This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Minimal setup for non-Abelian braiding of Majorana zero modes

Jie Liu Department of Applied Physics, School of Science, Xian Jiaotong University, Xian 710049, China    Wenqin Chen Department of Applied Physics, School of Science, Xian Jiaotong University, Xian 710049, China    Ming Gong International Center for Quantum Materials, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China    Yijia Wu International Center for Quantum Materials, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China    X. C. Xie [email protected] International Center for Quantum Materials, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences, Beijing 100193, China CAS Center for Excellence in Topological Quantum Computation, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
Abstract

Braiding Majorana zero modes (MZMs) is the key procedure toward topological quantum computation. However, the complexity of the braiding manipulation hinders its experimental realization. Here we propose an experimental setup composing of MZMs and a quantum dot state which can substantially simplify the braiding protocol of MZMs. Such braiding scheme, which corresponds to a specific closed loop in the parameter space, is quite universal and can be realized in various platforms. Moreover, the braiding results can be directly measured and manifested through electric current, which provides a simple and novel way to detect the non-Abelian statistics of MZMs.

pacs:
74.45.+c, 74.20.Mn, 74.78.-w

Introduction.— Owing to the charming non-Abelian statistics kitaev ; nayak , Majorana zero mode (MZM) is deemed as the most promising candidate for topological quantum computation (TQC). To date, topological superconductors (TSCs) that support MZMs have been proposed and realized in various experimental platforms Fu ; sau ; fujimoto ; sato ; alicea2 ; lut ; 2DEG1 ; 2DEG2 ; kou ; deng ; das1 ; Marcus ; hao ; perge ; Yaz2 ; Jia ; Fes1 ; Fes2 ; Fes3 ; PJJ1 ; PJJ2 . Nevertheless, most of the experimental signals so far are based on the zero-bias conductance peaks, which are insufficient to manifest the existence of MZMs Jie1 ; brouwer ; Aguado ; ChunXiao1 ; Moore ; Wimmer ; Aguado2 ; Pan . The most convincing way demonstrating the presence of MZMs is certainly detecting the signals of its non-Abelian statistics Ivanov ; alicea3 ; NQP ; TQC1 , however, only a few studies have paid attention to this topic thus far TQC2 ; TQC3 ; TQC4 . The main obstruction is that the braiding protocols which have been proposed MSQ ; net1 ; net2 ; Yu1 ; QD1 so far are quite complicated and hard to be realized experimentally.

The braiding operations usually require a complex 2D network structure to avoid the collision of MZMs during the braiding, where the latter will inevitably happen in a 1D structure alicea3 . However, as previous work has demonstrated ABSJie , MZM is a Hermitian particle possessing half degree of freedom compared with an ordinary fermion. When an MZM meets an ordinary fermion, it only couples with half of the fermion while leaves another half intact. This means that the moving and swapping of the MZMs through an ordinary fermion could be possible with a proper manipulation. Thus, the non-Abelian statistics may still be manifested in a quasi-1D structure, though strictly speaking, the swapping of two MZMs is not allowed in a strict 1D system. Such an idea will greatly facilitate the braiding operation so that it can be realized within the current technology. The starting point of our proposal follows the traditional braiding protocol of the Y-junction TQC , once the simplest proposed platform for carrying out the braiding operations. Moreover, in our proposal, the experimental setup is further simplified by replacing two MZMs with a normal fermionic state. Hence, the platform here is essentially a 1D Josephson junction (JJ) connected through a quantum dot (QD) [Fig. 1(a)]. By tuning the coupling strengths between the MZMs and the QD through gate voltages, the MZMs could be moved and swapped after specific manipulations. Moreover, the braiding results are solely determined by the geometric phase corresponding to a specific closed loop in the parameter space, that is time independent and rather robust.

