text:
# Free conical dynamics: charge-monopole as a particle with spin, anyon and nonlinear fermion-monopole supersymmetry

## 1 Introduction

In addition to the Galilei symmetry, the free nonrelativistic particle possesses the dynamical $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry . The latter can be understood as a relic of reparametrization invariance which survives the formal Lagrangian gauge fixing procedure consisting in introduction of the condition $`v=1`$ in the associated system $`L=\frac{\dot{𝐫}^2}{2v}+\frac{v}{2}`$ with einbien $`v`$ . Amazingly, this dynamical symmetry relates the mechanisms of supernova explosion and plasma implosion , and the theoretical explanation of such an intriguing similarity finds its roots in the symmetry properties of the fluid dynamic equations . Since the charge-monopole (CM) system is characterized by the same dynamical $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry , this indicates on the free nature of the charge’s motion in such a system. Following recent works , here we discuss the origin of the effectively free dynamics of the charge in the magnetic monopole field to apply it for finding the alternative treatment of the CM as a particle with spin, for tracing out the relation of the CM to the free relativistic anyon, and for clarifying the nature of the non-standard nonlinear supersymmetry of the fermion-monopole system.

## 2 Free dynamics of the charge-monopole

A non-relativistic scalar particle of unit mass and electric charge $`e`$ in the field of magnetic monopole of charge $`g`$ is described by the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{𝐫}{}_{}{}^{2}+e𝐀\dot{𝐫},$$
(1)
with a U(1) gauge potential $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ given by the relations $`_iA_j_jA_i=F_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}B_k,`$ $`B_i=g\frac{r_i}{r^3},`$ $`r=\sqrt{𝐫^2}`$. Equations of motion following from Lagrangian (1) result in the Lorentz force law, $`\ddot{𝐫}=𝐟`$, $`𝐟=\nu r^3𝐫\times \dot{𝐫}`$, $`\nu =eg`$, which implies that instead of the orbital angular momentum vector $`𝐋=𝐫\times \dot{𝐫},`$ the vector

$$𝐉=𝐋\nu 𝐧,𝐧=𝐫r^1,$$
(2)
is the conserved angular momentum of the system. Due to the relation $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐧}=\nu `$, the trajectory of the particle lies on the cone with the axis oriented along the vector $`𝐉`$ and the half-angle equal to $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\nu J^1.`$ Since the force $`𝐟`$ is orthogonal to $`𝐫`$ and to the velocity $`\dot{𝐫}`$, it is perpendicular to the cone and, therefore, the particle performs a free motion on the cone. To observe this also at the level of Lagrangian, we introduce (local) spherical coordinates, $`𝐧=𝐧(\vartheta ,\phi )`$, with axis $`\vartheta =0`$ directed along $`𝐉`$. Then the reduction of (1) to the level of the constant vector $`𝐉`$ results after transformation $`tt^{}=\alpha t,`$ $`\alpha =\sqrt{1\nu ^2J^2},`$ in the Lagrangian

$$L=L_\alpha +\frac{d}{dt}\left(C\phi \right),L_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^2\dot{r}{}_{}{}^{2}+r^2\dot{\phi }{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(3)
where $`C=e(2\pi )^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=2\pi \alpha \nu ^2J^1e^1.`$ The second term being a total derivative is not important classically, whereas the Lagrangian $`L_\alpha `$ describes a free motion of the particle on the cone given by the relations $`x=r\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$ $`y=r\mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$ $`z=r\sqrt{\alpha ^21},`$ $`r>0,`$ $`0\phi <2\pi ,`$ with $`0<\alpha <1`$. The total derivative in (3) is the reduced form of the CM interaction $`e𝐀\dot{𝐫}`$ having the nature of $`(0+1)`$-dimensional Chern-Simons (CS) term which gives rise to the Dirac quantization condition for the parameter $`\nu `$. Being, up to the constant, the derivative of the topologically nontrivial angular variable, it corresponds to the 2D term describing the interaction of the charge $`e`$ with a singular point vortex carrying the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ .

The conical metric $`ds^2=\alpha ^2(dr)^2+r^2(d\phi )^2`$ corresponds to the metric produced by the point mass , and one can say that the classical motion of the charge in the field of magnetic monopole (reduced to the level $`𝐉=const`$) is equivalent to the classical motion of a particle in a planar gravitational field of a point massive source carrying simultaneously the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }.`$

With the appropriate choice of the origin of the system of coordinates, the motion of a 3D free particle ($`e=0`$) can be characterized by the unit vector $`𝐧`$ and by the conserved orbital angular momentum $`𝐋`$ supplemented with the canonically conjugate scalars $`r`$ and $`p_r=r^1\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}`$, where $`𝐩`$ is a canonical momentum. Since $`\mathrm{𝐋𝐧}=0`$, for a given $`𝐋`$ the particle’s trajectory is in the plane orthogonal to the orbital angular momentum. So, one concludes that classically the topological nature of $`(0+1)`$-dimensional charge-monopole CS term is manifested in changing the global structure of the dynamics without distorting its local free (geodesic) character: the “plane dynamical geometry” of the free particle ($`e=0`$) is changed for the free “cone dynamical geometry” of the charged particle.

## 3 CM as a reduced E(3) system

Like a 3D free particle, the CM system may be treated as a reduced E(3) system. To get such an interpretation, we pass over from the Hamiltonian variables $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐏=𝐩e𝐀`$ to the set of variables $`𝐧`$, $`𝐉`$, $`r`$ and $`P_r=\mathrm{𝐏𝐫}r^1`$. They have the following Poisson brackets: $`\{r,P_r\}=1,`$ $`\{r,𝐧\}=\{r,𝐉\}=\{P_r,𝐧\}=\{P_r,𝐉\}=0,`$ and $`\{J_i,J_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}J_k,`$ $`\{J_i,n_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}n_k,`$ $`\{n_i,n_j\}=0.`$ Poisson brackets for variables $`J_i`$ and $`n_i`$ correspond to the algebra of generators of the Euclidean group E(3) with $`J_i`$ being a set of generators of rotations and $`n_i`$ identified as generators of translations. The quantities $`𝐧^2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐧}`$ lying in the center of $`e(3)`$ algebra, $`\{𝐧^2,n_i\}=\{𝐧^2,J_i\}=\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐉},n_i\}=\{\mathrm{𝐧𝐉},J_i\}=0`$, are fixed in the present case by the relations $`𝐧^2=1,`$ $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐉}=\nu .`$ In terms of the introduced variables, the Hamiltonian of the system takes the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2}P_r^2+\frac{(𝐉\times 𝐧)^2}{2r^2}.$$
(4)
Therefore, the CM system can be treated as the E(3) system reduced by the conditions $`𝐧^2=1`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐉}=\nu `$ fixing the Casimir elements, and supplemented by the independent canonically conjugate variables $`r`$ and $`P_r`$. It is the relation $`\mathrm{𝐧𝐉}=\nu `$ that encodes the topological difference between the CM and the 3D free particle cases: for $`\nu 0`$, the space given by the spin vector $`𝐉`$ is homeomorphic to $`\text{IR }^3\{0\}`$, ($`J>|\nu |`$), whereas for $`\nu =0`$ the corresponding space $`\text{IR }^3`$ is topologically trivial.

## 4 Spin nature of CS term

The integrand in action corresponding to the charge-monopole interaction term $`\theta =e\dot{𝐫}𝐀(𝐫)dt`$ can be treated as a differential one-form $`\theta =e𝐀(𝐫)d𝐫`$ defined by the relation

$$d\theta =\frac{\nu }{2r^3}ϵ_{ijk}r_idr_jdr_k.$$
(5)
Since the right-hand side of Eq. (5) is the gauge-invariant curvature two-form, $`d\theta =e,`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}F_{ij}dr_idr_j`$, the gauge-non-invariant one-form $`\theta `$ has a sense of $`(0+1)`$-dimensional CS term. The two-form (5) can be represented equivalently as $`d\theta =\frac{\nu }{2}ϵ_{ijk}n_idn_jdn_k.`$ With the (local) parametrization by spherical coordinates, $`𝐧=𝐧(\vartheta ,\phi )`$, one finds that up to the constant factor it gives the differential area of the two-sphere and via the Stokes theorem leads to the quantization of the CM coupling constant: $`2\nu =k`$, $`k\text{ZZ}`$ .

Defining the dependent variables $`s_i=\nu n_i,`$ the two-form $`d\theta `$ can be represented equivalently as

$$\omega _s=d\theta =\frac{1}{2𝐬^2}ϵ_{ijk}s_ids_jds_k,$$
(6)
with $`𝐬^2=\nu ^2.`$ The two-form (6) is closed and nondegenerate, and, so, can be interpreted as a symplectic form corresponding to the symplectic potential $`\theta `$. If we drop out the kinetic term in the CM action (that corresponds to taking the charge’s zero mass limit, $`m0`$, ), one gets the Poisson brackets $`\{s_i,s_k\}=ϵ_{ijk}s_k,`$ which together with the relation $`s_is_i=\nu ^2`$ define the classical spin system with fixed spin modulus. Geometric quantization applied to such a system (for the details see ref. ) leads to the same Dirac quantization of the parameter $`\nu `$, $`|\nu |=j`$, $`j=1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{}`$, and results in $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional representation of $`su(2)`$ with classical relation $`𝐬^2=\nu ^2`$ changed for the quantum relation $`𝐬^2=j(j+1)`$. Introducing the complex variable $`z`$ related to the spherical angles via the stereographic projection $`z=\mathrm{tan}\frac{\vartheta }{2}e^{i\phi }`$ from the north pole, or via $`z=\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi }`$ for the projection from the south pole, the symplectic two-form is represented in both cases as

$$\omega _s=2i\nu \frac{d\overline{z}dz}{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}.$$
(7)
Geometrically, the obtained spin system is a Kähler manifold with Kähler potential $`𝒦=2i\nu \mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{z}z)`$: $`\omega _s=\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}𝒦d\overline{z}dz`$, $`\overline{z}=z^{}`$. Locally, in spherical coordinates the spin Lagrangian is given by $`L_s=\nu \mathrm{cos}\vartheta \dot{\phi },`$ and in terms of global complex variable it takes the form

$$L_s=i\nu \frac{\overline{z}\dot{z}\dot{\overline{z}}z}{1+\overline{z}z}.$$
(8)
The appearance of the two stereographic projections for the spin system reflects the necessity to work in two charts under treating the CM system to escape the problems with Dirac string singularities. In terms of globally defined independent variables $`z`$, $`\overline{z}`$ no gauge invariance left in the spin system given by Lagrangian (8) but it is hidden in a fibre bundle structure reflected, in particular, in the presence of two charts. Note also that since (8) is a first order Lagrangian and the corresponding Hamiltonian is equal to zero, the CS action $`S=\theta `$ describes the free spin system.

