Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225

www.elsevier.com/locate/pla
The controllability of the pure states for the Morse potential
with a dynamical group SU(1, 1)
Shi-Hai Dong
a,
, F. Lara-Rosano
b
, Guo-Hua Sun
c
a
Programa de Ingeniera Molecular, Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo, Lzaro Crdenas 152, 07730 Mxico, D.F., Mexico
b
Centro de Ciencias Aplicadas y Desarrollo Tecnolgico, UNAM, Apartado Postal 70-186, 04510 Mxico, D.F., Mexico
c
Instituto de Investigaciones en Matematicas Aplicadas y en Sistemas, UNAM, Apartado Postal 20-726, Del. Alvaro Obregn,
Mxico, D.F. 01000, Mexico
Received 10 February 2004; received in revised form 27 March 2004; accepted 29 March 2004
Communicated by R. Wu
Abstract
The controllability of a quantum system for the Morse potential with the discrete bound states is investigated. The transition
operators are constructed by factorization method and associated to an su(1, 1) algebra. We demonstrate that this quantum
system with the discrete bound states can be strongly completely controlled.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 03.65.Ca; 03.65.Fd
Keywords: Morse potential; SU(1, 1) group; Controllability
1. Introduction
Due to the revolution of the microelectronic proces-
sing power, the study of the quantum control theory
for the manipulation of the quantum system states has
been the subject of interest [114]. In particular, since
the pioneering work on the quantum computation by
DiVincenzo [2], the investigation for the molecular
and atomic problems with the non-degenerate eigen-
states has attracted much attention.
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dongsh2@yahoo.com (S.-H. Dong),
lararf@servidor.unam.mx (F. Lara-Rosano), sunghdb@yahoo.com
(G.-H. Sun).
Most of these works mentioned above are primar-
ily focused on investigating the controllability of the
pure states for some quantum systems. However, due
to the importance of the some general mixed states
in, for example, the control of temperature distribu-
tion in systems and the need to include dissipative ef-
fects, the controllability of the mixed states has been
studied by Schirmer et al. [15,16], in which the cri-
teria for reachability of quantum states and the con-
structive control of quantum systems using factoriza-
tion of unitary operators have been investigated. Nev-
ertheless, the present Letter is conned to study the
controllability of the pure states with the group theo-
retical method as used in our previous work [17,18].
It is well known that the key problem for quan-
tum control is the controllability of the quantum sys-
0375-9601/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2004.03.061
S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225 219
tem states. Generally speaking, for a given quantum
system the controllability refers to the possibility of
driving an initial state to any selected target state at
any chosen time under the guidance of an external eld
in the state space of the studied quantum system. It
should be addressed that some mathematical tools in-
cluding the algebraic, group theoretical and topologi-
cal methods are useful for studying the quantum con-
trol problem. This arises from the fact that the sys-
tem Hamiltonian, sometimes, is related with the Lie
algebra, which determines whether the given quantum
system is completely controllable or not [6]. The con-
trollability of the quantum system with the dynamical
group has been carried out [1,4,6,7,9]. Thus it is possi-
ble to establish the relation between the given quantum
system and the controllability through the dynamical
group.
Recently the study of the controllability of the
quantum system for the PschlTeller potential has
been carried out in terms of the SU(1, 1) group by
Tarn et al. [14] and the SU(2) group by Dong et
al. [17] with our approach. On the other hand, we
have investigated the controllability of the Morse
potential for the bound states with the SU(2) group
[18] following the same approach as that of the
PschlTeller potential [17]. For completeness, we
attempt to study the controllability of the quantum
system for the Morse potential with the SU(1, 1)
group, which is the main purpose of this Letter.
The plan of this Letter is as follows. In Section 2
the preliminary on control theory is reviewed. In
Section 3 the properties of a quantum system for the
Morse potential are briey outlined and the transition
operators are constructed by factorization method [19]
and associated to an su(1, 1) algebra. We demonstrate
the applicability of the controllability to this quantum
system for the bound states with the SU(1, 1) group in
Section 4. This Letter ends with some conclusions in
Section 5.
2. Preliminary on control theory
We shall assume that the reader is familiar with the
basic facts about the control theory and Lie algebra.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to review the most fun-
damental knowledge of them. Generally speaking, the
quantum system whose state (t) evolves from the
initial state (t = 0) =
0
can be described by the
time-dependent Schrdinger equation as
(1)
i

h
d
dt
(t) =H(t ) =
_
H
0
+
m

i=1
H
i
u
i
(t )
_
(t),
where the u
i
(t ) are control functions of the quantum
system, which can be turned on or off at will. By
adjusting these control functions, it is possible to guide
the time development of the state vector (t) so as
to attain a specied objective. Generally speaking,
the state vector could be expressed by a unitary
transformation (t) = U(t )
0
on the initial state
0
,
where U(t ) is a unitary time-evolution operator with
the form
(2) U(t ) =exp
_
iHt

h
_
=exp[

Ht],

h =1,
where we have denoted the skew-Hermitian counter-
part iH of H by

H as done by Clark et al. [20].
The

H
0
appearing in Eq. (1) describes the Hamil-
tonian of free evolution for the given quantum sys-
tem to be controlled (e.g., a molecule), while the

H
1
,

H
2
, . . . ,

H
m
can be interpreted as the effect of
the external perturbations, which are sufciently weak
in comparison with that of the

H
0
. The energy lev-
els thus are not changed signicantly by the pertur-
bations. From the point of view of quantum theory,
imposing unit norm at the initial time t = 0, we have
(t)|(t) = 1 t , which means that the system
evolves on the unit sphere S
H
in the Hilbert space
H. It should be addressed that Eq. (1) provides the
basis for a rather general control problem. For more
information, we strongly suggest the reader refer to
Refs. [1,14,20].
In order to address the existence issue systemati-
cally, it is necessary to precise the reachable sets and
controllability. As mentioned above, the main purpose
of this Letter is to study the controllability of the quan-
tum system for the Morse potential in terms of the
well-known and established theorems for the control
theory on Lie groups [1,14,20], that is to say, what we
are interested in is which type of dynamical group is
constituted in the studied quantumsystemand then de-
termine the controllability of this system is strongly
completely controllable or not.
For simplicity, we recall some most fundamental
and necessary denitions and theorem, which are
220 S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225
useful for studying the quantum system for the Morse
potential with the bound states only.
Denition. For the initial state
0
and the nal
state
f
with the properties
0
,
f
M, where M
represents a nite or innite-dimensional differential
manifold. We say that the state
f
is reachable
from the initial state
0
at time t
f
if there exists a
control U(t ) such that (t = t
f
|u,
0
) =
f
. The
corresponding states are denoted as R
t
f
(
0
). The set
of states reachable from the initial one
0
at some
positive time t are R(
0
) =

t >0
R
t
(
0
).
It should be addressed that this concept has become
one of the cornerstones of mathematical system the-
ory. It has also become a discipline widely accepted
both in classical dynamics and in quantumcontrol the-
ory. What this denition cares about is that the nal
state
f
can be obtained from the initial state
0
at
time t
f
through a control U(t ). We now review an-
other denition of the control theory, namely, the nec-
essary condition of the controllability as addressed be-
low.
Denition (see [1,14,20]). We say that the studied
control system is strongly complete controllability if
R
t
(
0
) =M holds for all times t >0 and all
0
M.
The system is completely controllable if R(
0
) = M
holds for all
0
M.
Generally speaking, the controllability for the pure
states is a weaker concept than that for the mixed
states [15,16]. Also, the concept of the complete
controllability has been dened by Schirmer et al.
[21], which need not be repeated here since our
present work is conned to the controllability of the
pure states. The reader can refer to Ref. [21] for the
detailed information. It should be shown that, from
this denitions, there exists the difference between
the strongly complete controllability and the complete
controllability since the latter has nothing with the
time t >0.
The M can form a differential manifold, nite
or innite-dimensional [22]. If the initial and target
states are restricted to a subset of manifold M and
an analytical domain D

, we can introduce modied

denition of controllability as given by Tarn et al. [1,
14,20]:
Denition. Let
0
be an analytical vector belonging
to an analytical domain D

that is dense in the

state space. Then the control system (1) is strongly
analytically controllable on M S
H
if R
t
(
0
) =M
D

holds for all t >0 and all

0
M D

.
Denition (see Refs. [1,14]). An element of H is
called an analytical vector of the operator Ain Hif the
series expansion of (exp(sA)) in the real parameter
s has a positive radius of absolute convergence,
(3)

n=0
_
_
A
n

_
_
s
n
n!
<.
Note. If the operator A is bounded, all vectors of H
are trivially analytical vectors.
Denition (see Refs. [1,14]). An element of H is
called an analytical vector for the Lie algebra L if the
series
(4)

n=0

0n
1
,n
2
,...,n
d

n
1
++n
d
=n

1i
1
<<i
d
d
_
_
H
n
1
i
1


H
n
d
i
d

_
_
s
n
n!
is absolutely convergent for some s > 0 and some
linear basis

H
(1)
, . . . ,

H
(d)
of Lie algebra L.
We now recall some preliminary results as follows.
HTC Corollary (see Refs. [1,14,20]). Let C =
{ad
j

H
0

H
l
| l = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 0, 1, . . .}
LA
be the
ideal in the Lie Algebra A = {

H
0
,

H
1
, . . . ,

H
m
}
LA
generated by

H
1
, . . . ,

H
m
. The system, with piecewise
constant controls, is strongly analytically controllable
on M provided that (i) [C, B] B and (ii) dimC() =
d < for all M D

.
The rst condition of this corollary means that X
C, Y B implies that [X, Y] B; namely, the Lie
algebra B must be an ideal in C. The second one means
that the tangent space associated with C at all points
have constant, nite dimension d for all M D

.
It should be pointed out that the analytical domain
D

is a set of state vectors with three properties [1,14,

20]:
(i) D

is dense in the Hilbert space H;

S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225 221
(ii) D

keeps invariant under the given operators

H
i
(with i =0, 1, 2, . . . , m); and
(iii) the solutions of the Schrdinger equation (1)
could be expressed in exponential form on the
domain D

, which allows us to write the unitary

time-evolution operator U(t ) with the form (2) in
the context of piecewise-constant controls.
More importantly, the existence of an analytical
domain D

is guaranteed by Nelson Theorem [23]:

Nelson Theorem. Let L be a Lie algebra of skew-
Hermitian operators in a Hilbert space H, the oper-
ator basis

H
1
, . . . ,

H
d
, d < , of L having a com-
mon invariant dense domain. If the operator T =

H
2
1
+ +

H
2
d
is essentially self-adjoint, then there
exists a unitary group on Hwith Lie algebra L. Let

T denote the unique self-adjoint extension of T , then

it furthermore follows that the analytical vectors of

T
(i) are analytical vectors for the whole Lie algebra L
and (ii) form a set invariant under and dense in H.
This theorem essentially establishes the existence
of a dense domain D

of analytical vectors that

provide a foothold for the extension of the some results
of the controllability for the nite-dimensional spaces
of the classic dynamics to the given quantum system.
For the limited space, the reader is strongly suggested
to consult the original work by Nelson or Barut et
al. for the underlying motivation and the detailed
development of the concepts of the analytical vector
and analytical domain D

.
Assuming the existence of an analytical domain
D

, Huang, Tarn, and Clark in their classical work [1]

could derive sufcient conditions for controllability of
a studied quantum system in order to characterize the
reachable sets R
t
(
0
) and R(
0
) by three Lie algebras
A={

H
0
,

H
1
, . . . ,

H
m
}
LA
,
B ={

H
1
,

H
2
, . . . ,

H
m
}
LA
,
(5) C =
_
ad
j

H
0

H
i
| i =1, . . . , m; j =0, 1, . . .
_
LA
,
where ad
j
X
Y =[X, ad
j1
X
Y], j 1 with ad
0
X
Y =Y.
These denitions and theorem, particularly the
HTC Corollary, are useful for analyzing the control-
lability of the quantum system for the Morse potential
with the dynamical group SU(1, 1) as will be shown
below.
3. The dynamical group SU(1, 1)
Because of its importance in molecular physics,
the Morse potential has attracted much attention since
1929 [2433]. Recently we have used the factorization
method [19] to obtain the ladder operators directly
from the wave functions without introducing any
auxiliary variable and then constituted a suitable Lie
algebra [26]. This approach is different from the
traditional one called the operator algebra method
[27,28], where an auxiliary non-physical variable
was introduced to make the ladder operators not
include the quantum number n. However, the merit of
our approach is easy to obtain the analytical matrix
elements for some related physical functions in terms
of those ladder operators except for constituting a
suitable algebra. In Ref. [26], it is found that the
suitable dynamical group for the bound states of
the Morse potential with the xed potential well is
an SU(2) group, which has been used to study the
controllability of the quantumsystem for this potential
with the bound states only [18]. The purpose of this
Letter is to study the controllability for this potential
with the dynamical group SU(1, 1).
We now construct the dynamical group SU(1, 1)
for this potential. Generally the Morse potential can
be expressed as [29]
(6) V
M
(x) =V
0
_
e
2x
2e
x
_
, x (, ),
where V
0
corresponds to its depth of the potential well,
is related with the range of the potential, and x gives
the relative distance from the equilibrium position of
the atoms.
The eigenvalue E of the quantum system is well
known as [29]
(7)
n
=
_
n
1
2
_
2
,
with the anharmonicity constant and the dimension-
less energy
(8) =
_
2V
0

h
2
, =
2E

h
2

2
,
where is the reduced mass of the molecule and we
discuss E < 0 only. Eq. (7) implies that depends
on the quantum number n and the (the depth of the
potential well). The quantum number n is the number
222 S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225
of anharmonic phonons n = 0, 1, . . . , [ 1/2], with
[ 1/2] being the largest integer not exceeding
1/2.
Following Refs. [27,30], we now consider the con-
struction of the SU(1, 1) group. Before further pro-
ceeding to do so, we dene a dimensionless distance
u = x. The Schrdinger equation for

n
(u) can be
expressed as
(9)
d
2
du
2

n
(u) +
_
+
2
_
2e
u
e
2u
__

n
(u) =0.
For convenience, we take
(10) y =e
u
,

n
(y) =e
u/2

n
, y [0, ).
Substitution of this into Eq. (9) leads to
(11)
d
2
dy
2

n
(y) +
_
+1/4
y
2
+
2
y
1
_

n
(y) =0,
which can be rearranged as
(12)
_
y
d
2
dy
2

+1/4
y
+y
_

n
(y) =2

n
(y).
We dene

K
1
=y,

K
2
=iy
d
dy
,
(13)

K
3
=y
d
2
dy
2

+1/4
y
,
from which we can obtain the following relations
[

K
1
,

K
2
] =i

K
1
, [

K
2
,

K
3
] =i

K
3
,
(14) [

K
1
,

K
3
] =2i

K
2
,
where we have used an important commutation rela-
tion [y, id/dy] =i.
Further dening

L
0
=
1
2
(

K
1
+

K
3
),

L
1
=
1
2
(

K
3


K
1
),
(15)

L
2
=

K
2
,
we nd that these operators satisfy the commutation
relations of the generators of the non-compact group
SU(1, 1), namely,
[

L
1
,

L
2
] = i

L
0
, [

L
2
,

L
0
] =i

L
1
,
(16) [

L
0
,

L
1
] =i

L
2
.
However, it is convenient to construct the transition
operators
1
with the form
(17)

=
1
2
(

K
3


K
1
) i

K
2
=

L
1
i

L
2
,
from which, together with

L
0
, one can obtain another
expression of the commutation relation of the non-
compact group SU(1, 1)
(18) [

L
0
,

L

] =

, [

L
+
,

L

] = 2

L
0
.
On the other hand, it is shown from Eqs. (12),
(13) and (17) that the transition operators

L

can be
obtained as
(19)

L
+
=y
d
dy
+ y,

L

=y
d
dy
+ y.
We now calculate the eigenvalues of transition
operators

L

acting on the wave functions

n
(y). It
is shown from Eqs. (12) and (15) that
(20)

L
0

n
(y) =

n
(y).
On the other hand, it is found from Eqs. (16) and
(17) that
(21)

L
0

L

=

L

L
0
1),
from which, together with Eq. (20), we have
(22)

L
0
_

n
(y)
_
=( 1)
_

n
(y)
_
.
Considering the fact that the energy is kept constant,
we must have
(23)

n
(y) =L

1
n1
(y),
where L

are the corresponding eigenvalues of the

transition operators

L

to be determined below.
As an important physical quantity, the Casimir
operator can be obtained as
(24) C
2
=

L
2
0


L
0


L
+

L

=
_
+
1
4
_
,
where we have used Eqs. (14)(17). This result coin-
cides with that of Refs. [27,30]. Moreover it is shown
from Eq. (24) that the system Hamiltonian

H
0
can be
1
We used the term transition operator under the case of the
SU(1, 1) group in comparison with the ladder operator under the
case of the SU(2) group.
S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225 223
expressed as
(25)

H
0
=
1
4


L
2
0
+

L
0
+

L
+

L

=
_
C
2
+
1
4
_
.
We now determine the eigenvalues L

of the
transition operators

L

. It is found from Eq. (24) that

=

L
2
0


L
0
C
2
(26) =
_

2
+
_
1
4

_
n
1
2
_
2
__
,
from which we have

L
+

L

n
(y) =
_

L
2
0


L
0
C
2
_

n
(y)
(27) =
_
2n n
2
n
_

n
(y).
Hence, choosing a phase factor of unity, we have

n
(y) =L

1
n1
(y)
(28) =
_
n(2 n 1)
1
n1
(y).
Likewise, we have

L
+

n
(y) =
_

L
2
0
+

L
0
C
2
_

n
(y)
(29) =
_
2n +2 n
2
n
_

n
(y),
from which we have

L
+

n
(y) =L
+

+1
n+1
(y)
(30) =
_
(n +1)(2 n)
+1
n+1
(y),
which implies that the transition operators

L

shift the
value of 1 and n n1 for a given constant
energy . This means that these transition operators
change the potential parameters V
0
, but not the energy
E.
We give some remarks here. First, it is shown from
Eq. (20) that the eigenvalues of the operators

L
0
repre-
sent the potential well depth parameters, whereas the
eigenvalue of the Casimir operator C
2
of the dynam-
ical group SU(1, 1) determines the energy . Second,
the irreducible representations of this dynamical alge-
bra correspond to the constant energy of the Morse
potential. This forms the basis of the potential group
approach to the Morse potential. This means that the
present quantum system evolves on a manifold that
gives access to the bound states with the same con-
stant energy but the different potential strengths. Fi-
nally, we should mention that the wave functions can
be obtained as
(31)

n
(y) =N

n
e
y
(2y)
n1/2
L
22n1
n
(2y),
where
(32) N

n
=
_
(2 2n 1)(n +1)
(2 n)
,
where y and are given in Eqs. (8) and (10). Thus
there exists a common dense invariant domain D

for these transition operators

L

and

L
0
spanned by
analytical functions

n
(y) with the constant energy
and the different potential strengths.
4. The controllability
We now analyze the controllability of this system
with the dynamical group SU(1, 1). As we know, the
Hamiltonian

H
0
dominates this quantum system, but
the others

H
i
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) can be interpreted as
the effect of the external perturbation. It is shown from
Eq. (24) that the Casimir operator C
2
keeps invariant
for the xed constant energy. As addressed by Tarn et
al. in Ref. [14], if the Hamiltonian

H
0
of the free or
autonomous evolution is driven by a Casimir invariant
(a dynamical symmetry, the SU(1, 1) group in this
Letter), the control Hamiltonian can be physically
realized by the group generators (

L
,0
in the present
Letter) and the quantum system can be guaranteed to
be strongly completely controllable. For the present
case, the Hamiltonian

H
0
can be realized by the
combination of the transition operators as shown by
Eq. (25). Following Ref. [14] by Tarn et al., we can
construct the control system as
d(t )
dt
=
_

_
C +
1
4
_
+u
1
(t )(

L
+


L

)
+iu
2
(t )(

L
+
+

L

)
_
(t),
(33) (0) =
0
,
where the quantities (t) and
0
should be interpreted
as abstract state vectors rather than wave functions.
A set of analytical vectors construct the representa-
tions of the su(1, 1) algebra. On the other hand, it is
shown from Eq. (33) that we take

H
1
=

L
+


L

and

H
2
= i(

L
+
+

L

) as studied in Ref. [14]. This

means that the

H
0
,

H
1
,

H
2
are a set of generators
224 S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225
for SU(1, 1) group, namely, the principal Hamiltonian

H
0
of this quantum system is connected to the non-
compact group SU(1, 1) as shown by Eq. (18). The ex-
ternal perturbations

H
1
and

H
2
can also be expressed
by the combinations of the ladder operators

L

as
shown above. Therefore, the

H
0
,

H
1
and

H
2
can be
expressed by the combinations of the operators

L
,0
,
which are nothing but the generators of the SU(1, 1)
group as proved and shown by Eq. (18). The control-
lability analysis then is based on the properties of the
following three Lie algebras
A=
_

_
C +
1
4
_
,

L
+


L

, i(

L
+
+

L

)
_
LA
,
B =
_

L
+


L

, i(

L
+
+

L

)
_
LA
,
(34) C =
_
ad
j
C
2
+1/4

H
i
| i =1, j =0, 1, . . .
_
LA
,
which implies that ad
j
C
2
+1/4

L

= 0 for j > 0 since

the Casimir operator C
2
commutes with the generators

. The ideal generated by C in A coincides with B.

Accordingly [C, B] B. Therefore, from HTC Corol-
lary, we draw a conclusion that this quantum system is
strongly completely controllable.
We now interpret this quantum system from the
viewpoint of the action of the transition operators on
the ground state. In theory, we can keep the energy
constant and change the parameters of the potential
under the guidance of an external eld in the state
space of the studied quantum system. Thus the dif-
ferent potentials with the same constant energy form
the basis of the dynamical group SU(1, 1). The dif-
ferent states with the constant energy could be con-
nected by the action of the transition operators

L

on
the ground state

0
(y). On the other hand, it is shown
from Eq. (25) that the free or autonomous Hamil-
tonian is the presence of the Casimir operator C
2
,
while ensuring controllability, which constrains the
studied quantum system to evolve on a submanifold.
Thus the accessible bound states of the quantum sys-
temcorrespond to a xed energy but different potential
strengths.
In a word, from the HTC Corollary, we draw
a conclusion that this quantum system is strongly
completely controllable.
5. Conclusions
The controllability of a quantum system for the
Morse potential with the symmetry SU(1, 1) is in-
vestigated. The transition operators are constructed
and associated to the su(1, 1) algebra. We have de-
rived a realization of dynamical group SU(1, 1) only
in terms of the dynamical equation (9). It is shown
fromHTC Corollary that this quantumsystem with the
dynamical group SU(1, 1) for with the non-degenerate
discrete bound states can, in principle, be strongly
complete controlled, i.e., the system eigenfunction
with the constant energy can be guided by the external
eld to approach arbitrarily closely a selected target
state at any chosen time, which can be theoretically
realized by the actions of the transition operators on
the ground state.
Acknowledgements
One of the authors (D.S.H.) thanks Prof. Lozada-
Cassou for the hospitality at IMP and Prof. Ley-Koo
for helpful discussion. The authors would like to thank
the referee for the positive and invaluable suggestion
from which the manuscript has been improved greatly.
This work was started at UNAM.
References
[1] G.M. Huang, T.J. Tarn, J.W. Clark, J. Math. Phys. 24 (1983)
2608.
[2] D.P. DiVincenzo, Science 270 (1995) 13.
[3] H. Rabitz, R. de Vivie-Riedle, M. Motzkus, K. Kompa,
Science 288 (2000) 824.
[4] V. Ramakrishna, H. Rabitz, Phys. Rev. A 61 (2000) 032106.
[5] P. Krl, Z. Amitay, M. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002)
063002.
[6] A.I. Solomon, S.G. Schirmer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 16 (2002)
2107.
[7] D. DAlessandro, in: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, Sydney, Australia, December 2000.
[8] M. Zhao, S. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. 95 (1991) 2465.
[9] V. Jurdjevic, H. Sussmann, J. Differential Equations 12 (1972)
313.
[10] D. DAlessandro, M. Dahleh, IEEE Trans. Automat. Con-
trol 46 (2001) 866.
[11] P.A. Benioff, J. Stat. Phys. 22 (1980) 563;
P.A. Benioff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1581;
P.A. Benioff, J. Stat. Phys. 29 (1982) 515;
S.-H. Dong et al. / Physics Letters A 325 (2004) 218225 225
P.A. Benioff, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 480 (1986) 475.
[12] R.P. Feynman, Opt. News 11 (1985) 11;
R.P. Feynman, Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 507;
R.P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 (1982) 467.
[13] P.W. Shor, in: S. Godwasser (Ed.), Proceeding of 35th Annual
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Santa Fe,
NM, 1994, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alomitos, CA, 1994,
p. 124.
[14] T.J. Tarn, J.W. Clark, D.G. Lucarelli, in: Proceedings of the
39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Sydney,
Australia, December 2000, p. 943.
[15] S.G. Schirmer, A.D. Greentree, V. Ramakrishna, H. Rabitz, J.
Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35 (2002) 8315.
[16] S.G. Schirmer, A.I. Solomon, J.V. Leahy, J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 35 (2002) 8551.
[17] S.H. Dong, et al., unpublished.
[18] S.H. Dong, Y. Tang, G.H. Sun, Phys. Lett. A 320 (2003) 145.
[19] L. Infeld, T.E. Hull, Rev. Mod. Phys. 23 (1951) 21.
[20] J.W. Clark, D.G. Lucarelli, T.J. Tarn, nucl-th/0205005.
[21] S.G. Schirmer, A.I. Solomon, J.V. Leahy, J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 35 (2002) 4125.
[22] R.W. Brockett, Proc. IEEE 64 (1976) 61.
[23] E. Nelson, Ann. Math. 70 (1959) 572;
A.O. Barut, R. Raczka, Theory of Group Representations and
Applications, Polish Scientic, Warsaw, 1977.
[24] P. Jensen, Mol. Phys. 98 (2000) 1253;
M.S. Child, L. Halonen, Adv. Chem. Phys. 62 (1984) 1;
J.W. Dabrowska, A. Khare, U.P. Sukhatme, J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 21 (1988) L195;
A.B. Balentekin, Phys. Rev. A 57 (1988) 4188;
I.L. Cooper, R.K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995) 941;
C.C. Gerry, Phys. Rev. A 33 (1986) 2207;
N. Bessis, G. Bessis, Phys. Rev. A 50 (1994) 4506;
A.E. Kondo, D. Rodney Truax, J. Math. Phys. 29 (1988) 1396.
[25] J.

Ciek, J. Paldus, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 12 (1977) 875;
J.N. Huffaker, P.H. Dwivedi, J. Math. Phys. 16 (1975) 862;
J. Wu, Y. Alhassid, J. Math. Phys. 31 (1990) 557;
M.J. Engleeld, C. Quesne, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 (1991)
3557.
[26] S.H. Dong, R. Lemus, A. Frank, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 86
(2002) 433.
[27] M. Berrondo, A. Palma, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13 (1980) 773.
[28] Y. Alhassid, F. Grsey, F. Iachello, Ann. Phys. 148 (1983) 346.
[29] P.M. Morse, Phys. Rev. 34 (1929) 57.
[30] I.L. Cooper, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 26 (1993) 1601.
[31] H. Fakhri, A. Chenaghlou, Phys. Lett. A 310 (2003) 1;
B. Roy, P. Roy, Phys. Lett. A 296 (2002) 187;
D. Popov, Phys. Lett. A 316 (2003) 369;
S.H. Dong, G.H. Sun, Phys. Lett. A 314 (2003) 261;
J. Yu, S.H. Dong, G.H. Sun, Phys. Lett. A 322 (2004) 290.
[32] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics, Non-
relativistic Theory, third ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 1976, p. 72.
[33] S.H. Dong, Can. J. Phys. 80 (2002) 129.