Undergrad Dimensions of quantum cell automata's state space

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the dimensionality of the state space in quantum cell automata, specifically regarding quantum dots as outlined in the paper by C. S. Lent and P. D. Tougaw. The authors assert that the basis states for a single cell composed of four quantum dots yield a dimension of 16, leading to a state space of 16^N for N cells. However, the discussion raises a critical point about the exclusion principle and the potential for additional basis states, suggesting that if these states are considered, the dimension could be 28, resulting in a state space of 28^N. The implications of energy levels and qubit decay are also highlighted as significant factors in the computation process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically quantum dots
  • Familiarity with the exclusion principle in quantum physics
  • Knowledge of basis states in quantum computing
  • Basic concepts of qubit energy levels and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of the exclusion principle on quantum state configurations
  • Research the energy level considerations for quantum dots in quantum computing
  • Study the mathematical formulation of basis states in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the computational limits of quantum cell automata
USEFUL FOR

Researchers in quantum computing, physicists specializing in quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the theoretical foundations of quantum cell automata and their computational capabilities.

Jaime_mc2
Messages
8
Reaction score
9
In the paper

C. S. Lent and P. D. Tougaw, "A device architecture for computing with quantum dots," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 541-557, April 1997, doi: 10.1109/5.573

about quantum dots, it is stated that the basis vectors in the space of quantum states for a single cell (four quantum dots) are of the form $$ |\phi_1\rangle = \left|\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&0&1 \\ 0&0&0&1\end{array}\right> \quad\cdots\quad |\phi_{16}\rangle = \left|\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0\end{array}\right> $$ where the columns are related to the dot in which there is an electron, and the rows tell the projection of the spin (first row meaning that the spin points upwards). Therefore, the authors state that there are ##16## different basis states and that the dimension of the state space for ##N## cells is ##16^N##.

However, I don't see why they only take into account states in which the electrons have opposite spin projections, and they are ignoring basis states like $$ \left|\begin{array}{cccc}1&1&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0\end{array}\right> $$

Of course, because of the exclusion principle, the unique possibility for having two electrons in the same dot is that they have opposite spins, like in state $|\phi_1\rangle$, but I don't see why there should be such a restriction for two electrons being in different dots. If we take into account these extra basis states, the dimension of the state space for a single cell would be $$ \dfrac{8!}{2! \cdot 6!} = 28\ , $$ so we have ##28^N## for ##N## cells.

Why aren't these states taken into account?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jaime_mc2 said:
Of course, because of the exclusion principle, the unique possibility for having two electrons in the same dot is that they have opposite spins, like in state $|\phi_1\rangle$, but I don't see why there should be such a restriction for two electrons being in different dots.
You certainly "want" your basis states to have nearly identical energy levels (and being close to "some" ground state). Otherwise their relative phase will spin (much) faster than your "classical" control can handle (and if you are not close to "some" ground state, you risk that your qubits will decay to "some" ground state before you can perform useful computations on them).

Jaime_mc2 said:
If we take into account these extra basis states, the dimension of the state space for a single cell would be $$ \dfrac{8!}{2! \cdot 6!} = 28\ , $$ so we have ##28^N## for ##N## cells.

Why aren't these states taken into account?
Because then you would have different types of basis states, and those different types would almost certainly sit at completely different energy levels.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
946