Hypothetically, if earth starts rotating on its axis faster by 10% of its current speed.
Since, there would be an increase in KE at the cost of low PE. hence, its gravity will decrease.
Decrease in gravity may also reduce the entropy of the earth atmosphere?
I need your help in identifying the relationship between gravity and Entropy. Low gravitation means low potential energy on electrons, means more stability.
Gravitation is strictly related to entropy. If you have a look to the Road to Reality of Roger Penrose it is mentioned there.
See also the work of Verlinde
Article Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/477/1/1285/4931780
Good grief, people running off to read Roger Penrose, without
even undstanding the basics, and others ready to confuse them more.
The statistical many body concept of entropy, nothing to do with basic mechanics,
of just one or a few bodies.
Did not someone explain that gravity is determined by just mass?
Its better to know the basics, before rushing out. That mass is the source of
space time warping and therefore gravity is still true even in GR, and that is a big step.
I would not criticize anybody for not being an expert in GR. It is not even taught to
most graduate students. Newton is still the basis of Classical Mechanics, and good enough for me.
As to dark matter, it is better not to emit opinion before you know more
about it.
Although it can be quite difficult to relate a physical interaction as gravitation with a pure statistical concept as entropy, this needs to be done. The situation is that the General Relativity introduce singularities in the metric and they obligues to a clumping of matter and therefore to an increase of entropy that Penrose considered using the conformal Weyl curvature and also Hawking worked it in the black holes. But the real definition of the gravitational entropy was formally well defined in
N. Pelavas and A. A. Coley, Int. J. Theor. Phys.,45, 1258 (2006).
Therefore Stefano is right within this context of how the Gravitation behaves. Let me to finish saying that Newton Gravitation also has singularities.
I wont say that this is wrong, that would be stupid.
However I think that there is a lot to get a handle on, before this is intuitive and credible.
1) How one would know if there is indeed an increase of entropy.?
Entropy increases in a closed system (second law), but who said the universe is a closed system? What if black holes were linked to entropy decrease?
2) Entropy normally increases with disgregation. Just why with gravity, does the opposite happen, that it increases with clumping. (On the other hand clumping is expected from gravity).
3) Is the entropy counted only outside the black hole? Or inside also?
4) Supposing we work with the S=K ln (omega) for entropy, how do we go about undestanding this result?
K is the Boltzman constant, omega is the volume in phase space.
So if anybody knows, contribute please.
Entropy and Gravitation as a topic is very interesting. I would suggest you to read the following:
"Gravity, Entropy, and Cosmology: in search of Clarity"
Author: David Wallace
Brit. J. Phil. Sci. vol61, pp 513-540 (2010).
You will find some good reasoning to work out.
Dear Ankur,
Entropy is related to the idea that all matter tends to stabilize over the course of time into the lesser action possible equilibrium state.
For example, in a hydrogen atom, the electron in the ground state orbital is stabilized into its state of maximum entropy, because it is well established that it cannot stabilize any closer than this mean electromagnetic equilibrium distance from the proton.
The same rule applies to all totally stable atoms. They are in least action maximum entropy least action electromagnetic equilibrium states.
What else could gravity involve?
Energy coming from outside these systems is required to raise their energy levels and disturb them by lessening their entropy level.
This is analyzed in this paper:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
Best Regards
André
Entropy is not designed to apply to single atoms, or single microscopic bodies, only a large number.
You can apply action.
Dear Juan,
The antiquated concept of entropy was defined before single atoms were known to exist and never revised. It needs to be revised taking physical reality into account.
Best Regards
André
The serious definitions of entropy are statistical.
The total number of microstate compatible with a macrostaate must be counted.
Then you take a ln of that and multiply by the Boltzmann constant.
Dear Juan,
I agree. But this does not prevent that at the submicroscopic level, the electron stabilized in the hydrogen atom ground state orbital is in a state of maximum entropy in this system, because it is captive in a least action electromagnetic equilibrium that it cannot escape without energy being provided from outside this system.
Best Regards
André
Perhaps it would be a good basic reading in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Daniel
I tried to read that wiki article, but I think it mixes up with all that dark matter
or dark energy stuff that forces uncertainty about gravitation at large distances.
It sounds like uncertain fringe science, that does not answer many questions.
