text:
# Correlated quantum measurement of a solid-state qubit

## Abstract

We propose a solid-state experiment to study the process of continuous quantum measurement of a qubit state. The experiment would verify that an individual qubit stays coherent during the process of measurement (in contrast to the gradual decoherence of the ensemble-averaged density matrix) thus confirming the possibility of the qubit purification by continuous measurement. The experiment can be realized using quantum dots, single-electron transistors, or SQUIDs.

preprint: draft

The impressive advantages promised by quantum computing  have revived the interest to the fundamental quantum effects in simple objects: two-level systems, which in this context are nowadays called qubits. In this paper we address the problem of continuous measurement of a qubit state having in mind a solid-state realization of the setup.

Among the numerous proposals of quantum computers, the solid-state realizations (see, e.g. Refs. ) look more promising because of better controllability of qubit parameters and inter-qubit couplings. However, the qubit measurement in this case is not as straightforward as in typical optical experiments where the single photon just “clicks” the detector. The reason is finite (and typically weak) coupling with a solid-state detector and finite intrinsic noise of the detector. As a result, the measurement cannot be done instantaneously, and so the collapse postulate of the “orthodox” quantum mechanics  cannot be applied directly. Instead, the quantum measurement should be considered as a continuous process.

There are two main theoretical approaches to the continuous quantum measurements. One approach (which dominates in solid-state physics and so can be called “conventional”) is based on the theory of interaction with dissipative environment . Taking trace over the numerous degrees of freedom of the detector, it is possible to obtain the gradual evolution of the density matrix of the measured system from the pure initial state to the incoherent statistical mixture, thus describing the measurement process. Since the procedure implies the averaging over the ensemble, the final equations of this formalism are deterministic and can be derived from the Schrödinger equation alone, without any notion of the state collapse.

The other approach (see, e.g., Refs. ) is closer to the collapse viewpoint and describes the stochastic evolution of an individual quantum system due to continuous measurement. This evolution obviously depends on a particular measurement result and is usually called selective or conditional quantum evolution. Depending on the details of the studied measurement setup and applied formalism, different authors  discuss quantum trajectories, quantum state diffusion, stochastic evolution of the wavefunction, quantum jumps, stochastic Schrödinger equation, complex Hamiltonian, method of restricted path integral, Bayesian formalism, etc. The theory of selective quantum evolution was only recently introduced into the context of solid-state mesoscopics . In particular, it was shown that the continuous measurement of an individual qubit does not lead to gradual decoherence (in contrast to the conventional result for the ensemble), instead, the measurement can lead to gradual purification of the qubit density matrix.

Since the concept is still considered controversial, the experimental check is quite important. In this paper we propose an experiment which can be realized using three possible setups available for present-day technology: double-quantum-dot qubit measured by quantum point contact , qubit based on single-Cooper-pair box measured by single-electron transistor , or SQUID-based qubit measured by another SQUID .

Let us start with reviewing the result of the conventional formalism for the continuous measurement (Fig. 1) of a qubit state (see, e.g. recent publications ). For the qubit characterized by the standard Hamiltonian $`_{QB}=(\epsilon /2)(c_1^{}c_1c_2^{}c_2)+H(c_1^{}c_2+c_2^{}c_1)`$ in the basis defined by coupling with the detector, the evolution of qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ is given by equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=\dot{\rho }_{22}=2H\text{Im}\rho _{12},`$ (1)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=ı\epsilon \rho _{12}+ıH(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{12},`$ (2)
where the continuous measurement is described by the dephasing rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which was calculated for different models in Refs. .

These equations do not depend on the detector output because they represent the result of ensemble averaging, including the averaging over the measurement result. To study the evolution of an individual qubit let us denote the noisy detector signal as $`I(t)`$ (assuming current for definiteness). Two “localized” qubit states 1 and 2 correspond to average detector currents $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ which by assumption do not differ much, $`\mathrm{\Delta }II_1I_2I_0(I_1+I_2)/2`$. (This assumption of “weakly responding” detector  allows us to use the linear response theory and also Markov approximation if the processes in the detector are much faster than the qubit evolution.) Intrinsic noise of the detector signal is characterized by the spectral density $`S`$ which is frequency-independent in the range of interest. The noise determines the typical measurement time $`tS/(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2`$ necessary to distinguish between states 1 and 2, and thus defines the timescale of the selective evolution of the qubit density matrix $`\rho (t)`$.

Within the Bayesian formalism  the selective evolution is described by equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=`$ $`2H\text{Im}\rho _{12}+(2\mathrm{\Delta }I/S)\rho _{11}\rho _{22}[I(t)I_0],`$ (3)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=`$ $`ı\epsilon \rho _{12}+ıH(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})`$ (5)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }I/S)(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})[I(t)I_0]\rho _{12}\gamma \rho _{12},`$
where the dephasing $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S0`$ is now due to the contribution from “pure environment” only. In particular, $`\gamma =0`$ if the qubit is measured by symmetric quantum point contact, since in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S`$ (see Refs. ). We will call such detector an ideal detector, $`\eta =1`$, where $`\eta 1\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the ideality factor. In contrast, the single-electron transistor  in the operation point far outside the Coulomb blockade range is a significantly nonideal detector , $`\eta 1`$; however, $`\eta `$ becomes comparable to unity when the current is mostly due to cotunneling processes . The SQUID is an ideal detector when its sensitivity is quantum-limited .

Eqs. (3)–(5) allow us to calculate the evolution of qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ if the detector output $`I(t)`$ is known from a particular experiment. To simulate the measurement we can use the replacement

$$I(t)I_0=\mathrm{\Delta }I(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})/2+\xi (t),$$
(6)
where the random process $`\xi (t)`$ has zero average and “white” spectral density $`S_\xi =S`$. One can check that averaging of Eqs. (3)–(5) over all possible measurement results \[i.e. over random contribution $`\xi (t)`$\] reduces them to Eqs. (1)–(2). Notice that the stochastic equations are written in Stratonovich form which preserves the usual calculus rules, while averaging is more straightforward in Itô form .

As follows from Eqs. (3)–(5), if a qubit with initially pure state, $`|\rho _{12}(0)|^2=\rho _{11}(0)\rho _{22}(0)`$, is measured by an ideal detector, then its density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ stays pure during the measurement process. Even if initial state is a statistical mixture, $`\rho (t)`$ is gradually purified during the measurement .

The predictions of the Bayesian formalism can be checked experimentally, however, it is not quite simple at the present-day level of solid-state technology. The direct experiment was discussed in Ref. . The idea was to perform the measurement by almost ideal detector during some finite time $`\tau `$, record the detector output $`I(t)`$, use Eqs. (3)–(5) to calculate $`\rho (\tau )`$ and then check the calculated value. This check can be done by changing qubit parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`H`$ in a way to ensure $`\rho _{11}=1`$ at some specified moment of time, that can be measured by the detector switched on again. Since for coherent evolution the qubit can be placed with 100% certainty in the state 1 only if the wavefunction is known precisely, such check (repeated many times) verifies that $`\rho (\tau )`$ is pure and coincides with the calculated value.

Unfortunately, this experiment would require very fast recording of $`I(t)`$. Since the expected coherence time is on the order of 10–100 ns at most (see, e.g. ), the bandwidth of the detector signal coming out of the cryostat should be at least 1 GHz, that is very difficult experimentally. Another proposed experiment  is to measure the spectral density of the quantum coherent oscillations and check the predicted maximal peak-to-pedestal ratio of 4. Such an experiment may be easier to realize (because the basic spectral analysis can be done on-chip inside the cryostat), however, it would not prove unambiguously the Bayesian formalism, since an alternative interpretation of the result is possible .

Here we propose an experiment which is even easier to realize, and which can test the Bayesian formalism (3)–(5). The main idea is to use two detectors ($`A`$ and $`B`$) connected to the same qubit (Fig. 2). The detectors are switched on for short periods of time by two shifted in time voltage pulses (one for each detector) with durations $`\tau _A`$ and $`\tau _B`$, supplied from the outside. The output signal from the detector $`A`$ is the total charge $`Q_A=_0^{\tau _A}I_A(t)𝑑t`$ passed during the measurement period. Similarly, the output from the detector $`B`$ is $`Q_B=_\tau ^{\tau +\tau _B}I_B(t)𝑑t`$, where $`\tau `$ is the time shift between pulses. If the measurement by the detector $`A`$ changes the qubit density matrix, it will affect the result of measurement $`B`$. Repeating the experiment many times (with the same initial qubit state) we can obtain the probability distribution $`P(Q_A,Q_B|\tau )`$ of different outcomes, which contains the information about the effect of the quantum measurement on the qubit density matrix. In comparison with previous suggestions, the advantage of this correlation experiment is that the wide signal bandwidth is required only for input pulses (that is relatively simple) while the outputs are essentially low frequency signals. The experiment can be called “Bell-type” because of some similarity with the famous proposal of Ref. .

Fig. 2 shows the realization of the experiment using single-electron transistors (two small tunnel junctions in series ) as detectors. Qubit is realized by the Cooper-pair box  so that the electric charge of the central island can be in coherent combination of two discrete charge states. Another similar setup is two quantum point contacts measuring the charge state of a double-quantum-dot qubit. One more setup is the 3-SQUID experiment in which the qubit is realized by one SQUID while two other SQUIDs are in the detecting regime. For definiteness we will consider the realization of Fig. 2.

The conventional formalism (1)–(2) does not give any explicit predictions for the resulting probability distribution $`P(Q_A,Q_B|\tau )`$. However, it implies the absence of correlations between $`\rho (t)`$ and $`I(t)`$, so for example the average result of the second measurement $`\overline{Q}_B(Q_A,\tau )Q_BP(Q_A,Q_B|\tau )𝑑Q_B`$ should not depend on $`Q_A`$. The Bayesian formalism (3)–(5) makes the different prediction: $`\overline{Q}_B`$ does depend on $`Q_A`$.

For simplicity let us assume symmetric qubit, $`\epsilon =0`$, which is initially in the ground state, $`\rho _{11}=\rho _{22}=\rho _{12}=0.5`$, and also assume relatively strong coupling between the qubit and detectors, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I_A)^2/HS_A1`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)^2/HS_B1`$ (subscripts $`A`$ and $`B`$ correspond to two detectors), so that we can neglect the qubit evolution due to finite $`H`$ during the measurement periods $`\tau _A`$ and $`\tau _B`$, which are assumed to be on the order of $`S_{A,B}/(\mathrm{\Delta }I_{A,B})^2`$. Then from Eqs. (3)-(5) if follows that the first measurement only “partially” localizes the qubit state and after obtaining the result $`Q_A`$ from the first measurement the qubit density matrix is

$`2\rho _{11}(\tau _A)1=\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{(Q_A\tau _AI_{2A})^2(Q_A\tau _AI_{1A})^2}{2S_A\tau _A}},`$ (7)
$`\rho _{12}(\tau _A)=[\rho _{11}(\tau _A)\rho _{22}(\tau _A)]^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _A\tau _A),`$ (8)
where Eq. (7) is actually the classical Bayes formula which was used in Ref.  to derive the formalism (3)–(5). \[The probability to get $`Q_A`$ has the distribution $`P(Q_A)=(p_1+p_2)/2`$ where $`p_i=(\pi S_A\tau _A)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}((Q_A\tau _AI_{iA})^2/S_A\tau _A)`$.\] The qubit performs the free evolution during the time $`\tau \tau _A`$ between measurements (here we neglect $`\tau _A\tau `$) and the average result of the second measurement $`\overline{Q}_B=\tau _B(I_{2B}+\rho _{11}(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)`$ depends on $`Q_A`$ in the following way (Fig. 3a):

$`\delta _B=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{(Q_A\tau _AI_{2A})^2(Q_A\tau _AI_{1A})^2}{2S_A\tau _A}}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2H}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau \mathrm{arcsin}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _f}{4H}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _f\tau /2),`$
where $`\delta _B(\overline{Q}_B\tau _BI_{0B})/\tau _B\mathrm{\Delta }I_B`$, $`\gamma _f`$ is the dephasing with both detectors switched off, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(4H^2\gamma _f^2/4)^{1/2}`$ is the frequency of quantum oscillations (underdamped case is assumed). Notice that $`\delta _B`$ changes sign together with the sign of $`Q_A\tau _AI_{0A}`$, while the phase of oscillations is a piece-constant function of $`Q_A`$.

