a

r
X
i
v
:
1
0
0
2
.
0
2
0
0
v
2


[
q
u
a
n
t
-
p
h
]


2
5

J
u
n

2
0
1
0
Energy Entanglement Relation
for Quantum Energy Teleportation
Masahiro Hotta
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tohoku University,
Sendai 980-8578, Japan
hotta@tuhep.phys.tohoku.ac.jp
Abstract
Protocols of quantum energy teleportation (QET), while retaining
causality and local energy conservation, enable the transportation of
energy from a subsystem of a many-body quantum system to a distant
subsystem by local operations and classical communication through
ground-state entanglement. We prove two energy-entanglement in-
equalities for a minimal QET model. These relations help us to gain a
profound understanding of entanglement itself as a physical resource
by relating entanglement to energy as an evident physical resource.
1 Introduction
The relationship between energy and information has been investigated
extensively in the context of computation energy cost including a modern
analysis of Maxwells demon [1]-[2]. In this Letter, we show a new energy-
information relation from a dierent point of view. Recently, it has been
reported that energy can be transported by local operations and classical
communication while retaining local energy conservation and without break-
ing causality [3]-[5]. Such protocols are called quantum energy teleportation
(QET) and are based on ground-state entanglement of many-body quantum
systems including spin chains [3], cold trapped ions [4] and quantum elds [5].
By performing a local measurement on a subsystem A of a many-body sys-
tem in the ground state, information about the quantum uctuation of A can
be extracted. Because the post-measurement state is not the ground state in
general, some amount of energy is infused into A as QET energy input during
this measurement, and the ground-state entanglement gets partially broken.
Next, the measurement result is announced to another subsystem B of the
many-body system at a speed much faster than the diusion velocity of the
energy infused by the measurement. Soon after the information arrives at B,
energy can be extracted from B as QET energy output by performing a local
operation on B dependent on the announced measurement data. The root
of the protocols is a correlation between the measurement information of A
and the quantum uctuation of B via the ground-state entanglement. Due to
the correlation, we are able to estimate the quantum uctuation of B based
on the announced information from A and devise a strategy to control the
uctuation of B. By the above-mentioned selected local operation on B, the
uctuation of B can be more suppressed than that of the ground state, yield-
ing negative energy density around B in the many-body system. The concept
of negative energy density has been investigated in quantum eld theory for a
long time [6]. Quantum interference among total energy eigenstates can pro-
duce various states containing regions of negative energy density, although
the total energy remains nonnegative. The regions of negative energy density
can appear in general many-body quantum systems by xing the origin of
the energy density such that the expectational value vanishes for the ground
state. In spite of the emergence of negative energy density, the total energy
also remains nonnegative for the general cases. In the QET protocols, dur-
1
ing the generation of negative energy density at B, surplus positive energy
is transferred from B to external systems and can be harnessed as the QET
output energy. Here it should be emphasized that this output energy existed
not at A but at B even before the start of the protocol and was hidden in-
side the zero-point uctuation of B. Of course, this zero-point energy is not
available by usual local operations for B. However, by using a local operation
dependent on As information, it becomes possible to dig out Bs zero-point
energy by pair creation of the positive output energy from B and the negative
energy of B. Hence, we do not need to hire any physical carrier of energy from
A to B like electric currents and photons, at least, during short-time QET
processes. Needless to say, after the completion of QET process, the positive
energy of A compensates for the negative energy of B during late-time free
evolution of the many-body system. The amount of output energy from B is
upper bounded by the amount of input energy to A.
Using the usual protocols of quantum teleportation, quantum states can
be transported from one party to another by the consumption of shared
entanglement between the two parties [7]. As is well known [8], transfer
of a large number of quantum states requires a large amount of consump-
tion of shared entanglement as a physical resource. Taking into account the
fact, it seems natural for the QET protocols to expect that a large amount
of teleported energy also requests a large amount of consumption of the
ground-state entanglement between A and B. If such a non-trivial relation
exists between teleported energy and breaking of ground-state entanglement
by measurement, the relation may shed new light on the interplay between
quantum physics and quantum information theory. In this Letter, the rst
example of the energy-entanglement relation for a minimal QET model is pre-
sented. The minimal QET model is the smallest physical system for which
non-trivial QET can be implemented; this model consists of two qubits with
an interaction of the Ising spin chain in the presence of a transverse mag-
netic eld. We explicitly show that for the minimal model, the consumption
of entanglement between A and B during the measurement of A is lower
bounded by a positive value that is proportional to the maximum amount
of energy teleported from A to B. In addition, we obtain another inequality
in which the maximum amount of energy teleported from A to B is lower
bounded by a dierent positive value that is proportional to the amount of
entanglement breaking between A and B by the measurement of A. These
energy-entanglement inequalities are of importance because they help in gain-
ing a profound understanding of entanglement itself as a physical resource
2
by relating entanglement to energy as an evident physical resource.
2 Minimal QET Model
First of all, we introduce the minimal QET model. The system consists of
two qubits A and B. Its Hamiltonian is the same as that of the Ising spin chain
in the presence of a transverse magnetic eld as follows: H = H
A
+H
B
+V ,
where each contribution is given by
H
A
= h
z
A
+
h
2

h
2
+ k
2
, (1)
H
B
= h
z
B
+
h
2

h
2
+ k
2
, (2)
V = 2k
x
A

x
B
+
2k
2

h
2
+ k
2
, (3)
and h and k are positive constants with energy dimensions,
x
A
(
x
B
) is the
x-component of the Pauli operators for the qubit A (B), and
z
A
(
z
B
) is the
z-component for the qubit A (B). The constant terms in Eqs. (1)-(3) are
added in order to make the expectational value of each operator zero for the
ground state |g:
g|H
A
|g = g|H
B
|g = g|V |g = 0.
Because the lowest eigenvalue of the total Hamiltonian H is zero, H is a
nonnegative operator: H 0. Meanwhile, it should be noticed that H
B
has
a negative eigenvalue, which can yield negative energy density. The ground
state is given by
|g =
1

1
h

h
2
+ k
2
|+
A
|+
B

1

1 +
h

h
2
+ k
2
|
A
|
B
,
where |
A
(|
B
) is the eigenstate of
z
A
(
z
B
) with eigenvalue 1.
When local operations are performed to this system, we connect the sys-
tem with a local appratus and (or) add local external forces like magnetic
eld. However, time interval of the operations is assumed to be quite short,
3
as often argued in quantum information theory. Thus interaction terms be-
tween the system and the external apparatus vanish in the Hamiltonian after
the short-time operation.
Let S
M
A
denote a set of POVM measurements [8] for A which measure-
ment operators M
A
() with measurement output commute with the in-
teraction Hamiltonian V . The measurement operator M
A
() takes the form
of
M
A
() = e
i
_
m

+ e
i
l

x
A
_
.
The coecients m

, l

and

are real constants which satisfy

_
m
2

+ l
2

_
= 1,

cos

= 0.
The POVM corresponding to M
A
() is dened by

A
() = M
A
()

M
A
(),
which satises the completeness relation,

A
() = 1
A
.
By introducing the emergence probability p
A
() of output for the ground
state and a real parameter q
A
(), the POVM is written as follows:

A
() = p
A
() + q
A
()
x
A
.
By taking suitable values of m

, l

, and

, all values of p
A
() and q
A
()
are permissible as long as they satisfy

p
A
() = 1,

q
A
() = 0 and
p
A
() |q
A
()|. The post-measurement state of the two qubits with output
is given by
|A() =
1
_
p
A
()
M
A
()|g.
This measurement excites the system and the average post-measurement
state has a positive expectational value E
A
of H, which energy distribution
is localized at A. In fact, the value dened by
E
A
=

g|M
A
()

HM
A
()|g
4
is computed as
E
A
=

g|M
A
()

H
A
M
A
()|g =
2h
2

h
2
+ k
2

l
2

. (4)
This infused energy E
A
is regarded as the QET energy input via the measure-
ment of A. During the measurement, E
A
is transfered from external systems
including the measurement device with a battery respecting local energy con-
servation. The QET energy conservation law during local measurements to
a qubit of a spin chain has been discussed in [3].
The key feature of this model is that any measurement of S
M
A
does not
increase the average energy of B at all. By explicit calculations, the average
values of the Hamiltonian contributions H
B
and V are found to remain zero
after the measurement and are the same as those of the ground state. This
measurement does not yield instantaneous change of V . Therefore we have
no direct force of A aecting B after the measurement. Thus, we cannot
extract energy from B by the standard way soon after the measurement.
In fact, if any local unitary operation W
B
independent of As measurement
result is performed to B, the post-operation state is given by
= W
B
_

M
A
()|gg|M
A
()

_
W

B
.
The energy dierence after the operation is calculated as
Tr [H] E
A
= g|W

B
(H
B
+ V ) W
B
|g, (5)
where we have used
W

B
H
A
W
B
= H
A
W

B
W
B
= H
A
,
_
W

B
(H
B
+ V ) W
B
, M
A
()
_
= 0,
and the completeness relation of the POVMs:

M
A
()

M
A
() = 1
A
.
From Eq. (5), it is proven that the energy dierence is nonnegative:
Tr [H] E
A
= g|W

B
HW
B
|g 0,
5
because of a relation such that g|W

B
H
A
W
B
|g = g|H
A
|g = 0 and the
nonnegativity of H. Therefore, as a natural result, no local operation to B
independent of extracts energy from the system.
After a while, the infused energy E
A
diuses to B. The time evolution of
the expectational values H
B
and V of the average post-measurement state is
calculated as
H
B
(t) =

p
A
()A()|e
itH
H
B
e
itH
|A() =
h
2

l
2

h
2
+ k
2
[1 cos (4kt)] ,
and V (t) = 0. Therefore, energy can be extracted from B after a diusion
time scale of 1/k; this is just a usual energy transportation from A to B.
Amazingly, the QET protocol can transport energy from A to B in a time
scale much shorter than that of the usual transportation. In the protocol,
the measurement output is announced to B. Because the model is non-
relativistic, the propagation speed of the announced output can be much
faster than the diusion speed of the infused energy and can be approximated
as innity. Soon after the arrival of the output , we perform a local operation
U
B
() on B dependent on . Then, the average state after the operation is
given by
=

U
B
()M
A
()|gg|M
A
()

U
B
()

.
In Figure 1, a schematic diagram of this QET model is presented. The
expectational value of the total energy after the operation is given by
Tr [H] =

g|M
A
()

U
B
()

HU
B
()M
A
()|g.
On the basis of the fact that U
B
() commutes with H
A
and Eq. (4), E
B
is
computed as
E
B
= E
A
Tr [H] = Tr [ (H
B
+ V )] .
Further, on the basis of the fact that M
A
() commutes with U
B
(), H
B
and
V , the energy can be written as
E
B
=

g|
A
() (H
B
() + V ()) |g,
6
where the -dependent operators are given by H
B
() = U
B
()

H
B
U
B
()
and V () = U
B
()

V U
B
(). Here, let us write the general form of U
B
() as
follows:
U
B
() = cos

+ in

B
sin

,
where

is a real parameter, n

= (n
x
, n
y
, n
z
) is a three-dimensional unit
real vector and
B
is the Pauli spin vector operator of B. Then, an explicit
evaluation of E
B
becomes possible. The result is expressed as
E
B
=
1

h
2
+ k
2

Q(),
where Q() is given by
Q() = X() cos (2

) hkq
A
()n
y
sin(2

) X(), (6)
where X() is dened by
X() = p
A
()
_
h
2
_
1 n
2
z
_
+ 2k
2
_
1 n
2
x
_
3hkq
A
()n
x
n
z
.
In order to maximize the teleported energy E
B
for a given POVM measure-
ment of A, let us rst maximize Q() in Eq. (6) by changing the parameter

. This maximum value is calculated as

max

Q() =
_
X()
2
+ [hkq
A
()n
y
]
2
X(). (7)
Next, let us introduce a parametrization of n
x
and n
z
as n
x
=

z cos

and n
z
=

z sin

for xed z = 1n
2
y
which runs over [0, 1], where

is a
real parameter. It is observed that max

Q() in Eq. (7) is a monotonically

decreasing function of X(). Thus, we must nd the minimum value of X()
in terms of

. By using the parametrization, we can minimize X() as

min

X() =
_
1
z
2
_
p
A
()
_
h
2
+ 2k
2
_

z
2
_
(h
2
2k
2
)
2
p
A
()
2
+ 9h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
.
Therefore, the maximum value of max

Q() in terms of

is obtained as
follows:
max
,()
Q() =

_
min
()
X()
_
2
+ h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
(1 z) min
()
X().
7
Next, in order to maximize max
,
Q() in terms of z, let us write it as a
function T(z) of z:
T(z) = max
,
Q() =
_
(a bz)
2
+ c (1 z) (a bz) ,
where a, b and c are positive constants given by
a = p
A
()
_
h
2
+ 2k
2
_
,
b =
p
A
()
2
_
h
2
+ 2k
2
_
+
1
2
_
(h
2
2k
2
)
2
p
A
()
2
+ 9h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
,
c = h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
.
The derivative of T(z) can be calculated as

z
T(z) =
t(z)
2
_
(a bz)
2
+ c (1 z)
,
where t(z) is a function given by
t(z) = c + 2b
_
_
(a bz)
2
+ c (1 z) (a bz)
_
.
It can be veried that t(z) and
z
T(z) are nonpositive for z [0, 1]. This
verication can be done as follows. Let us rst consider an equation t( z) = 0.
It turns out that, in the transformation of this equation for solving z, the
dependence of z gets lost and we get just a constraint condition on p
A
() and
q
A
() such that q
A
()
2
(p
A
()
2
q
A
()
2
) = 0. Thus, if p
A
()
2
= q
A
()
2
or
q
A
()
2
= 0, the equation t(z) = 0 holds for all z [0, 1]. If p
A
()
2
= q
A
()
2
and q
A
()
2
= 0, the solution z does not exist and t(z) has a denite sign
for z [0, 1]. In order to check the sign, let us substitute z = 1 into t(z).
Then, when a b, we get t (1) = h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
< 0, and when a b, t (1) =
8h
2
k
2
(p
A
()
2
q
A
()
2
) < 0. Thus, it is veried that t(z) and
z
T(z) are
nonpositive. Therefore, T(z) takes the maximum value at z = 0. This implies
that Q() can be maximized as max
U
B
()
Q() := max
,,z
Q() = T(0).
This leads to our nal expression of the maximum teleported energy for the
measurement, which is clearly nonnegative, as follows:
max
U
B
()
E
B
=
h
2
+ 2k
2

h
2
+ k
2

p
A
()
_
1 +
h
2
k
2
(h
2
+ 2k
2
)
2
q
A
()
2
p
A
()
2
1
_
. (8)
8
The operation U
max
() which attains the maximum of teleported energy is
given by
U
max
() = cos

+ i
y
B
sin

,
where

is a real constant which satises

cos (2

) =
(h
2
+ 2k
2
) p
A
()
_
(h
2
+ 2k
2
)
2
p
A
()
2
+ h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
,
sin (2

) =
hkq
A
()
_
(h
2
+ 2k
2
)
2
p
A
()
2
+ h
2
k
2
q
A
()
2
.
Besides, the teleported energy can be maximized among POVM measure-
ments of S
M
A
. This is achieved when each POVMs are proportional to pro-
jective operators and given by
max
S
M
A
,U
B
()
E
B
=
h
2
+ 2k
2

h
2
+ k
2
_
1 +
h
2
k
2
(h
2
+ 2k
2
)
2
1
_
.
3 Relation between Entanglement Breaking
and Teleported Energy
Next, we analyze entanglement breaking by the POVM measurement of A
and show two inequalities between the maximum teleported energy and the
entanglement breaking. We adopt entropy of entanglement as a quantitative
measure of entanglement. The entropy of a pure state |
AB
of A and B is
dened as
S
AB
= Tr
B
_
Tr
A
[|
AB

AB
|] ln Tr
A
[|
AB

AB
|]
_
.
Before the measurement, the total system is prepared to be in the ground
state |g. The reduced state of B is given by

B
= Tr
A
[|gg|] .
9
After the POVM measurement outputting , the state is transferred into a
pure state |A(). The reduced post-measurement state of B is calculated as

B
() =
1
p
A
()
Tr
A
[
A
()|gg|] .
The entropy of entanglement of the ground state is given by
S
AB
(g) = Tr
B
[
B
ln
B
]
and that of the post-measurement state with output is given by
S
AB
() = Tr
B
[
B
() ln
B
()] .
By using these results, we dene the consumption of ground-state entangle-
ment by the measurement as the dierence between the ground-state entan-
glement and the averaged post-measurement-state entanglement:
S
AB
= S
AB
(g)

p
A
()S
AB
().
Interestingly, this quantity is tied to the quantum mutual information be-
tween the measurement result of A and the post-measurement state of B.
Let us introduce a Hilbert space for a measurement pointer system

A of the
POVM measurement, which is spanned by orthonormal states |
A
corre-
sponding to the output satisfying
A
|

A
=

. Then, the average state

of

A and B after the measurement is given by

AB
=

p
A
()|
A

A
|
B
().
By using the reduced operators
A
= Tr
B
[
AB
] and
B
= Tr
A
[
AB
], the
mutual information I
AB
is dened as
I
AB
= Tr

A
[
A
ln
A
] Tr
B
[
B
ln
B
] + Tr

AB
[
AB
ln
AB
] .
By using Tr
B
[
AB
] =

p
A
()|
A

A
| and Tr
A
[
AB
] =

p
A
()
B
() =

B
, it can be straightforwardly proven that I
AB
is equal to S
AB
. This
relation provides another physical interpretation of S
AB
.
Next, let us calculate S
AB
explicitly. All the eigenvalues of
B
() are
given by
10

() =
1
2
_
1

cos
2
+ sin
2

q
A
()
2
p
A
()
2
_
, (9)
where is a real constant which satises
cos =
h

h
2
+ k
2
, sin =
k

h
2
+ k
2
.
The eigenvalues of
B
are obtained by substituting q
A
() = 0 into Eq. (9).
By using
s
(), S
AB
can be evaluated as
S
AB
=

p
A
()f
I
_
q
A
()
2
p
A
()
2
_
, (10)
where f
I
(x) is a monotonically increasing function of x [0, 1] and is dened
by
f
I
(x) =
1
2
_
1 +
_
cos
2
+ xsin
2

_
ln
_
1
2
_
1 +
_
cos
2
+ xsin
2

_
_
+
1
2
_
1
_
cos
2
+ xsin
2

_
ln
_
1
2
_
1
_
cos
2
+ xsin
2

_
_

1
2
(1 + cos ) ln
_
1
2
(1 + cos )
_

1
2
(1 cos ) ln
_
1
2
(1 cos )
_
.
It is worth noting that the optimal teleported energy max
U
B
()
E
B
in Eq. (8)
takes a form similar to Eq. (10) as
max
U
B
()
E
B
=

p
A
()f
E
_
q
A
()
2
p
A
()
2
_
, (11)
where f
E
(x) is a monotonically increasing function of x [0, 1] and is dened
by
f
E
(x) =

h
2
+ k
2
_
1 + sin
2

_
_
1 +
cos
2
sin
2

_
1 + sin
2

_
2
x 1
_
.
Expanding both f
I
(x) and f
E
(x) around x = 0 yields
11
f
I
(x) =
sin
2

4 cos
ln
1 + cos
1 cos
x + O(x
2
),
f
E
(x) =

h
2
+ k
2
cos
2
sin
2

2
_
1 + sin
2

_x + O(x
2
).
By deleting x in the above two equations, we obtain the following relation
for weak measurements with innitesimally small q
A
():
S
AB
=
1 + sin
2

2 cos
3

ln
1 + cos
1 cos
max
U
B
()
E
B

h
2
+ k
2
+ O(q
A
()
4
).
It is of great signicance that this relation can be extended as the following
inequality for general measurements of S
M
A
:
S
AB

1 + sin
2

2 cos
3

ln
1 + cos
1 cos
max
U
B
()
E
B

h
2
+ k
2
. (12)
This inequality is one of the main results of this Letter and implies that a large
amount of teleported energy really requests a large amount of consumption
of the ground-state entanglement between A and B. The proof of Eq. (12)
is as follows. Let us introduce two rescaled functions as follows.

f
I
(x) = 4
cos
sin
2

_
ln
1 + cos
1 cos
_
1
f
I
(x),

f
E
(x) =
1

h
2
+ k
2
2
_
1 + sin
2

_
cos
2
sin
2

f
E
(x).
It can be easily shown that

f
E
(x) is a convex function:

2
x

f
E
(x) < 0.
From this convexity and

f
E
(x) = x + O(x
2
), the function

f
E
(x) satises

f
E
(x) x (13)
for 0 x 1. On the other hand, it is observed that

f
I
(x) is a concave
function, as shown below. The derivative of

f
I
(x) is computed as

x

f
I
(x) =
2 cos
ln
1+cos
1cos
g
I
(y(x)),
12
where y(x) =
_
cos
2
+ xsin
2
and g
I
(y) is a positive function of y dened
as
g
I
(y) =
1
y
ln
1 + y
1 y
.
It should be noted that y(x) is a monotonically increasing function of x. The
derivative of g
I
(y) is calculated as

y
g
I
(y) =
s
I
(y)
y
2
,
where s
I
(y) is a function of y given by
s
I
(y) =
2y
1 y
2
ln
_
1 + y
1 y
_
,
and satises a boundary condition as s
I
(0) = 0. It is also easy to show that
the derivative of s
I
(y) is positive for y > 0:

y
s
I
(y) =
4y
2
(1 y
2
)
2
> 0.
Thus, s
I
(y) and
y
g
I
(y) are positive for y [cos , 1]. From these results, it
has been proven that

f
I
(x) is concave for x [0, 1]:
2
x

f
I
(x) > 0. From this
concavity and

f
I
(x) = x +O(x
2
), it is shown that

f
I
(x) satises the relation

f
I
(x) x. (14)
Because of Eqs. (13) and (14), we obtain the following inequality:

f
I
(x) x

f
E
(x).
This implies that the energy-entanglement inequality in Eq. (12) holds. In
addition, we can prove another inequality between energy and entanglement
breaking. Because the convex function

f
E
(x) and the concave function

f
I
(x)
are monotonically increasing functions of x [0, 1] which satisfy

f
E
(0) =

f
I
(0) = 0, we have the following relation:

f
E
(x)

f
E
(1)

f
I
(1)

f
I
(x).
13
Consequently, the following inequality, which is another main result of this
Letter, is obtained for all measurements of S
M
A
:
max
U
B
()
E
B

2

h
2
+ k
2
_
4 3 cos
2
2 + cos
2

(1 + cos ) ln
_
2
1+cos
_
+ (1 cos ) ln
_
2
1cos
_S
AB
. (15)
This ensures that if we have consumption of ground-state entanglement
S
AB
for a measurement of S
M
A
, we can in principle teleport energy from A
to B, where the energy amount is greater than the value of the right-hand-
side term of Eq. (15). This bound is achieved for non-zero energy transfer by
measurements with q
A
() = p
A
(). The inequalities in Eq. (12) and Eq.
(15) help us to gain a deeper understanding of entanglement as a physical
resource because they show that the entanglement decrease by the measure-
ment of A is directly related to the increase of the available energy at B as
an evident physical resource.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Yasusada Nambu for a comment. This research has
been partially supported by the Global COE Program of MEXT, Japan, and
the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan, under Grant
No. 21244007.
References
[1] R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183 (1961); R. Landauer, Science 272,
1914 (1996); C. H. Bennett, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 905 (1982); T. Sagawa
and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 250602 (2009).
[2] H. S. Le and A. F. Rex, (eds.), Maxwells demon 2: Entropy, Classical
and Quantum Information, Computing (Princeton University Press, New
Jersey, 2003).
[3] M. Hotta, Phys. Lett. A372, 5671 (2008); M. Hotta, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.
78, 034001 (2009).
[4] M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. A80, 042323 (2009).
[5] M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. D78, 045006 (2008); M. Hotta, J. Phys. A: Math.
Theor. 43, 105305 (2010); M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. D81, 044025 (2010).
14
[6] N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982).
[7] C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K.
Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
[8] M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2000).
15
Figure Caption
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the minimal QET model. A POVM mea-
surement is performed on A with infusion of energy E
A
. The measurement
result is announced to B through a classical channel. After the arrival of
, a unitary operation dependent on is performed on B with extraction of
energy E
B
.
16
A B

A
E
B
E
F ig u r e 1