I Do ensemble-based predictions truly describe real finite systems?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter syed
  • Start date Start date
syed
Messages
58
Reaction score
19
TL;DR Summary
Title
In both classical and quantum statistical mechanics, we often rely on the concept of ensembles, either as a collection of hypothetical copies of a system in different microstates (classical) or as a weighted mixture of quantum states represented by a density matrix (quantum), to predict equilibrium properties, entropy changes, and the apparent arrow of time.

However, real physical systems are always finite and in continuous contact with finite environments. If the actual universe consists of a single, finite system rather than an infinite ensemble, how can we be sure that the predictions derived from ensembles (essentially averages over many possible microstates )accurately capture the typical time evolution of that one real system, rather than just describing an abstract average that may not correspond to its actual trajectory?

Does this reliance on ensembles introduce a fundamental conceptual gap between the idealized theory and the behavior of actual, finite classical or quantum systems, and if so, what are the limitations of using ensembles to describe reality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A canonical or grand-canonical ensemble is best understood as a small (but macroscopic) subsystem of a larger system. The larger system is usually assumed to be in a micro-canonical ensemble, meaning that its energy is well defined with almost perfect precision. Under these conditions the canonical ensemble of the small subsystem can be derived, with almost no additional assumptions. See https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0511091
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
syed said:
TL;DR Summary: Title

Does this reliance on ensembles introduce a fundamental conceptual gap between the idealized theory and the behavior of actual, finite classical or quantum systems, and if so, what are the limitations of using ensembles to describe reality?
As far as the modelling of the behavior of actual, finite systems is concerned, the current models based on statisticsl physics are very successful.
 
syed said:
what are the limitations of using ensembles to describe reality?
There is a simple but general principle how to determine whether a statistical ensemble describes well a real single system. The statistical ensemble is just a conceptual model for the notion of probability distribution. From the probability distribution ##p(x)## (where ##x## is a microscopic state) you can compute not only the average value of an observable
$$\langle O\rangle \equiv \int dx\, p(x)O(x)$$
but also the fluctuation (i.e. standard deviation) ##\Delta O## given by
$$(\Delta O)^2 = \langle O^2\rangle - \langle O\rangle^2$$
In general, the average value ##\langle O\rangle## of the ensemble does not need to represent well the actual value ##O(x)## of a single system in the actual microstate ##x##. However, if the fluctuation is small, in the sense that
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \ll 1$$
then the average value represents well the actual value, i.e. we can be pretty certain that
$$\langle O\rangle \simeq O(x)$$
Typically this happens when the system contains a large number ##N\gg 1## of particles (or some other elementary constituents) and ##O(x)## is an observable that scales with ##N##, so the approximate equality above is valid due to the law of large numbers. Typically ##(\Delta O)^2## then also scales with ##N##, so
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \sim \frac{\sqrt{N}}{N} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \ll 1$$

Let us illustrate it by a simple example. Suppose that you have a single system containing ##N=10^6## unbiased coins, each of which is in the state tail or head. Let us associate a value 0 with each tail and a value 1 with each head. A typical microstate is something like
$$x=(0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0, ...)$$
meaning that the first coin is in the state tail, second coin in the state head, etc. Let ##O(x)## be defined as the sum of all these 0's and 1's. Clearly, the average value of ##O## is
$$\langle O \rangle = 0.5 \cdot 10^6$$
The computation of ##\Delta O## is more complicated, but it is of the order of
$$ \Delta O \sim \sqrt{N}=10^3$$
Hence
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \sim \frac{10^3}{0.5 \cdot 10^6} = 2\cdot 10^{-3} \ll 1$$
Thus we can say that the actual value of ##O(x)## is very close to the average value ##0.5 \cdot 10^6##.
 
  • Like
Likes syed, pines-demon, PeterDonis and 1 other person
Demystifier said:
There is a simple but general principle how to determine whether a statistical ensemble describes well a real single system. The statistical ensemble is just a conceptual model for the notion of probability distribution. From the probability distribution ##p(x)## (where ##x## is a microscopic state) you can compute not only the average value of an observable
$$\langle O\rangle \equiv \int dx\, p(x)O(x)$$
but also the fluctuation (i.e. standard deviation) ##\Delta O## given by
$$(\Delta O)^2 = \langle O^2\rangle - \langle O\rangle^2$$
In general, the average value ##\langle O\rangle## of the ensemble does not need to represent well the actual value ##O(x)## of a single system in the actual microstate ##x##. However, if the fluctuation is small, in the sense that
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \ll 1$$
then the average value represents well the actual value, i.e. we can be pretty certain that
$$\langle O\rangle \simeq O(x)$$
Typically this happens when the system contains a large number ##N\gg 1## of particles (or some other elementary constituents) and ##O(x)## is an observable that scales with ##N##, so the approximate equality above is valid due to the law of large numbers. Typically ##(\Delta O)^2## then also scales with ##N##, so
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \sim \frac{\sqrt{N}}{N} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \ll 1$$

Let us illustrate it by a simple example. Suppose that you have a single system containing ##N=10^6## unbiased coins, each of which is in the state tail or head. Let us associate a value 0 with each tail and a value 1 with each head. A typical microstate is something like
$$x=(0,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0, ...)$$
meaning that the first coin is in the state tail, second coin in the state head, etc. Let ##O(x)## be defined as the sum of all these 0's and 1's. Clearly, the average value of ##O## is
$$\langle O \rangle = 0.5 \cdot 10^6$$
The computation of ##\Delta O## is more complicated, but it is of the order of
$$ \Delta O \sim \sqrt{N}=10^3$$
Hence
$$\frac{\Delta O}{\langle O\rangle} \sim \frac{10^3}{0.5 \cdot 10^6} = 2\cdot 10^{-3} \ll 1$$
Thus we can say that the actual value of ##O(x)## is very close to the average value ##0.5 \cdot 10^6##.
Thank you for the detailed explanation
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top