Journal of Modern Physics
Vol.07 No.13(2016), Article ID:70397,8 pages
10.4236/jmp.2016.713147
Gauge Invariance, the Quantum Metric Tensor and the Quantum Fidelity
J. Alvarez-Jiménez, Jose David Vergara
Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México

Copyright © 2016 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



Received: June 3, 2016; Accepted: September 3, 2016; Published: September 6, 2016
ABSTRACT
The quantum metric tensor was introduced for defining the distance in the parameter space of a system. However, it is also useful for other purposes, like predicting quantum phase transitions. Due to the physical information this tensor provides, its gauge independence sounds reasonable. Moreover, its original construction was made by looking for this gauge independence. The aim of this paper, however, is to prove that the quantum metric tensor does depend on the gauge. In addition, a real gauge invariant quantum metric tensor is introduced. A related concept is the quantum fidelity, which is also shown to depend on the gauge in this paper. The gauge dependences are explicitly shown by computing the quantum metric tensor and the quantum fidelity of the Landau problem in different gauges. Then, a real gauge independent metric tensor is proposed and computed for the same Landau problem. Since the gauge dependences have not been observed before, the results of this paper might lead to a new study of topics that are believed to be completely understood.
Keywords:
Landau problem, Quantum Metric Tensor, Gauge Dependence, Quantum Fidelity

1. Introduction
The main purpose for constructing the quantum metric tensor (QMT) was to define a distance in the system’s parameter space [1] and recently it has been shown that this metric tensor can be obtained using the renormalization flow equations [2] . That is why it is not surprising that the QMT is related to the quantum fidelity (QF), which is also used for measuring the distance between states [3] , even though some studies have shown that the QMT can also be used to predict quantum phase transitions [4] [5] . In [6] , the critical exponents for systems that present continuous second order phase transitions are defined. Moreover, the geodesics induced by the QMT have been useful for analyzing the phase transitions [7] . In general, the Riemannian structure introduced by the QMT has been studied in some particular systems, seen for example [7] . The authors of [8] make an analysis of the Gaussian curvature induced by the QMT and describe the critical phenomena in relation with this curvature.
In general, there has been much interest in the geometrical properties of quantum systems. In [9] it is shown that the mass can be seen as a geometric effect in the Hilbert space. Reference [10] proposes a formalism of quantum space geometry for generalized coherent states and analyzes it with known results of the symmetry AdS/CFT. On the other hand, in Ref. [11] a numerical analysis of the fractional quantum Hall effect related with geometric stability is performed. Continuing with the numerical computation, in [12] , it is presented a method to compute the fidelity susceptibility (a particular case of the QMT) with the Monte Carlo method.
The QMT was constructed by looking for a gauge independence [1] and, in fact, it was partially done. However, when we consider some kinds of gauge transformations, the QMT is not invariant. Nevertheless, in current works the gauge dependence is overtly assumed. Since this gauge dependence has not been observed before, we explain its origin and propose a real gauge invariant quantum metric tensor. On the other hand, the QF is a similar concept that is also useful to measure a distance in the parameter’s space of a system, and as well as the QMT, it sounds reasonable that it does not depend on the gauge. However, it is proved that it is not always the case.
In this paper, we use the Landau problem to show the gauge dependence of the QMT and the QF. For this reason, in Section 2 we describe the Landau problem in the symmetric gauge. Section 3 shows the QMT for one of the ground states in different gauges. While Section 4 introduces a gauge independent definition of the QMT, Section 5 shows the calculation of this new definition for the Landau problem. On the other hand, Section 6 shows the gauge dependence of the QF and explains its origin. Finally, a discussion and our conclusions are written in Section 6.
2. The Landau Problem
The Landau problem [13] consists on a charged particle interacting with a constant and homogeneous magnetic field,
. If we consider a particle of unitary mass and charge
the Hamiltonian of the system is given by
(1)
where
is the vector potential, such that
. If we assume that the magnetic field points in the z direction i.e.
then the movement in z will be constant, and we can ignore it. For the quantum case, the energy spectrum of the Landau problem is given by [13]
(2)
these
are the well-known Landau levels. However, for the Landau problem each level is infinitely degenerated. Therefore, we need an additional Hermitian operator, which commutes with H, to label the states. If we choose the symmetric gauge, i.e.
(3)
we can select the angular momentum in the z direction,
as the second operator. In this gauge, the ground states are given by [14]
(4)
where m is a label for the angular momentum in the z direction, such that
(5)
In this case, we see that the wavefunction depends on the parameters space and the physical space x.
3. The Quantum Metric Tensor of the Landau Problem
The QMT,
, is useful to define a distance in the system’s parameter space [1] . If our quantum system depends on n parameters,
, the QMT is given by
(6)
where
is the state of the system,
and
(7)
with this definition, the corresponding distance will be [1]

It is proved that the QMT is gauge invariant [1] , nevertheless, this proof is not the most general. The demonstration assumes some specific features of the phase difference caused by a gauge transformation. In order to show the gauge dependence of the QMT, we need to compute it in different gauges. The first calculations will be in the symmetric gauge.
3.1. The Quantum Metric Tensor in the Symmetric Gauge
For the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to consider only the variation of B, therefore the parameter space will be 1-dimensional, with



whereas

therefore

3.2. Comparison of the Quantum Metric Tensor in Different Gauges
In order to prove the gauge dependence of the QMT, we make the calculation in different gauges. It is known [15] that when two gauges are related by

the corresponding wave functions obey

According to the theory [1] [16] , since the wave functions are related just by a change of phase, the QMTs should coincide. To explicitly show that this match does not always occur, we choose 

This particular 



and with 


Now, in Equation (13), we set 


From Equation (16) and the definition of the QMT, we compute that

The presence of g in Equation (17) clearly implies gauge dependence. This gauge dependence is inherited by the distance in the parameter space. This means that we do not have a gauge independent distance in the parameter space. In the specific case of Equation (17) the distance is minimum when we work in the symmetric gauge (

4. Real Gauge Invariant Quantum Metric Tensor
If we perform a gauge transformation in the parameter space, given by

then 

It has been assumed that the phase

when Equation (20) is valid, the tensor presented in Equation (6) is gauge invariant. This means that the QMT is gauge invariant when 
However, some phases, and its derivatives, may depend on the physical space, 

Before constructing the real gauge invariant QMT, we note that Equation (6) can be written as

or, in the representation of coordinates

because 




For constructing the gauge invariant QMT, we need a function 

when we perform a change of gauge given by Equation (18). With this new connection, the gauge invariant QMT will be

or

In Equations (24) and (25), we recognize the covariant derivative, 

which transforms like

under a change of gauge. Using the covariant derivative, the QMT takes the form

Equation (28) defines a gauge invariant QMT. Since Equation (27) is valid, then Equation (28) will always be gauge independent. Here we can see that if, instead of Equation (27), we perform a no Abelian gauge transformation we would generalize the QMT to a no abelian QMT.
However, we need to find the correct connection that transforms like it is shown in Equation (23). The form of the new connection 





5. Gauge Invariant Quantum Metric Tensor of the Landau Problem
Continuing with the example presented in Section 3.2, the new QMT is given by

The fact that 

therefore, according to Equation (23), and using that

thus, under the transformation of Equation (18), we get

Applying Equation (32) to the state given by Equation (16), we obtain

for any gauge. That is, the QMT proposed in this paper is gauge independent.
6. Gauge Dependence of the Quantum Fidelity
As it was mentioned in the introduction, the QF is also useful to measure the distance between states. If the quantum system depends on n parameters

where 

In Equation (35) we can see dependence with the parameter g, therefore the QF also depends on the gauge chosen. This dependence occurs for the same reason that it appears in the QMT i.e. the phase difference is not independent of the internal product. If we start with a gauge whose state vector is 

if we now perform the gauge transformation given by Equation (18), the QF fidelity will take the form

again, when the phase can be taken outside of the internal product Equation (37) simplifies to

and the fidelities in different gauges coincide. However, for more general gauges, like the presented in the example studied here, we cannot take the phase outside and, therefore, the fidelities do not coincide.
7. Discussion and Conclusions
We explicitly showed that the QMT and the QF depend on the gauge. This dependence is directly related to the phase difference between the wave functions in different gauges: when the change of gauge introduces a phase whose derivatives 
We also proposed a real gauge invariant QMT by defining a new connection 



Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by DGAPA-PAPIIT grant IN103716; CONACyT project 237503, and scholarship 419420. We also wish to acknowledge Unidad de Posgrado, UNAM for the support and the workshop “Academic Writing” during the preparation of this paper.
Cite this paper
Alvarez-Jiménez, J. and Vergara, J.D. (2016) Gauge Invariance, the Quantum Metric Tensor and the Quantum Fidelity. Journal of Modern Physics, 7, 1627-1634. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.713147
References
- 1. Provost, J.P. and Vallee, G. (1980) Communications on Mathematical Physics, 76, 289-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02193559 - 2. Maity, R., Mahapatra, S. and Sarkar T. (2015) Physical Review E, 92, 052101-1-052101-10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.052101 - 3. Gu, S.-J. (2010) International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24, 4371-4458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217979210056335 - 4. Zanardi, P., Giorda, P. and Cozzini, M. (2007) Physical Review Letters, 99, 100603-1-100603-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.100603 - 5. Campos Venuti, L. and Zanardi, P. (2007) Physical Review Letters, 99, 095701-1-095701-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.095701 - 6. Kumar, P. and Sarkar, T. (2014) Physical Review E, 90, 042145-1-042145-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042145 - 7. Kumar, P., Mahapatra, S., Phukon, P. and Sarkar, T. (2012) Physical Review E, 86, 051117-1-051117-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.051117 - 8. Kolodrubetz, M., Gritsev, V. and Polkovnikov, A. (2013) Physical Review B, 88, 064304-1-064304-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.064304 - 9. D’Alessio, L. and Polkovnikov, A. (2014) Annals of Physics, 345, 141-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.03.009 - 10. Kriel, J.N., van Zyl, H.J.R. and Scholtz, F.G. (2015) Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)140
- 11. Jackson, T.S., Möller, G. and Roy, R. (2015) Nature Communications, 6, 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9629 - 12. Wang, L., Liu, Y.-H., Imriska, J., Ma, P.N. and Troyer, M. (2015) Physical Review X, 5, 031007-1-031007-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031007 - 13. Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M. (1977) Quantum Mechanics Non-Relativistic Theory. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
- 14. Haugset, T., Ruud, J.A. and Ravndal, F. (1993) Physica Scripta, 47, 715-719.
http://stacks.iop.org/1402-4896/47/i=6/a=004 - 15. Sakurai, J.J. and Napolitano, J. (2011) Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco.
- 16. Chruscinski, D. and Jamiolkowski, A. (2004) Geometric Phases in Classical and Quantum Mechanics. Springer Science + Business Media, New York.

