Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1405.2472

Biot-Savart helicity versus physical helicity: A topological description of ideal flows

Taliya Sahihi·Homayoon Eshraghi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

For an isentropic (thus compressible) flow, fluid trajectories are considered as orbits of a family of one parameter, smooth, orientation preserving and nonsingular diffeomorphisms on a compact and smooth-boundary domain in the Euclidian 3-space which necessarily preserve a finite measure, later interpreted as the fluid mass. Under such diffeomorphisms the Biot-Savart helicity of the pushforward of a divergence-free and tangent to the boundary vector field is proved to be conserved and since these circumstances present an isentropic flow, the conservation of the "Biot-Savart helicity" is established for such flows. On the other hand, the well known helicity conservation in ideal flows which here we call it "physical helicity" is found to be an independent constant with respect to the Biot-Savart helicity. The difference between these two helicities reflects some topological features of the domain as well as the velocity and vorticity fields which is discussed and is shown for simply connected domains the two helicities coincide. The energy variation of the vorticity field is shown to be formally the same as for the incompressible flow obtained before. For fluid domains consisting of several disjoint solid tori, at each time, the harmonic knot subspace of smooth vector fields on the fluid domain is found to have two independent base sets with a special type of orthogonality between these two bases by which a topological description of the vortex and velocity fields depending on the helicity difference is achieved since this difference is shown to depend only on the harmonic knot parts of velocity, vorticity and its Biot-Savart vector field. For an ideal MHD flow three independent constant helicities are reviewed while the helicity of magnetic potential is generalized for non-simply connected domains by inserting a special harmonic knot field in the dynamics of the magnetic potential.

Explore related subjects

math-phmath.MPphysics.flu-dyn

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Taliya Sahihi, Homayoon Eshraghi. 2014-05-10. Biot-Savart helicity versus physical helicity: A topological description of ideal flows. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4889935

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Why we should condition denoising diffusion generative models on windows of past observations

Data assimilation (DA) is, traditionally, a cycling process that relies on time-dependent priors to propagate information from past observations to future cycles. Using denoising diffusion generative modeling for DA is challenging because standard approaches use a fixed training data set, which in turn leads to a static prior that ignores information from past observations. Because past observations are ignored, DA systems with static priors lead to larger posterior errors than cycling DA systems. Incorporating time-dependent priors into generative models, however, requires expensive and frequent retraining. Motivated by linear systems theory - where the dependence of a prediction of a Kalman filter on past observations decays exponentially - we condition diffusion models on short windows of past observations. Specifically, we describe training procedures for two frameworks: a diffusion DA system predicting the current state given a set of past observations, and a diffusion ``direct observation prediction'' (DOP) system, predicting future observations given a set of past observations. Using a canonical linear system, we show that both systems can achieve the minimal posterior error characteristic of a fully-cycled DA/DOP system, without re-training, provided the time windows are long enough. The linear setup ensures analytical tractability, avoids confounding neural network training errors, and confirms that conditioning on windows of past observations is required for efficient and accurate diffusion-based DA or DOP.

math-ph↗
arXiv2026

The kinematic structures and the inertial geometry of a moving charge

We ask how much of the geometry a charged particle moves in is fixed by its motion, and how much a particle must bring. We ask of a symplectic structure only that it relate velocity to momentum as Hamilton's equations do, and we ask it of every energy at once. In particular, we show that the structures meeting that demand are the canonical one and its twists by a closed two-form of the base. A field provides the two-form, a particle the multiplier before it, which we identify constitutively with its charge. Thus, a single energy governs a family of structures, and each particle takes the one its charge fixes. We then ask what a particle must bring to be given a momentum, and we show that the degree of that map settles the degree at which a field enters Newton's Second Law. An antisymmetric bilinear form returns no Lorentz force, whilst a Randers metric returns one --- a length whose difference from a Riemannian one is linear in the velocity. Moreover, we find that metric already within the twisted structure, as its primitive over a level of the free energy, and its law of transport to be nonlinear, no affine connection being known to serve. Under an indefinite signature the length parts from the dynamics, and the extremals turn from shortest to longest. On the round sphere a monopole flux leaves no such metric, whilst the transport remains and prequantisation, given a unit of action, restricts the charge to a lattice. In this manner, we conclude that each charge-to-mass ratio receives a geometry of its own, so that by a functionalist criterion none of them is the spacetime of a charged particle.

math-ph↗