Abstract
We show that coupled-spin network manipulations can be made highly effective by repeated “projections” of the evolving quantum states onto diagonal density-matrix states (populations). As opposed to the intricately crafted pulse trains that are often used to fine-tune a complex network’s evolution, the strategy hereby presented derives from the “quantum-Zeno effect” and provides a highly robust route to guide the evolution by destroying all unwanted correlations (coherences). We exploit these effects by showing that a relaxation-like behaviour is endowed to polarization transfers occurring within a N-spin coupled network. Experimental implementations yield coupling constant determinations for complex spin-coupling topologies, as demonstrated within the field of liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).
Introduction
Dynamical control methods set out to affect a system-bath dynamics on time scales that are much shorter than the bath correlation times [1]. On these time scales, the qubit-bath interaction behaves coherently: when control is effected via projective measurements - i.e., by driving the ensemble’s density matrix onto populations - it can move the system away from harmful, dissipative bath modes and approach dynamical decoupling. The resulting destruction of the quantum coherences established between a system and its surroundings can display intriguing characteristics. For qubits coupled to complex spin networks emulating a bath [2], such projections can steer the qubit towards either higher or lower purities, thereby driving the ensemble to asymptotic steady states associated to opposing quantum Zeno or quantum Anti-Zeno effects [3]. We have recently demonstrated examples of these “cooling” and “heating” behaviors with a series of NMR experiments [4], involving polarization exchanges between a carbon atom targeted as “the system”, and a neighboring ensemble of protons acting as the “bath”. Cooling and heating effects were then observed, and associated with a mismatched polarization exchange acting in either quantum Zeno or anti-Zeno regimes. The present study explores yet another use of projective quantum manipulations, this time dealing with a homonuclear network of exchange-coupled spins, where the inequivalent identity between a given targeted spin and its surrounding neighbors is actively erased by the application of a train of radiofrequency (RF) pulses. We find that the complex transfer patterns generated by the many-body network Hamiltonian thus created, can be transformed into simple, relaxation-like spin-polarization transfers, by relying on periodic dephasings of the off-diagonal density matrix elements via projective measurements. This in turn can facilitate the extraction of information on the coupling structure when dealing with complex spin-spin topologies, as is often desirable within the context of liquid-state NMR. Additionally, manipulating spin-coupling network topologies is a prerequisite for quantum information processing, where the Hamiltonian parameters are given by qubit-qubit interactions, which would normally have to be known beforehand to design robust quantum gate operations.
Principles and Methods
The present study explores the use of repeated projections as applied to Total Correlation Spectroscopy (TOCSY), a widespread tool in the arsenal of liquid-state NMR that serves to establish spin-coupling network topologies [5]. This experiment exploits an isotropic J-coupling spin Hamiltonian,
(1) |
where Jij are the scalar coupling constants of the spin coupling terms Îi · Îj. While originally the {Îk} operators are truncated to their Îk,z components owing to the effect of σz-dependent chemical shifts, the TOCSY experiment erases these site-specific resonance frequency effects by the action of a suitable train of refocusing pulses [6]. Under such conditions an effective N-spin Hamiltonian of the form given in Eq. (1), is reinstated. Even when containing a small number of coupling coefficients {Jij}1≤i,j≤N such can rapidly lead to a complex time evolution on every spin, owing to its many-body nature [5, 6]. In fact, the multi-spin response that originates from is exploited in NMR for transferring coherences among all homonuclear spins, and thereby help establish spin-spin connectivities. Figure 1a illustrates the complex kind of polarization transfer patterns that will be promoted by This complexity can eventually become a drawback, as it may demand a systematic scanning of evolution times to ensure that no spin-spin correlations are fortuitously missed. It will also complicate the quantitative determination of the pairwise spin-spin coupling parameters.
By contrast to this complexity, the use of “projections” involving the repeated erasing of off-diagonal coherences between every spin and its surroundings, can be used to guide the spins’ evolutions to a desired target state in an almost monotonic fashion. This amounts to collapsing the density matrices onto their diagonal elements; an effective switch of the N-qubit’s quantum evolution from a Hilbert space of dimension 2N, to a much simpler, incoherent form occurring within an N-dimensional space. This imparts a welcome simplification of the complex free-evolution spin-spin transfer patterns, and thereby facilitates the extraction of information on the coupling structure topology as well as on the (often unknown) Jij values involved. This is illustrated in Figs. 1b, 1c, which show how projective measurements are expected to transform the complex evolutions displayed in Fig 1a, into quasi-monotonic transfer functions. The central parameter defining the nature of this transition to a relaxation-like dynamics is the time delay τ elapsed between projections. As this J-evolution period is reduced, the transfer patterns among the spins change their originally complex oscillations to a smooth polarization sharing. For the limit of short τ a “freezing” of all evolutions (other than for irreversible decays) can be expected, corresponding to the ’Zeno’ cases in Figs. 1b, 1c. It is worthwhile noting that for optimally chosen τ values nearly equal distributions of polarizations - as usually desired in structural NMR measurements - can be rapidly achieved. In the absence of instrumental or relaxation losses these amplitudes converge to the ratio of initially polarized spins to the total number of spins determined (for the example in Fig. 1 this would correspond to )
Figure 2a sketches how isotropic mixing sequences driven by can be modified to incorporate the projective measurements leading to the kind of behaviors illustrated in Figs. 1b, 1c. In lieu of a full 2D acquisition where every spin is excited and labeled to follow its dynamics, the sequence starts with a selective pulse that excites or depletes an individual spin/chemical site. This continues with a looped evolution incorporating an acting over a period τ, concatenated by emulated projective measurements. These projections rely on magnetic field gradients which, although acting over the full sample volume, yield effects that can be understood at a microscopic-level quantum dynamics [4, 9]: at their conclusion all off-diagonal density matrix elements are dephased, and solely spin populations remain untouched. Figs. 2b, 2c illustrate how these gradient-based elements help to erase the off-diagonal coherences created when acts on an ensemble. These projective elements will in turn drastically change the multi-spin dynamics - from the complex transfers in Fig. 1a, to the almost monotonic, pseudo-equilibrated transfers illustrated by the experiments in Fig. 3. Notice the close agreement between these results, and the theoretical expectations that had been put forward by the simulations in Figs. 1b, 1c.
It is worth exploring to what extent can the coupling constants effecting these transfers, be extracted from such relaxation-like dynamics. This is facilitated by the short-τ regime leading to the kind of curves illustrated in Fig. 3, where the original 2N dimensionality defining the coupled spins’ Hilbert space, is projected into the N-dimensional space spanned by the diagonal of the multispin density matrix. The corresponding dynamics can then be represented by a vector containing all the single-spin polarization elements, whose time evolution is given by
(2) |
where M is the number and τ the timing of the projective measurements. The vector is the initial polarization of each spin i, and the polarization transfer matrix [p(τ)]M represents an N × N spectrum whose elements carry the intensities of the self- and the cross-correlations observed at times M · τ. These intensities can be computed from the knowledge, that under the action of a the two-spin (i, j) evolution will be of the form [5, 6]
(3) |
where represents higher-order relayed transfer terms. Considering that short durations τ justify the approximations
(4) |
and that projective measurements only preserve diagonal populations, lead after M projections to a two-spin transfer matrix
(5) |
The simple quadratic behaviour evidenced by the off-diagonal build-up in this matrix, can be expanded to the full many-body Hamiltonian of Eq. (1). Assuming then that the condition Jijτ≪1 still holds for all pairwise couplings, the on- and off-diagonal elements of [p(τ)]M can be approximated by
(6) |
for as long as one repeats the projections in the short Jijτ ≪1 time regime. From this experimentally accessible matrix the absolute values of the involved couplings Jij can be extracted; either from the initial build-up of crosspeaks observed in a two-dimensional spectral distribution, from the ratio between crosspeak intensities obtained in 1D build-up transfer curves, or from these crosspeak values normalized by the self-peak intensity. For the model system Pyridine, an effective five spin system possessing three inequivalent chemical shifts, this would mean that J13 and an average of J12 and J1′2 could be extracted from the short-τ slopes of the data obtained after a selective excitation of Î1 (Fig. 3a), that J13 and J23 can be obtained from an initial excitation of I3, etc. Alternatively, numerical density matrix calculations could be used to simulate the system’s dynamics under the pulse sequence displayed in figure 2a, so as to ascertain the approach’s theoretical accuracy from the previously known coupling parameters. The resulting comparisons are summarized in Table I, which show a good agreement between short-τ experimental couplings and values found in literature, as well as when the latter are compared against the predictions of numerical simulations. Alternatively, an analogous analysis based on a relaxation-like evolution can be derived if all arguments related to the selective excitation of a particular site, are replaced by a selective demagnetization. The corresponding experimental data (Fig. 3c), illustrates the possibility of repolarizing a depleted magnetization via neighboring J-coupled spins, and of performing a corresponding theoretical modeling.
Table I.
J12, J1′ 2 | J13 | J23 | |
---|---|---|---|
short-τ approx. | 3.4±0.1 | 2.0±0.2 | 6.6±0.9 |
simulations | 3.50 | 1.86 | 7.64 |
literature | 4.86, 0.98 | 1.85 | 7.66 |
Conclusion and Outlook
This study outlined a strategy that uses well-known elements from NMR spectroscopy’s toolbox, like field gradients and RF pulses, to imitate projective measurements. This allowed us to use NMR as a “quantum simulator” for describing the realization and potential advantages derived from novel Zeno-like effects, in exchange-coupled spin networks. These concepts also lead to a new experimental approach with potentially useful applications, whereby complex and a priori unknown polarization transfer patterns are morphed into monotonic, relaxation-like functions. From these it is straightforward to determine the underlying spin-spin coupling constants, to establish unambiguous correlations among spin networks, and/or to redistribute pools of unused polarization among the spins. It is also interesting to relate these projective measurements to Tycko’s recent studies [11] which showed that pseudo-random timings of NMR pulses could be used for switching the coherent character of dipole-dipole dynamics to an incoherent limit. Such strategies can be further extended to additional NMR experiments, including generalizations to other types of scalar, dipolar and quadrupolar multi-spin dynamics. We have also found this approach useful to shorten recycle delays - particularly in heteronuclear polarization transfer experiments [12]. Further synergies between such quantum control concepts and magnetic resonance experiments are being explored.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF 447/2009), the EU through ERC Advanced Grant #246754) and a FET Open MIDAS project, a Helen and Kimmel Award for Innovative Investigation, and the generosity of the Perlman Family Foundation. G.A.A. thanks the Humboldt Foundation for financial support and the hospitality of Fakultät Physik, TU Dortmund. G.K. acknowledges support of the Humboldt-Meither Award.
References
- [1].Viola L, Knill E, Lloyd S. Phys Rev Lett. 1999;82:2417. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Khodjasteh K, Lidar DA. Phys Rev Lett. 2005;95:180501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.180501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Uhrig GS. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;98:100504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.100504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Gordon G, Kurizki G, Lidar DA. Phys Rev Lett. 2008;101:010403. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.010403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Biercuk MJ, et al. Nature. 2009;458:996. doi: 10.1038/nature07951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Du J, et al. Nature. 2009;461:1265. doi: 10.1038/nature08470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Clausen J, Bensky G, Kurizki G. Phys Rev Lett. 2010;104:040401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.040401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Álvarez GA, Ajoy A, Peng X, Suter D. Phys Rev A. 2010;82:042306. [Google Scholar]; de Lange G, et al. Science. 2010;330:60. doi: 10.1126/science.1192739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Ryan CA, Hodges JS, Cory DG. Phys Rev Lett. 2010;105:200402. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.200402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Barthel C, et al. Phys Rev Lett. 2010;105:266808. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.266808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Erez N, Gordon G, Nest M, Kurizki G. Nature. 2008;452:724. doi: 10.1038/nature06873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Gordon G, et al. New Journal of Physics. 2009;11:123025. [Google Scholar]; Gordon G, Rao DDB, Kurizki G. New Journal of Physics. 2010;12:053033. [Google Scholar]
- [3].Misra B, Sudarshan ECG. J Math Phys. 1977;18:756. [Google Scholar]; Chiu CB, Sudarshan ECG, Misra B. Phys Rev D. 1977;16:520. [Google Scholar]; Lane AM. Phys Lett A. 1983;99:359. [Google Scholar]; Itano AM, Heinzen DJ, Bollinger JJ, Wineland DJ. Phys Rev A. 1990;41:2295. doi: 10.1103/physreva.41.2295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Kofman AG, Kurizki G. Phys Rev A. 1996;54:3750(R). doi: 10.1103/physreva.54.r3750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Nature. 2000;405:546. doi: 10.1038/35014537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Phys Rev Lett. 2001;87:270405. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.270405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Phys Rev Lett. 2004;93:130406. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.130406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Facchi P, Nakazato H, Pascazio S. Phys Rev Lett. 2001;86:2699. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Fischer MC, Gutierrez-Medina B, Raizen MG. Phys Rev Lett. 2001;87:040402. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.040402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Pastawski HM, Usaj G. Phys Rev B 57. 1998:5017. [Google Scholar]
- [4].Álvarez GA, Rao D, Frydman L, Kurizki G. Phys Rev Lett. 2010;105:160401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.160401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Braunschweiler L, Ernst RR. J Magn Reson. 1983;53:521. [Google Scholar]; Caravatti P, Braunschweiler L, Ernst RR. Chem Phys Lett. 1983;100:305. [Google Scholar]; Sleucher J, Quant J, Glaser SJ, Griesinger C. Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Vol. 6. Wiley; 1996. pp. 4789–4804. [Google Scholar]; Luy B, Schedletzky O, Glaser SJ. J Magn Reson. 1999;138:19. doi: 10.1006/jmre.1998.1702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Ernst RR, Bodenhausen G, Wokaun WA. Principles of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in One and Two Dimensions. Oxford University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]; Slichter CP. Principles of Magnetic Resonance. 3rd edition Springer; 1996. [Google Scholar]; Levitt MH. Spin Dynamics. Wiley; 2001. p. 467. ff. [Google Scholar]
- [7].Spectral Database for Organic Compounds SDBS. Tsukuba, Japan: [Google Scholar]
- [8].Shaka AJ, Lee CJ, Pines A. J Magn Reson. 1988;77:274. [Google Scholar]; Eggenberger U, Schmidt P, Sattler M, Glaser SJ, Griesinger C. J Magn Reson. 1992;100:604. [Google Scholar]
- [9].Xiao L, Jones JA. Phys Lett A. 2006;359:424. [Google Scholar]
- [10].Thrippleton M, Keeler J. AngewChem. 2003;115:4068. [Google Scholar]; J Magn Res. 2005;174:97. [Google Scholar]
- [11].Tycko R. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;99:187601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.187601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; J Phys Chem B. 2008;112:6114. [Google Scholar]
- [12].Kupce E, Freeman R. Magn Reson Chem. 2007;45:2. doi: 10.1002/mrc.1947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]