## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

by Madan M Kaila and Rakhi Kaila

Ratings:

516 pages9 hours

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a medical imaging technique used to visualize detailed internal structure of the body. This book discusses the recent developments in the field of MRI and its application to the diagnosis of human brain disorders. In addition, it reviews the newly emerging concepts and technology, based on the multi-coherence imaging (MQCI). It explains how computer packages can be used to generate images in diseased states and compare them to in vivo results. This will help improve the diagnosis of brain disorders based on the real-time events happening on atomic and molecular quantum levels. This is important since quantum-based MRI would enable clinicians to detect brain tumors at the very early stages.

Uses practical examples to explain the techniques - making it easier to understand the concepts Uses diagrams to explain the physics behind the technique - avoiding the use of complicated mathematical formulaePublisher: Elsevier ScienceReleased: Jun 21, 2010ISBN: 9780123847126Format: book

**Quantum Magnetic Resonance Imaging Diagnostics of Human Brain Disorders **

*Madan Kaila and Rakhi Kaila *

**AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO **

Elsevier

32 Jamestown Road London NW1 7BY

30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA

First edition 2010

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangement with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: **www.elsevier.com/permissions **

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

**Notices **

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

**British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data **

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

**Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data **

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-123-84711-9

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at **www.elsevierdirect.com **

This book has been manufactured using Print On Demand technology. Each copy is produced to order and is limited to black ink. The online version of this book will show color figures where appropriate.

**Special Note to the Reader **

**Preface **

**Acknowledgments **

**1: Biomedical Quantum Computer **

**2: Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Human Brain **

**What is Multiple-Quantum Coherence? **

**3: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Diagnostics of Human Brain Disorders **

This book is written with a wide audience in mind. **Chapter 1 is devoted to the physical aspects of quantum information science (QIS). The later parts of that chapter use bio-chemo-medical studies as a base for exploring new directions in the field of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Chapter 2 is intended to lay a foundation for visualizing quantum principles as the base for MRI. It includes illustrations of the techniques currently in use in the field of imaging. Chapter 3 develops the relationship of MRI to noninvasive diagnostics of human brain disorders. **

The three chapters can be easily read individually. They stand alone and contain references to relevant sources for further reading. Nevertheless, reading the chapters in the order in which they appear in the book gives one some education about MRI science, with the diverse and overlapping information required for learning and relearning. The illustrations, figures/tables, and other features are numbered sequentially for the chapters, although they include references to their sources and are integrated with the text. This allows readers to find more detailed information quickly, in a logical manner.

Our purpose in writing this book was to induce in the community an awareness of the relationship between QIS and the medical science. The book can be a rich source of inspiration for educators to further simplify QIS so as to bring it to the level of those who have little background in physics, chemistry, and mathematics (PCM).

This book has been written so that readers can use any of the chapters independently. The subject matter of one chapter is not sequentially related to the other two, although the theme and the aim underlying each chapter are the same. That aim is to bring to the attention of medical professionals the recent developments that have taken place in the field of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the application of MRI to the diagnosis of human brain disorders.

Over the past decade or so, the concept of multi-quantum coherences among the atoms and molecules in the brain, has come to the fore. It has been demonstrated that applications of MRI, using these multi-quantum coherences, in brain imaging can be very rewarding. With these new techniques, it has become possible to image quantum chemical and physical events in space and time, and to use this information in the interpretation of the resulting images to make detailed, molecular-level diagnoses of human brain disorders. In fact, MRI should also enable one to identify, and even predict, tumor development at very early stages.

This book presents three chapters. **Chapter 1 discusses recent theories, experiments, and other developments suggesting that the human brain is a quantum computer that follows normal principles of quantum science. The brain handles processing of problems in a parallel manner. It receives information from many sensory organs of the body simultaneously, and plans action, spontaneously, in a coherent, parallel manner. This is different from the sequential handling of data that we have become used to in the electronic computer. The simplified mathematics of quantum science is presented in this chapter, but mainly with reference to practical illustrations, tables, figures, and the like. This chapter also presents an investigation of the close relationship between the brain, as a quantum computer, and intermolecular quantum coherence imaging. **

**Chapter 1 may not interest some medical professionals (e.g., the clinical doctors) who are directly involved in the diagnostics field, but will certainly interest medical scientists who are involved in research and development in the area of brain science. Thus, clinicians can skip this chapter if they wish to, or make a partial, introductory study of the quantum science applied to imaging. This will not jeopardize their understanding of the information in the following two chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 are directed toward MRI and its application to imaging and the diagnosis of human brain disorders. Chapter 2 is mainly devoted to conventional MRI of the brain. All the basic techniques of imaging are covered. This has been done using practical illustrations, without much delving into the basic physics of such imaging, although some fundamental aspects and concepts, such as the meaning of the basic dipole magnetic moment and its implication in imaging, are included in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 takes a different approach to imaging, in which quantum imaging and the development of more advanced knowledge of quantum science play a prominent role. First, the quantum mechanics of the matrices representing atomic spins is briefly explained. Their relationship to quantum magnetic resonance imaging (QMRI) is then highlighted. **

This is not done in the manner of a normal textbook. Instead, it is done as an information-based initiative. There are two reasons for this presentation. First, the authors want the knowledge presented to remain fairly easily understandable to most of the audience, and not become too complicated, particularly for medical professionals (e.g., clinical doctors). Nevertheless, medical scientists with a good background in physics, chemistry, and mathematics (PCM) will find it very stimulating, and are challenged to make it a base for further learning. Second, the area of QMRI is fairly new, and textbook-level formal PCM treatment is not yet easy to prepare, particularly in an easily understandable format, for the wider scientific community.

Specific Appreciation

The authors express specific gratitude to the producers of the intellectual material used in the preparation of this book. The producers referred to are the authors of the research articles, and the publishers who made available in wide circulation the material used. In particular, appreciation for the material used is expressed to: John Wiley & Sons, Elsevier, American Institute of Physics (AIP), American Physical Society (APS), NATURE, SCIENCE, American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAN), Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA (PNAS), The Institute of Physics, UK (IOP), Wm. C. Brown, Taylor and Francis, Springer Verlag, SCIENCE, and others whose material has been used. Advancement of science for the coming generations can be possible only with free semination and dissemination of the knowledge produced.

It would not have been possible for us to write this book without the facilities and courtesies extended by the School of Physics, and the Faculty of Science, at the University of New South Wales. In addition to use of information technology facilities, the award of the honorary position of Vesting Fellow, at the School of Physics, to Dr Madan Kaila greatly assisted in enabling this work. The wonderful e-journal access provided by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) library is highly appreciated. The support of the Head of the School of Physics, Prof. Richard Newbury, and of the Dean of the faculty of science is particularly appreciated.

Appreciation of those whose efforts contributed to the creation of this work would be incomplete without thanking the late Dr Mulkh Raj Kaila (father of Dr Madan Kaila) and the late Dr Krishan Lal Kaila (eldest brother of Dr Madan Kaila). Their contributions to the educational career of Madan Kaila, in the field of science, led to the creation of this work. We wish to reiterate our sincerest tributes, in memory of Dr Krishan Lal Kaila and Dr Mulkh Raj Kaila, by including their portraits here. But for their sacrifice, this work would never have been possible.

*Left*: Brother of Madan Kaila: Dr Krishan Lal Kaila, 1932 (Lahore) to 2003 (Delhi); Emeritus Scientist, National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India. *Right*: Father of Madan Kaila: Dr Mulkh Raj Kaila, 1910 (Lahore) to 1957 (Delhi).

Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction **1 **

1.2 Theory: Theoretical Schemes and Algorithms in QMIP **15 **

1.3 Experimental Techniques **39 **

1.4 Summary and Conclusion **53 **

References 84

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Similarities and Differences Between Classical and Quantum Mechanical Information Processing

This chapter is designed to benefit the overall scientific community involved in the research and development of quantum mechanical information processing (QMIP). This community itself has evolved, using widely different theoretical and experimental approaches over the years. Unfortunately, the research at present is not realizing its full potential, in part because groups tend to work in isolation from each other and because the overall scientific community shares few common goals. This chapter intends to reduce this communication gap. It also intends to create grounds for workers to familiarize themselves about the various useful technologies that are currently being pursued.

The basics of QMIP were founded along with the birth of quantum mechanics (QM) itself. This happened during the 1920s and 1930s. The enormous success of QM in explaining properties of matter, at solid-state, atomic, subatomic, and other levels, has proven unparalleled in the history of the development of physics. Today, society enjoys the technologies that resulted from these scientific breakthroughs, albeit with little recognition of their origins. Solid-state (SS) quantum physics has resulted in applications as varied and widely available as electronic computers (ECs), mobile communications, space travel, and many others.

Until recently, quantum mechanical principles have not been the subject of intensive development in connection with QMIP. However, the quantum computer (QC) has suddenly become a popular research area, and this field has had to revisit quantum mechanical principles right from the basics. The issues that now confront the scientific community are at the grassroots level. For intensive research and development in the areas of quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, and the QC, one has to rely heavily on in-depth analysis of the quantum-level physics. A rapid development of suitable technologies that can put QMIP into practice would then become feasible. The motivation behind QC and QMIP research is not only the high speed and large amount of information processing that is possible, but also the development of unbreakable methods of transporting secret information (encryption). In QMIP, this will be enabled using normal communication channels.

QMIP is similar to classical information processing (CIP) in that it uses binary logic; present-day ECs, such as desktop computers, use 0 and 1 digit information coding. This is achieved through low and high voltage applied to a silicon gate (switch). High voltage closes the gate (code 1) and lets the electrical signal go through to the next switch; the low voltage (code 0) does not allow conduction. The not

(0) and one

(1) digitally coded electrical signals are the tools for coding information through large (8 bits, 16 bits, etc.) binary numbers. In CIP, the signal progresses in a sequential order using unit sets of an eight-digit bit or a sixteen-digit bit basic component. In QMIP, the coding is still binary but the creation of the bits is quite different. QMIP also drastically differs in manipulation and transport of the bit information. The QM energy states used in computation may be, for example, the position and momentum, spin up or spin down, etc., of an elementary particle such as an electron. These could further be divided into substates. The electron spin may exist anywhere between 0 and 2*π *directions. Control of spin can be achieved by external application of an appropriate direction and magnitude of a magnetic field. One may even use the internal magnetic field of the nucleus around which the electrons precess in an atom.

