Microcanonical ensemble, density operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the microcanonical ensemble and the formulation of the density operator in quantum statistical mechanics. Participants explore the justification for using energy eigenstates in defining the density operator and the implications of using different bases for quantum states.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the density operator for the microcanonical ensemble and questions the necessity of using energy eigenstates, suggesting that general quantum states could also be considered.
  • Another participant argues that the system's isolation allows for the use of energy eigenstates, emphasizing that the trace's invariance under a change of basis supports this approach.
  • A participant requests clarification on the justification of using trace invariance to support the argument about changing bases.
  • Further explanation is provided regarding the expectation value of observables and how the density operator can be defined using an arbitrary orthogonal basis, although this is contested by another participant who states that the states do not need to be orthogonal or span a basis.
  • The Liouville equation is introduced to discuss the time evolution of the statistical operator, with a focus on the conditions for the density operator to be time-independent in equilibrium.
  • A participant challenges the assertion about commuting operators and diagonalization, providing a counterexample to illustrate that commuting operators do not necessarily imply diagonal matrices in all cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of using energy eigenstates versus general quantum states, and there is no consensus on the implications of basis choice for the density operator. The discussion also reveals disagreements regarding the properties of commuting operators and their diagonalization.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the nature of the quantum states and the conditions under which the density operator is defined remain unresolved. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the relationship between different bases and the implications for the density operator's formulation.

Derivator
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
hi,

usually the density operator for the microcanonical ensemble is given by

[tex]\rho = \sum_n p_n|n><n|[/tex]

where |n> are energy eigenstates and p_n is the probability that our system is in this state.
p_n = const. if the energy corresponding to |n> is in the energy inteval (E,E+∆E), otherwise p_n =0.

I.e. we assume, our system is composed of energy-eigenstates. Why is this allowed? Why don't we have to assume, that our system is composed of general quantum states? (with the same conditions for p_n, that is, p_n should be const. if the energy (or much better the expectation value for the energy, since we have no energy eigenstates anymore) corresponding to the general quantum state is within the energy interval)


--derivator
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One assumes that the system is completely isolated, so energy is conserved. This makes it possible to consider such a system in a consistent way.

But, of course, you can consider using different stes that are not energy eigenstates. However, due to the invariance of the trace under a change of basis, that doesn't matter as long as the quantum states the system can be in are such that a measurement of the energy cannot yield values outside of E and E + Delta E.
 
Hi,

I don't see, why we can justify this with the invariance od the trace und a change of basis.

Could you explain it?

--derivator
 
The expectation value of some observable A is given by

<A> =Tr[rho A] =

sum over n of <n|rho A|n>


Obviously, due to invariance of the trace you could sum over some other set of basis states, we don't have to prove that. You want to show that you could have defined rho as:

rho = 1/N sum over s of |s><s|

where N is the number of different energy eigenstates with energy in the range between E and E +Delta E. The states |s> span some arbitrary orthogonal basis in the space of the energy eigenstates with the energies in that range.

So, we have:

<A> = 1/N sum over n and s of <n|s><s|A|n>


Clearly, the sum over |s><s| acts as the identity operator when applied to the bra vector <n|, just like a sum over |n'><n'| with the n' running over all the energy eigenstates with energy eigenvalues in the interval would have been.
 
Count Iblis said:
The states |s> span some arbitrary orthogonal basis in the space of the energy eigenstates with the energies in that range.

No, they don't have to be necessarily orthogonal nor they have to span a basis.
 
The Liouville equation for the time evolution of the statistical operator is:

[tex] i \, \hbar \, \frac{\partial \, \rho}{\partial t} = [H, \rho][/tex]

where [itex][A, B] = A B - B A[/itex] stands for the commutator of the two operators.

In equilibrium, the density operator is, by definition, time-independent. But, that means it must commute with the total Hamiltonian of the system.

The Hamiltonian, like any operator, is diagonal in the basis of its eigenstates. But, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are the stationary states.

If a matrix X commutes with a matrix A and the matrix A is diagonal, then the matrix X is also diagonal. Therefore, the matrix of the equilibrium statistical operator must be diagonal in the basis of stationary states. This ensures the expansion you wrote in your post.
 
nitpick: take X to be a non-diagonal matrix, A to be the identity.
then [X,A] = 0, A is diagonal but X is not!

you want something more like: for commuting operators we can always
find a basis that simultaneously diagonalizes them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K