SYSTEM AND METHOD USING MULTILAYER OPTICAL LATTICE QUBIT ARRAYS FOR QUANTUM COMPUTING
A quantum computing (QC) system includes a first plurality of logical qubits in a first substantially planar region and a second plurality of logical qubits in a second substantially planar region that is substantially parallel to the first substantially planar region. At least some of the first plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact with one another, and at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact with one another and to interact with the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits. The QC system can include additional pluralities of logical qubits in additional substantially planar regions that are substantially parallel to the first and second substantially planar regions and at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits can be configured to interact with one or more of the additional pluralities of logical qubits.
Latest Kellogg Brown & Root LLC Patents:
- Methods and systems for alkylate production involving a multi-zone alkylation reactor
- DIMERIZATION OF CYCLOPENTADIENE FROM SIDE STREAM FROM DEBUTANIZER
- On-site solvent generation and makeup for tar solvation in an olefin plant
- Recovery of light olefins from dry hydrocarbon gas from refinery and petrochemical production processes for production of alkylate
- Low CO2 Emission Ethane Cracker
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 63/186,037, filed May 7, 2021, and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/090,747, filed Nov. 5, 2020, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 62/933,148 filed Nov. 8, 2019, and each of these applications is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein.
BACKGROUND FieldThis application is generally directed to quantum computing (QC), and more particularly to quantum computer architectures employing lattice array structures of more than one dimension.
Description of the Related ArtTechnology paths toward scalable quantum computing have been diverse. Demonstrated performance in the various figures of merit vary widely according to the type of physical quantum bit (also referred to as a “qubit”) employed by each approach. Approaches based on either trapped atomic ions or on superconducting qubits have consistently led the field through more than two decades. Recent advances in trapped Rydberg atomic approaches have increased their viability and importance in the field.
SUMMARYCertain implementations disclosed herein provide a quantum computer architecture employing a lattice array structure of more than one dimension for implementing and interconnecting quantum gates in which more than two logical qubits (e.g., each logical qubit comprising one or more physical qubits) can be simultaneously entangled. Certain implementations disclosed herein provide quantum microprocessor configuration and gate array design platforms for quantum processing chips, analogous to field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) which can advantageously provide a degree of reconfigurability. Certain implementations disclosed herein provide quantum microprocessor configuration and gate array design platforms for quantum processing chips or boards (e.g., electrical and/or optical circuits; integrated optical lattices), analogous to application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) which can advantageously be optimized for a specified application and can advantageously provide custom design flexibility.
Certain implementations disclosed herein provide a quantum computing (QC) system comprising a plurality of qubits arranged substantially in a plurality of substantially planar regions (e.g., planes; layers) that are substantially parallel to one another, at least some of the substantially planar regions comprising two or more qubits and one or more qubits of each substantially planar region configured to interact with one or more qubits of at least one neighboring substantially planar region. For example, the QC system can comprise a plurality of 2-D lattice layers (e.g., atomic; photonic), the lattice layers substantially parallel to each other, and the QC system can comprise a multiple-qubit gate array comprising the plurality of qubits arranged as a plurality of multiple-qubit gates positioned in a region spanning multiple lattice layers. The multiple-qubit gate array can comprise lattices configured to contain and/or selectively address neutral (e.g., uncharged) atoms, Rydberg atoms, and/or other qubits confined in multilayer lattice arrays, such as nitrogen-vacancy or NV centers (e.g., engineered in diamond or other crystal), arrays of trapped Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), and others. In certain such examples, these substantially parallel lattice array layers can be arranged substantially in a plurality of substantially planar regions (e.g., planes; levels), with at least some of the qubits of at least one substantially planar region configured to interact (e.g., to be quantum-mechanically entangled) with at least some of the qubits of at least one other (e.g., neighboring) substantially planar region.
Certain implementations disclosed herein comprise lattice configurations comprising multiple fully-connected qubits arranged as arrays of three-dimensional (3-D) lattice structures (e.g., to form gates), with simultaneous multi-qubit gate operations enabled by qubits arrayed in geometric layouts. Certain implementations disclosed herein address a common set of key challenges to building an optimally efficient quantum computer. Principal among these challenges is how to engineer implementable geometric structures of qubits in which maximum numbers of nearest neighbor, next nearest neighbor, next-next nearest neighbor, etc. qubits can be simultaneously entangled to effect up to many-qubit quantum gate operations natively, or geometrically within a single gate operation (see, e.g., U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 63/186,037 filed May 7, 2021; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/090,747 filed on Nov. 5, 2020; U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 62/933,148 filed on Nov. 8, 2019, each of which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein).
In certain implementations, a quantum computing (QC) system comprises a first plurality of logical qubits in a first substantially planar region and a second plurality of logical qubits in a second substantially planar region that is substantially parallel to the first substantially planar region. At least some of the first plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact with one another, and at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact with one another and to interact with the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits. In certain implementations, the QC system comprises additional pluralities of logical qubits in additional substantially planar regions that are substantially parallel to the first and second substantially planar regions and at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact with one or more of the additional pluralities of logical qubits.
In certain implementations, a quantum computing (QC) system comprises a plurality of confinement regions configured to contain logical qubits forming quantum gates in a multilayer qubit lattice array comprising more than two dimensions. The quantum gates are configured to perform quantum logic operations involving three or more logical qubits natively without reliance on concatenations of one- and two-qubit gates.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate one or more implementations described herein and, together with the description, explain these implementations.
Certain implementations disclosed herein comprise lattice configurations comprising multiple fully-connected qubits arranged as arrays of three-dimensional (3-D) lattice structures (e.g., cells), with simultaneous multi-qubit gate operations enabled by qubits arrayed in geometric layouts. Certain implementations disclosed herein advantageously add to the number of lattice layers and increase the number of qubits that can be entangled simultaneously over the limits currently achievable (e.g., with acceptable gate fidelities) using current square-based photonic lattices for Rydberg atoms, and potentially over qubit densities achievable in the hexagonal multilayer surface-trap geometries for ions.
