Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

At scales below molecular spacing, integrating out compressible fluctuations turns incompressible fluid dynamics into a Gaussian stochastic theory whose leftover counterterms are turbulence.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:00 UTC pith:W23ARL2O

load-bearing objection The central claim outruns the paper's own Gaussian ansatz, but the conceptual target and formal skeleton are worth a serious referee rather than a desk reject. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27540 v1 pith:W23ARL2O submitted 2026-07-30 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.stat-mechhep-th

Gaussian non relativistic spontaneously stochastic hydrodynamics

David Montenegro , Giorgio Torrieri This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.stat-mechhep-th
keywords spontaneous stochasticityanomalous dissipationwild solutionsGaussian partition functionrenormalization groupWard identitiesincompressible hydrodynamicsnon-relativistic limit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that the non-relativistic, incompressible limit of a generally covariant Gaussian hydrodynamics is not a deterministic theory with noise added, but is itself the infrared fixed point of a stochastic statistical-mechanical theory. It argues that incompressibility is only an effective symmetry that holds above a crossover scale set by the molecular density, and that the compressible microscopic degrees of freedom below that scale, once integrated out, leave counterterms in the evolution of averages and fluctuations. Those counterterms, the paper proposes, are what physicists call spontaneous stochasticity and what mathematicians call anomalous dissipation and wild solutions. If true, fluid turbulence is not a separate phenomenon tacked onto hydrodynamics; it is the macroscopic footprint of statistical mechanics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the non-relativistic limit of Gaussian covariant hydrodynamics naturally incorporates spontaneous stochasticity as a macroscopic back reaction of statistical-mechanical fluctuations. The construction starts from a Gaussian partition function for conserved currents, constrained by Galilean Ward identities and linear response. Incompressibility is imposed as a macroscopic symmetry, valid for wavenumbers below a crossover scale k0 equal to the cube root of the equilibrium density, and is required to break near the intermolecular scale. A functional renormalization-group flow with a sharp crossover at k0 integrates out the compressible sector; the resulting effe

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian partition function, a Wiener/Ito process whose conserved-current correlators are propagated by two exact constraints: the Galilean Ward identity, which relates first and second cumulants, and a linear-response equation, which ties the time evolution of averages to fluctuations. Around a sharp crossover scale k0 = rho0^(1/3) that separates the incompressible infrared from the compressible ultraviolet, a functional renormalization-group flow of an effective average action integrates out the compressible degrees of freedom. The crossover is encoded in regulators with a delta-function term at k0 and matching conditions that force continuous action but discontin

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the fluid's ensemble remaining exactly Gaussian at all scales and times, and on a sharply defined molecular scale separating incompressible from compressible behaviour; if either fails, the equations cease to close and the counterterm story loses its foundation.

What would settle it

Compute the renormalization-group flow of the connected three-point correlation function starting from the Gaussian initial condition. If the scale derivative of the three-point vertex is nonzero, the Gaussian ansatz is not preserved and the closure based on Ward identity plus linear response is internally inconsistent. Experimentally, measuring the anomalous dissipation in an ultracold few-atom fluid and comparing its scaling with the predicted k0 = rho0^(1/3) would test whether the residue exists physically.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, spontaneous stochasticity is not an input but a prediction: molecular noise gets amplified to macroscopic scales through the compressible sector.
  • Anomalous dissipation arises as a counterterm in the average evolution, so energy dissipation at small scales is controlled by the same parameters that set the molecular crossover.
  • The incompressible fluid description is an effective low-energy theory with a built-in breakdown scale set by the density, beyond which compressible and eventually relativistic modes matter.
  • Wild-solution-type irregularity is tied to fluctuation counterterms, giving a physical mechanism for why non-smooth solutions can appear in ideal fluid limits.
  • The running viscosity and sound speed acquire fluctuation-driven corrections from the compressible sector, making transport coefficients scale-dependent in a calculable way.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to compute the counterterm contribution to the effective viscosity as a function of the crossover scale and check whether it reproduces the Reynolds-number dependence of turbulent dissipation in molecular dynamics or ultracold-atom fluids.
  • The sharp-crossover assumption could be relaxed: if the Gaussian fixed point is exact, the same machinery might work for a smooth crossover, allowing predictions for systems where compressibility becomes relevant before molecular scales.
  • The identification of wild solutions with fluctuation counterterms suggests a statistical-mechanical definition of weak solutions as macroscopic projections of microstate ensembles, linking PDE regularity questions to the choice of coarse-graining scale.
  • The flow of higher cumulants is left open; if the three-point vertex grows from zero, a non-Gaussian extension is needed, and the same RG structure would predict where the Gaussian ansatz breaks down.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-relativistic, incompressible limit of the 'Gaussian covariant hydrodynamics' program of refs. [1,30]. It argues that incompressibility is an emergent, scale-dependent symmetry that breaks at a crossover scale k0, and develops a formal functional renormalization group (FRG) skeleton — Ward identities in a Newton-Cartan setup, linear-response closure, and a Wetterich flow with a sharp matching term — to connect a compressible UV sector to an incompressible IR sector. The advertised outcome is that integrating out the compressible sector generates counterterms that 'naturally incorporate' spontaneous stochasticity, anomalous dissipation, and wild solutions. The manuscript is explicitly framed as a speculative and 'highly incomplete first effort.'

