Continuum limit: is it really justifiable?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter drkatzin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuum Limit
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the justification of the continuum limit in statistical physics, particularly the transition from countable to uncountable infinity as the number of particles N approaches infinity. Participants clarify that while the continuum limit and thermodynamic limit are related, they are distinct concepts. The Euler-Maclaurin formula is highlighted as a mathematical tool that allows for the approximation of sums by integrals, which is essential in deriving asymptotic expressions in statistical mechanics. The conversation concludes that although the continuum approximation may lack rigorous mathematical proof, it is well-defined and aligns with empirical observations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of statistical physics principles
  • Familiarity with the concepts of thermodynamic limit and continuum limit
  • Knowledge of the Euler-Maclaurin formula
  • Basic grasp of countable and uncountable infinities
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Euler-Maclaurin formula and its applications in statistical mechanics
  • Study the differences between thermodynamic limit and continuum limit
  • Explore the implications of countable versus uncountable infinity in mathematical physics
  • Examine empirical examples where continuum approximations are applied in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students in statistical mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of the continuum limit and its applications in theoretical frameworks.

drkatzin
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Usually in statistical physics, when your system has a large number N of particles, you take the continuum limit -- you let N\rightarrow\infty, and convert sums to integrals (with an appropriate normalization factor).

My understanding is that as a finite number tends to infinity, the infinity is still countable. What confuses me is the jump to uncountable infinity that allows us to use the continuum. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok, or is it just a physicist's way of saying countable infinity \approx uncountable infinity? (To me, this seems absolutely unjustifiable, even in an approximation. The concepts are fundamentally different.)

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We do it because it works - i.e. it agrees with observation. It may not be mathematically rigorous, but it is well-defined.
 
drkatzin said:
. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok
As the number of particles goes to infinity the error from making the continuum approximation goes to 0.
 
drkatzin said:
Usually in statistical physics, when your system has a large number N of particles, you take the continuum limit -- you let N\rightarrow\infty, and convert sums to integrals (with an appropriate normalization factor).

My understanding is that as a finite number tends to infinity, the infinity is still countable. What confuses me is the jump to uncountable infinity that allows us to use the continuum. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok, or is it just a physicist's way of saying countable infinity \approx uncountable infinity? (To me, this seems absolutely unjustifiable, even in an approximation. The concepts are fundamentally different.)

Thanks!

You will hopefully find the answer in this thread sufficient: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=407934 (the relevant post is a remark that a continuous function is completely determined by its values on the rationals, which are countable).

Some further comments, though:

The limit you are describing, N \rightarrow \infty, is called the thermodynamic limit, and although it is similar to the continuum limit, they are not quite the same. The thermodynamic limit addresses the case of what happens when you take the number of "particles" of a system to infinity, but those particles may still have a discrete set of locations.

In this context, the approximation of sums with integrals can perhaps be viewed as a consequence of the Euler-Maclaurin formula, which enables one to approximate sums as integrals, at very least deriving an asymptotic expression, which is generally what one does in statistical mechanics. The change of variables from sum indices to a more physical variable will introduce the density of states.

As for the continuum limit, this is the limit in which your system actually becomes a continuum e.g., taking the lattice spacing to zero. Often this is done in conjunction with the thermodynamic limit while holding the density of the system fixed. Because the number of particles is generally still taken to infinity, the integral theorem I mentioned above still applies.
 
Last edited:
Mute said:
You will hopefully find the answer in this thread sufficient: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=407934 (the relevant post is a remark that a continuous function is completely determined by its values on the rationals, which are countable).

Some further comments, though:

The limit you are describing, N \rightarrow \infty, is called the thermodynamic limit, and although it is similar to the continuum limit, they are not quite the same. The thermodynamic limit addresses the case of what happens when you take the number of "particles" of a system to infinity, but those particles may still have a discrete set of locations.

In this context, the approximation of sums with integrals can perhaps be viewed as a consequence of the Euler-Maclaurin formula, which enables one to approximate sums as integrals, at very least deriving an asymptotic expression, which is generally what one does in statistical mechanics. The change of variables from sum indices to a more physical variable will introduce the density of states.

As for the continuum limit, this is the limit in which your system actually becomes a continuum e.g., taking the lattice spacing to zero. Often this is done in conjunction with the thermodynamic limit while holding the density of the system fixed. Because the number of particles is generally still taken to infinity, the integral theorem I mentioned above still applies.

Thank you Mute! This makes a lot of sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K