Logical gates and quantum processors with trapped ions and cavities • MIGUEL ORSZAG • FACULTAD DE FISICA PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE Course at the Institut Fourier, Universite Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France May 2006
Mar 31, 2015
Logical gates and quantum processors with trapped ions and cavities
• MIGUEL ORSZAG• FACULTAD DE FISICA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE
Course at the Institut Fourier,Universite Joseph Fourier,
Grenoble, FranceMay 2006
QUANTUM COMPUTATION AND INFORMATION
•1982 Feyman: “It is possible to improve the computation using Quantum Mechanics.”
•1985 Deutsch: Describes quantum computer model similar to the TURING MACHINE.
•1994 Shor: Proposes a factorization algorithm.
Classical Information unit: Bit
Quantum Information Unit: Quantum Bit.QUBIT
Qubit: “Microscopic system limited by two quantum states”.
Qudit: “Microscopic system limited by N Quantum States”.
QUANTUM COMPUTING AND QUANTUM INFORMATION
Superposition
1 qubit gate
0011Control
Target
C-NOT
0011
target
2 qubit gate
control
QUANTUM GATESC_NOT GATE
QUANTUM GATESControlled Not (C-NOT)
Qudit
a
a
b
b
Toffoli
Control1
Target
0011
0011
Control2
3 qubit gate
QUANTUM GATESToffoli
a
b
c
The target Only changes if bothControls J=k=1
3 qubit gate
control1
control2
target
•NO CLONING THEOREM Wooters-Zurek (1982)
“ It is impossible to clone an arbitrary quantum state”.
•UNIVERSAL QUANTUM COPYING MACHINE UQCM Buzek-Hillery (1996)
“Analize copies restricted by the no-cloning theorem”.
Quantum Copying Machines
Fidelity: 2
Universal Quantum Copying Machine UQCM
• Ideal copying process:
• Analysis of the copies:
Quantum Copying Machines
1.
2.
3. An ideal copy should be written as
original
blanc
machine
Hilbert-Schmidt NORM
QUANTUM COPYING MACHINE
• Result:
WANTED STATE
UNWANTED STATE
Universal Quantum Copying MachineUQCM
IMPLEMENTED BY A CIRCUIT
QUANTUM COPYING MACHINE
Preparation phase
Quantum Copying Machine implemented by a circuit
QUANTUM COPYING MACHINES
UQCM:
Duplicator:
Triplicator:
QUANTUM COPYING MACHINES
Analysis of the copies
Universal, doesnot depend on the input state
“Universal”,but restricted
To real numbers(input coeff)
“Apparatus capable of developing any function within the DATA REGISTER, such
funtion being specified by a PROGRAM REGISTER”.
“It is not possible to build a deterministic quantum processor with a
finite number of resources, but it is possible to build a probabilistic one”.
CLASSICAL PROCESSOR
QUANTUM PROCESSOR
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
• “When implementing a set of inequivalent operations, the program
state apace must contain a set of mutually orthogonal states. This means that the dimension of the
Program Register must be as big as the number of unitary operators we want to implement.Since this number (of unitary operators) is infinite, it is not possible to build a processor with a
finite number of resources”.
• HOWEVER, WE CAN ALWAYS BUILD A PROBABILISTIC PROCESSOR
• (quantum measurements are implied)
QUANTUM PROCESSORSLimitations due to Quantum Mechanics.
Fixed Unitary Operator (processor)
State of the DATA
Program State
Residual State(independent of the data)
This Type of Processor is necessarily stochastic
U Unitary Operator ACTING ON THE DATA ONY
Stochastic Processor for a qubit
We want:
How to implement it???
A STOCHASTIC QUANTUM PROCESSOR
1.-G.Vidal,L.Masanes,J.I.Cirac,PRL,788,047905(2002)2.-M.A.Nielsen,I.L.Chuang,PRL,79,321(1997)
3.-M.Hillary,V.Buzek,M.Ziman,PARA,65,022301(2002)
Data qubit
Program 1 qubit
Program 2 qubit
C_NOT
GATEToffoli Gate
To understand the procedure, consider a single Program Register.First we define the program and the data
PROGRAM STATE
DATA STATE
)10(2
1
)10(2
1
)10(2
1
22P
i
P
i
PPP
ddd
ee
BAd
U
d
d
Pd
i
d
i
Pd
i
d
i
P
i
P
i
dd
Pd
dU
dU
BeAeBeAe
eeBANOTC
dNOTC
1)10(2
10)10(
2
1
)10)(10(2
1)(
)(
2222
22
+
In this case, a measurement on the program register will cause a collapse On the data qubit with the outcome .
If we measure 0 in the program, we get the good answer,If we measure 1, we get the wrong answer
dddorUdU With a probability 1/2+
Bad result is for 1in P1
To improve upon this scheme, we introduce a Toffoli Gate, as in the Figure.
The data line and the first program qubit are unchanged, however,If the output of the program register is
Indicating a failure , the Toffoli gate effectively acts like a C-Not Gate Between the data line and a second program qubit
11
P
22
P
There is again a probability 1/2 of getting this time
UUU 2
THEREFORE, WE HAVE INCREASED THE SUCCESS PROBABILITY to 3/4 (and so on…)
Bad result only in the 11 case
One can generalize the argument, including MORE GENERALIZEDTOFFOLI GATES, and having a success probability of
N)21(1
Where N is the number of Program qubits or generalized Toffoli Gates (also the number of measurements)
The price we pay is the increase of gates and number of measurements
PROCESADORES CUANTICOS
Rendimiento de ProcesadoresEfficiency of quantum processors
PROCESADORES CUANTICOSProcessors performance
PROCESADORES CUANTICOS
Processors performance I
State of Data
Operation to implement:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processor Performance I
Program State:
Program Register base:
PROCESADORES CUANTICOS
Processors performance I
State that inputs the machine
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance I
The output state is:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance I
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
Program state:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
Input state
Output State:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
Output State:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance II
If we measure in:
Success probability
Error probability:
1.
2.
PROCESADORES CUANTICOSProcessors performance
PROCESADORES CUANTICOS
Processors performance III
Program State:
Input State:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance III
Output State:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance III
Output State:
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Processors performance III
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Hillery-Buzek (2002) Qubits
Base de Bell
P=1/4
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Hillery-Buzek (2002) Qudits
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Efficiency of processors
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Efficiency of the Vidal-Cirac 2002 processor
Every time one gets an error, it is possible to correct it, provided one has the l-th program state
State of the Program:
This state can be used to implement the Unitary U with a probability
QUANTUM PROCESSORSEfficiency of the Vidal-Cirac 2002 processor
CONCLUSIONSQuantum Copying
Machines Every preparation Program is realized with 2 C-Not and 3 rotations, for each preparation state one can find 8 possible sets of rotation angles..
In spite of the No-Cloning Theorem, it is always possible to build a copying machine with a fidelity different from one.(5/6 is the optimum)
The machine described here can produce 2 or 3 copies according to the preparation.
The copies obtained here have a fidelity factor of F =variable(max 5/6)
CONCLUSIONSProcessors
In spite of the fact that is impossible to build a deterministic processor (with finite resources), it is feasible to build a probabilistic one.
The Buzek proposal for a processor , for qubits, can be also used to implement an unknown operation U, with a certain probability p.
It is possible to generalize this processor and work with qudits of dimension N.
The probability of implementation of the Cirac proposal can be incremented by a feedback procedure, approaching one.
There is an effort to implement the probability with a single step, together with the factibility of implementing it with known gates….
CONCLUSIONSCopying machines,
processors
The cloning machine uses the same set of operators P31 P21 P13 P12 as compared to the processor.
