Talk:Neutral atom quantum computer
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2024. The result of the discussion was Keep (nomination withdrawn). |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Description of the Rydberg-atom interaction misleading
[edit]I believe the description of the Rydberg-atom interaction under the Rydberg mediated gates section contains a few inaccuracies/misleading statements.
Firstly is the distinction between the Van der Waals (VdW) and resonant dipole-dipole (dd) interaction regimes. The text implies the VdW interaction is only present between two ground state atoms and the dd interaction is present in the Rydberg state. In reality, VdW interaction is found between Rybderg atoms, and it's far more common to use this regime when performing Rydberg blockade mediated gates. The dd interaction requires near resonance between Rydberg pairstates energy levels so are typically less common, and as such has seen limited use to date for Rydberg gates.
Secondly, the text states that there is ~100 MHz at 10 um, but doesn't state atomic species nor principal quantum number. There are examples of interaction shifts of >100 MHz 5 um in low(ish) laying states. I think this part would benefit from a table with examples of interaction shifts with stated species and used quantum numbers for context.
Thirdly, the description of physics regarding Rydberg blockade is kind of strange. The text asks us to "two isolated neutral atoms in a magneto-optical trap", why? For neutral atom quantum computing, it would be far more convenient to describe it in terms two atoms in separate tweezers. In fact, for the propose of describing blockade, I would propose it's far easier just to describe two atoms separated by R, and ignore the experimental context.
I think this section would benefit from a rewrite with a clearer description of the Rydberg-atom interaction. I would consider doing this, however, cannot at the moment. I might reconsider at a later date if it remains unchanged, and there are no objections. ~2026-33283-94 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please add sources for any additions and explain if you remove any sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)