Based on such braiding protocol, we further investigate the electric current signals induced by the braiding of the MZMs. The non-Abelian statistics suggests that the local parity will be reversed during the braiding, corresponding to a local charge transfer process PTC1 ; PTC2 . This means that in principle, we can observe a charge transfer from one TSC nanowire to another TSC nanowire. To be explicit, there are two braiding-induced charge transfer processes: the direct electron transition and the Andreev reflection. The total probability of these two processes is exactly equal to the probability of the non-Abelian-braiding-induced parity inversion. Consequently, although the electric current can not directly manifest the non-Abelian statistics, it does relate to the non-Abelian braiding of MZMs and can be used as an indicator of the non-Abelian statistics. We further numerically examine all these proposals in a concrete specific model as the semiconductor-superconductor (SS) nanowire, which is one of the most promising TSC platforms. The numerical simulations are fully consistent with the theoretical predictions. This suggests that our proposal is experimentally feasible and hopefully can be performed in the future experimental studies.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (a) A JJ structure for demonstrating the non-Abelian statistics of MZM. (b) A minimal sketch consisting of two MZMS and one QD. Through manipulating the coupling strengths, MZMs can be moved and then swapped in the assistance of the QD. (c) The Bloch sphere of the coupling vector δ\vec{\delta}. A non-trivial Berry phase is accumulated after a solid angle is spanned by the closed path of δ\vec{\delta}. (d) The non-trivial Berry phase induced by tuning the coupling strengths is only picked up by γ2\gamma_{2} other than by γ1\gamma_{1}. Since two MZMs γ1\gamma_{1} and γ2\gamma_{2} together form an ordinary fermionic state as ψ1=γ1+iγ2\psi_{1}=\gamma_{1}+i\gamma_{2}, such a fermionic state will not come back to its initial state after braiding. (e) If the pair of MZMs in (d) are replaced by an ordinary QD state, then although the QD can be decomposed into two MZMs, the non-trivial Berry phase will be picked up by both these two MZMs since they both couple with the other QD with the same strength. Hence, only a global phase will be added to the initial state after braiding.

Simplified setup for non-Abelian braiding of MZMs.—Our setup can be straightforwardly constructed by adding an additional QD to the JJ [Fig. 1(a)]. Such structure actually has been fabricated in a recent experiment JJ . On each TSC nanowire, a pair of MZMs are non-locally distributed at the two ends of the nanowire. Since the MZMs γ1\gamma_{1} and γ4\gamma_{4} are far from the interfaces of the JJ due to the length of the TSC nanowire, we can safely neglect them during the braiding. Thus, the simplest Hamiltonian describing such setup is

Hs=2Eddd+i(t1d+t1d)γ2+(t2dt2d)γ3,H_{s}={2E_{d}}{d^{\dagger}}d+i({t_{1}}d+t_{1}^{*}{d^{\dagger}}){\gamma_{2}}+({t_{2}}d-t_{2}^{*}{d^{\dagger}}){\gamma_{3}}, (1)

where dd is the annihilation operator for the fermioinic state in the QD, and EdE_{d} is the on-site energy of this QD state. γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} are the operators for the MZMs near the interfaces of the JJ, the coupling strengths between the QD and the MZMs γ2,γ3\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3} are t1=|t1|eiϕ1/2t_{1}=|t_{1}|e^{i\phi_{1}/2} and t2=|t2|eiϕ2/2t_{2}=|t_{2}|e^{i\phi_{2}/2}, respectively, in which the coupling phases ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} are the superconducting phase of two TSC. The crucial feature of this Hamiltonian is that these MZMs couple to the QD in a unique way, because the MZM is Hermitian and possesses half degree of freedom compared with a normal fermionic mode. This feature can be manifested by composing the QD into two intrinsically-fused MZMs γA\gamma_{A} and γB\gamma_{B} as d=12eiϕ12(γA+iγB)d=\frac{1}{2}e^{-i\frac{\phi_{1}}{2}}(\gamma_{A}+i\gamma_{B}). In such way, the Hamiltonian HsH_{s} can be written in the representation of the Majorana operators as:

HM\displaystyle H_{M} =iEdγAγB+i|t1|γAγ2\displaystyle=i{E_{d}}\gamma_{A}\gamma_{B}+i|t_{1}|\gamma_{A}{\gamma_{2}} (2)
+i|t2|[γAsin(ϕ1ϕ22)+γBcos(ϕ1ϕ22)]γ3.\displaystyle+i|t_{2}|\left[-\gamma_{A}\sin\left(\frac{\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}}{2}\right)+\gamma_{B}\cos\left(\frac{\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}}{2}\right)\right]\gamma_{3}.

Such Hamiltonian unveils that the coupling between an MZM and the QD can be treated as the coupling between different MZMs. This leads to an idea that the braiding can be performed by individually tuning these two coupling terms.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) Evolution of the wavefunction ψ1(t)\psi_{1}^{-}(t) during the braiding. After swapping MZMs γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} twice in succession, ψ1\psi_{1}^{-} evolves into ψ1+\psi_{1}^{+} due to the non-Abelian statistics of the MZMs. Here, Ed=0.04ΔE_{d}=0.04\Delta, tc=0.2Δt_{c}=0.2\Delta, and T=1000/ΔT=1000/\Delta. (b) Braiding results as functions of EdE_{d}. (c) Braiding results as functions of the braiding time-cost T=(1000+δT)/ΔT=(1000+\delta T)/\Delta with ϕ1ϕ2=π+0.05π\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}=\pi+0.05\pi. Due to the deviation of phase difference δϕ=0.05π\delta\phi=0.05\pi, γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} will couple with each other and induce a dynamic phase. Such a dynamic phase can be eliminated by the spin-echo technology. (d) Braiding results as functions of the phase difference ϕ\phi when the spin-echo technology is adopted. The non-Abelian braiding properties recovers for almost all the ϕ1ϕ2\phi_{1}-\phi_{2} values except for ϕ1ϕ2=0\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}=0.

The braiding protocol could be greatly simplified by tuning the flux to keep ϕ1ϕ2=π\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}=\pi. In this case, the Hamiltonian [Eq. (2)] reduces to an elegant form as H~M=iγA(δγ)\widetilde{H}_{M}=i\gamma_{A}(\vec{\delta}\cdot\vec{\gamma}), where the Majorana vector γ(γx(γ2),γy(γ3),γz(γB))\vec{\gamma}\equiv(\gamma_{x}(\gamma_{2}),-\gamma_{y}(\gamma_{3}),\gamma_{z}(\gamma_{B})), and the coupling vector δ(|t1|,|t2|,Ed)\vec{\delta}\equiv(|t_{1}|,|t_{2}|,E_{d}). Such a mathematical form is in parallel with the traditional Y-junction composed of four MZMs TQC , which has been deemed as the simplest model for non-Abelian braiding of MZMs. Accordingly, our proposal follows the braiding scheme adopted in the Y-junction but with a simpler structure and simpler operations [Fig. 1(b)]. To initialize the braiding, infinitesimal coupling strengths |t1|,|t2|Ed|t_{1}|,|t_{2}|\ll E_{d} are used to decouple γ2,γ3\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3}. After that, the braiding protocol takes four steps (the time-cost for each step is TT) to swap γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} spatially. In step 1, |t1||t_{1}| is increased from 0 to tct_{c} so that |t1|Ed|t_{1}|\gg{}E_{d}, hence γ2\gamma_{2} is teleported to the original position of γB\gamma_{B}. In step 2, |t2||t_{2}| is increased from 0 to tct_{c} so that |t2||t1|Ed|t_{2}|\approx|t_{1}|\gg E_{d}. In step 3, |t1||t_{1}| is decreased to 0 so that |t1|Ed|t_{1}|\ll E_{d} and γ3\gamma_{3} is teleported to the original position of γ2\gamma_{2}. Finally in step 4, |t1||t_{1}| is decreased to 0 so that the spatial positions of γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} are swapped, although δ\vec{\delta} comes back to its initial form.

Such a braiding operation, represented by the operator B(γi,γj)=exp(π4γiγj)B(\gamma_{i},\gamma_{j})=\exp(\frac{\pi}{4}\gamma_{i}\gamma_{j}), transforms the MZMs as γiγj\gamma_{i}\rightarrow\gamma_{j} and γjγi\gamma_{j}\rightarrow-\gamma_{i} Ivanov . For two pairs of MZMs whose eigenstates are in the forms of ψj±(0)=(γ2j1±iγ2j)/2\psi_{j}^{\pm}(0)=(\gamma_{2j-1}\pm i\gamma_{2j})/\sqrt{2}, if γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} are swapped twice in succession, then the wavefunctions will evolve into ψ1±(8T)=(γ1iγ2)/2=ψ1(0)\psi_{1}^{\pm}(8T)=(\gamma_{1}\mp i\gamma_{2})/\sqrt{2}=\psi_{1}^{\mp}(0) and ψ2±(8T)=(γ3±iγ4)/2=ψ2(0)\psi_{2}^{\pm}(8T)=(-\gamma_{3}\pm i\gamma_{4})/\sqrt{2}=-\psi_{2}^{\mp}(0). We calculate the wavefunction evolution during the braiding as |ψj±(t)=U(t)|ψj±(0)|\psi_{j}^{\pm}(t)\rangle=U(t)|\psi_{j}^{\pm}(0)\rangle, where U(t)=T^exp[i0tdτHs(τ)]U(t)=\hat{T}\exp[i\int_{0}^{t}\mathrm{d}\tau H_{s}(\tau)] is the time-evolution operator and T^\hat{T} is the time-ordering operator Jie2 ; Jie3 ; Dirac . The results confirm that ψj+\psi_{j}^{+} evolves into ψj\psi_{j}^{-} after adiabatically swapping γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} twice in succession [Fig. 2(a)], which demonstrates the non-Abelian braiding properties discussed above.

