1: %\documentclass[aps,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\bibliographystyle{plain}
5: %\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}
6: %\usepackage{endfloat}
7: %\leftskip1in
8: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Detection of quantum critical points by a probe qubit
11: \footnote{Corresponding authors:
12: Jingfu Zhang, zhangjfu2000@yahoo.com;\\
13: Dieter Suter, Dieter.Suter@uni-dortmund.de}}
14: \author{
15: Jingfu Zhang, Xinhua Peng, Nageswaran Rajendran, and Dieter Suter}
16: \affiliation{Technische Universit\"{a}t Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany\\
17: }
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21:
22: Quantum phase transitions occur when the ground state of a quantum
23: system undergoes a qualitative change when an external control
24: parameter reaches a critical value.
25: Here, we demonstrate a technique for studying quantum systems undergoing
26: a phase transition by coupling the system to a probe qubit.
27: It uses directly the increased sensibility of the quantum system
28: to perturbations when it is close to a critical point.
29: Using an NMR quantum simulator, we demonstrate this measurement
30: technique for two different types of quantum phase transitions in an Ising
31: spin chain.
32: \end{abstract}
33: \pacs{03.67.Lx, 73.43.Nq}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: {\it Introduction.---} Phase transitions describe sudden changes in
38: the properties of a physical system when an external control
39: parameter changes through some critical value. If the system under
40: consideration is a quantum mechanical system in its ground state,
41: i.e. at zero temperature, and the phase transition occurs as a
42: function of a non-thermal control parameter, we speak of quantum
43: phase transitions (QPTs) ~\cite{QPTbook}. Examples include the
44: transitions in superconductors ~\cite{BCS} and fractional quantum
45: Hall systems ~\cite{HallEffect}. Related phenomena have also been
46: experimentally observed in heavy Fermion systems ~\cite{Custers},
47: common metals ~\cite{Yeh}, and in Bose-Einstein condensates
48: ~\cite{Greiner02}. QPTs occur as a result of competing interactions
49: and the different phases often show different types of correlations
50: between the constituents, with correlation lengths that can become
51: arbitrarily large. When specific quantum effects of phase
52: transitions are of interest, it is therefore natural to compare
53: entanglement in the different phases ~\cite{entangedQPT,Vidal03}.
54:
55: Experimental observations of QPTs are relatively straightforward
56: when they are accompanied by a change of a suitable order parameter,
57: such as the conductivity or susceptibility in superconductors or the
58: total magnetization in some spin chains \cite{entangedQPT,Peng05}.
59: However, such global measurements cannot provide all the details
60: and they are not suitable for closer investigations of
61: the systems in the interesting area close to the critical points.
62: Moreover, not all order parameters can be measured by global
63: measurements. A complete analysis of the system is provided by
64: quantum state tomography \cite{Chuang,Peng05}, but this approach
65: scales very poorly with the size of the system.
66:
67: As a possible alternative for closer investigations of quantum
68: systems in the vicinity of critical points, it was suggested to
69: compare the evolution of systems at slightly different values of the
70: control parameter. This approach may be considered as a
71: visualization of "quantum fluctuations". Different possibilities
72: exist for comparing these evolutions, some of which have been called
73: Loschmidt echo (LE) or fidelity decay ~\cite{LEReview}. In the
74: vicinity of critical points, the systems are expected to be much
75: more susceptible to external perturbations than in the center of a
76: phase ~\cite{sunPRL06}. Such a comparison is possible by coupling
77: the system under study to a second quantum system, consisting in the
78: simplest case of a single qubit. The two states of the probe qubit
79: can then be used to probe the system under two different values of
80: the control parameter. The signal obtained in this case corresponds
81: to the overlap of two states evolving under slightly different
82: control parameters.
83:
84: In this Letter we implement this protocol in a nuclear magnetic
85: resonance (NMR) quantum information processor. The system undergoing
86: the QPT corresponds to an Ising-type spin chain and the control
87: parameter to a longitudinal magnetic field. In a purely longitudinal
88: field, the ground state is degenerate at the critical points. This
89: degeneracy is lifted if the magnetic field contains a transverse
90: component. For the longitudinal as well as for the transverse case,
91: we measure the QPT by coupling the spin chain to a probe qubit.
