Increasing quantum speed limit via non-uniform magnetic field

Arindam Ghosh; Banibrata Mukhopadhyay; Gianluca Gregori; Srishty Aggarwal; Subhashish Banerjee

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Increasing quantum speed limit via non-uniform magnetic field

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Non-uniform magnetic fields can push the quantum speed limit of a relativistic electron past the uniform-field ceiling of 0.2407c.

desk verdict The central claim is a re-run of the group's own 2022 NJP result; the new BB-bound and experimental bits are too thin to carry the manuscript, and the imported spectrum needs verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18687 v1 pith:NBTLJAVN submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph gr-qc

Srishty Aggarwal , Banibrata Mukhopadhyay , Subhashish Banerjee , Arindam Ghosh , Gianluca Gregori This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phgr-qc

keywords quantumspeedlimitrelativisticelectronnon-uniformmagneticfieldDiracequationMandelstam-TammboundBremermann-BekensteinspindegeneracybreakingLandauquantization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a spatially varying magnetic field of the form $\mathbf{B}=B_0\rho^n\hat{z}$ can push the quantum speed limit of a relativistic electron beyond the value set by a uniform field. In a uniform field the saturated speed limit is 0.2407$c$; the authors argue that for growing fields ($n>0$) the saturated limit rises to 0.4$-$0.6$c$. The reason is that the non-uniform field breaks the degeneracy between spin-up and spin-down energy levels, enlarging the energy gap that drives orthogonalization, and the speed limit is the ratio of radial displacement to the Mandelstam-Tamm orthogonalization time. If true, this gives a concrete route to faster quantum information processing and a way to locate the relativistic/non-relativistic transition through the Bremermann-Bekenstein bound. The paper also proposes a solenoid-with-curved-pole-piece experiment that could realize the growing field profile.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the stationary Dirac eigenvalue problem for a relativistic electron in the cylindrical-symmetric field $\mathbf{B}=B_0\rho^n\hat{z}$, reduced to the radial equation (7) for the two-component spinor $\tilde{R}_\pm$. Its eigenvalues $\alpha_\nu$, taken from the authors' earlier numerical solution, determine the energies $E_\nu=m_e c^2\sqrt{1+\alpha_\nu}$; the spin-dependent term $k\lambda_e(-2m/(n+2)\pm 1)B_0\rho^n$ is what breaks the spin degeneracy. The speed limit is then $\tilde{v}=\rho_{\rm disp}/\tau_{QSL}$, with $\tau_{QSL}$ fixed by the Mandelstam-Tamm bound $\pi\hbar/(2\Delta H)$, and $\rho_{\rm disp}$ evaluated from the overlap integral of the two neighboring eigenstates. The Bremermann-Bekenstein inequality $\langle H\rangle/I > \hbar\ln2/(\pi\tau_{QSL})$ serves as a separate tool: the crossing point of its two sides marks the critical magnetic field separating non-relativistic from relativistic dynamics.

What would settle it

Independently solve Eq. (7) for $n=1$ with a high-precision numerical method and compute $\tilde{v}=\rho_{\rm disp}/\tau_{QSL}$; if the saturated value does not exceed the uniform-field value 0.2407$c$, the central claim is falsified. Alternatively, in the proposed solenoid setup, measure the orthogonalization time of the electron superposition; a time longer than $\pi\hbar/(E_2-E_1)$ would contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the saturated quantum speed limit of a Dirac electron is not a universal ceiling. Using the eigenspectrum of the Dirac equation in the non-uniform field $\mathbf{B}=B_0\rho^n\hat{z}$, the authors compute the Mandelstam-Tamm time $\tau_{QSL}=\pi\hbar/(2\Delta H)$ and the radial displacement $\rho_{\rm disp}$ for a superposition of neighboring states. They find that the saturated speed $\tilde{v}=\rho_{\rm disp}/\tau_{QSL}$ increases with $n$ for spin-up electrons, reaching roughly 0.6$c$ at high $B_0$ for $n=1$, whereas the uniform-field case saturates at 0.2407$c$. The key is that the magnetic-field gradient lifts the spin degeneracy and redistributes the level spacings: for $n>0$ the early levels are closer and later levels spread out, while for $n<0$ the pattern reverses. These level-structure differences also allow the construction of specific two-level systems, e.g. a spin-down ground/first-excited subspace for negative $n$ and spin-only transitions for positive $n$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on the energy eigenvalues computed numerically in an earlier paper; if those eigenvalues are wrong, or if the singular field at the center for decreasing-field profiles invalidates the solutions, the claimed speed-up does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A growing magnetic field ($n>0$) gives a saturated quantum speed limit up to about 0.6$c$ for a spin-up electron, more than double the uniform-field value 0.2407$c$.
At identical laboratory parameters, a linearly increasing field yields QSL about $3.2\times 10^{-7}c$ for spin-up and $3\times 10^{-7}c$ for spin-down, versus $1.9\times 10^{-7}c$ in the uniform case.
For negative $n$, the level alignment permits a clean two-level system of spin-down electrons in the ground and first excited states; for positive $n$, it enables spin-only transitions.
The Bremermann-Bekenstein crossing point provides a simple estimate of the critical magnetic field for non-uniform fields, e.g. about $1.35\times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{G}\,\mathrm{pm}^{-n}$ for $n=2$.
The proposed solenoid with concave ferrite pole pieces can create a growing field profile in the lab, making the predicted speedup testable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: if the energy-gap enlargement is the true driver, the speedup should also appear for other pairs of neighboring levels and for $n$ between 0 and 1; a systematic scan of $\tilde{v}$ over level index and $n$ would show how generic the effect is.
Editorial inference: the paper equates quantum information speed with radial displacement per orthogonalization time; using a metric such as the Bures angle between states could give a different quantitative answer, so the claimed 0.4$-$0.6$c$ should be read as tied to this particular speed measure.
Editorial inference: for $n<0$ the magnetic field diverges at the origin, so the corresponding QSL curves rely on a regularization that the paper does not discuss; a practical implementation would likely focus on $n>0$ profiles.
Editorial inference: one could test the BB-bound critical-field estimate by placing a spin ensemble in a tailored gradient and observing the field strength where spin-up and spin-down evolution rates cross.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: the paper's headline is a re-statement. The boost from non-uniform fields is already in their own NJP 2022 paper (Ref [11]), which this manuscript cites for the QSL method but does not flag as prior publication of the central result. The genuinely new pieces — the BB-bound critical-field extraction and the experimental geometry — are both underdeveloped. The numbers 0.4–0.6c in Fig. 2 should not be taken as a new prediction until the imported spectrum is independently checked.

What the paper does well: the two-level QSL machinery is applied cleanly; the vector potential in Eq. (2) is consistent with the field in Eq. (1); the authors are honest about the n>−1 convergence restriction; and the BB-bound link to critical magnetic fields is a clever idea that could be useful if it had a derivation. The experimental section is a genuine attempt to give the effect a concrete home, and it is candid in reporting a modest factor-of-1.7 gain at lab fields, even though the abstract's 0.4–0.6c refers to magnetar-scale fields.

Soft spots, in order of severity: 1. Novelty. The central claim is not distinguished from Ref [11]. At minimum the paper must state what is new. A proceedings chapter can legitimately be a summary of prior work, but then it should be labeled as such. 2. Spectral dependence. The entire enhancement rests on the eigenspectrum from Ref [6], solved numerically by Runge-Kutta with no convergence study, no error bars, and no derivation in this text. An independent spectral solve of Eq. (7) for the n>0 profiles used in Fig. 2 is needed before the 0.4–0.6c numbers can be trusted. This is not a minor point; the stress-test concern is on target. 3. BB-bound critical field. The marked point Q is defined as the intersection of spin-up and spin-down curves, and it is asserted that this indicates the critical field. No derivation or physical argument is given for why that intersection has that meaning. As presented it is curve-reading. 4. Metric. v=ρ_disp/τ_QSL equates radial displacement with information-processing speed without defense. The comparison to the uniform-field SQSL 0.2407c from Ref [5] is only meaningful if the same metric was used there; the text does not say so.

Who this is for: readers who want a compact summary of the group's earlier results together with a speculative new BB-bound idea. It is not a self-contained research paper. It deserves a referee only to force the novelty disclosure and to get the spectral evidence on the table; if the venue requires new results, it should be rejected as-is.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a relativistic electron in a non-uniform magnetic field B = B0 ρ^n z-hat can achieve a saturated quantum speed limit (SQSL) of 0.4–0.6c, surpassing the uniform-field value 0.2407c. The speed limit is computed as the ratio of radial displacement to the Mandelstam-Tamm minimum evolution time, using the eigenspectrum of Eq. (7) obtained in prior work by the same authors. The paper also uses the Bremermann-Bekenstein bound to identify a critical magnetic field separating non-relativistic from relativistic regimes, and proposes a laboratory setup with a solenoid and shaped pole pieces to realize non-uniform fields.

Significance. If the central result is correct, the paper identifies a concrete physical mechanism—spatially varying magnetic fields—that increases the quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron, which would be of interest to quantum information and relativistic quantum dynamics. The computational approach is transparent in its definitions, and the connection to the Bremermann-Bekenstein bound is conceptually appealing. However, the quantitative claims rest on numerical eigenvalues imported from earlier self-citations without derivation or convergence analysis in this manuscript, and the speed metric is not defended against alternative definitions, so the significance can only be assessed after those gaps are addressed.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (7), Figs. 1–2] The central quantitative claim—SQSL values of 0.4–0.6c—is computed from Eq. (10) using the eigenspectrum of Eq. (7) for n ≠ 0, but that spectrum is not derived or analyzed in this paper. The text states only that Eq. (7) is solved using the Runge-Kutta method [6], and the eigenvalue-n relation is taken from [8]. No convergence study, error estimate, or independent check is provided for the n=1 and n=-0.5 cases used in Fig. 2. Since the claimed enhancement over the uniform-field limit depends entirely on the accuracy of this imported numerical spectrum, the manuscript should either include a self-contained derivation or, at minimum, a convergence analysis and a comparison with the uniform-field analytic solution for n=0 as a benchmark.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (10)] The speed metric ṽ = ρ_disp/τ_QSL is introduced without justification, and the comparison with the uniform-field result of Ref. [5] implicitly assumes that Ref. [5] used the identical metric. If Ref. [5] defines the displacement differently (e.g., using the full position vector or a different initial/final state), then the reported 'surpassing' of 0.2407c may be an artifact of incompatible definitions. The text should state the metric used in Ref. [5] explicitly and justify why radial displacement is the appropriate measure of information-processing speed for this system.
[Sec. 4, Fig. 3] The extraction of the critical magnetic field from the BB bound is not quantitatively defined. The text says that in region I the LHS and RHS of Eq. (19) exhibit 'a clear separation', that this separation diminishes in region II, and that Q is 'the point of intersection' for n=2; however, no criterion is given for what constitutes a separation, a transition, or a crossing, and the physical identification of Q with the conventional critical field B_c = m_e^2 c^3/(ℏ e) is asserted rather than derived. A well-defined operational procedure (e.g., threshold on the ratio of the two sides, or a fit to their difference) is needed for the BB-based critical field to be meaningful.
[Sec. 5, experiment] The proposed laboratory setup operates at field strengths of order 10 G, where the computed QSL is 3.2×10^{-7}c (spin-up) and 3×10^{-7}c (spin-down), far below the saturation regime where the claimed 0.4–0.6c SQSL appears. The text does not explain how the experimental configuration could be scaled to reach the ultra-high fields (10^{15}–10^{17} G) used in Fig. 2, nor does it address the practical obstacles at such fields. As written, the experimental section demonstrates a modest improvement over the uniform-field case at low fields but does not validate the headline SQSL enhancement.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) appears to have a typographical error: the radial differential operator is printed as '∂^2/∂ρ^2 + (1/ρ)∂/∂ρ −' followed by a missing term before the closing parenthesis. This should be corrected to show the full operator, presumably '− m^2/ρ^2'.
[Sec. 2, Fig. 1 caption] The caption states 'taking m=0 for n=0.5, 0 and n=−0.5', but the surrounding text only discusses n=0.5 and n=−0.5 in detail. The role of the n=0 case in the figure should be clarified.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (13)] The name 'Margolous-Levitian' is misspelled; the correct spelling is 'Margolus-Levitin'.
[Sec. 5, experimental parameters] The text says the magnetic field is 'approximately 10^4 G at the edge of the plane' but also that the strength at the periphery of the electron's circular plane is 10 G with ρ=0.5 μm. These statements are inconsistent if the same plane is meant; please clarify the geometry and the field values.
[References] The evaluation method and the eigenspectrum are taken from Refs. [6], [8], and [11], all self-citations. The paper should more explicitly state what new contribution it makes beyond Ref. [11], which already studies QSL in non-uniform magnetic fields, to avoid the impression of a restatement in a different parameter regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity; the central QSL numbers are ordinary functions of a stated eigenvalue equation, though the numerical spectrum is imported from same-author prior work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: adopt B = B0 rho^n z-hat, solve the Dirac equation (Eqs. 3-7), import the eigenspectrum from Ref. [6] (same authors), and evaluate the Mandelstam-Tamm bound with the radial-displacement metric v = rho_disp / tau_QSL (Eqs. 10-18). The claimed saturated speed limits (0.4-0.6c) are ordinary functions of energy gaps and radial matrix elements; no parameter is fitted to the target numbers, and no equation is defined in terms of the final QSL. The eigenspectrum from Ref. [6] is an independent numerical solution of Eq. (7) whose stated assumptions do not include the QSL result, so per the review rules it counts as real evidence and does not make the argument circular. The citation to Ref. [11] is for the same evaluation method that is re-derived in Eqs. (10)-(18), so it is not an unverified premise. The main weakness is that for n != 0 the eigenvalues and overlap integrals are taken from prior same-author papers without a convergence study in this text; this is a reproducibility and verification burden, not a by-construction reduction. The Bremermann-Bekenstein section is a consistency check and does not feed back into the QSL claim. Overall, no significant circularity is found; the score of 2 reflects the load-bearing same-author citations for the numerical input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or free fitted parameters. The key inputs are the magnetic field profile (chosen as an example, not fitted) and the energy eigenvalues imported from prior self-cited work. The main assumptions are standard relativistic quantum mechanics plus a specific ad hoc use of the BB bound to define a critical field.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Dirac equation with minimal coupling is the correct description for a relativistic electron in the magnetic field B = B0 rho^n z-hat.
Used as the starting point in Eq. (3) without discussion of alternative regimes or corrections.
domain assumption The magnetic field B = B0 rho^n z-hat and vector potential A = B0 rho^(n+1)/(n+2) phi-hat satisfy Maxwell's equations.
Stated in Section 2, referencing Ref. [6], but the current density required to produce such a field is not analyzed.
domain assumption The electron's motion is confined to the plane perpendicular to z, so p_z = 0.
Stated after Eq. (6); this reduces the spatial degrees of freedom but is not justified experimentally.
standard math The quantum speed limit is given by the Mandelstam-Tamm bound tau = pi hbar / (2 Delta H) because all energy levels are positive.
Section 3, Eq. (14); this is a standard result for the time to reach an orthogonal state in a two-level system.
ad hoc to paper The Bremermann-Bekenstein bound <H>/I > hbar ln2 / (pi tau_QSL) applies, and the crossing or separation point of LHS and RHS for spin-up and spin-down electrons identifies the critical magnetic field.
Section 4, Eq. (19); the identification of the crossing as the critical field is asserted without derivation or physical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Increasing quantum speed limit via non-uniform magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBTLJAVN

@misc{pith2026241118687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Increasing quantum speed limit via non-uniform magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBTLJAVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18687}
}

abstract

Quantum speed limit (QSL) defines the theoretical upper bound on how fast a quantum system can evolve between states. It imposes a fundamental constraint on the rate of quantum information processing. For a relativistic spin-up electron in a uniform magnetic field, QSL increased with the magnetic field strength till around $10^{15}$ Gauss, before saturating at a saturated QSL (SQSL) of 0.2407c, where c is the speed of light. We show that by using variable magnetic fields, it is possible to surpass this limit, achieving SQSL upto 0.4-0.6c. To attain this quantum phenomenon, we solve the evolution equation of relativistic electron in spatially varying magnetic fields and find that the energies of various electron states become non-degenerate as opposed to the constant magnetic field case. This redistribution of energy is the key ingredient to accomplish higher QSL and, thus, a high information processing speed. We further explore how QSL can serve as a bridge between relativistic and non-relativistic quantum dynamics, providing insights via the Bremermann-Bekenstein bound, a quantity which constrains the maximal rate of information production. We also propose a practical experimental setup to realize these advancements. These results hold immense potential for propelling fields of quantum computation, thermodynamics and metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18687 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[11]

Non-uniform magnetic field as a booster for quantum speed limit: faster quantum information processing,

S. Aggarwal, S. Banerjee, A. Ghosh, and B. Mukhopadhyay, “Non-uniform magnetic field as a booster for quantum speed limit: faster quantum information processing,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 24, p. 085001, aug 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Relativistic Landau quantization in non- uniform magnetic field and its applications to white dwarfs and quantum information,

S. Aggarwal, B. Mukhopadhyay, and G. Gregori, “Relativistic Landau quantization in non- uniform magnetic field and its applications to white dwarfs and quantum information,”SciPost Phys., vol. 11, p. 93, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field,

D. V. Villamizar and E. I. Duzzioni, “Quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 92, p. 042106, Oct 2015

work page 2015
[8]

Aggarwal and B

S. Aggarwal and B. Mukhopadhyay,Dynamics of relativistic electrons in non-uniform magnetic fields and its applications in quantum computing and astrophysics , pp. 4362–4373. World Scientific, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, “Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, vol. 50, p. 453001, Nov. 2017

work page 2017
[2]

H. J. Bremermann, Quantum noise and information Proc. of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics, Probability, vol. 4. Biology, Problems of Health (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 1967

work page 1967
[3]

Quantum Limitations on the Storage and Transmission of Information,

J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer, “Quantum Limitations on the Storage and Transmission of Information,” International Journal of Modern Physics C, vol. 1, pp. 355–422, Jan. 1990

work page 1990
[4]

Molecular nanomagnets as quantum simulators,

P. Santini, S. Carretta, F. Troiani, and G. Amoretti, “Molecular nanomagnets as quantum simulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 107, p. 230502, Nov 2011

work page 2011

Show all 16 references

[7]

Strange, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

P. Strange, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998

1998
[9]

The energy–time uncertainty relation in non-relativistic quantum mechanics,

L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, “The energy–time uncertainty relation in non-relativistic quantum mechanics,” J. Phys. USSR, vol. 9, pp. 249–254, 1945

1945
[10]

The maximum speed of dynamical evolution,

N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, “The maximum speed of dynamical evolution,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 188–195, 1998. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Consumption

1998
[12]

Quantum speed limit for non-markovian dynamics,

S. Deffner and E. Lutz, “Quantum speed limit for non-markovian dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 111, p. 010402, Jul 2013

2013
[13]

Few-electron quantum dots,

L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, and S. Tarucha, “Few-electron quantum dots,”Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 64, pp. 701–736, may 2001

2001
[14]

Topological super- conductivity in a phase-controlled Josephson junction,

H. Ren, F. Pientka, S. Hart, A. T. Pierce, M. Kosowsky, L. Lunczer, R. Schlereth, B. Scharf, E. M. Hankiewicz, L. W. Molenkamp, B. I. Halperin, and A. Yacoby, “Topological super- conductivity in a phase-controlled Josephson junction,” Nature, vol. 569, pp. 93–98, Apr. 2019

2019
[15]

Per- pendicular magnetic anisotropy of cobalt films intercalated under graphene,

N. Rougemaille, A. T. N’Diaye, J. Coraux, C. Vo-Van, O. Fruchart, and A. K. Schmid, “Per- pendicular magnetic anisotropy of cobalt films intercalated under graphene,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 101, no. 14, p. 142403, 2012. Increasing quantum speed limit via non-uniform mag...

2012
[16]

Intrinsic magnetism of grain boundaries in two-dimensional metal dichalcogenides,

Z. Zhang, X. Zou, V. H. Crespi, and B. I. Yakobson, “Intrinsic magnetism of grain boundaries in two-dimensional metal dichalcogenides,”ACS Nano, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 10475–10481, 2013. PMID: 24206002

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Non-uniform magnetic field as a booster for quantum speed limit: faster quantum information processing,

S. Aggarwal, S. Banerjee, A. Ghosh, and B. Mukhopadhyay, “Non-uniform magnetic field as a booster for quantum speed limit: faster quantum information processing,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 24, p. 085001, aug 2022

work page 2022

[2] [6]

Relativistic Landau quantization in non- uniform magnetic field and its applications to white dwarfs and quantum information,

S. Aggarwal, B. Mukhopadhyay, and G. Gregori, “Relativistic Landau quantization in non- uniform magnetic field and its applications to white dwarfs and quantum information,”SciPost Phys., vol. 11, p. 93, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [5]

Quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field,

D. V. Villamizar and E. I. Duzzioni, “Quantum speed limit for a relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 92, p. 042106, Oct 2015

work page 2015

[4] [8]

Aggarwal and B

S. Aggarwal and B. Mukhopadhyay,Dynamics of relativistic electrons in non-uniform magnetic fields and its applications in quantum computing and astrophysics , pp. 4362–4373. World Scientific, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [1]

Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,

S. Deffner and S. Campbell, “Quantum speed limits: from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, vol. 50, p. 453001, Nov. 2017

work page 2017

[6] [2]

H. J. Bremermann, Quantum noise and information Proc. of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics, Probability, vol. 4. Biology, Problems of Health (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 1967

work page 1967

[7] [3]

Quantum Limitations on the Storage and Transmission of Information,

J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer, “Quantum Limitations on the Storage and Transmission of Information,” International Journal of Modern Physics C, vol. 1, pp. 355–422, Jan. 1990

work page 1990

[8] [4]

Molecular nanomagnets as quantum simulators,

P. Santini, S. Carretta, F. Troiani, and G. Amoretti, “Molecular nanomagnets as quantum simulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 107, p. 230502, Nov 2011

work page 2011