Abstract
We analyze work extraction from an autonomous (selfcontained) heatpowered optomechanical setup. The initial state of the quantized mechanical oscillator plays a key role. As the initial mean amplitude of the oscillator decreases, the resulting efficiency increases. In contrast to laserpowered selfinduced oscillations, work extraction from a broadband heat bath does not require coherence or phaselocking: an initial phaseaveraged coherent state of the oscillator still yields work, as opposed to an initial Fockstate.
Introduction
Quantum optomechanics has exhibited tremendous theoretical and experimental progress in recent years towards controlled manipulations of the interaction of cavity photons with mechanical oscillators^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31}. A prominent application of such manipulations has been the cooling of the mechanical oscillator^{7,8,14} and the converse regime of the amplification of its motion^{16,20,21,22,23,24}. Provided the total damping rate of the oscillator is negative, the laserdriven cavity mode can parametrically amplify the mechanical motion in a selfsustained limitcycle of oscillations^{16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,32} that has a nonclassical counterpart^{25,26,27,28,29,30}.
Here we explore a different avenue, by raising the question: can the quantized oscillator transform thermal energy from a heat bath (rather than a laser) into mechanical work^{33,34,35,60} and thus act as a heat engine? Is such work similar to the selfinduced oscillation discussed above? These questions pertain to a subtle and unsettled issue: what is the proper definition of work in a quantized (nondriven) heat engine and what limitations does thermodynamics set on its extraction?
We address these issues in the context of a realizable model that consists of a working medium, here the optical mode, constantly coupled to two distinct thermal baths and the mechanical oscillator that extracts the work. This is the standard situation in quantum open systems: our cavity mode constantly and unavoidably interacts with the outside electromagnetic vacuum (the cold bath) and with a spectrally filtered heat source (hot bath). This setup is an example of a continuous heat machine that^{35}, contrary to more commonly known strokesoperated machines (such as the Carnot or Otto engine)^{4,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42}, does not involve decoupling from and recoupling to alternate (hot and cold) thermal baths. Continuous, fully quantized machines may therefore be operated completely autonomously, without external intervention, after launching them in a “push & go” fashion. While there is a wellestablished definition of work as long as the heat machine is driven by an external field (acting as a piston)^{35,36,43}, it is more subtle to quantify work once this field is quantized. This subtlety is related to the fundamental question: How is the energy exchange between two quantum systems divided between heat and work?
Here we invoke the general and rigorous definition of maximal work storage (capacity) in the device: it is measured by the nonpassivity (see below)^{44,45,46} of the quantum state of the “piston”, here the mechanical oscillator. The “piston” interacts with the working medium (here the optical mode), which in turn is thermalized by the two baths. As the piston evolves, typically in a nonunitary fashion, its maximal work capacity (nonpassivity) changes. This rate of change is the maximal extractable power. In drivenpiston scenarios^{34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,47,48} work can be extracted by the piston from the system via unitary or classical operations. It is then independent of the initial state of the piston, which is not a thermodynamic resource. By contrast, we are concerned with work capacity in an autonomous, quantized setup that crucially depends on the initial state of the oscillator just as the work stored in an initially compressed spring. This initial state is then an extra thermodynamic resource quantified by nonpassivity, which is largely (but not completely) determined by its negentropy (see SI). This extra resource may be crudely viewed as an additional (pseudo) “bath” whose statedependent effective temperature T_{M} may be (for some time) arbitrarily low. Consequently, this extra resource may yield higher efficiency than the standard Carnotcycle efficiency 1Tc/Th, where the only resources are the hot and cold baths at temperatures Th and Tc, respectively. Consistency with the Second Law is ensured by construction (see SI). Not less important is the validity of this analysis for arbitrary nonunitary and nonadiabatic evolution^{43,49,50} in a quantized setup, since nonadiabatic (fast) evolution may yield much higher maximal power than standard stroke cycles that obey the quasiadiabatic CurzonAhlborn bound^{36,51}. The present scenario has become timely, since the quantum statepreparation of the mechanical oscillator is now experimentallyfeasible by optical pulses^{52,53}.
Model
We start from the basic optomechanical Hamiltonian wherein an optical cavity mode (denoted by O), is coupled to (cold and hot) two thermal baths and to a mechanical oscillator (denoted by M)
Here O^{†}, O and M^{†}, M are the creation and annihilation operators of the cavity mode and the oscillator, respectively; ω_{O}, Ω_{M} and g are their respective frequencies and coupling rate. The cavity mode O directly interacts with two thermal baths: hot (B_{h}) and cold (B_{c}) baths with nonflat spectra, whereas the oscillator M is damped by a nearlyMarkovian phonon bath. The response (coupling) spectra of the cold (c) and hot (h) baths may be broad, as opposed to a singlemode laser, but controllable, as detailed below: we shall take the hot bath to be a spectrallyfiltered broadband source of thermal noise and the cold bath to be the vacuum that is coupled to the cavity mode, with typically a Lorentzianshaped spectrum^{4,13} (Fig. 1b).
In particular, a toroid microcavity is a candidate for implementing the model mentioned above. While the microcavity losses are described by the coupling to the cold bath, a second hot bath could be coupled to the cavity through an optical fiber taper (see Fig. 1(a)).
Analysis
We transform the operators to those of , , the mixed opticalmechanical modes that diagonalize H_{O}_{+M} without changing their frequency (see Methods). Then the interaction between the optical mode and the baths in (1) is found to indirectly affect the mechanical oscillator, enabling it to draw energy from the heat bath via the optical mode. Whereas rapidly reaches a steady state, keeps evolving thereby allowing its amplification. The evolution equation of their joint state has the form^{43,49,50}
Here q = 0, ±1 label the harmonics ω_{O}, ω_{±} = ω_{O} ± Ω_{M}, respectively and the Lindblad generators associated with these harmonics in the two baths, , depend on the bathresponse rates G_{j}(ω_{q}) (see Methods) In what follows we shall restrict ourselves to low excitations and linear amplification of and to the weak optomechanical coupling regime. Namely, we shall assume
where and are the mean numbers of quanta in and , respectively. In this (quasi steadystate, linearamplification) regime we can write a master equation for the slow dynamics of (see Methods). Upon representing the reduced density matrix of , in terms of coherent states , , where P(β) is the quasiprobability distribution, this linearized master equation assumes the form of the FokkerPlanck equation
Here G(ω) = G_{c}(ω) + G_{h}(ω) and Γ_{M} and d_{M} are the drift and diffusion rates produce by the direct interaction between and a phonon bath, while γ and d, are their counterparts due to the indirect coupling between M and the hot and cold bath, through O. They depend on the combined spectral response (coupling spectra) of the cold and hot baths, G(ω) = G_{c}(ω) + G_{h}(ω), sampled at the combination frequencies of O and M, ±ω_{±} = ±(ω_{0} ± Ω_{M}) and on the meannumber of quanta, at steadystate. While Γ_{M} is always positive, γ may be also negative: γ is a sum of terms that involve the joint response of the two baths associated with the q = ±1 harmonics. Spectral separation of the two baths allows the negativity of the sum, as required for work extraction. When there is only one thermal bath with inverse temperature β and spectrum G(ω), γ is positive definite, i.e. no work is allowed.
Energy amplification
The energy evolution of any initial state of is found from (4) to be
where is the mean initial number of oscillator quanta. Typically where is the averaged response bandwidth of the two baths coupled to the optical mode.
The condition γ + Γ_{M} < 0, where Γ_{M} is the oscillator damping rate by its environment (and not by the optical mode^{4,13}), ensures the amplification of the oscillator energy, . However, it does not represent work extraction: is “blind” to the quantum state of the oscillator and does not discern work from heat (or noise) amplification. In what follows we monitor work extraction by the quantized oscillator and analyze its dependence on the evolving quantum state, based on nonpassivity.
