# August 1999 MPI-Pth/99-34 On the Relation Between Quantum Mechanical and Classical Parallel Transport

## Abstract

We explain how the kind of “parallel transport” of a wavefunction used in discussing the Berry or Geometrical phase induces the conventional parallel transport of certain real vectors. These real vectors are associated with operators whose commutators yield diagonal operators; or in Lie algebras those operators whose commutators are in the (diagonal) Cartan subalgebra.

In discussing the Berry  or Geometrical phase one uses the concept of a “parallel transport” of a quantum mechanical state $`\psi `$, by which is meant

$$<\psi (t)|\dot{\psi }(t)>=0$$
(1)   
One may also consider a complete (orthonormal) basis set of states $`|n>`$ obeying this condition. If the time-dependent states $`|n(t)>`$ are obtained from a basis of initial states $`|n>`$ by a unitary transformation $`U`$ (as would be generated by a hamiltonian)

$$U(t)|n>=|n(t)>$$
(2)   
we can say we have an orthonormal “frame” undergoing this kind of parallel transport . In this case the “parallel transport” condition, namely

$$<n(t)|\dot{n}(t)>=0$$
(3)   
for all $`n`$, can also be written as

$$<n(t)|\dot{U}U^{}|n(t)>=0$$
(4)   
(Quantities without a time argument refer to the fixed basis, while those with an argument (t) refer to the moving basis, thus $`|n>=|n(0)>`$.) Now the “parallel transport” and “moving frames” implied by these equations are not the same as those of usual differential geometry. Rather, there, in the viewpoint where one studies a euclidean frame moving in a higher dimensional space and then restricts to a submanifold , there is a set of real vectors $`𝐞_a`$ instead of quantum mechanical state vectors, and parallel transport among a set of vectors $`a,b,c\mathrm{}`$ on the submanifold means

$$\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=0$$
(5)   
for all pairs $`a,b,c\mathrm{}`$ in the submanifold. That is, the set $`𝐞_a`$ are not a complete set, but rather form a moving subspace in a larger space. In this formulation the dot symbol means the ordinary derivative in the ambient space, while in the “intrinsic” formulation of differential geometry the dot symbol would mean the covariant derivative with a connection.

This condition Eq , which we might call “classical” parallel transport, looks quite different from Eq . What is the relationship between the two kinds of “parallel transport”, if any?

It seems there should be some such relationship. For example, in our treatment , of the geometric phase in SU(2), where $`U`$ is an SU(2) group element, we could view the “quantum mechanical parallel transport” as inducing the “classical parallel transport” of the $`x`$ and $`y`$ vectors of a “dreibein” sliding, but not rotating, on the sphere.

Here we would like to briefly elucidate why this is and to indicate how to generalize the idea, including its application to higher groups. Briefly, we will show how the condition Eq  for a complex basis leads to a “classical” parallel transport, Eq , of certain vectors associated with the problem, such as the $`x`$, $`y`$ vectors of the “dreibein”.

Our first task is to identify the vectors $`𝐞_a`$, which we do as follows. Consider a complete set of operators or matrices $`\lambda _a`$, like the generators of a Lie group, complete in the sense that they transform among each other under $`U`$. That is, there are the time dependent operators $`\lambda (t)=U(t)\lambda _aU^{}(t)`$, which may be reexpressed in terms of the original, fixed, $`\lambda `$. These then generate the vectors $`𝐞_a`$ via (summation convention)

$$\lambda _a(t)=U(t)\lambda _aU^{}(t)=𝐞_a^j(t)\lambda ^j$$
(6)   
If we choose the $`\lambda _a`$ such that $`Tr(\lambda _a\lambda _b)=N\delta _{ab}`$, where $`N`$ is a normalization factor, we can write explicitly

$$𝐞_a(t)^j=1/NTr[\lambda _a(t)\lambda ^j]=𝒯r[\lambda _a(t)\lambda ^j]$$
(7)   
where we define $`𝒯r`$ to include the normalization factor. Furthermore, with hermitian $`\lambda _a`$ the $`𝐞_a(t)`$ are real. The scalar product of two vectors is then given by the trace of the product of the corresponding $`\lambda `$, as in $`𝐞_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=𝒯r[\lambda _a(t)\lambda _b(t)]`$. The definition of the $`\lambda (t)`$ is chosen so that $`<n(t)|\lambda (t)|m(t)>=<n|\lambda |m>`$.

