Arxiv:2002.06338V3 [Cond-Mat.Stat-Mech] 24 Feb 2021 Equilibrium

Contact geometry and quantum thermodynamics of nanoscale steady states

Aritra Ghosh∗, Malay Bandyopadhyay† and Chandrasekhar Bhamidipati‡ School of Basic Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Jatni, Khurda, Odisha, 752050, India (Dated: February 25, 2021) We develop a geometric formalism suited for describing the quantum thermodynamics of steady state nanoscale systems arbitrarily far from equilibrium. It is shown that the non-equilibrium steady states are points on control parameter spaces which are in a sense generated by the steady state Massieu-Planck function. By suitably altering the system’s boundary conditions, it is possible to take the system from one steady state to another. We provide a contact Hamiltonian description of such transformations and show that moving along the geodesics of the friction tensor results in minimum increase of the free entropy along the transformation. The control parameter space is shown to be equipped with a natural Riemannian metric that is compatible with the contact structure of the quantum thermodynamic phase space which when expressed in a local coordinate chart, coincides with the Schl¨oglmetric. Finally, we show that this metric is conformally related to other thermodynamic Hessian metrics which might be written on control parameter spaces. This provides various alternate ways of computing the Schl¨oglmetric which is known to be equivalent to the Fisher information matrix.

PACS numbers: 72.10.Bg, 02.40.-k, 02.40.Ky

I. INTRODUCTION system. This active and vibrant research area is primar- ily centered around transport phenomena [6, 7], chemi- Boltzmann and Gibbs formulated the prescription of cal transformations [8] and autonomous machines [9, 10] equilibrium statistical mechanics by providing the appro- (both classical and quantum perspective). priate density matrix (or density operator) of a system Quite remarkably, it has been found in the recent years kept at temperature T which is given by the canonical that thermodynamic properties are consistent with the distribution, quantum properties of nanoscale systems which are far from the thermodynamic limit and may even contain a e−βH single particle. The advancement in technologies and ex- ρ = (1) Z perimental techniques have enabled us to measure the thermodynamic properties of microscopic systems [11– −1 where β = T (the Boltzmann constant kB is set to 14]. For example Collin et al. [15] measured the work unity throughout the paper) and Z is the normalizing performed on a single RNA hairpin using optical tweezers partition function [1]. For systems in (weak) contact with and also found the equilibrium free energy change using both a thermostat and a particle reservoir, the grand the work fluctuation relations from such out of equilib- canonical distribution describes the statistical state of rium measurements. Moreover, the Jarzynski equality the system. Hence, this canonical or grand canonical [16–19] relating different thermodynamic quantities for prescription is the foundation stone of equilibrium statis- systems driven far from equilibrium and fluctuation the- tical physics and these phase space distributions govern orems related to entropy production probability during the laws of classical equilibrium thermodynamics. Thus, a finite period of time [20–23] have been verified theo- equilibrium statistical mechanics is all about finding the retically as well as experimentally. Interestingly, some of correct density matrix or the phase space distribution of these ideas of non-equilibrium physics find applications the system enabling us to compute various equilibrium in machine learning [24] as well as learning and inference properties. On the other hand, we can utilize the lin- problems [25, 26]. A more profound problem in mod- ear response theory [2, 3] and Onsager reciprocity rela- ern non-equilibrium thermodynamics is the optimization tionships [4, 5] to study systems close to thermodynamic of thermodynamic efficiency of a molecular-scale machine