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a genuinely new physical mechanism connecting statistical-mechanical fluctuations to turbulent phenomena, with potential relevance to experimental questions about the 'smallest fluid.' The formal skeleton — the use of Galilean Ward identities to constrain the flow of averages and fluctuations, the explicit matching conditions, and the identification of the compressible sector with a UV cutoff — is coherent in broad strokes and goes beyond a mere restatement of refs. [1,30]. However, the paper's central claim is not supported by the derivation as written: the foundational Gaussian ansatz, Eq. (1), is in direct tension with the non-Gaussian vertices that the advertised counterterm mechanism requires. The paper is honest about its speculative character, but that does not remove the internal inconsistency. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are provided; the only free parameter, k0 = ρ0^{1/3}, is introduced by hand.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B and App. A; Eq. (1), (A1)-(A2), (A13), (B2)-(B4)] The central claim — that integrating out the compressible UV sector produces non-Gaussian counterterms describing anomalous dissipation and wildness — is internally inconsistent with the foundational Gaussian ansatz. Eq. (1) states that the partition function is Gaussian at all times. A Gaussian measure remains Gaussian under integration over a subset of variables, so the incompressible effective action obtained from the Gaussian S_comp in (A1)-(A2) cannot contain the cubic Navier-Stokes vertex (A13) or the three-point vertices V_kappa presupposed in the residue kernels (B2)-(B4). The paper never identifies a non-Gaussian microscopic sector or a mechanism that generates non-Gaussianities from a Gaussian starting point. As written, the abstract's claim that the Gaussian theory 'naturally incorporates' spontaneous stochasticity and wild solutions is not merely unproven; it is contradicted
  2. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (29); App. A.2, Eq. (A17)] The evaluation of the Wetterich trace is quoted without showing the calculation: ∂t Γκ = νκ κ^5/(3π Zκ) in Eq. (29) (repeated as (A17)) is presented as 'the evaluation of the Wetterich trace in appendix,' but the appendix only restates the same result. No intermediate steps, regulator dependence, or convergence conditions are given. Since the anomalous-dissipation interpretation of Eq. (31) relies on this flow, the missing calculation is load-bearing.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (13); App. A, Eq. (A3)-(A4)] The sharp crossover at k0 and |ω| = k0/c, with matching of values but not derivatives, is imposed by hand. The regulator term proportional to δ(k − k0) in Eq. (13) is an ad hoc insertion; its effect on the flow — e.g., whether it spoils the Wetterich structure or introduces spurious contributions — is not analyzed. The physical input k0 ≡ ρ0^{1/3} is a free parameter, not derived from the dynamics. Consequently, the RG flow's predictive content is conditional on an externally fixed boundary, weakening the claim that the framework explains spontaneous stochasticity.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (36)-(48)] The quantities central to the advertised phenomenology — the compressible current ΔJ^{comp→inc}, the stress counterterm ΔT^{comp→inc}, and the residue Σ^{comp→inc} in Eqs. (37)-(39) and (48) — are never evaluated. These expressions are formal convolutions of unspecified vertices and propagators. The paper explicitly labels the connection to anomalous dissipation and wild solutions as 'highly speculative' (Sec. II.B). Without a concrete computation showing a nonzero residue in a model with a Gaussian UV sector, the central claim that the Gaussian theory produces these effects is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] The opening line of the full text runs words together ('Westudythenon-relativisticlimit...'). Typos include 'Hilberts 6th problem,' 'FIelds medal,' 'Wild/Nightmare solutions' (should be 'wild/non-unique' or similar).
  2. [Sec. I.B, Eq. (3)] The notation in Eq. (3) is very hard to parse: the second equality mixes tildes, O, and ϵ without clear definitions. Please rederive or restate in a cleaner form.
  3. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (8)] The legend below Eq. (8) is garbled: 'Omacro,|k| ≤ k0, |ω| ≤ k0/c' reads as if there is a comma-index error. Also the parenthetical '(k0 = ω is also used in the non-relativistic equation for simplicity)' is confusing.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete: [3] lacks a title, [5] lacks journal/volume, [24] lacks a title, [39] is 'arXiv:1807.02726 [hep-th]' for a fluid-dynamics paper (likely wrong archive). Please check all entries.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (40)-(44)] The long expressions in (40)-(44) are dense and not introduced clearly. In particular, the use of D_T, D_L, H^ij, r, and N^⊥_ij|kl would benefit from a table or a summary of which terms are longitudinal, transverse, and which come from the compressible sector.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central stochasticity conclusion is inherited from self-cited Gaussian-hydrodynamics foundation; counterterm identifications are speculative labels rather than derived predictions.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section I.B, Eq. (1); Section IV first paragraph]
    "The basic idea behind [1, 30], is to try to work directly with the conserved currents and their non-perturbative fluctuations by working out the evolution of the partition function, but approximating it at all times with a Gaussian ... To leading order [1] there is a partition function in every cell but it is always of Gaussian form."

