Narrow Results

There are two approaches to understanding Boltzmann's ergodic hypothesis in statistical mechanics. The first one, purely mathematical, goes by way of theorems while the second one relies on physical measurements. By its own nature the former is universal whereas the latter is specific to a system. By all account they seem orthogonal to each other. But should not they meet at the end? If, for example, both conclude that the hypothesis is not valid in a given system, should not their conclusions be compatible? We illustrate in this work how the two cultures meet in the physics of ergodicity.

There are two approaches to understanding Boltzmann's ergodic hypothesis in statistical mechanics. The first one, purely mathematical, goes by way of theorems while the second one relies on physical measurements. By its own nature the former is universal whereas the latter is specific to a system. By all account they seem orthogonal to each other. But should not they meet at the end? If, for example, both conclude that the hypothesis is not valid in a given system, should not their conclusions be compatible? We illustrate in this work how the two cultures meet in the physics of ergodicity.