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

arXiv:physics/0307037

Comment on Perturbation theory for Heisenberg Operators

Guowu Meng

Published Jul 7, 2003• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This is a comment on Phys. Rev. A 67, 022104(2003).
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.physics/0307037

Related papers

Comment on the operator method and perturbational solution of the Schrödinger equation

Francisco Marcelo Fernández, Eduardo Alberto Castro

Physics Letters A•Sep 1, 1982•19 citations

Comparison of LPT and Kim-Sukhatme Approaches to Non-relativistic Perturbation Theory

Harry A. Mavromatis

The perturbation theory expressions obtained by Kim and Sukhatme [\lq\lq Alternative approach to non-relativistic perturbation theory", J. Phys. A 25 (1992) L647-L650] are compared with the results of the LPT formalism, developed by Aharanov and Au [\lq\lq New approach to perturbation theory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 1582-1585, and subsequent papers]. The step by step connection between the two formalisms is shown and commented on, and an illustrative example is given.

TURKISH JOURNAL OF PHYSICS•Jan 1, 1996•0 citations

On the integral equation for the Heisenberg current operator

John Charlton Polkinghorne

Il Nuovo Cimento•Mar 1, 1956•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry' ”

Christian Ufrecht, Enno Giese

Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.

Physical Review A•Aug 20, 2020•1 citation

On the Connection between Operators in the Heisenberg and Interaction Representations

Alexander D. Sukhanov

SPhD•Jan 1, 1963•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Symplectic quantization, inequivalent quantum theories, and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty’ ”

Merced Montesinos, G. F. Torres del Castillo

We refute the remarks made by Latimer, Comment on “Symplectic quantization, inequivalent quantum theories, and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty” [Phys. Rev. A 75, 066101 (2007)].Received 9 February 2007DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.066102©2007 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Jun 22, 2007•1 citation
Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.