Experimental Demonstration of a Controlled-NOT Wave-Packet Gate

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 26, 2002, Pages

  DeMarco, B ^a   Ben Kish, A ^a   Leibfried, D ^a   Meyer, V ^a   Rowe, M ^a   Jelenkovic B M ^a   Itano, W M ^a   Britton, J ^a   Langer, C ^a   Rosenband, T ^a   Wineland, D J ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARRIER CONCENTRATION; COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; ELECTRON TRANSITIONS; ELECTRON TRAPS; FAULT TOLERANT COMPUTER SYSTEMS; LASER PULSES; QUANTUM THEORY;

CARRIER RABI RATE; CARRIER TRANSITION; CONTROLLED NOT WAVE PACKET GATE; GATE COHERENCE; ION WAVE POCKET; LASER-ATOM INTERACTION; TRAP STRENGTH;

LOGIC GATES;

EID: 0037164978     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.267901     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2000).
2. D. Bouwmeester, A. Ekert, and A. Zeilinger, The Physics of Quantum Computation (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001).
3. J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4091 74, 4091 (1995).
4. C. Monroe et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4011 75, 4011 (1995).
5. D.M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B.E. King, W.M. Itano, and D.J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.1796 76, 1796 (1996).
6. B.E. King et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4713 83, 4713 (1999).
7. A. Ben-Kish et al, quant-ph/0208181.
8. H.C. Nägerl et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.60.145 60, 145 (1999).
9. Ch. Roos et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4713 83, 4713 (1999).
10. C. Monroe et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4714 75, 4714 (1995).
11. C.A. Sackett et al, Nature (London)10.1038/35005011 404, 256 (2000).
12. D. Wineland et al, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998).
13. C.A. Sackett, Quant. Inf. Comp. 1, 57 (2001).
14. M.A. Rowe et al, Quant. Inf. Comp. 4, 257 (2002).
15. D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Nature (London)10.1038/nature00784 417, 709 (2002).
16. C. Monroe et al, Phys. Rev. A 55, R2489 (1997).
17. D.J. Wineland and W.M. Itano, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.20.1521 20, 1521 (1979).
18. A classical oscillator will show a similar suppression of its “carrier” due to the Doppler-effect-generated FM spectrum. For example, this was the basis for the conditional dynamics observed in Q.A. Turchette et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3631 81, 3631 (1998). However, a quantum oscillator will exhibit a suppression due the spread of its wave packet even when it is in its ground state (Debye-Waller factor), an effect which is absent for a pointlike classical particle.
19. D. Leibfried et al, J. Mod. Opt.10.1080/095003497152627 44, 2485 (1997).
20. M.A. Rowe et al, Nature (London)10.1038/35057215 409, 791 (2001).
21. A. Steane et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.62.042305 62, 042305 (2000).