World's Largest Science, Technology & Medicine Open Access Book Publisher

PUBLISHED BY
World's largest Science,

Technology & Medicine
Open Access book publisher
107,000+
3,300+ INTERNATIONAL 114+ MILLION
OPEN ACCESS BOOKS AUTHORS AND EDITORS DOWNLOADS
AUTHORS AMONG
BOOKS TOP 1% 12.2%
DELIVERED TO AUTHORS AND EDITORS
MOST CITED SCIENTIST FROM TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES
151 COUNTRIES
Selection of our books indexed in the

Book Citation Index in Web of Science™
Core Collection (BKCI)
Chapter from the book Thermodynamics

Downloaded from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/thermodynamics
Interested in publishing with IntechOpen?

Contact us at [email protected]
2
0
Rigorous and General Definition of

Thermodynamic Entropy
Gian Paolo Beretta1 and Enzo Zanchini2
1 Università di Brescia, Via Branze 38, Brescia
2 Università di Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, Bologna
Italy
1. Introduction
Thermodynamics and Quantum Theory are among the few sciences involving fundamental
concepts and universal content that are controversial and have been so since their birth, and
yet continue to unveil new possible applications and to inspire new theoretical unification.
The basic issues in Thermodynamics have been, and to a certain extent still are: the range of
validity and the very formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the meaning and
the definition of entropy, the origin of irreversibility, and the unification with Quantum Theory
(Hatsopoulos & Beretta, 2008). The basic issues with Quantum Theory have been, and to a
certain extent still are: the meaning of complementarity and in particular the wave-particle
duality, understanding the many faces of the many wonderful experimental and theoretical
results on entanglement, and the unification with Thermodynamics (Horodecki et al., 2001).
Entropy has a central role in this situation. It is astonishing that after over 140 years since
the term entropy has been first coined by Clausius (Clausius, 1865), there is still so much
discussion and controversy about it, not to say confusion. Two recent conferences, both
held in October 2007, provide a state-of-the-art scenario revealing an unsettled and hard to
settle field: one, entitled Meeting the entropy challenge (Beretta et al., 2008), focused on the
many physical aspects (statistical mechanics, quantum theory, cosmology, biology, energy
engineering), the other, entitled Facets of entropy (Harremöes, 2007), on the many different
mathematical concepts that in different fields (information theory, communication theory,
statistics, economics, social sciences, optimization theory, statistical mechanics) have all been
termed entropy on the basis of some analogy of behavior with the thermodynamic entropy.
Following the well-known Statistical Mechanics and Information Theory interpretations of
thermodynamic entropy, the term entropy is used in many different contexts wherever the
relevant state description is in terms of a probability distribution over some set of possible
events which characterize the system description. Depending on the context, such events may
be microstates, or eigenstates, or configurations, or trajectories, or transitions, or mutations, and
so on. Given such a probabilistic description, the term entropy is used for some functional
of the probabilities chosen as a quantifier of their spread according to some reasonable set
of defining axioms (Lieb & Yngvason, 1999). In this sense, the use of a common name for
all the possible different state functionals that share such broad defining features, may have
some unifying advantage from a broad conceptual point of view, for example it may suggest
analogies and inter-breeding developments between very different fields of research sharing
similar probabilistic descriptions.
www.intechopen.com
24
2 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
However, from the physics point of view, entropy — the thermodynamic entropy — is a
single definite property of every well-defined material system that can be measured in
every laboratory by means of standard measurement procedures. Entropy is a property of
paramount practical importance, because it turns out (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005) to be
monotonically related to the difference E − Ψ between the energy E of the system, above the
lowest-energy state, and the adiabatic availability Ψ of the system, i.e., the maximum work
the system can do in a process which produces no other external effects. It is therefore very
important that whenever we talk or make inferences about physical (i.e., thermodynamic)
entropy, we first agree on a precise definition.
In our opinion, one of the most rigorous and general axiomatic definitions of thermodynamic
entropy available in the literature is that given in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005), which extends
to the nonequilibrium domain one of the best traditional treatments available in the literature,
namely that presented by Fermi (Fermi, 1937).
In this paper, the treatment presented in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005) is assumed as a
starting point and the following improvements are introduced. The basic definitions of
system, state, isolated system, environment, process, separable system, and parameters of
a system are deepened, by developing a logical scheme outlined in (Zanchini, 1988; 1992).
Operative and general definitions of these concepts are presented, which are valid also in
the presence of internal semipermeable walls and reaction mechanisms. The treatment of
(Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005) is simplified, by identifying the minimal set of definitions,
assumptions and theorems which yield the definition of entropy and the principle of entropy
non-decrease. In view of the important role of entanglement in the ongoing and growing
interplay between Quantum Theory and Thermodynamics, the effects of correlations on the
additivity of energy and entropy are discussed and clarified. Moreover, the definition of a
reversible process is given with reference to a given scenario; the latter is the largest isolated
system whose subsystems are available for interaction, for the class of processes under exam.
Without introducing the quantum formalism, the approach is nevertheless compatible with it
(and indeed, it was meant to be so, see, e.g., Hatsopoulos & Gyftopoulos (1976); Beretta et al.
(1984; 1985); Beretta (1984; 1987; 2006; 2009)); it is therefore suitable to provide a basic
logical framework for the recent scientific revival of thermodynamics in Quantum Theory
[quantum heat engines (Scully, 2001; 2002), quantum Maxwell demons (Lloyd, 1989; 1997;
Giovannetti et al., 2003), quantum erasers (Scully et al., 1982; Kim et al., 2000), etc.] as well as
for the recent quest for quantum mechanical explanations of irreversibility [see, e.g., Lloyd
(2008); Bennett (2008); Hatsopoulos & Beretta (2008); Maccone (2009)].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the drawbacks of the traditional
definitions of entropy. In Section 3 we introduce and discuss a full set of basic definitions, such
as those of system, state, process, etc. that form the necessary unambiguous background on
which to build our treatment. In Section 4 we introduce the statement of the First Law and the
definition of energy. In Section 5 we introduce and discuss the statement of the Second Law
and, through the proof of three important theorems, we build up the definition of entropy.
In Section 6 we briefly complete the discussion by proving in our context the existence of the
fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states and by defining temperature, pressure,
and other generalized forces. In Section 7 we extend our definitions of energy and entropy to
the model of an open system. In Section 8 we prove the existence of the fundamental relation
for the stable equilibrium states of an open system. In Section 9 we draw our conclusions and,
in particular, we note that nowhere in our construction we use or need to define the concept
of heat.
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
Definition of Thermodynamic Entropy
of Thermodynamic Entropy 25
3
2. Drawbacks of the traditional definitions of entropy

In traditional expositions of thermodynamics, entropy is defined in terms of the concept of
heat, which in turn is introduced at the outset of the logical development in terms of heuristic
illustrations based on mechanics. For example, in his lectures on physics, Feynman (Feynman,
1963) describes heat as one of several different forms of energy related to the jiggling motion of
particles stuck together and tagging along with each other (pp. 1-3 and 4-2), a form of energy
which really is just kinetic energy — internal motion (p. 4-6), and is measured by the random
motions of the atoms (p. 10-8). Tisza (Tisza, 1966) argues that such slogans as “heat is motion”,
in spite of their fuzzy meaning, convey intuitive images of pedagogical and heuristic value.
There are at least three problems with these illustrations. First, work and heat are not stored in
a system. Each is a mode of transfer of energy from one system to another. Second, concepts of
mechanics are used to justify and make plausible a notion — that of heat — which is beyond
the realm of mechanics; although at a first exposure one might find the idea of heat as motion
harmless, and even natural, the situation changes drastically when the notion of heat is used
to define entropy, and the logical loop is completed when entropy is shown to imply a host
of results about energy availability that contrast with mechanics. Third, and perhaps more
important, heat is a mode of energy (and entropy) transfer between systems that are very
close to thermodynamic equilibrium and, therefore, any definition of entropy based on heat
is bound to be valid only at thermodynamic equilibrium.
The first problem is addressed in some expositions. Landau and Lifshitz (Landau & Lifshitz,
1980) define heat as the part of an energy change of a body that is not due to work done on
it. Guggenheim (Guggenheim, 1967) defines heat as an exchange of energy that differs from
work and is determined by a temperature difference. Keenan (Keenan, 1941) defines heat as
the energy transferred from one system to a second system at lower temperature, by virtue of
the temperature difference, when the two are brought into communication. Similar definitions
are adopted in most other notable textbooks that are too many to list.
None of these definitions, however, addresses the basic problem. The existence of exchanges
of energy that differ from work is not granted by mechanics. Rather, it is one of the striking
results of thermodynamics, namely, of the existence of entropy as a property of matter.
As pointed out by Hatsopoulos and Keenan (Hatsopoulos & Keenan, 1965), without the
Second Law heat and work would be indistinguishable; moreover, the most general kind
of interaction between two systems which are very far from equilibrium is neither a heat
nor a work interaction. Following Guggenheim it would be possible to state a rigorous
definition of heat, with reference to a very special kind of interaction between two systems,
and to employ the concept of heat in the definition of entropy (Guggenheim, 1967). However,
Gyftopoulos and Beretta (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005) have shown that the concept of heat is
unnecessarily restrictive for the definition of entropy, as it would confine it to the equilibrium
domain. Therefore, in agreement with their approach, we will present and discuss a definition
of entropy where the concept of heat is not employed.
Other problems are present in most treatments of the definition of entropy available in the
literature:
1. many basic concepts, such as those of system, state, property, isolated system, environment
of a system, adiabatic process are not defined rigorously;
2. on account of unnecessary assumptions (such as, the use of the concept of quasistatic
process), the definition holds only for stable equilibrium states (Callen, 1985), or for
systems which are in local thermodynamic equilibrium (Fermi, 1937);
www.intechopen.com
26
4 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
3. in the traditional logical scheme (Tisza, 1966; Landau & Lifshitz, 1980; Guggenheim, 1967;
Keenan, 1941; Hatsopoulos & Keenan, 1965; Callen, 1985; Fermi, 1937), some proofs are
incomplete.
To illustrate the third point, which is not well known, let us refer to the definition in (Fermi,
1937), which we consider one of the best traditional treatments available in the literature. In
order to define the thermodynamic temperature, Fermi considers a reversible cyclic engine
which absorbs a quantity of heat Q2 from a source at (empirical) temperature T2 and supplies
a quantity of heat Q1 to a source at (empirical) temperature T1 . He states that if the engine
performs n cycles, the quantity of heat subtracted from the first source is n Q2 and the quantity
of heat supplied to the second source is n Q1 . Thus, Fermi assumes implicitly that the quantity
of heat exchanged in a cycle between a source and a reversible cyclic engine is independent of
the initial state of the source. In our treatment, instead, a similar statement is made explicit,
and proved.
3. Basic definitions
Level of description, constituents, amounts of constituents, deeper level of description.
We will call level of description a class of physical models whereby all that can be said about
the matter contained in a given region of space R , at a time instant t, can be described
by assuming that the matter consists of a set of elementary building blocks, that we call
constituents, immersed in the electromagnetic field. Examples of constituents are: atoms,
molecules, ions, protons, neutrons, electrons. Constituents may combine and/or transform
into other constituents according to a set of model-specific reaction mechanisms.
For instance, at the chemical level of description the constituents are the different chemical
species, i.e., atoms, molecules, and ions; at the atomic level of description the constituents are
the atomic nuclei and the electrons; at the nuclear level of description they are the protons, the
neutrons, and the electrons.
The particle-like nature of the constituents implies that a counting measurement procedure is
always defined and, when performed in a region of space delimited by impermeable walls, it
is quantized in the sense that the measurement outcome is always an integer number, that
we call the number of particles. If the counting is selective for the i-th type of constituent
only, we call the resulting number of particles the amount of constituent i and denote it by
n i . When a number-of-particle counting measurement procedure is performed in a region of
space delimited by at least one ideal-surface patch, some particles may be found across the
surface. Therefore, an outcome of the procedure must also be the sum, for all the particles in
this boundary situation, of a suitably defined fraction of their spatial extension which is within
the given region of space. As a result, the number of particles and the amount of constituent i will
not be quantized but will have continuous spectra.
A level of description L2 is called deeper than a level of description L1 if the amount of every
constituent in L2 is conserved for all the physical phenomena considered, whereas the same
is not true for the constituents in L1 . For instance, the atomic level of description is deeper
than the chemical one (because chemical reaction mechanisms do not conserve the number of
molecules of each type, whereas they conserve the number of nuclei of each type as well as
the number of electrons).
Levels of description typically have a hierarchical structure whereby the constituents of a
given level are aggregates of the constituents of a deeper level.
Region of space which contains particles of the i-th constituent. We will call region of space
which contains particles of the i-th constituent a connected region R i of physical space (the
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
5
three-dimensional Euclidean space) in which particles of the i-th constituent are contained.
The boundary surface of R i may be a patchwork of walls, i.e., surfaces impermeable to particles
of the i-th constituent, and ideal surfaces (permeable to particles of the i-th constituent). The
geometry of the boundary surface of R i and its permeability topology nature (walls, ideal
surfaces) can vary in time, as well as the number of particles contained in R i .
Collection of matter, composition. We will call collection of matter, denoted by C A , a set of
particles of one or more constituents which is described by specifying the allowed reaction
mechanisms between different constituents and, at any time instant t, the set of r connected
regions of space, R A = R1A , . . . , RiA , . . . , RrA , each of which contains n iA particles of a single kind
of constituent. The regions of space R A can vary in time and overlap. Two regions of space
may contain the same kind of constituent provided that they do not overlap. Thus, the i-th
constituent could be identical with the j-th constituent, provided that RiA and R jA are disjoint.
If, due to time changes, two regions of space which contain the same kind of constituent begin
to overlap, from that instant a new collection of matter must be considered.
Comment. This method of description allows to consider the presence of internal walls and/or
internal semipermeable membranes, i.e., surfaces which can be crossed only by some kinds of
constituents and not others. In the simplest case of a collection of matter without internal
partitions, the regions of space R A coincide at every time instant.
The amount n i of the constituent in the i-th region of space can vary in time for two reasons:
– matter exchange: during a time interval in which the boundary surface of R i is not entirely
a wall, particles may be transferred into or out of R i ; we denote by ṅ A← the set of rates at
which particles are transferred in or out of each region, assumed positive if inward, negative
if outward;
– reaction mechanisms: in a portion of space where two or more regions overlap, the
allowed reaction mechanisms may transform, according to well specified proportions (e.g.,
stoichiometry), particles of one or more regions into particles of one or more other regions.
Compatible compositions, set of compatible compositions. We say that two compositions,
n1A and n2A of a given collection of matter C A are compatible if the change between n1A and
n2A or viceversa can take place as a consequence of the allowed reaction mechanisms without
matter exchange. We will call set of compatible compositions for a system A the set of all the
compositions of A which are compatible with a given one. We will denote a set of compatible
compositions for A by the symbol (n0A , ν A ). By this we mean that the set of τ allowed reaction
mechanisms is defined like for chemical reactions by a matrix of stoichiometric coefficients
(ℓ) (ℓ)
ν A = [ νk ], with νk representing the stoichiometric coefficient of the k-th constituent in the
ℓ-th reaction. The set of compatible compositions is a τ-parameter set defined by the reaction
coordinates ε A = ε 1A , . . . , ε A A
ℓ , . . . , ε τ through the proportionality relations
n A = n0A + ν A · ε A , (1)
where n0A denotes the composition corresponding to the value zero of all the reaction
coordinates ε A . To fix ideas and for convenience, we will select ε A = 0 at time t = 0 so that n0A
is the composition at time t = 0 and we may call it the initial composition.
In general, the rate of change of the amounts of constituents is subject to the amounts balance
equations
ṅ A = ṅ A← + ν A · ε̇ε A . (2)
External force field. Let us denote by F a force field given by the superposition of a
gravitational field G, an electric field E, and a magnetic induction field B. Let us denote by
www.intechopen.com
28
6 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
ΣtA the union of all the regions of space R tA in which the constituents of C A are contained, at a
time instant t, which we also call region of space occupied by C A at time t. Let us denote by
Σ A the union of the regions of space ΣtA , i.e., the union of all the regions of space occupied by
C A during its time evolution.
We call external force field for C A at time t, denoted by Fe,t
A , the spatial distribution of F which is
measured at time t in Σt if all the constituents and the walls of C A are removed and placed
A
far away from ΣtA . We call external force field for C A , denoted by FeA , the spatial and time
distribution of F which is measured in Σ A if all the constituents and the walls of C A are
removed and placed far away from Σ A .
System, properties of a system. We will call system A a collection of matter C A defined by the
initial composition n0A , the stoichiometric coefficients ν A of the allowed reaction mechanisms,
and the possibly time-dependent specification, over the entire time interval of interest, of:
– the geometrical variables and the nature of the boundary surfaces that define the regions of
space R tA ,
– the rates ṅtA← at which particles are transferred in or out of the regions of space, and
A for C A ,
– the external force field distribution Fe,t
provided that the following conditions apply:
1. an ensemble of identically prepared replicas of C A can be obtained at any instant of time t,
according to a specified set of instructions or preparation scheme;
2. a set of measurement procedures, P1A , . . . , PnA , exists, such that when each PiA is applied
on replicas of C A at any given instant of time t: each replica responds with a numerical
outcome which may vary from replica to replica; but either the time interval Δt employed
to perform the measurement can be made arbitrarily short so that the measurement
outcomes considered for PiA are those which correspond to the limit as Δt → 0, or the
measurement outcomes are independent of the time interval Δt employed to perform the
measurement;
3. the arithmetic mean PiA t of the numerical outcomes of repeated applications of any of
these procedures, PiA , at an instant t, on an ensemble of identically prepared replicas, is
a value which is the same for every subensemble of replicas of C A (the latter condition
guarantees the so-called statistical homogeneity of the ensemble); PiA t is called the value of
PiA for C A at time t;
4. the set of measurement procedures, P1A , . . . , PnA , is complete in the sense that the set of
values { P1A t , . . . , PnA t } allows to predict the value of any other measurement procedure
satisfying conditions 2 and 3.
Then, each measurement procedure satisfying conditions 2 and 3 is called a property of system
A, and the set P1A , . . . , PnA a complete set of properties of system A.
Comment. Although in general the amounts of constituents, n tA , and the reaction rates, ε̇ε t ,
are properties according to the above definition, we will list them separately and explicitly
whenever it is convenient for clarity. In particular, in typical chemical kinetic models, ε̇ε t is
assumed to be a function of n tA and other properties.
State of a system. Given a system A as just defined, we call state of system A at time t, denoted
by At , the set of the values at time t of
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
7
– all the properties of the system or, equivalently, of a complete set of properties,
{ P1 t , . . . , Pn t },
– the amounts of constituents, n tA ,
– the geometrical variables and the nature of the boundary surfaces of the regions of space
R tA ,
– the rates ṅtA← of particle transfer in or out of the regions of space, and
A.
– the external force field distribution in the region of space ΣtA occupied by A at time t, Fe,t
With respect to the chosen complete set of properties, we can write

n tA ; R tA ; ṅtA← ; Fe,t
At ≡ P1 t , . . . , Pn t ;n A
. (3)
For shorthand, states At1 , At2 ,. . . , are denoted by A1 , A2 ,. . . . Also, when the context allows it,
the value P A t1 of property P A of system A at time t1 is denoted depending on convenience
by the symbol P1A , or simply P1 .
Closed system, open system. A system A is called a closed system if, at every time instant t, the
boundary surface of every region of space R itA is a wall. Otherwise, A is called an open system.
Comment. For a closed system, in each region of space R iA , the number of particles of the i-th
constituent can change only as a consequence of allowed reaction mechanisms.
Composite system, subsystems. Given a system C in the external force field FC e , we
will say that C is the composite of systems A and B, denoted AB, if: (a) there exists a
pair of systems A and B such that the external force field which obtains when both A
and B are removed and placed far away coincides with FC e ; (b) no region of space Ri
A
B
overlaps with any region of space R j ; and (c) the rC = r A + r B regions of space of C are
R C = R1A , . . . , RiA , . . . , RrAA , R1B , . . . , RBj , . . . , RrBB . Then we say that A and B are subsystems of the
composite system C, and we write C = AB and denote its state at time t by Ct = ( AB )t .
Isolated system. We say that a closed system I is an isolated system in the stationary external
force field FeI , or simply an isolated system, if, during the whole time evolution of I: (a) only
the particles of I are present in Σ I ; (b) the external force field for I, FeI , is stationary, i.e., time
independent, and conservative.
Comment. In simpler words, a system I is isolated if, at every time instant: no other material
particle is present in the whole region of space Σ I which will be crossed by system I during
its time evolution; if system I is removed, only a stationary (vanishing or non-vanishing)
conservative force field is present in Σ I .
Separable closed systems. Consider a composite system AB, with A and B closed subsystems.
We say that systems A and B are separable at time t if:
– the force field external to A coincides (where defined) with the force field external to AB,
A = F AB ;
i.e., Fe,t e,t
– the force field external to B coincides (where defined) with the force field external to AB,
B = F AB .
i.e., Fe,t e,t
Comment. In simpler words, system A is separable from B at time t, if at that instant the force
field produced by B is vanishing in the region of space occupied by A and viceversa. During
the subsequent time evolution of AB, A and B need not remain separable at all times.
Subsystems in uncorrelated states. Consider a composite system AB such that at time t the
states At and Bt of the two subsystems fully determine the state ( AB )t , i.e., the values of all
www.intechopen.com
30
8 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
the properties of AB can be determined by local measurements of properties of systems A and

