I Does the postulate of equal a priori probability apply only to equilibrium?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of the equal a priori probability postulate in thermodynamics, particularly in relation to equilibrium states in isolated systems. It emphasizes that while all accessible microstates are equally probable at equilibrium, not all microstates correspond to equilibrium conditions, leading to fluctuations. The equilibrium state is characterized by a maximum entropy condition, where the derivatives of entropy with respect to energy are equal for the subsystems. The conversation highlights the distinction between macroscopic equilibrium properties and microscopic states, suggesting that some microstates may not reflect equilibrium yet still exist within the system. Ultimately, understanding these concepts clarifies the relationship between microstates, macrostates, and the conditions for thermal equilibrium.
Jeremy1986
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
In deducing the zeroth law of thermodynamics in micro-canonical ensemble, there is a frequently-mentioned example. Suppose we put two isolated system, system 1 and 2, in contact and allowing them to exchange heat.
isolated system.jpg
The total energy of the combined system is

$$E = {E_1} + {E_2}$$

The total allowed phase space is

$$\Omega (E) = \int d {E_1}{\Omega _1}({E_1}){\Omega _2}(E - {E_1}) = \int d {E_1}\exp [\frac{{{S_1}({E_1}) + {S_2}(E - {E_1})}}{{{k_B}}}]$$

By taking the maximum of the integrand,

$$\frac{{\partial {S_1}({E_1})}}{{\partial E}} + \frac{{\partial {S_2}(E - {E_1})}}{{\partial E}} = 0$$

we get the equilibrium state ##(E_1^{eq},E - E_1^{eq}) ##, which is the macrostate with exponetially larger number of microstates, and also get the equilibrium condition

$$\frac{{\partial {S_1}({E_1})}}{{\partial {E_1}}} = \frac{{\partial {S_2}(E - {E_1})}}{{\partial {E_2}}}$$---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The equal a priori probability postulate, as descripted by David Tong p4 , is

For an isolated system in equilibrium, all accessible microstates are equally likely.

So my question is, does that mean the microsates corresponds to the equilibrium macrosate ##(E_1^{eq},E - E_1^{eq}) ## possses equal probability or all the microstates with constant ##E ## (the blue line in next figure) possesses equal probability?

For me, it looks like every reference I found indicates the second statement. But for a microsate corresponds to ##(E_1^{0},E - E_1^{0}) ## which is not at equilibrium, does it have the same probability as a microstate of ##(E_1^{eq},E - E_1^{eq}) ##?
E1E2curve.jpg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you consider the microstates of the combined system then everything with the same energy should have the same volume. If you consider the microstates of one system this is no longer true. As an example, a microstate with a very high energy in one volume needs a microstate with low energy in the other volume - but typically there won't be many of them.
 
  • Like
Likes Jeremy1986
Yes. Equi-probable states maximise the Gibbs formula for entropy, the most general and universal formula for entropy. This ensures equilibrium.
Gibbs: S= - k Σp ln(p)
Hence
Boltzmann: S= k ln(W). At equilibrium.
W=number of microstates.

Works for everything: gases, liquids, solids, black holes etc etc
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Jeremy1986
Personally, I prefer the following statement:

“If an isolated system is found with equal probability in each accessible microstate, then it is in equilibrium. Starting with this distribution, it stays that way. This is what we mean by thermal equilibrium.” (from the Lecture Note about the “Microcanonical Ensemble” by John McGreevy, https://mcgreevy.physics.ucsd.edu/s12/index.html)

The statement is thus about a distribution. It is not about the microstates which realize a certain energy combination ##(E_1^{eq},E - E_1^{eq})## when one considers, for example, a combined isolated system consisting of two sub-systems which can exchange energy with each other. ##E_1^{eq}## means nothing else than that it is overwhelmingly likely to find system 1 with energy ##E_1^{eq}## in course of time in thermal equilibrium.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Jeremy1986
Indeed, the maximum-entropy solution is the equilibrium. This becomes much more transparent later in the stat-mech lecture when you study non-equilibrium situations. The Boltzmann equation together with unitarity of the S-matrix gets you the principle of detailed balance (the weak form is enough!), and this leads to the H theorem (to be pronounced as "Eta theorem"), i.e., that the entropy cannot decrease and thus that equilibrium is reached at maximum entropy. The best discussion about this point I know is in Landau&Lifshitz Vol. 10.
 
  • Like
Likes Jeremy1986
mfb said:
If you consider the microstates of the combined system then everything with the same energy should have the same volume. If you consider the microstates of one system this is no longer true. As an example, a microstate with a very high energy in one volume needs a microstate with low energy in the other volume - but typically there won't be many of them.
Thank mfb for your kind reply! I think maybe my misunderstanding was that equilibrium does not correspond to microstate.
 
Last edited:
Michael Price said:
Yes. Equi-probable states maximise the Gibbs formula for entropy, the most general and universal formula for entropy. This ensures equilibrium.
Gibbs: S= - k Σp ln(p)
Hence
Boltzmann: S= k ln(W). At equilibrium.
W=number of microstates.

Works for everything: gases, liquids, solids, black holes etc etc
Thank Michael for your kind reply! I think maybe my misunderstanding was that equilibrium does not correspond to microstate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Michael Price
Lord Jestocost said:
Personally, I prefer the following statement:

“If an isolated system is found with equal probability in each accessible microstate, then it is in equilibrium. Starting with this distribution, it stays that way. This is what we mean by thermal equilibrium.” (from the Lecture Note about the “Microcanonical Ensemble” by John McGreevy, https://mcgreevy.physics.ucsd.edu/s12/index.html)

The statement is thus about a distribution. It is not about the microstates which realize a certain energy combination ##(E_1^{eq},E - E_1^{eq})## when one considers, for example, a combined isolated system consisting of two sub-systems which can exchange energy with each other. ##E_1^{eq}## means nothing else than that it is overwhelmingly likely to find system 1 with energy ##E_1^{eq}## in course of time in thermal equilibrium.
Thank you very much for your excellent reply! Also many thanks to the provided useful references. I think I start to know the answer to my question after reading your reply. I think the key point is that equilibrium is a macroscopic property which we can't say a microscopic state is at equilirium or not. In an equilibrium ensemble with many microstates, there could be some "non-equilibrium microstates" whose energy does not corresponds to equilibrium states (likes the microscopic states with energy ##(E_1^{0},E - E_1^{0})## or the microstate that all gas atoms stay in the left box), and this is the source of fluctuation. But since we have the equal priority probability postulate, what the system arises is the most probable microstates which has the equilibrium condition
$$\frac{{\partial {S_1}({E_1})}}{{\partial {E_1}}} = \frac{{\partial {S_2}(E - {E_1})}}{{\partial {E_2}}}$$
 
vanhees71 said:
Indeed, the maximum-entropy solution is the equilibrium. This becomes much more transparent later in the stat-mech lecture when you study non-equilibrium situations. The Boltzmann equation together with unitarity of the S-matrix gets you the principle of detailed balance (the weak form is enough!), and this leads to the H theorem (to be pronounced as "Eta theorem"), i.e., that the entropy cannot decrease and thus that equilibrium is reached at maximum entropy. The best discussion about this point I know is in Landau&Lifshitz Vol. 10.

Thank vanhees71 for your kind reply! I think I start to understand the answer to my question as I wrote it in the reply to Lord Jestocost
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Back
Top