## Saturday, March 05, 2011

### Classics on the arxiv: von Neumann and the foundations of quantum statistical mechanics

Kudos to people who have been posting classic (old) papers on the arxiv.
Proof of the Ergodic Theorem and the H-Theorem in Quantum Mechanics 1003.2133

John von Neumann

It is shown how to resolve the apparent contradiction between the macroscopic approach of phase space and the validity of the uncertainty relations. The main notions of statistical mechanics are re-interpreted in a quantum-mechanical way, the ergodic theorem and the H-theorem are formulated and proven (without "assumptions of disorder"), followed by a discussion of the physical meaning of the mathematical conditions characterizing their domain of validity.

Comments: English translation by Roderich Tumulka of J. von Neumann: Beweis des Ergodensatzes und des H-Theorems. 41 pages LaTeX, no figures; v2: typos corrected.
Long-Time Behavior of Macroscopic Quantum Systems: Commentary Accompanying the English Translation of John von Neumann's 1929 Article on the Quantum Ergodic Theorem 1003.2129

Sheldon Goldstein, Joel L. Lebowitz, Roderich Tumulka, Nino Zanghi

The renewed interest in the foundations of quantum statistical mechanics in recent years has led us to study John von Neumann's 1929 article on the quantum ergodic theorem. We have found this almost forgotten article, which until now has been available only in German, to be a treasure chest, and to be much misunderstood. In it, von Neumann studied the long-time behavior of macroscopic quantum systems. While one of the two theorems announced in his title, the one he calls the "quantum H-theorem", is actually a much weaker statement than Boltzmann's classical H-theorem, the other theorem, which he calls the "quantum ergodic theorem", is a beautiful and very non-trivial result. It expresses a fact we call "normal typicality" and can be summarized as follows: For a "typical" finite family of commuting macroscopic observables, every initial wave function $\psi_0$ from a micro-canonical energy shell so evolves that for most times $t$ in the long run, the joint probability distribution of these observables obtained from $\psi_t$ is close to their micro-canonical distribution.
I've had a long interest in the foundations of statistical mechanics. vN's paper is very clear and better than any of the textbook treatments I have seen. I wish I had had access to it as a student! The paper by Goldstein et al. is also excellent and summarizes some history and connections to current research.

I was very impressed by recent work (see references below) using entanglement and concentration of measure in high dimensions (Levy's lemma) to show that a subsystem of a larger quantum system will display "equilibrium" properties as long as the larger system is in a "typical" state. (An overall constraint on the system, e.g., on its energy, is assumed.) Typicality is defined with respect to the usual Hilbert space measure. The remaining question in my mind, which I mulled over casually the past few years, was whether there existed ergodic theorems showing that under Schrodinger evolution a system would spend almost all of its time in a typical state (there is a simple argument that suggests this is the case; it is a much harder problem to obtain sharp estimates of equilibration times). As I suspected, but failed to confirm even after getting a few books out of the library***, vN had already established this result (and, perhaps, most of the recent results!) in 1929 :-)

To overstate: vN had forgotten (by dying) more about the foundations of stat mech than the rest of the community remembered! Yet another example of (highly) nonlinear returns to brainpower in mathematical and physical sciences.

S. Popescu, A. J. Short, A. Winter: Entanglement and the foundation of statistical mechanics. Nature Physics 21(11): 754–758 (2006); N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, A. Winter: Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium. Physical Review E 79: 061103 (2009) http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2385.

Sadly, in our era of specialization these deep foundational issues tend to be of little interest to most physicists.
Wigner: But it is sad to lose touch with whole branches of physics, to see scientists cut off from each other. Dispersion theorists do not know axiomatic field theory; cosmologists do not know nuclear physics. Quantum mechanics is hard to explain to a chemist ... and yet the best theoretical chemists really ought to know quantum mechanics.

Specialization of science also robbed us of much of our passion. We wanted to grasp science whole, but by then the whole was something far too vast and complex to master. Only rarely could we ask the deep questions that had first drawn us to science.

*** To be precise I found only discussions formulated in terms of coarse grained phase space -- individual (dQ, dP) cells -- as opposed to a more fundamental pure state description of the system. The connection between these pictures is provided by vN in the (now translated) paper linked to above. I believe I actually saw a reference to this paper, but had no idea how to find an English version of it :-)

Jorge_Videla said...

"Yet another example of (highly) nonlinear returns to brainpower in mathematical and physical sciences."

What exactly does that mean? Or does it mean anything?

steve hsu said...

It means vN is a lot smarter than the rest of us.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html

Lev Landau, a Nobelist and one of the fathers of the great Soviet physics system, had a logarithmic scale for ranking theorists, from 1 to 5. A physicist in the first class had ten times the impact of someone in the second class, and so on. He modestly ranked himself as 2.5 until late in life, when he became a 2. In the first class were Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac and some others, and Einstein was a .5! (For reminiscences of great physicists in that generation, see From a Life in Physics.)

My friends in the humanities, or other areas of science like biology, are astonished and disturbed that we physicists think in this essentially hierarchical way. Apparently, differences in ability are not manifested so clearly in those fields. Personally, I find Landau's scheme appropriate. ...

Jorge_Videla said...

"Yet another example of (highly) nonlinear returns to brainpower in mathematical and physical sciences."

I didn't know there were von Neumann's of geology, chemistry, meteorology.

Landau, Einstein, von Neumann all people from a tribe with a flare for marketing and promotion. An even steeper ranking might be made by professors of philosophy. In both cases this is largely a result of the endless scholia made by professors with too little funding, too little motivation, or perhaps too little ability to be more than scholiasts. For scientists who get results rather than spin theories genius is useless without hours in the lab.

steve hsu said...

>I didn't know there were von Neumann's of geology, chemistry, meteorology.<

See Rutherford on stamp collecting.

>For scientists who get results rather than spin theories genius is useless without hours in the lab.<

Luis Alvarez was arguably the greatest experimenter of the 20th century and made many practical contributions (even to geology). I think his opinion should be weighted more heavily than yours.

Abcd said...

There's an interesting anecdote in the preface of (I think) Dantzig's book on Linear Programming about his meeting with vN to discuss the simplex method. vN, known to be quite impatient, interjects after 2 minutes and explains most of the ideas behind the simplex method, without any prior work in the area, and makes a statement on duality which was, of course, spot on.

Jorge_Videla said...

Alvarez was referring to physicists of all kinds?

I'd prefer penicillin to string theory Steve.

Jorge_Videla said...

"All science is physics or stamp collecting."

If Rutherford really said that he was a moron. If you really believe that so are you. Not surprising at all.

Jorge_Videla said...

Sorry for the "von Neumann's", should have been "von Neumanns". I am a moron.

gwern0 said...

> I didn't know there were von Neumann's of geology, chemistry, meteorology

By von Neumann I take it you mean 'individuals who made multiple major breakthroughs and are disproportionately cited'. My understanding was that the sociometrics literature, and in particular Murray's _Human Accomplishment_, had replicated Lotka curves of citation rates in the earth sciences and chemistry just like in physics or mathematics.