arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 2 Oct 2016

Transcription

1 Regularized Boltzmann entropy determines macroscopic adiabatic accessibility Hiroyasu Tajima and Eyuri Wakakuwa 2 Center for Emergent Matter Science (CEMS), RIKEN, Wako, Saitama Japan 2 Graduate School of Information Systems, The University of Electro-Communications, Chofu, Japan ariv: v2 [quant-ph] 2 Oct 206 How the thermodynamic entropy S TD is related to the Boltzmann entropy S B has been one of the central issues since the beginning of statistical mechanics. Today, it is believed that the thermodynamic entropy S TD is equal to a function S B that is defined by regularizing the Boltzman entropy in order to ensure extensivity. However, it is not known whether S B completely determines the possibility of a macroscopic adiabatic transformation in the same way as S TD does. In this paper, by formulating the possibility of a macroscopic adiabatic transformations in terms of coarsegraining of quantum operations, we prove that S B provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the possibility of a macroscopic adiabatic transformation. I. INTRODUCTION Thermodynamics [, 3, 4] is one of the most successful phenomenologies in physics, and it has a huge application from chemical reactions [] to black holes [2]. The thermodynamic entropy S TD plays a central role in thermodynamics. It is a function of macroscopic variables such as U, V and N, denoting the internal energy, the volume and the number of particles, respectively. As stated by the second law of thermodynamics, the thermodynamical entropy completely determines the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility, [4] i.e., (U,V,N) ad (U,V,N ) S TD [U,V,N] S TD [U,V,N ]. () where (U,V,N) ad (U,V,N ) means an adiabatic transformation from a state (U,V,N) to another state (U,V,N ) is possible. How the thermodynamic entropy S TD is related to the Boltzmann entropy S B has been one of the central issues since the beginning of statistical mechanics. The Boltzmann entropys B is not equal to thermodynamic entropy S TD in general. For example, S B is not extensive in general, while S TD is extensive. Today, it is believed that S TD is equal to the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B, which is defined in terms ofs B asfollowsand is extensive by definition [5]: S B [U,V,N] := S B [U,V,N]. (2) U, V and N [6 3]. However, the the backward implication of (3) is still left unproven [3]. Recently, in the field of quantum information theory [5 24], it has been succeeded in deriving detailed thermodynamic relations, which characterize possibility and impossibility of quantum state transformations by a set of restricted operations. However, these conditions for the possibility of state transformations are represented not only by macroscopic parameters, but also by microscopic parameters. In this sence, their results are interpreted as the microscopic accessibility. This is in contrast to (3), which is represented only by macroscopic parameters. In this paper, we propose a coarse-graining approach to try the backwardimplication in (3), and show that S B provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the possibility of a macroscopic adiabatic transformation, i.e., the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility. Our results hold by only assuming that the it (2) exists and is a convex and strictly increasing function for U, V and N. Our resutls do not need stronger assumptions, e.g, the i.i.d. feature. This paper is organized as follows. In the section II, we review basic and well-known concepts of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. All contents in this section are well-known. In the section III, we define the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility, based on our coarsegraining method. In the section IV, we give the main results of the present paper. Finally, in the section V, we prove the main results. Several lemmas used in the section V are proven in Appendix. However, it is not known whether S B completely determines the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility in the same way as S TD. That is, it is not known whether the following statement holds: (U,V,N) ad (U,V,N ) S B [U,V,N] S B [U,V,N ]. (3) In the field of statistical mechanics, the forward implication of (3) has been proven for certain formulations of adiabatic operations, by only assuming that the it (2) exists and is a convex and increasing function for II. PRELIMINARIES In this section, we review basic concepts of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. All contents in this section are well-known. See e.g. [3 6] for more details. In thermodynamics, an equilibrium state is represented by values of a set of macroscopic physical quantities such as (U,V,N), where U is the internal energy, V is the volume of the system, and N is the number of particles. In this paper, we consider cases where all these physical quantities are extensive, the set includes the internal en-

