text:
# One non-relativistic Particle coupled to a photon field

## 1. Introduction and main results

In recent times great effort was made to start a program with the goal to put Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) on a firm mathematical footing. Bach, Fröhlich, and Sigal were the first who proved (in \[BFS1, BFS2, BFS3\]), at least for small values of various parameters, that atoms and molecules have a ground state in the presence of a quantized radiation field. In the one particle case Griesemer, Lieb, and Loss in \[GLL\] succeeded in removing the restrictions on the parameters. We refer to \[GLL\] for an extensive list of references concerning this subject.

In the present paper we are especially interested in the behavior of one electron coupled to a photon field. We consider the “free” case as well as the presence of an arbitrary external potential $`V`$ with at least one negative eigenvalue in the electron case. We are interested in the ground state energy of such an electron when the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ is small and the ultraviolet cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed.

Without radiation field the self-energy of an electron is simply given by the bottom of the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is equal to $`0`$. In the case of coupling to a photon field the situation changes dramatically and the self-energy is a complicated function depending on $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The fact that evaluating this quantity is a highly non-trivial problem was pointed out in \[LL\] by Lieb and Loss, who, in contrary to us, considered the case of fixed $`\alpha `$ and large values of the cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In the present section we state our main results on the self-energy and on the binding energy of an electron, which will be proved in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 2 we comment on our notation and in Section 5 we evaluate the radiative correction in the case of a nucleus. We provide concrete numbers for $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for which our procedure works.

### 1.1. Self-energy of an electron

The self-energy of an electron is described by the Pauli-Fierz operator

$$T=(p+\sqrt{\alpha }A(x))^2+\sqrt{\alpha }\sigma B(x)+H_f.$$
(1.1)
We fix units such that $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ and the electron mass $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$. The electron charge is then given by $`e=\sqrt{\alpha }`$, with $`\alpha 1/137`$ the fine structure constant. In the present paper $`\alpha `$ plays the role of a small, dimensionless number which measures the coupling to the radiation field. Our results hold for sufficiently small values  of $`\alpha `$. $`\sigma `$ is the vector of Pauli matrices $`(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$. Recall, the $`\sigma _i`$ are hermitian $`2\times 2`$ matrices and fulfill the anti-commutation relations $`\sigma _i\sigma _j+\sigma _j\sigma _i=2I_^2\delta _{i,j}`$. The operator $`p=i`$ is the electron momentum while $`A`$ is the magnetic vector potential. The magnetic field is $`B=\mathrm{curl}A`$.

The underlying Hilbert space is

$$=^2(^3;^2)_b(^2(^3;^2))$$
(1.2)
where $`_b`$ is the bosonic Fock space for the photon field.

The vector potential is

$$A(x)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_^3\frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}\epsilon _\lambda (k)\left[a_\lambda (k)e^{ikx}+a_\lambda ^{}(k)e^{ikx}\right]𝑑k,$$
(1.3)
and the corresponding magnetic field reads

$$B(x)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_^3\frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}(ki\epsilon _\lambda (k))\left[a_\lambda (k)e^{ikx}a_\lambda ^{}(k)e^{ikx}\right]𝑑k,$$
(1.4)
where the operators $`a_\lambda `$ and $`a_\lambda ^{}`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations

$$[a_\nu (k),a_\lambda ^{}(q)]=\delta (kq)\delta _{\lambda ,\nu },[a_\lambda (k),a_\nu (q)]=0,\mathrm{etc}.$$
(1.5)
The vectors $`\epsilon _\lambda (k)^3`$ are any two possible orthonormal polarization vectors perpendicular to $`k`$ which we assume to be either odd or even, i.e.

$$\epsilon _\lambda (k)=\pm \epsilon _\lambda (k).$$
(1.6)
The function $`\chi (|k|)`$ describes the ultraviolet cutoff on the wavenumbers $`k`$. We choose $`\chi `$ to be the Heaviside function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }|k|/l_C)`$, where $`l_C=\mathrm{}/(mc)`$ is the Compton wavelength. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/4`$ corresponds to the photon energy $`mc^2`$, which sometimes is considered as a natural upper bound for the cut-off parameter, since it is the maximum value that guarantees that no pair-production takes place.

The photon field energy $`H_f`$ is given by

$$H_f=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}_^3|k|a_\lambda ^{}(k)a_\lambda (k)𝑑k.$$

We estimate the leading order in $`\alpha `$ of the ground state

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}T.$$

Recall that $`\alpha 0|A^2|0=\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, where $`|0`$ is the vacuum in $`_b`$, describes the vacuum fluctuation of the field $`A`$. Thus, this term is somehow ab initio included in the self-energy. Therefore it may turn out as a slight surprise that $`\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is not the leading order term of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$, which relies on the fact that the magnetic field $`\sqrt{\alpha }\sigma B`$ reproduces the same number but with a negative sign. We show that the leading order term is given by $`2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$, which is the content of our first theorem.

###### THEOREM 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be fixed but arbitrary. Then

$$\left|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]\right|C_1\alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)+C_2\alpha ^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4)\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(1.7)
for some constants $`C_{1,2}>0`$ independent of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

It turns out in the proof that one photon is enough to recover the leading order term in $`\alpha `$.

### 1.2. Increase of the binding energy

We consider an electron in an arbitrary external potential, described by a real valued function $`V`$, independent of $`\alpha `$, which satisfies (i) that the negative part of $`V`$, $`V_{}`$, is dominated by the kinetic energy $`p^2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$V_{}\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }+C_\epsilon ,$$
(1.8)
for any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for some positive constant $`C_\epsilon `$, such that the self-adjointness and boundedness from below of $`p^2+V`$ is guaranteed. Additionally, since we want the essential spectrum to start at $`0`$, we require (ii) that $`V_{}`$ tends to $`0`$ at infinity. Furthermore, we assume (iii) that the operator $`p^2+V`$ has at least one negative energy bound state.

The corresponding operator with a quantized radiation field reads

$$𝐇_\alpha =T+V,$$
(1.9)
for which \[Hi\] guarantees self-adjointness. Recently, Griesemer, Lieb, and Loss \[GLL\] proved for all values of $`\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that $`𝐇_\alpha `$ has an eigenstate, as well as that the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 𝐄_\alpha `$, with

$$𝐄_\alpha =\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}𝐇_\alpha ,$$
(1.10)
cannot decrease, i.e.

$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha e_0,$$
(1.11)
where $`e_0=\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}[p^2+V]`$. We show that at least for small values of the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ the binding energy increases, namely (1.11) holds with strict inequality.

###### THEOREM 2.

Let $`V`$ satisfy the conditions (i)-(iii), and $`\varphi `$ be the ground state of $`p^2+V`$ with corresponding energy $`e_0`$. Then

$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha e_0\alpha (V,\mathrm{\Lambda })+𝒪(\alpha ^2)$$
(1.12)
for some positive number $`(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ depending on $`V`$ and the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover, there exists a number $`\rho >0`$, such that for all $`\alpha (0,\rho ]`$

$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha <e_0.$$
(1.13)
###### REMARK 1.

The equation (1.12) holds for all real $`V`$, such that $`p^2+V`$ is self-adjoint and has a ground state. But only for $`V`$ satisfying $`(i)(iii)`$ we know that $`H_\alpha `$ has a ground state.

We actually check that $`(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is bounded from above by

$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })p\varphi ^2\frac{32\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }].$$
(1.14)
In the spinless case ($`B=0`$) it was previously proven (\[HVV\]) that coupling to a photon field can produce a ground state even if the corresponding Schrödinger operator has only continuous spectrum. This phenomenon of enhanced binding was earlier shown in \[HS\] in the case of dipole approximation ($`A=A(0)`$) in the limit of large values of the coupling constant $`\alpha `$.

## 2. Notation

Throughout the paper we use the notation

$$A(x)=D(x)+D^{}(x),B(x)=E(x)+E^{}(x)$$
(2.1)
for the vector potential, respectively the magnetic field.

The operators $`D^{}`$ and $`E^{}`$ create a photon with wave functions $`G(k)e^{ikx}`$ and $`H(k)e^{ikx}`$, respectively, where $`G(k)=(G^1(k),G^2(k))`$ and $`H(k)=(H^1(k),H^2(k))`$ are vectors of one-photon states, given by

$$G^\lambda (k)=\frac{\chi (|k|)}{2\pi |k|^{1/2}}\epsilon _\lambda (k).$$
(2.2)
and

$$H^\lambda (k)=\frac{i\chi (|k|)}{2\pi |k|^{1/2}}k\epsilon _\lambda (k).$$
(2.3)
Applying Fourier transform, with respect to $`k`$, on $`G(k)e^{ikx}`$, i.e.

$$^1[G(k)e^{ikx}](\xi )=_^3e^{ik(\xi x)}G(k)𝑑kD^{}|0(\xi x),$$
(2.4)
we see that $`D^{}`$ creates a photon depending on $`\xi x`$, where $`\xi `$ denotes the photon variable in configuration space.

If the reader is not used in thinking of a “position” of a photon, he may consider it as a simple unitary transform. Because, now we introduce the variable $`\eta =\xi x`$ and the object we are going to work with is the Fourier transform with respect to $`\eta `$, namely

$$[D^{}|0(\eta )](k)=G(k).$$
(2.5)
The same result holds for $`E^{}`$ if $`G(k)`$ is replaced by $`H(k)`$.

Notice that in the so chosen notation the electron momentum $`p=i_x`$ of a one photon state $`D^{}f(x,\eta )=f(x)D^{}|0(\eta )`$, with $`\eta =\xi x`$, can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}pD^{}f(x,\eta )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(p_x^if(x)\right)D_i^{}|0(\eta )f(x)\left(p_\eta D^{}|0(\eta )\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =[p_xp_\eta ]D^{}f(x,\eta ).\end{array}$$
(2.6)
It turns out to be convenient to denote a general vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a sequence

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _0,\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{}\},$$
(2.7)
where

$$\psi _n=\psi _n(x,\xi _1x,\mathrm{},\xi _nx),$$
(2.8)
with relative variables $`\xi _ix=\eta _i`$. For simplicity, we suppress the polarization of the photons and the spin of the electron.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

### 3.1. Upper bound

We choose the sequence of trial wave functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\{f_n(x),\sqrt{\alpha }[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}f_n(x,\eta ),0,0,\mathrm{}\},$$
(3.1)
with $`\eta =\xi x`$, $`f_n^2(^3)`$, $`f_n=1`$ and $``$ denoting the spin-up vector in $`^2`$. We assume for the electron part $`f_n(x)`$ that $`pf_n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, which means that the electron spreads out to infinity. This is reasonable, for in the case without coupling this sequence recovers the bottom of the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Recall,

$$E^{}f_n(x,\eta )f_n(x)[E^{}|0](\eta )$$
(3.2)
and, due to $`\eta =\xi x`$,

$$\left([p^2+H_f]E^{}f_n\right)(x,\eta )=([p_xp_\eta ]^2+|p_\eta |)E^{}f_n(x,\eta ).$$
(3.3)
Notice, in the one photon case $`H_f=|p_\eta |`$. Observe,

$$\begin{array}{c}[p,D]=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}_^3G^\lambda (k)[p,e^{ikx}]a_\lambda (k)𝑑k=\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}_^3(G^\lambda (k)k)e^{ikx}a_\lambda (k)𝑑k=0\end{array}$$
(3.4)
by our choice of $`\epsilon _\lambda (k)`$. Analogously,

$$[p,D^{}]=[p,E]=[p,E^{}]=0.$$
(3.5)
By means of Schwarz’ inequality it is easy to see that by our assumption $`pf_n0`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,pA\mathrm{\Psi }_n)=2\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,pD\mathrm{\Psi }_n)=0.$$
(3.6)
Similarly, if we denote the $`1`$-photon part of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\psi _1^n=\sqrt{\alpha }[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}f_n,$$
(3.7)
then

$$(\psi _1^n,p^2\psi _1^n)=(\psi _1^n,[p_x+p_\eta ]^2\psi _1^n)=(\psi _1^n,p_\eta ^2\psi _1^n)+\text{Error}(p_xf_n),$$
(3.8)
with $`lim_n\mathrm{}\text{Error}(p_xf_n)=0`$. Furthermore, we compute

$$\begin{array}{c}(\psi _1^n,[p_\eta ^2+H_f]\psi _1^n)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\sigma )E^{}f_n,\psi _1^n)\hfill \\ \hfill =\alpha ((\sigma )E^{}f_n,[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}f_n)\\ \hfill =\alpha 0|(\sigma )E[p^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}|0\end{array}$$
(3.9)
In momentum representation, recall $`[E^{}|0](k)=H(k)`$, the last term in (3.9) equals

$$\begin{array}{c}0|(\sigma )E[p^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}|0=\frac{|H(k)(\sigma )|_^2^2}{|k|^2+|k|}dk\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{|H(k)|^2}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k=0|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0.\end{array}$$
(3.10)
The equality from first to second line holds, because of the anti-commutation relations of $`\sigma `$ and the fact that $`H`$ is purely imaginary.

For simplicity, we will use throughout the paper

$$|H(k)|^2=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}|H^\lambda (k)|^2,|G(k)|^2=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}|G^\lambda (k)|^2.$$
(3.11)
We evaluate

$$\begin{array}{c}0|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{|H^\lambda (k)|^2}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{|k|\chi (|k|)}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k=\pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }^22[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]].\end{array}$$
(3.12)
Since

$$[D,D^{}]DD^{}D^{}D=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,$$
(3.13)
we know

$$A^2=(D+D^{})^2=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+2D^{}D+D^{}D^{}+DD.$$
(3.14)
With $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,DD\mathrm{\Psi }_n)=0`$ and $`lim_n\mathrm{}(\psi _1^n,\psi _1^n)2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,T\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha 0|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0+2\pi ^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })\hfill \\ \hfill +2\alpha ^2D[p^2+H_f]^1(\sigma )E^{}|0^2.\end{array}$$
(3.15)
The last term in the r.h.s. vanishes which can be seen by explicit calculations using the relation

$$\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\epsilon _\lambda ^i\epsilon _\lambda ^j=\delta _{i,j}\frac{k_ik_j}{|k|^2}.$$
(3.16)
Namely, if $`ϵ^{jln}`$ denotes the totally antisymmetric epsilon-tensor, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{G_i^\lambda (k)H_j^\lambda (k)}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\underset{l,n=1}{\overset{3}{}}i\frac{\chi (|k|)\epsilon _\lambda ^i(k)\left[ϵ^{jln}\epsilon _\lambda ^l(k)k_n\right]}{|k|^3+|k|^2}𝑑k\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{l,n=1}{\overset{3}{}}i\frac{\chi (|k|)\left[\delta _{i,l}\frac{k_ik_l}{|k|^2}\right]ϵ^{jln}k_n}{|k|^3+|k|^2}𝑑k=0.\end{array}$$
(3.17)
Therefore, since $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,\mathrm{\Psi }_n)=1+\mathrm{const}.\alpha `$, we obtain the upper bound

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,T\mathrm{\Psi }_n)/(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,T\mathrm{\Psi }_n)\hfill \\ \hfill 2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]+2\pi ^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }).\end{array}$$
(3.18)
### 3.2. Lower bound

We have learned in the previous section that an approximate ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$, satisfies

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\pi ^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(3.19)
Since

$$T=[\sigma (p+\sqrt{\alpha }A(x))]^2+H_fH_f$$
(3.20)
we immediately get

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\pi ^2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(3.21)
Therefore, by means of Schwarz’ inequality we obtain

$`2\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },pA\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi },pD\mathrm{\Psi })ap\mathrm{\Psi }^2+4a^1\alpha D\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$ (3.22)
$`\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },\sigma B\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },\sigma E\mathrm{\Psi })c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^2+c^1(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)E\mathrm{\Psi }^2,`$
for any $`a,c>0`$. Since, by $`A^20`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}p\mathrm{\Psi }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })4\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Psi },pD\mathrm{\Psi })2\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },\sigma E\mathrm{\Psi }),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.24)
we obtain by (3.22), (LABEL:310), the operator inequalities (e.g. \[GLL, Lemma A. 4\])

$$D^{}D\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }H_f,E^{}E\frac{2}{3\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }^3H_f,$$
(3.25)
and (3.21)

$$p\mathrm{\Psi }^2C_1\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+C_2\alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(3.26)
for some suitable constants $`C_{1,2}>0`$. Equations (3.21) and (3.26) will be decisive to control our error estimates. Recall,

$$A^2=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+2D^{}D+2\mathrm{}DD.$$
(3.27)
Thus, since $`D^{}D0`$,

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2+_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}],$$
(3.28)
where

$$_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]=(\psi _1,𝒜\psi _1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}([\sigma E^{}+2pD^{}]\psi _0,\psi _1)$$
(3.29)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]=(\psi _{n+2},𝒜\psi _{n+2})\hfill \\ \hfill +2\mathrm{}(\left([\sqrt{\alpha }\sigma E^{}+2\sqrt{\alpha }pD^{}]\psi _{n+1}+\alpha D^{}D^{}\psi _n\right),\psi _{n+2}),\end{array}$$
(3.30)
with

$$𝒜=p^2+H_f.$$
(3.31)
Recall, we can write our approximate ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _0(x),\psi _1(x,\eta _1),\mathrm{}.,\psi _n(x,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n),\mathrm{}\},$$
(3.32)
with $`\eta _i=\xi _ix`$. For convenience we will work in momentum representation

$$[\psi _n(x,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)](l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=\psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n),$$
(3.33)
with $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$ and $`l`$ denotes the momentum representation of the electron variable.

We consider the term $`[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]`$. As a straightforward consequence of Schwarz’ inequality we derive

$$\begin{array}{c}[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]\hfill \\ \hfill \sqrt{\alpha }\left[𝒜^{1/2}\sigma E^{}+𝒜^{1/2}pD^{}\right]\psi _{n+1}+\alpha 𝒜^{1/2}D^{}D^{}\psi _n^2.\end{array}$$
(3.34)
Similarly,

$$_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]\alpha (𝒜^{1/2}\sigma E^{}+2𝒜^{1/2}pD^{})\psi _0^2$$
(3.35)
The fact that $`H(k)`$ is purely imaginary and $`𝒜`$ commutes with the reflection $`ll`$ imply

$$\mathrm{}(E_i^{}\psi _0,𝒜^1E_j^{}\psi _0)=0.$$
(3.36)
Together with the anti-commutation relations for $`\sigma `$ we infer

$$(\sigma E^{}\psi _0,𝒜^1\sigma E^{}\psi _0)=(\psi _0,E𝒜^1E^{}\psi _0).$$
(3.37)
Now we are going to evaluate the r.h.s. of (3.34). These evaluations then are also applied to (3.35). First, we consider the diagonal terms. The most important one, that reproduces the leading order in $`\alpha `$, is

$$\alpha (\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1}).$$
(3.38)
Explicitly, in Fourier representation,

$$[E^{}\psi _{n+1}](l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+2}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}H(k_i)\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},\overline{)}k_i,\mathrm{},k_{n+2}),$$
(3.39)
where $`\overline{)}k_i`$ indicates that the $`i`$-th variable is omitted in $`\psi _{n+1}`$. Due to permutational symmetry the expression (3.38) consists of two different terms

$$\alpha (\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1})=\alpha (I_{n+1}+II_{n+1}).$$
(3.40)
The diagonal term $`I_{n+1}`$ where in the right as well as left hand side of (3.38) a photon is created with index $`i`$ and the mixed term $`II_{n+1}`$. By similar arguments as for (3.35), namely if we take advantage of the fact that $`H`$ is purely imaginary and use the anti-commutation relations of $`\sigma `$ we obtain

$$I_{n+1}\frac{|H(k_{n+2})|^2|\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|^2}{[l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i]^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}𝑑l𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_{n+2}.$$
(3.41)
We set $`𝒬=[l_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i]^2+|k_{n+2}|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|`$ and $`b=2[l_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i]k_{n+2}`$ and expand

