| Literature DB >> 27444137 |
Yi-Hao Kang1, Ye-Hong Chen1, Qi-Cheng Wu1, Bi-Hua Huang1, Yan Xia1, Jie Song2.
Abstract
We propose an effective and flexible scheme for reverse engineering of a Hamiltonian by designing the evolution operators to eliminate the terms of Hamiltonian which are hard to be realized in practice. Different from transitionless quantum driving (TQD), the present scheme is focus on only one or parts of moving states in a D-dimension (D ≥ 3) system. The numerical simulation shows that the present scheme not only contains the results of TQD, but also has more free parameters, which make this scheme more flexible. An example is given by using this scheme to realize the population transfer for a Rydberg atom. The influences of various decoherence processes are discussed by numerical simulation and the result shows that the scheme is fast and robust against the decoherence and operational imperfection. Therefore, this scheme may be used to construct a Hamiltonian which can be realized in experiments.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27444137 PMCID: PMC4957130 DOI: 10.1038/srep30151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Energy levels of the three-energy-level Rydberg atom.
Figure 2(a) Ω1T and versus t/T with μ = π/4. (b) Ω2T and Ω2′T versus t/T with μ = π/4 and A = 1.
Figure 3(a) Populations of states |1〉, |2〉 and |3〉 versus t/T when the Rydberg atom is driven by laser pulses with Rabi frequencies Ω1 and Ω2. (b) Populations of states |1〉, |2〉 and |3〉 versus t/T when the Rydberg atom is driven by laser pulses with Rabi frequencies and . Here we set the parameters μ = π/4 and A = 1.
Figure 4(a) Fidelity F of the target state versus and . (b) Fidelity F of the target state versus and δT/T. (c) Fidelity F of the target state versus and δT/T. Here we set the parameters μ = π/4 and A = 1.
δΩ′1/Ω′1 and δΩ′2/Ω′2 with corresponding fidelity F.
| δΩ′1/Ω′1 | δΩ′2/Ω′2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 10% | 0.9835 |
| 10% | 0 | 0.9951 |
| 0 | 10% | 0.9916 |
| 0 | 0 | 1.0000 |
| −10% | 0 | 0.9938 |
| 0 | −10% | 0.9902 |
| −10% | −10% | 0.9822 |
| 10% | −10% | 0.9875 |
| −10% | 10% | 0.9887 |
δΩ′1/Ω′1 and δT/T with corresponding fidelity F.
| δΩ′1/Ω′1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 10% | 0.9855 |
| 10% | 0 | 0.9951 |
| 0 | 10% | 0.9942 |
| 0 | 0 | 1.0000 |
| −10% | 0 | 0.9938 |
| 0 | −10% | 0.9855 |
| −10% | −10% | 0.9729 |
| 10% | −10% | 0.9879 |
| −10% | 10% | 0.9915 |
δΩ′2/Ω′2 and δT/T with corresponding fidelity F.
| δΩ′2/Ω′2 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 10% | 0.9688 |
| 10% | 0 | 0.9916 |
| 0 | 10% | 0.9942 |
| 0 | 0 | 1.0000 |
| −10% | 0 | 0.9902 |
| 0 | −10% | 0.9855 |
| −10% | −10% | 0.9588 |
| 10% | −10% | 0.9974 |
| −10% | 10% | 0.9994 |
δΩ′1/Ω′1, δΩ′2/Ω′2 and δT/T with corresponding fidelity F.
| δΩ′1/Ω′1 | δΩ′2/Ω′2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −10% | −10% | −10% | 0.9469 |
| 10% | −10% | −10% | 0.9607 |
| −10% | 10% | −10% | 0.9853 |
| −10% | −10% | 10% | 0.9926 |
| 10% | 10% | −10% | 0.9990 |
| 10% | −10% | 10% | 0.9956 |
| −10% | 10% | 10% | 0.9713 |
| 10% | 10% | 10% | 0.9531 |
Figure 5Fidelity F of the target state versus Ω0T with the STIRAP method.
Ω0 T for STIRAP and corresponding fidelity F.
| Ω0 | |
|---|---|
| 3.154 | 0.5538 |
| 5 | 0.6263 |
| 10 | 0.8516 |
| 15 | 0.9604 |
| 20 | 0.9898 |
| 25 | 0.9960 |
| 30 | 0.9992 |
Figure 6Fidelity F of the target state versus Γ1/Ω0 and Γ2/Ω0.