Physics Staff Awards

The Lorraine DeSalvo Chair's Endowed Award for Outstanding Service recognizes employees who provide benefit beyond their regular duties, promote positive professional and personal exchanges among colleagues, and work effectively within the Department of Physics and/or with outside contacts. Nominees must have been employed within the Department of Physics for a minimum of one year.

The Sibylle Sampson Award was established by Sibylle Sampson, a long-time Physics employee and valued assistant to former Chair John S. Toll. It spotlights an employee whose one-time accomplishment otherwise might go unrecognized. The employee’s undertaking will have benefited the entire Department or a specific unit, and shown creativity, initiative or self-motivation.  Nominees must have been employed within the Department of Physics for a minimum of one year. Two nominators are needed for the Sibylle Sampson Award.

The Staff Excellence Award recognizes employees who excel in job performance, provide a friendly and supportive atmosphere, and display a personal commitment to the Department and to positive workplace morale. Up to three awards may be given.  Nominees must have been employed within the Department of Physics for a minimum of one year.

 
YearDeSalvo Chair's AwardSibylle Sampson AwardStaff Excellence Award 

2022

2021 

2020  

2019  

2018

2017 

2016  

2015 

2014 

2013

2012  

2011  

2010

2009  


2008  

2007  


2006  

2005  

2004  

2003  

2002 

2001  

2000  

1999  

1998 

1997

1996 

1995  


1994 

1993  


1992  

1991 

1990  


1989  

1988  


1987  

1986  


1985  

1984 

1983

1982  

Clay Daetwyler

Brian Straughn

Jesse Anderson


Mark Conners

Lorraine DeSalvo

Bonnie Seal-Filiatreau

Pauline Rirksopa

Tommy Baldwin

Mark Conners

no awards

Jane Zhang

Paulina Alejandro

Nicholas Hammer

Jesse Anderson

Clay Daetwyler


Tuck Owens, Dan Margulies

Robert Dahms

Tom Payerle

John Cataldi

Mary Ridgell

Joyce Robinson

Margaret Lukomska

Tom Payerle

Pauline Rirksopa

Lorraine DeSalvo

Maurice Pairel

Loretta Robinette

Cassie Jones, Jesse Anderson

Dawn Leavell

Linda O'Hara, Betty Alexander

Bernadine Kozlowski

Geoffrey Elbo

Pam Solomos, Nono Kusuma

Jan Andrews

Karl Harzer, Brenda Dunn

Rose Otto

Pota Floros, Harriet Husman

Jean Clement

Michele Eastman

Elbert Barretta

Delores Knight

Rob McIntire

Naomi Russo

Dannielle Watkins

Samantha Suplee

Ayla Hurley

Paulina Alejandro

Logan Anbinder

Donna Hammer

Allen Monroe

no awards

Anne Suplee

Xiao Ning Zhao

Pauline Rirksopa

Bonnie Seal-Filiatreau

Doug Bensen, Scott Lasley

Loretta Robinette


Aaron McQueen

Kari Aldridge

Randy Holder

Donna Hammer

Sherri Menoes

Margaret Lukomska

Allen Monroe

Al Godinez

Tuck Owens

Ruth Zerwitz

Delores Knight

Norman Reese


Betty Alexander

Pauline Rirksopa


Pat Byrdsong

Josiland Chambers, Naomi Russo,  Bonnie Seal-Filiatreau

Lea Bartolome, Melanie Knouse, Allen Monroe

Melissa Britton, Josiland Chambers, Tom Woycheck-Gleason, Ayla Hurley, Bonnie Seal-Filiatreau

Janet Das Sarma, Donna Hammer, Kristin Stenson

Heather Markle, Don Lynch, Jane Wang

Jessica Crosby, Claudia Key and Kelly Phillips

Margaret Lukomska, Naomi Russo and Melissa Britton

Eliot Hammer

Amy Streets

no awards

Julie Callis

Christopher Monroe Enters National Academy of Sciences

Christopher Monroe, Distinguished University Professor & Bice Seci-Zorn Professor was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 2016. See recorded video http://www.nasonline.org/NAS154presentation.

Membership of the National Academy of Sciences is one the greatest and highest honors that a scientist can receive.  "The NAS membership totals approximately 2,290 members and 490 foreign associates, of whom approximately 200 have received Nobel prizes."  - NAS

Read more about Monroe's accomplishments.

Trapped ions and superconductors face off in quantum benchmark

debnath nature conceptAn artist's rendering of many linked trapped-ion modules. Researchers at JQI put one of their modules to the test against an IBM superconducting device. (Credit: E. Edwards/JQI)

The race to build larger and larger quantum computers is heating up, with several technologies competing for a role in future devices. Each potential platform has strengths and weaknesses, but little has been done to directly compare the performance of early prototypes. Now, researchers at the JQI have performed a first-of-its-kind benchmark test of two small quantum computers built from different technologies.

The team, working with JQI Fellow Christopher Monroe and led by postdoctoral researcher Norbert Linke, sized up their own small-scale quantum computer against a device built by IBM. Both machines use five qubits—the fundamental units of information in a quantum computer—and both machines have similar error rates. But while the JQI device relies on chains of trapped atomic ions, IBM Q uses coupled regions of superconducting material.

To make their comparison, the JQI team ran several quantum programs on the devices, each of which solved a simple problem using a series of logic gates to manipulate one or two qubits at a time. Researchers accessed the IBM device using an online interface, which allows anyone to try their hand at programming IBM Q.

Both computers have strengths and weaknesses. For example, the superconducting platform has quicker gates and may be easier to mass produce, but its man-made qubits are all slightly different and have shorter lifetimes. Monroe says that the slower gates of ions might not be a major hurdle, though. "Because there is time," Monroe says. "Trapped ion qubit lifetimes are way longer than any other type of qubit. Moreover, the ion qubits are identical, and they can be better replicated without error."

When put to the test, researchers found that the trapped-ion module was more accurate for programs that involved many pairs of qubits. Linke and Monroe attribute this to the simple fact that every qubit in their device is connected to every other—meaning that a logic gate can connect any pair of qubits. IBM Q has fewer than half the connections of its JQI counterpart, and in order to run some programs it had to shuffle information between qubits—a step that introduced errors into the calculation. When this shuffling wasn't necessary, the two computers had similar performance. "As we build larger systems, connectivity between qubits will become even more important," Monroe says.

The new study, which was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides an important benchmark for researchers studying quantum computing. And such head-to-head comparisons will become increasingly important in the future. "If you want to buy a quantum computer, you'll need to know which one is best for your application," Linke says. "You'll need to test them in some way, and this is the first of this kind of comparison."

By Erin Marshall

REFERENCE PUBLICATION
"Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures," N.M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K.A. Landsman, K. Wright, C. Monroe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 3305-3310 (2017)
RESEARCH CONTACT
Norbert Linke|linke@umd.edu

Christopher Monroe|monroe@umd.edu

RELATED JQI ARTICLES
Programmable ions set the stage for general-purpose quantum computers

Three UMD Students Named 2017 Goldwater Scholars

Three University of Maryland students have been awarded scholarships by the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation, which encourages students to pursue advanced study and careers in the sciences, engineering and mathematics. The Goldwater Foundation also recognized a fourth UMD student with an Honorable Mention.

UMD juniors Christopher Bambic, Eliot Fenton and Prayaag Venkat were among the 240 Barry Goldwater Scholars selected from 1,286 students nominated nationally this year. UMD junior Natalie Livingston was recognized with an Honorable Mention. The four students all plan to pursue doctoral degrees in their areas of study and to become university professors or researchers at government laboratories.

Read more.