arXiv:2002.06338v3 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 24 Feb 2021 equilibrium. But, the majority of biological, technologi- which performs useful work without excessive dissipation, cal and even cosmological systems fall into the category using thermodynamic length [27–31]. Further extensions of systems far from equilibrium where there is no gen- of the concept of thermodynamic length for microscopic eral formalism to obtain correct density matrix of the systems involving the Fisher information matrix can be found in refs [32, 33]. Recently, Sivak and Crooks formulated a linear response framework for optimal protocols that minimize dissipation during non-equilibrium pertur- ∗E-mail: [email protected] bations of microscopic systems [34]. †E-mail: [email protected] ‡E-mail: [email protected] A particularly interesting aspect of non-equilibrium 2 thermodynamics ensues while considering systems arbitrarily far from equilibrium (not necessarily in the linear response regime) but working under steady state conditions. Such thermodynamic states are known as non- equilibrium steady states (NESS) [35, 36] and primar- ily differ from thermodynamic equilibrium states in respect to the fact that there is a non-zero entropy pro- FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of a two-terminal model set up. duction since they are not equilibrium states. However, the steady nature of the problem implies that entropy is being accumulated at a constant rate. There has been a notably large body of work in the field of NESS recently in nanoscale systems. We then provide a minimal digres- [35, 37–42]. The primary aim of this paper is to develop sion on contact geometry which shall make the paper self a geometric formulation of non-equilibrium steady states contained. Section-3 is devoted to our results on the ge- in quantum thermodynamics in parallel to the develop- ometry of NESS. Finally, we shall end with discussions ments in equilibrium thermodynamics of systems in the on our results in section-4. thermodynamic limit. Motivation and plan: Since several decades, contact geometry has been considered to be a suitable framework II. BASICS OF NESS & CONTACT GEOMETRY for the geometric formulation for dissipative mechanical systems and also for thermodynamics [43–46] with varied motivations [47–49]. However, most of the de- We shall start by briefly describing the notion of steady velopments are confined to the field of equilibrium ther- state thermodynamics of nanoscale systems with a simple modynamics with thermodynamic transformations corre- example and also set up our notation. This is done in sponding to contact Hamiltonian flows on the Legendre the subsection below. In the subsequent subsection, we submanifolds [43, 44, 48, 49]. Although there are for- describe the basics of contact geometry and Hamiltonian malisms such as the general equation for non-equilibrium dynamics on contact manifolds. reversible-irreversible coupling (GENERIC) for dealing with dynamical non-equilibrium situations [50–52], these need to be developed further for applications. The GENERIC, which describes a general class of dynamics A. Quantum thermodynamics of nanoscale steady states obtained by pasting a symmetric dissipative part to an anti-symmetric Poisson part has been studied from the point of view of contact geometry. It should be pointed Consider a nanoscale system such as a quantum dot in out that the GENERIC admits a natural geometric de- contact with the environment. This contact with exter- scription as a second class metriplectic system [53, 54]. nal baths essentially makes the evolution of the system However, such directions of work are different from the dissipative or non-unitary. We shall assume that this point of view adapted in the present paper where the for- system-bath interaction is sufficiently weak so that the malism for quantum steady states such as steady state dynamical description is Markovian and the density ma- particle transport through a quantum dot is developed in trix satisfies a Lindblad form of master equation. The parallel to that known for equilibrium thermodynamics. external baths impose upon the system certain bound- It will be shown that the non-equilibrium thermodynamic ary conditions such as temperatures, chemical and elec- phase space has an underlying contact structure associ- tric potentials leading to the notion of what are known ated with it and contact Hamiltonian dynamics can be as the control parameters. It is often convenient to de- used to describe transformations between different steady fine control parameters {λi} as some combinations of the states. We also develop a Hamilton-Jacobi theory where external conditions. These control parameters are essen- the steady state extension of the Massieu-Planck func- tially the variables one is able to manipulate externally, tion takes the role of the principal function. Finally, it is say in an experiment. For example, consider the typical shown that the thermodynamic metric (equivalent to the scenario of a two terminal system as shown in figure-(1) Fisher information matrix) on control parameter spaces which consists of a central quantum dot in contact with as presented in [30] smoothly comes out from our for- two baths (L and R) respectively at (inverse) temper- malism and that other thermodynamic Hessian metrics atures βL and βR. Further, the chemical potentials of on control parameter spaces are conformally equivalent the baths are µL and µR respectively. Had it been that to it. This firmly establishes the general nature of the βL = βR and µL = µR, the system’s steady state distri- Fisher information matrix and also provides other equiv- bution is the grand canonical distribution. However, in alent ways in which it might be computed. the general case with βL 6= βR and µL 6= µR there would With this background, the rest of the paper is orga- be both energy and particle transport taking place across nized as follows. In the next section, we discuss some ba- the central quantum dot. In a steady state, a consistent sic aspects of quantum thermodynamics of steady states choice of control variables would be to first take the av- 3 erage temperature and chemical potential, i.e. define strengths between reservoir L or R with the system. A key ingredient in our analysis will be the existence of a β + β β µ + β µ β¯ = L R , βµ¯ = L L R R . (2) steady state Massieu-Planck function (or Massieu poten- 2 βL + βR tial) ψness whose significance can be expressed as (see for example the recent work [58]), The set (β,¯ βµ¯ ) therefore defines the average of the ex- ¯ ¯ E N ternal conditions whose thermodynamic conjugates turn dψness = Edβ + Ndβµ + JEdA + JN dA (6) out to be the average energy and average particle number of the system in the steady state. In addition, there where we have set ~ = 1 and have absorbed all constant would be currents following across the system driven by factors into the expressions for JE and JN . The Massieu the gradients of temperature and chemical potential. For potential is time independent and stays constant in any that, let us conveniently define the affinities (in a sense, steady state. Still, it is capable of characterizing the generalized gradients) as, steady state thermodynamic characteristics and the entropy production rate [58]. In case of n arbitrary control E N A = βL − βR,A = βLµL − βRµR. (3) parameters one has,

i The entire set of independent control variables is given by dψness − Xidλ = 0. (7) the vector Λ whose components are denoted as λi with λ1 = β,¯ λ2 = βµ,¯ λ3 = AE, λ4 = AN . Clearly, the Massieu potential is a function of the control i Clearly, there is a non-zero energy and particle trans- parameters, i.e. ψness = ψness(λ ). In these scenarios, it port through the system respectively due to AE 6= 0 and is often possible to define a reduced density matrix ρ de- AN 6= 0. However, if the control parameters are held scribing the steady state characteristics of the system in fixed, the system approaches a non-equilibrium steady the McLennan-Zubarev form [59–62]. Then the Massieu state with a fixed average energy and average number potential may directly be found out as, dψness = ln Zness of particles. Such steady states are characterized by a where Zness is the associated NESS partition function. steady (time independent) yet positive definite rate of It should be specially emphasized that since such a re- entropy production, Σ > 0. The system approaches a duced density matrix is time independent because it de- local equilibrium state (LES) if all the external gradients scribes only the steady state characteristics, the Massieu potential naturally turns out to be time independent in vanish (AE = AN = 0) meaning that an arbitrarily small volume of the system is effectively homogenous i.e. with- contrast with the entropy which is being constantly accu- out an effective spatial structure. Generically, the control mulated with a steady rate. Remarkably, the exact func- parameters are associated with conjugate response functional form of ψness shall not be relevant for our analysis in this paper as long as it is twice differentiable in {λi} tions {Xi} which variables which may depend on the system size and include the currents and fluxes driven by the and satisfies eqn (7) for steady states. This ensures that external conditions. Even though in the non-equilibrium our results are quite robust. Furthermore, eqn (7) allows regime there are complicated fluctuations associated with one to write the response variables as, the response functions which may be of thermal or quan- ∂ψness tum origin or both, in a stationary or steady state, the Xi = . (8) ∂λi averages values {hXii} can be taken to describe the system. For the sake of notational simplicity, we shall de- In this sense, eqn (7) is the first law for the steady state note with Xi (dropping brackets h.i) the steady state quantum thermodynamics of nanoscale systems and is response function conjugate to λi. For the present ex- quite general because it does not require thermodynamic ample, the response functions are: X1 = E (average en- equilibrium. We remark, after having made this identifi- ergy), X2 = N (average number of particles), X3 = JE cation that the second law of NESS thermodynamics is (steady state heat current) and X4 = JN (steady state simply the statement Σ > 0 [42]. particle current). Note that the currents may in general Finally, let us note that the control parameters {λi} be nonlinear. For the central system (a quantum dot) being smoothly varying can without any loss of generality shown in figure-(1), within the wide-band approximation be thought of as local coordinates in some open subset the currents are given by the Landauer-Büttiker formula of