## 5 CM as a particle with spin

The spin nature of the charge-monopole CS term and free character of the charge’s dynamics allow us to get the alternative description for the CM system as a free particle of fixed spin with translational and spin degrees of freedom interacting via the helicity constraint and the spin-orbit coupling term. The corresponding equivalent form of the Lagrangian is

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{𝐫}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{r^2}(𝐫\times \dot{𝐫})𝐬\lambda (\mathrm{𝐫𝐬}+\nu r)+L_s,$$
(9)
where $`𝐬=\nu 𝐧(z,\overline{z})`$, $`L_s`$ is given by Eq. (8), $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier, and the coordinate vector $`𝐫`$ and translation invariant variables $`z`$, $`\overline{z}`$ should be treated as independent variables of the configuration space. To see that the Lagrangian (9) describes the system equivalent to the initial CM system, first we note that the variation in $`\lambda `$ results in appearance of the helicity constraint $`\chi \mathrm{𝐬𝐫}+\nu r0,`$ whereas the term $`L_s`$ generates the necessary Poisson brackets $`\{s_i,s_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}s_k`$ for the spin variables $`s_i=s_i(z,\overline{z})`$. The Hamiltonian corresponding to the Lagrangian (9) is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}𝚷^2+\lambda (\mathrm{𝐬𝐫}+\nu r),$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_ip_i\frac{1}{r^2}ϵ_{ijk}r_js_k,`$ and it is the presence of the second $`\mathrm{𝐋𝐬}`$-coupling term in Lagrangian (9) in addition to the first kinetic term that guarantees the conservation of the helicty constraint. The system (9) is described by $`6+2`$ phase space variables and by one first class constraint. Therefore, there are only 6 physical degrees of freedom. Due to the relations $`\{r_i,\chi \}=0`$, $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_i,\chi \}0`$, the variables $`r_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ give such a set of physical degrees of freedom. The Hamiltonian of the initial CM system has a form $`H=\frac{1}{2}𝐏^2`$, and the nontrivial Poisson brackets for the initial system are $`\{r_i,P_j\}=\delta _{ij}`$, $`\{P_i,P_j\}=\nu r^3ϵ_{ijk}r_k`$. Taking into account that for the system (9) the Poisson brackets of the gauge-invariant (physical) variables are $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_i,\mathrm{\Pi }_j\}=\frac{\mathrm{𝐫𝐬}}{r^4}ϵ_{ijk}r_k\nu r^3ϵ_{ijk}r_k`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_i,r_j\}=\delta _{ij},`$ one concludes that the variables $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ are the analogs of $`P_i=\dot{r}_i`$, and, as a result, the dynamics generated by the Hamiltonian (10) for the gauge-invariant variables is exactly the same as the dynamics of the initial CM system.

Therefore, we conclude that the CM system can alternatively be interpreted as a free particle of fixed spin defined by the value of the CM coupling constant $`\nu `$ with translational and spin degrees of freedom interacting via the helicity constraint and the $`\mathrm{𝐋𝐬}`$-coupling term.

## 6 CM and (2+1)D anyon

The observed effectively free nature of the CM dynamics allows ones also to trace out the origin and details of the known formal relation of the CM system to the (2+1)-dimensional free relativistic anyon .

In (2+1)-dimensions, spin is a (pseudo)scalar and, as a consequence, the anyon of fixed spin has the same number of degrees of freedom as a spinless free massive particle . The relationship between the CM and anyon can be understood better within the framework of the canonical description of these two systems. As we have seen, the CM system essentially is a reduced E(3) system. In the case of anyon, the E(3) group is changed for the Poincaré group ISO(2,1). The translation generators of the corresponding groups are $`n_i`$ and $`p_\mu `$, the latter being the energy-momentum vector of the anyon, and the corresponding Casimir central elements are fixed by the relations $`𝐧^2=1`$ and $`p^2+m^20,`$ where $`m`$ is a mass of the anyon. The rotation (Lorentz) generators are given by $`𝐉`$ and by

$$𝒥_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }x^\nu p^\lambda +J_\mu ,$$
(11)
where $`J_\mu `$ are the translation invariant $`so(2,1)sl(2,R)`$ generators satisfying the algebra

$$\{J_\mu ,J_\nu \}=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }J^\lambda ,$$
(12)
and subject to the relation $`J_\mu J^\mu =\gamma ^2=const`$. Representation (11) for the anyon total angular momentum vector is, obviously, the analog of the relation $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐬`$ appearing under interpretation of the CM system as a particle with spin. In the CM system, the second Casimir element of E(3) is fixed either strongly, $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐧}=\nu `$, or in the form of the weak relation $`\mathrm{𝐉𝐧}+\nu 0`$ being equivalent to the helicity constraint under treating the CM as the particle with spin. In the anyon model, spin also can be fixed either strongly, $`𝒥p=Jp=\gamma m`$, or in the form of the weak (constraint) relation $`\chi _aJp+\gamma m0`$ . When the helicity is fixed strongly, for the CM system the symplectic form has a nontrivial contribution describing noncommuting quantities $`P_i`$ being the components of the charge’s velocity: $`\omega =dP_idr_i+\frac{\nu }{2r^3}ϵ_{ijk}r_idr_jdr_k`$. In the anyon case, the strong spin fixing gives rise to the nontrivial Poisson structure for the particle’s coordinate’s ,

$$\{x_\mu ,x_\nu \}=\alpha (p^2)^{3/2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }p^\lambda .$$
(13)
On the other hand, when we treat the CM system as a particle with spin (helicity is fixed weakly), one can work in terms of the canonical symplectic structure for the charge’s coordinates and momenta, $`\omega =dp_idr_i+\omega _s`$, but the canonical momenta $`𝐩`$ are not physical observables due to their non-commutativity with the helicity constraint, whereas the gauge-invariant extension of $`p_i`$ given by the variables $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ plays the role of the non-commuting quantities $`P_i`$. Exactly the same picture takes place in the case of anyon when its spin is fixed weakly: the coordinates $`x_\mu `$ commute in this case, $`\{x_\mu ,x_\nu \}=0`$, but they have nontrivial Poisson brackets with the spin constraint $`\chi _a`$, whereas their gauge-invariant extension, $`X_\mu =x_\mu +\frac{1}{p^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }p^\nu J^\lambda `$, $`\{X_\mu ,\chi _a\}0`$, are non-commuting and reproduce the Poisson bracket relation (13) . Like in the anyon case, the advantage of the extended formulation for the CM system (when we treat it as a particle with spin) is in the existence of canonical charge’s coordinates $`r_i`$ and momenta $`p_i`$. Within the initial minimal formulation (given in terms of $`r_i`$ and gauge-invariant variables $`P_i`$), the canonical momenta $`p_i`$ are reconstructed from $`P_i`$ only locally, $`p_i=P_i+eA_i`$, due to the global Dirac string singularities hidden in the monopole vector potential. Having in mind the gauge invariant nature and non-commutativity of $`P_i`$ or their analogs $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ from the extended formulation, we conclude that they, like anyon coordinates $`X_\mu `$, are the charge-monopole’s analogs of the Foldy-Wouthuysen coordinates of the Dirac particle .

## 7 Fermion-monopole supersymmetry

Now we apply the discussed effectively free dynamics of the CM for clarifying the nature of the non-standard supersymmetry of the fermion-monopole. As it was observed for the first time in ref. , in addition to the standard $`N=1/2`$ supersymmetry , the fermion-monopole system has the hidden supersymmetry of the non-standard form characterized by the supercharge anticommuting for the nonlinear operator equal to the square of the total angular momentum operator shifted for the constant. The nonlinear supersymmetry of the similar form was also revealed in the 3D $`P,T`$-invariant systems of relativistic fermions  and Chern-Simons fields  as well as in the pure parabosonic systems and Calogero- like systems with exchange interaction . The relation of the nonlinear supersymmetry to the quasi-exactly solvable systems via the quantum anomaly was investigated recently in ref. .

To clarify the origin of such a supersymmetry and its structure, let us consider following ref.  a 3D free spin-1/2 nonrelativistic particle given by the classical Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{𝒓}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{i}{2}𝝍\dot{𝝍}.$$
(14)
The corresponding Hamiltonian is $`H=\frac{1}{2}𝒑^2`$, and nontrivial Poisson-Dirac brackets for Grassmann variables are $`\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=i\delta _{ij}.`$ The set of even integrals of motion is given by the vectors $`𝒑`$, $`𝑳=𝒓\times 𝒑`$ and $`𝑲=𝒑\times 𝑳`$, which have a nonzero projection on a unit of Grassmann algebra, and by the nilpotent spin vector $`𝑺=\frac{i}{2}𝝍\times 𝝍`$ generating rotations of odd Grassmann variables $`\psi _i`$. The vector $`𝑲`$ is the analog of the Laplace- Runge-Lentz vector of the Kepler system, which together with $`𝒑`$ and $`𝑳`$ constitute a non-normalized basis of orthogonal vectors forming a nonlinear algebra with respect to the Poisson brackets. Projecting the odd vector integral $`𝝍`$ onto the even vector integrals of motion, we get three odd scalar integrals of motion (supercharges)

$$Q_1=𝒑𝝍,Q_2^{}=𝑳𝝍,Q_3=𝑲𝝍.$$
(15)
The supercharge $`Q_1`$ is a “square root from the Hamiltonian”, $`\{Q_1,Q_1\}=2iH`$. It has zero bracket with the supercharge $`Q_3`$, $`\{Q_1,Q_3\}=0`$, but $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ have nontrivial brackets with $`Q_2^{}`$. One can find the linear combination of the odd scalar integrals $`Q_2^{}`$ and $`iϵ_{ijk}\psi _i\psi _j\psi _k`$ having zero brackets with other two supercharges,

$$Q_2=𝑳𝝍\frac{i}{3}(𝝍\times 𝝍)𝝍.$$
(16)
Finally, we get the set of three scalar supercharges, $`\{J_i,Q_a\}=0,`$ $`a=1,2,3`$, forming together with $`H`$ and $`𝑱`$ the nonlinear superalgebra

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}=iA_a\delta _{ab},$$
(17)
where $`A_1=2H`$, $`A_2=𝑱^2`$, $`A_3=A_1A_2`$, and $`𝑱=𝑳+𝑺`$ is the total angular momentum vector. The scalar supercharges satisfy also the algebraic relation

$$Q_aQ_b=iB_cϵ_{abc}\stackrel{~}{Q}_c,$$
(18)
where $`B_1=A_2`$, $`B_2=A_1`$, $`B_3=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_a`$ means $`Q_a`$ with odd vector $`𝝍`$ changed for even $`𝑺`$. Since $`𝑱^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=𝑳^2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$, relations (18) reflect the analogous relations between the even vector integrals $`𝒑`$, $`𝑳`$ and $`𝑲`$: $`𝒑\times 𝑳=𝑲,`$ $`𝒑\times 𝑲=2H𝑳,`$ $`𝑳\times 𝑲=𝑳^2𝒑.`$ Taking into account the equalities $`𝑱^2=2H\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },H\}=\{\mathrm{\Delta },Q_a\}=0,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=𝒓_{}^2+(𝑳𝑺)H^1`$, $`𝒓_{}=𝒓𝒑(𝒑𝒓)𝒑^2=𝑲𝒑^2`$, one can transform (at $`𝒑^20`$, $`𝑲^20`$) the set of scalar supercharges $`Q_a`$ into the set

$$\overline{Q}_a=C_aQ_a$$
(19)
with $`C_1=1`$, $`C_2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2},`$ $`C_3=(2H\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}`$. This set of (nonlinearly) transformed scalar supercharges gives rise to the $`N=3/2`$ linear superalgebra of the standard form,

$$\{\overline{Q}_a,\overline{Q}_b\}=2iH\delta _{ab}.$$
(20)
The quantum analogs of the odd variables are realized via the Pauli matrices, $`\widehat{\psi }_i=\sigma _i/\sqrt{2}`$, and the quantum spin vector $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ is proportional (“parallel”) to $`\widehat{𝝍}`$: $`\widehat{𝐒}=𝝈/2=\widehat{𝝍}/\sqrt{2}`$. Classically this property is reflected in the relation $`𝝍\times 𝐒=0`$. To construct the quantum analogs of the supercharges $`Q_a`$ in the form of Hermitian operators, we choose the natural prescription $`𝐩\times 𝐋\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝐩}\times \widehat{𝐋}+(\widehat{𝐩}\times \widehat{𝐋})^{})`$, and get

$$\widehat{Q}_1=\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝝍},\widehat{Q}_2=\widehat{𝐋}\widehat{𝝍}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(21)
$$\widehat{Q}_3=(\widehat{𝐩}\times \widehat{𝐋})\widehat{𝝍}i\widehat{Q}_1.$$
(22)
These operators are Hermitian and satisfy the quantum relations

$$\widehat{Q}_a\widehat{Q}_b=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}_a\delta _{ab}+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{B}_cϵ_{abc}\widehat{Q}_c,$$
(23)
where $`\widehat{A}_1=2\widehat{H},`$ $`\widehat{A}_2=\widehat{𝐉}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{4},`$ $`\widehat{A}_3=\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2,`$ $`\widehat{B}_1=\widehat{A}_2,`$ $`\widehat{B}_2=\widehat{A}_1,`$ $`\widehat{B}_3=1.`$ The symmetric part of relations (23) is the nonlinear $`N=3/2`$ superalgebra being the exact quantum analog of classical relations (17), whereas, with taking into account the above mentioned relation between $`\widehat{S}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_i`$, we find that the antisymmetric part of (23) corresponds to the classical relations (18).

Due to the relation $`\widehat{Q}_3=i\sqrt{2}\widehat{Q}_1\widehat{Q}_2`$, it seems that one could interpret $`\widehat{Q}_1`$ and $`\widehat{Q}_2`$ as the “primary” supercharge operators and $`\widehat{Q}_3`$ as the “secondary” operator. But such an interpretation is not correct. Indeed, on the one hand, the relations (23) can be treated as a quantum generalization of the symmetric in indexes relations for the three Clifford algebra generators $`\sigma _i=\sqrt{2}\widehat{\psi }_i`$, $`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\delta _{ij}+iϵ_{ijk}\sigma _k`$, and we remember that the operators $`\widehat{\psi }_i`$ are the quantum analogs of the set of the classical odd integrals of motion $`\psi _i`$ forming a 3D vector. On the other hand, the antisymmetric part of (23) is a reflection of the cyclic classical relations (18). It is worth noting also that we can pass from the set of odd integrals (19) (constructed at $`𝒑^20`$, $`𝑲^20`$) to the integrals

$$\xi _a=\overline{Q}_a(2H)^1.$$
(24)
Then, due to the relations $`\{\xi _a,\xi _b\}=i\delta _{ab}`$, one can treat the transition from the integrals $`\psi _i`$ to the integrals $`\xi _a`$ as a simple canonical transformation for the odd sector of the phase space (note, however, that $`\xi _a`$ have nontrivial brackets with even variables). Formally, the same unitary in the odd sector transformations can be realized at the quantum level. So, it is natural to treat all the three supercharge operators $`\widehat{Q}_a`$ on the equal footing.

Let us consider the fermion particle of charge $`e`$ in arbitrary time-independent magnetic field $`𝑩(𝒓)=\mathbf{}\times 𝑨(𝒓)`$. At the Hamiltonian level this corresponds to the change of the canonical momentum vector $`𝒑`$ for the vector $`𝑷=𝒑e𝑨`$, $`\{P_i,P_j\}=eϵ_{ijk}B_k`$. By projecting the odd vector variable $`𝝍`$ onto $`𝑷`$, we get the scalar $`Q_1=𝑷𝝍`$. Identifying the bracket $`\frac{i}{2}\{Q_1,Q_1\}`$ as the Hamiltonian,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}𝑷^2e𝑩𝑺,$$
(25)
$`Q_1`$ is automatically the odd integral of motion (supercharge). However, now, unlike the case of a free particle, either even vectors $`𝑷`$, $`𝑳=𝒓\times 𝑷`$, $`𝑷\times 𝑳`$, $`𝑺`$ or odd vector $`𝝍`$ are not integrals of motion, whereas the odd scalar $`(𝝍\times 𝝍)𝝍`$ is conserved. Having in mind the analogy with the free particle case, let us check other odd scalars for their possible conservation. First, it is worth noting that the quantum relation $`\widehat{𝑺}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\widehat{𝝍}`$ is reflected classically also in the identical evolution, $`\dot{𝝍}=e𝝍\times 𝑩`$, $`\dot{𝑺}=e𝑺\times 𝑩`$. Like the projection of the odd vector $`𝝍`$, the projection of $`𝑺`$ on $`𝑷`$ is conserved, i.e. as in a free case, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1=𝑷𝑺`$ is the integral of motion, but generally $`\frac{d}{dt}(𝑺𝑳)=e(𝑺\times 𝑷)(𝒓\times 𝑩)0`$. The scalar $`\stackrel{~}{Q}{}_{2}{}^{}=𝑺𝑳`$ is the integral of motion only if $`𝑩=f(r)𝒓`$, $`r=\sqrt{𝒓^2}`$. This corresponds exactly to the case of the monopole field, for which $`f(r)=gr^3`$ ($`𝒓0`$, $`g=const`$) is fixed by the condition $`\mathbf{}𝑩=0`$, and from now on, we restrict the analysis by the fermion-monopole system. Though in this case the brackets $`\{L_i,L_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}(L_k+\nu n_k)`$ are different from the corresponding brackets for the free particle, nevertheless the odd scalar $`Q_2^{}=𝑳𝝍`$ is the integral of motion. One can check that the direct analog of the free particle’s supercharge (16) has zero bracket with $`Q_1`$ and that

$$\{Q_2,Q_2\}=i(𝓙^2\nu ^2).$$
(26)
Here $`𝓙=𝑱+𝑺`$, $`𝑱=𝑳\nu 𝐧`$, is the conserved angular momentum vector of the fermion-monopole system, whose components form $`su(2)`$ algebra, $`\{𝒥_i,𝒥_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}𝒥_k`$, and generate rotations. The scalar $`Q_3=(𝑷\times 𝑳)𝝍`$ is also the integral of motion and in the fermion-monopole case the classical relations of the form (17), (18) take place with the change $`𝑱^2𝓙^2\nu ^2`$ and with the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (25). Like for the free particle, the superalgebra can be reduced to the standard linear form (20) via the nonlinear transformation (19), for which in the present case we proceed from the relation $`𝓙^2\nu ^2=2H\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒓}{}_{}{}^{2}+𝑳𝑺H^1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒓}{}_{}{}^{2}=𝒓^2(𝑷𝒓)^2(2H)^1`$. The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{𝒓}^2`$ is the integral of motion which in the case of the scalar charged particle ($`\psi _i=0`$) in the field of monopole gives a minimal charge-monopole distance in the point of perihelion: $`r_{min}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{𝒓}^2}`$ .

Constructing the quantum analogs of the supercharges in the same way as in the free particle case, we get the supercharge operators of the form (22) with $`\widehat{𝒑}`$ changed for $`\widehat{𝑷}`$. They satisfy the set of (anti-)commutation relations of the same form (23) with $`\widehat{A}_2=\widehat{𝑱}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{4}`$ changed for $`\widehat{𝓙}{}_{}{}^{2}\nu ^2+\frac{1}{4}`$, where $`\nu `$, as in the case of the CM system, is subject to the Dirac quantization condition, $`2\nu \text{ZZ}`$.

The present analysis shows that the set of supercharge operators $`\widehat{Q}_1`$ and $`\widehat{Q}_2`$ found in ref.  has to be extended by the scalar integral $`\widehat{Q}_3`$, and these three odd operators together with even operators $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{𝓙}`$ form the described nonlinear $`N=3/2`$ superalgebra. As we have seen, this nonlinear supersymmetry of the fermion-monopole system has the nature of the free fermion particle’s supersymmetry generated by the supercharges represented in a scalar form.

Comparing the fermion-monopole Hamiltonian (25) (with $`𝑩=\nu 𝒓r^3`$) with the free fermion particle Hamiltonian $`H=\frac{1}{2}𝒑^2`$, it seems that they have rather different structure, but this is not so, and their similarity can be revealed, like in the case of the CM system, by separating the even phase space coordinates into the radial and angular ones. In terms of such variables, the Hamiltonian of the fermion-monopole system is

$$H=\frac{1}{2}P_r^2+\frac{𝓙^2\nu ^2}{2r^2}\frac{𝑳𝑺}{r^2},$$
(27)
with $`𝓙=𝑱+𝑺`$. The case of the free fermion corresponds to $`\nu =0`$, and its Hamiltonian takes the similar form $`H=\frac{1}{2}p_r^2+\frac{1}{2r^2}𝑱^2\frac{1}{r^2}𝑳𝑺,`$ where $`𝑱=𝑳+𝑺`$.

