Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2403.13962

What is isotropic turbulence and why is it important?

David McComb
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article begins with an overview, then gives the precise definition of isotropic turbulence, and follows that with the basic conservation equations, in both real space and wavenumber space. These provide the foundations of all theoretical approaches, both fundamental and phenomenological. After that, my intention is to try to highlight the main unresolved issues and give some indication of what progress there has been over decades (in all cases), and what still needs to be done. I should emphasise that I am not trying to provide either a conventional review or even a pedagogical treatment. Instead I am giving concise summaries, supplemented (where I can) by my own observations, which make substantial points that I believe are original, and which have not been made in the literature. To take just one example, it is known by some people that Kolmogorov's 1962 theory is not correctly described as a 'refinement' of his 1941 theory. This was pointed out by Kraichnan in 1974. However, what does not appear to have been recognized is that the 1962 theory is physically invalid, and also that a plausible implementation of it destroys the Kolmogorov (1941) scaling of energy spectra which has been widely observed over many years. This is discussed in Section 4 below. Lastly, I have tried to give an informal treatment in order to make everything easily accessible, to reach the widest possible audience. In particular, the section on renormalization methods is written without giving the equations of the various theories, merely stating in words what has been done, what are the different methods and also what still needs to be done.

Explore related subjects

math-phmath.MPphysics.flu-dyn

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

David McComb. 2024-03-20. What is isotropic turbulence and why is it important?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13962

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↗