Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General

Comment on K-H Yang's energy operator and gauge independent transition amplitudes

T. E. Feuchtwang, Emil Kazes

Published Oct 1, 1985• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The authors clarify and correct remarks made in a recent comment (1984) on Yang's energy operator.
DOI
10.1088/0305-4470/18/14/035

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Generalized saddle-point method for Feshbach resonances’’

Kwong T. Chung

In the recent article by M. Bylicki [Phys. Rev. A 39, 3316 (1989)], many remarks were made concerning the saddle-point technique developed by this author. These remarks appear to have been based on a misunderstanding of both the spirit as well as the actual application of this method. In this Comment, I shall try to clarify some of these misunderstandings, and one hopes, put the problem in its proper perspective.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1990•19 citations

On the construction of gauge independent transition amplitudes

T. E. Feuchtwang, Emil Kazes, Howard Grotch +1 more

Physics Letters A•Dec 1, 1982•11 citations

Comment on “Test of the gauge-invariant formulation of quantum mechanics”

C. K. Au

Physics Letters A•Oct 1, 1983•1 citation

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Almost-periodic time observables for bound quantum systems’’

Michael J. W. Hall

In a recent paper (Hall 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 41 255301), I made several critical remarks on a ‘Hermitian time operator’ proposed by Galapon (2002 Proc. R. Soc. A 458 2671). Galapon has correctly pointed out that remarks pertaining to ‘denseness’ of the commutator domain are wrong (Galapon 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 018001). However, the other remarks still apply, and it is further noted that a given quantum system can be a member of this domain only at a set of times of total measure zero.

arXiv:0811.3312•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Nov 19, 2008•1 citation

Comment on “test of the gauge-invariant formulation of quantum mechanics”

Saul T. Epstein

Physics Letters A•Aug 1, 1983•4 citations
In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.
In a recent paper (Hall 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 41 255301), I made several critical remarks on a ‘Hermitian time operator’ proposed by Galapon (2002 Proc. R. Soc. A 458 2671). Galapon has correctly pointed out that remarks pertaining to ‘denseness’ of the commutator domain are wrong (Galapon 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 018001). However, the other remarks still apply, and it is further noted that a given quantum system can be a member of this domain only at a set of times of total measure zero.