The same machine has two applications
Quantum Copying
Quantum Processor
QUANTUM PROCESSORSEffiviency of the processors
Hillery-Buzek 2004
The processor is given by the unitary operator
Ajk is an operator in Hd, {|j, |k are the basis for Hp
The required operation is
The data and program states are
It is useful to take c1= z c0
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Efficiemcy of Processors
Hillery-Buzek 2004
1. Case with only one program state, the operator A is
Summ módulo 2
2. To improve the probability, one uses a vector program given by
ck+1= z ck
In the two program case, the operator A
Summ módulo 4
3. To generalize this process, an N dimensional vector program is used
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Rendimiento de Procesadores
Hillery-Buzek 2004
In the case of N program states, A is given by
Summ módulo N
QUANTUM PROCESSORS
Rendimiento de Procesadores
Hillery-Buzek 2004
Therefore, the processor is given by the operator
Summ módulo N
The success probability approaches to 1
PROPOSAL OF A UNIVERSAL QUANTUM COPYING MACHINE IN CAVITY QED
• Joanna Gonzalez• Miguel Orszag• Sergio Dagach• Facultad de Física• Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile
The Jaynes Cummings model
The Jaynes-Cummings Model describing the interactionOf a single two level atom with a single quantized cavity mode
Of the radiation field plays a central role in quantum optics.In spite of the mathematical simplicity of this model, is physically
Realistic.It describes purely quantum mechanichal phenomena like
Rabi oscillations, collapses and revivals of the atomic inversion,subPoissonian statistics and squeezing of the cavity field.
Also, experiments with highly excited Rydberg atoms in high QCavities have allowed to investigate experimentally
the interaction of a single atom with a single cavity modeThus proving experimentally the predictions of the JC
Model.
))((2
aagaaH z
ab
The Hamiltonian in the dipole approximation can be written as
a
a
a
a Creation photon and destr atomic unit of en
destr photon and creation atomic unit of en
destr photon and destr atomic unit of en
Creation photon and creation atomic unit of en
JAYNES CUMMINGS MDELTWO LEVEL ATOM AND DIPOLE APPROXIMATIONS
Normally in QO this last two terma are neglected in theSo-called RWA
a
b Two level atom
)1cos()( ngttCan
It is simple to prove that under the JC dynamics, and ifThe atom is initially in the a state, and the field with n photons
(Fock state)
Rabi oscillation and was originally studied in NMR
If initially we donot have a Fock state but a ratherA combination of Fock states, a coherent state
nn
en
n
02
!
2
Then a curious phenomena takes place,Called
COLLAPSE AND REVIVAL
1gtcPa-Pb
Constructive and destructive interference between the variousRabi oscillations.Apparently the Poisson distribution has the correct
Factors for total collapse. If we try a thermal state, will observeONLY PARTIAL COLLAPSES
OSCILLATION VERSUS EXPONENTIAL DECAY
For a long time the Jaynes-Cummings Model appeared to be A highly academic model.
It described an atom and a field that periodically pass the energy From one to the other like two coupled pendulum or two
coupled oscillators.On the other hand, people saw in the LAB a different reality.
ATOMS DECAYED FROM EXCITED TO GROUND STATES.Of course there was the Wigner Weiskopf theory of spontaneousEmission (Also Einstein phenomenological theory) that explained
Such a decay if one took
AN INFINITE NUMBER OF OSCILLATORSCOUPLED TO THE ATOM.
RYDBERG ATOMS
However, the situation has changed over the last two decades.The introduction of highly tunable Dye Lasers, which can excite
Large population of highly excited atomic states with a highMain quantum number n.These atoms are referred as
Rydberg Atoms.Such excited atoms are very suitable for atom-radiation experimentsBecause they are very strongly coupled to the radiation field, since
The transition rates between neighbouring levels scale as n^4.Also transitions are in the microwave region where photons
live longer, thus allowing longer interaction times.Finally, Rydber atoms have long lifetimes with respect to
spontaneous decay.THE STRONG COUPLING OF THE RYDBERG ATOMS TO THE FIELDCAN BE UNDERSTOOD SINCE THE DIPOLE MOMENT SCALES WITH
n^2, (typical n~70 )
MICROMASER
MICROMASER
A one atom maser is described in the previous figure.A collimated beam of Rubidium atoms is passed through
A velocity selector.Before entering a high Q superconducting microwave cavity
The atom is excited to a high n-level and convertedIn a Rydberg atom.
