Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics of Gambling Demons

arXiv
Authors: Gonzalo Manzano, Diego Subero, Olivier Maillet, Rosario Fazio, Jukka P. Pekola, Édgar Roldán

Year

2020

Paper ID

21714

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

83

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We introduce and realize demons that follow a customary gambling strategy to stop a nonequilibrium process at stochastic times. We derive second-law-like inequalities for the average work done in the presence of gambling, and universal stopping-time fluctuation relations for classical and quantum non-stationary stochastic processes. We test experimentally our results in a single-electron box, where an electrostatic potential drives the dynamics of individual electrons tunneling into a metallic island. We also discuss the role of coherence in gambling demons measuring quantum jump trajectories.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Thermodynamics research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We introduce and realize demons that follow a customary gambling strategy to stop a nonequilibrium process at stochastic times.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #21714 #69040 Collective Emission in LH2 Asse... #69031 Amplitude-dependent quantum hyd... #69030 Non-Hermitian Crystalline Braid... #69029 Higher-order Symmetric Quantum ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.