Sunday, September 22, 2024

Lots to read, including fab for quantum and "Immaterial Science"

Sometimes there are upticks in the rate of fun reading material.  In the last few days:

  • A Nature paper has been published by a group of authors predominantly from IMEC in Belgium, in which they demonstrate CMOS-compatible manufacturing of superconducting qubit hardware (Josephson junctions, transmon qubits, based on aluminum) across 300 mm diameter wafers.  This is a pretty big deal - their method for making the Al/AlOx/Al tunnel junctions is different than the shadow evaporation method routinely used in small-scale fab.  They find quite good performance of the individual qubits with strong uniformity across the whole wafer, testing representative random devices.  They did not actually do multi-qubit operations, but what they have shown is certainly a necessary step if there is ever going to be truly large-scale quantum information processing based on this kind of superconducting approach.
  • Interestingly, Friday on the arXiv, a group led by researchers at Karlsruhe demonstrated spin-based quantum dot qubits in Si/SiGe, made on 300 mm substrates.  This fab process comes complete with an integrated Co micromagnet for help in conducting electric dipole spin resonance.  They demonstrate impressive performance in terms of single-qubit properties and operations, with the promise that the coherence times would be at least an order of magnitude longer if they had used isotopically purified 28Si material.  (The nuclear spins of the stray 29Si atoms in the ordinary Si used here are a source of decoherence.)  
So, while tremendous progress has been made with atomic physics approaches to quantum computing (tweezer systems like thision trapping), it's not wise to count out the solid-state approaches.  The engineering challenges are formidable, but solid-state platforms are based on fab approaches that can make billions of transistors per chip, with complex 3D integration.

  • On the arXiv this evening is also this review about "quantum geometry", which seems like a pretty readable overview of how the underlying structure of the wavefunctions in crystalline solids (the part historically neglected for decades, but now appreciated through its relevance to topology and a variety of measurable consequences) affects electronic and optical response.  I just glanced at it, but I want to make time to look it over in detail.
  • Almost 30 years ago, Igor Dolgachev at Michigan did a great service by writing up a brief book entitled "A Brief Introduction to Physics for Mathematicians".  That link is to the pdf version hosted on his website.  Interesting to see how this is presented, especially since a number of approaches routinely shown to undergrad physics majors (e.g., almost anything we do with Dirac delta functions) generally horrify rigorous mathematics students.
  • Also fun (big pdf link here) is the first fully pretty and typeset issue of the amusing Journal of Immaterial Science, shown at right.  There is a definite chemistry slant to the content, and I encourage you to read their (satirical) papers as they come out on their website


4 comments:

Sylow said...

I have a seemingly stupid question. Why do you omit the list of your grad students in your dept website? Everyone else is listed...

Douglas Natelson said...

Do you mean why doesn't the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy list grad students in the program? Years ago (like 10-15), the university got very privacy-conscious, and the department stopped listing the names. Over time, the department hasn't gone back. I don't think there has been any real discussion about that. All of the faculty with their own research group webpages routinely list students.

Sylow said...

Yes, that is what I meant. Not all faculty have a group webpage, hence it is impossible to gather collective information that way... Was it something specifically requested by grad students (if so, why isn't anyone else (e.g. postdocs) concerned about it?) or was it a unilateral decision? I find it quite enigmatic and bizarre because other universities do list their grad students alongside with their pics (see Princeton, Chicago etc). It is something any high ranked university should be proud of, not try to conceal. It conveys a very different scenario to an outsider. I wonder whether any of you has been (is) aware of it...

Anonymous said...

The repeatability of the imec chips is impressive, but the qubit performance doesn't seem better than the average lab. I think many in academia assumed that an industry fab would get orders of magnitude better performance, but really what you get is more repeatability. The secrets behind TLS effects and two qubit gate inconsistency is still a ways away