Second law of the information thermodynamics with entanglement transfer Hiroyasu Tajima 1 1 Department of Physics, The University of Toyo, Komaba, Meguro, Toyo 153-8505 We present a new inequality which holds in the thermodynamical processes with measurement and feedbac controls with using only the Helmholtz free energy and the entanglement of formation: W ext BT E. The quantity E, which is positive, expresses the amount of entanglement transfer from the system S to the probe P through the interaction ÛSP during the measurement. It is easier to achieve the upper bound in the new inequality than in the Sagawa-Ueda inequality [6]. The new inequality has clear physical meaning: in the above thermodynamical processes, the wor which we can extract from the thermodynamic system is greater than the upper bound in the conventional thermodynamics by the amount of the entanglement extracted by the measurement. arxiv:1212.0407v2 [quant-ph] 1 Jul 2013 I. INTRODUCTION The second law of thermodynamics appears to be violated in thermodynamic processes that include measurements and feedbacs. This well-nown fact has been the center of attention and numerous studies have long been conducted on such processes [1 12]. The second law of information thermodynamics [6] derived by Sagawa and Ueda is a monumental landmar of such studies; in the case of an isothermal process, it is expressed as W ext + B TI QC, (1) where I QC is the QC-mutual information content [6]. This inequality gives a new upper bound for the wor extracted from a thermodynamic system when measurement and feedbac are permitted on the system. [ When the measurement is classical ( ρ, M M ] () () = 0, where{ M () } is the measurement and ρ is the density matrix of the system with the baths), the QC-mutual information reduces to the classical mutual information content. Therefore, in the classical world, the wor that we can extract from information thermodynamic processes is greater than the upper bound of the conventional thermodynamics by the amount of information which we obtain from the measurement. On the other hand, when the measurement is not classical, the physical meaning of the QC-mutual information is unclear. We will also show below that when we use finite systems for the heat baths, the upper bound of (1) is not necessarily achievable. In this paper, we present a new information thermodynamic inequality with using only the Helmholtz free energy and the entanglement of formation: W ext B T E, (2) where the difference E of the entanglement is taen between before and after the unitary interaction ÛSP between the system S and the probe P during the measurement. The quantity E is always nonnegative and expresses the amount of entanglement transfer from S to P through ÛSP. Hence, the inequality (2) has clear physical meaning: the wor that we can extract from information thermodynamic processes is greater than the upper bound of the conventional thermodynamics by the amount of entanglement which we obtain from the measurement. In other words, from a thermodynamical point of view, we can interpret the entanglement transfer as the information transfer. In the above context, we introduce a new information content I E = E, to which we refer as the entanglement information. It has a clear physical meaning even wheni QC does not. We also show that, the condition for the achievement of the upper bound of the new inequality (2) is looser than that of the inequality (1). II. SET UP O THE WHOLE SYSTEM As the setup, we consider a thermodynamic system S that is in contact with heat bathsb m form = 1,2,...,n which are at temperatures T 1,c,T n, respectively. We refer to the whole set of heat baths {B m } as B. Except