Quantum dense coding with atomic qubits

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2004, Pages

  Schaetz, T ^a   Barrett, M D ^a,b   Leibfried, D ^a   Chiaverini, J ^a   Britton, J ^a   Itano, W M ^a   Jost, J D ^a   Langer, C ^a   Wineland, D J ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); FLUORESCENCE; GROUND STATE; LASER APPLICATIONS; LASER BEAMS; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; MAGNETIC MOMENTS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PHOTONS; POLARIZATION; RAMAN SCATTERING;

ATOMIC QUBITS; QUANTUM DENSE CODING; QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING (QIP); SPIN-ECHO PULSES;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 4344584442     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.040505     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992).
2. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000), 1st ed.
3. K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4656 (1996).
4. X. Fang et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 022307 (2000).
5. M. Ban, J. Opt. B Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 1, L9 (1999).
6. S.L. Braunstein and H.J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 61, 042302 (1999).
7. T.C. Ralph and E.H. Huntington, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042321 (2002).
8. X. Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 047904 (2002).
9. J. Mizuno, K. Wakui, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, quant-ph/0402040.
10. S. Bose, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 57, 822 (1998).
11. J. C. Hao, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 63, 054301 (2001).
12. H. J. Lee, D. Ahn, and S.W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. A 66, 024304 (2002).
13. A. Wójcik and A. Grudka, Phys. Rev. A 68, 016301 (2003).
14. O. Akhavan and A.T. Rezakhani, Phys. Rev. A 68, 016302 (2003).
15. K. Shimizu, N. Imoto, and T. Mukai, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1092 (1999).
16. See, for example, http://qist.lanl.gov/
17. D. J. Wineland et al., J. Res. Natl. Inst Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998).
18. D. Kielpinski et al., Science 291, 1013 (2001).
19. A. Acín, E. Jané, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A 64, 050302 (2001).
20. A. M. Childs, J. Preskill, and J. Renes, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 155 (2000).
21. J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221 (1997).
22. In this context, we note that an eavesdropper intercepting the qubit sent from Bob to Alice could not gain any knowledge about the encoded message without access to the second qubit in the entangled pair. This would hold even for imperfect entanglement, as long as the imperfection is unbiased as, for example, a depolarizing error [M. A. Nielsen (private communication)].
23. R. P. Feynman, F. L. Vernon, and R. W. Hellwarth, J. Appl. Phys. 28, 49 (1957).
24. L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms (Dover, Mineola, NY 1987).
25. M.A. Rowe et al., Quantum Inf. Comput. 2, 257 (2002).
26. B.E. King et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1525 (1998).
27. The laser beam waists (approximately equal to the beam diameters) at the ions were approximately 30 μm, and the beam positions were adjusted to give equal intensity on both ions.
28. D. J. Wineland et al., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 361, 1349 (2003).
29. D. Leibfried et al., Nature (London) 422, 412 (2003).
30. M. A. Rowe et al., Nature (London) 409, 791 (2001).
31. In our previous experiments [25], the separation was achieved with only a 95% success probability and the motion was excited substantially, leading to poor detection efficiency. Aided by a smaller separation electrode in the current apparatus (100 μm wide vs 800 μm wide in Ref. [25]), separation was accomplished with no detected failures and the small heating (about ten quanta) led to more efficient state detection.
32. |Φ-〉 ≃ 0.90.
33. D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature (London) 417, 709 (2002).