Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 5, 2002, Pages

  Wu, L A ^a   Byrd, M S ^a   Lidar, D A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HAMILTONIANS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; POLYNOMIALS; SUPERCONDUCTIVITY;

POLYNOMIAL TIME SIMULATION; QUANTUM COMPUTER;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 4243932544     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.057904     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. R.P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
2. S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
3. D.A. Meyer, J. Stat. Phys. 85, 551 (1996);
4. S. Wiesner, e-print quant-ph/9603028;
5. C. Zalka, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 313 (1998);
6. D.A. Lidar and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. EPLEEE810.1103/PhysRevE.59.2429 59, 2429 (1998).
7. D.S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162 83, 5162 (1999).
8. D.S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2586 79, 2586 (1997);
9. G. Ortiz et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022319 64, 022319 (2001).
10. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, e-print quant-ph/0003137.
11. J.L. Dodd et al, e-print quant-ph/0106064;
12. P. Wocjan et al, e-print quant-ph/0106077.
13. S. Somaroo et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.5381 82, 5381 (1999);
14. C.H. Tseng et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.61.012302 61, 012302 (2000).
15. E. Knill et al, Nature (London)10.1038/35006012 404, 368 (2000).
16. G.D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics (Kluwer, New York, 2000), 3rd ed.;
17. P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer, New York, 1980).
18. D.C. Ralph et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4087 78, 4087 (1997).
19. A. Mastellone et al, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4542 80, 4542 (1998).
20. F. Braun and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4712 81, 4712 (1998);
21. Jan von Delft and Fabian Braun, cond-mat/9911058.
22. J. Dukelsky and G. Sierra, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.172 83, 172 (1999).
23. P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.10.1103/PhysRev.112.1900 112, 1900 (1958).
24. P.A. Braun et al, Eur. Phys. J. DEPJDF6 2, 165 (1998).
25. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, e-print quant-ph/0109078.
26. D.G. Cory et al, Fortschr. Phys.FPYKA610.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<875::AID-PROP875>3.0.CO;2-V 48, 875 (2000).
27. G. Burkard et al, Fortschr. Phys.FPYKA6 48, 965 (2000).
28. E. Knill et al, Nature (London)10.1038/35051009 409, 46 (2001).
29. A. Blais and A.M. Zagoskin, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.61.042308 61, 042308 (2000).
30. D.W. Leung et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.61.042310 61, 042310 (2000).
31. L.-A. Wu and D.A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042318 65, 042318 (2002).
32. A similar adiabatic approach has been proposed recently as an alternative to the standard circuit model of quantum computation by E. Farhi et al, e-print quant-ph/0001106.
33. Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.40.2184 40, 2184 (1989).