0
$\begingroup$

We are in phase space of $6N$ dimensions. Each point $ \mathbf r$ in this space has $6N$ coordinates.

Pathria writes

Consider an arbitrary "volume" $\omega$ in the relevant region of the phase space and let the "surface" enclosing this volume be denoted by $\sigma$; then the net rate at which the representative points "flow" out of $\omega$ (across the bounding surface $\sigma$ ) is given by $$ \int \rho \boldsymbol{v} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{n}} d \sigma $$

Where $\boldsymbol{v}$ is a generalized velocity and $\rho$ is number density function

I can understand why the equation is true if the velocity is a spatial 3D vector, and the surface is a regular 3D one, however in higher dimensions I'm not sure what the equation means and why it holds. We can't even visualize a surface so what does it mean that representative points flow out of a surface?

Can anyone please explain the equation above.

Thank you

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ It is time to set free of your mind. $\endgroup$
    – ytlu
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ @ytlu, I couldn't understand it? $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ It is a kind of idea that you extended the concept in 1-d, 2-d and 3-d, into a 6-d abstract vector space. $\endgroup$
    – ytlu
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ For a parallel thinking: can you draw a 4-d volume?? $\endgroup$
    – ytlu
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 10:00

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

$\rho\vec{v}$ is a (probability) flux density, $\hat{\vec{n}}$ the unit normal to the surface, their scalar product is the outflux per unit surface, integrate and you have the total outflux. So far, so good?

Up until here we have not talked about spatial dimension, because it works in any. And if you say you only understand it in three dimensions, maybe try two and one first to understand the generalisation of the principle.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ How do you know it generalises to any N dimension? $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ In higher dimensions what do you mean by flux out of surface? We can't visualise a surface plus the velocity isn't a spatial one rather a generalized one $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ We can visualise surfaces in more than three dimensions - sort of. Try starting with unit spheres, maybe $\mathbb{S}^3$. But (how far?) do we really need to? Textbooks or math professors quite often talk about a domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and simply draw a two-dimensional picture that is sufficient visualization. Do you understand what a flux (or probability current) is? If you say yes, please explain where you would need the spatial dimension three in a definition. $\endgroup$
    – kricheli
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry to repeat myself again, I understand what flux is in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, I understand it's expression of flow across a boundary, this boundary can be visvualized and the expression makes sense. What I'm not sure is why does the same expression hold in higher dimensions. $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 4:53
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't think you do. Have you actually tried comparing to 2 dimensions? We decompose the flux into the part normal to the surface (normal space: 1 dimension) - we obtain this part from the scalar product with the unit normal - and the part parallel to the surface, that doesn't leave the volume (tangent space: $n-1$ dimensions). The normal part is the outflux, the parallel part does not enter into the expression. This works for any dimension of the space we're working in. $\endgroup$
    – kricheli
    Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 9:38
1
$\begingroup$

This is leading up to Liouville's Theorem. It's just an application of the n-dimensional divergence theorem.

If your question is regarding the validity of the expression then PhysSE isn't the right place for this.

Additionally, you don't need to use the divergence theorem to reason through Liouville's Theorem. If our probability density, $\rho$, is generally a function of time as well as the phase space coordinates then,

$$\rho \equiv \rho(t,q_1,p_1,...,q_N,p_N)$$

$$\frac{d\rho}{dt}=\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial q_1}\frac{\partial q_1}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial p_1}\frac{\partial p_1}{\partial t} + ... \tag{1}$$

In Gibbs' 1902 book he reasoned that this probability density acts exactly as an incompressible fluid does, or in other words, the rate of change of probability within the phase space will exactly equal the probability flowing out of it:

$$\frac{d \rho}{dt}=0 \tag{2}$$

This is always true, whether or not we are at equilibrium. If our ensemble is complete, then the probability density will integrate to 1 over the phase space:

$$\int ... \int \rho d^{3N}q d^{3N}p=1 \tag{3}$$

Clearly the time derivative of $(3)$ is zero, and so the partial time derivative of $\rho$ must be zero ($\rho$ is a function of time and the phase space so we must change the total derivative to partial when bringing it inside the integral):

$$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} =0$$

Reformulating with Hamiltonian Mechanics, we get, using the Poisson Bracket:

$$\{\rho, H\} = 0$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ If your question is regarding the validity of the expression" which expression are you referring to? $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ I was referring to the equation in your original post; it is just a mathematical statement about the probability "flux" flowing through a boundary. If you are really curious I would suggest you go through the math of using Stoke's theorem to produce the n-dimensional divergence theorem. Otherwise you can follow the derivation I am showing above to get to Liouville's Theorem. $\endgroup$
    – michael b
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ How do we know that the expression $\int \rho \boldsymbol{v} \cdot \hat{\boldsymbol{n}} d \sigma$ gives the number of points flowing through the boundary in such a general case? Did you mean to look for stokes theorem as a proof to this? $\endgroup$
    – Kashmiri
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ That's not a question for Phys SE. You should ask about the generality of the divergence theorem on Math SE. $\endgroup$
    – michael b
    Commented Apr 4, 2022 at 18:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.