Quantum Computing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Quantum Computing

Description:

Feynman 82 - Suggested faster quantum sims with QC. Deutsch 85 - Quantum ... 2 orthogonal states of each bit are designated as the computational basis states, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:4199
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 78
Provided by: Jam123
Learn more at: https://www.cise.ufl.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Quantum Computing


1
Quantum Computing
  • Intro. OverviewWhats Quantum Computing All
    About?

2
Classical vs. Quantum Computing
  • For any digital computer, its set of
    computational states is some set of mutually
    distinguishable abstract states.
  • The specific computational state that is in use
    at a given time represents the specific digital
    data currently being processed within the
    machine.
  • Classical computing is computing in which
  • All of the computational states (at all times)
    are stable pointer states of the computer
    hardware.
  • Quantum computing is computing in which
  • The computational state is not always a pointer
    state.

3
What is Quantum Computing?
  • Non-pointer-state computing.
  • Harnesses these quantum effects on a large,
    complex scale
  • Computational states that are not just pointer
    states, but also, coherent superpositions of
    pointer states.
  • States having non-zero amplitude in many pointer
    states at the same time! Quantum parallelism.
  • Entanglement (quantum correlations)
  • Between the states of different subsystems.
  • Unitary (thus reversible) evolution through time
  • Interference (reinforcement and cancellation)
  • Between convergent trajectories in pointer-state
    space.

4
Why Quantum Computing?
  • It is, apparently, exponentially more
    time-efficient than any possible classical
    computing scheme at solving some problems
  • Factoring, discrete logarithms, related problems
  • Simulating quantum physical systems accurately
  • This application was the original motivation for
    quantum computing research first suggested by
    famous physicist Richard Feynman in the early
    80s.
  • However, this has never been proven yet!
  • If you want to win a sure-fire Nobel prize
  • Find a polynomial-time algorithm for accurately
    simulating quantum computers on classical ones!

5
Status of Quantum Computing
  • Theoretical experimental progress is being
    made, but slowly.
  • There are many areas where much progress is still
    needed.
  • Physical implementations of very small (e.g.,
    7-bit) quantum computers have been tested and
    work as predicted.
  • However, scaling them up is difficult.
  • There are no known fundamental theoretical
    barriers to large-scale quantum computing.
  • Guess It will be a real technology in 20 yrs.
    or so.

6
Early History
  • Quantum computing was largely inspired by
    reversible computation work from the 1970s
  • Bennett, Fredkin, and Toffoli
  • Early quantum computation pioneers (1980s)
  • Early models not using quantum parallelism to
    gain performance
  • Benioff 80, 82 - Quantum serial TM models
  • Feynman 86 - Q. models of serial reversible
    circuits
  • Margolus 86,90 - Q. models of parallel rev.
    circuits
  • Performance gains w. quantum parallelism
  • Feynman 82 - Suggested faster quantum sims with
    QC
  • Deutsch 85 - Quantum-parallel Turing machine
  • Deutsch 89 - Quantum logic circuits

7
More Recent History
  • There was a rapid ramp-up of quantum computing
    research throughout the 1990s.
  • Some developments, 1989-present
  • Refining quantum logic circuit models
  • What is a minimal set of universal gates for QC?
  • Algorithms Shor factoring, Grover search, etc.
  • Developing quantum complexity theory
  • What is the ultimate power of quantum
    computation?
  • Quantum information theory
  • Communications, Cryptography, etc.
  • Error correcting codes, fault tolerance, robust
    QC
  • Physical implementations
  • Numerous few-bit implementations demonstrated

8
Quantum Logic Networks
  • Invented by Deutsch (1989)
  • Analogous to classical Boolean logic networks
  • Generalization of Fredkin-Toffoli reversible
    logic circuits
  • System is divided into individual bits, or qubits
  • 2 orthogonal states of each bit are designated as
    the computational basis states, 0 and 1.
  • Quantum logic gates
  • Local unitary transforms that operate on only a
    few state bits at a time.
  • Computation via predetermined seq. of gate
    applications to selected bits.

9
Gates without Superposition
  • All classical input-consuming reversible gates
    can be represented as unitary transformations!
  • E.g., input-consuming NOT gate (inverter)

in out0 11 0
in
out
in
out
10
Controlled-NOT
  • Remember the CNOT (input-consuming XOR) gate?

A
A
A
A
B
B A?B
B
B A?B
Example
A B
A B
11
Toffoli Gate (CCNOT)
A B C A B C0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1
0 0 10 1 0 0 1 00 1 1 0
1 11 0 0 1 0 01 0 1 1 0
11 1 0 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 1
A
AA
B
BB
A
A
B
B
C
C C?AB
C
C
(XOR)
Now, what happens if the unitary matrix elements
are not always 0 or 1?
12
The Square Root of NOT
  • If you put in either basis state (0 or 1) you get
    a state that appears random when measured
  • But if you feed the output back into another N1/2
    without measuring it, you get the inverse of the
    original value!
  • How is thatpossible?

0 (50)
0 (50)
0
1
N1/2
N1/2
1 (50)
1 (50)
0 (50)
0
1
N1/2
N1/2
1 (50)
0 (50)
0
0
N1/2
N1/2
1 (50)
13
NOT1/2 Unitary implementation
Prob. ½
Prob. ½
14
The Hadamard Transform
  • A randomizing square root of identity gate.
  • Used frequently in quantum logic networks.

15
Another NOT1/2
  • This one negates the phase of the state if the
    input state was 0?.

16
Optical Implementation of N1/2
  • Beam splitters (semi-silvered mirrors) form
    superpositions of reflected and
    transmittedphoton states.

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
laser
1
17
Deutschs Problem
  • Given a black-box function f0,1?0,1,
  • Determine whether f(0)f(1),
  • But you only have time to call f once!

H
H
f
(N)1/2
18
Extended Deutschs Problem
  • Given black-box f0,1n?0,1,
  • and a guarantee that f is either constant or
    balanced (1 on exactly ½ of inputs)
  • Which is it?
  • Minimize number of calls to f.
  • Classical algorithm, worst-case
  • Order 2n time!
  • What if the first 2n-1 cases examined are all 0?
  • Function could still be either constant or
    balanced.
  • Case number 2n-11 if 0, constant if 1,
    balanced.
  • Quantum algorithm is exponentially faster!
  • (Deutsch Jozsa, 1992.)

19
Universal Q-Gates History
  • Deutsch 89
  • Universal 3-bit Toffoli-like gate.
  • diVincenzo 95
  • Adequate set of 2-bit gates.
  • Barenco 95
  • Universal 2-bit gate.
  • Deutsch et al. 95
  • Almost all 2-bit gates are universal.
  • Barenco et al. 95
  • CNOT set of 1-bit gates is adequate.
  • Later development of discrete gate sets...

20
Deutsch Gen. 3-bit Toffoli gate
  • The following gate is universal

(Where ? is any irrational number.)
a bb a
21
Barencos 2-bit gen. CNOT gate
  • where ?,?,?,? are relatively irrational
  • Also works, e.g., for ??, ??/2

U
22
Barenco et al. 95 results
  • Universality of CNOT 1-bit gates
  • 2-bit Barenco gate already known universal
  • 4 1-bit gates 2 CNOTs suffice to build it
  • Construction of generalized Toffoli gates
  • 3-bit version via five 2-bit gates
  • n-bit version via O(n2) 2-bit gates
  • No auxilliary bits needed for the above
  • All operations done in place on input qubits.
  • n-bit version via O(n) 2-bit gates, given 1 work
    bit

23
Quantum Complexity Theory
  • Early developments
  • Deutchs problem (from earlier) Slight speedup
  • Deutsch Jozsa Exponential speed-up
  • Important quantum complexity classes
  • EQP Exact Quantum Polynomial - like P.
  • Polynomial time, deterministic.
  • ZQP Zero-error Quantum Polynomial - like ZPP.
  • Probabilistic, expected polynomial-time, zero
    errors.
  • BQP Bounded-error Quantum Poly. - like BPP.
  • Probabilistic, bounded probability of errors.
  • All results relativized, e.g.,
  • ?O EQPO ? (NPO ? co-NPO)

Given a certain black-box, quantumcomputers can
solve a certain problemfaster than a classical
computer caneven check the answer!
24
Quantum Algorithms
  • Part I Unstructured Search

25
Unstructured Search Problem
  • Given a set S of N elements and a black-box
    function fS?0,1, find an element x?S such that
    f(x)1, if one exists (or if not, say so).
  • Any NP problem can be cast as an unstructured
    search problem.
  • Not necessarily the optimal approach, however.
  • Bounds on classical run-time
  • ?(N) expected queries in worst case (0 or 1
    solns)
  • Have to try N/2 elements on average before
    finding soln.
  • Have to try all N if there is no solution.
  • If elements are length-? bit strings,
  • Expected trials is ?(2?) - exponential in ?.
    Bad!

26
Quantum Unstructured Search
  • Minimum time to solve unstructured search problem
    on a quantum computer is
  • ?(N1/2) queries (2?/2) (21/2)?
  • Still exponential, but with a smaller base.
  • The minimum of queries can be achieved using
    Grovers algorithm.

27
Grovers algorithm
  • 1. Start w. amplitude evenly distributed among
    the N elements, ?(xi)1/?N
  • 2. In each state xi, compute f(xi)
  • 3. Apply conditional phase shift of ? if
    f(xi)1(Negate sign of solution state.)
    Uncompute f.

?
x1
xN
solutionxs
?
f0
f1
x1
xN
solutionxs
28
Grovers algorithm, cont.
  • 4. Invert all amplitudes with respect to the
    average amplitude

?
x1
xN
solutionxs
29
Grovers algorithm, cont.
  • 5. Go to step 2, and repeat 0.785 N1/2 times.

1
?(xs)
of iterations
-1
30
Shors Factoring Algorithm
  • Solves the gt2000-year-old problem
  • Given a large number N, quickly find the prime
    factorization of N. (At least as old as Euclid!)
  • No polynomial-time (as a function of nlg N)
    classical algorithm for this problem is known.
  • The best known (as of 1993) was a number field
    sieve algorithm taking time O(exp(n1/3
    log(n2/3)))
  • However, there is also no proof that an
    (undis-covered) fast classical algorithm does not
    exist.
  • Shors quantum algorithm takes time O(n2)
  • No worse than multiplication of n-bit numbers!

31
Elements of Shors Algorithm
  • Uses a standard reduction of factoring to another
    number-theory problem called the discrete
    logarithm problem.
  • The discrete logarithm problem corresponds to
    finding the period of a certain periodic function
    defined over the integers.
  • A general way to find the period of a function is
    to perform a Fourier transform on the function.
  • Shor showed how to generalize an earlier
    algorithm by Simon, to provide a Quantum Fourier
    Transform that is exponentially faster than
    classical ones.

32
Powers of numbers mod N
  • Given natural numbers (non-negative integers)
    N?1, xltN, and x, consider the sequence
  • x0 mod N, x1 mod N, x2 mod N, 1, x, x2 mod
    N,
  • If x and N are relatively prime, this sequence is
    guaranteed not to repeat until it gets back to 1.
  • Discrete logarithm of y, base x, mod N
  • The smallest natural number exponent k (if any)
    such that xk y (mod N).
  • I.e., the integer logarithm of y, base x, in
    modulo-N arithmetic. Example dlog7 13 (mod N)
    ?