Certain implementations disclosed herein address challenges to building an optimally efficient quantum computer. One such challenge is how to engineer implementable geometric structures of qubits in which maximum numbers of nearest neighbor, next-nearest neighbor, next-next-nearest neighbor, etc. qubits can be simultaneously entangled to provide many-qubit quantum gate operations natively (e.g., geometrically within a single gate operation). This engineering challenge comprises two coequal parts. One part is how to confine (e.g., trap; engineer crystal lattice site locations of) the qubits in optimal entangling geometries. Such confinement generally entails engineering complex intersections of several lasers along with precise periodic location of defect sites in crystals, electrodes, and/or magnetic fields. The other part of the engineering challenge is how to address (e.g., illuminate; excite; manipulate) and read out (e.g., detect; image) the qubits as selectively as possible (e.g., individually). This addressing can go beyond the creation of entanglement simultaneously between as many qubits as possible, which can often be done with global addressing. Rather, exploiting the full computational power of a number of entangled qubits can also include manipulating and reading out individual qubit states of a desired multiqubit gate operation, which utilizes the ability to address each qubit individually as needed. This ability can be critically important because the intrinsic computational power of each quantum computing gate is exponential in (e.g., proportional to 2 to the power of) the number of qubits of simultaneously entangled qubits that can fully participate as logical qubits in each gate operation. In addition, overhead (e.g., error correcting qubits; redundant qubits; ancilla qubits) is to be factored in, which grows dramatically (e.g., by orders of magnitude) as the size of quantum computing architectures increases to scales where surface codes are utilized to correct the errors of very large numbers of qubits. Therefore, the total advantage of entangling more individually addressable (e.g., logical) qubits simultaneously in gate cells up front can greatly surpass even the initial exponential speedup indicated above by further greatly reducing or precluding the use of orders of magnitude of added overhead that surface-code error correction entails.
Certain implementations disclosed herein can be configured as multiple two-dimensional (2-D) (e.g., planar) qubit arrays (e.g., layers) that are substantially parallel to one another and that form arrays of three-dimensional (3-D) cells. The arrays of cells can be analogized to or referred to as 3-D crystal structures. While various implementations are described herein as utilizing trapped neutral (e.g., uncharged) atom qubits or Rydberg atom qubits in optical lattice structures (see, e.g., I. Bloch, “Quantum coherence and entanglement with ultracold atoms in optical lattices,” Nature 453, 1016 (2008)) to illustrate the nature of quantum interactions to be utilized (e.g., optimized), other implementations can use one or more alternative qubit technologies in lattice structures (e.g., qubits trapped in natural crystal lattices; artificially formed crystal structures) that are equivalent both in structure and in function (e.g., can form extensions of pyrochlore-like structures that enable maximum numbers of nearest neighbor, next-nearest neighbor, next-next-nearest neighbor, etc. qubits to be simultaneously entangled to provide within a single gate what has previously been provided by concatenations of hundreds or thousands of one- and two-qubit quantum gate operations).
One example alternative technology of atomic vacancy centers in crystals (e.g., nitrogen-vacancy centers, hereafter, simply “NV centers” in diamond) recently has also progressed in terms of fidelity, coherence time, full-connectivity between up to 10 qubits and multipartite entangled states with up to 7 qubits (see, e.g., C. E. Bradley et al., “A 10-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)). Such properties, along with the atom-like properties, that NV centers exhibit make them one more example of qubit technology that can be directly applied to certain implementations described herein, such as substantially equivalent solutions to the problem of forming 3-D lattices that enable both entanglement of maximum numbers of qubits simultaneously and optimal geometric accesses for addressing (e.g., initializing, performing gate operations on, and reading out the value of) qubits individually in multilayer optical lattices. Still other implementations can use other alternative qubit technologies, for example, trapped Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs); neutral molecules; phonons; photons; and others.
Certain implementations of the quantum computing (QC) system described herein advantageously provide a multilayer architecture to enable optimal numbers of qubits to be entangled simultaneously between nearest neighbors, next-nearest neighbors, and next-next-nearest neighbors, and potentially beyond. Certain implementations include geometries configured to enable optimal combinations of electrical, magnetic, and optical addressing, control, detection, and readout as are needed to engineer scalable quantum processors. Arrays of qubits that are fully connected provide more efficient, flexible choices for executing quantum algorithms in hardware than designs in which entangled gate operations are limited to specific pairs, due to type of qubit employed or their layout. This improved efficiency and flexibility grows rapidly with the number of qubits in an array. Adding a capability to perform gate operations involving more than two qubits at a time can significantly accelerate the efficiency gains over designs limited to one- and two-qubit gates, tens of which can be replaced with one four-qubit gate. Certain implementations described herein use multiple qubit arrays (e.g., multiple directly-connected planar lattices) to advantageously avoid problems of one- and two-dimensional geometry configurations (e.g., limits on connectivity; crowding of components needed to control each qubit in an increasingly dense gate array when limited to only two dimensions). In certain implementations, multi-dimensional cells of qubits are formed that resemble crystals, such as pyrochlores. In certain implementations, multi-dimensional cells of qubits are reconfigurable and can be formed into various crystal structures according to which nearest neighbor, next-nearest-neighbor qubits (e.g., within a cell; across cells; across layers) and beyond are simultaneously entangled for a selected gate operation. Utilizing many qubits to participate per gate can also reduce requirements of circuit depth, error correction and interference mitigation. Reconfigurable component cells can enable quantum FPGA (QFPGA) and ASIC (QASIC) layout (e.g., chips).
Certain implementations of the QC system described herein comprise multi-layer configurations comprising multiple fully-connected qubits arranged as arrays of three-dimensional (3-D) lattice structures (e.g., cells) with simultaneous multi-qubit gate operations enabled by qubits arrayed in geometric layouts. For example, multiple planar qubit arrays in layers (e.g., rows and columns; lattice) can be substantially parallel to one another and can form arrays of 3-D cells that can be analogized to or referred to as crystal structures. In certain implementations, the qubits can be localized (e.g., trapped; suspended; confined) within multiple qubit lattice containment zones (e.g., parallel neutral-atom trap arrays; NV centers) to enable optimal coherent connectivity (e.g., entanglement) directly between nearest neighbor qubits, next-nearest neighbor qubits, etc. across multiple substantially planar array regions (e.g., layers; levels; planes) without requiring inefficient photonic or other interconnects (e.g., quantum teleportation) entailing lossy conversions of in situ processing qubits to other species or data bits or significant time delays. Certain such implementations utilize geometrically symmetric cellular structures that provide the capability to perform gate operations involving more than two qubits at a time that can significantly accelerate the efficiency gains over designs limited to one- and two-qubit gates. Certain other implementations can be configured as multiple two-dimensional (2-D) qubit lattice arrays (e.g., planar lattices; grids; rows and columns) that are substantially parallel to one another to enable 3-D structures to be formed between multiple 2-D layers.
While various implementations are described herein according to the physics of neutral atom (e.g., uncharged atom, Rydberg atom) qubit approaches, other qubit approaches (e.g., NV centers; superconducting qubits; others cited herein) can also be used in accordance with certain implementations described herein without loss of generality.
Certain implementations of the QC system described herein comprise a plurality of multiple-qubit three dimensional (3-D) gate cells, each cell comprising at least three qubits that can be fully connected simultaneously across three dimensions, and a plurality of multiple-qubit cells configured for gate operations of two or more of the multiple-qubit gates. The QC system of certain such implementations can comprise multiple substantially parallel qubit containment lattices, such as parallel neutral atom trap arrays, that enable optimal coherent connectivity or entanglement directly between nearest neighbor qubits, next-nearest neighbor qubits, etc. across multiple array layers, levels or planes without requiring conversion to and from photonic qubits or other inefficient interconnects (e.g., interconnects that impart significant losses and/or time delays). The multiple-qubit cells can be configured using geometric symmetry to enable multiple-qubit gates to be effected natively, in one gate operation, without reliance on concatenations of multiple one- and two-qubit gates. Leveraging the symmetry of equilateral coupling distances between multiple qubits in a cell enables more than two entangled qubits at a time to perform gate operations that would otherwise require many more qubit gate operations comprising only one- and two-qubit gates.
Certain other implementations disclosed herein provide a QC system comprising a plurality of qubits arranged substantially in a plurality of 2-D array layers (e.g., 2-D lattices; planes; grids) that are substantially parallel to one another, at least some of the 2-D array layers comprising two or more qubits and one or more qubits of each array layer configured to interact with one or more qubits of at least one neighboring 2-D array layer. The QC system can comprise a plurality of atom trap layers (e.g., 2-D optical lattice traps) substantially parallel to one another, and the QC system can further comprise multiple-qubit, 3-D gate arrays comprising the plurality of qubits arranged as a plurality of multiple-qubit gates positioned in regions between and/or within the trap layers. For example, the qubits of the multiple-qubit gate array can comprise 2-D trap arrays configured to contain atomic qubits comprising neutral atoms (e.g., uncharged atoms, Rydberg states), NV centers, or other qubit species. For the examples of Rydberg atoms, NV centers, and other atomic qubits species, qubits are confined in lattices (e.g., trapped in potential wells; in atomic vacancy centers), which can be created by optical-beam (e.g., laser) lattices, and can be arranged substantially in a plurality of substantially parallel trap array layers (e.g., lattices; levels; planes), with at least some of the qubits of at least one 2-D trap array layer configured to interact (e.g., to be quantum-mechanically entangled) directly with at least some of the qubits of at least one other (e.g., neighboring) substantially parallel trap array layer.
In each of the implementations of the QC system described herein the symmetric or equilateral coupling geometries of the multiple qubits per cell can enable more complex quantum gates to be performed in a single gate operation and can additionally reduce requirements of circuit depth, error correction and interference mitigation. The interchangeable component cells can enable quantum FPGA (QFPGA) and ASIC (QASIC) layout (e.g., chips) and can be highly reconfigurable.
Certain implementations of the QC system described herein advantageously provide a three-dimensional (3-D) layout of qubits and/or qubit gates that facilitate many more qubits and/or qubit gates being used for computations than are provided using one-dimensional (1-D) layouts or two-dimensional (2-D) layouts (e.g., J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, “A scalable quantum computer with ions in an array of microtraps,” Nature, Vol. 404, p. 579 (2000); J. Chiaverini et al., Quant. Inf. Comp. Vol. 5, 419 (2005)). For example, certain implementations described herein provide a 3-D layout of qubit gates, each comprising multiple atomic qubits (e.g., three or more simultaneously entangled neutral atoms, charged atoms, NV center qubits, etc.), while providing sufficient spacing to facilitate electrical connections and optical pathways for addressing, manipulation, control, readout, and potential sideband cooling of each qubit, and providing line of sight access angles.
When a particular arrangement or set of qubits allows for any qubit to be quantum mechanically entangled directly with any other qubit in the set, the qubits can be described as being “fully connected.” For example, even a small number of qubits comprising ions (e.g., charged atoms) that are fully connected in a one-dimensional (1-D) linear atom trap can demonstrate measurably greater potential processing power than can the same number of qubits that are only pair-wise connected (see, e.g., N. M. Linke et al., “Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures”, PNAS, Vol. 114, no. 13 (2017)).
Quantum computing (QC) designs demonstrated over the past two decades indicate that the parameters which most affect how quickly a quantum computer can outperform its classical computer counterpart are not based simply on how many qubits are wired together in some fashion. Demonstrated performance of such systems has come down to qubit fidelities (e.g., how precisely the system can perform gate operations), how the qubits are interconnected, and how much overhead is used to allow the qubits to work together to compute solutions to hard problems.
One-qubit gates simply entail flipping a qubit by itself from “0” to “1” or to a special quantum superposition of “0” and “1”. Two-qubit gates connect two qubits using superposition combined with quantum entanglement such that anything done to one of the qubits affects the other. In such a two-qubit gate, a target qubit may start out in state “0” or state “1” and can be in any superposition of “0” and “1” (e.g., halfway between “0” and “1”). For example, the function of a quantum controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate is to flip the target qubit if the control qubit is in state “1”; otherwise it does nothing. One- or two-qubit gates can be implemented directly in many different quantum gate-based architectures. For more complex gate operations, implementations that can entangle more than two qubits at once can have a significant impact on the total number of qubits and steps performed to effect the operation and the algorithms that incorporate them (see, e.g., C. Figgatt et al., “Parallel entangling operations on a universal ion-trap quantum computer,” Nature, Vol. 571 (2019); Y. Lu et al., “Global entangling gates on arbitrary qubits,” Nature, Vol. 571 (2019)). Measurable reductions in the numbers of qubits and steps used up front can, in some instances, lead to dramatic reductions in the overhead for achieving successful outcomes. One example would be a prototype demonstration that could give solutions to otherwise intractable problems without extensive error correction and with fewer ancillas, even part of the time.
