Main Article Content
With quantum computing’s potential to be exponentially more powerful than classical computing, due to superposition and entanglement, several companies including IBM have started to develop quantum computers. Since 2016, IBM has developed publicly accessible cloud-based quantum computers. While the development of quantum computing can revolutionize decryption, optimization, and the simulation of quantum systems, quantum computers must maintain a high level of accuracy as they are scaled up. This paper introduces the fundamental gates used on IBM’s quantum computers and provides visualizations of each gate. A thought experiment involving two quantum entangled particles is used to explain the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, and two potential explanations are introduced: violation of locality and the Hidden Variable Theory. Experimental results are reported for the quality of entanglement created on IBM’s publicly accessible 5-qubit quantum computers by creating entanglement between 2 qubits and then measuring both qubits along a set combination of axes, and demonstrating the violation of the Bell-CHSH Inequality. Six out of seven 5-qubit quantum computers violated the Bell-CHSH Inequality, thus demonstrating strong quantum entanglement between 2 qubits, a standard crucial for scaling up quantum computers to harness their exponentially scaling power.
Arute F, Arya K, Babbush R. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature. 2019;574:505–510. Available:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
De Wolf, R. The potential impact of quantum computers on society. Ethics and Information Technology. 2017;19(4):271–276. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05380
Preskill J. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum. 2018;2:79. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862
García-Martín, Diego, Sierra, German. Five Experimental tests on the 5-Qubit IBM quantum computer. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics; 2017. Available:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321873372_Five_Experimental_Tests_on_the_5-Qubit_IBM_Quantum_Computer
Devitt SJ. Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud. Physical Review A. 2016;94(3). Available:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032329
The IBM Quantum Experience, Available:http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum
Deffner S. Demonstration of entanglement assisted invariance on IBM’s Quantum Experience. Heliyon. 2017;3(11). Available:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.07459.pdf
Bell JS. On the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox. Physics. 1964;1(3):195-200. Available:https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf
Clauser JF, Horne MA, Shimony A, Holt RA. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters. 1969;23(15):880–884. Available:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880
Vedovato F. et al. Postselection-loophole-free Bell violation with genuine time-bin entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018;121:190401. Available:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.190401
Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum computation and quantum information Cambridge University Press; 2010. Available:http://mmrc.amss.cas.cn/tlb/201702/W020170224608149940643.pdf
Bransden BH, Joachain CJ. Quantum mechanics. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall; 2000.
Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, Gérard Roger. Experimental realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: a new violation of bell's inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49(2):91–4.
Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review. 1935;47(10):777–780.
Augusiak R, Demianowicz M, Acín A. Local hidden–variable models for entangled quantum states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. 2014;47(42).