CHEMICAL PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS IN PHYSICAL

REALIZATIONS OF QUANTUM COMPUTING ION TRAPS

Arjan Singh Puniani
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Spring 2013
Abstract
Numerical simulationof quantumsystems is computationally difcult because the quan-
tity of information required to specify a physical conguration scales exponentially with the
number of particles [2]. This letter will briey survey the basic design parameters experi-
mentalists subscribe to when architecting the quantum simulator, a brief exposition on the
governing Hamiltonian along with the physical dynamics that enable efcient quantum
simulation, and major pitfalls. Special emphasis will be on the process engineering me-
chanics in surface-electrode radio frequency (rf ) ion traps for trapping and controlling ions.
Most speculative conjectures in physically implementing the quantum computers (QC)
qubit representation is through photons, including quantum dots and cavity QED devices.
Recruiting atomic and nuclear states in lieu of the photon motivates ion trapping experi-
mentation, which continue to challenge researchers due to the difculty in observing and
controlling otherwise robust quantum state arrays. Ion traps, which conne ions to very
small regions of space, represent qubits as hyperne states of the atom, and exquisite con-
trol was observed for the lowest level vibrational modes (better known as phonons) by suit-
able electric and magnetic elds. As individually trapped ions serve as leading candidates
for physically-realizable quantum simulators, an increasing emphasis on surface traps is
observed in the literature [3]-[5], [10] due to amenability of the scalable architecture with
standard fabrication techniques (including photolithography, wire bonding, metal evapo-
ration, and many more). Of particular relevance to micro-fabrication in this letter is an em-
phasis upon junctions and backside loading holes incorporated into the surface geometry
of the trap.
1
F
eynman was rst to suggest the use of a
well-known quantum system to experi-
mentally simulate complex states of matter in
a 1982 paper [1]. The peculiar nature of quan-
tum mechanics (probabilities encoded with
elements from C) insists the information re-
quired to specify a particular system of quan-
tum states grow exponentially as the number
of particles simulated increases.
Regardless of specic implementation (be
it cavity QED devices, nonlinear optical me-
dia, molecular NMR, etc.), a QC requires a
robustly-dened quantum bit (qubit). Clas-
sical information theory denes the bit as a
system capable of assuming either one or an-
other distinct stateeach representing either
(exclusively) 1 or 0. The fundamental build-
ing blocks of computation both classically and
quantum mechanically are logical operators
(gates). Classical gate operations are lim-
ited to the identity, 1, which is succinctly ex-
pressed as (0 0, 1 1), and logical NOT:
(0 1, 1 0) [5]. A qubit, in direct contrast,
is a two-level quantum system, constructed
in a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space.
The quantummechanical correspondence be-
tween the classical notion of 0 or 1 is de-
scribed with the familiar ket notation in the
quantum mechanical workspace:
0
Classical Bit
|0
Quantum Bit

_
1
0
_
,
1
Classical Bit
|1
Quantum Bit

_
0
1
_
The principle of superposition, often the
rst postulate when describing QM, suggests
the qubit representation assume the form:
| =|0 +|1
where , C represent probability ampli-
tudes, and constrained by physical reality
(unitarity of probabilities):
||
2
+||
2
=1
Ultimately, the qubit spans an entire frontier
of solutions in the complex Hilbert space, pa-
rameterized continuously by , . Up to an ar-
bitrary global phase factor of e
i
, the generic
qubit can be represented in an Eulerian fash-
ion:
| =cos

2
|0 +e
i
sin

2
|1
=
_
cos

2
e
i
sin

2
_
, [0, ], [0, 2)
(1)
The number of quantum states completely
dwarves the possibilities assumed by the bits
realized in todays Turing machinesprecisely
2. This macroscopic bias to mutually exclu-
sively assign one state or the other to a clas-
sical bit fuels the peculiar correspondence be-
tween quantum and everyday systems. Con-
sider the fair coin. This can certainly repre-
sent a bit, provided a mapping (e.g. {Heads
1, Tails 0}) is made, since the number of
states is binary. Quantum mechanics is (in a
sense) unencumbered by this limitation due
to the superposition principle, granting an in-
nite spectrum of possibilities. While it may
be tempting to conclude a single qubit could
encode an innite amount of information,
the reality is that an innite number of bits
would be required to characterize and .
Indeed, a physical limitation caps our infor-
mation extraction capabilities, as a measure-
ment made on an arbitrary polarization state

