Encoded recoupling and decoupling: An alternative to quantum error-correcting codes applied to trapped-ion quantum computation

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2003, Pages

  Lidar, D A ^a   Wu, L A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CODES (SYMBOLS); ENCODING (SYMBOLS); ERROR CORRECTION; HAMILTONIANS; HOLE TRAPS; IONS; LOGIC GATES; MATRIX ALGEBRA; MOLECULAR VIBRATIONS; QUENCHING;

DECOUPLING; QUANTUM COMPUTATION; QUBIT DECOHERENCE; RECOUPLING; TRAPPED ION;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0038137069     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Nature (London) 417, 709 (2002).
2. J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995).
3. A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1971 (1999).
4. A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022311 (2000).
5. G.J. Milburn, e-print quant-ph/9908037.
6. G.J. Milburn, S. Schneider, and D.F.V. James, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 801 (2000).
7. P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3306 (1997).
8. P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 11, 1085 (1997).
9. L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 737 (1998).
10. D.A. Lidar, I.L. Chuang, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594 (1998).
11. z is the Pauli-z matrix acting on the ith qubit, and B is an arbitrary bath operator.
12. 4 for two ions, D. Kielpinski (private communication).
13. D.M. Bacon, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 2001, Chap. 10, available at http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~dabacon/research
14. G.M. Palma, K.-A. Suominen, and A.K. Ekert, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 452, 567 (1996).
15. D.A. Lidar, D. Bacon, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4556 (1999).
16. J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D.A. Lidar, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042307 (2001).
17. P.G. Kwiat, A.J. Berglund, J.B. Altepeter, and A.G. White, Science 290, 498 (2000).
18. D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Science 291, 1013 (2001).
19. D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D.A. Lidar, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1758 (2000).
20. P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 60, R729 (1999).
21. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4888 (1999).
22. K. Khodjasteh and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 197904 (2002).
23. D.A. Lidar, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 63, 022307 (2001).
24. G. Alber, M. Mussinger, and A. Delgado, e-print quant-ph/0208177.
25. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, in Proceedings of 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (ACM, New York, 1997), p. 46, e-print quant-ph/9611025.
26. J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 385 (1998).
27. R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J.P. Paz, and W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198 (1996).
28. P.W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995).
29. A.M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996).
30. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. Zurek, Science 279, 342 (1998).
31. A.M. Steane, e-print quant-ph/0207119.
32. A. Beige, D. Braun, B. Tregenna, and P.L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1762 (2000).
33. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042318 (2002).
34. D.A. Lidar and L.-A. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017905 (2002).
35. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4506 (2002).
36. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 207902 (2002).
37. M.S. Byrd and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 047901 (2002).
38. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062314 (2002).
39. L.-A. Wu, M.S. Byrd, and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 127901 (2002).
40. D.A. Lidar, L.-A. Wu, and A. Blais, Quant. Inf. Proc. 1, 155 (2002).
41. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, e-print quant-ph/0208118.
42. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998).
43. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, e-print quant-ph/9809058.
44. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999).
45. P. Zanardi, Phys. Lett. A 258, 77 (1999).
46. D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4178 (1999).
47. D. Vitali and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012305 (2002).
48. L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Lett. A 261, 139 (1999).
49. C. Uchiyama and M. Aihara, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032313 (2002).
50. M.S. Byrd and D.A. Lidar, Quant. Inf. Proc. 1, 19 (2001).
51. L. Viola, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012307 (2002).
52. E.M. Fortunato, L. Viola, J. Hodges, G. Teklemariam, and D.G. Cory, New J. Phys. 4, 5 (2002).
53. K.R. Brown, J. Vala, and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 66, 022304 (2002).
54. D.J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W.M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B.E. King, and D.M. Meekhof, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998); http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/103/3/cnt103-3.htm
55. C.J. Myatt, B.E. King, Q.A. Turchette, C.A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Nature (London) 403, 269 (2000).
56. Q.A. Turchette, D. Kielpinski, B.E. King, D. Leibfried, D.M. Meekhof, C.J. Myatt, M.A. Rowe, C.A. Sackett, C.S. Wood, W.M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D.J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A 61, 063418 (2000).
57. It is not clear that 1/f noise will hold generally: in the event that further experimental progress is made it is possible that the only noise limitation remaining will be thermal electronic (Johnson) noise, with a flat spectrum, as discussed in Ref. [54], D. Wineland (private communication). We expect that the methods proposed here will still be applicable in that case.
58. K. Shiokawa and D.A. Lidar, e-print quant-ph/0211081.
59. R. Freeman, S.P. Kempsell, and M.H. Levitt, J. Magn. Reson. (1969-1992) 38, 453 (1980)
60. M.H. Levitt, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 18, 61 (1986)
61. H.K. Cummins, G. Llewellyn, and J.A. Jones, e-print quant-ph/0208092
62. J.A. Jones, e-print quant-ph/0209049.
63. R.R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, and A. Wokaun, Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions, International Series of Monographs on Chemistry Vol. 14, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997).
64. M. Feng, I. D'Amico, P. Zanardi, and F. Rossi, e-print quant-ph/0209070.
65. J. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 147902 (2002).
66. S.C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. A 64, 054303 (2001).
67. D.P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K.B. Whaley, Nature (London) 408, 339 (2000).
68. J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D.P. DiVincenzo, and K.B. Whaley, Quantum Inf. Comput. 1, 33 (2001).
69. J. Kempe and K.B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 65, 052330 (2001).
70. J. Vala and K.B. Whaley, e-print quant-ph/0204016.
71. D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D.P. DiVincenzo, D.A. Lidar, and K.B. Whaley, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Experimental Implementations of Quantum Computation, Sydney, Australia, edited by R. Clark (Rinton, Princeton, NJ, 2001), p. 257, quant-ph/0102140.
72. D. Kielpinski, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 2001, available at http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/ion/quc/papers.htm.
73. C.A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B.E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C.J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q.A. Turchette, W.M. Itano, D.J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, Nature (London) 404, 256 (2000).
74. A.J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.A.P. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987).
75. 2 = 2/J(0); M. Aihara, Phys. Rev. B 25, 53 (1982).
76. Y. Nakamura, Yu.A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, and J.S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 047901 (2002).
77. Ch. Roos, Th. Zeiger, H. Rohde, H.C. Nagerl, J. Eschner, D. Leibfried, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4713 (1999).
78. A. Steane, C.F. Roos, D. Stevens, A. Mundt, D. Leibfried, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. A 62, 042305 (2000).
79. J.P. Palao and R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 188301 (2002).
80. L. Tian and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 62, 050301 (2000).
81. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, e-print quant-ph/0303129.
82. S. Schneider and G.J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3748 (1998).
83. This corresponds to the case Δα = 0 in Eq. (1) of Ref. [1].
84. Z ≠ 0 can also be the result of small departures from equal illumination during the SM logic gate, as in the intensity and phase fluctuations of the exciting lasers analyzed in Ref. [79]. Hence, in order for the decoupling scheme to work the lasers used to implement the corresponding SM pulses must be more stable than the differential dephasing due to magnetic-field fluctuation.