Is the Canonical Ensemble Rule Derived Ad Hoc in Statistical Mechanics?

intervoxel
Messages
192
Reaction score
1
In Statistical Mechanics, the key step in the derivation of the Canonical Ensemble is that the probability of S being in the m-th state, P_m , is proportional to the corresponding number of microstates available to the reservoir when S is in the m-th state. That is

P_m=c\Omega(E_0-E_m),

where E_0 is the total energy.

Where does this rule come from? It seems to be inserted ad hoc in my textbook, and even in Wikipedia.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One justification for this comes from the idea of maximum entropy. Given a system about which you have limited knowledge, say only the total energy E, you can ask what probabilities you should assign to various microstates. The distribution p(n) (n labels microstates at energy E) which maximizes the entropy S = - \sum_n p(n) \log{p(n)} is the flat distribution p = 1/N(E) which gives an entropy of \log{N(E)}. N(E) is the total number of states at energy E.

A similar calculations gives the Boltzmann distribution with temperature T interpreted as a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the constraint that the average energy be E.
 
To me the rule of maximum entropy arises from the assumption that all microstates are equally likely and not the other way around.

The idea is simply that ALL microstates are equally likely. This is a key assumption of statistical mechanics, which sounds wrong when you consider QM etc., but actually turns out to give surprisingly good answers in the correct thermodynamic limit. Thus, the probability of S in the m-th state is then the total number of microstates that correspond to S in the m-th state divided by the total number of microstates there are total (which is just a constant, if we keep the energy of the whole system constant).

The number of microstates with S in the m-th state is simply equal to what you stated above as "the corresponding number of microstates available to the reservoir when S is in the m-th state". This is obvious because there is exactly 1 state that the sub-system S is in.
 
Think I've got it.

When the system is in equilibrium, T_R=T_S, S is maximized and all microstates are equally probable. Then, for instance:

Total number of microstates=100
E1'+E1=E0
E2'+E2=E0
E3'+E3=E0

Code:
    R   |    S
------+-------
E1' 18 |
E2' 27 |
E3' 45 |
         |
         .
         .
         |
         | E3 5
         | E2 3
         | E1 2
--------------
     90 |     10
finally, c=1/90

Is it correct?
 
Last edited:
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top