On the explanation for quantum statistics
Introduction
Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, early and late, turned on investigations in statistics—most famously with his introduction of the light quantum, now in its second century, but equally with his penultimate contribution to the new mechanics (on Bose–Einstein statistics) in 1924. Shortly after, his statistics was incorporated into the new (matrix and wave) mechanics. But there remained puzzles, even setting to one side the question of his last contribution (on the completeness of quantum mechanics). A number of these centre on the concept of particle indistinguishability, which will occupy us greatly in what follows.
To keep the discussion within reasonable bounds, and for the sake of historical transparency, I shall use only the simplest examples, and the elementary combinatoric arguments widely used at the time. For similar reasons, I shall largely focus on Bose–Einstein statistics (and I shall neglect parastatistics entirely). Hence, whilst not a study of the history of quantum statistics, I shall be speaking to Einstein's time.
But if not anachronistic, my way of putting things is certainly idiosyncractic, and calls for some stage-setting.
Section snippets
The puzzle
These are the puzzling features to be explained: distinguishable particles, classically, obey Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics, but so do indistinguishable (permutable) particles. In quantum mechanics, distinguishable particles also obey Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics; but not so indistinguishable ones. There is evidently something about the combination of permutation symmetry and quantum mechanics that leads to a difference in statistics. What, precisely?
Were the concept of indistinguishability
Against classical indistinguishability
The clearest argument in the literature against classical indistinguishability is that the principle is not needed (what I shall call the ‘dispensability argument’); a thesis due to Ehrenfest and Trkal (1920), and subsequently defended by van Kampen (1984). The objection that classical indistinguishability is incoherent is more murky, and has rarely been defended explicitly; for that I consider only van Kampen (1984) and Bach (1997).
Ehrenfest and Trkal considered the equilibrium condition for
Demystifying classical indistinguishability
The answer, presumably, is that we surely can single out classical particles uniquely, by reference to their trajectories. But there is a key objection to this line of thinking: so can quantum particles, at least in certain circumstances, be distinguished by their states. No matter whether the state is localized or not, the ‘up’ state of spin, for example, is distinguished from the ‘down’, and may well be distinguished in this way over time. In such cases, particle properties can be used as
The explanation for quantum statistics
To begin at the beginning:
The distribution of energy over each type of resonator must now be considered, first, the distribution of the energy E over the N resonators with frequency . If E is regarded as infinitely divisible, an infinite number of different distributions is possible. We, however, consider—and this is the essential point—E to be composed of a determinate number of equal finite parts and employ in their determination the natural constant . This constant,
Addenda
What explains the difference between classical and quantum statistics? The structure of their state spaces: in the quantum case the measure is discrete, the sum over states, but in the classical case it is continuous.20 This makes a difference when one passes to the quotient space
References (37)
Symmetry and the indistinguishability of classical particles
Physics Letters A
(1987)Physics and chance
(2000)Boltzmann's probability distribution of 1877
Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences
(1990)Indistinguishable classical particles
(1997)Quantum statistics, identical particles and correlations
Synthese
(1990)- Einstein, A. (1928). General discussion. Électrons et photons: Rapports et discussions du cinquième Conseil de physique...
Welche Züge der Lichquantenhypothese spielen in der Theorie der Wärmestrahlung eine wesentliche Rolle?
Annalen der Physik
(1911)- et al.
Deduction of the dissociation equilibrium from the theory of quanta and a calculation of the chemical constant based on this
Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy
(1920) - Feynman, R. (1965). Quantum mechanics. In R. Feynman, R. Leighton, & M. Sands (Eds.), The Feynman lectures on physics...
Quantum mechanics: An empiricist view
(1991)