A mathematically rigorous treatment of adiabatic processes?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the mathematical treatment of adiabatic processes in quantum systems, particularly focusing on the conditions under which entropy remains constant when a time-dependent Hamiltonian is applied. Participants explore the implications of adiabaticity, unitary transformations, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to rigorously prove that entropy does not change in a quantum system with a time-dependent Hamiltonian, especially when the system re-thermalizes to a Boltzmann distribution.
  • Another participant suggests relating the parameter lambda to the ratio of specific heats in standard thermodynamic adiabatic processes, indicating a potential connection to classical thermodynamics.
  • It is proposed that for finite systems, any time dependence results in a unitary transformation that keeps entropy constant, while infinite systems may complicate the establishment of adiabaticity.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of finite systems, noting that abrupt changes can lead to an increase in entropy.
  • One participant asserts that a time-dependent Hamiltonian transforms pure states into other pure states without increasing entropy, referencing Liouville's theorem.
  • Concerns are raised about how the redistribution of energy levels in a thermal system affects the constancy of entropy, particularly when initial and final energy levels differ in spacing.
  • A suggestion is made to incorporate decoherence into the rigorous treatment of the problem.
  • Another participant proposes correlating the discussion with thermodynamic models for better understanding, despite potential complexity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of finite versus infinite systems, the role of unitary transformations, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and thermodynamic principles. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the treatment of entropy in adiabatic processes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of adiabaticity, the need for rigorous mathematical proof, and the unresolved nature of how energy redistribution affects entropy in thermal systems.

petergreat
Messages
266
Reaction score
4
If a quantum system is subjected to a time dependent Hamiltonian with one parameter lambda, then its entropy does not change provided lambda is changed slowly enough between two values. How can this be proved rigorously? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_theorem" is not enough, since this system is different in that it constantly re-thermalizes itself to a Boltzmann distribution in the process.

I know this is a standard topic in any statistical physics course, but I haven't seen one which is mathematically fully convincing to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well let's give it a try,i don't know a damn about adiabatic theorem so let's try not to think about any theorem already quoted,but get to standard thermodynamic adiabatic process there your "parameter lambda",i expect it to show up as somehow related to "gamma, the ratio of specific heats" We know that the system has ZERO change in external interaction energy(Q) thus giving us some lead to follow, you must be knowing the thermodynamic treatment there, thenyou have to work your way backwards..
im most gratified if i am of any help here.
 
If the system is finite, than any time dependence will be a unitary transformation, whether adiabatic or not, so that S is constant. If the system is infinite, than its spectrum is continuous and it will be very hard to establish an equivalent of adiabaticity.
 
DrDu said:
If the system is finite, than any time dependence will be a unitary transformation, whether adiabatic or not, so that S is constant.

I'm not sure If I understand you. Even if the system is finite (composed of finitely many particles in a finite volume), an abrupt change (such as compression by a pistol) will disturb it and causes S to increase.
 
A perturbation just means that the hamiltonian changes with time. Nevertheless, even a time dependent hamiltonian will transform a pure state into another pure state, at least for a finite isolated system. Hence there is no increase of entropy. That's Liouvilles theorem.
 
DrDu said:
A perturbation just means that the hamiltonian changes with time. Nevertheless, even a time dependent hamiltonian will transform a pure state into another pure state, at least for a finite isolated system. Hence there is no increase of entropy. That's Liouvilles theorem.

Sure, every state goes to the corresponding state in the final configuration, if the Hamiltonian governs everything in our system, so the Gibbs entropy doesn't change. However, this is a thermal system, which constantly redistributes itself to a Boltzmann distribution. For example, if the initial energy levels have equal spacings, but the final energy levels are not equally spaced, then the initial occupation number for each energy level no longer satisfies the Boltzmann distribution for final energy levels. How can you show the entropy is constant even after this re-distribution?
 
Yes, but then you should somehow build in this decoherence into your rigorous treatment.
 
can we not correlate with thermodynamic model..would be simpler to understand although a bit more tiring to start off...??
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K