DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:0905.2794V4 [Quant-Ph] 21 Jun 2013 Error Correction 7 B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:0905.2794V4 [Quant-Ph] 21 Jun 2013 Error Correction 7 B Quantum Error Correction for Beginners Simon J. Devitt,1, ∗ William J. Munro,2 and Kae Nemoto1 1National Institute of Informatics 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101-8340. Japan 2NTT Basic Research Laboratories NTT Corporation 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya, Atsugi Kanagawa 243-0198. Japan (Dated: June 24, 2013) Quantum error correction (QEC) and fault-tolerant quantum computation represent one of the most vital theoretical aspect of quantum information processing. It was well known from the early developments of this exciting field that the fragility of coherent quantum systems would be a catastrophic obstacle to the development of large scale quantum computers. The introduction of quantum error correction in 1995 showed that active techniques could be employed to mitigate this fatal problem. However, quantum error correction and fault-tolerant computation is now a much larger field and many new codes, techniques, and methodologies have been developed to implement error correction for large scale quantum algorithms. In response, we have attempted to summarize the basic aspects of quantum error correction and fault-tolerance, not as a detailed guide, but rather as a basic introduction. This development in this area has been so pronounced that many in the field of quantum information, specifically researchers who are new to quantum information or people focused on the many other important issues in quantum computation, have found it difficult to keep up with the general formalisms and methodologies employed in this area. Rather than introducing these concepts from a rigorous mathematical and computer science framework, we instead examine error correction and fault-tolerance largely through detailed examples, which are more relevant to experimentalists today and in the near future. PACS numbers: 03.67.Lx, 03.67.Pp CONTENTS X. Fault-tolerant quantum error correction and the threshold theorem 19 I. Introduction 1 A. Error propagation 20 B. Concatenation 20 II. Preliminaries 3 C. Fault-tolerance 21 A. Basic structure of the qubit 3 D. Threshold theorem 22 B. Some general requirements of quantum error correction 3 XI. Fault-tolerant operations on encoded data 23 A. Single qubit operations 23 III. Quantum errors: Cause and effect 4 B. Two-qubit gate 24 A. Coherent quantum errors: Gates which are incorrectly applied 4 XII. Fault-tolerant circuit design for logical state preparation 26 B. Environmental decoherence 5 C. Simple models of loss, leakage, measurement and XIII. Loss protection 27 initialization 5 XIV. Some modern developments in quantum error correction 31 IV. The 3-qubit code: a good starting point for quantum A. Subsystem codes: Bacon-Shor codes 31 arXiv:0905.2794v4 [quant-ph] 21 Jun 2013 error correction 7 B. Topological codes 33 V. The 9-qubit code: The first full quantum code 10 XV. Conclusions and future outlook 36 VI. Quantum error detection 11 XVI. Acknowledgments 37 VII. Stabiliser formalism 12 References 38 VIII. Quantum error correction with stabiliser codes 13 A. State preparation 14 B. Error correction 16 I. INTRODUCTION IX. Digitization of quantum errors 16 A. Systematic gate errors 17 B. Environmental decoherence 18 The micro-computer revolution of the late 20th century C. More general mappings 18 has arguably been of greater impact to the world than any other technological revolution in history. The advent of transistors, integrated circuits, and the modern micro- processor has spawned literally hundreds of devices from ∗ electronic address: [email protected] pocket calculators to the iPod, all now integrated through 2 an extensive worldwide communications system. How- ables (LS98; Bra98; vL08; ATK+09), ion-traps and other ever, as we enter the 21st century ever increasing compu- systems containing motional degrees of freedom (ST00), tational power is driving us quickly to the realm where adiabatic computation (JFS06) and globally controlled quantum physics dominates. The component size of indi- quantum computers (BBK03). Work also continues vidual transistors on modern microprocessors are becom- on not only developing better (and in some ways, ing so small that quantum effects will soon begin to domi- more technologically useful) protocols such as subsys- nate. Unfortunately, quantum mechanical behaviour will tem codes (KLP05; KLPL06; Bac06) and topological tend to result in unpredictable and unwanted operation codes (Kit97; DKLP02; BMD06; BMD07b; BMD07a; in classical microprocessor designs. We therefore have RHG07; FSG09). Advanced techniques to analyse fault- two choices: keep trying to suppressing quantum effects tolerant thresholds (AGP08; PR12; BMD08; BAO+12) in classically fabricated electronics or move to the field of have also been developed to implement error correction in quantum information processing (QIP) where we exploit a fault-tolerant manner with concatenated codes (Ste97a; them. This leads to a