    The entire derivation chain starts from Eq. (1), whose Gaussian form and 'two equations with two unknowns' closure (Eqs. (2)-(3)) are imported from [1] (Sampaio, Rabelo-Soares, Torrieri) and [30] (Torrieri), with clear author overlap with the present paper. The paper does not re-derive or independently test the Gaussian ansatz; it asserts it by reference to [1]. The central claim that the non-relativistic limit 'naturally incorporates spontaneous stochasticity' is therefore a property of this imported Wiener/Ito partition-function picture, not a result derived here. If Eq. (1) or the linear-response closure is rejected, the subsequent Ward-identity and FRG conclusions lose their foundation. This is a load-bearing self-citation chain, although the new Ward-identity and RG equations are them

  2. renaming known result [Section II.B, 'Renormalization group structure' (paragraph after Eq. (20))]
    "We speculate that corrections to the averages ⟨J(x)⟩, ⟨T(x)⟩ (Eq.(1)), represent what mathematicians call anomalous dissipation [7], roughly the backreaction of stochastic fluctuations at the molecular scale to macroscopic dissipative currents. The corrections to the fluctuations C, M, D represent "wildness" (from what mathematicians call Wild solutions [8])."

    The paper never evaluates the residue Σ^{comp→inc} in Eq. (48) nor demonstrates that the Gaussian-based flow produces the scale-invariant, dissipative features of anomalous dissipation or the non-uniqueness features of wild solutions. The identification is stipulative: corrections to averages are named 'anomalous dissipation' and corrections to C, M, D are named 'wildness.' Thus the abstract's statement that the dynamics 'naturally incorporates' these phenomena is equivalent to this naming, not an independently computed consequence. The paper explicitly calls this 'highly speculative,' so it is not a disguised fit, but it is a definitional mapping rather than a derivation.

full rationale

The paper is an extension of the authors' prior Gaussian stochastic-hydrodynamics program rather than a closed derivation. The foundational Eq. (1), the Ward-identity/linear-response closure, and the interpretation of the resulting dynamics as spontaneously stochastic are all inherited from self-cited works [1,30]; no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction, and no numerical claim is forced by a fit. The RG flow equations and the incompressible/compressible matching conditions are new, formal content and do not by themselves reduce to the input. However, the central conceptual conclusion—spontaneous stochasticity, anomalous dissipation, and wild solutions as RG counterterms—rests on (a) the unproven Gaussian ansatz from [1,30] and (b) a stipulated identification of unspecified counterterms with those phenomena. The paper itself flags the latter as 'highly speculative' and calls the work 'a highly incomplete first effort,' which lowers the severity. Because the foundation is load-bearing and self-cited but the new technical content is not a mere restatement, the appropriate circularity score is 4 rather than 0 or 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the Gaussian ansatz from self-cited work [1,30], the physical assumption that incompressibility breaks at a scale k0 set by density, and the choice of sharp matching conditions. No parameters are fitted to data in this paper; k0 is an input chosen as ρ0^{1/3}. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities; the counterterms are interpretive labels for already-assumed compressible degrees of freedom.

free parameters (1)
  • k0 (compressibility/incompressibility crossover scale) = k0 ≡ ρ0^{1/3}
    Chosen as the inverse molecular spacing to mark where incompressibility breaks down; the Ward-identity regions in Eq. (8) and the RG matching conditions depend on it. It is an input, not derived from microscopic dynamics.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The partition function remains Gaussian at all scales (Eq. (1)).
    Assumed from [1]; no proof is given that Gaussianity is preserved under the non-relativistic/incompressible RG flow.
  • domain assumption Incompressibility is an infrared symmetry that must break at a microscopic scale k0.
    Motivated physically by the non-analyticity of an incompressible partition function, but not derived; it defines the IR/UV regions in Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption A Gaussian RG fixed point exists for the relativistic theory [1,50].
    Invoked to justify UV completeness; relies on self-cited prior work and is not checked here.
  • domain assumption The linear-response relation Eq. (3)/(32)-(33) closes the hierarchy for averages and fluctuations.
    Taken as an exact constraint together with the Ward identities; no error estimate or justification beyond linear response is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Sharp matching at k0 and |ω| = k0/c with non-analytic derivatives (A3)-(A4) defines the effective theory.
    The step-function and delta-function structure is chosen, not derived from the microscopic dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 17434 in / 11904 out tokens · 124397 ms · 2026-08-01T06:00:27.882498+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the non-relativistic limit of Gaussian covariant hydrodynamics [1]. We argue that the condition of incompressibility provides additional symmetries matching relativistic hydrodynamics but incompressibility must break down at a ``microscopic`` scale. We then develop the renormalization group equations for average and fluctuations w.r.t. that scale, to understand its effect on flows at intermolecular distances where hydrodynamics gives way to statistical mechanics. The resulting dynamics naturally incorporates spontaneous stochasticity as a macroscopic back reaction of statistical mechanics fluctuations, as well as features reminiscent of anomalous dissipation and ``wild solutions`` as renormalization group counterterms. We frame these considerations into both a phenomenological discussion of the limits of applicability of fluid dynamics, and a discussion of where physics might shed some light on the mathematical issues associated with turbulence.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. M. Sampaio, G. Rabelo-Soares and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 056002 doi:10.1103/67x1-knzr [arXiv:2504.17152 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    wildness

    The corrections satisfy constraints coming from Galilean symmetry. Putting everything together in the (6) and (7), the Ward identities will have the form for the incompressible construction (k0 =ωis also used in the non-relativistic equation for simplicity) ω2(Dmacro ij −D mixed ij )−2ωk lM mixed ijl −k lkk(C macro ijlk −C mixed ijlk ) = 0   ...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Physics of gas flow at very high speeds

    M.J. Lighthill , "Physics of gas flow at very high speeds", Nature,178(4529): 343, Bib- code:1956Natur.178..343., doi:10.1038/178343a0 (1956)

    work page doi:10.1038/178343a0 1956

  4. [4]

    L. V. Delacretaz, [arXiv:2606.02391 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Tsutomu Kambe, elementary fluid mechanics, World Scientific (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Some Open Problems and Research Directions in the Mathematical Study of Fluid Dynamics

    P. Constantin "Some Open Problems and Research Directions in the Mathematical Study of Fluid Dynamics". Mathematics Unlimited — 2001 and Beyond. Berlin: Springer. pp. 353–360. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56478-9_15. ISBN 3-642-63114-2. 25

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56478-9_15 2001

  7. [7]

    Yu Deng, Zaher Hani, Xiao Ma, ”Hilbert’s sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann’s kinetic theory” [arXiv:2503.01800 [cond-mat.quant-gas]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    T. Drivas, ”Anomalous Dissipation, Spontaneous Stochasticity and Onsager’s Conjecture”, PhD thesis, Stony Brook University https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tdrivas/notes/DrivasPhDThesis.pdf

  9. [9]

    De Lellis and L

    C. De Lellis and L. Szekelyhidi, ”The Euler equation as a differential inclusion”, Ann. of Math. (2)170, no. 3, 1417–1436, 2009

    2009

  10. [10]

    M. M. Disconzi, Living Rev. Rel.27(2024) no.1, 6 doi:10.1007/s41114-024-00052-x [arXiv:2308.09844 [math.AP]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    G. S. Rocha, D. Wagner, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha and D. H. Rischke, Entropy26(2024) no.3, 189 doi:10.3390/e26030189 [arXiv:2311.15063 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    K.Huang, ”Statistical Mechanics”, Wiley (1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev.108(1957), 171-190 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.171

    doi:10.1103/physrev.108.171 1957

  14. [14]

    Tong, Linear Response, lectures on kinetic theory

    D. Tong, Linear Response, lectures on kinetic theory

  15. [15]

    L. P. Kadanoff and P. C. Martin, Annals Phys.24(1963), 419-469 doi:10.1016/0003- 4916(63)90078-2

    doi:10.1016/0003- 1963

  16. [16]

    Forster, ”hydrodynamic fluctuations, broken symmetry and correlation functions”, Addison- Wesley (1990)

    D. Forster, ”hydrodynamic fluctuations, broken symmetry and correlation functions”, Addison- Wesley (1990)

    1990

  17. [17]

    Kovtun, J

    P. Kovtun, J. Phys. A45(2012), 473001 doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/47/473001 [arXiv:1205.5040 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Jain and P

    A. Jain and P. Kovtun, Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) no.7, 7 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.071601 [arXiv:2009.01356 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018), 211-235 doi:10.1146/annurev- nucl-101916-123209 [arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Brandstetter, P

    S. Brandstetter, P. Lunt, C. Heintze, G. Giacalone, L. H. Heyen, M. Gałka, K. Subrama- nian, M. Holten, P. M. Preiss and S. Floerchinger,et al.Nature Phys.21(2025) no.1, 52-56 doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02705-8 [arXiv:2308.09699 [cond-mat.quant-gas]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Güttler, I

    C. Güttler, I. von Borstel, R. Schräpler and J. Blum, Phys. Rev. E87(2013), 044201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.87.044201 [arXiv:1304.0569 [cond-mat.soft]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Bernard, K

    D. Bernard, K. Gawedzki and A. Kupiainen, J. Statist. Phys.90(1998), 519 26 doi:10.1023/A:1023212600779 [arXiv:cond-mat/9706035 [cond-mat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  23. [23]

    Eyink, Nigel Goldenfeld [arXiv:2401.13881 [hep- th]]

    Dmytro Bandak, Alexei Mailybaev, Gregory L. Eyink, Nigel Goldenfeld [arXiv:2401.13881 [hep- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Zinn-Justin, Int

    J. Zinn-Justin, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys.113(2002), 1-1054

    2002

  25. [25]

    Calzetta, [arXiv:2605.25329 [physics.flu-dyn]]

    E. Calzetta, [arXiv:2605.25329 [physics.flu-dyn]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    G. L. Eyink and K. R. Sreenivasan, Rev. Mod. Phys.78(2006), 87-135 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.78.87

