Prove that the most likely macrostate, when two Einstein solids have the same nu

mber of oscillators/atom, and the total quanta of energy that can be

distributed among the atoms is q, is when the quanta of energy is evenly distrib
uted among both solids.
Prove that when two Einstein solids are in (thermal ?) contact, the most likely
macrostate is, on average, evenly distributed amongst the oscillators/atoms
(make some arguments as to how this relates to thermal equilibrium and having th
e same temperature, by relating temperature and energy). Then prove that the
least likely macrostate is when no quanta is in one solid and entirely in the ot
her solid. I think you will have to consider a few cases: when $N_A = N_B$;
and when $N_B > N_B$.
"To measure such fluctuations we would have to measure the energy to an accuract
y of ten significant figures." How did they derive this result? Did
they somehow take the difference between some macrostate and the most likely mac
rostate, and do some calculations from there? Perhaps using calculus?
This is how you understand the counting principle, and any other combinatorics c
oncepts: first count by adding, then because multiplication is repeated
addition, you can count by multiplication. So, whenever you come across a comple
x combinatorics concept, that counts some complex system, reduce the
concept/formula to counting by addition, then multiplication. By doing this, it
will make sense of concepts like over-counting, and why you divide by a certain
number to account for over-counting.
Thermal Physics by Schroeder, problem 2.9: Why is the most likely macrostate whe
n 4 quanta of energy is in solid A, and thus remaining 2 in solid B?
Why is the least likely macrostate when 0 quanta of energy is in solid A, and th
us all 6 in solid B? Explain and justify. I think it has to do with solid A
being larger.
See your solution to problem 2.9 of Schroeder's text, as you have interesting qu
estions.
"It can be shown that this final orbit is independent of the initial conditions.
.." This comes from page 78 of the ebook (note 78 is not the actually page
number; it is the number given by the Djvu reader). Can I prove this? Suppose we
have some arbitrary initial conditions $\theta (t=0) = \theta_0$ and
$\omega (t=0) = \omega_0$...use this as the beginning of your proof.
Linear Algebra: Proof that the span of two vectors, who are not parallel to each
other, meaning they are linearly independent, but are not orthogonal, span
the same set of points as two orthogonal vectors. For instance, suppose we have
two vectors u and v, both of which lie in the xy-plane (what does it mean
for them to be in the xy-plane, that they can be written as a linear combination
of $\hat{i}$ and $\hat{j}$ vectors, both of which are orthogonal with respect
to each other? Wouldn't that be the proof, right there?), and these vectors have
some angle $\theta$ between them, where $\theta \in (0, \pi/2)$. Show that
the $span\{\hat{i},\hat{j} \}$ is the same as $span\{u,v \}$.
-------------------------------------------------------------------Suppose we would like to know if the set of vectors $\{ \mathbf{a}_1, \mathbf{a}
_2, \mathbf{a}_3 \}$ spans $\mathbb{R}^3 space. To determine if this is so,
let us take any arbitrary point (any points that can generically represent every
point in $\mathbb{R}^3$), and see whether it can be written as a linear
combination of the three vectors. To this end,
\[

x_1 \mathbf{v}_1 + x_2 \mathbf{u}_2 + x_3 \mathbf{w}_3 = \mathbf{b}

\]
where the $x_i$'s are scalars that are to be determined, so that they can scale
the vectors in a certain way so that the above statement is true. Putting this
into augmented matrix form gives
\[
\begin{bmatrix}\\
v_{11} & u_{12} & w_{13} & b_1 \\
v_{21} & u_{22} & w_{23} & b_2 \\
v_{31} & u_{32} & w_{33} & b_3 \\
\]
When you row-reduce the augmented matrix, you can find the solution set of the w
eights:
\[
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & f_1(b_1,_2,b_3) \\
0 & 1 & 0 & f_2(b_1b_2,b_3) \\
0 & 0 & 1 & f_3(b_1,b_2,b_3) \\
\end{bmatrix}
\]
Note, this is what could possibly happen As you can see, any point $(b_1,b_2,b_3
)$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, represented in vector notation
as $\mathbf{b}$, can be written as a linear combination ofthe three vectors. And
the solution set provides us the appropriate weights/scalars for
a given point.
Miscellaneous:
f : R ----> R specifies the elements the rule/function acts upon
f : x -----> x^2 specifies the rule that f is suppose to represent
Numbers are Useless if they can not be compared, and this is essentially the pio
nt of the law of trichotomy; it also states that numbers can only be compared in
three different ways? There are only three ways any to given numbers are relate
d to each other: either they are the same (a = b), or one is bigger than the oth
er (a < b or a > b).
I think that, before we rigorously define a concept of numbers, we constrain wha
tever number concept we contrive to have property which is expressed in the
law of trichomoty; in other words, we define numbers in such a way so that they
can be compared.
Whenever
The best way to become acquainted with a subject is to write a book about it.
Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of England
Thermal Physics: Procedure for describing/quantifying macroscopic properties of
in terms of thermodynamical/statistical mechanical properties:
1) Clearly define the system
2) What is/are the property(ies) of the system that, when changed by the alterat
ion of the environment, changes the macroscopic properties of the
system, such as volume, pressure, temperature, multiplicity, etc...
3) How do we count the number of ways of changing the system?
4)...?
The notion of opposite is an intuitive concept. For instance, there is a given d

irection, and there is always an associated opposite direction.

In that particular case, there are many ways of mathematically describing opposi
te; as an example, the associated opposite direction is always
180 degrees from the given direction. Another way of denoting something that is
opposite is with a
negative symbol; which is not merely a convenient mathematical symbol denoting o
pposite, but is a
well-defined mathematical operation.
What do differentials mean physically? Think of the rock example given in Griffi
ths text
I like to think of differential equations as relation equations: they are equati
ons that show
how a function is related to another function; invariably, though, it is a relat
ionship between a function and its
derivative(s). The simplest relation equation would be y' = y, which states that
the function y and its derivative y' are related exactly.
A scalar/real number x can be thought of a diagnonal matrix with x's along the d
iagonal and zeros
elsewhere. From this we get analgous arithmetic between scalars and matrices, in
particular the
transpose. What is the analogous arithmetic operation of transpose for real numb
ers
A force is an acceleration, and mass the proportionality constant so that the ma
thematics works out.
If a force is applied on some particle, then the particle will accelerate; and i
f a particle
accelerates, then we know that some force must have been applied to cause the ac
celeration. This
statement expresses the if and if relationship between acceleration and force, t
he bi-conditional
relationship.
A system spontaneously seek out the state in which the free energy is lowest?

Thermal page
o the change
is precisely
en T AS will
greater than

151: If no new entropy is created during the process, then Q =TS, s

in F
equal to the work done on the system. If new entropy is created, th
be
Q, so AF will be less than W.

What would the union of Nul(A) Col(A) look like?

It would look like Nul(A) U Col(A)...How about the
intersection?
THink about what makes a linear transformation
T(x) = Ax, that distinguishes it from other linear transformations: it is the ma
trix A;
this gives the linear transformation the properties it has. A is the transformat
ion; it
maps x ---> Ax
How I like to think about the 1st law of thermodynamics is that a change in ener
gy can be either
attributed to work being done on the system (or by the system) or heat flowing i

nto the system

(or out of the system), or both, that heat and work are flowing and being on by
the system.
Prove that the most likely macrostate, when two Einstein solids have the same nu
mber of
oscillators/atom, and the total quanta of energy that can be distributed among t
he atoms is q, is
when the quanta of energy is evenly distributed among both solids.
"To measure such fluctuations we would have to measure the energy to an accuract
y of ten significant
figures." How did they derive this result? Did they somehow take the difference
between some
macrostate and the most likely macrostate, and do some calculations from there?
Perhaps using
calculus?
This is how you understand the counting principle, and any other combinatorics c
oncepts: first
count by adding, then because multiplication is repeated addition, you can count
by multiplication.
So, whenever you come across a complex combinatorics concept, that counts some c
omplex system, reduce
the concept/formula to counting by addition, then multiplication. By doing this,
it will make sense
of concepts like over-counting, and why you divide by a certain number to accoun
t for over-counting.
Thermal Physics by Schroeder, problem 2.9: Why is the most likely macrostate whe
n 4 quanta of energy
is in solid A, and thus remaining 2 in solid B? Why is the least likely macrosta
te when 0 quanta of
energy is in solid A, and thus all 6 in solid B? Explain and justify. I think it
has to do with solid A being larger.
We know what the geometric picture Of two vectors being scalar multiples of each
other is
(they are parallel), but what would the picture be if one vector could be writte
n as a scalar
multiple of a linear combination of more than one vector? It relates to the para
llelogram rule.
Every concept in mathematics and physics is invariable a measure of some quantit
y. For instance, the
concept of curvature, an idea in mathematics and physics, is a measure of how fa
r a curve deviates
from being straight. So, math and physics is all about first intuitively conside
ring concepts, and then
discovering what they are a measure of.
Whenever you come across a new experiment in physics, these are questions you sh
ould be asking yourself:
1) What is the purpose of experiment, what claim are they trying to prove? What
are they trying to
measure, and what will such a measurement show?
2) What was the fore-knowledge of this experiment, and what led them to perform

the experiment?