Physics:Theory of Entropicity(ToE) Applied in Materials and Energy Systems

Abstract

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) elevates entropy from a statistical descriptor to a universal, local, dynamical scalar field [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math] whose kinetics and couplings underlie observable interactions, measurements, and time’s arrow. We present a minimal field‑theoretic formulation based on an action with canonical kinetic, potential, and universal matter coupling terms; derive the Jordan‑frame metric potential that governs physical observables; and outline quantitative predictions spanning light deflection, perihelion precession, and cosmological evolution. To connect with the scope of applied materials and engineering, we propose how the entropy field can be operationalized in non‑equilibrium materials—e.g., diffusion under entropy gradients, phase‑field analogs, and entropic stress contributions to microstructure evolution. We conclude with candidate experiments and measurements that could bound or detect ToE parameters ([math]\displaystyle{ \beta, m_S }[/math]) in condensed‑matter and energy‑transport settings.

1. Introduction

Entropy pervades modern physics, but is typically treated as a state function or an information‑theoretic quantity. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) proposes a distinct ontology: a real, universal, dynamical scalar field [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math] that mediates entropic interactions and whose gradients and temporal evolution shape observable phenomena.

This paper consolidates a minimal, testable formulation of ToE, situates it relative to nearby programs (thermodynamic gravity, emergent gravity, entropic dynamics), and emphasizes interfaces with materials science and engineering. Our goals are:

• to present a compact action and field equations,
• to derive the Jordan‑frame metric potential in the weak‑field limit,
• and to frame concrete predictions and experiments, especially in condensed‑matter contexts where non‑equilibrium entropy flows are measurable.

2. Background and Related Work

Several influential approaches elevate entropy or information to a structural role:

• Jacobson’s thermodynamics of spacetime,
• Padmanabhan’s horizon thermodynamics and equipartition,
• Verlinde’s entropic gravity and de‑Sitter entanglement response,
• Van Raamsdonk’s spacetime‑from‑entanglement program,
• Connes–Rovelli thermal time,
• Caticha’s entropic dynamics.

These syntheses are powerful but generally treat entropy as a state function or an inferential principle. In contrast, ToE postulates [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math] as an ontic scalar field with autonomous dynamics and universal coupling to matter. This ontological shift enables standard field‑theoretic tools—actions, couplings, screening, and parameter estimation—to be brought to bear.

3. Minimal Field‑Theoretic Formulation

3.1 Field content and units

• [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math]: dimensionless entropy field (use [math]\displaystyle{ S = s/s_0 }[/math] if carrying thermodynamic units).
• [math]\displaystyle{ g_{\mu\nu} }[/math]: spacetime metric; [math]\displaystyle{ M_{\rm Pl} \equiv (8\pi G)^{-1/2} }[/math].
• [math]\displaystyle{ \psi }[/math]: generic matter fields (Standard Model and effective media).

3.2 Action (Einstein frame)

The total action is [math]\displaystyle{ S_{\rm total} = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2} R + \frac{Z_S}{2} \partial_\mu S \, \partial^\mu S - V(S) \right] + S_{\rm matter}[ A^2(S) g_{\mu\nu}, \psi ]. }[/math]

We choose [math]\displaystyle{ A(S) = \exp(\beta S) }[/math] with small [math]\displaystyle{ |\beta| }[/math], and set [math]\displaystyle{ Z_S = 1 }[/math] by field rescaling. The potential [math]\displaystyle{ V(S) }[/math] can be quadratic ([math]\displaystyle{ \tfrac{1}{2} m_S^2 S^2 }[/math]) for laboratory/solar‑system analyses or shallower for cosmology.

3.3 Field equations

• Metric equation:

[math]\displaystyle{ G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{M_{\rm Pl}^2} \left( T_{\mu\nu}^{(S)} + T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)} \right), }[/math] with [math]\displaystyle{ T_{\mu\nu}^{(S)} = \partial_\mu S \, \partial_\nu S - \tfrac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} (\partial S)^2 - g_{\mu\nu} V(S). }[/math]

• Entropy field equation:

[math]\displaystyle{ \square S = \frac{dV}{dS} - \alpha(S) T^{(m)}, }[/math] with [math]\displaystyle{ \alpha(S) \equiv \frac{d \ln A(S)}{dS}, \quad T^{(m)} = g^{\mu\nu} T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)}. }[/math]

3.4 Jordan frame and observables

Matter couples minimally to the Jordan‑frame metric [math]\displaystyle{ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} = A^2(S) g_{\mu\nu}. }[/math] Test particles, clocks, and rods follow [math]\displaystyle{ \tilde{g} }[/math]‑geodesics. Hence, physically measured quantities—orbital dynamics, time delay, and lensing—must be computed with [math]\displaystyle{ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} }[/math], not purely with [math]\displaystyle{ g_{\mu\nu} }[/math].

