Two-parameter variational calculation for one-dimensional two-electron systems

В. В. Скобелев

With the use of the known solution of the Schrödinger equation for an electron in the nucleus field in the polar coordinates, the energy of a “two-dimensional” two-electron atom in the ground state, as well as its single ionization energy, has been calculated both in perturbation theory and with an almost century-old method of variation of the parameter Z in a trial wavefunction of the ground state. Since such two-dimensional atoms, e.g., helium atoms, can in principle be implemented in experiments by “freezing” of one degree of freedom in the phase of Bose–Einstein condensate, the conclusions made in this work can be tested. Fundamental features of the calculation of the energy of “one-dimensional” two-electron atoms and the formation of their Bose–Einstein condensate have also been discussed. The results obtained in this work coincide in a number of particular cases with the results obtained in a previous work, where some results were absent.

Ville J. Kauppila

Nicolas Vogt, Sebastian Zanker, Jan-Michael Reiner +3 more

One of the most promising applications for near term quantum computers is the simulation of physical quantum systems, particularly many-electron systems in chemistry and condensed matter physics. In solid state physics, finding the correct symmetry broken ground state of an interacting electron system is one of the central challenges. The Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz (VHA), a variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithm especially suited for finding the ground state of a solid state system, will in general not prepare a broken symmetry state unless the initial state is chosen to exhibit the correct symmetry. In this work, we discuss three variations of the VHA designed to find the correct broken symmetry states close to a transition point between different orders. As a test case we use the two-dimensional Hubbard model where we break the symmetry explicitly by means of external fields coupling to the Hamiltonian and calculate the response to these fields. For the calculation we simulate a gate-based quantum computer and also consider the effects of dephasing noise on the algorithms. We find that two of the three algorithms are in good agreement with the exact solution for the considered parameter range. The third algorithm agrees with the exact solution only for a part of the parameter regime, but is more robust with respect to dephasing compared to the other two algorithms.

D. Baeriswyl

W. Hansen, D. Schmerek, Chr. Steinebach

Nicolas Vogt, Sebastian Zanker, Jan-Michael Reiner +3 more

Abstract One of the most promising applications for near term quantum computers is the simulation of physical quantum systems, particularly many-electron systems in chemistry and condensed matter physics. In solid state physics, finding the correct symmetry broken ground state of an interacting electron system is one of the central challenges. To help finding the correct broken symmetries in the thermodynamic limit methods that allow to determine the groundstate of large but finite interacting electron systems are very useful. The variational Hamiltonian ansatz (VHA), a variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithm especially suited for finding the ground state of a solid state system, will in general not prepare a broken symmetry state unless the initial state is chosen to exhibit the correct symmetry. In this work, we discuss three variations of the VHA designed to find the symmetry-breaking groundstate of a finite system close to a transition point between different orders. As a test case we use the two-dimensional Hubbard model where we break the symmetry explicitly by means of external fields coupling to the Hamiltonian and calculate the response to these fields. For the calculation we simulate a gate-based quantum computer and also consider the effects of dephasing noise on the algorithms. We find that two of the three algorithms are in good agreement with the exact solution for the considered parameter range. The third algorithm agrees with the exact solution only for a part of the parameter regime, but is more robust with respect to dephasing compared to the other two algorithms.