n
of a qubit along an arbitrary axis n yields
precisely 1 bit worth of information: either

n
is +1 or -1. Completely specifying both
and requires innitely many measurements
on identically-prepared statistical ensembles
of single-qubit states. Measurements collapse
the wave-function of eeting superpositions
2
into a single state with probability modulus of
the respective eigenvalue.
Pausing for qualitative reection, exper-
iments suggest a delicate balance must be
sought here, as the demands for the qubits
operational tness are rather discriminatory.
Quantum mechanics (which QCs obey) is es-
sentially applied probability, and physical ob-
servables may manifest in systems unitarily
only from ensembles of identically-prepared
initial congurations. Maintaining the super-
position of states allows QCs to circumvent the
exponential complexity faced by Turing ma-
chines, as computational paths are traversed
simultaneously across the superpositionin
parallel, as opposed to serially. Fundamen-
tally, the building a good quantumcomputer
is a constraint problem: a system internally
isolated enough to discourage qubits coupling
with the environment, but accessible enough
externally to facilitate manipulation.
Ultimately, from surveys published else-
where [6] [7] [8], intractability of a QC is
avoided even with the physical limitations in-
herent to tasking a two-level quantum system
as the systems qubit. In the coarsest general-
ization of these results, three primary design
parameters appear to have entered consensus:
1. if a two-level quantum system can be
prepared consistently in a well-dened
state, then this particular two-level sys-
tem qualies as a robust qubit (in accor-
dance with the literature, the initialized
state constituting the statistical ensem-
ble is known as the ducial qubit) state;
2. if states can be transformed into other
states unitarily; and
3. the measurement bases is computa-
tional in nature; for example, a par-
ticularly good system is {|0, |1}, be-
cause qubit polarization can be mea-
sured along the z-axis. In this particular
case, we can use a Pauli matrix:

z
=
_
1 0
0 1
_
,
which we know is satisfactory, since |0
and |1 are eigenstates of
z
. Continu-
ing along this train of thought, suppose a
qubit state was best described with Eqn.
(1). The realization of either 1 or 0
manifests as a measurement yielding ei-
ther
z
=+1 or
z
=1. The probability
associated with each measurement is:
p
0
=|0||
2
=cos
2

2
,
p
1
=|1||
2
=sin
2

2
(2)
While these points seem to solely bela-
bor the qualitative aspects, rigorous traction
in the underlying mathematical structure in-
spires condence in the impending quantum
simulator. A quantum computation, at its very
essential core, can be reduced to a sequence
of unitary transforms that obey the statisti-
cal theories underlying quantum mechanics.
However, an efcient implementation of these
unitary transforms requires clever and novel
engineering techniques and physical insight.
Nakaharas treatise expounds this point lucidly
[9]; thus, summarized only cursorily below:
Quantum Gates: A Mathematical
Treatment
The motivating force behind this section is to
focus on the more challenging elements of the
mathematical framework governing QCs. The
efcient implementation of the unitary trans-
forms is an edice built upon a strong founda-
tion of classical computing algorithmic pedi-
gree, which ultimately assist in structuring the
3
quantum computation via nitely-many ba-
sic transformation functions. One particularly
satisfying result is the rigorous proof establish-
ing equivalency between an arbitrary unitary
matrix and an approximation treatment of this
unitary matrix via a product of simpler uni-
tary matrices. These atomic elements of the
unitary matrix describing the computation are
known as quantum gates, and analogize the
wires and transistors that dene modern com-
puters, which are simply physical manifesta-
tions of recursive and primitive functions. A
powerful proof, sketched below, guides the de-
sign basis for the ion trapping QC.
A few refreshers on pre-requisite mathe-
matics follow: it is well known that for irra-
tional number , the set {exp(2i n) |n Z}
is dense on the unit circle. This is equivalent
to the statement: the 1 1-matrix exp(2i )
is universal for the set of all unitary 1 1-
matrices. This is more intuitively understood
as an assertion that any complex number on
the unit circle can be expressed as some prod-
uct with exp(2i )the quantity exp(2i ) is
a universal gate on the unit circle. Unitary ma-
trices U are d d of simple form if one of its
block-diagonal forms is a 22-matrix of rota-
tions:
U
2
=
_
cos sin
sin cos
_
,
This serves as a motivation for approximat-
ing unitary matrices as products of the simple-
formed matrices.
Unitary TransformTheorem. For every arbi-
trary and unitary 2 2-matrix, U, with > 0,
there exists a classical algorithm computable
in the time polynomial in log
1

unitary matri-
ces of the simple formU
1
,U
2
such that:
||U U
1
()U
2
()|| <.
Proof. (i) for the case of d = 1, designate
U
1
() = e
i (+

/2)
, which implies that ||U
1

U
1
()|| <. Now, for the case of d =2,
U
2
=
_
cos sin
sin cos
_
,
we would take that:
U
2
() =
_
cos(+

/2) sin(+

/2)
sin(+

/2) cos(+}/2).
_
Hence, ||U U
1
()|| is
=
_
/2

/2

/2

/2.
_
<
This statement is holds true for any unitary U
in C
2
.
This establishes the universality of the QC
provided a quantum Turing machine is real-
ized from the ion trap implementation.
Returning to the classical NOT gate, we
now turn our attention to the realizability
of a quantum analogue to this Turing ma-
chine workhorse. Theoretically speaking,
this quantum NOT gate houses some process
which performs the following map on quan-
tum states: |0 |1 and |1 |0. Its tempt-
ing to patch ad-hoc corrections to the classi-
cal NOT gate and tease a correspondence (Cf.
()
3n
in grand canonical ensembles prevalent
instatistical mechanics). The rst pitfall to this
nave correspondence is the absence of an an-
alytics prescription for the new solution fron-
tier the qubit function spans; that is, how does
one adjust the qubit in response changes to |0
and |1? One solution for a N-ary array of ions
is to designate the ground state of the n-th ion
as:
|g
n
|0
n
and the excited state as:
|e
n
|1
n
.
4
Hence, the macroscopic superposition of
quantum registers represented by the ion trap
is:
| =
2
N
1

x=0
c
x
|x

x={0,1}
N
c
x
| x,
where
| x =|x
N1

N1
. . . |x
0

0
,
which will be extremely useful when describ-
ing the theory behind laser cooling. Let

H
0
denote the Hamiltonian of the system without
laser cooling. If the laser conguration solely
affects the n-th ion and the frequency chosen
is
n
=
x
such that the ions equilibrium posi-
tion coincides with a node of a stationary laser
wave, the corresponding Hamiltonian in the
interaction picture is:

H
n,q
=

2
_
|e
q

n
g|ae
i
+|g
n
e
q
|a

e
i
_
where a

, a are (respectively) creation and an-

nihilation operators for phonons, is the
Rabi frequency, is the laser phase, and is
the Lamb-Dicke parameter (explained below).
Without modifying the CM motion of ions but
tuning the laser frequency to the internal tran-
sition ( = 0), an ion of polarization q = 0 at
an equilibrium position in the standing waves
antinode is described by the Hamiltonian:

H
n
=(/2)
_
|e
0

n
g|e
i
+|g
n
e
0
|e
i
_
For the typical interaction time of laser pulse
k, t = k/, the unitary evolution operator
is:

U
k
n
() =exp
_
i k

2
_
|e
0

n
g|e
i
+|g
n
e
0
|e
i
__
Thus establishing the correspondence:
|g
n
cos(k/2)|g
n
i e
i
sin(k/2)|e
0

n
,
|e
0

n
cos(k/2)|e
0

n
i e
i
sin(k/2)|g
n
Surface-Electrode Ion Traps
Introduction
The primary ingredients of the ion trap quan-
tum computer were laid out by Cirac and
Zoller in a landmark 1995 paper [4]. Many of
the most common physical-implementations
of the QC represent qubits use photons. It
is possible via ion trapping to represent a ro-
bust qubit through atomic and nuclear states.
A single nuclear spin is a better qubit than,
say, a coin, since the superposition of quan-
tum states (aligned or not aligned with an ap-
plied magnetization,

H) resists decoherence
better than other qubit representations. In
fact, this systems coupling to the environment
is so small, QC scientists nd it challenging to
tease out the orientation of these nuclei, sim-
ply because these particular qubits are exceed-
ingly superior in retaining its quantum prop-
erties, than, say a harmonic oscillator QC. As
the qubits are virtually inaccessible, it is dif-
cult to build a useful computing system that
requires the participationand manipulationof
the quantum transistors without being able
to control them very well. Spins are measured
to establish the on-off correspondence with
the traditional bit.
Spin is fundamental property of elemen-
tary particles. A particle with nonzero spin be-
haves as if a current loop were run equatorially
on the surfaceand is only ever either inte-
ger or half-integer. However, the spin states
of an atom are very small relative to the en-
ergy scales corresponding to, say, the kinetic
energy experienced by atoms at room temper-
ature. However, one possible solution to this
obstacle is laser cooling.
5
Brief Primer on Laser Cooling
One of the most clever solutions to observing
nuclear spin states as opposed to thermalized
kinetic noise was laser cooling ions.
Technically speaking, cooling must be suf-
cient to satisfy k
B
T
z
. While the true
potential is non-quadratic for large displace-
ments inany directionaway fromthe trap cen-
ter, the one-dimensional harmonic approx-
imation is very much applicable and valid.
When higher order vibrational modes have
harmonic oscillations with higher energy in-
tensity than the center of mass mode, unique
behavior is observed, as ions are cooled to
their motional ground state. From the de-
sired goal of k
B
T
z
, where T is the tem-
perature reecting the kinetic energy of the
ions, laser cooling relies on the fact that pho-
tons carry not only energy but momentum
(p = h/). Akin to the Doppler shift, where
the whistles pitch of an approaching train is
higher than that of a departing train, an atom
moving towards a laser beam has a higher
pitchhigher-energy transition frequencies
than those found on atoms moving away from
the laser beam. If the laser is tuned such that
it is absorbed only by approaching atoms, then
the atoms slowdownbecause the photons kick
theminthe opposite direction. To cool beyond
the limit sideband cooling is applied to reach
the aspirational k
B
T.
Consider our representation of the ground
and excited states of the atom, |g and |e.
Suppose the two-level system is separated by
energy
0
. One important assumption to fo-
cus onhere is the rate at which|e decays to |g
via one-photon electric dipole transitions; we
assume this is . Laser radiation at frequency
is applied to the two-level system, with con-
stituent photons of energy and momen-
tum, k. Since k is the wave vector associ-
ated with the monochromatic radiation wave-
length, , the correspondence holds:
k =
2

=

c
Now suppose the ion travels towards the
laser with velocity, v. The frequency will be
Doppler-shifted to laser frequency, (1+v/c).
If the laser is detuned to below the transition
frequency,
0
, such that the detune factor, ,
is precisely equal to Doppler factor:
=
0
=v/c =kv
z
then the ion will absorb a photon of en-
ergy , transitioning from |g to |e. Con-
served momentum asserts that the traveling
ion experiences a momentumreduction of k.
Even when properly tuned (momentum com-
ponents are aligned along the translationaxis),
the cooling limit for the applied laser is k
B
T
/2, where is the radiative widthof the tran-
sition employed to cool the ion. In order to at-
tain the desired k
B
T
z
, sideband cooling
is required.
Another important criterion to consider is
maintenance of the ion oscillations width be-
ing small relative to the wavelength of the in-
cident light. This is known as the Lamb-Dicke
criterion with parameter:
=2z
0
/,
where = wavelength and z
0
=

/2NM is
the characteristic length scale of the spacing
between ions in the trap. In order to be use-
ful for quantumcomputation, 1 at the very
least, but ideally should be 1.
Geometry and Physics
An early apparatus of the ion trap consisted
of four cylindrical electrodes, with its end seg-
ments biased to a different voltage than the
middleresulting in z-axially conned ions
conforming to the potential:

dc
=U
0
[z
2
(x
2
+y
2
)]/2 (3)
6
where U
0
is the electrode endpoint biasing
voltage and is a geometric factor. How-
ever, this violates Earnshaws theorem, which
posits that charge cannot be conned in three-
dimensions by static potentials (the static eld
conguration is a saddle-point, with a des-
ignated trajectory for instability). Thus, the
potential must be generated by a rapidly-
oscillating voltage; in this case, such a poten-
tial is the radio frequency (rf ) variant:

rf
=(V
0
cos
T
t +U
r
)(1+(x
2
y
2
)/R
2
)/2 (4)
where R is the new geometrical factor. As the
electrodes are capacitively coupled, the RF po-
tential is constant across each cylinder, and
the combination of

dc
and

rf
over
T
ulti-
mately results in a harmonic potential over x,
y, and z. When we account for the Coulombic
repulsion that arise from the ions, the govern-
ing Hamiltonian for N ions in a trap is:
H =
N

i =1
M
2
_

2
x
x
2
i
+
2
y
y
2
i
+
2
z
z
2
i
+
| p
i
|
2
M
2
_
+
N

i =1

j >i
e
2
4
0
|r
i
r
j
|
(5)
with M equal to the ion mass. Typical con-
ditions assert that
x
,
y

x
; hence, the
trapped ions assume a linear arrangement
along thez axis (as shown in Figure 4).
The purpose of the trap apparatus de-
scribed above is to allow sufcient cooling
of the atoms to attain some semblance of a
stable initial computation state. Specically,
we require that the vibrational state gener-
ates zero phonons. In addition to a natu-
ral starting state, a zero-phonon initialization
allows for the storage and manipulation of
previously computed resultsessentially, you
can preload intermediate calculated results to
build more complex solutions.
Formally speaking, the internal atomic
states relevant to a trapped ion are the addi-
tive sum (F) of the electron (S) and nuclear
spins (I ): F = S +I . An entire discipline is de-
voted to this art: the addition of angular mo-
mentum. However, only a cursory survey of
the study is presented. Recall how a lasers
photon and an ion exchange units of angu-
lar momenta. The atoms angular momentum,
however, is not limited to linear translation;
on the contrary: orbital, electron and nuclear
spin can absorb and dissipate angular mo-
menta. How this distribution occurs depends
on the energy state. Consider two fermions
(with spin-1/2) selected as a computational
basis. Explicitly, the state possibilities are:
|00, |01, |10, |11
While this may span our state space, an
equivocally-comprehensive basis establishes a
correspondence with the states above:
|0, 0
J
=
|01 |10

2
|1, 1
J
=|00
|1, 0
J
=
|01 +|10

2
|1, 1
J
=|11
(6)
What distinguishes (6) from equivalent de-
scriptions is the fact that these are eigenstates
of the total angular momentum operator:
J
2
= j
2
x
+ j
2
y
+ j
2
z
where j
2
x
= (X
1
+X
2
)/2 and so on. Each of the
states, | j , m
j

J
are eigenstates of J
2
with eigen-
value j ( j +1), and, simultaneously, eigenstates
of j
z
witheigenvalue m
j
. These states are nat-
ural, since thez-axis is usually the orientation
by which magnetic elds are aligned with the
magnetic moment in the Hamiltonian B
z
(proportional to m
j
).
7
Fabrication
Many research groups [12] are hoping to
fabricate surface-electrode radio frequency
ion traps for trapping and manipulating cal-
cium ions. Connement forces are gener-
ated through time-dependent potentials that
trap low kinetic energy running across elec-
trodes. A variety of techniques can be gleaned
from the relevant literature, with several im-
plementation schemes ranging from gold on
quartz to traditional printed circuit boards
to aluminum deposited upon silicon oxide.
The traps described in this letter are com-
parable in scale, and engineering techniques
that minimize the line of sight (LOS) between
the trapped ions and the exposed dielectrics
is emphasized to reect the prevailing re-
search direction [10] in reducing stray electric
charges. To realize this particular design con-
sideration, the top metal layer of the traps
consisting of electrodes, leads, and necessar-
ily grounded regionsoverhang the support-
ing oxide pillars by 5m. This overhang is con-
trollable thanks to strategically-placed vertical
etch stops around pillars; the resultant over-
hang allows for vertical deposition of metal
along the top of the, say, aluminum, electrode
layer without shorting dc control or rf elec-
trodes. In addition, electrodes require a thick,
insulating dielectric lmthat may survive 4.2K
operating conditions without suffering sub-
stantial deformation for quantum computa-
tion. Internal stresses are exacerbated by ex-
treme temperature swings during the cooling
sequence. However, during cooling, the lm
and substrate of ions shrink at different rates
due to unequal coefcients of thermal expan-
sion. Because the substrate and oxide strips
run along the same length, the thermal expan-
sion differential will create an uncompensated
bending moment. Specically, the lm caus-
ing upward bending on the oxide introduces
tensile forces, whereas downward bending in-
troduces compressive forces. To reduce ox-
ide buckling, the chemical process objective is
minimizing material stresses. In a 2006 letter
[11], Seidelin alludes to an auxiliary study con-
ducted to determine the optimal parameters
for plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposi-
tion (PECVD) yielding the lowest oxide stress.
The results are summarized below.
Typical micro-fabricated ion traps [12] use
PECVDto deposit oxides on Si wafers at 250

