Live data from Hacker News

Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

quantamagazine.org

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#11

Summary: Navier-Stokes cannot translate to Boltzmann, because Navier-Stokes is incomplete... ...and even the best candidate to replace it fails at extremely low pressures. This is very, very exciting, because it means our theoretical understanding of fluid dynamics is flawed. Flawed theory often (usually?) leads to radical rethink and wildly different perspectives.

Declaring our theoretical understanding of fluid dynamics flawed because Navier-Stokes requires the continuum assumption strikes me as being similar to declaring General Relativity flawed because it fails to include quantum theory. Navier-Stokes and General Relativty are incomplete, yes, but they are remarkably accurate and useful over the range for which their governing assumptions hold—we have complementary theories that operate over ranges for which the governing assumptions for NS and GR no longer apply.

Aesthetically, it would be lovely to have a master equation that works from the molecular scale up to the bulk scale. Practically, that master equation would likely reduce into the familiar forms that are presently used.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#12

> He began by rewriting the complicated Boltzmann equation as the sum of a series of decreasing terms. Theoretically, this chunky decomposition of the equation would be more easily recognizable as a different, but axiomatically equivalent, physical description of a gas — perhaps, a fluid description. The terms in the series quickly become unruly, however; energy, instead of diminishing at shorter and shorter distance…

The issue isn't that an infinite sum of tiny terms don't converge -- the issue is that individual terms of perturbation theory diverge. An example can be found in J. Chem. Phys. 112, 2000, 9736-9748 "Divergence in Moller--Plesset Theory: A Simple Explanation Based on a Two-State Model" DOI 10.1063/1.481611 (Note that this is specifically in reference to Moller--Plesset Perturbation Theory, but the divergence is a general phenomenon)

I'm not saying that all perturbation theories diverge. Moller--Plesset perturbation theory doesn't even always diverge. But the divergence behaviour is not in the form of an infinite sum of tiny terms being infinite, but rather the individual terms of the perturbation theory increasing without bound (and oscillating sign).

Also note that it is possible for truncations of perturbation theory to diverge with increasing order, but for the infinite sum of all (divergent) PT terms to converge and be finite.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#13

Summary: Navier-Stokes cannot translate to Boltzmann, because Navier-Stokes is incomplete... ...and even the best candidate to replace it fails at extremely low pressures. This is very, very exciting, because it means our theoretical understanding of fluid dynamics is flawed. Flawed theory often (usually?) leads to radical rethink and wildly different perspectives.

flawed is what scientific journalism would say.

everyone that deals with fluids know that the tools are mostly Balance Equations and such. i.e. good enough to predict everything mostly right.

everyone know none of it is complete... or elegant.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#14
post #3

If you are interested in some of the details: The Navier-Stokes equations can be derived from the Boltzmann equation by applying a slight perturbation, expanding the result as a series, and taking the moments. Taking the moments is essentially an integration, which comes with the implicit assumption that the system you're describing has sufficiently many particles. When running low on particles, this integration does…

When I saw this derivation during a course Theoretical Astrophysics it was indeed very enlightening, what is interesting is that it easily generalises to magneto hydrodynamics and other more complicated situations (mixture of multiple different fluids, fluids that react with each other etc.). I believe Landau Lifshitz contains some of them.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#17
post #4

Summary: Navier-Stokes cannot translate to Boltzmann, because Navier-Stokes is incomplete... ...and even the best candidate to replace it fails at extremely low pressures. This is very, very exciting, because it means our theoretical understanding of fluid dynamics is flawed. Flawed theory often (usually?) leads to radical rethink and wildly different perspectives.

I never thought about this before reading the article but now it seems pretty obvious to me that both descriptions can not yield the same results under all circumstances. The Navier–Stokes equations are based on quantities like density and flow velocity which are only really meaningful if you have sufficiently many particles to average about. In consequence I am hardly surprised that one gets disagreeing results unde…

I think it's not that obvious. For example, Maxwell's equations represent essentially a complete description of classical electrodynamics. Even though in most formulations it involves densities, it will work fine for point-like charges where the density is singular but integrable. Of course, when QM comes in the theory expands to quantum electrodynamics (QED), but Maxwell's equations match very well (exactly for linear media?) the quantum mechanical predictions when you average the probabilities.

It sounds reasonable to expect a fluid theory that explains well macroscopic phenomena, even if the fluid really is granular, where we could hope the approximation would hold on average or something like that. But apparently it turns out that N-S doesn't model important qualitatively distinct phenomena.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#18
The best commentary I have seen on the article comes from a coworker, who took the time to dissect why the conclusion from this article is not surprising:

The notion of a fluid is more generally related to the concept of a continuum which allows for the PDE description the Navier-Stokes equations offer. It is taken for granted that density or velocity are point-quantities in space, but there can be no such simplifying description in rarefied situations or more precisely when the Knudsen number is not small. Batchelor 1967 has a good discussion on this. In addition the notion of viscosity which relies on writing the deviatoric stress as proportional to the gradient in velocity relies on dropping the higher order terms in the velocity gradient Maclaurin series assuming they are small (which they usually are for very small Knudsen number).A Boltzmann-like description will always be more general because it is a pdf-based description which is really just fancy counting and doesn't have the Knudsen number limitation. Therefore calling the Navier-Stokes equations incomplete is a bit imprecise. It would be more accurate to say that the labels (fluid, material, continuum) are great simplifications which are incredibly useful when they apply.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#19
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never thought about this before reading the article but now it seems pretty obvious to me that both descriptions can not yield the same results under all circumstances. The Navier–Stokes equations are based on quantities like density and flow velocity which are only really meaningful if you have sufficiently many particles to average about. In consequence I am hardly surprised that one gets disagreeing results unde…

I'm also quite surprised that this article tries to spin it as very novel. We've known this for literally a hundred years. Moreover, there's no mention of the pioneers in the field - Chapman, Engskog, Burnett, Knudsen, etc - much to my dismay. The recommendation is for major revisions including a detailed literature review.

I was also dismayed when they referred to KdV (Korteweg de Vries) theory as a "relatively unheralded" theory. KdV theory is an incredibly well known and thoroughly studied area of Mathematics.

Re: Famous Fluid Equations Are Incomplete

#20
Some thoughts: expansion-in-series-based methods (including Hilbert's, which is not used in practice) and the Chapman-Enskog method work only for moderately rarefied gas flows (where you can neglect higher-order collisions; this can be derived explicitly using the BBGKY hierarchy). Also, since the Chapman-Enskog method is asymptotic, it is not guaranteed that higher-order equations (inviscid Euler equations being the zero-order equations and Navier-Stokes equations being the first-order equations) will provide an accurate description of flows. Indeed, the second-order equations (Burnett and super-Burnett equations) seem to fail in some cases, while providing more correct results in others. But given the complexity of the equations themselves and the complexity of the boundary conditions, no one really uses them. The cool thing about the Chapman-Enskog method is that it gives a closed set of equations, so you don't need empirical models for heat conductivity, viscosity, etc.

That's the first point – that methods depending on series decomposition might never guarantee a solution that's accurate in all cases. There are also moment-based methods (Grad's method, for example, being one of the most famous), which have additional equations for parts of the stress tensor (I think; never really read much about them). The second point is that the equations correspond to conservation laws: mass, linear momentum, energy. The equation corresponding to the conservation of angular momentum is usually neglected: the terms related to internal angular momenta of particles are considered to cancel each other out (which seems logical, since unless there's some magnetization happening, the particles will be chaotically oriented and the average of the angular momentum will be 0), and in that case, the equation is satisfied since it just follows from the equation corresponding to the conservation of linear momentum. However, there's been some research recently on whether this equation can actually be neglected and what implications it carries, whether it's connected to turbulence or some other effects.

The third point is that in high-altitude hypersonic flows, there are far more complex effects going on in flows that just simple collisions between particles – there are transitions of internal energy (which is a quantity described by quantum mechanics), chemical reactions (dissociation, exchange reactions), and this all complicates the Navier-Stokes equations – additional terms appear (bulk viscosity, relaxation terms, relaxation pressure). And correct modelling of these terms requires solving large linear systems with quite complex coefficients, and to complicate things further, for many of the processes mentioned, there aren't any easy or even correct models (to take into account dissociation, for example, you need to know the cross-section of the reaction for each vibrational level of each molecular species involved in the flow), since these models are either computed via quantum mechanics (which takes enormous amounts of computational power) or are obtained experimentally (which limits the range of conditions under which the results are obtained).

DSMC methods have being increasingly popular as of late, but of course, they can't provide theoretical results, while it is possible to observe some interesting effects even in theory using the Chapman-Enskog method.

So the problem is not only getting more "correct" equations, it's also being able to correctly model everything that goes into the equations we currently have, and then being able to solve them (for a simple flow of a N2/N mixture, if you use a detailed description of the flow, you get a system of 51 PDEs). And in engineering applications drastically over-simplified models are often used, and yet it's not like every high-altitude air/space-craft has burned to a crisp because of this. While new, "more correct" equations are interesting, of course, there's enough work to be done with the current ones.

Source: I do theoretical research and numeric computations of rarefied gas flows for a living (at the Saint-Petersburg State University).

Post reply on HN