Efficient optical implementation of the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 103021-103024

  Londero, P ^a   Dorrer, C ^b   Anderson, M ^c   Wallentowitz, S ^d   Banaszek, K ^a   Walmsley, I A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES   (United States)

^c SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ROSTOCK   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BINARY CODES; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DATA PROCESSING; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DIFFRACTION GRATINGS; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; PHASE SHIFT; PHOTONS; POLYNOMIALS; QUERY LANGUAGES;

BERNSTEIN-VAZIRANI ALGORITHMS; QUANTUM COMPUTERS (QC);

QUANTUM ELECTRONICS;

EID: 18744427106     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. A. Ekert and R. Josza, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 733 (1996).
2. S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010301 (1999).
3. N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. A 57, R1477 (1998).
4. R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. A 63, 062302 (2001).
5. P. G. Kwiat, J. R. Mitchell, P. D. D. Schwindt, and A. G. White, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 257 (2000).
6. L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997).
7. L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4709 (1997).
8. N. Bhattacharya, H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell, and R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137901 (2002).
9. J. Ahn, T. C. Weinacht, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Science 287, 463 (2000).
10. C. Dorrer, P. Londero, M. Anderson, S. Wallentowitz, and I. A. Walmsley, Paper QWB3, TOPS 57 QELS 2001 Technical Digest-Postconference Edition (Optical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 2001), pp. 149-150.
11. D. A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2014 (2000).
12. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 1993), p. 11.
13. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1411 (1997).
14. B. M. Terhal and J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1822 (1998).
15. Almost all of the previous implementations of quantum algorithms based on oracles fail this same test [5,8,9,22-24]. It is an important question whether it makes sense to claim an improvement for quantum mechanics in situations where there is no direct classical equivalent circuit.
16. N elements. From the point of view of complexity theory, all of the algorithms provide a polynomial speed up, reducing the number of queries to either √N or 1 as compared with the classical value of N. However, statements of computational complexity cannot be divorced from statements about the physical size of the computer.
17. A. M. Weiner, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71, 1929 (2000).
18. C. Froehly, B. Colombeau, and M. Vampouille, in Progress in Optics XX, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983), pp. 63-153.
19. J. X. Tull, M. A. Dugan, and W. S. Warren, Adv. Magn. Opt. Reson. 20, 1 (1997).
20. L. Lepetit, G. Cheriaux, and M. Joffre, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 12, 2467 (1995).
21. S. Wallentowitz, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, e-print quant-ph/0009069.
22. D. Collins, K. W. Kim, and W. C. Holton, Phys. Rev. A 58, R1633 (1998).
23. D. Collins, K. W. Kim, W. C. Holton, H. Sierzputowska-Gracz, and E. O. Stejskal, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022304 (2000).
24. K. Dorai, Arvind and A. Kumar, e-print quant-ph/9909067.
25. E. Brainis, L.-P. Lamoreux, N.J. Cerf, Ph. Emplit, M. Haelterman, and S. Massar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 157902 (2003).