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

Control of a quantum particle in a moving box

Pierre Rouchon

Published Jan 1, 2002• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This 1-D Schrodinger equation describes the non relativistic motion of a single charged particle (mass m = 1, = 1) with a potential V in a uniform electric field t → u(t). With v = −u, (1) represents also the dynamics of a particle in a non Galilean frame of absolute position v (see, e.g., [9]). A change of independent variables (t, q) → (t, z) and dependent variable ψ → φ, transform (1) into (2) where the control appears as a shift on the space variable. These classical transformations are as follows (see, e.g., [2]). Instead of considering u as control, take v defined by v = −u as control. Then

Related papers

On Global Approximate Controllability of a Quantum Particle in a Box by Moving Walls

Aitor Balmaseda, Davide Lonigro, Juan Manuel Pérez-Pardo

Abstract. We study a system composed of a free quantum particle trapped in a box whose walls can change their position. We prove the global approximate controllability of the system: any initial pure state can be driven arbitrarily close to any target pure state in the Hilbert space of the free particle with a predetermined final position of the box. To this purpose we consider weak solutions of the Schrödinger equation and use a stability theorem for the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.

arXiv:2208.13475•SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization•Mar 4, 2024•3 citations

Solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation

Nils O. Petersen

The solutions to the Time‐Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE) can be found as long as we can define the Hamiltonian, which in the simplest cases, means defining the potential in which the particle of interest is moving. In the following sections, we will consider a single particle of mass, m p , moving in a potential that is time‐independent, but can vary in space. We will follow four steps: Define the Hamiltonian by defining the Potential Energy Operator since H ^ = - ħ 2 2 m p ∇ ^ 2 + V ^ ( r ) $ \hat{H} = - \frac{{{\hbar}^{2} }}{{2m_{p} }}\hat{\nabla }^{2} + \hat{V}(r) $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_1.tif"/> . Solve the TISE to get the wave functions ψ ( x , y , z ) $ \psi (x, y, z) $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_2.tif"/> and then the total stationary state wave functions Ψ ( x , y , z ; t ) = ψ ( x , y , z ) e - i ω t . $ \iPsi (x, y, z;t) = \psi (x, y, z)e^{ - i\omega t} . $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_3.tif"/> Determine the energies of the various states of the system. Examine the implications of the solutions to the Schrödinger equations.

CRC Press eBooks•Apr 7, 2017•0 citations

Particle in a Box: Quantisation of Translational Energy

Amita Dua

The motion and all the properties of a particle of mass ‘ m ’ which moves with potential energy, V ( x, y, z ) can be obtained from solution of well behaved fundamental Schrödinger wave equation https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"> − ℏ 2 2 m ∇ 2 ψ + V ( x , y , z ) ψ = E ψ

CRC Press eBooks•Nov 6, 2025•0 citations

PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 8, 2014•0 citations

A quantum particle in a box with moving walls

Sara Di Martino, Fabio Anzà, Paolo Facchi +5 more

We analyze the non-relativistic problem of a quantum particle that bounces back and forth between two moving walls. We recast this problem into the equivalent one of a quantum particle in a fixed box whose dynamics is governed by an appropriate time-dependent Schrödinger operator.

arXiv:1306.4252•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Aug 20, 2013•32 citations

Interaction of atoms, molecules, and ions with constant electric and magnetic fields

