This chapter examines the power of quantum computing, as well as the related concepts of quantum cryptography and teleportation. In 1982, the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman noticed there was no simple way of simulating quantum physical systems using digital computers. He turned this problem into an opportunity—perhaps a computational device based on quantum mechanics could solve problems more efficiently than more traditional computers. In the decades that followed, computer scientists and physicists, often working together, showed in theory that quantum computers can solve certain problems, such as factoring numbers, much faster. Whether one can actually build large or even medium-scale working quantum computers and determine exactly what these computers can or cannot do still remain significant challenges.
This chapter examines the power of quantum computing, as well as the related concepts of quantum cryptography and teleportation. In 1982, the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman noticed there was no simple way of simulating quantum physical systems using digital computers. He turned this problem into an opportunity—perhaps a computational device based on quantum mechanics could solve problems more efficiently than more traditional computers. In the decades that followed, computer scientists and physicists, often working together, showed in theory that quantum computers can solve certain problems, such as factoring numbers, much faster. Whether one can actually build large or even medium-scale working quantum computers and determine exactly what these computers can or cannot do still remain significant challenges.
Richard Feynman's observation that certain quantum mechanical effects cannot be simulated efficiently on a computer led to speculation that computation in general could be done more efficiently if it used these quantum effects. This speculation proved justified when Peter Shor described a polynomial time quantum algorithm for factoring intergers. In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system, which enables exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible classically. The catch is that accessing the results, which requires measurement, proves tricky and requires new nontraditional programming techniques. The aim of this paper is to guide computer scientists through the barriers that separate quantum computing from conventional computing. We introduce basic principles of quantum mechanics to explain where the power of quantum computers comes from and why it is difficult to harness. We describe quantum cryptography, teleportation, and dense coding. Various approaches to exploiting the power of quantum parallelism are explained. We conclude with a discussion of quantum error correction.
Richard Feynman's observation that quantum mechanical effects could not be simulated efficiently on a computer led to speculation that computation in general could be done more efficiently if it used quantum effects. This speculation appeared justified when Peter Shor described a polynomial time quantum algorithm for factoring integers. In quantum systems, the computational space increases exponentially with the size of the system which enables exponential parallelism. This parallelism could lead to exponentially faster quantum algorithms than possible classically. The catch is that accessing the results, which requires measurement, proves tricky and requires new non-traditional programming techniques. The aim of this paper is to guide computer scientists and other non-physicists through the conceptual and notational barriers that separate quantum computing from conventional computing. We introduce basic principles of quantum mechanics to explain where the power of quantum computers comes from and why it is difficult to harness. We describe quantum cryptography, teleportation, and dense coding. Various approaches to harnessing the power of quantum parallelism are explained, including Shor's algorithm, Grover's algorithm, and Hogg's algorithms. We conclude with a discussion of quantum error correction.
It was Richard Feynman who first proposed, in 1982, the far-reaching concept of \na ”quantum computer”—a device more powerful than classical computers. The idea \nof a quantum computer is to employ the fascinating and often counterintuitive \nlaws of quantum mechanics to process information. It is far from obvious that \nthe proposed concept of a quantum computer is more powerful than its classical \ncounterpart, it was only in 1994 when Peter Shor theoretically demonstrated the \nexistence of a quantum algorithm for factorizing integers into prime factors \nthat runs in polynomial time unlike its classical counterpart which works in \nsub-exponential time. The factorization of integers into prime factors is the \nbasis of asymmetric cryptography. These early theoretical results lunched an \nimmense interest of the scientific community. Already during ’90s, the first \nproposals for the physical implementation of quantum computation emerged. Ever \nsince, many experimental groups around the world pursued different physical \nimplementations of quantum bits (qubits). The first decade of the new century \nsaw a steady improvement in the control and decoherence time (the time over \nwhich the information carried by the qubit is lost) for various qubits by many \norders of magnitude. The natural next step in this context is to answer the \nquestion of how to scale the system up to include many qubits and thus build a \nquantum computer? One of the main parts of this thesis addresses exactly this \nquestion, namely the question of architecture and scalability of future quantum \ncomputer. \n \nAmong various different physical realizations of qubits, the idea of using \nelectron spins trapped in electrostatic semiconductor quantum dots as the \nbuilding blocks of a quantum computer (the so-called spin qubits), put forward \nby Daniel Loss and David DiVincenzo in 1997, triggered tremendous interest in \nscientific community. Nevertheless, the implementation of the original \nLoss-DiVincenzo proposal posed a considerable technical challenge. It used \nquantum tunneling between qubits to enable their communication with each other, \nand thus required that the qubits to be placed very close to each other. This \nrequirement not only leaves little \nspace for the placement of the vast amount of gates and wirings needed to define \nthe electrostatic quantum dots, but also makes it challenging to control the \nlocal magnetic field needed for single-qubit operations. For these reasons, no \nsystem with more than a couple of spin qubits has been \nsuccessfully implemented thus far. In the first part of this thesis, we leap \nover this long-standing problem with an entirely