Effective Caldirola-Kanai Model for Accelerating Twisted Dirac States in Nonuniform Axial Fields

N.V.Filina; S.S.Baturin

arxiv: 2602.14555 · v1 · pith:DXNLIP3Pnew · submitted 2026-02-16 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.acc-ph· physics.optics

Effective Caldirola-Kanai Model for Accelerating Twisted Dirac States in Nonuniform Axial Fields

N.V.Filina , S.S.Baturin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 13:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.acc-phphysics.optics

keywords twisted particlesDirac equationCaldirola-Kanai HamiltonianErmakov-Pinney equationLandau levelsorbital angular momentuminhomogeneous axial fieldsparaxial approximation

0 comments

The pith

The transverse envelope of twisted Dirac particles in longitudinally varying axial fields obeys an effective Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian whose solutions follow from an Ermakov mapping of Landau states.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper starts from the Dirac equation for a massive charged particle carrying orbital angular momentum and propagating through an axially symmetric solenoid field together with a co-directed electric field. Controlled spinless and paraxial approximations reduce the transverse dynamics to a nonstationary Schrödinger equation whose Hamiltonian is of Caldirola-Kanai form, with an effective damping rate set by the longitudinal energy variation and an oscillator frequency set by the magnetic field strength. The Ermakov mapping supplies a unitary equivalence that converts the known stationary Landau-level solutions into closed-form propagating wave functions controlled by a single scaling function. This scaling function satisfies a generalized Ermakov-Pinney equation whose coefficients are fixed directly by the given field profiles E_z(z) and B_z(z). The construction recovers the established analytic limits for uniform acceleration with zero magnetic field and for pure solenoid focusing with negligible acceleration.

Core claim

Starting from the Dirac equation and applying controlled spinless and paraxial approximations, the transverse envelope obeys an effective nonstationary Schrödinger equation governed by a Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian. The longitudinal energy gain or loss encoded in f(z) = [E_0 - V(z)]^2 - m^2 generates an effective gain or damping rate γ̃(z) = ∂_z f(z) / [2 f(z)] and a z-dependent oscillator frequency ω̃(z) = p_0 Ω(z) / √f(z). Exploiting the Ermakov mapping, the authors obtain a closed-form propagated twisted wave function by transforming the stationary Landau basis; the transverse evolution is controlled by a single scaling function b(z) that satisfies a generalized Ermakov-Pinney equation.

What carries the argument

The Ermakov mapping that establishes unitary equivalence between the Caldirola-Kanai system and a stationary harmonic oscillator, thereby transforming the Landau-level basis into propagating solutions via the scaling function b(z).

If this is right

For uniform acceleration with vanishing magnetic field the propagated wave function reduces to previously known analytic expressions for accelerating beams.
For pure solenoid focusing with negligible electric acceleration the solution recovers the standard Landau-level propagation under magnetic focusing.
The beam radius, phase, and orbital-angular-momentum content at any longitudinal position are determined by evaluating the single scaling function b(z) for the given field profiles.
The same mapping supplies explicit control over how longitudinal field inhomogeneities reshape the transverse envelope of any twisted state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework could be tested by preparing twisted electron or ion beams in a linear accelerator segment with deliberately engineered longitudinal field gradients and measuring the output beam radius against the predicted b(z).
Relaxing the spinless approximation while retaining the same mapping would yield spin-dependent corrections that might be observable as small polarization-dependent shifts in the focal position.
The reduction to a single scaling function suggests that similar analytic control may exist for other relativistic wave equations whose transverse dynamics can be cast into time-dependent oscillator form.

Load-bearing premise

The spinless and paraxial approximations remain valid for the entire propagation region even when both the solenoid field and the accelerating electric field vary along the axis, without uncontrolled higher-order corrections from the energy-variation mapping.

What would settle it

Direct numerical solution of the full Dirac equation for a chosen pair of inhomogeneous E_z(z) and B_z(z) profiles, followed by quantitative comparison of the extracted transverse envelope to the analytic form predicted by the scaling function b(z).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14555 by N.V.Filina, S.S.Baturin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Evolution of the twisted electron beam width in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study relativistic twisted (orbital-angular-momentum) states of a massive charged particle propagating through an axially symmetric, longitudinally inhomogeneous solenoid field and a co-directed accelerating or decelerating electric field. Starting from the Dirac equation and using controlled spinless and paraxial approximations, we show that the transverse envelope obeys an effective nonstationary Schr\"odinger equation governed by a Caldirola--Kanai Hamiltonian. The longitudinal energy gain or loss encoded in $f(z)=[E_0-V(z)]^2-m^2$ generates an effective gain or damping rate $\widetilde{\gamma}(z)=\partial_z f(z)/[2f(z)]$ and a $z$-dependent oscillator frequency $\widetilde{\omega}(z)=p_0\Omega(z)/\sqrt{f(z)}$. Exploiting the Ermakov mapping (unitary equivalence of Caldirola--Kanai systems), we obtain a closed-form propagated twisted wave function by transforming the stationary Landau basis. The transverse evolution is controlled by a single scaling function $b(z)$ that satisfies a generalized Ermakov--Pinney equation with coefficients determined by $E_z(z)$ and $B_z(z)$. In the limiting cases of uniform acceleration with $B_z=0$ and of solenoid focusing with negligible acceleration, our solution reduces to previously known analytic results, providing a direct bridge to established models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives a closed-form analytic propagation for twisted Dirac states through combined inhomogeneous axial E and B fields by mapping to a Caldirola-Kanai model plus Ermakov scaling.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors reduce the Dirac equation for relativistic twisted particles in axially symmetric but z-dependent solenoid and accelerating fields to an effective nonstationary Schrödinger equation with a Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian. They fold the longitudinal energy variation f(z) into a damping rate and z-dependent frequency, then use the Ermakov mapping to express the transverse envelope via a single scaling function b(z) that solves a generalized Pinney equation. This yields a closed-form wave function by transforming the stationary Landau basis. It recovers the known uniform-acceleration and pure-solenoid limits, which is a solid consistency check. The derivation starts from the Dirac equation with explicitly stated spinless and paraxial approximations and applies standard techniques, so the steps are traceable and there are no fitted parameters or circular definitions. What is new is the simultaneous treatment of both inhomogeneous fields for orbital-angular-momentum states. The soft spot is the regime where those approximations remain valid. When B_z(z) and E_z(z) vary on length scales comparable to the local cyclotron radius or transverse wavelength, higher-order transverse-longitudinal couplings or spin-orbit terms could become non-perturbative, and the abstract does not supply explicit bounds on the inhomogeneity rates. If the full paper only asserts control without quantitative error estimates or numerical checks for rapid variations, that limits how far the closed-form result can be trusted outside slowly varying regimes. This is aimed at beam physicists and people modeling structured-particle sources who need an analytic handle on propagation inside realistic lattices. A reader looking for practical tools that bridge uniform-field results to nonuniform cases would find it useful. I would send it to peer review; the math is grounded and the application is relevant even if the validity range needs tightening.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives an effective Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian for the transverse envelope of relativistic twisted Dirac states propagating in axially symmetric, longitudinally inhomogeneous solenoid (B_z(z)) and accelerating electric (E_z(z)) fields. Starting from the Dirac equation, it applies spinless and paraxial approximations to obtain a nonstationary 2D Schrödinger equation whose longitudinal energy variation f(z) = [E_0 - V(z)]^2 - m^2 is mapped to an effective damping rate γ̃(z) = ∂_z f(z)/(2f(z)) and z-dependent frequency ω̃(z). The Ermakov-Pinney mapping then yields a closed-form propagated wave function expressed via a single scaling function b(z) that satisfies a generalized Ermakov-Pinney equation with coefficients fixed by E_z(z) and B_z(z). The solution reduces to known analytic results for uniform acceleration (B_z=0) and pure solenoid focusing.

Significance. If the controlled approximations hold, the work supplies a parameter-free analytic bridge between uniform-acceleration and solenoid-focusing regimes for twisted states, with explicit closed-form propagation via the Ermakov mapping and direct reduction to established limits. This is a genuine strength for beam-physics modeling where numerical propagation of Dirac spinors is costly.

major comments (1)

[derivation of effective Hamiltonian and f(z)→γ̃(z) mapping] The central claim that the spinless/paraxial reduction remains valid under simultaneous longitudinal inhomogeneity in both E_z(z) and B_z(z) is load-bearing for the effective Caldirola-Kanai model. The manuscript asserts the approximations are “controlled” but supplies no explicit bound relating the inhomogeneity length scales (e.g., |dB_z/dz|^{-1} or |dE_z/dz|^{-1}) to the local cyclotron radius or transverse de Broglie wavelength. Without such a quantitative criterion, the neglected transverse-longitudinal coupling and non-paraxial corrections could become O(1) precisely in the regime where the Ermakov mapping is applied.