Certain implementations described herein use multiple fully connected, high-fidelity qubits. The advantages of such certain implementations (e.g., how much more efficient a particular quantum gate operation can be, as opposed to using combinations of one- and two-qubit gates) can be illustrated by considering an example quantum triply-controlled-NOT (C3NOT) gate comprising four fully connected, high-fidelity qubits. The C3NOT gate is also called a super-Toffoli gate. In this example C3NOT gate, three control qubits must all be in a specified state (e.g., “1,1,1”) in order to flip a fourth target qubit from “1” to 0″. When combined with one or more single-qubit gate operations, such multi-qubit quantum gates can be used to complete a universal set for quantum computing. Multiply-controlled NOT gates are described in reference sources generally as comprising extended series of one- and two-qubit gate operations (see, e.g., M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, “Quantum Computing and Quantum Information,” 1st ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)). The extent to which these one- and two-qubit gate series increase even more in physical implementations depends on type of qubits used and on how many qubits can be fully connected and entangled with one another. However, a C3NOT gate implemented using four fully-connected, multiply-entangled ions at the same time, in an appropriate physical layout, can be configured with a small fraction of the number of the quantum gate operations used in a C3NOT gate implemented only with one- and two-qubit gates. Methods for implementing the simpler C2NOT Toffoli gate were first described using trapped ions (see, e.g., J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, “Quantum Computations with Cold Trapped Ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 74 (20) (1995)) and later demonstrated (see, e.g., T. Monz et al., “Realization of the Quantum Toffoli gate with Trapped Ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 102, 040501 (2009)). The three-qubit C2NOT implementation already exhibited a significant reduction in number of contributing gates and time required to complete the full gate operation, while yielding an improvement in net fidelity over the concatenation of one- and two-qubit gates, even if they were of much higher individual fidelities, due to aggregated gate errors. This three-qubit gate could be realized in a linear trap without a strong requirement for geometric symmetry. In contrast, certain implementations described herein provide CnNOT gates by exploiting the full 3-D symmetries of the designs described herein. In this way, the improved efficiency example referenced above can be greatly multiplied according to the number of controls in each CnNOT gate through concomitant reductions in quantum gates needed to implement them. Other multiply-controlled gate operations, including phase rotations, can exhibit similar improvements in efficiency using a physical configuration that involves more than two entangled qubits simultaneously. These improvements up front can greatly reduce error correction.
Even the highest quality qubits exhibit noticeable error rates, which can be small on a per-qubit basis but get multiplied by the number of gates that are used to run an algorithm. When the aggregate error rate reaches a threshold where error correction is required to perform even a small set of quantum operations with reasonable chance of giving a reliable result, the efficiency of the architecture immediately drops in proportion to the amount of overhead used for the error correction.
For a small scale quantum computer having a few hundred relatively high quality qubits intended to perform logic operations, the overhead of error-correction qubits plus ancillas can represent an increase in the number of qubits of one order of magnitude or roughly a factor of ten, with a proportionate decrease in efficiency. For larger scale systems, the overhead can increase further to multiple orders of magnitude. However, in certain implementations described herein, a quantum computer that benefits from aggregate efficiencies of fully-connected, high-quality qubits and employs multi-qubit gate operations (e.g., performed natively by exploiting multi-dimensional geometry) can use significantly fewer steps and significantly fewer total numbers of qubits. As used herein, the term “native” gate operations indicates that more than two qubits can participate at the same time, by virtue of a geometric layout. Certain native multi-qubit gate implementations described herein can advantageously perform algorithms without using extensive error correction overhead. In addition, significant improvements in overall design efficiency, due to reduced overhead, can be achieved, using multiple orders of magnitude fewer quantum resources, both to perform basic quantum computing algorithms or subroutines and to show practical utility with increased speed as compared to classical computing systems.
To date, most QC systems using atomic qubits have employed one-dimensional (e.g., linear) traps, which can then be interconnected electrically or photonically (see, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 9,858,531; Debnath et al., “Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits,” Nature, Vol. 536, p. 63 (2016)). Most such 1-D traps enable a linear chain of qubits to be fully connected within a common potential well or trapping zone. The extent of full connectivity is limited by how many qubits can be chained together before the coupling strength between qubits at or near opposite endpoints of the linear chain is too weak to be usable for reliable multi-qubit gate operations, so it can be desirable to create interconnects between multiple linear traps of limited lengths. Optical interconnects, for example, can be employed by transferring a qubit state from an atomic qubit to a photon, then sending the photon to another linear trap where the quantum state is transferred to another atom. One type of protocol that is commonly used for such a process is termed “quantum teleportation.” Such interconnections impart time delays and potential inefficiencies in the conversions (e.g., from an atomic qubit to a photon, and to a second atom). Certain implementations described herein advantageously provide an alternate configuration to optimize more direct qubit-to-qubit interactions simultaneously than can be done efficiently using linear or 2-D elements with optical interconnects. When scaling up to larger numbers of qubits, certain such implementations can advantageously reduce or stave off the number of optical interconnections between nodes with their associated penalties (e.g., time delays; ion-photon conversion losses).
Rectangular two-dimensional (2-D) grid configurations have been previously adopted for some trapped ion approaches, and superconducting qubit (SCQ) schemes. In such 2-D grid approaches, the interactions between the qubits generally have been limited to one- and two-qubit operations that occur within the trapped ion grid lanes (e.g., by shuttling qubits in and out of lanes through intersections), and usually rely on significant redundancy to add the degree of fault tolerance for raising the probability of success in running an algorithm to usable levels. For example, some approaches use global addressing of ensembles of qubits, which are shuttled in and out of aligned intersections in a grid in order to effect a single one- or two-qubit operation redundantly among the many qubits, and then average to reduce errors. The overhead in such an approach, in terms of numbers of redundant qubits for effecting a single logic operation with sufficient fidelity, grows rapidly with the scale of the logic operations to be performed by the quantum computer. Conversely, in certain implementations described herein, entanglement between more than two qubits is enabled by having the qubits arranged in two or more dimensions, to be involved simultaneously and to effect multi-qubit gate operations directly or natively.
Other 2-D lattice approaches that have been proposed and/or adopted include using neutral atoms, initially applying Rydberg-blockade methods (see e.g., M. Saffman et al., “Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010); K. Maller et al., “Rydberg-blockade controlled-not gate and entanglement in a two-dimensional array of neutral-atom qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 022336 (2015)). The fidelity of earlier Rydberg-blockade methods was not competitive for forming quantum gates for computing, however these Rydberg-blockade methods have since been surpassed by improved methods of entangling Rydberg atoms (see e.g., D. Petrosyan et al., “High-fidelity Rydberg quantum gate via a two-atom dark state,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 042306 (2017); M. Khazali and K. Molmer, “Fast Multiqubit Gates by Adiabatic Evolution in Interacting Excited-State Manifolds of Rydberg Atoms and Superconducting Circuits,” Phys. Rev. X 10, 021054 (2020)).
To distinguish certain implementations described herein from other approaches in which descriptive terms and visual layouts may appear similar, it is noted that the overall layout of 2-D periodic crystal structures, such as regular geometric lattice traps have been formed in ways that are useful for studying the physics of many-body interactions yet not for implementing gate operations between multiple qubits. For example, triangular ion traps (e.g., Penning traps) can be formed as a surface of periodic electropotential wells into which ions can be placed to form an extended 2-D crystal or triangular lattice that can be used for certain types of quantum simulators. These traps can be used to form energy topologies that mimic those of the quantum system to be modeled (e.g., to find the lowest electron energy configuration of a given molecule). Similarly, tetrahedral, hexagonal Kitaev models (see, e.g., A. Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,” Ann. Phys. Vol. 321, 2 (2006); R. Schmied et al. “Quantum simulation of the hexagonal Kitaev model with trapped ions,” New J. Phys. 13 115011 (2011)); hybrid lattices; kagome optical lattices (see, e.g., R. Samajdar, “Quantum phases of Rydberg atoms on a kagome lattice, ” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2015785118 (2021)) and other regular lattice structures can resemble, but are fundamentally different in design complexity and purpose from certain implementations described herein. For example, whereas such crystal lattice structures have been designed for simulations of quantum systems, such structures are generally not intended to perform gate operations. In particular, a quantum simulator having a 2-D hexagonal lattice of ions (e.g., following the Kitaev model) or neutral atoms (e.g., in an optical kagome lattice) in accordance with certain implementations described herein generally can use much simpler qubit control, addressing, and readout schemes with fewer lasers (e.g., global addressing instead of individually addressing lasers), simpler detection schemes, fewer electrode structures, etc. than the complexity and number of such structures of a “full-up” quantum computer capable of quantum gate operations.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously facilitate solutions to hardware challenges that can grow rapidly and appear daunting or infeasible when designing gate-model QC structures that are scaled up from 2-D trapped atom lattices. For example, certain implementations described herein integrate optical elements (e.g., lasers; optical ports; fibers; detectors) into the QC structure for addressing, manipulation, readout, and potential sideband trapping and/or cooling of each qubit, and provide line of sight access angles.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously provide scalable hardware configurations on which it is possible to directly “write” and run complex quantum algorithms by enabling simultaneous entanglement between optimal numbers of neighboring qubits. In certain implementations, a multidimensional quantum gate implementation, analogous to conventional firmware such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA), can be written directly in the form of multi-qubit gates and reprogrammed flexibly.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously enable multiply controlled quantum gate operations to be run natively by exploiting multi-dimensional geometry. In certain implementations, the quantum gate operations are run on a quantum firmware platform in the least number of steps (e.g., without resorting to concatenations of one- and two-qubit gate operations to effect a multiply controlled NOT operation).
Certain implementations described herein advantageously provide a realizable engineering configuration that enables the quantum firmware platform to be scaled up as needed by integrating electrical and optical accesses for full control and readout of each qubit in a circuit-model architecture to enable universal quantum computing.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously provide a multi-layer quantum computing structure configured to enable optimal numbers of qubits to be entangled simultaneously between nearest neighbors, next-nearest neighbors, next-next-nearest neighbors, and beyond. Certain such implementations include electrical channels and optical accesses for addressing, control, and readout of qubits in scalable quantum processors. For example, arrays of qubits that are fully connected advantageously provide more efficient, flexible choices for executing quantum algorithms in hardware than do other designs in which entangled gate operations are limited to specific pairs (e.g., due to the type of qubit employed or their layout). This improved efficiency and flexibility can grow rapidly with the number of qubits in an array.
Certain implementations described herein are advantageously able to perform gate operations involving more than two qubits at a time, thereby providing significant improvements of efficiency over previous designs that are limited to one- and two-qubit gates (e.g., by replacing tens of such gates with one four-qubit gate). Certain implementations described herein advantageously overcome connectivity limitations found in one- and two-dimensional qubit geometries (e.g., linearly trapped ions; ions trapped in 2-D grids, NV centers in 2-D diamond lattices; other 1-D and 2-D qubit lattices). For example, arraying qubits in multiple qubit arrays (e.g., multiple planar and/or linear qubit arrays) with direct connectivity (e.g., entanglement) between the qubit arrays can solve the problem of significant time delays and inefficiencies of converting from ion qubits to photonic qubits and back again to continue scaling up from tens of atoms in a 1-D chain or a 2-D grid.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously provide multi-dimensional entangling geometries that resemble complex 3-D crystal structures (e.g., pyrochlores). In addition, specific, unobstructed lines of sight designed into certain implementations advantageously provides optical accesses from multiple angles for addressing each atomic qubit individually and uniquely as well as ensembles of the qubits globally. Certain implementations advantageously provide multiple optical accesses for readout of individual atomic qubit states by detectors.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously utilize neutral atom qubits (e.g., uncharged Rydberg atoms in which an outer electron is elevated to a highly excited state) to form multilayer qubit lattice arrays, which both demonstrates the applicability of this system and methods to alternative qubit types and helps further illustrate the processing potential. Recently improved techniques for entangling Rydberg atoms make them increasingly viable for quantum computing (see e.g., M. Khazali and K. Molmer (2020); D. Petrosyan et al. (2017)). As a result of the improved techniques Rydberg atoms are also well suited to serve as another example qubit for the system and methods described herein. Techniques for forming Rydberg qubit lattices can include crossing coherent light beams (e.g., lasers) and creating electromagnetic field interactions with the optical sidebands to form energy potential wells, either within intersecting optical beams (e.g., in potential wells formed by red sidebands) or in spaces (e.g., cells) between the light beams (e.g., in potential wells formed by blue sidebands) to trap individual neutral atom qubits, analogous to using electro-potential to trap ion qubits, with many of the same benefits of trapped ion lattice arrays and some specific advantages. For example, although Rydberg qubits have yet to demonstrate the highest qubit gate fidelities and longest lifetimes associated with trapped ions, Rydberg atoms can be configured into hexagonal lattice layers to create crystalline geometries (e.g., pyrochlore structures) equivalent to and/or continuations of those described in U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0142204 A1 using ion qubits as primary examples. The photonic lattice structures utilized to trap the Rydberg atoms can enable very close qubit spacing and additional array layers in accordance with certain implementations described herein.
Certain implementations described herein advantageously utilize Rydberg atoms in qubit arrays of multilayer lattice structures in geometries equivalent to those described in U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0142204 Al (e.g., using primarily charged-atom qubit examples), with the potential to add to the number of lattice layers and to increase the number of qubits that can be entangled simultaneously over the limits currently achievable (e.g., with acceptable gate fidelities) using current square-based photonic lattices for Rydberg atoms, and potentially over qubit densities achievable in the hexagonal multilayer surface-trap geometries described herein for ions. Data from recent experiments in trapping neutral Rydberg atoms in small scale linear and/or square arrays indicate that on order of 20 qubits can be entangled simultaneously in a 2-D square lattice at multi-qubit gate fidelities sufficient for scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing (see e.g., M. Khazali and K. Molmer (2020)).
By integrating multiple-axis arrays of coherent photonic (e.g., laser) beams into 3-D optical trap lattices and adjusting the 3-D lattice cell shapes and spacing to optimize the number and fidelity of entangling operations between qubits across the maximum number of cells in multiple directions, certain implementations described herein advantageously provide multi-dimensional entangling geometries equivalent to those of charged atomic qubits (e.g., ions) and resembling 3-D crystal structures (e.g., a pyrochlore) of equal, and in some cases increased, complexity and processing power. For example, certain implementations described herein utilize Rydberg atoms in photonic multilayer qubit lattice arrays that advantageously enable minimized inter-qubit spacing (e.g., to less than 10 microns in a photonic trap lattice). Certain implementations described herein incorporate hexagonal multilayer lattices arrays equivalent to those described herein for ions to enable full connectivity of more than 12 simultaneously entangled qubits while enabling the addition of lattice layers (e.g., to 3, 4, 5 or more layers). These example implementations can yield the ability to entangle more qubits simultaneously. Since processing power increases exponentially with the number of qubits of substantially equivalent fidelities that can be entangled simultaneously, increasing this number from say, 12 entangled atomic qubits to 42 qubits, for a difference of 30 qubits translates to a computing power increase of 230 or over a billion-fold advantage.
Example ImplementationsCertain implementations described herein utilize multi-dimensional configurations (e.g., cells; nodes) of qubits, which can resemble 3-D crystal structures (e.g., pyrochlores). Certain implementations utilize many qubits per gate, advantageously reducing (e.g., minimizing) circuit depth, error correction, and interference mitigation. Certain implementations utilize interchangeable component cells which can advantageously enable quantum FPGA (QFPGA) and quantum ASIC (QASIC) chips.
While the physical configurations of certain implementations are described herein as using high fidelity trapped atom qubits (e.g., with low error rates), any type of qubit (e.g., naturally occurring; artificially formed) that can be entangled in multiple dimensions simultaneously with multiple other qubits can be used in accordance with certain implementations described herein. Examples of qubits compatible with certain implementations described herein include but are not limited to: subatomic particles; neutral atoms; ions; neutral molecules; charged molecules; Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs); electrons; electron holes; excitons; magnetic qubits; nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers (e.g., in diamond); phonons; photons; quantum dots; Rydberg atoms; spins in silicon; and possibly superconducting qubits. In certain implementations, the qubits are suitable to effect gate operations directly (e.g., natively), between more than two qubits in the specified configuration. For example, the physical architecture of certain implementations can advantageously provide complex gate operations directly, such as a multiply-controlled NOT or phase rotation, without resorting to serial concatenations of one- and two-qubit gates.
The trapped atom qubits utilized in certain implementations described herein, illustrate the nature of quantum interactions to be optimized. Germane figures of merit that trapped atoms exhibit include but are not limited to: (i) the fact that they are identical within a given species and therefore extensive calibration or tuning can advantageously be avoided, (ii) the ability to form qubits that have good stability and coherence times relative to their potential gate cycle times, and (iii) continued, demonstrated high fidelity gate operations as compared to competing qubit technologies. In certain implementations described herein, simultaneous multi-qubit gate operations can be enabled by atoms arrayed in 3-D geometric layouts of multiple identical, fully-connected qubits. In certain implementations, 3-D geometric layouts of fully-connected qubits can advantageously integrate more than one qubit type (e.g., employ atoms of one species for the multiple control qubits and a second atomic species as a target; employ different atomic species for neighboring cells).
Certain implementations described herein comprise multilayer qubit arrays utilizing various qubit technologies, including but not limited to: naturally occurring atoms; neutral atoms; charged atoms; ions; molecules; artificially formed atoms; Rydberg atoms; nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond; Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs); electrons; photons; quantum particles; quantum dots; phonons; transmons; quantum states that behave as quantum particles. While the figures herein depict various example multilayer qubit arrays comprising uncharged atoms (e.g., neutral atoms; Rydberg states; neutral Rydberg atoms), it is understood that these example multilayer qubit arrays are compatible with other qubit technologies as well.
In certain implementations, as schematically illustrated by
In certain implementations, the pluralities of logical qubits 110 (e.g., the first plurality of logical qubits 110a, the second plurality of logical qubits 110b, and/or the third plurality of logical qubits 110c) comprise at least one physical qubit selected from the group consisting of: naturally occurring atoms; neutral atoms; charged atoms; ions; molecules; artificially formed atoms; Rydberg atoms; nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond; Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs); electrons; photons; quantum particles; quantum dots; phonons; transmons; quantum states that behave as quantum particles. In certain implementations, the logical qubits 110 of the pluralities of logical qubits 110 (e.g., the first, second, and/or third pluralities of logical qubits 110a,b,c) are individually addressable.
In certain implementations, at least some of the logical qubits 110 (e.g., the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits 110a, the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits 110b, and/or the at least some of the third plurality of logical qubits 110c) are configured to interact directly with one another to form at least one three-dimensional (3-D) gate cell array (e.g., comprising a plurality of multiple-qubit 3-D gate cells 130) configured to undergo multiple-qubit gate operations in which more than two logical qubits 110 participate simultaneously. For example, each logical qubit 110 of a 3-D gate cell 130 can be configured to be quantum-mechanically entangled with at least one other logical qubit 110 of the 3-D gate cell 130.
