DOCSLIB.ORG

Universal Photonic Quantum Computation Via Time-Delayed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Universal Photonic Quantum Computation Via Time-Delayed Universal photonic quantum computation via time-delayed feedback Hannes Pichlera,b,1,2, Soonwon Choib,1, Peter Zollerc,d, and Mikhail D. Lukinb aInstitute for Theoretical Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138; bDepartment of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; cInstitute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria; dInstitute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria Edited by Harry J. Kimble, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, and approved September 19, 2017 (received for review June 18, 2017) We propose and analyze a deterministic protocol to generate two- trast, time-delayed quantum feedback renders the system non- dimensional photonic cluster states using a single quantum emit- Markovian, introducing an effective quantum memory that we ter via time-delayed quantum feedback. As a physical implemen- harness to create a universal resource. While previous works tation, we consider a single atom or atom-like system coupled proposed compensating for this limitation of Markovian systems to a 1D waveguide with a distant mirror, where guided photons by using multiple quantum emitters (22), we stress that delayed represent the qubits, while the mirror allows the implementation feedback allows for enabling photonic MBQC already with a of feedback. We identify the class of many-body quantum states single emitter. that can be produced using this approach and characterize them in terms of 2D tensor network states. Photonic 2D Cluster State The fundamental building block of our approach is a single, quantum optics j delayed feedback j photonic quantum computation driven quantum emitter (Q) coupled to a 1D waveguide and a distant mirror as depicted in Fig. 1A. Our protocol consists of a repeated excitation of this quantum emitter, leading to an emis- uantum information processing with optical photons is sion of a train of photon pulses into the waveguide, encoding being actively explored for the past two decades (1, 2). PHYSICS Q qubits via the absence (j0ik ) or presence (j1ik ) of a photon in However, despite a number of conceptual (3) and technolog- the k-th pulse. The mirror feeds these photons back to the emit- ical breakthroughs (4–6), the probabilistic nature of quantum ter with a time delay τ, such that the photons can interact with gates limits the scalability of linear optical systems. Here we the emitter more than once (Fig. 1B). In this way, the emitter can show that one can deterministically generate photonic states with create correlations not only between subsequently emitted pho- the full power of universal quantum computation using quan- tons but also between photon pulses separated by the time delay tum control of a single emitter in combination with time-delayed τ. Effectively this leads to a two-dimensional entanglement struc- coherent quantum feedback (7–9). Our approach is motivated ture as we discuss now for the specific example of the 2D cluster by recent experimental progress demonstrating high-fidelity gen- state (see also Fig. 1C). eration of single photons (5, 10) and deterministic quantum For concreteness, we focus on an emitter (representing Q) operations between single photons and emitters (11–13) in var- with an internal structure depicted in Fig. 2A, supporting two ious systems (14–19). We present an explicit protocol to cre- metastable states jg1i ≡ j0iQ and jg2i ≡ j1iQ, which can be ate a 2D cluster state (20) with a single atomic or atom-like coherently manipulated by a classical field Ω1(t). The emitter emitter coupled to photonic waveguide. The delayed feedback can be excited from jg2i to a state jeLi using a laser with Rabi fre- is introduced by reflecting part of the emitted light field back quency Ω2(t). Following each excitation, the atom will decay to onto the emitter. Our approach allows for deterministic genera- tion of complex photonic entangled states and opens avenues to photonic quantum computation and quantum simulation using Significance minimal resources already available in current state-of-the-art experiments. Creating large entangled states with photons as quantum Time-delayed feedback is a powerful tool in several areas information carriers is a central challenge for quantum infor- of science and engineering (7). In what follows, we show that mation processing. Since photons do not