when we perform measurement or feedbac control, we express the Hamiltonian of the whole system as Ĥ( λ(t)) = ĤS ( λ S (t))+ [ĤSBm ( λ SBm (t))+ĥbm ], (3) whereĥs ( λ S (t)) is the Hamiltonian of the systems,ĥbm is the Hamiltonian of the bath B m, and ( λ ĤSBm SBm (t)) is the interaction Hamiltonian between the system S and the heat bath B m. The Hamiltonian is controlled through the external parameters λ S (t) and λ SBm (t). We assume that there exists a value of λ SBm (t) = λ 0 such that ĤSBm ( λ 0 ) = 0. We call the time evolution of the whole system with controlled values of λ S (t) and λ SBm (t) a thermodynamic operation. We further assume that we can realize a thermodynamic equilibrium state at temperaturet m by connectings andb m and waiting. Note that the equilibrium state may not be a canonical distribution. We define the energy U of a state ρ as ρĥ] and define the Helmholtz free energy for an equilibrium state at a temperature T as B T logz(β), where β ( B T) 1 andz(β) exp( βĥ)]. III. INORMATION THERMODYNAMIC PROCESS Under the setup in Section 2, we consider the following thermodynamic processes from t = t i to t = t f (ig. 1). At
2 1 1 3 i thermodynamics process U init interaction U SP 2 I is determined here E projective measurement {P } on probe I feedbac control {U } on system and baths () () is determined here thermodynamics Process U fin f IG. 1: Schematic of the thermodynamic processes from t i tot f. t = t i, we start the process with the following canonical initial state: where S(ρ) ρlog ρ], ρ tr P [ ψ P ψ P ], (8) ande SB-R ( ρ) is the entanglement of formation [14] between SB andr; E SB-R (ρ) min ρ q j E SB-R ( φ j ) (9) = q j φ j φ j with E SB-R ( φ j ) being the entanglement entropy [13] between SB and R for a pure state φ j. Note that E SB-R ( ψ ψ ) and E SB-R (ρ ) indicate the amount of entanglement between SB and R at t = t 1 and t = t 1, respectively. To put it simply, we can express I E as follows: I E E SB-R = E SB-R before ÛSP E SB-R after ÛSP. (10) We also note that E SB-R ( ψ ψ ) is equal to the amount of entanglement betweensb and the rest of the whole system at t = t 1. Thus, we can interpret I E as the amount of entanglement betweensb andrthat is taen by the probep during the interactionûsp. rom t = t 1 to t = t 2, we perform a projective measurement {P () = i,i P,i P } on the probe, where {,i P } are pure states of the probe. At t = t 2, we obtain a result with probabilityp, and then the state ofsb becomes ρ 2 = j p ρ () 2 = q i,ρ i 2, (11) i, ρ i = exp[ βĥs i ] Zi S(β) exp[ β ] 1ĤB1 Z B1 (β 1 )... exp[ β ] nĥbn,(4) Z Bn (β n ) where ĤS i = ĤS ( λ S (t i )), Zi S = exp[ βĥs i ]], β m = ( B T m ) 1 and Z Bm = exp[ β m Ĥ Bm ]] (m = 1,...,n). rom t = t i to t = t 1, we perform a thermodynamic operation Ûinit. At t = t 1, the state is therefore given by ρ 1 = Ûinitρ i Û init. Adding a proper reference system R, we can find a pure state ψ which satisfies tr R [ ψ ψ ] = ρ 1. (5) romt = t 1 tot = t 1, we introduce a unitary interactionûsp between the system S and the probe P, which is initialized to a state 0 P. At t = t 1, the state of the whole system is expressed as ψ P = (ÛSP 1 B 1 R )( 0 P ψ ), (6) where1 B and1 R are the identity operators. At this point, we define the new quantity I E, namely the entanglement information, as follows: I E E SB-R ( ψ ψ ) E SB-R (ρ ) (7) = S(ρ 1 ) E SB-R (ρ ), where qi, ψ i = (,ip 1 ) ψ P, (12) ρ i 2 = tr R [ ψ i ψ i ], (13) p ρ () 2 = tr PR [ i q i, ψ i ψ i ], (14) with ψ i and ρ () 2 being normalized. We can interpret the above as performing a measurement{ M () }, where M () = i,i P ÛSP 0 P, (15) ons fromt = t 1 tot = t 2. The QC-mutual information [6, 8] is determined here for the first time. It is expressed as I QC S(ρ 1 )+H{p } + D ρ SB D log D ρ SB D ],(16) where D M () M (). We emphasize the following two points. irst, we can determine the unitary interaction ÛSP and the projective measurements P () for any measurement M(). Hence, if we can
