Metropolis Algorithm and integration volume

AI Thread Summary
The Metropolis algorithm is utilized to evaluate canonical expectation value integrals by sampling from the Boltzmann density within a finite volume V in the canonical ensemble. However, implementations often assume particles can move in an infinite volume, raising questions about the accuracy of results under these conditions. The discussion explores whether correct results arise because simulations, despite being theoretically infinite, are practically limited to a finite volume due to time constraints. This finite volume is effectively normalized in the expectation value calculations. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on volume constraints in Monte Carlo simulations.
Derivator
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Hello,

the Metropolis algorithm can be used to evaluate canonical expectation value integrals by sampling from the Boltzmann density. In the canonical ensemble, one has a finite and constant volume V, over which the configurational part of the expectation-value integral is integrated over.

However, in all descriptions and implementations of the Metropolis-Algorithm, I have never seen that such a volume restriction is obeyed. Everybody just seems to assume that the simulated particles can move freely in an infinite volume. Could someone explain, why one obtains correct results, despite not obeying finite volume constraints? Is this, because the simulation can (in practice) only be executed for a finite time, and hence it will only cover a finite (but large) volume (and this volume, because it is still finite, is canceled by the normalization of the expectation value).


derivator
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top