A Classical statistical physics -- Number of microstates

AI Thread Summary
Phase volume and the number of microstates in a physical system are related but not identical concepts. In systems with a continuum of states, such as classical gases, defining the number of states is problematic due to the continuity of phase space, making it impossible to count distinct states accurately. Conversely, in systems with discrete states, like the Ising model, the number of states corresponds to the cardinality of the configuration space, which can be calculated based on degrees of freedom and symmetries. Classical statistical mechanics faces conceptual challenges that are often resolved through quantum theory, particularly when counting microstates. The discussion highlights the complexities of entropy and state counting in classical systems, emphasizing the limitations of classical approaches.
LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
Phase volume is it the same as the number of total microstates in some physical system? Phase volume= volume of phase space. Or there is some difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the case of systems with a continuum of states (e.g. a classical gas) the concept of "number of states" is not well defined I think: let A be a state and B a second state, identical to A, but with this difference:

##v_i^A = (v_x,v_y,v_z) → v_i^B = (v_x + ε, v_y,v_z) ##

where ##i## is the label of a generic (tipically identical to some other) particle. Well, states A and B are different and there is no way to count the minimum number of states for the system to go from A to B. It's a consequence of the continuity of phase space (continuity of energy, if you prefer).

In the case of classical systems with discrete states (e.g. Ising model) the volume of phase space is no more considered (you cannot do an integral over that space, as far as I know). It is usually considered a space of configuration (e.g. in the one dimensional Ising model with only spin up or down and ##N## sites, it is a space with all the possible ##N##-dimensional vector with component ##±1##). In this case the number of states is the number of element in this set (the cardinality of the set). As far as I know, this number is usually calculated "indirectly", in the sense that you do considerations over the number of degrees of freedom and simmetries (in principle you can calculate it summing ##1## for each state but you should know them all, i.e. you should know their number.)

I think that's right, but try to check what I told you.
 
The problem is that classical statistical mechanics is plagued with conceptual problems which are easily solved only with quantum theory. To count microstates the most simple way is to introduce a finite volume, periodic boundary conditions for the Schrödinger wave function and then calculate the states contained in a momentum volume ##\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}##, which turns out to be ##V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}/(2 \pi \hbar)^3## in the large-volumen/thermodynamical limit (for bosons the limit is not that trivial due to the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate at low temperatures, but that's far from the realm where the classical (Boltzmann) limit is valid).
 
Yeah, one example of a problem of the type vanhees71 probably meant is the "paradox" that the entropy of any fluid should be increasing all the time without bound because its mixing with itself by diffusion isn't really different from the mixing of two different fluids (in classical mechanical reasoning).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top