DOCSLIB.ORG

Design, Fabrication and Test of a Four Superconducting Quantum-Bit Processor Vivien Schmitt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Design, fabrication and test of a four superconducting quantum-bit processor Vivien Schmitt To cite this version: Vivien Schmitt. Design, fabrication and test of a four superconducting quantum-bit processor. Physics [physics]. Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2015. English. NNT : 2015PA066184. tel- 01214394 HAL Id: tel-01214394 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01214394 Submitted on 12 Oct 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈSE DE DOCTORAT DE L’UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE Spécialité : Physique École doctorale : « Physique en Île-de-France » réalisée dans le groupe Quantronique SPEC - CEA Saclay France présentée par Vivien SCHMITT pour obtenir le grade de : DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE Sujet de la thèse : Design, fabrication and test of a four superconducting quantum-bit processor soutenue le 3 septembre 2015 devant le jury composé de : Dr. Olivier Buisson Rapporteur Pr. Alexey Ustinov Rapporteur Dr. Benjamin Huard Examinateur Pr. Frank K. Wilhelm Examinateur Dr. Denis Vion Membre invité Dr. Daniel Esteve Directeur de thèse Contents Contents 3 1 Introduction: the making of superconducting quantum pro- cessors 7 1.1 The origins of quantum computing ................ 7 1.1.1 From entanglement to quantum computing ....... 7 1.1.2 Blueprint(s) for a quantum processor ........... 8 1.1.3 Physical implementations of quantum bits ........ 9 1.2 State of the art of superconducting quantum processors . 9 1.2.1 Superconducting qubits .................. 9 1.2.2 The transmon qubit .................... 9 1.2.3 Superconducting quantum processors ........... 11 1.3 Operating the Grover search algorithm in a two-qubit processor 11 1.4 Towards a scalable superconducting quantum processor .... 13 1.4.1 A more scalable design ................... 13 1.4.2 Fabrication issues ...................... 13 1.4.3 Demonstrating multiplexed qubit readout ........ 14 1.4.4 Testing a 4-qubit processor ................ 16 2 Operating a transmon based two-qubit processor 19 2.1 Superconducting qubits based on Josephson junctions ..... 20 2.1.1 The Josephson junction .................. 20 2.1.2 The SQUID: a flux tunable Josephson junction ..... 21 2.1.3 The Cooper Pair Box ................... 22 2.1.4 Different Cooper pair box flavors . ........... 23 2.2 The transmon ............................ 24 2.2.1 Single qubit gates ..................... 25 2.2.1.1 Single qubit gates with resonant gate-charge microwavepulses ................ 25 2.2.1.2 Z rotations using phase driven gates ..... 26 2.2.2 Decoherence: relaxation and dephasing ......... 26 3 CONTENTS 4 2.2.2.1 Relaxation .................... 27 2.2.2.2 Pure dephasing .................. 29 2.2.3 Qubit state readout .................... 29 2.2.3.1 Cavity quantum electrodynamics . ..... 30 2.2.3.2 Linear dispersive readout ............ 31 2.2.3.3 The Josephson bifurcation amplifier . .... 32 2.2.3.4 Cavity induced relaxation and dephasing . 37 2.3 Processor operation ........................ 38 2.3.1 Two-qubit interaction yielding a universal gate ..... 40 2.3.2 Quantum state tomography ................ 43 2.4 Gate tomography .......................... 44 2.4.1 Quantum process tomography of the √iSW AP gate . 44 2.5 Running the Grover search quantum algorithm ......... 45 2.5.1 The Grover search algorithm ............... 46 2.5.2 Running the Grover search algorithm . ........ 47 3 Design of a 4 qubit processor 49 3.1 A N +1 line architecture . .................... 49 3.2 Single qubit gates .......................... 51 3.2.1 Z axis rotations . ..................... 51 3.2.2 X and Y axis rotations . .................. 52 3.2.2.1 Displacement induced phase .......... 53 3.2.2.2 Spurious drive on the other qubits ....... 53 3.2.2.3 Alternatives ................... 54 3.3 Two-qubits gates .......................... 54 3.3.1 Coupling with bus resonator ............... 54 3.3.2 iSwap gate ......................... 55 3.3.3 Validity of the empty bus approximation ........ 55 3.3.4 Residual coupling ..................... 55 3.4 Simultaneous readout of transmons ................ 56 3.4.1 Frequency multiplexing of readouts ............ 57 3.4.2 Amplification schemes for multiplexing .......... 57 3.4.2.1 Linear readout with a quantum limited ampli- fier........................ 57 3.4.2.2 Multiplexing several Josephson bifurcation am- plifiers ....................... 58 3.4.3 JBA characteristics ..................... 58 3.4.3.1 Choice of JBA parameters ........... 59 3.4.3.2 Qubit-readout coupling ............. 60 3.5 Processor Parameters ....................... 60 3.5.1 Final choice . ....................... 61 3.5.2 Overall decay and coherence rates ............ 61 3.6 Sample design ............................ 63 3.6.1 Overall design ....................... 63 3.6.2 Microwave simulations ................... 64 3.6.3 Transmission, admittance and impedance matrices . 66 CONTENTS 5 3.6.4 Extraction of the relevant parameters .......... 66 3.6.4.1 Qubit resonance width ............. 68 3.6.4.2 Qubit readout coupling constant ........ 68 3.7 Complete design .......................... 69 4 Sample fabrication 71 4.1 Fabrication of large structures using optical lithography .... 73 4.2 Fabrication of Josephson junctions and qubits ......... 