DOCSLIB.ORG

Ergodic Tendencies in Sub-Systems Coupled to Finite Reservoirs—Classical and Quantal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ergodic Tendencies in Sub-Systems Coupled to Finite Reservoirs—Classical and Quantal S S symmetry Article Ergodic Tendencies in Sub-Systems Coupled to Finite Reservoirs—Classical and Quantal Robert Englman Physics Department, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel; [email protected] Received: 2 September 2020; Accepted: 24 September 2020; Published: 6 October 2020 Abstract: Whereas ergodic theories relate to limiting cases of infinite thermal reservoirs and infinitely long times, some ergodicity tendencies may appear also for finite reservoirs and time durations. These tendencies are here explored and found to exist, but only for extremely long times and very soft ergodic criteria. “Weak ergodicity breaking” is obviated by a judicious time-weighting, as found in a previous work [Found. Phys. (2015) 45: 673–690]. The treatment is based on an N-oscillator (classical) and an N-spin (quantal) model. The showing of ergodicity is facilitated by pictorial presentations. Keywords: ergodic theorems; spin chain; coupled oscillators; ensembles 1. Introduction In a broadly phrased description, ergodic theorems equate time and ensemble averages [1–6], and take various forms both in the precise definition of the term “equate” (which is usually done in the senses of Set Theory, for example, References [7,8]) and of the variety of items whose averages are considered. As regards the former, physical applications of ergodicity (as in References [9,10]) typically steer clear of the niceties (e.g., the qualification of “almost all”) of set-theoretical precision [11,12], as is being done here. The varieties of theorems are features of both developments in the course of times and at a particular time of the subject matters which are at interest. Historically, Poincaré [13] is regarded, through his recurrence theorem, as the progenitor of Ergodic Theory, which had led to Boltzmann’s Statistical Mechanics and Entropy concept for the dynamical theory of gases [14]. At the basis of ergodic theory as applied to dynamical systems is what is termed “the invariant measure”, whose meaning is roughly the uniformity of the statistical weight of the system over states that it potentially partakes of. (It is this weight that enters logarithmically the entropy concept of Boltzmann, taught in every elementary course on Statistical Mechanics. Related to this is the “Metrical Decomposability” of von Neumann [15]). Microcanonical ensembles, that is, those whose manifold sub-systems have a fixed total energy, possess this property and ergodicity in its multiplicity of set-theoretical senses referred in its primary applicability to these. (In truth, the potential applicabilities of ergodicity are extremely broad, encompassing beyond the exact sciences also biology, sociology, medicine and humanities, for example, Reference [16]). Constituent parts, “sub-systems” of systems forming a microcanonical ensemble do not possess “the invariant measure” property (as elucidated in further detail later on in this article), and general theories do not appear to hold for these. Thence, there is some value in studying some particular models (and, at it, some simple ones), with a view of gaining some knowledge of ergodic behaviors or otherwise, in these systems, where they are not mandated. Previous work [17,18] went in this direction. The present article amplifies the knowledge by including classical, as well as quantum systems (in Sections2 and3, respectively). The net conclusion arising from our (mainly numerical) results is that ergodic behavior is a property also of systems lacking “invariant measures”, but only approximately so and with a critical amendment in the process of time averaging, namely by the Symmetry 2020, 12, 1642; doi:10.3390/sym12101642 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry Symmetry 2020, 12, 1642 2 of 16 appropriate and non-uniform weighting of the time (t, here termed the “sojourn duration”) in the time integration. A further deviation of the present work from the routine are the “finitenesses (!)” of the objects, this in contrast to the mainstream of ergodicity studies, which deal with systems of infinite size and duration ("the thermodynamic limit") and are capable to yield formal results. Moreover, in the following investigation of the onset of ergodicity in finite and transient systems, of size (N < ¥) and time durations (tr < ¥), consideration will be given to another, somewhat imprecise term that enters the following, accepted formulation of ergodicity: “In the ergodic limit, the path trajectory approaches arbitrarily near to every point in phase space” [1]. This nearness concept had been given crucial importance early on by the Ehrenfests [19,20]. In what follows the term “near” will enter in a numerically precise and important way through the nearness parameter “np”, which is the measure of the distance between a chosen phase-space point (X, P for a single classical particle) and the corresponding value on the trajectory. “Nearness” enters our computations in the following way: In the sequel we establish the number of times the trajectory approaches closely to a given point X, P in phase space. If this approach takes place to within values of “np” for both the coordinate and the momenta, then this is counted as a visit; if it fails to do so for either, then this approach is not counted as a visit. Typical values to achieve ergodic tendencies in our finite systems are found with np not falling below a 0.02 fraction of the characteristic values in X and P (which are of the same order, in our system of units). Thus, we find that below this value of “np” the number of approaches, or “visits” (here designated NV, for visiting numbers) take effectively random values for different points in phase space; only above this tolerance (np > 0.02) are the visiting numbers distributed in a regular way. The regularities are discussed in the text. The term “visiting number” leads us to consideration for classical dynamics of an allied quantity, the “sojourn time” already mentioned, being the time that the trajectory spends in the vicinity (defined here through np) of the phase-space point. Cases when this quantity is in violation of ergodicity were named by Bouchaud [21] “weak ergodic breaking” (distinct from “strong ergodicity breaking”, for which NV is also not ergodic) and were intensively studied by Barkai and collaborators, for example, for anomalous diffusers temporarily residing in traps [22–25] and more recently in Reference [26]. In contrast to these, the dynamic, continuously moving system studied here in the classical section shows no signs of weakly breaking of ergodicity. The Models The objects of our treatment in the classical domain are coupled oscillators, Section2 a subject which lies at the basis of lattice dynamics and has been extensively studied for one-to-three dimensional systems. Finite numbers of interacting oscillators belong in reality to the realm of infra-red molecular spectra. In the quantum regime we treat N interacting 1/2-spins, Section3. (Notably, the quantum description in this section centering in the interacting spins is conceptually simpler than the classical one, in so much as the phase space is one dimensional, labelled with r by the series of discrete eigen-energy values, regarded as non-degenerate. A reduction in complexity, in terms of information contents, of a quantum description of a random process relative to a classical one was noted in Reference [27]. A further distinction is on the minimal grid size in coordinate-momentum phase space of quantal systems required by the uncertainty principle. Owing to the finite number of spins involved, cooperative effects like ferromagnetism are not applicable). Multiple interacting spin systems (chains)are currently at interest for their potentialapplications with a view to quantum metrology, as in Reference [28], and to information transfer, as in Reference [29]. Interacting systems having finite Hilbert state dimensions have also been theoretically researched for entanglement and other properties [30–38]. The more general topic of open systems was comprehensively treated in Reference [39]. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1642 3 of 16 On the experimental side, a quantum processor consisting of N = 8 coupled qubits and subject to time dependent interactions was studied with the view of achieving feasible quantum computing [40]. Finite number of interacting spins, (namely 15 spins forming a V15 cluster) constituting a molecular magnet were the subject of Reference [41]: the nature of couplings in this system differs from the one considered in the present work, in that PI includes also Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya and hyperfine couplings. In contrast; our finite spin systems reach only up to only 9 spins, and for these numerical results are presented, they extrapolate nicely to the formal results for infinite, thermal reservoirs of Rechtman and Penrose [42]. To round up the picture, there remains the study of effects arising from the mutual interaction between the two entities,spins and oscillators. These have in the first instance entered