3 evaluate the QC-mutual information I QC, then we can also evaluate I E. Second, the timings at which I E and I QC are defined are different. The information I E is defined when only ÛSP is completed, whereas the information I QC is defined when the measurement{ M () } is also completed. Thus, for two measurements with the same ÛSP, I E taes the same value buti QC may tae different values. rom t = t 2 to t = t 3, we perform a feedbac control depending on the measurement result. To be precise, we perform a unitary transformationsû() onsb. At t = t 3, the state ofsb is given by ρ 3 p Û ()ρ () 2 Û (). (17) rom t = t 3 to t = t f, we choose a thermodynamic operation Ûfin whose final state is assumed to be equilibrium and perform it. We also assume that by t f system S and heat bath B m will have reached thermodynamic equilibrium at temperaturest andt m, respectively. Note that we only assume that the final state is macroscopically equilibrium; the final state may not be a canonical distribution given by ρ can f exp[ β Ĥf S] Zf S exp[ β1ĥb1 ]... exp[ βnĥbn ], (β ) Z B1 (β 1 ) Z Bn (β n ) (18) where β is the inverse temperature of the final state of the system. We hereafter call the above process as the information thermodynamic process. IV. MAIN RESULTS or the above information thermodynamic processes, we present five results. The first theorem is the new second law of information thermodynamics: Theorem 1 or any information thermodynamic process, the following inequality holds: U S S + T Q m U S S T m T + B I E, (19) where Q m (ρ ĤBm i ρ f )] and the quantities U S, S, U S and S the energy and the Helmholtz free energy at t i and t f, respectively. When the the system undergoes an isothermal process in contact with a single heat bath B at temperature T, the inequality (19) reduces to W ext + B TI E (20) = B T E SB R (21) The second theorem shows that we can always achieve the upper bound of (19) when we use infinite systems for the heat baths. Theorem 2 When we use infinite systems as the heat baths, there is at least one set of projective measurement{p () } and feedbac {Û()} which achieve the upper bound of (19) for any interactionûsp. With the third, fourth and fifth results, we will see that the condition for the achievement of the upper bound of the new inequality (19) is looser than that of the inequality U S S + T Q m U S S T m T + B I QC, (22) when we use finite systems for the heat baths. irst, let us present the third result: Theorem 3 If we can always achieve the upper bound of (22) with a proper feedbac{û()}, we can always achieve the upper bound of (19) with a proper set of projective measurement {P () } and feedbac{û()}. The fourth and fifth results show that the converse of Theorem 3 is not true. Theorem 4 When the following conditions are satisfied, we can always achieve the equality of (19) with proper choices of{p () } and{û()} for anyûsp : Condition1: The system S is a two-level system. Condition2: The thermodynamic operationsûinit andûfin satisfy the equation of the following inequality U S S + T Q m U S S T m T. (23) Condition3: λ SB (t) = λ 0 is satisfied fort 1 t t 2. Condition 2 dictates that we do not waste energy during the thermodynamic processes. Condition 3 implies that the system and baths do not interact during the measurement; if the system and baths interact during the measurement, the information obtained by the probe contains the information about the