Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing Boltzmann and Gibbs definitions of entropy in small systems

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The European Physical Journal Plus Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

The long-standing contrast between Boltzmann’s and Gibbs’ approach to statistical thermodynamics has been recently rekindled by Dunkel and Hilbert, who criticize the notion of negative absolute temperature (NAT) as a misleading consequence of Boltzmann’s definition of entropy. A different definition, due to Gibbs, has been proposed, which forbids NAT and makes the energy equipartition rigorous in arbitrarily sized systems. The two approaches, however, are shown to converge to the same results in the thermodynamical limit. A vigorous debate followed Dunkel and Hilbert’s work, with arguments against and in favor of Gibbs’ entropy. In an attempt to leave the speculative level and give the discussion some deal of concreteness, we analyze the practical consequences of Gibbs’ definition in two finite-size systems: a non-interacting gas of N atoms with two-level internal spectrum, and an Ising model of N interacting spins. It is shown that, for certain measurable quantities, the difference resulting from Boltzmann’s and Gibbs’ approach vanishes as N -1/2 , much less rapidly than the 1/N slope expected. As shown by numerical estimates, this makes the experimental solution of the controversy a feasible task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E.M. Purcell, R.V.A Pound, Phys. Rev. 81, 279 (1951)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. N.F. Ramsay, Phys. Rev. 103, 20 (1956)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. S. Braun et al., Science 339, 52 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. J. Dunkel, S. Hilbert, Nat. Phys. 10, 67 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. E.T. Jaynes, Am. J. Phys. 33, 391 (1965)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. D. Frenkel, P.B. Warren, arXiv:1403.4299v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2014)

  7. U. Schneider, arXiv:1407.4127v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] (2014)

  8. J. Dunkel, S. Hilbert, arXiv:1403.6058v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2014)

  9. J. Dunkel, S. Hilbert, arXiv:1408.5392v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2014)

  10. M. Campisi, arXiv:1411.2425v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2014)

  11. I.M. Sokolov, Nat. Phys. 10, 7 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. S. Hilbert, P. Hänggi, J. Dunkel, Phys. Rev. E 90, 062116 (2014)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. S.F. Gull, Some Misconceptions about Entropy (1989) www.ucl.ac.uk/ucesjph/reality/entropy/text.html

  14. M. Kochmanski, T. Paszkiewicz, S. Wolski, Eur. J. Phys. 34, 1555 (2013) fig. 8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. L. Sun, C.L. Chien, P.C. Searson, J. Mater. Sci. 35, 1097 (2000)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loris Ferrari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrari, L. Comparing Boltzmann and Gibbs definitions of entropy in small systems. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 487 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2017-11756-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2017-11756-5

Navigation