These substates add further dimension to the storage of information. The states are then manipulated through their evolution in time for the desired information transport. The elementary particles used in QMIP can be atoms, electrons, photons, and so forth. Theoretical schemes and algorithms have used particle states to design a QC. Unfortunately, there is an oversupply of theoretical schemes in the literature—significant implementation of these schemes in practice is a different matter. It is not easy to code on electron spin orientation, direction of photon polarization, or the like. The required quantum states of the particles are difficult to maintain and process. Some success has been achieved, though, by using the technique of liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (LSNMR). In QMIP, 0 and 1 codes are replaced by a wave function |*ψ*〉.

The eigen (energy values) states of the wave functions—say, for instance, |0〉 the ground state and |1〉 the first excited state—can be coded as 0 and 1, respectively. One can also have linear superpositions of two (or more) energy-state wave functions |0〉 and |1〉, for example, or use the degeneracy (more than one state per energy) of a single function, the hyperfine splitting. The qbits in LSNMR are among different phase states (e.g., the superposed states of the nuclear spins). These superposed states can be created by rotation of the spin states. This is done by the application of radio frequency (RF) field pulses in an orthogonal plane. The RF field is superposed onto a direct-current (DC) magnetic field applied in a certain direction.

The interaction between the nuclear spin magnetic moments of the neighboring nuclei controls the evolution of the qbits. One measures the state of the qbits by using NMR spectroscopy (absorption or emission). The conjoining of all these events is handled through a quantum gate (QG). The structure of a QG is quite different from that of a classical gate (CG). It is necessary to test the qbit at every step for any error and then to control the state for further progression. The configuration of a QG is also different in different systems. The rotations of spins in LSNMR may be replaced by a totally different technique in another system, such as a polarizer/analyzer combination for a photon qbit in an optical computer.

The measured result in a QG is the *expectation*, i.e., the most probable value of the wave function in that state. The expectation value of the states is a finite probability between 0 and 1. By suitable implements, it can be made very close to 1. Though there is an analogy in bit coding in the sense of CIP, the technology required to implement a QG would be quite different. It is the multidimensional ascendancy—i.e., the involvement of the multi-bits for transporting the information in polynomial time—that makes the QMIP such a powerful tool, as well as such a difficult and maybe impossible one. LSNMR is the only technique that can boast of some degree of achievement in the field so far. The qbits can be designed using atoms, molecules, ions, and so forth, configured in a coherent enclosed environment. This coherent environment may be devised through an electrodynamic cavity where laser beams control interactions between energy states of the particles. Another technique is to confine electrons in a small group in the neighboring quantum dots (QDs) in the solid state. The measurement and transport of the electrons between the bits may be controlled by the application of an external terahertz (THz) electric field. The entanglement of discrete atomic energy levels (Rydberg atom) provides many high-purity states for storage and transport of information. Nevertheless, all these high-flying ambitions do not come without a price. As the number of qbits increases, so does the decoherence between the states. The chance of accumulating errors in time and space in the operation of the whole system is quite high. Still, despite the myriad problems facing QMIP, appreciable progress has been made in some areas. Several theoretical and experimental techniques have been developed, using various areas of physics (e.g., optics, magnetism) to put this complex and difficult scheme into practice**1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545. **

1.1.2 LSNMR and QMIP

LSNMR has been successful in implementing a multi-qbit QC**12345678917. One may note that in LSNMR the huge size of the equipment involved would prohibit this technology from providing a desktop computer. Still, its ability to work at room temperature and the ready availability of well-developed NMR technology are certainly advantages not to be ignored. Furthermore, the materials involved are in liquid state and can be easily prepared in the laboratory. These may in fact be simple, naturally occurring molecules (e.g., DNA). LSNMR provides an easy-to-manipulate technology that would at least allow one to better understand the basics of QM and thus lead to quicker realization of QMIP. One should remember that progression in quantum computing through understanding means less time and thus less money spent in the hunt for a QC. **

1.1.3 Incomplete Description of QM States

The basic principles of QM inhibit simultaneous measurement of the physical properties of the discrete quantum states (e.g., the position and momentum, spin up and spin down, of an electron; various polarization states of a photon with respect to some specified axis). If you make a measurement on one state, the other one gets disturbed, thus both cannot be measured simultaneously. Violation of this principle of QM can, however, be attained by following strict constraints involving *hidden variables *(HVs). This chapter specifically includes a section on mathematical deductions and practical examples to illustrate the HVs. The Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) entanglement of quantum states **[30], Bell’s inequalities (BIs) [52], Shor’s factoring algorithm (SFA) [36], and others are covered in this chapter, with illustrations of applications in various technologies. Quantum processes are at work all the time in real life, whether it is within a single atom or an ensemble of atoms—liquid state, solid state, etc. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were driven by the principle of common sense and of physical reality in real life. A good example of the QMIP system at work is in the human body: the DNA QMIP. With this mechanism, nature cleverly carries out the computation process by passing on genetic information from one generation to the next. Over the past decade or so, there have been efforts to prepare quantum states using DNA in laboratories [51] and to explore their secrets for use in QMIP. **

1.1.4 Solid-State Technology and QMIP

Let us now examine the status of QMIP in the solid state. There is a prevalent active research component, the area of nano-silicon technology, but the outcome so far is not encouraging. In the solid state, preparation of the qbits requires a very high degree of precision. There have been efforts to prepare electron spin and/or charge qbits in quantum wells, QDs, etc., using nano-fabrication technology. This too has yielded no worthwhile results so far. There is also a need to have a cryogenic infrastructure to provide mK order of temperatures for the bits to function. This only adds to the complexity of the processes involved. So far, no experimental device has yet been fabricated that demonstrates that a charge-/spin-based solid-state technique in QMIP actually proceeds in computation to a significant level. Progress in experimentally solving the prevalent decoherence problem (multiscaling of qbits, etc.) in the solid state has been very slow [**10–16]. One reason for disappointment in this area may be the fact that there is not a good enough understanding of the basics of the electron charge and/or spin state in a localized environment such as a QD. **

Over the years, a common perception has developed that one should stick to applied research only. However, one should remember that applied research is pure research and pure research is applied research. It is like the chicken-and-egg paradox: which came first, nobody knows. One thing is sure though, one does not come without the other. All the technologies that society enjoys today are the fruits of the curiosity research done by physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and other pure

scientists over more than a century. Why, then, has this culture of pure research, evolved over a century, been declared unnecessary today? In fact, basically destroyed? It seems that the research on QMIP has rekindled the flame of basic research. It is a well-known fact that in order for a few geniuses (provided there are some) to make breakthrough progress, the toil of many others who may not be geniuses is required. The background forms a necessary part of the process. Despite reaping the fruits of both pure and applied research, over decades, society seems to have cut itself off at the knees by ignoring and undervaluing the basic research culture. Had it not, the QMIP field would otherwise have been much closer to success by now.

In short, those in the solid-state technology area lack understanding of the basics. That is why this area has not been able to progress at the rate it should. Slow progress in solid-state quantum-computing stands in stark contrast to the fast developments made in the field of nano-fabrication. Maybe there is no answer to the crippling problem of decoherence. It may be wise to take caution from the case of the amorphous silicon solar cell, which has not replaced single-crystal technology despite the efforts made and noise propagated over the past few decades.

1.1.5 QMIP Coded on Light

Quantum information can also be coded on light [**18–24]. A photon is a particle that does not have charge. It moves at the velocity of light and is less susceptible to decoherence than other particles. In light, encoding can be done using a photon’s different polarization states, each of which can be used as a carrier of information. A laser beam of photons can be split into coherently intimate orthogonal states, in accordance with the basic requirements of the principles of QM. The orthogonal states are unitary transformations of the same entity, and thus a good preparation for a basic pure qbit. Coherent manipulation of semiconductor quantum bits with terahertz radiation can provide a high speed in QMIP [25, 26]. Terahertz electromagnetic radiation is a dark invisible light. A THz probe in QMIP would be extremely useful in imaging, remote sensing, surveillance, and the like. Although trapped-ion techniques have seen considerable progress over the years [27–29], given the lack of basic understanding of the QM processes involved, any significant degree of further progress seems unlikely. The only way out is basic research that goes ahead of the applied research. **

The following commentary about the basic limitations on the description of QM, produced in 1935 by Einstein et al. **[30] and thus called the EPR paradox, still requires many explanations today. It is worth quoting the outlines of the paradox here: two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of reality, only when they can be simultaneously measured or predicted …since either one or the other, but not both simultaneously, can be predicted, they are not simultaneously real … the wave function thus does not provide a complete description of the physical reality … whether or not such a description exists (sometimes referred to as the phenomena of wave-function collapse)… The EPR paradox is under test more than ever before, because of QMIP research. One can find a myriad of theoretical and experimental techniques presently being pursued to scrutinize the paradox. Though the references listed in this chapter constitute only a brief and partial listing, they provide the reader with vast latitude and longitude of information in the field. One needs to familiarize oneself with the present status of the field both in theory and experiment. **

A successful experiment would require an efficient algorithm to find a technique that can implement a viable solution to the problems involved. There is no dearth of theoretical algorithms in the literature, but their practical implementation to achieve the desired goal is far from realization. Efforts are in place to use the available theoretical quantum algorithms. Designs for practical gates capable of manipulating qbits have been detailed in the literature (some recent ones can be found in Refs. [**31–56]). **

1.1.6 General Concept: Controlled-NOT Gate and 2-Bit Operation **[57] **

This section is included to help those who do not have an adequate knowledge of CGs based on the Boolean algebraic operations. A notable aspect of current QMIP research is the quest to realize a scalable quantum-computing architecture. In the most common paradigm, the two required elements are a single-qbit arbitrary rotation gate and a 2-bit maximally entangling gate, that is, a controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate.

There are many two-level quantum systems suitable for encoding qbits and realizing single-qbit rotations, such as spin-½ systems, simple harmonic (SHM) oscillators, phonons, superconducting systems (charge, phase, flux), optical systems, and so on. Common to these architectures is the need for accurate characterization of the systems that generate the universal gate set. A 2-qbit gate will be critical for any realization of a QC. A *QG *is a unitary operation that by definition maps pure states to pure states. In the standard model, a 2-qbit QG transforms states of the 2 qbits to the states of 2 qbits.

In principle, a 2-qbit QG could output superposition states and entangled states, and could also disentangle states, depending on the nature of the gate. The task of determining whether a prototype gate is working is not a simple matter. The prototype may decohere the qbits and thus not generate the correct amount of entanglement or introduce phase errors. Myriads of potential experimental faults might occur. The exclusive-OR (XOR) gate is the classical 2-bit CNOT gate where a control bit flips the state of a target bit. As shown in **Table 1.1, there are only four possible inputs and therefore output states. **

**Table 1.1 **Two-Input–Two-Output Table for an Ideal Classical CNOT (XOR) Gate

*General concept*: *CNOT gate and 2-bit operation*. The simplest characterization of 2-bit gate is a straightforward matter of entering each possible input and measuring the output state. If the gate conforms to **Table 1.1, it is at least an XOR gate. A more complete characterization, which allows measurement of the error probabilities, is arrived at by measuring the probability of each of the four possible output states for each of the four inputs. This yields a truth table, as shown in Table 1.2. **

**Table 1.2 **Four-Input–Four-Output Truth Table for an Ideal Classical CNOT (XOR) Gate

The numbers indicate the probability of achieving the selected output state for a given input state.

In the quantum case, the inputs are qbits, which can exist in an arbitrary complex superposition of a classical bit, e.g., |*ψ*〉 in = *α*|0〉+*β*|1〉, where |*α*|²+|*β*|² = 1. The gate has infinitely many possible inputs and characterization is not a simple matter of exhausting all possible inputs. **Table 1.3 shows the output states of a CNOT gate. They may be entangled, i.e., the states may have correlations that may not necessarily be replicated by the classical modes of physics. Input–output table for a quantum CNOT gate depicts |CNOT〉 in, out. With the logical inputs, the table is as for a classical CNOT. In contrast, with control-superposition inputs, the outputs vary between the separable and the maximally entangled, | α|²+|β|² = 1, |γ|²+|δ|² = 1. Because the CNOT is reversible, the input and the outputs can be swapped, and Table 1.3 is still correct. **

**Table 1.3 **A Signature of the QG Operation is the Generation of the Entangled Output States

Thus, it is necessary to identify and preferably quantify these outputs. A beginning point is to measure a series of correlations or coincidence probabilities. This is done between the control and target arms with the aim of identifying uniquely the quantum correlations.

1.1.7 Nondeterministic Polynomial Time Complete and Satisfiability **[17] **

A QC can operate in parallel on all its possible inputs at the same time, but the amount of information that can be extracted from the result is limited by the phenomenon of wave-function collapse. One can, however, use a computational model whereby one measures the expectation value rather than a random eigenvalue of the observable. Such an expectation value of a QC can solve a nondeterministic polynomial time complete (NP-C) problem. Results have been realized, to a large extent, by using NMR spectroscopy. The qbits are prepared in this system through macroscopic ensembles of the molecules and the nuclear spins. In this technique one identifies a manifold of statistical spin states, called *pseudo-pure state*. Its mathematical description is isomorphic to that of an isolated spin system.

The LSNMR QC very much resembles a DNA computer (DNA QC). Currently, in a DNA QC, one increases the amount of the sample to increase the capacity. LSNMR QCs and DNA QCs provide the reader with useful practical illustrations of the QM operators in work in a QC. One can easily comprehend the intricacies of the QM processes involved through these simpler illustrations. This may then become the necessary and desired groundwork for research investigations in diverse directions. NP-C problems are a class of computationally intractable problems of particular interest, both because they are polynomially equivalent to one another

and because they are encountered in many important applications.

In an LSNMR QC, spins in each molecule of a liquid-state ensemble are largely isolated from the spins in all other molecules. Each molecule is thus effectively an independent QC. What one observes is the sum of certain observables over all molecules in the sample. This is proportional to the ensemble average expectation value of the observable. This machine performs a calculation using quantum parallelism at the molecular level and then amplifies its results to the microscopic level via a form of classical parallelism. A *mixed state *is a statistical mixture of independent quantum systems that are not in the same quantum state. The vectors (or wave functions) in the Hilbert space of a system of spins are called *spinors*. The standard basis here consists of the joint eigenvectors, of the total and the *z*-component, of the spin angular momentum. The encoding used in QC maps each integer *k*, in the range [0, 2*n*−1] to the *k*th basis element versus a particular ordering of the basis. For a single-spin-½ particle, the basis consists of the spins down (antiparallel to the *z*-axis) state, represented by the vector [1, 0] and is denoted by the bra

〈0|. The spin up

state is represented by the vector [0, 1] and is denoted as 〈1|. The corresponding column vectors are denoted by the kets |0〉 and |1〉, respectively. The basis vectors of an *n*-spins system are formed by taking the tensor or Kronecker products (KP) of the basis vectors of its constituent spins. This is done in some arbitrary but fixed order. The general definition of the KP of an *M *× *N *matrix **A **with an *M*′ × *N*′ matrix **B **is the matrix *MM*′ × *NN*′ of **A**⊗**B**. The basis vectors of the 2-spin system are |00〉, |01〉, |10〉, and |11〉. In a QC, any logical operation on a register in the basis state |*k*〉 must transform the register to another basis state |1〉. Energy dissipation rapidly destroys microscopic order, so the ability to store information in a QC must essentially be completely isolated from the surroundings. Isolated quantum systems naturally evolve by unitary transformations that are necessarily reversible. This prevents one from implementing conventional logic gates such as the AND gate. The quantum

XOR gate is represented as follows:

Any gate can be made reversible by copying some of the input bits to the output bits. For example, the quantum XOR gate, which copies the first input bit and overwrites the second bit with its output, has the truth table shown. A nontrivial complex linear combination of the basis vectors is called a *coherent superposition*. Unitary transformations are linear. The result of operating on a superposition is the same superposition of the results of the transformation, applied to the individual basis states. In this sense a QC can operate in parallel on exponentially many basis states at once. There are, however, serious problems with this approach. The first is that it promises to be very difficult to build a QC of any significant size. Such a construction requires the precise assembly, isolation, control, and measurement of atomic-scale systems.

A more fundamental problem lies in the fact that the amount of information that can be extracted from even perfectly precise measurements of a quantum system (QS) is extremely limited. The act of observation irreversibly alters the system. One can place a 2-spin system in the superposition *C*0|00〉+*C*1|01〉+*C*2|10〉+*C*3|11〉 = [*C*0**C*1**C*2**C*3*]†. Here * denotes the complex conjugate and † the Hermitian transpose and measures the *z*-component of the spins. One will observe one of the four basis states *k *= 0–3, each with probability |*k*²| = *CkCk**. The system is forced into the observed state by the act of observation. All subsequent measurements of the same observable will therefore yield the same result.

This is the phenomenon of wave-function collapse. It is not possible to completely determine the state of the system (i.e., the coefficients *Ck*) from a finite number of measurements on identically prepared copies of a given quantum system. If, instead of random eigenvalue, the result of measurement of an observable is the expectation value of that observable, we have what is called an *expectation value QC *(EVQC).

One assumes in this model that the expectation value can be measured to an arbitrarily high degree of precision and in an amount of time proportional to the number of digits in the result. One can show that an EVQC can solve the NP-C problem, namely, the satisfiability (SAT) problem in liner time. The mixed states of spin systems are described by a generalization of the spinors, known as the *density matrix*. This density matrix enables one to compute the statistical properties of the ensemble. This matrix *ψ *of the pure state is obtained from the corresponding spinor *ψ *as *ψ *= |*ψ*〉〈*ψ*|. Such a density matrix is a projection operator that has only one nonzero eigenvalue.

1.1.8 The Density Matrix Concept **[17] **

As an example, in the case of a 2-spin system in the state |00〉, we have *ψ *= |00〉〈00| = Diag(1, 0, 0, 0). The density matrix of a mixed state is the average over a representative ensemble of pure states; for instance, *ψ *= ∫(*ψ*)*p*(*ψ*)|*ψ*〉〈*ψ*| d*ψ*, where *p*(*ψ*) is the probability density of the pure state described by the spinor *ψ*, and (*ψ*) denotes the set of all unit norm spinors. Thus, a density matrix can be an arbitrary positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix. The diagonal elements are the relative populations of the various energy levels; the off-diagonal elements represent coherent correlations in the phases of processing spins in pairs of energy levels across the sample. One can work with a reduced density matrix of size 2*n*, where *n *is the number of spins in a single molecule. This is instead of the density matrix of size 2*N*. Here *N *= *nM *(*M *is the number of molecules in the ensemble), the total number of spins in the sample. The (reduced) density matrix evolves in time according to the Louville–von Neumann equation, d(*ψ*)/d*t *= i[*ψ*, *H*] = i(*ψH*−*Hψ*). *H *is a matrix representation of the spin Hamiltonian of the molecule and [*ψ*, *H*] denotes the matrix commutator. This has the general solution *ψ*(*t*) = *U*(*t*)*ψ*(0)*U*†(*t*), where *U*(*t*) is time (*t*) dependent unitary matrix. The ensemble average of the expectation value of any observable *K *is obtained as the trace product Tr(*Kψ*) of the corresponding matrix *K *with the density matrix. One defines a pseudo-pure state to be one that has a density matrix that can be shifted by adding a mixture of the unit matrix to it. This is to obtain a scalar multiple of the density matrix of a pure state. The molecules of a sample in a pseudo-pure state are in a statistical mixture of quantum states. Nevertheless, a preponderance of one particular state is present. This manifests itself when one adds up the magnetization of all the molecules. The result is that we can emulate

a QC by NMR spectroscopy on macroscopic liquid samples in open test tubes. The number of operations required is identical to the number of operations executed by the QC. The only difference is that one can determine the state of the system in terms of its expectation values, without wave-function collapse. This shows that the requirement for an exponential-state space is logically and physically distinct from the probabilistic aspects of quantum computing. A standard technique in NMR spectroscopy is to use pulses of RF radiation to transform the state of the spins by unitary transformations. Because the inequivalent spins in a molecule generally have distinct resonance frequencies, the frequency range of these pulses can be made selective for single spins. This selective pulse imparts sufficient energy to rotate the net magnetization of the *k*th spin by *π*/2 and is in phase with the imaginary component of the carrier corresponding to the unitary matrix

Here the matrix *Uπ*/2 occurs as the *k*th factor of the KP. For a 2-spin system, one has the energy levels as shown in **Figure 1.1. The density matrix can be expressed as follows: ψ = [(1−α)1+〈2α|ψ〉〈ψ|)]/[(1−α)2n+2α] (−1≤α≤1). Here |ψ〉 is a unit spinor and α = −ΣIhwi/(kT). **

**Figure 1.1 **The four energy levels associated with 2 spins *α *and *β *have resonance frequencies *να *and *νβ*. The levels when there is no coupling between the spins are shown on the left and those with a coupling of *Jαβ *on the right. The allowed transitions between the energy levels are indicated with dashed double-headed arrows.

Here *wi *represents the frequencies corresponding to various energy levels, *h *the Planck’s constant, *k *the Boltzmann constant, and *T *the temperature of the ensemble. The four dashed double-headed arrows are the transitions by the rules of angular momentum and they connect pairs of states that differ by only a single-spin flip (**Figure 1.1). The spins are generally also coupled to one another, either by space dipole–dipole interactions or by a bond effect called the scalar coupling. This coupling causes the energy differences associated with various transitions to be generically distinct. Tipping both spins in the xy plane with a nonselective π/2 pulse Uπ/2⊗Uπ/2 causes them to precess in phase, generating detectable (macroscopic) rotating magnetic moment. The real part of the Fourier transform (FT) of the resulting signal gives an NMR spectrum, with two pairs of peaks shown below. The intensity of each pair is proportional to the total population difference between states in which the corresponding spin is up and those in which it is down. **

The quantum XOR gate flips one of these spins, given that the other spin is up. This in turn corresponds to the transitions 1–3 and 2–3 in an output of the first and second spins, respectively (**Figure 1.2). **

**Figure 1.2 **Simulated NMR spectrum of a 2-spin system with *να *= 100 Hz, *νβ *= 400 Hz, and *Jαβ *= 40 Hz. From left to right, the four peaks correspond to the transitions 0↔1, 2↔3, 0↔2, 1↔3. This spectrum would be obtained by applying a nonselective *π*/2 pulse to the equilibrium state and Fourier transforming the resulting signal.

One can implement the quantum XOR gate by a single RF pulse, the frequency range of which spans only the peak of one of these transitions. It imparts sufficient energy to invert the populations of the corresponding pair of states. Thus, the unitary transformation *U*f needed to compute the Boolean function in SAT can be performed by an appropriate pulse sequence. The expectation value of the operator *S *in the SAT algorithm corresponds to the sum of the intensities of the 2*n *peaks that are obtained by flipping the (*n*+1)th spin. For a 2-spin system, the matrix *S *= *S*2 can be written in terms of the operators *P*01 = Diag(1,−1, 0, 0) and *P*23 = Diag(0, 0, 1,−1), the expectation values of which give the population differences between the subscript states (and hence the intensities of the corresponding peaks) as

where *Iz *= Diag(1, −1) is the matrix of the operator for the *z*-component of the spin. Finally, a superposition in which all the basis states are equiprobable is easily obtained. This is done by applying a *π*/2 pulse with a frequency range that spans all the peaks due to the flips of the input spins but which misses those peaks due to the output spin. In solids, the dominant mechanism of spin–spin relaxation is the dipole–dipole interaction, which typically results in decoherence times of a small fraction of a millisecond. In contrast, in fluids the dipole–dipole interaction is averaged to zero by the rapid rotational diffusion of nearby molecules, leading to a decoherence time that can be on the order of many seconds. The intramolecular scalar couplings between the spins, however, are not averaged to 0. The number of selective pulses that can be used in one experiment can be over a thousand. It is possible that error-correcting schemes like those proposed to control decoherence and other errors in QC can be developed for NMR QCs to extend the time available for the computations.

1.1.9 DNA QC: QGs **[51] **

The following is a QG illustration for the case of a DNA computer **[51]. Consider a Boolean formula F = (x∨y). The variables x and y are Boolean; i.e., their values can be 0 or 1. Usually one thinks of 0 as **

falseand 1 as

true.The ∨ is the logical OR function, i.e., x∨y = 0 only if x = y = 0 (otherwise 1).

The symbol ∧ represents a logical AND function, i.e., *x*∧*y *= 1, if *x *= *y *denotes the negation of *x*is 0 if *x *= 1 and 1 if *x *The SAT problem is to find the Boolean values for *x *and *y *that make the formula *F *true. In this example, *x *= 0 and *y *= 1 works, as does *x *= 1 and *y *= 0, whereas *x *= *y *= 0 does not. The formula *F *consists of two clauses. The first is (*x*∨*y*). A *clause *where each *Ci *is a clause. The question is then to find values for the variables so that the whole formula has the value 1. The reason for the name of this problem is that making all of the clauses true is often called satisfying

the clauses. The current best method essentially tries all the 2*n *choices for *n *variables. A DNA QC model in a first-order approximation can be expressed as follows.

