4.6 Article

Effect of micromotion and local stress in quantum simulations with trapped ions in optical tweezers

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 106, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.042612

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Research Council
  2. Dutch Research Council (NWO/OCW) , as part of the Quantum Software Consortium program
  3. [680.91.120]
  4. [680.92.18.05]
  5. [VI.C.202.051]
  6. [024.003.037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the feasibility of using optical tweezers to control interactions in trapped-ion quantum simulators in the presence of experimental imperfections. The research finds that the effects of micromotion can be easily overcome through the optimization of tweezer patterns, and additional tuning flexibility from local stress on spin-spin interactions is negligible.
The ability to program and control interactions provides the key to implementing large-scale quantum simulation and computation in trapped-ion systems. Adding optical tweezers, which can tune the phonon spectrum and thus modify the phonon-mediated spin-spin interaction, was recently proposed as a way of programing quantum simulators for a broader range of spin models [Arias Espinoza et al., Phys. Rev. A 104, 013302 (2021)]. In this work we study the robustness of our findings in the presence of experimental imperfections: micromotion, local stress, and intensity noise. We show that the effects of micromotion can be easily circumvented when designing and optimizing tweezer patterns to generate a target interaction. Furthermore, while local stress, whereby the tweezers apply small forces on individual ions, may appear to enable further tuning of the spin-spin interactions, any additional flexibility is negligible. We conclude that optical tweezers are a useful method for controlling interactions in trapped-ion quantum simulators in the presence of micromotion and imperfections in the tweezer alignment, but require intensity stabilization on the subpercent level.

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

4.6
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