LAS COMPUTADORAS Y LA MECANICA CUANTICA

La teoría de la computación, desarrollada por Alan Turing, alonso Church, Emil Post, y Kurt Gödel, fue
diseñada para quedar libre de cualquier cuestión relacionada con la manera en que las computaoras fueron
diseñadas. De esta manera se fundamento a la teoría de la computación como una rama de las
matemáticas puras.

FÍSICA Y COMPUTADORAS

Sin embargo alrededor de finales de 1970 , algunos cinéticos comenzaron a preguntarse sobre las posibles
conexiones entre la física y la computación, estos esfuerzos se enfocaron en entender la termodinámica de
la computación clásica, contestando ciertas preguntas como las siguientes:

-¿Cómo una energía pequeña puede ser expandida para llevar a cabo una tarea computacional particular?
- ¿Cuánto calor es disipado cuando un bit es borrado de la memoria?
- ¿Hay limites fundamentales en relación a cuánta información es procesada?

TOMANDO EL SALTO DE LA FÍSICA CUANTICA.

La física cuántica provee respuestas a tres cuestiones básicas:

-¿Cómo describes el estado de un sistema físico?
-¿Cómo cambia el estado del sistema si este no es observado?
-¿Cómo describes las observaciones y sus efectos?

CUANTIZACION: DE LOS BITS A LOS QUBITS.

Por ejemplo, a nivel cuántico, los valores de ciertas cantidades observables son restringidas a un
conjunto finito de posibilidades. El significado de esto es que, en cualquier computadora, cada bit
puede ser puesto en algún sistema físico. Los estados deben ser suficientemente estables para
asegurarse que el sistema no saltará espontáneamente de un estado representado por 0 a un estado
representado por 1. Las máquinas contemporáneas usan niveles de voltaje.

En una computadora cuántica, cada bit podría ser representado por el estado de un sistema cuántico
de 2 estados simples tal como el estado del spin de una partícula de spin -1/2. El spin de tales
partículas, cuando se mide, se encuentra siempre existiendo en uno de dos estados posibles,
representados por [+ 1/2 > (spin up) o [- 1/2 > (spin down). Esta discretización intrínseca es llamada
cuantización. Cuando el spin de una partícula es cuantizado podemos usar un estado del spin para
representar el valor binario 0, y el otro estado del spin para represntar el 1, de hecho no hay nada
especial acerca de los sistemas de spin. Cualquier sistema cuántico de 2 estados, tal como la
dirección de polarización de un fotón, o los niveles discretos de energía en un átomo excitado,
podrían trabajar igualmente bien.

Una vez que se tiene un camino para codificar los valores binarios 0 y 1 en los estados de un sistema
físico, podemos empezar a investigar las ventajas o desventajas de estos sistemas físicos.

VECTORES DE ESTADO Y NOTACIÓN DE DIRAC

Cómo podemos describir el estado de los sistemas cuánticos, tal como las partículas de spin -1/2
matemáticamente?
En la física cuántica, el estado de un sistema cuántico es descrito por un vector en un espacio de
Hilbert. Un espacio matemático es sólo un camino fácil de decir que algo, en este caso las
representaciones de un estado físico, depende de muchas coordenadas independientes que pueden ser
dibujadas en particular como ejes perpendiculares. Los ejes corresponden a los posibles estados en
donde el sistema físico puede ser encontrado. Estos posibles estados son llamados "eigenstates". La
proyecciones de el vector sobre los ejes muestran las contribuciones de cada eigenstate sobre todo el
estado, menos como los componentes de un vector clásico en un espacio ordinario euclideo. Podemos
dibujar una figura como la Fig. 2 como una ayuda para visualizar como estado del vector podría
verse.

No se deberían interpretar estas imágenes de manera muy literal, debido a que el espacio matemático
de Hilbert es un "Espacio vectorial complejo". Ya que es imposible dibujar una línea que tenga un
valor o longitud imaginaria, la figura anterior simplemente muestra una aproximación o un hint de la
estructura de un auténtico espacio de Hilbert.

Los vectores de estado son usualmente escritos usando una notación de corchete angular llamado
"ket vector". La palabra "ket" fue escogida por Paul Dirac, el famoso físico Británico, que buscaba
una notación corta para escribir la fórmula de alcance en mecánica cuántica. Muchas de estas
fórmulas son productos de vectores columna con un vector columna relacionado (un vector de
estado). Dirac escribió estos productos usando una notación de corchetes.

Puedes pensar en la notación vectorial ket análoga a la notación vectorial, donde se especifican a los
vectores en negritas. Un vector de estado es solamente una instancia particular del un ket vector.
Como los vectores ordinarios, los vectores de estado son especificados por una particular elección de
los vectores básicos (los eigenestados) y un particular conjunto de números complejos,
correspondiente a las amplitudes con las que cada eigenestado contribuye al vector de estado
completo. Consecuentemente, tal sistema tiene dos eigenestados, y de aquí su vector de estado tiene
exactamente dos componentes.

Entonces podemos escribir el estado como:

Donde son números complejos y los eigenestados forman una base completamente ortohgonal
para el vector estado. Entonces podemos decir que cualquier vector de estado en el espacio de Hilbert
puede ser representado como una suma de . los eigenestados entonces, definen un sistema de ejes en
el espacio de Hilbert, de manera similar a los vectores unitarios que forman un sistema de ejes para el
espacio euclideo.

Una vez conocido el vector de estado , el valor esperado de cualquier atributo observable del
sistema puede ser calculado. El vector de estado contiene una información completa acerca del
sistema asociado. Esto es similar a la física clásica en donde el estado completo es determinado una
vez que las funciones dependientes del tiempo son conocidas. Algunos físicos como stephen hawking

SUPERPOSICIÓN

Esta habilidad de los sistemas cuánticos de existir en una mezcla de todos sus estados permitidos
simultáneamente, menos el existente en solo un estado permitido en un momento, es llamado el
principio de superposición.

Para obtener un sentimiento más intuitivo, es útil dibujar el estado de los dos sistemas cuánticos, tal
es usado para codificar un quantum bit (o qubit), como el vector contenido en la esfera.

Fig. 3.3 Un qubit puede ser visualizado como un vector contenido en una esfera

El ángulo que este vector forma con el eje vertical esta relacionado con las contribuciones relativas
de psi0 y psi1 eigenestados a todo el estado. El ángulo dentro del cual es rotado el vector con relación
al eje x corresponde a la "fase". Los factores de fase no afecta las contribuciones relativas de los
eigenestados a todo el estado pero ellos tienen crucial importancia en los también llamados efectos
cuanticos de interferencia. Estos estados pueden tener diferentes amplitudes debido a los diferentes
factores de fase.
 Quantum Computers:
What are they and what do they mean to us?
White Paper
by
Alan Cline
Carolla Development

1. Introduction
Scientists have pondered the eventuality of the quantum computer since 1980 when
quantum theory was applied to the classical Turing machine. Not only can quantum
computers run one billion times faster than typical silicon-based computers, but also
theoretically, they can run and consume no energy. That being true, quantum computers
could obsolete the silicon chip much as the transistor did the vacuum tube.
Consequently, silicon chip and computer manufacturers, the U.S. government, and
Japan are directing huge sums of money for quantum computer research.
This paper provides an overview of the quantum computing world, and how the dawn of
the quantum computer will affect the computing industry. We discuss how quantum
computers originated, the inevitability of their use, and how they differ from classical
computers. We use the principles of superposition, entanglement, and quantum
teleportation as examples, and provide an overview of the NMR-type quantum
computer (produced as a prototype at MIT in 1989) at the end of our discussion.
This paper is intended for the general reader, and explains basic quantum computer
features, and the paradoxical effects quantum theory produces in a practical world.
This author has not built nor operated a quantum computer, and so he relies heavily on
scientific literature. The single book published on the topic is “Explorations in
Quantum Computing”, by Colin Williams and Scott Clearwater.

2. Inevitability of Quantum Computers

As technology rushes forward, several factors work together to push us toward the
quantum computing world, and push aside classical silicon-based chips. These factors
are:
 Scaling in size

 Energy consumption

 Economics of building leading-edge computers

 New quantum computer applications that cannot be executed by classical computers

At today’s rate of chip miniaturization, energy efficiency, and economics, the classical computer of the
year 2020 (if it could happen at all), would contain a CPU running at 40 GHz (or 40,000 MHz), with 160
Gb (160,000 MB) RAM, and would run on 40 watts of power.

2.1 Scaling
Our computing world is surrounded by breath-taking innovations; many of them
involve more powerful and smaller chips. Chip capacity doubles every 18 months
according to Moore’s Law, but chip size remains constant. Additionally, the number of
transistors on a single chip is rising exponentially. Keyes (Williams & Clearwater,
1998) extrapolates that if miniaturization continues at today’s rate, a single atom will
represent a bit by the year 2020. This trend inevitably leads us into the micoworld of
quantum effects, where classical rules no longer apply.

2.2 Energy
Chip speed is rising exponentially. Faster, more densely packed, and
closer transistors cause thermodynamic problems. Advances in energy
efficiency are required to keep the chips from melting during use.
Fortunately, energy efficiencies are increasing, and the thermodynamic
problems are being resolved. These energy advances are also pushing the
physics of chips into the quantum realm.
Quantum computers are reversible, and thus have no net energy
consumption. Quantum reversibility implies that quantum computers
drive themselves forward in infinitesimal (reversible) steps, much the
same way that molecules of perfume diffuse from a perfume bottle.
Quantum computer programs are not “run”, but are said to “evolve,” as
they process a program’s inputs to outputs. Incidentally, reversibility also
means that the inputs of a quantum computer can be implied from the
outputs; the program can be run backward to get the inputs.
The argument for energy inevitability is a “carrot-and-stick” argument:
the energy inefficiencies drive us away from classical computers and the
appeal for energy-free (or at least, reduced energy consumption)
computing drives us toward quantum computers.
2.3 Economics
In addition to the energy factors at the computing micro level, large-scale
economic factors push us to a more energy-efficient means of
computing: five percent of our country’s entire power production is
consumed by computing machinery (Malone95). With “fossil fuels
continuing to dwindle, fission power in disfavor with the public, and
fusion power still many decades away, the drain computers impose on
our power supply could become significant .” (Williams & Clearwater,
p12)
Additionally, the cost to build a semiconductor plant doubles every three
years. Extrapolate that trend to the year 2020, and a semiconductor plant
will cost $1 trillion to build—five percent of the U.S. GNP. Based on
Motorola’s sales figures, a similar company would need $10 trillion in
annual sales to support construction at that level.
Japan, in its bid for software and hardware global dominance has
allocated large funds for quantum computer research. A Hewlett-Packard
V.P., reported that the Japanese is performing 70 percent of all quantum
computer research (ACM Conference 1997). The country has included
quantum computers as an integrated step of their global acquisition
strategy.
2.4 New Applications
2.4.1 Encryption Technology
The speed of quantum computing jeopardizes encryption schemes
that rely on impracticably long times to decrypt by brute force
methods. Encryption schemes that take millions of years to guess and
check are now vulnerable to quantum computers that could reach a
solution within a year. Many governments, including the U.S., use
such encryption schemes for national security. The government is
very interested in any technology that puts that at risk. As a result, the
Office of Naval Research, the CIA, and DARPA, are sinking large
sums of money into quantum computer research. DARPA is funding
$5 million for a Quantum Information and Computing Institute, and
the CIA is funding an unknown amount for factoring of large integers,
a fundamental part of encryption technology.

2.4.2 Ultra-secure and Super-dense Communications

It is possible to transmit information without a signal path by using a
newly-discovered quantum principle called quantum teleportation.
With this method of transmission, one cannot possibly intercept the
path and extract information. Ultra-secure communication is also
possible by super-dense information coding, a new technology in its
own right. Quantum bits can be used to communicate more
information per bit than the same number of classical bits.

2.4.3 Improved Error Correction and Error Detection

Through similar processes that support ultra-secure and
super-dense communications, existing bit streams can be
made more robust and secure improving error correction
and detection. Recovering information from a noisy
transmission path will be lucrative and useful.
2.4.4 Molecular Simulations
In 1982, Richard Feynman demonstrated that classical
computers couldn’t simulate quantum effects without
exponential slowing; a quantum computer can simulate
physical processes of quantum effects in real time.
Molecular simulations of chemical interactions will allow
chemists and pharmacists to learn more about how their
products interact. Further, they will be able to determine
how their products interact with biological processes; how
a drug may interact with a person’s metabolism or
disease. Pharmaceutical research offers a big market to
such applications.
2.4.5 True Randomness
Classical computers cannot generate true random
numbers. Classical computers’ random number generators
are pseudo-random generators—there is always a cycle or
a trend, however subtle. Pseudo-random generators
 cannot simulate natural random processes accurately for
some applications, and cannot reproduce certain random
effects. Quantum computers can generate true
randomness, thus give more veracity to programs that
need true randomness in their processing. Randomness
plays a significant part of applications with a heavy
reliance on statistical approaches, for simulations, for
code making, randomized algorithms for problem solving,
and for stock market predictions, to name a few.
With the global forces of computer competition,
encryption technology for national security, new
applications, and the thermodynamics of computer
systems changing as they are, the scientific community is
rushing to produce the first viable quantum computer. The
world is moving toward a place that no classical computer
has gone before, nor can go.
3. History
Quantum theory arose with Max Planck’s discovery of the energy quantum (Nobel
Prize, 1918), and Einstein’s discovery of the photon (Nobel Prize, 1921). We might
trace the invention of the modern computer to 1956, when Bardeen’s and Brattain’s won
the Nobel Prize for inventing the transistor. The idea of a quantum computer originated
in 1980 when P. Benioff thought about the now classic Turing machine (developed in
1935 by Alan Turing) in terms of quantum states. Whereas the conventional Turing
machine computes by punching holes in a linear strip of paper, the Benioff’s Quantum
Turing Machine (QTM) has strips of paper with multiple paths, each one with a
probability of traversal. The QTM has exponentially many paths, not all equally
probable, but all possible.
Two years later, Richard Feynman showed that because of these diverse paths, a
classical computer would slow exponentially while attempting to traverse an
exponentially growing number of paths. That is, a classical computer could not simulate
quantum processes. Berthiaume & Brassard proved in 1994 that QTMs are theoretically
faster than Turing machines, part due to the parallelism of quantum computing; Shor
demonstrated this in 1994 by factoring large integers in polynomial time. Shor’s
algorithm was the first significant problem solved by a quantum approach to excel
classical computers.
In 1996, Grover showed a quantum algorithm to search unsorted databases in the square
root of the time it would take a classical computer to find an entry. It is said that to
search for a name in the entire text of the Library of Congress would take a classical
computer about 100 years. A quantum computer, however, could find that name in
under a half-second. Grover’s algorithm and the law of super-positioning makes this
possible. (Super-positioning is discussed later in this paper.) (Science News Online,
6/14/97) ("What is a Quantum Phone Book?”, Lucent Technologies)
The Turing machine, designed around a machine traversing a strip of paper, is hard to
use as a focus to manipulate new ideas in programming and electronics. In 1993, Yao
showed that the same effect could be accomplished with quantum circuits. Quantum
circuits are equivalent to digital logic circuits, but use quantum principles. Classical
circuits use Boolean logic, either state 0 or 1 for inputs and outputs. Quantum circuits
use these states simultaneously—the inputs of a quantum circuit are both 0 and 1.
These algorithms were constructed and proved in theory, but in June 1998, Gershenfeld
and Chuang built the first quantum computer at MIT. It was based on the principles of
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). Other types of quantum computers may be built,
but NMR it is characteristic in that it uses molecules in a liquid CPU of chloroform for
logic gates. The prototype is discussed later in this paper.(Gershenfeld and Chuang,
Scientific American)
In December 1998, Anton Zeilinger was able to teleport a beam of light about three
feet across his laboratory. He did this using a principle called quantum entanglement,
both of which are explained later in this paper. (“Science, Magic, and Quantum
Computers”, Green) (“The Innsbruck Experiment”, Scientific American December 22,
1997) (Hall, Scientific American)

4. What is Different About Quantum Computers?

While many differences exist between quantum and classical computers, this paper
addresses only two:
 Superpositioning to support the explanation of quantum circuits

 Entanglement to support the explanation of quantum teleportation

4.1 Superpositioning
Superpositioning implies that two things can overlap without interfering with
one-another. In classical computers, electrons cannot occupy the same space at
the same time, but as waves they can.

