The present disclosure relates generally to the field of qubit manufacturing for quantum computing, and more specifically to programming the frequency of a qubit post fabrication.
In quantum computing, a qubit or quantum bit is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical bit. A qubit is a two-state quantum-mechanical system. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other. However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property that is fundamental to quantum computing.
A Mach-Zehnder switch is an electro-optic 2×2 switch based on an integrated Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The switching between the ports is achieved by an electro-optic effect within such structure. Voltage, applied to the electrodes deposited on the integrated Mach-Zehnder interferometer, creates an electric field distribution within the substrate, which consequently changes its refractive index. If properly designed, the induced change in the refractive index leads to different coupling between individual ports.
An embodiment includes a method and device for forming a multi-qubit chip. The method includes forming a plurality of qubits on a chip, where each qubit comprises a Josephson junction. The method includes annealing one or more Josephson junctions. Annealing is performed by one or more of a plurality of laser discharge structures on a planar lightwave circuit. Each of the laser discharge structures is located above each qubit.
The drawings included in the present disclosure are incorporated into, and form part of, the specification. They illustrate embodiments of the present disclosure and, along with the description, serve to explain the principles of the disclosure. The drawings are only illustrative of certain embodiments and do not limit the disclosure.
Elements of the figures are not necessarily to scale and are not intended to portray specific parameters of the invention. For clarity and ease of illustration, dimensions of elements may be exaggerated. The detailed description should be consulted for accurate dimensions. The drawings are intended to depict only typical embodiments of the invention, and therefore should not be considered as limiting the scope of the invention. In the drawings, like numbering represents like elements.
Example embodiments now will be described more fully herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which example embodiments are shown. This disclosure may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the example embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these example embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete and will convey the scope of this disclosure to those skilled in the art. In the description, details of well-known features and techniques may be omitted to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the presented embodiments.
For purposes of the description hereinafter, terms such as “upper”, “lower”, “right”, “left”, “vertical”, “horizontal”, “top”, “bottom”, and derivatives thereof shall relate to the disclosed structures and methods, as oriented in the drawing figures. Terms such as “above”, “overlying”, “atop”, “on top”, “positioned on” or “positioned atop” mean that a first element, such as a first structure, is present on a second element, such as a second structure, wherein intervening elements, such as an interface structure may be present between the first element and the second element. The term “direct contact” means that a first element, such as a first structure, and a second element, such as a second structure, are connected without any intermediary conducting, insulating or semiconductor layers at the interface of the two elements. The term substantially, or substantially similar, refer to instances in which the difference in length, height, or orientation convey no practical difference between the definite recitation (e.g. the phrase sans the substantially similar term), and the substantially similar variations. In one embodiment, substantial (and its derivatives) denote a difference by a generally accepted engineering or manufacturing tolerance for similar devices, up to, for example, 10% deviation in value or 10° deviation in angle.
In the interest of not obscuring the presentation of embodiments of the present invention, in the following detailed description, some processing steps or operations that are known in the art may have been combined together for presentation and for illustration purposes and in some instances, may have not been described in detail. In other instances, some processing steps or operations that are known in the art may not be described at all. It should be understood that the following description is rather focused on the distinctive features or elements of various embodiments of the present invention.
Multi-qubit chips are employed in creating quantum computing systems. However, each additional qubit added to a chip adds to the design complexity of the chip, as a qubit may have quantum interactions with other proximate qubits, based on their resonance frequency. Such behavior constitutes a failure mode known as a “frequency collision.” Frequency collisions can be predicted by modeling of the quantum-mechanical system. A non-limiting example of frequency collision happens when the resonance frequency of two proximate qubits are similar (e.g., when the frequency of one qubit equals the frequency of another qubit). In order to achieve high performance, it is desirable to be able to set the frequency of each qubit very precisely. Traditionally, adjustable magnetic fields have been used to shift the frequency of qubits, but the necessary tuning circuits tend to introduce noise and add extra complexity within a multi-qubit system.
In example embodiments of the present invention, the qubit includes the following properties: during measurement, the qubit is projected into one of two different states (|A or |B). Read-out occurs while the two states |A and |B are stable, after which the qubit decoheres. The readout resonator attains a resonance frequency based upon the state of the projected qubit.
The projected state of the qubit can be inferred based on the readout resonator frequency, which can be determined based on the reflection or transmission coefficient of the readout resonator. This can be accomplished through various techniques. In an example technique, a microwave signal is applied to the input of the circuit and is tuned to a frequency approximately equal to the resonance frequency of one of the post measurement quasi-stable states in accordance with one example embodiment. When the qubit is projected into the measured state, the applied microwave signal either transmits to the output or is reflected by the readout resonator, depending on the coupling of the qubit to the transmission lines. Therefore, depending on the qubit state, the microwave signal will acquire a specific magnitude and phase. The determination of the qubit state from this signal can be done in a variety of ways, for example, using IQ mixers, threshold detectors and so forth. Other various methods for measuring frequency or state may be used as well.
In some cases, additional amplifiers such as SQUID amplifiers or HEMT amplifiers may be required as well as room temperature microwave electronics such as IQ mixers, and so forth.
Referring now to
As a result, the resonance frequencies of the qubit range approximately between a few hundred MHz up to about 20 GHz. The coupling capacitor 310 of the qubit can be engineered for high fidelity readout. The qubit described in this example embodiment is also known as a single-junction transmon qubit. Such a qubit is not susceptible to tuning using a magnetic field and its resonance frequency is therefore fixed by the parameters of the capacitor and junction formed at the time of fabrication. Other embodiments may utilize a qubit of another type (e.g., a phase qubit, a charge qubit). In other embodiments, two or more Josephson junctions arranged as series or parallel circuit elements may substitute for the single Josephson junction 302 depicted in
Referring now to
In the example embodiment depicted in
In the example embodiment depicted in
Referring to
Referring to
Still referring to
In some embodiments, the annealing pattern 522 may be less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter, which may be the size of the beam spot of the thermal source 520 being applied to the Josephson junction 402 (e.g., a laser beam may have a 10 micron diameter). The annealing pattern 522 may be applied with the thermal source 520 depicted in
Referring to
Referring to
As a result of the fabrication process, for a given set of fabrication conditions the qubits 510 formed may have consistent dimensions (e.g. size and shape of capacitive plates 504, area and thickness of Josephson junction 502). Therefore, the appearance of qubit 510A, qubit 510B, qubit 510C, and qubit 510D may be substantially similar, thereby forming qubits with substantially uniform capacitance across the device. However, in the formation of the Josephson junctions 502, uncontrolled variables at the nanometer scale may introduce a random variation among the resistances of a group of qubits which in all other respects are identical. If the qubits are single junction transmon qubits, then a +/−2% variation in the resistance of the Josephson junctions 502 will cause a −/30 1% variation in the frequencies of the qubits.
Additionally, qubits 510 may be any other structure that requires annealing. For example, qubits 510 may be Josephson junctions between contact pads, which are configured for electrical testing of the resistance of the Josephson junction. By annealing many Josephson junctions on a chip and subsequently measuring the corresponding resistance changes, this information can be used to populate a database of resistance changes (or frequency changes, for qubits) used as input for determining annealing conditions for other junctions (or qubits).
Referring to
Still referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
In an example embodiment, a planar lightwave circuit having one or more laser discharge structures may be affixed, directly or indirectly, to a substrate having one or more qubits. The one or more laser discharge structures may be aligned with the one or more Josephson junctions of the one or more qubits, such that the laser discharge structure emits a laser beam capable of annealing the Josephson junction in order to change the resistance of the Josephson junction, and thereby changing the frequency of the resulting qubit. The planar lightwave circuit may be attached directly to the substrate, or may be attached to an intermediate structure located between the substrate and the planar lightwave circuit. In an embodiment, an intermediate structure may include wiring, resonators, or any other structures for the qubit, and may include an optically transparent structure located between the laser discharge structure and the qubit. The laser discharge structure may ultimately be powered by an optical fiber carrying the desired wavelength and intensity of light. The optical fiber may transmit the light to a mode converter, which may then feed the light to the laser discharge structure, or alternatively may feed the light to a Mach Zehnder switch, which may select a desired path for the light to take (e.g. select which of 2 laser discharge structure to power).
The descriptions of the various embodiments of the present invention have been presented for purposes of illustration, but are not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the embodiments disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the described embodiments. The terminology used herein was chosen to best explain the principles of the embodiment, the practical application or technical improvement over technologies found in the marketplace, or to enable other of ordinary skill in the art to understand the embodiments disclosed herein. It is therefore intended that the present invention not be limited to the exact forms and details described and illustrated but fall within the scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4163156 | Daetwyler | Jul 1979 | A |
4220959 | Kroger | Sep 1980 | A |
4490901 | Clark | Jan 1985 | A |
4535219 | Sliwa, Jr. | Aug 1985 | A |
6218214 | Panchou | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6232212 | Degani | May 2001 | B1 |
6495915 | Hsieh | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6630723 | Hedler | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6999652 | Mino | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002166 | Jamieson | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7122837 | Linares | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7176066 | Brenner | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7343059 | Beausoleil | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7394268 | Bertin | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7411187 | Monroe | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7466725 | Ichimura | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7679166 | Anderson | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7899092 | Malinovsky | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7977668 | Nevirkovets et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8054072 | Ichimura | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8111083 | Pesetski | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8148715 | Hollenberg | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8329556 | Yuan | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8440471 | Ranjan | May 2013 | B2 |
8816325 | Schenkel | Aug 2014 | B2 |
9054298 | Zhou | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9082637 | Taylor | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9208280 | Bocharov | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9219298 | Abraham et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9350460 | Paik | May 2016 | B2 |
9355362 | Shea | May 2016 | B2 |
9443200 | Schroff | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9524470 | Chow | Dec 2016 | B1 |
9599904 | Schubert | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9607271 | Papile | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9647662 | Abutaleb | May 2017 | B1 |
9858531 | Monroe | Jan 2018 | B1 |
10134972 | Oliver | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10170681 | Rosenblatt | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10340438 | Rosenblatt | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10355193 | Rosenblatt | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10359272 | Mower | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10418540 | Orcutt | Sep 2019 | B2 |
10423888 | Hertzberg et al. | Sep 2019 | B1 |
20020074544 | Sung | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20030193097 | Il Ichev | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20050074220 | Rey | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050170572 | Hongo | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20070272669 | Comley | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080258049 | Kuzmich | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090041243 | Nambu | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090057652 | Nevirkovets | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20130003188 | Andreasch | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130029848 | Gonzalez | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130119351 | Shea | May 2013 | A1 |
20130258595 | Tuckerman | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140328116 | Guo | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150021726 | Min | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150310350 | Niskanen | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150316598 | Rogge | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160292586 | Rigetti | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160321558 | Nakamura | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160343934 | Chang | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160344414 | Naaman | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170001900 | Marjanovic | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170059964 | Nakamura | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170072504 | Abraham | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170076787 | Frank | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170077382 | Abraham | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170177534 | Mohseni | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20180012932 | Oliver | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180013052 | Oliver et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180102469 | Das | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180102470 | Das | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180267250 | Hosseini | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180337790 | Brink et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180356597 | Spector | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190051810 | Brink et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190165238 | Rosenblatt | May 2019 | A1 |
20190165241 | Rosenblatt | May 2019 | A1 |
20190165243 | Orcutt | May 2019 | A1 |
20190165244 | Hertzberg | May 2019 | A1 |
20190165246 | Rosenblatt | May 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102009033566 | Jan 2011 | DE |
2202545 | Jun 2010 | EP |
3198655 | Aug 2001 | JP |
2007193778 | Aug 2007 | JP |
9822985 | May 1998 | WO |
20171055241 | Apr 2017 | WO |
2017075246 | May 2017 | WO |
2017131831 | Aug 2017 | WO |
2019105715 | Jun 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
IBM: List of IBM Patents or Patent Applications Treated as Related (Appendix P), Jul. 30, 2019, 2 pages. |
Pavlovic, “Relating toy models of quantum computation: comprehension, complementarity and dagger mix autonomous categories”, arXiv:1006.1011v1 [quant-ph] Jun. 5, 2010, 21 pages. |
Wu Yu-Lin et al., “Fabrication of Al/Alox/Ai Josephson junctions and superconducting quantum circuits by shawdow evaporation and a dynamic oxidation process”, 2013 Chines Phys. B vol. 22, No. 6 (2014), pp. 060309-1-060309-5. |
Baek et al., “Thermal stability of Nb/a-NbxSi 1-x/Nb Josephson junctions”, Physical review B 75, 2007, The American Physical Society, pp. 054514-1-054514-6. |
Braslau et al, “Fabrication of Planar Josephson Junctions by Laser Irradiation”, An IP.com Prior Art Database Technical Disclosure, Original Publication Date: Apr. 1, 1976, IP.com No. IPCOM000085574D, IP.com Electronic Publication Date: Mar. 2, 2005, 2 pages. |
Chen et al. “Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling.” Physical review letters 113.22 (2014): 220502, abstract, 5 pgs. |
Duocastella et al., “Bessel and annual beams for materials processing,” Laser Photonics Rev. 6, No. 5, 607-621 (2012), DOI 10.1002/Ipor.201100031. |
Gilabert et al., “Photoinduced enhancement of the Josephson effect in YBaCuO grain boundary junctions,” Journal of Low Temperature Physics, Feb. 1997, vol. 106, Issue 3, pp. 255-264. |
Granata et al., “Induced change of critical current density profile in Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb Josephson junctions,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 507 (2014) 042046, 5 pgs. |
Granata et al., “Localized laser trimming of critical current in niobium based Josephson devices,” App. Phys. Lett. 90, 232503 (2007), doi: 10.1063/1.2746060, 4 pgs. |
Granata et al., “Spatial modulation of critical current density in niobium based Josephson junctions induced by selective heating,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 222603 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4809737, 5 pgs. |
Granata et al., “Trimming of Critical Current in Niobium Josephson Devices by Laser Annealing”, 8th European Conference on Applied Superconductivity (EUCAS 2007), Journal of Physics: Conferences Series 97 (2008), Copyright 2008, 6 Pages, IOP Publishing. |
Hadden et al., “Waveguide-coupled single NV in diamond enabled by femtosecond laser writing”, Apr. 7, 2010, 5 Pages, Institute for Quantum Science and Technology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. |
Hutchings et al. “Tunable Superconducting Qubits with Flux-Independent Coherence.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02253 (2017), pp. 1-17. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/EP2018/080736, 10 pgs., dated Mar. 6, 2019. |
Kamal et al., “Improved superconducting qubit coherence with high-temperature substrate annealing”, arXiv:1606.09262v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] Jun. 29, 2016, pp. 1-10. |
Knoernschild et al., “Independent individual addressing of multiple neutral atom qubits with a micromirror-based beam steering system”, Applied Physics Letters 97, Sep. 2010, 3 Pages, Copyright 2010 American Institute of Physics. |
Lagoudakis et al., “Initialization of a spin qubit in a site-controlled nanowire quantum dot”, New Journal of Physics, 2016, 8 Pages, Published in a partnership with Deutsche Physlakalsche Gesellschaft and the Institute of Physics, IOP Science, Canada. |
Lee et al., “3D Stacked Flip Chip Packaging with Through Silicon Vias and Copper Plating or Conductive Adhesive Filling”, 2005 Electronic Components and Technology Conference, Copyright 2005 IEEE, 7 pages. |
Mehta et al., “Integrated Optical Adressing of an ion quibit”, Nature Nanotechnology, Dec. 2016, pp. 1066-1070, Copyright 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited, Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. |
Mount et al., “Single qubit manipulation in a microfabricated surface electrode ion trap,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 15, Sep. 2013, 17 pgs. |
Notification of Transmittal of The International Search Report and The Written Opinion of The International Searching Authority, or the Declaration, dated Jan. 30, 2019, International application No. PCT/EP2018/080735, 16 pages. |
Pavolotsky et al., “Aging-and annealing-induced variations in Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb tunnel junction properties”, Journal of Applied Physics 109, 2011, pp. 024502-1-024502-5. |
Pop et al., “Fabrication of stable and reproducible sub-micron tunnel junctions”, May 31, 2011, 4 pages. |
Rioux et al., “Linear, annular, and radial focusing with axicons and applications to laser machining”, Applied Optics, vol. 17, Issue 10, pp. 1532-1536 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.17.001532, Abstract Only. |
Rodin et al., “High Throughput Low CoO Industrial Laser Drilling Tool”, Research Gate, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Jul. 2008, 7 pages. |
Saffman, “Quantum Computing with Atomic Qubits and Rydberg Interactions: Progress and Challenges”, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, May 17, 2016, 25 Pages, OP Publishing Ltd., Copyright 2016, UK. |
Shim et al., “Bottom-up superconducting and Josephson junction devices inside a Group-IV semiconductor,” Nature Communications, 5, 4225 (2014), arXiv:1309.0015v3, 9 pgs. |
Wale, “Self Aligned, Flip Chip Assembly of Photonic Devices with Electrical and Optical Connections”, Electronic Components and Technology Conference, 1990, IEEE, 8 pages. |
Brink et al., “Device challenges for near term superconducting quantum processors: frequency collisions”, © 2018 IEEE, IEDM18-126, pp. 6.1.1-6.13. |
Chamberland et al., “Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits”, arXiv:1907.09528v1 [quant-ph] Jul. 22, 2019, pp. 1-20. |
Hutchings et al., “Tunable Superconducting Qubits with Flux-Independent Coherence”, arXiv:1702.02253v2 [cond-mat.supr-con] Feb. 21, 2017, pp. 1-17. |
Magesan et al., “Effective Hamiltonian models of the cross-resonance gate”, arXiv:1804.04073v2 [quant-ph] Feb. 25, 2019, pp. 1-16. |
Cambridge University Press, “Quantum Error Correction”, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Quantum_Error_Correction/XV9sAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0, Published Sep. 12, 2013, 2 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190348595 A1 | Nov 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15824438 | Nov 2017 | US |
Child | 16520490 | US |