|
November 2, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of Newton’s Second
Law Englishview
October 13, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of the Newton’s
Second Law Persianview
November 24, 2008: A New Definition of Gravitonview
July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
June 28, 2007: Unification and CPH Theoryview
June 14, 2007: Summary of Physics Conceptsview
June 14, 2007: Strong Interaction and CPH Theory Rview
June 4, 2007: Quantum Electrodynamics and CPH Theoryview
November 30, 2006: Vocabulary of CPH Theoryview
November 17, 2006: Thermodynamic Laws Entropy and CPH Theoryview
November 17, 2006: Time Function and Absolute Black Holeview
October 14, 2006: CPH and Timeview
October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Newton's Second Lawview
October 13, 2006: Time Function and Work Energy Theoremview
October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Special Relativityview
October 13, 2006: Properties of CPHview
July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge
Particlesview
July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge
Particlesview
May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
April 11, 2006: Realization Hawking - End of Physics by CPHview
April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 19, 2006: Color Charge/Color Magnet and CPHview
March 19, 2006: Sub-Quantum Chromodynamicsview
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physicists use Bose-Einstein
condensates to enhance factoring algorithm |
|
| |
|
Physicists use Bose-Einstein condensates to
enhance factoring algorithm

An absorption image of the expanding Bose-Einstein
condensate, demonstrating the diffraction pattern which constitutes
the factoring signal. Image credit: Mark Sadgrove, et al.
PhysOrg.com) -- Theoretically, quantum computing has
the potential to work more efficiently and accurately than classical
computing for certain processes, such as factoring. But quantum
methods are experimentally challenging, since they often require
tiny, fragile systems that are difficult to handle.
Recently, some approaches have suggested rediscovering old
techniques such as analog computing, which usually lie outside the
usual qubit architecture, in the hope of finding new pathways to
experimentally realize quantum computation. For instance, using
analog techniques and the quantum properties of atomic clusters
called Bose-Einstein condensates, a team of researchers from Japan
has recently improved upon a classical factoring algorithm.
Any algorithm
where the output is continuous rather than divided into bits (as on
a digital computer) is analog, Mark Sadgrove of the Japan Science
and Technology Agency (JSTA) told PhysOrg.com.
In our case, we measure quantities which are continuous in
principle. By this I mean that the energy or the probability to find
an atom with a given momentum are continuous variables, in theory.
In practice, we use a finite number of atoms, so in some sense the
final outputs are discrete, but theoretically the result of the
computation is analog in nature.
Sadgrove and his colleagues Sanjay Kumar of the University of
Electro Communications (UEC) in Chofushi, Chofugaoka, and Kenichi
Nakagawa, who has affiliations with both JSTA and UEC, have
demonstrated that, compared with the classical implementation, their
method can distinguish more accurately between factors and
non-factors of large numbers. Specifically, their quantum system
could increase the accuracy of a classical algorithm called the
Gauss sum algorithm, a technique pioneered by Wolfgang Shleich of
Ulm University in Germany.
Their quantum system consists of thousands of rubidium-87 atoms that
are cooled to near absolute zero to form a Bose-Einstein condensate
(BEC). At such a low temperature, the atoms wavelengths increase
and overlap, so that the cluster becomes a single quantum state and
obeys quantum laws, yet has a relatively large size.
The physicists zapped the BEC with a brief light pulse composed of
two counter-propagating beams. They programmed one beam to have
phase jumps (to displace the beams wavelength), while the second
beam had no phase jumps. Programming the first beam served as the
input method, representing an integer to be factored.
The dynamics of the atoms subject to the pulse could then be used to
perform factoring calculations. After applying the pulse, the
researchers allowed the BEC to expand freely for 14 ms. They then
took an absorption image of the BEC, which showed that the pulse had
separated the atoms in the BEC into different momentum orders. The
atoms formed a diffraction pattern, based on the relative number of
atoms in each momentum order, which the physicists could interpret
as the factoring signal. Specifically, high-momentum atoms
represented factors, and low-momentum atoms represented non-factors.
You can think of the laser beam as containing the software (encoded
by phase jumps) and the atoms as providing the hardware (their
natural dynamics in response to the light field is what actually
calculates the Gauss sum), Sadgrove explained.
In contrast to the usual Gauss sum, which is fundamentally limited
in its accuracy, the quantum method significantly outperformed the
classical method, in some cases doubling the atomic visibility and
offering near-perfect factoring.
In our case, our current method is still slow it doesn't make
factoring easy, Sadgrove said. What we showed is that quantum
mechanics offers an unexpected improvement to the Gauss sum method,
overcoming a fundamental accuracy limit. If the atoms behaved
classically, there would be no enhancement.
The researchers noted that the higher accuracy comes at a cost of
requiring more atoms, so the quantum methods efficiency is about
the same as that of the classical method. Nonetheless, as Sadgrove
explained, the method offers a novel experiment in a field in which
experiments are difficult to realize.
You might know that everyone doing research in quantum information
is excited about [Peter] Shor's algorithm for quantum factoring,
Sadgrove said. Shor found a remarkable way to factor numbers using
the quantum properties of interference and entanglement, which
offers amazing savings in the time it takes for factoring a number.
But Shor's algorithm is hard to implement. It's only been done
successfully for up to the number 15 at the moment, and some people
don't even consider that to be a real test due to some details about
the way the algorithm works. So that's the current state of play
regarding quantum factoring.
He added that researchers continue to investigate Shors algorithm
because of its potential impact on security: In terms of
applications, there's just one, but it's very important. If you
could do real quantum factoring, then the RSA encryption used to do
secure transactions in public situations would be no good anymore.
That's because it relies on the fact that factoring large numbers is
a hard problem. But quantum factoring makes it easy.
In the future, the physicists hope to use entangled systems as a
factoring method, which they say the present scheme is ideally
suited for. They also plan to investigate the use of multiple,
correlated atomic ensembles to perform factoring of different
integers simultaneously.
We would also like to extend the method beyond factoring, Sadgrove
said. We can actually compute general exponential sums with this
method. A Gauss sum is a simple example of an exponential sum, as is
a Fourier transform, which can be used to extract information about
a signal. These so called exponential sums are intricately tied to
the most interesting parts of number theory, such as the
distribution of prime numbers, which is still unknown. We think
there may be other powerful applications of exponential sums apart
from factoring.
http://www.physorg.com/news145535050.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
@2003-2012 The CPH theory, All right reserved
|