4.8 Article

Experimental Validation of Fully Quantum Fluctuation Theorems Using Dynamic Bayesian Networks

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 127, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.180603

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. CAPES
  3. FAPERJ [203.166/2017]
  4. FAPESP [2016/08721-7, 2018/12813-0]
  5. Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (Canada)
  6. Government of Ontario
  7. CIFAR
  8. Mike and Ophelia Lazaridisthe
  9. Sao Paulo Research Foundation [2017/07973-5, 2017/50304-7]
  10. German Science Foundation (DFG) [FOR 2724]
  11. Royal Society through the Newton Advanced Fellowship scheme [NA140436]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies of quantum fluctuation relations often neglect important quantum properties like quantum correlations and coherence, which can have significant implications for understanding thermodynamic processes. Through experimental testing, the validity of fully quantum fluctuation theorems for heat exchange between quantum-correlated thermal spins-1/2 has been verified, demonstrating the integral fluctuation relations for quantum correlations and coherence in this process.
Fluctuation theorems are fundamental extensions of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems. Their general validity arbitrarily far from equilibrium makes them invaluable in nonequilibrium physics. So far, experimental studies of quantum fluctuation relations do not account for quantum correlations and quantum coherence, two essential quantum properties. We here apply a novel dynamic Bayesian network approach to experimentally test detailed and integral fully quantum fluctuation theorems for heat exchange between two quantum-correlated thermal spins-1/2 in a nuclear magnetic resonance setup. We concretely verify individual integral fluctuation relations for quantum correlations and quantum coherence, as well as for the sum of all quantum contributions. We further investigate the thermodynamic cost of creating correlations and coherence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据