1: %\documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \documentclass[a4paper,10pt,twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb]{article}
4: \usepackage{amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: %\usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8: \usepackage{cite}
9: \usepackage{times}
10: %\usepackage[small,compact]{titlesec} %compress all section titles
11:
12: \topmargin 0cm% % beyond 25.mm
13: \oddsidemargin =-5.mm % beyond 25.mm
14: \evensidemargin =-5.mm % beyond 25.mm
15: \headheight =0.mm%
16: \headsep =0.mm%
17: \textheight =226.mm%
18: \textwidth =170.mm%
19: \marginparsep = 17.mm
20:
21: \pagestyle{empty} % no page numbers
22: \parindent 0.mm % indent paragraph by this much
23: \parskip 0.mm % space between paragraphs
24: % \mathindent 20.mm % indent math equations by this much
25: \date{}
26:
27: \renewcommand{\refname}{\normalsize References}
28: \newcommand{\onlinecite}[1]{\citen{#1}}
29: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\normalsize \arabic{section}\,.}
30: \newcommand{\Section}[1]{\section{\normalsize #1}}
31: \newcommand{\Abstract}[0]{\section*{\normalsize Abstract}}
32: \newcommand{\References}[1]
33: {
34: \begin{thebibliography}{XX}
35: \setlength{\itemsep}{-\parsep}
36: #1
37: \end{thebibliography}
38: }
39: \newcommand{\Figure}[2]
40: {
41: \begin{figure}
42: \begin{center}
43: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{#1}
44: \caption{#2}
45: \end{center}
46: \end{figure}
47: }%
48: \newcommand{\Fig}[3]
49: {%
50: \begin{figure}
51: \begin{center}
52: \includegraphics[#3]{#1}
53: \caption{#2}
54: \end{center}
55: \end{figure}%
56: }%
57: \newcommand{\ind}[1]{\textrm{\footnotesize #1}}
58: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.5}
59:
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: %editing
63: \newcommand{\STPnote}[1]{{\bf\{?\}} \marginpar{\bf \{?\}\\{\footnotesize #1}}}
64: \newcommand{\STP}[1]{\marginpar{\bf \footnotesize #1}}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68:
69: \begin{document}
70:
71: \title{ \Large\bf Onset of Entanglement and Noise
72: Cross-Correlations in\\{}Two-Qubit System Interacting with Common
73: Bosonic Bath}
74:
75: \author{\normalsize
76: Vladimir Privman, Dmitry Solenov, and Denis Tolkunov
77: \\\normalsize
78: Department of Physics, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York 13699, USA
79: \\\normalsize
80: E-mails: Privman@clarkson.edu, Solenov@clarkson.edu, and
81: Tolkunov@clarkson.edu }
82:
83: \maketitle \thispagestyle{empty}
84:
85: \Abstract
86:
87: We summarize our recent results \cite{STPs,STPb} for the induced
88: exchange interaction due to thermal bosonic environment (bath)
89: which also generates quantum noise. Our focus here is on the onset
90: of the interaction. We demonstrate that the induced interaction
91: can be used to manipulate and create entanglement over time scales
92: sufficiently large for controlling the two-qubit system for quantum
93: computing applications, though ultimately the noise effects will
94: dominate.
95:
96: \Section{Introduction}
97:
98: Recently it was demonstrated \cite{STPs,STPb,Braun,Porras} that
99: two qubits subject to common thermal bosonic environment (bath)
100: can develop considerable entanglement. A similar result has also
101: been obtained for qubits interacting via fermionic environment
102: \cite{RKKY}. Here we review our
103: results on the derivation of the induced exchange interaction and
104: quantum noise in a unified formulation \cite{STPs,STPb}, focusing
105: the presentation on the onset and development of the cross-qubit
106: correlations due to the bath.