In certain implementations, each first logical qubit 110a in the first planar region 120a can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) other first logical qubits 110a in the first planar region 120a. Similarly, each second logical qubit 110b in the second planar region 120b can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) other second logical qubits 110b in the second planar region 120b and each third logical qubit 110c in the third planar region 120c can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) other third logical qubits 110c in the third planar region 120c. Furthermore, each first logical qubit 110a in the first planar region 120a can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) second logical qubits 110b within the second planar region 120b, each second logical qubit 110b in the second planar region 120b can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) third logical qubits 110c within the third planar region 120c, and each third logical qubit 110c in the third planar region 120c can be configured to interact directly with some (e.g., nearest neighboring and next-nearest neighboring) second logical qubits 110b within the second planar region 120b. Although not shown in
In certain implementations, the logical qubits 110 shown in
Each of the planar regions 120a,b,c of
In certain implementations, the intraplanar nn distance d1 and the interplanar distance d2 are substantially equal to one another (e.g., less than 15 microns; in a range of 3 microns to 15 microns; in a range of 8 microns to 11 microns), while in certain other implementations, the intraplanar nn distance d1 and the interplanar distance d2 differ from one another (e.g., by a difference in a range of 1 micron to 3 microns), with either d1>d2 or d1<d2. For example, the 2-D hexagonal patterns of qubits 110 in the planar regions 120 of the systems 100 of
Other configurations of the 2-D hexagonal patterns of qubits 110 in the planar regions 120 can have different lateral offsets between the planar regions 120 (e.g., offsets parallel to the planar regions 120 such that the qubits 110 in one planar region 120 are not directly above the qubits 110 of an adjacent planar region 120; see, e.g.,
In certain implementations, as shown in
Each C20NOT/C20π gate cell 130 of
While
In certain implementations, each multiqubit gate cell 130 is formed by 21 entangled qubits 110 (e.g., as shown in
In certain implementations, the number of logical qubits 110 per gate cell 130 can be increased by increasing the number of substantially planar regions 120 and/or by extending the distance at which the logical qubits 110 can directly interact with one another. For example,
For other examples, each of
For example, as shown in
In certain implementations, the first plurality of logical qubits 110a are individually addressable and arranged in a substantially planar first optical lattice, the second plurality of logical qubits 110b are individually addressable and arranged in a substantially planar second optical lattice substantially parallel to the first optical lattice, and the third plurality of logical qubits 110c are individually addressable and arranged in a substantially planar third optical lattice substantially parallel to the second optical lattice. In certain implementations, the system 100 comprises at least one additional plurality of logical qubits 110 in at least one additional substantially planar region 120 substantially parallel to the third substantially planar region 120c, the at least one additional plurality of logical qubits 110 configured to interact with one another and/or to interact with at least some of the third plurality of logical qubits 110c, wherein the at least one additional plurality of logical qubits 110 are individually addressable. For example, the number of substantially parallel optical lattices of pluralities of qubits can further comprise a fourth optical lattice, a fifth optical lattice, a sixth optical lattice, a seventh optical lattice, and so on. The plurality of confinement regions can further comprise at least one additional confinement region arranged in at least one additional optical lattice substantially parallel to the third optical lattice, the at least one additional optical lattice comprising the at least one additional plurality of logical qubits.
For example,
In certain implementations, atomic qubits arranged in alternating columns can be in alternating planes with staggered offsets (e.g., 1/2 cell offset spacing along x or y, 1/3 cell offset spacing along x or y, 1/4×1/4 cell offset cell spacing along x and y) between adjacent planes, which can enable the formation of regular hexagonal prism configurations of fully-connected entangled atomic qubits and can enable slantwise hexagonal prism configurations as seen from certain views. For example, the intersecting trapping laser light beams 220 can form composite angles with respect to a coordinate system that can be defined as the length x and width y of a planar base (e.g., horizontal dimensions) along with height z (e.g., vertical dimension) of the example quantum computing system (e.g., a first array of trapping laser light beams 220 aligned along x-axis +18.5 degrees toward z-axis, y=0 intersecting a second array of trapping laser light beams 220 aligned at x-axis +60 deg toward y-axis, z=0) relative to a reference plane (e.g., horizontal; x-y plane) such that 3-D crossings of the intersecting trapping laser light beams 220 can be close to orthogonal. The potential wells formed between trapping laser light beams 220 can be substantially symmetric in a plane (e.g., with cross-sections that are square or diamond-shaped) when viewed at certain angles, which can create substantially uniform potential wells (e.g., saddle-shaped wells; saddle points). For example, in
While
As used herein, all directions lying in the x-y plane are defined as 0 degrees in elevation (e.g., horizontal) and the direction orthogonal to x and y (e.g., vertical) is defined as z. Further, the direction along y is defined as 0 degrees in azimuth (e.g., rotation about z), and the direction 0 degrees in azimuth, 0 degrees in elevation is expressed as (0°, 0°). For example, in certain implementations described herein, laser arrays can be oriented to intersect as shown in
The invention has been described in several non-limiting implementations. It is to be understood that the implementations are not mutually exclusive, and elements described in connection with one implementation may be combined with, rearranged, or eliminated from, other implementations in suitable ways to accomplish desired design objectives. No single feature or group of features is necessary or required for each implementation.
For purposes of summarizing the present invention, certain aspects, advantages and novel features of the present invention are described herein. It is to be understood, however, that not necessarily all such advantages may be achieved in accordance with any particular implementation. Thus, the present invention may be embodied or carried out in a manner that achieves one or more advantages without necessarily achieving other advantages as may be taught or suggested herein.
As used herein any reference to “one implementation” or “some implementations” or “an implementation” means that a particular element, feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the implementation is included in at least one implementation. The appearances of the phrase “in one implementation” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same implementation. Conditional language used herein, such as, among others, “can,” “could,” “might,” “may,” “e.g.,” and the like, unless specifically stated otherwise, or otherwise understood within the context as used, is generally intended to convey that certain implementations include, while other implementations do not include, certain features, elements and/or steps. In addition, the articles “a” or “an” or “the” as used in this application and the appended claims are to be construed to mean “one or more” or “at least one” unless specified otherwise.
Language of degree, as used herein, such as the terms “approximately,” “about,” “generally,” and “substantially,” represent a value, amount, or characteristic close to the stated value, amount, or characteristic that still performs a desired function or achieves a desired result. For example, the terms “approximately,” “about,” “generally,” and “substantially” may refer to an amount that is within ±10% of, within ±5% of, within ±2% of, within ±1% of, or within ±0.1% of the stated amount. As another example, the terms “generally parallel” and “substantially parallel” refer to a value, amount, or characteristic that departs from exactly parallel by ±10 degrees, by ±5 degrees, by ±2 degrees, by ±1 degree, or by ±0.1 degree, and the terms “generally perpendicular” and “substantially perpendicular” refer to a value, amount, or characteristic that departs from exactly perpendicular by ±10 degrees, by ±5 degrees, by ±2 degrees, by ±1 degree, or by ±0.1 degree. The ranges disclosed herein also encompass any and all overlap, sub-ranges, and combinations thereof. Language such as “up to,” “at least,” “greater than,” “less than,” “between,” and the like includes the number recited. As used herein, the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “said” includes plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein, the meaning of “in” includes “into” and “on,” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
As used herein, the terms “comprises,” “comprising,” “includes,” “including,” “has,” “having” or any other variation thereof, are open-ended terms and intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements is not necessarily limited to only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. Further, unless expressly stated to the contrary, “or” refers to an inclusive or and not to an exclusive or. For example, a condition A or B is satisfied by any one of the following: A is true (or present) and B is false (or not present), A is false (or not present) and B is true (or present), or both A and B are true (or present). As used herein, a phrase referring to “at least one of” a list of items refers to any combination of those items, including single members. As an example, “at least one of: A, B, or C” is intended to cover: A, B, C, A and B, A and C, B and C, and A, B, and C. Conjunctive language such as the phrase “at least one of X, Y and Z,” unless specifically stated otherwise, is otherwise understood with the context as used in general to convey that an item, term, etc. may be at least one of X, Y or Z. Thus, such conjunctive language is not generally intended to imply that certain implementations require at least one of X, at least one of Y, and at least one of Z to each be present.