3.5 Static weak‑field limit and point‑mass solution

For a static source of density [math]\displaystyle{ \rho }[/math], with [math]\displaystyle{ A(S)=\exp(\beta S) }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ V(S)=\tfrac{1}{2} m_S^2 S^2 }[/math], the entropy field obeys [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla^2 S - m_S^2 S = -\beta \rho. }[/math]

Outside a point mass [math]\displaystyle{ M }[/math]: [math]\displaystyle{ S(r) = \frac{\beta M}{4\pi r} e^{-m_S r}. }[/math]

The Jordan‑frame potential that governs motion and redshifts is: [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_{\rm eff}(r) = - \frac{GM}{r} \left[ 1 + \beta^2 e^{-m_S r} (1 + m_S r) \right]. }[/math]

3.6 Interpretation

Although [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] does not appear explicitly in [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_{\rm eff} }[/math] once the solution [math]\displaystyle{ S(r) }[/math] is substituted, the entire bracketed correction arises from the entropy field via the conformal factor [math]\displaystyle{ A^2(S) }[/math]. In the Einstein frame [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] sources curvature via [math]\displaystyle{ T^{(S)}_{\mu\nu} }[/math]; in the Jordan frame its influence is encoded in the modified potential that experiments actually probe.

4. Predictions and Quantitative Signatures

• Light deflection: photons follow null geodesics of [math]\displaystyle{ \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} }[/math], yielding the GR bending angle plus a calculable correction [math]\displaystyle{ \delta\theta(\beta, m_S) }[/math].
• Perihelion precession: the Yukawa‑like term in [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_{\rm eff} }[/math] produces a small additional precession, constrained by Mercury and pulsar timing.
• Cosmology: in FRW backgrounds, [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] obeys

[math]\displaystyle{ \ddot{S} + 3H \dot{S} + \frac{dV}{dS} = \alpha(S) (\rho_m - 3 p_m), }[/math] acting as an effective dark component.

• Laboratory constraints: fifth‑force and equivalence‑principle tests bound [math]\displaystyle{ \beta }[/math] and the range [math]\displaystyle{ m_S^{-1} }[/math]; screening mechanisms can reconcile galactic‑scale effects with solar‑system safety.

5. Interfaces with Materials Science and Engineering

• Non‑equilibrium diffusion: entropy‑gradient‑driven fluxes add an [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math]‑dependent term to chemical potential, modifying Fick/Onsager relations in driven media and energy systems.
• Phase‑field analogs: [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] can play a role analogous to an order‑parameter‑coupled field that biases microstructure evolution under thermal and mechanical constraints.
• Entropic stress: See further notes below:

Entropic stress: theory, constitutive laws, and measurable predictions

Concept — In ToE, gradients and curvature of the entropy field [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math] contribute to the material free energy and, via variational principles, induce additional terms in the Cauchy stress. These entropic stresses bias transport, deformation, and microstructure evolution, and are testable in driven non‑equilibrium systems.

Free energy functional — For a continuum body with displacement field [math]\displaystyle{ u_i }[/math] (strain [math]\displaystyle{ \varepsilon_{ij} = \tfrac{1}{2}(\partial_i u_j + \partial_j u_i) }[/math]), composition [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math], temperature [math]\displaystyle{ T }[/math], and entropy field [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math], consider [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{F} = \int_\Omega \Big[ f_0(c,T,\varepsilon) + U(S) + \frac{\chi}{2} |\nabla S|^2 + \frac{\xi}{2} (\nabla^2 S)^2 + \lambda_S \, S \, \mathrm{tr}\,\varepsilon + \eta \, \nabla S : \nabla \varepsilon + \gamma \, S \, g(c,T) \Big] \, dV, }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ U(S) }[/math] is a local potential (e.g., [math]\displaystyle{ \tfrac{1}{2} m_S^2 S^2 }[/math] for small‑signal lab regimes), [math]\displaystyle{ \chi, \xi }[/math] penalize entropy gradients/curvature, [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda_S }[/math] couples [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] to volumetric strain, [math]\displaystyle{ \eta }[/math] introduces gradient‑strain cross‑terms, and [math]\displaystyle{ \gamma S g(c,T) }[/math] captures composition/thermal couplings (e.g., to latent‑heat‑like or configurational entropy terms).

