Inviscid evolution of a uniform vortex dipole in a strain field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competing models employing anti-parallel vortex collision in search of a finite-time singularity of Euler's equation have arisen recently. Both the vortex sheet model proposed by Brenner et al. (Phys. Rev. Fluids, vol. 1, 2016, 084503) and the ‘tent’ model proposed by Moffatt & Kimura (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 861, 2019, pp. 930–967) consider a vortex monopole exposed to a strain flow to model the evolution of interacting anti-parallel vortices, a fundamental element in the turbulent cascade. Herein we employ contour dynamics to explore the inviscid evolution of a vortex dipole subjected to an external strain flow with and without axial stretching. We find that for any strain-to-vorticity ratio $\mathcal {E}$ , the constituent vortices compress indefinitely, with weaker strain flows causing flattening to occur more slowly. At low $\mathcal {E}$ , the vortex dipole forms the well-documented head–tail structure, whereas increasing $\mathcal {E}$ results in the dipole compressing into a pair of vortex sheets with no appreciable head structure. Axial stretching effectively lowers $\mathcal {E}$ dynamically throughout the evolution, thus delaying the transition from the head–tail regime to the vortex sheet regime to higher strain-to-vorticity ratios. Findings from this study offer a bridge between the two cascade models, with the particular mechanism arising depending on $\mathcal {E}$ . It also suggests limits for the ‘tent’ model for a finite-time singularity, wherein the curvature-induced strain flow must be very weak in comparison with the vorticity density-driven mutual attraction such that the convective time scale of the evolution exceeds the core flattening time scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".