[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: More on "Entropy"
Tom Weinstein wrote:
>We used this formulation of entropy in Statistical Mechanics. It's
>especially useful in Quantum Thermo where you can actually enumerate all
>of the states instead of relying on probabilistic arguments.
Sure, this formulation can be used. As a pedagogic tool for explaining what
a theory is all about, many formulations are discussed as if they have
application in real world situations. Of course (for pedagogic reasons),
these discussions focus on systems in which there is a definition, and
typically a well-behaved mathematical model, for all of the significant
states. Some instructors believe this will assist students in appreciating
the concepts of statistical mechanics and quantum thermodynamics.
To build a working apparatus (or software systems, as we are discussing
here), the designer is typically faced with the breakdown of well-behaved
mathematical models. Everything from degenerate states to the "baked in"
uncertainty of certain states tends to undermine the mathematical
foundations of a theorist's constructions. Of course the theoretical models
are absolutely critical, but the designer must always caution themselves
against drawing inferences without measurements and clearly stated
rationales that speak to these physical realities that lead to mathematical
weaknesses. Ultimately, the probabilistic nature of such systems may be
"moved around," but not removed from the model!
Since the real world of actual measurements interferes with essentially
everything we claim to "know" about quantities such as entropy, the real
danger is assigning an independent "meaning" to these constructs. Why?
Because these quantities do not exist independently, they only exist with
respect to our predictive models of a system's behavior. So these models do
not really "enumerate" anything about states, but rather restate the
probability assumptions of the model in the form of a "working equation."
In addition, drawing inferences as to the behavior of systems based on
common mathematical form is simply inviting trouble, even at the theoretical
level. Mathematical models are not the real world, and the superficial
mathematical consistency between say, the functional form of a resonance in
a quantum well and a marble in a bowl, does not mean that the marble gives
any special insight into the nature of the quantum well. In fact, beyond
the curiosity of similar equations, the most important information is in the
distinctions and clarifications (emanating from theory) between the systems
from a practical, apparatus building, real world perspective (as contrasted
with the "everything is just a special case of X" perspective).
This danger is also present in designs for sources of entropy to seed RNGs
for random data or to create uniformly distributed keys. Well designed
models will avoid rephrasing assumptions as conclusions, and will explicitly
address the mathematical weaknesses upon which the theoretical arguments in
support of the model are ultimately based.
dvw