Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Family of modified contracted Schrödinger equations’ ”

Diego R. Alcoba, Carmela Valdemoro

Published Jan 27, 2009• 2 citations

Abstract

The preceding Comment by Yasuda [Phys. Rev. A 79, 016101 (2009)] on our earlier paper [Phys. Rev. A 64, 062105 (2001)] raises several objections about the modified contracted Schr\"odinger equations (MCSEs) to which we reply here. In his comment, Yasuda also questions the possibility of obtaining the exact solution of the fourth-order MCSE due to its indeterminacy. We maintain the opposite, at least from a theoretical point of view.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.79.016102

Related papers

Comment on “Family of modified contracted Schrödinger equations”

Koji Yasuda

It is shown that the modified contracted Schr\"odinger equation (MCSE) proposed by Alcoba and Valdemoro [Phys. Rev. A 64, 062105 (2001)] is equivalent to the original CSE of lower-order [Phys. Rev. A 14, 41 (1976)]. In particular, MCSEs of the second, third, and fourth orders are reduced to CSEs of the first, first, and second orders, respectively. Thus these MCSEs are indeterminate as the corresponding CSEs.

Physical Review AJan 27, 20091 citation

Family of modified-contracted Schrödinger equations

Diego R. Alcoba, Carmela Valdemoro

A family of equations that combines contracted Schr\"odinger equations of different orders is reported here. Attention is focussed on the resulting second order, third order, and fourth order of these modified-contracted Schr\"odinger equations. Some of these equations are self-contained and have as fixed points those corresponding to the full-configuration interaction eigenstates. The indeterminacy, which hindered initially the use of the contracted Schr\"odinger equations, does not formally exist in these equations. Relations linking the lower-order reduced density matrices with the higher-order matrices are exactly incorporated into the modified-contracted Schr\"odinger-equations structure. The cancellation of high-order correlation terms, which is hidden in the contracted Schr\"odinger equations, now takes an explicit form.

Physical Review ANov 13, 200132 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential’ ”

I. Guedes

In this reply I discuss further the misconception in my paper [Phys. Rev. A 63, 034102 (2001)] related to the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation for a particle in a time-dependent linear potential.

Physical Review AJul 8, 200318 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Optimization of approximate solutions to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation’ ’’

Arthur B. Weglein

A method for determining optimal approximate solutions of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation was previously presented by Weglein [Phys. Rev. A 17, 1810 (1978)]. Maidagan and Piacentini have written a comment (preceding Comment) on that work. Their conclusion is simply incorrect. We show precisely where the error in their reasoning occurred.

Physical Review AJun 1, 19852 citations

Further comment on ‘‘Optimization of approximate solutions to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation’’

José M. Maidagan, Rubén Darío Piacentini

We show that the Reply of Weglein [Phys. Rev. A 31, 4025 (1985)] to our previous Comment [Phys. Rev. A 31, 4023 (1985)] is not valid.Received 18 September 1985DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.933©1987 American Physical Society

Physical Review AJan 1, 19870 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Phase properties of the quantized single-mode electromagnetic field’’

David Thomas Pegg, Stephen Mark Barnett

We assess the objections raised by Ma and Rhodes [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2576 (1991)]. These objections seem to arise from a misinterpretation of our theory and a confusion between states of precise phase and states of precise field.

Physical Review AMar 1, 199112 citations