* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Simulating Charge Stability Diagrams for Double and Triple
Atomic orbital wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Atomic theory wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot cellular automaton wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Electron configuration wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Simulating Charge Stability Diagrams for Double and Triple Quantum Dot Systems Ian E. Powell (Dated: September 2, 2014) Abstract We recreate Sandia National Laboratories’ double quantum dot charge stability diagram simulation using their rate equation approach and compare our simulation’s results to some touchstone situations as well as their results. We find qualitative agreement between charge stability diagrams and extend the code to construct the charge stability diagram for a triple dot structure. We note how the triple dot charge stability diagrams change as the third gate voltage is increased. 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Quantum Computing in Solid State Quantum Dots The field of quantum computing has received a great deal of attention in the physics community due to its exciting prospective applications and recent progress made in constructing systems with characteristics that allow for the formation of so called “qubits.” A qubit, short for quantum bit, represents a two-level, quantum mechanical system. Canonical examples of a qubit are a photon’s polarization–be it linearly horizontal or linearly vertical–or an electron’s spin state–where down and up, or horizontal and vertical correspond to 0 and 1 in terms of binary. The difference, between a qubit and a classical bit is the qubit’s ability to be in both 0 and 1 simultaneously–a superposition of up and down for the example of the electron’s spin. It is this property of superposition, along with something called quantum entanglement, that differentiates quantum computing from its classical counterpart. David Divincezo of IBM famously constructed a list of requirements to construct quantum computer. The “DiVincenzo Criteria” are: (1) the system must have a large number of well defined qubits, (2) initialization to a known state for the system must be easily performed, (3) a universal set of quantum logic gates must be developed, (4) qubit-specific measurements must be able to be performed, (5) and long coherence times must exist for the qubits in the system1 –where coherence time describes how long a quantum state can exist on average before being perturbed, and, in turn, altered by the environment. Many different types of systems show promise in fulfilling said criteria–for example, superconducting systems have shown promise in quantum information processing due to the ease of fabricating larger systems. Cold neutral atom systems’ qubits have some of the longest coherence times–offering promise for storing information for longer periods of time. Solid-state systems in which spin states of electrons or nuclei represent the qubits have serious promise in their scalability, due to extensive research done on the miniaturizing of semiconductors for computing. This summer I worked on researching a solid state system–namely quantum dots–for quantum computing purposes. A quantum dot is generally any 3-D potential well, but in the context of solid-state physics it is a structure made of semiconducting material that is small enough to exhibit quantum mechanical phenomena. The dot’s bound states of electron and electron-hole, or 2 excitons, are confined in all three spatial dimensions. The electronic properties of a single dot, its discrete energy levels etc., are akin to that of an atom–hence the nickname for a quantum dot is “artificial atom.” When another dot is introduced into the system and there exists a strong, coherent, in-phase tunneling of electrons between the two dots, the system behaves similar to a covalently bonded molecule. We utilize double and triple quantum dots which have been fashioned onto a Si-SiO2 heterostructure as our means for quantum computing; for a schematic of a GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure see Fig. I. FIG. 1. Schematic of a GaAs-AlGaAs heterostructure taken from [2]. At the interface between the two different materials a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) forms. To further confine the other two dimensions of motion we apply voltages to the gates to create potential wells and trap some target number of electrons. We utilize a quantum point contact (QPC) to determine the current through the dots and, in turn, the occupancy of each dot. This is due to the fact that the QPC has a systematically varying conductance as the occupation of the dots varies. The QPC, as opposed to some ammeter, has the advantage of measuring the current of electrons through the dots indirectly–thereby not perturbing our system of qubits, and thus not destroying any information stored in our system. There are two different types of qubits that are viable for double dot systems–spin qubits and charge qubits. The bases for a double dot system’s spin qubits are the singlet and triplet states–i.e. (S = 0, Sz = 0) = |0i, (S = 1, Sz = 0) = |1i. The bases for the charge qubits are based on electron occupation of the dots–for example (0,1) occupancy could be |0i whereas 3 (1,0) would be |1i–for a helpful visualization of the wave function of our system written in terms of our qubit bases see Fig. II. For the triple dot system we utilize the Heisenberg FIG. 2. The “Bloch Sphere” visualization of a qubit’s wave function. interaction and the “singlet” and “triplet-like” states as our bases–where, for example, |0i = |Si |↑i, |1i = (2/3)1/2 |T+ i |↓i - (1/3)1/2 |T0 i |↑i3 . For a given dot structure a charge stability diagram, or a “honeycomb diagram,” can be formed–telling us at which gate voltages what electron occupancy is favored. To construct this diagram we first model our double or triple dot as a system of capacitors and then follow a rate-equation approach developed by a group working at Sandia National Laboratories highlighted in the next section. Honeycomb diagrams have very distinct characteristics for different sets of system parameters. For example, in a perfectly uncoupled double dot–in the sense that the mutual capacitance between the dots → 0–we would expect a pattern of rectangles to be formed in our stability plot. In a perfectly coupled system such that the capacitance of each dot equals the mutual capacitance we would expect rectangles again, however, now they would be symmetric about the Vg1 = Vg2 line where Vg1(g2) is the gate voltage on dot 1(2)–for a visualization of these stability diagrams see Fig. III. We recreate these figures–(a) → (c)–and others shown in Sandia National Laboratories’ paper4 to show that we have successfully recreated Sandia’s simulation and continue to discuss how we extended it for use in a triple dot system. 4 FIG. 3. Different honeycomb diagrams for select cases of system parameters taken from [5]. B. Sandia’s Paper The Paper written by Sandia Nation laboratories which we follow discusses a double quantum dot structure that they extract biasing triangles from–structures that form in honeycomb diagrams when a biasing voltage is present–and model using their rate equation approach. With this model they can identify how different tunneling imbalances and temperatures affect a charge stability diagram–namely how edges may be obfuscated or shifted. Some of the figures from their paper are shown in the Results section below–highlighting how different relative tunneling rates can alter the honeycomb diagram significantly. 5 II. THEORY A. Energy Of a Double Dot The energy of a double dot modeled by a system of capacitors is 1 U = V~ · CV~ , 2 (1) where V~ is the voltage vector and C is the capacitance matrix. To find V~ we write the total charge in each dot as the charge accumulated on each capacitor connected to the dot Q1 = CL (V1 − VL ) + Cg1 (V1 − Vg1 ) + Cm (V1 − V2 ) + Cg21 (V1 − Vg2 ) (2) Q2 = CR (V2 − VR ) + Cg2 (V2 − Vg2 ) + Cm (V2 − V1 ) + Cg12 (V2 − Vg1 ), (3) where Q1(2) is the charge on dot 1(2), V1(2) is the voltage of dot 1(2), C1(2) is the capacitance of dot 1(2), Cm is the mutual capacitance between dots, VL − VR is the bias voltage across the system, and Cg21(g12) is the cross capacitance between gate 2(1) and dot 1(2)–for a circuit diagram of the system see Fig. IV. We rewrite this in terms of the capacitance matrix and FIG. 4. Capacitor model for a double dot with cross-gate capacitances. voltage vector where Q1 + CL VL + Cg1 Vg1 + Cg21 Vg2 Q2 + CR VR + Cg2 Vg2 + Cg12 Vg1 C= C1 −Cm −Cm C2 6 = C V1 V2 , (4) . (5) We now invert our capacitance matrix, and write our charge in terms of the occupancy of each dot–N1(2) , with Q1(2) = −|e|N1(2) –to find our voltage vector in terms of our capacitances C C −|e|N + C V + C V + C V V1 1 1 L L g1 g1 g21 g2 2 m × . = (6) 2 C C − C 1 2 m Cm C1 −|e|N2 + CR VR + Cg2 Vg2 + Cg12 Vg1 V2 We rewrite Equation (1) as 1 1 U = C1 V12 + C2 V22 − Cm V1 V2 , 2 2 (7) and plug in our values of V1 and V2 found using Equation (6) to find the electrochemical potential of our double dot system. B. Energy Of a Triple Dot We model our triple dot as a system of capacitors as we did with our double dot–see Fig. V. Accounting for our charge as we did with the double dot we yield FIG. 5. Capacitor model for a double dot with cross-gate capacitances. Q + CL VL + Cg1 Vg1 + Cg21 Vg2 V 1 1 Q2 + Cg2 Vg2 + Cg12 Vg1 + Cg32 Vg3 = C V2 , Q3 + CR VR + Cg3 Vg3 + Cg23 Vg2 V3 where our capacitance matrix is now given by C1 −Cm1 0 C = −Cm1 C2 −Cm2 . 0 −Cm2 C3 7 (8) (9) We invert our capacitance matrix to find V~ as we did with the double dot, and utilize Equation (1) to find our electrochemical potential expression 1 1 1 U = C1 V12 + C2 V22 + C3 V32 − Cm1 V1 V2 − Cm2 V2 V3 . 2 2 2 (10) We do assume in our model that there is negligible coupling between dots 1 and 3; this is a reasonable assumption for some structures but not all. In the case that the coupling isn’t negligible we would add terms to the capacitance matrix in Equation (9) and the charging terms in Equation (8) as necessary. C. Rate Equation Approach To construct the charge stability diagram of a double or triple dot we utilize a rate equation approach as highlighted in Sandia National Labs’ Paper. For a dot system in state a we write the transition amplitude from state a to state b as Γab = tab f (U (a) − U (b)), (11) where tab is the tunneling rate between state a and state b, f is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, and U is the electrochemical potential of the system. For our simulation we consider only single electron transitions between state a to b. To understand how the probability of being in state a, Pa , changes with respect to time we construct the rate equation X dPa X = Γka Pk − Γak Pa . dt k6=a k (12) The positive term accounts for all ways our system in some other state k may transition to state a, and the negative term accounts for all ways our system in state a may transition to some other state k in a time step dt. To find the steady-state solution we set Equation (9) equal to 0 and construct the matrix equation MP~ = 0, where Mab = Γba , a 6= b − P Γak , a = b, k thus our probability vector, P~ , can be found by finding the nullspace of our M matrix. 8 (13) We then find the average occupancy of our dots via the weighted sum N̄ = X Pk Nk , (14) k where Nk is the number of electrons in each dot in state k. To visualize our charge stability diagram we then take the total derivative of our occupancy with respect to our gate voltages and make a grey-scale contour plot. Alternatively we can also visualize the honeycomb by plotting the probabilities where they are ≈ .5. D. The Algorithm For the algorithm, we chose to iterate over situations where the system state can go from a to b via a single electron. We construct a n × n matrix where n = number of states the system can be in with a maximum number of electrons present. Utilizing a bit of statistics we find that n = (N 0 + E)!/(E!N 0 !), where N 0 is the number of dots in our system, and E is the allowed maximum number of electrons in our system. The algorithm goes as the following: Iterating over the gate voltages, we choose an initial occupancy and find the transition amplitudes from that state to all other states; we store these transition amplitudes in our n×n matrix and repeat this for all other possible occupancies thereby yielding the probability vector P~ –via the null space of this M–and thus the occupation associated with the system associated with the gate voltage configuration. We store each probability vector and each dot occupation for each voltage configuration until we have iterated over all chosen gate voltages. The code for the double dot simulation can be found in The Appendix. 9 III. A. RESULTS Double Dot We first recreate Fig. III (a) and (b) with arbitrary parameters and units using 3600 pixels in each plot shown–see Fig. VI and VII. FIG. 6. Perfectly uncoupled system with a maximum of two electrons. FIG. 7. Imperfectly coupled system with a maximum of three electrons. Fig. 6 appears how we would expect it to–the diagonal line that separates the (1,1) and (0,2) states is due to the fact that there are a maximum of two electrons in the system at one time. Fig. 7 shows a reasonable structure as well with the formation of triple dots as seen in Fig. III (b). 10 We now recreate Sandia’s figures with their listed values, the tunneling rates between source and left dot, left dot and right dot, and right dot and drain are listed as tL : tm : tR ; our plots’ axis are in units of volts–see Fig. VIII and Fig. IX. FIG. 8. Simulation comparison using Sandia’s system parameters for tunneling rates 0.01 : 1 : 0.1 FIG. 9. Simulation comparison using Sandia’s system parameters with tunneling rates listed as 1 : 1 : 1. Both our results and Sandia’s are in qualitative agreement as both exhibit similar structure, however an in depth quantitative comparison is yet to be done. One considerable disagreement is that all of our structures are a factor of 10 larger than those in the Sandia paper–this is likely due to a units issue that has eluded us or them. 11 B. Triple Dot Using Sandia’s original values for the first two dots and C3 = 55 aF, Cg3 = 1.7 aF, Cg32 = 1.1 aF, Cg23 = 1.3 aF for the third dot, with no biasing voltage present, we create two probability plots to highlight the structural change of the honeycomb diagram as Vg3 increases from 5 mV to 10 mV. The tunneling rates between source and left dot, left dot and middle dot, middle dot and right dot, and right dot and drain are listed as tL : tcl : tcr : tR –see Fig. X and Fig. XI. FIG. 10. Honeycomb Diagram at Vg3 = 5 mV and T = .15K, with tunneling rates 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 12 FIG. 11. Honeycomb Diagram at Vg3 = 10 mV and T = .15K, with tunneling rates 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 As Vg3 increases the pattern is shifted upwards and to the left as it becomes less likely that our system would have a lower occupation as we would expect. IV. CONCLUSION We recreated Sandia National Laboratories’ double quantum dot charge stability diagram simulation and compared our simulation’s results to their results qualitatively. When compared, we found agreement between the charge stability diagrams’ geometries and extended the code to simulate triple dot structures with weak dot 1-dot 3 couplings. Our results for the triple dot were sensible and we plan to use the simulation to model charge stability diagrams of devices we have made and use in the lab. 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Professor Hong-Wen Jiang for mentoring me while I worked on this project during my stay at UCLA, Blake Freeman and Joshua Schoenfield for all of their useful discussions and guidance, and the NSF. V. APPENDIX iterations = 40 #total iterations = iterations squared Vg1_max=.06 Vg1_min=0. Vg2_max=.06 Vg2_min=0. dV=(Vg1_max-Vg1_min)/iterations print dV V_0=0 #initialize #tunneling factors tS = 1. #tunneling from source to left dot tM = 1. #tunneling from left dot to right dot tD = .0 #tunneling from right dot to drain T=1e-4 #Solve linear system. #Double Dot, 2 electrons N1_0=0. #starting number in dot 1 N2_0=0. # starting number in dot 2 14 Vgate_1=[] #Gate voltage lists Vgate_2=[] elec=4. #max electrons in system Gamma_array=np.zeros((500,500)) N_list=[] #initializing the list of states q=0 #counter r=0 #counter Master_G_array=[] for l in range(iterations+1): for k in range(iterations+1): q=0 #counter #counter N1_0=0. #starting number in dot 1 N2_0=0. # starting number in dot 2 Gamma_array=np.zeros((500,500))#initialize every iteration inv_array=np.zeros((500,500)) for g in range(int(elec)+1):#changing configuration for h in range(int(elec)+1): r=0 q+=1 for i in range(int(elec)+1): #scanning over transitions for a particular configuration for j in range(int(elec)+1): r+=1 # print r if (g+h<=elec and i+j<=elec): #Avoid iterating over situations where there are more than max electrons 15 N_list.append([g,h]) #Criteria for an acceptable transition of one electron if (((i!=g or j!=h) and (abs(g-i)+ abs(h-j)))<=elec and (abs(g+h-i-j)<=1)): #Tunneling direction logic in next if statements if (i<g and h==j): Gamma_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_out(tS,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_out_inv(tS,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) if (g==i and h<j): Gamma_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma(tD,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_inv(tD,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) if (h<j and g>i): Gamma_array[q-1[r-1]= Gamma(tM,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_inv(tM,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) if (g<i and h>j): Gamma_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma(tM,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_inv(tM,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) if (h==j and i>g): Gamma_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_in(tS,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_in_inv(tS,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) if (j<h and g==i): Gamma_array[q-1][r-1]= 16 Gamma(tD,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) inv_array[q-1][r-1]= Gamma_inv(tD,g,h,i,j,l*dV,k*dV,T) else: None else: None else: None if g==elec: break else: None Count_Deletes=0 #Deleting the extra trivial rows for i in range(len(Gamma_array[0])): if np.all(np.zeros(len(Gamma_array))-(Gamma_array[:,i-Count_Deletes])==0) and np.all(np.zeros(len(Gamma_array))-(Gamma_array[i-Count_Deletes])==0): Gamma_array=np.delete(Gamma_array,(i-Count_Deletes),axis=1) #Delete Column Gamma_array=np.delete(Gamma_array,(i-Count_Deletes),axis=0) #Delete Row (square matrix) inv_array=np.delete(inv_array,(i-Count_Deletes),axis=1) #Delete Column inv_array=np.delete(inv_array,(i-Count_Deletes),axis=0) #Delete Row (square matrix) Count_Deletes+=1 else: None 17 for m in range(len(Gamma_array)): for n in range(len(Gamma_array)): if (m==n): Gamma_array[m][n]+=-sum(inv_array[m]) Master_G_array.append(Gamma_array) Vgate_1.append(l*dV+Vg1_min) Vgate_2.append(k*dV+Vg2_min) print l*dV 1 David P. DiVincenzo, IBM (2000-04-13). “The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation”. 2 R. Hanson et.al., “Spins in few-electron quantum dots” Reviews of Modern Physics. 79, OctoberDecember 2007. 3 DiVincenzo et.al., “Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction” Letters to Nature, 2000. 4 Khoi T. Nguyen et.al., “Charge Sensed Pauli Blockade in a Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Lateral Double Quantum Dot” Nano Letters. 13 75, 5785-5790, 2013. 5 W.G. van der Wiel et.al., “Electron transport through double quantum dots” Reviews of Modern Physics. 75, January 2003. 18