Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks

Approach to thermal equilibrium of macroscopic quantum systems

Sheldon Goldstein, Joel L. Lebowitz, Christian Mastrodonato, Roderich Tumulka, Nino Zanghı̀

Published Aug 1, 2025• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1142/9789819819560_0025

Related papers

Typicality of Thermal Equilibrium and Thermalization in Isolated Macroscopic Quantum Systems

Hal Tasaki

arXiv:1507.06479•Journal of Statistical Physics•Apr 12, 2016•88 citations

RETURN TO THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM IN QUANTUM STATISTICAL MECHANICS

Volker Bach

•Apr 1, 2001•1 citation

Macroscopic and microscopic thermal equilibrium

Sheldon Goldstein, David A. Huse, Joel L. Lebowitz +1 more

We study the nature of and approach to thermal equilibrium in isolated quantum systems. An individual isolated macroscopic quantum system in a pure or mixed state is regarded as being in thermal equilibrium if all macroscopic observables assume rather sharply the values obtained from thermodynamics. Of such a system (or state) we say that it is in macroscopic thermal equilibrium (MATE). A stronger requirement than MATE is that even microscopic observables (i.e., ones referring to a small subsystem) have a probability distribution in agreement with that obtained from the micro‐canonical, or equivalently the canonical, ensemble for the whole system. Of such a system we say that it is in microscopic thermal equilibrium (MITE). The distinction between MITE and MATE is particularly relevant for systems with many‐body localization (MBL) for which the energy eigenfuctions fail to be in MITE while necessarily most of them, but not all, are in MATE. However, if we consider superpositions of energy eigenfunctions (i.e., typical wave functions ψ) in an energy shell, then for generic macroscopic systems, including those with MBL, most ψ are in both MATE and MITE. We explore here the properties of MATE and MITE and compare the two notions, thereby elaborating on ideas introduced in . image

arXiv:1610.02312•Annalen der Physik•Feb 9, 2017•45 citations

Thermodynamic Equilibrium of Finite Quantum Systems

J.-B. Bru, W. de Siqueira Pedra

Latin American mathematics series. UFSCar subseries•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Second law of thermodynamics in closed quantum many-body systems

Yuuya Chiba, Yasushi Yoneta, Ryusuke Hamazaki +1 more

The second law of thermodynamics for adiabatic operations -- constraints on state transitions in closed systems under external control -- is one of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics. On the other hand, it is recently established that even pure quantum states can represent thermal equilibrium. However, pure quantum states do not satisfy the second law in that they are not passive, i.e., work can be extracted from them if arbitrary unitary operations are allowed. It therefore remains unresolved how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with thermodynamics. Here, based on our key quantum-mechanical notions of thermal equilibrium and adiabatic operations, we address the emergence of the second law for adiabatic operations in the thermodynamics limit. We first introduce infinite-observable macroscopic thermal equilibrium (iMATE); a quantum state, including pure states, is in iMATE if the expectation values of all additive observables agree with their equilibrium values. We also introduce a macroscopic operation as unitary evolution generated by a time-dependent additive Hamiltonian, which is regarded as corresponding to adiabatic operations. Employing these concepts, we show that no extensive work can be extracted from any quantum state in iMATE through any macroscopic operations. Furthermore, we introduce a quantum-mechanical form of entropy density such that it agrees with thermodynamic entropy density for any quantum state in iMATE. We then prove that for any initial state in iMATE, this entropy density cannot be decreased by any macroscopic operations, followed by a time-independent relaxation process. Our theory thus proves two different forms of the second law, by adopting macroscopically reasonable classes of observables, equilibrium states, and operations. We also discuss the time scales of macroscopic operations in these results.

cond-mat.stat-mechCross-listedarXiv:2602.06657•Feb 9, 2026•0 citations

Thermal Equilibrium of a Macroscopic Quantum System in a Pure State

Sheldon Goldstein, David A. Huse, Joel L. Lebowitz +1 more

We consider the notion of thermal equilibrium for an individual closed macroscopic quantum system in a pure state, i.e., described by a wave function. The macroscopic properties in thermal equilibrium of such a system, determined by its wave function, must be the same as those obtained from thermodynamics, e.g., spatial uniformity of temperature and chemical potential. When this is true we say that the system is in macroscopic thermal equilibrium (MATE). Such a system may, however, not be in microscopic thermal equilibrium (MITE). The latter requires that the reduced density matrices of small subsystems be close to those obtained from the microcanonical, equivalently the canonical, ensemble for the whole system. The distinction between MITE and MATE is particularly relevant for systems with many-body localization for which the energy eigenfuctions fail to be in MITE while necessarily most of them, but not all, are in MATE. We note, however, that for generic macroscopic systems, including those with MBL, most wave functions in an energy shell are in both MATE and MITE. For a classical macroscopic system, MATE holds for most phase points on the energy surface, but MITE fails to hold for any phase point.

arXiv:1506.07494•Physical Review Letters•Sep 4, 2015•58 citations
We study the nature of and approach to thermal equilibrium in isolated quantum systems. An individual isolated macroscopic quantum system in a pure or mixed state is regarded as being in thermal equilibrium if all macroscopic observables assume rather sharply the values obtained from thermodynamics. Of such a system (or state) we say that it is in macroscopic thermal equilibrium (MATE). A stronger requirement than MATE is that even microscopic observables (i.e., ones referring to a small subsystem) have a probability distribution in agreement with that obtained from the micro‐canonical, or equivalently the canonical, ensemble for the whole system. Of such a system we say that it is in microscopic thermal equilibrium (MITE). The distinction between MITE and MATE is particularly relevant for systems with many‐body localization (MBL) for which the energy eigenfuctions fail to be in MITE while necessarily most of them, but not all, are in MATE. However, if we consider superpositions of energy eigenfunctions (i.e., typical wave functions ψ) in an energy shell, then for generic macroscopic systems, including those with MBL, most ψ are in both MATE and MITE. We explore here the properties of MATE and MITE and compare the two notions, thereby elaborating on ideas introduced in . image
The second law of thermodynamics for adiabatic operations -- constraints on state transitions in closed systems under external control -- is one of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics. On the other hand, it is recently established that even pure quantum states can represent thermal equilibrium. However, pure quantum states do not satisfy the second law in that they are not passive, i.e., work can be extracted from them if arbitrary unitary operations are allowed. It therefore remains unresolved how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with thermodynamics. Here, based on our key quantum-mechanical notions of thermal equilibrium and adiabatic operations, we address the emergence of the second law for adiabatic operations in the thermodynamics limit. We first introduce infinite-observable macroscopic thermal equilibrium (iMATE); a quantum state, including pure states, is in iMATE if the expectation values of all additive observables agree with their equilibrium values. We also introduce a macroscopic operation as unitary evolution generated by a time-dependent additive Hamiltonian, which is regarded as corresponding to adiabatic operations. Employing these concepts, we show that no extensive work can be extracted from any quantum state in iMATE through any macroscopic operations. Furthermore, we introduce a quantum-mechanical form of entropy density such that it agrees with thermodynamic entropy density for any quantum state in iMATE. We then prove that for any initial state in iMATE, this entropy density cannot be decreased by any macroscopic operations, followed by a time-independent relaxation process. Our theory thus proves two different forms of the second law, by adopting macroscopically reasonable classes of observables, equilibrium states, and operations. We also discuss the time scales of macroscopic operations in these results.
We consider the notion of thermal equilibrium for an individual closed macroscopic quantum system in a pure state, i.e., described by a wave function. The macroscopic properties in thermal equilibrium of such a system, determined by its wave function, must be the same as those obtained from thermodynamics, e.g., spatial uniformity of temperature and chemical potential. When this is true we say that the system is in macroscopic thermal equilibrium (MATE). Such a system may, however, not be in microscopic thermal equilibrium (MITE). The latter requires that the reduced density matrices of small subsystems be close to those obtained from the microcanonical, equivalently the canonical, ensemble for the whole system. The distinction between MITE and MATE is particularly relevant for systems with many-body localization for which the energy eigenfuctions fail to be in MITE while necessarily most of them, but not all, are in MATE. We note, however, that for generic macroscopic systems, including those with MBL, most wave functions in an energy shell are in both MATE and MITE. For a classical macroscopic system, MATE holds for most phase points on the energy surface, but MITE fails to hold for any phase point.