How general is the relation between entropy and energy?How is energy related to entropy?Entropy: two explanations for the same quantity?Should entropy have units and temperature in terms of energy?The relationship between the two statistical mechanical definitions of entropyGibbs entropy, Clausius' entropy and irreversibilityRelation between entropy and internal energyHow is energy related to entropy?Mathematical definition of entropy and the second law of thermodynamicshow to increase entropy without increasing temperature?Is there an equivalence between information, energy and matter?Entropy, Thermodynamics and Information

What do the novel titles of The Expanse series refer to?

Deploying OR solutions and shipping projects

How does the barbarian bonus damage interact with two weapon fighting?

Using Python in a Bash Script

Reducing the time for rolling hash

Should students have access to past exams or an exam bank?

Creating if in setter/getter

How do I respond appropriately to an overseas company that obtained a visa for me without hiring me?

What kind of horizontal stabilizer does a Boeing 737 have?

Would people understand me speaking German all over Europe?

How to prevent a single-element caster from being useless against immune foes?

Problem with Alignment of Tabular Data Using siunitx

Russian pronunciation of /etc (a directory)

Best Ergonomic Design for a handheld ranged weapon

Were there any unmanned expeditions to the moon that returned to Earth prior to Apollo?

Why isn't LOX/UDMH used in staged combustion rockets now-a-days?

Word for giving preference to the oldest child

How can I convert a linear narrative into a branching narrative?

How to efficiently shred a lot of cabbage?

How char is processed in math mode?

May a hotel provide accommodation for fewer people than booked?

Why “deal 6 damage” is a legit phrase?

Prepare a user to perform an action before proceeding to the next step

Is it possible to tell if a child will turn into a Hag?



How general is the relation between entropy and energy?


How is energy related to entropy?Entropy: two explanations for the same quantity?Should entropy have units and temperature in terms of energy?The relationship between the two statistical mechanical definitions of entropyGibbs entropy, Clausius' entropy and irreversibilityRelation between entropy and internal energyHow is energy related to entropy?Mathematical definition of entropy and the second law of thermodynamicshow to increase entropy without increasing temperature?Is there an equivalence between information, energy and matter?Entropy, Thermodynamics and Information






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4












$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, and my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics.



I am somewhat confused by how physicists think of entropy, and the role that it plays. For example, entropy has units $frac textenergy texttemperature$, rather than being a dimensionless quantity, which is how I think of it. (After all, entropy is a concept that applies to a very general set of systems. All we need is some kind of probability distribution).



In particular, I have read that




Temperature is the increase of a system's energy when an entropy bit is added




This suggests that there is some kind of hard universal relation between energy, temperature, and entropy. Is this statement really a universally applicable, hard law? Does "energy" always increase exactly by temperature $T$ when we "add a bit" (whatever that means practically)?



More generally, I am confused by the fact that there is any hard relation at all between energy and temperature. I would have guessed that the relation depends on the system, and the form of the energy (kinetic vs potential, etc).



(sidenote: It would be useful to me if there was a textbook that explains physical entropy in the language of probability theory information theory, and states the results without relying to much on physics knowledge.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
    $endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    8 hours ago

















4












$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, and my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics.



I am somewhat confused by how physicists think of entropy, and the role that it plays. For example, entropy has units $frac textenergy texttemperature$, rather than being a dimensionless quantity, which is how I think of it. (After all, entropy is a concept that applies to a very general set of systems. All we need is some kind of probability distribution).



In particular, I have read that




Temperature is the increase of a system's energy when an entropy bit is added




This suggests that there is some kind of hard universal relation between energy, temperature, and entropy. Is this statement really a universally applicable, hard law? Does "energy" always increase exactly by temperature $T$ when we "add a bit" (whatever that means practically)?



More generally, I am confused by the fact that there is any hard relation at all between energy and temperature. I would have guessed that the relation depends on the system, and the form of the energy (kinetic vs potential, etc).



(sidenote: It would be useful to me if there was a textbook that explains physical entropy in the language of probability theory information theory, and states the results without relying to much on physics knowledge.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
    $endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    8 hours ago













4












4








4


1



$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, and my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics.



I am somewhat confused by how physicists think of entropy, and the role that it plays. For example, entropy has units $frac textenergy texttemperature$, rather than being a dimensionless quantity, which is how I think of it. (After all, entropy is a concept that applies to a very general set of systems. All we need is some kind of probability distribution).



In particular, I have read that




Temperature is the increase of a system's energy when an entropy bit is added




This suggests that there is some kind of hard universal relation between energy, temperature, and entropy. Is this statement really a universally applicable, hard law? Does "energy" always increase exactly by temperature $T$ when we "add a bit" (whatever that means practically)?



More generally, I am confused by the fact that there is any hard relation at all between energy and temperature. I would have guessed that the relation depends on the system, and the form of the energy (kinetic vs potential, etc).



(sidenote: It would be useful to me if there was a textbook that explains physical entropy in the language of probability theory information theory, and states the results without relying to much on physics knowledge.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am not a physicist, and my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics.



I am somewhat confused by how physicists think of entropy, and the role that it plays. For example, entropy has units $frac textenergy texttemperature$, rather than being a dimensionless quantity, which is how I think of it. (After all, entropy is a concept that applies to a very general set of systems. All we need is some kind of probability distribution).



In particular, I have read that




Temperature is the increase of a system's energy when an entropy bit is added




This suggests that there is some kind of hard universal relation between energy, temperature, and entropy. Is this statement really a universally applicable, hard law? Does "energy" always increase exactly by temperature $T$ when we "add a bit" (whatever that means practically)?



More generally, I am confused by the fact that there is any hard relation at all between energy and temperature. I would have guessed that the relation depends on the system, and the form of the energy (kinetic vs potential, etc).



(sidenote: It would be useful to me if there was a textbook that explains physical entropy in the language of probability theory information theory, and states the results without relying to much on physics knowledge.)







thermodynamics energy statistical-mechanics entropy






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago







user56834

















asked 9 hours ago









user56834user56834

3421 silver badge8 bronze badges




3421 silver badge8 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
    $endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    8 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
    $endgroup$
    – Cleonis
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
    $endgroup$
    – Alfred Centauri
    8 hours ago















$begingroup$
Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
$endgroup$
– Cleonis
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
Recommeded reading: The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins. published 1984, 230 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0716750048 ISBN-10: 071675004X The book is written for non-physicists. The focus is on probability theory. The concepts are not described with formula's, but in the form of visualisations and diagrams.
$endgroup$
– Cleonis
8 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
"my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
"my understanding of entropy is based on information theory and probability theory, rather than on physics." - then this might be relevant: Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Yes. The relation is
$$frac1T=left(fracpartial Spartial Uright)_V,N$$
where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy, and $U$ is the internal energy. The partial derivative assumes that the volume $V$ and the number of particles $N$ are held fixed.



This is a pretty general relationship. Even more general is the thermodynamic identity
$$text dU=Ttext dS-Ptext dV+mutext dN$$
for pressure $P$ and chemical potential $mu$ from which the above relation can be obtained.



A way you can reason to the first relation is the following. We know that when two systems are at thermal equilibrium that they are at the same temperature. We also know that heat (energy) flows from a higher temperature system to a lower temperature system. We also also know that at equilibrium the entropy of the entire system must be at a maximum.



More specifically if we have two systems $A$ and $B$ that can exchange energy between each other but not with anything else, we know that at equilibrium
$$fracpartial S_text totalpartial U_A=0$$
Since the total entropy is $S_text total=S_A+S_B$, we have
$$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A+fracpartial S_Bpartial U_A=0$$
But the total energy $U_text total=U_A+U_B$ must be constant, so $text dU_A=-text dU_B$. Therefore we have
$$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A=fracpartial S_Bpartial U_B$$



So we have this thing $partial S/partial U$ that has units of 1/temperature and are equal for two systems at equilibrium. This value must be $1/T$. This last step might seem a little hand-wavy, but it turns out to work for many systems. The ideal gas law is one such example. It also has the property we want that energy moves from higher to lower temperature systems, and this energy flow increases the total entropy of the system.



Notice how we didn't assume any specifics about our system. All we assumed is that they could transfer energy between each other.




You also seem to have some questions regarding temperature and energy. This is why we define a heat capacity. For example, for systems held at a constant volume define the heat capacity to be
$$C_V=left(fracpartial Upartial Tright)_V,N$$
This does depend on your system. The heat capacity tells us how much the temperature of a system changes given a change in its energy. Using the above discussion then we have
$$text dS=C_Vfractext dTT$$
And this can be used to find the change in entropy for a process. i.e.
$$Delta S=intfracC_VT,text dT$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$






















    2












    $begingroup$

    Making thermodynamic entropy dimensionless is trivial: it is enough to divide it by a constant with the proper physical dimensions. The Boltzmann's constant is there. $S/k_B$ is dimensionless.



    Things start to become more complex when we ask questions like the yours about the connection between information theory entropy and thermodynamic entropy. The short answer is that they do not coincide in general. Only under special conditions one can establish a link between the two concepts which, unfortunately, have been named the same way ( it is quite well known the story about why Shannon named his newly discovered concept that way).



    The link between information entropy, which can be defined whenever a probability is introduced for a set of states, and thermodynamic entropy goes through Statistical Mechanics and the special way Statistical Mechanics is able to provide thermodynamics when the limit for infinitely large systems is taken.



    Keeping Physics at the minimum (but it is not possible to explain physical results completely without Physics), Statistical Mechanics can be seen as a black-box which receives the energy of the system as function of positions and momenta and provides as output a probability density function of the same variables. Probability densities may vary depending on the kind of interaction between the system of interest and the external world. Once one has probabilities, average values of observables can be evaluated and at the same time Shannon's formula can be used. Notice that at this stage one has not recovered thermodynamics yet, because finite size effects destroy some of the most fundamental properties of thermodynamic quantities, like extensiveness and convexity. In order to fully recover Thermodynamics, a final stage is required: the so called Thermodynamic Limit, which corresponds to use rations of extensive quantities, when the size of the system diverges.



    Therefore, it should be clear that Shannon's entropy strictly contains thermodynamic entropy as a special case, but not all the systems which may be described by Shannon's entropy should have a thermodynamics of any kind. An important pre-requisite is the ability of the system to have an underlying dynamics which may make the system exploring all the available states. Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution. The typical example of a deck of cards is a good example to show why any Shannon-like entropy connected to the such a system (see for instance here ) has nothing to do with Thermodynamics: there is no meaningful energy which could be associated with the distribution of the cards.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
      $endgroup$
      – user56834
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      8 mins ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494656%2fhow-general-is-the-relation-between-entropy-and-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    Yes. The relation is
    $$frac1T=left(fracpartial Spartial Uright)_V,N$$
    where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy, and $U$ is the internal energy. The partial derivative assumes that the volume $V$ and the number of particles $N$ are held fixed.



    This is a pretty general relationship. Even more general is the thermodynamic identity
    $$text dU=Ttext dS-Ptext dV+mutext dN$$
    for pressure $P$ and chemical potential $mu$ from which the above relation can be obtained.



    A way you can reason to the first relation is the following. We know that when two systems are at thermal equilibrium that they are at the same temperature. We also know that heat (energy) flows from a higher temperature system to a lower temperature system. We also also know that at equilibrium the entropy of the entire system must be at a maximum.



    More specifically if we have two systems $A$ and $B$ that can exchange energy between each other but not with anything else, we know that at equilibrium
    $$fracpartial S_text totalpartial U_A=0$$
    Since the total entropy is $S_text total=S_A+S_B$, we have
    $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A+fracpartial S_Bpartial U_A=0$$
    But the total energy $U_text total=U_A+U_B$ must be constant, so $text dU_A=-text dU_B$. Therefore we have
    $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A=fracpartial S_Bpartial U_B$$



    So we have this thing $partial S/partial U$ that has units of 1/temperature and are equal for two systems at equilibrium. This value must be $1/T$. This last step might seem a little hand-wavy, but it turns out to work for many systems. The ideal gas law is one such example. It also has the property we want that energy moves from higher to lower temperature systems, and this energy flow increases the total entropy of the system.



    Notice how we didn't assume any specifics about our system. All we assumed is that they could transfer energy between each other.




    You also seem to have some questions regarding temperature and energy. This is why we define a heat capacity. For example, for systems held at a constant volume define the heat capacity to be
    $$C_V=left(fracpartial Upartial Tright)_V,N$$
    This does depend on your system. The heat capacity tells us how much the temperature of a system changes given a change in its energy. Using the above discussion then we have
    $$text dS=C_Vfractext dTT$$
    And this can be used to find the change in entropy for a process. i.e.
    $$Delta S=intfracC_VT,text dT$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



















      4












      $begingroup$

      Yes. The relation is
      $$frac1T=left(fracpartial Spartial Uright)_V,N$$
      where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy, and $U$ is the internal energy. The partial derivative assumes that the volume $V$ and the number of particles $N$ are held fixed.



      This is a pretty general relationship. Even more general is the thermodynamic identity
      $$text dU=Ttext dS-Ptext dV+mutext dN$$
      for pressure $P$ and chemical potential $mu$ from which the above relation can be obtained.



      A way you can reason to the first relation is the following. We know that when two systems are at thermal equilibrium that they are at the same temperature. We also know that heat (energy) flows from a higher temperature system to a lower temperature system. We also also know that at equilibrium the entropy of the entire system must be at a maximum.



      More specifically if we have two systems $A$ and $B$ that can exchange energy between each other but not with anything else, we know that at equilibrium
      $$fracpartial S_text totalpartial U_A=0$$
      Since the total entropy is $S_text total=S_A+S_B$, we have
      $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A+fracpartial S_Bpartial U_A=0$$
      But the total energy $U_text total=U_A+U_B$ must be constant, so $text dU_A=-text dU_B$. Therefore we have
      $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A=fracpartial S_Bpartial U_B$$



      So we have this thing $partial S/partial U$ that has units of 1/temperature and are equal for two systems at equilibrium. This value must be $1/T$. This last step might seem a little hand-wavy, but it turns out to work for many systems. The ideal gas law is one such example. It also has the property we want that energy moves from higher to lower temperature systems, and this energy flow increases the total entropy of the system.



      Notice how we didn't assume any specifics about our system. All we assumed is that they could transfer energy between each other.




      You also seem to have some questions regarding temperature and energy. This is why we define a heat capacity. For example, for systems held at a constant volume define the heat capacity to be
      $$C_V=left(fracpartial Upartial Tright)_V,N$$
      This does depend on your system. The heat capacity tells us how much the temperature of a system changes given a change in its energy. Using the above discussion then we have
      $$text dS=C_Vfractext dTT$$
      And this can be used to find the change in entropy for a process. i.e.
      $$Delta S=intfracC_VT,text dT$$






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Yes. The relation is
        $$frac1T=left(fracpartial Spartial Uright)_V,N$$
        where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy, and $U$ is the internal energy. The partial derivative assumes that the volume $V$ and the number of particles $N$ are held fixed.



        This is a pretty general relationship. Even more general is the thermodynamic identity
        $$text dU=Ttext dS-Ptext dV+mutext dN$$
        for pressure $P$ and chemical potential $mu$ from which the above relation can be obtained.



        A way you can reason to the first relation is the following. We know that when two systems are at thermal equilibrium that they are at the same temperature. We also know that heat (energy) flows from a higher temperature system to a lower temperature system. We also also know that at equilibrium the entropy of the entire system must be at a maximum.



        More specifically if we have two systems $A$ and $B$ that can exchange energy between each other but not with anything else, we know that at equilibrium
        $$fracpartial S_text totalpartial U_A=0$$
        Since the total entropy is $S_text total=S_A+S_B$, we have
        $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A+fracpartial S_Bpartial U_A=0$$
        But the total energy $U_text total=U_A+U_B$ must be constant, so $text dU_A=-text dU_B$. Therefore we have
        $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A=fracpartial S_Bpartial U_B$$



        So we have this thing $partial S/partial U$ that has units of 1/temperature and are equal for two systems at equilibrium. This value must be $1/T$. This last step might seem a little hand-wavy, but it turns out to work for many systems. The ideal gas law is one such example. It also has the property we want that energy moves from higher to lower temperature systems, and this energy flow increases the total entropy of the system.



        Notice how we didn't assume any specifics about our system. All we assumed is that they could transfer energy between each other.




        You also seem to have some questions regarding temperature and energy. This is why we define a heat capacity. For example, for systems held at a constant volume define the heat capacity to be
        $$C_V=left(fracpartial Upartial Tright)_V,N$$
        This does depend on your system. The heat capacity tells us how much the temperature of a system changes given a change in its energy. Using the above discussion then we have
        $$text dS=C_Vfractext dTT$$
        And this can be used to find the change in entropy for a process. i.e.
        $$Delta S=intfracC_VT,text dT$$






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Yes. The relation is
        $$frac1T=left(fracpartial Spartial Uright)_V,N$$
        where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy, and $U$ is the internal energy. The partial derivative assumes that the volume $V$ and the number of particles $N$ are held fixed.



        This is a pretty general relationship. Even more general is the thermodynamic identity
        $$text dU=Ttext dS-Ptext dV+mutext dN$$
        for pressure $P$ and chemical potential $mu$ from which the above relation can be obtained.



        A way you can reason to the first relation is the following. We know that when two systems are at thermal equilibrium that they are at the same temperature. We also know that heat (energy) flows from a higher temperature system to a lower temperature system. We also also know that at equilibrium the entropy of the entire system must be at a maximum.



        More specifically if we have two systems $A$ and $B$ that can exchange energy between each other but not with anything else, we know that at equilibrium
        $$fracpartial S_text totalpartial U_A=0$$
        Since the total entropy is $S_text total=S_A+S_B$, we have
        $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A+fracpartial S_Bpartial U_A=0$$
        But the total energy $U_text total=U_A+U_B$ must be constant, so $text dU_A=-text dU_B$. Therefore we have
        $$fracpartial S_Apartial U_A=fracpartial S_Bpartial U_B$$



        So we have this thing $partial S/partial U$ that has units of 1/temperature and are equal for two systems at equilibrium. This value must be $1/T$. This last step might seem a little hand-wavy, but it turns out to work for many systems. The ideal gas law is one such example. It also has the property we want that energy moves from higher to lower temperature systems, and this energy flow increases the total entropy of the system.



        Notice how we didn't assume any specifics about our system. All we assumed is that they could transfer energy between each other.




        You also seem to have some questions regarding temperature and energy. This is why we define a heat capacity. For example, for systems held at a constant volume define the heat capacity to be
        $$C_V=left(fracpartial Upartial Tright)_V,N$$
        This does depend on your system. The heat capacity tells us how much the temperature of a system changes given a change in its energy. Using the above discussion then we have
        $$text dS=C_Vfractext dTT$$
        And this can be used to find the change in entropy for a process. i.e.
        $$Delta S=intfracC_VT,text dT$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 8 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

        19.4k4 gold badges32 silver badges70 bronze badges




        19.4k4 gold badges32 silver badges70 bronze badges


























            2












            $begingroup$

            Making thermodynamic entropy dimensionless is trivial: it is enough to divide it by a constant with the proper physical dimensions. The Boltzmann's constant is there. $S/k_B$ is dimensionless.



            Things start to become more complex when we ask questions like the yours about the connection between information theory entropy and thermodynamic entropy. The short answer is that they do not coincide in general. Only under special conditions one can establish a link between the two concepts which, unfortunately, have been named the same way ( it is quite well known the story about why Shannon named his newly discovered concept that way).



            The link between information entropy, which can be defined whenever a probability is introduced for a set of states, and thermodynamic entropy goes through Statistical Mechanics and the special way Statistical Mechanics is able to provide thermodynamics when the limit for infinitely large systems is taken.



            Keeping Physics at the minimum (but it is not possible to explain physical results completely without Physics), Statistical Mechanics can be seen as a black-box which receives the energy of the system as function of positions and momenta and provides as output a probability density function of the same variables. Probability densities may vary depending on the kind of interaction between the system of interest and the external world. Once one has probabilities, average values of observables can be evaluated and at the same time Shannon's formula can be used. Notice that at this stage one has not recovered thermodynamics yet, because finite size effects destroy some of the most fundamental properties of thermodynamic quantities, like extensiveness and convexity. In order to fully recover Thermodynamics, a final stage is required: the so called Thermodynamic Limit, which corresponds to use rations of extensive quantities, when the size of the system diverges.



            Therefore, it should be clear that Shannon's entropy strictly contains thermodynamic entropy as a special case, but not all the systems which may be described by Shannon's entropy should have a thermodynamics of any kind. An important pre-requisite is the ability of the system to have an underlying dynamics which may make the system exploring all the available states. Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution. The typical example of a deck of cards is a good example to show why any Shannon-like entropy connected to the such a system (see for instance here ) has nothing to do with Thermodynamics: there is no meaningful energy which could be associated with the distribution of the cards.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
              $endgroup$
              – user56834
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              8 mins ago















            2












            $begingroup$

            Making thermodynamic entropy dimensionless is trivial: it is enough to divide it by a constant with the proper physical dimensions. The Boltzmann's constant is there. $S/k_B$ is dimensionless.



            Things start to become more complex when we ask questions like the yours about the connection between information theory entropy and thermodynamic entropy. The short answer is that they do not coincide in general. Only under special conditions one can establish a link between the two concepts which, unfortunately, have been named the same way ( it is quite well known the story about why Shannon named his newly discovered concept that way).



            The link between information entropy, which can be defined whenever a probability is introduced for a set of states, and thermodynamic entropy goes through Statistical Mechanics and the special way Statistical Mechanics is able to provide thermodynamics when the limit for infinitely large systems is taken.



            Keeping Physics at the minimum (but it is not possible to explain physical results completely without Physics), Statistical Mechanics can be seen as a black-box which receives the energy of the system as function of positions and momenta and provides as output a probability density function of the same variables. Probability densities may vary depending on the kind of interaction between the system of interest and the external world. Once one has probabilities, average values of observables can be evaluated and at the same time Shannon's formula can be used. Notice that at this stage one has not recovered thermodynamics yet, because finite size effects destroy some of the most fundamental properties of thermodynamic quantities, like extensiveness and convexity. In order to fully recover Thermodynamics, a final stage is required: the so called Thermodynamic Limit, which corresponds to use rations of extensive quantities, when the size of the system diverges.



            Therefore, it should be clear that Shannon's entropy strictly contains thermodynamic entropy as a special case, but not all the systems which may be described by Shannon's entropy should have a thermodynamics of any kind. An important pre-requisite is the ability of the system to have an underlying dynamics which may make the system exploring all the available states. Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution. The typical example of a deck of cards is a good example to show why any Shannon-like entropy connected to the such a system (see for instance here ) has nothing to do with Thermodynamics: there is no meaningful energy which could be associated with the distribution of the cards.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
              $endgroup$
              – user56834
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              8 mins ago













            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            Making thermodynamic entropy dimensionless is trivial: it is enough to divide it by a constant with the proper physical dimensions. The Boltzmann's constant is there. $S/k_B$ is dimensionless.



            Things start to become more complex when we ask questions like the yours about the connection between information theory entropy and thermodynamic entropy. The short answer is that they do not coincide in general. Only under special conditions one can establish a link between the two concepts which, unfortunately, have been named the same way ( it is quite well known the story about why Shannon named his newly discovered concept that way).



            The link between information entropy, which can be defined whenever a probability is introduced for a set of states, and thermodynamic entropy goes through Statistical Mechanics and the special way Statistical Mechanics is able to provide thermodynamics when the limit for infinitely large systems is taken.



            Keeping Physics at the minimum (but it is not possible to explain physical results completely without Physics), Statistical Mechanics can be seen as a black-box which receives the energy of the system as function of positions and momenta and provides as output a probability density function of the same variables. Probability densities may vary depending on the kind of interaction between the system of interest and the external world. Once one has probabilities, average values of observables can be evaluated and at the same time Shannon's formula can be used. Notice that at this stage one has not recovered thermodynamics yet, because finite size effects destroy some of the most fundamental properties of thermodynamic quantities, like extensiveness and convexity. In order to fully recover Thermodynamics, a final stage is required: the so called Thermodynamic Limit, which corresponds to use rations of extensive quantities, when the size of the system diverges.



            Therefore, it should be clear that Shannon's entropy strictly contains thermodynamic entropy as a special case, but not all the systems which may be described by Shannon's entropy should have a thermodynamics of any kind. An important pre-requisite is the ability of the system to have an underlying dynamics which may make the system exploring all the available states. Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution. The typical example of a deck of cards is a good example to show why any Shannon-like entropy connected to the such a system (see for instance here ) has nothing to do with Thermodynamics: there is no meaningful energy which could be associated with the distribution of the cards.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Making thermodynamic entropy dimensionless is trivial: it is enough to divide it by a constant with the proper physical dimensions. The Boltzmann's constant is there. $S/k_B$ is dimensionless.



            Things start to become more complex when we ask questions like the yours about the connection between information theory entropy and thermodynamic entropy. The short answer is that they do not coincide in general. Only under special conditions one can establish a link between the two concepts which, unfortunately, have been named the same way ( it is quite well known the story about why Shannon named his newly discovered concept that way).



            The link between information entropy, which can be defined whenever a probability is introduced for a set of states, and thermodynamic entropy goes through Statistical Mechanics and the special way Statistical Mechanics is able to provide thermodynamics when the limit for infinitely large systems is taken.



            Keeping Physics at the minimum (but it is not possible to explain physical results completely without Physics), Statistical Mechanics can be seen as a black-box which receives the energy of the system as function of positions and momenta and provides as output a probability density function of the same variables. Probability densities may vary depending on the kind of interaction between the system of interest and the external world. Once one has probabilities, average values of observables can be evaluated and at the same time Shannon's formula can be used. Notice that at this stage one has not recovered thermodynamics yet, because finite size effects destroy some of the most fundamental properties of thermodynamic quantities, like extensiveness and convexity. In order to fully recover Thermodynamics, a final stage is required: the so called Thermodynamic Limit, which corresponds to use rations of extensive quantities, when the size of the system diverges.



            Therefore, it should be clear that Shannon's entropy strictly contains thermodynamic entropy as a special case, but not all the systems which may be described by Shannon's entropy should have a thermodynamics of any kind. An important pre-requisite is the ability of the system to have an underlying dynamics which may make the system exploring all the available states. Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution. The typical example of a deck of cards is a good example to show why any Shannon-like entropy connected to the such a system (see for instance here ) has nothing to do with Thermodynamics: there is no meaningful energy which could be associated with the distribution of the cards.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 5 hours ago









            GiorgioPGiorgioP

            6,3692 gold badges9 silver badges34 bronze badges




            6,3692 gold badges9 silver badges34 bronze badges














            • $begingroup$
              What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
              $endgroup$
              – user56834
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              8 mins ago
















            • $begingroup$
              What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
              $endgroup$
              – user56834
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              8 mins ago















            $begingroup$
            What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
            $endgroup$
            – user56834
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            What do you mean by "Equally important, the existence of a meaningful energy underlying the whole mechanic evolution." why is there no "energy" in the evolution of a stack of cards? (not sure what that even means).
            $endgroup$
            – user56834
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            8 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            @user56834 Would there be any reason to give more energy to one arrangement of cards over another?
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            8 mins ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494656%2fhow-general-is-the-relation-between-entropy-and-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480