Abstract In the previous chapter, we have seen that a photon in an interferometer can be a prototype for a qubit. Might there be any other prototypes for a qubit arising from other particles that we might know? In fact, an electron is another prototype for a qubit. An electron has many measurable properties such as energy, mass, momentum. But, for the purposes of creating a qubit, we want to focus on a property with only two measurable values. An electron has a two-state property which is called spin.
Abstract In the previous chapter, we have seen that a photon in an interferometer can be a prototype for a qubit. Might there be any other prototypes for a qubit arising from other particles that we might know? In fact, an electron is another prototype for a qubit. An electron has many measurable properties such as energy, mass, momentum. But, for the purposes of creating a qubit, we want to focus on a property with only two measurable values. An electron has a two-state property which is called spin.
Abstract Now that we have explored qubits and the phenomenon of superposition, we can ask the question: how do we know that superposition actually happens? is the evidence that shows that a quantum particle really does exist in two different locations at this same time while in a quantum superposition? The nature of science means that experiments are constantly updating previous results, so are there other interpretations of the experimental results that can explain the data without the need for superposition? In this chapter we’ll explore the experimental evidence interpretations other than quantum superposition. Further, while a flipping coin is a simple model of a qubit, it is not very useful for building a quantum computer because it does not exhibit all of the properties of a true quantum superposition. For example, we cannot manipulate the superposition amplitudes. In this chapter, we will study some real physical examples of quantum particles in a superposition containing two states. These examples include a photon in a beam splitter and the Mach–Zehnder interferometer.
Hilbert space The prototype qubit systems of the last chapter are very simple, but they can be generalized to more complicated versions. We can send a photon through an interferometer with three, four or more distinct beams. We can perform experiments on particles with higher intrinsic angular momentum than the spin-½ particles we have discussed. And we can analyze atomic systems in situations that involve more than two different energy levels. For these cases and others, we will need a more general version of quantum theory. That theory will include two pieces. First, we will have a general mathematical structure that is applicable to many kinds of system. Here the qubit case will be our guide, since many of the basic concepts for other quantum systems are already present in the qubit case. Second, we will have to describe how to apply the quantum formalism to specific physical situations. Though the quantum systems we discuss will appear quite various, they share strong family resemblances that are expressed in the common mathematical framework. Keeping the framework in mind will help us understand specific examples; keeping the examples in mind will help us understand the framework. The states of a quantum system are described by kets |ψ〉, which obey the principle of superposition. This means that the kets are elements of an abstract vector space ℋ called a Hilbert space .
The spin is the prime example of a qubit. Encoding and decoding information in the spin qubit is operationally well defined through the Stern-Gerlach setup in the nonrelativistic (i.e., low velocity) limit. However, an operational definition of the spin in the relativistic regime is missing. The origin of this difficulty lies in the fact that, on the one hand, the spin gets entangled with the momentum in Lorentz-boosted reference frames, and on the other hand, for a particle moving in a superposition of velocities, it is impossible to "jump" to its rest frame, where spin is unambiguously defined. Here, we find a quantum reference frame transformation corresponding to a "superposition of Lorentz boosts," allowing us to transform to the rest frame of a particle that is in a superposition of relativistic momenta with respect to the laboratory frame. This enables us to first move to the particle's rest frame, define the spin measurements there (via the Stern-Gerlach experimental procedure), and then move back to the laboratory frame. In this way, we find a set of "relativistic Stern-Gerlach measurements" in the laboratory frame, and a set of observables satisfying the spin su(2) algebra. This operational procedure offers a concrete way of testing the relativistic features of the spin, and opens up the possibility of devising quantum information protocols for spin in the special-relativistic regime.
