epl draft

Distributed thermal tasks on many-body systems through a singlequantum machine

Bruno Leggio1, Pierre Doyeux1, Riccardo Messina1 and Mauro Antezza1,2

1 Laboratoire Charles Coulomb (L2C), UMR 5221 CNRS-Universite de Montpellier - F-34095 Montpellier, France2 Institut Universitaire de France, 1 rue Descartes, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05, France

PACS 03.65.Yz – Decoherence; open systemsPACS 44.40.+a – Thermal radiationPACS 05.70.Ln – Nonequilibrium and irreversible thermodynamics

Abstract –We propose a configuration of a single three-level quantum emitter embedded in anon-equilibrium steady electromagnetic environment, able to stabilize and control the local tem-peratures of a target system it interacts with, consisting of a collection of coupled two-level systems.The temperatures are induced by dissipative processes only, without the need of further externalcouplings for each qubit. Moreover, by acting on a set of easily tunable geometric parameters, wedemonstrate the possibility to manipulate and tune each qubit temperature independently overa remarkably broad range of values. These findings address one standard problem in quantum-scale thermodynamics, providing a way to induce a desired distribution of temperature amonginteracting qubits and to protect it from external noise sources.

Introduction. – The study of thermodynamic phe-nomena at the quantum scale is nowadays becoming moreand more challenging [1–12]. This is certainly due tothe rapid development of technologies capable of produc-ing and addressing single quantum systems, which openedin these last years an unforeseeable range of possibilitiesto test and exploit quantum features at different scales[13–19]. One of the most investigated quantum thermo-dynamic systems is what goes under the name of absorp-tion quantum thermal machine [20–24], under its manydifferent forms. Studies of non-equilibrium or many-bodyquantum heat engines have been presented in [25,26]. Nev-ertheless, in the field of quantum absorption thermal ma-chines a full account of the role of many-body interactionsis still missing. Indeed, the theoretical description of theirfunctioning has been mostly limited to models consistingof very few quantum systems, usually few two-level sys-tems (2LSs or qubits) or three-level systems (3LSs), ex-tracting heat from independent macroscopic reservoirs inorder to perform thermodynamic tasks. Two regimes havereceived particular attention: the one under which a 3LSor few 2LSs can produce a steady heat flux between twomacroscopic reservoirs [20,21,23,24], and the situation inwhich a quantum 3LS can tune the temperature of a singlequbit [20,22,27,28], achieving either its refrigeration or itsheating. Both these setups, although supplying important

insight into quantum thermodynamics, cannot give a fullaccount of the underlying atomic-scale thermodynamics,since the former does not allow any quantum correlationsbetween the machine and its target, while the latter can-not account for collective phenomena in the target body.Thus the fundamental regime in which quantum effectsare combined with many-body correlations in the under-lying thermodynamic structure of machine-target interac-tion has not yet been explored.

Up to this level of description, the delivery of a thermo-dynamic task to a collection of nq qubits would require theuse of nq machines. An even worse scenario is met whendifferent local tasks must be delivered to a many-qubitsystem, the goal being to bring each qubit to a differenttemperature. In this case, in addition to nq machines,also nq sets of macroscopic reservoirs must be supplied,as their temperatures fix the steady task a machine candeliver.

A standard problem of this kind usually met in exper-iments is the necessity to keep interacting qubits at dif-ferent temperatures in order for them to mediate and sus-tain steady energy flux from a colder to an hotter object,as theoretically proposed in [20, 23, 27]. However, practi-cal realizations of this idea have been facing the nontriv-ial problem of keeping each qubit in thermal equilibriumwith its corresponding object without allowing qubit-qubit

p-1

arX

iv:1

511.

0935

8v1

[qu

ant-

ph]

30

Nov

201

5

B. Leggio, P. Doyeux, R. Messina and M. Antezza

zr

Ts

TW TW

Fig. 1: The physical setup consists of an OTE electromagneticfield produced by a sapphire slab of thickness δ, at temperatureTS , embedded in a thermal blackbody radiation at temperatureTW 6= TS . Such a field plays the role of Markovian environmentfor a system of quantum emitters (atoms), all placed at thesame distance z from the slab surface: the qubit system is thetarget body, on which the three-level machine M (at distancer from all the qubits) delivers thermodynamic tasks.

thermalization [16]. The need arises then for a simple andrealistic scheme to induce a steady temperature distribu-tion among many interacting 2LSs.

In this Letter we address this need, proving at the sametime that nq different temperatures on nq qubits can beimposed and maintained through a single 3LS system anda single realistic out-of-thermal-equilibrium (OTE) elec-tromagnetic environment. As we will show, this multi-tasking quantum thermal machine needs only two thermalbaths and it can realize a broad variety of tasks. Thetemperatures induced by it on a set of qubits are eas-ily tunable just by changing geometric parameters of themany-body target, even without modifying the tempera-ture of the bath.

Physical system. – Our multitasking machine isshown in Fig. 1. A sapphire slab of finite thicknessδ = 0.05µm (whose optical data are taken from [29]) iskept at a fixed temperature TS = 900 K by means of astandard reservoir, and embedded in the blackbody radia-tion held at room temperature TW = 300 K by the secondthermal bath. The resulting electromagnetic field in theempty space thus neither is a blackbody radiation nor hasa well defined temperature. Moreover, its spectral featuresare affected by the dielectric response function of the slab.At a distance z from the slab a collection of quantum emit-ters (the target body TB and the 3LS machine M, herebycollectively referred to as atoms) is placed. In particular,the target body consists of a collection of nq 2LSs, with allthe qubits lying on a circle of radius r and having the sametransition frequency ωa. Finally, a 3LS is placed at thecenter of the circle. Its three transitions, all allowed, havedifferent frequencies and one of the two low-frequency ones

is in resonance with the qubits, while the high frequencytransition is resonant with the first electronic resonanceof sapphire at ωS = 0.81 × 1014 rad/s. We choose hereωa = 0.1ωS . These parameters are known to produce theoptimal working condition for the 3LS machine to act ona single qubit [22]. The total Hamiltonian of the system isHT = He +Hf +Hef , where He is the free Hamiltonian ofthe quantum emitters, Hf is the one of the electromagnetic

field and Hef = −∑nq

n=1 dn ·E(Rn)−∑3

t=1 d(t)3LS ·E(R3LS),

describing the coupling between each emitter transitionand the field E under the dipole approximation. Here dn,n = 1, . . . , nq is the field-induced dipole of the n-th qubit

at position Rn, while d(t)3LS is the field-induced dipole of

the t-th transition of the 3LS at position R3LS. All thesedipoles are here assumed to have the same magnitude.

In the limit of weak emitters-field coupling [30], the dy-namics of the state ρ of the sole atomic part of the systemcan be described by means of the Markovian master equa-tion [11,31,32]

ρ = − i~[Hat, ρ

]+DTB(ρ) +DM(ρ) +Dnl(ρ), (1)

having introduced the effective atomic Hamiltonian Hat =He + Hint, consisting of the free part and of the dipole-dipole coupling between each pair of resonant atomic tran-sitions, corresponding to exchange of virtual photons be-tween two atoms.

For two resonant transitions i and j, the coupling termhas the form hij = Λij(σ

†iσj +σ†jσi) and Hint =

∑i<j hij .

Here σi (σ†i ) is the lowering (raising) operator of transitioni and Λij is a dipole-dipole coupling term whose expressionin terms of the system parameters can be found in [31].

The dissipative part of the dynamics, accounted for bythe term DTB(ρ)+DM(ρ)+Dnl(ρ), is described by super-operators of the general form

L(a, b) = aρb† − 1

2

{b†a, ρ

}. (2)

The two dissipative terms DTB(ρ) and DM(ρ) charac-terize in particular local coupling of each transition inthe target body and in the machine with the electro-magnetic environment. They have the form of standardthermal-like dissipation, which for the i-th transition readsDloc

i = γ+i Demi (ρ) + γ−i D

abi (ρ), where Dem

i (ρ) = L(σi, σi)

and Dabi (ρ) = L(σ†i , σ

†i ) describe respectively emission and

absorption of a photon through the transition i. ThereforeDTB(ρ) +DM(ρ) =

∑iD

loci .

Finally, the dissipative term Dnl(ρ) couples resonanttransitions, and is the real counterpart of the virtual pro-cess given by Hint: it describes processes in which pairsof resonant transitions i and j collectively emit or absorbreal photons into/from the field. For a fixed pair, thisprocess is given by Dnl

ij = γ+ijDemij (ρ) + γ−ijD

abij (ρ), where

Demij (ρ) = L(σi, σj) and Dab

ij (ρ) = L(σ†i , σ†j ) have the same

structure of Demi (ρ) and Dab

i (ρ), but describe collectivetwo-atom emission and absorption processes.

p-2

Distributed thermal tasks on many-body systems through a single quantum machine

All these effects are a manifestation of emitters-field in-teraction, and their rates γ±i , γ

±ij and Λij are given in terms

of the OTE field correlation functions, which at station-arity can be exactly calculated [33–35]. They depend onthe transition frequency, the interatomic separations, theatoms-slab distance, the dipole orientations and the slabdielectric properties, geometry and temperature. The de-tailed expressions for all these parameters are derived anddiscussed in [31].

Two transitions at different frequencies, all the other pa-rameters being the same, have thus different photon emis-sion/absorption rates. In other words, they feel their re-spective local environments at different temperatures, theassociated Boltzmann factor at the transition frequencybeing γ−i /γ

+i . As a consequence, the 3LS perceives three

different field temperatures on its three transitions, suchthat its populations do not follow a simple thermal dis-tribution [11, 22]. Referring to the three levels of M as|0〉, |1〉 and |2〉, if the transition |0〉 ↔ |1〉 is in contactwith a colder effective environment than the transition|0〉 ↔ |2〉, the dynamics thus induced tends to increasethe ratio p2/p0 and to reduce p1/p0. As such, this processhas the net effect of increasing the ratio p2/p1 which isequivalent to increasing the temperature θM of the tran-sition |1〉 ↔ |2〉 (defined through its Boltzmann factorp2/p1 = exp

[− ~ω12/(kBθM)

]).

The OTE field is thus an optimal tool to manipulatethe temperatures of atomic transitions in a 3LS. If, inturn, the 3LS is coupled to a qubit through the resonantdipole-dipole interaction Λ on its transition |1〉 ↔ |2〉, sucha 2LS will thermalize to a temperature θ2LS intermedi-ate between θM and the one of its effective environment(hereby referred to as Tenv) [22]. Since Tenv is the naturaltemperature at which the qubit would thermalize in theabsence of M, any difference between θ2LS and Tenv sig-nals the achievement of a thermal task by the 3LS on the2LS. In particular, when Λ � γ+2LS (which is the case fora broad range of machine-qubit distances [31]), the qubittemperature θ2LS will be steadily driven very close to theone of M. Through this mechanism, it has been shown in[22] that a qubit can be refrigerated, heated up and evenbrought to population inversion by the same field-machineconfiguration, just by changing the atoms-slab distance z.

The purpose of this Letter is to exploit this mechanismto induce a steady distribution of temperatures θn on nqqubits, with in general θn 6= θm for n 6= m in 1, . . . , nq.

Machine-induced thermodynamics. – In tacklingthis question, we analyze a model system where the targetbody is composed of nq = 4 qubits. Initially each 2LS isplaced on one vertex of a square inscribed in the circle onwhich the qubits lie, which defines the xy plane as shownin Fig. 2. Their dipoles, all of the same magnitude, pointtoward the center of the circle where the machine M isplaced. The dipole of M points toward one 2LS, labeledas qubit 1. This corresponds to the configuration shown inFig. 2 with ϕ = 0. All the results shown here are obtained

Fig. 2: Model system. Four 2LSs are placed along a circlearound the 3LS M, with their dipoles pointing always towardM. The grey configuration for qubit 1 corresponds to the reg-ular disposition of qubits, and it defines the value ϕ = 0. Sucha configuration also defines the reference frame of the system,with the x and y axes oriented as in the figure.

with the open-source package QuTiP [36].The pair {M, 1} is thus in a configuration analogous to

the one studied in [22]. Fig. 3 gives the steady tempera-tures θk, k = 1, . . . , 4 of each qubits versus z for r = 75µm,compared with the steady temperature τ1 reached by the2LS in the 1-qubit case with the same qubit-machine dis-tance. For graphical purposes, Fig. 3 shows the behaviourof −1/θk, −1/τ1 and −1/Tenv, with the correspondentvalues of temperature given on the right vertical scale.The temperature of each qubit induced by their interac-tion with M follows the same qualitative z-behaviour andthe same tasks as the one achieved for the single qubitcase. Thus, despite a quantitative change between the1- and the 4-qubit configurations (∼ 70% for the peakin population inversion, ∼ 0.6% for the peak in refriger-ation), this thermodynamic setup can deliver tasks alsoon many-qubit systems. However, as one sees from Fig.3, all the qubits temperatures are almost the same, thusno significative steady distribution can be achieved in thisconfiguration. For instance, note that in this regular dis-position of qubits, θ1 = θ3 and θ2 = θ4, all of them beinganyway much closer to each other than to Tenv.

Before proceeding further, note that the regular 2LSsdisposition just considered is quite a particular one, be-ing characterized by the fact that the dipoles of qubits 2and 4 are orthogonal to the one of M, all of them beingparallel to the slab surface. In this condition, neither thedipole-dipole coupling Λ nor the collective dissipation γijcouples M to 2 and 4 [31]. This means that qubits 2 and4 do not perceive at all the presence of M. Their tem-perature change with respect to Tenv is thus due to theirinteraction with the rest of the qubits system, which onthe one hand undergoes the effect of M and, on the other,relays this effect on the pair {2, 4}. This is an example

p-3

B. Leggio, P. Doyeux, R. Messina and M. Antezza

Fig. 3: Steady qubits temperatures, represented as −1/θk fork = 1, 3 (long-dashed red line), for k = 2, 4 (short-dashed blueline), −1/τ1 for the 1-qubit case (solid black line), comparedwith the qubits environmental temperature Tenv (dot-dashedgreen line), versus the atoms-slab distance z. The qubitsare in a regular disposition, being placed on the vertices ofa square, with their dipoles pointing toward the circumcenterof the square. In both the 1-qubit and the 4-qubit cases, the2LS-machine distance is r = 75µm.

of very effective interplay among dissipative effects, atom-atom pairing (the interaction between M and each atomof the pair {1, 3}) and many-body interactions within thetarget body. As a consequence, we argue that by tun-ing one of these two features one can exert a control onthe way the machine task is distributed among the 2LSs.In particular, we will consider two control parameters inwhat follows: the geometrical position of atom 1 alongthe circle circumscribing the square and the direction ofthe dipole of atom 4. Both of these parameters will affectone or both of the two fundamental interactions on whichthe task distribution is based. In particular, moving onequbit along the circle will change its coupling strengthwith both the other 2LSs and M, introducing a bias in themany-body interactions within the target body and in themachine-body coupling. The orientation of the dipole ofan appropriately chosen 2LS, on the other hand, will onlyaffect its interaction with the rest of the qubits.

External control of the steady temperature dis-tribution. – Consider thus the atomic system to beplaced at a distance z ' 2.7µm from the slab, wherethe peak of population inversion is achieved for a singlequbit. We now begin to change the position of qubit 1,by rotating it of an angle ϕ around the point where themachine is placed, as shown in Fig. 2. Whereas its dipolealways points toward M, its interaction with the rest of thequbits will significantly change, growing much stronger asqubit 1 approaches one of the other 2LSs. For each an-

Fig. 4: Steady qubits temperatures represented as −1/θk fork = 1 (solid blue line), 2 (long-dashed red line), 3 (short-dashedblue line) and 4 (dot-dashed green line), versus the angulardisplacement ϕ of qubit 1. The other geometrical parametersare z ' 2.7µm and r = 75µm. The plateau regions correspondto the approach of one of the values ϕ = (k − 1)π/2 for k =2, 3, 4 (the atomic positions are represented by colored circles)and describe the situation of very strong coupling between twoqubits. The upper horizontal scale reports the values of thelinear distance rϕ travelled by qubit 1 along the circle.

gle ϕ, we imagine to wait long enough for the system toreach a steady state, referred to as ρ(ϕ) and depending onthe angular position ϕ ∈ [0, 2π] of qubit 1. All the ther-modynamic quantities evaluated on this state will then befunctions of ϕ. ϕ is defined such that ϕ = (k−1)π/2 corre-sponds to the regular position of qubit k = 1, 2, 3, 4 on thesquare. Of course, the three positions ϕ = π/2, π, 3π/2,where qubit 1 would sit on top of another 2LS, are ide-alized situations, and correspond to infinite interactionstrength Λ. These values of ϕ must then be read as lim-iting cases for two qubits being much closer to each otherthan to any other constituent of the atomic system.

Fig. 4 reports the steady temperatures of each 2LS as afunction of ϕ. As one can see, the temperature of qubit 1gets strongly modulated by ϕ, repeatedly crossing the pop-ulation inversion line. Moreover, depending on its angulardisplacement, qubit 1 interacts very strongly with one ofthe other 2LSs, such that the pair is effectively decoupledfrom the rest of the atomic system. In these cases, thetemperatures of qubit 1 and of its paired 2LS fall down tothe value of Tenv (the lower plateau around 350 K). This isdue to the fact that very strong correlations between qubit1 and its paired 2LS are built due to the vicinity of the 2atoms, a situation in which monogamy forbids the pair tocreate any kind of correlations with anything external. Assuch, the paired atoms are completely decoupled from themachine and, as a consequence, equilibrate with their lo-cal environment. The width of these plateaus corresponds

p-4

Distributed thermal tasks on many-body systems through a single quantum machine

to the regime in which the dipole-dipole interaction am-plitude Λ1j between the paired atoms is much larger thanany other coupling strength of the system. Note indeedthat, in a broad range of ϕ before and after such plateaus,the temperatures of the two paired qubits are almost over-imposed. The central plateau at ϕ = π is special, as itcorresponds to a complete decoupling of the target bodyfrom the machine. This is due to the dipole orientationchosen here: 1 and 3 are strongly paired and as such de-coupled from M, while the two 2LSs left do not directlyinteract with M whatsoever due to their dipoles being or-thogonal to dM. As such, the machine is unable to deliverany task on TB, which thermalizes as a whole with theenvironment at Tenv.

The regions around plateaus provide thus a mechanismto significantly divide the 2LSs temperatures into twogroups, one at positive and one at negative values in theexample analyzed here (and, more in general, one close toθM and one close to Tenv). But probably the most inter-esting region for the purpose of creating a steady temper-ature distribution in TB is the one in between two con-secutive plateaus. For π/2 < ϕ < π, for instance, the fourqubits temperatures are all different, the same happeningfor π < ϕ < 3π/2. Given the radius of the circle on whichqubit 1 moves, the linear difference between the two posi-tions at ϕ = π/2 and ϕ = π is approximately of 106µm (or117µm along the circle), which is a realistic and achievablescale of distances between two quantum emitters in realexperiments [37]. Within this scale, a broad distributionof steady qubit temperatures can be realized: consider theexemplary case of ϕ = 2.5 rad: the four qubits tempera-tures are θ1 = −1190 K, θ2 = 6700 K, θ3 = −1820 K andθ4 = 1280 K.

We stress here that any dissipative dynamics inducingdifferent states on single constituents of a many-qubit sys-tem creates a distribution of local temperatures, since a2LS is always in a Gibbs state. The novelty here is theachievement of a detailed control over such a distributiononly by means of geometrical parameters. In particular,by appropriately modulating z, ϕ and possibly r one canexert such control over local thermal state of each con-stituent of the multipartite target body. Such an effectis also very robust against interaction with thermal reser-voirs in the weak-coupling limit, as already signaled by thedifference between θk of each qubits and Tenv of their elec-tromagnetic bath. One can thus engineer proper valuesof local qubit temperatures in order to assure the properfunctioning of them as, for instance, thermal machine formacroscopic bodies [20]. Note that the physics just de-scribed remains the same when analyzed at different valuesof z, the only difference being in the range of values for thevarious θ. Such a range is indeed fixed to be a subintervalof [Tenv, θM] (or of [θM, Tenv] in the case of refrigeration).

The second parameter whose tuning we want to exploreis the direction of one of the qubits dipoles, as shown inthe inset of Fig. 5. We choose here in particular the 2LSwe refer to as qubit 4 in Fig. 2. Its feature is to have

Fig. 5: Steady qubits temperatures represented as −1/θk fork = 1, 3 (dot-dashed green line), 2 (long-dashed red line) and4 (solid black line), versus the orientation α of the dipole ofqubit 4. The other geometrical parameters are z ' 2.7µm andr = 75µm.

its dipole orthogonal to the one of M, and as such not tointeract directly with it. As a consequence, a rotation ofits dipole in the plane yz, as represented in the inset of Fig.5, keeps the 2LS always decoupled from the machine andonly affects its interaction with the rest of the qubits. Fig.5 shows the dependence of the qubits temperatures on theangle α between the direction of the dipole of qubit 4 andthe z axis. As such, α = 0 means a dipole orthogonalto the atomic plane and thus to the slab surface, whileα = π/2 corresponds to the dipole pointing toward themachine.

The possibility of controlling the value of θ4 is evidenthere, the temperature ranging continuously from 386 K forα = 0 to −2022 K for α = π/2. The values of the otherthree qubits temperatures are only slightly affected by αand are relatively close to each other. As such, the rota-tion of one dipole is an efficient mechanism to decouplethe temperature of one qubit from the rest of the system,and to assign it a steady value at will. The underlyingmechanism must of course be looked for in the structureof dipole-dipole coupling: for α = 0, qubit 4 is decou-pled from the rest of the atomic system 1 and as suchthermalizes with its local environment at the temperatureTenv = 386 K. By increasing α one triggers and strength-ens the coupling of the 2LS labeled as 4 with the rest ofthe target body, and starts receiving then, indirectly, the

1As a matter of fact, having fixed a particular pair of atoms andcalling w the direction joining two atoms and h the one perpendicu-lar to the atomic plane, a wh interaction between dipoles exists, dueto the electromagnetic contribution of the slab [31]. In practice, how-ever, such an interaction is negligibly small with respect to co-planardipoles couplings and will thus have no detectable consequence onthe qubits thermodynamics.

p-5

B. Leggio, P. Doyeux, R. Messina and M. Antezza

task of the machine. As long as the qubit-qubit couplingis comparable with the coupling of qubit 4 with its localenvironment, however, the steady value of θ4 will be some-thing in between Tenv and θM. This competition betweenthe driving of the local field and the task of the machinevaries continuously and smoothly with α, allowing one toadjust it at will. Finally, for α big enough, the machineeffect becomes dominant and θ4 becomes almost indepen-dent on the dipole orientation of qubit 4.

Conclusions. – In this Letter, we have demonstratedthe possibility of externally control and distribute the tem-perature of each constituent of a many-qubit quantum sys-tem. The mechanism we propose is simple and yet power-ful and stable: by means of a single three level system andan out-of-thermal-equilibrium steady electromagnetic fieldone can tune and stabilize the local qubit temperatures tovalues at will in a remarkably broad range, only dependingon the details of the three level system and of the realisticparameters characterizing the electromagnetic field. Thelocal temperatures can be easily tuned, by means of easilyhandleable parameters such as qubits position or dipoleorientations. The OTE field naturally mediates for the in-teraction between qubits and between them and the 3LS.Moreover, the latter is usually much stronger than the onebetween each qubit and a possible thermal reservoir con-nected to it, such that our paradigm overcomes the usualproblem of obtaining a configuration of interacting qubitshaving however strongly different temperatures. This needarises when practically realizing microscopic machines toproduce steady heat fluxes between meso- or macroscopicreservoirs [20], for which each of the interacting qubitsmust also be in local thermal equilibrium with one of thesereservoirs.

Our results thus pave the way for the practical exploita-tion of the new generation of microscopic and quantumthermal machines recently thoroughly studied.

∗ ∗ ∗

We acknowledge financial support from the JulianSchwinger Foundation.

REFERENCES

[1] Horodecki M. and Oppenheim J., Nat. Commun., 4(2013) 2059.

[2] Scully M. O., Zubairy M. S., Agarwal G. S. andWalther H., Science, 299 (2003) 862.

[3] Mari A. and Eisert J., Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012)120602.

[4] Skrzypczyk P., Short A. J. and Popescu S., Nat.Commun., 5 (2014) 4185.

[5] Dorner R., Goold J., Cormick C., Paternostro M.and Vedral V., Phys. Rev. Lett., 109 (2012) 160601.

[6] Leggio B., Napoli A., Messina A. and Breuer H.-P.,Phys. Rev. A, 88 (2013) 042111.

[7] Leggio B., Napoli A., Breuer H.-P. and Messina A.,Phys. Rev. E, 87 (2013) 032113.

[8] Leggio B., Messina R. and Antezza M., Europhys.Lett., 110 (2015) 40002.

[9] Hovhannisyan K. V., Perarnau-Llobet M., HuberM. and Acın A., Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (2013) 240401.

[10] Eisert J., Friesdorf M. and Gogolin C., Nat. Phys.,11 (2015) 124.

[11] Bellomo B., Messina R. and Antezza M., Europhys.Lett., 100 (2012) 20006.

[12] Bellomo B., Messina R., Felbacq D. and AntezzaM., Phys. Rev. A, 87 (2013) 012101.

[13] Toyabe S., Sagawa T., Ueda M., Muneyuki E. andSano M., Nat. Phys., 6 (2010) 988.

[14] Valenzuela S. O. et al., Science, 314 (2006) 1589.[15] Todorov Y. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 105 (2010) 196402.[16] Chen Y.-X. and Li S.-W., Europhys. Lett., 97 (2012)

40003.[17] Batalhao T. B. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 113 (2014)

140601.[18] Liu B.-H. et al., Sci. Rep., 4 (2014) 6327.[19] Gessner M. et al., Nat. Phys., 10 (2014) 105.[20] Linden N., Popescu S. and Skrzypczyk P., Phys. Rev.

Lett., 105 (2010) 130401.[21] Levy A. and Kosloff R., Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012)

070604.[22] Leggio B., Bellomo B. and Antezza M., Phys. Rev.

A, 91 (2015) 012117.[23] Venturelli D., Fazio R. and Giovannetti V., Phys.

Rev. Lett., 110 (2013) 256801.[24] Correa L. A., Palao J. P., Alonso D. and Adesso

G., Sci. Rep., 4 (2014) 3949.[25] Abah O. and Lutz E., Europhys. Lett., 106 (2014)

20001.[26] Campisi M. and Fazio R., preprint arXiv:1510.06183,

(2015) .[27] Skrzypczyk P., Brunner N., Linden N. and Popescu

S., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 44 (2011) 492002.[28] Brunner N., Huber M., Linden N., Popescu S., Silva

R. and Skrzypczyk P., Phys. Rev. E, 89 (2014) 032115.[29] Palik E. (Editor), Handbook of Optical Constants of

Solids (Academic Press, New York) 1998.[30] Breuer H.-P. and Petruccione F., The Theory of

Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Berlin)2002.

[31] Bellomo B. and Antezza M., New J. Phys., 15 (2013)113052.

[32] Bellomo B. and Antezza M., Europhys. Lett., 104(2013) 10006.

[33] Messina R. and Antezza M., Phys. Rev. A, 84 (2011)042102.

[34] Messina R. and Antezza M., Europhys. Lett., 95 (2011)61002.

[35] Messina R. and Antezza M., Phys. Rev. A, 89 (2014)052104.

[36] Johansson J. R., Nation P. D. and Nori F., Comp.Phys. Comm., 183 (2012) 1760; Comp. Phys. Comm.,184 (2013) 1234.

[37] Whitlock S., Gerritsma R., Fernholz T. andSpreeuw R. J. C., New J. Phys., 11 (2009) 023021.

p-6