Quick Navigation

Topics

Superconducting Qubits

Saving superconducting quantum processors from qubit decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays

arXiv
Authors: John M. Martinis

Year

2020

Paper ID

18516

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

120

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Error-corrected quantum computers can only work if errors are small and uncorrelated. Here I show how cosmic rays or stray background radiation affects superconducting qubits by modeling the phonon to electron/quasiparticle down-conversion physics. For present designs, the model predicts about 57% of the radiation energy breaks Cooper pairs into quasiparticles, which then vigorously suppress the qubit energy relaxation time $T1 sim$ 160 ns over a large area (cm) and for a long time (ms). Such large and correlated decay kills error correction. Using this quantitative model, I show how this energy can be channeled away from the qubit so that this error mechanism can be reduced by many orders of magnitude. I also comment on how this affects other solid-state qubits.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Superconducting Qubits research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Error-corrected quantum computers can only work if errors are small and uncorrelated.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #18516 #69595 Tantalum as a base material for... #69543 Quantum Information Geometry of... #69536 Quantum Algorithm for Open-Syst... #69534 Readout-Induced Leakage in Supe...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.