text:
# Symmetries and Hamiltonian formalism for complex materials

## 1 Lagrangian and Hamiltonian descriptions of elastic bodies with substructure

In standard continuum mechanics, each material element of a body is “collapsed” into the place occupied by its centre of mass; let $`𝐗`$ be that place in the reference placement; the set of all $`𝐗`$ is taken to be a fit region $`_0`$ of the Euclidean space.

Sometimes such simplicistic model of physical reality is insufficient; then, to render the picture adequate, the material element must be portrayed as a *system* and at least some coarse grained descriptor $`\nu `$ (an order parameter) enters the picture.

Here, as in  (see for other details and additional results \[2-5\]), we take $`\nu `$ as an element of some differentiable manifold $``$, and presume that physical circumstances impose a single choice of metric and of connection for $``$.

We also assume that the region occupied by the body in the current placement be obtained through a sufficiently smooth mapping $`𝐱:_0`$ ; so that the current place of a material element at $`𝐗`$ in $`_0`$ is given by $`𝐱\left(𝐗\right)`$; and $`=𝐱\left(_0\right)`$ is also *fit*; we denote as usual with $`𝐅`$ the placement gradient. We presume also that another sufficiently smooth mapping $`\nu :_0`$ shows the present value of the order parameter at $`𝐗`$. A *motion* is a pair of time-parametrized families $`𝐱_t\left(𝐗\right)=𝐱(𝐗,t)`$ and $`\nu _t\left(𝐗\right)=\nu (𝐗,t)`$, twice differentiable with respect to time. Rates in the material representation are indicated with $`\dot{𝐱}(𝐗,t)`$ and $`\dot{\nu }(𝐗,t)`$.

We restrict here our attention to bodies for which a Lagrangian density $``$ exists, so that the total Lagrangian $`L`$ of the body is given by

$$L__0=__0(𝐗,𝐱,\dot{𝐱},𝐅,\nu ,\dot{\nu },\nu ).$$
(1)
the covariant gradient $`\nu `$ being based on the mandatory connection. We presume that $``$ be of the form

$$(𝐗,𝐱,\dot{𝐱},𝐅,\nu ,\dot{\nu },\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\rho _0\dot{𝐱}^2+\rho _0\chi (\nu ,\dot{\nu })\rho _0e(𝐗,𝐅,\nu ,\nu )\rho _0w(𝐱,\nu ),$$
(2)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the referential mass density (conserved during the motion), $`\chi `$ the *kinetic co-energy* (see , p. 19) associated with the substructure, $`e`$ the elastic energy density and $`w`$ the density of the potential of external actions, all per unit mass. Below we use the notation $`𝐛=_𝐱w`$ for the density standard external actions and $`\beta =_\nu w`$ for the substructural ones. The kinetic energy density $`\rho _0\kappa (\nu ,\dot{\nu })`$ pertaining to the substructure is the partial Legendre transform of $`\chi `$ with respect to $`\dot{\nu }`$.

If $``$ is sufficiently smooth, we may apply standard procedures to derive Lagrange equations for the functional $`L__0`$:

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{_{\dot{𝐱}}}}=_𝐱Div_𝐅,$$
(3)
$$\stackrel{}{\overline{_{\dot{\nu }}}}=_\nu Div_\nu .$$
(4)
where $`Div`$ is the divergence calculated with respect to $`𝐗`$, i.e. $`Div=tr`$.

Put

$$=\dot{𝐱}_{\dot{𝐱}}+\dot{\nu }_{\dot{\nu }}.$$
(5)
Clearly, $``$ is the density of the total energy. In fact, since $`_{\dot{\nu }}=\rho _0_{\dot{\nu }}\chi `$, the term $`\dot{\nu }_{\dot{\nu }}\chi \chi `$ in (5) coincides with the substructural kinetic energy density $`\kappa (\nu ,\dot{\nu })`$ (hence the presence of $`\chi `$rather than $`\kappa `$ in the expression of $``$), then

$$=\frac{1}{2}\rho _0\dot{𝐱}^2+\rho _0\kappa (\nu ,\dot{\nu })+\rho _0e(𝐗,𝐅,\nu ,\nu )+\rho _0w(𝐱,\nu ),$$
(6)
as asserted.

The *balance of energy* can be expressed in terms of $``$ as follows

$$\dot{}Div\left(\dot{𝐱}𝐏+\dot{\nu }𝒮\right)=0,$$
(7)
where $`𝐏`$ and $`𝒮`$ are respectively the *Piola-Kirchhoff stress* and the referential *microstress*

$$𝐏=_𝐅\text{ , }𝒮=_\nu .$$
(8)
That (7) is true follows from direct computation.

Equations (3) and (4) lead us to an appropriate version of Nöther theorem (see  p. 29); here we follow the program of  (p. 284). We consider some virtual motion of our system, by assigning two one-parameter families $`𝐟_{s_i}^i`$ of sufficiently smooth point valued diffeomorphisms, $`i=1,2`$, acting respectively on $`_0`$ and $``$, and a Lie group $`G`$ of transformations of $``$. We indicate with a prime the derivative with respect to the relevant $`s`$.

1. At each $`s_1`$, $`𝐟_{s_1}^1`$ acts on $`_0`$ so that $`𝐗𝐟_{s_1}^1\left(𝐗\right)`$, and is isocoric (no virtual change of density), i.e. $`Div𝐟_{s_1}^1=0`$; $`𝐟_0^1`$ is the identity. We put $`𝐟_0^1\left(𝐗\right)=𝐰\left(𝐗\right)`$, then $`𝐰^{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.
2. At each $`s_2`$, $`𝐟_{s_2}^2`$ is a diffeomorphism that transforms $``$ into itself. We assume that $`𝐟_0^2`$ is the identity and put $`𝐟_0^2\left(𝐱\right)=𝐯\left(𝐱\right)`$.
3. A Lie group $`G`$, containing $`SO\left(3\right)`$, acts on $``$ and the infinitesimal generator of this action at $`\nu `$ is indicated with $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)`$ (see , p. 256); $`\nu _g`$ is the value of $`\nu `$ after the action of $`gG`$. If we consider a one-parameter trajectory $`s_3g_{s_3}G`$ such that $`g_0`$ is the identity, we have also $`s_3\nu _{g_{s_3}}`$ and $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)=\frac{d}{ds_3}\nu _{g_{s_3}}|_{s_3=0}`$. When $`G`$ coincides with the special orthogonal group $`SO\left(3\right)`$, we identify $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)`$ with $`𝒜\dot{𝐪}`$, being $`\dot{𝐪}`$ the characteristic vector of a rotational rigid velocity and $`𝒜`$ a linear operator mapping vectors into elements of the tangent space of $``$, namely, if $`\nu _𝐪`$ is the value of the order parameter measured by an observer after a rotation $`𝐪`$, then $`𝒜=\frac{d\nu _𝐪}{d𝐪}|_{𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}`$.

Henceforth, to simplify notations, we use $`𝐟^1`$, $`𝐟^2`$ and $`\nu _g`$ to indicate $`𝐟_{s_1}^1\left(𝐗\right)`$, $`𝐟_{s_2}^2\left(𝐱\right)`$, $`\nu _{g_{s_3}}\left(𝐗\right)`$, and write $`|_0`$ for $`|_{s_1=0,s_2=0,s_3=0}`$. Moreover, $`grad`$ indicates the gradient with respect to $`𝐱`$.

We say that $``$ is *invariant* with respect to $`𝐟^i`$’s and $`G`$ when

$$(𝐗,𝐱,\dot{𝐱},𝐅,\nu ,\dot{\nu },\nu )=$$

$$=(𝐟^1,𝐟^2,\left(grad𝐟^2\right)\dot{𝐱},\left(grad𝐟^2\right)𝐅\left(𝐟^1\right)^1,\nu _𝐠,\dot{\nu }_𝐠,\left(\nu _g\right)\left(𝐟^1\right)^1).$$
(9)
Let us define

$$𝒬=_{\dot{𝐱}}\left(𝐯\mathrm{𝐅𝐰}\right)+_{\dot{\nu }}\left(\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)\left(\nu \right)𝐰\right)$$
(10)
$$𝔉=𝐰+\left(_𝐅\right)^T\left(𝐯\mathrm{𝐅𝐰}\right)+\left(_\nu \right)^T\left(\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)\left(\nu \right)𝐰\right),$$
(11)
where $`𝐯`$, $`𝐰`$ and $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)`$ are as mentioned in items 1, 2, 3.

Theorem 1 (Nöther-like theorem for complex materials). *If the Lagrangian density* $``$ *is invariant under* $`𝐟_{s_1}^1`$, $`𝐟_{s_2}^2`$ *and* G*, then*

$$\dot{𝒬}+Div𝔉=0\text{.}$$
(12)
*Proof*. To prove the theorem, as a first step we note that (9) implies

$$\frac{d}{ds_1}(𝐟^1,𝐟^2,\left(grad𝐟^2\right)\dot{𝐱},\left(grad𝐟^2\right)𝐅(𝐟^1)^1,\nu _g,\dot{\nu }_g,(\nu _g)(𝐟^1)^1)|{}_{0}{}^{}=0,$$
(13)
$$\frac{d}{ds_2}(𝐟^1,𝐟^2,\left(grad𝐟^2\right)\dot{𝐱},\left(grad𝐟^2\right)𝐅(𝐟^1)^1,\nu _g,\dot{\nu }_g,(\nu _g)(𝐟^1)^1)|{}_{0}{}^{}=0,$$
(14)
$$\frac{d}{ds_3}(𝐟^1,𝐟^2,\left(grad𝐟^2\right)\dot{𝐱},\left(grad𝐟^2\right)𝐅(𝐟^1)^1,\nu _g,\dot{\nu }_g,(\nu _g)(𝐟^1)^1)|{}_{0}{}^{}=0,$$
(15)
which lead to

$$_𝐗𝐰_𝐅\left(𝐅𝐰\right)_\nu \left(\nu 𝐰\right)=0,$$
(16)
$$_𝐱𝐯+_{\dot{𝐱}}\left(\left(grad𝐯\right)\dot{𝐱}\right)+_𝐅\left(\left(grad𝐯\right)𝐅\right)=0,$$
(17)
$$_\nu \xi _{}\left(\nu \right)+_{\dot{\nu }}\xi _{}^{}\left(\nu \right)+_\nu \xi _{}\left(\nu \right)=0,$$
(18)
as a consequence of the properties listed under items 1, 2 and 3 above. Then, we calculate the time rate of the scalar $`𝒬`$, the divergence of the vector $`𝔉`$ and, by using the equations (3) and (4), identifying $`s_3`$ with $`t`$, we recognize that

$$\dot{𝒬}+Div𝔉=\frac{d}{ds_1}\left|{}_{0}{}^{}+\frac{d}{ds_2}\right|{}_{0}{}^{}+\frac{d}{ds_3}|{}_{0}{}^{},$$
(19)
which proves the theorem.$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 1. As a first special case, we require that $`𝐟^2`$ alone acts on $``$ leaving $`𝐯`$ *arbitrary*. By using (17) we obtain from (12)

$$\left(\frac{}{t}_{\dot{𝐱}}_𝐱+Div_𝐅\right)𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(20)
i.e.

$$\rho _0\ddot{𝐱}=\rho _0𝐛+Div𝐏,$$
(21)
which is the standard equation of balance of momentum.

Remark 2. With $`G`$ *arbitrary*, we consider its action alone on $``$; by using (18), with the identification $`s_3=t`$, we obtain from (12) that

$$\left(\frac{}{t}_{\dot{\nu }}_\nu +Div_\nu \right)\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)=0$$
(22)
or

$$\rho _0\left(\stackrel{}{\overline{_{\dot{\nu }}\chi }}_\nu \chi \right)+𝐳\rho _0\beta Div𝒮=0.$$
(23)
$`𝐳=\rho _0_\nu e`$ is called *self-force* in the terminology of . This result assures the *covariance* of the balance of substructural interactions. When $`G`$ coincides with $`SO\left(3\right)`$, the co-vector into parentheses in (22), namely the term multiplying $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)`$, must be an element of the null space of $`𝒜^T`$ (see for details of this special case \[1-4\]).