Thus, while only certain implementations have been specifically described herein, it will be apparent that numerous modifications may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Further, acronyms are used merely to enhance the readability of the specification and claims. It should be noted that these acronyms are not intended to lessen the generality of the terms used and they should not be construed to restrict the scope of the claims to the implementations described therein.
Claims
1. A quantum computing (QC) system comprising:
- a first plurality of logical qubits in a first substantially planar region, at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits configured to interact with one another; and
- a second plurality of logical qubits in a second substantially planar region that is substantially parallel to the first substantially planar region, at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits configured to interact with one another and to interact with the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits and the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are configured to interact directly with one another to form at least one three-dimensional (3-D) gate cell array configured to undergo multiple-qubit gate operations in which more than two logical qubits participate simultaneously.
3. The system of claim 1, further comprising a third plurality of logical qubits in a third substantially planar region substantially parallel to the second substantially planar region, at least some of the third plurality of logical qubits configured to interact with one another and to interact with the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the logical qubits of the first, second, and third pluralities of logical qubits are individually addressable.
5. The system of claim 3, further comprising at least one additional plurality of logical qubits in at least one additional substantially planar region substantially parallel to the third substantially planar region, the at least one additional plurality of logical qubits configured to interact with one another and/or to interact with at least some of the third plurality of logical qubits, wherein the at least one additional plurality of logical qubits are individually addressable.
6. The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of optical beams defining a plurality of confinement regions comprising first confinement regions arranged in a substantially planar first optical lattice and second confinement regions arranged in a substantially planar second optical lattice substantially parallel to the first optical lattice, wherein the first plurality of logical qubits are in the first optical lattice and the second plurality of logical qubits are in the second optical lattice.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of confinement regions further comprises third confinement regions arranged in a substantially planar third optical lattice substantially parallel to the second optical lattice, wherein the third plurality of logical qubits are in the third optical lattice.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the plurality of confinement regions further comprises at least one additional confinement region arranged in at least one additional optical lattice substantially parallel to the third optical lattice, the at least one additional optical lattice comprising at least one additional plurality of logical qubits.
9. The system of claim 7, wherein the logical qubits of the first, second, and third pluralities of logical qubits are configured as a plurality of multiple-qubit 3-D gate cells, wherein each logical qubit of a multiple-qubit 3-D gate cell of the plurality of multiple-qubit 3-D gate cells is configured to be quantum-mechanically entangled with at least one other logical qubit of the multiple-qubit 3-D gate cell.
10. The system of claim 7, wherein the confinement regions of each of the first optical lattice, the second optical lattice, and the third optical lattice are arranged in a two-dimensional pattern that is substantially symmetric square-shaped pattern, diamond-shaped pattern, or rhombus-shaped pattern.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits are fully entangled with the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits and/or the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are fully entangled with nearest neighboring logical qubits and next-nearest neighboring logical qubits of the first plurality of logical qubits and the second plurality of logical qubits.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits and/or the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits are fully entangled with next-next-nearest neighboring logical qubits of the first plurality of logical qubits and the second plurality of logical qubits.
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the first plurality of logical qubits and/or the at least some of the second plurality of logical qubits comprise at least one physical qubit selected from the group consisting of: naturally occurring atoms; neutral atoms; charged atoms; ions; molecules; artificially formed atoms; Rydberg atoms; nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond; Bose-Einstein condensates; electrons; photons; quantum particles; quantum dots; phonons; transmons; quantum states that behave as quantum particles.
15. A quantum computing (QC) system comprising a plurality of confinement regions configured to contain logical qubits forming quantum gates in a multilayer qubit lattice array comprising more than two dimensions, the quantum gates configured to perform quantum logic operations involving three or more logical qubits natively without reliance on concatenations of one- and two-qubit gates.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein at least some of the quantum logic operations utilize two or more control qubits acting on one or more target qubits natively.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the quantum logic operations are selected from the group consisting of: singly-controlled, multiple NOT gate; Fanout gate; multiply-controlled NOT gate; Toffoli gate; super Toffoli gate; multiply-controlled phase gate.
18. The system of claim 15, further comprising electrical and optical elements configured to perform multi-qubit logic operations.
19. The system of claim 15, further comprising electrical traces, optical beam configurations, detectors, and stray light management elements configured to enable low noise addressing and read-out of individual qubits in the multilayer qubit lattice array.
20. The system of claim 15, wherein the multilayer qubit lattice array comprises multiple substantially parallel planar qubit lattice arrays.
21. The system of claim 20, wherein the multiple substantially parallel planar qubit lattice arrays comprise at least a first planar qubit lattice array and a second planar qubit lattice array, the qubits of the first planar qubit lattice array offset from the qubits of the second planar qubit lattice array along a direction substantially parallel to the first planar qubit lattice array.
22. The system of claim 21, further comprising at least one additional planar qubit lattice array comprising qubits aligned with the qubits of the first planar qubit lattice array, aligned with the qubits of the second array, or having an offset along a direction substantially parallel to the second planar qubit lattice array by a magnitude substantially equal to the offset between the first and second planar qubit lattice arrays.
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the offset between the first and second planar qubit lattice arrays enables a plurality of view angles from which each of the logical qubits is optically addressed individually and from which the states of each of the logical qubits is detected individually so as to effect multiple-qubit gate operations natively.
24. The system of claim 21, wherein the offset between the first and second planar qubit lattice arrays enables simultaneous entanglement of more qubits at a given interaction distance and within a given volume than in square and cubic lattice configurations.
Type: Application
Filed: May 6, 2022
Publication Date: Jan 18, 2024
Applicant: Kellogg Brown & Root LLC (Houston, TX)
Inventors: Peter Carl Hendrickson (Reston, VA), Jadon Daniel Erwin (Herndon, VA)
Application Number: 17/739,014