4.1.1 Superposition in waves

Figure 1 illustrates two superimposed waves A and B.

If we add these waves together numerically, S = A + B, the result is a

wave that looks like neither of its components. However, we could
retrieve either wave by subtracting out the other, as shown. (The wave
form S, is shown as dotted to indicate that it is only the apparent wave
form; the actual wave form is the combination of two different waves. In
the quantum world, the combined waveform is a set of amplitude
probabilities.)
4.1.2 Superposition in link list pointers
For a programming-specific example, let’s look at a data structure called
a linked list. Each data node in the list contains a reference, or pointer, to
the next data node. The program traverses the list by jumping to the next
data node indicated by the pointer. In a doubly linked list, the data node
contains two pointers, one for traversing to the top of the list, and another
for traversing to the bottom of the list.
Another way of implementing a doubly linked list is to use a single
pointer space containing the exclusive-or (XOR) or the two adjacent
 pointers. Figure 2 shows a link list node with pointer S that is the XOR
of reference A (before) and reference B( after). To traverse the link list
upward, the program XORs the current pointer (S) with the one it just
left (B), and the result is the pointer of the next node (A). The same
process works when traversing down the list. The superpositioning of
node pointers is analogous to the water wave superposition example we
just used, and is how the quantum states are maintained simultaneously
in a quantum bit.

4.2 State Vectors

A state vector is the superpositioning of all the probabilities that a quantum bit may find itself in.
These probabilities are not all equal. One may think of this as a vector of the probabilities drawn
in a two-dimensional coordinate system of the Complex plane. That is, coordinates of the form
x+iy, where x is a coordinate on the Real number line, and y is a coordinate on the Imaginary
number line.

Classical bits are either vectors of 0 or 1, and have no Imaginary component.

Quantum bits, called “qubits”, have both components. If the probabilities are
equal, the vector can be represented as 45 degrees from vertical; if the
probability of 1 is twice that of 0, the vector can be represented as 30 degrees
from vertical. This vector represents the superposition of the probability of 1
and the probability of 0 simultaneously. In this way, the state vectors of classical
bits are “collapsed” qubit state vectors.
It is important to note that any physical quantity expressed by an imaginary
number cannot be measured directly, and any physical quantity expressed by a
complex number can be measured only on its real number component. Thus,
qubits cannot be measured directly. Any measurement of a qubit breaks
superposition and collapses its state vector to a classical bit, just as subtracting a
component wave or XOR’ing a pointer, produces a different result. In
performing computation with qubits, it is important not to measure the qubits
until the final answer is computed; otherwise, the information can be lost or
changed.
5. Quantum Circuits
5.1 The Square-Root-NOT Gate
Williams and Clearwater provide an excellent example of a quantum circuit that cannot
be explained in classical physics terms. It also illustrates the principle of quantum
circuits and superpositioning. They have termed the gate the Square-Root-NOT gate, in
contrast to the classical NOT gate.

The classical NOT gate takes either a 0 or 1 input and converts it to a 1

or 0 output respectively. It is a reversible gate in that the input may be
deduced from the input. The quantum circuit symbol for the NOT gate is
shown in Figure 3 (top).
Now imagine another logic circuit that is also reversible, but contains
two gates in series such that the input of either a 0 or 1 is converted to a
1 or 0 output respectively. Because the two-gate circuit is reversible like
the NOT gate, and inverts the input exactly like the NOT gate, each gate
is called a Square-Root-NOT gate (see Figure 3, bottom). There is no
way classical gates can perform this logic. It can be done as a quantum
circuit.
 A quantum circuit has two important differences. First, the input is a
qubit, and contains the superposition of both 1 and 0, and the output is
also the superposition of both 1 and 0, but with the probabilities
reversed. Second, the output of the first gate, halfway through the circuit,
is in an unknown state; it has a calculable state vector, but one that
cannot be measured directly.
5.2 The Universal Gate XOR
A universal gate can be used to produce all circuits. Both classical and
quantum computers have a universal gate: the XOR gate. Any circuit can
be made with only this gate. Of course, the circuit might be awkward,
but it will work. Let it suffice for now that quantum circuits can be built,
at least on paper, with similar tools available for classical circuits, and
one may construct a logic circuit to do what one wants. The XOR gate
has a naturally occurring counterpart that comes into play when building
quantum computers, which will be discussed in the section on the NMR
prototype.
6. Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation
6.1 EPR Paradox and Hidden Variables
The quantum property of entanglement has an interesting history. Einstein, who claimed
that “God does not play dice with the universe” used the property of entanglement in
1935 in an attempt to prove that quantum theory was incomplete.