2 2 ergy. We represent such a set of physical quantities in terms of vectors as := (a 0,a,...,a L ), where L is a natural number, e.g., L = 2 in the case of (U,V,N). Here, for the simplicity of writing, we express the internal energy U as a 0. Since a macroscopic equilibrium state is uniquely determined by values of macroscopic physical quantities, we also represent an equilibrium state by. The thermodynamical entropy of an equilibrium state is uniquely determined as a function of, which we denote by S TD []. The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most imporant assumptions in thermodynamics. It has several equivalent formulations such as the principle of maximum work, Clausius inequality and the law of entropy increase. The law of entropy increase determines the adiabatic accessibility, i.e., whether a macroscopic state can be transformed to another by an adiabatic operation. It is stated as follows: ad S TD [] S TD [ ], (4) where ad means an adiabatic transformation ad is possible. Let us introduce the statistical mechanical counterpart of the thermodynamic equilibrium. Since we are concerning a macroscopic it, we describe a physical system by a Hilbert space H () depending on a scaling parameter. The macroscopic it is defined as the it of. We assume that takes values in a set = N or = R +. For each and l = 0,,L, we denote the set of the Hermitian operators on H () as A () := (H (),A (),[],...,A (),[L] ). Then, the microcanonical state corresponding to an equilibrium state is defined by ˆπ () () := ˆΠ /D (), (5) () where ˆΠ and D () are the projection and the dimension of the following H (), which is a subspace of of H () : { H () := span ψ H () λ [l] [(a [l] δ ), } (a [l] +δ )) s.t. A ()[l] ψ = λ [l] ψ for 0 l L. (6) The parameter δ is a positive function of, which represents the negligible fluctuation of macroscopic quantities. Since we are normalizing macroscopic observables as (6), it is natural to assume that δ = 0. To describe behavior of a system in the macroscopic it ( ), we introduce an array {δ }, and introduce an array of microcanonical states {ˆπ () } for each and {δ }. Depending on the choice of {δ }, there exists many arrays {ˆπ () } corresponding to one. Therefore, a thermodynamic equilibrium state does not have a one-to-one correspondence with {ˆπ () }. Let denote the set of arrays {δ } such that δ = 0. Then has a one-to-one correspondence with the following set of arrays of microcanonical state: {{ˆπ () } {δ } }. (7) Since {δ } represents the range of negligible fluctuation of macroscopic physical quantities, any sequence in the set (7) can be regarded as describing states that are macroscopically the same. The regularized Boltzmann entropy is defined as where D () defined by H () S B [] := logd(). (8) is the dimension of the Hilbert space H () { := span ψ H () λ [l] a [l], } s.t. A ()[l] ψ = λ [l] ψ for 0 l L, (9) With concrete calculations, it has been shown that there exists the it S B as a convex and incresing function for each element of, in many physical systems, e.g., gases of particles with natural potentials including the van der Waars potential [5]. III. FORMULATION OF MACROSCOPIC ADIABATIC ACCESSIBILITY IN TERMS OF COARSE-GRAINING In this section, we introduce a general method to formulate possibility of a macroscopic state transformation, by coarse-graining possibility of microscopic state transformations. We then formulate the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility, based on a coarse-graining of possibility of a microscopic state transformation by unital operations. Our formulation is based on the following idea: Basic Idea Suppose a microcanonical state π () is transformed by a quantum operation E to another microcanonical state π () From a macroscopic point of. view, we observe that an equilibrium state is transformed to another equilibrium state, for any δ and δ within the range of macroscopically negligible fluctuations. Therefore, we could say that an equilibrium state can be transformed to another equilibrium state if, for any macroscopically negligible δ and a δ, a state π () can be transformed to π (). Based on this idea and the concept of an array of microcanonical states introduced in Section II, we propose a definition of possibility of a macroscopic state transformation as follows, where F denotes a class of quantum operations (Fig. ).

3 3 The set (7) characterized by The set (7) characterized by IV. MAIN RESULTS The main results of this paper are summarized as follows. For an arbitrary element there exist an element and a sequence of class which satisfy (0) CPTP FIG. : Schematic diagram of Definition Definition A macroscopic transformation F is possible if, for any {δ }, there exists {δ } and an array {E } such that n E (ˆπ () ) ˆπ (), δ = 0, (0) and E is a CPTP map of class F on S(H ) for all. Here, ρ σ is the trace distance defined by ρ σ := 2 Tr ρ σ. We express as F that an adiabatic transformation F is possible. Clearly, if F and F hold, then F also holds. The above definition provides a formulation of various types of possibility of macroscopic state transformations, depending on F. In this paper, we employ unital CPTP map for class F to define possibility of adiabatic transformations. Here, a unital CPTP map is defined as a completely positive trace preserving map that maps the identity operator to the identity operator, i.e., E(ˆ) = ˆ. A unital map does not decrease the von Neumann entropy of an arbitrary quantum state[25], that is, we have S(E(ρ)) S(ρ), ρ S(H), () for all ρ S(H). Because this feature is similar to the feature of the adiabatic transformation in thermodynamics that does not decrease the thermodynamic entropy S TD, many researches have treated the unital operation as a quantum counterpart of the adiabatic transformation in thermodynamics [3, 2 23]. We then formulate the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility as follows: Definition 2 An adiabatic transformation ad is possible if, for any {δ }, there exists {δ } and an array {E } such that E (ˆπ () ) ˆπ (), δ = 0, (2) and E is a unital CPTP map on S(H ) for all. We express as ad when an adiabatic transformation ad is possible. Theorem When S B [] exists and is a convex and strictly increasing function for each element of, the following holds for arbitrary and : S B [] S B [ ] ad. (3) When S B [] does not exist and is a convex and strictly increasing function for each element of, Theorem does not necessarily hold. Even in that case, the following theorem holds in general: Theorem 2 We have where we define where, S B [] < S B [ ] ad, (4) S B [] S B [ ] ad, (5) S B [] := sup sup {δ } S B[;δ ], (6) S B [] := sup inf {δ } S B[;δ ], (7) S B [;δ ] := logd (). (8) Theorem states that S B provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility in the same way as S TD does, as long as S B [] exists and is a convex and strictly increasing function for each element of. Theorem 2 provides a similar relation for the case where S B [] does not exist as a convex and strictly increasing function for each element of. The macroscopic adiabatic accessibility is in this case characterized by two functions S B [] and S B [], not by a single function as in the case of thermodynamic theories. Our results do not depend on any microscopic parameters, including δ that we have introduced to define the generalized microcanonical state ˆπ,δ. This is in contrast to previous approaches from quantum information theory [5 24], which treat microscopic accessibility. We emphasize that Theorem only needs to assume that S B [] exists and is a convex and strictly increasing function for each element of, i.e., we do not need the stronger assumptions including the i.i.d. assumption. It is shown that S B [] exists and is a convex and increasing function for each element of, in many physical systems, e.g., gases of particles with natural potentials including the van der Waars potential [5]. In the region where the phase transition does not occur, the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B [] is a strictly increasing function for each element of. Therefore, at least in such a region, the regularized Boltzmann entropy determines the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility.

4 4 V. PROOFS A. Proof of Theorem In the proof of Theorem, we use the following three lemmas: Lemma For an arbitrary {δ }, the following relation holds: logd() (+δ ) = S B [] (9) Lemma 2 When the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B [] exists for and is a strictly increasing function for each element of, there exists {δ (0), } such that logd() = S B [] (20) holds for an arbitrary {δ } satisfying δ (0), < δ for an arbitrary. Lemma 3 Let us consider the case where the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B [] exists and is a strictly increasing function for each element of. Let us take arbitrary and such that S B [] = S B [ ]. Let us take an array {δ }, and let A be the following set of real numbers: A := {η D () ( δ ) D() (+η) D() (+δ ) } (2) Let 0 be the set of such that A is not the empty set, and let be the set of such that A is the empty set. Then, we define two real valued functions η (+) and η( ) of as follows: { η (+) = 3 inf η A η sup η A η ( 0 ) η + ( ),(22) { 2 η ( ) = 3 inf η A η + 3 sup η A η ( 0 ) η ( ),(23) where η is the following real valued function of : Then, η (+) η := sup{η D () (+η) < D() ( δ ) }. (24) = o() and η( ) = o() hold. These lemmas are proven in Appendix A. Hereafter, we refer to the set of {δ } such that δ (0), < δ < O() for arbitrary as (0). Clearly, for an arbitrary {δ } (0), the following relation holds: logd() = S B []+f(,). (25) Here, f(,) is a real-valued function which converges to 0 at the it of. Proof of Theorem : The forward implication of Proposition (3) is proved as follows. In general, there exists a unital CPTP map E satisfying σ = E(ρ), if and only if ρ and σ satisfies the majorization relation ρ M σ defined as ρ M σ def m m p k k= k= q k for any m. (26) Here, {p k } k and {q k } k are eigenvalues of ρ and σ, respectively, sorted in decreasing order [24, 26]. Hence it suffices to show that, for any {δ }, there exists another sequence {δ } such that we have ˆπ () M ˆπ (). (27) for any sufficiently large. We firstly show that (27) holds when S B [] < S B [ ] holds. Let us take arrays {δ } and {δ } (0) a satisfyingδ < δ forarbitrary. Then, because D() is an increasing function for δ, logd() logd(),δ (28) holds. Because of Lemma 2, the righthand-side of the above converges to S B [] at the it of. Also, because of Lemma 2, for an arbitrary array {δ } (0), logd() converges to S B [ ] at the it of. Therefore, because of S B [] < S B [ ], logd() logd() (29) holds for sufficient large. Hence, (27) holds when S B [] < S B [ ] holds. Next, let us show that (27) holds when S B [] = S B [ ]. For an arbitrary {δ }, we define δ := 4max{ η (+), η( ) }. (30) Clearly, δ > sup η A η and inf η A η > δ hold for any 0. Therefore, for any 0, D () (+δ ) < D() (+δ ) (3) D () ( δ ) < D() ( δ ) (32) hold. The inequalities (3) and (32) also hold for any, because δ > η and η > δ hold for any. (Note that η > η D () (+η) > D() ( δ and ) η > η D () ( δ > ) D() (+η) hold for an arbitrary, because η satisfying D () ( δ ) D() (+η) D () (+δ does not exist for ).)

5 5 Because of Lemma 3, δ = o() also holds. Hence, {δ } satisfies D() < D (), because of D () = D () (+δ ) D() ( δ ). Therefore, (27) holds. Finally, we prove the backward implication of Proposition (3) by showing that an adiabatic transformation aq is not possible if δs := S B [] S B [ ] > 0. Fix arbitrary {δ } (0) and {δ }. We also take {δ } (0) such that δ < δ for arbitrary. From (25), we have logd() logd() = ( S B [] S B [ ])+(f(,) f(,)) = δs γ (33) for any, where we defined γ := f(,) f(,). Hence we have logd() logd() logd() logd() > δs 2 for any sufficiently large, which leads to D () > e δs/2 D () (34) > D (). (35) Note that γ = 0 follows from f(,) = 0 and f(,) = 0. Let P () be the projection onto supp[ˆπ () ], and define a unital CPTP map P () P () (ρ) = P () ρp () +(I P () )ρ(i P () ). Let E := P() E for any unital CPTP map E. Since E is a untal CPTP map as well, we have by ˆπ () M E (ˆπ () ) M E (ˆπ () ). (36) Consequently, all eigenvalues p i (i =,2, ) of E (ˆπ() ) satisfies From (35) and (37), we obtain D () D () p i. (37) > e δs/2 D () p i. (38) The distance between E (ˆπ () ) and ˆπ () is then bounded as follows. Due to the monotonicity of the trace distance, we have = 2 2 E (ˆπ () ) ˆπ () D () i= D () i= 2 D() = 2 p i D () p i D () D () E (ˆπ () + 2 e δs/2 D () ) ˆπ () i>d () p i ( e δs/2). (39) Here, we defined p i (i =,,D () as eigenvalues of ) E (ˆπ() ) on the support of ˆπ (). Thus we obtain E (ˆπ () ) ˆπ () 3 (40) for any sufficiently large and any unital CPTP map E, which contradicts (2). Therefore, an adiabatic transformation aq is not possible. B. Proof of Theorem 2 We first introduce a generalized adiabatic process. Definition 3 Suppose {δ },{δ }. An adiabatic transformation (,{δ } ) ad (,{δ } ) is possible if there exists a set {E } of unital CPTP maps E on S(H () ) that satisfies n ( E ) ˆπ () ˆπ () Definition 2 is then reformulated as follows: = 0. (4) Definition 2 An adiabatic transformation ad is possible if, for any {δ }, there exists another sequence {δ }, such that an adiabatic transformation (,{δ } ) ad (,{δ } ) is possible. Theorem 2 is proved by using the following lemma regarding the possibility and impossibility of generalized adiabatic processes. A proof is given in Appendix B. Lemma 4 Let us define s,{δ} := sup s,{δ} := inf S B[ ] (42) S B[ ] (43)

6 6 for arbitrary and {δ }. Suppose {δ },{δ }. Then, an adiabatic transformation (,{δ } ) ad (,{δ } ) is possible if s,{δ} < s,{δ }. Conversely, an adiabatic transformation (,{δ } ) ad (,{δ } ) is possible only if s,{δ} s,{δ }. Theorem 2 is then proved as follows. Proof of Theorem 2: The relation (4) is proved as follows. Due to we have S B [] = S B [] = sup s,{δ}, {δ } sup s,{δ}, (44) {δ } {δ } ; s,{δ} S B [], ǫ > 0, {δ } ; SB [ ] ǫ s,{δ }.(45) By choosing ǫ = ( S B [ ] S B [])/2 > 0, it follows that for any {δ }, there exists {δ } such that s,{δ} S B [] < S B [ ]+ S B [] 2 s,{δ },(46) due to Lemma 4. Thus an adiabatic transformation a a is possible. To prove (5), we assume that S B [] > S B [ ]. Equivalently to (45), we have ǫ > 0, {δ } ; SB [] ǫ s,{δ} {δ } ; s,{δ } S B [ ]. (47) By choosing ǫ = ( S B [] S B [ ])/2 > 0, we find that there exists {δ }, such that for any {δ } we have s,{δ} S B []+ S B [ ] 2 > S B [ ] s,{δ },(48) due to Lemma 4. Thus an adiabatic transformation ad is not possible, which completes the proof. macroscopic accessibility, in the same way as the thermodynamic entropy S TD does, by formulating adiabatic operations in terms of a coarse-grained unital operations. The result is applicable for any physical system in which S B [] exists as a continous and strictly increasing function for each element of. It is shown that S B [] exists and is a convex and increasing function for each element of, in many physical systems, e.g., gases of particles with natural potentials including the van der Waars potential [5]. In the region where the phase transition does not occur, the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B [] is a strictly increasing function for each element of. Therefore, at least in such a region, the regularized Boltzmann entropy determines the macroscopic adiabatic accessibility. We also proved that a similar relation holds in general, evenforsystemsinwhich S B [] maynotexistasaconvex and strictly increasing function for each element of. Possibility of an adiabatic transformation is in this case characterized by two functions S B [] and S B [], not by a single function as in the case of thermodynamic theories. WeemphasizethatTheoremdonotneedthestronger assumptions including the i.i.d. assumption. Also, our results do not depend on any microscopic parameters, including δ that we have introduced to define the generalized microcanonical state ˆπ,δ. This is in contrast to previous approaches from quantum information theory [5 24] treating microscopic accessibility, in which convertibility of states are characterized by functions that depends on microscopic parameters. Our method, presented in Definition 2 to formulate possibility of macroscopic transformations in terms coarse-graining, is applicable as well for classes of quantum operations other than unital operations. To find a class of operations that genuinely described adiabatic operations, and to see whether the same results as Theorem and 2 hold for that class, are left as future works. VI. CONCLUSION We have proved that the regularized Boltzmann entropy S B givesanecessaryandsufficientconditionforthe Acknowledgments: HT is grateful to Prof. Hal Tasaki, Prof. Gen Kimura, Dr. Yu Watanabe, Dr. Sho Sugiura, Dr. Kiyoshi Kanazawa, Dr. Jun ichi Ozaki, Dr. Ryoto Sawada, Dr. Sosuke Ito and Yohei Morikuni for helpful comments. [] E. Fermi, Thermodynamics (Dover Books on Physics, 956). [2] J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, S. W. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. 3, 6 (973).

7 7 [3] A. Shimizu, Basis of thermodynamics, (University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese), ISBN: , (2007).) [4] E. H. Lieb and J. Yngvason Phys. Rep. 30,, (996). [5] H. Tasaki, Statistical mechanics,2, ISBN-3: and ISBN-3: (Baihukan, 2008 (in Japanese)). [6] Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. Statistical Physics. Vol. 5 of the Course of Theoretical Physics, 3rd edition (976). [7] C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690, (997). [8] H. Tasaki, ariv:cond-mat/ (2000). [9] J. Kurchan, ariv:cond-mat/ (2000). [0] S. DeLiberato and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. E 84, 0522 (20). [] G. iao and J. Gong, ariv: , (205). [2] K. Sekimoto, Stochastic Energetics (Lecture Notes in Physics), Springer, (200). [3] H. Tasaki, ariv: (205). [4] H. Touchette, Physics Reports 478, (2009). [5] M. Horodecki and J. Oppenheim, Nat. Commun. 4, 2059 (203). [6] O. C. O. Dahlsten, R. Renner, E. Rieper, and V. Vedral, New. J. Phys.3, 05305, (20). [7] J. Aberg, Nat. Commun. 4, 925 (203). [8] D. Egloff, O. C. O. Dahlsten, R. Renner and V. Vedral, ariv: , (202). [9] F. G. S. L. Brandao, M. Horodeck, N. H. Y. Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, PNAS, 2,325(205). [20] S. Popescu, ariv: (200). [2] P. Skrzypczyk, A. J. Short and S. Popescu, Nature Communications 5, 485, (204). [22] H. Tajima and M. Hayashi ariv: (204). [23] M. Weilenmann, L. Krämer, P. Faist, and R. Renner, ariv: (205). [24] G. Gour, M. P. Muller, V. Narasimhachar, R. W. Spekkens, N. Y. Halpern, ariv: (203). [25] H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, USA, 2007). [26] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). Appendix A: Proof of Lemmas, 2 3 Proof of Lemma : Because δ = o() and D () is increasing for each element of, the following inequality holds for an arbitrary ǫ > 0 and sufficiently large : Therefore, for an arbitrary ǫ > 0, logd() ( ǫ) < logd() (+δ ) < logd() (+ǫ). (A) S B [( ǫ)] inf logd() (+δ ) sup logd() (+δ ) < S B [(+ǫ)] (A2) holds. Because S B is continuous, Lemma holds. Proof of Lemma 2: For an arbitrary {δ }, logd() = log(d() (+δ ) D() ( δ ) ) = logd() (+δ + ) log D() ( δ ) D () (+δ ). (A3) Because of Lemma, the first part of the right-hand side convergesto S B [] at the it of. Therefore, we only need to show that the second part converges to 0 for an arbitrary{δ } such that δ (0), < δ for a {δ (0), }. Because D () is increasing for each element of, it is sufficient to show that the second part vanishes for an {δ (0), }. For an arbitrary, the relation logd() S B [] holds. Therefore, there exists a function γ, satisfying γ, = 0, and holds. Therefore, we can transform the second part of (A3) as follows: logd() = S B []+γ, (A4) log( e( S B[( δ )]+γ ( δ ), S B[(+δ )] γ (+δ ),) ) (A5)

8 8 Because holds for an arbitrary g(), we only need to show that 0 log( eg() ) log( e / ) 0 (A6) S B [( δ )]+γ ( δ), S B [(+δ )] γ (+δ), (A7) holds for an array {δ (0), }. Because S B [] is strictly increasing for each element of, for an arbitrary ǫ > 0, there exists ǫ > 0 such that S B [( ǫ)]+γ ( ǫ), S B [(+ǫ)] γ (+ǫ), (A8) holds for arbitrary > ǫ. Therefore, the following δ (0), satisfies (A7): = ǫ, m = max{ ǫm, m +}, δ (0), = ǫ m for m+ m (A9) (A0) (A) where {ǫ m } is an array of positive numbers such that ǫ m m 0. Proof of Lemma 3: We firstly consider the case that is bounded. In this case, we only need to consider 0. By definition, for an arbitrary 0, logd() ( δ ) logd() (+η ( ) ) logd() (+η (+) ) logd() (+δ ) (A2) Because of Lemma and S B [] = S B [ ], the relation logd() S (+η (+) B [ ] holds. If η (+) ) = o() would not = ǫ+ η for a real number ǫ 0 and η = o(). Because of Lemma, the subsequence satisfies logd() S (+η (+) B [ (+ǫ)]. It is a contradiction, and therefore η (+) ) = o() holds. We can show η ( ) = o() in the same manner. hold, there exists a subsequence of {η (+) } such that η(+) Next, we consider the case where is unbounded. For the part of 0, η (+) shown. Thus we only need to show η (+). For, = o() and η( ) = o() has been = o() and η( ) = o() for. It is sufficient to show η = o() for logd() (+η ) logd() ( δ ) logd() (+δ ) logd() (+η + ) (A3) (A4) holds, where (A4) holds because there is no η satisfying D () ( δ ) D() (+η) D() (+δ ) for. If η = o() would not hold, either or η := supη > 0 η := inf η < 0 (A5) (A6)

9 holds. Note that η = η + o() holds for a subsequence of {η }, and that η = η + o() holds for another subsequence. Because of Lemma, for each subsequences, the following relation holds respectively: 9 Therefore, because of (A3) and (A4), logd() (+η ) S B [(+η)] logd() S (+η + ) B [(+η)]. S B [ (+η)] S B [ ], S B [ (+η)] S B [ ]. (A7) (A8) (A9) (A20) Hence we have η = η = 0. It contradicts the claim that either (A5) or (A6) holds. Appendix B: Proof of Lemma 4 There exists a unital map E satisfying E(ρ) = σ, if and only if ρ σ holds, i.e., σ is majorized by ρ (see (26) for the definition). Thus we prove the first statement of Lemma 4 by showing that if s < s, we have ˆπ () ˆπ () (B) for any {δ },{δ } and sufficiently large. Define { } γ,{δ}, := max S(ˆπ() ) s,{δ}, 0, { } γ := min {δ}, S(ˆπ() ) s,{δ }, 0 for any {δ }. By definition, we have s,{δ} γ,{δ}, for any and, as well as S(ˆπ() ) s,{δ} +γ,{δ}, γ,{δ }, = γ,{δ }, = 0 (B2) (B3) due to the definitions of s,{δ} and s,{δ}. Hence we have which leads to logd() = S(ˆπ() ) s,{δ} +γ,{δ},, logd() = S(ˆπ() s ),{δ γ },{δ },, n logd() n logd() (s,{δ s },{δ } ) (γ,{δ },n +γ,{δ },). (B4) Suppose s,{δ} < s,{δ }. Due to (B3) and (B4), we have logd () logd () 0 (B5)

10 for any sufficiently large n, which implies (B). This completes the proof of the first part of Theorem 2. We prove the second statement by showing that an adiabatic transformation (a,{δ } ) ad (a,{δ } ) is not possible if δs := s a,{δ } s,{δ } > 0. From (B2), we have 0 n logd() logd() = n S(ˆπ() ) S(ˆπ() ) (s,{δ} s,{δ } ) (γ +γ,{δ },n,{δ },) = δs γ (B6) for any, where we defined γ := γ +γ,{δ},,{δ },. Hence we obtain D () > e δs/2 D () D () (B7) for any sufficiently large n. Note that n γ = 0 from (B3). Therefore, as proved in Section VA, we have (40) for any sufficiently large n and any unital CPTP map E. This contradicts Condition (4), which implies that an adiabatic transformation (a,δ ) ad (a,δ ) is not possible.