system as well as about the baths. Thus, we can interpret Theorem 4 as follows: We can completely use the information obtained by the probe with a proper interpretation{p () } and a proper feedbac {Û()}, if we do not waste energy during the thermodynamic processes and if the information describes only the system. Theorem 5 Under Conditions 1 3, there is a measurement { M () } for which we cannot achieve the equality of (22) with anyû(). V. PROOS O MAIN RESULTS Let us prove Theorems1 5. Proof of Theorem 1: Theorem 1 is directly given by the following lemma:
4 Lemma 1 or any measurement { M () }, the following inequality holds: I QC I E. (24) The inequalities (22) and (24) give (19). Lemma 1 and Theorems4and5seem to contradict each other. Though the upper bound of (19) is always achievable and though the inequality (24) exists, there is a case in which the upper bound of (22) is not achievable. However, the contradiction is only spurious. Note that when I E is determined, we can tae {P () } freely; in other words, we can choose the best interpretation of the information obtained by the probe. On the other hand, when I QC is determined, {P () } is also determined already, and thus our interpretation of the probe s information is fixed uniquely. Let us prove Lemma 1. Because of the definitions (7) and (16), we prove E SB-R (ρ ) H{p } (25) D ρ SB D log D ρ SB D ]. We can express the above as follows: = i, H{p } p S(ρ () 2 ) = D ρ SB D log D ρ SB D ] p S( i q i, p ρ (i) 2 ) q i, S(ρ (i) 2 ) = q i, E SB-R ( ψ i ) i, E SB-R (ρ ), (26) where ρ = q i, ψ i ψ i = trp [ ψ P ψ P ]. i, (27) Proof of Theorems 2 and 3: irst we prove Theorem 3. Let us tae an ensemble{q (), } which satisfies E SB-R (ρ ) ψ () q E SB-R ( φ ), (28) ρ = q φ φ. (29) Then, we can tae an orthonormal basis{ P } which satisfies ψ P = q P φ. (30) Let us tae the projective measurement {P () } as { P P }. Then,p reduces toq, and thus I QC S(ρ 1 )+H{p } + D ρ SB = S(ρ 1 ) p S(ρ () 2 ) D log D ρ SB D ], = S(ρ 1 ) q E SB-R ( φ ) = S(ρ 1 ) E SB-R (ρ ) = I E. (31) Thus, for an arbitrary unitary ÛSP, there is a projective measurement{p () } that satisfies I E = I QC. Theorem 2 directly follows from Theorem 3. When we use infinite systems for the heat baths, we can always achieve the upper bound of (22) for any measurement { M () } [7]. Because of the above and Theorem 3, we can always achieve the upper bound of (19). Proof of Theorem 4: As in the derivation of (22) in Ref. [6], we can obtain the inequality (19) by transforming S(ρ i ) ρ f log ρ can f ]+I E. (32) Thus, we only have to prove that for anyûsp, we can always tae{p () } and{û()} that satisfy S(ρ i ) = ρ f log ρ can f ]+I E. (33) irst, we prove that if ρ 3 in (17) is a canonical distribution, we can transform (33) into E S-R (ρ SR ) = S(ρ S 3), (34) where ρ SR tr B [ρ ], ρ S 3 tr B[ρ 3 ], and E S-R is the entanglement of formation between S and R. Thans to (7) ands(ρ i ) = S(ρ 1 ), we can transform (33) into 0 = ρ f log ρ can f ] E SB-R (ρ ). (35) Note that a thermodynamic operation from a canonical distribution to an equilibrium state achieves the equality of (23) if and only if the final state is a canonical distribution too [6]. Thus, because of Condition 2, if ρ 3 is a canonical distribution, ρ f is the canonical distribution ρ can f in (18). Then we can transform (35) into E SB-R (ρ ) = S(ρ 3 ), (36) where we use S(ρ 3 ) = S(ρ f ). Thus, we only have to transform (36) into (34). If the following three equations hold, (36) and (34) are equivalent; E SB-R (ρ ) = E S-R1 (ρ SR1 )+E B-R2 ( ψ BR2 ),(37) E S-R (ρ SR ) = E S-R1 (ρ SR1 ), (38) S(ρ 3 ) = S(ρ S 3)+E B-R2 ( ψ BR2 ), (39) where we divider into a two-level subsystemr 1 and the rest R 2.
