The division by N! in the expression of statistical entropy is usually justified to students by the statement that classical particles should be counted as indistinguishable. Sometimes, quantum indistinguishability is invoked to explain it. In this paper, we try to clarify the issue starting from Clausius thermodynamical entropy and deriving from it Boltzmann statistical entropy for the ideal gas. This approach appears interesting for two reasons: Firstly, it provides a direct heuristic link between thermodynamical and statistical expressions of entropy that is missing in the usual approach. In second place, it explicitly reminds that also statistical entropy is defined with respect to a reference state, chosen to be the quantum-mechanical (T=0) ground state of the N-particles in a box. Both factors $h^{3N}$ and $N!$ at the denominator of the statistical entropy are a consequence of the quantum nature of the reference state: in particular, the $N!$ is not related to the particle identity, but to the identity of the boundary conditions on the quantum-mechanical ground-state momenta, and to a general statistical maximization principle. The introduction of a reference state also allows to reinterpret the standard case of two mixing gases.
The division by N! in the expression of statistical entropy is usually justified to students by the statement that classical particles should be counted as indistinguishable. Sometimes, quantum indistinguishability is invoked to explain it. In this paper, we try to clarify the issue starting from Clausius thermodynamical entropy and deriving from it Boltzmann statistical entropy for the ideal gas. This approach appears interesting for two reasons: Firstly, it provides a direct heuristic link between thermodynamical and statistical expressions of entropy that is missing in the usual approach. In second place, it explicitly reminds that also statistical entropy is defined with respect to a reference state, chosen to be the quantum-mechanical (T=0) ground state of the N-particles in a box. Both factors h3N and N! at the denominator of the statistical entropy are a consequence of the quantum nature of the reference state: in particular, the N! is not related to the particle identity, but to the identity of the boundary conditions on the quantum-mechanical ground-state momenta, and to a general statistical maximization principle. The introduction of a reference state also allows to reinterpret the standard case of two mixing gases.
Abstract The quantum thermodynamics of the ideal gas is treated by means of the particle entropies σ=ka. The non-dimensional entropy numbers a are calculated by the extended, temperature-dependent Schrödinger equation applying periodic boundary conditions. The Boltzmann constant k represents the atomic entropy unit. The quantized particle entropies a are used to calculate the Boltzmann distribution f=exp(α−a), the density of entropy levels D(a), the dimensionless chemical potential α=μ/kT, etc. – The thermodynamics of the ideal gas is treated on the basis of entropy quanta by means of the density matrix formalism. In this way we obtain the total particle entropy A, the thermodynamic entropy S (equation of Sackur-Tetrode), the internal and the Helmholtz free energy E and F, respectively, etc. Moreover, it can also be shown on the basis of entropy quanta that the entropy of a closed system in thermal equilibrium has a maximum value, S=S max. Against this, the entropy S ′ of an arbitrary non-equilibrium state is always smaller, S′ < S max (second law of thermodynamics). – Application of ordinary density matrix theory to a closed system of N particles leads to the result that the entropy S does not change in time, dS/dt=0, regardless whether we consider an equilibrium state, S=S max, or a non-equilibrium state, S=S′. Consequently, S cannot irreversibly change from S′ to S max. However, any irreversible process is accompanied by a positive entropy production P=dS/dt>0. In order to overcome this obvious contradiction, we discuss the entropy evolution in time by means of the commutator equation G =i[ P , t ], which is deduced from very general assumptions. Here P and t are the operators of the entropy production P and the time t. Accordingly, P and t do not commute in general, and hence P and t are not sharply defined simultaneously. Instead we have uncertainties ΔP and Δt, which are expressed by the uncertainty relation of the N-particle system, ΔPΔt≥(1/2)|〈 G 〉|=(γ/2)k. This P − t uncertainty relation easily allows a discussion of the evolution of the entropy S in time t from S′ to S max. Now the irreversible steps are correctly described by the entropy production P=dS/dt > 0, and the thermal equilibrium by P=0, ∆P=0, and thus the lifetime ∆t=∞.
What is the physical significance of entropy? What is the physical origin of irreversibility? Do entropy and irreversibility exist only for complex and macroscopic systems? The bulk of the physics community accepts and teaches that all these fundamental questions are rationalized within statistical mechanics. Indeed, for everyday laboratory physics, the mathematical formalism of statistical mechanics (canonical and grandcanonica1, Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions) allows a successful description of the thermodynamic equilibrium properties of matter, including entropy values. But an ever growing handful of physicists (Schrodinger among the first) have realized that, even in its explanation of the meaning of entropy, statistical mechanics is impaired by ambiguities and logical inconsistencies. They have started to search for a better theory to eliminate these stumbling blocks while maintaining the mathematical formalism that has been so successful in so many applications. This handful of upstreamers must not be confused with the many schools of physicists that have thrived on the more renowned incompleteness of statistical mechanics, namely, the lack of a quantitative (and the weakness of the qualitative) explanation of the origin of irreversibility. In these studies the thrust is provided by the discovery that the macroscopic dynamics of certain complex systems may be modeled using a few-degrees-of-freedom nonlinear Hamiltonian with singularities that give rise to bifurcations and chaotic behavior. These results have generated successful ways to describe irreversible behavior, but their link to the origin of irreversibility is still only heuristic (what is the connection between the nonlinear model Hamiltonian and the true full Hamiitonian?) and does not provide yet a rigorous resolution of the century-old paradox of the conflict between the irreversibiiity of macroscopic behavior, and the reversibility of the laws of mechanics. To resolve both the problem of the meaning of entropy and that of the origin of irreversibility we have built entropy and irreversibility into the laws of mechanics. The result is a theory that we call quantum thermodynamics that has all the necessary properties to combine mechanics and thermodynamics uniting all the successful results of both theories, eliminating the logical inconsistencies of statistical mechanics and the paradox on irreversibiiity, and providing an entirely new perspective on the microscopic origin of irreversibility, nonlinearity and therefore chaotic behavior. The mathematical formalism of quantum thermodynamics differs from that of statistical mechanics mainly in the equation of motion which is nonlinear but has solutions identical to those of the Schrodinger equation for all the states for which statistical mechanics reduces to quantum mechanics. The physical meaning of the formalism of quantum thermodynamics differs more drastically from that of statistical mechanics. The significance of the state operator of quantum thermodynamics is entirely different from that of the density operator of statistical mechanics, even though the two are mathematically equivalent. Indeed they obey different equations of motion. In particular, quantum thermodynamics is concerned only with those systems for which quantum mechanics would describe the states with vectors in Hilbert space or, equivalently, projection operators. Using a well known jargon, we can say that quantum thermodynamics like quantum mechanics is concerned only with pure quantum states. However, it postulates that the set of pure quantum states of a system is much broader than contemplated by quantum mechanics. Pure quantum states must be described by operators defined by all the features of projection operators except the condition of idempotence. As a result, an operator that within statistical mechanics would describe a mixed quantum state (that is, the average state of a statistical mixture of identical systems in different pure quantum states) in quantum thermodynamics describes a pure quantum state, a state that neither quantum mechanics non statistical mechanics would contemplate. Conceptually, the increased richness of pure quantum states is a new revolutionary postulate of quantum physics. But from the point of view of the statistical mechanics practitioners the new theory is not as traumatic as it seems. Whenever one uses a nonidempotent density operator to describe a thermodynamic equilibrium state one simply has to reinterpret it as one of the new pure quantum states. One even saves the usual ad hoc arguments on thermal baths and reservoirs that are usually required in statistical mechanics to justify the use of a nonidempotent density operator to describe the state of a system. In this paper we discuss the background and formalism of quantum thermodynamics including its nonlinear equation of motion and the main general results. Our objective is to show in a not-too-technical manner that this theory provides indeed a complete and coherent resolution of the century-old dilemma on the meaning of entropy and the origin of irreversibility. As a byproduct, we discuss a long set of criteria that a theory should meet in order to afford the same claim.
A persistent conceptual puzzle in statistical mechanics is that the entropy S of a classical ideal gas depends on quantum mechanical quantities such as Planck's constant h and the factor 1/N!, which is commonly attributed to the indistinguishability of quantum particles. We resolve this puzzle by distinguishing entropy differences ΔS computed within the gas phase from those computed across a phase transition. For thermodynamic transformations within the gas phase, ΔS depends exclusively on classical macroscopic variables. In such processes, both h and 1/N! contribute only additive constants that cancel in ΔS, rendering them irrelevant for classical measurements. However, computing the latent heat released during a phase transition requires the entropy difference between two distinct phases with fundamentally different microscopic structures. Since the additive contributions do not cancel across phase transitions, a microscopic theory that correctly counts the states of each phase becomes essential, and quantum mechanics is required.
Ojha, Sardana, and Ghosh [Phys. Rev. A 113, 042221 (2026)] propose that tracing environmental records of particle permutations produces an entropy kB ln N!, thereby explaining the Gibbs factor, and use the same construction to multiply the Saha equilibrium relation by 1/(Ne!Np!). We show that these conclusions do not follow. The reduced density matrix printed in their Eq. (32) is not a partial trace, and even under the natural corrected interpretation the entropy equals kB ln N! only when the system branch states are mutually orthogonal. That condition is not generally satisfied and, when imposed on labeled permutation branches, does not by itself restrict the particle state to one bosonic or fermionic symmetry sector. A two-particle calculation makes the contradiction explicit. Their Gibbs-paradox calculation also starts from a distinguishable-particle entropy while calling it the Sackur-Tetrode entropy. In the Saha section, the state in Eq. (52), as written, factorizes and has zero system-environment entanglement. The proposed factorial does not approach unity in the claimed dilute-gas limit, does not yield a finite nonzero intensive thermodynamic limit, and counts indistinguishability twice. We give the corrected canonical and fugacity-based formulations and identify which standard results of the paper remain unaffected.
Differences of opinion concerning fundamental issues in statistical mechanics directly related to the thermodynamic entropy have persisted through more than a century of debate. One reason is the lack of consensus on the definitions of key terms, especially the terms “distinguishable,” “indistinguishable,” and “identical.” Several definitions occur in the literature, but are not always made explicit. The multiplicity of definitions has created confusion about the basic conditions under which entropy is to be defined. In this paper, I present an overview of definitions in current use for terms associated with distinguishability and relate them to various definitions that have been suggested for entropy. My hope is that consensus will be achievable if the definitions are clarified and agreed upon.
Classical statistical mechanics/thermodynamics is sometimes portrayed as an approximate approach to describing the classical mechanical motion of very large numbers of particles. Equilibrium statistical mechanics/thermodynamics, however, is a special situation in which thermodynamic averages such as temperature, pressure etc do not change in time. We argue in this note that this is due to constraints imposed on such equilibrium scenarios namely time reversal reaction balance. It is this (approximate) constraint which yields the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which in turn defines average values of classical values e.g. pressure resulting from an average of bvv (b=constant) and temperature being related to average kinetic energy. Interestingly, average values such as average energy and pressure may yield a classical mechanical relationship for adiabatic processes, otherwise the more complicated dE=TdS - PdV applies to these averages. (To be more accurate one may use the constraints of microcanonical theory.) Quantum mechanics is also a statistical theory because a single particle with a fixed momentum is characterized by a physical wavelength region and a probability distribution exp(ipx). If interactions occur with potential regions a superposition of these distributions (i.e. a momentum superposition) occurs i.e. W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This represents one constraint in quantum mechanics), but there is a second, namely that averages for a bound system match classical values. Thus, like classical statistical mechanics one may imagine a system characterized by a parameter say L (box length) which changes such that the particle stays in the same quantum state (i.e. an adiabatic change). Given that bound quantum mechanics is constrained to behave on average as a classical system it is not surprising that a dE=PdV which is essentially a Newton’s second law statement dE=Fdx and is not necessarily linked to a usual statistical system. If a quantum state has its parameter changed nonadiabatically it should be able to have it change into a superposition of new quantum states (new L) which is very different from the classical statistical mechanical scenario. Furthermore the ideal gas relationship PV=NRT and E=3/2NRT (3 degrees of freedom) or PV=(⅔)E matches a classical mechanical result because a particle with p may bounce from a wall yielding an impulse. In this note we try to examine some of these underlying constraints and argue that even dE=PdV for average E and P values (i.e. no entropy change) one must be aware of the specific constraints involved. In other words because dE=PdV for both adiabatic classical statistical mechanical systems and a quantum eigenstate, these do not necessarily represent the same statistical type of physics. We further argue that quantum mechanical bound states are constrained to have some average and rms values such as KE(x) and p rms behave as classical values and so these should not be taken to represent “intrinsic” quantum behaviour while average spatial density on the other hand does. (It is linked to the constraint of wavelength.)