format: text

text:
# Metric Clifford Algebrapublished: Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 11(S3), 49-68 (2001).

## 1 Introduction

This is paper IV of a series of seven. Here, we introduce the concept of a metric Clifford algebra for a $`n`$-dimensional real vector space $`V`$ endowed with a metric extensor $`g`$ of an arbitrary signature $`(p,q),`$ with $`p+q=n.`$ The novelty, regarding previous presentations of the subject as, e.g., in (,), is that a metric Clifford product appears as a well-defined *deformation* of an euclidean Clifford product. More important, we show that associated to any metric extensor $`g`$ there is a gauge metric extensor $`h`$ (defined ‘modulus’ a gauge) such that $`g=h^{}\eta h,`$ where $`\eta `$ is a standard orthogonal metric extensor over $`V`$ with the same signature as $`g.`$ This theorem for the decomposition of $`g`$ (which is somewhat analogous to Silvester’s theorem will play a fundamental role in the intrinsic formulation of the differential geometry on smooth manifolds. The paper ends with the proof of the so-called *golden formula*, which will show worth to deserve that name. We introduce also the concepts of standard and metric Hodge (star) operators, and find a formula connecting them.

## 2 Metric Clifford Algebra of Multivectors

### 2.1 Metric Scalar Product

Let us consider $`V`$ endowed with the eulidean scalar product associated to any fixed basis for $`V`$ denoted by $`\{b_k\}`$, as in previous papers of this series (-), i.e., the $`b`$-scalar product on $`V`$.

Now, take a $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V,`$ say $`g,`$ adjoint symmetric ($`g=g^{}`$) and non-degenerate ($`det[g]0`$). It will be called a *metric extensor* over $`V.`$

We can define another scalar product of multivectors $`X,`$ $`YV`$ by

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}Y=\underset{¯}{g}(X)Y,$$
(1)
where $`\underset{¯}{g}`$ is the *extended* of $`g.`$ It will be called a *metric scalar product* generated by $`g.`$ Or, $`g`$*-scalar product*, for short.

As we can see, this scalar product is a well-defined scalar product on $`V`$. It is symmetric, satisfies the distributive laws, has the mixed associativity property and is non-degenerate, i.e., $`X\underset{𝑔}{}Y=0`$ for all $`X,`$ implies $`Y=0.`$

All the properties just mentioned above are immediate consequences of the corresponding ones for the $`b`$-scalar product. But, a $`g`$-scalar product is not necessarily *positive definite*.

We present now some of the most important properties of the $`g`$-scalar product of multivectors.

g1 For any $`\alpha ,\beta `$

$$\alpha \underset{𝑔}{}\beta =\alpha \beta \text{ (real product).}$$
(2)
g2 For any $`X_j^jV`$ and $`Y_k^kV`$

$$X_j\underset{𝑔}{}Y_k=0,\text{ if }jk.$$
(3)
g3 For any simple $`k`$-vectors $`v_1\mathrm{}v_k^kV`$ and $`w_1\mathrm{}w_k^kV`$

$$(v_1\mathrm{}v_k)\underset{𝑔}{}(w_1\mathrm{}w_k)=det\left[\begin{array}{ccc}v_1\underset{𝑔}{}w_1& \mathrm{}& v_1\underset{𝑔}{}w_k\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ v_k\underset{𝑔}{}w_1& \mathrm{}& v_k\underset{𝑔}{}w_k\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
where (as before) by $`det\left[v_p\underset{𝑔}{}w_q\right]`$ we denote the classical $`k\times k`$ determinant.

Eqs.(2-4) follow without difficulties from the corresponding properties of the $`b`$-scalar product, by taking into account that $`\underset{¯}{g}(\alpha )=\alpha `$ with $`\alpha ,`$ the grade-preserving property of the outermorphisms (i.e., of the extension operator ), and that $`\underset{¯}{g}(v_1\mathrm{}v_k)=g(v_1)\mathrm{}g(v_k)`$ with $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_kV.`$

g4 For any $`X,YV`$

$`\widehat{X}\underset{𝑔}{}Y`$ $`=X\underset{𝑔}{}\widehat{Y},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{𝑔}{}Y`$ $`=X\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{Y}.`$ (6)
The proof is immediate and left to the reader. Hint: take into account that $`\widehat{\underset{¯}{g}(X)}=\underset{¯}{g}(\widehat{X})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\underset{¯}{g}(X)}=\underset{¯}{g}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ with $`XV.`$

### 2.2 Metric Reciprocal Bases

Let $`(\{e_k\},\{e^k\})`$ be an arbitrary pair of $`b`$-reciprocal bases of $`V,`$ i,e., $`e_ke^l=\delta _k^l.`$

###### Theorem 1.

Take an invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V,`$ say $`f.`$ We can construct two bases for $`V,`$ say $`\{E_k\}`$ and $`\{E^k\},`$ by the following formulas

$`E_k`$ $`=f(e_k),`$ (7)
$`E^k`$ $`=g^1f^{}(e^k)\text{ for each }k=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (8)
These bases satisfy the metric scalar product conditions

$$E_k\underset{𝑔}{}E^l=\delta _k^l.$$
(9)
Reciprocally, given two arbitrary bases $`\{E_k\}`$ and $`\{E^k\}`$ which satisfy eq.(9), there exists an unique invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`f`$ such that the eqs.(7) and (8) hold.

###### Proof.

Since $`\{e_k\}`$ and $`\{e^k\}`$ are bases for $`V`$ and, $`f`$ and $`g`$ are invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensors over $`V`$, it follows that the $`n`$ vectors $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_nV`$ and the $`n`$ vectors $`E^1,\mathrm{},E^nV`$ must also determine two well-defined bases for $`V`$.

Now, a straightforward calculation gives

$$E_k\underset{𝑔}{}E^l=gf(e_k)g^1f^{}(e^l)=e_kf^{}gg^1f^{}(e^l)=e_ke^l=\delta _k^l,$$

and the first statement follows.

Now, $`\{e_k\}`$ and $`\{e^k\}`$ are bases for $`V,`$ and $`\{E_k\}`$ and $`\{E^k\}`$ are supposed to be also bases for $`V.`$ Then, there must exist exactly two invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensors over $`V,`$ say $`f_1`$ and $`f_2,`$ such that

$`E_k`$ $`=f_1(e_k),`$
$`E^k`$ $`=f_2(e^k)\text{ for each }k=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
It is easy to check that $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are given by

$`f_1(v)`$ $`=(e^sv)E_s,`$
$`f_2(v)`$ $`=(e_sv)E^s.`$
But, using eq.(9) we have

$$f_1(e_k)\underset{𝑔}{}f_2(e^l)=\delta _k^le_kf_1^{}gf_2(e^l)=\delta _k^lf_1^{}gf_2(e^l)=e^l,$$

for each $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Thus, $`f_1^{}gf_2=i_V`$.

Then, choosing $`f_1=f`$ and $`f_2=g^1f^{},`$ the second statement follows. ∎

Two bases $`\{E_k\}`$ and $`\{E^k\}`$ satisfying $`E_k\underset{𝑔}{}E^l=\delta _k^l`$ are said to be a pair of *metric reciprocal bases,* and we say that $`\{E^k\}`$ is the *metric reciprocal basis* of $`\{E_k\}`$.

We end this section presenting two interesting and useful formulas for the expansion of multivectors in terms of a $`g`$-scalar product.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`(\{E_k\},\{E^k\})`$ be any pair of metric reciprocal bases for $`V,`$ i.e., $`E_k\underset{𝑔}{}E^l=\delta _k^l.`$ We have the following two expansion formulas. For all $`XV`$

$$X=X\underset{𝑔}{}1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\frac{1}{k!}X\underset{𝑔}{}(E^{j_1}\mathrm{}E^{j_k})(E_{j_1}\mathrm{}E_{j_k})$$
(10)
and

$$X=X\underset{𝑔}{}1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\frac{1}{k!}X\underset{𝑔}{}(E_{j_1}\mathrm{}E_{j_k})(E^{j_1}\mathrm{}E^{j_k}).$$
(11)
The proof is left to the reader. (Hint: use eq.(1), eq.(7), eq.(8) and some of the properties of extension operator, and take also into account the expansion formula for multivectors in the euclidean Clifford algebra as defined in  (paper I of this series) .

### 2.3 Metric Interior Algebras

We define now the *metric* *left* and *right* *contracted products* of multivectors $`X,`$ $`YV,`$ denoted respectively by $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}},`$

$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y`$ $`=\underset{¯}{g}(X)\mathrm{}Y,`$ (12)
$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y`$ $`=X\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{g}(Y).`$ (13)
When no confusion arises we call $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ the $`g`$*-contracted products*, for short.

These $`g`$-contracted products $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ are internal laws on $`V.`$ Both of them satisfy the distributive laws (on the left and on the right) but they are not associative products.

The vector space $`V`$ endowed with the $`g`$-contracted product either $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ or $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ is a non-associative algebra. They are called *metric interior algebras of multivectors*. Or, $`g`$*-interior algebras*, for short.

