Is there a quantum uncertainty to the number of atoms in a marble?

In summary, the quantum state of a marble made of quintillions of atoms can be in a superposition of having different numbers of atoms.
  • #36
A. Neumaier said:
How do you define pressure for a marble in a canonical ensemble? The marble has finite extent, so the thermodynamic limit is not applicable. Surely one can exert pressure on a marble and thereby affect its thermodynamic state.
The thermodynamical potential corresponding to the canonical ensemble is the Free Energy in terms of its natural variables, ##F=F(T,V,N)##, where ##T## is the temperature (i.e., ##\beta=1/T## is the Lagrange parameter to fix the average energy of the system) and ##V## is the volume and ##N## the fixed particle number as external parameters.

Now you have
$$\mathrm{d} F = \mathrm{d}(U-T S)=T \mathrm{d} S-p \mathrm{d}V -\mathrm{d} T S + \mu \mathrm{d} N - T \mathrm{d} S=-p\mathrm{d} V -S \mathrm{d} T+\mu \mathrm{d} N,$$
from which
$$p=-(\partial_V F)_{T,N}, \quad S=-(\partial_T F)_{V,N}, \quad \mu=(\partial_N F)_{T,V}.$$
The relation to the canonical partition sum is (all with ##k_{\text{B}}=1##)
$$F=-T Z_N.$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
A. Neumaier said:
This superselection rule only holds for a Galilei invariant system, not for a marble which is only rotation invariant and breaks translation and boost invariance. The total mass of a nonrelativistic universe is superselected, not masses of pieces of it!

True, you have to assume that the marble is in an asymptotically free state. I.e. long after the process of it's creation or collision with another marble. So the marble is it's own universe (why does this remind me of "man in black"?). However, the explicit breaking of translational or boost symmetry I don't see as a problem. The point is that performing a series of boost and time reversal operations which in total are equivalent to doing nothing, will return the marble to it's initial state, up to a phase, which depends on the mass of the marble. So there can be no superposition of mass states with a definite phase relation between the different mass states. Hence a superposition of mass states will always be a mixture, not a pure state.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #38
Since when is translational and boost symmetry broken for a marble considered as a closed system (i.e., a lonely marble in an inertial frame)?
 
  • #39
DrDu said:
True, you have to assume that the marble is in an asymptotically free state. I.e. long after the process of it's creation or collision with another marble.
... and neither visible (interacting with light) nor supported (interacting with the matter on which it rests), nor surrounded by air! This is not an ordinary marble as in the OP.
DrDu said:
So the marble is it's own universe (why does this remind me of "man in black"?). However, the explicit breaking of translational or boost symmetry I don't see as a problem. The point is that performing a series of boost and time reversal operations which in total are equivalent to doing nothing, will return the marble to it's initial state, up to a phase, which depends on the mass of the marble. So there can be no superposition of mass states with a definite phase relation between the different mass states. Hence a superposition of mass states will always be a mixture, not a pure state.
The state even of a completely isolated marble (a macroscopic object in local equilibrium) is anyway a mixture, not a pure state.
 
  • #42
A. Neumaier said:
The state even of a completely isolated marble (a macroscopic object in local equilibrium) is anyway a mixture, not a pure state.
atyy said:
What about pure state statistical mechanics along the lines of
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3138https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0851
Here the mixedness is hidden in the random pure state to which the exponential is applied. The thermodynamics is reproduced only when averaging over this randomness. Thus the true state is the mixture determined by the distribution of the random pure state.

Despite its name, a ''random pure state'' in the sense given is not a pure state but the family of all pure states, equipped with a probability distribution. Just like a random number is not a single number but the family of all numbers, equipped with a probability distribution.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top