Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:44:59.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: Malament and Zabell on Gibbs Phase Averaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Stephen Leeds*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Colorado at Boulder

Abstract

In their paper “Why Gibbs Phase Averages Work—The Role of Ergodic Theory” (1980), David Malament and Sandy Zabell attempt to explain why phase averaging over the microcanonical ensemble gives correct predictions for the values of thermodynamic observables, for an ergodic system at equilibrium. Their idea is to bypass the traditional use of limit theorems, by relying on a uniqueness result about the microcanonical measure—namely, that it is uniquely stationary translation-continuous. I argue that their explanation begs questions about the relationship between thermodynamic equilibrium and statistical equilibrium; I argue in addition that any account which supports their view of the relationship between these two notions of equilibrium will likely use the limit theorems in traditional ways, and thereby bypass the explanation they offer.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This revision of an earlier paper owes much to the criticisms of Geoffrey Hellman.

References

REFERENCES

Farquhar, I. E. (1964), Ergodic Theory in Statistical Mechanics. London and New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Malament, D., and Zabell, S. (1980), Why Gibbs Phase Averages Work—The Role of Ergodic Theory“, Philosophy of Science 47: 339349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, L. (1978), “Comments”, in P. D. Asquith and I. Hacking (eds.), PSA 1978, vol. 2. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 188193.Google Scholar