4.2 Article

Thermodynamics of precision in quantum nonequilibrium steady states

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033021

关键词

-

资金

  1. SFI-Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [758403]
  3. UKs Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/P025110/2]
  4. Sao Paulo Funding Agency (FAPESP) [2017/50304-7, 2017/07973-5]
  5. EPSRC [EP/P025110/2, EP/P025110/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autonomous engines operating at the nanoscale can be prone to deleterious fluctuations in the heat and particle currents. Thermodynamic uncertainty relations (TURs) express a fundamental lower bound which translates a trade-off relation between precision and entropy production. Importantly, recent studies have shown that they can be violated in the quantum regime, thus motivating the search for analogous quantum counterparts. In this paper, we show that the geometry of quantum nonequilibrium steady states alone directly implies the existence of TUR, but with a looser bound, which is not violated by the above recent findings. The geometrical nature of this result makes it extremely general, establishing a fundamental limit for the thermodynamics of precision. Our proof is based on the McLennan-Zubarev ensemble, which provides an exact description of nonequilibrium steady states. We first prove that the entropy production of this ensemble can be expressed as a quantum relative entropy. The TURs are then shown to be a direct consequence of the Cramer-Rao bound, a fundamental result from parameter estimation theory. By combining techniques from many-body physics and information sciences, our approach also helps to shed light on the delicate relationship between quantum effects and current fluctuations in autonomous machines, where new general bound on the power output are found and discussed.

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

4.2
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