different strategy of using \nmetallic floating gates or ferromagnets to couple together qubits that are \nseparated over a long distance. Our scheme works for any type of \nspin qubits, including the qubits based on nitrogen-vacancy center (NV-center) \nin diamond and technologically very important silicon qubits. \n \nThe main topic of this thesis is related to quantum computer. Still, quite \nunexpectedly, some of the ideas we employed in order to tackle the problem of \nquantum computer scalability can be utilized in a completely different field of \nresearch, namely, in the field of magnetic field sensing. Qubit are not only a \nnecessary ingredient of quantum computer but they also provide a way to measure \nvery accurately magnetic fields. The magnetometer build upon the qubit based on \nNV-center, so-called NV-magnetometer, emerged in recent years as most sensitive \nmagnetic moment sensor. These magnetometers are able to detect about hundred \nnuclear spins within a minute of acquisition time. In the second part of this \nthesis, we propose an entirely novel experimental realization of \nNV-magnetometers which increases present NV-center sensitivities by four orders \nof magnitude at room temperature. This unprecedented amplification of \nsensitivity will render magnetometers capable of detecting individual nuclear \nspins. This amplification is achieved by introducing a ferromagnetic particle \nbetween the nuclear spin that needs to be detected and the NV-magnetometer. Our \nsetup, in contrast to existing schemes, is particularly advantageous because, \ndue to the large amplification of sensitivity, the nuclear spin need not lie \nwithin a few nanometers of the surface but rather can be detectable at a \ndistance of 30 nm. With these novelties, our scheme provides chemically \nsensitive spin detection under ambient conditions allowing nanoscale resolution \nof nuclear magnetic moments in biological systems—the holy grail of nuclear \nmagneticresonance. \n \nIn the last part of the thesis we focus our attention to a new direction in \nquantum computer implementation that deals with topological quantum computer \nintroduced by Alexei Kitaev in 1997; in this approach the idea is to use \nquasiparticles with ”fractional” statistics and to perform the single- and \ntwo-qubit gates by merely exchanging these quasiparticles. Additionally, \ninformation in this system is stored non-locally thus it mitigates the problem \nof decoherence caused by local noise from the environment. Majorana fermions are \none of the most well known examples of such excitations. We analyze transport \nsignatures of different topological states in one-dimensional systems, like \nMajorana fermions and fractionally charged states. We envision an Aharonov-Bohm \nsetup wherein conductance measurement provides a clear signature of presence of \nfractionally charged fermionic states, since oscillations with double period \nemerge in this case. Additionally, we propose a very simple setup that enables \nexistence of degenerate mid-gap states, so-called Tamm-Shockley states that are \ncharacterized by fractional charge and discuss possible ways of detecting these \nstates experimentally. \n
A computer is a physical device that helps us process information by executing algorithms. An algorithm is a well-defined procedure, with finite description, for realizing an information-processing task. An information-processing task can always be translated into a physical task. When designing complex algorithms and protocols for various information-processing tasks, it is very helpful, perhaps essential, to work with some idealized computing model. However, when studying the true limitations of a computing device, especially for some practical reason, it is important not to forget the relationship between computing and physics. Real computing devices are embodied in a larger and often richer physical reality than is represented by the idealized computing model. Quantum information processing is the result of using the physical reality that quantum theory tells us about for the purposes of performing tasks that were previously thought impossible or infeasible. Devices that perform quantum information processing are known as quantum computers. In this book we examine how quantum computers can be used to solve certain problems more efficiently than can be done with classical computers, and also how this can be done reliably even when there is a possibility for errors to occur. In this first chapter we present some fundamental notions of computation theory and quantum physics that will form the basis for much of what follows. After this brief introduction, we will review the necessary tools from linear algebra in Chapter 2, and detail the framework of quantum mechanics, as relevant to our model of quantum computation, in Chapter 3. In the remainder of the book we examine quantum teleportation, quantum algorithms and quantum error correction in detail. We are often interested in the amount of resources used by a computer to solve a problem, and we refer to this as the complexity of the computation. An important resource for a computer is time. Another resource is space, which refers to the amount of memory used by the computer in performing the computation. We measure the amount of a resource used in a computation for solving a given problem as a function of the length of the input of an instance of that problem.
As big strides were being made in many science fields in the 1970s and 80s, faster computation for solving problems in molecular biology, semiconductor technology, aeronautics, particle physics, etc., was at the forefront of research. Parallel and super-computers were introduced, which enabled problems of a higher level of complexity to be solved. At about the same time, Nobel-laureate physicist Richard Feynman launched what seemed at the time a wild idea; to build a computer based on quantum physics concepts such as superposition and entanglement [1]. The outrageousness of his ideas is documented in the book “Surely, You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” [2].
Universal computing can be dated to 1903 when Alan Turing’s theoretical model of the Turing machine led a large-scale innovative revolution towards digital computing machines.¹ The next milestone is to process and control information at its fundamental level — quantum states of particles. Richard Feynman first pointed out that as certain types of computational problems get more complex, classical bits fail to give efficient answers.² For example, when simulating quantum mechanics, the amount of memory needed to describe a quantum system increases exponentially with the number of its components. A new device — a quantum computer — is therefore highly sought after by physicists.³