![]() |
Physics and Computer science have combined to create a new field: quantum computing and quantum information. The spark that ignited world wide interest in this new field sprang forth in 1994 with Peter Shor's discovery of a theoretical way to use quantum mechanical resources to unravel a mathematical problem at the heart of electronic commerce and cryptography.
Basic steps towards the creation of a quantum computer have been taken, with the demonstrations of elementary data storage and manipulation using photons and atoms or trapped ions as the quantum bits, or "qubits". Recently, it has been shown that it is possible to build solid-state qubits made from tiny samples of superconducting material. Figure 13-15 shows some of the subjects, which are currently being investigated in the field of quantum computing. |
Figure 13-15 Qunatum Computing [view large image] |
![]() |
Qunatum computing exploits two resources offered by the laws of quantum mechanics: the principle of superposition of states and the concept of entanglement. Superposition is a "one-particle" property; while entanglement is a characteristic of two or more particles. Consider a particle with spin such as the electron. With reference to a given axis (say along the z axis), the spin of the particle can point in two opposite directions, say "up" and "down", and the spin states can be denoted as |1 ![]() ![]() |
Figure 13-16 Qubit [view large image] |
Mathematically, the superposition of these two states can be written as: |f ![]() ![]() ![]() where a and b are related to the probability of finding the electron in state |1 ![]() ![]() |a|2 + |b|2 = 1. This normalization defines the total probability of finding the electron to be 1. In general, the |1 ![]() ![]() |
|f![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |1 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Now, consider a two-particle state: there are four "basis states", |1 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |0 ![]() ![]() |1 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |1 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Figure 13-17 Entangle-ment [view large image] |
Figure 13-18 Entanglement Implementation |
|1![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |1 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Suppose particle 1 which Alice wants to teleport is in the initial state: |f ![]() ![]() ![]() and the entangled pair of particles 2 and 3 shared by Alice and Bob is in the state: |f ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() which is produced by an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) source2. The teleportation scheme works as follows. Alice has the particle 1 in the initial state |f >1 and particle 2. Particle 2 is entangled with particle 3 in the hands of Bob. The essential point is to perform a joint Bell-state measurement (BSM)3 on particles 1 and 2 which projects them onto the entangled state: |
Figure 13-19 Teleportation [view large image] |
|f![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This is only one of four possible Bell states into which the two particles can be entangled. The state given in Eq.(8) distinguishes itself from the others by the fact that it changes sign upon interchanging particle 1 and 2. This unique anti- symmetric feature plays an important role in the experiment.
According to the rule of quantum physics once particles 1 and 2 are projected into |f ![]() ![]() ![]() |f ![]() ![]() ![]() Note that during the Bell-state measurement particle 1 loses its identity because it becomes entangled with particle 2. Therefore the state |f ![]() The transfer of quantum information from particle 1 to particle 3 can happen instantly over arbitrary distances, | hence the name teleportation. Experimentally, quantum entanglement has been shown to survive over distances of the order of 10 km. In the teleportation scheme it is not necessary for Alice to know where Bob is. Furthermore, the initial state of particle 1 can be completely unknown not only to Bob but to anyone. It could even be quantum mechanically completely undefined at the time the Bell-state measurement takes place. This is the case when particle 1 itself is a member of an entangled pair and therefore has no well-defined properties on its own. This ultimately leads to entanglement swapping (See lower portion of Figure 13-19). A complete Bell-state measurement not only give the result that the two particles 1 and 2 are in the antisymmetric state in Eq.(8), but with equal probabilities of 25% we could find them in any one the remaining three Bell states. When this happens, the state of particle 3 is determined by one of these three different states. Therefore Alice has to inform Bob, via a classical communication channel, which of the Bell state result was obtained; depending on the message, Bob leaves the particle unaltered or changes it to the opposite state. Either way it ends up a replica of particle 1. It should be emphasized that even if it can be demonstrated for only one of the four Bell states as discussed above, teleportation is successfully achieved, albeit only in a quarter of the cases. |
![]() |
polarizing beam splitters (PBS) for Bell-state measurement (BSM). The logic electronics identify the Bell state and convey the result through the microwave channel (RF unit) to Bob's electro-optic modulator (EOM). Depending on the message, it either leaves the photon state unaltered or changes it to the opposite state. Note that because of the reduced velocity of light within the fibre-based quantum channel, the classical signal arrives about 1.5 microseconds before photon 3. Thus, there is enough time to set the EOM correctly before photon 3 arrives. Polarization rotation (which introduces errors) in the fibres is corrected by polarization controllers (PC) before each run of measurements. |
Figure 13-20a Teleportation over River Danube [view large image] |
Polarization stability proved to be better than 10o on the fibre between Alice and Bob, corresponding to an ideal teleportation fidelity of 0.97. |
![]() |
|
Figure 13-20b Teleportation of Light to Atom [view large image] | with a pulse of radio-frequency (RF) magnetic field of 0.2-ms duration.
|
![]() |
Such error-correction protocols have been implemented in 2004 using three beryllium atomic-ion qubits (the qubits comprise the two electronic ground state hyperfine levels, which are equated to the two spin 1/2 states - up and down) confined to a linear, multi-zone trap. The trap acts like a quantum register with the internal state of each ion playing the role of a qubit. It has been demonstrated that fidelity of 0.7 - 0.8 can be achieved in the experiments. However, the method works well only when at most one of the three qubits undergoes a spin-flip error. Figure 13-21 shows the transportation of the ions in the trap during the error-correction protocol as a function of time. Each experiment requires approximately 4 ms to perform. The ions are kept together by careful tuning of the phases of the optical-dipole force. Refocusing operations are required to counteract qubit dephasing caused by fluctuations in the local magnetic field. |
Figure 13-21 Quantum Error Correction [view large image] |
![]() |
Data encryption is used to protect messages and files from prying eavesdroppers. In its simplest form, a coded message can be created in which each letter is substituted with the letter that is two down from it in the alphabet. So "A" becomes "C", "B" becomes "D", ... and so on. The recipient was told that the code (key) is: "Shift by 2". He/she can then decodes the message accordingly. Anyone else will only see a garbled message. Modern encryption employs two keys to provide greater security. The sender selects a public-key such as 1525381, which is the product of two prime numbers: 10667 and 143. This key is used to convert a block of text via an algorithm (a formula for combining the key with the text). The recipent must used a private key such as 143 to decode the encrypted text in the reverse process. The security of public-key cryptography depends on factorization - the fact that it is easy to compute the product of two large numbers but extremely hard to |
Figure 13-22 Quantum Encryption [view large image] |
factor it back into the primes. But the advent of the quantum information era - and, in particular, the capability of quantum computers to rapidly perform monstrously challenging factorizations - may portend the eventual demise of such cryptographic scheme. |