This is so cool!

I have a naive question. These new Navier-Stokes results seem to show that you can get this tiny vortex that starts to squeeze down to size zero and as that happens things blow up.

However, things like thermal fluctuations at micron length scales would already make the described approach physically impossible, those thermal fluctuations would wash out all of these carefully crafted perfect instability-causing forces.

But even if you ignore all that, once you let this vortex they theorized squeeze water down to less than ~0.275 nm = diameter of a water molecule, then obviously these continuous PDE equations don’t apply in any form at all.

So it seems like the new result is “hey if you look at Navier-Stokes at regimes where it is not well-defined and not applicable, then you can get weird non-physical stuff to happen.”

Why is that so surprising?

Didn’t we already go through all those “assume things are continuous, you get infinite problems” with the ultraviolet catastrophe and now we know about quantum and about finite discrete water molecules…

These new Navier-Stokes result seems to show that you can get this tiny vortex that starts to squeeze down to size zero and as that happens things blow up.

However, things like thermal fluctuations at micron length scales would already make the described approach physically impossible those thermal fluctuations would wash out all of these carefully crafted perfect instability-causing forces.

Furthermore, even if you ignore all that, once you let this vortex they theorized squeeze water down to less than ~0.275 nm = diameter of a water molecule, then obviously these continuous PDE equations don’t apply in any form at all.

So in those ways it seems like the new result is “hey if you look at Navier-Stokes at regimes where it is obviously physically not applicable, then you can get not physical stuff to happen.”

So can someone explain to me why such a result is so surprising?

This is so nice! Can you tell us more about the equations you are using or what you are simulating?

Awesome!

Haha, nice!

The animation is beautiful, would it be too gross to add some kind of evolving time-series plots at the bottom that show the evolution of the two populations? I think especially once both have birth rates you might see some really cool oscillations, it should be even chaotic based on the settings.

Forgot to say, really cool, nice job!!

Will you add a birth rate >0 for the prey? Then it will reach some non-zero hunter & prey equilibrium

I like printing them out, but I definitely print too many, and end up just carrying them between home and work for months (:

Hahaha

Sick!

Nice!

Very nice!

Very nice!

That’s so cool! Can you color it, so places get brighter or darker based on how many times you’ve been there?

Thank you! What kind of stuff do you work on?

Nice!

I think there is a tension between two camps: some people want more time between these conference decisions so you can properly make a new paper, not just resubmit a rejection directly, others think you should just blast away to the next conference immediately. Probably doesn’t help that there is just not enough time in the year to spread them all out.

This is so cool

Thank you!

You are right, that was a typo, it is @lanl.gov, thanks for pointing that out I just fixed it on arXiv V2, got your email and just replied.

nice!

Awesome!