The dependence becomes quite different if the $`\pi /2`$ pulse is applied to the qubit immediately after the first measurement, that multiplies $`\rho _{12}(\tau _A)`$ given by Eq. (8) by the imaginary unit. In this case (Fig. 3b)

$`\delta _B`$ $`=A\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau +\mathrm{arcsin}z/A)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _f\tau /2),`$ (12)
$`A=[(z^2+y^2yz\gamma _f/2H)/(1\gamma _f^2/16H^2)]^{1/2},`$
where $`z=\rho _{11}(\tau _A)1/2`$ and $`y=\text{Im}\rho _{12}(\tau _A+0)=\text{Re}\rho _{12}(\tau _A0)`$ are given by Eqs. (7)–(8). This expression considerably simplifies for weak dephasing, $`\gamma _A\tau _A1`$ and $`\gamma _fH`$, when

$$\delta _B=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}[\mathrm{\Omega }\tau +\mathrm{arcsin}(2\rho _{11}(\tau _A)1)]\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\gamma _f\tau }{2}).$$
(13)
In contrast to Eq. (10) now the phase of oscillations $`\delta _B(\tau )`$ depends on the result $`Q_A`$ of the first measurement, while the amplitude is maximal possible and independent of $`Q_A`$. This fact is very important since it proves that after the first measurement (by an ideal detector) the qubit remains in the pure state for any result $`Q_A`$. This state depends on $`Q_A`$ and is not one of the localized states as somebody could naively expect. \[Notice that Eq. (10) can in principle be interpreted in terms of such “classical” localization, as indicated by its independence on $`\eta _A`$.\]

In a realistic experimental situation the assumption of strong coupling with detectors may be inapplicable. In this case the full probability distribution $`P(Q_A,Q_B|\tau )`$ as well as the dependence $`\overline{Q}_B(Q_A,\tau )`$ can be calculated numerically using Eqs. (3)–(6). The results of these calculations for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I_A)^2/HS_A=(\mathrm{\Delta }I_B)^2/HS_B=1`$ are shown in Figs. 3c and 3d. Weak coupling as well as the nonideality of the detectors decrease the correlation between the results of two measurements, however, for moderate values of the coupling and nonideality the correlation is still significant.

The successful experimental demonstration of the correlation and quantitative agreement with the results of the Bayesian formalism would prove the validity of this formalism and therefore prove its other predictions. Besides the clarification of the relation between the measurement result and qubit evolution, the important for practice prediction is the gradual qubit purification due to continuous measurement which can be useful for a quantum computer.

All quantum algorithms require the supply of “fresh” qubits with well-defined initial states. This supply is not a trivial problem since the qubit left alone for some time deteriorates due to interaction with environment. The usual idea is to use the ground state which should be eventually reached and does not deteriorate. However, to speed up the qubit initialization we need to increase the coupling with environment that should be avoided. The other possible idea is to perform the projective measurement after which the state becomes well-defined. However, in the realistic case the coupling with the detector is finite that makes projective measurements impossible. Here we propose a different way: to tune qubit continuously in order to overcome the dephasing due to environment and so keep qubit “fresh”.

The idea of such state purification is shown in Fig. 4. The qubit is continuously measured by weakly coupled detector, and the detector signal is plugged into Eqs. (3)–(5) which allow us to monitor the evolution (in particular, due to interaction with environment) of qubit density matrix $`\rho _{ij}(t)`$. This evolution is compared with the desired evolution and the difference is used to generate the feedback signal which controls the qubit parameters $`H`$ and $`\epsilon `$ in order to reduce the difference with the desired qubit state. We have performed the Monte-Carlo simulation of the qubit purification by feedback loop (in the regime of well-pronounced quantum oscillations) and found strong suppression of the qubit dephasing due to environment in the case when the dephasing rate $`\gamma `$ is comparable or weaker than the “measurement rate” $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S`$.

In conclusion, we have proposed the Bell-type experiment which can test the Bayesian formalism predictions for the evolution of an individual qubit due to continuous quantum measurement. The next (and much more difficult) step is the experimental realization of the qubit purification using quantum feedback loop.

The author thanks L. P. Rokhinson, D. V. Averin, M. H. Devoret, C. M. Marcus, and K. K. Likharev for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Entangled states in a Josephson charge qubit coupled to a superconducting resonator

## I Introduction

Recently, a substantial interest in the theory of quantum information and computing  has revived the physical research on quantum systems. The elementary unit of quantum information is a two-state system, usually referred to as a quantum bit (qubit). Basic operations are realized by preparation and manipulation of, as well as a measurement on, entangled states in systems which consist of several coupled qubits. However, the fabrication of physical systems which would enable the actual implementation of quantum algorithms is far from being realized in the near future and a substantial amount of fundamental research is still needed.

During the past five years, great progress has been made in the manipulation of entangled states in systems consisting of up to four qubits based on ion traps  and atoms in a high-Q cavity . These two experiments demonstrate clearly and unambiguously the possibility to coherently control the entangled states of a limited number of qubits, as well as to perform a quantum measurement on them. In spite of this success, it seems quite difficult to realize circuits consisting of the large number of ion traps or atoms in a cavity necessary for quantum computation.

It has been suggested that small solid state devices fabricated using nanolithography technologies are promising for quantum circuit integration. However, the coherent manipulation of entangled states as well as the realization of quantum measurements remain fundamental issues to be investigated. One of the main challenges is to gain control over all possible sources of decoherence. At present the best candidates for the implementation of quantum gates based on solid state devices are circuits using small Josephson junctions. In the superconducting state, such circuits contain less intrinsic sources of decoherence. Indeed it has been experimentally demonstrated that a single Cooper pair box is a macroscopic two level system which can be coherently controlled . At about the same time, theoretical works have proposed the use of the Cooper pair box as a qubit (the so-called Josephson charge qubit) in the context of quantum computers. In particular, systems consisting of several charge qubits with controlled couplings have been discussed, the quantum measurement problem has been addressed and the decoherence time has been estimated . More recently, qubits based on superconducting loops containing small Josephson junctions have been proposed (Josephson phase qubits)  and are currently studied . But up to now, the existence of entangled states, which are at the heart of quantum information processing, has been demonstrated neither for charge qubits nor for phase qubits.

In this article we propose to study one of the simplest Josephson circuits in which entangled states can be realized. It consists of a charge qubit coupled to a superconducting resonator and can be described theoretically by a two level system coupled to a quantum harmonic oscillator. After a description of this quantum circuit in the next section, the Hamiltonian describing it will be derived in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, the time evolution of the eigenstates is obtained and we demonstrate the existance of entanglement. In the last Section, we discuss the dynamics of the quantum circuit for typical experimental values of the system parameters.

## II Quantum Circuit

The Josephson circuit we study hereafter is depicted in Fig. 1. It consists of three different elementary circuits: a Cooper pair box, an LC-resonator and a ”coupling” capacitor.

For small enough junction capacitance $`C_j`$, gate capacitance $`C_g`$, and coupling capacitance $`C_c`$, the charging energy of the box is large compared to thermal fluctuations and the excess charge of the box is quantized. On the other hand, we assume the charging energy to be smaller than the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that no quasiparticles are present in the box. Thus the excess charge is entirely due to the presence of Cooper pairs and charge quantization occurs in units of $`2e`$. The gate voltage $`V_g`$ is used as an external control parameter. When the gate charge $`N_g=C_gV_g/e`$ is equal to unity, the Cooper pair box can be viewed as a macroscopic two-level quantum system whose energy separation is split by the Josephson energy $`E_j`$. The two eigenstates $`|`$ and $`|+`$ correspond to a coherent superposition of the two different charge states of the box . When $`N_g1`$, the Cooper pair box will be referred to as a Josephson charge qubit.

The LC-resonator system can be described by a quantum harmonic oscillator whose characteristic frequency is given by $`\omega _r`$. This system is the analogue of a high-Q cavity.

The capacitance $`C_c`$ plays a crucial role in our proposed circuit since it couples the charge qubit and the resonator to each other. These two circuits are no longer independent and the system must be considered in its totality. Thus the proposed quantum circuit of Fig. 1 realizes the simple situation in which a two level system is coupled to a harmonic oscillator. In spite of its simplicity, such a system describes a great variety of interesting situations .

## III Hamiltonian

The circuit depicted in Fig. 1 can be characterized mechanically by two generalized coordinates, $`\varphi _j`$ and $`\varphi _r`$. These coordinates are associated with the voltage drop $`\delta V_j`$ over the junction and $`\delta V_r`$ over the resonator, respectively, according to the Josephson relation $`\varphi _i=2e\delta V_it/\mathrm{}`$ ($`i=j,r`$). We seek the Lagrangian $`(\varphi _j,\varphi _r,\dot{\varphi }_j,\dot{\varphi }_r)=TV`$ describing the dynamics of these variables. The potential energy $`V`$ is a function of the coordinates only,

$$V(\varphi _j,\varphi _r)=E_j\mathrm{cos}\varphi _j+\frac{E_r}{2}\varphi _r^2,$$
(1)
where $`E_r=(1/L_r)(\mathrm{}/2e)^2`$ is the energy associated with the inductance $`L_r`$ of the resonator. The kinetic energy $`T`$ is quadratic in the velocities $`\dot{\varphi }_j`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_r`$. It is just the free electrostatic energy stored in the capacitators present in the circuit. This free energy can be written as

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\left[C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }j}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_j/2e)^2+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }r}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_r/2e)^2+2C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}(\mathrm{}/2e)^2\dot{\varphi }_j\dot{\varphi }_r\right].$$
(2)
Here we introduced the capacitances $`C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}=C_c+C_g`$, $`C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }j}=C_j+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }r}=C_r+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}`$. Note that the Lagrangian contains an interaction between the resonator and the junction: $`_{int}=C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}(\mathrm{}/2e)^2\dot{\varphi }_j\dot{\varphi }_r`$. The effective coupling between these two parts of the circuit is determined by the sum of the gate capacitance and the coupling capacitance. We also note that the equations of motion $`d(/\dot{\varphi }_i)/dt+/\varphi _i=0`$ express current conservation in the circuit.

Through the Josephson junction, Cooper pairs can tunnel from or onto the island. The number of excess Cooper pairs on the island, $`n`$, depends on the gate voltage. Charge neutrality leads us to relation

$$2ne=C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }j}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_j/2e)+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_r/2e)+N_ge.$$
(3)
It is always possible to add a term to the Lagrangian which is a total time derivative. Let us add the term $`\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_jN_g/2`$. As a result, the momenta conjugate to $`\varphi _j`$ and $`\varphi _r`$ are

$`p_j`$ $`=`$ $`/\dot{\varphi }_j=(\mathrm{}/2e)[C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }j}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_j/2e)+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}(\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }_r/2e)+N_ge]=\mathrm{}n,`$ (4)
$`p_r`$ $`=`$ $`/\dot{\varphi }_r=C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }r}(\mathrm{}/2e)^2\dot{\varphi }_r+C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}(\mathrm{}/2e)^2\dot{\varphi }_j.`$ (5)
Note in particular that the momentum $`p_j`$ is proportional to $`n`$.

The Hamiltonian is obtained with the help of the Legendre transform $`H=p_j\dot{\varphi }_j+p_r\dot{\varphi }_r`$. We find $`H=H_j+H_r+H_c`$, where

$`H_j`$ $`=`$ $`E_{C,j}(2nN_g)^2E_j\mathrm{cos}\varphi _j,`$ (6)
$`H_r`$ $`=`$ $`E_{C,r}(2p_r/\mathrm{})^2+E_r\varphi _r^2/2,`$ (7)
$`H_c`$ $`=`$ $`E_{C,c}(2nN_g)(2p_r/\mathrm{}).`$ (8)
The charging energies $`E_{C,i}`$ ($`i=j,r,c`$) appearing here are given by $`E_{C,i}=e^2/2C_{i,\mathrm{eff}}`$, with $`C_{j,\mathrm{eff}}=C_j+(1/C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}+1/C_r)^1`$, $`C_{r,\mathrm{eff}}=C_r+(1/C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}+1/C_j)^1`$, and $`C_{c,\mathrm{eff}}=[C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}+(1/C_j+1/C_r)^1][(C_j+C_r)/2C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }c}]`$. The Hamiltonian equations of motion, $`\dot{p}_i=H/\varphi _i`$, $`\dot{\varphi }_i=H/p_i`$ lead us again to current conservation.

In order to obtain the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$, we replace $`p_i,\varphi _i`$ by the corresponding operators, with $`[p_k,\varphi _m]=(\mathrm{}/i)\delta _{k,m}`$. In particular, in $`\varphi `$representation we have $`p_k=(\mathrm{}/i)/\varphi _k`$. Note also that $`[n,\varphi _j]=i`$ and $`n=i/\varphi _j`$. Below we discuss the various contributions to $`\widehat{H}`$ in some detail.

Josephson junction. The commutation relation $`[n,\varphi _j]=i`$ implies $`[n,e^{i\varphi _j}]=e^{i\varphi _j}`$. Using the basis states $`|n`$, where $`n`$ corresponds to the number of excess Cooper pairs on the island, we thus have $`e^{i\varphi _j}|n=|n+1`$. Similarly, $`e^{i\varphi _j}|n=|n1`$. Therefore we can write $`\widehat{H}_j`$ as

$`\widehat{H}_j`$ $`=`$ $`E_{C,j}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(2nN_g)^2|nn|`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_j}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(|n+1n|+|n1n|\right).`$
If the gate-voltage is such that $`N_g1`$, the states with $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ are almost degenerate. At low temperatures, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_j`$ involves only these two states, and thus can be presented as a matrix

$$\widehat{H}_j\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_{C,j}N_g^2& E_j/2\\ E_j/2& E_{C,j}(2N_g)^2\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
This matrix can be diagonalized. The eigenvalues are

$$E_{}=E_{C,j}[1+(\delta N_g)^2]\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\delta E_g)^2+E_j^2},$$
(12)
where $`\delta N_g=N_g1`$ and $`\delta E_g=4E_{C,j}\delta N_g`$. The corresponding eigenstates are

$`|=\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ (13)
$`|+=\beta |0\alpha |1`$ (14)
where $`\alpha ^2=1\beta ^2=[1+\delta E_g/\sqrt{(\delta E_g)^2+E_j^2}]/2`$.

Resonator. Since the LC-circuit constitutes just a harmonic oscillator with a characteristic frequency $`\omega _r=\sqrt{1/L_rC_{r,\mathrm{eff}}}`$, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_r`$ can be written in the standard way

$$\widehat{H}_r=\mathrm{}\omega _r(a^{}a+1/2),$$
(15)
where

$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_{C,r}}{\mathrm{}\omega _r}}}(a^{}+a),`$ (16)
$`p_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _r}{E_{C,r}}}}\left(a^{}a\right).`$ (17)
Coupling term. The coupling term can also be written using the operators $`a,a^{}`$ :

$$\widehat{H}_c=i\frac{E_{C,c}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _r}{E_{C,r}}}(2nN_g)\left(a^{}a\right).$$
(18)
Note that the characteristic coupling energy is $`E_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega _r/E_{C,r}}E_{C,c}/2`$.

A general analysis of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ is beyond the scope of the present paper and will be presented elsewhere . In the next section we will discuss an explicit matrix form of $`\widehat{H}`$, which can be obtained under certain simplifying conditions which are nevertheless experimentally relevant.

## IV Eigenstates and Entanglement

Throughout this section we will work in the zero-temperature limit. We are interested in the situation $`N_g1`$, such that we have to consider the charge qubit states $`|`$ and $`|+`$ only. Furthermore, as far as the resonator is concerned, we will consider $`\mathrm{}\omega _r=E_j`$ and work only with the ground state $`|0`$ and the first excited state $`|1`$. In the limit of weak coupling, $`E_c\mathrm{}\omega _r`$, the coupled system can be characterized by the four basis states $`|,0,|,1,|+,0,|+,1`$. The Hamiltonian matrix for this low-energy subspace reads

$$\widehat{H}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_0& iE_\beta & 0& 2i\alpha \beta E_c\\ iE_\beta & E_1& 2i\alpha \beta E_c& 0\\ 0& 2i\alpha \beta E_c& E_2& iE_\alpha \\ 2i\alpha \beta E_c& 0& iE_\alpha & E_3\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
which is a hermitian matrix describing the two-level system coupled to the lowest states of the resonator. Here, $`E_0=E_{}+\mathrm{}\omega _r/2`$, $`E_1=E_{}+3\mathrm{}\omega _r/2`$, $`E_2=E_++\mathrm{}\omega _r/2`$, $`E_3=E_++3\mathrm{}\omega _r/2`$, $`E_\alpha =E_c(2\alpha ^2N_g)`$, and $`E_\beta =E_c(2\beta ^2N_g)`$.

Suppose that the system has been prepared in the state $`|\psi (t=0)=|+,0`$ at time $`t=0`$. This situation can be achieved by a suitable manipulation of the gate voltage $`V_g`$ at times prior to $`t=0`$ . At times $`t>0`$, the time evolution of $`|\psi (t)`$ describing the system is governed by the Hamiltonian (19). We keep $`V_g`$ fixed such that $`N_g=1`$ at $`t>0`$. Thus we have $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2=1/2`$, and hence $`E_\alpha =E_\beta =0`$. Moreover, as $`\mathrm{}\omega _r=E_j`$, we have $`E_1=E_2=E_{C,j}+E_j\overline{E}`$: without coupling, the state $`|+,0`$ would be degenerate with the state $`|,1`$. Thus the Hamiltonian takes the simple form

$$\widehat{H}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_0& 0& 0& iE_c\\ 0& \overline{E}& iE_c& 0\\ 0& iE_c& \overline{E}& 0\\ iE_c& 0& 0& E_3\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
Note in particular that the state $`|+,0`$ couples to the state$`|,1`$; as a result, the degeneracy between them is lifted and the states become entangled. The precise form of the entanglement is governed by the central $`2\times 2`$ block of the matrix (20). The eigenstates of this block are

