Transcript Folie 1

Experimental one-way
quantum computing
Student presentation by
Andreas Reinhard
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Theory about OWQC
3. Experimental realization
4. Outlook
Introduction
• Standard model:
– Computation is an unitary (reversible)
evolution on the input qubits
– Balance between closed system and
accessibility of qubits
=> decoherence, errors
– Scalability is a problem
Introduction
• A One-Way Quantum Computer1
proposed for a lattice with Ising-type next-neighbour
interaction
– Hope that OWQM is more easlily scalable
– Error threshold between 0.11% and 1.4% depending
on the source of the error2 (depolarizing, preparation,
gate, storage and measurement errors)
– Start computation from initial "cluster" state of a large
number of engangled qubits
– Processing = measurements on qubits => one-way,
irreversible
1R.
Raussendorf, H. J. Briegel, A One-Way Quantum Computer, PhysRevLett.86.5188, 2001
2R. Raussendorf, et al., A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer, ph/050135v1, 2005
Cluster states
• Start from highly entangled configuration of "physical"
qubits.
Information is encoded in the structure: "encoded" qubits
• quantum processing = measurements on physical qubits
• Measure "result" in output qubits
• How to entangle the qubits?
Entanglement of qubits with CPhase
operations
• Computational basis:
• Notation:
    1
0, 1
2
• Prepare "physical" 2-qubit
state (not entangled)
 1
  1
 1
0

1

0

1
  00  10  01  11



1
1 
2
2 
 2
  2
 2
 

• CPhase operation =>
highly entangled state
1
   00  10  01 –
 11
2

Cluster states
• Prepare the 4-qubit state
1
0 1
2
1
 
0 1
2
+ 
  
where


• and connect "neighbouring" qubits with CPhase operations.
The final state is highly entangled:
 00

1   0 1
 
2   1 0 

  11






Cluster state
• Nearest neighbour interaction sufficient for full entanglement!
Operations on qubits
• Prepare cluster state
• We can measure the state of qubit j in an arbitrarily chosen basis

B j    + j , 
j

where 
j

1

0 j  ei 1
2
j

• Consecutive measurements on qubits 1, 2, 3 disentangle the state
and completely determine the state of qubit 4.
• The state of "output" qubit 4 is
dependent on the choses bases.
• That‘s the way a OWQC works!
A Rotation
• Disentangle qubit 1 from qubits 2, 3, 4






 2 03 4 
0 1  
  0 1  


1

2
3
4







 0
1

2


2

2

4
• and project the state on 
4
  i 2

  3   e  i sin 
2

2

  i 2

  3   e cos 
2

4
  i 2

  3   e  i sin 
2

2

( )
(  )

R
R


x
z
3
  i 2

  3   e cos 
2

 e
i
 e
4
4
i

2

2
 e
 e
 other 3 terms
2

3
=> post selection
Single qubit rotation
 i sin
 i sin
i
i

2
cos

2
cos

2

2

2

2







 

 






 
SU(2) rotation & gates
• A general SU(2) rotation and 2-qubit gates
• CPhase operations + single qubit rotations = universal
quantum computer!
A one-way Quantum Computer
• Initial cluster structure <=> algorithm
Clusters are subunits of larger clusters.
• The computation is performed with consecutive
measurements in the proper bases on the physical
qubits.
• Classical feedforward makes
a OWQC deterministic
Experimental realization1
• A OWQC using 4 entangled photons
• Polarization states of photons = physical
qubits
• Measurements easily performable.
Difficulty: Preperation of the cluster state
1P.
Walther, et al, Experimental one-way quantum computing, Nature, 434, 169 (2005)
Experimental setup
• Parametric down-conversion with
a nonlinear crystal
• PBS transmits H photons and
reflects V photons
• 4-photon events:
• => Highly entangled state
HHHH  HHVV  VVHH  VVVV
• Entanglement achieved through
post-selection
• Equivalent to proposed cluster
state under unitary transformations
on single qubits
State tomography
• Prove successful generation of cluster state => density matrix
•


Measure expectation values

2

Cluster  A  B  C  D  with A , B , C , D  


in order to determine all elements


• Fidelity:
F  Cluster  Cluster   0.63  0.02


V ,


1
H

V
,


2


1
H

i
V


2

H ,
Realization of a rotation
and a 2-qubit gate
• Output characterized by state tomography
• Rotation:

0.86  0.03
 2


   4    2 F  0.85  0.04

 0.83  0.03

0

• 2-qubit CPhase gate:
  0
F  0.84  0.03
Problems of this experiment
• Noise due to imperfect phase stability in the
setup (and other reasons). => low fidelity
• Scalability: probability of n-photon
coincidence decreases exponentially with n
• No feedforward
• No storage
• Post selection
=> proof of principle experiment
Outlook
• 3D optical lattices with Ising-type interacting
atoms
• Realization of cluster states on demand with a
large number of qubits
• Cluster states of Rb-atoms realized in an optical
lattice1
– Filling factor a problem
– Single qubit measurements not realized
(adressability)
1O.
Mandel, I. Bloch, et al., Controlled collisions for multi-particle entanglement of
optically trapped atoms, Nature 425, 937 (2003)