5 Let us first prove (37). Owing to Condition 2 and the fact that ρ i is a canonical distribution, ρ 1 is a canonical distribution as well. Because of Condition 3,Ĥ(t 1) = ĤS ĤB is valid. Thus, because of Condition 1, under the proper basis of R we can divide R into a two-level subsystem R 1 and a subsystem R 2 and express ψ as follows: ψ = ψ SR1 ψ BR2. (40) Owing to (6) and (40), we can express ψ P as follows: ψ P = ψ PSR1 ψ BR2. Thus, we can express ρ as ρ = ρ SR1 ψ BR2 ψ BR2, (41) where ρ SR1 tr P [ ψ PSR1 ψ PSR1 ]. We have (37) and (38) from (41). Next, we prove (39). Note that S has been isolated for t 1 t t 3 with proper {Û()}. We can therefore express ρ 3 as ρ S 3 ψ BR2 ψ BR2 with E B-R 2 ( ψ BR2 ) = E B-R2 ( ψ BR2 ). Thus, we have (39). Now, we only have to find {P () } on P and {Û()} on S such that ρ 3 and ρ S 3 are canonical distributions and that (34) holds. We first prove that if ρ S 3 is a canonical distribution, ρ 3 is also a canonical distribution. To prove this, we only have to note that tr R2 [ ψ BR 2 ψ BR2 ] is a canonical distribution because B has been isolated for t 1 t t 3 and because tr S [ρ 1 ] is a canonical distribution. We second find {P () } on P and {Û()} on S such that ρ S 3 is a canonical distribution and that (34) holds. Because both S and R 1 are twolevel systems, we can treat the state ψ PSR1 as a three-qubit pure state under a proper basis of P. In Appendix, we prove the following with the approach used in Ref. [15]: we can perform a projective measurement { P () } =0,1 on the probe P such that the results P () ψ PSR1 are LU-equivalent for = 0,1 and E S-R1 ( P () ψ PSR1 ) = E S-R1 (ρ SR1 ) is valid. Because the results P () ψ PSR1 are LU-equivalent, there exists {V () } =0,1 on S, which satisfies ρ pre 3 V ()ρ S() 2 V (), where ρ S() 2 tr R1 [ P () ψ PSR1 ψ PSR1 P () ]. Owing to Condition 1, if E S-R1 ( P () ψ PSR1 ) 0, we can mae the state ρ S 3 = V ρ pre 3 V a canonical distribution with a unitary transformation V ons. Thus,{ P () } and{v () } are the measurement and feedbac that we want. Proof of Theorem 5: It is sufficient to prove the existence of a counterexample of the measurement{ M () }. The equality of (22) is valid only if there exists a set of unitary transformations {Û()} that satisfy p S(ρ () 2 ) = S(ρ 3) [6]. We can transforms(ρ 3 ) as follows: S(ρ 3 ) = S( = =0,1 =0,1 p Û ()ρ () 2 Û () ) (42) p S(ρ () 2 )+ =0,1 p D(Û()ρ () 2 Û () ρ 3), whered(ρ ρ ) ρ(log ρ log ρ )]. BecauseD(ρ ρ ) = 0 if and only if ρ = ρ and because of (42), the equation p S(ρ () 2 ) = S(ρ 3) is valid if and only if {ρ () 2 } are LUequivalent for = 0,1, in other words, if and only if the measurement { M () } is a deterministic measurement. Because of this logic, if Theorem 5 were not valid, any measurement { M () } would be deterministic. This is clearly false, and thus Theorem 5 holds. VI. CONCLUSION To conclude, we obtain a new information thermodynamic inequality. In this inequality, the information gain is the entanglement gain; the new information content I E represents the amount of the entanglement between the system and the reference system which the probe taes from the system. The new information content depends only on the premeasurement state of the system and the unitary interaction between the probe and the system, and thus when I E is determined, we can tae{p () } freely. The QC-mutual informationi QC does not have this freedom. Theorems 4 and 5 follow from this difference of the freedom between I E and I QC. Thus, in the above context, we can state that the substance of information is the entanglement. The information gain is already completed when the unitary interaction is over and the projective