text:
# Quantum control in infinite dimensionsSupported in part by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

## 1 Introduction

To control the time evolution of quantum systems is an essential step in many new and old applications of quantum theory. Among the fields requiring accurate control of quantum mechanical time evolution are quantum state engineering, cooling of molecular degrees of freedom, selective excitation, chemical reactions and quantum computing.

The first general results on controllability of quantum systems have been obtained by Huang, Tarn and Clark (HTC). Subsequently an extensive amount of work has been done, mostly on establishing conditions and degrees of controllability for systems with a finite number of energy levels. By contrast, results for controllability in the infinite dimensional Hilbert sphere $`S_{}`$ have been mostly negative, stating that full control in $`S_{}`$ cannot be achieved with a finite dimensional control Lie algebra, a result similar to the one obtained by Ball, Marsden and Slemrod for classical control systems in Banach spaces.

It seemed therefore that control in infinite dimensions would require an infinite number of distinct control operators. This is what effectively happens in the proposal of Lloyd and Braunstein for quantum computation over continuous variables. They propose, for the construction of a universal quantum computer, the successive application of quadratic Hamiltonians and a higher order one (for example the Kerr Hamiltonian). By commutation, all polynomial Hamiltonians are obtained leading effectively to an infinite dimensional control algebra.

The HTC no-go result is based on a local argument concerning the finite dimensionality of the local manifold generated by the unitary action of the finite dimensional control group. Left open is the question of whether the local argument extends to a global action in the Hilbert sphere, which however is probably true. On the other hand the result does not apply to non-Lie groups, for example a Lie group complemented by a discrete operation. This is the kind of situation that is explored in this paper. As a physical motivation for the kind of control situation we deal with, consider a charged particle in a circle (a charged plane rotator) with Hilbert space $`L^2(0,2\pi )`$ and free Hamiltonian

$$H_0=\frac{^2}{\phi ^2}$$

$`\phi [0,2\pi )`$, defined in the domain

$$D\left(H_0\right)=\left\{fAC^2;f\left(0\right)=f\left(2\pi \right)\right\}$$

where $`AC^2`$ stands for functions with absolutely continuous first derivative. The eigenstates of $`H_0`$ are $`\left\{|k=e^{ik\phi };k\right\}`$ with eigenvalues $`k^2`$.

An application of a magnetic field pulse corresponds to the unitary operator

$$U_+=e^{i\phi }$$

which shifts the eigenstates one level up

$$U_+|k=|k+1$$

with inverse

$$U_+^1|k=|k1$$

Because the energy level spacing is not uniform

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_k=k^2\left(k1\right)^2=2k1$$

one may, by resonant and non-resonant excitation, make arbitrary $`U\left(2\right)`$ transformations between a particular pair of successive levels. As it turns out (Sect. 2), these simple controls (namely $`U_+,U_+^1,U\left(2\right)`$) are sufficient for full controllability of this infinite dimensional system.

## 2 Control in $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$

Consider the space of double-infinite square-integrable sequences

$$a=\{\mathrm{},a_2,a_1,a_0,a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)$$

$$\left|a\right|=\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|a_k\right|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{}$$

with basis

$$e_k=\{\mathrm{},0,0,1_k,0,0,\mathrm{}\}$$

$$a=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ke_k$$
(1)
Define:

(i) A linear operator $`U_+`$ acting as a shift on the basis states

$$U_+e_k=e_{k+1},k$$

and its inverse

$$U_+^1e_k=e_{k1},k$$

(ii) Another linear operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Pi }e_0=e_1\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }e_1=e_0\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }e_k=e_k\hfill & ,\hfill & k\{0,1\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n=U_+^n\mathrm{\Pi }U_+^n$$

acts as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Pi }_ne_n=e_{n+1}\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }e_{n+1}=e_n\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Pi }e_k=e_k\hfill & ,\hfill & kn,n+1\hfill \end{array}$$

In the sequence $`a=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a_ke_k`$ it exchanges $`a_n`$ with $`a_{n+1}`$. Likewise

Lemma 1. Given $`a\mathrm{}^2\left(\right),k,l`$, the linear operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+l}`$ $`\left(l\right)`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+1}=\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+l}a=\mathrm{\Pi }_k\mathrm{\Pi }_{k+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{k+l2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{k+l1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{k+1}\mathrm{\Pi }_ka$$
(2)
for $`l2`$, exchanges the coefficients of $`e_k`$ and $`e_{k+l}`$ in (1), that is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+l}a=a_{k+l}e_k+a_ke_{k+l}+\underset{rk,k+l}{}a_re_r$$

Theorem 1. Let $`G(U_+,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ stand for the group generated by $`U_+,U_+^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Then for any $`0a\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ the linear span of $`G(U_+,\mathrm{\Pi })a`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$.

Proof: It is sufficient to show that $`bG(U_+,\mathrm{\Pi })a`$ implies $`b=0`$. Suppose $`b=e_k`$ for some $`k`$. Since $`a0`$ there is $`l\left\{0\right\}`$ such that at least one of the numbers $`a_{k+l}`$ or $`a_{kl}`$ is different from zero. Then $`(b,\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+l}a)=a_{k+l}`$ or $`(b,\mathrm{\Pi }_{kl,k}a)=a_{kl}`$, a contradiction. Similarly if both $`a`$ and $`b`$ are terminating sequences.

Suppose now that $`b`$ is terminating but $`a`$ is not. Let $`b_k=0`$for $`\left|k\right|>N^{^{}}`$. Then $`NN^{^{}}`$ such that $`(b,a)=_N^Nb_k^{}a_k=0`$ and either $`b_N^{}a_N0`$ or $`b_N^{}a_N0`$. Then there is $`l`$ such that $`a_{N+l}a_N`$ or $`a_{Nl}a_N`$ . Hence $`(b,\mathrm{\Pi }_{N,N+l}a)=_N^{N1}b_k^{}a_k+b_N^{}a_{N+l}0`$ or $`(b,\mathrm{\Pi }_{N,Nl}a)=_N^{N1}b_k^{}a_k+b_N^{}a_{Nl}0`$, a contradiction. Similarly for $`a`$ terminating and $`b`$ nonterminating.

If neither $`a`$ nor $`b`$ terminates, then there are pairs $`a_ka_l`$ and $`b_mb_n`$. With appropriate $`g,g^{^{}}G(U_+,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ we obtain

$$(b,ga)=b_m^{}a_k+b_n^{}a_l+b_k^{}a_m+b_l^{}a_n+\underset{rk,l,m,n}{}b_r^{}a_r=0$$

$$(b,g^{^{}}a)=b_n^{}a_k+b_m^{}a_l+b_k^{}a_m+b_l^{}a_n+\underset{rk,l,m,n}{}b_r^{}a_r=0$$

Hence $`b_m^{}a_k+b_n^{}a_l=b_n^{}a_k+b_m^{}a_l`$, which is possible only if either $`b_m=b_n`$ or $`a_k=a_l`$, a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Now instead of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ operator we consider a $`U\left(2\right)`$ group operating in the linear space spanned by $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$ and as the identity on $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)\{e_0,e_1\}`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Pi }U\left(2\right)`$.

Theorem 2. For any $`0a\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ the set $`G(U_+,U\left(2\right))a`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$.

Lemma 2. Suppose $`0a\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ is a terminating normalized sequence. Then, there is $`gG(U_+,U\left(2\right))`$ such that $`ge_0=a`$.

Proof: Let

$$a=a_Ne_N+\mathrm{}+a_oe_0+\mathrm{}+a_Ne_N$$

By $`U\left(2\right)`$ transformations in the $`\{e_0,e_1\}`$ subspace and use of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k,k+l}`$ operators (Eq.(2)) one constructs with operators $`g_iG(U_+,U\left(2\right))`$ the following sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g_1e_0=& x_1e_0+a_Ne_N& =\alpha _1\\ g_2\alpha _1=& x_2e_0+a_{N+1}e_{N+1}+a_Ne_N& =\alpha _2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ g_{2N}\alpha _{2N1}=& x_{2N}e_0+_N^Na_ke_k& =\alpha _{2N}\\ g_{2N+1}\alpha _{2N}=& a& \end{array}$$

Finally

$$g_{2N+1}g_{2N}\mathrm{}g_2g_1e_0=a$$

Proof of theorem 2: Consider $`a,b\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ with $`\left|a\right|=\left|b\right|=1`$. Choose $`\epsilon `$ and $`N`$ such that

$$\alpha =\left|\underset{N}{\overset{N}{}}a_ke_k\right|>1\epsilon $$

$$\beta =\left|\underset{N}{\overset{N}{}}b_ke_k\right|>1\epsilon $$

By the lemma 2 there are $`g,g^{^{}}G(U_+,U\left(2\right))`$ such that

$$g\underset{N}{\overset{N}{}}a_ke_k=\alpha e_0$$

$$g^{^{}}\left(\alpha e_0\right)=\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\underset{N}{\overset{N}{}}b_ke_k$$

Hence

$$\left|bg^{^{}}ga\right|2\epsilon +\left|1\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right|3\epsilon $$

$`\mathrm{}`$

In conclusion: given any initial state $`0a\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ it is possible by the unitary action of an element in $`G(U_+,U\left(2\right))`$ to approach as closest as desired any other state $`b`$ in $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$.

Any infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}^2`$. Therefore the results have a large degree of generality. However, depending on the Hilbert space realization for each concrete infinite dimensional quantum system, the control operators discussed here may or may not be easy to implement.