Proof of Poincare Recurrence Theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding an accessible reference for the proof of Poincare's recurrence theorem, specifically addressing the assumptions about phase points and their trajectories. The user expresses difficulty in locating a proof that is both clear and comprehensible, despite having some mathematical background. Key assumptions include a set of phase points with fixed energy, a subset of points that never return to the original set, and the finite, non-zero Lebesgue measure of that subset. The conversation highlights the inconsistency of these assumptions, particularly through the implications of the Liouville theorem and the behavior of trajectories in Hamiltonian dynamics. The user seeks clarification on why these assumptions cannot coexist, emphasizing the need for a more understandable explanation.
NickJ
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know of an accessible reference that sketches a proof of Poincare's recurrence theorem? (This is not a homework question.)

I'm coming up short in my searches -- either the proof is too sketchy, or it is inaccessible to me (little background in maths, but enough to talk about phase points, their trajectories).

If possible, I'd like the proof to provide a reductio of the following assumptions:


1. A is a set of phase points in some region of Gamma-space, such that each point in A represents a system with fixed and finite energy E and finite spatial extension.

2. B is a non-empty subset of A consisting of those points on trajectories that never return to A having once left A.

3. The Lebesgue measure of B is both finite and non-zero.

I know these three assumptions are jointly inconsistent -- but I can't figure out why.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you try Wikipedia, and google?
 
yup. no luck.
 
Ohw, the proof is quite easy to understand. First you must know that dynamics deals with a Hamiltonian, that is give me 2N numbers which we call position (first N) and momentum (second N) and I can tell you how the system evolves. Now, suppose you don't know precisely what the initial momenta and positions are and you take some volume in 2N space, then the Liouville theorem says that this volume is preserved if you drag it along the flow. Now assume that the points in your original neighborhood all belong to different trajectories, then the snake moves in a finite volume and cannot self intersect herself (because different fluid trajectories cannot intersect each other). This clearly leads to a contradiction.


Careful
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top