1 / 35

Quantum dynamics and quantum control of spins in diamond Viatcheslav Dobrovitski

Quantum dynamics and quantum control of spins in diamond Viatcheslav Dobrovitski Ames Laboratory US DOE, Iowa State University. Works done in collaboration with Z.H. Wang (Ames Lab – now USC), T. der Sar, G. de Lange, T. Taminiau, R. Hanson (TU Delft) ,

jafari
Download Presentation

Quantum dynamics and quantum control of spins in diamond Viatcheslav Dobrovitski

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. Quantum dynamics and quantum control of spins in diamond Viatcheslav Dobrovitski Ames Laboratory US DOE, Iowa State University Works done in collaboration with Z.H. Wang (Ames Lab – now USC), T. der Sar, G. de Lange, T. Taminiau, R. Hanson(TU Delft), G. D. Fuchs, D. Toyli, D. D. Awschalom(UCSB), D. Lidar (USC)

  2. Individual quantum spins in solid state Quantum dots NV center in diamond Donors in silicon Quantum spin coherence: valuable resource • Quantum information processing • Single-spin coherent spintronics and photonics • High-precision metrology and magnetic sensing at nanoscale

  3. Grand challenge – controlling single quantum spins in solids Fundamental problems: • Understand dynamics of individual quantum spins • 2. Control individual quantum spins • 3. Preserve coherence of quantum spins • 4. Generate and preserve entanglement • between quantum spins • Spins in diamond – excellent testbed for quantum studies • Long coherence time • Individually addressable • Controllable optically and magnetically Jelezko et al, PRL 2004; Gaebel et al, Nat.Phys. 2006; Childress et al, Science 2006

  4. Dynamical decoupling protocols Traditional analysis and classification: Magnus expansion Simplest – Periodic DD : Period τ -X- τ -X Symmetrized protocol: τ-X-τ-X-X- τ -X- τ = τ -X- τ - τ -X- τ 2nd order protocol, error O(τ2) CPMG sequence Concatenated protocols (CDD) level l=1 (CDD1 = PDD): τ -X- τ -X level l=2 (CDD2): PDD-X-PDD-X etc.

  5. Deficiencies of Magnus expansion: • Norm of H(0), H(1),… – grows with the size of the bath • Validity conditions are often not satisfied in reality • (the UV cutoff is too large) but DD works • Behavior at long times – unclear • Accumulation of pulse errors and imperfections – unknown Assessing the quality of coherence protection 1. Exact numerical modeling Up to 32 spins (Hilbert space d = 4×109) on 128 processors Parallel code, 80 % efficiency 2. Approximate – but very accurate – numerics: coherent spin states 3. Analytical mean-field techniques

  6. Outline • Quantum control and dynamical decoupling of NV center: • protecting coherence Spectacular recent progress: DD on a single NV spin de Lange, Wang, Riste, Dobrovitski, Hanson: Science 2010 Ryan, Hodges, Cory: PRL 2010 Naydenov, Dolde, Hall, Fedder, Hollenberg, Jelezko, Wrachtrup: PRB 2010 2. Decoherence-protected quantum gates 3. Decoherence-protected quantum algorithm: first 2-qubit computation with invidivual solid-state spins

  7. NV center in diamond Simplest impurity: substitutional N (P1 center) Nitrogen meets vacancy: NV center Central spin S = 1, I = 1 HF coupling onsite Dipolar coupling to the bath Environment (spin bath) S = 1/2 Long-range dipolar coupling Single NV spin can be initialized, manipulated and read out

  8. Single NV center – optical manipulation and readout Excited state: Spin 1 orbital doublet m = +1 m = –1 m = 0 ISC (m = ±1 only) 1A 532 nm m = +1 m = 0 – always emits light m = ±1 – not m = –1 MW m = 0 Ground state: Spin 1 Orbital singlet Initialization: m = 0 state Readout (PL): population of m = 0

