arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Apr 2008

Transcription

1 Maximally entangling tripartite protocols for Josephson phase qubits Andrei Galiautdinov Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 060 John M. Martinis Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 9106 Dated: April 19, 008) arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 19 Apr 008 We introduce a suit of simple entangling protocols for generating tripartite GHZ and W states in systems with anisotropic exchange interaction g XX + Y Y ) + gzz. An interesting example is provided by macroscopic entanglement in Josephson phase qubits with capacitive g = 0) and inductive 0 < g/g < 0.1) couplings. PACS numbers: 0.67.Bg, 0.67.Lx, j I. INTRODUCTION Superconducting circuits with Josephson junctions have attracted considerable attention as promising candidates for scalable solid-state quantum computing architectures. The story began in the early 1980 s, when Tony Leggett made a remarkable prediction that under certain experimental conditions the macroscopic variables describing such circuits could exhibit a characteristically quantum behavior [1]. Several years later such behavior was unambiguously observed in a series of tunneling experiments by Devoret et al. [], Martinis et al. [], and Clarke et al. [4]. It was eventually realized that due to their intrinsic anharmonicity, the ease of manipulation, and relatively long coherence times [5], the metastable macroscopic quantum states of the junctions could be used as the states of the qubits. That idea had recently been supported by successful experimental demonstrations of Rabi oscillations [6], high-fidelity state preparation and measurement [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1], and various logic gate operations [8, 9, 10, 11, 1]. Further progress in developing a workable quantum computer will depend on the architecture s ability to generate various multiqubit entangled states that form the basis for many important information processing algorithms [14]. In this paper we develop several single-step entangling protocols suitable for generating maximally entangled quantum states in tripartite systems with pair-wise coupling g XX + Y Y ) + gzz. We base our approach on the idea that implementing symmetric states may conveniently be done by symmetrical control of all the qubits in the system. This bears a resemblance to approaches routinely used in digital electronics: while an arbitrary gate for example, a -bit gate) can be made from a collection of NAND gates, it is often convenient to use more complicated designs with three input logic gates to make the needed gate faster and/or smaller. The protocols developed in this paper may be directly applied to virtually any of the currently known superconducting qubit architectures, two of which will be mentioned here. The first architecture is based on capacitively coupled current-biased CBJJ) Josephson junctions [1, 1, 15] whose dynamics is governed by the circuit Hamiltonian H 1 = p 1 + p ) + κp 1 p /m + /e) [ I 0 cosφ i I i φ i ], 1) with p i = m φ i, m = /e) C + C int ), κ = C int /C + C int ). The other architecture involves inductively coupled flux-biased FBJJ) junctions [16]. It is described by the Hamiltonian for small Υ, see Ref. [17] for details) H = p 1 + p ) [ /m + /e) I 0 cosφ i + ee 0 / )φ i πφ i /Φ sc ) ] + ΥE 0 φ 1 πφ i /Φ sc )φ πφ i /Φ sc ), i=1 ) with p i = m φ i, m = /e) C, ω 0 = 1/ LC, E 0 = ω0/e C, E C = e) /C, Φ sc = h/e, Υ = M/L. When reduced to computational subspace, in the rotating wave approximation, these Hamiltonians become H RWA = 1/)[ Ω1 σ 1 + Ω σ + g ] σx 1 σ x + σ1 y y) σ + gσ 1 z σz, ) i=1 Electronic address: ag@physast.uga.edu Electronic address: martinis@physics.ucsb.edu

2 with g = 0 momentum-momentum coupling) and 0 < g/g < 0.1 [18] position-position coupling), respectively. For typical superconducting qubits, the RWA requirements are well satisfied: the level splittings are usually around ω/π 10 GHz and the Rabi frequencies Ω needed to implement various logic gates [17, 19] are on the order of the coupling constant g/π 100 MHz. Thus, Ω/ω 10, as required. II. THE GHZ PROTOCOL A. Triangular coupling scheme In the rotating frame in the absence of coupling, the computational basis states 000, 001, 010, 100, 011, 101, 110, 111 have the same effective energy E eff = 0. The pair-wise coupling, g/ g/ g g H int = 1/) g g g/ g σxσ i x j + σyσ i y) j + gσ i z σz j g g g/ =, 4) g/ g g i,j=1 g g/ g g g g/ g/ empty matrix elements are zero), partially lifts the degeneracy, which results in the energy spectrum E int = { g/, g/, g g/, g g/, g + g/), g + g/), g + g/), g + g/)}, 5) with the corresponding H-eigenbasis where H GHZ HW Hrest { } { W W } { Ψ1 Ψ 1 Ψ Ψ }, 6) W = )/, W = )/, Ψ 1 = )/, Ψ 1 = )/, Ψ = )/ 6, Ψ = )/ 6. 7) Since the coupling does not cause transitions within each of the degenerate subspaces nor does it cause transitions between different such subspaces), it is impossible to generate the GHZ = )/ state [0] from the ground state 000 by direct application of H int. Instead, we must first bring the 000 state out of the H GHZ subspace by, for example, subjecting it to a local rotation R 1 in such a way as to produce a state ψ that has both 000 and 111 components. That is only possible if all one-qubit amplitudes α 1,..., β in the resulting product state ψ = R = α β 1 1 )α 0 + β 1 )α 0 + β 1 ) are chosen to be nonzero, which means that in the computational basis the state ψ will have eight nonzero components. We now notice that in the H-basis, the three-qubit rotations X = X ) X ) X 1) = Y = Y ) Y ) Y 1) = c is i sc cs is c cs i sc i sc c is cs c1 s ) is1 c ) cs i is c sc is1 c ) c1 s ) c s sc cs s c cs sc c s sc cs c1 s ) s1 c ) cs s c sc s1 c ) c1 s ) c is, is c c s, 8) s c where Y k) = exp iσy k/), X k) = exp iσx k/), k = 1,,, are block-diagonal, with c cos/) and s sin/). For =, the corresponding 4 4 blocks acting on the H GHZ HW subspace are 1 i i X 4 4) = 1 i 1 i i 1 i i, Y 4 4) = ) i 1 1 1

3 This shows that Y provides a convenient choice for R 1. We may thus start by generating the so-called symmetric state, ψ sym = Y 000 = 1/) GHZ + ) / W + W ) H GHZ HW. 10) The entanglement is then performed by acting on ψ sym with U int = exp ih int t), thus inducing a phase difference between the GHZ and W+W components this step works only for g g, see Section IV), U int Y 000 = e iα / ) GHZ + e iδ ) / W + W ), α = g/)t, δ = g g)t. 11) To transform to the desired GHZ state, we first diagonalize the X 4 4) and Y 4 4) operators to get the unimodular spectra { λ X = e iπ/4), e iπ/4), e iπ/4), e iπ/4)} {, λ Y = e iπ/4), e iπ/4), e iπ/4), e iπ/4)}, 1) corresponding to the X- and Y-eigenbases, X = X 1 X X X 4 ) Y 4 4), Y = Y 1 Y Y Y 4 ) X 4 4), which are formed by the columns of Y 4 4) and X 4 4). Using the X-basis, we notice that both states GHZ = X 1 + X 4, U int Y 000 = e iα 1 + e iδ X ) e iδ X4, 1) belong to the same two-dimensional nondegenerate) X-subspace spanned by X 1 X 4. Therefore, by performing an additional X rotation we can transform U int Y 000 to X U int Y 000 = e iα e iπ/4) GHZ, 14) provided the entangling time is set to give δ = π, or, t GHZ = g g. Any other GHZ state e iφ 111 )/ can be made out of the standard GHZ state by a Z-rotation applied to one of the qubits, as usual. The protocol may be compared to controlled-not logic gate implementations [17, 19] that used various sequences CNOT = e iπ/4) R U CNOT R 1, with entangling) times t CNOT = Tg, 1 T < 1.6. Thus, for g = 0, the entangling operation proposed here will be of same duration as the fastest possible CNOT. We conclude this section by noting that in its present form the GHZ protocol cannot be used to generate the W state. This can be seen by writing W = X 1 + X ) X + X 4 ) ) / 8, which shows that our XU int Y sequence does not result in a W since the final X rotation cannot eliminate the X and X components. Also, ) W = i Y1 Y ) Y i Y 4 ) / 8, 15) and Y U int Y 000 = e iα 1 e iδ i Y 1 Y ) 1 + e iδ ) Y i Y 4 ) ) / 8, 16) and thus no choice of δ will work for the Y U int Y sequence either. B. Linear coupling scheme In the case of linear coupling, say, 1 and, the interaction Hamiltonian is given by g 0 g 0 g g g { } 0 g 0 H int =, E 0 g 0 int = g, g, ǫ +), ǫ +), ǫ ), ǫ ), 0, 0, ε ±) = ± g + g/) g/, g g g 0 g 0 g 17)

4 4 with eigenbasis 000, 111, W +) = C +) ǫ +) /g) , W +) = C +) ǫ +) /g) , W ) = C ) ǫ ) /g) , W ) = C ) ǫ ) /g) , Ψ = )/, Ψ = )/, 18) where C ±) are normalizing constants. We have, W = A +) W +) + A ) W ), A +) = ǫ ) + g ǫ +) ǫ ) 1, A ) = ǫ+) g 1, 19) C +) ǫ +) ǫ ) C ) and similarly for W. Our GHZ sequence then leads to the entangled state U int Y 000 = e iα / ) GHZ + [ / e iδ+) A +) W +) + W +)] [ + e iδ ) A ) W ) + W )])), 0) with α = gt, δ ±) = ǫ ±) g)t. Since t > 0, in order for the X post-rotation to give a GHZ, we must restrict coupling to g = 0 and set the entangling time to t GHZ = π/ g. An alternative GHZ implementation for superconducting qubit systems with capacitive coupling has recently been considered in Refs. [1, ]. There, individual qubits were conditionally operated upon one at a time. III. THE W PROTOCOL We now turn to the W protocol. Eq. 16) suggests that control sequence Y U int Y may still give a W, provided a proper adjustment of i Y 1 Y and Y i Y 4 amplitudes is made by a physically acceptable change of system s Hamiltonian. In the context of Josephson phase qubits such modification can be achieved by adding local Rabi terms) to H int, for instance, g Ω Ω Ω Ω g g g Ω Ω Hint Ω = Ω/) σx 1 + σ x + ) σ x + Hint = 1 Ω g g g Ω Ω Ω q g g Ω Ω. 1) Ω Ω g g g Ω Ω Ω g g g Ω Ω Ω g g g Ω Ω Ω Ω g The energy spectrum then becomes Eint Ω = { ǫ +) ± χ +), ǫ ) ± χ ), ǫ +), ǫ +), ǫ ), ǫ )}, with ǫ ±) = g + g/ ± Ω/, χ ±) = g g) ± g g)ω + Ω. The first two) eigenvectors are [ Φ +) 1, = C+) 1, 1 /Ω) g g χ +))] GHZ + ) / W + W ), ) with normalizing constants C +) k, k = 1,. After some algebra we find: UintY Ω 000 = e iα /4 [ ) χ +) ) A/Ω) ie iπ/4) Y 1 e iπ/4) Y where + )] B/Ω) e iπ/4) Y ie iπ/4) Y 4, A = g g + Ω + χ +)) g g + Ω χ +)) e iδ g g + Ω χ +)) g g + Ω + χ +)), B = g g + Ω + χ +)) g g χ +)) e iδ g g + Ω χ +)) g g + χ +)), 4) and α = ǫ +) + χ +)) t, δ = χ +) t. It is straightforward to verify that additional Y rotation applied to this state produces a W see Eqs. 1), 15)), provided we set t W = π/ g g, Ω = g g)/. ) Y U Ω inty 000 = [ sgng g)] e iα W, 5)

5 5 IV. ADDENDUM: ISOTROPIC HEISENBERG EXCHANGE gxx + Y Y + ZZ) Maximally entangling protocols introduced in previous sections are singular in the limit g g, which corresponds to the isotropic Heisenberg exchange interaction. Even though this limit is not met in superconducting qubits, for completeness, we briefly discuss it here. It is obvious that when g = g, the symmetric state Y 000 is an eigenstate of the interaction Hamiltonian. Consequently, the Heisenberg exchange does not cause transitions out of it, making the gate time divergent. To perform single-step entanglement we break the symmetry of local rotations. For example, the GHZ state can be generated by e iα GHZ = e i)σ z e iπ/)σ 1 y σ y) Uint e iπ/1)5σ1 y +σ y σ y) e i)σ z 000, with α =, tghz = /) g). To generate the W state, we generalize Neeley s fast implementation for triangular gxx + Y Y ) coupling [] cf. [4]) to arbitrary coupling gxx+y Y )+ gzz, including the Heisenberg exchange g = g: e iα W = e +iπ/)σ z Uint e i)σ y 000, with α = 5g g)π/18g, tw = 4/9) g). V. CONCLUSION In summary, we have developed several single-step symmetric implementations for generating maximally entangled tripartite quantum states in systems with anisotropic exchange interaction, which are directly applicable to superconducting qubit architectures. In the GHZ case, both triangular and linear coupling schemes have been analyzed. In the isotropic limit, our implementations exhibit singularities that can be removed by breaking the symmetry of the local pulses. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the DTO under Grant No. W911NF and by the NSF under Grants No. CMS and No. CCF The authors thank Michael Geller and Matthew Neeley for helpful discussions. [1] A.J. Leggett, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.) 69, ) [] M. H. Devoret, J. M. Martinis, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, ) [] J. M. Martinis, M. H. Devoret, J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B5, ) [4] J. Clarke et al., Science 9, ) [5] D. Vion, A. Aassime, A. Cottet, P. Joyez, H. Pothier, C. Urbina, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Science 96, ); S. Han, Y. Yu, Xi Chu, S. Chu, and Z. Wang, Science 9, ); Y. Yu, S. Han, X. Chu, S. Chu, and Z. Wang, ibid. 96, ) [6] Y. Nakamura, C. D. Chen, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, ); Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, ) [7] A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R. S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 41, ); O. Astafiev, Y. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. B69, R) 004); I. Chiorescu, Y. Nakamura, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Science 99, ); B. L. T. Plourde, T. L. Robertson, P. A. Reichardt, T. Hime, S. Linzen, C.-E. Wu, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. B7, R) 005); J. M. Martinis, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, and C. Urbina, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, ) [8] R. W. Simmonds, K. M. Lang, D. A. Hite, S. Nam, D. P. Pappas, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, ) [9] K. B. Cooper, M. Steffen, R. McDermott, R. W. Simmonds, S. Oh, D. A. Hite, D. P. Pappas, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, ) [10] J. Claudon, F. Balestro, F. W. J. Hekking, and O. Buisson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, ); J. Claudon, A. Fay, L. P. Levy, and O. Buisson, Phys. Rev. B7, 18050R) 006) [11] N. Katz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, R. McDermott, M. Neeley, M. Steffen, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Science 1, ) [1] R. McDermott, R. W. Simmonds, M. Steffen, K. B. Cooper, K. Cicak, K. D. Osborn, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, and J. M. Martinis, Science 07, ); M. Steffen, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, N. Katz, E. Lucero, R. McDermott, M. Neeley, E. M. Weig, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Science 1, ) [1] P. R. Johnson, F. W. Strauch, A. J. Dragt, R. C. Ramos, C. J. Lobb, J. R. Anderson, and F. C. Wellstood, Phys. Rev. B67, 00509R) 00) [14] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press 000) [15] A. Blais, A. Maassenvanden Brink, and A. M. Zagoskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, ); A. Galiautdinov, Phys. Rev. B7, ); A. G. Kofman, Q. Zhang, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B75, )

6 [16] J. Q. You, Y. Nakamura, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B71, ); Zh. Zhou, Shih-I Chu, and S. Han, Phys. Rev. B7, ); B. L. T. Plourde, J. Zhang, K. B. Whaley, F. K. Wilhelm, T. L. Robertson, T. Hime, S. Linzen, P. A. Reichardt, C.-E. Wu, and John Clarke, Phys. Rev. B70, R) 004); J. B. Majer, F. G. Paauw, A. C. J. ter Haar, C. J. P.M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, ); I. Siddiqi and J. Clarke, Science 1, ); Yu-xi Liu, L. F. Wei, J. S. Tsai, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett 96, ) [17] A. Galiautdinov, Phys. Rev. A75, ) [18] M. Geller private communication) [19] A. Galiautdinov, J. Math. Phys. 48, ) [0] D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bells Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1989); D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys. 58 1), ) [1] L. F. Wei, Yu-xi Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, ) [] Sh. Matsuo, S. Ashhab, T. Fujii, F. Nori, K. Nagai, and N. Hatakenaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jap 76, ) [] M. Neeley, unpublished private communication) [4] R. Migliore, K. Yuasa, M. Guccione, H. Nakazato, and A. Messina, Phys. Rev. B76, ); R. Migliore, K. Yuasa, H. Nakazato, and A. Messina, Phys. Rev. B74, ) 6