We present now some of the basic properties of the metric interior algebras.

mi1 For any $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`XV`$

$`\alpha \underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}\beta `$ $`=\alpha \underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}\beta =\alpha \beta \text{ (real product),}`$ (14)
$`\alpha \underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X`$ $`=X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}\alpha =\alpha X\text{ (multiplication by scalars).}`$ (15)
mi2 For any $`X_j^jV`$ and $`Y_k^kV`$ with $`jk`$

$$X_j\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y_k=(1)^{j(kj)}Y_k\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X_j.$$
(16)
mi3 For any $`X_j^jV`$ and $`Y_k^kV`$

$`X_j\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y_k`$ $`=0,\text{ if }j>k,`$ (17)
$`X_j\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y_k`$ $`=0,\text{ if }j<k.`$ (18)
mi4 For any $`X_k,Y_k^kV`$

$$X_k\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y_k=X_k\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y_k=\stackrel{~}{X_k}\underset{𝑔}{}Y_k=X_k\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{Y_k}.$$
(19)
mi5 For any $`vV`$ and $`X,YV`$

$$v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}(XY)=(v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X)Y+\overline{X}(v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y).$$
(20)
All these properties easily follow from the corresponding properties of the euclidean interior algebras, once we take into account the properties of extension operator .

###### Proposition 2.

For all $`X,Y,ZV`$ it holds

$`(X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y)\underset{𝑔}{}Z`$ $`=Y\underset{𝑔}{}(\stackrel{~}{X}Z),`$ (21)
$`(X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y)\underset{𝑔}{}Z`$ $`=X\underset{𝑔}{}(Z\stackrel{~}{Y}).`$ (22)
These properties are completely equivalent to the definitions of the right and left contracted products given in eqs.(12-13), and can be proved without difficulties by using the properties of extension operator .

###### Proposition 3.

For all $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ it holds

$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}(Y\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Z)`$ $`=(XY)\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Z,`$ (23)
$`(X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y)\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Z`$ $`=X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}(YZ).`$ (24)
###### Proof.

We prove only the first statement. Take $`X,Y,ZV`$. Using the multivector identity $`A\mathrm{}(B\mathrm{}C)=(AB)\mathrm{}C`$ and a property of extension operator, we have

$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}(Y\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Z)`$ $`=\underset{¯}{g}(X)\mathrm{}(\underset{¯}{g}(Y)\mathrm{}Z)=(\underset{¯}{g}(X)\underset{¯}{g}(Y))\mathrm{}Z`$
$`=\underset{¯}{g}(XY)\mathrm{}Z=(XY)\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Z.`$
### 2.4 Metric Clifford Algebra

We define a *metric Clifford product* of $`X,YV`$ associated to $`g`$ by the following axioms:

A1 For all $`\alpha `$ and $`XV`$

$$\alpha \underset{𝑔}{}X=X\alpha \text{ equals multiplication of multivector }X\text{ by scalar }\alpha .$$

A2 For all $`vV`$ and $`XV`$

$$v\underset{𝑔}{}X=v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X+vX\text{ and }X\underset{𝑔}{}v=X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v+Xv.$$

A3 For all $`X,Y,ZV`$

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}(Y\underset{𝑔}{}Z)=(X\underset{𝑔}{}Y)\underset{𝑔}{}Z.$$

This metric Clifford product is an internal law on $`V.`$ It is associative (by the axiom A3) and satisfies the distributive laws (on the left and on the right) which follow from the corresponding distributive laws of the euclidean contracted and exterior products .

$`V`$ endowed with this metric Clifford product is an associative algebra. It will be called a metric *Clifford algebra of multivectors* generated by $`g`$, or simply, $`g`$*-Clifford algebra.* It will be denoted by $`𝒞\mathrm{}(V,g).`$

We present now some of the most basic properties which hold in $`𝒞\mathrm{}(V,g)`$.

clg1 For any $`vV`$ and $`XV`$

$`v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v\underset{𝑔}{}X\widehat{X}\underset{𝑔}{}v)\text{ and }X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X\underset{𝑔}{}vv\underset{𝑔}{}\widehat{X}),`$ (25)
$`vX`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v\underset{𝑔}{}X+\widehat{X}\underset{𝑔}{}v)\text{ and }Xv={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(X\underset{𝑔}{}v+v\underset{𝑔}{}\widehat{X}).`$ (26)
clg2 For any $`X,YV`$

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}Y=\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{𝑔}{}Y_0=X\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{Y}_0.$$
(27)
clg3 For $`X,Y,ZV`$

$`(X\underset{𝑔}{}Y)\underset{𝑔}{}Z`$ $`=Y\underset{𝑔}{}(\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{𝑔}{}Z)=X\underset{𝑔}{}(Z\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{Y}),`$ (28)
$`X\underset{𝑔}{}(Y\underset{𝑔}{}Z)`$ $`=(\stackrel{~}{Y}\underset{𝑔}{}X)\underset{𝑔}{}Z=(X\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{Z})\underset{𝑔}{}Y.`$ (29)
clg4 For any $`X,YV`$

$`\widehat{X\underset{𝑔}{}Y}`$ $`=\widehat{X}\underset{𝑔}{}\widehat{Y},`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{X\underset{𝑔}{}Y}`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{Y}\underset{𝑔}{}\stackrel{~}{X}.`$ (31)
clg5 Let $`I^nV,`$ then for any $`vV`$ and $`XV`$

$$I\underset{𝑔}{}(vX)=(1)^{n1}v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}(I\underset{𝑔}{}X).$$
(32)
Eq.(32) will be called the metric duality identity, or $`g`$-duality identity, for short.

## 3 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors

Let $`t`$ be a $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V.`$ A scalar $`\lambda `$ and a non-zero vector $`vV`$ are said to be an eigenvalue and an eigenvector of $`t,`$ respectively, if and only if

$$t(v)=\lambda v.$$
(33)
We say that $`\lambda `$ and $`v`$ are naturally to be associated to each other. This means that, if $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`t,`$ then there is some non-zero $`vV`$ (the associated eigenvector of $`t`$) such that eq.(33) holds, and if a non-zero $`vV`$ is an eigenvector of $`t,`$ then there is some $`\lambda `$ (the associated eigenvalue of $`t`$) such that eq.(33) is satisfied.

A scalar $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`t`$ if and only if it satisfies the following algebraic equation of degree $`n`$

$$det[\lambda i_Vt]=0,$$
(34)
where $`i_Vext_1^1(V)`$ is the known identity $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V.`$

###### Theorem 2.

For any adjoint symmetric $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`s,`$ i.e., $`s=s^{},`$ there exists a set of $`n`$ eigenvectors of $`s`$ which is a $`b`$-orthonormal basis for $`V.`$ This means that there are exactly $`n`$ linearly independent non-zero vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_nV`$ and $`n`$ scalars $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ such that

$$s(v_k)=\lambda _kv_k,\text{ for each }k=1,\mathrm{},n$$

and $`\{v_k\}`$ is a basis for $`V`$ which satisfies $`v_jv_k=\delta _{jk}.`$

###### Corollary 3.

All eigenvalues of a metric extensor $`g`$ (i.e., $`gext_1^1(V),`$ $`g=g^{}`$ and $`det[g]0`$) are non-zero real numbers.

###### Proof.

We first calculate $`det[g]`$ by using $`\{v_k\},`$ taking into account the eigenvalue equation of $`g`$ and recalling that, in this case, the euclidean reciprocal vectors $`v^k`$ are equal to the vectors $`v_k,`$

$`det[g]`$ $`=(g(v_1)\mathrm{}g(v_n))(v^1\mathrm{}v^n)`$
$`=(\lambda _1v_1\mathrm{}\lambda _nv_n)(v_1\mathrm{}v_1)`$
$`=\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _n(v_1\mathrm{}v_1)(v_1\mathrm{}v_1)`$
$`det[g]`$ $`=\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _n.`$ (35)
Since $`det[g]0,`$ all $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ must be non-zero real numbers. ∎

The integer number $`s=pq`$, where $`p,q`$ are non negative integer numbers, respectively the numbers of positive and negative eigenvalues of $`t`$ and $`p+q=n,`$ is called the signature of $`t`$. We already have used (and will continue to do so) the usual convention of physicists and denote the signature of $`g`$ by the pair $`(p,q)`$.

## 4 Gauge Metric Extensor

###### Lemma 4.

Any $`b`$-orthogonal symmetric $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V,`$ say $`\sigma ,`$ (i.e., $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$) can only have eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\lambda R`$ is an eigenvalue of $`\sigma ,`$ there is an non-zero $`vV,`$ the associated eigenvector of $`\sigma ,`$ such that $`\sigma (v)=\lambda v.`$ And, the orthogonality and symmetry of $`\sigma `$ yield $`\sigma ^2=i_V.`$

Thus, we have that $`v=\lambda ^2v.`$ Since $`v0,`$ it follows that $`1\lambda ^2=0,`$ i.e., $`\lambda =\pm 1.`$

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`\{b_k\}`$ be the fiducial basis for $`V`$ (i.e., $`b_j\underset{𝑏}{}b_k=\delta _{jk}`$). We can construct a *fiducial* $`b`$-orthogonal metric extensor over $`V,`$ say $`\eta ext_1^1(V),`$ (i.e., $`\eta =\eta ^{}`$ and $`\eta =\eta ^{},`$ $`det[\eta ]0`$) with signature $`(p,q)`$ and which $`b`$-orthonormal basis of $`V,`$ made of the eigenvectors of $`\eta ,`$ is exactly $`\{b_k\}.`$

Such a $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V`$ is given by

$$\eta (v)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}(vb_j)b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{}}(vb_j)b_j.$$
(36)
###### Proof.

We first shall prove that $`\eta `$ has $`p`$ eigenvalues $`+1`$ with associated eigenvectors $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_p`$ and $`q`$ eigenvalues $`1`$ with associated eigenvectors $`b_{p+1},\mathrm{},b_{p+q}.`$

Take $`b_k`$ with $`k=1,\mathrm{},p`$ we have

$$\eta (b_k)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}(b_kb_j)b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{}}(b_kb_j)b_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}\delta _{kj}b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{}}0b_j=b_k,$$

and, for $`b_k`$ with $`k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q,`$ it yields

$$\eta (b_k)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}(b_kb_j)b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{}}(b_kb_j)b_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{}}0b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{}}\delta _{kj}b_j=b_k.$$

Then, we have

$$\eta (b_k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_k,\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},p\hfill \\ b_k,\hfill & k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q\hfill \end{array}.$$
(37)
Now, we shall prove that $`\eta `$ as defined above is a metric extensor over $`V,`$ i.e., $`\eta =\eta ^{}`$ and $`det[\eta ]0.`$

Take $`v,wV`$ then

$`\eta ^{}(v)w`$ $`=v\eta (w)=v(\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}(wb_j)b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}(wb_j)b_j)`$
$`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_j)(wb_j)\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_j)(wb_j)`$
$`=(\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_j)b_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_j)b_j)w=\eta (v)w,`$
i.e., $`\eta ^{}=\eta `$.

We calculate the determinant of $`\eta `$ by using the fundamental formula with $`\{b_k\},`$ i.e., $`det[\eta ]=\eta (b_1)\mathrm{}\eta (b_n)(b^1\mathrm{}b^n).`$ Recall that, in this case, the $`b`$-reciprocal basis vectors $`b^k`$ coincide with $`b_k`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

$`det[\eta ]`$
$`=(\eta (b_1)\mathrm{}\eta (b_p)\eta (b_{p+1})\mathrm{}\eta (b_{p+q}))(b_1\mathrm{}b_pb_{p+1}\mathrm{}b_{p+q})`$
$`=(b_1\mathrm{}b_p(1)^qb_{p+1}\mathrm{}b_{p+q})(b_1\mathrm{}b_pb_{p+1}\mathrm{}b_{p+q}),`$
i.e., $`det[\eta ]=(1)^q.`$

Next, we shall prove that $`\eta ^2=i_V,`$ i.e., $`\eta ^1=\eta `$.

Take $`vV`$ then

$`\eta \eta (v)`$ $`=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_k)\eta \eta (b_k)`$
$`=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_k)\{\begin{array}{cc}\eta (b_k)\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},p\hfill \\ \eta (b_k)\hfill & k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q\hfill \end{array}`$
$`=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}(vb_k)b_k=v,`$
i.e., $`\eta ^2=i_V.`$

This lemma allows us to construct, associated to the fiducial basis $`\{b_k\},`$ a fiducial $`b`$-orthogonal metric extensor $`\eta ext_1^1(V)`$ with signature $`(p,q)`$. Such a $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V`$ has $`p`$ eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`q`$ eigenvalues $`1,`$ and their corresponding associated eigenvectors are the vectors of $`\{b_k\}.`$

###### Theorem 6.

For any metric extensor $`gext_1^1(V)`$ whose signature is $`(p,q),`$ there exists an invertible extensor $`hext_1^1(V)`$ such that

$$g=h^{}\eta h,$$
(38)
where $`\eta ext_1^1(V)`$ is just the fiducial $`b`$-orthogonal metric extensor with signature $`(p,q),`$ as considered in eq.(36).

Such a $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V`$ is given by

$$h(a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\right|}(av_j)b_j,$$
(39)
where $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ are the eigenvalues of $`g`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_nV`$ are the corresponding associated eigenvectors of $`g.`$

###### Proof.

First we need calculate the adjoint extensor of $`h.`$

Take $`a,bV`$ then

$`h^{}(a)b`$ $`=ah(b)=a(\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\right|}(bv_j)b_j)`$
$`=(\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\right|}(ab_j)v_j)b,`$
i.e., $`h^{}(a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\right|}(ab_j)v_j.`$

Now, let $`aV.`$ A straightforward calculation yields

$`h^{}\eta h(a)`$ $`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\eta (b_j)b_k(av_j)v_k`$
$`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\eta (b_j)b_k(av_j)v_k`$
$`+\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\eta (b_j)b_k(av_j)v_k`$
$`+\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\eta (b_j)b_k(av_j)v_k`$
$`+\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\eta (b_j)b_k(av_j)v_k,`$
and, by taking into account eq.(37) we have

$`h^{}\eta h(a)`$ $`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\delta _{jk}(av_j)v_k+0`$
$`+0\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\underset{k=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\sqrt{\left|\lambda _j\lambda _k\right|}\delta _{jk}(av_j)v_k`$
$`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\left|\lambda _j\right|(av_j)v_j\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\left|\lambda _j\right|(av_j)v_j`$
$`=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑝}{{\displaystyle }}}\lambda _j(av_j)v_j+\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{p+q}{{\displaystyle }}}\lambda _j(av_j)v_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}\lambda _j(av_j)v_j.`$
On the last step we have used that the signature of $`g`$ is $`(p,q),`$ i.e., $`g`$ has $`p`$ positive eigenvalues and $`q`$ negative eigenvalues.

And, by using the eigenvalues equation of $`g,`$ i.e., $`g(v_j)=\lambda _jv_j`$ for each $`j=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ we have

$$h^{}\eta h(a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}(av_j)g(v_j)=g(\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}(av_j)v_j)=g(a),$$

i.e., $`h^{}\eta h=g.`$

Finally, since

$$det[g]=det[h^{}\eta h]=det[h^{}]det[\eta ]det[h]=det[\eta ]\stackrel{2}{det}[h]=(1)^q\stackrel{2}{det}[h],$$

and $`det[g]0,`$ then $`det[h]0,`$ and so $`h`$ is an invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensor. ∎

It should be noted that $`h`$ satisfying eq.(38) is not *unique*. If there is some $`hext_1^1(V)`$ which satisfies eq.(38), then $`h^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }h,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`\eta `$-orthogonal $`(1,1)`$-extensor over $`V`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=\eta `$)<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1As the reader can prove without difficulties, a $`\eta `$-orthogonal $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ preserves the $`\eta `$-scalar products, i.e., for all $`v,wV:\mathrm{\Lambda }(v)\underset{𝜂}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(w)=v\underset{𝜂}{}w.`$, also satisfies eq.(38).

Indeed, we have $`h^{}\eta h^{}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }h)^{}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }h=h^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }h=h^{}\eta h=g.`$

In general, an invertible extensor $`hext_1^1(V)`$ which satisfies eq.(38) will be said to be *a gauge metric extensor for the metric extensor* $`g.`$

### 4.1 Gauge Metric Bases

Let $`\{e_k\}`$ and $`\{e^k\}`$ be two $`b`$-reciprocal bases to each other for the vector space $`V,`$ i.e., $`e_ke^l=\delta _k^l.`$ Since $`h,`$ a gauge metric extensor over $`V,`$ is non-degenerate, i.e., $`det[h]0`$, it follows that the $`n`$ vectors $`h(e_1),\mathrm{},h(e_n)V`$ and the $`n`$ vectors $`h^{}(e^1),\mathrm{},h^{}(e^n)V`$ will be also well-defined bases for $`V.`$

As the reader can easily prove $`(\{h(e_k)\},`$ $`\{h^{}(e^k)\})`$ is also a pair of $`b`$-reciprocal bases of $`V,`$ i.e.,

$$h(e_k)h^{}(e^l)=\delta _k^l.$$
(40)
Two other remarkable properties of these bases are:

$`h(e_j)\underset{𝜂}{}h(e_k)`$ $`=g(e_j)e_kg_{jk},`$ (41)
$`h^{}(e^j)\underset{\eta ^1}{}h^{}(e^k)`$ $`=g^1(e^j)e^kg^{jk}.`$ (42)
These bases $`\{h(e_k)\}`$ and $`\{h^{}(e^k)\}`$ will be said to be a pair of *gauge metric bases* for $`V.`$

###### Theorem 7.

Given $`n`$ non-zero real numbers $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _n`$ and a $`b`$-orthogonal $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`l`$ over $`V`$ (i.e., $`l=l^{}`$), we can construct an invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`h`$ over $`V`$ using the following formula

$$h(v)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\rho _j(l(v)b_j)b_j.$$
(43)
Then, the $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`g`$ over $`V`$ defined by

$$g=h^{}\eta h,$$
(44)
where $`\eta ext_1^1(V)`$ is just the fiducial $`b`$-orthogonal metric extensor over $`V`$ with signature $`(p,q),`$ as considered in eq.(36).