  9. NV spin ms= –1 ms= +1 ms=0 C B C C N V C C C C – field created by the bath spins Time dependence governed by HB Decoherence: NV center in a spin bath Bath spin – N atom m=+1/2 ms=-1/2 B NV electron spin: pseudospin S = 1/2 (qubit) No flip-flops between NV and the bath: energy mismatch

  10. Mean field picture: bath as a random field Gaussian, stationary, Markovian noise b – noise magnitude (spin-bath coupling) τC – correlation time (intra-bath coupling) Direct many-spin modeling: confirms mean field simulation O-U fitting Dobrovitski et al, PRL 2009 Hanson et al, Science 2008

  11. 0.5 0.5 T2 = 2.8 μs -0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t(µs) 1 10 free evolution time (ms) Free decoherence Decay due to field inhomogeneity from run to run T2* = 380 ns Modulation: HF coupling to 14N of NV Spin echo: probing the bath dynamics τC = 25 μs

  12. Quantum control and Dynamical decoupling: Extending coherence time of a single NV center

  13. Choice of the DD protocol: theory Short times (T << τC): Long times (T >> τC): PDD τ -X- τ -X Fast decay Slow decay optimal choice CPMG τ-X- 2τ -X-τ Slow decay at all times, rate WS (T) Concatenated PDD Fast decay at all times, makes things worse Concatenated CPMG Slow decay at all times, no improvement and many other protocols have been analyzed…

  14. Qualitative features • Coherence time can be extended well beyond τC as long as • the inter-pulse interval is small enough: τ/τC << 1 • Magnus expansion (also similar cumulant expansions) predict: • W(T) ~ O(N τ4) for PDD but we have W(T) ~ O(N τ3) • Symmetrization or concatenation give no improvement • Source of disagreement: Magnus expansion is inapplicable Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise: Second moment is (formally) infinite – corresponds to Cutoff of the Lorentzian:

  15. 1.0 x y 0.6 simulation 0 5 10 15 total time (ms) DD “as usual” Pulses only along X: τ-X-2τ-X- τ X component – preserved well Y component – not so well State fidelity What is wrong? Control pulses are not perfect

  16. Fast rotation of a single NV center Experiment Simulation Example pulse shape: 29 MHz 109 MHz 223 MHz Time (ns) Time (ns) • Rotating-frame approximation invalid: counter-rotating field • Pulse imperfections important Fuchs et al, Science 2009 • Bootstrap protocol - characterize all pulse errors from scratch • Dobrovitski et al, PRL 2010 • 2. Understand well the accumulation of the pulse errors • Wang et al, arXiv:1011.6417; Khodjasteh et al PRA 2011

  17. 1.0 x y 0.6 simulation 0 5 10 15 total time (ms) 1.0 x y simulation 0.6 0 5 10 15 total time (ms) Protecting all initial states Pulses only along X: τ -X-2 τ -X- τ X component – preserved well Y component – not so well State fidelity Solution: two-axis control Pulses along X and Y: τ -X-2 τ -Y-2 τ -X-2 τ -Y- τ State fidelity Both components are preserved Coherence extended far beyond echo time

  18. 20 CPMG CPMG 1 UDD UDD 1/e decay time (μs) State fidelity exp. Np = 6 sim. 5 0.5 5 10 15 5 0 10 15 Np Total time (ms) Aperiodic sequences: UDD and QDD Are expected to be sub-optimal: no hard cut-off in the bath spectrum Robustness to errors: UDD vs XY4 QDD6 vs XY4 UDD,SX QDD,SX UDD,SY QDD,SY Np= 48 XY4,SX XY4, SY Np= 48 XY4,SX XY4, SY

  19. Master curve: for any number of pulses 100 1 NV2 SE N = 4 State fidelity 1/e decay time (μs) N = 8 10 N = 16 N = 36 NV1 0.5 N = 72 N = 136 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 Normalized time (t / T2 N 2/3) number of pulses Np Extending coherence time with DD 136 pulses, coherence time increased by a factor 26 Tcoh = 90 μs at room temperature, and no limit in sight De Lange, Wang, Riste, et al, Science 2010

  20. 0.50 SZ 0.25 0 0 1 2 3 4 time (ms) Using DD for other good deeds Single-spin magnetometry with DD de Lange, Riste, Dobrovitski et al, PRL 2011 Taylor, Cappellaro, Childress et al. Nat Phys 2008 Naydenov, Dolde, Hall et al. PRB 2011 Detailed probe of the mesoscopic spin bath de Lange, van der Sar, Blok et al, arXiv 2011

  21. Combining DD and quantum operation Gates with resonant decoupling

  22. Coupling NVs to each other – hybrid systems Hybrid systems: different types of qubits for different functions NV centers – qubits Nanomechanical oscillators – data bus Rabl et al, Nat Phys 2010 NV centers – qubits Spin chain (other spins) – data bus Cappellaro et al PRL 2010; Yao et al. PNAS 2011 Electron spins – processors Nuclear spins – memory Many works since Kane 1998, maybe before

  23. “Standard” quantum operation Unprotected quantum gate Protected storage: decoupling Bath Bath Contradiction: DD efficiently preserves the qubit state but quantum computation must change it

  24. Gates with integrated decouplind Unprotected quantum gate Protected storage: decoupling Protected gate Bath Bath Bath DD gate DD Tg

  25. C C C N V C C C C Gate with resonant decoupling (GARD) for hybrid systems Different qubits have different coherence and control timescales One qubits decoheres before another starts to move Nuclear 14N spin: memory, Electronic NV spin: processing (quantum memory, quantum repeater, magnetic sensing, etc.) Childress, Taylor, Sorensen et al. PRL 2006 Taylor, Marcus, Lukin PRL 2003 Jiang, Hodges, Maze et al. Science 2009 Neumann, Beck, Steiner et al. Science 2011 But control of nuclear spin takes much longer than T2* Poor choice: either decouple the electron – no gates possible or gating without DD – no gates possible A way out: use internal resonance in the system

  26. How the GARD works - 1 Rotating frame: Rotating frame (ωN << A ) A A = 2π ∙ 2.16 MHz ωN = 2π∙ 18 kHz 100 times smaller ωN Nuclear rotation around Z Nuclear rotation around X

  27. How the GARD works - 2 Main problem: electron switches very frequently between 0 and 1 and slow nuclear spin should keep track of this Contradiction with the very idea of DD? Motion of the nuclear spin: conditional single-spin rotation 0-X-1-1-Y-0 XY4 unit: τ -X- τ - τ -Y- τ 1-X-0-0-Y-1 Axes n0 and n1 are both close to z (A >> ω1): small Resonance: smth 2 also becomes small when

  28. How the GARD works - 3 IN: OUT: RZ(π) RX(2α) RZ(π) IN: OUT: RX(α) RZ(2π) RX(α) XY-4 unit:

  29. Experimental implementation of GARD Resonances are very narrow, ~ (ωN /A)2 Timing jitter < 1 ns over 100 μs time span Error by 10 ns – fidelity drops by 10% Nuclear spin rotation conditioned on theelectron: Unconditional nuclear spin rotation: All nuclear gates are produced only by changing τ

  30. Experimental implementation: proof of concept CNOT gate Protected C-Rot gate TG = 60 μs >> T2* electron nucleus 0.5 IZ -0.5 0.5 IZ mostly, T1 decay -0.5 Fidelity 97%

  31. How good is GARD: protected CNOT gate Controllable decoherence: inject a noise into the system Decoherence time: T2 = 50 μs; Gate time TG = 120 μs

  32. GARD implementation of Grover’s algorithm 2 qubits – Grover’s algorithm converges in one iteration Total time: 330 μs, T2 time only 250 μs First quantum computation on two individual solid-state spins

  33. GARD implementation of Grover’s algorithm 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fidelity: 95% for For other states: 0.93, 0.92, 0.91 High fidelity beyond coherence time

  34. Conclusions • Diamond-based QIP becomes truly competitive • Coherence time can be extended, 25-fold demonstrated • DD can be efficiently combined with gates • GARD algorithms demonstrated, 50% longer than T2 • Fidelity above 90% • First 2-qubit computation on individual solid state spins

More Related