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolski, and Nathan Rosen knew the state
vectors of certain quantum systems were correlated, or entangled with
each other. By changing the state vector of one system, we
instantaneously change the corresponding state vector of the other
system. This happens independently of the medium through which the
communicating signal travels. Since nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light, how can one system (arbitrarily far apart) affect the other?
Einstein called this a “spooky action at a distance.” It required a
philosophy of reality contrary to science as they (Einstein and his
counterparts) knew it. Einstein preferred the idea that some unknown or
hidden variables contributed to the effect, and since they weren’t known,
then quantum theory was incomplete.
In 1964, John Bell proved that no hidden variables existed (Bell’s
Theorem). This implied that spooky action at a distance was a fact. In
1982, Alan Aspect performed an experiment in which he showed that
Bells’ Theorem had experimental validity. Either some faster-than-light
speed communication occurred, or some other mechanism was at work.
This basic concept has made all the difference between classical ideas of
reality and quantum ideas of reality.
Throughout previous history, all physical phenomenon depended on
some force, and a particle to carry that force. Therefore, the speed of
light restriction applied. For example, an electron carries electrostatic
forces, a graviton, etc carry gravitational forces. However, with
entanglement, quantum systems are correlated in a way that does not
involve a force, and the speed of light restriction does not apply. The
mechanism by which one system affects the other is yet unknown.
6.2 Collapse of the State Vector
When two quantum systems are created while conserving some property,
their state vectors are correlated, or entangled. For example, when two
photons are created, and their spin conserved, as it must, one photon has
a spin of 1 and a spin of -1. By measuring one of the photon’s state
vectors, the state vector collapses into a knowable state. Instantaneously
and automatically, the state vector of the other photon collapses into the
other knowable state. When one photon’s spin is found to be 1, the other
photon’s spin of -1 immediately becomes known too. There are no forces
involved and no explanation of the mechanism.
6.3 Quantum Teleportation
The principle of entanglement enables quantum teleportation. This does
not involve moving an entity from one physical location to another (like
many popular science fiction stories). This kind of teleportation involves
destruction of the original and recreation of an identical duplicate at
another location.
6.3.1 Brassard’s Theoretical Circuit
In 1996, Gilles Brassard conceived of a quantum circuit that could
create and entangle two pairs of qubits, where one is entangled with
two others. Figure 4 shows Brassard’s quantum circuit. In general:

 Alice’s circuit entangles three bits (M, A, and B), and

transmits M to Bob.

 Using knowledge from M, Bob’s circuit produces a replica

of bit B.

 The instantaneous result on B, by measuring M, is

effectively a teleportation of qubit B.

For purposes of discussion, the gates marked L, R, S, and T, are

referred to as:
L = left-rotation
R = right-rotation
S = forward-phase shift gates
T = backward-phase shift gates

The XOR gate is shown as a circumscribed cross. These

gates can cause entanglement when qubits are put through
them.
The conceptual circuit works like this:
1. Two classical bits, M and A, are entered into the circuit at
line 1 (bottom input) and line 2 (middle input) where A is
rotated left, and its output is XOR’d with M.

The output lines 1 and 2 will have identical,

entangled qubit states.
The output of line 1 (qubit M, called the
“messenger”) is sent to Bob in a standard, classical
 way.

2. Another bit B with any state (or unknown state) is entered

into the circuit at line 3 (top input) which is XOR’d from the
middle line and right rotated.

The output line 3 produces qubit B, now entangled

with both M and A.
Alice can now measure the qubits from output
lines 2 and 3, which will collapse the state vectors
to produce two classical bits. The measurement
also affects the state of qubit M. Alice sends the
results of the states she measured to Bob, again in
a classical way.

3. Bob creates two classical bits B’ and A’, with the same state
(not the same bits) as told to him by Alice, and inputs these
bits into his circuit’s input lines 2 and 3.

Qubit M, received from Alice (partially affected

by Alice’s measurements, and the classical bits B’
and A’) will go through Bob’s circuit and
disentangle M.
Output line 1 will produce a qubit with the
identical state vector as the original bit B. By
being disentangled, the input M will in effect
“become” the original B.
The original qubit B was not magically transferred
through space. It was recreated from a different
bit M; only the state vector information was
transferred through space, when Alice told Bob the
states of the qubits A and B that she measured.
6.3.2 Zeilinger’s Experimental Circuit
Figure 5 shows Zelinger's diagram of how he set up his teleportation
device at the University of Austria at Innsbruck. This diagram shows
the physical counterpart to Brassard’s theoretical circuit described
above.

1. At the sending station of the quantum teleporter, Alice

encodes a messenger photon (M) with a specific state: 45
degrees of polarization. This travels toward a beam splitter.

2. Meanwhile, two additional entangled photons (A and B) are

created. The polarization of each photon is in a fuzzy,
undetermined state, yet the two photons have a precisely
defined interrelationship. Specifically, they must have
complementary polarization. For example, if photon A is
 later measured to have horizontal (0 degrees) polarization,
then the other photon must collapse into the complementary
state of vertical (90 degrees) polarization.

3. Entangled photon A arrives at the beam splitter at the same

time as the message photon M. The beam splitter causes
each photon to either continue toward detector 1 or change
course and travel to detector 2.

4. In 25 percent of all cases, when two photons go in different

directions, Alice does not know which photon went to which
detector. This inability for Alice to distinguish between the
two photons induces quantum weirdness. By the very fact
that the two photons are now indistinguishable, the M
photon loses its original identity and becomes entangled with
A.

5. The polarization value for each photon is now indeterminate,

but since they travel toward different detectors, Alice knows
that the two photons must have complementary
polarizations.

Since message photon M must have

complementary polarizations to photon A, then the
other entangled photon (B) must now attain the
same polarization value as M. Therefore,
teleportation is successful. Indeed, Bob sees that
the polarization value of photon B is 45 degrees:
the initial value of the message photon.
7. The NMR Chloroform Prototype
Although quantum computers were predicted some years ago, the engineering obstacles
were considered prohibitive. Additionally, quantum computers were not expected to be
produced, even in prototype, until the year 2025. Despite predictions, Gershenfeld and
Chuang at MIT built the first prototype in the summer of 1998 . (Gershenfeld and
Chuang, Scientific American) Although there are many quantum computer designs,
Gershenfeld and Chuang chose one based on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
principles.
7.1 Basic design
In a NMR-type quantum computer, the atoms are used as qubits. Also, Gershenfeld and
Chuang chose a liquid CPU containing two ounces of chloroform. The carbon-hydrogen
atoms of chloroform each act as XOR gates, or in the jargon of quantum computers,
controlled-NOT gates. The atoms are programmed through a sequence of radio pulses,
and the answer is read through standard NMR detection techniques. The CPU is a two-
bit “circuit” with about 1023 molecules. Each atom has a two-spin state, a chemical
spin and an atomic spin. The two spin types used together provide 2-bits, and when
used in conjunction with the other atom of the molecule, the molecule provides an
effective XOR gate.

Each atom acts like a bar magnetic when in an external magnetic field,
the atoms aligning parallel (spin 1) or antiparallel (spin 0) to the field.
 Using a radio pulse, the atoms can be made to flip between states. This is
the atom’s so-called chemical spin.
An atom’s atomic spin causes it to precess in the magnetic field.
Depending on its chemical spin alignment, it will rotate clockwise or
counter-clockwise, much like a gyroscope.
7.2 Controlled-NOT Gate
The Controlled-NOT gate is a better description of the XOR gate
because it is a two-bit gate where one input controls the inversion
property of the other input. Call one input line the Control, and the other
input line the NOT input. The NOT function works only if the Control
line is set. Any input to the NOT line is ignored if the Control is not set.
The truth table below is for the Controlled-NOT gate. Recall that the
XOR gate, or the Controlled-NOT gate,. is a universal gate, and therefore
any circuit can be made from just this one kind of gate.
LINE (Control) (NOT)
1 LINE 2 OUTPUT
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

Figure 6 diagrams of how a controlled-NOT gate works at the atomic level. The nature
of the molecule works for the quantum computer because the chemical spin has slightly
more energy in one alignment than the other. The hydrogen atom works like the control
input, and the carbon acts like the NOT input. If the carbon is parallel aligned (spin 1)
with the magnetic field, then a properly tuned radio signal can cause it to flip to be
aligned antiparallel (spin 0) if the hydrogen is in the aligned position (state 1). If the
hydrogen atom is in state spin 0, then the carbon will not flip states even with the radio
pulse. (Similarly, the carbon atom can be flipped from state 0 to state 1 when hydrogen
is in state 1.)

Two radio pulses are required to affect a carbon state transition, one for
precessing and one for alignment. In this way, the quantum computer
sends a programmed series of radio pulses at the molecules to set and
reset the various bits of the “molecular registers”. In contrast to the
classical computer, which sends bits through gates to perform
computation, the quantum computer sends the gates at the qubits to
perform computation.
By throwing a programmed set of radio pulses at the molecules, and the
numerous quantum gates within, Gershenfeld and Chuang implemented
Grover’s search algorithm to select a marked item in an unsorted list of
items. Their quantum computer performed the equivalent of opening a
two-number combination padlock and in few number of average tries
than a classical computer would need.

8. Conclusion
This paper is meant to be an overview of the marvelous ideas of quantum computing, its
concepts, and how quantum theory allows technological jumps in the computer industry
that will revolutionize the practical computing world. Quantum computes are coming,
and they will require a new way of looking at computing. Applications that can not be
done now are easily possible with quantum computers. The spin-off concepts, like
quantum teleportation, open vistas only imagined before. Computer science is still
immature for its barely 80 years, and this radical divergence from the traditional
development path is one indicator that. Who knows what the next 870 years will bring?

Figure 1. Superposition in water waves back to text

Figure 2. Superposition in Link Lists back to text
Figure 3. NOT Gate and Square-Root-NOT Gates back to text
Figure 4. Brassard’s Teleportation Circuit back to text
(after Wilson & Clearwater, 1998)
Figure 5. Zeilinger’s Experimental Teleportation Circuit back to text
References
 As reported by Williams & Clearwater, “Explorations in Quantum Computing”, Springer-Verlag,
1998.

 Malone95, as reported by Williams & Clearwater.

 Williams & Clearwater, p12

 ACM Conference 1997, VP of Hewlett-Packard, see Proceedings

 Divide and Conquer on Quantum Computers”, Science News Online (6/14/97), , I. Peterson,
www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_14_97/fob3.htm

 “What is a Quantum Phone Book?”, Lucent Technologies,

www.lucent.com/ideas2/innovations/docs/quantumphonebook.html

 “Quantum Computing with Molecules”, Neil Gershenfeld and Isaac Chuang, Scientific
American, June, 1998. Also on website www.sciam.com/1998/0698issue/0698gershenfeld.html

 “Science, Magic, and Quantum Computers”, D. Ellis Green, as reported from Nature, December
11, 1997. Green’s article appears online at www.midrangecomputing.com/cbe/98/980204.htm
 “The Innsbruck Experiment”, Scientific American December 22, 1997,
www.sciam.com/explorations/122297/teleport/test.htm

 “Beam Me Up”, Alan Hall, Scientific American

www.sciam.com/explorations/122297/teleport/test.htm

 “Quantum Computing with Molecules”, Neil Gershenfeld and Isaac Chuang, Scientific
American, June, 1998; also at www.sciam.com/1998/0698issue/0698gershenfeld.html
Copyright © 1999 by Carolla Development, Inc. All rights reserved.