The interaction of electrons and photons lies at the heart of quantum physics. The \nmost notable phenomena which are described by quantum physics but which obviously \ninvalidate a classical description of the electromagnetic field - the photoelectric \neffect, the Compton effect, or the antibunching of photons emitted from a single atom, \nto mention a few - are intimately related to the interaction of electrons and photons. \nElectrons possess an internal degree of freedom, the spin. The spin S of an electron \ncan be described as an internal angular momentum, leading to a magnetic moment \nm due to the electric charge of the electron. Stern and Gerlach have shown that \nthe projection of m onto a quantization axis (defined by an external magnetic field \nin their experiment), e.g., along the z axis, is either mz = g�μB/2 (\\spin up") or \nmz = g�μB=2 (\\spin down"), where �μB � 9:2741 � 10-24 J/T is the Bohr magneton \nand g is the g-factor of the electron (g = 2 for free electrons). \n \n An electron spin \nis therefore usually referred to as a two-level system. Due to this property, the \nspin of electrons which are localized in semiconductor quantum dots has recently \nattracted significant attention regarding the implementation of quantum information \nprocessing: Electron spins can be used as carriers of quantum information. One \ncan define that the spin pointing "up" corresponds to the logical value "0" and \nthe spin pointing "down" corresponds to "1". Moreover, because the electron spin \nis a quantum mechanical property one can form arbitrary coherent superpositions of \n"up" and "down" with a single spin. Moreover, because the electron spin \nis a quantum mechanical property one can form arbitrary coherent superpositions of \n"up" and "down" with a single spin. A system with this property is called a quantum \nbit (qubit). The additional possibilities due to quantum superpositions of qubits are \nexploited, e.g., in the algorithms introduced by Shor and Grover to solve certain tasks \nmuch more efficiently than with a classical computer (i.e., the prime factorization of \nlarge numbers for Shor's algorithm and the search within an unstructured database for \nGrover's algorithm). While quantum computation has presently only been achieved \nin prototypical experiments with few qubits, the implementation of efficient largescale \nquantum computation with many qubits still remains an extremely demanding \ntask. Yet, other quantum mechanical properties of qubits, such as entanglement, \nhave already been exploited experimentally with photons in quantum communication \nschemes, for example, quantum teleportation and quantum data compression. \nIn this thesis, we investigate the interaction of electrons and photons in semiconductor \nquantum dots. Optical transitions in quantum dots enable a direct link between \nelectron spins and photon polarizations due to conservation laws. We show that \n \nentanglement can be transferred from electron spin qubits to qubits defined by the \nphoton polarization, enabling the measurement of entangled spin states via photons. \nThe mechanism under study can also be used for the production of entangled photons, \nfor instance for the implementation of quantum communication protocols. In contrast \nto the presently used sources of entangled photons, the photon source we propose here \nis deterministic, providing entangled photons on demand. It has been demonstrated \nin several recent experiments that the most obvious way to achieve such a transfer of \nentanglement - using the recombination of biexcitons in a single quantum dot - fails \nin the presently available quantum dot structures. We have analyzed the problems \nof this approach. As a solution, we propose schemes based on charged excitons in \nsingle or coupled quantum dots. We discuss the generation of entangled two- and \nfour-photon states. \nIn addition to the transfer of quantum states, photons can also be used to probe \nelectron spin states. We investigate in detail different methods to optically measure \nthe decoherence time of a single electron spin in a quantum dot. The decoherence time \nof a spin establishes the time scale during which coherent manipulation is possible. \nMeasurements of the electron spin decoherence time are therefore highly desirable \nin view of the implementation of spin-based quantum information processing. We \nshow that the schemes we propose can be implemented with current experimental \ntechniques. \nWe then study the magneto-optical effect called Faraday rotation. Using the technique \nof time-resolved Faraday rotation, a recent experiment has demonstrated the \ncoherent transfer of spin between quantum dots coupled by molecules. We calculate \nthe Faraday rotation signal for a coupled dot system and show that a two-site \nHamiltonian with a transfer term captures the essential features observed in this experiment. \nWe also present results for a system of two coupled dots doped with a \nsingle electron. \nWe finally show that the coupled states of two qubits can be detected via the optical \ninteraction with a cavity in the dispersive regime. We present a Schrieffer-Wolff \ntransformation which removes the coupling of the two qubits to the cavity in leading \norder. The different two-qubit states lead to a different spectral shift of the cavity \nline. For a sufficiently low cavity linewidth, this enables the direct readout of a \ntwo-qubit system.
It is well known that electron spin is quantized, and is measured to be either spin up or spin down in a magnetic field, as was first demonstrated in the classic Stern-Gerlach experiment almost 100 years ago. However, it is also believed that a quantum spin may be indeterminate until it is measured, being in a quantum superposition of the two quantum states. On the contrary, I propose (based on a locally realistic spin-quantized picture of quantum waves) that an electron quantum state is always either spin up or spin down, but is never in a superposition of the two. This concept should be directly testable using a two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment, similar to that presented in standard quantum textbooks, but apparently never carried out experimentally. This experiment should be straightforward using modern atomic beam laboratory equipment. If successful, this could lead to a serious review of quantum foundations, as well as a new set of practical applications. In particular, a binary storage or logic element based on quantum spin should continue to work down to the atomic scale. This should enable computer memories with orders of magnitude greater density than those based on conventional magnetic memories. 2
The nature of the electron, a point particle according to the Standard Model, presents a paradox that challenges our ability to comprehend the physical reality. This paradox lies in the apparent contradiction between the complexity represented according to mathematical models that fully describe experimental results and the world around us perceived as a representation of an intuitive process. For example, how come all electrons are the same? As we shall see in this chapter, a seemingly simple question stimulated original reflections that later led to significant theoretical developments. Stern and Gerlach’s experiments demonstrated that the electron possesses an intrinsic property, the spin, whose generalization led to the distinction between fermions and bosons. The spin property, however, is apparently not reconcilable with the point properties of the electron. It has, in fact, not any analogue in classical physics. This incongruence also applies to the electron’s magnetic dipole moment. The key to everything is perhaps the spin property, which has Pauli’s Exclusion Principle as its consequence, to which we owe the existence of matter as we perceive it.