Paper detail

A critical examination of the statistical symmetries admitted by the Lundgren-Monin-Novikov hierarchy of unconfined turbulence

We present a critical examination of the recent article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) which proposes two new statistical symmetries in the classical theory for turbulent hydrodynamic flows. We first show that both symmetries are unphysical in that they induce inconsistencies due to violating the principle of causality. In addition, they must get broken in order to be consistent with all physical constraints naturally arising in the statistical Lundgren-Monin-Novikov (LMN) description of turbulence. As a result, we state that besides the well-known classical symmetries of the LMN equations no new statistical symmetries exist. Yet, aside from this particular issue, the article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) is flawed in more than one respect, ranging from an incomplete proof, to a self-contradicting statement up to an incorrect claim. All these aspects will be listed, discussed and corrected, thus obtaining a completely opposite conclusion in our study than the article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) is proposing.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.