Remark 3. As a second special choice, let $`𝐟^2`$ be such that $`𝐯=\dot{𝐪}\times \left(𝐱𝐱_0\right)`$ (with $`\dot{𝐪}`$ a rigid rotational velocity $`𝐱_0`$ a fixed point in space) and $`G=SO\left(3\right)`$; $`\dot{𝐪}\times `$ is an element of its Lie algebra, thus $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)=𝒜\dot{𝐪}`$. If $``$ is independent of $`𝐱`$ and we assume that only $`𝐟^2`$ and $`G`$ (in the form just defined) act on $``$, we have

$$skw\left(_𝐅𝐅^T\right)=𝖾\left(𝒜^T_\nu +\left(𝒜^T\right)^t_\nu \right),$$
(24)
where $`𝖾`$ is Ricci’s alternating tensor and $`skw()`$ extracts the skew-symmetric part of its argument.

Remark 4. If we require that $`𝐟^1`$ alone acts on $``$, with $`𝐰`$ *arbitrary* (but satisfying 1), by using (16) we obtain from (12) that

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{\left(𝐅^T_{\dot{𝐱}}+\nu ^T_{\dot{\nu }}\right)}}Div\left(\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho _0\dot{𝐱}^2+\chi (\nu ,\dot{\nu })\right)𝐈\right)_𝐗=\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(25)
where $`=e𝐈𝐅^T𝐏\nu ^T\underset{¯}{}𝒮`$ is the modified Eshelby tensor for continua with substructure (see  for a similar result in a non-conservative setting, where the elastic potential $`e`$ is substituted by the free energy). $`𝐈`$ is the second-order unit tensor and the product $`\underset{¯}{}`$ is defined by $`\left(\nu ^T\underset{¯}{}𝒮\right)𝐧𝐮=`$ $`𝒮𝐧\left(\nu \right)𝐮`$ for any pair of vectors $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐮`$.

Remark 5. Let us assume as special choices that $`𝐟^1`$ is such that $`𝐰=\dot{𝔮}\times \left(𝐗𝐗_0\right)`$ (with $`\dot{𝔮}`$ a rigid rotational velocity $`𝐗_0`$ a fixed point in space) and that $`G=SO\left(3\right)`$, being $`\dot{𝔮}\times `$ an element of its Lie algebra, thus $`\xi _{}\left(\nu \right)=𝒜\dot{𝔮}`$. If the material is homogeneous, and we assume that $`𝐟^1`$ and $`G`$ alone (in the form just defined) act on $``$, we have $`skw\left(𝐅^T_𝐅+\left(\nu \right)^T\underset{¯}{}_\nu \right)=0`$.

Remark 6. The action of $`𝐟^1`$can be interpreted as a special virtual mutation of a possibly existing smooth distribution of inhomogeneities throughout the body, in the sense of . In other words, we may say that (25) is the balance of interactions arising when the body mutates its inhomogeneous structure. This interpretation has been also suggested in  in non-conservative setting.

### 1.1 Hamilton equations

Define $`𝐩`$ and $`\mu `$, respectively the *canonical momentum* and the *canonical substructural momentum*, by

$$𝐩=_{\dot{𝐱}}\text{ , }\mu =_{\dot{\nu }}.$$
(26)
The *Hamiltonian density* $``$,

$$(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,𝐅,\nu ,\mu ,\nu )=𝐩\dot{𝐱}+\mu \dot{\nu }(𝐗,𝐱,\dot{𝐱},𝐅,\nu ,\dot{\nu },\nu ).$$
(27)
has partial derivatives with respect to its entries; some of them are the opposite of the corresponding derivatives of $``$ so that (3), (4) can be also written respectively as

$`\dot{𝐩}`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐱+Div_𝐅,`$
$`\dot{𝐱}`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐩;`$ (28)
$`\dot{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu +Div_\nu ,`$
$`\dot{\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu .`$ (29)
## 2 Canonical Poisson brackets in multifield theories

We now consider a general boundary value problem where the following boundary conditions are associated with (28) and (29)

$$𝐱\left(𝐗\right)=\overline{𝐱}\text{ on }^{\left(1\right)}_0,$$
(30)
$$_𝐅𝐧=𝐭\text{ on }^{\left(2\right)}_0,$$
(31)
$$\nu \left(𝐗\right)=\overline{\nu }\text{ on }^{\left(1\right)}_0,$$
(32)
$$_\nu 𝐧=𝔱\text{ on }^{\left(2\right)}_0;$$
(33)
$`\overline{𝐱}`$, $`𝐭`$, $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`𝔱`$ are prescribed on the relevant parts of the boundary and $`Cl\left(_0\right)=Cl\left(^{\left(1\right)}_0^{\left(2\right)}_0\right)`$, with $`^{\left(1\right)}_0^{\left(2\right)}_0=\mathrm{}`$, where $`Cl`$ indicates closure and $`𝐧`$ is the outward unit normal to $`_0`$ at all points in which it is well defined.

We assume that there exist two surface densities $`\overline{U}\left(𝐱\right)`$ and $`U\left(\nu \right)`$ such that

$$t=\rho _0_𝐱\overline{U}\text{ , }𝔱=\rho _0_\nu U,$$
(34)
where $`\overline{U}`$ and $`U`$ plays here the rôle of surface potentials.

Then the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of the whole body is given by

$$H(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,\nu ,\mu )=__0(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,\nu ,\mu )_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}\left(\overline{U}\left(𝐱\right)U\left(\nu \right)\right).$$
(35)
Notice that we write $`(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,\nu ,\mu )`$ instead of $`(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,𝐅,\nu ,\mu ,\nu )`$ because below we consider directly variational derivatives.

Theorem 2. *The canonical Hamilton equation*

$$\dot{F}=\{F,H\}$$
(36)
*is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system of balance equations* (28)-(29) *for a continuum with substructure where F is any functional of the type* $`__0f(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,\nu ,\mu )`$*, with f a sufficiently smooth scalar density, and the Poisson bracket* $`\{,\}`$ *for a complex material is given by*

$`\{F,H\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐩}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}\right)+`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐩}}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle __0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mu }}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}),`$
*where the variational derivative* $`\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}`$ *is obtained fixing* $`𝐩`$ *and allowing* $`𝐱`$ *to vary111See relevant remarks in .; an analogous meaning is valid for the variational derivative with respect to the order parameter.*

The proof can be developed by direct calculation. Clearly, $`\{,\}`$ is *bilinear* and *skew-symmetric*, and one can check easily that it *satisfies the Jacobi’s identity*. We note that

$`\{F,H\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐩}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}\left(_𝐱Div_𝐅\right)\right)+`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐩}}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}(_𝐱\overline{U}_𝐅𝐧)|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle __0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mu }}\left(_\nu Div_\nu \right)\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mu }}(_\nu U_\nu 𝐧)|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}),`$
and, in terms of functional partial derivatives,

$`\dot{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}\dot{𝐱}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}\dot{𝐩}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}\dot{\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mu }}\dot{\mu }\right)+`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}\dot{𝐱}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}+{\displaystyle _{^{\left(2\right)}_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}\dot{𝐩}|{}_{^{\left(2\right)}_0}{}^{}.`$
By identifying analogous terms in (38) and (39), we obtain both the Hamiltonian system (28)-(29) and the boundary conditions (30)-(33).

When we put $`F=H`$, (36) coincides with the equation of *conservation of energy*. We have, in fact,

$$\dot{H}=\{H,H\}=0.$$
(40)
Geometrical properties of the Poisson brackets for direct models of rods, plates and complex fluids have been discussed in , .

## 3 A formal approach toward an Hamilton-Jacoby theory with gradient effects

Let $`h`$ be a smooth diffeomorphism

$$h:(𝐗,𝐱,𝐩,𝐅,\nu ,\mu ,\nu )(𝐗,𝐱_{},𝐩_{},𝐅_{},\nu _{},\mu _{},\nu _{}).$$
(41)
The transformation $`h`$ generates a new Hamiltonian density

$$_{}(𝐗,𝐱_{},𝐩_{},𝐅_{},\nu _{},\mu _{},\nu _{}),$$
(42)
with corresponding Lagrangian density

$$_{}=𝐩_{}\dot{𝐱}_{}+\mu _{}\dot{\nu }_{}_{}.$$
(43)
If $`h`$ were such that $`_{}=0`$, then an immediate integration of the system (28), (29) could be achieved. To this aim we choose $`h`$ to be such that the integral of the difference $`_{}`$ between two instants, say $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, be equal to the time derivative of a generating function $`S`$ of the type $`S=S(t,𝐗,𝐱,𝐩_{},\nu ,\mu _{})`$, i.e.

$$_{t_1}^{t_2}_{}=S\left|{}_{t=t_2}{}^{}S\right|{}_{t=t_1}{}^{}.$$
(44)
Then, from (44) we would have

$$\left(𝐩\dot{𝐱}+\mu \dot{\nu }\right)\left(𝐩_{}\dot{𝐱}_{}+\mu _{}\dot{\nu }_{}_{}\right)=$$

$$=\dot{S}=_tS+_𝐱S\dot{𝐱}+_𝐩_{}S\dot{𝐩}_{}+_\nu S\dot{\nu }+_\mu _{}S\dot{\mu }_{},$$
(45)
and hence

$$𝐩=_𝐱S\text{ , }\mu =_\nu S\text{,}$$
(46)
$$𝐱_{}𝐱_0=_𝐩_{}S\text{ , }\nu =_\mu _{}S,$$
(47)
$$_tS+=_{}.$$
(48)
To obtain (47) one makes use of the fact that $`\delta _{t_1}^{t_2}\left(𝐩\left(𝐱𝐱_0\right)+\mu \nu \right)=0`$ for variations vanishing at $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ (in the sense that $`\delta (\mu \nu )|{}_{t=t_1,t_2}{}^{}=0`$ and $`\delta (𝐩(𝐱𝐱_0))|{}_{t=t_1,t_2}{}^{}=0`$) so that $`𝐩\dot{𝐱}=\dot{𝐩}\left(𝐱𝐱_0\right)`$ and $`\mu \dot{\nu }=\dot{\mu }\nu `$.

A necessary and sufficient condition to assure that $`_{}=0`$ is

$$_tS+(𝐗,𝐱,_𝐱S,𝐅,\nu ,_\nu S,\nu )=0,$$
(49)
which is a Hamiltonian-Jacobi like equation. Since $`_{}=0`$, $`𝐩_{}`$and $`\mu _{}`$ are constant in time, the time derivative of $`S`$ reduces to

$$\dot{S}=_tS+_𝐱S\dot{𝐱}+_\nu S\dot{\nu }=+𝐩\dot{𝐱}+\mu \dot{\nu }=.$$
(50)
The relation (50) allows us to determine $`S`$ to within a constant, namely

$$S=𝑑t+const.$$
(51)
## 4 The spatial form

Circumstances in which the notion of reference placement is wanting, as in the case of fluids or granular flows, render the choice of a material or spatial representation not matter of form only (see, e.g.,  for standard bodies). Here, having in mind the study of complex fluids, we provide a spatial variational derivation of the balance equations *free of any concept of reference place or paragon setting and without even formal recourse to an inverse motion*. So, in the present section $`𝐱`$ is just a point in space. The notation $`𝐮(𝐱,t)`$ is used for the velocity field over $``$. The order parameter is now $`\nu (𝐱,t)`$ and we indicate with $`\upsilon (𝐱,t)`$ its actual rate. The symmetric tensor $`𝐠`$ is the *spatial metric* characterizing the present state of the body; it plays a prominent rôle because in this case the counterpart of (2) of the Lagrangian density is of the form

$$(𝐱,𝐮,𝐠,\nu ,\upsilon ,grad\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\rho 𝐯^2+\rho \chi (\nu ,\upsilon )\rho e(𝐠,\nu ,grad\nu )\rho w(𝐱,\nu ),$$
(52)
with some slight abuse of notation. We then find balance equations as conditions verifying the relation

$$\widehat{\delta }\left(_0^{\overline{t}}𝑑\tau _{}(𝐱,𝐮,𝐠,\nu ,\upsilon ,grad\nu )\right)=0,$$
(53)
where $`\widehat{\delta }`$ denotes the total variation.

To define the variation of the relevant fields, we make use of $`𝐟^2`$ introduced at point 2 of Section 1 and identify $`\delta 𝐱`$ with $`𝐯`$. We consider a special (though wide) subclass of possible vector fields $`𝐱𝐯\left(𝐱\right)`$ characterized by the circumstance that they are *purely* deformative; in other words, we choose $`𝐯`$ such that $`skewgrad𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

We then define

$$\widehat{\delta }𝐠=\frac{d}{ds_2}𝐟^2𝐠|{}_{s_2=0}{}^{}=L_𝐯𝐠=2symgrad𝐯=2grad𝐯,$$
(54)
where $`𝐟^2`$ means pull back and $`L_𝐯`$ is thus the autonomous Lie derivative following the flow $`𝐯`$. In analogous way, we put

$$\widehat{\delta }\nu =\delta \nu +\left(grad\nu \right)𝐯,$$
(55)
$$grad\widehat{\delta }\nu =grad\widehat{\delta }\nu +\left(grad\nu \right)grad𝐯.$$
(56)
As an intermediate step we notice that

$$\widehat{\delta }_{}e(𝐠,\nu ,grad\nu )=_{}\widehat{\delta }e=$$

$$=_{}\left(2_𝐠egrad𝐯+_\nu e\widehat{\delta }\nu +_{grad\nu }e\left(grad\widehat{\delta }\nu +\left(grad\nu \right)grad𝐯\right)\right).$$
(57)
By developing the variation of (53), making use of (54)-(57) and Gauss theorem, we recognize that appropriate balances in the bulk are

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{_𝐮}}_𝐱+div\left(2_𝐠\left(grad\nu \right)^T_{grad\nu }\right)=0,$$
(58)
$$\stackrel{}{\overline{_\upsilon }}_\nu +div\left(_{grad\nu }\right)=0.$$
(59)
Cauchy stress $`𝐓`$ is then given by

$$𝐓=2_𝐠\left(grad\nu \right)^T𝒮_a,$$
(60)
where the *actual* microstress $`𝒮_a`$ is defined by

$$𝒮_a=_{grad\nu }.$$
(61)
In the case of simple bodies, (60) reduces to the well known Doyle-Ericksen formula.

Remark 7. A requirement of invariance of $`e`$ under the action of $`SO\left(3\right)`$ implies that

$$skew\left(2_𝐠\right)=𝖾\left(𝒜^T𝐳_a+\left(grad𝒜^T\right)𝒮_a\right),$$
(62)
where $`𝐳_a=\rho _\nu e`$ is the actual self-force and $`𝖾`$ Ricci’s alternating tensor.

### 4.1 Spatial Hamilton equations

To find appropriate spatial Hamilton equations, we follow the pattern of Section 1.1. To this end we define spatial canonical standard and substructural momenta ($`\overline{𝐩}`$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ respectively) through

$$\overline{𝐩}=_𝐮\text{ , }\overline{\mu }=_\upsilon .$$
(63)
Consequently, the spatial Hamiltonian density is given by

$$(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},𝐠,\nu ,\overline{\mu },grad\nu )=\overline{𝐩}𝐮+\overline{\mu }\upsilon (𝐱,𝐮,𝐠,\nu ,\upsilon ,grad\nu )$$
(64)
(with some slight abuse of notation) and has partial derivatives with respect to its entries. By evaluating the variation of $``$, taking into account (54) and (56), and comparing the result with the variation of $``$, after making use of the balances (58) and (59), we obtain the spatial form of the Hamilton equations:

$`\stackrel{}{\overline{𝐩}}`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐱+div\left(2_𝐠\left(grad\nu \right)^T_{grad\nu }\right),`$
$`𝐮`$ $`=`$ $`_{\overline{𝐩}};`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{}{\overline{\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu +div\left(_{grad\nu }\right),`$
$`\upsilon `$ $`=`$ $`_{\overline{\mu }}.`$ (66)
### 4.2 Spatial Hamilton-Jacobi form

We may obtain the spatial counterpart of (49) by considering a smooth diffeomorphism

$$\overline{h}:(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},𝐠,\nu ,\overline{\mu },grad\nu )(𝐱_{},\overline{𝐩}_{},𝐠_{},\nu _{},\overline{\mu }_{},grad\nu _{}),$$
(67)
which generates a new Hamiltonian density

$$_{}(𝐱_{},\overline{𝐩}_{},𝐠_{},\nu _{},\overline{\mu }_{},grad\nu _{}).$$
(68)
Now, we may use a generating function $`S=S(t,𝐱,\overline{𝐩}_{},\nu ,\overline{\mu }_{})`$, and, following the same procedure of Section 3, we find that a necessary and sufficient condition to assure that $`_{}=0`$ is

$$_tS+(𝐱,_𝐱S,𝐠,\nu ,_\nu S,grad\nu )=0.$$
(69)
### 4.3 A spatial form of Poisson brackets

For the spatial Hamiltonian in equations (65)-(66), taking into account (54)-(56), we define a new variational derivative $`\overline{\frac{}{𝐱}}`$ through the relation

$$\overline{\frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}}(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},\nu ,\overline{\mu })𝐯=\left(_𝐱+div\left(2_𝐠\left(grad\nu \right)^T_{grad\nu }\right)\right)𝐯,$$
(70)
holding $`\overline{𝐩}`$ fixed and allowing $`𝐱`$ to vary, for any $`𝐯`$ of the kind used in (54)-(56).

Consider a boundary value problem of the type

$$\left(2_𝐠\left(grad\nu \right)^T_{grad\nu }\right)𝐧=_𝐱\overline{u}\left(𝐱\right)\text{ , }\left(_{grad\nu }\right)𝐧=_\nu u\left(\nu \right)\text{ , on },$$
(71)
(where $`\overline{u}\left(𝐱\right)`$ and $`u\left(\nu \right)`$ are the counterparts of the surface potentials $`\overline{U}\left(𝐱\right)`$ and $`U\left(\nu \right)`$).

The total Hamiltonian is now given by $`H(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},\nu ,\overline{\mu })=_{}`$ (with some slight abuse of notation) and we list only the entries $`(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},\nu ,\overline{\mu })`$ because we consider the variational derivative (65) below. We consider also arbitrary functionals $`F`$ of the type $`_{}f(𝐱,\overline{𝐩},\nu ,\overline{\mu })`$, with $`f`$ a sufficiently smooth scalar density.

Theorem 3. *The canonical Hamilton equation*

$$\dot{F}=\{F,H\}_a$$
(72)
*is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system of balance equations* (65)-(66) *with*

$`\{F,H\}_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}\left(\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐩}}\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}\right)+`$ (73)
$`+{\displaystyle _{}}(\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐱}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐩}}|{}_{}{}^{}\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝐱}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta 𝐩}}|{}_{}{}^{})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{}}({\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \mu }}|{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mu }}|{}_{}{}^{}),`$
*where* $`\{,\}_a`$ *is bilinear, skew-symmetric and satisfies Jacobi’s identity*.

## 5 Final remarks

To illustrate possible uses of Theorem 2, we list below some special cases. Analogous results accrue from Theorem 3.

Remark 8. If we choose $`f=𝐩𝐯`$, with $`𝐯`$ an arbitrary vector, equation (28a) and the boundary condition (31) follow immediately from (36).

Remark 9. Let $`f=\mu \xi _{}\left(\nu \right)`$, then from (36) we get (29a) and the boundary condition (33).

Remark 10. Let $`f`$ be of the form

$$f=𝐩\left(\dot{𝐪}\times \left(𝐱𝐱_0\right)\right)+\mu 𝒜\dot{𝐪},$$
(74)
with $`\dot{𝐪}`$ arbitrary as in previous sections. Consider also, for the sake of simplicity, absence of external bulk interactions (the ones accounted for $`w(𝐱,\nu )`$). By using (28) and (29), we obtain from (36)

$$𝖾\left(_𝐅𝐅^T\right)=𝒜^T_\nu +\left(𝒜^T\right)^t_\nu .$$
(75)
These remarks are the Hamiltonian counterparts of Remarks 1, 2, 3. Of course, Poisson parentheses not only allow one to write in a concise form balance equations, but generate articulated geometric structures over the infinite-dimensional manifold of mappings showing placements and order parameters, and properties of these structures depend also on the geometric properties of $``$.

Acknowledgement. This paper is the extended version of the first part of a communication of PMM delivered at the Symposium honoring the memory of Clifford Ambrose Truesdell III, within the 14th US National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Blacksburg, June 2002. PMM acknowledges gratefully the support of the Department of Mathematics of the University of Kentucky (through C.-S. Man). We also thank Reuven Segev for valuable discussions. The support of the Italian National Group of Mathematical Physics (INDAM-GNFM) is acknowledged.

## 6 References

1. Capriz, G., *Continua with microstructure*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
2. Capriz, G. (2000), Continua with substructure, *Phys. Mesomech.*, 3, 5-14, 37-50.
3. Capriz, G. and Mariano, P. M. (2002), Balance at a junction among coherent interfaces in materials with substructure, in *Advances in multifield theories of materials with substructure*, G. Capriz and P. M. Mariano edts, Birkhauser, in press.
4. Mariano, P. M. (2001), Multifield theories in mechanics of solids, *Adv. Appl. Mech.*, 38, 1-93.
5. Segev, R. (1994), A geometrical framework for the statics of materials with microstructure, *Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci.*, 4, 871-897.
6. Marsden, J. E. and Hughes, T. J. R., *Mathematical foundations of elasticity*, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983.
7. Abraham, R., Marsden, J. E., *Foundations of mechanics*, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1978.
8. Noll, W. (1967), Materially uniform simple bodies with inhomogeneities, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, 27, 1-32.
9. Epstein, M. (2002), The Eshelby tensor and the theory of continuous distributions of inhomogeneities, *Mech. Res. Comm.*, 29, 501-506.
10. Simo, J. C., Marsden, J. E. and Krishnaprasad, P. S. (1988), The Hamiltonian structure of nonlinear elasticity: The material and convective representation of solids, rods and plates, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.* 104, 125-183.
11. Cendra, H., Marsden, J. E. and Ratiu, T. S. (2002), Cocycles, compatibility and Poisson brackets for complex fluids, in *Advances in multifield theories of materials with substructure*, G. Capriz and P. M. Mariano edts, Birkhauser, in press.
12. Capriz, G. (1984), Spatial variational principles in continuum mechanics, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, 85, 99-109.


format: text

text:
# Energy Differential Structure and Exchange of A Micro Flux Increment of Charged Particles in Longitudinal Acceleration

## I Introduction

Tracing the energy gain process of high energy electrons beam through rf acceleration, it would be known that the longitudinally internal charge density field’s affection or contribution to the total energy of the group of electrons should be considered as the electron number density in longitudinal axis increases progressively due to accumulated compression, especially when its average velocity of the group of electrons becomes almost independent to the energy after the velocity approaching light speed. However, their functions to energy flux density basically are neglected except treating them for beam instability and impedance Chao (1999, 1993); D.A.Edwards and M.J.Syphers (1993); Humphries (1986). From general mechanics, the multi-particles system’s energy in complete inertial frame where both $`\stackrel{}{f}(\dot{t})=m\stackrel{}{\ddot{r}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{f}(\dot{t})dr=dE(\dot{t})`$ exist simultaneously can be divided into two essential parts: mass center’s kinetic energy and system’s internal energy; the latter could be further divided into two constituents: relative mass center’s kinetic energy and internal potential energy whose rate equals the rate of work done by internal forces negatively. Upon number density’s instantaneous distribution in longitudinal axis and corresponding velocity distribution of the micro particle system, we set up the explicit formulas on mass-center kinetic energy, relative mass center kinetic energy, internal electrical potential energy and its changing rate. Then based on differential transfer relation of energy flux Luo (a) and the energy differential structure, we analyze and discuss the affection and contribution of the internal charge field to energy flux and energy exchange as well as other consequences.

