I Dimensions of quantum cell automata's state space

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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Back
Top