33
Discrete Log Example
  • N15, x7, y13.
  • x2 49 4 (mod 15)
  • x3 47 28 13 (mod 15)
  • x4 137 91 1 (mod 15)
  • So, dlog7 13 3 (mod N),
  • Because 73 13 (mod N).

0
1
2
3
4
7
7
7
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
10
11
7
34
The order of x mod N
  • Problem Given Ngt0, and an xltN that is relatively
    prime to N, what is the smallest value of kgt0
    such that xk 1 (mod N)?
  • This is called the order of x (mod N).
  • From our previousexample, the orderof 7 mod N
    is?

0
1
2
3
4
7
7
7
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
10
11
7
35
Order-finding permits Factoring
  • A standard reduction of factoring N to finding
    orders mod N
  • 1. Pick a random number x lt N.
  • 2. If gcd(x,N)?1, return it (its a factor).
  • 3. Compute the order of x (mod N).
  • Let r min kgt0 xk mod N 1
  • 4. If gcd(xr/2?1, N) ? 1, return it (its a
    factor).
  • 5. Repeat as needed.
  • The expected number of repetitions of the loop
    needed to find a factor with probability gt 0.5 is
    known to be only polynomial in the length of N.

36
Factoring Example
  • For N15, x7
  • Order of x is r4.
  • r/2 2.
  • x2 5.
  • In this case (we are lucky), both x21 and x2?1
    are factors (3 and 5).
  • Now, how do we compute orders efficiently?

0
1
2
3
4
7
7
7
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
10
11
7
37
Quantum Order-Finding
  • Uses 2 quantum registers (a,b)
  • 0 ? a lt q, is the k (exponent) used in
    order-finding.
  • 0 ? b lt n, is the y (xk mod n) value
  • q is the smallest power of 2 greater than N2.
  • Algorithm
  • 1. Initial quantum state is 0,0?, i.e., (a0,
    b0).
  • 2. Go to superposition of all possible values of
    a

38
Initial State
39
After Doing Hadamard Transform on all bits of a
40
After modular exponentiationbxa (mod N)
41
State After Fourier Transform
42
Quantum Algorithms III
  • Wrap-up
  • Classical vs. Quantum Parallelism
  • Quantum Physics Simulations

43
Classical Unstructured Search
  • The classical serial algorithm takes ?(N) time.
  • But Suppose we search in parallel!
  • Have MltN processors running in parallel.
  • Each searches a different subset of N/M elements
    of the search space.
  • If processors are ballistic reversible
  • Can cluster them in a dense mesh of diameter
    ?(M1/3).
  • Time accounting
  • Computation time ?(N/M)
  • Communication time ?(M1/3) (at lightspeed)
  • Total T ? N/M M1/3 is minimized when M ?
    N3/4 ? N1/4 Faster than Grovers
    algorithm!

M1/3
M
44
ClassicalQuantum Parallelism
  • Similar setup to classical parallelism
  • M processors, searching N/M items each.
  • Except, each processor uses Grovers algorithm.
  • Time accounting
  • Computation T ? (N/M)1/2
  • Communication T ? M1/3 (as before)
  • Total T ? (N/M)1/2 M1/3
  • Total is minimized when M?N 3/5
  • Minimized total is T ? N1/5.
  • I.e., quantum unstructured search is really only
    N1/4/N1/5 N1/20 faster than classical!