75 4.3 Airbridge fabrication ........................ 78 4.4 Cutting and mounting ....................... 81 5 Multiplexed readout of transmon qubits 85 5.1 Sample and experimental setup ................. 85 5.1.1 Sample ........................... 85 5.1.2 Low temperature setup . ................. 86 5.1.3 Microwave setup ...................... 86 5.2 Experimental techniques ...................... 86 5.2.1 Single sideband mixing ................... 86 5.2.2 Demodulation and horizontal synchronization ...... 90 5.3 Sample characterization ...................... 91 5.3.1 JBA readout resonator characterization ......... 91 5.3.2 Qubit spectroscopy ..................... 94 5.3.3 Qubit-readout resonator coupling constant . ..... 94 5.4 Single qubit readout ........................ 95 5.5 Multiplexed qubits readout .................... 103 5.5.1 Readout frequencies, signal generation and analysis . 103 5.5.2 Switching performance ................... 105 5.5.3 Simultaneous qubit drive and readout .......... 106 5.5.4 Readout crosstalk between JBAs ............. 107 5.6 Overall performance and conclusion ............... 109 6 Characterizinga4qubitprocessor prototype: preliminary results 111 6.1 Sample and experiment setup ................... 111 6.1.1 Sample ........................... 111 6.1.2 Low temperature setup . ................. 112 6.1.3 Microwave setup ...................... 114 6.2 Individual cell characterization . ................. 114 6.2.1 JBA resonator characterization .............. 114 6.2.1.1 S21 coefficient varying with power ....... 114 6.2.1.2 Quality factor in the low power linear regime . 115 6.2.1.3 Readout contrast ................. 116 6.2.2 Qubit characterization . ................. 118 6.2.2.1 Spectroscopy ................... 118 6.2.2.2 Single qubit gates: Rabi oscillations ...... 119 6.2.2.3 Qubit relaxation and dephasing times ..... 120 CONTENTS 6 6.2.3 Frequency control, flux lines crosstalk .......... 121 6.3 Bus characterization and coupling to the qubits ......... 122 6.4 Qubit-qubit bus mediated interaction ............... 127 6.4.1 Resonance condition for qubit-qubit swapping ...... 127 6.4.2 Swapping coupling strength . .............. 129 6.4.3 Bus mediated swap ..................... 132 6.4.4 Simulation of the swap experiments ........... 134 6.5 Conclusion ............................. 134 7 Conclusion and perspectives 137 7.1 Operating the 4-qubit processor .................. 137 7.2 Scalability issues faced by superconducting processors ..... 138 7.2.1 The readout scalability issue ............... 138 7.2.2 All scalability issues .................... 139 7.3 Other promising strategies for quantum information processing 140 7.3.1 The hybrid route ..................... 140 7.3.2 Semiconductor qubits are back .............. 141 7.4 Personal viewpoint . ....................... 141 A Numerical simulation of the switching dynamics of a JBA 143 A.1 Equivalent model of the JBA resonator . ............ 143 A.2 Equation of motion of the JBA .................. 145 A.3 Simulations ............................. 146 Bibliography 149 Chapter 1 Introduction: the making of superconducting quantum processors The research reported in this thesis deals with the design, the fabrication and the test of superconducting processors with the aim of running, on simple cases, quantum codes overcoming classical ones. 1.1 The origins of quantum computing 1.1.1 From entanglement to quantum computing The strong interest for quantum information dates back to the experimental demonstration of the violation of Bell inequalities in the early 1980s (see [1] and references therein to earlier work). These experiments shed light on the concept of entangled state first considered by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen when establishing their paradox [2]. An entangled
Recommended publications
  • Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale digital computers will advance our knowledge of QCD, but some challenges will remain, especially concerning real-time evolution and properties of nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Digital computers may never be able to address these (and other) problems; quantum computers will solve them eventually, though I’m not sure when. The physics payoff may still be far away, but today’s research can hasten the arrival of a new era in which quantum simulation fuels progress in fundamental physics. Frontiers of Physics short distance long distance complexity Higgs boson Large scale structure “More is different” Neutrino masses Cosmic microwave Many-body entanglement background Supersymmetry Phases of quantum Dark matter matter Quantum gravity Dark energy Quantum computing String theory Gravitational waves Quantum spacetime particle collision molecular chemistry entangled electrons A quantum computer can simulate efficiently any physical process that occurs in Nature. (Maybe. We don’t actually know for sure.) superconductor black hole early universe Two fundamental ideas (1) Quantum complexity Why we think quantum computing is powerful. (2) Quantum error correction Why we think quantum computing is scalable. A complete description of a typical quantum state of just 300 qubits requires more bits than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Why we think quantum computing is powerful We know examples of problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer, where we believe the problems are hard for classical computers.
  • Motion of the Reduced Density Operator

    Motion of the Reduced Density Operator

    Motion of the Reduced Density Operator Nicholas Wheeler, Reed College Physics Department Spring 2009 Introduction. Quantum mechanical decoherence, dissipation and measurements all involve the interaction of the system of interest with an environmental system (reservoir, measurement device) that is typically assumed to possess a great many degrees of freedom (while the system of interest is typically assumed to possess relatively few degrees of freedom). The state of the composite system is described by a density operator ρ which in the absence of system-bath interaction we would denote ρs ρe, though in the cases of primary interest that notation becomes unavailable,⊗ since in those cases the states of the system and its environment are entangled. The observable properties of the system are latent then in the reduced density operator ρs = tre ρ (1) which is produced by “tracing out” the environmental component of ρ. Concerning the specific meaning of (1). Let n) be an orthonormal basis | in the state space H of the (open) system, and N) be an orthonormal basis s !| " in the state space H of the (also open) environment. Then n) N) comprise e ! " an orthonormal basis in the state space H = H H of the |(closed)⊗| composite s e ! " system. We are in position now to write ⊗ tr ρ I (N ρ I N) e ≡ s ⊗ | s ⊗ | # ! " ! " ↓ = ρ tr ρ in separable cases s · e The dynamics of the composite system is generated by Hamiltonian of the form H = H s + H e + H i 2 Motion of the reduced density operator where H = h I s s ⊗ e = m h n m N n N $ | s| % | % ⊗ | % · $ | ⊗ $ | m,n N # # $% & % &' H = I h e s ⊗ e = n M n N M h N | % ⊗ | % · $ | ⊗ $ | $ | e| % n M,N # # $% & % &' H = m M m M H n N n N i | % ⊗ | % $ | ⊗ $ | i | % ⊗ | % $ | ⊗ $ | m,n M,N # # % &$% & % &'% & —all components of which we will assume to be time-independent.
  • Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples

    Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples

    Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples Frank Phillipson1[0000-0003-4580-7521] 1 TNO, Anna van Buerenplein 1, 2595 DA Den Haag, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract. A quantum computer that is useful in practice, is expected to be devel- oped in the next few years. An important application is expected to be machine learning, where benefits are expected on run time, capacity and learning effi- ciency. In this paper, these benefits are presented and for each benefit an example application is presented. A quantum hybrid Helmholtz machine use quantum sampling to improve run time, a quantum Hopfield neural network shows an im- proved capacity and a variational quantum circuit based neural network is ex- pected to deliver a higher learning efficiency. Keywords: Quantum Machine Learning, Quantum Computing, Near Future Quantum Applications. 1 Introduction Quantum computers make use of quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposi- tion and entanglement, to perform operations on data [1]. Where classical computers require the data to be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superpositions of states. These computers would theoretically be able to solve certain problems much more quickly than any classical computer that use even the best cur- rently known algorithms. Examples are integer factorization using Shor's algorithm or the simulation of quantum many-body systems. This benefit is also called ‘quantum supremacy’ [2], which only recently has been claimed for the first time [3]. There are two different quantum computing paradigms.
  • Density Matrix Description of NMR

    Density Matrix Description of NMR

    Density Matrix Description of NMR BCMB/CHEM 8190 Operators in Matrix Notation • It will be important, and convenient, to express the commonly used operators in matrix form • Consider the operator Iz and the single spin functions α and β - recall ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Ix α = 1 2 β Ix β = 1 2α Iy α = 1 2 iβ Iy β = −1 2 iα Iz α = +1 2α Iz β = −1 2 β α α = β β =1 α β = β α = 0 - recall the expectation value for an observable Q = ψ Qˆ ψ = ∫ ψ∗Qˆψ dτ Qˆ - some operator ψ - some wavefunction - the matrix representation is the possible expectation values for the basis functions α β α ⎡ α Iˆ α α Iˆ β ⎤ ⎢ z z ⎥ ⎢ ˆ ˆ ⎥ β ⎣ β Iz α β Iz β ⎦ ⎡ α Iˆ α α Iˆ β ⎤ ⎡1 2 α α −1 2 α β ⎤ ⎡1 2 0 ⎤ ⎡1 0 ⎤ ˆ ⎢ z z ⎥ 1 Iz = = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ˆ ˆ ⎥ 1 2 β α −1 2 β β 0 −1 2 2 0 −1 ⎣ β Iz α β Iz β ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ • This is convenient, as the operator is just expressed as a matrix of numbers – no need to derive it again, just store it in computer Operators in Matrix Notation • The matrices for Ix, Iy,and Iz are called the Pauli spin matrices ˆ ⎡ 0 1 2⎤ 1 ⎡0 1 ⎤ ˆ ⎡0 −1 2 i⎤ 1 ⎡0 −i ⎤ ˆ ⎡1 2 0 ⎤ 1 ⎡1 0 ⎤ Ix = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ Iy = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ Iz = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎣1 2 0 ⎦ 2 ⎣1 0⎦ ⎣1 2 i 0 ⎦ 2 ⎣i 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 −1 2⎦ 2 ⎣0 −1 ⎦ • Express α , β , α and β as 1×2 column and 2×1 row vectors ⎡1⎤ ⎡0⎤ α = ⎢ ⎥ β = ⎢ ⎥ α = [1 0] β = [0 1] ⎣0⎦ ⎣1⎦ • Using matrices, the operations of Ix, Iy, and Iz on α and β , and the orthonormality relationships, are shown below ˆ 1 ⎡0 1⎤⎡1⎤ 1 ⎡0⎤ 1 ˆ 1 ⎡0 1⎤⎡0⎤ 1 ⎡1⎤ 1 Ix α = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = β Ix β = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = α 2⎣1 0⎦⎣0⎦ 2⎣1⎦ 2 2⎣1 0⎦⎣1⎦ 2⎣0⎦ 2 ⎡1⎤ ⎡0⎤ α α = [1 0]⎢ ⎥
  • Clustering by Quantum Annealing on the Three–Level Quantum El- Ements Qutrits V