the field as the Jaynes-Cummings model, subsequently they have later formed the subject of the broadly scoped review of Reference [43]. One also notes a further work framed in the adiabatic approximation in Reference [44]. From the present viewpoint of ergodicity in finite systems, a study of their properties is under consideration by us. In a nutshell, the main conspicuous outcomes arising from the treatments in the present work, for either the classical or the quantum systems, are the extended establishment of ergodicity (beyond its basic theoretically warranted domain), but in a manner that depends quantitatively on some parameter values, and the requirement of unequal weighting of the time in taking the time averages. 2. Classical: N Oscillators Here the time dependent displacement variable X1(t) of the sub-system is coupled to the displacement variables [X2(t), ...., XN(t)] of the reservoir. A model is designed with the aim of tracing the (long time, but not infinitely long duration) movement of a privileged particle, this being part of a set of similar entities and calculating the frequency of its visiting each point in its (classical) phase space, represented by the position and momentum labels X, P.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Symmetry and Ergodicity Breaking, Mean-Field Study of the Ising Model
    Symmetry and ergodicity breaking, mean-field study of the Ising model Rafael Mottl, ETH Zurich Advisor: Dr. Ingo Kirsch Topics Introduction Formalism The model system: Ising model Solutions in one and more dimensions Symmetry and ergodicity breaking Conclusion Introduction phase A phase B Tc temperature T phase transition order parameter Critical exponents Tc T Formalism Statistical mechanical basics sample region Ω i) certain dimension d ii) volume V (Ω) iii) number of particles/sites N(Ω) iv) boundary conditions Hamiltonian defined on the sample region H − Ω = K Θ k T n n B n Depending on the degrees of freedom Coupling constants Partition function 1 −βHΩ({Kn},{Θn}) β = ZΩ[{Kn}] = T r exp kBT Free energy FΩ[{Kn}] = FΩ[K] = −kBT logZΩ[{Kn}] Free energy per site FΩ[K] fb[K] = lim N(Ω)→∞ N(Ω) i) Non-trivial existence of limit ii) Independent of Ω iii) N(Ω) lim = const N(Ω)→∞ V (Ω) Phases and phase boundaries Supp.: -fb[K] exists - there exist D coulping constants: {K1,...,KD} -fb[K] is analytic almost everywhere - non-analyticities of f b [ { K n } ] are points, lines, planes, hyperplanes in the phase diagram Dimension of these singular loci: Ds = 0, 1, 2,... Codimension C for each type of singular loci: C = D − Ds Phase : region of analyticity of fb[K] Phase boundaries : loci of codimension C = 1 Types of phase transitions fb[K] is everywhere continuous. Two types of phase transitions: ∂fb[K] a) Discontinuity across the phase boundary of ∂Ki first-order phase transition b) All derivatives of the free energy per site are continuous
    [Show full text]
  • Josiah Willard Gibbs
    GENERAL ARTICLE Josiah Willard Gibbs V Kumaran The foundations of classical thermodynamics, as taught in V Kumaran is a professor textbooks today, were laid down in nearly complete form by of chemical engineering at the Indian Institute of Josiah Willard Gibbs more than a century ago. This article Science, Bangalore. His presentsaportraitofGibbs,aquietandmodestmanwhowas research interests include responsible for some of the most important advances in the statistical mechanics and history of science. fluid mechanics. Thermodynamics, the science of the interconversion of heat and work, originated from the necessity of designing efficient engines in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Engines are machines that convert heat energy obtained by combustion of coal, wood or other types of fuel into useful work for running trains, ships, etc. The efficiency of an engine is determined by the amount of useful work obtained for a given amount of heat input. There are two laws related to the efficiency of an engine. The first law of thermodynamics states that heat and work are inter-convertible, and it is not possible to obtain more work than the amount of heat input into the machine. The formulation of this law can be traced back to the work of Leibniz, Dalton, Joule, Clausius, and a host of other scientists in the late 17th and early 18th century. The more subtle second law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible to convert all heat into work; all engines have to ‘waste’ some of the heat input by transferring it to a heat sink. The second law also established the minimum amount of heat that has to be wasted based on the absolute temperatures of the heat source and the heat sink.
    [Show full text]
  • Viscosity from Newton to Modern Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics
    Viscosity from Newton to Modern Non-equilibrium Statistical Mechanics S´ebastien Viscardy Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, 3, Avenue Circulaire, B-1180 Brussels, Belgium Abstract In the second half of the 19th century, the kinetic theory of gases has probably raised one of the most impassioned de- bates in the history of science. The so-called reversibility paradox around which intense polemics occurred reveals the apparent incompatibility between the microscopic and macroscopic levels. While classical mechanics describes the motionof bodies such as atoms and moleculesby means of time reversible equations, thermodynamics emphasizes the irreversible character of macroscopic phenomena such as viscosity. Aiming at reconciling both levels of description, Boltzmann proposed a probabilistic explanation. Nevertheless, such an interpretation has not totally convinced gen- erations of physicists, so that this question has constantly animated the scientific community since his seminal work. In this context, an important breakthrough in dynamical systems theory has shown that the hypothesis of microscopic chaos played a key role and provided a dynamical interpretation of the emergence of irreversibility. Using viscosity as a leading concept, we sketch the historical development of the concepts related to this fundamental issue up to recent advances. Following the analysis of the Liouville equation introducing the concept of Pollicott-Ruelle resonances, two successful approaches — the escape-rate formalism and the hydrodynamic-mode method — establish remarkable relationships between transport processes and chaotic properties of the underlying Hamiltonian dynamics. Keywords: statistical mechanics, viscosity, reversibility paradox, chaos, dynamical systems theory Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Irreversibility 3 2.1 Mechanics. Energyconservationand reversibility . ........................ 3 2.2 Thermodynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamiltonian Mechanics Wednesday, ß November Óþõõ
    Hamiltonian Mechanics Wednesday, ß November óþÕÕ Lagrange developed an alternative formulation of Newtonian me- Physics ÕÕÕ chanics, and Hamilton developed yet another. Of the three methods, Hamilton’s proved the most readily extensible to the elds of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We have already been introduced to the Hamiltonian, N ∂L = Q ˙ − = Q( ˙ ) − (Õ) H q j ˙ L q j p j L j=Õ ∂q j j where the generalized momenta are dened by ∂L p j ≡ (ó) ∂q˙j and we have shown that dH = −∂L dt ∂t Õ. Legendre Transformation We will now show that the Hamiltonian is a so-called “natural function” of the general- ized coordinates and generalized momenta, using a trick that is just about as sophisticated as the product rule of dierentiation. You may have seen Legendre transformations in ther- modynamics, where they are used to switch independent variables from the ones you have to the ones you want. For example, the internal energy U satises ∂U ∂U dU = T dS − p dV = dS + dV (ì) ∂S V ∂V S e expression between the equal signs has the physics. It says that you can change the internal energy by changing the entropy S (scaled by the temperature T) or by changing the volume V (scaled by the negative of the pressure p). e nal expression is simply a mathematical statement that the function U(S, V) has a total dierential. By lining up the various quantities, we deduce that = ∂U and = − ∂U . T ∂S V p ∂V S In performing an experiment at constant temperature, however, the T dS term is awk- ward.
    [Show full text]
  • Ergodic Theory in the Perspective of Functional Analysis
    Ergodic Theory in the Perspective of Functional Analysis 13 Lectures by Roland Derndinger, Rainer Nagel, GÄunther Palm (uncompleted version) In July 1984 this manuscript has been accepted for publication in the series \Lecture Notes in Mathematics" by Springer-Verlag. Due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances none of the authors was able to perform the necessary ¯nal revision of the manuscript. TÄubingen,July 1987 1 2 I. What is Ergodic Theory? The notion \ergodic" is an arti¯cial creation, and the newcomer to \ergodic theory" will have no intuitive understanding of its content: \elementary ergodic theory" neither is part of high school- or college- mathematics (as does \algebra") nor does its name explain its subject (as does \number theory"). Therefore it might be useful ¯rst to explain the name and the subject of \ergodic theory". Let us begin with the quotation of the ¯rst sentence of P. Walters' introductory lectures (1975, p. 1): \Generally speaking, ergodic theory is the study of transformations and flows from the point of view of recurrence properties, mixing properties, and other global, dynamical, properties connected with asymptotic behavior." Certainly, this de¯nition is very systematic and complete (compare the beginning of our Lectures III. and IV.). Still we will try to add a few more answers to the question: \What is Ergodic Theory ?" Naive answer: A container is divided into two parts with one part empty and the other ¯lled with gas. Ergodic theory predicts what happens in the long run after we remove the dividing wall. First etymological answer: ergodhc=di±cult. Historical answer: 1880 - Boltzmann, Maxwell - ergodic hypothesis 1900 - Poincar¶e - recurrence theorem 1931 - von Neumann - mean ergodic theorem 1931 - Birkho® - individual ergodic theorem 1958 - Kolmogorov - entropy as an invariant 1963 - Sinai - billiard flow is ergodic 1970 - Ornstein - entropy classi¯es Bernoulli shifts 1975 - Akcoglu - individual Lp-ergodic theorem Naive answer of a physicist: Ergodic theory proves that time mean equals space mean.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics: Ergodicity, Many Degrees of Freedom and Inference
    On the foundations of statistical mechanics: ergodicity, many degrees of freedom and inference Sergio Chibbaro1;6 and Lamberto Rondoni2;3;6 and Angelo Vulpiani4;5;6 1 Sorbonne Universit´es,UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS, UMR7190, Institut Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, F-75005 Paris, (France) 2 Dip. Scienze Matematiche, Politecnico di Torino, C. Duca degli Abruzzi 24, Torino. 3 INFN, Sezione di Torino, Via P. Giuria 1, Torino (Italy). 4 Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a"LaSapienza" Roma (Italy) 5 ISC-CNR, Piazzale A. Moro 2 - 00185 Roma (Italy) 6 Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China, CAS, Beijing 100190, China March 9, 2014 1 Introduction Statistical mechanics has been founded by Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs who intended to describe in terms of microscopic interactions the properties of macro- scopic objects, i.e. systems made of so many particles that a statistical treat- ment is required. For almost all practical purposes one can say that the whole subject of statistical mechanics consists in evaluating a few suitable functions and quantities, such as the partition function, the free energy and the correlation functions. Since the discovery of deterministic chaos it is plain that statistics (e.g. over ensembles of objects following the same dynamical rules, or over time series of fluctuating quantities) is unavoidable and useful even in systems with a few degrees of freedom. On the other hand, no universal agreement has been reached so far about the fundamental ingredients for the validity of statistical mechanics [1, 2]. The wide spectrum of positions includes Landau's and Khinchin's belief that the main ingredient in producing the common macroscopic behaviours is the vast number of microscopic degrees of freedom, which makes (almost) completely irrelevant details of the microscopic dynamics such as the validity of the standard notion of ergodicity, developed in the mathematical literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Ergodicity and Modern Portfolio Theory
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Chinese Journal of Mathematics Volume 2015, Article ID 737905, 17 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/737905 Research Article Classical Ergodicity and Modern Portfolio Theory Geoffrey Poitras and John Heaney Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5A lS6 Correspondence should be addressed to Geoffrey Poitras; [email protected] Received 6 February 2015; Accepted 5 April 2015 Academic Editor: Wing K. Wong Copyright © 2015 G. Poitras and J. Heaney. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. What role have theoretical methods initially developed in mathematics and physics played in the progress of financial economics? What is the relationship between financial economics and econophysics? What is the relevance of the “classical ergodicity hypothesis” to modern portfolio theory? This paper addresses these questions by reviewing the etymology and history of the classical ergodicity hypothesis in 19th century statistical mechanics. An explanation of classical ergodicity is provided that establishes a connection to the fundamental empirical problem of using nonexperimental data to verify theoretical propositions in modern portfolio theory. The role of the ergodicity assumption in the ex post/ex ante quandary confronting modern portfolio theory is also examined. “As the physicist builds models of the movement of matter in a frictionless environment, the economist builds models where there are no institutional frictions to the movement of stock prices.” E. Elton and M. Gruber, Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis (1984, p. 273) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Ergodic Hypothesis Via Analogies I. INTRODUCTION II
    APGFAPGF Understanding the ergodic hypothesis via analogies Andre R. Cunha∗ Laboratório de Meios Porosos e Propriedades Termofísicas Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário - Trindade Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil - CEP 88040-900 - P.O. Box 476 The Ergodic Hypothesis is a hypothesis in Statistical Mechanics that relates the microscopic motion of parti- cles with the macroscopic average, i. e., the observed property. Despite its importance, didactically its unders- tanding is not easy due to technical issues. Therefore, in this article we propose analogies in order to clarify some important features of the referred hypothesis. Our starting point is the perception that the same macrosco- pic property, i. e., the average of the movement, can be calculated by different procedures. After that, we build Associação de Pós-Graduandos em Física the same average in a more convenient way. We do not have as objectives to contemplate advanced implications of the referred hypothesis. On such cases, some papers will be referenced. I. INTRODUCTION implications. However, no one emphasizes its intuitive mea- ning. Other texts about Kinetic Theory of Gases [7, 8] make In many theoretical contexts, technical sophistication often use of that meaning without justifying or even commenting blurs the meaning and intuition behind a theory. Besides, the about it. Ref. [9] is an exception that introduces EH to con- difficulties that enclosure fundamental questions usually have nect micro- and macroscopic scales. In short, even on those an inhibitor effect on curious eyes. Accepting such truth, text- texts that recognizes EH’s fundamental role, its hard to com- books’ authors follow the tendencies of technical tutorials, prehend of the reasons that take us to adopt it.
    [Show full text]
  • Ergodic Theory, Entropy and Application to Statistical Mechanics
    ERGODIC THEORY, ENTROPY AND APPLICATION TO STATISTICAL MECHANICS TIANYU KONG Abstract. Ergodic theory originated in statistical mechanics. This paper first introduces the ergodic hypothesis, a fundamental problem in statistical mechanics. In order to come up with a solution, this paper explores some basic ideas in ergodic theory. Next, the paper defines measure-theoretical entropy and shows its connection to physical entropy. Lastly, these results are used to construct Gibbs ensembles, a useful tool in statistical mechanics. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Ergodic Theory 4 2.1. Measure Preserving Maps 4 2.2. Poincar´e’s Recurrence Theorem 4 2.3. Birkhoff’s Theorem 5 2.4. Ergodicity 8 2.5. Application to Statistical Mechanics 9 3. Measure-Theoretic Entropy 11 3.1. Partitions and Subalgebras 11 3.2. Entropy of Partitions 12 3.3. Entropy of Measure Preserving Maps 15 3.4. Kolmogorov-Sinai Theorem 18 3.5. Example: Entropy of Shifts 19 3.6. Boltzmann’s Entropy 20 4. Gibbs Ensembles 21 4.1. Microcanonical Ensemble 22 4.2. Canonical Ensemble 23 4.3. Grandcanonical Ensemble 23 4.4. Example: Ideal Gas in the Microcanonical Ensemble 25 Acknowledgments 26 References 26 1. Introduction Ergodic theory is the study of dynamical systems with an invariant measure, a measure preserved by some function on the measure space. It originated from the proof of the ergodic hypothesis, a fundamental problem in statistical mechanics. A basic example, which illustrates the ergodic hypothesis, is the movement of an ideal 1 2 TIANYU KONG gas particle in a box. If the particle satisfies the hypothesis, then over long periods of time, the probability of particle at any position should be the same.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Ergodic Hypothesis in Physics to the Ergodic Axiom in Economics Prepared for the 7
    From the Ergodic Hypothesis in Physics to the Ergodic Axiom in Economics Prepared for the 7. Wintertagung des ICAE Linz Mark Kirstein∗ Department of Economics, TU Dresden October 12, 2015 Abstract The direction of the mathematisation of predominant economics is unthinkable without the tacit underlying assumption of ergodicity. Despite its foundational charac- ter, the assumption of ergodicity is largely overlooked while discussing the intellectual 5 history of the discipline. This is the cause why ergodicity is absent from the cur- riculum – although intimately intertwined with the equilibrium concept. Contrasted by such popular assumptions like rational expectations formation, representative agent, efficient markets, perfect competition, etc., that every student is aware of. Nevertheless, ergodicity is more fundamental than all of the mentioned assumptions 10 taken together. Ergodicity is a property of a mathematical system and originated from statistical mechanics, invoked by L. Boltzmann, who literally called it a ‘trick’ to simplify the needed mathematics. Ergodicity is fulfilled, if the time average of a system or process equals its ensemble average. However, if the time average of a system is 15 different from its ensemble average, the system or process is called non-ergodic. The time average is the average of one observed trajectory or realisation of a process (one time series). The ensemble average is the average over every possible state of a system. Non-ergodicity is a necessary property of a mathematical model, if the model is supposed to describe occurences of endogenous novelties and change. The 20 non-ergodic case is the more general, whereas the ergodic case is much easier to handle mathematically.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Ergodic Theory; from a Physics Hypothesis to a Mathematical Theory
    Modern ergodic theory; from a physics hypothesis to a mathematical theory Do˘ganC¸¨omez Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of North Dakota October 30, 2015 establishing a connection between the ensembles typically studied in statistical mechanics and the properties of single systems. More specifically, in solving problems of demonstrating the equality of infinite time averages and phase averages. Preamble Mathematical study of ergodicity Preamble Origins of Ergodic theory goes back to statistical mechanics; Do˘ganC¸¨omez Modern ergodic theory; from a physics hypothesis to a mathematical theory More specifically, in solving problems of demonstrating the equality of infinite time averages and phase averages. Preamble Mathematical study of ergodicity Preamble Origins of Ergodic theory goes back to statistical mechanics; establishing a connection between the ensembles typically studied in statistical mechanics and the properties of single systems. Do˘ganC¸¨omez Modern ergodic theory; from a physics hypothesis to a mathematical theory Preamble Mathematical study of ergodicity Preamble Origins of Ergodic theory goes back to statistical mechanics; establishing a connection between the ensembles typically studied in statistical mechanics and the properties of single systems. More specifically, in solving problems of demonstrating the equality of infinite time averages and phase averages. Do˘ganC¸¨omez Modern ergodic theory; from a physics hypothesis to a mathematical theory The state of a single particle moving in this space can be described
    [Show full text]
  • Ergodic Theory Lecture Notes - Jan-Mar
    Ergodic Theory Lecture Notes - Jan-Mar. 2011 Lecture 1 May 1, 2011 1 A very condensed history of Ergodic Theory 1.1 Boltzmann and gas particles The motivation for ergodic theory comes for theoretical physics and statistical mechanics. Bolzmann (1844-1906) proposed the so called Ergodic Hypothesis on the behaviour of parti- cles (e.g., of gas molecules). Consider a box of unit size containing 1020 gas particles. The position of each particle will be given by three coordinates in space. The velocity of each particular will be given by a further three coordinates in space. Thus the configuration at any particular time is described by 3 × 1020 + 3 × 1020 = 6 × 1020 coordinates, i.e., a point 20 x 2 X ⊂ R6:10 . Let T x 2 X be the new configuration of the gas particles it we wait for time t = 1. The Botzmann ergodic hypothesis (1887) addresses the distribution of the evolution of the gas. The idea is that starting from a configuration x the orbit x; T x; T 2x; ··· spends a proportion of time in any subset B ⊂ X proportional to the size of the set, i.e. 1 lim Cardf1 ≤ k ≤ n : T kx 2 Bg = µ(B): n!+1 n More generally, if we consider the continuous times then the position at time t 2 R would be T tx and then we require that 1 lim Cardf0 ≤ t ≤ T : T tx 2 Bg = µ(B): T !+1 T Boltzmann also coined the term \Ergodic", based on the Greek words for "work" and "path".
    [Show full text]