Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Scaling Trapped Ion Quantum Computers Using Fast Gates and Microtraps

arXiv
Authors: Alexander K. Ratcliffe, Richard L. Taylor, André R. R. Carvalho, Joseph J. Hope

Year

2017

Paper ID

25066

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

122

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Most attempts to produce a scalable quantum information processing platform based on ion traps have focused on the shuttling of ions in segmented traps. We show that an architecture based on an array of microtraps with fast gates will outperform architectures based on ion shuttling. This system requires higher power lasers, but does not require the manipulation of potentials or shuttling of ions. This improves optical access, reduces the complexity of the trap, and reduces the number of conductive surfaces close to the ions. The use of fast gates also removes limitations on gate time. The performance of the gates is shown to be robust to the limitations in laser repetition rate and the presence of many ions in the trap array.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Most attempts to produce a scalable quantum information processing platform based on ion traps have focused on the shuttling of ions in segmented traps.

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 #25066

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.