Work capacity and extraction as nonpassivity
For a given state of the oscillator , the work capacity is the maximum extractable work expressed by
Here is a passive state^{44,45}, defined as a state that minimizes the mean energy of , without changing its entropy and thus maximizes the work extractable from the state at hand, . Equivalently , i.e., a passive state is a state in which work cannot be extracted. The passivity of a state is manifest by the monotonic decrease of its energy distribution P(E) from its value at the origin, ^{44,45}. Nonpassivity will be shown below to differ from known characteristics of quantum states, such as their purity or Wignerfunction negativity^{54,55}.
As the initial state of the oscillator, , evolves (via a master equation^{56,59}) to a state , the maximum extractable work changes, according to Eq. (6), by . For an increase of the work capacity with time, it is necessary to prepare M in a nonpassive state and ensure that γ + Γ_{M} < 0.
The upper bound for is obtained by taking the lower bound of the second term in Eq. (6), i.e., setting , since the Gibbs state is the minimalenergy state with the same entropy as ^{33,34}. This passive (effective “Gibbs”) state may be written as . Its effective temperature T_{M} is merely a parameter that characterizes the evolution of an arbitrary .
Upon taking the time derivative of this upper bound of Eq. (6) and using the properties of , we find that the extractable power is maximized by
where is the entropyproduction rate.
Equation (7) yields the efficiency bound upon dividing the output power by the heatcurrent input flowing from the hot bath^{43}, where the sum is over the harmonics q, are the corresponding Lindblad operators associated with B_{h} and ρ_{O}_{+M} is the joint O + M density matrix. We then obtain the efficiency bound in the form
The term on the r.h.s of (8), represents the effective heating rate which cannot be ignored for a quantum oscillator: it expresses the rate of loss of nonpassivity.
Work extraction dependence on the quantum state
By contrast to energy extraction, workcapacity increase (ΔW_{Max}(t) > 0) requires an initially nonpassive distribution in the (amplification) regime γ + Γ_{M} < 0. We seek the conditions for maximal work extraction. A clue is provided upon introducing the lowtemperature approximation to the entropy production rate in Eqs. (7),(8) for T_{M} ≈ 0
The first term is strongly statedependent, as shown in what follows.

1
An initially coherent state, β(0)〉, evolves in the linear amplification regime of the FokkerPlanck equation (4a) towards a distribution that is centered at an exponentially growing and increasingly broadened by diffusion. The corresponding maximal work extraction is given by . Thus, the coherentstate work capacity exponentially increases in this regime. The heating term () is minimized by this state at short times (according to (9)) and yields the optimal condition for work extraction. It is sustainable at long times, as an initial coherent state retains its nonpassivity and is never fully thermalized.For the maximal efficiency bound η in Eq. (8) may exceed the standard Carnot bound, due to the slow rising entropy and effective temperature . Eventually, the efficiency will drop below Carnot, since the effective temperature of rises due to diffusion, as . It is nevertheless significant that an initial smallamplitude coherent state allows to extract work over many cycles with an efficiency above the standard twobath Carnot bound . The extra efficiency has its origin in an extra thermodynamic resource (not present in the standard Carnot engine) that boosts the efficiency while complying with the second law of thermodynamics (see SI). In the quasiclassical limit the Carnot bound is recovered. Namely, the maximal power extraction determined by nonpassivity reproduces in the quasiclassical limit that of an externally (parametrically) modulated heat engine (proposed in Ref. 50) that obeys the standard cyclic work definition^{15}.

2
The evolution of an initial phaseaveraged coherent state is obtained by integrating over the initial phase θ of a coherent state. , yielding where . For this distribution is nonpassive, allowing exponentially growing work extraction.

3
The Fock state initial work capacity (Ω_{M}n_{M}(0)) does not increase with time, but rather decreases until the state becomes passive. The reason is the fast thermalization of a Fock state: its heating rate prevails over the rate of work production, so that the overall change in work capacity by an initial Fock state is always negative (Fig. 2).
Thus, as opposed to energy amplification (Eq. (5)), the extractable work crucially depends on the initial phaseplane distribution of the piston. Other nonpassive distributions, such as squeezed states or Schroedingercat states, can be shown to undergo faster entropy production and are therefore less optimal as far as work production is concerned.
Comparison with selfinduced oscillations
The regime of work extraction in an autonomous optomechanical heat engine (OHE) differs from the regime of selfinduced oscillations (SIO) in its laserpowered counterpart in several salient respects:

1
The OHE regime requires the coupling of the cavity mode to two distinct heat baths to ensure quasicyclic operation ( evolves cyclically while does not), with clear thermodynamic bounds. The SIOregime does not require such considerations.

2
The SIO regime relies on a singlemode laser drive and does not occur under broadband driving. By contrast, OHE may be powered by broadband (albeit spectrallyfiltered) hot and cold baths (Fig. 1).

3
Perhaps most importantly, the SIO regime involves coherent (phaselocked) oscillator and cavity modes, whereas work extraction in the OHE may occur for a phaseaveraged coherentstate of the oscillator, i.e., without any phase locking with another mode. Namely, work extraction, just as energyextraction or SIO, requires γ + Γ_{M} < 0. Yet, contrary to SIO, even in the classical limit the mechanical position need not evolve as x = x(0) + ACosΩ_{M}t, but can follow more general trajectories, such as those corresponding to a phaseaveraged ensemble. On the other hand, the restriction of work extraction to nonpassive states has no counterpart in the SIO regime.
Discussion
In the present paper we have proposed an autonomous (selfcontained) optomechanical heatengine, allowing for the hitherto unexplored role of the state of the quantized mechanical oscillator in the linear amplification regime, i. e., before the onset of saturation for large oscillator amplitudes.
These predictions may be tested for an optomechanical setup that may be powered by thermal noise filtered to eliminate its spectral overlap with the optical cavity mode. Desirable parameters are . Taking , the requirement amounts to . As an example, we take a mechanical oscillator with damping Γ_{M} ~ 1 kHz, frequency Ω_{M} ~ 3 MHz, optomechanical coupling g ~ 1 MHz, (Boltzmann factor or mean thermal occupancy) of the optical cavity mode. The filtered heat bath is coupled to the cavity via band stop filter that can have an unlimited bandwidth but a sharp lower cut off of few MHz width Fig. 1(b). The EM vacuum has a cavity bandwidth ~1 GHz. Workextraction rate has been related to the nonpassivity of the oscillator state, the only rigorously justifiable measure of work extraction in timeindependent autonomous setups^{44,45}. It is shown here to crucially depend on the initial quantum state, in contrast to meanenergy amplification. The resulting efficiency bound (8) involves the effective temperature . As long as , Eq. (8) may surpass the standard twobath Carnot bound . Because it complies with Spohn's inequality^{57} (see SI), the present (evolving) efficiency bound is consistent with the second law. It shows that the piston may serve as a lowentropy resource which is excluded by the standard (classicalparametric) limit of work extraction. It comes about upon allowing for the inevitable but commonly ignored entropy growth of the quantum oscillator and its linear amplification at finite times.
The efficiency and workproduction rate (power) derived by us are both practically and conceptually interesting, since the initial “charging” of the oscillator by quantum statepreparation is sought to be maximally efficient for subsequent operation. Such preparation is a onetime investment of energy and does not invalidate the work and its extra efficiency obtained in the linearamplification regime. In this respect, our analysis has yielded nontrivial results: (a) As the initial coherent amplitude of the oscillator decreases, the resulting efficiency increases, although the entropy growth of the oscillator might then be expected to reduce (rather than enhance) the efficiency. (b) Work extraction obtained from an initial coherentstate has been found to be superior to that of other states, because of its larger sustainable nonpassivity, conditioned on its low heating or entropyproduction rate: This is consistent with the coherent state being the “pointerstate” of the evolution^{58}. (c) Not less remarkable is that, in contrast to laserpowered selfinduced oscillations, broadband (heat) powered work extraction does not require coherence or phaselocking: an initial phaseaveraged coherent state still yields work extraction.
Methods
The dressing information
The dressing transformation can be expressed in terms of new variables
The operator O^{†} + O which appears in the interaction Hamiltonian is given in terms of new dynamical variables as
The Heisenbergpicture Fourier decomposition of O^{†} + O within the lowest order approximation with respect to a small parameter g/Ω_{M}, can be obtained from
The approximation made in (12) is valid under Eq. (3).
We then have in the interaction picture
The Master equation
The master equation (3) has the form^{43,49,50}
Here
The generator drives the evolution of , which is faster than that of whose evolution is governed by the Lindblad generators .
The partially stationary regime
The evolution governed by (14) and (15) has two timescales. The slow one, that includes all the terms multiplied by is related to changes in the state of M, while the fast one governs changes in the system.
The fast evolution equation for the diagonal elements of the system is
It reaches quickly steady state
with average population , where G(ω) = G_{h}(ω) + G_{c}(ω), being the bath response spectra. Under these conditions, the master equation for may be rewritten in the FokkerPlanck form (4).
References
Mancini, S., Vitali, D. & Tombesi, P. Optomechanical cooling of a macroscopic oscillator by homodyne feedback. Phys. Rev. Lett 80, 688–691 (1998).
Mancini, S., Giovannetti, V., Vitali, D. & Tombesi, P. Entangling macroscopic oscillators exploiting radiation pressure. Phys. Rev. Lett 88, 120401 (2002).
Vitali, D., Gigan, S., Ferreira, A. Bohm, H. R. & Tombesi, P. et al. Optomechanical entanglement between a movable mirror and a cavity field. Phys. Rev. Lett 98, 030405 (2007).
Aspelmeyer, M., Kippenberg, T. J. & Marquardt, F. Cavity Optomechanics. arXiv:1303.0733 [condmat.meshall] (2013).
Meystre, P. A short walk through quantum optomechanics. Annalen der Physik 525, 215–233 (2013). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201200226.
Chen, Y. Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics. J. of Phys. B 46, 104001 (2013).
Teufel, J. et al. Sideband cooling of micromechanical motion to the quantum ground state. Nature 475, 359–363 (2011).
Chan, J. et al. Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state. Nature 478, 89–92 (2011). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10461.
Brooks, D. W. et al. Nonclassical light generated by quantumnoisedriven cavity optomechanics. Nature 488, 476–480 (2012).
SafaviNaeini, A. H. et al. Squeezing of light via reflection from a silicon micromechanical resonator. arXiv preprint arXiv,1302.6179 (2013).
Purdy, T., Peterson, R. & Regal, C. Observation of radiation pressure shot noise on a macroscopic object. Science 339, 801–804 (2013).
Palomaki, T., Harlow, J., Teufel, J., Simmonds, R. & Lehnert, K. Coherent state transfer between itinerant microwave fields and a mechanical oscillator. Nature 495, 210–214 (2013).
Lörch, N., Qian, J., Clerk, A., Marquardt, F. & Hammerer, K. Laser Theory for Optomechanics: Limit Cycles in the Quantum Regime. Phys Rev X 4, 011015 (2014).
Schliesser, A., Rivire, R., Anetsberger, G., Arcizet, O. & Kippenberg, T. J. Resolvedsideband cooling of a micromechanical oscillator. Nature Physics 4, 415 (2008).
Epstein, R. I., Buchwald, M. I., Edwards, B. C., Gosnell, T. R. & Mungan, C. E. Observation of laserinduced fluorescent cooling of a solid. Nature 377, 500–503 (1995).
Kippenberg, T., Rokhsari, H., Carmon, T., Scherer, A. & Vahala, K. Analysis of radiationpressure induced mechanical oscillation of an optical microcavity. Phys. Rev. Lett 95, 033901 (2005).
Carmon, T., Rokhsari, H., Yang, L., Kippenberg, T. J. & Vahala, K. J. Temporal behavior of radiationpressureinduced vibrations of an optical microcavity phonon mode. Phys. Rev. Lett 94, 223902 (2005).
Metzger, C. et al. Selfinduced oscillations in an optomechanical system driven by bolometric backaction. Phys. Rev. Lett 101, 133903 (2008).
Anetsberger, G. et al. Nearfield cavity optomechanics with nanomechanical oscillators. Nature Physics 5, 909–914 (2009).
Zaitsev, S., Pandey, A. K., Shtempluck, O. & Buks, E. Forced and selfexcited oscillations of an optomechanical cavity. Phys. Rev. E 84, 046605 (2011).
Marquardt, F., Harris, J. & Girvin, S. Dynamical multistability induced by radiation pressure in highfinesse micromechanical optical cavities. Phys. Rev. Lett 96, 103901 (2006).
Zaitsev, S., Gottlieb, O. & Buks, E. Nonlinear dynamics of a microelectromechanical mirror in an optical resonance cavity. Nonlinear Dynamics 69, 1589–1610 (2012).
Khurgin, J., Pruessner, M., Stievater, T. & Rabinovich, W. LaserRateEquation Description of Optomechanical Oscillators. Phys. Rev. Lett 108, 223904 (2012).
Khurgin, J., Pruessner, M., Stievater, T. & Rabinovich, W. Optically pumped coherent mechanical oscillators: the laser rate equation theory and experimental verification. NJP 14, 105022 (2012).
Ludwig, M., Kubala, B. & Marquardt, F. The optomechanical instability in the quantum regime. NJP 10, 095013 (2008).
Vahala, K. J. Backaction limit of linewidth in an optomechanical oscillator. Phys Rev A 78, 023832 (2008).
Rodrigues, D. & Armour, A. Amplitude noise suppression in cavitydriven oscillations of a mechanical resonator. Phys. Rev. Lett 104, 053601 (2010).
Armour, A. D. & Rodrigues, D. A. Quantum dynamics of a mechanical resonator driven by a cavity. Comptes Rendus Physique 13, 440–453 (2012).
Qian, J., Clerk, A., Hammerer, K. & Marquardt, F. Quantum signatures of the optomechanical instability. Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 253601 (2012).
Nation, P. Nonclassical mechanical states in an optomechanical micromaser analog. Phys Rev A 88, 053828 (2013).
Genes, C., Vitali, D., Tombesi, P., Gigan, S. & Aspelmeyer, M. Groundstate cooling of a micromechanical oscillator: Comparing cold damping and cavityassisted cooling schemes. Phys Rev A 77, 033804 (2008).
Grudinin, I. S., Lee, H., Painter, O. & Vahala, K. J. Phonon laser action in a tunable twolevel system. Phys. Rev. Lett 104, 083901 (2010).
Callen, H. B. Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics (John Wiley & Son, Singapore, 1985).
Gemmer, J., Michel, M. & Mahler, G. QuantumThermodynamics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010).
Kosloff, R. Quantum Thermodynamics: A Dynamical Viewpoint. Entropy 15, 2100–2128 (2013). URL http://www.mdpi.com/10994300/15/6/2100.
Alicki, R. The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine. Journal of Phys. A 12, 103 (1979).
Palao, J. P., Kosloff, R. & Gordon, J. M. Quantum thermodynamic cooling cycle. Phys. Rev. E 64, 056130 (2001). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.056130.
Linden, N., Popescu, S. & Skrzypczyk, P. How Small Can Thermal Machines Be?: The Smallest Possible Refrigerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 130401 (2010).
Levy, A. & Kosloff, R. Quantum absorption refrigerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 070604 (2012).
Brunner, N., Linden, N., Popescu, S. & Skrzypczyk, P. Virtual qubits, virtual temperatures and the foundations of thermodynamics. Phys. Rev. E 85, 051117 (2012). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.051117.
Correa, L. A., Palao, J. P., Adesso, G. & Alonso, D. Performance bound for quantum absorption refrigerators. Phys. Rev. E 87, 042131 (2013).
Zhang, K., Bariani, F. & Meystre, P. Quantum Optomechanical Heat Engine. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150602 (2014). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.150602.
Alicki, R., GelbwaserKlimovsky, D. & Kurizki, G. Periodically driven quantum open systems: Tutorial. arXiv 1205.4552 (2012).
Lenard, A. Thermodynamical proof of the Gibbs formula for elementary quantum systems. J. of Stat. Phys. 19, 575–586 (1978). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01011769.
Pusz, W. & Woronowicz, S. Passive states and KMS states for general quantum systems. Comm. in Math. Phys. 58, 273–290 (1978).
GelbwaserKlimovsky, D., Alicki, R. & Kurizki, G. Work and energy gain of heatpumped quantized amplifiers. EPL 103, 60005 (2013). URL http://stacks.iop.org/02955075/103/i=6/a=60005.
Skrzypczyk, P., Short, A. J. & Popescu, S. Extracting work from quantum systems. arXiv:1302.2811 [quantph] (2013).
Procaccia, I. & Levine, R. Potential work: A statisticalmechanical approach for systems in disequilibrium. The J. of Chem. Phys. 65, 3357–3364 (1976).
Kolar, M., GelbwaserKlimovsky, D., Alicki, R. & Kurizki, G. Quantum Bath Refrigeration towards Absolute Zero: Challenging the Unattainability Principle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 090601 (2012). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.090601.
GelbwaserKlimovsky, D., Alicki, R. & Kurizki, G. Minimal universal quantum heat machine. Phys. Rev. E 87, 012140 (2013). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012140.
Curzon, F. L. & Ahlborn, B. Efficiency of a Carnot engine at maximum power output. AJP 43, 22–24 (1975).
Vanner, M. R. et al. Pulsed quantum optomechanics. PNAS 108, 16182–16187 (2011).
Rimberg, A., Blencowe, M., Armour, A. & Nation, P. A cavityCooper pair transistor scheme for investigating quantum optomechanics in the ultrastrong coupling regime. NJP 16, 055008 (2014).
Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997).
Schleich, W. Quantum optics in phase space (WileyVCH, 2001).
Lindblad, G. Completely positive maps and entropy inequalities. Commun. Math. Phys. 40, 147–151 (1975).
Spohn, H. Entropy production for quantum dynamical semigroups. J. Math. Phys. 19, 1227 (1978).
Zurek, W. H. Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse? Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516–1525 (1981). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516.
Lindblad, G. NonEquilibrium Entropy and Irreversibility (D. Reidel, Holland, 1983).
Szczygielski, K., GelbwaserKlimovsky, D. & Alicki, R. Markovian master equation and thermodynamics of a twolevel system in a strong laser field. Phys. Rev. E 87, 012120 (2013). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.012120.
Acknowledgements
The support of ISF, BSF, AERI and CONACYT is acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.G.K. develop the idea and did the calculations under the guidance of G.K.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Supplementary Information
Work extraction from heatpowered quantized optomechanical setups:supplementary information
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder in order to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncsa/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
GelbwaserKlimovsky, D., Kurizki, G. Work extraction from heatpowered quantized optomechanical setups. Sci Rep 5, 7809 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07809
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07809
This article is cited by

Optomechanics for quantum technologies
Nature Physics (2022)

Groundstate cooling of mechanical resonators by quantum reservoir engineering
Communications Physics (2021)

Enhanced energy harvesting near exceptional points in systems with (pseudo)PTsymmetry
Communications Physics (2021)

Quantum coherence, manybody correlations, and nonthermal effects for autonomous thermal machines
Scientific Reports (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.