I Dimensions of quantum cell automata's state space

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the dimensionality of the state space in quantum cell automata, specifically regarding the basis states of quantum dots. The original paper by Lent and Tougaw identifies 16 basis states for a single cell, assuming electrons in different dots must have opposite spins due to the exclusion principle. However, there is a proposal to include additional states that allow for two electrons in different dots to have the same spin, potentially increasing the state space dimension to 28^N. The concern is raised that including these states would result in different energy levels, complicating the system's coherence and computational viability. Ultimately, the exclusion of these states is justified by the need for basis states to maintain similar energy levels for effective quantum computation.
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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...