Welcome to visit Communications in Theoretical Physics,
Quantum Physics and Quantum Information

Quantum speedup and non-Markovianity of an atom in structured reservoirs: pseudomodes as a good description of environmental memory

  • Maryam Hadipour 1 ,
  • Soroush Haseli , 1, 2, ,
  • Saeed Haddadi , 3
Expand
  • 1Faculty of Physics, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran
  • 2School of Physics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), PO Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran
  • 3Faculty of Physics, Semnan University, PO Box 35195-363, Semnan, Iran

Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

Received date: 2024-05-13

  Revised date: 2024-06-06

  Accepted date: 2024-06-06

  Online published: 2024-07-05

Copyright

© 2024 Institute of Theoretical Physics CAS, Chinese Physical Society and IOP Publishing

Abstract

Following the recent paper (Teittinen et al 2019 New J. Phys. 21 123041), one can see that in general there is no simple relation between non-Markovianity and quantum speed limit. Here, we investigate the connection between quantum speed limit time and non-Markovianity of an atom in structured environments (reservoirs) whose dynamics is governed by an exact pseudomode master equation (Garraway 1997 Phys. Rev. A 55 2290). In particular, we find an inverse relation between them, which means that the non-Markovian feature of the quantum process leads to speedup of evolution. Thus, there is a link between quantum speedup and memory effects for specific cases of dynamical evolution. Our results might shed light on the relationship between the speedup of quantum evolution and the backflow of information from the environment to the system.

Cite this article

Maryam Hadipour , Soroush Haseli , Saeed Haddadi . Quantum speedup and non-Markovianity of an atom in structured reservoirs: pseudomodes as a good description of environmental memory[J]. Communications in Theoretical Physics, 2024 , 76(8) : 085105 . DOI: 10.1088/1572-9494/ad54ae

1. Introduction

How to accelerate the evolution of quantum systems is one of the most important questions in quantum mechanics theory. Based on this theory, quantum speed limit (QSL) quantifies the minimum evolution time for a quantum system to pass through a predetermined distance [18]. It refers to the shortest possible time required for a quantum system to evolve from an arbitrary initial state to a target final state [815]. QSL time and its applications have been extensively studied experimentally and theoretically [1620]. Moreover, QSL time plays a particularly important role in the development of quantum information protection and quantum optimal theory as well [2124]. In recent years, there has been a particular focus on utilizing the advantages of QSL time in quantum batteries [2528]. A deeper knowledge of QSL has led to the expansion of the speed limit to classical systems [2931]. There is a strong correlation between the vanishing QSL times and the emerging classical behavior due to the reduced uncertainty in quantum observables [32]. In [33], the application of QSL time to quantum resource theories has been investigated. In the beginning, only isolated systems were studied in accordance with the concept of QSL time [3436].
Initially, Mandelstam and Tamm (MT) introduced the minimal time for evolution from an initial to an orthogonal state for a closed quantum system as $\tau \geqslant \tfrac{\pi {\hslash }}{2{\rm{\Delta }}E}$, where ${\left({\rm{\Delta }}E\right)}^{2}=\left\langle \psi \left|{H}^{2}\right|\psi \right\rangle -{\left(\langle \psi | H| \psi \rangle \right)}^{2}$ is the energy variance of the system [34]. This bound is known as MT bound. Another bound related to the mean energy E = ⟨ψHψ⟩ was then derived by Margolus and Levitin (ML) as $\tau \geqslant \tfrac{\pi {\hslash }}{2E}$, where it is assumed that the ground state energy E0 is equal to zero [35]. This bound is known as ML bound. It is possible to implement a unified QSL bound for the unitary evolution of closed quantum systems by combining both ML and MT bounds as [36]
$\begin{eqnarray}\tau \geqslant \max \left\{\displaystyle \frac{\pi {\hslash }}{2{\rm{\Delta }}E},\displaystyle \frac{\pi {\hslash }}{2E}\right\}.\end{eqnarray}$
The ML and MT bounds have been expanded and improved using a wide range of metrics, including trace distance, Bures angle, relative purity, and many other metrics [3740]. The distance among generalized Bloch vectors for both unitary and non-unitary processes can also be used to obtain tight QSL bounds [4146].
It should be noted that in the real world, quantum systems are open and their evolution is non-unitary [47]. A variety of approaches can be used to analyze the behavior of open systems, including the master equation formalism and the quantum trajectory method. The master equation is a central tool for studying the dynamics of open systems. It provides a mathematical description of how the system's density matrix changes over time. The nature of an interaction between a quantum system and its environment can influence its dynamics and evolution. The system-environment interaction is most often analyzed from both the non-Markovian and Markovian perspectives [47]. In a Markovian regime, the evolution of the system is purely determined by its current state. In this case, the system-environment interactions occur over a much shorter timescale than the significant system evolution. However, in a non-Markovian regime, system-environment interactions are longer in time than the intrinsic evolution of the system [4855]. An important feature of non-Markovian regimes is that the interaction behavior of the system with its environment in the past determines the evolution of the system in the future. Due to the unavoidable interaction between a quantum system and its environment, the decoherence effect caused by this coupling can have a significant effect on quantum statistics.
The ratio between the QSL time and the actual time quantifies the possibility of speeding up the quantum evolution. QSL bounds are saturated with no potential for speedup when the ratio equals one. However, the QSL bound is unsaturated if the ratio is less than one, and there exists potential for speeding up the evolution of the dynamical system. In [41], it has been shown that the non-Markovian effect can accelerate quantum evolution [41]. Both theoretically and experimentally, non-Markovianity regulation has been proposed as a mechanism for regulating dynamical speedup. Moreover, it has been shown that non-Markovian effects induce unsaturated QSL bounds in open dynamics [5664]. It is important to note that dynamical speedup in this way depends very much on the feedback from the environment. Therefore, it will be essential to investigate other sources that can generate unsaturated QSL bounds besides non-Markovianity as a source of unsaturated QSL bounds [6569].
Motivated by this, we investigate the possibility of quantum speedup using a convenient cavity-based engineered environment. We show how the Markovian environments consisting of two cavities can accelerate the dynamics of an artificial atom interacting with a pseudomode. In the considered model, the coupling between the pseudomodes, atom-pseudomode coupling, and detuning between atom and pseudomode can have significant impacts on QSL time and non-Markovianity.
The work is organized as follows. First, we present a physical model and its solution in section 2. Then, we discuss the QSL time and non-Markovianity for the considered model in section 3. Next, we turn to the results and discussion in section 4. Finally, we provide a brief conclusion of the most important results in section 5.

2. Model and pseudomode method

The considered model consists of a two-level atom interacting with a Lorentzian structured environment. Figure 1 shows the schematic representation of the scheme. For this model, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as follows [70, 71]
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}\hat{H} & = & \displaystyle \frac{{\omega }_{0}}{2}{\hat{\sigma }}_{z}+{\omega }_{1}{\hat{a}}_{1}^{\dagger }{\hat{a}}_{1}+{\omega }_{2}{\hat{a}}_{2}^{\dagger }{\hat{a}}_{2}\\ & & +k\left({\hat{a}}_{1}^{\dagger }{\hat{\sigma }}_{-}+{\hat{a}}_{1}{\hat{\sigma }}_{+}\right)+J\left({\hat{a}}_{1}^{\dagger }{\hat{a}}_{2}+{\hat{a}}_{1}{\hat{a}}_{2}^{\dagger }\right),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where ${\hat{\sigma }}_{z}=| e\rangle \langle e| -| g\rangle \langle g| $ is the ordinary Pauli operator in z-direction of atom, ω0 is the transition frequency of the atom, σ+(σ) is raising (lowering) operator of the atom, and ω1 and ω2 are the frequencies of the modes inside the Markovian environments shown by cavity 1 and cavity 2, respectively. Let us take ω1 = ω2 = ω and set ω0 = ω + δ, where δ is atom-pseudomode detuning. Besides ${\hat{a}}_{1}$(${\hat{a}}_{1}^{\dagger }$) and ${\hat{a}}_{2}$(${\hat{a}}_{2}^{\dagger }$) are the annihilation (creation) operators.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the model. Two-level atom interacts with pseudomode 1 (coupling strength k) which leaks into cavity 1 via dissipation rate Γ1, and pseudomode 1 is coupled to pseudomode 2 with coupling strength J which the latter leaks into cavity 2 via dissipation rate Γ2.
In what follows, we study the dynamics using the pseudomode theory [7274]. This approach relies on the relationship between the atom dynamics and the shape of the spectral distribution of the environment. The significance of precise approaches is of current interest due to the experimental realization of quantum systems. As shown in figure 1, the environment can be depicted by two nondegenerate pseudomodes that leak into the Markovian environments (cavities 1 and 2) with dissipation rates Γ1 and Γ2. Here, the two-level atom only interacts with the first pseudomode Pm1 (the strength of the coupling k) which is in turn coupled to the second pseudomode Pm2 (the strength of the coupling J).
The dynamics of the whole system for a Lorentzian spectral distribution can be obtained by the following exact pseudomode master equation
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}\dot{\rho }(t) & = & -{\rm{i}}[\hat{H},\rho (t)]\\ & & -\displaystyle \sum _{n=1,2}\displaystyle \frac{{{\rm{\Gamma }}}_{n}}{2}\left[{a}_{n}^{\dagger }{a}_{n}\rho (t)-2{a}_{n}\rho (t){a}_{n}^{\dagger }+\rho (t){a}_{n}^{\dagger }{a}_{n}\right].\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
The above master equation represents the coherent interaction between the two-level atom and two pseudomodes in the presence of the pseudomodes decay caused by the interaction with Markovian environments.
Here, it is assumed that the atom is initially in an excited state ∣ea⟩ while both pseudomodes Pm1 and Pm2 are in the ground state $| {g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle $, that is, the initial state of the overall system is assumed to be $\rho (0)=| {e}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle \langle {e}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}| $. Considering that there is only one excitation in the whole system including a two-level atom and two cavities, the state of the system at time t can be written as
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}\rho (t) & = & (1-\eta (t))| \psi (t)\rangle \langle \psi (t)| \\ & & +\eta (t)| {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle \langle {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}| ,\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where 0 ≤ η(t) ≤ 1 with η(0) = 0, and we have
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}| \psi (t)\rangle & = & {c}_{1}(t)| {g}_{a}{e}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle +{c}_{2}(t)| {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{e}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle \\ & & +h(t)| {e}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle ,\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
with h(0) = 1 and c1(0) = c2(0) = 0. For convenience, it is appropriate to consider the following unnormalized state as
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}| \widetilde{\psi }(t)\rangle & \equiv & \sqrt{1-\eta (t)}| \psi (t)\rangle \\ & = & {\tilde{c}}_{1}(t)| {g}_{a}{e}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle +{\tilde{c}}_{2}(t)| {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{e}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle \\ & & +\tilde{h}(t)| {e}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle ,\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where $\widetilde{h}(t)=\sqrt{1-\eta (t)}h(t)$ is the probability amplitude that the two-level atom is in an excited state while ${\tilde{c}}_{n}(t)\equiv \sqrt{1-\eta (t)}{c}_{n}(t)$ (with n = 1, 2) is the probability amplitude that the pseudomodes being in their excited states. Using the above unnormalized state, the density matrix of the total system can be rewritten as
$\begin{eqnarray}\rho (t)=| \widetilde{\psi }(t)\rangle \langle \widetilde{\psi }(t)| +\eta (t)| {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}\rangle \langle {g}_{a}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{1}}{g}_{{\mathrm{Pm}}_{2}}| .\end{eqnarray}$
The time-dependent amplitudes of $\tilde{h}(t)$, ${\tilde{c}}_{1}(t)$, and ${\tilde{c}}_{2}(t)$ can be obtained by solving the following coupled differential equations
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}{\rm{i}}\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{d}}\widetilde{h}(t)}{{\rm{d}}t} & = & (\omega +\delta )\widetilde{h}(t)+k{\tilde{c}}_{1}(t),\\ {\rm{i}}\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{d}}{\tilde{c}}_{1}(t)}{{\rm{d}}t} & = & \left(\omega -\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{i}}}{2}{{\rm{\Gamma }}}_{1}\right){\tilde{c}}_{1}(t)+k\widetilde{h}(t)+J{\tilde{c}}_{2}(t),\\ {\rm{i}}\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{d}}{\tilde{c}}_{2}(t)}{{\rm{d}}t} & = & \left(\omega -\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{i}}}{2}{{\rm{\Gamma }}}_{2}\right){\tilde{c}}_{2}(t)+J{\tilde{c}}_{1}(t).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
In the above set of coupled differential equations, the coefficients $\widetilde{h}(t)$, ${\tilde{c}}_{1}(t)$, and ${\tilde{c}}_{2}(t)$ can be obtained using the standard Laplace transformations. By knowing these, the time-evolved density matrix of the two-level atom can be obtained by taking the partial trace over two pseudomodes, which we will provide in the next section.

3. QSL time and non-Markovianity

3.1. QSL time

We first deal with QSL time using the method introduced in [42] for open quantum systems. A comprehensive bound of the QSL time for any arbitrary initial state can be defined as
$\begin{eqnarray}{\tau }_{\mathrm{QSL}}=\max \left\{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{op}}},\displaystyle \frac{1}{{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{tr}}},\displaystyle \frac{1}{{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{hs}}}\right\}{\sin }^{2}[{\rm{\Theta }}({\rho }_{0},{\rho }_{\tau })]\mathrm{tr}\left[{\rho }_{0}^{2}\right],\end{eqnarray}$
where ${\rm{\Theta }}({\rho }_{0},{\rho }_{t})=\arccos \left(\sqrt{\tfrac{\mathrm{tr}[{\rho }_{0}{\rho }_{t}]}{\mathrm{tr}\left[{\rho }_{0}^{2}\right]}}\right)$ is a function of relative purity between initial state ρ0 and the state at arbitrary time ρt that determined by the time-dependent non-unitary master equation ${\dot{\rho }}_{t}={{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t})$ and
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{op}} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }{\displaystyle \int }_{0}^{\tau }{\rm{d}}t\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{op}},\\ {{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{tr}} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }{\displaystyle \int }_{0}^{\tau }{\rm{d}}t\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{tr}},\\ {{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{hs}} & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }{\displaystyle \int }_{0}^{\tau }{\rm{d}}t\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{hs}},\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where $\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{op}}={\lambda }_{1}$, $\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{tr}}={\sum }_{i}{\lambda }_{i}$ and $\parallel {{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t}){\parallel }_{\mathrm{hs}}\,=\sqrt{{\sum }_{i}{\lambda }_{i}^{2}}$ are operator norm, trace norm and Hilbert-Schmidth norm, respectively. Also, λi's are singular values of ${{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t})$ and λ1 is the largest singular value of ${{ \mathcal L }}_{t}({\rho }_{t})$. When the denominator of the fraction is ${{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{op}}$ and ${{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{tr}}$, we have a generalized ML type of QSL bound for open quantum systems, whereas when it is ${{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{\tau }^{\mathrm{hs}}$, we have MT type bound on the QSL time. According to [42], the ML type bound based on the operator norm provides the tightest QSL bound.
Using the recently achieved bound for QSL time and a given actual driving time τ, one can estimate the intrinsic speed of a dynamical evolution. In the case of τQSL = τ, the further speedup is not possible and the speedup is not observed. In contrast, when τQSL < τ, this indicates the possibility of quantum dynamics speeding up. Based on the assumption that the two-level atom is initially in the excited state as mentioned in the previous section, the time-evolved density matrix of the atom takes the following form
$\begin{eqnarray}{\rho }_{t}=| \widetilde{h}(t){| }^{2}| e\rangle \langle e| +(1-| \widetilde{h}(t){| }^{2})| g\rangle \langle g| .\end{eqnarray}$
So, QSL time based on the tightest bound is obtained as
$\begin{eqnarray}{\tau }_{\mathrm{QSL}}=\displaystyle \frac{1-| \widetilde{h}(\tau ){| }^{2}}{\tfrac{1}{\tau }{\int }_{0}^{\tau }| {\partial }_{t}| \widetilde{h}(t){| }^{2}| {\rm{d}}t}.\end{eqnarray}$

3.2. Non-Markovianity

During evolution, the backflow of information from the environment to the system is responsible for the non-Markovian feature of the process. For quantification, the degree of non-Markovianity can be defined as [50]
$\begin{eqnarray}{ \mathcal N }=\mathop{\max }\limits_{{\rho }_{1}(0),\,{\rho }_{2}(0)}{\int }_{\sigma \gt 0}\sigma \left[t,{\rho }_{1}(0),{\rho }_{2}(0)\right]{\rm{d}}t,\end{eqnarray}$
in which
$\begin{eqnarray}\sigma \left[t,{\rho }_{1}(0),{\rho }_{2}(0)\right]=\displaystyle \frac{{\rm{d}}}{{\rm{d}}t}D\left[{\rho }_{1}(t),{\rho }_{2}(t)\right],\end{eqnarray}$
where $D\left[{\rho }_{1}(t),{\rho }_{2}(t)\right]=\tfrac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\left|{\rho }_{1}(t)-{\rho }_{2}(t)\right|$ is the trace distance of a pair of states with the trace norm of an operator as $| \hat{A}| =\sqrt{\hat{A}{\hat{A}}^{\dagger }}$.
Note that when $\sigma \left[t,{\rho }_{1}(0),{\rho }_{2}(0)\right]\gt 0$, we have the backflow of information from the environment to the system and so, the evolution is non-Markovian ${ \mathcal N }\ne 0$. However, if $\sigma \left[t,{\rho }_{1}(0),{\rho }_{2}(0)\right]\lt 0$ then ${ \mathcal N }=0$, meaning that the evolution is Markovian, information irreversibly flows from system to environment, and backflow does not occur. As a result, non-Markovianity indicates the total backflow of information from the environment to the system.
In [50], it has been proved that the optimal pair of initial states that maximize the degree of non-Markovianity ${ \mathcal N }$ are ρ1(0) = ∣e⟩⟨e∣ and ρ2(0) = ∣g⟩⟨g∣. Using the findings of the previous section and taking into account the mentioned optimal initial states, one can find ${ \mathcal D }\left[{\rho }_{1}(t),{\rho }_{2}(t)\right]=| \widetilde{h}(t){| }^{2}$. Therefore, the degree of non-Markovianity is obtained as
$\begin{eqnarray}{ \mathcal N }=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\left[{\int }_{0}^{\tau }{\partial }_{t}| \widetilde{h}(t){| }^{2}{\rm{d}}t+| \widetilde{h}(\tau ){| }^{2}-1\right].\end{eqnarray}$

4. Results and discussion

Now everything is ready to study the QSL time and non-Markovianity based on the analytical expressions (12) and (15) obtained in the previous section.
In figure 2, the non-Markovianity (15) has been plotted as functions of atom-pseudomode coupling k1 and pseudomode–pseudomode coupling J1. From this figure, it can be seen that in the absence of pseudomode coupling strength (J = 0), the evolution is Markovian in a weak coupling regime k1 < 0.25 and non-Markovian in a strong coupling regime k1 > 0.25. In general, the non-Markovian feature of evolution is revealed for strong atom-pseudomode coupling for any pseudomode–pseudomode coupling strength. Therefore, figure 2 clearly shows the regions in which the Markovian and non-Markovian dynamics take place.
Figure 2. The degree of non-Markovianity as functions of atom-pseudomode coupling k1 and pseudomode–pseudomode coupling J1 with Γ21 = 0.5 and δ1 = 0.
Interestingly, by employing equations (12) and (15), it is possible to connect QSL time and degree of non-Markovianity as
$\begin{eqnarray}{\tau }_{\mathrm{QSL}}=\tau \times {\left(\displaystyle \frac{2{ \mathcal N }}{1-| \widetilde{h}(\tau ){| }^{2}}+1\right)}^{-1}.\end{eqnarray}$
From equation (16), if the evolution is Markovian (${ \mathcal N }=0$), then the actual evolution time is equal to the QSL time, so we have a saturated bound for the QSL time. On the other hand, in a situation where the evolution is non-Markovian (${ \mathcal N }\ne 0$), the QSL time is shorter than the actual evolution time.
In figure 3, the QSL time and non-Markovianity have been plotted as a function of actual evolution time τ in a weak coupling regime with k1 = 0.1 for different values of pseudomode–pseudomode coupling J1. From figure 3(a), one can see that the QSL time decreases with increasing J1. Besides, figure 3(b) shows that in this weak coupling regime, the non-Markovianity feature of the evolution is revealed by increasing J1. Thus, we conclude that the QSL time decreases with the emergence of the non-Markovian feature of quantum evolution. Notably, one can also see that in Markovian evolution (red solid line), the QSL time is equal to the actual evolution time (τQSL = τ) because ${ \mathcal N }=0$, whose root is in equation (16). In other words, it can be said that the reduction of QSL time originates from the non-Markovian feature of the quantum evolution.
Figure 3. (a) QSL time and (b) non-Markovianity as a function of Γ1τ in a weak coupling regime (k1 = 0.1) for different values of J1 with Γ21 = 0.5 and δ1 = 0.
Figure 4 shows the QSL time and non-Markovianity as a function of actual evolution time τ in a strong coupling regime with k1 = 0.75 for different values of J1. It seems that the results are similar to what we observed in the weak coupling regime, however, the non-Markovian feature of evolution can be observed in this case even when J1 is zero, which is in good agreement with the results of figure 2.
Figure 4. (a) QSL time and (b) non-Markovianity as a function of Γ1τ in a strong coupling regime (k1 = 0.75) for different values of J1 with Γ21 = 0.5 and δ1 = 0.
In figure 5(a), the QSL time has been plotted as a function of k1 for both resonant (δ1 = 0) and off-resonant (δ1 = 5) cases. The QSL time decreases with increasing k1 for both resonant and off-resonant cases. Notice that the QSL time in the off-resonant case is shorter than in the resonant case. In figure 5(b), we plot the non-Markovianity versus k1. From this plot, we observe that the degree of non-Markovianity increases by the strengthening of the coupling between the atom and the first pseudomode for both resonant and off-resonant cases. By comparing figures 5(a) and (b), it can be concluded that there exists an inverse relation between QSL time and non-Markovianity.
Figure 5. (a) QSL time and (b) non-Markovianity as a function of k1 for zero and nonzero values of δ1 with Γ21 = 0.5, J1 = 1, and τ = 5.
The QSL time and non-Markovianity have been plotted as a function of J1 for two different values of k1 in figure 6. We see that in a strong coupling regime (k1 = 0.75), the QSL time is shorter than that of the weak coupling regime (k1 = 0.1). On the other hand, the non-Markovianity gets its maximum value in a strong coupling regime. Again, we find that there is an inverse relation between non-Markovianity and QSL time. These results are in good agreement with the previous figures.
Figure 6. (a) QSL time and (b) non-Markovianity as a function of J1 for two different values of k1 with Γ21 = 0.5, δ1 = 0, and τ = 5.
Finally, the QSL time and non-Markovianity have been illustrated as a function of the detuning parameter δ1 for two different values of k1 in figure 7. It is worth noting that the results are similar to the findings shown in the previous plots. Remarkably, the existence of an inverse relation between non-Markovianity and QSL time is also confirmed in this case.
Figure 7. (a) QSL time and (b) non-Markovianity as a function of δ1 for two different values of k1 with Γ21 = 0.5, J1 = 1, and τ = 5.
Note that the ratio between the QSL time, τQSL, and the actual time, τ, quantifies the possibility of speeding up the quantum evolution. QSL bounds are saturated with no potential for speedup when τQSL/τ = 1. However, the QSL bound is unsaturated if τQSL/τ < 1, and there is potential for speeding up the evolution of the dynamical system. Our results show that τQSL/τ ≤ 1, indicating that both of these scenarios occurred in our study.

5. Conclusion and outlook

Using a cavity-based engineered environment, we explored the possibility of manipulating the QSL time. In particular, we have observed that by constructing the Markovian environments consisting of two cavities, one can switch between quantum speed-down and speedup regimes for the dynamics of an artificial atom interacting with a pseudomode. Based on memory effects, the dynamics of the open systems are divided into two categories: memory-less (Markovian) and with-memory (non-Markovian) dynamics. Notably, we observed that there exists an inverse relation between the QSL time and non-Markovianity. In other words, the non-Markovianity feature of quantum evolution can lead to quantum speedup in the dynamics. Therefore, this feature leads to an intrinsic interest in the context of controlling the memory effects that are associated with open systems. The parameters included atom-pseudomode coupling, pseudomode–pseudomode coupling, and detuning between atom and pseudomode were used to manipulate the non-Markovianity. We found that in a strong coupling regime, for both atom-pseudomode and pseudomode–pseudomode couplings, the evolution is non-Markovian and the quantum speedup is revealed. As a result of this study, new insights are gained into the control of QSL time for open systems, which opens the door to further experimental development towards the development of quantum thermodynamic devices and quantum computers.

Acknowledgments

SH was supported by Semnan University under Contract No. 21270.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests.
1
Deffner S, Campbell S 2017 Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 453001

DOI

2
Hilgevoord J 2002 Time in quantum mechanics Am. J. Phys. 70 301

DOI

3
Deffner S 2017 Geometric quantum speed limits: a case for Wigner phase space New J. Phys. 19 103018

DOI

4
Pfeifer P 1993 How fast can a quantum state change with time? Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 3365

DOI

5
Bukov M, Sels D, Polkovnikov A 2019 Geometric speed limit of accessible many-body state preparation Phys. Rev. X 9 011034

DOI

6
Funo K, Shiraishi N, Saito K 2019 Speed limit for open quantum systems New J. Phys. 21 013006

DOI

7
Hegerfeldt G C 2013 Driving at the quantum speed limit: optimal control of a two-level system Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 260501

DOI

8
Garcia-Pintos L P, del Campo A 2019 Quantum speed limits under continuous quantum measurements New J. Phys. 21 033012

DOI

9
Kobe D H, Aguilera-Navarro V C 1994 Derivation of the energy-time uncertainty relation Phys. Rev. A 50 933

DOI

10
Jones P J, Kok P 2010 Geometric derivation of the quantum speed limit Phys. Rev. A 82 022107

DOI

11
Xu Z-Y 2016 Detecting quantum speedup in closed and open systems New J. Phys. 18 073005

DOI

12
Deffner S, Lutz E 2013 Energy-time uncertainty relation for driven quantum systems J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 335302

DOI

13
Shao Y, Liu B, Zhang M, Yuan H, Liu J 2020 Operational definition of a quantum speed limit Phys. Rev. Res. 2 023299

DOI

14
Russell B, Stepney S 2014 Zermelo navigation and a speed limit to quantum information processing Phys. Rev. A 90 012303

DOI

15
Hu X, Sun S, Zheng Y 2020 Quantum speed limit via the trajectory ensemble Phys. Rev. A 101 042107

DOI

16
Cheneau M 2012 Light-cone-like spreading of correlations in a quantum many-body system Nature 481 484

DOI

17
del Campo A 2021 Probing quantum speed limits with ultracold gases Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 180603

DOI

18
Taddei M M, Escher B M, Davidovich L, de Matos Filho R L 2013 Quantum speed limit for physical processes Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 050402

DOI

19
Escher B M, de Matos Filho R L, Davidovich L 2011 General framework for estimating the ultimate precision limit in noisy quantum-enhanced metrology Nat. Phys. 7 406

DOI

20
Lam M R 2021 Demonstration of quantum brachistochrones between distant states of an atom Phys. Rev. X 11 011035

DOI

21
Poggi P M 2019 Geometric quantum speed limits and short-time accessibility to unitary operations Phys. Rev. A 99 042116

DOI

22
Caneva T, Murphy M, Calarco T, Fazio R, Montangero S, Giovannetti V, Santoro G E 2009 Optimal control at the quantum speed limit Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 240501

DOI

23
Zhang Y-J, Wei H, Yan W-B, Man Z-X, Xia Y-J, Fan H 2021 Non-Markovian dynamics control of spin-1/2 system interacting with magnets New J. Phys. 23 113004

DOI

24
Marvian I, Lidar D A 2015 Quantum speed limits for leakage and decoherence Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 210402

DOI

25
Bai S Y, An J H 2020 Floquet engineering to reactivate a dissipative quantum battery Phys. Rev. A 102 060201(R)

DOI

26
Campaioli F, Pollock F A, Binder F C, Celeri L, Goold J, Vinjanampathy S, Modi K 2017 Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 150601

DOI

27
Hovhannisyan K V, Perarnau-Llobet M, Huber M, Acın A 2013 Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 240401

DOI

28
Binder F C, Vinjanampathy S, Modi K, Goold J 2015 Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries New J. Phys. 17 075015

DOI

29
Okuyama M, Ohzeki M 2018 Quantum speed limit is not quantum Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 070402

DOI

30
Shanahan B, Chenu A, Margolus N, del Campo A 2018 Quantum speed limits across the quantum-to-classical transition Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 070401

DOI

31
Bolonek-Lason K, Gonera J, Kosinski P 2021 Classical and quantum speed limits Quantum 5 482

DOI

32
Poggi P M, Campbell S, Deffner S 2021 Diverging quantum speed limits: a herald of classicality PRX Quantum 2 040349

DOI

33
Campaioli F, Yu C-s Pollock F A, Modi K 2022 Resource speed limits: maximal rate of resource variation New J. Phys. 24 065001

DOI

34
Mandelstam L, Tamm I 1991 The Uncertainty Relation Between Energy and Time in Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Springer p 115

35
Margolus N, Levitin L B 1998 The maximum speed of dynamical evolution Physica D 120 188

DOI

36
Levitin L B, Toffoli T 2009 Fundamental limit on the rate of quantum dynamics: the unified bound is tight Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 160502

DOI

37
Jozsa R 1994 Fidelity for mixed quantum states J. Mod. Opt. 41 2315

DOI

38
Uhlmann A 1976 The “transition probability” in the state space of a *-algebra Rep. Math. Phys. 9 273

DOI

39
Luo S, Zhang Q 2004 Informational distance on quantum-state space Phys. Rev. A 69 032106

DOI

40
Wu S-x, Yu C-s 2020 Quantum speed limit based on the bound of Bures angle Sci. Rep. 10 5500

DOI

41
Deffner S, Lutz E 2013 Quantum speed limit for non-Markovian dynamics Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 010402

DOI

42
Wu S, Yu C 2018 Quantum speed limit for a mixed initial state Phys. Rev. A 98 042132

DOI

43
Cai X, Zheng Y 2017 Quantum dynamical speedup in a nonequilibrium environment Phys. Rev. A 95 052104

DOI

44
del Campo A, Egusquiza I L, Plenio M B, Huelga S F 2013 Quantum speed limits in open system dynamics Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 050403

DOI

45
Ektesabi A, Behzadi N, Faizi E 2017 Improved bound for quantum-speed-limit time in open quantum systems by introducing an alternative fidelity Phys. Rev. A 95 022115

DOI

46
Liu H B, Yang W L, An J H, Xu Z Y 2016 Mechanism for quantum speedup in open quantum systems Phys. Rev. A 93 020105

DOI

47
Breuer H-P, Petruccione F 2007 The Theory of Open Quantum Systems Oxford University Press

48
Davies E B 1976 Quantum Theory of Open Systems Academic

49
Wolf M M, Eisert J, Cubitt T S, Cirac J I 2008 Assessing non-Markovian quantum dynamics Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 150402

DOI

50
Breuer H P, Laine E M, Piilo J 2009 Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 210401

DOI

51
Rivas A, Huelga S F, Plenio M B 2010 Entanglement and non-Markovianity of quantum evolutions Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 050403

DOI

52
Luo S, Fu S, Song H 2012 Quantifying non-Markovianity via correlations Phys. Rev. A 86 044101

DOI

53
Zeng H S, Tang N, Zheng Y P, Wang G Y 2011 Equivalence of the measures of non-Markovianity for open two-level systems Phys. Rev. A 84 032118

DOI

54
He Z, Zeng H S, Li Y, Wang Q, Yao C 2017 Non-Markovianity measure based on the relative entropy of coherence in an extended space Phys. Rev. A 96 022106

DOI

55
Zhang Y J, Han W, Xia Y J, Cao J P, Fan H 2014 Quantum speed limit for arbitrary initial states Sci. Rep. 4 4890

DOI

56
Cimmarusti A D, Yan Z, Patterson B D, Corcos L P, Orozco L A, Deffner S 2015 Environment-assisted speed-up of the field evolution in cavity quantum electrodynamics Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 233602

DOI

57
Zhang Y J, Han W, Xia Y J, Cao J P, Fan H 2015 Classical-driving-assisted quantum speed-up Phys. Rev. A 91 032112

DOI

58
Cianciaruso M, Maniscalco S, Adesso G 2017 Role of non-Markovianity and backflow of information in the speed of quantum evolution Phys. Rev. A 96 012105

DOI

59
Sun Z, Liu J, Ma J, Wang X 2015 Quantum speed limits in open systems: non-Markovian dynamics without rotating-wave approximation Sci. Rep. 5 8444

DOI

60
Xu K, Zhang G F, Liu W M 2019 Quantum dynamical speedup in correlated noisy channels Phys. Rev. A 100 052305

DOI

61
Xu Z Y, Luo S, Yang W L, Liu C, Zhu S 2014 Quantum speedup in a memory environment Phys. Rev. A 89 012307

DOI

62
Zou H M, Liu R, Long D, Yang J, Lin D 2020 Ohmic reservoir-based non-Markovianity and quantum speed limit time Phys. Scr. 95 085105

DOI

63
Ahansaz B, Ektesabi A 2019 Quantum speedup, non-Markovianity and formation of bound state Sci. Rep. 9 14946

DOI

64
Zhang Y-J, Xia Y-J, Fan H 2016 Control of quantum dynamics: non-Markovianity and the speedup of the open system evolution Europhys. Lett. 116 30001

DOI

65
Teittinen J, Lyyra H, Maniscalco S 2019 There is no general connection between the quantum speed limit and non-Markovianity New J. Phys. 21 123041

DOI

66
Berrada K 2018 Quantum speedup in structured environments Physica E 95 6

DOI

67
Shahri Y, Hadipour M, Haddadi S, Dolatkhah H, Haseli S 2023 Quantum speed limit of Jaynes–Cummings model with detuning for arbitrary initial states Phys. Lett. A 470 128783

DOI

68
Gholizadeh A, Hadipour M, Haseli S, Haddadi S, Dolatkhah H 2023 Quantum dynamical speedup for correlated initial states Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 075101

DOI

69
Hadipour M, Haseli S, Dolatkhah H, Haddadi S, Czerwinski A 2022 Quantum speed limit for a moving qubit inside a leaky cavity Photonics 9 875

DOI

70
Mazzola L, Maniscalco S, Piilo J, Suominen K A, Garraway B M 2009 Pseudomodes as an effective description of memory: non-Markovian dynamics of two-state systems in structured reservoirs Phys. Rev. A 80 012104

DOI

71
Xu K, Zhu H J, Zhang G F, Liu W M 2021 Enhancing the performance of an open quantum battery via environment engineering Phys. Rev. E 104 064143

DOI

72
Garraway B M 1997 Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity Phys. Rev. A 55 2290

DOI

73
Garraway B M 1997 Decay of an atom coupled strongly to a reservoir Phys. Rev. A 55 4636

DOI

74
Pleasance G, Garraway B M, Petruccione F 2020 Generalized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non-Markovian quantum processes Phys. Rev. Res. 2 043058

DOI

Outlines

/