Coherence and entanglement dynamics of exciton qubits
Transcript of Coherence and entanglement dynamics of exciton qubits
Coherence and entanglement dynamicsof exciton qubits
Martijn Wubs, NBI/DTU
AMOLF, Oct. 26, 2009
x1 x2 x3
x
Qb 1 Qb 2 Qb 3
in collaboration withR. Doll, S. Kohler, and P. Hänggi (Augsburg)
intro: quantum coherence
wave function for isolated systems
|ψ⟩ = |0⟩+ |1⟩p2
density matrix for open quantum systems
ρ(0) = |ψ⟩⟨ψ| = 1
2|0⟩⟨0|+ 1
2|1⟩⟨1|+ 1
2|0⟩⟨1|+ 1
2|1⟩⟨0|
|0>
|1>
relaxation
pure dephasing
Outline
recent experiments:exciton spectra in 3D and on 1D substrates
1 qubit:coherence dynamics under dephasing (in 1D, 3D)
2 qubits:entanglement dynamics, finite separation (in 1D, 3D)
N qubits:benchmarking master equations with exact results
conclusions
Quantum dots and substrates
from: group Rosenauer, Bremen
quantum dots = artificial atoms
self-assembled, eg.InGaAs on GaAs
size 2−10nm0D: discrete energy levels
long-lived optical excitations
useful as:
single-photon sources
quantum memory? Coherence?
Qubit in a quantum dot
two-level system |0⟩, |X⟩: exciton confined to q-dot
Zrenner et al., Nature (2002).
experiments: exciton qubits in carbon nanotubes
1
2
31300 4000 6700
cts/sec
1 2 3 4 5
1
2
3
(a)
200 nm
0 500 1000 15000
10
N
Length (nm)
(b)
<L> = 520 nm
units: nm
77 K
em= 885 nm
0
em= 872 nm
X - translation (µm)
Y-
transla
tion
(µ
m)
(c)
= 15 nm
3000 6000
0 250 5000.0
0.4
0.8
Heig
ht
0
Högele et al., PRL (2008)
experiments: excitons in nanotubes as single-photon emitters
0
10
20
0
20
40
G(2
) ()
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
0
30
60
Time delay, (ns)
0
100
200
0
30
60
PL
Inte
nsity (
cts
/se
c)
850 860 870 880
0
30
60
Wavelength (nm)
4.2 K
10 K
25 K 0.15
0.03
0.03
= 4.4 meV
9.1 meV
9.5 meV
Energy (eV)
1.459 1.4091.433(a) (b)
Högele et al., PRL (2008)
“. . . intrinsic phonon-induced pure dephasing is 2 orders of magnitude larger
than the lifetime broadening . . .”, (Galland et al. (2008))
1 qubit: modeling pure dephasing due to substrate
qubit-bath Hamiltonian
H =ħΩσz +∑
kħωkb†
kbk +Hq−b
interaction
Hq−b =ħσz∑
k
(gkbk +g∗
k b†k
)initial state
R(0) = ρq(0)⊗ρeq.b
reduced qubit state
ρq(t) = Trb[R(t)] =(
p0 ρ01(0)c(t)ρ∗
01(0)c∗(t) 1−p0
),
1-qubit coherence function c(t)
1 qubit: interaction with substrate
deformation-potential coupling to acoustic phonons, gk ∝pk
bath spectral density J(ω) =∑k |gk|2δ(ω−ωk)
linear substrate (1D) → J(ω) ∝ω1 ohmicbulk substrate (3D) → J(ω) ∝ω3 superohmic
model spectral density with cutoff ωc = vphon/`dot
J(ω) =αωc (ω/ωc)d e−ω/ωc
1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45
101
102
103
104
0 1 2
0.1
1
Energy (eV)
|(t
)|
Time (ps)
100
5 meV
0
4
250
PL in
tensity
(a.u
.)
d = 1 d = 3
T = 5K
T=0.1K
Counts
T=6K
1 qubit: exact coherence for arbitrary substrate dimension d
reduced qubit state
ρq(t) = Trb[R(t)] =(
p0 ρ01(0)c(t)ρ∗
01(0)c∗(t) 1−p0
),
1-qubit coherence function c(t)
exact 1-qubit coherence cd(t) = exp[−λd(t)], with (sorry)
λd(t) = 8αs(−θ)d−1[
Fd−1(θ)−ReFd−1(θ[1+ iωct])]
+4αdΓ(d−1)
(cos[(d−1)arctan(ωct)]
(1+ω2c t2)(d−1)/2
−1
),
Γ(z) is Euler’s Gamma function,
F(z) = logΓ(z), and Fn(z) is its n-th derivative
1 qubit: incomplete pure dephasing in bulk substrate
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
exp−
Λ(3
)0,1(t)
0 5 10 15τ
kBT = 0.015 ~ωc
kBT = 0.15 ~ωc
kBT = 0.3 ~ωc
c(3)(τ→∞) → exp(−4α) (θ = kBT
ħωc→ 0)
α= 0.01, time scale for fast decay t∗ 'ω−1c
Vagov et al. PRB 2004
1 qubit: complete pure dephasing in a nanotube
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
coheren
ce
0 100 200 300 400 500
ωct
c(t)
cME(t)
r cME(t)
α = 0.05, kBT = 0.005hωc
LIN
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
coheren
ce
0 100 200 300 400 500
ωct
α = 0.05, kBT = 0.005hωc
LOG
master equation:
cME (t) = exp(−t/T2),T−1
2 = 4παkBT/ħ
exact coherence :
fast initial decay of c(t)time scale ħ/kBTamplitude
r =[
2πθ2θ−1
Γ2(θ)
]4α
' (2πθ)4α (θ¿ 1).
1 qubit: complete pure dephasing in a nanotube
“The non-Markovian nature of this decoherence mechanism may have adverse
consequences for applications of one-dimensional systems in quantum information
processing.” (Galland et al., (2008))
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
coheren
ce
0 100 200 300 400 500
ωct
c(t)
cME(t)
r cME(t)
α = 0.05, kBT = 0.005hωc
LIN
Q: 1D substrates less ideal?A: compare quantum errorcorrection rates
1 qubit: temperature dependence of QEC rates
1
10
100
1000QEC
rate
ωqec[√
ǫωc]
10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103
Temperature T [~ωc/kB]
ǫ = 10−4
ǫ = 10−3
ǫ = 10−2
αs = 0.1 s = 1s = 2
s = 3
0.01
0.1
1
10
10−4 10−2 100 102
αs = 0.001
1 qubit: coupling dependence of QEC rates
0.1
1
10
100
1000
QEC
rate
ωqec[ω
c]
10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1
coupling strength αs
ǫ = 10−4
ǫ = 10−3
ǫ = 10−2
kBT = 0.01ħωc
2 qubits: robust Bell states
Now: 2 qubits at distance x12, coupled to same phonon bath.
x1 x2
x
Qb 1 Qb 2
Known: 2 qubits coupled to same bath at same position:
|ψrobust⟩ =|01⟩+ |10⟩p
2
robust: decoherence-free subspace
Entanglement measure:Concurrence C[ρ] = max0,
√λ1 −
√λ2 −
√λ3 −
√λ4,
λi are ordered eigenvalues of ρσ1yσ2yρ∗σ1yσ2y.
2 qubits: entanglement of robust Bell state
0.8
0.9
1
C(3
)−
(τ)
0 5 10 15 20τ
τ12 = 0τ12 = 2τ12 = 10|ψ−〉
(c)
0
0.5
1
C(1
)−
(τ)
0 200 400 600 800τ
τ12 = 0τ12 = 200τ12 = 600
|ψ−〉
(a)
decoherence-poor subspace
upper = 3Dlower = 1D
coupling α= 0.01,
scaled temp.θ = kBT/ħωc = 0.015,
scaled distanceτ12 =ωcx12/vphon,
scaled time τ=ωct.
2 qubits: final concurrence of robust Bell state
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
C(∞
)
10−2 100 102 104 106 108
ωct12
kBT = 10−6 ~ωc
kBT = 10−5 ~ωc
kBT = 10−4 ~ωc
kBT = 10−3 ~ωc
C(1)− (τ→∞) = (1+τ2
12)4α∣∣∣∣Γ[θ(1− iτ12)]
Γ(θ)
∣∣∣∣16α
→ 1
(1+τ212)4α
(θτ12 → 0)
N qubits: entanglement dynamics
x1 x2 x3
x
Qb 1 Qb 2 Qb 3
W states:
|WN ⟩ = 1pN
(|100. . .0⟩+ |010. . .0⟩+ . . .+|000. . .1⟩)
N-qubit generalization of |W2⟩ = |ψrobust⟩, robust Bell state
Entanglement measure for N qubits: problematic
Here: fidelity F(t) = Trρ(t)ρ(0)
N qubits: fidelity dynamics and master equations
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
F(t)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ωct [104]
(b) kBT/~ωc = 10−3
N = 3
N = 6
0.5
1
100
103
106
ωct
N = 3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
F(t)
(a) kBT/~ωc = 10−4
N = 3
N = 6
usual master equation
FME(t) = 1 ∀ t (bad)
causal master equation
d
dtρjj′ (t) =−8απkBT
ħ[
1−Θ(t − tjj′ )]ρjj′ (t)
Two assumptions for QEC violated1 exponential decay2 qubits in uncorrelated baths
N qubits: scaling of final fidelity
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
F(∞
)
1 10 20 30 40
N
exact, α = 0.001approx.exact, α = 0.01approx.
F(∞) '[Γ( 1
2 −4α)
Γ( 32 −4α)
− 1
1−4α
](Nωct12)−8α→ (Nωct12)−8α (α< 0.005)
conclusions
experiments:i. exciton spectra in 3D and on 1D substratesii. non-exponential dephasing challenge for QIP
1 qubit:i. fast initial dephasingii. stabilization in 3D, exponential decay in 1Diii. lowest error correction rates for 1D
2 qubits:i. entanglement stabilization in 3Dii. and in 1D for the robust state
N qubits:i. Incomplete pure dephasing of W states, exact dynamicsii. Master equation very inaccurate. We improved it.
thanks to . . .
Roland DollSigmund Kohler (Augsburg)Peter Hänggi
Thanks for your attention!
1 Two-qubit entanglement, EPL 76, 547 (2006),
2 Incomplete pure dephasing of N qubits, PRB 76,
045317 (2007),
3 Quantum error correction rates, EPJ B 68, 523 (2009).
4 Exact results from approximate master equations,
Chem. Phys. 347, 243 (2008). www.martijnwubs.nl
2 qubits: entanglement of fragile Bell state
0.8
0.9
1
C(3
)+
(τ)
0 5 10 15 20τ
τ12 = 0τ12 = 2τ12 = 10
|ψ+〉
(d)
0
0.5
1
C(1
)+
(τ)
0 200 400 600 800τ
τ12 = 0τ12 = 200τ12 = 600
|ψ+〉
(b)
upper = 3D, superohmiclower = 1D, ohmic
coupling α= 0.01,scaled temp.θ = kBT/ħωc = 0.015,scaled distanceτ12 =ωcx12/vphon,scaled time τ=ωct.
general identity
C(d)+ (t)C(d)
− (t) = |c(d)(t)|4
Deformation-potential coupling dominates
Pure dephasing due to deformation-potential coupling:
Pure dephasing due to piezo-electric coupling:
Krummheuer et al., PRB (2002)