Climbing mount scalable: Physical resource requirements for a scalable quantum computer

Foundations of Physics

Volumn 32, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 1641-1670

  Blume Kohout, Robin ^a   Caves, Carlton M ^b   Deutsch, Ivan H ^b  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Entanglement; Quantum computation; Quantum information; Quantum mechanics; Scalability

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036959103     PISSN: 00159018     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021471621587     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Quantum Information Science: An Emerging Field of Interdisciplinary Research and Education in Science and Engineering, Report of NSF Workshop, October 28-29, 1999, Arlington, VA; http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf00101.
2. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
3. D. P. DiVincenzo, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 771 (2000).
4. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
5. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, "Computational model underlying the one-way quantum computer," unpublished, arXiv. org e-print quant-ph/0108067.
6. M. A. Nielsen, "Universal quantum computation using only projective measurement, quantum memory, and the preparation of the |0〉 state," unpublished, arXiv. org e-print quant-ph/ 0108020.
7. P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995).
8. A. Steane, Proc. R. Soc. London A 452, 2551 (1996).
9. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A 55, 900 (1997).
10. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, in Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, 1997), p. 176; see also arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/9906129.
11. J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 385 (1998).
12. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Science 279, 342 (1998).
13. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 365 (1998).
14. N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002).
15. R. Cleve, in Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Theory, C. Macchiavello, G. M. Palma, and A. Zeilinger, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000), p. 103.
16. P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 077901 (2001).
17. J. Ahn, C. Weinacht, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Science 287, 463 (2000).
18. R. Zadoyan, D. Kohen, D. A. Lidar, and V. A. Apkarian, Chem. Phys. 266, 323 (2001); V. V. Lozovoy and M. Dantus, Chem. Phys. Lett. 351, 213 (2002). The authors of both these papers point out that the Hilbert space of a single molecule is not suitable for scalable quantum computation.
19. R. Zadoyan, D. Kohen, D. A. Lidar, and V. A. Apkarian, Chem. Phys. 266, 323 (2001); V. V. Lozovoy and M. Dantus, Chem. Phys. Lett. 351, 213 (2002). The authors of both these papers point out that the Hilbert space of a single molecule is not suitable for scalable quantum computation.
20. M. N. Leuenberger and D. Loss, Nature 410, 789 (2001).
21. A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1993), p. 373.
22. Since in this paper we are interested in comparing how different systems use physical resources, we use the term quantum computer for any physical system that has the required Hilbert-space dimension, and we reserve the term scalable quantum computer for systems that can provide the required Hilbert-space dimension efficiently.
23. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory, 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998), p. 172.
24. We follow the computer-science convention of referring to any superpolynomial growth as exponential.
25. We use base-2 logarithms throughout.
26. D. A. Meyer, Science 289, 1431a (2000).
27. P. G. Kwiat and R. J. Hughes, Science 289, 1431a (2000).
28. M. W. Noel and C. R. Stroud, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1913 (1996).
29. H. Rabitz, R. de Vivie-Riedle, M. Motzkus, and K. Kompa, Science 288, 824 (2000).
30. D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 417, 709 (2002).
31. P. T. Cochrane and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 64, 062312 (2001).
32. N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. A 57, R1477 (1998).
33. P. G. Kwiat, J. R. Mitchell, P. D. D. Schwindt, and A. G. White, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 257 (2000).
34. J. F. Clauser and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 53, 4587 (1996).
35. The exponential growth of physical resources required for readout in a classical wave computer and its relation to a unary quantum computer using a single photon has been noted by S. Wallentowitz, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, "How big is a quantum computer?" unpublished, arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0009069.
36. N. Bhattacharya, H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell, and R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137901 (2002).
37. Grover's algorithm does not fit into our resource discussion because it does not provide an exponential speed-up relative to classical algorithms. Nonetheless, the experiment in Ref. 35 illustrates the resource demands that come with using classical waves.
38. G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2124 (1989).
39. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature 409, 46 (2001).
40. S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002).
41. S. D. Bartlett and B. C. Sanders, "Efficient classical simulation of optical quantum circuits," unpublished, arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0204065.
42. S. B. Bravyi and A. Yu. Kitaev, "Fermionic quantum computation," unpublished, arXiv. org e-print quant-ph/0003137.
43. B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002).
44. E. Knill, "Fermionic linear optics and matchgates," unpublished, arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0108033.
45. A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995).
46. J. L. Dodd, M. A. Nielsen, M. J. Bremner, and R. T. Thew, Phys. Rev. A 65, 040301(R) (2002).
47. M. A. Nielsen, M. J. Bremner, J. L. Dodd, A. M. Childs, and C. M. Dawson, "Universal simulation of Hamiltonian dynamics for qudits," unpublished, arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/ 0109064.
48. A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A 356, 1769 (1998).
49. W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today 44(10), 36 (1991).
50. D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.-O. Stamatescu, and H. D. Zeh, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
51. J. R. Anglin, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4041 (1997).
52. D. G. Cory et al., Fortschr. Phys. 48, 875 (2000).
53. J. A. Jones, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 909 (2000).
54. L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C. S. Yannoni, M. H. Sherwood, and I. L. Chuang, Nature 414, 883 (2001).
55. W. S. Warren, Science 277, 1688 (1997).
56. L. J. Schulman and U. V. Vazirani, in Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, 1999), p. 322; see also arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/9804060.
57. D. E. Chang, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and M. Steffen, Chem. Phys. Lett. 338, 337 (2001).
58. A. Ambainis, L. J. Schulman, and U. V. Vazirani, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, 2000), p. 697; see also arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0003136.
59. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5672 (1998).
60. R. Laflamme, D. G. Cory, C. Negrevergne, and L. Viola, Quant. Inf. Comp. 2, 166 (2002).
61. R. Jozsa, in The Geometric Universe: Science, Geometry, and the Work of Roger Penrose, S. A. Huggett, L. J. Mason, K. P. Tod, S. T. Tsou, and N. M. J. Woodhouse, eds. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1998), p. 369.
62. S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010301(R) (1999).
63. P. Knight, Science 287, 441 (2000).
64. R. Jozsa and N. Linden, "On the role of entanglement in quantum computational speed-up," unpublished, arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0201143.
65. S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, R. Jozsa, N. Linden, S. Popescu, and R. Schack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1054 (1999).
66. N. C. Menicucci and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 167901 (2002).
67. S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
68. C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002).
69. C. A. Fuchs has promoted the notion that Hilbert-space dimension is a "characteristic property" of a quantum system, arXiv. org e-print quant-ph/0204146, or perhaps an "element of reality," arXiv.org e-print quant-ph/0205039, which might be the realistic core of quantum theory.