interact directly, delayed coherent quantum feedback can be used as a resource entangling them requires a nonlinear element. One approach to generate quantum entanglement and already in its most basic is to sequentially generate photons using a quantum emit- form may enable universal quantum computation. We focus ter that can induce quantum correlations between photons. on quantum optical systems, where it was shown previously Here we show that delayed quantum feedback dramatically that multipartite entanglement between photonic qubits can be expands the class of achievable photonic quantum states. generated by a single emitter in a sequential emission pro- In particular, we show that in state-of-the-art experiments cess (21–23). We demonstrate that the entanglement structure with single atom-like quantum emitters, the most basic form of the resultant state can be qualitatively enriched using time- of delayed quantum feedback already allows for creation of delayed quantum feedback. While photons emitted in a generic states that are universal resources for quantum computation. sequential process are entangled only in a one-dimensional This opens avenues for quantum information processing with way, characterized by so-called matrix product states (MPSs) photons using minimal experimental resources. (24), we show below that delayed feedback leads to a higher dimensional entanglement structure captured by so-called pro- Author contributions: H.P., S.C., P.Z., and M.D.L. designed research; H.P. and S.C. jected entangled pair states (PEPSs) (25). Significantly, while performed research; H.P. and S.C. analyzed data; and H.P., S.C., P.Z., and M.D.L. wrote the paper. MPSs have limited use for quantum computation and simula- tion, as they can be efficiently simulated classically, PEPSs con- The authors declare no conflict of interest. tain states that serve as a resource for universal measurement- This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. based quantum computation (MBQC) (20). The difference is Published under the PNAS license. rooted in the Markovian nature of the sequential emission pro- 1H.P and S.C. contributed equally to this work. cess that severely restricts the class of achievable states. In con- 2To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711003114 PNAS Early Edition j 1 of 6 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 A quantum in state jg1i or the photon mode is empty, there is no interaction. emitter This process implements a controlled σz gate mirror 1D wave guide ^ 1 z ZQ;k = j0iQh0j ⊗ k + j1iQh1j ⊗ σk [1] B vaccuum input entangling the atom and the k-th photon. In turn, the subse- quently generated k + N -th photon inherits this entanglement, thereby giving rise to an effective 2D entanglement structure (Fig. 1C). delay line, time delay output: 2D cluster state Formally, the protocol can be interpreted as a sequen- tial application of gates X^Q;k+N Z^Q;k H^Q, on the atom and C photonic qubits k and k + N , on the initial trivial state j0i N j0i C D H^ = p1 (σz + σx ) Q k k (Fig. 2 and ). Here Q 2 Q Q and ^ 1 x XQ;k = j0iQh0|⊗ k + j1iQh1j ⊗ σk . One can show that after (M + 1) × N turns, this gives exactly the 2D cluster state on a M × N square lattice with shifted periodic boundary conditions (see Materials and Methods): 0N (M +1) 1 Y ^ ^ ^ O j C2D i = @ XQ;k+N ZQ;k HQA j0iQ j0ik : [2] k=1 k 2D cluster state Universal quantum computation (27) can be performed by sequentially measuring each photonic qubit directly at the output Fig. 1. Schematic setting. (A) A quantum emitter Q is coupled to a 1D port—for example, using another atom as a high-fidelity mea- waveguide that is terminated on one side by a (distant) mirror. (B) In each surement device. This can be implemented using pulse shaping time step k, Q can emit a phtoton (k + N) toward the mirror—that is, into techniques (Fig. 3A), allowing for a perfect absorption of each a delay line—and interact with a photon k returning from the delay line, photon by the second atom (28, 29). exiting at the output port. (C) Visualization of the resulting entanglement structure: Wrapping the photon channel displayed in B around a cylinder Experimental Requirements. Photons generated in this pulsed with the proper circumference (equivalent to the time delay τ), it can be scheme have a finite bandwidth B. To realize the controlled phase seen that in each time step Q interacts with two photons that are neigh- gate given in Eq. 1, this bandwidth must be small—that is, B γR boring along the artificial, second dimension. Therefore, as time progresses, (26); otherwise, the wave packet is distorted when scattered Q creates entanglement between neighboring photonic qubits, both in the physical and the artificial dimension. by the atom, reducing the gate fidelity, FZ (Fig. 3C). Narrow- bandwidth photons and high-fidelity gates can be obtained by shaping the temporal profiles, eliminating the error to first order jg2i, emitting a photon into the waveguide. For now, we assume that the atom–photon coupling is chiral (26) such that every such photon is emitted unidirectionally—that is, to the left in Fig. 1A AC (see however below). Finally, another excited state jeRi, degen- erate with jeLi, couples to the right, moving photons reflected from the mirror.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Key Concepts for Future QIS Learners Workshop Output Published Online May 13, 2020
    Key Concepts for Future QIS Learners Workshop output published online May 13, 2020 Background and Overview On behalf of the Interagency Working Group on Workforce, Industry and Infrastructure, under the NSTC Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science (QIS), the National Science Foundation invited 25 researchers and educators to come together to deliberate on defining a core set of key concepts for future QIS learners that could provide a starting point for further curricular and educator development activities. The deliberative group included university and industry researchers, secondary school and college educators, and representatives from educational and professional organizations. The workshop participants focused on identifying concepts that could, with additional supporting resources, help prepare secondary school students to engage with QIS and provide possible pathways for broader public engagement. This workshop report identifies a set of nine Key Concepts. Each Concept is introduced with a concise overall statement, followed by a few important fundamentals. Connections to current and future technologies are included, providing relevance and context. The first Key Concept defines the field as a whole. Concepts 2-6 introduce ideas that are necessary for building an understanding of quantum information science and its applications. Concepts 7-9 provide short explanations of critical areas of study within QIS: quantum computing, quantum communication and quantum sensing. The Key Concepts are not intended to be an introductory guide to quantum information science, but rather provide a framework for future expansion and adaptation for students at different levels in computer science, mathematics, physics, and chemistry courses. As such, it is expected that educators and other community stakeholders may not yet have a working knowledge of content covered in the Key Concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing: Principles and Applications
    Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 29 Issue 2 Article 3 2020 Quantum Computing: Principles and Applications Yoshito Kanamori University of Alaska Anchorage, [email protected] Seong-Moo Yoo University of Alabama in Huntsville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jitim Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Computer and Systems Architecture Commons, Information Security Commons, Management Information Systems Commons, Science and Technology Studies Commons, Technology and Innovation Commons, and the Theory and Algorithms Commons Recommended Citation Kanamori, Yoshito and Yoo, Seong-Moo (2020) "Quantum Computing: Principles and Applications," Journal of International Technology and Information Management: Vol. 29 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jitim/vol29/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of International Technology and Information Management by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 29, Number 2 2020 Quantum Computing: Principles and Applications Yoshito Kanamori (University of Alaska Anchorage) Seong-Moo Yoo (University of Alabama in Huntsville) ABSTRACT The development of quantum computers over the past few years is one of the most significant advancements in the history of quantum computing. D-Wave quantum computer has been available for more than eight years. IBM has made its quantum computer accessible via its cloud service. Also, Microsoft, Google, Intel, and NASA have been heavily investing in the development of quantum computers and their applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Quantum Search Practical?
    Q UANTUM C OMPUTING IS QUANTUM SEARCH PRACTICAL? Gauging a quantum algorithm’s practical significance requires weighing it against the best conventional techniques applied to useful instances of the same problem. The authors show that several commonly suggested applications of Grover’s quantum search algorithm fail to offer computational improvements over the best conventional algorithms. ome researchers suggest achieving mas- polynomial-time algorithm for number factoring sive speedups in computing by exploiting is known, and the security of the RSA code used quantum-mechanical effects such as su- on the Internet relies on this problem’s difficulty. perposition (quantum parallelism) and If a large and error-tolerant quantum computer Sentanglement.1 A quantum algorithm typically were available today, running Shor’s algorithm on consists of applying quantum gates to quantum it could compromise e-commerce. states, but because the input to the algorithm Lov Grover’s quantum search algorithm is also might be normal classical bits (or nonquantum), widely studied. It must compete with advanced it only affects the selection of quantum gates. Af- classical search techniques in applications that use ter all the gates are applied, quantum measure- parallel processing3 or exploit problem structure, ment is performed, producing the algorithm’s often implicitly. Despite its promise, though, it is nonquantum output. Deutsch’s algorithm, for in- by no means clear whether, or how soon, quantum stance, solves a certain artificial problem in fewer computing methods will offer better performance steps than any classical (nonquantum) algorithm, in useful applications.4 Traditional complexity and its relative speedup grows with the problem analysis of Grover’s algorithm doesn’t consider the size.
    [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]
  • On Counterfactual Computation
    On Counterfactual Computation Paolo Zuliani Department of Computer Science Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544, USA [email protected] Abstract In this paper we pursue two targets. First, showing that counterfactual computa- tion can be rigorously formalised as a quantum computation. Second, presenting a new counterfactual protocol which improve previous protocols. Counterfactual computation makes use of quantum mechanics' peculiarities to infer the outcome of a quantum com- putation without running that computation. In this paper, we first cast the definition of counterfactual protocol in the quantum programming language qGCL, thereby show- ing that counterfactual computation is an example of quantum computation. Next, we formalise in qGCL a probabilistic extension of counterfactual protocol for decision r problems (whose result is either 0 or 1). If pG denotes for protocol G the probability of obtaining result r \for free" (i.e. without running the quantum computer), then we 0 1 show that for any probabilistic protocol pG + pG ≤ 1 (as for non-probabilistic pro- 0 1 tocols). Finally, we present a probabilistic protocol K which satisfies pK + pK = 1, thus being optimal. Furthermore, the result is attained with a single insertion of the quantum computer, while it has been shown that a non-probabilistic protocol would obtain the result only in the limit (i.e. with an infinite number of insertions). 1 Introduction Counterfactuality is the fact that the sole possibility for an event to occur allows one to gain some information about that event, even though it did not actually occur. Counterfac- tual computation [4, 5] uses peculiar features of quantum mechanics to infer counterfactual statements about the result of a computation.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Transmon Machines
    Quantum Computing Hardware Platforms: Superconducting Transmon Machines • CSC591/ECE592 – Quantum Computing • Fall 2020 • Professor Patrick Dreher • Research Professor, Department of Computer Science • Chief Scientist, NC State IBM Q Hub 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 1 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher Outline • Introduction – Digital versus Quantum Computation • Conceptual design for superconducting transmon QC hardware platforms • Construction of qubits with electronic circuits • Superconductivity • Josephson junction and nonlinear LC circuits • Transmon design with example IBM chip layout • Working with a superconducting transmon hardware platform • Quantum Mechanics of Two State Systems - Rabi oscillations • Performance characteristics of superconducting transmon hardware • Construct the basic CNOT gate • Entangled transmons and controlled gates • Appendices • References • Quantum mechanical solution of the 2 level system 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 2 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher Digital Computation Hardware Platforms Based on a Base2 Mathematics • Design principle for a digital computer is built on base2 mathematics • Identify voltage changes in electrical circuits that map base2 math into a “zero” or “one” corresponding to an on/off state • Build electrical circuits from simple on/off states that apply these basic rules to construct digital computers 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 3 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher From Previous Lectures It was
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Distributed Computing Applied to Grover's Search Algorithm
    Quantum Distributed Computing Applied to Grover’s Search Algorithm B Debabrata Goswami( ) Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India [email protected] Abstract. Grover’s Algorithm√ finds a unique element in an unsorted stock of N-elements in N queries through quantum search. A single- query solution can also be designed, but with an overhead of N log2 N steps to prepare and post process the query, which is worse than the classical N/2 queries. We show here that by distributing the computing load on a set of quantum computers, we achieve better information the- oretic bounds and relaxed space scaling. Howsoever small one quantum computing node is, by virtue of networking and sharing of data, we can virtually work with a sufficiently large qubit space. Keywords: Distributed quantum computing · Grover’s quantum search · Optical networking 1 Introduction Today’s digital computer is the cumulation of technological advancements that began with the mechanical clockwork ideas of Charles Babbage in the nineteenth century. However, it is surprising that logically, the high speed modern day com- puter is not fundamentally different from its gigantic 30 ton ancestors, the first of which were built in 1941 by the German engineer Konrad Zuse. Although comput- ers nowadays have become more compact and considerably faster in their perfor- mance, their primary execution methodology has remained the same, which is to derive a computationally useful result via the manipulation and interpretation of encoded bits. The underlying mathematical principles are indistinguishable from those outlined in the visionary Church-Turing hypothesis, proposed in the year 1936, much ahead of the birth of the first computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing : a Gentle Introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak
    QUANTUM COMPUTING A Gentle Introduction Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England ©2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. For information about special quantity discounts, please email [email protected] This book was set in Syntax and Times Roman by Westchester Book Group. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rieffel, Eleanor, 1965– Quantum computing : a gentle introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak. p. cm.—(Scientific and engineering computation) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-01506-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Quantum computers. 2. Quantum theory. I. Polak, Wolfgang, 1950– II. Title. QA76.889.R54 2011 004.1—dc22 2010022682 10987654321 Contents Preface xi 1 Introduction 1 I QUANTUM BUILDING BLOCKS 7 2 Single-Qubit Quantum Systems 9 2.1 The Quantum Mechanics of Photon Polarization 9 2.1.1 A Simple Experiment 10 2.1.2 A Quantum Explanation 11 2.2 Single Quantum Bits 13 2.3 Single-Qubit Measurement 16 2.4 A Quantum Key Distribution Protocol 18 2.5 The State Space of a Single-Qubit System 21 2.5.1 Relative Phases versus Global Phases 21 2.5.2 Geometric Views of the State Space of a Single Qubit 23 2.5.3 Comments on General Quantum State Spaces
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Framework for Quantum Affective Computing and Its Use in Fusion of Multi-Robot Emotions
    electronics Article Conceptual Framework for Quantum Affective Computing and Its Use in Fusion of Multi-Robot Emotions Fei Yan 1 , Abdullah M. Iliyasu 2,3,∗ and Kaoru Hirota 3,4 1 School of Computer Science and Technology, Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun 130022, China; [email protected] 2 College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia 3 School of Computing, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan; [email protected] 4 School of Automation, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study presents a modest attempt to interpret, formulate, and manipulate the emotion of robots within the precepts of quantum mechanics. Our proposed framework encodes emotion information as a superposition state, whilst unitary operators are used to manipulate the transition of emotion states which are subsequently recovered via appropriate quantum measurement operations. The framework described provides essential steps towards exploiting the potency of quantum mechanics in a quantum affective computing paradigm. Further, the emotions of multi-robots in a specified communication scenario are fused using quantum entanglement, thereby reducing the number of qubits required to capture the emotion states of all the robots in the environment, and therefore fewer quantum gates are needed to transform the emotion of all or part of the robots from one state to another. In addition to the mathematical rigours expected of the proposed framework, we present a few simulation-based demonstrations to illustrate its feasibility and effectiveness. This exposition is an important step in the transition of formulations of emotional intelligence to the quantum era.
    [Show full text]
  • A Game Plan for Quantum Computing
    February 2020 A game plan for quantum computing Thanks to technology advances, some companies may reap real gains from quantum computing within five years. What should you do to prepare for this next big wave in computers? by Alexandre Ménard, Ivan Ostojic, Mark Patel, and Daniel Volz Pharmaceutical companies have an abiding interest in enzymes. These proteins catalyze all kinds of biochemical interactions, often by targeting a single type of molecule with great precision. Harnessing the power of enzymes may help alleviate the major diseases of our time. Unfortunately, we don’t know the exact molecular structure of most enzymes. In principle, chemists could use computers to model these molecules in order to identify how the molecules work, but enzymes are such complex structures that most are impossible for classical computers to model. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer, however, could accurately predict in a matter of hours the properties, structure, and reactivity of such substances—an advance that could revolutionize drug development and usher in a new era in healthcare. Quantum computers have the potential to resolve problems of this complexity and magnitude across many different industries and applications, including finance, transportation, chemicals, and cybersecurity. Solving the impossible in a few hours of computing time, finding answers to problems that have bedeviled science and society for years, unlocking unprecedented capabilities for businesses of all kinds—those are the promises of quantum computing, a fundamentally different approach to computation. None of this will happen overnight. In fact, many companies and businesses won’t be able to reap significant value from quantum computing for a decade or more, although a few will see gains in the next five years.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computational Complexity Theory Is to Un- Derstand the Implications of Quantum Physics to Computational Complexity Theory
    Quantum Computational Complexity John Watrous Institute for Quantum Computing and School of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Article outline I. Definition of the subject and its importance II. Introduction III. The quantum circuit model IV. Polynomial-time quantum computations V. Quantum proofs VI. Quantum interactive proof systems VII. Other selected notions in quantum complexity VIII. Future directions IX. References Glossary Quantum circuit. A quantum circuit is an acyclic network of quantum gates connected by wires: the gates represent quantum operations and the wires represent the qubits on which these operations are performed. The quantum circuit model is the most commonly studied model of quantum computation. Quantum complexity class. A quantum complexity class is a collection of computational problems that are solvable by a cho- sen quantum computational model that obeys certain resource constraints. For example, BQP is the quantum complexity class of all decision problems that can be solved in polynomial time by a arXiv:0804.3401v1 [quant-ph] 21 Apr 2008 quantum computer. Quantum proof. A quantum proof is a quantum state that plays the role of a witness or certificate to a quan- tum computer that runs a verification procedure. The quantum complexity class QMA is defined by this notion: it includes all decision problems whose yes-instances are efficiently verifiable by means of quantum proofs. Quantum interactive proof system. A quantum interactive proof system is an interaction between a verifier and one or more provers, involving the processing and exchange of quantum information, whereby the provers attempt to convince the verifier of the answer to some computational problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Directions of Quantum Information Processing a Workshop on the Emerging Science and Technology of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Measurement
    Future Directions of Quantum Information Processing A Workshop on the Emerging Science and Technology of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Measurement Seth Lloyd, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dirk Englund, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Workshop funded by the Basic Research Office, Office of the Assistant Prepared by Kate Klemic Ph.D. and Jeremy Zeigler Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering. This report does not Virginia Tech Applied Research Corporation necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the US Department of Defense Preface Over the past century, science and technology have brought remarkable new capabilities to all sectors of the economy; from telecommunications, energy, and electronics to medicine, transportation and defense. Technologies that were fantasy decades ago, such as the internet and mobile devices, now inform the way we live, work, and interact with our environment. Key to this technological progress is the capacity of the global basic research community to create new knowledge and to develop new insights in science, technology, and engineering. Understanding the trajectories of this fundamental research, within the context of global challenges, empowers stakeholders to identify and seize potential opportunities. The Future Directions Workshop series, sponsored by the Basic Research Office of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, seeks to examine emerging research and engineering areas that are most likely to transform future technology capabilities. These workshops gather distinguished academic and industry researchers from the world’s top research institutions to engage in an interactive dialogue about the promises and challenges of these emerging basic research areas and how they could impact future capabilities.
    [Show full text]