45
Simulating Quantum Physics
  • For n particles, takes exponential time using the
    best known classical methods.
  • Feynman suggested use quantum computing
  • Takes only polynomial time on a QC.
  • History of some fast QC physics algorithms
  • Schrödinger equation (Boghosian, Yepez)
  • Many-body Fermi systems (Abrams Lloyd)
  • Eigenvalue/eigenvector computations (ditto)
  • Quantum lattice gases, Ising models, etc.
  • Totally general quantum physics
    simulations(Field theories, etc.) - Lloyd 1996

46
Simulating Quantum Computers
  • on classical ones

47
Efficient QC Simulations
  • Task Simulate an n-qubit quantum computer.
  • Maximally stupid approach
  • Store a 2n-element vector
  • Multiply it by a full 2n2n matrix for each gate
    op
  • Some obvious optimizations
  • Never store whole matrix (compute dynamically)
  • Store only nonzero elements of state vector
  • Especially helpful when qubits are highly
    correlated
  • Do only constant work per nonzero vector element
  • Scatter amplitude from each state to 1 or 2
    successors
  • Drop small-probability-mass sets of states
  • Linearity of QM implies no chaotic growth of
    errors

48
Linear-space quantum simulation
  • A popular myth
  • Simulating an n-qubit (or n-particle) quantum
    system takes e?(n) space (as well as time).
  • The usual justification
  • It takes e?(n) numbers even to represent a single
    ?(n)-dimensional state vector, in general.
  • The hole in that argument
  • Can simulate the statistical behavior of a
    quantum system w/o ever storing a state vector!
  • Result BQP ? PSPACE known since BV93...
  • But practical poly-space sims are rarely described

49
The Basic Idea
  • Inspiration
  • Feynmans path integral formulation of QED.
  • Gives the amplitude of a given final
    configuration by accumulating amplitude over all
    paths from initial to final configurations.
  • Each path consists of only a single
    ?(n)-coordinate configuration at each time, not a
    full wavefunction over the configuration space.
  • Can enumerate all paths, while only ever
    representing one path at a time.

50
Simulating Quantum Computations
  • Given
  • Any n-qubit quantum computation, expressed as a
    sequence of 1-qubit gates and CNOT gates.
  • An initial state s0 which is just a basis state
    in the classical bitwise basis, e.g. ?00000?.
  • Goal
  • Generate a final basis state stochastically with
    the same probability distribution as the quantum
    computer would do.

U2
U3
U4
U1
51
Matrix Representation
  • Consider each gate as rank-2n unitary matrix
  • Each CNOT application is a 0-1 (permutation)
    matrix - a classical reversible bit-operation.
  • With appropriate row ordering, each Ui gate
    application is block-diagonal, w. each 22 block
    equal to Ui.
  • We need never represent these full matrices!
  • The 1 or 2 nonzero entries in a given row can be
    located computed immediately given the row id
    (bit string) and Ui.

52
The Linear-Space Algorithm
  • Generate a random coin c?0,1.
  • Initialize probability accumulator p?0.
  • For each final n-bit string y at time t,
  • Compute its amplitude ?(y) as follows
  • Generate its possible 1 or 2 predecessor strings
    x1 (and maybe x2) given the gate-op preceding t.
  • For each predecessor, compute its amplitude at
    time t?1 recursively using this same algorithm,
  • unless t0, in which case ?1 if ?x?s0, 0
    otherwise.
  • Add predecessor amplitudes, weighted by entries.
  • Maybe output y, using roulette wheel algorithm
  • Accumlate Pry into total p ? p ?(y)2
  • Output y and halt if pgtc.

53
A Further Optimization
  • Dont even have to enumerate all final states!
  • Instead Stochasically follow a trajectory.
  • Basic idea
  • Keep track of 1 current state its amplitude
    ?0.
  • For CNOTs Deterministically transform state.
  • For Us
  • Calculate amplitude ?1 of neighbor state w.
    path-integral
  • Calculate amplitudes ?0 and ?1 after qubit op
  • Choose 1 successor as new current state, using
    ?2 distrib.

u00
?0
?0
Current state
u10
Possiblesuccessors
u01
?1
?1
u11
Neighbor state
54
Complexity Comparison
  • To simulate t gate ops (c CNOTs u 1-bit unitary
    ops) of an n-qubit quantum computer
  • Space Time
  • Traditional method 2n t2n
  • Path-integral method tn n2t
  • (Actually, only the u unitary ops, not all t ops
    or all n qubits, contribute to any of the
    exponents here.)
  • Upshot
  • Lower space usage can allow larger systems to be
    simulated, for short periods.
  • Run time is competitive for case when t lt n