paradigm shift in the way we view Ste02; DA07; Kni05) and topological codes (BMD07b; and process information and has commanded consider- KBAMD10; Bom11). able interest from physicists, engineers, computer sci- Along with QEC, other methods of protecting quan- entists and mathematicians. The counter-intuitive and tum information were also developed. These other tech- strange rules of quantum physics offers enormous possi- niques would technically be placed in a separate cate- bilities for information processing and the development gory of error suppression rather than error correction. of a large scale quantum computer is the holy grail for The distinction between error suppression and error cor- many researchers worldwide. rection is also known as passive and active QEC, the While the advent of Shor's algorithm (Sho97) certainly latter terminology is much more prevalent in the the- spawned great interest in quantum information process- oretical community. The most well known techniques ing, demonstrating that quantum algorithms could be of error suppression are protocols such as decoherence far more efficient than those used in classical computing, free subspaces (DFS) (PSE96; DG97; LCW98; DG98b; there was a great deal of debate surrounding the practi- ZR97b; ZR97a; DG98a; LW03). DFS protocols are pas- cality of building a large scale, controllable, quantum sys- sive, encoding information in a subspace which is in- tem. It was well known even before the introduction of variant under the dynamics that generate errors. Ac- quantum information that coherent quantum states were tive methods for error suppression include applying re- extremely fragile and many believed that to maintain peated rotations to qubits such that these rotations, com- large, multi-qubit, coherent quantum states for a long bined with the natural dynamics that induce errors par- enough time to complete any quantum algorithm was un- tially cancel. These methods were initially referred to realistic (Unr95). Additionally, classical error correction as Bang-Bang control (VL98; VT99; Zan99) and devel- techniques are intrinsically based on a digital framework, oped primarily for NMR systems. In recent years these unlike quantum computing where the readout of qubits techniques have been further generalized and optimized is digital but actual manipulations are analogue. There- for use in essentially all quantum information processing fore, how can we adapt the vast knowledge gained from systems (VKL99; FLP04; VK03; VK05; KL05; Uhr07). classical coding theory to the quantum regime? These more advanced techniques are now routinely cat- Starting in 1995, several papers appeared, in rapid suc- egorized as dynamical decoupling protocols. As with cession, proposing codes which were appropriate to per- QEC, this field is vast, incorporating well established form error correction on quantum data (Sho95; Ste96a; ideas from quantum control to create specially designed CS96; LMPZ96; BSW96). This was a key theoreti- control sequences to suppress errors before more resource cal development needed to convince the general commu- intensive encoding is applied. nity that quantum computation was indeed a possibility. This review deals exclusively with the concepts of Since this initial introduction, the progress in this field QEC and fault-tolerant quantum computation. Many has been extensive. papers have reviewed error correction and fault- Initial research on error correction focused heavily tolerance (Got97; NC00; Got02; KLA+02; Ste01; on developing quantum codes (Ste96c; Ste96b; Got96; Got09), however to cater for a large audience, we attempt PVK97; KL97; Kni96), introducing a more rigorous the- to describe QEC and fault-tolerance in a more basic man- oretical framework for the structure, properties and op- ner, largely through examples. Instead of providing a eration of QEC (BSW96; KL00; CRSS98; Got97; CG97; more rigorous review of error correction, we instead fo- KLV00). Additionally, the introduction of concepts such cus on more practical issues involved when working with as fault-tolerant quantum computation (Sho96; DS96; these ideas. For those who have recently begun inves- Got98; KLZ98; Got00) leading directly to the thresh- tigating quantum information processing or those who old theorem for concatenated QEC (KLZ96; ABO97). are focused on other important theoretical and/or exper- In more recent years, QEC protocols have been de- imental aspects related to quantum computing, searching veloped for various systems, such as, continuous vari- through this enormous collection of work is daunting es- 3 pecially if a basic working knowledge of QEC is all that A. Basic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum Computing Overview
