- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Arbitrary gauge quantization of light-matter theories with time-dependent constraints

Adam Stokes1 and Ahsan Nazir2,*

  • 1School of Mathematics, Statistics, and Physics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
  • 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

  • *Contact author: ahsan.nazir@manchester.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013149 – Published 10 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/yrvp-ds36

Abstract

We provide a general framework for the quantization of light-matter theories with time-dependent holonomic constraints. Unless time dependence is present from the outset at the Lagrangian level, different gauges generally produce nonequivalent canonical theories. The irrotational gauge is defined as the one that also yields a correct theory when time dependence is introduced at the Hamiltonian level. Our framework unifies examples of such gauges found in existing literature. In particular, we show that for describing time-dependent light-matter interactions the Coulomb gauge is not generally irrotational, so it does not enjoy any special status.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (75)

  1. C. Caloz and Z.-L. Deck-Léger, Spacetime metamaterials part II: Theory and applications, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 68, 1583 (2020).
  2. C. Caloz and Z.-L. Deck-Léger, Spacetime metamaterials part I: General concepts, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 68, 1569 (2020).
  3. V. Pacheco-Peña and N. Engheta, Merging effective medium concepts of spatial and temporal media: Opening new avenues for manipulating wave-matter interaction in 4D, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 65, 39 (2023).
  4. E. Galiffi, R. Tirole, S. Yin, H. Li, S. Vezzoli, P. A. Huidobro, M. G. Silveirinha, R. Sapienza, A. Alù, and J. B. Pendry, Photonics of time-varying media, Adv. Photonics 4, 014002 (2022).
  5. S. A. R. Horsley and J. B. Pendry, Quantum electrodynamics of time-varying gratings, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2302652120 (2023).
  6. J. B. Pendry and S. A. R. Horsley, QED in spacetime varying materials, APL Quantum 1, 020901 (2024).
  7. S. A. R. Horsley and R. K. Baker, Macroscopic QED and noise currents in time-varying media, Phys. Rev. A 111, 053511 (2025).
  8. Y.-x. Liu, J. Q. You, L. F. Wei, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Optical selection rules and phase-dependent adiabatic state control in a superconducting quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 087001 (2005).
  9. Z. Huang, Y. Lu, E. Kapit, D. I. Schuster, and J. Koch, Universal stabilization of single-qubit states using a tunable coupler, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062345 (2018).
  10. Y. Lu, S. Chakram, N. Leung, N. Earnest, R. K. Naik, Z. Huang, P. Groszkowski, E. Kapit, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Universal stabilization of a parametrically coupled qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150502 (2017).
  11. M. Mariantoni, F. Deppe, A. Marx, R. Gross, F. K. Wilhelm, and E. Solano, Two-resonator circuit quantum electrodynamics: A superconducting quantum switch, Phys. Rev. B 78, 104508 (2008).
  12. F. Armata, G. Calajo, T. Jaako, M. S. Kim, and P. Rabl, Harvesting multiqubit entanglement from ultrastrong interactions in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 183602 (2017).
  13. F. Beaudoin, M. P. da Silva, Z. Dutton, and A. Blais, First-order sidebands in circuit QED using qubit frequency modulation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 022305 (2012).
  14. J. D. Strand, M. Ware, F. Beaudoin, T. A. Ohki, B. R. Johnson, A. Blais, and B. L. T. Plourde, First-order sideband transitions with flux-driven asymmetric transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. B 87, 220505(R) (2013).
  15. G. Romero, D. Ballester, Y. M. Wang, V. Scarani, and E. Solano, Ultrafast quantum gates in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 120501 (2012).
  16. P. Groszkowski, A. G. Fowler, F. Motzoi, and F. K. Wilhelm, Tunable coupling between three qubits as a building block for a superconducting quantum computer, Phys. Rev. B 84, 144516 (2011).
  17. R. K. Naik, N. Leung, S. Chakram, P. Groszkowski, Y. Lu, N. Earnest, D. C. McKay, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Random access quantum information processors using multimode circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Commun. 8, 1904 (2017).
  18. N. Didier, E. A. Sete, M. P. da Silva, and C. Rigetti, Analytical modeling of parametrically modulated transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022330 (2018).
  19. G. Günter, A. A. Anappara, J. Hees, A. Sell, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, S. D. Liberato, C. Ciuti, A. Tredicucci, A. Leitenstorfer, et al., Sub-cycle switch-on of ultrastrong lightmatter interaction, Nature (London) 458, 178 (2009).
  20. B. Peropadre, P. Forn-Díaz, E. Solano, and J. J. García-Ripoll, Switchable ultrastrong coupling in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 023601 (2010).
  21. M. Halbhuber, J. Mornhinweg, V. Zeller, C. Ciuti, D. Bougeard, R. Huber, and C. Lange, Non-adiabatic stripping of a cavity field from electrons in the deep-strong coupling regime, Nat. Photon. 14, 675 (2020).
  22. J. Flick, D. M. Welakuh, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Light—matter response in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics, ACS Photonics 6, 2757 (2019).
  23. M. Keyl, R. Zeier, and T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, Controlling several atoms in a cavity, New J. Phys. 16, 065010 (2014).
  24. M. Kowalewski, K. Bennett, and S. Mukamel, Nonadiabatic dynamics of molecules in optical cavities, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 054309 (2016).
  25. C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Enhancing cavity quantum electrodynamics via antisqueezing: Synthetic ultrastrong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 093602 (2018).
  26. G. Falci, A. Ridolfo, P. G. D. Stefano, and E. Paladino, Ultrastrong coupling probed by coherent population transfer, Sci. Rep. 9, 9249 (2019).
  27. F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science 373, eabd0336 (2021).
  28. M. Hertzog, M. Wang, J. Mony, and K. Börjesson, Strong light–matter interactions: A new direction within chemistry, Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 937 (2019).
  29. L. Garziano, A. Ridolfo, R. Stassi, O. Di Stefano, and S. Savasta, Switching on and off of ultrastrong lightmatter interaction: Photon statistics of quantum vacuum radiation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 063829 (2013).
  30. F. C. Wellstood, C. Urbina, and J. Clarke, Low-frequency noise in dc superconducting quantum interference devices below 1 K, Appl. Phys. Lett. 50, 772 (1987).
  31. P. Kumar, S. Sendelbach, M. A. Beck, J. W. Freeland, Z. Wang, H. Wang, C. C. Yu, R. Q. Wu, D. P. Pappas, and R. McDermott, Origin and reduction of 1/f magnetic flux noise in superconducting devices, Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 041001(R) (2016).
  32. F. Yoshihara, K. Harrabi, A. O. Niskanen, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Decoherence of flux qubits due to 1/f flux noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 167001 (2006).
  33. W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, What happens when an accelerating observer detects a Rindler particle, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1047 (1984).
  34. R. Lopp and E. Martín-Martínez, Quantum delocalization, gauge, and quantum optics: Light-matter interaction in relativistic quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013703 (2021).
  35. R. Passante, Radiative level shifts of an accelerated hydrogen atom and the Unruh effect in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1590 (1998).
  36. D. Z. Rossatto, S. Felicetti, H. Eneriz, E. Rico, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Entangling polaritons via dynamical Casimir effect in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B 93, 094514 (2016).
  37. V. Dodonov, Fifty years of the dynamical Casimir effect, Physics 2, 67 (2020).
  38. A. Stokes and A. Nazir, Implications of gauge freedom for nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045003 (2022).
  39. A. Stokes and A. Nazir, Ultrastrong time-dependent lightmatter interactions are gauge relative, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013116 (2021).
  40. A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, D. Zueco, S. Hughes, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Gauge freedom, quantum measurements, and time-dependent interactions in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023079 (2021).
  41. C. Gustin, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Gauge-invariant theory of truncated quantum light-matter interactions in arbitrary media, Phys. Rev. A 107, 013722 (2023).
  42. O. Di Stefano, A. Settineri, V. Macrì, L. Garziano, R. Stassi, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Resolution of gauge ambiguities in ultrastrong-coupling cavity quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 15, 803 (2019).
  43. X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch, Circuit quantization in the presence of time-dependent external flux, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174512 (2019).
  44. B. S. DeWitt, Point transformations in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. 85, 653 (1952).
  45. We are adopting the convention of using q to denote the canonical coordinate (flux) as in Sec. 2. This node flux should not be confused with the node charge, which is the momentum conjugate to q, and is denoted here by p.
  46. A. Stokes and A. Nazir, Identification of Poincarégauge and multipolar nonrelativistic theories of QED, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032227 (2021).
  47. Woolley, Charged particles, gauge invariance, and molecular electrodynamics, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 74, 531 (1999).
  48. R. G. Woolley, A reformulation of molecular quantum electrodynamics, J. Phys. B 7, 488 (1974).
  49. R. G. Woolley, On non-relativistic electron theory, Ann. I.H.P.: Phys. Theor. 23, 365 (1975).
  50. P. A. M. Dirac, Gauge-invariant formulation of quantum electrodynamics, Can. J. Phys. 33, 650 (1955).
  51. R. G. Woolley, Power-Zienau-Woolley representations of nonrelativistic QED for atoms and molecules, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013206 (2020).
  52. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and Atoms: Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1989).
  53. W. P. Healy and D. P. Craig, The representation of microscopic charge and current densities in terms of polarization and magnetization fields, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 358, 367 (1977).
  54. V. Y. Chernyak, P. Saurabh, and S. Mukamel, Nonlinear non-local molecular electrodynamics with nanooptical fields, J. Chem. Phys. 143, 164107 (2015).
  55. J. D. Cresser and S. M. Barnett, The rate of spontaneous decay of a moving atom, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 1755 (2003).
  56. D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics: An Introduction to Radiation-Molecule Interactions (Courier Corporation, Mineola, New York, 1998).
  57. C. Baxter, M. Babiker, and R. Loudon, Canonical approach to photon pressure, Phys. Rev. A 47, 1278 (1993).
  58. L. G. Boussiakou, C. R. Bennett, and M. Babiker, Quantum theory of spontaneous emission by real moving atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 123001 (2002).
  59. V. E. Lembessis, M. Babiker, C. Baxter, and R. Loudon, Theory of radiation forces and momenta for mobile atoms in light fields, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1594 (1993).
  60. M. Wilkens, Spurious velocity dependence of free-space spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 47, 671 (1993).
  61. M. Wilkens, Significance of Röntgen current in quantum optics: Spontaneous emission of moving atoms, Phys. Rev. A 49, 570 (1994).
  62. E. A. Power and S. Zienau, Coulomb gauge in nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics and the shape of spectral lines, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 251, 427 (1959).
  63. P. W. Milonni, R. J. Cook, and J. R. Ackerhalt, Natural line shape, Phys. Rev. A 40, 3764 (1989).
  64. W. E. Lamb, R. R. Schlicher, and M. O. Scully, Matter-field interaction in atomic physics and quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 36, 2763 (1987).
  65. K. Rzazewski and R. W. Boyd, Equivalence of interaction hamiltonians in the electric dipole approximation, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1137 (2004).
  66. N. Funai, J. Louko, and E. Martín-Martínez, p̂·Â vs x̂·Ê: Gauge invariance in quantum optics and quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 99, 065014 (2019).
  67. M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997), 1st ed.
  68. W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, Fine structure of the hydrogen atom. Part I, Phys. Rev. 79, 549 (1950).
  69. W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, Fine structure of the hydrogen atom. Part II, Phys. Rev. 81, 222 (1951).
  70. W. E. Lamb, Fine structure of the hydrogen atom. III, Phys. Rev. 85, 259 (1952).
  71. R. G. Woolley, Foundations of Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022).
  72. A. Stokes, On the gauge of the natural lineshape, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46, 145505 (2013).
  73. L. Davidovich and H. M. Nussenzveig, Theory of natural line shape, in Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, edited by A. O. Barut (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1980), pp. 83–108.
  74. E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Time dependence of operators in minimal and multipolar nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics II. Analysis of the functional forms of operators in the two frameworks, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4936 (1999).
  75. A. Stokes, H. Riley, and A. Nazir, The gauge-relativity of quantum light, matter, and information, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 30, 2350016 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013149– Published 10 February, 2026
  • Received 2 June 2025
  • Accepted 23 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation