Geometry of chiral temporal structures II: The formalism

Andres F. Ordonez; Aycke Roos; Olga Smirnova; Pablo M. Maier

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Geometry of chiral temporal structures II: The formalism

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The antisymmetric part of the Berry curvature in complex polarization space reduces to a molecular pseudovector—the net propensity field—whose direction sets the orientation of molecular cations after photoionization.

desk verdict Clean one-photon derivation and a promising decomposition, but the holomorphic-section assumption makes the general formalism leading-order at best. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22744 v1 pith:QGWPAAXX submitted 2025-05-28 quant-ph

Aycke Roos , Pablo M. Maier , Andres F. Ordonez , Olga Smirnova This is my paper

classification quant-ph MSC 81Q7081V5553C80

keywords Berrycurvaturechiralmoleculesenantio-sensitiveobservablesphotoionizationfiberbundlegeometricphasecomplexpolarizationspacepropensityfield

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a differential-geometric description of how chiral molecules respond to laser light, treating the laser-driven electron wavefunction as a section of a fiber bundle over the space of complex light polarization vectors. Its central claim is that the antisymmetric part of the Berry curvature in this space is not an abstract object: paired with a polarization differential it becomes the scalar product of a molecule-specific pseudovector and a surface element. That pseudovector is the net molecular propensity field, and its direction determines which way molecular cations orient after photoionization of a randomly oriented ensemble. The formalism also shows that because the polarization space is complex, the Berry curvature acquires symmetric pieces that have no analogue in real parameter spaces. If the claim holds, geometric phase machinery and experimentally observable enantio-sensitive signals become two views of the same quantity.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Berry connection $A = i\langle \psi | \nabla_e \psi \rangle \cdot de$ on the U(1) bundle over the sphere of polarization directions, with curvature $\Omega = dA = i\langle \partial_{e_i}\psi | \partial_{e_j}\psi \rangle\, de^*_i \wedge de_j$. Complex Wirtinger derivatives split holomorphic from anti-holomorphic dependence; assuming the wavefunction is a holomorphic section drops the $\nabla_{e^*}\psi$ terms. The reduction to a pseudovector uses the fact that the antisymmetric part of the molecular dipole tensor is vectorizable via the Levi-Civita symbol, turning the curvature into $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_a \cdot d\boldsymbol{\xi}$. The full curvature is organized by three bilinear vector products—cross $\times$, absolute-Levi-Civita $\diamond$, and diagonal $\odot$—contracted with the polarization two-forms $d\boldsymbol{\xi}$, $d\boldsymbol{\zeta}$, and $d\boldsymbol{\chi}$.

What would settle it

Compute the norm of the anti-holomorphic derivative $\nabla_{e^*}\psi$ for an exact or non-perturbative solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a chiral molecule in a circularly polarized field; if it is not negligible compared with $\nabla_e\psi$ at the relevant field strength, Eq. (21) misses contributions and the symmetric curvature terms are artifacts of the truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that the orbital antisymmetric component of the Berry curvature tensor, paired with the polarization differential $de^*_i \wedge de_j$, reduces to $\Omega_a = \boldsymbol{\Omega}_a \cdot d\boldsymbol{\xi}$, where $d\boldsymbol{\xi}$ is a surface element in polarization space and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_a = i|\tilde{E}_{\omega k}|^2 \int d\Theta_k\, D^* \times D$ is a molecular pseudovector built from ionization dipoles. This pseudovector is identified with the net molecular propensity field. Its projection onto photoelectron spin quantifies circular dichroism in one-photon ionization, and its direction determines the enantio-sensitive orientation of molecular cations produced by photoionization from a current-carrying state. The derivation also establishes that the real part of $\langle \partial_{e_i}\psi | \partial_{e_j}\psi \rangle$, usually discarded, contributes to the curvature because the base space is complex, so the full curvature decomposes into three vector-valued terms involving the products $\times$, $\diamond$, and $\odot$ contracted with the differential forms $d\boldsymbol{\xi}$, $d\boldsymbol{\zeta}$, and $d\boldsymbol{\chi}$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the laser-driven wavefunction depends on the polarization vector holomorphically, with zero dependence on its complex conjugate, an approximation that can hold at best to leading order in the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The direction of the molecular pseudovector $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_a$ becomes a directly measurable observable: it sets the net orientation of molecular cations after two-photon ionization of a randomly oriented ensemble.
Circular dichroism in one-photon ionization is tied to the projection of this same pseudovector onto the photoelectron spin, unifying yield and orientation signals in one geometric object.
The symmetric part of the Berry curvature, which appears only because the polarization parameter space is complex, offers new enantio-sensitive observables beyond the antisymmetric cross-product term.
The formalism extends to pump–probe schemes with one circular and one linear field, where the curvature splits into circular, linear, and mixed contributions, the mixed one involving both fields.
Because all observables follow from connection and curvature, the framework gives a common design language for multiphoton chiral measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the holomorphic-section assumption is only perturbatively valid, the symmetric curvature terms ($d\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ and $d\boldsymbol{\chi}$ contributions) could shift at higher orders; a direct check is to compute $\nabla_{e^*}\psi$ in a non-perturbative solution and compare the full $dA$ with the truncated formula.
The same geometric decomposition should apply to pure photoexcitation, not just ionization, so one could look for population or alignment signals controlled by the symmetric curvature terms in excited states.
The surface-element form suggests that singularities or nontrivial topology of the polarization field could amplify the enantio-sensitive signal, a direction the paper flags but does not develop.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The useful part of this paper is the one-photon derivation: the antisymmetric Berry curvature reducing to the net propensity field is shown cleanly, and the split into cross, diamond, and dot forms over complex polarization space is a nice piece of geometry. The central direction claim likely survives. But the general formalism has a load-bearing hole that the paper does not address: the holomorphic-section assumption, |∇e*ψ⟩=0, cannot hold for the normalized states in the bundle. As written, the first-order perturbative state is holomorphic but unnormalized; once you normalize, the section depends on e* at the same order as the curvature terms. The stress-test note works out the concrete consequence: the physical connection is half the paper's A, so the curvature is also halved. The antisymmetric part keeps the same molecular pseudovector direction, so your central physical claim is intact, but the advertised exactness of the formalism and the multiphoton generalization are not. The symmetric curvature terms in Eq. (17) and the full decomposition (23) should be labeled as leading-order, pending a normalized, non-holomorphic derivation.

There are also smaller issues. Appendix A contains a literal '???' placeholder where the bilinear products are defined; that's an editorial miss. Section 5 defers the mixed-curvature analysis to a separate publication, so the pump-probe part is a preview, not a result. The conclusion claims readiness for multiphoton processes without a derivation; given the holomorphic issue, that's overstated.

On the plus side, the paper is analytically self-contained, the one-photon part is consistent with earlier work (refs. 4 and 5), and the self-citations are appropriate because the physical identification of Ω_a with the propensity field is genuinely from there. The new decomposition is worth having, if it can be put on firmer footing.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The central one-photon claim is testable and important enough for the chiral strong-field community, and the reviewer can ask for a fix of the normalization problem and the placeholder. It needs revision before acceptance, but it is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a differential-geometric formalism for enantio-sensitive observables in chiral molecules interacting with polarized light. After defining the Berry connection and curvature in the space of complex polarization vectors, it derives, for one-photon ionization, that the antisymmetric part of the curvature 2-form reduces to the scalar product of a molecular pseudovector (the net propensity field) with a polarization surface element dξ. The paper then presents a general fiber-bundle formulation, expresses the full Berry curvature as a sum of three vector contractions with polarization differentials, and extends the decomposition to two-field pump–probe schemes. The central physical interpretation—that the molecular pseudovector direction controls cation orientation—is imported from the companion paper and earlier work.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper provides a useful geometric language for enantio-sensitive molecular response: the orbital antisymmetric Berry curvature in polarization space is tied to the experimentally accessible propensity field, giving concrete observable meaning to an otherwise formal object. The one-photon derivation in Section 3 is explicit, self-contained, and free of fitted parameters, and the factorization of the curvature into a molecular tensor and a polarization 2-form is elegant. The main limitation is that the general curvature formula (23) rests on the holomorphic-section assumption, whose domain of validity is not established; the multiphoton and pump–probe generalizations should therefore be regarded as leading-order statements until that gap is closed.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Eq. (21)] The general curvature formula (21) is derived under the holomorphic-section assumption |∇e*ψ⟩=0 stated after Eq. (20). This assumption is not consistent with a normalized section on a complex domain: by the maximum modulus principle, a nonconstant holomorphic function cannot have constant norm. For the first-order perturbative state used in Section 3, the normalized section acquires e*-dependence at second order, which is the same order as the curvature terms retained in Eq. (21). A direct computation for |ψ⟩=|0⟩+λ|ψ1⟩ shows that the normalized connection differs from the unnormalized one by the exact term -(i/2)d ln⟨ψ|ψ⟩, so the one-photon curvature of Section 3 is not affected by this term; nevertheless, the same argument does not protect the general decomposition (23), where the discarded anti-holomorphic derivatives could contribute to the symmetric pieces at the same order as the kept terms. The authors should either derive the curvature for normalized sections without invoking holomorphicity, or explicitly state and prove the leading-order domain of validity of Eqs. (21) and (23).
[Section 6 (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that the formalism is 'readily generalized to multi-photon processes and pump-probe schemes.' This is not supported by the derivation in Section 4, since the holomorphic-section assumption is expected to fail for multiphoton or shaped-pulse states, which generally depend on both e and e*. The pump–probe decomposition in Section 5 also inherits the same assumption (see Appendix B, 'we assumed that ψ is holomorphic in e'). The authors should temper this claim or provide evidence that the leading-order analysis suffices for the proposed applications.
[Appendix A, Eq. (56)–(57)] The derivation of the vectorized curvature formula (57) from Eq. (56) uses the bilinear products defined in Eq. (22) and Lemma 1, but the transition is not shown and the sentence 'We use the definitions of the standard cross product and the bi-linear forms ???' is incomplete. Additionally, the proof of Lemma 1 drops the summation over k without comment at several steps. Since Eq. (23) is the main general result, these omissions should be repaired so that the algebra from Eq. (56) to (57) can be independently checked.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos, including 'photoexitation' in the abstract, 'antisymetric' near Eq. (12), 'T echnische' in the author affiliation, and 'a associated' in the caption of Fig. 1. A careful proofread is needed.
[Eq. (5)] The symbol e is used both for the polarization vector and for the elementary charge in eEωk; please use separate symbols to avoid confusion.
[Eq. (14)–(15)] The symbol Ωa is overloaded: it denotes both the molecular pseudovector defined in Eq. (14) and the curvature 2-form Ωa in Eq. (15). This notation should be disambiguated (e.g., use a bold symbol for the vector).
[Section 3, Eq. (6)] The connection A in Eq. (6) is written without the field-amplitude factor that appears in the perturbative amplitudes a_k in Eq. (5); the curvature in Eq. (8) then carries a factor |E_ω|². Please clarify the convention or restore the factor in Eq. (6) for internal consistency.
[Appendix B] The statement that the linear-field and mixed Berry curvatures are not relevant for isotropic signals is not derived or referenced in this manuscript; please add a remark or cite the companion paper.
[Section 2, Eq. (2)] The paper does not discuss the adiabatic conditions under which the Berry connection in polarization space constitutes the physical geometric phase. If the framework is intended to apply beyond adiabatic evolution, a justification or a definition of the geometric phase in this nonadiabatic setting should be given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core formal derivation is a self-contained algebraic reduction, and the self-citations provide physical interpretation rather than load-bearing proof.

full rationale

The central derivation is analytic and self-contained. In Section 3, the Berry connection and curvature are computed directly from the first-order perturbative amplitudes a_k = -eE_omega_k (D·e), giving Eq. (8) and then the antisymmetric part Eq. (12). Equations (13) and (14) explicitly define dxi and Omega_a, and Eq. (15) follows by construction; this is a transparent reformulation of the antisymmetric tensor contraction, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The physical identification of Omega_a with the net propensity field is imported from earlier works [4,5,13-15], and the experimental orientation consequence is cited from the companion paper [9], but neither citation is used as a premise in the algebraic derivation of Eqs. (8)-(15) or in Appendix A. The holomorphic-section assumption |nabla_e* psi> = 0 in Section 4 is explicit and is stated to be in accordance with the perturbative approach; whether it is exactly compatible with normalization is a correctness or rigor concern, not a circularity. No fitted inputs, uniqueness theorems, or ansatze are smuggled in via self-citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The central mathematical content therefore does not reduce to its own inputs, and the paper should receive a low circularity score; I assign 0 because no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The main burden is carried by modeling assumptions: first-order perturbation theory, the holomorphic-section condition, and the choice of polarization space as the base manifold. These are stated in the text, but their limits are not fully examined, particularly the normalization issue for holomorphic sections.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption First-order perturbation theory for one-photon ionization, with ψ = ψ0 + ∫dΘk ak(e)ψk and ak = -eEωk(D·e).
Used in Section 3 and Appendix A to evaluate the Berry connection and curvature; assumes a weak field and neglects higher-order and continuum-continuum couplings.
domain assumption The wavefunction is a holomorphic section, i.e. |∇e*ψ⟩ = 0.
Explicitly assumed in Section 4 after Eq. (20) and used to derive the curvature formula Eq. (21); not reconciled with exact state normalization over a complex parameter domain.
domain assumption The complex polarization vector e parametrizes the base manifold, with circular polarization mapping to S² via π(eiS|ψ⟩) = (1/2i)e*×e.
This choice of fiber bundle structure, introduced in Section 4, defines which geometric quantities are computed and which directions are physically meaningful.
standard math Levi-Civita identities used to vectorize the curvature, including Lemma 1 in Appendix A.
The identity itself is correct, but the proof as written contains algebra and notation errors, and the derivation in Appendix A depends on it for the vectorized curvature formula.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry of chiral temporal structures II: The formalism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGWPAAXX

@misc{pith2026250522744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry of chiral temporal structures II: The formalism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGWPAAXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22744}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a mathematical formalism underlying the emergence of enantio-sensitive molecular orientation due to photoionization or photoexitation of chiral molecules. We consider geometric quantities such as the Berry connection and Berry curvature in light-driven chiral electronic states in the space of complex light polarization vectors. The parametric dependence of the light-driven electronic wavefunction on such vectors emerges due to various possible mutual orientations between the laser field and a chiral molecule. Using the tools of differential geometry we show how the enantio-sensitive observables emerge from the geometry of the molecular response in such spaces.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

A chiral temporal structure is a trajectory that can not be superimposed on its mirror image [3]

Introduction Light-induced ultrafast electronic currents in chiral molecules [1, 2] can trace temporal chiral struc- tures even when the driving laser field itself is achiral. A chiral temporal structure is a trajectory that can not be superimposed on its mirror image [3]. Inspired by the emergence of geometric properties in the photoionization of chiral ...

work page
[2]

connects

Key geometric quantities relevant for enantio-sensitive observables As introduced in the companion paper [9] our analysis of the geometric structure of the manifold of temporal shapes in the space of electric field polarization vectors e reveals two key quantities. The first one is the geometric phase [12]: S = I i⟨ψ(e)|∇eψ(e)⟩ ·de = I A(e) · de, (1) reve...

work page
[3]

We can use perturbation theory to calculate |ψ(e)⟩: ψ = ψ0 + Z dΘkak(e)ψk (5) and thus evaluate the Berry connection explicitly

The Emergence of the Berry Curvature in One-Photon Ionization Let us consider a one-photon ionization from an initial state ψ0 by circularly polarized light to follow the emergence of the Berry curvature. We can use perturbation theory to calculate |ψ(e)⟩: ψ = ψ0 + Z dΘkak(e)ψk (5) and thus evaluate the Berry connection explicitly . HeredΘk = sin θkdθkdφk...

work page
[4]

Such frameworks are often used in order to investigate quantum systems that either depend on an adiabatic parameter set [10, 17, 18] or undergo a cyclic evolution [7, 19, 20]

Geometric Quantities Associated with Circular Polarization Vectors A generalized geometric picture arising from the dynamics of circular polarization vectors is given within the framework of fiber bundle theory . Such frameworks are often used in order to investigate quantum systems that either depend on an adiabatic parameter set [10, 17, 18] or undergo ...

work page
[5]

Berry Phase and Orbital Antisymmetric Berry Curvature in Two-Field Pump–Probe Experiments In the case of a pump-probe experiment, the two laser fields can have different polarization vectors. We summarize the geometric ingredients that arise when a pump–probe scheme is driven by two laser fields with circular e = 1√ 2 ˆθ + iσ ˆϕ and a linear ε = cos α ˆθ ...

work page
[6]

Conclusion We have developed a unified geometric framework that highlights the interplay of geometric light–polarization dynamics and the photon-induced processes in chiral molecules. By treating the electronic wavefunction as a section of aU(1) bundle over the space of molecular orientations, we can identify the fiber bundle connection and the orbital an...

work page 2021
[7]

|{i, j} ∩ {l, m}| = 2

work page
[8]

we may assume that i = l and i, j, l ̸= m

W.l.o.g. we may assume that i = l and i, j, l ̸= m. Then, the equation amounts to 0 = 0

work page

Show all 32 references

[9]

i = l and j = m

W.l.o.g. i = l and j = m. Then, we have 1 = 1. Vectorial Expression for the Berry Curvature The full Berry curvature is Ω = i ⟨∂eiψ|∂e jψ⟩ de∗ i ∧ de j. (49) We partition the tensor i ⟨∂eiψ|∂e j⟩ into its symmetric and anti-symmetric components. For the sym- metric components ...
[10]

Beaulieu, A

S. Beaulieu, A. Comby , D. Descamps, B. Fabre, G. A. Garcia, R. Géneaux, A. G. Harvey , F. Légaré, Z. Mašín, L. Nahon, A. F. Ordonez, S. Petit, B. Pons, Y. Mairesse, O. Smirnova, and V. Blanchet, Photoexcitation circular dichroism in chiral molecules, Nature Physics 14, 484 (2018)

2018
[11]

Wanie, E

V. Wanie, E. Bloch, E. P. Månsson, L. Colaizzi, S. Ryabchuk, K. Saraswathula, A. F. Ordonez, D. Ayuso, O. Smirnova, A. Trabattoni, et al. , Capturing electron-driven chiral dynamics in uv-excited molecules, Nature , 1 (2024)

2024
[12]

Ayuso, A

D. Ayuso, A. F. Ordonez, and O. Smirnova, Ultrafast chirality: the road to efficient chiral measurements, PCCP 24, 26962 (2022)

2022
[13]

A. F. Ordonez and O. Smirnova, A geometric approach to decoding molecular structure and dynamics from photoionization of isotropic samples, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 13605 (2022)

2022
[14]

A. F. Ordonez, D. Ayuso, P. Decleva, and O. Smirnova, Geometric magnetism and anomalous enantio- sensitive observables in photoionization of chiral molecules, Communications Physics 6, 257 (2023)

2023
[15]

Husemöller and D

D. Husemöller and D. Husemöller, Fibre bundles, Vol. 5 (Springer, 1966)

1966
[16]

Bouchiat and G

C. Bouchiat and G. Gibbons, Non-integrable quantum phase in the evolution of a spin-1 system: a physical consequence of the non-trivial topology of the quantum state-space, Journal de Physique 49, 187 (1988)

1988
[17]

K. Y. Bliokh, M. A. Alonso, and M. R. Dennis, Geometric phases in 2d and 3d polarized fields: geometrical, dynamical, and topological aspects, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 122401 (2019). 17

2019
[18]

A. F. Ordonez, A. Roos, P. M. Maier, D. Ayuso, and O. Smirnova, Geometry of temporal chiral structures (2024), arXiv:2409.02500 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics (CRC press, 2018)

M. Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics (CRC press, 2018)

2018
[20]

A. Bohm, A. Mostafazadeh, H. Koizumi, Q. Niu, and J. Zwanziger,The Geometric phase in quantum systems: foundations, mathematical concepts, and applications in molecular and condensed matter physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

2013
[21]

Moore and G

D. Moore and G. Stedman, Adiabatic and nonadiabatic berry phases for two-level atoms, Physical Review A 45, 513 (1992)

1992
[22]

A. F. Ordonez and O. Smirnova, Propensity rules in photoelectron circular dichroism in chiral molecules. II. General picture, Physical Review A 99, 043417 (2019)

2019
[23]

A. F. Ordonez and O. Smirnova, Propensity rules in photoelectron circular dichroism in chiral molecules. I. Chiral hydrogen, Physical Review A 99, 043416 (2019)

2019
[24]

A. F. Ordonez and O. Smirnova, Propensity rules for photoelectron circular dichroism in strong field ioniza- tion of chiral molecules, PCCP 10.1039/D1CP05485F (2022), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

2022 doi
[25]

Cheng, Quantum geometric tensor (fubini-study metric) in simple quantum system: A pedagogical introduction (2013), arXiv:1012.1337 [quant-ph]

R. Cheng, Quantum geometric tensor (fubini-study metric) in simple quantum system: A pedagogical introduction (2013), arXiv:1012.1337 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[26]

M. V. Berry , Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 392, 45 (1984)

1984
[27]

Cai and G

Y. Cai and G. Papini, A covariant generalization of berry’s phase, Modern Physics Letters A4, 1143 (1989)

1989
[28]

Aharonov and J

Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phase change during a cyclic quantum evolution, Physical Review Letters 58, 1593 (1987)

1987
[29]

D. J. Moore and G. Stedman, Non-adiabatic berry phase for periodic hamiltonians, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 23, 2049 (1990)

1990
[30]

Wells, Differential analysis on complex manifolds

R. Wells, Differential analysis on complex manifolds. With a new appendix by Oscar Garcia-Prada. 3rd ed , Vol. 65 (Springer, 2008)

2008
[31]

Huybrechts, Complex geometry: an introduction , Vol

D. Huybrechts, Complex geometry: an introduction , Vol. 78 (Springer, 2005)

2005
[32]

Zumino, Geometry and physics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

B. Zumino, Geometry and physics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory . LBNL Report: LBL-23056. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/14r367vf (1987). 18

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A chiral temporal structure is a trajectory that can not be superimposed on its mirror image [3]

Introduction Light-induced ultrafast electronic currents in chiral molecules [1, 2] can trace temporal chiral struc- tures even when the driving laser field itself is achiral. A chiral temporal structure is a trajectory that can not be superimposed on its mirror image [3]. Inspired by the emergence of geometric properties in the photoionization of chiral ...

work page

[2] [2]

connects

Key geometric quantities relevant for enantio-sensitive observables As introduced in the companion paper [9] our analysis of the geometric structure of the manifold of temporal shapes in the space of electric field polarization vectors e reveals two key quantities. The first one is the geometric phase [12]: S = I i⟨ψ(e)|∇eψ(e)⟩ ·de = I A(e) · de, (1) reve...

work page

[3] [3]

We can use perturbation theory to calculate |ψ(e)⟩: ψ = ψ0 + Z dΘkak(e)ψk (5) and thus evaluate the Berry connection explicitly

The Emergence of the Berry Curvature in One-Photon Ionization Let us consider a one-photon ionization from an initial state ψ0 by circularly polarized light to follow the emergence of the Berry curvature. We can use perturbation theory to calculate |ψ(e)⟩: ψ = ψ0 + Z dΘkak(e)ψk (5) and thus evaluate the Berry connection explicitly . HeredΘk = sin θkdθkdφk...

work page

[4] [4]

Such frameworks are often used in order to investigate quantum systems that either depend on an adiabatic parameter set [10, 17, 18] or undergo a cyclic evolution [7, 19, 20]

Geometric Quantities Associated with Circular Polarization Vectors A generalized geometric picture arising from the dynamics of circular polarization vectors is given within the framework of fiber bundle theory . Such frameworks are often used in order to investigate quantum systems that either depend on an adiabatic parameter set [10, 17, 18] or undergo ...

work page

[5] [5]

Berry Phase and Orbital Antisymmetric Berry Curvature in Two-Field Pump–Probe Experiments In the case of a pump-probe experiment, the two laser fields can have different polarization vectors. We summarize the geometric ingredients that arise when a pump–probe scheme is driven by two laser fields with circular e = 1√ 2 ˆθ + iσ ˆϕ and a linear ε = cos α ˆθ ...

work page

[6] [6]

Conclusion We have developed a unified geometric framework that highlights the interplay of geometric light–polarization dynamics and the photon-induced processes in chiral molecules. By treating the electronic wavefunction as a section of aU(1) bundle over the space of molecular orientations, we can identify the fiber bundle connection and the orbital an...

work page 2021

[7] [7]

|{i, j} ∩ {l, m}| = 2

work page

[8] [8]

we may assume that i = l and i, j, l ̸= m

W.l.o.g. we may assume that i = l and i, j, l ̸= m. Then, the equation amounts to 0 = 0

work page