Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Experimental and theoretical evidence of universality in superfluid vortex reconnections

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Vortex reconnections in superfluid helium follow the same δ∝(κ|t−t0|)^(1/2) law at every temperature, with a temperature-dependent approach rate and a temperature-independent separation rate; each event also injects energy into the normal…

desk verdict Solid, well-benchmarked numerics on finite-temperature reconnection prefactors; the energy-injection claim is new but rests on an under-disclosed reconnection algorithm, and the experimental support is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08942 v2 pith:BJEOJRG2 submitted 2024-11-13 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.othercond-mat.supr-conphysics.flu-dyn

Piotr Z. Stasiak , Yiming Xing , Yousef Alihosseini , Carlo F. Barenghi , Andrew Baggaley , Wei Guo , Luca Galantucci , Giorgio Krstulovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.othercond-mat.supr-conphysics.flu-dyn
keywords superfluidheliumvortexreconnectionquantumturbulencescalinglawmutualfrictionnormalfluidirreversibilityfilamentmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the minimum distance between two reconnecting superfluid vortices obeys a universal time scaling law, δ±(t) = A±(κ|t−t0|)^(1/2), with different dimensionless prefactors before and after the reconnection. Combining particle-tracer experiments at 1.65 K and 2 K with two-fluid simulations at 0 K, 1.9 K, and 2.1 K, the authors find that the approach prefactor A− clearly depends on temperature while the separation prefactor A+ does not, and that A+ > A− at all temperatures. They also report that each reconnection injects a burst of energy into the normal fluid comparable to the continuous mutual-friction transfer during the approach, which could keep the normal fluid perturbed in sufficiently dense vortex tangles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the separation scaling law δ±(t) = A±(κ|t−t0|)^(1/2) for the minimum distance between reconnecting vortex lines, with dimensionless prefactors A− (approach, t < t0) and A+ (separation, t > t0). The argument is carried by a coupled two-fluid simulation: superfluid vortex lines are thin curves moving under the Biot-Savart velocity plus temperature-dependent mutual friction, while the normal fluid obeys incompressible Navier-Stokes with a back-reaction friction force; reconnections are imposed by an ad hoc reconnection algorithm that deletes a small length of vortex line. The prefactors are extracted from linear fits to $δ^{2}$(t) over ensembles of 49 Hopf-link and 12 oblique-ring collisions at 0 K, 1.9 K, and 2.1 K, and compared with particle-tracer experiments at 1.65 K and 2 K.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to measure A+ and A− from reconnecting vortices in superfluid helium at several temperatures between 1.65 K and 2.1 K with sub-millisecond time resolution: if A+ changes with temperature as much as A− does, or if a regime with A+ < A− appears, the claimed temperature-independent separation and universal irreversibility collapse. A second check is to rerun the vortex-filament simulations with two different reconnection algorithms (different deletion lengths and reconstruction rules) and compare the resulting A± and energy jumps with the experimental spread.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the universal reconnection law δ± = A±(κ|t−t0|)^(1/2) holds across the temperature range of superfluid helium, with a clean split between approach and separation: A− depends on temperature while A+ does not, and A+ is always larger than A−. This asymmetry appears in experimental trajectories of tracer particles trapped on vortices at 1.65 K and 2 K, in the two-fluid simulations at 0 K, 1.9 K, and 2.1 K, and in earlier results for zero-temperature condensates and classical viscous fluids, so the authors conclude the asymmetry is universal and tied to irreversible vortex energy loss rather than to the small-scale regularisation mechanism. A second numerical result is that each reconnection suddenly raises the normal-fluid kinetic energy by a few percent, an amount comparable to the continuous energy transferred by mutual friction while the vortices approach; this energy jump decreases as A+/A− increases. For turbulent tangles, the authors argue that if the vortex line density is above roughly $10^{7}$ to $10^{8}$ m^−2, reconnection events occur faster than the normal fluid relaxes, so the normal fluid can be kept in a perturbed state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ad hoc vortex reconnection algorithm used in the vortex-filament model reproduces the true microscopic reconnection dynamics closely enough that its timing, cusp shape, and length deletion determine the measured prefactors A± and the normal-fluid energy jump; the zero-temperature comparison against mean-field simulations validates only part of this, and the algorithm's parameters are not disclosed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Universal irreversibility across fluid types: A+ > A− holds for superfluid helium at 0–2.1 K, for finite-temperature condensates, and for classical viscous fluids, so the asymmetry is a robust feature of vortex reconnection rather than a small-scale regularisation effect.
  • A− as a temperature probe: the approach prefactor's clear temperature dependence, independent of geometry, gives experimentalists a measurable quantity that responds to the normal-fluid fraction.
  • Punctuated energy channel: each reconnection injects a burst of energy into the normal fluid comparable to the continuous mutual-friction transfer during approach, so reconnections cannot be ignored in the energy budget of two-fluid turbulence.
  • Turbulence maintenance threshold: if vortex line density exceeds roughly 10^7–10^8 m^−2, reconnection-driven injections occur faster than the normal fluid relaxes, sustaining a perturbed normal-fluid state.
  • Distinct loss physics at T=0 and T>0: the energy injected into the normal fluid decreases with A+/A− while the zero-temperature sound emission increases with A+/A−, pointing to different dissipation mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If A+ is genuinely temperature-independent, one can predict that the post-reconnection separation is governed by quantized circulation and local geometry alone, so the same A+ value should appear in experiments with different mutual-friction strengths; a direct test would be to measure A+ at temperatures between 1.65 K and 2.1 K with higher time resolution.
  • The temperature dependence of A− suggests a way to infer local normal-fluid properties from vortex trajectories in experiments, since the approach rate responds to the normal-fluid fraction.
  • The energy-injection mechanism implies a feedback loop: more reconnections stir or heat the normal fluid, which changes mutual friction, which changes reconnection dynamics; one can test whether vortex line density and normal-fluid fluctuations grow together in a closed cell.
  • The contrasting behaviour of zero-temperature energy loss and finite-temperature normal-fluid energy as functions of A+/A− suggests a unified model that includes both quantum pressure and mutual friction could predict the crossover between the two regimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports experimental particle-tracking observations and numerical simulations of vortex reconnections in superfluid 4He, testing the universal scaling δ±=A±(κ|t−t0|)^{1/2} at finite temperature. Using a coupled vortex-filament/normal-fluid Navier–Stokes model, the authors find A+>A− at all temperatures studied, with A− decreasing as temperature increases and A+ approximately temperature-independent. They also report a sudden injection of normal-fluid kinetic energy at reconnection and estimate a line-density threshold above which such injections maintain the normal fluid in a perturbed state. Experimental data at 1.65 K and 2 K support the asymmetry, and the T=0 numerical values of A− agree with GPE and analytic results.

Significance. If the finite-temperature results hold, the paper extends the universality of vortex-reconnection scaling beyond T=0 and identifies punctuated energy injection as a potentially important mechanism in quantum turbulence. The strengths are the large simulation campaign (49 Hopf-link and 12 ring-collision configurations per temperature), the two-way coupling between vortex lines and a resolved normal fluid, and the T=0 benchmark of length loss against Gross–Pitaevskii simulations. The manuscript is also honest in the SM about the ad hoc nature of the reconnection algorithm. However, the experimental evidence for the temperature trend rests on two complete reconnection events without quoted uncertainties, and the finite-temperature predictions depend on an undisclosed reconnection algorithm; these points need to be addressed before the universality claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Scaling law / Experimental Method] The experimental support for the central temperature dependence of A− rests on only two complete reconnection events (orange triangles in Fig. 2b, at 1.65 K and 2 K), and no uncertainty estimates are reported for either A+ or A−. The six additional observations constrain only A+ and show a wide range (1.2–4.2), so they do not corroborate the A− trend. Please provide measurement uncertainties propagated from the particle-position tracking, the number of independent events, and a statistical statement; without this, the claim in the abstract that experiments determine the temperature dependence of the prefactors is not established.
  2. [Numerical Method / SM Appendix B] The vortex-filament model uses a reconnection algorithm that is called 'standard' in the main text and 'ad hoc' in the SM, and its parameters are not disclosed: the reconnection distance threshold, the line-point redistribution rule, and the length-deletion procedure are all absent. The finite-temperature prefactors A± in Fig. 2 and the normal-fluid energy jump ΔEn in Figs. 3–4 are extracted from the same discrete trajectories, and the energy jump is attributed to the curvature spike created at the reconnection cusp. The T=0 comparison of ΔL/L0 with GPE (Fig. 4) validates only the net removed length, not the timing or cusp shape that determines the mutual-friction force. Please specify the algorithm parameters and report sensitivity tests (e.g., varying the reconnection threshold and discretization Δξ, and comparing A± and ΔEn with GPE at T=0 for the same initial geometries).
  3. [Energy injection / Implications for turbulence] The claim that each reconnection injects about 5% of the normal-fluid kinetic energy is based on selected Hopf-link runs with the minimum and maximum A+/A− (black diamonds in Fig. 3), and no convergence study is shown for the energy jump with respect to spatial resolution or timestep. Since the turbulence threshold L≈10^7–10^8 m^-2 in the Implications section is derived from the relaxation time of this injected energy, the threshold inherits the same sensitivity. Please show that ΔEn/E0n is converged and indicate how representative the two displayed cases are within the 49-realization ensemble.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The caption contains the typo 'TThe' at the end; the axis labels also appear with garbled symbols (e.g., '5(t!t0)=62') and should be typeset correctly.
  2. [SM Appendix B] There are typos in the SM, including 'accurately interept' and 'fricition coefficients'; these should be corrected.
  3. [References] Reference [28] is incomplete: 'R. S, Self-similar vortex reconnection' lacks the full author name; please complete it.
  4. [Introduction / Numerical Method] The sentence describing the experimental conditions contains a parenthetical justification 'this is also supported by the scaling symmetry of the system which allows to draw conclusion for length-scales relevant to experiments'; the argument is not explained and should either be expanded or removed.
  5. [Scaling law] The fitting range used to extract A± ('the shaded region of the figure') is not specified precisely; please define the time interval in units of κ(t−t0)/λ^2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the A± prefactors are measured outputs, the T=0 GPE comparison is an external benchmark, and the ad hoc reconnection model is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The central claims are the temperature dependence of the prefactors A± in δ±(t) = A±(κ|t − t0|)^{1/2} and the punctuated normal-fluid energy injection at reconnection. Neither is derived by assuming the conclusion. The scaling law is not imposed; it is verified by fitting slopes to experimental and simulated δ²(t) data (Appendix A and Fig. 2). The T=0 vortex-filament results are compared with independent GPE simulations [11] and analytic calculations [27,28], providing external benchmarks. The finite-temperature energy injection is computed from the coupled vortex-filament/Navier–Stokes model and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. There are same-group citations — notably Refs. [16,17] for the coupling framework and Ref. [25] for the reconnection algorithm — but they do not presuppose the reported A± values or the energy-jump magnitude. The paper openly states in the Supplementary Material that the reconnection procedure is an 'ad hoc vortex reconnection algorithm' because 'there is currently a lack of a well-defined theory of vortex reconnections in superfluid helium,' and it validates the model's T=0 length-loss behavior against GPE. Whether that algorithm faithfully represents true finite-temperature reconnection dynamics is a legitimate correctness and robustness concern, but it is not circularity: the outputs do not reduce by definition to the inputs, and the experimental A± values provide independent confirmation of the main scaling trends.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on five explicit or implicit modeling assumptions and two numerical parameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The ad hoc reconnection algorithm and the mutual-friction force law are the most influential choices for the reported prefactors and energy injection.

free parameters (2)
  • Reconnection algorithm parameters (e.g., reconnection distance threshold, point redistribution and length-deletion… = Not disclosed
    The vortex-filament simulations use an ad hoc reconnection algorithm cited to Ref. [25]; its specific rules determine the cusp geometry, the post-reconnection trajectory (A+), and the energy jump. The paper does not list the parameter values or a sensitivity study, so these are hidden free parameters of the model.
  • Dimensionless normal-fluid viscosity nu0_n = 0.16
    The numerical viscosity resolves small-scale normal-fluid structures and controls how quickly the injected energy from a reconnection decays; it is chosen for resolution, not fitted to the claim, but it affects the relaxation time used for the turbulence threshold estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Schwarz vortex-filament model is valid for length scales much larger than the core radius a0 ≈ 10^-10 m.
    The paper models vortices as zero-thickness curves with circulation κ, relying on the separation of scales between the core and the inter-vortex distance. Invoked in the Numerical Method section and SM Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The normal fluid is an incompressible Navier-Stokes fluid coupled to vortex lines through the mutual friction force of Eq. (B5) with coefficients from Ref. [24].
    The two-way dynamics, including the energy injection, is defined by this force law; if the force law or coefficients are wrong, the temperature dependence and energy jump would change. Invoked in Eq. (3) and SM Eq. (B5).
  • ad hoc to paper The ad hoc vortex reconnection algorithm (Ref. [25]) reproduces the true microscopic reconnection dynamics.
    The SM states 'An ad hoc vortex reconnection algorithm is employed to resolve the collisions of vortex lines.' The algorithm defines the reconnection time, the cusp shape, and the line-length loss, all of which set A± and the energy injection. This is the most fragile assumption.
  • domain assumption Solidified D2 tracer particles trapped in vortex cores do not significantly change the approach and separation rates of the vortices.
    Experimental A± are inferred from the motion of 1.1 µm particles; the paper relies on GP simulations (Ref. [22]) to argue the particles do not modify the approaching rates. Invoked in the Experimental Method section.
  • ad hoc to paper The scaling symmetry of the system allows conclusions at numerical length scales to apply to experimental length scales.
    The paper states in the Experimental Method that scaling symmetry supports drawing conclusions for length scales relevant to experiments; this is not proven in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental and theoretical evidence of universality in superfluid vortex reconnections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJEOJRG2

@misc{pith2026241108942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental and theoretical evidence of universality in superfluid vortex reconnections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJEOJRG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08942}
}
read the original abstract

The minimum separation between reconnecting vortices in fluids and superfluids obeys a universal scaling law with respect to time. The pre-reconnection and the post-reconnection prefactors of this scaling law are different, a property related to irreversibility and to energy transfer and dissipation mechanisms. In the present work, we determine the temperature dependence of these prefactors in superfluid helium from experiments and a numeric model which fully accounts for the coupled dynamics of the superfluid vortex lines and the thermal normal fluid component. At all temperatures, we observe a pre- and post-reconnection asymmetry similar to that observed in other superfluids and in classical viscous fluids, indicating that vortex reconnections display a universal behaviour independent of the small-scale regularising dynamics. We also numerically show that each vortex reconnection event represents a sudden injection of energy in the normal fluid. Finally we argue that in a turbulent flow, these punctuated energy injections can sustain the normal fluid in a perturbed state, provided that the density of superfluid vortices is large enough.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b. By changing the parameter α, we create a sam￾ple of 12 realizations at each temperature (again, see the SM for details). The second configuration is the Hopf link, shown schematically in Fig. 2b. It consists of two perpendicular linked rings of radius R ≈ 1 with an offset in the xy-plane. By changing the offset, we create a sam￾ple of 49 reconnections at each temperature, as described in the SM. In all cases, nor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Normal fluid kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Normalized energy jumps ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Schematic diagram for numeric initial condition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Vortex-reconnection energy bounds in Bose-Einstein-condensed and superfluid dark matter halos

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Vortex reconnections in BEC/superfluid dark matter halos produce dark-sector heating at a rate that is secular but sub-virial for relaxed non-interacting soliton cores, with the dominant uncertainty being the true vor...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Yao and F

    J. Yao and F. Hussain, Vortex reconnection and turbu- lence cascade, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 317 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    I. T. Chapman, R. Scannell, W. A. Cooper, J. P. Graves, R. J. Hastie, G. Naylor, and A. Zocco, Magnetic re- connection triggering magnetohydrodynamic instabilities during a sawtooth crash in a tokamak plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 255002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Nazarenko and R

    S. Nazarenko and R. West, Analytical solution for nonlin- ear Schr¨ odinger vortex reconnection, J. Low Temp. Phys. 132, 1 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    G. P. Bewley, M. S. Paoletti, K. R. Sreenivasan, and D. P. Lathrop, Characterization of reconnecting vortices in superfluid helium, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13707 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    M. S. Paoletti, M. E. Fisher, and D. P. Lathrop, Recon- nection dynamics for quantized vortices, Physica D 239, 1367 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Zuccher, M

    S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, A. W. Baggaley, and C. F. Barenghi, Quantum vortex reconnections, Phys. Fluids 24, 125108 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Villois, D

    A. Villois, D. Proment, and G. Krstulovic, Universal and nonuniversal aspects of vortex reconnections in superflu- ids, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 044701 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Galantucci, A

    L. Galantucci, A. W. Baggaley, N. G. Parker, and C. F. Barenghi, Crossover from interaction to driven regimes in quantum vortex reconnections, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 12204 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Tylutki and G

    M. Tylutki and G. Wlaz lowski, Universal aspects of vor- tex reconnections across the bcs-bec crossover, Physical Review A 103, L051302 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Yao and F

    J. Yao and F. Hussain, Separation scaling for viscous vortex reconnection, J. Fluid Mech. 900, R4 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Villois, D

    A. Villois, D. Proment, and G. Krstulovic, Irreversible dynamics of vortex reconnections in quantum fluids, 6 Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 164501 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Proment and G

    D. Proment and G. Krstulovic, Matching theory to char- acterize sound smission during vortex reconnection in quantum fluids, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 104701 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Leadbeater, T

    M. Leadbeater, T. Winiecki, D. C. Samuels, C. F. Barenghi, and C. S. Adams, Sound emission due to su- perfluid vortex reconnections, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1410 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Vinen, Decay of superfluid turbulence at a very low temperature: The radiation of sound from a kelvin wave on a quantized vortex, Physical Review B 64, 134520 (2001)

    W. Vinen, Decay of superfluid turbulence at a very low temperature: The radiation of sound from a kelvin wave on a quantized vortex, Physical Review B 64, 134520 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Vinen and J

    W. Vinen and J. Niemela, Quantum turbulence, Journal of low temperature physics 128, 167 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    P. Z. Stasiak, A. W. Baggaley, G. Krstulovic, C. F. Barenghi, and L. Galantucci, Cross-component energy transfer in superfluid helium-4, J. Low Temp. Phys. (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    P. Z. Stasiak, A. Baggaley, C. Barenghi, G. Krstulovic, L. Galantucci, et al. , Inverse energy transfer in three- dimensional quantum vortex flows, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04450 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Xu and S

    T. Xu and S. W. Van Sciver, Density effect of solidified hydrogen isotope particles on particle image velocimetry measurements of He II flow, AIP Conf. Proc. 985, 191 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Y. Tang, W. Guo, H. Kobayashi, S. Yui, M. Tsubota, and T. Kanai, Imaging quantized vortex rings in superfluid helium to evaluate quantum dissipation, Nat. Commun. 14, 2941 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Y. Tang, S. Bao, and W. Guo, Superdiffusion of quan- tized vortices uncovering scaling laws in quantum turbu- lence, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2021957118 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Fonda, K

    E. Fonda, K. R. Sreenivasan, and D. P. Lathrop, Sub- micron solid air tracers for quantum vortices and liquid helium flows, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 025106 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Giuriato and G

    U. Giuriato and G. Krstulovic, Quantum vortex recon- nections mediated by trapped particles, Phys. Rev. B 102, 094508 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Schwarz, Three-dimensional vortex dynamics in su- perfluid 4He, Phys

    KW. Schwarz, Three-dimensional vortex dynamics in su- perfluid 4He, Phys. Rev. B 38, 2398 (1988)

    1988

  16. [24]

    Galantucci, A

    L. Galantucci, A. W. Baggaley, C. F. Barenghi, and G. Krstulovic, A new self-consistent approach of quan- tum turbulence in superfluid helium, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 547 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    A. W. Baggaley, The sensitivity of the vortex filament method to different reconnection models, J. Low Temp. Phys. 168, 18 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Kivotides, C

    D. Kivotides, C. F. Barenghi, and D. C. Samuels, Triple vortex ring structure in superfluid helium ii, Science 290, 777 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    Bou´ e, D

    L. Bou´ e, D. Khomenko, V. L’vov, and I. Procaccia, An- alytic solution of the approach of quantum vortices to- wards reconnection, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 145302 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    S, Self-similar vortex reconnection, C

    R. S, Self-similar vortex reconnection, C. R. M´ ec 347, 365 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    A. J. Allen, S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, N. P. Proukakis, N. G. Parker, and C. F. Barenghi, Vortex reconnections in atomic condensates at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013601 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Galantucci, G

    L. Galantucci, G. Krstulovic, and C. Barenghi, Friction- enhanced lifetime of bundled quantum vortices, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 014702 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    C. F. Barenghi, L. Skrbek, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Quan- tum Turbulence (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    C. F. Barenghi and D. C. Samuels, Scaling laws of vortex reconnections, J. Low Temp. Phys. 136, 281 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    K. W. Schwarz and C. W. Smith, Pulsed-ion study of ultrasonically generated turbulence in superfluid 4He, Physics Letters A 82, 251 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    F. P. Milliken, K. W. Schwarz, and C. W. Smith, Free De- cay of Superfluid Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1204 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    Roche and C

    P.-E. Roche and C. F. Barenghi, Vortex spectrum in su- perfluid turbulence: Interpretation of a recent experi- ment, EPL 81, 36002 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Roche, P

    P.-E. Roche, P. Diribarne, T. Didelot, O. Fran¸ cais, L. Rousseau, and H. Willaime, Vortex density spectrum of quantum turbulence, EPL 77, 66002 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Babuin, E

    S. Babuin, E. Varga, L. Skrbek, E. L´ evˆ eque, and P.- E. Roche, Effective viscosity in quantum turbulence: a steady state approach, Europhys. Lett. 106, 24006 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    D. I. Bradley, D. O. Clubb, S. N. Fisher, A. M. Gu´ enault, R. P. Haley, C. J. Matthews, G. R. Pickett, V. Tsepelin, and K. Zaki, Decay of pure quantum turbulence in su- perfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 035301 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Barenghi and C

    C. Barenghi and C. Jones, Modulated taylor–couette flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 208, 127 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    Peixinho and T

    J. Peixinho and T. Mullin, Finite-amplitude thresholds for transition in pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 582, 169 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Galantucci, M

    L. Galantucci, M. Sciacca, and CF. Barenghi, Coupled normal fluid and superfluid profiles of turbulent helium II in channels, Phys Rev B 92, 174530 (2015). SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIALS Appendix A: Experimental Method To produce solidified deuterium (D 2) tracer particles, we slo...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.