4
$\begingroup$

The Boltzmann's entropy formula $S=k_b \ln \Omega$ is valid both for equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems. On my textbook, it is written that $\Omega$ is the number of accessible microstates of the system. So, i guess that, considering an isolated system, we can write:

  • $S_{non-eq}=k_b \ln\Omega_{non-eq}$ entropy of the system, when the system is in a macroscopic state of non-equilibrium.
  • $S_{eq}=k_b \ln\Omega_{eq}$ entropy of the system, when the system is at equilibrium.

Now, since $\Omega$ represents the number of accessible microstates of the system, $\Omega(E,N,V)$. And, since for an isolated system $N$, $V$, and $E$ are constant, $\Omega_{non-eq}=\Omega_{eq}$. This imply $S_{non-eq}=S_{eq}$, that, obviously, is wrong.

How it's possible? Maybe the meaning of $\Omega$ is not "the number of accessible microstates", but something else, like "the number of accessible microstates given certain conditions", suggestions?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I would expect that if my system is in equilibrium $S_{eq} = S_{non-eq}$ and if my system is not in equilibrium I would expect $S_{eq}$ to be undefined. What exactly do you mean by equilibrium here? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ The equilibrium condition, nothing strange. $S_{eq}$ and $S_{non-eq}$ are the same quantity, the subscript indicate that one is calculated for an equilibrium state and the other for a non-equilibrium state. It seems straightforward to me $\endgroup$
    – SimoBartz
    Commented Oct 14, 2022 at 12:29

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

Usually we say that $\Omega$ is the number of microstates compatible with $E$ which is not really true. In fact, $\Omega$ is the number of microstates (or the volume of phase space) compatible with the macrostate your system is in. Usually, the equilibrium macrostate has a way greater volume (in the phase space, so has more microstates associated to it) than all the other macrostates (the non equilibrium ones). This is the second law.

So effectively, we can just calculate the number of microstates compatible with E. This gives the volume of the sum of all macrostates in phase space. And it will approximately give the volume of the equilibrium macrostate since all other contributions will be negligible.

This is why we can calculate the thermodynamical entropy from statistical mechanics, because of the size of the equilibrium macrostate in the phase space.

Back to your question: $\Omega_{eq}>>>>>\Omega_{non-eq}$. As to whether this definition of entropy is useful for closed out of equilibrium system or not is an other question.

Entropy is a tricky thing and most textbook (in my opinion) just repeat each other and the same misconceptions (often found in this website also..). Here is a good starting point by S. GOLDSTEIN

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is a fascinating explanation, thank you. I hadn't give much serious thought to the number of microstates in equilibrium vs. out of equilibrium. But my education is mostly in undergraduate statistical mechanics, so that explains my own gaps. I'm curious - are there known situations where this approximation fails? (ignoring non-equilibrium microstates) Edit: also, wow, the introductory paragraph to that article is great. The level may be beyond me, but it seems like an interesting read. $\endgroup$
    – michael b
    Commented Apr 26 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ @michaelb That's a nice question. My very naive answer would be that the equilibrium state IS the typical observed state almost by definition since it is the one you observe after a long time... This is very loosely equivalent to the ideas of Jaynes telling us that the equilibrium state is the one we obtain with the less knowledge about our system. So to say: equilibrium is the most chaotic/non organized state when looked at a very coarse level.. $\endgroup$
    – Syrocco
    Commented Apr 26 at 23:15
  • $\begingroup$ But surely this would require a better thought answer $\endgroup$
    – Syrocco
    Commented Apr 26 at 23:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A notable exception would be non ergodic systems such as glasses. In these cases, we do not observe the equilibrium state because we are stuck in a very small portion of the phase space. So the issue is not really the size of the phase space but the speed at whixh we explore it. $\endgroup$
    – Syrocco
    Commented Apr 26 at 23:20
2
$\begingroup$

In the Boltzmann definition $S = k_B\ln \Omega$, $\Omega$ is not necessarily the number of accessible microstates, but it is the number of microstates compatible with the macrostate $\mathbf X$ (e.g. in equilibrium state, the triplet $E,V,N$, or in non-equilibrium state, $V$ and the density fields $e,n$). Only in equilibrium there is sometimes an expectation that all or most compatible microstates are also accessible. But this is not an important question. There may be microstates that are compatible but not accessible, and as long as there is not too many of them, macroscopic entropy is the same.

The difference manifests more in non-equilibrium macrostates $\mathbf X_{noneq}$, where a microstate that is compatible with future equilibrium macrostate $\mathbf X_{eq,2}$ is accessible, but it is not compatible with the macrostate $\mathbf X_{noneq}$. Such a microstate is not a part of $\Omega(\mathbf X_{noneq})$.

System won't get into non-equilibrium state from an equilibrium state on its own. There has to be an intervention, and this intervention changes the macroscopic constraints such as $E$ or $V$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.