## II Essential Interactive Manner and Energy Constituents of Multi-Particles System

### II.1 Interaction and Power Exchange in A complete Inertial Frame

In a complete inertial frame Luo (b), where both $`\stackrel{}{f}_{neti}(\dot{t})=\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})=m_i\stackrel{}{\ddot{r}}_i(\dot{t})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{f}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}(\dot{t})=\frac{dE(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}`$ exist simultaneously, and for a multi-particle system consisted of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ particles, there is the system’s power exchange relation:

$$\left[\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})\right]\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_i(\dot{t})=\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{mc}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})$$
(1)
$$\left[\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})\right]\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_i(\dot{t})=m_i\stackrel{}{\ddot{r}}_i(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_i(\dot{t})=\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_i}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})\right]+\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_i}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})\right]$$
(1)
note: $`m_i\left[\stackrel{}{r}_i(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{r}_{mc}(\dot{t})\right]=0`$; $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{d\dot{t}^n}}\left\{m_i\left[\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_i(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{mc}(\dot{t})\right]\right\}=0n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{mc}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})=\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})}{2}m_i\right]+\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_i}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})\right]\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})$$
(2)
### II.2 Energy Components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ Same Charged Particles System

From (2) and $`m_i=m_q`$, the power exchange relation between micro multi-particle system and external system is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}& =\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_i(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{mc}(\dot{r})\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})+\stackrel{}{f}_{oi}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})\right]+\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})\right]+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})\right]+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_i(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
here

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=\stackrel{}{f}_{ii}(\dot{t})\stackrel{}{\dot{r}}_{imc}(\dot{t})$$

Take integral form of Eq. (2) over $`[t,t^{}]`$ or the micro multi-particle system’s whole being accelerated process

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})& =\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})+\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})\right]|_t^t^{}\hfill \\ & =\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mathrm{\Delta }E_i(\dot{t})\right]|_t^t^{}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})|_t^t^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
here:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}$$

Furthermore, concrete formula of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})`$ is determined by energy differential structure of micro particles system, or by explicit formulas of $`v_{mc}(\dot{t})`$, $`\frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})`$ along longitudinal acceleration direction.

## III Energy Differential Structure of Micro Multi-Charged- Particles System

### III.1 Kinetic Energy

Ref. Fig. (1): longitudinal distribution of number density and corresponding velocity.

$$\rho _N(\dot{t},r)=\rho _t(\dot{t})+\frac{\rho _N}{r}(rr_t)$$
(4)
and

$$_{r_t}^{r_h}\rho _N(r)𝑑r=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\rho _t+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho }{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }_N=\mathrm{\Delta }N$$
(4)
$$v(\dot{t},r)=v_t(\dot{t})+\frac{v}{r}(rr_t)$$
(5)
From Eq. (4) and (4), there

$$\rho _m(\dot{t},r)=m_q\rho _N(\dot{t},r)$$

$$_{r_t}^{r_h}\rho _m(r)𝑑r=m_q\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }_N=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }_m=m_q\mathrm{\Delta }N=\mathrm{\Delta }M$$
(6)
$$\rho _q(\dot{t},r)=q\rho _N(\dot{t},r)$$

$$_{r_t}^{r_h}\rho _q(r)𝑑r=q\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }_N=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\overline{\rho }_q=q\mathrm{\Delta }N=\mathrm{\Delta }Q$$
(7)
For $`_{r_t}^{r_h}(rr_{mc})𝑑m(r)=0`$

$$r_{mc}r_t\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}{2}=r_{mc}r_h+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^3}{12\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}$$
(8)
$$v_{mc}v_t\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}=v_{mc}v_h+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^3}{12\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{^2\rho _N}{\dot{t}r}$$
(9)
and for $`_{r_t}^{r_h}\left[v(r)v_{mc}(r_{mc})\right]𝑑m(r)=0`$ to reduce Eq. (9)

$$v_{mc}v_t\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}=v_{mc}v_h+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{12\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2=\frac{\rho _h\rho _t}{12\overline{\rho }_N}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}$$
(9)
thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}\left(v_h\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2}{12\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\right)^2$$
(10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})& =_{r_t}^{r_h}𝑑m(r)\left[v(r)v_{mc}\right]^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{m_q}{2}[\mathrm{\Delta }N(v_{mc}v_t)^2(v_{mc}v_t)(\mathrm{\Delta }N+\frac{1}{6}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2+\frac{1}{3}(\mathrm{\Delta }N+\frac{1}{4}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}^2]\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{24}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}^2\left[1\frac{1}{12\overline{\rho }_N^2}\left(\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\right)^2\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Eq. (10) and (11) is kinetic energy formulas that contain the information of the micro particles system. Eq. (11) is kinetic energy spread of the micro system.

### III.2 Internal Potential Energy and Its Property

Along axis we assume average repulsive charge field force is proportion to the difference of compressed charge density and uncompressed charge density, or critical charge density $`\rho _{q0}`$; beam transverse radius keep in constant.

$`\overline{f}_q(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mu [\overline{\rho }_q(\dot{t})\rho _{q_0}]=\mu q[\overline{\rho }_N(\dot{t})\rho _{N_0}]`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\mu q\mathrm{\Delta }N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}}\right]`$ (13)
where
$`\rho _{q_0}=q\rho _{N_0}=q\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}`$
$`\mu `$ — compression coefficient of charge density $`[\mu ]=\left[\frac{Nm^3}{C}\right]`$
$`\overline{f}_q(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu q\mathrm{\Delta }N(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0})\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}<\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0\hfill \end{array}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }E_p[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})]& =_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}\overline{f}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{})𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}\mu q\mathrm{\Delta }N(\frac{1}{x}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0})𝑑x\hfill \\ & =\mu q\mathrm{\Delta }N\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}\right]\hfill \\ & =\mu q\mathrm{\Delta }N(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}1)\hfill \\ & =\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }N={\scriptscriptstyle n_i}}{}n_i\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
$`\lambda _0`$— individual charge field’s critical diameter; $`\lambda `$— compressed diameter of individual charge field; $`\lambda (0,\lambda _0]`$. here define

$$k(\dot{t})=\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}=e^{\eta (\dot{t})}$$

$`k(\dot{t})(0,1]`$, $`\eta (\dot{t})[0,+\mathrm{})`$

$`k(\dot{t})`$— ratio of compressed and intrinsic volumes of individual charge field.

$`\eta (\dot{t})`$— potential energy index of individual charge field.

and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})]}{d\dot{t}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p}{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}=\mu q\rho _{N_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}$$
(15)
Further

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_{ii}(\dot{t})\dot{r}_{imc}(\dot{t})& =_{r_t}^{r_h}f_i(r)\frac{v}{r}𝑑r\hfill \\ & =_{r_t}^{r_h}\mu q[\rho _N(r)\rho _{N_0}]\frac{v}{r}𝑑r\hfill \\ & =\mu q\rho _{N_0}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Compare Eq. (15) and (16)

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=_{r_t}^{r_h}f_i(r)\frac{v}{r}𝑑r$$
(16)
From Eq. (2) suppose $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=0`$; there $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_i(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=0`$, so

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})\right]$$
(17)
$$\text{or}_{r_t}^{r_h}f_i(r)\frac{v}{r}𝑑r=\frac{d}{d\dot{t}}\left[\frac{m_q}{2}v_{imc}^2(\dot{t})\right]$$
(17)
It is shown in Eq. (17), (17) that for internal force to do positive work will elongate the length, enlarge kinetic energy spread and exhaust or consume the internal potential energy; for the force to do negative work, the length will be compressed and kinetic energy spread reduced, internal potential energy increased. However once the internal force starts to do negative work, the process will be irreversible without external power’s joining.

### III.3 Energy Differential Structure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})`$ Carried by the Micro Multi-Particle System

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})& =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Nm_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+_{r_t}^{r_h}\frac{dm(r)}{2}v_{imc}^2(r)+\mathrm{\Delta }E_p(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}\left(v_h\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{12\mathrm{\Delta }N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^2\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{24}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}^2\left[1\frac{1}{12\overline{\rho }_N^2}\left(\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\right)^2\right]+\mu \mathrm{\Delta }Q\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}1\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}\left(v_h\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}}{12\overline{\rho }_N}\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{24}\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\mathrm{}}^2\left[1\frac{1}{12\overline{\rho }_N^2}\left(\frac{\rho _N}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\right)^2\right]+\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }N={\scriptscriptstyle n_i}}{}n_i\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Eq. (18) indicates that both kinetic and potential energy have possible distributions; for kinetic energy it depends on length, length’s rate and $`\rho _N`$ distribution or different compression states due to internal charge field force in longitudinal dimension.

## IV Energy Flux and Energy Exchange

### IV.1 Energy flux density and energy flux

At instant $`\dot{t}[t,t^{}]`$ there is energy flux density $`\rho _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}[r_{is}(\dot{t})]`$ on a crossing section located at $`r_{is}(\dot{t})`$

$$\rho _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}[r_{is}(\dot{t})]=\rho _N[r_{is}(\dot{t})]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}$$
(19)
and energy flux

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒥_{\mathrm{\Delta }E}(\dot{t})& =\rho _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}[r_{is}(\dot{t})]v_{is}(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & =\rho _N[r_{is}(\dot{t})]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}v_{is}(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & =J[r_{is}(\dot{t})]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda _i(\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
### IV.2 Differential transfer relation of energy flux density between two time domains and energy exchange

Ref. Luo (a) there

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E_{so}(t)$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)$$

to multiply both equations with $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ or $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}}`$, then take limit as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0,\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}0`$

$$𝒥_{exc}(t^{})=𝒥(t^{})𝒥_{so}(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}$$
(21)
$$J(t^{})=J(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\text{or}\rho _N[r_p(t^{})]v_{io}(t^{})=\rho _N[r_s(t)]v_{sis}(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}$$
(22)
Then combine Eq. (20) and (22) with Eq. (21)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒥_{exc}(t^{})& =J[r_s(t)]\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}|_t^t^{}\hfill \\ & =\rho _N[r_s(t)]v_{sis}(t)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}|_t^t^{}\hfill \\ & =\rho _N[r_o(t^{})]v_{io}(t^{})\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}|_t^t^{}\hfill \\ & =J[r_o(t^{})]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}v_{mc}^2(\dot{t})+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}+\frac{\lambda (\dot{t})}{\lambda _0}1\right]\right\}|_t^t^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
By using $`\lambda (t^{})+\lambda _c(t^{})=\lambda (t)`$ Luo (a), $`\lambda _c(t^{})=_t^t^{}\frac{d\lambda _c(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}=_0^{\lambda _c(t^{})}𝑑\lambda _c(\dot{t})\{\begin{array}{cc}>0\hfill & \text{compression}\hfill \\ <0\hfill & \text{elongation}\hfill \end{array}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒥_{exc}(t^{})& =\rho _N[r_s(t)]v_{sis}(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}\left[v_{io}^2(t^{})v_{sis}^2(t)\right]+\mu q\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}+\frac{\lambda (t^{})\lambda (t)}{\lambda _0}\right]\right\}\hfill \\ & =J[r_s(t)]\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}\left[v_{io}^2(t^{})v_{sis}^2(t)\right]+\mu q\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}\right]\frac{\lambda _c(t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right\}\right\}\hfill \\ & =J[r_o(t^{})]\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}\left[v_{io}^2(t^{})v_{sis}^2(t)\right]+\mu q\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}\right]\frac{\lambda _c(t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right\}\right\}\hfill \\ & =\rho _N[r_o(t^{})]v_{io}(t^{})\left\{\frac{m_q}{2}\left[v_{io}^2(t^{})v_{sis}^2(t)\right]+\mu q\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}\right]\frac{\lambda _c(t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right\}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Above Eq. (23) and (24) is energy exchange relation between a micro beam element and external system during the accelerating process within which the micro beam element travel through the space between source and detector.

