format: text

text:
# Pictures and equations of motion in Lagrangian quantum field theory

## 1 Introduction

The aim of the present work is a systematic and detailed theory of different pictures of motion in Lagrangian quantum field theory and the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange and Heisenberg equations of motion in them for general Lagrangians, with or without derivative coupling.

We should mention, in this paper it is considered only the Lagrangian (canonical) quantum field theory in which the quantum fields are represented as operators, called field operators, acting on some Hilbert space, which in general is unknown if interacting fields are studied. These operators are supposed to satisfy some equations of motion, from them are constructed conserved quantities satisfying conservation laws, etc. From the view-point of present-day quantum field theory, this approach is only a preliminary stage for more or less rigorous formulation of the theory in which the fields are represented via operator-valued distributions, a fact required even for description of free fields. Moreover, in non-perturbative directions, like constructive and conformal field theories, the main objects are the vacuum mean (expectation) values of the fields and from these are reconstructed the Hilbert space of states and the acting in it fields. Regardless of these facts, the Lagrangian (canonical) quantum field theory is an inherent component of the most of the ways of presentation of quantum field theory adopted explicitly or implicitly in books like \[?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?\]. Besides the Lagrangian approach is a source of many ideas for other directions of research, like the axiomatic quantum field theory \[?, ?, ?\]. By these reasons, we devote the present paper to a general study of the pictures of motion of Lagrangian field theory.

The idea for transition from one picture of motion to other one in quantum field theory is quite simple: it consist in a simultaneous change of all state vectors and all operators, in particular the field ones, by means of a unitary operator in such a way that the mean values (mathematical expectations) of the operators to remain unchanged.111 For a summary and realization of this idea in the Hilbert space and Hilbert bundle quantum mechanics, see \[?\]; see also the references cited therein and \[?, chapter VII\]. To avoid confusions, in this paper we shall label all quantities in the Heisenberg picture by putting tildes (waves) over the corresponding symbols; e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$, etc. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ be a state vector of a system of quantum fields $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, acting on system’s Hilbert space $``$ of state vectors 222 Rigorously speaking, the quantum fields should be regarded as operator-valued distributions acting on relevant space of test functions in the correct mathematical setting of quantum field theory \[?, ?\]. This approach will be considered elsewhere. Here we treat the quantum fields as operators acting on a Hilbert space as it is done, e.g., in \[?, ?, ?\]., and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x):`$ be an operator characterizing the system, e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ being the (canonical, physical) momentum operator of the system defined by its Lagrangian via Noether’s theorem.333 For a discussion of the momentum operator in quantum field theory, see \[?\]. Here and henceforth in this paper by $`x`$, $`x_0`$, etc. will be denoted points in the 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $`M`$, which will serve as our model of spacetime. If $`𝒱(x,x_0):`$, $`x,x_0M`$, is a unitary operator relative to the (Hermitian) scalar product $`|:\times `$ on $``$, the changes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳^𝒱& :=𝒱(x,x_0)(\stackrel{~}{𝒳})\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒜^𝒱(x)& :=𝒱(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒱^1(x,x_0)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
preserves the scalar products and mean values, i.e.

$`𝒳^𝒱|𝒴^𝒱=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}|\stackrel{~}{𝒴}𝒳^𝒱|𝒜^𝒱(x)(𝒴^𝒱)=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}|\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(\stackrel{~}{𝒴}).`$ (1.2)
Therefore (1.1) can serve as a transformation from Heisenberg picture, corresponding to $`𝒱(x,x_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}`$, to the ‘general $`𝒱`$-picture’.

In the literature, available to the author, only the case when $`𝒱(x,x_0)`$ depends solely on the time coordinates $`x^0=ct`$ and $`x_0^0=ct_0`$ of the points $`x`$ and $`x_0`$, respectively, has been investigated; in this case, for brevity, we write $`𝒱(t,t_0)`$ for $`𝒱(x,x_0)`$. Such pictures and transitions from one picture to other picture of motion is suitable to be called *time-dependent* because of their explicit time dependence. However, the example with the interaction picture, considered in sections 3 and 4, shows that an explicitly time-dependent picture may turn to be implicitly covariant and, respectively, it may have an explicitly time-independent formulation (achieved at a price of involving new, more powerful and difficult, mathematical tools).

The organization of the present investigation is as follows.

In section 2, the notion of Heisenberg picture of motion in quantum field theory is briefly recalled and an idea is given of how the interaction between quantum fields is described in this picture.

Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to the two versions of the interaction picture, the covariant and time-dependent ones. All considerations are done in the general case of arbitrary Lagrangian depending on the quantum fields and their first derivatives. In particular, the Euler-Lagrange and Heisenberg equations of motion are derived for arbitrary, derivative or nonderivative, coupling between the fields. Some non-correct assertions in the literature are corrected. The calculations and derivations are relatively detailed; one of the reasons being that they or part of them are directly or, possibly, *mutatis mutandis* used in the next sections.

Section 5 deals with the Schrödinger picture of motion. Regardless of the existence in the literature of some general remarks concerning this picture, the detailed and systematic presentation of Schrödinger picture seems to appear in this paper for the first time. Emphasis is paid to the fact that the Schrödinger picture admits a covariant formulation, similar to the one of interaction picture.

The idea of a ‘general’ time-dependent picture of motion is given in section 6. The links between arbitrary such pictures are derived and the equations of motion in them are established. A way is pointed how all of them can be formulated in a covariant form, similar to that of interaction picture, based on the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation in functional derivatives.

In section 7 is presented a non-trivial essential example of completely covariant picture of motion,444 We exclude the Heisenberg picture which, by definition, is a covariant one. called the *momentum picture* as it is completely determined by the (canonical) momentum operator and has a lot of common features with the momentum representation (via the Fourier transform) widely applied in quantum field theory.555 However, the momentum picture is *different* from the known momentum representation. The interrelations between them will be studied elsewhere. This new picture is similar to the Schrödinger one, the latter may be considered as its one-dimensional special case. In particular, in momentum picture the state vectors became spacetime dependent, while the field operators (and the observables constructed from them) transform into constant (in spacetime) operators. Correspondingly, the Euler-Lagrange field equations transform from second order differential equations in Heisenberg picture into *algebraic* equations in momentum picture.

Section 8 is devoted to some ideas concerning the general covariant pictures of motion and the equations of motion in them.

In section 9 is summarized the content of the paper.

Here are some standard notations and conventions we shall follow in the present work. The 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime (model) will be denoted by $`M`$. It is supposed to be endowed with diagonal Lorentz metric with metric tensor $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ such that $`[\eta ^{\mu \nu }]=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. Here and henceforth in the work, the Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$ run from 0 to $`3=dimM1`$ and refer to spacetime coordinates. The raising or lowering of indices is done by $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ or its inverse tensor $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. The quantum fields (quantum field operators) are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and are numbered by Latin indices $`i,j.\mathrm{}`$ which run from 1 to some positive integer $`n`$. The Einstein’s summation convention is accepted, i.e. a summation is understood over any index appearing (twice) at different levels over the whole range of its values. The coordinates of a point $`xM`$ are denoted by $`x^\mu `$ and $`\frac{}{x^\mu }`$ denotes the partial derivative with respect to $`x^\mu `$. If $`f`$ is a function or operator-valued function over $`M`$, the symbol $`_\mu `$ denotes an operator such that $`_\mu :f\frac{f}{x^\mu }\frac{f(x)}{x^\mu }.`$ By definition $`^\mu :=\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\nu `$. The composition (product) of mappings/operators will be denoted by $``$. By definition $`[A,B]_\pm :=AB\pm BA`$ for mappings $`A`$ and $`B`$ with common domain. The velocity of light in vacuum and Planck’s constant (divided by $`2\pi `$) are denoted by $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, respectively.

Ending this section, we would like to make a technical remark. In the present paper derivatives with respect to operator-valued (non-commuting) variables will appear often. An everywhere (silently) accepted procedure for their calculation is by following the rules of classical analysis of commuting variables with preservation of operator ordering \[?, ?, ?\]. However, as it is demonstrated in \[?\], that procedure is not quite correct, but it is harmless in a lot of cases (in particular for free fields). In \[?\] is shown that derivatives of mentioned kind are mappings on the space of initial operators rather than an operator in this space (as accepted usually). In the sense clarified in \[?\], the classical and rigorous procedures for calculating derivatives relative to operator-valued arguments coincide if variations of the arguments proportional to the identity operator are considered. At any rate, since in this paper particular operator derivatives will not be computed (with a single exception), we shall treat the operator derivatives as accepted in the literature. If a rigorous treatment is required, the considerations and results in this paper can be “mended” according to the recipe given in \[?\].

## 2 Heisenberg picture and description of interacting fields

In the present section, we review the general settings of canonical quantum field theory in Heisenberg picture of motion; for details, see, e.g., \[?, ?, ?\]. In view of the considerations in the next sections, all quantities in Heisenberg picture will be labeled by a tilde (wave) over their (kernel) symbols.

Let there be given a system of $`n`$ quantum fields. The $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ quantum field is described via a linear operator $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$, $`xM`$, acting on the Hilbert space $``$ of states of the system, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x):`$. The field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ are supposed to be solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation(s)

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}\right)=0,$$
(2.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the Lagrangian (density) of the system.666 As accepted in the literature on quantum field theory \[?, ?\], the derivatives of operator-valued functions of operator arguments, as the ones appearing in (2.1), are calculated as in a case of ordinary (classical) functions of commuting arguments with the only exception that the order of all operators should be preserved. In most of the cases this procedure is harmless and works well, but leads to a certain non-uniqueness in the definitions of some (conserved) quantities. For details, see \[?\]. We suppose $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ to be a function, polynomial or convergent power series, of the field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and their first partial derivatives $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$.777 Most of our results admit a straightforward generalization for Lagrangians depending on higher derivatives of the field operators \[?, ?, ?\]. However, we drop the investigation of this case by the following three reasons: (i) Such Lagrangians play some role as model ones, have a number of intrinsic problems, and there are only some indications that real processes may be described by them; (ii) Such a generalization does not change anything in the ideas and methods in our investigation and only leads to complications in the calculations; (iii) After one has on his/her disposal the results of the present work, the mentioned generalization is only a matter of some technical details and corresponding calculations. The Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is also suppose to be explicitly independent of a spacetime point $`x`$ at which it is evaluated.888 This is a serious restriction. It means that only closed or translation invariant systems are considered. So, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}(x)=\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)).$$
(2.2)
In the Heisenberg picture, by definition, the state vectors from the system’s Hilbert space $``$ are supposed to be constant in spacetime, i.e. a vector $`𝒳`$ can represent a (physically realizable) state if $`_\mu 𝒳0`$. The state vectors are supposed to be eigenvectors of all commuting observables characterizing a given system of quantum fields.

Besides the Euler-Lagrange equations (2.1), the field operators $`\phi _i(x)`$ are supposed to satisfy the Heisenberg equations/relations of motion, which, in the Heisenberg picture, are

$$[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),$$
(2.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ are the components of the momentum operator, defined below by (2.7). These equations express the transformation properties of the field operators or that the momentum operator can be considered, in a sense, as a generator of the translation operator in the space of operators on systems’ Hilbert space of states \[?\].999 For some details, see \[?\]. At present, there are considered only Lagrangians for which the equations (2.1), (2.3) and (2.7) are compatible \[?, § 68\].

The general framework of canonical quantization describes equally well free and interacting fields. It is generally accepted, the Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of a system of quantum fields $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ to be decomposes as a sum

$$\stackrel{~}{}=^0\stackrel{~}{}+^{}\stackrel{~}{}$$
(2.4)
of a Lagrangian $`^0\stackrel{~}{}`$, called *free Lagrangian*, describing a system consisting of the same fields considered as free ones and a term $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$, called *interaction Lagrangian*, describing the interaction between these fields. Examples of free or interacting Lagrangians can be found in any (text)book on quantum field theory, e.g. in \[?, ?, ?\].101010 One should always take into account the normal ordering in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ which is, normally, not indicated. For some peculiarities of frequency decompositions and normal products of non-free fields, see, e.g., \[?, ?\].

