DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamentals of Quantum Information Theory Michael Keyl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamentals of Quantum Information Theory Michael Keyl Physics Reports 369 (2002) 431–548 www.elsevier.com/locate/physrep Fundamentals of quantum information theory Michael Keyl TU-Braunschweig, Institute of Mathematical Physics, Mendelssohnstrae 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany Received 3 June 2002 editor: J. Eichler Abstract In this paper we give a self-contained introduction to the conceptional and mathematical foundations of quantum information theory. In the ÿrst part we introduce the basic notions like entanglement, channels, teleportation, etc. and their mathematical description. The second part is focused on a presentation of the quantitative aspects of the theory. Topics discussed in this context include: entanglement measures, chan- nel capacities, relations between both, additivity and continuity properties and asymptotic rates of quantum operations. Finally, we give an overview on some recent developments and open questions. c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PACS: 03.67.−a; 03.65.−w Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 433 1.1. What is quantum information? ................................................................... 434 1.2. Tasks of quantum information .................................................................... 436 1.3. Experimental realizations ........................................................................ 438 2. Basic concepts ...................................................................................... 439 2.1. Systems, states and e=ects ....................................................................... 439 2.1.1. Operator algebras ........................................................................ 440 2.1.2. Quantum mechanics ...................................................................... 441 2.1.3. Classical probability ...................................................................... 442 2.1.4. Observables ............................................................................. 443 2.2. Composite systems and entangled states ........................................................... 444 2.2.1. Tensor products ......................................................................... 444 2.2.2. Compound and hybrid systems ............................................................ 445 2.2.3. Correlations and entanglement ............................................................. 446 2.2.4. Bell inequalities ......................................................................... 447 E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Keyl). 0370-1573/02/$ - see front matter c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0370-1573(02)00266-1 432 M. Keyl / Physics Reports 369 (2002) 431–548 2.3. Channels ...................................................................................... 448 2.3.1. Completely positive maps ................................................................. 449 2.3.2. The Stinespring theorem .................................................................. 450 2.3.3. The duality lemma ....................................................................... 450 2.4. Separability criteria and positive maps ............................................................ 451 2.4.1. Positivity ............................................................................... 451 2.4.2. The partial transpose ..................................................................... 452 2.4.3. The reduction criterion ................................................................... 453 3. Basic examples ..................................................................................... 453 3.1. Entanglement .................................................................................. 454 3.1.1. Maximally entangled states ................................................................ 454 3.1.2. Werner states ........................................................................... 455 3.1.3. Isotropic states .......................................................................... 456 3.1.4. OO-invariant states ....................................................................... 457 3.1.5. PPT states .............................................................................. 459 3.1.6. Multipartite states ........................................................................ 460 3.2. Channels ...................................................................................... 461 3.2.1. Quantum channnels ...................................................................... 461 3.2.2. Channels under symmetry ................................................................. 463 3.2.3. Classical channels........................................................................ 464 3.2.4. Observables and preparations .............................................................. 