Question about statistical mechanics

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between dimensions and energy in the context of statistical mechanics, specifically referencing Susskind's equation E = 3/2 x k x T. The initial question explores the possibility of a universe with higher dimensions and why this concept isn't typically used to explain the universe's early energy state. Participants clarify that while the equipartition theorem relates thermal energy distribution to degrees of freedom, it does not imply that increasing dimensions directly increases energy. The conversation acknowledges the complexity of degrees of freedom in different systems, such as point particles versus diatomic molecules. Ultimately, the inquiry reflects a curiosity about theoretical implications of dimensionality in physics.
Xenosis17
Hello, first of sorry for asking what maybe a stupid question. I am teaching myself physics by watching lessons about QM, Classical Mechanics, EMT etc. I was watching Susskind's lectures about statistical mechanics lately and he derived equation of energy E= 3/2 x k x T. 3 in 3/2 came from number of spatial dimensions. Could it be possible that our universe began as having higher amount of dimensions ? I am sure they already thought about this. What is the reason they do not use this equation for explaining the energy universe had at the beginning and possibly for this scenario: If our universe is embedded in some sort of medium which only consist of dimensions it can be possible to explain multiverse scenarios since number of dimensions determine the energy of a system and there can be other singularities like our universe. I am sorry if this sounds naive I just wanted to see why a relation between dimension and energy cannot be established.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equipartition theorem is only a statement about how the thermal energy is distributed among different degrees of freedom. And even then, it only works under some strict conditions (only for quadratic degrees of freedom, in the classical regime). You can't say that the "number of dimensions determine the energy of a system."

Note also that statements like
Xenosis17 said:
If our universe is embedded in some sort of medium which only consist of dimensions
are meaningless (aka "gobbledygook").
 
DrClaude, thanks a lot for the explanation. I know that my phrasing of '' medium which only consists of dimensions'' was gibberish. Also, I know intuitively that it is sort of wrong to assume that if you have same system but add more dimensions it could mean more energy. Now I understand it is about degrees of freedom regarding thermal energy. Again, I am so sorry for this question. I just tried to imagine the equation with more dimensions then felt the need to ask.
 
For a point particle, the number of degrees of freedom is the number of spatial dimensions, since this determines the number of components to the momentum of the particle. But for more complicated particles, like diatomic molecules, you can have rotational modes as well as linear momentum modes, so the number of degrees of freedom is higher.

If there were extra dimensions in the early universe and the universe was close to thermal equilibrium, then some fraction of the total energy would be partitioned into motion through these extra dimensions.
 
Khashishi, thanks a lot for the info and the explanation ! I totally get it now. Again, it was just a curiosity with regards to what could happen if I changed the number of dimensions. Thanks for the insight !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K