$`|\chi _1`$ $`=`$ $`[|,1+i|+,0]/\sqrt{2},`$ (21)
$`|\chi _2`$ $`=`$ $`[|,1i|+,0]/\sqrt{2},`$ (22)
corresponding to the eigen energies $`\overline{E}E_c`$ and $`\overline{E}+E_c`$, respectively. These two excited eigenstates thus correspond to a maximum entanglement of charge qubit and resonator states, induced by the capacitive coupling between them.

The time evolution of $`|\psi (t)`$ is given by

$$|\psi (t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}i}\left[e^{i(\overline{E}E_c)t/\mathrm{}}|\chi _1e^{i(\overline{E}+E_c)t/\mathrm{}}|\chi _2\right].$$
(23)
We deduce that the state $`|\psi (t)`$ oscillates coherently between $`|,1`$ and $`|+,0`$. In fact, these so-called quantum Rabi oscillations can be interpreted as the spontaneous emission and re-absorption of one excitation quantum by the resonator. An interesting quantity is the probability $`P_1(t)`$ to find the harmonic oscillator in the state $`|1`$ after a certain time $`t`$. This probability shows Rabi oscillations as a function of $`t`$ with frequency $`2E_c/\mathrm{}`$,

$$P_1(t)=|1,|\psi (t)|^2=\frac{1}{2}[1\mathrm{cos}(2E_ct/\mathrm{})].$$
(24)
Since these Rabi oscillations are characteristic for the entanglement realized in the system, their measurement would provide direct evidence of the presence of the entangled states $`|\chi _1`$ and $`|\chi _2`$. We will discuss the feasibility of such a measurement in the next Section.

## V Discussion

For the numerical estimates presented below we will consider parameters related to a typical aluminium superconducting circuit . For the Josephson charge qubit we have chosen the following characteristics: $`E_j=26.1\mu `$eV, $`E_{C,j}=70\mu `$eV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=240\mu `$eV. As for the resonator, we take $`L_r=90`$pH and $`E_{C,r}=12`$neV, as a result $`\mathrm{}\omega _r=26.1\mu `$eV. Finally, the coupling capacitance is chosen to be of the same order of $`C_j`$, $`C_c=0.5`$fF, yielding $`E_c=256`$neV. Note that the coupling energy is indeed much smaller than the Josephson energy, which in turn is equal to the excitation energy of the resonator.

Using the above paramaters, we have plotted $`P_1(t)`$, Eq. (24), as a function of time in Fig. 2. We clearly see the Rabi oscillations with perdiodicity $`T_{\mathrm{Rabi}}`$8 ns.

In order to be able to observe these oscillations, we need to satisfy various conditions. First of all, in order to avoid the presence of quasiparticles, the temperature must be much lower than the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Secondly, it is necessary to have a decoherence time which is longer than $`T_{\mathrm{Rabi}}`$. In our system, the decoherence time will be the shorter of the lifetime $`\tau _r`$ of the excitated state of the resonator and the decoherence time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qubit}}`$ of the charge qubit. A Q-factor of about 500 is quite realistic for a superconducting LC resonator. This yields a lifetime $`\tau _r>`$ 10 ns. As for the qubit, the experiment by Nakamura  has indicated that $`\tau _{\mathrm{qubit}}>`$ 2ns. This lower bound is essentially the decoherence time associated with the coupling to the measuring probe. In principle, this time can be improved upon by modifications of the experimental set-up. Theoretical estimates  show that a time $`\tau _{\mathrm{qubit}}`$ 100 ns should be feasable. Finally, a measurement of the number of excitations should be performed on the resonator. This can be done, e.g., along the lines of Ref. , where the discrete, oscillator-like energy levels of an underdamped Josephson junction were measured.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank F. Balestro, M.M. Doria, G. Ithier, J.E. Mooij and J. M. Raimond for invaluable discussions.