To clearly formulate the braiding process, we can visualize δ\vec{\delta} as a radius vector in a 3D parameter space in analogy with the Bloch sphere [Fig. 1(c)]. During the braiding, δ\vec{\delta} go along a closed loop on the Bloch sphere that first rotates around the yy-axis from (0,0,1)(0,0,1) to (1,0,0)(1,0,0), and then rotates around the zz-axis from (1,0,0)(1,0,0) to (0,1,0)(0,1,0). Finally, δ\vec{\delta} rotates around the xx-axis back to its start point (0,0,1)(0,0,1). Such a closed loop spans an octant of the Bloch sphere and consequently, a geometric phase of π/4\pi/4 is accumulated as half of the solid angle of an octant Ωc=π/2\Omega_{c}=\pi/2. Furthermore, there is a general relation between the path on the Bloch sphere and the braiding results. The rotation of the coupling vector δ\vec{\delta} will bring one MZM, defined as the vector along the polar direction (θ\theta-direction) perpendicular to δ\vec{\delta}, away from its initial direction towards another MZM which is represented as the vector along the azimuthal direction (ϕ\phi-direction) perpendicular to δ\vec{\delta}. More specifically, such a path corresponding to the swapping of γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} can be characterized by the braiding operator U(γ2,γ3)=exp(Ωc2γ2γ3)U(\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3})=\exp(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2}\gamma_{2}\gamma_{3}) S1 , which transforms γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3} as γ2cos(Ωc)γ2+sin(Ωc)γ3\gamma_{2}\rightarrow\cos(\Omega_{c})\gamma_{2}+\sin(\Omega_{c})\gamma_{3}, and γ3sin(Ωc)γ2+cos(Ωc)γ3\gamma_{3}\rightarrow-\sin(\Omega_{c})\gamma_{2}+\cos(\Omega_{c})\gamma_{3}. Therefore, the braiding results are determined by the solid angle Ωc\Omega_{c} spanned by the loop of δ\vec{\delta}. In Fig. 2(b), we show the weight of ψi±(8T)\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T) on ψi±(0)\psi_{i}^{\pm}(0) after two successive braiding operations, in which t1t_{1} and t2t_{2} varies in the range of [0,tc]\left[0,t_{c}\right], while EdE_{d} remains unchanged. The solid angle is in the general form of Ωc=arccos(Ed/Ed2+tc2)\Omega_{c}=\arccos(E_{d}/\sqrt{E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}}), thus the weight of ψ2±(8T)\psi_{2}^{\pm}(8T) on ψi(0)\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0) is 1cos(2Ωc)2=tc2Ed2+tc2\frac{1-\cos(2\Omega_{c})}{2}=\frac{t_{c}^{2}}{E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}}. The numerical results in Fig. 2(b) are fully consistent with the analysis above except for Ed=0E_{d}=0.

Now we emphasis that the non-Abelian braiding of MZMs relies on the non-trivial Berry phase as well as the MZM’s half fermionic degree of freedom. Since two MZMs γ1\gamma_{1} and γ2\gamma_{2} together form a non-local state ψ=γ1+iγ2\psi=\gamma_{1}+i\gamma_{2}, the non-trivial Berry phase accumulated by tuning the coupling strength (or spatially moving the MZMs) will only be picked up by γ2\gamma_{2}. Thus, the final state cannot return to its original form after braiding. This is completely different from the ordinary fermionic state. If we replace the pair of the MZMs with another QD, then the coupling term between these two QDs is t1d1d1+h.c.t_{1}d_{1}^{\dagger}d_{1}+h.c., where d1d_{1}^{\dagger} is the creation operator of the state in the new QD. In the Majorana representation, such coupling term reads as i|t1|(γ1γAγBγ2)i|t_{1}|(\gamma_{1}\gamma_{A}-\gamma_{B}\gamma_{2}), indicating that there are two coupled pairs of MZMs between these two QDs with the same coupling strength [Fig. 1(e)]. Then even if a non-trivial Berry phase is accumulated, the initial state will not evolve into another state since both γ1\gamma_{1} and γ2\gamma_{2} picks up the same Berry phase. Such an analysis shows the necessity of the half fermionic degree of freedom. Moreover, recent progress ChunXiao1 ; Aguado3 suggests that before the system enters the topological region, an inhomogeneous interface potential could induce a quasi-MZM state comprising of two weakly-coupled MZMs separated in a short distance. Though such state could exhibit non-Abelian braiding properties in specific parameters, such braiding results are extremely fragile and can be experimentally distinguished from the case of MZM S1 .

