Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Relativistic Quantum Otto Engine: Generalized efficiency bounds and frictional effects

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives analytic efficiency bounds for a relativistic quantum Otto engine: relativistic motion can beat the Carnot limit in adiabatic strokes, while quantum friction keeps sudden-switch efficiency below 1/2.

desk verdict The analytic generalized Carnot bound and the sudden-switch 1/2 efficiency cap are real, but the paper's third main result (Eq. 31) is algebraically wrong as printed and should not appear in its current form. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20692 v1 pith:QVGM3VUN submitted 2025-08-28 quant-ph hep-th

Vahid Shaghaghi , Pritam Chattopadhyay , Vijit V. Nautiyal , Kaustav Chatterjee , Tanmoy Pandit , Varinder Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-th
keywords relativisticquantumheatengineOttocycleUnruh–DeWittdetectorharmonicoscillatorworkingmediumgeneralizedCarnotefficiencyinnerfrictionsudden-switchprotocolbound
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 analyzes a relativistic quantum Otto engine whose working medium is a harmonic oscillator coupled to a hot stationary bath and a cold bath moving at constant velocity $v$. In the adiabatic regime it derives a closed-form generalized Carnot bound $\eta \le 1 - (\beta_h/\beta_c) f(v)$, with $f(v)=\sqrt{1-v^2}\,\ln[(1+v)/(1-v)]/(2v)$, which exceeds the standard Carnot efficiency and approaches unity as $v\to1$. For instantaneous frequency switches it proves the efficiency is capped at $\eta<1/2$ even in the ultra-relativistic limit, because nonadiabatic quenches create inner friction that dissipates part of the extracted work. It also reports an analytic sudden-switch bound intended as the nonadiabatic counterpart of the generalized Carnot bound. If the bounds hold, they establish how relativistic motion and nonadiabatic driving jointly constrain the performance of relativistic quantum heat engines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the function $f(v)=\sqrt{1-v^2}\,\ln[(1+v)/(1-v)]/(2v)$, which appears in the positive-work conditions $z\ge(\beta_h/\beta_c)f(v)$ (adiabatic) and $z^2\ge(\beta_h/\beta_c)f(v)$ (sudden switch), where $z=\omega_c/\omega_h$. It comes from the angular average of the directional temperature of a moving bath, $\langle(1-v\cos\theta)^{-1}\rangle=\ln[(1+v)/(1-v)]/(2v)$, and it encodes the Doppler reshaping that makes the moving cold reservoir look colder than its rest-frame temperature. The second object is the sudden-switch adiabaticity parameter $\lambda=(\omega_c^2+\omega_h^2)/(2\omega_c\omega_h)$; because $\lambda>1$, an instantaneous quench generates transitions and coherences in the instantaneous energy basis, and their subsequent dissipation is the inner friction responsible for the $1/2$ efficiency cap.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eq. (31) at $v=0.9$, $\beta_h=1/20$, $\beta_c=1/5$: the expression gives about $0.947$, whereas Fig. 5 reports $0.24366$ for the same parameters, so the analytic bound as printed fails a direct numerical check. Separately, a scan of the full parameter space that finds any sampled efficiency above $\eta_{\mathrm{gen}}^C(v)$ at low temperatures would falsify the claimed universality of the adiabatic bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uniform relativistic motion enters the Otto engine's efficiency ceiling only through the factor $f(v)$, which acts like a reduced effective cold-bath temperature $T_c^{\mathrm{eff}} = T_c \sqrt{1-v^2}\,\ln[(1+v)/(1-v)]/(2v)$. In the adiabatic limit this gives the generalized Carnot bound $\eta_{\mathrm{gen}}^C(v)=1-(\beta_h/\beta_c)f(v)\ge\eta_C$, so a fast-moving cold bath broadens the positive-work region and can push the efficiency toward one. In the sudden-switch limit the same motion does not help: the exact nonadiabatic solution has adiabaticity parameter $\lambda=(\omega_c^2+\omega_h^2)/(2\omega_c\omega_h)>1$, which leaves the oscillator with coherences that are dissipated during the hot isochore as quantum (inner) friction. The efficiency is therefore bounded by $\eta_{\mathrm{SS}}<1/2$ regardless of velocity, and the paper reports Eq. (31) as an analytic expression for this sudden-switch upper bound depending only on $v$ and the Carnot efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that bounds derived in the high-temperature limit remain valid at all temperatures; the paper supports that with finite random sampling rather than proof, and the printed sudden-switch formula (Eq. 31) disagrees numerically with the bound quoted in Fig. 5.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard Carnot bound is not the operative ceiling for an engine whose working medium meets a moving thermal bath; the effective cold temperature is lowered by $f(v)$, so relativistic motion alone can make the engine exceed the stationary Carnot efficiency.
  • In the adiabatic regime the positive-work threshold moves from $z\ge\tau$ to $z\ge\tau f(v)$, so the family of frequency ratios that yield work widens as $v$ increases.
  • Any engine driven by instantaneous frequency switches is limited to $\eta<1/2$ no matter how relativistic the motion is; suppressing quantum friction, not increasing speed, is the route to higher efficiency in the sudden-switch limit.
  • The sudden-switch bound depends only on $v$ and the reservoir temperature ratio, giving a compact benchmark against which finite-time driving protocols can be compared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bound is universal, the same $f(v)$ should appear for other working media that thermalize with a uniformly moving bath, since the factor comes from the bath's angular-averaged temperature rather than the oscillator's level structure.
  • The two limiting bounds bracket all finite-time protocols: a smooth frequency ramp with $\lambda$ between 1 and $(\omega_c^2+\omega_h^2)/(2\omega_c\omega_h)$ should yield efficiencies between the sudden-switch cap and the generalized Carnot bound, so the paper's formulas define the efficiency-power frontier.
  • Because $f(v)$ is even in $v$, reversing the direction of the cold bath's motion should not change any of the bounds; the enhancement is kinematic, not directional.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a relativistic quantum Otto engine whose working medium is a harmonic-oscillator Unruh–DeWitt detector, with the hot isochore performed at rest and the cold isochore in uniform motion at speed v. In the adiabatic limit it derives a generalized Carnot bound η ≤ 1 − (β_h/β_c) f(v), f(v) = √(1−v²) ln[(1+v)/(1−v)]/(2v), and it argues that this bound is universal. For sudden-switch frequency modulations it proves η < 1/2 and claims a closed-form upper bound η_SS^up (Eq. 31). It also reports efficiency at maximum work in both regimes and compares the relativistic bounds with the standard Carnot bound.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would make a useful contribution: the adiabatic generalized Carnot bound follows cleanly from the positive-work condition, reduces to the standard Carnot bound at v=0 and approaches unity as v→1, and the 1/2 cap in the sudden-switch regime is an intuitively plausible and analytically demonstrated result. The paper also contains a constructive closed-form candidate for the sudden-switch bound, and the high-temperature reduction is a tractable case. However, the manuscript as printed contains a load-bearing algebraic error: the sudden-switch bound in Eq. (31) is not a valid bound below 1/2 and contradicts the paper's own Fig. 5, and the universality claims go beyond what the numerical evidence establishes. With a corrected derivation and suitably qualified claims, the paper would merit reconsideration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eqs. (28)–(31)] The algebraic chain leading to the third main result is not correct. Reducing Eq. (22) with coth(β_h ω_h/2) ≈ 2/(β_h ω_h) and A ≈ 2v f(v) gives η_SS = (1−z²)[z²−τ f(v)]/[2z²−τ f(v)(1+z²)], so the denominator in Eq. (28) should be 2z²−τ f(v)(1+z²), not τ−z²[2−τ f(v)]; the two forms agree only for f(v)=1. Consequently Eq. (30) is not the correct solution for z²: solving Eq. (28) for x=z² yields x²−Bx+τ(f−η)=0 with B=1−2η+τ f(1+η), so the discriminant is B²−4τ(f−η), not the printed B²−4τ f(1−η). The printed Eq. (31) is also not a bound below 1/2: with x=f(v)(1−η_C) ∈ (0,1) it equals 1−x/(√2+√x)², which is always greater than 1/2, contradicting Eq. (26); for the parameters of Fig. 5 it gives about 0.947, not 0.24366. The correct high-temperature maximum of the sudden-switch efficiency is η_SS^up = 2(1−a)/(2+√(2a))² with a=f(v)(1−η_C), which reproduces the quoted numerical value 0.24366 and approaches 1/2 as v→1. The authors should redo the derivation and replace Eqs. (28)–(31) and the Fig. 5 discussion accordingly.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (17)] Eq. (17) as printed is not the bound that follows from Eq. (16). With f(v)=√(1−v²) ln[(1+v)/(1−v)]/(2v), the positive-work condition z≥τ f(v) and the adiabatic efficiency η=1−z give η ≤ 1 − (β_h/β_c) f(v). The printed formula contains the reciprocal logarithm (or sign) reversed and cannot be used as printed; please correct the equation and the sentence defining η_gen^C(v).
  3. [Sections III and IV.A, universality claims] The claim that the high-temperature-derived bounds are universal upper bounds across all operational regimes is supported only by a scatter plot at one temperature/velocity setting (Fig. 3) and one histogram at another setting (Fig. 5), not by a proof. This overstates the result. Either provide a proof of the extension or qualify the claim as a numerically supported conjecture.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, first paragraph] The sudden-switch adiabaticity parameter is written as λ = ω²_c + ω²_h / 2ω_cω_h, which is ambiguous; it should be λ = (ω²_c+ω²_h)/(2ω_cω_h).
  2. [Eq. (27) and text after Fig. 3] There are several typos: Eq. (27) has a doubled equals sign ('W_SS^ext = ='), and the sentence after Fig. 3 begins with '...condition. This differs...', indicating a missing clause or reference.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the dashed curves show Eq. (31), but the printed Eq. (31) exceeds 1/2 for the plotted parameters; the figure and caption must be redrawn using the corrected sudden-switch bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the generalized Carnot bound and sudden-switch bound are derived from the model's own mean photon numbers and positive-work conditions, not from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than assumed. In the adiabatic regime, Eq. (17) follows from the high-temperature extracted work expression Eq. (13), the positive-work condition z >= tau f(v) in Eq. (16), and the adiabatic efficiency eta = 1 - z from Eq. (12). All of these are obtained from the oscillator energy expressions Eqs. (2)-(5), with no fitted parameters. The reference to Ref. [61] is attributional only: the paper explicitly notes that the bound 'was first proposed in Ref. [61], where it was deduced numerically,' and then provides an independent closed-form derivation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. In the sudden-switch regime, Eqs. (27)-(28) are direct high-temperature reductions of the model expressions Eqs. (21)-(22), and the bound Eq. (31) is intended to follow from the positive-work condition combined with the efficiency expression. The 1/2 cap in Eq. (26) follows from Eq. (25) and Delta_1 in (0,1), independently of any self-citation. The numerical sampling in Figs. 3 and 5 is used as supporting evidence of universality rather than as an input to the bounds. Even if Eq. (30) contains an algebraic or discriminant error, as the skeptical reading suggests, that is a correctness issue, not circularity: an incorrect derivation is not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to a fitted quantity or to a self-citation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses standard results for UDW detectors and driven harmonic oscillators. No fitted parameters appear. The main extra assumption is the unproven universality of the high-temperature bounds, plus the correctness of Eq. (31), which is inconsistent as printed.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mean photon number of the harmonic oscillator coupled to a moving scalar bath is given by the formula between Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), involving Doppler-shifted Planck factors.
    Taken from prior detector-response results [43,61,66]; if this response formula is wrong, all efficiency bounds change.
  • domain assumption The adiabaticity parameter lambda equals 1 for adiabatic driving and (omega_c^2+omega_h^2)/(2 omega_c omega_h) for sudden switching.
    Standard results for a driven harmonic oscillator [67,68]; used to derive efficiencies.
  • domain assumption The high-temperature approximation coth(beta omega/2) approx 2/(beta omega) is valid for the analytic bounds.
    Used to derive Eqs. (13)-(17) and (27)-(31); claimed universal beyond this limit without proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The bounds derived in the high-temperature limit extend to all temperatures.
    Supported only by finite numerical sampling (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5), not by proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Quantum Otto Engine: Generalized efficiency bounds and frictional effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVGM3VUN

@misc{pith2026250820692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Quantum Otto Engine: Generalized efficiency bounds and frictional effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVGM3VUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20692}
}
read the original abstract

This work investigates a relativistic quantum Otto engine with a harmonic oscillator as its working medium, analyzing how relativistic motion and nonadiabatic driving affect its performance and efficiency bounds. In the adiabatic regime, a closed-form analytical expression is derived for the generalized Carnot efficiency, which incorporates the effects of relativistic motion and reduces to the standard Carnot efficiency in the nonrelativistic limit. For nonadiabatic driving, we consider sudden compression and expansion work strokes and show that the maximum efficiency achievable by the engine is limited to 1/2, even in the ultra-relativistic limit. Going one step further, we also derive an analytical expression for the efficiency bound in the sudden-switch protocol, which can be regarded as the nonadiabatic counterpart of the generalized Carnot efficiency. Together, these results provide analytical bounds for the efficiency of relativistic quantum heat engines and constitute the first systematic study of the interplay between relativistic motion and frictional effects arising from nonadiabatic driving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of quantum Otto cycle employing time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Work output (Eq. (15)) as a function of compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Scatter plot of extracted work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Efficiency bounds for the relativistic quantum Otto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Histogram of the sampled values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probing Lorentz-invariance-violation with quantum coherence of Unruh-DeWitt detector

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Quantum coherence of an inertial Unruh-DeWitt detector becomes rapidity-dependent in Lorentz-violating fields and collapses abruptly at β_c ≈ 1.3675 for the polymer-quantized scalar field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Contemp. Phys. 57, 545 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    This sharply contrasts with quasi-static analysis in Sec

    (26) The result is striking: even in the ultra-relativistic limit v → 1, the engine efficiency cannot exceed 1/2. This sharply contrasts with quasi-static analysis in Sec. II, where the efficiency can asymptotically approach unity in 6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.250 500 1000 1500 2000 ηss Observations FIG. 5. Histogram of the sampled values of ηSS given i...

    2000

  3. [3]

    (31) This is our third main result. Notably, the derived bound is universal in the sense that it does not depend on the specific model parameters but only on the reservoir char- acteristics, namely v and ηC (or equivalently τ). In the ultra-relativistic regime limit v→ 1, the upper efficiency approaches ηSS up→ 1/2. This recovers our earlier result [Eq. (...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Millen and A

    J. Millen and A. Xuereb, New Journal of Physics 18, 011002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 220601 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    M. O. Scully, K. R. Chapin, K. E. Dorfman, M. B. Kim, and A. Svidzinsky, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 108, 15097 (2011), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1110234108

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1110234108 2011

  7. [7]

    L. A. Correa, J. P. Palao, G. Adesso, and D. Alonso, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Boukobza and D

    E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 240601 (2007)

    2007

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Kieu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140403 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    P. Chattopadhyay, A. Mitra, G. Paul, and V. Zarikas, Entropy 23, 439 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Esposito, R

    M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150603 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

    S. Deffner, Entropy 20, 875 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Chattopadhyay, The European Physical Journal Plus 135, 1 (2020)

    P. Chattopadhyay, The European Physical Journal Plus 135, 1 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Chattopadhyay, A

    P. Chattopadhyay, A. Misra, T. Pandit, and G. Paul, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 086001 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Campisi and R

    M. Campisi and R. Fazio, Nature communications 7, 11895 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    J. F. Santos and P. Chattopadhyay, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 632, 129342 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Singh, S

    V. Singh, S. Singh, O. Abah, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E 106, 024137 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Singh, T

    V. Singh, T. Pandit, and R. S. Johal, Physical Review E 101, 062121 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    K. Kaur, S. Rebari, and V. Singh, J. Non-Equilib. Ther- modyn. 50, 1 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Singh, Phys

    V. Singh, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043187 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    M. L. Bera, T. Pandit, K. Chatterjee, V. Singh, M. Lewenstein, U. Bhattacharya, and M. N. Bera, Phys- ical Review Research 6, 013318 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mohan, R

    B. Mohan, R. Gangwar, T. Pandit, M. L. Bera, M. Lewenstein, and M. N. Bera, Physical Review Ap- plied 23, 044050 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Singh, V

    V. Singh, V. Shaghaghi, O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, and D. Rosa, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032203 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mahler, Quantum thermodynamic processes: Energy and information flow at the nanoscale (Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2014)

    G. Mahler, Quantum thermodynamic processes: Energy and information flow at the nanoscale (Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, Quantum Thermodynamics (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Alicki and R

    R. Alicki and R. Kosloff, in Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime (Springer, 2018) pp. 1–33

    2018

  19. [27]

    M. O. Scully, M. S. Zubairy, G. S. Agarwal, and H. Walther, Science 299, 862 (2003). 8

    2003

  20. [28]

    Skrzypczyk, A

    P. Skrzypczyk, A. J. Short, and S. Popescu, Nat. Com- mun. 5, 4185 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    M. N. Bera, A. Riera, M. Lewenstein, and A. Winter, Nat. Commun. 8, 1 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    J. J. Park, K.-H. Kim, T. Sagawa, and S. W. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230402 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Perarnau-Llobet, K

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber, P. Skrzypczyk, N. Brunner, and A. Ac´ ın, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041011 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Altintas, A

    F. Altintas, A. U. C. Hardal, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E 90, 032102 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Roßnagel, O

    J. Roßnagel, O. Abah, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 030602 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Kosloff and Y

    R. Kosloff and Y. Rezek, Entropy 19, 136 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    B. K. Agarwalla, J.-H. Jiang, and D. Segal, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104304 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Klaers, S

    J. Klaers, S. Faelt, A. Imamoglu, and E. Togan, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031044 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    L. A. Correa, J. P. Palao, D. Alonso, and G. Adesso, Sci. Rep. 4, 3949 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    J. Wang, J. He, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. E 100, 052126 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Singh and O

    V. Singh and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E102, 062123 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Ghosh, C

    A. Ghosh, C. Latune, L. Davidovich, and G. Kurizki, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12156 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Niedenzu, V

    W. Niedenzu, V. Mukherjee, A. Ghosh, A. G. Kofman, and G. Kurizki, Nat. Commun. 9, 165 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Abah and E

    O. Abah and E. Lutz, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 106, 20001 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    D. E. Bruschi, B. Morris, and I. Fuentes, Physics Letters A 384, 126601 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Ferreri, V

    A. Ferreri, V. Macr` ı, F. K. Wilhelm, F. Nori, and D. E. Bruschi, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043274 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Papadatos and C

    N. Papadatos and C. Anastopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 102, 085005 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Ahmadi, D

    M. Ahmadi, D. E. Bruschi, and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. D 89, 065028 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  40. [48]

    B. S. DeWitt, in General Relativity: An Einstein Cen- tenary Survey , edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Is- rael (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,

  41. [49]

    Arias, T

    E. Arias, T. R. de Oliveira, and M. S. Sarandy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 168 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Gray and R

    F. Gray and R. B. Mann, J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 174 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Xu and M.-H

    H. Xu and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Lett. B801, 135201 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    G. R. Kane and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D 104, L041701 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Barman and B

    D. Barman and B. R. Majhi, J. High Energy Phys. 2022, 46 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Hirotani and K

    T. Hirotani and K. Gallock-Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. D 111, 125023 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    N. K. Kollas and D. Moustos, Physical Review D 109, 065025 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Gallock-Yoshimura, J

    K. Gallock-Yoshimura, J. High Energy Phys. 2024, 198 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Mukherjee, S

    A. Mukherjee, S. Gangopadhyay, and A. S. Majumdar, J. High Energy Phys. 2022, 105 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Moustos and O

    D. Moustos and O. Abah, Phys. Rev. D 111, 105030 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Misra, P

    A. Misra, P. Chattopadhyay, A. Svidzinsky, M. O. Scully, and G. Kurizki, npj Quantum Information 10, 34 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    E. E. Ferketic and S. Deffner, Europhysics Letters 141, 19001 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Gallock-Yoshimura, V

    V. Gallock-Yoshimura, V. Thakur, and R. B. Mann, Front. Phys. 11, 1287860 (2023), arXiv:2308.15528

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Surpassing carnot efficiency with relativistic motion,

    D. Moustos and O. Abah, “Surpassing carnot efficiency with relativistic motion,” (2025), arXiv:2508.11554 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Pandit, P

    T. Pandit, P. Chattopadhyay, K. Chatterjee, and V. Singh, (2025), arXiv:2508.14183 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    E. G. Brown, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, N. C. Menicucci, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084062 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    D. E. Bruschi, A. R. Lee, and I. Fuentes, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 165303 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    O. Abah, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt- Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 203006 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Abah and E

    O. Abah and E. Lutz, Europhys. Lett. 113, 60002 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Papadatos, Int

    N. Papadatos, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 60, 4210–4223 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Husimi, Prog

    K. Husimi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 9, 238 (1953)

    1953

  62. [70]

    Deffner and E

    S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. E 77, 021128 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    S. S. Costa and G. E. A. Matsas, Phys. Lett. A 209, 155 (1995)

    1995

  64. [72]

    P. T. Landsberg and G. E. A. Matsas, Phys. Lett. A 223, 401 (1996)

    1996

  65. [73]

    Rezek, Entropy 12, 1885 (2010)

    Y. Rezek, Entropy 12, 1885 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Plastina, A

    F. Plastina, A. Alecce, T. J. Apollaro, G. Falcone, G. Francica, F. Galve, N. L. Gullo, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260601 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Feldmann and R

    T. Feldmann and R. Kosloff, Phys. Rev. E 61, 4774 (2000)

    2000

  68. [76]

    Kosloff and T

    R. Kosloff and T. Feldmann, Phys. Rev. E 65, 055102 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    C ¸ akmak, F

    S. C ¸ akmak, F. Altintas, A. Gen¸ cten, and ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Eur. Phys. J. D71, 75 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    Kosloff, J

    R. Kosloff, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 1625 (1984)

    1984

  71. [79]

    Uzdin and R

    R. Uzdin and R. Kosloff, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 108, 40001 (2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    Singh and R

    V. Singh and R. S. Johal, Phys. Rev. E 100, 012138 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Rezek and R

    Y. Rezek and R. Kosloff, New J. Phys. 8, 83 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.