# References

Entropy Revisited: The Plausible Role of Gravitation

Eshel Ben-Jacob<sup>(a)</sup>, Ziv Hermon<sup>(a)</sup>, Alexander Shnirman<sup>(a),(b)</sup>

<sup>(a)</sup>School of Physics and Astronomy,

Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

<sup>(b)</sup>Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801-3080, U.S.A.

## Abstract

We first present open questions related to the foundations of thermodynamics and statistical physics. We then argue that in principle one can not have “closed systems”, and that a universal background should exist. We propose that the gravitational field plays this role, due to its vanishing energy-momentum tensor. This leads to a new possible picture, in which entropy and irreversibility in macroscopic systems emerge from their coupling to the background gravitational field.

Thermodynamics and statistical physics are the scientific disciplines devoted to the description of macroscopic systems at equilibrium. Quoting Callen : “whether we are physicists, chemists, biologists, or engineers, our primary interface with nature is through the properties of macroscopic matter”. Both disciplines are considered to be well established. Yet they pose open fundamental questions, or even paradoxes. The origin of time irreversibility of macroscopic systems is one example. So are the origin of entropy as a real macroscopic variable, the fundamental relation $`S=S(U,V,N)`$ ($`U`$ being the system’s internal energy) and the second law. However, at present many physicists think that these are not “real” questions. The reductionist approach that dominates physical thought  regards the need for the additional laws of thermodynamics (on top of the microscopic laws) and the additional fundamental assumptions of statistical physics as a reflection of our intellectual limitations and not as an ontological reality. In principle, they are believed to be derivable from the microscopic laws.

The first goal of this paper is to convince the reader that there are open questions in the foundations of thermodynamics and statistical physics. The second is to propose that the answers to the above questions might have to do with the special nature of gravitation, i. e., the vanishing of the total energy momentum tensor of gravitation and matter . Although this property by itself seems to be in contradiction with both statistical physics and quantum mechanics, we present here a new picture synergizing the above disciplines. Over the years there has been considerable effort to reconcile classical thermodynamics with classical and quantum gravity. . In this paper we discuss the idea that, as every system is coupled to the gravitational metric, no system can be truly isolated. We will argue that this is the source of irreversibility in Nature. This can be shown by tracing over the degrees of freedom of the gravitational metric. The system plus the metric become then a reduced density matrix, describing the system only, and this reduced density matrix evolves in the usual manner towards its final equilibrium state.

Thermodynamics is actually a summary of experimental observations of properties and of quasistatic processes in macroscopic systems . They all fit within the same framework, if we assume that an additional real variable related to heat does exist (real in Einstein’s sense, i.e., it can be measured). For closed systems (systems that do not exchange energy, volume, or matter with the surroundings) the new variable, the entropy $`(S)`$, is a homogeneous, first order function of the extensive controlled variables. For these systems, the relation $`S=S(U,V,N)`$ is referred to as the fundamental relation or, the fundamental equation. It is also assumed that $`S`$ is continuous and differentiable and is a monotonically increasing function of $`U`$. The assumption of the existence of the fundamental relation goes hand in hand with the second law of thermodynamics: the entropy reaches a maximum (as a function of the uncontrolled variables) at equilibrium.

The formulation of the second law is relatively simple, yet it is perhaps the most mysticism-clad law of physics. Phrases like “macroscopic systems have a tendency to reach equilibrium” or “the natural tendency of closed systems is to maximize their entropy” are used freely. For example, to quote Callen : ”… in all systems there is a tendency to evolve towards states in which the properties are determined by intrinsic factors and not by previously applied external influences. Such simple terminal states are, by definition, time independent. They are called equilibrium states.” The above state of affairs reminds one of Aristotelian times. Then it was said that the ”natural state” of bodies is to be at rest, and that bodies have an internal tendency to reach their natural state. The ”natural state” has also been reflected in the terms used to describe the state of bodies. Non-moving objects were referred to as bodies not at rest. We now understand that it is not an internal tendency of bodies to be at rest. On the contrary, we need dissipation to force the bodies to reach the minimum of a potential well and stay there at rest. Below, we argue that in a metaphorically similar manner, it is the gravitational background that forces the system to reach equilibrium.

Since its energy is controlled and the Hamiltonian describing it includes no interacting parts with the environment, a theoretically defined closed system must remain forever in one of its many-body quantum states. Note that this state can be either an energy eigenstate or a coherent superposition of energy states. In both cases, it is a specific microstate of the system. As entropy is a measure of the number of microstates corresponding to a macrostate of a system, it vanishes. This implies that for an ideal closed system there is no sense in defining and talking about the system’s entropy. Usually this difficulty is “solved” by the argument that one should consider not a fixed value of the system’s total energy $`U`$, but rather include some uncertainty so that $`U`$ is controlled up to some $`\delta U`$.

We prefer the solution put forward by Callen : “The apparent paradox is seated in the assumption of isolation of a physical system. No (finite) physical system is, or ever can be, truly isolated”. He mentions electromagnetic background, gravitational fields and the vacuum itself; all can exchange energy and matter with the system. A similar argument has been raised by Landau and Lifshitz : “In consequence of the extremely high density of levels, a macroscopic body in practice can never be in a strictly stationary state. First of all, it is clear that the value of the energy of the system will always be “broadened” by an amount of the order of the energy of interaction between the system and the surround bodies. The latter is very large in comparison with the separations between levels, not only for quasi-closed subsystems but also for systems which from any other aspect could be regarded as strictly closed. In Nature, of course, there are no completely closed systems, whose interaction with any other body is exactly zero; and whatever interaction does exist, even if it is so small that it does not affect other properties of the system, will still be very large in comparison with the infinitesimal intervals in the energy spectrum.”

In other words, Landau and Lifshitz proposed that in practice we cannot have ideal closed systems. We would like to argue that $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒}`$ there cannot be ideal closed systems. Consider a “closed” system, which according to the argument of Landau and Lifshitz must be in a mixed state with some uncertainty of energy, $`\delta U`$. Except for postulating its density matrix, there is only one way to describe the system, which is to assume that the system and its environment constitute one big physical system which is prepared in a pure quantum state. Due to the interaction between the small system and the environment, the exact eigenstates of the big system are entangled. This means that by tracing over the states of the environment one obtains a reduced density matrix corresponding to the small system in a mixed state. The entropy of this mixed state may be calculated in the usual manner, and it simply reflects the measure of the entanglement with the environment. Within this approach one can mimic the growth of the entropy of the small system by initially preparing the big system in a “less” entangled state. Indeed, since all the eigenstates of the big system are entangled, an unentangled state must be a very unique superposition of many eigenstates with different energies. The time evolution, then, will always increase the entanglement, at least for some initial period of time. This approach may be very useful for “all practical purposes”, since the larger the environment the longer one can mimic the irreversibility. However, we are left with the big system, which was prepared in a pure state. The entropy of this system vanishes, and none of the fundamental questions is really resolved.

We come to the conclusion that there should exist a universal environment (background) to which any “closed” system is coupled. This background may not be united with any physical system to form a bigger system in a pure state. As a result, the closed system is in a mixed state, entropy can be assigned to it, and it is subjected to the second law. The above is valid provided that the interaction with the background is larger than the energy spacing between the many-body quantum states. In other words, since a closed system is actually open, the background induces the transitions which lead to the existence of entropy. Entropy can be viewed as the interaction of the system with its background under natural constraints (minimal interaction with the background). The system does not have a tendency to reach maximum entropy; it is rather the background which forces the system towards equilibrium. We propose that the universal background with which every macroscopic system has minimal interaction is the gravitational field. The other fields, in principle, can be either screened or included as part of the Hamiltonian of the system.

If the microscopic states of a system are to be equally probable, so should be the transitions between these states. Thus the coupling with the background has to lead to induced transitions with equal probability. It might be due to the “central limit theorem” of random variables when applied to the background. However, one may think about another possibility. The background may couple a given state of a system only to a small number of states (as is the case for other known interactions). Then a tree-like structure would be induced in the space of all states of the system. Starting at a given state, one may go only to those states which are connected to the initial one by the background. In the next step, another subset of states becomes accessible. The “transport” on such a tree may be very nontrivial. In a recent work , the Cayley tree structure of states was used, and the localization on such a tree was interpreted as a transition from the Fermi liquid picture for high energy states to a more refined one for low energy states. It may happen that the localization on a background induced tree of states corresponds to ergodicity-nonergodicity transition.

