Quantum Simulations

We can not translate quantum behaviour arising with superposition states or entanglement efficiently into the classical language of conventional computers[1]. A universal quantum computer could describe and help to understand complex quantum systems. But it is envisioned to become functional only within the next decade(s). A shortcut was proposed via simulating the quantum behaviour of interest in another quantum system, where all relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and observables of interest detected sufficiently well[1]. Instead of translating quantum dynamics into an algorithm of stroboscopic quantum gate operations to run them on a universal quantum computer, we want to continuously control and manipulate the spins, equivalent to the way nature evolves the system of our interest.

Already a comparably small amount of simulation-spins, of the order of 30-50, are supposed to be sufficient to outperform classical computers[2]. In addition, the fidelities of the proposed operations are predicted to be sufficiently high in state of the art experiments and do not have to be performed within very demanding fault tolerant limits for universal quantum computation[3].

The Ion Trap Quantum Simulator

Our system comprises magnesium ions, confined in a linear Paul trap[4]. It can simulate Quantum spin Hamiltonians, describing many solid-state systems like magnets, high-Tc superconductors, quantum Hall ferromagnets, ferroelectrics, etcetera. For our feasibility study we aim for the simulation of the Quantum Ising Hamiltonian realizing the proposal of Porras and Cirac[3].


Fig. 1: Fluorescence light of a 3D Coulomb crystal - 35 laser cooled 25Mg+ ions in the experimental zone of our segmented linear Paul-trap, depicted in Fig 2. In our first experiments we are dealing with linear chains of ions only. To realize 2D grids of ions (spins) for 2D quantum simulations we will investigate new trap designse.g. trap arrays on surfaces displayed in Fig 3.

Two electronic levels of each ion span a two-level system that can be interpreted (simulates) a spin ½ particle. Those are very well isolated from external disturbances. To provide controlled interaction with and between the simulated spins we apply rf- and laser-fields respectively.


Fig. 2: View through a laser port on our segmented ion trap. Two wedge-shaped radio-frequency (RF) electrodes and two segmented DC-electrodes provide the radial and axial confinement respectively.


Experimental results

November 2009: Optical Dipole Trap for Ions:

For the first time we are able to trap an ion in an optical dipole trap. This opens up new perspectives for quantum simulations, combined atom-ion systems and ultracold collision experiments.

February 2009: (radial) handling up to 5 ions:

We are able to cool up to five ions close to the radial ground state of motion.

December 2008: (radial) phase gate operations:

To pave the way towards larger scale simulations, we have to use the radial modes of motion to transfer/simulate interactions. We implement a (radial) geometric phase gate and prepare an entangled Bell state of two ions with a fidelity exceeding 95%.

Until September 2008: Quantum Walk of an ion:

We implement the proof of principle for the quantum walk of one ion in our linear ion trap[9,10]. With a single-step fidelity exceeding 0.99, we perform three steps of an asymmetric walk on the line. We clearly reveal the differences to its classical counterpart (random walk) if we allow the walker/ion to take all classical paths simultaneously. Quantum interferences enforce asymmetric, non-classical distributions in the highly entangled degrees of freedom (of coin and position states). We theoretically study and experimentally observe the limitation in the number of steps of our approach, that is imposed by motional squeezing. We propose an altered protocol based on methods of impulsive steps to overcome these restrictions, in principal allowing to scale the quantum walk to several hundreds of steps.

Until March 2008: Simulating the quantum magnet:

We experimentally simulate the adiabatic evolution of the smallest non-trivial spin system from the paramagnetic into the (anti-) ferromagnetic order with a quantum magnetisation for two spins of 98%[8]. We prove that the observed transition is not driven by thermal-fluctuations but of quantum mechanical origin, the source of quantum-fluctuations in quantum phase transitions. We observe a final superposition state of the two degenerate spin configurations for the ferromagnetic (+) and the anti-ferromagnetic (+) order, respectively. These correspond to deterministically entangled states achieved with a fidelity up to 88%. Our work demonstrates the building blocks for simulating quantum spin-Hamiltonians with trapped ions.

