October 15, 2004

Publication: Entangling flux qubits with a bipolar dynamic inductance

Posted by Arcane Gazebo at October 15, 2004 11:43 AM

This one is a lot harder to explain than my previous article. I would have to do a series of posts explaining what qubits are, what entanglement is, and why you would want to do it before I could explain what's actually in this paper. Which, when I think about it, isn't such a bad idea anyway.

Physical Review B (Condensed Matter and Materials Physics -1(II))

Phys. Rev. B 70, 140501(R) (2004) (4 pages)

Entangling flux qubits with a bipolar dynamic inductance

B. L. T. Plourde,1 J. Zhang,2,3 K. B. Whaley,3 F. K. Wilhelm,4 T. L. Robertson,4 T. Hime, S. Linzen,1 P. A. Reichardt,1 C.-E. Wu,1 and John Clarke1
1Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
2Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
3Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
4Department Physik and CeNS, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Theresienstr. 37, 80333 München, Germany

(Received 4 May 2004; published 5 October 2004)

We propose a scheme to implement controllable coupling between two flux qubits using the screening current response of a dc superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). The coupling strength is adjusted by the current bias applied to the SQUID and can be varied continuously from positive to negative values, allowing cancellation of the direct mutual inductance between the qubits. We show that this variable coupling scheme permits efficient realization of universal quantum logic. The same SQUID can be used to determine the flux states of the qubits. ©2004 The American Physical Society

URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v70/e140501
PACS: 85.25.Cp, 03.67.Lx, 85.25.Dq


I'm just going to stick with congratulations. :)

I would also like to know how often "B.L.T. Plourde" was pummeled in grade school...

Posted by: Tracy | October 15, 2004 1:52 PM

That's my boy.

Posted by: Dad | October 15, 2004 3:57 PM

One suggestion- next time demand to have your name footnoted too.

Posted by: Dad | October 15, 2004 3:59 PM

Yeah, nobody caught that in the proofs. Well, if people want to know where I am, that's what Google is for.

Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | October 15, 2004 4:04 PM

Travis, just wait until you see the draft of my paper I'll send you later today. (We're submitting it to Nature and need opinions from people outside the field to make sure it's understandable.)

Posted by: Mason | October 15, 2004 4:38 PM

Congrats! I even understand some of the abstract. ^^

Posted by: Zifnab | October 15, 2004 11:05 PM

For that, you get a wide-eyed "Wow" from me...

Posted by: Vanessa | October 16, 2004 7:58 AM

Yeah, definitely Congratsopantso, and like Zif I know what a few of them thingses mean, at least. I mean, I certainly understand the "why it's useful", if not much else. And some things just sound familiar, because while it's probably unrelated, in my previous job I heard no end of fussing about superconducting SiS junctions in LHe dewars and biasing them with magnets and yada yada.

Now we just need a few more uses for quantum computing other than letting big brother read my email (Hi Echelon, how're you today?).

Posted by: Lemming | October 17, 2004 2:40 AM

I've been immunized to abstracts by this point. They're all mind-numbing, anyway, including the ones I write. :)

Posted by: Mason | October 18, 2004 9:55 PM
Post a comment