Talk:Ensemble (mathematical physics)

Having taught statistics at four universities, including one renowned throughout the world, I have not encountered the phrase "statistical ensemble" used in this sense. Certainly populations and samples are mentioned all the time, but when is this term ever used except by physicists? Michael Hardy 22:27 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're right, it's a physics term. Let's edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.210.242 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 February 2003

Statistical ensembles
Here's a suggestion to make the statistical ensemble article more consistent with the quantum statistical mechanics article. Two relevant operational notions on ensembles are


 * Testing statistical equivalence of ensembles


 * Probabilistic sampling from ensembles A, B with probability p 1- p to form the convex combination of ensembles.

Since in the quantum mechanical case, ensembles are modeled by density operators, this is a cleaner approach to the pure-state mixed-state dichotomy, because equivalence classes of ensembles have the structure of a convex set.

Moreover I like to think of the concept of ensemble as being itself operationally defined in the following sense: there is some laboratory procedure for producing systems which are instances of this ensemble. By repeating this laboratory procedure we obtain a sequence of systems X1, X2 .... Xk... Exactly how this sequential ensemble defines a state might be left out of the article, but here is an explanation: A sequential ensemble defines a state by the time average of measurements: e.g. for each quantum yes-no question E (for reference this is discussed in the article quantum logic) we obtain a sequence of measured values (e.g. by observing a dial on a gauge) Meas(E, Xn). Each one of these values is a 0 or 1. (Of course the measurement process alters the system so it no longer is an instance of the ensemble)

Assume the time average exists
 * $$ \sigma(E) = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \operatorname{Meas}(E, X_k) $$

This is a kind of ergodicity assumption, but for explaining the operational meaning of ensemble I think this is good enough. Using Gleason's theorem this is given by a density operator S:


 * $$ \sigma(E) = \operatorname{Tr}(E S) $$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSTAR (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 June 2004


 * Trying to be "operational" is a little bit philosophical. Also a little biassed.  But to point out that an alternative definition of the quantum statistical ensemble is as a mapping from observables to expectations is an excellent idea, and to mention that Gleason's theorem or whatever shows the equivalence is very good, as well. Dragging in ergodicity seems a little otiose, even worse than dragging in measurements and operationalisablitiy.... 74.102.90.54 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Climate prediction & Grand Ensemble
I'd like to see extra added to this page to include mention of climate prediction.

See Ensemble in BOINC Wiki

Also how about defining a grand ensemble as an ensemble of ensembles. Perhaps include a diagram such as at a)

http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/2571/images/Fig_1.gif

from http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2571.jsp

In fact there is a lot of complex stuff in this article which I think would be better placed in a referenced page for Using Statistical Ensembles. Keep this page just for saying what an ensemble is. that is just MHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.53.104.5 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 June 2005

New article
The new changes to the article regard a very unusual interpretation of statistical ensemble. I am reverting. If there is indeed a usage in meteorology which is different, then this should be place in another article.--CSTAR 15:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most moved to Using Statistical Ensembles
I have done this suggested move now.

Sources for new material include http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy_adv.php http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2571.jsp http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.53.104.5 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 June 2005

mce, ce & gce
Whatever else, it should be possible to access the usual classical statistical ensembles used by physicists and chemists, namely:- microcanonical ensemble, canonical ensemble, grand canonical ensemble. There should be short definitions of the three here, too. This appears to have got lost (again?) Linuxlad 15:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Idealization and "mental" copies
Could we use a different expression other than "mental". Isn't it enough to say it is an idealization? --CSTAR 13:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The word idealization on its own is not clear. For example, it would be an idealization to consider the system to be made up a large number of real subsystems, each statistically independent. This is the idealization used by Boltzmann in 1872 to derive the Boltzmann equation, the H-theorem and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.  But in 1878 Gibbs goes beyond this by considering the probability distribution for the system as a whole.  There is now no longer a population of real subsystems: there is now only one real system, in one (unknown) state.  But because it is useful to imagine probabilities in terms of drawing an individual from a population, Gibbs introduces a mental population of possibilities, which he calls an ensemble.


 * (Note also that something like the Boltzmann distribution is exact when we can consider it as a probability, ie the result of deriving it for an infinitely large mental ensemble; but only approximately correct at any one time, and subject to fluctuation, when we consider it as a fraction of a real population).


 * IMO it is thus important that the word "mental" (or something very similar) should remain in the article to flag this point. Jheald 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, you make a valid point, but I still prefer a better phrasing. I don't like the association with "minds"; how about "imaginary"? or "imagined". If you do not like these, please give this some thought and try to find another expresion.  I will also think about better formulations.--CSTAR 18:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Imaginary" I don't like, because of the association with complex numbers. "Imagined" I could live with; but I think "mental" is better, because (IMO) it's simpler and more immediate.  Is there a problem in the association with "mind"? -- That is where the ensemble lives.  Jheald 20:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there is a problem associating it with minds, because that suggests that if minds didn't exist then neither would ensembles. I'm not trying to be picky or argue for argument's sake; I would prefer a formulation which is consistent with other similar abstractions in statistics or mathematics. Sample space of a stochastic process, such as the Wiener process is a similar abstraction. Choosing terms carefully will have a payoff, I think. But I concede your larger point.--CSTAR 03:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would "similar" or "diversified" suffice? I don't think there is a requirement for the copies to be exact, just proprogated.  GChriss 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I think you're thinking about the practical running of an ensemble of climate models. But that's really only a derived use of the word -- fundamentally it's called an ensemble because it's supposed to be a collection of states (and dynamics) that we've dreamed up which we hope may be representative of the state the world might be in.


 * The point (at least in statistical mechanics) is that the copies are not real. They do not exist in the real world.  They are a thought-experiment, as one considers all the different states the system might be in, which defines a set you can then do analytical calculations on. -- Jheald 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Right. But I still don't like "minds" in this definition :)-CSTAR 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "virtual" or "possible"? I think "mental" is inappropriate here. It is not a "thought experiment", but a class of mathematical models. Nor are you holding those possible states of an ensemble in your mind. Finally, nobody actually uses the term "mental states". When I googled for "mental states" and "ensembles", all I got (that was remotely relevant) was some articles talking about neurodynamics and a dissertation about the quantum mechanics of a conscious observer. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Schroedinger uses the word "mental": p. 3, Statistical Thermodynamics.  The word is pretty standard.  Standard usage should be respected in spite of one's own personal philosophical critiques.  What word does Gibbs use, anyway? 74.102.90.54 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

comment on article.
i've made some edits and supplied a few details. the intro of the article is still rather sloppy. Since there's "mathematical" in the title, that should be the context of the article. not some stuff on, say, meterology. surely that could be mentioned as a side remark, but that should not interrupt the coherence and continuity of the mathematical presentation of the article, and that's what the non-mathematical remarks in the present version are doing. Mct mht 07:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is badly written, full of slight grammatical errors that nevertheless produce unintelligiblity in a few crucial passages, and suffers from a serious physics error in the description of the quantum mixed state. Mixed state is a synonym for statistical ensemble, and in QM it is not a probability distribution on a set of microstates. Landau and Lifschitz explicity warn against this error in their *Statistical Physics*. See page 18 of *Fundamental Principles of Statistical Physics*, 2nd ed. There seems to be a free on-line copy somewhere. There is also carelessness in the difference between a probability distribution on a (e.g.) discrete basis of microstates, and the (continuous) space they span. 74.102.90.54 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi IP editor, you're referring to this passage right?
 * You're absolutely right, a generic ensemble should not be thought of as a classical probability distribution over pure states. If the article gives that impression it should certainly be corrected. (The exception is the case of equilibrium ensembles, especially thermodynamic ensembles, where it is common and convenient to represent them by a probability distribution over energy eigenstates.) Anyhow, feel free to edit the article and be bold, wikipedia is for all of us to edit. :) --Nanite (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, a generic ensemble should not be thought of as a classical probability distribution over pure states. If the article gives that impression it should certainly be corrected. (The exception is the case of equilibrium ensembles, especially thermodynamic ensembles, where it is common and convenient to represent them by a probability distribution over energy eigenstates.) Anyhow, feel free to edit the article and be bold, wikipedia is for all of us to edit. :) --Nanite (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Korean
Why are there two links to the Korean version in the languages box? Does someone know how to edit this - I don't. --Eujin16 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Title
According to the article's introduction, there are three possible titles for this article: "ensemble", "statistical ensemble" and "thermodynamic ensemble", with "ensemble" being the main one.

I have two questions about the actual title of this article:


 * Why "Statistical ensemble" instead of just "Ensemble"?
 * Why do we have the unnecessary disambiguation (the parenthetical "mathematical physics" at the end of the title - statistical ensemble redirects here)?

Brian Jason Drake 07:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ensemble average into Statistical ensemble (mathematical physics)
merge stub subtopic into main article fgnievinski (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Ensemble Average may not literally be a stub, but it doesn't stand alone very well. I'd support this merge and redirect; could make this content a subsection. Would also benefit after the merger from the addition of average formulas from other ensembles. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Info: Ensemble average is not a stub. Widefox ; talk 17:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not cite any sources. fgnievinski (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)