    Quantum Computing at Microsoft Stephen Jordan • As of November 2018: 60 entries, 392 references • Major new primitives discovered only every few years. Simulation is a killer app for quantum computing with a solid theoretical foundation. Chemistry Materials Nuclear and Particle Physics Image: David Parker, U. Birmingham Image: CERN Many problems are out of reach even for exascale supercomputers but doable on quantum computers. Understanding biological Nitrogen fixation Intractable on classical supercomputers But a 200-qubit quantum computer will let us understand it Finding the ground state of Ferredoxin 퐹푒2푆2 Classical algorithm Quantum algorithm 2012 Quantum algorithm 2015 ! ~3000 ~1 INTRACTABLE YEARS DAY Research on quantum algorithms and software is essential! Quantum algorithm in high level language (Q#) Compiler Machine level instructions Microsoft Quantum Development Kit Quantum Visual Studio Local and cloud Extensive libraries, programming integration and quantum samples, and language debugging simulation documentation Developing quantum applications 1. Find quantum algorithm with quantum speedup 2. Confirm quantum speedup after implementing all oracles 3. Optimize code until runtime is short enough 4. Embed into specific hardware estimate runtime Simulating Quantum Field Theories: Classically Feynman diagrams Lattice methods Image: Encyclopedia of Physics Image: R. Babich et al. Break down at strong Good for binding energies. coupling or high precision Sign problem: real time dynamics, high fermion density. There’s room for exponential
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • (CST Part II) Lecture 14: Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing
    Quantum Computing (CST Part II) Lecture 14: Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing The history of the universe is, in effect, a huge and ongoing quantum computation. The universe is a quantum computer. Seth Lloyd 1 / 21 Resources for this lecture Nielsen and Chuang p474-495 covers the material of this lecture. 2 / 21 Why we need fault tolerance Classical computers perform complicated operations where bits are repeatedly \combined" in computations, therefore if an error occurs, it could in principle propagate to a huge number of other bits. Fortunately, in modern digital computers errors are so phenomenally unlikely that we can forget about this possibility for all practical purposes. Errors do, however, occur in telecommunications systems, but as the purpose of these is the simple transmittal of some information, it suffices to perform error correction on the final received data. In a sense, quantum computing is the worst of both of these worlds: errors do occur with significant frequency, and if uncorrected they will propagate, rendering the computation useless. Thus the solution is that we must correct errors as we go along. 3 / 21 Fault tolerant quantum computing set-up For fault tolerant quantum computing: We use encoded qubits, rather than physical qubits. For example we may use the 7-qubit Steane code to represent each logical qubit in the computation. We use fault tolerant quantum gates, which are defined such thata single error in the fault tolerant gate propagates to at most one error in each encoded block of qubits. By a \block of qubits", we mean (for example) each block of 7 physical qubits that represents a logical qubit using the Steane code.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Clustering Algorithms
    Quantum Clustering Algorithms Esma A¨ımeur [email protected] Gilles Brassard [email protected] S´ebastien Gambs [email protected] Universit´ede Montr´eal, D´epartement d’informatique et de recherche op´erationnelle C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montr´eal (Qu´ebec), H3C 3J7 Canada Abstract Multidisciplinary by nature, Quantum Information By the term “quantization”, we refer to the Processing (QIP) is at the crossroads of computer process of using quantum mechanics in order science, mathematics, physics and engineering. It con- to improve a classical algorithm, usually by cerns the implications of quantum mechanics for infor- making it go faster. In this paper, we initiate mation processing purposes (Nielsen & Chuang, 2000). the idea of quantizing clustering algorithms Quantum information is very different from its classi- by using variations on a celebrated quantum cal counterpart: it cannot be measured reliably and it algorithm due to Grover. After having intro- is disturbed by observation, but it can exist in a super- duced this novel approach to unsupervised position of classical states. Classical and quantum learning, we illustrate it with a quantized information can be used together to realize wonders version of three standard algorithms: divisive that are out of reach of classical information processing clustering, k-medians and an algorithm for alone, such as being able to factorize efficiently large the construction of a neighbourhood graph. numbers, with dramatic cryptographic consequences We obtain a significant speedup compared to (Shor, 1997), search in a unstructured database with a the classical approach. quadratic speedup compared to the best possible clas- sical algorithms (Grover, 1997) and allow two people to communicate in perfect secrecy under the nose of an 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Quant-Ph/9705031V3 26 Aug 1997 Eddt Rvn Unu Optrfo Crashing
    CALT-68-2112 QUIC-97-030 quant-ph/9705031 Reliable Quantum Computers John Preskill1 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Abstract The new field of quantum error correction has developed spectacularly since its origin less than two years ago. Encoded quantum information can be protected from errors that arise due to uncontrolled interactions with the environment. Recovery from errors can work effectively even if occasional mistakes occur during the recovery procedure. Furthermore, encoded quantum information can be processed without serious propagation of errors. Hence, an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed reliably, provided that the average probability of error per quantum gate is less than a certain critical value, the accuracy threshold. A quantum computer storing about 106 qubits, with a probability of error per quantum gate of order 10−6, would be a formidable factoring engine. Even a smaller, less accurate quantum computer would be able to perform many useful tasks. This paper is based on a talk presented at the ITP Conference on Quantum Coherence and Decoherence, 15-18 December 1996. 1 The golden age of quantum error correction Many of us are hopeful that quantum computers will become practical and useful computing devices some time during the 21st century. It is probably fair to say, though, that none of us can now envision exactly what the hardware of that machine of the future will be like; surely, it will be much different than the sort of hardware that experimental physicists are investigating these days. But of one thing we can be quite confident—that a practical quantum computer will incorporate some type of error correction into its operation.
    [Show full text]
  • LI-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf
    FAULT-TOLERANCE ON NEAR-TERM QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND SUBSYSTEM QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTING CODES A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Muyuan Li In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Computational Science and Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology May 2020 Copyright c Muyuan Li 2020 FAULT-TOLERANCE ON NEAR-TERM QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND SUBSYSTEM QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTING CODES Approved by: Dr. Kenneth R. Brown, Advisor Department of Electrical and Computer Dr. C. David Sherrill Engineering School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Duke University Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Edmond Chow Dr. Richard Vuduc School of Computational Science and School of Computational Science and Engineering Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. T.A. Brian Kennedy Date Approved: March 19, 2020 School of Physics Georgia Institute of Technology I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. R. P. Feynman To my family and my friends. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Ken Brown, who has guided me through my graduate studies with his patience, wisdom, and generosity. He has always been supportive and helpful, and always makes himself available when I needed. I have been constantly inspired by his depth of knowledge in research, as well as his immense passion for life. I would also like to thank my committee members, Professors Edmond Chow, T.A. Brian Kennedy, C. David Sherrill, and Richard Vuduc, for their time and helpful sugges- tions. One half of my graduate career was spent at Georgia Tech and the other half at Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Progress of Trapped-Ion Processors Towards Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation
    PHYSICAL REVIEW X 7, 041061 (2017) Assessing the Progress of Trapped-Ion Processors Towards Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation A. Bermudez,1,2 X. Xu,3 R. Nigmatullin,4,3 J. O’Gorman,3 V. Negnevitsky,5 P. Schindler,6 T. Monz,6 U. G. Poschinger,7 C. Hempel,8 J. Home,5 F. Schmidt-Kaler,7 M. Biercuk,8 R. Blatt,6,9 S. Benjamin,3 and M. Müller1 1Department of Physics, College of Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, United Kingdom 2Instituto de Física Fundamental, IFF-CSIC, Madrid E-28006, Spain 3Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PH, United Kingdom 4Complex Systems Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 5Institute for Quantum Electronics, ETH Zürich, Otto-Stern-Weg 1, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland 6Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria 7Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Staudingerweg 7, 55128 Mainz, Germany 8ARC Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 9Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria (Received 24 May 2017; revised manuscript received 11 August 2017; published 13 December 2017) A quantitative assessment of the progress of small prototype quantum processors towards fault-tolerant quantum computation is a problem of current interest in experimental and theoretical quantum information science. We introduce a necessary and fair criterion for quantum error correction (QEC), which must be achieved in the development of these quantum processors before their sizes are sufficiently big to consider the well-known QEC threshold.
    [Show full text]
  • Entangled Many-Body States As Resources of Quantum Information Processing
    ENTANGLED MANY-BODY STATES AS RESOURCES OF QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING LI YING A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CENTRE FOR QUANTUM TECHNOLOGIES NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2013 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in the thesis. This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university previously. LI YING 23 July 2013 Acknowledgments I am very grateful to have spent about four years at CQT working with Leong Chuan Kwek. He always brings me new ideas in science and has helped me to establish good collaborative relationships with other scien- tists. Kwek helped me a lot in my life. I am also very grateful to Simon C. Benjamin. He showd me how to do high quality researches in physics. Simon also helped me to improve my writing and presentation. I hope to have fruitful collaborations in the near future with Kwek and Simon. For my project about the ground-code MBQC (Chapter2), I am thank- ful to Tzu-Chieh Wei, Daniel E. Browne and Robert Raussendorf. In one afternoon, Tzu-Chieh showed me the idea of his recent paper in this topic in the quantum cafe, which encouraged me to think about the ground- code MBQC. Dan and Robert have a high level of comprehension on the subject of the MBQC. And we had some very interesting discussions and communications. I am grateful to Sean D.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Control and Error Correction in Multi-Qubit Spin Registers in Diamond T
    LETTERS PUBLISHED ONLINE: 2 FEBRUARY 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.2 Universal control and error correction in multi-qubit spin registers in diamond T. H. Taminiau 1,J.Cramer1,T.vanderSar1†,V.V.Dobrovitski2 and R. Hanson1* Quantum registers of nuclear spins coupled to electron spins of including one with an additional strongly coupled 13C spin (see individual solid-state defects are a promising platform for Supplementary Information). To demonstrate the generality of quantum information processing1–13. Pioneering experiments our approach to create multi-qubit registers, we realized the initia- selected defects with favourably located nuclear spins with par- lization, control and readout of three weakly coupled 13C spins for ticularly strong hyperfine couplings4–10. To progress towards each NV centre studied (see Supplementary Information). In the large-scale applications, larger and deterministically available following, we consider one of these NV centres in detail and use nuclear registers are highly desirable. Here, we realize univer- two of its weakly coupled 13C spins to form a three-qubit register sal control over multi-qubit spin registers by harnessing abun- for quantum error correction (Fig. 1a). dant weakly coupled nuclear spins. We use the electron spin of Our control method exploits the dependence of the nuclear spin a nitrogen–vacancy centre in diamond to selectively initialize, quantization axis on the electron spin state as a result of the aniso- control and read out carbon-13 spins in the surrounding spin tropic hyperfine interaction (see Methods for hyperfine par- bath and construct high-fidelity single- and two-qubit gates. ameters), so no radiofrequency driving of the nuclear spins is We exploit these new capabilities to implement a three-qubit required7,23–28.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Zero-Knowledge Arguments for Quantum Computations
    Classical zero-knowledge arguments for quantum computations Thomas Vidick∗ Tina Zhangy Abstract We show that every language in BQP admits a classical-verifier, quantum-prover zero-knowledge ar- gument system which is sound against quantum polynomial-time provers and zero-knowledge for classical (and quantum) polynomial-time verifiers. The protocol builds upon two recent results: a computational zero-knowledge proof system for languages in QMA, with a quantum verifier, introduced by Broadbent et al. (FOCS 2016), and an argument system for languages in BQP, with a classical verifier, introduced by Mahadev (FOCS 2018). 1 Introduction The paradigm of the interactive proof system is a versatile tool in complexity theory. Although traditional complexity classes are usually defined in terms of a single Turing machine|NP, for example, can be defined as the class of languages which a non-deterministic Turing machine is able to decide|many have reformulations in the language of interactive proofs, and such reformulations often inspire natural and fruitful variants on the traditional classes upon which they are based. (The class MA, for example, can be considered a natural extension of NP under the interactive-proof paradigm.) Intuitively speaking, an interactive proof system is a model of computation involving two entities, a verifier and a prover, the former of whom is computationally efficient, and the latter of whom is unbounded but untrusted. The verifier and the prover exchange messages, and the prover attempts to `convince' the verifier that a certain problem instance is a yes-instance. We can define some particular complexity class as the set of languages for which there exists an interactive proof system that 1) is complete, 2) is sound, and 3) has certain other properties which vary depending on the class in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconditional Quantum Teleportation
    R ESEARCH A RTICLES our experiment achieves Fexp 5 0.58 6 0.02 for the field emerging from Bob’s station, thus Unconditional Quantum demonstrating the nonclassical character of this experimental implementation. Teleportation To describe the infinite-dimensional states of optical fields, it is convenient to introduce a A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, pair (x, p) of continuous variables of the electric H. J. Kimble,* E. S. Polzik field, called the quadrature-phase amplitudes (QAs), that are analogous to the canonically Quantum teleportation of optical coherent states was demonstrated experi- conjugate variables of position and momentum mentally using squeezed-state entanglement. The quantum nature of the of a massive particle (15). In terms of this achieved teleportation was verified by the experimentally determined fidelity analogy, the entangled beams shared by Alice Fexp 5 0.58 6 0.02, which describes the match between input and output states. and Bob have nonlocal correlations similar to A fidelity greater than 0.5 is not possible for coherent states without the use those first described by Einstein et al.(16). The of entanglement. This is the first realization of unconditional quantum tele- requisite EPR state is efficiently generated via portation where every state entering the device is actually teleported. the nonlinear optical process of parametric down-conversion previously demonstrated in Quantum teleportation is the disembodied subsystems of infinite-dimensional systems (17). The resulting state corresponds to a transport of an unknown quantum state from where the above advantages can be put to use. squeezed two-mode optical field.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Algorithms
    An Introduction to Quantum Algorithms Emma Strubell COS498 { Chawathe Spring 2011 An Introduction to Quantum Algorithms Contents Contents 1 What are quantum algorithms? 3 1.1 Background . .3 1.2 Caveats . .4 2 Mathematical representation 5 2.1 Fundamental differences . .5 2.2 Hilbert spaces and Dirac notation . .6 2.3 The qubit . .9 2.4 Quantum registers . 11 2.5 Quantum logic gates . 12 2.6 Computational complexity . 19 3 Grover's Algorithm 20 3.1 Quantum search . 20 3.2 Grover's algorithm: How it works . 22 3.3 Grover's algorithm: Worked example . 24 4 Simon's Algorithm 28 4.1 Black-box period finding . 28 4.2 Simon's algorithm: How it works . 29 4.3 Simon's Algorithm: Worked example . 32 5 Conclusion 33 References 34 Page 2 of 35 An Introduction to Quantum Algorithms 1. What are quantum algorithms? 1 What are quantum algorithms? 1.1 Background The idea of a quantum computer was first proposed in 1981 by Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, who pointed out that accurately and efficiently simulating quantum mechanical systems would be impossible on a classical computer, but that a new kind of machine, a computer itself \built of quantum mechanical elements which obey quantum mechanical laws" [1], might one day perform efficient simulations of quantum systems. Classical computers are inherently unable to simulate such a system using sub-exponential time and space complexity due to the exponential growth of the amount of data required to completely represent a quantum system. Quantum computers, on the other hand, exploit the unique, non-classical properties of the quantum systems from which they are built, allowing them to process exponentially large quantities of information in only polynomial time.
    [Show full text]