4.7 Review

Experimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions

期刊

REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
卷 75, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/75/2/024401

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max-Planck-Institut fur Quantenoptik (MPQ)
  2. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG)
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SCHA 973/1-6]
  4. European Commission [249958]
  5. QUITEMAD
  6. RyC [Y200200074]
  7. MICINN [FIS2009-10061]
  8. Ignacio Cirac
  9. Gerhard Rempe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct experimental access to some of the most intriguing quantum phenomena is not granted due to the lack of precise control of the relevant parameters in their naturally intricate environment. Their simulation on conventional computers is impossible, since quantum behaviour arising with superposition states or entanglement is not efficiently translatable into the classical language. However, one could gain deeper insight into complex quantum dynamics by experimentally simulating the quantum behaviour of interest in another quantum system, where the relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and robust effects detected sufficiently well. Systems of trapped ions provide unique control of both the internal (electronic) and external (motional) degrees of freedom. The mutual Coulomb interaction between the ions allows for large interaction strengths at comparatively large mutual ion distances enabling individual control and readout. Systems of trapped ions therefore exhibit a prominent system in several physical disciplines, for example, quantum information processing or metrology. Here, we will give an overview of different trapping techniques of ions as well as implementations for coherent manipulation of their quantum states and discuss the related theoretical basics. We then report on the experimental and theoretical progress in simulating quantum many-body physics with trapped ions and present current approaches for scaling up to more ions and more-dimensional systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据