What follows shall provide an introduction to a predominantly philosophical and polemical, but historically revealing, paper on the foundations of the theory of probability. The leading Russian probabilist Aleksandr Yakovlevich Khinchin wrote the paper in the late 1930s, commenting on a slightly older, but still competing approach to probability theory by Richard von Mises. Together with the even more influential Andrey Nikolayevich Kolmogorov, who was nine years his junior, Khinchin had revolutionized probability theory around 1930 by introducing the (...) modern measure-theoretic approach, which is still standard today and which allowed for a sufficiently general treatment of important new notions such as “stochastic processes.” This development had its first culmination in Kolmogorov's booklet, Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, written in German in 1933, which has exerted an enormous influence world wide. (shrink)

The foundation of statistical mechanics and the explanation of the success of its methods rest on the fact that the theoretical values of physical quantities (phase averages) may be compared with the results of experimental measurements (infinite time averages). In the 1930s, this problem, called the ergodic problem, was dealt with by ergodic theory that tried to resolve the problem by making reference above all to considerations of a dynamic nature. In the present paper, this solution will be analyzed first, (...) highlighting the fact that its very general nature does not duly consider the specificities of the systems of statistical mechanics. Second, Khinchin’s approach will be presented, that starting with more specific assumptions about the nature of systems, achieves an asymptotic version of the result obtained with ergodic theory. Third, the statistical meaning of Khinchin’s approach will be analyzed and a comparison between this and the point of view of ergodic theory is proposed. It will be demonstrated that the difference consists principally of two different perspectives on the ergodic problem: that of ergodic theory puts the state of equilibrium at the center, while Khinchin’s attempts to generalize the result to non-equilibrium states. (shrink)

We propose an "explanation scheme" for why the Gibbs phase average technique in classical equilibrium statistical mechanics works. Our account emphasizes the importance of the Khinchin-Lanford dispersion theorems. We suggest that ergodicity does play a role, but not the one usually assigned to it.

Discussions of the foundations of Classical Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics (SM) typically focus on the problem of justifying the use of a certain probability measure (the microcanonical measure) to compute average values of certain functions. One would like to be able to explain why the equilibrium behavior of a wide variety of distinct systems (different sorts of molecules interacting with different potentials) can be described by the same averaging procedure. A standard approach is to appeal to ergodic theory to justify this (...) choice of measure. A different approach, eschewing ergodicity, was initiated by A. I. Khinchin. Both explanatory programs have been subjected to severe criticisms. This paper argues that the Khinchin type program deserves further attention in light of relatively recent results in understanding the physics of universal behavior. (shrink)

Charlotte Werndl and Roman Frigg discuss the relationship between the Boltzmannian and Gibbsian framework of statistical mechanics, addressing, in particular, the question when equilibrium values calculated in both frameworks agree. This note points out conceptual confusions that could arise from their discussion, concerning, in particular, the authors’ use of “Boltzmann equilibrium.” It also clarifies the status of the Khinchin condition for the equivalence of Boltzmannian and Gibbsian equilibrium predictions and shows that it follows, under the assumptions proposed by Werndl (...) and Frigg, from standard arguments in probability theory. (shrink)

We show that the quantum mechanical rules for manipulating probabilities follow naturally from standard probability theory. We do this by generalizing a result of Khinchin regarding characteristic functions. From standard probability theory we obtain the methods usually associated with quantum theory; that is, the operator method, eigenvalues, the Born rule, and the fact that only the eigenvalues of the operator have nonzero probability. We discuss the general question as to why quantum mechanics seemingly necessitates different methods than standard probability (...) theory and argue that the quantum mechanical method is much richer in its ability to generate a wide variety of probability distributions which are inaccessibe by way of standard probability theory. (shrink)

Boltzmann’s approach to statistical mechanics is widely believed to be conceptually superior to Gibbs’ formulation. However, the microcanonical distribution often fails to behave as expected: The ergodicity of the motion relative to it can rarely be established for realistic systems; worse, it can often be proved to fail. Also, the approach involves idealizations that have little physical basis. Here we take Khinchin’s advice and propose a de…nition of equilibrium that is more realistic: The de…nition re‡ects the fact that the (...) system is made of a great number of particles, and implies that all measurable macroscopic observables have steady values. (shrink)

En mécanique statistique, un système physique est représenté par un système mécanique avec un très grand nombre de degrés de liberté. Ce qui est expérimentalement accessible, croit-on, se limite à des moyennes temporelles sur de longues périodes. Or, il est bien connu qu’un système physique tend vers un équilibre thermodynamique. Ainsi, les moyennes temporelles censées représenter les résultats de mesure doivent être indépendantes du temps. C’est pourquoi elles sont associées à des temps infinis. Ces moyennes sont par contre difficilement analysables, (...) et c’est pourquoi la moyenne des phases est utilisée. La justification de l’égalité de la moyenne temporelle infinie et de la moyenne des phases est le problème ergodique. Ce problème, sous une forme ou une autre, a fait l’objet d’études de la part de Boltzmann, les Ehrenfest, Birkhoff, Khinchin, et bien d’autres, jusqu’à devenir une théorie à part entière en mathématique. Mais l’introduction de temps infinis pose des problèmes physiques et philosophiques d’importance. En effet, si l’infini a su trouver une nouvelle place dans les mathématiques cantoriennes, sa place en physique n’est pas aussi assurée. Je propose donc de présenter les développements conceptuels entourant la théorie ergodique en mécanique statistique avant de me concentrer sur les problèmes épistémologiques que soulève la notion d’infini dans ces mêmes développements. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Werndl and Frigg discuss the relationship between the Boltzmannian and Gibbsian framework of statistical mechanics, addressing in particular the question when equilibrium values calculated in both frameworks coincide. In this comment, I point out serious flaws in their work and try to put their results into proper context. I also clarify the concept of Boltzmann equilibrium, the status of the "Khinchin condition" and their connection to the law of large numbers.

In the Soviet scientific literature of 1920‒30 the concept of probability was holly debated. The frequency concept which was proposed by R. von Mises became popular among Soviet physicists belonging to the L.I. Mandelstam community. Landau and Lifshitz were also close to this concept in their famous course of theoretical physics. A.Khinchin, a mathematician who cooperated with Kolmogorov, opposed to the frequency conception. In this paper we try to demonstrate that the frequency position was connected with the anthropomorphous approach (...) to physics, whereas Khinchin’s positions implied the criticism of anthropomorphism and put forward the ideal of objective knowledge. (shrink)