B. Then, at time t, we say that the states of subsystems A and B are uncorrelated from each other,
and we write the state of AB as ( AB )t = At Bt . We also say, for brevity, that A and B are systems
uncorrelated from each other at time t.
Correlated states, correlation. If at time t the states At and Bt do not fully determine the state
( AB )t of the composite system AB, we say that At and Bt are states correlated with each other.
We also say, for brevity, that A and B are systems correlated with each other at time t.
Comment. Two systems A and B which are uncorrelated from each other at time t1 can undergo
an interaction such that they are correlated with each other at time t2 > t1 .
Comment. Correlations between isolated systems. Let us consider an isolated system I = AB such
that, at time t, system A is separable and uncorrelated from B. This circumstance does not
exclude that, at time t, A and/or B (or both) may be correlated with a system C, even if the
latter is isolated, e.g. it is far away from the region of space occupied by AB. Indeed our
definitions of separability and correlation are general enough to be fully compatible with the
notion of quantum correlations, i.e., entanglement, which plays an important role in modern
physics. In other words, assume that an isolated system U is made of three subsystems A, B,
and C, i.e., U = ABC, with C isolated and AB isolated. The fact that A is uncorrelated from B,
so that according to our notation we may write ( AB )t = At Bt , does not exclude that A and C
may be entangled, in such a way that the states At and Ct do not determine the state of AC,
i.e., ( AC )t = At Ct , nor we can write Ut = ( A)t ( BC )t .
Environment of a system, scenario. If for the time span of interest a system A is a subsystem
of an isolated system I = AB, we can choose AB as the isolated system to be studied. Then,
we will call B the environment of A, and we call AB the scenario under which A is studied.
Comment. The chosen scenario AB contains as subsystems all and only the systems that are
allowed to interact with A; thus all the remaining systems in the universe, even if correlated
with AB, are considered as not available for interaction.
Comment. A system uncorrelated from its environment in one scenario, may be correlated with
its environment in a broader scenario. Consider a system A which, in the scenario AB, is
uncorrelated from its environment B at time t. If at time t system A is entangled with an
isolated system C, in the scenario ABC, A is correlated with its environment BC.
Process, cycle. We call process for a system A from state A1 to state A2 in the scenario AB,
denoted by ( AB )1 → ( AB )2 , the change of state from ( AB )1 to ( AB )2 of the isolated system
AB which defines the scenario. We call cycle for a system A a process whereby the final state
A2 coincides with the initial state A1 .
Comment. In every process of any system A, the force field FeAB external to AB, where B is the
environment of A, cannot change. In fact, AB is an isolated system and, as a consequence, the
force field external to AB is stationary. Thus, in particular, for all the states in which a system
A is separable:
– the force field FeAB external to AB, where B is the environment of A, is the same;
– the force field FeA external to A coincides, where defined, with the force field FeAB external
to AB, i.e., the force field produced by B (if any) has no effect on A.
Process between uncorrelated states, external effects. A process in the scenario AB in which
the end states of system A are both uncorrelated from its environment B is called process
A,B
between uncorrelated states and denoted by Π12 ≡ ( A1 → A2 ) B1 → B2 . In such a process, the
change of state of the environment B from B1 to B2 is called effect external to A. Traditional
expositions of thermodynamics consider only this kind of process.
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
9
Composite process. A time-ordered sequence of processes between uncorrelated states of

A,B A,B A,B
a system A with environment B, Π1k = (Π12 , Π23 ,. . . , Π(A,B
i −1) i
,. . . , Π(A,B
k −1) k
) is called a
A,B
composite process if the final state of AB for process Π( i−1) i is the initial state of AB for
process ΠiA,B ( i +1)
, for i = 1, 2, . . . , k − 1. When the context allows the simplified notation Πi for
i = 1, 2, . . . , k − 1 for the processes in the sequence, the composite process may also be denoted
by (Π1 , Π2 ,. . . , Πi ,. . . , Πk−1 ).
Reversible process, reverse of a reversible process. A process for A in the scenario AB,
( AB )1 → ( AB )2 , is called a reversible process if there exists a process ( AB )2 → ( AB )1 which
restores the initial state of the isolated system AB. The process ( AB )2 → ( AB )1 is called reverse
of process ( AB )1 → ( AB )2 . With different words, a process of an isolated system I = AB is
reversible if it can be reproduced as a part of a cycle of the isolated system I. For a reversible
A,B
process between uncorrelated states, Π12 ≡ ( A1 → A2 ) B1 → B2 , the reverse will be denoted by
A,B
− Π12 ≡ ( A 2 → A 1 ) B2 → B1 .
Comment. The reverse process may be achieved in more than one way (in particular, not
necessarily by retracing the sequence of states ( AB )t , with t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 , followed by the isolated
system AB during the forward process).
Comment. The reversibility in one scenario does not grant the reversibility in another. If the smallest
isolated system which contains A is AB and another isolated system C exists in a different
region of space, one can choose as environment of A either B or BC. Thus, the time evolution
of A can be described by the process ( AB )1 → ( AB )2 in the scenario AB or by the process
( ABC )1 → ( ABC )2 in the scenario ABC. For instance, the process ( AB )1 → ( AB )2 could
be irreversible, however by broadening the scenario so that interactions between AB and C
become available, a reverse process ( ABC )2 → ( ABC )1 may be possible. On the other hand,
a process ( ABC )1 → ( ABC )2 could be irreversible on account of an irreversible evolution
C1 → C2 of C, even if the process ( AB )1 → ( AB )2 is reversible.
Comment. A reversible process need not be slow. In the general framework we are setting up, it is
noteworthy that nowhere we state nor we need the concept that a process to be reversible
needs to be slow in some sense. Actually, as well represented in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta,
2005) and clearly understood within dynamical systems models based on linear or nonlinear
master equations, the time evolution of the state of a system is the result of a competition
between (hamiltonian) mechanisms which are reversible and (dissipative) mechanisms which
are not. So, to design a reversible process in the nonequilibrium domain, we most likely need
a fast process, whereby the state is changed quickly by a fast hamiltonian dynamics, leaving
negligible time for the dissipative mechanisms to produce irreversible effects.
Weight. We call weight a system M always separable and uncorrelated from its environment,
such that:
– M is closed, it has a single constituent contained in a single region of space whose shape
and volume are fixed,
– it has a constant mass m;
– in any process, the difference between the initial and the final state of M is determined
uniquely by the change in the position z of the center of mass of M, which can move only
along a straight line whose direction is identified by the unit vector k = ∇z;
– along the straight line there is a uniform stationary external gravitational force field Ge =
− gk, where g is a constant gravitational acceleration.
www.intechopen.com
32
10 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
As a consequence, the difference in potential energy between any initial and final states of M
is given by mg(z2 − z1 ).
Weight process, work in a weight process. A process between states of a closed system A in
which A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment is called a weight process, denoted
by ( A1 → A2 )W , if the only effect external to A is the displacement of the center of mass of a
weight M between two positions z1 and z2 . We call work performed by A (or, done by A) in the
weight process, denoted by the symbol W12 A → , the quantity
A→
W12 = mg(z2 − z1 ) . (4)
Clearly, the work done by A is positive if z2 > z1 and negative if z2 < z1 . Two equivalent symbols
for the opposite of this work, called work received by A, are −W12 A→ = W A← .
12
Equilibrium state of a closed system. A state At of a closed system A, with environment B,
is called an equilibrium state if:
– A is a separable system at time t;
– state At does not change with time;
– state At can be reproduced while A is an isolated system in the external force field FeA ,
which coincides, where defined, with FeAB .
Stable equilibrium state of a closed system. An equilibrium state of a closed system A in
which A is uncorrelated from its environment B, is called a stable equilibrium state if it cannot
be modified by any process between states in which A is separable and uncorrelated from
its environment such that neither the geometrical configuration of the walls which bound the
regions of space R A where the constituents of A are contained, nor the state of the environment
B of A have net changes.
Comment. The stability of equilibrium in one scenario does not grant the stability of equilibrium in
another. Consider a system A which, in the scenario AB, is uncorrelated from its environment
B at time t and is in a stable equilibrium state. If at time t system A is entangled with
an isolated system C, then in the scenario ABC, A is correlated with its environment BC,
therefore, our definition of stable equilibrium state is not satisfied.
4. Definition of energy for a closed system

First Law. Every pair of states (A1 , A2 ) of a closed system A in which A is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment can be interconnected by means of a weight process for A.
The works performed by the system in any two weight processes between the same initial and
final states are identical.
Definition of energy for a closed system. Proof that it is a property. Let (A1 , A2 ) be any pair
of states of a closed system A in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment.
We call energy difference between states A2 and A1 either the work W12A ← received by A in any
A →
weight process from A1 to A2 or the work W21 done by A in any weight process from A2 to
A1 ; in symbols:
A← A→
E2A − E1A = W12 or E2A − E1A = W21 . (5)
The first law guarantees that at least one of the weight processes considered in Eq. (5) exists.
Moreover, it yields the following consequences:
(a) if both weight processes ( A1 → A2 )W and ( A2 → A1 )W exist, the two forms of Eq. (5) yield
the same result (W12A ← = W A → );
21
(b) the energy difference between two states A2 and A1 in which A is separable and
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
11
uncorrelated from its environment depends only on the states A1 and A2 ;

(c) (additivity of energy differences for separable systems uncorrelated from each other) consider a
pair of closed systems A and B; if A1 B1 and A2 B2 are states of the composite system AB such
that AB is separable and uncorrelated from its environment and, in addition, A and B are
separable and uncorrelated from each other, then
E2AB − E1AB = E2A − E1A + E2B − E1B ; (6)
(d) (energy is a property for every separable system uncorrelated from its environment) let A0 be
a reference state of a closed system A in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its
environment, to which we assign an arbitrarily chosen value of energy E0A ; the value of
the energy of A in any other state A1 in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its
environment is determined uniquely by the equation
A← A→
E1A = E0A + W01 or E1A = E0A + W10 (7)
where W01 A ← or W A → is the work in any weight process for A either from A to A or from A
10 0 1 1
to A0 ; therefore, energy is a property of A.
Rigorous proofs of these consequences can be found in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005;
Zanchini, 1986), and will not be repeated here. In the proof of Eq. (6), the restrictive condition
of the absence of correlations between AB and its environment as well as between A and B,
implicit in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005) and (Zanchini, 1986), can be released by means of an
assumption (Assumption 3) which is presented and discussed in the next section. As a result,
Eq. (6) holds also if ( AB )1 e ( AB )2 are arbitrarily chosen states of the composite system AB,
provided that AB, A and B are separable systems.
5. Definition of thermodynamic entropy for a closed system

Assumption 1: restriction to normal system. We will call normal system any system A that,
starting from every state in which it is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, can
be changed to a non-equilibrium state with higher energy by means of a weight process for A
in which the regions of space R A occupied by the constituents of A have no net change (and
A is again separable and uncorrelated from its environment).
From here on, we consider only normal systems; even when we say only system we mean a
normal system.
Comment. For a normal system, the energy is unbounded from above; the system can
accommodate an indefinite amount of energy, such as when its constituents have translational,
rotational or vibrational degrees of freedom. In traditional treatments of thermodynamics,
Assumption 1 is not stated explicitly, but it is used, for example when one states that any amount
of work can be transferred to a thermal reservoir by a stirrer. Notable exceptions to this
assumption are important quantum theoretical model systems, such as spins, qubits, qudits,
etc. whose energy is bounded from above. The extension of our treatment to such so-called
special systems is straightforward, but we omit it here for simplicity.
Theorem 1. Impossibility of a PMM2. If a normal system A is in a stable equilibrium state,
it is impossible to lower its energy by means of a weight process for A in which the regions of
space R A occupied by the constituents of A have no net change.
Proof. Suppose that, starting from a stable equilibrium state Ase of A, by means of a weight
process Π1 with positive work W A→ = W > 0, the energy of A is lowered and the regions of
space R A occupied by the constituents of A have no net change. On account of Assumption 1,
www.intechopen.com
34
12 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
it would be possible to perform a weight process Π2 for A in which the regions of space R A
occupied by the constituents of A have no net change, the weight M is restored to its initial
state so that the positive amount of energy W A← = W > 0 is supplied back to A, and the
final state of A is a nonequilibrium state, namely, a state clearly different from Ase . Thus, the
zero-work composite process (Π1 , Π2 ) would violate the definition of stable equilibrium state.
Comment. Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law. As noted in (Hatsopoulos & Keenan, 1965)
and (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.64), the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine of
the second kind (PMM2), which is also known as the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law,
is a corollary of the definition of stable equilibrium state, provided that we adopt the (usually
implicitly) restriction to normal systems (Assumption 1).
Second Law. Among all the states in which a closed system A is separable and uncorrelated
from its environment and the constituents of A are contained in a given set of regions of space
R A , there is a stable equilibrium state for every value of the energy E A .
Lemma 1. Uniqueness of the stable equilibrium state. There can be no pair of different stable
equilibrium states of a closed system A with identical regions of space R A and the same value
of the energy E A .
Proof. Since A is closed and in any stable equilibrium state it is separable and uncorrelated
from its environment, if two such states existed, by the first law and the definition of energy
they could be interconnected by means of a zero-work weight process. So, at least one of them
could be changed to a different state with no external effect, and hence would not satisfy the
definition of stable equilibrium state.
Comment. Recall that for a closed system, the composition n A belongs to the set of compatible
compositions (n0A , ν A ) fixed once and for all by the definition of the system.
Comment. Statements of the Second Law. The combination of our statement of the Second
Law and Lemma 1 establishes, for a closed system whose matter is constrained into given
regions of space, the existence and uniqueness of a stable equilibrium state for every value
of the energy; this proposition is known as the Hatsopoulos-Keenan statement of the Second
Law (Hatsopoulos & Keenan, 1965). Well-known historical statements of the Second Law,
in addition to the Kelvin-Planck statement discussed above, are due to Clausius and to
Carathéodory. In (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.64, p.121, p.133) it is shown that each of
these historical statements is a logical consequence of the Hatsopoulos-Keenan statement
combined with a further assumption, essentially equivalent to our Assumption 2 below.
Lemma 2. Any stable equilibrium state As of a closed system A is accessible via an irreversible
zero-work weight process from any other state A1 in which A is separable and uncorrelated
with its environment and has the same regions of space R A and the same value of the energy
EA.
Proof. By the first law and the definition of energy, As and A1 can be interconnected by
a zero-work weight process for A. However, a zero-work weight process from As to A1
would violate the definition of stable equilibrium state. Therefore, the process must be in the
direction from A1 to As . The absence of a zero-work weight process in the opposite direction,
implies that any zero-work weight process from A1 to As is irreversible.
Corollary 1. Any state in which a closed system A is separable and uncorrelated from its
environment can be changed to a unique stable equilibrium state by means of a zero-work
weight process for A in which the regions of space R A have no net change.
Proof. The thesis follows immediately from the Second Law, Lemma 1 and Lemma 2.
Mutual stable equilibrium states. We say that two stable equilibrium states Ase and Bse are
mutual stable equilibrium states if, when A is in state Ase and B in state Bse , the composite system
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
13
AB is in a stable equilibrium state. The definition holds also for a pair of states of the same
system: in this case, system AB is composed of A and of a duplicate of A.
Identical copy of a system. We say that a system Ad , always separable from A and
uncorrelated with A, is an identical copy of system A (or, a duplicate of A) if, at every time
instant:
d
– the difference between the set of regions of space R A occupied by the matter of Ad and that
R A occupied by the matter of A is only a rigid translation Δr with respect to the reference
frame considered, and the composition of Ad is compatible with that of A;
– the external force field for Ad at any position r + Δr coincides with the external force field
for A at the position r.
Thermal reservoir. We call thermal reservoir a system R with a single constituent, contained in
a fixed region of space, with a vanishing external force field, with energy values restricted to a
finite range such that in any of its stable equilibrium states, R is in mutual stable equilibrium
with an identical copy of R, Rd , in any of its stable equilibrium states.
Comment. Every single-constituent system without internal boundaries and applied external
fields, and with a number of particles of the order of one mole (so that the simple system
approximation as defined in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.263) applies), when restricted to
a fixed region of space of appropriate volume and to the range of energy values corresponding
to the so-called triple-point stable equilibrium states, is an excellent approximation of a thermal
reservoir.
Reference thermal reservoir. A thermal reservoir chosen once and for all, will be called a
reference thermal reservoir. To fix ideas, we will choose as our reference thermal reservoir one
having water as constituent, with a volume, an amount, and a range of energy values which
correspond to the so-called solid-liquid-vapor triple-point stable equilibrium states.
Standard weight process. Given a pair of states ( A1 , A2 ) of a closed system A, in which A is
separable and uncorrelated from its environment, and a thermal reservoir R, we call standard
weight process for AR from A1 to A2 a weight process for the composite system AR in which
the end states of R are stable equilibrium states. We denote by ( A1 R1 → A2 R2 )sw a standard
weight process for AR from A1 to A2 and by (ΔE R )sw A1 A2 the corresponding energy change of
the thermal reservoir R.
Assumption 2. Every pair of states (A1 , A2 ) in which a closed system A is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment can be interconnected by a reversible standard weight
process for AR, where R is an arbitrarily chosen thermal reservoir.
Theorem 2. For a given closed system A and a given reservoir R, among all the standard
weight processes for AR between a given pair of states (A1 , A2 ) in which system A is separable
and uncorrelated from its environment, the energy change (ΔE R )sw A1 A2 of the thermal reservoir
R has a lower bound which is reached if and only if the process is reversible.
Proof. Let Π AR denote a standard weight process for AR from A1 to A2 , and Π ARrev a
reversible one; the energy changes of R in processes Π AR and Π ARrev are, respectively,
(ΔE R )sw R swrev
A1 A2 and ( ΔE ) A1 A2 . With the help of Figure 1, we will prove that, regardless of the
initial state of R:
a) (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 ≤ ( ΔE ) A1 A2 ;
b) if also Π AR is reversible, then (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 = ( ΔE ) A1 A2 ;
c) if (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 = ( ΔE ) A1 A2 , then also Π AR is reversible.
Proof of a). Let us denote by R1 and by R2 the initial and the final states of R in process
Π ARrev . Let us denote by Rd the duplicate of R which is employed in process Π AR , by R3d
www.intechopen.com
36
14 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
R1 R2 − (∆E R ) swrev
AA
R'1 R'2 (∆E R ' ) swrev
AA
−Π ARrev 1 2 Π AR' 1 2
A1 A2 A1 A2
Π AR Π AR"
R3d R4d (∆E R ) sw
AA
R"1 R"2 (∆E R" ) swrev
AA
1 2 1 2
Fig. 1. Illustration of the proof of Fig. 2. Illustration of the proof of