It is interesting to look at the fermion-monopole supersymmetry from the point of view of the reduction of the system to the spherical geometry<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Some aspects of the CM system in a spherical geometry were discussed in refs. .. To this end we first note that the bracket of the supercharge $`Q_2`$ with itself can be represented in the form

$$i\{Q_2,Q_2\}=2r^2\left(H\frac{1}{2}P_r^2+\frac{i}{r}Q_1(𝝍𝒏)\right),$$
(28)
and the supercharge $`Q_3`$ can be reduced to the equivalent form

$$Q_3=2Hr\left(𝝍𝒏Q_1\frac{P_r}{2H}\right).$$
(29)
The reduction of the fermion-monopole system to the spherical geometry can be realized by introducing into the system the classical relations

$$𝒓^2\rho ^2=0,P_r=0,𝝍𝒏=0,$$
(30)
which have to be treated as the set of second class constraints with $`\rho 0`$ being a constant, and for simplicity we fix it in the form $`\rho =1`$. The relations (28) and (29) allow us to observe directly that the described $`N=3/2`$ nonlinear fermion-monopole supersymmetry is transformed into the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry of the standard linear form in the case of reduction (30). Indeed, after reducing the fermion-monopole system onto the surface of even second class constraints (30), we find that the structure of the supercharge $`Q_3`$ is trivialized and takes the form of the odd scalar $`𝝍𝒏`$ multiplied by $`2H`$. Two other supercharges $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ after such a reduction take the form of linear combinations of the odd vector $`𝝍`$ projected on the vectors $`𝑱+\nu 𝒏`$ and $`𝑱\times 𝒏`$ orthogonal to $`𝒏`$. Then taking into account the odd second class constraint (30) results in eliminating the supercharge $`Q_3`$ and in reducing the bracket (and corresponding anticommutator at the quantum level) of the supercharge $`Q_2`$ to $`2h`$, where $`h`$ is the reduced Hamiltonian,

$$h=\frac{1}{2}(𝓙^2\nu ^2).$$
(31)
In other words, the supersymmetry of the fermion- monopole system in spherical geometry is reduced to the standard linear $`N=1`$ supersymmetry characterized by two supercharges anticommuting for the Hamiltonian. More explicitly, after reduction to the surface of the second class constraints, the radial variables $`r`$ and $`P_r`$ are eliminated from the theory. The even variables can be represented by the total angular momentum $`𝓙`$ and by the unit vector $`𝒏`$ having the nontrivial Dirac brackets coinciding with corresponding initial Poisson brackets, $`\{𝒥_i,𝒥_j\}^{}=ϵ_{ijk}𝒥_k`$, $`\{𝒥_i,n_j\}^{}=ϵ_{ijk}n_k`$. The odd variables $`\psi _i`$ satisfy the relation $`𝝍𝒏=0`$ which has to be treated as a strong equality, and their nontrivial Dirac brackets are $`\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}^{}=i(\delta _{ij}n_in_j)`$, $`\{𝒥_i,\psi _j\}^{}=ϵ_{ijk}\psi _k`$. The even and odd variables are subject also to the relation $`𝓙𝒏=\nu +iq_1q_2(2h)^1`$, where $`h`$ is given by Eq. (31) and

$$q_1=(𝓙\times 𝒏)𝝍,q_2=𝓙𝝍$$
(32)
are the supercharges $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ reduced to the surface (30). With the listed Dirac brackets, one can easily check that now the reduced supercharges $`q_\mu `$, $`\mu =1,2`$, satisfy the superalgebra of the standard $`N=1`$ supersymmetry: $`\{q_\mu ,q_\nu \}^{}=2i\delta _{\mu \nu }h`$, $`\{q_\mu ,h\}=0`$.

Acknowledgements The work was supported in part by the grants 1980619 and 1010073 from FONDECYT (Chile) and by DICYT (USACH). It is a pleasure to acknowledge the stimulating friendly atmosphere of the D. V. Volkov Memorial Conference and the very kind hospitality by the local organizers.


format: text

text:
# Variational calculation of positronium-helium-atom scattering length

## I Introduction

Recent successful measurements of ortho positronium (Ps) scattering cross sections by H2, N2, He, Ne, Ar, C4H10, and C5H12  have spurred renewed theoretical activity in this subject . Of these, the Ps-He system is of special interest as it is the simplest system in which there are experimental results for total cross section  and pickoff quenching rate . The experimental results for partial and differential cross sections for this system should be available soon . A complete understanding of this system is necessary before a venture to more complex targets.

The pioneering calculations in this system using the static exchange approximation were performed by Barker and Bransden  and by Fraser and Kraidy . There have also been R-matrix , close-coupling (CC)  and model-potential  calculations for Ps-He scattering. More recently, there has been successful calculation of Ps scattering by H , He , Ne , Ar , and H2  using a regularized model exchange potential in a coupled-channel formulation.

However, there is considerable discrepancy among the different theoretical Ps-He cross sections at zero energy which we discuss below. The static-exchange calculation by Sarkar and Ghosh , and by Blackwood et al.  yielded $`14.38\pi a_0^2`$ (at 0.068 eV), and $`14.58\pi a_0^2`$ (at 0 eV), respectively, for the elastic cross section. The inclusion of more states of Ps in the CC  and R-matrix  calculations does not change these results substantially. The pioneering static-exchange calculations by Barker and Bransden  yielded 13.04 $`\pi a_0^2`$ and by Fraser  yielded $`14.2\pi a_0^2`$ for zero-energy Ps-He cross section. These results are in good agreement with each other. However, the model potential calculation by Drachman and Houston  yielded $`7.73\pi a_0^2`$ and by this author  yielded $`3.34\pi a_0^2`$ for the zero-energy Ps-He cross section. So there is considerable discrepancy in the results of different theoretical calculation of low-energy Ps-He elastic scattering.

On the experimental front, there have been conflicting results for the low-energy Ps-He elastic cross section by Nagashima et al. , who measured a cross section of $`(13\pm 4)\pi a_0^2`$ at 0.15 eV, by Coleman et al. , who reported $`9\pi a_0^2`$ at 0 eV, by Canter et al. , who found $`8.47\pi a_0^2`$ at 0 eV, and by Skalsey et al. , who measured $`(2.6\pm 0.5)\pi a_0^2`$ at 0.9 eV. It is unlikely that these findings could be consistent with each other.

The results for the total cross section of Ps scattering obtained from the coupled-channel calculation employing the model potential  are in agreement with experiments of Refs.  at low energies. For Ps-He, this model, while agrees  with the experimental total cross sections  in the energy range 0 to 70 eV, reproduces  successfully the experimental pickoff quenching rate . All other calculations could not reproduce the general trend of cross sections of Ps-He scattering in the energy range 0 to 70 eV and yielded a much too small quenching rate at thermal energies . However, the very low-energy elastic cross sections of the model-potential calculation  are at variance with the experiments of Refs. .

Pointing at the discrepancy above among different theoretical and experimental studies, Blackwood et al.  called for a “fully fledged calculation” to resolve the situation. Here we present a variational basis-set calculational scheme for low-energy Ps-He scattering in S wave below the lowest Ps-excitation threshold at 5.1 eV. Using this method we report numerical result for the scattering length of Ps-He using a one parameter uncorrelated He ground-state wave function .

We present the formulation for the variational basis-set calculation in Sec. II, the numerical result for Ps-He scattering length in Sec. III and a summary in Sec. IV.

## II Formulation

Because of the existence of three identical fermions (electrons) in the Ps-He system, one needs to antisymmetrize the full wave function. The position vectors of the electrons $``$ $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of Ps, and $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of He $``$ and positron ($`𝐱`$) measured with respect to (w.r.t.) the massive alpha particle at the origin are shown in Fig. 1. In this configuration the wave function for elastic scattering in the electronic doublet state of Ps-He is taken as

$`\psi _𝐤^1(1,2,3)=\varphi (2,3)\eta (1)F_𝐤(1,2,3)\chi (1,2,3)`$ (1)
where $`𝐤`$ is the incident Ps momentum and

$`\chi (1,2,3)=\alpha (1)\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\alpha (2)\beta (3)\beta (2)\alpha (3)],`$ (2)
represents the doublet wave function of Ps-He and where $`\alpha `$ denotes spin up state and $`\beta `$ down and $`\eta (1)`$ denotes the Ps wave function of electron 1. The He ground state wave function $`\varphi (2,3)`$ and the scattering function $`F_𝐤(1,2,3)`$ are symmetric under the exchange of electrons 2 and 3. The spin function $`\chi (1,2,3)`$ is antisymmetric under the same exchange. The full antisymmetrization operator for the three electrons is $`(1P_{12}P_{13})(1P_{23})`$ where $`P_{ij}`$ is an operator for exchange in both space and spin of electrons $`i`$ and $`j`$. As the scattering wave function (1) above is already antisymmetrized with respect to electrons 2 and 3, the operator $`(1P_{23})`$ in the antisymmetrizer is redundant and the relevant antisymmetrizer in this case is $`𝒜(1P_{12}P_{13})`$. Hence, the fully antisymmetric state $`\psi _𝐤^𝒜`$ of Ps-He scattering is given by

$`\psi _𝐤^𝒜=𝒜\psi _𝐤^1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (2,3)\eta (1)F_𝐤(1,2,3)\chi (1,2,3)\varphi (1,3)\eta (2)F_𝐤(2,1,3)\chi (2,1,3)`$ (3)
$``$ $`\varphi (1,2)\eta (3)F_𝐤(3,2,1)\chi (3,2,1).`$ (4)
The projection of the Schrödinger equation on the doublet state $`\chi (1,2,3)`$ is

$`\chi (1,2,3)|(HE)|\psi _𝐤^𝒜=(HE)|\varphi (2,3)\eta (1)F_𝐤(1,2,3)\varphi (1,3)\eta (2)F_𝐤(2,1,3)=0,`$ (5)
with $`H`$ the full Ps-He Hamiltonian. The incident Ps energy $`E=6.8k^2`$ eV. Using the identities $`\chi (1,2,3)|\chi (1,2,3)=1`$ and $`\chi (1,2,3)|\chi (2,1,3)=`$ $`\chi (1,2,3)|\chi (3,2,1)=1/2`$, we see that the two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) give equivalent contribution which are combined in Eq. (5) which is rewritten as

$`(HE)(1P_{12})|\varphi (2,3)\eta (1)F_𝐤(1,2,3)=0.`$ (6)
Hence after the spin projection to the doublet state the effective antisymmetrizer to be used on state (1) is $`𝒜_1(1P_{12})`$. We shall use this antisymmetrizer in the following and supress the spin functions.

The full Ps-He Hamiltonian $`H`$ can be broken in the convenient form as follows: $`H=H_1+V_1`$ where $`H_1`$ includes the full kinetic energy and intracluster interaction of He and Ps for the arrangement shown in Fig. 1 and $`V_1`$ is the sum of the intercluster interaction between He and Ps in the same configuration:

$$V_1=[\frac{2}{x}\frac{2}{r_1}+\frac{1}{r_{12}}\frac{1}{\rho _2}+\frac{1}{r_{13}}\frac{1}{\rho _3}].$$
(7)
We employ the position vectors $`𝐬_j=(𝐱+𝐫_j)/2`$, $`\rho _j=𝐱𝐫_j`$, $`𝐫_{ij}=𝐫_i𝐫_j`$, $`i,j=1,2,3`$, $`ij`$.

The fully antisymmetric state satisfies the Lippmann-Schwinger equation

$$|\psi _𝐤^1=|\varphi _𝐤^1+G_1M_1|\psi _𝐤^1,$$
(8)
$$M_1=V_1𝒜_1+(EH_1)(1𝒜_1)𝒜_1V_1+(1𝒜_1)(EH_1),$$
(9)
where the channel Green’s function is given by $`G_1(E+i0H_1)^1`$ and the incident wave $`|\varphi _𝐤^1`$ satisfies $`(EH_1)|\varphi _𝐤^1=0.`$ We are using atomic units (au) in which $`a_0=e=m=\mathrm{}=1`$, where $`e`$ ($`m`$) is the electronic charge (mass) and $`a_0`$ the Bohr radius.

The properly symmetrized transition matrix for elastic scattering is defined by $`\varphi _𝐤^1|T^𝒜|\varphi _𝐤^1=\varphi _𝐤^1|V_1|\psi _𝐤^𝒜=\varphi _𝐤^1|V_1𝒜_1|\psi _𝐤^1=\psi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _𝐤^1`$ . A basis-set calculational scheme for the transition matrix can be obtained from the following expression

$`\varphi _𝐤^1|T^𝒜|\varphi _𝐤^1=\psi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _𝐤^1+\varphi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|\psi _𝐤^1\psi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1M_1G_1𝒜_1V_1|\psi _𝐤^1.`$ (10)
Using Eq. (8), it can be verified that Eq. (10) is an identity if exact scattering wave functions $`\psi _𝐤^1`$ are used. If approximate wave functions are used, expression (10) is stationary w.r.t. small variations of $`|\psi _𝐤^1`$ but not of $`\psi _𝐤^1|`$. This one-sided variational property emerges because of the lack of symmetry of the formulation in the presence of explicit antisymmetrization operator $`𝒜_1`$. However, this variational property can be used to formulate a basis-set calculational scheme with the following trial functions

$$|\psi _𝐤^1_t=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_n|f_n,_t\psi _𝐤^1|=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_mf_m|,$$
(11)
where the suffix $`t`$ denotes trial and $`f_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{},N,`$ are the basis functions. Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (10) and using this variational property w.r.t. $`|\psi _𝐤^1`$ we obtain

$$_t\psi _𝐤^1|=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_nD_{nm}f_m|,$$
(12)
$$(D^1)_{mn}=f_m|𝒜_1V_1[𝒜_1V_1+(1𝒜_1)(EH_1)]G_1𝒜_1V_1|f_n.$$
(13)
Using the variational form (12) and definition $`\varphi _𝐤^1|T^𝒜|\varphi _𝐤^1=\psi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _𝐤^1`$ we obtain the following basis-set calculational scheme for the transition matrix

$$\varphi _𝐤^1|T^𝒜|\varphi _𝐤^1_t=\underset{m,n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\varphi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_nD_{nm}f_m|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _𝐤^1.$$
(14)
Eqs. (13) and (14) are also valid in partial-wave form.

In the present S-wave calculation, the basis functions are taken in the following form

$`f_m(𝐫_2,𝐫_3,\rho _1,𝐬_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi (𝐫_3)g_m(𝐫_2,\rho _1,𝐬_1),`$ (15)
$`g_m(𝐫_2,\rho _1,𝐬_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi (𝐫_2)\eta (\rho _1)e^{\delta _mr_2\alpha _m\rho _1\beta _ms_1\gamma _m(\rho _2+r_{12})\mu _m(x+r_1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(ks_1)}{ks_1}},`$ (16)
where $`\delta _m,\alpha _m,\beta _m,\gamma _m,`$ and $`\mu _m`$ are nonlinear variational parameters. The ground-state wave function of the He atom is taken to be $`\varphi (𝐫_2,𝐫_3)=\phi (𝐫_2)\phi (𝐫_3)`$ with $`\phi (𝐫)=\lambda ^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda r)/\sqrt{\pi }`$ and $`\lambda =1.6875`$  and $`\eta (\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(0.5\rho )/\sqrt{8\pi }`$ represent the Ps(1s) wave function. For elastic scattering the direct Born amplitude is zero and the exchange correlation dominates scattering. To be consistent with this, the direct terms in the form factors $`f_m|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _𝐤^1`$ and $`\varphi _𝐤^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ are zero with the above choice of correlations in the basis functions via $`\gamma _m`$ and $`\mu _m`$. This property follows as the above function is invariant w.r.t. the interchange of $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐫_1`$ whereas the remaining part of the integrand in the direct terms changes sign under this transformation. In Ps-He elastic scattering the electron 2 of He is the active electron undergoing exchange with the electron 1 of Ps whereas the electron 3 of He is a passive spectator. In this calculation we include in Eq. (16) correlation between electrons 1 and 2. Consequently, we deal with integrals in three vector variables – $`𝐫_1,𝐫_2`$ and $`𝐱`$. If we also include correlation involving electron 3 we shall have to deal with integration in four vector variables, which is beyond the scope of the present study. However, we believe that a meaningful calculation can be performed only with correlation between the active electrons 1 and 2. Hence, to avoid complication we ignore correlation involving electron 3, which is expected to lead to correction over the present study.

In S wave at zero energy, $`\mathrm{sin}(ks_1)/(ks_1)=1`$ in Eq. (16); also, $`|\varphi _p^1=\phi (𝐫_2)\phi (𝐫_3)\eta (\rho _1)\mathrm{sin}(ps_1)/(ps_1)`$. The useful matrix elements of the present approach are explicitly written as

$`\varphi _p^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \phi (𝐫_1)\phi (𝐫_3)\eta (\rho _2)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ps_2)}{ps_2}[V_1]f_n(𝐫_2,𝐫_3,\rho _1,𝐬_1)𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3𝑑\rho _1𝑑𝐬_1},`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \phi (𝐫_1)\eta (\rho _2)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ps_2)}{ps_2}[𝒱_1]g_n(𝐫_2,\rho _1,𝐬_1)𝑑𝐫_2𝑑\rho _1𝑑𝐬_1},`$ (18)
$`f_m|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _p^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle g_m(𝐫_1,\rho _2,𝐬_2)[𝒱_1]\phi (𝐫_2)\eta (\rho _1)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(ps_1)}{ps_1}𝑑𝐫_2𝑑\rho _1𝑑𝐬_1},`$ (19)
$`f_m|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle g_m(𝐫_1,\rho _2,𝐬_2)[𝒱_1]g_n(𝐫_2,\rho _1,𝐬_1)𝑑𝐫_2𝑑\rho _1𝑑𝐬_1},`$ (20)
with

$$𝒱_1=[h(x)h(r_1)+\frac{1}{r_{12}}\frac{1}{\rho _2}],h(x)=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\lambda x)}{x}+\lambda \mathrm{exp}(2\lambda x),$$
(21)
$`f_m|M_1G_1𝒜_1V_1|f_n{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pf_m|𝒜_1V_1|\varphi _p^1\varphi _p^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n,`$ (22)
where the so called off-shell term $`(1𝒜_1)(EH_1)`$ has been neglected for numerical simplification in this calculation. This term is expected to contribute to refinement over the present calculation. In this convention the on-shell t-matrix element at zero energy is the scattering length: $`a=\varphi _0^1|T^𝒜|\varphi _0^1.`$

All the matrix elements above can be evaluated by a method presented in Ref. . We describe it in the following for $`\varphi _p^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ of Eq. (17). By a transformation of variables from $`(𝐫_2,\rho _1,𝐬_1)`$ to $`(𝐬_1,𝐬_2,𝐱)`$ with Jacobian $`2^6`$ and separating the radial and angular integrations, the form factor (17) is given by

$`\varphi _p^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^6\lambda ^3}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_2s_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(ps_2)}{ps_2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1s_1^2e^{\beta _ns_1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^2e^{\mu _nx}`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle e^{(ar_1+b\rho _1/2)}e^{(cr_2+d\rho _2/2)}e^{\gamma _nr_{12}}[V_1]𝑑\widehat{s}_1𝑑\widehat{s}_2𝑑\widehat{x}},`$ (24)
where $`a=\lambda +\mu _n`$, $`b=2\alpha _n+1`$, $`c=\lambda +\delta _n`$ and $`d=2\gamma _n+1`$. Recalling that $`𝐫_j=2𝐬_j𝐱`$, $`𝐫_{12}=2(𝐬_1𝐬_2)`$, $`\rho _j=2(𝐱𝐬_j),j=1,2`$, we employ the following expansions of the exponentials in Eq. (24)

$`e^{a|2𝐬𝐱|b|𝐱𝐬|}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{sx}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}G_l^{(a,b)}(s,x)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{s})Y_{lm}(\widehat{x}),`$ (25)
$`h(|2𝐬𝐱|)e^{a|2𝐬𝐱|b|𝐱𝐬|}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{sx}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}J_l^{(a,b)}(s,x)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{s})Y_{lm}(\widehat{x}),`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a|2𝐬𝐱|b|𝐱𝐬|}}{|𝐬𝐱|}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{sx}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}K_l^{(a,b)}(s,x)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{s})Y_{lm}(\widehat{x}),`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a|𝐬_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐬_\mathrm{𝟐}|}}{|𝐬_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐬_\mathrm{𝟐}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{s_1s_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}A_l^{(a)}(s_1,s_2)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{s}_1)Y_{lm}(\widehat{s}_2),`$ (28)
$`e^{a|𝐬_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐬_\mathrm{𝟐}|}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{s_1s_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}B_l^{(a)}(s_1,s_2)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{s}_1)Y_{lm}(\widehat{s}_2),`$ (29)
where the $`Y_{lm}`$’s are the usual spherical harmonics. Using Eqs. (25) $``$ (29) in Eq. (24) we get

$`\varphi _p^1|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ $`=`$ $`2^8\lambda ^3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1e^{\beta _ns_1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(ps_2)}{ps_2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{\mu _nx}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}(2l+1)`$ (30)
$`\times `$ $`[h(x)G_l^{(a,b)}(s_1,x)G_l^{(c,d)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _n)}(s_1,s_2)J_l^{(a,b)}(s_1,x)`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`G_l^{(c,d)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _n)}(s_1,s_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_l^{(a,b)}(s_1,x)G_l^{(c,d)}(s_2,x)`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`A_l^{(2\gamma _n)}(s_1,s_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_l^{(a,b)}(s_1,x)K_l^{(c,d)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _n)}(s_1,s_2)].`$ (33)
where the $`l`$-sum is truncated at $`l=L`$. This procedure avoids complicated angular integrations involving $`𝐬_1`$, $`𝐬_2`$ and $`𝐱`$. The matrix element takes a simple form requiring straightforward numerical computation of certain radial integrals only. The functions $`G_l`$, $`J_l`$, $`K_l`$ etc. are easily calculated using Eqs. (25) $``$ (29):

$$G_l^{(a,b)}(s,x)=\frac{sx}{2}_1^1𝑑uP_l(u)e^{a|2𝐬𝐱|b|𝐱𝐬|},$$
(34)
where $`P_l(u)`$ is the usual Legendre polynomial and $`u`$ is the cosine of the angle between $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐱`$. The integrals (19) and (20) can be evaluated similarly. For example

$`f_m|𝒜_1V_1|f_n`$ $`=`$ $`2^7\lambda ^3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1e^{\beta _ns_1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_2e^{\beta _ms_2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{(\mu _n+\mu _m)x}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}}(2l+1)`$ (35)
$`\times `$ $`[h(x)G_l^{(e,f)}(s_1,x)G_l^{(g,h)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _{mn})}(s_1,s_2)J_l^{(e,f)}(s_1,x)`$ (36)
$`\times `$ $`G_l^{(g,h)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _{mn})}(s_1,s_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_l^{(e,f)}(s_1,x)G_l^{(g,h)}(s_2,x)`$ (37)
$`\times `$ $`A_l^{(2\gamma _{mn})}(s_1,s_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_l^{(e,f)}(s_1,x)K_l^{(g,h)}(s_2,x)B_l^{(2\gamma _{mn})}(s_1,s_2)],`$ (38)
where $`e=\lambda +\delta _m+\mu _n`$, $`f=2\alpha _n+2\gamma _m+1`$, $`g=\lambda +\delta _n+\mu _m`$, $`h=2\alpha _m+2\gamma _n+1`$ and $`\gamma _{mn}=\gamma _m+\gamma _n`$.

