format: text

text:
# Performance of Discrete Heat Engines and Heat Pumps in Finite Time.

## I Introduction

Analysis of heat engines has been a major source of thermodynamic insight. The second law of thermodynamics resulted from Carnot’s study of the reversible heat engine . Study of the endo-reversible Newtonian engine  began the field of finite time thermodynamics . Analysis of a virtual heat engine by Szilard led to the connection between thermodynamics and information theory . Recently this connection has been extended to the regime of quantum computation .

Quantum models of heat engines show a remarkable similarity to engines obeying macroscopic dynamics. The Carnot efficiency is a well established limit for the efficiency of lasers as well as other quantum engines . Moreover, even the irreversible operation of quantum engines with finite power output has many similarities to macroscopic endo-reversible engines .

It is this line of thought that serves as a motivation for a detailed analysis of a discrete four stroke quantum engine. In a previous study , the same model served to find the limits of the finite time performance of such an engine but with the emphasis on power optimization. In that study the working medium was composed of discrete level systems with the dynamics governed by a master equation. The purpose was to gain insight into the optimal engine’s performance with respect to time allocation when external parameters such as: the applied fields, the bath temperatures and the relaxation rates were fixed.

The present analysis emphasizes the reverse operation of the heat engine as a heat pump. For an adequate description of this mode of operation inner friction has to be a consideration. Without it the model is deficient with respect to optimizing the cooling power. Another addition is the optimization of the external fields. This is a common practice when cold temperatures are approached. With the addition of these two attributes, the four stroke quantum model is analyzed both as a heat engine and as a refrigerator.

Inner friction is found to have a profound influence on performance of the refrigerator. A direct consequence of the friction is a lower bound on the cycle time. This lower bound excludes the non-realistic global optimization solutions found for frictionless cases  where the cooling power can be optimized beyond bounds. This observation, has led to the suggestion of replacing the optimization of the cooling power by the optimization of the cooling efficiency per unit time . Including friction is therefore essential for more realistic models of heat engines and refrigerators with the natural optimization goal becomes either the power output or the cooling power. The source of friction is not considered explicitly in the present model. Physically friction is the result of non-adiabatic phenomena which are the result of the rapid change in the energy level structure of the system. For example friction can be caused by the missalignement of the external fields with the internal polarization of the working medium. For a more explicit description of the friction the interactions between the individual particles composing the working fluid have to be considered. The present model is a microscopic analogue of the Ericsson refrigeration cycle  where the working fluid consists of magnetic salts. The advantage of the microscopic model is that the use of the phenomenological heat transfer laws can be avoided . The results of the present model are compared to a recent analysis of macroscopic chillers . In that study, a universal modeling was demonstrated. It is found that the discrete quantum version of heat pumps has behavior similar to that of macroscopic chillers.

There is a growing interest in the topic of cooling atoms and molecules to temperatures very close to absolute zero . Most of the analysis of the cooling schemes employed are based on quantum dynamical models. New insight can be gained by employing a thermodynamic perspective. In particular the temperatures achieved are so low that the third law of thermodynamics has to be considered. The discrete level heat pump can serve as a model to study the third law limitations. The finite time perspective of the third law is a statement on the asymptotic rate of cooling as the absolute temperature is approached. These restrictions are imposed on the optimal cooling rate. The behavior of the optimal cooling rate as the absolute temperature is approached is a third law upper bound on the cooling rate. The main finding of this paper is that the optimal cooling rate converges to zero linearly with temperature, and the entropy production reaches a constant when the cold bath temperature approaches absolute zero.

## II Basic Assumptions and Formal Background for the Heat Engine and the Heat Pump

Heat engines and heat pumps are characterized by three attributes: the working medium, the cycle of operation, and the dynamics which govern the cycle. Heat baths by definition are large enough so that their temperatures is constant during the cycle of operation. The heat engine and the heat pump are constructed from the same components and differ only by their cycle of operation.

### A The Working Medium

The working medium consists of an ideal ensemble of many non-interacting discrete level systems. Specifically, the analysis is carried out on two-level systems (TLS) but an ensemble of harmonic oscillators  would lead to equivalent results.

The TLS systems are envisioned as spin-1/2 systems. The lack of spin-spin interactions enables the description of the energy exchange between the working medium and the surroundings in terms of a single TLS. The state of the system is then defined by the average occupation probabilities $`P_+`$ and $`P_{}`$ corresponding to the energies $`\frac{1}{2}\omega `$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the energy gap between the two levels. The average energy per spin is given by

$`E=P_+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega \right)+P_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega \right)`$ (1)
The polarization, $`S`$, is defined by

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_+P_{}),`$ (2)
and thus the energy can be written as $`E=\omega S`$. Energy change of the working medium can occur either by population transfer from one level to the other (changing S) or by changing the energy gap between the two levels (changing $`\omega `$). Hence

$`dE=Sd\omega +\omega dS.`$ (3)
Population transfer is the microscopic realization of heat exchange. The energy change due to external field variation is associated with work. Eq. (3) is therefore the first law of thermodynamics:

$`D𝒲Sd\omega ;D𝒬\omega dS.`$ (4)
Finally, for TLS the internal temperature, $`T^{}`$, is always defined via the relation

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2k_BT^{}}}\right).`$ (5)
Note that the polarization $`S`$ is negative as long as the temperature is positive.

### B The Cycle of Operation

#### 1 Heat engines cycle

The cycle of operation is analyzed in terms of the polarization and frequency $`(S,\omega )`$. A schematic display is shown in Fig.(1) for a constant total cycle time, $`\tau `$. The present engine is an irreversible four stroke engine  resembling the Stirling cycle, with the addition of internal friction. The direction of motion along the cycle is chosen such that net positive work is produced.

The four branches of the engine will be now briefly described.

On the first branch, $`AB`$, the working medium is coupled to the hot bath of temperature $`T_h`$ for period $`\tau _h`$, while the energy gap is kept fixed at the value $`\omega _b`$. The conditions are such that the internal temperature of the medium is lower than $`T_h`$. In this branch, the polarization is changing from the initial polarization $`S_2`$ to the polarization $`S_1`$. The inequality to be fulfilled is therefore:

$`S_1<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{2k_BT_h}}\right).`$ (6)
Since $`\omega `$ is kept fixed, no work is done and the only energy transfer is the heat $`\omega _b(S_1S_2)`$ absorbed by the working medium.

In the second branch, $`BC`$ the working medium is decoupled from the hot bath for a period $`\tau _a`$, and the energy gap is varied linearly in time, from $`\omega _b`$ to $`\omega _a`$. In this branch work is done to overcome the inner friction which develops heat, causing the polarization to increase from $`S_1`$ to $`S_3`$ (Cf. Fig. 1). The change of the internal temperature is the result of two opposite contributes. First lowering the energy gap leads to a lower inner temperature for constant polarization $`S`$. Second increase in polarization due to friction, leads to an increase of the inner temperature for fixed $`\omega `$. The inner temperature $`T^{}`$ at point C might therefore be lower or higher than the initial temperature at point B.

The third branch $`CD`$, is similar to the first. The working medium is now coupled to a cold bath at temperature $`T_c`$ for time $`\tau _c`$. The polarization changes on this branch from $`S_3`$ to the polarization $`S_4`$. For the cycle to close, $`S_4`$ should be lower than $`S_2`$. At the end of the cycle the internal temperature of the working medium should be higher than the cold bath temperature, $`T^{}>T_c`$, leading to:

$`S_4>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}\right).`$ (7)
Since $`S_4<S_1`$ (Fig. 1), it follows from Eq. ( 6) and Eq.( 7), that:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)>\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}\right)`$ (8)
Inequality (8) is equivalent to the Carnot efficiency bound, from Eq. (8) one gets:

$`1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{\omega _b}}\right)<1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{T_h}}\right)=\eta _{Carnot}`$ (9)
The present model is a quantum analogue of the Stirling engine which also has Carnot’s efficiency as an upper bound.

The polarization $`S`$ changes uni-directionally along the ’adiabats’ due to the increase of the excited level population as a result of the heat developed in the working fluid when work is done against friction, irrespective of the direction of the field change.

The fourth branch $`DA`$, closes the cycle and is similar to the second. The working medium is decoupled from the cold bath. In a period $`\tau _b`$ the energy gap is changing back to its original value, $`\omega _b`$. The polarization increases from $`S_4`$ to the original value $`S_2`$.

#### 2 Refrigerator cycle

The purpose of a heat pump is to remove heat from the cold reservoir by employing external work. The cycles of operation in the $`(S,\omega )`$ plane is schematically shown in Fig. 2,

The cycle of operation resembles the Ericsson refrigeration cycle . The differences are in the dynamics of the microscopic working fluid which are described in subsection II C. The work and heat transfer for the heat pump is summarized in Table II.

The four branches for the heat pump become:

In the first branch, $`DC`$, the working medium is coupled to the cold bath of temperature $`T_c`$ for time $`\tau _c`$, while the energy gap is kept fixed at the value $`\omega _a`$. The conditions are such that the internal temperature of the medium is lower than $`T_c`$ during $`\tau _c`$. Along this branch, the polarization changes from the initial polarization $`S_1`$ to the polarization $`S_2`$. Since $`\omega `$ is kept fixed, no work is done and the only energy transfer is the heat $`\omega _a(S_2S_1)`$ absorbed by the working medium. On this branch:

$`S_2<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}\right).`$ (10)
In the second branch, $`CB`$ the working medium is decoupled from the cold bath, and the energy gap is varied. In the frictionless case the polarization $`S_2`$ is constant (Left of Fig. 2). The only energy exchange is the work done on the system ( Table II). When friction is added the polarization is changing from $`S_2`$ to $`S_3`$ in a period $`\tau _a`$. The energy gap changes from $`\omega _a`$ to $`\omega _b`$ (Right of Fig. 2), according to a linear law. In addition to work, heat is developing as a result of the inner friction ( Table II).

The third branch $`BA`$, is similar to the first. The working medium is coupled to the hot bath at temperature $`T_h`$, for time $`\tau _h`$, keeping the energy gap $`\omega _b`$ fixed. In this branch the polarization changes from $`S_2`$ to $`S_1`$ in the frictionless case, and from $`S_3`$ to $`S_4`$ when friction is added. The constraint is that the internal temperature of the working medium should be higher than the hot bath temperature during the time $`\tau _h`$, $`T^{}>T_h`$, leading to the inequality (Fig. 2),

$`S_1>S_4>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{2k_BT_h}}\right).`$ (11)
therefore $`S_2>S_1`$. From Eqs. (10) and (11), the condition for the interrelation between the bath temperatures and the field values becomes:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)<\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}\right)`$ (12)
which is just the opposite inequality of the heat engine, (Eq. 8). In the heat pump work is done on the working fluid and since no useful work is done Carnot’s bound is not violated.

The fourth branch $`AD`$, closes the cycle and is similar to the second. The working medium is decoupled from the cold bath, and the energy gap changes back, during a period $`\tau _b`$ to its original value, $`\omega _b`$.

The results are summarized in Table II.

### C Dynamics of the working medium

The dynamics of the system along the heat exchange branches is represented by changes in the level population of the two-level-system. This is a reduced description in which the dynamical response of the bath is cast in kinetic terms . Since the dynamics has been described previously  only a brief summary of the main points is presented here, emphasizing the differences in the energy exchanges on the ’adiabats’.

#### 1 The dynamics of the heat exchange branches

The dynamics of the population at the two levels, $`P_+`$ and $`P_{}`$, are described via a master equation

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{dP_+}{dt}=k_{}P_++k_{}P_{}\hfill \\ \frac{dP_{}}{dt}=k_{}P_+k_{}P_{}\hfill \end{array},`$ (15)
where $`k_{}`$ and $`k_{}`$ are the transition rates from the upper to the lower level and vice versa. The explicit form of these coefficients depend on the nature of the bath and the system bath coupling interactions. The thermodynamics partition between system and bath is consistent with a weak coupling assumption . Temperature enters through detailed balance. The equation of motion for the polarization $`S`$ obtained from Eq. (15) becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS}{dt}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(SS^{eq})`$ (16)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=k_{}+k_{}`$ (17)
and

$`S^{eq}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}k_{}}{k_{}+k_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2k_BT}}\right)`$ (18)
where $`S^{eq}`$ is the corresponding equilibrium polarization. It should be noticed that in a TLS there is a one to one correspondence between temperature and polarization thus internal temperature is well defined even for non-equilibrium situations.

The general solution of Eq (16) is,

$`S(t)=S^{eq}+(S(0)S^{eq})e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}.`$ (19)
where S(0) is the polarization at the beginning of the branch.

From Eqs. (16) and (18) the rate of heat change becomes:

$`\dot{𝒬}=\omega \dot{S}`$ (20)
See also .

For convenience, new time variables are defined:

$`x=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\tau _c},y=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\tau _h}`$ (21)
These expressions represent a nonlinear mapping of the time allocated to the hot and cold branches by the heat conductivity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As a result, the time allocation and the heat conductivity parameter become dependent on each other.

Figure 1 and 2 show that the friction induces an asymmetry between the time allocated to the hot and cold branches since more heat has to be dissipated on the cold branch.

#### 2 The dynamics on the ’adiabats’

The external field $`\omega `$ and its rate of change $`\dot{\omega }`$ are control parameters of the engine. For simplicity it is assumed that the field changes linearly with time:

$`\omega (t)=\dot{\omega }t+\omega (0)`$ (22)
Rapid change in the field causes non-adiabatic behavior which to lowest order is proportional to the rate of change $`\dot{\omega }`$. In this context non-adiabatic is understood in its quantum mechanical meaning. Any realistic assumption beyond the ideal non-interacting TLS will lead to such non-adiabatic behavior. It is therefore assumed that the phenomena can be described by a friction coefficient $`\sigma `$ which forces a constant speed polarization change $`\dot{S}`$:

$`\dot{S}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{t^{}}}\right)^2`$ (23)
where $`t^{}`$ is the time allocated to the corresponding ’adiabat’. Therefore, the polarization as a function of time becomes:

$`S(t)=S(0)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{t^{}}}\right)^2t`$ (24)
where $`t0`$ , $`tt^{}`$. A modeling assumption of internally dissipative friction, similar to Eq.(23), was also made by Gordon and Huleihil (). Friction does not operate on the heat-exchange branches, there is no nonadiabtic effect since the fields $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are constant in time. The irreversibilities on those branches are due to the transition rates ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of the master equation.

From Fig.(1), Eq. (4), and Eq. (24) the polarization, for the $`BC`$ branch of the heat engine becomes:

$`S_C=S_3=S_1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\tau _a}}\right).`$ (25)
The work done on this branch is:

$`𝒲_{BC}={\displaystyle _0^{\tau _a}}D𝒲={\displaystyle _0^{\tau _a}}S\dot{\omega }𝑑t=(\omega _a\omega _b)\left(S_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{\tau _a}}\right)\right)`$ (26)
The heat generated on this branch in the working fluid, which is the work against the friction, becomes:

$`𝒬_{BC}={\displaystyle _0^{\tau _a}}D𝒬={\displaystyle _0^{\tau _a}}\omega \dot{S}𝑑t={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2(\omega _a+\omega _b)}{2\tau _a}}`$ (27)
This work is dependent on the friction coefficient and inversely on the time allocated to the ’adiabats’. The computation for the other branches of the heat engine and heat pump are similar.

#### 3 Explicit expressions for the polarizations imposed by the closing of the cycle.

By forcing the cycle to close, the four corners of the cycle observed in Fig. 1 are linked. Applying Eq. (19) leads to the equations:

$`\begin{array}{c}S_1=S_2y+S_h^{eq}(1y)\hfill \\ S_3=S_1+\frac{\sigma ^2}{\tau _a}\hfill \\ S_4=S_3x+S_c^{eq}(1x)\hfill \\ S_2=S_4+\frac{\sigma ^2}{\tau _b}\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
The solutions for $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_1S_2`$ are

$`\begin{array}{c}S_1=S_c^{eq}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}(1y)+\sigma ^2yG(x)}{(1xy)}=S_h^{eq}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}y(1x)\sigma ^2yG(x)}{(1xy)}\hfill \\ S_2=S_c^{eq}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}x(1y)+\sigma ^2G(x)}{(1xy)}=S_h^{eq}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}(1x)\sigma ^2G(x)}{(1xy)}\hfill \end{array}`$ (35)
and

$`S_1S_2=(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq})F(x,y){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2(1y)G(x)}{(1xy)}}`$ (36)
where

$`F(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{(1x)(1y)}{(1xy)}},\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}=(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq}),G(x)=(x/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (37)
The constraint that the cycle must close leads to conditions on the polarizations $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ and on the minimum cycle time $`\tau _{c,min}`$. Eqs. (35) shows that both $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are bounded by $`S_h^{eq}`$ and $`S_c^{eq}`$. The minimum cycle time is obtained when the polarizations coincide with the hot bath polarization: $`S_1`$=$`S_2`$=$`S_h^{eq}`$. In this case, $`\tau _h`$=0, and from Eqs. (21) and (36) the minimum time allocation on the cold bath $`\tau _{c,min}`$ is computed,

$`x_{max}={\displaystyle \frac{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})\sigma ^2/\tau _b}{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})+\sigma ^2/\tau _a}}`$ (38)
or

$`\tau _{c,min}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\mathrm{lg}{\displaystyle \frac{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})\sigma ^2/\tau _b}{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})+\sigma ^2/\tau _a}}`$ (39)
From this expression for $`\tau _{c,min}`$ the lower bound for the overall cycle time, is obtained (The left of Fig. 3) :

$`\tau \tau _{min}=\tau _{c,min}+\tau _a+\tau _b`$ (40)
When the minimum cycle time Eq. (39) diverges, the cycle cannot be closed. This condition imposes an upper bound on the friction coefficient $`\sigma `$

$`\sigma \sigma ^{up}=\sqrt{\tau _b(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})}.`$ (41)
or

$`\tau _b>\tau _{b,min}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})}}.`$ (42)
Closing of the cycle imposes similar constraints on the minimal cycle time under friction for the heat pump. The value of the polarization difference $`S_2S_1`$ using the notation of Fig. 2 becomes:

$`S_2S_1=(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})F(x,y){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2(1x)(y/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(1xy)}}`$ (43)
The minimum cycle time is calculated in the limit when $`\tau _c`$=0, leading to $`S_2`$=$`S_1`$=$`S_2^{eq}`$. From Eqs. (21) and (43) the minimum time allocation on the hot branch $`\tau _{h,min}`$ is computed:

$`y_{max}={\displaystyle \frac{(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})\sigma ^2/\tau _b}{(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})+\sigma ^2/\tau _a}}`$ (44)
$`\tau _{h,min}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{lg}{\displaystyle \frac{(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})\sigma ^2/\tau _b}{(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})+\sigma ^2/\tau _a}},`$ (45)
where $`S_2^{eq}`$ is point F and $`S_1^{eq}`$ is point E on Fig. 2. Using $`\tau _{h,min}`$ the lower bound for the overall cycle time, is computed

$`\tau \tau _{min}=\tau _{h,min}+\tau _a+\tau _b`$ (46)
Closing the cycle imposes a minimum cycle time for both the heat engine and the heat pump, which is a monotonically increasing function of the friction coefficient $`\sigma `$. The divergence of $`\tau _{min}`$ imposes a maximum value for the friction coefficient $`\sigma `$.

### D Finite Time Analysis

#### 1 Quantities to be Optimized.

The primary variable to be optimized is the power of the heat engine and the heat-flow extracted from the cold reservoir of the heat pump. For a preset cycle time, optimization of the power is equivalent to optimization of the total work, while optimization of heat flow is equivalent to the optimization of the heat absorbed. The entropy production will also be analyzed.

(1) The total work done on the environment per cycle of the Heat Engine.

The total work of the engine, is the sum of the work on each branch: Cf. (Table I and Fig. 1):

$`𝒲_{cyle1}={\displaystyle D𝒲}=\left(W_{AB}+W_{BC}+W_{CD}+W_{DA}\right)`$ (47)
which becomes:

$`𝒲_{cyle1}=(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_1S_2)\sigma ^2\omega _a(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (48)
The negative sign is due to the convention of positive $`𝒲`$ when work is done on the system.

Analyzing Eq. (48), the work is partitioned into three positive and negative areas. The positive area (left rotation)

$`𝒲_p=(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_1S_2)`$ (49)
is defined by the points $`A,B,C^1,D^1`$ in Fig. 1. The two negative areas (right rotation)

$`𝒲_n=\sigma ^2\omega _a(1/\tau _a)+\sigma ^2\omega _a(1/\tau _b)`$ (50)
are defined by the points $`C,C^1,S_1,S_3`$ and $`D^1,D,S_4,S_2`$ in Fig. 1.

The cycle which achieves the minimum cycle time $`\tau `$ = $`\tau _{c,min}`$, produces zero positive work $`𝒲_p=0`$. The corners A and B coincide at E, and $`C^1`$ coincides with $`D^1`$. The negative work of Eq. (50), is defined by the corners $`C,D,S_4,S_3`$ and is ’cut’ by the $`S_h^{eq}`$ line (Cf. the right of Fig. 4). The cycle has negative total work, meaning that work is done on  the working fluid against friction. When $`\tau `$ increases beyond $`\tau _{c,min}`$ , $`S_1`$ diverts from $`S_2`$, becoming lower than $`S_h^{eq}`$ (Cf.Eq. (35)). At a certain point, the work done against friction is exactly balanced by the useful work of the engine. The minimum time in which this balance is achieved is designated $`\tau _0`$. Its value which can be deduced from Eq. (48) is worked out in appendix B.

The minimum cycle time $`\tau _{min}`$ is compared to $`\tau _0`$, the minimum time needed to obtain positive power shown in the right of Fig. 3 as a function of the friction $`\sigma `$. Both functions increase with friction, but $`\tau _0`$ diverges at a much lower friction parameter. Above this friction parameter no useful work can be obtained from the engine. The divergence of $`\tau _{min}`$ corresponds to a larger friction value where the cycle cannot be closed.

When the total time allocation is sufficient, i.e. $`\tau >\tau _0`$, work is done on the environment, and $`S_1`$ starts to increase. For long cycle times $`S_1`$ will approach $`S_h^{eq}`$, while $`S_2`$ will approach $`S_c^{eq}`$. The constant negative area will become negligible in comparison to the positive area ( Fig. 5).

To study the influence of friction on the work output the polarization difference from Eq. (36) S<sub>1</sub>-S<sub>2</sub> is inserted into the work expression Eq. (48), leading to:

$`𝒲_{cyle1}=(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})F(x,y)𝒲_{\sigma 1}`$ (51)
where

$`𝒲_{\sigma 1}=\sigma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b(1y)(x/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{1xy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a(1x)(1/\tau _a+y/\tau _b)}{1xy}}\right)`$ (52)
$`𝒲_{\sigma 1}`$ is the additional ’cost’ due to friction and is always positive.

The emergence of positive power $`𝒫`$ is shown in Fig. 4. For a fixed cycle time the optimization of work is equivalent to the optimization of power.

The first two cycles have a cycle time shorter than $`\tau _0`$, and therefore do not produce useful work. For cycle 3, $`\tau >\tau _0`$ and positive work is obtained when the time allocation on the cold bath is sufficient $`\tau _c0.08`$.

For longer total cycle times, the ratio between the negative area to the positive area decreases as can be seen in Fig. 5.

The position of the cycles in the $`S`$, $`\omega `$ coordinates relative to $`S_h^{eq}`$ and $`S_c^{eq}`$ changes as a function of the cycle time. Insight to the origin of the behavior of the ’moving’ cycles is presented in Fig. 11 of Appendix A.

The calculation of the total work done on the working fluid per cycle, $`𝒲_{cycle3}^{on}`$ for the heat pump is described in appendix D. See also ( Cf. Table (II) and Cf. Fig. 2).

(2) The heat-flow($`𝒬_F`$)

The heat-flow, $`𝒬_F`$, extracted from the cold reservoir is:

$`𝒬_F=\omega _a(S_2S_1)/\tau `$ (53)
Due to the dependence of $`𝒬_F`$ only on $`S_2`$-$`S_1`$, the cycle is similar to the cycle of the heat engine.

(3) The entropy production ($`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮^u`$).

The entropy production of the universe, $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮^u`$, is concentrated on the boundaries with the baths since, for a closed cycle, the entropy of the working fluid is constant. The computational details for both the heat engine and the heat pump are shown in appendix C. The entropy production and the power have a reciprocal relation (See Fig. 12). For example, the entropy production increases with $`\sigma `$, while the power decreases.

(4) Efficiency.

The efficiency of the heat engine is the ratio of useful work to the heat extracted from the hot bath.

$$\eta _{H.E.}=\frac{𝒲_{cycle}}{𝒬_{absorbed}}=\eta _{H.E.}^{fricles}\left(\frac{\sigma ^2\omega _a(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{\omega _b(S_1S_2)}\right)$$
(54)
where $`\eta _{H.E.}^{fricles}=(1\omega _a/\omega _b)`$

When the cycle time approaches its minimum $`\tau \tau _{min},`$ the efficiency diverges: $`\eta _{H.E.}\mathrm{}`$. The efficiency becomes positive only when $`\tau \tau _0`$. Using Eq. (54) a bound for the efficiency is obtained:

$$0<\eta _{H.E.}\eta _{H.E.}^{fricles}\frac{T_c}{T_h}\left(\frac{\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(S_1S_2)}\right)$$
(55)
The cooling efficiency of the refrigerator will be:

$$\eta _{Rf}=\frac{𝒬_{DC}}{𝒲_{cycle}^{on}}=\frac{\omega _a(S_2S_1)}{\left((\omega _b\omega _a)(S_2S_1)+\sigma ^2\omega _b(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)\right)}$$
(56)
or:

$$\frac{1}{\eta _{Rf}}+1=\frac{1}{COP}+1=\frac{\omega _b}{\omega _a}\left(1+\frac{\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(S_2S_1)}\right)>\frac{T_h}{T_c}\left(1+\frac{\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(S_2S_1)}\right),$$
(57)
leading to the expression for the efficiency:

$$\eta _{Rf}=\frac{\omega _a}{\omega _b}\frac{1}{\eta _{H.E.}^{fricles}+\frac{\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{S_2S_1}}<\frac{T_c}{T_h}\frac{1}{\eta _{H.E.}^{fricles}+\frac{\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{S_2S_1}}$$
(58)
For both the heat engine and the heat pump, the efficiency is explicitly dependent on time allocation, cycle time, and bath temperatures.

#### 2 Optimization

The performance of both the heat engine and the heat pump can be optimized with respect to:

* (a) The overall time period $`\tau `$ of the cycle, and its allocation between the hot and cold branches.
* (b) The overall optimal time allocation between all branches. (This optimization is performed only for the heat pump.)
* (c) The external fields, ($`\omega _a`$, $`\omega _b`$).

(a) Optimization with respect to time allocation.

The optimization of time allocation is carried out with the constant fields $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$. The Lagrangian for the work output becomes:

$`(x,y,\lambda )=𝒲_{cycle}+\lambda \left(\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c}}\mathrm{ln}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}}\mathrm{ln}(y)\tau _a\tau _b\right),`$ (59)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier. Equating the partial derivatives of $`(x,y,\lambda )`$ with respect to $`x`$ and $`y`$ to zero, the following condition for the optimal time allocation becomes:

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_cx\left((1y)^2(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})+\sigma ^2(1y)(1/\tau _a+y/\tau _b)\right)=\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_hy\left((1x)^2(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})\sigma ^2(1x)(x/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)\right)\hfill \end{array}`$ (62)
When $`\sigma =0`$, the previous frictionless result is retrieved. (Optimizing the entropy production $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^u`$ leads to an identical time allocation to Eq. (62)).

Eq. (62) can also be written in the following way:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_cx\left((1y)(1yx_{max})\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_hy\left((1x)(x_{max}x)\right)`$ (63)
where $`x_{max}`$ was defined in Eq. (38). The result is dependent on the time allocations of the ’adiabats’, through the dependence of $`x_{max}`$.

For the special case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$, the relation between the time allocations in contact with the hot and cold baths becomes:

$`x=x_{max}y`$ (64)
For the frictionless case, this result coincides with the former frictionless one$`x=y`$, meaning that equal time is allocated to contact with the cold and hot reservoirs. When friction is added this symmetry is broken, Eq. (64), to compensate for the additional heat generated by friction the time allocated to the cold branch, becomes larger than the time on the hot branch.

The Lagrangian for the heat-flow, $`𝒬_F`$, extracted from the cold reservoir is defined in parallel to the Lagrangian for the total work. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$, $`x`$ for $`y`$ and vice versa, also $`y_{max}`$ for $`x_{max}`$, where $`y_{max}`$ was defined in Eq. (44), one gets the optimal time allocation for the heat pump.

Optimization of power with respect to time allocation as a function of the cycle time, $`\tau `$ for different friction coefficients is shown in Fig. 6 (Left), together with the corresponding heat-flow (Middle) and the corresponding entropy production (Right). The left part shows that in the frictionless case the power obtains its maximum at zero cycle time with the value consistent with Eq. (71). When friction is introduced, the maximum power decreases and is shifted to longer cycle times. The figure also shows, that for short times the work done by the system is negative, and as the friction coefficient $`\sigma `$ increases, the boundary between positive and negative power shifts to longer cycle times. In the Middle of Fig. 6, the heat-flow corresponding to the optimal power on the left is shown. The shapes of the power and heat flow curves are similar. The heat-flow values are always positive and larger than the corresponding power values. The entropy production (Right) shows that unlike the power curves the friction changes significantly the shape of the curves. The entropy production rate for the case with friction sharply decreases. The parallel graphs for the heat pump are similar.

(b) Time allocation optimization between all branches of the refrigerator

Further optimization of the performance of the heat pump is possible by relaxing the assumption of constant time on the ’adiabats’. First the time allocation between the two ’adiabats’ is optimized, when $`\tau _a+\tau _b=\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is a constant. Finally the time allocation between the ’adiabats’ and the heat exchange branches, is optimized. These results are compared to the recent analysis of Gordon et. all. .

From Eqs. (53) and (43) with constant time allocations along the heat exchange branches one gets for the cooling power:

$`𝒬_F=A_0A_1({\displaystyle \frac{y}{\tau _a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\delta \tau _a)}}),`$ (65)
where $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ are constant functions of the parameters of the system. And on $`\delta `$, a double inequality is imposed $`\tau >\delta >`$ the larger of \[ $`(\tau \tau _{h,min});\tau _{b,min}`$\], see Eq. (42).

The optimal $`\tau _a`$ depends only on $`y`$ and on $`\delta `$. The optimal value of $`\tau _{a,opt}`$ becomes:

$`\tau _{a,opt}=\delta {\displaystyle \frac{y+\sqrt{y}}{1y}}`$ (66)
Further optimization by changing the the value of $`\delta `$, changes the cycle time $`\tau `$. This optimization step is done by numerical iteration. Typically the sum of the final optimal values of $`\tau _a`$ and $`\tau _b`$ is about twice their value before, and their ratio is about 0.7 of the value which was chosen initially.

The next step is to study the time allocation between the ’adiabats’ and the heat exchange branches when all other controls of the heat pump have optimal values. These controls include also the external fields of optimization which are described later.

For comparison with Gordon et. all. , the results of optimization are plotted in the $`1/𝒬_F`$ ,$`1/\eta `$ plane for a fixed cycle time $`\tau `$. The following example demonstrates the method followed: First an optimal starting value for $`𝒬_F`$ was found which determines the time allocation control parameters, $`\tau _c=0.44221,\tau _h=0.31779,\tau _a=0.0084,\tau _b=0.0116`$ with a total cycle time of $`\tau =0.78`$. Under such conditions $`𝒬_{F,max}=2.9158`$ ($`1/𝒬_{F,max}=0.34296`$).

Changing the time allocation between the ’adiabats’ and the heat exchange branches changes the balance between optimal cooling power and efficiency. Denoting the sum $`\tau _c`$+$`\tau _h`$ by $`\tau _{ch}`$, the ratio $`\tau _h/\tau _c`$ by $`r_{hc}`$, the sum $`\tau _a`$ \+ $`\tau _b`$ by $`\tau _{ab}`$, the ratio $`\tau _a/\tau _b`$ by $`r_{ab}`$, time is transfered from $`\tau _{ch}`$ by small steps to $`\tau _{ab}`$, while keeping the the ratios $`r_{hc}`$ and $`r_{ab}`$ constant. For each step the corresponding $`1/𝒬_F`$ and $`1/\eta `$, are calculated as in Fig. 7. The relation between the reciprocal efficiency and the reciprocal cooling power shows the tradeoff between losses due to friction and losses due to heat transfer. Following the curve in Fig. 7, starting from point $`𝐀`$ where the cooling power is optimal, resources represented by time allocation are transferred from the heat exchange branches to the ’adiabats’, reducing the friction losses. At point $`𝐁`$ an optimum is reached for the efficiency. This point has been found by Gordon et. al. to be the universal operating choice for commercial chillers. Point $`𝐁`$ represents the optimal compromise between maximum efficiency and cooling power.

Point $`𝐀`$ is located at the maximum cooling power. If more time is allocated to the heat exchange branches both $`1/𝒬_F`$ and $`1/\eta `$ will continue to increase as seen in the insert of Fig. 7.

(c) Optimization with respect to the fields.

The values of the fields $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are control parameters of the engine. In a spin system these fields are equivalent to the value of the external magnetic field applied on the system. They directly influence the energy spacing of the TLS. The work function $`𝒲_{cycle}`$, or equivalently the power ($`𝒫`$) is optimized with respect to the fields, subject to the Carnot constraint:

$$\frac{\omega _a}{T_c}\frac{\omega _b}{T_h}$$
(67)
Optimal power is obtained by equating independently to zero the partial derivatives of $`𝒲_{cycle}`$, or of $`𝒫=𝒲_{cycle}/\tau `$ by varying $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$. In addition the optimal solutions have to fulfill the inequality constraints in Eq. (67). As a result two transcendental equations in $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$ are obtained which are solved numerically.

The two equations are:

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{(1yx_{max})}{(\omega _b\omega _a)}(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}+\sigma ^2/\tau _a)\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}\right)=\frac{1y}{(4k_BT_c)}\\ \hfill \frac{(x_{max}x)}{(\omega _b\omega _a)}(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}+\sigma ^2/\tau _a)\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\omega _b}{2k_BT_h}\right)=\frac{1x}{(4k_BT_h)}\end{array}`$ (70)
Where $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}`$= S$`{}_{}{}^{eq}{}_{h}{}^{}`$\- S$`{}_{}{}^{eq}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ as defined in Eq. (36). Examining Eq. (70), and fixing the friction $`\sigma `$, it is found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}`$ is an extensive function of order zero (intensive ) with respect to the quartet of variables $`\omega _a,T_c,\omega _b,T_h`$. This means that scaling these parameters simultaneously will not change $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}`$. Also x<sub>max</sub>, and $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\omega }{2k_BT}\right)`$ are extensive (order zero). The work function however, is extensive with order one (Eqs. (51) and (52)). This property will be exploited in paragraph III.

The optimization of power with respect to the fields is shown in Fig. 8 for the frictionless engine, as a function of the fields with fixed time allocation. A global maximum can be identified.

The heat pump optimization of $`𝒬_F`$ with respect to the fields is different and therefore will be presented in Section III.

The analysis for the optimization with respect to the fields for the entropy production $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮^u`$, is presented in appendix C. The optimal solution without friction($`\sigma =0`$) leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{min}^u=0`$. When $`\sigma 0`$, the minimum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮^u`$ is different from zero, and is achieved on the boundary of the region.

### E Global Optimization of the Heat Engine

Global optimization of the power means searching for the optimimum with respect to the control parameters cycle time, time allocation and the fields. An iterative procedure is used.

The procedure is initiated by setting the optimal time allocation from the corresponding Lagrangian, with $`\sigma =0`$. The power becomes a product of two functions, one depending only on time the other only on the fields, and therefore, the fields can be changed independently of time. The optimal fields for the above time allocation are then sought. For the frictionless case, the overall time on the adiabats tends to zero. The optimal field values become independent of time. The value $`𝒫=107.501`$ is the short time limit in accordance with the equation:

$`𝒫(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)/(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h})^2`$ (71)
These fields are inserted into the expression with friction $`\sigma 0`$, and the new optimal times and fields are computed. The iteration converges after two to three steps, as indicated by Table IV for $`\sigma =0.005`$. Notice that the location of the optimum is not very sensitive to the friction parameter.

## III Asymptotic Properties of the Heat Pump when the cold bath temperature approaches absolute zero.

The goal is to obtain an asymptotic upper bound on the cooling power when the heat pump is operating close to absolute zero temperature. This requires optimizing the performance of the heat pump with respect to all control parameters.

### A Optimization of the heat-flow $`𝒬_F`$ with respect to the fields and to the cooling power upper bound.

The heat-flow,$`𝒬_F`$ extracted from the cold reservoir now becomes the subject of interest:

$`𝒬_F=\omega _a(S_2S_1)/\tau `$ (72)
or from Eq. (43),

$`𝒬_F=(\omega _a/\tau )\left((S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})F(x,y){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2(1x)(y/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(1xy)}}\right)`$ (73)
No global maximum for the $`𝒬_F`$ with respect to the fields is found. The derivative of $`𝒬_F`$ with respect to $`\omega _b`$ becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_F}{\omega _b}}={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)\omega _a}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k_BT_h\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _b}{2k_BT_h}}}0`$ (74)
leading to the result that $`𝒬_F`$ is monotonic in $`\omega _b`$. Under such conditions, $`\omega _b`$ is set, and the optimum with respect to $`\omega _a`$ is sought for. The derivative of $`𝒬_F`$ with respect to $`\omega _a`$ becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_F}{\omega _a}}=(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq}){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{(1y)}}(y/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)\omega _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k_BT_c\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}}=0`$ (75)
Introducing from Eq. (75) the optimal value of $`(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})\frac{\sigma ^2}{(1y)}(y/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$, into Eq. (73), leads to the optimal cooling rate:

$`𝒬_F^{optimum}={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)\omega _a^2}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k_BT_c\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}}={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)}{4k_B\tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}}`$ (76)
Due to its extensivity, the ratio $`\frac{\omega _a}{T_c}`$ becomes a constant, while both $`\omega _a`$ and T<sub>c</sub> can approach zero.

From Eq.(76), an upper-bound for the cooling rate $`𝒬_F`$ is obtained:

$`𝒬_F^{optimum}{\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)}{4k_B\tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)^2T_c.`$ (77)
From Eqs. (77), when T<sub>c</sub> approaches zero, the cooling rate vanishes, at least linearly with temperature. This is a third law statement which shows that absolute zero cannot be reached since the rate of cooling vanishes as absolute zero is approached.

### B The asymptotic relation between the internal and external temperature on the cold branch

When the bath temperature tends to zero, the internal working fluid temperature has to follow. This becomes a linear relationship between $`T^{}`$ and $`T_c`$ as $`T_c`$ tends to zero.

Calculating the polarization at the end of the contact with the cold bath $`S_2`$:

$`S_2=S_2^{eq}{\displaystyle \frac{(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})x(1y)\sigma ^2x(1/\tau _b+y/\tau _a)}{(1xy)}}`$ (78)
Assuming the relation $`T_h`$ = $`\rho `$ $`T_c`$ as $`T_c`$ tends to zero, the exponents can be expanded to the first order to give:

$`S_2={\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{\omega _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1xy_{max}+(\omega _a/\omega _b)\rho x(y_{max}y)}{(1xy)}}+1/2{\displaystyle \frac{x(\sigma ^2/\tau _a)(y_{max}y)}{(1xy)}}`$ (79)
Also, $`S_2`$ defines the internal temperature $`T^{}`$ through the relation: $`S_2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT^{}}\right)`$. Expanding the hyperbolic tangent, one gets:

$`T^{}=T_c{\displaystyle \frac{1xy_{max}+\rho (\omega _a/\omega _b)x(y_{max}y)}{(1xy)}}{\displaystyle \frac{x\omega _a(\sigma ^2/\tau _a)(y_{max}y)}{(1xy)}}`$ (80)
proving that $`T_c`$ and $`T^{}`$ both tend asymptotically to zero. It should be noted that the term independent of $`T_c`$ depends on $`\omega _a`$, which also tends to zero as $`T_c`$ tends to zero ( (Eq. 77). Eq. (77) also shows that $`𝒬_F^{optimum}`$\*T<sub>c</sub> is a quadratic function of $`\omega _a`$, Cf. Fig. 9.

Eq. (77) represents an upper-bound to the rate of cooling. In order to determine how closely this limit be approached, a strategy of cooling must be devised, which re-optimizes the cooling power during the changing conditions when T<sub>c</sub> approaches zero.

### C Optimal cooling strategy

The goal is to follow an optimal cooling strategy, which exploits the properties of the equations and achieves the upper-bound for the rate of cooling, $`𝒬_F`$.

The properties of the equations employed are;

* i: The derivative with respect to $`\omega _a`$ of $`𝒬_F`$ ( Eq. (75)), is extensive of order zero in the ’quartet’ ($`\omega _a,\omega _b,T_c,T_h`$).
* ii: For $`\frac{𝒬_F}{\omega _a}`$ the extensivity holds also for the ’doublets’ ($`\omega _b,T_h`$) or ($`\omega _a,T_c`$). Scaling these variables by the same number, leaves Eq. (75) equal to zero, and the value of $`𝒬_F^{optimum}`$ does not change.
* iii: In spite of $`𝒬_F`$ being monotonic in $`\omega _b`$, $`𝒬_F^{optimum}`$ is independent of $`\omega _b`$ (and of T<sub>h</sub>), therefore $`𝒬_F`$ saturates as $`\omega _b`$ is increased.

From property (i) it follows, that once an optimal ’quartet’($`\omega _a,\omega _b,T_c,T_h`$) is created, it is possible to cool optimally with a set of quartets, which are scaled by a decreasing set $`r_n<1`$, $`lim_n\mathrm{}r_n=0`$. For this set the limit of the ratio $`\frac{\omega _a}{T_c}`$ is a non zero constant. Therefore in Eq. (76) $`\omega _a`$ and T<sub>C</sub> are optimal leading to:

$`𝒬_F^{optimum}={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)}{4k_B\tau _{optimal}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{a,optimal}}{T_{c,optimal}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{T_{c,optimal}}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _{a,optimal}}{2k_BT_{c,optimal}}}}`$ (81)
In general, the hot bath temperature is constant, and the property (ii) is used to scale back the value of the optimal T<sub>h</sub> to the bath temperature. As a result, the optimal high field is also scaled.

Property (iii) will be exploited by changing only $`\omega _b`$ in the optimal quartets and checking for saturation. See Fig. 13 and the dashed curves of Fig. 9. Summarizing, for every ’quartet’ the upper-bound in Eq. (77) can be reached. The details of the cooling strategy can be found in Appendix E

Fig. 10 shows that the cooling strategy ( Tables V and VI ) can approach the upper bound leading to a linear relation of the optimal cooling power with temperature. With respect to the fields the optimal strategy leads to a decrease of the field $`\omega _a`$ which is in contact with the cold bath. This causes the internal temperature of the TLS T’ to be lower than the cold bath temperature T<sub>c</sub>. On the hot side the optimal solution requires as large an energy separation as possible $`\omega _a\mathrm{}`$ but this effect saturates.

The linear relation of the cooling rate with T<sub>c</sub> leads to a constant asymptotic entropy production as can be seen in the right of Fig. 10 ( Cf. Appendix C).

## IV Conclusion

The detailed study of the four stroke discrete heat engine with internal friction serves as a source of insight on the performance of refrigerators at temperatures which are very close to absolute zero. The next step is to find out if the behavior of the specific heat pump described in the study can be generalized. A comparison with other systems studied indicates that the conclusions drawn from the model are generic. As a heat engine the model shows the generic behavior of maximum power as a function of control parameters found in finite time thermodynamics . This is despite the fact that the heat transfer laws in the microscopic model of the working fluid are different from the macroscopic laws such as the Newtonian heat transfer law . When operated as a heat pump with friction, the present model shows the universal behavior observed for commercial chillers  caused by a tradeoff between allocating resources to the ’adiabats’ or to the heat exchange branches.

Another question is whether the linear scaling of the optimal cooling power at low cold bath temperatures is a universal phenomenon. For low temperatures the results of the present model can be extended to a working fluid consisting of an ensemble of harmonic oscillators or any N-level systems. This is because at the limit of absolute zero only the two lowest energy levels are relevant. When examined, other models with different operating cycles show an identical behavior. For example the continuous model of a quantum heat engine  based on reversing the operation of a laser shows this linear scaling phenomena. Another example is the Ericsson refrigeration cycle Cf. Eq. (23) in the study of Chen et al  which shows the same asymptotic linear relationship.

A point of concern is the dependence of the heat transfer laws on temperature when absolute zero is approached. The kinetic parameters $`k_{}`$ and $`k_{}`$ represent an individual coupling of the two-level-system to the bath. Considering coefficients derived from gas phase collisions they settle to a constant asymptotic value as the temperature is lowered . The reason is that the slow approach velocity is compensated by the increase in the thermal De-Broglie wavelength.

There has been an ongoing interest in the meaning of the third law of thermodynamics . The issue at stake has been: is the third law an independent postulate or it is a consequence of the second law and the vanishing of the heat capacity. This study presents a dynamical interpretation of the third law. The absolute temperature cannot be reached because the maximum rate of cooling vanishes linearly at least with temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the US Navy under contract number N00014-91-J-1498. The authors want to thank Jeff Gordon for his continuous help, discussions and willingness to clarify many fine points. T.F. thanks Sylvio May for his help.

## A Analysis for the ’moving’ Cycles.

Insight into the origin of the behavior of the ’moving’ cycles is seen in Fig. 11, where the polarizations S<sub>1</sub>, S<sub>2</sub> are shown as monotonically decreasing functions of the time allocation on the cold bath. However, the envelope of S<sub>1</sub> for maximal power, namely for maximal S<sub>1</sub>-S<sub>2</sub> is worth noticing. It is a decreasing function for short cycle times, achieves a minimum at $`\tau _0`$, and starts to increase for $`\tau >\tau _0`$. Thus it is responsible for shifting the cycles to smaller polarization for short cycle times, and for the change of that trend for larger cycle times. The envelope of S<sub>2</sub> for maximal S<sub>1</sub>-S<sub>2</sub> is also a monotonically decreasing function of $`\tau _c`$, or equivalently of $`\tau `$, supporting the increase of S<sub>1</sub>-S<sub>2</sub>. The figure also shows, that for a short time allocation both S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> are close to the equilibrium polarization S$`{}_{}{}^{eq}{}_{h}{}^{}`$, When not enough time is allocated on the hot bath both the polarizations S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> approach S$`{}_{}{}^{eq}{}_{c}{}^{}`$.

## B The computation of $`\tau _0`$

The computation of $`\tau _0`$ Eq. (48) is not sufficient since it gives only the relation between the times spent on the cold and hot branches for zero work. The natural additional requirement is to seek for the optimal allocations, $`\tau _{c,0}`$ and $`\tau _{h,0}`$ using Eq. (63): $`\tau _0`$ = $`\tau _{c,0}`$ \+ $`\tau _{h,0}`$ \+ $`\tau _a`$ \+ $`\tau _b`$

Denoting by $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ the corresponding x and y values defined in Eq. (21), the following two equations for x<sub>0</sub> and y<sub>0</sub> are obtained:

$`y_0={\displaystyle \frac{(x_{max}x_0)R}{(x_{max}x_0)Rx_0}}`$ (B1)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_cx_0\left((1y_0)(1y_0x_{max})\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_hy_0\left((1x_0)(x_{max}x_0)\right)`$ (B2)
Where R is defined as:

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2\omega _a(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)}{(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq}+\sigma ^2/\tau _a)}}`$ (B3)
and x<sub>max</sub> was defined in Eq. (38) as:

$`x_{max}={\displaystyle \frac{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})\sigma ^2/\tau _b}{(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})+\sigma ^2/\tau _a}}`$ (B4)
The quadratic equation to be solved for x<sub>0</sub> is,

$`AAx_0^2+BBx_0+CC=0`$ (B5)
Where AA = $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (1 + R) BB = - ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ ((1 + R) (x<sub>max</sub>-R) + x<sub>max</sub>) \+ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ (1 + R - $`x_{max}`$)) and CC = $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (x<sub>max</sub>-R) x<sub>max</sub>

## C Entropy production.

(1) Heat Engine.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{cyle1}^u=(𝒬_{AB}/T_h+𝒬_{CD}/T_c)`$ (C1)
Or from Table (I)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{cyle1}^u=(\omega _a/T_c\omega _b/T_h)(S_1S_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2\omega _a}{T_c}}(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (C2)
The entropy production results are shown in Fig. 12. The left figure shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮^u`$ with increasing friction. The middle figure shows the corresponding cycles, while the right figure shows the corresponding power values.

The reciprocal behavior of the entropy production and the power is clear from Fig. 12. One also observes, that for the given cycle time the ’free’ time for the cycles with increasing $`\sigma `$ becomes more restricted. This follows from the dependence of $`\tau _{c,min}`$ on $`\sigma `$. See also Fig.( 3)

Introducing Eq. (36) into Eq. (C2). The entropy production becomes,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{cyle1}^u=(\omega _a/T_c\omega _b/T_h)(S_h^{eq}S_c^{eq})F(x,y)+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{\sigma 1}^u`$ (C3)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{\sigma 1}^u=\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1xy)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}(1x)(1/\tau _a+y/\tau _b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}(1y)(x/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)\right)`$ (C4)
Notice, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{\sigma 1}^u`$ is always positive. For $`\sigma =0`$ Eq. (C4) reduces to the frictionless results .

(2) Heat Pump

The entropy production for the heat pump becomes:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{}^{u}{}_{ref}{}^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)(S_2S_1)+\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (C5)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})F(x,y)+`$ (C6)
$`\sigma ^2F(x,y)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\tau _b}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1y}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\tau _a}})\right\}`$ (C7)
The asymptotic entropy production as T<sub>c</sub> tends to zero can be calculated leading to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{ref}^u=F(x,y)[(\omega _b/(\rho \omega _a))(1\rho (\omega _a/\omega _b))^2+`$ (C8)
$`\sigma ^2({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{\rho T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)}}(1/\tau _a+x/\tau _b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1y)}}(1/\tau _b+y/\tau _a))]`$ (C9)
Since $`T_h=\rho T_c`$, the r.h.s. of Eq. (C9) tends to a constant, for each term depends on the constant ratios ($`\omega _b`$/T<sub>h</sub>), ($`\omega _a`$/T<sub>c</sub>) or on their ratio. This result is demonstrated on the right side of Fig. 10.

The optimization with respect to time allocation has the same result as for the heat engine. Therefore, only optimization with respect to the fields are presented;

Equating to zero the derivatives with respect to x an y of the entropy production, one gets two similar equation to the total work derivatives:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1yx_{max})}{(\omega _a/T_c\omega _bT_h)}}(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}+\sigma ^2/\tau _a)\mathrm{cosh}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1y}{(4k_BT_c)}}0`$ (C10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(x_{max}x)}{(\omega _a/T_c\omega _bT_h)}}(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}+\sigma ^2/\tau _a)\mathrm{cosh}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{2k_BT_h}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{(4k_BT_h)}}0`$ (C11)
Where $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^{eq}`$, is $`S_h^{eq}`$\- $`S_c^{eq}`$.

Eqs. (C10) and (C11) show that the entropy production is a monotonic function in the allowed range, namely, for

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}>{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{T_h}}.`$ (C12)
To conclude the entropy production has a minimum value: $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{min}^u`$, will be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_{min}^u={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\sigma ^2(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (C13)
obtained on the boundary of the range.

## D The Total Work done on the System for the Heat Pump

The total work done on the system becomes,

$`𝒲_{cyle3}^{on}=(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_2S_1)+\sigma ^2\omega _b(1/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)`$ (D1)
or

$`𝒲_{cyle3}^{on}=(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_2^{eq}S_1^{eq})F(x,y)+W_{\sigma 3}`$ (D2)
where

$`𝒲_{\sigma 3}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{(1xy)}}\left(\omega _b(1y)(1/\tau _a+x/\tau _b)+\omega _a(1x)(y/\tau _a+1/\tau _b)\right)`$ (D3)
$`=\sigma ^2F(x,y)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{1x}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\tau _b}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{1y}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\tau _a}})\right\}`$ (D4)
Eq. (D1) can be interpreted as the work done on the working fluid see (Cf. Fig. 2), as the sum of three positive areas, $`(\omega _b\omega _a)(S_2S_1)`$, $`\sigma ^2\omega _b(1/\tau _a)`$ and $`\sigma ^2\omega _b(1/\tau _b)`$ with the corresponding corners, D,C,B<sup>1</sup>,A<sup>1</sup>, B,B<sup>1</sup>,S<sub>2</sub>,S<sub>3</sub> and A<sup>1</sup>,A,S<sub>4</sub>,S<sub>1</sub>.

## E The optimal cooling strategy close to the absolute zero temperature

The first step in the cooling strategy is to create the first optimal quartet;

* (0) The systems external parameters $`\sigma `$, $`\tau _a`$, $`\tau _b`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ are set.
* (1) A decreasing set of $`\omega _b`$ is chosen.
* (2) A constant ratio ($`\rho `$) for T<sub>h</sub>/T<sub>c</sub>, is chosen which is the ratio of the initial bath temperatures.
* (3) For the above chosen values, the optimal values of $`\omega _a`$, T<sub>c</sub>, $`\tau `$, and its optimal allocations between the branches to give maximal Q<sub>F</sub> are found for each $`\omega _b`$ in the set in (1) , by solving numerically the following additional equation to Eq. (75), with the condition that T$`{}_{h}{}^{}=\rho `$T<sub>c</sub>:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_F}{T_c}}={\displaystyle \frac{F(x,y)}{4\tau k_B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _a}{T_c}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _a}{2k_BT_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b}{\rho \omega _a\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\omega _b}{2\rho k_BT_c}}}\right)=0`$ (E1)

The above strategy causes the decrease of $`T_h`$ together with the $`T_c`$. Nevertheless according to (ii) above, the doublet $`\omega _b`$ and $`T_h`$ can be rescaled to increase $`T_h`$ back to its original value. The solid curves of Fig. 9 are optimal in the in the above described sense. Increasing only the value of $`\omega _b`$ in the optimal quartet according to point (iii), leads to larger values of the cooling rate, but eventually the increase of $`𝒬_F`$ will slow down and saturate. See Fig. 13 and the dashed curves of Fig. 9.

Fig. 13 represents the saturation phenomenon on $`\omega _b`$. Three points from Fig. 9 are chosen, and all parameters are fixed, except $`\omega _b`$, which is allowed to increase.

In order to approach the upper-bound for $`𝒬_F`$ in Eq. (77), a decreasing set of $`\omega _a/T_c`$ is created, achieved in an optimal way:

First step: After having an optimal ’quartet’, T<sub>c</sub> and T<sub>h</sub>, are fixed. Then, by lowering $`\omega _b`$, one finds the corresponding optimal $`\omega _a`$ values. This procedure is checked globally, by also iterating the time allocations. The results of a typical example are shown in Table V.

Second step: Using again the property of extensivity, the cooling will be achieved by multiplying the rows of Table V by a decreasing sequence, e.g. by $`2^n`$ for the n-th row. Table VI describes the cooling strategy, checking also the non-divergence of the entropy production both for the frictionless case and the case with friction. The results are also summarized in Fig. 10.

Table V demonstrates, that the procedure shifts down to the Carnot bound. The ratio R = $`\frac{\omega _b}{T_h}`$/ $`\frac{\omega _a}{T_c}`$. was computed showing only small changes.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spontaneous anti de-Sitter compactifications of $`D=10`$ chiral $`N=2`$ supergravity have received some attention recently, in the light of the conjectured AdS/CFT correspondence . In particular $`AdS_5\times M_5`$ solutions , where $`M_5`$ = compact space, have been used to glean information on the related 4-dimensional conformal field theory . The presence of a (complex) three-form field strength can trigger compactifications on $`AdS_3\times M_7`$, an example being the known solutions $`M_7=S^3\times T^4`$ and $`M_7=S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$, whose corresponding two dimensional conformal theory has been investigated in . Further ref.s on IIB compactifications on spheres can be found in .

In this Letter we present a general class of $`AdS_3\times M_7`$ solutions with $`M_7`$ = compact 7-dimensional coset space $`G/H`$, and derive the conditions for these solutions to be supersymmetric backgrounds. This class of compactifications may be relevant for the study of the two-dimensional CFT’s examined in ref.s .

The theory contains a complex anti-Weyl gravitino $`\psi _M`$ and a complex Weyl spinor $`\lambda `$. The bosonic fields are: the graviton $`g_{MN}`$, a complex antisymmetric tensor $`A_{MN}`$, a real antisymmetric tensor $`A_{MNRS}`$ (restricted by a self-duality condition) and a complex scalar $`\varphi `$. There is a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry that rotates the two supersymmetry charges into each other. According to a general mechanism in supergravity theories, the scalars can be interpreted as coordinates of noncompact coset spaces. Here the complex scalar $`\varphi `$ parametrizes the coset $`SU(1,1)/U(1)`$.

After setting the spinor fields to zero, the field equations read :

$`2R_{MN}=P_MP_N^{}+P_M^{}P_N+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}F_M^{PQRS}F_{PQRSN}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(G_M^{PQ}G_{PQN}^{}+G_M^{PQ}G_{PQN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_{MN}G^{PQR}G_{PQR}^{})`$ (1.1)
$`F_{M_1M_5}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}ϵ_{M_1M_5N_1N_5}F^{N_1N_5}`$ (1.2)
$`(^SiQ^S)G_{MNS}=P^SG_{MNS}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}F_{MNPQR}G^{PQR}`$ (1.3)
$`(^M2iQ^M)P_M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}G^{PQR}G_{PQR}`$ (1.4)
where $`R_{MN}R_{MSN}^S`$ and the curvature two-form is defined as $`R_M^SdB_M^S+B_N^SB_M^N`$; the vectorial quantities $`P_M`$ (complex) and $`Q_M`$ (real) are related to the scalar fields (and derivatives thereof), $`F_{PQRSN}`$ and $`G_{PQN}`$ to the field strengths of the four-form and of the two-form, and $``$ is the Lorenz covariant derivative. Here we have adopted the normalizations and conventions of ; note however a sign correction in (1.4), already found in  and noted also in . Moreover the following Bianchi identities hold (a consequence of the field definitions):

$`(_{[M}2iQ_{[M})P_{N]}=0,_{[M}Q_{N]}=iP_{[M}P_{N]}^{}`$ (1.5)
$`(_{[M}iQ_{[M})G_{NRS]}=P_{[M}G_{NRS]}^{}`$ (1.6)
$`_{[N}F_{M_1..M_5]}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{Im}G_{[NM_1M_2}G_{M_3M_4M_5]}^{}`$ (1.7)
The supersymmetry variations of the bosonic fields are proportional to Fermi fields, and these vanish in the type of backgrounds we are considering. On the other hand, the supersymmetry variations of the fermionic fields are:

$`\delta \lambda =i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\epsilon ^{}P_M{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}iG_{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\epsilon `$ (1.8)
$`\delta \psi _M=(_M{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Q_M)\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{480}}F_{N_1N_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N_1N_5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\epsilon +`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{N_1N_3}G_{N_1N_3}9\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N_1N_2}G_{MN_1N_2})\epsilon ^{}`$ (1.9)
(in backgrounds with $`\psi =0,\lambda =0`$) . A solution is supersymmetric if there exist spinors $`\epsilon `$ for which these variations vanish.

## 2 The Ansatz for the $`AdS_3\times M_7`$ solutions

We use the index conventions

M,N,P…= 1-10

m,n,p…= 1-3 (run on $`AdS_3`$)

a,b,c…= 4-10 (run on $`M_7`$).

and the flat “mostly minus” D=10 metric $`\eta =(+,,;,,,,,,)`$. With the Ansatz:

$`g_{MN}=\text{metric of }AdS_3\times M_7`$
$`\text{fermions}=0;P_M=Q_M=F_{M_1M_5}=0`$
$`G_{mnp}=eϵ_{mnp},G_{abc}=gJ_{abc}`$ (2.1)
where $`e`$ and $`g`$ are complex constants and $`J_{abc}`$ a real constant antisymmetric tensor, the field eq.s (1.4) take the form:

$$6e^2g^2J^2=0,J^2J_{abc}J_{abc}>0$$
(2.2)
implying

$$g=\rho \frac{\sqrt{6}}{J}e,\rho =\pm 1$$
(2.3)
Substituting the Ansatz(2.1)and the relation (2.3) into the remaining field eq.s yields:

$`R_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|e|^2g_{mn}`$ (2.4)
$`R_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_{ab}}{J^2}}|e|^2,J_{ab}J_{acd}J_{bcd}`$ (2.5)
$`^cJ_{abc}=0,=M_7\text{covariant derivative}`$ (2.6)
Eq. (1.2) is trivially satisfied, while eq. (1.3) with free indices $`m,n`$ holds because $`ϵ_{mnp}`$ is a covariantly conserved tensor in $`AdS_3`$. Moreover it is immediate to check that the Bianchi identities (1.5)-(1.7) are satisfied. Thus our Ansatz is a solution of the classical 2b supergravity equations provided eq.s (2.4) \- (2.6) hold. The first equation fixes the $`AdS_3`$ radius. If there exist an $`M_7`$ \- covariantly conserved three-index antisymmetric tensor $`J_{abc}`$ in $`M_7`$ the third equation is satisfied, and the second equation becomes a condition on the Ricci tensor of $`M_7`$.

As we show in the following, such $`J_{abc}`$ always exist in nonsymmetric coset spaces $`G/H`$ ( and in various symmetric $`G/H`$). Moreover $`J_{ab}`$ is diagonal, allowing in most cases $`G/H`$ to solve eq. (2.5) after a vielbein rescaling.

## 3 $`G/H`$ geometry and the tensor $`J_{abc}`$

The structure constants of $`𝔾=+𝕂`$ are defined by

$`[H_i,H_j]=C_{ij}^kH_kH_i`$
$`[H_i,K_a]=C_{ia}^jH_j+C_{ia}^bK_bK_a𝕂`$
$`[K_a,K_b]=C_{ab}^jH_j+C_{ab}^cK_c`$ (3.1)
where the index conventions are obvious. As discussed in ref.  (p. 251), whenever $`H`$ is compact or semisimple one can always find a basis of $`K_a`$ such that the structure constants $`C_{ia}^j`$ vanish. In that case the $`𝔾=+𝕂`$ split, or equivalently the coset space $`G/H`$ is said to be reductive. For this reason we will deal in this paper only with reductive coset spaces. Another important observation is that when $`G/H`$ is reductive the structure constants $`C_{ia}^b`$ can always be made antisymmetric in $`a,b`$ by an appropriate redefinition $`K_aN_a^bK_b`$ .

For later use we recall the expression of the $`G/H`$ Riemannian connection

$$B_b^a=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r_br_c}{r_a}C_{bc}^a+\frac{r_ar_c}{r_b}\eta _{bg}C_{dc}^g\eta ^{ad}+\frac{r_ar_b}{r_c}\eta _{cg}C_{db}^g\eta ^{ad}\right)V^cC_{bi}^a\mathrm{\Omega }^i$$
(3.2)
where $`V^c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ are the $`K`$ and $`H`$ vielbeins respectively, and we have allowed for rescalings $`r_c`$ of $`V^c`$ in the isotropy irreducible subspaces of $`K`$, see ref.s . These subspaces correspond to the block-diagonal pieces of the matrices $`C_{bi}^a`$, so that

$$\frac{r_a}{r_b}C_{ia}^b=C_{ia}^b$$
(3.3)
The $`G/H`$ Riemann curvature is defined by $`R_b^adB_b^a+B_c^aB_b^cR_{bde}^aV^dV^e`$ and reads :

$$R_{bde}^a=\frac{1}{4}\frac{r_dr_e}{r_c}𝑪_{bc}^aC_{de}^c+\frac{1}{2}r_dr_eC_{bi}^aC_{de}^i+\frac{1}{8}𝑪_{cd}^a𝑪_{be}^c\frac{1}{8}𝑪_{ce}^a𝑪_{bd}^c$$
(3.4)
with

$$𝑪_{bc}^a\frac{r_br_c}{r_a}C_{bc}^a\frac{r_ar_c}{r_b}C_{ac}^b\frac{r_ar_b}{r_c}C_{ab}^c$$
(3.5)
Consider now the field eq. (2.6), i.e.:

$$B_{e[a}^dJ_{bc]d}\eta ^{ec}=0$$
(3.6)
where the connection 1-form components are defined by $`B_a^dB_{ca}^dV^c`$. One possible choice for a $`J_{abc}`$ satisfying (3.6) is given by:

$$J_{abc}=C_{abc}C_{ab}^G\gamma _{cG},\text{G runs on the group }G\text{}\gamma \text{ = Killing metric}$$
(3.7)
Indeed $`B_{e[a}^dC_{bc]d}\eta ^{ec}=0`$ holds for the following reason. Observe that the left hand side is an $`H`$-invariant tensor, since the connection components, the structure constants $`C_{abc}`$ and the Killing metric are all $`H`$-invariant tensors. By $`H`$-invariant tensor we mean, for example, that:

$$\delta B_{cb}^aC_{ic}^dB_{db}^aC_{id}^aB_{cb}^d+C_{ib}^dB_{cd}^a=0$$
(3.8)
i.e. the adjoint action of $`H`$ on $`B`$ vanishes. It is not difficult to prove that in (3.2) the term multiplying $`V^c`$ is $`H`$-invariant. In fact each of the three terms within parentheses in (3.2) is $`H`$-invariant, as one can show by using Jacobi identities and (3.3).

In general the only $`H`$-invariant tensor with two free indices is the Killing metric (except in the special case of $`S^2`$, where one has also $`ϵ_{ab}`$), and therefore $`B_{e[a}^dC_{bc]d}\eta ^{ec}`$, being antisymmetric in its free indices, has to vanish.

In conclusion, the choice (3.7) satisfies the field eq.s (2.6). Moreover $`J_{ab}J_{acd}J_{bcd}`$, being a symmetric $`H`$-invariant tensor, must be proportional to the Killing metric in the $`H`$-isotropy subspaces.

The structure constants $`C_{abc}`$ are not the most general solution to eq. (3.6). For example also Antisymm ($`C_{ab}^c`$), i.e. the antisymmetrization of $`C_{ab}^c`$ on its three indices, satisfies eq. (3.6). In fact there may exist $`J_{abc}`$ tensors satisfying (3.6) even for symmetric $`G/H`$; this happens obviously for $`S^3=SO(4)/SO(3)`$, where $`J_{abc}`$ is proportional to $`ϵ_{abc}`$, or less trivially in the case $`G/H=S^3\times P^2`$ discussed in Section 7.

## 4 Supersymmetry conditions

We adopt the following real representation of the $`D=3+7`$ gamma matrices:

$$𝚪_M=(\gamma _m1\text{I}_{8\times 8}\sigma _2,1\text{I}_{2\times 2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\sigma _1)$$
(4.1)
where the $`SO(1,2)`$ gamma matrices are:

$$\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)$$
(4.2)
and the real $`SO(7)`$ gamma matrices are given by the octonion structure constants (totally antisymmetric):

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{bc}=a_{abc},(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)_{b8}=\delta _{ab}`$ (4.3)
$`a_{abc}:[123]=[165]=[257]=[354]=[367]=[246]=[147]=1`$ (4.4)
The supersymmetry parameter $`\epsilon `$ has the same Weyl chirality as the gravitino $`\psi `$, i.e. $`𝚪_{11}\epsilon =\epsilon `$ (anti-Weyl). Any anti-Weyl $`SO(1,9)`$ spinor can be decomposed as :

$$\epsilon =c_N\xi ^N\eta ^N\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
(4.5)
where $`\xi ^N`$ and $`\eta ^N`$ are real $`SO(1,2)`$ and $`SO(7)`$ spinors, respectively, and $`c_N`$. Substituting in the $`\lambda `$ supersymmetry condition:

$$G_{MNR}𝚪^{MNR}\epsilon =0(eϵ_{mnr}𝚪^{mnr}+gJ_{abc}𝚪^{abc})\epsilon =0$$
(4.6)
yields:

$$c_N\xi ^N(6e1\text{I}+gJ_{abc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{abc})\eta ^N=0,$$
(4.7)
which can hold only if there exist $`SO(7)`$ spinors satisfying:

$$(1\text{I}+\rho \frac{J_{abc}}{\sqrt{6}J}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{abc})\eta =0$$
(4.8)
where we have also used (2.3).

Consider now the $`\psi `$ supersymmetry condition:

$`(d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^{mn}𝚪_{mn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B^{ab}𝚪_{ab})\epsilon +`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}V^m(G_{abc}𝚪_m𝚪^{abc}9eϵ_{mnr}𝚪^{nr})\epsilon ^{}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}V^d(G_{abc}𝚪_d^{abc}+eϵ_{mnr}𝚪_d𝚪^{mnr}9G_{dab}𝚪^{ab})\epsilon ^{}=0`$ (4.9)
$`V^m`$ and $`V^d`$ are the $`AdS_3`$ and $`M_7`$ vielbeins respectively. Substituting the $`𝚪`$-matrix and $`\epsilon `$ decomposition leads to:

$`c(_m\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B_m^{rs}\gamma _{rs}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ic^{}e\gamma _m\xi =0`$ (4.10)
$`c(_c\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B_c^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}c^{}G_{cab}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}\eta =0`$ (4.11)
where we have dropped the index $`N`$ since the conditions can be satisfied only if they hold separately for every $`N`$. Moreover use of (4.8) has been necessary in order to achieve the factorization of (4.9) into (4.10) and (4.11). The modulus of $`c`$ is irrelevant in (4.10) and (4.11), and we can set $`c=\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$. Then the integrability condition for (4.10) is:

$$[\frac{1}{4}R_{rs}^{mn}\gamma _{mn}(\frac{1}{4})^2\mathrm{exp}(4i\phi )e^2\gamma _{rs}]\xi =0$$
(4.12)
The field equations (2.4) tell us that the $`AdS_3`$ curvature is:

$$R_{rs}^{mn}=\frac{1}{4}|e|^2\delta _{rs}^{mn}$$
(4.13)
so that the integrability condition can be satisfied if and only if the phase of $`c`$ is such that:

$$|e|^2=e^2\mathrm{exp}(4i\phi )e=\alpha |e|\mathrm{exp}(2i\phi ),\alpha =\pm 1$$
(4.14)
cf. ref. . Using this relation and (2.3) into (4.11) yields finally:

$`_m\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B_m^{rs}\gamma _{rs}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}i\alpha |e|\gamma _m\xi =0`$ (4.15)
$`_c\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}B_c^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{8}}\alpha \rho |e|{\displaystyle \frac{J_{cab}}{J}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}\eta =0`$ (4.16)
The integrability condition for (4.16) reads:

$$(R_{cd}^{ab}+\frac{3}{2}|e|^2\frac{J_{cae}J_{dbe}}{J^2})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}\eta =0$$
(4.17)
The $`AdS_3\times M_7`$ solution preserves $`N`$ supersymmetries if and only if there exist $`N`$ independent $`SO(7)`$ spinors $`\eta `$ satisfying simultaneously eq.s (4.8) and (4.16).

In next Section we test our formulae in the case of the two known supersymmetric solutions, corresponding to $`G/H=S^3\times T^4`$ and $`G/H=S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$.

## 5 The supersymmetric solutions $`AdS_3\times S^3\times T^4`$ and $`AdS_3\times S^3\times S^3\times S^1`$

We’ll treat the two solutions simultaneously. The $`J_{abc}`$ tensors are simply the $`ϵ_{abc}`$ Levi-Civita tensors in the $`S^3`$ directions, so that Einstein field equations (2.5) are respectively:

$`R_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|e|^2\delta _{ab},a,b=1,2,3`$
$`R_{ab}=0,a,b=4,5,6,7`$ (5.1)
and

$`R_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}|e|^2\delta _{ab},a,b=1,2,\mathrm{..6}`$
$`R_{ab}=0,a,b=7`$ (5.2)
fixing the radii of the $`S^3`$ spheres.

In the real gamma matrix representation of Section 4, the $`\delta \lambda =0`$ supersymmetry condition is satisfied by any linear combination of the four independent spinors $`\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3,\eta _8`$, the 8-dimensional spinor $`\eta _a`$ having the a-th component as only nonvanishing component. This holds for both solutions. On the other hand, the $`\delta \psi =0`$ supersymmetry condition is satisfied by 8 independent real spinors $`\eta _1^\pm ,\eta _2^\pm ,\eta _3^\pm ,\eta _8^\pm `$, the <sup>±</sup> referring to the sign $`\alpha `$ of (4.16). These spinors depend on the $`M_7`$ coordinates. Again this holds for both solutions. The two compactifications have then $`N=8`$ supersymmetries, or 16 real conserved supercharges (since $`\xi `$ has two real components).

## 6 Other $`AdS_3\times G/H`$ solutions

A complete classification of all $`AdS_3\times G/H`$ solutions based on the Ansatz (2.1) is postponed to a later publication. This requires to find the most general $`J_{abc}`$ that solves eq. (3.6) for each 7-dimensional $`G/H`$.

Here we give some selected examples, choosing some particular $`J`$ tensors. In fact, all the 7-dimensional $`G/H`$ cosets classified in  are solutions of the IIB field equations, after suitable rescalings of the coset vielbeins. But the $`G/H`$ list of IIB solutions is actually larger than the one relevant for $`D=11`$ supergravity compactified on $`AdS_4\times G/H`$. Indeed in the IIB case the field equations do not force $`G/H`$ to be an Einstein space, but rather to be “isotropy Einstein”, i.e. with a Ricci tensor $`R_{ab}`$ proportional to $`\delta _{ab}`$ in each isotropy irreducible subspace of $`G/H`$. The proportionality constant can also vanish: when this happens in one-dimensional subspaces $`S^1`$ factors are allowed (they were excluded in the list of ).

### 6.1 $`AdS_3\times M^{pqr}`$

The $`M^{pqr}`$ spaces have been studied in detail in ref.s . They have three isotropy irreducible subspaces, allowing three independent rescalings $`a,b,c`$ of the vielbeins corresponding to the (1,2), 3, (4,5,6,7) directions and preserving the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ isometry. Their Ricci tensor is given by :

$`R_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}b^2(2{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c^2}}q^2)\delta _{mn},m,n=1,2`$
$`R_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{9a^4p^2+2b^4q^2}{8c^2}}`$
$`R_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}a^2(43{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{c^2}}p^2)\delta _{AB},A,B=4,5,6,7`$ (6.1)
For $`q0`$, $`p0`$ we can redefine:

$$a=\frac{q}{p}\gamma \sqrt{\frac{2\alpha }{3}},b=\gamma \sqrt{2\beta },c=q\gamma $$
(6.2)
so that the Ricci tensor becomes:

$`R_{mn}=\gamma ^2\beta (1\beta )\delta _{mn},m,n=1,2`$
$`R_{33}=\gamma ^2(\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{p^2}}\alpha ^2)`$
$`R_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^2\alpha (1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{p^2}}\delta _{AB}`$ (6.3)
An explicit check reveals that taking $`J_{abc}`$ to be the Levi-Civita tensor in the directions 1,2,3 (as in the case of the $`S^3\times T^4`$ solution) and otherwise zero satisfies the condition (3.6). Then the field equations are as in (5.1), and are satisfied by the Ricci tensor in (6.3) when the rescalings are:

$$\alpha =2,\beta =\frac{1\pm \sqrt{116\frac{q^2}{p^2}}}{4},\gamma =\frac{1}{4\beta (1\beta )}|e|^2$$
(6.4)
requiring $`p/q4`$. The particular case $`q=0`$, corresponding to $`S^2\times S^5`$, is also a solution: the rescalings are then:

$$a^2=\frac{1}{6}|e|^2,b^2=\frac{1}{2}|e|^2,c^2=\frac{1}{8}p^2|e|^2$$
(6.5)
The $`\delta \lambda `$ supersymmetry condition is satisfied by the same spinors $`\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3,\eta _8`$ discussed in the previous Section. However these spinors do not satisfy the $`\delta \psi `$ condition, and therefore these solutions are not supersymmetric.

There are other possible choices for $`J_{abc}`$. For example $`J_{abc}=`$ Antisymm($`C_{ab}^c`$) leads to field equations that can still be solved by a set of different rescalings $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$. In this case the four directions 4,5,6,7 are not Ricci flat.

### 6.2 $`AdS_3\times N^{010}`$

The $`N^{010}`$ coset spaces are a special case in the class of $`N^{pqr}`$ coset spaces studied in ref.s  in the context of $`D=11`$ supergravity compactifications. They can be realized as the quotient:

$$N^{010}=\frac{SU(3)\times SU(2)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}$$
(6.6)
where the $`SU(2)`$ in the denominator is diagonally embedded in $`G=SU(3)\times SU(2)`$. In this formulation the full isometry of $`N^{010}`$ comes from the left action of $`G`$ . The $`N^{010}`$ geometry has been studied in detail in , and the Ricci tensor is given by:

$`R_{ab}=\left(\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{\alpha ^2}}\right)\delta _{ab}`$ (6.7)
$`R_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\beta ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha ^2}}\right)\delta _{AB}`$ (6.8)
Again one can check explicitly that the same $`J_{abc}=ϵ_{abc},a,b,c=1,2,3`$ used in the previous solutions satisfies the field equations (3.6). Then $`AdS_3\times N^{010}`$ is a solution provided the rescalings are fixed to the values:

$$\alpha =\pm \frac{1}{6}|e|,\beta =\pm \frac{2}{3}|e|$$
(6.9)
As in the previous case supersymmetry is absent because (4.16) has no solutions.

In a similar way we easily find that for every 7-dimensional coset space $`G/H`$ of the classification  there exist a set of constants $`J_{abc}`$ such that $`AdS_3\times G/H`$ is a solution for IIB supergravity, with the exception of the round 7-sphere $`SO(8)/SO(7)`$. Also, every $`G/H\times S^1`$ space with $`G/H`$ = nonsymmetric 6-dimensional coset is a solution of the IIB equations for appropriate rescalings and $`J_{abc}=C_{abc}`$.

What remains to be done is to determine in each case the most general $`J_{abc}`$, and check whether there are instances in which both supersymmetry conditions can be satisfied simultaneously, yielding supersymmetric solutions as in Section 5.

We expect that, in order to make contact with the $`d=2`$ superconformal theories discussed in , we need to extend our Ansatz to a nonconstant scalar field.

## 7 Asymptotic supersymmetry: $`S^3\times (P^2T^4)`$

We study here a particular class of solutions , characterized by a continuous parameter $`\sigma `$. Consider the cosets $`G/H=M^{010}`$, a special case of the $`M^{pqr}`$ class with $`S^3\times P^2`$ topology . In general a rescaling of the $`G`$ structure constants given by:

$$C_{G_1G_2}^{G_3}\frac{r_{G_1}r_{G_2}}{r_{G_3}}C_{G_1G_2}^{G_3}$$
(7.1)
still defines a Lie algebra. Take all $`r`$ = 1 except those in the $`4,5,6,7`$ coset directions, for which $`r=\sigma `$. Then the Ricci tensor becomes:

$`R_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}b^2(2{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{c^2}})\delta _{mn},m,n=1,2`$
$`R_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{b^4}{4c^2}}`$
$`R_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a^2\sigma ^2\delta _{AB},A,B=4,5,6,7`$ (7.2)
The limit $`\sigma 0`$ corresponds to a group contraction yielding $`S^3\times T^4`$: in fact it amounts to sending the radius of $`P^2`$ to infinity. For any $`\sigma `$, i.e. for any $`P^2`$-radius, $`AdS_3\times S^3\times P^2`$ is a solution of the IIB equations if we choose the $`J_{abc}`$ tensor to be:

$$J_{123}=1,J_{345}=J_{367}=\sigma $$
(7.3)
and the rescalings:

$$a^2=\frac{|e|^2}{3(1+2\sigma ^2)},b^2=\pm c|e|,c=\frac{\sigma ^2+1}{2\sigma ^2+1}|e|$$
(7.4)
One can see easily that the $`\delta \lambda `$ supersymmetry condition is satisfied by just one of these solutions, corresponding to $`\sigma =0`$, i.e. the $`N=8`$ supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times S^3\times T^4`$ compactification. All the other values of $`\sigma `$ break supersymmetry. Thus we obtain a class of continuously connected solutions, parametrized by $`\sigma `$, all of them nonsupersymmetric except in the limit $`\sigma =0`$. For $`\sigma 0`$, $`S^3`$ is a squashed three-sphere, cf. eq.s (7.2).

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge useful discussions with Pietro Fré and Igor Pesando.