Controlled phase gate for solid-state charge-qubit architectures

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2005, Pages

  Schirmer, S G ^a,b   Oi, D K L ^a   Greentree, Andrew D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED PHASE GATE; GLOBAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES; SOLID-STATE CHARGE-QUBIT ARCHITECTURES; TUNNELING RATES;

ACOUSTIC NOISE; APPROXIMATION THEORY; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; GROUND STATE; HAMILTONIANS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; SOLID STATE PHYSICS;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 18544367809     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012325     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. D. P. DiVincenzo, Science 270, 255 (1995).
2. A. Barenco et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995).
3. D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).
4. B. E. Kane, Nature (London) 393, 133 (1998).
5. R. Vrijen et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 012306 (2000).
6. L. C. L. Hollenberg et al., Phys. Rev. B 69, 113301 (2004).
7. R. G. Clark et al., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 361, 1451 (2003).
8. T. Schenkel et al., J. Appl. Phys. 94, 7017 (2003).
9. A. K. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 733 (1996).
10. L. Fedichkin, M. Yanchencho, and K. A. Valiev, Nanotechnology 11, 387 (2000).
11. T. Hayashi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 226804 (2003).
12. Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and T. S. Tsai, Nature (London) 398, 786 (1999).
13. M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London) 406, 1039 (2000).
14. A. D. Greentree et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097901 (2004).
15. Y. A. Pashkin et al., Nature (London) 421, 823 (2003).
16. S. Lloyd, Science 261, 1569 (1993).
17. S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017904 (2001).
18. S. C. Benjamin and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 247901 (2003).
19. S. G. Schirmer, A. Kolli, and D. K. L. Oi, Phys. Rev. A 69, 050306(R) (2004).
20. S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 346 (1995).
21. W. G. van der Wiel et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2003).
22. K. Ono, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, and S. Tarucha, Science 297, 1313 (2002).
23. S. R. Schofield et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 136104 (2003).
24. J. R. Tucker and T.-C. Shen, Quantum Inf. Comput. 1, 129 (2001).
25. A. D. Greentree, A. R. Hamilton, and F. Green, Phys. Rev. B 70, 041305(R) (2004).
26. Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593 (1987).
27. J. F. Poyatos and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 390 (1997).
28. M. D. Bowdery et al., Phys. Lett. A 294, 258 (2002).
29. S. G. Schirmer, A. D. Greentree, V. Ramakrishna, and H. Rabitz, J. Phys. A 35, 8315 (2002).
30. C. J. Wellard (private communication).
31. B. Koiller, X. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 027903 (2002).
32. C. J. Wellard et al., Phys. Rev. B 68, 195209 (2003).
33. These figures are for numerical simulations with time step Δt=0.005 and can be improved further by decreasing Δt.
34. This value seems realistic to allow for a metal barrier suffi-ciently thick to provide adequate screening and sufficient distance between the quantum dots and the barrier to minimize barrier-induced decoherence.
35. In practice, the effective Coulomb interaction should be determined experimentally for a given system.