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

Physical Review Letters

Hamiltonian Expectation Values for Time-Dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen Transformations: Implications for Electrodynamics and Resolution of the External-Field πN Ambiguity

Michael Martin Nieto

Published May 9, 1977• 25 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Although the time-dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation of the "Schr\"odinger" equation $\frac{i\ensuremath{\partial}\ensuremath{\psi}}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}=H\ensuremath{\psi}$ yields the transformed equation $\frac{i\ensuremath{\partial}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}={H}^{\ensuremath{'}}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$, where ${\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}=U\ensuremath{\psi}$ and ${H}^{\ensuremath{'}}=UH{U}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{-}\frac{\mathrm{iU}\ensuremath{\partial}({U}^{\ensuremath{-}1})}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}$, the expectation values (${\ensuremath{\psi}}_{1}, H{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}$) of $H$ are not equal to (${{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, {H}^{\ensuremath{'}}{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$), but rather, to (${{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, \mathrm{UH}{U}^{\ensuremath{-}1}{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}}$). But one still has $({{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, {{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}})=({\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}, {\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j})$. I discuss implications for perturbation calculations, scattering amplitudes, electrodynamics, and the external-field $\ensuremath{\pi}N$ ambiguity, and look at exact special cases.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.38.1042

Related papers

Foldy–Wouthuysen wave functions and conditions of transformation between Dirac and Foldy–Wouthuysen representations

V. P. Neznamov, A. J. Silenko

The block diagonalization of the Hamiltonian is not sufficient for the transformation to the Foldy–Wouthuysen (FW) representation. The conditions enabling the transition from the Dirac representation to the FW one are formulated and proven. The connection between wave functions in the two representations is derived. The results obtained allow calculating expectation values of operators corresponding to main classical quantities.

arXiv:0906.2069•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Dec 1, 2009•49 citations

Gauge-invariant non-relativistic limit of an electron in a time-dependent electromagnetic field

Donald H. Kobe, Kuo‐Ho Yang

The Dirac equation for a charged particle in a time-dependent electromagnetic field is reduced to the Pauli equation in the non-relativistic limit by making a time-dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation in a completely gauge-invariant way. In a time-dependent field, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian is dependent on the gauge, and so it cannot be the energy. The energy is obtained by taking the expectation value of the energy operator, the time rate of change of which is the average of the quantum mechanical power operator. The Hamiltonian formulation of a charged particle in a time-dependent external electromagnetic field is satisfactory when this distinction between the Hamiltonian, which describes the time evolution of the system, and the energy operator, which is gauge invariant, is made.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Oct 1, 1980•34 citations

Gauge invariance, time-dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen transformations, and the Pauli Hamiltonian

Terry Goldman

The Foldy-Wouthuysen derivation of the generalized Pauli Hamiltonian is reexamined, and described as an operator gauge transformation. The unitary inequivalence of the Pauli and Dirac Hamiltonians is shown to occur, because in general it is only the entire coupled field Hamiltonian which is gauge invariant, not the particle Hamiltonian alone.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Feb 15, 1977•38 citations

On exact Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation

A. G. Nikitin

New classes of external fields are found for which the exact Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation for the Dirac equation exists.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Apr 10, 1998•55 citations

Energy expectation values of a particle in nonstationary fields

Alexander J. Silenko

We show that the origin of the nonequivalence of Hamiltonians in different representations is a change of the form of the time-derivative operator at a time-dependent unitary transformation. This nonequivalence does not lead to an ambiguity of the energy expectation values of a particle in nonstationary fields but assigns the basic representation. It has been explicitly or implicitly supposed in previous investigations that this representation is the Dirac one. We prove the alternative assertion about the basic role of the Foldy-Wouthuysen representation. We also derive the general equation for the energy expectation values in the Dirac representation. As an example, we consider a spin-1/2 particle with anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments in strong time-dependent electromagnetic fields. We apply the obtained results to a spin-1/2 particle in a plane monochromatic electromagnetic wave and give an example of the exact Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation in the nonstationary case.

arXiv:1410.0169•Physical Review A•Jan 20, 2015•33 citations

Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation for relativistic particles in external fields

Alexander J. Silenko

A method of Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation for relativistic spin-1/2 particles in external fields is proposed. It permits the determination of the Hamilton operator in the Foldy–Wouthuysen representation with any accuracy. Interactions between a particle having an anomalous magnetic moment and nonstationary electromagnetic and electroweak fields are investigated.

arXiv:math-ph/0404067•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jun 19, 2003•111 citations
Although the time-dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation of the "Schr"odinger" equation i\ensuremath∂\ensuremathψ\ensuremath∂t=H\ensuremathψ\frac{i\ensuremath{\partial}\ensuremath{\psi}}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}=H\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremath∂ti\ensuremath∂\ensuremathψ​=H\ensuremathψ yields the transformed equation i\ensuremath∂\ensuremathψ\ensuremath′\ensuremath∂t=H\ensuremath′\ensuremathψ\ensuremath′\frac{i\ensuremath{\partial}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}={H}^{\ensuremath{'}}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath∂ti\ensuremath∂\ensuremathψ\ensuremath′​=H\ensuremath′\ensuremathψ\ensuremath′, where \ensuremathψ\ensuremath′=U\ensuremathψ{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{\ensuremath{'}}=U\ensuremath{\psi}\ensuremathψ\ensuremath′=U\ensuremathψ and H\ensuremath′=UHU\ensuremath−1\ensuremath−iU\ensuremath∂(U\ensuremath−1)\ensuremath∂t{H}^{\ensuremath{'}}=UH{U}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{-}\frac{\mathrm{iU}\ensuremath{\partial}({U}^{\ensuremath{-}1})}{\ensuremath{\partial}t}H\ensuremath′=UHU\ensuremath−1\ensuremath−\ensuremath∂tiU\ensuremath∂(U\ensuremath−1)​, the expectation values (\ensuremathψ1,H\ensuremathψj{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{1}, H{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}\ensuremathψ1​,H\ensuremathψj​) of HHH are not equal to (\ensuremathψi\ensuremath′,H\ensuremath′\ensuremathψj\ensuremath′{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, {H}^{\ensuremath{'}}{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremathψi​\ensuremath′,H\ensuremath′\ensuremathψj​\ensuremath′), but rather, to (\ensuremathψi\ensuremath′,UHU\ensuremath−1\ensuremathψj\ensuremath′{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, \mathrm{UH}{U}^{\ensuremath{-}1}{{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremathψi​\ensuremath′,UHU\ensuremath−1\ensuremathψj​\ensuremath′). But one still has (\ensuremathψi\ensuremath′,\ensuremathψj\ensuremath′)=(\ensuremathψi,\ensuremathψj)({{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}}^{\ensuremath{'}}, {{\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j}}^{\ensuremath{'}})=({\ensuremath{\psi}}_{i}, {\ensuremath{\psi}}_{j})(\ensuremathψi​\ensuremath′,\ensuremathψj​\ensuremath′)=(\ensuremathψi​,\ensuremathψj​). I discuss implications for perturbation calculations, scattering amplitudes, electrodynamics, and the external-field \ensuremathπN\ensuremath{\pi}N\ensuremathπN ambiguity, and look at exact special cases.
The Dirac equation for a charged particle in a time-dependent electromagnetic field is reduced to the Pauli equation in the non-relativistic limit by making a time-dependent Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation in a completely gauge-invariant way. In a time-dependent field, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian is dependent on the gauge, and so it cannot be the energy. The energy is obtained by taking the expectation value of the energy operator, the time rate of change of which is the average of the quantum mechanical power operator. The Hamiltonian formulation of a charged particle in a time-dependent external electromagnetic field is satisfactory when this distinction between the Hamiltonian, which describes the time evolution of the system, and the energy operator, which is gauge invariant, is made.
We show that the origin of the nonequivalence of Hamiltonians in different representations is a change of the form of the time-derivative operator at a time-dependent unitary transformation. This nonequivalence does not lead to an ambiguity of the energy expectation values of a particle in nonstationary fields but assigns the basic representation. It has been explicitly or implicitly supposed in previous investigations that this representation is the Dirac one. We prove the alternative assertion about the basic role of the Foldy-Wouthuysen representation. We also derive the general equation for the energy expectation values in the Dirac representation. As an example, we consider a spin-1/2 particle with anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments in strong time-dependent electromagnetic fields. We apply the obtained results to a spin-1/2 particle in a plane monochromatic electromagnetic wave and give an example of the exact Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation in the nonstationary case.