The microwave cavity is made of niobium and cooled downTo a low temperature.
The Rydberg atoms are detected in the upper or lower levelBy two field ionization detectors with their fields
Adjusted so that in the first detector, only atoms in theUpper state are ionized.
MICROMASER
MASER OPERATION (Walther et al) WAS DEMONSTRATED BY TUNING THE CAVITY TO THE MASER TRANSITION AND
RECORDING SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE FLUX OF ATOMS IN THE EXCITED STATE.
AS SHOWN IN THE FIGURE, OM RESONANCE, A REDUCTION OF THE SIGNAL WAS OBSERVED FOR RELATIVELY SMALL
ATOMIC FLUXES (1750 ATS^-1)
HIGHER FLUXES PRODUCE POWER BROADENINGAND A SMALL FRQUENCY SHIFT.
ALSO THE TWO PHOTON MICROMASER WAS DEMONSTRATED(HAROCHE ET AL)
Meschede,Walther,Muller,PRL,54,551(1984),Rb85 63p3/2….. 61d3/2, Qcavity~10^8, Tcav~2K, nth~2
The No-Cloning Theorem(Wooters and Zurek,Nature299,802(1982)) showed that it is not possible to construct a device that will produce an exact copy of an arbitrary quantum state.This Theorem is an unexpected quantum effect due to the linearity of Quantum Mechanics, as opposed to Classical Physics, where the copying Process presents no difficulties, and this represents the most significant difference between Classical and Quantum Information.Thus, an operation like:
Thus, an operation like:
0 ´a b x a b x
Q Q
Is not possible, with:
a
0b
xQ
´x
Q
=INPUT QUBIT
=initial state of cloner
=Blank copy=final stateof cloner
Because of this Theorem, scientist ignored the subject up to 1996 when Buzek and Hillery (V.Buzek,M.Hillery,Phys.Rev.A,54,1844(1996) proposed the Universal Quantum Copying Machine(UQCM)-that produced two imperfect copies from an original qubit, the quality of which was independent of the input state.
UNIVERSAL QUANTUM COPYING MACHINE BASIS
2 1
3 3
2 1
3 3
,
1
2
5
6
I
I
I
B A A
B A A
B BlankCopy
A A AUXILLIARY QUBITS
F
�
The quality of the copy is measured through the FIDELITY
copy ideal
ideal input
F
In the present work, we propose a protocol that produces 2 copies from an input state, with Fidelity
5
6F
In the context of Cavity QED, in which the information is encoded in the electronic levels of Rb atoms, that interact with two Nb high Q cavities.SOME PREVIOUS BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSALConsider a two level atom that is prepared in a superposition state , using the Microwave pulses in a Ramsey Zone, with frequency r
Near the e(excited)-g(ground) transition. It generates superpositions
cos sin
sin cos
( )
i
i
r eg
e e e g
g e e g
where
t
Depends on the interaction timeIs prop. detuning
On the other hand, the atom-field interaction is described by the Jaynes Cummings Hamiltonian
0
0
1( ) ( ),.
2 2 2
. ,2
egJ C zH a a a a
Coupling constant
The atom-field state evolves like
0 0
0 0
,0 ( ) cos( ) ,0 sin( ) ,12 2
,1 ( ) cos( ) ,1 sin( ) ,02 2
e
g
e t t e t g
g t t g t e
For example, for
0
0
1 1,0 ,0 ,1 , , , , , , ,1 ,0 ,1
2 2 2
,0 ,1 , , , , , , , , , , ,1 ,0
t e e g g e g
t e g g e
Now, consider an external Classical pulse, interacting with the atom
( )ext gH t
We use the dressed state basis that diagonalizes the J-C Hamiltonian:
2 2
, ) sin , 1 cos ,
, ) cos , 1 sin ,
cos 24 ( 1)
n n
n n
n
n g n e n
n g n e n
n
eg ,
The Energies of the dressed states are
E
)1(42
)2
1( 22 nnE
In the limit0
, , ............ .. .. ......... ,1 ,1)
, , 1 .......... .. .. ....... ,0 ,1
n e n in this case e
n g n in this case g
Consider the external field in resonance with the (+,1)-(-,0)Transition, that is
)cos()( ttf sg Where f(t) is some smooth function of time to represent the pulse shape, with(in the dispersive case)
201 3
eg
nns EE
The above Hamiltonian has been studied by several authors (Domokos et al;Giovannetti et al) and arrive to the conclusion thatFor a suitable pulse, a C-NOT gate can be achieved, where the photonNumber (0 or 1) is the control and the atom the target
The mechanism of the above C-NOT gate that forbids, for example the (g,0>--(e,0> transition is the Stark Effect, caused by one photon in the cavity. In order to resolve these two transitions, we have to make sure that
int
1
t
g,0or -,-1g,0or -,-1
e,0or ,0e,0or ,0
e,1or ,1g,1or ,0
g,1or -,0e,1or ,1
og, 1,g
0,e 1,e
s s
Where Is the frequency difference between these two transitions.
The exchange
,1 ,1g e
IS POSSIBLE
C-NOT GATE
N=0 ATOMIC STATE IS NOT CHANGEDN=1 ATOMIC STATE IS EXCHANGED
CONTROL TARGET
UQCM
PROPOSED PROTOCOL
ATOM 1
A1, initially at is prepared in a superposition, via a Ramsey Field
1g
1 1 1
2 1
3 3
1cos
3
g g e
ar
A1 interacts with the cavity Ca(initially in )through a Rotation, so
0a
,0 ,1
,1 ,0
e e
g e
State swapping.The excitation of atom 1 is transferred to the cavity a
1 1 1
2 1 2 1( ) 0 ( 0 1 )
3 3 3 3a a ag e g
g
ATOM 2
IT CONTAINS THE INFORMATION TO BE CLONED
2 2 2e g
This state can be prepared in the same fashion as the atom 1, for example with a Ramsey Field.Then we apply a Classical pulse, as described before, generating a C-NOT gate ,nothing happens with 0 photons
,1 ,1g e
2 2
2 2 2 2
2 1( )( 0 1 )
3 3
2 10 1
3 3
a a
a a
e g
e g g e
C-not
A3 and A4 are the atoms carrying the two
copies(IDENTICAL)
FINAL STATE
3 4 3,4
3 4 3,4
1 1 3 4
1
1 2
3,4 3 3 4
2 1
3 3
2 1
3 3
, ,
2 1( )
3 3
0 0
0 1
1( )
2
I
I
a b
I a b
e e A A
g g A A
where
e g
B g e g g
A g g
A g g
e g g e
DISCUSSION
Experimental numbers(Haroche et al)
KHzKHzKHz 502
,502
,1002
An interaction time of ss 50 Marginally satisfies the earlier requirement.
With the flight time of 100 s The whole scheme should
Take about 700 s Which is reasonable in a cavity with a
Relaxation time of 16ms.They achieved a resolution required toDistinguish between 1 or 0 photons
Discussion of the dispersive C-NOT Gate
We have solved numerically the Hamiltonian
)()(exp)cos(
)(exp
2
2
ssext
extJC
ttfH
with
Ht
HH
We introduced the exponentials to simulate numerically the flight time and duration of the pulse s
Scrodingers Eq was solved for the state
gbeagbeat ,1,1,0,0)( 1100
int
62.8 ,2
35.8 ,2
31.42
28.6422 54
2 27s
KHz
KHz
KHz
fKHz
t s
s
gbeagbeat ,1,1,0,0)( 1100
BIBLIOGRAPHY1.-W.K.Wooters and W.H.Zurek,Nature,London,299,802(1982)2.-V.Buzek,M.Hillery,Phys.Rev.A 54,1844(1996)3.-D.Bruss et al, Phys.Rev.A 57,2368(1998)4.-N.Gisin,S.Massar, Phys.Rev.Lett,794,153(1997)5.-D.Bruss et al, Phys.Rev.Lett,81,2598(1998)6.-V.Buzek,S.L.Braunstein,M.Hillery,D.Bruss, Phys.Rev.A,56,3446(1998)7.-C.Simon,G.Weihs,A.Zeilinger, Phys.Rev.Lett,84,2993(2000)9.-P.Milman,H.Olivier,J.M.Raimond, Phys.Rev.A,67,012314(20003)10.-M.Paternostro,M.S.Kim,G.M.Palma,J.of Mod.Opt,50,2075(2003)11.-M.Brune et alPhys.Rev.A,78,1800(1995)12.-V.Giovannetti,D.Vitali,P.Tombesi,A.Eckert,Phys.Rev.A,52,3554(1995)13.-M.Orszag,J.Gonzalez,S.Dagach,sub Phys.Rev.A14.- M.Orszag,J.Gonzalez,Open Sys and Info Dyn,11,1(2004)
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
A SINGLE ION STOCHASTIC QUANTUM PROCESSOR
MIGUEL ORSZAGPAUL BLACKBURN
OUTLINE OF THE TALK
1.-INTRODUCTION
2.-QUANTUM GATES C-NOT ,TOFFOLI
3.- A STOCHASTIC QUANTUMPROGRAMMABLE PROCESSOR (General, using quantum gates)
4.-IMPLEMENTING THE GATES VIA TRAPPED ION
5.-DISCUSSIONActual implementation of the processor with a trapped ion, decoherence and measurements
We first show how to realize the rotation of a qubitvia a quantum processor, using two and three qubit gates.
Next we discuss these C-NOT and TOFFOLI gates, implemented by making use the two and three dimensional
Center of mass vibrational qubits using a single three level ion.
Control and coupling of the ion´s internal electronic states is achieved via far detuned lasers exciting a Raman
transition scheme.
Finally we put things together and come upwith the proposal
Stochastic Processor for a qubit
We want:
How to implement it???
A STOCHASTIC QUANTUM PROCESSOR
1.-G.Vidal,L.Masanes,J.I.Cirac,PRL,788,047905(2002)2.-M.A.Nielsen,I.L.Chuang,PRL,79,321(1997)
3.-M.Hillary,V.Buzek,M.Ziman,PARA,65,022301(2002)
Data qubit
Program 1 qubit
Program 2 qubit
C_NOT
GATEToffoli Gate
To understand the procedure, consider a single Program Register.First we define the program and the data
)10(2
1
)10(2
1 22
ddd
P
i
P
i
P
BAd
ee
PROGRAM STATE
DATA STATE
d
d
Pd
i
d
i
Pd
i
d
i
P
i
P
i
dd
Pd
dU
dU
BeAeBeAe
eeBANOTC
dNOTC
1)10(2
10)10(
2
1
)10)(10(2
1)(
)(
2222
22
+
In this case, a measurement on the program register will cause a collapse On the data qubit with the outcome .
If we measure 0 in the program, we get the good answer,If we measure 1, wqe get the wrong answer
dddorUdU With a probability 1/2+
Bad result is for 1in P1
To improve upon this scheme, we introduce a Toffoli Gate, as in the Figure.
The data line and the first program qubit are unchanged, however,If the output of the program register is
Indicating a failure , the Toffoli gate effectively acts like a C-Not Gate Between the data line and a second program qubit
11
P
22
P
There is again a probability 1/2 of getting this time
UUU 2
THEREFORE, WE HAVE INCREASED THE SUCCESS PROBABILITY to 3/4 (and so on…)
Bad result only in the 11 case
One can generalize the argument, including MORE GENERALIZEDTOFFOLI GATES, and having a success probability of
N)21(1
Where N is the number of Program qubits or generalized Toffoli Gates (also the number of measurements)
The price we pay is the increase of gates and number of measurements
3 level Trapped ion (harmonic trap) interacting with two laser fields highly detuned from the upper level
(RAMAN SCHEME)
1
FOR LARGE DETUNING WE PROCEED TO PERFORMAN ADIABATIC ELIMINATION OF THE UPPER LEVEL 2
,31
,21
13
12
Defining
Go to the Heisenberg picture
)(
)()(
),(
)()(
)()(
23
~)(
12*
12
~)(
2313
~
1313
~
13
~)(23
*
22
~
11
~)(
12*
12
~
1212
~
1212
~
12
~
12
23
~
23
23
~
23
12
~
12
tki
tki
tki
tki
xe
yedt
di
ye
xedt
di
tUtU
eoperatorsDefiningth
13
~)(
231213
23
~
23
12
~
12
2312
23
12 ,
ti
ti
ti
e
e
e
Using a second trasnformation to eliminate The fast rotating terms
)(
)()(
),(
)(
23)(
12*
12)(
2313231213
13)(
13*
22
~
11
~)(
12*
121212
12
23
23
12
xki
yki
yki
xki
e
edt
di
e
edt
di
We get the following equations in the “second picture”
Please notice that all the fast terms are gone
Under the assumption of large detuningsWe obtain a solution for
By setting
])2233([1
],)2211([1
0
31
~)(
12*
~~)(
23*
23
32
~
13
~)(
23*
~~)(
12*
12
12
~
12
12
12
~
1223
~
23
23
~
2312
~
12
txkityki
tykitxki
ee
ee
dt
d
By setting
And similarly for the 2-3transition
Upon inserting these adiabaticSolutions for the atomic operators
13
~
23
~
12
~
An d
In terms of
And replacing them in the HamiltonianWe get the effective Hamiltonian after the
Adiabatic elimination of level 2
ccbbaaH cba 3311 310
Now we go to the interaction picture, with
And transform to the new Hamiltonian
tiHtiH
I eHHeH00
)( 0
And replace the x, y, z operators by
,2
,2
,2
)(
),(
),(
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
b
a
mZ
mY
mX
with
ccZz
bbYy
aaXx
Width of groundState of oscillators
Called usually the Lamb Dicke parameter.The square of this quantity represents the ratio Between the recoil energy and the vibrational
Energy in the i direction .Experimentally it ranges between 0.1 and 0.2.
iii mk
2
Interaction Picture
Laser Frequencies
Integers(small)
+hc
Stationary Terms
We look for terms such that
)()(
0)()()(
1
~
3
~
231213
13
lnm cba
Laserfrequencies
Stark shiftedAtomic levels
Please notice that by careful tuning of the lasers we can select a given Hamiltonian
C-NOT
Toffoli
The Hamiltonians
To get the different effective Hamiltonians, we have to get the right laser frequencies
The Temporal Evolution
C-NOT
The Temporal Evolution
Toffoli
-
+
-
+
C-NOT
Control target
X,Y vibrations
bus
Toffoli
Control 1 Control 2 target bus
X,Y,Z vibrations
-
The actual operation of the processor consists in three phases1)Preparation,2)Processing and 3)Measurement
In the first phase, the ion is Prepared in the ground state and is loaded with the data and program states.
In the Processing phase, the lasers are switched on with the detunings and spatial orientations required for the required
Pulse periods.In the detection phase, the y and z vibrational state of the ion is
Measured, thus indicating whether the desired operationwas applied successfully on the data state.
The actual loading of the vibrational state could be done ina separate trap on an auxilliary ion. The vibrational
state of this auxilliary ion can be transferred to our ion,following for example, the proposal of Paternostro et al
M.Paternostro,M.S.Kim,P.L.Knight,PRA,71,022311(2005)
The feasibility of the proposal depends strongly on the Decoherence time which is of the order of 1-10ms.
The characteristic time required for an operation like H3T,For a Lamb Dicke parameter =0.3 and
Corresponds, for (full cycle)a time of 0.53 ms.
In principle this time could be decreased since
As long as the laser power is not beyond Watts/cm2which would photoionize the atom
23 tT
KHz500)2(13
2113 EE1410
Alternatively,one may attempt to increase the motional stateDecoherence time of the trap.
C.Monroe et al have recently done experiments where the heating rate is very low (Cd+ ions)where they report
sec0248.0 mquanta
dt
dn
Which means that an n=1 state can have a life of40ms!!!!!!!!!!!GREAT……
L.Deslauriers,P.Haljan,J.P.Lee,K.A.Brickman,B.B.Blinov,M.J.Madsen,C.Monroe,PRA,70,043408(2004)
Measurement or reconstruction of the quantum mechanical state of a trapped ionWhere the information on the vibrational CM motion of a trapped ion can be Transferred to it´s electronis dynamic by irradiating a long living electronic
transition by laser light and probing a strong transition for resonance Fluorescence.Was first suggested by S.Wallentowitz,W.Vogel, PRL,75,2932(1995)
Other reconstruction schemes, applying coherent displacements of different Magnitudes was suggested both theoretically and experimentally by
D.Liebfried, D.M.Meekhof,B.E.King,C.Monroe,W.M.Itano,D.J.Wineland,PRL,77,4281,(1996)
QND measurements of vibrational populations in ionic traps . This scheme allowsThe production of of Fock states, associated with the CM motion and it is based
On the fact that the Rabi Frequency between two internal states of the ionInduced by a resonant carrier field depends on the vibronic number.
L.Davidovich,M.Orszag,N.Zagury,PRA,54,5118(1996)R.L.Matos Filho,W.Vogel,PRL,76,4520(1996)
Direct Measurement of the Wigner FunctionL.G.Lutterbach,L.Davidovich,PRL 78,2547(1997)
A generalization of the QND measurement of the vibronic states (which was originally suggested for one dimensional vibrations,
was extended to higher dimensions, quiteappropriate in the present scheme, was done by
W.Kaige et al“Quantum Non-Demolition Measurements and Quantum State
Manipulation in two dimensional Trapped Ion”
In “Modern Challenges in Quantum optics”,
M.Orszag,J.C.Retamal, Edts, Springer Verlag,2001
Quantum non-demolition measurements are design to avoidThe back-action of the measurement on the detected
Observable.For example, in the optical domain, we find experiments
Using Kerr effect in a solid or liquid medium.The signal field to be measured interacts non-linearly
With a probe field, whose phase changes by a quantityWhich depends linearly on the number of photons in the
signal beam.In the Haroche group, they developed a QND method
To measure the number of photons stored in a high Q cavityWhich is sensitive to a very small number of photons.
The method is based on the detection of a dispersive phase shift produced by the field on the wave function of
Non-resonant atoms which cross the cavity.This shift which is proportional to the photon number in the
Cavity,is measured by atomic interferometry, usingRamsey fields.
Since the atoms are non-resonant with the cavity,No photon is exchanged between them and the
Cavity and the measurement is indeed a QND one.However, the information aquired by detecting
A sequence of atoms modifies the field step by step ,untilIt eventually collapses into a Fock state, which a priory is
Unpredictable.A repetition of the measurement, for the same initial state
Of the field will yield a distribution of Fock states, which reproduces the initial distribution of the field.
In a similar way, it is possible to realize a QND Measurement of the vibrational population distribution
For an ion in a Paul trap.As in the cavity QED case, a Fock state is generated in
the process.
We are proposing a scheme for implementing a single qubit Stochastic Quantum Processor using a single cold
Trapped ion.The Processor implements an arbitrary rotation around the
z-axis of the Bloch sphere of the data qubit,GIVEN TWO PROGRAM QUBITS.
The operation is applied succesfully with a probabilityP=3/4
We analize the preparation process, discuss decoherence and also propose various possible measurement schemes
on the program qubit space.
CONCLUSIONS