Recently, we have presented some simple arguments supporting the existence of a certain complementarity between thermodynamic quantities of temperature and energy, an idea suggested by Bohr and Heinsenberg in the early days of Quantum Mechanics. Such a complementarity is expressed as the impossibility to perform an exact simultaneous determination of the system energy and temperature by using an experimental procedure based on the thermal equilibrium with other system regarded as a measuring apparatus (thermometer). In this work, we provide a simple generalization of the last approach with the consideration of a thermodynamic situation with several control parameters.
Recently, we have presented some simple arguments supporting the existence of a certain complementarity between thermodynamic quantities of temperature and energy, an idea suggested by Bohr and Heinsenberg in the early days of Quantum Mechanics. Such a complementarity is expressed as the impossibility to perform an exact simultaneous determination of the system energy and temperature by using an experimental procedure based on the thermal equilibrium with other system regarded as a measuring apparatus (thermometer). In this work, we provide a simple generalization of the last approach with the consideration of a thermodynamic situation with several control parameters.
To understand in detail the relation between unitary quantum theory that describes our world at the microscopic scale and thermodynamics, which was long believed only to apply to macroscopic objects, is one of the most interesting and long-standing problems in physics. Recently, this problem has received renewed attention, in particular from the community of quantum information theory, but also from the field of statistical mechanics, inspired from stochastic thermodynamics. These results suggest that thermodynamics is also relevant for individual quantum systems, provided that they can be brought into contact with thermal baths. In this thesis, I use recently developed tools to provide new results both on fundamental questions, but also on questions which are of practical relevance for potential miniaturized thermal machines. In terms of fundamental questions, the results in this thesis contribute to understanding how the basic laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics can be understood directly from unitary quantum mechanics. In particular, I discuss and answer the following questions: i) How can we quantify the third law of thermodynamics using information theoretic methods? ii) How can we quantify the "thermodynamic value" of a state-transition in quantum systems? iii) How can we axiomatically characterize the non-equilibrium free energy and relative entropy? iv) How can we justify statistical ensembles from an operational perspective, without having to introduce either some probability measures or an information theoretic entropy measure? v) How can we understand the equilibration of closed quantum systems, how long does it take and how difficult is it to avoid? In the second part of the thesis I discuss in detail how experimental restrictions, which become important at the quantum scale, influence the ultimate thermodynamic bounds for thermal machines. In particular, the results in this thesis provide thermodynamic bounds on work-extraction and efficiencies of thermal machines in situations where 1.) an experimenter only has limited field strengths available, 2.) an experimenter cannot control the interactions between particles, but external fields arbitrarily well, and 3.) situations in which a small quantum system can only be strongly coupled to heat baths. These bounds are tight and I provide explicit examples illustrating the different behaviours. Finally, I come back to a classic problem in statistical physics: The emergence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Here, I provide general and rigorous new results that show how symmetry-breaking stationary states emerge from fluctuations in order parameters in dissipative lattice models.
Contrary to a wide-spread impression, the possibility of measuring an energy in a finite time without changing its initial value (E' =E0) is not in contradiction with the principles of quantum mechanics. The relation Δ(E'-E0)Δt≥ holds only in the case when the energy of interaction between the quantum system in question and the apparatus is a function of a coordinate of the system. The condition for a nonperturbing energy measurement is that the interaction energy H1, of the system and the apparatus depend on the energy operator E and that the operators Ĥ and E commute. It is also possible to have a nonperturbing measurement in which the error in measuring the energy is so small that ΔE/Δt. Measurement of the energy of a given system is accompanied by an increase in the uncertainty Δe of the energy of the apparatus. The error ΔE in the measurement of the system's energy and the perturbation Δeof the energy of the apparatus are connected by the relations (ΔE + Δe) Δt≥ and ΔE Δe≥(/2Δt)2.
Having discussed the meaning of complementarity in general and wave particle complementarity in particular, I wish now to explicate Bohr's subtle argument for the thesis that certain pairs of classical concepts which are mutually compatible in classical physics are mutually exclusive in quantum physics, i.e. the thesis of kinematic–dynamic complementarity. It is generally held that Bohr regarded the mutual exclusiveness in question as being not only epistemic but also ontic or semantic, in the sense that the uncertainty principle expresses a restriction not only on the joint measurability of canonically conjugate observables but also on the joint instantiation of the properties corresponding to these observables. I shall consider the question of the ontic or semantic construal of kinematic–dynamic complementarity in Chapter 7. Bohr's argument for complementarity in the epistemic sense is, however, more fundamental: it goes to the heart of his theory of observation and measurement in quantum physics. What, then, is Bohr's argument? The mutual exclusiveness of kinematic and dynamic properties Kinematic and dynamic attributes in quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive in the sense that they cannot be simultaneously measured; they are, in this sense, epistemically incompatible. Why did Bohr think this? His reasons may seem intricate, but they are basically quite simple. Two main factors, he maintains, account for the epistemic incompatibility: ( a ) measurements of these two different sorts of properties require mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, incompatible measurement procedures; ( b ) the indeterminability of the interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement precludes extrapolation of the different measurement results to one and the same time.
Abstract 1. In the general synthesis of classical dynamics with the quantum theory, the Uncertainty Principle plays a most useful part. It is of course only one aspect of the new mechanics, but it is a very helpful one since by its means it becomes easy to see where the old classical ideas broke down. The state of affairs in the quantum theory is not unlike that of the early days of relativity, when most of those who studied the subject felt the need of supporting the formal theory by seeing how the old ideas failed in specific cases. Here the formal theory is very abstract and is not easy to follow intuitively, and the Uncertainty Principle plays much the same rôle as did the examples of clocks and rods in relativity theory. For this reason it is more appropriate for illustrative examples, than for any extreme generality, and though a number of examples have been already given by Heisenberg and Bohr, it may not be amiss to have some more. There are probably some who will have shared my experience that it is often by no means easy to detect how the uncertainty enters into a given experiment, though once detected the arguments are usually very simple. In a recent conversation Professor Bohr criticised some rather careless remarks that I had made, and the present work was undertaken to clear matters up. It may be shortly described as a study of the Uncertainty Principle in connection with electrometers and magnetometers. It may be of interest to point out that the Uncertainty Principle can be regarded from a rather different aspect. The "resolving power" of optical instruments was discussed very fully by Rayleigh on wave principles, but as long as matter was regarded in the classical manner, a mechanical instrument could be considered as capable of measuring quantities with absolute accuracy. Now that we know that matter also has wave properties, there is need of a theory of the resolving power of mechanical instruments, and this is exactly what the Uncertainty Principle supplies.
The physical meaning of the uncertainty relation between time and energy appears to be not completely clear until now. This fact is not surprising since the interpretation of the time-energy relation is much more difficult than the interpretation of the similar relation between the coordinate and momentum. Indeed, the latter relation is easily derived from the quantum-mechanical formalism and does not require the examination of the course of the physical process in time. The relation between time and energy, however, essentially requires such an examination, and there arises a question whether Schro¨dinger’s equation may be used or not in deriving this relation, the latter possibility being not excluded since the relation may be interpreted to correspond to a measurement act, which does not obey Schro¨dinger’s equation.