, 43, 5717–5719.
  26. Pati, A. K. Phys. Rev. A 1995, 52, 2576–2584.
  27. Pachos, J.; Chountasis, S. Phys. Rev. A. 2000, 62, 0523181–0523189.
  28. Lemos de Melo, J.; Bakke, K.; Furtado, C. Quantum Inf. Process 2014, 13, 1563–1572.
  29. Glauber, R. J. Phys. Rev. B 1963, 1, 2766–2788.
  30. Schumaker, B. L.; Caves, C. M. Phys. Rev. A 1985, 31, 3093–3111.
  31. Barnett, S. M.; Knight, P. L. J. Mod. Opt. 1987, 34, 841–853.