464 3.2.5. Instruments and parameter-dependent operations ............................................. 465 3.2.6. LOCC and separable channels ............................................................. 467 3.3. Quantum mechanics in phase space ............................................................... 468 3.3.1. Weyl operators and the CCR .............................................................. 468 3.3.2. Gaussian states .......................................................................... 469 3.3.3. Entangled Gaussians ..................................................................... 470 3.3.4. Gaussian channels ....................................................................... 472 4. Basic tasks ......................................................................................... 473 4.1. Teleportation and dense coding ................................................................... 473 4.1.1. Impossible machines revisited: classical teleportation ......................................... 474 4.1.2. Entanglement enhanced teleportation ....................................................... 474 4.1.3. Dense coding ........................................................................... 476 4.2. Estimating and copying ......................................................................... 477 4.2.1. Quantum state estimation ................................................................. 477 4.2.2. Approximate cloning ..................................................................... 478 4.3. Distillation of entanglement ...................................................................... 479 4.3.1. Distillation of pairs of qubits .............................................................. 480 4.3.2. Distillation of isotropic states .............................................................. 481 4.3.3. Bound entangled states ................................................................... 481 4.4. Quantum error correction ........................................................................ 482 4.5. Quantum computing ............................................................................ 485 4.5.1. The network model of classical computing .................................................. 485 4.5.2. Computational complexity................................................................. 486 4.5.3. Reversible computing .................................................................... 487 4.5.4. The network model of a quantum computer ................................................. 487 4.5.5. Simons problem ......................................................................... 490 4.6. Quantum cryptography .......................................................................... 491 5. Entanglement measures .............................................................................. 493 5.1. General properties and deÿnitions ................................................................. 493 5.1.1. Axiomatics .............................................................................. 493 M. Keyl / Physics Reports 369 (2002) 431–548 433 5.1.2. Pure states .............................................................................. 495 5.1.3. Entanglement measures for mixed states .................................................... 497 5.2. Two qubits .................................................................................... 498 5.2.1. Pure states .............................................................................. 499 5.2.2. EOFfor Bell diagonal states .............................................................. 500 5.2.3. Wootters formula ........................................................................ 501 5.2.4. Relative entropy for Bell diagonal states .................................................... 502 5.3. Entanglement measures under symmetry ........................................................... 503 5.3.1. Entanglement of formation ................................................................ 503 5.3.2. Werner states ........................................................................... 503 5.3.3. Isotropic states .......................................................................... 505 5.3.4. OO-invariant states ....................................................................... 505 5.3.5. Relative entropy of entanglement .......................................................... 507 6. Channel capacity .................................................................................... 509 6.1. The general case ..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Quantum Information?
    What Is Quantum Information? Robert B. Griffiths Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Research supported by the National Science Foundation References (work by R. B. Griffiths) • \Nature and location of quantum information." Ph◦ys. Rev. A 66 (2002) 012311; quant-ph/0203058 \Channel kets, entangled states, and the location of quan◦ tum information," Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 042337; quant-ph/0409106 Consistent Quantum Theory (Cambridge 2002) http://quan◦ tum.phys.cmu.edu/ What Is Quantum Information? 01. 100.01.tex Introduction What is quantum information? Precede by: • What is information? ◦ What is classical information theory? ◦ What is information? Example, newspaper • Symbolic representation of some situation ◦ Symbols in newspaper correlated with situation ◦ Information is about that situation ◦ What Is Quantum Information? 04. 100.04.tex Classical Information Theory Shannon: • \Mathematical Theory of Communication" (1948) ◦ One of major scientific developments of 20th century ◦ Proposed quantitative measure of information ◦ Information entropy • H(X) = p log p − X i i i Logarithmic measure of missing information ◦ Probabilistic model: pi are probabilities ◦ Applies to classical (macroscopic)f g signals ◦ Coding theorem: Bound on rate of transmission of information• through noisy channel What Is Quantum Information? 05. 100.05.tex Quantum Information Theory (QIT) Goal of QIT: \Quantize Shannon" • Extend Shannon's ideas to domain where quantum effects◦ are important Find quantum counterpart of H(X) ◦ We live in a quantum world, so • QIT should be the fundamental info theory ◦ Classical theory should emerge from QIT ◦ Analogy: relativity theory Newton for v c ◦ ! What Is Quantum Information? 06. 100.06.tex QIT: Current Status Enormous number of published papers • Does activity = understanding? ◦ Some topics of current interest: • Entanglement ◦ Quantum channels ◦ Error correction ◦ Quantum computation ◦ Decoherence ◦ Unifying principles have yet to emerge • At least, they are not yet widely recognized ◦ What Is Quantum Information? 07.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tutorial Introduction to Quantum Circuit Programming in Dependently Typed Proto-Quipper
    A tutorial introduction to quantum circuit programming in dependently typed Proto-Quipper Peng Fu1, Kohei Kishida2, Neil J. Ross1, and Peter Selinger1 1 Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada ffrank-fu,neil.jr.ross,[email protected] 2 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract. We introduce dependently typed Proto-Quipper, or Proto- Quipper-D for short, an experimental quantum circuit programming lan- guage with linear dependent types. We give several examples to illustrate how linear dependent types can help in the construction of correct quan- tum circuits. Specifically, we show how dependent types enable program- ming families of circuits, and how dependent types solve the problem of type-safe uncomputation of garbage qubits. We also discuss other lan- guage features along the way. Keywords: Quantum programming languages · Linear dependent types · Proto-Quipper-D 1 Introduction Quantum computers can in principle outperform conventional computers at cer- tain crucial tasks that underlie modern computing infrastructures. Experimental quantum computing is in its early stages and existing devices are not yet suitable for practical computing. However, several groups of researchers, in both academia and industry, are now building quantum computers (see, e.g., [2,11,16]). Quan- tum computing also raises many challenging questions for the programming lan- guage community [17]: How should we design programming languages for quan- tum computation? How should we compile and optimize quantum programs? How should we test and verify quantum programs? How should we understand the semantics of quantum programming languages? In this paper, we focus on quantum circuit programming using the linear dependently typed functional language Proto-Quipper-D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 1 Postulate (QM4): Quantum Measurements
    Part IIC Lent term 2019-2020 QUANTUM INFORMATION & COMPUTATION Nilanjana Datta, DAMTP Cambridge 1 Postulate (QM4): Quantum measurements An isolated (closed) quantum system has a unitary evolution. However, when an exper- iment is done to find out the properties of the system, there is an interaction between the system and the experimentalists and their equipment (i.e., the external physical world). So the system is no longer closed and its evolution is not necessarily unitary. The following postulate provides a means of describing the effects of a measurement on a quantum-mechanical system. In classical physics the state of any given physical system can always in principle be fully determined by suitable measurements on a single copy of the system, while leaving the original state intact. In quantum theory the corresponding situation is bizarrely different { quantum measurements generally have only probabilistic outcomes, they are \invasive", generally unavoidably corrupting the input state, and they reveal only a rather small amount of information about the (now irrevocably corrupted) input state identity. Furthermore the (probabilistic) change of state in a quantum measurement is (unlike normal time evolution) not a unitary process. Here we outline the associated mathematical formalism, which is at least, easy to apply. (QM4) Quantum measurements and the Born rule In Quantum Me- chanics one measures an observable, i.e. a self-adjoint operator. Let A be an observable acting on the state space V of a quantum system Since A is self-adjoint, its eigenvalues P are real. Let its spectral projection be given by A = n anPn, where fang denote the set of eigenvalues of A and Pn denotes the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of V spanned by eigenvectors of A corresponding to the eigenvalue Pn.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1707.06910V2 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 22 Feb 2018 Xlntoscnenn H Eei Ftebte-Nw Pa Better-Known the of Genesis D the Park’S Concerning Analyze Explanations I States
    Twelve years before the quantum no-cloning theorem Juan Ortigoso∗ Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, CSIC, Serrano 121, 28006 Madrid, Spain (Dated: January 22, 2018) Abstract The celebrated quantum no-cloning theorem establishes the impossibility of making a perfect copy of an unknown quantum state. The discovery of this important theorem for the field of quantum information is currently dated 1982. I show here that an article published in 1970 [J. L. Park, Foundations of Physics, 1, 23-33 (1970)] contained an explicit mathematical proof of the impossibility of cloning quantum states. I analyze Park’s demonstration in the light of published explanations concerning the genesis of the better-known papers on no-cloning. arXiv:1707.06910v2 [physics.hist-ph] 22 Feb 2018 1 I. INTRODUCTION The no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics establishes that an arbitrary unknown quantum state cannot be copied.1 A modern proof,2 based on the linearity of quantum mechanics, takes two lines. Suppose that a device can implement a transformation T for copying two orthogonal states ψ and φ of a qubit: T ψ 0 = ψ ψ and T φ 0 = φ φ , | i | i | i| i | i| i | i| i | i| i where 0 is the ready state of the target system. It follows, from linearity, that | i T (a ψ + b φ ) 0 = aT ψ 0 + bT φ 0 = a ψ ψ + b φ φ . (1) | i | i | i | i| i | i| i | i| i | i| i But if the transformation T can clone arbitrary states, it should give, for any a, b values T (a ψ +b φ ) 0 =(a ψ +b φ )(a ψ +b φ )= a2 ψ ψ +b2 φ φ +ab ψ φ +ab φ ψ , (2) | i | i | i | i | i | i | i | i| i | i| i | i| i | i| i which is different from Eq.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Quantum Information and Computation
    Introduction to Quantum Information and Computation Steven M. Girvin ⃝c 2019, 2020 [Compiled: May 2, 2020] Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Two-Slit Experiment, Interference and Measurements . 2 1.2 Bits and Qubits . 3 1.3 Stern-Gerlach experiment: the first qubit . 8 2 Introduction to Hilbert Space 16 2.1 Linear Operators on Hilbert Space . 18 2.2 Dirac Notation for Operators . 24 2.3 Orthonormal bases for electron spin states . 25 2.4 Rotations in Hilbert Space . 29 2.5 Hilbert Space and Operators for Multiple Spins . 38 3 Two-Qubit Gates and Entanglement 43 3.1 Introduction . 43 3.2 The CNOT Gate . 44 3.3 Bell Inequalities . 51 3.4 Quantum Dense Coding . 55 3.5 No-Cloning Theorem Revisited . 59 3.6 Quantum Teleportation . 60 3.7 YET TO DO: . 61 4 Quantum Error Correction 63 4.1 An advanced topic for the experts . 68 5 Yet To Do 71 i Chapter 1 Introduction By 1895 there seemed to be nothing left to do in physics except fill out a few details. Maxwell had unified electriciy, magnetism and optics with his theory of electromagnetic waves. Thermodynamics was hugely successful well before there was any deep understanding about the properties of atoms (or even certainty about their existence!) could make accurate predictions about the efficiency of the steam engines powering the industrial revolution. By 1895, statistical mechanics was well on its way to providing a microscopic basis in terms of the random motions of atoms to explain the macroscopic predictions of thermodynamics. However over the next decade, a few careful observers (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Circuits with Mixed States Is Polynomially Equivalent in Computational Power to the Standard Unitary Model
    Quantum Circuits with Mixed States Dorit Aharonov∗ Alexei Kitaev† Noam Nisan‡ February 1, 2008 Abstract Current formal models for quantum computation deal only with unitary gates operating on “pure quantum states”. In these models it is difficult or impossible to deal formally with several central issues: measurements in the middle of the computation; decoherence and noise, using probabilistic subroutines, and more. It turns out, that the restriction to unitary gates and pure states is unnecessary. In this paper we generalize the formal model of quantum circuits to a model in which the state can be a general quantum state, namely a mixed state, or a “density matrix”, and the gates can be general quantum operations, not necessarily unitary. The new model is shown to be equivalent in computational power to the standard one, and the problems mentioned above essentially disappear. The main result in this paper is a solution for the subroutine problem. The general function that a quantum circuit outputs is a probabilistic function. However, the question of using probabilistic functions as subroutines was not previously dealt with, the reason being that in the language of pure states, this simply can not be done. We define a natural notion of using general subroutines, and show that using general subroutines does not strengthen the model. As an example of the advantages of analyzing quantum complexity using density ma- trices, we prove a simple lower bound on depth of circuits that compute probabilistic func- arXiv:quant-ph/9806029v1 8 Jun 1998 tions. Finally, we deal with the question of inaccurate quantum computation with mixed states.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Cryptography: from Theory to Practice
    Quantum cryptography: from theory to practice by Xiongfeng Ma A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Thesis Graduate Department of Department of Physics University of Toronto Copyright °c 2008 by Xiongfeng Ma Abstract Quantum cryptography: from theory to practice Xiongfeng Ma Doctor of Philosophy Thesis Graduate Department of Department of Physics University of Toronto 2008 Quantum cryptography or quantum key distribution (QKD) applies fundamental laws of quantum physics to guarantee secure communication. The security of quantum cryptog- raphy was proven in the last decade. Many security analyses are based on the assumption that QKD system components are idealized. In practice, inevitable device imperfections may compromise security unless these imperfections are well investigated. A highly attenuated laser pulse which gives a weak coherent state is widely used in QKD experiments. A weak coherent state has multi-photon components, which opens up a security loophole to the sophisticated eavesdropper. With a small adjustment of the hardware, we will prove that the decoy state method can close this loophole and substantially improve the QKD performance. We also propose a few practical decoy state protocols, study statistical fluctuations and perform experimental demonstrations. Moreover, we will apply the methods from entanglement distillation protocols based on two-way classical communication to improve the decoy state QKD performance. Fur- thermore, we study the decoy state methods for other single photon sources, such as triggering parametric down-conversion (PDC) source. Note that our work, decoy state protocol, has attracted a lot of scienti¯c and media interest. The decoy state QKD becomes a standard technique for prepare-and-measure QKD schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Quantum Error Correction for Global
    Pilot Quantum Error Correction for Global- Scale Quantum Communications Laszlo Gyongyosi*1,2, Member, IEEE, Sandor Imre1, Member, IEEE 1Quantum Technologies Laboratory, Department of Telecommunications Budapest University of Technology and Economics 2 Magyar tudosok krt, H-1111, Budapest, Hungary 2Information Systems Research Group, Mathematics and Natural Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-1518, Budapest, Hungary *[email protected] Real global-scale quantum communications and quantum key distribution systems cannot be implemented by the current fiber and free-space links. These links have high attenuation, low polarization-preserving capability or extreme sensitivity to the environment. A potential solution to the problem is the space-earth quantum channels. These channels have no absorption since the signal states are propagated in empty space, however a small fraction of these channels is in the atmosphere, which causes slight depolarizing effect. Furthermore, the relative motion of the ground station and the satellite causes a rotation in the polarization of the quantum states. In the current approaches to compensate for these types of polarization errors, high computational costs and extra physical apparatuses are required. Here we introduce a novel approach which breaks with the traditional views of currently developed quantum-error correction schemes. The proposed solution can be applied to fix the polarization errors which are critical in space-earth quantum communication systems. The channel coding scheme provides capacity-achieving communication over slightly depolarizing space-earth channels. I. Introduction Quantum error-correction schemes use different techniques to correct the various possible errors which occur in a quantum channel. In the first decade of the 21st century, many revolutionary properties of quantum channels were discovered [12-16], [19-22] however the efficient error- correction in quantum systems is still a challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0504183V1 25 Apr 2005 † ∗ Elsae 1,1,1] Oee,I H Rcs Fmea- Is of Above the Process the Vandalized
    Deterministic Bell State Discrimination Manu Gupta1∗ and Prasanta K. Panigrahi2† 1 Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida, 201 307, India 2 Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, 380 009, India We make use of local operations with two ancilla bits to deterministically distinguish all the four Bell states, without affecting the quantum channel containing these Bell states. Entangled states play a key role in the transmission and processing of quantum information [1, 2]. Using en- tangled channel, an unknown state can be teleported [3] with local unitary operations, appropriate measurement and classical communication; one can achieve entangle- ment swapping through joint measurement on two en- tangled pairs [4]. Entanglement leads to increase in the capacity of the quantum information channel, known as quantum dense coding [5]. The bipartite, maximally en- FIG. 1: Diagram depicting the circuit for Bell state discrimi- tangled Bell states provide the most transparent illustra- nator. tion of these aspects, although three particle entangled states like GHZ and W states are beginning to be em- ployed for various purposes [6, 7]. satisfactory, where the Bell state is not required further Making use of single qubit operations and the in the quantum network. Controlled-NOT gates, one can produce various entan- We present in this letter, a scheme which discriminates gled states in a quantum network [1]. It may be of inter- all the four Bell states deterministically and is able to pre- est to know the type of entangled state that is present in serve these states for further use. As LOCC alone is in- a quantum network, at various stages of quantum compu- sufficient for this purpose, we will make use of two ancilla tation and cryptographic operations, without disturbing bits, along with the entangled channels.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing a New Paradigm in Science and Technology
    Quantum computing a new paradigm in science and technology Part Ib: Quantum computing. General documentary. A stroll in an incompletely explored and known world.1 Dumitru Dragoş Cioclov 3. Quantum Computer and its Architecture It is fair to assert that the exact mechanism of quantum entanglement is, nowadays explained on the base of elusive A quantum computer is a machine conceived to use quantum conjectures, already evoked in the previous sections, but mechanics effects to perform computation and simulation this state-of- art it has not impeded to illuminate ideas and of behavior of matter, in the context of natural or man-made imaginative experiments in quantum information theory. On this interactions. The drive of the quantum computers are the line, is worth to mention the teleportation concept/effect, deeply implemented quantum algorithms. Although large scale general- purpose quantum computers do not exist in a sense of classical involved in modern cryptography, prone to transmit quantum digital electronic computers, the theory of quantum computers information, accurately, in principle, over very large distances. and associated algorithms has been studied intensely in the last Summarizing, quantum effects, like interference and three decades. entanglement, obviously involve three states, assessable by The basic logic unit in contemporary computers is a bit. It is zero, one and both indices, similarly like a numerical base the fundamental unit of information, quantified, digitally, by the two (see, e.g. West Jacob (2003). These features, at quantum, numbers 0 or 1. In this format bits are implemented in computers level prompted the basic idea underlying the hole quantum (hardware), by a physic effect generated by a macroscopic computation paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes: Symplectic Lattice Codes and Toric Codes
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Caltech Theses and Dissertations Analysis of quantum error-correcting codes: symplectic lattice codes and toric codes Thesis by James William Harrington Advisor John Preskill In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2004 (Defended May 17, 2004) ii c 2004 James William Harrington All rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me. Phillipians 4:13 (NKJV) I wish to acknowledge first of all my parents, brothers, and grandmother for all of their love, prayers, and support. Thanks to my advisor, John Preskill, for his generous support of my graduate studies, for introducing me to the studies of quantum error correction, and for encouraging me to pursue challenging questions in this fascinating field. Over the years I have benefited greatly from stimulating discussions on the subject of quantum information with Anura Abeyesinge, Charlene Ahn, Dave Ba- con, Dave Beckman, Charlie Bennett, Sergey Bravyi, Carl Caves, Isaac Chenchiah, Keng-Hwee Chiam, Richard Cleve, John Cortese, Sumit Daftuar, Ivan Deutsch, Andrew Doherty, Jon Dowling, Bryan Eastin, Steven van Enk, Chris Fuchs, Sho- hini Ghose, Daniel Gottesman, Ted Harder, Patrick Hayden, Richard Hughes, Deborah Jackson, Alexei Kitaev, Greg Kuperberg, Andrew Landahl, Chris Lee, Debbie Leung, Carlos Mochon, Michael Nielsen, Smith Nielsen, Harold Ollivier, Tobias Osborne, Michael Postol, Philippe Pouliot, Marco Pravia, John Preskill, Eric Rains, Robert Raussendorf, Joe Renes, Deborah Santamore, Yaoyun Shi, Pe- ter Shor, Marcus Silva, Graeme Smith, Jennifer Sokol, Federico Spedalieri, Rene Stock, Francis Su, Jacob Taylor, Ben Toner, Guifre Vidal, and Mas Yamada.
    [Show full text]