We have proposed a minimal setup supporting non-Abelian braiding of the MZMs and discussed the underlying physics. However, it should be noted that our proposal requires a π\pi-junction to facilitate the manipulation. To show what will happen when ϕ1ϕ2\phi_{1}-\phi_{2} deviates from π\pi, we calculate the braiding results versus the braiding time-cost TT with the phase deviation δϕ=0.05π\delta\phi=0.05\pi [Fig. 2(c)]. The braiding results sinusoidally oscillate with TT, which means that a dynamic phase is induced by the phase deviation. Indeed, since our setup is essentially a JJ with Josephson energy EJ=Γcos(ϕ2γ2γ3)E_{J}=\Gamma\cos(\frac{\phi}{2}\gamma_{2}\gamma_{3}) where Γ\Gamma is the hybridization energy of the junction, an additional dynamic phase will be induced by Γ\Gamma. In general, the dynamic phase can be eliminated by the traditional spin-echo technique or parity echo technique, which reverses the sign of the eigenenergy at the middle of the symmetric braiding protocol GQC . Indeed, since this dynamic phase is induced by the Josephson energy, it can be eliminated by reversing the sign of the phase deviation as δϕ=0.05π\delta\phi=-0.05\pi in the last two steps of the braiding so that the non-Abelian geometric phase can be retrieved [the dashed lines in Fig. 2(c)]. Figure 2(d) exhibits the braiding results as functions of ϕ1ϕ2\phi_{1}-\phi_{2} when the spin-echo technique is adopted. The non-Abelian braiding results remain intact except for ϕ1ϕ2=0\phi_{1}-\phi_{2}=0, which is quite stable when the spin-echo technique is involved.

Non-Abelian-braiding-induced charge transfer.—The detection of the non-Abelian braiding result is another significant problem in the TQC. In the many-body basis (|0,Ψ1|0,Ψ2|0,Ψ2Ψ1|0)(|0\rangle,\Psi_{1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle,\Psi_{2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle,\Psi_{2}^{\dagger}\Psi_{1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle), U(γ2,γ3)U(\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3}) has the matrix form of

[cos(Ωc2)00isin(Ωc2)0cos(Ωc2)isin(Ωc2)00isin(Ωc2)cos(Ωc2)0isin(Ωc2)00cos(Ωc2)].\begin{bmatrix}\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&0&0&-i\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})\\ 0&\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&-i\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&0\\ 0&-i\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&0\\ -i\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})&0&0&\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})\\ \end{bmatrix}. (3)
Refer to caption
Figure 3: (a) Inversion of the local parity will induce the charge transfer. (b) Electric-current-induced charge transfer during the braiding (blue line) as a function of EdE_{d} with tc=0.2Δt_{c}=0.2\Delta. The probability of electron tunneling pep_{e} dominates at Ed<0E_{d}<0 (green dashed line) and the probability of electron tunneling php_{h} dominates at Ed>0E_{d}>0. 2(pe+ph)2(p_{e}+p_{h}) is equal to the weight of |ψ1(0)|ψ1±(8T)||\langle\psi_{1}^{\mp}(0)|\psi_{1}^{\pm}(8T)\rangle| (purple line). Since δN=(pe+2ph)e\delta N=(p_{e}+2p_{h})e, the charge transfer is about tc2/2(Ed2+tc2)t_{c}^{2}/2(E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}) at Ed<0E_{d}<0 and about tc2/(Ed2+tc2)t_{c}^{2}/({E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}}) at Ed>0E_{d}>0. Resonant charge transfer happens near Ed=0E_{d}=0 in which both these two processes matter. (c) The charge transfer as a function of tct_{c} with Ed=0.6ΔE_{d}=-0.6\Delta. The charge transfer is about half of |ψ1(0)|ψ1±(8T)||\langle\psi_{1}^{\mp}(0)|\psi_{1}^{\pm}(8T)\rangle|.