C.
Preliminary analyses showed that variations in
pressure, rf power, and stoichiometric ratios
of reactant gases impacted oxide stress non-
trivially. The parameters were varied to yield
the lowest stress oxide lm, which was mea-
sured with a prolometer and optical stress
gauge. Oxide lm veracity was established
with a refraction index measurement. In gen-
eral, pressure is inversely related to the oxide
stressindeed, the machine limit of 1500torr
yielded a 100MPa reduction in oxide stress.
As for rf power, a positive relationship exists,
with increasing rf power resulting in higher
oxide stress. Finally, to adjust stoichiome-
try, the ratio of nitrous oxide (N
2
O) to 2%
silane gas was manipulated to establish a cor-
respondence. An explanation for this particu-
lar factor dependence lay in Si density within
the oxide lm. Films with higher densities
are more stress-resistant. This is best illus-
trated with Figure 1s depiction of a disloca-
tion. An additional 1/2-plane of atoms from
the top layer introduces compressive stresses
at the top-half of the lattice, while the bottom-
half experiences tensile forces (tension). Of
course, the actual oxide stresses are much
more complex than a single dislocation, but
this analysis serves as an analytical spring-
board in which we may extrapolate the conse-
quent high-stress dislocation array associated
with a low-density system. Additional consid-
8
erations include dc rails inside rf rails to fa-
cilitate additional principle axis rotation and
compensation. The ventral surface of the chip
is evaporated with gold slightly off-normal
to the surface in order to coat the exposed
vertical edges of the Si substrate and elec-
trode supportultimately preventing charge
buildup by pulling the ventral chip surface to
ground. Cross-sectional areas of the fabricated
ion trap from different perspectives are shown
in Figure 5.
Finally, a note about the rf capacity. The
ion traps rf capacity is determined after ap-
plying a 30MHz (2W) rf drive through a Q =
150 resonator. Typically, the capacitance be-
tween the rf driver and ground is 10pF. Wedge-
bonded gold ribbons connect I/O electrodes
on the electrical plane to the package bond
pads and pulled taut to minimize supra-planar
projections on the the ion trap surface. The re-
sultant electrode array is shown in Figure 6.
Analysis
Similar to the case of a mass on a spring
behaving like a quantum system provided
environmental coupling is negligible, these
electromagnetically-conned ions become
quantized when sufciently isolated. For sim-
ple harmonic oscillators, it is well known that
energy levels are equally-spaced and in units
of
z
. When N atoms are trapped in such a
manner, the energy eigenstates represent the
vibrational modes of the entire linear chain of
ions moving together as if a single entity with
mass NM. Each
z
quantum of vibrational
energy is known as a phonon. The phonon de-
scription of the trapped ions are valid only un-
der particular conditions. For example, cou-
pling of the trapped ion system to the exter-
nal environment introduces thermalization,
randomizing the system and causing parti-
cles to behave classically. Nearby electric and
magnetic elds may excite ions into randomly
transitioning between energy eigenstates
thus introducing the universal nuisance of
noise. Imperfect voltage sources everywhere
introduce nite resistance, and this introduces
systemic Johnson noise, which causes uctua-
tions on time-scales trapped ions are sensitive
to. Shoddy patchwork of service elds

E and

B drive ion motion randomly in one direction,

andas randomness permeates the ions shared
system, classical statistical averages become
more accurate tools than quantum mechan-
ics when describing quantum systems. Re-
searchers can control noise sources quite well
given todays technology, but must exercise on
the side of caution and avoid excessively heat-
ing and de-phasing the trapped ions. In the
harmonic approximation, the trapped ions ex-
hibit a discriminatory palette when determin-
ing which uctuations to remain sensitive to
(drawn primarily towards high spectral den-
sity around
z
).
Physically speaking, the ions are observed
to hover 80m above the top electrode layer,
which is consistent with several simulations
[10]-[12]. The uncooled ion lifetime lasts from
3-5min, and is a function of DAC cable shield-
ing; though this lifetime can reach the order
of hours inmeticulously-preparedUHCcham-
bers with non-invasive control voltage sets for
storage and shuttling. Though the literature
reports a veritable spectrum of rf drive fre-
quencies, multi-atom trapping is best accom-
plished with higher rf drives. In particular, the
rf voltages were delivered through a cavity res-
onator of Q 100 and amplitude ranging from
50-200V. The change in radial and axial secu-
lar frequencies when stepping through the dc
voltage at a xed rf voltage are used to deter-
mine geometric potential factors for the con-
trol electrodes. Of course, the applied dc offset
applied to the rf electrodes actually changes
9
Figure 1: Dislocation illustration for Si lattice comprising the oxide layer in ion trap scheme.
10
Figure 2: SEM image depicting 5m overhang from supporting oxide pillar. The 7m gap be-
tween electrodes is also visible [12]
11
Figure 3: Schematics of the most enduring, classical ion traps. The modern quadropole ar-
rangement is a modied Paul trap.
Figure 4: Geometric abstraction of the linear quadropole trap.
12
Figure 5: Cross-sectional area of (a) the overhead viewof the ion trap and (b) the ion trap itself.
13
Figure 6: Example electrode layout of surface-electrode ion trap.
14
Figure 7: The sideband cooling method is shown for transitions between |0, n and |1, m (or
|g, n and |e, m), where n, m are phonon levels that represent ion motional states. Assume the
laser light is detuned to energy one phonon less than the electronic transition corresponding to
|0, 3 |1, 2. The atom will spontaneously decay to either |0, 1, |0, 2 or |0, 3, with equal prob-
ability. Since all possible transitions from |0, n to |1, n 1 occurs, the only unmolested state
that remains is |0, 0, which is the motional ground state.
15
the radial secular frequencies and the princi-
pla axis rotation; hence, a correction via nu-
merical tting of the functional dependence
between rf and rf voltage offset must be made
to the operating parameters.
Summary of Specic Ion Trap
QC Requirements
Representation of the Qubit. Hyper-
ne (nuclear spin state) of an atom; also:
lowest phonon levels of trapped atoms
(vibrational modes)
Unitary Evolution. Arbitrary transfor-
mations constructed from applied laser
pulses, which interact with atoms via the
Jaynes-Cumming mechanism. A shared
phonon state links qubits.
Preparation of Initial State. Atoms
cooledvia trapping andoptical pumping
to motional ground state and hyperne
ground state
Measurement Readout. Measurements
made of hyperne states.
Shortcomings. Phonon lifetimes are
short-lived and ions require continuous
effort for motional groundstate prepara-
tion.
Closing Remarks
Performing Doppler and sideband cooling on
trapped ions results in quantum statistical en-
semble initiation with 95% delity. Readout
of this computational measurement is accom-
plished primarily by collecting uorescence
data from circularly polarized light undergo-
ing the cycling transition. This is how one
veries truth-table delity of the implemen-
tation to a controlled-NOT gate, but in order
to become computationally useful, the life-
times of the trapped ions stable states must
be extended via the short-lived motional state
to exceed decoherence times that couple the
system to the environment negatively. Scal-
ing to larger numbers of ions is conceptually
viable, but a scalable-in-principle technique
for trap fabrication must be established rst.
The surface geometry is most amenable to
micro-fabrication, but several challenges per-
sist in, for example, lowtrap depth, and several
difculties surrounding the working shuttling
junction. Overall, a scalable quantum com-
puter using ion traps will require creative new
thinking in process design and chemical engi-
neering.
References
1. Feynman, R.P. Simulating physics with
computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467-
488 (1982).
2. Aaronson, S. Why Quantum Chemistry
is Hard. Nature Phys. 10, 707-708 (2009).
3. Cai, J. A. et al Large-scale quantum sim-
ulator on a diamond surface at room
temperature. Nature Phys. 9, 168-173
(2013).
4. Cirac, J.I., Zoller P. Quantum Computa-
tions with Cold Trapped Ions. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 74, 4091 (1995).
5. Benenti, G., Casati, G., Strini, G. Princi-
ples of Quantum Computation and In-
formation, Volume I: Basic Concepts.
World Scientic, Singapore(2004).
6. Monz, T. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,
130506 (2011).
16
Figure 8: How spins of various fermionic origin contribute to atomic energy levels.
7. Maurer, P.C. et al. Science. 336, 1283-
1286 (2012).
8. Plaff, W. et al. Nature Phys. 9, 29-33
(2013).
9. Nakahara, M. and Ohmi, T. Quantum
Computing: From Linear Algebra to
Physical Realizations. CRC Press | A Tay-
lor & Francis Book, Boca Raton(2008).
10. Nielsen M.A. and Chuang, I.L. Quan-
tum Computation and Quantum Infor-
mation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK(2010).
11. Seidelin, S. et al. A micro-fabricated
surface-electrode ion trap for scalable
quantum information processing. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 96, 253003 (2006).
12. Wallace, M. Low Stress Oxides for use in
Micro-fabricated Ion Traps for Quantum
Computation. 2010 NNIN REU Research
Accomplishments
Appendix
Below, several basic quantum mechanical con-
cepts are detailed below:
Spin
A particle is said to have spin if it has a mag-
netic moment that appears to suggest the par-
ticle itself is a composite particle witha current
loop running equatorially across the surface.
This interpretation fails to account for par-
ticles exhibiting nonzero spin, including the
electronwhich are elementary particles and
cannot be reduced materially furtheras well
as the quark (substituent of nucleons), which
does not appear to generate spin fromorbital
motion. The nal property that dees expla-
nation is the fact that particle spins are only
ever integers or half-integers.
Particles with integer-valued spins are
knownas bosons, andinclude familiar species,
such as photons. As photons are massless, the
possible spin states are 1 and not 0. These
dichotomous states correspond to the familiar
17
orthogonal polarization states light assumes.
On the other hand, half-integer spins corre-
spond to fermionselectrons, protons, and
neutrons, for example. Fermions are usu-
ally spin-1/2 particles, and many experiments
show fermions are either +1/2 (spin up) or -
1/2 (spin down). The energy eigenstates of
atoms inextricably depend upon the coupling
of spins resulting infermions occupying a rela-
tively small, concentrated system(the atom).
For example,
49
C has a nuclear spin of 3/2. Be-
cause the spin is a magnetic moment, spins
will interact with a magnetic eld,

B. Elec-
trons, spin-1/2 particles of spin

S, possesses
energy g
e

B. Whereas the nuclei, spin-3/2

particles with spin

I , have energy g
n

B (Cf.
Figure 8 for illustrative fan-out).
Transition Amplitudes
A common misconception in quantum
mechanics is the time evolution of kets
specically, states andbases. However, it is im-
portant to distinguish between the time evo-
lution of state kets and the time evolution of
base kets. Starting from the simple eigenvalue
equation, it is natural to ask what the time evo-
lution of this relation is:
A|a

=a

|a

In the Shrdinger picture, A is stationary, so

whatever base kets obtained that correspond
to t = 0 solutions must also be static. Unlike
state kets, the base kets actually dont change
in the Shrdinger representation. However, in
the Heisenberg picture, the eigenvalue equa-
tion assumes a different form:
A
(H)
(t ) =U

A(0)U
When the Shrdinger eigenvalue equation is
evaluated at t = 0, the resultant Heisenberg
equivalence is:
(U

A(0)U)[U

|a

] =(a

)[U

|a

]
and when the Heisenberg operator is substi-
tuted:
A
(H)
(U

|a

) =a

(U

|a

)
The Heisenberg-picture base kets, |a

, t
H
,
evolve through time as:
|a

, t
H
=U

|a

with U

implying solution of the improperly-

signed Shrdinger equation:
i

t
|a

, t
H
=H|a

, t
H
Now, taking queue from Sakurai, suppose we
initialize a system, t =0, with physical observ-
able A and corresponding eigenket, |a

. If one
were interested in computing the probability
amplitude of the system at time t correspond-
ing to physical observable B with eigenvalue
b

, the quantity that links the two is known

as the transition amplitude. The denition
is sufciently exible to accommodate both
A, B different and A, B same. Starting with
the Shrdinger picture, the state ket at time t
requires U|a

, though the specic base kets,

|a

, |b

, are stationary. Thus, the transition

amplitude is generically:
Base Bra| (|State Ket)
And, specically, for the scenario described
above, the corresponding transitionamplitude
is:
b

| (U|a

)
And, from the Heisenberg-picture, the base
kets evolve oppositely:
(b

|U) |a

Since the Shrdinger and Heisenberg pictures

are equivalent, the composite transition am-
plitude from above is:
b

|U(t , 0)|a

18