Until November 2007: (axial) phase gate operations:

To calibrate our operational fidelities, we implement a (axial) geometric phase gate[6] and prepare an entangled Bell state of two ions with a fidelity exceeding 95%[7].

Outlook:

We will explore the limits of our one dimensional approach by investigating the dynamics for an increased amount of spins, simulating larger spins and altering the duration of the simulation.

Our experimental setup provides us with the necessary tools to approach a set of additional simulation problems we will try to access, like the strong correlation between Bosons[11], the quantum-walk of entangled ions[12], the particle production in our early universe[13,14] or relativistic effects described by the Dirac equation[15].

Based on new ion-trap technology it seems to become feasible to scale the ion simulator to a larger amount of spins and into two dimensions in surface trap arrays. Here we could investigate quantum simulations on two dimensional spin-grids, e.g. spin-frustration.

Experts in the field allow us to hope, starting from arrays spanned by 10x10 ions, to provide new insight into quantum dynamics. We aim to observe effects that represent Quantum-Phase Transitions for many-particle systems.

The possibility to control all the parameters of the system individually by switching laser beams and/or trap voltages and to address each single spin on each single lattice site turn it into a versatile system offering tools for analysis overcoming the access in experiments on solid-state systems.

Archive: experimental/technical progress:

In January 2006 we had trapped our first ions and Doppler cooled them via our two times frequency doubled fibre-laser system[5]. Subsequently, we setup two additional fibre laser systems for coherent control of +Mg25 spins and realized the detection of the ions with a spatial resolution < 1m.We set up a real time coherent experimental control and data acquisition. In December 2006 we achieved state-sensitive detection (fidelity > 99%), coherent transitions in +Mg25 (fidelity > 99%) and motional ground state cooling of the axial motion (~ 0,01)[4]. We could verify sufficiently low motional heating rate (axial motion: dn/dt~0.01 quanta/ms), optimized our operational fidelities and reduced decoherence until June 2007 to the results given in brackets. In the following we implemented a state-dependant optical dipole force (to allow for the simulation of spin-spin interaction or the implementation of phase-gates.


Fig. 3: Schematic view of an ion trap with the RF- (black bars) and segmented DC-electrodes projected on a surface. We plan to position segmented linear ion traps at a distance that allows for stiff single ion confinement and a Coulomb interaction between ions being similar in two dimensions. If we were able to master the technical challenges we could construct a two-dimensional trap array and test the scalability for two-dimensional quantum simulations.

References:

[1] R.P Feynman Inter. Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21 (1982)
[2] S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
[3] D. Porras, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 207901 (2004)
[4] T. Schaetz, A. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz, L. Petersen, S. Kahra, Journal of Modern Optics 54, 2317 (2007).
[5] A. Friedenauer, F. Markert, H. Schmitz, S. Kahra, M. Herrmann, Th. Udem, T. W. Haensch and T. Schaetz, Applied Physics B 84, 371 (2006).
[6] D. Leibfried et al. , Nature 422, 412 (2003).
[7] H. Schmitz, A. Friedenauer, Ch. Schneider, R. Matjeschk, M. Enderlein, T. Huber, J. Glueckert, D. Porras, Appl. Phys. B 95, 195 (2009).
[8] A. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz, J. Glueckert, D. Porras and T. Schaetz, Nature Physics 4, 757 (2008)
[9] B. C. Travaglione and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 032310 (2002)
[10] H. Schmitz, R. Matjeschk, Ch. Schneider, J. Glueckert, M. Enderlein, T. Huber, T. Schaetz quant-ph/arXiv:0904.4214
[11] D. Porras, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 263602 (2004)
[12] Y. Omar, N. Paunkovic, L. Sheridan and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 74, 042304 (2006)
[13] P. M. Alsing, J. P. Dowling, G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 220401 (2005)
[14] R. Schuetzhold, M. Uhlmann, L. Petersen, A. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz and T. Schaetz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 201301 (2007).
[15] Lamata, J. Leon, T. Schaetz, E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 253005 (2007)

Letzte Änderung: 05.05.2010, 13.40