Bruce R. Johnson, Joseph O. Hirschfelder, Kuo‐Ho Yang

A thorough unified treatment is given of the quantum-mechanical operators and wave functions for a molecular system (composed of $N$ moving charged particles) in static uniform electric and magnetic fields $\mathit{E}$ and $\mathit{B}$. The treatment is rigorous within the nonrelativistic approximation. The system may either be neutral or charged. The fields may have arbitrary intensities and orientations. Close correspondence is maintained between the classical and quantum-mechanical treatments. The wave functions are expressed both in the time-independent energy representation and in time-dependent wave packets. Three types of momentum play important roles. For single-particle systems they are the canonical momentum $\mathit{P}$, the mechanical momentum $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}=\mathit{P}\ensuremath{-}(\frac{e}{c})\mathit{A}=M\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$, and the pseudomomentum $\mathcal{K}=\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}\ensuremath{-}(\frac{e}{c})\mathit{R}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}\ensuremath{-}e\mathit{E}t$. The pseudomomentum is a constant of the motion. Except in the absence of magnetic fields, not all of the components of either $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}$ or $\mathcal{K}$ commute. This complicates the quantum-mechanical formalism. The components of the pseudomomentum have simple classical interpretations, and in quantum mechanics they are related to the operator which performs a boost to a reference frame moving with constant velocity $\mathit{v}$. In this moving frame, the electric field intensity is ${\mathit{E}}^{\ensuremath{'}}=\mathit{E}+(\frac{\mathit{v}}{c})\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}$. Thus, in a frame moving with the drift velocity ${\mathit{v}}_{d}=(\frac{c}{{B}^{2}})\mathit{E}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}$, the components of the electric field intensity perpendicular to $\mathit{B}$ vanish. In this paper, the velocity boost operators are used to show the relationships between wave functions expressed in reference frames moving with repsect to each other. The dynamics of the $N$-particle systems are simplified by making the Power-Zienau-Woolley transformation (which reduces as a special case to a unitary transformation used by Lamb) and by using center-of-mass and internal coordinates. Generalizing previous works, it is shown how the pseudomomentum is involved in separating these degrees of freedom for $N$ particles in both $\mathit{E}$ and $\mathit{B}$. For neutral molecules, the Schr\"odinger equation is "pseudoseparated" and the internal degrees of freedom are coupled to the center of mass motion only by the "motional Stark Effect," which involves the constant of motion $\mathcal{K}$. For ionic systems, only one component of the center of mass is coupled to the internal motion. Quantitative estimates of the weak center-of-mass coupling are made for both neutral and ionic $n=1$ and $n=2$ quantum states of two-body systems by perturbation expansions in powers of the field strengths. In the usual nonrigorous treatments of systems in magnetic fields, no distinction is made between $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ and both are approximated by $M\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$, where $M$ is the mass of the molecule and $\mathit{R}$ is taken to be the classical orbital position of a single particle having the same mass and charge. This is an excellent approximation for ground-state molecules and ions in weak fields. However, the resulting errors can be much larger if the system is in either intense fields or high-lying states (e.g., Rydberg levels). These are the conditions under which the rigorous formalism should be most useful. The determination of the wave functions and energy levels for many-particle ionic systems is complicated due to the coupling with the center of mass. The suggestion is made that it might be useful to boost the reference frame so that it moves with the velocity $\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$ of a single classical particle. The Schr\"odinger equation in this frame could serve as a more suitable basis for perturbative or variational treatments.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 1983•229 citations
This 1-D Schrodinger equation describes the non relativistic motion of a single charged particle (mass m = 1, = 1) with a potential V in a uniform electric field t → u(t). With v = −u, (1) represents also the dynamics of a particle in a non Galilean frame of absolute position v (see, e.g., [9]). A change of independent variables (t, q) → (t, z) and dependent variable ψ → φ, transform (1) into (2) where the control appears as a shift on the space variable. These classical transformations are as follows (see, e.g., [2]). Instead of considering u as control, take v defined by v = −u as control. Then