## III Numerical Result

We tested the convergence of the integrals by varying the number of integration points in the $`x`$, $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ integrals in Eqs. (30) and (35) and the $`u`$ integral in Eq. (34). The $`x`$ integration was relatively easy and 20 Gauss-Legendre quadrature points appropriately distributed between 0 and 16 were enough for convergence. In the evaluation of integrals of type (34) 40 Gauss-Legendre quadrature points were sufficient for adequate convergence. The convergence in the numerical integration over $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ was achieved with 300 Gauss-Legendre quadrature points between 0 and 12. The maximum value of $`l`$ in the sum in Eqs. (30) and (35), $`L`$, is taken to be 7 which is sufficient for obtaining the convergence with the partial-wave expansions (25) $``$ (29).

We find that a judicial choice of the parameters in Eq. (16) is needed for convergence. The present method does not provide a bound on the result. Consequently, the method could lead to a wrong scattering length if an inappropriate (incomplete) basis set is chosen. After some experimentation we find that for good convergence the nonlinear parameters $`\delta _n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ should be taken to have both positive and negative values and $`\beta _n`$ should have progressively increasing values till about 1.5. If no care is taken in choosing the parameters a large number of functions could be necessary for obtaining convergence. The results reported in this work are obtained with the following parameters for the functions $`f_n,n=1,\mathrm{},14`$: $`\{\delta _n,\alpha _n,\beta _n,\gamma _n,\mu _n\}\{0.5,0.25,0.3,0.01,0.02\},`$ $`\{0.7,0.25,0.5,0.04,0.02\},`$ $`\{0.7,0.25,0.7,0.03,0.06\},`$ $`\{0.4,0.1,0.6,0.2,0.2\},`$ $`\{0.2,0.1,0.8,0.2,0.2\},`$ $`\{0.4,0.2,0.6,0.3,0.3\},`$ $`\{0.2,0.1,0.7,0.4,0.3\},`$ $`\{0.3,0.2,0.8,0.3,0.4\},`$ $`\{0.2,0.2,1,0.4,0.4\},`$ $`\{0.3,0.2,1.2,0.5,0.5\},`$ $`\{0.5,0.2,1.3,0.6,0.6\},`$ $`\{0.2,0.1,1.4,0.7,0.7\},`$ $`\{0.3,0,1.5,0.8,0.8\},`$ $`\{0.2,0.1,1.6,0.9,0.9\}.`$ By employing a suitably chosen set of the parameters we have kept the number of functions to a minimum.

Table I: Ps-He scattering length in au for different $`L`$ and $`N`$.

| $`N`$ | $`L=0`$ | $`L=2`$ | $`L=3`$ | $`L=4`$ | $`L=5`$ | $`L=6`$ | $`L=7`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2.056 | 1.867 | 1.782 | 1.721 | 1.681 | 1.655 | 1.638 |
| 3 | 2.418 | $`1.662`$ | 28.016 | 4.151 | 3.061 | 2.839 | 2.933 |
| 5 | $`13.653`$ | 1.563 | 1.234 | 1.128 | 1.135 | 1.168 | 1.190 |
| 6 | 0.712 | 0.982 | 0.782 | 0.637 | 0.650 | 0.769 | 0.878 |
| 7 | 3.372 | 0.983 | 0.792 | 0.694 | 0.727 | 0.824 | 0.910 |
| 8 | $`1.657`$ | 1.124 | 0.944 | 0.877 | 0.907 | 0.971 | 1.023 |
| 9 | 6.283 | 0.976 | 0.832 | 0.801 | 0.841 | 0.897 | 0.943 |
| 10 | 1.332 | 1.123 | 0.941 | 0.897 | 0.929 | 0.981 | 1.023 |
| 11 | 1.225 | 1.112 | 0.945 | 0.886 | 0.909 | 0.963 | 1.011 |
| 12 | 0.756 | 1.468 | 0.995 | 0.918 | 0.931 | 0.964 | 0.977 |
| 13 | 1.229 | 1.197 | 1.008 | 0.944 | 0.970 | 1.028 | 1.022 |
| 14 | 1.061 | 1.249 | 1.060 | 0.980 | 0.983 | 1.026 | 1.019 |

In Table I we show the convergence pattern of the present calculation w.r.t. the number of partial waves $`L`$ and basis functions $`N`$ used in the calculation. The convergence is satisfactory considering that we are dealing with a complicated five-body problem. However, as the present calculation does not produce a bound on the result, the convergence is not monotonic with increasing $`N`$. The final result of the present calculation is that for $`N=14`$ and $`L=7`$: $`a=1.02`$ au. Although it is difficult to provide a quantitative measure of convergence, from the fluctuation of this result for large $`N`$ and $`L`$ we believe the error in our result to be less than 10$`\%`$, so that the final Ps-He scattering length is taken as $`a=(1.0\pm 0.1)`$ au. The results for large $`N`$ and $`L`$ reported in Table I all lie in this domain.

The maximum number of functions ($`N=14`$) used in this calculation is also pretty small, compared to those used in different Kohn-type variational calculations for electron-hydrogen ($`N=56`$) , positron-hydrogen ($`N286`$), and positron-helium ($`N502`$)  scattering. Because of the explicit appearance of the Green’s function, the present basis-set approach is similar to the Schwinger variational method. Using the Schwinger method, convergent results for electron-hydrogen  and positron-hydrogen  scattering have been obtained with a relatively small basis set ($`N10`$). These suggest a more rapid convergence in these problems with a Schwinger-type method.

## IV Summary and Discussion

To summarize, we have formulated a basis-set calculational scheme for S-wave Ps-He elastic scattering below the lowest inelastic threshold using a variational expression for the transition matrix. We illustrate the method numerically by calculating the scattering length in the electronic doublet state: $`a=(1.0\pm 0.1)`$ au. This corresponds to a zero-energy cross section of $`(4.0\pm 0.8)\pi a_0^2`$ in reasonable agreement with a model calculation by this author ($`3.34\pi a_0^2`$)  and the experiment of Skalsey et al. \[$`(2.6\pm 0.5)\pi a_0^2`$ at 0.9 eV\] . This calculation as well as our previous studies of Ps-He scattering using a model exchange potential  possibly consolidate the experimental result of Skalsey et al. However, these low-energy Ps-He elastic scattering cross sections are in disagreement with other experiments by Nagashima et al. \[$`(13\pm 4)\pi a_0^2`$ at 0.15 eV\] , by Canter et al. ($`8.47\pi a_0^2`$) , and by Coleman et al. ($`9\pi a_0^2`$) , as well as with conventional static-exchange calculations of Refs.  ($`14\pi a_0^2`$) and a model potential calculation of Ref.  ($`7.73\pi a_0^2`$).

As the effective interaction for elastic scattering between Ps and He is repulsive in nature, a smaller scattering length as obtained in this study and in Refs.  would imply a weaker effective Ps-He interaction. This would allow the Ps atom to come closer to He and would lead  to a large pickoff quenching rate and a large $`{}_{}{}^{1}Z_{\text{eff}}^{}`$ $`(0.11)`$ in agreement with experiment . The conventional close-coupling , R-matrix  and static-exchange  models yielded a much too large scattering length corresponding to a stronger repulsion between Ps and He. Consequently, these models led to a much too small $`{}_{}{}^{1}Z_{\text{eff}}^{}`$ $`(0.04)`$  in disagreement with experiment . This is addressed in detail in Ref.  where we established a correlation between the different scattering lengths and the corresponding $`{}_{}{}^{1}Z_{\text{eff}}^{}`$. This correlation suggests that a small Ps-He scattering length as in this work is consistent with the large experimental $`{}_{}{}^{1}Z_{\text{eff}}^{}`$.

Although we have used a simple wave function for He in this complex five-body calculation we do not believe that the use of a more refined He wave function would substantially change our findings and conclusions. However, independent calculations and accurate experiments at low energies are welcome for a satisfactory resolution of this controversy.

The work is supported in part by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento - Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos of Brazil.

Figure Caption:

Figure number 1. Different position vectors for the Ps-He system w.r.t. the massive alpha particle at the origin in arrangement 1 with electrons 2 and 3 forming He and 1 forming Ps. The arrows on the electrons indicate the orientations of spin $``$ up and down.


text:
# Power of Anisotropic Exchange Interactions: Universality and Efficient Codes for Quantum Computing

## Abstract

We study the quantum computational power of a generic class of anisotropic solid state Hamiltonians. A universal set of encoded logic operations are found which do away with difficult-to-implement single-qubit gates in a number of quantum computer proposals, e.g., quantum dots and donor atom spins with anisotropic exchange coupling, quantum Hall systems, and electrons floating on helium.We show how to make the corresponding Hamiltonians universal by encoding one qubit into two physical qubits, and by controlling nearest neighbor interactions.

While decoherence is the most significant fundamental obstacle in the path towards the construction of a quantum computer (QC), in the realm of scalable QC proposals  a pressing concern is the technological difficulty of implementing single-qubit operations together with two-qubit operations. In general these two types of operations may impose very different constraints, or single-qubit operations may be hard. E.g., in the proposals utilizing quantum dots , donor-atom nuclear  or electron  spins, and quantum Hall systems , single-qubit operations require control over a local magnetic field, are significantly slower than two-qubit operations (mediated by an exchange interaction), and require substantially greater materials and device complexity. In the quantum dots in cavities proposal  each dot needs to be illuminated with a separate laser, and reduction in the number of lasers by elimination of single-qubit operations is a potentially significant technical simplification. In the electrons-on-helium proposal  single-qubit operations require slow microwave pulses, limiting the number of logic operations executable before decoherence sets in. It is thus clear that quite generally a significant gain may be had by enabling quantum logic operations to be performed through two-qubit operations only. The need for single-qubit operations arises from the “standard paradigm” of (non fault-tolerant) universal quantum computation, which prescribes the use of single-qubit Hamiltonians that can generate all one-qubit quantum gates \[$`SU(2)`$\] together with a two-body interaction that can generate an entangling two-qubit gate such as CNOT . The universality of this set essentially amounts to its ability to generate $`SU(2^N)`$ with $`N`$ qubits . While it was recognized early on that a universal QC can be constructed using at most two-body interactions , the abstract theory hardly makes reference to the “natural talents” of a given quantum system as dictated by its intrinsic Hamiltonian. Indeed, most discussions of universality, e.g., , rather than using the physical notion of Hamiltonians, are cast in the computer-science language of unitary gates (exponentiated Hamiltonians). Based on these observations a new paradigm was recently proposed in , termed “encoded-universality” (EU): to study the quantum computational power of a system as embodied in its naturally available Hamiltonian, by using encoding \[encoded gates – consisting of sequences of physical gates – act on encoded (logical) qubits generating $`SU(2^M)`$, where $`M`$ is the dimension of the code space\]. Earlier work  had implicitly studied EU constructions. In this work we introduce a general formalism, discovered by a mapping of qubits to parafermions that will be described elsewhere , that allows us to quickly assess the quantum computational power of a given Hamiltonian, and construct encoded qubits and operations. Our main result is the classification of the EU power of generic classes of solid-state Hamiltonians, addressing in particular the case of anisotropic qubit-qubit interactions pertinent to the quantum Hall , quantum dots  and atoms  in cavities, and the electrons-on-helium  proposals. The proposals relying on purely isotropic (Heisenberg) exchange may also benefit from our analysis, in the case that some symmetry breaking mechanism (e.g., surface and interface effects, and/or spin-orbit coupling ) introduces anisotropy. For all these cases we give explicit EU constructions which avoid the use of the undesirable single-qubit gates. In particular, we show how to make the anisotropic exchange Hamiltonian universal by encoding one qubit into two physical qubits, in contrast to previous results for the Heisenberg case where three physical qubits were required . Only nearest-neighbor couplings are needed in this construction. Thus we suggest new ways to simplify the operation of a variety of QC proposals, circumventing operations that appear to be dictated by the “standard paradigm”.

General analysis. — To set the stage for our discussion of the universality properties of Hamiltonians, let us consider the general structure of operators in the Hilbert space of $`N`$ qubits in terms of the lowering and raising operators $`\sigma _i^\pm =(\sigma _i^xi\sigma _i^y)/2`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`\sigma _i^\alpha `$ acts non-trivially only on the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ qubit. Define an occupation number $`n_i=(1\sigma _i^z)/2=0`$ or $`1`$, which is the number of $`1`$’s (up-spins) in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ position of the vectors of the computational basis, i.e., all length-$`N`$ bitstrings. The most general operator consistent with $`\sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^{}=\sigma _i^+\sigma _i^+=0`$ is a linear combination of

$$Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}}=(\sigma _N^+)^{\alpha _N}\mathrm{}(\sigma _1^+)^{\alpha _1}(\sigma _N^{})^{\beta _N}\mathrm{}(\sigma _N^{})^{\beta _1}$$
(1)
where $`\alpha _i,\beta _j`$ can be $`0`$ or $`1`$. There are $`2^N\times 2^N`$ such operators which form a complete set of generators of the group $`U(2^N)`$ needed for universal quantum computing. They can be rearranged into certain subsets of operators with clear physical meaning, which we now detail. First, there is a subalgebra with conserved total occupation number, “SA$`n`$”. This is formed by all operators commuting with the total number operator $`\widehat{n}=_in_i`$. Let $`k`$ ($`l`$) be the number of $`\sigma _i^+`$ ($`\sigma _i^{}`$) factors in $`Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}}`$. SA$`n`$ consists of the operators for which $`k=l`$, so the dimension of SA$`n`$ is $`_{n=0}^N\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}\right)^2=\frac{(2N)!}{N!N!}`$. Second, there is a subalgebra with conserved parity, “SA$`p`$”, i.e., the operators commuting with the parity operator, defined as $`\widehat{p}=(1)^{\widehat{n}}`$, with eigenvalues $`1`$ ($`1`$) for even (odd) total occupation number. SA$`p`$ consists of those operators having $`kl`$ even, so its dimension is $`2^{2N}/2`$. Clearly, SA$`n`$$``$ SA$`p`$. Third, there are types of $`su(2)`$ subalgebras generated by the set $`\{Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}},Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}}^{},[Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}},Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}}^{}]\}`$ in the subspace satisfying the condition $`\{Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}},Q_{\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}}^{}\}=1`$, for specific choices of $`\{\alpha \}\{\beta \}`$. This results directly in encoding schemes. The following two types of bilinear operators for $`ij`$: $`\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}`$ (which conserve the occupation number), and $`\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{},\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^+`$ (which conserve parity), are important examples that illustrate this case. Let $`\mu =(ij)`$, then

$$T_\mu ^x=\sigma _j^+\sigma _i^{}+\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}\text{ and }T_\mu ^z=\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z$$
(2)
generate an $`su(2)`$ subalgebra, denoted $`su_\mu ^t(2)`$SA$`n`$.

$$R_\mu ^x=\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^+\text{ and }R_\mu ^z=\sigma _i^z+\sigma _j^z$$
(3)
generate another $`su(2)`$ subalgebra, denoted $`su_\mu ^r(2)`$SA$`p`$. It is easy to show that $`[su_\mu ^t(2),su_\mu ^r(2)]=0`$. It can be shown that $`\{\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}\}`$ (allowing $`i=j`$) generates SA $`n`$, and $`\{\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{},\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{},\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^+\}`$ generate SA$`p`$ .

Hamiltonians and universal sets without single-qubit operations.— Now consider the properties of Hamiltonians relevant to scalable proposals for quantum computing. A generic time-dependent Hamiltonian  has the form

$`H(t)`$ $``$ $`H_0+V+F`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _i(t)\sigma _i^z+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =x,y,z}{}}J_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }(t)\sigma _i^\alpha \sigma _j^\beta `$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(f_i^x(t)\sigma _i^x+f_i^y(t)\sigma _i^y\right).`$
The first term is the sum of single-qubit energies, (with $`\epsilon _i/\mathrm{}`$ being the frequency of the $`|0_i|1_i`$ transition) and is often controllable using local potentials. The second term is the two-qubit interaction, which we assume can be turned on/off at controllable times $`t`$. The third term is the (potentially problematic) external field, often pulsed, used to manipulate single qubits. By turning the controllable parameters on/off one has access to a set of Hamiltonians $`\{H_i\}`$, which can be used to generate unitary logic gates through the following three processes: (i) Arbitrary phases are obtained by switching an $`H_i`$ on for a fixed time. (ii) Adding or (iii) commuting Hamiltonians can be approximated by using a finite number of terms in the Lie sum and product formulas, e.g. , $`e^{i(\alpha A+\beta B)}=lim_n\mathrm{}\left(e^{i\alpha A/n}e^{i\beta B/n}\right)^n`$, implying that the Hamiltonians $`A`$, $`B`$ are switched on/off alternately. These operations are experimentally implementable and suffice to cover the Lie group generated by the set $`\{H_i\}`$. In practice it may be easier to use Euler angle rotations rather than infinitesimal steps , as done routinely in NMR . Let us now specialize to the case $`J_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=J_{ij}^\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ (denoting $`V`$ by $`V^{}`$) which amounts to limiting the Hamiltonian to exchange-type interactions, that appear to be most relevant for solid-state QC. Using $`\sigma _i^\pm ,n_i`$ we find

$$H_0=\underset{i}{}\epsilon _i(\frac{1}{2}n_i),F=\underset{i}{}\left(f_i^{}\sigma _i^{}+f_i\sigma _i^+\right),$$
(7)
$`V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^+)+J_{ij}(\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _j^+\sigma _i^{})`$ (9)
$`+J_{ij}^z\sigma _i^z\sigma _i^z)`$
where

$`f_i=(f_i^xif_i^y),\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=J_{ij}^xJ_{ij}^y,J_{ij}=J_{ij}^x+J_{ij}^y.`$

The above analysis of the subalgebras of $`U(2^N)`$ now helps us in drawing certain general conclusions. (i) By appending $`\sigma _i^{},\sigma _i^+`$ to the set generating SA$`p`$ it becomes possible to transform between states differing by an odd occupation number. Thus the set $`\{\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{},\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{},\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^+,\sigma _i^{},\sigma _i^+\}`$ suffices to generate $`SU(2^N)`$. This establishes the well-known universality of $`H`$. (ii) When $`F=0`$, $`[H_0+V^{},\widehat{p}]=0`$, so $`H_0+V^{}`$ is in SA$`p`$. This implies that this Hamiltonian by itself is not fully universal: it operates on a $`2^{N1}`$-dimensional invariant subspace. (iii) Recalling that single qubit operations are often difficult, which two-qubit interactions are sufficient for universality? Ref.  established that two-body Hamiltonians are “generically” universal. The genericness condition was stated in terms of abstract group-theoretic properties. Here we are able to state the condition more explicitly for the class of Eq. (6). Define the parity of an operator according to whether the total number of raising and lowering operators is even or odd (e.g., $`n_1`$ is even, but $`\sigma _2^{}n_1`$ is odd.). The necessary condition for a Hamiltonian to be universal is that it contains an odd term, so that the system can leave SA$`p`$. If $`F=0`$ there does not exist an odd term in $`H(t)`$. Hence the next step is to reconsider the most general interaction with $`J_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ arbitrary. $`H`$ of Eq. (6) is universal for $`F=0`$ if and only if there exists one of the odd terms $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^x=(12n_i)(\sigma _j^++\sigma _j^{})`$ or $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y`$. Such terms may arise due to perturbative spin-orbit coupling corrections to the isotropic part $`J_{ij}(t)\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j`$ \[where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i=(\sigma _i^x,\sigma _i^y,\sigma _i^z)`$\] of Eq. (6). E.g., a recent estimate of the coupling strength of the antisymmetric (Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya) spin exchange term $`\stackrel{}{d_{ij}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\times `$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j)`$ shows $`|\stackrel{}{d_{ij}}|/J_{ij}`$ to be as large as 0.01 for coupled quantum dot in GaAs . Unlike the isotropic exchange parameter $`J_{ij}(t)`$, $`\stackrel{}{d_{ij}}`$ is typically not controllable. Nevertheless, its very presence allows for universal QC without the external field $`F`$. To see this, suppose for simplicity that $`\stackrel{}{d_{ij}}`$ is along the $`x`$-axis \[so that $`\stackrel{}{d_{ij}}`$ $`(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\times `$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j)=d_{ij}(`$ $`\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^z`$ $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y)`$\], and that the terms $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j`$, $`\sigma _i^z`$ are controllable while $`\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^z`$ $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y`$ is small and not controllable. Then we can show that these operators generate the group $`SU(4)`$ on the qubit pair $`i,j`$ and therefore are universal. The Hamiltonian is $`H_{ij}=d_{ij}(\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^z\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y)+\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon _i\sigma _i^z+\epsilon _j\sigma _j^z)+J_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j`$. When turning off the parameters $`\epsilon _i,\epsilon _j`$ and $`J_{ij}`$, one gets the gate generated by the antisymmetric term $`\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^z\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y`$ by just waiting. Since this term is very small compared to $`J_{ij}`$, to a good approximation we can neglect its effect when we turn on other terms, e.g., $`H_{ij}J_{ij}(t)\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j`$ when turning on $`J_{ij}`$. We can then show that $`SU(4)`$ can be generated by commutation. E.g., $`\sigma _i^y=[[\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^z\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^y,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j],\sigma _i^z]/2,`$ and similarly, we can generate $`\sigma _j^y`$. Therefore, we have the gate set generated by $`\{\sigma _i^y,\sigma _j^y,\sigma _i^z,\sigma _j^z,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j\}`$ which is known to be universal. It is interesting to note that the approximation assuming a small antisymmetric term is not necessary . If control over $`\epsilon _i`$ is unavailable one may have to resort to other methods .

Elimination of single-qubit operations through encoding.— Our discussion of universality so far assumed that one is seeking to employ the full $`2^N`$-dimensional Hilbert space of $`N`$ qubits. However, it was apparent from this discussion that the symmetries of a given Hamiltonian determine an invariant subspace and that in physically generic circumstances this subspace has reduced dimensionality. A common solution is to introduce an external field which breaks the symmetry. As discussed above this often leads to significant engineering complications . However, as shown first in  for the case of isotropic exchange, a Hamiltonian may still be computationally universal over a subspace, for the price of using several physical qubits to encode a logical qubit. Here we analyze this concept for the anisotropic members of the class of Hamiltonians $`H_0+V^{}`$. In each case we assume that no external single qubit operations are used, i.e., $`F=0`$, and give an encoded universal set of gates. As distinct from  we explicitly take $`H_0`$ into account, as this is a term that is generally difficult to turn off. Our analysis provides simple encoding procedures along with explicit recipes for universal computation in situations of experimental interest.

Axial Symmetry.— Assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=0`$. This axial symmetry is the case, e.g., for the electrons floating on helium proposal . The major handle there is the single-qubit energies $`\epsilon _i`$, which allows to tune the qubits into and out of resonance with externally applied radiation. This tuning is used to control the parameters $`f_i`$, $`J_{ij}^z`$ and $`J_{ij}`$ of Eqs. (7),(9). However, it is advantageous to do away with controlling the single qubit parameters $`f_i`$, as they are manipulated via a global and slow microwave field. Limitations related to other QC proposals were discussed above. Motivated by these difficulties a solution involving control of only the $`\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^x+\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^y`$ term was proposed in , encoding a qutrit into three physical qubits. Here we give a more economical solution: we show how to compute universally on a logical qubit encoded into only two physical qubits. Our solution makes use of the naturally available $`H_0`$ term, and assumes that the $`J_{ij}^z`$ and $`J_{ij}`$ parameters can be tuned separately. In fact not all of these parameters need to be independently controllable, as discussed below. Since in the axial symmetry case $`V^{}`$ preserves occupation number, the encoding is simply $`|0_L_m=|0_{2m1}|1_{2m}`$ and $`|1_L_m=|1_{2m1}|0_{2m}`$ for the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ logical qubit. To implement single-encoded-qubit operations assume we can selectively turn on nearest-neighbor interactions $`J_{2m1,2m}`$ and $`J_{2m1,2m}^z`$ in pairs encoding a qubit (i.e., $`J_{2m,2m+1}=J_{2m,2m+1}^z=0`$). Using the definitions (2),(3) with $`\mu m`$ when $`i=2m1`$ and $`j=2m`$, we can rewrite the Hamiltonian (6) as:

$$H_{\mathrm{AS}}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}\left(\frac{ϵ_m}{2}T_m^z+J_mT_m^x\right)+h_1+h_0,$$
(10)
where $`ϵ_m\epsilon _{2m1}\epsilon _{2m},`$ $`J_mJ_{2m1,2m}`$, $`\omega _m=\epsilon _{2m1}+\epsilon _{2m}`$, $`h_1_{m=1}^{N/2}\frac{1}{2}\omega _mR_m^z`$, and $`h_0_{m=1}^{N/2}J_{2m1,2m}^z\left((R_m^z)^2(T_m^z)^2\right)`$. The term $`h_0`$ is an energy shift which commutes with all other operators, and will thus be neglected. It is then clear that $`H_{\mathrm{AS}}`$ is a sum over independent modes $`m`$, so that the Hilbert space decomposes into a tensor-product structure. The operators $`T_m^z`$,$`T_m^x`$ generate an encoded $`SU_m^t(2)`$ group, while the term $`h_1su_m^r(2)`$ acts as a constant (since $`[su_m^t(2),su_m^r(2)]=0`$). As a whole $`H_{\mathrm{AS}}`$ acts as $`_{m=1}^{N/2}SU_m^t(2)`$, meaning that experimental control over the coefficients $`ϵ_m`$ and $`J_m`$ enables the implementation of independent and arbitrary encoded-single qubit operations. Next we need to show how to implement an encoded controlled operation. This can be done very simply using nearest-neighbor interactions only. All that is required is to turn on the coupling $`J_{2m,2m+1}^z`$, since as is easily checked $`\sigma _{2m}^z\sigma _{2m+1}^z=T_m^zT_{m+1}^z`$. This yields a controlled-phase gate . It may appear from this discussion that all $`ϵ_m`$, $`J_m`$ and $`J_{2m,2m+1}^z`$ should be controllable. However, in analogy to NMR, we can further show that independent control over the coefficients $`J_m`$  suffices to generate arbitrary single-encoded qubit operations and an encoded controlled operation. Suppose that $`ϵ_m`$ and $`J_{2m,2m+1}^z`$ are not directly controllable, as is the case for the analogous parameters in front of the terms $`\sigma _i^z`$ and $`\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z`$ in a typical liquid-state NMR Hamiltonian. Refocusing in terms of $`T_m^x`$ then plays the same role as refocusing using $`\sigma ^x`$ in NMR , allowing control over $`ϵ_m`$ and $`J_{2m,2m+1}^z`$. This “encoded refocusing” method will be treated in detail in a separate publication .

Decoherence Avoidance.— The connection between encoding and immunity to decoherence is known from the theory of decoherence-free subspaces (DFSs) . The present encoding is decoherence-free under the following conditions: Assume that the system-bath interaction is $`H_I=_{i=1}^N\sigma _i^zB_i^z`$ where $`B_i^z`$ are bath operators. If pairs of qubits are sufficiently close compared to the bath wavelength, so that $`B_{2m1}^z=B_{2m}^z`$ $`\stackrel{~}{B}_m^z`$ (“block-collective phase damping” ) then $`H_IH_I^{\mathrm{CPD}}=2_{m=1}^{N/2}R_m^z\stackrel{~}{B}_m^z`$. But $`R_m^z\left(\alpha |0_L_m+\beta |1_L_m\right)=0`$ so that the interaction $`H_I^{\mathrm{CPD}}`$ does not cause decoherence. Furthermore, $`H_I^{\mathrm{CPD}}`$ commutes with $`H_{\mathrm{AS}}`$ and with $`T_m^zT_{m+1}^z`$, so it follows from a general theorem  that with the methods provided above universal encoded logic can be implemented without ever leaving the DFS.

Axially Asymmetric Interaction.— Assume that one can control the axial asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=J_{ij}^xJ_{ij}^y`$ in Eq. (9). Further assume only nearest-neigbor interactions in pairs are on, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m\mathrm{\Delta }_{2m1,2m}`$. The Hamiltonian $`H_0+V^{}`$ now becomes:

$`H_{\mathrm{AA}}={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_m}{2}}T_m^z+J_mT_m^x\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{2}}R_m^z+\mathrm{\Delta }_mR_m^x\right),`$

where we have again omitted the $`h_0`$ term. The appropriate encoding for the $`R_m^{z,x}`$ terms is: $`|0_L_m=|0_{2m1}|0_{2m}`$, $`|1_L_m=|1_{2m1}|1_{2m}`$ for the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ logical qubit, since the axially asymmetric component of the Hamiltonian preserves parity but not occupation number. To implement a controlled operation on the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}m+1^{\mathrm{th}}`$ encoded-qubits’ Hilbert space it suffices again to turn on the nearest neighbor coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2m,2m+1}`$, since $`\sigma _{2m}^z\sigma _{2m+1}^z=R_m^zR_{m+1}^z.`$ In analogy to the analysis above, the subspace acted on by $`su_m^t(2)`$ operators is furthermore decoherence-free if the system-bath interaction $`H_I=_{i=1}^N\sigma _i^zB_i^z`$ has the symmetry $`B_{2m1}^z=B_{2m}^z`$. The two subspaces acted upon by the axially symmetric and antisymmetric terms are independent. They can be regarded as two independent quantum computers.

State Preparation and Measurement.— The state $`\left(|01|10\right)/\sqrt{2}=(|0_L|1_L)/\sqrt{2}`$ is the ground state of the axially symmetric Hamiltonian $`\sigma ^x\sigma ^x+\sigma ^y\sigma ^y`$, while $`\left(|00|11\right)/\sqrt{2}=(|0_L|1_L)/\sqrt{2}`$ is the ground state of the axially antisymmetric Hamiltonian $`\sigma ^x\sigma ^x\sigma ^y\sigma ^y`$. Thus by lowering the temperature to below $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (the respective strengths of the interactions), the system will relax into the corresponding subspaces and computation can begin. Measurement can be done in the axially symmetric case by first applying an encoded Hadamard gate \[which maps $`|0_L(|0_L+|1_L)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`|1_L(|0_L|1_L)/\sqrt{2}`$\], and then using, e.g., Kane’s a.c. capacitance scheme , which distinguishes a singlet from a triplet state. In the axially antisymmetric case Kane’s scheme will distinguish the states $`\left(|00\pm |11\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, so the same procedure applies.

Conclusions.— We studied here the quantum computational power of a generic class of anisotropic solid-state Hamiltonians. We presented simple encodings of one qubit into two physical qubits, and schemes which enable universal computation in the case of axially symmetric and/or antisymmetric exchange-type Hamiltonians, while avoiding difficult-to-implement single-qubit control terms. Only nearest-neighbor interactions are needed for this implementation of encoded universal quantum logic. These results can be generalized to provide codes with higher rates . The methods presented here have the potential to offer significant simplifications in the construction of QCs based on quantum dots, donor-atom nuclear or electron spins, quantum Hall systems, and electrons floating on helium.

Acknowledgements.— We thank A. Blais and A. Maassen v.d. Brink for helpful discussions. DAL gratefully acknowledges financial support from PREA, NSERC, and the Connaught Fund.