The essence of thermodynamics and statistical physics is that we can, in principle, define energy and mass (numbers of particles and their masses) for any enclosed finite volume, and decouple it from the environment. This implicit assumption is in contradiction with Einstein’s theory of gravitation. According to the latter we cannot co-define the energy of the gravitational field with matter in any enclosed finite volume. To quote Dirac :“It is not possible to obtain an expression for the energy of the gravitational field satisfying both the conditions: (i) when added to other forms of energy the total energy is conserved, and (ii) the energy within a definite (three-dimensional) region at a certain time is independent of the coordinate system”. Or as Landau and Lifshitz formulate : “ … the gravitational field cannot itself be included in a closed system, since the conservation laws which are, as we have seen, the foundation of statistical physics would then reduce to identities”. These strange properties of the gravitational field follow from the dual role of the metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$. On one hand, it generates the symmetry of general coordinates transformation, i. e., the variational derivative of the action with respect to $`g_{ij}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor. On the other hand, as it is also a physical field (the gravitational field), the same derivative gives the corresponding Lagrange equation of motion. The energy-momentum tensor thus vanishes. We see that the gravitational field is the only one that cannot be screened or be included as a part of the Hamiltonian of the system.

The above leads us to propose a new possible interpretation of the entropy, which can also be viewed as a postulation of a new law of Nature. When enclosing a volume to construct a “closed system”, we impose the constraints that the system does not exchange matter, heat and energy besides gravitational energy with its surrounding. Thus a “closed system” is “open” with respect to interaction with the background gravitational field. The latter should be viewed as an entropy bath (in analogy to a heat bath, particle bath, etc.), as it causes transitions between the system’s microstates. Moreover, when the strength of the interaction with the gravitational field is much larger than the energy spacing between the many-body quantum states of the system, the latter becomes irrelevant, and the microstates are determined by the single-particle states . In the new interpretation, the entropy represents the effect of the uncontrolled background on the enclosed system, and is not an inherent property of the system itself. In the same manner, the second law reflects the effect of the background on the system rather than being a “tendency” of the system.

At present we lack a theory of quantum gravity which, in our new picture, is necessary for the complete establishment of the foundation of thermodynamics and statistical physics. (It might be that knowing the behaviour of macroscopic systems will actually provide hints on the principles of quantum gravity.) Therefore, we also lack a quantitative evaluation of the strength of the interaction between the macroscopic system and the background gravitational field. Yet, the naive assumption is that, due to the smallness of the Planck scale, the interaction of systems with the background gravitational field should be neglected. Gravity is assumed to play a role either at and below the Planck scale, or on cosmological scales. The relevant background field for non-cosmological thermodynamic systems is assumed to be the background electromagnetic field which has a much stronger interaction with the system. Moreover, the energy of the background radiation ($`3^{}`$K) is considered to be much higher than the yet unknown energy of the background gravitational field, as they departed from mutual equilibrium at an early stage of the universe . Nevertheless, some estimations suggest that the two energies are not that different . Now comes into play the fundamental difference between the two fields, namely, the fact that the electromagnetic field can be screened. Indeed we can perform experiments lowering the temperature of thermodynamic systems well below $`3^{}`$K.

Recently, the strength of the interaction with the background field has been estimated. Ellis et al.  have proposed that the correction to the time evolution of the density matrix is proportional to

$$\delta E=\frac{E^2}{M_{Pl}},$$
(1)   
where $`E`$ is the energy of the system and $`M_{Pl}=10^{19}`$GeV is the Planck mass (in units of energy). In their case, the ”system” is an elementary or a composite particle. Adaptation of this estimate to thermodynamic systems can be done in two ways: 1. from the point of view of the individual particles composing the system. 2. from the point of view of the whole system. Consider a thermodynamic system of $`1cm^3`$ composed of an Avogadro number ($`N_A`$) of non-interacting particles at temperature $`T=1^{}`$K. Taking the individual particle view, the energy of each particle is approximately $`k_BT`$ ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann factor), hence the correction per particle, $`\delta E_1`$ is given by $`\delta E_1=\frac{(k_BT)^2}{M_{Pl}},`$ and the s correction for the system is