Theorem 2: standard weight Theorem 3, part a): reversible
processes Π ARrev (reversible) and standard weight processes Π AR′ and
Π AR ; Rd is a duplicate of R; see text. Π AR ′′ , see text.
and by R4d the initial and the final states of Rd in this process. Let us suppose, ab absurdo, that
(ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 > ( ΔE ) A1 A2 . Then, the composite process (− Π ARrev , Π AR ) would be a weight
process for RRd in which, starting from the stable equilibrium state R2 R3d , the energy of RRd
is lowered and the regions of space occupied by the constituents of RRd have no net change,
in contrast with Theorem 1. Therefore, (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 ≤ ( ΔE ) A1 A2 .
Proof of b). If Π AR is reversible too, then, in addition to (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 ≤ ( ΔE ) A1 A2 , the relation
R sw R swrev
(ΔE ) A1 A2 ≤ (ΔE ) A1 A2 must hold too. Otherwise, the composite process (Π ARrev, − Π AR )
would be a weight process for RRd in which, starting from the stable equilibrium state R1 R4d ,
the energy of RRd is lowered and the regions of space occupied by the constituents of RRd
have no net change, in contrast with Theorem 1. Therefore, (ΔE R )swrev R sw
A1 A2 = ( ΔE ) A1 A2 .
Proof of c). Let Π AR be a standard weight process for AR, from A1 to A2 , such that
(ΔE R )sw R swrev
A1 A2 = ( ΔE ) A1 A2 , and let R1 be the initial state of R in this process. Let Π ARrev be
a reversible standard weight process for AR, from A1 to A2 , with the same initial state R1
of R. Thus, R3d coincides with R1 and R4d coincides with R2 . The composite process (Π AR ,
− Π ARrev) is a cycle for the isolated system ARB, where B is the environment of AR. As a
consequence, Π AR is reversible, because it is a part of a cycle of the isolated system ARB.
Theorem 3. Let R′ and R′′ be any two thermal reservoirs and consider the energy changes,
′ R ′′ swrev
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 and ( ΔE ) A1 A2 respectively, in the reversible standard weight processes Π AR ′ =
( A1 R1′ → A2 R2′ )swrev and Π AR′′ = ( A1 R1′′ → A2 R2′′ )swrev , where (A1 , A2 ) is an arbitrarily
chosen pair of states of any closed system A in which A is separable and uncorrelated from
′ R ′′ swrev
its environment. Then the ratio (ΔE R )swrevA1 A2 /( ΔE ) A1 A2 :
a) is positive;
b) depends only on R′ and R′′ , i.e., it is independent of (i) the initial stable equilibrium states
of R′ and R′′ , (ii) the choice of system A, and (iii) the choice of states A1 and A2 .
′ R ′′ swrev
Proof of a). With the help of Figure 2, let us suppose that (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 < 0. Then, ( ΔE ) A1 A2
cannot be zero. In fact, in that case the composite process (Π AR′ , − Π AR′′ ), which is a cycle
for A, would be a weight process for R′ in which, starting from the stable equilibrium state
R1′ , the energy of R′ is lowered and the regions of space occupied by the constituents of R′
′′
have no net change, in contrast with Theorem 1. Moreover, (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 cannot be positive. In
fact, if it were positive, the work performed by R′ R′′ as a result of the overall weight process
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
15
m times n times
R'1 R'2 (∆E R ' ) swrev
AA
R '1 R '2 − (∆E R ' ) swrev
A' A'
Π AR' 1 2 −Π A'R ' 1 2
A1 A2 A'1 A'2
−Π AR" Π A'R"
R"1 R"2 − (∆E R" ) swrev
AA
R"1 R"2 (∆E R" ) swrev
A' A'
1 2 n times 1 2
m times
Fig. 3. Illustration of the proof of Theorem 3, part b): composite processes Π A and Π A′ ), see
text.
(Π AR′ , − Π AR′′ ) for R′ R′′ would be
′ ′′ ′ R ′′ swrev
W R R → = −(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 + ( ΔE ) A1 A2 , (8)
where both terms are positive. On account of Assumption 1 and Corollary 1, after the process
(Π AR′ , − Π AR′′ ), one could perform a weight process Π R ′′ for R′′ in which a positive amount
′′ ′′
of energy equal to (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 is given back to R and the latter is restored to its initial stable
equilibrium state. As a result, the composite process (Π AR′ , − Π AR′′ , Π R′′ ) would be a weight
process for R′ in which, starting from the stable equilibrium state R1′ , the energy of R′ is
lowered and the region of space occupied by occupied by R′ has no net change, in contrast
′ R ′′ swrev
with Theorem 1. Therefore, the assumption (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 < 0 implies ( ΔE ) A1 A2 < 0.
′ ′
Let us suppose that (ΔE R )swrev R swrev
A1 A2 > 0. Then, for process − Π AR ′ one has ( ΔE ) A2 A1 < 0. By
′′
repeating the previous argument, one proves that for process − Π AR ′′ one has (ΔE R )swrev
A2 A1 < 0.
′′
Therefore, for process Π AR′′ one has (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 > 0.
Proof of b). Given a pair of states (A1 , A2 ) of a closed system A, consider the reversible
standard weight process Π AR′ = ( A1 R1′ → A2 R2′ )swrev for AR′ , with R′ initially in state R1′ ,
and the reversible standard weight process Π AR′′ = ( A1 R1′′ → A2 R2′′ )swrev for AR′′ , with R′′
initially in state R1′′ . Moreover, given a pair of states (A1′ , A2′ ) of another closed system
A′ , consider the reversible standard weight process Π A′ R′ = ( A1′ R1′ → A2′ R2′ )swrev for A′ R′ ,
with R′ initially in state R1′ , and the reversible standard weight process Π A′ R′′ = ( A1′ R1′′ →
A2′ R2′′ )swrev for A′ R′′ , with R′′ initially in state R1′′ .
With the help of Figure 3, we will prove that the changes in energy of the reservoirs in these
processes obey the relation
′
′
(ΔE R )swrev (ΔE R )swrev
A1′ A2′
A1 A2
R ′′ swrev = R ′′ swrev . (9)
(ΔE ) A1 A2 (ΔE ) A′ A′
1 2
′ ′ ′′
Let us assume: (ΔE R )swrev R swrev R swrev
A1 A2 > 0 and ( ΔE ) A ′ A ′ > 0, which implies, ( ΔE ) A1 A2 > 0 and
1 2
′′
(ΔE R )swrev
A1′ A2′
> 0 on account of part a) of the proof. This is not a restriction, because it is
possible to reverse the processes under exam. Now, as is well known, any real number
can be approximated with an arbitrarily high accuracy by a rational number. Therefore, we
′ R ′ swrev
will assume that the energy changes (ΔE R )swrevA1 A2 and ( ΔE ) A1′ A2′ are rational numbers, so
that whatever is the value of their ratio, there exist two positive integers m and n such that
′ R ′ swrev
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 /( ΔE ) A ′ A ′ = n/m, i.e.,
1 2
′ ′
m (ΔE R )swrev R swrev
A1 A2 = n ( ΔE ) A ′ A ′ . (10)
1 2
www.intechopen.com
38
16 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
Therefore, as sketched in Figure 3, let us consider the composite processes Π A and Π′A defined
as follows. Π A is the following composite weight process for system AR′ R′′ : starting from the
initial state R1′ of R′ and R2′′ of R′′ , system A is brought from A1 to A2 by a reversible standard
weight process for AR′ , then from A2 to A1 by a reversible standard weight process for AR′′ ;
whatever the new states of R′ and R′′ are, again system A is brought from A1 to A2 by a
reversible standard weight process for AR′ and back to A1 by a reversible standard weight
process for AR′′ , until the cycle for A is repeated m times. Similarly, Π A′ is a composite weight
processes for system A′ R′ R′′ whereby starting from the end states of R′ and R′′ reached by
Π A , system A′ is brought from A1′ to A2′ by a reversible standard weight process for A′ R′′ ,
then from A2′ to A1′ by a reversible standard weight process for A′ R′ ; and so on until the cycle
for A′ is repeated n times.
Clearly, the whole composite process (Π A , Π A ′ ) is a cycle for AA′ . Moreover, it is a cycle also
for R′ . In fact, on account of Theorem 2, the energy change of R′ in each process Π AR′ is equal
′
to (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 regardless of its initial state, and in each process − Π A ′ R ′ the energy change of
′
R′ is equal to −(ΔE R )swrev
A′ A′
. Therefore, the energy change of R′ in the composite process (Π A ,
1 2
Π′A ) is m (ΔE )swrevR′ R swrev ′
A1 A2 − n ( ΔE ) A ′ A ′ and equals zero on account of Eq. (10). As a result, after
1 2
(Π A , Π′A ), reservoir R′ has been restored to its initial state, so that (Π A , Π′A ) is a reversible
weight process for R′′ .
Again on account of Theorem 2, the overall energy change of R′′ in (Π A , Π′A ) is
′′ R ′′ swrev
− m (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 + n ( ΔE ) A1′ A2′ . If this quantity were negative, Theorem 1 would be
violated. If this quantity were positive, Theorem 1 would also be violated by the reverse
′′
of the process, (− Π′A , − Π A ). Therefore, the only possibility is that − m (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 +
′′
n (ΔE R )swrev
A′ A′
= 0, i.e.,
1 2
′′ ′′
m (ΔE R )swrev R swrev
A1 A2 = n ( ΔE ) A ′ A ′ . (11)
1 2
Finally, taking the ratio of Eqs. (10) and (11), we obtain Eq. (9) which is our conclusion.
Temperature of a thermal reservoir. Let R be a given thermal reservoir and Ro a reference
thermal reservoir. Select an arbitrary pair of states (A1 , A2 ) in which an arbitrary closed
system A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, and consider the energy
changes (ΔE R )swrev R o swrev
A1 A2 and ( ΔE ) A1 A2 in two reversible standard weight processes from A1
to A2 , one for AR and the other for ARo , respectively. We call temperature of R the positive
quantity
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
TR = TR o , (12)
(ΔE Ro )swrev
A1 A2
where TRo is a positive constant associated arbitrarily with the reference thermal reservoir Ro .
If for Ro we select a thermal reservoir having water as constituent, with energy restricted to
the solid-liquid-vapor triple-point range, and we set TRo = 273.16 K, we obtain the unit kelvin
(K) for the thermodynamic temperature, which is adopted in the International System of Units
(SI). Clearly, the temperature TR of R is defined only up to an arbitrary multiplicative constant.
Corollary 2. The ratio of the temperatures of two thermal reservoirs, R′ and R′′ , is
independent of the choice of the reference thermal reservoir and can be measured directly
as ′
TR′ (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
= , (13)
TR′′ (ΔE R′′ )swrev
A1 A2
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
17
′ ′′ ′ ′′
where (ΔE R )swrev R swrev
A1 A2 and ( ΔE ) A1 A2 are the energy changes of R and R in two reversible
′ ′′
standard weight processes, one for AR and the other for AR , which interconnect the same
but otherwise arbitrary pair of states (A1 , A2 ) in which a closed system A is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment.
o
Proof. Let (ΔE R )swrev o
A1 A2 be the energy change of the reference thermal reservoir R in any
o
reversible standard weight process for AR which interconnects the same states (A1 , A2 ) of A.
From Eq. (12) we have
′
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
TR ′ = TRo , (14)
(ΔE Ro )swrev
A1 A2
′′
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
TR ′′ =T
Ro , (15)
(ΔE Ro )swrev
A1 A2
therefore the ratio of Eqs. (14) and (15) yields Eq. (13).
Corollary 3. Let (A1 , A2 ) be any pair of states in which a closed system A is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment, and let (ΔE R )swrev A1 A2 be the energy change of a thermal
reservoir R with temperature TR , in any reversible standard weight process for AR from A1 to
A2 . Then, for the given system A, the ratio (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 /TR depends only on the pair of states
(A1 , A2 ), i.e., it is independent of the choice of reservoir R and of its initial stable equilibrium
state R1 .
Proof. Let us consider two reversible standard weight processes from A1 to A2 , one for AR′
and the other for AR′′ , where R′ is a thermal reservoir with temperature TR′ and R′′ is a
thermal reservoir with temperature TR′′ . Then, equation (13) yields
′ ′′
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
= . (16)
TR′ TR′′
Definition of (thermodynamic) entropy for a closed system. Proof that it is a property. Let
(A1 , A2 ) be any pair of states in which a closed system A is separable and uncorrelated from
its environment B, and let R be an arbitrarily chosen thermal reservoir placed in B. We call
entropy difference between A2 and A1 the quantity
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
S2A − S1A = − (17)
TR
where (ΔE R )swrev

A1 A2 is the energy change of R in any reversible standard weight process for AR
from A1 to A2 , and TR is the temperature of R. On account of Corollary 3, the right hand side
of Eq. (17) is determined uniquely by states A1 and A2 .
Let A0 be a reference state in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment,
to which we assign an arbitrarily chosen value of entropy S0A . Then, the value of the entropy
of A in any other state A1 in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, is
determined uniquely by the equation
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A0
S1A = S0A − , (18)
TR
where (ΔE R )swrev

A1 A0 is the energy change of R in any reversible standard weight process for AR
from A0 to A1 , and TR is the temperature of R. Such a process exists for every state A1 , on
www.intechopen.com
40
18 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
account of Assumption 2. Therefore, entropy is a property of A and is defined for every state
of A in which A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment.
Theorem 4. Additivity of entropy differences for uncorrelated states. Consider the pairs
of states (C1 = A1 B1 , C2 = A2 B2 ) in which the composite system C = AB is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment, and systems A and B are separable and uncorrelated from
each other. Then,
AB AB
SA 2 B2
− SA 1 B1
= S2A − S1A + S2B − S1B . (19)
Proof. Let us choose a thermal reservoir R, with temperature TR , and consider the composite
process (Π AR , Π BR ) where Π AR is a reversible standard weight process for AR from A1 to
A2 , while Π BR is a reversible standard weight process for BR from B1 to B2 . The composite
process (Π AR , Π BR ) is a reversible standard weight process for CR from C1 to C2 , in which
the energy change of R is the sum of the energy changes in the constituent processes Π AR and
Π BR , i.e., (ΔE R )swrev R swrev R swrev
C1 C2 = ( ΔE ) A1 A2 + ( ΔE ) B1 B2 . Therefore:
(ΔE R )swrev
C1 C2 (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 (ΔE R )swrev
B1 B2
= + . (20)
TR TR TR
Equation (20) and the definition of entropy (17) yield Eq. (19).
Comment. As a consequence of Theorem 4, if the values of entropy are chosen so that they
are additive in the reference states, entropy results as an additive property. Note, however,
that the proof of additivity requires that ( A1 , B1 ) and ( A2 , B2 ) are pairs of states such that the
subsystems A and B are uncorrelated from each other.
Theorem 5. Let (A1 , A2 ) be any pair of states in which a closed system A is separable and
uncorrelated from its environment and let R be a thermal reservoir with temperature TR . Let
Π ARirr be any irreversible standard weight process for AR from A1 to A2 and let (ΔE R )swirr A1 A2
be the energy change of R in this process. Then
(ΔE R )swirr
A1 A2
− < S2A − S1A . (21)
TR
Proof. Let Π ARrev be any reversible standard weight process for AR from A1 to A2 and let
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 be the energy change of R in this process. On account of Theorem 2,
(ΔE R )swrev R swirr

A1 A2 < ( ΔE ) A1 A2 . (22)
Since TR is positive, from Eqs. (22) and (17) one obtains
(ΔE R )swirr
A1 A2 (ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
− <− = S2A − S1A . (23)
TR TR
Theorem 6. Principle of entropy nondecrease. Let ( A1 , A2 ) be a pair of states in which a
closed system A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment and let ( A1 → A2 )W be
any weight process for A from A1 to A2 . Then, the entropy difference S2A − S1A is equal to zero
if and only if the weight process is reversible; it is strictly positive if and only if the weight
process is irreversible.
Proof. If ( A1 → A2 )W is reversible, then it is a special case of a reversible standard weight
process for AR in which the initial stable equilibrium state of R does not change. Therefore,
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2 = 0 and by applying the definition of entropy, Eq. (17), one obtains
(ΔE R )swrev
A1 A2
S2A − S1A = − =0 . (24)
TR
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
19
If ( A1 → A2 )W is irreversible, then it is a special case of an irreversible standard weight

process for AR in which the initial stable equilibrium state of R does not change. Therefore,
(ΔE R )swirr
A1 A2 = 0 and Equation (21) yields
(ΔE R )swirr
A1 A2
S2A − S1A > − =0 . (25)
TR
Moreover: if a weight process ( A1 → A2 )W for A is such that S2A − S1A = 0, then the process
must be reversible, because we just proved that for any irreversible weight process S2A − S1A >
0; if a weight process ( A1 → A2 )W for A is such that S2A − S1A > 0, then the process must be
irreversible, because we just proved that for any reversible weight process S2A − S1A = 0.
Corollary 4. If states A1 and A2 can be interconnected by means of a reversible weight process
for A, they have the same entropy. If states A1 and A2 can be interconnected by means of a
zero-work reversible weight process for A, they have the same energy and the same entropy.
Proof. These are straightforward consequences of Theorem 6 together with the definition of
energy.
Theorem 7. Highest-entropy principle. Among all the states of a closed system A such that
A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, the constituents of A are contained in
a given set of regions of space R A and the value of the energy E A of A is fixed, the entropy of
A has the highest value only in the unique stable equilibrium state Ase determined by R A and
EA.
Proof. Let A g be any other state of A in the set of states considered here. On account of the
first law and of the definition of energy, A g and Ase can be interconnected by a zero work
weight process for A, either ( A g → Ase )W or ( Ase → A g )W . However, the existence of a zero
work weight process ( Ase → A g )W would violate the definition of stable equilibrium state.
Therefore, a zero work weight process ( A g → Ase )W exists and is irreversible, so that Theorem
A > S A.
6 implies Sse g
Assumption 3. Existence of spontaneous decorrelations and impossibility of spontaneous
creation of correlations. Consider a system AB composed of two closed subsystems A and
B. Let ( AB )1 be a state in which AB is separable and uncorrelated from its environment and
such that in the corresponding states A1 and B1 , systems A and B are separable but correlated;
let A1 B1 be the state of AB such that the corresponding states A1 and B1 of A and B are the
same as for state ( AB )1 , but A and B are uncorrelated. Then, a zero work weight process
(( AB )1 → A1 B1 )W for AB is possible, while a weight process ( A1 B1 → ( AB )1 )W for AB is
impossible.
Corollary 5. Energy difference between states of a composite system in which subsystems
are correlated with each other. Let ( AB )1 and ( AB )2 be states of a composite system AB in
which AB is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, while systems A and B are
separable but correlated with each other. We have
E(AB AB AB AB A A B B
AB )2 − E( AB )1 = E A2 B2 − E A1 B1 = E2 − E1 + E2 − E1 . (26)
Proof. Since a zero work weight process (( AB )1 → A1 B1 )W for AB exists on account of

Assumption 3, states ( AB )1 and A1 B1 have the same energy. In other words, the energy of a
composite system in state ( AB )1 with separable but correlated subsystems coincides with the
energy of the composite system in state A1 B1 where its separable subsystems are uncorrelated
in the corresponding states A1 and A2 .
www.intechopen.com
42
20 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
Definition of energy for a state in which a system is correlated with its environment. On
account of Eq. (26), we will say that the energy of a system A in a state A1 in which A is
correlated with its environment is equal to the energy of system A in the corresponding state
A1 in which A is uncorrelated from its environment.
Comment. Equation (26) and the definition of energy for a state in which a system is correlated
with its environment extend the definition of energy and the proof of the additivity of energy
differences presented in (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005; Zanchini, 1986) to the case in which
systems A and B are separable but correlated with each other.
To our knowledge, Assumption 3 (never made explicit) underlies all reasonable models of
relaxation and decoherence.
Corollary 6. De-correlation entropy. Given a pair of (different) states ( AB )1 and A1 B1 as
defined in Assumption 3, then we have
σ(AB AB AB
AB )1 = S A1 B1 − S( AB )1 > 0 , (27)
where the positive quantity σ1AB is called the de-correlation entropy1 of state ( AB )1 . Clearly, if
the subsystems are uncorrelated, i.e., if ( AB )1 = A1 B1 , then σ(AB
AB )1
= σAAB
1 B1
= 0.
Proof. On account of Assumption 3, a zero work weight process Π AB = (( AB )1 → A1 B1 )W
for AB exists. Process Π AB is irreversible, because the reversibility of Π AB would require the
existence of a zero work weight process for AB from A1 B1 to ( AB )1 , which is excluded by
Assumption 3. Since Π AB is irreversible, Theorem 6 yields the conclusion.
Comment. Let ( AB )1 and ( AB )2 be a pair of states of a composite system AB such that AB
is separable and uncorrelated from its environment, while subsystems A and B are separable
but correlated with each other. Let A1 B1 and A2 B2 be the corresponding pairs of states of AB,
in which the subsystems A and B are in the same states as before, but are uncorrelated from
each other. Then, the entropy difference between ( AB )2 and ( AB )1 is not equal to the entropy
difference between A2 B2 and A1 B1 and therefore, on account of Eq. (19), it is not equal to the
sum of the entropy difference between A2 and A1 and the entropy difference between B2 and
B1 , evaluated in the corresponding states in which subsystems A and B are uncorrelated from
each other. In fact, combining Eq. (19) with Eq. (27), we have
S(AB AB A A B B AB AB
AB )2 − S( AB )1 = ( S2 − S1 ) + ( S2 − S1 ) − ( σ( AB )2 − σ( AB )1 ) . (28)
6. Fundamental relation, temperature, and Gibbs relation for closed systems

Set of equivalent stable equilibrium states. We will call set of equivalent stable equilibrium
states of a closed system A, denoted ESE A , a subset of its stable equilibrium states such that
any pair of states in the set:
– differ from one another by some geometrical features of the regions of space R A ;
– have the same composition;
– can be interconnected by a zero-work reversible weight process for A and, hence, by
Corollary 4, have the same energy and the same entropy.
Comment. Let us recall that, for all the stable equilibrium states of a closed system A in a
scenario AB, system A is separable and the external force field FeA = FeAB is the same; moreover,
all the compositions of A belong to the same set of compatible compositions (n0A , ν A ).
1 Explicit expressions of this property in the quantum formalism are given, e.g., in Wehrl (1978);
Beretta et al. (1985); Lloyd (1989).
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
21
Parameters of a closed system. We will call parameters of a closed system A, denoted by

β A = β1A , . . . , β sA , a minimal set of real variables sufficient to fully and uniquely parametrize
all the different sets of equivalent stable equilibrium states ESE A of A. In the following, we
will consider systems with a finite number s of parameters.
Examples. Consider a system A consisting of a single particle confined in spherical region of
space of volume V; the box is centered at position r which can move in a larger region where
there are no external fields. Then, it is clear that any rotation or translation of the spherical box
within the larger region can be effected in a zero-work weight process that does not alter the
rest of the state. Therefore, the position of the center of the box is not a parameter of the system.
The volume instead is a parameter. The same holds if the box is cubic. If it is a parallelepiped,
instead, the parameters are the sides ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ℓ3 but not its position and orientation. For a more
complex geometry of the box, the parameters are any minimal set of geometrical features
sufficient to fully describe its shape, regardless of its position and orientation. The same if
instead of one, the box contains many particles.
Suppose now we have a spherical box, with one or many particles, that can be moved in a
larger region where there are k subregions, each much larger than the box and each with an
external electric field everywhere parallel to the x axis and with uniform magnitude Eek . As
part of the definition of the system, let us restrict it only to the states such that the box is
fully contained in one of these regions. For this system, the magnitude of Ee can be changed
in a weight process by moving A from one uniform field subregion to another, but this in
general will vary the energy. Therefore, in addition to the volume of the sphere, this system
will have k as a parameter identifying the subregion where the box is located. Equivalently,
the subregion can be identified by the parameter Ee taking values in the set { Eek }. For each
value of the energy E, system A has a set ESE A for every pair of values of the parameters (V,
Ee ) with Ee in { Eek }.
Corollary 7. Fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states of a closed system. On
the set of all the stable equilibrium states of a closed system A (in scenario AB, for given
initial composition n0A , stoichiometric coefficients ν A and external force field FeA ), the entropy
is given by a single valued function
A A
Sse = Sse (E A , β A ) , (29)
which is called fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states of A. Moreover, also the
reaction coordinates are given by a single valued function
A A
ε se = ε se (E A , β A ) , (30)
which specifies the unique composition compatible with the initial composition n0A ,
called
the chemical equilibrium composition.
Proof. On account of the Second Law and Lemma 1, among all the states of a closed system
A with energy E A , the regions of space R A identify a unique stable equilibrium state. This
implies the existence of a single valued function Ase = Ase ( E A , R A ), where Ase denotes the
state, in the sense of Eq. (3). By definition, for each value of the energy E A , the values
of the parameters β A fully identify all the regions of space R A that correspond to a set of
equivalent stable equilibrium states ESE A , which have the same value of the entropy and the
same composition. Therefore, the values of E A and β A fix uniquely the values of Sse A and of
A
ε se . This implies the existence of the single valued functions written in Eqs. (29) and (30).
Comment. Clearly, for a non-reactive closed system, the composition is fixed and equal to the
A ( E A , β A ) = 0.
initial, i.e., ε se
www.intechopen.com
44
22 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
Usually (Hatsopoulos & Keenan, 1965; Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005), in view of the
equivalence that defines them, each set ESE A is thought of as a single state called “a stable
equilibrium state” of A. Thus, for a given closed system A (and, hence, given initial amounts
of constituents), it is commonly stated that the energy and the parameters of A determine “a
unique stable equilibrium state” of A, which is called “the chemical equilibrium state” of A if
the system is reactive according to a given set of stoichiometric coefficients. For a discussion
of the implications of Eq. (30) and its reduction to more familiar chemical equilibrium criteria
in terms of chemical potentials see, e.g., (Beretta & Gyftopoulos, 2004).
Assumption 4. The fundamental relation (29) is continuous and differentiable with respect to
each of the variables E A and β A .
Theorem 8. For any closed system, for fixed values of the parameters the fundamental relation
(29) is a strictly increasing function of the energy.
Proof. Consider two stable equilibrium states Ase1 and Ase2 of a closed system A, with
energies E1A and E2A , entropies Sse1A and S A , and with the same regions of space occupied
se2
by the constituents of A (and therefore the same values of the parameters). Assume E2A > E1A .
By Assumption 1, we can start from state Ase1 and, by a weight process for A in which the
regions of space occupied by the constituents of A have no net changes, add work so that
the system ends in a non-equilibrium state A2 with energy E2A . By Theorem 6, we must have
S2A ≥ Sse1
A . Now, on account of Lemma 2, we can go from state A to A
2 se2 with a zero-work
irreversible weight process for A. By Theorem 6, we must have Sse2 A > S A . Combining the two
2
inequalities, we find that E2A > E1A implies Sse2A > SA .
se1
Corollary 8. The fundamental relation for any closed system A can be rewritten in the form
A A
Ese = Ese (S A , β A ) . (31)
Proof. By Theorem 8, for fixed β A , Eq. (29) is a strictly increasing function of E A . Therefore, it
is invertible with respect to E A and, as a consequence, can be written in the form (31).
Temperature of a closed system in a stable equilibrium state. Consider a stable equilibrium
state Ase of a closed system A identified by the values of E A and β A . The partial derivative of
the fundamental relation (31) with respect to S A , is denoted by
A
∂Ese

