Communication in quantum networks of logical bus topology

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 5, 2009, Pages

  Brougham, T ^a   Nikolopoulos, G M ^b   Jex, I ^a  

^a CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

^b INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE AND LASER   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUILDING BLOCKES; BUS TOPOLOGY; EXTERNAL CONTROL; QUANTUM NETWORK; STATE TRANSFER;

TOPOLOGY;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 70450204272     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.052325     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. See, for example, S. Steinke, Network Tutorial (CMP Books, San Francisco, 2003), p. 99
2. P. Ciccarelli and P. Faulkner, Networking Foundations: Technology Fundamentals for IT Success (Sybex, San Francisco, 2004), p. 87.
3. In a classical setting, this is achieved by means of the so-called internet-protocol (IP) addresses. As the message arrives at each node, the corresponding device checks the destination address contained in the message to see if it matches its own address. If the two addresses match, the device processes the message, otherwise it does nothing. Clearly, no addressing is required in a point-to-point topology since any data transmitted from one port are intended for the other port.
4. For recent reviews, see S. Bose, Contemp. Phys. 48, 13 (2007) 10.1080/00107510701342313
5. D. Burgarth, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 151, 147 (2007) 10.1140/epjst/e2007-00370-9
6. A. Kay, e-print arXiv:0903.4274.
7. T. Shi, Y. Li, Z. Song, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032309 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032309
8. R. J. Cook and B. W. Shore, Phys. Rev. A 20, 539 (1979). 10.1103/PhysRevA.20.539
9. M. B. Plenio, J. Hartley, and J. Eisert, New J. Phys. 6, 36 (2004). 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/036
10. G. M. Nikolopoulos, D. Petrosyan, and P. Lambropoulos, Europhys. Lett. 65, 297 (2004) 10.1209/epl/i2003-10100-9
11. G. M. Nikolopoulos, D. Petrosyan, and P. Lambropoulos, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, 4991 (2004). 10.1088/0953-8984/16/28/019
12. M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert, and A. J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 187902 (2004) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.187902
13. C. Albanese, M. Christandl, N. Datta, and A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 230502 (2004) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.230502
14. M. Christandl, N. Datta, T. C. Dorlas, A. Ekert, A. Kay, and A. J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032312 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032312
15. P. Karbach and J. Stolze, Phys. Rev. A 72, 030301 (R) (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.030301
16. M. H. Yung and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032310 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032310
17. A. Kay, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032306 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032306
18. This is not the same as the quantum cloning and entanglement distribution discussed in Refs., where the excitation is distributed among the output ports.
19. A. Hutton and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032320 (2002) 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032320
20. A. Hutton and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042312 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.042312
21. G. De Chiara, R. Fazio, C. Macchiavello, S. Montangero, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. A 70, 062308 (2004) 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.062308
22. G. De Chiara, R. Fazio, C. Macchiavello, S. Montangero, and G. M. Palma, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012328 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012328
23. S. Bose, A. Casaccino, S. Mancini, and S. Severini, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 7, 713 (2009) 10.1142/S0219749909005389
24. A. Casaccino, S. Lloyd, S. Mancini, and S. Severini, e-print arXiv:0904.4510.
25. A. Wójcik, T. Óuczak, P. Kurzyński, A. Grudka, T. Gdala, and M. Bednarska, Phys. Rev. A 75, 022330 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.75. 022330
26. M. H. Yung, e-print arXiv:0705.1560.
27. G. M. Nikolopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200502 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200502
28. T. Tufarelli and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022313 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.022313
29. V. Kostak, G. M. Nikolopoulos, and I. Jex, Phys. Rev. A 75, 042319 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.042319
30. A closed cycle is a permutation or subpermutation, which cannot be decomposed further. For example, the permutation Π=|3□ □0| + |2□ □1| + |1□ □2| + |0□ □3| is not a closed cycle as we can decompose it into two smaller permutations Π 0 = |0□ □3| + |3□ □0| and Π 1=|1□ □2| + |2□ □1|. An example of a closed cycle, with more than two elements, is Π = |1□ □0| + |2□ □1| + |0□ □2|; it is clear that this permutation cannot be decomposed further.
31. The fact that the current formalism is not contingent on the initial state of the network greatly reduces the difficulty in realizing PST.
32. C. Di Franco, M. Paternostro, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 230502 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.230502
33. The assumption that the source node is initially decorrelated from the rest of the network is necessary for an unambiguous definition of PST.
34. S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics (Oxford Press, Oxford, 1997), pp. 39-49.
35. As shown in, for one-dimensional networks, where each node has at most two nearest neighbors, nearest-neighbor interaction Hamiltonians cannot be obtained in the context of one-cycle permutations. Hence, in this case, the Hamiltonian of a universal bus cannot be of a nearest-neighbor type.
36. A case in point is the permutation Π = |4□ □0| + |0□ □1| + |1□ □2| + |2□ □4| + |3□ □3|.
37. A. Kay and M. Ericsson, New J. Phys. 7, 143 (2005). 10.1088/1367-2630/7/ 1/143