107:
108: We consider a 1D channel model for the bath, motivated by recent
109: experiments \cite{Experiment}, and allow bosons (e.g. phonons,
110: photons) to propagate along a single direction with wave vector
111: $k$ and dispersion $\omega_k=c_s k$. More general results are
112: available in \cite{STPb}. Two qubits immersed in this environment
113: are separated by distance $r_2-r_1=|\mathbf{d}|$ such that the
114: interaction due to the wave function overlap is negligible. The
115: qubits' interaction with the bosonic bath is introduced
116: \cite{STPs,Leggett} as
117: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
118: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S1:H_SB}
119: H_{SB}=\sum\limits_{j=1,2}\sigma^j_x X^j_m,
120: \end{equation}
121: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
122: where $\sigma^j_x$ is the standard Pauli matrix of qubit $j=1$ and 2, and
123: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
124: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S1:X_jm}
125: X^j_m=\sum_k g^m_k \left(a_k e^{ikr_j} + a_k^\dagger e^{-ikr_j}
126: \right).
127: \end{equation}
128: %//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
129: The total Hamiltonian is $H=H_S+H_B+H_{SB}$, where
130: $H_B=\sum_{k}\omega _{k}a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{k}$, $H_S$ represents
131: the Hamiltonian of the qubit system, and we set $\hbar=1$. The
132: reduced density matrix that describes the dynamics of the qubit
133: system is, then, given as the trace of the total density matrix
134: over the bath modes,
135: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
136: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ro_S}
137: \rho _S (t) = Tr_B(e^{-iHt}\rho_S(0)\rho_B e^{iHt}),
138: \end{equation}
139: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
140: where the initial density matrix is assumed factorized and
141: consists of the system and bath parts. The latter is
142: $\rho_B=e^{-H_B/kT} / Tr_B(e^{-H_B/kT})$. For large times, a more
143: realistic model of the environment assumes rethermalization, and
144: Markovian schemes are appropriate for the description of the
145: dynamics \cite{STPb}. However, for short times the present
146: formulation is adequate and provides a useful solvable model for
147: the case of otherwise gapless qubits, $H_S=0$, which we consider
148: from now on.
149:
150: \Section{Exact solution to the reduced density matrix}
151:
152: With the assumptions outlined above, we
153: utilized bosonic operator techniques\cite{STPs} to derive an exact expression
154: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
155: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:AdiabaticSolution}
156: \rho _S (t) = \sum\limits_{\lambda ,\lambda '} {P_\lambda \rho _S
157: (0)P_{\lambda '} e^{\frak{L}_{\lambda \lambda '} (t)} }.
158: \end{equation}
159: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
160: Here the projection operator is defined as
161: $P_\lambda=\left|{\lambda_1\lambda_2}\right\rangle\left\langle
162: {\lambda _1\lambda _2}\right|$, with
163: $\left|{\lambda_j}\right\rangle$ the eigenvectors of
164: $\sigma_x^j$. The real part of the exponent in
165: (\ref{eq:S3:AdiabaticSolution}) leads to decay of off-diagonal
166: density-matrix elements resulting in decoherence,
167: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
168: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
169: \textrm{Re} \frak{L}_{\lambda \lambda '}(t)&=&\!\!-\!\!\sum\limits_k {G_k (t,T)
170: \left[ {\left( {\lambda '_1 - \lambda _1 } \right)^2 + \left({
171: \lambda '_2 - \lambda _2 } \right)^2 } \right.}
172: \\ \label{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}
173: &+&\!\!\! \left. {2\cos\! \left( {\frac{{\omega _k \left| {\mathbf{d}} \right|}}
174: {{c_s }}} \right)\!\left( {\lambda '_1 - \lambda _1 }
175: \right)\left( {\lambda '_2 - \lambda _2 } \right)} \right].
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
178: The imaginary part, yielding the induced interaction, is
179: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
180: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ImL}
181: \textrm{Im} \frak{L}_{\lambda \lambda '} (t) = \sum\limits_k
182: {C_k (t)\cos \left( {\frac{{\omega _k \left| {\mathbf{d}}
183: \right|}} {{c_s }}} \right)\left( {\lambda _1 \lambda _2 -
184: \lambda '_1 \lambda '_2 } \right)}.
