This thesis covers the topic of Quantum Computation, in both its theoretical and experimental aspects. The Theory of Quantum Computing is an extension of the standard Theory of Computation inspired by the principles of Quantum Mechanics. The discovery of efficient quantum algorithms for problems for which no efficient classical algorithms are known challenges the Strong Church-Turing Thesis, which states that all computational models are essentially equivalent in terms of what they can compute and how efficiently they can do so.
In Part I of this thesis, we study the nature of this difference. We first introduce a general and simplified framework for characterising the essence of a quantum theory, in contrast with a deterministic or a probabilistic theory. We put forth the thesis that the most fundamental axioms are those related to measurement, from which these differences emanate. We cover some variations on these theories, and show some interesting structural relationships between them. For example, the only models which can be simultaneously quantum and probabilistic are the deterministic ones.
We then use this meta-model to re-introduce in a succinct and uniform manner the deterministic, probabilistic and quantum versions of the Turing Machine and circuit computational models. Moreover, we generalise the circuit model on arbitrary semirings. We thus succeed in providing a new classification of existing complexity classes by varying the semirings and vector norms with which their vector space of states is defined. In particular, the standard models of deterministic, probabilistic, and quantum computing can be characterised (with the same norm) by defining circuits on the boolean algebra, the positive rational or reals, and the rational or reals, respectively. We further explore this model with other non-standard semirings. We show that quaternion based models are equivalent to quantum computation. Finally, we strengthen this “algebraic hierarchy” by using the tensor formula formalism to construct a family of complete (or promise complete) problems for the corresponding complexity classes.
Part II concerns experimental Quantum Computing by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). An important obstacle in this approach is the inability to properly initialise the quantum register, which is related to the signal-to-noise problem in NMR spectroscopy. One of the most promising techniques to solve it is Algorithmic Cooling, a generalisation of the polarisation transfer techniques already used by NMR spectroscopists. We discuss the traditional adiabatic approaches and their limitations. We describe a variation on this technique, the non-adiabatic approach, which uses the environment in order to cool beyond these limits. In particular, we provide a new, efficient non-adiabatic cooling algorithm which could achieve near-zero spin temperatures in liquid-state NMR already with more reasonably sized registers (30–60 spins). Finally, we report on the successful laboratory realisation of the first ever non-adiabatic cooling experiment. This constitutes, we hope, the first step towards the fully fledged development of this promising technique, with applications far beyond NMR-based Quantum Computing.
The rapid evolution of computers in the half century since their invention has resulted in dramatically smaller and faster computers. However, from a computational point of view, all these computers look alike; for example, they are built out of simple logic gates. A fundamental thesis of computer science---the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis---asserts that this is inevitable in a deep sense. Any computer can be simulated with at most a polynomial factor slowdown by a probabilistic Turing machine. Quantum computation poses the first credible challenge to this thesis. It goes back to a suggestion by Feynman [4], who pointed out that there appears to be no efficient way of simulating a quantum mechanical system on a computer, and suggested that, perhaps, a computer based on quantum physical principles might be able to carry out the simulation efficiently. Two formal models for quantum computers---the quantum Turing machine [2] and quantum computational networks [3]---were defined by Deutsch. The first three papers in this issue describe efficient quantum algorithms for computational tasks that we do not know how to solve classically. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani give the first formal evidence that quantum computers violate the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis. They show that a certain problem---the recursive Fourier sampling problem---can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but relative to an oracle, requires superpolynomial time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. Simon, in the paper "On the Power of Quantum Computation" introduces a fundamental projection technique and uses it to design an efficient quantum algorithm to determine whether a certain type of function is 2-1 or 1-1. He further shows that, relative to an oracle, this problem requires exponential time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. In the paper "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer," Shor gives remarkable polynomial time quantum algorithms for two of the most famous problems in computer science: factoring and discrete log. Since the computational hardness of these problems is the basis of several famous cryptosystems, Shor's paper very dramatically underlines the power of quantum computers. To understand the computational power of quantum computers, it is helpful to consider a quantum mechanical system of n particles, each of which can be in one of two states, labeled
∣0⟩ and
∣1⟩. If this were a classical system, then its instantaneous state could be described by n bits. However, in quantum physics, the system is allowed to be in a linear superposition of configurations, and indeed the instantaneous state of the system is described by a unit vector in the 2n dimensional vector space, whose basis vectors correspond to all the2n classical configurations. Therefore, to describe the instantaneous state of the system, we must specify 2n complex numbers. Nature must update 2n complex numbers at each instant to evolve the system in time. This is an extraordinary amount of effort, since even for n = 200, 2n is larger than estimates of the number of elementary particles in the visible universe. Nonetheless, there are limits to the power of quantum computers. In "Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing," Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani show that, relative to a random oracle, with probability 1, the class NP cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine in time o(2n/2). This bound is tight, since recent work of Grover [5] has shown how to accept any language in NP in time O(2n/2) on a quantum Turing machine. Quantum computers are necessarily time reversible. Indeed, Bennett's work [1] on reversible computation inspired early work on quantum computation that preceded Feynman's paper [4]. The reversibility requirement makes it quite complex to implement even basic computational primitives such as looping or composition. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani show how to implement quantum programming primitives and give a construction for an efficient universal quantum Turing machine. The structure of the universal quantum Turing machine is quite simple: it consists of a deterministic Turing machine with a single "quantum coin flip." In "Quantum Computability," Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang greatly simplify this further by showing that a very simple type of coin flip is sufficient---a rotation by an angle
