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

Question of State in Quantum Single Particle Bound State Entropy

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Published Mar 7, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Note (March 8, 2022) von Neumann's entropy may be written in Shannon's form for the eigenvalues of the density operator. If the density operator is written as Sum over j mj |j><j| with the set |j> not being orthonormal, then von Neumann's entropy would not be Shannon's entropy -Sum over j mj ln(mj) because the set mj are not the eigenvalues of the density matrix. In the literature, Shannon's entropy, however, is sometimes used with the weights of the projection states i.e. mj weights of |j>. For example, see: Kak, S. The Transactional Nature of Quantum Informationhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2465.pdf Note: (March 10, 2022) As an example of a state linked to the "fictitious" P(x)P(p) consider a single particle in a box with infinite potential walls. Outside the box W(x)=0 so P(x)=0, but P(p)=a(p)a(p) is nonzero for all p. Thus, one needs to consider P(x)P(p) together to make sense of the region outside of the box. Using the argument that one cannot know p and x exactly and so should consider P(x) and P(p) separately seems to lead to considerations of P(p) being nonzero i.e changes of measuring particle momenta outside the box which constradicts P(x)=0 outside. In (1) it is argued that von Neumann’s density operator d = Sum over i bi |i><i| = Sum over j mj |j><j> where in one case |i> represents an orthonormal basis and in the other of |j> a different nonorthogonal basis is used. The problem is that von Neumann entropy -Sum over i bi ln(bi) and -Sum over j mjln(mj) are not the same, they depend on the projection operator used. The author of (1) goes on to argue that historically it was suggested this might mean that a quantum state in quantum statistical mechanics is not defined clearly. We wish to consider the case of a pure bound state for which we have defined S=entropy=Sp+Sx where Sp=-Integral dp P(p) ln(P(p)) and Sx = - Integral dx P(x) ln(P(x)). According to quantum mechanics, one may not know p and x exactly, but S=Sp+Sx is equivalent to using P(p)P(x) in Shannon’s entropy formula. (Alternatively, one may use P(p/x)P(x).) As a result, the so-called state (x,p) associated with P(p)P(x) assumes knowledge of p and x exactly and so is not a real quantum state perhaps in the manner suggested in (1). In order to consider this issue, we argue that a quantum bound problem may be thought of in two ways: the classical mechanics type picture, and the statistical mechanical type one. The first approach is consistent with using the wavefuntion W(x) in the time-independent Schrodinger equation. P(p) and P(x) do not appear, but this is still a statistical picture because KE(x) = {Sum over p pp/2m a(p) exp(ipx)}/W(x). KE(x)+V(x)=E, nevertheless, has the form of a classical mechanical particle. In other words, it has one total E at any x and a potential value V(x) at x. In fact, KE(x) may be considered to represent a vrms(x) which is the velocity of the classical particle, although this is a purely mathematical construct. One may define P(p/x) = a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) which is complex and allows for interference among exp(ipx) so this picture is very different from that of usual classical probabilities. The second picture of quantum mechanics involves P(x) or P(p) which behave as classical probabilities (i.e. are real, positive and sum to 1). For example: Operator ave = < W | B | W> is associated with this picture (as is von Neumann’s density matrix). One may write energy as: E= Sum over p P(p)pp/2m + Sum over x V(x) P(x), but this equation does not lead to solutions. One must use the Schrodinger to equation to solve for W(x) and find a(p) from W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and then form P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p). Nevertheless quantum statistics, in order to be linked with classical statistical mechanics, seems to be formulated in terms of P(p) and P(x). For example the diagonal elements of von Neumann’s density matrix contain this type of probability. Given that quantum mechanics may be viewed in two different statistical manners, (A) in terms of W(x), the Schrodinger equation and P(p/x) or (B) in terms of P(p) and P(x), a formulation of quantum statistical mechanics based on P(p) and P(x) may lead to unusual results. In particular, P(p) and P(x) represent exact p and x values, but according to quantum theory one cannot know these at the same time. Thus talking of P(p) and P(x) (in a classical way) seems to mean referring to a quantum state that is not really defined, perhaps one of the states noted in (1). This may not be a problem, however, if the underlying statistics follows from W(x) and a(p) and P(p/x) for which p and x are defined, but are linked to complex probabilities.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.6336015

Related papers

Operator Entropy and Quantum Thermodynamics

Francesco R. Ruggeri

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.

•Feb 28, 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

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 Bound Entropy For Crests and Thermodynamics

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Shannon’s entropy is defined for probabilities as - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)). For a probability density, such as spatial or momentum density which appear in quantum bound states i.e. P(x) = W*(x)W(x) or P(p) = a(p)* a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), one defines: Sx = - Integral dx P(x)) ln{P(x)} and Sp = -Integral dp P(p) ln(P(p)) (1) and integrates over al space or momentum. For quantum bound states, however, one may integrate Shannon’s entropy using P(x) and/or P(p) only over the region of a single crest. Such a crest is of the form of an unnormalized probability density which has zero probability at the endpoints. Thus the total P(x) and/or P(p) might consist of a set of crests with possibly different heights. Thus instead of integrating over all x one may consider integrating only over the base of a particular crest to find a local entropy density so to speak. A reason for doing this is that the overall entropy may not satisfy dE = TdS, but an entropy for a crest might. We investigate this for an infinite well and an oscillator. For example, for a infinite potential well Sx over the full range 0 to L is independent of n, but by adding energy one creates pockets (crest entropies) which are very low as one has very high resolution.Thus we argue that a quantum bound system has an overall entropy, but also entropies for each crest (whether in x or p space). The latter may be linked to thermodynamics in a different manner than the former.

•Jun 23, 2022•0 citations

Quantum Bound Information ln(WW), ln(a(p)a(p)) as Statistical Constant Vectors over Variables x,p?

Francesco R. Ruggeri

For a classical ideal gas or single particle quantum system with energy levels {ei}, both average energy E=Sum over i ei P(ei/T) and Shannon’s entropy S= - Sum over i P(ei/T) ln(P(ei/T) change (for mechanical parameters kept fixed) in terms of d(P(ei/T)). In fact, in this case ln(P(ei/T)) appears as a “constant vector” in dS i.e. dS= - Sum over i ln(P(ei/T)) dP(ei/T). Both dE (mechanical parameter fixed) and dS change as dP(ei/T), thus there are two vectors {ei/T} and {ln(P(ei/T))} which represent constants over ei’s for a small range of dT where T is temperature. In this case, however, the two vectors are strongly linked as P(ei/T)=exp(-ei/T)/C(T) so ln(P) = -ei/T - ln(C). This is why the relationship E-TS = -T ln(C(T)) exists. For a quantum bound state one may write: e = Integral dp a(p)a(p) pp/2m + Integral dx V(x) W(x)W(x) where W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) is the wavefunction. Instead of having vectors of ei’s, one has two vectors, one over x and the other p (momenta) where a(p)a(p) = P(p) and P(x)=W(x)W(x) (bound states). Thus d e thermal = Integral dp pp/2m dPe(p) + Integral dx V(x) dPe(x) ((1)). In other words de thermal changes linearly in terms of dPe(p) and dPe(x) whereas for a classical ideal gas or many ei system it changes linearly in terms of dP(ei/T). Ei is the variable instead of x and p in that case. In other words {pp/2m} is a constant vector in p space and {V(x)} in x space. Mathematically Shannon’s entropy Sp = - Sum over p Pe(p) ln(Pe(p)) and Sx =- Sum over x Pe(x) ln(Pe(x)) also yield constant vectors in their respective spaces namely ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)) which are called information. In particular dSp = - Sum over p ln(Pe(p)) dPe(p) then ln(Pe(p)) behaves like a constant vector within a region of small dPe(p) changes. Note: Sum over p dPe(p)=0. One may consider a set of single valued energy levels ei which are very close (imagine a particle in a box with infinite walls) as a region in which dPe(p) changes (or dPe(x) ones) are very small. In this region, ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)), information, represents a constant vector statistically defining the small region of ei states. This we argue is the statistical significance of information ln(P). One may note that both de ((1)) adn dSp and dSx change linearly with dPe(p) and dPe(x), but the vectors {pp/2m} and {V(x)} over p and x space and ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)) over the same space are constant vectors, but not equivalent except for the ground state of the quantum oscillator for which they become very similar because Pe(p)=exp(-app) and Pe(x)=exp(-xx/a) with a being proportional to 1/ e which plays the same role as temperature in the classical ideal gas case. For other quantum bound systems, the two sets of vectors are different, but the information vectors seem to give a kind of statistical identity to small regions containing very close ei levels for which dPe(p) and dPe(x) are small. Thus, though one may argue for the presence of ln(P) in Shannon’s entropy S=-Sum over i P(i)ln(P(i)) in many ways, it seems that ln(P(i)) is a constant vector in a certain space i for small dP(i) and gives a statistical identity to that small region.

•Mar 5, 2022•0 citations

Speculation of Quantum Bound State Thermodynamics Part III

Francesco R. Ruggeri

Historically statistical mechanics was developed for gasses for which there are very large numbers of molecules (i.e. on the order of 10 to 23rd power). As a result factorial schemes were developed to count the number of arrangements possible, the ln taken of this result and Stirling’s approximation for large N applied. The Shannon’s entropy form S/(-k) = Sum over i P(ei)ln(P(ei)) is consistent with this large N approach. Furthermore, large N statistical mechanics was linked to thermodynamics, in particular the first law dE=TdS - PdV. Surprisingly then, statistical mechanical results were applied to systems with small numbers of particles (e.g. a nucleus with about 100 nucleons etc). In Parts I and II we argued that the first law of thermodynamics describes two separate kinds of changes associated with energy changes. The second, work, is linked to the change of a mechanical parameter such as the volume of a box etc. The energy of a bound quantum particle in a box with an infinite potential is proportional to nn/LL. Thus we argued that a pure quantum bound state may also be associated with the first law of thermodynamics with changes in L with n, the energy level, held constant representing pure work. We further argued that for a bound state two classical like probabilities exists P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) with P(x) being proportional to 1/L and P(p) to L. For a quantum adiabatic transformation (i.e. changing L with n staying constant) the term dS=0. If one wishes to create S from P(x) and P(p) and desires linearity i.e. S=Sp(n)+Sx, then Sp=Integral dp P(p)ln(P(p)) and Sx= Integral dx P(x) ln(P(x)) is a solution. If one next considers a quantum wavefunction for two levels W(x,t) = a(1)exp(-i E1 t) W1(x) + a(2) exp(-iE2 t) W2(x) with Eave = Sum over n en P(en) where Wn=a(n)a(n), one may again utilize the first law of thermodynamics. In Parts I and II we carried over the entropy form P(ei)ln(P(ei)). In this note we wish to argue that this form follows at the two energy level picture by considerations of a function which consists entirely of probabilities i.e. P(ei) and is linear in the sense that such a function for two identical two state systems should yield S1+S2 as the first law should apply to each system. Furthermore P(ei) should be a function of P(ei/T) where T is a parameter which behaves as 1/LL because ei is proportional to 1/LL. In this way any function of P(ei) remains unchanged under a quantum adiabatic transformation for which i’s stay constant, but L changes. As a result, the entropy at the quantum level seems to follow from such arguments and not from large N approximations of factorial counting approaches. In large N situations it is argued that P(ei)=C(T)exp(-ei/T) follows from maximizing S with respect to the form of P(ei) subject to constant average energy. For small N situations (e.g. the 2 level example) one may solve Sum over i ei d(a(i)a(i)) = T dS directly without maximization. The maximization approach follows directly from dE=TdS (work=0) because dE= Sum ei dP(ei) in such scenarios. This is of the form of a Lagrange constraint This has been pointed out in Part II. In this note, we argue that the maximization of entropy is not needed at all. For dE=Sum over i ei dP(ei) and the ln form of entropy P(ei) is the inverse function of ln. Thus we argue that linearity and not large N arguments are enough to obtain Shannon’s form of entropy and that this ln form suggests P(ei/T) = C(T)exp(-ei/T) if dE=Sum over ei dP(ei)= TdS (for dW=0). Thus maximization of entropy subject to constant average energy is also not needed (although it does follow mathematically from dE=TdS.)

•Feb 19, 2022•0 citations
Note (March 8, 2022) von Neumann's entropy may be written in Shannon's form for the eigenvalues of the density operator. If the density operator is written as Sum over j mj |j><j| with the set |j> not being orthonormal, then von Neumann's entropy would not be Shannon's entropy -Sum over j mj ln(mj) because the set mj are not the eigenvalues of the density matrix. In the literature, Shannon's entropy, however, is sometimes used with the weights of the projection states i.e. mj weights of |j>. For example, see: Kak, S. The Transactional Nature of Quantum Informationhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2465.pdf Note: (March 10, 2022) As an example of a state linked to the "fictitious" P(x)P(p) consider a single particle in a box with infinite potential walls. Outside the box W(x)=0 so P(x)=0, but P(p)=a(p)a(p) is nonzero for all p. Thus, one needs to consider P(x)P(p) together to make sense of the region outside of the box. Using the argument that one cannot know p and x exactly and so should consider P(x) and P(p) separately seems to lead to considerations of P(p) being nonzero i.e changes of measuring particle momenta outside the box which constradicts P(x)=0 outside. In (1) it is argued that von Neumann’s density operator d = Sum over i bi |i><i| = Sum over j mj |j><j> where in one case |i> represents an orthonormal basis and in the other of |j> a different nonorthogonal basis is used. The problem is that von Neumann entropy -Sum over i bi ln(bi) and -Sum over j mjln(mj) are not the same, they depend on the projection operator used. The author of (1) goes on to argue that historically it was suggested this might mean that a quantum state in quantum statistical mechanics is not defined clearly. We wish to consider the case of a pure bound state for which we have defined S=entropy=Sp+Sx where Sp=-Integral dp P(p) ln(P(p)) and Sx = - Integral dx P(x) ln(P(x)). According to quantum mechanics, one may not know p and x exactly, but S=Sp+Sx is equivalent to using P(p)P(x) in Shannon’s entropy formula. (Alternatively, one may use P(p/x)P(x).) As a result, the so-called state (x,p) associated with P(p)P(x) assumes knowledge of p and x exactly and so is not a real quantum state perhaps in the manner suggested in (1). In order to consider this issue, we argue that a quantum bound problem may be thought of in two ways: the classical mechanics type picture, and the statistical mechanical type one. The first approach is consistent with using the wavefuntion W(x) in the time-independent Schrodinger equation. P(p) and P(x) do not appear, but this is still a statistical picture because KE(x) = {Sum over p pp/2m a(p) exp(ipx)}/W(x). KE(x)+V(x)=E, nevertheless, has the form of a classical mechanical particle. In other words, it has one total E at any x and a potential value V(x) at x. In fact, KE(x) may be considered to represent a vrms(x) which is the velocity of the classical particle, although this is a purely mathematical construct. One may define P(p/x) = a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) which is complex and allows for interference among exp(ipx) so this picture is very different from that of usual classical probabilities. The second picture of quantum mechanics involves P(x) or P(p) which behave as classical probabilities (i.e. are real, positive and sum to 1). For example: Operator ave = < W | B | W> is associated with this picture (as is von Neumann’s density matrix). One may write energy as: E= Sum over p P(p)pp/2m + Sum over x V(x) P(x), but this equation does not lead to solutions. One must use the Schrodinger to equation to solve for W(x) and find a(p) from W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and then form P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p). Nevertheless quantum statistics, in order to be linked with classical statistical mechanics, seems to be formulated in terms of P(p) and P(x). For example the diagonal elements of von Neumann’s density matrix contain this type of probability. Given that quantum mechanics may be viewed in two different statistical manners, (A) in terms of W(x), the Schrodinger equation and P(p/x) or (B) in terms of P(p) and P(x), a formulation of quantum statistical mechanics based on P(p) and P(x) may lead to unusual results. In particular, P(p) and P(x) represent exact p and x values, but according to quantum theory one cannot know these at the same time. Thus talking of P(p) and P(x) (in a classical way) seems to mean referring to a quantum state that is not really defined, perhaps one of the states noted in (1). This may not be a problem, however, if the underlying statistics follows from W(x) and a(p) and P(p/x) for which p and x are defined, but are linked to complex probabilities.
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.
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.
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.
Shannon’s entropy is defined for probabilities as - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)). For a probability density, such as spatial or momentum density which appear in quantum bound states i.e. P(x) = W*(x)W(x) or P(p) = a(p)* a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), one defines: Sx = - Integral dx P(x)) ln{P(x)} and Sp = -Integral dp P(p) ln(P(p)) (1) and integrates over al space or momentum. For quantum bound states, however, one may integrate Shannon’s entropy using P(x) and/or P(p) only over the region of a single crest. Such a crest is of the form of an unnormalized probability density which has zero probability at the endpoints. Thus the total P(x) and/or P(p) might consist of a set of crests with possibly different heights. Thus instead of integrating over all x one may consider integrating only over the base of a particular crest to find a local entropy density so to speak. A reason for doing this is that the overall entropy may not satisfy dE = TdS, but an entropy for a crest might. We investigate this for an infinite well and an oscillator. For example, for a infinite potential well Sx over the full range 0 to L is independent of n, but by adding energy one creates pockets (crest entropies) which are very low as one has very high resolution.Thus we argue that a quantum bound system has an overall entropy, but also entropies for each crest (whether in x or p space). The latter may be linked to thermodynamics in a different manner than the former.
For a classical ideal gas or single particle quantum system with energy levels {ei}, both average energy E=Sum over i ei P(ei/T) and Shannon’s entropy S= - Sum over i P(ei/T) ln(P(ei/T) change (for mechanical parameters kept fixed) in terms of d(P(ei/T)). In fact, in this case ln(P(ei/T)) appears as a “constant vector” in dS i.e. dS= - Sum over i ln(P(ei/T)) dP(ei/T). Both dE (mechanical parameter fixed) and dS change as dP(ei/T), thus there are two vectors {ei/T} and {ln(P(ei/T))} which represent constants over ei’s for a small range of dT where T is temperature. In this case, however, the two vectors are strongly linked as P(ei/T)=exp(-ei/T)/C(T) so ln(P) = -ei/T - ln(C). This is why the relationship E-TS = -T ln(C(T)) exists. For a quantum bound state one may write: e = Integral dp a(p)a(p) pp/2m + Integral dx V(x) W(x)W(x) where W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) is the wavefunction. Instead of having vectors of ei’s, one has two vectors, one over x and the other p (momenta) where a(p)a(p) = P(p) and P(x)=W(x)W(x) (bound states). Thus d e thermal = Integral dp pp/2m dPe(p) + Integral dx V(x) dPe(x) ((1)). In other words de thermal changes linearly in terms of dPe(p) and dPe(x) whereas for a classical ideal gas or many ei system it changes linearly in terms of dP(ei/T). Ei is the variable instead of x and p in that case. In other words {pp/2m} is a constant vector in p space and {V(x)} in x space. Mathematically Shannon’s entropy Sp = - Sum over p Pe(p) ln(Pe(p)) and Sx =- Sum over x Pe(x) ln(Pe(x)) also yield constant vectors in their respective spaces namely ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)) which are called information. In particular dSp = - Sum over p ln(Pe(p)) dPe(p) then ln(Pe(p)) behaves like a constant vector within a region of small dPe(p) changes. Note: Sum over p dPe(p)=0. One may consider a set of single valued energy levels ei which are very close (imagine a particle in a box with infinite walls) as a region in which dPe(p) changes (or dPe(x) ones) are very small. In this region, ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)), information, represents a constant vector statistically defining the small region of ei states. This we argue is the statistical significance of information ln(P). One may note that both de ((1)) adn dSp and dSx change linearly with dPe(p) and dPe(x), but the vectors {pp/2m} and {V(x)} over p and x space and ln(Pe(p)) and ln(Pe(x)) over the same space are constant vectors, but not equivalent except for the ground state of the quantum oscillator for which they become very similar because Pe(p)=exp(-app) and Pe(x)=exp(-xx/a) with a being proportional to 1/ e which plays the same role as temperature in the classical ideal gas case. For other quantum bound systems, the two sets of vectors are different, but the information vectors seem to give a kind of statistical identity to small regions containing very close ei levels for which dPe(p) and dPe(x) are small. Thus, though one may argue for the presence of ln(P) in Shannon’s entropy S=-Sum over i P(i)ln(P(i)) in many ways, it seems that ln(P(i)) is a constant vector in a certain space i for small dP(i) and gives a statistical identity to that small region.
Historically statistical mechanics was developed for gasses for which there are very large numbers of molecules (i.e. on the order of 10 to 23rd power). As a result factorial schemes were developed to count the number of arrangements possible, the ln taken of this result and Stirling’s approximation for large N applied. The Shannon’s entropy form S/(-k) = Sum over i P(ei)ln(P(ei)) is consistent with this large N approach. Furthermore, large N statistical mechanics was linked to thermodynamics, in particular the first law dE=TdS - PdV. Surprisingly then, statistical mechanical results were applied to systems with small numbers of particles (e.g. a nucleus with about 100 nucleons etc). In Parts I and II we argued that the first law of thermodynamics describes two separate kinds of changes associated with energy changes. The second, work, is linked to the change of a mechanical parameter such as the volume of a box etc. The energy of a bound quantum particle in a box with an infinite potential is proportional to nn/LL. Thus we argued that a pure quantum bound state may also be associated with the first law of thermodynamics with changes in L with n, the energy level, held constant representing pure work. We further argued that for a bound state two classical like probabilities exists P(x)=W(x)W(x) and P(p)=a(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) with P(x) being proportional to 1/L and P(p) to L. For a quantum adiabatic transformation (i.e. changing L with n staying constant) the term dS=0. If one wishes to create S from P(x) and P(p) and desires linearity i.e. S=Sp(n)+Sx, then Sp=Integral dp P(p)ln(P(p)) and Sx= Integral dx P(x) ln(P(x)) is a solution. If one next considers a quantum wavefunction for two levels W(x,t) = a(1)exp(-i E1 t) W1(x) + a(2) exp(-iE2 t) W2(x) with Eave = Sum over n en P(en) where Wn=a(n)a(n), one may again utilize the first law of thermodynamics. In Parts I and II we carried over the entropy form P(ei)ln(P(ei)). In this note we wish to argue that this form follows at the two energy level picture by considerations of a function which consists entirely of probabilities i.e. P(ei) and is linear in the sense that such a function for two identical two state systems should yield S1+S2 as the first law should apply to each system. Furthermore P(ei) should be a function of P(ei/T) where T is a parameter which behaves as 1/LL because ei is proportional to 1/LL. In this way any function of P(ei) remains unchanged under a quantum adiabatic transformation for which i’s stay constant, but L changes. As a result, the entropy at the quantum level seems to follow from such arguments and not from large N approximations of factorial counting approaches. In large N situations it is argued that P(ei)=C(T)exp(-ei/T) follows from maximizing S with respect to the form of P(ei) subject to constant average energy. For small N situations (e.g. the 2 level example) one may solve Sum over i ei d(a(i)a(i)) = T dS directly without maximization. The maximization approach follows directly from dE=TdS (work=0) because dE= Sum ei dP(ei) in such scenarios. This is of the form of a Lagrange constraint This has been pointed out in Part II. In this note, we argue that the maximization of entropy is not needed at all. For dE=Sum over i ei dP(ei) and the ln form of entropy P(ei) is the inverse function of ln. Thus we argue that linearity and not large N arguments are enough to obtain Shannon’s form of entropy and that this ln form suggests P(ei/T) = C(T)exp(-ei/T) if dE=Sum over ei dP(ei)= TdS (for dW=0). Thus maximization of entropy subject to constant average energy is also not needed (although it does follow mathematically from dE=TdS.)