1: \documentclass[prl,aps,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
3: %\def\id{{\hbox{\Bbb I}}}
4: \def\id{\mathbb{I}}
5: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left | \, #1 \right\rangle}
6: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left \langle #1 \, \right |}
7: \newcommand{\proj}[1]{\ket{#1}\bra{#1}}
8: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle\, #1\,|\,#2\,\right\rangle}
9: \newcommand{\outprod}[2]{\ket{#1}\bra{#2}}
10: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{2}$}}
11: \def\opone{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.8pt\normalsize1}}
12: \newcommand{\tr}[1]{\mbox{Tr} \, #1 }
13: \newcommand{\vis}{\text{v}}
14: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
15: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
16: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
17: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
18: \newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
19: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22: \title{Surface Acoustic Wave Single-Electron Interferometry}
23: %\date{\today}
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \author{Roberta \surname{Rodriquez}} \email{rr269@damtp.cam.ac.uk}
26: \affiliation{Centre for Quantum Computation, DAMTP,
27: University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}
28: \affiliation{Cavendish Laboratory,
29: University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom}
30: \author{Daniel K. L. \surname{Oi}}%\email{dklo2@damtp.cam.ac.uk}
31: \affiliation{Centre for Quantum Computation, DAMTP,
32: University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}
33: \author{Crispin H. W. Barnes}
34: \affiliation{Cavendish Laboratory,
35: University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom}
36: \author{Masaya Kataoka}
37: \affiliation{Cavendish Laboratory,
38: University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom}
39: \author{Toshio \surname{Ohshima}}%\email{T.Ohshima@damtp.cam.ac.uk}
40: \affiliation{Centre for Quantum Computation, DAMTP, University of
41: Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}
42: \affiliation{Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Ltd. (FLE)
43: Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE,
44: United Kingdom}
45: \author{Artur K. \surname{Ekert}}%\email{artur.ekert@qubit.org}
46: \affiliation{Centre for Quantum Computation, DAMTP,
47: University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}
48:
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: We propose an experiment to observe interference of a single electron as it
53: is transported along two parallel quasi-one-dimensional channels trapped in
54: a single minimum of a travelling periodic electric field. The experimental
55: device is a modification of the surface acoustic wave (SAW) based quantum
56: processor. Interference is achieved by creating a superposition of spatial
57: wavefunctions between the two channels and inducing a relative phase shift
58: via either a transverse electric field or a magnetic field. The interference
59: can be used to estimate the decoherence time of an electron in this type of
60: solid-state device.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \maketitle \preprint{Cambridge, \today}
64:
65:
66: %\section{Introduction}
67:
68:
69: Constructing a solid-state single-electron interferometer poses
70: many challenges, especially single-electron transport through the
71: device. Recent experiments on electron
72: interferometers~\cite{JCSHMS2003,WNDFEH2003} and double quantum
73: dots~\cite{fuji} have demonstrated interference, but do not deal
74: with single electrons. These experiments have to take into account
75: many-particle effects, the behaviour of electrons as
76: quasi-particles, and the validity of the application of theories
77: such as Fermi liquid theory. Besides not showing true single
78: particle interference, these factors obscure the fundamental
79: electron coherence time, which is of crucial importance for many
80: prospective solid state quantum information processing
81: schemes~\cite{CLSZ95,Unruh,Shor,Ekert,Steane}.
82:
83: Electron quantization using surface acoustic waves (SAW),
84: originally studied in the context of current
85: standards~\cite{STPRFFSJ1996,TSPSFLRJ1997}, has recently lead to a
86: proposal for the implementation of a quantum processor in the
87: solid-state that uses this mechanism~\cite{BarShiRob00}.
88: Advantages of the proposed SAW devices include the unique feature
89: of creating a completely polarised initial state and of making
90: ensemble measurements over billions of identical computations.
91: Additionally, these systems are similar to quantum dots, but have
92: the advantage that manipulation of qubits can be done with static
93: potentials on surface gates without the need for expensive
94: high-frequency pulse generation~\cite{fuji}. Furthermore, the
95: mechanism of SAW transport eliminates the problem of
96: backscattering from discontinuities in the electron trajectory
97: which also detracts from the ideal interferometry
98: experiment~\footnote{Numerical studies by~\cite{Bertoni} suggest
99: that SAW assisted transport increases quantum coherence over
100: ballistic transport.}~\footnote{As this paper was being completed
101: we were made aware of the work of~\cite{Bertoni} who have
102: considered a similar situation.}. This opens up the range of
103: mechanisms for inducing relative phase shifts required to observe
104: interference fringes.
105:
106: The acoustoelectric devices we consider in this paper are
107: fabricated on modulation doped GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructures.
108: Because GaAs is a piezoelectric material, applying a
109: radio-frequency potential difference between a pair of
110: interdigitated transducers produces vibrations that propagate
111: through the structure as longitudinal waves (SAWs), which in turn
112: induce an electrostatic potential. The SAWs then travel across the
113: 2-dimensional electron gas and through a mesa patterned with
114: surface gates that define two parallel quasi-one-dimensional
115: channels. By altering the static potential on the surface gates it
116: is possible to trap a single electron in each SAW potential
117: minimum in each of the two channels with an accuracy greater than
118: 1 part in $10^5$~\cite{cunningham}. A two level quantum system
119: (qubit) can be defined by the presence of a single electron in
120: either the lower or the upper channel ($\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$
121: respectively). Single qubit rotations can be implemented by
122: variations in the static potentials defined by surface gates. The
123: probability of the presence of an electron in either channel can
124: be measured directly from the current output of each channel via
125: Ohmic contacts.
126:
127: A Mach-Zender single particle interferometer can be constructed
128: from a single qubit SAW processor by a combination of $\sigma_x$
129: and $\sigma_z$ gates. The size of the interference fringes gives
130: an indication of the fidelity of device which is a combination of
131: the individual gate fidelities and decoherence. By varying the
132: effective length of the interferometer, the dephasing time of
133: single electrons in this system can be estimated, which is
134: expected to be the limiting factor for coherent manipulation of
135: these systems.
136:
137: %\section{Dephasing}
138:
139: Decoherence of qubit can be characterised by two timescales, the
140: $T_1$ and the $T_2$ time, which are a measure of the rate at which
141: the system experiences unwanted transitions and dephasing between
142: quantum levels respectively. In the Bloch sphere
143: picture~\cite{BLOCH,Nielsen,OI2001}, the $T_1$ (amplitude damping)
144: time is associated with the contraction of the Bloch sphere along
145: the z-axis, in conjunction with a symmetrical contraction along
146: the x- and y-axes consonant with complete positivity~\footnote{The
147: squeezing of the Bloch sphere in orthogonal directions
148: are constrained by the structure of quantum mechanics to obey
149: $|\eta_x\pm\eta_y|\ge|1\pm\eta_z|$~\cite{OI2001}. This constraint stems from
150: linearity and the possibility of the system being entangled with other
151: systems~\cite{kraus}.}. This transforms a pure state to a completely mixed
152: state. The $T_2$ (phase relaxation) time is associated with the
153: contraction of the x- and y-axes only, resulting in as shrinkage
154: of the Bloch sphere to a line along the z-axis. In the Markovian
155: regime, an initially pure state,
156: $\ket{\psi}=\alpha\ket{0}+\beta\ket{1}$, evolves under phase
157: relaxation as
158: \begin{equation}\label{eq:decoh}
159: \rho_s(t) = \left(
160: \begin{array}{cc}
161: |\alpha|^2 & \alpha \beta^* e^{-t/T_2}\\
162: \alpha^* \beta e^{-t/T_2} & |\beta|^2 \\
163: \end{array}
164: \right).
165: \end{equation}
166: The off-diagonal terms (coherences), responsible for interference, decrease in
167: magnitude exponentially, where $T_2$ is the $1/e$ time constant.
168:
169: %\section{Decoherence and interferometry}
170:
171: \begin{figure}[!htp]
172: \begin{center}
173: \includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth]{machz.eps}
174: \end{center}
175: \caption{A Mach Zender interferometer. A single particle at a time is sent
176: horizontally towards the first beamsplitter. We label the state of the
177: particle in the upper and lower arms of the interferometer $\ket{0}$ and
178: $\ket{1}$ respectively. A phase shift is introduced into the upper arm. The
179: two paths are directed to interfere at a second beamsplitter. Particle
180: detectors determine from which direction the particle exits the interferometer.}
181: \label{fig:mach}
182: \end{figure}
183:
184: A Mach-Zender interferometer is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mach}.
185: Initially, a particle is in the localised state $\ket{0}$
186: travelling horizontally towards the first beamsplitter. The
187: actions of the beamsplitters, having transmittances
188: $t=\cos^2\theta$ and reflectances $r=\sin^2\theta$, and phase
189: shifter can be expressed as unitary operations, $U_{BS}= \left(
190: \begin{array}{cc}
191: \cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\
192: e^{i\gamma}\sin \theta & e^{i\gamma} \cos \theta \\
193: \end{array}
194: \right) $ and $\varphi= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
195: 1 & 0 \\
196: 0 & e^{i\phi}\\
197: \end{array}
198: \right)$ respectively. The state may experience dephasing for a period of
199: $\tau$, the transit time between the two beamsplitters. The final state after
200: the second beamsplitter is
201: %\begin{subequations}
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: \rho_{00}&=&\cos^4\theta+\sin^4\theta +\half \vis \sin^2 2\theta \cos(\gamma+\phi)\nonumber\\
204: \rho_{01}=\rho_{10}^{*}&=& \half e^{-i\gamma}\sin 2\theta ( \cos 2\theta +\vis e^{i(\gamma+\phi)} \nonumber\\
205: & & - 2\vis \cos^2 \theta \cos (\gamma+\phi)) \nonumber \\
206: \rho_{11}&=&\half\ \sin^2 2\theta
207: \left(1-\vis\cos(\gamma+\phi)\right),\nonumber
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: %\end{subequations}
210: where $\vis=e^{-\tau/T_2}$. The probabilities of each detector
211: clicking therefore are
212: \begin{subequations}
213: \begin{eqnarray}
214: P_0 &=&\cos^4\theta+\sin^4\theta +\half \vis \sin^2 2\theta
215: \cos(\gamma+\phi)
216: \\
217: P_1&=&\half\sin^2 2\theta(1-\vis\cos(\gamma+\phi)).
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: \end{subequations}
220: By varying $\phi$, interference fringes can be observed
221: (Fig.\ref{fig:apattern}). Using the standard definition of
222: visibility, $\;\;\;$
223: $\vis=\frac{P_{max}-P_{min}}{P_{max}+P_{min}}\label{eq:vis}$, we
224: find that
225: \begin{subequations}
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: \vis_0&=&\frac{ \vis \sin^2 2 \theta}{2(\cos^4 \theta +
228: \sin^4 \theta)} \\
229: \vis_1&=& \vis, \quad \forall\ \theta.
230: \label{eq:z}
231: \end{eqnarray}
232: \end{subequations}
233: Therefore $\vis_1$ only depends on the dephasing.
234:
235: \begin{figure}[!htp]
236: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{patterns.eps}
237: \caption{\small{Interference patterns showing reduction in
238: visibility as decoherence increases, as well as divergence of the two
239: detector curves if the beamsplitter is not 50:50. The upper figure is for
240: $\theta=\pi/4$, the lower one for $\theta=\pi/8$.}}\label{fig:apattern}
241: \end{figure}
242:
243: If the beamsplitters have different splitting ratios, the
244: interference pattern will depend on $\vis$ and the two angles
245: $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. The average of $P_1$ or $P_2$ (with
246: respect to $\phi$) will be $\frac{1}{2}$ if at least one of the
247: beamsplitter ratios is $50:50$. This allows the possibility of
248: tuning the interferometer by adjusting the first beamsplitter
249: until the average value of $P_0$ or $P_1$ is $\frac{1}{2}$, and
250: then adjusting the second beamsplitter to maximize the visibility.
251:
252: %\section{SAW interferometer}
253:
254: \begin{figure}[!htp]
255: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{interf4.eps}
256: \caption{\label{fig:interf}Single-electron interferometer.
257: A surface acoustic wave propagates from left to right. Single electrons are
258: transported by
259: the SAW along 1-D channels defined by surface electrodes
260: parallel to the direction of SAW propagation. By lowering the potential
261: between two channels (by a suitable gap in the surface electrodes), an
262: electron may coherently tunnel laterally like in a beamsplitter. Biasing the
263: channels relative to each other induces a phase gate.}
264: \end{figure}
265:
266: A two-channel SAW device is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:interf}. One channel is
267: blocked off so that only one electron is carried in the wavefront of each SAW
268: potential minimum. Information is encoded on the position of the electron, so
269: that localisation to the upper and lower channels corresponds to the qubit
270: states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ respectively. A superposition of the two states
271: can be created by lowering the potential barrier between the two channels with
272: the aid of a gap in the surface gates. While the electron is in the region of
273: the gap, it can tunnel between the two channels. Its dynamics can be described
274: by the effective Hamiltonian
275: \begin{equation}
276: H=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon \sigma_z +\frac{1}{2} \Delta \sigma_x
277: \end{equation}
278: where $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_z$ are the Pauli matrices acting on
279: $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, and $\epsilon$ is the energy splitting
280: between the localised electron energy levels in each well. For
281: small $\epsilon$ and for $\ket{\psi(t=0)}=\ket{0}$,
282: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tunnel}
283: \ket{\psi(t)}=\cos(\alpha t)\ket{0}-i\sin(\alpha t)\ket{1},
284: \end{equation}
285: where $\alpha=\Delta/\hbar$, and $\Delta$ is the tunnelling
286: frequency. The tunnelling time is determined by the size of the
287: tunnelling region, since the velocity of the SAW is fixed, so that
288: Eq.~(\ref{eq:tunnel}) describes the map $\ket{0}\mapsto
289: \cos\theta\ket{0}-i\sin\theta\ket{1}$, where $\theta$ is now
290: related to the size of the barrier. The tunnelling region
291: therefore acts like a beamsplitter.
292:
293: In order to observe single-electron interference, we introduce a
294: relative phase shift $\phi$ between the two paths which can be
295: achieved in several ways. One can induce an asymmetry in the
296: double well potential by means of a transverse electric field, as
297: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:interf}, or by narrowing the 1D-channel
298: confinement potential. Alternatively, one could employ the
299: Aharonov-Bohm effect, which has already been observed in
300: GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure devices~\cite{TCCCMBH87}.
301:
302: Introducing an asymmetry to the double well potential via a transverse electric field
303: separates the eigenstates of the systems into localised single particle
304: eigenfunctions, evolving with different energies:
305: \begin{equation}
306: \ket{\psi}=\cos\theta e^{-iE_0t/\hbar}\ket{0}- i\sin\theta
307: e^{-iE_1t/\hbar}\ket{1}.
308: \end{equation}
309: The relative phase difference between the two paths is therefore
310: given by the energy difference $\epsilon=E_0-E_1$ between the two
311: localised states
312: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phase2} \Delta \phi=
313: \epsilon= \frac{e}{\hbar} \int V dt,
314: \end{equation}
315: where $V$ is the voltage difference between the two channels and
316: $e$ is the electronic charge. Since the electrons are transported
317: by the SAW, $\int dt=\tau= l/v$ where $l$ is the length of the
318: channel region experiencing the electric field and $v$ is the
319: velocity of the SAW ($\sim 2700$m/s in GaAs). We can then rewrite
320: Eq.~(\ref{eq:phase2}) as
321: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phase3}
322: \Delta\phi=\frac{e|\vec{E}|d }{\hbar}\frac{l}{v},
323: \end{equation}
324: since $V=\vec{E}.\vec{d}$, where $\vec{E}$ is the the electric
325: field and $\vec{d}$ is the displacement between the two channels,
326: and therefore explicitly calculate $\Delta\phi$.
327:
328: The lowest electron temperature achievable in a $^{3}$He -
329: $^{4}$He dilution refrigerator is realistically around $100mK$
330: ($\sim 10\mu eV$), assuming that microwave heating is minimized.
331: We take this thermal energy as the resolution of the experiment.
332: In order to obtain clearly defined oscillations, the minimum
333: transverse potential change needed for each $2\pi$ phase change is
334: $\sim 100\mu$V, corresponding to a maximum phase gate length of
335: $0.1\mu m$. We cannot have a longer gate without decreasing the
336: number of readings per fringe, given the voltage resolution due to
337: thermal noise. We also require observation of several periods in
338: order to obtain a good estimate of the visibility.
339:
340: If the relative phase shift is introduced via the Aharonov-Bohm
341: effect~\cite{AB1959}, we have that
342: \begin{equation}
343: \Delta \phi= \frac{e}{\hbar} \int \vec{B} \cdot \vec{n} dS
344: \end{equation}
345: where $S$ is the surface enclosed by the two paths of the
346: interferometer. In our setup, in order to obtain a $2\pi$ phase
347: shift, if the area enclosed by two paths is of the order of $\sim
348: 0.2\mu m^2$, a $|\vec{B}|$ field change of the order of $\sim
349: 20mT$ is required. Interference of electrons has already been
350: observed in the presence of large magnetic fields
351: in~\cite{JCSHMS2003}; we thus expect that this small magnetic
352: field should not produce much additional decoherence.
353:
354: \begin{figure}[!htp]
355: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{VariableLength.eps}
356: \caption{Configuration for measuring the decoherence rate. By
357: varying the central gate bias, the gaps in the central barrier are opened and
358: closed in such a manner that the path length can be varied, hence varying the
359: time the electron is in superposition between the upper and lower
360: channels.}\label{fig:varlength}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: To measure the dephasing rate, we need to subject the
364: superposition of localised electron states to increasing lengths
365: of time and measure for each length the reduction of the
366: visibility. This can be achieved by lengthening the effective path
367: length of the interferometer, as shown in
368: Fig.~\ref{fig:varlength}. We require at least 5 different times to
369: obtain a reasonable estimate of $T_2$. The longest interferometer
370: transit time should be of the order of $2.3 \times T_2$, if we
371: require the minimum visibility to be 10\% of the initial
372: visibility. Although absolute estimates the $T_2$ time do not
373: exist, recent experiments place a lower bound on decoherence of
374: $\sim 1ns$~\cite{fuji}. Using this value, we find that the longest
375: channel setting needs to be of the order of $v\tau\sim 6\mu m$.
376: Increments in channel distance between each setting thus need to
377: be of $\sim 1.2\mu m$ or less. This is easily achievable using
378: current electron-beam lithography technology.
379:
380:
381: %\section{Discussion}
382:
383: The $T_1$ time, corresponding to unwanted tunnelling, can be made extremely
384: long in between the two beamsplitter regions and may be ignored. In the
385: tunnelling regions however, effects like scattering from fluctuating impurity
386: potentials (random telegraph noise) do become important. Estimates of the
387: decoherence time for similar tunnelling regions have been made for a double dot
388: system and found to be at least $1ns$~\cite{fuji}. Since our tunnel regions
389: are $\sim 300nm$ long, the electron traverses them in a less than $100ps$, so
390: we expect these errors to be small. In any case, these gate errors are constant
391: and thus one can factor out their effect to determine $T_2$. Since the
392: electron transported by the SAW is shielded from many particle effects, our
393: system may show higher coherence than multi-electron quantum dots~\cite{fuji}.
394:
395: Increasing the channel length to estimate the dephasing time will
396: be a challenge. A main concern will be that the environment of the
397: qubits will change. However, the increase in static impurities
398: will be small (for an average impurity density of $\sim 1\mu
399: m^{-1}$) and techniques exists to `delete' their effects on the
400: qubits, once their presence is located~\cite{crook}. Calibration
401: of the beamsplitters is vital to eliminate the contribution of
402: mismatched splitting ratios to the variation in interference
403: visibility.
404:
405: We do not include in our analysis decoherence arising from
406: spin-orbit coupling. This, however, we expect to be negligible
407: because of the much longer decoherence times supported by the spin
408: degree of freedom~\cite{KA1998}.
409:
410: Finally, this device can also be used as an electric field
411: measuring device, since changes in the transverse electric field
412: will result in changes in the interference pattern. By means of a
413: feedback circuit, the absolute size of the field can be measured.
414: This measurement will be subject to shot noise,
415: $\sqrt{N}/N=1\sqrt{N}$, where $N=f \Delta t$ is the total number
416: of electrons collected in time $\Delta t$ with SAWs of frequency
417: $f$. There is a trade-off between increased sensitivity, by using
418: a longer $\Delta t$, and measurement bandwith.
419:
420: We would like to thank the Schiff Foundation, Fujitsu, EU projects
421: RESQ (IST-2001-37559) and TOPQIP (IST-2001-39215), Sidney Sussex
422: College and the CMI collaboration for financial support, and
423: Valery Talyanskii for stimulating conversations.
424: \begin{thebibliography}{21}
425: \expandafter\ifx\csname
426: natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
427: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
428: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
429: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
430: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
431: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
432: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
433: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
434: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
435: \expandafter\ifx\csname
436: urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
437: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
438: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
439:
440: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ji et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Ji, CHung, Heiblum,
441: Mahalu, and Shtrikman}}]{JCSHMS2003}
442: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ji}},
443: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{CHung}},
444: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Heiblum}},
445: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Mahalu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
446: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shtrikman}},
447: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{422}},
448: \bibinfo{pages}{415} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
449:
450: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van~der Wiel et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{van~der Wiel,
451: Y.Nazarov, DeFranceschi, Fujisawa, Elzerman, and Huilzeling}}]{WNDFEH2003}
452: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{van~der Wiel}},
453: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Y.Nazarov}},
454: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{DeFranceschi}},
455: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Fujisawa}},
456: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Elzerman}}, \bibnamefont{and}
457: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Huilzeling}},
458: \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}},
459: \bibinfo{pages}{033307} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
460:
461: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hayashi et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Hayashi, Fujisawa,
462: Cheong, Jeong, and Hirayama}}]{fuji}
463: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Hayashi}},
464: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Fujisawa}},
465: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~D.} \bibnamefont{Cheong}},
466: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~H.} \bibnamefont{Jeong}}, \bibnamefont{and}
467: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Hirayama}},
468: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}},
469: \bibinfo{pages}{226804} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
470:
471: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chuang et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Chuang, Laflamme,
472: Shor, and Zurek}}]{CLSZ95}
473: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~L.} \bibnamefont{Chuang}},
474: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Laflamme}},
475: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~W.} \bibnamefont{Shor}}, \bibnamefont{and}
476: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~H.} \bibnamefont{Zurek}},
477: \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{270}},
478: \bibinfo{pages}{1633} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).
479:
480: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Unruh}(1995)}]{Unruh}
481: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~G.} \bibnamefont{Unruh}},
482: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}},
483: \bibinfo{pages}{992} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).
484:
485: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shor}(1995)}]{Shor}
486: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Shor}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.
487: Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2493}
488: (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).
489:
490: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ekert and Macchiavello}(1996)}]{Ekert}
491: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ekert}} \bibnamefont{and}
492: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Macchiavello}},
493: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{77}},
494: \bibinfo{pages}{2585} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
495:
496: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Steane}(2003)}]{Steane}
497: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Steane}},
498: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},
499: \bibinfo{pages}{042322} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
500:
501: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shilton et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Shilton, Talyanskii,
502: Pepper, Ritchie, Frost, Ford, Smith, and Jones}}]{STPRFFSJ1996}
503: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Shilton}},
504: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~I.} \bibnamefont{Talyanskii}},
505: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Pepper}},
506: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Ritchie}},
507: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.~F.} \bibnamefont{Frost}},
508: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Ford}},
509: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~G.} \bibnamefont{Smith}}, \bibnamefont{and}
510: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.~C.} \bibnamefont{Jones}},
511: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys.: Cond. Mat.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}},
512: \bibinfo{pages}{531} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
513:
514: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Talyanskii et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Talyanskii,
515: Shilton, Pepper, Smith, Ford, Linfield, Ritchie, and Jones}}]{TSPSFLRJ1997}
516: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~I.} \bibnamefont{Talyanskii}},
517: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Shilton}},
518: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Pepper}},
519: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~G.} \bibnamefont{Smith}},
520: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~J.~B.} \bibnamefont{Ford}},
521: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~H.} \bibnamefont{Linfield}},
522: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Ritchie}},
523: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~A.~C.}
524: \bibnamefont{Jones}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B}
525: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{15180} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).
526:
527: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Barnes et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Barnes, Shilton, and
528: Robinson}}]{BarShiRob00}
529: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~H.} \bibnamefont{Barnes}},
530: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Shilton}},
531: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.}
532: \bibnamefont{Robinson}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review B}
533: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8410} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
534:
535: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cunningham et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Cunningham,
536: Talyanskii, Shilton, Pepper, Kristensen, and Lindelof}}]{cunningham}
537: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Cunningham}},
538: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~I.} \bibnamefont{Talyanskii}},
539: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Shilton}},
540: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Pepper}},
541: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kristensen}},
542: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~E.}
543: \bibnamefont{Lindelof}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica B}
544: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{280}}, \bibinfo{pages}{493} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
545:
546: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bloch}(1946)}]{BLOCH}
547: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Bloch}},
548: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
549: \bibinfo{pages}{460} (\bibinfo{year}{1946}).
550:
551: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nielsen and Chuang}(2000)}]{Nielsen}
552: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Nielsen}} \bibnamefont{and}
553: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Chuang}},
554: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}}
555: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{2000}).
556:
557: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Oi}(2001)}]{OI2001}
558: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~K.~L.} \bibnamefont{Oi}},
559: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The geometry of single qubit maps}},
560: \bibinfo{howpublished}{e-print quant-ph/0106035} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
561:
562: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{G.Timp et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{G.Timp, A.M.Chang,
563: J.E.Cunningham, T.Y.Chang, P.Mankiewich, R.Behringer, and
564: R.E.Howard}}]{TCCCMBH87}
565: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{G.Timp}},
566: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{A.M.Chang}},
567: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{J.E.Cunningham}},
568: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{T.Y.Chang}},
569: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{P.Mankiewich}},
570: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{R.Behringer}}, \bibnamefont{and}
571: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{R.E.Howard}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.
572: Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2814}
573: (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).
574:
575: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aharonov and Bohm}(1959)}]{AB1959}
576: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Aharonov}} \bibnamefont{and}
577: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bohm}},
578: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{115}},
579: \bibinfo{pages}{485} (\bibinfo{year}{1959}).
580:
581: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Crook et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Crook, Graham, Smith,
582: Farrer, Beere, and Ritchie}}]{crook}
583: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Crook}},
584: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Graham}},
585: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Smith}},
586: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Farrer}},
587: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Beere}}, \bibnamefont{and}
588: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Ritchie}},
589: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{424}},
590: \bibinfo{pages}{751} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
591:
592: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kikkawa and Awschalom}(1998)}]{KA1998}
593: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Kikkawa}} \bibnamefont{and}
594: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~D.} \bibnamefont{Awschalom}},
595: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{80}},
596: \bibinfo{pages}{4313} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
597:
598: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bordone et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Bordone, Bertoni,
599: Rosini, Reggiani, and Jacoboni}}]{Bertoni}
600: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Bordone}},
601: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Bertoni}},
602: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Rosini}},
603: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Reggiani}}, \bibnamefont{and}
604: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Jacoboni}},
605: \bibinfo{journal}{Semicond. Sci. Technol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}}
606: (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
607:
608: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kraus}(1971)}]{kraus}
609: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kraus}},
610: \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},
611: \bibinfo{pages}{311} (\bibinfo{year}{1971}).
612:
613: \end{thebibliography}
614:
615: \end{document}
616: