Paper detail

Boltzmann vs Gibbs: a finite-size match

The long standing contrast between Boltzmann's and Gibbs' approach to statistical thermodynamics has been recently rekindled by Dunkel and Hilbert [1], 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 arbitrary sized systems. The two approaches, however, are shown to converge to the same results in the thermodynamical limit. A vigorous debate followed ref.[1], with arguments against [2,3] and in favor [4,5,6,7] 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 the inverse square rrot of N, 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.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.