4.8 Article

Dephasing time of GaAs electron-spin qubits coupled to a nuclear bath exceeding 200 μs

Journal

NATURE PHYSICS
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 109-113

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NPHYS1856

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ARO/IARPA
  2. Department of Defense
  3. National Science Foundation [0653336, DMR-0906475, ECS-0335765]
  4. Division Of Materials Research
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0906475] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Physics
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0653336] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Qubits, the quantum mechanical bits required for quantum computing, must retain their quantum states for times long enough to allow the information contained in them to be processed. In many types of electron-spin qubits, the primary source of information loss is decoherence due to the interaction with nuclear spins of the host lattice. For electrons in gate-defined GaAs quantum dots, spin-echo measurements have revealed coherence times of about 1 mu s at magnetic fields below 100 mT (refs 1,2). Here, we show that coherence in such devices can survive much longer, and provide a detailed understanding of the measured nuclear-spin-induced decoherence. At fields above a few hundred millitesla, the coherence time measured using a single-pulse spin echo is 30 mu s. At lower fields, the echo first collapses, but then revives at times determined by the relative Larmor precession of different nuclear species. This behaviour was recently predicted(3,4), and can, as we show, be quantitatively accounted for by a semiclassical model for the dynamics of electron and nuclear spins. Using a multiple-pulse Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill echo sequence, the decoherence time can be extended to more than 200 mu s, an improvement by two orders of magnitude compared with previous measurements(1,2,5).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available