    Clustering by Quantum Annealing on the Three–Level Quantum El- Ements Qutrits V

    CLUSTERING BY QUANTUM ANNEALING ON THE THREE–LEVEL QUANTUM EL- EMENTS QUTRITS V. E. Zobov and I. S. Pichkovskiy1 Abstract Clustering is grouping of data by the proximity of some properties. We report on the possibility of increasing the efficiency of clustering of points in a plane using artificial quantum neural networks after the replacement of the two-level neurons called qubits represented by the spins S = 1/2 by the three-level neu- rons called qutrits represented by the spins S = 1. The problem has been solved by the slow adiabatic change of the Hamiltonian in time. The methods for controlling a qutrit system using projection operators have been developed and the numerical simulation has been performed. The Hamiltonians for two well-known cluster- ing methods, one-hot encoding and k-means ++, have been built. The first method has been used to partition a set of six points into three or two clusters and the second method, to partition a set of nine points into three clusters and seven points into four clusters. The simulation has shown that the clustering problem can be ef- fectively solved on qutrits represented by the spins S = 1. The advantages of clustering on qutrits over that on qubits have been demonstrated. In particular, the number of qutrits required to represent N data points is smaller than the number of qubits by a factor of log23NN / log . Since, for qutrits, it is easier to partition the data points into three clusters rather than two ones, the approximate hierarchical procedure of data partition- ing into a larger number of clusters is accelerated.
  • Two-State Systems

    Two-State Systems

    1 TWO-STATE SYSTEMS Introduction. Relative to some/any discretely indexed orthonormal basis |n) | ∂ | the abstract Schr¨odinger equation H ψ)=i ∂t ψ) can be represented | | | ∂ | (m H n)(n ψ)=i ∂t(m ψ) n ∂ which can be notated Hmnψn = i ∂tψm n H | ∂ | or again ψ = i ∂t ψ We found it to be the fundamental commutation relation [x, p]=i I which forced the matrices/vectors thus encountered to be ∞-dimensional. If we are willing • to live without continuous spectra (therefore without x) • to live without analogs/implications of the fundamental commutator then it becomes possible to contemplate “toy quantum theories” in which all matrices/vectors are finite-dimensional. One loses some physics, it need hardly be said, but surprisingly much of genuine physical interest does survive. And one gains the advantage of sharpened analytical power: “finite-dimensional quantum mechanics” provides a methodological laboratory in which, not infrequently, the essentials of complicated computational procedures can be exposed with closed-form transparency. Finally, the toy theory serves to identify some unanticipated formal links—permitting ideas to flow back and forth— between quantum mechanics and other branches of physics. Here we will carry the technique to the limit: we will look to “2-dimensional quantum mechanics.” The theory preserves the linearity that dominates the full-blown theory, and is of the least-possible size in which it is possible for the effects of non-commutivity to become manifest. 2 Quantum theory of 2-state systems We have seen that quantum mechanics can be portrayed as a theory in which • states are represented by self-adjoint linear operators ρ ; • motion is generated by self-adjoint linear operators H; • measurement devices are represented by self-adjoint linear operators A.
  • An Introduction to Quantum Computing

    An Introduction to Quantum Computing

    An Introduction to Quantum Computing CERN Bo Ewald October 17, 2017 Bo Ewald November 5, 2018 TOPICS •Introduction to Quantum Computing • Introduction and Background • Quantum Annealing •Early Applications • Optimization • Machine Learning • Material Science • Cybersecurity • Fiction •Final Thoughts Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc. 2 Richard Feynman – Proposed Quantum Computer in 1981 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc. 3 April 1983 – Richard Feynman’s Talk at Los Alamos Title: Los Alamos Experience Author: Phyllis K Fisher Page 247 Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc. 4 The “Marriage” Between Technology and Architecture • To design and build any computer, one must select a compatible technology and a system architecture • Technology – the physical devices (IC’s, PCB’s, interconnects, etc) used to implement the hardware • Architecture – the organization and rules that govern how the computer will operate • Digital – CISC (Intel x86), RISC (MIPS, SPARC), Vector (Cray), SIMD (CM-1), Volta (NVIDIA) • Quantum – Gate or Circuit (IBM, Rigetti) Annealing (D-Wave, ARPA QEO) Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc. 5 Quantum Technology – “qubit” Building Blocks Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc. 6 Simulation on IBM Quantum Experience (IBM QX) Preparation Rotation by Readout of singlet state 휃1 and 휃2 measurement IBM QX, Yorktown Heights, USA X X-gate: U1 phase-gate: Xȁ0ۧ = ȁ1ۧ U1ȁ0ۧ = ȁ0ۧ, U1ȁ1ۧ = 푒푖휃ȁ1ۧ Xȁ1ۧ = ȁ0ۧ ۧ CNOT gate: C ȁ0 0 ۧ = ȁ0 0 Hadamard gate: 01 1 0 1 0 H C01ȁ0110ۧ = ȁ1110ۧ Hȁ0ۧ = ȁ0ۧ + ȁ1ۧ / 2 C01ȁ1100ۧ = ȁ1100ۧ + Hȁ1ۧ = ȁ0ۧ − ȁ1ۧ / 2 C01ȁ1110ۧ = ȁ0110ۧ 7 Simulated Annealing on Digital Computers 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Copyright © D-Wave Systems Inc.
  • Using Machine Learning for Quantum Annealing Accuracy Prediction

    Using Machine Learning for Quantum Annealing Accuracy Prediction

    algorithms Article Using Machine Learning for Quantum Annealing Accuracy Prediction Aaron Barbosa 1, Elijah Pelofske 1, Georg Hahn 2,* and Hristo N. Djidjev 1,3 1 CCS-3 Information Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA; [email protected] (A.B.); [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (H.N.D.) 2 T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA 3 Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Quantum annealers, such as the device built by D-Wave Systems, Inc., offer a way to compute solutions of NP-hard problems that can be expressed in Ising or quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) form. Although such solutions are typically of very high quality, problem instances are usually not solved to optimality due to imperfections of the current generations quantum annealers. In this contribution, we aim to understand some of the factors contributing to the hardness of a problem instance, and to use machine learning models to predict the accuracy of the D-Wave 2000Q annealer for solving specific problems. We focus on the maximum clique problem, a classic NP-hard problem with important applications in network analysis, bioinformatics, and computational chemistry. By training a machine learning classification model on basic problem characteristics such as the number of edges in the graph, or annealing parameters, such as the D-Wave’s chain strength, we are able to rank certain features in the order of their contribution to the solution hardness, and present a simple decision tree which allows to predict whether a problem Citation: Barbosa, A.; Pelofske, E.; will be solvable to optimality with the D-Wave 2000Q.
  • (Ab Initio) Pathintegral Molecular Dynamics

    (Ab Initio) Pathintegral Molecular Dynamics

    (Ab initio) path-integral Molecular Dynamics The double slit experiment Sum over paths: Suppose only two paths: interference The double slit experiment ● Introduce of a large number of intermediate gratings, each containing many slits. ● Electrons may pass through any sequence of slits before reaching the detector ● Take the limit in which infinitely many gratings → empty space Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Example: proton transfer in malonaldehyde only one quantum proton Tuckerman and Marx, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) Example: proton transfer in water + + Classical H5O2 Quantum H5O2 Marx et al. Nature (1997) Proton inWater-Hydroxyl (Ice) Overlayers on Metal Surfaces T = 160 K Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2010) Proton inWater-Hydroxyl (Ice) Overlayers on Metal Surfaces Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2010) The density matrix: definition Ensemble of states: Ensemble average: Let©s define: ρ is hermitian: real eigenvalues The density matrix: time evolution and equilibrium At equilibrium: ρ can be expressed as pure function of H and diagonalized simultaneously with H The density matrix: canonical ensemble Canonical ensemble: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation One particle one dimension: K and Φ do not commute, thus, Trotter decomposition: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Evaluation of: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Matrix elements of in space coordinates: acts on the eigenstates from the left: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Where it was used: It can be Monte Carlo sampled, but for MD we need momenta! Path integral isomorphism Introducing a chain frequency and an effective potential: Path integral molecular dynamics Fictitious momenta: introducing a set of P Gaussian integrals : convenient parameter Gaussian integrals known: (adjust prefactor ) Does it work? i.
  • Control of the Geometric Phase in Two Open Qubit–Cavity Systems Linked by a Waveguide

    Control of the Geometric Phase in Two Open Qubit–Cavity Systems Linked by a Waveguide

    entropy Article Control of the Geometric Phase in Two Open Qubit–Cavity Systems Linked by a Waveguide Abdel-Baset A. Mohamed 1,2 and Ibtisam Masmali 3,* 1 Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Aflaj 710-11912, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut 71516, Egypt 3 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Jazan University, Gizan 82785, Saudi Arabia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 28 November 2019; Accepted: 8 January 2020; Published: 10 January 2020 Abstract: We explore the geometric phase in a system of two non-interacting qubits embedded in two separated open cavities linked via an optical fiber and leaking photons to the external environment. The dynamical behavior of the generated geometric phase is investigated under the physical parameter effects of the coupling constants of both the qubit–cavity and the fiber–cavity interactions, the resonance/off-resonance qubit–field interactions, and the cavity dissipations. It is found that these the physical parameters lead to generating, disappearing and controlling the number and the shape (instantaneous/rectangular) of the geometric phase oscillations. Keywords: geometric phase; cavity damping; optical fiber 1. Introduction The mathematical manipulations of the open quantum systems, of the qubit–field interactions, depend on the ability of solving the master-damping [1] and intrinsic-decoherence [2] equations, analytically/numerically. To remedy the problems of these manipulations, the quantum phenomena of the open systems were studied for limited physical circumstances [3–7]. The quantum geometric phase is a basic intrinsic feature in quantum mechanics that is used as the basis of quantum computation [8].
  • Physical Implementations of Quantum Computing

    Physical Implementations of Quantum Computing

    Physical implementations of quantum computing Andrew Daley Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Pittsburgh Overview (Review) Introduction • DiVincenzo Criteria • Characterising coherence times Survey of possible qubits and implementations • Neutral atoms • Trapped ions • Colour centres (e.g., NV-centers in diamond) • Electron spins (e.g,. quantum dots) • Superconducting qubits (charge, phase, flux) • NMR • Optical qubits • Topological qubits Back to the DiVincenzo Criteria: Requirements for the implementation of quantum computation 1. A scalable physical system with well characterized qubits 1 | i 0 | i 2. The ability to initialize the state of the qubits to a simple fiducial state, such as |000...⟩ 1 | i 0 | i 3. Long relevant decoherence times, much longer than the gate operation time 4. A “universal” set of quantum gates control target (single qubit rotations + C-Not / C-Phase / .... ) U U 5. A qubit-specific measurement capability D. P. DiVincenzo “The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation”, Fortschritte der Physik 48, p. 771 (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/0002077 Neutral atoms Advantages: • Production of large quantum registers • Massive parallelism in gate operations • Long coherence times (>20s) Difficulties: • Gates typically slower than other implementations (~ms for collisional gates) (Rydberg gates can be somewhat faster) • Individual addressing (but recently achieved) Quantum Register with neutral atoms in an optical lattice 0 1 | | Requirements: • Long lived storage of qubits • Addressing of individual qubits • Single and two-qubit gate operations • Array of singly occupied sites • Qubits encoded in long-lived internal states (alkali atoms - electronic states, e.g., hyperfine) • Single-qubit via laser/RF field coupling • Entanglement via Rydberg gates or via controlled collisions in a spin-dependent lattice Rb: Group II Atoms 87Sr (I=9/2): Extensively developed, 1 • P1 e.g., optical clocks 3 • Degenerate gases of Yb, Ca,..
  • Machine Learning for Designing Fast Quantum Gates

    Machine Learning for Designing Fast Quantum Gates

    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016-01-26 Machine Learning for Designing Fast Quantum Gates Zahedinejad, Ehsan Zahedinejad, E. (2016). Machine Learning for Designing Fast Quantum Gates (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26805 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2780 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Machine Learning for Designing Fast Quantum Gates by Ehsan Zahedinejad A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY CALGARY, ALBERTA January, 2016 c Ehsan Zahedinejad 2016 Abstract Fault-tolerant quantum computing requires encoding the quantum information into logical qubits and performing the quantum information processing in a code-space. Quantum error correction codes, then, can be employed to diagnose and remove the possible errors in the quantum information, thereby avoiding the loss of information. Although a series of single- and two-qubit gates can be employed to construct a quan- tum error correcting circuit, however this decomposition approach is not practically desirable because it leads to circuits with long operation times. An alternative ap- proach to designing a fast quantum circuit is to design quantum gates that act on a multi-qubit gate.