4 thoughts on “APS March Meeting 2007 slides

  1. Geordie

    So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn’t you then test whether your system was superposed or not by measuring your system in an orthogonal basis ? Which by the way bring up a another question. Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?

    If none of my comments make sense i’ll try to post again when im more coherent during regular waking hours.

    Chris

  2. Hi Chris,

    “So does slide 10 basically show your system was in a superposition right until measurement or could naysayers also say it could be explained by your system evolving along to separate paths up until measurement?”

    It’s the latter. The algorithm we use always has the system in a classical bit state by the time readout is performed. When the readouts are thrown the system is in one or the other classical states by construction. The fact that the two theoretically degenerate solutions are each obtained roughly 50% of the time is evidence that the control we have over the machine language parameters is pretty good.

    “Does your system have a good measureable orthogonal basis?”

    Our system’s measurement basis is fixed. We measure the direction of magnetic flux threading the qubits.

  3. Geordie,

    Great slides. What questions were asked at the presentation? Any interesting comments?

    BTW the slides are acronym heavy which decreases readability. I have attempted to define all of them but please double check.

    AFM – anti-ferromagnetic
    CJJ – complementary Josephson junction
    JPL – Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    MRT – macroscopic resonant tunneling
    NN – nearest neighbor
    NNN – next nearest neighbor

  4. Re acronym heaviness: Yeah that’s one of the unfortunate side-effects of only having 10 minutes to do the presentation!

    There were some good questions after the talk, generally related to AQC and how we were characterizing the performance of the processor in regards to its QM behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s