I Exceptions to the postulate of equal a priori probabilities?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the fundamental postulate of equal a priori probabilities in statistical physics, which asserts that all accessible microstates in an ensemble occur with equal probability. The participants explore scenarios where this assumption may not hold, particularly in systems like coupled oscillators that can become "stuck" in metastable states, impacting energy distribution. It is noted that while equal a priori probabilities are often postulated for practical purposes, they must be derived from the system's dynamics, which can be complex and challenging. The conversation also touches on the definition of thermal states and the conditions under which equal probabilities can be assumed, particularly in chaotic versus open systems. Overall, the discussion highlights the nuances and limitations of applying the equal a priori probabilities postulate in statistical physics.
AndreasC
Gold Member
Messages
555
Reaction score
317
Not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this, hopefully if it isn't someone can move it to a more appropriate place.

The fundamental postulate of equal a priori probabilities in statistical physics asserts that all accessible microstates states in an ensemble happen with equal probability. It is an important assumption for proving a number of important results, like the form of the partition functions in microcanonical and canonical ensembles etc. My question is, are there any significant cases that statistical physics still deals with where equal a priori probabilities can not be assumed and other assumptions have to be made?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For instance, there's this system of coupled oscillators that can get "stuck" in some part of energy-allowed phase space and the energy doesn't partition to all degrees of freedom until some time has passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou_problem

But this kind of things are something that would probably be called "metastable states" in statistical physics terminology.
 
Last edited:
In general, equal apriori probabilities are not a postulate but must be derived from the dynamics. However, in all but the most simple cases, this is mathematically very difficult and rarely of practical importance. Thus, this problem is usually sidestepped and the probabilities are just postulated. This is fine in practice, but you have to keep in mind that such a postulate is not independent of the dynamics and could in principle contradict it. Integrable systems are a typical example for this situation. E.g., in the two-body problem, no non-trivial set of initial conditions will lead to a thermal state if you just wait long enough.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes PeroK and AndreasC
Nullstein said:
This is fine in practice, but you have to keep in mind that such a postulate is not independent of the dynamics and could in principle contradict it.
Yeah, this has been my understanding so far, that's why I was interested in examples where this can't be assumed.
Nullstein said:
no non-trivial set of initial conditions will lead to a thermal state if you just wait long enough.
How is a thermal state defined? Furthermore, can equal probabilities be assumed in all such states?
 
AndreasC said:
How is a thermal state defined? Furthermore, can equal probabilities be assumed in all such states?
Typically, a closed, sufficiently chaotic system is expected to have a microcanonical ensemble as equilibrium distribution, which is just an equal probability distribution on a constant energy surface (or constant integrals of motion surface, more generally). An open subsystem that can exchange energy will then typically end up in a canonical ensemble. The canonical ensemble has this constant energy only on avergage, with configurations closer to this constant energy surface being more likely.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 445 ·
15
Replies
445
Views
29K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K