Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Does Quantum Thermodynamics Dictate the Form of the Wavefunction P(x)=W(x)W(x)?

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Published Feb 7, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Schrodinger equation, a partial differential equation in W(x,t) the wavefunction, was developed by Schrodinger from ideas of L. de Broglie and then given the interpretation of probability Probability(x,t)= W*(x,t)W(x,t) by M. Born. In this note we ask whether the form P(x)=W*(x)W(x) together with P(p)=a*(p)a(p) such that W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) follows from quantum thermodynamics. In particular we concentrate on a quantum adiabatic transformation and insist it be one of no entropy change (as in (1)). The quantum spatial density of a particle in a box with infinite potential depends on L as P(x)= 1/L density(x/L) (bound state). Thus Shannon’s entropy simply using P(x) is L dependent. One needs P(x)P(p) in addition to the first term changing by ln(1/L) and the second by ln(L) in order to remove L dependence during an adiabatic expansion. Similar considerations hold for the quantum simple harmonic oscillator (2). Thus the idea of a P(x) and P(p) which are linked (not independent) immediately follows form quantum thermodynamics as does the form of entropy S=Sx+Sp. As a result it seems that if one deals with probability, one must not only consider conditional probability, but also a transformation function f(px) which allows for inverse dependencies on p and x on a parameter. These ideas together with P(p/x)=P(x and p) / P(x) ((1a)) and P*(x/p) = P(x and p) / P(p) lead, we argue, to the form P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p) where W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). We considered the approach of conditional probabilities in an earlier note (3), but did not give motivation for using them or the form exp(ipx). Rather we brought them in as assumptions, assuming that there should be both a P(p) and P(x). In this note, we argue that they seem to follow from the idea of quantum thermodynamics and a zero entropy change along an adiabatic path i.e. one which does not change the quantum bound state n.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.5996886

Related papers

Speculation on an Alternative Quantum Entropy Part II

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In Part I we suggested that a free quantum particle with wavefunction exp(ipx) should have a spatial Shannon’s entropy associated with the probability cos(px)/C1 over half a wavelength, where C1 is a normalization constant. This new entropy captures the idea of uncertainty due to the wavelength even though the constant velocity suggests uniform motion i.e. W*(x)W(x) = constant. This idea was extended to a bound state and yields different results than the usual P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p) =a*(p)a(p) based Shannon’s entropies where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). In this note we try to determine some properties of this new entropy. First we consider the high n limit and use a classical approach introduced in (2). Next we expand the bound state entropy to include both spatial and momentum entropies and show that the sum follows from the product probability |W(x)|/C1 |a(p)|/C2 where 1/C1 and 1/C2 are normalization constants. We also examine quantum adiabatic processes. For P(x) = W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p), one finds that such a process leads to Sp+Sx remaining unchanged for L changing adiabatically for a box with infinite potential walls or for k the spring constant changing adiabatically in an oscillator. This follows from the fact that W(x/L) or W(x .5sqrt(km) ) (oscillator), from the normalizations Integral P(x)dx= 1 and Integral P(p)dp =1 and from exp(ipx) which shows that p scales in reciprocal manner of x. Thus we argue that these properties still hold for the entropies defined using |W(x)| and |a(p)| as probabilities. In other words Sp+Sx for the new quantum entropy does not change under a quantum adiabatic transformation. Finally we note that the new entropy is not compatible with the first law of thermodynamics.

•Sep 26, 2022•0 citations

Speculation of Quantum Bound State Thermodynamics Part II

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In Part I we argued that both the first law of thermodynamics dE=TdS-dW and the form S/(-k) = Integral dp dx P(x)P(p) ln{P(x)P(p)} = Integral P(x)ln(P(x)) + Integral P(p) ln(P(p)) may be established at the level of a pure quantum bound state with P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). We further argued that S=Sp+Sx in order that L, the length of a box with infinite potential walls, should disappear (from S) so that a quantum adiabatic transformation where n=energy level remains constant is isentropic. In fact, we argued that the P(x)ln(P(x)) form follows from this rule and an assumption of additive entropies Sp and Sx. As a result, probability at the pure bound state level is not based on the maximization of entropy as P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p) =a(p)a(p) and W(x) follows from the solution of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In this note we examine the case of two level bound state system (analyzed in (1)) to see how the thermodynamic temperature behaves in such a case and examine the maximization of entropy. T is already present in the pure energy state picture (TdS), but for two levels or more, it plays a different role in that P(ei) where ei is the ith energy level becomes a function of T which enters as a Lagrange multiple during the maximization of S with respect to P(ei) with the constraint Sum over i eiP(ei) = Eave. No such maximization of entropy occurs at the pure bound state level. We note, however, that for a quantum adiabatic transformation for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, P(ei) values must remain constant as L changes. Ei is proportional to 1/LL so a solution is to use ei/T with T is proportional to 1/LL. Thus the parameter T already enters P(ei) in order to ensure that an adiabatic transformation is isentropic. In the pure bound state, one was forced to use P(x)P(p)ln(P(x)P(p)) because P(x) is proportional to 1/L and P(p) to L. In other words in the pure state there are two kinds of probabilities (p and x) and one must ensure that L disappears. For the two level system there is only one type of probability which contains ei(L) so this L must be offset within the probability itself i.e. by using T. Thus thermodynamical and statistical mechanical behaviours which seem to be present at the pure quantum bound state level have different features for multiple level systems even though the first law of thermodynamics remains the same as does the form of entropy. What seems to change is the role of T temperature. We try to examine these features in this note. In particular we also find that maximization of entropy subject to constant energy which is usually linked to high N scenarios (i.e. factorial calculation in the high N limit) follows from the first law of thermodynamics with dW=0. Thus it holds even for one quantum particle with two energy levels (particle in a box with infinite walls). This, however, makes use of the form E=Sum over i ei P(ei). Such a form does not hold for example for a pure bound state.

•Feb 17, 2022•0 citations

Speculation of Quantum Bound State Thermodynamics

Francesco R. Ruggeri

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.

•Feb 16, 2022•0 citations

Some Properties of Quantum Shannon's Entropy Density

Francesco R. Ruggeri

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.

•Jun 22, 2019•0 citations

Quantum Entropy and Energy States

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Shannon’s entropy: -k Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)) is expressed in terms of P(i) the probability for state i. If entropy exists as a concept separated from the first law of thermodynamics with dWork=0, then it is not clear what set of states i should be taken in quantum mechanics. In classical statistical mechanics, each particle is automatically described by its position and momentum vectors for no internal motion. For example a pure energy eigenstate wavefunction Wn(x) may be written in terms of many different orthonormal mathematical basis sets e.g. Wn(x)= Sum over i bi phi(i)(x) with probabilities bi*bi. Thus one may create many types of entropy expressions using Shannon’s form without any other physical considerations. For example, W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and one may create Sp which is usually done in the literature. In previous notes we have argued that Sn = Sp(n)+Sx(n). For a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, Sx(n)=Sx. The sum of the two entropies ensures that the parameter L (box size) vanishes so that a quantum adiabatic transformation is isentropic. Thus a consideration other than Shannon’s form has been used to obtain Sn=Sp(n)+Sx for a particle in a box. Furthermore one may argue Shannon’s form even for a pure state based on S=S1+S2 where 1 and 2 represent two systems. A question still remains: Why are Sx and Sp entropies used and not some other set? Furthermore for a system with several energy levels ei one might ask why -Sum over i P(ei)ln(P(ei)) is used as in (1)? In a previous note (2) we considered that Shannon’s form of entropy follows from dE= TdS (dWork=0) with dE=Sum over i ei dP(ei). Furthermore we argued that P(ei) = C(T)exp(-ei/T) is a solution, but so is C(T) exp(-ei/T) exp(Si) where Si=Sx,i + Sp,i for the pure bound state. In other words, specific states related to the physical situation are chosen and entropy constructed from dE=TdS to reflect this. In this note we argue that entropy may be less related to counting arrangements than to considering the issues involved in energy transfers within a system.

•Feb 22, 2022•0 citations

Speculation on Quantum Thermodynamics and the Adiabatic Theorem

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Addendum Feb. 3, 2022 We restrict S=entropy=Sx+Sp to pure energy eigenstates. I.e. Wn(x) used in Sx is an energy eigenstate. In (1) we suggested the following form for the entropy of a quantum bound state: S = Integral dx W(x)W(x) ln[WW] + Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln[a(p)a(p)] ((1)) where W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In principle this may be extended to nonpure bound states. In (2) we showed that this definition (which follows from a Shannon’s entropy with a particular choice of probability) ensures that an adiabatic change in the size of box with an infinite potential leads to no change in entropy as ln(1/L) from the first term of ((1)) cancels with ln(L) from the second for every energy level n. This seems to have some thermodynamic consequences. We revisit the particle in a box with infinite potential and also examine the quantum oscillator solution as the spring constant or mass is varied and find that it behaves in a similar way for all energy levels under an adiabatic transformation. We finally consider under what conditions such a transformation would lead to entropy changes.

•Feb 3, 2022•0 citations
The Schrodinger equation, a partial differential equation in W(x,t) the wavefunction, was developed by Schrodinger from ideas of L. de Broglie and then given the interpretation of probability Probability(x,t)= W*(x,t)W(x,t) by M. Born. In this note we ask whether the form P(x)=W*(x)W(x) together with P(p)=a*(p)a(p) such that W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) follows from quantum thermodynamics. In particular we concentrate on a quantum adiabatic transformation and insist it be one of no entropy change (as in (1)). The quantum spatial density of a particle in a box with infinite potential depends on L as P(x)= 1/L density(x/L) (bound state). Thus Shannon’s entropy simply using P(x) is L dependent. One needs P(x)P(p) in addition to the first term changing by ln(1/L) and the second by ln(L) in order to remove L dependence during an adiabatic expansion. Similar considerations hold for the quantum simple harmonic oscillator (2). Thus the idea of a P(x) and P(p) which are linked (not independent) immediately follows form quantum thermodynamics as does the form of entropy S=Sx+Sp. As a result it seems that if one deals with probability, one must not only consider conditional probability, but also a transformation function f(px) which allows for inverse dependencies on p and x on a parameter. These ideas together with P(p/x)=P(x and p) / P(x) ((1a)) and P*(x/p) = P(x and p) / P(p) lead, we argue, to the form P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p) where W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). We considered the approach of conditional probabilities in an earlier note (3), but did not give motivation for using them or the form exp(ipx). Rather we brought them in as assumptions, assuming that there should be both a P(p) and P(x). In this note, we argue that they seem to follow from the idea of quantum thermodynamics and a zero entropy change along an adiabatic path i.e. one which does not change the quantum bound state n.
In Part I we suggested that a free quantum particle with wavefunction exp(ipx) should have a spatial Shannon’s entropy associated with the probability cos(px)/C1 over half a wavelength, where C1 is a normalization constant. This new entropy captures the idea of uncertainty due to the wavelength even though the constant velocity suggests uniform motion i.e. W*(x)W(x) = constant. This idea was extended to a bound state and yields different results than the usual P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p) =a*(p)a(p) based Shannon’s entropies where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). In this note we try to determine some properties of this new entropy. First we consider the high n limit and use a classical approach introduced in (2). Next we expand the bound state entropy to include both spatial and momentum entropies and show that the sum follows from the product probability |W(x)|/C1 |a(p)|/C2 where 1/C1 and 1/C2 are normalization constants. We also examine quantum adiabatic processes. For P(x) = W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p), one finds that such a process leads to Sp+Sx remaining unchanged for L changing adiabatically for a box with infinite potential walls or for k the spring constant changing adiabatically in an oscillator. This follows from the fact that W(x/L) or W(x .5sqrt(km) ) (oscillator), from the normalizations Integral P(x)dx= 1 and Integral P(p)dp =1 and from exp(ipx) which shows that p scales in reciprocal manner of x. Thus we argue that these properties still hold for the entropies defined using |W(x)| and |a(p)| as probabilities. In other words Sp+Sx for the new quantum entropy does not change under a quantum adiabatic transformation. Finally we note that the new entropy is not compatible with the first law of thermodynamics.
In Part I we argued that both the first law of thermodynamics dE=TdS-dW and the form S/(-k) = Integral dp dx P(x)P(p) ln{P(x)P(p)} = Integral P(x)ln(P(x)) + Integral P(p) ln(P(p)) may be established at the level of a pure quantum bound state with P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). We further argued that S=Sp+Sx in order that L, the length of a box with infinite potential walls, should disappear (from S) so that a quantum adiabatic transformation where n=energy level remains constant is isentropic. In fact, we argued that the P(x)ln(P(x)) form follows from this rule and an assumption of additive entropies Sp and Sx. As a result, probability at the pure bound state level is not based on the maximization of entropy as P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p) =a(p)a(p) and W(x) follows from the solution of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In this note we examine the case of two level bound state system (analyzed in (1)) to see how the thermodynamic temperature behaves in such a case and examine the maximization of entropy. T is already present in the pure energy state picture (TdS), but for two levels or more, it plays a different role in that P(ei) where ei is the ith energy level becomes a function of T which enters as a Lagrange multiple during the maximization of S with respect to P(ei) with the constraint Sum over i eiP(ei) = Eave. No such maximization of entropy occurs at the pure bound state level. We note, however, that for a quantum adiabatic transformation for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, P(ei) values must remain constant as L changes. Ei is proportional to 1/LL so a solution is to use ei/T with T is proportional to 1/LL. Thus the parameter T already enters P(ei) in order to ensure that an adiabatic transformation is isentropic. In the pure bound state, one was forced to use P(x)P(p)ln(P(x)P(p)) because P(x) is proportional to 1/L and P(p) to L. In other words in the pure state there are two kinds of probabilities (p and x) and one must ensure that L disappears. For the two level system there is only one type of probability which contains ei(L) so this L must be offset within the probability itself i.e. by using T. Thus thermodynamical and statistical mechanical behaviours which seem to be present at the pure quantum bound state level have different features for multiple level systems even though the first law of thermodynamics remains the same as does the form of entropy. What seems to change is the role of T temperature. We try to examine these features in this note. In particular we also find that maximization of entropy subject to constant energy which is usually linked to high N scenarios (i.e. factorial calculation in the high N limit) follows from the first law of thermodynamics with dW=0. Thus it holds even for one quantum particle with two energy levels (particle in a box with infinite walls). This, however, makes use of the form E=Sum over i ei P(ei). Such a form does not hold for example for a pure bound state.
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.
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.
Shannon’s entropy: -k Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)) is expressed in terms of P(i) the probability for state i. If entropy exists as a concept separated from the first law of thermodynamics with dWork=0, then it is not clear what set of states i should be taken in quantum mechanics. In classical statistical mechanics, each particle is automatically described by its position and momentum vectors for no internal motion. For example a pure energy eigenstate wavefunction Wn(x) may be written in terms of many different orthonormal mathematical basis sets e.g. Wn(x)= Sum over i bi phi(i)(x) with probabilities bi*bi. Thus one may create many types of entropy expressions using Shannon’s form without any other physical considerations. For example, W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and one may create Sp which is usually done in the literature. In previous notes we have argued that Sn = Sp(n)+Sx(n). For a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, Sx(n)=Sx. The sum of the two entropies ensures that the parameter L (box size) vanishes so that a quantum adiabatic transformation is isentropic. Thus a consideration other than Shannon’s form has been used to obtain Sn=Sp(n)+Sx for a particle in a box. Furthermore one may argue Shannon’s form even for a pure state based on S=S1+S2 where 1 and 2 represent two systems. A question still remains: Why are Sx and Sp entropies used and not some other set? Furthermore for a system with several energy levels ei one might ask why -Sum over i P(ei)ln(P(ei)) is used as in (1)? In a previous note (2) we considered that Shannon’s form of entropy follows from dE= TdS (dWork=0) with dE=Sum over i ei dP(ei). Furthermore we argued that P(ei) = C(T)exp(-ei/T) is a solution, but so is C(T) exp(-ei/T) exp(Si) where Si=Sx,i + Sp,i for the pure bound state. In other words, specific states related to the physical situation are chosen and entropy constructed from dE=TdS to reflect this. In this note we argue that entropy may be less related to counting arrangements than to considering the issues involved in energy transfers within a system.
Addendum Feb. 3, 2022 We restrict S=entropy=Sx+Sp to pure energy eigenstates. I.e. Wn(x) used in Sx is an energy eigenstate. In (1) we suggested the following form for the entropy of a quantum bound state: S = Integral dx W(x)W(x) ln[WW] + Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln[a(p)a(p)] ((1)) where W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In principle this may be extended to nonpure bound states. In (2) we showed that this definition (which follows from a Shannon’s entropy with a particular choice of probability) ensures that an adiabatic change in the size of box with an infinite potential leads to no change in entropy as ln(1/L) from the first term of ((1)) cancels with ln(L) from the second for every energy level n. This seems to have some thermodynamic consequences. We revisit the particle in a box with infinite potential and also examine the quantum oscillator solution as the spring constant or mass is varied and find that it behaves in a similar way for all energy levels under an adiabatic transformation. We finally consider under what conditions such a transformation would lead to entropy changes.