MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405652092 · doi:10.31224/7241

Investigating the Mathematical Foundations of the Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations

2024· article· en· W4405652092 on OpenAlexaff
Zaki Harari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNavier-Stokes equation solutions
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuler equationsEuler's formulaNavier–Stokes equationsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMechanicsMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisCompressibility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the mathematical foundations of the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics, identifying some inconsistencies in the mathematical definitions of flow velocity and the material derivative. We show that the flow velocity of a fluid parcel, which in the Lagrangian description is traditionally modeled as a bivariate function of the presumed independent variables of initial parcel position and time, is more accurately defined as a parametric function of time, with the initial parcel position treated as a time-dependent parameter. This finding leads to the result that the standard form of the material derivative in the Lagrangian description is mathematically inconsistent. We also show that if the fluid flow is non-unidirectional, then the map from parcel position to flow velocity becomes a one-to-many map, leading to the conclusion that the flow velocity is not a valid mathematical function of position in both the Lagrangian and Eulerian descriptions under such conditions. Therefore, if flow velocity is not a valid mathematical function of position, we conclude that the inability to integrate the Euler and Navier-Stokes differential equations in the spatial domain implies the nonexistence of a mathematical solution of these equations under these conditions. Additionally, through mathematical and theoretical analysis, supported by experimental and numerical simulations, we uncover challenges in the material consistency of the definition of the material derivative in the Eulerian description. This inconsistency leads to a decoupling between the Lagrangian and Eulerian descriptions, especially under complex non-unidirectional flow conditions and multi-directional flows with intersecting pathlines. We also show that the Eulerian description is a quasi-continuum mechanics model that, when applied to certain fluids, especially gases and low-viscosity liquids where intermolecular forces are weak or intermediate, limits the ability to accurately model the bi-directional transmission of deformation and force continuously between neighboring parcels. While the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations remain largely valid and effective for modeling unidirectional flows in viscous fluids, our findings suggest the need to refocus on developing fluid dynamics solutions rooted in the Lagrangian model to more accurately capture complex flow behaviors and improve applicability across fields such as atmospheric sciences, oceanography, and plasma physics. These insights aim to advance our understanding of the limits of existing fluid dynamics models by addressing foundational inconsistencies, the understanding of which can contribute to refining these mathematical models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNavier-Stokes equation solutionsFrench-language works237,207