Switching in a reversible spin logic gate

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Switching in a reversible spin logic gate
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Superlattices and Microstructures, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1997  Switching in a reversible spin logic gate S. Bandyopadhyay †  Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68588-0511, USA V. P. Roychowdhury School of Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA(Received 15 July 1996) Theoretical results for the adiabatic switching of a reversible quantum inverter–realizedwith two antiferromagnetically coupled single electrons in adjacent quantum dots—arepresented. It is found that a large exchange interaction between the electrons favors fasterswitchingbutalsomakesthetimingofthereadcyclemorecritical.Additionally,thereexistsan optimal input signal energy to achieve complete switching. Only for this optimal signalenergy does the inverter yield an unambiguous, logically definite state. An experimentalstrategy for realizing circuits based on such gates in self-assembled arrays of quantum dotsis briefly discussed.c  1997 Academic Press Limited Key words:  quantum dots, single electronics, quantum computing. 1. Introduction Research in nanoelectronic classical Boolean logic circuits derived from single electron interactions inquantum dots has been a busy field for the last few years [1–9]. A number of ideas have appeared in the literature[1–9]thatvisualizebuildingdissipative(non-reversible)logiccircuitsbasedonCoulomborexchange interaction between single electrons in arrays of quantum dots. Some of these schemes (e.g. [2]), however,are not only flawed, but they also violate the basic tenets of circuit theory. The individual logic devices haveno isolation between input and output so that the input bit cannot even uniquely determine the output bit! (fora discussion of this issue see [3–6,10]). In this paper, we explore a different type of gate. It is a quantum mechanical gate that is reversible andnon-dissipative. It should be contrasted with ‘parametron-type’ constructs that dissipate less than  kT   ln2energyperbitoperation[11],butareotherwisenotentirelynon-dissipative.Whilethebitsinaparametronarec-numbers, the bits in the quantum gate to be described are true qubits and the time evolution of the systemis unitary. For the sake of simplicity, we consider the smallest quantum gate possible, namely an inverter.It is fashioned from two antiferromagnetically coupled single electrons in two closely spaced quantum dotsas envisioned in [3–5]. The equilibrium steady-state behavior of such a system has been investigated by Molotkov and Nazin [7,8]. Here, we will explore the dynamic behavior and the unitary time evolution of this system in a non-dissipative and globally phase-coherent environment. † On leave from the University of Notre Dame. 0749–6036/97/070411 + 06 $25.00/0 sm970365 c  1997 Academic Press Limited  412  Superlattices and Microstructures, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1997  Input OutputA B Fig. 1.  Two adjacent quantum dots hosting single electrons. In the ground state, the spins of the two electrons are antiparallel. If spinpolarization is used to encode binary bits, the logic state of one dot is always the inverse of the other. This realizes an inverter in whichone dot acts as the input terminal and the other as the output. 2. Theory Consider two single electrons housed within two closely-spaced quantum dots as shown in Fig. 1. It wasshownin[3]thatthepreferredorderingofthissystemisantiferromagnetic,i.e.thetwoelectronshaveoppositespins. If the spin polarization in one dot is considered to be the input ‘qubit’ and that in the other the output‘qubit’, then this system acts as an inverter since the spin-polarizations are antiparallel (logic complement)[3,8]. Note that an inverter is always logically reversible since one can invariably predict the input bit from a knowledgeoftheoutputbit(inpractice,theinputbitisrecoveredbymerelypassingtheoutputthroughanotherinverter).However,suchagateisnotauniversalquantumgateunliketheToffoligate[12].Variousschemesforrealizing non-dissipative and reversible quantum logic gates have recently appeared in the literature [13–18]. Experimental demonstrations of quantum logic gates have also been reported [19,20]. Almost all of theseschemes encode the qubit in a photon (rather than an electron) state thereby requiring optical componentsthat are incompatible with ultra-large-scale integration. In contrast, the spin gate based on single electrons inquantum dots is very appealing from the perspective of high-density circuits.ToanalysethesysteminFig.1quantum-mechanically,wewillassumethatthereisonlyonesize-quantizedlevelineachquantumdot.Then,theHubbardHamiltonianforthissysteminthepresenceofagloballyappliedmagnetic field can be written following Molotkov and Nazin [7] as H =  i σ  (ǫ 0 n i σ   + g µ B  H  i sign (σ)) +   ij  t  ij ( c + i σ  c  j σ   + h . c .) +  i U  i n i ↑ n i ↓ +   ij  αβ  J  ij c + i α c i β c +  j β c  j α +  H   z  i σ  g µ B n i σ  sign (σ)  (1)wherethefirsttermdenotestheelectronenergyinthe i thdot(  H  i  isa  z -directedlocalmagneticfieldselectivelyapplied at the  i th dot), the second term denotes the hopping between dots, the third term is the Coulombrepulsion within the  i th quantum dot, the fourth term is the exchange interaction between nearest-neighbourdots and the last term is the Zeeman splitting energy corresponding to the globally applied magnetic fieldoriented along the  z -direction.We can simplify the Hamiltonian in Eqn (1) to the Heisenberg model following Molotkov and Nazin [8] toyield H =  J    ij  σ   zi σ   zj  +  J    ij  (σ   xi σ   xj  + σ   yi σ   yj ) +  input dots σ   zi h input  zi  (  J   >  0 )  (2)where we have neglected the global magnetic field. The quantity  h input  zi  is the Zeeman energy caused by alocal magnetic field applied to the  i th dot in the  z -direction which will orient the spin in the  i th dot along thatfield. Such a local field can be applied via a spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscope (SPSTM) tip asvisualized in [3] and serves to provide an input signal to the gate.  Superlattices and Microstructures, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1997   413 Table 1:  Eigenenergies and eigenstates of the Hamiltonian for an inverter.Eigenenergies Eigenstates h  A +  J   |↓↓−  J   +   h 2  A + 4  J  2   12  1 + h  A   h 2  A + 4  J  2  |↑↓+   12  1 − h  A   h 2  A + 4  J  2  |↓↑−  J   −   h 2  A + 4  J  2   12  1 − h  A   h 2  A + 4  J  2  |↑↓−   12  1 + h  A   h 2  A + 4  J  2  |↓→− h  A +  J   |↑↑ In the basis of states | σ   A σ   B  (  A  and  B  are the two electrons), the Hamiltonian in Eqn (2) can be written as  h  A +  J   0 0 00  h  A −  J   2  J   00 2  J   − h  A −  J   00 0 0  − h  A +  J   (3)where  h  A  is the interaction with the input magnetic field selectively applied to quantum dot  A . The two-electron basis states can be denoted as  |↓↓ ,  |↑↓ ,  |↓↑  and  |↑↑ ; they form a complete orthonormal set.The ‘upspin’ polarization is oriented along the direction of the locally applied external magnetic field in thisrepresentation.The eigenenergies and corresponding eigenvectors of the above Hamiltonian are given in Table 1.It is obvious that the third row in Table 1 corresponds to the ground state. In the absence of any externalmagneticfield ( h  A  = 0 ) ,theground-stateenergyis − 3  J   andtheground-statewavefunctionis  1 √  2 ( |↑↓−|↓↑ ) .note that the ground state in the absence of any external magnetic field is an entangled state in which neitherthe quantum dot  A  nor the quantum dot  B  has a definite spin polarization. 3. Adiabatic switching We now wish to study the following switching problem. Assuming that the inverter is in its ground statewithout any applied magnetic field, we will calculate how long it takes after a magnetic field is applied toquantum dot  A  for the spin in  A  to orient along the field and the spin in  B  to orient in the opposite direction(as required by the inversion operation).After the external field is applied at time  t   =  0, the inverter evolves in time according to the unitaryoperation[  c (  t  ) ] = exp[ − i H t  / ¯ h ][  c ( 0 ) ] (4)where H isgivenbyEqn(3)and[  c ]isafour-elementunitvector[ c 1 , c 2 , c 3 , c 4 ]thatdescribesthewavefunction ψ( t  )  according to ψ( t  ) = c 1 ( t  ) |↓↓+ c 2 ( t  ) |↑↓+ c 3 ( t  ) |↓↑+ c 4 ( t  ) |↑↑ .  (5)The initial conditions are described by  c 1 ( 0 ) c 2 ( 0 ) c 3 ( 0 ) c 4 ( 0 )  =  0 1 √  2 −  1 √  2 0  .  (6)  414  Superlattices and Microstructures, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1997  The solution of Eqn (4) subject to the initial condition given by Eqn (6) is c 1 ( t  ) = c 4 ( t  ) = 0 c 2 ( t  ) = e i  Jt  / ¯ h √  2  cos (ω t  ) − i  h  A ¯ h ω +   1 − h 2  A ¯ h 2 ω 2  sin (ω t  )   (7) c 3 ( t  ) =− e i  Jt  / ¯ h √  2  cos (ω t  ) − i  h  A ¯ h ω −   1 − h 2  A ¯ h 2 ω 2  sin (ω t  )  where  ω =   h 2  A + 4  J  2 / ¯ h .Therefore, the wavefunction at an arbitrary time  t   is given by c 2 ( t  ) |↑↓+ c 3 ( t  ) |↓↑  (8)with  c 2  and  c 3  given by Eqn (7).After the switching is complete, the system should be in the state |↑↓ . Therefore, the switching delay  t  d can be defined as the time taken for | c 2 ( t  ) | to reach its maximum value and, correspondingly, for | c 3 ( t  ) | toreach its minimum value.This yields t  d  = h 4   h 2  A + 4  J  2 .  (9)It should be understood that the system  does not   reach a steady state at time  t   = t  d , but instead continues toevolveinaccordancewithEqn(4).Thecomputation(inversion)canbehaltedbyreadingthespin-polarization(logic bit) in the output dot (dot  B ) with a SPSTM tip at time  t   = t  d  since the reading operation is dissipativeand collapses the wavefunction. Note that the higher the frequency  ω , the more critical is the timing for theread cycle that halts the quantum computation. Since  ω  increases with the exchange energy  J  , a larger  J   willmandate a greater accuracy in the read cycle.To achieve complete switching, the magnitude  | c 2 ( t  d ) |  should be unity and  | c 3 ( t  d ) |  should vanish. FromEqns (7) and (9), we obtain | c 2 ( t  d ) |= h  A + 2  J    2 h 2  A + 8  J  2 .  (10)Themagnitude | c 2 ( t  d ) | 2 asafunctionofthenormalizedinputsignalenergy h  A /  J   isshowninFig.2.Itreachesa maximum value of unity (corresponding to complete switching) when  h  A  = 2  J  . Therefore, there exists anoptimal value of the input signal energy  h  A  for which complete switching can be obtained.It should be noted from Eqn (9) that the switching delay decreases with increasing exchange energy  J  . Forthe optimal case ( h  A  = 2  J  ) , the switching delay is  h /( 8 √  2  J  ) . We can estimate the order of magnitude for  t  d .Presumably, the maximum value of local magnetic field that can be applied to a dot with a SPSTM tip is about1 T. Since  h  A  ≈  g µ B  B  ( µ B  is the Bohr magnetron), this means that the maximum value of   h  A  that we canhope to obtain is about 0.1 meV if we assume the Land´e  g -factor to be 2. Consequently,  J  optimal  = 0 . 05 meV.This gives a value of   t  d  ≈ 7 ps. Therefore, these inverters are capable of quite fast switching.We can also estimate the temperature of operation for such inverters. Since the exchange energy shouldexceed the thermal energy  kT   for stable operation, the ambient temperature should be restricted to below T   =  J  / k   =  570 mK. Because the operation of the inverter requires global phase coherence (i.e. the phasebreakingtimeshouldbesignificantlylongerthan t  d ),alowtemperatureisalsootherwiserequired.Toincreasethe temperature to a more practical value of 4.2 K,  J  optimal  should be 0.364 meV and therefore  h  A  should beas large as 0.728 meV. This requires the ability to generate a local magnetic flux density in excess of 7 T withan SPSTM tip as an input to cell A. This is not possible with present state of SPSTM technology, but couldbecome feasible in the future.  Superlattices and Microstructures, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1997   415 5 h  A  /   J           |      c         2         (        t         d         )        |         2 10 Fig. 2.  The magnitude of  | c 2 ( t  d ) | 2 as a function of the normalized unput signal energy  h  A /  J  .100nm50010000 500 1000 Fig. 3.  Atomic force micrograph of a self-assembled mask to create a periodic array of quantum dots. Details can be found in [4,6]. We conclude this paper with a brief discussion of experimental strategies undertaken by us in our efforts tofabricate such gates. We believe that the optimal technique is ‘gentle’ self-assembly of quantum dots ratherthannanolithographywhichcausesprocessingdamageandhasaslowthroughput.Wefabricatearegulararrayof the dots using a self-assembled mask for mesa-etching. The self-assembled mask is created by evaporatingaluminum on the chosen semiconductor structure and then electropolishing it in a solution of perchloric acid,butyl cellusolve and ethanol at 60 V for 30 s at room temperature. Figure 3 shows the raw atomic forcemicrograph of a self-assembled mask of aluminum with a dimpled surface that consists of a periodic array of crests and troughs with hexagonal packing. The troughs are etched away by an appropriate etchant leaving aregular pattern of isolated crests on the surface of the semiconductor structure that serve as a mask throughwhichmesasareetched.Owingtospacelimitations,wewillomitdetailsofthefabricationprocess,butinsteadrefer the reader to [4,6].  Acknowledgements —The work on self-assembly of masks for fabricating quantum dots was performed incollaborationwithProf.A.E.Miller,Prof.H.C.Chang,Dr.G.BanerjeeandMr.V.YuzhakovoftheDepartment
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks