Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Ambiguity problem of the Bootstrap Method in Quantum Mechanics

arXiv

Authors: Takeshi Morita, Worapat Piensuk, Pushkar Soni

Year

2026

Paper ID

67589

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

Citations

Abstract

The bootstrap method for quantum mechanics is a powerful tool for computing the energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian. However, we point out that this method suffers from an ambiguity problem: it fails to yield the correct spectrum when the potential contains different types of functions, such as polynomial and exponential terms. Similarly, the bootstrap method may break down when evaluating the expectation values of operators of different types. This issue can arise in a wide range of systems, including statistical models and matrix models. We propose three possible resolutions to this problem.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
The bootstrap method for quantum mechanics is a powerful tool for computing the energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2605.30536 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30536 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30536

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal • updated 2026-06-14 02:53:01

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.