TA = A
. (32)
∂S βA
Such derivative is always defined on account of Assumption 4. When evaluated at the values
of E A and β A that identify state Ase , it yields a value that we call the temperature of state Ase .
Comment. One can prove (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.127) that two stable equilibrium
states A1 and A2 of a closed system A are mutual stable equilibrium states if and only
if they have the same temperature, i.e., if T1A = T2A . Moreover, it is easily proved
(Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.136) that, when applied to a thermal reservoir R, Eq. (32)
yields that all the stable equilibrium states of a thermal reservoir have the same temperature
which is equal to the temperature TR of R defined by Eq. (12).
Corollary 9. For any stable equilibrium state of any (normal) closed system, the temperature
is non-negative.
Proof. The thesis follows immediately from the definition of temperature, Eq. (32), and
Theorem 8.
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
23
Gibbs equation for a non-reactive closed system. By differentiating Eq. (31), one obtains
(omitting the superscript “A” and the subscript “se” for simplicity)
s
dE = T dS + ∑ Fj dβ j , (33)
j =1

where Fj is called generalized force conjugated to the j-th parameter of A, Fj = ∂Ese /∂β j S,ββ′ .
If all the regions of space R A coincide and the volume V of any of them is a parameter,
the
negative of the conjugated generalized force is called pressure, denoted by p, p =
− ∂Ese /∂V S,ββ ′ .
Fundamental relation in the quantum formalism. Let us recall that the measurement
procedures that define energy and entropy must be applied, in general, to a (homogeneous)
ensemble of identically prepared replicas of the system of interest. Because the numerical
outcomes may vary (fluctuate) from replica to replica, the values of the energy and the
entropy defined by these procedures are arithmetic means. Therefore, what we have denoted
so far, for simplicity, by the symbols E A and S A should be understood as E A and S A .
Where appropriate, like in the quantum formalism implementation, this more precise notation
should be preferred. Then, written in full notation, the fundamental relation (29) for a closed
system is
S A se = Sse
A
( E A , β A ) , (34)
and the corresponding Gibbs relation
s
d E = T dS + ∑ Fj dβ j . (35)
j =1
7. Definitions of energy and entropy for an open system

Our definition of energy is based on the First Law, by which a weight process is possible
between any pair of states A1 and A2 in which a closed system A is separable and uncorrelated
from its environment. Our definition of entropy is based on Assumption 2, by which a
reversible standard weight process for AR is possible between any pair of states A1 and A2 in
which a closed system A is separable and uncorrelated from its environment. In both cases,
A1 and A2 have compatible compositions. In this section, we extend the definitions of energy
and entropy to a set of states in which an open system O is separable and uncorrelated from
its environment; two such states of O have, in general, non-compatible compositions.
Separable open system uncorrelated from its environment. Consider an open system O that
has Q as its (open) environment, i.e., the composite system OQ is isolated in FOQ e . We say
that system O is separable from Q at time t if the state (OQ)t of OQ can be reproduced as
(i.e., coincides with) a state ( AB )t of an isolated system AB in FeAB = FOQe such that A and
B are closed and separable at time t. If the state ( AB )t = At Bt , i.e., is such that A and B
are uncorrelated from each other, then we say that the open system O is uncorrelated from its
environment at time t, and we have Ot = At , Qt = Bt , and (OQ)t = Ot Qt .
Set of elemental species. Following (Gyftopoulos & Beretta, 2005, p.545), we will call set
of elemental species a complete set of independent constituents with the following features: (1)
(completeness) there exist reaction mechanisms by which all other constituents can be formed
starting only from constituents in the set; and (2) (independence) there exist no reaction
mechanisms that involve only constituents in the set.
www.intechopen.com
46
24 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
For example, in chemical thermodynamics we form a set of elemental species by selecting

among all the chemical species formed by atomic nuclei of a single kind those that have
the most stable molecular structure and form of aggregation at standard temperature and
pressure.
Energy and entropy of a separable open system uncorrelated from its environment. Let OQ
be an isolated system in FOQ
e , with O and Q open systems, and let us choose scenario OQ, so
that Q is the environment of O. Let us suppose that O has r single-constituent regions of space
and a set of allowed reaction mechanisms with stoichiometric coefficients ν O . Let us consider
a state O1 in which O is separable and uncorrelated from its environment and has composition
nO
nO O O O n1O A 1 B = FOQ , such that An 1 is O
1 = ( n1 , . . . , n i , . . . , nr )1 . Let A B be an isolated system in Fe e
closed, has the same allowed reaction mechanisms as O and compositions compatible with
nO O O
nO 1
1 . Let A1 be a state of A
n 1 such that, in that state, system An 1 is a separable system in
O O
An1 An 1 B nO
Fe = Fe and is uncorrelated from its environment; moreover, the state A1 1 coincides
with O1 , i.e., has the same values of all the properties. We will define as energy and entropy
O nO nO
of O, in state O1 , the energy and the entropy of An 1 in state A1 1 , namely E1O = E1A 1
and
O
n O nO
S1O= S1A 1
. The existence of system An 1 and of state A1 1 is granted by the definition of
separability for O in state O1 .
O nO
The values of the energy and of the entropy of An 1 , in state A1 1 , are determined by choosing
nO O nO
a reference state A0 of An 1 and by applying Eqs. (7) and (18). The reference state A0 1 and
1
nO nO
the reference values E0A 1 and S0A 1 are selected as defined below.
O O
We choose An 1 as the composite of q closed subsystems, An 1 = A1 A2 · · · Ai · · · Aq , each one
O
containing an elemental species, chosen so that the composition of An 1 is compatible with
i
that of O in state O1 . Each subsystem, A , contains n i particles of the i-th elemental species
i
and is constrained by a wall in a spherical box with a variable volume V A ; each box is very
nO
far from the others and is placed in a position where the external force field FeA 1
is vanishing.
nO
We choose the reference state A0 1 to be such that each subsystem Ai is in a stable equilibrium
i
state A0i with a prescribed temperature, T0 , and a volume V0A such that the pressure has a
prescribed value p0 .
nO
We fix the reference values of the energy and the entropy of the reference state A0 1 as follows:
q
nO i
E0A ∑ E0A
1
= , (36)
i =1
q
nO i
S0A 1
= ∑ S0A , (37)
i =1
i i nO
with the values of E0A and S0A fixed arbitrarily. Notice that by construction V0A 1
=
q i nO nO q i i
∑ i=1 V0A
and, therefore, we also have E0A 1 + p0 V0A 1 = ∑i=1 ( E0A + p0 V0A ). In chemical
i i i
thermodynamics, it is customary to set E0A + p0 V0A = 0 and S0A = 0 for each elemental species.
Similarly to what seen for a closed system, the definition of energy for O can be extended to
the states of O in which O is separable but correlated with its environment.
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
25
8. Fundamental relation for an open system

Stable equilibrium state of an open system. A state of an open system O in which O is a
separable open system in FO e and is uncorrelated from its environment Q is called a stable
equilibrium state if it can be reproduced as a stable equilibrium state of a closed system A in
FeA = FO
e .
We will consider separately the two different cases:
a) the constituents of O are non-reactive, i.e., no reaction mechanism is allowed for O;
b) reactions with stoichiometric coefficients ν O are allowed for O.
Fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states of an open system with non-reactive
constituents. Let SEO be the set of all the stable equilibrium states of an open system O with
r non-reactive constituents and s parameters, β O = βO O
1 , ... , β s . Let us consider the subset
O
O
SEnO of all the states of SE that have the composition n 1 , and let An 1 be a closed system
n1
O O
with composition n O
1 , such that its stable equilibrium states coincide with those of the subset
nO nO
SEnOO and therefore also the parameters coincide, i.e., β A 1
= β O . Then, every subset ESE A 1
1
O nO
of equivalent stable equilibrium states of An 1 , which is determined by the energy E A 1
and
nO
the parameters β A 1 , coincides with a subset of equivalent stable equilibrium states of O with
composition n O
1 . The same argument can be repeated for every composition of O. Therefore,
on the whole set SEO , a relation with the form
SO O O O O
se = Sse ( E , n , β ) (38)
is defined and is called fundamental relation for O. Since the relation SO O O

se = Sse ( E ), for fixed
values of n O and β O , is strictly increasing, Eq. (38) can be rewritten as
O O O
Ese = Ese (S , n O , β O ) . (39)
Gibbs equation for a non-reactive open system. If the system has non-reactive constituents,
the fundamental relation given by Eq. (39) applies. By differentiating Eq. (39), one obtains
(omitting the superscript “O” and the subscript “se” for simplicity)
r s
dE = TdS + ∑ μi dni + ∑ Fj dβ j , (40)
i =1 j =1
where μ i is called the total potential of i-th constituent of O.

In Eq. (40), it is assumed that Eq. (39) is continuous and differentiable also with respect to n.
For systems with very large values of the amounts of constituents this condition is fulfilled.
However, for very few particle closed systems, the variable n takes on only discrete values,
and, according to our definition, a separable state of an open system must be reproduced as
a separable state of a closed system. Thus, the extension of Eq. (40) to few particles open
systems requires an extended definition of a separable state of an open system, which includes
states with non integer numbers of particles. This extension will not be presented here.
Fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states of an open system with reactive
constituents. Let SEO be the set of all the stable equilibrium states of an open system O with
parameters β O and constituents which can react according to a set of reaction mechanisms
defined by the stoichiometric coefficients ν O . Let (n 0O O
1 , ν ) be the set of the compositions of
O which are compatible with the initial composition n 1 = (n0O0O 0O n0O
1 , ..., nr )1 . Let SE be the
1
www.intechopen.com
48
26 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
0O
subset of SEO with compositions compatible with (n 0O O
1 , ν ) and let A
n 1 be a closed system
0O O
with compositions compatible with (n 1 , ν ) and stable equilibrium states that coincide with
0O n0O
those of the subset SEn 1 so that also the parameters coincide, i.e., β A 1
= βO .
0O
Then, every subset ESE An 1 of equivalent stable equilibrium states of An 1 , which is
0O
0O 0O
determined by the energy E An 1
and the parameters β An 1
, coincides with a subset of
0O
n
equivalent stable equilibrium states in the set SE . The same argument can be repeated
1
for every set of compatible compositions of O, (n 0O O 0O O

2 , ν ), (n 3 , ν ), etc. Therefore, on the
O
whole set SE , the following single-valued relation is defined
SO O O 0O O
se = Sse ( E , n , β ) (41)
which is called fundamental relation for O. Since the relation SO O O

se = Sse ( E ), for fixed values
0O O
of n and β , is strictly increasing, Eq. (41) can be rewritten as
O O O
Ese = Ese (S , n 0O , β O ) . (42)
Comment. On the set SEO of the stable equilibrium states of O, also the reaction coordinates
are given by a single valued function
εO O O 0O O
se = ε se ( E , n , β ) , (43)
which defines the chemical equilibrium composition. The existence of Eq. (43) is a
consequence of the existence of a single valued function such as Eq. (30) for each of the
0O 0O
closed systems An 1 , An 2 , ... used to reproduce the stable equilibrium states of O with sets of
amounts of constituents compatible with the initial compositions, n 0O 0O
1 , n 2 , etc.
9. Conclusions
In this paper, a general definition of entropy is presented, based on operative definitions of all
the concepts employed in the treatment, designed to provide a clarifying and useful, complete
and coherent, minimal but general, rigorous logical framework suitable for unambiguous
fundamental discussions on Second Law implications.
Operative definitions of system, state, isolated system, environment of a system, process,
separable system, system uncorrelated from its environment and parameters of a system are
stated, which are valid also in the presence of internal semipermeable walls and reaction
mechanisms. The concepts of heat and of quasistatic process are never mentioned, so that
the treatment holds also for nonequilibrium states, both for macroscopic and few particles
systems.
The role of correlations on the domain of definition and on the additivity of energy and
entropy is discussed: it is proved that energy is defined for any separable system, even if
correlated with its environment, and is additive for separable subsystems even if correlated
with each other; entropy is defined only for a separable system uncorrelated from its
environment and is additive only for separable subsystems uncorrelated from each other; the
concept of decorrelation entropy is defined.
A definition of thermal reservoir less restrictive than in previous treatments is adopted: it is
fulfilled, with an excellent approximation, by any single-constituent simple system contained
in a fixed region of space, provided that the energy values are restricted to a suitable finite
range. The proof that entropy is a property of the system is completed by a new explicit proof
www.intechopen.com
Rigorous
Rigorousand
andGeneral
GeneralDefinition
27
that the entropy difference between two states of a system is independent of the initial state
of the auxiliary thermal reservoir chosen to measure it.
The definition of a reversible process is given with reference to a given scenario, i.e., the largest
isolated system whose subsystems are available for interaction; thus, the operativity of the
definition is improved and the treatment becomes compatible also with recent interpretations
of irreversibility in the quantum mechanical framework.
Rigorous extensions of the definitions of energy and entropy to open systems are stated. The
existence of a fundamental relation for the stable equilibrium states of an open system with
reactive constituents is proved rigorously; it is shown that the amounts of constituents which
correspond to given fixed values of the reaction coordinates should appear in this equation.
10. Acknowledgments
G.P. Beretta gratefully acknowledges the Cariplo–UniBS–MIT-MechE faculty exchange
program co-sponsored by UniBS and the CARIPLO Foundation, Italy under grant 2008-2290.
11. References
Bennett, C.H. (2008). The Second Law and Quantum Physics, in Meeting the Entropy Challenge,
AIP Conf. Proc. Series 1033: 66-79.
Beretta, G.P. (1984). On the Relation Between Classical and Quantum Thermodynamic
Entropy, J. Math. Phys. 25: 1507 (1984).
Beretta, G.P. (1987). Quantum Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium. Onsager Reciprocity and
Dispersion-Dissipation Relations, Found. Phys. 17: 365-381.
Beretta, G.P. (2006). Nonlinear Model Dynamics for Closed-System, Constrained,
Maximal-Entropy-Generation Relaxation by Energy Redistribution, Phys. Rev. E 73:
026113.
Beretta, G.P. (2009). Nonlinear Quantum Evolution Equations to Model Irreversible Adiabatic
Relaxation With Maximal Entropy Production and Other Nonunitary Processes,
Reports on Mathematical Physics 64: 139-168.
Beretta, G.P.; Ghoniem, A.F. & Hatsopoulos, G.N., Editors (2008). Meeting the Entropy
Challenge, AIP Conf. Proc. Series 1033.
Beretta, G.P. & Gyftopoulos, E.P. (2004). Thermodynamic Derivations of Conditions for
Chemical Equilibrium and of Onsager Reciprocal Relations for Chemical Reactors,
J. Chem. Phys. 121: 2718-2728.
Beretta, G.P.; Gyftopoulos, E.P.; Park, J.L. & Hatsopoulos, G.N. (1984). Quantum
Thermodynamics: a New Equation of Motion for a Single Constituent of Matter,
Nuovo Cimento B 82: 169-191.
Beretta, G.P.; Gyftopoulos, E.P. & Park, J.L. (1985). Quantum Thermodynamics: a New
Equation of Motion for a General Constituent of Matter, Nuovo Cimento B 87: 77-97.
Callen, H.B. (1985). Thermodynamics and Introduction to Thermostatics, 2nd Ed., Wiley.
Clausius, R. (1865). Üer Verschiedene für die Anwendungen Bequeme Formen der
Hauptgleichungen der Mechanischen Warmetheorie. Memoir read at the Philos.
Soc. Zürich on April 24, Pogg. Ann. 125: 353-400. English translation in: Kestin,
J. Ed. (1976). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ros:
Stroudsburg: 162-193.
Fermi, E. (1937). Thermodynamics, Prentice-Hall.
Feynman, R.P. (1963). Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1, Addison-Welsey.
www.intechopen.com
50
28 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics
Giovannetti, V.; Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. (2003). Quantum Limits to Dynamical Evolution,
Phys. Rev. A, 67: 052109.
Goldstein, S.; Lebowitz, J.L.; Tumulka, R. & Zanghı́, N. (2006). Canonical Typicality, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 96: 050403.
Guggenheim, E.A. (1967). Thermodynamics, North-Holland, 7th Ed., p. 10.
Gyftopoulos, E.P. & Beretta, G.P. (2005). Thermodynamics. Foundations and Applications, Dover,
Mineola (first edition, Macmillan, 1991).
Harremöes, P., Editor (2007). Facets of Entropy, in Entropy, Special Issue: Proceedings of the
workshop in Copenhagen, 24-26 October 2007.
Hatsopoulos, G.N. & Beretta, G.P. (2008). Where is the entropy challenge?, in Meeting the
Entropy Challenge, AIP Conf. Proc. Series 1033: 34-54.
Hatsopoulos, G.N. & Gyftopoulos, E.P. (1976). A Unified Quantum Theory of Mechanics and
Thermodynamics, Found. Phys. 6: 15-31, 127-141, 439-455, 561-570.
Hatsopoulos, G.N. & Keenan, J.H. (1965). Principles of General Thermodynamics, Wiley, p. xxiii.
Horodecki, R.; Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, P. (2001). Balance of Information in Bipartite
Quantum-Communication Systems: Entanglement-Energy Analogy, Phys. Rev. A 63:
022310.
Keenan, J.H. (1941). Thermodynamics, Wiley, p. 6.
Kim, Y.; Yu, R.; Kulik, S.P.; Shih, Y. & Scully, M.O. (2000). Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84: 1-5.
Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M. (1980). Statistical Physics, Part I, 3rd Ed., Revised by Lifshitz,
E.M. & Pitaevskii, L.P., Translated by Sykes J.B. & Kearsley, M.J., Pergamon Press,
p. 45.
Lieb, E.H. & Yngvason, J. (1999). Phys. Reps. 310: 1-96.
Lloyd, S. (1989). Use of Mutual Information to Decrease Entropy: Implications for the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. A 39: 5378-5386.
Lloyd, S. (1997). Quantum-Mechanical Maxwell’s Demon, Phys. Rev. A 56: 3374-3382.
Lloyd, S. (2008). The Once and Future Second Law of Thermodynamics, in Meeting the Entropy
Challenge, AIP Conf. Proc. Series 1033: 143-157.
Maccone, L. (2009). Quantum Solution to the Arrow-of-Time Dilemma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103:
080401.
Scully, M.O. (2001). Extracting Work from a Single Thermal Bath via Quantum Negentropy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87: 220601.
Scully, M.O. (2002). Quantum Afterburner: Improving the Efficiency of an Ideal Heat Engine,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88: 050602.
Scully, M.O. & Drühl, K. (1982). Quantum Eraser: a Proposed Photon Correlation Experiment
Concerning Observation and Delayed Choice in Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. A
25: 2208-2213.
Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, MIT Press, p. 16.
Wehrl, A. (1978). General Properties of Entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50: 221-260.
Zanchini, E. (1986). On the Definition of Extensive Property Energy by the First Postulate of
Thermodynamics, Found. Phys. 16: 923-935.
Zanchini, E. (1988). Thermodynamics: Energy of Closed and Open Systems, Il Nuovo Cimento
B 101: 453-465.
Zanchini, E. (1992). Thermodynamics: Energy of Nonsimple Systems and Second Postulate, Il
Nuovo Cimento B 107: 123-139.
www.intechopen.com
Thermodynamics
Edited by Prof. Mizutani Tadashi
ISBN 978-953-307-544-0
Hard cover, 440 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 14, January, 2011
Published in print edition January, 2011
Progress of thermodynamics has been stimulated by the findings of a variety of fields of science and
technology. The principles of thermodynamics are so general that the application is widespread to such fields
as solid state physics, chemistry, biology, astronomical science, materials science, and chemical engineering.
The contents of this book should be of help to many scientists and engineers.
How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:
Gian Paolo Beretta and Enzo Zanchini (2011). Rigorous and General Definition of Thermodynamic Entropy,
Thermodynamics, Prof. Mizutani Tadashi (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-544-0, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/thermodynamics/rigorous-and-general-definition-of-thermodynamic-entropy
InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com

World's Largest Science, Technology & Medicine Open Access Book Publisher

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

World's Largest Science, Technology & Medicine Open Access Book Publisher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

World's Largest Science, Technology & Medicine Open Access Book Publisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLISHED BY

World's largest Science,

Selection of our books indexed in the

Chapter from the book Thermodynamics

Interested in publishing with IntechOpen?

Rigorous and General Deﬁnition of

2. Drawbacks of the traditional deﬁnitions of entropy

the properties of AB can be determined by local measurements of properties of systems A and

Composite process. A time-ordered sequence of processes between uncorrelated states of

4. Deﬁnition of energy for a closed system

uncorrelated from its environment depends only on the states A1 and A2 ;

E2AB − E1AB = E2A − E1A + E2B − E1B ; (6)

5. Deﬁnition of thermodynamic entropy for a closed system

Fig. 1. Illustration of the proof of Fig. 2. Illustration of the proof of

where (ΔE R )swrev

where (ΔE R )swrev

(ΔE R )swrev R swirr

If ( A1 → A2 )W is irreversible, then it is a special case of an irreversible standard weight

Proof. Since a zero work weight process (( AB )1 → A1 B1 )W for AB exists on account of

6. Fundamental relation, temperature, and Gibbs relation for closed systems

Beretta et al. (1985); Lloyd (1989).

Parameters of a closed system. We will call parameters of a closed system A, denoted by

7. Deﬁnitions of energy and entropy for an open system

For example, in chemical thermodynamics we form a set of elemental species by selecting

8. Fundamental relation for an open system

is defined and is called fundamental relation for O. Since the relation SO O O

where μ i is called the total potential of i-th constituent of O.

for every set of compatible compositions of O, (n 0O O 0O O

which is called fundamental relation for O. Since the relation SO O O

InTech Europe InTech China

You might also like