B. Elements of contact geometry 1. Contact Hamiltonian dynamics

Contact geometry [63, 64] is the odd dimensional coun- Analogous to the Hamiltonian dynamics formulated on terpart of symplectic geometry [65] which forms the nat- symplectic manifolds, one can also formulate Hamilto- ural geometric setting for classical Hamiltonian mechan- nian dynamics on a contact manifold (M, η) as follows. ics. Hamiltonian dynamics can be formulated on con- For an arbitrary differentiable function h : M → <, one tact manifolds and this dynamics naturally incorporates associates a vector field Xh, also called the contact vec- a dissipative character [66, 67]. Contact geometry has tor field defined obtained from h through the following further been applied quite extensively to reversible and conditions, irreversible thermodynamics (see for example [45, 50–

52, 68, 69] for some notable works) as well as to statisti- η(Xh) = −h, iXh dη = dh − ξ(h)η. (14) cal mechanics [70]. We shall for the sake of completeness briefly recap some elements of contact geometry in this In a local Darboux chart, the contact vector field Xh section. The central concept is that of a contact man- takes the form, ifold which is the pair (M, η) where M is a (2n + 1)- ∂h ∂ ∂h ∂h ∂ ∂h ∂ dimensional smooth manifold and η is a one form that X = p −h − p + + h i ∂p ∂s i ∂s ∂qi ∂p ∂p ∂qi satisfies the condition of complete non-integrability, i i i (15) η ∧ (dη)n 6= 0. (9) which means that the evolution equations have the form, ∂h ∂h ∂h ∂h More explicitly, the kernel of the one form η de- i s˙ = pi − h;q ˙ = ;p ˙i = −pi − i . (16) fines a distribution of hyperplanes which is completely ∂pi ∂pi ∂s ∂q non-integrable in the Frobenius sense. Indeed, non- The resemblance with the classical Hamilton’s equations integrability in the sense of Frobenius would mean η ∧ is clear. This dynamics can be shown to correspond to dη 6= 0 and eqn (9) is therefore a much stronger state- thermodynamic transformations in equilibrium thermo- ment. This condition of complete non-integrability im- i dynamics where the local coordinates (s, q , pi) are iden- plies that the tangent bundle of M can be decomposed tified as coordinates in the equilibrium thermodynamic into the following Whitney sum, phase space. Furthermore, a contact manifold is an example of a Jacobi manifold, i.e. it is endowed with a bi- T M = ker(η) ⊕ ker(dη) (10) linear local Lie bracket structure [71, 72]. The commuta- where ker(η) and ker(dη) are both regular distributions. tor of two contact vector fields defines an anti-symmetric Moreover, there exists a unique global vector field ξ, bilinear bracket between the functions generating them. known as the Reeb vector field defined through, Such a bracket has been called a Lagrange bracket [73, 74] and is given by,

η(ξ) = 1, dη(ξ, .) = 0 (11) i i {q , pj} = δj. (17) meaning that the flow of the Reeb vector field ξ preserves η and consequently the hyperplane distribution defined The Leibniz rule is however not obeyed by the Lagrange by ker(η). It is always possible to find local (Darboux) bracket and therefore the Lagrange bracket of a function with a constant function does not vanish in general. The coordinates in the neighbourhood of any point on M and i i coordinates q and pi satisfying a non trivial Lagrange in such a Darboux chart (s, q , pi) with i = 1, 2, ...., n, the one form η and the Reeb vector field ξ are expressed as, bracket relationship are identified as conjugate variables. The equations of motion [eqns (16)] are also clearly dis- ∂ sipative in a mechanical context since the equation of η = ds − p dqi, ξ = . (12) i ∂s motion for pi includes a friction term with the damping factor being given by ξ(h). Unlike the symplectic case, i A simple computation can verify eqns (11). It is inter- the function h = h(s, q , pi) is not conserved along the esting to note that, dynamics, i.e. Xh(h) 6= 0 whenever h 6= 0. In fact, the additional coordinate s models an interaction of the sys- i dη = dq ∧ dpi (13) tem with some environment leading to nice thermostat problems [70]. A straightforward calculation can reveal which is the local expression of the standard symplectic that one can write down the dynamics of an arbitrary form ω on any 2n-dimensional symplectic manifold (see function f : M → < directly using the Lagrange bracket for example [65]). It is then not hard to convince oneself as, that a (2n + 1)-dimensional contact manifold (M, η) has a 2n-dimensional symplectic submanifold where ω = dη f˙ = −hξ(f) + {f, h}. (18) is the symplectic two form. Further, since dη(ξ, .) = 0 identically, the Reeb vector field is inconsequential on Note that if s does not appear in h, the equations of this symplectic submanifold. motion are simply the usual Hamilton’s equations with s 5 being the action functional. The dynamics is then purely between two points, i.e. two different configurations on conservative. Due to the resemblance of the dynamics the Legendre submanifold L. As will be seen next, the generated by h with the classical Hamiltonian dynamics, NESS control parameter space shall assume the struc- the function h is called a contact Hamiltonian while the ture of a Legendre submanifold and such metric shall triplet (M, η, h) a contact Hamiltonian system. then define the distance between two control parameter configurations.

2. Legendre submanifolds III. GEOMETRY OF QUANTUM NESS: SOME Of interest particularly in thermodynamics are a very RESULTS specific class of submanifolds of a contact manifold. They are the submanifolds of the maximum possible dimension We will now show that the non-equilibrium steady such that they cannot include a conjugate pair of local states correspond to points on Legendre submanifolds of coordinates. In more technical terms, if L ⊂ M be such the non-equilibrium thermodynamic phase space which a submanifold, then all the tangent vectors of L are anni- has the structure of a contact manifold. In this con- hilated by η or in other words, restriction of the contact text we propose several results which will further the form η should be zero on the submanifold. These sub- understanding of geometric structure of NESS. Recall- i manifolds are known as Legendre submanifolds and are ing the steady state relation dψness − Xidλ = 0 im- i equivalent to configuration spaces from classical mechan- mediately leads to the identification that (ψness, λ ,Xi) ics. The contact form η when restricted to an arbitrary are local coordinates on a contact manifold (M, η) with i Legendre submanifold L vanishes, i.e. in local coordi- η = dψness − Xidλ . The steady state condition [eqn (7)] nates, demands η = 0 and therefore a non-equilibrium steady state is simply a point on an appropriate Legendre sub- i [ds − pidq ]L = 0 (19) manifold with the local structure being given as, whence it is clear that L does not include any conjugate ∂ψ (λi) s = ψ (λi),X = ness . (22) pair of variables also meaning that the Lagrange bracket ness i ∂λi between any two independent coordinates on L is zero identically. It follows that all Legendre submanifolds are Since any contact manifold of (2n + 1)-dimensions can ∗ n ∗ n n-dimensional and their local structure is given by [65], locally be thought of as T < × < where T < is the cotangent bundle of

This result can be understood as follows. Given that Theorem 2 The following function, i i one has a quantum system in steady state (λ , ψness(λ )) with a parameter space or control parameter space Q, the ij ∂ψness ∂ψness h = M XiXj − (25) space T ∗Q × < is always locally isomorphic to T ∗

Note that different points on Q correspond to differ- One can obtain the contact vector field Xh corresponding ent values of the control parameters and hence differ- to this choice of the Hamiltonian [eqn (15)] (of course i i ent non-equilibrium steady states. In [10], the param- with the usual identification (λ ,Xi) → (q , pi)). Recall eter space Q has been called the manifold of steady that one has Xh(h) 6= 0 unless h = 0 identically and states. By theorem-(1) the control parameter space can therefore Xh is not in general tangent to the level surfaces be thought of as being embedded in an ambient thermo- of constant h. However, for the present case we note that dynamic phase space which assumes the structure of a by eqn (23), one has h|Q = 0 and therefore the dynamical contact manifold where the following Lagrange bracket flow is tangent to Q. We are interested in the dynamics relationship holds, of the control parameters and hence projecting Xh to Q one finds, i i {λ ,Xj} = δj. (24) ij ∂ψness ∂ Xh|Q = M (26) Such relations may prove useful in introducing thermo- ∂λj ∂λi dynamic uncertainty relations (see for example [78]). where we have used eqn (23). This means that the dynamics of any smooth function f on the control parameter space, i.e. Xh|Q(f) is given by, A. Transformations between steady states df ∂f ∂ψ = M ij ness (27) In this subsection, we shall provide a Hamiltonian de- dτ ∂λi ∂λj scription of transformations between steady states on Q. where τ ∈ < is an affine parameter which parameter- By changing the external control parameters, it is pos- izes the trajectory. At the first look, this resembles the sible to drive the system into a different steady state. dynamics of a function from the standard Hamiltonian For instance, if the temperatures of two reservoirs con- scenario but now with a symmetric matrix replacing the nected at two ends of a system are changed, it is possible anti-symmetric Poisson matrix and ψness playing the role to change the heat current flowing through the system. of the function which generates the dynamics. Note that But arbitrary changes to the control variables may drive we are now entirely on the control parameter space Q the system into an unsteady state. For this reason, it and not the full thermodynamic phase space whose de- will be assumed throughout that the transformations are tails have become unimportant at this stage. Introducing performed quasi-statically so that between any two ini- a symmetric bracket or in other words an inner product tial and final points on Q, the system passes through an as, infinitely many steady states at an infinitesimally small ∂f ∂g speed. Clearly however, between an initial steady state (f, g) = M ij (28) and a final one, there are an infinitely many paths con- ∂λi ∂λj necting the two. In order to pick up the optimal transfor- for any two smooth functions f, g : Q → <, one can mation path, we assume the existence of a friction tensor re-express eqn (27) as follows, which in the Kirkwood formalism can be derived as the time integral of the force covariance matrix [80, 81]. df = (f, ψ ). (29) dτ ness Proposition 2 For a non-equilibrium quantum system i i (λ , ψness(λ )) in steady state with a control parameter This is in some sense a Poisson analogue defined for space Q, it is possible to associate an n × n positive the non-equilibrium regime. However, unlike the Pois- definite matrix Mij, known as the friction tensor whose son case where the standard Hamiltonian generating the components are functions of the control parameters, i.e. dynamics stays constant along the flow, in this case ψness i Mij = Mij(λ ). is not preserved along the dynamics. In fact one has,

dψness Having deﬁned the friction tensor as a positive deﬁ- = (ψness, ψness) (30) nite matrix, we consider following contact Hamiltonian dτ function on the thermodynamic phase space, which is obviously non-zero unless ψness = 0. The following result can now be stated, 7

Theorem 3 The dynamics described by the contact similar result due to Crooks and Sivak [34] analogous to Hamiltonian suggested in eqn (25) is such that when pro- theorem-(4) exists for finite time transformations of non- jected on the control parameter space Q, the Massieu po- equilibrium systems in the linear response regime. tential (free entropy) always increases along the transformation. B. Steady state Massieu potential as a principal This follows simply from the fact that for any non- function zero function f : Q → <, one has (f, f) > 0 for the bracket defined in eqn (28). Theorem-(3) is consistent In this section, we shall strengthen the analogy be- with the fact that a transformation between two non- tween the physics of steady states in quantum systems equilibrium steady states implies that the Massieu po- and Hamiltonian dynamics. To this end, let us define an tential ψness which can be interpreted as the free en- extended non-equilibrium thermodynamic phase space tropy increases along the transformation. In other words, M0 = M×< with M being the non-equilibrium thermo- a quasi-static transformation between two steady states dynamic phase space. If η is the contact one form on M, implies ∆ψness > 0. one can define a Poincare form on M0 as, η0 = hdτ + η We now proceed forward to check whether the formal- where h is any smooth function on M0 and τ ∈ <. ism we have been describing indicates towards the fact We wish to construct a Hamilton-Jacobi theory for the that the geodesics of the friction tensor are the optimal present scenario which for generic contact Hamiltonian paths. For quasi-static transformations between steady systems was discussed earlier in [67]. In doing so, for the states, such paths are those for which the steady state principal function W (λi, τ) defined on Q × < we seek for Massieu potential changes the least as compared to any solutions to the partial differential equation, other path. Now consider two different paths γ and γ0 0 ∂W ∂W between the same end points in Q and let ||γ || > ||γ|| f λi, τ, W, , = 0 (33) where ||.|| denotes the length of the particular path. Also ∂λi ∂τ let γ be the geodesic of M ij between the end points. Surely then, γ0 is not a geodesic of M ij. It has a length whose characteristic curves are equivalent to quasi-static greater than that of γ and therefore can generically be transformations between steady states. Let us define, thought of as the geodesic due to some symmetric ma- f = E − h where h is given by eqn (25) and E is a con- trix M ij + δM ij where δM ij is another positive definite stant. The condition f = 0 then implies that h must be symmetric matrix such that if the system is to traverse equal to the constant E on a subspace QE parameter- along γ0 the dynamics is to be defined as, ized by E. It can be shown [67] that this is equivalent to having the Poincare one form [η + hdτ]Q = 0 on the E df ij ij ∂f ∂ψness surface QE parameterized by constant E, i.e. = (M + δM ) i j (31) dτ M+δM ∂λ ∂λ i [dW − Xidλ + hdτ]QE = 0 (34) where the subscript M + δM denotes the fact that the giving on Q the following equalities, path taken is not the geodesic of the friction tensor M E but that of the symmetric matrix M + δM (dropping ∂W (λi, τ) dW (λi, τ) Xi = , h + = 0. (35) indices for the moment just for the sake of brevity). It is ∂λi dτ not hard to see that in this case one has, This essentially means that under the projection π :

dψness dψness Q × < → Q, the principal function W (λi, τ) goes to the − > 0. (32) i dτ M+δM dτ M Massieu potential ψness(λ ). In other words, the Massieu potential is equivalent to the Hamilton’s principal func- Since, δM is arbitrary we may conclude from here that tion under each slice of τ. If this identification is made, the (free) entropy production along the geodesic of the the first among eqns (35) is the same as eqn (23) whereas, friction tensor M ij is the minimum, i.e. one can say, the second one together with the choice of contact Hamil- tonian in eqn (25) is equivalent to eqn (30). Therefore, Theorem 4 On a control parameter space Q equipped the results of the previous subsection re-appear consis- with a symmetric friction tensor M ij, the optimal paths tently but now with the interpretation that the steady of quasi-static transformations between steady states are state Massieu potential is the analogue of the principal the geodesics of M ij. function for steady state quantum thermodynamics. This We note that our contact Hamiltonian [eqn (25)] analogy is fairly general and robust. partly resembles that proposed in [51] within the context of the general equation for non-equilibrium reversible-irreversible coupling (GENERIC). However, in C. Thermodynamic length the present case, the dynamics on the control parameter space lacks a Poisson part (unlike the case with Since the non-equilibrium steady states correspond to GENERIC) making it purely of symmetric nature. A points on Legendre submanifolds with the local structure 8 given by eqn (22), there is a natural Riemannian metric geodesics that are close. From a statistical viewpoint, on the Legendre submanifolds. On the control parameter the metric tensor defined in eqn (36) is, space Q, the metric tensor defined in eqn (21) takes the ∂X following form, g = i (38) ij ∂λj ∂2ψ g = ness , i, j ∈ {1, 2, ...., n}. (36) ij ∂λi∂λj which can be understood to be the covariance matrix [30] and has been shown to be equivalent to the Fisher infor- This defines the notion of a thermodynamic length with mation matrix (up to an overall sign) defined directly 2 i j line element dl = gijdλ dλ between different points on from the NESS density matrix ρ as, Q. Note that the metric tensor is defined as the Hessian i j of the Massieu potential with respect to the control pa- X ∂ ln ρk(λ ) ∂ ln ρk(λ ) g = ρ (λi) (39) rameters only and we shall call this the Schlöglmetric ij k ∂λi ∂λj [79] (also see [30]). k Noting that for particular values of the control vari- where the set {ρk} denotes the set of projections of the ables the system reduces to a local equilibrium state, it density matrix on the energy eigenbasis of the full Hamil- follows that local equilibrium states are also points on tonian representing the central quantum system, the the same control parameter space Q. For example, in baths and relevant interaction terms. It should be em- the case of the system shown in figure-(1), local equili- phasized that although there is no general procedure to bration occurs only when both the baths have the same obtain the probability distribution in the out of equilib- temperatures and chemical potentials, say β and µ re- rium setting, for many non-equilibrium systems including 1 2 3 spectively. In that case, one has λ = β, λ = µ, λ = molecular machines, it is possible to directly compute 4 0, λ = 0. Consequently, local equilibrium states corre- the density matrix ρ in the McLennan-Zubarev form. spond to points (β, µ, 0, 0) for some β, µ ∈ < on the same In such cases, the Massieu potential can be obtained as control parameter space Q on which the non-equilibrium ψness = ln Z where Z is the NESS partition function. steady states lie on. Therefore, our formalism properly Let us recall that the starting point for all our anal- generalizes that developed for equilibrium thermodynam- i ics (for example see [43–46]). For example, for the system ysis has been the differential relation, dψness = Xidλ shown in figure-(1), the control parameter space Q can which allowed us to identify the physical variables as be- 1 2 ing local coordinates on a contact manifold. However, be written as, Q = Qavg × Qaff where (λ , λ ) are coordinates on the space Q whereas, the affinities (λ3, λ4) this identification is not unique in the sense that one can avg always multiply eqn (7) with a non-zero function f on the are coordinates on Qaff . This space Qaff is trivial, i.e. (λ3, λ4) = (0, 0) when the system is at a local equilib- thermodynamic phase space and still perform a similar analysis, i.e. take rium state. In such a case, just the space Qavg appro- priately describes the system in the grand canonical en- f(dψ − X dλi) = 0 (40) semble with control parameters β and µ since the gradi- ness i ents have identically vanished. Thus, Qavg is the equi- on Q as the starting point. For example, if f = 1/X1, librium thermodynamics configuration space as has been one would get discussed earlier in the literature for various classes of systems. These arguments go through for systems with 1 dψness Xj j an arbitrary number of control parameters where it is − dλ + − dλ = 0 (41) X1 X1 still possible to decompose the total control parameter space into a configuration space Qavg and the space of where j = 1, 2, ...., n − 1. Comparison of the above re- affinities Qaff . The metric [eqn (36)] on Q therefore not lation with eqn (19) leads us to the identification that j only defines the thermodynamic length between differ- (ψness, λ ) are independent coordinates on the control ent non-equilibrium steady states but also includes local parameter space with generating function (with a minus 1 1 j equilibrium states. sign) λ = λ (ψness, λ ) obtained by inverting ψness = 1 j 1 For an affine parameter τ, the length of a curve be- ψness(λ , λ ) for λ . Note that eqns (7) and (41) are tween parameter values a and b is simply the action, physically equivalent. However, following eqn (21), the new thermodynamic length shall be defined as, r Z b dλi dλj l(a, b) = dτ g . (37) 2 1 ij 2 ∂ λ a dτ dτ dl = − , i, j ∈ {1, 2, ...., n} (42) 1 ∂χi∂χj This formalism may therefore be applied to study 1 i+1 j geodesics on a control parameter space which represent with χ = ψness and χ = λ . It is then a natu- the shortest distance between two steady states. The ral question to ask whether or not the thermodynamic notion of congruence of non-intersecting geodesics can lengths described by the metrics given in eqns (36) and be explored further by considering the variations of an (42) are related. In this context, we state the following appropriate deformation vector that joins two points on result, 9

Theorem 5 The thermodynamic lengths are confor- of the structure of thermodynamics and statistical me- mally related as, chanics. For steady state quantum systems arbitrarily far from equilibrium, we have established that NESS are 2 2 dl = X1dl1. (43) points on control parameter spaces which are Legendre submanifolds of an ambient non-equilibrium thermody- Its proof can be understood as follows. Recall that on a namic phase space with an underlying contact structure. generic Legendre submanifold L, the metric is given by The machinery of contact geometry and Hamiltonian dy- i GL = dq dpi. Starting with eqn (7), for independent pa- namics is successfully applied to NESS and reveals a i rameters {λ } with generating function ψness this reads, rich geometric structure as is contained in section-(III) 2 i of the present paper. Henceforth, our results are en- dl = dXidλ (44) couraging in the sense, it may help us to understand the non-equilibrium thermodynamic steady states and their whereas, if eqn (41) is taken as the starting point, then geometric structure. One can also expect to understand the independent parameters are (ψ , λj) with depen- ness in a better way the optimal protocol and eﬃciency of bio- dent parameters (−1/X ,X /X ) leading to the line el- 1 j 1 logical systems, synthetic molecular machines and kinetic ement, phenomena like (bio)chemical reactions from the point of 2 j view of contact Hamiltonian dynamics. dl1 = d(−1/X1)dψness + d(Xj/X1)dλ . (45) In the context of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and With a slight rearrangement and substituting eqn (41), in particular where the processes are the steady state it follows that the last relation simpliﬁes to, ones, the physical meaning of the thermodynamic metrics and their curvature scalars deserve to be studied in 2 1 i detail. For systems at thermodynamic equilibrium, it is dl1 = dXidλ (46) X1 an established fact that the curvature scalar associated

2 2 with the Ruppeiner metric is positive or negative respec- thus proving the relationship between dl and dl1 given tively (in a sign convention opposite to that adapted in in eqn (43). [82]) for the cases where the microscopic degrees of free- We emphasize on the fact that we haven’t used any dom interact in a repulsive or attractive manner [83]. Be- particular form of the control variables or response func- tween these two regimes is the ideal gas limit, where the tions for deriving this result. In fact, if we take f = 1/X2 system is non-interacting and the curvature scalar comes in eqn (40) and label the resulting thermodynamic length out to be zero identically. It is then worthwhile to study 2 dl2 and similarly take f = 1/Xk for some k ∈ {1, 2, ...., n} the physics captured by the thermodynamic curvature in and then label the corresponding thermodynamic length case of systems driven out of equilibrium. In particular, 2 to be dlk, the following result can be straightforwardly since it is the control parameters that one manipulates shown as a consequence of theorem-(5), externally, of outmost importance is to study the physical implications of the scalar curvature associated with Corollary 1 The line element dl2 is conformally related the metric g [eqn (36)] defined on control parameter to the entire set of line elements {dl2} as, ij i spaces. These issues should be addressed in the future. 2 2 2 2 2 dl = X1dl1 = X2dl2 = .... = Xkdlk = .... = Xndln. (47) Acknowledgements Since, dl2 is the length associated with the Schlöglmetric and is equivalent to the Fisher information matrix, thus We are grateful to Rishabh Raturi for valuable discus- for a general system, eqns (47) may provide alternate sions. One of us (A.G.) would like to acknowledge the means of computing the thermodynamic length consis- support by the International Centre for Theoretical Sci- tent with Fisher’s information matrix. ences (ICTS) for the online program - Bangalore School on Statistical Physics - XI (code: ICTS/bssp2020/06) and the financial support received from the M.H.R.D., IV. DISCUSSION Government of India in the form of a Prime Minister’s Research Fellowship. C.B. gratefully acknowledges the Investigation of the geometry of the non-equilibrium support received from S.E.R.B., Government of India, thermodynamic phase space, based upon the differen- MATRICS (Mathematical Research Impact Centric Sup- tial geometric approach provides a deeper understanding port) grant no. MTR/2020/000135.

[1] M. E. Fisher, Proceedings of Gibbs Symposium, edited by New haven, CT, 1989). D. G. Caldi and G. D. Mostow (Yale University Press, [2] R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc, Japan 12, 570 (1957). 10

[3] R. Kubo, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, Ed. W. [38] H. Suzuki and Y. Hashizume, Physica A 517, 400 (2019). Brittin (NewYork: inter science), pp 120 (1959). [39] S. B. Nicholson, A. del Campo and J. R. Green, Phys. [4] L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 37, 405 (1931); ibid 38, 2265 Rev. E 98, 032106 (2018). (1931). [40] I. Gyarmati, Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics: Field [5] H.B.G. Casimir, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 343 (1945). Theory and Variational Principles, Springer Science and [6] R.B. Bird, W. E. Stewart and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Business Media (2013). Phenomena, John Wiley and Sons (1960). [41] G. Lebon, D. Jou, J. Casas-Vázquez, Understanding [7] L. A. Glasgow, Transport Phenomena: An Introduction Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics: Foundations, Appli- to Advanced Topics, Wiley (2010). cations, Frontiers, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2008). [8] R. Rao and M. Esposito, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041064. [42] E. G. D. Cohen, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory and Experiment, [9] G. Benenti, G. Casati, K. Saito and R. S. Whitney, Phys. P07014 (2008). Rep. 694, 1 (2017). [43] R. Hermann, Geometry, Physics and Systems, Marcel [10] Giacomo Guarnieri, Gabriel T. Landi, Stephen R. Clark Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 1973. and John Goold, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033021 (2019). [44] R. Mrugala, Rep. Math. Phys. 21, 197 (1985). [11] J. Liphardt, S. Dumont, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco Jr. and [45] R. Mrugala, J. D. Nulton, J. C. Schön,P. Salamon, Rep. C. Bustamante, Science 296, 1832 (2002). Math. Phys. 29, 109–121 (1991). [12] C. Bustamante, J. Liphardt and F. Ritort, Phys. Today [46] A. Bravetti, C. S. Lopez-Monsalvo, F. Nettel, Ann. Phys. 58,43 (2005). 361, 377 (2015). [13] F. Ritort, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, R531 (2006). [47] A. Bravetti, C. S. Lopez-Monsalvo, F. Nettel, Entropy [14] P. Maragakis, F. Ritort, M. Karplus, C. Bustamante and 17, 6150 (2015). G. E. Crooks, J. Chem. Phys. 129, 024102 (2008). [48] V. Lindahl, J. Lidmar and B. Hess, Phys. Rev. E 98 [15] D. Collin, F. Ritort, C. Jarzynski, S. B. Smith, I. Tinoco 023312 (2018). Jr. and C. Bustamante, Nature (London) 437, 231 (2005). [49] C. Cafaro and P. M. Alsing, Phys. Rev. E 97 042110 [16] C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2690 (1997). (2018). [17] C. Jarzynski, Journal of Statistical Physics 96, 415 [50] M. Grmela and H. C. Ottinger,¨ Phys. Rev. E 56, (1999). 6620–6632 (1997). [18] G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, E. Mittag, D. J. Searles and [51] M. Grmela, Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 309, 304–328 D. J. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 050601 (2002). (2002). [19] D. M. Carberry, J. C. Reid, G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, [52] M. Grmela, Entropy 16, 1652–1686 (2014). D. J. Searles and D. J. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 140601 [53] P. J. Morrison, Phys. Lett. A 100, 423-427 (1984). (2004). [54] P. J. Morrison, Physica D 18, 410-419 (1986). [20] D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen and G. P. Morriss, Phys. [55] R. Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development Rev. Lett. 71, 2401 (1993). 1, 223 (1957). [21] D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, Phys. Rev. E 50, 1645 [56] U. Sivan and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. B 33, 551 (1986). (1994). [57] Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2512 [22] G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, (1992). 2694 (1995). [58] N. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155404 (2018). [23] T. Hatano and S. Sasa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3463 (2001). [59] J. A. McLennan Jr., Phys. Rev. 115, 1405 (1959). [24] R. M. Neal, Stat. Comput. 11, 125 (2001). [60] D. Zubarev, Cond. Matt. Phys. 4, 7 (1994). [25] J. P. Nilmeier, G. E. Crooks, D. D. L. Minh, and J. D. [61] S. Hershfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2134 (1993). Chodera, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, E1009 (2011). [62] H. Ness, Phys. Rev. E 88, 022121 (2013). [26] S. Still, D. A. Sivak, A. J. Bell and G. E. Crooks, Phys. [63] H. Geiges, An Introduction to Contact Topology, Cam- Rev. Lett. 109, 120604 (2012). bridge University Press (2008). [27] J. Howard, Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cy- [64] V. I. Arnold, Singularities of Caustics and Wave Fronts, toskeleton, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA (2001). Springer Netherlands (1990). [28] G. Ruppeiner, Phys. Rev. A 20, 1608 (1979). [65] V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechan- [29] P. Salamon and R. S. Berry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1127 ics, second edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 60, (1983). Springer (1989). [30] G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 100602 (2007). [66] M. De Leon and C. Sardon, J. Phys. A 50, 255205 (2017). [31] J. Nulton, P. Salamon, B. Andresen and Q. Anmin, J. [67] A. Bravetti, H. Cruz and D. Tapias, Ann. Phys. 376, 17- Chem. Phys. 83, 334 (1985). 39, (2017). [32] D. A. Sivak and G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E 94, 052106 [68] G. Hernandez and E.A. Lacomba, J. Differ. Geom. Appl. (2016). 1998, 8, 205-216. [33] P. R. Zulkowski, D. A. Sivak, G. E. Crooks and M. R. [69] R. Mrugala, Rep. Math. Phys. 46 (2000). DeWeese, Phys. Rev. E 86, 041148 (2012). [70] A. Bravetti and D. Tapias, Phys. Rev. E 93, 22139 (2016). [34] David A. Sivak and Gavin E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. Lett. [71] C.-M. Marle, On Jacobi manifolds and Jacobi bundles, 108, 190602 (2012). in: Symplectic Geometry, Groupoids, and Integrable Sys- [35] S. R. de Groot, P. Mazur, Non-equilibrium Thermody- tems, edited by P. Dazord and A. Weinstein, Mathe- namics, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amster- matical Sciences Research Institute Publications Vol. 20 dam, (1962). (Springer, New York, 1991), pp. 227–246. [36] A. Bruch, C. Lewenkopf and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. [72] L. Vitagliano and A. Wade, Math. Z. 1 (2019). Lett. 120, 107701 (2018). [73] S. G. Rajeev, Ann. Phys. 323 (2008) 2265–2285. [37] S. Tafoya, S. J. Large, S. Liu, C. Bustamante and D. A. [74] A. Ghosh and C. Bhamidipati, Phys. Rev. D 100 126020 Sivak, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 5920 (2019). 11

(2019). [84] A careful reader would have noticed that the friction ten- i [75] S. Sasaki, I Tohoku Math. J. 12 (1960), 459. sor Mij = Mij (λ ) is defined only over the control pa- [76] Y. Hatakeyama, Tohoku Math. J. 14 (1962), 162. rameter space whereas the symmetric matrix (actually [77] S. Sasaki and Y. Hatakeyama, J. Math. Sot. Japan 14 its inverse) appearing in the expression of the contact (1962), 249. Hamiltonian [eqn (25)] should be defined over the entire [78] S. G. Rajeev, Ann. Phys. 323: 768-782 (2008). thermodynamic phase space. We have been slightly abu- [79] F. Schlögl,Z. Phys. B 59, 449 (1985). sive with our notation in labelling both of them with the [80] J. G. Kirkwood, J. Chem. Phys., 14, 180 (1946). same symbol. The friction tensor on the control param- [81] R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys., 40, 2527 (1964). eter space Q is simply the full symmetric matrix on M [82] H. Janyszek and R. Mrugala, Phys. Rev. A 39, 6515 pulled back to Q, i.e. Φ∗M where Φ : Q → M is the (1989). relevant inclusion map. [83] G. Ruppeiner, Am. J Phys. 78, 1170 (2010).