θ such that
sinθ=3/5. Making quantum computers robust against noise and decoherence is an important and challenging problem. In "Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization," Barenco, Berthiaume, Deutsch, Ekert, Jozsa, and Macchiavello show how to use the quantum watchdog effect to stabilize a quantum computation against noise. Their method is based on running several copies of the quantum computer in parallel and projecting its state into the symmetric subspace at frequent intervals. They show that the quantum watchdog effect results in the suppression of errors that lie outside the symmetric subspace. Quantum computation touches upon the foundations of both computer science and quantum physics. It is not unlikely that the issues raised by quantum computation will stimulate further research into the foundations of quantum physics. I wish to express my gratitude to several people who made this special section possible. Oded Goldreich acted as editor for two of the papers in the issue and dealt with them with his characteristic efficiency and judgment. The editorial staff at SIAM, most notably Lisa Dougherty, Beth Gallagher, Deidre Wunderlich, and Sam Young, were extremely helpful, patient, and resourceful. Finally, I would like to thank a number of referees whose careful and timely reviews were critical to putting together this issue. Umesh Vazirani
This work presents a comprehensive and rigorous examination of quantum computing, spanning its mathematical foundations, physical principles, algorithmic developments, hardware architectures, and philosophical implications. Beginning with linear algebra over Hilbert spaces and the postulates of quantum mechanics, the manuscript develops the formal structure of quantum information theory, including qubits, entanglement, quantum channels, and noise models. The work provides in-depth treatments of the quantum circuit model, alternative computation paradigms such as measurement-based, adiabatic, and topological quantum computation, and the theoretical framework of quantum error correction, including stabilizer and surface codes. Foundational and modern quantum algorithms are analysed in detail, including Shor’s factoring algorithm, Grover’s search, variational quantum eigensolvers, QAOA, and emerging quantum machine learning approaches. Beyond algorithms and implementations, the manuscript addresses scalability challenges, fault tolerance, computational complexity limits, and the implications of quantum computing for cryptography and the extended Church–Turing thesis. The concluding sections explore philosophical questions concerning interpretation, measurement, and the relationship between computation and physical reality. This work is intended as both a reference text and a research-level synthesis for advanced students, researchers, and practitioners in quantum computing, theoretical computer science, and quantum physics.
In this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch's model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97--117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specified. We prove that
O(logT) bits of precision suffice to support a T step computation. This justifies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church--Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class $\BPP$. The class $\BQP$ of languages that are efficiently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satisfies $\BPP \subseteq \BQP \subseteq \Ptime^{\SP}$. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory.
Quantum computers can potentially solve real and relevant mathematical and physical problems that are intractable using classical machines. However, the experimental realization of quantum computers represents a significant challenge, because several opposing experimental requirements must be met. A set of coupled quantum bits must be manipulated and measured while coherently retaining entangled quantum states. Yet the manipulation and measurement processes almost inevitably lead to the decay of these fragile states.
This thesis work takes significant steps towards building a practical quantum computer using nuclear spins and liquid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques. I present experimental results for proof of principle of quantum computing in a series of small implementations of quantum algorithms, culminating in the implementation of an adiabatic quantum optimization algorithm. The performance of adiabatic algorithms compared with classical optimization methods is unknown, but small quantum computers could provide crucial insight into answering this question. Furthermore, adiabatic algorithms also shed new light on the usefulness of quantum resources for computational tasks and hence they represent an important class of algorithms.
The second part of this thesis presents several methods developed for improving the control over NMR quantum computing experiments. Even though liquid state NMR quantum computers have well known and accepted scaling limitations, the developed tools are of general use. I will show how several tools are directly transferable to two other implementations of quantum computers; one using optical methods and the other using loops of superconducting material.
This work provides insight into what is needed to build a practical quantum computer, and delivers several tools and techniques that will be useful in future large-scale implementations of quantum computers.
There is strong evidence that computers based upon the principles of quantum physics represent an inherently new and more powerful model of computation. Such computers violate the modern form of the Church-Turing thesis (which lies at the foundations of computer science). This thesis can be informally summarized as follows: all physical implementations of computing devices can be described by the same abstract model of computation-the probabilistic Turing Machine or the equivalent random access machine. In this paper, we will describe two formal models for quantum computers: quantum circuits and quantum Turing Machines, introduced by Deutsch [1985].
Abstract. In this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our rst result is the existence of an ecient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch’s model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97{117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specied. We prove that O(log T) bits of precision suce to support a T step computation. This justies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the rst formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church{Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class BPP. The class BQP of languages that are eciently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satises BPP ⊆ BQP ⊆ P]P. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory.