Abstract While undergraduate texts describe the change, Δ S in entropies, from time t = 0 to t = ∞ , they do not speak about exactly how, Δ S ( t ) ≡ S ( t ) − S ( 0 ) , the change in entropy up to time t , looks. Here, a ‘derivation’ of the continuous version of Shannon entropy (for position), − ∫ − ∞ ∞ p ( x ) ln ( p ( x ) ) d x , where p ( x ) is the probability distribution for the particle, from the Boltzmann equation, is sketched and employed for the theoretical study of the time evolution of Shannon entropies for diffusion from a point source, classical free expansion (under circumstances where the mean free path is much larger than the length of the box, and vice versa), and ‘versions’ of quantum evolution of a particle initially localised in a Gaussian, and quantum free expansion. For the quantum versions, striking similarities to the classical counterparts are highlighted; furthermore, for quantum free expansion, the Poincare period is determined and discussed at some length. The quantum versions studied here work with pure states and zero temperature.
Abstract While undergraduate texts describe the change, Δ S in entropies, from time t = 0 to t = ∞ , they do not speak about exactly how, Δ S ( t ) ≡ S ( t ) − S ( 0 ) , the change in entropy up to time t , looks. Here, a ‘derivation’ of the continuous version of Shannon entropy (for position), − ∫ − ∞ ∞ p ( x ) ln ( p ( x ) ) d x , where p ( x ) is the probability distribution for the particle, from the Boltzmann equation, is sketched and employed for the theoretical study of the time evolution of Shannon entropies for diffusion from a point source, classical free expansion (under circumstances where the mean free path is much larger than the length of the box, and vice versa), and ‘versions’ of quantum evolution of a particle initially localised in a Gaussian, and quantum free expansion. For the quantum versions, striking similarities to the classical counterparts are highlighted; furthermore, for quantum free expansion, the Poincare period is determined and discussed at some length. The quantum versions studied here work with pure states and zero temperature.
Abstract We consider the temporal evolution of an isolated system of N particles from a non-equilibrium state of entropy S = S′ to the equilibrium state of maximum entropy, S = S max, S′ ≤ S max. The application of usual density matrix theory to the temporal development of S leads us to dS/dt = 0: The entropy S does not change in time t. Thereby it is irrelevant, whether we consider a non-equilibrium state or an equilibrium state. Consequently, the system cannot irreversibly change by entropy production dS/dt > 0 from S′ to S max. This is a paradoxial result, which contradicts the experience. It can be traced back to the von Neumann equation, which in principle describes reversible processes and hence is unsuitable for calculating the irreversible evolution of the entropy S in time t. Each irreversible process is accompanied by a positive entropy production P = dS/dt ≥ 0 inside the system, which only vanishes in case of the equilibrium state. In order to overcome the above mentioned difficulties, we assign an operator P to the entropy production P, which is defined by the eigenvalue equation P |u〉 = P|u〉 with the state vector |u〉 of the N-particle system. There was an extensive discussion about the relation between the production of entropy P on one hand and the progression of time t on the other. Making use of this concept, we combine the operator of entropy production P with the time-development operator U (t, t 0) of the system and finally deduce the infinitesimal unitary operator U (t+τ,t) = 1 + (i/k)τ P by means of very general assumptions. Here P means the generator of the infinitesimal progression of time τ = t − t 0 and k the Boltzmann constant, representing the atomic entropy unit. Similarly to P we also treat the time t as an observable, defined by t |u〉 = t|u〉. We apply the infinitesimal time-evolution operator U (t+τ,t) to the operator of time t and finally obtain the P – t commutation relation i[ P , t ] = k, which is independent of τ. It shows that the operators P and t do not commute, and hence P and t are not sharply defined simultaneously. Instead we have uncertainties ΔP and Δt on measuring P and t, which are given by the P–t uncertainty relation ΔPΔt ≥ k/2. It readily allows a discussion of the evolution of the entropy S of the isolated system in time t from S′ to S max. Now, the irreversible steps are correctly described by the entropy production P = dS/dt > 0, while the thermal equilibrium is given by P = 0, ΔP = 0, and thus the lifetime of the equilibrium state Δt = ∞. According to the P–t uncertainty relation, the Boltzmann constant k is similarly important to the quantum thermodynamics of irreversible processes like Planck′s constant h to usual quantum mechanics.
The notion of entropy originates historically in classical physics and is intertwined with thermodynamics. Shannon’s entropy: - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)), where P(i) is the probability for i, however, seems to apply to any probability, but in quantum mechanics appears to be particularly linked to spatial and momentum entropy (1) i.e. - Integral dx W*(x)W(x) ln[ W*(x)W(x)] and - Sum over p a*(p)a(p) ln[ a*(p)a(p) ] where W(x)= wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In this note we speculate that one may create an entropy from the real part of exp(ipx) i.e. cos(px) as this term is associated with probability within a wavelength even though the “center of mass” of the particle may be moving uniformly at v=x/t=constant and W*(x)W(x)=1 or a constant. The latter implies an entropy independent of p but there is uncertainty in a free particle due to its wavelength which is experimentally manifested. We argue there is no reason to limit entropy to x or p considerations. For a bound state, a pattern of crests and troughs of different lengths and heights may be produced and so again there is a pattern of unnormalized probability distributions with different weights. The absolute value may be taken so negative wavefunction values are not an issue. For both the free particle and the bound state two features emerge. First the shape of the distributions is linked to the curvature which in turn is associated with the kinetic energy. Thus the probability distributions which describe the quantum system are governed by kinetic energy. Secondly, a pattern of distributions, both negative and positive, ensures that exp(ipx) is perpendicular to other exp(ip1 x) functions and Wn(x) is perpendicular to other Wn1(x)’s. In other words energy identifies the statistical state which exists throughout space and one cannot confuse the identity of one state with another. Thus they are orthogonal throughout space and probability distributions (linked to entropy) seem to enforce this. The inner product of W*(x) and W(x) is like an inner product of a product probability of a state and its time reversed state. We suggest one should be able to define a Shannon’s entropy expression for both |cos(px)|/C1 from exp(ipx) over a half wavelength where C1 is a normalization factor and |W(x)|/C2 roughly over the length over which it has humps i.e. roughly the classical turning points for an oscillator for example. This entropy is not additive and does not map to classical entropy in the large n (energy level) limit. Furthermore it may not be linked to thermodynamics because it is not linked to x or p. Nevertheless, it might be used to describe uncertainty within the quantity system and equilibrium/stable scenarios which are observed in nature. For example, different Wn(x) states are statistically stable states, but one may knock out the particle and it will be in an exp(ipx) state which is also stable. Furthermore, a photon may excite Wn1(x) to Wn2(x), thus this new entropy seems to be linked to stable states allowed in nature. The “price to pay”, however, seems to be uncertainty in wavelength regions for a free particle and the crest/trough regions for a bound state. We also consider some properties of a similar entropy for bound states.
The von Neumann entropy definition is -Tr ( d ln(d)) and is linked to: = Tr (d A) ((1)). Here d is a matrix as is A i.e Aij = . As a result d is often not diagonal. It seems further that the idea of entropy is linked to an operator (2). In other words, one might have certain probabilities linked to the operator P momentum and a different set to X. For a diagonal d, von Neumann’s form is the same as Shannon’s entropy, but uses the eigenvalues of d. For a pure quantum bound state Wn(x), it seems that one considers the two operators X and P and writes two entropies using Shannon’s entropy form: - Integral dx W(x)W(x) ln(WW) and -Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln(a(p)a(p)) where W(x)=wavefunction= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Here P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p). For example in (3), one may see calculations of these “distinct” entropies for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls. X and P are linked to measurables and for a quantum bound system one cannot know exactly x and p at the same time. One may write < KE > for a bound state in two ways: Integral dp a(p)a(p) pp/2m or Integral dx W(x) (-1/2m d/dx dW/dx). Using Shannon’s entropy approach one obtains two different entropy values Sx and Sp. With respect to von Neumann’s entropy, it is zero for a pure state. Although one cannot know x and p at the same time (in terms of a measurement) that does not prevent one from writing x and p together (i.e. both known) in exp(ipx) for the wavefunction of a free particle. In this note we suggest that one might consider product probabilities linked to more than one operator when considering entropy. For example, for <KE> one may write Integral dx P(x) Integral dp pp/2m P(p/x) thus acknowledging that both x and p play a role. In this case, P(x)P(p/x) is the probability to use in Shannon’s entropy as we have shown in (4). In (3) it is suggested that P(x)P(p/x) be used in order to incorporate both variables x and p. Using P(x)P(p) in Shannon’s entropy yields the same overall entropy when integrated over x and p i.e. S=Sx+Sp. One reason that the sum is useful is that it eliminates parameters such as L (box length) for a particle in a box with infinite walls (or k the spring constant for an oscillator. This allows for a quantum adiabatic transformation of a pure state to be isentropic. This follows from a Fourier transformation i.e. W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). The two variables p and x scale with L in the opposite manner i.e. x/L and pL (5). Thus we argue that entropy is not necessarily linked to only one operator, but rather for a pure state is linked to variables which appear in a Fourier transform. Usually a Fourier transform is simply a mathematical procedure, but not in the case of the quantum pure state wavefunction where the variable p is actually momentum. In this note we try to investigate how the quantum relationship between p and x emerges. We argue that it exists at the level of the classical action for a free particle (relativistic or nonrelativistic) A=-Et+px where dA/dx partial =p and dA/dt partial = -E. Thus p and x are variable pairs in classical dynamics and this carries over to classical statistical phase space linked to p and x. We argue that a quantum dynamical link between p and x is also present in A i.e. -id/dx exp(iA) = p exp(iA). In other words p and x are linked dynamically in quantum mechanics as well (for a free particle) with exp(-iEt+ipx) being part of this link. The Fourier series form is already present in this solution as one may create a momentum distribution i.e. Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This depends on p and x and both affect any operator based on p and x (or one of these). Thus we expect that probabilities linked to both p and x should appear in an expression of entropy for a quantum bound state.
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=∞.
In this note, we examine the behaviour of Shannon’s entropy density for some examples in quantum mechanics. We start with a quasiparticle probability P(x and p) = W(x) fp exp(ipx) (where W(x) is the wavefunction given by Sum over p fp exp(ipx)) and obtain a Shannon’s entropy (after summing on p) : Total entropy density = -P(x) ln(P(x)) - P(p) ln(P(p)) - W(x) x d/dx W(x) ((1)) It may be noted that if f(p)=f(-p) ((1)) may also be written as: Total entropy density = -P(x) ln(P(x)) - P(p) ln(P(p)) - fp p d/dp fp We consider the cases of a particle in a box with an infinite potential at the walls and the harmonic oscillator ground state. Finally we consider the influence of u(x)= [d/dx W(x)]/W(x) on the spatial change of Shannon’s spatial entropy as W(x) and u(x) are often periodic and this leads to a periodic entropy density. In general, entropy is obtained by integrating the entropy density and one may question whether one should examine the density at all. In (1), however, entropy density is considered and it seems that there are some interesting properties of Shannon’s entropy density in quantum systems. Furthermore, there has been some recent work in the literature which makes use of entropy density to create an extra potential term for the Schrodinger equation in cases of temperature.
Historically, thermodynamics was formulated for macroscopic systems followed by the development of statistical mechanics which provided microscopic formulations for quantities such as entropy. Entropy is traditionally linked to the ln of the number states available or to the Shannon’s form -k Sum over i P(ei) ln(P(ei)) where P(ei) is the probability for the quantity ei. In addition a variable T (linked to average kinetic energy) appears in both theories. Later the Schrodinger equation was developed to describe bound electron states in an atom etc. These states were characterized by a math object W(x) called the wavefunction and a set of discrete energy levels was calculated which matched data of emitted photons. In a previous note (1) we argued that the average energy En for a quantum bound state plays the same role of characterizing equilibrium as T in classical thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. We further argued that En is linked to parameters in the system. For example, for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, En is linked to L as well as to n the energy level. One may change En by either changing n or L separately (or both). Holding L constant and changing n leads to a certain type of energy change. We argue this is similar to holding the volume of a gas constant and increasing T. Alternatively, one may leave n unchanged (a quantum adiabatic process) and change L i.e. a mechanical change or work. We argue that one may already consider the concept of the first law of thermodynamics at the quantum bound state level i.e. dE = dQ - dWork where Work is linked to a change in a physical parameter, such as L the length of the box, whereas dQ is linked to energy changes not involving a physical parameter e.g. a change in n the energy level. The Schrodinger equation yields solutions for W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) the wavefunction as well as En’s. We have argued in previous notes that W(x) is part of a conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) and that En is constant at each point x just as T is constant at each x for classical statistical equilibrium (1). Thus a kind of statistical mechanics exists at the wavefunction level we argue. This statistical mechanics makes use of a free particle wavefunction exp(ipx) and weights a(p), but does not contain the usual P(x), P(p) picture of the classical world. We have shown in (2) that one may obtain P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p) from the conditional probability. The essential physics we argue, however, is at the level of the wavefunction together with its own unique statistical scenario of exp(ipx)’s interacting with exp(ikx)’s from V(x)=Sum over Vkexp(ikx) (see (1)). Given that P(x) and P(p) exist for a quantum bound state, it may be convenient to use them in formulas because they are linked to a classical statistical picture. We argue that one may use P(x) and P(p) to construct an object S such that T dS does not change when one changes L, the size of box with infinite potential walls. We argue that such an object follows from properties of the Schrodinger equation together with various assumptions. We arrive at S=Sp+Sx where Sp=-k Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln{|a(p)a(p)}| and Sx= -k Integral dx W(x)W(x) ln(W(x)W(x)) for a given energy level. We do not use arguments related to taking ln of the number of states present or Shannon’s entropy. Rather we look for a solution which does not depend on L and is additive. We note, however, that for both W(x)W(x) and a(p)a(p) the solution found is mathematically consistent with the entropy form found by considering independent probabilities. This, however, applies to P(x) and P(p), but we argue that the physical situation is based on W(x) and a(p) as solutions of the Schrodinger equation. Nevertheless P(x) and P(p) are physical observables and not simply math constructs and so may think of them in a somewhat classical manner in terms of probability. Thus we argue that thermodynamics is already present at the level of a quantum bound state and that one may obtain Shannon’s entropy at this level using P(x) and P(p), but without considering the overall probability of independent probabilities as in information theory or numbers of states. Rather obtaining a function which is additive in Sp and Sx and eliminates L is the main consideration. We also argue that S=Sp+Sx carries over into mixed quantum state wavefunctions even though it is usually ignored. Thus we try to argue that it is the bound quantum state which gives rise to the notion of thermodynamics and entropy.