The non-zero off-diagonal elements in the braiding matrix demonstrate that an initial state a|0+bΨ2Ψ1|0a|0\rangle+b\Psi_{2}^{\dagger}\Psi_{1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle will evolve into [acos(Ωc2)ibsin(Ωc2)]|0+[bcos(Ωc2)iasin(Ωc2)]Ψ2Ψ1|0\left[a\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})-ib\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})\right]|0\rangle+\left[b\cos(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})-ia\sin(\frac{\Omega_{c}}{2})\right]\Psi_{2}^{\dagger}\Psi_{1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle after braiding. Since the inversion of the local parity of Ψ1\Psi_{1} or Ψ2\Psi_{2} corresponds to a charge transfer from the left nanowire to the right one [Fig. 3(a)], the charge transfer in an isolated system is equal to (|a|2|b|2)sin2(Ω/2)(|a|^{2}-|b|^{2})\sin^{2}(\Omega/2) and can be detected via charge sensing PTC1 ; PTC2 . Remarkably, we find that the electric current can also manifest the non-Abelian braiding in an open system. The charge transfer here can be calculated through the integration of the time-dependent current as δN=08TJ^(t)dt\delta N=\int_{0}^{8T}\langle\hat{J}(t)\rangle\mathrm{d}t, where the current follows the definition of Lei

J^(t)=i2[ψL(t)|Hc(t)|ψR(t)h.c.].\langle\hat{J}(t)\rangle=-\frac{i}{2}\left[\langle\psi_{L}(t)|H_{c}(t)|\psi_{R}(t)\rangle-h.c.\right]. (4)

Here, |ψL(t)|\psi_{L}(t)\rangle is the wavefunction at the right end of the left nanowire at time tt, while |ψR(t)|\psi_{R}(t)\rangle is the wavefunction at the left end of the right nanowire at time tt. Since Hc(t)=i(t1d+t1d)γ2H_{c}(t)=i({t_{1}}d+t_{1}^{*}{d^{\dagger}}){\gamma_{2}}, the current is contributed from two possible processes. The first process (with probability denoted by pep_{e}) is that an electron in the left nanowire directly transmits into the right nanowire. The other one is an electron in the left nanowire transforms into a hole and then transmits into the right nanowire (Andreev reflection, whose probability is denoted as php_{h}). Since a positive EdE_{d} indicates a barrier for electron transmission, we can see that php_{h} dominates for Ed>0E_{d}>0 while pep_{e} dominates for Ed<0E_{d}<0 [the dashed line in Fig. 3(b)]. Moreover, it can be proved that 2(pe+ph)=tc2Ed2+tc22(p_{e}+p_{h})=\frac{t_{c}^{2}}{E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}}, which is exactly the population of the charge occupied after braiding |ψi±(8T)|ψi(0)||\langle\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T)|\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0)\rangle|. In comparison, the actual charge transfer is δN=pe+2ph\delta N=p_{e}+2p_{h} [Fig. 3(b)], hence the charge transfer is highly related to the non-Abelian geometric phase that δN|ψi±(8T)|ψi(0)|/2\delta N\approx|\langle\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T)|\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0)\rangle|/2 for Ed<0E_{d}<0, while δN|ψi±(8T)|ψi(0)|\delta N\approx|\langle\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T)|\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0)\rangle| for Ed>0E_{d}>0. Figure 3(c) shows the charge transfer as a function of tct_{c} with Ed=0.6ΔE_{d}=-0.6\Delta, in which δN|ψi±(8T)|ψi(0)|/2\delta N\approx|\langle\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T)|\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0)\rangle|/2 in a large region of tct_{c}. These results indicate that the non-Abelian statistics may be directly detected through the electric current.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: (a) Braiding operation steps in the SS nanowire system. (b) The braiding result (purple line) and the charge transfer (blue line) in the SS nanowire versus tct_{c} with Ed=0.6ΔE_{d}=-0.6\Delta and braiding time-cost T=80/ΔT=80/\Delta. (c) The braiding result in the SS nanowire as a function of TT with Ed=0.4ΔE_{d}=-0.4\Delta and tc=1.5Δt_{c}=1.5\Delta. The charge transfer (blue line) significantly increases when T>150/ΔT>150/\Delta due to the finite size effect.

Numerical simulation in the semiconductor superconducting nanowires.—We have demonstrated that the non-Abelian braiding of MZMs can be well performed through the protocol we proposed. Here, we would like to numerically examine it in a specific system. Since the semiconductor superconducting (SS) nanowire is deemed as the most promising platform for TQC, we numerically simulate the non-Abelian braiding in a system composed of two SS nanowires [Fig. 4(a)], in which the coupling strengths between the MZMs and the QD can be manipulated through two voltage gates located near the intersection of the nanowires and the QD. The whole braiding process is quite simple and can be performed by first turning off the gate voltages in G1G1 and G2G2 simultaneously, and then turning on G1G1 and G2G2 in succession [Fig. 4(a)]. The wavefunction evolution and the charge transfer during the braiding can be numerically demonstrated as shown in Fig. 4(b), (c). We can see that the weight of of ψi±(8T)\psi_{i}^{\pm}(8T) on ψi(0)\psi_{i}^{\mp}(0) is still 1cos(2Ωc)2=tc2Ed2+tc2\frac{1-\cos(2\Omega_{c})}{2}=\frac{t_{c}^{2}}{E_{d}^{2}+t_{c}^{2}}, though the on-site energy of the QD state shifts due to the influence of background. Besides, the electron tunneling dominates due to the negative shift of the on-site energy of the QD state. Finally, the charge transfer significantly increases when T>150/ΔT>150/\Delta due to the finite size effect of the nanowire S1 , implying that its non-Abelian braiding properties will be better exhibited in a longer nanowire.

Conclusion.—With the assistance of a QD, we show that the non-Abelian braiding operations can be manifested in a simple 1D structure. Such braiding operation is quite simple and feasible in the state-of-art technology. We want to stress that though we take the SS nanowire as a demonstration, our minimal model is quite general. Such proposed minimal model can be realized in various TSC platforms such like ferromagnetic atomic chains and vortices on iron-based TSC. Moreover, in the SS nanowire system we have demonstrated, in addition to tuning the coupling strengths between the MZMs and the QD, the non-Abelian braiding operations corresponding to the closed loop on the Bloch sphere in Fig. 1(c) can also be realized through manipulating the on-site energy of the QD state EdE_{d}.

Acknowledgement.— We acknowledge Lei Wang for the numerical support. This work is financially supported by NSFC (Grants No. 11974271) and NBRPC (Grants No. 2017YFA0303301, and No. 2019YFA0308403).

References

  • (1) A. Kitaev, Phys. Usp. 44, 131 (2000).
  • (2) C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008).
  • (3) L. Fu, and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096407 (2008).
  • (4) J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040502 (2010).
  • (5) S. Fujimoto, Phys. Rev. B. 77, 220501(R) (2008).
  • (6) M. Sato, Y. Takahashi, and S. Fujimoto, Phys. Rev. B 82,134521 (2010).
  • (7) J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. B 81, 125318 (2010).
  • (8) R.M. Lutchyn, J.D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010).
  • (9) M. Hell, M. Leijnse, K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107701 (2017).
  • (10) F. Pientka, A. Keselman, E. Berg, A. Yacoby, A. Stern, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021032 (2017).
  • (11) V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science 336, 1003 (2012).
  • (12) M. T. Deng, C.L. Yu, G. Y. Huang, M. Larsson, P. Caroff, H. Q. Xu, Nano Lett. 12, 6414 (2012).
  • (13) A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, H.Shtrikman, Nat. Phys. 8, 887 (2012).
  • (14) S. M. Albrecht, A. P. Higginbotham, M. Madsen, F. Kuemmeth, T. S. Jespersen, J. Nygard, P. Krogstrup and C. M. Marcus, Nature 531, 206 (2016).
  • (15) Hao Zhang, Michiel W.A. de Moor, Jouri D.S. Bommer, Di Xu, Guanzhong Wang, Nick van Loo, Chun-Xiao Liu, Sasa Gazibegovic, John A. Logan, Diana Car, Roy L. M. Op het Veld, Petrus J. van Veldhoven, Sebastian Koellinga, Marcel A. Verheijen, Mihir Pendharkar, Daniel J. Pennachio, Borzoyeh Shojaei, Joon Sue Leeb, Chris J. Palmstrom, Erik P.A.M. Bakkers, S. Das Sarma, Leo P. Kouwenhoven, arXiv: 2101.11456 (2021).
  • (16) S. Nadj-perge, llya K. Drozdov, Jian Li, Hua Chen, Sangjun Jeon, J. Seo, Allan H. MacDonald B. Andrei Bernevig, Ali Yazdani, Science 346, 6209 (2014).
  • (17) B. E. Feldman, M. T. Randeria, Jian Li, Sangjun Jeon, Yonglong Xie, Zhijun Wang, Ilya K. Drozdov, B. Andrei Bernevig, Ali Yazdani, Nat. Phys. 13, 286 (2017).
  • (18) H.H. Sun, K.W. Zhang, L.H. Hu,C. Li, G.Y. Wang, H.Y. Ma, Z.A. Xu, C.L. Gao, D.D. Guan, Y.Y. Li, C. Liu, D. Qian, Y. Zhou, L. Fu, S.C. Li, F.C. Zhang, J.F. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 257003 (2016).
  • (19) Dongfei Wang, Lingyuan Kong, Peng Fan, Hui Chen, Shiyu Zhu, Wenyao Liu, Lu Cao, Yujie Sun, Shixuan Du, J. Schneeloch, Ruidan Zhong, Genda Gu, Liang Fu, Hong Ding, Hong-Jun Gao, Science 362, 333 (2018).
  • (20) Qin Liu, Chen Chen, Tong Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. X 8, 041056 (2018).
  • (21) Peng Zhang, Koichiro Yaji, Takahiro Hashimoto, Yuichi Ota, Takeshi Kondo, Kozo Okazaki, Zhijun Wang, Jinsheng Wen, G. D. Gu, Hong Ding, Shik Shin, Science 360, 182 (2018).
  • (22) Antonio Fornieri, Alexander M. Whiticar, F. Setiawan, Elias Portolés, Asbjørn C. C. Drachmann, Anna Keselman, Sergei Gronin, Candice Thomas, Tian Wang, Ray Kallaher, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Erez Berg, Michael J. Manfra, Ady Stern, Charles M. Marcus, and Fabrizio Nichele, Nature 569, 89 (2019).
  • (23) H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, Nature 569, 93 (2019).
  • (24) Jie Liu, Andrew C. Potter, K. T. Law, Patrick A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267002 (2012).
  • (25) G. Kells, D. Meidan, and P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B 86, 100503(R) (2012).
  • (26) E. Prada, P. San-Jose, and R. Aguado, Phys. Rev. B 86, 180503(R) (2012).
  • (27) Chun-Xiao Liu, Jay D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 97, 214502 (2018).
  • (28) C. Moore, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B 97, 165302 (2018).
  • (29) A. Vuik, B. Nijholt, A. R. Akhmerov and M. Wimmer, arXiv: 1806.02801 (2018).
  • (30) F. Penaranda, R. Aguado, P. San-Jose, and E. Prada, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235406 (2018).
  • (31) Haining Pan, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013377 (2020).
  • (32) D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001).
  • (33) J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, M. P. A. Fisher, Nat. Phys. 7, 1915 (2011).
  • (34) van Heck B, Akhmerov AR, Hassler F, Burrello M, Beenakker CWJ. 2012. New J. Phys. 14,035019 (2012).
  • (35) D. Aasen, M. Hell, R. V. Mishmash, A. Higginbotham,J. Danon, M. Leijnse, T. S. Jespersen, J. A. Folk, C. M. Marcus,K. Flensberg, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031016 (2016)
  • (36) Ryan V. Mishmash, Bela Bauer, Felix von Oppen, Jason Alicea, Phys. Rev. B 101, 075404 (2020).
  • (37) I. C. Fulga, B. van Heck, M. Burrello, and T. Hyart, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155435 (2013).
  • (38) J. Manousakis, C. Wille, A. Altland, R. Egger, K. Flensberg, and F. Hassler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 096801 (2020).
  • (39) Sagar Vijay, Liang Fu, Phys. Rev. B 94, 235446 (2016).
  • (40) T. Karzig, C. Knapp, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Bonderson, M. B. Hastings, C. Nayak, J. Alicea, K. Flensberg, S. Plugge, Y. Oreg, C. M. Marcus, and M. H. Freedman, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235305 (2017).
  • (41) C. Schrade and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 267002 (2018).
  • (42) Yuval Oreg, and Felix von Oppen, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11,397-420 (2020).
  • (43) W. Chen, Y. Wu, J. Liu, and X.C. Xie, arXiv: 2005.00735 (2020).
  • (44) Karsten Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 090503 (2011).
  • (45) Torsten Karzig, Yuval Oreg, Gil Refael, and Michael H. Freedman, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031019 (2016).
  • (46) Dihao Sun, and Jie Liu, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035311 (2018).
  • (47) Y. Wu, H. Liu, J. Liu, H. Jiang, and X.C. Xie, National Science Review bf 7, 572 (2020).
  • (48) Y. Wu, H. Jiang, J. Liu, H. Liu, and X.C. Xie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 036801 (2020).
  • (49) See Supplementary materials.
  • (50) G. Szechenyi, and Andras Palyi, Phys. Rev. B 101, 235441 (2020).
  • (51) M. I. K. Munk, J. Schulenborg, R. Egger, and Karsten Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033254 (2020).
  • (52) D. Rzmadze, E. C. T. OFarrell, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 116803 (2020).
  • (53) J. Avila, F. Penaranda, E. Prada, P. San-Jose, and R. Aguado, Communications Physics bf 2, 133 (2019)
  • (54) Bao-Jie Liu, Xue-Ke Song, Zheng-Yuan Xue, Xin Wang, and Man-Hong Yung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100501 (2019).
  • (55) Lei Wang, Matthias Troyer, and Xi Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 026802 (2013).