185: \end{equation}
186: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
187: We defined the standard ``spectral''
188: functions \cite{Leggett,Privman}
189: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
190: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-Gk}
191: G_k (t,T) = 2\frac{{\left| {g_k } \right|^2 }} {{\omega _k^2
192: }}\sin ^2 \left( \frac{{\omega _k t}} {{2}}\right) \coth \left(
193: {\omega _k \over 2k_B T} \right),
194: \end{equation}
195: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
196: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-Ck}
197: C_k (t) = 2\frac{{\left| {g_k } \right|^2 }} {{\omega _k^2
198: }}\left( {\omega _k t - \sin \omega _k t} \right).
199: \end{equation}
200: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
201: To evaluate (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}) and
202: (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ImL}), we consider the model in
203: which the density of modes together with the coupling constants
204: are approximated by the power-law function of the frequency with
205: superimposed exponential cutoff \cite{Leggett}, i.e.,
206: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
207: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Dg_w}
208: \sum_k |g_k|^2 \rightarrow \alpha_n\int_0^\infty \! d\omega \, \omega^n
209: \exp(-\omega/\omega_c).
210: \end{equation}
211: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
212: For $n=1$ this corresponds to the well known Ohmic model
213: \cite{Leggett}.
214:
215: \Section{Induced cross-qubit interaction and noise}
216:
217: One can show that if the real part of $\frak{L}_{\lambda \lambda
218: '}(t)$ were absent, the exponential involving the imaginary part would
219: yield coherent dynamics with the unitary evolution operator
220: $\exp[-i\left(H_\ind{int}+F(t)\right)t]$. The constant Hamiltonian
221: $H_\ind{int}$ represents the induced interaction,
222: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
223: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:H-int}
224: H_\ind{int}\! = \! - \frac{2\alpha _n \Gamma (n)c_s^n\omega _c^n }
225: {\left(c_s^2 + \omega _c^2 \left| {\mathbf{d}} \right|^2
226: \right)^{n/2} } \cos \left[{
227: n\arctan \left( {\frac{{\omega _c \left| {\mathbf{d}} \right|}}
228: {{c_s }}} \right)} \right]\!\sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2.
229: \end{equation}
230: The time dependent term is given by
231: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
232: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:F(t)}
233: F(t) = 2\sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2 \alpha_n\int\limits_0^\infty
234: {d\omega \omega^{n-1} e^{-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}} \frac{{\sin
235: \omega t}} {{\omega t}}\cos \left( \frac{\omega |\mathbf{d}|}{c_s}
236: \right)} ;
237: \end{equation}
238: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
239: $F(t)$ commutes with $H_\ind{int}$ and therefore could be viewed
240: as the initial time-dependent modification of the interaction
241: during its onset: $F(t)$ vanishes for large times as $\alpha_n
242: \omega_c^n/(\omega_c t)^n$, but note that $F(0)=-H_\ind{int}$.
243:
244: The interaction Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:S3:H-int}) is consistent with
245: the results obtained \cite{STPb} within a perturbative Markovian
246: approach, for more general cases. In Figure~1, we plot the
247: magnitude of the interaction Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_\ind{int}$,
248: defined via $H_\ind{int}={\cal H}_\ind{int}\sigma _x^1 \sigma
249: _x^2$, as a function of the qubit-qubit separation for various
250: $n$. At large distances the interaction decreases as
251: $\left|{\mathbf{d}}\right|^{-n}$, for even $n$, and
252: $\left|{\mathbf{d}}\right|^{-n-1}$, for odd $n$. This means, for
253: instance, that for spins (as qubits) with $n=1,2$, the induced
254: interaction decreases slower as compared to the dipole-dipole
255: magnetic interaction; see estimates for semiconductor impurity
256: electron spins in \cite{STPb}.
257: %
258: \Figure{fig1.eps}{The magnitude of the induced interaction for the
259: Ohmic ($n=1$) and super-Ohmic ($n>1$) bath models as a function of
260: qubits' separation.}
261:
262: The decoherence terms, (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}),
263: describe quantum noise that ultimately destroys the coherent
264: dynamics given by $H_\ind{int}$ (and $F(t)$). To study the effect
265: of these terms, we evaluate the concurrence \cite{Wootters1} which
266: measures the entanglement of the spin system and is monotonically
267: related to the entanglement of formation \cite{Bennett-Vedral}.
268: For a mixed state of two qubits we first define the spin-flipped
269: state, $ \tilde \rho _S = \sigma^1_y \sigma^2_y \, \rho^*_S \,
270: \sigma^1_y \sigma^2_y $, and then the Hermitian operator
271: $R=\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_S}\tilde\rho_S\sqrt{\rho_S}}$, with
272: eigenvalues $\lambda_{i=1,2,3,4}$. The concurrence is then given
273: \cite{Wootters1} by
274: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
275: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S3:concurence}
276: C\left( {\rho _S } \right) = \max \{ {0,2\max \limits_i \lambda _i
277: - \lambda _1 - \lambda _2 - \lambda _3 - \lambda _4} \} .
278: \end{equation}
279: \Figure{fig2.eps}{Concurrence as a function of time for various
280: distances between the qubits. The right-bottom inset demonstrates
281: the topology of the concurrence in distance-time plane. The
282: parameters are $\alpha_1=1/20$, $k_BT/\omega_c=1/20$, $n=1$. The
283: top inset shows dynamics for different temperatures: $80
284: k_BT/\omega_c=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8$.}
285: %//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
286:
287: In Figure 2, we plot the concurrence as a function of time and the
288: qubit-qubit separation, for the (initially unentangled) state
289: $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, and $n=1$. The
290: bath-mediated interaction between the qubits creates entanglement,
291: which oscillates according to the magnitude of $H_\ind{int}$. The
292: same bath also damps the oscillations destroying the entanglement
293: for larger times. The decay rate of the envelope is proportional
294: to the temperature, as shown in the inset of Figure~2. For the
295: corresponding dynamics of the density matrix elements see Section~5.
296:
297: \Section{Onset of the interaction term}
298:
299: Let us now investigate in greater detail the onset of the induced
300: interaction the time-dependence of which is given by $F(t)$. In
301: Figure~3, we plot the magnitude defined via $F(t)={\cal F}(t)
302: \sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2$, as a function of time for various
303: qubit-qubit separations and $n=1$. The correction is initially
304: non-monotonic, but decreases for larger times as mentioned above.
305: The behavior for other non-Ohmic regimes is initially more
306: complicated, however the large time behavior is similar.
307:
308: It may be instructive to consider the time dependent correction,
309: $H_F(t)$, to the interaction Hamiltonian during the initial
310: evolution, corresponding to $F(t)$. Since $F(t)$ commutes with
311: itself at different times, it generates unitary evolution
312: according to $\exp[-i\int_0^t dt' H_F(t')]$, with
313: $H_F(t)=d[tF(t)]/dt$,
314: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
315: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:H_F}
316: %H_F(t)=2\sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2 \alpha_n\int\limits_0^\infty
317: %{d\omega \omega^{n-1} e^{-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}} \cos \omega t
318: %\cos \left( \frac{\omega |\mathbf{d}|}{c_s} \right)}
319: H_F(t)&=&\sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2 \alpha_n\Gamma(n)
320: \\\nonumber
321: &\times&[%
322: u(\omega_c|\mathbf{d}|/c_s - w_c t)%
323: +u(\omega_c|\mathbf{d}|/c_s + w_c t)%
324: ],
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
327: where $u(\xi)=\cos[n\arctan(\xi)]/[1+\xi^2]^{n/2}$. The above
328: expression is a superposition of two waves propagating in opposite
329: directions. In the Ohmic case, $n=1$, the shape of the wave is
330: simply $u(\xi)=1/(1+\xi^2)$. In Figure~4, we present the amplitude
331: of $H_F(t)$, defined via $H_F(t)={\cal H}_F\sigma _x^1 \sigma _x^2$,
332: as well as the sum of $H_\ind{int}$ and $H_F(t)$, for $n=1$. One
333: can observe that the ``onset wave'' of considerable amplitude and
334: shape $u(\xi)$ propagates once between the qubits, ``switching on''
335: the interaction. It does not affect the qubits once the
336: interaction has set in.
337: %
338: \Figure{fig3.eps}{Initial correction to the induced interaction
339: vs. time, for various distances between the qubits:
340: $\omega_c|\mathbf{d}|/c_s=0,1,\dots,10$. The Ohmic ($n=1$) case is
341: shown. }
342: %
343: \Figure{fig4.eps}{The magnitude of the time-dependent Hamiltonian
344: corresponding to the initial correction as a function of time and
345: distance. The Ohmic ($n=1$) case is shown. The inset demonstrates
346: the onset of the cross-qubit interaction on the same time scale.}
347:
348: \Section{Dynamics of the density matrix elements}
349:
350: To understand the dynamics of the qubit system and its
351: entanglement, let us again begin with the analysis of the coherent
352: part in (\ref{eq:S3:AdiabaticSolution}). After the interaction,
353: $H_\ind{int}$, has set in, it will split the system energies into
354: two degenerate pairs, $E_0 = E_1=-{\cal H}_\ind{int}$ and $E_2 =
355: E_3={\cal H}_\ind{int}$. The wave function is then
356: $|\psi(t)\rangle=\exp[-iH_\ind{int}t]|\psi(0)\rangle$. For the
357: initial ``up-up'' state,
358: $|\psi(0)\rangle=\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, it develops
359: as $\left|\psi(t)\right\rangle=
360: \left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle \cos {\cal H}_\ind{int}t +
361: \left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle i\sin {\cal
362: H}_\ind{int}t$. One can easily notice that at times
363: $t_E=\pi/4{\cal H}_\ind{int},3\pi/4{\cal H}_\ind{int},\ldots$,
364: maximally entangled states are obtained, while at times
365: $t_0=0,\pi/2{\cal H}_\ind{int},\pi/{\cal H}_\ind{int},\ldots$, the
366: entanglement vanishes; these special times can also be seen in Figure~2.
367:
368: The bath also induces decoherence that
369: enters via (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}). The result for
370: the entanglement is that the decaying envelope function is
371: superimposed onto the coherent dynamics described above. The
372: magnitudes of the first and subsequent peaks of the concurrence
373: are determined only by this function. As temperature increases, the envelope
374: decays faster resulting in lower values of the concurrence, see
375: the inset in Figure~2.
376:
377: Note also that generation of entanglement is possible only
378: provided that the initial state is a superposition of the
379: eigenvectors of the induced interaction with more than one eigenvalue
380: (for pure initial states). For example, the initial state
381: $(\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle +
382: \left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ in our case would
383: only lead to the destruction of entanglement, i.e., monotonically
384: decreasing concurrence, similar to the results in
385: \cite{Eberly1}.
386:
387: Since $H_S=0$, there is no relaxation by energy transfer in the system, and the
388: exponentials in (\ref{eq:S3:AdiabaticSolution}), with
389: (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}), suppress only the
390: off-diagonal matrix elements, i.e., those with
391: $\lambda\neq\lambda'$. It happens, however that at large times the
392: $\mathbf{d}$-dependence is not important in
393: (\ref{eq:S3:DecoherenceFunction-ReL}) and
394: $\textrm{Re}\frak{L}_{\lambda\lambda'}(t\rightarrow\infty)$
395: vanishes for certain values of $\lambda\neq\lambda'$. In the
396: basis of the qubit-bath interaction, $\sigma_x^1\sigma_x^2$, the
397: limiting $t\to \infty$ density matrix for our initial state ($\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$) is
398: $\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\left|+-\right\rangle\left\langle-+\right|
399: +\frac{1}{4}\left|-+\right\rangle\left\langle+-\right|$, which
400: takes the form
401: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
402: \begin{equation}\label{eq:roLimit}
403: \rho(t\rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow\frac{1} {8}\left(
404: { {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
405: 3 & 0 & 0 & { - 1} \\
406: 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
407: 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
408: { - 1} & 0 & 0 & 3 \\
409: \end{array} }} \right)
410: \end{equation}
411: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
412: in the basis of states $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$,
413: $\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle$,
414: $\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, and
415: $\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle$. The significance of such results, see also \cite{Braun},
416: is that in the present model not all the off-diagonal matrix elements are suppressed by decoherence, even though the concurrence of this mixed state is zero.
417:
418: The probabilities for the qubits to occupy the states
419: $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$,
420: $\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle$,
421: $\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, and
422: $\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle$ are presented in Figure~5.
423: For the initial state $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$,
424: only the diagonal and inverse-diagonal matrix elements are
425: affected, and the system oscillates between the two states
426: $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$ and
427: $\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle$, as mentioned earlier in
428: the description of the coherent dynamics, while decoherence dampens
429: these oscillations down. In addition, decoherence actually raises the other two diagonal
430: elements to a certain level, see (\ref{eq:roLimit}). The
431: dynamics of the inverse-diagonal density matrix elements is shown
432: in Figure~6.
433: %
434: \Fig{fig5.eps}{Dynamics of the occupation probabilities for the states
435: $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$,
436: $\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle$,
437: $\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, and
438: $\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle$. The parameters are the
439: same as in Figure~1. The inset shows the structure of the reduced
440: density matrix (the non-shaded entries are zeros).}{width=5cm}
441: %
442: \Fig{fig6.eps}{Dynamics of the off-diagonal matrix elements for the same system as in Figure~5.}{width=5.6cm}
443: %in
444: %the basis of $\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle$,
445: %$\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle$,
446: %$\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle$, and
447: %$\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle$. The parameters are the
448: %same as in Figure~1. The inset shows the structures of the reduced
449: %density matrix (the non-shaded entries are zeros).}{width=5.6cm}
450:
451: \Section{Conclusion}
452:
453: To summarize, we studied the initial stages of the
454: cross-qubit interaction induced by a thermal bosonic bath. It was shown that thermal environment can create a sufficiently
455: large entanglement for quantum control, though it is erased for larger times. The dynamics of
456: the entanglement and the density matrix elements have been
457: investigated.
458:
459: This research was supported by the NSF under grant
460: DMR-0121146.
461:
462: \References {\frenchspacing
463: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
464:
465: \bibitem{STPs} D. Solenov, D. Tolkunov, and V. Privman, Phys. Lett. A (in print), cond-mat/0511680.
466:
467: \bibitem{STPb} D. Solenov, D. Tolkunov, and V. Privman, cond-mat/0605278.
468:
469: \bibitem{Braun} D. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 277901 (2002).
470:
471: \bibitem{Porras} D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}, 207901 (2004).
472:
473: \bibitem{RKKY} M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. \textbf{96}, 99 (1954); T. Kasuya, Prog. Theor. Phys. \textbf{16}, 45 (1956);
474: K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. \textbf{106}, 893 (1957);
475: V. Privman, I. D. Vagner, and G. Kventsel, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{239}, 141 (1998); C. Piermarocchi, P. Chen, L. J. Sham, and D. G. Steel, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 167402 (2002); D. Mozyrsky, A. Dementsov, and V. Privman, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{72}, 233103 (2005); Y. Rikitake and H. Imamura, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{72}, 033308 (2005).
476:
477: \bibitem{Experiment} N. J. Craig, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Lester, C. M. Marcus, M.
478: P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science \textbf{304}, 565 (2004); J.
479: M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L.
480: M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nature \textbf{430}, 431
481: (2004); M. R. Sakra, H. W. Jiang, E. Yablonovitch, and E. T. Croke,
482: Appl. Phys. Lett. \textbf{87}, 223104 (2005).
483:
484: \bibitem{Leggett} A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A.
485: Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{59}, 1 (1987).
486:
487: \bibitem{Privman} V. Privman, Modern Phys. Lett. B \textbf{16}, 459 (2002).
488:
489: \bibitem{Wootters1} S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{78}, 5022 (1997); W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{80}, 2245 (1998).
490:
491: \bibitem{Bennett-Vedral} C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{54}, 3824 (1996).
492:
493: \bibitem{Eberly1} T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{68}, 165322 (2003); T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{93}, 140404 (2004).
494:
495:
496: %/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
497: }
498:
499: \end{document}
500: