KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
16–23
Yayın Tarihi
2015-03-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The first order correction is zero for the electric field induced geometric phase and it is nonzero for the magnetic field induced geometric phase.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Noncommutative phase space · geometric phase · magnetic field

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.

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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.