In the literature, one often finds a quantum expression for Shannon’s entropy of the form: - (W*W) ln(W*W) ((1)) where W*W is spatial density i.e. W(x)= the wavefunction. This implies W*(x)W(x) is an independent probability. Given that W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx), and W*W= Sum over p1, p2 a(p1)a(p2) exp(ip1 x) exp(ip2 x), one may see that for p1/-p1 in the latter with a(p)=a(-p) leads to cos(p1x) terms. These are positive and negative in different x regions. In fact, in many cases, the overall spatial density exhibits peaks and valleys suggesting that W*(x)W(x) is correlated, i.e. not independent we argue. Furthermore, the form ((1)) uses only position when there is an expectation value for < p*p> an , both functions of x, where p is momentum. Thus, the variance of p-ensemble average may change with x, yet position only is used in the computation of Shannon’s entropy, which we argue seems unusual. In a previous note (1), we suggest using a(1)exp(ip1 x) a(p2)exp(ip2 x) as the probability for Shannon’s entropy. This leads to a spatial form 2W x d/dx W which matches ((1)) for the ground state of the quantum oscillator case. For the ground state oscillator, W*W=C exp(-ax*x) i.e. a Gaussian. This suggests that for this case only, W*(x)W(x) represents an independent probability which may be used in Shannon’s entropy, we argue. We attempt to consider these issues in this note.
In the literature, one often finds a quantum expression for Shannon’s entropy of the form: - (WW) ln(WW) ((1)) where WW is spatial density i.e. W(x)= the wavefunction. This implies W(x)W(x) is an independent probability. Given that W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx), and WW= Sum over p1, p2 a(p1)a(p2) exp(ip1 x) exp(ip2 x), one may see that for p1/-p1 in the latter with a(p)=a(-p) leads to cos(p1x) terms. These are positive and negative in different x regions. In fact, in many cases, the overall spatial density exhibits peaks and valleys suggesting that W(x)W(x) is correlated, i.e. not independent we argue. Furthermore, the form ((1)) uses only position when there is an expectation value for < pp> an , both functions of x, where p is momentum. Thus, the variance of p-ensemble average may change with x, yet position only is used in the computation of Shannon’s entropy, which we argue seems unusual. In a previous note (1), we suggest using a(1)exp(ip1 x) a(p2)exp(ip2 x) as the probability for Shannon’s entropy. This leads to a spatial form 2W x d/dx W which matches ((1)) for the ground state of the quantum oscillator case. For the ground state oscillator, WW=C exp(-axx) i.e. a Gaussian. This suggests that for this case only, W(x)W(x) represents an independent probability which may be used in Shannon’s entropy, we argue. We attempt to consider these issues in this note.
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.
In the literature, Shannon’s entropy with spatial density as probability i.e. density(x) ln(density(x)) appears frequently. It seems, however, that this calculation of entropy assumes no knowledge of momentum, yet density=W(x)W(x) (for a bound state) where W(x) = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In other words, the wavefunction W(x) contains information about the momentum distribution associated with P(p/x)= a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x). In classical statistical mechanics, entropy is calculated using exp[ - (p*p/2m + V(x))/T) which includes both momentum and spatial considerations. In a previous note (1), we calculated a possible expression for entropy using P(p/x)P(x). This includes Shannon’s spatial entropy and other terms even if one sums over p after forming Shannon’s entropy with P(p/x)P(x). In this note, we try to consider the interpretation of these two forms of entropy.
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.
In (1), Shannon’s spatial entropy is computed using - [W*W] ln[W*W], where W(x) is the wavefunction and a classical envelope approximation: W*(x)W(x)=C/v(x), where v(x) is classical velocity, is used (according to the idea of the correspondence principle). A momentum entropy: - Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln[a(p)a(p)] (one dimension) is also calculated. Recently in (2), we argued that one should form Shannon’s entropy using the probability = a(p1)exp(ip1 x) a(p2)exp(ip2 x). This leads to the following if one sums the first term over p1,p2 and integrates the second over x: Entropy= Integral dx -2W x d/dx W - Integral dp a(p)a(-p) ln[a(p)a(-p)] ((1)) one dimension In (1), the spatial entropy is found to behave as ln(n) for high n whereas for ((2)), spatial entropy is always 1. Thus, there is a very large difference between the two. In (1), a momentum entropy -a(p)a(p)ln[a(p)a(p)] is added to spatial entropy and in ((1)) a very similar momentum piece appears. For the case of the oscillator, W(x) and a(p) are both Gaussians and so the overall result for entropy from (1) and from this note both behave as ln(n) when n is large, but the factor of ln(n) differs. Ours is half as large for the case of a quantum oscillator. For our case, all of the entropy comes from the momentum term in the large n limit. In this note, we consider these ideas in more detail.
Quantum free particles are represented by exp(ipx) which we argue is a dynamical probability which maps into a static probability exp(-ipx)exp(ipx) i.e. the usual spatial density. Shannon’s entropy = - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)) is often associated with the static probability P(x)=W*(x)W(x) (1), but in (2) we argue that one may introduce a different probability C1 Real(W(x)). In this note we consider both in different examples. In particular we argue that the two different probability definitions are ultimately linked with momentum conservation. The form W*(x)W(x) introduces local nonconstant spatial densities if there are mixed exp(ip1x) and exp(ip2x)’s within W(x). If there are not, this form W*(x)W(x) does not distinguish space i.e. exp(ipx)exp(ipx+ib) is still a constant. Nevertheless interference may still occur which may be linked with entropy. Thus we first examine the case of exp(ipx) + exp(ipx + ib) where b is a constant phase shift. W*(x)W(x)=constant which does not lead to a structure different from exp(-ipx)exp(ipx), yet W(x)=C2{exp(ipx) + exp(ipx+ib)} interfere. On the other hand |cos(px)| and | cos(px)(1+cos(b)) - sin(px)sin(b) | are not the same distributions (one is a parity eigenstate, the other is not) and so we argue there is a different local entropy density. Thus introducing extra information i.e. b changes local density and entropy density if one adjusts the definition of probability used. We next consider W(x)= exp(ip1x)+exp(ip2x). One may also use the probability C3 Real|W(x)|, but here we are interested in an association with conservation of momentum. For a given exp(ipx), exp(-ipx)exp(ipx)=1. We argue that this represents a steady state picture i.e. a kind of equilibrium in which all x points are treated the same. W*(x)W(x) breaks this equilibrium scenario by introducing a term 2 cos( (p1-p2)x ). Thus both local spatial density and local entropy (based on W*W) are different and do not represent the “equilibrium” scenario. We further argue that momentum conservation may be linked with this equilibrium type of density and entropy density at least in the case of the transition amplitude <p1 V(x) p2>. V(x)exp(ipx) yields a sum of exp(ipx)’s, but only exp(ip1x) survives the integral over dx. The others create spatial densities which are not constant and so represent local entropy densities which do not treat all x points the same i.e .is not an equilibrium one. Thus we try to use Shannon’s entropy with two different probability definitions to analyse different quantum interference scenarios and argue that momentum conservation (and possibly others) may be linked with local entropy density in some situations.
In classical statistical mechanics, C exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) represents density i.e. the probability for a particle to have a velocity v and be at x. If applies this probability to Shannon’s entropy formula, one obtains C/T ( mv*v/2 + V(x)) exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) + exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) ln(C). Thus, it seems energy times density + density times ln(C) is the entropy density, a well known result in classical statistical mechanics, although sometimes not explicitly stated. The first term integrated over x is essentially the kinetic energy, while the second integrated over velocity yields the potential energy term. Thus, the first term partial density seems to be a purely momentum dependent kinetic energy piece times probability and the second a purely x dependent potential energy piece. (There is still an integral over velocity for the first term and one over x for the second to obtain the full entropy.) In quantum mechanics, we argue that a(p1)exp(ip1 x) a(p2) exp(ip2 x) serves as the probability where W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx) = wavefunction. This leads to an expression for entropy density with two terms, one of which may be immediately integrated over momentum and the other over space. If one wishes to make a link to the classical statistical mechanical case, one may ask what requirement is necessary for the momentum related piece to represent average kinetic energy and the spatial part, average potential energy. The requirement, we find, yields the wavefunction of the ground state harmonic oscillator. For other cases, the partial density is not equivalent to average energy. Thus, we try to establish a link between entropy density and energy density, but require the kinetic energy related term to be strictly a function of momentum and the potential related term strictly one of x. In quantum mechanics, one may form averages at a point x. For example, KEave(x)= [Sum over p p*p/2m a(p) exp(ipx)]/W(x). If one examines a p/-p pair with a(p)=a(-p) (for example), cos(px) terms arise which are positive at some x and negative at others. We argued in previous notes that this represents stochastic flow in the opposite direction from that expected by -dV/dx. In other words, -dV/dx is an average which consists of stochastic force addends which may give momentum hits to the right or left, but which add to yield -dV/dx. As a result, one may have negative contributions to the kinetic energy (and density as well). In this note, we argue one may also have negative contributions to the entropy density due to this phenomenon.