Statistical Mechanics - Random Walk

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the probability of a random walk where a drunk person takes N steps, with n1 steps to the right and n2 steps to the left. The probability of a specific sequence of steps is given by (p^n1)(q^n2), but to find the total probability of ending with n1 steps to the right and n2 steps to the left, one must multiply this by the number of distinct paths, represented by N!/(n1!n2!). This multiplication accounts for all possible sequences leading to the same endpoint, as the order of steps matters in determining the overall probability. The reasoning is further validated through examples and the binomial expansion, demonstrating that the correct formula sums to 1, while (p^n1)(q^n2) alone does not. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping the fundamentals of statistical mechanics in random walks.
Fermi-on
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm reading through Reif's "Statistical Mechanics" to prepare for the upcoming semester. Basically, a drunk guy takes N total steps, n1 to the right and n2 to the left. The probability that the current step will be to the right is "p," while the probability that the current step will be to the left is "q=1-p." The probability that one sequence of N steps will have a total of "n1" steps to the right and "n2" steps to the left is "(p^n1)(q^n2)." The total number of possible ways to get that specific number of steps to the right and left after N total steps is "N!/(n1!(N-n1)!) = N!/(n1!n2!)."

I understand that just fine. What I'm stuck on is why you multiply N!/(n1!n2!) and (p^n1)(q^n2) to get the probability of the drunk ending up with n1 steps to the right and n2 steps to the left. Why isn't it just (p^n1)(q^n2)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Picture the guy walking on the axis of integers (starting in 0). p^{n_1}q^{n_2} would be the probability of the guy getting to position n_1 - n_2 after N steps, via anyone allowed path. For example, if we keep track of the sequence in which the steps were taken, q \underbrace{p p ... p}_{n_1 \mbox{times}}\underbrace{q q ... q}_{n_2 - 1 \mbox{times}} would represent (the probability of) the path that ends in position n_1 - n_2 by first taking 1 step to the left, then n_1 steps to the right and finally n_2 - 1 more steps to the left. So by writing p^{n_1}q^{n_2} you are only looking at one precise path. But since it doesn't matter which path the guy took, we have to add the probabilities of getting there by all possible paths (if there are 2 ways to get to a point, the probability of getting there would be twice as large as the probability of getting there if there was only 1 way). In this case there are \binom{N}{n_1} paths, each with the same probability p^{n_1}q^{n_2}, so adding this probability up \binom{N}{n_1} times gives the answer.
It might be insightful to check this reasoning in the most simple example: p = q = \frac{1}{2} and n_1 = n_2 = 1. What's the probability that the guy ends up in the origin?
You can also check that this formula defines a probability law, and that just p^{n_1}q^{n_2} alone would not. Given N, the probability to take N steps in total must be equal to 1. But the probability of taking N steps in total is the sum of the probabilities of taking n_1 = 0 steps to the right, n_1 = 1 step to the right, ..., n_1 = N steps to the right. Use the binomial expansion to check that this sums to 1 for the correct formula, but not for just p^{n_1}q^{n_2} alone.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top