55
Quantum Information Communication
  • DecoherenceQuantum Error CorrectionQuantum
    Cryptography

56
Decoherence
  • The effect that makes macroscopic quantum systems
    appear to behave classically.
  • Theory was developed in many papers by Zurek.
  • Occurs due to inevitable interactions between a
    given quantum system an unknown (high-entropy)
    environment.
  • Interaction increases (von Neumann-) entropy of
    the reduced density matrix of the quantum system.
  • Quantum state gradually collapses or decays
    to a classical statistical mixture of the pointer
    states (measurement eigenstates).

57
Decoherence Breaks Interference
  • Quantum computation w/o decoherence

Time
Trajectoryofenvironmentsstate
(Unknown,chaotic,unpredictable)
Isolation / insulation of quantum computer from
interactions
58
Quantum Information Communication cont.
  • Quantum Cryptography

59
The Key Distribution Problem
  • How can parties A and B use a physically insecure
    long-distance communications channel to
    nevertheless securely exchange keys that they can
    use to enable future secure, encrypted
    communication between them?
  • Present-day solution Public-Key Cryptography
  • see next slide

60
Public-Key Cryptography
  • A and B each prepare a pair of a public key and a
    corresponding private key.
  • Infeasible to compute private key from public
    one.
  • They openly publish their public keys.
  • Anyone can now use the public key to encrypt
    messages to A or B.
  • But only the one w. the matching private key can
    decrypt the message.
  • Security of technique depends on existence of
    one-way (a.k.a. trapdoor) functions.
  • ? functions believed (but unproven) to be such.

61
PK Crypto vs. Q-Computing
  • A serious weakness in most present-day PK
    cryptosystems (such as RSA)
  • They depend for their security on the
    one-way-ness of certain functions that is due
    to the hardness of the factoring and discrete
    logarithm problems.
  • But, Shors algorithm gives a fast way to solve
    these problems if we just had a quantum computer!
  • Large QCs may be implemented within next 10-20
    years.
  • Therefore, data encrypted today with these
    cryptosystems cannot be considered secure over
    multi-decade time-frames!
  • But, other PK systems w/o this weakness may exist.

62
Q-Cryptography to the Rescue!
  • Features
  • Provides for secure key exchange over physically
    unprotected channels w. a guarantee of detection
    of any eavesdropping of the key.
  • Doesnt protect against denial-of-service
    attacks.
  • Physically impossible to compromise security
    (except _at_ endpoints) barring overthrow of
    physics!
  • Provably secure under known laws
  • Experimentally verified to work perfectly over
    gt48 km distances (so far) (Hughes 99) via
    fiber-optic networks.

63
The One-Time Pad
  • The only known provably secure cryptosystem.
  • Based on a key of the same length as the data to
    be encrypted.
  • A given key can only be used once.
  • The key is simply a random string of bits.
  • The plaintext is bitwise-XORed with the key to
    produce ciphertext.
  • Provably secure because any plaintext is equally
    likely to produce the same ciphertext.
  • The only problem How to send the key?

64
Outline of QC Protocol (BB84)
  • A chooses a random bit-string
  • A key for later use as a one-time pad.
  • A sends each bit as a qubits with a
    randomly-chosen basis (out of 2 different bases).
  • B measures each bit in a randomly-chosen basis
    (out of the same 2 bases).
  • A B publicly determine which bits they chose
    the same bases for.
  • They publicly spot-check a random subset of the
    bits for errors, and use remaining bits.

65
Typical Implementation Method
  • Any flying qubit will do.
  • Most common method uses polarized
    photons. (Bennett Brassard 84)

1
?
0
Diffraction gratingw. vertical slits
Arbitrary choiceof basis
1
? ?/4
Diffraction gratingw. diagonal slits
0
66
QC Crypto Protocol - details
BB84
  • 1. A chooses a random bit-string
  • 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
  • 2. A chooses a random string of polarization
    bases, out of ,
  • 3. A encodes bits as photons polarized in the
    chosen basis

67
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 2. A chooses a random string of polarization
    bases, out of ,
  • 3. A encodes bits as photons polarized in the
    chosen basis
  • 4. Photons are sent to B over open channel, w.
    possible noise and/or eavesdropping

68
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 3. A encodes bits as photons polarized in the
    chosen basis
  • 4. Photons are sent to B over open channel, w.
    possible noise and/or eavesdropping
  • 5. B chooses random string of polarization bases
    to measure with

69
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 4. Photons are sent to B over open channel, w.
    possible noise and/or eavesdropping
  • 5. B chooses random string of polarization bases
    to measure with
  • 6. B measures photon state w.r.t. his bases
  • 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
    0

70
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 5. B chooses random string of polarization bases
    to measure with
  • 6. B measures photon state w.r.t. his bases
  • 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
    0
  • 7. A B publicly compare basis choices,
    determined which matched

?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
71
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 6. B measures photon state w.r.t. his bases
  • 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
    0
  • 7. A B publicly compare basis choices,
    determined which matched
  • 8. Now, they expect their bits w. matching bases
    to match (others are discarded)
  • A 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
    0 B 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
    1 0

?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
72
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 7. A B publicly compare basis choices,
    determined which matched
  • 8. Now, they expect their bits w. matching bases
    to match (others are discarded)
  • A 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
    0 B 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
    1 0
  • 9. They compare some of these bits publicly to
    determine level of errors and/or eavesdropping
  • Or, compare parities of random subsets (avoids
    waste)

?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
73
QC Crypto Protocol - details
  • 8. Now, they expect their bits w. matching bases
    to match (others are discarded)
  • A 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
    0 B 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
    1 0
  • 9. They compare some of these bits publicly to
    determine level of errors and/or eavesdropping
  • Or, compare parities of random subsets (avoids
    waste)
  • 10. Use remaining bits in the clean part of data
    as the key for 1-time pad
  • 1 1 0

?
?
?
?
?
Or, hash these bits down to a smaller butmore
secure bit-string (privacy amplification)
74
Quantum Crypto Scalability
  • Optic fiber lengths ? 60-100 km not feasible due
    to attenuation.
  • Free-space (air/vacuum) transmission being
    explored.
  • Useful in networks of orbiting satellites?
  • Given quantum computers, can build quantum
    repeaters that apply quantum error correction to
    clean up noisy signals?
  • Can then maintain secure quantum cryptography
    throughout large networks (quantum internet?)
  • Research topic currently under investigation...

75
Physical Implementations of Quantum Computing
76
Implementation Requirements
DiVincenzo 00
  • 1. Scalable physical system w. well-characterized
    qubits.
  • Internal/external coupling parameters accurately
    known.
  • 2. Initializability to a standardized state.
  • Necessary for error correction.
  • Speed of cooling/measurement is important.
  • 3. Decoherence time gtgt gate operation time
  • gt104-105x for robust, fault-tolerant operation
  • Only computational degrees of freedom need long
    decoherence times.

77
Implementation Reqs., cont.
  • 4. A Universal set of quantum gate operations
  • Controllable interactions generating desired Us.
  • 1- and 2-body interactions suffice
  • Parallel ops are necessary for fault-tolerance.
  • 5. Bit-specific, amplifiable measurements
  • High quantum efficiency, or else redundancy.
  • Shouldnt disturb the rest of the computer.
  • Also for quantum crypto, comm., distributed
    computing
  • 6. Faithful transmission of flying qubits.
  • 7. Interconversion btw. stationary flying.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com