92:
93:
94: {\it Level-crossing.---}
95: % Starting with the simplest case,
96: We first consider a QPT in the Ising model in a minimal system
97: consisting of two spins 1/2.
98: Its Hamiltonian is
99: \begin{equation}\label{hamE}
100: H^{s}=\sigma^{1}_{z}\sigma^{2}_{z}
101: +B_{z}(\sigma^{1}_{z}+\sigma^{2}_{z}),
102: \end{equation}
103: where the $\sigma^{i}_z$ are Pauli operators and $B_z$ is a magnetic field.
104: The units have been chosen such that the coupling constant between the
105: two qubits is 1.
106: For the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to consider the triplet manyfold.
107: Within this subsystem, the ground state depends on the field strength:
108: \begin{equation}\label{ground}
109: |\psi_{g}(B_z)\rangle=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
110: |00\rangle & (B_z\leq-1)\\
111: |\phi^{+}\rangle& (-1\leq B_z\leq 1)\\
112: |11\rangle & (B_z\geq 1) ,
113: \end{array} \right.
114: \end{equation}
115: where $|\phi^{+}\rangle=(|01\rangle +|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$.
116: Figure \ref{con} shows the energy levels of the system and the concurrence
117: of the ground state.
118: Obviously $B_{z}=\pm1$ are the critical points.
119: The low-field phase is maximally entangled ($C=1$), while the high-field phases
120: correspond to product states ($C=0$).
121:
122: In this system, the QPTs occur at points where the ground state is
123: degenerate. Close to this critical point, it is therefore very
124: susceptible to small perturbations. If we couple it to a probe qubit
125: (which we label 0) via the interaction $\varepsilon
126: \sigma_z^0(\sigma_z^1 + \sigma_z^2)$, the total (three-qubit) system
127: can be decomposed into two subsystems, in which qubits 1 and 2 ``see"
128: an effective field $B_z \pm \varepsilon$.
129: If these two fields fall
130: on different sides of the critical point, the ``state overlap" ~\cite{zanardi:031123}
131: %\begin{equation}\label{LEs}
132: $L=|\langle \psi_{g}(B_{z,0})|\psi_{g}(B_{z,1})\rangle|^{2}$
133: %\end{equation}
134: vanishes, otherwise it is unity, as shown by the thin
135: line in Figure \ref{con}.
136: Here, $B_{z,0} = B_z + \varepsilon$
137: specifies the effective field for the subsystem coupled to $\vert 0
138: \rangle_0$ and correspondingly for the other subsystem.
139: In the extreme case where the two states of the probe qubit are orthogonal
140: ($L=0$), the probe qubit has ``measured" the quantum system \cite{Leg02}.
141:
142: To measure $L$, we first initialize the system and probe qubits into
143: the ground state $\vert 000 \rangle$. From there a Walsh-Hadamard
144: transform places the probe qubit into the symmetric superposition
145: state $\vert +\rangle = (\vert 0 \rangle + \vert 1
146: \rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. We then use the interaction between the probe
147: and the system to apply a conditional evolution to the two system
148: qubits 1 and 2: if the probe qubit is in state $\vert 0 \rangle$,
149: the system evolves from $\vert 00 \rangle \rightarrow
150: |\psi_{g}(B_{z,0})\rangle$, and if qubit 0 is in state $\vert 1
151: \rangle$, the system evolves from $\vert 00 \rangle \rightarrow
152: |\psi_{g}(B_{z,1})\rangle$. The network representation of this
153: process is shown in Figure \ref{sta_Net}(a) \cite{Somma02}. $P_{0}$
154: and $P_{1}$ denote the conditional evolutions. The output of the
155: network is
156: \begin{equation}\label{finals}
157: |\Psi\rangle=[|0\rangle|\psi_{g}(B_{z,0})\rangle+
158: |1\rangle|\psi_{g}(B_{z,1})\rangle]/\sqrt{2}.
159: \end{equation}
160: Taking the trace over the (12)-system, one obtains the reduced
161: density matrix $\rho^{(0)}$ of the probe qubit.