The strands of DNA consist of sequences *α*1⋯*αk *over the alphabet {A, C, G, T}. Double strands of DNA consist of two DNA sequences, *α*1⋯*αk *and *β*1⋯*βk*, that satisfy the Watson–Creek (W–C) complementary condition. For each *i *= 1⋯*k*, *αi *and *βi *must be complements, i.e., A↔T or C↔G. Complementary sequences of the strands anneal in an antiparallel fashion, as shown below:

Here 5′ and 3′ refer to the chemically distinct ends of the DNA strands. A number of simple operations can be performed on test tube samples (ensemble) that contain DNA strands. (1) Synthesize a large number of copies of any short single strand (at least 20 nucleotides). (2) Create a double strand of DNA from the complementary single strands by allowing them to anneal. (3) Extract those sequences that contain some consecutive pattern of length *l*, assuming that the pattern is *δ*1…*δl*, where each *δi *is in {A, C, G, T}. (4) Detect a DNA strand *α*1…*αk *that will be removed only if for some *i*, *δ*1 = *αij*, *δ*2 = *αi*+1,…, *δk *= *αi*+*k*−1. The last operation simply determines whether or not there are any DNA strands at all in the test tube. (5) Amplify the operation to replace all of the DNA strands in the test tube. In this computation model one starts with one fixed test tube. The test tube is the same for all computations. The set of DNA in the test tube corresponds to the simple graph *Gn *(Hamiltonian path) shown in **Figure 1.3. It encodes 2-bit numbers. The graph Gn has nodes a1, x1, x1′, a2, x2, x2′, a3,…, an+1, with edges from ak to both xk and xk′ and from both xk and xk′ to ak+1. The paths of length n+1 that start at a1 and end at an+1 are assumed to be in the initial test tube. **

**Figure 1.3 **Following *F *= (*x *), the graph is encoded into a test tube of DNA as follows. Each vertex of the graph is assigned a random pattern of length *l *(20 here), from {A, C, G, T}. This name of the vertex has two parts: the first half is denoted by *pi *and the second half by *qi*. Thus, *piqi *is the name associated with the *i*th vertex. The test tube was filled with the following kinds of strands. (1) For each vertex, put many copies of a 5′→3′ DNA sequence, of the form *piqi*, into the test tube. (2) For each edge from *i*→*j*, place many copies of a 3′–5′ DNA sequence of the form −*qi*−*pi *(denotes the sequence, i.e., the Watson–Creek complement of *x*). (3) Add a 3′→5′ sequence of length *l*/2, complementary to the first half of the initial vertex, to the test tube. (4) Similarly, add a 3′→5′ sequence complementary to the last half of the final vertex to the test tube (i.e., add −*pi *and −*qi*). The key is that every legal path in *Gn *corresponds to a correctly matched sequence of vertices and edges. If you consider any path in the graph, it naturally consists of a sequence that alternates vertex, edge, vertex, edge.

The graph is constructed so that all the paths that start at *a*1 and end at *an*+1 encode an *n*-bit binary number. At each stage a path has exactly two choices. If it takes the vertex with an unprimed label, it will encode *a*, 1. If it takes the vertex with a primed label, it will encode *a*, 0. Therefore, the path *a*1*x*1′*a*2*x*2′*a*3 encodes the binary number 0 (a rough schematic is shown in **Figure 1.3). **

1.1.10 QMIP Differences from Analogue-to-Digital Conversion

To fully comprehend the difference in capability between CIP and QMIP, when applied to the area of imaging, e.g., one must comprehend the basic differences in the operation of the two systems. It is advisable to start by reading a text on the EC. For the sake of completion, the following summary may be helpful.

CIP (like QMIP) works on the 0 and 1 (binary) digit encoding system. In an EC, this is achieved by using a sequential progression of an electrical signal through digital gates (switches) fabricated in the silicon wafer. The signals propagated are the high (conducting) and the low (nonconducting) voltage states of the gates. At present, the size of the basic blocks of information transport (i.e., 8 bits, 16 bits, or 32 bits [the highest so far achieved]) limits the data-processing capacity of the system. Miniaturization to micro- or nanometer space level through compaction of the components in a single silicon chip has delivered MHz–GHz rates of computation. QMIP also works on the existing binary computation concept, but builds on a completely different footing. There is no limit on the scale of the quantized phase (time)-state space available in QMIP. It works in a polynomial time system. As an example, the time-space in its smallest unit for a photon can be in units of a millionth of a fraction of the time of rotation of polarization direction, over the angle 2*π*. One can thus process as quantum states the discrete states of polarization of a photon. These millions of tiny cells in time (angle)-space are the qbits in QMIP. One can use the frequency domain technologies, such as optical or terahertz spectroscopies, for manipulation of the qbits. QMIP thus offers a much faster and greater information storage and processing capacity. QMIP is intrinsically digital (quantum). Quantum image processing would use the polynomial time evolution of the quantum energy states in atoms, molecules, liquid-state materials, solid-state materials, and so on, as microprocessor blocks. In analogue-to-digital conversion (ATDC), an optical scan is used to scrutinize the contrasting parts of the image pixel by pixel, in relation to the adjacent regions. This is converted to electrical signals proportionally point by point in the object. The result is an electrical digital format of the picture. The electrical output is then remotely transmitted to another destination. There it is then reprocessed using a receiver working in a reverse order.

ATDC has an upper bound. One needs

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading