10.57647/ijm2c.2025.150419

Defining Fundamental Computational Speed Limits for Quantum Oscillators

PDF
  • Reza Pirmoradian1,
  • Negar Abolghasemiazad*1,
  • Elham Sadoogh1,
  • Zahra MohammadAli1,
  • Maryam Teymouri1,
  1. Faculty of engineering, Ershad Damavand Institute of Higher Education, Tehran, Iran, Tehran, Iran

Received: 05-06-2025

Revised: 30-06-2025

Accepted: 30-06-2025

Published in Issue 24-07-2025

Copyright (c) 2025 Reza Pirmoradian, Negar Abolghasemiazad, Elham Sadoogh, Zahra MohammadAli, Maryam Teymouri (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Pirmoradian, R., Abolghasemiazad, N., Sadoogh, E., MohammadAli, Z., & Teymouri, M. (2025). Defining Fundamental Computational Speed Limits for Quantum Oscillators. International Journal of Mathematical Modelling & Computations, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.57647/ijm2c.2025.150419
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This work shows the different effects external magnetic and electric fields have on the computational efficiency of the system by examining the complexity growth rate of a charged quantum oscillator under these conditions. Our work reveals a critical magnetic field threshold above which the complexity behavior qualistically changes and the computational dynamics of the system drastically changes. Moreover, by means of an analysis of the minimum orthogonalization time in an anharmonic oscillator, we derive upper bounds on feasible computation rates, so revealing the practical limitations of quantum computational speed. By identifying specific parameter regimes where complexity development undergoes clear transitions, the study reveals how the interaction of electric and magnetic fields can greatly alter the behavior of quantum systems. These results clarify how external perturbations affect the computational capacity of quantum systems and help us to better grasp the limits of quantum computing. With significant consequences for the design and development of upcoming quantum technologies, this study finally helps us to better understand how outside fields restrict the efficiency of quantum computations.  

Keywords

  • Quantum information,
  • complexity,
  • Lloyd’s bound,
  • Orthogonal states,
  • Quantum computation
PDF

References

  1. S. W. Hawking, “Black hole explosions,” Nature 248, 30 (1974). doi:10.1038/248030a0
  2. L. B. Levitin, “Physical limitations of rate, depth, and minimum energy in information processing”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 (1982), 299309.
  3. S. Lloyd, Ultimate physical limits to computation, Nature 406 (Aug., 2000) , arXiv : quant-ph/9908043.
  4. J. D. Bekenstein, “Black Holes and Entropy”, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973).
  5. R. Pirmoradian and M.R. Tanhayi, Symmetry-resolved entanglement entropy for local and non-local QFTs, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 849 [arXiv:2311.00494] [INSPIRE].
  6. R. Pirmoradian, M.R. Tanhayi, Non-local probes of entanglement in the scale-invariant gravity. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 18(12), 2150197 (2021). arXiv:2103.02998 [hep-th].
  7. R. Pirmoradian, M.R. Tanhayi, Information Dynamics in Quantum Harmonic Systems: Insights from Toy Models. arXiv: 2501.14359 [quant-ph].
  8. M. Van Raamsdonk, “Evaporating Firewalls,” JHEP 1411, 038 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)038 [arXiv:1307.1796 [hep-th]].
  9. L. Susskind, “Entanglement is not enough,” Fortsch. Phys. 64, 49 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500095 [arXiv:1411.0690 [hep-th]].
  10. S. Lloyd, Y. J. Ng, ”Black hole computers”. Sci. Am. 291, 5261 (2004).
  11. F. Khorasani, R. Pirmoradian, M.R. Tanhayi, Position dependence of Nielsen complexity for the thermofield double state. Phys. Lett. B851, 138585 (2024). arXiv:2308.15836 [quant-ph]
  12. M. Alishahiha, K. Babaei Velni and M.R. Tanhayi, Complexity and Near Extremal Charged Black Branes, arXiv:1901.00689 [INSPIRE].
  13. M. Reza Tanhayi, R. Vazirian and S. Khoeini-Moghaddam, Complexity Growth Following Multiple Shocks, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 49 [arXiv:1809.05044] [INSPIRE].
  14. A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, “Complexity, action, and black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 8, 086006 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.086006 [arXiv:1512.04993 [hep-th]].
  15. Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, “Computational Complexity, A Modern Approach”, Cambridge University Press (2009).
  16. T. Nishioka, S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Holographic Entanglement Entropy: An Overview, J. Phys. A 42, 504008 (2009) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/42/50/504008 [arXiv:0905.0932 [hepth]].
  17. S. Aaronson, The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes, arXiv:1607.05256 [quant-ph].
  18. W.Cottrell and M. Montero, “Complexity is simple!,” JHEP 1802, 039 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)039 [arXiv:1710.01175 [hep-th]].
  19. O.Dippel, P.Schmelcher and L.S.Cederbaum, “Charged Anisotropic Harmonic Oscillator and the Hydrogen Atom in Crossed Fields”, Physical Review A 49, 4415 (1994).
  20. W. Cottrell and M. Montero, “Complexity is simple!,” JHEP 1802, 039 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)039 [arXiv:1710.01175 [hep-th]].