The $`p`$ positive real numbers $`\rho _1^2,\mathrm{},\rho _p^2`$ are the eigenvalues of $`g`$ with the associated eigenvectors $`l^{}(b_1),\mathrm{},l^{}(b_p)`$ of $`g,`$ and the $`q`$ negative real numbers $`\rho _{p+1}^2,\mathrm{},\rho _{p+q}^2`$ are the eigenvalues of $`g`$ with the associated eigenvectors $`l^{}(b_{p+1}),\mathrm{},l^{}(b_{p+q})`$ of $`g.`$

The set of $`n`$ non-zero vectors $`\{l^{}(b_1),\mathrm{},l^{}(b_p),`$ $`l^{}(b_{p+1}),\mathrm{},l^{}(b_{p+q})\}`$ is a $`b`$-orthonormal basis of $`V,`$ made of the eigenvectors of $`g.`$

The signature of $`g`$ is also $`(p,q).`$

###### Proof.

We first must check that $`g`$ is symmetric and non-degenerate. Using eq.(44) we have

$$g^{}=h^{}\eta ^{}(h^{})^{}=h^{}\eta h=g,$$

thus, $`g=g^{},`$ i.e., $`g`$ is symmetric.

We now calculate $`det[g],`$

$$det[g]=det[h^{}]det[\eta ]det[h]=det[h]det[\eta ]det[h]=(1)^q\stackrel{2}{det}[h].$$

But, it is possible to calculate $`det[h]`$ by using a trick. We shall evaluate $`det[hl^{}]`$ in two different ways.

First, using eq.(43) and the $`b`$-orthogonality of $`l,`$ i.e., $`l^1=l^{},`$ we have

$$hl^{}(v)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\rho _j(ab_j)b_j.$$

Sencondly, using the fundamental formula for the determinant of a $`(1,1)`$-extensor (see ) we have,

$`det[hl^{}]`$ $`=(hl^{}(b_1)\mathrm{}hl^{}(b_n))(b^1\mathrm{}b^n)`$
$`=(\rho _1b_1\mathrm{}\rho _nb_n)(b_1\mathrm{}b_n)`$
$`=\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _n.`$
Now, taking into account that $`det[l]=\pm 1`$ and property (d1) of the determinant (see ) we get,

$$det[hl^{}]=det[h]det[l^{}]=det[h]det[l]=\pm det[h].$$

Thus, we have $`det[h]=\pm \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _n`$. And, therefore $`det[g]=(1)^q\rho _1^2\mathrm{}\rho _n^2.`$ Since $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _n`$ are non-zero real numbers, $`det[g]0,`$ i.e., $`g`$ is non-degenerate.

The proof of the first statement is then complete.

In order to prove the second statement, related to the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`g,`$ we shall use the following equations: $`hl^{}(b_k)=\rho _kb_k`$ (just used above), $`h^{}(b_k)=\rho _kl^{}(b_k)`$ (obtained from eq.(43)) and the eigenvalue equation of $`\eta ,`$ i.e., $`\eta (b_k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_k,\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},p\hfill \\ b_k,\hfill & k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q\hfill \end{array}.`$

We have

$`gl^{}(b_k)`$ $`=h^{}\eta hl^{}(b_k)=h^{}\eta (\rho _kb_k)=\rho _kh^{}\eta (b_k)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _kh^{}(b_k),\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},p\hfill \\ \rho _kh^{}(b_k),\hfill & k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q\hfill \end{array}`$
$`gl^{}(e_k)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _k^2l^{}(b_k),\hfill & k=1,\mathrm{},p\hfill \\ \rho _k^2l^{}(b_k),\hfill & k=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q\hfill \end{array}.`$
This establishes the second statement.

¿From the euclidean $`b`$-orthogonality of $`l`$ it follows easily that the eigenvectors of $`g,`$ are $`b`$-orthonormal. It is also obvious that the signature of $`g`$ is also $`(p,q).`$ Thus, the third and fourth statement are proved. ∎

## 5 The Golden Formula

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`h`$ be any gauge operator for $`g,`$ i.e., $`g=h^{}\eta h,`$ and let $`\underset{𝑔}{\text{ }}`$mean either $``$ (exterior product), $`\underset{𝑔}{\text{ }}`$($`g`$-scalar product),$`\underset{𝑔}{\text{ }\mathrm{}}\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}\text{ }}`$($`g`$-contracted products) or $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ ($`g`$-Clifford product), and analogously for $`\underset{𝜂}{}`$. The $`g`$-metric products $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ and the $`\eta `$-metric products $`\underset{𝜂}{}`$ are related by the following remarkable formula. For all $`X,YV`$

$$\underset{¯}{h}(X\underset{𝑔}{}Y)=\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y),$$
(45)
where $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ denotes the extended of $`h`$. Eq.(45) will be called the *golden* *formula*

###### Proof.

By recalling the fundamental properties for the outermorphism of an operator: $`\underset{¯}{t}(XY)=\underset{¯}{t}(X)\underset{¯}{t}(Y)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{t}(\alpha )=\alpha ,`$ we have that the multivector identity above holds for the exterior product, i.e.,

$$XY=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{¯}{h}(Y)]$$
(46)
and for the $`g`$-scalar product and the $`\eta `$-scalar product, i.e.,

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}Y=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)].$$
(47)
By using the multivector identities for an invertible operator: $`\underset{¯}{t}^{}(X)\mathrm{}Y=\underset{¯}{t}^1[X\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{t}(Y)]`$ and $`X\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{t}^{}(Y)=\underset{¯}{t}^1[\underset{¯}{t}(X)\mathrm{}Y],`$ and the gauge equation $`g=h^{}\eta h`$ we can easily prove that the multivector identity above holds for the $`g`$-contracted product and the $`\eta `$-contracted product, i.e.,

$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)]`$ (48)
$`X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)].`$ (49)
To prove eq.(48) see that we can write

$$X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y=\underset{¯}{h^{}\eta h}(X)\mathrm{}Y=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{\eta h}(X)\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)]=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)],$$

where the definitions of $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}`$ have been used. The proof of eq.(49) is completely analogous, the definitions of $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}`$ should be used.

In order to prove that the multivector identity above holds for the $`g`$-Clifford product and the $`\eta `$-Clifford product, i.e.,

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}Y=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)],$$
(50)
we first must prove four particular cases of it.

Take $`\alpha `$ and $`XV.`$ By using the axioms of the $`g`$ and $`\eta `$ Clifford products: $`\alpha \underset{𝑔}{}X=X\underset{𝑔}{}\alpha =\alpha X`$ and $`\alpha \underset{𝜂}{}X=X\underset{𝜂}{}\alpha =\alpha X,`$ we can write

$$\alpha \underset{𝑔}{}X=\alpha X=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\alpha \underset{¯}{h}(X)]=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\alpha \underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(X)],$$

i.e.,

$$\alpha \underset{𝑔}{}X=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(\alpha )\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(X)].$$
(51)
Analogously, we have

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}\alpha =\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(\alpha )].$$
(52)
Take $`vV`$ and $`XV.`$ By using the axioms of the $`g`$ and $`\eta `$ Clifford products: $`v\underset{𝑔}{}X=v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X+vX`$ and $`v\underset{𝜂}{}X=v\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}X+vX,`$ and eqs.(48) and (46) we can write

$$v\underset{𝑔}{}X=v\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}X+vX=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}(X)]+\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v)\underset{¯}{h}(X)],$$

i.e.,

$$v\underset{𝑔}{}X=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(X)].$$
(53)
¿From the axioms of the $`g`$ and $`\eta `$ Clifford products: $`X\underset{𝑔}{}v=X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v+Xv`$ and $`X\underset{𝜂}{}v=X\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}v+Xv`$, and eqs.(49) and (46) we get

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}v=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}h(v)].$$
(54)
Take $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_kV.`$ By using $`k1`$ times eq.(53) we have indeed

$`v_1\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v_1)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k)]`$
$`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v_1)\underset{𝜂}{}h(v_2)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}h(v_k)],`$
$`v_1\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v_1)\underset{𝜂}{}h(v_2)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}h(v_k)].`$ (55)
Take $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_kV`$ and $`XV.`$ By using $`k1`$ times eq.(53) and eq.(55) we have indeed

$`(v_1\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k)\underset{𝑔}{}X`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v_1)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k\underset{𝑔}{}X)]`$
$`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[h(v_1)\underset{𝜂}{}h(v_2)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}h(v_k)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(X)],`$
$`(v_1\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k)\underset{𝑔}{}X`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(v_1\underset{𝑔}{}v_2\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}v_k)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(X)].`$ (56)
We now can prove the general case of eq.(50). We shall use an expansion formula for multivectors: $`X=X^0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}X^{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}e_{j_1}\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}e_{j_k},`$ where $`\{e_j\}`$ is a basis of $`V,`$ eq.(51) and eq.(56). We can write

$`X\underset{𝑔}{}Y`$ $`=X^0\underset{𝑔}{}Y+\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}X^{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}(e_{j_1}\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}e_{j_k})\underset{𝑔}{}Y`$
$`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X^0)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)]+\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}X^{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}\underset{¯}{h}(e_{j_1}\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}e_{j_k})\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)]`$
$`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X^0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑛}{{\displaystyle }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}X^{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}e_{j_1}\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}e_{j_k})\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)],`$
$`X\underset{𝑔}{}Y`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^1[\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}(Y)].`$
Hence, eq.(46), eq.(47), eqs.(48) and (49), and eq.(50) have set the golden formula. ∎

## 6 Metric Adjoint Operators

Let $`g`$ be a metric operator on $`V,`$ i.e., $`gext_1^1(V)`$ such that $`g=g^{}`$ and $`det[g]0.`$ To each $`t1`$-$`ext(\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}V;\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}V)`$. We define the metric adjoint operator $`t^{(g)}1`$-$`ext(\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}V;\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}V)`$ by

$$t^{(g)}=\underset{¯}{g}^1t^{}\underset{¯}{g}.$$
(57)
As we can easily see, $`t^{(g)}`$ is the unique extensor from $`\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}V`$ to $`\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}V`$ which satisfies the following property: for any $`X\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}V`$ and $`Y\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}V`$

$$X\underset{𝑔}{}t^{(g)}(Y)=t(X)\underset{𝑔}{}Y.$$
(58)
This is the ‘metric version’ of the fundamental property given by the formula $`t^{}(X)Y=Xt(Y)`$ in the paper II of this series.

Finally, we notice the very important formula that

$$det[t^{(g)}]=det[t^{}]=det[t].$$
(59)
## 7 Standard Hodge Extensor

Let ($`\{e_j\},`$ $`\{e^j\})`$ be a pair of $`b`$-reciprocal bases to each other for $`V,`$ i.e., $`e_j\underset{𝑏}{}e^k=\delta _j^k.`$ Associated to them we define a non-zero pseudoscalar

$$\tau =\sqrt{e_{}e_{}}e^{}$$
(60)
where $`e_{}e_1\mathrm{}e_n^nV`$ and $`e^{}e^1\mathrm{}e^n^nV.`$ Note that $`e_{}e_{}>0,`$ since the scalar product is positive definite. It will be called a *standard volume pseudoscalar for* $`V.`$ It has the fundamental property

$$\tau \tau =\tau \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=1,$$
(61)
it follows from the equation $`e_{}e^{}=1`$.

¿From eq.(61), we can get an expansion formula for pseudoscalars

$$I=(I\tau )\tau .$$
(62)
The extensor $`ext(V)`$ which is defined by $`:VV`$ such that

$$X=\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{}\tau =\stackrel{~}{X}\tau ,$$
(63)
will be called a *standard Hodge extensor on* $`V.`$

It should be noticed that if $`X^pV,`$ then $`X^{np}V.`$ It means that $``$ can be also defined as a $`(p,np)`$-extensor over $`V.`$

The extensor over $`V,`$ $`^1:VV`$ such that

$$^1X=\tau \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{X}=\tau \stackrel{~}{X}$$
(64)
is the *inverse* extensor of $`.`$

Indeed, take $`XV.`$ Eq.(61) gives $`^1X=\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }X=X,`$ and $`^1X=X\stackrel{~}{\tau }\tau =X,`$ i.e., $`^1=^1=i_{\scriptscriptstyle V},`$ where $`i_{\scriptscriptstyle V}ext(V)`$ is the so-called *identity function* for $`V.`$

Let us take $`X,YV.`$ Using the multivector identity $`(XA)Y=X(Y\stackrel{~}{A})`$ and eq.(61) we get

$$(X)(Y)=XY.$$
(65)
It means that the standard Hodge extensor preserves the euclidean scalar product.

Let us take $`X,Y^pV.`$ By using eq.(62) together with the multivector identity $`(XY)Z=Y(\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{}Z),`$ and eq.(65) we get

$$X(Y)=(XY)\tau .$$
(66)
This identity is completely equivalent to the definition of standard Hodge extensor given by eq.(63).

Take $`X^pV`$ and $`Y^{np}V.`$ By using the multivector identity $`(X\mathrm{}Y)Z=Y(\stackrel{~}{X}Z)`$ and eq.(62) we get

$$((X)Y)\tau =XY.$$
(67)
## 8 Metric Hodge Extensor

Let $`g`$ be a metric extensor over $`V`$ of signature $`(p,q),`$ i.e., $`gext_1^1(V)`$ such that $`g=g^{}`$ and $`det[g]0`$. It has $`p`$ positive and $`q`$ negative eigenvalues. Associated to a pair ($`\{e_j\}`$, $`\{e^j\})`$ of $`b`$-reciprocal bases we can define another non-zero pseudoscalar

$$\tau _g=\sqrt{\left|e_{}\underset{𝑔}{}e_{}\right|}e^{}=\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}\tau .$$
(68)
It will be called a *metric volume pseudoscalar* for $`V.`$ It has the fundamental property

$$\tau _g\underset{g^1}{}\tau _g=\tau _g\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_g=\tau _g\underset{g^1}{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_g=(1)^q.$$
(69)
It follows from eq.(61) by taking into account the definition of determinant of a linear operator on $`V,`$ and recalling that $`sgn(det[g])=(1)^q.`$

An expansion formula for the pseudoscalars can be obtained from eq.(69), i.e.,

$$I=(1)^q(I\underset{g^1}{}\tau _g)\tau _g.$$
(70)
The extensor $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ $`ext(V)`$ which is defined by $`\underset{𝑔}{}:VV`$ such that

$$\underset{𝑔}{}X=\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}\tau _g=\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{g^1}{}\tau _g,$$
(71)
will be called a *metric Hodge extensor* on $`V.`$ It should be noticed that the definition of $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ needs the use of both the $`g`$ and $`g^1`$ metric Clifford algebras, a non trivial fact.

It is clear that if $`X^pV,`$ then $`\underset{𝑔}{}X^{np}V.`$

The extensor over $`V,`$ $`\underset{𝑔}{}^1:VV`$ such that

$$\underset{𝑔}{}^1X=(1)^q\tau _g\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{X}=(1)^q\tau _g\underset{g^1}{}\stackrel{~}{X},$$
(72)
is the *inverse* extensor of $`\underset{𝑔}{}.`$

Indeed, take $`X\mathrm{\Lambda }V.`$ By using eq.(69), we verify that $`\underset{𝑔}{}^1\underset{𝑔}{}X=(1)^q\tau _g\underset{g^1}{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_g\underset{g^1}{}X=X,`$ and $`\underset{𝑔}{}\underset{𝑔}{}^1X=(1)^qX\underset{g^1}{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_g\underset{g^1}{}\tau _g=X,`$ i.e., $`\underset{𝑔}{}^1=\underset{𝑔}{}\underset{𝑔}{}^1=i_{\scriptscriptstyle V}.`$

Take $`X,YV.`$ The identity $`(X\underset{g^1}{}A)\underset{g^1}{}Y=X\underset{g^1}{}(Y\underset{g^1}{}\stackrel{~}{A})`$ and eq.(69) yield

$$(\underset{𝑔}{}X)\underset{g^1}{}(\underset{𝑔}{}Y)=(1)^qX\underset{g^1}{}Y.$$
(73)
Take $`X,Y^pV.`$ Eq.(70), the identity $`(XY)\underset{g^1}{}Z=Y\underset{g^1}{}(\stackrel{~}{X}\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}Z)`$ and eq.(73) allow us to get

$$X(\underset{𝑔}{}Y)=(X\underset{g^1}{}Y)\tau _g.$$
(74)
This remarkable property is completely equivalent to the definition of the metric Hodge extensor.

Take $`X^pV`$ and $`Y^{np}V.`$ The use of identity $`(X\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}Y)\underset{g^1}{}Z=Y\underset{g^1}{}(\stackrel{~}{X}Z)`$ and eq.(70) yield

$$((\underset{𝑔}{}X)\underset{g^1}{}Y)\tau _g=(1)^qXY.$$
(75)
It might as well be asked what is the relationship between the standard and metric Hodge extensors as defined above.

Take $`XV.`$ By using eq.(68), the multivector identity for an invertible $`(1,1)`$-extensor $`\underset{¯}{t}^1(X)\mathrm{}Y=\underset{¯}{t}^{}(X\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{t}^{}(Y))`$ and the definition of determinant of a $`(1,1)`$-extensor, we have

$`\underset{𝑔}{}X`$ $`=\underset{¯}{g}^1(\stackrel{~}{X})\mathrm{}\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}\tau =\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}\underset{¯}{g}(\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{g}^1(\tau ))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}}{det[g]}}\underset{¯}{g}(\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{}\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{sgn(det[g])}{\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}}}\underset{¯}{g}(X),`$
ie.,

$$\underset{𝑔}{}=\frac{(1)^q}{\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}}\underset{¯}{g}.$$
(76)
Eq.(76) is the formula which relates<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2It is a very important formula and good use of it will be done in our theory of the gravitational field to be presented in another series of papers. $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ with $`.`$

We recall that for any metric operator $`gext_1^1(V)`$ there exists a non-degenerate operator $`hext_1^1(V)`$ such that

$$g=h^{}\eta h,$$
(77)
where $`\eta ext_1^1(V)`$ is an orthogonal metric operator with the same signature as $`g`$. Such a $`h`$ is called a gauge operator for $`g.`$

The $`g`$ and $`g^1`$ metric contracted products $`\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}`$ are related to the $`\eta `$-metric contracted product $`\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}`$ (recall that $`\eta =\eta ^1`$) by the following formulas

$`\underset{¯}{h}(X\underset{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}Y)`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}(X)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}(Y),`$ (78)
$`\underset{¯}{h}^{}(X\underset{g^1}{\mathrm{}}Y)`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^{}(X)\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}^{}(Y).`$ (79)
We can also get a noticeable formula which relates a $`g`$-metric Hodge extensor with a $`\eta `$-metric Hodge extensor.

Now, take $`XV.`$ By using eq.(79), eq.(68), the definition of determinant of a $`(1,1)`$-extensor, eq.(77) and the equation $`\tau _\eta =\tau ,`$ we have

$`\underset{𝑔}{}X`$ $`=\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\stackrel{~}{X})\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\underset{𝑔}{\tau }))=\sqrt{\left|det[g]\right|}\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\stackrel{~}{X})\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}det[h^{}]\tau )`$
$`=\left|det[h]\right|det[h^{}]\underset{¯}{h}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\underset{¯}{h}^{}(X)}\underset{𝜂}{\mathrm{}}\underset{𝜂}{\tau })=sgn(det[h])\underset{¯}{h}^{}\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}^{}(X),`$
i.e.,

$$\underset{𝑔}{}=sgn(det[h])\underset{¯}{h}^{}\underset{𝜂}{}\underset{¯}{h}^{}.$$
(80)
Eq. (80) is the formula which relates $`\underset{𝑔}{}`$ with $`\underset{𝜂}{}.`$

## 9 Conclusions

We showed that any metric Clifford product on $`𝒞\mathrm{}(V,g)`$ can be considered as *deformation* of the euclidean Clifford product on $`𝒞\mathrm{}(V),`$ induced by the metric extensor $`g`$. We also proved that any metric extensor $`g`$ is decomposable in terms of a *gauge metric extensor* $`h`$ and a *fiducial* $`b`$-*orthogonal extensor* $`\eta `$ which has the same signature as $`g.`$ Although $`h`$ is not unique, since two $`h^{\text{}}`$s satisfying that property differ only by a composition with a general transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is a $`\eta `$-orthogonal $`(1,1)`$-extensor. For the case that $`V`$ is $`4`$-dimensional and $`\eta `$ is a Lorentzian metric extensor (i.e., with signature $`(1,3)`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is just a general Lorentz transformation. The paper contains a proof of the non trivial golden formula, which as the future papers will show, really deserves its name. Indeed, the formula is a key in our theory of the intrinsic formulation of differential geometry on arbitrary manifolds that we will present in future papers, and also find applications in some some problems of Theoretical Physics as, e.g., in geometric theories of gravitation and Lagrangian formulation of the theory of multivector and extensor fields.

Acknowledgement: V. V. Fernández is grateful to FAPESP for a posdoctoral fellowship. W.A. Rodrigues Jr. is grateful to CNPq for a senior research fellowship (contract 201560/82-8) and to the Department of Mathematics of the University of Liverpool for the hospitality. Authors are also grateful to Drs. P. Lounesto, I. Porteous and J. Vaz, Jr. for their interest in our research and useful discussions.


text:
# Off-diagonal mixed state phases in unitary evolution11footnote 1To appear in ”Foundations of probability and physics - 2”, ed. by A. Khrennikov; series “Math. Modelling in Physics, Engineering and Cognitive Sciences” Växjö Univ. Press (2003)

## 1 Introduction

When two quantal states are orthogonal their relative phase is indeterminate as they do not interfere. Yet, there may be a unitary path connecting such states and along this path there accumulates phase information that in part reflects the curvature of the subjacent state space. Thus, it seems pertinent to ask: is there a way to retain this particular information about the curvature when the path connects orthogonal states?

This issue was settled in the pure state case only quite recently by Manini and Pistolesi . In essence, their idea may be understood by considering a unitarity $`U`$ and a complete set of orthonormalised pure states represented by the one dimensional projectors $`\{P_k=|A_kA_k|\}`$ in terms of which one may define a family of off-diagonal phase factors

$`\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_l}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\text{Tr}\left(UP_{j_1}UP_{j_2}\mathrm{}UP_{j_l}\right)\right],l=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (1)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }[z]=z/|z|`$, $`N`$ is the dimensionality of the Hilbert space, and all $`j_k`$ in the set are different. These phase factors are manifestly independent of the choice of Hilbert space representatives $`\{|A_k\}`$, and hence measurable in principle. Furthermore, they are independent of cyclic permutations of the indexes $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{}j_l`$, they contain the standard Pancharatnam phase factor  as $`l=1`$, they reflect the curvature of the subjacent state space if $`U`$ parallel transports $`\{|A_k\}`$, and experimental test of the $`l=2`$ case has been reported for spin polarised neutrons .

In this paper, we wish to elaborate on the concept of off-diagonal phases for mixed states proposed in . For parallel transporting unitarities this defines a family of off-diagonal mixed state geometric phases that reflects the geometry of the subjacent state space. These phases extend the concept of mixed state phase in  to cases where the latter is undefined.

Unitary maps of a complete orthonormal set of states are characterised and the concomitant concept of quantum parallel transport is delineated in the next section. We propose an operationally natural notion of orthogonality adapted to unitarily connected density matrices in section 3. This is used for the off-diagonal mixed state geometric phase proposed in section 4. Section 5 contains some explicit examples and a complete experimental realisation of the off-diagonal mixed state geometric phases in the qubit case is proposed in section 6. The paper ends with the conclusions.

## 2 $`U(N)`$, $`SU(N)`$, and quantum parallel transport

Any complete orthonormal basis of a finite dimensional Hilbert space is mapped unitarily to another complete orthonormal basis. Here, we provide some general remarks on unitary maps of such bases that are pertinent in the context of off-diagonal mixed state phases.

Consider Hilbert space $``$ of finite dimension $`N`$. Any unitary map acting on $``$ can be decomposed as $`U(N)=U(1)\times SU(N)`$. As is clear from Eq. (1), the $`U(1)`$ part factors out and contributes a factor $`\left[U(1)\right]^l`$ to $`\gamma ^{(l)}`$.

We may also consider parallel transporting unitarities. Indeed, parallel transport of a pure quantum state, probably first put forward in , plays an important role in the theory of geometric phases as in this case the dynamical contributions along the path are assured to vanish. In the context of off-diagonal phases, it proves useful to extend this and consider parallel transport of a set of orthonormal pure states.

Consider a complete orthonormal basis $`|A_k`$ of $``$. A continuous one-parameter family of unitarities $`U(s)`$ is said to parallel transport the basis $`|A_k`$ if it fulfils

$$A_k|U^{}\dot{U}|A_k=0,k,$$
(2)
which is equivalent to having no local accumulation of phase along the unitary path for each $`|A_k`$. We may further notice that any unitarity $`U(s)`$ may be written as

$$U(s)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^sJ(s^{})𝑑s^{}\right),$$
(3)
$`J(s)`$ being Hermitian and $`𝒫`$ is path ordering. Thus, equivalent to Eq. (2) is

$$A_k|J(s)|A_k=0,k,$$
(4)
which entails that $`J(s)`$ has to be off-diagonal in the parallel transported basis and therefore traceless in any basis. Thus, $`USU(N)`$ is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for $`U`$ being parallel transporting a complete basis444Less restrictive conditions may be put on $`U`$ by considering parallel transport in a fixed $`K<N`$ dimensional subspace of $``$. In such a case $`U(N)=SU(K)\times U(NK)`$, where $`SU(K)`$ parallel transport some basis of this subspace. Such unitarites are useful when considering rank $`<N`$ density operators..

The conditions in (2) or equivalently in (4) define a nontrivial fibre bundle with structure group being isomorphic to the $`N`$ torus. In the context of mixed states, this is the relevant bundle structure in . Uhlmann  has provided another concept of mixed state parallel transport that defines a $`U(N)`$ bundle and differs both conceptually and physically  from that of . In this report, we focus on the extension of  to the off-diagonal case.

## 3 Orthogonality

Generalisation of the off-diagonal phases to the mixed state case requires an appropriate notion of “orthogonality” between unitarily connected density matrices. In this section, we propose a simple definition of this based upon interference.

In order to develop this idea, let us first suppose $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ are Hilbert space representatives of two arbitrary pure quantal states $`A`$ and $`B`$, and assume further that $`|A`$ is exposed to the variable $`U(1)`$ shift $`e^{i\chi }`$. The resulting interference pattern obtained in superposition is determined by the intensity profile

$$=\left|e^{i\chi }|A+|B\right|^2=2+2|A|B|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}A|B].$$
(5)
The key point here is to note that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are orthogonal if and only if $``$ is independent of $`\chi `$.

To extend this idea to the mixed state case, consider a pair of unitarily connected density operators

$$\rho _A=\underset{k}{}\lambda _k|A_kA_k|\rho _B=\underset{k}{}\lambda _k|B_kB_k|,$$
(6)
where each $`|B_k=U|A_k`$. Evidently, each such orthonormal pure state component of the density operator contributes to the interference according to Eq. (5). Thus, the total intensity profile becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _k\left|e^{i\chi }|A_k+|B_k\right|^2`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`2+2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\lambda _k|A_k|B_k|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}A_k|B_k],`$
where we have used that the $`\lambda `$’s sum up to unity. Following the above pure state case, we say that $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$ are orthogonal if and only if $``$ is independent of $`\chi `$ for all Hilbert space representatives $`\{|A_k\}`$ and $`\{|B_k\}`$ of the eigenstates of $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$, respectively. It follows that $`\rho _A\rho _B`$ if and only if $`A_k|B_k=0,k`$.

For an $`N`$ dimensional Hilbert space $``$, we may generate a set of $`N`$ mutually orthogonal density operators as follows. Assume there is a unitary operator $`U_g`$ such that $`|A_n=\left(U_g\right)^{n1}|A_1,n=1,\mathrm{},N,`$ is a complete orthonormal basis of $``$. Explicitly, we may write

$$U_g=|A_1A_N|+|A_NA_{N1}|+\mathrm{}|A_2A_1|.$$
(8)
Now, if $`\rho _1|A_k=\lambda _k|A_k`$ then

$$\rho _n=\left(U_g\right)^{n1}\rho _1\left(U_g^{}\right)^{n1},n=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(9)
is a set of mutually orthogonal density operators. Explicitly, this entails that

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1|A_1A_1|+\lambda _2|A_2A_2|+\mathrm{}+\lambda _N|A_NA_N|,`$
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1|A_2A_2|+\lambda _2|A_3A_3|+\mathrm{}+\lambda _N|A_1A_1|,`$
$`\mathrm{},`$
$`\rho _N`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1|A_NA_N|+\lambda _2|A_1A_1|+\mathrm{}+\lambda _N|A_{N1}A_{N1}|.`$ (10)
## 4 Off-diagonal mixed states phases

In this section, we propose the off-diagonal phases for mixed states, based upon the concept of orthogonality described above. To do this, we only need to determine how the mutually orthogonal density operators should appear in the trace. This may be resolved by noting that:

* For $`U=U_g^{}`$ that permutes $`|A_N|A_{N1}\mathrm{}|A_1|A_N`$, we have

$$\text{Tr}\left(U_g^{}P_1U_g^{}P_2\mathrm{}U_g^{}P_N\right)=1,$$
(11)
due to normalisation $`A_k|A_k=1`$, $`k`$.
* The ansatz $`\rho _k^{p/q}`$ reduces to $`P_k`$ in the limit of pure states, if $`p`$ and $`q`$ are integers. Note here that $`\rho _k^{p/q}`$ is well-defined as $`\rho _k0`$.

Replace $`P_k`$ with $`\rho _k^{p/q}`$ in Eq. (1) and consider $`l=N`$ with $`j_k=k`$, $`k`$. For $`U=U_g^{}`$ we have

$`\text{Tr}\left(U_g^{}\rho _1^{p/q}U_g^{}\rho _2^{p/q}\mathrm{}U_g^{}\rho _N^{p/q}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\rho _1^{Np/q}\right),`$ (12)
where we have used that $`\left(U_g\rho U_g^{}\right)^{p/q}=U_g\rho ^{p/q}U_g^{}`$ for any integers $`p`$ and $`q`$. Normalisation yields $`p=1`$ and $`q=N`$. Now, for general $`lN`$, assume that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are completely determined by $`l`$, we may write $`p(l)=_ma_ml^m`$ and $`q(l)=_mb_ml^m`$, with $`l`$independent integer coefficients $`\{a_m\}`$ and $`\{b_m\}`$. From $`p(N)=1`$ and $`q(N)=N`$ for any $`N`$, we obtain $`a_m=\delta _{m,0}`$ and $`b_m=\delta _{m,1}`$. Thus, $`p=1`$ and $`q=l`$.

We are now ready to state our main result: the off-diagonal mixed state phase for an ordered set of $`lN`$ mutually orthogonal density matrices $`\rho _{j_k}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},l`$, transported by $`U`$ is naturally given by

$$\gamma _{\rho _{j_1}\rho _{j_2}\mathrm{}\rho _{j_l}}^{(l)}\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\text{Tr}\left(U\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_1}}U\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_2}}\mathrm{}U\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_l}}\right)\right].$$
(13)
This is manifestly gauge invariant and independent of cyclic permutations of the indexes $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{}j_l`$. By construction it reduces to Eq. (1) in the limit of pure states. If $`U`$ is parallel transporting then Eq. (13) defines a family of off-diagonal mixed state geometric phases. Furthermore, just as in the pure state case, any $`U(1)`$ component of $`U`$ contributes here with a factor $`\left[U(1)\right]^l`$ to $`\gamma ^{(l)}`$.

The mixed state phase

$$\gamma _{\rho _{j_1}}^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _{j_1}\right)\right]$$
(14)
proposed in  may be seen as a natural consequence of this general framework if we put $`l=1`$. In section 6 we propose an experimental realisation of the $`l=2`$ case

$$\gamma _{\rho _{j_1}\rho _{j_2}}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\text{Tr}\left(U\sqrt{\rho _{j_1}}U\sqrt{\rho _{j_2}}\right)\right]$$
(15)
in polarisation-entangled two-photon interferometry.

Note that if $`\rho _1`$ and $`U_g`$ commutes for some $`n`$ then $`\rho _n=\rho _1`$. This may happen for $`n1`$ if and only if $`\rho _1=I/N`$, $`I`$ being the identity operator on $``$, i.e. for the maximally mixed state. In such a case $`\rho _1=\rho _2=\mathrm{}=\rho _N`$ and all $`\gamma ^{(l)}`$ solely reflect properties of $`U`$.

## 5 Examples

In the qubit case, consider an $`SU(2)`$ operator

$$U=U_{11}|A_1A_1|+U_{12}|A_1A_2|+U_{21}|A_2A_1|+U_{22}|A_2A_2|$$
(16)
in the common eigenbasis of the mutually orthogonal $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. This yields

$`\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \left(\lambda _1e^{i\alpha }+\lambda _2e^{i\alpha }\right)`$
$`\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \left(\lambda _1e^{i\alpha }+\lambda _2e^{i\alpha }\right)`$
$`\text{Tr}\left(U\sqrt{\rho _1}U\sqrt{\rho _2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta ^2\sqrt{\lambda _1\lambda _2}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha 1+\eta ^2,`$ (17)
where we have used $`U_{11}=U_{22}^{}=\eta e^{i\alpha }`$ and $`U_{12}U_{21}=detU+U_{11}U_{22}=1+\eta ^2`$ for $`SU(2)`$. If $`U`$ is parallel transporting then $`\alpha `$ is the geodesically closed solid angle enclosed by the Bloch vector.

In the nondegenerate case $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$, the $`l=1`$ phases are indeterminate only for $`\eta =0`$, for which the $`l=2`$ phase is well-defined since $`\text{Tr}\left(U\sqrt{\rho _1}U\sqrt{\rho _2}\right)=1`$. In the degenerate case $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _1\right)`$ and $`\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _2\right)`$ have additional nodal points as discussed in . These occur whenever $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =0`$, at which angles $`\mathrm{cos}2\alpha =1`$ and we again have $`\text{Tr}\left(U\sqrt{\rho _1}U\sqrt{\rho _2}\right)=1`$. Thus, $`\gamma ^{(1)}`$ and $`\gamma ^{(2)}`$ never become indeterminate simultaneously and thus provide a complete phase characterisation of the qubit case.

The complexity of the analysis increases rapidly with $`N`$. For simplicity we therefore focus on two important special kinds of unitarities for $`N2`$:

* Diagonal unitarities

$$U_d=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}U_{kk}|A_kA_k|.$$
(18)
Here, all $`|U_{kk}|=1`$ and for $`SU(N)`$ we have $`U_{11}U_{22}\mathrm{}U_{NN}=+1`$. If $`U_d`$ is parallel transporting then $`U_{kk}=\gamma _k^{(1)}`$, $`\gamma _k^{(1)}`$ being the cyclic geometric phase factor of the pure state $`A_k`$.
* Permuting unitarites, which may be written as

$$U_p=U_{12}|A_1A_2|+U_{23}|A_2A_3|+\mathrm{}+U_{N1}|A_NA_1|.$$
(19)
Here, all $`|U_{12}|=|U_{23}|=\mathrm{}=|U_{N1}|=1`$ and in the case of $`SU(N)`$ we have $`U_{12}U_{23}\mathrm{}U_{N1}=(1)^{N1}`$.

These two cases can be considered as extremes in the sense that (i) corresponds to cyclic evolution of the common eigenstates of the $`\rho `$’s while (ii) is a particular instance where each of these eigenstates evolves into an orthogonal state. Combinations of these two extremes are discussed in .

First, let us consider the diagonal case. We have

$`\text{Tr}\left(U_d\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_1}}\mathrm{}U_d\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_l}}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(U_{kk}\right)^l\sqrt[l]{\lambda _{k_1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{k_l}}.`$ (20)
As each term contains precisely $`l`$ $`\lambda `$’s, it follows that all $`\text{Tr}\left(U_d\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_1}}\mathrm{}U_d\sqrt[l]{\rho _{j_l}}\right)`$ must vanish if $`l>`$ rank of the $`\rho `$’s.

In the permutation case we first notice that

$`U_p\sqrt[l]{\rho _k}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt[l]{\lambda _1}U_{k1,k}|A_{k1}A_k|+\mathrm{}+\sqrt[l]{\lambda _{Nk+1}}U_{N1,N}|A_{N1}A_N|`$
$`+\sqrt[l]{\lambda _{Nk+2}}U_{N1}|A_NA_1|+\mathrm{}+\sqrt[l]{\lambda _N}U_{k2,k1}|A_{k2}A_{k1}|`$
with the identifications $`U_{01}U_{N1}`$ and $`|A_0|A_N`$. Thus, multiplying $`l`$ such factors results in a sum of operators of the form $`|A_NA_{Nl}|,\mathrm{},|A_1A_{Nl+1}|`$, whose trace may be nonvanishing only if $`l=N`$. Thus, all $`\gamma ^{l<N}`$ are indeterminate. Furthermore, upon multiplication of $`N`$ factors $`U_p\sqrt[N]{\rho _k}`$, it follows from Eq. (LABEL:eq:permult) that $`\text{Tr}\left(U_p\sqrt[N]{\rho _{j_1}}\mathrm{}U_p\sqrt[N]{\rho _{j_l}}\right)`$ results in a sum where each term contains the product $`U_{12}U_{23}\mathrm{}U_{N1}`$. For $`SU(N)`$, this implies that we may write

$$\text{Tr}\left(U_p\sqrt[N]{\rho _{j_1}}\mathrm{}U_p\sqrt[N]{\rho _{j_l}}\right)=(1)^{N1}f_{\rho _{j_1}\mathrm{}\rho _{j_N}}^{(N)}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N),$$
(22)
where each $`f^{(N)}`$ is determined by the sequence of $`\rho `$’s.

The $`f`$’s in Eq. (22) have some interesting properties. First, it can be seen that

$$f_{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _N}^{(N)}=1,N.$$
(23)
Thus, there exist at least one well-defined off-diagonal mixed state phase for $`U_p`$, independent of the rank of the $`\rho `$’s. Secondly, we have

$$f_{\rho _{j_1}\mathrm{}\rho _{j_N}}^{(N)}0,j_1,\mathrm{},j_N.$$
(24)
This implies that the off-diagonal mixed state phases for $`U_p`$ are completely determined by the dimension of the Hilbert space $``$. Indeed, for sequences where $`f^{(N)}0`$ we have

$`\gamma ^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`1,\text{if dim(}\text{) even,}`$
$`\gamma ^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`+1,\text{if dim(}\text{) odd.}`$ (25)
## 6 Two-photon experiment

When considering the issue of experimental realisation of the off-diagonal mixed state phases we immediately encounter a problem: how do we experimentally implement the $`l`$th root of density operators? Fortunately, this may be resolved in the $`l=2`$ case in the sense of purification, i.e. by adding an ancilla system in a certain way. Here, we demonstrate this in the qubit case in terms of an explicit experiment for polarisation-entangled photon pairs. The set up is sketched in Fig. 1.

Consider an ensemble of linearly polarised photons with polarisation degree $`r`$. In the horizontal-vertical $`(hv)`$ basis, there are two possible unitarily equivalent and orthogonal representions of the ensemble in terms of the density operators

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+r}{2}}|hh|+{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{2}}|vv|,`$
$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{2}}|hh|+{\displaystyle \frac{1+r}{2}}|vv|.`$ (26)
A purification of any of these density operators may be achieved by adding an ancilla photon in such a way that the photon pair is in a pure polarisation state whose partial trace over the ancilla is the density operator. The polarisation-entangled state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+r)}|h|h+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1r)}|v|v,`$ (27)
which has been demonstrated in , is an example of a purification of $`\rho _1`$.

For simplicity, we consider unitarities that rotate linear polarisation states along great circles an angle $`\beta `$ on the Poincaré sphere. This amounts to

$$U(\beta ,\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\beta \left[\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(|hv|+|vh|\right)+\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(i|hv|+i|vh|\right)\right]\right),$$
(28)
which fulfils the parallel transport conditions in Eqs. (2) and (4) with respect to the $`hv`$ basis. $`U(\beta ,\pi /2)`$ takes linear polarisation into linear polarisation with plane of polarisation rotated an angle $`\beta `$. An important special case is the polarisation flip $`F=U(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ that connects $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. Furthermore, for $`\theta =0`$ and $`\beta =\pi /4`$, circular polarisation states are obtained.

We shall now demonstrate how purification may be used in the set up shown in Fig. 1 to test $`\gamma ^{(1)}`$ and $`\gamma ^{(2)}`$ for $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ in the case of $`U=U(\beta ,\theta )`$. With $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ as input, the intensity detected in coincidence is

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left|U_sU_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1+V_sV_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\right|^2`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`2+2\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_1|U_s^{}V_sU_a^{}V_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\right],`$
where we have used that simultaneous detection occurs only the photons both either took the shorter path or the longer path (assuming sufficiently short coincidence window). By appropriate choices of the unitarities shown in Fig. 1, we may obtain the $`\gamma `$’s as follows.

* Choose $`U_s=e^{i\chi }`$, $`V_s=U(\beta ,\theta )`$, and $`U_a=V_a=I`$ yielding

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|U_s^{}V_sU_a^{}V_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\chi }\text{Tr}\left[U(\beta ,\theta )I|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\right]`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\chi }\text{Tr}_s\left[U(\beta ,\theta )\rho _1\right],`$
where we have used that $`\text{Tr}_a\left[|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|\right]=\rho _1`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{arg}\gamma _{\rho _1}^{(1)}`$ is the shift obtained by variation of $`\chi `$. Explicit calculation for $`U(\beta ,\theta )`$ in Eq. (28) entails that $`\gamma _{\rho _1}^{(1)}`$ is real-valued and changes sign at $`\beta =(j+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$, $`j`$ integer, corresponding to a sequence of phase jumps of $`\pi `$.
* Choose $`U_s=e^{i\chi }F`$, $`V_s=U(\beta ,\theta )F`$, and $`U_a=V_a=I`$ yielding

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|U_s^{}V_sU_a^{}V_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\chi }\text{Tr}\left[U(\beta ,\theta )FI|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F^{}\right]`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\chi }\text{Tr}_s\left[U(\beta ,\theta )\rho _2\right],`$
where we have used that $`\text{Tr}_a\left[F|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F^{}\right]=\rho _2`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{arg}\gamma _{\rho _2}^{(1)}`$ is the shift obtained by variation of $`\chi `$. Also $`\gamma _{\rho _2}^{(1)}`$ is real-valued and changes sign at $`\beta =(j+\frac{1}{2})\pi `$, $`j`$ integer, for $`U(\beta ,\theta )`$.
* Choose $`U_s=e^{i\chi }F`$, $`V_s=U(\beta ,\theta )`$, $`U_a=F`$, and $`V_a=U(\beta ,\theta )`$ yielding

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|U_s^{}V_sU_a^{}V_a|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\chi }\text{Tr}[U(\beta ,\theta )U(\beta ,\theta )`$ (32)
$`\times |\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F^{}F^{}].`$
Explicit calculation yields

$`\text{Tr}\left[U(\beta ,\theta )U(\beta ,\theta )|\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1|F^{}F^{}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_s\left[U\sqrt{\rho _1}U\sqrt{\rho _2}\right].`$ (33)
Thus, $`\mathrm{arg}\gamma _{\rho _1\rho _2}^{(2)}`$ is the shift obtained by variation of $`\chi `$. Furthermore, we may compute the expected output as

$$\text{Tr}_s\left[\sqrt{\rho _1}U\sqrt{\rho _2}U\right]=\sqrt{1r^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\beta ,$$
(34)
which is independent of $`\theta `$ and can be positive and negative for $`r1`$ depending upon $`\beta `$. Such an experiment would test that the off-diagonal geometric phase is either $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ for mixed qubit states.

## 7 Conclusions

The concept of geometric phase has recently been extended to cases where the standard definition breaks down. Such cases occur if a unitarity connects orthogonal pure states  or if a unitarity connects mixed states . Here we have reported on a unification of these extensions: the off-diagonal mixed state phase that also covers situations where mixed states do not interfere in the sense of . Although the present off-diagonal mixed state phases are properties of the system (they are expressed solely in terms of a set of density operators pertaining to the system) experimental realisations thereof seem to require control and measurement of one or possibly several additional ancilla systems. We have proposed an explicit Franson interferometer set up for polarisation-entangled photon pairs as a complete experimental realisation of the off-diagonal mixed state phase in the qubit case. Such an experiment would in particular demonstrate a nontrivial sign change property of the off-diagonal qubit phase that is associated with the mixed state case. We hope that the ideas reported here would trigger new experimental tests as well as to further theoretical considerations of off-diagonal phases.

## Acknowledgments

The work by E.S. was supported by the Swedish Research Council.

## References

## Figure Captions

Fig.1. Franson set up for polarisation-entangled photon pairs. In the longer arms, the system and ancilla photons are exposed to the unitarities $`U_s`$ and $`U_a`$, respectively, and similarly $`V_s`$ and $`V_a`$ in the shorter arms.