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

Reply to ”The gauge-invariant lagrangian, the Power-Zienau-Woolley picture, and the choices of field momenta in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics.” by A. Vuckis et al

Emmanuel Rousseau, Didier Felbacq

Published Apr 6, 2019• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

This note is a reply to the paper (arXiv:1801.0559v2): " The gauge-invariant Lagrangian, the Power-Zienau-Woolley picture, and the choices of field momenta in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics" by G. Kónya, et al.See also our first reply (arXiv:1804.07472v1) in response to their initial comment "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincaré gauge from the very first principles " ( arXiv:1801.05590v1) ————————————– In a recent paper, we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. Kónya and al. They first claim an error [arXiv:1801.05590v1] followed by a subsequent allegation that the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian can be derived starting from the electromagnetic action.We do not share their conclusions and show in two back-to-back replies [arXiv:1804.07472v1 followed by this note] that their successive statements are not correct.

Related papers

Reply to " The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincaré gauge from the very first principles " by G. Kónya, et al.

Emmanuel Rousseau, Didier Felbacq

This note is a reply to the paper arXiv:1801.05590: "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincar{\'e} gauge from the very first principles" by G. K{\'o}nya, et al. In a recent paper [2], we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. K{\'o}nya, al. in a comment 1 where the authors claim the equivalence between the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian and the minimal-coupling hamiltonian in the Poincar{\'e} gauge. They claim that we have made one error and one wrong emphasis in our paper: The error as summarized by G. K{\'o}nya al. would be: "The canonical field momentum is not gauge invariant. Equivalent transformations of the Lagrangian do change the momentum. In field theories, gauge transformations are special cases of such transformations. The electric field E is gauge invariant, but its capacity of being the canonical momentum is not. " The wrong emphasis as summarized by G.K{\'o}nya al. would be: "The use of the canonical coordinate/momentum pair A p and E in Poincar{\'e} gauge is presented as mandatory in Rousseau and Felbacq paper, whereas as there is a certain freedom of choice in selecting this pair. Also in Poincar{\'e} gauge it is possible to use A c as canonical coordinate, in which case the conjugate momentum will be D. This is the most convenient choice in terms of the set of nontrivial Dirac brackets. Cf. Table 1 in G. K{\'o}nya al. paper 1 for possible choices." We do not share these conclusions and show in this reply that these statements are incorrect. Specifically, we show that under a gauge transformation, the canonical momentum $\pi$(x,t) conjugated to the vector potential A(x,t) is given by $\pi$(x,t) = --$\epsilon$\_0 E(x,t). This happens because the Lagrangian does not contains terms proportional to $\partial$\_t $\phi$ (x,t) where $\phi$ (x,t) is the scalar potential. Moreover our choice of canonical variables was challenged. Actually, our set of independent variables is exactly the same as in G. K{\'o}nya al. except that we do not write explicitly the dependent variables in term of the independent ones. This is one great advantage of the Dirac procedure for constrained hamiltonian.

•Apr 6, 2018•0 citations

Reply to "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincar{é} gauge from the very first principles" by G. K{ó}nya, et al

Emmanuel Rousseau, Didier Felbacq

This note is a reply to the paper arXiv:1801.05590: "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincar{é} gauge from the very first principles" by G. K{ó}nya, et al. In a recent paper [2], we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. K{ó}nya, al. in a comment 1 where the authors claim the equivalence between the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian and the minimal-coupling hamiltonian in the Poincar{é} gauge. They claim that we have made one error and one wrong emphasis in our paper: The error as summarized by G. K{ó}nya al. would be: "The canonical field momentum is not gauge invariant. Equivalent transformations of the Lagrangian do change the momentum. In field theories, gauge transformations are special cases of such transformations. The electric field E is gauge invariant, but its capacity of being the canonical momentum is not. " The wrong emphasis as summarized by G.K{ó}nya al. would be: "The use of the canonical coordinate/momentum pair A p and E in Poincar{é} gauge is presented as mandatory in Rousseau and Felbacq paper, whereas as there is a certain freedom of choice in selecting this pair. Also in Poincar{é} gauge it is possible to use A c as canonical coordinate, in which case the conjugate momentum will be D. This is the most convenient choice in terms of the set of nontrivial Dirac brackets. Cf. Table 1 in G. K{ó}nya al. paper 1 for possible choices." We do not share these conclusions and show in this reply that these statements are incorrect. Specifically, we show that under a gauge transformation, the canonical momentum $π$(x,t) conjugated to the vector potential A(x,t) is given by $π$(x,t) = --$ε$\_0 E(x,t). This happens because the Lagrangian does not contains terms proportional to $\partial$\_t $ϕ$ (x,t) where $ϕ$ (x,t) is the scalar potential. Moreover our choice of canonical variables was challenged. Actually, our set of independent variables is exactly the same as in G. K{ó}nya al. except that we do not write explicitly the dependent variables in term of the independent ones. This is one great advantage of the Dirac procedure for constrained hamiltonian.

arXiv:1804.07472•Apr 20, 2018•0 citations

Gauge invariant wave mechanics and the Power-Zienau-Woolley transformation

R. Guy Woolley

The wave mechanical formulation of quantum electrodynamics is investigated in an explicitly gauge invariant form and this leads to the connection between manifest charge conservation and the Power-Zienau-Woolley transformation.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Aug 1, 1980•26 citations

Comment on "Maxwell's equations in the multipolar representation"

W P Healy

It is shown that Haller's interpretation of the unitary transformation from the minimalcoupling to the multipolar form of the Hamiltonian in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics not only conflicts with the Maxwell-Lorentz equations but also ascribes a special status to the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian which is not warranted by the general method of canonical quantization. The correct interpretation of the transformation as the quantum analog of a classical canonical transformation is reiterated. It is also shown that the transformation is equivalent to a gauge transformation of the electromagnetic potentials.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1982•14 citations

Operator Gauge Transformations in Nonrelativistic Quantum Electrodynamics

Raymond Dale Gray

A system of nonrelativistic charged particles and radiation is canonically quantized in the Coulomb gauge and Maxwell's equations in quantum electrodynamics are derived. By requiring form invariance of the Schrodinger equation under a space and time dependent unitary transformation, operator gauge transformations on the quantized electromagnetic potentials and state vectors are introduced. These gauge transformed potentials have the same form as gauge transformations in non-Abelian gauge field theories. A gauge-invariant method for solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation in quantum electrodynamics is given. Maxwell's equations are written in a form which holds in all gauges and which has formal similarity to the equations of motion of non-Abelian gauge fields. A gauge-invariant derivation of conservation of energy in quantum electrodynamics is given. An operator gauge transformation is made to the multipolar gauge in which the potentials are expressed in terms of the electromagnetic fields. The multipolar Hamiltonian is shown to be the minimally coupled Hamiltonian with the electromagnetic potentials in the multipolar gauge. The model of a charged harmonic oscillator in a single-mode electromagnetic field is considered as an example. The gauge-invariant procedure for solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation is used to obtain the gauge-invariant probabilities that the oscillator is in an energy eigenstate For comparison, the conventional approach is also used to solve the harmonic oscillator problem and is shown to give gauge-dependent amplitudes.

•Dec 1, 1982•0 citations

On a generalization of the Power–Zienau–Woolley transformation in quantum electrodynamics and atomic field equations

M. Babiker, Edwin Albert Power, T. Thirunamachandran

Abstract A canonical transformation is performed on the conventional Hamiltonian for the electromagnetic radiation field and an assemblage of neutral molecules in interaction. The new Hamiltonian has interaction energies expressed in terms of the electromagnetic fields alone and these energies have direct physical significance. The terms linear in e are the multipole interactions, both electric and magnetic, and the term quadratic in e is a generalization of the elementary diamagnetic energy shift. The intermolecular Coulomb energies have cancelled with transverse polarization fields in the new Hamiltonian, although the intramolecular Coulomb potentials are left unaffected. The equations of motion that follow from the new Hamiltonian are deduced. They are the so-called atomic-field equations for the Maxwell fields and Schrödinger equation for an electron wave in a transverse electromagnetic field. The former are the microscopic analogues of Maxwell’s equations in a medium (not restricted to dipole polarization fields) and the latter are dependent on the field strengths alone (not explicit functions of the vector potential).

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A Mathematical and Physical Sciences•Jun 4, 1974•93 citations
This note is a reply to the paper (arXiv:1801.0559v2): " The gauge-invariant Lagrangian, the Power-Zienau-Woolley picture, and the choices of field momenta in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics" by G. Kónya, et al.See also our first reply (arXiv:1804.07472v1) in response to their initial comment "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincaré gauge from the very first principles " ( arXiv:1801.05590v1) ————————————– In a recent paper, we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. Kónya and al. They first claim an error [arXiv:1801.05590v1] followed by a subsequent allegation that the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian can be derived starting from the electromagnetic action.We do not share their conclusions and show in two back-to-back replies [arXiv:1804.07472v1 followed by this note] that their successive statements are not correct.
This note is a reply to the paper arXiv:1801.05590: "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincar{\'e} gauge from the very first principles" by G. K{\'o}nya, et al. In a recent paper [2], we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. K{\'o}nya, al. in a comment 1 where the authors claim the equivalence between the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian and the minimal-coupling hamiltonian in the Poincar{\'e} gauge. They claim that we have made one error and one wrong emphasis in our paper: The error as summarized by G. K{\'o}nya al. would be: "The canonical field momentum is not gauge invariant. Equivalent transformations of the Lagrangian do change the momentum. In field theories, gauge transformations are special cases of such transformations. The electric field E is gauge invariant, but its capacity of being the canonical momentum is not. " The wrong emphasis as summarized by G.K{\'o}nya al. would be: "The use of the canonical coordinate/momentum pair A p and E in Poincar{\'e} gauge is presented as mandatory in Rousseau and Felbacq paper, whereas as there is a certain freedom of choice in selecting this pair. Also in Poincar{\'e} gauge it is possible to use A c as canonical coordinate, in which case the conjugate momentum will be D. This is the most convenient choice in terms of the set of nontrivial Dirac brackets. Cf. Table 1 in G. K{\'o}nya al. paper 1 for possible choices." We do not share these conclusions and show in this reply that these statements are incorrect. Specifically, we show that under a gauge transformation, the canonical momentum π\piπ(x,t) conjugated to the vector potential A(x,t) is given by π\piπ(x,t) = --ϵ\epsilonϵ\_0 E(x,t). This happens because the Lagrangian does not contains terms proportional to ∂\partial∂\_t ϕ\phiϕ (x,t) where ϕ\phiϕ (x,t) is the scalar potential. Moreover our choice of canonical variables was challenged. Actually, our set of independent variables is exactly the same as in G. K{\'o}nya al. except that we do not write explicitly the dependent variables in term of the independent ones. This is one great advantage of the Dirac procedure for constrained hamiltonian.
This note is a reply to the paper arXiv:1801.05590: "The equivalence of the Power-Zineau-Woolley picture and the Poincar{é} gauge from the very first principles" by G. K{ó}nya, et al. In a recent paper [2], we have shown that the Power-Zienau-Woolley Hamiltonian does not derived from the minimal-coupling hamiltonian with the help of a gauge transformation. This result has been challenged by G. K{ó}nya, al. in a comment 1 where the authors claim the equivalence between the Power-Zienau-Woolley hamiltonian and the minimal-coupling hamiltonian in the Poincar{é} gauge. They claim that we have made one error and one wrong emphasis in our paper: The error as summarized by G. K{ó}nya al. would be: "The canonical field momentum is not gauge invariant. Equivalent transformations of the Lagrangian do change the momentum. In field theories, gauge transformations are special cases of such transformations. The electric field E is gauge invariant, but its capacity of being the canonical momentum is not. " The wrong emphasis as summarized by G.K{ó}nya al. would be: "The use of the canonical coordinate/momentum pair A p and E in Poincar{é} gauge is presented as mandatory in Rousseau and Felbacq paper, whereas as there is a certain freedom of choice in selecting this pair. Also in Poincar{é} gauge it is possible to use A c as canonical coordinate, in which case the conjugate momentum will be D. This is the most convenient choice in terms of the set of nontrivial Dirac brackets. Cf. Table 1 in G. K{ó}nya al. paper 1 for possible choices." We do not share these conclusions and show in this reply that these statements are incorrect. Specifically, we show that under a gauge transformation, the canonical momentum πππ(x,t) conjugated to the vector potential A(x,t) is given by πππ(x,t) = --εεε\_0 E(x,t). This happens because the Lagrangian does not contains terms proportional to ∂\partial∂\_t ϕϕϕ (x,t) where ϕϕϕ (x,t) is the scalar potential. Moreover our choice of canonical variables was challenged. Actually, our set of independent variables is exactly the same as in G. K{ó}nya al. except that we do not write explicitly the dependent variables in term of the independent ones. This is one great advantage of the Dirac procedure for constrained hamiltonian.
It is shown that Haller's interpretation of the unitary transformation from the minimalcoupling to the multipolar form of the Hamiltonian in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics not only conflicts with the Maxwell-Lorentz equations but also ascribes a special status to the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian which is not warranted by the general method of canonical quantization. The correct interpretation of the transformation as the quantum analog of a classical canonical transformation is reiterated. It is also shown that the transformation is equivalent to a gauge transformation of the electromagnetic potentials.
A system of nonrelativistic charged particles and radiation is canonically quantized in the Coulomb gauge and Maxwell's equations in quantum electrodynamics are derived. By requiring form invariance of the Schrodinger equation under a space and time dependent unitary transformation, operator gauge transformations on the quantized electromagnetic potentials and state vectors are introduced. These gauge transformed potentials have the same form as gauge transformations in non-Abelian gauge field theories. A gauge-invariant method for solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation in quantum electrodynamics is given. Maxwell's equations are written in a form which holds in all gauges and which has formal similarity to the equations of motion of non-Abelian gauge fields. A gauge-invariant derivation of conservation of energy in quantum electrodynamics is given. An operator gauge transformation is made to the multipolar gauge in which the potentials are expressed in terms of the electromagnetic fields. The multipolar Hamiltonian is shown to be the minimally coupled Hamiltonian with the electromagnetic potentials in the multipolar gauge. The model of a charged harmonic oscillator in a single-mode electromagnetic field is considered as an example. The gauge-invariant procedure for solving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation is used to obtain the gauge-invariant probabilities that the oscillator is in an energy eigenstate For comparison, the conventional approach is also used to solve the harmonic oscillator problem and is shown to give gauge-dependent amplitudes.
Abstract A canonical transformation is performed on the conventional Hamiltonian for the electromagnetic radiation field and an assemblage of neutral molecules in interaction. The new Hamiltonian has interaction energies expressed in terms of the electromagnetic fields alone and these energies have direct physical significance. The terms linear in e are the multipole interactions, both electric and magnetic, and the term quadratic in e is a generalization of the elementary diamagnetic energy shift. The intermolecular Coulomb energies have cancelled with transverse polarization fields in the new Hamiltonian, although the intramolecular Coulomb potentials are left unaffected. The equations of motion that follow from the new Hamiltonian are deduced. They are the so-called atomic-field equations for the Maxwell fields and Schrödinger equation for an electron wave in a transverse electromagnetic field. The former are the microscopic analogues of Maxwell’s equations in a medium (not restricted to dipole polarization fields) and the latter are dependent on the field strengths alone (not explicit functions of the vector potential).