measurement is only the interpretation of the information. Acnowledgements This wor was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) ellows (Grant No. 24E8116). The author thans Prof. Naomichi Hatano for useful discussions. Appendix A In the present appendix, we prove the following theorem: Theorem 6 or an arbitrary three-qubit pure state ψ PSR1, there exists a projective measurement {P () } =0,1 such that the results P () ψ PSR1 are LU-equivalent for = 0,1 and is valid. E S-R1 (P () ψ PSR1 ) = E S-R1 (ρ SR1 ) (A1) Proof: Because ρ SR1 is a two-qubit mixed state, we can expresse S-R1 (ρ SR1 ) in the form of the concurrence [16]: 1+ 1 CSR 2 1 (ρ SR1 ) E S-R1 (ρ SR1 ) = h 2, (A2) where C SR1 (ρ SR1 ) is the concurrence of ρ SR1 and h(x) xlogx (1 x)log(1 x). Thus, we only have to find a projective measurement { P () } =0,1 such that
6 P () ψ PSR1 for = 0,1 are LU-equivalent to each other andc SR1 ( P () ψ PSR1 ) = C SR1 (ρ SR1 ). Before giving the projective measurement { P () }, we first present preparations. irst we express ψ PSR1 in the form of the generalized Schmidt decomposition [17]: ψ PSR1 = λ 0 000 +λ 1 e iϕ 100 +λ 2 101 +λ 3 110 +λ 4 111 (0 ϕ π) (A3) and introduce the following eight parameters [15]; K PS C 2 PS +τ PSR 1, K PR1 C 2 PR 1 +τ PSR1, K SR1 C 2 SR 1 +τ PSR1, (A4) (A5) (A6) J 5 4λ 2 0 ( λ 1λ 4 e iϕ λ 2 λ 3 2 +λ 2 2 λ2 3 λ2 1 λ2 4 ),(A7) K 5 J 5 +τ PSR1, J K5 2 K PSK PR1 K SR1, (A8) (A9) e i ϕ5 λ 2λ 3 λ 1 λ 4 e iϕ λ 2 λ 3 λ 1 λ 4 e iϕ, (A10) [ ( )] Qe sgn sinϕ λ 2 0 τ PSR1 +J 5 2(CSR 2 (A11), 1 +τ PSR1 ) where τ PSR1 is the tangle of ψ PSR1 and sgn[x] is the sign function, { } x/ x (x 0) sgn[x] =. (A12) 0 (x = 0) When Qe = 0, there are two possible decompositions which satisfy (A3). We then choose the decomposition with a greater coefficientλ 0. Now we have completed the preparation. In the basis of (A3), the projective measurement{ P () } =0,1 is given as follows; P (0) = ( a e iθ e iθ b ) ( ), P 1 a e iθ (1) = e iθ (A13), 1 b where the measurement parameters a, b, and θ are defined as follows: a = 1 2 K 5 τ PSR1 ± J CSR 2 1, (A14) 2K SR1 K5 2 K PSK PR1 CSR 2 1 b = 1 a, = a(1 a), θ = ϕ 5, (A15) (A16) (A17) and whenqe 0 the mar ± means Qe and whenqe = 0 the mar ± means. With using (A14) (A17) and Lemma 1 of Ref. [15] and after straightforward algebra, we can confirm that the measurement{ P () } is the measurement that we sought. [1] L. Szilard, Z. Phys. 53, 840 (1929). [2] R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183 (1961). [3] C. H. Bennett, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 905 (1982). [4] B. Piechocinsa, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062314 (2000). [5] M. A. Nielsen, C. M. Caves, B. Schumacher, and H. Barnum, Proc. R. Soc. A 454, 277 (1998). [6] T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080403 (2008). [7] K. Jacobs, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012322 (2009). [8] T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 250602 (2009). [9]. J. Cao and M. eito, Phys. Rev. E 79, 041118 (2009). [10] S. Toyabe, T. Sagawa, M. Ueda, E. Muneyui and M. Sano, Nature Phys. 6, 988 (2010). [11] J. M. Horowitz and J. M. R. Parrondo, New J. Phys. 13, 123019 (2011). [12] S. De Liberato and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. E 84, 051122 (2011). [13] C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996). [14] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996). [15] H. Tajima, Ann. Phys. 329, 1 (2013). [16] W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). [17] A. Acín, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jané, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 1560 (2000).