1 / 29

Easing the experimental burden

This article discusses the concept of global control in quantum computers and explores the use of perpetual coupling as a potential solution. Different architectures and models are examined, including the ABCABC and ABABAB structures. The challenges of implementing global control in large-scale quantum computers are also addressed.

bellm
Download Presentation

Easing the experimental burden

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Easing the experimental burden • Global control, perpetual coupling and the like Simon Benjamin, Oxford. EPSRC. DTI, Royal Soc.

  2. Overview Motivation for looking at alternative architectures. Global Control of a Quantum Computer: Basic idea, Two Minimal Examples, Issues... Leaving interactions “always on”: Basic idea, different approaches, Issues... Combining ideas - All the benefits, all the issues.

  3. An Orthodox Architecture All manipulations (inc. read, reset) are localised to specific qubits. Interactions are switched ‘on’ and ‘off’. Great if you can build it! (Kane, Nature ‘98)

  4. Global Control: Motivation • The difficulty of implementing local control elements... • ..or in molecular scale structures, physical impossibility! • Problem of decoherence caused by local electrodes, surface proximity.

  5. What is Global Control? • Ability to perform QC strictly under the constraint of sending ‘control signals’ to the entire structure. • Way to achieve this depends on the physical model, especially the dimension of the system. • Here I will discuss only one-dimensional systems (not interesting for classical comp.)

  6. Quick glimpse of 2D Case

  7. Some 1D GC References • First: ABCABC + asymmetric Ising interaction. Seth Lloyd, Science 261, 1569 (1993). • ABABAB + symmetric Ising interaction. S. C. Benjamin, PRA 61, 020301 (2000). • ABABAB + collectively switched Heisenberg. S. C. Benjamin, PRL 88, 017904 (2002). • Quantum computation in optical lattices via global laser addressingAlastair Kay and Jiannis K. Pachos, quant-ph/0406073

  8. Example: Heisenberg Chain We’ll consider a system a two of minimal models: systems with just enough complexity to support universal QC. One dimensional ABAB chain with non-diagonal switchable interaction.

  9. Encoding Universality Essential idea is to introduce a “software read/write head” called the Control Unit (CU). One qubit gate by this method:

  10. Schematics • One qubit gate process:

  11. Two-qubit gate process:

  12. Example 2: Ising Chain Hamiltonian now contains constant interaction: Electrodes don’t constrain geometry! Simplest structure is ABAB..

  13. However, we need to work hard to get enough control in such a minimal system... From symmetry, we see need for multi-spin encoding In fact we need 4 spins per qubit, and a gap of 4 => 8 in total.

  14. Error correction and FT Adel Bririd, SCB, Alastair Kay, preprint quant-ph/03080113.

  15. QC is not without cost! • Size cost: multiple physical (pseudo-) spins required for each logical qubit. Factor varies with the specific scheme, 1:2 to 1:8. [Zeno] • Time Cost: multiple global signals to implement single one-qubit gate (not too bad). • Parallelism Cost: a device which is inherently highly parallel has been made effectively serial. - A fairly high degree of parallelism can be recovered, at and additional cost (e.g. x2 size).

  16. But.... What if there is an “always-on” interaction that is not diagonal, and we can’t use any direct switching? Can we keep things under control? How?

  17. A geometric solution Qubits become isolated: interaction free subspace. Switching during preparation, multi-step gates. X. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 197903 (2002).

  18. A Zeeman tuning solution S. C. Benjamin & S. Bose, PRL 90, 247901 (2003). S. C. Benjamin & S. Bose, PRA -current- (2004).

  19. Or we can do almost everything via Zeeman tuning on one ‘type’ in an ABCABC... chain. cf DiVincenzo et al pure Heisenberg switching model (Nature 2000 etc)

  20. Procedure for 2-qubit gate, now a phase accumulator: What if our fixed interaction strengths are irregular? -Still OK, can numerically search for the right tuning parameters. See Chiu Fan Lee, Neil F. Johnson, quant-ph ‘04.

  21. Also works in 2 and 3D, better ratio. ( S. C. Benjamin, NJP 2004)

  22. Avoid Zeeman tuning? Good candidate for replacing the static tuning with dynamical cycling, since we can attack the barrier, not the qubits. S. C. Benjamin, B. Lovett, J. Reina, quant-ph/0407063

  23. Good performance even with strong decay. Works with pulsed laser too.

  24. Summary for “Always On” Interactions • Removes the need for, eg, gating electrodes. • Several different physical models have now been investigated. • Should work well for few qubit QC. • For large scale QC, questions remain regarding QEC (leakage, correlated errors).

  25. Combine all these ideas? Rather straightforward to combine the concepts of global control and always-on interactions: But then all the unknowns are combined too!

  26. The End Visit www.nanotech.org!

More Related