How much statistical mechanics is enough for a physicist?

In summary: But in order to get a good understanding of the material, you should also read some of the more advanced books on the subject.
  • #1
accdd
96
20
How much statistical mechanics do I need to know to study QFT, astrophysics, black hole thermodynamics, and other advanced topics? And where should I study it in your opinion? So far I have only read Tong's notes however I don't think it is enough. Some quantum statistical mechanics is also covered in Ballentine's book that I just finished studying.
I am aware of the fact that statistical mechanics is a vast subject that reaches up to the chemistry/physics of matter and I would not like to get lost in details and applications that are too specific to these fields.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There's never "enough" statistical mechanics ;-)). In astrophysics you need it for sure, and you can learn a great deal more on QFT when you also consider the many-body version in both the Matsubara imaginary time and the Schwinger-Keldysh real-time formulation for equilibrium and the latter also for off-equilibrium theory. Despite the vast applications in all of physics from condensed matter, via nuclear and particle to astronomy (physics of compact stars, the nuclear equation of state, neutron-star mergers/kilonovae) and cosmology (thermal evolution of the universe, nucleosynthesis, CMBR,...) it's also a good addition for the conceptual understanding of (relativistic and also non-relativistic) QFT.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, WernerQH, Lord Jestocost and 3 others
  • #3
Because "how much" and "how little" are the same question, these questions can be restated as "what is the minimum I can get away with?"

That tends not to be an attitude leading to success,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mathguy_1995, jim mcnamara, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #4
vanhees71 said:
There's never "enough" statistical mechanics ;-)). In astrophysics you need it for sure, and you can learn a great deal more on QFT when you also consider the many-body version in both the Matsubara imaginary time and the Schwinger-Keldysh real-time formulation for equilibrium and the latter also for off-equilibrium theory. Despite the vast applications in all of physics from condensed matter, via nuclear and particle to astronomy (physics of compact stars, the nuclear equation of state, neutron-star mergers/kilonovae) and cosmology (thermal evolution of the universe, nucleosynthesis, CMBR,...) it's also a good addition for the conceptual understanding of (relativistic and also non-relativistic) QFT.
I just finished studying Berkeley Statistical Physics by Reif. Some things I already knew, from Tong's notes. What should I study to get on with statistical mechanics at an appropriate level in your opinion? I saw that there are various statistical mechanics textbooks, what do you recommend and what are the differences?
For example, Kardar's "Statistical Physics of Particles" is much shorter than books by Reif, Huang, Landau or Pathria, why? Which book (or notes) can help me understand the topics you mentioned and the ones I mentioned? Thank you
 
  • #5
It depends a bit on what topic you are most interested in. Landau & Lifshitz is excellent, particularly Vol. 10 about kinetic theory. For the real-time formalism a very good intro is

P. Danielewicz, Quantum Theory of Nonequilibrium Processes
I, Ann. Phys. 152, 239 (1984),
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(84)90092-7

P. Danielewicz, Quantum Theory of Nonequilibrium Processes
II. Application to Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Phys. 152, 305
(1984), https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(84)90093-9

For the relativistic case

J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-Temperature Field Theory;
Principles and Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2
edn. (2006).

N. P. Landsmann and C. G. van Weert, Real- and
Imaginary-time Field Theory at Finite Temperature and
Density, Physics Reports 145, 141 (1987),
https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(87)90121-9
 
  • Care
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn and accdd
  • #6
I think the links you recommended are too advanced for me.
I am starting to study QFT, but I am also interested in astrophysics, cosmology, and black holes. In general, I am interested in a statistical mechanics book that will allow me to understand graduate level physics.
My current level is: notes by Tong + Berkeley Statistical Physics by Reif (the small book, which is introductory level)
 
  • #7
I think the "little Reif" (Berkeley Physics Course volume on Stat. Phys.) is very good, and also Tong's lecture notes are.
 

Related to How much statistical mechanics is enough for a physicist?

How much statistical mechanics should a physicist know for a basic understanding?

A physicist should have a foundational understanding of key concepts in statistical mechanics, such as the laws of thermodynamics, the Boltzmann distribution, and partition functions. This level of knowledge is typically covered in undergraduate courses and is sufficient for a basic understanding.

Is advanced statistical mechanics necessary for all physicists?

Not all physicists need advanced statistical mechanics. It is essential for those specializing in fields like condensed matter physics, chemical physics, and materials science. However, for physicists in areas like high-energy physics or astrophysics, a basic understanding might be sufficient.

What are the essential topics in statistical mechanics that every physicist should know?

Every physicist should be familiar with the fundamental principles of statistical mechanics, including the microcanonical, canonical, and grand canonical ensembles, the concept of entropy, the Maxwell-Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac, and Bose-Einstein distributions, and phase transitions.

How does statistical mechanics apply to experimental physics?

Statistical mechanics is crucial in experimental physics for interpreting data and understanding the behavior of systems at the microscopic level. It helps in analyzing thermal properties, predicting material behavior, and understanding phenomena like magnetism and superconductivity.

Can a physicist rely on computational tools instead of deep knowledge in statistical mechanics?

While computational tools are incredibly useful and can handle complex calculations, a deep understanding of statistical mechanics is necessary to correctly set up problems, interpret results, and understand the underlying physical principles. Reliance solely on computational tools without a solid theoretical foundation can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
426
Replies
6
Views
933
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
921
Back
Top