REVIEW
Geometric phase in weak measurements
Quantum Physics · Submitted 6 Apr 2006 · 16 references
Pith's verdict: Sjöqvist's core identity is right and the weak-measurement route to Pancharatnam phases is a genuine new application, but the paper's main formula (19) has a quadrant ambiguity that must be fixed before publication.
T0 · AI review
Why Pith says this
Highlight any text to comment on it.
Referee report
The paper
The paper claims
The geometric phase of a quantum triangle is exactly the phase of a weak value.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the weak value $P_w^B(A,C)$ of a projector between pre- and post-selection, a complex number defined as the ratio $\langle C|B\rangle\langle B|A\rangle/\langle C|A\rangle$ in the limit of weak coupling. Its argument, by the multiplication-and-division trick with $\langle A|C\rangle$, is exactly the Pancharatnam triangle phase $\Delta(A,B,C) = \arg\langle A|C\rangle\langle C|B\rangle\langle B|A\rangle$ in projective Hilbert space, the space of rays of quantum states. The weak-measurement apparatus turns this phase into a real observable: for a Gaussian pointer of width $\sigma$ and measurement strength $\kappa$, the post-selected pointer position shift and momentum kick are proportional to the imaginary and real parts of the weak value, so their ratio determines $\Delta$ through an arctangent. This machinery converts a purely algebraic phase identity into a measurable quantity.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is the identity $\arg P_w^B(A,C) = \Delta(A,B,C)$, where $P_w^B(A,C)=\langle C|B\rangle\langle B|A\rangle/\langle C|A\rangle$ is the weak value of the projector onto $B$ in an ensemble pre-selected in $|A\rangle$ and post-selected in $|C\rangle$, and $\Delta(A,B,C)=\arg\langle A|C\rangle\langle C|B\rangle\langle B|A\rangle$ is the Pancharatnam geometric phase of the geodesic triangle $A,B,C$. Multiplying numerator and denominator of the weak value by $\langle A|C\rangle$ leaves a positive real denominator, so the argument of the weak value is exactly the triangle phase. Combining this identity with the weak-measurement pointer shifts $\delta q = \kappa\sigma^2\,\mathrm{Im}\,P_w^B$ and $\delta p = -\hbar\kappa\,\mathrm{Re}\,P_w^B$ gives the main result $\Delta(A,B,C) = -\arctan\left(\frac{\hbar}{\sigma^2}\frac{\delta q}{\delta p}\right)$, with no need for a phase relation between $|A\rangle$ and $|C\rangle$. The paper also shows that the geometric phase of any discrete path $A_1,\dots,A_n$ is a sum of such triangle phases, and that the weak value diverges exactly when the post-selected state becomes orthogonal to the pre-selected state, which is precisely where the geometric phase is undefined.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the system-pointer coupling is so weak that only the first-order term survives, and that the pre- and post-selected states have nonzero overlap; if either premise fails, Eq. (19) does not follow from the measurement, even though the algebraic identity behind it remains true.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The geometric phase of any discrete path $A_1,\dots,A_n$ can be assembled from weak-measurement phases by summing the arguments of weak values of projectors onto intermediate states.
- Geometric phase measurements no longer require a calibrated reference phase, because only pointer displacements $\delta q$ and $\delta p$ enter the final formula.
- The nontransitivity of relative phase becomes testable: choose three states with $\phi_{CB}=\phi_{AC}=0$ and $\phi_{BA}\neq0$, and the weak-value argument directly reveals the excess phase around the triangle.
- In the qubit or photon-polarization case, the measured phase is half the solid angle of the spherical triangle on the Bloch sphere, extractable from pointer shifts alone.
- Because the formula works for any polygon, the scheme extends to continuous paths by taking small increments, matching the standard continuous definition of geometric phase.
Reading between the lines
- Because Eq. (18) is purely algebraic, it should hold for any pair of non-orthogonal pre- and post-selected states even when the weak-coupling approximation fails; what fails is only the linear-response formula Eq. (19), so varying $\kappa$ could map the transition from geometric-phase readout to higher-order corrections.
- The same ratio-of-amplitudes structure appears in other linear response coefficients, so Pancharatnam-type phases may show up wherever a transition amplitude is normalized by another amplitude, not only in optical or spin measurements.
- A direct experimental comparison of Eq. (19) with standard interferometric measurements of $\Delta$ on the same triangle would isolate whether the pointer-shift readout introduces any systematic phase offset.
Original abstract
Pancharatnam's geometric phase is associated with the phase of a complex-valued weak value arising in a certain type of weak measurement in pre- and post-selected quantum ensembles. This makes it possible to test the nontransitive nature of the relative phase in quantum mechanics, in the weak measurement scenario.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Pancharatnam's geometric phase is associated with the phase of a complex-valued weak value arising in a certain type of weak measurement in pre- and post-selected quantum ensembles. This makes it possible to test the nontransitive nature of the relative phase in quantum mechanics, in the weak measurement scenario.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Pancharatnam's geometric phase is associated with the phase of a complex-valued weak value arising in a certain type of weak measurement in pre- and post-selected quantum ensembles. | background 0.91 | 0.11 | 0.25 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | This makes it possible to test the nontransitive nature of the relative phase in quantum mechanics, in the weak measurement scenario. | interpretation 0.94 | 0.21 | 0.37 | hedged possibility 0.72 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
Figures
Figures reproduced from arXiv:quant-ph/0604042 by the authors.
References
Discussion
Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.