For $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})>0`$ external system supplies energy to beam for contributing to either kinetic or potential energy or both as well as time affection factor.For $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})<0`$ external system gains energy from beam system, may from either of kinetic or potential energy; in case the time factor determined by dynamical process can also affect energy’s output of micro beam element.

### IV.3 Illustration or illustrative examples

#### IV.3.1 Selection of time domains

This is completely dependent to which beam’s acceleration or transportation process you are interested in. The flux source and observing location could be selected at entrance and exit point or cross section of a resonant cavity respectively where signal’s transfer time $`T(t)=T(t^{})`$ is just charged particle’s transit time. The flux source and observing location could also be selected at beam source (gun) and beam extracting point for tracing the whole process of the beam’s acceleration and transportation drift where signal’s transfer time $`T(t)=T(t^{})`$ can be consisted by various constituent $`T_i(t_{i1})=T_i(t_i)`$ and there is consequent relation $`T(t)=T(t^{})=T_i(t_{i1})`$ Luo (c). Once the time domains are decided, then all differential transfer relations Luo (a) between the time domains and energy differential information could be used to search exact solution.

#### IV.3.2 Energy exchange of relativistic electrons beam and inference

In this case, $`v_{io}(t^{})v_{sis}(t)c`$ , and from Eq. (24):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒥_{exc}(t^{})& \rho _N[r_s(t)]c\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\mu q\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda _c(t^{})}{\lambda (t^{})}\right]\frac{\lambda _c(t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right\}\hfill \\ & =c\mu q\rho _N[r_s(t)]\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}\frac{\lambda (t)\lambda (t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right]\hfill \\ & =c\mu q\rho _N[r_s(t)]\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}\frac{\lambda (t)\lambda (t^{})}{\lambda _0}\right]\hfill \\ & =c\mu q\rho _N[r_s(t)]\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\left\{\eta (t^{})+e^{\eta (t^{})}\left[\eta (t)+e^{\eta (t)}\right]\right\}\hfill \\ & =c\mu q\rho _N[r_s(t)]\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{k(t)}{k(t^{})}\left[k(t)k(t^{})\right]\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Thus there are consequent inferences below for constant state, elongation’s and compression’s.

A. Constant State
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}}=0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}=1,`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)\lambda (t^{})}{\lambda _0}}=0;`$ $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})=0`$ $`\eta (t^{})=\eta (t)`$ $`k(t^{})=k(t)`$
B. Elongation State
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}}>0,`$ $`0<{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}<1,`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)\lambda (t^{})}{\lambda _0}}<0;`$ $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})<0`$ $`\eta (t^{})<\eta (t)`$ $`k(t^{})>k(t)`$
C. Compression State
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}}<0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}>1,`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)}{\lambda (t^{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (t)\lambda (t^{})}{\lambda _0}}>0;`$ $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})>0`$ $`\eta (t^{})>\eta (t)`$ $`k(t^{})<k(t)`$
Above inferences show that in constant state A, $`\rho _N(t^{})=\rho _N(t)`$ and without energy exchange; in elongation state B, $`\rho _N(t^{})<\rho _N(t)`$ and internal potential energy releases to external system; in compression state C, $`\rho _N(t^{})>\rho _N(t)`$ and internal potential energy increases result from beam’s gaining energy from external system.

Further more, we can make inferences below:

1. For relativistic electron or ion beam, it’s energy increment or increase basically results from the gain of itself’s potential energy through longitudinal compression, otherwise the beam’s energy will meet its limit, that is its kinetic energy limit.

This is main difference of rf and DC acceleration method on electron beam’s energy up limits, for rf method the bunch length can be compressed progressively further and further so that its energy will not meet up limit; whereas using DC acceleration the length of a micro beam element is longer than the critical length within which the beam’s internal potential energy can be existed or accumulated through further compression, in addition, DC method has no compression mechanism. Thus DC acceleration beam’s energy has its energy limit, its kinetic limit, even DC acceleration voltage has no technical limit.

Ref. Luo (a):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}(t^{})}{d\mathrm{}(t)}}={\displaystyle \frac{v_{io}(t^{})}{v_{sis}(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{v_{sis}(t)}}`$
$`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_{sis}(t)}}{\displaystyle _t^t^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{is}(\dot{t},r_{is})}{r_{is}}}v_{is}(\dot{t},t){\displaystyle \frac{dt_j(\dot{t})}{dt}}𝑑\dot{t}1`$
We know that in DC acceleration the longitudinal length of a micro beam element is progressively elongated.
2. The mass of relativistic beam, collectives’ or individual’s, is independent to its energy.

From Eq. (25) it is known that the energy exchange of relativistic beam essentially depends upon beam internal potential energy’s exchange with external system, the density of the particles number at observing location will fluctuate as the energy exchanger occur. And the number density’s change is synchronized with potential energy gain or loss of the beam, as beam’s potential energy increases the density increases, while the energy losses the density decreases. Since $`\rho _N[r_0(t^{})]=\rho _N[r_s(t)]\frac{dt}{dt^{}}=\rho _N[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}]`$ then it is clear that the density’s fluctuation is time function related due to the variation of signal transfer time.

Ref. Luo (a) mass flux density transfer relation $`J_m(t^{})+J_{loss}(t^{})=J_m(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}`$ or $`\rho _m(t^{})c=\rho _m(t)c\frac{dt}{dt^{}}`$, here $`J_{loss}(t^{})=\frac{dm_{loss}}{dt^{}}=0`$.

differential relation on number of particles, mass conversation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{loss}(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)$$
(26)
multiply Eq. (26) with $`m_q`$:

$$m_q\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})+m_q\mathrm{\Delta }N_{loss}(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)m_q$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{loss}(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }M(t)`$ here $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{loss}=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }M_{loss}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}0`$ there only

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }M(t)$$

$$c\rho _m(t^{})dt^{}c\rho _m(t)dt$$

However in rf acceleration the corresponding energy increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and energy flux $`𝒥`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E_c(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)$$

$$𝒥(t^{})dt^{}𝒥(t)dt$$

## V Discussion

### V.1 Charge field property

Charge is structure density field possessed; for a elementary charge $`q`$ there $`\underset{V}{}\rho (r)𝑑V=q`$ and in uncompressed state or its intrinsic state

$$\rho (r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2q(R_0r)}{R^24\pi r^2}\hfill & 0<rR_0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & r>R_0\hfill \end{array}$$

and with$`\mathrm{grad}\rho (r)=\frac{q}{2\pi R_0^2}\frac{r2R_0}{r^3}`$ apply to $`(rr_{cc})𝑑q=0`$, there charge center $`r_{cc}(\dot{t})`$, $`v_{cc}(\dot{t})`$ etc.

$$\underset{V}{}r\rho (r)𝑑V=r_{cc}\underset{V}{}\rho (r)𝑑V=qr_{cc}$$

Once charge’s electromagnetic interaction and charge’s potential energy are concerned its density field effect can not be neglected anymore while merely regarding charge as a point charge whose charge all be centralized on its charge center for approximatively simplified application.

Charge density field can be compressed. Based on this, its internal potential energy can exist. In addition the compression can bring about some electromagnetic consequences in magnetic dipole Luo et al. . Density’s change will produce internal force within charge density field. The force depends upon both density’s difference between compressed density and corresponding intrinsic density, and ratio of compression which is the intrinsic density related. So calculation of stored potential energy of charge density field precisely can only be done through corresponding relation $`\rho _i(\dot{t})dv_i(\dot{t})=\rho _{oi}dv_{oi}`$, this may be uneasy to resolve since the density’s spatial distribution at any instant is not linear.

Fortunately in multi-particle system, a relative macro system, the density’s distribution at any instant comply to linear distribution as we select the longitudinal length of the micro element short enough so that the compression ratio or coefficient $`\mu `$ can be treated as constant.

In addition, for the micro beam element, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ number of particles, within a cylindrical volume with constant radius $`a`$, there

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\pi a^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})\overline{\rho }(\dot{t})=constant$$

then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\pi a^2}\lambda (\dot{t})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\pi a^2}\lambda _0`$, thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}=\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda (\dot{t})}$$

So we can convert the ratio of the micro beam’s lengthes to ratio of individual particles’. Furthermore, we define $`k`$ and $`\eta `$, $`k(\dot{t})=e^{\eta (\dot{t})}`$, for indicating individual charge field’s compression and potential energy status.

### V.2 Time function related factor and energy differential structure’s implication

1. For charged particle’s longitudinal interaction, a particle behind with higher velocity than front particle’s can not pass over the ahead particle; therefore related time function is positive reversible Luo (c), $`\frac{dt^{}}{dt}>0`$, $`\frac{dt}{dt^{}}>0`$, or $`\frac{dT(t)}{dt}>1`$ and $`\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}<1`$. Besides, $`\frac{dt}{dt^{}}`$ factor can contribute to enhance or decrease output number flux, mass flux, charge flux, energy flux $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})`$ (Ref. Eq. (24)), however its value is determined by energy exchange of external system and micro beam element.
2. The energy differential structure and relevant inference emphasize beam’s itself property and nature. The work, combined with differential transfer relations Luo (a) and other tools, can help us insight beams inner behavior and response and tracing a specified micro beam element whole physics process of beams’ energy components and exchange. With it we may evaluate some conventional dictations and interpretations in differential angle.

## VI Conclusion

Energy of a micro beam element is consisted of three parts, mass center and relative center mass kinetic energy and beam’s internal potential energy. Each of them is particle’s longitudinal velocity distribution and density (number, consequent mass and charge as well as internal charge field force) distribution related within the micro element. The internal potential energy exists until its length shorter than the critical length or individual charge density field’s diameter shorter than its intrinsic diameter results form accumulated compression of the beam length. And quantitative the potential energy comply with logarithm function with respect to the longitudinal length variable. For relativistic beam, its energy exchange essentially occur actually between external system’s energy and beam’s internal potential energy; at same time beam’s mass, collective’s or individual’s, is independent to its energy. Time function factor can affect various fluxes of the beam simultaneously and the factor is determined by designated dynamical process or energy exchange between external system and beam itself.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The notion of geometric phases was first addressed by Pancharatnam  in his pioneering effort to compare the phases of two beams of polarized light. Although, his treatment was essentially classical, the notion of geometric phases was later shown to have important consequences for quantum systems. Indeed, Berry , demonstrated that quantum-mechanical systems could also acquire phases that are geometric in nature. He showed that, besides the usual dynamical phase, an additional phase that was related to the geometry of the state space was generated during an adiabatic evolution. Soon after, this phase was shown to be precisely the holonomy in a line bundle, establishing an even stronger link to the geometry of the state space. Essentially, Simon  furnished an elegant geometrical interpretation of Berry’s phase in which he considered a line bundle $`L`$ over the space of parameters $`M`$ of the system. More precisely, it was shown that $`L`$, if endowed with a particular connection, can reproduce the Berry’s phase when closed loops in $`M`$ are lifted with respect to this connection.

It was subsequently shown that the adiabatic condition could be relaxed by considering the holonomy of a $`U(1)`$ bundle over the projective Hilbert space of the underlying system. By appealing to the notion of gauge invariance, Aharanov and Anandan  showed that one could define a phase that was the same for all gauge-equivalent paths. Gauge-equivalent paths, here refer to the infinite number of possible evolutions (curves in the Hilbert space of the system) that project to a given closed curve in the projective Hilbert space of the system.

The abelian nature of the holonomy was also shown to be extendible to the non-abelian ones. Wilczek and Zee  showed that for Hamiltonians that exhibited degeneracies, the adiabatic evolution admitted holonomies that were generally non-abelian. The non-adiabatic generalization of this was subsequently furnished by Anandan .

It is interesting to note that the notion of geometric phases has taken on an important role in the area of quantum computation . Indeed, it has been demonstrated that one can implement quantum logic gates based solely on the concept of geometric phase. The geometrical nature of the phase makes such a realization fault-tolerant and thus more robust towards noise. The application has also been proposed within the context of non-abelian holonomies. Termed Holonomic Quantum Computation, the program provides an all-geometrical approach to quantum information processing .

While many of the propositions in this area has been centered around pure states, the need to address the issue of geometric phase for mixed states is rapidly gaining prominence. Systems that are interacting with other systems, the environment for instance, are generally described by mixed states. Again, the strong focus in this area is fueled by the promise of realizing quantum logic gates under more realistic physical conditions.

Now, among the first to introduce the notion of geometric phase for mixed states was Uhlmann . By considering a purification and the notion of parallelity, he furnished a definition for the geometric phase for mixed quantal states. Recently Sjöqvist et.al.  have introduced a new formalism that defines the geometric phase in the context of quantum interferometry. Using the standard setup of the Mach-Zender Interferometer, they provided a procedure for calculating the geometric phase of mixed state undergoing unitary evolutions. They have also furnished the necessary and sufficient conditions for parallel transporting mixed states under such evolutions.

Recently, it was pointed out in Ref. that the two approaches, in general, are not equivalent . More recently, Ericcson et.al.  have shown that the conditions of parallelity used in the two approaches lead to generically distinct phase holonomy effects for entangled systems undergoing certain local unitary transformations.

In this paper, we consider the geometric phase of general mixed states under unitary evolution. Here we consider both non-degenerate as well as degenerate states. Starting with the non-degenerate case, we show that the removal of the dynamical phase from the total phase is not a trivial subtraction as is the case for pure states. In particular, we show that such a procedure is generally not gauge invariant. We then proceed to furnish an expression that is manifestly gauge invariant. The parallelity conditions are shown to be easily derivable from this expression. We also extend our formalism to states that exhibit degeneracies. Parallelity conditions for such states are also obtained. Finally, we furnish explicit examples of the geometric phases for both the non-degenerate as well as degenerate mixed states.

## 2 The Non-adiabatic Geometric Phase

In this section we begin by briefly reviewing some basic facts about the non-adiabatic geometric phase. Here, we will concentrate on the abelian case, starting with pure states (,, ). We begin by considering a quantum system $`S`$ with states belonging to the Hilbert space $``$. The space of physical states corresponds to the non-zero vectors in $``$ that are rendered equivalent under the relation

$`|\psi _1>|\psi _2>\mathrm{iff}|\psi _2>=e^{i\theta }|\psi _1>.`$ (1)
where $`\theta `$ is any real number. Technically, for an $`n`$-state system with dim($``$) =$`n`$ this space is simply a complex projective space of dimension $`(n1)`$:

$`𝒫()={\displaystyle \frac{\{0\}}{𝒞\{0\}}}CP^{n1}`$ (2)
In the language of fiber bundles, the construct of interest is a principal bundle over $`𝒫()`$ with a fiber that is isomorphic to $`U(1)`$. Here the bundle space $`P`$ corresponds to the space of normalized state vectors $`\{0\}`$ with a natural projection

$`\pi :P𝒫()\mathrm{realized}\mathrm{through}\pi :|\psi >|\psi ><\psi |.`$ (3)
Now the unitary evolution of the state vector

$`|\psi (0)>|\psi (t)>=𝒰(t)|\psi (0)>`$ (4)
produces a path $`C:[0,\tau ]P`$ in the bundle space. This is dictated by the Hamiltonian via the Schrödinger equation. The corresponding path $`C_0`$ in the space of physical states is obtained by projecting the path $`C`$ through the map $`\pi `$, i.e. $`\pi (C)=C_0`$. Moreover, we say that the evolution is cyclic if the path in $``$ is closed; i.e. if $`|\psi (\tau )><\psi (\tau )|=|\psi (0)><\psi (0)|`$. It is important to note that there are an infinite number of paths in $`P`$ that project to the same path in $``$. Indeed, if $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are given by $`|\psi (t)>`$ and $`|\psi ^{}(t)>=e^{if(t)}|\psi (t)>`$ respectively for any arbitrary real function $`f(t)`$, then it is easy to see that they define the same path $`C_0`$ in $``$ under the projection $`\pi `$. For a cyclic evolution, the total phase acquired corresponds to an element of the fiber i.e. $`e^{i\varphi _T}U(1)`$. The total phase $`\varphi _T`$, here, being the argument of $`<\psi (0)|\psi (\tau )>`$:

$`\mathrm{total}\mathrm{phase}\varphi _T[C]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{<\psi (0)|\psi (\tau )>\}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{<\psi (0)|𝒰(t)|\psi (0)>\}`$
In general, this depends on the path $`C`$ taken in the bundle space $`P`$, which in turn, is defined by $`𝒰(t)`$. This is reminiscent of the Pancharatnam analysis which compares the relative phase between two states. Aharonov and Anandan  showed that if a quantity (called the dynamical phase),

$`\varphi _D[C]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\tau }<\psi (t)|H|\psi (t)>𝑑t`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }<\psi (0)|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|\psi (0)>𝑑t`$
is subtracted from the total phase (5) then the resulting term

$`\varphi _G=\mathrm{arg}\{<\psi (0)|𝒰(t)|\psi (0)>\}+i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }<\psi (0)|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|\psi (0)>𝑑t`$ (7)
turns out to be a functional of $`C_0`$ only. This is the notion of gauge invariance as emphasized in Ref . Since the path $`C`$ in $`P`$ from a given intial state $`|\psi (0)>`$ is solely determined by $`𝒰(t)`$ we can label the path by the latter. Here the statement of gauge invariance for the geometric phase for all paths differing by a $`U(1)`$ phase reads as::

$`\varphi _G[𝒰(t)e^{if(t)}]=\varphi _G[𝒰(t)]`$ (8)
for any arbitrary real function $`f(t)`$. Thus equation (7) furnishes a gauge-invariant expression for the geometric phase of a pure state. It is worth noting that arbitrariness of $`f(t)`$ allows one to impose a condition known as the parallel transport condition:

$`<\psi (0)|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|\psi (0)>=0`$ (9)
which renders the dynamical phase zero. Under this condition the geometric phase is just the total phase.

For mixed states, Sjöqvist et. al.  showed that the total phase acquired by the system under unitary evolution is a natural generalization of the pure state case. Indeed, by considering a Mach-Zender interferometer, in which the interfering particles carry an additional degree of freedom (for which the state is mixed), they showed that under a unitary evolution

$`\rho (0)\rho (\tau )=𝒰(\tau )\rho (0)𝒰(\tau )^{}`$ (10)
the interference pattern of the intensity profile takes the form of

$`I1+|\mathrm{Tr}(𝒰(\tau )\rho (0))|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}(𝒰(\tau )\rho (0))\}].`$ (11)
Here $`\chi `$ is a variable relative $`U(1)`$ phase in one of the interferometer beams. From the shift in the interferometric pattern, they surmised that the total phase acquired by a mixed state under unitary evolution is

$`\gamma _T`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}(𝒰(\tau )\rho (0))\}.`$ (12)
In a basis in which the density matrix $`\rho (0)`$ is expreseed as,

$`\rho (0)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\omega _k|k><k|,\mathrm{dim}()=N`$ (13)
the total phase is just the weighted sum of the pure state phases:

$`\gamma _T`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}(𝒰(\tau )\rho (0))\}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\omega _k<k|𝒰(\tau )|k>\}.`$
In Ref. , the parallel transport condition for non-degenerate state was imposed by requiring that $`\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (t)𝒰(t+dt)𝒰(t)^{}]`$ be real and positive which in turn leads to

$`\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (t)\dot{𝒰}(t)𝒰(t)^{}]\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)]=0`$ (15)
or equivalently

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\omega _k<k|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|k>=0.`$ (16)
Under this condition the dynamical phase

$`\gamma _D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (t)H(t))`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t))`$
vanishes identically. It is important to note that if condition (16) is not met then the dynamical phase term in eqn.(17) cannot be removed from the total phase term, (14) by a simple subtraction; since the latter is defined by a weighted sum of phase factors while the former is a weighted sum of phases. The authors of Ref.  have also asserted that conditions (15) or (16) while necessary, is not sufficient. Instead they proposed stronger conditions

$`<k|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|k>=0k=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$ (18)
in which all the constituent pure states in the mixture are required to be parallel transported independently.

In the following section we elucidate the nature of these conditions. In particular, we furnish these by first constructing an expression for the geometric phase that is manifestly gauge invariant. This is first done for the non-degenerate case in which we show that the removal of the dynamical phase requires the use of the stronger conditions noted above. We also extend our analysis to states that are degenerate. Here, we also provide a generalized version of the geometric phase that is applicable when the state is multiply degenerate. The corresponding parallel transport conditions are also furnished

## 3 Gauge-Invariance and Holonomy in Mixed States

To address the issue of gauge invariance in the context of holonomy for mixed states, it is instructive to consider the approach of Boya et.al.. Here one considers the little group of a particular mixed state density matrix which can be taken as the gauge group for the system that is undergoing unitary evolution. It should be noted that the space of states accessible through unitary evolutions from a reference state does not cover the entire state space. For instance, if we are considering a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system, the state space consists of all points on and inside the Bloch sphere. However, if we start with a particular mixed state and assume that it is undergoing unitary evolution then the accessible states lie on a spherical shell with radius equal to the magnitude of the initial Bloch vector. In determining the relevant bundle structure, we appeal to an important theorem for spaces with transitive group action. Essentially, it is well known that if a group $`G`$ acts transitively on a space $``$ then for each $`x`$ there is a bijection between $`G/G_x`$ and $``$ where $`G_x`$ denotes the little group or the stability group at the point $`x`$ . For the problem at hand, we are interested in the little group associated with the density matrix at time $`t=0`$. The theorem basically assures us that the orbit space under unitary evolution is isomorphic to the coset space, $`G/G_x`$. More importantly, if the little group is closed then ($`G`$, $`G_x`$, $`\pi `$, $`G/G_x`$), where $`\pi :GG/G_x`$ is the canonical map which sends each element of the group to the cosets, serve to define a bundle structure. Here $`G`$ is taken as the bundle space, $`G/G_x`$ the base space, $`G_x`$ the fiber and $`\pi `$ the projection.

To carry the analysis further, it is instructive to consider a density matrix in its diagonal basis (13). Let us start with the case in which the $`N`$-state density matrix has eigenvalues that are distinct, i.e. non-degenerate. Then the little group in this case is simply

$`G_x=\underset{N}{\underset{}{U(1)\times U(1)\mathrm{}\times U(1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\theta _n}|n><n|`$ (19)
where $`\{\theta _n\}_{n=1,2,\mathrm{}N}`$ are arbitrary parameters or phases. The group $`G`$ in this context is $`U(N)`$. It is easy to see that under

$`𝒰(t)U(N)𝒰^{}(t)=𝒰(t){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\theta _n(t)}|n><n|`$ (20)
the orbit of the density matrix remains unchanged:

$`\rho (0)\rho ^{}(t)=𝒰^{}(t)\rho (0)𝒰^{}(t)^{}=𝒰(t)\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}=\rho (t).`$ (21)
In other words, there are infinite number of orbits in $`G`$ that correspond to same path for $`\rho (t)`$. Now, unlike the pure state case (see (7)), the removal of the dynamical phase from the total phase does not render the resulting functional gauge invariant. Indeed under a gauge transformation (20) the total phase (14) transforms as

$`\gamma _T\gamma _T^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (0)𝒰^{}(\tau )]\}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k<k|𝒰(\tau )|k>e^{i\theta _k(t)}\}`$
while the dynamical phase (17) transforms as

$`\gamma _D\gamma _D^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (0)𝒰^{}(t)^{}\dot{𝒰^{}}(t))`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t))+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k\theta _k(\tau ).`$
It is evident from (22) and (23) that the $`\theta `$-dependence in total phase cannot be removed by simply subtracting the dynamical phase term. It is also easy to see that only in the pure-state case, with only one non-zero $`\omega `$, do we have gauge-invariance.

To alleviate this problem we propose a functional, of the following form:

$`\gamma _G[𝒰]=\mathrm{arg}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}[\omega _k<k|𝒰(\tau )|k>e^{_0^\tau 𝑑t<k|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|k>}]\}`$ (24)
which is manifestly gauge invariant (as in (7)). Indeed, the $`\theta `$ term generated in (22) under a gauge transformation (20) is exactly cancelled by a term arising from the exponential term in (24). It is easy to check that the above expression corresponds to the geometric phase in the case when the state is pure. Gauge invariance also assures us that the expression depends only on the path in the state space. This expression, thus furnishes us with a gauge-invariant definition for the geometric phase of mixed states that are non-degenerate. It is worth noting that when the stronger conditions (18) are imposed the resulting expression is nothing but the original total phase term, which means, they are justifiably parallel transport conditions; since only under parallel transport is the geometric phase the same as the total phase.

The above analysis holds only for mixed states that are non-degenerate. For degenerate mixed states, it is well known that the holonomy group can take on a non-abelian character . To this end, let us consider a density matrix that has the following diagonal form:

$`\rho (0)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\omega _k|k><k|`$ (25)
in which $`n`$ of the eigenvalues are degenerate i.e. $`\omega _1=\omega _2=\mathrm{}=\omega _n`$ with the rest distinct. Here the Hilbert space $``$ can be regarded as the direct sum of two subspaces, $`_n_m`$ of dimensions $`n`$ and $`m=Nn`$. The little group of $`\rho (0)`$ is non-abelian and has the following form:

$`G_x=U(n)\times \underset{m}{\underset{}{U(1)\times U(1)\times \mathrm{}\times U(1)}}`$ (26)
or in the $`\{|k>\}_{k=1,2,\mathrm{}N}`$ basis it takes the form

$`𝒱(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \alpha (t)& \end{array}\right)\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \end{array}& & & & & \\ \begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\beta _{n+1}(t)}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & e^{i\beta _N(t)}\end{array}\right)& & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (29)
Here the only non zero terms are the elements of $`\alpha `$, an $`n\times n`$ unitary submatrix and exponential of the $`\beta `$’s along the diagonal $`(m\times m)`$-submatrix. It is easy to see that under a gauge transformation

$`𝒰(t)𝒰^{}(t)=𝒰(t)𝒱(t)`$ (30)
the path taken by the density matrix remains unchanged. It is worth noting that, since both $`𝒰(t)`$ and $`𝒰^{}(t)`$ are the time evolution unitary operators for the system, we must require that $`𝒰(0)=𝒰^{}(0)=1`$. As a consequence, the element of the little group $`𝒱(t)`$ must also satisfy $`𝒱(0)=1`$. Now, consider the total phase term (14) under such a transformation:

$`\gamma _T\gamma _T^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}_{}[\rho (0)𝒰^{}(\tau )]\}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k<k|𝒰(\tau )𝒱(\tau )|k>.`$
Following the non-denegerate case, we note that in constructing a gauge-invariant functional an expression of the form

$`\gamma [𝒰]=\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho (0)𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ])\}`$ (32)
with a functional $`[𝒰;\tau ]`$ that transforms as

$`[𝒰;\tau ]𝒱(\tau )^{}[𝒰;\tau ]`$ (33)
under a gauge transformation would be required. To identify this functional, we first observe that in the non-degenerate case, the corresponding functional $`e^{_0^\tau 𝑑t<k|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|k>}`$ can be obtained by fixing the $`\theta `$ terms in a general evolution matrix (20) through the conditions (18) for $`𝒰^{}`$. This yields

$`\theta _k(t)=i{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}<k|𝒰(t^{})^{}\dot{𝒰}(t^{})|k>k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ (34)
which upon substitution into (20) leads to the required form. In the degenerate case, we have $`n^2+m`$ arbitrary parameters that need to be fixed; $`n^2`$ for the $`\alpha `$ matrix and $`m`$ parameters corresponding to the $`\beta `$’s. We can do this by imposing

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}<\mu |𝒰^{}\dot{𝒰^{}}|\nu >& =& 0\mu ,\nu & =& 1,2,\mathrm{}n& & \\ <k|𝒰^{}\dot{𝒰^{}}|k>& =& 0k& =& n+1,n+2,\mathrm{}N& & \end{array}`$ (37)
where we have defined basis vectors $`\{|\mu >\}_{\mu =1,2,\mathrm{}n}`$ and $`\{|k>\}_{k=n+1,n+2,\mathrm{}N}`$ to designate subspaces $`_n`$ and $`_m`$ respectively. With

$`𝒰^{}=𝒰(t)\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \alpha (t)& \end{array}\right)\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \end{array}& & & & & \\ \begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\beta _{n+1}(t)}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & e^{i\beta _N(t)}\end{array}\right)& & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (40)
conditions (37) lead to the following equations:

$`\dot{\alpha }_{\mu \nu }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t))_{\mu \lambda }\alpha _{\lambda \nu }(t)`$ (41)
$`\dot{\beta }_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i(𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t))_{kk}`$ (42)
where $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$ are the elements of the $`\alpha `$ matrix. Equations (41) and (42) can be formally integrated to yield

$`\alpha _{\mu \nu }[𝒰;t]`$ $`=`$ $`<\mu |\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}𝒰(t^{})^{}\dot{𝒰}(t^{})|\nu >\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{}n`$ (43)
$`\beta _k[𝒰;t]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}<k|𝒰(t^{})^{}\dot{𝒰}(t^{})|k>k=n+1,n+2,\mathrm{}N`$ (44)
where P denotes path ordering. We can now choose

$`[𝒰;\tau ]=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \alpha [𝒰;\tau ]& \end{array}\right)\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \end{array}& & & & & \\ \begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\beta _{n+1}[𝒰;\tau ]}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & e^{i\beta _N[𝒰;\tau ]}\end{array}\right)& & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (47)
It is worth noting that $`[𝒰;\tau ]`$ is block diagonal in the chosen basis and that it can be written as direct sum form:

$`[𝒰;\tau ]=__n[𝒰;\tau ]__m[𝒰;\tau ]`$ (48)
with $`__n[𝒰;\tau ]=\alpha [𝒰;\tau ]`$ and $`__m[𝒰;\tau ]=\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\beta _{n+1}[𝒰;\tau ]},e^{i\beta _{n+2}[𝒰;\tau ]},\mathrm{},e^{i\beta _N[𝒰;\tau ]})`$.

We next demonstrate that expression (30) is gauge invariant. Indeed, under

$`𝒰𝒰^{}=𝒰(t)\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & 𝒱_1(t)& \end{array}\right)\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \end{array}& & & & & \\ \begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & & & & \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\theta _{n+1}(t)}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & e^{i\theta _N(t)}\end{array}\right)& & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (51)
where $`𝒱_1(t)`$ is an arbitrary $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix, we note that

$`__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$ $``$ $`𝒱_1(\tau )^{}__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$ (52)
$`__m[𝒰;\tau ]`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\theta _{n+1}(\tau )},e^{i\theta _{n+2}(\tau )},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _N(\tau )})^{}__m[𝒰;\tau ]`$ (53)
which implies that $`\gamma [𝒰]\gamma [𝒰^{}]=\gamma [(𝒰)]`$ (see Appendix for details). Thus expression (32) furnishes a natural generalization of the geometric phase for a degenerate mixed state. It is easy to see that the conditions (37) here serve as the parallelity conditions.

It is interesting to note that the above analysis can be extended to density matrices that are multiply degenerate. For instance if $`\rho (0)`$ has eigenspaces $`_1`$, $`_2`$$`_m`$ with degeneracies $`n_1`$, $`n_2`$ ,…$`n_m`$ respectively, then the Hilbert space of the system can be written as a direct sum of degenerate subspaces:

$`_N=_1_2\mathrm{}_m\mathrm{with}N={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}n_k.`$ (54)
The corresponding $``$-functional for $`_N`$ can also be written as the direct sum of $``$-functionals define on the subspaces:

$`__N[𝒰,\tau ]=__1[𝒰,\tau ]__2[𝒰,\tau ],,\mathrm{},__m[𝒰,\tau ]`$ (55)
where the components of $`__k[𝒰,\tau ]`$ are given by

$`__k[𝒰,\tau ]_{\mu _k\nu _k}=<\mu _k|\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }𝑑t𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|\nu _k>\mu _k,\nu _k=1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}(_k)`$ (56)
if dim $`(_k)1`$ and

$`__k[𝒰,\tau ]=e^{_0^\tau 𝑑t<\mu _k|𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)|\mu _k>}`$ (57)
otherwise. The geometric phase is then calculated directly from

$`\gamma [𝒰]=\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}__N(\rho (0)𝒰(\tau )__N[𝒰;\tau ])\}`$ (58)
## 4 Explicit Examples

In this section we furnish explicit examples of the geometric phase for both the non-degenerate as well as the degenerate mixed states. We begin with the non-degenerate case. To this end, we consider the simplest case of a spin- $`\frac{1}{2}`$ system with a density matrix given by

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐫\sigma )`$ (59)
where $`𝐫`$ is a three-dimensional Bloch vector and $`\sigma `$ the Pauli matrices. For the purpose of computation, we set the Bloch vector of the initial state to be $`(r\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,r\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`i.e.`$

$`\rho (0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+r\mathrm{cos}\theta & r\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ r\mathrm{sin}\theta & 1r\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).`$ (62)
If we subject the system to a unitary evolution

$`\rho (0)\rho (t)=𝒰(t)\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}\mathrm{with}𝒰(t)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{it}{2}}\sigma _3)`$ (63)
the Bloch vector precesses about the $`z`$-axis (at a constant polar angle of $`\theta `$). For cyclic evolution, the parameter $`t`$ takes values $`[0,2\pi ]`$. Now, the matrix (46) can be diagonalized:

$`\rho (0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+r& 0\\ 0& 1r\end{array}\right)`$ (66)
with respect to its eigenvectors:

$`|1>=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}\right)|2>=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).`$ (71)
In (66) we assume $`0<r<1`$. The geometric phase can obtained by evaluating (24):

$`\gamma _G[𝒰]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+r}{2}}\right)e^{i\pi \mathrm{cos}\theta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1r}{2}}\right)e^{i\pi \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right]`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}(r\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}})`$ (73)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the solid angle subtended by the Bloch vector. It is interesting to note that the same expression has been furnished in  where parallel transport conditions were employed. Here we have obtained the geometric phase without the need for such conditions.

We now turn to the degenerate case. Here we choose a three-state density matrix given by:

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\text{1}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}r_i\lambda _i)`$ (74)
where $`\{r_i\}`$ are the components of an eight dimensional vector and $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ are the generators of $`SU(3)`$:

$$\lambda _1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _3=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _4=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

$$\lambda _5=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _6=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _7=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& 0\end{array}\right]\lambda _8=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right].$$

For definiteness we choose the initial state to be

$`\rho (0)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\omega & 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& 12\omega \end{array}\right]\mathrm{with}0<\omega <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (78)
Here the degeneracy is manifest with the little group given by $`U(2)\times U(1)`$. It is interesting to note that in the above basis for the $`SU(3)`$ generators, the subgroup $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ is spanned by $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _8\}`$.

For an explicit evaluation of the geometric phase we consider a unitary matrix of $`SU(3)`$ given by

$`𝒰(t)=e^{itX},\mathrm{where}X=a\lambda _8+b\lambda _4`$ (79)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary real parameters. In a matrix form, we have

$`𝒰(t)=e^{\frac{ia\tau }{2\sqrt{3}}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c\mathrm{cos}\frac{ct}{2}i\sqrt{3}a\mathrm{sin}\frac{ct}{2}& 0& \frac{2bi}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{ct}{2}\\ 0& e^{\frac{i\sqrt{3}at}{2}}& 0\\ \frac{2bi}{a}\mathrm{sin}\frac{ct}{2}& 0& c\mathrm{cos}\frac{ct}{2}+i\sqrt{3}a\mathrm{sin}\frac{ct}{2}\end{array}\right]`$ (83)
where $`c=\sqrt{3a^2+4b^2}`$. The cyclicity conditions can be obtained by restricting $`t`$ to lie within the interval $`[0,\tau ]`$ where $`\tau `$ is evaluated by requiring that $`r_i(\tau )=r_i(0)`$ with

$`r_i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[\rho (t)\lambda _i]`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[𝒰(t)\rho (0)𝒰(t)^{}\lambda _i]`$ (85)
For the $`𝒰`$ matrix considered above, we have

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n}{c}},n𝐙`$ (86)
In the following we restrict ourselves to $`n=1`$. With this established, the $``$ matrix can be evaluated and it takes the form

$`[𝒰;\tau ]=e^{\frac{ia\tau }{2\sqrt{3}}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c\mathrm{cos}\frac{c\tau }{2}+i\sqrt{3}a\mathrm{sin}\frac{c\tau }{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{ia\sqrt{3}\tau }{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{\frac{ia\sqrt{3}\tau }{2}}\end{array}\right]`$ (90)
with which the geometric phase follows by a direct evaluation of (30):

$`\gamma _G[𝒰]=\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{tan}\varphi \right]\right)}{\frac{2\omega }{2\omega 1}+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{arctan}[k\mathrm{tan}\varphi ])}}\right)`$ (91)
where

$`k={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}a}{c}}\mathrm{and}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi 2c}{c\sqrt{3}}}`$ (92)
In passing, we like to emphasize that a gauge transformation corresponding to any element of the little group $`𝒱U(2)\times U(1)`$ leaves the geometric phase invariant. For instance, if we had choosen

$`𝒰^{}(t)=𝒰(t)e^{id\lambda _1t}`$ (93)
which corresponds to a gauge transformed unitary matrix, then the $``$ matrix takes the form

$`[𝒰^{},\tau ]={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{ia\tau }{2\sqrt{3}}}}{c}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}(a\sqrt{3}i\mathrm{sin}\frac{c\tau }{2}+c\mathrm{cos}\frac{c\tau }{2})\mathrm{cos}(d\tau )& (a\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\frac{c\tau }{2}ic\mathrm{cos}\frac{c\tau }{2})\mathrm{sin}(d\tau )& 0\\ ice^{\frac{ia\tau \sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(d\tau )& ce^{\frac{ia\tau \sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(d\tau )& 0\\ 0& 0& ce^{\frac{ia\tau \sqrt{3}}{2}}\end{array}\right]`$ (97)
Evaluation of the geometric phase yields expression (91), thereby demonstrating the gauge invariance of (30).

## 5 Concluding Remarks

To summarize briefly, we have considered the issue of phase holonomy of both non-degenerate and degenerate mixed states undergoing unitary evolution. Starting with the non-degenerate case, we have shown that the usual procedure of subtracting the dynamical phase from the total phase to yield the geometric phase, does not hold for mixed states. To this end, we have furnished an expression for the geometric phase that is gauge invariant. In other words, unlike the procedure given in Ref., we do not have to invoke the parallelity conditions to obtain the geometric phase from the total phase. In fact an obvious statement of gauge invariance is that any unitary matrix that realizes a path for the density matrix will yield a value that depends only on the path traversed in the state space. Moreover the form presented here also exhibits the parallelity conditions clearly. In essence, we have provided an explicit justification to the sufficient conditions furnished in Ref.. The analysis is also extended to cover states that may exhibit degeneracies. Here with the holonomy taking on a non-abelian character, we have provided an expression for the geometric phase that is manifestly gauge invariant. As in the case of the non-degenerate case, the form also displays the parallelity conditions which are shown to be generalizations of the ones provided in . We have also furnished explicit examples of the geometric phases for both the non-degenerate as well as degenerate mixed states.

Acknowlegements

We would like to thank Prof. C.H. Oh whose guidance and valuable comments enabled the completion of this work. This work was supported in part by NUS Research Grant No. R-144-000-054-112 and A\*STAR grant R-144-000-071-305.

## 6 Appendix

In this appendix we show that for a gauge transformation of the form (41), the expression for the geometric phase (32) remains unchanged. We proceed to prove this by establishing a few lemmas. Lemma 1a

Let $`X_1[𝒰;\tau ]`$ and $`X_2[𝒰;\tau ]`$ be submatrices of $`\rho _0𝒰(\tau )`$ associated with the subspaces $`_n`$ and $`_m`$ respectively:

$`X_1[𝒰;\tau ]_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`[\rho _0𝒰(\tau )]_{\mu \nu }=<\mu |\rho _0𝒰(\tau )|\nu >\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{}n`$
$`X_2[𝒰;\tau ]_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`[\rho _0𝒰(\tau )]_{ij}=<i|\rho _0𝒰(\tau )|j>i,j=n+1,n+2,\mathrm{}N`$
then

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho _0𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ])=\mathrm{Tr}__n(X_1[𝒰;\tau ]__n[𝒰;\tau ])+\mathrm{Tr}__m(X_2[𝒰;\tau ]__m[𝒰;\tau ]).$$

Proof:

The result follows immediately by taking

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho _0𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ])=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n}{}}<\mu |\rho _0𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ]|\mu >+\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{N}{}}<j|\rho _0𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ]|j>$$

and noting that $`[𝒰;\tau ]`$ is block diagonal (see (39)). Lemma 1b

Under a gauge transformation (41), the submatrices $`X_1[𝒰;\tau ]`$ and $`X_2[𝒰;\tau ]`$ transform as follows:

$`X_1[𝒰;\tau ]X_1[𝒰^{};\tau ]`$ $`=`$ $`X_1[𝒰;\tau ]𝒱_1(\tau )`$
$`X_2[𝒰;\tau ]X_2[𝒰^{};\tau ]`$ $`=`$ $`X_2[𝒰;\tau ]\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mathrm{n}+1}(\tau )},\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mathrm{n}+2}(\tau )},\mathrm{},\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _\mathrm{N}(\tau )})`$
Proof:

This again follows from the block diagonal form of $`𝒱(t)`$

Lemma 2a

Under a gauge transformation (41), $`__m[𝒰;\tau ]`$ transforms as

$$__m[𝒰;\tau ]__m[𝒰^{};\tau ]=\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\theta _{n+1}(\tau )},e^{i\theta _{n+2}(\tau )},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _N(\tau )})^{}__m[𝒰;\tau ]$$

Proof:

In proving this result, we will begin with (42). Now under $`𝒰(t)𝒰^{}(t)=𝒰(t)𝒱(t)`$ we have

$`\dot{\beta }_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i[𝒰^{}(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}^{}(t)]_{kk}`$
$`=`$ $`i[𝒱^{}(t)𝒰(t)^{}(\dot{𝒰}(t)𝒱(t)+𝒰(t)\dot{𝒱}(t))]_{kk}`$
$`=`$ $`i[𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)]_{kk}\dot{\theta }_kk=n+1,n+2,\mathrm{}N.`$
This in turn implies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\beta _k^{}+\theta _k\right]`$ $`=`$ $`i[𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)]_{kk}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\beta _k\right]`$
from which we surmise that

$$\beta _k^{}=\beta _k\theta _k+\xi _k$$

where $`\xi _k`$ is an arbitrary $`t`$-independent term. This term, however, vanishes when we impose initial conditions $`\beta _k(0)=\beta _k^{}(0)=0`$ together with $`\theta _k(0)=0`$. Thus, we have for the $``$\- matrix

$`__m[𝒰^{};\tau ]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\beta _{n+1}^{}(\tau )},e^{i\beta _{n+2}^{}(\tau )},\mathrm{},e^{i\beta _N^{}(\tau )})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\theta _{n+1}(\tau )},e^{i\theta _{n+2}(\tau )},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _N(\tau )})^{}__m[𝒰;\tau ]`$
which completes the proof. Lemma 2b

Under a gauge transformation (41), $`__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$ transforms as

$`__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$ $``$ $`__n[𝒰^{};\tau ]=𝒱_1(\tau )^{}__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$
Proof:

We first note that under $`𝒰(t)𝒰^{}(t)=𝒰(t)𝒱(t)`$, $`𝒜𝒰(t)^{}\dot{𝒰}(t)`$ transforms as

$`𝒜𝒜^{}=𝒰^{}(t)^{}\dot{𝒰^{}}(t)=𝒱^{}𝒜𝒱+𝒱^{}\dot{𝒱}.`$
Restricting $`𝒜`$ to the subspace $`_n`$, the $`n\times n`$ submatrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ with components

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{\mu \nu }=<\mu |𝒜|\nu >`$ transforms as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{}=𝒱_1^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒱_1+𝒱_1^{}\dot{𝒱}_1.`$
Then from (35), with $`𝒰𝒰^{}`$,

$`\dot{\alpha }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}^{}\alpha ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`(𝒱_1^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒱_1+𝒱_1^{}\dot{𝒱}_1)\alpha ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒱_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒱_1+\dot{𝒱}_1)\alpha ^{}`$
and thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[𝒱_1\alpha ^{}\right]=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒱_1\alpha ^{}.`$
As a consequence of (35), we note that

$`𝒱_1\alpha ^{}=\alpha 𝒱_0\alpha ^{}(t)=𝒱_1^{}(t)\alpha (t)𝒱_0`$
where $`𝒱_0`$ is a $`t`$-independent but otherwise, arbitrary non-singular $`n\times n`$ matrix. As in the previous lemma, this arbitrariness is removed when we invoke the initial conditions $`\alpha ^{}(0)=\alpha (0)=1`$, together with $`𝒱_1(0)=1`$. As a result $`𝒱_0=1`$ and we have

$`__n[𝒰^{};\tau ]=\alpha ^{}(\tau )=𝒱_1(\tau )^{}\alpha (\tau )=𝒱_1(\tau )^{}__n[𝒰;\tau ]`$
which furnishes the desired result. The gauge invariance of the geometric phase then follows immediately from the above lemmas:

$`\gamma [𝒰^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho _0𝒰^{}(\tau )[𝒰^{};\tau ])\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}__n(X_1[𝒰^{};\tau ]__n[𝒰^{};\tau ])+\mathrm{Tr}__m(X_2[𝒰^{};\tau ]__m[𝒰^{};\tau ])\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}__n(X_1[𝒰;\tau ]__n[𝒰;\tau ])+\mathrm{Tr}__m(X_2[𝒰;\tau ]__m[𝒰;\tau ])\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\{\mathrm{Tr}_{}(\rho _0𝒰(\tau )[𝒰;\tau ])\}`$
$`=`$ $`\gamma [𝒰].`$