The decomposition (2.4) entails similar ones for the energy-momentum tensorial operator111111 The order of the operators in the first term in (2.5) is essential. More generally, the first term in (2.5) may be defined in different ways, which leads to different ‘intermediate’ theories that agree after the establishment of (anti)commutation relations and normal ordering of products (compositions) of creation and annihilation operators. However, in this work only some properties of the momentum operator (2.7) which are independent of a particular definition of energy-momentum operator will be used. As demonstrated in \[?\], the rigorous definition of a derivative with respect to operator-valued argument entails unique expressions for the conserved operators obtained via the first Noether theorem, in particular for the energy-momentum operator.

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x):=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }(x)^\nu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{},$$
(2.5)
where
$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }(x):=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))},$$
(2.6)
and for the (canonical) 4-momentum operator

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}^\mu :=\frac{1}{c}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\nu \mu }(x)d\sigma _\nu (x),$$
(2.7)
where $`c`$ is the velocity of light in vacuum and the integration is over some space-like surface $`\sigma `$. Indeed, since (2.6) implies

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }:=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}=^0\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }+^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }=\frac{^a\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}a=0,,$$
(2.8)
from (2.5), we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x)& =^0\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x)+^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x)\hfill \\ \hfill ^a\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x)& =^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }(x)^\nu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)\eta _{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}\stackrel{~}{}(x)a=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
which, due to (2.7), yields

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu =^0\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu +^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu =\frac{1}{c}^a\stackrel{~}{𝒯}{}_{\mu }{}^{\nu }(x)\mathrm{d}\sigma _\nu (x)a=0,.$$
(2.10)
We should mention an important special case, named *nonderivative coupling*, when the interaction Lagrangian $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ does not depend on the derivatives $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ of the field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$. In it

$$^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }=0\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }=^0\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }=\frac{^0\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))},$$
(2.11)
so that

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }=^0\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }\eta _{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}.$$
(2.12)
Hereof, by (2.10),

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_0=^0\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_0+^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_0\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_a=^0\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_aa=1,2,3.$$
(2.13)
The decomposition (2.9) implies a similar one for the system’s Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{00}`$, viz.

$$\stackrel{~}{}=^0\stackrel{~}{}+^{}\stackrel{~}{}$$
(2.14)
in which $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is called the *interaction Hamiltonian*. In a case of nonderivative coupling, in view of (2.12) and (2.13), it coincides up to a sign with the interaction Lagrangian, i.e.

$$^{}\stackrel{~}{}=^{}\stackrel{~}{}.$$
(2.15)
On the above decompositions are based many model theories, investigated in the literature, and are elaborated a number of specific methods, such as ones involving in-, out-, and bare states or the perturbation and renormalization theories.

It is well known, the commutation relations between the field operators and/or some functions of them and their partial derivatives play a very important role in quantum field theory. However, rigorously speaking, they are known only for free fields or, more precisely, when the field operators satisfy the free Euler-Lagrange equations.121212 For instance, the last case is realized in the interaction picture for nonderivative coupling between the fields; see sections 3 and 4. Since we intend to consider the problem of commutation relations in different pictures of motion in a separate paper, it will not be dealt with in the present work.

## 3 Interaction picture. I. Covariant formulation

The shift from Heisenberg picture, summarized in Sect. 2, to the interaction one is realize by means of the so-called $`𝒰`$-operator which is connected with the interaction Hamiltonian in a way similar to the one the evolution operator in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is linked to the Hamiltonian \[?, ?\]. In this sense, the $`𝒰`$-operator plays a role of evolution operator in the (interaction picture of) quantum field theory. But such a view-point is limited as the absence of interaction, which entails $`𝒰=𝗂𝖽_{}`$, does not mean a complete disappearance of (e.g. time) evolution of the free fields.131313 However, since the main aim of quantum field theory is the description of interacting (quantum) fields and/or elementary particles, we may write the pure symbolical equality *evolution=interaction* and treat $`𝒰`$ as evolution operator. (The fibre bundle treatment of this problem will give other arguments in favor of such understanding; it will be developed elsewhere.)

We start with the so-called covariant approach which utilizes the notion of a functional derivative with respect to a (space-like in our context) surface $`\sigma `$ in $`M`$,141414 The only advantage of that approach is its explicit covariance. However, in our opinion, it is, in some sense, complicated and does not bring much to the understanding of the geometrical structure of quantum field theory. Besides, it essentially uses the specific properties of Minkowski spacetime, thus making the generalization of quantum field theory on curved manifolds more difficult.

Recall, if $`G:\sigma G[\sigma ]V`$, $`V`$ being a vector space (e.g. $`V=`$ in our context below), is a functional of a 3-dimensional surface $`\sigma `$ in the (4-dimensional) Minkowski space $`M`$, the *functional derivative of $`G`$ with respect to $`\sigma `$ at a point $`x\sigma `$* is a mapping $`(G,\sigma ,x)\frac{\delta G[\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma (x)}V`$, $`x\sigma `$, such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\delta G[\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma (x)}:=\frac{\delta G}{\delta \sigma }|_x:=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }\{x\}\\ \mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Omega })0\end{array}}{lim}\frac{G[\sigma ^{}]G[\sigma ]}{\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ & \sigma ^{}:=(\sigma \backslash (\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma ))(\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash (\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma ))\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
if the limit in the r.h.s. exists. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a (closed) 4-dimensional submanifold of $`M`$ with boundary, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is its boundary, and $`\mathrm{vol}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the (4-dimensional) volume of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Besides, it is supposed that the intersection $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma `$ is not empty, contains the point $`x`$, lies in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and is a 3-dimensional submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ without boundary.151515 All this means that the surface $`\sigma ^{}`$ is obtained from $`\sigma `$ via a continuous deformation in a neighborhood of $`x`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the spacetime region between $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$.

For example, we have: \[?, pp. 9–11\]

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma f^\mu (y)d\sigma _\mu (y)=_\mu f^\mu (x)$$
(3.2)
$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma f(y)d\sigma _\mu (y)=_\mu f(x),$$
(3.3)
where $`f^\mu ,f:M`$ are of class $`C^1`$. (The second equality follows from the first one for $`f^\nu =\delta _\mu ^\nu f`$.)

The equality $`\frac{\delta G[\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma }=0`$ is a criterion for surface-independence of $`G`$. In the context of quantum field theory, we put $`V=`$ and the surface $`\sigma `$ will always be assumed *space-like*, i.e. its normal vector $`n^\mu `$ is supposed time-like, $`n_\mu n^\mu =+1`$ (or, more generally $`n_\mu n^\mu >0`$) everywhere on $`\sigma `$, or, equivalently, if $`x,y\sigma `$ with $`xy`$, then $`(xy)^2<0`$. In this case, the functional derivative (3.1) is a generalization of the partial time derivative. Indeed, if $`\sigma `$ is constant time surface, i.e. $`\sigma =\{xM:x^0=ct=\mathrm{const}\}`$, then161616 The same result holds if the elementary regions are scale from flat \[?\].

$$\frac{f(x)}{x^0}=\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}\underset{\sigma _0}{\overset{\sigma }{}}f(y)dy=\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}\underset{\sigma _0}{\overset{\sigma }{}}f(y)|_{y\sigma ^{}}\mathrm{d}\sigma ^{}$$
(3.4)
where the integrals mean that one, at first, integrates along a surface $`\sigma ^{}`$ from a foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of surfaces ‘between’ $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma `$ and then along (some parameter, possibly the time, characterizing) the foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. One should compare (3.4) with (3.3) for a constant time surface and $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)=\delta _\mu ^0\mathrm{d}^3𝒚`$, that is with

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}\underset{y^0=ct=\mathrm{const}}{}f(y)\mathrm{d}^3𝒚=\frac{f(x)}{x^0}.$$
(3.5)
The basic idea of the interaction picture is to chose $`𝒱`$ in (1.1) in such a way that in it to be incorporated the information about the interaction of the fields. It is realized a little below. Considerations of the interaction picture of quantum field theory with *nonderivative* coupling can be found in any serious (text)book on quantum field theory \[?, ?, ?\]. However, the reading or early works, like \[?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?\], can help much. Besides, in works like \[?, ?, ?, ?, ?\] one can find consideration of/or methods applicable to investigation of interaction Lagrangians/Hamiltonians with *derivative* coupling which is absent in most (text)books.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a 3-dimensional foliation of the spacetime $`M`$ consisting of space-like surfaces, $`\sigma _0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be arbitrarily fixed, and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.171717 On the foliation theory, see, e.g., \[?, ?\]. It is essential to be noted, the space-like surfaces of a given foliation of Minkowski space transform into each other under a Lorentz transformation, forming a group \[?, ?\]. Define a unitary operator $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]:`$, which is an operator-valued functional of $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _0`$, as the unique solution of the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}=^{}[\sigma ;x]𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma $$
(3.6)
satisfying the initial condition

$$𝒰[\sigma _0,\sigma _0]=𝗂𝖽_{}.$$
(3.7)
Here $`^{}[\sigma ;x]`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian density, i.e. the interaction energy density, defined a little below by (3.9c). The unitarity of $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ means that $`𝒰^{}[\sigma ,\sigma _0]=𝒰^1[\sigma _0,\sigma ]`$, where the Hermitian conjugate $`𝒰^{}`$ of $`𝒰`$ is defined via

$$𝒴[\sigma ]|𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0](𝒳[\sigma ])=𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ](𝒴[\sigma ])|𝒳[\sigma ]$$
(3.8)
for every $``$-valued functionals $`𝒳[\sigma ]`$ and $`𝒴[\sigma ]`$.181818 In the literature the arguments of $`𝒰^{}`$ are interchanged, i.e. $`𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]`$ in our notation is denoted as $`𝒰^{}[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$, which we find inconvenient and not suitable for our system of notation.

It is said that the transformations

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳[\sigma ]`$ $`:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0](\stackrel{~}{𝒳})`$ (3.9a)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒜[\sigma ;x]`$ $`:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma `$ (3.9b)
realize the *transition to the interaction picture* if $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ is defined via the equation (3.6) under the initial condition (3.7) with
$`^{}[\sigma ;x]`$ $`:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma `$ (3.9c)
where $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian in Heisenberg picture. The description of a quantum system via the ($``$-valued) functionals $`𝒳`$, representing the system’s states and called state functionals, and (operator-valued and, possibly, point dependent) functionals $`𝒜[\sigma ;x]`$, called operator functionals, is called the *interaction picture* or *interaction representation* of the (motion) of the considered system. In particular, in this picture the field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and an operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}[\sigma _0]`$ given on $`\sigma _0`$ are represented by the functionals

$`\phi _i[\sigma ;x]`$ $`:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ (3.10)
$`𝒜[\sigma ]`$ $`:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{𝒜}[\sigma _0]𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0].`$ (3.11)
Before going ahead, we want to make some comments on the above definitions which, we hope, will contribute to their better understanding.

In (3.9c) enters the interaction Hamiltonian $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)`$ in Heisenberg picture. In accord with (2.10) it is (cf. \[?, eq. (4)\])

$$^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)=^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{\mu \nu }(x)n_\mu (x)n_\nu (x)$$
(3.12)
where $`n_\mu (x)`$ is the unit normal vector to $`\sigma `$ at $`x\sigma `$. The particular choice of $`\sigma `$ as constant time surface implies $`n_\mu (x)=\delta _\mu ^0`$, so that

$$^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)=^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒯}^{00}(x)=^0\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i0}^0\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)\stackrel{~}{}(x)$$
(3.13)
which in a case of nonderivative coupling reduces to (2.15), due to (2.11).

Obviously (see (3.9b)), the functional $`^{}`$ in (3.6) is the Hamiltonian density in the interaction picture. It is supposed to be know when one works in the interaction picture. However, if one knows it in the Heisenberg picture, then the actual equation for $`𝒰`$ is obtained from (3.6) by inserting in it (3.9c) which, in view of

$`𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]`$ $`=𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0],`$ (3.14)
expressing the unitarity of $`𝒰`$, results in
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}}`$ $`=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)x\sigma `$ (3.15)
or, equivalently,
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}}`$ $`=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma .`$ (3.16)
Since the solutions of (3.6) (or (3.15), or (3.16)) satisfy the equalities

$`𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ $`=𝒰[\sigma _0,\sigma ]`$ (3.17)
$`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ $`=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _1]𝒰[\sigma _1,\sigma _0],`$ (3.18)
we can rewrite (3.16) also as

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma _0,\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma (x)}=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)𝒰[\sigma _0,\sigma ]x\sigma .$$
(3.19)
It is clear, the equations (3.15), (3.16), and (3.19) are equivalent to the basic Tomonaga-Schwinger equation (3.6).

