Talk:Vorticity equation

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Derivation

If anyone is interested in creating a wiki page for the derivation of the vorticity equation, I followed the notes given on this page and derived the equation here:

http://earthcubed.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/64/

If you contact me I will supply my Latex code for my wordpress page.

S243a (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)John Creighton[reply]

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia-like reference, not a textbook; and as such it should not include derivations, exercises, or excessive pedagogical explanations. That sort of material should be most useful and welcome at Wikiversity and Wikibooks. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections? [1] M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 08:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equation in the head section

The equation has now been moved back to the head section. The head is supposed to be succint and maximally accessible, but it must contain a definition of the term, not just some general statements about it. Usually mathematical equations should be relegated to the body of the article, but when the article is specifically about an equation, that equation must be given in the head, in order to fulfill that section's only purpose. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect result in introduction

The claim in the introduction that $\left({\frac {d{\vec {w}}}{dt}}\cdot \nabla \right){\vec {v}}$ vanishes is plainly false. In the linked derivation, the author quotes an earlier 'result' of his which relies critically on the following 'fact': If $u(x,y,z)$ is any vector field, then we can write $u(x,y,z)=g(\zeta (x,y,z))$ for some functions $g\colon \mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} ^{3},\zeta \colon \mathbb {R} ^{3}\to \mathbb {R}$ . This obviously false, since, for example, $\zeta$ would have to be a continuous injection from $\mathbb {R} ^{3}$ into $\mathbb {R}$ . A link to the first article is http://www.hrpub.org/download/20131107/UJAM1-12600416.pdf, and the relevant section is titled 'Method of Transformation.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.103.144 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The claim “Incorrect result in introduction” is very important but it is false. As we can see this claim contradicts to well-known rule in different textbooks and Wikipedia “…a vector field on a domain in n-dimensional Euclidean space can be represented as a vector-valued function…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field . Read more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field#Vector_fields_on_subsets_of_Euclidean_space (1.1 Vector fields on subsets of Euclidean space ).

2.This is not a forum for general discussion of the cited article's subject. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the “Vorticity equation” article.

If you want to discuss the subject of article http://www.hrpub.org/download/20131107/UJAM1-12600416.pdf you should go, for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. Also, the general discussion of this article's subject you can organize on any journal’s pages of Cambridge Harvard University (as we can see from your IP). --5.45.192.112 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entry "This 3-D equation can be transformed to the simpler equation.." has been removed because is false in general; more precisely, the general vorticity equation can be reduced in such a way only in the case of planar velocity fields. For an easy proof, see for example page 3 of:

http://web.mit.edu/2.20/www/lectures/Lecture-2014/lecture9-2014.pdf

To improve the content of this page, the above link is now added to the section "Simplifications". Notice that such results come from basic calculus and are not recent at all; therefore, any link to scientific journals should be avoided, being both unnecessary and misleading. Instead, the bibliography of this page probably still lacks a list of good textbooks for a basic introduction to the subject.

After continuation of transformations in http://web.mit.edu/2.20/www/lectures/Lecture-2014/lecture9-2014.pdf you receive this result http://www.hrpub.org/download/20131107/UJAM1-12600416.pdf . For a refutation of this result it is necessary to deny well-known rule in Wikipedia “…a vector field on a domain in n-dimensional Euclidean space can be represented as a vector-valued function…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field . Read more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field#Vector_fields_on_subsets_of_Euclidean_space Therefore I do addition in your revision. --Alexandr (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a phenomenological way of seeing that this claim must be wrong. If the simplifaction was holding in 3D as well it would mean that all turbulence as we know it would have been completely different. In particular, if this simplification was holding, it would mean that the vortices could only be moved around and never change direction (exactly as it is the case in 2D). This is obviously not what is measured in real fluids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldax (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubts demand only visible mathematical proofs or simple mathematical counterexample because we discuss a correctness of the Navier-Stokes exact transformation. --Alexandr (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't spotted yet the mathematical error in your transformation. It is clear that there must be one since the Navier-Stokes equations (and therefore the vorticity equations) reproduce correctly the fluid motion in 2 and 3 dimensions. This great difference is represented by the term you removed by your transformation (as I explained in my previous comment). Until you can explain the physical difference between 2 and 3 dimensional turbulence even without this term I suggest you remove your remark about this term cancelling also in 3D. There are no other option. Either you made a mathematical mistake, either you just claimed that the Navier-Stokes equations cannot reproduce the motion of turbulent flows accurately. I think that the scientific community that has worked on the topic for the last couple of centuries does not believe that the latter is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldax (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanpauldax wrote:

“I haven't spotted yet the mathematical error in your transformation.”

This is very important claim! Mathematicians have not found an error in these transformations too.

“Until you can explain the physical difference between 2 and 3 dimensional turbulence even without this term I suggest you remove your remark about this term cancelling also in 3D.”

In this case explanations without concrete formulas have no sense. While look formulas (6) and (7) in article

“Either you made a mathematical mistake, either you just claimed that the Navier-Stokes equations cannot reproduce the motion of turbulent flows accurately. I think that the scientific community that has worked on the topic for the last couple of centuries does not believe that the latter is true.”

The answer to your comment you can read here: "It is believed, though not known with certainty, that the Navier–Stokes equations describe turbulence properly."[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations#Turbulence --93.74.76.101 (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK leave aside turbulence (since the Navier-Stokes equations are describing turbulent flows so poorly). We do not need turbulent motion to still need a way to stretch and rotate vortices in 3D. These vortices are also present in laminar flows. Are we also not sure that the Navier-Stokes describe correctly laminar Newtonian fluids? Do you have any hint? I think they have proven to be quite robust to testing for the last 200 years or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldax (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr: Please stop this edit war. Your previous attempts at including your clearly erroneous paper on another wikipedia page resulted in the Navier-Stokes_existence_and_smoothness page being semi-protected. I'm certain that if you continue to redo your edits here that this page will be protected soon too. See the discussion at Talk:Navier-Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F, and the edit history of the main article. If you are still convinced of your correctness, you should have your paper reviewed by a reputable journal with non-anonymous reviewers. AndyBloch 07:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBloch (talk • contribs)

AndyBloch! Your refer to another's not proved claim. The mathematical proofs are needed. Show your own proof or at least the proof of another mathematics. Have courage to rely on own mind (Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapere_aude) I suggest please undo your unreasonable revision if you have no the convincing arguments.--Alexandr (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Jeanpauldax! Probably, in these citations you will find some answers to your important remarks:

www.hrpub.org/download/20131107/UJAM1-12600416.pdf Important note (extraordinary). "Formulas (5*) means that we can not receive true solutions of any vector equations without these additional equalities. Therefore all solutions of the NSE and other vector PDE should satisfy these requirements."

http://www.hrpub.org/download/20140205/UJAM3-12601996.pdf "Equations (3**) and (11) in [1] can be used for the checking of so called NSE exact solutions. All true exact solutions of the NSE should satisfy these equations. Otherwise such “NSE exact solutions” are false." --Alexandr (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr: First, even if your paper had no errors, it would be wrong for you to be including it in a wikipedia page for several reasons, some of which were mentioned at Talk:Navier-Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F. Second, as mentioned there also, you misapplied the chain rule in your UJAM1-12600416.pdf paper. Equation (3) is not generally valid. The chain rule only applies to functions which are differentiable at the point(s) where you are taking the differentiation. You have not proven that U(x,y,z) can be be decomposed into the form F(g(x,y,z)) where both F (a vector-valued function) and g (a scalar function) are differentiable. See Chain_rule#Statement. Am I wrong about this? AndyBloch 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBloch (talk • contribs)

Alexandr: I do not see how these references answer my concern. Your aim here is to show that the vorticity equation can be simplified a lot in 3D. I am no mathematician and I think many people more capable than me in mathematics on wikipedia pointed errors in your papers. Here my argument is plain physics. The NS equations are known for describing correctly 3D fluid motion (do you agree? i'm not even talking about turbulent motion here). The term you are removing from the equation is the one responsible for the deformation of vortices due to velocity gradients which is present in nature. If you remove it fluid motion would be completely different and cannot be observed except in 2D limits. Your argument is therefore equivalent than to claim that the NS equations are not reproducing correctly fluid motion (I am not talking about a small difference here, but a fundamental difference). Do you agree with this statement? Is that what you truly believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldax (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To AndyBloch.

1. As you can see Talk:Navier-Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F the main reason (secondary sources) already is eliminated. Formulate please your position about these secondary sources and edit proposed section’s revision (Attempt at solution).

There are other reasons. For example, the "journal" you "published" in is not a reputable journal. They are listed as a predatory publisher. I'm sorry but you've been mislead as to their reputation and you may have been scammed by them. --AndyBloch 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

2. In first my message I already made comments on this remark 140.247.103.144: “ …well-known rule in different textbooks and Wikipedia “…a vector field on a domain in n-dimensional Euclidean space can be represented as a vector-valued function…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field . Read more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field#Vector_fields_on_subsets_of_Euclidean_space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.45.192.109 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that, but that does not have anything to do with the error I've been pointing out. That error is with applying the Chain Rule to functions which are not differentiable. Yes, it is possible to write any vector function U(x,y,z) as a vector function U'(ζ(x,y,z)), where ζ is a scalar function. It's almost trivial to find a function ζ which will always work. For example, ζ(x,y,z) could be composed of the alternating digits of x, y, and z. As an illustration, ζ(1.23, 4.56, 7.89) = 147.258369. (U'(ζ) would then be U(inverse function of ζ).) But this function is not differentiable. It is not always possible to find such functions U' and ζ where both are differentiable. For example, suppose U(x,y,z) = (x,y,0). How would you write that as U'(ζ(x,y,z)), where both functions are differentiable? (Hint: it's not possible. If it was, then R^m and Rⁿ would be homeomorphic even when m ≠ n.) --AndyBloch 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To Jeanpauldax! Thanks for your persistence to get to the truth.

I hope, in these brief notes you will find some answers to your important remarks:

https://www.idmarch.org/document/Navier–Stokes+equations/6LnF-show/Vector+PDE+Paradoxes+Alexandr+Kozachok+Kiev%2C+Ukraine+a-kozachok1%40narod.ru+http%3A++continuum-paradoxes.narod.ru++In+this+paper+the+additional+equalities+%28differ

http://analysis3.com/Helmholtz-decomposition-contradictions-download-w117376.html

--5.45.192.112 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyBloch, you wrote:

1.“…the "journal" you "published" in is not a reputable journal. They are listed as a predatory publisher. I'm sorry but you've been mislead as to their reputation and you may have been scammed by them”

The journal’s reputation is important only for an estimation of difficult mathematical works which are impossible to understand without the experts help. In our case we have two brief articles (3 and 5 pages) which even the student can understand. Do you agree?

(First off, please use indentation with ":" when replying to make the discussion more readable.) The journal's reputation (or, in this case, the lack of a reputation) is important to prevent incorrect results from reducing the value of wikipedia. Essentially, this journal should be considered a self-published source and a questionable source as just about anyone can pay and have a paper published there with minimal review. You are making what seems to be an exceptional claim that also requires multiple exceptional sources, not self-published sources. You claim that even "the student" can understand your papers, but yet you haven't been able to convince anyone on wikipedia, or any expert. AndyBloch 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

2. “…For example, suppose U(x,y,z) = (x,y,0). How would you write that as U'(ζ(x,y,z)), where both functions are differentiable?”

You have paid attention to very important but independent problem. However your example U (x, y, z) = (x, y, 0) is erroneous. Read more https://www.idmarch.org/document/Navier–Stokes+equations/6LnF-show/Vector+PDE+Paradoxes+Alexandr+Kozachok+Kiev%2C+Ukraine+a-kozachok1%40narod.ru+http%3A++continuum-paradoxes.narod.ru++In+this+paper+the+additional+equalities+%28differ

(Addition 15 December 2014)

It is not an "independent" problem. If you can't prove that a differentiable function always exists, then your argument fails. AndyBloch 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

3. “You keep repeating that, but that does not have anything to do with the error I've been pointing out. That error is with applying the Chain Rule to functions which are not differentiable.”

It is independent problem. Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_rule#Absence_of_formulas “It may be possible to apply the chain rule even when there are no formulas for the functions which are being differentiated………”

You are right that the chain rule can be applied if the functions are unknown, but only if it is known that they are differentiable. AndyBloch 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

4. “Yes, it is possible to write any vector function U(x,y,z) as a vector function U'(ζ(x,y,z)), where ζ is a scalar function.”

AndyBloch! This is very important claim! It contradicts the name of this section and refutes the claim of its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.45.192.101 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--93.74.76.101 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this context it is an insufficient and nearly irrelevant claim. That a function can be found does not mean that a differentiable function can be found. It does not contradict the name of this section. The editor who created this section made a mistake but what he wrote was very close to explaining the real error. The fact that he was wrong (slightly) does not make you correct.

Alexandr, please stop reverting my edits. You have already had at least one page locked to prevent you from pushing what seems to be your erroneous papers. Also, you might want to learn what wikipedia considers vandalism before you continue to accuse people of it. AndyBloch 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

AndyBloch! Your comment is only claim. In mathematics the formulas are needed. The expanded proof (by two independent ways!) of main result occupies only one page. Which formula is mistaken? --93.74.76.101 (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr: You continue citing your papers but none of them answers to any of my questions. How do you explain that your "simplified" equations cannot represent fluid mechanics while the complete equation does? I hope you will give me an answer.... But probably you can't otherwise you would already have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpauldax (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Jeanpauldax! You wrote:

“Your argument is therefore equivalent than to claim that the NS equations are not reproducing correctly fluid motion (I am not talking about a small difference here, but a fundamental difference). Do you agree with this statement?”

It is really so! The NS equations are uncompleted as vector system. The complete system (as system for vector field completion)can be written as follows from 3. Complete equations system (eq. 10) https://www.idmarch.org/document/Navier–Stokes+equations/6LnF-show/Vector+PDE+Paradoxes+Alexandr+Kozachok+Kiev%2C+Ukraine+a-kozachok1%40narod.ru+http%3A++continuum-paradoxes.narod.ru++In+this+paper+the+additional+equalities+%28differ

--93.74.76.101 (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In case it matters, the user signing as Alexandr is a well-known mathematics crank on Wikipedia. See, for instance, here, where he claims that the chain rule is wrong and that the Helmholtz decomposition is wrong. Discussion is pointless. Just revert his edits. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our mandate is to write an encyclopedia, not to argue with obvious cranks.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sławomir Biały, You are authoritative Wiki editor. Therefore many readers trust you. However you deceive them. You have written (01:47, 30 December 2014),

“…he claims that the chain rule is wrong”.

But (18:26, 25 March 2012) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2012/Mar#Helmholtz_decomposition_is_wrong you have written:

“Alexandr above claims to have found a counterexample to the chain rule”.

Besides, in the article "Navier –Stokes First Exact Transformation" http://www.hrpub.org/download/20131107/UJAM1-12600416.pdf we can read

“Note that formulas (3*) also well known as chain rule”.

As we can see, your claim is full disinformation.

I wish you a very Happy New Year and ask to begin the fruitful scientific discussion.93.74.76.101 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension mismatch in the equation in the lead.

B in the last term should be divided by $\rho$ . Otherwise this term has a dimension of mass (in addition to length and time), while other terms doesn't.--140.180.241.34 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The equation seems to be unsupported by a reference in either case. We should try to find a reference for it. Sławomir
Biały 11:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation

{{vec}}

Equation in the head section

Incorrect result in introduction

Dimension mismatch in the equation in the lead.