162: The off-diagonal
163: elements are $\rho^{(0)}_{12} = \rho^{(0)\dagger}_{21} =
164: \langle\psi_{g}(B_{z,0})|\psi_{g}(B_{z,1})\rangle$. Hence the
165: overlap $L$ can be obtained by measuring
166: % the expectation value
167: % $\langle \sigma_{+}^{(0)} \rangle$ of the probe qubit,
168: %\begin{equation}\label{measreL}
169: $L=4|\langle \sigma_{+}^0 \rangle|^{2}$,
170: %\end{equation}
171: the transverse magnetization of the probe qubit,
172: which can be observed as a free induction decay.
173:
174: For the experimental implementation, we chose the nuclear spins of
175: $^{13}$C, $^{1}$H, and $^{19}$F of Diethyl-fluoromalonate as qubits,
176: shown in Figure \ref{sta_Net}(b).
177: %The relaxation times $T_1$ and $T_2$ are 3.2 s,
178: %3.3 s, 3.2 s, and 1.3 s, 1.0 s, 1.7 s, respectively.
179: % Origin file T2C_EFM;
180: % Origin file T2H_EFM_eswar;T2F_EFM_eswar.
181: %The rotating frame Hamiltonian of the three-qubit system is
182: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{HamCHF}
183: % H_{\mathit{NMR}}=\pi(J_{12}\sigma^1_z\sigma^2_z+
184: % J_{01}\sigma^0_z\sigma^1_z
185: % +J_{02}\sigma^0_z\sigma^2_z)/2 ,
186: %\end{eqnarray}
187: The scalar coupling constants are $J_{12}=47.6$ Hz, $J_{10}=161.3$
188: Hz and $J_{20}=-192.2$ Hz.
189: The sample consisted of a 2.3:1 mixture of unlabeled Diethyl fluoromalonate
190: and d6-acetone. Molecules
191: with a $^{13}$C nucleus, which we used as the quantum
192: register, were therefore present at a concentration of about $0.7
193: \%$.
194: %They were selected against the background of molecules with
195: %$^{12}$C nuclei by measuring the $^{13}$C signal.
196:
197:
198: % The effective pure state $|000\rangle$ was prepared by
199: %spatial averaging ~\cite{pseudopure2,pseudopure3,pseudopure4}, using
200: %the pulse sequence
201: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{PSini}%NMR pp sequence: LE_C.seq in \QPT\CHF
202: % &&[\varphi]_{x}^{2}-[grad]_{z}
203: % -[\frac{\pi}{2}]_{x}^{1}
204: % -\frac{1}{4J_{12}}-[\pi]_{x}^{0}-\frac{1}{4J_{12}}\nonumber\\
205: % &&-[-\frac{\pi}{2}]_{y}^{1}-[\frac{\pi}{4}]_{x}^{2}-
206: % \frac{1}{4J_{02}}-[\pi]_{x}^{1}-\frac{1}{4J_{02}}-[-\pi]_{x}^{1,0}\nonumber\\
207: % &&-[-\frac{\pi}{4}]_{y}^{2}-[grad]_{z}
208: % -[\frac{\pi}{4}]_{x}^{1}-\frac{1}{4J_{12}}-[\pi]_{x}^{0}\nonumber\\
209: % &&-\frac{1}{4J_{12}}-[-\pi]_{x}^{0}
210: % -[-\frac{\pi}{4}]_{y}^{1}-[grad]_{z}
211: %\end{eqnarray}
212: %from the equilibrium state
213: %\begin{equation}\label{equ}
214: % \rho_{eq}=\gamma_{1}\sigma_{z}^{1}+ \gamma_{2}\sigma_{z}^{2}+\gamma_{0}\sigma_{z}^{0} .
215: %\end{equation}
216: %Here $\gamma_{1}$, $\gamma_{2}$
217: %and $\gamma_{0}$ denote the gyromagnetic ratios of H1, F2, and C0,
218: %respectively, and $\cos \varphi=2\gamma_{0}/\gamma_{2}$.
219: %$[grad]_{z}$ denotes a gradient pulse along the $z$- axis.
220: %$[\pi/2]_{x}^{1}$ denotes a $\pi/2$ pulse along the $x$- axis acting
221: %on qubit H1.
222: %$1/4J_{12}$ denotes an evolution under
223: %$H_{NMR}$ for a time $1/4J_{12}$.
224: %The time order is from left to right.
225:
226: The effective pure state $|000\rangle$ was prepared by spatial
227: averaging ~\cite{pseudopure1}. We implemented the quantum network of
228: Figure \ref{sta_Net}(a) for five cases corresponding to $B_z=-1.5$,
229: $-1$, $0$, $1$, $1.5$,
230: respectively.
231: As an example, Figure \ref{sta_Net}(c) shows the pulse sequence when
232: $B_z=-1$. Figure \ref{sta_exp} shows the experimental results. The
233: spectra on top were measured for the values of $B_z$ = -1.5, 0, and
234: +1, and the asterisks indicate the integrated signal amplitudes.
235: Clearly, the integrated signal essentially vanishes at the quantum
236: critical point, while it remains close to the maximum inside the
237: three phases, in excellent agreement with the theoretical
238: expectation.
239:
240: {\it Avoided level-crossing.---} If we add a transverse field to the
241: system, the QPTs are no longer singular points, but they acquire a
242: finite width. The modified Hamiltonian is
243: \begin{equation}\label{hamET}
244: H^{s}_T = \sigma^{1}_{z}\sigma^{2}_{z}+B_{x}(\sigma^{1}_{x}+\sigma^{2}_{x})
245: +B_{z}(\sigma^{1}_{z}+\sigma^{2}_{z}) .
246: \end{equation}
247: As long as $B_x\ll 1$, the ground states are very close to those of
248: Eq. (\ref{ground}), except in the vicinity of the critical points, where the
249: transverse field mixes them, thus avoiding the level crossing. In
250: this region, it is sufficient to consider the two lowest energy
251: states. They form a two-level system that can be described by the
252: effective Hamiltonian
253: $$%check by Heff.m and Leff.m
254: H_\mathit{eff} = - |B_z| I + (1 - |B_z|) \sigma_z + \sqrt{2} B_x
255: \sigma_x,
256: $$
257: where $I$ denotes the unit operator.
258: Within this approximation, the ground state is
259: %\begin{equation}
260: $\vert \psi_g(B_x,B_z) \rangle = \vert ll \rangle \cos (\varphi/2) +
261: \vert \phi^{+} \rangle \sin (\varphi/2)$, %\label{e.groundst}
262: %\end{equation}
263: where
264: %\begin{equation}
265: $\tan\varphi = \sqrt{2} B_x/(1-|B_z|) . \label{e.phi}$
266: %\end{equation}
267: When $B_z > 0$, $\vert ll \rangle = \vert 11 \rangle$; when $B_z <
268: 0$, $\vert ll \rangle = \vert 00 \rangle$.
269: %At the critical point,
270: %the two lowest levels are split by $2\sqrt{2}B_x$.
271:
272: The coupling of this system to a probe qubit provides us with a natural way
273: of measuring the phase transition.
274: As before, we use an Ising-type interaction, which results in the total Hamiltonian
275: \begin{equation}\label{gham}
276: H=H^{s}_T+\varepsilon\sigma^{0}_{z}(\sigma^{1}_{z}+\sigma^{2}_{z}).
277: \end{equation}
278:
279:
280: To measure the QPT, we first initialize the system into the ground
281: state $ \vert \psi_{g}(B_x,B_z)\rangle$ in a given longitudinal
282: field $B_z$. As we turn on the coupling to the probe qubit
283: initially in $\vert +\rangle$, the combined system splits into two
284: subsystems, corresponding to the two eigenstates of the probe
285: qubit. In the two subsystems, the effective longitudinal field
286: acting on qubits 1 and 2 is $1-|B_z| \pm \varepsilon$, i.e. the
287: coupling shifts the two subsystems in opposite directions along
288: the $B_z$-axis. The eigenstates of the two subsystems are
289: therefore also different. In terms of the mixing angle $\varphi$,
290: the sensitivity of the basis states to the variation of the
291: longitudinal field can be quantified as
292: \begin{equation}\label{sensitive}
293: d \varphi/d |B_z| =\sqrt{2} B_x/[2 B_x^2 + (1-|B_z|)^2] .
294: \end{equation}
295: Apparently, this is a resonant effect: The sensitivity reaches a
296: maximum at the QPT and falls off with the distance from the critical
297: points like a Lorentzian. The full width of this "resonance line" is
298: equal to the splitting $2\sqrt{2}B_x$ of the two lowest energy
299: levels at the critical point.
300:
301: To measure this behavior, we initialize the probe qubit into the
302: $\vert +\rangle$ state.
303: As we turn on the coupling to the
304: system, each subsystem is no longer in an eigenstate, but starts to
305: evolve in its new basis.
306: The initial state $ \vert +\rangle\vert
307: \psi_{g}(B_x,B_z)\rangle$ evolves as
308: \begin{equation}\label{final}
309: |\Psi(\tau)\rangle =
310: [|0\rangle \vert \Psi_{0}(\tau)\rangle +
311: |1\rangle|\Psi_{1}(\tau)\rangle]/\sqrt{2}.
312: \end{equation}
313: Here $\vert \Psi_{0}(\tau)\rangle$ describes the two system qubits
314: coupled to the state $\vert 0 \rangle$ of the probe qubit, evolving
315: under the Hamiltonian
316: $H_{0}=H^{s}_T+\varepsilon(\sigma^{1}_{z}+\sigma^{2}_{z})$.
317: Similarly, $\vert \Psi_{1}(\tau)\rangle$ describes the probe qubit
318: in state $\vert 1 \rangle$ and evolves under
319: $H_{1}=H^{s}_T-\varepsilon(\sigma^{1}_{z}+\sigma^{2}_{z})$. We use
320: this differential evolution for measuring the QPT via the overlap
321: %\begin{equation}\label{acL}
322: $L=|\langle\Psi_{0}(\tau)|\Psi_{1}(\tau)\rangle|^{2}$.
323: %\end{equation}
324:
325: % where
326: %\begin{eqnarray}%check by Leff.m
327: %|\Psi_{0,1}\rangle(\tau)&=&|ll\rangle[\cos\frac{\varphi}{2}\cos(\lambda_{0,1}\tau)
328: %+i\cos(\varphi_{0,1}-\frac{\varphi}{2})\sin(\lambda_{0,1}\tau)]\nonumber\\
329: %&+& |\phi^+\rangle[\sin\frac{\varphi}{2}\cos(\lambda_{0,1}\tau)
330: %+i\sin(\varphi_{0,1}-\frac{\varphi}{2})\sin(\lambda_{0,1}\tau)]
331: %\end{eqnarray}
332: %\begin{eqnarray}%check by Leff.m
333: %L=&|&\cos(\lambda_0\tau)\cos(\lambda_1\tau)\nonumber\\
334: %&+&\sin(\lambda_0\tau)\sin(\lambda_1\tau)\cos(\varphi_1-\varphi_0)\nonumber\\
335: %&-&i\sin(\lambda_0\tau)\cos(\lambda_1\tau)\cos(\varphi_0-\varphi)\nonumber\\
336: %&+&i\cos(\lambda_0\tau)\sin(\lambda_1\tau)\cos(\varphi_1-\varphi)|^2,
337: %\end{eqnarray}
338: %with $\lambda_{0,1}=\sqrt{(1-|B_z|\pm\varepsilon)^2+2B_x^2}$, and
339: %$\tan\varphi_{0,1}=\sqrt{2}B_x/(1-|B_z|\pm\varepsilon)$.
340:
341:
342: Figure \ref{network} shows the quantum circuit and pulse sequence
343: that implement this measurement. The initialization section prepares
344: $|+\rangle|\psi_{g}(B_x,B_z)\rangle$, and the probing section
345: implements the global evolution $U(\tau)$ approximately by
346: decomposing it into
347: %~\cite{Vandersypen}
348: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{decomU}
349: $e^{-i\tau B_x(\sigma_{x}^{1}+\sigma_{x}^{2})/2}$$e^{-i\tau
350: \sigma_{z}^{1}\sigma_{z}^{2}}$$e^{-i\tau \varepsilon
351: \sigma_{z}^{0}\sigma_{z}^{1}}%\nonumber\\
352: $$e^{-i\tau\varepsilon \sigma_{z}^{0}\sigma_{z}^{2}}e^{-i\tau
353: B_z(\sigma_{z}^{1}+\sigma_{z}^{2})}$$e^{-i\tau
354: B_x(\sigma_{x}^{1}+\sigma_{x}^{2})/2}$. %\nonumber
355: %\end{eqnarray}
356: In the experiments, we measured the overlap $L$ for a transverse
357: field strength of $B_{x}=0.1$, coupling strengths of
358: $\varepsilon=0.2$ and $0.3$, and a range of longitudinal fields,
359: $-2\leq B_z\leq2$. The evolution time was set to $\tau=1.6$. The
360: approximations used in the implementation of $U(\tau)$ reduce
361: the fidelity by less than 1.4\%. %MatLab : F_U.m
362: % The whole pulse sequence is shown as Figure
363: %\ref{network}(b).
364:
365: The experimental results are shown as Figure
366: \ref{Res}, where the experimentally measured overlaps $L$ are marked
367: by "*" and "$\times$" for $\varepsilon=0.2$ and $0.3$, respectively.
368: The experimental data are fitted to $aL_0$, where $L_0$ denotes the
369: corresponding theoretical result. The best agreement was obtained
370: for $a = 0.84$ and $0.77$, respectively; the corresponding functions
371: are shown as the dark and light curves. Obviously the critical
372: points are correctly identified by the minima of $L$, indicating
373: increased sensitivity of the ground state to the perturbation by the
374: probe qubit. The differences between the theoretical and
375: experimental values are mainly caused by imperfections of the radio
376: frequency pulses, inhomogeneities of magnetic fields and
377: decoherence.
378:
379: {\it Discussion and Conclusion.---} In conclusion, we have shown that a probe qubit
380: can be used to detect quantum critical points.
381: It is first placed into a superposition state and then coupled to the system undergoing
382: the QPT.
383: When the two eigenstates become correlated to two different phases,
384: the superposition decoheres.
385: The loss of coherence is thus a direct measure of the QPT.
386:
387: We have applied this procedure to two types of QPTs,
388: choosing the couplings between the probe and the system in
389: such a way that the two states of the probe induce slightly
390: different values of the control parameter \cite{sunPRL06,Paz}.
391: No details have to be known about the phases on the two sides
392: of the phase transition.
393: Only one qubit is measured for the detection of the critical points,
394: independent of the size of the simulated quantum system. Hence this
395: method scales very favorably with the size of the system
396: \cite{Somma02,efficent}.
397: % By approximating a QPT to Landau-Zener
398: %transition, we find that the minimum of $L$ decreases with the
399: %decrease of the gap of the two lowest energy levels. In the large
400: %QTP systems the gaps are usually small. $L$ is therefore also
401: %scalable.
402: Theoretical results indicate that the overlap $L$ remains a useful measure
403: for larger systems in Ising and $XY$ spin chains
404: \cite{sunPRL06}. For the more complex quantum phase transitions
405: where many states are close to the ground state (e. g. spin glass),
406: our fidelity method seems to work, although the details are
407: still being worked out \cite{praviteComm}.
408:
409:
410: In the present example, the probe qubit was coupled to all system
411: qubits in a symmetric way. For other systems, the type of coupling
412: required may depend on the system Hamiltonian and the nature of the
413: phases on both sides of the QPT. While a full discussion of this
414: issue is far beyond the scope of this letter, we expect that if the
415: phase change involves delocalized states (e.g. spin waves), a single
416: coupling between the probe qubit and one of the system qubits should be
417: sufficient to detect the phase transition \cite{Rossini}. On the
418: other hand, if the changes at the QPTs are local, a larger number
419: of couplings or probe qubits may be required. In the extreme case,
420: where critical points separate purely local changes, it may be
421: necessary to couple the probe qubit to every system qubit or to
422: implement couplings from a single probe qubit to all system qubits.
423: Even in this worst case scenario, the number of probe qubits (or
424: operations) only scales linearly with the size of the system; this
425: should be contrasted to the readout by quantum state tomography,
426: where the number of measurements increases exponentially with the
427: system size. In future work, we plan to apply this type of analysis
428: to the study of different types of phase transition, including
429: quantum chaos ~\cite{ponebit}. Furthermore, it should be possible to
430: use this approach for the characterization of decoherence
431: ~\cite{Paz} and errors that occur during quantum information
432: processing ~\cite{CoryPRA07}.
433: % and spin glass systems
434: %\cite{glass}.
435:
436: We thank Prof. J.-F. Du for helpful discussions. This work is
437: supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the DFG through
438: Su 192/19-1, and the Graduiertenkolleg No. 726.
439:
440:
441: %\bibliography{LE}{} % qhe.bib is the name of our database
442: \begin{thebibliography}{}
443: \bibitem{QPTbook} S. Sachdev, {\it Quantum Phase Transitions} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
444: 2000);
445: M. Vojta, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 66}, 2069 (2003);
446: P. Coleman and A. J. Schofield, Nature (London) {\bf 433}, 226 (2005).
447:
448: \bibitem{BCS} J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. {\bf 108}, 1175 (1957).
449:
450: \bibitem{HallEffect} R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 1395 (1983).
451:
452: \bibitem{Custers} J. Custers et al., Nature (London) {\bf 424}, 524 (2003);
453: M. Neumann et al., Science {\bf 317}, 1356 (2007);
454: P. Gegenwart et al., {\it ibid.} {\bf 315}, 969 (2007).
455:
456: \bibitem{Yeh} A. Yeh et al., Nature (London) {\bf 419}, 459 (2002).
457:
458: \bibitem{Greiner02} M. Greiner et al., Nature (London) {\bf 415}, 39 (2002);
459: S. E. Sebastian et al., {\it ibid.} {\bf 441}, 617 (2006).
460:
461: \bibitem{entangedQPT} A. Osterloh et al., Nature (London)
462: {\bf 416}, 608 (2002).
463:
464: \bibitem{Vidal03} G. Vidal et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 227902
465: (2003);
466: M. C. Arnesen et al., {\it ibid.}
467: {\bf 87}, 017901 (2001);
468: R. Somma et al., Phys. Rev. A
469: {\bf 70}, 042311 (2004).
470:
471: \bibitem{Peng05} X. Peng el al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 012307 (2005).
472:
473: \bibitem{Chuang} I. L. Chuang et al., Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser.
474: A {\bf 454}, 447 (1998).
475:
476: \bibitem{LEReview} T. Gorin et al., Phys.
477: Rep. {\bf 435}, 33 (2006).
478:
479: \bibitem{sunPRL06} H. T. Quan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 140604 (2006);
480: Z.-G. Yuan et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 012102
481: (2007).
482:
483: %\bibitem{PhysRevLett.80.2245} W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2245 (1998).
484:
485: \bibitem{zanardi:031123} P. Zanardi et al., Phys. Rev. E {\bf 74}, 031123 (2006).
486:
487: \bibitem{Leg02} A. J. Leggett,
488: %{\it Qubits, Cbits, Decoherence, Quantum Measurement and
489: % Environment}.
490: in {\it Fundamentals of Quantum Information},
491: Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 587
492: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2002), p.3.
493:
494: \bibitem{Somma02} R. Somma et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 042323 (2002).
495:
496: \bibitem{pseudopure1} D. G. Cory et al.,
497: Physica D {\bf 120}, 82 (1998);
498: X. Peng et al., arXiv: quant-ph/0202010.
499: % J. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 062322
500: % (2004).
501:
502: %\bibitem{Vandersypen} L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 76}, 1037 (2004).
503:
504:
505: \bibitem{Paz} F. M. Cucchietti et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 032337 (2007).
506:
507: \bibitem{efficent} R. Somma, G. Ortiz, E. Knill, J. Gubernatis,
508: arXiv:quant-ph/0304063v1.
509:
510: %\bibitem{Zoller05} W. H. Zurek et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 105701
511: % (2005).
512:
513: \bibitem{praviteComm} F. M. Cucchietti (private communication).
514:
515: \bibitem{Rossini} D. Rossini et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 032333 (2007).
516:
517: \bibitem{ponebit} C. A. Ryan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 250502 (2005);
518: J. Emerson et al., {\it ibid.} {\bf 89}, 284102 (2002).
519:
520: \bibitem{CoryPRA07} B. Levi et al., Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 022314 (2007).
521:
522: %\bibitem{glass} K. Binder et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 58}, 801
523: % (1986); M. J. Case et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 147204
524: % (2007).
525: \end{thebibliography}
526:
527: %----------------------------------------------
528: \begin{figure}
529: \includegraphics[width=5in]{C}
530: %Matlab :concurrence.m, and C.fig
531: \caption{(Color online) (a) The energy levels of the system. (b)
532: Concurrence (thick line) and overlap $L$ (thin) of the ground
533: state.} \label{con}
534: \end{figure}
535: %----------------------------------------------
536:
537: %----------------------------------------------
538: \begin{figure}
539: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Static_Net}
540: %MatLab program: static.m
541: \caption{(a) Quantum network for measuring $L$. $W$ denotes the
542: Walsh-Hadamard transform, and $\sigma_{+}=(\sigma_{x}+i
543: \sigma_{y})/2$. The controlled operations $P_{0}$ and $P_{1}$ denote
544: the evolutions for preparing $|\psi_{g}(B_{z,0})\rangle$ and
545: $|\psi_{g}(B_{z,1})\rangle$, if qubit 0 is in state $|0\rangle$ or
546: $|1\rangle$, respectively. (b) Chemical structure of Diethyl
547: fluoromalonate. The three qubits are marked by the dashed oval. (c)
548: Pulse sequence for measuring the state overlap. The narrow unfilled
549: rectangles denote $\pi/2$ pulses, and the wide ones denote $\pi$
550: pulses. The striped rectangles denote $\pi/4$ pulses. The directions
551: along which the pulses are applied are denoted by $\pm x$ and $\pm
552: y$. The durations of the pulses are so short that they can be
553: ignored.} \label{sta_Net}
554: \end{figure}
555: %----------------------------------------------
556:
557: %----------------------------------------------
558: \begin{figure}
559: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Static_Exp} %MatLab program: L_exp_Bx0.m, Fig3.opj, and static.xwp
560: \caption{Theoretical (line) and measured (asterisks) overlap $L$ for
561: the level-crossing case. Three NMR spectra illustrate the signals
562: corresponding to $B_z=-1.5$, $0$, and $+1$, respectively. }
563: \label{sta_exp}
564: \end{figure}
565: %---------------------------------------------
566:
567: %----------------------------------------------
568: \begin{figure}
569: \includegraphics[width=5in]{LE_network}
570: % power3.m
571: %origin file: LE_network, initial_new.m
572: \caption{ (Color online) Quantum circuit (a) and pulse sequence (b)
573: for measuring the overlap $L$ for the avoided level-crossing case.
574: $P$ denotes the preparation of $|+\rangle|\psi_{g}(B_x,B_z)\rangle$
575: from $|000\rangle$. In the initialization section, the width of the
576: filled pulse applied to H1 is $\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}$, and the width
577: of the filled pulses applied to F2, from left to right, are
578: $(\pi-\alpha)/2$, $(\alpha-\beta)/2$, and $(\pi-\beta)/2$,
579: respectively, with $\tan(\alpha/2)=-\sqrt{2}c_1/c_+$,
580: $\tan(\beta/2)=-c_+/\sqrt{2}c_0$,
581: $\tan(\theta/2)=\sin(\beta/2)/\cos(\alpha/2)$. $c_0$, $c_+$ and
582: $c_1$ denote the amplitudes of $|00\rangle$, $|\phi^{+}\rangle$ and
583: $|11\rangle$ in $|\psi_{g}(B_x,B_z)\rangle$. In the probing section,
584: the rectangles filled by heavy and light color denote the pulses
585: with width $\tau B_x$ and $2\tau B_z$, respectively, and
586: $d_1=\frac{\tau}{\pi}(\frac{\varepsilon}{J_{01}}+\frac{1}{J_{12}})$,
587: $d_2=\frac{\tau}{\pi}(\frac{\varepsilon}{|J_{02}|}+\frac{1}{J_{12}})$,
588: and
589: $d_3=\frac{\tau\varepsilon}{\pi}(\frac{1}{J_{01}}+\frac{1}{|J_{02}|})$.}
590: \label{network}
591: \end{figure}
592: %----------------------------------------------
593:
594: %----------------------------------------------
595: \begin{figure}
596: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Results}
597: %results.m, spectra in Zhang_Aug17_1.6,MatLab: results.m
598: %#1-29: initial states; 30-58: d=0.2; 59-87: d=0.3
599: \caption{(Color online) Experimental overlap $L$ for
600: $\varepsilon=0.2$ marked by "*" and $\varepsilon=0.3$ marked by
601: "$\times$". The experimental data are fitted to $aL_0$, and yielded
602: $a = 0.84$ and $0.77$, respectively, shown as the dark and light
603: curves, where $L_0$ denotes the corresponding theoretical result. }
604: \label{Res}
605: \end{figure}
606: %------------------------------------
607: \end{document}
608: