Perturbative formulation and nonadiabatic corrections in adiabatic quantum-computing schemes

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 243011-243014

  Shi, Yu ^a,b,c   Wu, Yong Shi ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; APPROXIMATION THEORY; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; HAMILTONIANS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES;

QUANTUM COMPUTING; QUANTUM STATES;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 1942539046     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. J.A. Jones et al., Nature (London) 403, 869 (1999); A. Ekert et al., J. Mod. Opt. 47, 2501 (2000).
2. J.A. Jones et al., Nature (London) 403, 869 (1999); A. Ekert et al., J. Mod. Opt. 47, 2501 (2000).
3. P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Lett. A 264, 94 (1999).
4. Investigations are also made on the use of the nonadiabatic geometric phase [e.g., X.B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 097901 (2001); S.L. Zhu and Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042322 (2002)]. It seems that delicate dynamical control is still needed in this approach.
5. Investigations are also made on the use of the nonadiabatic geometric phase [e.g., X.B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 097901 (2001); S.L. Zhu and Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042322 (2002)]. It seems that delicate dynamical control is still needed in this approach.
6. D. Ellinas and J. Pachos, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022310 (2001).
7. E. Farhi et al., e-print quant-ph/0001106; Science 292, 472 (2001).
8. E. Farhi et al., e-print quant-ph/0001106; Science 292, 472 (2001).
9. W. van Dam et al., e-print quant-ph/0206003.
10. A. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1961), Vol. II.
11. M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 392, 45 (1984).
12. F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2111 (1984).
13. Y.S. Wu and H.Z. Li, Phys. Rev. B 38, 11907 (1988).
14. In contrast, in a different approach to nonadiabatic effect in adiabatic gates, a specific time dependence is defined [L. Cen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 147902 (2003)].
15. G. Falci el al., Nature (London) 407, 355 (2000).
16. L.M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Science 292, 1695 (2001).
17. R.G. Unanyan et al., Phys. Rev. A 59, 2910 (1999).
18. Similar proposals were made for neutral atoms [A. Recati et al., Phys. Rev. A 66, 032309 (2002)], as well as excitons [P. Solinas et al., e-print quant-ph/0301090] but with the important Coulomb interaction ignored.
19. Similar proposals were made for neutral atoms [A. Recati et al., Phys. Rev. A 66, 032309 (2002)], as well as excitons [P. Solinas et al., e-print quant-ph/0301090] but with the important Coulomb interaction ignored.
20. M.S. Choi, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, 823 (2003).
21. L. Faoro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 028301 (2003).
22. See, e.g., A. Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998).