05-27-2016, 08:13 PM

Ok, makes sense. And quantum equilibrium, of course, is well-accepted, first demonstrated by Bohm in 1953 or thereabouts. I'm still puzzled on a couple points.

In the Physics Stack Exchange thread referenced by user7348, LM gives the normal von Neumann entropy S. Whereas you call it H (of course the letter used is not important) but your formula is quite different. It's an integral, and also doesn't include the Trace function. Robert Mastragostino points this out, saying your formula is "wrong" and so it seems to me also. If so, of course, you can just correct it to the "right" formula and there's no problem. Or is there more to it?

Finally, you may not be able to respond to the following: you're not responsible for other's misunderstandings. But, do you have any idea why LM does seem to insist on "counting dof's" in this situation? Your approach seems fine, why don't they accept it? If you have no idea why, please ignore.

In the Physics Stack Exchange thread referenced by user7348, LM gives the normal von Neumann entropy S. Whereas you call it H (of course the letter used is not important) but your formula is quite different. It's an integral, and also doesn't include the Trace function. Robert Mastragostino points this out, saying your formula is "wrong" and so it seems to me also. If so, of course, you can just correct it to the "right" formula and there's no problem. Or is there more to it?

Finally, you may not be able to respond to the following: you're not responsible for other's misunderstandings. But, do you have any idea why LM does seem to insist on "counting dof's" in this situation? Your approach seems fine, why don't they accept it? If you have no idea why, please ignore.