Possible realization of an ideal quantum computer in Josephson junction array

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 22, 2002, Pages 1-8

  Ioffe, L B ^a   Feigel'man M V ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LANDAU INSTITUTE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863521279     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.224503     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. A. Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 117 (1998).
2. A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 733 (1996).
3. P. W. Shor, in Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, edited by S. Goldwasser, Los Alamitos, CA (IEEE, New York, 1994).
4. L. Grover, in Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 1996).
5. P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995).
6. J. Preskill, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 385 (1998).
7. A. Yu. Kitaev, (unpublished).
8. See, e.g., M. Mezard, G. Parisi and M. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997).
9. I. Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason (Riga, Hartknoch, 1781).
10. S. B. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, (unpublished);
11. M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, and Z. Wang, (unpublished).
12. X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9377 (1990).
13. X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 44, 2664 (1991).
14. L. B. Ioffe, M. V. Feigel’man, A. Ioselevich, D. Ivanov, M. Troyer, and G. Blatter, Nature (London) 415, 503 (2002).
15. The flux (formula presented) can be also chosen so that it is an integer multiple of (formula presented) this would not change significantly the final results but would change intermediate arguments and make them longer, so for clarity we discuss in detail only the half-integer case here. Note, however, that the main quantitative effect of this alternative choice of the flux is beneficial: it would push up the phase-transition line separating the topological and superconducting phases shown in Fig. 33 for the half-integer case.
16. G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein, and L. B. Ioffe, Phys. Rev. B 63, 174511 (2001).
17. In a rotated basis (formula presented) (formula presented) this model is reduced to a special case of (formula presented) lattice gauge theory (Refs. 17 and 18) which contains only magnetic terms in the Hamiltonian with the constraint (3) playing a role of a gauge-invariance condition.
18. F. Wegner, J. Math. Phys. 12, 2259 (1971).
19. R. Balian, J. M. Droufle, and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2098 (1975).
20. B. Doucot and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 227005 (2002).
21. K. Park and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 64, 134522 (2001).
22. We assume that transition to insulating phase is direct; another alternative is the intermediate phase in which the energy of the vortex becomes finite instead of being logarithmic. If this phase indeed exists it is likely to have properties more similar to the one discussed in Ref. 7.
23. N. Read and B. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. B 40, 7133 (1989).
24. N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1773 (1991).
25. S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 39, 259 (1989).
26. T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 292 (2001).
27. T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 63, 134521 (2001).
28. L. Balents, S. M. Girvin, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 65, 224412 (2002).
29. A. Paramekanti, L. Balents, and M. P. A. Fisher, (unpublished).
30. G. Misguich, D. Serban, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 137202 (2002).
31. O. Motrunich and T. Senthil, (unpublished).
32. P. Fendley, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi
33. Phys. Rev. B (to be published 1 December 2002).
34. A. S. Ioselevich, D. A. Ivanov, and M. V. Feigel’man, Phys. Rev. B 66, 174405 (2002).