$$\frac{1}{𝒬b}=\frac{1}{𝒬}+\frac{1}{𝒬}b\frac{1}{𝒬}+\frac{1}{𝒬}b\frac{1}{𝒬b}b\frac{1}{𝒬}.$$
(3.42)
Plugging this expansion into (3.41), the second term, when integrating over $`k_{n+2}`$, obviously vanishes. Since $`𝒬|k_{n+2}|^2+|k_{n+2}|`$ and $`𝒬b|k_{n+2}|`$ we estimate

$$\begin{array}{c}I_{n+1}\psi _{n+1}^2_^3\frac{|H(k)|^2}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k\hfill \\ \hfill +4\frac{|H(k_{n+2})|^2|k_{n+2}|^2|l_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i|^2|\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|^2}{[|k_{n+2}|^2+|k_{n+2}|]^2|k_{n+2}|}\\ \hfill \psi _{n+1}^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0+\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }p\psi _{n+1}^2.\end{array}$$
(3.43)
For the mixed term we have

$$\begin{array}{c}II_{n+1}3(n+1)\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{|H^\lambda (k_1)||H^\lambda (k_{n+2})|}{[l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i]^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times |\psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})||\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}.\end{array}$$
(3.44)
By means of the one-photon density

$$\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k)=(n+1)|\psi _{n+1}(l,k,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|^2𝑑l𝑑k_2\mathrm{}𝑑k_{n+1}$$
(3.45)
we infer after applying Schwarz’ inequality to (3.44)

$$\begin{array}{c}II_{n+1}3(n+1)\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{|H^\lambda (k_1)||H^\lambda (k_{n+2})|}{|k_1|+|k_{n+2}|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_1)}\sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_{n+2})}dk_1dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill \frac{6(n+1)}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\chi (|k_1|)\chi (|k_{n+2}|)}{|k_1|+|k_{n+2}|}\sqrt{|k_1|\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_1)}\times \\ \hfill \times \sqrt{|k_{n+2}|\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_{n+2})}dk_1dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill \frac{3}{2\pi ^2}|k|\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k)𝑑k\left[\frac{\chi (|k_1|)\chi (|k_{n+2}|)}{(|k_1|+|k_{n+2}|)^2}𝑑k_1𝑑k_{n+2}\right]^{1/2}\\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1}).\end{array}$$
(3.46)
Therefore, we summarize

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha (\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1})\alpha 0|E𝒜^1E^{}|0\psi _{n+1}^2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(p\psi _{n+1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})\right).\end{array}$$
(3.47)
All other terms in (3.34) are of order $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ or even of higher order.

For the second diagonal term we obtain

$$\alpha ^2(\psi _n,DD𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)\mathrm{const}.\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _n^2+p\psi _n^2+(\psi _n,H_f\psi _n)\right).$$
(3.48)
The proof of (3.48), whose strategy is similar to the one for (3.47), will be postponed to Lemma 1 in the appendix.

The third diagonal term of (3.34) reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha (pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1pD^{}\psi _{n+1})=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\alpha \times \hfill \\ \hfill \times [\frac{\left[G^\lambda (k_{n+2})\left(l_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i\right)\right]^2|\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|^2}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill +(n+1)\frac{\left[G^\lambda (k_1)\left(l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right)\right]\left[G^\lambda (k_{n+2})\left(l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right)\right]}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \\ \hfill \times \overline{\psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})}\psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}]\\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(p\psi _{n+1}^2+(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})\right).\end{array}$$
(3.49)
For the second term in the r.h.s. we used first

$$\frac{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}1,$$
(3.50)
and afterwards applied Schwarz’ inequality to bound it from below by

$$\begin{array}{c}(n+1)\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\left|G^\lambda (k_1)\right|\left|G^\lambda (k_{n+2})\right|\sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_1)\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_{n+2})}𝑑k_1𝑑k_{n+2}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.|k|\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k)𝑑k\left[\frac{\chi (|k_1|)\chi (|k_{n+2}|)}{|k_1|^2|k_{n+2}|^2}𝑑k_1𝑑k_{n+2}\right]^{1/2},\end{array}$$
(3.51)
which yields the last term in the last line of (3.49).

Next we consider the off-diagonal terms. Notice,

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha \mathrm{}(pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1})=\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\alpha [\mathrm{}\frac{[G^\lambda (k_{n+2})(l_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i)]H^\lambda (k_{n+2})}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \\ \hfill \times \psi _{n+1},\sigma \psi _{n+1}_^2(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill +(n+1)\mathrm{}\frac{[G^\lambda (k_1)(l_{i=2}^{n+2}k_i)]H^\lambda (k_{n+2})}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \\ \hfill \times \psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2}),\sigma \psi _{n+1}(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})_^2dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}].\end{array}$$
(3.52)
The first term in the r.h.s. vanishes, because the integral is purely imaginary. For the second term we use $`\frac{|a|}{a^2+b}\frac{1}{2}b^{1/2}`$ and Schwarz’ inequality to bound it from above by

$$\begin{array}{c}(\text{3.52})\alpha \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\frac{|G^\lambda (k_1)||H^\lambda (k_{n+2})|}{(|k_1|+|k_{n+2}|)^{1/2}|k_1|^{1/2}|k_{n+2}|^{1/2}}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_1)|k_1|}\sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_{n+2})|k_{n+2}|}dk_1dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1}).\end{array}$$
(3.53)
The second off-diagonal term, $`2\alpha ^{3/2}\mathrm{}(pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)`$, can simply be bounded from above by

$$\alpha (\psi _{n+1},pD𝒜^1pD^{}\psi _{n+1})+\alpha ^2(\psi _n,DD𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n),$$
(3.54)
on which we now apply (3.48) and (3.49).

Finally, by means of Lemma 2 in the appendix we estimate the last off-diagonal term by

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha ^{3/2}\mathrm{}(\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)\mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\alpha \psi _{n+1}^2+(\psi _n,H_f\psi _n)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.55)
Collecting above estimates and summing over all $`n`$ we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })2\alpha \pi ^1(1\mathrm{const}.\alpha (1+\mathrm{\Lambda }))\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })\mathrm{const}.\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2.\end{array}$$
(3.56)
By our a priori estimates (3.21) and (3.26) we prove the theorem.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 2

It suffices to use a cleverly chosen trial wave function. We assume that $`\varphi (x)^2(^3)`$ is the ground state of $`p^2+V`$, i.e.

$$(p^2+V)\varphi =e_0\varphi .$$
(4.1)
Recall,

$$E^{}\varphi (x,\eta )=\varphi (x)[E^{}(x)|0](\eta ),D^{}p\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_x^i\varphi (x)[D_i^{}|0](\eta )$$

are 1-photon functions depending on $`x`$ and the relative coordinates $`\xi x=\eta `$. Therefore, in configuration space, where $`\psi (x,\eta )`$ denotes one of these functions, we have (cf. the previous section)

$$[(p^2+H_f)\psi ](x,\eta )=([p_xp_\eta ]^2+|p_\eta |)\psi (x,\eta ).$$
(4.2)
For sake of convenience we define the operator

$$A_V=p_x^2+p_\eta ^2+H_f+V+e_0=(p_x^2+V+e_0)𝕀+𝕀(p_\eta ^2+H_f),$$
(4.3)
which acts on $`^2\left((^3;^2)(^3;^2)\right)`$ and is obviously positive and invertible.

Now, we choose our trial wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\overline{\varphi }(x),2\sqrt{\alpha }A_V^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi }(x,\eta )\sqrt{\alpha }A_V^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }(x,\eta ),0,0,\mathrm{}\},$$
(4.4)
where $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$ and $`\eta =\xi x`$. We assume $`\varphi =1`$ and for simplicity we denote the 1-photon part of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as $`\psi _1`$. Notice,
$`\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }(x,\eta )=\varphi (x)(\sigma )E^{}|0(\eta )`$.

First, observe that $`A_V\overline{\varphi }=0`$ yields

$$A_V\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }=(p_\eta ^2+H_f)\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }.$$
(4.5)
Therefore, since $`A_V`$ and $`p_\eta ^2+H_f`$ commute by definition, we infer

$$A_V^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }=(p_\eta ^2+H_f)^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi },$$
(4.6)
and

$$(\overline{\varphi },\sigma EA_V^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi })=\varphi ^20|E[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0.$$
(4.7)
Thus, we evaluate

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi },𝐇_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })=\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2e_0\mathrm{\Psi }^2+(\psi _1,A_V\psi _1)\hfill \\ \hfill +2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\sigma E^{}+2D^{}p)\overline{\varphi },\psi _1)+2\alpha (\psi _1,D^{}D\psi _1)+2(\psi _1,p_xp_\eta \psi _1).\end{array}$$
(4.8)
Notice, the cross term

$$\mathrm{}(\overline{\varphi },\sigma EA_V^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi })=\mathrm{}(\overline{\varphi },\sigma E[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi })$$
(4.9)
vanishes as in the previous section, because it is purely imaginary. Therefore, by our choice of $`\psi _1`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{c}(\psi _1,A_V\psi _1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\sigma E^{}+2D^{}p)\overline{\varphi },\psi _1)\hfill \\ \hfill =4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )\alpha \varphi ^20|E[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0.\end{array}$$
(4.10)
Moreover, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}(\psi _1,p_xp_\eta \psi _1)=\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1p_xp_\eta A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha (\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi },[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1p_xp_\eta [p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi })\\ \hfill +2\alpha \mathrm{}(D^{}p_x\overline{\varphi },A_V^1p_xp_\eta A_V^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }).\end{array}$$
(4.11)
The first term in the r.h.s. vanishes by integrating over the $`\eta `$-variable (the best way to see it is using the representation in momentum space), due to (1.6) and the fact that the operator $`A_V`$ commutes with reflection $`\eta \eta `$, respectively $`kk`$. The second term vanishes when integrating over the $`x`$-variable (notice, $`(\varphi ,p_x\varphi )=0`$), and the third term vanishes, because it is again purely imaginary.

Furthermore, since $`DA_V^1\sigma E^{}\overline{\varphi }=0`$ (see (3.17)), we realize, after straightforward calculation, that

$$\alpha (\psi _1,D^{}D\psi _1)\mathrm{const}.\alpha ^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })^2.$$
(4.12)
Using above estimates and the fact that

$$\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha 0|E[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0=2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]$$
(4.13)
we infer

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi },𝐇_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })/(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })e_0+2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]\hfill \\ \hfill 4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )+𝒪(\alpha ^2)\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }))\end{array}$$
(4.14)
which proves the first statement of the theorem with

$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })=4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi ).$$
(4.15)
The second statement follows by the observation that $`(D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )`$ is strictly larger than $`0`$, which is a consequence of the fact that $`D^{}p_x\varphi `$ is a not identically vanishing function $`^2(^3(^3,^2))`$ and $`A_V`$ an invertible operator.

## 5. Computation of concrete numbers

### 5.1. Error for the self-energy

We are going to calculate the error $`rr`$ of the self-energy,

$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 2\alpha \pi ^1[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]|rr(\alpha ^2).$$
(5.1)
First, it is important to estimate the kinetic energy term $`p\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$ for an approximate ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with quite good constants. Since we will calculate anyway with values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ we can assume $`(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

By means of (3.22), (LABEL:310) and then applying (3.25) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })(1a)p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })\hfill \\ \hfill 4a^1\alpha D\mathrm{\Psi }^2c\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^31/(c\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)E\mathrm{\Psi }^2\\ \hfill (1a)p\mathrm{\Psi }^2c\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^3+\left[1a^18\pi ^1\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }c^1\frac{2}{3\pi }\right](\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }),\end{array}$$
(5.2)
where $`1>a>0`$. We require the last term $`[..]`$ to be $`0`$. For simplicity, we choose $`c=\frac{2}{\pi }`$, then our first condition on $`\alpha `$ reads

$$\alpha \frac{a\pi }{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(5.3)
and additionally

$$p\mathrm{\Psi }^2\frac{2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\pi (1a)}.$$
(5.4)
The main contribution to $`rr`$ stems from the the terms (3.47) and (3.49). In fact the the third diagonal term (3.48) is negligible compared to (3.47) and (3.49).

Evaluating the corresponding integrals yields

$$(\text{3.49})2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+2\alpha \pi ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }),$$
(5.5)
and

$$(\text{3.43})+(\text{3.46})\frac{8}{3\pi }\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\frac{3}{2\pi }\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(5.6)
In order to incorporate the off-diagonal terms we, for simplicity, double the so gained value for $`rr`$ and derive

$`rr`$ $``$ $`2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3\pi }}\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2\pi }}\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })\right]`$ (5.7)
$``$ $`\alpha ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{56\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{3\pi ^2(1a)}}+14\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right]`$ (5.8)
where we used (3.21) and (3.26).

### 5.2. Radiative correction

We consider an electron in the field of a nucleus with charge $`Z`$, i.e.

$$V=\frac{Z\beta }{|x|},$$

where $`\beta `$ is the “real” fine structure constant $`\beta =1/137`$. The ground state energy of the corresponding Schrödinger operator $`p^2+V`$ is known to be

$$\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}[p^2+V]=e_0=\frac{1}{4}(\beta Z)^2.$$

The corresponding radiative correction, obtained in (4.15), is given by

$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\alpha 4(\varphi ,pDA_V^1pD^{}\varphi ),$$
(5.9)
where $`\varphi =\varphi (|x|)`$ denotes the ground state of $`p^2+V`$. We know

$$\varphi (|x|)=_r\varphi (r)\stackrel{}{e}_r(\theta ,\phi )=e_0^{1/2}\varphi (r)\stackrel{}{e}_r(\theta ,\phi )$$
(5.10)
when using polar coordinates. Denote with $`\varphi _i`$ the eigenstate of $`p^2+V`$ with corresponding eigenvalue $`e_i`$. Then, by means of (5.10), we obtain, by straightforward computations,

$$(\varphi ,pDA_V^1pD^{}\varphi )4\pi e_0\underset{i1}{}|c_i|^2_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{p}{e_0e_i+p^2+p}𝑑pe_0F(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(5.11)
where

$$c_i=\overline{\varphi _i(r,\theta ,\phi )}\varphi (r)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )r^2𝑑r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(5.12)
with $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=sin\theta d\theta d\phi `$, and the sum runs over all hydrogen eigenstates. Notice, due to textbooks $`|c_i|^22/15=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{5}`$, which in physicists’ words is expressed by “80 percent of the average excitation energy $`e_0e_n_{\mathrm{AV}}`$ is achieved by the continuous spectrum”. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]/_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{p}{e_0e_i+p^2+p}𝑑p1$$
(5.13)
as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. That is why, for simplicity, we take $`\frac{8\pi }{15}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ to evaluate $`F(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and obtain an approximative radiative correction

$$R_C=\alpha e_0\frac{32\pi }{15}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]$$
(5.14)
for the binding energy. (Indeed, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ these two functions perfectly coincide)

### 5.3. Calculating concrete values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

We search for values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that guarantee the error of the self energy $`rr`$ being smaller than the radiative correction $`R_C`$. This leads to the condition:

$$\alpha \mathrm{Min}\{\frac{\frac{16\pi }{15}e_0\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{\frac{28\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2]}{3\pi ^2(1a)}+\frac{7}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\frac{a\pi }{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}\}.$$
(5.15)
Set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/4`$ which corresponds to a photon energy $`mc^2/2`$, that is an enormously high value compared to the binding energy $`e_0`$.

Therefore, the condition on the coupling parameter, such that the radiative correction $`R_C`$ dominates the error $`rr`$, is given by

$$\alpha 0.85(\beta Z)^2.$$
(5.16)
Asking for the nuclear charge numbers $`Z`$ that guarantees enhanced binding in the physical case $`\alpha =1/137`$, leads to $`Z13`$.

However, in the case of smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e_0`$, which seems physically reasonable, we are in a perfect shape and the error of the self-energy is by far negligible compared to the energy shift.

## Appendix A Auxiliary Lemmas

###### LEMMA 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Psi },DD[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}\mathrm{\Psi })0|DD[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}|0\mathrm{\Psi }^2\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }\left((\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })+p\mathrm{\Psi }^2\right).\end{array}$$
(A.1)
###### Proof.

We fix an arbitrary photon number $`n`$. Recall,

$$\begin{array}{c}[D^{}D^{}\psi _n]_{n+2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(n+2)(n+1)}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}G(k_j)G(k_i)\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times \psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},\overline{)}k_j,\mathrm{},\overline{)}k_i,\mathrm{},k_{n+2}),\end{array}$$
(A.2)
where $`\overline{)}k_j`$ indicates that the $`j`$th variable is omitted. By permutational symmetry we can distinguish between three different terms,

$$(\psi _n,DD[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)=I_n+II_n+III_n.$$
(A.3)
First, the diagonal part,

$$I_n=\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left[G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_2)\right]^2|\psi _n(l,k_3,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})|^2}{\left|l_{i=1}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}𝑑l𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_{n+2}.$$
(A.4)
If we set $`𝒬=\left|l_{i=3}^{n+2}k_i\right|^2+\left|k_1+k_2\right|^2+_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|`$ and $`b=2\left[l_{i=3}^{n+2}k_i\right]\left[k_1+k_2\right]`$ and use the expansion

$$\frac{1}{𝒬b}=\frac{1}{𝒬}+\frac{1}{𝒬}b\frac{1}{𝒬}+\frac{1}{𝒬}b\frac{1}{𝒬b}b\frac{1}{𝒬}$$
(A.5)
then we again see that the second term vanishes when integrating over $`k_1,k_2`$. Therefore, with $`𝒬\left|k_1+k_2\right|^2+|k_1|+|k_2|`$ we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{c}I_n\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}[\mathrm{\Psi }^2\frac{\left[G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_2)\right]^2}{|k_1+k_2|^2+|k_1|+|k_2|}dk_1dk_2\hfill \\ \hfill +4\frac{\left[G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_2)\right]^2\left[|k_1|+|k_2|\right]^2}{\left[|k_1+k_2|^2+|k_1|+|k_2|\right]^2(|k_1|+|k_2|)}\times \\ \hfill \times |l\underset{i=3}{\overset{n+2}{}}k_i|^2|\psi _n(l,k_3,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})|^2dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}]\\ \hfill 0|DD[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}|0\psi _n^2+\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }p\psi _n^2.\end{array}$$
(A.6)
For convenience we define the operator $`|D|(x)`$, which can be regarded as the norm of $`D(x)`$,

$$|D|(x)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}|G^\lambda (k)|e^{ikx}a_\lambda (k)𝑑k$$
(A.7)
$`|D|^{}`$ denotes the operator adjoint. Similarly, we can define $`|E|(x)`$. Obviously, \[GLL, Lemma A. 4\] still holds for the “norm” of $`D`$ and $`E`$, namely

$$|D|^{}|D|\frac{2}{\pi }H_f,|E|^{}|E|\frac{2}{3\pi }H_f,$$
(A.8)
that can be proved analogously to (3.51). For the second term, with $`p^2+H_fH_f`$, we evaluate

$$\begin{array}{c}II_nn\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left|G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_2)\right|\left|G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_{n+2})\right|}{_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times |\psi _n(l,k_3,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})||\psi _n(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})|dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill \frac{|G(k_1)|^2}{|k_1|}𝑑k_1(|\psi _n|,|D|^{}|D||\psi _n|)\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\psi _n,H_f\psi _n).\end{array}$$
(A.9)
Finally, the term where on one side the indices of the created photons differ completely from the indices on the other side,

$$\begin{array}{c}III_nn^2\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left|G^\lambda (k_1)G^\nu (k_2)\right|\left|G^\lambda (k_{n+1})G^\nu (k_{n+2})\right|}{_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times |\psi _n(l,k_3,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})||\psi (l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)|dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill (|\psi _n|,|D|^{}H_f^{1/2}|D|^{}|D|H_f^{1/2}|D||\psi _n|)\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }(\psi _n,H_f\psi _n),\end{array}$$
(A.10)
where we used

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}|k_i|\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}|k_i|\right|^{1/2}\left|\underset{i=2}{\overset{n+2}{}}|k_i|\right|^{1/2},$$
(A.11)
the fact that we can write

$$\left[H_f\right]^{1/2}\psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}|k_i|\right]^{1/2}\psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n),$$
(A.12)
and the first equation of (A.8). ∎

###### LEMMA 2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and fix an arbitrary photon number $`n`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha ^{3/2}(\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\left[\alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)\psi _n^2+\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})\right].\end{array}$$
(A.13)
###### Proof.

Obviously,

$$(\sigma E^{}\psi _{n+1},[p^2+H_f]^1D^{}D^{}\psi _n)=I_n+II_n,$$
(A.14)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}I_n(n+1)\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left|H^\lambda (k_1)\right|\left|G^\lambda (k_1)\right|\left|G^\nu (k_2)\right|}{|k_1|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times |\psi _n(l,k_3,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})||\psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})|dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\psi _n^{1/2}|G(k_2)|\sqrt{|k_2|\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(k_2)}𝑑k_2\\ \hfill \mathrm{const}.\left(\alpha ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\psi _n^2+\alpha ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})\right)\end{array}$$
(A.15)
For the second term of (A.14) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}II_n(n+1)^{3/2}\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left|H^\lambda (k_1)\right|\left|G^\lambda (k_{n+1})\right|\left|G^\nu (k_{n+2})\right|}{_{i=1}^{n+2}|k_i|}\times \hfill \\ \hfill \times |\psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)||\psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})|dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill (n+1)^{3/2}\underset{\lambda ,\nu =1,2}{}\frac{\left|H^\lambda (k_1)\right||\psi _n(l,k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)|}{\left|_{i=1}^n|k_i|\right|^{1/2}}\times \\ \hfill \times \frac{\left|G^\lambda (k_{n+1})\right|\left|G^\nu (k_{n+2})\right||\psi _{n+1}(l,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+2})|}{\left|_{i=2}^{n+1}|k_i|\right|^{1/2}}dldk_1\mathrm{}dk_{n+2}\\ \hfill |E|H_f^{1/2}|\psi _n||D|H_f^{1/2}|D||\psi _{n+1}|,\end{array}$$
(A.16)
which implies the statement of the lemma by use of (A.8).

Acknowledgment: The author has been supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Community programme “Improving Human Research Potential and the Socio-economic Knowledge Base” under contract number HPMFCT-2000-00660. Furthermore, he thanks his friend Robert Seiringer for many valuable discussions and Semjon A. Vugalter for initiating the study of this problem.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Computer with Fixed Interaction is Universal

## 1 Introduction and background

A model of quantum computer with fixed and permanent interaction between qubits was proposed in the paper  where it was shown how to implement QFT and simulation of wave functions dynamics by such computer. In this paper we prove that such a model is universal that is every quantum algorithm can be implemented in the framework of this model with only linear slowdown for long-distance interaction and with the slowdown as multiplication by a size of memory for short distance interaction. Here we have to suppress undesirable interactions like it is done in the work . But now we shall use the method of random strings consisting of NOT operations proposed in  which uses a diagonal form of interactions. Surprisingly, that our method of suppressing undesirable interactions does not depend on individual features of qubits.

A traditional way for implementation of quantum algorithms requires a control on two qubits level that is an ability to ”switch on” and to ”switch off” interaction between qubits. Whereas is widely known that two qubits transformations is a stumbling block in quantum computing in view of technological difficulties. The most natural way is to use a fixed and permanent interaction between qubits and control a process of computation by only one-qubit transformations. This way gives a universal quantum computer if our fixed interaction has a diagonal type. Note that it is no matter how a fixed interaction decreases depending on the distance between qubits, for example it may be nonzero only for the neighboring qubits, etc.

A permanent interaction between qubits in our computer depends only on their spatial disposition which is fixed. The only condition we impose to the interaction is that it must be diagonal. Thus if $`j`$ and $`k`$ denote identification numbers of two qubits then the Hamiltonian of their interaction will have the form

$$\mathrm{A})H_{j,k}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& E_1^{j,k}& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& E_2^{j,k}& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& E_3^{j,k}& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& E_4^{j,k}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{B})H_{j,k}=(\begin{array}{ccccc}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& E_{j,k}\end{array}),E_{j,k}>0.$$
(1)
At first note that any interaction of the general form (1, A) may be reduced to the form (1, B) by adding appropriate one-qubit Hamiltonians $`H_{j,k}^{}`$ which matrices have the forms

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& a& 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& a& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& b& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& b\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& \alpha & 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& \beta & 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& \alpha & 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& \beta \end{array}\right).$$

This addition reduces Hamiltonian of the form (1, A) to (1, B) and it can be alternatively fulfilled by one-qubit quick transformations because all these diagonal matrices commute.

Note that the different pairs of qubits may interact variously, they may be disposed with the different intervals and be not placed along one line, etc.

## 2 Suppression of undesirable interactions by one qubit operations

To prove a universality of computational model we must show how one can fulfil an arbitrary two qubits operation. Given a unitary transform induced by Hamiltonian (1, B) in time frame 1: $`U_{j,k}=\mathrm{exp}(iH_{j,k})`$ (Plank constant equals 1). In fact it would suffice to fulfil this transform on two qubits: $`j`$th and $`k`$th preserving all others untouched. Just this last condition is difficult to guarantee for permanent interaction. If we can do it when at first we can fulfil an arbitrary two qubits operation with every separated pair of qubits. Then for a long distance interaction we shall have at most a linear slowdown, for a short distance interaction we shall need to perform SWAP operations to bring a required pair of qubits together and thus obtain time factor equal to a size of memory.

Now show how to implement $`U_{j,k}`$. If we simply wait for a time 1, when we obtain a transformation $`U_{j,k}U^{}\mathrm{}U^{\prime \prime }`$ where all $`U^{}`$ have the form $`U_{j^{},k^{}}`$ where $`\{j^{},k^{}\}\{j,k\}`$. We should get rid of these interactions. Declare $`j`$th and $`k`$th qubits separated.

We shall apply one qubit gate NOT several times to all qubits but separated ones to suppress all two qubits interactions excluding interaction between separated qubits. For each not separated qubit number $`p`$ consider the Poisson random process $`𝒜_p`$ generating time instants $`0<t_1^p<t_2^p<\mathrm{}<t_{m_p}^p<1`$ with some fixed density $`\lambda 1`$. Let all $`𝒜_p`$ are independent. Now fulfil transformations NOT on each $`p`$th qubit in instants $`t_m^p`$ sequentially. In instant 1 fulfil NOT on $`p`$th qubit if and only if $`m_p`$ is odd. Then after this procedure each $`q`$th qubit restores its initial value $`a_q`$. Count the phase shift generated by this procedure. Interaction between separated qubits remains unchanged. Fix some not separated qubit number $`p`$ and count its deposit to phase. It consists of two summands: the first comes from interaction with separated and the second - from interaction with not separated qubits. Count them sequentially.

1. In view of big density $`\lambda `$ of Poisson process $`𝒜_p`$ about half of time our $`p`$th qubit will be in state $`a_p`$ and the rest half - in $`1a_p`$. Its interaction with a separated qubit, say $`j`$th brings the deposit $`\frac{1}{2}E_{p,j}a_p^{}a_j^{}+\frac{1}{2}E_{p,j}(1a_p^{})a_j^{}`$ that is $`\frac{1}{2}E_{p,j}a_j^{}`$.

2. Consider a different not separated qubit number $`qp`$. In view of independence of time instants when NOTs are fulfiled on $`p`$th and $`q`$th qubits and big density $`\lambda `$ these qubits will be in each of states ($`a_p,a_q`$), ($`a_p,1a_q`$), ($`1a_p,a_q`$), ($`1a_p,1a_q`$) approximately a quarter of time. The resulting deposit will be $`\frac{1}{4}E_{p,q}[a_pa_q+a_p(1a_q)+(1a_p)a_q+(1a_p)(1a_q)]`$ $`=\frac{1}{4}E_{p,q}`$.

A total phase shift issued from the presence of not separated qubits in our procedure now is obtained by summing values from items 1 and 2 for all $`p\{j,k\}`$. It is

$$\frac{1}{2}[\underset{p\{j,k\}}{}E_{p,j}a_j+\underset{p\{j,k\}}{}E_{p,k}a_k]+\frac{1}{4}\underset{p,q\{j,k\}}{}E_{p,q}.$$

This shift can be compensated by one-qubit operations because the first two summands depend linearly on the qubits values and the second does not depend on qubits values at all. Thus we obtain a gate with permanent two qubits interaction and one-qubit operations fulfiling phase shift to $`d_{j,k}a_ja_k`$ that is required. If we take time frame $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ instead of unit time in this procedure we obtain the phase shift to $`\mathrm{\Delta }tE_{j,k}a_ja_k`$.

Thus we can implement $`U_{j,k}`$ for every separated pair of qubits.

## 3 Implementation of CNOT by fixed interaction

Now show in details how to implement CNOT gate with a given pair of qubits. Let $`j,k`$ be fixed and omit these indexes. Denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_1E_2E_3+E_4`$. If $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\pi }Q`$ ($`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\pi }`$ is not rational number), then (as some physical parameters of our system, infulencing phases, for example, cycle period can be slighltly varied to avoid rationality of this parameter, the opposite case (rationality) can be ignored without lack of generality) we can effectively implement common two-qubit gate controlled-NOT (CNOT)

$$CNOT=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

over our pair of neighbour qubits by using sequence of gates only from given set of arbitrary one-qubit rotations and fixed diagonal two-qubit gate $`E`$

$$E=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{exp}\left(iE_1\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(iE_2\right)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(iE_3\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(iE_4\right)\end{array}\right)$$

by the following way.

I. Denote gate implementing by sequential implementation of first qubit phase rotation A

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(E_1E_3\right)\right)\end{array}\right),$$

second qubit phase rotation B

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(iE_1\right)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(iE_2\right)\end{array}\right),$$

and gate $`E`$ as $`U`$

$$U=E(AB)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }E\right)\end{array}\right).$$

II. By using irrationality of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\pi }`$ it can be shown that

$$\epsilon >0mNnN:|\mathrm{\Delta }En\pi (2m+1)|<\epsilon ,$$

i.e. for any desired accuracy $`\epsilon `$ there exists $`n=n(\epsilon )`$ so that $`U^n`$ will approach $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ gate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

with given accuracy.

III. By using relation

$$(IH)\mathrm{\Pi }(IH)=CNOT,$$

where $`I`$ is identity matrix

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

and $`H`$ is Hadamard gate

$$H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$

or, in matrix form,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

we see that controlled-NOT is finally obtained by the sequence

$$(IH)\left(E(AB)\right)^n(IH)$$

of one-qubit rotations and gate E.

## 4 Conclusion

It is established that a quantum computer controlled by quick one-qubit transformations and with fixed permanent interaction of diagonal form between qubits is universal. It means that this type of quantum computer can implement all possible quantum algorithms by switching on and off only one-qubit gates.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kamil Valiev for a stimulating discussion.


text:
# Theorem 2.1

ON A CLASS OF SYMPLECTIC SIMILARITY TRANSFORMATION MATRICES This work is supported by the Ministry of Sciences of the Republic of Macedonia within the contract “Differential geometrical and topological problems and their applications”, under the Grant 08-2076/4, and JP Streževo, Bitola

Jovan Stefanovski

JP Streževo, bul. 1 Maj b.b., 7000 Bitola, Macedonia

and

Kostadin Trenčevski

Institute of Mathematics, P.O.Box 162, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia

Abstract. We present a class of symplectic matrices which transform by similarity given $`2n\times 2n`$ -dimensional matrix into Bunse-Gerstner form. If the given matrix is skew-Hamiltonian, the transformation gives a solution of an antisymmetric Riccati matrix equation, resulting from optimal control of linear systems.

AMS(MOS) subject classification. 15A24, 15A18, 35G05

1. Introduction.  The paper is concerned with the class of $`2n\times 2n`$ dimensional matrices:

$$S=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& S_{12}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}\end{array}\right]$$
$`(1.1)`$
where $`S_{ij}`$ $`(i,j\{1,2\})`$ are arbitrary real $`n\times n`$ matrices. Let the matrix $`J`$ be defined by:

$$J=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right].$$

A matrix $`S`$ is Hamiltonian if $`J^\mathrm{T}SJ=S^\mathrm{T}`$. The Hamiltonian matrices come out from optimal control of linear systems ,,,,-,. A matrix $`S`$ is skew-Hamiltonian if $`J^\mathrm{T}SJ=S^\mathrm{T}`$. For example, if $`S`$ is a Hamiltonian matrix, then the matrix $`S^2`$ is skew-Hamiltonian.

We represent some further definitions and basic results. A matrix $`U`$ is symplectic if $`U^\mathrm{T}JU=J`$. The symplectic similar transformations keep the Hamiltonian structure of matrices, i.e. if $`S`$ is a Hamiltonian matrix and $`U`$ is a symplectic matrix, then $`U^1SU`$ is also a Hamiltonian matrix. Analogously, it is easy to verify that the symplectic similar transformations also keep the structure of the skew-Hamiltonian matrices. The Hamiltonian matrices form Lie algebra and the symplectic matrices form the corresponding Lie group.

Bunse-Gerstner proved  that by application of an orthogonal symplectic transformation one can reduce an arbitrary real matrix $`S`$ (1.1) in a form

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{}& S_{12}^{}\\ S_{21}^{}& S_{22}^{}\end{array}\right]$$
$`(1.2)`$
such that its (2,1) block $`S_{21}^{}`$ is upper-triangular and (1,1) block $`S_{11}^{}`$ is upper-Hessenberg. For the transformation matrix a composition of finite number of Givens-like  and Hauseholder-like  symplectic orthogonal transformations is used.

Van Loan proved  that if $`S`$ is a skew-Hamiltonian (squared Hamiltonian) matrix, then $`S`$ is a symplectic-orthogonal similar to a matrix of the form:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{}& S_{12}^{}\\ \\ 0& S_{11}^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]$$
$`(1.3)`$
where $`S_{11}^{}`$ is a Hessenberg matrix and $`S_{12}^{}`$ is a skew-symmetric matrix. For the transformation matrix the same composition of finite number of Givens-like and Hauseholder-like symplectic orthogonal transformations is used. Besides Van-Loan’s method ,,, for this purpose, the methods from  or  may be applied.

In  are applied Arnoldi-like matrices for similarity transformation of $`2n\times 2n`$ -dimensional matrix $`S`$ into a form (1.2), such that the submatrix $`S_{21}^{}=0`$, under the condition that a minimal annulator of the first column of the transformation matrix, with respect to $`S`$, is of degree $`n`$. Although for general matrices $`S`$ the last condition is connected with solving a nonlinear eigenvalue-eigenvector problem, for the skew-Hamiltonian matrices $`S`$ these transformations result in $`S_{21}^{}=0`$ also, as do in Van Loan’s work , because the minimal annulator of skew-Hamiltonian matrices is of degree $`n`$.

In this paper we present a new class of symplectic matrices which transform $`2n\times 2n`$ -dimensional matrices into Bunse-Gerstner form (1.2), instead of the Givens-like, Hausholder -like or Arnoldi-like symplectic transformation matrices. We use the matrices of the form:

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q& 0\\ YQ& Q\end{array}\right],$$
$`(1.4)`$
where $`Q`$ is an orthogonal matrix and $`Y`$ is a symmetric matrix. This form arises naturally in solving of the antisymmetric Riccati matrix equation (ARME) :

$$YS_{12}Y+S_{22}YYS_{11}+S_{21}=0$$

where $`S`$ is a skew-Hamiltonian matrix and $`Y`$ is an unknown symmetric matrix, because the matrix $`Y`$ in (1.4) is already a solution of ARME, in case the matrix (1.4) brings $`S`$ in block-triangular form. To compare our result with , if a solution of ARME is required after the Van Loan’s transformation  is performed, one has to compute the matrix $`U_{21}U_{11}^1`$, where $`U_{11}`$ and $`U_{21}`$ are blocks of the transformation matrix. If the matrix $`U_{11}`$ is singular, it can not be done.

Other references are mentioned in the text.

2. Main results. Let be given the following $`2n\times 2n`$ block matrix

$$S=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& S_{12}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}\end{array}\right],$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`S_{ij}`$ $`(i,j\{1,2\})`$ are arbitrary $`n\times n`$ matrices. In this section we present a finite algorithm for similar transformation by a matrix $`U`$ of the matrix $`S`$, i.e.

$$U^1SU=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{}& S_{12}^{}\\ S_{21}^{}& S_{22}^{}\end{array}\right]=S^{},$$

where $`S_{11}^{}`$ is an upper Hessenberg matrix and $`S_{21}^{}`$ is an upper triangular matrix.

Let us consider the following set of regular $`2n\times 2n`$ matrices:

$$G=\{U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L& 0\\ YL& L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]:Y^\mathrm{T}=Y\}.$$

It is easy to verify that the set $`G`$ with the matrix multiplication is a group, a subgroup of the group of the symplectic matrices.

Applying the similar transformation $`U^1SU`$, we obtain

$$U^1SU=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L^1& 0\\ L^\mathrm{T}Y& L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& S_{12}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}L& 0\\ YL& L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]$$

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L^1(S_{11}+S_{12}Y)L& L^1S_{12}L^\mathrm{T}\\ L^\mathrm{T}(S_{21}+S_{22}YYS_{11}YS_{12}Y)L& L^\mathrm{T}(S_{22}YS_{12})L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]$$

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{}& S_{12}^{}\\ S_{21}^{}& S_{22}^{}\end{array}\right]=S^{}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
The matrix $`S`$ will be transformed $`n1`$ times with respect to the matrices

$$U_i=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_i& 0\\ Y_iL_i& L_i^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right],Y_i^\mathrm{T}=Y_i,(1in1).$$
$`(2.3)`$
By the first transformation, the first column of the new matrix $`S_{21}`$ will become upper triangular and the first column of the new matrix $`S_{11}`$ will become Hessenberg. Continuing this process, by the $`i`$-th transformation, the $`i`$-th column of the new matrix $`S_{21}`$ will become upper triangular such that the previous $`i1`$ columns of that matrix will remain upper triangular, and the $`i`$-th column of the new matrix $`S_{11}`$ will become Hessenberg, such that previous $`i1`$ columns of that matrix will remain Hessenberg.

From

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1& 0\\ Y_1L_1& L_1^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_2& 0\\ Y_2L_2& L_2^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]\mathrm{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_{n1}& 0\\ Y_{n1}L_{n1}& L_{n1}^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L& 0\\ YL& L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right],$$
$`(2.4)`$
we obtain

$$L=L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_{n1},$$

$$Y=Y_1+L_1^\mathrm{T}Y_2L_1^1+L_1^\mathrm{T}L_2^\mathrm{T}Y_3L_2^1L_1^1+\mathrm{}+L_1^\mathrm{T}L_2^\mathrm{T}\mathrm{}L_{n2}^\mathrm{T}Y_{n1}L_{n2}^1\mathrm{}L_2^1L_1^1$$

and hence $`Y`$ is a symmetric matrix. Further we will show explicitly the structures of $`L_i`$ and $`Y_i`$ which are needed for defining the $`i`$-th step of the algorithm. For the sake of simplicity, the indices of the matrices $`Y_i`$ will be omitted.

Let us put

$$Y=\alpha vv^\mathrm{T}=\alpha \left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \overline{v}\overline{v}^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right],v=\left[\begin{array}{c}v_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ v_n\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ \overline{v}\end{array}\right],\overline{v}=\left[\begin{array}{c}v_{i+1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ v_n\end{array}\right],$$
$`(2.5)`$
$$L^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I_i& 0\\ 0& \overline{L}\end{array}\right],\overline{L}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ w_{i+2}& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ w_{i+3}& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ w_n& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right],w=\left[\begin{array}{c}w_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_{i+1}\\ w_{i+2}\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_n\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ w_{i+2}\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_n\end{array}\right],$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a scalar, $`v`$ and $`w`$ are vector-columns. If the $`i`$-th column of $`S_{21}`$ is already upper triangular, we put $`Y=0`$. The matrix $`Y`$ is symmetric.

Let us denote

$$S_{11}=[r_1,\mathrm{},r_n]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}r_{11}& \mathrm{}& r_{1n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ r_{n1}& \mathrm{}& r_{nn}\end{array}\right],S_{21}=[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}t_{11}& \mathrm{}& t_{1n}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ t_{n1}& \mathrm{}& t_{nn}\end{array}\right].$$

The $`i`$-th column of the matrix $`S_{21}^{}`$ is upper triangular, if and only if

$$t_i\alpha vv^\mathrm{T}r_i=\left[\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right],$$

i.e. the last $`ni`$ elements of this vector should be equal to zero. If

$$\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{n}{}}t_{ji}r_{ji}0,$$
$`(2.6)`$
the solution of this system of $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$ yields to

$$v_j=t_{ji},(i+1jn)\text{ and }\alpha =\frac{1}{v^\mathrm{T}r_i}=\frac{1}{_{j=i+1}^nt_{ji}r_{ji}}.$$

The vector $`w`$ which takes part in the construction of the matrix $`L^{}`$, will be determined from the condition that the $`i`$-th column of the matrix $`L^1S_{11}L`$ be Hessenberg. It will be done as follows. If that column is already Hessenberg, we put $`L=I`$. If it is not Hessenberg, then among the elements $`r_{i+1,i},r_{i+2,i},\mathrm{},r_{ni}`$ we choose that one of maximal module. Let $`r_{ki}`$ be such an element. For such $`k`$ we do a similar transformation of the matrix $`S_{11}`$ which consists of interchanging the $`k`$-th with the $`(i+1)`$-th row and also the $`k`$-th with the $`(i+1)`$-th column of $`S_{11}.`$ Thus the maximal module element will come on position $`(i+1,i)`$. For the sake of simplicity, the obtained matrix will also be denoted by $`S_{11}`$, and the matrix $`L^{}`$ which will be obtained further should be multiplied from left with the permutation matrix in order to obtain the matrix $`L`$. The permutation matrix on $`S`$ belongs to the group $`G`$.

The $`i`$-th column of $`L^1S_{11}L`$ and hence of $`S_{11}^{}`$ is Hessenberg if and only if:

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ w_{i+2}& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ w_{i+3}& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ w_n& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}r_{i+1,i}\\ r_{i+2,i}\\ s\\ r_{ni}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$

Hence the solution for the vector $`w`$ is given by

$$w_{i+2}=\frac{r_{i+2,i}}{r_{i+1,i}},\mathrm{},w_n=\frac{r_{ni}}{r_{i+1,i}}.$$

We should prove that the first $`i1`$ columns of the new obtained matrix $`S_{21}`$ remain upper triangular after the $`i`$-th transformation, assuming that the first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`S_{21}`$ are upper triangular. Indeed,

$$S_{21}^{}=L^\mathrm{T}S_{21}L+\alpha L^\mathrm{T}S_{22}vv^\mathrm{T}L\alpha L^\mathrm{T}vv^\mathrm{T}LL^1S_{11}L\alpha ^2v^\mathrm{T}S_{12}vL^\mathrm{T}vv^\mathrm{T}L.$$

Since the first $`i`$ elements of the vector row $`v^\mathrm{T}L`$ are equal to zero, the first $`i`$ columns of the second and the fourth matrices in the previous sum, are zeros. The first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`L^1S_{11}L`$ are Hessenberg according to the inductive assumption, and the $`i`$-th column has been done Hessenberg using the vector $`w`$. Thus the first $`i1`$ elements of the following vector-row

$$v^\mathrm{T}LL^1S_{11}L$$

are zeros. Consequently, the first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`S_{21}^{}`$ will be upper triangular. The $`i`$-th column of that matrix is already upper triangular, using $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$.

We should prove that the first $`i`$ columns of the matrix $`S_{11}^{}`$ are Hessenberg. It follows from the following representation

$$S_{11}^{}=L^1S_{11}L+\alpha L^1S_{12}vv^\mathrm{T}L$$

and from the fact that the first $`i`$ columns of the matrix $`L^1S_{11}L`$ are Hessenberg.

According to the following forms of the matrices $`L_i`$ and $`Y_i`$

$$L_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right],L_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& & \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& & s& \end{array}\right],\mathrm{}$$

$$Y_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& & & \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right],Y_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& & \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& & \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right],\mathrm{}$$

it follows that the first row and the first column of the matrix $`Y`$ are zero.

We have proved the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2.1

Let be given a matrix $`S`$ by (2.1). Applying the similar transformations on $`S`$ by the matrices $`U_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ (2.3), under the conditions (2.6), we get the global transformation matrix $`U`$ (2.4) with matrix $`Y`$ in which the first row and column are equal to zero, and the transformed matrix $`S^{}`$ be such that $`S_{11}^{}`$ is an upper Hessenberg matrix and $`S_{21}^{}`$ is an triangular matrix.

Remark. One feature of the presented algorithm is that it contains only linear algebraic operations: adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Thus the theorem is true also if the elements of the matrix $`S`$ are elements of larger set. For example it can be the field of complex numbers or the ring of the analytical functions of more variables.

However, if the elements of the matrix $`S`$ are real numbers, from numerical viewpoint it is more convenient if the matrix $`L`$ is orthogonal. Therefore, we define the following algorithm.

For arbitrary given matrix $`S`$, we shall construct the matrix:

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q& 0\\ YQ& Q\end{array}\right],Q^\mathrm{T}Q=I,Y^\mathrm{T}=Y$$
$`(2.7)`$
such that

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q^\mathrm{T}& 0\\ Q^\mathrm{T}Y& Q^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}& S_{12}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q& 0\\ YQ& Q\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}S_{11}^{}& S_{12}^{}\\ S_{21}^{}& S_{22}^{}\end{array}\right],$$

where $`S_{11}^{}`$ is an upper Hessenberg matrix and $`S_{21}^{}`$ is an upper triangular matrix, and the first row and column of $`Y`$ are zeros.

It verifies that the set of the matrices $`U`$ with respect to the matrix multiplication is a group. We apply $`n1`$ such similar transformations to $`S`$ determined by

$$U_i=\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q_i& 0\\ Y_iQ_i& Q_i\end{array}\right],Q_i^\mathrm{T}Q_i=I,Y_i^\mathrm{T}=Y_i,(1in1).$$
$`(2.8)`$
By the first transformation, the first column of the obtained matrix $`S_{21}`$ will become upper triangular, and the first column of the obtained matrix $`S_{11}`$ will become Hessenberg. Generally, applying the $`i`$-th transformation, the $`i`$-th column of the obtained matrix $`S_{21}`$ will become upper triangular such that the first $`i1`$ columns will remain upper triangular and the $`i`$-th column of the obtained matrix $`S_{11}`$ will become Hessenberg such that the first $`i1`$ columns of that matrix will remain Hessenberg.

The structures of the matrices $`Y_i`$ are the same as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, and the matrices $`Q_i`$ without indices, for simplicity, are given by

$$Q=I_n2ww^\mathrm{T}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I_i& 0\\ 0& I2\overline{w}\overline{w}^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right],w=\left[\begin{array}{c}w_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_i\\ w_{i+1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_n\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ w_{i+1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_n\end{array}\right],\overline{w}=\left[\begin{array}{c}w_{i+1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ w_n\end{array}\right],$$

$$w^\mathrm{T}w=\overline{w}^\mathrm{T}\overline{w}=1,$$
$`(2.9)`$
where $`w`$ is a vector-column whose first $`i`$ elements are zeros. The matrix $`Q`$ is Householder’s  and orthogonal.

The vector $`w`$ which takes part in the construction of the orthogonal matrix $`Q`$, will be determined such that the $`i`$-th column of the matrix $`Q^\mathrm{T}S_{11}Q`$ to be Hessenberg, i.e.

$$(I2\overline{w}\overline{w}^\mathrm{T})\left[\begin{array}{c}r_{i+1,i}\\ r_{i+2,i}\\ \mathrm{}\\ r_{ni}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$
$`(2.10)`$
The system (2.10) together with the orthogonality condition (2.9) has the following solution for $`w`$:

$$w_{i+1}=\beta (r_{i+1,i}+s)$$

$$w_{i+2}=\beta r_{i+2,i}$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$w_n=\beta r_{ni}$$

where

$$\beta =[2(s^2+r_{i+1,i}s)]^{1/2},s=[r_{i+1,i}^2+r_{i+2,i}^2+s+r_{ni}^2]^{1/2}.$$

We should prove that the first $`i1`$ columns of the new obtained matrix $`S_{21}`$ remain upper triangular after the $`i`$-th transformation, assuming that the first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`S_{21}`$ are upper triangular. We have

$$S_{21}^{}=Q^\mathrm{T}S_{21}Q+\alpha Q^\mathrm{T}S_{22}vv^\mathrm{T}Q\alpha Q^\mathrm{T}vv^\mathrm{T}QQ^\mathrm{T}S_{11}Q\alpha ^2v^\mathrm{T}S_{12}vQ^\mathrm{T}vv^\mathrm{T}Q.$$

Since the first $`i`$ elements of the vector-row $`v^\mathrm{T}Q`$ are zeros, it follows that the first $`i`$ columns of the second and the fourth matrices in the previous sum are zeros. The first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`Q^\mathrm{T}S_{11}Q`$ are Hessenberg according to the inductive assumption, and the $`i`$-th column was made Hessenberg using the vector $`\overline{w}`$. Thus the first $`i1`$ elements of the following vector-row

$$v^\mathrm{T}QQ^\mathrm{T}S_{11}Q$$

are zeros. Consequently, the first $`i1`$ columns of the matrix $`S_{21}^{}`$ will be also upper triangular. The $`i`$-th column of that matrix was done upper triangular using $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$.

The first row and column of the matrix $`Y`$ are zero, from the same reasons as in the proof of Theorem 2.1.

We have proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.2

Let be given a matrix $`S`$ with (2.1). Applying the similar transformations on $`S`$ by the matrices $`U_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ (2.8), under the conditions of finiteness of $`\beta `$ in each step, we get the global transformation matrix $`U`$ (2.7) with matrix $`Y`$ in which the first row and column are equal to zero, and the transformed matrix $`S^{}`$ be such that $`S_{11}^{}`$ is upper Hessenberg matrix and $`S_{21}^{}`$ is upper triangular matrix.

As a consequence from these results follow two corollaries for the Hamiltonian and skew-Hamiltonian matrices.

###### Corollary 2.3

Let the matrix $`S`$ be a Hamiltonian matrix. Applying $`n1`$ similar transformations (2.3) of the matrix $`S`$ under the conditions (2.6), we get a matrix $`S^{}`$, such that the left lower block of dimension $`n\times n`$ is a diagonal matrix and the upper left block of dimension $`n\times n`$ is of Hessenberg form.

Proof. It follows from (2.2) that the similar matrix $`S^{}=U^1SU`$ also has the Hamiltonian form, if $`U`$ is any matrix of the form given in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2. The rest of the proof is obvious.

The second corollary is about the ARME.

###### Corollary 2.4

Let $`S`$ be a skew-Hamiltonian matrix. Applying $`n1`$ similar transformations (2.3), under the condition (2.6), the matrix $`S`$ can be reduced in a form such that lower left block of dimension $`n\times n`$ is zero, the upper left block of dimension $`n\times n`$ has a Hessenberg form. If the final similar transformation is given by the matrix $`U`$, i.e.

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}L& 0\\ YL& L^\mathrm{T}\end{array}\right]\mathrm{or}U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}Q& 0\\ YQ& Q\end{array}\right],$$

then the matrix $`Y`$ is a symmetric solution of the ARME

$$YS_{12}Y+S_{22}YYS_{11}+S_{21}=0,$$

such that its first row and column are zeros.

Proof. Using the similar transformation $`S^{}=U^1SU`$, where $`U`$ is any of the matrices given in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, it is obtained skew-Hamiltonian matrix $`S^{}`$. The rest of the proof is obvious.

Remark. Breaking down the algorithm happens when there is no solution of ARME or there is no solution of ARME with first row and column equal to zero.

Remark. If the algorithm breaks down or if it is requested a solution of ARME which is non-singular matrix, or the matrix with given first row and column, we could introduce a new unknown symmetric matrix $`X`$ by $`Y=M+N^\mathrm{T}XN^1`$, where $`M`$ is a given symmetric matrix and $`N`$ is a given non-singular matrix. The new equation of $`X`$ is also of the ARME type:

$$XS_{12}^{}XXS_{11}^{}+S_{22}^{}X+S_{21}^{}=0,$$

where

$$S_{11}^{}=N^1(S_{11}+S_{12}M)N=S_{22}^\mathrm{T},$$

$$S_{12}^{}=N^1S_{12}N^\mathrm{T}=S_{12}^\mathrm{T},$$

$$S_{21}^{}=N^\mathrm{T}(S_{21}+S_{22}MMS_{11}MS_{12}M)N=S_{21}^\mathrm{T},$$

$$S_{22}^{}=N^\mathrm{T}(S_{22}MS_{12})N^\mathrm{T}=S_{11}^\mathrm{T}$$

(compare with (2.2).).

Example. In this example it is $`n=6`$ and the matrix $`S`$ is skew-Hamiltonian with randomly chosen numbers from $`(0,1)`$ and symmetrically from $`(1,0)`$. The beginning matrix $`S`$ is

$$S_{11}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.001251& 0.563585& 0.193304& 0.808740& 0.585009& 0.479873\\ 0.350291& 0.895962& 0.822840& 0.746605& 0.174108& 0.858943\\ 0.710501& 0.513535& 0.303995& 0.014985& 0.091403& 0.364452\\ 0.147313& 0.165899& 0.988525& 0.445692& 0.119083& 0.004669\\ 0.008911& 0.377880& 0.531663& 0.571184& 0.601764& 0.607166\\ 0.166234& 0.663045& 0.450789& 0.352123& 0.057039& 0.607685\end{array}\right],S_{22}=S_{11}^\mathrm{T}$$

$$S_{12}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.000000& 0.783319& 0.802606& 0.519883& 0.301950& 0.875973\\ 0.783319& 0.000000& 0.726676& 0.955901& 0.925718& 0.539354\\ 0.802606& 0.726676& 0.000000& 0.142338& 0.462081& 0.235328\\ 0.519883& 0.955901& 0.142338& 0.000000& 0.862239& 0.209601\\ 0.301950& 0.925718& 0.462081& 0.862239& 0.000000& 0.779656\\ 0.875973& 0.539354& 0.235328& 0.209601& 0.779656& 0.000000\end{array}\right]$$

$$S_{21}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.000000& 0.843654& 0.996796& 0.999695& 0.611499& 0.392438\\ 0.843654& 0.000000& 0.266213& 0.297281& 0.840144& 0.023743\\ 0.996796& 0.266213& 0.000000& 0.375866& 0.092624& 0.677206\\ 0.999695& 0.297281& 0.375866& 0.000000& 0.056215& 0.008789\\ 0.611499& 0.840144& 0.092624& 0.056215& 0.000000& 0.918790\\ 0.392438& 0.023743& 0.677206& 0.008789& 0.918790& 0.000000\end{array}\right]$$

After the similar transformation (2.2), the matrix $`S`$ becomes

$$S_{11}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.001252& 2.394542& 0.628127& 1.333712& 1.170301& 2.988671\\ 0.822757& 0.705668& 0.064203& 0.380534& 0.078576& 2.116390\\ 0.000000& 4.483943& 1.443984& 3.651134& 1.359573& 5.058558\\ 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.232568& 1.192501& 0.923134& 0.061005\\ 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 2.882063& 1.947789& 0.289124\\ 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.112915& 0.049842\end{array}\right]$$

$$S_{22}=S_{11}^\mathrm{T}$$

$$S_{12}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.000000& 1.299940& 0.502376& 0.391241& 0.293239& 0.453059\\ 1.299940& 0.000000& 1.315821& 0.067147& 0.335201& 0.359848\\ 0.502376& 1.315821& 0.000000& 0.003709& 0.814256& 1.134890\\ 0.391241& 0.067147& 0.003709& 0.000000& 0.579926& 0.053570\\ 0.293239& 0.335201& 0.814256& 0.579926& 0.000000& 0.078375\\ 0.453059& 0.359848& 1.134890& 0.053570& 0.078375& 0.000000\end{array}\right]$$

$$S_{21}=0$$

The symmetric solution of ARME with zero first row and column is

$$Y=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000& 0.000000\\ 0.000000& 2.976399& 0.633676& 1.401061& 1.558562& 0.186413\\ 0.000000& 0.633676& 1.373721& 0.563505& 0.769165& 1.002085\\ 0.000000& 1.401061& 0.563505& 0.599371& 1.051505& 0.065432\\ 0.000000& 1.558562& 0.769165& 1.051505& 1.478251& 2.829218\\ 0.000000& 0.186413& 1.002085& 0.065432& 2.829218& 2.524725\end{array}\right].$$

Conclusions. We have presented a class of symplectic matrices which we have used in transformation of matrices $`S`$ into Bunse-Gerstner form. Our numerical experiments with skew-Hamiltonian matrices $`S`$ showed that for larger $`n`$ ($`n>10`$), the elements of the matrix $`S_{21}^{}`$ are not zeros, as theoretically they have to be. Further research could be to find the reasons for that behavior and to find an improvement of the presented algorithm for annihilating the (2,1) block of skew-Hamiltonian matrices. For example, one could try with multiple application of the algorithm.

R E F E R E N C E S

 G. Ammar and V. Mehrmann, On Hamiltonian and symplectic Hessenberg forms, Lin. Alg. App., 149 (1991), 55-72.

 B.D.O. Anderson and J.B. Moore, Optimal control: linear quadratic method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (N.Y.USA), 1992.

 P. Benner, R. Byers and E. Barth, HAMEV and SQRED: Fortran 77 subroutines for computing the eigenvalues of Hamiltonian matrices using Van Loan’s square reduced method, Preprint-Reihe dos Chemnitzer SFB393, SFB 393/96-06, May 1996.

 P. Benner, V. Mehrmann and H. Xu, A numerically stable, structure preserving method for computing the eigenvalues of real Hamiltonian or symplectic pencils, Numer.Math., 78 (1998) Issue 3, 329-358.

 P. Benner, V. Mehrmann V. and H. Xu, A new method for computing the stable invariant subspace of a real Hamiltonian matrix, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 86 (1997), 17-43.

 A. Bunse-Gerstner, Matrix factorization for symplectic $`QR`$-like method, Lin.Alg.App., 83 (1986), 49-77.

 W.A. Coppel, Matrix quadratic equations, Bill. Austral. Math.Soc., 10 (1974), 377-401.

 F.R. Gantmaher, Theory of matrices, Moscow, ”Nauka”, 1988 (in Russian).

 A.J. Laub, A Schur method for solving algebraic Riccati equations, IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr., AC-24, (1979), 913-925.

 A.J. Laub, Invariant subspace methods for the numerical solution of Riccati equation, The Riccati equation, Eds. S. Bittanti, A.J. Laub and J.C. Willems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1991), 163-196.

 C. Paige and C.F. Van Loan, A Schur decomposition for Hamiltonian matrices, Lin. Alg. App., 41 (1981), 11-32.

 J.E. Potter, Matrix quadratic solutions, J.SIAM Appl.Math., 14, No.3, May 1966.

 J. Stefanovski and K. Trenčevski, Antisymmetric Riccati matrix equation, Proc. Ist Congress of the mathematicians and informaticians of Macedonia, October 3-5, 1996, Ohrid, 83-92.

 J. Stefanovski, Generating equations approach for quadratic matrix equations, Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 6 (1999), 295-326.

 C.F. Van Loan, A symplectic method for approximating all the eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian matrix, Lin. Alg. App., 16 (1984), 233-251.

 J.H. Wilkinson, The algebraic eigenvalue problem, London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

 H. Xu and L. Lu, Properties of a quadratic matrix equation and the solution of the continuous-time algebraic Riccati equation, Lin.Alg.App., 222 (1995), 127-146.