text:
# Coherence properties and quantum state transportation in an optical conveyor belt

(April 11, 2003)

## Abstract

We have prepared and detected quantum coherences with long dephasing times at the level of single trapped cesium atoms. Controlled transport by an “optical conveyor belt” over macroscopic distances preserves the atomic coherence with slight reduction of coherence time. The limiting dephasing effects are experimentally identified and are of technical rather than fundamental nature. We present an analytical model of the reversible and irreversible dephasing mechanisms. Coherent quantum bit operations along with quantum state transport open the route towards a “quantum shift register” of individual neutral atoms.

Obtaining full control of all internal and external degrees of freedom of individual microscopic particles is the goal of intense experimental efforts. The long lived internal states of ions and neutral atoms are excellent candidates for quantum bits (qubits), in which information is stored in a coherent superposition of two quantum states. Once sufficient control of individual particles is established, one of the most attractive perspectives is the engineered construction of quantum systems of two or more particles. Their coherent interaction is a key element for the realization of quantum gates and can be implemented by transporting selected qubits into an interaction zone Kielpinski02 . In this context, ions have successfully been transported between distinct locations while maintaining internal-state coherence Rowe02 .

In this letter we report on the coherence properties and on a quantum state transportation of neutral atoms in a standing wave dipole trap. We present a scheme of preparation and detection of the electronic hyperfine ground states, which has been applied to ensembles as well as to single atoms. Along with the demonstration of 1-qubit-rotations, our system is a promising candidate for storing quantum information, since the hyperfine ground states exhibit long ($``$200 ms) coherence times. In particular, the coherence even persists while transporting the atoms over macroscopic distances. This opens a route towards quantum gates via cavity-mediated atom–atom coupling.

We trap cesium atoms in a standing wave dipole trap ($`\lambda `$ = $`1064`$ nm) with a potential depth of $`U_0`$ = $`1`$ mK, loaded from a high-gradient magneto-optical trap (MOT) Kuhr01 ; Schrader01 . The single-atom transfer efficiency between the two traps is better than 95% Frese00 . The MOT is also used to determine the exact number of trapped atoms by observing their fluorescence. By shifting the standing wave pattern along the direction of beam propagation, we can transport the atoms over millimeter-scale distances. This is realized by mutually detuning the frequencies of the dipole trap laser beams with acousto-optical modulators. Additionally, we use microwave radiation at $`\omega _{\mathrm{hfs}}/2\pi `$ = $`9.2`$ GHz to coherently drive the $`|F\text{ = }4\text{}m_F\text{ = }0|F\text{ = }3\text{}m_F\text{ = }0`$ clock transition of the $`6^2S_{1/2}`$ ground state with Rabi frequencies of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ = $`10`$ kHz.

The initial state is prepared by optically pumping the atom into $`|F\text{ = }4\text{}m_F\text{ = }0`$. For this purpose, we use a $`\pi `$-polarized laser resonant with the $`F`$ = $`4`$$``$$`F^{}`$ = $`4`$ transition and a repumping laser on the $`F`$ = $`3`$$``$$`F^{}`$ = $`4`$ transition in a magnetic guiding field of $`B`$ = $`100`$ µT. A state selective detection method, which discriminates between the atomic hyperfine states, is implemented by exposing the atom to a $`\sigma ^+`$-polarized laser, resonant with the $`F`$ = $`4`$$``$$`F^{}`$ = $`5`$ cycling transition. It pushes any atom in $`F`$ = $`4`$ out of the dipole trap, whereas an atom in $`F`$ = $`3`$ remains trapped. The number of atoms remaining in the dipole trap is then determined by transferring them back into the MOT. In all experiments presented in this letter we thus compare the number of atoms in the MOT before and after any coherent manipulation in the dipole trap.

It is essential to push an atom in $`F`$ = $`4`$ out of the dipole trap before it spontaneously decays into $`F`$ = $`3`$ due to off-resonant excitation of the $`F^{}`$ = $`4`$ level. For this purpose, the dipole trap is adiabatically lowered to 0.1 mK before the push-out laser is shined in perpendicular to the trap axis with high intensity ($`I/I_0`$ = $`100`$, where $`I_0`$ is the saturation intensity). In this regime the resonant radiation pressure force is stronger than the dipole force in radial direction. We thus push the atom out of the trap within much less than a quarter of the radial oscillation period ($``$1 ms). As a result, less than 1% of the atoms prepared in $`F`$ = $`4`$ survive the application of the push-out laser, whereas more than 95% of the atoms in the $`F`$ = $`3`$ state remain trapped.

The coherence time between the $`|F\text{ = }4\text{}m_F\text{ = }0`$ and the $`|F\text{ = }3\text{}m_F\text{ = }0`$ state is measured using Ramsey’s method of separated oscillatory fields Ramsey . We describe the coherent evolution of the system by the semiclassical Bloch vector model AllenEberly . The initial state $`|F\text{ = }4\text{}m_F\text{ = }0`$ corresponds to the Bloch vector $`(u,v,w)`$ = $`(0,0,1)`$. The application of two $`\pi /2`$-pulses, separated by a time interval $`t`$, leads to the well-known Ramsey fringes $`w(t)=\mathrm{cos}\delta t`$, where $`\delta =\omega \omega _{\mathrm{hfs}}`$ is the detuning of the microwave frequency $`\omega `$ from the atomic resonance $`\omega _{\mathrm{hfs}}`$. This leads to the theoretical population transfer to $`F`$ = $`3`$, $`P_3(t)`$ = $`[w(t)+1]/2`$. In the experiment, $`P_3`$ is measured using our state selective detection method. We count the number of atoms in $`F`$ = $`3`$ and divide by the initial number of atoms in the MOT. Since the atoms are trapped in separate potential wells of the dipole trap and interactions between them can be neglected, we perform our experiments with about 50 atoms in order to reduce the measurement time. As there is no dependence on the number of atoms the ensemble results can be transferred to the single atom case.

The observed Ramsey signal decays due to inhomogeneous broadening of the atomic resonance frequencies, see Fig. 1. This frequency spread arises from the energy distribution of the atoms in the dipole trap, which leads to a corresponding distribution of light shifts. For an atom in the bottom of a potential well (energy $`E`$ = $`0`$), the clock transition is light shifted by $`\mathrm{}\delta _0`$ = $`\eta U_0`$, with $`\eta `$ = $`\omega _{\mathrm{hfs}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ = 1.45 $`\times `$ 10-4 and $`\delta _0<0`$ Kaplan02 . Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2\pi `$ = $`64`$ THz is the effective detuning of the dipole trap laser, taking into account contributions of the D1\- and the D2-line. In a potential of $`U_0`$ = $`1`$ mK this differential light shift is $`\delta _0/2\pi `$ = $`3.0`$ kHz. If the atom possesses an energy $`E`$$`>`$ 0 in the trapping potential, the average light shift decreases to $`\delta _{\mathrm{ls}}(E)`$ = $`\delta _0+\eta E/(2\mathrm{})`$ in harmonic approximation. In our experiment, the energy distribution of the atoms has been measured to be a 3D Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with temperature $`T`$ Alt02b . This results in a corresponding distribution of differential light shifts,

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\delta _{\mathrm{ls}})=\frac{2K^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{\delta _{\mathrm{ls}}\delta _0}\mathrm{exp}[K(\delta _{\mathrm{ls}}\delta _0)],$$
(1)
with $`K`$=$`2\mathrm{}/(\eta k_\mathrm{B}T)`$. From this distribution, we derive an analytic expression for the shape of the Ramsey signal. For an atom with light shift $`\delta _{\mathrm{ls}}`$, the $`w`$-component of the Bloch vector, after application of the two $`\pi /2`$-pulses, is given by $`w_{\mathrm{Ramsey}}(t)`$ = $`\mathrm{cos}[(\delta +\delta _{\mathrm{ls}})t]`$. Averaged over a thermal ensemble, the Ramsey signal is the integral over all light shifts, $`w_{\mathrm{Ramsey},\mathrm{inh}}(t)`$ = $`_{\delta _0}^{\mathrm{}}w_{\mathrm{Ramsey}}(t)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\delta _{\mathrm{ls}})𝑑\delta _{\mathrm{ls}}`$. The envelope of the Ramsey fringes is thus the Fourier cosine transform $`\alpha (t)`$ of the distribution of light shifts, yielding

$`w_{\mathrm{Ramsey},\mathrm{inh}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (t)\mathrm{cos}[(\delta +\delta _0)t],`$ (2)
$`\text{with}\alpha (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+2.79\left(t/T_2^{}\right)^2\right]^{3/4}.`$ (3)
Despite this non-exponential decay, we have defined the inhomogeneous or reversible dephasing time $`T_2^{}`$ = $`1.67K`$ as the 1/$`e`$-time of the amplitude $`\alpha (t)`$.

The Ramsey fringes presented in Figs. 1(a) and (b) are fitted according to this model and yield $`T_2^{}`$ = $`(0.86\pm 0.05)`$ ms and $`T_2^{}`$ = $`(18.9\pm 1.7)`$ ms for $`U_0`$ = $`1.0`$ mK and $`U_0`$ = $`0.04`$ mK, respectively. The maximum value of $`P_3`$ of 60% in Fig. 1(a) includes imperfections in the optical pumping process (-20%) and atom losses caused by inelastic collisions during the transfer from the MOT into the dipole trap (-20%). The additional reduction to 30% in Fig. 1(b) occurs during the lowering of the trap, where hot atoms are lost. Note that the coherence is not impaired by these losses as the maximum visibility is close to 100% (see Fig 1).

The inhomogeneous dephasing can be reversed by applying a $`\pi `$-pulse at $`t`$ = $`\tau _\pi `$ between the $`\pi /2`$-pulses, in analogy to the spin-echo technique in nuclear magnetic resonance Hahn50 . In optical dipole traps, this technique was recently employed by another group Andersen03 , independently of our work. Our spin-echo signals are presented in Figs. 1(a) and (b), showing that the inhomogeneous dephasing can be reversed almost completely. In the low dipole trap (Fig. 1(b)) we observe a pronounced spin echo even for pulse delays of up to $`2\tau _\pi `$ = $`300`$ ms. Similar to the Ramsey fringes, the shape of the echo signal is

$$w_{\mathrm{echo}}(t)=\alpha (t2\tau _\pi )\mathrm{cos}\left[(\delta +\delta _0)(t2\tau _\pi )\right].$$
(4)
In Fig. 1(c) we plot the visibility of the echo signals as a function of $`2\tau _\pi `$ for the two trap depths. The decay of the echo visibility is due to an irreversible dephasing of the atomic coherence with a time constant $`T_2^{}`$. We therefore extend our model to the case of a time-varying detuning, $`\delta (t)`$, in order to account for a variation of the precession angles of the Bloch vector, $`\varphi _1`$ = $`_0^{\tau _\pi }\delta (t)𝑑t`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ = $`_{\tau _\pi }^{2\tau _\pi }\delta (t)𝑑t`$, before and after the $`\pi `$-pulse. The phase difference $`\varphi _2\varphi _1`$ is expressed as a difference of the detuning, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, averaged over $`\tau _\pi `$. The $`w`$-component of the Bloch vector at $`t`$ = $`2\tau _\pi `$ then reads $`w_{\mathrm{echo}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ,2\tau _\pi )=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \tau _\pi )`$. In the following considerations, we assume that all atoms experience almost the same fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, regardless of their energy in the trap, i. e. we consider a homogeneous broadening effect. We obtain the signal from many repetitions of the same experiment by integrating $`w_{\mathrm{echo}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ,2\tau _\pi )`$ over all fluctuation amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, weighted by a probability distribution $`p(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ,\tau _\pi )`$ which is assumed to be a Gaussian,

$$p(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ,\tau _\pi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma (\tau _\pi )}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )^2}{2\sigma (\tau _\pi )^2}\right]$$
(5)
with mean $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }=0`$ and variance $`\sigma (\tau _\pi )^2`$. This results in an echo visibility of

$$V(2\tau _\pi )=V_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\tau _\pi ^2\sigma (\tau _\pi )^2\right].$$
(6)
We found that the pointing instabilities of the dipole trap laser beams are the dominant source of irreversible dephasing. Any change of the relative position of the two interfering laser beams changes the interference contrast and hence the light shift $`\delta _0`$. Position fluctuations can arise from shifts of the laser beam itself, from acoustic vibrations of the mirrors or from air flow. Other dephasing effects such as intensity- and magnetic field fluctuations, elastic collisions, heating, fluctuations of the microwave power and the pulse duration were also analyzed and found to be negligible compared to the effect of the pointing instabilities.

The fluctuation of the trap depth due to pointing instabilities was measured by mutually detuning the two dipole trap beams by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ = $`10`$ MHz and overlapping them on a fast photodiode. The amplitude of the resulting beat signal directly measures the interference contrast of the two beams and is thus proportional to the depth of the potential wells of the standing wave dipole trap. We found that the relative fluctuations for time scales of $`t`$$`>`$ 100 ms reach up to 3%. From records of the beat signal amplitude we extract the Allan variance, defined as $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\mathrm{A}^2(\tau )=\frac{1}{m}_{k=1}^m(\overline{x}_{\tau ,k+1}\overline{x}_{\tau ,k})^2/2`$, where $`\overline{x}_{\tau ,k}`$ denotes the average of the normalized beat signal amplitude over the $`k`$-th time interval $`\tau `$ Allan66 . The Allan deviation $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\mathrm{A}(\tau _\pi )`$ directly measures the difference of the detunings, averaged over $`\tau _\pi `$, before and after the $`\pi `$-pulse. This results in frequency fluctuations $`\sigma (\tau _\pi )`$ = $`\sqrt{2}\delta _0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\mathrm{A}(\tau _\pi )`$, yielding a theoretical spin echo visibility $`V^{\mathrm{th}}(2\tau _\pi )`$ = $`\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\mathrm{A}(\tau _\pi )^2\delta _0^2\tau _\pi ^2]`$ which is plotted together with the measured spin echo visibility in Fig. 1(c). The upper curves show the expected visibility in the case of well overlapped beams, whereas for the lower curves, we slightly misaligned the beams so that variations of the relative beam position cause a first order variation of the beat signal amplitude, since the beams overlap on the slopes of the Gaussian profile. Our datapoints lie in between these best and worst case predictions.

The population decay time, $`T_1`$, can be neglected in our experiment. It is governed by the scattering of photons from the dipole trap laser, which couples the two hyperfine ground states via a two-photon Raman transition. However, this effect is suppressed due to a destructive interference effect Frese00 ; Cline94  causing a relaxation on a timescale of 8 s for $`U_0`$ = $`1`$ mK. As a consequence, the various decay/dephasing mechanisms can be treated independently because of their different time scales ($`T_2^{}`$$``$$`T_2^{}`$$``$$`T_1`$).

Finally, we demonstrate the controlled quantum state transportation of neutral atoms. We show that the atomic coherence persists while moving the atoms back and forth over macroscopic distances by shifting the standing wave dipole trap. For this, we essentially perform a spin echo measurement, with the addition that the atoms are transported between the microwave pulses. The sequence is visualized in Fig. 2. After the $`\pi /2`$-pulse at the MOT position, the atom is displaced by 1 mm before the $`\pi `$-pulse is applied. The atom is then transported back to its initial position where we apply the second $`\pi /2`$-pulse. The corresponding spin echo signal is shown in Fig. 3, together with a reference signal, showing a spin echo obtained without transportation. The spin echo prevails if we transport the atom between the microwave pulses, however with slightly reduced visibility, see Fig. 3(b). In these experiments, the dipole trap is lowered to $`U_0`$ = $`0.1`$ mK in order to guarantee long coherence times along with high transportation efficiencies. The atoms were transported over a distance of 1 mm within 2 ms, resulting in an acceleration of $`a`$ = $`1.0`$$`\times `$ 103 m/s2.

In order to underline that the coherence has actually been moved spatially in this experiment, we illuminate the position of the MOT with an off-resonant “state mixing laser” (detuning +30 GHz) simultaneously with the $`\pi `$-pulse for 3 ms. The parameters of the state mixing laser, which is focused to a waist of 50 µm, are chosen such that it incoherently mixes the two hyperfine states. A scattering rate of 2 photons/ms is sufficiently high to just mix the hyperfine states but at the same time to minimize the influence on the transported atoms. Indeed the fringes disappear when the atoms are not transported. The coherence time is reduced by a factor of two by the transportation procedure. This can be explained by the abrupt acceleration of the potential Schrader01 . For each of the two transports, the acceleration is first abruptly changed from zero to $`a`$, from $`a`$ to $`a`$ after half the transportation distance, and back to zero at the end. In order to calculate the heating effect caused by this abrupt acceleration, we assume an initial energy of $`E`$ = $`0.3U_0`$, calculated from the $`T_2^{}`$-times of the signals of Fig. 3. Numerical calculations reveal that the maximum energy gain caused by the 6 non-adiabatic changes of the acceleration amounts to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ = $`0.15U_0`$ (= 150 µK). This energy gain causes a change of the average detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, large enough to account for the observed faster decay of the visibility of the spin echo. The existence of a heating effect is supported by the measurement of an atom survival probability with transportation of 70%, compared to 80% without transportation.

Using sodium atoms in a red detuned Nd:YAG dipole trap ($`U_0`$ = $`0.4`$ mK), a dephasing time of $`T_2^{}`$ = $`15`$ ms was reported Davidson95 , which is comparable to our observation. In the same paper, significantly longer coherence times ($`T_2^{}`$ = $`4`$ s) were observed in blue detuned traps Davidson95 . In other experiments, the inhomogeneous broadening has been reduced by the addition of a weak light field, spatially overlapped with the trapping laser field and whose frequency is tuned in between the two hyperfine levels Kaplan02 . Due to the different wavelengths the application of this technique is impossible in a standing wave dipole trap. Of course, cooling the atoms to the lowest vibrational level, e. g. by using Raman sideband cooling techniques, would also reduce inhomogeneous broadening.

Our experiment opens the route to the realization of a “quantum shift register”. Most recently, we spatially resolved single atoms in separate potential wells of the dipole trap by means of an intensified CCD camera. This fact could allow us to read out the quantum states of the trapped atoms individually. Moreover, we plan to individually address the atoms in a magnetic gradient field. Finally, the possibility of coherently transporting quantum states should allow us to let atoms interact at a location different from the preparation and read out. More specifically, our experiments aim at the deterministic transport of two or more atoms into an optical high finesse resonator, where they could controllably interact via photon exchange. This should enable us to entangle neutral atoms Zheng00  or to realize quantum gates Pellizzari95 . This letter demonstrates that in these experiments state preparation and detection, as well as quantum state rotations can now take place outside the cavity.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the EC.


format: text

text:
# Noise and the Measurement Process for a Circular Josephson Array Qubit

## I Introduction

In recent years much effort has been spent on the search for quantum two-level systems, qubits, that can be coherently controlled long enough for a sequence of controlled unitary operations to be performed on them. The ultimate goal is to build a quantum computer out of these qubits. Proposals for qubits based on a variety of physical systems exist, each with its pros and cons. Here we consider solid state charge qubits based on Josephson junctions (JJ) arrays. These have the advantage of being relatively easy to manipulate and the prospects for large scale manufacturing are comparatively good. However, they suffer from severe decoherence effects. The single Cooper-pair box (SCB) is the simplest proposal for a charge based JJ qubit.SSH97  For the SCB, superposition of charge states was observed by Bouchiat et al.Bou98  and coherent evolution was demonstrated by Nakamura et al.Nak99

A generalisation of the SCB, which we call the circular array (CA), was introduced by Schöllmann et al.AK02  This circuit consists of an array of tunable JJs in a circular geometry. The CA is similar to the SCB and many results can be taken over mutatis mutandis. The main difference is that the two charge states of the qubit are coupled through a higher order tunneling process. Turning the coupling off then allows the tunneling rate to be made very small – leading to slow relaxation, and a long time to perform the measurement. This is the key element of the quantum sample and hold (QUASH) measurement strategy.AK02

In this article we perform a more detailed study of the circular array. In particular, we consider the effect of voltage fluctuations in the circuit (ohmic noise) as well as $`1/f`$ noise, believed to be caused by background charge fluctuations, and calculate the relaxation and dephasing times for these types of noise – extending the previous treatment.AK02  We also study the measurement of the qubit’s charge by a single-electron transistor (SET) coupled capacitively to the CA. This is done by numerically determining the time development of the density matrix following the treatment of Makhlin et al.MSS01  for the SCB.

## II The circular array

The circular array consists of two arrays with $`N`$ identical JJs each – these arrays are connected in series and separated by a capacitor $`C_0`$, thus forming a circular geometry. Each JJ, which is a small SQUID, has capacitance $`C_J`$ and a Josephson energy $`E_J=E_J(\mathrm{\Phi }(t))`$ which can be tuned by altering the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the SQUID loop. The lead connecting the two arrays is grounded to allow charge to tunnel in and out of the circuit. There are $`2N`$ small islands, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}2N`$, each characterized by the number of excess Cooper pairs $`n_i`$ and the phase of the superconducting order parameter $`\varphi _i`$; these are quantum mechanically conjugate variables: $`[\varphi _i,n_j]=i\delta _{ij}`$. Each island charge is externally controlled by a gate voltage $`V_i(t)`$, applied via a small capacitor $`C_g`$. Fig. 1 shows the circular array together with the SET that measures the charge on one of the islands next to $`C_0`$.

A qubit should have two states separated by a large gap, $`\delta E`$, from higher energy states and be weekly coupled to the environment to avoid rapid decoherence. The CA fulfills this if $`C_0C_JC_g`$. The energy scales present in the system is the charging energy for a Cooper pair $`E_C(2e)^2/2C_J\delta E`$, the Josephson energy $`E_J`$, the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the temperature $`k_BT`$. In order to avoid quasiparticles in the system at low temperatures, the qubit is constructed so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the largest energy in the problem. Furthermore, we choose the qubit to be in the charge regime $`E_CE_J`$, and impose $`E_Ck_BT`$ to avoid thermal excitation of higher energy charge states, thus:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_CE_J,k_BT.$$
(1)
The Hamiltonian of the CA is

$$H=H_C+H_J=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2N}{}}Q_iC_{ij}^1Q_jE_J\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j),$$
(2)
where $`Q_i=2e(n_in_{g,i})`$ is the effective charge on island $`i`$ – here $`n_{g,i}=C_gV_i/2e`$ is the gate charge on the island. $`C_{ij}`$ is the capacitance matrix – its nonzero elements are: $`C_{N,N}=C_{N+1,N+1}=C_0+C_J+C_g`$, $`C_{i,i}=2C_J+C_g`$, $`C_{N+1,N}=C_{N,N+1}=C_0`$ and $`C_{i+1,i}=C_{i,i+1}=C_J`$, where $`iN,N+1`$. The matrix is symmetric and $`C_{ij}=C_{2N+1i,2N+1j}`$; the inverse matrix $`C^1`$ has the same symmetries. The sum over the Josephson terms in (2) is taken over all pairs of islands connected by tunnel junctions.

Since we are studying a charge qubit it is convenient to write the Hamiltonian in the charge basis $`|\text{n}=|n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_{2N}`$. The charging energy term simply becomes $`H_C=E_CC_J_\text{n}(\text{n}\text{n}_g)^tC^1(\text{n}\text{n}_g)|\text{n}\text{n}|`$ where $`\text{n}_g=(n_{g,1},n_{g,2},\mathrm{},n_{g,2N})`$, and using that $`|n_i=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _ie^{in_i\varphi _i}|\varphi _i`$, which holds since $`n_i`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are conjugate, the Josephson term becomes

$$H_J=\frac{E_J}{2}\underset{\text{n},ij}{}\underset{ki,j}{}|n_k\left(|n_i+1|n_j1+|n_i1|n_j+1\right)\text{n}|$$
(3)
and the total Hamiltonian is $`H=H_C(\text{V})+H_J(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where we have indicated the dependence on the external control parameters $`\text{V}=(V_1,V_2,\mathrm{},V_{2N})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The two-level system – ie the qubit – we consider consists of states $``$, $``$ with one excess Cooper pair on either of the islands $`N,N+1`$ neighbouring $`C_0`$: $`|0\mathrm{}10\mathrm{}0`$ and $`|0\mathrm{}01\mathrm{}0`$, where the ones are for island $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ respectively. For $`E_J=0`$ these two states are degenerate if $`n_{g,N}=n_{g,N+1}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`n_{g,i}=0`$ for $`iN,N+1`$. If, in addition, $`C_0C_JC_g`$, then the energy gap to higher charge states is $`\delta EE_C`$. Restricting ourselves to a finite charge space, the Hamiltonian $`H`$ can be diagonalised numerically. In Fig. 2 we show the energy spectrum for the $`N=2`$ CA as a function of $`n_{g,2}`$. The other parameters are $`n_{g,3}=1/2`$, $`C_0=C_J=100C_g`$, $`E_J=0.2E_C`$ and $`2n_i2`$ (this restriction gives a negligible error). For $`n_{g,2}1/2`$, the two lowest energy levels (which are linear combinations of the states $``$, $``$ with an excess Cooper pair on island $`N`$ or $`N+1`$ respectively) form a two-level system with a large gap to the higher energy states.

We conclude that when $`E_CE_J`$, $`C_0C_JC_g`$ and $`\text{n}_g(0,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},0)`$, it is a good approximation to restrict the Hilbert space of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) to the states $``$ and $``$ defined above. We write the Hamiltonian of this two-level system in spin-1/2 notation

$$H_{ctrl}(t)=\frac{1}{2}B_z(\delta V(t))\sigma _z\frac{1}{2}B_x(\mathrm{\Phi }(t))\sigma _x,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices in the basis $`(`$, $`)`$. This Hamiltonian controls the qubit – unitary operations can be performed on the qubit by tuning $`B_z`$ and $`B_x`$ via the external parameters $`\delta V=V_{N+1}V_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Writing $`\text{n}_g=(0,\mathrm{},\frac{1+\delta n_g}{2},\frac{1\delta n_g}{2},\mathrm{},0)`$ where $`\delta n_g=C_g\delta V/2e`$, we find $`B_z=H_C|H_C|=2A_NE_C\delta n_g`$, where $`A_N=C_J(C_{NN}^1C_{N,N+1}^1)`$. $`A_N`$ can be calculated numerically for given capacitance matrix, however, we can also perform an expansion in $`C_g/C_0`$ which is valid as long as $`N`$ is not too large. Using Cramer’s rule for the elements in $`C^1`$, we express $`A_N`$ in terms of cofactors and expand. Assuming, for simplicity, $`C_J=C_0`$, this gives

$$B_z=\frac{2N}{2N+1}\left[1\frac{C_g}{C_0}\frac{N+1}{6}+𝒪((C_g/C_0)^2)\right]\times E_C\delta n_g.$$
(5)
(For $`N=2`$ and to leading order in $`C_g`$, this reproduces a previous result.AK02 ) $`B_x`$ gives the cotunneling rate of a Cooper pair from island $`N`$ to $`N+1`$ via the $`2N`$ junctions and and its leading contribution is obtained by $`(2N)^{th}`$ order perturbation theory, hence $`B_x(E_J/E_C)^{2N}`$. The exact numerical factor is not very illuminating – it can however be determined for not too large $`N`$. For the $`N=2`$ CA, with parameters as in Fig. 2, we have $`B_z\frac{4}{5}\left[1\frac{1}{2}\frac{C_g}{C_0}\right]E_C\delta n_g=0.796E_C\delta n_g`$ and $`B_x=\frac{125}{12}(E_J/E_C)^4E_C=0.0167E_C`$ AK02 . (A numerical diagonalisation gives $`B_z=0.7960E_C\delta n^g`$ and $`B_x=0.0132E_C`$ – in reasonable agreement with the expansions taking into account that the ignored terms are of order $`𝒪((C_g/C_0)^2)10^4`$ and $`𝒪((E_J/E_C)^6)10^4`$ respectively.)

Diagonalizing (4) gives the eigenvalues $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\sqrt{B_x^2+B_z^2}`$, with corresponding eigenvectors $`|+=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|+\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|,`$ and $`|=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|`$, where $`\theta =\mathrm{arctan}(B_x/B_z)`$. If $`\tau `$ denotes the Pauli matrices in the energy eigenbasis, then $`H_{ctrl}`$ can be written in the compact form

$$H_{ctrl}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }E\tau _z.$$
(6)
## III Electromagnetic noise

The practical usefulness of a circuit like the CA as a qubit is ultimately limited by the coupling to external degrees of freedom. These lead to decoherence of the qubit state and hence loss of quantum information to the environment. The generic behaviour of the evolution of the qubit depends on the strength of the coupling and one identifies two regimes: The “Hamiltonian-dominated”, where the coupling to the environment is weak enough for the time evolution of the qubit to be governed by the qubit Hamiltonian $`H_{ctrl}`$, and the “environment-dominated”, where the coupling to the environment is so strong that it determines the dynamics of the qubit. In this article we consider only the Hamiltonian-dominated regime. Note, however, that even if the coupling to the environment is weak under normal operation of the qubit, it becomes environment-dominated if $`H_{ctrl}0`$, which may happen during the qubit manipulations.

In the Hamiltonian-dominated regime the evolution of the qubit is conveniently described in the energy eigenbasis ($`|`$, $`|+`$). The interaction with the environment leads to a decay of the off-diagonal elements in the qubit’s density matrix with a charecteristic time $`\tau _\phi `$, the dephasing time,

$$\tau _\pm (t)=\tau _\pm (0)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }Et}e^{t/\tau _\phi };$$
(7)
whereas the diagonal elements of the density matrix decay to their thermal equilibrium values with a characteristic time $`\tau _{relax}`$, the relaxation time,

$$\tau _z(t)=\tau _z(\mathrm{})+(\tau _z(0)\tau _z(\mathrm{}))e^{t/\tau _{relax}},$$
(8)
where the thermal equilibrium value is $`\tau _z(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Delta }E/2k_BT)`$.

A Josephson junction charge qubit is sensitive to various electromagnetic fluctuations in the circuit; we follow standard practice and model these with the “spin-boson” model CL83  with an Ohmic spectrum. In addition to the noise caused by these fluctuations one observes $`1/f`$ noise, which is believed to be due to background charge fluctuations in the substrate. Following Shnirman et al,MSS02  we model this phenomenologically using again the spin-boson model but now with a $`1/f`$-spectrum.

The spin-boson model describing the qubit interacting with the environment has one independent bath for each island in the CA:

$$H_{SB}=H_{ctrl}+\sigma _z\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N}{}}X_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2N}{}}H_B^i.$$
(9)
Here, $`H_{ctrl}`$ is the qubit Hamiltonian (4), $`H_B^i=_{i,a}\left(\frac{p_{ai}^2}{2m_{ai}}+\frac{m_{ai}\omega _{ai}x_{ai}^2}{2}\right)`$ is a bath of harmonic oscillators with coordinates $`x_{ai}`$, momenta $`p_{ai}`$, masses $`m_{ai}`$ and frequencies $`\omega _{ai}`$. The baths lead to voltage fluctuations $`X_i_aC_{ai}x_{ai}`$ coupling to $`\sigma _z`$. ($`C_{ai}`$ is the strength of the coupling between the qubit and the a’th oscillator in bath $`i`$.)

The effect of the environment is completely characterized by a spectral function, which for the spin-boson model in Eq. (9) has the form

$$J(\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2}\underset{a,i}{}\frac{C_{ai}^2}{m_{ai}\omega _{ai}}\delta (\omega \omega _{ai})=\frac{\pi }{2}\underset{i}{}\alpha _s^i\mathrm{}\omega _{00}^{1s}\omega ^s\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _c\omega ).$$
(10)
To obtain the second equality one assumes that $`J(\omega )`$ can be written as a power of $`\omega `$ up to some cut-off frequency $`\omega _c`$ which is assumed to be large compared to all other frequencies in the problem. The parameter $`s`$ reflects the qualitative nature of the environment, and $`\alpha _s_i\alpha _s^i`$ is a dimensionless measure of the strength of the coupling. To maintain $`\alpha _s`$ dimensionless for all $`s`$, an additional frequency scale $`\omega _{00}`$ enters for $`s1`$.

We model the voltage fluctuations $`\delta V_i`$ on island $`i`$ by adding an impedance $`Z_i(\omega )`$ in series with $`V_i`$, see, eg, Ingold and NazarovIN92  or Makhlin et al.MSS99  This impedance then has Johnson-Nyquist fluctuations $`\delta V_i`$ between its terminals that in the spin-boson formalism correspond to the spectral function $`J_i(\omega )=\omega Re\left[Z_{it}(\omega )\right]`$, where $`Z_{it}(\omega )`$ is the total impedance between the terminals of $`Z_i`$. From Fig. 1 one finds $`Z_{it}(\omega )=\left[i\omega C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }i}+Z_i^1(\omega )\right]^1`$ where $`C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }i}^1=C_g^1+(s_iC_0)^1`$, with $`s_i=i^1+(2N+1i)^1`$ (assuming $`C_J=C_0C_g`$). Following standard practice, we assume that the noise is purely resistive, $`Z_i(\omega )=R_i`$, and if furthermore $`R_i1/\omega C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }i}`$ (which holds for realistic $`R_i`$ and $`C_g`$ since $`C_{\mathrm{\Sigma },i}<C_g`$), we obtain $`J_i(\omega )=\omega R_i`$, which is linear in $`\omega `$ and hence corresponds to $`s=1`$ in Eq. (10). Using this we can obtain the total spectral function $`J(\omega )`$ for the circuit. From Eq. (9) we identify $`X=\frac{1}{2}\delta B_z`$, where $`\delta B_z=[|H_C|H_C]|_{n_i^g=\frac{C_g}{2e}\delta V_i}`$. Simplifying this expression yields $`X=e\frac{C_g}{C_J}_{i=1}^{2N}A_i\delta V_i`$, with $`A_iC_J\left(C_{N+1,i}^1C_{N,i}^1\right)`$. The fluctuations $`\delta V_i`$ are expressed in the oscillator coordinates, $`\delta V_i=_ab_{ia}x_{ia}`$, with the spectral function in the form of Eq. (10), $`J_i(\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2}_a\frac{b_{ia}^2}{m_{ia}\omega _{ia}}\delta (\omega \omega _{ia})=\omega R_i`$. This gives $`X=e\frac{C_g}{C_J}_{i=1}^{2N}A_i_ab_{ia}x_{ia}`$ and hence, $`J(\omega )=\omega _i\left[e\frac{C_g}{C_J}A_i\right]^2R_i`$. Comparing this to Eq. (10), with $`s=1`$, we find

$$\alpha _1=4\underset{i}{}A_i^2\frac{R_i}{R_K}\left(\frac{C_g}{C_J}\right)^2,$$
(11)
where $`R_K=h/e^2=25.8k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quantum of resistance. Assuming the islands to be nearly identical, it is reasonable that $`R_i`$ are approximately the same for all islands. Setting $`R_i=R`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}2N`$, we are left with the factor $`_iA_i^2`$, which we can calculate numerically for given capacitance matrix or as an expansion in $`C_g/C_0`$. The expansion is analogous to the one for $`B_z`$ in Eq. (5) – assuming for simplicity $`C_J=C_0`$ we obtain

$$\alpha _1=\frac{4N(N+1)}{3(2N+1)}\left[1\frac{2C_g}{15C_0}(N^2+N+3)+𝒪((C_g/C_0)^2)\right]\times \frac{R}{R_K}\left(\frac{C_g}{C_0}\right)^2.$$
(12)
(For $`N=2`$ and to leading order in $`C_g`$, Eq. (12) gives $`\alpha _1=\frac{8}{5}\frac{R}{R_K}\left(\frac{C_g}{C_J}\right)^2`$ as derived previous.AK02 ) Fig. 3 shows $`\alpha _1`$ as a function of $`N`$ for different $`C_g/C_0`$. The numerical result is shown as crosses, and the expansion to order $`(C_g/C_0)^3`$ as squares.

For $`C_g/C_0=10^2`$ and $`10^3`$, the expansion agrees very well with the numerical result (at least when $`N10`$). For $`C_g/C_0=0.1`$ and $`1`$, the expansion becomes negative at $`N8`$ and $`N2`$ respectively. Therefore no squares are seen in this region. In a typical circuit we may have $`R50\mathrm{\Omega }`$, yielding $`R/R_K10^3`$. For $`C_gC_0`$, $`\alpha _11`$ for all realistic $`N`$.

The characteristic times $`\tau _{relax}`$ and $`\tau _\phi `$ can be calculated within the spin-boson model using perturbation theory or path integral methods.Leg87  For $`s=1`$ they are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{relax}\tau _{relax}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta S_X(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\mathrm{})=\pi \alpha _1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{2k_BT}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi \tau _\phi ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{relax}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}S_X(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{relax}+\pi \alpha _1\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (14)
where

$$S_X(\omega )[X(t),X(t^{})]_+_\omega =2\mathrm{}J(\omega )\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}$$
(15)
is the Fourier transform of the symmetrized correlation function at thermal equilibrium. These results can be applied to the CA simply by substituting $`\alpha _1`$ from Eq. (11). One defines the pure dephasing rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ^{}`$, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{relax}+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ^{}`$. The Hamiltonian-dominated regime is realized when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ^{}`$ (at least for $`s=0,1`$ Wei92 ). For ohmic damping, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ^{}=2\pi \alpha _1k_BT/\mathrm{}`$, and the condition becomes $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\alpha _1k_BT`$.

Noise with a power spectrum proportional to the inverse of the frequency is observed in many physical systems. This $`1/f`$ noise is seen also in JJ circuits Nak01 , where it is believed to be caused by background charge fluctuations.Zor96  Here we follow Shnirman et al,MSS02  and model this noise with the spin-boson model. For $`s=0`$ and $`\omega k_BT/\mathrm{}`$, (15) gives the wanted power spectrum: $`S_X(\omega )=E_{1/f}^2/\omega `$ with $`E_{1/f}^2=2\pi \mathrm{}\alpha _0\omega _{00}k_BT`$ (here $`T`$ is an adjustable parameter). Sub-ohmic environments (ie those for which $`0s<1`$) have not been much studied as it was believed that they rapidly localized the system in one of the $`\sigma _z`$-eigenstates for any strength of the damping. However, it has been realized that this is true only for large damping, whereas for weak damping the system behaves coherentlyKH96 . The times $`\tau _{relax}`$ and $`\tau _\phi `$ have been calculated for $`1/f`$ noise for the single bath spin-boson model in the Hamiltonian-dominated regimeMSS02 . The relaxation rate is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{relax}=\frac{E_{1/f}^2}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }E}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(16)
The dephasing rates are only known for $`\theta =0,\pi /2`$; they are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi =\frac{E_{1/f}}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{E_{1/f}}{\mathrm{}\omega _{ir}}}\mathrm{for}\theta =0$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi =\frac{E_{1/f}^2}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }E}\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{E_{1/f}^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _{ir}\mathrm{\Delta }E}\mathrm{for}\theta =\pi /2,$$
(18)
both with logarithmic accuracy in $`E_{1/f}`$ MSS02 . Here, $`\omega _{ir}`$ is an infrared cut-off frequency which can be experimentally determined. To determine the times we need to determine $`E_{1/f}`$.111The relaxation rate is in fact given by Eq. (13) with $`S_X(\omega )=E_{1/f}^2/\omega `$, whereas Eq. (14) cannot be used for the dephasing rates since $`S_X(0)\mathrm{}`$ for $`s=0`$.

## IV The quantum measurement of charge

The state of the qubit is inferred by performing a quantum measurement of the charge using a SET coupled capacitively to island $`N`$ of the circular array, see Fig. 1. We simulate this quantum measurement by studying the time development of the density matrix describing the CA and the SET – we follow closely Makhlin et al,MSS01  where the corresponding problem is treated for the SCB.

The SET is a circuit with one normal island surrounded by two junctions connected to normal electrodes and a capacitor $`C_g^{SET}`$, see Fig. 1. During manipulations of the qubit, no current flows through the SET – the SET is turned off – this is achieved by setting the transport voltage to zero, $`V_{tr}=0`$, and tuning the gate voltage $`V_g^{SET}`$ away from a degeneracy point so that the Coulomb blockade suppresses the tunneling through the SET. When the manipulations of the qubit are done and one wants to read out the result, then the Coulomb blockade is turned off by tuning the gate voltage to a degeneracy point and a transport voltage is turned on leading to a tunneling current through the SET. This current depends on the state of the qubit through the charge on the capacitor $`C_{int}`$. This leads to a measurement of the charge of the qubit.

The density matrix for the CA and the SET can be written as $`\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }(i,i^{},M,M^{},m,m^{})(t)`$ after one has traced out the microscopic degrees of freedom in the left and right electrodes and in the island of the SET. Here, $`i`$ labels the state of the qubit, $`M`$ is the number of (excess) electrons on the island in the SET and $`m`$ is the number of electrons that have tunneled through the SET. It is possible to derive a master equation for $`\widehat{\rho }`$ as an expansion in the SET tunneling terms.SS94  For low temperature and small $`V_{tr}`$, only transitions between two adjacent charge states of the SET need to be taken into account (these states are assumed to be $`M=0,1`$ below). If one furthermore assumes that the tunneling is instantaneous then one obtains a set of simple equations for the diagonal matrix elements $`\widehat{\rho }_M^{ij}(m,t)\widehat{\rho }(i,j;M,M;m,m)(t)`$. In terms of the Fourier transformed quantity $`\widehat{\rho }_M^{ij}(k,t)=_me^{ikm}\widehat{\rho }_M^{ij}(m,t)`$, the final form is a system of eight coupled differential equations (for each $`k`$)

$$\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{\rho }_0}{\widehat{\rho }_1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[H_{ctrl},\widehat{\rho }_0]}{i[H_{ctrl}+\delta H_{int},\widehat{\rho }_1]}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Le^{ik}\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_R}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_R}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{\rho }_0}{\widehat{\rho }_1}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_M`$ is short for the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_M^{ij}(k,t)`$. $`H_{ctrl}`$ is the qubit Hamiltonian with a renormalised capacitance matrix ($`C_{N,N}C_{N,N}+C_{int}`$) due to the presence of the SET, $`\delta H_{int}=E_{int}\sigma _z`$ is the coupling energy where $`E_{int}`$ is determined by the capacitances. The tunneling rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}`$ are

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L\widehat{\rho }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\widehat{\rho }_0+\pi \alpha _L[\delta H_{int},\widehat{\rho }_0]_+,`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_R\widehat{\rho }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\widehat{\rho }_1\pi \alpha _R[\delta H_{int},\widehat{\rho }_1]_+,`$ (20)
where $`\alpha _{L/R}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L/R}`$ is the tunneling conductance and the tunneling rate for the left/right junction of the SET.

We want to study the current through the SET as a function of time – this is obtained from

$$P(m,t)\underset{i,M}{}\widehat{\rho }(i,i,M,M,m,m)(t),$$
(21)
which can be interpreted as the probability that $`m`$ electrons have tunneled through the SET during time $`t`$. To compute $`P(m,t)`$, we solve the differential equation (19) with suitable initial conditions. We assume that the qubit and the SET are disentangled initially, $`\widehat{\rho }(t=0)=\widehat{\rho }_0^{qb}\widehat{\rho }_0^{SET}`$, and that the qubit is prepared in some state $`|\psi =\alpha +\beta `$, $`\widehat{\rho }_0^{qb}=|\psi \psi |`$. At time $`t=0`$, no electrons have tunneled through the SET, thus $`P(m,0)=\delta _{m,0}`$ and $`P(k,0)=1`$ for the Fourier transform. From the definition (21), we find $`P(k,0)=Tr(\widehat{\rho }_0)+Tr(\widehat{\rho }_1)`$ and we may choose $`(\widehat{\rho }_0,\widehat{\rho }_1)|_{t=0}=(\mathrm{𝟎},\widehat{\rho }_0^{qb})`$.

To calculate $`P(m,t)`$ for the $`N=2`$ CA we need values for the parameters $`E_{int}`$, $`\alpha _L`$, $`\alpha _R`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ for the SET, and $`B_z`$ and $`B_x`$ for the qubit. We choose $`C_g=C_{int}=C_g^{SET}=\frac{1}{3}C_T=\frac{1}{100}C_J=\frac{1}{100}C_0=0.032`$ fF, $`\alpha _L=\alpha _R=0.03`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=30\mu `$eV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=100\mu `$eV (the qualitative result will not be too sensitive to this choice). Hence $`E_C=100\mu `$eV, $`E_{int}=6.1\mu `$eV and $`B_z=80\delta n_g\mu `$eV. At the start of the measurement $`B_x`$ is turned off, $`B_x0`$. $`B_z`$ is kept close to the degeneracy point, although $`B_z0`$ to avoid the environment-dominated regime. Fig. 4 shows examples of $`P(m,t)`$. In (a) a measurement in the off-state, $`B_x=0`$, is shown, the other parameters are $`B_z=9.0\mu `$eV (corresponding to $`\delta n_g=0.11`$) and $`|\alpha |^2=0.75`$. For comparison, Fig. 4(b) shows a mesaurement where $`B_x`$ is on; the parameters are in this case $`B_x=1.3\mu `$eV (which is the maximum value of $`B_x`$ assuming $`E_J^{max}=0.2E_C`$), $`B_z=15\mu `$eV (corresponding to $`\delta n_g=0.19`$) and $`|\alpha |^2=0.50`$.

We see that after a while, $`P`$ develops a two peak structure. This is interpreted as follows. At a given time, the total current is a superposition of two different currents flowing in the SET, with weights given by the amplitudes, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, of the charge states in the qubit state. For increasing $`t`$, the peaks move towards higher $`m`$ values since more electrons have tunneled through the SET. During this process, the peaks widen, their magnitude decreases and the distance (in $`m`$) between the peaks increases. The ratio between the two peak values are $`2.96`$ in Fig. 4(a) and $`1.101.20`$ (the value decreases with time) in Fig. 4(b) to be compared to the ratios $`|\alpha |^2/|\beta |^2=3`$ and $`1`$ respectively. Fig. 4(a) corresponds to our proposed measurement situation – the off-state – and we see that here the peaks are well separated after a while and the ratio of their peak values stay close to $`|\alpha |^2/|\beta |^2`$ for a very long time. Thus allowing for a slow accurate measurement of the charge. In Fig. 4(b) on the other hand, the peaks are less well separated and the ratio agrees less well with $`|\alpha |^2/|\beta |^2`$. Eventually the valley between the peaks will fill out and one broad peak forms due to mixing between the charge states – a plateau indicating this process is clearly seen in (b). To perform a measurement of the charge, the peaks must have moved apart to become well separated and not yet started to merge due to mixing. This gives a window in time for measuring the charge – in the off-state in Fig. 4(a) this window is very large – the lower bound is $`\tau _{meas}500`$ ns. The upper bound is not seen, however, we expect it to be considerably larger.

## V Discussion

We here estimate the decoherence times for the circular array. To be specific we assume $`C_0=C_J=100C_g`$, $`E_C5E_J^{max}100\mu `$eV and $`T40`$ mK $`=3\mu `$eV and, initially $`N=2`$ – higher $`N`$ are commented on below.

Calculations are performed by tuning $`H_{ctrl}(t)`$ in time. During this process the SET is off, and we are close to the degeneracy point. Assuming $`|\delta n_g|0.2`$, then $`|B_z|0.16E_C16\mu `$eV – in addition we have $`|B_x|0.013E_C=1.3\mu `$eV. There is also a lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, since the system is assumed to be in the Hamiltonian-dominated regime. The typical time per operation of the qubit is $`\tau _{op}\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }E10`$ ps assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }E10\mu `$eV.

For the ohmic noise, we use $`R50\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which gives $`\alpha _1310^7`$. Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }E16\mu `$eV one finds $`\tau _\phi 100\mu `$s and $`\tau _{relax}100\mu `$s. The Hamiltonian regime is realised when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\alpha _1k_BT10^{12}`$eV.

For $`1/f`$ noise, $`\tau _\phi `$ is only known for $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$. We use these two cases to estimate $`\tau _\phi `$, assuming that this gives the correct order of magnitude for general $`\theta `$. Nakamura et al. Nak01  measured the factor $`\alpha _{1/f}^{SCB}=(E_{1/f}^{SCB})^2/E_C^2`$ for the SCB and obtained $`\alpha _{1/f}^{SCB}10^6`$. If the $`1/f`$-noise is caused by background charge fluctuations then it is reasonable to assume that for the CA $`\alpha _{1/f}2N\alpha _{1/f}^{SCB}`$, since the CA has $`2N`$ islands instead of the single island in the SCB. This gives $`E_{1/f}^2=2\pi \mathrm{}\alpha _0\omega _{00}k_BT2NE_C^2\alpha _{1/f}^{SCB}`$ and, for the parameters above, we find $`E_{1/f}^2410^6E_C^2`$. From Nakamura et al. Nak01  we also take $`\omega _{ir}310`$ Hz. For $`\theta =0`$ we find $`\tau _{relax}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau _\phi 1`$ ns if $`B_z<16\mu `$eV and for $`\theta =\pi /2`$, we find $`\tau _{relax}10`$ ns and $`\tau _\phi 5`$ ns if $`B_x<1.3\mu `$eV. This shows that the Hamiltonian-dominated regime is realised if $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.5\mu `$eV.

After the calculations, the SET is turned on and the measurement is started by tuning $`B_x`$ to $`0`$. The relaxation is now very slow: $`\tau _{relax}\mathrm{}`$ when $`\theta 0`$ for both ohmic and $`1/f`$ noise. This gives ample time to measure $`|\alpha |^2`$ without using an ultra-fast detector, c.f. Fig. 4. The dephasing is very rapid, thus the quantum state of the qubit is destroyed in a short time but it is still possible to measure the charge. This is good enough as a read-out mesurement but not as part of an error correction protocol.

For higher $`N`$, the ohmic decoherence times will decrease somewhat, due to an increase in $`\alpha _1`$. The same is true for $`1/f`$ noise, since $`E_{1/f}\sqrt{N}`$.

We conclude that it is the $`1/f`$ noise that limits the operation of the CA as a qubit – it leads to the decoherence time $`\tau _{decoh}1`$ ns. The decoherence due to ohmic noise is much slower. Hence, in practice, the ohmic noise seems to be of little concern. If the typical time for a quantum operation is $`\tau _{op}10`$ ps, then the $`1/f`$ noise restricts one to $`N_{op}100`$ operations, assuming $`B_x`$ and $`B_z`$ are restricted to values that realise the Hamiltonian-dominated regime. This is a severe restriction and once again underscores that $`1/f`$ noise is a serious problem for Josephson junction charge qubits. One possible solution to this might be the echo-technique demonstrated by Nakamura et al. Nak01 .

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Peter Ågren, Jochen Walter, Silvia Corlevi, Janik Kailasvuori and Hans Hansson for useful discussions and Sergei Isakov for his computer skills. Anders Karlhede was supported by the Swedish Science Research Council.