Continuum limit: is it really justifiable?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the justification of the continuum limit in statistical physics, particularly the transition from a countable infinity of particles to an uncountable continuum. Participants explore the mathematical rigor behind this concept and its implications in statistical mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the justification of moving from countable to uncountable infinity in the continuum limit, expressing concerns about the fundamental differences between these concepts.
  • Another participant suggests that the continuum limit is accepted because it aligns with observational results, even if it lacks mathematical rigor.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that as the number of particles approaches infinity, the error from the continuum approximation diminishes to zero.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the distinction between the thermodynamic limit and the continuum limit, noting that while they are related, they address different aspects of particle systems.
  • Participants discuss the Euler-Maclaurin formula as a method to approximate sums with integrals, which is relevant in deriving asymptotic expressions in statistical mechanics.
  • Clarification is made that the continuum limit involves taking the lattice spacing to zero, often in conjunction with the thermodynamic limit while maintaining a fixed density of the system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the justification of the continuum limit, with no consensus reached on whether the transition from countable to uncountable infinity is mathematically sound or merely a practical approximation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the mathematical rigor of the continuum limit and the thermodynamic limit, as well as the dependence on specific definitions and assumptions regarding particle locations and densities.

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
3K
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