What are the probabilities for different outcomes with Bose-Einstein statistics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the probabilities of different outcomes when applying Bose-Einstein statistics compared to classical statistics. Participants explore the implications of indistinguishability of particles and the normalization of probabilities in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of two-particle systems.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a paper that outlines four possible outcomes under classical statistics and three outcomes under Bose-Einstein statistics, suggesting that the probability for the outcome HH increases to 1/3.
  • There is a contention regarding the normalization of probabilities, with some arguing that the indistinguishability of states HT and TH means they should be counted as one outcome.
  • One participant expresses confusion about how to handle the amplitude of 1/√2 and questions the normalization process, suggesting they see different probabilities than expected.
  • Another participant asserts that the three state vectors are normalized and that each has equal probabilities of 1/3, challenging earlier claims about the amplitudes.
  • A later reply introduces concepts from information theory, discussing the Shannon-Jaynes-von-Neumann entropy and how it relates to the probabilities of outcomes in a statistical operator framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the normalization of probabilities and the treatment of indistinguishable states. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the probabilities or the handling of amplitudes, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity on the definitions and assumptions regarding the states and their probabilities. The discussion also touches on the mathematical steps involved in deriving the probabilities, which remain unresolved.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
798
This paper https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9911101 says this:
With classical statistics, i.e., where the particles are distinguishable, there are four possible outcomes:
##HH, HT, TH, TT##
Since all four outcomes are a priori equally likely, the probability for HH is 1/4. This is applicable to tossing
macroscopic coins, where quantum effects are negligible.

With Bose–Einstein statistics, where the allowable states must be symmetric under exchange, there are only three possible outcomes:
##HH, \quad (HT+TH)/ \sqrt{2}, \quad TT##
Consequently, the probability for HH increases to 1/3.
If we normalize those terms, don't we get 1/4 , 1/2 , 1/4 as the probabilities, since ##|HT\rangle## and ##|TH \rangle## are indistinguishable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Swamp Thing said:
If we normalize those terms, don't we get 1/4 , 1/2 , 1/4 as the probabilities, since ##|HT\rangle## and ##|TH \rangle## are indistinguishable?

No. What ##|HT\rangle## and ##|TH\rangle## being "indistinguishable" means is that they are one outcome, not two. So they only count once when we are counting outcomes.
 
Thanks. But how are we to deal with the ##1/ \sqrt{2}##, even allowing that we must replace ##HT+TH## with ##HT##?

The amplitudes are 1/4, ##1/4*1/ \sqrt{2}##, 1/4 which give
1/16 , (1/16)*(1/2), 1/16 when squared.
Normalizing, I seem to see
0.4, 0.2, 0.4
and no 1/3 anywhere. I'm sure I'm going wrong somewhere, but where?
 
Last edited:
Swamp Thing said:
how are we to deal with the ##1/ \sqrt{2}##,

We don't have to do anything to "deal" with it. It's there so that each of the 3 distinguishable outcomes have properly normalized state vectors associated with them. And as normalized, they all have equal amplitudes. That's what tells you that all three outcomes have equal probabilities.

Swamp Thing said:
even allowing that we must replace ##HT+TH## with ##HT##?

Where do we do that? I don't understand.

Swamp Thing said:
The amplitudes are 1/4, ##1/4*1/ \sqrt{2}##, 1/4

No, they aren't. Each of the three state vectors ##|HH\rangle##, ##\left( |HT\rangle + |TH\rangle \right) / \sqrt{2}##, and ##|TT\rangle## are normalized, i.e., they are all unit vectors. So the amplitude of each, if we are looking at an equal combination of each of the state vectors, is 1/3, because there are three vectors and each one is a unit vector taken by itself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Swamp Thing
What's given is a basis consisting of three orthonormalized vectors,
$$|b_1\rangle=|HH \rangle, \quad |b_2 \rangle=\frac{1}{2}(|HT \rangle+|TH \rangle), \quad |b_3 \rangle = |TT \rangle.$$
It's wrong to say that these are all allowable states, but these are given by all statistical operators in this 3D Hilbert space. What we can read from the above quoted text snippet is only that all states are equally probable. That's not complete information, and we need some objective criterion of how to associate a state with this information. The answer is provided by information theory: First one defines the Shannon-Jaynes-von-Neumann entropy as a measure for the missing information, given the state,
$$S[\rho]=-\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\rho} \ln \hat{\rho}).$$
Then we want a state of minimal prejudice, i.e., with maximal entropy, compatible with the information. Here, we have given the probabilities for the outcomes of measurements to be
$$P_j=\langle b_j|\hat{\rho}|b_j \rangle.$$
This we have to minimize with these constraints and the constraint that ##\mathrm{Tr} \hat{\rho}=1##, i.e., we introduce Lagrange multipliers for these constraints
$$\tilde{S}[\rho]=\sum_j \lambda_j \langle b_j|\hat{\rho}|b_j \rangle+\lambda \mathrm{Tr} \hat{\rho}-\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\rho} \ln \hat{\rho}).$$
Variation of the statistical operator gives
$$\delta \tilde{S}[\rho]=\sum_j [\lambda_j + \lambda-1] \delta \rho_{jj}-\mathrm{Tr} [\delta \hat{\rho} \ln \hat{\rho}] =0.$$
Since we can vary the 9 matrix elements of ##\hat{\rho}## independently now (thanks to the Lagrange parameters), the expression can only be 0 if ##[\ln \hat{\rho}]_{ij}=0## for ##i \neq j##, i.e., ##\hat{\rho}## is diagonal in the above given basis. After some algebra thus we get
$$\hat{\rho}=\sum_{j=1}^{3} P_j |b_j \rangle \langle b_j|, \quad \sum_{j=1}^3 P_j=1.$$
if all the ##P_j## are equal, as said in the above text snippet, we have necessarily ##P_j=1/3##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Swamp Thing and dextercioby

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
3K