If the interaction Hamiltonians $`^{}[\sigma ;x]`$ commute on arbitrary surfaces, i.e.

$$[^{}[\sigma ;x],^{}[\sigma ^{};x^{}]]_\mathrm{\_}=0x\sigma x^{}\sigma ^{},$$
(3.20)
the last conclusion is also a consequence of the equality

$$^{}[\sigma ;x]=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)$$
(3.21)
which, in turn, is a corollary of (3.9c) and the commutativity of $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ and $`^{}[\sigma ;x]`$,

$$[𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0],^{}[\sigma ;x]]_\mathrm{\_}=0.$$
(3.22)
(The last fact is a consequence of equation (3.6) (see also the ‘explicit’ solution (3.47) of (3.6) presented below).)

One may ask about the integrability conditions of (3.6) with respect to $`𝒰`$ considered as two-argument functional, i.e. is the equality $`\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)\delta \sigma _0(y)}=\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma _0(y)\delta \sigma (x)}`$ for $`x\sigma `$ and $`y\sigma _0`$ valid or not? The easiest way to check this is the second functional derivatives to be computed by means of (3.15) and (3.19). The result is

$$\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)\delta \sigma _0(y)}=\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma _0(y)\delta \sigma (x)}=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c)^2}^{}\stackrel{~}{}(y)𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x).$$

Consequently (3.6) is always integrable. Here we want to point to an error in \[?, p. 161\] where it is stated that the considered integrability condition should be

$$[^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x),^{}\stackrel{~}{}(y)]_\mathrm{\_}=0x,y\sigma .$$
(3.23)
Since (3.15) implies

$$\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)\delta \sigma (y)}=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c)^2}𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{}(y)x,y\sigma ,$$
(3.24)
we see that (3.23) is tantamount to

$$\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)\delta \sigma (y)}=\frac{\delta ^2𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (y)\delta \sigma (x)}x,y\sigma $$
(3.25)
which is an *additional* condition on $`𝒰`$, that may or may not hold, not an integrability conditions of (3.6). We should note, the pointed error in \[?, p. 161\] is harmless as in this book (3.23) is identically valid under the conditions assumed in *loc. cit.*

It should be stressed, in the most cases the interaction operators (functionals), as defined by (3.9b) (and (3.9c) for the Hamiltonian), are independent of the spacelike surface $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and depend only on the point $`x`$ in a sense that

$$\frac{\delta 𝒜[\sigma ;x]}{\delta \sigma (y)}=0\text{ for }(xy)^2<0\text{ (i.e. }x,y\sigma \text{}xy\text{)}$$
(3.26)
if $`𝒜[\sigma ;x]`$ and $`[\sigma ;x]`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)`$ and $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x))`$ are polynomial or convergent power series in the field functionals (3.10) (or field operators $`\phi _i(x)`$) in which the fermion fields, if any, enter only in terms of even degree relative to them (counting every fermion field component in it).191919 Proof: From (3.9b) and (3.6), we get $`\frac{\delta 𝒜[\sigma ;x]}{\delta \sigma (y)}=\frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (y)}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]+𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)\frac{\delta 𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (y)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[[\sigma ;x],𝒜[\sigma ;x]]_\mathrm{\_}=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[\stackrel{~}{}(x),\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)]_\mathrm{\_}𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]=0`$ as, under the conditions specified, $`[\stackrel{~}{}(x),\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)]_\mathrm{\_}=0`$ in view of the (anti)commutation relations $`[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(y),\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)]_\pm =0`$ for $`(xy)^2<0`$ (the sign plus (minus) corresponds to fermion (boson) fields); the last result is a consequence of the linearity of the (anti)commutator and the identities (3.41) given below. In particular, for a polynomial Hamiltonian with nonderivative coupling, we have

$$\frac{\delta \phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{\delta \sigma (y)}=0(xy)^2<0x,y\sigma .$$
(3.27)
We turn now our attention to the equations of motion in the interaction picture. In contrast to most (text)books, such as \[?, ?, ?\], we consider arbitrary interactions, with or without derivative coupling.

The Tomonaga-Schwinger equation (3.6) replaces the Schrödinger one of non-relativistic quantum mechanics in the interaction picture of quantum field theory and plays a role of a dynamical equation of motion for the states (state functionals). Indeed, combining (3.6) and (3.9a), we get

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒳[\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma (x)}}=^{}[\sigma ;x](𝒳[\sigma ])x\sigma `$ (3.28)
with initial condition (see (3.7))
$`𝒳[\sigma ]|_{\sigma =\sigma _0}=𝒳[\sigma _0]=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}.`$ (3.29)
We emphasize, a state functional $`𝒳[\sigma ]`$ depends on the spacelike surface $`\sigma `$ as a whole, not on a particular point(s) in it, which is not the case when observables and other functionals, like $`𝒜[\sigma ;x]`$, are explored as they essentially depend on $`x\sigma `$ and, under afore given conditions, are independent of $`\sigma `$ in a sense of (3.26).

To derive the equations of motion for field functionals, we shall generalize the method used in \[?, sec. 2, eq. (2.7)–(2.11)\] for the same purpose but in quantum electrodynamics with ordinary non-derivative coupling.202020 We present the derivation of the equations of motion since the author of these lines fails to find these equations in the general case, possibly containing derivative coupling, in the available to him literature; implicitly (and in special coordinates) they are contained in \[?, eq. (5)\], but these are not the *explicit* equations we need. From (3.3) with $`𝒜[\sigma ;x]`$ for $`f(x)`$, we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{𝒜[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma 𝒜[\sigma ;y]d\sigma _\mu (y)\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}\left\{𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]_\sigma \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(y)d\sigma _\mu (y)𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]\right\}\\ \hfill =\frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(y)d\sigma _\mu (y)𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]+𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\left\{\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(y)d\sigma _\mu (y)\right\}\\ \hfill 𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]+𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]_\sigma \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(y)d\sigma _\mu (y)\frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma (x)}𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0].\end{array}$$

Expressing $`\frac{\delta 𝒰^{\pm 1}[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}`$ from (3.6) and applying, again, (3.3), we deduce the equality

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{𝒜[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)}{x^\mu }𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]+[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma 𝒜[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(3.30)
Let $`\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x))`$ be the Lagrangian of a system of quantum fields $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$. Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a polynomial or convergent power series in its arguments $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)`$. In the interaction picture the Lagrangian functional is

$$\begin{array}{c}[\sigma ,\sigma _0;\phi _i[\sigma ;x],_\mu \phi _j[\sigma ;x]]=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x))𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]\hfill \\ \hfill =\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i[\sigma ;x],𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]).\end{array}$$
(3.31)
Since (3.30) with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)`$ yields

$$\frac{\phi _j[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}{x^\mu }𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]+\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma \phi _j[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_},$$
(3.32)
we see that the explicit functional form of $``$ is

$$=\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i[\sigma ;x],_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x]\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma \phi _j[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}).$$
(3.33)
Now the idea is for $`\phi _i[\sigma ;x]`$ to be obtained an Euler-Lagrange type equations with, generally, non-vanishing r.h.s. For the purpose, we intend to apply (3.30) to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}`$ and then to sum over $`\mu `$. On one hand, in view of the Euler-Lagrange equation (2.1), the first term in the r.h.s. of (3.30) will, after performing the described procedure, give212121 Since $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ does not depend on $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and $`\phi _i[\sigma ;x]`$ and their partial derivatives as separate arguments, we freely move $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ and $`𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]=𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ through the partial derivative operators $`\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}`$, $`\frac{}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}`$, $`\frac{}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}`$, and $`\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x])}`$.

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}.$$

On other hand, using (3.31) and (3.32), we derive:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜[\sigma ;x]=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]=\frac{}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}=\frac{}{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}=\frac{}{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}\{𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0](\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _j^i𝗂𝖽_{})𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))},_\sigma \phi _j[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\nu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}\}=\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x])}+𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;x],\end{array}$$

where we have set222222 An attempt to calculate $`\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}=\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}\frac{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}`$ by using (3.32) results only in an iterative procedure. In actual calculation, one should write this expression as $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\frac{^{}\stackrel{~}{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ],`$ calculate the derivative in this formula, and, after this is done, all quantities should be expressed in the interaction picture by means of (3.9) and (3.32).

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;x]=𝒢^{i\mu }(\phi _i[\sigma ;x],_\mu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])\hfill \\ \hfill :=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}\frac{}{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}[\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))},_\sigma \phi _j[\sigma ;y]d\sigma _\nu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.\end{array}$$
(3.34)
Substituting the above results into afore described procedure with (3.30), we, finally, get:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x])}=\frac{𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma (\frac{(y)}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;y])}+𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;y])\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.\end{array}$$
(3.35)
These are the *Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for the quantum fields $`\phi _i[\sigma ;x]`$ in the (covariant) interaction picture* under the only condition that the Lagrangians, including the ‘free’ and ‘interaction’ ones, are polynomial or convergent power series in the fields and their first partial derivatives.

Let us now look on (3.35) in the case of *nonderivative* coupling. In it, in view of (2.8)–(2.15) and (3.9), $`\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}0`$, so that

$$𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;x]|_{\begin{array}{c}\text{nonderivative}\hfill \\ \text{coupling}\hfill \end{array}}0.$$
(3.36)
Besides, due to (2.4) and (2.8)–(2.15), the equations of motion (3.35) take the form

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{^0}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x])}=\frac{^{}[\sigma ;x]}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma \frac{^0(y)}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;y])}\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(3.37)
A few lines below it will be proved that the r.h.s. of this equation identically vanishes when in $`^{}`$ ($`=^{}`$) enter only terms of even degree with respect to fermion fields, if any. This means that (3.35) for nonderivative coupling and Lagrangians of the type described reduces to

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{^0}{(_\mu \phi _i[\sigma ;x])}=0.$$
(3.38)
Thus, we have derive a well-known result: in the interaction picture the quantum fields, i.e. their functionals in our context, are solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations for the *free* Lagrangian. The consequences of this fundamental result are describe at length in the literature, e.g. in \[?, ?\].

The proof of the vanishment of the r.h.s. of (3.37) is based on the covariant formulation of the canonical (anti)commutation relations,232323 Let us recall them \[?\]:     $`[\phi _i(x),\phi _j(x^{})]_\pm `$ $`=0\text{for }(xx^{})^2<0`$  (3.39a)   $`[\pi _i(x),\pi ^j(x^{})]_\pm `$ $`=0\text{for }(xx^{})^2<0`$  (3.39b)   $`[\phi _i(x),\pi ^j(x^{})]_\pm `$ $`=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\delta _i^j\delta ^4(xx^{})\text{for }(xx^{})^2<0`$  (3.39c)  where $`\pi ^i:=\pi ^{i0}`$. viz.242424 For simplicity, we suppose $`\pi ^{i\mu }0`$, i.e. the system is without constraints.

$$_\sigma [\phi _i[\sigma ;x],\pi ^{j\mu }[\sigma ;y]]_\pm d\sigma _\mu (y)=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\delta _i^j,$$
(3.40)
and on the identities

$`[AB,C]_{}`$ $`=A[B,C]_\pm [A,C]_\pm B`$ (3.41a)
$`[AB,C]_+`$ $`=A[B,C]_\pm [A,C]_{}B`$ (3.41b)
from which, after simple but tedious algebraic calculations, follows

$$_\sigma [\phi _{i_1}[\sigma ;x]\mathrm{}\phi _{i_n}[\sigma ;x],\pi ^{j\mu }[\sigma ;y]]_\pm d\sigma _\mu (y)=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{}{\phi _j[\sigma ;x]}\left(\phi _{i_1}[\sigma ;x]\mathrm{}\phi _{i_n}[\sigma ;x]\right)$$
(3.42)
where $`n`$ and the number of fermion operators/functionals, if any, between $`\phi _{i_1},\mathrm{},\phi _{i_n}`$ is *even*.252525 Notice, for the purposes of this paper, one can put, by definition, $`\frac{}{\phi _{i_k}}(\phi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\phi _{i_n})=(\pm 1)^{k+1}\phi _{i_1}\mathrm{}\phi _{i_{k1}}\phi _{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}\phi _{i_n},`$ $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, if all fields are boson (sign plus) or fermion (sign minus) ones. For some details regarding derivatives with respect to non-commuting variables, see \[?\]. Now the vanishment of the r.h.s. of (3.37) is a trivial corollary of our supposition that $`^{}=^{}`$ or $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}=^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a polynomial or convergent power series in the field operators/functionals any term of which may contain only even number of fermion field components, if any. Q.E.D.

The *Heisenberg equations of motion* for quantum fields in the interaction picture (for arbitrary coupling) are an almost trivial corollary of (3.30) with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ and their form (2.3) in Heisenberg picture:

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],𝒫_\mu [\sigma ]]_\mathrm{\_}+\frac{1}{c}[^{}[\sigma ;x],_\sigma \phi _i[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(3.43)
Here $`𝒫_\mu [\sigma ]=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu 𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ is the momentum operator in interaction picture. In the particular case of nonderivative coupling, the second term in the r.h.s. of (3.43) vanishes as a consequence of the supposed structure of $`^{}=^{}`$, (3.41), and the (anti)commutation relations (see (3.39a))

$$[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],\phi _j[\sigma ;y]]_\pm =0(xy)^2<0\text{ }x,y\sigma \text{}xy.$$
(3.44)
Hence, in view of (2.13), equation (3.43) reduces to

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=\left[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],^0𝒫_\mu [\sigma ]\right]_\mathrm{\_}+\delta _\mu ^0\left[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],^{}𝒫_0[\sigma ]\right]_\mathrm{\_}.$$

Inserting here

$$^{}𝒫_0[\sigma ]=\frac{1}{c}_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒯_0^\nu [\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\nu (y)=\frac{1}{c}_\sigma (\eta _{0}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{}[\sigma ;y])\mathrm{d}\sigma _\nu (y)=\frac{1}{c}_\sigma ^{}[\sigma ;x]\mathrm{d}\sigma _0(x)$$

(see (2.9)–(2.15)), we see that the second term in the last equation vanishes by the same reasons as the one in (3.43). Consequently, as it should be \[?, ?, ?\], the Heisenberg equations of motion in the interaction picture are

$$\left[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],^0𝒫_\mu [\sigma ]\right]_\mathrm{\_}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }$$
(3.45)
provided the interaction Hamiltonian or Lagrangian contains nonderivative coupling and is of the type specified above.262626 The presented in \[?, pp. 161–162\] derivation of (3.45) starts from the equality $`\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }𝒰^{}[\sigma _0,\sigma ]`$ which is not proved in *loc. cit.* but it holds in the nonderivative coupling case due to the vanishment of the second term in (3.43) in this special situation.

Equation (3.45) agrees with (3.38), both expressing the fact that in the interaction picture the fields are solutions of the corresponding *free* equations. In particular, this entails the assertion that all (anti)commutation relations for interacting fields in the interaction picture are the same as for the corresponding free fields.

A final remark at the end of this section. The actual computation of the functional $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ is a difficult task. The most widely applied method for the purpose is the perturbation one. Its essence is to rewrite the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation (3.6) as a Volterra integral equation, viz.

$$𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]=𝗂𝖽_{}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}_{\sigma _0}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}[\sigma ^{};x^{}]𝒰[\sigma ^{},\sigma _0]dx^{},$$
(3.46)
where the integral is over all surfaces $`\sigma ^{}`$ ‘between’ $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma `$ from the foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mentioned earlier, and, then to solve (3.46) by successive iterations, starting from the initial value $`𝒰^{(0)}[\sigma ,\sigma _0]=𝗂𝖽_{}`$. The result is the so-called T-exponent (or P-exponent, or chronological exponent)

$$𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]=\mathrm{Texp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}_{\sigma _0}^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{}[\sigma ^{};x^{}]dx^{}\right)$$
(3.47)
on the successive approximations to which are based the perturbation theory and Feynman graph/diagram techniques.

## 4 Interaction picture. II. Time-dependent formulation

In this section is given a very concise presentation of the time-dependent, non-covariant, treatment of the interaction picture. It is *implicitly* covariant and its comparison with the covariant one from section 3 shows what a big price is paid for the *explicit* covariance.

Denote by $`x_t`$ a point in $`M`$ such that $`x^0=ct`$ (in some Lorentz frame of reference). The transition from Heisenberg picture to the interaction one is provided by the following canonical transformations (cf. (3.9))

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳(t)`$ $`:=𝒰(t,t_0)(\stackrel{~}{𝒳})`$ (4.1a)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)𝒜(x_t)`$ $`:=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)𝒰^1(t,t_0)`$ (4.1b)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t):`$, in particular $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)`$, and the unitary operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}(t,t_0):`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^{}(t,t_0)=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^1(t_0,t)`$, is the unique solution of the initial-value problem272727 We distinguish $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}(t,t_0)`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$ by using parentheses and brackets, respectively, to denote their arguments.

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰(t,t_0)}{t}}`$ $`=^{}(t)𝒰(t,t_0)`$ (4.2)
$`𝒰(t_0,t_0)`$ $`=𝗂𝖽_{}`$ (4.3)
in which

$$^{}(t):=^{}(x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{}(x_t)𝒰^1(t,t_0)$$
(4.4)
with

$$^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t):=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(ct,𝒙)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙$$
(4.5)
Thus $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ is the solution of the equation

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰(t,t_0)}{t}}`$ $`=𝒰(t,t_0)^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t)`$ (4.6)
or
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^1(t,t_0)}{t}}`$ $`=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t)𝒰^1(t,t_0)`$ (4.7)
under the initial condition (4.3). So, the $`𝒰`$-operator $`𝒰^1(t,t_0)`$ is given by the well-known chronological exponent

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒰^1(t,t_0)=\mathrm{Texp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}\stackrel{~}{}(t)dt\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =𝗂𝖽_{}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{})^n}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}dt_1\underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}dt_2\mathrm{}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{n1}}{}}dt_n^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t_1)\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t_n)\end{array}$$
(4.8)
or, if $`^{}(t)`$ is known, by

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒰(t,t_0)=\mathrm{Texp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}(t)dt\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =𝗂𝖽_{}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{})^n}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}dt_1\underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}dt_2\mathrm{}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{n1}}{}}dt_n^{}(t_1)\mathrm{}^{}(t_n).\end{array}$$
(4.9)
Notice, if the values of the interaction Hamiltonians at arbitrary moments commute, i.e. if

$$[^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t),^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t^{})]_\mathrm{\_}=0$$
(4.10)
for any moments $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$, which is equivalent to

$$[^{}(t),^{}(t^{})]_\mathrm{\_}=0,$$
(4.10)
then (4.9) implies the commutativity of $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ and $`^{}(t)`$, i.e.

$$[𝒰(t,t_0),^{}(t)]_\mathrm{\_}=0,$$
(4.11)
which, in its turn, entails

$$^{}(t)=^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t).$$
(4.12)
###### Remark 4.1.

Since initial-value problems like (4.2)–(4.3) will be met and further in this work, here is a concise summary of their theory. Suppose $`G(s):`$ is an operator depending continuously on a real parameter $`s`$. For a fixed $`s_0`$, the solution of

$$\frac{Y(s,s_0)}{s}=G\left(s\right)Y(s,s_0)Y(s_0,s_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}$$
(4.13)
is called *chronological exponent* (T-*exponent*) of $`s`$ and

$`Y(s,s_0)`$ $`=\mathrm{Texp}\left({\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}G\left(\tau \right)d\tau \right)`$ (4.14)
$`:=𝗂𝖽_{}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}ds_1{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{s_1}}ds_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{s_{n1}}}ds_nG\left(s_1\right)\mathrm{}G\left(s_n\right)`$
$`=𝗂𝖽_{}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}ds_1{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}ds_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}ds_n\mathrm{T}\left(G\left(s_1\right)\mathrm{}G\left(s_n\right)\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{T}(G(s_1)\mathrm{}G(s_n)):=G(s_{i_1})\mathrm{}G(s_{i_n}))`$ with $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_n`$ being a permutation of $`1,\mathrm{},n`$ such that $`s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_n`$. For any $`s,s_0,s_1`$, we have

$$\left(Y(s,s_0)\right)^1=Y(s_0,s)$$
(4.15)
$$Y(s,s_1)Y(s_1,s_0)=Y(s,s_0).$$
(4.16)
If $`G`$ is anti-Hermitian,

$$\left(G\left(s\right)\right)^{}=G\left(s\right),$$
(4.17)
then the chronological exponent is unitary, viz.

$$\left(Y(s,s_0)\right)^{}=\left(Y(s,s_0)\right)^1=:Y^1(s,s_0).$$
(4.18)
Useful corollaries from (4.13) and (4.15) are:

$$\frac{Y^1(s,s_0)}{s}=Y^1(s,s_0)G\left(s\right)$$
(4.19)
$$\frac{Y(s_0,s)}{s}=Y(s_0,s)G\left(s\right).$$
(4.20)
If $`G_0:`$ is a constant operator and $`f:`$ is an integrable function, then

$$\mathrm{Texp}\left(_{s_0}^sG_0d\tau \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(ss_0\right)G_0\right)$$
(4.21)
$$\mathrm{Texp}\left(_{s_0}^sf\left(\tau \right)𝗂𝖽_{}d\tau \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{s_0}^sf\left(\tau \right)d\tau \right)𝗂𝖽_{}.$$
(4.22)
If it happens that $`G\left(s\right)`$ commutes with $`Y(s,s_0)`$,
$$[G\left(s\right),Y(s,s_0)]_\mathrm{\_}=0,$$
(4.23)
a sufficient condition for which is
$$[G\left(s\right),G\left(s^{}\right)]_\mathrm{\_}=0$$
(4.24)
for any $`s,s^{}`$, then $`Y(s,s_0)`$ is also a solution of
$$\frac{Y(s,s_0)}{s}=Y(s,s_0)G\left(s\right)Y(s_0,s_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}.$$
(4.25)
At last, the above-considered interaction picture corresponds to the case $`G(t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}^{}(t)`$.

In particular, the field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)`$ transform into

$$\phi _i(x_t)=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)𝒰^1(t,t_0).$$
(4.26)
From (4.1a), (4.2), and (4.3), the equation of motion for the state vectors in the (time-dependent) interaction picture immediately follow (cf. (3.28) and (3.29)):

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝒳(t)}{\mathrm{d}x}}`$ $`=^{}(t)(𝒳(t))`$ (4.27)
$`𝒳(t_0)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}.`$ (4.28)
To derive the equations of motion for the field operators $`\phi _i(x_t)`$, we shall use the equality (cf. (3.30))

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜(x_t)}{t}=𝒰(t,t_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)}{t}𝒰^{}(t_0,t)+[^{}(t),𝒜(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_}$$
(4.29)
which is a simple consequence of (4.1b) and (4.2). The particular choices $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)=\frac{1}{c}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i0}(x_t)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}`$ reduce (4.29) respectively to282828 Here and henceforth the operator $`_t:=\frac{}{t}`$ denotes the partial derivative with respect to the time coordinate $`t=x^0/c`$.

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i(x_t)}{t}}`$ $`=𝒰(t,t_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)}{t}}𝒰^{}(t_0,t)+[^{}(t),\phi _i(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_}`$ (4.30)
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\pi ^{i0}(x_t)}{c}}{t}}`$ $`=𝒰(t,t_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}}\right)𝒰^{}(t_0,t)+[^{}(t),{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{i0}(x_t)}{c}}]_\mathrm{\_},`$ (4.31)
where, in view of (4.30),292929 When we differentiate the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian with respect to $`_t\phi _i(x_t)`$, we mean that this symbol denotes the corresponding argument of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian and *not* the values of $`_t\phi _i\frac{\phi _i}{t}`$ at a point $`x_t`$, i.e. not $`_t\phi _i|_{x_t}=\frac{\phi _i(x_t)}{t}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{c}\pi ^{i0}(x_t):=𝒰(t,t_0)\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}𝒰^{}(t_0,t)=𝒰(t,t_0)\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_t\phi _j(x_t))}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰^{}(t_0,t)𝒰(t,t_0)\frac{(_t\phi _j(x_t))}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}𝒰^{}(t_0,t)=\frac{}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}+𝒢^i\end{array}$$

with

$$𝒢^i:=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\frac{}{(_t\phi _j(x_t))}[\frac{^{}(t)}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))},\phi _j(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_}=0.$$
(4.32)
The last equality is a consequent of the fact that $`^{}(t)`$, in view of (4.4) and (4.5), is operator-valued functional, not a function, of $`\phi _i`$ and $`_\mu \phi _i`$ which implies

$$\frac{^{}(t)}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)}0\frac{^{}(t)}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}0.$$

Useful corollaries from these identities, (4.26), (4.30), and (4.31) are:

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)}=\frac{}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}=\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}$$
(4.33)
Hence, due to (4.30),

$$\begin{array}{c}=(\phi _i(x_t),_t\phi _j(x_t),_a\phi _j(x_t))\hfill \\ \hfill :=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t),_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x_t),_a\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x_t))𝒰^{}(t_0,t)\\ \hfill =\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i(x_t),𝒰(t,t_0)_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x_t)𝒰^{}(t_0,t),_a\phi _j(x_t))\\ \hfill =\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i(x_t),_t\phi _j(x_t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[^{}(t),\phi _j(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_},_a\phi _j(x_t))\end{array}$$
(4.34)
with $`a=1,2,3`$. Substituting in (4.31) the above expression for $`\frac{1}{c}\pi ^{i0}(x_t)`$ and

$$\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{}{x^a}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_a\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t))}\right),$$

which follows from the Euler-Lagrange equation (2.1), and using (4.34), we obtain (cf. (3.35))

$$\frac{}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[^{}(t),\frac{}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(4.35)
These are the *Euler-Lagrange equations of motion* for the quantum fields in the (time-dependent) interaction picture.

In a case of nonderivative coupling, we have $`=^0+^{}`$, in which $`^{}=^{}`$ is independent of $`_\mu \phi _i(x_t)`$, so that (4.35) reduces to

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{^0}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{^{}(t)}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[^{}(t),\frac{^0}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$

The r.h.s. of the last equation identically vanishes as a result of the equal-time canonical (anti)communion relations (3.39c) $`(`$in our case $`\pi ^i(x^0,𝒙)=\pi ^i(x_t)=\frac{^0}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}`$$`)`$ and arguments similar to the ones leading from (3.37) to (3.38). Therefore, in a case of nonderivative coupling, the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion in the (time-dependent) interaction picture are

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{^0}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}\right)=0$$
(4.36)
and, as one can expect, coincide with the *free* equations for the *non-free* fields.

The derivation of Heisenberg equation of motion in the time-dependent interaction picture is completely trivial. Recalling that in the Heisenberg picture they are given by (2.3), after the canonical transformation (4.1) they take the form (cf. (3.43))

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\phi _i(x_t)`$ $`=[\phi _i(x_t),c𝒫_0^{}(t)]_\mathrm{\_}=[\phi _i(x_t),c^0𝒫_0]_\mathrm{\_}`$ (4.37a)
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^a}}\phi _i(x_t)`$ $`=[\phi _i(x_t),𝒫_a]_\mathrm{\_}a=1,2,3,`$ (4.37b)
where (4.30) and $`𝒫_0=\frac{1}{c}(t)`$ were taken into account for the derivation of (4.37a) which, regardless of the coupling, derivative or nonderivative, always has a form of a free equation. Of course, for a nonderivative coupling these equations take the free form

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }\phi _i(x_t)=[\phi _i(x_t),^0𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}$$
(4.38)
as a result of (2.13).

## 5 Schrödinger picture

The connection between Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures in quantum field theory is similar to the one in (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics \[?, ?, ?\] with the simplification that in field theory the (total) Hamiltonian is a constant in time operator as closed systems (with conserve 4-momentum) are considered. Since in the general formalism this simplification is not quite essential, we shall neglect it and, respectively, the Hamiltonian will be written with a time argument $`t`$. The idea of Schrödinger picture is the time dependence of the field operators and observables constructed from them (in, e.g., Heisenberg picture) to be transferred entirely on the state vectors, i.e. the former ones should become time-independent, while the latter ones become time-dependent.

Suppose, we have a system of quantum fields with 4-momentum $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ and Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}(t)=c\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_0`$, both given in the Heisenberg picture (in which all quantities are labeled by tilde above their kernel symbol). The transition from the Heisenberg picture to Schrödinger one is performed in the same way as from Heisenberg picture to the time-dependent interaction one, as described in Sect. 4, with the only difference that the *interaction Hamiltonian $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t)`$ must be replaced by the total Hamiltonian* $`\stackrel{~}{}(t)=^0\stackrel{~}{}(t)+^{}\stackrel{~}{}(t)`$ (which is time-independent for closed systems). Therefore, the mappings (4.1) realize the transition (from Heisenberg) to Schrödinger picture if the $`𝒰`$-operator $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ is the unique solution of the equation (cf. (4.2))

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒰(t,t_0)}{t}=(t)𝒰(t,t_0)$$
(5.1)
under the initial conditions (4.3), $`𝒰(t_0,t_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}`$. Here

$$(t):=(x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{}(x_t)𝒰^1(t,t_0)$$
(5.2)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{}(t):=\stackrel{~}{}(x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙=\stackrel{~}{}(ct,𝒙)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙.$$
(5.3)
So, if $`\stackrel{~}{}(t)`$ is given, $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ is a solution of (cf. (4.6) and (4.7))

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰(t,t_0)}{t}}=𝒰(t,t_0)\stackrel{~}{}(t)\text{or}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^1(t,t_0)}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{}(t)𝒰(t,t_0).`$ (5.4)
If we take into account that for a closed system $`\stackrel{~}{}(t)`$ is a constant of motion, i.e. $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(t)}{t}=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{}(t)=\stackrel{~}{}(t_0)\stackrel{~}{}`$, then, by (4.21)–(4.25),

$`(t)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{}`$ (5.5)
$`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(tt_0)}`$ (5.6)
which considerably simplifies some calculations.

In Schrödinger picture the state vectors, given via (4.1a) with the operator $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$ defined above, are solutions of the initial-value problem (cf. (4.27) and (4.28))

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝒳(t)}{\mathrm{d}x}}=(t)(𝒳(t))𝒳(t_0)=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}.`$ (5.7)
The Euler-Lagrange equations for the field operators, given via (4.26) with above $`𝒰(t,t_0)`$, are (cf. (4.35))

$$\frac{}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[(t),\frac{}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(5.8)
Here,

$$=\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i(x_t),_t\phi _j(x_t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[(t),\phi _j(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_},_a\phi _j(x_t)),$$
(5.9)
where $`a=1,2,3`$, is the Lagrangian in Schrödinger picture and, as in Sect. 4, in the partial derivative $`\frac{}{(_t\phi _j(x_t)}`$ the expression $`_t\phi _j(x_t)`$ means the corresponding argument of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian, and *not* the value of $`_t\phi _j`$ at a point $`x_t`$, i.e. not $`\frac{\phi _j(x_t)}{t}=_t\phi _j|_{x_t}`$ which identically vanishes (in the Schrödinger picture) by the proved below equation (5.11a). (The last means that one, at first, has to perform the differentiation relative to $`_t\phi _j(x_t)`$ and, then, to set this argument to zero.) Repeating the procedure leading from (4.35) to (4.36), we see that in Schrödinger picture the Euler-Lagrange equations for a nonderivative coupling are (cf. (4.36))

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{^0}{(_\mu \phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[^0(t),\frac{^0}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(5.10)
A few lines below, it will be proved that the terms, containing time derivatives in (5.8) and (5.10), vanish and, consequently, equations (5.8) and (5.10) are equivalent to (5.12) and (5.13), respectively.

The Heisenberg equations of motion for $`\phi _i(x_t)`$ in the Schrödinger picture are (cf. (4.37))

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\phi _i(x_t)`$ $`=0`$ (5.11a)
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^a}}\phi _i(x_t)`$ $`=[\phi _i(x_t),𝒫_a]_\mathrm{\_}a=1,2,3`$ (5.11b)
and are obtained by the same method as (4.37) with the only difference that $`(t)=c𝒫_0`$ should be used instead of $`^{}(t)`$. In the nonderivative coupling case, (5.11b) transforms into the same equality with $`^0𝒫_a`$ for $`𝒫_a`$, $`a=1,2,3`$, but (5.11a) remains unchanged.

Equation (5.11a) shows that, as we stated at the beginning of the present section, in Schrödinger picture the field operators are time-independent. Obviously, the same is true for operators constructed from them and their spacial derivatives (of finite order).

These observations imply an important corollary: since the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are supposed to be constructed from the field operators and their first partial derivatives as polynomials or convergent power series, the time derivatives of a Lagrangian/Hamiltonian or some its partial derivatives (with respect to coordinates and/or field operators or their first partial derivatives) identically vanish in the Schrödinger picture. In particular, the terms containing time derivatives in (5.8) vanish. This proves that (5.8) is equivalent to

$$\frac{}{\phi _i(x_t)}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{}{x^a}\left(\frac{}{(_a\phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[(t),\frac{}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}$$
(5.12)
which, in view of (5.10), in the nonderivative coupling case reduces to

$$\frac{^0}{\phi _i(x_t)}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{}{x^a}\left(\frac{^0}{(_a\phi _i(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[^0(t),\frac{^0}{(_t\phi _i(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(5.13)
The above presentation of the Schrödinger picture can be called time-dependent due to its explicit dependence on the time coordinates. However, this exposition turns to be *implicitly covariant* and it admits an explicit covariant formulation which is completely similar to the one of the interaction picture in Sect. 3. The covariant formulation of the Schrödinger picture can be obtained from the one of interaction picture, given in Sect. 3, by replacing the interaction Hamiltonians $`^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)`$ and $`^{}[\sigma ;x]`$ by the corresponding total Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{}(x)=^0\stackrel{~}{}(x)+^{}\stackrel{~}{}(x)`$ and $`[\sigma ;x]=^0[\sigma ;x]+^{}[\sigma ;x]`$. Below we give a concise sketch of this procedure.

Suppose a unitary operator $`𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]:`$ is defined as the solution of

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\delta 𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}=[\sigma ;x]𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma $$
(5.14)
satisfying the initial condition

$$𝒰[\sigma _0,\sigma _0]=𝗂𝖽_{}$$
(5.15)
where

$$[\sigma ;x]:=𝒰[\sigma ,\sigma _0]\stackrel{~}{}(x)𝒰^1[\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma $$
(5.16)
with $`\stackrel{~}{}(x)`$ being the (total) Hamiltonian in Heisenberg picture.303030 Actually $`[\sigma ;x]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}(x)=c_0`$ do not depend on $`x`$ by virtue of the conservation of 4-momentum for a closed (translation invariant) system. This simplification is not quite essential for the following. The general transformations (3.9), with above defined ‘$`𝒰`$-operator’, give the transition from Heisenberg picture to Schrödinger one in covariant formulation.

The evolution of the state functionals (3.9a) is governed by the initial-value problem ($`x\sigma `$)

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒳[\sigma ]}{\delta \sigma (x)}}=[\sigma ;x](𝒳[\sigma ])𝒳[\sigma ]|_{\sigma =\sigma _0}=𝒳[\sigma _0]=\stackrel{~}{𝒳},`$ (5.17)
while the field functionals (3.10) are solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations (3.35) in which

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢^{i\mu }[\sigma ;x]=𝒢^{i\mu }(\phi _i[\sigma ;x],_\mu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])\hfill \\ \hfill :=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}\frac{}{(_\nu \phi _j[\sigma ;x])}[\frac{[\sigma ;x]}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))},_\sigma \phi _j[\sigma ;y]\mathrm{d}\sigma _\nu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}\}.\end{array}$$
(5.18)
At last, the Heisenberg equations of motion are (cf. (3.43))

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^\mu }=[\phi _i[\sigma ;x],𝒫_\mu [\sigma ]]_\mathrm{\_}+\frac{1}{c}[[\sigma ;x],_\sigma \phi _i[\sigma ;y]d\sigma _\mu (y)]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(5.19)
From where, for $`\mu =0`$, we get

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i[\sigma ;x]}{x^0}=0$$
(5.20)
due to $`[\sigma ;x]=c𝒫_0[\sigma ]`$.

## 6 Links between different time-dependent pictures of motion

In the present section, we briefly summarize the connections between different time-dependent pictures (representations) of motion in Lagrangian quantum field theory.

Let the index $`\omega `$ labels a given picture of motion; in particular, it can take the values $`\mathrm{H}`$, $`\mathrm{S}`$, and $`\mathrm{I}`$ for, respectively, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Interaction picture.

Suppose, the *time evolution* of a state vector $`𝒳^\omega (x_t)`$ is described via an *evolution operator* $`𝒰^\omega (t,t_0)`$, viz.

$$𝒳^\omega (x_t)=𝒰^\omega (t,t_0)(𝒳^\omega (x_{t_0}))$$
(6.1)
for any instants of time $`t`$ and $`t_0`$. The operator $`𝒰^\omega (t,t_0)`$ is, by definition, unitary and is defined as the unique solution of the initial-value problem

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^\omega (t,t_0)}{t}}`$ $`=\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)𝒰^\omega (t,t_0)`$ (6.2)
$`𝒰^\omega (t_0,t_0)`$ $`=𝗂𝖽_{}`$ (6.3)
where $`\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)`$ is a given operator-valued function of time, connected to the Hamiltonian in the $`\omega `$-picture and, hence, it is an operator-valued functional of the field operators and their derivatives. Notice, (6.2) corresponds to the Schrödinger equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒳^\omega (x_t)}{t}}=\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)(𝒳^\omega (x_t))`$ (6.4)
for a state vector $`𝒳^\omega (x_t)`$.

The transition from an $`\omega `$-picture to an $`\omega ^{}`$-picture is performed by means of an unitary ‘$`𝒰`$-operator’

$$𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0):=𝒰^\omega ^{}(t,t_0)(𝒰^\omega (t,t_0))^1,$$
(6.5)
that is, we have

$`𝒳^\omega (x_t)𝒳^\omega ^{}(x_t)`$ $`:=𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)\left(𝒳^\omega (x_t)\right)`$ (6.6a)
$`𝒜^\omega (x_t)𝒜^\omega ^{}(x_t)`$ $`:=𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)𝒜^\omega (x_t)(𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0))^1.`$ (6.6b)
The ‘$`𝒰`$-operator’ is a solution of the initial-value problem

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)}{t}}`$ $`=\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)`$ (6.7)
$`𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t_0,t_0)`$ $`=𝗂𝖽_{}`$ (6.8)
which is a consequence of (6.2), (6.3), and (6.5).

In particular, if one stars from, e.g., the Schrödinger picture, then $`\underset{¯}{}^\mathrm{S}=^\mathrm{S}`$ is the Hamiltonian in the Schrödinger picture, $`𝒰^\mathrm{S}`$ is a solution of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)}{t}}=^\mathrm{S}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}`$ (6.9)
and

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{¯}{}^\mathrm{H}(t)=0𝒰^\mathrm{H}(t,t_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}𝒰^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{H}}(t,t_0)=(𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0))^1=𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t)\end{array}`$ (6.10a)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \underset{¯}{}^\mathrm{I}(t)=^{}^\mathrm{I}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t,t_0)=^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t)𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t)𝒰^{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}(t,t_0)=(^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0))^1=^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t)\end{array}`$ (6.10b)
where

$$^{}^\mathrm{I}(t):=^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t)^{}^\mathrm{S}(t)^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)^{}^\mathrm{S}(t):=^{}^\mathrm{S}(x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙$$
(6.11)
with $`^\mathrm{S}(t)=^0^\mathrm{S}(t)+^{}^\mathrm{S}(t),`$ $`^{}^\mathrm{S}(t)`$ being the interaction Hamiltonian in Schrödinger picture and $`^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)`$ being the ‘free’ evolution operator in Schrödinger picture,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)}{t}}=^0^\mathrm{S}(t)^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t_0,t_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}.`$ (6.12)
Besides, in accord with (6.5), the operator

$$𝒰^{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}(t,t_0)=^0𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)𝒰^\mathrm{S}(t,t_0)=𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t,t_0)$$
(6.10c)
is responsible for the transition $`\omega =\mathrm{H}\omega ^{}=\mathrm{I}`$.

If the equations of motion for the field operators are known in a picture $`\omega `$, in other picture $`\omega ^{}`$ they can be derive from the equality

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜^\omega ^{}(x_t)}{t}=𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜^\omega (x_t)}{t}(𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0))^1\hfill \\ \hfill +[\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t),𝒜^\omega ^{}(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_}\end{array}$$
(6.13)
which is a consequence of (6.6b). Here

$$\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t):=𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)^\omega (t)(𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0))^1.$$
(6.14)
Since (6.13) can be obtained from (4.29) by the changes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒜(x_t)& 𝒜^\omega ^{}(x_t){}_{i}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x_t)𝒜^\omega (x_t)\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒰(t,t_0)& 𝒰^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t,t_0)x^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.15)
we can immediately obtain, from (4.35), the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion in a picture $`\omega ^{}`$ if in a picture $`\omega `$ they are (2.1) (with $`^\omega `$ for $``$ and $`\phi _i^\omega (x_t)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x_t)`$):

$$\frac{^\omega ^{}}{\phi _i^\omega ^{}(x_t)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{^\omega ^{}}{(_\mu \phi _i^\omega ^{}(x_t))}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t),\frac{^\omega ^{}}{(_t\phi _i^\omega ^{}(x_t))}]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(6.16)
The same equations, of course, can be derived if one follows step-by-step the procedure for derivation of (4.35) in which (4.32) will be replaced by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\frac{^\omega ^{}}{(_t\phi _j^\omega ^{}(x_t))}[\frac{(\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t))}{(_t\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i^\omega (x_t))},\phi _j^\omega ^{}(x_t)]_\mathrm{\_}=0.$$
(6.17)
Similarly (see (6.13)), if in a picture $`\omega `$ the Heisenberg equations of motion are

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\phi _i^\omega (x_t)}{x^\mu }=[\phi _i^\omega (x_t),^\omega 𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_},$$
(6.18)
then in a picture $`\omega ^{}`$ they are (cf. (4.37))

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\phi _i^\omega ^{}(x_t)`$ $`=[\phi _i^\omega ^{}(x_t),c(^\omega ^{}𝒫_0)\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)+\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t)]_\mathrm{\_}`$ (6.19a)
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^a}}\phi _i(x_t)`$ $`=[\phi _i(x_t),𝒫_a]_\mathrm{\_}a=1,2,3.`$ (6.19b)
If $`\omega =\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\omega ^{}=\mathrm{I}`$, in view of (6.10), it is a simple checking to be seem that the above results reduce to the corresponding ones from Sect. 4.

At this point, we would like to show how the analogue of the ‘general’ picture of motion from quantum mechanics \[?, subsec. 2.3\] can be described via the scheme presented here. Suppose, in some $`\omega `$-picture of motion are known the time equations of motion for the state vectors, i.e. (6.4), and for the observables, i.e.

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜^\omega (x_t)}{t}=F(𝒜^\omega ,\underset{¯}{}^\omega ,\mathrm{})$$
(6.20)
for some operator-valued function $`F`$ which is polynomial or convergent power series in its operator arguments. The problem is, if there is given a *unitary* operator $`𝒱(t_1,t):`$, to describe the quantum evolution (in time) in the picture $`\omega ^{}=𝒱`$ with ‘$`𝒰`$-operator’

$$𝒰^{\omega 𝒱}(t,t_1)=𝒱(t_1,t).$$
(6.21)
From (6.4) and (6.6a), we derive the (time) equations of motion for state vectors in the $`𝒱`$-picture:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒳_{t_1}^𝒱(x_t)}{t}}=\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^𝒱(t)\left(𝒳_{t_1}^𝒱(x_t)\right)`$ (6.22)
where

$`\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^𝒱(t):=𝒱(t_1,t)\overline{\underset{¯}{}}_{t_1}^𝒱(t)𝒱^1(t_1,t)=\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^{\omega 𝒱}(t)_𝒱_{t_1}^𝒱(t)`$ (6.23)
$`\overline{\underset{¯}{}}_{t_1}^𝒱(t):=\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)_𝒱\underset{¯}{}(t_1,t)_𝒱\underset{¯}{}(t_1,t)=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱^1(t_1,t)}{t}}𝒱(t_1,t)`$ (6.24)
$`\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^{\omega 𝒱}(t)=𝒱(t_1,t)\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)𝒱^1(t_1,t)`$ (6.25)
$`_𝒱_{t_1}^𝒱(t)=𝒱(t_1,t)_𝒱(t_1,t)𝒱^1(t_1,t).`$ (6.26)
Respectively, the (time) evolution operator $`𝒰^𝒱(t,t_1,t_0)`$, corresponding to equation (6.22), is the solution of the initial-value problem

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰^𝒱(t,t_1,t_0)}{t}}=\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^𝒱(t)𝒰^𝒱(t,t_1,t_0)𝒰^𝒱(t_0,t_1,t_0)=𝗂𝖽_{}`$ (6.27)
and determines the evolution of state vectors, i.e.

$`𝒳_{t_1}^𝒱(x_t)=𝒰^𝒱(t,t_1,t_0)(𝒳_{t_1}^𝒱(x_{t_0})).`$ (6.28)
The Heisenberg equations of motion for the observables in the $`𝒱`$-picture follow from (6.20) and (6.13) and are:

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜^𝒱(x_t)}{t}=F(𝒜^𝒱,\underset{¯}{}^{\omega 𝒱},\mathrm{})+[𝒜^𝒱(x_t),_𝒱\underset{¯}{}_{t_1}^𝒱(t)]_\mathrm{\_},$$
(6.29)
where, in view of (6.23), $`\underset{¯}{}^\omega ^{}(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega \omega ^{}}(t)=\underset{¯}{}^𝒱(t)\underset{¯}{}^{\omega 𝒱}(t)=_𝒱^𝒱,`$ $`\omega ^{}=𝒱`$, was used.

If $`\omega =\mathrm{S}`$, i.e. if the Schrödinger picture is taken as a basic one to start off, the above results reproduce part of the ones in \[?, subsec. 2.3\].

We leave the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation of motion in the $`𝒱`$-picture to the reader, as an exercise.

The time-dependent pictures considered above are *explicitly time-dependent* but they are *implicitly covariant*. This can be proved by replacing the state vectors and field (and other) operators by corresponding state functionals and field (and other operator) functionals depending on a space-like surface $`\sigma `$ from a foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the spacetime $`M`$. The basic moment is the replacement of (6.2) and (6.3) by, respectively, Tomonaga-Schwinger equation (cf (3.6))

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c\frac{\delta 𝒰^\omega [\sigma ,\sigma _0]}{\delta \sigma (x)}=^\omega [\sigma ;x]𝒰^\omega [\sigma ,\sigma _0]x\sigma $$
(6.30)
and the initial condition (cf. (3.7))

$$𝒰^\omega [\sigma _0,\sigma _0]=𝗂𝖽_{}.$$
(6.31)
Here

$$^\omega [\sigma ;x]:=𝒰^\omega [\sigma ,\sigma _0]^\omega (x)(𝒰^\omega [\sigma ,\sigma _0])^1$$
(6.32)
with $`^\omega (x)`$ being the Hamiltonian in time-dependent $`\omega `$-picture. (Note the connection $`\underset{¯}{}^\omega (t)=^\omega (x_t)\mathrm{d}^3𝒙`$ with the Hamiltonian appearing in (6.2).) Then, the transformations (3.9), with the just defined ‘$`𝒰`$-operator’ $`𝒰^\omega [\sigma ,\sigma _0]`$, realize the transition to the new *covariant* $`\omega `$-picture. Further one should follow the exposition of the covariant interaction picture of Sect. 3 with the only change that the interaction Hamiltonian(s) must be replace by the total Hamiltonian(s), viz. $`^{}[\sigma ;x]^\omega [\sigma ;x]`$ etc. The concrete results of the realization of this procedure are similar to the ones of Sect. 3 and at the end of Sect. 5 and will not be written here.

## 7 The momentum picture

Regardless of the existence of a covariant formulation of the well known standard Schrödinger picture, it still has tracks of a time-dependence: as the surfaces $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _0`$, as well as other ones ‘between’ them, must belong to a family of surfaces, forming a foliation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the spacetime $`M`$. These surfaces should be ‘labeled’ somehow which, in a sense, is equivalent to to the (implicit) introduction of a time coordinate.313131 The same arguments are valid for any time-dependent picture of motion, not only for the Schrödinger one. Our opinion on this phenomenon is that the Schrödinger picture, as considered in the literature and in Sect. 5, does not correspond to the (special relativistic) spirit of quantum field theory and simply partially copies a similar situation in quantum mechanics. Indeed, in quantum mechanics, in the Schrödinger/Heisenberg picture, the wavefunctions depend/don’t depend on the time, while for the observables the situation is an opposite one. This state of affairs is (*mutatis mutandis*) transferred in quantum field theory. But in it there are four, not one as in quantum mechanics, coordinates. As a result in the Heisenberg picture, as everywhere is accepted, the state vectors are *constant in spacetime*, not only in time, while the observables and field operators depend on a spacetime point where they are evaluated. Correspondingly, by our opinion, it is quite more natural one to expect that in the Schrödinger picture of motion of quantum field theory the state vectors to depend on a spacetime point, not only on its time coordinate, and the field operators (and observables constructed from them) to be constant in spacetime, not only in time. Such a picture (representation) of (canonical) quantum field theory exists and we call it the *momentum picture*.323232 The term 4-dimensional momentum picture is also suitable because, as we shall see below, there exist ‘intermediate’ momentum pictures in which the state vectors depend on some $`k`$, $`k=0,1,2,3`$, of the coordinates, while the field operators do not depend on these $`k`$ coordinates; the cases $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$ reproduce the standard Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures, respectively, and the case $`k=4`$ gives the momentum picture. Elsewhere we shall show that in momentum picture are reproduced all results from the momentum representation of Heisenberg picture of motion. The name ‘momentum picture’ comes from here and the essence of the proposed new picture of motion. Below we describe the basic characteristics of this new picture of quantum field theory.

Let $`x,x_0M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ be the 4-momentum operator of a system of quantum fields. By $`\lambda \{0,1,2,3\}`$ we shall denote a spacetime index over which a summation is *not assumed* when it appearance more than ones in some expression.

Define ‘$`𝒰`$-operators’ $`𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda ):`$, $`\lambda =0,1,2,3`$ as solutions of the initial-value problems

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )}{x^\lambda }=𝒫_\lambda (x)𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )$$
(7.1)
where333333 The last equality in (7.2) follows from the commutativity between $`𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ or $`𝒫_\mu `$ as the last two operators are constant.

$$𝒫_\lambda (x):=𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\lambda 𝒰_\lambda ^1(x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda ).$$
(7.2)
Notice, since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_0=\frac{1}{c}\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`x^0=ct`$, the operator $`𝒰_0(x^0,x_0^0)𝒰(t,t_0)`$ is the same one, defined via (5.1) and (4.3), by means of which the transition form Heisenberg to (time-dependent) Schrödinger picture is performed. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$ are constant, independent of $`x`$ or $`x_0`$, operators, which expresses the energy-momentum conservation for translation invariant systems, the explicit form of $`𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )`$ is

$$𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(x^\lambda x_0^\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\lambda }=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(x^\lambda x_0^\lambda )𝒫_\lambda }$$
(7.3)
where $`\lambda `$ is *not* a summation index and (7.2) was applied.

The operator (7.3), as well as the operators343434 Since the components $`𝒫_\mu `$ of the momentum operator commute \[?\] and $`(x^\lambda x_0^\lambda )`$ is considered as a real parameter by which $`𝒫_\lambda `$ is multiplied, the operators $`𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )`$ also commute, i.e. we have $`[𝒰_{\lambda _1}(x^{\lambda _1},x_0^{\lambda _1}),𝒰_{\lambda _2}(x^{\lambda _2},x_0^{\lambda _2})]_\mathrm{\_}=0.`$ Therefore the order in which the mappings $`𝒰_\lambda (x^\lambda ,x_0^\lambda )`$ appear in (7.4)–(7.6) below is inessential.

$$𝒰_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}(x^{\lambda _1},x^{\lambda _2},x_0^{\lambda _1},x_0^{\lambda _2}):=𝒰_{\lambda _1}(x^{\lambda _1},x_0^{\lambda _1})𝒰_{\lambda _2}(x^{\lambda _2},x_0^{\lambda _2})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\underset{\lambda =\lambda _1,\lambda _2}{}(x^\lambda x_0^\lambda )𝒫_\lambda \right)$$
(7.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒰_{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}(x^{\lambda _1},x^{\lambda _2},x^{\lambda _3},x_0^{\lambda _1},x_0^{\lambda _2},x_0^{\lambda _3}):=𝒰_{\lambda _1}(x^{\lambda _1},x_0^{\lambda _1})𝒰_{\lambda _2}(x^{\lambda _2},x_0^{\lambda _2})𝒰_{\lambda _3}(x^{\lambda _3},x_0^{\lambda _3})\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\underset{\lambda =\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}{}(x^\lambda x_0^\lambda )𝒫_\lambda \right)\end{array}$$
(7.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝒰(x,x_0):=𝒰_0(x^0,x_0^0)𝒰_1(x^1,x_0^1)𝒰_2(x^2,x_0^2)𝒰_3(x^3,x_0^3)\hfill \\ \hfill =\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\underset{\mu }{}(x^\mu x_0^\mu )𝒫_\mu \right),\end{array}$$
(7.6)
where $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3\{0,1,2,3\}`$ are *different* and $`\mu `$ is ordinary summation index, can be taken as ‘$`𝒰`$-operators’ and via the transformations (1.1) and (1.2) define a transition to new pictures of motion, which we call $`k`$-*dimensional momentum pictures* with k=1,2,3,4 for (7.3)–(7.6) respectively. Evidently, the case $`k=1`$ corresponds to the ordinary, time-dependent, Schrödinger picture. For completeness, the case $`k=0`$ will be identified with the Heisenberg picture of motion. Below we shall be interested in the case $`k=4`$ for which the special name the *momentum picture* will be used.

In a sense of (7.6) (and its consequences presented below), this new picture of motion is a composition (product) of four ordinary (coordinate dependent) Schrödinger pictures, by one for each of the four spacetime coordinates. As a result of this, one can expect in the momentum picture the field operators (and observables which are polynomial in them) to be constant in spacetime, contrary to the state vectors. Such a conclusion is immediately confirmed by the observation that (7.6) is exactly the (representation of the) spacetime translation operator (with parameter $`(xx_0)=x_0x`$) acting on the operators on system’s Hilbert space.

By (1.1), the transition from Heisenberg to momentum picture is given by the formulae:

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳(x)`$ $`=𝒰(x,x_0)(\stackrel{~}{𝒳})`$ (7.7)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒜(x)`$ $`=𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰^1(x,x_0).`$ (7.8)
In particular, the field operators transform as

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)\phi _i(x)=𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)𝒰^1(x,x_0).`$ (7.9)
Since from (7.6) and (7.1) follows

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒰(x,x_0)}{x^\mu }=𝒫_\mu 𝒰(x,x_0)𝒰(x_0,x_0)=𝗂𝖽_{},$$
(7.10)
due to (7.7), we see that the state vectors $`𝒳(x)`$ in momentum picture are solutions of the initial-value problem

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒳(x)}{x^\mu }=𝒫_\mu (𝒳(x))𝒳(x)|_{x=x_0}=𝒳(x_0)=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}$$
(7.11)
which is the 4-dimensional analogue of a similar problem for the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics.

By virtue of (7.6), or in view of the independence of $`𝒫_\mu `$ of $`x`$, the solution of (7.11) is

$$𝒳(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(x^\mu x_0^\mu )𝒫_\mu }(𝒳(x_0)).$$
(7.12)
Thus, if $`𝒳(x_0)=\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒫_\mu `$ ($`=\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu `$) with eigenvalues $`p_\mu `$,

$$𝒫_\mu (𝒳(x_0))=p_\mu 𝒳(x_0)(=p_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒳}=\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu (\stackrel{~}{𝒳})),$$
(7.13)
we have the following *explicit* form of the state vectors

$$𝒳(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(x^\mu x_0^\mu )p_\mu }(𝒳(x_0)).$$
(7.14)
It should clearly be understood, *this is the general form of all state vectors* as they are eigenvectors of all (commuting) observables \[?, p. 59\], in particular, of the 4-momentum operator.

To derive the equations of motion for the field operators and observables in the new momentum picture, we shall apply the equality

$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜(x)}{x^\mu }}`$ $`=𝒰(x,x_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)}{x^\mu }}𝒰^1(x,x_0)+[𝒫_\mu ,𝒜(x)]_\mathrm{\_}`$ (7.15)
which is a consequence of (7.8) and (7.10). The particular choice $`𝒜=\phi _i`$ results in
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i(x)}{x^\mu }}`$ $`=𝒰(x,x_0)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}{x^\mu }}𝒰^1(x,x_0)+[𝒫_\mu ,\phi _i(x)]_\mathrm{\_}`$ (7.16)
due to (7.9). Substituting here the Heisenberg equations of motion (2.3), we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i(x)}{x^\mu }}=0`$ (7.17)
or
$`\phi _i(x)=\phi _i(x_0)`$ (7.18)
which means that *in momentum picture the field operators are constant operators*, i.e. they are spacetime-independent operators. This is also an evident corollary of the fact that the induced by the operator (7.6) action on operators simply translates their arguments by the value $`(xx_0)=x_0x`$. Evidently, a similar result,

$$𝒜(x)=𝒜(x_0),$$
(7.19)
is valid for any observable constructed from the field operators and their partial derivatives of finite order (in Heisenberg picture) as a polynomial or convergent power series.

A natural question now arises: What happens with the Euler-Lagrange equations for the field operators in momentum picture? The answer turns to be quite amazing and natural at the same time: they transform into an *algebraic* equations for the constant field operators (7.18).

Performing a calculation similar to the one in (4.34), we find the functional form of the Lagrangian in momentum picture (see equations (7.16) and (7.17))

$`:`$ $`=(\phi _i(x)):=𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x))𝒰^1(x,x_0)`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{}(𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)𝒰^1(x,x_0),𝒰(x,x_0)_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)𝒰^1(x,x_0))`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i(x),_\mu \phi _j(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}[𝒫_\mu ,\phi _j(x)]_\mathrm{\_})=\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}[𝒫_\mu ,\phi _j]_\mathrm{\_})`$ (7.20)
where we have omit the argument $`x`$ in the last row as all quantities in it are constant in spacetime. Now we shall transform the Euler-Lagrange equations (2.1) into momentum picture. The first term in (2.1) transforms into

$$𝒰(x,x_0)\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}𝒰^1(x,x_0)=\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j(x),y_{j\mu })}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j(x),y_{j\mu })}{\phi _i(x)}=\frac{}{\phi _i(x)}$$

where

$$y_{j\mu }:=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[𝒫_\mu ,\phi _j]_\mathrm{\_}=+\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\phi _j,𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}$$
(7.21)
and we have used that $`\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}=\frac{}{\phi (x)_i}`$ as a result of (7.9), $`\frac{}{y_{j\nu }}\frac{y_{j\nu }}{\phi _i(x)}=0`$ as $`\frac{y_{j\nu }}{\phi _i(x)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(𝒫_\nu (\delta _i^j𝗂𝖽_{})(\delta _i^j𝗂𝖽_{})𝒫_\nu )0,`$ and $`\frac{𝒰(x,x_0)}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x)}0`$. Since the momenta

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }:=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}$$
(7.22)
conjugate to $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$ transform into (see (7.16) and use that $`𝒫_\mu `$ is a functional, not a function, of $`\phi _i`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi ^{i\mu }=𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }𝒰^1(x,x_0)=\frac{}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{j\nu })}{y_{i\mu }}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))}|_{_\nu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x)=y_{j\nu }}=\frac{}{y_{i\mu }},\end{array}$$
(7.23)
the second term in (2.1), multiplied by $`(1)`$, will transform into

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒰(x,x_0)\frac{}{x^\mu }\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }𝒰^1(x,x_0)\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\pi ^{i\mu }}{x^\mu }\frac{𝒰(x,x_0)}{x^\mu }\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }𝒰^1(x,x_0)𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }\frac{𝒰^1(x,x_0)}{x^\mu }\\ \hfill =\frac{\pi ^{i\mu }}{x^\mu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[𝒫_\mu ,\pi ^{i\mu }]_\mathrm{\_}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\pi ^{i\mu },𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}\end{array}$$

where we used (7.10), $`_\mu 𝒰^1=𝒰^1(_\mu 𝒰)𝒰^1`$, and $`_\nu \pi ^{i\mu }0`$ by virtue of (7.17) and that $`\pi ^{i\mu }`$ is polynomial or convergent power series in the field operators (see (7.23)).

Inserting the above results into $`𝒰(x,x_0)\mathrm{}𝒰^1(x,x_0)=0`$ with the dots denoting the l.h.s. of (2.1), we, finally, get the *Euler-Lagrange equations in momentum picture* as

$$\left\{\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu })}{\phi _i(x)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu })}{y_{i\mu }},𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}\right\}|_{y_{j\nu }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\phi _j,𝒫_\nu ]_\mathrm{\_}}=0$$
(7.24)
Since $``$ is supposed to be polynomial or convergent power series in its arguments, the equations (7.24) are *algebraic*, not differential, ones (if $`𝒫_\mu `$ is considered an given known operator). This result is a natural one in view of (7.17).

We shall illustrate the above general considerations on the almost trivial example of a free Hermitian scalar field $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$, described in Heisenberg picture by the Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{}=\frac{1}{2}m^2c^4\stackrel{~}{\phi }\stackrel{~}{\phi }+c^2\mathrm{}^2(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi })(^\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi })=\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi },y_\nu ),`$ with $`m=\mathrm{const}`$ and $`y_\nu =_\nu \stackrel{~}{\phi }`$, and satisfying the Klein-Gordon equation $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+\frac{m^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}𝗂𝖽_{})\stackrel{~}{\phi }=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}:=_\mu ^\mu `$. In momentum picture $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ transforms into the constant operator

$$\phi (x)=𝒰(x,x_0)\stackrel{~}{\phi }𝒰^1(x,x_0)=\phi (x_0)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x_0)=:\phi $$
(7.25)
which, in view of (7.24), $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\phi }=m^2c^4\phi `$, and $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{y_\nu }=c^2\mathrm{}^2y_\mu \eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a solution of353535 As a simple exercise, the reader may wish to prove that the D’Alembert operator (on the space of operator-valued functions) in momentum picture is $`\mathrm{}()=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}[[,𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}𝒫_\nu ]_\mathrm{\_}\eta ^{\mu \nu }.`$ (Hint: from the relation $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{𝒜(x)}{x^\mu }=[𝒜(x),𝒫_\mu ^\text{t}]_\mathrm{\_}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu ^\text{t}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{x^\mu }+p_\mu 𝗂𝖽_{}`$, $`p_\mu =\mathrm{const}`$ (see \[?\]), follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}[[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i),\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu ^\text{t}]_\mathrm{\_}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\nu ^\text{t}]_\mathrm{\_}\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$; now prove that in the momentum picture $`𝒫_\mu ^\text{t}=\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu ^\text{t}+𝒫_\mu `$.) Now, the equation (7.26) follows immediately from here and the ‘usual’ Klein-Gordon equations. Evidently, the obtained representation of the D’Alembert operator is valid in any picture of motion.

$$m^2c^2\phi [[\phi ,𝒫_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_},𝒫^\mu ]_\mathrm{\_}=0.$$
(7.26)
This is the *Klein-Gordon equation in momentum picture*.

The Euler-Lagrange equations (7.24) are not enough for determination of the field operators $`\phi _i`$. This is due to the simple reason that in them enter also the components $`𝒫_\mu `$ of the (canonical) momentum operator (2.7) which, in view of (2.5)–(2.7) and (2.2), are functions (or functionals) of the field operators. Hence, a complete system of equations for the field operators should consists of (7.24) and an explicit connection between them and the momentum operator.

A detailed presentation of quantum field theory in momentum picture will be given elsewhere.

## 8 Covariant pictures of motion

Suppose $`𝒰(x):`$ is depending on $`xM`$ unitary operator, $`𝒰^{}(x)=(𝒰(x))^{}=𝒰^1(x)`$. According to the general rules (1.1) and (1.2), the transformations

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳(x)`$ $`:=𝒰(x)(\stackrel{~}{𝒳})`$ (8.1a)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒜(x)`$ $`:=𝒰(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰^1(x)`$ (8.1b)
define a transition from Heisenberg picture of motion to a new one which, for brevity, will be called the $`𝒰`$-picture. Evidently, for a fixed point $`x_0M`$, the below written choices (8.16) and (8.17) describe the momentum picture and the ‘initial’ Heisenberg one, respectively. The purpose of this section is a brief derivation of the equations of motion in the $`𝒰`$-picture.

In accord with the general transformation (8.1b), the partial derivative $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)`$ of an operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x):`$ transforms into $`𝒰(x)(_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x))𝒰^1(x)=_\mu \left(𝒰(x)(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x))𝒰^1(x)\right)(_\mu 𝒰(x))\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰^1(x)𝒰(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)(_\mu 𝒰^1(x))=_\mu 𝒜(x)+[𝒜(x),_\mu 𝒰(x)𝒰^1(x)]_\mathrm{\_}.`$ Therefore

$$_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x)𝒰(x)(_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒜}(x))𝒰^1(x)=_\mu 𝒜(x)+[𝒜(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}$$
(8.2)
where $`𝒜(x)`$ is given via (8.1b) and we have introduced the shorthand
$$_\mu (x):=(_\mu 𝒰(x))𝒰^1(x).$$
(8.3)
In particular, for the field operators $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)`$, (8.1b) and (8.3) respectively read
$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)\phi _i(x)=𝒰(x)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)𝒰^1(x)$$
(8.4)
$$_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)𝒰(x)(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))𝒰^1(x)=_\mu \phi _i(x)+[\phi _i(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}.$$
(8.5)
Let the system’s Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x),_\nu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(x))`$ be polynomial or convergent power series in the field operators and their first partial derivatives. Then, repeating the steps in (7.20) and applying (8.4) and (8.5), we find the Lagrangian in the $`𝒰`$-picture as

$$=(\phi _i(x),_\mu \phi _j(x))=\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _i(x),_\mu \phi _j(x)+[\phi _j(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}).$$
(8.6)
Now we intend to transform the Euler-Lagrange equations (2.1) in $`𝒰`$-picture. Introducing, for brevity, the notation

$$y_{i\mu }:=_\mu \phi _i(x)+[\phi _i(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}\left(=𝒰(x)(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x))𝒰^1(x)\right),$$
(8.7)
we see that the first term in the l.h.s. of (2.1) transforms into $`𝒰(x)\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}𝒰^1(x)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j(x),y_{j\nu })}{\phi _i(x)},`$ while the second term in it, in view of (8.2), transforms into $`𝒰(x)_\mu \stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }𝒰^1(x)=_\mu \pi ^{i\mu }[\pi ^{i\mu },_\mu ]_\mathrm{\_},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }:=\frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}`$ and $`\pi ^{i\mu }=𝒰(x)\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{i\mu }𝒰^1(x)=\frac{}{_\mu \stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(x)}=\frac{(\phi _j(x),y_{j\nu })}{y_{i\mu }}.`$ Combining the above results, we get the *Euler-Lagrange equations in $`𝒰`$-picture* as

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu }(x))}{\phi _i(x)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j(x),y_{l\nu }(x))}{y_{i\mu }(x)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill [\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu }(x))}{y_{i\mu }(x)},_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}\left\}\right|_{y_{j\nu }(x)=_\nu \phi _j(x)+[\phi _j(x),_\nu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}}=0.\end{array}$$
(8.8)
In view of (2.3), (8.5) and (8.1b), the *Heisenberg equations/relations in $`𝒰`$-picture* are

$$[\phi _i(x),𝒫_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\{_\mu \phi _i(x)+[\phi _i(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}\}$$
(8.9)
or, equivalently,
$$[\phi _i(x),𝒫_\mu (x)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_\mu \phi _i(x)$$
(8.10)
where, in conformity with (8.1b), $`𝒫_\mu (x)`$ is the momentum operator in $`𝒰`$-picture, i.e.
$$𝒫_\mu (x):=𝒰(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu 𝒰^1(x).$$
(8.11)
Evidently, the equations (8.10) hold in any picture of motion while (2.3) are valid if and only if
$$[\phi _i(x),_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}=0.$$
(8.12)
Combining (8.9) and (8.8), we can write the Euler-Lagrange equations in $`𝒰`$-picture also as

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu }(x))}{\phi _i(x)}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j(x),y_{l\nu }(x))}{y_{i\mu }(x)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill [\frac{\stackrel{~}{}(\phi _j,y_{l\nu }(x))}{y_{i\mu }(x)},_\mu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}\left\}\right|_{y_{j\nu }(x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}[\phi _j(x),𝒫_\nu (x)]_\mathrm{\_}}=0.\end{array}$$
(8.13)
The spacetime evolution of the state vectors is an almost trivial corollary of the transformation (8.1a). Indeed, let $`𝒳_0`$ be the value of a state vector $`𝒳(x)`$ at a fixed point $`x_0M`$, $`𝒳(x_0)=𝒳_0`$, then, by virtue of (8.1a), we have

$$𝒳(x)=𝒰(x,x_0)(𝒳(x_0))$$
(8.14)
where the operator
$$𝒰(x,x_0):=𝒰(x)𝒰^1(x_0)$$
(8.15)
has a sense of an *evolution operator* in $`𝒰`$-picture.

It is obvious, the choices

$$𝒰(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}(x^\mu x_0^\mu )\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu \right\}$$
(8.16)
$$𝒰(x)=\alpha (x)𝗂𝖽_{}\alpha :M\backslash \{0\}$$
(8.17)
of the operator $`𝒰`$ select the transition from Heisenberg picture to an $`𝒰`$-picture with
$$_\mu (x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_\mu (x)$$
(8.18)
$$_\mu (x)=\alpha (x)(_\mu \alpha (x))𝗂𝖽_{}$$
(8.19)
and, consequently, describe the momentum and Heisenberg pictures, respectively.

If one studies the angular momentum properties of a quantum system, it may turn to be useful the ‘angular momentum picture’, for which

$$𝒰(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}a^{\mu \nu }(x)𝒥_{\mu \nu }}$$
(8.20)
where $`𝒥_{\mu \nu }`$ are the components of the (total) angular momentum operator and $`a^{\mu \nu }(x)`$ are (point-dependent) parameters of a Lorentz 4-rotation. Similarly, the ‘charge picture’, for which

$$𝒰(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{e}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}c}𝒬\lambda },$$
(8.21)
where $`e`$ is the (electric) charge constant, $`𝒬`$ is the (total) charge operator and $`\lambda `$ is a real parameter, may turn to be essential in the study of the ‘charge properties’ of quantum fields.

As (non-covariant) versions of the ‘angular momentum picture’ can be considered the ‘orbital angular momentum picture’ and ‘spin momentum picture’ for which $`𝒰(x)`$ is given by (8.20) with the orbital angular momentum operator $`_{\mu \nu }`$ and spin angular momentum operator $`𝒮_{\mu \nu }`$, respectively, for $`𝒥_{\mu \nu }`$.

As (covariant) variant of the ‘charge picture’ can be considered the ‘local charge picture’ or ‘gauge picture’ described via (8.21) with $`\lambda =\lambda (x)`$ being a scalar function of $`xM`$.

## 9 Conclusion

A unitary transformation of the operators and state vectors is the leading idea of the pictures of motion in quantum field theory (and in quantum mechanics as well). In this way, starting form some concrete ‘picture’, one obtains different and equivalent representations of the whole theory. The value of these representations is that in them vanish some quantities and in this way one can concentrate his/her attention on the remaining ones. For instance:

(i) In Heisenberg picture vanish the partial derivatives of the state vectors, i.e. in it they are constant, contrary to the field operators.

(ii) In Schrödinger picture disappear the time derivatives of the field operators, which is balanced by appearance of time dependence in the state vectors.

(iii) In interaction picture are zero some terms in the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion so that they have a form of free equations.

(iv) In momentum picture vanish the partial derivatives of the field operators, i.e. they are constant in it, but the state vectors become spacetime dependent.

As we saw in this paper, the time-dependent pictures of motion, like Schrödinger and interaction ones, admit similar ‘covariant’ formulations, but, by our opinion, in them the time dependence is also presented in a latent form. The covariant pictures of motion suit best to the special relativistic spirit of quantum field theory; typical examples of them are the Heisenberg and momentum ones.

In principle, one can consider also pictures of motion intermediate between the time-dependent and covariant ones, like the $`k`$-dimensional, $`k=2,3`$, momentum picture; however, it seems that at present such pictures have no applications.

Generally, for different purposes, different pictures of motion may turn to be convenient.

The proposed in this work momentum picture will be investigated at length elsewhere.