Just one way out is modify Newton.
Not at all clear about how entropy gets mixed up.
Perhaps the part I would like to uncerstand better is that part about the entropy
of a black hole being proportional to its area. This sounds like the interior only of the black hole?
Andre
Never heard of the remark you make with entropy.
Some of it is true, like you need energy to exite to higher energy levels.
Clasical mechanics depends on the principle of least action, clasical, not quantum that you are discussing here.
Action comes in the quantum through the Feyman phase factor. This makes paths close to the clasical one more likely, within this language.
But path is not really an accepted term in the quantum.
The description of an atomic orbital is merely that of a quantum bound state occupied by at most 2 electrons with opposite spin, for each value of m going from -l to l. I would not add the extra adjectives that you use.
Best Regards, juan
Dear Juan,
I know that my views are from an unexpected angle.
From my perspective, there are theories about matter, energy, bodies and particles on one side, and physically existing bodies, particles and energy that these theories have been attempts at describing various aspects of from what was progressively understood over the course of time.
To me the theories are what this metaphor from India compares to incompletely connected descriptions from various directions of the same elephant.
I simply see these theories as all connected, just needing to be snugly fitted together so the elephant can come into clear focus.
Your comment about path not really being connected to quantum is precisely one of these disconnects that just needs to be better put into perspective.
The Schrödinger equation for example was initially meant by him only to represent a resonance volume within which the electron would be in axial resonance motion on a clear trajectory, inspired by a conclusion to this effect by de Broglie.
The only problem was that almost immediately the Heisenberg statistical method was widely adopted, which caused the original idea to be lost sight of, to both Schrödinger and de Broglie's dismay and chagrin.
If interested, the historical references are given here, as well as a possible solution that would reconcile path with quantum:
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf
It even reconciles classical mechanics with electromagnetism and possibly with quantum mechanics.
Best Regards
André
Dear Juan.
Ok, let me give some references more where you can see what is the importance of the entropic gravitation from the Verlinde's point of view
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.4650.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034
The concept of entropy is very interesting. In physics it has mainly to do with system and surrounding universe. Whereas in chemistry it has to do with breaking and forming bonds. In human body entropy is vital as well. Probably what is common is the concept of disorder. To my knowledge gravity force has a connection with potential energy, meanwhile potential energy increase if entropy is decreased.
The concept of entropy has many different formulae although the interpretations can be easily related. The first introduction of this concept was in Thermodynamics just as the cocient between the heat of syste respect to its temperature. Later the Statistical Mechanics allowed to interprete this concept without using explicitally even the temperature or the heat just as the logaritm he total number of microstates available to the system multiplied by the Boltzmann's constant. In a very straightforward form von Newmann adapted it to Quantum Mechanics and Shannon to the theory of the Information. But in the 70's of last century Hawking allow to interprete it as a geometrical object ( surface devided by four times the square of the Planck length) for the Hawking radiation of a blackhole. And finally this geometrical interpretation has allowed nowadays to introduce models of gravitation where this interaction appears as an emergent phenomenon but not as a fundamental interaction https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785.pdf
The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.
It is well known that calculus has a definition,
any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.
Based on the definition of calculus, we know:
to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.
As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,
∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.
1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.
2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then
∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).
We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.
that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.
the only problem i have with entropy is, i believe all processes on earth is reversible (with slightly different definition). to me reversible processes are, when "A" is transformed to "B". now, question is whether B can naturally transformed to A. if you look around is following cycles, e.g. rock cycle, weather cycle, magnetic poles shift, milkovitch cycles etc. that means B can be tranformed to A.
For example, in case of latest volcano eruption (i forgot the details), the earth temprature cooled down, lava/fire tranformed everything into ashes, when matter is placed under heavy pressures or tempratures, it changes its structures. that what everything is, piece of matter. So B can become B1 then B2 then eventually A, likewise all processes are cycle (there might be other cyclse which we dnt know as if now). so this concept of entropy increase does not apply here,
Dear Shufeng Zhang
Do you know what is a Carnot cycle? How did you calculate its efficiency without using the entropy ? Thermodynamics is not mathematics for taking the variables in the same form. You need to take care in your previous definitions, for instance when you write that the integral is meaningful
∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T)
the first question is if you assume T to be from minus infite to plus infinite, which is obviously impossible. T has a limit.
Dear Shufeng Zhang,
You have absolutely no understanding of thermodynamics at all . .Better you learn from some very standard book like Gaskell. ... If you think that you have any understanding, then first you explain without any "if" and "but" that why dQ reversible is written in the entropy definition at first place?
Dear Ankur Cahturvedi,
No process in nature is reversible.. every directional process in nature evolves under the presence of finite chemical/electrical/magnetic/gravitational potential energy gradient in each time steps. If any process evolves under the presence of any kind of gradient then that process will be Ir-reversible... For more understanding read my paper "Flaw in Crooks fluctuation theorems" or "Flaw in Maxwell Demon paradox". Both paper are available on my time-line....
Also, Gravity and entropy has absolutely no relationship... Gravity is a conservative force field, whereas the entropy is the consequence of Ir-reversibility which arises in any thermodynamical directional process..
Dear Daniel Baldomir,
Please read my paper :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity
Maybe, you can understand.
Dear Daniel Baldomir,
There are many answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.
Shufeng
It is quite clear now that you and not others have to work harder with the entropy topic.
Best of luck, Juan
Dear Shufeng,
Please, could you summarize here what do you mean by the non existence of the entropy? Do you think that all the people who has been using it for a long time were wrong? Why? Or do you think that there are many different forms to define such concept?
Gravitation is conservative but it can radiate or absorve other bodies under certain conditions? Do you know that Hawking entropy relates gravitation with entropy? Do you think that this concept is wrong?
Dear Daniel,
In fact, the so-called "entropy" was "deduced" by mistake in history.
There is NO such physical quantity as "entropy" at all.
Why did the wrong "entropy" appear ?
In summary , this was due to the following two reasons:
1) Physically, people didn't know Q=f(P, V, T).
2) Mathematically, people didn't know AΔB couldn‘t become AdB directely .
If people knew any one of them, the mistake of entropy would not happen.
All the theories and formulas that MUST use "thermodynamics entropy" or "statistical physics entropy" are WRONG.
Please read my paper and those answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.
Shufeng
What is your meaning of process quantity? where did you get this term?
I think if Q is entering or leaving your sistem , this is relevant for the first law. It depends if you have an isolated system or not.
Q=f(P, V, T) ? What is your conception of this formula? You do not believe that part of Q can go into work?
If you do not believe in entropy, you do not believe in the second law either?
Maybe you can have confusion on the thermodynamic entropy, but cannot understand why you do not believe the statistical definition. There are many explicit examples of how it is found.
The book by Reif, statistical physics, may be a bit old but very clear in the physics.
Entropy increases in an isolated system increases during irreversible proceses, then stops increasing when the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, it can be linked to available phase space, or number of microstates available. This is one basis for the second law.
The older book of Tolman is also an excelent clasic to learn theoretical physics in general, as well as statistical physics.
Juan Weisz,
Obviously, you didn't understand my paper.
The value of function Q=f(P, V, T) has nothing to do with the isolated state of a system.
The function Q=f(P, V, T) is related to the system process.
Only in the process (between state 1 and state 2) of a system, the heat Q makes sense, here, the default value Q0 of the initial state 1 is Q0=0, then, between state 1 and state 2, there is Q=fq(P, V T), the specific function form of Q=fq(P, V T) depends on the specific path.
The isolated state does not have the meaning of heat Q or W. e.g, to a glass of water, it's meaningless to discuss its heat.
Q=f(P, V, T) is related to the system process !
Please read my paper and those answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.
Irreversible processes may still take place in thermally isolated systems, this means S increases.
Believe in the second law? How about the first law of thermo?
I believe that in the thermal definition of entropy you assume quasi reversibility, so the heat is only added very slowly,
and changes are continuous. Then the integral is path independent, that over dQ/T, otherwise you cannot define S.
You cannot define S while it is changing.
The idea is that non reversibility increases entropy, until you maximize in an isolated system.
For open systems, S can also decrease in time.
Dear Shufeng Zang,
I have not followed this conversation, but maybe I understand what you mean by "entropy not existing". I have a view that all dynamic systems tend to stabilize into least action dynamic energy states.
For example, in the hydrogen atom at zero degree kelvin, the electron stabilized in the ground state orbital would still be in resonance state about its mean axial distance from the nucleus with a mean energy of 27.2 eV, that cannot be diminished further, because this is a least action state.
If sufficient energy is provided from an external source, the electron would be energyzed away from the proton, but would soon tend to re-accelerate to eventually re-stabilize into such a least action state.
All existing bodies either at the submicroscopic, macroscopic and astronomic levels seem to be in such least action states, or accelerating to reach some such state.
If this is what you mean, then I agree with you.
Best Regards
André
Andre
Hope you are not confusing entropy with action.
Least action is used directly only in clasical mechanics, indirectly by the Feyman conception in the quantum.
Either way nothing to do with entropy, where it is maximized in thermodynamic equilibrium of isolated systems.
One is minimized, the other is maximized. Origin and definition totally disociated.
Dear André Michaud,
My paper demonstrated that the so-called "entropy" was "deduced" by mistake in history.
There is NO such physical quantity as "entropy" at all.
Why did the wrong "entropy" appear ?
In summary , this was due to the following two reasons:
1) Physically, people didn't know Q=f(P, V, T).
2) Mathematically, people didn't know AΔB couldn‘t become AdB directely .
If people knew any one of them, the mistake of entropy would not happen.
Dear Juan,
Shufeng have no idea even about the first law of thermodynamics. In first law of thermodynamics, We write delta Q =delta U+ delta W. Straightaway one can write that W depends on P and V, and U depends on type of gas, Number of mole of gas and Temperature. Overall Q depends on P,V,T and N. He have also no idea about thermodynamics square and Maxwell relations. There are so many ignorant who have no idea about thermodynamics but they all have challenged the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Those who are interested to get feel about the thermodynamics and its relation , then read the attached paper. It has beautifully written and summarized.
Dear Juan,
I understand the concepts of entropy and action, which are idealized concepts allowing to deal with energy states.
But in physical reality, all systems whose energy cannot decrease can also by definition only be least action states, don't you think? Or else they would not be "systems whose energy cannot decrease". The only way for these states to vary is by providing energy from outside these systems.
It seems to me that a least action state is not a point of view meaningful only from the point of view of classical mechanics. Either a physically existing system is physically stabilized into a least action energy state, or else it is tending to reach one, energy being released out of the system as such a state is reached, an energy that must be re-introduced for the system to de-stabilize again.
Isn't this the first and second laws of thermo rolled up into one?
As for action, my view is that the least action principle does not apply only to unstable dynamic states, but also to stable states that I see as intrinsically least action states.
Best Regards
André
Andre
The concept of action allows one to deal with individual or few particle or body systems.
The time integral over lagrangian or lagrangian density.
The concept of entropy deals only with large number of body or particle or magnetic moments in a statistical sense.
It deals with phase space or number of microstates available.
The first law deals with conservation of energy, the second law with irreversible effects in a gas say.
Even during an irreversible effect in a gas (gas expansion say) total energy is conserved, so that the first law still holds,
but entropy is increasing until equilibrium.
In paractice you can always assume that total energy is conserved, if this means that you can expand what you mean by your entire system, and after that you take it (the entire system) as thermally isolated.
Dear Juan,
" The concept of action allows one to deal with individual or few particle or body systems."
Yes. Individual particles or bodies in process of accelerating to reach a stable state, or free moving electromagnetic energy on its way to energize some system via the least action trajectory.
"The time integral over lagrangian or lagrangian density."
It is from this point on that I look at things from an entirely different perspective.
The Lagrangian is a classical mechanics concept grounded on the concept that kinetic energy reversibly converts to potential energy. Incompatible with the adiabatic increase in momentum energy of free moving charged particles accelerating to reach stable least action states.
"The concept of entropy deals only with large number of body or particle or magnetic moments in a statistical sense. It deals with phase space or number of microstates available."
Idealized mathematical concepts.
"The first law deals with conservation of energy, the second law with irreversible effects in a gas say."
Like the Lagrangian, the first law is grounded on the concept that kinetic energy reversibly converts to potential energy. Also incompatible with the adiabatic energy increase of free moving charged particles accelerating to reach a stable least action state.
Fundamentally, the second law amounts to observing that no change of state can occur without an expenditure of energy.
When free moving charged particles are captured in least action stable states, the "really existing" momentum energy that they accumulated while accelerating towards these states is released in the environment. If this same amount of "really existing" energy is recommunicated to this charged particle, it will escape this stable state. There is no expenditure of energy in this case. No need for any "potential energy" to be involved in the process.
If actual work is done, like the trajectory of a particle or body being deflected by some external interaction, then the required energy is really expended. Here again, no need to involve the concept of "potential energy"
"Even during an irreversible effect in a gas (gas expansion say) total energy is conserved, so that the first law still holds,"
Well, if you artificially expand a volume of gas, you need to involve real "physically existing " energy coming from outside this volume. No potential energy involved.
If you artificially compress it, you also need to involve real "physically existing " energy coming from outside this volume. Again, no potential energy involved.
All naturally occurring compression towards higher energy states, such as the one occurring with depth in the Earth, or expansion towards lesser energy states, such as with increased altitude above ground, are adiabatic in nature and do not involve either any need for the concept of "potential energy".
" but entropy is increasing until equilibrium."
Yes. Until a least action dynamic equilibrium stable state is reached.
" In practice you can always assume that total energy is conserved, if this means that you can expand what you mean by your entire system, and after that you take it (the entire system) as thermally isolated."
This is true only during processes where you re-introduce in a system naturally stabilized into some natural least action energy state, an amount "really existing" energy equivalent to that that was released when the system stabilized in this least action state. No need to invoke the concept of potential energy.
From what I observe from the electromagnetic perspective, all other cases are adiabatic by nature and do not require the concept of potential energy. I think that the concept of potential energy can be entirely done without to explain all naturally occurring processes.
Best Regards
André
Usless talk about conversion of KE to potential energy. What matters is just the sum of the two at each particular time,
for the energy, or the difference for the Lagrangian. I never talked about potential energy by itself.
That total energy is conserved is one of the basic tenents of physics, and not conditioned if the system is stabalized or not. In the natural expansion of a gas total energy is conserved, no need to add to it.
The entropy increases.
Minimizing action is used to derive equations of motion in a clasical setting, when you can talk in terms of trajectories.
Do not mix with up with energy states.
Probably I can say more, but that is what I pick up right now.
Dear Juan,
"for the energy, or the difference for the Lagrangian. I never talked about potential energy by itself."
You specifically talk about it if you talk about the Lagrangian, because this is the very essence of the concept.
"That total energy is conserved is one of the basic tenants of physics, and not conditioned if the system is stabilized or not. In the natural expansion of a gas total energy is conserved, no need to add to it."
I know. This is what needs to be updated and be put in better perspective for progress to resume.
Best Regards
André
L=KE-PE, not PE alone. OK? Generally a function of time.
Integrate L over time from t1 to t2, you get action.S
Consider this a functional where the result S depends on the function L(t), which is set at the end points.
Apply the calculus of variations for minimum S and you get the euler lagrange equations of motion.
Dear Juan,
E = ΔK + Δmmc2, ΔK being the momentum energy and Δmmc2 is the energy making up the distance related magnetic mass increment
Integrate the Coulomb force over space from zero to ∞ and you get ΔK + Δmmc2 , the total energy adiabatically induced in any charged and massive particle such as the electron at any distance separating it from any other charge. Gauss's equation for the electric field.
Apply logic to the process and you get the complete set of electromagnetic mechanics equations and the complete set of harmonized classical/relativistic mechanics equations.
No PE in sight anywhere in the process.
Best Regards
André
Andre
This is so weird and unconventional that I cannot comment.
You can see energy separated as translational of the whole, and relative between the system, but not this.
(conventional rational mechanics)
Do not know what magnetic mass is, for example.
Dear Juan,
"Do not know what magnetic mass is, for example."
This was discovered by Paul Marmet. Published in 2003.
It allows complete synchronization of classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetic mechanics.
Totally incomprehensible if the concept of PE is kept in the picture.
Summarized and put in perspective in my last published paper in the Journal of Modern Physics, titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States".
https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf
Best Regards
André
One should review what is a reversible process !
A reversible process is a quasi-static process without energy loss, and a Quasi-static processes is a infinitely slow process, it's a idealized process, the reversible process that we discussed in thermodynamics is just the idealized process, but not the real process in reality, so, the reversible process has nothing to do with time !
A reversible process is a infinitely slow process, it has nothing to do with time !
If reversible process is an infinitesimal process, then infinite amount of time will take to complete the process. So, infinitesimal will guarantee that reversibility and infinite time of completion are coupled to each other. This again suggest that you have no understanding of thermodynamics.
the reversible process that we discussed in thermodynamics is the idealized process, but not the real process in reality, in fact, it is such a process that doesn't exist in reality.
It is a Infinitely Slow process !
It is a Infinitely Slow process !
It is a Infinitely Slow process !
so, the reversible process has nothing to do with time !
Could you understand what is "Infinitely Slow" ?
how will you calculate work done in isothermal process using ideal gas then? how much time it will take to go from one state P1V1 to P2V2?
the function Q=f(P, V, T) for a reversible isothermal expansion of ideal gas :
W=∫ v1 v2 PdV, and pV=nRT(P=nRT/V),T=Tc
so, W=∫ v1 v2 (nRTc/V)dV=nRTc∫ v1 v2 dlnV
=nRTc(lnV2 - lnV1)
This is one of the few cases where we can write a function directly.
the reversible process has nothing to do with time !!!
Could you understand ?
the reversible process has nothing to do with time !!!
So you don't understand that reversible Pdv can not be used in any thetmodynamical system in which process complete in finite time under the presence of finite grafient. Because, system gases evolves under the presence of finite force gradient during which temperature of the gases are not uniquely defined in each and every time steps. There is no one temperature present in entire volume because gases which near the piston area will either expand or compress once piston move with finite speed in forward or in backward direction. This zone will have different temperature than the rear zone. Differebt in temperature arises because of finite speed of piston during which total gas did not get enough tine to remix and come at one temperature. If process happens with infinitesimal speed then gas will get enough time to remix and maintains their temperature. .You also don't know the meaning of isothermal process. The equation that you have written is rubbish, because temperature is also varying with time if process has completed in finite time under finite force gradient with finite speed. You can not take out temperature from integral sign . I am not surprised that you have no basic understanding of any reversible and irreversible thermodynamics process. The day you will understand, then you will automated realize that every directional process in nature is irreversible. Irreversibility generates positive entropy and validate the second law of thermodynamics.
the reversible process that we discussed in thermodynamics is the idealized process, it is a idealized model, but not the real process in reality, in fact, it is such a process that doesn't exist in reality.
Could you understand idealized model ?
There are many idealized models in physics, for example, mass point, rigid body, smooth plane, elastic collision, ideal gas, and so on.
The idealized model is abstracted from the real situation, it is abstract, one can not use the real situation to understand the idealized model.
A smooth plane is one plane without friction, it is an idealized model, a middle school student might not understand what a smooth plane is, maybe, he didn't think there was such a plane, because he couldn't understand idealized model is abstract. However, as a physics researcher, idealized model should be the general perception, he should not confuse the Idealized Model with the Real Situation.
You still did not realize that friction force appear due to the directional movement due to the presence of external force (finite gradient). System has evolved under the presence of finite gradient (force field). Directional motion will guarantee that Irreversibility will appear. Irreversibility will guarantee that entropy will increase. Increase entropy will guarantee that the second law of thermodynamics is valid. Irreversibility will also guarantee that process will complete in finite time with finite speed. Reversibility will guarantee that infinite amount of time will take to complete the process. Better you learn basic thermodynamics fact from very standard book written by Gibbs himself. Book is available on google.
Maybe people should revert more to the statical definition of entropy, the thermodynamic one may be harder to explain and convince.
The statistical mechanical analysis would be valid in any circumstance, equilibrium, reversible, non reversible. Equilibrium states are easier, but two different ones(of the same system) have a different entropy, so the system tends to the largest one.
It is good to understand the Boltzman arguments. S=k ln(omega) is engraved on his toomb.
Dear Ankur Chaturvedi
Erik Verlinde has relevant papers related to your question. The most recent is:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf
He writes about the relationship between entropy change and gravity and that “adding matter to spacetime reduces the amount of entanglement entropy.“ He also gives a new interpretation to general relativity and the Einstein equations and argues against the existence of “dark matter” and the importance of the vacuum energy of spacetime