Quantum walks in optical lattices

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 8-

  Dur W ^a   Raussendorf, R ^a   Kendon, V M ^b   Briegel, H J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869136516     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.052319     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. P.W. Shor, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994), p. 124.
2. L.K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997).
3. M.N. Barber and B.W. Ninham, Random and Restricted Walks: Theory and Applications (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970).
4. M. Jerrum, A. Sinclair, and E. Vigoda, Proc. 33rd STOC 712 (2001); R. Motwani and P. Raghavan, Randomized Algorithms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995); U. Schöning, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, New York, 1999), pp. 17–19.
5. Y. Aharanov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1687 (1993).
6. E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Phys. Rev. A 58, 915 (1998).
7. D. Aharonov, A. Ambainis, J. Kempe, and U. Vazirani, in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC ’01) 2001 (ACM Press, New York, 2001), pp. 50–59;
8. D. AharonovA. AmbainisJ. KempeU. Vaziranisee also e-print quant-ph/0012090, pp. 50–59.
9. A. Ambianis, E. Bach, A. Nayak, A. Vishwanath, and J. Watrous, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theorie of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2001), pp. 37–49.
10. T.D. Mackay, S.D. Bartlett, L.T. Stephenson, and B.C. Sanders, J. Phys. A 35, 2745 (2002).
11. A.M. Childs, E. Farhi, and S. Gutmann, e-print quant-ph/0103020;
12. C. Moore and A. Russell, e-print quant-ph/0104137;
13. J. Du, H. Li, X. Xu, J. Wu, X. Zhou, and R. Han, e-print quant-ph/0203120;
14. N. Konno, T. Namiki, and T. Soshi, e-print quant-ph/0205065.
15. J. Kempe, e-print quant-ph/0205083.
16. T. Yamasaki, H. Kobayashi, and H. Imai, e-print quant-ph/0205045.
17. B.C. Travaglione and G.J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032310 (2002).
18. E. Bach, S. Coppersmith, M.P. Goldschen, R. Joynt, and J. Watrous, e-print quant-ph/0207008.
19. B.C. Sanders, S.D. Bartlett, B. Tregenna, and P.L. Knight, e-print quant-ph/0207028.
20. D.A. Meyer, Phys. Lett. A 223, 337 (1996).
21. This choice of input state ensures a symmetric behavior of the quantum walk, while other input states may lead to asymmetric probability distributions. Throughout this paper, we will consider input states that lead to symmetric probability distributions, our proposal and analysis is, however, not restricted to such input states.
22. I. Deutsch and P.S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1972 (1998).
23. R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Yu.B. Ovchinnikov, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000).
24. D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1975 (1999)
25. H.-J. Briegel, T. Calarco, D. Jaksch, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 415 (2000).
26. G.K. Brennen, C.M. Caves, P.S. Jessen, and I.H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1060 (1999).
27. M. Greiner, I. Bloch, O. Mandel, T.W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 160405 (2001)
28. M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T.W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature (London) 415, 39 (2002).
29. J.P. Burke, Jr., S.-T. Chu, G.W. Bryant, C.J. Williams, and P.S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043411 (2002).
30. C. Williams, talk delivered at the DFG meeting on Quantum Information Processing, Bad Honnef, Germany, 2002 (unpublished), see also website http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div842/div842.html
31. I. Bloch (private communication).
32. D. Polivaev, Master thesis, Ludwig Maximians Universität München, Germany, 2000; D. Polivaev and H.-J. Briegel (unpublished).
33. Depending on the energy (Formula presented) of the hyperfine structure levels (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) we have that (Formula presented) where (Formula presented)
34. Using that (Formula presented) within (Formula presented) and two lattice sites, we have that after a complete cycle (including also a final (Formula presented) operation), i.e., (Formula presented) (Formula presented) which implies that relative phases became a global, irrelevant phase. For example, a particle in state (Formula presented) picks up a phase shift (Formula presented) within the first time interval (Formula presented) while a phase shift (Formula presented) is picked up in the second time interval (Formula presented)
35. D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998).
36. M.T. DePue, C. McCormick, S.L. Winoto, S. Oliver, and D.S. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2262 (1999).
37. H.-J. Briegel, W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)
38. W. Dür, H.-J. Briegel, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 59, 169 (1999).
39. We have restricted our investigation to incoherent tunneling effects. One may also investigate the influence of coherent tunneling on the quantum walk. In this case, tunneling serves as an additional source of interference, which may affect the interference constituting the basis of the quantum walk. A detailed analysis of such influence is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.
40. R. Raussendorf and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001).
41. A.M. Childs, R. Cleve, E. Deotto, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and D.A. Spielman, e-print quant-ph/0209131.
42. N. Shenvi, J. Kempe, and K.B. Whaley, e-print quant-ph/0210064.