minor comments (2)

[Ermakov mapping section] Notation for the scaling function b(z) and the generalized Ermakov-Pinney equation should be cross-referenced to the explicit coefficients involving E_z(z) and B_z(z) for immediate readability.
[limiting cases] The abstract states that the solution reduces to “previously known analytic results” in the two limiting cases; a brief side-by-side comparison (perhaps in a table or short paragraph) would strengthen the bridge claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the need for explicit validity criteria on the spinless and paraxial approximations. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [derivation of effective Hamiltonian and f(z)→γ̃(z) mapping] The central claim that the spinless/paraxial reduction remains valid under simultaneous longitudinal inhomogeneity in both E_z(z) and B_z(z) is load-bearing for the effective Caldirola-Kanai model. The manuscript asserts the approximations are “controlled” but supplies no explicit bound relating the inhomogeneity length scales (e.g., |dB_z/dz|^{-1} or |dE_z/dz|^{-1}) to the local cyclotron radius or transverse de Broglie wavelength. Without such a quantitative criterion, the neglected transverse-longitudinal coupling and non-paraxial corrections could become O(1) precisely in the regime where the Ermakov mapping is applied.

Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative criterion is absent from the current manuscript and that its inclusion would strengthen the presentation. In the revised version we will add a short subsection (or appendix paragraph) that derives approximate validity conditions from the neglected terms in the Dirac equation. These conditions take the form L_B, L_E ≫ r_c and L_B, L_E ≫ λ_⊥, where L_B = |dB_z/dz|^{-1}, L_E = |dE_z/dz|^{-1}, r_c = p_⊥/(e B_z) is the local cyclotron radius, and λ_⊥ = 2π ħ / p_⊥ is the transverse de Broglie wavelength. The estimates follow from requiring that the longitudinal derivatives of the vector potential and scalar potential induce corrections smaller than the retained paraxial terms. With these bounds stated, the Ermakov mapping remains applicable inside the indicated regime. The core analytic results and limiting cases are unaffected. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation starts from Dirac equation with standard approximations and known Ermakov mapping

full rationale

The paper derives the effective Caldirola-Kanai Hamiltonian directly from the Dirac equation via controlled spinless and paraxial approximations, then maps f(z) to the damping rate γ̃(z) and frequency ω̃(z) by explicit differentiation and rescaling. The closed-form solution follows from the established Ermakov-Pinney equation and unitary equivalence to the stationary Landau basis. No step reduces to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation; the limiting cases recover independent prior results without tautology. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the input Dirac equation and standard mathematical tools.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the Dirac equation plus two domain-specific approximations; no new entities or fitted constants are introduced beyond the standard field profiles E_z(z) and B_z(z).

axioms (2)

standard math Dirac equation governs the relativistic charged particle
Explicit starting point stated in the abstract.
domain assumption Spinless and paraxial approximations are controlled and sufficient
Invoked to reduce the Dirac equation to the effective transverse Schrödinger equation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5782 in / 1483 out tokens · 72806 ms · 2026-05-21T13:27:45.241138+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the transverse envelope obeys an effective nonstationary Schrödinger equation governed by a Caldirola–Kanai Hamiltonian... Exploiting the Ermakov mapping we obtain a closed-form propagated twisted wave function
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

b(z) that satisfies a generalized Ermakov–Pinney equation with coefficients determined by Ez(z) and Bz(z)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

2c ˜K2 arctanh   ˜K2 q 1 + 2 ˜K1z+ ˜K 2 2 z2 −1− ˜K1z ˜K 2 2 z− ˜K1 q 1 + 2 ˜K1z+ ˜K 2 2 z2 −1      2 .(45) 7 We use the connection between hyperbolic tangent and natural logarithm in form arctanhx= 1 2 ln 1 +x 1−x ,|x|<1 and obtain in previous notation b(z) = 1√c vuut1 + (q cb2 0 −1 + sign(b ′

work page
[2]

The corresponding differential equation can be analytically solved through the presented algorithm

cp0z V(z) ln " E0 +p 0 E0 −p 0 p f(z)−p 0 +V(z)p f(z)−p 0 −V(z) #)2 .(46) The same logic could be applied to the evolution in the homogeneous magnetic field and the inhomogeneous electric field. The corresponding differential equation can be analytically solved through the presented algorithm. II. HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC FIELD CROSS-CHECK In Ref. [25] the au...

work page
[3]

Allen, M

L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992)

work page 1992
[4]

Bliokh, I

K. Bliokh, I. Ivanov, G. Guzzinati, L. Clark, R. Van Boxem, A. B´ ech´ e, R. Juchtmans, M. Alonso, P. Schattschneider, F. Nori, and J. Verbeeck, Physics Re- ports690, 1 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Knyazev and V

B. Knyazev and V. Serbo, Phys.-Usp.61, 449 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Uchida and A

M. Uchida and A. Tonomura, Nature464, 737 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

Verbeeck, H

J. Verbeeck, H. Tian, and P. Schattschneider, Nature 467, 301 (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

B. J. McMorran, A. Agrawal, I. M. Anderson, A. A. Herz- ing, H. J. Lezec, J. J. McClelland, and J. Unguris, Science 331, 192 (2011)

work page 2011
[9]

Schachinger, S

T. Schachinger, S. L¨ offler, M. St¨ oger-Pollach, and P. Schattschneider, Ultramicroscopy158, 17 (2015)

work page 2015
[10]

Mafakheri, A

E. Mafakheri, A. H. Tavabi, P.-H. Lu, R. Balboni, F. Ven- turi, C. Menozzi, G. C. Gazzadi, S. Frabboni, A. Sit, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, E. Karimi, and V. Grillo, Ap- plied Physics Letters110, 093113 (2017)

work page 2017
[11]

I. P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D83, 093001 (2011)

work page 2011
[12]

I. P. Ivanov, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 127, 103987 (2022)

work page 2022
[13]

D. V. Karlovets, S. S. Baturin, G. Geloni, G. K. Sizykh, and V. G. Serbo, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 372 (2023)

work page 2023
[14]

A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Karlovets, and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rev. A109, 012222 (2024)

work page 2024
[15]

Pavlov, A

I. Pavlov, A. Chaikovskaia, and D. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. C111, 024619 (2025)

work page 2025
[16]

Sheremet, A

N. Sheremet, A. Chaikovskaia, D. Grosman, and D. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. A111, 052810 (2025)

work page 2025
[17]

A. S. Dyatlov, M. A. Nozdrin, A. N. Sergeev, N. E. Sheremet, S. S. Stafeev, and D. V. Karlovets, Appl. Opt. 64, 10776 (2025)

work page 2025
[18]

Dyatlov, V

A. Dyatlov, V. Bleko, K. Cherepanov, V. Kobets, M. Martyanov, M. Nozdrin, A. Sergeev, N. Sheremet, A. Zhemchugov, and D. Karlovets, in2024 International Conference Laser Optics (ICLO)(2024) pp. 438–438

work page 2024
[19]

A. S. Dyatlov, A. V. Afanasyev, V. V. Kobets, A. E. Levichev, M. V. Maksimov, D. A. Nikiforov, M. A. Noz- drin, K. Popov, K. A. Sibiryakova, K. E. Yunenko, and D. V. Karlovets, Classical and quantum beam dynam- ics simulation of the RF photoinjector test bench (2025), arXiv:2509.00732 [physics.acc-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

X. Liu, Q. Meng, Z. Yang, W. Ma, L. Lu, P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Journal of Applied Physics138, 124303 (2025)

work page 2025
[21]

L. Zou, P. Zhang, and A. J. Silenko, Phys. Rev. A103, L010201 (2021)

work page 2021
[22]

Guzzinati, P

G. Guzzinati, P. Schattschneider, K. Y. Bliokh, F. Nori, and J. Verbeeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 093601 (2013)

work page 2013
[23]

G. K. Sizykh, A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Grosman, I. I. Pavlov, and D. V. Karlovets, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024, 053A02 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

G. K. Sizykh, A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Grosman, I. I. Pavlov, and D. V. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. A109, L040201 (2024)

work page 2024
[25]

Melkani and S

A. Melkani and S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033060 (2021)

work page 2021
[26]

N. V. Filina and S. S. Baturin, Phys. Rev. A113, L021302 (2026)

work page 2026
[27]

Q. Meng, Z. Huang, X. Liu, W. Ma, Z. Yang, L. Lu, A. J. Silenko, P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043213 (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

Caldirola, Nuovo Cimento18, 393 (1941)

P. Caldirola, Nuovo Cimento18, 393 (1941)

work page 1941
[29]

Kanai, Progress of Theoretical Physics3, 440 (1948)

E. Kanai, Progress of Theoretical Physics3, 440 (1948)

work page 1948
[30]