$$\delta E=N_A\delta E_1=\frac{N_A(k_BT)^2}{M_{Pl}}.$$
(2)   
Taking the alternative interpretation, the system’s total energy is $`N_Ak_BT`$, hence the correction is

$$\delta E=\frac{(N_Ak_BT)^2}{M_{Pl}}.$$
(3)   
Inserting the parameters indicated above we obtain $`\delta E10^{32}`$J and $`\delta E10^9`$J for the first and second interpretation, respectively. We would like to emphasize that the spacing between two many-body energy levels of the system under consideration is of the order of $`10^{40}`$J. Thus, even if we take the first interpretation, the energy correction is sufficient to mix the energy states and lead to the emergence of entropy. As we have proposed before, it also leads to the breakdown of the many-body states into a distribution over the single-particle states (the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distribution for Fermions and Bosons, respectively). The situation is different when the system is in a coherent macroscopic quantum state (e.g. superfluidity, superconductivity, Hall state, etc.) with a large energy gap separating the state from the continuum. In this case, when the energy gap is larger than the effect of the background gravitational field, the latter can be ignored.

We expect that the energy correction is given by Eq. (1) as long as the system’s energy is sufficiently high. Otherwise, there is a minimal correction which, in small systems, is proportional to the energy of the background gravitational field times the system’s mass, and inversely proportional to the size of the system. In large systems, it is proportional to the time of interaction times the speed of light. The effect of the gravitational field should therefore saturate at a minimal level as the temperature of the system is lowered. This differs from the effect of the electromagnetic field (within the system), which decreases with the system’s temperature and saturate only at its zero point fluctuations. Thus, the coupling to the background gravitational field might explain the phase transitions in He<sup>3</sup>  and the observations that the dephasing time in mesoscopic systems saturates as the temperature is lowered . To explain the latter according to the new picture, one requires additional assumptions: 1. The dephasing due to the gravitational field is carried out not only through direct coupling to the moving particle. The main effect is through the coupling of the field to the whole system which, in turn, is coupled to the particle via the mechanism of Stern et al . 2. The metric of the gravitational field is not quantized, i.e., the dephasing process does not require emission or absorption of gravitons. Accepting the above, we predict that the dephasing saturation temperature depends on the mass density of the system. In the experiments of Mohanty, Jariwala and Webb, the saturation temperature of GaAs is found to be higher, and the dephasing time is found to be shorter relative to those of Si. Clearly, it can also result from the different electronic structure of the two materials. We suggest to distinguish between the two possible mechanisms by using systems of equal dimensions made of different isotopes of the same material.

The picture above has immediate implications with respect to quantum measurements and the collapse of the wave function. In this picture, the collapse is a consequence of the interaction of the particle with the background gravitational field mediated via the measuring apparatus. We will discuss this issue elsewhere, together with other issues related to the new picture (e.g., the fact that the universe as a whole seems to evolve towards lower entropy, the evolution of complexity and entropy production of open systems, etc.).

To conclude, we propose that the origin of irreversibility in time is the interaction of energy and matter with the metric of space-time (which can be viewed as a generalized Mach-like principle), and that the fundamental relation of thermodynamics originates from the minimal interaction of any enclosed system with its gravitational background.

If, indeed, entropy reflects the coupling of macroscopic systems to the background gravitational field, the macroscopic behaviour is not simply derivable from the isolated microscopic dynamics of the system, and we may have to re-examine our reductionist view of Nature.

This article required knowledge in thermodynamics, statistical physics, the foundation of quantum mechanics and issues related to classical and quantum gravity. We were lucky to be able to learn from and consult with Y. Aharonov, Y. Bekenstein, D. J. Bergman and B. Reznik, each with his own expertise. We also thank the referee for his constructive comments on the first version of the manuscript and for the valuable references he pointed out to us, and D. Halbing for critical reading of the manuscript.

Note added in proof: After the submission of our manuscript we have come across a manuscript entitled: ”Entropy Defined, Entropy Increase and Decoherence Understood, and Some Black-Hole Puzzles Solved” by Bernard S. Kay  which presents a similar picture from a quantum gravity starting point.