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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.