The solutions to the Time‐Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE) can be found as long as we can define the Hamiltonian, which in the simplest cases, means defining the potential in which the particle of interest is moving. In the following sections, we will consider a single particle of mass, m p , moving in a potential that is time‐independent, but can vary in space. We will follow four steps: Define the Hamiltonian by defining the Potential Energy Operator since H ^ = - ħ 2 2 m p ∇ ^ 2 + V ^ ( r ) $ \hat{H} = - \frac{{{\hbar}^{2} }}{{2m_{p} }}\hat{\nabla }^{2} + \hat{V}(r) $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_1.tif"/> . Solve the TISE to get the wave functions ψ ( x , y , z ) $ \psi (x, y, z) $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_2.tif"/> and then the total stationary state wave functions Ψ ( x , y , z ; t ) = ψ ( x , y , z ) e - i ω t . $ \iPsi (x, y, z;t) = \psi (x, y, z)e^{ - i\omega t} . $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315381381/5a219413-b541-4543-a0c3-fab4f5358e87/content/inline-math4_3.tif"/> Determine the energies of the various states of the system. Examine the implications of the solutions to the Schrödinger equations.
Ψ∂ (4.1) The harmonic trial solution of this equation with respect to a fixed inertial frame ( is given by )tx, ( ) ( ) ( )ctxikectxktx −Ψ=Ψ−Ψ=Ψ 00 orcos, In another inertial frame( ),, tx ′′ considered to be in uniform translational motion with velocity as described by the Galilean transformation (2.13), with respect to the fixed frame, the wave is represented by a wave function ,v ( ) ( ), related to ,x t x′ ′Ψ Ψ t as 2 2i.e., x t x x x t x x x x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = =′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ and 2 2i.e., 2 x t v v v t x t t t x t x tt x ′ ′∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ ∂ Ψ= + = − + = − +′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 2t∂ ∂ ∂ where use has been made of known properties of partial derivatives. It follows that obeys the following wave equation, with respect to the moving inertial frame ( tx ′′Ψ , ) ( ) tx v tx vc ′∂′∂ Ψ∂−′∂ Ψ∂=′∂ Ψ∂− 2 22 2 (4.2) which is obviously different from the wave equation (4.1) that holds in the fixed inertial frame. In other words the electromagnetic wave equation is not invariant with respect to a uniform translation of the inertial frame, using a Galilean transformation. Inserting into Eq.(4.2) harmonic solution written as we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 2( ) ( ) 2 ( ) i.e., orc v k k w v k w w v c w c− − = − − = − ± = ± v (4.3) Hence Galileo's transformation predicts that the velocity of light should be different from c, if measured with respect to a moving inertial frame. We therefore have a choice to make before we can fully understand the electromagnetic phenomena. We can either accept Galileo's principle of relativity which states that all inertial frames are equivalent or the Galilean transformation (2.13). We can sacrifice Galileo's principle of relativity by saying that there is a privileged inertial frame, called the ether, in which it is supposed that the electromagnetic wave velocity is c as given by Maxwell's equations, although they made no essential reference to the ether. A long series of investigations has been carried out, in order to detect some effect of the motion of the earth through the ether, always with negative results. All of the experiments (the best known being that of Michelson-Morley) have indicated that the speed of light is always the same in all directions and is independent of the relative motion of observer, source and transmitting medium. Einstein has reaffirmed Galileo's principle of relativity on the equivalence of all the inertial frames and, in addition, has assumed as a basic postulate the experimental fact that the speed of light is always constant. As a consequence, the Galilean transformation had to be replaced by another, in order to preserve the same speed of light in all systems. Einstein's basic assumptions are known as the postulates of special relativity: 1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems 2. The speed of light in empty space is a universal constant c and is the same for all observers. It is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Special relativity is only concerned with transformations between inertial frames, as indicated by the restriction contained in the first postulate. General relativity covers reference frames in arbitrary relative motion, and is based on the principle of equivalence, confirmed experimentally, which unifies gravitational and inertial forces. The first of Einstein's postulates implies that it is only possible, by means of physical measurements, to demonstrate that two gravity-free reference frames are moving relative to each other. There is no physical basis to infer that any such frame is intrinsically at rest or in uniform motion. The notion of absolute rest is not consistent with the first postulate. The second postulate is in contradiction with the Galilean transformation which would preserve the form of Newton's laws of motion, as illustrated by Eq.(4.3). Therefore, we must find a transformation between two frames moving with uniform relative motion, which is consistent with the second postulate. We must then generalize the laws of Newtonian mechanics in a form which is invariant under that transformation, as required by the first postulate. A fundamental requirement of special relativity is that the laws of Newtonian mechanics are valid in the low speed limit and must be obtained as limiting cases of relativistic formulae for .cv << This assumption plays, for special relativity, a role analogous to that of Bohr's correspondence principle in quantum mechanics (see Chapter 28). 4.2. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION Einstein's procedure is to locate an event in a reference frame by its spatial Cartesian coordinates x, y and z and a temporal coordinate t. Consider two frames S and S' moving with uniform relative motion, such that the Cartesian axis system in coincides with that in S, Oxyz, at time ,S ′ zyxO ′′′′ .0==′ tt As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the x and axes are parallel to the direction of relative motion: in moves in the x direction with velocity v, and in x′ , the frameS ′S S, the frameS ′ moves with velocity in the direction. A pulse of light emitted from O at time v− x′ 0=t spreads as a spherical wave travelling with speed c, so that the equation of the wave front in S, at a time t will be (4.4) 22222 tczyx =++ 0 0' z' y' x,x' z y Figure 4.1. Cartesian axes of two inertial frames in uniform relative motion The second postulate requires that the wave front in S ′ can be represented by (4.5) 22222 tczyx ′=′+′+′ In other words an observer in also sees a spherical wave travelling from its origin if not, any change of the wave front could be used to infer that the system is moving uniformly instead of being at rest. The invariance of the expression S ′ ,O′ S ′ (4.6) 2222222222 tczyxtczyx ′−′+′+′=−++ is a basic requirement that the transformation between the two systems must satisfy. The Galilean transformation (2.13), which in our case reads ttzzyyvtxx =′=′=′−=′ ,,, is not consistent with the invariance property (4.6), as it gives xvttvtczyxtczyx 2222222222222 −+−++=′−′+′+′ The first postulate brings some simplification to the possible form of the desired transformation. Since a uniform rectilinear motion in S must go over into a uniform rectilinear motion in S', the transformation must be linear. A nonlinear transformation would predict acceleration in S' even if the velocity were constant in S. The choice of the origins in space and time has avoided constant terms, and the transformation will be homogenous. The directions perpendicular to the relative motion, which are effectively at rest, must be left unchanged by the transformation. We then take the general form BtAxx +=′ yy =′ (4.7) zz =′ FtDxt +=′ Further simplification comes from the argument that the origin O', which has the coordinate moves along the x axis with velocity ,0=′x ,/ vdtdx = that is ABvBtAx /or0 −=+= while the origin O, with coordinate ,0=x moves along x-axis with velocity Recalling that when , we can write .'/' vdtdx −= 0=x 0=t 00 ort D B Bx A B t v F F F ′ − ⋅′ ′= ⋅ + = − = so that Inserting now Eqs.(4.7) into Eq.(4.5), we obtain the equation .FA = ( ) ( ) 02 22222222222222222 =−+⎟⎟⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ ⎛ −−++−=′−′+′+′ DcBAxt c BAtczyxDcAtczyx The identity (4.6) requires that 2222 =−=−=− DcB c BADcA Since ,B vA= we obtain 2222 /1 /, /1 , /1 cv cvD cv vB cv A − −= − −= − = (4.8) so that Eqs.(4.7) now read 22 /1 cv vtxx − −=′ yy =′ (4.9) zz =′ /1 / cv cvxtt − −=′ The four equations (4.9) are known as the Lorentz transformation, which in this case applies to the relative motion of inertial frames along the x-axis. It is a straightforward matter to show that Eqs.(4.9) are consistent with the invariance relation (4.6), which is thus a sufficient as well as a necessary condition for the Lorentz transformation. With the usual abbreviations ( )1 /1 1, 222 ≥ − = − == γ β γβ cvc v (4.10) the Lorentz transformation simplifies to ( ) ( )x x ct x x ctγ β γ β′ ′= − = + ′ a) yyyy ′==′ or b) (4.11) zzzz ′==′ c) ⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ ′+′=⎟⎠ ⎞⎜⎝ ⎛ −=′ x c ttx c tt βγβγ d) The right hand side shows the inverse transformations where the primed and unprimed quantities are interchanged and the sign of the relative velocity is reversed, because its direction is the only difference between the systems S and S'. In the low velocity limit the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation since the only difference consists in the presence of the factor γ and the term ,1< that, in Eq.(4.11a), γ indicates a change of measuring stick length and in Eq.(4.11d) a change in the clock rate in the Lorentz transformation. The term ( )xc/β− in Eq.(4.11d) shows that the time is dependent on the position of a given event. Therefore, the immediate consequences of the Lorentz transformation require the revision of the usual concepts of simultaneity, time and length. Simultaneity Consider two events occuring at the same time ttt == 21 at two different positions and in the unprimed system S. According to Eqs.(4.11) the events are recorded in the primed system S' at different times 1x 2x / /, 1 1 t x c t xt t cβ ββ β − −′ ′= = − − so that the apparent time interval in S' is given by ( ) 0 1 / 2 21 12 ≠− −=′−′=′∆ β β cxx ttt (4.12) and hence, it is a function of the relative velocity v. The events will not appear as simultaneous to observers in S'. We are then forced to abandon the intuitive idea of absolute simultaneity, which is based on our experience with objects of low velocity, and accept the relativity of simultaneity, which depends on the coordinate system and applies in the domain of high velocities. Length contraction Consider a rod at rest in the primed system S' lying along the x-axis and having the length 12 xx ′−′=λ given by the distance between its ends 21 and xx ′′ measured at the same instant of time t'. The length in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest is called its proper length. To define length in a frame S in which the rod is moving, an observer must locate the position of both end points, 21 and xx ′′ , at the same time From the inverse equations (4.11) we obtain 1 2 .t t t= = 1 1 2 1 x ct x ct x xx x x xβ ββ β β − −′ ′ ′ ′= = − = − − − − so that the apparent length 12 xxl −= is 21 βλ −=l (4.13) This equation is known as the Lorentz contraction and states that a rod parallel to the direction of its motion is shortened by the factor .1 2β− It results from the fact that simultaneous events in the rest frame of one rod are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the other. A rod transverse to its direction of motion is unchanged in length. The proper length λ is independent of the orientation of the rod, as a manifestation of the isotropy of inertial rest frame S'. If the orientation of a rod is neither longitudinal nor transverse to the direction of relative motion, both the length and the inclination are changed in the laboratory frame S, as an effect of a contraction in the direction of the relative motion with no change of transverse dimensions.
A thorough unified treatment is given of the quantum-mechanical operators and wave functions for a molecular system (composed of NNN moving charged particles) in static uniform electric and magnetic fields E\mathit{E}E and B\mathit{B}B. The treatment is rigorous within the nonrelativistic approximation. The system may either be neutral or charged. The fields may have arbitrary intensities and orientations. Close correspondence is maintained between the classical and quantum-mechanical treatments. The wave functions are expressed both in the time-independent energy representation and in time-dependent wave packets. Three types of momentum play important roles. For single-particle systems they are the canonical momentum P\mathit{P}P, the mechanical momentum $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}=\mathit{P}\ensuremath{-}(\frac{e}{c})\mathit{A}=M\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$, and the pseudomomentum $\mathcal{K}=\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}\ensuremath{-}(\frac{e}{c})\mathit{R}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}\ensuremath{-}e\mathit{E}t$. The pseudomomentum is a constant of the motion. Except in the absence of magnetic fields, not all of the components of either $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}$ or K\mathcal{K}K commute. This complicates the quantum-mechanical formalism. The components of the pseudomomentum have simple classical interpretations, and in quantum mechanics they are related to the operator which performs a boost to a reference frame moving with constant velocity v\mathit{v}v. In this moving frame, the electric field intensity is ${\mathit{E}}^{\ensuremath{'}}=\mathit{E}+(\frac{\mathit{v}}{c})\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}$. Thus, in a frame moving with the drift velocity ${\mathit{v}}_{d}=(\frac{c}{{B}^{2}})\mathit{E}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathit{B}$, the components of the electric field intensity perpendicular to B\mathit{B}B vanish. In this paper, the velocity boost operators are used to show the relationships between wave functions expressed in reference frames moving with repsect to each other. The dynamics of the NNN-particle systems are simplified by making the Power-Zienau-Woolley transformation (which reduces as a special case to a unitary transformation used by Lamb) and by using center-of-mass and internal coordinates. Generalizing previous works, it is shown how the pseudomomentum is involved in separating these degrees of freedom for NNN particles in both E\mathit{E}E and B\mathit{B}B. For neutral molecules, the Schr\"odinger equation is "pseudoseparated" and the internal degrees of freedom are coupled to the center of mass motion only by the "motional Stark Effect," which involves the constant of motion K\mathcal{K}K. For ionic systems, only one component of the center of mass is coupled to the internal motion. Quantitative estimates of the weak center-of-mass coupling are made for both neutral and ionic n=1n=1n=1 and n=2n=2n=2 quantum states of two-body systems by perturbation expansions in powers of the field strengths. In the usual nonrigorous treatments of systems in magnetic fields, no distinction is made between $\mathit{\ensuremath{\Pi}}$ and K\mathcal{K}K and both are approximated by $M\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$, where MMM is the mass of the molecule and R\mathit{R}R is taken to be the classical orbital position of a single particle having the same mass and charge. This is an excellent approximation for ground-state molecules and ions in weak fields. However, the resulting errors can be much larger if the system is in either intense fields or high-lying states (e.g., Rydberg levels). These are the conditions under which the rigorous formalism should be most useful. The determination of the wave functions and energy levels for many-particle ionic systems is complicated due to the coupling with the center of mass. The suggestion is made that it might be useful to boost the reference frame so that it moves with the velocity $\stackrel{\ifmmode \dot{}\else \.{}\fi{}}{R}$ of a single classical particle. The Schr\"odinger equation in this frame could serve as a more suitable basis for perturbative or variational treatments.