Now a main point of  was that the information conveyed by the condition Eq  or Eq  could be interpreted, in the group theoretical context, by saying that in the “local frame” there was no rotation with respect to the subspace of diagonal generators, that is in the Cartan subspace. We can formulate this point in a general manner by viewing the evolution of the states as being determined by a hamiltonian $`h(t)`$, where $`h(t)=i\dot{U}U^{}`$. (We reserve the symbol $`H`$ for the more usual hamiltonian, which however is absent in the present considerations. $`H`$ includes the “dynamical phase” which usually  has been removed from the problem before we get to Eq ). Thus

$$i|\dot{n}(t)>=h(t)|n(t)>$$
(8)   
and Eq  states that the diagonal elements of $`h`$ are zero in the moving basis:

$$<n(t)|h(t)|n(t)>=0$$
(9)   
We would now like to explain how Eq  can lead to $`\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=0`$ among some of the $`𝐞(t)`$. The desired quantity $`\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)`$ may be found from

$$\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=𝒯r[\dot{\lambda }_a(t)\lambda _b(t)]=i𝒯r[[h(t),\lambda _a(t)]\lambda _b(t)]$$
(10)   
where we use the equation of motion $`i\dot{\lambda }_a(t)=[h(t),\lambda _a(t)]`$ following from the definition of $`\lambda _a(t)`$. Rearranging the last expression we have

$$\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=i𝒯r[h(t)[\lambda _a(t),\lambda _b(t)]]$$
(11)   
Now consider two $`\lambda `$’s such that their commutator gives a diagonal matrix, $`[\lambda _a,\lambda _b]=(diag)`$. Applying $`U`$, the same holds in the moving basis for the $`\lambda _a(t)`$ namely

$$<m(t)|[\lambda _a(t),\lambda _b(t)]|n(t)>\delta _{nm}$$
(12)   
For such a pair in Eq , while $`h`$ has no diagonal elements, the commutator has only diagonal elements. But this gives zero for the trace, and hence $`\dot{𝐞}_a(t)𝐞_b(t)=0`$.

We thus arrive at our conclusion: “classical parallel transport”, Eq , follows as a result of “quantum parallel transport” Eq  for those vectors $`𝐞_a(t)`$ whose corresponding commutators among the $`\lambda _a`$ yield diagonal matrices. In an abbreviated language with a “matrix valued vector” $`e_a^j\lambda ^j`$, we could say “for those vectors whose mutual commutators are diagonal”.

In group theory this is the requirement that the commutator lie in the Cartan subalgebra, when the latter, as usual, has been chosen diagonal. Precisely this was the case in our SU(2) example  where the $`S_x=\lambda _x`$ and $`S_y=\lambda _y`$ generators are the two non-Cartan generators. Their commutator yields only the Cartan generator $`S_z=\lambda _z`$, which in the usual choice of basis is diagonal. This is why under a $`U`$ obeying Eq  they undergo parallel transport in the sense of Eq . Note however, that it is necessary to explicitly take the Cartan operators diagonal.

Comments

A striking difference between the quantum Eq  and the classical Eq  is that in the classical case the concept is linear; if two vectors are parallel transported then their sum is also. However, for the parallel transport of Eq , as may be easily verified, this is not true.

This implies that Eq  is not in general preserved under linear transformation; a new “frame” $`|n^{}>=u_{n^{}n}|n>`$ will not in general be parallel transported, even if the $`|n>`$ are. Thus a full statement of the problem involves a specification as to which set of vectors satisfy Eq , as reflected in the necessity to choose a definite basis, one in which the Cartan generators are diagonal. This helps in clarifying the following potential misunderstanding: We might be tempted to conclude that when dealing with real quantities, as with orthogonal rotations, that Eq  follows simply from unitarity and thus represents no further information. That is, given that all quantities are real, $`<n(t)|\dot{n}(t)>+<\dot{n}(t)|n(t)>=2<n(t)|\dot{n}(t)>=0`$ follows simply from preservation of the norm. Thus we would be lead by our above arguments to the nonsensical result that any orthogonal transformation will automatically induce parallel transport. However, this argument would neglect the requirement that the Cartan operators be diagonal. In fact for real orthogonal representations the generators are antisymmetric, or in the above notation, the $`\lambda `$ are pure imaginary. But we need the Cartan operators in diagonal form, and antisymmetric operators cannot be brought to diagonal form without introducing a complex basis. Thus complex numbers are reintroduced and Eq  does indeed represent a second condition, and not just simply unitarity or preservation of the norm.

We would like to thank the Institute of Advanced Studies, Jerusalem, for its hospitality in the spring of 1998, when this work was begun.