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.87 2006

  27. [27]

    Hnatič, J

    M. Hnatič, J. Honkonen and T. Lučivjanský, Symmetry11(2019) no.10, 1193 doi:10.3390/sym11101193

    work page doi:10.3390/sym11101193 2019

  28. [28]

    W. D. McComb, Phys Rev E71037301 (2005)

    2005

  29. [29]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301, 90-94 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90726-X [arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  30. [30]

    Polchinski, Nucl

    J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B231, 269-295 (1984) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90287-6

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90287-6 1984

  31. [31]

    Torrieri, [arXiv:2601.01656 [hep-th]]

    G. Torrieri, [arXiv:2601.01656 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Torrieri, JHEP02(2021), 175 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)175 [arXiv:2007.09224 [hep-th]]

    G. Torrieri, JHEP02(2021), 175 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)175 [arXiv:2007.09224 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Torrieri, Phys

    G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.5, L051903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L051903 [arXiv:2307.07021 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    T. Dore, L. Gavassino, D. Montenegro, M. Shokri and G. Torrieri, Annals Phys.442(2022), 168902 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2022.168902 [arXiv:2109.06389 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    1-85, 85 pp

    TA De Pirey, LF Cugliandolo, V Lecomte, F Van Wijland, Advances in Physics, Volume 71, Issue 1-2, pp. 1-85, 85 pp. 2211.09470

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Alexei Mailybaev [arXiv:2010.13089 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. Karch, JHEP04, 155 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)155 [arXiv:1412.2738 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Liao and V

    J. Liao and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C81, 014902 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.014902 [arXiv:0909.3105 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [39]

    Dubovsky, L

    S. Dubovsky, L. Hui, A. Nicolis and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 085029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.085029 [arXiv:1107.0731 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Mohammad Farazmand, Mattia Serra [arXiv:1807.02726 [hep-th]] and references therein

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Lectures in Turbulence for the 21st Century

    George, William K. "Lectures in Turbulence for the 21st Century." Department 27 of Thermo and Fluid Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden (2005).p 64http://www.turbulence-online.com/Publications/Lecture_Notes/ Turbulence_Lille/TB_16January2013.pdf

    2005

  42. [42]

    J.Y Chemin and I.Ghallager, [arxiv:0508374]

  43. [43]

    J.Y Chemin and I.Ghallager, [arxiv:0710.5408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    R. K. Pathria, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996, ISBN 978-0-08-054171-6

    1996

  45. [45]

    Sorensen, D

    A. Sorensen, D. Oliinychenko, V. Koch and L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.4, 042303 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.042303 [arXiv:2103.07365 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    W. b. He, G. y. Shao and C. l. Xie, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) no.1, 014903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014903 [arXiv:2212.08263 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Francoice Golse, ”the Boltzmann equation and its hydrodynamic limits”, 10.1016/S1874- 5717(06)80006-X

    doi:10.1016/s1874-

  48. [48]

    Cercignani and G

    C. Cercignani and G. M. Kremer, “The relativistic Boltzmann equation, Progress in mathemat- ical physics“ No. 22 (Birkhauser, Basel, 2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    G. L. Eyink and T. D. Drivas, Phys. Rev. X8(2018) no.1, 011023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011023 [arXiv:1704.03541 [physics.flu-dyn]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    S. L. Braunstein, [arXiv:2605.21357v1 [cond-mat2]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Jona-Lasinio, Phys

    G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rept.352, 439-458 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00042-4 [arXiv:cond-mat/0009219 [cond-mat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  52. [52]

    Jensen, SciPost Phys.5(2018) no.1, 011 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.1.011 [arXiv:1408.6855 [hep-th]]

    K. Jensen, SciPost Phys.5(2018) no.1, 011 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.1.011 [arXiv:1408.6855 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Geracie, [arXiv:1611.01198 [hep-th]]

    M. Geracie, [arXiv:1611.01198 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Brauner, S

    T. Brauner, S. Endlich, A. Monin and R. Penco, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.10, 105016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.105016 [arXiv:1407.7730 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014