F. F. L´ opez-Ruiz and J. Guerrero, Journal of Physics: Conference Series538, 012015 (2014)

work page 2014
[31]

N. V. Filina and S. S. Baturin, Phys. Rev. A108, 012219 (2023)

work page 2023
[32]

H. R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 510 (1967)

work page 1967
[33]

H. R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 636 (1967)

work page 1967
[34]

H. R. Lewis and W. B. Riesenfeld, J. Math. Phys.10, 1458 (1969)

work page 1969
[35]

Chuprikov, Found Phys45, 644 (2015)

N. Chuprikov, Found Phys45, 644 (2015)

work page 2015
[36]

Q. Meng, X. Liu, W. Ma, Z. Yang, L. Lu, A. J. Silenko, 9 P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023306 (2025)

work page 2025
[37]

Ermakov, Univ

V. Ermakov, Univ. Izv. Kiev20(1880)

work page
[38]

Pinney, Proc

E. Pinney, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc1, 681 (1950)

work page 1950
[39]

[25]; and (iii) an explicit construction of the Ermakov–Pinney solution from two linearly independent solutions of the associated Hill equation

See Supplemental Material at [URL] for details on the (i) an analytical solution of the Ermakov–Pinney equa- tion for an arbitrary longitudinal electric field in the ab- sence of a magnetic field; (ii) the homogeneous-electric- field limit and a cross-check against Ref. [25]; and (iii) an explicit construction of the Ermakov–Pinney solution from two linea...

work page

[1] [1]

2c ˜K2 arctanh   ˜K2 q 1 + 2 ˜K1z+ ˜K 2 2 z2 −1− ˜K1z ˜K 2 2 z− ˜K1 q 1 + 2 ˜K1z+ ˜K 2 2 z2 −1      2 .(45) 7 We use the connection between hyperbolic tangent and natural logarithm in form arctanhx= 1 2 ln 1 +x 1−x ,|x|<1 and obtain in previous notation b(z) = 1√c vuut1 + (q cb2 0 −1 + sign(b ′

work page

[2] [2]

The corresponding differential equation can be analytically solved through the presented algorithm

cp0z V(z) ln " E0 +p 0 E0 −p 0 p f(z)−p 0 +V(z)p f(z)−p 0 −V(z) #)2 .(46) The same logic could be applied to the evolution in the homogeneous magnetic field and the inhomogeneous electric field. The corresponding differential equation can be analytically solved through the presented algorithm. II. HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC FIELD CROSS-CHECK In Ref. [25] the au...

work page

[3] [3]

Allen, M

L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A45, 8185 (1992)

work page 1992

[4] [4]

Bliokh, I

K. Bliokh, I. Ivanov, G. Guzzinati, L. Clark, R. Van Boxem, A. B´ ech´ e, R. Juchtmans, M. Alonso, P. Schattschneider, F. Nori, and J. Verbeeck, Physics Re- ports690, 1 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Knyazev and V

B. Knyazev and V. Serbo, Phys.-Usp.61, 449 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Uchida and A

M. Uchida and A. Tonomura, Nature464, 737 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

Verbeeck, H

J. Verbeeck, H. Tian, and P. Schattschneider, Nature 467, 301 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

B. J. McMorran, A. Agrawal, I. M. Anderson, A. A. Herz- ing, H. J. Lezec, J. J. McClelland, and J. Unguris, Science 331, 192 (2011)

work page 2011

[9] [9]

Schachinger, S

T. Schachinger, S. L¨ offler, M. St¨ oger-Pollach, and P. Schattschneider, Ultramicroscopy158, 17 (2015)

work page 2015

[10] [10]

Mafakheri, A

E. Mafakheri, A. H. Tavabi, P.-H. Lu, R. Balboni, F. Ven- turi, C. Menozzi, G. C. Gazzadi, S. Frabboni, A. Sit, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, E. Karimi, and V. Grillo, Ap- plied Physics Letters110, 093113 (2017)

work page 2017

[11] [11]

I. P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D83, 093001 (2011)

work page 2011

[12] [12]

I. P. Ivanov, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 127, 103987 (2022)

work page 2022

[13] [13]

D. V. Karlovets, S. S. Baturin, G. Geloni, G. K. Sizykh, and V. G. Serbo, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 372 (2023)

work page 2023

[14] [14]

A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Karlovets, and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rev. A109, 012222 (2024)

work page 2024

[15] [15]