Entropic Cauchy stress — The symmetric stress follows from the functional derivative with respect to strain (including gradient terms): [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_{ij} \equiv \frac{\delta \mathcal{F}}{\delta \varepsilon_{ij}} = \sigma^{(0)}_{ij} \;+\; \lambda_S \, S \, \delta_{ij} \;+\; \eta \, \partial_i S \, \partial_j (\cdot)\;-\; \partial_k \!\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial (\partial_k \varepsilon_{ij})} \right), }[/math] which, for the explicit cross‑term [math]\displaystyle{ \eta \nabla S : \nabla \varepsilon }[/math], yields the leading entropic contributions [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_{ij}^{(\mathrm{ent})} = \lambda_S \, S \, \delta_{ij} \;+\; \eta \, \partial_i S \, \partial_j S \;+\; \zeta_S \left( \partial_i \partial_j S - \tfrac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \nabla^2 S \right), }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ \zeta_S }[/math] is an effective coefficient arising when the [math]\displaystyle{ \xi(\nabla^2 S)^2 }[/math] term is integrated by parts in the presence of strain gradients (the traceless combination isolates deviatoric contributions). The total stress is [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_{ij} = \sigma^{(0)}_{ij}(c,T,\varepsilon) \;+\; \sigma_{ij}^{(\mathrm{ent})}. }[/math]

Physical interpretation —

• The term [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda_S S \delta_{ij} }[/math] acts as an entropic pressure shift that depends on local [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math].
• The term [math]\displaystyle{ \eta \partial_i S \partial_j S }[/math] adds anisotropic stress along entropy gradients, predicting alignment effects in microstructures under imposed [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla S }[/math].
• The curvature‑dependent term [math]\displaystyle{ \propto \partial_i \partial_j S }[/math] contributes scale‑dependent stiffening/softening, relevant near interfaces and patterned entropy landscapes.

Modified chemical potential and fluxes — Entropic coupling shifts the chemical potential of species [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math]: [math]\displaystyle{ \mu = \mu_0(c,T,\varepsilon) \;+\; \gamma S \;+\; \eta_S \, \nabla^2 S, }[/math] leading to augmented Fick/Onsager relations [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_c = - D \nabla c \;-\; D_S \, c \, \nabla S, \qquad \mathbf{J}_q = - k \nabla T \;-\; \Pi_S \, \nabla S, }[/math] with cross‑coefficients [math]\displaystyle{ D_S, \Pi_S }[/math] constrained by Onsager reciprocity when [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] participates in the generalized forces.

Phase‑field kinetics with entropy coupling — For an order parameter [math]\displaystyle{ \phi }[/math] (e.g., phase fraction), entropic bias enters via the chemical potential [math]\displaystyle{ \mu_\phi = \frac{\delta \mathcal{F}}{\delta \phi} = \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial \phi} - \kappa_\phi \nabla^2 \phi + \gamma_\phi S, }[/math] and dynamics (Allen–Cahn or Cahn–Hilliard): [math]\displaystyle{ \partial_t \phi = - M_\phi \, \mu_\phi \quad \text{or} \quad \partial_t \phi = \nabla \cdot \left( M_\phi \nabla \mu_\phi \right), }[/math] so that imposed [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] fields bias interface motion and coarsening pathways.

Entropy field dynamics in media — In materials, the [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] equation acquires source/sink terms from coupling to deformation and transport: [math]\displaystyle{ \partial_t S = D_S^{(\mathrm{eff})} \nabla^2 S \;-\; \frac{dU}{dS} \;+\; \Lambda_\varepsilon \, \mathrm{tr}\,\varepsilon \;+\; \Lambda_c \, h(c,T) \;+\; \cdots, }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ D_S^{(\mathrm{eff})} }[/math] is an effective diffusion constant for [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] (distinct from thermal diffusivity), and [math]\displaystyle{ \Lambda_\varepsilon, \Lambda_c }[/math] encode how mechanical/chemical processes pump entropy into the [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] field.

Measurable predictions —

• Rheology under [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla S }[/math]: Apparent viscosity and normal‑stress differences acquire [math]\displaystyle{ |\nabla S|^2 }[/math]‑dependent corrections; flow curves shift with the sign/magnitude of imposed entropy gradients.
• Acousto‑elastic response: Elastic wave speeds exhibit direction‑dependent shifts proportional to [math]\displaystyle{ \eta \, \partial_i S \partial_j S }[/math], detectable via Brillouin scattering or ultrasound in soft solids.
• Patterned transport (thermal/ionic): In entropy‑patterned substrates, effective conductivity and diffusivity become anisotropic; rotating the pattern relative to the imposed gradient modulates the tensorial response.
• Interface kinetics in phase‑field systems: Grain growth or phase separation rates change when [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] is modulated in time (e.g., pulsed entropy fields), revealing [math]\displaystyle{ \gamma_\phi }[/math] via measurable changes in coarsening exponents.
• Micro‑calorimetry with mechanical bias: Calorimetric signals during small cyclic strains display an extra entropic work term consistent with [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda_S S \, \mathrm{tr}\,\varepsilon }[/math] coupling.

Experimental workflow —

1. Fabricate entropy‑patterned samples (e.g., spatially modulated disorder/defect density or controlled information content in metamaterials) to realize target [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla S }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla^2 S }[/math].
2. Measure baseline elastic/transport properties, then apply controlled thermal and mechanical boundary conditions to vary [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math].
3. Fit shifts in stress, transport tensors, and kinetics to the constitutive forms above to estimate [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda_S, \eta, \zeta_S, \gamma, D_S^{(\mathrm{eff})} }[/math].
4. Cross‑validate with independent probes (e.g., atomistic simulation of [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] surrogates, or information‑theoretic reconstructions in soft matter).

Relation to standard nonequilibrium thermodynamics — The generalized force–flux structure extends Onsager theory by including [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla S }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ \nabla^2 S }[/math] as independent forces. Reciprocity implies symmetric cross‑coefficients among [math]\displaystyle{ \{\nabla T, \nabla \mu, \nabla S\} }[/math], offering multiple, redundant routes to parameter extraction.

Notes on scaling and identifiability — In small‑scale systems where [math]\displaystyle{ \xi }[/math] matters, curvature terms dominate and entropic stress is interface‑localized; in bulk regimes [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda_S }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ \eta }[/math] control volumetric and anisotropic responses. Careful dimensional analysis and scaling experiments are recommended to separate these contributions.

6. Candidate Experiments and Measurements

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) makes predictions that can be tested in both laboratory and astrophysical settings. Several classes of experiments are proposed:

• Microscale calorimetry and relaxation spectroscopy — By engineering controlled entropy gradients in nanoscale or mesoscale materials, one can probe whether relaxation times deviate from standard thermodynamic predictions. ToE suggests that entropy fluxes may introduce measurable delays or nonlinearities.

• Soft‑matter rheology — In colloids, gels, and polymeric systems, entropy gradients can be externally imposed (e.g., via temperature or informational boundary conditions). ToE predicts additional entropic stress contributions that could be detected as anomalous viscoelastic responses.

• Precision torsion‑balance and atom‑interferometric probes — Yukawa‑type corrections to Newtonian gravity arising from the entropy field can be sought at millimeter to meter scales. These setups are already sensitive to fifth‑force signatures and equivalence‑principle violations.

• Nano‑patterned thermal metastructures — By fabricating materials with engineered entropy landscapes (e.g., phononic or photonic crystals with tunable disorder), one can test whether transport coefficients exhibit anomalies consistent with ToE’s entropic coupling.

• Astrophysical timing and lensing — Pulsar timing arrays, gravitational lensing surveys, and perihelion precession measurements provide complementary constraints on the parameters [math]\displaystyle{ \beta }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ m_S }[/math].

7. Discussion and Limitations

The minimal ToE model is intentionally conservative and mathematically parallels scalar–tensor theories. Its distinctive value lies in the operational and ontological interpretation of [math]\displaystyle{ S(x) }[/math] as a measurable entropy field.

• Conceptual limitations — Entropy is traditionally defined as a state function or information measure. Recasting it as a dynamical field requires careful operational definitions to avoid ambiguity.

• Screening mechanisms — To reconcile laboratory constraints with possible cosmological roles, mechanisms analogous to chameleon or symmetron screening may be necessary. These would allow [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] to have large‑scale effects while remaining hidden in high‑density environments.

• Numerical modeling — ToE requires simulation frameworks that couple entropy fields to microstructure evolution, diffusion, and stress. This is computationally intensive and remains an open area.

• Experimental feasibility — While candidate experiments exist, isolating entropic effects from conventional thermodynamic or material responses will be challenging. Careful control experiments and cross‑disciplinary collaboration are essential.

8. Conclusion

We presented a compact, testable formulation of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), derived the Jordan‑frame metric potential that controls observables, and proposed concrete routes to empirical scrutiny in materials and energy systems. This bridges foundational physics with applied measurement, opening a path for joint constraints on [math]\displaystyle{ \beta }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ m_S }[/math] across laboratory, astrophysical, and engineering domains.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges helpful discussions with collaborators and reviewers who encouraged the present consolidation of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).

References

• Jacobson, T. (1995). Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State. Physical Review Letters 75(7): 1260–1263.
• Padmanabhan, T. (2010). Thermodynamical Aspects of Gravity: New Insights. Reports on Progress in Physics 73(4): 046901.
• Verlinde, E. (2010). On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton. arXiv:1001.0785.
• Verlinde, E. (2016). Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe. SciPost Physics 2: 016.
• Connes, A., & Rovelli, C. (1994). Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time‑Thermodynamics Relation. Classical and Quantum Gravity 11(12): 2899.
• Caticha, A. (2012). Entropic Dynamics. AIP Conf. Proc. 1443: 60–68.
• Van Raamsdonk, M. (2010). Building up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement. General Relativity and Gravitation 42: 2323–2329.