Arxiv:2001.08251V1 [Cond-Mat.Mes-Hall] 22 Jan 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Democratizing Spin Qubits∗ Charles Tahany Laboratory for Physical Sciences, 8050 Greenmead Rd, College Park, MD 20740 (Dated: January 24, 2020) I’ve been building Powerpoint-based quantum computers with electron spins in silicon for 17 19 years. Unfortunately, real-life-based quantum dot quantum computers are harder to implement. Fabrication, control, and materials challenges abound. The way to accelerate discovery is to make and measure more qubits. Here I discuss separating the qubit realization and testing circuitry from the materials science and on-chip fabrication that will ultimately be necessary. This approach should allow us, in the shorter term, to characterize wafers non-invasively for their qubit-relevant properties, to make small qubit systems on various different materials with little extra cost, and even to test spin-qubit to superconducting cavity entanglement protocols where the best possible cavity quality is preserved. Such a testbed can advance the materials science of semiconductor quantum information devices and enable small quantum computers. This article may also be useful as a light and light-hearted introduction to spin qubits. The two states of a qubit are realized in the spin of an cavity (Figure 2). Superconducting circuits can be float- electron, spin up and spin down. A single electron can ing, requiring no source or sink of carriers. In contrast, be trapped in a semiconductor box, called a quantum using what we know now as best principles for making a dot (Figure 1). In silicon—currently the most promising silicon quantum dot qubit (Figure 3), one needs to make material for spin-based quantum computing—the indi- very small dots (due to large effective mass), with mul- rect band-gap means that the electron has extra nearby tiple layers of overlapping or tightly-aligned metal gates energy levels, combinations of the conduction band min- to limit cross-capacitance between dot gates [16] and to ima or valleys where the electron exists. Temperature, increase yield due to disorder, all with O(10 nm) wire- noise, and gate operations can cause unwanted excita- widths at 50-100 nm wire pitch. Worse, the materials tion into these states. This so-called “valley splitting” stack (causing current leakage between the top gates and problem, especially in silicon-germanium quantum dots, electrons, disorder, etc) can be critically important to impacts yield, initialization/readout, and quantum oper- whether the quantum dots you want can even be formed ations, and originally motivated this work. Although ob- where you want them, let alone will they work or have scure, this materials science issue is a roadblock to quan- desirable qubit properties. Spin quantum dot qubits tum information processors in silicon, and valley splitting also need multiple physical wires per dot, in addition is only representative of a greater challenge. to nearby charge sensors (for spin-to-charge conversion- Like for other qubit parameters such as coherence time based readout). This level of complexity in fabrica- and operation fidelity, to measure the valley splitting one tion—which must be coupled with good materials science must fabricate a quantum dot and test it, typically at properties of the wafer and the gate stack—retards both dilution refrigerator temperatures [1]. The general diffi- new qubit exploration and characterizing many, individ- culty in making qubits in semiconductors has hampered ual quantum dots to optimize materials parameters. progress in the field. Exciting recent success—functional We can separate the materials science challenge from dot qubits and compelling quantum gate demonstrations the “making the dots and measure them” challenge. [2–10]—has taught us a lot about how to make good If the dots and associated readout circuitry can be qubits. Yet there is a high barrier to entry for new experi- made on another circuit chip or board, then the actual mental groups compared to, say, superconducting qubits. electron(hole)-hosting wafer can be optimized separately Do superconducting qubit experimentalists have it (and even made of different crystals such as germanium). easy? Yeah, they kind of do. The transmon qubit [11– The idea of “flip-chip” engineering has already been ap- 13], which itself is robust by design [14], can be fabricated plied in the superconducting context [17, 18], while the with essentially a single layer of metal, at huge length concept of a “probe” trap has been used in ion trap quan- scales if wanted [15], and can be characterized and con- tum computing [19, 20] to search for heating mechanisms trolled with a single microwave cavity/generator/line or on relevant surfaces. We hope to motivate a new kind of arXiv:2001.08251v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 22 Jan 2020 even wirelessly, via a properly designed superconducting testbed where dots are induced on a separate chip to characterize materials [21] and to see if the protocols we design for qubit operation work. In doing so, an acceler- ation of progress similar to that driven by the “wireless” ∗ or, How to make semiconductor-based quantum computers with- 3D transmon (Figure 2bc) could be replicated in the spin out fabricating quantum dot qubits; Based on talks I gave at the community. ARO/LPS Quantum Computing Program Review, August 2018, and 4th School and Conference on Spin-Based Quantum Infor- mation Processing, September 2018. y [email protected] out that the Blochwave coe function height and wave(see function Appendix height that IX B changesphonons for accurately at with more electric details). field Figureextent and 7 valley of splitting. explicitly the shows It wavephonon the turns function; energy valley decreasing relaxation (assuming rateexact in orbital the case two (Eq. casesM of 10). fixed Thiselements prefactor predicts thatwithin the the phonon lowest relaxation manifold rategiven (both due will initial to be and gaussian final peakeddependence wave states at as functions). have the opposed To the Umklapp understand to same this a remember thatIX for B. valley relaxation thiswave transition length occurs of thewhere emitted Umklapp phonon, etc. in realistic silicon quantumand dots a large will growth likely(points) direction be which electric has reduced field been versus interpolated duea10nmquantumwell.The (line) the to for space-charge 1D a separation typical results SiGe fromFigure presented heterostructure the 8: with here donor a Results due layer quantum from of well to of 1D interface 10 tight-binding nm, roughness/steps, model barriers of for 150 wave meV, functions for ground and excited valley states and valley splitting for Let us compare Eq. 16 to pure orbital relaxation, Eq. 10. At first glance, the valley relaxation rate has a _ x ∆ 0 2 v _ M is the valley splitting, q ∆ u ⇠ . The valley relaxation expression also includes prominently a = 1 ∆ . In the orbital case, we must calculate matrix elements from v / ~ v ffi l,t cients to the nearest valley at which connect valleys in neighboring Brillouin zones are the most e z z Valley Splitting, E (eV) -component of the electron dot wave function is the output of a 2-band tight-binding calculation 0 v 0.5 1.5 2.5 ∆ is constant with 0 1 2 3 0 4 x 10 in the orbital case (assuming parabolic dot potentials for both and matrix elements z 0 − 3 0.2 QW=10 nm (N=74) a b is the extent of the wave function (assumed gaussian) in c d z 0.4 0 “p-like” increases the relaxation rate. These e ∆ 0.6 q u ~130 meV v , which it isn’t). Equation 16 also shows the importance of the Electric field, E kz =0 0.8 . 0 3 . k 3 excited max confinement k max “valley state” 1 splitting . The details of this calculation are given in Appendix are most e z (V/m) ~0.1 – 8 meV 1.2 Ev ~ 0-3 meV k1.4 z z s -like envelope function) such that the matrix ffi 1e7 meV 200 meV 150 meV 100 meV 50 meV cient and phonons are then emitted in the spin “s-like” 1.6 exp( qubit 1.8 ff 2 ects are related, in that Umklapp p − -like to x 10 z 0 2 q 7 2 u 2 / 6 4) ⇥ ffi 1 10 cient relaxation channel prefactor absent in the s z ˆ -like states, such that 6 and V/m. Valley splitting q u is the phonon ∆ 20 z z 0 0 3 ∗ 2 z 2 29 T for the specific 1/e ∗ 2 T and atomistic oscillations F k plane creating our dot potential. ) x; y ( time, almost always due to emission of a phonon at 1 T First, create an electrostatic trap for the electron in Let us now design the simplest quantum dot, using times (~ns).of Germanium silicon is ischemically interesting. strong pure and due But perfectphy, to the dielectrics) crystals, the pull and precision CMOSsilicon lithogra- the industry exists fact that (ultra- andnuclei isotopically is have been enriched available removed (where leavingleading only to the spin-0 extremely silicon-28), spin-1/2 long coherence Si times [36]. by making either aFor “quantum well” the or an former,sandwich inversion [37]. layer. use For thesilicon a (MOS) latter, interface strain-engineered use of theaccumulation silicon SiGe-Si-SiGe gate well-known and (positive oxide- silicon-dioxide. voltage) creates An like a triangular- potential, pulling electronssurface (if of available) the upther buried the case quantum top there well are(assuming (Figure no no electrons doping). 1a). until Thesilicon we In effective is put mass ei- relatively them of high, there splitting electrons meaning in of that ~1meV toof = get ~30 an 10K, nm orbital we(depletion) laterally. need and Finally, positive an athe (accumulation) effective combination trap gates of “box” in can negative Because the form of thecon large compared effective to GaAs mass [38], of the electrons community has in learned sili- time assuming annot exponential usually fall-off, the whichwith case).