Pavlov, A

I. Pavlov, A. Chaikovskaia, and D. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. C111, 024619 (2025)

work page 2025

[16] [16]

Sheremet, A

N. Sheremet, A. Chaikovskaia, D. Grosman, and D. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. A111, 052810 (2025)

work page 2025

[17] [17]

A. S. Dyatlov, M. A. Nozdrin, A. N. Sergeev, N. E. Sheremet, S. S. Stafeev, and D. V. Karlovets, Appl. Opt. 64, 10776 (2025)

work page 2025

[18] [18]

Dyatlov, V

A. Dyatlov, V. Bleko, K. Cherepanov, V. Kobets, M. Martyanov, M. Nozdrin, A. Sergeev, N. Sheremet, A. Zhemchugov, and D. Karlovets, in2024 International Conference Laser Optics (ICLO)(2024) pp. 438–438

work page 2024

[19] [19]

A. S. Dyatlov, A. V. Afanasyev, V. V. Kobets, A. E. Levichev, M. V. Maksimov, D. A. Nikiforov, M. A. Noz- drin, K. Popov, K. A. Sibiryakova, K. E. Yunenko, and D. V. Karlovets, Classical and quantum beam dynam- ics simulation of the RF photoinjector test bench (2025), arXiv:2509.00732 [physics.acc-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

[20] [20]

X. Liu, Q. Meng, Z. Yang, W. Ma, L. Lu, P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Journal of Applied Physics138, 124303 (2025)

work page 2025

[21] [21]

L. Zou, P. Zhang, and A. J. Silenko, Phys. Rev. A103, L010201 (2021)

work page 2021

[22] [22]

Guzzinati, P

G. Guzzinati, P. Schattschneider, K. Y. Bliokh, F. Nori, and J. Verbeeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 093601 (2013)

work page 2013

[23] [23]

G. K. Sizykh, A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Grosman, I. I. Pavlov, and D. V. Karlovets, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024, 053A02 (2024)

work page 2024

[24] [24]

G. K. Sizykh, A. D. Chaikovskaia, D. V. Grosman, I. I. Pavlov, and D. V. Karlovets, Phys. Rev. A109, L040201 (2024)

work page 2024

[25] [25]

Melkani and S

A. Melkani and S. J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033060 (2021)

work page 2021

[26] [26]

N. V. Filina and S. S. Baturin, Phys. Rev. A113, L021302 (2026)

work page 2026

[27] [27]

Q. Meng, Z. Huang, X. Liu, W. Ma, Z. Yang, L. Lu, A. J. Silenko, P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043213 (2025)

work page 2025

[28] [28]

Caldirola, Nuovo Cimento18, 393 (1941)

P. Caldirola, Nuovo Cimento18, 393 (1941)

work page 1941

[29] [29]

Kanai, Progress of Theoretical Physics3, 440 (1948)

E. Kanai, Progress of Theoretical Physics3, 440 (1948)

work page 1948

[30] [30]

F. F. L´ opez-Ruiz and J. Guerrero, Journal of Physics: Conference Series538, 012015 (2014)

work page 2014

[31] [31]

N. V. Filina and S. S. Baturin, Phys. Rev. A108, 012219 (2023)

work page 2023

[32] [32]

H. R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 510 (1967)

work page 1967

[33] [33]

H. R. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 636 (1967)

work page 1967

[34] [34]

H. R. Lewis and W. B. Riesenfeld, J. Math. Phys.10, 1458 (1969)

work page 1969

[35] [35]

Chuprikov, Found Phys45, 644 (2015)

N. Chuprikov, Found Phys45, 644 (2015)

work page 2015

[36] [36]

Q. Meng, X. Liu, W. Ma, Z. Yang, L. Lu, A. J. Silenko, 9 P. Zhang, and L. Zou, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023306 (2025)

work page 2025

[37] [37]

Ermakov, Univ

V. Ermakov, Univ. Izv. Kiev20(1880)

work page

[38] [38]

Pinney, Proc

E. Pinney, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc1, 681 (1950)

work page 1950

[39] [39]

[25]; and (iii) an explicit construction of the Ermakov–Pinney solution from two linearly independent solutions of the associated Hill equation

See Supplemental Material at [URL] for details on the (i) an analytical solution of the Ermakov–Pinney equa- tion for an arbitrary longitudinal electric field in the ab- sence of a magnetic field; (ii) the homogeneous-electric- field limit and a cross-check against Ref. [25]; and (iii) an explicit construction of the Ermakov–Pinney solution from two linea...

work page